Or how about having a decent method of stopping all forms of extremism - that way when your chosen demon of the day ceases to be an issue, your entire system isn't wasted. Your knee-jerk reaction sounds like a good idea, but upon closer inspection it's anything but.
The EU is democratic, so your entire argument is nonsense. For someone who complains about the EU so much you seem to really not understand it. I'd probably have voted to leave too if I also assumed this dystopian view of the EU was true. As it is, a cursory glance over the EU's functioning shows you've been mislead.
Hell, the EU is arguably more democratic than the UK as Westminster uses FPTP as opposed to a more sane system. That's why UKIP had better representation in the EU than in Westminster - how can that be if the EU is not democratic?
Ladies and gentlemen, this is the sort of nebulous, incorrect argument that convinced many people to vote leave. It is factually incorrect from top to bottom, and relies on bottomless optimism for any positive outcomes. Oh, and complains about the Germans for doing what Britain could have but refused to. Top marks.
We don't rely on historical accounts for climate data - we have plenty of proxies we can look at today to get some useful data about the past. And yes, something that does not affect the whole globe is by definition a local event.
It's about understanding people need things to survive, and these things are being threatened. If you don't want to be confused with a denier, don't sound like one. Rightly or wrongly, your logical appraisal of this topic has lead you down a very similar path to deniers. If you really are interested in understanding this, you have some work ahead of you.
I especially liked how you didn't bother to provide any evidence of how your chosen "bad guys" are lying. That definitely makes you look balanced. Definitely.
Couple that with Trump admitting (in 2013) on national TV that he has a relationship with Putin, and this starts to get a bit worrying. Conflicts of interest aplenty.
Trump claiming Obama wiretapped his phone is not the same as a Russian phone line being wiretapped, and one of Trump's aides calling the phone line in question. Do you see the difference? The former is fantasy, the second standard operating procedure. That's why it's called fake - because it is demonstrably fake.
It doesn't make you or your argument look particularly sound if you attack the "mental capacity" of others with a news article you didn't understand. Ouch.
1. Increase driving license testing quality 2. Improve road surface quality for safer higher speeds 3. Increase speed limit 4. Invest in medium-distance light rail to link town and city centers with long-distance high speed rail
It works wonders in Germany (and so could work in US cities/commuter belts), but points 1, 2 & 4 would never fly in the US.
It is entirely applicable to the discussion at hand. It shows that attempts to alleviate traffic congestion by adding more capacity is not a panacea, and can make things worse. Which is the problem being discussed here.
Only if it - or the areas it's serving - are terribly planned. There are countless examples of working public transport systems the world over, so clearly they can work.
Relying on what is "obviously intended" is a recipe for disaster:) There are many ways to make that code work with just a tweak or two here and there, producing all kinds of output. Any single one of those (or even none of them) might be the intended functionality - it's up to the person who is requesting this work to define what they mean by "work".
A "holder" is something that holds the item in question, as in keeps it in a specific position without it moving. This ensures there are no moments where the phone slides around on the seat and your reflexes kick in and you reach for it while driving.
There is a safety concern, though - they are in charge of a vehicle on the public road, and have to react to their surroundings in order to prevent accidents. It sounds like the officer singled it out because so many people wrongly assume it's perfectly safe and reasonable to entirely ignore your environment when in control of a car. If drivers won't learn the law before driving, learning it while driving seems only fair.
That's going to happen when racism is now socially acceptable to such a degree someone can campaign on it and get elected president of the US. It's like complaining the word "fire" has lost all meaning when everyone in the burning theater is screaming it.
ISIS: Started in Iraq, after a US invasion created a power vacuum and allowed many groups against the US to flourish. Among them was an Al Qaeda affiliate, who are annoyed with the US's actions in Saudi Arabia during the first gulf war.
Iran: Political Islam was arguably created (as we know it), and definitely fostered, as a way of uniting people against the puppet installed by western interests.
So no, they didn't start in a vacuum - they were both formed as responses to US foreign policy.
That you wouldn't even mention that shows you either don't know about Islam, or are intellectually dishonest enough to consciously ignore it. Pick one.
Slashdot Mirror
Or how about having a decent method of stopping all forms of extremism - that way when your chosen demon of the day ceases to be an issue, your entire system isn't wasted. Your knee-jerk reaction sounds like a good idea, but upon closer inspection it's anything but.
The EU is democratic, so your entire argument is nonsense. For someone who complains about the EU so much you seem to really not understand it. I'd probably have voted to leave too if I also assumed this dystopian view of the EU was true. As it is, a cursory glance over the EU's functioning shows you've been mislead.
Hell, the EU is arguably more democratic than the UK as Westminster uses FPTP as opposed to a more sane system. That's why UKIP had better representation in the EU than in Westminster - how can that be if the EU is not democratic?
Ladies and gentlemen, this is the sort of nebulous, incorrect argument that convinced many people to vote leave. It is factually incorrect from top to bottom, and relies on bottomless optimism for any positive outcomes. Oh, and complains about the Germans for doing what Britain could have but refused to. Top marks.
You're not too good with population forecasts, huh?
You're not too good with charts, huh?
The snapshots are incremental.
http://www.amusingplanet.com/2...
You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about this. What you doubt is of little consequence, as your doubts don't change reality :)
We don't rely on historical accounts for climate data - we have plenty of proxies we can look at today to get some useful data about the past. And yes, something that does not affect the whole globe is by definition a local event.
It's about understanding people need things to survive, and these things are being threatened. If you don't want to be confused with a denier, don't sound like one. Rightly or wrongly, your logical appraisal of this topic has lead you down a very similar path to deniers. If you really are interested in understanding this, you have some work ahead of you.
I especially liked how you didn't bother to provide any evidence of how your chosen "bad guys" are lying. That definitely makes you look balanced. Definitely.
Couple that with Trump admitting (in 2013) on national TV that he has a relationship with Putin, and this starts to get a bit worrying. Conflicts of interest aplenty.
Trump claiming Obama wiretapped his phone is not the same as a Russian phone line being wiretapped, and one of Trump's aides calling the phone line in question. Do you see the difference? The former is fantasy, the second standard operating procedure. That's why it's called fake - because it is demonstrably fake.
It doesn't make you or your argument look particularly sound if you attack the "mental capacity" of others with a news article you didn't understand. Ouch.
1. Increase driving license testing quality
2. Improve road surface quality for safer higher speeds
3. Increase speed limit
4. Invest in medium-distance light rail to link town and city centers with long-distance high speed rail
It works wonders in Germany (and so could work in US cities/commuter belts), but points 1, 2 & 4 would never fly in the US.
It is entirely applicable to the discussion at hand. It shows that attempts to alleviate traffic congestion by adding more capacity is not a panacea, and can make things worse. Which is the problem being discussed here.
Only if it - or the areas it's serving - are terribly planned. There are countless examples of working public transport systems the world over, so clearly they can work.
We're not talking about night workers, but people commuting during rush hour.
Relying on what is "obviously intended" is a recipe for disaster :) There are many ways to make that code work with just a tweak or two here and there, producing all kinds of output. Any single one of those (or even none of them) might be the intended functionality - it's up to the person who is requesting this work to define what they mean by "work".
A "holder" is something that holds the item in question, as in keeps it in a specific position without it moving. This ensures there are no moments where the phone slides around on the seat and your reflexes kick in and you reach for it while driving.
You're not correct. I can appreciate how you assume you are correct, but that doesn't make it so...
It would help your argument if you knew what a police state is.
There is a safety concern, though - they are in charge of a vehicle on the public road, and have to react to their surroundings in order to prevent accidents. It sounds like the officer singled it out because so many people wrongly assume it's perfectly safe and reasonable to entirely ignore your environment when in control of a car. If drivers won't learn the law before driving, learning it while driving seems only fair.
Then why don't countries which also have such ranks suffer from a similar problem? Your explanation doesn't seem to account for this.
The person was talking about drivers licenses, not taxi licenses. You don't need to speak English to drive in the UK.
That's going to happen when racism is now socially acceptable to such a degree someone can campaign on it and get elected president of the US. It's like complaining the word "fire" has lost all meaning when everyone in the burning theater is screaming it.
ISIS: Started in Iraq, after a US invasion created a power vacuum and allowed many groups against the US to flourish. Among them was an Al Qaeda affiliate, who are annoyed with the US's actions in Saudi Arabia during the first gulf war.
Iran: Political Islam was arguably created (as we know it), and definitely fostered, as a way of uniting people against the puppet installed by western interests.
So no, they didn't start in a vacuum - they were both formed as responses to US foreign policy.
That you wouldn't even mention that shows you either don't know about Islam, or are intellectually dishonest enough to consciously ignore it. Pick one.