Stupid is as stupid does... and I would counterargue that launching a war on false premises that cost tens of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars - with no real plan to "win the peace" - does not put you in Brainiac territory.
He and his buddies stole billions and his kids didn't get murdered for it he sent off the kids of the rubes who were stupid enough to vote for him to be murdered for the massive theft, so what does he care if he tanked the economy and murdered a lot of people to do it? You seem to think he was trying *not* to be a traitor. That puts you well out of brainiac territory and well into duped muppet territory.
Throw on top of that a well-intentioned but badly misguided "ownership society" set of policies that fueled the housing and accompanying banking meltdowns, and and you are left with a less than intellectually stellar legacy.
That wasn't an error, that was the plan. Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick please don't ever vote if you're too fucking stupid to have figured that out by now.
Now remember whenever say that without appending "but the rest do nothing to stop them and so they continue to get away with it" you will be telling a lie of omission in an attempt to deceive.
All in the name of protecting people like you and me.
They have gone to court time and time again to ensure that this is *not* part of their responsibilities.
That was a bald faced lie.
I'm sorry, but I can't really put much faith in anything you say after you lied twice.
or you can recognize that the main duty of law enforcement is to protect the peace and maintain the standards of their community. Maybe we've drifted from that, but that's a topic for another day.
And right there is the glaring error that makes your argument unsound.
Not maybe, not drifted. We're way far away from that and have been for decades to put it mildly. Saying that that's a topic for another day does not work when that's what you're basing your argument on and you've already admitted that you know that it may not be true. Read a bit of history. It's never been true. Anywhere.
*IF* I could fly, then I could jump off my roof and fly to the taco shop. What do you think the odds are of me flying home with tacos if I jumped off my roof...given that it's high enough that a fall would likely kill me?
That is the way in which your argument failed.
I don't think you're a boot licking fascist, but I do think you share with far too many IMO people the emotional attachment to the naive idea of ethical police which is what allows them to literally get away with murder and a vast array of other crimes time and time again.
So you need a small number of cops to investigate *the greatly reduced number of* murders, robberies, etc. *due to the removal of drug laws which are the primary cause of violent crime in our society*.
I believe there might be a book somewhere which answers that question.
Which revision?
"True christians" believe in a Christ, Jesus, and in what he taught--
A "True Christian" would be the oldest revision. Nobody believes anything like that today. So much was made up over such a long time that it's not surprising. What is surprising is that people actually manage to tell themselves that they are true believers when they don't even bother to learn that much about where their religion came from. Leaving aside that there never was a Jesus, so he taught nothing. It's just a bunch of old rehashed stories already ancient at the time.
at least by the definition in use for the last 2000 years and as spelled out in the Bible.
Well, except the definitions changed *A LOT* over the first 400 years or so. And even much later. Things like the idea that Jesus actually lived on Earth and the whole casting the first stone thing were only added much later. They were not added until the stories were already a hundred years old.
My failed analogy would be requiring STD Clinic staff to not have sex as they could be contributing to infection rates.
Given how much more contagious at a distance the flu is, it's more like a person working at an STD clinic being asked not to rub their herpes encrusted genitalia all over the patients faces or to find another place of employment. Not perfect, but much more accurate than yours.
As I understand it, Al-Jazeera is as biased and controversial as both the left- and right- leaning institutions already in place, and I fail to see how an additional news network adds anything beneficial to the conversation.
In America, there are no left leaning networks, only hard right to lunatic fringe right, so something which is even moderate right would be a adding much to the conversation.
They have a much better record on bias than the existing American networks, so while it does remain to be seen, it's likely to be a good thing.
Probably as soon as atheists stop talking about people who choose to follow a religion as though they're stupid misguided children, or living under a delusion, or any of the other rhetoric that gets spouted by the most vocal atheists.
You have cause and effect directly reversed.
It should be noted that this is one of the primary tactics of the religious extremists trying to destroy freedom of religion. Attack attack attack and then when they're laughed at they feign offense. This, in spite of the fact, that they have over a thousand year history of burning alive and murdering in other fiendish ways anyone who didn't bow down to them.
It's really sick, dude. I'm sorry I don't believe in magic like you do. You should really look at why you are so ashamed of what you believe that you can't be happy unless everyone does too rather than spout factually incorrect nonsense which is the diametric opposite of the truth.
If you're a "store" and have a serious issue with the idea of "selling" your "merchandise" to your "customers" then it is critical that a large scale investigation is immediately launched against you and those you're engaged in business with.
That is the primary issue. Police thugs tazering people in support of blatantly non-legitimate businesses is secondary.
Blaming the victim is your craven thirteenth tier approach.
Die in a concentration camp you boot licking brown-shirted bitch.
Well, that's pushing it a little I'd say, to the point of hyperbole.
I disagree on the hyperbole and think it's more a question of time. Religious rule will necessarily tend to get more and more savage as time goes by. Never underestimate the value of crying "heretic" as a power grab bathed in blood. That's one of the major reasons Christian dogma is what it became as opposed to what it was in the early days.
Paul was clear that the whole birth life death and resurrection did not happen on Earth but on a spiritual plane like a platonic ideal and the very idea of a Jesus on Earth destroys the fundamental value of the sacrifice as he wrote the story. Most of what's in the New Testament was put as the official canon by warring groups of bishops jockeying for power over the Roman Empire and using heresy to murder their rivals. As long as you're dealing with something that there is no evidence of, you can replace bits and pieces more or less as you please for whatever purposes you choose.
When some TV preacher or politician says "the US' laws are based on the bible" I say "then why is pot against the law but adultery is perfectly legal?" If the US were truly a Christian nation, there would be no poverty in the US.
Well, of course, but that goes to my point. The most gung ho people on pushing Christianity into the American government are generally the most ignorant of what it actually says now. They're also generally the least moral by biblical standards (divorce, murder, rape, unwed pregnancy etc. etc. etc.). This is why it will get much *much* worse like Sharia, since the Bible and the Koran are pretty much the same on the extreme nastiness the glorification of which makes up the bulk of the Bible and those using it for power will be happy to make up whatever else they want to get ahead. Heck, look at the Mormons completely nonsensical garbage barely related to the original story and there are a ton of them calling themselves Christians and fighting tooth and nail to spread their gay hatred across the country.
Atheism however IS a religion. It is a religion based on the POSITIVE belief that there is no god and then forms a belief system around this foundational belief.
You, sir are a liar and a scoundrel.
There is a VERY good practical reason for why Atheists deny that their religion is a religion and that is the separation of church and state.
No, but you do make your agenda clear. Atheists, in America at least, are getting much louder these days because religious scoundrels like yourself are trying to destroy the separation of church and state. Prior to that we mostly (can I speak for most of you...not really, but...) didn't really care that much. I thought adults who still believed in the tooth fairy (putting it that way to be nice as it's far less ridiculous than what you actually believe) were pretty silly but live and let live I say.
Just one example is in the issue of Darwinism.
I don't know what that is. You apparently mean the theory of evolution by natural selection, but once again you're attempting to make something which isn't a religion sound like one. I guess even you know how silly your beliefs are and want to make yourself feel better by pretending everyone is as silly as you. I feel really bad for you. Maybe a hug and a cup of hot cocoa would do you good.
it used to be that you couldn't teach Darwinism, now you can't teach anything BUT Darwinism and only the evidence in favor.
LOL, what? I'm guessing that you don't know what the word "evidence" means. Perhaps you could present some...ha ha..evidence to support this statement?
Sorry, that's not science, that's Atheistic religious dogma.
Wow, a non religion with dogma. You're pretty far out, man. You do realize that there are many many millions of religious people including Christians who have no problem understanding evolution, right? I mean they need to say...uh but goddidit, which is kind of cute but much less silly than your position.
Christianity is comparable with Darwins view being true or false as we have other evidence and arguments that are not affected by it,
LOL, if you had evidence then it wouldn't be a religion. Since all the evidence goes against the existence of your god (not the deist god...that one is unfalsifiable as it doesn't actually add anything to the discussion) and no evidence whatsoever supports the idea your desperation at your sillyness is just getting sad now.
but Darwinism being false is fatal to Atheism.
No, you're just begging the question, which is what almost all "arguments" for your god end up doing. You're assuming that there is a god and insisting that if the most likely scenario supported by evidence is false that you magically get to claim that your fairy tale daydream is therefore real. It's sad, it's deeply dishonest and it really makes you look pathetic rather than silly.
(Actually, quite a bit of modern science is fatal to Atheism
Were that true, than atheism would be dead, right?
I shouldn't have bothered since you're clearly not capable of rational understanding on this issue as your parents abused you horribly as a child and scooped out a god shaped hole in your brain that will leave you always out of touch with reality. Truly horrifying the damage stuffing antique iron age fairy tales down children's throats like the cock of a rapist have on people in the modern age.
The US Republican Party is not a right wing party anymore. They have been effectively hijacked by nut jobs, extremists,
They are absolutely a right wing party more so now than ever before. Cater to the elite? Check War mongering? Check Religious extremism shoved into government? Check Oppression of the lower classes? Check
Maybe you don't actually know what right means in a political context. Do you even know why they use left and right? In the pre revolutionary French assembly the representatives of the crown, the aristocracy and the church (which is to say the *rulers* not the *leaders* keep in mind) sat on the right, whereas the representatives of the people sat on the left. Our constitution was designed to prevent right wing ideology as it is *Liberal* by design. Right wing is rabidly anti-liberal and "Conservative" was specifically coined to mean anti-liberal in order to go back to the good old days of hereditary aristocracy and monarchy with religion in its normal use as a tool to control the sheep.
We are exactly where the Republican party has been driving intentionally since before WW2 when the party owners were largely huge fascism fans including the father/grandfather of the two recent right wing extremist nutjob Bush presidents.
The right wingers ran a good enough propaganda campaign that there are people in this nation, like yourself, who unashamedly call yourself a right winger even though this nation was founded on diametric opposition to right wing ideology *by design* and both the American revolution *and* both world wars were us and our allies, that is Liberalism and the Left fighting our natural enemy that is the Right.
You should be ashamed of yourself for being so damn ignorant if nothing else.
Drug dealers use guns in crimes, which is not a "gun" problem but rather a drug problem.
No, it's not a drug problem, it's a drug law problem. We did an experiment in the 1920s known as prohibition. What we learned was that making things people want illegal for moralistic reasons leads directly to a massive increase in violent crime and organized crime. The exact thing happened with the war on drugs as was easily predicted. The violent crime has to do with unethical lawmaking, not with the specific details of what is unethically made illegal.
You missed the root cause as well. Hope this helps.
If the hex() change and the division operator are the only "warts" in Python
Hardly. It uses white space for syntax. It's badly broken by design. That crap hasn't been done since FORTRAN and that was designed that way out of necessity for punch cards.
Can you imagine if we used our nuclear technologies for something so backward as, say, ironclad steamboats?
Nah, that would never work. There would be too much steam and you'd have to use the rest for something even more anachronistic...like a catapult or something.
i.e less people, less power required, less agriculture, less environmental stresses. <pedant mode> *fewer* people, less power required, less agriculture, *fewer* environmental stresses. </pedant mode> Thank you for taking this as a possible learning opportunity rather than grammar nazism as it helps alleviate the brain unsettlement caused by reading that;-)
Dunno if either of those options are acceptable to you
Fine, cut off rural deliveries and make the welfare leeches pay their fair share of something for once. Perhaps they might stop voting against their best interests and mine. If that isn't enough, start making them pay their fair share of water, power, phones, network etc. etc. etc.
I'm happy to help support the less fortunate except when they use that as a weapon against this nation, spout crap like they're the real America and whine about welfare when they're the primary recipients.
Enough coddling of the boot licking leeches, I say.
The whole idea of continuing to pay someone's salary long after they've quit working is utterly stupid.
No, it's a way which worked for a long time to grant people a portion of the value they contributed to an organization. It was the norm until the stupid idea that people were nothing but resources was pushed in very recent times.
You're supposed to put aside a portion of your earnings into retirement savings while you're actively working.
Which they dd via their contracted pensions you retarded boot licking muppet.
I have been frequently assured, on these very pages, that any opposition to liberalism is, in fact, racism of the overt or disguised type. No joking. I am curious to find what sort of dissent would be acceptable.
Given that America was founded on Liberalism intentionally and that the constitution was written specifically to eliminate any possibility of right wing ideas from our nation's government perhaps you should just leave and go live somewhere that supports right wing ideology like Saudi Arabia.
No, you'll just keep whining like a little crybaby making up idiotic crap. "Whaaaaa I get called racist when I support the enemies of my nation and piss in the face of it's founding principles Whaaaaaa". You'd actually need to have integrity to go live under a real right wing government like the ones America defined itself by it's opposition to in the American Revolution and the two World Wars.
America is the original real world instantiation of Liberalism. This was by design. If you hate the fundamental basis of the country leave. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. This is not a Democracy specifically so that losers like you couldn't destroy the nation through your cowardice, your ignorance, and your douchebaggery. Grow up and deal with the fact that you and those like you were defined as the nation's worst enemies over 200 years ago.
Slashdot Mirror
Stupid is as stupid does... and I would counterargue that launching a war on false premises that cost tens of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars - with no real plan to "win the peace" - does not put you in Brainiac territory.
He and his buddies stole billions and his kids didn't get murdered for it he sent off the kids of the rubes who were stupid enough to vote for him to be murdered for the massive theft, so what does he care if he tanked the economy and murdered a lot of people to do it? You seem to think he was trying *not* to be a traitor. That puts you well out of brainiac territory and well into duped muppet territory.
Throw on top of that a well-intentioned but badly misguided "ownership society" set of policies that fueled the housing and accompanying banking meltdowns, and and you are left with a less than intellectually stellar legacy.
That wasn't an error, that was the plan. Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick please don't ever vote if you're too fucking stupid to have figured that out by now.
Not all cops are bullies, liars, or thugs.
Now remember whenever say that without appending "but the rest do nothing to stop them and so they continue to get away with it" you will be telling a lie of omission in an attempt to deceive.
All in the name of protecting people like you and me.
They have gone to court time and time again to ensure that this is *not* part of their responsibilities.
That was a bald faced lie.
I'm sorry, but I can't really put much faith in anything you say after you lied twice.
or you can recognize that the main duty of law enforcement is to protect the peace and maintain the standards of their community. Maybe we've drifted from that, but that's a topic for another day.
And right there is the glaring error that makes your argument unsound.
Not maybe, not drifted. We're way far away from that and have been for decades to put it mildly.
Saying that that's a topic for another day does not work when that's what you're basing your argument on and you've already admitted that you know that it may not be true. Read a bit of history. It's never been true. Anywhere.
*IF* I could fly, then I could jump off my roof and fly to the taco shop.
What do you think the odds are of me flying home with tacos if I jumped off my roof...given that it's high enough that a fall would likely kill me?
That is the way in which your argument failed.
I don't think you're a boot licking fascist, but I do think you share with far too many IMO people the emotional attachment to the naive idea of ethical police which is what allows them to literally get away with murder and a vast array of other crimes time and time again.
So you install an app that can remotely WIPE your phone. That will stop them in their tracks.
No.
*They* are the ones who want to wipe your phone so there is no evidence of their crimes.
Your plan hurts you and helps the bad guys.
So you need a small number of cops to investigate *the greatly reduced number of* murders, robberies, etc. *due to the removal of drug laws which are the primary cause of violent crime in our society*.
ETFY
(Enhanced that for you).
I believe there might be a book somewhere which answers that question.
Which revision?
"True christians" believe in a Christ, Jesus, and in what he taught--
A "True Christian" would be the oldest revision. Nobody believes anything like that today. So much was made up over such a long time that it's not surprising. What is surprising is that people actually manage to tell themselves that they are true believers when they don't even bother to learn that much about where their religion came from. Leaving aside that there never was a Jesus, so he taught nothing. It's just a bunch of old rehashed stories already ancient at the time.
at least by the definition in use for the last 2000 years and as spelled out in the Bible.
Well, except the definitions changed *A LOT* over the first 400 years or so. And even much later. Things like the idea that Jesus actually lived on Earth and the whole casting the first stone thing were only added much later. They were not added until the stories were already a hundred years old.
My failed analogy would be requiring STD Clinic staff to not have sex as they could be contributing to infection rates.
Given how much more contagious at a distance the flu is, it's more like a person working at an STD clinic being asked not to rub their herpes encrusted genitalia all over the patients faces or to find another place of employment.
Not perfect, but much more accurate than yours.
As I understand it, Al-Jazeera is as biased and controversial as both the left- and right- leaning institutions already in place, and I fail to see how an additional news network adds anything beneficial to the conversation.
In America, there are no left leaning networks, only hard right to lunatic fringe right, so something which is even moderate right would be a adding much to the conversation.
They have a much better record on bias than the existing American networks, so while it does remain to be seen, it's likely to be a good thing.
In related news, half the school was arrested on suspicion of rape, after evidence of drawing penises was found.
It's far worse than that - half the school was is possession of penises! They were armed and ready.
The other half were in possession of tools of prostitution.
Probably as soon as atheists stop talking about people who choose to follow a religion as though they're stupid misguided children, or living under a delusion, or any of the other rhetoric that gets spouted by the most vocal atheists.
You have cause and effect directly reversed.
It should be noted that this is one of the primary tactics of the religious extremists trying to destroy freedom of religion. Attack attack attack and then when they're laughed at they feign offense.
This, in spite of the fact, that they have over a thousand year history of burning alive and murdering in other fiendish ways anyone who didn't bow down to them.
It's really sick, dude. I'm sorry I don't believe in magic like you do. You should really look at why you are so ashamed of what you believe that you can't be happy unless everyone does too rather than spout factually incorrect nonsense which is the diametric opposite of the truth.
If you're a "store" and have a serious issue with the idea of "selling" your "merchandise" to your "customers" then it is critical that a large scale investigation is immediately launched against you and those you're engaged in business with.
That is the primary issue.
Police thugs tazering people in support of blatantly non-legitimate businesses is secondary.
Blaming the victim is your craven thirteenth tier approach.
Die in a concentration camp you boot licking brown-shirted bitch.
Heretics will never know the Beer Volcano that He has prepared for us in His Noodly Paradise.
Sure, they won't know that one but they'll have their own. It's a bit flat and crappy, but still a beer volcano which is cool.
Well, that's pushing it a little I'd say, to the point of hyperbole.
I disagree on the hyperbole and think it's more a question of time. Religious rule will necessarily tend to get more and more savage as time goes by. Never underestimate the value of crying "heretic" as a power grab bathed in blood. That's one of the major reasons Christian dogma is what it became as opposed to what it was in the early days.
Paul was clear that the whole birth life death and resurrection did not happen on Earth but on a spiritual plane like a platonic ideal and the very idea of a Jesus on Earth destroys the fundamental value of the sacrifice as he wrote the story. Most of what's in the New Testament was put as the official canon by warring groups of bishops jockeying for power over the Roman Empire and using heresy to murder their rivals.
As long as you're dealing with something that there is no evidence of, you can replace bits and pieces more or less as you please for whatever purposes you choose.
When some TV preacher or politician says "the US' laws are based on the bible" I say "then why is pot against the law but adultery is perfectly legal?" If the US were truly a Christian nation, there would be no poverty in the US.
Well, of course, but that goes to my point. The most gung ho people on pushing Christianity into the American government are generally the most ignorant of what it actually says now. They're also generally the least moral by biblical standards (divorce, murder, rape, unwed pregnancy etc. etc. etc.). This is why it will get much *much* worse like Sharia, since the Bible and the Koran are pretty much the same on the extreme nastiness the glorification of which makes up the bulk of the Bible and those using it for power will be happy to make up whatever else they want to get ahead. Heck, look at the Mormons completely nonsensical garbage barely related to the original story and there are a ton of them calling themselves Christians and fighting tooth and nail to spread their gay hatred across the country.
Atheism however IS a religion. It is a religion based on the POSITIVE belief that there is no god and then forms a belief system around this foundational belief.
You, sir are a liar and a scoundrel.
There is a VERY good practical reason for why Atheists deny that their religion is a religion and that is the separation of church and state.
No, but you do make your agenda clear. Atheists, in America at least, are getting much louder these days because religious scoundrels like yourself are trying to destroy the separation of church and state. Prior to that we mostly (can I speak for most of you...not really, but...) didn't really care that much. I thought adults who still believed in the tooth fairy (putting it that way to be nice as it's far less ridiculous than what you actually believe) were pretty silly but live and let live I say.
Just one example is in the issue of Darwinism.
I don't know what that is. You apparently mean the theory of evolution by natural selection, but once again you're attempting to make something which isn't a religion sound like one. I guess even you know how silly your beliefs are and want to make yourself feel better by pretending everyone is as silly as you. I feel really bad for you. Maybe a hug and a cup of hot cocoa would do you good.
it used to be that you couldn't teach Darwinism, now you can't teach anything BUT Darwinism and only the evidence in favor.
LOL, what? I'm guessing that you don't know what the word "evidence" means. Perhaps you could present some...ha ha..evidence to support this statement?
Sorry, that's not science, that's Atheistic religious dogma.
Wow, a non religion with dogma. You're pretty far out, man. You do realize that there are many many millions of religious people including Christians who have no problem understanding evolution, right? I mean they need to say...uh but goddidit, which is kind of cute but much less silly than your position.
Christianity is comparable with Darwins view being true or false as we have other evidence and arguments that are not affected by it,
LOL, if you had evidence then it wouldn't be a religion. Since all the evidence goes against the existence of your god (not the deist god...that one is unfalsifiable as it doesn't actually add anything to the discussion) and no evidence whatsoever supports the idea your desperation at your sillyness is just getting sad now.
but Darwinism being false is fatal to Atheism.
No, you're just begging the question, which is what almost all "arguments" for your god end up doing. You're assuming that there is a god and insisting that if the most likely scenario supported by evidence is false that you magically get to claim that your fairy tale daydream is therefore real. It's sad, it's deeply dishonest and it really makes you look pathetic rather than silly.
(Actually, quite a bit of modern science is fatal to Atheism
Were that true, than atheism would be dead, right?
I shouldn't have bothered since you're clearly not capable of rational understanding on this issue as your parents abused you horribly as a child and scooped out a god shaped hole in your brain that will leave you always out of touch with reality. Truly horrifying the damage stuffing antique iron age fairy tales down children's throats like the cock of a rapist have on people in the modern age.
The US Republican Party is not a right wing party anymore. They have been effectively hijacked by nut jobs, extremists,
They are absolutely a right wing party more so now than ever before.
Cater to the elite? Check
War mongering? Check
Religious extremism shoved into government? Check
Oppression of the lower classes? Check
Maybe you don't actually know what right means in a political context. Do you even know why they use left and right? In the pre revolutionary French assembly the representatives of the crown, the aristocracy and the church (which is to say the *rulers* not the *leaders* keep in mind) sat on the right, whereas the representatives of the people sat on the left.
Our constitution was designed to prevent right wing ideology as it is *Liberal* by design. Right wing is rabidly anti-liberal and "Conservative" was specifically coined to mean anti-liberal in order to go back to the good old days of hereditary aristocracy and monarchy with religion in its normal use as a tool to control the sheep.
We are exactly where the Republican party has been driving intentionally since before WW2 when the party owners were largely huge fascism fans including the father/grandfather of the two recent right wing extremist nutjob Bush presidents.
The right wingers ran a good enough propaganda campaign that there are people in this nation, like yourself, who unashamedly call yourself a right winger even though this nation was founded on diametric opposition to right wing ideology *by design* and both the American revolution *and* both world wars were us and our allies, that is Liberalism and the Left fighting our natural enemy that is the Right.
You should be ashamed of yourself for being so damn ignorant if nothing else.
Drug dealers use guns in crimes, which is not a "gun" problem but rather a drug problem.
No, it's not a drug problem, it's a drug law problem. We did an experiment in the 1920s known as prohibition. What we learned was that making things people want illegal for moralistic reasons leads directly to a massive increase in violent crime and organized crime. The exact thing happened with the war on drugs as was easily predicted. The violent crime has to do with unethical lawmaking, not with the specific details of what is unethically made illegal.
You missed the root cause as well. Hope this helps.
If the hex() change and the division operator are the only "warts" in Python
Hardly. It uses white space for syntax. It's badly broken by design. That crap hasn't been done since FORTRAN and that was designed that way out of necessity for punch cards.
ARRGGH!!! &$ )!$!@$ !@ !!&*(!#@!!!!!!!!!
Now while writing an entire sharepoint replacement in one line of perl is impressive, it doesn't really constitute a specific argument against MFC.
Can you imagine if we used our nuclear technologies for something so backward as, say, ironclad steamboats?
Nah, that would never work. There would be too much steam and you'd have to use the rest for something even more anachronistic...like a catapult or something.
i.e less people, less power required, less agriculture, less environmental stresses. ;-)
<pedant mode>
*fewer* people, less power required, less agriculture, *fewer* environmental stresses.
</pedant mode>
Thank you for taking this as a possible learning opportunity rather than grammar nazism as it helps alleviate the brain unsettlement caused by reading that
And why the hell do we need to terraform a planet that is hostile to life when we have one that's pretty sweet right here and now ?
Eggs, baskets, distribution ratios...I dunno, there's a saying.
Since we are all pretty well aware that we are between ice ages
No, we are not. We're in an interglacial period *of* an ice age.
If you're that poorly informed about basic terminology, why should anybody listen to you about more complicated things?
Dunno if either of those options are acceptable to you
Fine, cut off rural deliveries and make the welfare leeches pay their fair share of something for once. Perhaps they might stop voting against their best interests and mine. If that isn't enough, start making them pay their fair share of water, power, phones, network etc. etc. etc.
I'm happy to help support the less fortunate except when they use that as a weapon against this nation, spout crap like they're the real America and whine about welfare when they're the primary recipients.
Enough coddling of the boot licking leeches, I say.
The whole idea of continuing to pay someone's salary long after they've quit working is utterly stupid.
No, it's a way which worked for a long time to grant people a portion of the value they contributed to an organization. It was the norm until the stupid idea that people were nothing but resources was pushed in very recent times.
You're supposed to put aside a portion of your earnings into retirement savings while you're actively working.
Which they dd via their contracted pensions you retarded boot licking muppet.
I have been frequently assured, on these very pages, that any opposition to liberalism is, in fact, racism of the overt or disguised type. No joking. I am curious to find what sort of dissent would be acceptable.
Given that America was founded on Liberalism intentionally and that the constitution was written specifically to eliminate any possibility of right wing ideas from our nation's government perhaps you should just leave and go live somewhere that supports right wing ideology like Saudi Arabia.
No, you'll just keep whining like a little crybaby making up idiotic crap. "Whaaaaa I get called racist when I support the enemies of my nation and piss in the face of it's founding principles Whaaaaaa". You'd actually need to have integrity to go live under a real right wing government like the ones America defined itself by it's opposition to in the American Revolution and the two World Wars.
America is the original real world instantiation of Liberalism. This was by design. If you hate the fundamental basis of the country leave. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. This is not a Democracy specifically so that losers like you couldn't destroy the nation through your cowardice, your ignorance, and your douchebaggery. Grow up and deal with the fact that you and those like you were defined as the nation's worst enemies over 200 years ago.