Burning trees for heat is as close to carbon neutral as you can get (hint: they're made from carbon removed from the atmosphere).

Can you link to something, well, academic? A newspaper article is not where rational people go for their scientific information. I can see where you went wrong.

The old appeal to authority. Nice. Well, Dyson is a physicist and mathematician, so his opinion on this matters exactly the same as yours - not a jot.

You're doing a great job of discrediting yourself - no one else needs to even bother.

So you are claiming that transparency is fascism. O...K...

No, the NSA is supposed to be protecting the US. It can do that by spying, but not if the extent of their spying means many countries/people simply don't trust the US, and start spending their money elsewhere. At that moment they cease to be protecting the US, and are doing a very good impression of actively working against it.

But he's not going to China, so your entire nonsensical post is just that - more frothy-mouthed defence of the husband by the battered wife. You really need some help. Put down your bible and flag, and realise you are your own person. It's absolutely pathetic how easily your opinions seem to be bent by people you deem worthy to follow based on what uniform/outfit they wear, and just how little effort you put in to seeing if they are actually worthy of it. It explains so much of what you believe. You poor bastard. It must suck to be you sometimes.

Say what you want (even though their aims were never to conquer the US), but their tiny little attack scared the US into giving up freedom and entering a war (or two) which caused nothing but fertile ground for more terrorists to attack the US. I'm sure if the terrorists were able to fly a plane into a building which would directly achieve that, and did so, they would have been very happy with the outcome. So yeah - while the terrorists haven't won, they certainly have some excellent allies in the US government.

The American government's response to terror was a pathetic Thatcheresque knee-jerk, and guaranteed more terrorism would follow, all for the measly price of civil liberties. Bargain!

Did the nasty man huwt your feewings?

You really should read more. This is staggeringly embarrassing. Wow. I don't even...

Very true, but as US oppression has many shapes, you can't really just make that statement and expect it to have any weight, unless you go into further depth to find a directly comparable situation where the only variant is the religion of those involved, and specifically their personal beliefs. We have plenty of cases of terrorism from non-Muslims, so this really is a moot point. No one religion has a monopoly on terrorism.

I knew you'd make a post like this. I simply knew it when I saw the headline. Does the plethora of intelligent Irish terrorists in the last few decades show that Catholicism causes terrorism? Of course not. You just have a handy excuse to blame Islam for things you don't like, which you seem to revel in every single time this discussion comes up.

You probably don't realise that your opinion is just as dangerous as the opinions held by the terrorists themselves - you are willing - no, actively trying - to paint nearly 2 billion people with the same hateful brush, and simply refuse to look at the actual evidence.

How about just paying artists to actually perform. Concert tickets, bookings for private gigs, etc. etc. That's plenty for a decent band. Albums were advertisements for live shows before, then the record companies monetized albums and made them the product, and the artists got shafted.

Who says concerts are for extra income? The record companies, not artists. Artists make the most money through concerts/live performances, as they get a more reasonable cut. Record sales only directly help the record companies - they indirectly help the artists by advertising them for when they decide to go play live.

Shouldn't the artists be making money from touring and tour merchandise, like they did before the record labels decided to turn the album into a commodity instead an advertisement?

So as long as there is a worse way of doing something militarily, it's fine? How about if your own shitty foreign policy caused those bad people in the bunker under the apartment block to want to attack you - is it still moral to attack them there?

Oversimplifying this topic isn't doing anyone any favours.