The problem is that everybody has been hearing Doomsday predictions for so long that they're all just sick of it.
No, the problem is that some people have the attention span of a housefly.
A lot of people also remember that it wasn't that long ago that climate scientists were predicting another ice age. A lot of older folks remember this so it's hard to blame them for taking the global warming scare with a grain of salt.
A lot of "old folks" remember when cigarettes were healthy.
There was never,,,ever a time when more than tiny handful of scientists thought there would be another ice age. You're bullshitting. This bit about how "not long ago scientists were predicting an ice age" is simply a denialist lie. As in not true. As in you made it up because you think it helps your argument but really makes you sound extra stupid.
There have been no "record lows in winter" for climate. Are you talking about local weather? I'm sure we could get you some remedial understanding of "weather vs climate" if you feel you need it.
Until you demonstrate you understand the distinction, your comments are not going to carry the impact you want.
If your paper confirms climate change, you are more likely to get funding.
If your paper confirms that GMOs are as safe as mother's milk, you are also more likely to get funding. Also, if your study shows that vaccines are safe, you are more likely to get funding.
But not climate change research it's the exception.
Other exceptions to this rule are studies that show GMOs are safe. Those scientists are impeccable, their studies well-designed and their research should never be questioned. Climate scientists, however, are the bunk.
The best nonviolent way of breaking North Korea is to let the common people know how the other Koreans live. We could try smuggling in flash drives, since the DPRK uses them to distribute official TV programming.
We could airdrop flashdrives hidden in frozen turkeys.
R6: Do not promote another candidate R7: No negative campaigning
You believe that's the same thing as "no dissent or SJWs"?
Even a cursory look at that reddit shows that there's plenty of dissent. You're just not welcome if you're job is to shill for another candidate.
In the "TheDonald" reddit, "no dissent" means exactly that. If you have any divergent views (for example, if you support Trump but you don't believe Donald Trump Jr is a good surrogate for his father) you are gone.
I went down the list of the first page of search results that you cited. Not one single example of an elected official saying they want to confiscate guns. You will find other people saying that "This Democrat wants to take your guns away from you" but that's it. Even the NY Safe Act only covered a very narrow type of weapon, and confiscation was not part of it.
Now, should I assume that you are being disingenuous, or did you just fail to read your own cites?
Yes, yes, I know you want a system of government where the voting of the ignorant unwashed peasants is just theater, and a few select royalty actually make the laws.
Hey, don't blame me. Blame the founding fathers. They're the ones put us in this mess.
Most of those "excepts": also blatantly unconstitutional. Convenient for the state. But unconstitutional
Maybe you never took Civics, but the Supreme Court decides what is and what is not constitutional so you see, when you say those things are "unconstitutional", you're simply wrong.
"While the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided in the Constitution, it had been anticipated before the adoption of that document. Prior to 1789, state courts had already overturned legislative acts which conflicted with state constitutions. Moreover, many of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume this role in regard to the Constitution; Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, for example, had underlined the importance of judicial review in the Federalist Papers, which urged adoption of the Constitution."
You might want a system different from the one we have, but it doesn't change the system we have.
There's no "except" in any of the amendment, except there are.
Except you can't shout fire in a crowded theater. Except you can't encourage the violent overthrow of the government or threaten people. Except you can have your house searched if there's someone in there crying for help. Except your state rights don't matter if your new law violates the constitution. Except your right to a speedy trial in front of a jury of your peers doesn't apply if you are an enemy combatant. Except your right to freedom from cruel and unusual punishment is ignored if you are given the death penalty in Texas. Except you can be conscripted into the armed forces. I can keep going if you'd like.
Oh hell yeah, there are exceptions. Those exceptions are what keep us a civil society.
Fortunately, it only takes about 2% of gun owners to have courage and ability to hold the totalitarians at bay
I'm curious. When you "hold the totalitarians at bay", who do you think you're gonna be shooting? Police? Members of the military? Interesting.
So you move the goalpost from "no one will try" to "no one has tried", but that's still quite wrong. Hawaii, New York, Missouri, Virginia, New Jersey, Oregon, and of course California all proposed gun confiscation legislature, as well as Feinstein pushing it at the federal level, and that just in 2013.
There are no valid sources for your claim. When you talk about "gun confiscation", the closest you can find is a law that would allow someone to be separated from their guns for 21 days if a family member were to report them as a danger, after due process.
Do you know it's also illegal for violent felons to own handguns? Do you also believe this is "confiscation"? If you're convicted of manslaughter and own guns, you have to give them up. Is this wrong?
Nobody is trying to take away your guns. The gun lobby has made a fool of you.
The fact that you point at that as some kind of miscarriage of justice just shows how wrong you are. You do realize that that one was ruled self defense, and that every witness except the kid's friend said that Wilson was defending himself?
You mention only one of the many cases described in that article. Some police officer were found guilty and still received no punishment.
There are two clear videos of Terrence Crutcher being shot down by police (who all had tazers by the way). From two different angles, showing the entire encounter. If there hadn't been a video, do you doubt that the police would have planted a gun on the dead man? Oh yeah, we have video of police doing exactly that. If most police are good, then why don't they arrest the bad ones?
The cop who killed him, Betty Shelby (she has a history of drug use, harassment and domestic violence, by the way) is not on paid administrative leave. And Terrence Crutcher, who was guilty of his car breaking down, is dead. She's a thug with a badge.
There is clearly a miscarriage of justice. It's not even close. White people who point loaded guns at police are arrested peacefully and black people with their hands up are shot in the back.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the problem is that some people have the attention span of a housefly.
A lot of "old folks" remember when cigarettes were healthy.
There was never,,,ever a time when more than tiny handful of scientists thought there would be another ice age. You're bullshitting. This bit about how "not long ago scientists were predicting an ice age" is simply a denialist lie. As in not true. As in you made it up because you think it helps your argument but really makes you sound extra stupid.
There have been no "record lows in winter" for climate. Are you talking about local weather? I'm sure we could get you some remedial understanding of "weather vs climate" if you feel you need it.
Until you demonstrate you understand the distinction, your comments are not going to carry the impact you want.
Improves search results for whom?
If your paper confirms that GMOs are as safe as mother's milk, you are also more likely to get funding. Also, if your study shows that vaccines are safe, you are more likely to get funding.
Are those examples of confirmation bias too?
Other exceptions to this rule are studies that show GMOs are safe. Those scientists are impeccable, their studies well-designed and their research should never be questioned. Climate scientists, however, are the bunk.
Except a tax break for repairs will disproportionately benefit the people at the lower end of the scale. Think it over.
We could airdrop flashdrives hidden in frozen turkeys.
"My box mod is made from Reardon metal!"
Until you figure out that the tax cut is not to corporations and the rich, but to regular people, and alt-right heads explodes instead.
Unlike the people who have vowed to boycott the NFL because of something a backup quarterback did.
You believe that's the same thing as "no dissent or SJWs"?
Even a cursory look at that reddit shows that there's plenty of dissent. You're just not welcome if you're job is to shill for another candidate.
In the "TheDonald" reddit, "no dissent" means exactly that. If you have any divergent views (for example, if you support Trump but you don't believe Donald Trump Jr is a good surrogate for his father) you are gone.
No, they do not mean the same thing.
No it doesn't. Go look for yourself.
Did you really think you could just put out a lie like that and nobody would check? Of course you did, didn't you?
That's everything you need to know, right there.
Nobody loves their "safe spaces" like the alt-right.
I went down the list of the first page of search results that you cited. Not one single example of an elected official saying they want to confiscate guns. You will find other people saying that "This Democrat wants to take your guns away from you" but that's it. Even the NY Safe Act only covered a very narrow type of weapon, and confiscation was not part of it.
Now, should I assume that you are being disingenuous, or did you just fail to read your own cites?
Hey, don't blame me. Blame the founding fathers. They're the ones put us in this mess.
He's a mess and he has low ratings. He's a loser and at least an 8-handicap golfer. Sad! And what's with that voice, right? [imitates Stephen Hawking]
When I'm president, you can bet the aliens will know where we are.
Maybe you never took Civics, but the Supreme Court decides what is and what is not constitutional so you see, when you say those things are "unconstitutional", you're simply wrong.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/a...
You might want a system different from the one we have, but it doesn't change the system we have.
It's not real.
There's no "except" in any of the amendment, except there are.
Except you can't shout fire in a crowded theater. Except you can't encourage the violent overthrow of the government or threaten people. Except you can have your house searched if there's someone in there crying for help. Except your state rights don't matter if your new law violates the constitution. Except your right to a speedy trial in front of a jury of your peers doesn't apply if you are an enemy combatant. Except your right to freedom from cruel and unusual punishment is ignored if you are given the death penalty in Texas. Except you can be conscripted into the armed forces. I can keep going if you'd like.
Oh hell yeah, there are exceptions. Those exceptions are what keep us a civil society.
I'm curious. When you "hold the totalitarians at bay", who do you think you're gonna be shooting? Police? Members of the military? Interesting.
The Safe Act only applied to a certain class of weapon. The Chicago ban didn't confiscate anything.
Nobody wants to take your guns away. Go have guns and go in peace.
To be fair, North Carolina was worried that there would be transsexuals in their gigabit.
Which elected officials have stated that they want to confiscate guns?
There are no valid sources for your claim. When you talk about "gun confiscation", the closest you can find is a law that would allow someone to be separated from their guns for 21 days if a family member were to report them as a danger, after due process.
Do you know it's also illegal for violent felons to own handguns? Do you also believe this is "confiscation"? If you're convicted of manslaughter and own guns, you have to give them up. Is this wrong?
Nobody is trying to take away your guns. The gun lobby has made a fool of you.
You mention only one of the many cases described in that article. Some police officer were found guilty and still received no punishment.
There are two clear videos of Terrence Crutcher being shot down by police (who all had tazers by the way). From two different angles, showing the entire encounter. If there hadn't been a video, do you doubt that the police would have planted a gun on the dead man? Oh yeah, we have video of police doing exactly that. If most police are good, then why don't they arrest the bad ones?
The cop who killed him, Betty Shelby (she has a history of drug use, harassment and domestic violence, by the way) is not on paid administrative leave. And Terrence Crutcher, who was guilty of his car breaking down, is dead. She's a thug with a badge.
There is clearly a miscarriage of justice. It's not even close. White people who point loaded guns at police are arrested peacefully and black people with their hands up are shot in the back.
Nobody has tried to take away your guns. Stop.