I don't know that I would call "Both sides are the same" a conservative tactic.
Race baiting is definitely a Democrat thing; "look, he hates blacks because he is white, he's probably in the KKK and eats black babies!"
Jim Crow 2.0 laws: I can only assume you mean the voter ID laws. These laws have very good reason for being in place, and the funny thing is, they exist in many Democrat states already. The Texas voter ID law also included a free ID provision, so it didn't even prevent poor people from getting IDs, only lazy people.
Gerrymandering is actually a false flag operation. There was a Democrat law (don't remember name to be able to look it up) that REQUIRED districts to be drawn so that there would be minority districts so that there would be representation of minorities in congress. This lead to the funky looking borders to make these districts, which then is used to "prove" that gerrymandering is happening. Just look at all the stories in the press in the last election about Carolina (can't remember if it was north or south) and how apparent the gerrymandering was because of a long skinny district. This was the minority district required by federal laws.
religious pandering: yeah...that's a republican thing.
If you think it is bad voting for the lesser of two evils, vote third party! There are third parties, and it is not throwing away your vote to vote for them. The main outcome of voting third party is that it is a big F you to the people in power, it says "I am tired of your crap and am boycotting your party", and the best outcome would be one getting elected.
I would like to see a requirement that in order to get certain benefits, one MUST have voted in the prior election AND filed the prior year's tax forms.
Uh-uh. Many of the poor don't file taxes, and it's perfectly legit. Your idea would lock them out of any active political role in determining their own destinies. You can't lock people out of voting. Period.
Reread what he wrote, you argued against something he did not say. He was saying certain benefits would be tied to you voting, and submitting tax returns (even if you are poor and don't get anything back, it is still a legal requirement).
He was not advocating anyone's vote being taken from them, but some nebulous benefits tied to voting and taxes, like maybe being exempt from tolls, or gas taxes, or something else that would be a benefit for participating in society.
HL3 where it is a coop with other players taking on the role of Alex and Barney, have Chel come from the portal universe and meet up with them at the ship (can't remember the name), and they have to use the portal guns to save the world from the Combine? As you say, it doesn't even need a spectacular engine, but apparently, multiplayer is the thing now.
I have not experienced this, but it could be accurate. My understanding of the 150 - 250/350 comparison is that the 250/350s when hauling can be over 7500 lbs, this is considered the commercial truck range. Under 7500 lbs GVWR is considered consumer.
It supposedly costs more to register a 250/350 commercial vs consumer, but it allows you to legally haul more weight in the bed. Discussing with the salesperson when I bought my Tundra, he said the 3/4 ton 1 ton etc had to do with the hauling capacity of the truck, so my Tundra with a little over 1750 lbs hauling capacity is a 3/4 ton truck as it can haul over 3/4 ton of cargo. However, my Tundra's GVWR (truck + fuel + hauling) is under 7500 lbs, so it is not a commercial truck according to the dept of motor vehicles.
Do you not understand what the skateboard concept was? This is a skateboard powertrain that you swap the body on (truck, van, car, etc). Also, it is Hydrogen, not electric, though would work just fine as an electric. They have had a demo model at the test track ride in Epcot for years:
Hmm, a pebble bed thorium reactor powering an electric vehicle...that would be cool. It would last like 5 years between refuels, I'd pay like $100k for that.
I was going to ask pretty much this question, but expand it a little.
Where are all the Diesel electric serial hybrid trucks? This would be a great tow vehicle; electric motors have great torque, and the weight of the batteries would counter the trailer's tendency to push the truck around. This is already done in trains, so it makes sense at that size, why not with trucks? Maybe making a truck last forever just doesn't work for car companies.:)
BTW, It looks like the Silverado 1500 can haul as much as 2klbs, which makes it a 1 ton truck. I however cannot find hauling capacities for this truck with hybrid, is this actually available?
The problem with the skateboard design is switching bodies. Who has a electric winch that can take that kind of weight just sitting around to swap the bodies, and who wants to store the bodies not in use?
My curiosity is about how they will tell the difference between a company buying a widget, and a company moving money overseas. Maybe companies will start hiding the profit by selling paperclips to themselves...
I probably would have used a different color for the subtitle as it seems to disappear into the background, but otherwise it is a pretty good book cover.
Yes, it is, because the concentrated stupid doesn't follow political boundaries. Take a look at the two maps next to each other and it is roughly equal the counties that are anti-vax and are democrat vs republican.
And if you actually do that, you will see that the worst five counties, two are democrat and three are republican. So, it isn't as clear cut as you would think.
I invented some magical fairy dust that will absorb all CO2 is comes in contact with. I would like to offer this product for $100 a pound to everyone....hey, it could happen...
The constitution actually stated that all land owners would have the vote. Not just anyone. The main benefit of this is that they have more "skin in the game". Another benefit is that often they are more highly educated, so have a better basis for making a decision. When slavery was abolished, and shortly after that with women's suffrage, it was decided that everybody (besides a few groups for good reason) should be able to vote. So now we have the popularity contest over who can vote themselves the most money from the public coffers. In other words, what you are asking for is Republican only rule, as no one who owns land would vote for a Democrat.:)
The Shiites believe Mohammed's son should have been Calif after Mohammed died (which was Mohammed's wish). They allow "Idols" to be made (statues, paintings, etc) and are actually pretty peaceful.
The Sunnis believe that Mohammed's followers should have been Calif after Mohammed died. This comes from them getting together and working it out while Mohammed was dying. They are essentially disposers to the throne of Islam. This group feels you should make no "Idols" (pictures, statues and the like) of any of the profits of Islam; which incidentally includes Jesus, Moses, and many other important people in the Torah and Bible. ISIS is in this group, which is why they have recently been on the news destroying religious sites, they feel that it is against their religion to "worship idols", though it is not against many other religions o do so.
Not trying to correct you, but to expand what you stated. Understanding this history is very important, as until people understand why the two sides of Islam fight, they cannot understand the wars in the region.
The problem is that the number of centrifuges they are running is far in excess of the number needed for fission power. This means they want the bomb, not civilian nuclear power. The fuel for their reactor is offered by the US and Russia through a treaty, instead they would rather make their own "fuel" so they can build bombs. They have large amounts of natural Uranium that can be enriched in other countries practically for free, and instead choose to enrich it themselves. This is not the actions of someone who just wants civilian nuclear technology (more than reactors, they also want medical nuclear tech).
America did not invade Iraq for oil. The reason Saddam wasn't selling oil was because the US embargoed him. Why would we attack a country for the oil we refuse to buy from them, rebuild their fields, then start buying the oil from them? This argument makes no sense, there are far easier ways to get oil than spending as much money as we did on a war (which uses shitloads of oil that we shipped in) to "get the oil from Iraq".
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know that I would call "Both sides are the same" a conservative tactic.
Race baiting is definitely a Democrat thing; "look, he hates blacks because he is white, he's probably in the KKK and eats black babies!"
Jim Crow 2.0 laws: I can only assume you mean the voter ID laws. These laws have very good reason for being in place, and the funny thing is, they exist in many Democrat states already. The Texas voter ID law also included a free ID provision, so it didn't even prevent poor people from getting IDs, only lazy people.
Gerrymandering is actually a false flag operation. There was a Democrat law (don't remember name to be able to look it up) that REQUIRED districts to be drawn so that there would be minority districts so that there would be representation of minorities in congress. This lead to the funky looking borders to make these districts, which then is used to "prove" that gerrymandering is happening. Just look at all the stories in the press in the last election about Carolina (can't remember if it was north or south) and how apparent the gerrymandering was because of a long skinny district. This was the minority district required by federal laws.
religious pandering: yeah...that's a republican thing.
If you think it is bad voting for the lesser of two evils, vote third party! There are third parties, and it is not throwing away your vote to vote for them. The main outcome of voting third party is that it is a big F you to the people in power, it says "I am tired of your crap and am boycotting your party", and the best outcome would be one getting elected.
I would like to see a requirement that in order to get certain benefits, one MUST have voted in the prior election AND filed the prior year's tax forms.
Uh-uh. Many of the poor don't file taxes, and it's perfectly legit. Your idea would lock them out of any active political role in determining their own destinies. You can't lock people out of voting. Period.
Reread what he wrote, you argued against something he did not say. He was saying certain benefits would be tied to you voting, and submitting tax returns (even if you are poor and don't get anything back, it is still a legal requirement).
He was not advocating anyone's vote being taken from them, but some nebulous benefits tied to voting and taxes, like maybe being exempt from tolls, or gas taxes, or something else that would be a benefit for participating in society.
It also needs a garden gnome.
HL3 where it is a coop with other players taking on the role of Alex and Barney, have Chel come from the portal universe and meet up with them at the ship (can't remember the name), and they have to use the portal guns to save the world from the Combine? As you say, it doesn't even need a spectacular engine, but apparently, multiplayer is the thing now.
My group of friends have been playing Payday 2, but I believe that is a pretty old title, though they have been releasing a ton of new content.
I have not experienced this, but it could be accurate. My understanding of the 150 - 250/350 comparison is that the 250/350s when hauling can be over 7500 lbs, this is considered the commercial truck range. Under 7500 lbs GVWR is considered consumer.
It supposedly costs more to register a 250/350 commercial vs consumer, but it allows you to legally haul more weight in the bed. Discussing with the salesperson when I bought my Tundra, he said the 3/4 ton 1 ton etc had to do with the hauling capacity of the truck, so my Tundra with a little over 1750 lbs hauling capacity is a 3/4 ton truck as it can haul over 3/4 ton of cargo. However, my Tundra's GVWR (truck + fuel + hauling) is under 7500 lbs, so it is not a commercial truck according to the dept of motor vehicles.
Do you not understand what the skateboard concept was? This is a skateboard powertrain that you swap the body on (truck, van, car, etc). Also, it is Hydrogen, not electric, though would work just fine as an electric. They have had a demo model at the test track ride in Epcot for years:
https://www.google.com/search?...
Hmm, a pebble bed thorium reactor powering an electric vehicle...that would be cool. It would last like 5 years between refuels, I'd pay like $100k for that.
I was going to ask pretty much this question, but expand it a little.
Where are all the Diesel electric serial hybrid trucks? This would be a great tow vehicle; electric motors have great torque, and the weight of the batteries would counter the trailer's tendency to push the truck around. This is already done in trains, so it makes sense at that size, why not with trucks? Maybe making a truck last forever just doesn't work for car companies. :)
BTW, It looks like the Silverado 1500 can haul as much as 2klbs, which makes it a 1 ton truck. I however cannot find hauling capacities for this truck with hybrid, is this actually available?
The problem with the skateboard design is switching bodies. Who has a electric winch that can take that kind of weight just sitting around to swap the bodies, and who wants to store the bodies not in use?
My curiosity is about how they will tell the difference between a company buying a widget, and a company moving money overseas. Maybe companies will start hiding the profit by selling paperclips to themselves...
That one is truly disturbing...
I probably would have used a different color for the subtitle as it seems to disappear into the background, but otherwise it is a pretty good book cover.
Power crystals, herbal treatments, homeopathy; these are pretty solid in the democrat side.
Yes, it is, because the concentrated stupid doesn't follow political boundaries. Take a look at the two maps next to each other and it is roughly equal the counties that are anti-vax and are democrat vs republican.
And if you actually do that, you will see that the worst five counties, two are democrat and three are republican. So, it isn't as clear cut as you would think.
I invented some magical fairy dust that will absorb all CO2 is comes in contact with. I would like to offer this product for $100 a pound to everyone. ...hey, it could happen...
The constitution actually stated that all land owners would have the vote. Not just anyone. The main benefit of this is that they have more "skin in the game". Another benefit is that often they are more highly educated, so have a better basis for making a decision. When slavery was abolished, and shortly after that with women's suffrage, it was decided that everybody (besides a few groups for good reason) should be able to vote. So now we have the popularity contest over who can vote themselves the most money from the public coffers. In other words, what you are asking for is Republican only rule, as no one who owns land would vote for a Democrat. :)
It would be great if Russia upheld their portion of the exact same treaty, but I guess you missed where they signed it too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
What weapons is the US producing? As far as I have heard we are disassembling the old ICBMs as fast as we can.
Bullshit.
To make Uranium for a reactor requires around 1/100 or so the number of centrifuges they have that could be used for weapons production.
The Shiites believe Mohammed's son should have been Calif after Mohammed died (which was Mohammed's wish). They allow "Idols" to be made (statues, paintings, etc) and are actually pretty peaceful.
The Sunnis believe that Mohammed's followers should have been Calif after Mohammed died. This comes from them getting together and working it out while Mohammed was dying. They are essentially disposers to the throne of Islam. This group feels you should make no "Idols" (pictures, statues and the like) of any of the profits of Islam; which incidentally includes Jesus, Moses, and many other important people in the Torah and Bible. ISIS is in this group, which is why they have recently been on the news destroying religious sites, they feel that it is against their religion to "worship idols", though it is not against many other religions o do so.
Not trying to correct you, but to expand what you stated. Understanding this history is very important, as until people understand why the two sides of Islam fight, they cannot understand the wars in the region.
Is there a missing sarcasm tag there?
The problem is that the number of centrifuges they are running is far in excess of the number needed for fission power. This means they want the bomb, not civilian nuclear power. The fuel for their reactor is offered by the US and Russia through a treaty, instead they would rather make their own "fuel" so they can build bombs. They have large amounts of natural Uranium that can be enriched in other countries practically for free, and instead choose to enrich it themselves. This is not the actions of someone who just wants civilian nuclear technology (more than reactors, they also want medical nuclear tech).
America did not invade Iraq for oil. The reason Saddam wasn't selling oil was because the US embargoed him. Why would we attack a country for the oil we refuse to buy from them, rebuild their fields, then start buying the oil from them? This argument makes no sense, there are far easier ways to get oil than spending as much money as we did on a war (which uses shitloads of oil that we shipped in) to "get the oil from Iraq".