From 9/11 to today, over three thousand. Plus significantly over a billion dollars in damage and disruption to our society.
Comparing murders to accidents only belies your lack of credible argument.
Addtionally, you may not express your "freedom" to slander, libel, shout fire in a theater, or any number of other "restrictions". Your really should buy that clue.
Bullshit. The killers and their kith have stated publicly and often that they want the world returned to a Middle Ages style technology and levels of freedom. That, and that alone makes them worth pursuing and eliminating.
First, jerk, the numbers include more than those in the WTC. Second, McVeigh wasn't an internationally backed killer, the 9/11's were. Third, the "boodeymen" are real, asshole, they killed thousands in a few minutes. If that's not real enough for you, then you shouldn't even concern yourself with the "real" governmental responses. That too should fall below the radar of what you think is important.
"Well, a search for philosopher's stone eventually lead to major progress in chemistry."
Bzzzt!! Wrongo. The search for the PS was a very ancient thing and had nothing, I repeat nothing, to do with the flood of chemical investigation which occurred much later. It continued long into the time where real scientists had figured out it was crap.
There will always be those who look for the fantastic. They can do so on their own time and dollar.
Sounds odd and shallow when taken out of context doesn't it? Here's the context:
By October 1999 Republicans were noting Governor Bush's relatively rare appearances in New Hampshire and were beginning to question whether he had assumed he had the nomination sewn up and could afford to take the February 2000 New Hampshire primary for granted. When reporters persistently questioned him about that possibility on 22 October 1999, during his first campaign swing through New Hampshire since early September, Governor Bush expressed the notion that the important factor was not the number of appearances he made, but the number of people he reached during those appearances:
Asked repeatedly today about why he had not been around more, Mr. Bush at one point interrupted a reporter's question to say, "The important question is, How many hands have I shaked."
Don't remove context, it can be found again and make you look like a charlatan.
"They aren't about reporting the news, they're about commenting on it."
A statement made by someone with a shallow understanding and reading of blogs. Many, many blogs are done by people where given news is happening and are reporting what they see and experience.
"Journalists go out and find out what's going on...then report on it."
You mean like Dan Rathers? Oh, I see you trivialize his personal vendetta/commentary later. Pardon.
Drudge = Insider. He's not a journalist, and neither are most of the writers you find in newsprint. They just regurgitate what they find on the wire.
Please, you contradict yourself with your example. The call it human blood. No intelligent cop would ask if someone found some human laying around (meaning blood or semen). Jeez.
Read a dictionary and learn a little.
human n.
1. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.
2. A person: the extraordinary humans who explored Antarctica.
Nice. Demeaning followed by an entire field of straw. Try some study.
Re:What's special about human communication
on
Blending Mice and Men
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
And the bullshit starts.
No, dogs do not know how to communicate to other dogs at birth, and no, humans are not vocally clean at birth. You simply do not know what you're talking about.
Yes indeed, humans have a communication instinct. Humans raised with only their siblings develop their own language.
Animals do indeed reason. "Convince". Very subjective word there. Reason is seldom built upon right vs wrong, which are abstractions open to individual interpretation anyway. Humans base their reasoning on hunger, play, rest, sex, etc.
That story reeks of bullshit. Squirrels flee from the smell of blood. Also from the sounds of gunfire. Not to mention that squirrels run around in the tree tops, not on the ground (except to get from tree to tree).
Your argument would only apply to illegal hunters. Legal hunters get permits. Permits are issued in numbers designed to control the populations. Not at all 'spurious'. If you left them alive, the deer would strip the forest. Then all the other little critters would die. How nice and noble of you.
Slashdot Mirror
That phrase not sentence.
From 9/11 to today, over three thousand. Plus significantly over a billion dollars in damage and disruption to our society.
Comparing murders to accidents only belies your lack of credible argument.
Addtionally, you may not express your "freedom" to slander, libel, shout fire in a theater, or any number of other "restrictions". Your really should buy that clue.
Bullshit. The killers and their kith have stated publicly and often that they want the world returned to a Middle Ages style technology and levels of freedom. That, and that alone makes them worth pursuing and eliminating.
First, jerk, the numbers include more than those in the WTC. Second, McVeigh wasn't an internationally backed killer, the 9/11's were. Third, the "boodeymen" are real, asshole, they killed thousands in a few minutes. If that's not real enough for you, then you shouldn't even concern yourself with the "real" governmental responses. That too should fall below the radar of what you think is important.
"However, I can also see how one could make the argument that it'll be a slippery slope type situation..."
Of course. All it takes is an appropriate level of paranoia and a refusal to consider the logistics involved to facilitate the conspiracy. Yeesh.
"Personally, I'd rather take the chance that a few spies..."
Uh, pardon, but screw you. Chancing a few spies is not tied to risking a BB scenario. Load of straw there.
What bullshit. Been to a European airport? Don't want the same level of security here? Why?
"...including a handwritten and signed statement by Dr Pons himself..."
Bullshit. Sources would be sufficient.
Maybe you'd like it hand-delivered by someone you know and trust as well?
"Well, a search for philosopher's stone eventually lead to major progress in chemistry."
Bzzzt!! Wrongo. The search for the PS was a very ancient thing and had nothing, I repeat nothing, to do with the flood of chemical investigation which occurred much later. It continued long into the time where real scientists had figured out it was crap.
There will always be those who look for the fantastic. They can do so on their own time and dollar.
Then, hey, they will get ALL the credit.
For those who have slow phone lines, PDF is a waste of time. Bloated for what you get.
Perhaps it's because bad news is becoming shorter in supply there and newspapers don't want the good?
Regardless, it was their own site. I can limit whomsoever I wish, so can they.
"...that anything a business does is OK so long as it's good for shareholder value..."
That is neither what he said or implied. You have thrown a bunch of straw up and pretended it was an argument.
"Stupidity is the root of all evil."
As you just demonstrated.
Sounds odd and shallow when taken out of context doesn't it? Here's the context:
By October 1999 Republicans were noting Governor Bush's relatively rare appearances in New Hampshire and were beginning to question whether he had assumed he had the nomination sewn up and could afford to take the February 2000 New Hampshire primary for granted. When reporters persistently questioned him about that possibility on 22 October 1999, during his first campaign swing through New Hampshire since early September, Governor Bush expressed the notion that the important factor was not the number of appearances he made, but the number of people he reached during those appearances:
Asked repeatedly today about why he had not been around more, Mr. Bush at one point interrupted a reporter's question to say, "The important question is, How many hands have I shaked."
Don't remove context, it can be found again and make you look like a charlatan.
Passing on fabricated quotes that support oblique governmental stances is nice, ain't it?
'No,' says Anna Marie Cox, author of Wonkette, 'A revolution requires that people leave their house.'
Yeah. Like during the computer revolution.
"They aren't about reporting the news, they're about commenting on it."
A statement made by someone with a shallow understanding and reading of blogs. Many, many blogs are done by people where given news is happening and are reporting what they see and experience.
"Journalists go out and find out what's going on...then report on it."
You mean like Dan Rathers? Oh, I see you trivialize his personal vendetta/commentary later. Pardon.
Drudge = Insider. He's not a journalist, and neither are most of the writers you find in newsprint. They just regurgitate what they find on the wire.
Human means different things as an adj or noun. Please try not to conflate.
Please, you contradict yourself with your example. The call it human blood. No intelligent cop would ask if someone found some human laying around (meaning blood or semen). Jeez.
Read a dictionary and learn a little.
human n.
1. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.
2. A person: the extraordinary humans who explored Antarctica.
Nice. Demeaning followed by an entire field of straw. Try some study.
And the bullshit starts.
No, dogs do not know how to communicate to other dogs at birth, and no, humans are not vocally clean at birth. You simply do not know what you're talking about.
Yes indeed, humans have a communication instinct. Humans raised with only their siblings develop their own language.
Animals do indeed reason. "Convince". Very subjective word there. Reason is seldom built upon right vs wrong, which are abstractions open to individual interpretation anyway. Humans base their reasoning on hunger, play, rest, sex, etc.
That story reeks of bullshit. Squirrels flee from the smell of blood. Also from the sounds of gunfire. Not to mention that squirrels run around in the tree tops, not on the ground (except to get from tree to tree).
"...but the above 1..2..3 is what at least 95% of hunters do."
Ah, more personal opinion stated as if it were fact. You know this how?
"Why? Do you have any scientific evidence to dispute it? "
Well, yes. There is no evidence for the supposed flood and plenty that dinos are immensly older than mankind.
"But you don't so it has nothing to do with that."
How in holy hell would you know? A direct lie there.
"If killing wasn't fun you wouldn't do it."
That may be your reason to hunt (or not), but other people have different reasons. Again, how the hell do you know?
Flammer.
Your argument would only apply to illegal hunters. Legal hunters get permits. Permits are issued in numbers designed to control the populations. Not at all 'spurious'. If you left them alive, the deer would strip the forest. Then all the other little critters would die. How nice and noble of you.