"Only people listening to appeals to authority actually believe the models are working. "
I know that for a fact, all the conservative sources say it's true.
You kind of blatantly show your bias whe you put the quote marks around "Hussein" there.... Also, as we can see from his actions, Obama is not a very good Liberal. Oh, he talks a lot, but he's pretty much a republican. Also, that link that YOU provided says that the tax raises that they called Broke Promise were on "if you're a happily uninsured smoker who likes to tan, you are facing a triple whammy. " and I just don't give two shits about tanning beds, etc.
So... I think you're a political hack.:D
But But But....
think about it: tanning: cancer risk. smoking: cancer risk. no medical insurance: not a cancer risk necessarily, but certainly going to have problems with a cancer diagnosis.
Why does Obama hate people with cancer??? Answer that, liberals.
> Liberals aren't the ones adamantly chanting "No more taxes" as part of their rallies.
“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.” - Barack "Hussein" Obama
Yes, as that site says, "if you're a happily uninsured smoker who likes to tan, you are facing a triple whammy", even if you make $250k or under. At last we see the famed conservative compassion at work. I admit to having my doubts about it, when all the usual parrots began parroting about how the ACLA was too expensive just to help ten million or so people who couldn't afford health insurance. But now I see I misjudged you all.
Shouldn't the guys who tell us that poor people won't be able to avoid a carbon tax but rich people will, and the people who tell us that poor people won't be able to own cars if there's a carbon tax, settle which pile of nonsense they want to stick with before they voice their objections?
Ah, the good old days; when you could buy a Chevy whose suspension, steering, and brakes were inadequate to handle the base level 6 banger, and for a few hundred more equip it with an optional 396 or 427, while saving money by still keeping that same base level suspension, steering, and brakes.
Meanwhile, kids today are swapping DOHC 200 hp engines into older Honda Civics, meeting current emission and safety standards, and ending up with a car which is reliable, low maintenance, and will walk away from most muscle cars on a road which is bumpy, icy, twisty, sandy, or anything other than an actual dragstrip.
lol.. What's the sacrifice you ask then say taking vehicles off the road as if it does not deprive anyone of anything. The problem is all the rest cost money. It costs more money than the current model. So when you raise prices, people will have less. This less means they will sacrifice something- whether it is savings, stability in electric power, a car or whatever. It will only make the world more expensive and people will have to do without. You make it sound like you can just speak it into existence and there is no repercussions. There are and there will be.
Look at the terrible sacrifices we had to make to get cars that get the current state of mileage, just like they predicted, if we wanted to get to 24 mpg fleet average we'd end up all driving underpowered tiny little tin can death traps, right?
Ask them what they willing to actually SACRIFICE to fix it and I bet you'll get a very different answer.
The lives of half a million Iraqis, and the happiness and welfare of millions of other Arabs, Nigerians, and others who have the misfortune of living in Petro-states? Oh wait, this is about climate change. I thought we were talking about the price of oil.
Speaking as a lawyer, which I am not and never will be, you can't state what his motivations were, only his actions. He may have been spraying the Roundup for other reasons, then noticed some surviving plants ad decided he had something there, regardless of how it got into his fields.
In any event, if Monsanto's product should deliver itself to him in the absolutely normal and predictable process of its being used as specified by Monsanto, is he forbidden from making use of it? Monsanto did not suffer a loss of product or profit, the plants did not "fall off a truck" and have to be taken as a loss by the company.
And, in connection with the first point, the farmer has no certain knowledge the plants were Monsanto product, not normal mutants. He is under no requirement to have them genetically tested before use, nor is he likely to have the kind of genetic knowledge that lets him calculate what the odds would be against Roundup resistance; even I don't know that.
Basically, he is the beneficiary of an event which he may have made preparations to make use of (or may not), but did not cause to happen; which represents no actual loss to his neighbor or Monsanto, this is not a runaway livestock or some such; is he required to forswear the benefits of this event on the grounds that it might be the result of the practices of said neighbor and/or Monsanto, which he himself did not cause, request, or contribute to?
It was at the Battle of Nauseum, in Sicily. The Jerries had the drop on us, but old Birdy took up the Enfield and went over the top for God and Country, and don't you know the regiment followed the bloody old blighter... and blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
There are no paradoxes; somebody invents time travel, and somebody goes back and changes things, and changes ripple forwards, and somebody else (or the same) goes back and changes things, and changes ripple forwards, and so on and so on, until somebody changes things into a future where time travel is never invented, and that is a stable trap, and everything marches forwards from there.
There's one thing nuclear propulsion cannot do, and that's exactly what you claim it can do in your opening sentence: lift that payload from the surface to orbit.
Project Orion would be using a long series of nuclear explosions to almost literally hammer the spaceship forward. You're proposing that as a LIFTOFF engine to be used within the atmosphere?
Quoting from the same wikipedia page, one of the reasons why the project was shut down:
"There were also ethical issues with launching such a vehicle within the Earth's magnetosphere: calculations showed that the fallout from each takeoff would kill between 1 and 10 people."
That's from launching within the magnetosphere, not even close to launching from the surface.
Yes, total bollocks, clearly:)
Hey, we could use human beings for reaction mass! just an idea, no need to get snippy with me.
One hurdle is the energy getting into orbit.
after that, energy is not an issue, but time is. we could send an interstellar probe out now, but we'll probably be extinct by the time we get the radio message back "Hey you guys should see this"
you can't prove that scientifically. there is no consensus scientifically. every year that passes that i don't die disproves your liberal alarmist hypothesis it's just a fraud perpetrated by scientists to keep the research money coming in. anyone who tries to write a scientific paper that argues against the inevitability of death finds it won't get published.
Slashdot Mirror
"Only people listening to appeals to authority actually believe the models are working. "
I know that for a fact, all the conservative sources say it's true.
They they come tell the rich people they can't just shit on your lawn if they feel like it. There's no end to the oppression.
You kind of blatantly show your bias whe you put the quote marks around "Hussein" there.... Also, as we can see from his actions, Obama is not a very good Liberal. Oh, he talks a lot, but he's pretty much a republican. Also, that link that YOU provided says that the tax raises that they called Broke Promise were on "if you're a happily uninsured smoker who likes to tan, you are facing a triple whammy. " and I just don't give two shits about tanning beds, etc.
So... I think you're a political hack. :D
But But But.... think about it: tanning: cancer risk. smoking: cancer risk. no medical insurance: not a cancer risk necessarily, but certainly going to have problems with a cancer diagnosis. Why does Obama hate people with cancer??? Answer that, liberals.
> Liberals aren't the ones adamantly chanting "No more taxes" as part of their rallies.
“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.” - Barack "Hussein" Obama
A pledge he has, of course, broken:
http://www.politifact.com/trut...
Yes, as that site says, "if you're a happily uninsured smoker who likes to tan, you are facing a triple whammy", even if you make $250k or under. At last we see the famed conservative compassion at work. I admit to having my doubts about it, when all the usual parrots began parroting about how the ACLA was too expensive just to help ten million or so people who couldn't afford health insurance. But now I see I misjudged you all.
If you want to use Food Stamps as evidence of liberal success, I think you have it. More people are on Food Stamps than ever before, SUCCESS!!!!
Oh, and by your version of reality, conservatives hate bears! http://www.niagarafallsreporte...
Yeah, if your goal is to keep people from starving, that would be a success. If your goal is to force people who don't work to starve, not so much.
Shouldn't the guys who tell us that poor people won't be able to avoid a carbon tax but rich people will, and the people who tell us that poor people won't be able to own cars if there's a carbon tax, settle which pile of nonsense they want to stick with before they voice their objections?
Ah, the good old days; when you could buy a Chevy whose suspension, steering, and brakes were inadequate to handle the base level 6 banger, and for a few hundred more equip it with an optional 396 or 427, while saving money by still keeping that same base level suspension, steering, and brakes. Meanwhile, kids today are swapping DOHC 200 hp engines into older Honda Civics, meeting current emission and safety standards, and ending up with a car which is reliable, low maintenance, and will walk away from most muscle cars on a road which is bumpy, icy, twisty, sandy, or anything other than an actual dragstrip.
The people outside the special economic zone that is the bay area are the real America,
Safe the "real America" bullshit. It didn't work for Sarah Palin, it sure as hell won't work for you.
Ahh, you forget the No True American fallacy.
lol.. What's the sacrifice you ask then say taking vehicles off the road as if it does not deprive anyone of anything. The problem is all the rest cost money. It costs more money than the current model. So when you raise prices, people will have less. This less means they will sacrifice something- whether it is savings, stability in electric power, a car or whatever. It will only make the world more expensive and people will have to do without. You make it sound like you can just speak it into existence and there is no repercussions. There are and there will be.
As if climate change doesn't cost money.
Look at the terrible sacrifices we had to make to get cars that get the current state of mileage, just like they predicted, if we wanted to get to 24 mpg fleet average we'd end up all driving underpowered tiny little tin can death traps, right?
Ask them what they willing to actually SACRIFICE to fix it and I bet you'll get a very different answer.
The lives of half a million Iraqis, and the happiness and welfare of millions of other Arabs, Nigerians, and others who have the misfortune of living in Petro-states? Oh wait, this is about climate change. I thought we were talking about the price of oil.
Speaking as a lawyer, which I am not and never will be, you can't state what his motivations were, only his actions. He may have been spraying the Roundup for other reasons, then noticed some surviving plants ad decided he had something there, regardless of how it got into his fields. In any event, if Monsanto's product should deliver itself to him in the absolutely normal and predictable process of its being used as specified by Monsanto, is he forbidden from making use of it? Monsanto did not suffer a loss of product or profit, the plants did not "fall off a truck" and have to be taken as a loss by the company. And, in connection with the first point, the farmer has no certain knowledge the plants were Monsanto product, not normal mutants. He is under no requirement to have them genetically tested before use, nor is he likely to have the kind of genetic knowledge that lets him calculate what the odds would be against Roundup resistance; even I don't know that. Basically, he is the beneficiary of an event which he may have made preparations to make use of (or may not), but did not cause to happen; which represents no actual loss to his neighbor or Monsanto, this is not a runaway livestock or some such; is he required to forswear the benefits of this event on the grounds that it might be the result of the practices of said neighbor and/or Monsanto, which he himself did not cause, request, or contribute to?
at nauseum
I think you possibly mean ad nauseam?
It was at the Battle of Nauseum, in Sicily. The Jerries had the drop on us, but old Birdy took up the Enfield and went over the top for God and Country, and don't you know the regiment followed the bloody old blighter... and blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
The results are in perfect agreement with predictions from the 1990s--there are no grandfather-type paradoxes
Nice first step, but I'll be more impressed when the results are in agreement with predictions from the 1890s
Predictions from the 2090s have completely refuted this time travel nonsense, however.
There are no paradoxes; somebody invents time travel, and somebody goes back and changes things, and changes ripple forwards, and somebody else (or the same) goes back and changes things, and changes ripple forwards, and so on and so on, until somebody changes things into a future where time travel is never invented, and that is a stable trap, and everything marches forwards from there.
Modern Chess is not now a variant called Mad Queen. It is a standardized game referred to as Chess and understood world-wide.
Modern chess may have originated in a game that at one time was referred to as "Mad Queen".
Bruce Jenner?
There is plenty of classical Islamic art with pictures of The Prophet. http://www.picturesfromhistory... http://www.religionfacts.com/i... http://www.zombietime.com/moha...
Total bollocks? :)
There's one thing nuclear propulsion cannot do, and that's exactly what you claim it can do in your opening sentence: lift that payload from the surface to orbit. Project Orion would be using a long series of nuclear explosions to almost literally hammer the spaceship forward. You're proposing that as a LIFTOFF engine to be used within the atmosphere?
Quoting from the same wikipedia page, one of the reasons why the project was shut down: "There were also ethical issues with launching such a vehicle within the Earth's magnetosphere: calculations showed that the fallout from each takeoff would kill between 1 and 10 people."
That's from launching within the magnetosphere, not even close to launching from the surface.
Yes, total bollocks, clearly :)
Hey, we could use human beings for reaction mass! just an idea, no need to get snippy with me.
One hurdle is the energy getting into orbit. after that, energy is not an issue, but time is. we could send an interstellar probe out now, but we'll probably be extinct by the time we get the radio message back "Hey you guys should see this"
Bussard ramjet engines.
for one thing, they actually can make phone calls now
>>WE ALL GONNA DIE!
Of course! Everyone does eventually!
you can't prove that scientifically. there is no consensus scientifically. every year that passes that i don't die disproves your liberal alarmist hypothesis it's just a fraud perpetrated by scientists to keep the research money coming in. anyone who tries to write a scientific paper that argues against the inevitability of death finds it won't get published.
aspies*
stick with "aspes lel", in context it's funnier.
are thought to be there specifically so others are able to see who you are communicating with. Improving cooperation between people.
also, who needs a new liver.
"glory road" might work.