Just like here in this forum where all of the acolytes still think Wheeler is not a dingo because he made terrible but "nice sounding" rules.
You say this despite the clear and incontrovertible mountains of evidence (ie: many, many articles decrying the rules falling short and not being implemented fully), yet somehow you think people will take you seriously?
And I would hardly consider this even a positive example of "creating" jobs. This type of thing is just an emperors new clothes version of welfare.
This needs responding to as well. Perhaps (in some distorted way of thinking) it was welfare, but it was only needed because of the greed of free market capitalists who caused the Great Depression. FFS.
our government does not create jobs, they never have
Only a dipshit would write a whole paragraph trying to make that point when it is easily disprovable. Try looking at the Civilian Conservation Corps for a starter.
When you're done with that, you can come back and say, "Ok, there was that ONE time," and I'll be happy to provide you with another example. We can keep doing that until you either get tired of being continually proven wrong or just admit you're talking out of your ass. K?
Not all people come to the same conclusion while reviewing the same evidence.
Yet somehow the people who look at the evidence overwhelmingly come to the same conclusion. Weird, huh?
People with more knowledge are harder to convince.
You're right. People like actual scientists who specialize in climatology. As a group they would be pretty hard to convince. Yet somehow they have been.
Are you a climate scientist?
Nope. Are you? I'm not an air conditioning repairman either. But when 99 of 100 people who have been trained, experienced and specialize in repairing air conditioners tell me the same thing, I kinda think they're probably right. Then again, I'm not full of hubris.
I look at the same evidence and have come to a different conclusion.
By all means, please elaborate on how the mountains of evidence has led you to a different conclusion. I'll get the popcorn! This will be fun.
A very logical viewpoint, one that is ignored by most of the anti-gun zealots out there ...
Yea, except for that fact the your analogy totally fails in that while backpage.com can be used for all sorts of things, the only thing you can use a gun for is to kill stuff (or, in the case of target/skeet shooting, practicing to kill stuff)
Whoooa! Damn! You are REALLY fucking out to lunch!
> Again, that does not appear to be the case with either of the two candidates, who (at best) might just be described as agnostic to/indifferent to new technologies and somewhat ignorant on what that might mean from a policy perspective.
> and, like Clinton, he often relies on staff to print news articles off the internet.
> These are two candidates who don't have their hands on the technology