The problem with college costs is that anyone is able to get a student loan, with virtually no requirements. Even if the student is pursuing a degree with no earnings potential they will still qualify. The result of this is that students do not take price into consideration when choosing a school as they can certainly borrow money in order to attend. Another issue is the fact that colleges are pressured to be "diverse" so they offer scholarships to students who are part of a "minority" even though they are not deserving of them. This also increases the pressure of the price of tuition.
The problem with student loan costs is that the sole provider of student loans is the US Government. They print money, then "loan it" out. This is a great deal for them, compared to printing money and getting almost no return on it as Treasury bills. They would like more and more and more student loans. And more house loans, since they are basically the only people doing that too. They like debt slaves. |
|
|
|
The path to hell is paved with good intentions. Obama espoused his good intentions of having everybody covered for a low cost. The reality is this cannot happen, especially when all other insurance in the US is for catastrophes - not day to day expenses. Health insurance shouldn't cover well child visits or annual checkups - those the patient should be paying for.... but that would require the patient be responsible for their own fricking body - something I see in less than 20% of my patients now.
I don't think it was so much a good intention, but rather a way to spread his liberal ideals of having a big government. He knew that people would not be able to keep their health plan, yet he promised that people would be able to do so. He raised taxes on everyone in order to pay for this new social program. He said the average family would save $2500. They didn't. My plan more than doubled in cost. |
|
|
|
I think they've found a way to ensure there isn't a smidgeon of corruption... destroy the evidence entirely and have it done by dept heads. Why not just drop napalm on DC and be done with it?  The next phase will be for all those brainwashed so called historians to pull a stalin on future generations and erase any mention of all those scandals from the internet and school libraries... Obama 2.0 will be Mr. Clean forever. I think much of history is generally accurate. With the freedom of the press, and the difficulty in censoring anything in the US I would be surprised if history would be inaccurate. What I do think would be inaccurate is the MSM (liberal side) reporting of the success of Obama-Care. History is always written by the victors. I hope you are right though. Politicians work the inability of the people to remember events more than two or three years back. |
|
|
|
See 2nd bolded above. How in the world can you start a reply with actual facts, and end up repeating that lie?
I didn't repeat the lie unless you got confused about where the FUD is and what part is Science.
The 2025 quote was something Splendulus inserted in there when talking about random FUD examples that I was replying to.
(Also checked my sources they were fine, just to be clear this buzz word stuff came from some blog I didn't source from 2009 with no sourcing of course so just some FUD poster.)
Clarifies it I was wondering where he got that quote from since it wasn't in any of my articles what I meant when it was from some blog I didn't source. So went to figure out where that FUD came from and went to get the source of the quote. Unless it was something previous that was incorrect then point that part out. ..... if ice is melting it has to go somewhere. (Ice is denser than water)
Put a glass of water in the freezer let it thaw and it expands accelerate the melting rate and you get the 100 year timeline they expect.
No you don't. Anyway let me conclude this subject on a positive not. IF - - IF ice was melting and sea levels were then rising in a problematic sense (which they are NOT), the solution is to change the weather over the regional area of Australia, moving water inland and turning that huge continent into a paradise, where now it is mostly desert. Water does not have to go to the ocean. Part of it goes into and over land. There's a 21st century engineering problem for ya. The fundamental liberal eco-friendly idea that man can control GLOBAL climate, but not REGIONAL climate, is bunko. Australia becoming green is a benefit but I guess we might need to make a list of Pros and Cons then sometime are you thinking a California in the outback where the Kangaroos are mate? http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-04/climate-change-turning-desert-green/4798930"The fundamental liberal eco-friendly idea that man can control GLOBAL climate, but not REGIONAL climate, is bunko."Curious how the bolded part works in practice can't really control where the smoke stack fumes go we saw that in the 1970s with Acid Rain unless you meant countries can get regional agreements on these sort of problems https://www.ec.gc.ca/air/default.asp?lang=En&n=83930AC3-1Good luck with China though wonder how you would solve Asian Dust http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_DustAsian Dust (also yellow dust, yellow sand, yellow wind or China dust storms) is a seasonal meteorological phenomenon which affects much of East Asia sporadically during the springtime months. The dust originates in the deserts of Mongolia, northern China and Kazakhstan where high-speed surface winds and intense dust storms kick up dense clouds of fine, dry soil particles. These clouds are then carried eastward by prevailing winds and pass over China, North and South Korea, and Japan, as well as parts of the Russian Far East. Sometimes, the airborne particulates are carried much further, in significant concentrations which affect air quality as far east as the United States. In the last decade or so, it has become a serious problem due to the increase of industrial pollutants contained in the dust and intensified desertification in China causing longer and more frequent occurrences, as well as in the last few decades when the Aral Sea of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan started drying up due to the diversion of the Amu River and Syr River following a Soviet agricultural program to irrigate Central Asian deserts, mainly for cotton plantations. OR http://kotaku.com/chinas-pollution-is-making-japanese-air-all-crappy-1531371641Bolded part above about 2025, yes I understand that. But then your technical article with the 0.4', that didn't compute either. I honestly don't know why, just was obliged to point it out. I think you can see my point about gross mis statements of anything remotely near fact in the area of climate science reporting, and sometimes in the science itself. As for the Australia issue, certainly regional climate is one hell of an impossibility in the some areas with multiple countries, that's why I mentioned AU. It's a rather unique situation down there, huge chunk of land, mostly desert, almost everyone on the east coast, a few on the west, nothing in between. Yet sea winds blow inward just like they do elsewheres. Main problem is, no mountain ranges. Google "rabbit fence", quite interesting. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/science/earth/14fenc.html |
|
|
|
...
The thing about environmental activists came as a complete surprise to me. I've never viewed them as anything other than positive. The compromises you mention usually involve the destruction part of our world, the world the future will inherit. That to me is more important than anything, that is humanity's future.
Maybe, maybe not. I sure got tired of ignorant know it alls telling me to buy wormy little CFL bulbs a couple years ago. (I was an early adopter of LED lighting). Now I see them buying LED lights. You know what? I wasn't trying to tell them what to do. They were trying to tell me what to do. To save the world. They were wrong, I was right. |
|
|
|
I think they've found a way to ensure there isn't a smidgeon of corruption... destroy the evidence entirely and have it done by dept heads. Why not just drop napalm on DC and be done with it? The next phase will be for all those brainwashed so called historians to pull a stalin on future generations and erase any mention of all those scandals from the internet and school libraries... Obama 2.0 will be Mr. Clean forever. Tell you one thing. You know how many non-profit hospitals and organizations ask for donations? If Obamacare stands, eg, socialized medicine, their donations are going down, down, down.... |
|
|
|
..... if ice is melting it has to go somewhere. (Ice is denser than water)
Put a glass of water in the freezer let it thaw and it expands accelerate the melting rate and you get the 100 year timeline they expect.
No you don't. Anyway let me conclude this subject on a positive not. IF - - IF ice was melting and sea levels were then rising in a problematic sense (which they are NOT), the solution is to change the weather over the regional area of Australia, moving water inland and turning that huge continent into a paradise, where now it is mostly desert. Water does not have to go to the ocean. Part of it goes into and over land. There's a 21st century engineering problem for ya. The fundamental liberal eco-friendly idea that man can control GLOBAL climate, but not REGIONAL climate, is bunko. |
|
|
|
Let me be clear. Very clear, and let's settle this. Science does not say, anywhere, even as a minority opinion, that oceans will rise 6' by 2025. Nowhere. Not even alarmist science. Not 3', either. Look at the IPCC reports and the range of possible sea rise increases cited and projected there. Look at the issue summarized in Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_riseWe are looking at a possible rise by 2025 of 33 millimeters. About an inch at current rates. That's why I suggest that we just call lying, lying.  Regional and local factors will influence future relative sea level rise for specific coastlines around the world. For example, relative sea level rise depends on land elevation changes that occur as a result of subsidence (sinking) or uplift (rising). Assuming that these historical geological forces continue, a 2-foot rise in global sea level by 2100 would result in the following relative sea level rise: 2.3 feet at New York City 2.9 feet at Hampton Roads, Virginia 3.5 feet at Galveston, Texas 1 foot at Neah Bay in Washington state Relative sea level rise also depends on local changes in currents, winds, salinity, and water temperatures, as well as proximity to thinning ice sheets. But your right that is an alarmist quote estimates have it at 0.4 FT by 2025 For the Baseline the highest ones we see are at 2.1 over the same duration for a case study area in Charleston
http://papers.risingsea.net/downloads/Challenge_for_this_generation_Barth_and_Titus_chapter4.pdf
The high end of 6 feet occurs at 2075 Also checked my sources they were fine, just to be clear this buzz word stuff came from some blog I didn't source from 2009 with no sourcing of course so just some FUD poster. And according to the recent observed changes in the climatic pattern, Kiribati will submerged completely by 2025.http://discover-planet.blogspot.ca/2009/12/global-warming-threatens-kiribati.html#comment-formSee 1st bolded. I think you missed a full stop, this is what you meant?
Most likely is 0.4' by 2025 for the baseline. The highest alarmist estimate is 2.1' by 2025.But even your article quoted is riddled through with falsehoods. It claims sea level rise is 0.12cm per year. This is coupled with 0.13 cm per year in land sinking to get 0.25cm per year. For the Charleston case study area, Hicks and others (1978, 1983) have estimated that the total sea level rise since 1922 has been 0.25 cm/yr (0.1 in/yr).* *Based on a global (eustatic) rise of 0. 12 cm/yr (0.05 in/yr) plus local subsidence of 0. 13 cm/yr (0.05 in/yr).For there to be 0.4' of sea level rise for Charleston by 2025, the book you quote from would have to have been written in 1966. 2014-1966 = 48 years * 0.1 in/yr = 4.9 inches 0.4 ft * 12 in/ft = 4.8 inches See 2nd bolded above. How in the world can you start a reply with actual facts, and end up repeating that lie? |
|
|
|
What expect from the vodoo city?
Just avoid the city if you can, otherwise carry a gun or hire some security team.
But I would stick with the don't go to New Orleans option.
I have never had a unpleasant encounter with any person or group in a huge number of times in and out of NO. Maybe 50-75. Of course any number of things could influence this, maybe they prey on people that look a certain way. No clue about that..... |
|
|
|
What if you're wrong?
I believe the climate is warming, but I'm not sure it's as bad of a thing as people make it out to be. It's been warmer before. We need to use common sense in fighting it. Puting more people in poverty is not a reasonable price to pay for a slight reduction in US emissions that will be more than canceled out by china alone. The main problem of global warming is the coastline will move up It opens up arctic shipping and those sort of benefits that help with trade, but at the same time if Islands get flooded over and people need to repopulate that brings about other problems. Places like Kiribati are a good example of that problem. http://www.businessinsider.com/islands-threatened-by-climate-change-2012-10?op=1http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-25086963Right. But the issue is we really don't have any solutions. It would probably be easier to provide aid and relocation to non-wealthy coastal communities than to stop climate change. I think it's likely that over time emissions will drop without government intervention in the developed world. If, however, we take drastic measures with the economy as a casualty, we will probably reduce standards of living more than global warming. In addition to opening up arctic shipping, it would probably allow more food production because crops could be grown farther north which would probably let us grow more extra crops than would be lost in the south. Unfortunately I live in the south, so I have mixed feelings about that... <<< My humble and poorly informed opinion. I actually have to ask, IS ANY OF THIS EVEN TRUE? Here is a buzz phrase from one of the articles on the Islands of Kiribati. And according to the recent observed changes in the climatic pattern, Kiribati will submerged completely by 2025.Since the islands are 6 feet above sea level, this implies a 6 foot sea level rise in 11 years. No, that isn't going to happen. Everywhere you look, there just seem to be more and more liars. Well even the bible of the oil industry Daniel Yergin's the quest and the prize point out that there is an issue there, but do not mention Kiribati that said the submergence of an island would be logical if ice is melting it has to go somewhere. (Ice is denser than water) Put a glass of water in the freezer let it thaw and it expands accelerate the melting rate and you get the 100 year timeline they expect. Perhaps the warming is not at the pace we expect it to go now but it is a possible eventuality, anyways with people relocating I can see it working in some cases but not all cases since the Global South has it's issues with the Global North for various reasons. However cooperation does happen so I'll keep a neutral stance on those issues. _ http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/03/27/world/climate-rising-seas.htmlThe immense weight of Greenland’s ice sheet pushes the island down into the ocean, so as the ice sheet melts and the weight decreases, the island rises. Melting ice and warmer weather are reshaping Greenland’s geography, making once-frozen land arable. The thaw is also opening up access to formerly iced-over reserves of oil, zinc, gold, diamonds and uranium. There is a small but growing political movement in Greenland to harness the new wealth of resources as part of a push for independence. Some gain where others lose _ http://danielyergin.com/history-of-climate-change/For more reading on the history of Global warming All said I'm more for the efficiency argument myself, it really is the third energy source. The importance of thinking seriously about one energy source that “has the potential to have the biggest impact of all.” That source is efficiency. It’s a simple idea, he points out, but one that is oddly “the hardest to wrap one’s mind around.” More efficient buildings, cars, airplanes, computers and other products have the potential to change our world. Let me be clear. Very clear, and let's settle this. Science does not say, anywhere, even as a minority opinion, that oceans will rise 6' by 2025. Nowhere. Not even alarmist science. Not 3', either. Look at the IPCC reports and the range of possible sea rise increases cited and projected there. Look at the issue summarized in Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_riseWe are looking at a possible rise by 2025 of 33 millimeters. About an inch at current rates. That's why I suggest that we just call lying, lying. |
|
|
|
Notice how "our" president has tiptoed around this shooting of Vega. Had the events been flipped 180 and 2 US felons ran south of the border and killed a Mexican national agent you can bet their embassy would be screaming at us night and day. Why are none of the illegal immigration promoters defending these 2 Mexican nationals? They are the victims! The opinion of the public is shaped by the media by painting a picture with agenda. May be the locals are defending these two Mexican nationals and you don't heard about it on news. The local usually have more facts than someone who don't live even on the same state. NOBODY down here is defending these criminals. Remember the dead man is Hispanic also. It's likely a matter of selective reporting, just reporting on stories that reinforce the desired narrative. |
|
|
|
What if you're wrong?
I believe the climate is warming, but I'm not sure it's as bad of a thing as people make it out to be. It's been warmer before. We need to use common sense in fighting it. Puting more people in poverty is not a reasonable price to pay for a slight reduction in US emissions that will be more than canceled out by china alone. The main problem of global warming is the coastline will move up It opens up arctic shipping and those sort of benefits that help with trade, but at the same time if Islands get flooded over and people need to repopulate that brings about other problems. Places like Kiribati are a good example of that problem. http://www.businessinsider.com/islands-threatened-by-climate-change-2012-10?op=1http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-25086963Right. But the issue is we really don't have any solutions. It would probably be easier to provide aid and relocation to non-wealthy coastal communities than to stop climate change. I think it's likely that over time emissions will drop without government intervention in the developed world. If, however, we take drastic measures with the economy as a casualty, we will probably reduce standards of living more than global warming. In addition to opening up arctic shipping, it would probably allow more food production because crops could be grown farther north which would probably let us grow more extra crops than would be lost in the south. Unfortunately I live in the south, so I have mixed feelings about that... <<< My humble and poorly informed opinion. I actually have to ask, IS ANY OF THIS EVEN TRUE? Here is a buzz phrase from one of the articles on the Islands of Kiribati. And according to the recent observed changes in the climatic pattern, Kiribati will submerged completely by 2025.Since the islands are 6 feet above sea level, this implies a 6 foot sea level rise in 11 years. No, that isn't going to happen. Everywhere you look, there just seem to be more and more liars. |
|
|
|
All Righty. I am now, officially, 120% scared of climate change. |
|
|
|
WaPo Warns that Climate Change May Hasten Spread of Ebola
Hey, can't we have some really scary stories? I don't know, like Sucky Liberal Mag Warns that Climate Change Will Hasten Attack of 50 Foot Tall WomenLol. Well, the opposite would be more believable: Bergmann's RuleReally? I would think the opposite. Viruses are constant size, and colder weather acts as a preservative for the virus. Hotter weather breaks the virus down. At least that's true for airborne virus. |
|
|
|
Piece of shit ISIS, murder those beasts!
Why aren't we yet invading the people and taking action?
One thing I am seeing here is that from the video, specific individuals can be recognized and charged with war crimes. Or delt with by whomever the local underground is. Another thing I'll mention in passing, it's possible top level ISIS did not and does not condone this activity. This may sound totally nuts but I betcha you could email them and ask, then post the reply or lack of. |
|
|
|
Let's leave the Indonesians and other Muslims like the Bosnians out of this. This is not a religious conflict. It is the continuation of the Arab-Persian war which goes back 1500+ years and even predates Islam.
This is a forgotten history lesson but the Zoroastrians conquered Eastern Arabia (which was Pagan) and that was the catalyst which led to the formation of Islam. The Arabs, desperate for Revanchism, created a new religion which echoed the organization of Rome to maximize control of their people to drive out the Persian invaders.
The sooner you can address the origins of this conflict the sooner you can bring an end to it. If the British Empire were still around, someone like Lord Curzon or Mountbatten would draw a line and say: "Arabs on that side and Persians on the other" and the fighting would end tomorrow.
The problem is that the US has not had that sort of statesmen since Woodrow Wilson and Harry S. Truman.
And if it's WAR, then you have international RULES OF WARFARE. The Geneva Convention. And oh, don't forget common sense. The video linked to is not justifable in the context of historical relationships, but is specifically objectionable in said context. |
|
|
|
WaPo Warns that Climate Change May Hasten Spread of Ebola
Hey, can't we have some really scary stories? I don't know, like Sucky Liberal Mag Warns that Climate Change Will Hasten Attack of 50 Foot Tall Women |
|
|
|
I heard somewhere that Jews are the cause of the world's wars. I think Mel Gibson said it. Is he right? Seems like a rather adolescent attempt at tongue-in-cheek.
This is really not true. Religion has been the cause of many wars, but most modern wars are generally over oil and other natural resources. There is always a cost/benefit analysis in war in the top layer - and the reason is always power - but, from the citizen/media perspective it's always about other reasons, be it freedom, religion, justice and so on. And then there's the theory that the wars are caused by too many angry young men in a region. And for the Palestine, quite possibly large numbers of unemployed young men. Perhaps guys that can only get paid by playing soldier-wanna-be in a terrorist organization with trickle down Iranian money. Have to admit, you sure don't see much in the way of industrial production, crafts work, or any kind of useful activities from those areas... |
|
|
|
...
I just don't assume that all Sunnis feel that ISIS represents them.
I don't care. You are exercising an ability to state a logical fallacy, so discussing your point has no meaning or purpose. Let me give you an example. Suppose ISIS takes over ABC, forcibly. They then start a war with XYZ. XYZ is at war with ABC. The subjects of ABC are enemies of XYZ. The cities of ABC and the military of ABC will suffer the consequences of losing or winning. The subjects of ABC are factually, ABC. It makes zero difference if "all subjects of ABC" support or do not support ABC. You are talking nonsense. These are areas of human behavior where action is all that counts. Example, French opposition during the occupation in WWII. Congratulations. You're playing right into the hands of TPTB. They insist on divvying up human beings into categories based on national origin, ethnicity, religion, race, etc. That's the first step in convincing people to hate each other and eventually to kill each other in search of retribution. Let me give you an example. When a group of Palestinians kidnap and murder three Israeli teenagers, that does not give Israel an excuse to start indiscriminately bombing and killing Palestinians that had nothing to do with the murders. A much more logical approach would be to apprehend those responsible and put them on trial. That would only sound like nonsense to a sick fuck that buys into the us versus them mentality that TPTB like to sell. False. There is zero hate or emotion in what I said. Zero. Got it? Nothing but military necessity. |
|
|
|
...
I just don't assume that all Sunnis feel that ISIS represents them.
I don't care. You are exercising an ability to state a logical fallacy, so discussing your point has no meaning or purpose. Let me give you an example. Suppose ISIS takes over ABC, forcibly. They then start a war with XYZ. XYZ is at war with ABC. The subjects of ABC are enemies of XYZ. The cities of ABC and the military of ABC will suffer the consequences of losing or winning. The subjects of ABC are factually, ABC. It makes zero difference if "all subjects of ABC" support or do not support ABC. You are talking nonsense. These are areas of human behavior where action is all that counts. Example, French opposition during the occupation in WWII. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
