I don't give a fuck if I'm voted down as a troll or not.
Bradley manning gave info to the enemy. PROVEN. Bin Laden used that info. PROVEN.
Obama & the MSM have been hammering on how bad wikileaks was in "stealing the presidential election." Now he commutes the sentence of a traitor who leaked info to wikileaks.
Not decreasing CO2 emissions will fuck them over. Let's be clear here, most of those who suddenly have this great concern for the plight of the developing world when the topic of fossil fuel use reductions come up couldn't give a burning piece of shit about the fate of people in the developing world. It's all about trying to stave off the inevitable decline in the use of fossil fuels, and, presumably, the decline in returns from fossil fuel company stocks.
That's a nice stock answer, but it's bullshit. First, you think there is "manmade global warming." Personally, I think that's bullshit as well, but I think we can both agree that even on the most extreme scale presented, your worst case of global warming is half a century to well over a century away. Again, I think it's bullshit, but it's far enough to not matter.
Second, I don't think anyone has a "great concern for the plight of the developing world when the topic of fossil fuel use reductions come up." Coal is the best tool for the job. You're thinking "Hey, these coal people suddenly give a fuck about these dirt poor Africans when they can make a sale" when you should be thinking "Coal is the best and cheapest option for dirt poor people and, BTW, it keeps them from cooking their food with shit."
Third, it isn't trying to "stave off the inevitable decline of fossil fuels." I have no money involved in fossil fuels. But I do believe in common sense. Fossil fuels, which is a misnomer, are cheap energy. Extremely cheap. There are other options available but use the best option for the job.
Fourth, it's liberals like you that are fucking those people over. Again, they are cooking food with shit. SHIT. While liberals have been fawning over themselves with cries about how the planet is doomed in twenty years for over fifty years, they jet all over the world while ignoring people are cooking their food with shit. Even worse than ignoring, actively denying these needy people cheap fuel.
Dude, that's just stupid. I love how people make such arguments. "This is the cheapest option available but because there is a businessman in charge, he'll pick more expensive options."
You're right, the businessman will indeed choose the cheapest option -- for him. Which in this case means the option that lets him pay off the political debts to his oil-company backers, stick it to the liberals, and ignore climate change completely, because who cares?
Of course that will be the most expensive option for the rest of humanity, but that hardly matters for Mr. Trump, by the time the shit hits the fan, he'll have already earned his money.
Funny you should say that because Obama was notorious for picking the most expensive option for the very reasons you listed.
Are you seriously asserting that dung-burning in developing nations somehow produces more pollution and CO2 than burning coal?
Yes. That is exactly my point. People are BURNING SHIT TO COOK THEIR FOOD & FOR WARMTH and I am totally focused on pollution & CO2. Let's completely ignore COOKING FOOD WITH SHIT and stay focused on CO2.
But hey, screw them right? They probably aren't smart enough to use recyclable cups at their Starbucks, right?
1) No 2) Coal is a hell of a lot better than what Africans are using now. But tell you what, you start burning dung to heat your food and in a year get back to me about your thoughts on coal.
The future is solar but when Hillary talked about the economic boon from solar, she fails to mention all of those brand new solar panels will be built in China.
However, it will not matter in US. At least for the next four years, the US has a government in denial..
Dude, that's just stupid. I love how people make such arguments. "This is the cheapest option available but because there is a businessman in charge, he'll pick more expensive options."
Or are you saying that just because someone disagrees with you, he knows less than you and is just in denial. After all, disagreeing with you means he has to be in denial, right?
Solar has ALWAYS been the future, but you don't punish consumers by forcing more expensive energy on them when it isn't ready.
Solar will get here. It may be here in 10 years. It may take 20 or 30 or even 50. But it will get here.
Until then, use the cheapest energy possible, the best energy for the application, and the best energy source available for that region. For example, Africa needs coal. Now. However, people who hate coal are punishing Africans.
with ransomware is if you pay the ransom, they unlock your data.
It seems weird to say it is a business, but as long as the criminals don't screw over the victims, the victims know they can pay and not lose anything.
The states are won by a popular vote. Popular vote, not by county. So you can draw the county lines any way you wish. You could draw them as octagons, squares, vertical columns, horizontal slices, or even by random zigzagging. It won't affect the Presidential vote because state electors are decided by popular vote, not county vote.
Saying the states were gerrymandered was funny. Some actually arguing that that county gerrymandering affects the Presidential vote is even more funny.
I have two words for anyone who denies Trump's racism: "Gonzalo Curiel." Recent. Clear-cut. Racism.
While Trump shouldn't have said that, I should point out that every time some SJW says that a "A white jury or judge can't judge a black person" or "A woman has to be in charge of this" or "A white person can't be the head of this dept" or the accusation of racism every time a cop shoots a minority, or any other time liberals say that this job can't be done by a certain race or sex, that's the same thing. Yes, it's wrong, but if you are going to call it out on Trump, you need to call it out everywhere else as well.
You're conflating laws with oaths. All electors take oaths.
Anyway, you're arguing idiocy. You're argument is just as valid as "the popular vote was tied", "well, her votes were close enough", "They should vote this way just because", or "They can just pick a random person."
Again, the winner of the World Series is the team that wins four games, not the team that scores the most runs total.
Rules are rules. If Trump supporters are allowed to handwave away concerns about the popular vote, then Hillary supporters should be able to handwave away concerns about the electors changing their votes.
Rules are rules. Under the rules the popular votes doesn't count. It's like saying the winner of the World Series is the team that scored the most run, not the team that won more games.
You on autopilot still? Or are you an astroturfing bot?
I'm agreeing with you! And the rules are the electors could elect Hillary Clinton for president if they felt like it. That's the main topic here. If your opinion of the EC is "rules are rules" then you shouldn't have any problem with this whatsoever, right? Citizens should be able to ask the electoral college to exercise their conscience to elect Hillary President and if they do so then that's fine because the rules allow that, right?
No, what you are trying to do is create a false equivalency between popular votes and electoral votes. They are not equal.
What you are also trying to do is say that any outcome is ethically and morally the same. You see no difference between electors breaking their oath and electing Hillary and the electors upholding their oaths and voting for Trump. Or even breaking their oath and picking one of their own as President. Or picking some random person to be President. All of those outcomes are the exact same to you.
Rules are rules. If Trump supporters are allowed to handwave away concerns about the popular vote, then Hillary supporters should be able to handwave away concerns about the electors changing their votes.
Rules are rules. Under the rules the popular votes doesn't count. It's like saying the winner of the World Series is the team that scored the most run, not the team that won more games.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't give a fuck if I'm voted down as a troll or not.
Bradley manning gave info to the enemy. PROVEN. Bin Laden used that info. PROVEN.
Obama & the MSM have been hammering on how bad wikileaks was in "stealing the presidential election." Now he commutes the sentence of a traitor who leaked info to wikileaks.
DVDs are a dying business. The future is streaming. Who doesn't know that?
You people that voted this "troll" are humorless idiots.
Yeesh.
the last guy that can reveal the truth of the faked lunar landings?
It may work eventually, but it's a boondoggle for construction companies and mayors/governors.
So medium is now a small?
Ignoring every other element in the environment, terrestrial & galactically, makes you an idiot.
Not decreasing CO2 emissions will fuck them over. Let's be clear here, most of those who suddenly have this great concern for the plight of the developing world when the topic of fossil fuel use reductions come up couldn't give a burning piece of shit about the fate of people in the developing world. It's all about trying to stave off the inevitable decline in the use of fossil fuels, and, presumably, the decline in returns from fossil fuel company stocks.
That's a nice stock answer, but it's bullshit. First, you think there is "manmade global warming." Personally, I think that's bullshit as well, but I think we can both agree that even on the most extreme scale presented, your worst case of global warming is half a century to well over a century away. Again, I think it's bullshit, but it's far enough to not matter.
Second, I don't think anyone has a "great concern for the plight of the developing world when the topic of fossil fuel use reductions come up." Coal is the best tool for the job. You're thinking "Hey, these coal people suddenly give a fuck about these dirt poor Africans when they can make a sale" when you should be thinking "Coal is the best and cheapest option for dirt poor people and, BTW, it keeps them from cooking their food with shit."
Third, it isn't trying to "stave off the inevitable decline of fossil fuels." I have no money involved in fossil fuels. But I do believe in common sense. Fossil fuels, which is a misnomer, are cheap energy. Extremely cheap. There are other options available but use the best option for the job.
Fourth, it's liberals like you that are fucking those people over. Again, they are cooking food with shit. SHIT. While liberals have been fawning over themselves with cries about how the planet is doomed in twenty years for over fifty years, they jet all over the world while ignoring people are cooking their food with shit. Even worse than ignoring, actively denying these needy people cheap fuel.
Dude, that's just stupid. I love how people make such arguments. "This is the cheapest option available but because there is a businessman in charge, he'll pick more expensive options."
You're right, the businessman will indeed choose the cheapest option -- for him. Which in this case means the option that lets him pay off the political debts to his oil-company backers, stick it to the liberals, and ignore climate change completely, because who cares?
Of course that will be the most expensive option for the rest of humanity, but that hardly matters for Mr. Trump, by the time the shit hits the fan, he'll have already earned his money.
Funny you should say that because Obama was notorious for picking the most expensive option for the very reasons you listed.
Are you seriously asserting that dung-burning in developing nations somehow produces more pollution and CO2 than burning coal?
Yes. That is exactly my point. People are BURNING SHIT TO COOK THEIR FOOD & FOR WARMTH and I am totally focused on pollution & CO2. Let's completely ignore COOKING FOOD WITH SHIT and stay focused on CO2.
But hey, screw them right? They probably aren't smart enough to use recyclable cups at their Starbucks, right?
1) No
2) Coal is a hell of a lot better than what Africans are using now. But tell you what, you start burning dung to heat your food and in a year get back to me about your thoughts on coal.
The future is solar but when Hillary talked about the economic boon from solar, she fails to mention all of those brand new solar panels will be built in China.
However, it will not matter in US. At least for the next four years, the US has a government in denial..
Dude, that's just stupid. I love how people make such arguments. "This is the cheapest option available but because there is a businessman in charge, he'll pick more expensive options."
Or are you saying that just because someone disagrees with you, he knows less than you and is just in denial. After all, disagreeing with you means he has to be in denial, right?
Solar has ALWAYS been the future, but you don't punish consumers by forcing more expensive energy on them when it isn't ready.
Solar will get here. It may be here in 10 years. It may take 20 or 30 or even 50. But it will get here.
Until then, use the cheapest energy possible, the best energy for the application, and the best energy source available for that region. For example, Africa needs coal. Now. However, people who hate coal are punishing Africans.
You want to keep the elephants alive? Keep the poachers out?
Commercialize ivory. Make it a private market. Have companies make money selling ivory. Make those companies defend and protect their elephants.
with ransomware is if you pay the ransom, they unlock your data.
It seems weird to say it is a business, but as long as the criminals don't screw over the victims, the victims know they can pay and not lose anything.
The states are won by a popular vote. Popular vote, not by county.
So you can draw the county lines any way you wish. You could draw them as octagons, squares, vertical columns, horizontal slices, or even by random zigzagging. It won't affect the Presidential vote because state electors are decided by popular vote, not county vote.
Saying the states were gerrymandered was funny. Some actually arguing that that county gerrymandering affects the Presidential vote is even more funny.
Fitbit certainly isn't buying hardware designers or UI developers. Pebble's ugly hardware was rivaled only by their hideous software UI.
You read it wrong. He wasn't trying to to the right thing. He stole the software and by doing that he inadvertently broke the system.
A smart man would have copied the software as he wrote it.
I have two words for anyone who denies Trump's racism: "Gonzalo Curiel." Recent. Clear-cut. Racism.
While Trump shouldn't have said that, I should point out that every time some SJW says that a "A white jury or judge can't judge a black person" or "A woman has to be in charge of this" or "A white person can't be the head of this dept" or the accusation of racism every time a cop shoots a minority, or any other time liberals say that this job can't be done by a certain race or sex, that's the same thing. Yes, it's wrong, but if you are going to call it out on Trump, you need to call it out everywhere else as well.
if it's hate speech that @jack agrees with. @jack is a hypocritical asshole and everyone knows it.
The states have now been gerrymandered. Oh dear, that was funny.
The states are made up of counties. What you said wasn't funny. It was just sad. I'm just sad for you now.
You do realize that each state is won by popular vote, yes? So it doesn't matter how the counties are drawn in a national election.
Electors from 21 states took no such oaths.
You're conflating laws with oaths. All electors take oaths.
Anyway, you're arguing idiocy. You're argument is just as valid as "the popular vote was tied", "well, her votes were close enough", "They should vote this way just because", or "They can just pick a random person."
Again, the winner of the World Series is the team that wins four games, not the team that scores the most runs total.
Rules are rules. If Trump supporters are allowed to handwave away concerns about the popular vote, then Hillary supporters should be able to handwave away concerns about the electors changing their votes.
Rules are rules. Under the rules the popular votes doesn't count. It's like saying the winner of the World Series is the team that scored the most run, not the team that won more games.
You on autopilot still? Or are you an astroturfing bot?
I'm agreeing with you! And the rules are the electors could elect Hillary Clinton for president if they felt like it. That's the main topic here. If your opinion of the EC is "rules are rules" then you shouldn't have any problem with this whatsoever, right? Citizens should be able to ask the electoral college to exercise their conscience to elect Hillary President and if they do so then that's fine because the rules allow that, right?
No, what you are trying to do is create a false equivalency between popular votes and electoral votes. They are not equal.
What you are also trying to do is say that any outcome is ethically and morally the same. You see no difference between electors breaking their oath and electing Hillary and the electors upholding their oaths and voting for Trump. Or even breaking their oath and picking one of their own as President. Or picking some random person to be President. All of those outcomes are the exact same to you.
Rules are rules. If Trump supporters are allowed to handwave away concerns about the popular vote, then Hillary supporters should be able to handwave away concerns about the electors changing their votes.
Rules are rules. Under the rules the popular votes doesn't count. It's like saying the winner of the World Series is the team that scored the most run, not the team that won more games.