Let's say it's a relatively small disruption, then only 1% of population dies off. That's not too bad? That's 70 million people. If you kill 70 people, you're a serial killer. If you kill 70 million people, you're a climate change denier.
I would say more correctly, it makes you a human. It isn't only the deniers who use energy, everyone uses it. There is only so much that a single person can do, and no one is doing enough.
--along with the reply by the author, the very first point of which was "I didn't get to write the headline; the headlines are written by the editor."
I like that he points out as well that the headline was written before the article. This just sounds terrible, but is very likely just how the media industry works.
So you think he committed perjury? Perhaps you should submit the proof you have, after all, lying to the election commission is a pretty serious offence.
So few words to prove you are a partisan moron who can't read. I gave three sources in response to a request for better sources, and you are such a partisan that you won't even bother to refute any of them, just complain about the validity of a SINGLE source. Does a single source being "bad" taint all the sources? Is NBC not as good because they say the same thing?
I would take someone who negotiates business contracts as his job over what we have now "I will not negotiate with the GOP, they're as bad as terrorists" every time there is a disagreement over implementation. Obama caused the budget crisis by refusing to negotiate. Obama caused the debt ceiling crisis by refusing to negotiate. But it is always convenient when you can blame the other side "if only they would do what I want!", but that isn't how politics works, it is all about negotiation which Trump is the king of.
I quoted three sites. Just because one of them is partisan in your eyes changes nothing about what I was doing which was responding to this:
[dailycaller.com]
Stopped reading there.You clearly weren't even trying to build an argument, so arguing with you would be pointless.
Which is why I provided three sources of information, one of which was Breitbart quoting another guy that said he had warned the EPA that their construction wouldn't hold. Why is it that you complain about Breitbart without even addressing the argument? Because you have no information to refute the article.
I was also responding specifically to this:
A river that turned a troubling shade of orange after toxic waste was accidentally released into it a week ago is “restoring itself,” the country’s top environmental official said Thursday.
Hey apparently it's only when the government dumps toxins that nature can restore itself.
with more sources for the quote, but I guess maybe the EPA chief didn't really say that, and NBC, daily caller, and LA times are all making it up.
I am not at all (in case you somehow missed this) arguing anything. I am providing more citations because some AC moron thinks that it is ok to attack the source of the information, rather than the information which apparently was true.
So you totally ignore the first sentence of my post and try to discredit the messenger instead of the message. What we have here is a failure to communicate, instead you prefer to be partisan.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's say it's a relatively small disruption, then only 1% of population dies off. That's not too bad? That's 70 million people. If you kill 70 people, you're a serial killer. If you kill 70 million people, you're a climate change denier.
I would say more correctly, it makes you a human. It isn't only the deniers who use energy, everyone uses it. There is only so much that a single person can do, and no one is doing enough.
--along with the reply by the author, the very first point of which was "I didn't get to write the headline; the headlines are written by the editor."
I like that he points out as well that the headline was written before the article. This just sounds terrible, but is very likely just how the media industry works.
If the price is in freefall, that means that the time to invest is coming up. The lowest price is the time to invest, as it will go back up.
Ass Pennies
Apologies, I was thinking of the very next comment, Flowers From Algernon.
Of Mice and Men?
So you think he committed perjury? Perhaps you should submit the proof you have, after all, lying to the election commission is a pretty serious offence.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...
Minimum value is $1.35 b, up to $10 b
http://www.forbes.com/sites/er...
Forbes calls it at $4.1 b
I wish I could be so poor.
So few words to prove you are a partisan moron who can't read. I gave three sources in response to a request for better sources, and you are such a partisan that you won't even bother to refute any of them, just complain about the validity of a SINGLE source. Does a single source being "bad" taint all the sources? Is NBC not as good because they say the same thing?
Are you involved with the project? How long does he intend to be working on it? I could help this weekend, but my weeks are already overbooked :(
I tried to do this with Google Maps, and it just showed me flights. :( Did Google lose their sense of humor?
4 bankruptcies out of 100's of companies, 10 billion + in assets, yeah, he's a real failure there.
I would take someone who negotiates business contracts as his job over what we have now "I will not negotiate with the GOP, they're as bad as terrorists" every time there is a disagreement over implementation. Obama caused the budget crisis by refusing to negotiate. Obama caused the debt ceiling crisis by refusing to negotiate. But it is always convenient when you can blame the other side "if only they would do what I want!", but that isn't how politics works, it is all about negotiation which Trump is the king of.
I quoted three sites. Just because one of them is partisan in your eyes changes nothing about what I was doing which was responding to this:
[dailycaller.com]
Stopped reading there.You clearly weren't even trying to build an argument, so arguing with you would be pointless.
Which is why I provided three sources of information, one of which was Breitbart quoting another guy that said he had warned the EPA that their construction wouldn't hold. Why is it that you complain about Breitbart without even addressing the argument? Because you have no information to refute the article.
I was also responding specifically to this:
A river that turned a troubling shade of orange after toxic waste was accidentally released into it a week ago is “restoring itself,” the country’s top environmental official said Thursday.
Hey apparently it's only when the government dumps toxins that nature can restore itself.
with more sources for the quote, but I guess maybe the EPA chief didn't really say that, and NBC, daily caller, and LA times are all making it up.
I am not at all (in case you somehow missed this) arguing anything. I am providing more citations because some AC moron thinks that it is ok to attack the source of the information, rather than the information which apparently was true.
I was meaning direct taxes, most of our fuel cost is taxes as well, but it isn't very obvious.
Why is it complex? Just don't work for them There are literally tens of thousands of other companies that you can work for.
Where in there did he say you needed to sell the house and move to another state? Is Amazon the only employer in town? Do you live in a company town?
Allied =/= US.
The link in the comment I was responding to had the figures I quoted.
So you totally ignore the first sentence of my post and try to discredit the messenger instead of the message. What we have here is a failure to communicate, instead you prefer to be partisan.
Are you calling NBCNews made up too?
you might even get some of your daily dose of methane,
But that's a made up issue entirely. Or the water already had methane...
In the US, I pay no yearly taxes on my Tundra, you should look into not living in a socialist paradise...
http://www.caranddriver.com/to...
36 Iraqi planes shot down in the air to 75 allied aircraft shot down. I don't know how lopsided that really is.
Does that make Eve the first Apple customer?
Of course radar emits all frequency ranges, and therefore applies equally to all forms of RF emission...
I hacked your horse, all it took was an apple.
If the manufacturers get to choose, the answer will be yes. We cannot be held accountable for what other people do to your car!
Slamming the messenger instead of the message is a sure sign of your lack of a viable position.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us...
http://www.latimes.com/nation/...
Apparently, there was even a geologist who warned the EPA that their solution wasn't safe:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...