More anti education anti lgbtq hate from ignorant infantile zealots.
Undoubtedly untrue too, 99% of what these nutjobs claim is false, totally made up, or hyperbole presented as fact.

The Bible has far more explicit sex, violence, rapes, beastiality, etc than any banned book, but the same morons send 2 year olds to private, unregulated, unsupervised “classes” run by clergy (with the highest pedophile rate of any profession) to learn the nonsense before they can reason.

Don’t want your kid exposed to it, send them to a religious private school….but expect actual sex abuse by teachers, not the fantasy abuse of having a book available to their peers their parents don’t agree with.

Fuck off to Russia if this is what you want, Bobski. Leave the freedom to those who understand and respect it.

Selfishness is never a good plan. When you become selfish you end up only forgetting about yourself. Funny thing about walls. Sometimes it's hard to tell if you are on the inside or the outside.

"Since, my friend, you have revealed your
Deepest fear
I sentence you to be exposed before
Your peers
Tear down the wall" -Pink Floyd

The camera isn't racist. The homeowner might be a racist (we would not know unless he/she uploads every instance of such attempts to give a cold-hard-fact account that's free of manipulation -- even though that's STILL not factoring in the socio-econo-racial problem of the neighborhood -- if you choose to see things with a racial lens). But the comment absolutely is racist.

Years ago, living in my suburb home, my bike was stolen by 2 kids (garage door was open as I was mowing the lawn, but I went inside for the loo for 2 mins), I was lucky and spotted them about 5~6 streets down (took 2 lucky correct turns). They were 2 kids about 8~10 y.o. One White one Asian. Guess which one was the older, pack leader (hold my adult-size bike) and absolutely showing no remorse after getting caught?

Regardless, the kids parents might have a hard life working on weekends at low paying jobs so couldn't spend time with these kids. Who knows? I'm not so quick to judgement without knowing the root causes.

Thing is, I blame society-at-large and not see it as a racial thing. Kids are kids, easy to succumb to such temptation without good parental/peer/mentor guidance. Especially nowadays, they see adults making a CAREER/LIVING as Porch Pirates, what examples are adults giving them to imitate? You have like 40% of the adult population celebrate con mans and elect them Senators, Governors & President!

I got other escrow sites we can use if you like. Don't you want to be rich and celebrate trump's victory?

https://blog.zensports.com/zensports-launches-peer-to-peer-sports-betting-c4e82c4d64c5

Or we can do escrow through an attorney. The school secretary is a notary. I'll mail the contract first class and I'll be sure to sign it in a ceremonial fashion with a quill. Ok i won't do that but i WILL really make that bet. Put up man. Lets do this thing. Donald trump's says he won the election AND HE IS AN HONEST MAN so you don't have anything to worry about. One thing is for sure you can use that extra money to donate to whatever campaign you want cuz it'll be yours when you win it because Donald Trump will be here for four more years right?

Started developing a taste for it at 16. Hung out with some buddies and we would cruise "the strip" at night in Easton PA. Northampton St. We would stop at Dunkin' Donuts and I was the only one who would drink soda out of about 5 - 6 of us. Peer pressure ya know.

So I started to develop a taste for coffee by adding lots of sugar and cream to it. I eventually worked my way down to just one creamer and no sugar.

So now I'll have at least one iced coffee with an espresso shot a day and hot coffee in the morning and later at night. Since I'm on call 24hrs a day I have no regular sleeping pattern. I also drink cold Arizona Green Tea with Ginseng and Honey. Good stuff.

Peer pressure at the donut shop?

Ok...i should have said "all but guaranteed under all BUT the most wildly optimistic projections". Got me.

Since, time and time again, the UN "collaborative summary" has had to be revised upwards, and recent measurements show current melting rates it claimed won't be seen until 2075 in Greenland, yes, I have a low opinion of their political/scientific consensus...but the scenarios I mentioned are not the most extreme I can find, just the most likely if you look at data rather than projections based on the conglomeration of incomplete, cherry picked, and non peer reviewed science as well as full scientific studies.

The IPCC does not carry out original research, nor does it monitor climate or related phenomena itself. Rather, it assesses published literature including peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed sources. Thousands of scientists and other experts contribute on a voluntary basis to writing and reviewing reports, which are then reviewed by governments.
They are not the scientific community, they are an international political body chaired by an economist that makes suggestions hopefully based on real honest science, but not necessarily.


There is plenty of consensus that the IPCC estimates are low....NOAA gives up to a 2.5M rise estimate for RCP8.5...the no mitigation, business as usual model we are outpacing already. Based on their numerical system, we're looking at RCP 10+ because emissions are rising, not flatlined, certainly not lowering.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2018/06/15/is-the-ipcc-wrong-about-sea-level-rise/#712580f03ba0

It's important to know this is apparently not peer reviewed science (co-authors reviewing each other's claims is not real peer review), and is not verified by experimental data...not a single clinical trial, only epidemiology. This kind of science has been shown to be accurate, when tested in rigorous clinical trials, only 0-20% of the time.
Close examination finds it lacking in many areas.

http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2019/01/the-eat-lancet-diet-is-nutritionally-deficient/

https://www.nutritioncoalition.us/news/eatlancet-report-one-sided

It's important to know this is apparently not peer reviewed science (co-authors reviewing each other's claims is not real peer review), and is not verified by experimental data...not a single clinical trial, only epidemiology. This kind of science has been shown to be accurate, when tested in rigorous clinical trials, only 0-20% of the time.
Close examination finds it lacking in many areas.

http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2019/01/the-eat-lancet-diet-is-nutritionally-deficient/

https://www.nutritioncoalition.us/news/eatlancet-report-one-sided

There are some portions of the GND that could work, how well I don't know, but they could in theory. My biggest issue with it, beyond the more ludicrous parts, is that it doesn't allow for reality.

It is very much like the Soviet 5 year plans in that there are a series of grand ideas but when they fail they would just rehash and move on to the next set of ideas. It's kind of like Trump's promises about the border wall.

Any logical person knew that Mexico was never going to pay for it and that it would probably never be built, but there are a fuckton of illogical people out there and logical people are as vulnerable to mob peer pressure as anyone else. He might even win a repeat term because there is still a huge rift between the more logical conservative Dems and the pie in the sky ultra progressives. Hell, in the confusion its even been mentioned on CNN that Hillary might toss her hat in again or try to lend weight to a conservative Dem nominee so as to 'trump' the progressives.

Your idea sounds fair, but I could only see something like that working in a country like China, where the 'incentives' are that you don't get stood against the wall.

If you made reasonable responses and not suggestions that people should get medical advice from specific Google searches instead of medical professionals and peer reviewed science, we wouldn't argue.

It's a lie to claim veganism cures arthritis, I think that's why you won't site sources, you know I'll investigate and debunk them with ease.

The arthritis foundation has studied dozens of studies on vegan diets and arthritis and concluded results are mixed at best and vegan diets are absolutely not effective to the level of making people totally pain free, are not immediate, they don't work at all for many people, and certainly are not miraculous cures as you suggest, your few third party anonymous anecdotal claims notwithstanding. They also mention a number of serious problems that vegan diets can cause or exacerbate especially in people with medical issues.

I'm always unsure why people seem to have a problem with this. I suspect it's tort-reform-propaganda at work.

The amount of civil cases filed, aka access to the court system by the general public, should be considered an integral part of a healthy democracy.

"How often plaintiffs sue will also turn on the predictability
of the courts. Recall the standard model of litigation and settlement.

Litigation is more expensive than settlement, so disputants do best if they settle their quarrels out of court, all else equal. Suppose they know what a court will do. If so, they can settle their dispute by that expected litigated outcome and pocket the fees they would otherwise have paid their lawyers. The point is simple: if they know what a judge will do, they have no reason to ask him. Under this model, disputants primarily litigate rather than settle only when they each hold optimistic estimates of their prospects in court."

"Coffee spills, Pokemon class actions, tobacc o settlements. American courts have made a name for themselves as a wild lo ttery and a money machine for a lucky few lawyers. At least in part, however, the reput ation is unfounded. Ameri can courts seem to handle routine contract and to rt disputes as well as th eir peers in other wealthy democracies.

More generally, Americans do not file an unusually high numb er of law suits. They do not employ large numbers of judges or lawyers. They do not pay more than people in comparable countries to enforce contracts. And they do not pay unusually high prices for insurance against routine torts. "

http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/papers/pdf/Ramseyer_681.pdf

It’s very important to note that drawing direct parallels between countries when it comes to crime is very murky, as these difference could be due to differences in laws, the way the criminal justice system is set up, how policing is done, how crimes are reported, and much more.

Quoting this: Harold Pollack, co-director of the University of Chicago's Crime Lab, called Zimring and Hawkins's book "an excellent source." In a 2015 phone interview, he pointed to a number of more recent studies that fit the pattern it identified.

"There's no question the United States faces a number of distinctive social policy challenges, some of which affect the crime rate. But many other OECD countries face their own distinctive problems that affect their crime rate," he told me. Western Europe, for example, has a major problem with drug use. Canadian cities have "very high" rates of property crime like car theft. And yet, the US still stands out on murders.

"I think that Americans have this view of Western Europe, or Toronto for that matter, which is very stereotypical and doesn't take into account the challenges that many of peer industrial democracy problems face," he points out. "There's a lot of drug sale, a lot of ethnic stratification and conflict, there's a lot of just general crime."

Crime rates in Canada aren't that much lower than the USA, there are just fewer violent crimes, like homicides.

In addition to this, a major factor might be considered in regards to Canada. Population and population density. Canada is lower than the USA across the board, 36.71 million to 325.7 million and density of 3.9 people per km to almost 90 people per mile (last census data).

I don't support the NRA, btw. I think they are idiots. I do support logical gun laws. I don't care for fake news.

I also think I was civil in my response to your original comment. I have tried to remain that way even though one could classify your response to mine as hostile and provocatory.

You may have some valid academic point to be made about American problems.

That is however completely overwhelmed by your callous disregard for the suffering of people in actual slave labour camps, by likening them to American prisoners convicted by a jury of their peers to a standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt who are forced to work for their 3 square meals per day. Your not wrong to point out flaws in the American system, just incredible callous to the vastly worse suffering of others.

I would say you are morally wrong to exploit said people(and weakening concern for their suffering) to champion a separate cause that matters to you more.