This right here.... THIS is why this debate needs to be dumbed down. Weather, a single event, is not climate change. A PATTERN of certain weather, of which this year was just the latest data point in DECADES of a continuing trend, is climate change. It's pretty easy to understand for the average high schooler, but some people still can't figure it out.

Your delusion that you are just days away from joining their ranks makes you easily controlled.

And nobody OWES companies protection from thieves and looters. Oh wait, time to think about the good of society now? That's what I thought.

Since when are home owners a "Far Left Political Establishment"? This is run of the mill NIMBY, which cuts across party lines. You might want to take off those partisan glasses before your morning toast starts looking like a libtard conspiracy to end soft bread.

The only people left on slashdot these days are basically monsters from the Id. I'm very sorry for you loss.

But then the hospital gets to deny you because you don't have the cash up front. (assuming it is non life threatening)

Number 3 is how we got in this mess in the first place.

I am super perplexed by the people that think even 1 person who voted for Trump would have voted for Bernie. I know a lot of people say "I voted for trump because hillary was worse", but come on, you were never going to vote democrat anyway. Yes, there may be concerns that Hillary is somehow in control of some vast organization that weirdly spans both criminal and government, but we had literal pictures of Trump shaking hands with mobsters before the election. We had tons of reporting that a hostile foreign power is basically the only reason he had a business left before the election. We had dozens of accusations of sexual harassment before the election. He was caught on tape saying something that would have sunk any campaign right before the election.

If you ignored all of that and still voted for him, start being honest with yourself. You were never going to vote for a democrat, even if the republicans had run Flavor Flav.

How about India?

The problem with honestly attempting to provide a response to this question is that no matter which country one could offer, it would never be "socialist enough" for you because your definition of socialist state includes that it must be a failure.

Meanwhile Saudi Arabia and Canada are passing the benefits of their nationalized oil industries on to their populace with pretty great success. You might want to look into all of the nationalized industries out there and challenge your assumptions about which countries are or are not "socialist"

And continuing to deny the problem will get the shitiest people on earth more money. I'll listen to the scientists who are not making billions a year by vomiting filth into the sky.

Is there any reason the two types of stories are mutually exclusive?

My recollection of the events was pretty different. I remember watching the state of the union address where Dubya said "a Brittish intelligence agency believes Saddam is seeking to purchase uranium". I remember thinking to myself, "that's a curious way to put it, what do OUR agencies think."

And of course, it turns out that they didn't think that was credible intel. I remember them continuing to think that until the administration created a special office in the pentagon to invent intel, which they then took before congress for the authorization of force. I remember the U.N. inspectors on the ground were finding nothing, even after going back over and over at the insistence of the U.S.

I remember the administration selling the authorization of force as a bargaining chip, that would never be used.

I remember thinking "this is incredibly blatant, surely nobody is falling for this." I was a young man.

And that's pretty much the time I realized that governments are about serving the agenda's of those in power, not the people.

Ha! You kind of have that backwards there, budy. The founding fathers were all about trusting the government over the populace. The individual (male land owner)'s representation was supposed to end with the house. 2/3rds of the power in the republic was to be decided by government. Senators and presidents were appointed by state governments. Hell, it took 125 years for senators to be elected by the popular vote.

Now, you can argue that 17 amendments later we became a country which is more concerned by the individual, but I don't see how that in any way amounts to "if you don't like how america is, leave." In fact, it's proof of the exact opposite.

They literally can not. Mueller's mandate ended at the report he provided to congress. He can not "recommend prosecution", that is literally what impeachment is, the recommendation by congress of a sitting president for trial in the senate. That is a power of congress, not the justice department.

Biden was sent there by the congress specifically to pressure the Ukraine to fire that prosecutor. Trump decided to withold that funding after the DOD and State department had certified that Ukraine had made the requisite changes to reduce corruption, and congress had voted to give them the funds, illegally exceeding his authority to do so.

You seem to have a very muddled idea about what actually happened, you might want to educate yourself on how it all actually played out.