dwar0123

What a reporter is thinking and what a reporter reports are not the same thing and I would be wary of presuming to much about one from the other. Especially as a hallmark of good reporting is concision and staying on target. Rambling about every odd thing you run across is rarely considered good reporting and would certainty be edited out by the editor anyway.

Another issue with a state trying to split into two is that the area would double it's representation in the Senate. This would have pretty substantial benefit for one party over the other and the party on the losing side of that equation will never allow it.

Out of curiosity, do these people think a lower standard of actions exist now despite or because of improved gay, feminist and racial rights.

That's an odd way of putting things. There is no such thing as bread, it is only something made out of flour. Where does this idea come from that because something is emergent it no longer exists? Anyway, that is what power means, those in power have the right as a practical result of being in power. Hence the idea of trying to found a country where the power is vested in the people. All the people, not just the people who agree with you.

What a depressing view to take on humanity that is entirely unsupported by evidence. If humanity is on a path to extinction down an ever circling descent to the lowest depths of immorality, Genghis Khan must logically have been a saint and the epitome of human population must have been far in the distant past. Human morality is chaotic and individual. As an average over time I would surmise it has improved, maybe not much but to suggest it is continuously declining is absurd. Maybe it has declined during our life time, but our life time is such an insignificant period of time and hardly proof of long term trends.

There is a draw to watching real people in unreal situations, less so for watching unreal people in unreal situations. Sad that you can't enjoy the distinction, you are missing out!

As someone who got HBO a month ago and caught up on all of season 2 and 3 I found last nights episode very shocking, however I don't think the show sucks. Spoilers only if you haven't seen the last episode Is there anyway to watch Season 1 without buying/stealing it?

There is a 2nd factor in heating that you are not considering Fluffy. Space is essentially a perfect insulator, the only way to lose heat is to radiate it via light, mostly in the infrared. This is a relatively slow way to lose heat compared to being in an atmosphere, even one as relatively warm(as compared to space) and thin(as compared to Earth) as the one on Mars.

A good think indeed!

It's amazing what you can get away with when you inject a new requirement like predominating.

So those that can not back up their claims with evidence appeal to the authority of scientists who can? Sounds like how it should work among those who are not experts in the field. I think you are making the mistake of thinking that the logical fallacy of 'appeal to authority' is always a logical fallacy. It is only a fallacy when the authority isn't an authority on the subject matter.

Clearly it does for you :) Not sure how you could possible take that away from what I said as I was being very specific in directing my comments at an individual based on their posting history. I seem to be making the same point twice, cute, it must be a thing with me.

I think you would be shocked if you could see yourself through my eyes. How often you make points that you clearly intend as devastating blows to liberals that appear in my mind only to reinforce my worst opinions of the right by reminding me so strongly of their behavior.

Matchpoints [hv=d=w&v=e&b=16&a=1hp3h(weak)3sp4cp]133|100[/hv] In a typical advanced partnership, what would you expect 4♣ to be here. 1. Un-discussed? 2. What should it be after discussion?

I am so well educated that it is hard for me to wrap my head around the idea that you are being serious. We each should pay into the system what we get out of it. A rich person gets far more out of it, in the quality of their life and the quality of life they can give to their loved ones than does a poor person. Hence they pay more. Your ideas are stupid, profoundly so. Implementing this idea at anything approaching current spending levels would pretty much regulate 80% of the population as tax evaders. This would forcible restrict government spending to unheard of lows, which is probably your actual goal. This would require that all the services that the government currently provides now be provided by private industry. You want a highway, pay a toll or support a local money drive for said highway. You want the neighboring city to stop raiding your village, contribute to the local militia. Seriously, this idea has been tried, it's called all of human history where there wasn't a government. It is invariable very bad for everyone involved except the most successful murderous asshole who can set themselves up as the new tyrant. At which point your naïve idealistic utopia ends anyway.

It is however, not a war crime, cause that would be stupid. A war crime is defined by treaty and sadly, merely killing/injuring civilians is not(without context) a war crime.

It is my understanding that every time we attempt to change the relevant corporate tax laws, the right goes nuts about how unfair it is to tax the job creators. Generally after having their campaign funds bolstered by millions from the companies that are saving billions. Millions they use to brain wash half the country into thinking that taxing the rich is un-American.

Nicely timed xkcd :) http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/geoguessr.png

No you're not. In fact, you are so wrong that it is actually somewhat difficult to figure out how to explain it. To even understand where you went wrong I have to un-assume many things I take for granted when speaking to an educated person. One being, that laws are meant to legislate people and how they interact with objects, never objects in isolation. Cause you know, they are inanimate and that would be stupid. Of course this is true, but to even doubt its truth you have to un-assume the above. This isn't limited to guns, this is true for every object. As we legislate about how people interact with objects all the time, linking only guns to the above, without explaining why guns are special, renders your statement rhetorically devoid of content and thus wrong. People don't kill people, guns used by people kill people. Thus no laws about guns. Car's don't kill people, people driving cars kill people. Car's don't kill people, people repairing them improperly kills people. Car's don't kill people, people manufacturing them improperly kills people. Thus no laws about cars.

Ya, dealing with dolts is a problem, sometimes they even respond to what was meant for others as if it was meant for them.

How do I know that you are not a serial killer with 22 deaths on your hands? We should investigate that. I, at this point, do not know it to be false.

You can't do one without the other. Language, or at least English language, is incapable of conveying full intent. There are always things left unsaid, generally for the sake of brevity and other practical reasons. These things are implicitly understood. I could ask you if you raped that 8 year old girl 12 years ago, I could say I am not implying you did, just asking the question. But really, by asking the question, an implication is being made. You are implying many things when asking questions. Don't try to cop out of it.

He is referring to the sensitivity of lunatics believing that there is anything here. The only smoke here is coming from the Republican party setting themselves on fire and wasting everyone's time trying to put it out.

We agree on many things, but there is a massive difference between the NRA and Planned Parenthood, such that comparing their budgets in this way fits the cliché of comparing apples to oranges. Planned Parent hood receives a third of their budget from federal grants. I am going to go out on a limb and state without looking it up that the NRA doesn't receive any federal grants.

This is a despicable and disgusting attempt to distort facts for political ends. The tragic death of our citizens and ambassador shouldn't be used for such shallow political fodder. When we as a country are attacked, we come together, we do not descend into petty politics. I am so sorry, but the Republican party is dysfunctional, they know nothing of patriotism, they can't even fake it effectively. Really, this is coming down to whether or not he called it an act of terror rather than a terrorist attack? Are you nuts, this is perhaps the stupidest controversy ever. Seriously, mad respect to Fox News for being so good at their gig that they can keep this crap floating for this long. Sure, if there was a delay in troop deployment that was politically motivated, that would be heinous. But there is a massive problem with this claim. There is no evidence that this happened and there is nothing political to be gained by delaying troop deployment. It is flawed on both ends. Even if you buy into the absurd idea that the word choice was demonstrating a cynical attempt to play politics, how would delaying troop deployment have furthered that? Could we not deploy troops for an act of terror? Would we not have? What was there to be gained, politically, by intentionally and knowingly letting them die? I mean that is, effectively, what you are claiming, it is so stupid as to defy belief. We are going to gain politically by committing political suicide. That is what you are claiming the democratic party plan was, well actually this does appear to be the republican parties plan, so I dunno, maybe you do have something.