I want freedom from these socialist things that are happening to America, where can I move??? There really isn't anywhere left to go. You got Europe, America, Canada, Australia
that should tell you something....*nobody* thinks like you. The *entire* industrialized world doesn't think the way you do... think about that. Maybe, just maybe, you're wrong.
Why can't you leave people like me alone.
Because 2/3rds or more of the national debt is not from *socialism* but from the GOP tax policies and spending? Socialism isn't what is killing this country, it's misguided giveaways to the already rich. Socialism, i.e. SocSec and Medicare, are 2 of the most important things holding this country together. Again I say ask your grandparents what their life would be like without those 2 programs.
What company would insure a 65 yr old? a 75 yr old? No sane business would do so.
If you say they should be forced to cover, that's Obamacare and 'socialism'. If you say tough cookies to the elderly? just wow. Which is is? Hmm?
you want to depend on government for all your stuff
No we don't. We want the government to provide for us when disaster strikes. In case bad things happen we'd like to know there's someone able to come to our aid. And we're willing to pay for that. We want clean drinking water, safe consumer products.
You really want a wild wild west? Because state by state regs would be exactly that.
Fair enough, I was using Communism rather broadly and more in the old Soviet style which is basically the same thing as China today (again a broad generalization).
Top down forced decision systems are usually less responsive to their people than democracy type systems.
I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have designed it for a tsunami they themselves said could never happen. Saying this wouldn't have happened is cherry picking the result to suit your argument.
Given that this event exceeded the risk standards in place even today, any new reactors would have suffered the same fate. The topside cooling water storage would have helped, but that's no guarantee of success given the magnitude.
All forms of energy have possible downsides to them, and some of them can be catastrophic in nature, hardly seems fair to single out the nuclear energy
Well few other energy sources make an area completely unlivable for decades or centuries when they fail.
Oil/coal have operational pollution issues, but they don't have catastrophic failure issues. Yes the Gulf Oil spill was a sort of catastrophic event, but even oil is eaten by microbes. The downsides are limited to a decade or so...and life continues there even during this time. Not great but not nearly on the scale of a nuclear accident.
If humans are involved in design, construction or operation, failures will happen. With nuclear, failure is not an option. 100,000+ people in Japan are permanently homeless. At least it's a foreshadowing for when the oceans rise and 10s of millions of people need to be relocated.
Communism isn't known for it's intelligent decision process. Granted neither is democracy, but I'll trust the latter more given the at least marginal public accountability...
In Jan 2009 we're losing 750K jobs per month fast forward to Jan 2011, we're no longer losing jobs every month and now have a positive gain. That's all Dem control so what exactly are you talking about?
We heard this same bullshit when the Democrats were ramming through the healthcare bill without any votes from any of the Republicans at all!
Funny, the GOP was screaming about the unseemly carve outs given to wavering democrats. That would seem to follow with the fact that the GOP was simply obstructing if the Dems had to resort to such 'unusual' tactics. (Hint: it's not unusual, but it is an indication of the environment the GOP is fostering). And those carve outs were only necessary because the GOP wouldn't allow a simply up or down vote which the Dems clearly had the votes for. They filibustered literally just about everything. That's some pretty damned stubborn opposition.
You would think that the assholes that complained about Bush's spending would be in complete rage at the sheer magnitude of the corporate handouts the Obama+Pelosi administration
I think you mean TARP yes? The giveaway to the big banks with no strings on it? Sorry to inform you that was Bush's creation.
Auto bailout? saved 750K-1.5 million jobs, but the GOP didn't want to do it. And both GM and Chrysler are paying back our investment at only a few billions lost. That's jobs we wouldn't have right now if the GOP had their way.
If you have examples other than fanatical rantings, please share them.
When the Democrats control House and Senate, the debt-to-gdp ratio always goes up.
it's easy to look good when the 2 biggest economic engines in history are running for you. Both burst and did massive damage to the economy by the way so perhaps saying the graph is good and then handing over control as it falls apart isn't the best idea to support your cause. Here's a more factual explanation:
95-99 - the internet bubble. Clinton and the GOP fought and so nothing happened while revenues were going through the roof. That's going to make a 'ratio' look good. But it doesn't mean either party had a great hand in it. Or are you willing to agree that the Clinton era tax rates should be reinstated? After it certainly helped the debt to gdp ratio didn't it? I didn't think so...
02-07 - notice how the ratio stayed fairly flat in spite of a revving economy? That's because while Bush was benefiting from the ramp up of the housing bubble he was also adding massive amounts of debt. And notice that at the end of Bush's term those policies start coming home to roost as the ratio is trending upward pretty fast in just 2 years.
Obama years. Of course the debt to GDP ratio goes up during a recession. It's SUPPOSED TO. Otherwise you go into full blown depression. Recession is when the government should start deficit spending to keep the economy moving until the private sector starts growing again. That's called 'stimulus'.
Its OK to hate the Republicans.. fuck.. they are scum.. but to think for a second that the Democrats arent outrageously worse.. you've got your fucking eyes closed!
Sorry, I think that helping my fellow citizen rather than fostering an everyone for themselves system *is* a better thing than the GOP. the GOP is plain and simple class warfare. The fun trick is they've conned the run of the mill blue collar worker into thinking they actually represent them. The Dems are always tarred with the 'tax and spend' 'slur'.
That should tell you all you need to know about the GOP. The Dems are actually fiscally responsible, the GOP doesn't want to pay for anything.
1. Both the senate and house were under democrat control for a long long time, until the awesome election in 2010, did they pass a budget, nope.
You mean like from 2000-2006 when the bulk of this deficit problem was created? How much did the GOP do to fix Medicare then hmm?
2. Sure, our welfare is very comfortable compared to lots of other countries
Riiight. One quote from a clear asshole and you're ready to throw out hundreds of needy children on the street. How very charming. I'm willing to suffer some fraud if it means health care for all. And I said 'some', no system is perfect.
3. I am 27, i will never ever see SSN or Medicare. According to the democratic plan, medicare ends in 13 years anyways
And I'm 40. Ask your grand parents how much it would cost to insure them through private insurance. Trust me, it's not economical for people to buy private insurance. You know what Ryan's solution was to that? Exchanges. The very same exchanges that Obama's plan will set up. Oops.
4. Will you give charity away to able bodied people who refuse to work. If they can work, they should do something for the money.
Who said money should be given away. Unemployment is paid for out of the taxes you paid in while you were working. It's called 'insurance'. You don't pay in the amount of life insurance that you get at pay out. You pay in with the plan that you won't need it but the security that it will be there if you do need it. Unemployment is no different. Not everybody needs it but everybody *might* need it someday.
How do you conclude that 9.1% unemployment means these are lazy bums living high on the hog? Seriously how?
5. As for the GOP, yeah, lets out alot of them tooo, they tend to just be socialism light, the answer is smaller government all around.
Again, ask your grand parents if it's 'socialism' lite. Trust me, they won't agree. Modern America was built on the capitalist system, but harnessed to provide the benefits of socialized risk. Best of both worlds with hopefully a minimum of the ills of both. That 'compromise' thing the GOP seem to misunderstand so much.
6. LOL, GM will go bankrupt again, eventually. Do you know how many Americans will never ever buy GM again?
About the same number as will buy Toyota? I'm sorry you shit all over America, but hey it is your opinion. Remember, GM is a glorious private company...that ran itself into the ground. Private enterprise isn't by default any smarter than anything else. It sure isn't the savior of the poor and disadvantaged.
You preach about sources, but site none yourself
Google 'Bikini Graph'. Clearly shows the number of job losses per month quite quickly turning around as Obama took office.
3 million jobs lost - this is a worst case scenario and FactCheck says it would likely be closer to a million. Still a massive hit to the economy that we didn't have *because* of Obama's policies.
So when the Democrats lost the House, things got better? (by the way the Democrats still have the Senate you ignorant twat)
How charming.
I'd say that going from losing 750K a month to net growth is an improvement thank you very much. But whatever.
Yes the Dems have the majority in the Senate, but the GOP in the Senate is quite clearly doing everything they can to submarine anything productive happening. But hey a slight wording difference definitely constitutes name calling.
Sources? When Obama took office we were loosing 750,000 jobs 'a month'. We're now growing, albeit slowly. And that's with a completely obstinate GOP senate who won't pass anything that might help the economy unless the very rich get tax cuts too. Seriously, this is Obama's fault how exactly?
I don't need to call him an arrogant, socialist, constitution trashing person
Of course not, that's a subtle way to do so without actually having to do so. If you mean the same level of constitutional trashing as Bush I will agree. Bush started this really dangerous precedent and Obama hasn't refuted (or refudiated in Palin 'speak') it and brought him up on trial.
As for dependency producing, is unemployment comfortable? Hardly, nobody *wants* to stay on unemployment. But in terms of the effect on the economy, giving people something to tide them over until the economy recovers is pretty positive. Something like $1.60 return for every dollar spent. Those people spend money creating additional demand in the economy - which by definition, a recession economy doesn't have enough of.
It isn't 'permanent' but when both big business and the consumer stop spending because the economy tanked, you can either wait for the economy to recover on it's own, i.e. a full blown depression, or you can ramp up government spending to keep the economy moving and mitigate the worst of the downturn. This does cost money, but as the return on unemployment shows, it is short term cost for long term gain.
26 states sueing the federal government over health care
Most of the GOP. The same GOP who opposed Social Security and Medicare when they were created. As we're seeing now, a vast majority of americans actually believe these are good and useful programs. But keep arguing they are bad for us if you like.
1 in 7 americans on welfare (because he reversed clintons welfare reform)
which is a direct result of the recession we're in. What should we do, just tell them to suck rocks instead? If people need help, you don't help 'only if you can'. We're America, we help out the needy regardless. Or do you disagree?
tax uncertainty
Seriously, the uncertainty is being caused by the GOP who won't let Obama implement his policies. You may disagree with him on those policies and that's fine. But the 'uncertainty' is solely due to the GOP who won't do anything unless the rich get tax cuts too.
more and more bailouts
Just about 'all' of which actually returned money on the investment. Would you rather GM and Chrysler went under? Do you really understand the vast economic impact that would have had? Makes today look like a picnic with literally another 2-3 million people out of work.
Criticism of actual policies with actual facts is fully welcomed. But what you've said so far is nothing but right wing talking points that don't hold up to scrutiny.
The hatred of her comes from her sanctimonious "We 'real' americans, are better than these liberals" attitude she loves to spout. Couple that with her literal inability to grasp actual facts and spout falsehoods that do nothing but further degrade the political discourse. Please try and defend 'Death Panels' as anything other than outright lies or amazing ignorance, please do that. And if the latter, why she hasn't yet found the actual facts and apologized for her behavior.
She's a small town mayor who got on the right side of 'one' issue in Alaska. The 'only' issue of such importance there, oil. Since then she's taken that seemingly coincidental alignment to mean everything she thinks is what *everyone* else thinks or those who don't are out to get her.
That's borderline psychotic. And we get to live with her. Thank you Mr. McCain.
She said the 'reason' for his ride was to warn the British. That's patently false. Why did he have to ride through the countryside to warn the British? They were in a nice military column he could have just ridden towards.
That he warned the British after the ride and being captured doesn't say a damned thing about why the ride took place.
So all it means is that Palin latched onto a single iota of fact and proceeded to weave a story around it that bears no resemblance to actual history. Hmmm where have we heard this before? oh yeah, 'Death Panels'.
She said the 'reason' for his ride was to warn the British. That is utterly false. He did 'warn' the British AFTER they captured him by lying to them in order to get them to let him go...which they did.
His ride was *not* to warn the British, but to raise the alarm among the colonists. The only 'warning' he gave the British was that his ride had been successful. Which he didn't actually know at the time.
I suspect it's because these are not 'power generation' devices. They are simply batteries.
There will be infrastructure costs associated with building them but there is no 'fuel' or significant ongoing cost. At least no more so than a comparable power generation plant. So that washes in terms of cost.
By using renewable sources, like solar or wind, there also is no 'fuel' involved at all. This allows that intermittent renewable source to provide power when the source isn't producing directly.
Are you saying that the decline in the middle class is the Democrats fault? Perhaps it's the tax priorities of the GOP...just sayin... Given that we've pretty well destroyed the welfare programs at the behest of the GOP, the continued decline seems more in their court, no?
Like how the progressive solutions to poverty tend to keep people poor
As opposed to the 'conservative' solutions? oh yeah, they don't have any. They just let you deal with monopolies, unregulated working conditions, worker intimidation, etc.
We need a global governance solution that reduces carbon emissions and population.
Except we did this for lead, CFCs, DDT, etc. And gee, no Global Communist Government seems to exist...
I soooo wish we could put the AGW deniers on the record so that *when* this shit hits the fan we can summarily take their $$$ to pay for it.
And I'm even willing to say that if AGW is proven false, I'll pay you...with the lower cost utilities you'll be paying because we switched to renewable sources:)
Seriously, if deniers are wrong we're screwed. If environmentalists and the vast majority of scientists are wrong, we're, what? oh yeah, we're better off....
Slashdot Mirror
I want freedom from these socialist things that are happening to America, where can I move??? There really isn't anywhere left to go. You got Europe, America, Canada, Australia
that should tell you something....*nobody* thinks like you. The *entire* industrialized world doesn't think the way you do... think about that. Maybe, just maybe, you're wrong.
Why can't you leave people like me alone.
Because 2/3rds or more of the national debt is not from *socialism* but from the GOP tax policies and spending? Socialism isn't what is killing this country, it's misguided giveaways to the already rich. Socialism, i.e. SocSec and Medicare, are 2 of the most important things holding this country together. Again I say ask your grandparents what their life would be like without those 2 programs.
What company would insure a 65 yr old? a 75 yr old? No sane business would do so.
If you say they should be forced to cover, that's Obamacare and 'socialism'. If you say tough cookies to the elderly? just wow. Which is is? Hmm?
you want to depend on government for all your stuff
No we don't. We want the government to provide for us when disaster strikes. In case bad things happen we'd like to know there's someone able to come to our aid. And we're willing to pay for that. We want clean drinking water, safe consumer products.
You really want a wild wild west? Because state by state regs would be exactly that.
Fair enough, I was using Communism rather broadly and more in the old Soviet style which is basically the same thing as China today (again a broad generalization).
Top down forced decision systems are usually less responsive to their people than democracy type systems.
I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have designed it for a tsunami they themselves said could never happen. Saying this wouldn't have happened is cherry picking the result to suit your argument.
Given that this event exceeded the risk standards in place even today, any new reactors would have suffered the same fate. The topside cooling water storage would have helped, but that's no guarantee of success given the magnitude.
Always add an additoanl 40% to 60% more than what any government proclaims.
well add to projected costs and subtract from projected benefits anyway.
All forms of energy have possible downsides to them, and some of them can be catastrophic in nature, hardly seems fair to single out the nuclear energy
Well few other energy sources make an area completely unlivable for decades or centuries when they fail.
Oil/coal have operational pollution issues, but they don't have catastrophic failure issues. Yes the Gulf Oil spill was a sort of catastrophic event, but even oil is eaten by microbes. The downsides are limited to a decade or so...and life continues there even during this time. Not great but not nearly on the scale of a nuclear accident.
If humans are involved in design, construction or operation, failures will happen. With nuclear, failure is not an option. 100,000+ people in Japan are permanently homeless. At least it's a foreshadowing for when the oceans rise and 10s of millions of people need to be relocated.
Did you even read the 2nd sentence? ;-)
My point was a system that lets you vote for decisions is inherently better than top down dictatorship type governance.
Communism isn't known for it's intelligent decision process. Granted neither is democracy, but I'll trust the latter more given the at least marginal public accountability...
Didn't you notice that job growth wasnt happening when the Democrats had both House and Senate?
Apparently you can't read or even process simple graphical stuff.
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/TVNews/MSNBC%20TV/Maddow/Blog/2010/04/jobloss_scale.JPG
In Jan 2009 we're losing 750K jobs per month fast forward to Jan 2011, we're no longer losing jobs every month and now have a positive gain. That's all Dem control so what exactly are you talking about?
We heard this same bullshit when the Democrats were ramming through the healthcare bill without any votes from any of the Republicans at all!
Funny, the GOP was screaming about the unseemly carve outs given to wavering democrats. That would seem to follow with the fact that the GOP was simply obstructing if the Dems had to resort to such 'unusual' tactics. (Hint: it's not unusual, but it is an indication of the environment the GOP is fostering). And those carve outs were only necessary because the GOP wouldn't allow a simply up or down vote which the Dems clearly had the votes for. They filibustered literally just about everything. That's some pretty damned stubborn opposition.
You would think that the assholes that complained about Bush's spending would be in complete rage at the sheer magnitude of the corporate handouts the Obama+Pelosi administration
I think you mean TARP yes? The giveaway to the big banks with no strings on it? Sorry to inform you that was Bush's creation.
Auto bailout? saved 750K-1.5 million jobs, but the GOP didn't want to do it. And both GM and Chrysler are paying back our investment at only a few billions lost. That's jobs we wouldn't have right now if the GOP had their way.
If you have examples other than fanatical rantings, please share them.
When the Democrats control House and Senate, the debt-to-gdp ratio always goes up.
it's easy to look good when the 2 biggest economic engines in history are running for you. Both burst and did massive damage to the economy by the way so perhaps saying the graph is good and then handing over control as it falls apart isn't the best idea to support your cause. Here's a more factual explanation:
95-99 - the internet bubble. Clinton and the GOP fought and so nothing happened while revenues were going through the roof. That's going to make a 'ratio' look good. But it doesn't mean either party had a great hand in it. Or are you willing to agree that the Clinton era tax rates should be reinstated? After it certainly helped the debt to gdp ratio didn't it? I didn't think so...
02-07 - notice how the ratio stayed fairly flat in spite of a revving economy? That's because while Bush was benefiting from the ramp up of the housing bubble he was also adding massive amounts of debt. And notice that at the end of Bush's term those policies start coming home to roost as the ratio is trending upward pretty fast in just 2 years.
Obama years. Of course the debt to GDP ratio goes up during a recession. It's SUPPOSED TO. Otherwise you go into full blown depression. Recession is when the government should start deficit spending to keep the economy moving until the private sector starts growing again. That's called 'stimulus'.
Its OK to hate the Republicans.. fuck.. they are scum.. but to think for a second that the Democrats arent outrageously worse.. you've got your fucking eyes closed!
Sorry, I think that helping my fellow citizen rather than fostering an everyone for themselves system *is* a better thing than the GOP. the GOP is plain and simple class warfare. The fun trick is they've conned the run of the mill blue collar worker into thinking they actually represent them. The Dems are always tarred with the 'tax and spend' 'slur'.
That should tell you all you need to know about the GOP. The Dems are actually fiscally responsible, the GOP doesn't want to pay for anything.
Anything else you need clarified?
1. Both the senate and house were under democrat control for a long long time, until the awesome election in 2010, did they pass a budget, nope.
You mean like from 2000-2006 when the bulk of this deficit problem was created? How much did the GOP do to fix Medicare then hmm?
2. Sure, our welfare is very comfortable compared to lots of other countries
Riiight. One quote from a clear asshole and you're ready to throw out hundreds of needy children on the street. How very charming. I'm willing to suffer some fraud if it means health care for all. And I said 'some', no system is perfect.
3. I am 27, i will never ever see SSN or Medicare. According to the democratic plan, medicare ends in 13 years anyways
And I'm 40. Ask your grand parents how much it would cost to insure them through private insurance. Trust me, it's not economical for people to buy private insurance. You know what Ryan's solution was to that? Exchanges. The very same exchanges that Obama's plan will set up. Oops.
4. Will you give charity away to able bodied people who refuse to work. If they can work, they should do something for the money.
Who said money should be given away. Unemployment is paid for out of the taxes you paid in while you were working. It's called 'insurance'. You don't pay in the amount of life insurance that you get at pay out. You pay in with the plan that you won't need it but the security that it will be there if you do need it. Unemployment is no different. Not everybody needs it but everybody *might* need it someday.
How do you conclude that 9.1% unemployment means these are lazy bums living high on the hog? Seriously how?
5. As for the GOP, yeah, lets out alot of them tooo, they tend to just be socialism light, the answer is smaller government all around.
Again, ask your grand parents if it's 'socialism' lite. Trust me, they won't agree. Modern America was built on the capitalist system, but harnessed to provide the benefits of socialized risk. Best of both worlds with hopefully a minimum of the ills of both. That 'compromise' thing the GOP seem to misunderstand so much.
6. LOL, GM will go bankrupt again, eventually. Do you know how many Americans will never ever buy GM again?
About the same number as will buy Toyota? I'm sorry you shit all over America, but hey it is your opinion. Remember, GM is a glorious private company...that ran itself into the ground. Private enterprise isn't by default any smarter than anything else. It sure isn't the savior of the poor and disadvantaged.
You preach about sources, but site none yourself
Google 'Bikini Graph'. Clearly shows the number of job losses per month quite quickly turning around as Obama took office.
Food Stamps the best economic stimulus
3 million jobs lost - this is a worst case scenario and FactCheck says it would likely be closer to a million. Still a massive hit to the economy that we didn't have *because* of Obama's policies.
Your turn for sources...
So when the Democrats lost the House, things got better? (by the way the Democrats still have the Senate you ignorant twat)
How charming.
I'd say that going from losing 750K a month to net growth is an improvement thank you very much. But whatever.
Yes the Dems have the majority in the Senate, but the GOP in the Senate is quite clearly doing everything they can to submarine anything productive happening. But hey a slight wording difference definitely constitutes name calling.
job killing policies of Obama
Sources? When Obama took office we were loosing 750,000 jobs 'a month'. We're now growing, albeit slowly. And that's with a completely obstinate GOP senate who won't pass anything that might help the economy unless the very rich get tax cuts too. Seriously, this is Obama's fault how exactly?
I don't need to call him an arrogant, socialist, constitution trashing person
Of course not, that's a subtle way to do so without actually having to do so. If you mean the same level of constitutional trashing as Bush I will agree. Bush started this really dangerous precedent and Obama hasn't refuted (or refudiated in Palin 'speak') it and brought him up on trial.
As for dependency producing, is unemployment comfortable? Hardly, nobody *wants* to stay on unemployment. But in terms of the effect on the economy, giving people something to tide them over until the economy recovers is pretty positive. Something like $1.60 return for every dollar spent. Those people spend money creating additional demand in the economy - which by definition, a recession economy doesn't have enough of.
It isn't 'permanent' but when both big business and the consumer stop spending because the economy tanked, you can either wait for the economy to recover on it's own, i.e. a full blown depression, or you can ramp up government spending to keep the economy moving and mitigate the worst of the downturn. This does cost money, but as the return on unemployment shows, it is short term cost for long term gain.
26 states sueing the federal government over health care
Most of the GOP. The same GOP who opposed Social Security and Medicare when they were created. As we're seeing now, a vast majority of americans actually believe these are good and useful programs. But keep arguing they are bad for us if you like.
1 in 7 americans on welfare (because he reversed clintons welfare reform)
which is a direct result of the recession we're in. What should we do, just tell them to suck rocks instead? If people need help, you don't help 'only if you can'. We're America, we help out the needy regardless. Or do you disagree?
tax uncertainty
Seriously, the uncertainty is being caused by the GOP who won't let Obama implement his policies. You may disagree with him on those policies and that's fine. But the 'uncertainty' is solely due to the GOP who won't do anything unless the rich get tax cuts too.
more and more bailouts
Just about 'all' of which actually returned money on the investment. Would you rather GM and Chrysler went under? Do you really understand the vast economic impact that would have had? Makes today look like a picnic with literally another 2-3 million people out of work.
Criticism of actual policies with actual facts is fully welcomed. But what you've said so far is nothing but right wing talking points that don't hold up to scrutiny.
The hatred of her comes from her sanctimonious "We 'real' americans, are better than these liberals" attitude she loves to spout. Couple that with her literal inability to grasp actual facts and spout falsehoods that do nothing but further degrade the political discourse. Please try and defend 'Death Panels' as anything other than outright lies or amazing ignorance, please do that. And if the latter, why she hasn't yet found the actual facts and apologized for her behavior.
She's a small town mayor who got on the right side of 'one' issue in Alaska. The 'only' issue of such importance there, oil. Since then she's taken that seemingly coincidental alignment to mean everything she thinks is what *everyone* else thinks or those who don't are out to get her.
That's borderline psychotic. And we get to live with her. Thank you Mr. McCain.
She said the 'reason' for his ride was to warn the British. That's patently false. Why did he have to ride through the countryside to warn the British? They were in a nice military column he could have just ridden towards.
That he warned the British after the ride and being captured doesn't say a damned thing about why the ride took place.
So all it means is that Palin latched onto a single iota of fact and proceeded to weave a story around it that bears no resemblance to actual history. Hmmm where have we heard this before? oh yeah, 'Death Panels'.
She said the 'reason' for his ride was to warn the British. That is utterly false. He did 'warn' the British AFTER they captured him by lying to them in order to get them to let him go...which they did.
His ride was *not* to warn the British, but to raise the alarm among the colonists. The only 'warning' he gave the British was that his ride had been successful. Which he didn't actually know at the time.
she just might make herself one. And Trump will be her VP candidate! Go third party!
where is that Like button???? I know a bunch Dems overjoyed to click a billion times...
Well they have the solution...Medicare. She's said Ryan's plan is good and that is enough to doom her (or whoever they pick) prospects.
Unless of course the Dems do something stupid like agree to cut Medicare..... [faceplant]
Exactly. I've read that over a large enough area, wind already provides a level of base load power, i.e. the wind is always blowing somewhere*.
;-)
*somewhere = closer than the other side of the earth since the sun is technically always shining 'somewhere' too
Not sure how this would be affected by the large distribution since some power is lost in transmission over large distances.
they would allow the grid to be powered entirely by (relatively) inexpensive base load power plants
Or be powered by intermittent renewable sources that don't require fossil fuels :)
I suspect it's because these are not 'power generation' devices. They are simply batteries.
There will be infrastructure costs associated with building them but there is no 'fuel' or significant ongoing cost. At least no more so than a comparable power generation plant. So that washes in terms of cost.
By using renewable sources, like solar or wind, there also is no 'fuel' involved at all. This allows that intermittent renewable source to provide power when the source isn't producing directly.
Whatever you're smoking....do share, it has to be some powerful stuff...
irrational fears of DDT
irrational indeed...NOT
Are you saying that the decline in the middle class is the Democrats fault? Perhaps it's the tax priorities of the GOP...just sayin... Given that we've pretty well destroyed the welfare programs at the behest of the GOP, the continued decline seems more in their court, no?
Like how the progressive solutions to poverty tend to keep people poor
As opposed to the 'conservative' solutions? oh yeah, they don't have any. They just let you deal with monopolies, unregulated working conditions, worker intimidation, etc.
You mean like this decade will be warmer than the last one? We've seen that proven true for the last 5 decades...
We need a global governance solution that reduces carbon emissions and population.
Except we did this for lead, CFCs, DDT, etc. And gee, no Global Communist Government seems to exist...
:)
I soooo wish we could put the AGW deniers on the record so that *when* this shit hits the fan we can summarily take their $$$ to pay for it.
And I'm even willing to say that if AGW is proven false, I'll pay you...with the lower cost utilities you'll be paying because we switched to renewable sources
Seriously, if deniers are wrong we're screwed. If environmentalists and the vast majority of scientists are wrong, we're, what? oh yeah, we're better off....