You don't understand; this is the world of a post-Trump election. The left is now beating the drum in support of all kinds of issues they used to oppose: censorship; stripping internet anonymity; gun ownership; violent revolution; succession. Their surveillance state that they loved and supported under Obama, they're now demanding he tear down in his final months lest Trump become its master. The office of the unaccountable god-emperor President, beloved by the American left just 13 days ago, is now their greatest fear.
Simply put, the tantrum response to the election will continue, regardless of previous beliefs, regardless of well-understood reasons for why some things are the way they are, and especially regardless of any Supreme Court ruling. It's all gone upside-down and you should expect to see the left continue to attack free speech. What began years ago as "political correctness" and accelerated more recently into "micro-aggression" and "safe-spaces," has now turned on the afterburner and is proceeding a mach speed into naked censorship.
Free speech was a vital tool for the left 50 years ago when they were the minority. When they became the majority it was no longer necessary. Now that they're a retreating and threatened majority, it's a danger to them.
If Steve Bannon is an anti-Semite, then you'd expect his media outlet, Breitbart News, to have some anti-Semitic articles on it, wouldn't you? Do you think he could run the publication for years without it happening?
How about you provide links to some of those articles. Go! Educate us. Wade through the thousands of pro-Jewish, pro-Israel articles on Breitbart and find us the anti-Semitic ones.
You can't. Because they're not there. Because Steve Bannon isn't an anti-Semite. He's a friend of Israel and the Jewish people, and he devotes a considerable effort of the Breitbart News outlet to supporting them. You've been fed the Big Lie about Bannon from the same news media that lied to you non-stop throughout the election, and you're not experienced enough to know better. I would wager you've visited brietbart.com exactly zero times in your life, and you have no idea what it's about. So when CNN and NPR tell you he hates Jews, you don't have the mental faculty to resist the claim.
It's okay though, you can educate yourself. Go do the search I described above, and when you've realized that Steve Bannon doesn't have a shred of antisemitism in his body, then you can have some deep contemplation beginning with this question: "If the news sources I consume lied to me so blatantly about something so trivial to refute, and expected me to be such a docile, helpless, gullible, and daft consumer of their news, what else might they be lying to me about?"
Why is the guy above me voted to 'Troll'; he brings up an important point about the gun control "debate?"
Every time a liberal wants a new gun control law, they say that gun owners need to "compromise." You see that word? Compromise. You'd think it would mean that each side gives a little and gets a little, but when it's used in reference to gun control it only ever means, "you lose some rights today, we'll leave the rest for now, but we'll be back to take them later." There's NEVER any actual compromise offered. No offer to repeal any of the myriad of useless and ineffective gun control laws that don't impact criminals and only burden people who want to legally own a gun.
How about taking suppressors off of the NFA? You shouldn't have to pay a $200 tax and wait 8 months for a safety device. Repealing the Hughes Amendment? Remind me how many legally registered machine guns have been used in crimes in the last 80 years. (Spoiler: 2; both by cops) Making the USPS accept ammo shipments? Anyone care to tell me the useful law enforcement purpose of the handgun import points system? Spoiler again: it was contrived by Democrats in the 60's to keep guns out of the hands of poor people. How about allowing out of state gun sales through any FFL dealer? Spoiler: Democrat law from the 60's to keep blacks from getting guns. How many crimes do you think have been prevented by 922(r) parts compliance rules? I'll just go ahead and tell you it's zero. What about the ban on import of "non-sporting" guns? I can buy them legally if they're made in the USA, but not if they're imported. That makes sense how?
And yet, none of that is ever offered as a real compromise. This is why gun owners take an absolute stance against all new restrictions. History has shown us that the moment they're passed, the next push for more restrictions begins immediately.
Nothing new. The Obama administration has the worst record of blanket FOIA denial of any since FOIA became a thing.
There was a lawyer who sent the FBI an FOIA wanting to know what offenses would make a person a "domestic abuser" and disqualify them from buying a gun. The FBI said the list was secret and refused to answer. There's your most transparent administration ever!
The BATFE has stopped responding to FOIAs completely. If you want anything from them, you have to sue, pay for counsel, and wait for the lethargic court system to sort it out for a few years. They've even claimed they're not subject to FOIA requests AT ALL!
Another case recently: a lawyer was looking for all correspondence between the BATFE and a gun control group, NFATCA. The BATFE slow walked it until there was a lawsuit, then said they could only deliver records from after 2013, and it would take 6 months. The "compromise" was that the BATFE will release the emails in 5 dumps between November and March. So 10 months after the initial request, he'll have all the documents, and then he can take them to court over the huge number of redactions that recent history has shown us will be in there.
As much as some people want to try and say, "the last guy wasn't transparent either!!!," well, things have objectively gotten worse for FOIA requests under Obama.
Maybe we could get a top law enforcement guy for the whole US. We could call him, The President. And we could empower him to enforce the laws of the country through various agencies. Maybe we could name two of those agencies the Department of Justice, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. And then we could pass a law making it illegal for convicted felons who lost the right to have a firearm to try and buy one! We could call it, The Gun Control Act of 1968!
Then, that President guy could instruct his subordinates in those two departments, to enforce that 48 year-old law, and FINALLY we'd have some good controls in place to stop convicted felons from getting guns!
Do you see where this is going yet?
In 2010, out of 48,321 felons and fugitives who attempted to illegally purchase firearms, the Department of Justice prosecuted only 44 of them. https://youtu.be/06wJ50p6rMs
That's 48,321 open and shut cases of felons and fugitives swearing in writing on their ATF Form 4473 that they can legally posses a gun, when they couldn't. President Obama's Justice Department gladly allows 99.91% of the prohibited felons who attempt to buy a gun from a federally licensed dealer simply walk free. Right there are 48,321 of your felons illegally trying to get guns, and being allowed to get away with it.
We don't lack strong controls. We lack any will from President Obama to enforce the law, and it's quite on purpose. If the current gun laws were rigidly enforced, gun crime would drop, and the president wouldn't be able to whine incessantly about how we need more gun laws.
You may not, but the problem is that too many of the politicians you vote for do. HRC is on record many times this campaign saying she wants to see the "Australian model" implemented in the US. That means forced confiscation of all personally owned firearms under the guise of "buybacks." The buybacks are mandatory, and you go to prison is you don't comply.
Here's a list of politicians talking about confiscating guns, just from a short period in 2013:
Oregon Legislator calls fears of gun confiscation a "paranoid delusion" and then states he is in favor of gun confiscation http://www.examiner.com/articl...
Maybe the president could start enforcing the gun laws he has the power to enforce, instead of pushing for new restrictions on law abiding citizens?
In 2010, out of 48,321 felons and fugitives who attempted to illegally purchase firearms, the Department of Justice prosecuted only 44 of them. https://youtu.be/06wJ50p6rMs
That's 48,321 open and shut cases of felons and fugitives swearing in writing on their ATF Form 4473 that they can legally posses a gun, when they couldn't. The Justice Department gladly allows 99.91% of the prohibited felons who attempt to buy a gun from a federally licensed dealer simply walk free. Right there are 48,321 minor crimes that could have been enforced that weren't.
"It will emit about 40,000 fewer tons of greenhouse gases per year than fossil fuels would to generate the same amount of energy. That's the equivalent of taking 150,000 cars off the road."
According to economists, about 80,000 - 150,000 people come of age each month in America. (This is the number used to see how many minimum jobs need to be created in a month to have an effect on unemployment.) How many of those people do you think have a car? Statistically, in America, 63,760 - 119,550 of them will have cars. (797 cars/1000 people in the US. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...)
From a greenhouse gas standpoint, the whole effort of building this windfarm is wiped out by 1.25 - 2.35 months of population growth.
My preferred bet would have been, "Are there more or fewer people recorded living in the zip codes of the Florida Keys during the 2020 census than there were during the 2010 census?"
The criteria for settling the bet needs to be something much more objective than highly variable and easily manipulable temperature data. Global Warming could be complete bunk, and these guys could have still lost the bet due to nothing more than yearly variation in temperature. They choose their bet poorly.
Kaine told NBC in June that he "encouraged her to run in May of 2014, because I could telescope forward and see some of the challenges that this nation would be facing."
A little warning of all of the terror attacks would have been nice.
The president with the worst history of blanket denial of FOIA requests, running the most opaque government in our lifetime, signs a law "improving" the FOIA system. What a joke! If he and his executive branch didn't respect it before, they wont respect it now.
I was reading on a gun blog recently about a lawyer who sent the FBI an FOIA wanting to know what offenses would make a person a "domestic abuser" and disqualify them from buying a gun. The FBI said the list was secret and refused to answer. There's your most transparent administration ever!
The BATFE has stopped responding to FOIAs completely. If you want anything from them, you have to sue, pay for counsel, and wait for the lethargic court system to sort it out for a few years. They've even claimed they're not subject to FOIA requests AT ALL!
Additionally, hydrocarbons wont be replaced for use in more than a small minority of air travel, ocean travel or rail travel in my lifetime. Cars, yeah, you probably wont be able to buy a new ICE car 40 years from now. The rest of our modes of transport will still be hydrocarbon then.
Also, we've seen how well utility scale solar is working out at Ivanpah. Utility scale solar is a dead-end. Utility scale wind power is limited in deployable area. The environmentalists wont allow tidal or nuclear. So, we're left with fossil fuels.
Personally, I'm long XOM, CVX, RDS, COP, and a whole host of smaller upstream, midstream and downstream companies.
I don't know, but I can give you a useful data point. My wife and I went to the annual NRA convention in Houston in 2013. Eighty-six thousand NRA members attended that year. Since concealed carry is legal in Texas, and since concealed carry could not legally be prohibited in the convention space (because it was owned by the city), and since it was in Texas (where gun ownership is high relative to most of the rest of the country), and since it was the NRA convention (so gun ownership among attendees was probably close to 99.99%), it probably represents the single largest non-military event in human history both in terms of number of guns carried by attendees and percentage of attendees carrying guns.
And what happened?
A whole lot of nothing. Three days of exhibits, conferences, speakers, events, etc. And a lack of people being shot.
The RNC convention in 2012 was expected to have 50,000 attendees. Assume 2016 will be the same. Even then, the number of people and the % of people who want to carry guns at an RNC convention is going to me MUCH less than at the NRA convention.
If they allowed it, even if they requested that people do it, it would be shocking if anything bad happened. In Texas, concealed carry license holders are more law-abiding than police officers according to the statistics that the Department of Public Safety is required to collect and publish as part of our carry laws.
The liberal hand-wringing over "what if" and "might" and "blood in the streets" when it comes to carrying guns in public is so so tiring.
Imagine that: another California Democrat looking to restrict your freedom in order to make themselves feel better, with no useful law enforcement outcomes realized, or even possible.
The background check analogy is spot on: a useless check, easily bypassed, that does more to harm the law abiding than it does criminals. There's predictive power in that analogy too: bad people caught attempting to buy burner phones wont be prosecuted, just as known felons attempting to buy guns from federally licensed gun dealers aren't prosecuted now. In 2010, out of 48,321 felons and fugitives who attempted to illegally purchase firearms, the Department of Justice prosecuted only 44 of them. https://youtu.be/06wJ50p6rMs
The proof is in the pudding. Democrat President Obama's Justice Department gladly allows 99.91% of the prohibited felons who attempt to buy a gun from a federally licensed dealer simply walk free. Firearms background checks, and similarly background checks for burner phones, aren't about crime prevention or law enforcement; they're about restricting your rights to property and privacy, and in the burner phone case specifically it's about a kind of sick cryptophobia where a law-abiding person is hated by their government for their desire to not be constantly spied on by that same government.
I read the article. It's all about feelers feeling feels. There's not a bit of objective wrongdoing even hinted at on Amazon's part. They provide a facility that can employ 8% of the unemployed people in the town, and HuffPo acts like they're awful for it. It's strenuous physical labor, and some people can't handle it, especially when you're obese (6'3", 300lbs = 37.5 BMI; for his height, 200lbs is his healthy weight).
HuffPo is just trying to ride a wave of anti-Amazon sentiment to get ad-views.
All the feelers at HuffPo can rest easy though: when the robots replace all of these people, there will be no need to bitch about the working conditions any more!
Taxi's can't offer guaranteed service at certain locations and times precisely because they do not use the author's dreaded "surge/congestion pricing schemes."
When your professional society conference lets out at the same time that the local sportsball team's game gets over, and everyone is headed downtown to eat, the taxi company runs out of cabs because they're all cheap and everyone takes one. Uber surges the price to match the market demand, more drivers come out, and everyone who wants a ride can get one.
Under the pure cartel taxi system, if you need to get to the hospital because your wife called and she's gone into labor early, too bad! All the cabs are taken because they're so cheap and the demand is so high. Under Uber's system, the price rises to match the demand and you can pay for a ride.
It's no different than when people decry "price gauging" after a natural disaster. Go ahead and keep gas at pre-disaster prices, and 100% of it will sell out. Then, if you MUST have it, say to run your generator to power grandma's oxygen machine, too bad! It was all sold for $2/gal to a bunch of people who panicked and drank it all up even though they really didn't need it. If the gas stations had surged pricing to match demand, they'd be more likely to have some left, and while it would be very expensive, at least it would be available for people who really needed it, instead of being consumed by people who merely panic-purchased because it was still cheap.
Uber's surge pricing system is a virtue of their business model, not a vice.
Pay no attention to the 130 years of Democrat rule of the city leading up to Katrina. All the fault for the city's unpreparedness lies with a single Republican who had no authority to intervene.
If I rolled my eyes sufficiently for the amount of derp packed into your comment, I'd probably get dizzy and fall over.
Are you saying those things are not protected by the 2nd, or that they're illegal, or both? The only things on your list that you can't actually make/buy/own/use as a private citizen in the US are nerve gas, chemical weapons and nuclear weapons. The rest are legal with varying degrees of paperwork.
(Mines may have some restrictions on usage in some states since it's generally illegal to set a trap meant for a human.)
Can you site a source for that, because I've never seen it? Private citizens owned fleets of warships each armed with dozens of cannons during and after the revolution, and were given free reign to hunt British shipping.
Even if you agree with the more restrictive interpretation of the second amendment, that it only covers "bearable" arms (ie, weapons one person can transport alone), an interpretation that I've never seen any founder's writings suggesting, you must still grant grenades and some other forms of explosive weapons. They are man-portable, and they were available and used in the framers' time.
Then start buying LMT. The spice must flow: there will be 3000+ F-35s produced, and they'll be flying for the next 50 years. That requires a never ending river of spare parts, training, maintenance, country-specific upgrades, and fleet-wide vehicle upgrades. Those things cost money, which Lockheed will be the prime receiver of.
LMT pays a solid dividend, which has increased 500% in the last 10 years. The stock price itself is up over 9% per year in the same time period. In other words, it's beating the pants off of the DJIA.
It is also interesting to note that the majority of mass shooters in the last 25 years have been under the influence of - or withdrawing from - SSRI based anti-depressents.
The problem is that because of the difficulty of getting this information, and the poor quality of journalism in America, this information is usually just a footnote in a state report, or a small detail in the thousands of pages of documents entered into evidence at trial.
James Holmes (Aurora theater shooter), Adam Lanza (Newtown), the Navy Yard shooter, the second Fort Hood shooter, Anders Breivik (Norway shooter), Seung Hui Cho (Virginia Tech shooter), and Eric Harris (Columbine) were all on SSRIs when they went on their rampages.
As anti-business and anti-success as the American tax code is, the tax codes of most European countries, in general, are worse. When Hollande put France under a 75% top marginal income tax rate, even Sarkozy started making plans to leave the country. Think about that for a second. The ex-president was going to leave to avoid the taxes.
You're not going to lure top talent to your country to try and make a billion dollar business when you promise to tax most of their income at 75%. With proper planning, in the US you'll be paying about 50% tops in California, and 40% in some other states.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't understand; this is the world of a post-Trump election. The left is now beating the drum in support of all kinds of issues they used to oppose: censorship; stripping internet anonymity; gun ownership; violent revolution; succession. Their surveillance state that they loved and supported under Obama, they're now demanding he tear down in his final months lest Trump become its master. The office of the unaccountable god-emperor President, beloved by the American left just 13 days ago, is now their greatest fear.
Simply put, the tantrum response to the election will continue, regardless of previous beliefs, regardless of well-understood reasons for why some things are the way they are, and especially regardless of any Supreme Court ruling. It's all gone upside-down and you should expect to see the left continue to attack free speech. What began years ago as "political correctness" and accelerated more recently into "micro-aggression" and "safe-spaces," has now turned on the afterburner and is proceeding a mach speed into naked censorship.
Free speech was a vital tool for the left 50 years ago when they were the minority. When they became the majority it was no longer necessary. Now that they're a retreating and threatened majority, it's a danger to them.
If Steve Bannon is an anti-Semite, then you'd expect his media outlet, Breitbart News, to have some anti-Semitic articles on it, wouldn't you? Do you think he could run the publication for years without it happening?
How about you provide links to some of those articles. Go! Educate us. Wade through the thousands of pro-Jewish, pro-Israel articles on Breitbart and find us the anti-Semitic ones.
You can't. Because they're not there. Because Steve Bannon isn't an anti-Semite. He's a friend of Israel and the Jewish people, and he devotes a considerable effort of the Breitbart News outlet to supporting them. You've been fed the Big Lie about Bannon from the same news media that lied to you non-stop throughout the election, and you're not experienced enough to know better. I would wager you've visited brietbart.com exactly zero times in your life, and you have no idea what it's about. So when CNN and NPR tell you he hates Jews, you don't have the mental faculty to resist the claim.
It's okay though, you can educate yourself. Go do the search I described above, and when you've realized that Steve Bannon doesn't have a shred of antisemitism in his body, then you can have some deep contemplation beginning with this question: "If the news sources I consume lied to me so blatantly about something so trivial to refute, and expected me to be such a docile, helpless, gullible, and daft consumer of their news, what else might they be lying to me about?"
Why is the guy above me voted to 'Troll'; he brings up an important point about the gun control "debate?"
Every time a liberal wants a new gun control law, they say that gun owners need to "compromise." You see that word? Compromise. You'd think it would mean that each side gives a little and gets a little, but when it's used in reference to gun control it only ever means, "you lose some rights today, we'll leave the rest for now, but we'll be back to take them later." There's NEVER any actual compromise offered. No offer to repeal any of the myriad of useless and ineffective gun control laws that don't impact criminals and only burden people who want to legally own a gun.
How about taking suppressors off of the NFA? You shouldn't have to pay a $200 tax and wait 8 months for a safety device.
Repealing the Hughes Amendment? Remind me how many legally registered machine guns have been used in crimes in the last 80 years. (Spoiler: 2; both by cops)
Making the USPS accept ammo shipments?
Anyone care to tell me the useful law enforcement purpose of the handgun import points system? Spoiler again: it was contrived by Democrats in the 60's to keep guns out of the hands of poor people.
How about allowing out of state gun sales through any FFL dealer? Spoiler: Democrat law from the 60's to keep blacks from getting guns.
How many crimes do you think have been prevented by 922(r) parts compliance rules? I'll just go ahead and tell you it's zero.
What about the ban on import of "non-sporting" guns? I can buy them legally if they're made in the USA, but not if they're imported. That makes sense how?
And yet, none of that is ever offered as a real compromise. This is why gun owners take an absolute stance against all new restrictions. History has shown us that the moment they're passed, the next push for more restrictions begins immediately.
Nothing new. The Obama administration has the worst record of blanket FOIA denial of any since FOIA became a thing.
There was a lawyer who sent the FBI an FOIA wanting to know what offenses would make a person a "domestic abuser" and disqualify them from buying a gun. The FBI said the list was secret and refused to answer. There's your most transparent administration ever!
The BATFE has stopped responding to FOIAs completely. If you want anything from them, you have to sue, pay for counsel, and wait for the lethargic court system to sort it out for a few years. They've even claimed they're not subject to FOIA requests AT ALL!
http://www.guns.com/2015/08/12...
Another case recently: a lawyer was looking for all correspondence between the BATFE and a gun control group, NFATCA. The BATFE slow walked it until there was a lawsuit, then said they could only deliver records from after 2013, and it would take 6 months. The "compromise" was that the BATFE will release the emails in 5 dumps between November and March. So 10 months after the initial request, he'll have all the documents, and then he can take them to court over the huge number of redactions that recent history has shown us will be in there.
As much as some people want to try and say, "the last guy wasn't transparent either!!!," well, things have objectively gotten worse for FOIA requests under Obama.
Maybe we could get a top law enforcement guy for the whole US. We could call him, The President. And we could empower him to enforce the laws of the country through various agencies. Maybe we could name two of those agencies the Department of Justice, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. And then we could pass a law making it illegal for convicted felons who lost the right to have a firearm to try and buy one! We could call it, The Gun Control Act of 1968!
Then, that President guy could instruct his subordinates in those two departments, to enforce that 48 year-old law, and FINALLY we'd have some good controls in place to stop convicted felons from getting guns!
Do you see where this is going yet?
In 2010, out of 48,321 felons and fugitives who attempted to illegally purchase firearms, the Department of Justice prosecuted only 44 of them. https://youtu.be/06wJ50p6rMs
That's 48,321 open and shut cases of felons and fugitives swearing in writing on their ATF Form 4473 that they can legally posses a gun, when they couldn't. President Obama's Justice Department gladly allows 99.91% of the prohibited felons who attempt to buy a gun from a federally licensed dealer simply walk free. Right there are 48,321 of your felons illegally trying to get guns, and being allowed to get away with it.
We don't lack strong controls. We lack any will from President Obama to enforce the law, and it's quite on purpose. If the current gun laws were rigidly enforced, gun crime would drop, and the president wouldn't be able to whine incessantly about how we need more gun laws.
You may not, but the problem is that too many of the politicians you vote for do. HRC is on record many times this campaign saying she wants to see the "Australian model" implemented in the US. That means forced confiscation of all personally owned firearms under the guise of "buybacks." The buybacks are mandatory, and you go to prison is you don't comply.
Here's a list of politicians talking about confiscating guns, just from a short period in 2013:
Hawaii legislature proposes gun confiscation
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/...
New York Assemblyman asks colleague not to mention that original proposed SAFE Act included confiscation
http://www.breitbart.com/Breit...
Missouri Democrats introduce legislation to confiscate guns
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-...
VA has veterans who cannot manage their own financial affairs declared prohibited persons unable to own firearms
http://www.humanevents.com/201...
NJ State Senator "We needed a bill that was going to confiscate confiscate confiscate."
http://www.politickernj.com/ba...
Oregon Legislator calls fears of gun confiscation a "paranoid delusion" and then states he is in favor of gun confiscation
http://www.examiner.com/articl...
Governor Cuomo says, "confiscation could be an option."
http://www.nationalreview.com/...
Feinstein suggests "compulsory buyback."
http://washingtonexaminer.com/...
CA assembly proposes confiscating 166,000 legally registered guns.
http://www.mercurynews.com/bre...
And the classic from 1995:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Do you notice any common political party among the people calling for confiscation?
Exactly! Just like the time Mark Zuckerberg fixed the Newark public school system by throwing money at smart people!
http://www.businessinsider.com...
Maybe the president could start enforcing the gun laws he has the power to enforce, instead of pushing for new restrictions on law abiding citizens?
In 2010, out of 48,321 felons and fugitives who attempted to illegally purchase firearms, the Department of Justice prosecuted only 44 of them. https://youtu.be/06wJ50p6rMs
That's 48,321 open and shut cases of felons and fugitives swearing in writing on their ATF Form 4473 that they can legally posses a gun, when they couldn't. The Justice Department gladly allows 99.91% of the prohibited felons who attempt to buy a gun from a federally licensed dealer simply walk free. Right there are 48,321 minor crimes that could have been enforced that weren't.
From the article:
"It will emit about 40,000 fewer tons of greenhouse gases per year than fossil fuels would to generate the same amount of energy. That's the equivalent of taking 150,000 cars off the road."
According to economists, about 80,000 - 150,000 people come of age each month in America. (This is the number used to see how many minimum jobs need to be created in a month to have an effect on unemployment.) How many of those people do you think have a car? Statistically, in America, 63,760 - 119,550 of them will have cars. (797 cars/1000 people in the US. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...)
From a greenhouse gas standpoint, the whole effort of building this windfarm is wiped out by 1.25 - 2.35 months of population growth.
People scream for, and vote for, more government. Here is another delivery of the more government they've demanded.
Agreed.
My preferred bet would have been, "Are there more or fewer people recorded living in the zip codes of the Florida Keys during the 2020 census than there were during the 2010 census?"
The criteria for settling the bet needs to be something much more objective than highly variable and easily manipulable temperature data. Global Warming could be complete bunk, and these guys could have still lost the bet due to nothing more than yearly variation in temperature. They choose their bet poorly.
Kaine told NBC in June that he "encouraged her to run in May of 2014, because I could telescope forward and see some of the challenges that this nation would be facing."
A little warning of all of the terror attacks would have been nice.
The president with the worst history of blanket denial of FOIA requests, running the most opaque government in our lifetime, signs a law "improving" the FOIA system. What a joke! If he and his executive branch didn't respect it before, they wont respect it now.
I was reading on a gun blog recently about a lawyer who sent the FBI an FOIA wanting to know what offenses would make a person a "domestic abuser" and disqualify them from buying a gun. The FBI said the list was secret and refused to answer. There's your most transparent administration ever!
The BATFE has stopped responding to FOIAs completely. If you want anything from them, you have to sue, pay for counsel, and wait for the lethargic court system to sort it out for a few years. They've even claimed they're not subject to FOIA requests AT ALL!
http://www.guns.com/2015/08/12...
Additionally, hydrocarbons wont be replaced for use in more than a small minority of air travel, ocean travel or rail travel in my lifetime. Cars, yeah, you probably wont be able to buy a new ICE car 40 years from now. The rest of our modes of transport will still be hydrocarbon then.
Also, we've seen how well utility scale solar is working out at Ivanpah. Utility scale solar is a dead-end. Utility scale wind power is limited in deployable area. The environmentalists wont allow tidal or nuclear. So, we're left with fossil fuels.
Personally, I'm long XOM, CVX, RDS, COP, and a whole host of smaller upstream, midstream and downstream companies.
I don't know, but I can give you a useful data point. My wife and I went to the annual NRA convention in Houston in 2013. Eighty-six thousand NRA members attended that year. Since concealed carry is legal in Texas, and since concealed carry could not legally be prohibited in the convention space (because it was owned by the city), and since it was in Texas (where gun ownership is high relative to most of the rest of the country), and since it was the NRA convention (so gun ownership among attendees was probably close to 99.99%), it probably represents the single largest non-military event in human history both in terms of number of guns carried by attendees and percentage of attendees carrying guns.
And what happened?
A whole lot of nothing. Three days of exhibits, conferences, speakers, events, etc. And a lack of people being shot.
The RNC convention in 2012 was expected to have 50,000 attendees. Assume 2016 will be the same. Even then, the number of people and the % of people who want to carry guns at an RNC convention is going to me MUCH less than at the NRA convention.
If they allowed it, even if they requested that people do it, it would be shocking if anything bad happened. In Texas, concealed carry license holders are more law-abiding than police officers according to the statistics that the Department of Public Safety is required to collect and publish as part of our carry laws.
The liberal hand-wringing over "what if" and "might" and "blood in the streets" when it comes to carrying guns in public is so so tiring.
Imagine that: another California Democrat looking to restrict your freedom in order to make themselves feel better, with no useful law enforcement outcomes realized, or even possible.
The background check analogy is spot on: a useless check, easily bypassed, that does more to harm the law abiding than it does criminals. There's predictive power in that analogy too: bad people caught attempting to buy burner phones wont be prosecuted, just as known felons attempting to buy guns from federally licensed gun dealers aren't prosecuted now. In 2010, out of 48,321 felons and fugitives who attempted to illegally purchase firearms, the Department of Justice prosecuted only 44 of them. https://youtu.be/06wJ50p6rMs
The proof is in the pudding. Democrat President Obama's Justice Department gladly allows 99.91% of the prohibited felons who attempt to buy a gun from a federally licensed dealer simply walk free. Firearms background checks, and similarly background checks for burner phones, aren't about crime prevention or law enforcement; they're about restricting your rights to property and privacy, and in the burner phone case specifically it's about a kind of sick cryptophobia where a law-abiding person is hated by their government for their desire to not be constantly spied on by that same government.
Pretty much.
I read the article. It's all about feelers feeling feels. There's not a bit of objective wrongdoing even hinted at on Amazon's part. They provide a facility that can employ 8% of the unemployed people in the town, and HuffPo acts like they're awful for it. It's strenuous physical labor, and some people can't handle it, especially when you're obese (6'3", 300lbs = 37.5 BMI; for his height, 200lbs is his healthy weight).
HuffPo is just trying to ride a wave of anti-Amazon sentiment to get ad-views.
All the feelers at HuffPo can rest easy though: when the robots replace all of these people, there will be no need to bitch about the working conditions any more!
Taxi's can't offer guaranteed service at certain locations and times precisely because they do not use the author's dreaded "surge/congestion pricing schemes."
When your professional society conference lets out at the same time that the local sportsball team's game gets over, and everyone is headed downtown to eat, the taxi company runs out of cabs because they're all cheap and everyone takes one. Uber surges the price to match the market demand, more drivers come out, and everyone who wants a ride can get one.
Under the pure cartel taxi system, if you need to get to the hospital because your wife called and she's gone into labor early, too bad! All the cabs are taken because they're so cheap and the demand is so high. Under Uber's system, the price rises to match the demand and you can pay for a ride.
It's no different than when people decry "price gauging" after a natural disaster. Go ahead and keep gas at pre-disaster prices, and 100% of it will sell out. Then, if you MUST have it, say to run your generator to power grandma's oxygen machine, too bad! It was all sold for $2/gal to a bunch of people who panicked and drank it all up even though they really didn't need it. If the gas stations had surged pricing to match demand, they'd be more likely to have some left, and while it would be very expensive, at least it would be available for people who really needed it, instead of being consumed by people who merely panic-purchased because it was still cheap.
Uber's surge pricing system is a virtue of their business model, not a vice.
Pay no attention to the 130 years of Democrat rule of the city leading up to Katrina. All the fault for the city's unpreparedness lies with a single Republican who had no authority to intervene.
If I rolled my eyes sufficiently for the amount of derp packed into your comment, I'd probably get dizzy and fall over.
As many as you want. Buy the components, get your papers in order, and then build them.
Here's a guy who did it: https://www.ar15.com/forums/t_...
Just because you're stupid and ignorant of reality doesn't mean that reality doesn't exist.
Are you saying those things are not protected by the 2nd, or that they're illegal, or both? The only things on your list that you can't actually make/buy/own/use as a private citizen in the US are nerve gas, chemical weapons and nuclear weapons. The rest are legal with varying degrees of paperwork.
(Mines may have some restrictions on usage in some states since it's generally illegal to set a trap meant for a human.)
Can you site a source for that, because I've never seen it? Private citizens owned fleets of warships each armed with dozens of cannons during and after the revolution, and were given free reign to hunt British shipping.
Even if you agree with the more restrictive interpretation of the second amendment, that it only covers "bearable" arms (ie, weapons one person can transport alone), an interpretation that I've never seen any founder's writings suggesting, you must still grant grenades and some other forms of explosive weapons. They are man-portable, and they were available and used in the framers' time.
Grenades are still legal to make, possess, and use today: https://www.ar15.com/forums/t_...
Then start buying LMT. The spice must flow: there will be 3000+ F-35s produced, and they'll be flying for the next 50 years. That requires a never ending river of spare parts, training, maintenance, country-specific upgrades, and fleet-wide vehicle upgrades. Those things cost money, which Lockheed will be the prime receiver of.
LMT pays a solid dividend, which has increased 500% in the last 10 years. The stock price itself is up over 9% per year in the same time period. In other words, it's beating the pants off of the DJIA.
It is also interesting to note that the majority of mass shooters in the last 25 years have been under the influence of - or withdrawing from - SSRI based anti-depressents.
The problem is that because of the difficulty of getting this information, and the poor quality of journalism in America, this information is usually just a footnote in a state report, or a small detail in the thousands of pages of documents entered into evidence at trial.
James Holmes (Aurora theater shooter), Adam Lanza (Newtown), the Navy Yard shooter, the second Fort Hood shooter, Anders Breivik (Norway shooter), Seung Hui Cho (Virginia Tech shooter), and Eric Harris (Columbine) were all on SSRIs when they went on their rampages.
http://ssristories.org/categor...
But, yeah, it's a lot easier to just lazily blame guns.
As anti-business and anti-success as the American tax code is, the tax codes of most European countries, in general, are worse. When Hollande put France under a 75% top marginal income tax rate, even Sarkozy started making plans to leave the country. Think about that for a second. The ex-president was going to leave to avoid the taxes.
You're not going to lure top talent to your country to try and make a billion dollar business when you promise to tax most of their income at 75%. With proper planning, in the US you'll be paying about 50% tops in California, and 40% in some other states.