That is pretty much how they are.
FB seems to be mostly stuff I do not care about from people I do care about. While Google+ is stuff I care about from people I do not know.
I am sure we can all agree that the ability to pump water is of use to us all.
Want a pumping station in your back yard?
There is nothing earth shattering about this behavior. All I am saying is that the only real proof we have is he dose not want to be disturbed. There is no proof that he gives two shits about fracking. As long as it does not disturb him at all.
Which still only proves his intent is to get rid of the water tower.
He may want to get rid of the fraking near his home altogether. already stated that it was possible. The thing you dumb fucking emotional shallow thinkers seem to miss is there is ZERO proof he gives two shits about the fracking itself. In my personal opinion it is not a reach to guess that some rich dude with a ranch just wants his peace to not be disturbed.
But all you idiots suddenly jump to a baseless conclusion of "He hates fracking!"
Since you are defending a post that is accusatory with zero evidence that makes you a dishonest person.
Since you are dishonest and I do not like your stance I believe that you are also a rapist. I am sure of this because I guarantee it. Rapists are usually dishonest and you defend dishonest. Therefore I think you are dishonest and by association a rapist.
If you argue with my logic you are just quibbling.
Dishevel seems to be saying "you can't 100% prove to my satisfaction
No. I am saying that you have zero proof. Nothing but feelings. You may be right. But you have ZERO proof that you are.
If you had 95% proof then I would be acting silly. There is zero proof of anything other than "He does not want noisy trucks near his property." Not that strange. You can play it anyway you like, but me having a problem with statements of fact made on zero proof is not the same as me demanding 100% proof before I will believe something.
You guarantee this why. Because you hate fracking and want it to be hypocritical? You hate oil guys and want them to look bad? You hate ranches and the people who own them?
You can not just "I know they are guilty of shit. I do not need proof." your way through life. You can think that way but you should not be making accusations or statement of facts based on nothing. If you do not understand this then you need to mature a bit more before moving out of your parents house, or having children.
Your proof is where? I am not saying that he is ok with or not ok with fracking in his area. The only proof I have though is he does not want a water tower and noisy trucks near his land. I can understand this.
There is no proof offered one way or the other on his feelings toward fracking in the area though and to imply otherwise is disingenuous at best.
He is not suing to stop the fracking. He is suing to not have a water tower built near his property.
The utility says it needs to build more due to increased water demand due to the fracking.
I hate it when people lie to prove a point. It makes their point suspect. Even if I were on the Anti-Fracking side I would not want an article like this to make my side look like lying, underhanded dipshits.
I believe that a significant majority of the rich in this country are heavily focused on short-term gains. Often at the expense of potentially much greater long-term gains.
I believe that you are wrong here. This is exactly what I "Read Into" your post.
It seems that in your worldview that the rich are focused short term. It is exactly the ability to put aside short term thinking (I want a new TV, PS4, To eat out 3 times a week, stay in my safe job.) that prevents one from getting rich and doing well. Long term thinking is what makes a majority of those who were not born rich, rich.
They work hard and give up short term benefits to build a business that creates long term wealth for them. They risk and work very long hours. They fail and do it again. These are not stupid people taking the easy way out.
Of course your TV shows and movies and "News Programs" will all tell you that the rich are stupid and lazy and are working against the growth of the economy that they benefit from because of their "Short Sighted" thinking. That if we could just restrict them more and raised taxes more and used that money to even out the disparity that the poor will change the way they do things and become successful.
Opportunity and people who can see it and are willing to work hard and risk greatly to take advantage of it is what creates wealth. Government programs stifle that and move the money created around.
Because the rich are mostly the people who look short term. The poor in this country are looking to the long term and have a better handle on that. Right?
FDIC insures your account up to $100K (Used to be $10K). The ensures that the people putting their money into one of these institutions will not consider the safety of their money in choosing which institution to hold their money in. Once the consumer stops looking at safety the banks need to compete on something else. (Free Checking, More ATMs, Prettier Cards, Toasters, Whatever.) So the banks need to make more money and do not need to keep safety on the front burner. This leads to riskier decisions by the banks. They need more money to compete. Those risky decisions cause issues. Those issues cause banks to fail. Those banks failing cause me to bail them out. This is why FDIC causes the bailouts. Removal of FDIC will do two things. Consumers will care deeply about safety. Private companies will offer to insure the deposits at certain banks that they can see are doing safe things with money.
Then the consumer can care only about which insuring agency seems to watch the banks more closely and will trust that companies word. That company will wathc the banks like a hawk because A: They do not want to pay out and B: When a bank failks that they are watching then the people will no longer trust that institution and bail out of the other banks that company insures.
You really believe that the rich successful people are too stupid to understand what will and what will not make them money.
Good luck with that thought process.
The problem here is that you think that every job should be able to support a family. It should not. If all jobs need to put out a living wage where will young people get there first jobs? How will they learn? You are pricing students and first job people out of the market. Every study done on past minimum wage raises will show you the number of jobs it costs. $30/hr costs way more jobs than $10. This is true. But you have McDonalds workers trying to get $15. Hotel staff in LA.
These things cost jobs. Every time. When I grew up it was easy to get a crappy job. They paid little and could afford to hire a person that knew nothing and had not developed any kind of work ethic yet. These were jobs where I learned to work. I got better jobs that paid more over time. I grew out of jobs. We now expect that my first job be able to support me and a wife and a kid. That is beyond stupid to think it will not have negative repercussions on the job market.
You can not think inside a vacuum. You must think like a person that owns a business and what their reactions will be. They will react and it will cost poor people jobs.
We will fix this though. You just increase benefits so that children can continue to be supported by their parents for longer. Allow more welfare and longer unemployment benefits. You raise taxes to pay for it. Most on the rich who cut jobs to make up for it and the rest on those lucky enough to still have jobs. Though because of higher taxes and higher prices the living wage will have to go up again because you will not be able to raise a family on $15/hr.
Of course you think that is just silly. Raising the minimum wage will not cost anyone their job. Prices will not go up. It will not be harder to find a first job. So these things will not increase the need for government help. None of these things will happen because....
Giving poor people more money is good and therefore no bad can come of it.
I am just an uncaring conservative Nazi that wants the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. Because that is easy to say and sounds really good.
I have already replied to someone else on this matter.
It does not matter though because the facts are simple and readily understood. It is emotion that is getting in the way. Much better to feel like you are a good person because of the things you say and button you press once a year than to spend time and effort working in your community to change individual lives for the better.
It does work when the people are not lazy. Money does not buy elections if large sections of the populace stay aware of local politics instead of Americas Got Talent.
We are receiving the government that we people as a whole deserve.
It would also become an under served niche in the market. I bet if you saw that you would create a business around it. Helping people find safe banks and insuring them vs loss. The idea of an insurance policy on your bank deposit is not a horrible idea. Having it run by the federal government and paid for by the taxpayers though is.
When you price people that are only worth $8/hr out of the market they do not suddenly just make more money. They loose their job to someone capable of working at $12 or $15/hr. Set the minimum wage to $30/hr. See what happens to the people who work at McDonalds. Most of them will be out of work.
I understand that you mean well and want people to be happy, but we have to think clearly before we put restrictions on a market based on what would make me feel like a better human being.
Do not guess with your money. You demand openness and clarity. Private businesses would spring up offering insurance on bank deposits. Of course those companies would want to keep a close eye on what the financial institutions are doing with the money so they do not have to pay out. Federal Insurance has none of the benefits and all of the pitfalls. That "Insurance" that covered our accounts came out of our pockets.
Slashdot Mirror
I've worked with CH2M HILL before, and frankly I wold trust anything they say without a serious double check..
Agreed. They hire tons of people who can not spell!
That is pretty much how they are. FB seems to be mostly stuff I do not care about from people I do care about. While Google+ is stuff I care about from people I do not know.
Want a pumping station in your back yard?
There is nothing earth shattering about this behavior. All I am saying is that the only real proof we have is he dose not want to be disturbed. There is no proof that he gives two shits about fracking. As long as it does not disturb him at all.
He may want to get rid of the fraking near his home altogether. already stated that it was possible. The thing you dumb fucking emotional shallow thinkers seem to miss is there is ZERO proof he gives two shits about the fracking itself. In my personal opinion it is not a reach to guess that some rich dude with a ranch just wants his peace to not be disturbed.
But all you idiots suddenly jump to a baseless conclusion of "He hates fracking!"
Facts be damned! Guilty!
This does not make false statements of fact suddenly ok.
Since you are dishonest and I do not like your stance I believe that you are also a rapist. I am sure of this because I guarantee it. Rapists are usually dishonest and you defend dishonest. Therefore I think you are dishonest and by association a rapist.
If you argue with my logic you are just quibbling.
He did not join a suit against fracking. He joined a suit against a water tower.
Dishevel seems to be saying "you can't 100% prove to my satisfaction
No. I am saying that you have zero proof. Nothing but feelings. You may be right. But you have ZERO proof that you are.
If you had 95% proof then I would be acting silly. There is zero proof of anything other than "He does not want noisy trucks near his property." Not that strange. You can play it anyway you like, but me having a problem with statements of fact made on zero proof is not the same as me demanding 100% proof before I will believe something.
You can not just "I know they are guilty of shit. I do not need proof." your way through life. You can think that way but you should not be making accusations or statement of facts based on nothing. If you do not understand this then you need to mature a bit more before moving out of your parents house, or having children.
There is no proof offered one way or the other on his feelings toward fracking in the area though and to imply otherwise is disingenuous at best.
The utility says it needs to build more due to increased water demand due to the fracking.
I hate it when people lie to prove a point. It makes their point suspect. Even if I were on the Anti-Fracking side I would not want an article like this to make my side look like lying, underhanded dipshits.
I believe that a significant majority of the rich in this country are heavily focused on short-term gains. Often at the expense of potentially much greater long-term gains.
I believe that you are wrong here. This is exactly what I "Read Into" your post.
It seems that in your worldview that the rich are focused short term. It is exactly the ability to put aside short term thinking (I want a new TV, PS4, To eat out 3 times a week, stay in my safe job.) that prevents one from getting rich and doing well. Long term thinking is what makes a majority of those who were not born rich, rich.
They work hard and give up short term benefits to build a business that creates long term wealth for them. They risk and work very long hours. They fail and do it again. These are not stupid people taking the easy way out.
Of course your TV shows and movies and "News Programs" will all tell you that the rich are stupid and lazy and are working against the growth of the economy that they benefit from because of their "Short Sighted" thinking. That if we could just restrict them more and raised taxes more and used that money to even out the disparity that the poor will change the way they do things and become successful.
Opportunity and people who can see it and are willing to work hard and risk greatly to take advantage of it is what creates wealth. Government programs stifle that and move the money created around.
You can not see the fallacy there can you.
Then the consumer can care only about which insuring agency seems to watch the banks more closely and will trust that companies word. That company will wathc the banks like a hawk because A: They do not want to pay out and B: When a bank failks that they are watching then the people will no longer trust that institution and bail out of the other banks that company insures.
Competition is good. FDIC is bad.
FDIC get money from banks. But the the bailouts caused by this are paid for by taxpayers.
You really believe that the rich successful people are too stupid to understand what will and what will not make them money. Good luck with that thought process.
These things cost jobs. Every time. When I grew up it was easy to get a crappy job. They paid little and could afford to hire a person that knew nothing and had not developed any kind of work ethic yet. These were jobs where I learned to work. I got better jobs that paid more over time. I grew out of jobs. We now expect that my first job be able to support me and a wife and a kid. That is beyond stupid to think it will not have negative repercussions on the job market.
You can not think inside a vacuum. You must think like a person that owns a business and what their reactions will be. They will react and it will cost poor people jobs.
We will fix this though. You just increase benefits so that children can continue to be supported by their parents for longer. Allow more welfare and longer unemployment benefits. You raise taxes to pay for it. Most on the rich who cut jobs to make up for it and the rest on those lucky enough to still have jobs. Though because of higher taxes and higher prices the living wage will have to go up again because you will not be able to raise a family on $15/hr.
Of course you think that is just silly. Raising the minimum wage will not cost anyone their job. Prices will not go up. It will not be harder to find a first job. So these things will not increase the need for government help. None of these things will happen because....
Giving poor people more money is good and therefore no bad can come of it.
I am just an uncaring conservative Nazi that wants the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. Because that is easy to say and sounds really good.
It does not matter though because the facts are simple and readily understood. It is emotion that is getting in the way. Much better to feel like you are a good person because of the things you say and button you press once a year than to spend time and effort working in your community to change individual lives for the better.
We are receiving the government that we people as a whole deserve.
It would also become an under served niche in the market. I bet if you saw that you would create a business around it. Helping people find safe banks and insuring them vs loss. The idea of an insurance policy on your bank deposit is not a horrible idea. Having it run by the federal government and paid for by the taxpayers though is.
I understand that you mean well and want people to be happy, but we have to think clearly before we put restrictions on a market based on what would make me feel like a better human being.
The people in control of the funds want to see growth so they can continue to get accolades and raises.
Do not guess with your money. You demand openness and clarity. Private businesses would spring up offering insurance on bank deposits. Of course those companies would want to keep a close eye on what the financial institutions are doing with the money so they do not have to pay out. Federal Insurance has none of the benefits and all of the pitfalls. That "Insurance" that covered our accounts came out of our pockets.
They do. Which is why car companies do not want them forced on customers that do not want to pay for it.