Bravo, you fell for the "populist" part of Nazi propaganda - you just forgot the "and unlike those other socialist's, we really are on your side" part.
Pretty similar to the populist attacks on Wall Street by Trump during the campaign - sounded exactly like something Sanders would say, and people believed him, and now Wall Street runs the government finances.
OK, "now" Wall Street runs the government finances? "Now"??? Where the hell have you been??? I dislike many things about Trump and don't think there's any need to invent new ones. The Fed, Wall Street, etc has been this way for a while.
See how that "the Nazis were left-wing" thing only makes sense if you believe what they said instead of what they did?
Way to contradict yourself there. They did *exactly* what you'd expect of left-wing authoritarians. They seized all the manufacturing, seized the economy etc. Just another radical left-wing authoritarian takeover. We've seen it again and again throughout history in Italy, Russia, China, etc.
Yep, and yet liberals have no hesitation claiming that the media has to "hold things back" in order to "protect their sources." Meanwhile anyone who doesn't have their head up their own ass knows that the media, if they had anything at all substantive, would do anything and everything within their power (legal or not) to use it to disrupt the current admin - sources be damned.
I think the lesson to be learned is that the educational value of TV is relatively poor and that stupid TV knows no borders. People who watch less and work on other hobbies are often smarter than those who devote many hours each day.
Yeah, because "We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions" totally doesn't sound like something Bernie Sanders would say. Sounds ultra right-wing to me. Dumbass.
I think it's absolutely hilarious that Europeans have looked down their noses at Americans for so long yet immediately after they begin diluting their monocultures with immigration they completely melt down. We've lacked a unified culture since forever and have held up a lot better than they are. Ha!
Moderate? Is that what we are calling mentally handicapped fascists nowadays? So was Hitler just a tad bit to the right?
Quite trying to rewrite history. Read some more about Hitler. Here's a quote.
“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions” -Hitler
Idiots
Try to guess the idiot again. You'll get it right eventually.
Going to need a new OS because now the malware creators have the ability to find yet undiscovered security holes and utilize them.
Oh really? Is that what they meant in the summary by: "Anyone who has this information can scour it for security vulnerabilities, which could be exploited to hack Windows systems worldwide."? Thanks for your insight.
Nonsense! Celebrities have the best opinions on science, social issues etc and if you disagree with a position celebrities endorse you are a science denier and quite possibly a racist as well.
Lived in Japan for a large chunk of my life, the whole "Japanese work themselves to death" thing is a fabrication. Some people are workaholics, same as the U.S. Most people work normal hours, 9-5, and get about 3 weeks worth of company/national holidays in addition to PTO. At the company I worked, if you logged too many hours in the office they'd send you to a therapist and put you on paid leave. Almost everyone was happy, same as you'd expect anywhere else. That meme is total bullshit so stop repeating it please.
Wow, panic much? FYI, there's more food and clean water today than there ever was in the past. There's no cause to believe this trend will not continue.
The hell are you talking about? We've *BEEN* working on the Earth. Leveling land, making buildings, purifying/desalinating water, draining swamps, killing mosquitos, managing forests, etc. Not everything has been in the plus column, but the world is a hell of a lot safer and more comfortable for humans today than it ever has been.
1atm of pressure differential can be surmounted by the strength of modern building materials. There are many many things that can and likely will go wrong, but to say it's impossible is pretty insulting to all the talented engineers who've put people on the moon, on the bottom of challenger deep, flown stuff to mars, made modern microchips, etc. We could build a hyperloop if we set out to.
predictable, but "tax expenditures" means taxes not collected, not incentives given. You need to look at the direct expenses column. Tax expenditures is tax breaks for depreciation of capitol, which all industries claim, not just energy. For direct subsidies see "direct expenses" you'll see the renewables column is about $8.4 billion and everything else combined is about $180 million.
So much energy is needed just to escape Earth's gravity well, it would make more sense to set up a refueling station either on-orbit or on the moon (much smaller gravity well). That way the giant rocket doesn't have to make the whole trip in one go and it would be much easier to arrange resupplying missions. Anyway, an unmanned mission should be planned first to set up power, air, and begin producing fuel so that the colonists have some things waiting for them that they can rely on for survival. Sending people alone with nothing set up on the other end is easier to plan but has higher chance of disaster. Better to take it slow and incrementally.
That's a fair question before wars in the Middle East are 100% about oil. Furthermore, paying arms makers and civilian military is equivalent to subsidizing oil companies. Thanks for your brilliant insight, AC.
Oil and gas pays far more taxes each year than the ~$150mil it gets per year. This myth needs to die. https://www.eia.gov/analysis/r... The numbers are all there, take a look.
Solar and wind sound great until you eliminate the subsidies. Take away those subsidies and they become far more expensive. Once that happens, nobody will want to pay the extra costs and renewables will decline again. Like everything with the climate change agenda, it's a house of cards built on deception and lies.
Fresh meat! Give me a list of the energy sources that do not get subsidized.
Oil - yes, Gas yes, Nuclear? Bitch, please.
Come back and make your argument when the only energy source left that is getting any form of subsidy is alternative.
So tired of this ignorant argument. Check the EIA website. In their latest report (2013) Coal, gas, and nuclear combined received less than $200 million in direct expenditures, Renewables received $8,363 million in direct expenditures. Pretty big difference.
You're probably looking at the tax expenditures column, which means tax breaks for asset depreciation, not spending. In any case, the tally for tax expenditures reaches $5,453 million for renewables and $4,128 for everything else combined (the everything else produces the vast majority of our energy and is a bargain compared to solar).
This is in no way intended to diminish the undeniable fact that solar and wind are really great for a variety of reasons, but if you think nuclear and fossil fuels are subsidized anywhere near as much as renewables you are deluded.
The biggest issue with Trump not getting his way is that in reality, not that many voting age Americans actually cast their vote for him. He clearly lost the popular vote (I know it doesn't matter and I'm not complaining about it) but he only received 26% of the registered voter votes. That means nearly 75% of registered voters did not vote for him.
Wow you've drank the coolaid I see. I seriously doubt that any president has ever won a majority (>50% of all voters). I wouldn't be surprised if voter turnout was a little low in 2016 since we were all forced to choose between the veritable turd sandwich or giant douche once again and the voters are growing more and more frustrated as their parties abandon them. Unfortunately weak minded individuals like yourself don't realize that they're being played by the state by parroting their propaganda and further reducing the chance we'll ever restore sanity to our government. So thanks a lot for your contributions in digging a hole we'll probably never get out of. Anyway, most of the time the winner of plurality gets the most electoral college votes, but there have been many times (such as 2016) that the plurality winner lost in the electoral college. This was a typical election, the deep state and state-run propaganda outlets are creating hysteria in order to incite the butthurt Democrats and create chaos to distract Americans and the administration. Trump is completely falling for the bait instead of focusing on the agenda that got him elected. You're right that he's had almost no success in implementing his agenda, but you must realize that the deep state, the deep state-run media, and the global elites want it that way, and they don't care about you at all. They'd have preferred Hillary since she would have been easier to bend to their will, but having Trump mired in hysteria is a close second. This outrage is not for your benefit, it's for their benefit. You're just a pawn.
>Hate to sound skeptical but I suspect you're talking shit, you see.
Why the hell would you hate to be skeptical, are you too stupid to question what you're told? The $3T is a "middle of the road" estimate. They vary between $1T and $5T depending on who did the study. I'm not going to give you any one link or study, I suggest you do some reading and draw your own conclusions. While you are doing so I strongly suggest you leave behind your hatred for sounding skeptical, being skeptical is a necessity in today's world, especially when politics and climate change are involved.
Pulling out of Paris does NOT mean we have to stop offering small business grants and paying for the NSF, DOE, etc. How can you even equate the two things? I imagine the $3T will be more productive when spent by US citizens (who like clean and safe energies such as solar and wind) than if it were handed to 3rd world dictators and (for some reason) China.
Yeah since you've never heard of a thing that's a good enough reason to ban it. Let's play along those lines. What will you do when I want to ban something you like because some mean people are using it. If I've never heard about it I hope you'll be OK with banning that too. You'd better show your virtue by giving it up so I don't have to be offended. Otherwise you'd be a racist fascist nazi bigot wouldn't you?
You clearly haven't thought this through. What will you do with the alt-right (or whatever group is unpopular at the moment) co-opt other stuff? WIll you ban all of those new hate symbols as well? What if some group makes Sponge Bob memes, or peace symbol memes, rainbow flag memes (this is already a thing), etc into hateful memes? Would you be in favor of banning all that stuff too?
Even if giving away trillions of dollars would help deal with CO2 (it won't), we shouldn't do it because (1) we can't afford it because we don't have any fucking money and (2) giving away money is not sustainable and does not bring about any permanent change. We are running a deficit year after year, borrowing money to keep the lights on. How can you argue it's reasonable for us to borrow *more* money to give it away? Do you want to turn into Venezuela? That's exactly how to begin.
Even if we could afford it and knew that the money wouldn't be wasted on lining corrupt politician's pockets of every 3rd world country, giving away money is a stupid idea. Giving away anything is stupid. See "give a man a fish vs teach a man to fish" argument. How many lotto winners go from rags to riches back to rags in a span of less than 5 years? Most of them. Food aid doesn't prevent starvation, it encourages it because farmers can't compete with "free" and birth rates go up. Financial aid doesn't encourage fiscal responsibility, it encourages recklessness and waste because the recipient didn't spend any effort in the acquisition. Over and over again we know what happens when you attempt to jumpstart success by dressing something up to make it look like something else. You change the outward appearance but fix nothing of the substance. Real change comes from within. It's painful, slow, and requires a lot of patience and discipline. I'm sorry, but you simply cannot fix the world's problems by printing dollars and handing them out. It's reckless, stupid, and doomed from the outset. I'm so glad we don't have Bernie or Hillary in the White House. Trump is a deeply flawed man, but at least he seems to realize that you can't solve every problem by throwing money at it.
Slashdot Mirror
Bravo, you fell for the "populist" part of Nazi propaganda - you just forgot the "and unlike those other socialist's, we really are on your side" part.
Pretty similar to the populist attacks on Wall Street by Trump during the campaign - sounded exactly like something Sanders would say, and people believed him, and now Wall Street runs the government finances.
OK, "now" Wall Street runs the government finances? "Now"??? Where the hell have you been??? I dislike many things about Trump and don't think there's any need to invent new ones. The Fed, Wall Street, etc has been this way for a while.
See how that "the Nazis were left-wing" thing only makes sense if you believe what they said instead of what they did?
Way to contradict yourself there. They did *exactly* what you'd expect of left-wing authoritarians. They seized all the manufacturing, seized the economy etc. Just another radical left-wing authoritarian takeover. We've seen it again and again throughout history in Italy, Russia, China, etc.
Yep, and yet liberals have no hesitation claiming that the media has to "hold things back" in order to "protect their sources." Meanwhile anyone who doesn't have their head up their own ass knows that the media, if they had anything at all substantive, would do anything and everything within their power (legal or not) to use it to disrupt the current admin - sources be damned.
I think the lesson to be learned is that the educational value of TV is relatively poor and that stupid TV knows no borders. People who watch less and work on other hobbies are often smarter than those who devote many hours each day.
Yeah, because "We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions" totally doesn't sound like something Bernie Sanders would say. Sounds ultra right-wing to me. Dumbass.
I think they were nice to the Germans post WWII just to fuck with Russia.
I think it's absolutely hilarious that Europeans have looked down their noses at Americans for so long yet immediately after they begin diluting their monocultures with immigration they completely melt down. We've lacked a unified culture since forever and have held up a lot better than they are. Ha!
Moderate? Is that what we are calling mentally handicapped fascists nowadays? So was Hitler just a tad bit to the right?
Quite trying to rewrite history. Read some more about Hitler. Here's a quote.
Idiots
Try to guess the idiot again. You'll get it right eventually.
Going to need a new OS because now the malware creators have the ability to find yet undiscovered security holes and utilize them.
Oh really? Is that what they meant in the summary by: "Anyone who has this information can scour it for security vulnerabilities, which could be exploited to hack Windows systems worldwide."? Thanks for your insight.
You're going to love this one: http://inhabitat.com/v3solars-...
Nonsense! Celebrities have the best opinions on science, social issues etc and if you disagree with a position celebrities endorse you are a science denier and quite possibly a racist as well.
Lived in Japan for a large chunk of my life, the whole "Japanese work themselves to death" thing is a fabrication. Some people are workaholics, same as the U.S. Most people work normal hours, 9-5, and get about 3 weeks worth of company/national holidays in addition to PTO. At the company I worked, if you logged too many hours in the office they'd send you to a therapist and put you on paid leave. Almost everyone was happy, same as you'd expect anywhere else. That meme is total bullshit so stop repeating it please.
Wow, panic much? FYI, there's more food and clean water today than there ever was in the past. There's no cause to believe this trend will not continue.
The hell are you talking about? We've *BEEN* working on the Earth. Leveling land, making buildings, purifying/desalinating water, draining swamps, killing mosquitos, managing forests, etc. Not everything has been in the plus column, but the world is a hell of a lot safer and more comfortable for humans today than it ever has been.
1atm of pressure differential can be surmounted by the strength of modern building materials. There are many many things that can and likely will go wrong, but to say it's impossible is pretty insulting to all the talented engineers who've put people on the moon, on the bottom of challenger deep, flown stuff to mars, made modern microchips, etc. We could build a hyperloop if we set out to.
predictable, but "tax expenditures" means taxes not collected, not incentives given. You need to look at the direct expenses column. Tax expenditures is tax breaks for depreciation of capitol, which all industries claim, not just energy. For direct subsidies see "direct expenses" you'll see the renewables column is about $8.4 billion and everything else combined is about $180 million.
So much energy is needed just to escape Earth's gravity well, it would make more sense to set up a refueling station either on-orbit or on the moon (much smaller gravity well). That way the giant rocket doesn't have to make the whole trip in one go and it would be much easier to arrange resupplying missions. Anyway, an unmanned mission should be planned first to set up power, air, and begin producing fuel so that the colonists have some things waiting for them that they can rely on for survival. Sending people alone with nothing set up on the other end is easier to plan but has higher chance of disaster. Better to take it slow and incrementally.
That's a fair question before wars in the Middle East are 100% about oil. Furthermore, paying arms makers and civilian military is equivalent to subsidizing oil companies. Thanks for your brilliant insight, AC.
Oil and gas pays far more taxes each year than the ~$150mil it gets per year. This myth needs to die. https://www.eia.gov/analysis/r... The numbers are all there, take a look.
Solar and wind sound great until you eliminate the subsidies. Take away those subsidies and they become far more expensive. Once that happens, nobody will want to pay the extra costs and renewables will decline again. Like everything with the climate change agenda, it's a house of cards built on deception and lies.
Fresh meat! Give me a list of the energy sources that do not get subsidized.
Oil - yes, Gas yes, Nuclear? Bitch, please.
Come back and make your argument when the only energy source left that is getting any form of subsidy is alternative.
So tired of this ignorant argument. Check the EIA website. In their latest report (2013) Coal, gas, and nuclear combined received less than $200 million in direct expenditures, Renewables received $8,363 million in direct expenditures. Pretty big difference.
You're probably looking at the tax expenditures column, which means tax breaks for asset depreciation, not spending. In any case, the tally for tax expenditures reaches $5,453 million for renewables and $4,128 for everything else combined (the everything else produces the vast majority of our energy and is a bargain compared to solar).
Please read this and get back to us: https://www.eia.gov/analysis/r...
This is in no way intended to diminish the undeniable fact that solar and wind are really great for a variety of reasons, but if you think nuclear and fossil fuels are subsidized anywhere near as much as renewables you are deluded.
The biggest issue with Trump not getting his way is that in reality, not that many voting age Americans actually cast their vote for him. He clearly lost the popular vote (I know it doesn't matter and I'm not complaining about it) but he only received 26% of the registered voter votes. That means nearly 75% of registered voters did not vote for him.
Wow you've drank the coolaid I see. I seriously doubt that any president has ever won a majority (>50% of all voters). I wouldn't be surprised if voter turnout was a little low in 2016 since we were all forced to choose between the veritable turd sandwich or giant douche once again and the voters are growing more and more frustrated as their parties abandon them. Unfortunately weak minded individuals like yourself don't realize that they're being played by the state by parroting their propaganda and further reducing the chance we'll ever restore sanity to our government. So thanks a lot for your contributions in digging a hole we'll probably never get out of. Anyway, most of the time the winner of plurality gets the most electoral college votes, but there have been many times (such as 2016) that the plurality winner lost in the electoral college. This was a typical election, the deep state and state-run propaganda outlets are creating hysteria in order to incite the butthurt Democrats and create chaos to distract Americans and the administration. Trump is completely falling for the bait instead of focusing on the agenda that got him elected. You're right that he's had almost no success in implementing his agenda, but you must realize that the deep state, the deep state-run media, and the global elites want it that way, and they don't care about you at all. They'd have preferred Hillary since she would have been easier to bend to their will, but having Trump mired in hysteria is a close second. This outrage is not for your benefit, it's for their benefit. You're just a pawn.
>Hate to sound skeptical but I suspect you're talking shit, you see.
Why the hell would you hate to be skeptical, are you too stupid to question what you're told? The $3T is a "middle of the road" estimate. They vary between $1T and $5T depending on who did the study. I'm not going to give you any one link or study, I suggest you do some reading and draw your own conclusions. While you are doing so I strongly suggest you leave behind your hatred for sounding skeptical, being skeptical is a necessity in today's world, especially when politics and climate change are involved.
Pulling out of Paris does NOT mean we have to stop offering small business grants and paying for the NSF, DOE, etc. How can you even equate the two things? I imagine the $3T will be more productive when spent by US citizens (who like clean and safe energies such as solar and wind) than if it were handed to 3rd world dictators and (for some reason) China.
Yeah since you've never heard of a thing that's a good enough reason to ban it. Let's play along those lines. What will you do when I want to ban something you like because some mean people are using it. If I've never heard about it I hope you'll be OK with banning that too. You'd better show your virtue by giving it up so I don't have to be offended. Otherwise you'd be a racist fascist nazi bigot wouldn't you?
You clearly haven't thought this through. What will you do with the alt-right (or whatever group is unpopular at the moment) co-opt other stuff? WIll you ban all of those new hate symbols as well? What if some group makes Sponge Bob memes, or peace symbol memes, rainbow flag memes (this is already a thing), etc into hateful memes? Would you be in favor of banning all that stuff too?
Even if giving away trillions of dollars would help deal with CO2 (it won't), we shouldn't do it because (1) we can't afford it because we don't have any fucking money and (2) giving away money is not sustainable and does not bring about any permanent change. We are running a deficit year after year, borrowing money to keep the lights on. How can you argue it's reasonable for us to borrow *more* money to give it away? Do you want to turn into Venezuela? That's exactly how to begin.
Even if we could afford it and knew that the money wouldn't be wasted on lining corrupt politician's pockets of every 3rd world country, giving away money is a stupid idea. Giving away anything is stupid. See "give a man a fish vs teach a man to fish" argument. How many lotto winners go from rags to riches back to rags in a span of less than 5 years? Most of them. Food aid doesn't prevent starvation, it encourages it because farmers can't compete with "free" and birth rates go up. Financial aid doesn't encourage fiscal responsibility, it encourages recklessness and waste because the recipient didn't spend any effort in the acquisition. Over and over again we know what happens when you attempt to jumpstart success by dressing something up to make it look like something else. You change the outward appearance but fix nothing of the substance. Real change comes from within. It's painful, slow, and requires a lot of patience and discipline. I'm sorry, but you simply cannot fix the world's problems by printing dollars and handing them out. It's reckless, stupid, and doomed from the outset. I'm so glad we don't have Bernie or Hillary in the White House. Trump is a deeply flawed man, but at least he seems to realize that you can't solve every problem by throwing money at it.