In the interest of keeping this concise, I chose to only hit the highlights but hope that I have in no way changed or distorted your context.
I think I know better, it's really hard to not say anything.
And that's the crux of the issue right there. You think you know better and yet, people who have made it their life's work more than likely do.
Oh yes, the ocean temperatures that we can't quantify like surface temperatures. We simply lack data to be useful in this area.
Who is this "we" that you refer to. "We" actually have very accurate ways to measure temperature and have been using them for decades now.
As for the 1930s, admit I'm right.
No, you're not right. Belief confirmation is a bitch but mankind developed a way of minimizing it's effect. We refer to this as the "Scientific method" and you would do well to become familiar with it. It isn't perfect but if you actually understood how it worked you would know the difference between making reasonable assumptions in order to test a theory and "cooking the numbers."
I'm sorry if you felt I was lambasting you. I threw in Algore for a couple of reasons.
Perish the thought. I didn't take your remark as being a personal attack. I found it interesting that you rightfully demand respect from others but don't feel the need to reciprocate.
Try as I might, I can find the article cited, talked about, I can't find anything about the data itself, how it was collected, method, anything.
While I can't explicitly quantify the amount of studies which have been peer reviewed and published, suffice it to say it is certainly in the thousands and more likely in the tens of thousands. It's not that the data isn't out there, it's simply a matter than you somehow can't seem to find it. Amazingly, that is nothing short of baffling.
As I said - baffle with bullshit.
Yes, yes you did.
This area is so saturated with assholes with an opinion it's challenging to find real scientific articles on it.
I honestly believe that you believe this. Seriously, I do. And yet, with all of your accomplishments that you filled us in on previously, you somehow can't locate articles that the scientific community has authored, reviewed, published, and discussed. Baffling.
He paid a lot for people like you to believe what you do.
Yes, people wasted a metric boatload of money to get other people to believe in a made up fairy tale.
Personally, I don't find this subject very appealing from an educational standpoint. Rather, I am enjoying this discussion with you based on my informal love of the science of Agnotology.
Beginning in the 1980s, when I was first introduced to the concept, I began collecting examples of this technique and have become somewhat adept at recognizing it when I see it. One of my favorite examples is the Heartland Institute's Please Don't Poop in My Salad.
Granted, more egregious tomes have been published but no one gets it quite a right as the Heartland Institute. From the title, right down to the last page, everything they present just feels right. Yes, any number of assertions and carefully manipulated facts are included but no one will ever outdo the carefully engineered presentation when it comes to making something so unpalatable sound so wonderful.
You know what, I owe you an unqualified apology. I got pissed off with you and implied that you were a moronic skeptic and that was uncalled for. Since you have decided to be the better man in this discussion, let me see if I can briefly put the facts in front of you.
So, in that vein, let's start with this claim by yours truly.
Then we have the hottest decade in the 20th century - the 1930s.
No, the 1930s were not the warmest in the last century and not by a long shot. The information you based your claim on is profoundly flawed as it ignore ocean temperature changes. Given that the ocean covers the overwhelming majority of the earth's surface, I have no idea how any credible researcher could make that horrific a mistake.
The above concerns break the scientific method, therefore it's almost certain it's not CO2 causing it.
Feel free to think about that assertion in light ot the new evidence.
Algore's
Damn, did you really just do that? Seriously? And you did this after verbally lambasting me for stopping to lump you in with the people who call Al Gore, Algore?
Liars, cheats and swindlers often try to baffle people with bullshit.
Indeed.
Where's the theory (CO2 is causing GW), where's the experiment (yea, where is the experiment), can we reproduce this result (nope, sure can't. Not even in computer models.
It isn't that we have a lot more to learn, we certainly do. And you are most welcome to be skeptical, but only if you can actually present more than some guy's blog who ended up being shown he was completely inept.
And who is Alex Epstein? Why he's "An energy philosopher, debater, and communications consultant, the Founder and President of the Center for Industrial Progress and head of the I Love Fossil Fuels Campaign." He is also the author of, "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.
In short, he's an asshole with an opinion, not a scientist but he is a shill plugging his own book. Sadly, you are right. There are any number of people who are making money on this issue but most of them are on your side.
I'm sorry. There is no controversy. The world is not flat.
Same time, ignore all of the scientists with decades upon decades of experience that disagree with the ones that say CO2 is causing GW.
Are you referring to the roughly 3% who have questionable motives for the positions they hold? Because that's exactly the reality the situation. Now, I personally would be thrilled to see any credible individual or group who could present any peer reviewed evidence that backs up your assertions - but there are none. And that's the problem, any scientist who could prove beyond any reasonable doubt that climate change wasn't caused by human being (to whatever extent they could) would be instantly famous - and yet, no one has stepped to meet that challenge.
Even though there is absolutely no scientific proof that CO2 has anything to do with warming, other than a symptom.
Bullshit. There is a mountain of proof - even though because you can't even begin to understand it you are suspicious.
You see warming, later you see an increase in CO2.
That has nothing to do with anything - but I would like to credit you with knowing that. We do, for example, know that CO2 is a gas which does cause heat to be trapped in our atmosphere. As far as I know, aside from you and a small group of moronic skeptics, no one is saying otherwise.
There's a huge motive to say CO2 is causing it - people making trillions off of carbon credits. They then fund those saying it's causing it.
And you somehow can say that without acknowledging that an incredibly larger amount of money is being made from burning fossil fuels? And even in knowing that you somehow choose to believe that it must be the all those people making "trillions off of carbon credits" as if that statement can be accepted at face value.
Buy politicians to see to it no government scientists disagree with them, if they do they're fired.
Implicit in your statement is an absurd absence of all of the people in the fossil fuel business who buy politicians - or don't you believe in that reality either?
I've personally seen it done in the 1990s.
What? Wait a God Damn minute! Some guy on the Internet is stating that he has seen this personally? Well stop the fucking presses. I had no idea.
Before you mod me down or flame me, show me.
First off, I don't mod people when I am commenting, that is not how the discussion should be handled. As far as flaming you, I'm having a hard time taking you seriously. And if I come off as being sarcastic, it's only because you spit in the faces of tens of thousands of highly educated people, all of whom have taken the position that they are convinced to the point of laying their professional credibility on the line to state that they know CO2 does cause climate change.
Where is there ANY proof that CO2 is actually the cause of GW. Show me that even though water levels have been rising for at least the past 1000 years, somehow it's man's fault now. Look at Venice Italy - we know they were trying to keep the Adriatic out in the 14th century.
Let's make sure we understand each other. The overwhelming percentage of people who should be allowed to voice a professional opinion have done so. Yes, a small portion of those people have indicated doubts to varying degrees but the entire scientific community is almost without credible exception stating with a very high level of certainty that mankind has caused this crisis. And no, water levels have not been rising for the last thousand years, not at the rate they are today but you just keep on pointing out irrelevant factoids that you believe back up your already thoroughly debunked bullshit because it's your right. You have the right to be disrespected by every thinking individual when you open your mouth and spout garbage.
And for my sake, I'm just here to exercise my right to tell you that you are completely full of it. You're welcome.
The very idea that every person's opinion must be accorded the same value is so profoundly absurd that is should cause intense physical pain to anyone who believes it.
I can accept my limitations. To my way of thinking, life is too short for anyone to master everything. The fact that I don't have a background which provides me with the level of knowledge necessary to offer any substantive opposing view to climatologists also allows me to accept their determination of the situation. This is not a failing on my part. Instead, I see this as rational and sane as opposed to anyone who believes they have to double check a scientist and based on that belief should have standing in an argument.
I'm kinda sick of fuck-sticks who accept all (so called) science as fact w/o question then brow beat those who may be a little more cautious
No shit! Can you imagine how bad the world be if every single uneducated prick wasn't seen as being as capable of understanding incredibly complex issues on equal footing as those who have studied these issues for decades? I mean, let's face it, your opinion should be every bit as valid as these experts because we all know your gut feeling is without question far more valuable than mountains of accumulated data.
By the way, should you be stricken with cancer, you might shun those very same scientists and make up your own cure based on your beliefs. I'm sure the rest of us here would broadly support your efforts.
The average of the instrumental record... just like last year, and the year before that. The thing that you're missing is that it's reasonable to do this to account for the fact that you've added additional stations to the dataset, which would alter the raw average.
OK...now I'm not sure if you just forgot the sarcasm tag or if you're serious.
And how about if we amortize this entire amount over five years. Wow, that comes down to a little over $26.00 per month
Ah, what a telling comment: you are so well off that $26/month just means nothing to you. Well, it means a lot to other people.
And yet more proof you have no idea what you're talking about.
That $26.00/month is repayment on the capital investment. What that means is the money paid to service the debt for the municipal network is probably about the same amount you would pay to a for profit company - unless you think that just eat that investment and don't expect a return on it.
But here's the difference. When it's a municipal network, there is no responsibility to earn a return on investment to the stockholders nor is there a need to earn a profit.
But a smart conservative like you would already understand that. Even better, a smart conservative like you could easily explain what value these subscribers receive for that additional money known as profit provides the subscriber. Feel free to explain that in detail, if you would.
Well, that's effectively what you do when you pay for stuff through government subsidies and cross-finance it with electric service.
But it isn't just their customers that are paying for it, it is all customers that are paying for it.
Yes, we're still looking for you to back that up. Do you have a shred of proof or is this just something else you made up?
If only customers were paying for it, then that $58/month service would now go up to at least $75 according to your own calculation (more likely to around $100/month),
What $58 per month service. Where did that number come from? Nowhere in my numbers did $58.00 show up so now I am curious where you got that amount.
And even if we were to accept that $75/month number most of us are paying in that neighborhood now and getting one hell of a lot less than gigabit speeds.
That reminds me, where are the majority of locals where Americans can get this magical sub-$40 dollar 20 Mbps Internet connectivity?
for the cheapest form of Internet through the municipal provider
There you go again, just making shit up. Provide a citation or I am going to tell you that you are full of shit.
That's completely uncompetitive and inefficient.
It might be if anything you were referring to had anything to do with what I mentioned.
Of course, your calculation is wrong because it neglects interest and other, indirect subsidies from the city.
So, now you want the government to earn money on the money it lends Americans to build out infrastructure at zero cost to the government? You're a swell guy. You should run for office on that platform.
And now we have indirect subsidies, ones that you have no credible source to back up? Sure, and maybe we are all terrorist too.
20 years is also too long to amortize over, because a lot of the spending has gone towards things that don't last nearly as long, and because it assumes there won't be further subsidies in the future when they need more money, as they invariably will.
Bullshit, telecommunications networks are routinely amortized over twenty years, as are cable and every other broadband delivery service buildouts with the exception of wireless.
Will Rogers once said, "When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging."
I didn't know Will knew you.
You suffer from delusions of grandeur and you haven't done shit.
Funny you should mention that. Unlike you, I actually built these networks and projects that I touched exist today on every continent except Antarctica.
Next up, please tell us how those projects were complete failures probably due to people like you not giving a crap about them rural people.
EPBâ(TM)s electric customers financed a hefty $160 million loan, while federal taxpayers paid for the other $111 million as part of the 2009 stimulus bill.
So, can you prove that any rate increases have been caused by this network that has directly impacted the electric customers? Because, if not, your argument is full of bullshit.
And what I find so absolutely incredible is your unbelievable contempt for your fellow Americans. I can't remember a time when conservatives hated everybody but themselves as much as you typify.
"The government" didn't do anything good. Tax payers all across the country paid $111 million dollars so that the good people of Chattanooga could have a new fiber network"
Yes, we did. We also paid a few billion dollars so that the people of New Orleans could put their city back in shape, helped out the people of New Jersey when they needed it after Sandy decimated them, and we probably paid money to connect you to the electrical grid back when it didn't make financial sense for private business to invest the money - but most of us aren't whining about helping out our fellow Americans - we tend to love our country. You should try it some time.
And electricity rate payers have to pay for the other $160 million dollars whether they want Internet or not, effectively a highly regressive tax, mostly paid by lower income households, in order to subsidize nerds who want fiber.
Let's see the citation or is it difficult for you to find a credible citation for you talking out your ass? And while you're at it, make sure this citation delivers more than opinions. I want to see exactly how much the electric ratepayers of Chattanooga have paid for this service - in hard numbers.
If we roll this out nationally, it amounts forcing everybody in the US to pay an average of $2000 in order to get Internet service that is faster than what they need, and more expensive than what they have.
Only $2,000 - so that amounts to a little more than two years of my current rate. And investment would give me gigabit speeds? And since that covers the entire capital investment, we can fully expect our monthly cost to drop substantially as the only real costs associated with this network would be transit (near zero cost) as well as maintenance (which on a brand new network should be also close to zero for the first couple of years.) And that sounds like a bad deal to you? No wonder why no one's listening to you! You have no clue about how to manage money and you come here to rant about this? Are you insane in addition to inept?
Realistically, most people need about 10-20 Mbps, and they can get that for less than $40 in most places.
Yes, and I have it on good authority that we only need 640K of RAM memory too.
As to that crap about 10-20 Mbps for less than $40 in most places, feel free to link to these magical places. And remember, you said MOST places - now prove it.
If Google Fiber were actually commercially successful, it would mean that the city of Chattanooga wasted $300 million in subsidies in order to deliver a more expensive Internet service than Google manages to deliver without subsidies.
The realization that no candidate can be 100% to everyone has to be accepted. My problem is that many candidates position themselves to appeal to a relatively small percentage of the voters thinking that because they scream the loudest, they have to be the largest voting block.
This needs to change.
In a more ideal system, instead of arguing over what divides us, we might try all getting together on what we can agree on.
Here are several examples:
The buying power of the majority of Americans is too low. Either prices needs to be reduced or wages need to be corrected. I suspect that both of these variables need to be addressed.
No American should be in a position of not having enough to eat, a safe place to call home, unable to better themselves through education or vocational training or to ever have to worry about health care or retirement.
Our infrastructure needs to be maintained and in many cases completely upgraded. These include; transportation, telecommunications, our energy generation and distribution, not to mention our energy hungry housing and commercial stock.
We need to take a hard look at our law enforcement, judicial and corrections systems as all of them need to be fixed. What we are currently doing is not working, is extremely expensive and wasteful of both our resources and our personal liberties.
The electoral process in this country has lost any semblance of what the American people demand - and this needs to change.
I suspect that the true discussion needs to be focused on the how but I honestly don't believe anyone would argue that the topics themselves are in question.
Even the sticker price for their Internet (apparently, $58 for 100 Mbps) is more expensive than what I'm getting here, and that isn't counting the massive subsidies
Really? Where do you live? Where I am, we get a supposed 60Mbps for $70.00/month and I bought my own equipment. A quick look at Comcast's site shows their "up to 75Mbps" package costs $76.95/month. Time Warner advertises "Speeds up to 50/5Mbps" for "$64.99 per month for 12 months" and then it goes up from there.
In other words, you are the exception, not the rule.
Chattanooga’s fiber network added to Tennessee’s already staggering municipal network costs.
Let's see the credible citation backing up that idiotic claim.
And, as with all publicly-operated networks, the burden on taxpayers forced to pay for this network went undetected.
Again with the unsubstantiated claims? This is a habit for you, isn't it?
The EPB launched Chattanooga’s project in 2010 and built the network almost entirely with taxpayer funds; EPB’s electric customers financed a hefty $160 million loan, while federal taxpayers paid for the other $111 million as part of the 2009 stimulus bill.
On no! The government did something good for the people! We can't have that. The government is undermining your erroneous dialog. The bastards!
EPB’s Internet and cable television customers will pay for the remaining $29 million.
Oh, you mean the customers will have to pay their bills of which a portion of that money will pay off that investment? Thank God none of us have to do that with for profit corporations!
High-speed Internet service is great, but there is no real demand for the speeds EPB offers, which reach nearly 200 times faster than the average broadband speed in America. EPB offers a one gigabit-per-second service to all homes and businesses in the region, yet only a handful of residents and 20 odd businesses subscribe to the exorbitant $350 per month gigabit option.
You actually had the audacity to post on Slashdot that no one wants gigabit speeds? And somehow you thought that claim would be agreed to here? That's priceless.
Ironically, most taxpayers who paid to build the network cannot themselves afford the service fee.
Which taxpayers would that be? The ones who are enjoying internet speeds for less than I pay and are paying their bills which then pay back the municipal bond or some other fictitious ones you wish existed.
More info:
Watchdog.org
You linked one of the most biased sited I have ever run across as a credible source? And then you linked the Washington Times as another source? You do understand that the Washington Times is owned by a religious cult (The Moonies) and bears no resemblance to reality, right?
No, it's readily apparent that you don't.
And therein lies the problem. You ingest garbage and believe it without questioning it. What makes that even better is that you demand citations from everyone else but the crap you post to back up your baseless assertions have zero real information provided but sell people like you a lot of opinions.
That is, regular tax payers are forced to pay for massive bandwidth that almost nobody wants or needs; but those high numbers give nerds like you a hard-on although even you can't actually use them.
Which is why Google Fiber is failing everywhere it goes? Is that what you are trying to get people to believe here?
And neither the financials nor the speeds are in dispute; it's simply that the people responsible for this kind of government waste are trying to put a positive spin on it.
And yet, not a single number is included - just mor
You know, it's not worth either of our time to continue this shit. You obviously think you know everything and who am I to tell you anything.
It's a damn shame you haven't figured out how incredibly ridiculous you are making yourself out to be, especially when you haven't quite figured out the timing of all of this. But, I have hope that someday you'll actually sit down and read the information you've been provided. Who knows? Maybe you'll even learn a little humility when you finally figure out that you can't just reinvent history and expect the rest of us to take you seriously.
The claim made by Bert64 above was, taxpayers paid for the infrastructure. Allowing the use of land for wires is not the same as paying. Bert64's remains unsubstantiated.
Oh really? When then, how does Bert64 explain all those rural telephone lines which never would have been built by for-profit companies? Well, if Bert64 can't tell you, I can. Does Bert64 know what the Universal Service Fund is and what it is used for?
False. AT&T did that.
No, they did not - and if you had read the link I provided for you previously, you would already know that.
But you are welcome to offer proof of your words, however circumstantial...
How about this, why don't you man up an admit you are completely wrong. Maybe then people here would gain a little respect for you.
If you need citations to tell you that these networks are built on public rights of ways, you really shouldn't be involved in this discussion.
Actually, I have a very good idea.
No, no you don't.
And, had you been more of reader than a writer, the history of AT&T getting a monopoly in exchange for submitting to "regulation", and the subsequent break-up of the company, would've been an eye-opener.
I am having difficulty wondering where the heck you managed to get such bad information.
At one point, there were over six thousand independent telephone companies who went into business and guess what - there was no interconnectivity - which as a bright guy like yourself has probably figured out - caused some serious problems.
It was the evil government that standardized the network, formed interconnection systems and made the telephone network work. And had there been no government involvement, it's doubtful that private industry could have made the telephone system into what you take for granted today.
Our very problems today stem from this idiotic myth of "natural monopoly". Allowing the government to offer Internet-service will worsen the problem from the current "too little competition" to "no competition". Only a Socialist ideologue would want that.
What a pile of bullshit. Do us all a favor, move to someplace that actually buys your crap because the rest of us know better.
Unlike you, I didn't just read about all of this, I built some of these networks.
I know exactly how municipal broadband is paid for: through taxes and municipal bonds.
Actually, you're wrong - but who would have guessed. Taxes are not used as it is something that many people, including myself are against. And while municipal bonds are sometimes used, PPP (Public/Private/Partnerships) are typically favored in most of the buildouts I am familiar with.
Your error is in assuming that municipal broadband does that. It doesn't.
Maybe you should ask the people of Chattanooga before you make such moronic declarations.
Yes, that is exactly what it should allow, just like it should allow us to have 23 choices of deodorants and 18 choices of sneakers. More importantly, government simple doesn't have any right to restrict these choices.
Thanks for clarifying exactly how much you know. Usually one has to really reach out to get someone such as yourself show their full range of understanding but in this case you've made it easy.
To the degree that they are monopolies, they are monopolies created by the government.
Right, because nothing says free market efficiency more than having seven sets of coax cables and fiber running to everyone's home.
Municipal broadband isn't about "the people wanting to band together and do something", it is about some people forcing others to pay for something they don't want.
Which set of people are you referring to who don't want broadband, TV and telephone delivered to them reliably and for a decent price? Please be explicit. And who are these people who would be paying for something they don't want or are you so throughly caught up in the stories you've been told that you have no idea how these projects are financed, built, run, or embraced?
And it is government that currently removes the freedom of people banding together and providing broadband access commercially, by limiting access.
Oh wait, you mean like how government should allow seven sets of coax cables and fiber running to everyone's home?
Citations? Please, give one or two examples of such companies listing the total cost of their infrastructure and the portion of it, that was paid by the taxpayers.
You ask for a citation as to how the taxpayers put the ILECs in business? Seriously? How can you get into this discussion without having even the fundamentals correct?
As a start, you do understand that the entire infrastructure is built on rights of ways and every single one of the central offices, the ones that have the prime real estate, are also a gift to the teclos, right? Then let's look at the billions collected from the telephone customers to provide universal service not to mention the billions in tax break that Pennsylvania handed out with the promise they would get broadband and never happened.
As best I can tell, you have no idea what actually brought about our telephone network or what good a regulated monopoly can be when the free market ideologues get out of the way.
""Never before in our history have enemies outside the United States been able to propagate genuinely dangerous ideas on American territory in such an effective way"
Somehow, I am sure that the ghost of Senator Joseph "tail gunner" McCarthy is smiling from the great beyond.
If we allow the government to socialize internet access, we'll wind up with a system that is constantly in need of repair, upgrades, and endless red tape to get even the slightest thing done, along with constant pressure to charge rich people more and give access away for free to poor people in the name of 'fairness...' We need to be stopping the relentless growth of big government, not find more things for them to get their paws into.
Oh, you mean unlike Comcast or any of the other quasi-monopolies we currently enjoy?
And yet, when the people want to band together and do something, you want to remove that freedom?
I lived in Vermont for quite a few years and actually met Bernie. He is exactly what you see, there's nothing fake about the guy. I am going to vote for him and I also disagree with a lot of what he says but I do believe he could bring about some much needed change. More to the point, I can't see him being pushed around by anyone.
Ted Cruz seems to be positioning himself as a Trump-lite and I can't see that being a winning ticket. About the only possibility for me is John Kasich. And, like Sanders, there are a number of things I disagree with but I think the guy has integrity and some common sense.
Individual arbitration? Why waste the time and money? Instead, just stop paying the bastards.
If enough people are upset, setup a site to coordinate these many thousands of people and issue a warning to DirectTV (or Comcast, whoever) that on a specific date, tens of thousands of users are going to refuse to pay their bill - period. To make this really effective, have an escrow account setup where the money gets deposited to show that this is a protest.
Truth be told, tens of thousands of people refusing to pay might not be enough to catch DirectTV's attention but get a few hundred thousand people threatening to withhold payment and the accountants are going to look at what that does to the cash flow and scream.
What I like about this is idea is that it's the perfect method for Americans to protest because they don't actually have to do anything, all they have to do is nothing (as in don't pay their bill). Let's face it, we, as a nation, excel at doing nothing.
In your ignorance you ignore the obvious. The Feds control the money. Don't follow the Feds program? You don't get any money! It's so simple yet you missed it.
No, sadly, I didn't miss it, you have no idea what you're talking about. And yes, the feds do exactly what you said in a number of areas but not in the schools. If you actually bothered to learn anything about how this system works, you'd know this.
How the hell do you think there would be so much difference in curriculum and in cost per student spent if the system worked the way you mistakenly think it does?
As for Rush copying the daily show, just like everything else your facts are bogus. Rush's show ran from 92-96 and the Daily Show started in 96. Wonder who copied who?
My mistake. I make them. Are you adult enough to admit yours?
What do I consider Bush? An idiot.
I guess I have a somewhat higher amount of respect for Jeb Bush but I am more inclined to agree with you as argue the point.
So, who do you like out of the entire presidential field? Personally, I am disgusted with the entire pack. The fact that Hillary Clinton is being offered by the Democrats would have me vote Republican if they offered someone like Jon Huntsman this time around - but they didn't.
You were doing okay for a minute. Now your brain farted. What the fuck does Rush Limbaugh, who I haven't heard in over 10 years or so anywhere (didn't he die or something?) have to do with anything.
Oh, we're actually going to fart jokes now. Excellent.
Since you don't seem to get your information straight form the horse's mouth, Rush Limbaugh loves to talk about how the Department of Education (under Democratic control, donchaknow) has "systematically destroyed education in this country" which is incredibly funny given that the Department of Education can only make suggestions.
One might suggest that your inability to understand this strengthens your argument but let's not assign credit where none is due.
The Department of Education has for the last 4 decades, I know because I lived through them, systematically destroyed education in this country.
Six decades for me and perhaps you can explain why Texas textbooks are rewriting history (among many of the other subjects) if the Department of Education is this all powerful entity?
Instead of bringing the students up to high standards they decided to lower the standards so that people who had a hard time passing, mostly poor people, could pass easily.
You do understand that American public schools have to accept anyone who shows up at their doors, right? That includes the kids we used to send to "those schools" kids who were malnourished (and didn't develop properly) kids who were abused and just about every other problem we seem to grow here. Somehow you neglected to comprehend that this happened during that forty years you apparently weren't paying much attention to.
I noticed that my children's books in the eighties and nineties were much less challenging than those I had when I attended school and generally their work was to a lesser standard.
Then maybe you should talk to your state or alternately move form the shithole you live in. Where I live, our schools are excellent - and you know why? Because our state spends tax payer money and works hard to make sure our kids get a great education.
And that all leads back to why you really shouldn't open your mouth in a discussion on a subject you so obviously know nothing about. Here is a table that shows you which states do a better job with education. In our state, and even making allowances for the higher than average low income people we have, we rank almost at the top. In your case, if education has gone to shit (and I am sure it could have) are probably nowhere near the top.
All this occurred during a period of time when the US department of education was mostly under the control of a liberal and "modern" leadership that decided the old ways of learning were inefficient and didn't properly serve the people of today.
Ah, but as all of the decisions are left to the states, and in many case, the local school board, maybe you should take this complaint up with your local school board - because the Department of Education has no control over what they choose to teach.
It's not entirely a Democrat thing though as Jeb Bush has sipped from the Koolaid as well.
Ah Florida, I should have guessed. Ranked at number 28, your state is below average. At least you're not Mississippi.
If only there was some federal body that was actually in charge of educational standards, maybe your state wouldn't have provided such a crappy education to your kids.
Of course Bush isn't really a conservative.
No? What do you consider him?
As to Rushbo who you hold in such disdain, I never really cared for Rush's radio show, it was 3 hours of non-stop demagoguery that got boring quickly.
Slashdot Mirror
In the interest of keeping this concise, I chose to only hit the highlights but hope that I have in no way changed or distorted your context.
I think I know better, it's really hard to not say anything.
And that's the crux of the issue right there. You think you know better and yet, people who have made it their life's work more than likely do.
Oh yes, the ocean temperatures that we can't quantify like surface temperatures. We simply lack data to be useful in this area.
Who is this "we" that you refer to. "We" actually have very accurate ways to measure temperature and have been using them for decades now.
As for the 1930s, admit I'm right.
No, you're not right. Belief confirmation is a bitch but mankind developed a way of minimizing it's effect. We refer to this as the "Scientific method" and you would do well to become familiar with it. It isn't perfect but if you actually understood how it worked you would know the difference between making reasonable assumptions in order to test a theory and "cooking the numbers."
I'm sorry if you felt I was lambasting you. I threw in Algore for a couple of reasons.
Perish the thought. I didn't take your remark as being a personal attack. I found it interesting that you rightfully demand respect from others but don't feel the need to reciprocate.
Try as I might, I can find the article cited, talked about, I can't find anything about the data itself, how it was collected, method, anything.
While I can't explicitly quantify the amount of studies which have been peer reviewed and published, suffice it to say it is certainly in the thousands and more likely in the tens of thousands. It's not that the data isn't out there, it's simply a matter than you somehow can't seem to find it. Amazingly, that is nothing short of baffling.
As I said - baffle with bullshit.
Yes, yes you did.
This area is so saturated with assholes with an opinion it's challenging to find real scientific articles on it.
I honestly believe that you believe this. Seriously, I do. And yet, with all of your accomplishments that you filled us in on previously, you somehow can't locate articles that the scientific community has authored, reviewed, published, and discussed. Baffling.
He paid a lot for people like you to believe what you do.
Yes, people wasted a metric boatload of money to get other people to believe in a made up fairy tale.
.
Personally, I don't find this subject very appealing from an educational standpoint. Rather, I am enjoying this discussion with you based on my informal love of the science of Agnotology.
Beginning in the 1980s, when I was first introduced to the concept, I began collecting examples of this technique and have become somewhat adept at recognizing it when I see it. One of my favorite examples is the Heartland Institute's Please Don't Poop in My Salad
Granted, more egregious tomes have been published but no one gets it quite a right as the Heartland Institute. From the title, right down to the last page, everything they present just feels right. Yes, any number of assertions and carefully manipulated facts are included but no one will ever outdo the carefully engineered presentation when it comes to making something so unpalatable sound so wonderful.
So, in that vein, let's start with this claim by yours truly.
Then we have the hottest decade in the 20th century - the 1930s.
No, the 1930s were not the warmest in the last century and not by a long shot. The information you based your claim on is profoundly flawed as it ignore ocean temperature changes. Given that the ocean covers the overwhelming majority of the earth's surface, I have no idea how any credible researcher could make that horrific a mistake.
The above concerns break the scientific method, therefore it's almost certain it's not CO2 causing it.
Feel free to think about that assertion in light ot the new evidence.
Algore's
Damn, did you really just do that? Seriously? And you did this after verbally lambasting me for stopping to lump you in with the people who call Al Gore, Algore?
Liars, cheats and swindlers often try to baffle people with bullshit.
Indeed.
Where's the theory (CO2 is causing GW), where's the experiment (yea, where is the experiment), can we reproduce this result (nope, sure can't. Not even in computer models.
I found dozens of similar reports, some from universities, others from Youtube and the like. You know what I didn't find, a single credible study that even tried to claim CO2 doesn't trap heat. As far as those in the scientific community are concerned, this isn't even up for debate, no more than the earth being flat or that angry humors cause upset stomachs.
It isn't that we have a lot more to learn, we certainly do. And you are most welcome to be skeptical, but only if you can actually present more than some guy's blog who ended up being shown he was completely inept.
Here's an example of just the kind of thing that should have no place in this argument. '97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong - written by Alex Epstein
And who is Alex Epstein? Why he's "An energy philosopher, debater, and communications consultant, the Founder and President of the Center for Industrial Progress and head of the I Love Fossil Fuels Campaign." He is also the author of, "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.
In short, he's an asshole with an opinion, not a scientist but he is a shill plugging his own book. Sadly, you are right. There are any number of people who are making money on this issue but most of them are on your side.
I'm sorry. There is no controversy. The world is not flat.
Same time, ignore all of the scientists with decades upon decades of experience that disagree with the ones that say CO2 is causing GW.
Are you referring to the roughly 3% who have questionable motives for the positions they hold? Because that's exactly the reality the situation. Now, I personally would be thrilled to see any credible individual or group who could present any peer reviewed evidence that backs up your assertions - but there are none. And that's the problem, any scientist who could prove beyond any reasonable doubt that climate change wasn't caused by human being (to whatever extent they could) would be instantly famous - and yet, no one has stepped to meet that challenge.
Even though there is absolutely no scientific proof that CO2 has anything to do with warming, other than a symptom.
Bullshit. There is a mountain of proof - even though because you can't even begin to understand it you are suspicious.
You see warming, later you see an increase in CO2.
That has nothing to do with anything - but I would like to credit you with knowing that. We do, for example, know that CO2 is a gas which does cause heat to be trapped in our atmosphere. As far as I know, aside from you and a small group of moronic skeptics, no one is saying otherwise.
There's a huge motive to say CO2 is causing it - people making trillions off of carbon credits. They then fund those saying it's causing it.
And you somehow can say that without acknowledging that an incredibly larger amount of money is being made from burning fossil fuels? And even in knowing that you somehow choose to believe that it must be the all those people making "trillions off of carbon credits" as if that statement can be accepted at face value.
Buy politicians to see to it no government scientists disagree with them, if they do they're fired.
Implicit in your statement is an absurd absence of all of the people in the fossil fuel business who buy politicians - or don't you believe in that reality either?
I've personally seen it done in the 1990s.
What? Wait a God Damn minute! Some guy on the Internet is stating that he has seen this personally? Well stop the fucking presses. I had no idea.
Before you mod me down or flame me, show me.
First off, I don't mod people when I am commenting, that is not how the discussion should be handled. As far as flaming you, I'm having a hard time taking you seriously. And if I come off as being sarcastic, it's only because you spit in the faces of tens of thousands of highly educated people, all of whom have taken the position that they are convinced to the point of laying their professional credibility on the line to state that they know CO2 does cause climate change.
Where is there ANY proof that CO2 is actually the cause of GW. Show me that even though water levels have been rising for at least the past 1000 years, somehow it's man's fault now. Look at Venice Italy - we know they were trying to keep the Adriatic out in the 14th century.
Let's make sure we understand each other. The overwhelming percentage of people who should be allowed to voice a professional opinion have done so. Yes, a small portion of those people have indicated doubts to varying degrees but the entire scientific community is almost without credible exception stating with a very high level of certainty that mankind has caused this crisis. And no, water levels have not been rising for the last thousand years, not at the rate they are today but you just keep on pointing out irrelevant factoids that you believe back up your already thoroughly debunked bullshit because it's your right. You have the right to be disrespected by every thinking individual when you open your mouth and spout garbage.
And for my sake, I'm just here to exercise my right to tell you that you are completely full of it. You're welcome.
Stupid is the new smart.
The very idea that every person's opinion must be accorded the same value is so profoundly absurd that is should cause intense physical pain to anyone who believes it.
I can accept my limitations. To my way of thinking, life is too short for anyone to master everything. The fact that I don't have a background which provides me with the level of knowledge necessary to offer any substantive opposing view to climatologists also allows me to accept their determination of the situation. This is not a failing on my part. Instead, I see this as rational and sane as opposed to anyone who believes they have to double check a scientist and based on that belief should have standing in an argument.
I'm kinda sick of fuck-sticks who accept all (so called) science as fact w/o question then brow beat those who may be a little more cautious
No shit! Can you imagine how bad the world be if every single uneducated prick wasn't seen as being as capable of understanding incredibly complex issues on equal footing as those who have studied these issues for decades? I mean, let's face it, your opinion should be every bit as valid as these experts because we all know your gut feeling is without question far more valuable than mountains of accumulated data.
By the way, should you be stricken with cancer, you might shun those very same scientists and make up your own cure based on your beliefs. I'm sure the rest of us here would broadly support your efforts.
OK...now I'm not sure if you just forgot the sarcasm tag or if you're serious.
Poe's Law - How does it fucking work?
Please, think before you speak.
http://www.stopthegreatlakesnucleardump.com
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/07/10/global-warming-no-satellites-show-carbon-dioxide-is-causing-global-greening/
Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest...
Apparently, you are unaware that solar energy can be stored, whether we look at photovoltaic being stored in batteries or solar thermal being stored in thermal reservoirs.
It's a new world, friend.
Ah, what a telling comment: you are so well off that $26/month just means nothing to you. Well, it means a lot to other people.
And yet more proof you have no idea what you're talking about.
That $26.00/month is repayment on the capital investment. What that means is the money paid to service the debt for the municipal network is probably about the same amount you would pay to a for profit company - unless you think that just eat that investment and don't expect a return on it.
But here's the difference. When it's a municipal network, there is no responsibility to earn a return on investment to the stockholders nor is there a need to earn a profit.
But a smart conservative like you would already understand that. Even better, a smart conservative like you could easily explain what value these subscribers receive for that additional money known as profit provides the subscriber. Feel free to explain that in detail, if you would.
Well, that's effectively what you do when you pay for stuff through government subsidies and cross-finance it with electric service.
But it isn't just their customers that are paying for it, it is all customers that are paying for it.
Yes, we're still looking for you to back that up. Do you have a shred of proof or is this just something else you made up?
If only customers were paying for it, then that $58/month service would now go up to at least $75 according to your own calculation (more likely to around $100/month),
What $58 per month service. Where did that number come from? Nowhere in my numbers did $58.00 show up so now I am curious where you got that amount.
And even if we were to accept that $75/month number most of us are paying in that neighborhood now and getting one hell of a lot less than gigabit speeds.
That reminds me, where are the majority of locals where Americans can get this magical sub-$40 dollar 20 Mbps Internet connectivity?
for the cheapest form of Internet through the municipal provider
There you go again, just making shit up. Provide a citation or I am going to tell you that you are full of shit.
That's completely uncompetitive and inefficient.
It might be if anything you were referring to had anything to do with what I mentioned.
Of course, your calculation is wrong because it neglects interest and other, indirect subsidies from the city.
So, now you want the government to earn money on the money it lends Americans to build out infrastructure at zero cost to the government? You're a swell guy. You should run for office on that platform.
And now we have indirect subsidies, ones that you have no credible source to back up? Sure, and maybe we are all terrorist too.
20 years is also too long to amortize over, because a lot of the spending has gone towards things that don't last nearly as long, and because it assumes there won't be further subsidies in the future when they need more money, as they invariably will.
Bullshit, telecommunications networks are routinely amortized over twenty years, as are cable and every other broadband delivery service buildouts with the exception of wireless.
Will Rogers once said, "When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging."
I didn't know Will knew you.
You suffer from delusions of grandeur and you haven't done shit.
Funny you should mention that. Unlike you, I actually built these networks and projects that I touched exist today on every continent except Antarctica.
The EPB launched Chattanoogaâ(TM)s project in 2010 and built the network almost entirely with taxpayer funds
Oh, you mean like when the American taxpayers funded rural electrification, Rural Telecommunications, and built an interstate highway systems to parts of rural America?
Next up, please tell us how those projects were complete failures probably due to people like you not giving a crap about them rural people.
EPBâ(TM)s electric customers financed a hefty $160 million loan, while federal taxpayers paid for the other $111 million as part of the 2009 stimulus bill.
So, can you prove that any rate increases have been caused by this network that has directly impacted the electric customers? Because, if not, your argument is full of bullshit.
And what I find so absolutely incredible is your unbelievable contempt for your fellow Americans. I can't remember a time when conservatives hated everybody but themselves as much as you typify.
"The government" didn't do anything good. Tax payers all across the country paid $111 million dollars so that the good people of Chattanooga could have a new fiber network"
Yes, we did. We also paid a few billion dollars so that the people of New Orleans could put their city back in shape, helped out the people of New Jersey when they needed it after Sandy decimated them, and we probably paid money to connect you to the electrical grid back when it didn't make financial sense for private business to invest the money - but most of us aren't whining about helping out our fellow Americans - we tend to love our country. You should try it some time.
And electricity rate payers have to pay for the other $160 million dollars whether they want Internet or not, effectively a highly regressive tax, mostly paid by lower income households, in order to subsidize nerds who want fiber.
Let's see the citation or is it difficult for you to find a credible citation for you talking out your ass? And while you're at it, make sure this citation delivers more than opinions. I want to see exactly how much the electric ratepayers of Chattanooga have paid for this service - in hard numbers.
If we roll this out nationally, it amounts forcing everybody in the US to pay an average of $2000 in order to get Internet service that is faster than what they need, and more expensive than what they have.
Only $2,000 - so that amounts to a little more than two years of my current rate. And investment would give me gigabit speeds? And since that covers the entire capital investment, we can fully expect our monthly cost to drop substantially as the only real costs associated with this network would be transit (near zero cost) as well as maintenance (which on a brand new network should be also close to zero for the first couple of years.) And that sounds like a bad deal to you? No wonder why no one's listening to you! You have no clue about how to manage money and you come here to rant about this? Are you insane in addition to inept?
Realistically, most people need about 10-20 Mbps, and they can get that for less than $40 in most places.
Yes, and I have it on good authority that we only need 640K of RAM memory too.
As to that crap about 10-20 Mbps for less than $40 in most places, feel free to link to these magical places. And remember, you said MOST places - now prove it.
If Google Fiber were actually commercially successful, it would mean that the city of Chattanooga wasted $300 million in subsidies in order to deliver a more expensive Internet service than Google manages to deliver without subsidies.
I s
The realization that no candidate can be 100% to everyone has to be accepted. My problem is that many candidates position themselves to appeal to a relatively small percentage of the voters thinking that because they scream the loudest, they have to be the largest voting block.
This needs to change.
In a more ideal system, instead of arguing over what divides us, we might try all getting together on what we can agree on.
Here are several examples:
The buying power of the majority of Americans is too low. Either prices needs to be reduced or wages need to be corrected. I suspect that both of these variables need to be addressed.
No American should be in a position of not having enough to eat, a safe place to call home, unable to better themselves through education or vocational training or to ever have to worry about health care or retirement.
Our infrastructure needs to be maintained and in many cases completely upgraded. These include; transportation, telecommunications, our energy generation and distribution, not to mention our energy hungry housing and commercial stock.
We need to take a hard look at our law enforcement, judicial and corrections systems as all of them need to be fixed. What we are currently doing is not working, is extremely expensive and wasteful of both our resources and our personal liberties.
The electoral process in this country has lost any semblance of what the American people demand - and this needs to change.
I suspect that the true discussion needs to be focused on the how but I honestly don't believe anyone would argue that the topics themselves are in question.
Even the sticker price for their Internet (apparently, $58 for 100 Mbps) is more expensive than what I'm getting here, and that isn't counting the massive subsidies
Really? Where do you live? Where I am, we get a supposed 60Mbps for $70.00/month and I bought my own equipment. A quick look at Comcast's site shows their "up to 75Mbps" package costs $76.95/month. Time Warner advertises "Speeds up to 50/5Mbps" for "$64.99 per month for 12 months" and then it goes up from there.
In other words, you are the exception, not the rule.
Chattanooga’s fiber network added to Tennessee’s already staggering municipal network costs.
Let's see the credible citation backing up that idiotic claim.
And, as with all publicly-operated networks, the burden on taxpayers forced to pay for this network went undetected.
Again with the unsubstantiated claims? This is a habit for you, isn't it?
The EPB launched Chattanooga’s project in 2010 and built the network almost entirely with taxpayer funds; EPB’s electric customers financed a hefty $160 million loan, while federal taxpayers paid for the other $111 million as part of the 2009 stimulus bill.
On no! The government did something good for the people! We can't have that. The government is undermining your erroneous dialog. The bastards!
EPB’s Internet and cable television customers will pay for the remaining $29 million.
Oh, you mean the customers will have to pay their bills of which a portion of that money will pay off that investment? Thank God none of us have to do that with for profit corporations!
High-speed Internet service is great, but there is no real demand for the speeds EPB offers, which reach nearly 200 times faster than the average broadband speed in America. EPB offers a one gigabit-per-second service to all homes and businesses in the region, yet only a handful of residents and 20 odd businesses subscribe to the exorbitant $350 per month gigabit option.
You actually had the audacity to post on Slashdot that no one wants gigabit speeds? And somehow you thought that claim would be agreed to here? That's priceless.
Ironically, most taxpayers who paid to build the network cannot themselves afford the service fee.
Which taxpayers would that be? The ones who are enjoying internet speeds for less than I pay and are paying their bills which then pay back the municipal bond or some other fictitious ones you wish existed.
More info:
Watchdog.org
You linked one of the most biased sited I have ever run across as a credible source? And then you linked the Washington Times as another source? You do understand that the Washington Times is owned by a religious cult (The Moonies) and bears no resemblance to reality, right?
No, it's readily apparent that you don't.
And therein lies the problem. You ingest garbage and believe it without questioning it. What makes that even better is that you demand citations from everyone else but the crap you post to back up your baseless assertions have zero real information provided but sell people like you a lot of opinions.
That is, regular tax payers are forced to pay for massive bandwidth that almost nobody wants or needs; but those high numbers give nerds like you a hard-on although even you can't actually use them.
Which is why Google Fiber is failing everywhere it goes? Is that what you are trying to get people to believe here?
And neither the financials nor the speeds are in dispute; it's simply that the people responsible for this kind of government waste are trying to put a positive spin on it.
And yet, not a single number is included - just mor
You know, it's not worth either of our time to continue this shit. You obviously think you know everything and who am I to tell you anything.
It's a damn shame you haven't figured out how incredibly ridiculous you are making yourself out to be, especially when you haven't quite figured out the timing of all of this. But, I have hope that someday you'll actually sit down and read the information you've been provided. Who knows? Maybe you'll even learn a little humility when you finally figure out that you can't just reinvent history and expect the rest of us to take you seriously.
Good luck with that, you'll certainly need it.
The claim made by Bert64 above was, taxpayers paid for the infrastructure. Allowing the use of land for wires is not the same as paying. Bert64's remains unsubstantiated.
Oh really? When then, how does Bert64 explain all those rural telephone lines which never would have been built by for-profit companies? Well, if Bert64 can't tell you, I can. Does Bert64 know what the Universal Service Fund is and what it is used for?
False. AT&T did that.
No, they did not - and if you had read the link I provided for you previously, you would already know that.
But you are welcome to offer proof of your words, however circumstantial...
How about this, why don't you man up an admit you are completely wrong. Maybe then people here would gain a little respect for you.
So, no citations. As expected...
If you need citations to tell you that these networks are built on public rights of ways, you really shouldn't be involved in this discussion.
Actually, I have a very good idea.
No, no you don't.
And, had you been more of reader than a writer, the history of AT&T getting a monopoly in exchange for submitting to "regulation", and the subsequent break-up of the company, would've been an eye-opener.
I am having difficulty wondering where the heck you managed to get such bad information.
At one point, there were over six thousand independent telephone companies who went into business and guess what - there was no interconnectivity - which as a bright guy like yourself has probably figured out - caused some serious problems.
It was the evil government that standardized the network, formed interconnection systems and made the telephone network work. And had there been no government involvement, it's doubtful that private industry could have made the telephone system into what you take for granted today.
Our very problems today stem from this idiotic myth of "natural monopoly". Allowing the government to offer Internet-service will worsen the problem from the current "too little competition" to "no competition". Only a Socialist ideologue would want that.
What a pile of bullshit. Do us all a favor, move to someplace that actually buys your crap because the rest of us know better.
Unlike you, I didn't just read about all of this, I built some of these networks.
I know exactly how municipal broadband is paid for: through taxes and municipal bonds.
Actually, you're wrong - but who would have guessed. Taxes are not used as it is something that many people, including myself are against. And while municipal bonds are sometimes used, PPP (Public/Private/Partnerships) are typically favored in most of the buildouts I am familiar with.
Your error is in assuming that municipal broadband does that. It doesn't.
Maybe you should ask the people of Chattanooga before you make such moronic declarations.
Yes, that is exactly what it should allow, just like it should allow us to have 23 choices of deodorants and 18 choices of sneakers. More importantly, government simple doesn't have any right to restrict these choices.
Thanks for clarifying exactly how much you know. Usually one has to really reach out to get someone such as yourself show their full range of understanding but in this case you've made it easy.
To the degree that they are monopolies, they are monopolies created by the government.
Right, because nothing says free market efficiency more than having seven sets of coax cables and fiber running to everyone's home.
Municipal broadband isn't about "the people wanting to band together and do something", it is about some people forcing others to pay for something they don't want.
Which set of people are you referring to who don't want broadband, TV and telephone delivered to them reliably and for a decent price? Please be explicit. And who are these people who would be paying for something they don't want or are you so throughly caught up in the stories you've been told that you have no idea how these projects are financed, built, run, or embraced?
And it is government that currently removes the freedom of people banding together and providing broadband access commercially, by limiting access.
Oh wait, you mean like how government should allow seven sets of coax cables and fiber running to everyone's home?
Brilliant!
Citations? Please, give one or two examples of such companies listing the total cost of their infrastructure and the portion of it, that was paid by the taxpayers.
You ask for a citation as to how the taxpayers put the ILECs in business? Seriously? How can you get into this discussion without having even the fundamentals correct?
As a start, you do understand that the entire infrastructure is built on rights of ways and every single one of the central offices, the ones that have the prime real estate, are also a gift to the teclos, right? Then let's look at the billions collected from the telephone customers to provide universal service not to mention the billions in tax break that Pennsylvania handed out with the promise they would get broadband and never happened.
As best I can tell, you have no idea what actually brought about our telephone network or what good a regulated monopoly can be when the free market ideologues get out of the way.
So, you'd rather have the real monopoly of the townhall running Internet-services, than the quasi monopolies?
Let me introduce you to Chattanooga Gig.
You might want to check them out before you say something that might embarrass yourself.
""Never before in our history have enemies outside the United States been able to propagate genuinely dangerous ideas on American territory in such an effective way"
Somehow, I am sure that the ghost of Senator Joseph "tail gunner" McCarthy is smiling from the great beyond.
If we allow the government to socialize internet access, we'll wind up with a system that is constantly in need of repair, upgrades, and endless red tape to get even the slightest thing done, along with constant pressure to charge rich people more and give access away for free to poor people in the name of 'fairness...' We need to be stopping the relentless growth of big government, not find more things for them to get their paws into.
Oh, you mean unlike Comcast or any of the other quasi-monopolies we currently enjoy?
And yet, when the people want to band together and do something, you want to remove that freedom?
I lived in Vermont for quite a few years and actually met Bernie. He is exactly what you see, there's nothing fake about the guy. I am going to vote for him and I also disagree with a lot of what he says but I do believe he could bring about some much needed change. More to the point, I can't see him being pushed around by anyone.
Ted Cruz seems to be positioning himself as a Trump-lite and I can't see that being a winning ticket. About the only possibility for me is John Kasich. And, like Sanders, there are a number of things I disagree with but I think the guy has integrity and some common sense.
Individual arbitration? Why waste the time and money? Instead, just stop paying the bastards.
If enough people are upset, setup a site to coordinate these many thousands of people and issue a warning to DirectTV (or Comcast, whoever) that on a specific date, tens of thousands of users are going to refuse to pay their bill - period. To make this really effective, have an escrow account setup where the money gets deposited to show that this is a protest.
Truth be told, tens of thousands of people refusing to pay might not be enough to catch DirectTV's attention but get a few hundred thousand people threatening to withhold payment and the accountants are going to look at what that does to the cash flow and scream.
What I like about this is idea is that it's the perfect method for Americans to protest because they don't actually have to do anything, all they have to do is nothing (as in don't pay their bill). Let's face it, we, as a nation, excel at doing nothing.
In your ignorance you ignore the obvious. The Feds control the money. Don't follow the Feds program? You don't get any money! It's so simple yet you missed it.
No, sadly, I didn't miss it, you have no idea what you're talking about. And yes, the feds do exactly what you said in a number of areas but not in the schools. If you actually bothered to learn anything about how this system works, you'd know this.
How the hell do you think there would be so much difference in curriculum and in cost per student spent if the system worked the way you mistakenly think it does?
As for Rush copying the daily show, just like everything else your facts are bogus. Rush's show ran from 92-96 and the Daily Show started in 96. Wonder who copied who?
My mistake. I make them. Are you adult enough to admit yours?
What do I consider Bush? An idiot.
I guess I have a somewhat higher amount of respect for Jeb Bush but I am more inclined to agree with you as argue the point.
So, who do you like out of the entire presidential field? Personally, I am disgusted with the entire pack. The fact that Hillary Clinton is being offered by the Democrats would have me vote Republican if they offered someone like Jon Huntsman this time around - but they didn't.
You were doing okay for a minute. Now your brain farted. What the fuck does Rush Limbaugh, who I haven't heard in over 10 years or so anywhere (didn't he die or something?) have to do with anything.
Oh, we're actually going to fart jokes now. Excellent.
Since you don't seem to get your information straight form the horse's mouth, Rush Limbaugh loves to talk about how the Department of Education (under Democratic control, donchaknow) has "systematically destroyed education in this country" which is incredibly funny given that the Department of Education can only make suggestions.
One might suggest that your inability to understand this strengthens your argument but let's not assign credit where none is due.
The Department of Education has for the last 4 decades, I know because I lived through them, systematically destroyed education in this country.
Six decades for me and perhaps you can explain why Texas textbooks are rewriting history (among many of the other subjects) if the Department of Education is this all powerful entity?
Instead of bringing the students up to high standards they decided to lower the standards so that people who had a hard time passing, mostly poor people, could pass easily.
You do understand that American public schools have to accept anyone who shows up at their doors, right? That includes the kids we used to send to "those schools" kids who were malnourished (and didn't develop properly) kids who were abused and just about every other problem we seem to grow here. Somehow you neglected to comprehend that this happened during that forty years you apparently weren't paying much attention to.
I noticed that my children's books in the eighties and nineties were much less challenging than those I had when I attended school and generally their work was to a lesser standard.
Then maybe you should talk to your state or alternately move form the shithole you live in. Where I live, our schools are excellent - and you know why? Because our state spends tax payer money and works hard to make sure our kids get a great education.
And that all leads back to why you really shouldn't open your mouth in a discussion on a subject you so obviously know nothing about. Here is a table that shows you which states do a better job with education. In our state, and even making allowances for the higher than average low income people we have, we rank almost at the top. In your case, if education has gone to shit (and I am sure it could have) are probably nowhere near the top.
All this occurred during a period of time when the US department of education was mostly under the control of a liberal and "modern" leadership that decided the old ways of learning were inefficient and didn't properly serve the people of today.
Ah, but as all of the decisions are left to the states, and in many case, the local school board, maybe you should take this complaint up with your local school board - because the Department of Education has no control over what they choose to teach.
It's not entirely a Democrat thing though as Jeb Bush has sipped from the Koolaid as well.
Ah Florida, I should have guessed. Ranked at number 28, your state is below average. At least you're not Mississippi.
If only there was some federal body that was actually in charge of educational standards, maybe your state wouldn't have provided such a crappy education to your kids.
Of course Bush isn't really a conservative.
No? What do you consider him?
As to Rushbo who you hold in such disdain, I never really cared for Rush's radio show, it was 3 hours of non-stop demagoguery that got boring quickly.
T