I'm not sure if it's harder or easier after the course gets knocked down more and more as they go. The constant change makes it different for each driver.

I think the fun is all in how much dirt you can kick up! I can live with that.

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?

Not in my experience. I've known many people who tried in Texas and Nevada, all failed. They said it was about 3 pages in triplicate (4 with cover page, totalling 12), fingerprints, photos, a pristine criminal record, chests of cash (the guns cost thousands or tens of thousands), a Class 3 FFL dealer willing to sell to you, 9 months to a year waiting for approval, and no local ordinance against it (local police will be notified).

I said the background check is similarly difficult to pass, not the entire process.

No one asked you that. We balked at your claim-
"The 2A specifically says "arms". There is plenty of debate and case law regarding what arms they meant. Suffice to say there isn't a shadow of a doubt that it means firearms (long and short) of all varieties commonly available."
...and I then gave you the federal definition of "firearms" which you begrudgingly admitted trumps yours, but still cling to the concept that firearms can't be regulated (even though they clearly are). I'm surprised you recall it so differently, especially when you can verify by just scrolling up.

This is a paranoid delusion. Because that's a possibility in a future where the 2a is repealed, they think that's enough reason to ignore any positive uses, like knowing if the person just diagnosed with schizophrenia has an arsenal, or the person who's stalking your 15 year old daughter, or the man who beats his wife. Also, taken to conclusion, that argument is basically "It might make it harder for me to break the law. That's unacceptable." Hardly a reasonable argument imo.

? Your argument was there are better issues to throw money at, bucketloads you said, now you admit it takes no money and declare yourself correct?!

Then don't be dumb and fuck little kids.
Don't be dumb and rape random women.
Don't be dumb by getting caught in the Jr high locker room filming.
Don't be a snarky tool who hides from what he said by doing mental gymnastics to pretend their warnings aren't implications.
See how giving these warnings imply you needed warning? That's how warnings work.

Because I post here doesn't make me the big dog...I'm not even top 20. Everyone is welcome, welcome to post as much or little as they choose, but if I see lies, misstatements, abuse, or insults when none are called for, I'm going to say something, just like I do in person. That's called being an upright citizen. I guess you prefer those who shrink away from that obligation....so hit ignore. That's what I'm doing.

No sir.
I even mentioned one group in America that never adopted petroleum...Amish...and I would counter your assertion with the fact that most people on earth don't live using oil, they're too poor, not too fortunate. 20-30 years ago, most Chinese had never been in a car or a commercial store bigger than a local vegetable stand.

Both customers and non customers are the victims.
Using (or selling) a product that clearly pollutes the air, land, and sea is immoral.

Yes, it's like our business is predicated on rebuilding wrecked cars overnight which we do by using massive amounts of meth. Sure, our products are death traps, sure, we lied about both our business practices and the safety of our product, sure, our teeth and brains are mush....but our business has been successful and allowed us to have 10 kids (8 on welfare, two adopted out), and if we quit using meth they'll starve and fight over scraps. That's proof meth is good and moral and you're mistaken to think otherwise. Duh.

Yes, we overpopulated, outpacing the planet's ability to support us by far...but instead of coming to terms with that and changing, many think we should just wring the juice out of the planet harder and have more kids. I think those people are narcissistic morons, we don't need more little yous. Sadly, we are well beyond the tipping point, even if no more people are ever born, those alive are enough to finish the biosphere's destruction. Guaranteed if they think like you seem to.

Um, really? Complete collapse of the food web isn't catastrophic?
Wars over hundreds of millions or billions of refugees aren't catastrophic? (odd because the same people who think that are incensed over thousands of Syrians, Africans, and or South and Central American refugees migrating)
Massive food shortage isn't catastrophic?
Loss of most farm land and hundreds of major cities to the sea isn't catastrophic?
Loss of corals, where >25% of ocean species live, and other miniscule organisms that are the base of the ocean food web isn't catastrophic?
Loss of well over 1/2 the producers of O2, and organisms that capture carbon, isn't catastrophic?
Eventual clouds of hydrogen sulfide from the ocean covering the land, poisoning 99%+ of all life isn't catastrophic?
Runaway greenhouse cycles making the planet uninhabitable for thousands if not hundreds of thousands or even millions of years isn't catastrophic?
Loss of access to water for billions of people isn't catastrophic?
I think you aren't paying attention to the outcomes here, and may be thinking only of the scenarios estimated for 2030-2050 which themselves are pretty scary, not the unavoidable planetary disaster that comes after the feedback loops are all fully in play. Try looking more long term....and note that every estimate of how fast the cycles collapse/reverse has been vastly under estimated....as two out of hundreds of examples, Greenland is melting faster than it was estimated to melt in 2075....far worse, frozen methane too.

You can reject the science, that doesn't make it wrong. It only makes you the ass who knowingly gambles with the planet's ability to support humans or other higher life forms based on nothing more than denial.

Edit: We are at approximately 1C rise from pre industrial records today, expected to be 1.5C in as little as 11 years. Even the IPCC (typically extremely conservative in their estimates) states that a 2C rise will trigger feedbacks that could exceed 12C. Many are already in full effect, like glacial melting, methane hydrate melting, peat burning, diatom collapse, coral collapse, forest fires, etc. It takes an average of 25 years for what we emit today to be absorbed (assuming the historical absorption cycles remain intact, which they aren't). That means we are likely well past the tipping point where natural cycles take over no matter what we do, and what we're doing is increasing emissions.

I sometimes tell them "My forefathers fought and died for my right to remain silent. Discarding that right would be outrageously disrespectful and insulting to their sacrifice, and I'm certainly not going to do that to make a stranger's job a little easier and my life harder."

The new lower standard....which was exponentially higher than the standard set by either the previous or subsequent president?
Do you not know how lowering standards works? To set a new low, you have to be worse than others.

8 years and Obama never had to hire a lawyer, not one indictment with the republicans frothing at the mouth daily over....well, obviously nothing, for all 8 years.
Trump, at 1.8 years in had 89 indictments and already 24 convictions (more now, 36 guilty pleas for Republican Mueller's investigation alone) with Republicans in FULL CONTROL (and he still couldn't get wall funding, Muslim bans, or kill the ACA, and barely even got his deficit exploding tax cut for millionaires).
Bush had 16 indictments, all convictions, and until Trump was considered our dumbest, most incompetent president...not anymore.

Every time you spout this kind of asinine brain dead stupidity, I will be here to save you with some fact. Claiming Obama set a new low standard means you have absolutely no grasp on reality, as it's simply embarrassingly wrong and easy to debunk factually. By every standard imaginable (morally, ethically, in civility, rationality, directionality, ability, honesty, FIDELITY, respect, etc.) he was and remains not just head and shoulders above Trump, he's miles above Trump and well above W.

It's very sad your baseless irrational hatred taints your viewpoint so thoroughly you would think that nonsense would fly....but since you just proudly flew a Q flag there, it's clear you're too far gone for fact or history to matter a whit.
Q=batshit crazy conspiracy nuts akin to flat earthers and breathairians, 100% worthy of shunning before they pull out a gun in your pizza place looking for child sex slaves, illuminati, and lizard people.
Just when I think you can't sink lower, you surprise me every time.

Btw, thanks to numerous states making releasing your tax returns mandatory to be on the ballot, Trump's 2020 chances are quickly becoming slim to none....hard to win if you aren't on the ballot, harder to win when it's shown you're a complete fraud and tax cheat.

It's part of common core. Supposedly it makes it easier to understand the theory behind math so later in higher level classes (algebra, trig, etc) they can easily break the harder equations down.

Beats me, I learned the old way and it worked for me through algebra 1/2, and geometry.

I always thought making donations and/or if you can give your time. Many people already do.

As a Christian it's not in your best interest to hate. I know it makes the job harder but... rules are rules if want to play the game.

Please let this be the new norm every time senator dumbfuck speaks, he should never leave another speech dry, and please wear studded leather next time so the dumbass muscleheads have a harder time trying to choke you out or break your neck...or bring a few yourself.

So glad to know he's been released without charges and is supported by a strong majority of his countrymen (apparently up to and including the PM,) and has well over $20000 donated to defend him through go fund me and other pages supporters set up for possible legal fees.
*quality act that should be repeated....and blamed on the "victim" every time.

Oh, and @ChaosEngine....I think you're thinking of fournier gangrene.

Acceptance of losing a loved one is harder than accepting your own death.

I stand on my original quote.

Are we talking about the same video?

I'm very simply meaning that making jokes about horrible things like rape and murder isn't automatically endorsing them, and that depending on context the jokes can make the problem better, worse or somewhere in between. Not sure where objectification came in atop that?

At the very least a lot of war vets with PTSD have been helped by humor as a coping mechanism or as an opening to harder topics of conversation...

You are not only recovering. You are getting stronger for those who will need you. For those who have not gotten as far as you have. You are becoming more valuable. The harder it is, the stronger you become. You have nothing to fear.

Rock on.

Chainsaws are designed that way. Just turn the key. Work smarter, not harder.

Procreate!? Wow, do you ever have the wrong couple! Homie don't play that. I got fixed in my 20's with her full support.
Don't nobody want no other newtboy no how.

My wife would argue about it being my weakest point too....she wishes. My lower spine has a much harder time maintaining rigidity....and still causes less trouble.

This is why betsy devos is working so hard. If you educate the poor it's harder to get them to vote against their own best interest.