Is choking a sign of missing intelligence? Are you saying that no one smart has ever choked on food? Sounds like you are trying to make a personal attack for political gain. That means you are a dick.
Is he starting an underfunded, ill conceived war while cutting taxes for the wealthy and destroying a budget surplus?
A quick glance at the Constitution will show you that Congress controls funding.
Is he suspending basic rights like habeas corpus and performing searches and seizures without warrants?
Are you trying to compare Obama to Lincoln? Do you know anyone that has their habeas corpus rights violated? Have the Feds kicked in your door and searched your house? Has this happened to anyone you know? No? The STFU!
Is he staffing FEMA with idiots, and then doing nothing while they fuck up a hurricane response?
Don't know yet. We have yet to see how Obama responds. As for Katrina itself, that was a major failure of the Governor of Louisiana and the Mayor of New Orleans. See, GW was a states' rights kinda guy. He extended the power of the federal government to the Governor and Mayor and they both refused help until the shit hit the fan. Then they were quick to blame the federal government for failing to take over Louisiana militarily. Wait, weren't you just bitching about GWB abusing power in your last question? Now you're bitching because he didn't abuse it enough? Make up your mind!
Is he nominating some inexperienced random woman for the Supreme Court?
Yes! Yes he did. Well, Sonia Sotomayor was not as experienced as she could have been. But she was nominated because evidently, people of a particular gender and race have life experiences that make them automatically qualified. Wait! I thought it was racist to claim that you were entitled because of your skin color? Oh, that's right. Only white people are racist (yes, I realize that saying so is actually racist. It was sarcasm that you wouldn't get because you agree with that statement.)
Is he standing on an aircraft carrier during some publicity stunt, claiming mission accomplished and the end of combat operations WEEKS into a war that has now lasted seven years?
Wait. Are you saying that mission=war? Really? You know, for the men and women on that aircraft carrier, the mission was accomplished. And it was them who hung that banner, not the president. As a veteran, I can tell you that there is a huge difference. I completed many missions and received medals for doing so, well before the war was actually over.
But, hey! Let's not let facts and definitions get in the way of your politically based rant. You don't want the truth to invalidate your hate, now do you?
You like many others miss a vary important clause in the 10th Amendment, "or to the people". Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People [usconstitution.net]. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Ummm... "to the People" does not mean "back to the feds". It means the people themselves, as in "The people have the power to get their own fucking health care if the State governments won't provide it."
Libertarians yes. But not conservatives. Many are fiscally conservatives who will make laws restricting civil rights.
Yes, there are some "evangelicals", but for the most part, conservatives, like libertarians would be happy if the federal government just leaves them the hell alone. The difference between libertarians and conservatives is that libertarians take it a bit further. For example, doing away with the Fed would be a libertarian ideal, but not so much a conservative one. Eliminating foreign aid and bringing, withdrawing from NATO and the UN and bringing all troops home would be a libertarian ideal.
I agree with you about liberals. I would probably be one if pseudo-Communists hadn't taken the idea over. When the ACLU interprets the Second and Tenth Amendments as loosely as they do the First and defend them as vigorously, they will truly be a Liberal organization. Until then, they are just political hacks.
okay by your reasoning then we should approve any project that falls under say 1% of the total US budget because it's insignificant compared to the total? this argument is used a lot to justify all sorts of spending and is of course invalid.
Actually he was just commenting on your assumption that spending money on manned exploration would cause our people to starve and politely saying that it is absolute bullshit. Don't put words in his mouth.
So where are all those "less government" types today?
Just cut taxes. That'll pay for it.
Actually, the latest round of tax cutting actually raised government revenue. So when you say, "Just cut taxes. That'll pay for it.", you're actually very close to the truth.
As for the "less government" part, the people you are targeting do not necessarily believe in "less government". What they really mean is "less federal government interference in our lives". See, most Libertarians and Conservatives are not anti-government, they are pro-Constitution. You can't read the Constitution without reading the 10th Amendment, which states that any powers that are not specifically spelled out in the Constitution to be federal powers are reserved for the states. So if the good people in your state want to live in a nanny state, they may. If the people in my state value freedom over the security of a safety net, they may have that too. If you live in my state, you are free to move to a state that provides the Big Brother style of government that you desire. For example, if you want government run health care your state won't offer it, move to Massachusetts. That way, you can live where you get your health care and pay for it and I can live where I have to provide my own health care and pay for it. We both get to choose how we live. Isn't that what freedom is all about?
Where does NASA come in? NASA is used extensively by the military, and should therefor receive federal government funding. The GPS system is a fine example. Also, the federal government has the power to enter treaties with other countries, like to build and maintain a space station. So much of the federal funding for NASA is Constitutional and not a problem with the "less government types" you asked about.
Thank god at least one elected official has some sense of priorities...
Am I the only one here that remembers that those "Brown People", as you call them, from Afghanistan killed us first? You can argue Iraq all day, but we were attacked by people indoctrinated, trained, and equipped in Afghanistan. When we are attacked, we respond. If you disagree with that, you're nothing more than a fucking momma's boy pussy!
That's right, I just called you and anyone else who has a problem with us in Afghanistan, a momma's boy pussy. See, I can do that because if you don't think we should fight back when someone kills 3000 of our civilians, then you certainly won't respond when someone calls you names, especially when they are true. If you did, you'd be a hypocrite, liar and a momma's boy pussy.
I'm writing a driver for it to support the anal dildos i'm going to jam into your asshole.
What port does that plug into....?
OH wait, never mind.
Would you really need a driver for that? Wait, what kind of "driver" are we talking about here? Would a mallet work? Kinda gives "RAM-drive" a new meaning, eh?
Nice try - but as reality shows, opening data to deniers just leads to them either cherry-picking or totally ignoring it. And the article you linked to is the proof. As well as the Read Me - you didn't even notice that it has nothing to do with climate modelling, did you?
When reviewing code, cherry picking is accepted. For that matter, cherry picking is really the only way to evaluate it.
For example, let's say that I find an error in the code that evaluates tree-ring based temperature data. Let's say that data is used to determine the temperature for the past 10,000 years. If that data is off, it throws off the entire model. You really can't judge a trend if your historical data is off. And we're not talking about tens do degrees C here, but tenths or hundredths of a single degree. So if looking at the rings of trees is a single degree off, the whole model becomes bunk. And that is just a single piece of the puzzle. This is true for any of the many different methods used for determining historical climate data. If any of the pieces are off, the whole model is bunk. Since each portion of the model is built upon the last, any errors can throw the entire thing off. This is why cherry picking is a good thing.
You seem to have doubts. It's not really your fault I suppose. You've been badly mislead by questionable "science" paid for by oil companies. And you want to disbelieve. Admit it, you want to believe everything is hunky dory, that you won't have to change a thing. You are afraid of change, so afraid that you prefer to deny that there is a problem. You start reaching, saying that climate change is a bunch of hooey, a plot of liberal scientists, and you jump up and down pointing at the East Anglia idiots as evidence. Yes, those East Anglia people screwed up. You go on about them, but why aren't you screaming about the oil companies, particularly Exxon, and their lying? What is your problem? You don't actually believe an organization like Exxon, which so obviously puts what it perceives to be its own interests first?
So let me bet this straight: Scientists have been proven to fake data in order to forward their career, and you try to blame Exxon? Really? Look, I'm not saying that "climate change is a bunch of hooey", of course the climate is changing. The climate has always changed and IT ALWAYS WILL. That's not what I"m saying at all. What I am saying is that so many people have such little understanding. They use the past decade's data to try to point to a trend when trends are actually HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS years long. These are the same people who are trying to pass laws to take away my rights. What I am saying is that we are not sure what the climate will do in 50 years, much less 500,000 years. Besides, a caveman eating mastodon in a cave 100,000 years ago didn't give a rats ass if the fire he was using to cook with were going to cause my life to be.00000001 degrees warmer. He was worried about eating. Right now, I'm worried about defending my liberties and keeping a roof over my little girl's head. I don't give a rats ass as to what the temperature will be for her great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandkids! And I'm certainly not going to give up on my rights based on conclusions that I find dubious at best. (Government pays for a study. Study says that government needs more power... hmmm. and you're really OK with that?)
And what have you to say about the change in CO2 levels? Currently 380 ppm, and climbing, versus 280 ppm for millions of years. Steady for millions of years, then a climb starting around 1750, the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution. We are putting CO2 into the air faster than the world can take it out. Yes, we are the reason that is happening. And yes, such a change in the atmosphere does have effects. You don't need to believe a bunch of scientists to be able to see this could be big trouble.
Really? Because THIS site shows that the number has been increasing for the past 25,000 years or so, not just since 1750. It also shows a clear pattern of CO2 levels rising and falling in roughly 100,000 year cycles.
Don't you think that it's a bit conceited to look at a something that has happened at least five times in the past and suddenly deciding that THIS time, it's because of something you did?
And yeah, I know the site actually echoes your point, but I don't think you, nor the site's author gets it. Seriously, if it rains every 10th day, and has for hundreds of years, if you do a dance on the 9th day one day, does that mean that your dance caused it to rain? Probably not.
And finally, the earth's CO2 levels have been MUCH higher than they are today. For that matter, earth's early atmosphere had no free oxygen in it. It took billions of years to get O2 into our atmosphere. And you're really going to say that the earth has never had more CO2 in the atmosphere? You sure about that?
Problem is that modern democracy is too far in the other direction.
Are you saying that we have too many rights?
Very little gets done because it might interfere with what the uneducated masses think is best for them.
First, the very fact that you would say such thing makes you an elitist dick. But putting that aside... There will always be someone more educated than you that thinks they know what is better for you than you do. Sometimes, it's something as simple as turning your thermostat a degree or two warmer. Sometimes, it's aborting your child without giving you a say. Always, it's because someone who thinks they are smarter than you decided to take it upon themselves to make decisions for you. Every time it happens, you lose a little more control of your own life, your own destiny. Every time it happens, you become less and less of a person and more and more like livestock. Of course, we know what's best for our livestock, but would you like to be led to slaughter house?
It's predicted that the human population will reach 9 billion by 2040. That rate of growth simply cannot be sustained indefinitely, and by ignoring the problem we are condemning our descendants to a life of food and water shortages -- and not just those living in third world countries.
Where have heard those warnings before? Aren't you glad we didn't give up our rights over the warnings then? I'm certainly glad that the previous generations were smarter than you were. Maybe you should call your grandma and give her complete control over your life since you think that it's OK for the smarter to control the less intelligent like yourself.
Fact is, we will either adapt or we will die. If adapting means I have the same rights as cattle, then I'd rather die.
What you think the words he uses to link the page represent a reasoned analysis and a sincere attempt to understand what he linked to? Ha! Not a chance. It's "Climategate" and the name alone proves it's all a fraud, that's all he needs to know, contrary facts need not apply.
All I need to know is that the data that didn't help prove the preconceived conclusion was thrown out. I know that the data that was left was included in the IPCC report. I know that the IPCC report is used to create policy, policies by governments you are so willing to give up your rights to. Sorry, but I'm not giving up my rights so easily.
...contrary facts need not apply.
That's the exact same thing the "Climategate" guys said when they saw data contrary to their models.
This has actually been the hottest decade on record [earthpolicy.org], with 9 of the 10 warmest years on record occurring in it. 2008 was the exception (which is why you folks like to pick it and only it and not look at any other year in the decade), then 2009 was the 2nd hottest, and the warmest year on record, 2005, occurring right near the solar minimum you linked to yourself!
Says who? Sorry, but I'm not buying the whole "hottest time period in history" crap anymore. Not only has the data that points to current climate been manipulated, but so has the data that makes up historical climate. Sorry, but I ain't buying it anymore until someone else without an ax to grind starts all over. I know it sux, but that is what happens when "scientists" believe their own ego over the data. True scientists get excited when they are proven wrong. It means they are about to learn something new.
Also, the climate has always changed. Grapes were once grown in England and the Thames was once frozen solid. In other words, it has been hotter than it's been now, regardless of the supposed "hottest decade crap", and it's been colder before. Right now, we are in a pretty average climate, if there was such a thing, as the climate is always in fluctuation. There was a time when the earth was a giant ball of fire and other times when it was ice from pole to pole. There is no such thing as "normal climate".
What's patently ludicrous is that so many people are incapable of understanding something that is not uniform and monotonic, and that a blizzard does not disprove Global Warming. What's equally ridiculous is that scientists actually decided to change the name to accommodate your simplistic thinking. I'll admit that over the twenty years of hearing "Ha! We had a record snow today, 'Global Warming' my ass!" I'm pretty sick of explaining this simple fact. But obviously the name change was pointless -- it's not that you don't understand, it's that you don't want to. Which is why you're repeating twenty year old falsehoods.
No, what is patently ludicrous is someone lecturing others over misunderstanding the time scales of "climate change" who thinks that a decade makes a trend. Climate changes doesn't happen over decades. It happens over tens of thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of years. It is enough time for rivers to get blocked by ice dams, only to break through and flood enough area to make up entire states, wiping out everything in its path, only to do it over and over and over again. We are talking time periods long enough for entire lush forests to grow back before the ice dam breaks and floods the region, destroying everything in the path all over again.
If that doesn't help you understand the time scales involved, think of this this way; even evolution is faster than climate change. Various climate ages have lasted long enough for species to adapt to the new climate, becoming completely new species and populate entire continents, only to become extinct after the climate changes again. And yet, this guy is talking about a hot decade. Call me when it hasn't snowed in a millennium and you may prove a small warming trend. Call me when Missouri has been under a glacier a mile thick for 10000 years and you'll have a trend.
So, please, don't lecture anyone about the time scales of climate change. You haven't quite have the grasp of it yet. Maybe you just don't want to, which is why you keep repeating 20-year old falsehoods.
Gene patents were always dubious to me, however patents on gene detection methods and kits should be fully capable of obtaining patent protection. It's like copyrights on facts vs collections.
I agree. How can you patent something that already exists? It would be like discovering some previously unknown roach and slapping a patent on it. Could you charge everyone whose home gets infested by these things? It's not like you invented it. You simply found it. Genes are in every single cell in our body. You can't patent them.
Now if you were to discover a gene sequence that does not naturally occur in nature... patent away. That might be pretty cool.
None of the people on the right seem to notice that a majority of people voted to get rid of their failing philosophies.
Conservative philosophies did not fail. For starters, any government that spends more than it makes is not conservative. Bush, and the two years of Republican controlled congress, were not conservative. Conservatives are economic Libertarians with relatively puritan social views.
However, even if Bush was a true conservative, the president does not control the purse strings. Congress controls the purse strings. The few years that Republicans controlled Congress, the economy boomed. It was not until Democrats took control of congress that things went to the crapper where they still are today. The only that has changed since then is Democrats have more control of congress and now the White House as well. Things have only gotten worse.
So, the problem was not a failure of conservative principles that failed, but a failure of American understand of who controls the economy and how government works as a whole.
Also, one could say that the American people choose to have actual public health care when we voted for Obama.
No. The American people voted for "change". Not change from freedom to socialism, but change from R to D, nothing more. If Americans wanted socialized medicine, Scott Brown would not have won a senate seat from one of the most liberal states in the country.
I could turn around your logic and say that they want to impose their views on me, and on people who can't get insurance for whatever reasons.
If there were no other countries that offered socialized medicine, you would have a point. But that's not the case. As a matter of fact, it's the opposite. There are no developed countries that do NOT offer socialized medicine except for the US. Think of it this way. We are in a seafood restaurant. Every other restaurant is a burger joint. You are in the seafood restaurant with us, but you want a burger. So instead of going to a burger joint and leaving us to our seafood, you and others like you decide to turn the seafood restaurant into a burger joint, just like every other restaurant in town. So now, you get your burger. We all get burger. Even though you could have gotten burger elsewhere, you decided that because you wanted burger, that everyone should have burger no matter what they think they wanted before.
And you really don't know why we are pissed off?
Because you think your opinion is more valid than someone else's?
It's not about my opinion. It's about my decisions. And yes, when that decision concerns me and my family, it IS more valid than everyone else's. I don't pretend to know what is best for you and yours and I would like the same courtesy from you.
Modern Americans are myopic, you forget. We are completely incapable of learning from our past mistakes, or the successes of our neighbors. This is in part because of what I call the American tautology, "America is #1, because we do everything better; we do everything better because America is #1". This line of thought completely blinds us to the fact that there are other countries doing MUCH better than us on every metric currently.
Also we have retroactively read Ayn Rand into our funding documents, so we can justify being as greedy and sociopathic as we want without any of the pesky guilt or empathy. We also decided that social darwinism is valid, for the same reasons.
Sorry for the bitter tone, I've pretty much given up having all hope for America, in a generation or two we will be a 3rd world country, sooner if we adopt libertarianism, or the prevalent hawkish, conservative, theology movement.
Well, since "there are other countries doing MUCH better than us on every metric currently", and you are so much smarter than the rest of us, you are free to move to one of these intellectual Utopias and live among your own, enlightened kind. There is really no point in hanging around with us mental midgets.
You say it as if there is something wrong with that. Sorry, you owe your success and productivity to the society that allowed you to come into existence and be successful and productive, and you are going to pay back into that society and to future generations and to the less fortunate. Ideally everyone would do this willingly, but, well there are too many people like you for that to work.
Yeah, there is something wrong with that. See, unless you are the absolute poorest person in the whole world, there is always someone poorer than yourself. So until you've given all you have to them, you have no right to take my stuff when you still have stuff of your own to give away.
I do provide an answer. I can provide dozens of successful nations working as I described, and working well. You'll find them in Europe and Asia (not China, think Japan or South Korea). It's been proven to my satisfaction that the way you describe things working is false in practice, and that collecting taxes and using that to provide a minimum standard of living and safety net (things such as universal health care and education) for the worst off in society is a better way to run things. Moreover, it's the morally superior way to do things, as it recognizes the humanity and dignity of everyone, not just the wealthy or the lucky.
It's not a matter of being successful. Any country that hasn't outright collapsed yet is "successful".
What matters is choice. I can appreciate that you may feel differently. It is your right to disagree. It is also your right to move to any of the countries that feel are better. That's what choice is all about.
See, you have the choice to move to a developed country with gov't provided health care. The US is the only developed, "free" country without gov't provided health care and I and the majority of Americans like it that way. I like my options. Many Americans like having the options that we have.
Unfortunately, instead of you moving to a country that has gov't health care and leaving the system that we like alone, you have to change OUR system, so that we are like everyone else. You currently have the option. You are free to move to wherever you like and we can all be happy. You will have the system you want and we get to keep the system we want. Instead, you are hell bent on taking the option away from me because you feel like you know what is best for me.
Do you know what would be even better? If the states could choose to have gov't run health care or not. That way, a state like Mass could have gov't provided health care and the good people of Alaska wouldn't have to help pay for it. See, there is absolutely no reason why states could not do this on their own. I used Mass as an example because THEY ACTUALLY DID IT!!!! If you wanted gov't run health care, you were free to move to Boston to get it and leave my health care alone! You could pester your local state legislature until they passed a similar provision for your very own state. Hell, you could have even made it better! And it would leave my health care just how I want it, with the choice in my hands. You could have it your way and I could have it mine. Please, tell me what would be wrong with that? Why does there need to be a federal plan that forces it on everyone, want it or not, when there could be state plans for those that want it and none for those that don't. (BTW, the idea came from the 10th Amendment, so I can't really say it's my own. You'll find it in The Bill of Rights in the US Constitution under "Amendment X")
Borders and nations are artificial, man-made. They enforce a low-brow, low-IQ "us vs. them"' mentality and thus belong in the dark ages.
Let's see how fast this gets modded down as a troll.
Really? I thought borders were to show where one government's laws end and another's begin. You know, there are governments that will force you to pray five times a day, by killing you and your family if you don't, right? Provided that those governments exist at the will of the people, I'm OK with that. But where does that government no longer have the right to force YOU to pray to Allah five times a day?
You just got the right to healthcare, but do you really want that going to illegal immigrants?
Yes.
Then YOU should provide healthcare for illegal immigrants. That's the beauty of a free country. YOU can provide healthcare for illegals if you want to and I can NOT provide healthcare to illegals if I DON'T want to.
Oh, wait. You were talking about taking MY money to pay for healthcare for illegals, weren't you?
So, let me make sure I understand this: Forcing me and everyone else to purchase something does not limit my freedom. Fining me for not purchasing something does not limit my freedom Taking my property and using to purchase goods as services for others does not limit my freedom.
Making me carry a card and suddenly I no long have the ability to speak freely, practice my religion, own a firearm, peaceably assemble or any of the other nine Bill of Rights that the Constitution gives me (The 10th Amendment has been gone for quite some time).
Slashdot Mirror
Did he nearly die choking on a pretzel?
Is choking a sign of missing intelligence? Are you saying that no one smart has ever choked on food? Sounds like you are trying to make a personal attack for political gain. That means you are a dick.
Is he starting an underfunded, ill conceived war while cutting taxes for the wealthy and destroying a budget surplus?
A quick glance at the Constitution will show you that Congress controls funding.
Is he suspending basic rights like habeas corpus and performing searches and seizures without warrants?
Are you trying to compare Obama to Lincoln? Do you know anyone that has their habeas corpus rights violated? Have the Feds kicked in your door and searched your house? Has this happened to anyone you know? No? The STFU!
Is he staffing FEMA with idiots, and then doing nothing while they fuck up a hurricane response?
Don't know yet. We have yet to see how Obama responds. As for Katrina itself, that was a major failure of the Governor of Louisiana and the Mayor of New Orleans. See, GW was a states' rights kinda guy. He extended the power of the federal government to the Governor and Mayor and they both refused help until the shit hit the fan. Then they were quick to blame the federal government for failing to take over Louisiana militarily. Wait, weren't you just bitching about GWB abusing power in your last question? Now you're bitching because he didn't abuse it enough? Make up your mind!
Is he nominating some inexperienced random woman for the Supreme Court?
Yes! Yes he did. Well, Sonia Sotomayor was not as experienced as she could have been. But she was nominated because evidently, people of a particular gender and race have life experiences that make them automatically qualified. Wait! I thought it was racist to claim that you were entitled because of your skin color? Oh, that's right. Only white people are racist (yes, I realize that saying so is actually racist. It was sarcasm that you wouldn't get because you agree with that statement.)
Is he standing on an aircraft carrier during some publicity stunt, claiming mission accomplished and the end of combat operations WEEKS into a war that has now lasted seven years?
Wait. Are you saying that mission=war? Really? You know, for the men and women on that aircraft carrier, the mission was accomplished. And it was them who hung that banner, not the president. As a veteran, I can tell you that there is a huge difference. I completed many missions and received medals for doing so, well before the war was actually over.
But, hey! Let's not let facts and definitions get in the way of your politically based rant. You don't want the truth to invalidate your hate, now do you?
...overgrown iPhone, minus the phone
Apple calls that an iPad.
(sigh!) Forgive me, class, but I have to repeat myself for the "slower" students.
The iPhone without the Phone is called an iPod Touch.
so, please allow me:
...overgrown iPod
Apple calls that an iPad.
There! Fixed that for you.
...iPhone, minus the phone
Apple calls that an iPod Touch.
You like many others miss a vary important clause in the 10th Amendment, "or to the people".
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People [usconstitution.net]. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Ummm... "to the People" does not mean "back to the feds". It means the people themselves, as in "The people have the power to get their own fucking health care if the State governments won't provide it."
Libertarians yes. But not conservatives. Many are fiscally conservatives who will make laws restricting civil rights.
Yes, there are some "evangelicals", but for the most part, conservatives, like libertarians would be happy if the federal government just leaves them the hell alone. The difference between libertarians and conservatives is that libertarians take it a bit further. For example, doing away with the Fed would be a libertarian ideal, but not so much a conservative one. Eliminating foreign aid and bringing, withdrawing from NATO and the UN and bringing all troops home would be a libertarian ideal.
I agree with you about liberals. I would probably be one if pseudo-Communists hadn't taken the idea over. When the ACLU interprets the Second and Tenth Amendments as loosely as they do the First and defend them as vigorously, they will truly be a Liberal organization. Until then, they are just political hacks.
okay by your reasoning then we should approve any project that falls under say 1% of the total US budget because it's insignificant compared to the total? this argument is used a lot to justify all sorts of spending and is of course invalid.
Actually he was just commenting on your assumption that spending money on manned exploration would cause our people to starve and politely saying that it is absolute bullshit. Don't put words in his mouth.
So where are all those "less government" types today?
Just cut taxes. That'll pay for it.
Actually, the latest round of tax cutting actually raised government revenue. So when you say, "Just cut taxes. That'll pay for it.", you're actually very close to the truth.
As for the "less government" part, the people you are targeting do not necessarily believe in "less government". What they really mean is "less federal government interference in our lives". See, most Libertarians and Conservatives are not anti-government, they are pro-Constitution. You can't read the Constitution without reading the 10th Amendment, which states that any powers that are not specifically spelled out in the Constitution to be federal powers are reserved for the states. So if the good people in your state want to live in a nanny state, they may. If the people in my state value freedom over the security of a safety net, they may have that too. If you live in my state, you are free to move to a state that provides the Big Brother style of government that you desire. For example, if you want government run health care your state won't offer it, move to Massachusetts. That way, you can live where you get your health care and pay for it and I can live where I have to provide my own health care and pay for it. We both get to choose how we live. Isn't that what freedom is all about?
Where does NASA come in? NASA is used extensively by the military, and should therefor receive federal government funding. The GPS system is a fine example. Also, the federal government has the power to enter treaties with other countries, like to build and maintain a space station. So much of the federal funding for NASA is Constitutional and not a problem with the "less government types" you asked about.
Thank god at least one elected official has some sense of priorities...
Am I the only one here that remembers that those "Brown People", as you call them, from Afghanistan killed us first? You can argue Iraq all day, but we were attacked by people indoctrinated, trained, and equipped in Afghanistan. When we are attacked, we respond. If you disagree with that, you're nothing more than a fucking momma's boy pussy!
That's right, I just called you and anyone else who has a problem with us in Afghanistan, a momma's boy pussy. See, I can do that because if you don't think we should fight back when someone kills 3000 of our civilians, then you certainly won't respond when someone calls you names, especially when they are true. If you did, you'd be a hypocrite, liar and a momma's boy pussy.
I'm writing a driver for it to support the anal dildos i'm going to jam into your asshole.
What port does that plug into....?
OH wait, never mind.
Would you really need a driver for that? Wait, what kind of "driver" are we talking about here? Would a mallet work? Kinda gives "RAM-drive" a new meaning, eh?
(I better stop)
I can't imagine what sort of take they'll give it especially with Seth Green involved.
Watch some of the old Robot Chicken Star Wars skits. Well worth it.
Could Darth Vader do anything funny?
Yes! See above.
THIS is by far my favorite one.
"What the F#$@ is an aluminum falcon?"
Nice try - but as reality shows, opening data to deniers just leads to them either cherry-picking or totally ignoring it. And the article you linked to is the proof. As well as the Read Me - you didn't even notice that it has nothing to do with climate modelling, did you?
When reviewing code, cherry picking is accepted. For that matter, cherry picking is really the only way to evaluate it.
For example, let's say that I find an error in the code that evaluates tree-ring based temperature data. Let's say that data is used to determine the temperature for the past 10,000 years. If that data is off, it throws off the entire model. You really can't judge a trend if your historical data is off. And we're not talking about tens do degrees C here, but tenths or hundredths of a single degree. So if looking at the rings of trees is a single degree off, the whole model becomes bunk. And that is just a single piece of the puzzle. This is true for any of the many different methods used for determining historical climate data. If any of the pieces are off, the whole model is bunk. Since each portion of the model is built upon the last, any errors can throw the entire thing off. This is why cherry picking is a good thing.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_James_Olmos
If people were to make that mistake, it may be due to the actor who portrayed him, who was (and might still be) Mexican.
I thought Olmos was Tauren.
You seem to have doubts. It's not really your fault I suppose. You've been badly mislead by questionable "science" paid for by oil companies. And you want to disbelieve. Admit it, you want to believe everything is hunky dory, that you won't have to change a thing. You are afraid of change, so afraid that you prefer to deny that there is a problem. You start reaching, saying that climate change is a bunch of hooey, a plot of liberal scientists, and you jump up and down pointing at the East Anglia idiots as evidence. Yes, those East Anglia people screwed up. You go on about them, but why aren't you screaming about the oil companies, particularly Exxon, and their lying? What is your problem? You don't actually believe an organization like Exxon, which so obviously puts what it perceives to be its own interests first?
So let me bet this straight: Scientists have been proven to fake data in order to forward their career, and you try to blame Exxon? Really? Look, I'm not saying that "climate change is a bunch of hooey", of course the climate is changing. The climate has always changed and IT ALWAYS WILL. That's not what I"m saying at all. What I am saying is that so many people have such little understanding. They use the past decade's data to try to point to a trend when trends are actually HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS years long. These are the same people who are trying to pass laws to take away my rights. What I am saying is that we are not sure what the climate will do in 50 years, much less 500,000 years. Besides, a caveman eating mastodon in a cave 100,000 years ago didn't give a rats ass if the fire he was using to cook with were going to cause my life to be .00000001 degrees warmer. He was worried about eating. Right now, I'm worried about defending my liberties and keeping a roof over my little girl's head. I don't give a rats ass as to what the temperature will be for her great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandkids! And I'm certainly not going to give up on my rights based on conclusions that I find dubious at best. (Government pays for a study. Study says that government needs more power... hmmm. and you're really OK with that?)
And what have you to say about the change in CO2 levels? Currently 380 ppm, and climbing, versus 280 ppm for millions of years. Steady for millions of years, then a climb starting around 1750, the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution. We are putting CO2 into the air faster than the world can take it out. Yes, we are the reason that is happening. And yes, such a change in the atmosphere does have effects. You don't need to believe a bunch of scientists to be able to see this could be big trouble.
Really? Because THIS site shows that the number has been increasing for the past 25,000 years or so, not just since 1750. It also shows a clear pattern of CO2 levels rising and falling in roughly 100,000 year cycles.
Don't you think that it's a bit conceited to look at a something that has happened at least five times in the past and suddenly deciding that THIS time, it's because of something you did?
And yeah, I know the site actually echoes your point, but I don't think you, nor the site's author gets it. Seriously, if it rains every 10th day, and has for hundreds of years, if you do a dance on the 9th day one day, does that mean that your dance caused it to rain? Probably not.
And finally, the earth's CO2 levels have been MUCH higher than they are today. For that matter, earth's early atmosphere had no free oxygen in it. It took billions of years to get O2 into our atmosphere. And you're really going to say that the earth has never had more CO2 in the atmosphere? You sure about that?
Anakin, is that you?
Problem is that modern democracy is too far in the other direction.
Are you saying that we have too many rights?
Very little gets done because it might interfere with what the uneducated masses think is best for them.
First, the very fact that you would say such thing makes you an elitist dick. But putting that aside...
There will always be someone more educated than you that thinks they know what is better for you than you do. Sometimes, it's something as simple as turning your thermostat a degree or two warmer. Sometimes, it's aborting your child without giving you a say. Always, it's because someone who thinks they are smarter than you decided to take it upon themselves to make decisions for you. Every time it happens, you lose a little more control of your own life, your own destiny. Every time it happens, you become less and less of a person and more and more like livestock. Of course, we know what's best for our livestock, but would you like to be led to slaughter house?
It's predicted that the human population will reach 9 billion by 2040. That rate of growth simply cannot be sustained indefinitely, and by ignoring the problem we are condemning our descendants to a life of food and water shortages -- and not just those living in third world countries.
Where have heard those warnings before? Aren't you glad we didn't give up our rights over the warnings then? I'm certainly glad that the previous generations were smarter than you were. Maybe you should call your grandma and give her complete control over your life since you think that it's OK for the smarter to control the less intelligent like yourself.
Fact is, we will either adapt or we will die. If adapting means I have the same rights as cattle, then I'd rather die.
What you think the words he uses to link the page represent a reasoned analysis and a sincere attempt to understand what he linked to? Ha! Not a chance. It's "Climategate" and the name alone proves it's all a fraud, that's all he needs to know, contrary facts need not apply.
All I need to know is that the data that didn't help prove the preconceived conclusion was thrown out. I know that the data that was left was included in the IPCC report. I know that the IPCC report is used to create policy, policies by governments you are so willing to give up your rights to. Sorry, but I'm not giving up my rights so easily.
...contrary facts need not apply.
That's the exact same thing the "Climategate" guys said when they saw data contrary to their models.
This has actually been the hottest decade on record [earthpolicy.org], with 9 of the 10 warmest years on record occurring in it. 2008 was the exception (which is why you folks like to pick it and only it and not look at any other year in the decade), then 2009 was the 2nd hottest, and the warmest year on record, 2005, occurring right near the solar minimum you linked to yourself!
Says who? Sorry, but I'm not buying the whole "hottest time period in history" crap anymore. Not only has the data that points to current climate been manipulated, but so has the data that makes up historical climate. Sorry, but I ain't buying it anymore until someone else without an ax to grind starts all over. I know it sux, but that is what happens when "scientists" believe their own ego over the data. True scientists get excited when they are proven wrong. It means they are about to learn something new.
Also, the climate has always changed. Grapes were once grown in England and the Thames was once frozen solid. In other words, it has been hotter than it's been now, regardless of the supposed "hottest decade crap", and it's been colder before. Right now, we are in a pretty average climate, if there was such a thing, as the climate is always in fluctuation. There was a time when the earth was a giant ball of fire and other times when it was ice from pole to pole. There is no such thing as "normal climate".
What's patently ludicrous is that so many people are incapable of understanding something that is not uniform and monotonic, and that a blizzard does not disprove Global Warming. What's equally ridiculous is that scientists actually decided to change the name to accommodate your simplistic thinking. I'll admit that over the twenty years of hearing "Ha! We had a record snow today, 'Global Warming' my ass!" I'm pretty sick of explaining this simple fact. But obviously the name change was pointless -- it's not that you don't understand, it's that you don't want to. Which is why you're repeating twenty year old falsehoods.
No, what is patently ludicrous is someone lecturing others over misunderstanding the time scales of "climate change" who thinks that a decade makes a trend. Climate changes doesn't happen over decades. It happens over tens of thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of years. It is enough time for rivers to get blocked by ice dams, only to break through and flood enough area to make up entire states, wiping out everything in its path, only to do it over and over and over again. We are talking time periods long enough for entire lush forests to grow back before the ice dam breaks and floods the region, destroying everything in the path all over again.
If that doesn't help you understand the time scales involved, think of this this way; even evolution is faster than climate change. Various climate ages have lasted long enough for species to adapt to the new climate, becoming completely new species and populate entire continents, only to become extinct after the climate changes again. And yet, this guy is talking about a hot decade. Call me when it hasn't snowed in a millennium and you may prove a small warming trend. Call me when Missouri has been under a glacier a mile thick for 10000 years and you'll have a trend.
So, please, don't lecture anyone about the time scales of climate change. You haven't quite have the grasp of it yet. Maybe you just don't want to, which is why you keep repeating 20-year old falsehoods.
How's that hope and change workin' out for ya?
is parroting Caribou Barbie really the most effective way of doing it?
That is the exact opposite of the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy and it is a logical fallacy all the same.
Does the originator of the quote make it any less true?
Vote.
Run for office.
Rebel.
In other words:
Ballot Box.
Soap Box.
Ammo Box.
Gene patents were always dubious to me, however patents on gene detection methods and kits should be fully capable of obtaining patent protection. It's like copyrights on facts vs collections.
I agree. How can you patent something that already exists? It would be like discovering some previously unknown roach and slapping a patent on it. Could you charge everyone whose home gets infested by these things? It's not like you invented it. You simply found it. Genes are in every single cell in our body. You can't patent them.
Now if you were to discover a gene sequence that does not naturally occur in nature... patent away. That might be pretty cool.
One other thing I forgot to comment on:
None of the people on the right seem to notice that a majority of people voted to get rid of their failing philosophies.
Conservative philosophies did not fail. For starters, any government that spends more than it makes is not conservative. Bush, and the two years of Republican controlled congress, were not conservative. Conservatives are economic Libertarians with relatively puritan social views.
However, even if Bush was a true conservative, the president does not control the purse strings. Congress controls the purse strings. The few years that Republicans controlled Congress, the economy boomed. It was not until Democrats took control of congress that things went to the crapper where they still are today. The only that has changed since then is Democrats have more control of congress and now the White House as well. Things have only gotten worse.
So, the problem was not a failure of conservative principles that failed, but a failure of American understand of who controls the economy and how government works as a whole.
Also, one could say that the American people choose to have actual public health care when we voted for Obama.
No. The American people voted for "change". Not change from freedom to socialism, but change from R to D, nothing more. If Americans wanted socialized medicine, Scott Brown would not have won a senate seat from one of the most liberal states in the country.
I could turn around your logic and say that they want to impose their views on me, and on people who can't get insurance for whatever reasons.
If there were no other countries that offered socialized medicine, you would have a point. But that's not the case. As a matter of fact, it's the opposite. There are no developed countries that do NOT offer socialized medicine except for the US.
Think of it this way. We are in a seafood restaurant. Every other restaurant is a burger joint. You are in the seafood restaurant with us, but you want a burger. So instead of going to a burger joint and leaving us to our seafood, you and others like you decide to turn the seafood restaurant into a burger joint, just like every other restaurant in town. So now, you get your burger. We all get burger. Even though you could have gotten burger elsewhere, you decided that because you wanted burger, that everyone should have burger no matter what they think they wanted before.
And you really don't know why we are pissed off?
Because you think your opinion is more valid than someone else's?
It's not about my opinion. It's about my decisions. And yes, when that decision concerns me and my family, it IS more valid than everyone else's. I don't pretend to know what is best for you and yours and I would like the same courtesy from you.
Modern Americans are myopic, you forget. We are completely incapable of learning from our past mistakes, or the successes of our neighbors. This is in part because of what I call the American tautology, "America is #1, because we do everything better; we do everything better because America is #1". This line of thought completely blinds us to the fact that there are other countries doing MUCH better than us on every metric currently.
Also we have retroactively read Ayn Rand into our funding documents, so we can justify being as greedy and sociopathic as we want without any of the pesky guilt or empathy. We also decided that social darwinism is valid, for the same reasons.
Sorry for the bitter tone, I've pretty much given up having all hope for America, in a generation or two we will be a 3rd world country, sooner if we adopt libertarianism, or the prevalent hawkish, conservative, theology movement.
Well, since "there are other countries doing MUCH better than us on every metric currently", and you are so much smarter than the rest of us, you are free to move to one of these intellectual Utopias and live among your own, enlightened kind. There is really no point in hanging around with us mental midgets.
You say it as if there is something wrong with that. Sorry, you owe your success and productivity to the society that allowed you to come into existence and be successful and productive, and you are going to pay back into that society and to future generations and to the less fortunate. Ideally everyone would do this willingly, but, well there are too many people like you for that to work.
Yeah, there is something wrong with that. See, unless you are the absolute poorest person in the whole world, there is always someone poorer than yourself. So until you've given all you have to them, you have no right to take my stuff when you still have stuff of your own to give away.
Leave my shit alone you hypocrite!
I do provide an answer. I can provide dozens of successful nations working as I described, and working well. You'll find them in Europe and Asia (not China, think Japan or South Korea). It's been proven to my satisfaction that the way you describe things working is false in practice, and that collecting taxes and using that to provide a minimum standard of living and safety net (things such as universal health care and education) for the worst off in society is a better way to run things. Moreover, it's the morally superior way to do things, as it recognizes the humanity and dignity of everyone, not just the wealthy or the lucky.
It's not a matter of being successful. Any country that hasn't outright collapsed yet is "successful".
What matters is choice. I can appreciate that you may feel differently. It is your right to disagree. It is also your right to move to any of the countries that feel are better. That's what choice is all about.
See, you have the choice to move to a developed country with gov't provided health care. The US is the only developed, "free" country without gov't provided health care and I and the majority of Americans like it that way. I like my options. Many Americans like having the options that we have.
Unfortunately, instead of you moving to a country that has gov't health care and leaving the system that we like alone, you have to change OUR system, so that we are like everyone else. You currently have the option. You are free to move to wherever you like and we can all be happy. You will have the system you want and we get to keep the system we want. Instead, you are hell bent on taking the option away from me because you feel like you know what is best for me.
Do you know what would be even better? If the states could choose to have gov't run health care or not. That way, a state like Mass could have gov't provided health care and the good people of Alaska wouldn't have to help pay for it. See, there is absolutely no reason why states could not do this on their own. I used Mass as an example because THEY ACTUALLY DID IT!!!! If you wanted gov't run health care, you were free to move to Boston to get it and leave my health care alone! You could pester your local state legislature until they passed a similar provision for your very own state. Hell, you could have even made it better! And it would leave my health care just how I want it, with the choice in my hands. You could have it your way and I could have it mine. Please, tell me what would be wrong with that? Why does there need to be a federal plan that forces it on everyone, want it or not, when there could be state plans for those that want it and none for those that don't. (BTW, the idea came from the 10th Amendment, so I can't really say it's my own. You'll find it in The Bill of Rights in the US Constitution under "Amendment X")
And you really don't know why we are pissed off?
Borders and nations are artificial, man-made. They enforce a low-brow, low-IQ "us vs. them"' mentality and thus belong in the dark ages.
Let's see how fast this gets modded down as a troll.
Really? I thought borders were to show where one government's laws end and another's begin. You know, there are governments that will force you to pray five times a day, by killing you and your family if you don't, right? Provided that those governments exist at the will of the people, I'm OK with that. But where does that government no longer have the right to force YOU to pray to Allah five times a day?
I bet it's a border.
You just got the right to healthcare, but do you really want that going to illegal immigrants?
Yes.
Then YOU should provide healthcare for illegal immigrants. That's the beauty of a free country. YOU can provide healthcare for illegals if you want to and I can NOT provide healthcare to illegals if I DON'T want to.
Oh, wait. You were talking about taking MY money to pay for healthcare for illegals, weren't you?
So, let me make sure I understand this:
Forcing me and everyone else to purchase something does not limit my freedom.
Fining me for not purchasing something does not limit my freedom
Taking my property and using to purchase goods as services for others does not limit my freedom.
Making me carry a card and suddenly I no long have the ability to speak freely, practice my religion, own a firearm, peaceably assemble or any of the other nine Bill of Rights that the Constitution gives me (The 10th Amendment has been gone for quite some time).