They are republicans after all. Some habits are hard to break.

Yah; the miracles of Google educated me...Simunition.
Recipe for trouble.
Never point a gun at someone or something that you don't intend to kill.

This is a bad, bad habit to get into...

Sorry if I'm not willing to take dieting advice from someone who's obese and, like a nutjob, has been carrying a hamburger in their purse for 4 years to make some nonsensical point about hamburgers. If you're so knowledgeable about proper eating habits, why are you still obese?

Sorry if I'm not going to take science advice from someone who doesn't know desiccation is one of the oldest methods of preserving food, and takes no chemicals. Incan mummies don't have shower mold either, and they've been exposed to air for centuries without the need for any preservatives. Derp.

While I agree, fast food is almost always bad for you, I haven't had a fast food burger in over 32 years, what these morons are saying is just ignorant stupidity of the highest order.

THNX

I do believe it is.

If my world is not very habitable in the first place and I have the option of setting fire to some rainforest to build a farm, sell me some clean air and Orangutang habitat in exchange for good karma and poverty, please.

On the other hand if I make decisions that impact hundreds of millions of people on a daily basis without much recourse to anything in particular (party line? military commanders? local clans? religious leaders?) what does a teenagers speech on the opposite side of the planet change for me? Its just completely off the playing field of making important decisions.

I hear her cry, now calm down and look for ways to actually improve the situation, please.

Suing Argentina for breaking childrens rights? Not bad, human rights cases were actually a good method to fight communist regimes in the 70s and 80s. Just a very slow grinding method.

Actually, I'm selling their audience short. When real scientists present the real data dispassionately, I think the average person gets quickly confused and tunes out. Those that dumb it down enough to be understood invariably underrepresent or outright misrepresent the problems. With so many unscientific voices out there trying to out shout the real data for their own purposes, real scientists fudging the data is near criminal because it's only more ammunition for deniers.

Yes, if you or I heard them lecture, we would likely hear that and even more, but the average, unscientific American would hear "taking in more energy than is leaving" as a good thing, free energy. If they explained the mechanisms involved, their eyes would glaze over as they just wished someone would tell them it's all lies so they could ignore what they can't understand fully. These people are, imo, the majority in the U.S.. They are why we need emotional delivery of simplified science from a charismatic young woman who knows her stuff.
Edit: For example, I had read the published summaries of the recent U.N. report saying we had 12 years to be carbon neutral to stay below 1.5degree rise, they were far from clear that this was only a 50% chance of achieving that minimal temperature rise, or that we only had 8 years of current emission levels to have a 66% chance, still bad odds. I understood they were also using horrendous models for ice melt and other factors to reach those optimistic numbers, and didn't take feedback loops we already see in action into account, nor did they make allowances for feedbacks we don't know about yet. The average reader only got 12 years to conserve before we are locked into 1.5 degree. They don't even know that's when known feedback loops are expected to outpace human inputs, making it exponentially harder if not impossible to turn around, or that 1.5 degree rise by 2050 likely means closer to 3 degree by 2100, and higher afterwards.

Mating habits for European swallows?! How did we get from the relationship of climatology and sociology to discussing the red light district?

@newtboy,

"Ok, but don't discount the factual arguments because they are presented with passion. Ignore the emotion and focus on verifying or debunking the facts presented. Because someone on Fox presents their denial argument flatly and dispassionately doesn't make it more correct."

Obviously agreed, exactly what I was saying.

"if the facts are presented clearly and in totality, which she does better than most if not all professional scientific lecturers....sadly"

I think here you are selling scientific lecturers short, or at the least including folks I wouldn't consider scientific at all in the group.

When I think scientific lecturer, I think an actual scientific researcher giving a lecture related to their field of expertise. That even excludes scientific researchers giving lectures outside their field of expertise. I've seen how badly interdisciplinary study types can misjudge their own knowledge of a field. In the hard sciences they can get rooted out faster, but in softer sciences and humanities it's easier for them to keep finding a niche that hides their ignorance.

If you get the CERES team to give a talk on the global energy budget, they will give a lecture a thousand times more complete and accurate, than you, I or Greta ever could. They will confirm the planet is taking in more energy than is leaving. They will confirm their data is corroborated between satellite and ocean heat content measurements. They can say with authority how much energy is being gained, and can even confirm it largely corresponds to what we'd expect from the increased CO2 contributions. If you asked, they would even also admit that the uncertainties on the measured imbalance are larger than the imbalance itself.

Ask them about mating habits for European swallows and you, I or Gretta might well know better than them.

Animals are evolving strategies to deal with our messy habits? Thanks nature, you MVP!

Video Title: Slurring guy on the internet defends alcohol consumption, jesus wept lol.

And let's talk about bias for a minute. Nobody is drinking alcohol for the protective effects for the 3 cancers it apparently protects against.Aaron is clearly trying to make himself feel better about his bad habits.

Moderate alcohol is not protective against 3 types of cancers, it's merely associated with it, because people who drink moderately are in a certain demographic, age, class, social/economical, education etc. and the studies that are shown in the nutritionfacts.org video control for these kinds of things.

I'm not sure if you watched the video , but they show research which says that the alcohol industry use the same tactics as big tobacco do (that Aaron is perpetuating) to keep the public confused.

The tactic Aaron is using, is cherry picking a weak study, debunking their shitty method, and then using it to dismiss all other credible evidence. It's effectively a strawman, because he did nothing to address the hundreds of studies with strong evidence.


TL:DR ALCOHOL IS A GROUP 1 CARCINOGEN - IT CAUSES CANCER:

EVERY MEDICAL BODY RECOMMENDS ZERO CONSUMPTION

Your video, How Portugal Is Kicking its Heroin Habit, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Disclaimer: I am actually in favour of legalising drugs, but to answer your question....

The state does have a responsibility to protect you, even from yourself. Hence things like warning labels, etc.

Also, for most countries, there is a social and economic cost associated with drugs. Even leaving aside criminal activity (i.e. committing crimes to feed a drug habit), there is a cost for healthcare, lost productivity (heavy drug users are often unemployed) and in social welfare.

This is the same argument applied to increasing controls on smoking (taxes, plain packaging etc).

However, my main problem with all this is that it just doesn't work. The "war on drugs" is a total failure. People continue to use drugs.

There's plenty wrong with decimating their natural habitats and then shooting them when they have nowhere else to look for food.

Animals might not understand how to write a contract but they understand territory very well.

We walk through their land and then we get upset if they aggressively defend it.

And the vast majority of this habitat loss is so someone can stick a cow on the land because that's what consumers are demanding. We're effectively replacing the planet's wonderful biodiversity with 5 animals and 5 types of crop to feed these farm animals. We must change our consumption habits, otherwise nature will change it for us in about 50 years.

I can give you a description of the bit and my opinion.

A Tom Thumb bit is jointed in the middle and has shanks for leverage. So it has a dual action. When light pressure is used it works on the gums and corners of the mouth. When the reigns are pulled harder the jaw is squeezed while the shanks multiply the force and the center joint folds upward to apply pressure to the roof of the mouth. It's kind of like the volume going from 1 to 11.

Uses:
In theory it should act like a traditional Western bit with the added advantage of rotating the shanks independently...so you can make pressure changes on each side of the mouth independently. In actual practice, it pinches the horses lip in this situation and horses tend to react by tossing their head up or holding their head in an unnaturally high position. With a strong pull it becomes extremely severe. Using it requires a very light hand.

I have used a Tom Thumb successfully with a well trained horse that required no head control but had developed a bad habit of testing his rider by picking up his gate and then bolting. The bit allowed me to ride with no hand but when the horse stretched his neck to take control he ran into the bit. When he relaxed back to the correct position, the pressure was gone. Eventually he didn't want to cause his own discomfort and once he'd broken his bad habits the bit wasn't necessary.

In my opinion, the Tom Thumb appears to check a lot of boxes but in reality it does few of them well. It can work for the right horse, with the right rider, in the right circumstances.

Roy is clearly an inexperienced rider and his personality demands that he assert control, even when he's out of his depth. He's riding a gaited horse (I think it's a Tennessee Walker but my daughter disagrees) and he seems to be trying to make it move like a Quarter Horse. My guess is he's trying to ride in like a cowboy but the horse naturally moves like pretty princess horse. Chaos ensues.

I hope that makes sense. I tried to avoid horse-people terms. If something's unclear or if anyone feels I'm wrong, then I welcome comments.

Sorry, I have owned two Civics, force of habit

Either way, he brought plenty more than needed.


Sidenote :
Everyone who shoots regularly (sport, not hunting) has thousands of rounds.
A 1k brick of 223 is ~28c per shot.
If you buy boxes of 20 each at the range, you're gonna pay closer to ~50c per shot.
If you go to the range 2x per month, firing 200 rounds per trip (6 or 7 mags worth), that's 2.5 months to empty a 1k brick.
~110 bucks/month if you buy 1k at a time.
~200 bucks/month if you buy individual boxes at the range.
The choice is simple. 1k bricks to save money.
So if you have 5 different caliber rifles, you have 5 1k bricks.
This is one of those "out of touch" sort of things with TV coverage. They make it sound like thousands of rounds is a lot to have.

Granted, I know hunters that have 40 rounds to their name, and it will take them 10 years to shoot all 40. One shot at season start to check zero. Then 1 or 2 more to take 1 or 2 deer. But they don't like to shoot, they like to hunt.



I googled 'rapid fire triggers'.

Geissele, Timney, Hypertouch, these are all normal triggers.
They are premium offerings. Smooth, low grit, low creep, clean crisp break.
They don't actually have any function that artificially increases rate of fire.
The marketing can fool you if you don't know what they are.
(It's like buying a "no name mouse" vs a "gamer mouse". One feels better, but you still click just as fast.)

Tac Con 3MR does have its own gimmick. It does a partial reset on every fire. Your finger still has to move forward and back to fire again, so you're still limited by your reaction time. In reviews it's no different than a normal trigger rate of fire wise.



4473 just asks if you've ever been convicted of a felony that could (not did) have had a 1 year sentence. That's a pretty broad set.

AFAIK, they all screw your right to vote. I could be wrong.


Note :
Sorry about edits mid your reply.
I have a habit of "word processing" in place - out of fear that I'll click back or something and lose my text.

-scheherazade