KevinG

In case you were wondering he is some actual facts about electric cars. https://content.sierraclub.org/evguide/myths-vs-reality and the places where electric cars cause more pollution then gas cars http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/07/where-electric-vehicles-actually-cause-more-pollution-gas-cars-0

I can only assume they did it because Obama set his plan in motion to take our guns. Also whether or not it was an actual H bomb has been put into serious question. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/north-korea-hydrogen-bomb-test-experts-express-doubts-over-countrys-claims-a6798436.html But of course we should take them at their word, this is the country that found a unicorn. http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/11/30/unicorns-existence-proven-says-north-korea/

Well I wouldn't want you on the Manhattan Project II then. As a cost person this would be the most expensive and of course not that feasible. To get more cops on the streets would either require more taxpayer dollars or a reduction in other services. Also there is not a direct correlation to more cops to a lower crime rate. There are many differing opinions on that matter. From what I've seen, it will likely prove to be completely ineffective in reducing gun violence. But it will inconvenience law-citizens and cost them some money and that's essentially what most new the call fo

the best car for the environment is a well maintained used car http://www.alternet.org/environment/4-reasons-you-should-buy-used-car-instead-new-one (point 1) I am not sure why you have to limit it to nuclear power. Why not a worldwide Manhattan Project for energy, with no option off the table. That would make the most sense.

Well that was quick. Not wanting to get into a debate about guns, but it is ultimately fruitless. But from a political side, regardless of what you think of gun control or the proposals put forth by the President, do you think he is overstepping the powers of the office by issuing such executive actions?

I think this is the unofficial slogan of the Trump campaign.

The one thing that people forget when the try to make these correlations between this militia and the hypothetical is the location. These ranchers are in the middle of nowhere. Occupying a building that is used 3-4 months out of the year (and is not currently being used). Protesting something that most of America doesn't really care about. If the militia took over a post office in Downtown Chicago the response from the police and the Federal Government would be quite a bit different (but of course that is hypothetical which are in its nature silly and stupid). The restoring liber

This is such a non story. I agree it is just for media attention and really has nothing to do with the jailed ranchers (who have reported to jail BTW). If the media just packed up their trucks and their news reporters this thing would be over in a matter of days. But the media is just fueling the flames and giving these idiots a platform. And those on the Left who are saying if these guys were black/Muslim/non-white they would have been shot and killed etc. fail to see the big picture and realize how this is different. In other news Trump is not going away anytime soon. And has a TV A

Start one. You forgot the part where Hixter only sees things in black and white and ignores any nuance.

You know the biggest criticism I heard about VII is that is was an obvious remake of IV. I think it was necessary that Abrams made a movie that reminded us of why we all fell in love with Star Wars in the first place. In the eye of the public Lucas practically killed Star Wars with the prequels. By his own admission they were radically different from IV through VI. He clearly did not care about fan service and made the movie he wanted to make. When the first major bit of dialog in the prequels was about trade negotiations you know you are not going to get the same story that everyone love

I hated that part of the original trilogy.

Read a theory that Rey might be descended from Obi-Wan, which is interesting and could explain a lot.

Nope. Han and Leia did not recognize her (and you would think they would). Or if you go the route she was taken at young age (and Han and Leia was told she was dead or something) force sensitive Leia would know that she was still alive or something. There would have to be some prequel level idiocy to have that happen. Jedi Master Mace Windu might have something to say about that. I hope not. I really want Rey to be something different, or from someone different (other then the big 3) in the Star Wars Universe. My prediction she is the daughter of one of Luke's Jedi train

Good ahead, spoil. The thread is aptly named.

Well the guy who is third in line for the presidency looks like Eddie Munster.

If Trump was so disgusted by Clinton's bathroom break during the Dem debate, I wonder what actually goes on when he visits the the little Trump's room. Maybe he is not the picture of health that his doctor says he is.

Yeah, there is the ticket, absolutes always work. You aren't running for the GOP nomination are you? Your thesis is correct, we are potentially radicalizing people with any action we do. However the rhetoric by the GOP candidates would drastically increase the number of little Abdul's out there. Civilian casualties will happen, I am not blind to that. It will be up to the next Administration to really determine how many civilian casualties will occur and at what cost.

I don't think you will find anyone on this forum (or any reasonable person in this country) that doesn't believe that RADICAL Islam is a real growing threat. Anyone who equates the Middle East to Vietnam is over simplifying the issue and really doesn't know the issues at hand. Also I think you will find this same sentiment from every person in this forum and in this country. It is just how we go about doing it. If we go down the road of attacking families of ISIS and incurring civilian casualties we will do nothing more than embolden another generation that wants to destr

That is a telling statement of the current GOP if I have ever read one. Rather than have a nuanced thoughtful answer to a deeply complex issue, it is just kill them all. But thoughtful answers don't get press, soundbites do.

Ah it would be so much easier if we all lived in a world of black and white like Hixter. Words, facts and graphs should solely be based upon their meaning, regardless of the larger context and nuance of a situation. You are certainly right. But take the Carson quote, he is ok with the death of thousands of innocent children. THOUSANDS if that is not appalling I don't know what is. Any president should not be ok with killing thousands of children, ever. Carson, just drops it like it is no big deal. Yes hard decisions have to be made in war, but the casual killing of civilians doe

Sorry, I misread your original statement, I thought you said, isn't, which is my bad. This is what I get when I try to post without my first cup of coffee. Collateral damage to civilians is not a war crime (I never said it was, I said Trump encouraging civilian casualties is). Intentional killing of civilians is, which I think we all on the same page now. That callousness of the candidates is quite shocking. Remember these guys are all Pro-Life. So that we get this straight, it is ok to kill children and families of terrorists (be it on purpose or as a casualty of war), but not ok

The Fourth Geneva Convention says otherwise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Part_II._General_Protection_of_Populations_Against_Certain_Consequences_of_War Trump said this in response to the question "How would intentionally killing innocent civilians set us apart from ISIS?" http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/12/15/3732671/trump-isis-kill-family-members/ And for Carson's comments and the others, that is a pretty callous way of looking at things. Yes civilian deaths happen it is an unfortunate and tragic cost of war. But there is one thing try to

Apparently you misunderstand. I know civilian casualties occur, but during the GOP debate pretty much everyone said it was an acceptable practice and actually encouraged (in the case of Trump). Which you know is a War Crime. Civilian casualties is not acceptable and not OK. So we have GOP presidential candidates opening saying things that are in direct conflict of the Geneva Convention and not mention the other things that have been said that are unconstitutional. The whole crowd last night was an embarrassment. They all looked petty and childish. Chris Christie was the most "preside

So apparently it is perfectly acceptable to kill innocents in order to defeat ISIS. Things I learned from tonight's debate.

I was waiting for them to talk about Trump.