I have not made any claims as to whether it is happening or not. Just looking for data, that's it. Now I have read that Greenland was once green, yet personally have seen very little if any climate change during my short stay here while being very active outdoors including farming the land.
This leads me to think while climate change certainly does happen man is not accelerating the process much if at all.
Your lack of knowledge leads to a faulty conclusion so what you think doesnt matter here.
Your "overwhelming evidence" gets destroyed regularly
no it doesnt
so trying to figure out if it all comes from Al Gore or if anyone else is conducting any independent research.
Nearly every climate scientist in the world has come to the same conclusion after and while pursuing their own research.
Wait until you guys get around to studying Pangaea, your heads will explode! And yes you are afraid. Afraid of being wrong. Science is never settled kiddo.
Actually yes, science is settled. Especially as far as ignorant morons like you are concerned. That's a bullshit statement spouted by the ignorant to cover their ignorance.
Science is rarely overturned. Rather it's simply refined, with rough edges smoothed out. Einstein didn't overturn Newton, he refined his theories. Similarly quantum doesn't overturn Einstein but has refined his contributions.
2000 years ago the Greeks proved the Earth was round (and given that math and geometry has existed longer even they probably weren't the first). Then we proved that the Earth is in fact -NOT- a sphere, but a spheroid: it bulges in the middle due to its spin. Now, with GPS and gravity sensors, we've even improved on that, able to calculate local distortions in gravity and "trueness" to expected dimensions. The best example being that "sea level" isn't a constant value of elevation, varying by significant amounts around the globe thanks ot various factors as currents, temperature, salinity, etc.
But there is a difference between refinement, and disproving.
Temps have gone up. The ocean is warmer. CO causes radiative forcing. These are facts observed to be true, and are settled.
The mountain of evidence is in global warmings favor. In order to "unsettle" that, you would need an ever bigger mountain of evidence.
Unfortunately for you, that evidence doesn't exist, which is why "it's settled".
The environment is getting cleaner and healthier. The nation’s air and waterways, as a whole, are much healthier than they were just a few decades ago. Efforts to reduce pollution, encourage recycling, educate the public, and avoid ecological degradation have been a success. To ensure their continued support by the American people, however, we need a dramatic change in the attitude of officials in Washington, a shift from a job-killing punitive mentality to a spirit of cooperation with producers, landowners, and the public. An important factor is full transparency in development of the data and modeling that drive regulations. Legislation to restore the authority of States in environmental protection is essential. We encourage the use of agricultural best management practices among the States to reduce pollution.
Note the claim that everything is better now, that efforts have been a success, while ignoring that is regulations from the EPA and its state kin that are responsible for that success, while at the same claiming the EPA is a threat to the country.
Our Republican Party’s Commitment to Conservation (Top)
Conservation is a conservative value. As the pioneer of conservation over a century ago, the Republican Party believes in the moral obligation of the people to be good stewards of the God-given natural beauty and resources of our country and bases environmental policy on several common-sense principles. For example, we believe people are the most valuable resource, and human health and safety are the most important measurements of success. A policy protecting these objectives, however, must balance economic development and private property rights in the short run with conservation goals over the long run. Also, public access to public lands for recreational activities such as hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting should be permitted on all appropriate federal lands.
Moreover, the advance of science and technology advances environmentalism as well. Science allows us to weigh the costs and benefits of a policy so that we can prudently deal with our resources. This is especially important when the causes and long-range effects of a phenomenon are uncertain. We must restore scientific integrity to our public research institutions and remove political incentives from publicly funded research.
-Note the admonishment that it's a moral imperative from God to maintain good stewardship, again reinforcing that this is a religuous directive in the eyes of the party. -Note the implication that scientists are corrupt and not telling the truth, and that truth must restored and revealed.
Private Stewardship of the Environment (Top)
Experience has shown that, in caring for the land and water, private ownership has been our best guarantee of conscientious stewardship, while the worst instances of environmental degradation have occurred under government control. By the same token, the most economically advanced countries – those that respect and protect private property rights – also have the strongest environmental protections, because their economic progress makes possible the conservation of natural resources. In this context, Congress should reconsider whether parts of the federal government’s enormous landholdings and control of water in the West could be better used for ranching, mining, or forestry through private ownership. Timber is a renewable natural resource, which provides jobs to thousands of Americans. All efforts should be made to make federal lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service available for harvesting. The enduring truth is that people best protect what they
The current incarnation of the Democratic party, with the big business centrists aka "New Democrats" holding the most sway, may not be the most ideal flavor (and I look very forward to Sanders and Warren pulling the party leftward back where the party should be in the next cycle).
But they are still a damned sight better than pretty much anything the Republicans have to offer, where your choices are between the shit sandwich establishment, and the diarrhea buffet of the tea party.
Both may be in bed with Wall Street, and prone to expanding the surveillence state and engaging in foreign adventures. But only one wants to eliminate the entire "welfare state" (sorry joke that it is in this nation), and roll the clock back to the pre-1930s. Only one is standing there in the building building and saying "I don't smell any smoke" as they ignore all the science and data pointing to global warming. Only one is trying to tell women what to do with their bodies, and advocates legislating according to their particular sky fairy. Only one is trying to sell the idea that we dont need any more equality, everything is just fine, or that equal rights are "special rights".
Really, this entire notion that there is no difference between them is the most ignorant pile of bullshit that keeps getting perpetuated.
There are hundreds of issues, and to look at just the two or three you care about and say "nah they're the same", while ignoring everything else is idiotic.
Only fundies who don't comprehend science or logic believe the two to be mutually exclusive with the result that they feel their beliefs to be threatened by evolution.
it's like the tradeoff between perfect safety, and good enough safety. the cost/benefit of adding more and more lanes quickly ramps into inefficiency. an example being during the majority of the day you only need 2 maybe 3 lanes each way. But to eliminate congesting for rush hour you need 10+, leaving 7 lanes unused. not all cities like to waste money like that.
plus its very much a behavioral phenomenon. people will modify behavior, such as work schedules, depending on circumstances.
a frequent occurrence is to add capacity, and see no reduction in congestion during rush hour.
or a temporary reduction that quickly disappears as more people leave earlier because of the added capacity. this might cause a short period of congestion, but the congestion amount itself expanded to fill the capacity.
but then this shorter period of congestion can itself be offset by others who previously avoided trh traffic altogether (by say taking the bus, or walking) then changing behavior and taking their car (or those fokls can also be motivated by the additional capacity mention earlier).
As I said: its a behavioral issue. Additional traffic capacity is nearly always consumed as people change habits. --
I worked on the I-85/SR316 interchange project in Atlanta, which provided relief for about 4 months. They about doubled capacity of the interchange, but it was filled eventually. There have been long term gains in congestion reduction, but those have mostly come not from the added capacity, but the redesigning/streamlining of nearly 7 miles of on/off ramps: instead of entering/exiting directly to/from the freeway, you get on a short feeder that is physically separated from the main freeway and runs 2-4 miles.
The feeder connects to the main freeway lanes at either end, and all the exits/onramps connect to the feeder. This allows the feeder to collect the congestion of merging traffic as people enter/exit the freeway, while all the thru traffic bypass unimpeded (at least until the feeder reaches capacity). Backups on offramps can quickly slow main freeway traffic as people exit too late, or think they cut ahead of the line and force their way in, etc. That still occurs with a feeder, but now its segregated from the main flow of traffic, and forces anyone wishing to get off for several exits in a row to make that decision early.
(source: experience in traffic engineering, as well as living in Atlanta)
a bad contract is one that is overly one-sided or favors one party too much. it's a somewhat subjective definition, and depends on the ability of lawyers to advocate for their clients in court.
this doesn't really seem to fall into that category.
Consumers aren't the ones paying ESPN (you don't seem to understand the situation in that regard). Verizon is, for the rights to broadcast ESPN content. And apparently as part of that contract ESPN stipulated that all of Verizon's channel package offerings will include ESPN. ESPN isn't even communicating with consumers, nor are they forcing consumers to buy anything.
So now when Verizon, in response to consumer demand, wants to offer some a la carte packages that merely have the potential to not have include ESPN, ESPN is throwing a flag because of the contract Verizon signed. Verizon apparently was of the opinion that these package wouldn't be included by that language of the contract, but ESPN disagrees. And now they will settle it in court.
The consumer's rights in this aren't even a factor. It's a dispute between ESPN and Verizon, not ESPN and consumers.
Here's an article about the lower half ot the 1% having trouble buying influence in the next election, thanks to the Citizen's United and McCutcheon cases:
The world may be more complicated, but Pakistan is not the example you are looking for.
The Islamic Republic of Pakistan had a semi-presidential system, using both a PM and a President, and in which the President can basically fire the PM at will.
She was elected by the Parliament (that's how they did it at the time) first in 1988. she served for about 18 months, before the President dismissed her for "corruption".
She was elected again (by parliament) in 1993, and served about 3 years, before again being dismissed in 1996 by the President, this time by a President that she herself had just installed in the Presidency, such was his return treatment of her.
Both times the dismissals were for "corruption". While the charges were likely false, it forced her to go into exile in Dubai, and not return to Pakistan until 2007 when she was granted "amnesty" and the charges dropped.
The day she returned to Pakistan, 18 October 2007, an assassination attempt was made. It was the 2007 Karachi bombing, with 136 dead and 450 wounded(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Karachi_bombing), though it missed her and she wasn't injured.
In November 2007 she was then placed under house arrest for speaking out against the "state of emergency" that had been declared in the country.
Then on December 27 2007, and second assassination attempt was made, and it succeeded. She was killed only two weeks before the 2008 election, an election in which she was the leading opposition candidate.
Wife is a teacher. Has her Masters. 10 years experience.
Between the grading and planning, not to mention the extra curricular programs she's responsible for, she regularly puts in 10 hour days, or else spends time on the weekends. Regularly about 60 hours a week.
For all this hard work, she makes only 36k/year, and no overtime.
That's only $15.15/hour (or $13/hr at a job that actually pays overtime).
they've been able to keep wages, and the minimum wage, depressed so long that the labor force is shrinking not through a lack of potential workers, but through a lack of willingness for people to work for unlivable wages. if wages kept pace with productivity, as they had for the longest time, the median wage would about 140k/yr, and the minimum wage would be ~20/hr.
this has the effect of preserving the elite's status without requiring them to provide for a strong middle class to buy their products. instead they preserve their relative status by keeping everyone else's financial status depressed.
the point of his actions were to reveal the NSAs actions to the public, so that the public knew about the shady/illegal snennigans the NSA and government were engaging in.
unlike Petraeus who's motivation in leaking was apparently to get into his biographer's pants.
and my lil joke was simply pointing out which one the government believes to be the bigger sin (and since you're a little dense apparently, that would be "telling the public")
I get told all the time by fellow vets and Marines, who theoretically swore the same oath I did, that torture and indefinite detainment are absolutely ok and not violations of the Constitution. I get called a bleeding heart liberal for thinking those things matter.
The only upside to this thoroughly depressing situation, is I then get to say "oh, so wanting to hold to my oath, and actually follow the Constitution is what makes me a liberal? then what defines conservatism?"
the apoplectic fits that follow are always entertaining.
1) Yes it does, that's how herd immunity works. 2) You're an idiot who doesn't understand risk, or what double blind is even useful for. Probably why you keep trotting it out as your goto science "proof" or lack thereof in areas where it's not applicable. 3) Guardicil is not deadly, sorry to burst your myth bubble. 4) Enough stupid in one run on sentence to stock the GOP for years.
No, you are not informed, and no, you don't the risks. If you did or if you were you wouldn't say the stupid things you say.
So...lets see. Things Archangel claims to know about but doesn't: -Vaccines -How to get or not get cancer -global warming -basic science
Then you're one of the idiots responsible for the bad images of Marines that a lot folks have. You don't get to threaten someone with death cause you used to be a Marine. You make us all look bad with your stupid bravado about being above the law.
It's not illegal to wear clothing articles normally associated with the military. If appropriate marking (chiefly service tapes if talking about combat utlities) are removed, it is completely legal to wear. And it's not stolen valor to get a few bucks on the side of the road by wearing a utility blouse you picked up in a surplus store.
Probably half the people in the building I work in, which is on a military base, will periodically wear either the bottoms or the tops of utility uniforms on a regular basis, including the newer digital MARPATs. Heck, at a lot of surplus stores I've been to they have the fabric material available on rollers, to buy as much as you need/want. I can't tell you if it's got the little "hidden" EGA's on it like the official MARPAT uniform items, I never looked that close. But one older gent around wears a pair of trousers he made himself from that fabric (cause I don't recall seeing any with a 50inch waist when I was in). Whatever. Big deal.
Unless a dude is walking around with a MOH, or other medals/ribbons he didn't earn, bragging about being shot or a hero he never was, or running for office claiming something he wasn't, you aren't going to convince someone stole any valor by panhandling on the road.
(And your Kerry comments only prove how out of touch with reality you are. )
Personally I hate those videos. And I am a Marine.
Some may be legit, catching a guy getting preferential status fraudulently. But far too many are just overzealous-I'm-special-types chasing homeless people.
its one thing for a guy to commit actual fraud, such as the guy Rep. Duckworth chewed out in front of a congressional committee for claiming "disabled veteran" status to get preferential bidding on government contracts, when he had never served a day in life.
it's completely another to harass homeless folks (and even not so homeless folks) panhandling on the side of the road in clothes they got from a surplus store or clothing charity.
the vast majority of lung cancer is people who smoked. the rest are usually found or believed to be caused by long term exposure to cigarette smoke, or other pollutants. only a tiny tiny fraction (2%) is thought to develop a cancer of the lungs without any adverse environmental inputs being the chief factor. it is one of the few cancers that is largely preventable through behavior/avoidance.
Evil? Only if you believe in Supply Side Jesus, rather than the things that dirty hippie said about love, compassion, and "whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, you do to me".
Know how I know you don't have a clue what you're talking about? Besides the obviously ignorant use of the word "commie" that is.
California, that liberal hellhole, only had a budget mess because after a shortfall became apparent (caued by the recession), the minority GOP in the state legislature filibustered any tax increases. The only things they allowed through were spending cuts. But as we've seen repeatedly in places like Kansas and Europe, spending cuts to safety net programs in the middle of a recession only make matters WORSE not better.
By the way, their budget is balanced now, thanks largely to finally tax increases through after kicking out a bunch of republicans from the legislature (which itself only occurred because redistricting was finally taken away from the legislature and put in the hands of an independent citizen commission who undid a lot of gerrymandering.).
As for water: 1) they can't control the weather. So when they only get 5% of the usual snowpack this year, even lower than last years 20% (1inch of water, vs 4inches in 2014), there's not much they can do. 2) the water rights are controlled by farm interests which rural conservative folks and big businesses, who hold a lot of sway in the legislature....not exactly your "commie".
Oh wait, you did know California is actually a purple state right? And its rural populace, as well as a fair number of its tech moguls, would make the folks in Texas blush with how conservative they are? No, you probably didn't know that.
After all, you think they cant do anything right, even though they have the largest economy in the country as the same time as having one of the best safety nets for low income and minority citizens in the nation, and buoyed their populace through the recession better than most states. Heck, you probably don't even know that one reason for Texas's success is it -also- has decent (as far as Red controlled Purple states go) safety nets for folks.
the same Air Force who gave us the F4 Phantom, which was without a doubt one of the worst aircraft ever built
And that's all it takes to show you have no clue what you're talking about, and your entire comment is neither insightful nor informative.
For starters, the F4 came from the Navy, who wanted a twin engine high speed all weather missile-boat interceptor/fighter to replace the Demon in the early 50's. In fact it's original name for the project was "Super Demon". And its physical origins in the Demon design are quite evident.
And it was never billed as the everything plane for every service. The Marines bought in once its ground attack potential was realized. The Air Force didn't buy in until the F4C model.
Over 5100 Phantoms were built, making the most produced US aircraft since World War II. By the time of Vietnam it made up the bulk of the fighter assets across the entire US military. It didn't leave US service until 1996.
It also served in the militaries of 11 other nations. Germany only recently retired its last Phantoms in June 2013. Turkey only pulled its Phantoms from service this year (2015). Greece, Egypt, Iran, and Japan are STILL flying Phantoms. In fact, Iran is actively using Phantoms in to bomb ISIS.
That's hardly sounds like an unsuccessful or "world's worst airplane".
Ladies and gentlemen, the RWNJ brain in action: Being "free to die horribly due to someone's negligence" is more important than your safety while traveling down the road in a thousand pound machine.
Slashdot Mirror
I have not made any claims as to whether it is happening or not. Just looking for data, that's it. Now I have read that Greenland was once green, yet personally have seen very little if any climate change during my short stay here while being very active outdoors including farming the land.
Well then here you go. Data on greenland icesheet melting.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/ear...
This leads me to think while climate change certainly does happen man is not accelerating the process much if at all.
Your lack of knowledge leads to a faulty conclusion so what you think doesnt matter here.
Your "overwhelming evidence" gets destroyed regularly
no it doesnt
so trying to figure out if it all comes from Al Gore or if anyone else is conducting any independent research.
Nearly every climate scientist in the world has come to the same conclusion after and while pursuing their own research.
Wait until you guys get around to studying Pangaea, your heads will explode! And yes you are afraid. Afraid of being wrong. Science is never settled kiddo.
Actually yes, science is settled. Especially as far as ignorant morons like you are concerned.
That's a bullshit statement spouted by the ignorant to cover their ignorance.
Science is rarely overturned. Rather it's simply refined, with rough edges smoothed out.
Einstein didn't overturn Newton, he refined his theories.
Similarly quantum doesn't overturn Einstein but has refined his contributions.
2000 years ago the Greeks proved the Earth was round (and given that math and geometry has existed longer even they probably weren't the first). Then we proved that the Earth is in fact -NOT- a sphere, but a spheroid: it bulges in the middle due to its spin. Now, with GPS and gravity sensors, we've even improved on that, able to calculate local distortions in gravity and "trueness" to expected dimensions. The best example being that "sea level" isn't a constant value of elevation, varying by significant amounts around the globe thanks ot various factors as currents, temperature, salinity, etc.
But there is a difference between refinement, and disproving.
Temps have gone up.
The ocean is warmer.
CO causes radiative forcing.
These are facts observed to be true, and are settled.
The mountain of evidence is in global warmings favor.
In order to "unsettle" that, you would need an ever bigger mountain of evidence.
Unfortunately for you, that evidence doesn't exist, which is why "it's settled".
they're around but they are the exception not the rule.
Look to the party platforms.
This is the GOP platform on the environment:
( https://www.gop.com/platform/a... )
rotecting Our Environment (Top)
The environment is getting cleaner and healthier. The nation’s air and waterways, as a whole, are much healthier than they were just a few decades ago. Efforts to reduce pollution, encourage recycling, educate the public, and avoid ecological degradation have been a success. To ensure their continued support by the American people, however, we need a dramatic change in the attitude of officials in Washington, a shift from a job-killing punitive mentality to a spirit of cooperation with producers, landowners, and the public. An important factor is full transparency in development of the data and modeling that drive regulations. Legislation to restore the authority of States in environmental protection is essential. We encourage the use of agricultural best management practices among the States to reduce pollution.
Note the claim that everything is better now, that efforts have been a success, while ignoring that is regulations from the EPA and its state kin that are responsible for that success, while at the same claiming the EPA is a threat to the country.
Our Republican Party’s Commitment to Conservation (Top)
Conservation is a conservative value. As the pioneer of conservation over a century ago, the Republican Party believes in the moral obligation of the people to be good stewards of the God-given natural beauty and resources of our country and bases environmental policy on several common-sense principles. For example, we believe people are the most valuable resource, and human health and safety are the most important measurements of success. A policy protecting these objectives, however, must balance economic development and private property rights in the short run with conservation goals over the long run. Also, public access to public lands for recreational activities such as hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting should be permitted on all appropriate federal lands.
Moreover, the advance of science and technology advances environmentalism as well. Science allows us to weigh the costs and benefits of a policy so that we can prudently deal with our resources. This is especially important when the causes and long-range effects of a phenomenon are uncertain. We must restore scientific integrity to our public research institutions and remove political incentives from publicly funded research.
-Note the admonishment that it's a moral imperative from God to maintain good stewardship, again reinforcing that this is a religuous directive in the eyes of the party.
-Note the implication that scientists are corrupt and not telling the truth, and that truth must restored and revealed.
Private Stewardship of the Environment (Top)
Experience has shown that, in caring for the land and water, private ownership has been our best guarantee of conscientious stewardship, while the worst instances of environmental degradation have occurred under government control. By the same token, the most economically advanced countries – those that respect and protect private property rights – also have the strongest environmental protections, because their economic progress makes possible the conservation of natural resources. In this context, Congress should reconsider whether parts of the federal government’s enormous landholdings and control of water in the West could be better used for ranching, mining, or forestry through private ownership. Timber is a renewable natural resource, which provides jobs to thousands of Americans. All efforts should be made to make federal lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service available for harvesting. The enduring truth is that people best protect what they
The current incarnation of the Democratic party, with the big business centrists aka "New Democrats" holding the most sway, may not be the most ideal flavor (and I look very forward to Sanders and Warren pulling the party leftward back where the party should be in the next cycle).
But they are still a damned sight better than pretty much anything the Republicans have to offer, where your choices are between the shit sandwich establishment, and the diarrhea buffet of the tea party.
Both may be in bed with Wall Street, and prone to expanding the surveillence state and engaging in foreign adventures.
But only one wants to eliminate the entire "welfare state" (sorry joke that it is in this nation), and roll the clock back to the pre-1930s.
Only one is standing there in the building building and saying "I don't smell any smoke" as they ignore all the science and data pointing to global warming.
Only one is trying to tell women what to do with their bodies, and advocates legislating according to their particular sky fairy.
Only one is trying to sell the idea that we dont need any more equality, everything is just fine, or that equal rights are "special rights".
Really, this entire notion that there is no difference between them is the most ignorant pile of bullshit that keeps getting perpetuated.
There are hundreds of issues, and to look at just the two or three you care about and say "nah they're the same", while ignoring everything else is idiotic.
So yeah, there's a difference.
Only fundies who don't comprehend science or logic believe the two to be mutually exclusive with the result that they feel their beliefs to be threatened by evolution.
it's like the tradeoff between perfect safety, and good enough safety. the cost/benefit of adding more and more lanes quickly ramps into inefficiency. an example being during the majority of the day you only need 2 maybe 3 lanes each way. But to eliminate congesting for rush hour you need 10+, leaving 7 lanes unused. not all cities like to waste money like that.
plus its very much a behavioral phenomenon.
people will modify behavior, such as work schedules, depending on circumstances.
a frequent occurrence is to add capacity, and see no reduction in congestion during rush hour.
or a temporary reduction that quickly disappears as more people leave earlier because of the added capacity. this might cause a short period of congestion, but the congestion amount itself expanded to fill the capacity.
but then this shorter period of congestion can itself be offset by others who previously avoided trh traffic altogether (by say taking the bus, or walking) then changing behavior and taking their car (or those fokls can also be motivated by the additional capacity mention earlier).
As I said: its a behavioral issue. Additional traffic capacity is nearly always consumed as people change habits.
--
I worked on the I-85/SR316 interchange project in Atlanta, which provided relief for about 4 months. They about doubled capacity of the interchange, but it was filled eventually. There have been long term gains in congestion reduction, but those have mostly come not from the added capacity, but the redesigning/streamlining of nearly 7 miles of on/off ramps: instead of entering/exiting directly to/from the freeway, you get on a short feeder that is physically separated from the main freeway and runs 2-4 miles.
The feeder connects to the main freeway lanes at either end, and all the exits/onramps connect to the feeder. This allows the feeder to collect the congestion of merging traffic as people enter/exit the freeway, while all the thru traffic bypass unimpeded (at least until the feeder reaches capacity). Backups on offramps can quickly slow main freeway traffic as people exit too late, or think they cut ahead of the line and force their way in, etc. That still occurs with a feeder, but now its segregated from the main flow of traffic, and forces anyone wishing to get off for several exits in a row to make that decision early.
(source: experience in traffic engineering, as well as living in Atlanta)
a bad contract is one that is overly one-sided or favors one party too much.
it's a somewhat subjective definition, and depends on the ability of lawyers to advocate for their clients in court.
this doesn't really seem to fall into that category.
Consumers aren't the ones paying ESPN (you don't seem to understand the situation in that regard). Verizon is, for the rights to broadcast ESPN content. And apparently as part of that contract ESPN stipulated that all of Verizon's channel package offerings will include ESPN. ESPN isn't even communicating with consumers, nor are they forcing consumers to buy anything.
So now when Verizon, in response to consumer demand, wants to offer some a la carte packages that merely have the potential to not have include ESPN, ESPN is throwing a flag because of the contract Verizon signed. Verizon apparently was of the opinion that these package wouldn't be included by that language of the contract, but ESPN disagrees. And now they will settle it in court.
The consumer's rights in this aren't even a factor.
It's a dispute between ESPN and Verizon, not ESPN and consumers.
Nah.
They already just make s*** up half the time, and then append "I'm just wondering/asking."
Ever looked at Foxnation.com ?
That's where they literally invite anyone to submit any story.
And it's just chock full of BS.
speaking of which....
Here's an article about the lower half ot the 1% having trouble buying influence in the next election, thanks to the Citizen's United and McCutcheon cases:
"The bottom half of the top 1 percent is getting a sense of what it is like to be a political spectator in the country’s exclusionary wealth primary."
The world may be more complicated, but Pakistan is not the example you are looking for.
The Islamic Republic of Pakistan had a semi-presidential system, using both a PM and a President, and in which the President can basically fire the PM at will.
She was elected by the Parliament (that's how they did it at the time) first in 1988. she served for about 18 months, before the President dismissed her for "corruption".
She was elected again (by parliament) in 1993, and served about 3 years, before again being dismissed in 1996 by the President, this time by a President that she herself had just installed in the Presidency, such was his return treatment of her.
Both times the dismissals were for "corruption". While the charges were likely false, it forced her to go into exile in Dubai, and not return to Pakistan until 2007 when she was granted "amnesty" and the charges dropped.
The day she returned to Pakistan, 18 October 2007, an assassination attempt was made. It was the 2007 Karachi bombing, with 136 dead and 450 wounded(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Karachi_bombing), though it missed her and she wasn't injured.
In November 2007 she was then placed under house arrest for speaking out against the "state of emergency" that had been declared in the country.
Then on December 27 2007, and second assassination attempt was made, and it succeeded. She was killed only two weeks before the 2008 election, an election in which she was the leading opposition candidate.
F'ing A Right "pay more".
Wife is a teacher.
Has her Masters.
10 years experience.
Between the grading and planning, not to mention the extra curricular programs she's responsible for, she regularly puts in 10 hour days, or else spends time on the weekends. Regularly about 60 hours a week.
For all this hard work, she makes only 36k/year, and no overtime.
That's only $15.15/hour (or $13/hr at a job that actually pays overtime).
Damn right they need paid more.
same old same old.
they've been able to keep wages, and the minimum wage, depressed so long that the labor force is shrinking not through a lack of potential workers, but through a lack of willingness for people to work for unlivable wages. if wages kept pace with productivity, as they had for the longest time, the median wage would about 140k/yr, and the minimum wage would be ~20/hr.
this has the effect of preserving the elite's status without requiring them to provide for a strong middle class to buy their products.
instead they preserve their relative status by keeping everyone else's financial status depressed.
you'd almost think it's intentional.
Except of course for the paid shills.
oh shut up.
the point of his actions were to reveal the NSAs actions to the public, so that the public knew about the shady/illegal snennigans the NSA and government were engaging in.
unlike Petraeus who's motivation in leaking was apparently to get into his biographer's pants.
and my lil joke was simply pointing out which one the government believes to be the bigger sin
(and since you're a little dense apparently, that would be "telling the public")
ah but Snowden isnt connected.
Petraeus is, from having been director of the CIA.
Also, he told secrets to the public, instead of his mistress.
I get told all the time by fellow vets and Marines, who theoretically swore the same oath I did, that torture and indefinite detainment are absolutely ok and not violations of the Constitution. I get called a bleeding heart liberal for thinking those things matter.
The only upside to this thoroughly depressing situation, is I then get to say "oh, so wanting to hold to my oath, and actually follow the Constitution is what makes me a liberal? then what defines conservatism?"
the apoplectic fits that follow are always entertaining.
1) Yes it does, that's how herd immunity works.
2) You're an idiot who doesn't understand risk, or what double blind is even useful for. Probably why you keep trotting it out as your goto science "proof" or lack thereof in areas where it's not applicable.
3) Guardicil is not deadly, sorry to burst your myth bubble.
4) Enough stupid in one run on sentence to stock the GOP for years.
No, you are not informed, and no, you don't the risks. If you did or if you were you wouldn't say the stupid things you say.
So...lets see. Things Archangel claims to know about but doesn't:
-Vaccines
-How to get or not get cancer
-global warming
-basic science
Then you're one of the idiots responsible for the bad images of Marines that a lot folks have.
You don't get to threaten someone with death cause you used to be a Marine.
You make us all look bad with your stupid bravado about being above the law.
Oh shut up.
It's not illegal to wear clothing articles normally associated with the military. If appropriate marking (chiefly service tapes if talking about combat utlities) are removed, it is completely legal to wear. And it's not stolen valor to get a few bucks on the side of the road by wearing a utility blouse you picked up in a surplus store.
Probably half the people in the building I work in, which is on a military base, will periodically wear either the bottoms or the tops of utility uniforms on a regular basis, including the newer digital MARPATs. Heck, at a lot of surplus stores I've been to they have the fabric material available on rollers, to buy as much as you need/want. I can't tell you if it's got the little "hidden" EGA's on it like the official MARPAT uniform items, I never looked that close. But one older gent around wears a pair of trousers he made himself from that fabric (cause I don't recall seeing any with a 50inch waist when I was in). Whatever. Big deal.
Unless a dude is walking around with a MOH, or other medals/ribbons he didn't earn, bragging about being shot or a hero he never was, or running for office claiming something he wasn't, you aren't going to convince someone stole any valor by panhandling on the road.
(And your Kerry comments only prove how out of touch with reality you are. )
Personally I hate those videos.
And I am a Marine.
Some may be legit, catching a guy getting preferential status fraudulently.
But far too many are just overzealous-I'm-special-types chasing homeless people.
its one thing for a guy to commit actual fraud, such as the guy Rep. Duckworth chewed out in front of a congressional committee for claiming "disabled veteran" status to get preferential bidding on government contracts, when he had never served a day in life.
it's completely another to harass homeless folks (and even not so homeless folks) panhandling on the side of the road in clothes they got from a surplus store or clothing charity.
the vast majority of lung cancer is people who smoked. the rest are usually found or believed to be caused by long term exposure to cigarette smoke, or other pollutants. only a tiny tiny fraction (2%) is thought to develop a cancer of the lungs without any adverse environmental inputs being the chief factor. it is one of the few cancers that is largely preventable through behavior/avoidance.
"It's my right to endanger people around me, dangit!"
Vaccines: partisan topic by 2016, because Obama said antivaxxers are stupid.
Thanks Obama.
Oh well.
Here's hoping he comes out in support of oxygen.
Evil?
Only if you believe in Supply Side Jesus, rather than the things that dirty hippie said about love, compassion, and "whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, you do to me".
You're an idiot.
Know how I know you don't have a clue what you're talking about?
Besides the obviously ignorant use of the word "commie" that is.
California, that liberal hellhole, only had a budget mess because after a shortfall became apparent (caued by the recession), the minority GOP in the state legislature filibustered any tax increases. The only things they allowed through were spending cuts. But as we've seen repeatedly in places like Kansas and Europe, spending cuts to safety net programs in the middle of a recession only make matters WORSE not better.
By the way, their budget is balanced now, thanks largely to finally tax increases through after kicking out a bunch of republicans from the legislature (which itself only occurred because redistricting was finally taken away from the legislature and put in the hands of an independent citizen commission who undid a lot of gerrymandering.).
As for water:
1) they can't control the weather. So when they only get 5% of the usual snowpack this year, even lower than last years 20% (1inch of water, vs 4inches in 2014), there's not much they can do.
2) the water rights are controlled by farm interests which rural conservative folks and big businesses, who hold a lot of sway in the legislature....not exactly your "commie".
Oh wait, you did know California is actually a purple state right? And its rural populace, as well as a fair number of its tech moguls, would make the folks in Texas blush with how conservative they are? No, you probably didn't know that.
After all, you think they cant do anything right, even though they have the largest economy in the country as the same time as having one of the best safety nets for low income and minority citizens in the nation, and buoyed their populace through the recession better than most states. Heck, you probably don't even know that one reason for Texas's success is it -also- has decent (as far as Red controlled Purple states go) safety nets for folks.
Bugger off loon.
the same Air Force who gave us the F4 Phantom, which was without a doubt one of the worst aircraft ever built
And that's all it takes to show you have no clue what you're talking about,
and your entire comment is neither insightful nor informative.
For starters, the F4 came from the Navy, who wanted a twin engine high speed all weather missile-boat interceptor/fighter to replace the Demon in the early 50's. In fact it's original name for the project was "Super Demon". And its physical origins in the Demon design are quite evident.
And it was never billed as the everything plane for every service.
The Marines bought in once its ground attack potential was realized.
The Air Force didn't buy in until the F4C model.
Over 5100 Phantoms were built, making the most produced US aircraft since World War II.
By the time of Vietnam it made up the bulk of the fighter assets across the entire US military.
It didn't leave US service until 1996.
It also served in the militaries of 11 other nations.
Germany only recently retired its last Phantoms in June 2013.
Turkey only pulled its Phantoms from service this year (2015).
Greece, Egypt, Iran, and Japan are STILL flying Phantoms.
In fact, Iran is actively using Phantoms in to bomb ISIS.
That's hardly sounds like an unsuccessful or "world's worst airplane".
Ladies and gentlemen, the RWNJ brain in action: Being "free to die horribly due to someone's negligence" is more important than your safety while traveling down the road in a thousand pound machine.
Complete false dichotomy by the way.