. I hate to break it to you, but you are confusing people who call themselves conservatives to get votes (and the people pandering to them) with a real Conservative.
No true conservative. What do the true conservative say the reason for the 2nd Amendment is, and how that's relevant in today's society?
Every single a Republic that has been created starts small and works very well. Bloat and corruption occur, and there is a reset. Again, history is your friend here.
So armed revolution is the only means to create an efficient government? Then Somalia should have the most efficient government, with armed revolts daily. You are also saying that a small government is inherently unstable and collapses eventually. So why shouldn't we try something different? Can you even define "republic"?
Because Blacks kill more Blacks than police kill Blacks proves blacks are evil killers of their own kind. Because whites kill more whites than police kill whites, it's proof that the police are kind, benevolent and peaceful. It's a hilarious double standard.
"employees recently crossed out Black Lives Matter " "[Marc] described the acts as "unacceptable" and "malicious,"" "Zuckerberg states in the memo that the company has launched an investigation to find out who was crossing out Black Lives Matter signage."
The complaints are about defacing the wall, not about employees failing to support BLM.
that you don't even know what the reality of that period was or how loud those mouth pieces were is far more telling.
When you don't address any facts, and rant on about how much you hate stoners, you aren't even on topic anymore. But someone pointing it out is the bad guy.
"Officer, he was weaving all over the road, starting and stopping and varying speed unpredictably, ignoring other traffic and signs and lights" "We stopped him and he passed the sobriety tests for all known substances" "Ok then I guess, let him proceed on his way"
That's the current system. What's wrong with it? Oh yeah, everything.
The argument for the 2nd amendment is not about self defense, but liberals tend to frame it that way.
I see the conservatives framing it that way. They want to avoid statements like "I distrust all people and need to be able to shoot them if I want." "The police don't help anyone, so I need to be able to defend myself when they aren't around." "I need a gun to take out the government if they overreach, just like the Forefathers said."
History repeatedly demonstrates that society is never fixed by massive governments. Never, ever, not one time has it happened.
I read it. It looked like the issue was people defacing BLM posts with ALM posts. It wasn't the message that was put up, but the destruction of what other's posted that was the specific objection. Perhaps you need to read your own links.
They pushed so hard because that was the time when crack started to become the scourge in black communities, and wanted the police to do something about it.
At the peak of crack, it was more used by whites than blacks. The publicity around Blacks was vilifying Black people, not crack, and using that as excuse to target Blacks for a colorblind problem. That you reject reality doesn't change it.
Yeah, they mention that you are more likely to be killed with your own gun by a stranger than use it against a stranger in self defense, and all the conservatives lose their shit. You are more likely to accidentally shoot someone than shoot it at someone in self defense. Someone that wants to lengthen their life would be better served by staying away from guns, than believing in the illogical belief they are "safer" with a gun than without.
The liberals are the logical ones around guns, and it's the conservatives who can't muster up logic.
One also can't forget that it was Zuckerburg that threw the hissyfit over "all lives matter" because people think that "black lives matter" is BS.
I don't know the details of that, but it seemed he was against vandalism.
If Bob goes to a restaurant and orders food, and everyone else is served, except Bob. If Bob complains to the manager "Bob's food matters" that in no way means that anyone else's food doesn't matter. But Bob see's Bob's food has a problem.
Why is it the job of Mary, who is eating her food, to complain that Bob shouldn't be allowed to complain? If Susan didn't get her food, why should she complain to the manager that Bob shouldn't get his food, because as long as there's at least one other unserved person in the restaurant, Bob deserves to starve?
Nope, none of the "all lives matter" complaints are logical, except racism. Black lives matter, but white lives matter more.
Nah, the Liberals are so used to it, they stopped complaining. The conservatives own the media (the traditional media at least) and complain endlessly about how they cover themselves.
Must be the same reason that vote fraud (especially when illegal immigrants vote) overwhelmingly favors Democrats.
Yet it's always the Democrats that are pushing for vote fraud reduction, and Republicans putting in Diebold and such, while claiming there's no voter fraud..
And yeah, "decision making skills". Sounds like something that can be tested objectively on a road side. Here's my idea: "Sir, there's a baby and a bag of Fritos on the train track, which do you save?"
So because you are an idiot, it must be hard. That you don't understand doesn't mean it's hard.
I'd rather have a few safe-to-drive stoners go without their Cheetos than err on the side of killing people. Call me crazy.
You are crazy. Stoners are safer than sober drivers. The problem is idiots like you applying alcohol assumptions on pot. The studies all show that a stoned person is safe. Alcohol is a killer because drunk people under-estimate their impairment and drive worse, while impaired. Stoners over-estimate their impairment. And to they over-compensate, driving more safely than a sober person.
That you are an idiot doesn't mean it's unsafe. About 50% of people have tried pot. The number of deaths while high on marijuana is so low as to be unmeasured (rounds to zero in federal aggregate numbers). So you are working really hard to hate on stoners, with no facts to base your hatred on.
Feel free to counter with facts to support your paranoia. Are you sure you aren't high?
This is unrelated to OBL and 9/11. This started under McCarthy (if not earlier) and got big boosts under Nixon and Reagan under the guise of anti-drug movements. Sure, OBL and 9/11 was a recent boost, but the short hair has been growing for almost 100 years.
Remember employees making iphones killing themselves,
Nope, because it was never a problem. The peak of suicides was close to the average suicide level in a US high school, and most of those complaining about the suicide rates in China (are in the US and) don't care about US high schools, so it can't be that bad.
And the average suicide level of all those working for Foxconn in China is less than the suicide rate in the US. So based on the "suicide because of conditions" theory, the average person in the US has a lower quality of life than a Foxconn worker.
The other is (assuming this is used as a basis for a conviction) people could be penalised for having a bad day for some reason, without realising it is impairing their driving.
Such as the people that get pulled over for DUI driving home the night after drinking, not realizing they still have alcohol in their blood? Or the people who had some second hand exposure to drugs, and test positive without knowing they would fail a drug test?
I've driven sick. Flu, couldn't walk, almost passing out flu. I knew I was impaired. It didn't matter. "I had a bad day" is a valid justification for risking the lives of others. When you absolutely have to go somewhere and your choice is a cab you can't afford, or drive unsafely, people will drive, and your excuses will legalize murder.
If the test were simplified enough, you could build in a game that you have to play to unlock your car.
While on the one hand it may be reasonable to take people off the road in this case, I do think it would be unfair to convict people for crossing a line, if they can't reasonably know that they may have crossed it.
Many (most?) impairments are self correcting. The drowsy driver usually perks up between when they are observed driving poorly and when the cop is standing beside them, checking their alertness. The same happens in stressful times.
If you can't measure the impairment, why are you assuming one is there based on a chemical? If you can measure the impairment, why are you giving them a license to kill because you feel sorry for them?
Yeah, you measure reflexes and decision making skills, and take them off the road if they are unsafe.
But doing so would make AARP and voters mad, and we all know stoners don't bother to vote, so you make up arbitrary (and wrong) limits for chemicals, not related to the safety of the driver. Great system.
One of the complaints about them is that they were only 3 days apart. This didn't give Japan enough time to surrender. But 3 days apart was deliberate in order to "prove" they could be delivered 100 or so a year, if Japan didn't surrender. If Japan hadn't surrendered, it'd have been months after Nagasaki to the next bombing. So Nagasaki was a bluff. The US wouldn't have halted the invasion to wait a year for more. Russia was making inroads into Japan-occupied China, and the US would have wanted to invade Japan as quickly as possible to ensure Russia had no hand in Japan's reconstruction.
There is no plausible argument that the US would have held up military action waiting on an atomic bomb after Nagasaki. Sure, if the war lasted more than 1 more year, we'd end up dropping them again, but that's unrelated to whether Nagasaki was a bluff.
there was at least a negotiation going on and progress was being made.
There was no progress. As outlying islands were being captured (at great cost to both sides), the terms were static. As the Russians were pushing into Manchuria, the terms were static. The "surrender" had terms that looked like a cease-fire, and were unrelated to any "surrender" terms previously negotiated. And they were quite static, before and after Hiroshima. It wasn't until after Nagasaki where the terms changed significantly from the terms offered from long before.
By the point the first bomb was dropped the writing was on the wall.
The writing was that Japan would lose, and Japan would take every last "invader" with them. That was the static writing on the wall for a very long time and didn't change until after Nagasaki, when Japan finally realized there was a way that they could lose without the opportunity of killing millions of invaders.
Japan called the bluff of the first one (that wasn't a bluff) and didn't call the bluff of the second (that really was a bluff). That they were so absurdly wrong on both counts leads to both sides lying about it as much as possible to spin reality.
Yes, that's what libertarians say whenever anyone ever talks about them. There are no libertarians, just people who claim that intermittently to try to make a point through fraud and lies.
The way copyright works, and fonts are copyrighted, is that new works based on previous works have a new copyright. So if Google "tweaked" a previous font, Google owns the copyright on the resultant font (as well as the owners of the previous font, if Google did so without permission or proper license).
So, even if you are 100% right on the origin of the font, that in no way supports your implied conclusion that Google has no grounds.
Anyone who knows it's going to happen could just ground their line and draw as much power as their circuit will allow, and generate money burning electricity. So a better system is a buyback number based on a loaded average of the draw price. So you never go "negative" but can hit zero. But the idea of negative price is correct, but can't work because people would game the system.
This is how it's supposed to work. Renewables are often less predictable. So have a realtime bidding service, and when it's "negative" use as much as you can to charge batteries, then when the number is positive again, get paid to push electricity back into the grid. This will subsidize people buying batteries, which will smooth out the distribution of less predictable power sources. It's working as designed, just without batteries in place, yet. Charge your car at cheap times, and feed the grid at expensive times (from car or home). Win for all, and great for the environment.
At any rate, even after the first bomb, the Japanese government dithered on whether to surrender unconditionally.
There are official communications within the government that indicated the military leaders insisted Hiroshima wasn't a nuclear bomb. It was a large-scale conventional bombing (like Dresden) with a dirty bomb at the end, to make it look nuclear. The radiation levels were lower than expected, and the destruction less (see the modern day conspiracy theorists that insist there are no atom bombs), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... was still standing and was near ground-zero. The destruciton wasn't dissimilar to a conventional bombing, with scattered buildings left standing.
Japan surrendered both before and after Hiroshima. Though every surrender before Nagasaki included the conditions that the Japanese government be left as-was (including domination by the military in civilian affairs), and nobody be tried for war crimes. Both of those were unacceptable conditions at the time.
The car rolled (endo). The damage to the front didn't go into the passenger compartment. It looks like the door opened without help. Something most cars wouldn't have done with that damage.
Slashdot Mirror
. I hate to break it to you, but you are confusing people who call themselves conservatives to get votes (and the people pandering to them) with a real Conservative.
No true conservative. What do the true conservative say the reason for the 2nd Amendment is, and how that's relevant in today's society?
Every single a Republic that has been created starts small and works very well. Bloat and corruption occur, and there is a reset. Again, history is your friend here.
So armed revolution is the only means to create an efficient government? Then Somalia should have the most efficient government, with armed revolts daily. You are also saying that a small government is inherently unstable and collapses eventually. So why shouldn't we try something different? Can you even define "republic"?
Because Blacks kill more Blacks than police kill Blacks proves blacks are evil killers of their own kind. Because whites kill more whites than police kill whites, it's proof that the police are kind, benevolent and peaceful. It's a hilarious double standard.
Read it again,
"employees recently crossed out Black Lives Matter "
"[Marc] described the acts as "unacceptable" and "malicious,""
"Zuckerberg states in the memo that the company has launched an investigation to find out who was crossing out Black Lives Matter signage."
The complaints are about defacing the wall, not about employees failing to support BLM.
that you don't even know what the reality of that period was or how loud those mouth pieces were is far more telling.
I lived it. Your recollection needs work.
When you don't address any facts, and rant on about how much you hate stoners, you aren't even on topic anymore. But someone pointing it out is the bad guy.
"Officer, he was weaving all over the road, starting and stopping and varying speed unpredictably, ignoring other traffic and signs and lights" "We stopped him and he passed the sobriety tests for all known substances" "Ok then I guess, let him proceed on his way"
That's the current system. What's wrong with it? Oh yeah, everything.
The argument for the 2nd amendment is not about self defense, but liberals tend to frame it that way.
I see the conservatives framing it that way. They want to avoid statements like "I distrust all people and need to be able to shoot them if I want." "The police don't help anyone, so I need to be able to defend myself when they aren't around." "I need a gun to take out the government if they overreach, just like the Forefathers said."
History repeatedly demonstrates that society is never fixed by massive governments. Never, ever, not one time has it happened.
And when has it been "fixed" by small government?
They pushed so hard because that was the time when crack started to become the scourge in black communities, and wanted the police to do something about it.
At the peak of crack, it was more used by whites than blacks. The publicity around Blacks was vilifying Black people, not crack, and using that as excuse to target Blacks for a colorblind problem. That you reject reality doesn't change it.
Yeah, they mention that you are more likely to be killed with your own gun by a stranger than use it against a stranger in self defense, and all the conservatives lose their shit. You are more likely to accidentally shoot someone than shoot it at someone in self defense. Someone that wants to lengthen their life would be better served by staying away from guns, than believing in the illogical belief they are "safer" with a gun than without.
The liberals are the logical ones around guns, and it's the conservatives who can't muster up logic.
One also can't forget that it was Zuckerburg that threw the hissyfit over "all lives matter" because people think that "black lives matter" is BS.
I don't know the details of that, but it seemed he was against vandalism.
If Bob goes to a restaurant and orders food, and everyone else is served, except Bob. If Bob complains to the manager "Bob's food matters" that in no way means that anyone else's food doesn't matter. But Bob see's Bob's food has a problem.
Why is it the job of Mary, who is eating her food, to complain that Bob shouldn't be allowed to complain? If Susan didn't get her food, why should she complain to the manager that Bob shouldn't get his food, because as long as there's at least one other unserved person in the restaurant, Bob deserves to starve?
Nope, none of the "all lives matter" complaints are logical, except racism. Black lives matter, but white lives matter more.
Must be the same reason that vote fraud (especially when illegal immigrants vote) overwhelmingly favors Democrats.
Yet it's always the Democrats that are pushing for vote fraud reduction, and Republicans putting in Diebold and such, while claiming there's no voter fraud..
And yeah, "decision making skills". Sounds like something that can be tested objectively on a road side. Here's my idea: "Sir, there's a baby and a bag of Fritos on the train track, which do you save?"
So because you are an idiot, it must be hard. That you don't understand doesn't mean it's hard.
I'd rather have a few safe-to-drive stoners go without their Cheetos than err on the side of killing people. Call me crazy.
You are crazy. Stoners are safer than sober drivers. The problem is idiots like you applying alcohol assumptions on pot. The studies all show that a stoned person is safe. Alcohol is a killer because drunk people under-estimate their impairment and drive worse, while impaired. Stoners over-estimate their impairment. And to they over-compensate, driving more safely than a sober person.
That you are an idiot doesn't mean it's unsafe. About 50% of people have tried pot. The number of deaths while high on marijuana is so low as to be unmeasured (rounds to zero in federal aggregate numbers). So you are working really hard to hate on stoners, with no facts to base your hatred on.
Feel free to counter with facts to support your paranoia. Are you sure you aren't high?
This is unrelated to OBL and 9/11. This started under McCarthy (if not earlier) and got big boosts under Nixon and Reagan under the guise of anti-drug movements. Sure, OBL and 9/11 was a recent boost, but the short hair has been growing for almost 100 years.
Remember employees making iphones killing themselves,
Nope, because it was never a problem. The peak of suicides was close to the average suicide level in a US high school, and most of those complaining about the suicide rates in China (are in the US and) don't care about US high schools, so it can't be that bad.
And the average suicide level of all those working for Foxconn in China is less than the suicide rate in the US. So based on the "suicide because of conditions" theory, the average person in the US has a lower quality of life than a Foxconn worker.
Taking the suicide clusters and extrapolating is stupid. https://xkcd.com/605/
The other is (assuming this is used as a basis for a conviction) people could be penalised for having a bad day for some reason, without realising it is impairing their driving.
Such as the people that get pulled over for DUI driving home the night after drinking, not realizing they still have alcohol in their blood? Or the people who had some second hand exposure to drugs, and test positive without knowing they would fail a drug test?
I've driven sick. Flu, couldn't walk, almost passing out flu. I knew I was impaired. It didn't matter. "I had a bad day" is a valid justification for risking the lives of others. When you absolutely have to go somewhere and your choice is a cab you can't afford, or drive unsafely, people will drive, and your excuses will legalize murder.
If the test were simplified enough, you could build in a game that you have to play to unlock your car.
While on the one hand it may be reasonable to take people off the road in this case, I do think it would be unfair to convict people for crossing a line, if they can't reasonably know that they may have crossed it.
Many (most?) impairments are self correcting. The drowsy driver usually perks up between when they are observed driving poorly and when the cop is standing beside them, checking their alertness. The same happens in stressful times.
If you can't measure the impairment, why are you assuming one is there based on a chemical? If you can measure the impairment, why are you giving them a license to kill because you feel sorry for them?
But you have to draw the line somewhere.
Yeah, you measure reflexes and decision making skills, and take them off the road if they are unsafe.
But doing so would make AARP and voters mad, and we all know stoners don't bother to vote, so you make up arbitrary (and wrong) limits for chemicals, not related to the safety of the driver. Great system.
One of the complaints about them is that they were only 3 days apart. This didn't give Japan enough time to surrender. But 3 days apart was deliberate in order to "prove" they could be delivered 100 or so a year, if Japan didn't surrender. If Japan hadn't surrendered, it'd have been months after Nagasaki to the next bombing. So Nagasaki was a bluff. The US wouldn't have halted the invasion to wait a year for more. Russia was making inroads into Japan-occupied China, and the US would have wanted to invade Japan as quickly as possible to ensure Russia had no hand in Japan's reconstruction.
There is no plausible argument that the US would have held up military action waiting on an atomic bomb after Nagasaki. Sure, if the war lasted more than 1 more year, we'd end up dropping them again, but that's unrelated to whether Nagasaki was a bluff.
there was at least a negotiation going on and progress was being made.
There was no progress. As outlying islands were being captured (at great cost to both sides), the terms were static. As the Russians were pushing into Manchuria, the terms were static. The "surrender" had terms that looked like a cease-fire, and were unrelated to any "surrender" terms previously negotiated. And they were quite static, before and after Hiroshima. It wasn't until after Nagasaki where the terms changed significantly from the terms offered from long before.
By the point the first bomb was dropped the writing was on the wall.
The writing was that Japan would lose, and Japan would take every last "invader" with them. That was the static writing on the wall for a very long time and didn't change until after Nagasaki, when Japan finally realized there was a way that they could lose without the opportunity of killing millions of invaders.
Japan called the bluff of the first one (that wasn't a bluff) and didn't call the bluff of the second (that really was a bluff). That they were so absurdly wrong on both counts leads to both sides lying about it as much as possible to spin reality.
Yes, that's what libertarians say whenever anyone ever talks about them. There are no libertarians, just people who claim that intermittently to try to make a point through fraud and lies.
The way copyright works, and fonts are copyrighted, is that new works based on previous works have a new copyright. So if Google "tweaked" a previous font, Google owns the copyright on the resultant font (as well as the owners of the previous font, if Google did so without permission or proper license).
So, even if you are 100% right on the origin of the font, that in no way supports your implied conclusion that Google has no grounds.
No, I want energy to be handled in a manner that reflects true costs, and encourages energy storage.
Anyone who knows it's going to happen could just ground their line and draw as much power as their circuit will allow, and generate money burning electricity. So a better system is a buyback number based on a loaded average of the draw price. So you never go "negative" but can hit zero. But the idea of negative price is correct, but can't work because people would game the system.
This is how it's supposed to work. Renewables are often less predictable. So have a realtime bidding service, and when it's "negative" use as much as you can to charge batteries, then when the number is positive again, get paid to push electricity back into the grid. This will subsidize people buying batteries, which will smooth out the distribution of less predictable power sources. It's working as designed, just without batteries in place, yet. Charge your car at cheap times, and feed the grid at expensive times (from car or home). Win for all, and great for the environment.
At any rate, even after the first bomb, the Japanese government dithered on whether to surrender unconditionally.
There are official communications within the government that indicated the military leaders insisted Hiroshima wasn't a nuclear bomb. It was a large-scale conventional bombing (like Dresden) with a dirty bomb at the end, to make it look nuclear. The radiation levels were lower than expected, and the destruction less (see the modern day conspiracy theorists that insist there are no atom bombs), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... was still standing and was near ground-zero. The destruciton wasn't dissimilar to a conventional bombing, with scattered buildings left standing.
Japan surrendered both before and after Hiroshima. Though every surrender before Nagasaki included the conditions that the Japanese government be left as-was (including domination by the military in civilian affairs), and nobody be tried for war crimes. Both of those were unacceptable conditions at the time.
Multi-tab, who's to say I wasn't.
The car rolled (endo). The damage to the front didn't go into the passenger compartment. It looks like the door opened without help. Something most cars wouldn't have done with that damage.