SkyDekker

That's rich. I'll remind you of that when next you discuss policy of US police and their trustworthiness. Apparently Canadian cops weren't trustworthy either in this case. So, how do we deal with that? Your option appears to be, don't allow them to check if people need help evacuating. My option is punish the cops responsible, but keep checking if help is required in those instances. Not sure how "that's rich".

So you think that it is worth mentioning that Obama and Clinton enabled the rise of ISIL. However, are silent on Bush's role in enabling the rise of ISIL. This is a pretty strong indicator you believe Clinton and Obama are more to blame for this enabling, than Bush Jr. who decided to invade and destabalize the whole region. Which leads to a healthy outpooring of lol and lmao and images of being glued to a radio with some right wing idiot talkshow host blabbing away.

lol, yeah that's right. We live large from all the money the US provides us. If you want to take the comments as just America bashing, you are doing yourself a disservice. Maybe there is just a better way of doing things than what you are doing now? And no, that doesn't mean the everything is better in Canada. There are many things we could do much better on. Sometimes we would even look and see how other countried do things and see if we can learn from that.

So we are back to criminal cops. I have no issue with the policy for Canada. It makes total sense to me. The cops who didn't follow the rules/law should be punished accordingly. What doesn't make sense to me is taking away good policy because cops cannot be trusted.

My 2nd grade teacher (Ms. Claybaugh) taught me a valuable lesson: If you can't explain it in a few simple words, you don't understand it yourself. More on this. Trying to explain to the willfully ignorant takes more time than and more effort than there is time or effort to spend. So, in this case your anecdote is false. No wonder why have to spend so much time on you.

Well, doing everything takes money. What goes on the list of things that takes tax money is obviously subject to lengthy debate. But you're absolutely wrong that we prefer to not spend money. We throw money at everything in fucking spades... http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cmd.asp http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditure_per_capita Yes you do. You guys love funneling tax payers money at quadruple the costs to private instututions. The best system money can buy, at least if you own part or all of the privatized institution. I think you may have also missed the point behind the post. But that's probably due to my own poor wording. You guys obviously do a bang up job taking care of your society!

Agreed. Though now that they are easily available in a evacuated area prone to looting/stealing etc. I think it is prudent to remove those from the premises. However, clearly it should have been done properly. OK - so you evacuate, leave your house all locked up tight, and the police break in and the looters don't. . . that is OK with you? If that is established protocol to ensure that evacuation has taken place, yes I am OK with that. Idiots who stay behind end up costing the tax payers more when they have to get rescued. The article made it pretty clear the police had a legal right to do so. You are honestly ok with people breaking into your house to make sure you aren't there? Really?. Doesn't bother you at all? The police ensuring there is nobody left behind after a mandatory evacuation order. Ensuring all have the had the ability to safely leave. Yeah, I have no problem with that. Actually I would suggest it to be good policy. Would hate to find out some people died because they fell out of their wheelchair, or stumbled down the stairs or in any other way were prevented from leaving and required help. I hold the life of people in higher regard than a front door or two. I further think that securing firearms found during this exercise is good policy as well. The way it was executed however was piss poor. Which is exactly what the report found as well.

lol, yeah that little incident is exactly what gave rise to ISIL. Sounds like something some right wing idiot radio show host would say. Maybe you guys should pay for 10 or so congressional investigations into that lmao.

And yet in the case with smoking science cannot accurately predict when you will die from smoking. Yet, when predictions are wrong with regards to AGW, which you admit is significantly more difficult, you take it as proof the science is faulty. They only way your reasoning makes sense is if you believe the science on smoking isn't settled either. Other than levels have increased. Show me a correct prediction That question is a pretty clear indication that you are completely missing the point. No. You are avoiding facts I am indeed avoiding pointing out that there are no accurate predictions regarding when somking will kill you. I figured you had made a fool of yourself enough already without me pointing that out for you.

That's the mindset! Keep fighting and spending on military might and reduce any spending on helping people. I am sure that will quickly help your society become healthier, better educated and less prone to violence. Cop violence will dramatically decrease soon after.

And yet in the case with smoking science cannot accurately predict when you will die from smoking. Yet, when predictions are wrong with regards to AGW, which you admit is significantly more difficult, you take it as proof the science is faulty. They only way your reasoning makes sense is if you believe the science on smoking isn't settled either. Other than levels have increased. Show me a correct prediction That question is a pretty clear indication that you are completely missing the point.

Snip isn't 100% effective. Other than not having sex, no method of birth control is 100% effective

ISIL is pretty organized. Not sure why you wouldn think it isn't.

Yeah but educating your society properly and ensuring they are healthy takes tax money. You (meaning the American society) tend to prefer to either not spend that, or spend it on military equipment or war.

And yet in the case with smoking science cannot accurately predict when you will die from smoking. Yet, when predictions are wrong with regards to AGW, which you admit is significantly more difficult, you take it as proof the science is faulty. They only way your reasoning makes sense is if you believe the science on smoking isn't settled either.

Just to clarify: When cops do criminal shit they should be charged criminally in some cases? Why should they not be criminally charged in all cases they do criminal shit?

Agreed. Though now that they are easily available in a evacuated area prone to looting/stealing etc. I think it is prudent to remove those from the premises. However, clearly it should have been done properly. OK - so you evacuate, leave your house all locked up tight, and the police break in and the looters don't. . . that is OK with you? If that is established protocol to ensure that evacuation has taken place, yes I am OK with that. Idiots who stay behind end up costing the tax payers more when they have to get rescued. The article made it pretty clear the police had a legal right to do so.

Great read, thanks for posting

So if I can find a scientist who is requesting funding for this, you will change your mind and now say it isn't settled? Once again you've caught me not writing clearly. Not really. I am just trying to figure out what it means when people say: I will wait for the science to be settled. You gace a smart ass answer. Somebody else said science is never really settled. The original proclaimer of this wisdom hasn't answered. I have asked Rush the same question before (after he made the same statement), he was unable to answer it either. If you don't know what would signify science to be settled, how can you proclaim science not to be settled?

At least they'd be consistent with my beliefs about the government in general But yeah I don't really like this whole "discrimination against committed but unmarried couples" thing. I don't think getting 90 days "unpaid" off a year to care for a sick Spouse or child has a poiltical slant. Not intentionally, it's just that most people assume that everyone wants to be married, or everyone wants to have kids, or everyone has a religion. Laws are frequently framed with these assumptions and can screw over people who don't want any of those things. it isn't an assumption. It is a requirement. What I mean with that is that a country needs continued growth. In order for that to happen, babies need to be born. To facilitate this, laws and regulations are drafted to help this. The less babies Americans make, the more immigration is needed to keep the country growing.

It is something I have consistently encountered in the 19 years I have been working (in several very different jobs/companies). I even read a study on it once - if I find it I will post it on here. Single/childless people work more. It's not that parents are slackers - I'm sure having kids is like having two jobs... But child-free people work more hours at their paid job. It's not even debatable - it's fact. Like anything, there are always exceptions - but they are the exception. And of course as you rightly said, there are actual slackers out there on both sides - kids or no kids - but that's not what we are talking about here. ETA - part of it is learning to say no, but even when you do, parents naturally have the priority when it comes to time off, et cetera. In a way it's right because raising kids *is* important... It's just that they often don't realise their work-place is flexible on the back of single people. It's not me going waaaaa waaaaaah... It's just the way it is. Kinda like John said: sick/disabled people work less on the back of healthy/abled people. It's called a "society" - not everyone contributes the same but there are overall benefits to the setup... There is a difference between working more and being more productive. I have had enough single people without kids working for me who put in lots of hours, but have never learned to be productive. I'll take a prent who knows the value of time, knows how much is left to do and finds a way to get it done, even if they have to leave a little earlier. Usually those complaining have the time to do so, cause they are not being productive.

I don't think that they have that sort of "long term" goal. Not a "lets get out of hand, so that the government clamps down on our people so that we can provoke a real revolt" sort of plan. They are simply thugs who can't abide anyone "dissing" their prophet. So they, like any thug, try to intimidate people into compliance. And when the intimidation doesn't work, they lash out violently. The Ayatollah's death threat against Salman Rushdie is exactly the same sort of thug tactic. Scare people into silence. Part of effectively dealing with situations is not having this air of superiority. You are bound to make some massive mistakes if you think all these people are just stupid.

So if I can find a scientist who is requesting funding for this, you will change your mind and now say it isn't settled?

I did once shake Anton Geesink's hand, that must make me somewhat of an expert by osmosis.

I am not the objective authority, sir. All I can speak of is my own thinking on the subject. I speak for myself and nobody else. On that thought, nobody speaks for me, either. I don't expect others to think as I do, and I hope I don't think just like everybody else. asked a question. I answered it. There is no right or wrong answer But you have stated before that the science was settled. Yet, there is still lots of funding being requested and approved. So by your own definition the science isn't settled. You are contradicting yourself.