Why we should listen to the 97%

[Abraham3]

They're "gullible drones" because you cannot win this debate with those who issue falsified scientific data on your condone list? Seems to me your use of projecting your own bad on somebody else in your mind relieves you of responsibility a debater has to the truth. Sorry, it doesn't. Projection is a tool used by those who lack propriety and introspection, and pal, you almost have it down to an art form, except as the adage says, "you can't fool all of the people all of the time."

Watching your meltdown has been interesting.

You are as dumb as the conservative drone who insist that learning from others who know more is a logical fallacy.

What you call ''projection'' is, in reality, holding people accountable for their words.

But, we expect nothing more from you. Accountability is a foreign concept to media addicts. If the talking head says jump, the conservative response is always, how high.

Not in the communications classes I have taken. Your projection is the blatant attempt to obfuscate the results of your proposals which lack merit based on the need to omit data from scientific information by some alleged scientist dudes who were gonna get rich quick off foundations for which they presented altered data to drive home a lie.

You can't fool me. My college science grades put me on top of the class because I studied my little butt off because I love the beauty and majesty of this wonderful world God wanted me to explore and understand. I loved every lecture, paper, chapter, structure, and map in every one of my science books on a broad range of topics, and I'm still learning.

The scientific community past frowned on charlatans who promulgated data that could not be replicated on account of falsification of data. Today's warmers celebrate getting grants, not getting facts. In fact, they actually need more heat before they catch on to how stupid they've been and ashamed they should be for lying to the world in front of God and everybody.

See you in the funnies of scientific FAILS.

What was your major? What science classes did you take?

 

[PMZ]

Your pickup is a danger to others,

I don't drive a pickup.

We, the people, who are subject to death and dismembership as a result of your idiocy

The idiocy is the idea that CAFE standards have no downside.
That's you and Obama on the side of the idiots.

Every thing has a downside. That’s the limit to conservative thinking


Liberals understand choice, which is an anathema to conservative black and white ''thinking''.

Every thing has a downside.

Like thousands of additional annual deaths, because of CAFE standards.

Liberals understand choice,

CAFE standards reduce choice and increase deaths.

Thousands of additional deaths are due to oversize cars. When they're gone, the roads will be safe again.

Liberals understand that choice is about balancing the up and down sides of decisions. Conservatives simplify problems down to only the downside to make doing nothing about everything seem ok.

Conservatism is really about avoiding responsibility and accountability.

 

[PMZ]

They're "gullible drones" because you cannot win this debate with those who issue falsified scientific data on your condone list? Seems to me your use of projecting your own bad on somebody else in your mind relieves you of responsibility a debater has to the truth. Sorry, it doesn't. Projection is a tool used by those who lack propriety and introspection, and pal, you almost have it down to an art form, except as the adage says, "you can't fool all of the people all of the time."

Watching your meltdown has been interesting.

You are as dumb as the conservative drone who insist that learning from others who know more is a logical fallacy.

What you call ''projection'' is, in reality, holding people accountable for their words.

But, we expect nothing more from you. Accountability is a foreign concept to media addicts. If the talking head says jump, the conservative response is always, how high.

Not in the communications classes I have taken. Your projection is the blatant attempt to obfuscate the results of your proposals which lack merit based on the need to omit data from scientific information by some alleged scientist dudes who were gonna get rich quick off foundations for which they presented altered data to drive home a lie.

You can't fool me. My college science grades put me on top of the class because I studied my little butt off because I love the beauty and majesty of this wonderful world God wanted me to explore and understand. I loved every lecture, paper, chapter, structure, and map in every one of my science books on a broad range of topics, and I'm still learning.

The scientific community past frowned on charlatans who promulgated data that could not be replicated on account of falsification of data. Today's warmers celebrate getting grants, not getting facts. In fact, they actually need more heat before they catch on to how stupid they've been and ashamed they should be for lying to the world in front of God and everybody.

See you in the funnies of scientific FAILS.

How come every conservative considers themselves a science genius but has zero respect for real science? And falls for conservative politics every time over scientific truth.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Every thing has a downside. That’s the limit to conservative thinking


Liberals understand choice, which is an anathema to conservative black and white ''thinking''.

Every thing has a downside.

Like thousands of additional annual deaths, because of CAFE standards.

Liberals understand choice,

CAFE standards reduce choice and increase deaths.

Thousands of additional deaths are due to oversize cars. When they're gone, the roads will be safe again.

Liberals understand that choice is about balancing the up and down sides of decisions. Conservatives simplify problems down to only the downside to make doing nothing about everything seem ok.

Conservatism is really about avoiding responsibility and accountability.

When they're gone, the roads will be safe again.

Smaller cars are more dangerous, even in single car accidents.

Liberals understand that choice is about balancing the up and down sides of decisions.

And you insist on making the decisions for people, even if it kills them, it's for their own good.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The IPCC is no longer part of the 97%

 

[PMZ]

Every thing has a downside.

Like thousands of additional annual deaths, because of CAFE standards.

Liberals understand choice,

CAFE standards reduce choice and increase deaths.

Thousands of additional deaths are due to oversize cars. When they're gone, the roads will be safe again.

Liberals understand that choice is about balancing the up and down sides of decisions. Conservatives simplify problems down to only the downside to make doing nothing about everything seem ok.

Conservatism is really about avoiding responsibility and accountability.

When they're gone, the roads will be safe again.

Smaller cars are more dangerous, even in single car accidents.

Not if you include the deaths caused by AGW enhanced extreme weather today, much less in the future as GHG concentrations continue to climb.

Liberals understand that choice is about balancing the up and down sides of decisions.

And you insist on making the decisions for people, even if it kills them, it's for their own good.

Some people are more capable of making good decisions and others are clueless.

Conservatives are all about the inmates running the asylum. Absolutely unaffordable. Look at the consequences just in the House of such nonsense. And they're supposed to be the smart ones.

 

[bripat9643]

Thousands of additional deaths are due to oversize cars. When they're gone, the roads will be safe again.

Liberals understand that choice is about balancing the up and down sides of decisions. Conservatives simplify problems down to only the downside to make doing nothing about everything seem ok.

Conservatism is really about avoiding responsibility and accountability.

When they're gone, the roads will be safe again.

Smaller cars are more dangerous, even in single car accidents.

Not if you include the deaths caused by AGW enhanced extreme weather today, much less in the future as GHG concentrations continue to climb.

Liberals understand that choice is about balancing the up and down sides of decisions.

And you insist on making the decisions for people, even if it kills them, it's for their own good.

Some people are more capable of making good decisions and others are clueless.

Conservatives are all about the inmates running the asylum. Absolutely unaffordable. Look at the consequences just in the House of such nonsense. And they're supposed to be the smart ones.

Democracy is about the inmates running the asylum. Liberals are trying to turn us all into inmates in an asylum. Under democracy the bottom 51% decide how everyone will live their lives.

 

[PMZ]

When they're gone, the roads will be safe again.

Smaller cars are more dangerous, even in single car accidents.

Not if you include the deaths caused by AGW enhanced extreme weather today, much less in the future as GHG concentrations continue to climb.

Liberals understand that choice is about balancing the up and down sides of decisions.

And you insist on making the decisions for people, even if it kills them, it's for their own good.

Some people are more capable of making good decisions and others are clueless.

Conservatives are all about the inmates running the asylum. Absolutely unaffordable. Look at the consequences just in the House of such nonsense. And they're supposed to be the smart ones.

Democracy is about the inmates running the asylum. Liberals are trying to turn us all into inmates in an asylum. Under democracy the bottom 51% decide how everyone will live their lives.

If you don't like democracy find a better alternative. Instead of 51 percent of we, the people, deciding, most conservatives want a much smaller percentage. Some would turn government over to a very few.

That's called a plutocracy and it's what the founding fathers thought that they could get away with. Fortunately, we, the people, took over their wishes and created a democracy.

Now conservatives want to return to a plutocracy of white, wealthy, men, except now of the uneducated sort. Grover Norquist, and Donald Trump, and Karl Rove, and Rush.

It will not happen though.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Thousands of additional deaths are due to oversize cars. When they're gone, the roads will be safe again.

Liberals understand that choice is about balancing the up and down sides of decisions. Conservatives simplify problems down to only the downside to make doing nothing about everything seem ok.

Conservatism is really about avoiding responsibility and accountability.

When they're gone, the roads will be safe again.

Smaller cars are more dangerous, even in single car accidents.

Not if you include the deaths caused by AGW enhanced extreme weather today, much less in the future as GHG concentrations continue to climb.

Liberals understand that choice is about balancing the up and down sides of decisions.

And you insist on making the decisions for people, even if it kills them, it's for their own good.

Some people are more capable of making good decisions and others are clueless.

Conservatives are all about the inmates running the asylum. Absolutely unaffordable. Look at the consequences just in the House of such nonsense. And they're supposed to be the smart ones.

Not if you include the deaths caused by AGW enhanced extreme weather today, much less in the future as GHG concentrations continue to climb.

Like all the extra hurricanes you guys promised us over the last 5 years?
How'd that prediction work out?

Some people are more capable of making good decisions

And then there are liberals. More deaths now, for sure, for fewer imaginary deaths, in the future. Promise!

 

[PMZ]

When they're gone, the roads will be safe again.

Smaller cars are more dangerous, even in single car accidents.

Not if you include the deaths caused by AGW enhanced extreme weather today, much less in the future as GHG concentrations continue to climb.

Liberals understand that choice is about balancing the up and down sides of decisions.

And you insist on making the decisions for people, even if it kills them, it's for their own good.

Some people are more capable of making good decisions and others are clueless.

Conservatives are all about the inmates running the asylum. Absolutely unaffordable. Look at the consequences just in the House of such nonsense. And they're supposed to be the smart ones.

Not if you include the deaths caused by AGW enhanced extreme weather today, much less in the future as GHG concentrations continue to climb.

Like all the extra hurricanes you guys promised us over the last 5 years?
How'd that prediction work out?

Some people are more capable of making good decisions

And then there are liberals. More deaths now, for sure, for fewer imaginary deaths, in the future. Promise!

From:On The Safety Of Large Vehicles | The Truth About Cars

The “big car safe, small car unsafe” debate took another interesting turn this week, as researchers from UC Berkeley have released a report arguing that large cars significantly increase the risk of death on American roads. Recent data on the most and least died-in vehicles seemed to show that larger vehicles do indeed keep drivers safer, but this new report seems to roll back the impact of that finding. Slate reports that researchers studied accident data from eight states, identifying the type and weight of vehicles involved in collisions by their VIN numbers. The researchers confirm that the heavy cars kill. Indeed, controlling “for own-vehicle weight, being hit by a vehicle that is 1,000 pounds heavier results in a 47 percent increase” in the probability of a fatal accident. The chance is even higher if the heavy car is an SUV, pickup truck, or minivan. (Taller vehicles tend to do outsize damage, too.)

The researchers then set out to calculate the value of the “external risk” caused by our heftier vehicles. First, they considered a scenario in which a driver chose between a car with the 1989 model-year average weight of 3,000 pounds or the 2005 weight of 3,600 pounds. The heavier car increased the expectation of fatalities by 0.00027 per car—27 deaths per 100,000 such vehicles. “Summing across all drivers,” they write, “this translates into a total external cost of $35 billion per year,” using the Department of Transportation’s value of a statistical life of $5.8 million. Judging against a baseline in which a driver chose the smallest available car, such as a Smart Cars, the cost is $93 billion per year. The price tag climbs beyond $150 billion per year if you include the cost of pedestrian and motorcyclist deaths and figure in multi-car collisions.

But this latest study hardly means an end to the debate. After all,*vehicles*have been getting larger and larger for decades but the overall number of deaths per vehicle mile traveled has been declining for at least as long. So how do the Berkley authors explain these contradicting trends?

The problem is that American roads consist of a mix of heavier and lighter cars, and the biggest danger is when they encounter each other. The authors write that*relative weight is what is most dangerous in crashes. The recent vogue for lighter vehicles, driven in part by high gas prices and changing fuel-economy standards, has raised worries about the chance of more collision deaths. One study found that higher fuel-economy standards imposed in the 1980s led to*2,000 additional deaths per year. If Americans suddenly start buying many more ultra-light cars, it is not hard to imagine more deadly accidents as a result.

That’s a pleasant thought, isn’t it? The eternal bugbear of US automotive regulation, the tradeoff between safety and fuel economy, just won’t go away. So what’s the solution?

Given the relationship between big cars and bad accidents, it might make sense to make such cars more expensive to buy or drive. You could do this with insurance premiums, or lawsuits. But the economists suggest a gas tax, “because it is simple and because gasoline usage is positively related to both miles driven and vehicle weight.” They say it would take a 27-cent-per-gallon gas tax to account for the $35 billion per year in extra costs from heavier cars. (To account for the $150 billion in extra costs would require a tax of more than $1 per gallon.)

Notch up another, if somewhat more*debatable, reason to increase the gas tax (as if we needed another).

 

[freedombecki]

Some people are more capable of making good decisions and others are clueless.

Conservatives are all about the inmates running the asylum. Absolutely unaffordable. Look at the consequences just in the House of such nonsense. And they're supposed to be the smart ones.

Not if you include the deaths caused by AGW enhanced extreme weather today, much less in the future as GHG concentrations continue to climb.

Like all the extra hurricanes you guys promised us over the last 5 years?
How'd that prediction work out?

Some people are more capable of making good decisions

And then there are liberals. More deaths now, for sure, for fewer imaginary deaths, in the future. Promise!

From:On The Safety Of Large Vehicles | The Truth About Cars

The “big car safe, small car unsafe” debate took another interesting turn this week, as researchers from UC Berkeley have released a report arguing that large cars significantly increase the risk of death on American roads. Recent data on the most and least died-in vehicles seemed to show that larger vehicles do indeed keep drivers safer, but this new report seems to roll back the impact of that finding. Slate reports that researchers studied accident data from eight states, identifying the type and weight of vehicles involved in collisions by their VIN numbers. The researchers confirm that the heavy cars kill. Indeed, controlling “for own-vehicle weight, being hit by a vehicle that is 1,000 pounds heavier results in a 47 percent increase” in the probability of a fatal accident. The chance is even higher if the heavy car is an SUV, pickup truck, or minivan. (Taller vehicles tend to do outsize damage, too.)

The researchers then set out to calculate the value of the “external risk” caused by our heftier vehicles. First, they considered a scenario in which a driver chose between a car with the 1989 model-year average weight of 3,000 pounds or the 2005 weight of 3,600 pounds. The heavier car increased the expectation of fatalities by 0.00027 per car—27 deaths per 100,000 such vehicles. “Summing across all drivers,” they write, “this translates into a total external cost of $35 billion per year,” using the Department of Transportation’s value of a statistical life of $5.8 million. Judging against a baseline in which a driver chose the smallest available car, such as a Smart Cars, the cost is $93 billion per year. The price tag climbs beyond $150 billion per year if you include the cost of pedestrian and motorcyclist deaths and figure in multi-car collisions.

But this latest study hardly means an end to the debate. After all,*vehicles*have been getting larger and larger for decades but the overall number of deaths per vehicle mile traveled has been declining for at least as long. So how do the Berkley authors explain these contradicting trends?

The problem is that American roads consist of a mix of heavier and lighter cars, and the biggest danger is when they encounter each other. The authors write that*relative weight is what is most dangerous in crashes. The recent vogue for lighter vehicles, driven in part by high gas prices and changing fuel-economy standards, has raised worries about the chance of more collision deaths. One study found that higher fuel-economy standards imposed in the 1980s led to*2,000 additional deaths per year. If Americans suddenly start buying many more ultra-light cars, it is not hard to imagine more deadly accidents as a result.

That’s a pleasant thought, isn’t it? The eternal bugbear of US automotive regulation, the tradeoff between safety and fuel economy, just won’t go away. So what’s the solution?

Given the relationship between big cars and bad accidents, it might make sense to make such cars more expensive to buy or drive. You could do this with insurance premiums, or lawsuits. But the economists suggest a gas tax, “because it is simple and because gasoline usage is positively related to both miles driven and vehicle weight.” They say it would take a 27-cent-per-gallon gas tax to account for the $35 billion per year in extra costs from heavier cars. (To account for the $150 billion in extra costs would require a tax of more than $1 per gallon.)

Notch up another, if somewhat more*debatable, reason to increase the gas tax (as if we needed another).

27/100,000 or .00027 is such a small number, it could flip flop quite a bit from year to year.
More studies that not do not support the Berkley study in overall safety:

WSJ: Small Cars Are Dangerous Cars--Fuel Economy Zealots Can Kill You

Maya Insurance: Small cars more dangerous in Head-on Collisions

CDC: Small cars more dangerous - from study: "… decreasing the size and weight of vehicles and increasing adoption of new vehicle technologies will reduce greenhouse gas and other emissions but could result in more injuries from car crashes and impact environmental health in other ways."

The Truth About Cars Dot Com: Surprise! Small Cars Still More Dangerous Than Big Ones

The Daily Mail, UK, 2012: Small cars are more dangerous: Shock study reveals modest motors have biggest risk of injury

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Some people are more capable of making good decisions and others are clueless.

Conservatives are all about the inmates running the asylum. Absolutely unaffordable. Look at the consequences just in the House of such nonsense. And they're supposed to be the smart ones.

Not if you include the deaths caused by AGW enhanced extreme weather today, much less in the future as GHG concentrations continue to climb.

Like all the extra hurricanes you guys promised us over the last 5 years?
How'd that prediction work out?

Some people are more capable of making good decisions

And then there are liberals. More deaths now, for sure, for fewer imaginary deaths, in the future. Promise!

From:On The Safety Of Large Vehicles | The Truth About Cars

The “big car safe, small car unsafe” debate took another interesting turn this week, as researchers from UC Berkeley have released a report arguing that large cars significantly increase the risk of death on American roads. Recent data on the most and least died-in vehicles seemed to show that larger vehicles do indeed keep drivers safer, but this new report seems to roll back the impact of that finding. Slate reports that researchers studied accident data from eight states, identifying the type and weight of vehicles involved in collisions by their VIN numbers. The researchers confirm that the heavy cars kill. Indeed, controlling “for own-vehicle weight, being hit by a vehicle that is 1,000 pounds heavier results in a 47 percent increase” in the probability of a fatal accident. The chance is even higher if the heavy car is an SUV, pickup truck, or minivan. (Taller vehicles tend to do outsize damage, too.)

The researchers then set out to calculate the value of the “external risk” caused by our heftier vehicles. First, they considered a scenario in which a driver chose between a car with the 1989 model-year average weight of 3,000 pounds or the 2005 weight of 3,600 pounds. The heavier car increased the expectation of fatalities by 0.00027 per car—27 deaths per 100,000 such vehicles. “Summing across all drivers,” they write, “this translates into a total external cost of $35 billion per year,” using the Department of Transportation’s value of a statistical life of $5.8 million. Judging against a baseline in which a driver chose the smallest available car, such as a Smart Cars, the cost is $93 billion per year. The price tag climbs beyond $150 billion per year if you include the cost of pedestrian and motorcyclist deaths and figure in multi-car collisions.

But this latest study hardly means an end to the debate. After all,*vehicles*have been getting larger and larger for decades but the overall number of deaths per vehicle mile traveled has been declining for at least as long. So how do the Berkley authors explain these contradicting trends?

The problem is that American roads consist of a mix of heavier and lighter cars, and the biggest danger is when they encounter each other. The authors write that*relative weight is what is most dangerous in crashes. The recent vogue for lighter vehicles, driven in part by high gas prices and changing fuel-economy standards, has raised worries about the chance of more collision deaths. One study found that higher fuel-economy standards imposed in the 1980s led to*2,000 additional deaths per year. If Americans suddenly start buying many more ultra-light cars, it is not hard to imagine more deadly accidents as a result.

That’s a pleasant thought, isn’t it? The eternal bugbear of US automotive regulation, the tradeoff between safety and fuel economy, just won’t go away. So what’s the solution?

Given the relationship between big cars and bad accidents, it might make sense to make such cars more expensive to buy or drive. You could do this with insurance premiums, or lawsuits. But the economists suggest a gas tax, “because it is simple and because gasoline usage is positively related to both miles driven and vehicle weight.” They say it would take a 27-cent-per-gallon gas tax to account for the $35 billion per year in extra costs from heavier cars. (To account for the $150 billion in extra costs would require a tax of more than $1 per gallon.)

Notch up another, if somewhat more*debatable, reason to increase the gas tax (as if we needed another).

The recent vogue for lighter vehicles, driven in part by high gas prices and changing fuel-economy standards, has raised worries about the chance of more collision deaths. One study found that higher fuel-economy standards imposed in the 1980s led to*2,000 additional deaths per year.

Sweet! How many hurricanes did those deaths prevent?

 

[PMZ]

Conservatives, of course, want the past to continue. So they believe that huge cars, sucking big time gas, should go on forever even though the hasten the inevitable end of fossil fuels. Why? They believe that they are entitled to it all, screw the future.

Wow. Screw the future. How irresponsible is that?

 

[Snookie]

the toddster is so worried about car safety that he thinks everyone should drive tanks.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Conservatives, of course, want the past to continue. So they believe that huge cars, sucking big time gas, should go on forever even though the hasten the inevitable end of fossil fuels. Why? They believe that they are entitled to it all, screw the future.

Wow. Screw the future. How irresponsible is that?

Liberals, of course, don't mind killing the little people, to fulfill their schemes.

 

[Abraham3]

Democracy is about the inmates running the asylum. Liberals are trying to turn us all into inmates in an asylum. Under democracy the bottom 51% decide how everyone will live their lives.

Why do you use the term "bottom"?

And, for that matter, why do you use 51%? Though the balance between the two parties has grown tighter and tighter over the years (evidence for an evolutionary process I'd say) support for, or opposition to, specific government policies is rarely so close. For instance, support for laws against murder is nearly unanimous.

 

[PMZ]

Democracy is about the inmates running the asylum. Liberals are trying to turn us all into inmates in an asylum. Under democracy the bottom 51% decide how everyone will live their lives.

Why do you use the term "bottom"?

And, for that matter, why do you use 51%? Though the balance between the two parties has grown tighter and tighter over the years (evidence for an evolutionary process I'd say) support for, or opposition to, specific government policies is rarely so close. For instance, support for laws against murder is nearly unanimous.

The only reason party support is as close as it is, is that the GOP recruited disgruntled Southern Democrats when the Democratic Party was legislating equal rights for all citizens in the 70s. At that time political advertising was well regulated. To get around that, and to recruit and hang on to the Southern Democrat and conservative extremists, they developed the concept of media pseudo-news. Rush and Fox and Beck etc. That made many entertainers wealthy beyond their wildest dreams, and allowed the GOP 24/7/365 political advertising. The down side, which I doubt they saw coming, was the party of business, became the party of plutocracy because the bulk of their members became so easy to manipulate. A few wealthy people pulling the strings on millions of voter puppets.

The peak of this plot was the Bush administration which redistributed trillions from the middle class to the wealthy, leaving the country in massive debt and the wealthy extraordinarily rich.

A death blow to America's middle class and the birth of the American banana republic?

That would have been a certainty under McCain/Palin.

President Obama however has at least begun the resurgence of world leader, democratic, responsible America.

Our biggest obstacle has been the Republican shut down of the House of Representatives, a problem that won't be corrected until 2016.

AGW is but one player on the stage, but a critical one. Energy is a business necessary for all business. Right now the business of energy is torn between two masters, today and tomorrow.

Republicans, and today's energy businesses, through their pseudo-news outlets, are protecting today's and future profits, made possible by the status quo.

Future oriented energy businesses are pursuing the opportunities of sustainable energy.

The IPCC is fulfilling their mission. Development of the science necessary to define the most cost effective path to the future. Their success is fueling the future oriented energy businesses but that has to be at the expense of the status quo businesses.

Behemoths slugging it out on the world political stage.

And here, fight fans rooting for either today or tomorrow.

 

[mamooth]

the toddster is so worried about car safety that he thinks everyone should drive tanks.

"I'm going to protect myself by killing you" is regarded by sane, moral human beings as the ideology of the sociopath.

Oddly, many American conservatives believe themselves deserving of praise because they think like sociopaths, and snarl at anyone who doesn't think like a sociopath.

 

[SSDD]

The so called 97% at this point can not even agree on a climate sensitivity to CO2....that, in case you were wondering, is the bottom line. So much for a consensus.

The wheels are falling off the crazy train. The CO2 hypothesis has failed miserably and now we can turn our attention to natural variability which is where it should have been all along.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

the toddster is so worried about car safety that he thinks everyone should drive tanks.

"I'm going to protect myself by killing you" is regarded by sane, moral human beings as the ideology of the sociopath.

Oddly, many American conservatives believe themselves deserving of praise because they think like sociopaths, and snarl at anyone who doesn't think like a sociopath.

"I'm going to protect myself by killing you" is regarded by sane, moral human beings as the ideology of the sociopath.

I know, that's why pushing dangerous cars, to protect myself from "global warming dangers" is really disgusting. Typical, liberal sociopaths.