Strawman argument. I most certainly did not say that the new technology should be banned.

What I argued was that technological advancement does not reward all equally, and in fact some individuals are harmed by it. This fact must be understood and appreciated to maintain social order.

The term "Luddite" has become a pejorative, but you should look at the history of the Luddites and the social ills and inequalities they were fighting against. They were much more than the stereotype.

So the Silicon Valley Masters of the Universe are shuttled to work in their private Wi-Fi enabled comfort busses, free from having to deal with the riff-raff of society while the common folk are out their sucking on exhaust fumes.

I can't imagine a scenario where this turns out badly.

So the 55-year old candlestick makers were supposed to upgrade their skills or do what? Starve? I think that tech advances are generally good, but this "Creative Destruction" comes at a cost to certain individuals in society who were unlucky/unconnected enough to choose the wrong profession. You can't simply let all those people fend for themselves without any support.

The protesting slime seem to think they have a god given right to be where they are.

Wow. I think you would fit into Putin's (or Stalin's) Russia just fine.

Hectare (as in 100 ares, an are being 100 square meters) is standard and quite common in Metric countries, and is abbreviated ha.

The conversion is approx 2.471 acre = 1 ha

Yep.

While we're at it, let's dissolve all those other regulatory agencies like the FDA, USDA, SEC, etc. so we can achieve that libertarian paradise that awaits.

What was Upton Sinclair so bent out of shape about, anyway? Extra protein, amirite?

The PPACA was already passed on a party line vote with little discusion on it.

Were you stuck in Biosphere II for 2009-2010? Yes, it passed on party lines (because no Republican would vote for a plan conceived by the Heritage Foundation and implemented by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts), but the claim that there was little discussion of the PPACA is blatantly false.

And also about the claim that Democrats are the ones worried about ideology? Wow. Just wow.

So you would prefer a Public Option, or even Single Payer then?

to pay a minimum of 80% of premiums towards benefits. Excess is to refunded to the buyers.

Personally, I would rather have a Single Payer system (Medicare for All) but we weren't about to get that with the political influence the Health Insurance companies have. (And it would be disruptive to all the people employed by the Health Insurance companies).

And if you think that the Republicans aren't getting money from the Health Insurance companies, I have a bridge that I can sell you.

Politicians are not the source of the problem. They are the symptom. Jim DeMint resigned the Senate to become a lobbyist. If the Senate was all-powerful, why would he do that?

The problem is the over-corporatization of society. Or as Mitt Romney said "Corporations are People too" (I know he didn't mean it literally, but still).

This has lead to this incestuous revolving-door relationship between Government and Business.

Personally, I feel that Government is the only thing we have that is big enough to be able to compete against Business.

It can work, like how Teddy Roosevelt became the Trust Buster (Henry Clay Frick, the steel baron complained, "We bought the son of a bitch and then he didn't stay bought.")

We need Business, but we also need a referee strong enough to enforce the rules. And Government is the only thing we have that is.

You really think an AR-15 will protect you from the government?

You gun-rights libertarians are sooo cute when you're living in your fantasy world.

How about instead of arming yourselves (and sending more profits to the gun manufacturers) we talk about de-militarizing the police and cutting military budgets, along with ending assaults on our liberty like the War on Drugs and the War on Terror and breaking the culture of secrecy created by the Cold War.

Really? It will make the police *less* likely to kick in doors?

What planet do you live on?

If we look at what has actually happened, we see an increasing militarization of the police. They are much more likely to use overwhelming force in all situations (flash-bang grenades, large SWAT teams, etc.), because safest thing for them to do is ensure that the people inside have no time/ability to arm themselves.

Ever watched "Cops"?

Some of them, yes.

Consider that the Constitution was the *second* attempt to unite the former colonies, since the Articles of Confederation was seen as being way out of balance, with the States having way too much power w.r.t. the Federal Government.

And remember that the Declaration of Independence was the rhetorical culmination of the battle that started when Parliament wanted the colonists to pay the costs of the French and Indian War, and the rich New England colonists refused.

If you are truly honest you would understand that when you look at the court that it is filled with activist judges who care very little if at all for the Constitution and are just looking to make law that reflects what they want.

Which Justices advertise themselves as "originalists" who the Constitution as a document chiseled in stone, where all interpretation of current law is based on the Founders' original intent, and then choose to throw that belief away when it's inconvenient? Hint: It's not the "liberals" (not that the Court actually has any liberals, but that's another argument)

If you think it is just Scalia or just the Conservatives on the court that are evil you are either stupid or a liar

Please elaborate on what Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, or the other "liberals" have done that is "evil". Or do you always speak in Limbaugh-ian hyperbole?

Some possible solutions: Stop the wind turbines from spinning (or just slow them down) when the bats are most likely to be flying by it (usually at sunset/sunrise). Or not building turbines in locations that are heavily traveled by bats. There are other solutions being researched, such as emitting sounds that mimic the bats' own echo-location signals.

The problem is both bats running into the fins and that the bats' lungs cannot handle the pressure gradient produced by the moving blades. see http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/fixing-wind-powers-bat-problem

But this problem seems solvable, and in my opinion doesn't diminish the need for building more wind turbines.

Not quite.

The tabloids will usually say "our unnamed source who is close to Demi says that Demi is pining for Ashton."

So the facts of the story are about the story *as told by the source*, not the story in and of itself. If the source was incorrect, the story was still accurate, because they were merely quoting the source. This makes the tabloids extremely difficult to sue successfully, because you have to prove that the tabloids knew the sources information was false.