cults are defined by their adherence to dogma in the face of reality. thus, it is you and your like who are the cultists, not the scientific community.
regardless, you're still wrong. it wasn't the feds and it never was. it's cheap natural gas that killed coal.
regardless, you still ignore that the democratic majority you always trot out was obstructed by filibusters. and a desire by Obama to compromise, something else that always gets ignored ("he doesn't compromise!"). and you trot out a few other BS canards like "secret meetings" "pass it before you readit" etc.
youre wrong. youre completely wrong. youre spouting old, outdated and completely false talking points. Reality is over there, and youre not within miles of it.
We interrupt CrashMarik's regularly scheduled post of misinformation/omission of all the facts to remind CrashMarik that:
-while methane exists it is 100x more effective over the short term (5 years) to 72x more effective over the long term (20yrs) at trapping heat than CO2 -as part of the short life cycle in the atmosphere he is referring to, the thing Methane breaks down into is CO2
This concludes the interruption, CrashMarik may now go back to his regularly scheduled misinformation/omission of all the facts.
Reducing energy use, by personal choice or by imposing it on others with taxation, is a reduction of our standard of living.
That is absolutely not a given. The idea that fighting global warming or reducing our energy usage requires a decrease in our standard of living or bankrupting the economy or both is a complete myth. and ignorant too.
Look at household light bulbs, in just the past 15 years alone.
75-100W incandescent bulbs use, literally, 75-100W of energy. For that, you get 1100-1600 lumens of brightness.
Then came CFLs, which provided the same brightness for 10-20W of energy.
And now LEDs that only consume 3-7W of energy to provide that level of light.
That's 93-96% reduction in energy usage in the single most common household application for energy: providing light.
There was a reason the energy conservation movement when it began focused on such a simple thing as turning off the lights", it was simple and easy to do, logical (why waste energy lighting a room no one is in), and had a collectively large impact when everyone was using bulbs as inefficient as incandescent bulbs.
Hell, large scale abandoning of incandescent bulbs is why the typical consumer is even aware of lumens now, because we used to just go by the wattage. Bonus side effects include: LEDs last almost forever, turning them from a consumable household item into a long term investment (and thus a +value when marketing a house) with large long term gains. and, for those sockets that are wattage restricted for safety(cause the typical Lowes manufacturer uses cheap materials), you can get a brighter bulb into the socket that wont cause a fire.
The next most common usage is proving heat (or cooling, as the case may be). And we've made vast improvements there too, though nothing as dramatic as light bulbs. Yet.
Our cars are more efficient than ever. And electric cars have the potential for even higher gains at lower costs.
---
In short, your post is almost completely ignorant. And that's just the first line of your misinformed first paragraph, and not even touching the other ignorance of your other paragraphs.
was gonna say, ppm is a particle ratio and so needs converted to a mass ratio, but you caught it too. good work, bookmarking for future use. I'd give points if I had em.
The Mandate of an agency is a description enshrined in law by congress as to that agency's function at the agency's inception. It's a legal term and not one the President has any say over other than when he signs the bill establishing the agency in the first place.
POTUS can Direct agencies within that Mandate. But he does create or modify the Mandate.
there is a difference between: -stating prior to the election that you will not accept any election result other than a win -criticizing a flawed and undemocratic electoral process when those flaws are repeatedly brought to light
if you can't tell the difference between them, then you're only reinforcing my already low opinion regarding the intelligence of the typical "libertarian".
The popular vote is irrelevant. It's a fun statistic, but it has no bearing on the outcome.
Except in every other democracy in the world.
If the popular vote determined the president, the voting outcome would have been drastically different because people vote based on the rules of the system.
No, people do not vote based on the rules of the EC system. People casting their vote is no different under the EC than out from under it. What is potentially different is the outcome.
but I sure as hell am not going to advocate for a worse system of first past the post, single vote, popular elections.
and you shouldn't. But that doesn't apply here, because of the two, the EC is the worse system.
Which is more democratic: -FPTP popular elections -FPTP elector college system than can be won with only 22.5% of the vote
Now, FPTP has problems, and we should move away from it to ranked choice or similar. But moving from away from the EC to popular vote would also be an improvement, and is the first step to improving our system,
(besides, you cant get rid of FPTP without also getting rid of the EC anyway)
By the letter of the law the President can nominate a Supreme Court justice WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SENATE
no, he appoints with approval. nominating comes before that.
You're only looking at one side of the equation and stamping your feet that Obama isn't getting his Justice appointed, but legally that's simply not a given
No, the problem is that we don't even know if they approved the nominee or not, because: -they refused to even hold a vote -on the grounds that the president has no authority to exercise his authority as president during his last year in office
If they don't want to approve the nominee, they have to vote on him and say so. they didn't do that
The lack of appointment isn't the source of contention. Its that they literally claimed the president doesn't get to be president during his last year in office.
If Hillary had won they'd be within their legal rights to go another 4 years without approving a justice if they wanted to.
Again there is a difference between withholding approval, and not voting at all. The latter is an abandonment of their constitutional duties.
-New Hampshire does not permit online voter registration, early voting, or no-excuse absentee voting. -Voters in New Hampshire are required to present valid photo identification at the polls. -One can also register at the polls on Election Day. Proof of age, citizenship and residence is required to register
Your "personal experience leads" you to believe........ that your anecdote is more accurate than really smart researchers who aggregated data on billions of votes over the past 16 or so year?
the neoconservatives were democrats who held more conservative leaning foreign policy views, beginning around the mid 60s, ie, the vietnam war and stopping communism. the term is still used some now and then, but it largely was a phenomenon that had died out by the mid 80s, especially with the increasing homogenization of each party (nowadays we more indicate someone is "hawkish" and its still somewhat different from the views neocons held). (the mid 80s also saw another group, the Reagan Democrats, but those are again a different and shouldn't be confused with the neocons, even though there may be some overlap.)
technically Reagan wasn't a neocon. he was once a democrat, but his conversion to conservatism came about from associating with Earl Dunckel, who was the GE public relations man Reagan worked with while traveling around the country as a GE spokesman speaking to various workers and bosses around the country. Though in time Regan's conservatism became even too extreme for the corporate culture of GE.
Reagan was a mixed bag, but everyone since him as been a neocon or neolib, which are basically people who think the purpose of government is to exercise their morality and reshape the world to match their ideals (while enriching themselves, natch), rather than simply serving the interests of the people
Neither neocon nor neolib has anything to do with what you said. I doubt you know the meaning of either based on your usage.
a neocon is a conservative leaning, mostly in terms of foreign policy, democrat. a neoliberal supports 19th century style laissez faire capitalism. ie, conservative/libertarian fiscal policy (ie, it nothing to do with liberalism)
There is no reasonable argument by which the government ignoring the laws enforcing the border is in the best interests of your average American citizen.
They haven't been.
The illegals take jobs from our poorest and most vulnerable citizens
They don't.
they settle in poor communities from which our poor cannot afford to leave and take them over (culturally or physically)
They don't do that either. Also slightly racist.
they commit crimes that would not have occurred if they hadn't been here (crime rate is irrelevant),
Nope, they don't do that either. Also, your racism switch from slight and implied to overt.
they bring drugs
Nope.
Get uppity about the shitty wages and working conditions and you'll get deported, Paco.
All the more reason to allow them to work openly and for the same wage as the rest of us.
It's wrong and evil and racist to not want the illegals, to not want to pay taxes for social services for them, to not want the crime and lawlessness.
Depends ont he reasoning used. So far, youre has been racist. Immigrants and immigration have only ever improved the economy of the country. Also, they don't use social services (and certainly not to that totally made up number you used below of 110B), but they DO pay taxes in for services they cant use.
Nobody's done that in America for a long, long time
The US spends over $110B each year providing services to illegals
completely made up number.
Moralistic b---.
Reality. It's why prosecutorial discretion is even a thing.
In no way does allowing the economic migration of at best indifferent and at worst hostile aliens help in that endeavor.
Because they totally don't just "wants to be left alone to work a job, raise a family and enjoy their life unmolested" like everyone else...right? your bigotry is shining through.
it helps democrats who want to replace Americans with a more compliant slave class.
seriously, your entire post is so ignorant I have trouble knowing where to start.
you're either an idiot, or a bigot, or both. and so are the mods who modded you up.
something doesn't require the use of an explicit slur to be racist.
just a few examples of dog whistles, proving they do indeed deal with actual racism and bigotry: -when talking about Islam, using Barack Obama's middle name, Hussein, for the reaction anything Islamic gets from people on the right -in 1956 Georgia changed their flag, adopting the stars and bars in response to the growing civil rights movement. this is what it looked like before 1956: http://www.georgiaencyclopedia... -Ronald Reagan calling for "States Rights" mere minutes away from Philadelphia, Mississippi, where three civil rights activists were shot and killed in 1964 by racists who also believed in "states rights", where people in the south still thought segregation should be handled as a "states rights" issue (indeed, the main one) and not at the federal level. the phrase even calls back to the civil war itself, where the states seceded over their "states rights" to have slavery.
apparently you are unaware that the term was created by Spencer himself to refer to people such as himself and those who thought like him: people who care about white identity, white nationalism, etc.
thus, your point in invalid, and racism was built into the term from the beginning.
Slashdot Mirror
cults are defined by their adherence to dogma in the face of reality.
thus, it is you and your like who are the cultists, not the scientific community.
he didn't ask for an org chart.
he asked "who in your mail room has worked on or handled postcards?"
that's only because the roaches figured out they don't need to hide anymore now that they got one of their own elected.
I prefer Baron F---face von Clownstick.
The man who said the election was rigged, won with the 2nd most votes.
Everything you say about hillarys numbers, only worsens how trump looks when you remember that he got 3 million FEWER votes .
So the populous was more behind her than him.
regardless, you're still wrong.
it wasn't the feds and it never was.
it's cheap natural gas that killed coal.
regardless, you still ignore that the democratic majority you always trot out was obstructed by filibusters.
and a desire by Obama to compromise, something else that always gets ignored ("he doesn't compromise!").
and you trot out a few other BS canards like "secret meetings" "pass it before you readit" etc.
youre wrong.
youre completely wrong. youre spouting old, outdated and completely false talking points.
Reality is over there, and youre not within miles of it.
http://www.energy.gov/science-...
Clowns don't have enemies.
Just people who pity them their foolishness.
We interrupt CrashMarik's regularly scheduled post of misinformation/omission of all the facts to remind CrashMarik that:
-while methane exists it is 100x more effective over the short term (5 years) to 72x more effective over the long term (20yrs) at trapping heat than CO2
-as part of the short life cycle in the atmosphere he is referring to, the thing Methane breaks down into is CO2
This concludes the interruption, CrashMarik may now go back to his regularly scheduled misinformation/omission of all the facts.
Reducing energy use, by personal choice or by imposing it on others with taxation, is a reduction of our standard of living.
That is absolutely not a given.
The idea that fighting global warming or reducing our energy usage requires a decrease in our standard of living or bankrupting the economy or both is a complete myth . and ignorant too.
Look at household light bulbs, in just the past 15 years alone.
75-100W incandescent bulbs use, literally, 75-100W of energy.
For that, you get 1100-1600 lumens of brightness.
Then came CFLs, which provided the same brightness for 10-20W of energy.
And now LEDs that only consume 3-7W of energy to provide that level of light.
That's 93-96% reduction in energy usage in the single most common household application for energy: providing light.
There was a reason the energy conservation movement when it began focused on such a simple thing as turning off the lights", it was simple and easy to do, logical (why waste energy lighting a room no one is in), and had a collectively large impact when everyone was using bulbs as inefficient as incandescent bulbs.
Hell, large scale abandoning of incandescent bulbs is why the typical consumer is even aware of lumens now, because we used to just go by the wattage.
Bonus side effects include: LEDs last almost forever, turning them from a consumable household item into a long term investment (and thus a +value when marketing a house) with large long term gains. and, for those sockets that are wattage restricted for safety(cause the typical Lowes manufacturer uses cheap materials), you can get a brighter bulb into the socket that wont cause a fire.
The next most common usage is proving heat (or cooling, as the case may be). And we've made vast improvements there too, though nothing as dramatic as light bulbs. Yet.
Our cars are more efficient than ever. And electric cars have the potential for even higher gains at lower costs.
---
In short, your post is almost completely ignorant.
And that's just the first line of your misinformed first paragraph, and not even touching the other ignorance of your other paragraphs.
was gonna say, ppm is a particle ratio and so needs converted to a mass ratio, but you caught it too.
good work, bookmarking for future use.
I'd give points if I had em.
he already did that by "winning" the election.
Not even close.
Agency mandates do not come from the president.
The Mandate of an agency is a description enshrined in law by congress as to that agency's function at the agency's inception.
It's a legal term and not one the President has any say over other than when he signs the bill establishing the agency in the first place.
POTUS can Direct agencies within that Mandate.
But he does create or modify the Mandate.
more proof that "libertarian" = "idiot".
there is a difference between:
-stating prior to the election that you will not accept any election result other than a win
-criticizing a flawed and undemocratic electoral process when those flaws are repeatedly brought to light
if you can't tell the difference between them, then you're only reinforcing my already low opinion regarding the intelligence of the typical "libertarian".
The popular vote is irrelevant. It's a fun statistic, but it has no bearing on the outcome.
Except in every other democracy in the world.
If the popular vote determined the president, the voting outcome would have been drastically different because people vote based on the rules of the system.
No, people do not vote based on the rules of the EC system.
People casting their vote is no different under the EC than out from under it.
What is potentially different is the outcome.
but I sure as hell am not going to advocate for a worse system of first past the post, single vote, popular elections.
and you shouldn't.
But that doesn't apply here, because of the two, the EC is the worse system.
Which is more democratic:
-FPTP popular elections
-FPTP elector college system than can be won with only 22.5% of the vote
Now, FPTP has problems, and we should move away from it to ranked choice or similar.
But moving from away from the EC to popular vote would also be an improvement , and is the first step to improving our system,
(besides, you cant get rid of FPTP without also getting rid of the EC anyway)
who's the bigger idiot?
you, or the guy that modded you up?
By the letter of the law the President can nominate a Supreme Court justice WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SENATE
no, he appoints with approval.
nominating comes before that.
You're only looking at one side of the equation and stamping your feet that Obama isn't getting his Justice appointed, but legally that's simply not a given
No, the problem is that we don't even know if they approved the nominee or not, because:
-they refused to even hold a vote
-on the grounds that the president has no authority to exercise his authority as president during his last year in office
If they don't want to approve the nominee, they have to vote on him and say so.
they didn't do that
The lack of appointment isn't the source of contention.
Its that they literally claimed the president doesn't get to be president during his last year in office.
If Hillary had won they'd be within their legal rights to go another 4 years without approving a justice if they wanted to.
Again there is a difference between withholding approval, and not voting at all.
The latter is an abandonment of their constitutional duties.
Moron.
lies.
https://ballotpedia.org/Voting...
-New Hampshire does not permit online voter registration, early voting, or no-excuse absentee voting.
-Voters in New Hampshire are required to present valid photo identification at the polls.
-One can also register at the polls on Election Day. Proof of age, citizenship and residence is required to register
Your "personal experience leads" you to believe........ that your anecdote is more accurate than really smart researchers who aggregated data on billions of votes over the past 16 or so year?
doubtful
Gotta disagree here pope.
the neoconservatives were democrats who held more conservative leaning foreign policy views, beginning around the mid 60s, ie, the vietnam war and stopping communism. the term is still used some now and then, but it largely was a phenomenon that had died out by the mid 80s, especially with the increasing homogenization of each party (nowadays we more indicate someone is "hawkish" and its still somewhat different from the views neocons held). (the mid 80s also saw another group, the Reagan Democrats, but those are again a different and shouldn't be confused with the neocons, even though there may be some overlap.)
technically Reagan wasn't a neocon.
he was once a democrat, but his conversion to conservatism came about from associating with Earl Dunckel, who was the GE public relations man Reagan worked with while traveling around the country as a GE spokesman speaking to various workers and bosses around the country. Though in time Regan's conservatism became even too extreme for the corporate culture of GE.
more info here: http://www.slate.com/articles/...
Reagan was a mixed bag, but everyone since him as been a neocon or neolib, which are basically people who think the purpose of government is to exercise their morality and reshape the world to match their ideals (while enriching themselves, natch), rather than simply serving the interests of the people
Neither neocon nor neolib has anything to do with what you said.
I doubt you know the meaning of either based on your usage.
a neocon is a conservative leaning, mostly in terms of foreign policy, democrat.
a neoliberal supports 19th century style laissez faire capitalism. ie, conservative/libertarian fiscal policy (ie, it nothing to do with liberalism)
There is no reasonable argument by which the government ignoring the laws enforcing the border is in the best interests of your average American citizen.
They haven't been.
The illegals take jobs from our poorest and most vulnerable citizens
They don't.
they settle in poor communities from which our poor cannot afford to leave and take them over (culturally or physically)
They don't do that either. Also slightly racist.
they commit crimes that would not have occurred if they hadn't been here (crime rate is irrelevant),
Nope, they don't do that either.
Also, your racism switch from slight and implied to overt.
they bring drugs
Nope.
Get uppity about the shitty wages and working conditions and you'll get deported, Paco.
All the more reason to allow them to work openly and for the same wage as the rest of us.
It's wrong and evil and racist to not want the illegals, to not want to pay taxes for social services for them, to not want the crime and lawlessness.
Depends ont he reasoning used. So far, youre has been racist .
Immigrants and immigration have only ever improved the economy of the country.
Also, they don't use social services (and certainly not to that totally made up number you used below of 110B), but they DO pay taxes in for services they cant use.
Nobody's done that in America for a long, long time
Rank and utter ignorance.
The US spends over $110B each year providing services to illegals
completely made up number.
Moralistic b---.
Reality. It's why prosecutorial discretion is even a thing.
In no way does allowing the economic migration of at best indifferent and at worst hostile aliens help in that endeavor.
Because they totally don't just "wants to be left alone to work a job, raise a family and enjoy their life unmolested" like everyone else...right?
your bigotry is shining through.
it helps democrats who want to replace Americans with a more compliant slave class.
seriously, your entire post is so ignorant I have trouble knowing where to start.
you're either an idiot, or a bigot, or both.
and so are the mods who modded you up.
something doesn't require the use of an explicit slur to be racist.
just a few examples of dog whistles, proving they do indeed deal with actual racism and bigotry:
-when talking about Islam, using Barack Obama's middle name, Hussein, for the reaction anything Islamic gets from people on the right
-in 1956 Georgia changed their flag, adopting the stars and bars in response to the growing civil rights movement. this is what it looked like before 1956: http://www.georgiaencyclopedia...
-Ronald Reagan calling for "States Rights" mere minutes away from Philadelphia, Mississippi, where three civil rights activists were shot and killed in 1964 by racists who also believed in "states rights", where people in the south still thought segregation should be handled as a "states rights" issue (indeed, the main one) and not at the federal level. the phrase even calls back to the civil war itself, where the states seceded over their "states rights" to have slavery.
apparently you are unaware that the term was created by Spencer himself to refer to people such as himself and those who thought like him: people who care about white identity, white nationalism, etc.
thus, your point in invalid, and racism was built into the term from the beginning.
You seem confused.
I suggest reading it and understanding it before misstating it as you have.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/op...