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.

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?

What year is attributed with the breaking point at which human caused CO2 releases broke the natural balance of the CO2 cycle and began to contribute to the increase of concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere? Is this a year that has been defined by the Consensus? I've seen 1990 as a year used in the Kyoto Protocol...but is there a better year to reference?

The only debate of the Consensus allowed is between those who wish to advance it. Challenge the Consensus, and find yourself marginalized with attacks on your motives and person. The Consensus will establish and promote a bureaucracy. The bureaucracy will protect and advance the Consensus through committee and coin. The bureaucracy will propose political reforms, citing the Consensus as justification for both the means and the ends. Protect and support the political reforms proposed by the bureaucracy in service of Consensus. Those who argue against proposed political reforms, argue against the Consensus and should be marginalized with attacks on motive and person.

Most of the time, you can read between the lines and get to the real point of "I don't like this new federal law. Something Something State's Rights!" Yeah....I choose to ignore the blow hards on that and try to look at a common sense approach. Yes, there are things the feds do better and yes, there are things the states and local municipalities do better. In general, the more local anything can be the better. But why, and how? If federal government can be inefficient and corrupt, why is local government thought to be immune? It's not immune. It's just easier to change if it's something you don't want. If you can't change it, you can go somewhere else. --- An analogy might be a stadium's food choices. I'm guessing folks on here have experienced both types. In some stadiums, there is only ONE food vendor. They may be several varied food stands...but they get their food and employees from one central food vendor that oversees the entire stadium. The menu often repeats. Walk far enough around the stadium you'll see the exact same menu repeated over and over. If you get a bad hotdog at one stand...walking to another concourse to find a different hotdog stand will likely produce the same poor result. Even if the food is good, it's homogeneous. It's predictable. Nobody it taking any risks offering a different types of food, when burger, hotdog and nachos are successful enough staples. Without competition, the single food vendor simply needs to maintain a minimum level of success. -- The other type of stadium is the one that leases out the stands to multiple small food vendors. There are often more choices in types of food and the food tends to be better since the vendors are competing with each other. Without a central vendor dictating the menu, a vendor might sneak in some bad food options. After awhile though, people will go somewhere else and they won't be able to afford the lease...and a new vendor will replace them. -- Where we decide to live is really no different. Do you want choices? Or do you want a homogeneous system of government where the only difference in where you live is your address? Should living in Nebraska be the same as living in California or New York? Or are the people different enough that they want to be governed differently?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqoansxbLT4 This is a documentary on trying to find the most humane ways to execute inmates. Start at 6:30. Goes into part 5 Great link, thanks! Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide are probably interchangeable for this purpose. Regarding that pig rejecting the CO2 though... They didn't really explain it too well, but if you breathe pure or almost pure CO2 ..the water in your nose and lungs turns to carbonic acid...and is very painful. You get this if you open a can of soda really quick and 'sniff' up the fizz released from the can. I sometimes get it if I stick my head into my fermenting cooler when I have my beer doing its thing. I know not to breathe it in...but I forget and sometimes get a good 'whack' of acid in my nose. Not fun. There is a lethal level of CO2 that you can breath that will kill you that will also not induce painful acid in your lungs, however. So either could be used. They both displace oxygen in your system. I suppose we could use a mask to make the delivery even more precise, but for some reason the purity of simply seeing a guy in a room not know what is happening and them all of a sudden, plop! appeals to me instead of being administered a gas via a mask.

Yeah, I've never understood why lethal injection became the "preferred" method for the death penalty. The easiest - cheapest - cleanest - and most humane way I can think of is gas chamber, using CO2 as the gas. You just get tired and fall asleep - then die - in a matter of minutes. If you wanted to flood a small room with a lethal amount of CO2, it'd cost $50-100 each time. The delivery devices are storage tanks and fans. The Pepsi guy can deliver the "lethal load" when he drops off the soda in the cafeteria. The room would be clean and safe at all times should something happen and people would have to enter the room. I'd only take a few moments to "clean" the room afterwards by flushing in fresh air, leaving no residue or harmful effects for personnel to be exposed to. -- I don't believe the state should perform death penalties, but if you're going to do it - why bother with complex methods?

This is a great question. "State's Rights" is a catch-all phrase often misused, like "Civil Rights" often is. The core debate is really "Central Planning" vs. "Local Government" Proponents of "States Rights" often are really looking to abolish Federal laws that would then be handled at the State level. The core justification for this is that government is "better" at serving the people when it is executed as close to the constituents as possible - as it more accurately reflects what the people want. This isn't just a STATE/FEDERAL thing, it's a debate at every level of government. Consider this hierarchy of government : Treaties Federal State Country District Association Family -------- The second core justification is the concept that a healthy democratic republic involves diverse and separate 'experiments' at the State level and below. This provides the people with the most liberties and choice. The people can either vote for a change they want in their state, or vote with their feet and move to the state that has what they want. Each time the Federal government passes a law that negates the variety of choices between the states, the country becomes more homogeneous. This can be good. This can be bad. --------- To get to your original question, an argument could be made that the Federal Minimum wage law is one law that could be abolished, returning the minimum wage issue back to the state level. But that is only one of probably thousands of laws/policies that could have arguments made for them.

To me, the #1 issue is a lack of positive role models. Regardless of where you start in life and the color of your skin, if you have someone who inspires you to be better, tells you it's possible to achieve more than your parents, and you take on the personal responsibility to make yourself better - good things can happen. But for every positive & encouraging message you receive from someone trying to raise you up - there are the those who provide the opposite. - they explain away your starting position as result of a previous indirect injustice (slavery) - they suggest that the system is rigged and your skin color will prevent you from succeeding (racisim) - they make you own a culture you didn't want and would rather avoid (drugs) - they make excuses that you are statistically not likely to exceed your parents economically (poverty) - and so on... So instead of lamenting why black youths are statistically likely to have less success...and telling them each and every reason why that is going to be the case - find a way to inspire instead. ---- One solution would be to bring local business leaders into the poor black schools, with a preference for white CEOs. Instead of taking a bus trip to a museum, take a trip to a board room. Show kids what else is out there to achieve. The evil white CEO caricature that is propagated in movies and in leftist news media is built up as an obstacle to their success. In the absence of racism, they could be good role models and provide inspiration. ---- I'm not a black youth, but I see a lot of adults (white & black) listing off all of the reasons/problems. The youths hear that. They absorb it into their reality. It becomes walls they build up around themselves - boxing them in. When poor black youths start hearing more about their opportunities than all the factors that are holding them back, you will see real progress. The best part about that is it's free. You just have to remove the bitter blacks and guilty whites from the equation, and replace them with people who are both color-blind and successful. ----

Could you explain? I've not said that a supplement and a drug are the same thing. I'm asking why you think that they are sufficiently different that it rises to the level of intellectual dishonesty to use a comparison in discussing regulation. Perhaps you can enlighten me. Or perhaps we could discuss why it's so important that dietary supplements remain largely unregulated. The potential costs are easy enough to spot . . . but what are the benefits that have come about from/after the deregulation in 1994? Nah. I'll just be done on this topic. I'm getting bored with it :/ I just don't have the vigor you do to keep going in these threads. I wonder if there is a supplement for that? 'Till next time carlfense. It's always enjoyable. .

Do you find that distinction particularly important? If so, why? Yes. It's comparing apples to oranges and intellectually dishonest to build a case for more regulation of supplements by referencing a failed release of a drug in the 50's. You are a smart guy and know there is a difference between a supplement and a drug. Not finding the distinction important - for the purposes of this discussion - is your prerogative.