waitforufo

While there is much about this post that I disagree with, my biggest disagreement is with the opening statement or thesis. "Terrorism is what you resort to when your views are marginalized. Extremists don't usually have access to armies and military grade weapons (not on a scale to wage war), so they strike in ways that make a big splash in the media." Terrorism is what the immoral resort to when they have been defeated. For example, at the end of the US civil war several of Robert E. Lee's officers counselled him to reject surrender and allow small units to melt away into the mountains, setting up a lengthy guerrilla war. In other words, they recommended terrorism over defeat. Lee, considered by many, myself included, to be a traitor rejected terrorism and accepted defeat. His only noble act during the Civil war. Modern middle eastern terror finds it roots in in the defeat of the ottoman empire and then culminating in the victories of Israeli armies over Arab armies. Instead of accepting defeat, terrorism was embraced by the defeated. Modern weaponry also plays a key role. When your enemy can drop 500 lb cast iron bombs equipped with guidance systems from 30000 ft with a 98% probability of hitting a 1 yard square target you can't form an army to defeat such an enemy. Concentrating your forces will assure their destruction. Terrorism is your only avenue. Coupling terrorism with an appeal to the morality of your enemy has been found to be particularly effective. For example using human shields, like is currently being used by most modern terrorist groups. Modern terrorism would likely be quickly extinguished if the sole responsibility for civilian casualties used as human shields was placed only on those using human shields. If this was done, terrorist could be attacked with impunity which would result in fewer civilian casualties in the long run. Instead we avoid civilian casualties when we strike, prolonging the conflict, and thereby increasing the overall number of civilian casualties. The best way to avoid civilian casualties is quick victory.

I appreciate the problem and understand that it is real. Believe me when I say I have little trust in government, in particular the police or prosecutors. I have also suggested an alternative. Perhaps you can suggest an alternative. If I have missed it I apologize. No system is perfect. The bail system we have today works for many. My guess would be that it works for most. Prosecutors don't or at least shouldn't be holding people unless they have sufficient evidence to convict. Hence your right to a speedy trail. The government isn't supposed to arrest and jail people and then go on a fishing expedition to find evidence to convict. But if prosecutors do believe they have the evidence to convict, then the suspect must be controlled to ensure they go to trial. That is currently done through bail or jail.

If they have a job or relatives then they should be able to come up with the money for a bail bond. It means they are connected to a community that can help provide that money and also assure they make there court date to get their money back. That is the purpose of bail. Why is it frightening to you? Having a threat of harm may be frighting at the moment, but that moment passes. Having your car stolen causes you real damage. My statement is only logical. Today the color of the sky in my world is blue. Sometimes it's gray and black at night. It is always curious to me why some think property crimes are somehow less damaging to people that violent crimes. Why is that? If someone ruins you financially through crime, you can be greatly damaged. Do you recognize that?

While I have sympathy for your argument, a bail hearing is performed, and the accused and the prosecution have the opportunity to present their case for the bail amount before a judge. The judge then makes the determination. Sounds like due process to me. I also see no other effective alternative. Well maybe perhaps one. Make it a felony with a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years for missing your court date. It should also be mandatory that the ten years be served consecutive to any sentence the accused receives if found guilty. It should also be mandatory to serve the sentence if found innocent of the crime committed for which the court date was set. That better? Why the obsession with nonviolent crimes? Property crimes often cause more damage to people than violent crimes. If someone threatens you with a knife or a gun, that is known as assault with a deadly weapon and is quite properly a violent crime. Threatening to beat you up is simple assault, also quite properly a violent crime. I'm sure most people would rather be threatened with a gun, knife, or fists than be subject to the property crime of having their car stolen when they are nowhere near their car. The reason for that is simple. The person is more damaged by the property crime than the violent crime. Many I'm sure would rather be roughed up a bit than have their car stolen. How do they make a living if they can't get to work? How do they purchase groceries if they can't get to the supermarket?

Because they have nothing to lose if they flee. If they stay for there court date, they may lose there liberty.

I always understood the word excessive to mean more than usual, normal, or proper. I don't see how this has anything to do with one's ability to pay. So for example if I don't wear my seat belt in washington state I have to pay a $100 fine. That could be a lot of money for some people, but the fine is the same for everyone regardless. Even if the ability to pay is a consideration in "proper" so is the crime committed as well as the likelihood of the defendant to flee prosecution.

My guess is that people who blame the mother or father don't have children of their own. While some children are well behaved, others can be quite rambunctious. Such a thing can happen very fast. Looking back on my own childhood I can recall many things I did where I could have been seriously injured if not killed. I'm sure I'm not alone.

People being harmed by animals in zoos is not that uncommon. Here is an example. http://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/20/nyregion/polar-bears-kill-a-child-at-prospect-park-zoo.html. Generally it is because those people do stupid things. Darwin's theory in action I guess. People going past barricades and getting too close to an enclosure to have their picture taken is common. I once saw a child, I would guess he was 8 years old, who had went under a pathway railing, and walked about 5 yards to a tiger cage and was reaching through the bars petting the tiger. This was at the Knoxville Zoo. The tiger seemed to be enjoying it. My guess is that the tiger was rather tame, but still it was a tiger. About 20 yards down the trail was a zoo attendant so when I reached her I pointed out the child petting a tiger and she freaked out. Through her actions I thought she might spook the tiger causing it to harm the child but luckily all ended well.

Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the word "and". The ability to pay is only one consideration.

Yes, but the amount should be based on the crime committed, the defendants potential to flee prosecution, and the defendants ability to pay. You mention bail is to ensure you show up at trial. If the amount is small relative to your means, then your return is less ensured. Finally, bail is set by judges, so your issue on bail is with them. I'm sure judges have guidelines, but they also have great latitude. I've never heard of a judge being thrown out of office for setting bail too low, even when those released have committed murders. If you wave your right to a speedy trail even once your screwed. It's a bit like agreeing that you understand your constitutional rights. Why would anyone ever agree to that when the supreme court can't figure it out? If you insist on a speedy trial you will get one. You are not supposed to be prosecuted if there is not enough evidence for a conviction so the prosecution has no excuse not to proceed with trail. Judges know this. Why give the prosecution more time? Many people make the mistake on waving their right to a speedy trail based on advice from their lawyer. Their lawyer tells the defendant that they need time to prepare a defense when all they want is more billable hours.

It's supposed to be difficult. That is how they get you to come in for hearings and trials. Too difficult is a judgment call for the judge based on the crime and the financial circumstances of the defendant and/or the defendant's support group. Also, you have the right to a speedy trial (6th amendment). Most people however wave that right in order to build there defense strategy or to merely postpone judgement.

The people have known Hillary for a long time. They don't like her. She is not a likable. Bernie, for most people, is an unknown. His negatives, if he has them, won't come out until the general election, if he somehow beats Hillary. Bernie beating Hillary is very unlikely.

Conservatives support all form of energy generation because energy is required for prosperity. To further promote prosperity however the energy must be low cost and/or reliable. While nuclear power is not the lowest cost option in some locations, it is reliable and hence is favored. Wind power, while not reliable because the wind is variable can be a good mix in areas like mine, Washington State, because we have an abundance of hydro power permitting the storage of wind power behind our dams. Environmentalists are however constantly trying to get dams removed because they have no common sense. Thorium reactors have great potential, but this potential is currently unproven. To my knowledge there is only one small experimental thorium reactor currently operating in Norway. The US is so afraid of nuclear power we are paying China to build an experimental Thorium reactor in a joint partnership. Current US regulations and red tape would make building such an experimental reactor in the US impossible. If this partnership pays, off any reactor developed will have to seek NRC approval. With the way the NRC works, it is likely that no such reactor will ever be built inside US boundaries.

Unqualified? Compared to a adjunct professor of no accomplishment/community organizer Trump's life accomplishments are rather stellar.

Conservatives already support nuclear power. They always have.

Capayan, Excellent post. I couldn't agree more. Trump is not my preferred candidate but I will vote for him. If for no other reason than to stop Hillary. Yeah, Trump is a bombastic person which is annoying at times, but many find is bombast to be rather refreshing compared to the airbrushed, manicured, coached performances of your typical politician. His bombast has kept him in the spotlight keeping his campaign costs low. How this keeps working for him I'm not completely sure, but just check today's news websites and count how many of the headlines include the name Trump. I keep expecting this to turn against him but it hasn't yet, and November 8 is only 7 months away. He could ride it until election easy. It's the old "there is no such thing as bad publicity", and everyone seems to want to give Trump publicity. Republicans are in bewildered today because a candidate beholding to no one in politics, just won the nomination. Even Sanders can't say that. Hillary has been paying her dues since Monica and is beholding to everyone. Of course she would have to be since she is completely unlikable. The "you go girl" campaign just might win for her but it seems to be wearing rather thin. In fact, Trump seems to be cornering her into the woman candidate definition. Hillary is embracing this, which I'm not sure is a good play for Hillary. Letting your opponent define you is generally not a good idea. In a country were only about 50% of people normally vote, a candidate like Trump can pull a lot of first time voters out of the woodwork. People from the families of auto workers, coal miners, steel workers, and lumber workers. It will be amusing if all the recent easy voting access laws end up registering Trump voters on election day and that puts the Donald over the top.

Are you suggesting that mankind has been reducing it's annual CO2 output in the last 10 years? Are you suggesting that conservatives have not been long term supporters of nuclear power? Did you support the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository? Any nuclear waste repository? Still listening to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ? Do we really need to play that game again where I post how environmentalists are the ones pushing to shut down all your renewable energy plans. You begged me to stop last time. I don't need a model, I simply have reality. I live reality and it is awesome. It includes automobiles, motorcycles, power boats, and snowmobiles. It also includes electric power generated by coal, natural gas, and hydro. Reality couldn't be better for me. You should join me. Why is it that the sky is falling crowd always needs a model?

You still don't get it Ken. As you freely admit conservatives what nuclear power. We want it because prosperity is directly proportional to electrical power generation. We don't need another reason, because prosperity is enough for us. So moving or not moving to nuclear power has nothing to do with conservatives. It is all about liberals. You don't need to look any further than liberals to find blame. Liberals own all the blame. Here is my understanding of your argument. Nuclear power is bad and scary. For goodness sake its splitting the atom which is the same as a nuclear bomb. It also produces nuclear waste that will give us all cancer and soon all our babies will have flippers. Desperate times however, require desperate measures and global warming/climate change/climate disruption caused by carbon fuels is the desperate time that we are now living under. So were going to have to go with mushroom cloud based power generation to save the planet from carbon fuel. We promise to be careful and abortion is legal so don't worry. Some how you think that argument is going to work with the environmental left if only conservatives would quit dismissing global warming/climate change/climate disruption caused by carbon based fuel. Really? You think the environmental left is going to give up on all their great propaganda since the '79 smash hit The China Syndrome if only conservatives would admit that carbon based energy is going to make the planet boil? Not a chance. The environmental left thinks that human beings are the problem with the environment. Energy generation simply makes more human being possible that is why they are against in all forms. The goal of the environmental left is to reduce the number of human beings to what they feel is the earth's carrying capacity of no more than 1 million people. Do that and you won't need nuclear power and burning carbon won't be an issue because we will all be living in a shire in communion with nature. I googled "climate change models vs. observations." https://www.google.com/search?q=climate+change+models+vs+observations&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=995&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjx5c_GssPMAhXMp5QKHfwPAuUQsAQILw Pick whichever one you want. Next I googled "adjusting data to match climate change models." Only climate science adjusts data to match models. What a joke. https://www.google.com/search?q=climate+change+models+vs+observations&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=995&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjx5c_GssPMAhXMp5QKHfwPAuUQsAQILw#tbm=isch&q=adjusting+data+to+match+climate+change+models Again, have fun picking your favorite. Finally, if you really want to have a laugh, it has been 10 years since Al Gore's Nobel and Academy award winning movie An Inconvenient Truth. Go watch that and tell me how many of the movies predictions have come true.

Ken, I'm sorry but your opener is nonsense. Conservatives in the main are for expanding nuclear power. They were for this expansion before global warming was a topic let alone climate change, and they are still for it today. The only obstacle to expanding nuclear power is the environmental movement. The environmental movement won't be happy until we all return to a pre 1800's primitive state. That is why they are against not only nuclear power, but any power generation. By the way I'm a conservative. I know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I know that the CO2 mankind is adding to the atmosphere is contributing to warming the planet. The measured evidence, so far however, shows that mankind's contribution to warming to be trivial. Climate changes so get used to it. The measured evidence shows that our current climate variation is well within the expected statistical variation found before 1940. I see no catastrophe in the future based on a continued or even expanded use of carbon fuels. The only future catastrophe I see is if we destroy our economy in a vain attempt to prevent the climate from changing since we don't have the ability to stop it.

The fifth amendment guarantees your natural right against self incrimination. Choosing not to self incriminate does not point to guilt.

Does it shoot when the battery is dead? If you have to shoot with your left hand due to your right hand being incapacitated by an assailant does it work? If not, then it is no longer effective for self defense. I can also see a person trying to figure out why it won't shoot due to improper use or momentary malfunction shooting themselves or others standing near by. These devices are not safe. Yes I understand that the word "you" can be plural. You, singular, are including overtone and I in that plural group. Even John Cuthber above understands that. Life is full of risks.

No background check will ever cover every firearm transaction or trade. People frequently disobey nuisance laws. Parents will always give there kids guns as presents. Even Sara Brady did. http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/brady-shady-gun-rules-control-backer-son-rifle-article-1.477603. Where I live people sell guns at garage sales all the time. The local news paper has a classified add section for "Guns and Ammo". Sure that section of the classifieds starts with a statement that says something like "Please follow State and Federal laws when selling and purchasing firearms", but do you really think people are going to do this when it is there natural right to purchase firearms? You may be outraged by this, but you're dreaming if you think this will ever change. Even with this free availability of firearms and ammunition, felons and the mentally ill still walk into gun stores, fill out ATF form, wait for their instant background check, get denied, and no one ever arrests them. Do you really think more laws are going to help? Dreaming. Go ahead and try to reverse or sidestep Heller. I wish you luck. It is a very well written decision. You see progress as rolling back human rights. That never works. I suggest we stay free instead. Yes there is a price to pay but it is better than the alternative.

No, it was calling me an idiot. Still you have not commented on my links in post 1053. We have background checks. We have standards for gun ownership. They include restrictions on non citizens, mentally incompetent, fugitives from justice, drug addicts, convicted felons and so on. It's against the law for felons to even attempt to purchase firearms. Yet when felons do make these attempts and are caught by our instant background check system, no arrests are made. We also have standards for carrying weapons. The one thing we don't have is trigger lock and safe storage laws. Those have been ruled unconstitutional. So you have what you want. This will be post 1062. How much longer do you think this nonsense topic will carry on?

I was looking at this line.

Interesting that you don't comment on the links I provided in post 1053. Instead you make personal attacks on me. Again, do you really wonder why there is gridlock?