As I said, if you really think the Obama administration is anymore transparent than the GWB administration, you are a blind fool. It is there in plain sight. Look around. If you are claiming all the leaks were planned, then why are they going after the leakers so strongly.
Are you seriously going to make an argument that Obama wants all this information out there but cannot figure out how to do it without staging some leaks and then trying to imprison the "leakers" so he doesn't lose face?
And yet the guy I know that manages the tank farm down the road is constantly amused at the price changes at the pumps because they change much more frequently than the his wholesale prices. But he works for those awful anti-Obama brothers so they are probably just playing tricks on us.
I guess you're talking about the futures marked here. As for its destabilizing effect, I guess Southwest Airlines ability to purchase a very large amount of fuel reserves in the futures market having given them a very stable fuel cost for 3 or 4 years is the one counter-example needed to disprove the BS theory of futures traders causing all the ills of the world.
I thought he was talking about a 20 pound tank that is very common in the states. The 40 pound (19kg) are more commonly used on house trailers for camping.
He was also talking about the tank not rusting or otherwise becoming unusable not about the propane in it never running out.
Yup, on a road-trip where the destination is the point of the trip, I like to drive 8-12 hours a day with 3-4 interim stops, of which only one requires fueling. The stops require 10-20 minutes each. When an EV can match that, then we haven't altered my lifestyle for the sake of saving the planet.
As I don't believe humans can possibly destroy the planet in any significant way, saving it has zero value to me. I am also unwilling to trade anything of value for something of no value.
or maybe the smaller engines got better so we could keep putting most of our stuff in there.
At least you had the good sense to not respond with "well, for the good of the environment, you need to rethink your lifestyle" that completely turns most people against EVs and such.
Of course, not all of us that own boats can also afford the second mortgage and higher taxes associated with the lake house so we tow our boats to the lake(s) a couple of times a week.
I have no problem if New Orleans (the city) or Louisiana (the State) rebuilding their levees bigger and better. What I do have a problem with is Wisconsin, et al building the levees in New Orleans bigger and better.
Oh surely you jest. It is impossible for there to have been any climate change happening that long ago. The Industrial revolution had not yet happened to cause it.
An examination of the context in which the words were written definitely informs the honest person that today's "guns" is yesterday's "arms". Only a commplete moron would even imagine that the founding fathers bothered explaining in the constitution how the government doesn't have the right to remove appendages from your body.
"don't think the constitution says anything about you individually having the right to own a gun" Obviously your reading comprehension is terrible.
Please explain how "the People", "keep and bear" and "not be infringed" says anything other than an individual having a right to own, carry and use.
If "the People" in the Second Amendment means all of us together but no one individually, then none of us have an individual right to privacy, from our homes being searched, from self-incrimination, to legal representation, etc. There is no justification for "the People" to mean one thing in nine amendments and something entirely different in another.
"monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force". Major fail. Most states (US states) acknowledge* that everyone has the basic right of self-defense including the use of deadly force to stop an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm of yourself and others around you. Police are actually under the same restrictions, legally speaking. In Wisconsin, police are actually held to a higher legal standard in regards the extent of using that deadly force; they are legally required to stop shooting sooner than would be required for a non-LEO.
*Many, myself included, argue that the right exists for everyone worldwide because rights are not granted by governments.
Uh... If someone is on the ground with a head smashed to the point it looks like a watermelon dropped from 30 feet and I am standing there holding a knife, exactly how is that probable cause that I was involved in beating the poor guy to death?
How is my explaining to my wife why I'll be home late for dinner probable cause that I caused the accident?
A bloody knife when the victim has obviously been stabbed is completely different than a knife when the victim has obviously been beaten with a blunt instrument. A cell phone is much closer to the latter.
Somebody ran into me while I had a phone on my belt and after everything stopped moving I pull my phone out to let people know I'll be a bit late is probable cause that I am at fault.?!? Serious cognitive issues there houghi.
Actually, many (most?) states there are fewer hassles about a non-LEO citizen shooting someone than for LEOs. As long as the shooting is justified; like stopping an immediate threat of death or great bodily harm.
So, no cops can't legally shoot people that I am not also legally able to shoot.
As for LEO exemptions... The post you responded to was correct but that doesn't negate the point I think g0bshiTe was trying to make. If it is so dangerous, why are cops doing it.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, the ones who most want to be green are too Luddite-like to actually reach their professed goal.
Maybe being green isn't really their goal after all.
As I said, if you really think the Obama administration is anymore transparent than the GWB administration, you are a blind fool. It is there in plain sight. Look around. If you are claiming all the leaks were planned, then why are they going after the leakers so strongly.
Are you seriously going to make an argument that Obama wants all this information out there but cannot figure out how to do it without staging some leaks and then trying to imprison the "leakers" so he doesn't lose face?
I'll assume that last bit was meant to be read as if it were surrounded by sarcasm tags; otherwise, you are a blind fool.
And yet the guy I know that manages the tank farm down the road is constantly amused at the price changes at the pumps because they change much more frequently than the his wholesale prices. But he works for those awful anti-Obama brothers so they are probably just playing tricks on us.
Yet the vast majority of the population lives hours away from anything considered agricultural. In a sense, you are both correct.
I guess you're talking about the futures marked here. As for its destabilizing effect, I guess Southwest Airlines ability to purchase a very large amount of fuel reserves in the futures market having given them a very stable fuel cost for 3 or 4 years is the one counter-example needed to disprove the BS theory of futures traders causing all the ills of the world.
Many of us are no longer positive that the coasts (where the highest fuel costs generally are found) are still inhabited by Americans.
There it is. The liberal solution always boils down to "alter your lifestyle to save the world."
I'm sure he appreciates your doing your part in saving the world by paying outrageous prices for certain commodities.
It would be nice if everything in life were that symmetrical.
I thought he was talking about a 20 pound tank that is very common in the states. The 40 pound (19kg) are more commonly used on house trailers for camping.
He was also talking about the tank not rusting or otherwise becoming unusable not about the propane in it never running out.
Why, my bladder doesn't fill up that quickly. I generally get 1.5 to 2 times that mileage out of it.
Yup, on a road-trip where the destination is the point of the trip, I like to drive 8-12 hours a day with 3-4 interim stops, of which only one requires fueling. The stops require 10-20 minutes each. When an EV can match that, then we haven't altered my lifestyle for the sake of saving the planet.
As I don't believe humans can possibly destroy the planet in any significant way, saving it has zero value to me. I am also unwilling to trade anything of value for something of no value.
or maybe the smaller engines got better so we could keep putting most of our stuff in there.
At least you had the good sense to not respond with "well, for the good of the environment, you need to rethink your lifestyle" that completely turns most people against EVs and such.
Of course, not all of us that own boats can also afford the second mortgage and higher taxes associated with the lake house so we tow our boats to the lake(s) a couple of times a week.
"Public ownership, no risk, no douchbag corner cutting operators to screw it all up." Yeah, that never happens with public projects.
And when everyone is charging their car at night, night will no longer be off-peak; there will be no off-peak.
I have no problem if New Orleans (the city) or Louisiana (the State) rebuilding their levees bigger and better. What I do have a problem with is Wisconsin, et al building the levees in New Orleans bigger and better.
Oh surely you jest. It is impossible for there to have been any climate change happening that long ago. The Industrial revolution had not yet happened to cause it.
An examination of the context in which the words were written definitely informs the honest person that today's "guns" is yesterday's "arms". Only a commplete moron would even imagine that the founding fathers bothered explaining in the constitution how the government doesn't have the right to remove appendages from your body.
"don't think the constitution says anything about you individually having the right to own a gun" Obviously your reading comprehension is terrible.
Please explain how "the People", "keep and bear" and "not be infringed" says anything other than an individual having a right to own, carry and use.
If "the People" in the Second Amendment means all of us together but no one individually, then none of us have an individual right to privacy, from our homes being searched, from self-incrimination, to legal representation, etc. There is no justification for "the People" to mean one thing in nine amendments and something entirely different in another.
It is about not murdering which is distinctly different than killing. For the cognitively challenged, blue is a color but a color is not blue.
"monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force". Major fail. Most states (US states) acknowledge* that everyone has the basic right of self-defense including the use of deadly force to stop an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm of yourself and others around you. Police are actually under the same restrictions, legally speaking. In Wisconsin, police are actually held to a higher legal standard in regards the extent of using that deadly force; they are legally required to stop shooting sooner than would be required for a non-LEO.
*Many, myself included, argue that the right exists for everyone worldwide because rights are not granted by governments.
Uh... If someone is on the ground with a head smashed to the point it looks like a watermelon dropped from 30 feet and I am standing there holding a knife, exactly how is that probable cause that I was involved in beating the poor guy to death?
How is my explaining to my wife why I'll be home late for dinner probable cause that I caused the accident?
A bloody knife when the victim has obviously been stabbed is completely different than a knife when the victim has obviously been beaten with a blunt instrument. A cell phone is much closer to the latter.
Somebody ran into me while I had a phone on my belt and after everything stopped moving I pull my phone out to let people know I'll be a bit late is probable cause that I am at fault.?!? Serious cognitive issues there houghi.
Actually, many (most?) states there are fewer hassles about a non-LEO citizen shooting someone than for LEOs. As long as the shooting is justified; like stopping an immediate threat of death or great bodily harm.
So, no cops can't legally shoot people that I am not also legally able to shoot.
As for LEO exemptions... The post you responded to was correct but that doesn't negate the point I think g0bshiTe was trying to make. If it is so dangerous, why are cops doing it.