Replace "talkers" with "crying babies" and your statement is no less true. Shall we ban babies on flights as well?
If you can't or won't control your kids, please keep them at home until they can maintain themselves in public.
Right, because one can just 'control' kids. It's not like they're thinking, breathing, humans with wills separate from their parents. I mean, I know I always carry a roll of duct tape with me just in case a kid has a meltdown. That way I can just shut them up for the comfort of everyone around me. I also think that because any kid can occasionally cry or melt down, all parents with kids should be banned from going out in public until the kids are at least 10. I think that sounds fair.
Or, maybe, just realize that the parent is probably more upset by the kind crying than you are. And no doubt trying to do their best to comfort them. Maybe the kid was sick. Or had an earache from the change in the cabin pressure. Or any number of such things. Things completely outside the control of the parent. Kids aren't always rational,
Here's some nice perspective: http://themattwalshblog.com/2013/09/15/dear-parents-you-need-to-control-your-kids-sincerely-non-parents/
Which has already proven to be less harmful to the USA than when the DNC rammed Obamacare (is that "racist") through, without even reading it ("must vote for it, to see what is in it"). So far, Oregon spend 300 million to enroll 44 people, good FUCKING use of tax dollars.
And, just to remind you, Hillary, and Company supported the wars. And saying she didn't know GWB was lying, that is just remember, her Husband was President and knew all about Saddam and OBL, so she SHOULD have known. But then again "What difference does it make!!!!!"
Okay. Time for some fact checking. First, the full quote from Nancy Pelosi (not just the part that Michele Bachmann used and made famous) was: ”We’ll have to pass it so you can find out what’s in it, away from the fog of controversy.” Nancy Pelosi claims that she was saying that the American people wouldn’t see all the advantages of HCR until after it was passed, not that Congress had no idea what it said. I personally read it as her saying that during the debate in congress there were so many people saying false things about the healthcare law that not all of the benefits (or drawbacks) would be recognized by the public until they were enacted in law.
Second, Oregon has roughly 30,000 paper health care applications waiting for approval. Additionally at least 70,000 more people have signed up for Medicaid in response to informational letters the government sent out to eligible citizens. Given that the uninsured population of Oregon is roughly 500,000, I'd say those numbers are a pretty good indication that the program is both wanted and needed.The fact that the website is broken is a travesty, particularly given the amount of money (more like $150 million, according to the paper) paid to Oracle to get it to work.
However, the fact that a private contractor failed to construct a website does not mean the law is bad. It means we need better private contractors. Hopefully Oregon will figure out how to deal with Oracle and either get their money back, a working website, or both (the same could be said for the federal health exchange website).
Finally, as to your last point. You're saying that former President Bill Clinton was up to date on the most recently collected highly classified intelligence about Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and WMDs. And that he told his wife all about it. You do remember that the war in afghanistan started a year after he left office, and the war in Iraq started two years after he left office? Things can change a lot in a year, especially when an event like 9/11 shifts the focus of the intelligence community. I think you're overestimating the power and knowledge of former presidents.
Some sources: http://www.oregonlive.com/health/index.ssf/2013/12/oregons_health_exchange_woes_s_1.html http://news.yahoo.com/oregon-healthcare-exchange-website-never-worked-no-subscribers-130601969--sector.html http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2013/12/30000_cover_oregon_enrollment.html http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2010/mar/15/republican-party-texas/texas-gop-says-speaker-nancy-pelosi-said-people-wi/
And remember, if two car travelling at 50 MPH have a head on collision, the force on each driver is 50MPH then adjusted fro mass differences.
I'm going to be a little pedantic here, but I'm a physicist. You don't mean force. The FORCE on each car is the same (I won't talk about drivers, because you've got all the safety features to consider). The ACCELERATION on each car is different. In fact, the acceleration ratio is equal to the inverse mass ratio.
you can get a car that gets better mileage
Gets better mileage?
You need to look into that. The prius gets ~45mpg in the city (fueleconomy.gov has it rated as 48mpg city and 45mpg highway). I won't dispute your other claims, since I haven't driven a civic or a fit (or a prius for that matter), but the mileage certainly favors the prius (and insights get even better mileage than Priuses. My little insight gets 50-55mpg around town) . . .
Don't compare floating point numbers solely for equality.