lawrocket

What the fuck makes you think this is a mental health problem? Think that some therapy could have helped him? Put him on some mess and stop it? Issue is that mental illness is a separate thing from evil. This was a cold, cruel, ruthless individual who planned it out and then executed people. For maximum effect on live TV. Then posted his own video to show what he did. say this guy lives. Are you suggesting he should be in a hospital for the rest of his days? A mental institution because a doctor can fix him? Or even control him? Or is this a dangerous individual that should be in a prison? He was not mentally ill. He was evil. An act of sheer evil. And to even compare him to somebody like, say, the camera guy's fiancée who is likely about to enter a pretty heavy depression is sickening. When are we going to quit conflating evil assholes with mentally ill? Enough of it. My wife is hotter than your wife.

It's not just that. Prevailing winds are from the Northwest. So what happens is all the people in San Francisco driving their gas guzzlers simply send their emissions inland. They run into the Central Valley and the Sierras hold them in. It's bad here in Fresno, but it's worst down by Bakersfield and Specifically Oildale Add to that the amount of particulates put up by agriculture and we have lousy air here. So the Central Calley gets hit with restrictions. My wife is hotter than your wife.

I can see this election cycle as being the one that really gets people to stop and ask what the hell we were thinking. Kinda like. "All right. I think we took it too far." Anyone here think that when Hillary gets the nomination that Bernie Sanders won't run as a third party candidate? Or what about Trump? Both of them playing the Perot/Nader role. My wife is hotter than your wife.

Unlike you, I didn't make this partisan. I also included Hillary's proposal. So I should have written "and GOP treat the second amendment?" Correct. The GOP also favors stricter gun control. That's why the President keeps attacking them. I'll go less partisan. "Just like all the lefties and righties out there trying to deny marriage licenses to gays and lesbians despite the Constitution." Still partisan. You can't help yourself? I hate the Dems. I hate the GOP almost as much. But the guns issue is something I agree with the GOP. Yes. I am partisan in favor of the Constitution. Turns out the GOP has adopted the Democrat tactics in order to cause contempt for those protections. Like free speech. Turns out Democrats hate it more than anyone. Is there anyone who hate political speech more than a Democrat? Hell not. Fourth Amendment? Count on the GOP to do what it be an against it. But where the real steps have been taken is with the Second Amendment. You have indicated how much you dislike it. Does it suck to see the GOP using the same exact arguments and tactics to destroy Constitutional protections? I feel your pain. It sucks ass seeing people disrespect Constitutional protections. Turns out I actually agree with you on this issue. But you've demonstrated your hypocrisy by vocally supporting a rigatoni of Constitutional rights. Sorry. But I won't let you get away with disregarding the Constitution with the Second Amendment yet have problems with people doing the same thing to the 14th. Which side are you on? The Constitution? Or is it something that you love when you agree with it and detest when you you don't? Say what you want. Call me partisan. But I'm consistent. The 14th Amendment is as important as the Second and the Fittest and Fifth. The GOP Assholes like to pick and choose what parts of the Constitution they dig on. How about you? Are you willing to hold the Second end entry I. Equal dignity with the 14th? If not, you are subject to the same hypocrisy which you vocally despise. Ps. I am by no means perfect. Not even close My wife is hotter than your wife.

Unlike you, I didn't make this partisan. I also included Hillary's proposal. So I should have written "and GOP treat the second amendment?" Correct. The GOP also favors stricter gun control. That's why the President keeps attacking them. I'll go less partisan. "Just like all the lefties and righties out there trying to deny marriage licenses to gays and lesbians despite the Constitution." My wife is hotter than your wife.

So we have these GOP types who want to treat the 14th amendment like the Democrat types treat the Second Amendment. I can't say that this is unexpected. Adopting the tactics of others to achieve some goal is storied. I suspect they can open up discussions with the Brady center on how to fuck with the Constitution. My wife is hotter than your wife.

NGT is no doubt awesome. I watch plenty of his stuff and listen to startalk when I can. But I'd really love to see Amy Mainzer. I love that lady. My wife is hotter than your wife.

I would opt for Michio Kaku

It's also another instance where perception means more than anything. My wife is hotter than your wife.

These guys are a couple hours north of me. I have zero knowledge of them. But it was in the news here. But on that end, what the? My wife is hotter than your wife.

Are you telling me that, as a lawyer, you've never chosen a synonym with a better connotation than the more accurate one? Nope. And I can tell you from experience how goddamned disingenuous and messed up it is. And what the hell it does to people. And why the fuck do we do shit this way. There is a reason. Why most politicians are lawyers. The ones who enjoy the divisive shit the most and who can't imagine a life without stirring the pot have their sights set higher. My wife is hotter than your wife.

Yep. This is fascinating. And one can see every side doing it. I hate it. The ones that bother me the most are "mainstream" and "common sense." Particularly the latter. If it's common sense then why the hell are you telling me that? The tools of divisiveness. My wife is hotter than your wife.

After years of this, can safely say that I have no idea whether kallend is an alarmist or a lukewarmist or what. I don't think he has taken any affirmative stance. He is adept at pointing out flaws in reasoning and logic and seems to lean toward the believer side. But his true beliefs are enigma to me. My wife is hotter than your wife.

I avoid wuwt because it's just too much hassle. Watts himself is all right. And watts does a good job compiling some information and articles from people of all persuasions. But I just find his stuff too slanted to really be approachable. What watts does do well is present information clearly. The people doing the stuff on the site are pretty good. Nevertheless, I see wuwt as little more than the other side of skepticalscience, which bill frequently cites. Another site that, like watts, could be so damned much better with a bit more appreciation of the other side and inclusion of all data. Anthony Watts is really no better than Bill Nye. But I can also tell that all these people criticizing wuwt don't ever look at it. They seem to think that Anthony Watts writes all of it. Not even close. My wife is hotter than your wife.

Uh oh, kallend's going quantum on us. Maybe he is. Or maybe he isn't. Or maybe he is and isn't. Well just have to look and see. My wife is hotter than your wife.

Exactly. People want what they've got but don't want anyone else to get it. For the tea partiers, they have no problem with socialism so long as it all goes to them and nobody else. For the watermelons, they want oil for their uses but others don't get it for theirs. It's sanctimoniousness. My wife is hotter than your wife.

I am quoting this. Because I agree My wife is hotter than your wife.

Insolvency feared for Obamacare co-ops after $376 million in losses in first year http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/30/obamacare-co-ops-flailing-falling-behind-loans/?page=all ***Obamacare’s co-ops, designed to give more choices for insurance, lost hundreds of millions of dollars in their first year and didn’t attract anywhere near as many customers as they had hoped, meaning they may go insolvent and default on taxpayer-funded loans, according to a government audit released Thursday. One co-op already went belly-up, and all but one of the 22 others lost money in 2014, the Department of Health and Human Services inspector general said. Maine’s co-op was the only one to make money, reaping $5.86 million after it won 80 percent of the state’s Obamacare consumers. Turns out making money in the insurance business isn't all that easy. I predict this is the future of Obamacare. You can't make money covering everything unless people who aren't making claims pay you as well. Obama care is the new f-35 I saw an F-35 at Oshkosh. Very impressive. Yes. It does everything in a mediocre fashion and does nothing in a great way. It has a one size fits all approach. It is designed to replace a plethora of less expensive systems in order to keep costs down, and does so by being supremely expensive and over budget. Yes, the only way to keep the price of each one down is to increase the overall cost by buying more. But it is cool to look at. I'll admit that. And it sure sounds awesome. It just does what it's supposed to do in a mediocre fashion. Like Obamacare. If you want your CAS aircraft you can keep it. Unless it is the cheaper and supremely effective A-10. It's gone. My wife is hotter than your wife.

At the time? Yes. Civilians were fair game as military targets. Merchant Marines were civilians. And the US just built ships faster than the Germans could sink them. Germans sent buzz bombs. The Blitz was not directed at military targets. The Japanese didn't just hit Chinese military - it's called the Rape of Nanking for a reason. We are judging the actions through the ethos of today versus then. More people were killed in Tokyo than in Hiroshima. But that doesn't get the news. Dresden, as well as other places, we're leveled. The US woukd blow up dams and the civilians in the way wouLd just be part of the casualties. If the plants are destroyed and the workers are dead or maimed then the factories stop working. Civilian populations have been considered legitimate targets through history. And still are. Are you reading this? Odds are there is a warhead targeted to hit within 30 miles of you. Mutually Assured Destruction was not a scenario predicated on tactical nukes hitting military bases. My wife is hotter than your wife.

Unions are in the business of making money. Yes, they protect cops but that is their job. Get as much benefit for their members as possible. And if a member gets canned, that is one less dues paying member. So they negotiate protections and enforce those protections. But the unions aren't the root of it. The root of it is that the People got the police forces they said they wanted. The Daryl Gates model of the LAPD took hold. SWAT raids became more commonplace. SWAT now uses old military gear. And as if to show how bad ass they are dress up in military uniforms. (I mean, come on. Wearing desert BDUs in Missouri?). And no-knock warrants on anyone and everyone. Those kids were selling lemonade without a license and if the police knock to serve it evidence will be destroyed and a reliable anonymous informant has told police that the 8 year-old has been known to weild a recoiless rifle and is a threat. thus, the BATF, the State Police, the FBI, DHS and the FDA will be assisting the sheriff in this raid. They can't be too careful or someone could die or get hurt. My wife is hotter than your wife.

Yes. Oligarchy is a problem. So, I dunno, maybe if the government had LESS power and control over the money then a politician wouldn't be worth the investment. Cut the power of politics out to of it. And enough of the slime ball politicians. The whole issue of government funding means less money from special interests is like saying that welfare to inner cities will stop property crimes. No. It's just extra income. My wife is hotter than your wife.

Trump isn't in an presidential election right now. He is trying to be elected by the party to be allowed to run in the presidential campaign. So that is where the money will be and where people will be bought and paid for. Sounds like a solution that is not a solution, which seems to be the whole nature of Bernie Sanders. Point out a problem. Don't solve it. But make sure that the government is the middleman with money. My wife is hotter than your wife.

I really miss my Blackberry. An iPhone is causing a mad struggle with spelling and autocorrect. My wife is hotter than your wife.

Jesse Ventura has been saying this for quite a while: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbLkgKbr9U8 Yeah. Because Bernie Sanders thinks "Sponsored by Big Government" is better. Government spending on elections. Yeah. That sounds fucking g awesome. What other things have been sponsored by Big Government? Th e War in Iraq? Cops executing people. The Patriot Act. NSA Surveillance. Yes, because if any sponsorship should be trusted, it should be Big Government. The amazing thing is that Sanders is serious. Not only should I find Sanders' campaign but I should also fund Trump. I will tell you this, it would be fucking great. If elections are publicly funded, I will declare my candidacy. "Dear government. Yeah, I'm gonna need about $500 million to stand a decent chance. An airplane. Tour bus. Yeah, all that stuff. I'm going tk be touring the US to drum up support. But also have bills to pay so I need that." Mount a campaign as a pretty damned good reason to take a $500 million working vacation for a couple of years. Tour the country. Talk to people every now and then. All on the taxpayer's dime. It'll be fucking great. You might say, "But lawrocket. They aren't going to let any swinging dick out there get taxpayer money to fund a campaign. There will be tight controls over who actually receives that money. Big Government will make sure that only the correct candidate gets that public funding." To which I explain that's goddamned right. And that scares the living hell out of me. My wife is hotter than your wife.

They're not melting. OK, so they are, but it has nothing to do with mankind. OK maybe it does, but glaciers are cold and scary and bad. If we melt them, then we will have water and arable land to feed the starving children. Why do climate change alarmists want children to starve? What is remarkable to me is that people will not only will believe stuff like "world Glaciers are melting faster today than at any time in history" but that otherwise knowledgeable people will say it and print it. The problems associated with this are manifold. First, no. It's a falsehood. Glaciers "melted" faster for a few thousand years back when the last "ice age" ended. Folks. We have been out of an "ice age" for a while now. Meaning that there isn't even much ice left to melt. 12k years ago when NYC was under a mile of ice there was a much more rapid melt. Secondly, it is a perversion of the process. The glacier is smaller, ergo it melted. No. It's far from that simple. There are many ways that a glacier can "ablate," such as by sublimation (this is why Glaciers can shrink even when the temperature is below freezing) or by simply sliding downhill. Those big fat masses of ice that calf off into the ocean? That glacier just lost four Manhattans worth of ice and it didn't happen by melting. Yes, they can also melt. Which happens in every temperate summer. On the other hand, there is yet another side of the whole "equilibrium" part. That is called "accretion." How are Glaciers made? Well, snow falls. It compacts into ice under its own weight. Thus building up a glacier. What happens when there isn't enough snowfall to maintain the glacier through its ablation process? Oh, yeah. The glacier must have melted and it must have been human activity that caused it, right? Because science says glaciers melt. Once again, where fact and rationality and, yes, junior high school level scientific knowledge fall victim to propaganda headlines. Are glaciers abating throughout the world? Yep. Are these headlines always seen in July and August? Yep. If glaciers didn't ablate would the Greenland icepack be 35000 feet high right now? Yes.Is most of Antarctica considered a desert? Yes. Is it a desert because it is so cold that the air cannot hold any water vapor to precipitate? Yes. So if Antarctica warms then would we expect to see more accretion of glaciers? Yes. Because science. My wife is hotter than your wife.