The problem is, we can't even prove global warming even a little bit. And that is not exactly what the Global Warming Alarmists were telling us a few years ago about how bad it was going to get very quickly (no ice in the arctic, super hurricanes, polar bears drowning) ... ALL of which didn't happen, but didn't happen spectacularly.

How come Al Gore doesn't get labeled "Global Warming Left Wing Nut" by the same people calling people like me "Right Wing Nut"? Oh, because it is bad for business?

Look, I all for conservation and leaving small footprints, but you can't do that with almost 7 billion people to feed. The only way nature is going to survive is to kill us all off by our stupidity.

No, I meant rights. Governments were formed to protect rights. And you're correct, rights are immutable. But they can be stolen and abrogated in the name of the group, which is what the (D) and (R) parties are fighting over, which rights should we give up in the name of security, children, old people ....

He said "Draft" is gone, you changed it to "Selective Service" which is simply a prerequisite of a Draft. Convenient distinction. There has been no draft since 1973, at the end of the Vietnam war. Suffice it to say, that we have had two full generations of draftable people never see a draft. It is effectively gone.

We don't need a Constitutional Amendment to stop the draft, we already have stopped the draft. A constitutional amendment would only make it harder to reinstate (via another Amendment). And since we are talking about likelihoods and possibilities, and haven't ever reached the point of 0% you are just trying to make an impossible point out of ignorance.

Interestingly, its Richard Nixon that campaigned on ending the draft and the Selective Service, and Carter that re-instituted the Selective Service in 1980. I know, I was alive back then, and someone under the age of 20 probably has no clue about. Liberals have indoctrinated young people so much they thing Democrats are champions of Civil Rights (while they opposed civil rights movement in the 60s) and opposition to the draft.

With age, comes wisdom that youth and exuberance is in need of. So, no, children cannot teach adults anything useful in general. A child may be wise, but adults tend to be wiser than children.

And paternity leave and maternity leave are two separate words, describing the same or similar period of time after the birth on one's child. Of course, if you count days missed comparison of maternity and paternity leave, you might find that women take more time off when kids are born (maternity leave) and men take less time off (paternity).

You make a lot of left wing assumptions, like "Rational Choices" are efficient, you know, centralized planning. Communism doesn't work, not because it isn't rational, it is because it makes sense ... on paper. Or to put it the way my dad used to say it, "In theory, theory and practice are the same, in practice, they are not".

Or, to put it yet another way, in many types of jobs, to do a "work slowdown" all one has to do is go "by the book". Meaning that you do everything, exactly as prescribed by the rational people making the rules. This simply means that you're not as efficient as when you don't really follow all the rules.

Rational rules don't always work as expected. Yes, the market seams irrational, and often times isn't efficient. However, free markets tends towards efficiency and that in and of itself is a rational choice.

No, that is not what he said. That is how you twisted what he said, which only shows that some adults act more like kids who haven't learned anything.

For instance, What Adults Can Learn From Kids is a null point of view. ALL adults have been kids, so ... kids offer nothing new to adults. We can be reminded of what we already know, but that isn't really "learning".

The concept of using kids to question Adults is a tactic used by people with an agenda of control. You see, it is easy to manipulate the young minds, and if you tell them something is so, they will believe it, and if you can convince adults that kids know more than they do, you can control the world. This doesn't mean kids cannot contribute. It also doesn't mean kids are less intelligent than adults. In fact, i know some kids who are smarter than many adults. Which says more about the adults than it does the kids.

That's Because the Rich White Men have given all the STEM jobs to people from India using H1B Visas working for half the salary US Citizens would expect. Please note, (R) and (D) are in on this almost equally.

How about voting for people who understand that rights are something governments were formed to protect, not steal? When you have (R) and (D) fighting over which rights to steal, and most people ignorant that they both are stealing our rights, at the same time. And then you have people who say they vote (D) or (R) because the other steals more rights, while ignoring the rights that their side is stealing ...

Take for example the whole Amnesty thing Obama is going to do tonight. What I have not heard from either (D) or (R) is the fact that we have people who don't want to be Americans, coming to America, being given rights of Americans, to the detriment of all Americans.

Who I really feel sorry for are the Black Americans who will end up worse off because of this. They are Americans and deserve better from the people they keep electing to office. But rich white Americans who can hire cheap labor love this Amnesty crap. This is why you have an odd mix of Rich Republicans and Rich Democrats supporting this, while most Americans, including Black Americans, both (D) and (R) are opposed.

But Obama and those supporting him will continue to lie ("American People are Stupid" - Gruber) to get things passed that no informed American would vote for. But please, make this about (D) vs (R)

You can't think of ANY reason why women might cost a business more than a man. Not one? And you call me a dumbass.

How about Maternity Leave?
How about "sick days" every month?
How about "mommy days" when kids are sick?
How about discrimination lawsuits (real or imagined)?

These things exist. They cost money. They cost productivity. They lower efficiency. If these things didn't exist, a business would be foolish to NOT hire women, since they cost less than men on salary alone. But salary is only part of the human costs associated with employees.

Its the world where people want to be treated the same for acting differently it is a problem. Superficial political correctness is lame, but too many people are beholden to it to actually change how we deal with REAL discrimination.

The thing of it is, businesses still do this, they just don't advertise it. Guess what, it didn't make it any better. I would rather they did advertise it, so that I could enjoy not using them, and picking someone else. I don't drink Starbucks because the CEO is a Politically Correct Douche, and advertises it openly.

If Women make less money than men, then businesses should hire the women first, since it would lower costs.

The problem is, it might be more expensive to hire women, because of other reasons. But we dare not speak of those other reasons, for political correctness reasons.

Major Hurricane. The point. If hurricanes make landfall aren't of the type being hyped by global warming alarmists, in such a lull that is historic in nature, the claims are simply falsified. While you can be pendantic about verbiage and argue technicalities, those things do no support the thesis that "Global Warming is going to cause more and more severe hurricanes". Neither has actually happened.

We've lost the country the moment we gave government the power over the people, rather than making sure the people always had the power over government. The only thing that will fix this is another bloody revolution. But the government gives enough free bread and circuses to keep the people distracted and satiated in their slavery.

Tonight's Imperial Action is just another circus, designed to undermine Citizens rights while distracting people using the word "reform". Who can be against "reform"???

TL;DNR

However, I'll just pick one point.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetw...

Okay, you may be right. But they also said increased number of and more powerful hurricanes. The problem is, scientifically speaking (facts) we actually don't know anything due to a historically long period without a hurricane making landfall. We're going on 10 years without a major hurricane making landfall.

Hard to tell if they are more powerful if they don't show up, don't you think? The problem is that they made predictions that are completely falsified at this point. How can anyone believe anything they say will happen moving forward? I don't believe they know anything other than CO2 is increasing.