It really comes down to this: Imagine we reduce our output of CO2 and switch to renewable energies. It now - just an assumption - turns out that there's no climate change or global warming: What have we lost? Nothing. What have we gained? Clean air, dependable energy sources and peace of mind.
Just going on a limp that global warming doesn't exist is just stupid, nothing more.
Yes, all we have to do is spend massive amounts of resources, gut an already failing economy, and increase taxes massively while giving up freedoms. Whats to lose? Nothing! It's a wonderful idea! Suppose we don't let the people in Africa rise out of their backward state. Total povery,disease and death continue as before. What have we lost? Nothing, because we don't live there. What have we gained? The continuance of a third world economy. <<sarcasm>> So you think we can only help them if we continue to burn oil and gas? I believe the 'green' industry will be creating just as many jobs as the oil industry, if not more. I don't see the economy 'failing'. Only the big oil companies will fail if they don't adapt. I think my point is not what we continue to do, but what we encourage, discourage or prevent Africa from doing. The best thing for Africa is coal power plants right outside the cities, with massive power going into the cities and the beginnings of industrial and modern civilization. Based on power, yes. The worst thing for Africa is for do-gooders to actively try to prevent fossil fuel use in infrastructure development, and limit them to 'sustainable resource development'. It's a choice as to whether greenies are red on the inside, or dead on the inside. |
|
|
|
What the hell is happening now in this world my god! These two guys must be out in prison. They are a true contributor in the internet by creating PIRATE BAY. Piratebay helps student like me who dont have money yet to buy legit softwares. Why this authorities never appreciate the HUGE HELP they GIVE to people!  Certain companies pay the government, and government listens to money. There's nothing democratic about this decision. The Piratebay is online, for those who are wondering. If there is censorship you can go around the blockade. But a possible near term tech concept, "smart property", would enable micropayment through bitcoin when a freely downloaded, possibly encrypted song was played. Going forward, this decapitates the power of the music industry. Their grip on old intellectual property will remain legally strong. But to enforce that they will have to destroy the unencrypted mp3s of the world, which is impossible. As hard drives and storage increase, it's not long before you will be able to store a huge number of songs (eg, "all"). That makes irrelevant peer to peer bootleg distribution for old product. I would say, a checkmate is coming. |
|
|
|
it's amazing how long the economy's been propped up on hot air.
Those who pay attention know it is just a matter of time before the next meltdown. This is one of a number of reasons we are on "BITCOINTALK". Let them have their paperMoneyMeltdown. |
|
|
|
and so therefore they try to make it seem as if republicans are against immigration when they are against ILLEGAL immigration... there is a bid difference....
So, you want illegal aliens sent back? That's a switch, I thought you wanted them rewarded with amnesty and a citizenship. BTW all those criminal sex offenders that crossed the border, do you think they'll apply for amnesty or continue to hide in the shadows? And with all those new amnesty papers how long do you think it will take those criminals to forge new papers in another name? liberalism is indeed a mental illness.... the liberals are all for illegals... nancy pilosi welcomed them at the boarder... obama and the administration will not send anyone back, the liberals want to give them welfare and food stamps.... illegal immigrants have more rights than legal immigrants according the liberals.... the liberals don't give a shit about legal immigrants... I wouldn't necessarily call it a mental illness, although the point could certainly be argued. I see it as the ultimate in selfishness, to reach into the pockets of others to fund their own pet causes, and feeling a sense of entitlement to our earnings while doing it. I'm okay with calling what you so well describe a mental illness. |
|
|
|
Unlikely to happen in a Republican state.
This is not true. There are many, many more factors at work than the dominant political affiliation of a state. Let's put it this way. If a primary Republican leader in a state like TX got behind a concept such as this, advocated it and sold it, people would get behind it that are basically fence sitters. There is no uniform or dominant "anti marihuana" attitude among Republicans or Republican leadership. |
|
|
|
...just say you're illegal and they won't issue you a citation or impound your vehicle. I saw this with poor people in rural Texas. I used to travel around teaching Defensive Driving classes to thousands of home health workers around rural Texas. Very often those people told me about being pulled over by the cops with no insurance, suspended license, expired registration, and then being let go after they told the cop they would "ride out" the fines in jail because they were unemployed and could not pay. It wasn't worth the cop's time to arrest them, tow their old piece of junk car, and process them down at the jail. The cop knew they would abandon the car to the tow company and sit in jail for as long as necessary. So much for highway safety huh? People with a job and decent cars received tickets because the cops knew they would pay. Learning this, and witnessing corruption first-hand while working inside various government agencies are what paved the way to me becoming an Anarchist. Yeah. The system wants PAYING customers when it comes to handing out fines and jail time. But when it comes to handing out free stuff.... |
|
|
|
DEA may be losing the war on marijuana politics
By EVAN HALPER
July 12, 2014
For narcotics agents, who often confront hostile situations, Capitol Hill has been a refuge where lawmakers stand ready to salute efforts in the nation's war on drugs.
Lately, however, the Drug Enforcement Administration has found itself under attack in Congress as it holds its ground against marijuana legalization while the resolve of longtime political allies — and the White House and Justice Department to which it reports — rapidly fades.
"For 13 of the 14 years I have worked on this issue, when the DEA came to a hearing, committee members jumped over themselves to cheerlead," said Bill Piper, a lobbyist with the Drug Policy Alliance, a pro-legalization group. "Now the lawmakers are not just asking tough questions, but also getting aggressive with their arguments."
So far this year, the DEA's role in the seizure of industrial hemp seeds bound for research facilities in Kentucky drew angry rebukes from the Senate's most powerful Republican. The GOP-controlled House recently voted to prohibit federal agents from busting medical marijuana operations that are legal under state laws. And that measure, which demonstrated a shared distaste for the DEA's approach to marijuana, brought one of the Senate's most conservative members together with one of its most liberal in a rare bipartisan alliance.
How much the agency's stock has fallen was readily apparent in the House debate, when Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) denounced the agency's longtime chief.
... More... http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-0713-dea-20140712-story.html#page=1Now lets be reasonable. The DEA is certainly worried about having to lay off some good men. What do you want them to do, go work as TSA agents? |
|
|
|
Since this is a long-term Social Engineering project, nobody will "pay".
I guess what bothers me about this is the implication that TSA boarding procedures are flagrantly unsafe re this case of Mexicans. This means we should "tighten up" those procedures. What we need to do is the reverse, "loosen up" ridiculous TSA Theater across the entire country. |
|
|
|
TSA ALLOWING ILLEGALS TO FLY WITHOUT VERIFIABLE ID, SAYS BORDER PATROL UNIONFreedom to Travel for anyone but the US Citizens that foot the bill. MCALLEN, Texas—Illegal aliens are being allowed to fly on commercial airliners without valid identification, according to the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC). “The aliens who are getting released on their own recognizance are being allowed to board and travel commercial airliners by simply showing their Notice to Appear forms,” NBPC’s Local 2455 Spokesman, Hector Garza, told Breitbart Texas.
“This is not the CBP [Customs and Border Protection] or another federal agency renting or leasing an aircraft, these are the same planes that the American public uses for domestic travel,” said Garza. “This just adds insult to injury. Not only are we releasing unknown illegal aliens onto American streets, but we are allowing them to travel commercially using paperwork that could easily be reproduced or manipulated on any home computer. The Notice to Appear form has no photo, anyone can make one and manipulate one. They do not have any security features, no watermark, nothing. They are simply printed on standard copy paper based on the information the illegal alien says is the truth.” More... http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texas/2014/07/11/Exclusive-TSA-Allowing-Illegals-to-Fly-Without-Verifiable-ID-Says-Border-Patrol-Union http://blog.tsa.gov/2013/04/tsa-travel-tips-tuesday-can-you-fly.html |
|
|
|
Judge in Australia says incest may no longer be a taboo and the only reason it is criminal is potential birth abnormalities, which can be solved by abortionA judge in Australia has been criticised after saying incest may no longer be a taboo and that the community may now accept consensual sex between adult siblings. Judge Garry Neilson, from the district court in the state of New South Wales, likened incest to homosexuality, which was once regarded as criminal and "unnatural" but is now widely accepted.He said incest was now only a crime because it may lead to abnormalities in offspring but this rationale was increasingly irrelevant because of the availability of contraception and abortion. "A jury might find nothing untoward in the advance of a brother towards his sister once she had sexually matured, had sexual relationships with other men and was now 'available', not having [a] sexual partner," the judge said. "If this was the 1950s and you had a jury of 12 men there, which is what you'd invariably have, they would say it's unnatural for a man to be interested in another man or a man being interested in a boy. Those things have gone." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/10958728/Australian-judge-says-incest-may-no-longer-be-a-taboo.html NO. There's a lot of perfectly valid concerns about psychological damage from various forms of incest and or sexual behavior with say 14-18 year olds. This exists in addition to the long understood issues of inbreeding. |
|
|
|
You illustrate not the solution, but the problem. Science is not a paradigm of human activity which operates by "belief", lies, ploys or stratagems. |
|
|
|
BTW, there are also lots of jokes about women swapping their husbands for material things, so get off your always offended high horses, people. Sheesh!
Correct. The basic idea that jokes should not offend anyone or any group is totally fucking offensive. |
|
|
|
Are you using Coinbase too much to buy Bitcoin or is this something entirely different? I'm not really getting a feel for why they perked their eyes up as much.
I do a bit of coinbase, quickpay. They also closed my Uncle's account last year. He's in the oil industry. Chase is showing a trend which is rather strange. I wouldn't assume all banks, savings and loan, and credit unions are bad because Chase treated you bad. You ordered a hamburger. You got a bad hamburger. Are all hamburgers bad? Get an account at a credit union. |
|
|
|
It really comes down to this: Imagine we reduce our output of CO2 and switch to renewable energies. It now - just an assumption - turns out that there's no climate change or global warming: What have we lost? Nothing. What have we gained? Clean air, dependable energy sources and peace of mind.
Just going on a limp that global warming doesn't exist is just stupid, nothing more.
Yes, all we have to do is spend massive amounts of resources, gut an already failing economy, and increase taxes massively while giving up freedoms. Whats to lose? Nothing! It's a wonderful idea! Suppose we don't let the people in Africa rise out of their backward state. Total povery,disease and death continue as before. What have we lost? Nothing, because we don't live there. What have we gained? The continuance of a third world economy. <<sarcasm>> You kinda hit the nail right on the head there. Every pet project by the climate true believers has devastating consequences for western economies and by extension are even more dire for developing economies. People on the margins in the third world die when gas prices jump just a bit. I like to think the true believers are simply ignorant about the real human suffering they are proposing, if it isn't simple ignorance it is something much darker. My vote is for 'darker...' Well, let's here from their side on this take on the matter. And I must mention, that silence...is an answer... |
|
|
|
It really comes down to this: Imagine we reduce our output of CO2 and switch to renewable energies. It now - just an assumption - turns out that there's no climate change or global warming: What have we lost? Nothing. What have we gained? Clean air, dependable energy sources and peace of mind.
Just going on a limp that global warming doesn't exist is just stupid, nothing more.
Yes, all we have to do is spend massive amounts of resources, gut an already failing economy, and increase taxes massively while giving up freedoms. Whats to lose? Nothing! It's a wonderful idea! Suppose we don't let the people in Africa rise out of their backward state. Total povery,disease and death continue as before. What have we lost? Nothing, because we don't live there. What have we gained? The continuance of a third world economy. <<sarcasm>> |
|
|
|
Thanks for continuing to follow this story and post about it. If the IRS can target these groups under a Democratic leader, they can target the opposite groups under a Republican one. Imagine the Koch brothers calling the shots on who gets targeted. I hope more people wake up to what a potential disaster this is.
This would imply there was some sort of "two way fascism". There isn't. |
|
|
|
A good article with useful, accurate facts. It is unfortunate that some of our friends prefer "alternative" facts that, at the end of the day, stereotype immigrants...or, as zolace demands, Aliens.
Why does zolace demand one term over another? Because one demeans the Other more and that is his preference.
The first step towards solving the complex issues of Immigration is to just honestly deal with the facts and cast aside the stereotypes...a process we apparently cannot yet accomplish.
BTY, without Immigrants our birth rates and population growth would be negative, like those in many European countries, an outcome that is not good for America.
You use "tolerance" and veiled accusations of racism as a cudgel to fight a debate you aren't intellectually prepared to argue. This is disingenuous and frankly more racist than anything I have seen here so far. Put your emotional knee jerk conditioned response aside and examine the facts. Good points. I've seen a lot of confusion about the terms Hispanic, Mexican, illegal alien, immigrant and so forth. "Mexican" is someone with Mexican citizenship, but some actual argue it's a derogatory term. Someone here illegally is NOT AN IMMIGRANT. Not definable as such. Might sucessfully emigrate to the US, but isn't an immigrant de facto. Someone who is not a US citizen who is an "Alien." Someone here illegally not a US citizen is an "Illegal Alien." |
|
|
|
This video made me sad. So much hatred and racism on display. I think the largest error in thinking is that immigration is a zero sum game, in that either Americans or immigrants benefit, but not both. There are already millions of undocumented workers in the country, and America is a better place for it. They are Americans, as every bit as my European grandparents, just trying to make a better life for themselves. If you were in their shoes you'd come here too. And I wouldn't blame you.
Told you someone would call those folks racists. Took only 12 posts... Hispanics are not a 'race' but an 'ethnic group' defined by something like 832 surnames. I guess noviapriani could be correct if you considered the blacks as being racist against the 'whites', and the 'whites' including hispanics. That would make no sense, but hey, nothing new in that. |
|
|
|
....
it's got plenty to do with ayn rand. it's basically the mentality of "fuck you, i'm worried about myself only."
I have the definite idea here you know nothing about ayn rand. In other words, you have good intentions, but have used an incorrect example? An interesting question though is whether the illegal immigrants have the attitude.... "fuck you, i'm worried about myself only." ....or whether they may have the actual attitudes as suggested by Rand. Because the illegals are those taking action, while we in the US are influenced by what they do and where. |
|
|
|
There was a time in America when Kennedy and Nixon had a debate, and it was not about who was doing the Conservative thing and who was doing the Liberal thing. It was about who was doing the RIGHT thing.
In the Kennedy Nixon debate they BOTH talked about Hydroelectric infrastructure (renewable energy) that would bring jobs to Americans. Nixon did have a conservative argument in that he said "I spend less money and still bring nice infrastructure" while Kennedy said he wanted America to become more innovative and robust than ever.
They BOTH cared about the welfare of the people. They BOTH knew that America was only as strong as its weakest link. But at some point, Americans decided that if someone was poor, it was THEIR fault.
LBJ made a speech about "The War on Poverty" and nothing has really happened since. Obama even mentioned it on the anniversary of the speech and people were stunned. Not even a single clap from what I could hear.
No one seems to even understand what a war on poverty would look like, so they just brush it under the rug and act as if their is some individual flaw of each failed person that made them that way.
When BOTH parties cared about infrastructure and jobs, America was booming, winning basically. Not creating terrorists and debt around the world. But now we have fallen in to a hole.
Oil has us chasing our tail, and innovation has been stifled. McCain says "Russia is just a gas station masquerading as a country" and I am afraid that our leaders idolize that idea unknowingly.
SAd thing is, we do not ned Middle Eastern, Russian or any import oil at all. The USA EXPORTS OIL! It is easier however to simply export brave American service men and women as cannon fodder to protect our "interests" (Read" "OIL INTERESTS") than to break our dependence on foregin oil.. Dueing WWII, which in point of fact ENDED nearly 70 years ago, a substatial portion of the fuel supply of the Germans came from SYNTHETIC OIL. Now if the Nazis could do it that far back, why can't we now? WTF is wrong with us? Thank you for your ingitful and accurate post! We could run millions of cars on methanol, the fourth largest industrial chemical, available for about $1 per gasoline gallon equivalent, within a couple weeks of the decision to do so. This is not complicated. Yeah but do your homework on methanol. It ain't that pretty at all. I disagree. However, suppose we had been running our cars on Chemical XYZ, and someone tried to get us to use "gasoline." Given today's regulatory and risk averse environment, I bet you couldn't get gasoline introduced. As it was, it was introduced because of maximum hydrogen bonds, max energy, high fuel density, etc. and it is the standard. Methanol has certain disadvantages, but these are easily handled and at minimal cost. There are millions of cars running it in China. There was a large study IIRC in New York using several thousand vehicles in the mid 1980s on methanol. The big thing about methanol is that it's an easy way to take natural gas and move it around in a liquid form, instead of complex high pressure piping and tankage. Other fuels may also be derived from natural gas with a few more process steps such as dimethyl ether, an acceptable substitute for diesel fuel. Obviously, methanol (CH3OH) is the simplest and easiest liquid fuel that can be produced from natural gas, largely methane (CH4). Greenies would find methanol acceptable, but only if it came from "renewables." And that's nonsense, because as the fourth largest produced industrial chemical, we can buy bargeloads today at a very low competitive street price. And not one single vehicle presently on the road could run on methanol without extensive and expensive modification. Next! YES, that would be true with a modification. "Not one single vehicle presently on the road WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE MILLIONS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED could run on methanol without TRIVIALLY SIMPLE changes. LOL.... We're not talking subsidies to farmers to produce corn for ethanol here. We're not talking subsidies to people to turn corn into ethanol. And we're not talking complicated hybrid or electrical vehicles. We're talking simply taking methanol from Point A, where it is for sale, to Point B, where it goes into cars. Here's one guy's experiences with methanol. I ran the car on 100 percent methanol. This required replacing the fuel-pump seal made of Viton, which is not methanol compatible, with one made of Buna-N, which is. The new part cost 41 cents, retail. In order to take proper advantage of methanol’s very high octane rating (about 109), I advanced the timing appropriately. This dramatically improved the motor efficiency and allowed the ordinarily sedate sedan to perform with a significantly more sporty spirit. As measured on the dyno, horsepower increased 10 percent. With these modifications complete, I took my Cobalt out for a road test. The result: 24.6 miles per gallon.
When I first made the bet, many commentators thought that I would aim for high-efficiency performance with high-octane fuel by increasing the compression ratio of the engine (which is how race-car drivers using methanol have done it for the past half-century). However, with modern cars using electronic fuel injection, this is unnecessary. Instead, the necessary changes to the engine can be made simply by adjusting the Engine Control Unit software. Thus, except for switching the fuel-pump seal as noted above, no physical changes to the car were required.
Other critics commented that while I might be able to achieve good fuel economy, the idea was impractical because the emissions would not be acceptable. In response, I had the car tested for emissions with 100 percent methanol (M100), 60 percent methanol (M60), and ordinary gasoline (i.e., E10, which contains about 10 percent ethanol), and for comparison, did mileage tests for these alternatives as well. The results of all these tests are shown in the table below.http://www.fuelfreedom.org/blog/can-methanol-really-replace-gasoline-and-is-it-really-cheaper/Rats. I thought it was really complicated. Like I'd have to buy a $150 methanol conversion kit from Ebay or something. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
