mattm

I think we need to break this down. Science, by definition, is not a belief system. If it cannot be proven through a testable hypothesis that results in repeatable results, it is not true. The entire point of science is not to believe in it, but to test the information. Science can be ridiculed because theories that were once understood to be valid are sometimes invalidated in the light of new testing or new information. This is not a failing of science but THE strength. The more we discover, the more we can advance knowledge. In these cases, if science were to have a diety, the deity exists in repeatable results. Without the scientific method, almost everything you have grown accustomed to would not exist except for religion. Any comparison of the two or equating faith with science demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the core principals of science. I believe everyone can believe what they want, but you cannot equate science with faith as faith is lacking in the 'testable hypothesis' department. Science is grounded in validation from other people reproducing results from a testable hypothesis. Faith is based upon believe with no way to test the information. They are two separate things that CAN coexist, as long as reasonable people can agree to keep faith and science or for that matter, church and state separate.

Obviously true, but out of all that Magley has presented you chose to focus on this? He was trying to have a conversation with someone who still believes in the magical carb! Someone who believes that the efficiency of the internal combustion engine has been suppressed by big oil who have evidently purchased all of the IP around the "magic" carb. This detail does not invalidate the larger point he was trying to make which is that there is no "cabal" that is preventing the "good stuff" from coming to light. Belief in this kind of conspiracy theory does nobody any good in a modern society because here is where we end up. Arguing over injectors and carbs, vs discussing the scientific facts as we know them today.

For the win!

I believe if you stalk a little harder Mr. Stillman, you might be able to tell us what cars I own.

Unfortunately I live in Columbus, so I can explain this. Columbus can't have real professional sports teams due to the almighty lame ass buckeyes. So we get a hockey team as our professional sport due to the hotbed of hockey talent that is columbus. People in columbus have no idea how nice it is to have real professional teams in football and baseball due to their desire to prop up the importance of the king of the losers "the" Ohio state university. It would be one thing if there was an SEC team in the area that could actually win the big game, but we get stuck with Ohio state. This whole "city" is infected with this madness and it just makes me sad. We could have so much more, but we don't want any team to compete with our local college football team. College football sucks but that is all the columbus has and that is why they picked the only professional sport which cannot compete with college football, Pro hockey.The entirety of the delusion in this small town city is so complete that the people would revolt if anyone proposed actually having a professional team in this town. It is the reason that Columbus is THE city for every test chain restaurant; these people like to eat shit everyday...

While the catholics are bad the Protestants are not innocent. I have to comment here that no minister in the church of Joe Pesci nor any pastafarian has been accused or convicted of pedophilia. I think even your dumb ass can agree that zero is a lot better than more than zero in the area to which you are referring. This is true regardless of which fake deity you wish to worship.

Link please? It looks like one IRS office in Cincinnati contested both conservative and liberal groups applications. Lois is obviously following counsels advice to invoke her 5th amendment rights. Those rights exist even when she is in front of congress. Please link where there is any evidence of this administration suppresi gathe vote. I will wait patiently. You make many assumptions and most are factually incorrect. Both conservative and liberal groups were "targeted" in this sweep. Most of your statements are gross exaggeration of fact. Please show your work here as any sentient being would challenge your previous screed.

Just a couple of nits to pick here. A far larger percentage of the country has a car vs a gun. Second; insurance campanies have their own organization called IIHS that performs crash testing on the cars and identifies issues with the ability of the vehicle to survive different crashes with minimal physical impact to the vehicle and the occupants of said vehicle. The best part is that you brought this up as it is further proof that research into everything other than the safety impact of gun ownership is legally allowed to occur in this country. In fact, the impact of so many other consumer items are extensively studied that weapons and more specifically firearms are suspect in their absence. I am sure you know the answer but I have to ask the question. Why are firearms a special case that absolutely cannot be studied by law? Why is it that one class of manufacturer, the firearm manufacturer, is not subject to product liability lawsuits? Automobile manufacturers are subject to product liability claims and as you correctly stated, cars kill more people than firearms every year. My question is why is any study on firearms prevented by law as compared to pretty much every other product?

If your kid is killed due to the direct negligence of a lifetime NRA member, what kind of compensation would you desire? Are you telling me that you would refuse a settlement? I know that if a child of mine is shot at school and some idiot didn't keep their gun and ammo under control, I will sue for every dollar that they have. I will include any dollar their relatives have as well. Unless these people have to pay for negligence how can we start to eliminate this.Before you freak out, what kind of punishment do you expect from driving while using a cell phone or OVI? Why is a certain type of negligence more special than the others?

People who don't own any weapons pay the same amount that you do. Whether you own 100 guns or 0 guns all of us pay insurance. What I find most interesting about your statement is that you assume that gun owners would pay more. If guns make you safer and it could be proven. Your rates should go down. Why does everybody assume rates would go up? Aren't we all responsible gun owners?Nobody is saying that owning a gun makes you more likely to commit a crime. Some people are tired of seeing 3-8 year olds or ex-cops shoot shoot somebody with a weapon that nobody knew was loaded. That is unacceptable, and if one of my kids get shot or killed due to your negligence you can be sure that I will send every lawyer I can find in your direction. Right now, gun owners effectively get a subsidy from the rest of the taxpayers who do not own guns. I am also ok with that reality. I am not ok with the lack of research into the reality of this situation. What are gun owners exempt from the actuarial tables?

Not at all what I said but good for you for knocking down that strawman. I am just pointing out cases that are allowed to be researched that resulted in actuarial table changes. One of the items we have been discussing is specifically called out and any research is disallowed. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness covers the Rottweiler example. Why are guns different? If we allow a discount for a locked gun safe in the home, why should guns be different as far as research? I fully support responsible gun owners, I am very tired of those that are not responsible and can hide behind the lack a research on the topic and the 2nd amendment. I happen to believe that too many 5 year olds are shooting people today compared to my childhood where it appeared as though guns were more prevalent. Too many ex cops or military "didn't know the gun was loaded." My upbringing says that that is not a valid excuse. I just want the responsibility placed on the parties that cannot secure their weapons and I am not satisfied with state minimum insurance coverage because we cannot appropriately asses the risk. Nothing radical here. Unlike your statement about drowning.

People with pools are already assessed as a higher risk just like teenagers with corvettes, homes with Rottweilers etc etc.

I hate gun wielding 8 year olds. http://crooksandliars.com/2014/03/ohio-8-year-old-boy-fatally-shot-brother I actually don't dislike guns, I just want gun owners to be responsible because I grew up around weapons and don't remember this level of carnage. My definition of responsible includes fiscal responsibility. If a gun owner's child gets a gun from their parents, then I expect the parents to be financially responsible for the outcome if their child shoots my child, relative or anybody else's child or relative. That is my only argument on this. I believe that the CDC should be able to investigate the impact of gun ownership in the household. Insurance companies already include particular dog breeds in a list of households they will not insure due to the elevated risk. If gun ownership is as safe as everyone on this backwater of the internet seems to think it is, then there will be no statistical reason for the underwriters to be concerned.

Holy crap. I didn't realize you were this willfully delusional. Virginia became a state in 1788. The land of the state of Virginia was not PURCHASED by the federal guvmint in any treaty of any kind. West Virginia became a state with land that was previously a part of Virginia which again became a state in 1788. The reason that West Virginia was able to fairly easily split from Virginia was that it provided another state supporting the union. It had nothing to do with gold in Nevada or coal in WV. Seriously, how could these basics of history apparently escape your grasp. You are frequently surprised by FACTS that most people learn in junior high. I now get completely your support of Bundy. You believe that multiple state constitutions written over 100 years before you were born should never have been written that way. No more conversation is necessary as you appear to lack any idea of how this country was actually built.

Yes! We must establish the value of handouts as that is obviously hampering our economy. Just so I am aware, do we count the tax breaks for healthcare or home ownership ? Do we count the tax breaks for the investment class such as capital gains? What should we count as a handout? Is it only food stamps or should we count the tax reduction for home ownership, capital gains, or even Medicare?

Actually the federal guvmint does own the land and has for over 100 years. See the relevant excerpt from the Nevada state constitution below: The Nevada State Constitution wrote:In obedience to the requirements of an act of the Congress of the United States, approved March twenty-first, A.D. eighteen hundred and sixty-four, to enable the people of Nevada to form a constitution and state government, this convention, elected and convened in obedience to said enabling act, do ordain as follows, and this ordinance shall be irrevocable, without the consent of the United States and the people of the State of Nevada: First. That there shall be in this state neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment for crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. Second. That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and no inhabitant of said state shall ever be molested, in person or property, on account of his or her mode of religious worship. Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; and that lands belonging to citizens of the United States, residing without the said state, shall never be taxed higher than the land belonging to the residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by, the United States, unless otherwise provided by the congress of the United States. first of all there was a squirmish entitled the Mexcian American war which was completed with the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Then there was the civil war. Then Lincoln wanted to admit new Union states to help pass his amendment. Any way, the western states all were admitted to the union with similar language in their state constitutions. Just because you are surprised with the amount of land that the fed owns out west, doesn't mean that the rest of us are also surprised. If this makes you angry take it up with Lincoln and the Congress of 1864. I am surprised that you are surprised at the amount of land the guvmint owns considering that IT FUCKING PREDATES THE VERY STATE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. I am even more surprised that you missed this in history class. The fact that the government owns A LOT of land in the west is not new news to anyone that paid attention in history class. You can wish it away at will, but that doesn't mean you are right. Bundy lost 20 years of court cases because the law is not on his side. Pointing guns at federal agents will not change this fundamental issue. BTW: newsmax is a joke. If it was a serious news source it would report the 20 fucking years of court losses that Bundy has sustained. Here is a better question. If you were a landlord and I was a tenant, would you tolerate me not paying rent for 20 years? I don't think so....

Summary judgement in this case is based upon 20 years of losses in court by Bundy. Bundy was not represented by an attorney because it is difficult to find an attorney willing to argue in court that the state of Nevada is sovereign. At least any attorney that didn't want to get disbarred for malpractice. This is not an interesting case in any way shape or form. This guy lost for 20 years because he is in the wrong here. No doubt About it. These other states in the southwest should revisit their own state constitutions before the waste the time of the court arguing this same teabagger crap.

Just wanted to post a few facts. Fact: federal government owns the land. Look up the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Fact: guvment ownership predates Nevada statehood. Fact: Nevada state constitution maintains government ownership of land. Civil war and such Fact: Reagan institutes grazing leases by executive order in 1986. Not sure if communist, Marxist, California usurper? Fact: Bundy pays grazing lease year to year from 1986 until 1993. Fact: Bundy doesn't pay the lease in 1993 but uses the land anyway. He still uses the land for his cattle today. Fact: government closes the lease in 1994. Technically the government is now free to do what it wants with the land. Fact: something about turtles after 1994 but it doesn't matter because there is no lease. Fact: 20 years of lawsuits without a single Bundy victory. Fact: Bundy represents himself because any lawyer that actually argued that the state of Nevada was sovereign and the federal government doesn't exist would be disbarred post haste. Fact: after the last court loss in 20 years of losses, the BLM gets a court order to impound the cattle. Fact: accusations of a tasering and general unrest. If you have seen repo men, it all seems plausible but doesn't forgive 20 years of breaking the law. Both sides most likely acted badly. The rest is history. The future will include the Bundy ranch being liquidated to pay the back leases. If Bundy is smart he would settle or his kids and grand kids lose. Just wanted to post some very real facts. Nation of laws and all that....

LOL.

You are right. The God of Islam is a fantasy. Unfortunately for you, the Christian God is also a fantasy along with pretty much every other God. The best part of this is that pretty much every religion is false and YSR doesn't get the joke at this point. What YSR does get is a ferverent hatred of those who believe in a different imaginary deity than he does. This is funny in and of itself. Unless YSR is actively stoning people for eating at Red Lobster he should STFU and climb back into his bunker and cling to his guns and book of fairy tales.

Troof!

Your links do not prove that there was any instance of actual in person voter fraud. How much of the taxpayers money should we spend fighting a problem that does not appear to exist? I thought that those of us who pated here were fiscal conservatives? I do not want to spend any more taxpayer dollars to fight a non existent problem. Thanks!!

Should we launch the warheads? Not sure what response you think is required. Did you support the movement for iraqi freedom? Did you support the invasion of Afghanistan? You do understand that Bin Laden was killed in Pakistan by our own troops right, or was that a lie? How about our search for the weapons of mass destruction? Did we win on that detail? I just have to ask, with all of your vast experience supporting worthless conflicts on false pretenses, what should we do with Russia at this time? Obviously your foreign policy ideas are beyond reproach, so what would you do in this situation? I say that you do not have fucking clue what you would do if you were in a room surrounded by smart people. Your ideas would be exposed as equivalent to a child's dream and your intellectual ammunition would be found lacking. Fortunately for you the socialist muslim usurper hasn't put you in prison yet. Do you understand why your explosive ideas have not exposed you to the secret service?

What happens at bible camp stays at bible camp.

More troof