Yes, I purposely only picked statistics that supported my side. I knew it would be obvious to anyone who took a look at the link. For example, the rape statistic I cited counted women only(why??). You have to read the fine print for all of these. A lot of those numbers seemed to contradict each other too, as you discovered. I have read many times over the years how smaller crimes that may have been deterred by personal firearm ownership has risen in Australia, and these specific statistics bear that out. I'm pretty sure the same goes for England, less gun murder, more thugs on the street.

I can't fathom the number of animals I've murdered in video games...

I believe I've killed at least 1000 boars in one sitting. We're digital mass murderers! But that's ok, I have also been digitally sentenced, imprisoned, digitally raped and murdered, and digitally risen from the grave to have my vengeance on the Tolkien universe --

The numbers of elves and dwarves and humans and gnomes that have met their untimely death at my undead hands, wrapped in leather, cloaked in shadows -- another very large number of killings.

You may refer to me as a High Warlord of Blackrock Mountain. Rawr!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Death to ALL life! May the black dragonflight rise again! May they roast endless numbers of sheep.

The part that they play is basically when the guy was working for a restaurant. The cook needed 20 pans to cook rice in, but they were apparently so filthy the only way to clean them was to lay them in seawater. So he sent this guy down at low tide to put them in, not thinking that when the tide rose the pans would be gone.

Then in the morning he sent the guy back out to get the pans, but the tide had risen so he only found one. The cook got pissed and said that it was coming out of the guys pay, then sent him to another city to get pans from another restaurant. The guy, whom by the way is nicknamed Giggles, hopped on a bus and never came back.

I never said anything about what the public thought, because I never interviewed them and, quite frankly, I don't care.

My issue is the reporter predicted the future.

"Some people said ... ." (past tense, showing action happened)
"Some people are saying ... ." (present tense, but isn't all present tense past tense by default?)
"Some people would say ... ." (future tense)

And I don't think journalists should predict the future, even if they don't attribute their sources. Good journalists report the facts, which means they're limited to reporting on events that have already happened, not what would or could or will potentially happen.

And as for protecting sources (real, or even imaginary):
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/03/us/james-risen-faces-jail-time-for-refusing-to-identify-a-confidential-source.html

[Hook x2]
Clap
Magic Clap

It's like a hotwire, baby
When we put it together
When the sparks fly
We'll ignite the future forever
This is the last kiss Martin ever gave to Coretta
It's like a paparazzi picture when I flash my Beretta
I got scars on my back
The truth on my tongue
I had the money in my hand when that alarm got rung
We wanna breathe fire and freedom from our lungs
Tell Homeland Security
We are the bomb

[Hook x2]

Hurry up, get in, close the do'
This here the meeting for the overthrow
Waiting on that concrete rose to grow
Doing lines that ain't quotable
Counting up all that dough you owe
You ain't sposed to know its opposable
We are not disposable
Muscle up kid
We got blows to throw
Til the folks have risen
There'll be no decision
We make the motor move
They chauffer driven
Right now we can't shine right like a broken prism
I figured out the 14th is a broke amendment

[Hook x2]

Good evening
Tonight we bring to you
Worn out streets that'll sing to you
.45 shells that'll dance to the beats
Stomachs so loud it'll cancel the speech
Checks that vanish if you blink an eye
Grace getting locked in the clink to die
A salary cap on a birth certificate
Notarized lies that burst in triplicate
Morning prayers for the car to start
A man and a whiskey in a heart-to-heart
Hope in a track suit to flash and run
While agony chases with a badge and gun
Poetry shouted from the squeal of the bus breaks
Hands in the air try to feel for an escape
Flash in my eyes like candid snaps
When we slap back, it's the magic clap

My respect for Samson has risen greatly since seeing this. The patience and calm of the man and willingness to answer even the most absurd of questions is amazing. This video says more about his questioners then it does about him or Bilderberg.

Isn't Spain in seriously hard economic straits right now? I haven't read too much about it but I found it interesting that Real Madrid and Barcelona are getting away with buying Neymar and Gareth Bale for a ridiculous amount of money. I mean Barcelona actually committed Tax fraud to acquire Neymar, and Gareth Bale is the most expensive footballer ever. How is it that the public hasn't risen up and destroyed these two clubs?

He is risen... zombie teenage mutant ninja turtle video

OMG!!! RUN! The fembots have risen.

That was definitely a different kind of pole dancing than I've ever seen before.

This is Democrat failure of epic proportion.

From Wikipedia:
Politics

"Oakland was politically conservative from the 1860s to the 1950s, led by the Republican-oriented Oakland Tribune newspaper. In the 1950s and '60s, the majority stance shifted to favor liberal policies and the Democratic Party.[156][157] Oakland has by far the highest percentage of registered Democrats of any of the incorporated cities in Alameda County. As of 2009, Oakland has 204,646 registered voters, and 140,858 (68.8%) are registered Democrats, 12,248 (5.9%) are registered Republicans, and 41,109 (20.1%) decline to state a political affiliation.[158] Oakland is widely regarded as being one of the most liberal major cities in the nation.

The Cook Partisan Voting Index of Congressional District 13, which includes Oakland and Berkeley, is D+37; among the six most extremely Democratic congressional districts in the US."

Crime:
Oakland's crime rate began to escalate during the late 1960s, and by the end of the 1970s Oakland's per capita murder rate had risen to twice that of its neighbor city, San Francisco, or that of New York City.[125]

During the first decade of the 21st century Oakland has consistently been listed as one of the most dangerous large cities in the United States.[126] Until 2010 the homicide rate dropped four times in a row, and violent crime in general had dropped 27%.

Violent crime in general, and homicides in particular, increased during 2011.[127] In 2012 Oakland reported 131 homicides, the highest since 2006 (when there were 148 recorded).[128][129]"

@chingalera
to say that every person who joins the military has some form of broken empathy system is just not accurate.
do they exist?
well i would have to concede that they do.what those numbers are is not something that can be quantified.(i looked..came up with nada).

i was in the military.
many people were in the military and they all had different reasons for joining.
for some it was a way out of poverty.
others it was duty.(which was my case)
some even due to a sense of honor and to fight for freedom.(yeah yeah..we both know how that reason turned out for them).

and i am sure sprinkled in that number of recruits were the sociopaths and psychopaths,and the number may have possibly risen due to the abolishment of conscription.

when you understand that boot camp is basically brainwashing 101.the young and fairly innocent are the easiest to break down and build back up in the model that you wish them to be.

killing is NOT a natural human activity.
it needs to be taught.
and who better than an 18 yr old?

for people such as you or i,who have a lifetime of experience,morality and well established egocentric systems in place this brainwashing would almost certainly fail.

who am i kidding....it failed when i was 18.i had a huge problem with authority even then.so i did my tour and opted out.

understand i am not making a moral argument for or against the military,just that these young men all had their reasons for joining and not all of them were to kill other humans.

and yes.
the military aint for everybody.

I think that you will find reactors don't produce weapons grade plutonium, rather, they produce a grade of plutonium known as reactor grade. Weapons grade plutonium is upwards of 95% Pu239. Reactor grade plutonium is what is known as weapons usable, not weapons ready. This is because of the high contamination factor of Pu240, Pu241, and Pu242. These heavier breads of Pu have both high spontaneous fission rates (bad for your fission weapon), and considerable heat, enough so to make weapons fabrication a problem (is it bad when your closed weapons device needs ventilation to not melt itself). While these problems are addressable in advanced weapons platforms, outside of well established nuclear weapons programs, making weapons from them is very challenging.

The main trouble, however, I think is economics, and nuclear is forced to internalize many of their impacts where as other solutions, mainly fossil fuels, do not. That is a pretty key competitive disadvantage.

Also note that electricity is only a fraction of total power, total power includes many non-electrical uses, most notably motor vehicles via liquid fuels. When you look at solar in this light, it represents a sub-fraction of a percent. So 5% of annual solar electrical generation is only a small part of a larger energy picture, and picture which also needs to be weighted against the rest of the world for which solar provides very little power. This isn't an attack on solar, it is a bringing to light of how vast the gulf is to address climate issues with any one technology.

So I think you will find that he isn't off by orders of magnitude, rather, he was being pretty generous to the total amount of energy produced by solar and wind world wide, and climate issues and emissions are world issues.

Key World Energy STATISTICS IEA:

http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/kwes.pdf

(I trust the IEA's numbers)

But I share the sentiment that we need to reduce coal and gas to address climate concerns. The fact that German emissions have risen for 2 years in a row is troubling to say the least. I consider France and Sweden to be better models, lower CO2 per capita and electrical prices in both cases compared to Germany, and both heavy nuclear users...with Sweden using a fair deal more hydro power than France. Nuclear and hydro are the proven heavy lifters in the area of CO2 reductions, which is why I think his criticism of environmental groups in addressing climate issues is justified as they generally oppose both.

CLIMATE CHANGE AND NUCLEAR POWER 2012 IAEA:

http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/Pess/assets/12-44581_ccnp2012_web.pdf

He has risen like a kraken from the sea!

I am so badly jaded by this point that i consider almost everything with power in the western world to be corrupt.

I used to say that those who were intelligent and caring enough to lead and forge a better world for all of us are least suited to get there, but i have since changed my opinion to a worse one; those who are most suited to getting into a position of power are those without empathy for others, who can and will abuse anyone and anything to further themselves - they are known as professional psychopaths, and i think we are led by them.

In our country right now, on average, the richest pay less tax than the poor, and the extremely rich can afford to pay no tax. Our MP's cheat expenses (which are already outrageous) and have second houses paid for them, they set up laws to help them dodge tax and make changes to our social systems so that they can sell them off to their friends. They recently even wanted a further pay hike because apparently all of those things followed by a guaranteed golden handshake/pension is not enough. Meanwhile, and this is not hyperbole, there are elderly people dying because they can't afford to heat their homes during the winter, and food banks have risen meteorically because others can't afford to feed their families.

This feels like some sort of medieval nightmare, where the kings and lords are living a life of plenty, stuffing their faces with roast pigs whilst the commoners starve and eat grass outside the castle walls.

I am genuinely concerned for the world, and i am bewildered by the fact that none of my friends seem to care as much as i do. All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing - apathy is how this world will burn.

On a daily basis, politicians, like Obama, and pundits in the lamestream media mindlessly bump their gums about global warming, uh... "climate change" (the term employed when the earth stopped warming), without having the slightest idea what they are talking about. Most simply parrot the line about a "so-called "consensus of scientists," without the slightest knowledge of the science or data, or point to extreme weather events as “proof.” Al Gore and Henry Waxman have become masters at this. Noam Chomsky should stick to linguistics. Once he ventures outside of his specialty, he’s just a run-of-the-mill leftist loon.

Science does not operate on the basis of consensus, but provable fact and hard DATA that is replicable. No one can prove that C02 causes warming, apart from the other forces that are chiefly determinative of climate--solar output, cosmic rays (and their effect on cloud cover), the earth's elliptical orbit, its axial tilt, etc. The earth's climate cycle has been in place for eons and is not being altered by any significant degree by anthropogenic CO2. In fact, 99% of the people who believe in the "global warming crisis" cannot even tell you what the current globally-averaged temperature is, nor how much it may have risen over the past century (or any other time frame for that matter). Nor do they know that the current globally averaged temperature is 1-2 degrees C below what it was during the Medieval Warm Period, when human activity could not have been a factor.

Neither temperatures nor sea level rise are accelerating. Temperatures haven't risen since 1997. And even the U.N. predicts just an 8.5" to 18.5" sea level rise by 2100 (2007 IPCC Report), far below the 20 feet predicted by Al Gore, or the 35 feet predicted by Joe Lieberman in 2002. In fact, sea levels have been rising at a rate of about 7" per century since the end of the last age 12,500 years ago, so the U.N.'s predicted range is likely to fall at the low end.

Weather stations around the world are notoriously unreliable, many placed in locations now near asphalt parking lots, etc., replicating the urban island heat effect. Calculating the globally averaged temperature in an enormously complex task. compounded when scientific frauds like Phil Jones and Michael Mann (of the infamous "hockey stick" graph) hide, and would not supply, their data because it does not support their predetermined conclusions of anthropogenic global warming. (Climategate). This is not surprising, however, since thousands of scientists stand to collectively lose billions in federal research grants if the hoax is exposed (more than $80 billion has already been spent on such research, nearly 500 times what oil companies have spent to fund so-called “skeptics”), a fact totally lost, or grossly misrepresented, by global warming religionists.

The fact is: even if the earth's temperature is rising marginally, from natural forces, it will be far better for mankind than falling temperatures. It will result in higher crop yields and less death around the world. More than twice as many people die of extreme cold than extreme heat.

Contrary to morons such as Al Gore (who will never agree to debate the topic, so fearful is he of getting his clock cleaned), scientific evidence clearly shows that we have had no increase in extreme weather events. Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., Professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado, summed up the latest science on weather extremes when he wrote that “There is no evidence that disasters are getting worse because of climate change....There's really no evidence that we're in the midst of an extreme weather era - whether man has influenced climate or not,”
Pielke also explained that the data does not support linking Hurricane Sandy to man-made global warming. “Sandy was terrible, but we're currently in a relative hurricane 'drought'.” But that doesn’t stop politicians from trying to make political hay from them.

Much of the gum bumping about "global warming" may be attributed to the political aspirations of Al Gore who hoped to ride an environmental white horse into the White House. It all comes down to a politically-motivated overreaction to a 0.35 degree C increase in globally-averaged temperatures in the period from 1978-1997. Since 1998, temperatures have flat-lined. They are now at 14.5 degrees Celsius which is exactly where they were in 1997. What this amounted to was a hyperbolic response to a temporary and cyclical climate phenomenon, which has been replicated a myriad of times in human history.

The climate history of the 20th century, by itself, contradicts the CO2 equals warming hypothesis. From 1913-1945, CO2 was not a factor and temperatures rose slightly. And from 1945-1977, temperatures fell in the face of rising CO2. It was only in the period from 1978-1997 that temperatures and CO2 rose simultaneously. But since CO2 is likely to continue to rise for the foreseeable future, we will have periods of both rising and falling temperatures in the face of rising CO2.

The scientific travesty is that many politicians are trying to transform CO2 into a “pollutant” requiring draconian federal regulations whose only effect will be to stifle economic growth. CO2 is a harmless trace element constituting just 0.039 per cent of the earth's atmosphere (390 parts per million by volume). It's what humans and animals exhale and its presence helps plant production. 500 million years ago, CO was 20 times more prevalent in our atmosphere. The aim is to convince the uninformed that carbon dioxide is the equivalent of carbon monoxide, a highly toxic gas.

With time and historical perspective, the global warming crisis will turn out to be the greatest scientific fraud in history. But that won’t politicians from exploiting it in the short term.

On a daily basis, politicians, like Obama, and pundits mindlessly bump their gums about global warming, uh... "climate change" (the term employed when the earth stopped warming), without having the slightest idea what they are talking about. Malloy is just the latest in a long line of demagogic politicians trying to capitalize on the scare. Most simply parrot the line about a "so-called "consensus of scientists," without the slightest knowledge of the science or data, or point to extreme weather events as “proof.”

Science does not operate on the basis of consensus, but provable fact and hard DATA that is replicable. No one can prove that C02 causes warming, apart from the other forces that are chiefly determinative of climate--solar output, cosmic rays (and their effect on cloud cover), the earth's elliptical orbit, its axial tilt, etc. The earth's climate cycle has been in place for eons and is not being altered by any significant degree by anthropogenic CO2. In fact, 99% of the people who believe in the "global warming crisis" cannot even tell you what the current globally-averaged temperature is, nor how much it may have risen over the past century (or any other time frame for that matter). Nor do they know that the current globally averaged temperature is 1-2 degrees C below what it was during the Medieval Warm Period, when human activity could not have been a factor.

Neither temperatures nor sea level rise are accelerating. Temperatures haven't risen since 1997. And even the U.N. predicts just an 8.5" to 18.5" sea level rise by 2100 (2007 IPCC Report), far below the 20 feet predicted by Al Gore, or the 35 feet predicted by Joe Lieberman in 2002. In fact, sea levels have been rising at a rate of about 7" per century since the end of the last age 12,500 years ago, so the U.N.'s predicted range is likely to fall at the low end.

Weather stations around the world are notoriously unreliable, many placed in locations now near asphalt parking lots, etc., replicating the urban island heat effect. Calculating the globally averaged temperature in an enormously complex task. compounded when scientific frauds like Phil Jones and Michael Mann (of the infamous "hockey stick" graph) hide, and would not supply, their data because it does not support their predetermined conclusions of anthropogenic global warming. (Climategate). This is not surprising, however, since thousands of scientists stand to collectively lose billions in federal research grants if the hoax is exposed (more than $80 billion has already been spent on such research, nearly 500 times what oil companies have spent to fund so-called “skeptics”).

The fact is: even if the earth's temperature is rising marginally, from natural forces, it will be far better for mankind than falling temperatures. It will result in higher crop yields and less death around the world. More than twice as many people die of extreme cold than extreme heat. The scientific evidence clearly shows that we have had no increase in extreme weather events. Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., Professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado, summed up the latest science on weather extremes when he wrote that “There is no evidence that disasters are getting worse because of climate change....There's really no evidence that we're in the midst of an extreme weather era - whether man has influenced climate or not,”
Pielke also explained that the data does not support linking Hurricane Sandy to man-made global warming. “Sandy was terrible, but we're currently in a relative hurricane 'drought'.” But that doesn’t stop politicians from trying to make political hay from them.

Much of the gum bumping about "global warming" may be attributed to the political aspirations of Al Gore who hoped to ride an environmental white horse into the White House. It all comes down to a politically-motivated overreaction to a 0.35 degree C increase in globally-averaged temperatures in the period from 1978-1997. Since 1998, as Mr. Hart correctly points out, temperatures have flat-lined or declined. What this amounted to was a hyperbolic response to a temporary and cyclical climate phenomenon, which has been replicated a myriad of times in human history.

The climate history of the 20th century, by itself, contradicts the CO2 equals warming hypothesis. From 1913-1945, CO2 was not a factor and temperatures rose slightly. And from 1945-1977, temperatures fell in the face of rising CO2. It was only in the period from 1978-1997 that temperatures and CO2 rose simultaneously. But since CO2 is likely to continue to rise for the foreseeable future, we will have periods of both rising and falling temperatures in the face of rising CO2.

The scientific travesty is that many politicians are trying to transform CO2 into a “pollutant” requiring draconian federal regulations whose only effect will be to stifle economic growth. CO2 is a harmless trace element constituting just 0.039 per cent of the earth's atmosphere (390 parts per million by volume). It's what humans and animals exhale and its presence helps plant production. 500 million years ago, CO was 20 times more prevalent in our atmosphere. The aim is to convince the uninformed that carbon dioxide is the equivalent of carbon monoxide, a highly toxic gas.

With time and historical perspective, the global warming crisis will turn out to be the greatest scientific fraud in history. But that won’t politicians from exploiting it in the short term. Obama has already wasted billions trying to fix a non-problem.
And now he’s even orchestrating the mindless followers of a new secular religion to march on the Mall to advance this silly agenda.