Conga3

Here is how I see it : -------- What the kid said was racist. Racist speech, is still Constitutionally protected speech (and that makes this country great) A public university is a government entity. Our "Freedom of Speech" protects us citizens from actions taken by the government to stifle that protected speech. We especially protect professors "Freedom of Speech" from the government through tenure. ...but tenure does not mean a professor can say absolutely anything they want with consequences (employment contacts) ...and while students of a University are also awarded protected speech, they too can not simply say anything they want without consequences (code of conduct) ----

After a Dawn wash down....if it still feels greasy/oily, you might try a wipe down with a microfiber towel wet with acetone. (on the truck bed only - not on painted surfaces) Also the Dawn will remove any wax you had on your paint, so if you go crazy and wash your entire truck you'll want to reapply a wax or wax-like layer of protection.

I can't wait til someone has an online vote for which fan base is the most obsessed with best at online voting. It probably needs to be engraved in some Memorial stadium expansion too. "Through these gates pass the greatest online voters in college football." --- P.S. Voted!

It's not clear they didn't bring suits against other lumber companies. They very well might have. This was just a settlement reached by the Marin County DA and Lowes. The others could be pending. Or maybe Home Depot made the right contributions to the right commissioners last election cycle... This is hardly a "consumer protection" action. Looks more like a money grab by the county.

We understand your problem with the messenger (you called Phil Robertson a Christian bigot, poser, know-nothing, non-expert) Please elaborate on your problem with his message? The "Convert them or kill them" statement in full context : ----- HANNITY: You dedicated this, your book, to Miss Kay, which I thought was really nice. Let me ask you first. I wrote a book once, "Deliver Us from Evil." I think good people have a hard concept understanding evil. That book talks about evil you have there in front of you. The lord's prayer says "deliver us from evil." I think you're a preacher at heart. I'm not telling you anything you don't know. But if anybody could cut off somebody's head like that and put children's heads on our stakes, isn't that evil in our time? And how should we deal with it? ROBERTSON: Worldwide, planet-wide, Biblically speaking, two groups of people, the children of God, and the whole world is under the control of the evil one. That's First John 5:19. The evil one works in those who are disobedient. Galatians 3, they are prisoners of sin. Second Timothy 2, the Bible says they've been taken captive by Satan to do his will. Listen, let me show you one. I've got the old -- hey, America, Declaration of Independence, it's my book marker. Don't forget that. Listen to this, Sean. Solomon, one of the wisest men on earth if not the wisest, he's speaking of wisdom, "Whoever finds me, wisdom finds light. Watch and receives favor from the lord. But whoever fails to find me," this is the God of the Bible, "harms himself." Now, listen to this on this ISIS thing, "All who hate me love death." So you scratch your head and you say, well, why is it that when we're not even over there in the Middle East, why do they continue to slaughter each other when we're not even on the premises? They can't blame us. We left Iraq. You said what happened in Egypt and Syria, you say in Libya. They just slaughter each other. You say, what? "All who hate me love death," Sean. HANNITY: What is the answer? I think the only answer is, I think they are at war with us. ROBERTSON: Yes. HANNITY: Whether we like it or not, I think most people would rather live in peace. Most Americans, just leave us alone, we'll leave you alone. They're not going to leave us alone. They're not going to leave Israel alone. So that leaves us with two options -- do nothing and get ready for the next attack. And then we'll have a report that says, they're at war with us, we weren't at war with them. ROBERTSON: In this case you either have to convert them, which I think would be next to impossible. I'm not giving up on them, but I'm just saying, either convert them or kill them. One or the other. HANNITY: That's going -- ROBERTSON: Maybe that time has come and gone, so I think that with this ideology that we're faced with, this is like street gangs, street thugs on steroids. You think about it, most of the wars we've fought, they were not asymmetrical like this one. This one, it's not a country with a standing army, and we line up and do battle with a certain amount of rules that they violate. But you say this is more like worldwide gang warfare, but this gang is well-armed and well-organized. I think, my opinion, we're going to have to deal with this group way more harshly than we have up to this point. HANNITY: Because they're so harsh. I know they're going to be people that are always looking to jump on you and say, "Convert them or kill them." And they're going to say, "There goes Phil Robertson again." I know the media. I know they how act. ROBERTSON: I'd much rather have a Bible study with all of them and show them the error of their ways and point them to Jesus Christ, the author and perfector of having your sins removed and being raised from the dead. I would rather preach the gospel of Jesus to them. However, if it's a gun fight and a gun fight alone, if that is what they're looking for, me, personally I am prepared for either one.. ------

Maybe someone with more military/police experience than me can chime in, but when I read that I assumed the "grenade launchers" are meant to launch smoke/tear gas...not high explosive grenades. I think the article title in an excellent example of "newstainment" over "journalism" because the title is meant to have the reader conclude the grenade launchers will be outfitted with high explosives...and not the more reasonable non-lethal ammunition like smoke and tear gas. I think you're a smart guy, but I'm afraid (and I truly hope I'm right about this) your assumption is incorrect and you were misled by an unfortunate title written by someone more interested in getting links/hits to their article than providing an accurate perspective.

My comments were not based on any left-wing/right-wing conspiracy, but a comment on the overall decline of journalism and rise of newstainment. Both sides do this. --- You are correct that if a reporter is hindered/mistreated by the police - that is a story, but it's not the story. In order to remain impartial, however, those accounts would need to remain a separate story than the one being covered in all but the most extreme cases. By your own admission, you might have let a story about a reporter getting arrested in a McDonalds frame how you view the unfolding story about protesters and police in Ferguson. --- Listen, I'm guessing most of these police are not the most professionally trained riot police out there. That is actually a comfort to me because it means this sort of thing rarely happens. I don't doubt they will make mistakes in judgement that deserve reprimands. We (Americans) are not as practiced in both protesting and containing protests as some other parts of the world. Mistakes are going to happen on both sides. --- I personally tend to favor the police in situations like these because I know they operate within incredibly thin boundaries between their safety and duty to provide safety which corresponds to a very thin boundary on how much force is appropriate and adequate to achieve both goals. I view the protesters, in general, as uneducated self-serving masses trying to push the limits on what they can get away with and the presence of the reporters (or anyone there with a camera) gives them some assurance that they can push further without consequence. It's a terribly complicated balancing act and what we are able to see through the reports is only a small fraction of the reality and often a very limited perspective.

Which makes their actions towards reporters so unbelievable. IF their actions are all justified, then the reporters would help them tell that side of the story. With their actions towards reporters, I have to believe their actions are not justified. You are discounting the reporter's bias too much. It's not in their best interest to collect "news" that shows the police in a favorable light. They are doing a job. That job is to collect video and photos their editors/producers will want to publish because it's news that people want to consume. A photo of a reporter running away from tear gas is "more valuable" as news than a balanced written account that lead up to the police using tear gas near the reporter. --- I don't doubt that the police has taken unjustifiable actions against reporters. They also have a bias, as they view the reporters as the antithesis of what they are trying to accomplish. The police's job right now is to prevent violence. You could argue the reporter's job right now is to incite more violence. --- I'm glad there are reporters who are on the ground, putting themselves at risk to hold the police (and all parties) accountable for what they are doing, but it wasn't that long ago the reporters themselves weren't the news. If a reporter had a brush up with a cop, that used to be dismissed as non-news...in favor of focusing the reporting efforts on the actual situation. Today, however, there isn't that same desire to keep themselves out of the news (the reporters). They are too willing to report on their own experiences from their own perspectives now. Kinda like those asshats who go stand on a beach while a hurricane approaches...when a static camera is safer and accomplishes the "news" reporting aspect of the devastation. --- A quick example might be that one female reporter that was raped while trying to cover the Arab Spring protests. (in Egypt maybe?) It wasn't news that night - in conjunction with the news on the protests - that the protesters had raped a reporter - although it could have been. Instead, It took some days or weeks for a "side" story to come out regarding her rape. --- My point is, the reporters themselves are not supposed to be the story. When they start becoming the story the reporting becomes drastically skewed.

All I know is that if there were "protests" in my town that included burning down buildings, looting, Molotov cocktails and the like... I would welcome the tear gas and riot police presence and their actions to quell the violence and not think twice that it was an "overreach of power". Protests last night were peaceful though. No rioting, looting, burning. I believe the extent of the violence was a single molotov cocktail. I agree with BigRedBuster. It's infuriating what happened yesterday - I think there are 3-4 reporters who were arrested for no reason and several more who were tear-gassed. Amid the chaos and chaotic reports it's hard to keep track ..and prior protests have not been peaceful. The threat remains and exists because of this, even when a day goes by that a building isn't looted, burned down, etc... The geared up riot police should show INCREDIBLE restraint when dealing with peaceful protesters. I'm sure they do - even when I see anecdotal evidence they are not. The threat of violence still exists - even from peaceful protesters, as those who don't wish to remain peaceful will be mixed within them. When it happens they decide to take action (police), the reports we receive are merely pinhole perspectives and we shouldn't assume to fully grasp what actually unfolded. --- If you want to protest peacefully : - you immediately leave the area and go home when the first act of violence is perpetrated by any other "protester". (not everyone does this) - if you don't leave the area, you are risking being associated with the violence, even if you yourself were never violent. - by continuing to protest - even peacefully - around the violent protests of others, you are supporting their efforts to commit crimes. (see definition of "accomplice") I have no problem with 'peaceful' protesters getting gassed ALL DAY LONG, when the police attempts to disperse gatherings are thwarted by stubborn individuals who don't fully understand their part in the violence. That especially includes reporters who know the risk of being near protests that can turn violent and are more interested in getting the "shot" than accurately reporting the situation and obeying the orders of police.

All I know is that if there were "protests" in my town that included burning down buildings, looting, Molotov cocktails and the like... I would welcome the tear gas and riot police presence and their actions to quell the violence and not think twice that it was an "overreach of power".

So ... no opinion on when our impact changed from "negligible to moderate" and/or "moderate to significant". -- I'm trying to read stuff...but a discussion is more enjoyable.

Breaking point? Ya. The beginning of man-made global warming if you please. When did it happen? What year? 1980's 1970's? 1960's? --- The industrial revolution started back in the 18th century... ... so I'm assuming there is a year some time after we attribute the beginning of global warming. If not a year, maybe a decade? The beginning of mans contributions to global warming was probably the first intentional campfire. Our impact increased greatly over the last ~120 years. It seems like a red herring. Is there a reason why you would find a definite date particularly persuasive? Yes! ...so at what point did our impact change from "negligible to moderate" and/or "moderate to significant". Just throw out a guess... I'm not trying to play the "gotcha" game. I understand if we pick a date it is simply a point of a gradual curve, but it helps distinguish a baseline for setting goals - nothing more. -- To illustrate one use of a date : The Kyoto Protocol seems to have picked 1990 as a benchmark date and then said the goal should be to achieve an emission rate of 80-95% of your 1990 rate by 2050. So, if your country had 1000 mmt/yr co2 rate in 1990, the goal was to have 50-200 mmt/yr co2 emission rate by 2050.] 1990 probably was only significant because they could more readily rely on data from that date. -- I'm trying to understand some things, if you don't want to help me understand - fine.

Need help. Found this here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions Says 2010 World CO2 was 31,350,455 (kt) or thousand tonnes. So that could also be written as 31,350 mt (million tonnes), right? My other numbers were not even close to that. I wonder why that is... ...any help appreciated!

You have my intentions all wrong. Also, you shouldn't fear making statements on HB P&R forum against the chances you say something that can be refuted anyway. This is a place for discussion - I hope. --- I'm trying to figure out when our activities started to make an effect. Interestingly enough, I can't nail down a time period or level of CO2 production in which the Consensus has agreed is the beginning. I did find these dates : 1750 - The "base" date used to represent the pre-industrial period when comparing atmospheric gas concentrations worth watching. (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html) 1925 - The approximate date on that global temperature chart that may represents a start of significant change - possibly? 1950 - This seems to be a cutoff date that represents a shift in more accurate data, either collected or estimated. Not sure if there is any significance or if it's just a data cutoff. 1990 - This seems to be an important ICCP date. Lots of charts seems to start here. The Kyoto Protocol uses this year's CO2 emission levels as a benchmark of sorts it appears. Not sure of the actual significance except it seems to be widely used. ---- The purpose of my efforts is to establish some facts/data points from which to do some calculations. This seems to be helpful : http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2010.ems The global human related CO2 emissions (estimates) for the dates listed above are : (in million metric tons) 1750 = 3 1925 = 975 1950 = 1630 1990 = 6127 2010 = 9167 Also relevant, the per capita : (in metric tons) 1950 = 0.64 1990 = 1.16 2010 = 1.33 ----------- To simply the numbers, you could consider the following year/rate tiers: 1925 = 1000 MMT/yr 1950 = 1500 MMT/yr 1980 = 5000 MMT/yr 1990 = 6000 MMT/yr 2000 = 7000 MMT/yr 2005 = 8000 MMT/yr 2010 = 9000 MMT/yr -------- Now to go find some more numbers to play with....fell free to join in.

Breaking point? Ya. The beginning of man-made global warming if you please. When did it happen? What year? 1980's 1970's? 1960's? --- The industrial revolution started back in the 18th century... ... so I'm assuming there is a year some time after we attribute the beginning of global warming. If not a year, maybe a decade? Could just be coincidence.... So you are contending that - based on the graph - man-made global warming "started" shortly after 1900? Maybe 1925 is a reasonable "date" to pin down? (give or take 20 years) Is that the start period that is agreed on by the Consensus? Seems reasonable based on the chart. Unless anyone else has a better date that the Consensus has determined as the "start", I'll assume that is the beginning date of global warming.