they are truly less corrupt, and having smaller populations is an intellectually dishonest dodge. there's nothing different from these countries that we cannot also do
More importantly, you and I disagree on one basic point. You believe that regulations allow small companies to compete with large companies.
this is not a different of opinion. i have a factual understanding here. you have a quasireligious ignorant faith in a bullshit wishfulfilliment fantasy
In addition, you believe that the words "law" and "regulation" are interchangeable, which allows you to suggest that those who want limited government regulation are anarchists.
not anarchist. retards. people on the same "intellectual" order as creationists in regards to evolution
you can't just believe something which denies simple reality of a topic and expect to be taken seriously
there are many countries: canada, the nordic countries that have much less corruption than we do. we can have the same
oh no, we can't ever have perfection, but no one except an idiot would expect that, or judge from that perspective. the point is to do *better*, which we will, in spite of morons like yourself who seems happy with the status quo because "that's just human nature"
"hey man, your neighbor killed your dog. don't fight it dude, that's just human nature"
fucking idiot
you fight crimes and you fight criminals in this world, douchebag, or they take over
I don't see an issue with any of these anti-coorporative behaviours as long as they are agreed upon voluntarily by the parties involved.
(facepalm)
i stopped reading there
you really are a moron
that's not a baseless insult. anyone who would write such a sentence is fucking stupid on the topic. there is absolutely nothing redeemable about you
you can serve yourself and the world by shutting the fuck up on a topic you are only embarrassing yourself on. i mean that with sincerity. you are a genuine complete moron in this topic. dumb. useless
of course you'll keep opening your mouth on the topic. after all, you're a moron, that's what morons do. but maybe you can grow an awareness that everyone else is laughing at you or shaking their head in dusgust
threatening anyone's life specifically is not protected free speech. like child porn or the proverbial shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, there are some expressions which directly impinges on someone else's freedom, and is therefore not free speech
all freedoms exist in natural tension with one another. my right to get a good night's sleep, your right to listen to music at 2 AM. my right to piss when my bladder is full, your right to grow petunias in your garden. my right to speed on the highway, your right to live. etc. most violations of freedom in your life is not by the cartoonish big bad government out to destroy your freedoms for shits and giggles (violations of your freedoms by the government does exist, i'm not denying that, i'm simply saying it's rarer), but mostly by regular people around you every day who don't care or don't know how they violate your freedoms
so if an action you take hurts someone else's natural freedoms, your action by definition is not free. an act can't hurt anyone else and still be called a free act. doing whatever the hell you want, damn the consequences, is not an actually logically coherent understanding of what freedom means. doing whatever he hell you want, as long as it doesn't hurt the freedom of someone else, is the logically valid understanding of natural freedom
therefore, those people who are threatening a specific person's life should be identified and punished. in the name of freedom: the freedom of someone to live
meanwhile, terroristic hate speech that says for example "all christians should die" is free, because it is not specific. terrorist speech which delves into this area of generalized hate can be watched, but is not punishable. then if some moron wades into this kind of speech and goes "yeah, you're right, i'm going to blow up that church on 14th street tomorrow": boom, you've got an actual natural freedom violation and actionable content that demands your identification, capture, and trial, because you made a specific threat
so there's no real thought crime here. there's "free" terrorist speech, and the government simply watching those who indulge in such hate. which is fine, and expected, and normal. then if you commit a "thoughtcrime" by wading into that speech and stupidly making a specific threat, that really is a logical violation of someone else's natural freedom, and so you are fair game for punishment, and you should be punished
nothing makes me angrier than free market fundamentalist morons
you are toxic to intelligent discourse on an important issue that is often abused by plutocrat interests, which in the end you retards are just tools of
economics is not a wish fulfillment quasireligion in the service of an ignorant ideology believed by fools with the intellectual and moral maturity of someone still in diapers
the free market fairy is not real, losers. markets do not magically self-regulate
to believe that is on the same "intellectual" order as creationism, climate change denial, birthers, and 9/11 truthers: stupid crackpot mental diarrhea, often purposefully encouraged by vested interests who want to manipulate morons to serve their financial and political agendas
flerovium is not a fissile material. a fissile material is material capable of sustaining a nuclear fission chain reaction. flerovium doesn't hang around long enough to accomplish this
the term you want to use is *fissionable* material
now you've learned some nuclear chemistry today, useless pedant
not that i care. but you can't skewer someone for minor points and then claim immunity from the same when someone points out your ignorance
like grammar nazis, you are worse than what you hate
because at least most of those who are ignorant of minor facts or make minor unimportant errors are honest about it and admit the error honestly and willingly, unlike you and your lack of personal character who delivers the polemics but then commits the same mistakes
this is an informal comment board, not a doctoral thesis. so act appropriately, self-important douchebag
Poe's law is an Internet adage which states that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, parodies of extreme views will, to some readers, be indistinguishable from sincere expressions of the parodied views.
when you are writing something sarcastic, putting the "/s" or ";-)" wink on the end can feel like you are "ruining" the subtly of the joke. but trust me: there are so many wackjobs and crackpots out there who would believe your sarcastic crap with 100% sincerity, you want that "/s" to make sure you don't get confused with them
because you will get confused with them. and the problem is not the person reading, it is your problem, for not clearly communicating you meant a joke, rather than being serious. no matter how crazy your sarcastic assertion, "there's no way someone can take me seriously..." no, someone will take you seriously. and you can't blame them. have you seen some of the raving nonsense on the internet?
the part i like about poe's law though is the corollary: a genuine herp derp alex jones style wackjob can be mistakenly believed to be a sly intelligent sarcastic person, that they are just joking about their ignorant mental diarrhea
1. the person with the proper information (not lied to) and
2. proper respect for free will (bodily integrity not controlled by the government, like "pro life" morons)
"pro life" morons are actually only pro birth. they see birth as some sort of sacred bullshit. even in regards to a fetus which is objectively and scientifically not a baby, not sentient, and if destroyed, no life has been taken: it's a blob of fucking cells no more remarkable than a tumor that *might* become a baby someday
but then of course, when the baby is born:
1. they don't deserve clothing.
2. they don't deserve housing.
3. they don't deserve food.
4. they don't deserve healthcare.
5. they don't deserve education.
etc.
show me a someone who truly supports social welfare, after the baby is born, and then label "pro life" applies with logical and moral coherence. otherwise, you're a useless "pro birth" person who for some reason asserts that passage through a vagina is some sort of holy magic right endowed on gametes and fetal blobs. which is logically and scientifically inaccurate and just religious ignorance
the real issue is control of a woman and her freedom. if a woman is not ready to care for a child, she should have the right to get rid of the fucking useless blob before it develops any sentience or viability. if the woman is forced to raise a child she cannot care for and does not love, you are not creating a beautiful life, you are making a woman's (not a man's, of course) life miserable and creating an unloved life which will take that lack of care out on society
shaming her for having sex (while the man gets to disappear blamelessly, of course) is the real topic
but with absolute 100% certainty, i am here to tell you that *zero* regulations is actually far, far, worse. when you have a market unregulated, it is not fair at all. the large players have hundreds of ways to abuse smaller players and consumers to make a few pennies more, and they will
if you don't understand that, if you persist with a wish fulfillment ignorant fantasy that an unregulated market is somehow magically fair, you are a moron. not a baseless insult, an objectively true label for the quality of your thought on this subject
we are supposed to be diplomatic and civil in public discourse, not succumb to baseless insults
however, when dealing with someone who openly spews genuine 100% verifiable hysterical lies, calling them a moron is not baseless, it's actually objective
in which case, being "polite" rather than using the proper term to describe the person trafficking in the ignorant propaganda, is the less useful approach
you should always aim to be polite in conversation, but if someone starts asserting impolite bald lies, you should respond in kind, and call them what they are: a moron, in public discourse. not to baselessly insult them, but to tell them and the world what they objectively are
the point is to have open discourse with all honest players, not all players period. if someone is being dishonest in their conversation, polite conversation is not possible, and they must be removed on those grounds: they're dumb and useless, objectively so
i assert the media let's us down when it provides a "false balance": say a "fair" argument between a climate scientist and a climate change denier. this is neither fair nor balanced (pun intended) because the simple and overwhelming truth at this point is that climate change is real. therefore, our media would better serve us by actually rejecting well-funded but intellectually dishonest propaganda
being a slave to politics and letting one side of a *political* debate get away with lies is what is not fair
we need to start calling the propaganda we see in this world what it is and we need to properly characterize the intelligence and character of those who traffic in it: morons
not to baselessly insult, but to call liars and idiots out for ruining the conversation with propaganda. they are the ones who ruin polite discourse by doing that
the famous scene in breaking bad has to do with hydrofluoric acid, not "chlorine acid" (assuming they mean hydrochloric acid)
in the breaking bad scene, jesse puts the body in a bathtub, instead of a plastic bin like he was was instructed to by walt. HF, unlike HCl, dissolves glass and ceramics. and so the partially dissolved body comes crashing through the ceiling
there is a nice combination of acids that apparently works great for dissolving bodies, but neither mythbusters nor breaking bad is going to tell us (probably some mix of acids, paying attention to the molar concentrations)
furthermore, the mafia has been dissolving bodies in acid for decades. breaking bad did not invent the concept, and these french goons did not necessarily get the idea form breaking bad
so the connection of this crime to breaking bad is complete bullshit, invented by some reporter who doesn't know his history of organized crime and is only familiar with tv shows
Our discussion suffers from the fact that you think that the symptoms are the problem and that they can be solved by making the real problem worse.
we need strong effective regulations, free from bad regulations created by regulatory capture: big business bankrolling congresscritters and telling them what regulations to write
do you have a problem with that? because that's 100% in line with what i've said
and the largest enemy to getting that done is plutocrats and the Republican party who constantly whine about "evil regulations." by which they mean any regulation that hurts their donor's profits.
if there are no regulations, who do think wins? the established players. you think with no rules in the market the little guy has a chance? you want to know the kind of market abuses that can go on without any rules in the market? you're completel yignorant of this subject matter, why are you talking about it?
what you're talking about is *corrupt* regulations
The issue has nothing to do with regulating everything you do (which is what Democrats want) vs not regulating anything (which is what you think Republicans want)
you mean like social issues? (abortion, gay marriage, marijuana, etc.)
It is about changing BAD laws which allowed certain people (Chris Dodd and Barney Frank...you may have heard of them in the law named after them) to profit off of the mortgage mess which caused the 2008 meltdown
the guys bankrolling your congresscritter do not want laws which effect their bottom line. it doesn't matter if the law is good or bad or not, they only care if the law costs them money
but you want us to:
1. forget about those plutocrats who buy your congresscritter
2. forget about the party that screams deregulation in the name of plutocrat interests the loudest, by far
no, you want us to blame two democrat stooges for all of it
so your derangement is that you don't actually care about making sense or being intellectually honest on the topic. all you care about is punishing the democratic party any way you can, even by using subject matter that anything more than the slightest shallow analysis would mean you want to go after plutocrats and republicans way more than two democrat fall guys
if you actually care about the topic you say you care about, then the republican party is a greater enemy to you than two democrat stooges ever could be
so i am saying that you are intellectually dishonest and a blind shallow partisan hack: you don't actually care about the topics you say you care about, because if you thought for the slightest second about those topics you say you care about, you'd realize who is really creating the problem
i don't even know what the fuck you are talking about
do you understand the fucking topic of the fucking thread? do you have the mental wherewithall to do that?
nevermind that changing the topic is usually the sign of conceding a point, dishonestly
or changing the topic randomly means you're such a moron you don't even try to understand what the fucking topic in front of you is, you just think throwing random crap is supposed to be coherent in any way or that anyone is going to fucking listen to you. a scatterbrained weakminded crackpot
you completely glossed over the part where the republicans want less regulation the most. since reagan this is their wet dream. that you can point to democratic morons who go along with their fantasy does not absolve the party most responsible for the deregulation push
"the republicans have been shouting the most about deregulation for the longest time, by many multiples"
"well, i found some democrat morons who went along with that, so let's shift all blame to them"
partisan blindness: negate all critical thinking on the topic, just shift all blame to the party you hate the most, forget actually making sense or intellectual honesty on the topic
look to the republican debate last night: "less government regulation"
the democrats have been complicit in the failure that led to 2008 only when they have gone along willingly with the republican wet dreams about how less government regulation makes magic better world: of companies not punished for polluting, companies not punished for tanking the economy, companies not punished for screwing up the food supply, etc.
the democrats bear about as much responsibility as the guy who handed the murderer the gun. who is the real culprit here? which party loves, loves, loves less regulation?
that doesn't mean all regulation is good. some regulation sucks and needs to be thrown out. but the people behind the purse books don't fucking care about healthy environment, food, economy, etc., they want all regulation destroyed, evne the good and important parts. they just care about making as much money as they fucking can right now, fuck the rest. fuck your grandkids, fuck the poor and middle class. fuck them all: i'm making money, screw you. and which party do such people give most too and which party whines loudest about "evil regulations?"
i was talking about a more local electrical arrangement
but yes, long distance, that's a complicated topic, what distance are you really talking about and what other interconnections do you need? dc does have advantages in many cases, especially very long distance
but now we are very far away from the topic of a guy charging his laptop and running some LED lights
The advantage of AC has always been that it is easy to change the voltage up and down with a transformer; DC requires more equipment and some losses to convert.
That being said, transferring AC power between separate grids requires making sure the phase of the power transmitted matches from the two grids (so that the power from the two grids doesn't cancel or ring), which is difficult and expensive. This is not a problem for DC, so DC lines are used in cases such as where power is transferred from another grid to increase the capacity of an existing grid, or between countries that use different frequency power.
Capacitance between the AC phases (usually 3 phases are transmitted at once over a line) or between the line and the surrounding soil or water causes losses that are not a problem with DC. Therefore, undersea high voltage lines tend to be DC.
Overall line loss is also lower per 1,000 km, so very long distance transmission lines sometimes use DC.
Slashdot Mirror
they are truly less corrupt, and having smaller populations is an intellectually dishonest dodge. there's nothing different from these countries that we cannot also do
this is not a different of opinion. i have a factual understanding here. you have a quasireligious ignorant faith in a bullshit wishfulfilliment fantasy
this is the problem:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
the only way to solve that is regulations
fact
not anarchist. retards. people on the same "intellectual" order as creationists in regards to evolution
you can't just believe something which denies simple reality of a topic and expect to be taken seriously
there are many countries: canada, the nordic countries that have much less corruption than we do. we can have the same
oh no, we can't ever have perfection, but no one except an idiot would expect that, or judge from that perspective. the point is to do *better*, which we will, in spite of morons like yourself who seems happy with the status quo because "that's just human nature"
"hey man, your neighbor killed your dog. don't fight it dude, that's just human nature"
fucking idiot
you fight crimes and you fight criminals in this world, douchebag, or they take over
now which fucking side are you on?
(facepalm)
i stopped reading there
you really are a moron
that's not a baseless insult. anyone who would write such a sentence is fucking stupid on the topic. there is absolutely nothing redeemable about you
you can serve yourself and the world by shutting the fuck up on a topic you are only embarrassing yourself on. i mean that with sincerity. you are a genuine complete moron in this topic. dumb. useless
of course you'll keep opening your mouth on the topic. after all, you're a moron, that's what morons do. but maybe you can grow an awareness that everyone else is laughing at you or shaking their head in dusgust
threatening anyone's life specifically is not protected free speech. like child porn or the proverbial shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, there are some expressions which directly impinges on someone else's freedom, and is therefore not free speech
all freedoms exist in natural tension with one another. my right to get a good night's sleep, your right to listen to music at 2 AM. my right to piss when my bladder is full, your right to grow petunias in your garden. my right to speed on the highway, your right to live. etc. most violations of freedom in your life is not by the cartoonish big bad government out to destroy your freedoms for shits and giggles (violations of your freedoms by the government does exist, i'm not denying that, i'm simply saying it's rarer), but mostly by regular people around you every day who don't care or don't know how they violate your freedoms
so if an action you take hurts someone else's natural freedoms, your action by definition is not free. an act can't hurt anyone else and still be called a free act. doing whatever the hell you want, damn the consequences, is not an actually logically coherent understanding of what freedom means. doing whatever he hell you want, as long as it doesn't hurt the freedom of someone else, is the logically valid understanding of natural freedom
therefore, those people who are threatening a specific person's life should be identified and punished. in the name of freedom: the freedom of someone to live
meanwhile, terroristic hate speech that says for example "all christians should die" is free, because it is not specific. terrorist speech which delves into this area of generalized hate can be watched, but is not punishable. then if some moron wades into this kind of speech and goes "yeah, you're right, i'm going to blow up that church on 14th street tomorrow": boom, you've got an actual natural freedom violation and actionable content that demands your identification, capture, and trial, because you made a specific threat
so there's no real thought crime here. there's "free" terrorist speech, and the government simply watching those who indulge in such hate. which is fine, and expected, and normal. then if you commit a "thoughtcrime" by wading into that speech and stupidly making a specific threat, that really is a logical violation of someone else's natural freedom, and so you are fair game for punishment, and you should be punished
i am not here to hold your hand and whisper the facts of life in your ear lovingly like i'm your father
it's your fucking job to be minimally educated on a topic before you open your ignorant useless mouth
but here's some intellectual charity for the idiot, start here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
good luck on your education, you low iq douchebag
nothing makes me angrier than free market fundamentalist morons
you are toxic to intelligent discourse on an important issue that is often abused by plutocrat interests, which in the end you retards are just tools of
economics is not a wish fulfillment quasireligion in the service of an ignorant ideology believed by fools with the intellectual and moral maturity of someone still in diapers
the free market fairy is not real, losers. markets do not magically self-regulate
to believe that is on the same "intellectual" order as creationism, climate change denial, birthers, and 9/11 truthers: stupid crackpot mental diarrhea, often purposefully encouraged by vested interests who want to manipulate morons to serve their financial and political agendas
flerovium is not a fissile material. a fissile material is material capable of sustaining a nuclear fission chain reaction. flerovium doesn't hang around long enough to accomplish this
the term you want to use is *fissionable* material
educate yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
now you've learned some nuclear chemistry today, useless pedant
not that i care. but you can't skewer someone for minor points and then claim immunity from the same when someone points out your ignorance
like grammar nazis, you are worse than what you hate
because at least most of those who are ignorant of minor facts or make minor unimportant errors are honest about it and admit the error honestly and willingly, unlike you and your lack of personal character who delivers the polemics but then commits the same mistakes
this is an informal comment board, not a doctoral thesis. so act appropriately, self-important douchebag
no, it's a simple law of the internet
nuance and sarcasm can be intended, but it doesn't come across on the computer screen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
when you are writing something sarcastic, putting the "/s" or ";-)" wink on the end can feel like you are "ruining" the subtly of the joke. but trust me: there are so many wackjobs and crackpots out there who would believe your sarcastic crap with 100% sincerity, you want that "/s" to make sure you don't get confused with them
because you will get confused with them. and the problem is not the person reading, it is your problem, for not clearly communicating you meant a joke, rather than being serious. no matter how crazy your sarcastic assertion, "there's no way someone can take me seriously..." no, someone will take you seriously. and you can't blame them. have you seen some of the raving nonsense on the internet?
the part i like about poe's law though is the corollary: a genuine herp derp alex jones style wackjob can be mistakenly believed to be a sly intelligent sarcastic person, that they are just joking about their ignorant mental diarrhea
sorry
(national stereotype reference intended)
who gets to decide is if the choice was made by
1. the person with the proper information (not lied to) and
2. proper respect for free will (bodily integrity not controlled by the government, like "pro life" morons)
"pro life" morons are actually only pro birth. they see birth as some sort of sacred bullshit. even in regards to a fetus which is objectively and scientifically not a baby, not sentient, and if destroyed, no life has been taken: it's a blob of fucking cells no more remarkable than a tumor that *might* become a baby someday
but then of course, when the baby is born:
1. they don't deserve clothing.
2. they don't deserve housing.
3. they don't deserve food.
4. they don't deserve healthcare.
5. they don't deserve education.
etc.
show me a someone who truly supports social welfare, after the baby is born, and then label "pro life" applies with logical and moral coherence. otherwise, you're a useless "pro birth" person who for some reason asserts that passage through a vagina is some sort of holy magic right endowed on gametes and fetal blobs. which is logically and scientifically inaccurate and just religious ignorance
the real issue is control of a woman and her freedom. if a woman is not ready to care for a child, she should have the right to get rid of the fucking useless blob before it develops any sentience or viability. if the woman is forced to raise a child she cannot care for and does not love, you are not creating a beautiful life, you are making a woman's (not a man's, of course) life miserable and creating an unloved life which will take that lack of care out on society
shaming her for having sex (while the man gets to disappear blamelessly, of course) is the real topic
"pro life" is a lie
there are tons of bad regulations and bad regulators. we should get rid of them
with our corrupt politics, there are also regulations written by those that are supposed to be regulated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
but with absolute 100% certainty, i am here to tell you that *zero* regulations is actually far, far, worse. when you have a market unregulated, it is not fair at all. the large players have hundreds of ways to abuse smaller players and consumers to make a few pennies more, and they will
if you don't understand that, if you persist with a wish fulfillment ignorant fantasy that an unregulated market is somehow magically fair, you are a moron. not a baseless insult, an objectively true label for the quality of your thought on this subject
*whoosh*
i just want to clarify something:
we are supposed to be diplomatic and civil in public discourse, not succumb to baseless insults
however, when dealing with someone who openly spews genuine 100% verifiable hysterical lies, calling them a moron is not baseless, it's actually objective
in which case, being "polite" rather than using the proper term to describe the person trafficking in the ignorant propaganda, is the less useful approach
you should always aim to be polite in conversation, but if someone starts asserting impolite bald lies, you should respond in kind, and call them what they are: a moron, in public discourse. not to baselessly insult them, but to tell them and the world what they objectively are
the point is to have open discourse with all honest players, not all players period. if someone is being dishonest in their conversation, polite conversation is not possible, and they must be removed on those grounds: they're dumb and useless, objectively so
i assert the media let's us down when it provides a "false balance": say a "fair" argument between a climate scientist and a climate change denier. this is neither fair nor balanced (pun intended) because the simple and overwhelming truth at this point is that climate change is real. therefore, our media would better serve us by actually rejecting well-funded but intellectually dishonest propaganda
being a slave to politics and letting one side of a *political* debate get away with lies is what is not fair
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
we need to start calling the propaganda we see in this world what it is and we need to properly characterize the intelligence and character of those who traffic in it: morons
not to baselessly insult, but to call liars and idiots out for ruining the conversation with propaganda. they are the ones who ruin polite discourse by doing that
i've spotted the elusive chemical nomenclature nazi
the famous scene in breaking bad has to do with hydrofluoric acid, not "chlorine acid" (assuming they mean hydrochloric acid)
in the breaking bad scene, jesse puts the body in a bathtub, instead of a plastic bin like he was was instructed to by walt. HF, unlike HCl, dissolves glass and ceramics. and so the partially dissolved body comes crashing through the ceiling
http://breakingbad.wikia.com/w...
mythbusters busted this though:
http://www.today.com/popcultur...
there is a nice combination of acids that apparently works great for dissolving bodies, but neither mythbusters nor breaking bad is going to tell us (probably some mix of acids, paying attention to the molar concentrations)
furthermore, the mafia has been dissolving bodies in acid for decades. breaking bad did not invent the concept, and these french goons did not necessarily get the idea form breaking bad
so the connection of this crime to breaking bad is complete bullshit, invented by some reporter who doesn't know his history of organized crime and is only familiar with tv shows
we need strong effective regulations, free from bad regulations created by regulatory capture: big business bankrolling congresscritters and telling them what regulations to write
do you have a problem with that? because that's 100% in line with what i've said
and the largest enemy to getting that done is plutocrats and the Republican party who constantly whine about "evil regulations." by which they mean any regulation that hurts their donor's profits.
and which party screams loudest and for the longest time about no regulations and has done the most to destroy regulations?
but no, we have these stooges who agreed with us momentarily, therefore they deserve all blame
do you want to actually solve the problem, or play moronic partisan games?
Finish the thought: Bush and the Republicans wanted to change it how?
In vact, how are Republicans still trying to change Dodd Frank, in what ways?
Do you need help using Google news search? Is that too hard for you? I can paste the link if you need me to.
Think. then have an actually valid opinion.
LOL
if there are no regulations, who do think wins? the established players. you think with no rules in the market the little guy has a chance? you want to know the kind of market abuses that can go on without any rules in the market? you're completel yignorant of this subject matter, why are you talking about it?
what you're talking about is *corrupt* regulations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
which is also a huge problem
so what you want is to fight "the corrupt regulations* not *regulations*
do you understand?
would you kind getting the slightest education on a topic before opening your ignorant mouth?
as for democrats being the evil party that makes corrupt regulations... LOL!
how can someone be so twisted around in propaganda and ignorance?
you mean like social issues? (abortion, gay marriage, marijuana, etc.)
the guys bankrolling your congresscritter do not want laws which effect their bottom line. it doesn't matter if the law is good or bad or not, they only care if the law costs them money
but you want us to:
1. forget about those plutocrats who buy your congresscritter
2. forget about the party that screams deregulation in the name of plutocrat interests the loudest, by far
no, you want us to blame two democrat stooges for all of it
so your derangement is that you don't actually care about making sense or being intellectually honest on the topic. all you care about is punishing the democratic party any way you can, even by using subject matter that anything more than the slightest shallow analysis would mean you want to go after plutocrats and republicans way more than two democrat fall guys
if you actually care about the topic you say you care about, then the republican party is a greater enemy to you than two democrat stooges ever could be
so i am saying that you are intellectually dishonest and a blind shallow partisan hack: you don't actually care about the topics you say you care about, because if you thought for the slightest second about those topics you say you care about, you'd realize who is really creating the problem
i don't even know what the fuck you are talking about
do you understand the fucking topic of the fucking thread? do you have the mental wherewithall to do that?
nevermind that changing the topic is usually the sign of conceding a point, dishonestly
or changing the topic randomly means you're such a moron you don't even try to understand what the fucking topic in front of you is, you just think throwing random crap is supposed to be coherent in any way or that anyone is going to fucking listen to you. a scatterbrained weakminded crackpot
so is this alex jones flavor herp derp or are you a free agent crackpot?
you completely glossed over the part where the republicans want less regulation the most. since reagan this is their wet dream. that you can point to democratic morons who go along with their fantasy does not absolve the party most responsible for the deregulation push
"the republicans have been shouting the most about deregulation for the longest time, by many multiples"
"well, i found some democrat morons who went along with that, so let's shift all blame to them"
partisan blindness: negate all critical thinking on the topic, just shift all blame to the party you hate the most, forget actually making sense or intellectual honesty on the topic
look to the republican debate last night: "less government regulation"
the democrats have been complicit in the failure that led to 2008 only when they have gone along willingly with the republican wet dreams about how less government regulation makes magic better world: of companies not punished for polluting, companies not punished for tanking the economy, companies not punished for screwing up the food supply, etc.
the democrats bear about as much responsibility as the guy who handed the murderer the gun. who is the real culprit here? which party loves, loves, loves less regulation?
that doesn't mean all regulation is good. some regulation sucks and needs to be thrown out. but the people behind the purse books don't fucking care about healthy environment, food, economy, etc., they want all regulation destroyed, evne the good and important parts. they just care about making as much money as they fucking can right now, fuck the rest. fuck your grandkids, fuck the poor and middle class. fuck them all: i'm making money, screw you. and which party do such people give most too and which party whines loudest about "evil regulations?"
+1, informative
thank you
i was talking about a more local electrical arrangement
but yes, long distance, that's a complicated topic, what distance are you really talking about and what other interconnections do you need? dc does have advantages in many cases, especially very long distance
but now we are very far away from the topic of a guy charging his laptop and running some LED lights
http://www.quora.com/When-and-...