Actually it doesn't have any issues with those. the mini freeze and following warming period were local events, not global.
and if you're referring to the blast of arctic air that drifted south last year in the "polar vortex", again: that's A) a local event not global, and B) it doesn't predict things like "in 2 years an arctic oscillation will push really far south causing abnormally cold temperatures".
so yes, you do need to examine something: your own ability to think and understand the current topic of discussion.
And keep in mind that while the east coast has seen abnormally cold temps, the past two winters have been abnormally warm on the west coast, and particularly in Alaska. And in general, even though it got really cold on the east coast, those winter months were still some of the warmest on record because global warming dealing with...GLOBAL...trends and averages. Not local record temperatures.
And no, there is no documented warming of other planets in our solar system. That is a complete fabrication. A lie.
you're a shill because the things you said aren't true, but are talking points that come directly from fossil fuel lobbyists.
the planets are not heating up at the same rate. that's simply a variation on the "solar activity" myth, which again, if a change in solar output were the cause we should be cooling at the moment, not warming, as the sun's output is currently in a decreasing phase.
At this time, there is little empirical evidence that Mars is warming. Mars' climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo, not solar variations, and we know the sun is not heating up all the planets in our solar system because we can accurately measure the sun’s output here on Earth.
This is a round-up of the planets said by sceptics to be experiencing climate change: Mars: the notion that Mars is warming came from an unfortunate conflation of weather and climate. Based on two pictures taken 22 years apart, assumptions were made that have not proved to be reliable. There is currently no evidence to support claims that Mars is warming at all. More on Mars...
Jupiter: the notion that Jupiter is warming is actually based on predictions, since no warming has actually been observed. Climate models predict temperature increases along the equator and cooling at the poles. It is believed these changes will be catalysed by storms that merge into one super-storm, inhibiting the planet’s ability to mix heat. Sceptical arguments have ignored the fact this is not a phenomenon we have observed, and that the modelled forcing is storm and dust movements, not changes in solar radiation. Neptune: observations of changes in luminosity on the surface of both Neptune and its largest moon, Triton, have been taken to indicate warming caused by increased solar activity. In fact, the brightening is due to the planet’s seasons changing, but very slowly. Summer is coming to Neptune’s southern hemisphere, bringing more sunlight, as it does every 164 years. Pluto: the warming exhibited by Pluto is not really understood. Pluto’s seasons are the least understood of all: its existence has only been known for a third of its 248 -year orbit, and it has never been visited by a space probe. The ‘evidence’ for climate change consists of just two observations made in 1988 and 2002. That’s equivalent to observing the Earth’s weather for just three weeks out of the year. Various theories suggest its highly elliptical orbit may play a part, as could the large angle of its rotational axis. One recent paper suggests the length of Pluto’s orbit is a key factor, as with Neptune. Sunlight at Pluto is 900 times weaker than it is at the Earth.
Claims that solar system bodies are heating up due to increased solar activity are clearly wrong. The sun’s output has declined in recent decades. Only Pluto and Neptune are exhibiting increased brightness. Heating attributed to other solar bodies remains unproven.
-Solar activity is currently in a decreasing period. -If a change in solar activity were the driving force, then we should see cooling trends, not warming.
The Scientific Method is traditionally presented in the first chapter of science textbooks as a simple recipe for performing scientific investigations. Though many useful points are embodied in this method, it can easily be misinterpreted as linear and "cookbook": pull a problem off the shelf, throw in an observation, mix in a few questions, sprinkle on a hypothesis, put the whole mixture into a 350 experiment — and voila, 50 minutes later you'll be pulling a conclusion out of the oven! That might work if science were like Hamburger Helper®, but science is complex and cannot be reduced to a single, prepackaged recipe.
The linear, stepwise representation of the process of science is simplified, but it does get at least one thing right. It captures the core logic of science: testing ideas with evidence. However, this version of the scientific method is so simplified and rigid that it fails to accurately portray how real science works. It more accurately describes how science is summarized after the fact — in textbooks and journal articles — than how science is actually done.
Smack yourself until all the stupid leaves your head.
Yes, the ocean is still largely alkaline, but that is a very different thing from "being more acidic" or "acidifying".
Calling it alkaline is making a judgment of state based on current pH in relation to 7.0. Saying that it is acidifying is making a statement on its current pH in comparison to a past pH, i.e., a statement about it's change in pH.
Therefore both statements can be true at the same time, indeed, they are both true. They are not contradictory or mutually exclusive statements.
Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14, representing an increase of almost 30% in H+ ion concentration in the world's oceans
As for CO2 doing nothing to the chemistry of the ocean...you say it controls the CO2 in the air...so how exactly do you propose that it controls it?? Hmm?? By a chemical reaction of some sort? Like say, the sort where it absorbs amounts of CO2, which then reacts with sea water in some way? Gee...I wonder what that would look like:
Ocean acidification is the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans, caused by the uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere. An estimated 30–40% of the carbon dioxide released by humans into the atmosphere dissolves into oceans, rivers and lakes. To achieve chemical equilibrium, some of it reacts with the water to form carbonic acid. Some of these extra carbonic acid molecules react with a water molecule to give a bicarbonate ion and a hydronium ion, thus increasing ocean "acidity" (H+ ion concentration).
Again: the dividing line is geographical, not political. It is far more accurate to state that discrimination and jim crow were southern ideologies, not democratic party ones.
when the civil rights act was passed it was voted along geographical lines, not party lines. 99.9% of southern delegates (all but one), republican or democrat, voted against it. 99.9% of northern delegates (all but one), republican or democrat, voted for it.
This idea, this half truth, that democrats are or were "pro slavery" or "pro discrimination" makes use of people's ignorance about history. The parties didn't used to be as monolithic as they are today. The southern democrats were long the conservative wing of the democratic party, just as the northern "Radical republicans" were long the more liberal and progressive wing of the republican party. These wings had much in common with the opposite party. the parties were truly divided on civil rights, which is why the more proper dividng lines are along geographical or ideological lines, not party lines.
The Conservative stance was largely against the civil rights reforms, and consisted of people from both parties. The Liberal stance was in favor of civil rights reforms, and consisted of people from both parties.
The Conservative view was the majority viewpoint of the South, at least of those in power since they had effectively blocked blacks from voting. The Liberal stance on civil rights was the majority viewpoint outside of the South.
The result of the Civil War and following through until the 1980s was the gradual sorting of the parties into the monolithic structures we see today, as the different wings of the parties vanished, until you have what we have today: the republicans are conservative, and democrats are progressive. Those same southern delegates who votes against the CRA as democrats soon became republicans as white southerners, a largely conservative demographic, gradually switched parties to become today a Republican voting block.
But then you're not interest in facts which is why you keep repeating the same half truths.
And the red scare was a big farce. the threat of war with Russia was real, but Russia ceased to be communist around the time Stalin took over. After that is was simply totalitarianism perpetrated by people who called themselves communists but really weren't.
If the science is sound, then his being a cartoonist is irrelevant. Guess what? The science IS sound and is vetted by actual scientists, whose work is publicly available and fully cited when referenced. What you are propagating is the opposite of the appeal to authority fallacy, claiming that because he isn't an authority he cannot be listened to. But would you ignore a man who said 2+2=4 because he wasn't a mathematician? No you wouldn't. I imagine the reason you ignore Skeptical Science isn't really because of his background, but because of your own inability to personally vet the scientific knowledge being presented, knowledge that in truth he is merely passing along and repeating, albeit in a more accessible and user friendly form.
the best way to fix voter turnout is stop making it so damn hard and full of hassle for people to vote.
First get rid of all the Voter ID bullshit. It only prevents fraud by impersonation, the most difficult yet least rewarding form of election fraud. Which is why its so rare. While different studies vary some in their tallies, since 2002, out of there billions of ballots cast in elections nationwide, the number of persons committing fraud this way isn't even into the triple digits. Even worst case that's only 0.0000099% of votes cast. Which means that no outcome of any election has ever been in danger from voter impersonation.
Next, we make easy to vote. There's 2 basic routes you can follow: Lots of time to get to a polling place (either through early voting, expanding voting days), or instituting a national holiday with mandated time off for voting. scores of people can't vote because it simply takes too long to get across town to their polling place after work....but that actually leads to possible route #2:
Option 2 is to follow the lead of states like Oregon. Eliminate polling places and the need to actually go anywhere to vote. You just drop your ballot in the mailbox and get on with your life. Vote by mail is a wonderful thing. Their cost to run an election went down (since they eliminated polling places). Participation went way up (reguarly 20-30% higher participation rate than the rest of the country). No hours long waiting line after work, or trying to get time off from work, so you dont see the participation rate linked to income level.
And now they've gone further too, with this automatic registration when you get a drivers license. not perfect, since not everyone drives.
but where other states are purging rolls and make it as onerous as possible to perform that most basic task asked of a citizen in a free country, Oregon is actively making it less burdonesome. and our democracy is better off because of it.
so again: want higher turn out? then stop making it so damn hard to vote. especially for the people who might vote against you.
(again: if your winning depends on denying or impairing the ability of a specific group to vote...you should probably think long and hard about your platform)
A person's informed-ness is ultimately irrelevant. By what objective standard do you measure it? If I was measuring I'd say anyone voting GOP is uninformed by default, but I freely admit to being biased.
Which is rather the point: The "informed" voter argument is ultimately a pile of bullshit meant to distract and excuse the idea of preventing people from voting.
I'm not sure if mandatory voting is the way to go, and I think billing it as the solution to fighting money in politics is rather naive and even disingenuous. But I also think there should be no barriers to voting at all. Oregon has the right of it, making it easier to vote, not harder, with their mailbox voting and now automatic registration. Democracy thrives on maximal civic participation. Make it easier and hassle free for everyone to vote, participation goes up, even to where it making it mandatory isn't needful.
It's really simple: everyone votes and let the chips fall where they may. You think they're uninformed and should have voted the other way? Then do better next time in your messaging.
Because if the only way you can win elections is by preventing people from voting, then you might want to have a good hard think about what exactly you stand for.
part of the reason for the limit in the first place in places like NYC isn't to protect the existing companies even if it has that effect, but to protect the traffic flow from congestion. NYC traffic is still horribly congested, but past experience has shown that demand and supply for taxis service can easily exceeds the capacity of the streets to handle that much traffic. after all, in a place like NYC, they're quite limited when it comes to adding lanes or widening streets.
"Scientists who are big democrat supporters".. That's just BS. It's called Civil Service. There are no purgings of the civil service based on ideology.
And again you operate under the assumption that independent agencies are micromanaged by the administration. You still don't comprehend what independent agencies are or how they operate, even though you yourself mentioned exactly how its done: "by protecting certain institutions from being used this way"... by creating them as independent agencies. they aren't part of the administration and they aren't part of the congress. They are a melding of both, largely free from either as long as they operate within their mandate or charter.
false equivalence. antivaxers exist on both sides.
antivaxxers and anti-scientific attitudes and beliefs in the left are a tiny minority, consisting of a tiny group of anti-vaxers and anti-gmos. but there's a slightly larger number of anti-vaxxers and anti-gmos among the Right.
so that's a wash.
but then you also have to consider all the anti-science attitudes and beliefs which are wholly owned by the Right and unlike the antivaxxers among the left, these are not a tiny minority of the right, but rather represent not only the majority viewpoint, but are even part of the party platform: -global warming denialism -evolutionary denialism -fracking-causes-earthquakes denialism the list goes on
So no, sorry, but one bad partial example on the left (that is actually shared by the right) does not make the left as bad as the right, nor exonerate the right for its antiscience views.
no its not a fact, and what you're referring to is a percentage, not a raw number. antivax is pretty much bipartisan stupidity, though we should note that following Obama's endorsement of vaccines a whole bunch of republicans suddenly found themselves in the antivax camp.
be even crediting your base statement as true, which it isn't, that still leaves the anti-science score: GOP: 7, Dems: 1.
so the whole "you're just as we are" card is pure bull.
youre making emotional pleas, and rather exaggerated ones at that, not logical ones. rationality is key requirement of living in a free society. revenge is not a rational response, but an emotional one.
youre argument is essentially "its such an emotional burden to live in a civilized society, it would be so much better to just kill the bastard rather than deal with that".
and you ignore key facts. such as you keep making the (emotional) economic argument, while ignoring that it actually costs MORE to execute someone. so really, the economics of it arent even relevant. they're a red herring in the argument. so your argument ultimately still boils down to "kill him in order to make the survivor/victim feel better", which of course is bullshit.
I always figured the "tribunal" thing was more like a certification, a stamp saying "yes, this is legit, this is a rational decision from a rational individual. he's not mentally ill and hasn't been coerced".
The rule of thumb is: "things about you that are intrinsic and immutable".
If I own a restaurant, I can generally refuse service to anyone, for any reason...except on the basis of race, gender, religion, age, or disability. IE, the "protected classes", which if the current trend continues will soon include "sexual orientation".
At some point, some of these things may come into tension. And that's when the courts generally institute a test, to check for certain ideals under the law, or determine the "lesser harm", or what have you.
Remember, that religious belief is also among the defenses they tried to use to deny service black customers at lunch counters, to justify Jim Crow, et al.
But just as skin color isn't a choice, neither is being gay. But even "choice" isn't the right factor, as religious belief is a choice, and that's protected as well. No the real test ultimately comes down to discrimination. REAL discrimination in this case is the blocking or removal of someone from the marketplace on the basis of some intrinsic part of that person. And its has been found to be harmful to society and to individuals and to American ideals involving equality to allow such discrimination.
Therefore if a photographer want's to do business in the marketplace he must do business with ALL of the marketplace. And requiring him to do so, preventing him from discriminating, is not itself discriminatory.
Because that's essentially what the complaint about being denied the "right to discriminate" boils down to: it's a variation on the theme that "fighting racism is racist", which is absolute BS.
Saint Reagan, holy be his name, is formerly living proof that one can be both pro-gun-rights and pro-gun-control.
While as President there wasn't much that he did in terms of federal executive action, he supporter of gun rights, and of gun control, both before and after his Presidency. As Governor of California he signed into law both the Mulford Act and California's 15-day waiting period.
While in other areas his views were more one-sided, in this area his personal views embodied a compromise that reflects the position of most Americans.
Slashdot Mirror
No. There's actually a lot of bad assumptions in what you just said.
key point: "proven to be correct".
Galileo won because he was correct, not because he was persecuted by the establishment.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/G...
Actually it doesn't have any issues with those. the mini freeze and following warming period were local events, not global.
and if you're referring to the blast of arctic air that drifted south last year in the "polar vortex", again: that's A) a local event not global, and B) it doesn't predict things like "in 2 years an arctic oscillation will push really far south causing abnormally cold temperatures".
so yes, you do need to examine something: your own ability to think and understand the current topic of discussion.
And keep in mind that while the east coast has seen abnormally cold temps, the past two winters have been abnormally warm on the west coast, and particularly in Alaska. And in general, even though it got really cold on the east coast, those winter months were still some of the warmest on record because global warming dealing with...GLOBAL...trends and averages. Not local record temperatures.
And no, there is no documented warming of other planets in our solar system.
That is a complete fabrication. A lie.
you're a shill because the things you said aren't true, but are talking points that come directly from fossil fuel lobbyists.
the planets are not heating up at the same rate. that's simply a variation on the "solar activity" myth, which again, if a change in solar output were the cause we should be cooling at the moment, not warming, as the sun's output is currently in a decreasing phase.
At this time, there is little empirical evidence that Mars is warming. Mars' climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo, not solar variations, and we know the sun is not heating up all the planets in our solar system because we can accurately measure the sun’s output here on Earth.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
This is a round-up of the planets said by sceptics to be experiencing climate change:
Mars: the notion that Mars is warming came from an unfortunate conflation of weather and climate. Based on two pictures taken 22 years apart, assumptions were made that have not proved to be reliable. There is currently no evidence to support claims that Mars is warming at all. More on Mars...
Jupiter: the notion that Jupiter is warming is actually based on predictions, since no warming has actually been observed. Climate models predict temperature increases along the equator and cooling at the poles. It is believed these changes will be catalysed by storms that merge into one super-storm, inhibiting the planet’s ability to mix heat. Sceptical arguments have ignored the fact this is not a phenomenon we have observed, and that the modelled forcing is storm and dust movements, not changes in solar radiation.
Neptune: observations of changes in luminosity on the surface of both Neptune and its largest moon, Triton, have been taken to indicate warming caused by increased solar activity. In fact, the brightening is due to the planet’s seasons changing, but very slowly. Summer is coming to Neptune’s southern hemisphere, bringing more sunlight, as it does every 164 years.
Pluto: the warming exhibited by Pluto is not really understood. Pluto’s seasons are the least understood of all: its existence has only been known for a third of its 248 -year orbit, and it has never been visited by a space probe. The ‘evidence’ for climate change consists of just two observations made in 1988 and 2002. That’s equivalent to observing the Earth’s weather for just three weeks out of the year. Various theories suggest its highly elliptical orbit may play a part, as could the large angle of its rotational axis. One recent paper suggests the length of Pluto’s orbit is a key factor, as with Neptune. Sunlight at Pluto is 900 times weaker than it is at the Earth.
Claims that solar system bodies are heating up due to increased solar activity are clearly wrong. The sun’s output has declined in recent decades. Only Pluto and Neptune are exhibiting increased brightness. Heating attributed to other solar bodies remains unproven.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
We've covered this before:
-Solar activity is currently in a decreasing period.
-If a change in solar activity were the driving force, then we should see cooling trends, not warming.
Again: smack yourself until all the stupid falls out.
Your 2nd grade understanding of the scientific method is the only thing that isn't science. It is however pure idiocy.
Do yourself a favor and read http://undsci.berkeley.edu/art... and its following pages.
The Scientific Method is traditionally presented in the first chapter of science textbooks as a simple recipe for performing scientific investigations. Though many useful points are embodied in this method, it can easily be misinterpreted as linear and "cookbook": pull a problem off the shelf, throw in an observation, mix in a few questions, sprinkle on a hypothesis, put the whole mixture into a 350 experiment — and voila, 50 minutes later you'll be pulling a conclusion out of the oven! That might work if science were like Hamburger Helper®, but science is complex and cannot be reduced to a single, prepackaged recipe.
The linear, stepwise representation of the process of science is simplified, but it does get at least one thing right. It captures the core logic of science: testing ideas with evidence. However, this version of the scientific method is so simplified and rigid that it fails to accurately portray how real science works. It more accurately describes how science is summarized after the fact — in textbooks and journal articles — than how science is actually done.
Smack yourself until all the stupid leaves your head.
Yes, the ocean is still largely alkaline, but that is a very different thing from "being more acidic" or "acidifying".
Calling it alkaline is making a judgment of state based on current pH in relation to 7.0.
Saying that it is acidifying is making a statement on its current pH in comparison to a past pH, i.e., a statement about it's change in pH.
Therefore both statements can be true at the same time, indeed, they are both true.
They are not contradictory or mutually exclusive statements.
Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14, representing an increase of almost 30% in H+ ion concentration in the world's oceans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...
As for CO2 doing nothing to the chemistry of the ocean...you say it controls the CO2 in the air...so how exactly do you propose that it controls it?? Hmm?? By a chemical reaction of some sort? Like say, the sort where it absorbs amounts of CO2, which then reacts with sea water in some way?
Gee...I wonder what that would look like:
Ocean acidification is the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans, caused by the uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere. An estimated 30–40% of the carbon dioxide released by humans into the atmosphere dissolves into oceans, rivers and lakes. To achieve chemical equilibrium, some of it reacts with the water to form carbonic acid. Some of these extra carbonic acid molecules react with a water molecule to give a bicarbonate ion and a hydronium ion, thus increasing ocean "acidity" (H+ ion concentration).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...
Don't worry. ...mostly since he doesn't have any facts to start with.
Jane Q Public is no danger of confusing anyone with anything resembling a fact...
Again: the dividing line is geographical, not political.
It is far more accurate to state that discrimination and jim crow were southern ideologies, not democratic party ones.
when the civil rights act was passed it was voted along geographical lines, not party lines.
99.9% of southern delegates (all but one), republican or democrat, voted against it.
99.9% of northern delegates (all but one), republican or democrat, voted for it.
This idea, this half truth, that democrats are or were "pro slavery" or "pro discrimination" makes use of people's ignorance about history. The parties didn't used to be as monolithic as they are today. The southern democrats were long the conservative wing of the democratic party, just as the northern "Radical republicans" were long the more liberal and progressive wing of the republican party. These wings had much in common with the opposite party. the parties were truly divided on civil rights, which is why the more proper dividng lines are along geographical or ideological lines, not party lines.
The Conservative stance was largely against the civil rights reforms, and consisted of people from both parties.
The Liberal stance was in favor of civil rights reforms, and consisted of people from both parties.
The Conservative view was the majority viewpoint of the South, at least of those in power since they had effectively blocked blacks from voting.
The Liberal stance on civil rights was the majority viewpoint outside of the South.
The result of the Civil War and following through until the 1980s was the gradual sorting of the parties into the monolithic structures we see today, as the different wings of the parties vanished, until you have what we have today: the republicans are conservative, and democrats are progressive. Those same southern delegates who votes against the CRA as democrats soon became republicans as white southerners, a largely conservative demographic, gradually switched parties to become today a Republican voting block.
But then you're not interest in facts which is why you keep repeating the same half truths.
And the red scare was a big farce. the threat of war with Russia was real, but Russia ceased to be communist around the time Stalin took over. After that is was simply totalitarianism perpetrated by people who called themselves communists but really weren't.
If the science is sound, then his being a cartoonist is irrelevant. Guess what? The science IS sound and is vetted by actual scientists, whose work is publicly available and fully cited when referenced. What you are propagating is the opposite of the appeal to authority fallacy, claiming that because he isn't an authority he cannot be listened to. But would you ignore a man who said 2+2=4 because he wasn't a mathematician? No you wouldn't. I imagine the reason you ignore Skeptical Science isn't really because of his background, but because of your own inability to personally vet the scientific knowledge being presented, knowledge that in truth he is merely passing along and repeating, albeit in a more accessible and user friendly form.
completely unlike The Heartland Institute.
its not that we cant figure it out.
its that certain people dont WANT certain people to vote, as its the only way they can win elections.
true democracy scares them.
mandatory voting isnt ideal.
the best way to fix voter turnout is stop making it so damn hard and full of hassle for people to vote.
First get rid of all the Voter ID bullshit. It only prevents fraud by impersonation, the most difficult yet least rewarding form of election fraud. Which is why its so rare. While different studies vary some in their tallies, since 2002, out of there billions of ballots cast in elections nationwide, the number of persons committing fraud this way isn't even into the triple digits. Even worst case that's only 0.0000099% of votes cast. Which means that no outcome of any election has ever been in danger from voter impersonation.
Next, we make easy to vote.
There's 2 basic routes you can follow: Lots of time to get to a polling place (either through early voting, expanding voting days), or instituting a national holiday with mandated time off for voting. scores of people can't vote because it simply takes too long to get across town to their polling place after work....but that actually leads to possible route #2:
Option 2 is to follow the lead of states like Oregon. Eliminate polling places and the need to actually go anywhere to vote. You just drop your ballot in the mailbox and get on with your life. Vote by mail is a wonderful thing. Their cost to run an election went down (since they eliminated polling places). Participation went way up (reguarly 20-30% higher participation rate than the rest of the country). No hours long waiting line after work, or trying to get time off from work, so you dont see the participation rate linked to income level.
And now they've gone further too, with this automatic registration when you get a drivers license. not perfect, since not everyone drives.
but where other states are purging rolls and make it as onerous as possible to perform that most basic task asked of a citizen in a free country, Oregon is actively making it less burdonesome. and our democracy is better off because of it.
so again: want higher turn out?
then stop making it so damn hard to vote.
especially for the people who might vote against you.
(again: if your winning depends on denying or impairing the ability of a specific group to vote...you should probably think long and hard about your platform)
Yes.
A person's informed-ness is ultimately irrelevant.
By what objective standard do you measure it?
If I was measuring I'd say anyone voting GOP is uninformed by default, but I freely admit to being biased.
Which is rather the point: The "informed" voter argument is ultimately a pile of bullshit meant to distract and excuse the idea of preventing people from voting.
I'm not sure if mandatory voting is the way to go, and I think billing it as the solution to fighting money in politics is rather naive and even disingenuous.
But I also think there should be no barriers to voting at all. Oregon has the right of it, making it easier to vote, not harder, with their mailbox voting and now automatic registration. Democracy thrives on maximal civic participation. Make it easier and hassle free for everyone to vote, participation goes up, even to where it making it mandatory isn't needful.
It's really simple: everyone votes and let the chips fall where they may.
You think they're uninformed and should have voted the other way?
Then do better next time in your messaging.
Because if the only way you can win elections is by preventing people from voting, then you might want to have a good hard think about what exactly you stand for.
it is quite apparent that you have no clue what you are talking about.
part of the reason for the limit in the first place in places like NYC isn't to protect the existing companies even if it has that effect, but to protect the traffic flow from congestion. NYC traffic is still horribly congested, but past experience has shown that demand and supply for taxis service can easily exceeds the capacity of the streets to handle that much traffic. after all, in a place like NYC, they're quite limited when it comes to adding lanes or widening streets.
Again.
We've covered this stuff before.
We keep covering it.
You keep not getting it.
http://www.politifact.com/pund...
http://www.politifact.com/texa...
"Scientists who are big democrat supporters" ..
That's just BS. It's called Civil Service.
There are no purgings of the civil service based on ideology.
And again you operate under the assumption that independent agencies are micromanaged by the administration. You still don't comprehend what independent agencies are or how they operate, even though you yourself mentioned exactly how its done: "by protecting certain institutions from being used this way" ... by creating them as independent agencies. they aren't part of the administration and they aren't part of the congress. They are a melding of both, largely free from either as long as they operate within their mandate or charter.
Your ignorance is repetitive and borin
false equivalence.
antivaxers exist on both sides.
antivaxxers and anti-scientific attitudes and beliefs in the left are a tiny minority, consisting of a tiny group of anti-vaxers and anti-gmos.
but there's a slightly larger number of anti-vaxxers and anti-gmos among the Right.
so that's a wash.
but then you also have to consider all the anti-science attitudes and beliefs which are wholly owned by the Right and unlike the antivaxxers among the left, these are not a tiny minority of the right, but rather represent not only the majority viewpoint, but are even part of the party platform:
-global warming denialism
-evolutionary denialism
-fracking-causes-earthquakes denialism
the list goes on
So no, sorry, but one bad partial example on the left (that is actually shared by the right) does not make the left as bad as the right, nor exonerate the right for its antiscience views.
no its not a fact, and what you're referring to is a percentage, not a raw number.
antivax is pretty much bipartisan stupidity, though we should note that following
Obama's endorsement of vaccines a whole bunch of republicans suddenly found
themselves in the antivax camp.
be even crediting your base statement as true, which it isn't, that still
leaves the anti-science score: GOP: 7, Dems: 1.
so the whole "you're just as we are" card is pure bull.
youre making emotional pleas, and rather exaggerated ones at that, not logical ones.
rationality is key requirement of living in a free society.
revenge is not a rational response, but an emotional one.
youre argument is essentially "its such an emotional burden to live in a civilized society, it would be so much better to just kill the bastard rather than deal with that".
and you ignore key facts.
such as you keep making the (emotional) economic argument, while ignoring that it actually costs MORE to execute someone.
so really, the economics of it arent even relevant. they're a red herring in the argument.
so your argument ultimately still boils down to "kill him in order to make the survivor/victim feel better", which of course is bullshit.
sky diving is by definition done from an aircraft of some sort, be it plane, helo, balloon, or what have you.
I always figured the "tribunal" thing was more like a certification, a stamp saying "yes, this is legit, this is a rational decision from a rational individual. he's not mentally ill and hasn't been coerced".
paranoid tin foil hattery modded +5.
The rule of thumb is: "things about you that are intrinsic and immutable".
If I own a restaurant, I can generally refuse service to anyone, for any reason...except on the basis of race, gender, religion, age, or disability. IE, the "protected classes", which if the current trend continues will soon include "sexual orientation".
At some point, some of these things may come into tension. And that's when the courts generally institute a test, to check for certain ideals under the law, or determine the "lesser harm", or what have you.
Remember, that religious belief is also among the defenses they tried to use to deny service black customers at lunch counters, to justify Jim Crow, et al.
But just as skin color isn't a choice, neither is being gay. But even "choice" isn't the right factor, as religious belief is a choice, and that's protected as well. No the real test ultimately comes down to discrimination. REAL discrimination in this case is the blocking or removal of someone from the marketplace on the basis of some intrinsic part of that person. And its has been found to be harmful to society and to individuals and to American ideals involving equality to allow such discrimination.
Therefore if a photographer want's to do business in the marketplace he must do business with ALL of the marketplace.
And requiring him to do so, preventing him from discriminating, is not itself discriminatory.
Because that's essentially what the complaint about being denied the "right to discriminate" boils down to:
it's a variation on the theme that "fighting racism is racist", which is absolute BS.
"Why I Support The Brady Bill" - by Ronald Reagan, 1991:
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03...
Saint Reagan, holy be his name, is formerly living proof that one can be both pro-gun-rights and pro-gun-control.
While as President there wasn't much that he did in terms of federal executive action, he supporter of gun rights, and of gun control, both before and after his Presidency. As Governor of California he signed into law both the Mulford Act and California's 15-day waiting period.
While in other areas his views were more one-sided, in this area his personal views embodied a compromise that reflects the position of most Americans.