Hard core environmental whackos? :D

Whenever one mentions that gas prices are so much higher elsewhere and that American's are lucky, one should also mention the why of gas prices being higher else where. It's almost always, if not always, entirely due to punitive taxation on fuel. According to the BBC filling up a 55 liter tank would currently cost about 68 pounds, of which 43 is bloody taxes. So, gas in the US isn't cheap. It just isn't taxed to death like in other parts of the world.

What terrible phone are you using?

Contains and absolutely requires the presumption that someone looking to get famous by killing large numbers of legislatively defenseless people and then promptly get on the news and have every facet of their miserable little lives examined for meaning they could never find themselves would somehow stop simply because they can't use a particular method. Your logic is that if we eliminate method A then they absolutely won't switch to B or that somehow B is better than A.

You want fewer of these incidents? Don't report on the shooters, don't glorify them, don't give them the fame and validation they crave and that ultimately drives these acts. Speak of the victims, sure. The shooter should be treated as a nameless pariah or if given a name at all it should be no more than name/age. No details, no examining their motivations, no wall to wall coverage of them. Having people in the school who can defend against such nutjobs and other threats would be good as well. Yet even that is simply mitigation of a phenomenon created almost entirely by what I've already put forth.

And the Bell X1 was woefully underdimensioned and completely useless for commercial flight. SpaceShipTwo will never achieve the things that people seem to be implying it should nor is it intended to. It is intended to be a development platform for technologies and methods of manufacturing and business. SpaceShipWhatever on the other hand may be capable of these things and it will be thanks in part to SpaceShipTwo through whatever.

Because physics? Limited volume of space, all costs and profits must come from cargo (that's us) carried within that space. If some require significantly more room then logically it costs more to carry them and therefore it isn't completely unreasonable to charge them more. It's the same logic that's been applied to overweight people and which says larger hotel rooms cost more.

Yes, because clearly that's exactly what is being said here without the slightest deviation. The issue is far from abstruse.

In many ways the issue here is not so much louder megaphones or anything but a lazy electorate that doesn't bother to do even basic research or acquire understanding of either the candidates or the issues at hand.

The loudest megaphone in the universe cannot actually compel the electorate to vote in any particular way. Stupid people following the crowds and paying the most attention to things that matter the least is the real reason why any of this matters at all.

As the man in the movie said, if you're looking for the responsible party you need only look in a mirror.

As others have said, you think that wasn't going on before? Bribery is still illegal and CU didn't change that. All it did is recognize that when I, or anyone, contribute money to a cause that is a form of political expression, i.e. speech.

You don't think Unions and other groups were doing basically the same thing before either under the table or through less obvious means? Personally, I'd rather all such activities be out in the open as simply banning them will do nothing but push them underground and into smoke filled rooms.

Only to the degree that regular people allow this to happen by apathy. Don't expect others or government to defend your views for you. That's never happened in history and there's no reason it should start now. If the wealthy have disproportionate influence over governance then it is because we gave it to them. The Bill Gates and others of the world can spread as much money as they like, but at the end of the day they get one vote and we get over 150 Million. Who really has the power here?

We would do well to remember that.

Much as I said in a previous post, if you cannot make your point without using terms like 'teatards' then you really lose the debate right there. Further, your post contains a number of presumptions not the least of which being that I or those holding my views would somehow see the CU case as 'good' and would also see the gross failures of justice concerning some other SCOTUS rulings on the Free Speech question.

Speech is expression. If I don't own or control a TV network then realistically in this day and age one of the best ways I can express my beliefs is via the spending of money. Either on a company, or on or against a political candidate/position. I still maintain that the Left didn't get busted up about such things when it was "their" side doing it and only got upset over the CU case because now suddenly the Evil Right can do it too.

Also, you think Obama doesn't have/use free speech zones and other sorts of non-sense then you're deluding yourself. If you think that I don't see both as a terrible affront to Liberty then consider yourself corrected.

Sorry, you're wrong on many points but for the moment I'm only going to answer the cash != speech point. Money is speech when it is used to promote a political view. There simply is no other rational way to say it. The only reason the Left, of which you would appear to be one, are butt hurt about Citizens United is that the case has the effect of putting the Right on more equal footing with the Left's propaganda machine in the form of the majority of the media.

It was all good when Unions and various Left wing groups and causes could scream in the echo chamber but once CU broke the echo chamber and everyone could play now it is a bad thing. I'd think true Liberals, in theory those in favor of liberty one would imagine, would have cheered the ability for anyone to band together and form a PAC to promote their interests.

Well, that's slightly more tasteful than a dick joke but still not anymore of a thoughtful comment. Want to try again?

There probably should be a debate rule much like Godwin's that says in any debate on guns or really anything else not actually involving such, the minute your side pulls out "dick extensions" or like phrasing you lose.

The pro-rights side has history, logic and statistics on their side. The Anti-rights side has dick jokes, fear, racism and lies. Who should we really be listening to here?

Point of order, surely you're not attempting to equate Equal Rights Under the Law with scientific disagreement. Surely you're not trying to say that saying that some people are more equal than others and disagreeing on anthropogenic climate change are the same thing. You're not, right?

One can be debated, the other cannot.