That's so cute! I bet you believe in Santa and the tooth fairy too! You are very naive, friend. Things would not go down that way, at all. Also back in the 1960s and 1970s, not all the protesting was non-violent. And even when it was non-violent, the police often were not. That certainly hasn't changed.

What's more, you'd see quite a bit of this sort of thing. I'm not sure who this "militia movement" might be, but if you think they'll spark firefights with police/military/other government folks over sending other people's kids to war, you're kidding yourself.

I suggest you educate yourself and go back on your meds.

You might want to take that up with Austria, Finland, Israel, Norway and Greece, amongst others.

Note that the US (unlike many other countries) does most emphatically not have compulsory military service. So, your call for a constitutional amendment seems rather ridiculous.

There. FTFY. As I recall, I had to register with the Selective Service System when I turned 18. There was no draft. However, the law did have some teeth, as those who did not register were deemed ineligible for Federal college financial aid programs.

I'm not at all confused.

Perhaps you should read my comment again. The claim is (and not my claim, either) that the conclusions (and data) of that 97% actually agree that AGW exists. Agreement about how much impact, potential (if any) action to be taken and the validity of any particular climate model or models is much more fragmentary and is, as it should be, contested, discussed and, most importantly, research along these lines continues.

I never asserted that those 97% are "completely in line with each other." I merely noted that the oft-cited study which makes such a 97% claim, only claims that 97% of climate scientists agree that AGW *exists*. I make no claims or assertions at all. I was attempting (and in your case, apparently failing) to clarify that single point.

My apologies if my grasp of English was inadequate to that task.

No. But that's not the claim that's being made. The claim is that 97% of climate scientists agree (based on their research and the data underpinning that research) that AGW (climate change due to human impact) exists. Questions about severity, impact and potential mitigation/solutions are not included in that claim. Understand now?

You've done a piss-poor job of saying anything that even vaguely approximates reality. I'm not sure whose talking points you're mangling here, but if I were them, I'd shut up and then sue you for making me look even worse.

Global warming and Centralized Economic planning? Cite please. Look hard, but you won't find anything -- because it doesn't exist.

Threats to national sovereignty? In what fantasy world?

Last I checked, the rich, developed countries were gaming the system in their favor. Show me where that's changed? You can't, because it ain't so.

Sigh.

Bzzt. Wrong. I'm not sure who this "they" and what "group" it is that you're talking about. As an atheist, I do no subscribe to any "theist" (get it? a-theist, as in not theist.) philosophies. That's me. You go and believe whatever you want. If you believe in something I don't, more power to you. Have at it and since I don't share those beliefs, there's more for you!

However, don't expect to me agree with you or not call you out if you espouse demonstrably false ideas and/or concepts.

Just because I disagree with you and don't mind telling you *why* I disagree with you, doesn't mean I'm forcing anything on you.

Feel free to ignore me or argue with me. Who knows, if your argument is good enough, maybe I'll be convinced. I'm open minded like that -- if you can make a rational argument and back it up with empirical data to support your argument, I will accept it, even if it contradicts my current beliefs.

Enjoy your beliefs, whatever they may be and enjoy your day, friend.

According to the Microsoft blog post linked in TFS:

...In a civil case filed on June 19, Microsoft named two foreign nationals, Mohamed Benabdellah and Naser Al Mutairi, and a U.S. company, Vitalwerks Internet Solutions, LLC (doing business as No-IP.com), for their roles in creating, controlling, and assisting in infecting millions of computers with malicious software—harming Microsoft, its customers and the public at large. We’re taking No-IP to task as the owner of infrastructure frequently exploited by cybercriminals to infect innocent victims with the Bladabindi (NJrat) and Jenxcus (NJw0rm) family of malware. In the past, we’ve predominately seen botnets originating in Eastern Europe; however, the authors, owners and distributors of this malware are Kuwaiti and Algerian nationals. The social media-savvy cybercriminals have promoted their wares across the Internet, offering step-by-step instructions to completely control millions of unsuspecting victims’ computers to conduct illicit crimes—demonstrating that cybercrime is indeed a global epidemic.

And:

No-IP domains are used 93 percent of the time for Bladabindi-Jenxcus infections, which are the most prevalent among the 245 different types of malware currently exploiting No-IP domains.

[Emphasis Mine]

So, Microsoft is alleging that No-IP is assisting (presumably knowingly) in the distribution of malware and that 93% of No-IP's domains are vehicles for malware distribution. Is this true? I don't know, but I kind of doubt it.

What's next, a RICO prosecution for the owners of No-IP?

I'd recommend that person take a software developer job at $25/hour.

I guess I'm just much more easily amused than you are. Or maybe it's that perspective thing again.

That's right! You tell 'em buddy! God said so!

Right. Because minimum wage ($7.25/hour*(40 hours/week*52 weeks a year = 2080 hours) = $15,080/year, assuming you take no time off and that you actually get 40 hours a week) on an annual basis, less 15% federal withholding and 6.25% SSI/Medicare withholding is $11,875.50 per year. That, of course, assumes that no state or local taxes and no other deductions (hmm..like for health insurance) apply . Let's see. $11,875.50 per year is $989.63 per month. How many of you are able to live on that much?

A better question is, if you take the same calculation WRT Hobby Lobby employees, how much extra would you have left over on $14/hour? That's a net (again, excluding state and local taxes and other deductions) of $1911. If you live someplace really inexpensive, you could get by and even be able to afford your Plan B, etc. Unless you have a couple of kids who need to eat and wear clothes and stuff. Sigh.