I can see AC to the doorstep a big efficient whole house power supply that has 12vdc and 48vdc rails that are distributed thorough the house and battery backed, and few 220v "appliance circuits" off the AC.
48V and 12V lines are far too low to be sage and/or sensible. Remember that the power used is equal to the voltage times the current and that the heating of the wire carrying the current goes as the square of that current. Typical house wiring is good for ~30A of current and supplies several plugs in a room typically. With a 12V circuit you limit the power of all the devices connected to this circuit to 360W vs. the 6.6kW you get now (or 3.3kW if you live in North America). Even with a 48V circuit you only get 1.44 kW.
The result is that either you need to rewire the entire house with massively thick, and therefore expensive, cables to carry the far higher currents or you need to use a higher voltage for transmission. Even the factor of two reduction between Europe and Canada/US is noticeable for some devices: electric heaters are far punier than their European counterparts, kettles take far longer to boil, and Electric lawnmowers are practically useless etc. If you drop the voltage by another factor of 2-10 below even Canada/US then almost all devices will be impacted.
Basically, time to split the union of lighting and motor power that made Edison's vision possible, and go to low voltage LED lighting while leaving the 110 volts for everything that needs more than some tens of watts. Also a network of data ports that supply USB voltage/currents for our computerized needs.
DC in the home is only viable due to recent advances in power silicon. AC has its problems, but the genius of AC power is that you can controll it with nothing more than carefully arranged windings of wire and big chunks of metal. Transformers, inductors, capacitors, and resisters can all be made with nothing more than properly arranged and chosen wires and metal blocks. There was no practical DC-DC conversion in Edison's day. Even AC/DC conversion was tricky, often requiring an AC motor with a shaft mechanically linked to a DC generator.
You can make tiny, tiny, cheap little AC-DC or DC-DC converters that are dozens of times cheaper and many more times efficient than their counterparts made even a decade ago. What used to require large arrays of MOSFETs and many many pounds of expensive copper windings (And the design/volume/heatsinks/fans to deal with all the waste heat!) is now handled by a much smaller transformer, a handful of inductors, and some advanced switching silicon controlled by a fairly smart processor. You also, thanks to increased efficiency, don't need to overbuild with expensive heat tolerant components so much. (Heat shortens component lifetimes, particularly caps)
And they're already deeply commoditized because, guess what, the chinese are big in to solar. (They know they are going to need it. They're quite aware that traditional energy can't economically fully meet their future demand.)
I still have my WWII surplus dynamotor designed to convert low voltage DC to high voltage 400 hz for aircraft purposes. hasn't been too useful thus far, but someday might come in handy.
Had occasion to take apart my electric (plug in ) lawnmower the other month, and was surprised to see that the motor was not an AC motor, but a DC motor with a big fat bridge rectifier sitting on top of it.
Anybody who can explain why will have my gratitude. (Can't be for compatibility with the battery operated mowers, because it's a 110 v DC motor, while the battery models top out at 48 v).
You're the sort of person who screams at the TV, or gets angry at talkback radio. There aren't any foundries gearing up for wood chips. It's just an interesting piece of materials science. Imagine some sort of genetic engineering that could grow a cellulose structure with semi-conducting channels. Then go take a cold shower.
Now that you mention it,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Slayman CL, Long WS, Gradmann D (1976). "Action potentials in Neurospora crassa , a mycelial fungus". Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 426 (4): 737–744. doi:10.1016/0005-2736(76)90138-3. PMID 130926.
Mummert H, Gradmann D (1991). "Action potentials in Acetabularia: measurement and simulation of voltage-gated fluxes". Journal of Membrane Biology 124 (3): 265–273. doi:10.1007/BF01994359. PMID 1664861.
don't be so hasty, hipsters and lumbersexuals need to promote something they understand, ie. not heavy chemistry.
I'm researching organic data integration and processing devices, made of organic materials, largely proteins suspended in solutions and gels, powered by oxidation of simple carbohydrates. Rather than purely electrically, signals will be transferred by a hybrid chemical/electrical process involving transfer of ions between compartments of conducting saline solutions, isolated by nonconducting layers of hydrocarbons, with said transfer both dependent on and altering the electric potentials.
Data will be processed in a revolutionary manner, avoiding the bottlenecks of the von Neumann architecture; holistically, rather than using separate memory and processing areas. It will be built of similar microscopic processing units, each of which integrates several inputs into one output, handed off to similar units. this provides for a great deal of plasticity, as well as failure tolerance, as functions are mostly not locked into a single substructure, but can be rerouted if local damage occurs.
this model can be easily enhanced to provide for the unit having limited sensory capability, mobility and a self-maintenance capacity which allows it to seek and consume fuel when necessary, avoid damaging environments, etc. etc.; to some degree it will be self-programming. Ultimately new units will be constructed and initially programmed by other similar units.
Right now my goal is to investigate this latter function, of replication of new units as a result of interfacing between previous units. At this stage, I am more interested in the initial steps only of the process, and do not intend production of actual units, which would strain research resources. This would make it possible to study a large number of these initial interfaces with many of the numerous working examples locally available for study and experimentation in this area; however I currently lack the funding to engage them in this activity for sufficiently detailed experimentation and analysis, so I am seeking grants.
Sure, but paper-production forest do not contain 100 years old trees. The idea is to plant trees somewhere there were no tree before.
Or at least, where there are no trees currently
the northeast (connecticut, to be specific) is relatively well forested these days. the thing is, this is not the old forests from preColombian days, this is largely new forest maybe 100 years old, from when the agricultural areas gained by destroying the old forests were abandoned or converted to residential areas and suburbia. more scrubby than magnificent huge trees, if you see a 30 foot oak or red maple it's a grand and mighty entity, that kind of thing. not sure if that counts as carbon sequestration or not?
Seriously? Let me know when they start rounding up dozens of people for no reason other than they believe in a different God and then they cut off their heads and post the video online. You fucking idiot, stupidity on the part of a few cops doesn't mean we're living under ISIS. Maybe you'd like to try living in the caliphate. Let me know and I'll buy the ticket if you promise to keep your ignorant fucking ass there.
The terrorists are the Federal Government of the United States; their enemy is We the People
Of course. Because when a bomb does go off, We the People never demand that everybody's pockets be searched ten times a day, do We the People? No, it's those Federal Government guys who are at fault, always.
You've grossly mischaracterized me and my stances.
I said I feel an obligation to align my vote with my moral stances on issues, which I was pointing out comes at the cost of being able to align my vote with any of the other stances I may have. I never said that I find my own beliefs to be unfair or wrong. As you implied, it'd be ridiculous to knowingly hold onto ideas you're aware are wrong.
And sorry if this is a bit of a soapbox issue for me, but who said anything about hating gays? At least for me, when it comes to the hot-button topic of marriage, my firm stance is that the government should stay out of it, regardless of which way someone swings. Legal unions should be available to anyone that want them, and should come with all of the expected tax breaks and other legal benefits, plus all of the expected legal obligations and financial responsibilities. In contrast, marriage is an entirely separate concept that means different things to different people, so it's best left to individuals, organizations, or religions to decide whether they want to ignore it, treat it as a pleasant tradition, or incorporate it into their religious practices.
Speaking more broadly, sure, I consider homosexuality to be a sinful practice based on what the Bible says, but I could say the same about eating too much, lying, getting drunk, stealing, or even just engaging in lustful thoughts, so it's always struck me as incongruous that homesexuals get singled out as being a group that I allegedly hate. What about the others? Why don't I get accused of hating them too? After all, from what I can tell, I have just as much cause to hate drunks, gluttons, and people with filthy minds...
...which is to say, I have no cause to hate them at all. Everyone sins on a regular basis, myself included (including some of the sins I've already listed!). Being a sinner is not a valid reason to hate someone, and thank God for that, since if it was we'd all be miserable, self-loathing people. The Bible isn't filled with kumbaya love, but it does say that God loves us all, so who am I to hate those He chooses to love? The Bible also says that God hates sin wherever it is and that even one sin is enough to face judgment, so who am I to act as if I'm in any way superior when I'm subject to the same judgment? And the Bible says that it's God's job to judge others, not mine, so I have no business being judgmental, let alone hateful towards anyone else, regardless of their sexual orientation.
I get that there are religious types who can and do engage in hateful attitudes towards homosexuals, and it's hopefully obvious by now what my stance is towards the validity of those attitudes. But what about our shared responsibility to assess people on their own merits, rather than on the basis of a convenient stereotype that lets us marginalize them? As a site, we're too quick to apply the "hateful and intolerant" religious stereotype label to folks around here as soon as they profess a religious belief, without ever finding out what they actually believe.
Yes, stereotypes oftentimes have a basis in reality, and you'll run into people for whom the stereotype is a good fit, but that doesn't excuse us to dismiss people according to racial, religious, gender, national, or sexual orientation stereotypes that don't fit, just because they fall into one of those categories. We all should be making a concerted effort to stamp out bigotry, whether it's aimed at someone on the basis of their religion, their sexual orientation, or some other irrelevant piece of data.
that's reminiscent of the argument, though, that the right hating Obama and hating his policies is just like the left hating Bush and his policies. The difference is that, although the left didn't really like Bush, the real hatred came as a result of his policies; the war in Iraq, and the conversion of the budget surplus into a deficit. whereas obama was the satanic muslim socialist america hater from day 1, and so even a recycled republican gem like the ACA became the fruit of the poisoned tree.
You handle illegal immigrants as they are caught. We're not going to deport all of them obviously. We're not even going to come close.
What we need to do is not encourage more illegal immigration. Not enforcing our immigration laws and granting amnesty will only serve to increase illegal immigration. See amnesty in the '80s.
There is no reason we should feel obligated to live up to the words in The New Colossus. It's a nice poem especially relevant at the time it was written since we were a vast land with more resources than people. It's not part of the Constitution nor codified into law in any other way.
We do deport illegal immigrants as they are caught. Granting amnesty for past immigrants doesn't encourage new immigrants. firstly, the past immigrants didn't need that encouragement, they came here anyway. secondly, net immigration from Mexico is now 0. thirdly, the immigrants who are now coming here are those 12 year olds fleeing being drafted into narco-gangs in Central America, and they're not deciding on the basis of the odds of being granted amnesty down the line, they're trying to live another few weeks. And, fact is, refugees do get amnesty, or at least should, by American law, even though we're violating that by sending these kids back.
Immigration amnesty is a foregone conclusion. You just can't do anything else. There's more than ten million illegal immigrants, what are you going to do about it? Round them up like it's Auschwitz? No, it's time to live up to the words engraved on our Statue of Liberty. This is a nation of immigrants, the current incumbents need to stop being dicks to the new arrivals.
The idea behind immigration amnesty is that when it's implemented, American citizens won't wake up the next morning with their whole lives overturned, the way it would happen if all the tomato pickers, house construction workers, roof repairmen, housecleaners, baby sitters, etc. all vanished overnight.
Amnesty! What a disaster that would be! Everybody would wake up and find that overnight, things remained the same! OMIGOD!
One channel to oppose CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS and many many other dogmatic spokes channels for the left. yes Fox is biased to the right, but so are all the others to the left, for any hope at accurate news you have to read/watch across the spectrum and filter the propaganda from both sides.
Why would the media all be biased left? Is there a law there? Are conservatives prevented from starting theitr own channel? Other than Fox News? Could it be that there isn't a market for rightwing media? What does that mean in terms of your interpretation of the public sentiment?
conservative theory; anything that isn't going their way is some sort of shady doings by some sort of evil people, because god knows blame must be placed, and it isn't going to be placed on the thinkings and doings of the rightwingers. self-examination, self-doubt, that's a liberal thing.
That's interesting, I thought it was "Taxed Enough Already."
"Everyone is welcomed to join in seeking to achieve the Tea Party Movement goals, which are as follows:
1. Eliminate Excessive Taxes" http://www.teaparty-platform.c...
to be fair, reduce the national debt comes in second. Which brings up the fascinating question of how we are going to reduce taxes, and reduce the debt, all at the same time; as well as why they hate Obama, who is reducing the national debt without raising taxes.
That's interesting, I thought it was "Taxed Enough Already."
Tea Party's issue: Most definitely not the national debt we owe to our African American citizens whose ancestor were enslaved, and the accrued generations of wealth from the products of their lifetimes of labor that was stolen from them.
Quote: "The Tea Party and similar ultra conservative factions are forcing Republicans to keep fighting culture wars. .."
The Tea Party has no position on cultural issues. The Tea Party has no position on gay marriage, or abortion, or immigration, or drug legalization. It's a one-issue group, just like the NRA is a one-issue group. The NRA's issue is guns. The Tea Party's issue is the national debt.
I know, there are many in this world who will try to tell you different. Most of those are either liberals trying to tar the Tea Party, or social conservatives trying to hijack it. Neither group are tea partiers. (And IMHO, Ted Cruz is no Tea Partier either. He walked away from us to do his own thing shortly after getting elected.)
OK, let's go with that, and relate it to their hatred of Obama and rabid desire to overthrow his disastrous rule of terror:
"Tea Party Needs A New Issue: Federal Deficit Really, Truly Is Disappearing" http://www.forbes.com/sites/st... says Forbes magazine, of all socialist leftie rags.
Slashdot Mirror
Make it 440Hz; then I can tune my piano from it.
All the 60 hz hum is annoying enough, please don't make it 440......
I can see AC to the doorstep a big efficient whole house power supply that has 12vdc and 48vdc rails that are distributed thorough the house and battery backed, and few 220v "appliance circuits" off the AC.
48V and 12V lines are far too low to be sage and/or sensible. Remember that the power used is equal to the voltage times the current and that the heating of the wire carrying the current goes as the square of that current. Typical house wiring is good for ~30A of current and supplies several plugs in a room typically. With a 12V circuit you limit the power of all the devices connected to this circuit to 360W vs. the 6.6kW you get now (or 3.3kW if you live in North America). Even with a 48V circuit you only get 1.44 kW. The result is that either you need to rewire the entire house with massively thick, and therefore expensive, cables to carry the far higher currents or you need to use a higher voltage for transmission. Even the factor of two reduction between Europe and Canada/US is noticeable for some devices: electric heaters are far punier than their European counterparts, kettles take far longer to boil, and Electric lawnmowers are practically useless etc. If you drop the voltage by another factor of 2-10 below even Canada/US then almost all devices will be impacted.
Basically, time to split the union of lighting and motor power that made Edison's vision possible, and go to low voltage LED lighting while leaving the 110 volts for everything that needs more than some tens of watts. Also a network of data ports that supply USB voltage/currents for our computerized needs.
DC in the home is only viable due to recent advances in power silicon. AC has its problems, but the genius of AC power is that you can controll it with nothing more than carefully arranged windings of wire and big chunks of metal. Transformers, inductors, capacitors, and resisters can all be made with nothing more than properly arranged and chosen wires and metal blocks. There was no practical DC-DC conversion in Edison's day. Even AC/DC conversion was tricky, often requiring an AC motor with a shaft mechanically linked to a DC generator.
Edison did not have the IGBT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
Today, that's different.
You can make tiny, tiny, cheap little AC-DC or DC-DC converters that are dozens of times cheaper and many more times efficient than their counterparts made even a decade ago. What used to require large arrays of MOSFETs and many many pounds of expensive copper windings (And the design/volume/heatsinks/fans to deal with all the waste heat!) is now handled by a much smaller transformer, a handful of inductors, and some advanced switching silicon controlled by a fairly smart processor. You also, thanks to increased efficiency, don't need to overbuild with expensive heat tolerant components so much. (Heat shortens component lifetimes, particularly caps)
And they're already deeply commoditized because, guess what, the chinese are big in to solar. (They know they are going to need it. They're quite aware that traditional energy can't economically fully meet their future demand.)
I still have my WWII surplus dynamotor designed to convert low voltage DC to high voltage 400 hz for aircraft purposes. hasn't been too useful thus far, but someday might come in handy.
There is a dead elephant to prove it.
If he had simultaneously ran DC to a 'control' elephant and it remained unharmed, you might be on the way to proving something.
Can you prove that he did not? Bwa, and may I add, ha ha.
Had occasion to take apart my electric (plug in ) lawnmower the other month, and was surprised to see that the motor was not an AC motor, but a DC motor with a big fat bridge rectifier sitting on top of it. Anybody who can explain why will have my gratitude. (Can't be for compatibility with the battery operated mowers, because it's a 110 v DC motor, while the battery models top out at 48 v).
The aircraft carrier made of sawdust and ice was to be used in the north atlantic, where it would be subject to u-boat attacks. Not in the tropics.
"We have sighted the Titanic, captain"
"Full steam ahead! Ramming speed!"
You're the sort of person who screams at the TV, or gets angry at talkback radio. There aren't any foundries gearing up for wood chips. It's just an interesting piece of materials science. Imagine some sort of genetic engineering that could grow a cellulose structure with semi-conducting channels. Then go take a cold shower.
Now that you mention it,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Slayman CL, Long WS, Gradmann D (1976). "Action potentials in Neurospora crassa , a mycelial fungus". Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 426 (4): 737–744. doi:10.1016/0005-2736(76)90138-3. PMID 130926.
Mummert H, Gradmann D (1991). "Action potentials in Acetabularia: measurement and simulation of voltage-gated fluxes". Journal of Membrane Biology 124 (3): 265–273. doi:10.1007/BF01994359. PMID 1664861.
Just sayin, with a wood processor you could have a truly native HCF instruction.
No longer would autocorrect have to fix "wood processor".
don't be so hasty, hipsters and lumbersexuals need to promote something they understand, ie. not heavy chemistry.
I'm researching organic data integration and processing devices, made of organic materials, largely proteins suspended in solutions and gels, powered by oxidation of simple carbohydrates. Rather than purely electrically, signals will be transferred by a hybrid chemical/electrical process involving transfer of ions between compartments of conducting saline solutions, isolated by nonconducting layers of hydrocarbons, with said transfer both dependent on and altering the electric potentials.
Data will be processed in a revolutionary manner, avoiding the bottlenecks of the von Neumann architecture; holistically, rather than using separate memory and processing areas. It will be built of similar microscopic processing units, each of which integrates several inputs into one output, handed off to similar units. this provides for a great deal of plasticity, as well as failure tolerance, as functions are mostly not locked into a single substructure, but can be rerouted if local damage occurs.
this model can be easily enhanced to provide for the unit having limited sensory capability, mobility and a self-maintenance capacity which allows it to seek and consume fuel when necessary, avoid damaging environments, etc. etc.; to some degree it will be self-programming. Ultimately new units will be constructed and initially programmed by other similar units.
Right now my goal is to investigate this latter function, of replication of new units as a result of interfacing between previous units. At this stage, I am more interested in the initial steps only of the process, and do not intend production of actual units, which would strain research resources. This would make it possible to study a large number of these initial interfaces with many of the numerous working examples locally available for study and experimentation in this area; however I currently lack the funding to engage them in this activity for sufficiently detailed experimentation and analysis, so I am seeking grants.
and won't burst into flames if it goes over 451 degrees Fahrenheit!
and bugs don't eat it.
If the computer has wood.
well, the internet, you know...
Sure, but paper-production forest do not contain 100 years old trees. The idea is to plant trees somewhere there were no tree before.
Or at least, where there are no trees currently
the northeast (connecticut, to be specific) is relatively well forested these days. the thing is, this is not the old forests from preColombian days, this is largely new forest maybe 100 years old, from when the agricultural areas gained by destroying the old forests were abandoned or converted to residential areas and suburbia. more scrubby than magnificent huge trees, if you see a 30 foot oak or red maple it's a grand and mighty entity, that kind of thing. not sure if that counts as carbon sequestration or not?
If your license is revoked, don't drive with a pressure cooker.
good thing steam cars are scarce now.
Seriously? Let me know when they start rounding up dozens of people for no reason other than they believe in a different God and then they cut off their heads and post the video online. You fucking idiot, stupidity on the part of a few cops doesn't mean we're living under ISIS. Maybe you'd like to try living in the caliphate. Let me know and I'll buy the ticket if you promise to keep your ignorant fucking ass there.
http://www.theatlantic.com/pol... http://www.washingtonpost.com/... http://www.bbc.com/news/world-... https://books.google.com/books...
Paranoia, it's what terrorists want. It looks like they have thoroughly and completely beaten the government of the USA.
Order of words mixed up you have.
Government of the USA lives on diet of paranoia in voters, inflated by terrorism.
The terrorists are the Federal Government of the United States; their enemy is We the People
Of course. Because when a bomb does go off, We the People never demand that everybody's pockets be searched ten times a day, do We the People? No, it's those Federal Government guys who are at fault, always.
that's reminiscent of the argument, though, that the right hating Obama and hating his policies is just like the left hating Bush and his policies.
I must not have communicated very clearly then, since what I actually believe and was trying to communicate was something more like this...
that's reminiscent of the argument, though, that the right hating Obama and hating his policies is nothing like the left hating Bush and his policies.
oh now i get it. i should not post while awake, my mind is too jumpy.
"Women in their 20s account for more than half of all abortions: "
Most of the rest were men.
Kidding!
You've grossly mischaracterized me and my stances.
I said I feel an obligation to align my vote with my moral stances on issues, which I was pointing out comes at the cost of being able to align my vote with any of the other stances I may have. I never said that I find my own beliefs to be unfair or wrong. As you implied, it'd be ridiculous to knowingly hold onto ideas you're aware are wrong.
And sorry if this is a bit of a soapbox issue for me, but who said anything about hating gays? At least for me, when it comes to the hot-button topic of marriage, my firm stance is that the government should stay out of it, regardless of which way someone swings. Legal unions should be available to anyone that want them, and should come with all of the expected tax breaks and other legal benefits, plus all of the expected legal obligations and financial responsibilities. In contrast, marriage is an entirely separate concept that means different things to different people, so it's best left to individuals, organizations, or religions to decide whether they want to ignore it, treat it as a pleasant tradition, or incorporate it into their religious practices.
Speaking more broadly, sure, I consider homosexuality to be a sinful practice based on what the Bible says, but I could say the same about eating too much, lying, getting drunk, stealing, or even just engaging in lustful thoughts, so it's always struck me as incongruous that homesexuals get singled out as being a group that I allegedly hate. What about the others? Why don't I get accused of hating them too? After all, from what I can tell, I have just as much cause to hate drunks, gluttons, and people with filthy minds...
I get that there are religious types who can and do engage in hateful attitudes towards homosexuals, and it's hopefully obvious by now what my stance is towards the validity of those attitudes. But what about our shared responsibility to assess people on their own merits, rather than on the basis of a convenient stereotype that lets us marginalize them? As a site, we're too quick to apply the "hateful and intolerant" religious stereotype label to folks around here as soon as they profess a religious belief, without ever finding out what they actually believe.
Yes, stereotypes oftentimes have a basis in reality, and you'll run into people for whom the stereotype is a good fit, but that doesn't excuse us to dismiss people according to racial, religious, gender, national, or sexual orientation stereotypes that don't fit, just because they fall into one of those categories. We all should be making a concerted effort to stamp out bigotry, whether it's aimed at someone on the basis of their religion, their sexual orientation, or some other irrelevant piece of data.
that's reminiscent of the argument, though, that the right hating Obama and hating his policies is just like the left hating Bush and his policies. The difference is that, although the left didn't really like Bush, the real hatred came as a result of his policies; the war in Iraq, and the conversion of the budget surplus into a deficit. whereas obama was the satanic muslim socialist america hater from day 1, and so even a recycled republican gem like the ACA became the fruit of the poisoned tree.
You handle illegal immigrants as they are caught. We're not going to deport all of them obviously. We're not even going to come close.
What we need to do is not encourage more illegal immigration. Not enforcing our immigration laws and granting amnesty will only serve to increase illegal immigration. See amnesty in the '80s.
There is no reason we should feel obligated to live up to the words in The New Colossus. It's a nice poem especially relevant at the time it was written since we were a vast land with more resources than people. It's not part of the Constitution nor codified into law in any other way.
We do deport illegal immigrants as they are caught. Granting amnesty for past immigrants doesn't encourage new immigrants. firstly, the past immigrants didn't need that encouragement, they came here anyway. secondly, net immigration from Mexico is now 0. thirdly, the immigrants who are now coming here are those 12 year olds fleeing being drafted into narco-gangs in Central America, and they're not deciding on the basis of the odds of being granted amnesty down the line, they're trying to live another few weeks. And, fact is, refugees do get amnesty, or at least should, by American law, even though we're violating that by sending these kids back.
Immigration amnesty is a foregone conclusion. You just can't do anything else. There's more than ten million illegal immigrants, what are you going to do about it? Round them up like it's Auschwitz? No, it's time to live up to the words engraved on our Statue of Liberty. This is a nation of immigrants, the current incumbents need to stop being dicks to the new arrivals.
The idea behind immigration amnesty is that when it's implemented, American citizens won't wake up the next morning with their whole lives overturned, the way it would happen if all the tomato pickers, house construction workers, roof repairmen, housecleaners, baby sitters, etc. all vanished overnight.
Amnesty! What a disaster that would be! Everybody would wake up and find that overnight, things remained the same! OMIGOD!
One channel to oppose CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS and many many other dogmatic spokes channels for the left. yes Fox is biased to the right, but so are all the others to the left, for any hope at accurate news you have to read/watch across the spectrum and filter the propaganda from both sides.
Why would the media all be biased left? Is there a law there? Are conservatives prevented from starting theitr own channel? Other than Fox News? Could it be that there isn't a market for rightwing media? What does that mean in terms of your interpretation of the public sentiment? conservative theory; anything that isn't going their way is some sort of shady doings by some sort of evil people, because god knows blame must be placed, and it isn't going to be placed on the thinkings and doings of the rightwingers. self-examination, self-doubt, that's a liberal thing.
The Tea Party's issue is the national debt.
That's interesting, I thought it was "Taxed Enough Already."
"Everyone is welcomed to join in seeking to achieve the Tea Party Movement goals, which are as follows:
1. Eliminate Excessive Taxes" http://www.teaparty-platform.c...
to be fair, reduce the national debt comes in second. Which brings up the fascinating question of how we are going to reduce taxes, and reduce the debt, all at the same time; as well as why they hate Obama, who is reducing the national debt without raising taxes.
The Tea Party's issue is the national debt.
That's interesting, I thought it was "Taxed Enough Already."
Tea Party's issue: Most definitely not the national debt we owe to our African American citizens whose ancestor were enslaved, and the accrued generations of wealth from the products of their lifetimes of labor that was stolen from them.
Quote: "The Tea Party and similar ultra conservative factions are forcing Republicans to keep fighting culture wars. . ."
The Tea Party has no position on cultural issues. The Tea Party has no position on gay marriage, or abortion, or immigration, or drug legalization. It's a one-issue group, just like the NRA is a one-issue group. The NRA's issue is guns. The Tea Party's issue is the national debt.
I know, there are many in this world who will try to tell you different. Most of those are either liberals trying to tar the Tea Party, or social conservatives trying to hijack it. Neither group are tea partiers. (And IMHO, Ted Cruz is no Tea Partier either. He walked away from us to do his own thing shortly after getting elected.)
OK, let's go with that, and relate it to their hatred of Obama and rabid desire to overthrow his disastrous rule of terror: "Tea Party Needs A New Issue: Federal Deficit Really, Truly Is Disappearing" http://www.forbes.com/sites/st... says Forbes magazine, of all socialist leftie rags.