You're missing the fact that it will still go to the cars in China -- it's just going to get there by tanker and truck and pipelines within Canada. Along the way it'll be loaded onto Chinese tankers in a cold water port, where when (not if) there is a spill it'll be there for decades.
Clueless move on Obama's part. The oil is gonna get sold; we might as well get some jobs and keep it safe when it comes through our country.
This will only happen by appropriately regulating businesses. Unfortunately our governments at best don't have balls to do it and at worst are in the pockets of the businesses they're supposed to be regulating.
Umm...more to the point in the United States at least the government doesn't have the right or the authority to "appropriately regulate business". At least not to the level you seem to want.
What do you propose as a solution to the problem you are perceiving?
Secondarily you know of course that other nations don't have the restrictions the United States is fortunate to have. What's stopping them from taking those actions you believe they need "the balls" do do?
...he's ashamed of himself, but he doesn't sound like he is unfortunately. He sounds instead like he's mad he didn't get his education for free (or at least at the "right price") and now he doesn't want to pay the bill.
I do sympathize, I really do...my parents didn't make much so I worked and scraped my way through college. Yes I did take out a couple of (small) student loans--and worked every weekend at McDonald's to supplement. Did I like it? Nope. Did I do it so I wouldn't end up with "crippling debt" (he didn't say how much he owed)? Yep.
Believe me, the day I mailed that last check was one of the best days of my life prior to meeting my lovely wyfe.
Very often, signing for a student loan is one of the first adult decisions a person makes. He reneged on his promise and all of us paid a little bit for it. That's wrong. I hope the Department of Education catches up with him eventually and starts garnishing his paycheck until the books are balanced.
Should college education be free? No--that's not how we do things here. Should we changes the system so it is? I don't think so myself; better that more people take other routes for higher education (trades, etc.). That's a reasonable debate to have as a society. There's no question that we could give everybody a free college education here in America; we're the most fantastically wealthy society ever to exist. But should we? I think not but am willing to have the conversation.
But whatever happens, deadbeats like the author should be pursued until they've repaid every penny of what they borrowed.
....but let's face it, right now it's a market for the well-healed.
I find it ironic that these cars only sell when there are subsidies, and that those subsidies (and tax writeoffs) to to precisely the folks who need it least--the well off.
Odd that your tagline references the Constitution, yet you don't seem to understand it very well.
Money must equal free speech, or there is no free speech at all.
Let's examine a hypothetical. We've got two guys, Stu and Hank, who both want to run for mayor. Both of them announce their intention and do a few rubber-chicken dinners in pursuit of this goal.
Hank decides that's not reaching enough people, so he takes out an ad in the paper and distributes flyers throughout the city. Stu sees that this is reaching people and counters with radio ads. Hank responds with TV ads.
And so on. At what point does who, and under what authority, decide that Stu and Hank can't spend any more money on the campaign? How do you propose to limit the speech of newspaper writers, TV anchors, the guy on the street who talks up one candidate over another?
Just because I can buy a printing press and you can't doesn't mean I can't use it in support of a candidate I support. To believe otherwise would logically either a.) force me to not use my printing press or b.) buy you one as well (where does that money come from?).
Money enables free speech. You can shout in the woods all you want but it won't be very effective. You can print a million flyers and be more effective. One requires money.
That isn't quite right, and you're conviniently forgetting the many Democrat hypocrites so you can bash Republicans.
Most of the Republicans who voted for this were swayed by the "free trade" aspects, viewing that as the most important thing. Generally speaking Republicans prefer open and free trade whereas Democrats prefer protectionism. Here Obama waves the free trade flag and they're duped into supporting him.
I wish they'd step back and listen to their constituents a bit more here. The mere secrecy surrounding this thing should be enough to garner 100% rejection.
They'll ignore it and make up "revised models", just like they ignored their previous predictions of an ice-free Arctic (the earliest I found was for the year 2000).
You can't argue with a Doomsday Cultist, and that's in effect what AGW has become....just another Doomsday Cult. No amount of fact, no failure of the world to melt will convince them.
Which really is too bad because I support much of what they want to do....move away from fossil based fuels as much as possible, diversify out our energy sources with solar and wind and tidal energy and nuclear, do some farming and livestock raising smarter/better, plant more trees. But they wrap it up in this redistributionist "end capitalism now" nonsense that just renders the rest of their message unhearable.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing wrong with Florida that a few feet of global warming won't fix.
Ferret
So tell me...do you take your mortgage tax deduction? Write off charitable deductions? Property taxes?
Bet ya do.
That's the same precise "morality" you're mad at the companies for doing.
Ferret
You don't increase your market share by trying to keep your customers from buying from other suppliers. That's just how you piss them off.
Ferret
Well said sir!
Ferret
....when you have the most insane corporate tax rate in the world.
Good on them, I reckon.
Ferret
Thank you.
Ferret
You're missing the fact that it will still go to the cars in China -- it's just going to get there by tanker and truck and pipelines within Canada. Along the way it'll be loaded onto Chinese tankers in a cold water port, where when (not if) there is a spill it'll be there for decades.
Clueless move on Obama's part. The oil is gonna get sold; we might as well get some jobs and keep it safe when it comes through our country.
Ferret
...that many who are so keen to defend Snowden are also so quick to make excuses for Hillary.
Ferret
And he's right....which you seem to accept since you offered no counter arguments.
Ferret
This will only happen by appropriately regulating businesses. Unfortunately our governments at best don't have balls to do it and at worst are in the pockets of the businesses they're supposed to be regulating.
Umm...more to the point in the United States at least the government doesn't have the right or the authority to "appropriately regulate business". At least not to the level you seem to want.
What do you propose as a solution to the problem you are perceiving?
Secondarily you know of course that other nations don't have the restrictions the United States is fortunate to have. What's stopping them from taking those actions you believe they need "the balls" do do?
Feret
Well said sir.
Ferret
Um....Republicans have literally nothing to do with the poor science behind global warming.....
Ferret
If the pause is a myth it's a got a lot of folks who believe in it--the IPCC, NASA, NOAA, the various European climate centers....
Ferret
http://www.kbb.com/car-reviews...
Ferret
...he's ashamed of himself, but he doesn't sound like he is unfortunately. He sounds instead like he's mad he didn't get his education for free (or at least at the "right price") and now he doesn't want to pay the bill.
I do sympathize, I really do...my parents didn't make much so I worked and scraped my way through college. Yes I did take out a couple of (small) student loans--and worked every weekend at McDonald's to supplement. Did I like it? Nope. Did I do it so I wouldn't end up with "crippling debt" (he didn't say how much he owed)? Yep.
Believe me, the day I mailed that last check was one of the best days of my life prior to meeting my lovely wyfe.
Very often, signing for a student loan is one of the first adult decisions a person makes. He reneged on his promise and all of us paid a little bit for it. That's wrong. I hope the Department of Education catches up with him eventually and starts garnishing his paycheck until the books are balanced.
Should college education be free? No--that's not how we do things here. Should we changes the system so it is? I don't think so myself; better that more people take other routes for higher education (trades, etc.). That's a reasonable debate to have as a society. There's no question that we could give everybody a free college education here in America; we're the most fantastically wealthy society ever to exist. But should we? I think not but am willing to have the conversation.
But whatever happens, deadbeats like the author should be pursued until they've repaid every penny of what they borrowed.
Ferret
....but let's face it, right now it's a market for the well-healed.
I find it ironic that these cars only sell when there are subsidies, and that those subsidies (and tax writeoffs) to to precisely the folks who need it least--the well off.
Ferret
....sorry yet?
Ferret
....would have been ideal for this.
Too bad the company literally destroyed them when the bankruptcy folks were closing in:
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.c...
Ferret
Odd that your tagline references the Constitution, yet you don't seem to understand it very well.
Money must equal free speech, or there is no free speech at all.
Let's examine a hypothetical. We've got two guys, Stu and Hank, who both want to run for mayor. Both of them announce their intention and do a few rubber-chicken dinners in pursuit of this goal.
Hank decides that's not reaching enough people, so he takes out an ad in the paper and distributes flyers throughout the city. Stu sees that this is reaching people and counters with radio ads. Hank responds with TV ads.
And so on. At what point does who, and under what authority, decide that Stu and Hank can't spend any more money on the campaign? How do you propose to limit the speech of newspaper writers, TV anchors, the guy on the street who talks up one candidate over another?
Just because I can buy a printing press and you can't doesn't mean I can't use it in support of a candidate I support. To believe otherwise would logically either a.) force me to not use my printing press or b.) buy you one as well (where does that money come from?).
Money enables free speech. You can shout in the woods all you want but it won't be very effective. You can print a million flyers and be more effective. One requires money.
Ferret
That isn't quite right, and you're conviniently forgetting the many Democrat hypocrites so you can bash Republicans.
Most of the Republicans who voted for this were swayed by the "free trade" aspects, viewing that as the most important thing. Generally speaking Republicans prefer open and free trade whereas Democrats prefer protectionism. Here Obama waves the free trade flag and they're duped into supporting him.
I wish they'd step back and listen to their constituents a bit more here. The mere secrecy surrounding this thing should be enough to garner 100% rejection.
Ferret
I'm sorry, but this literally had zero to do with infrastructure, crumbling or not.
Ferret
How would you "move away from money entirely"?
Ferret
They'll ignore it and make up "revised models", just like they ignored their previous predictions of an ice-free Arctic (the earliest I found was for the year 2000).
You can't argue with a Doomsday Cultist, and that's in effect what AGW has become....just another Doomsday Cult. No amount of fact, no failure of the world to melt will convince them.
Which really is too bad because I support much of what they want to do....move away from fossil based fuels as much as possible, diversify out our energy sources with solar and wind and tidal energy and nuclear, do some farming and livestock raising smarter/better, plant more trees. But they wrap it up in this redistributionist "end capitalism now" nonsense that just renders the rest of their message unhearable.
Ferret
DING DING DING!
Got it in one.
Ferret
That's not what the pesky evidence says:
http://news.discovery.com/eart...
Now you know better.
Ferret