My wife and I attended one of their open houses here in town since we were about to do some remodeling on the house. Basically, we eventually got them to discuss the costs of things, and mercifully we had already done some shopping for what we wanted. In order to break even on the membership fees, we would have had to be doing on the order of $30-50k worth of remodeling in the year...not quite what we were planning on. Their membership fee was just about double our cost estimate of the project...of course we went a bit over budget...but not by 2x!
I pretty sure I became a/. regular in late '98, told about it by a friend in grad school from AU, he also got me into Linux (thank goodness!) at the same time. Amazing how quickly the userids started climbing given I am over double the IDs showing for the summer of '98. I know I waited a while before registering to come up with (what seemed at the time like) a good name, as well as to make sure I would actually stick around...guess I did.
Inflation is not caused by so-called greedy companies; it is, in fact, caused by the Federal Reserve. Inflation is, quite simply, the printing of additional money (as opposed to replacement of worn or destroyed notes).
Hey, feel like re-reading the author's comments??? Here there are to make it easier for you:
The typical American, if he or she has given any thought to the matter, would consider the following statements to be true: The Federal Reserve is federal, i.e., a part of the US government. The Federal Reserve is a reserve, i.e., it has monetary savings of real value. The Federal Reserve serves the public, and is not a cartel of private banks serving itself. The US dollar has real value, i.e., it represents tangible wealth, such as gold securely stored at Fort Knox. Inflation is an increase in prices. Inflation is caused by greedy companies, not the US government or the Federal Reserve.
As G. Edward Griffin makes clear in his book, none of these beliefs are true -- regardless of how well entrenched they are in our conventional "wisdom."
Yeah, notice how he sort of tells you this? The author is not badly mistaken at all, you are simply a very poor reader, no? Sorry to be so harsh, but before you unleash your flamethrower...one should always make sure the target is deserved, and you sure better make sure you don't simply call them mistaken and then say exactly what they were saying.
I'm terrified of the power that any of these goons in office hold. I just wish the government would be drastically reduced. Until then I am not voting, and encourage everyone within earshot not to vote. Maybe when voter turnout gets to be less than 20% they will start to notice.
No, no, no, no, and no. By the way, no!
What you need to do is similar to what others have suggested, vote for third party candidates, vote for candidates that at least speak to smaller government. If you want the Republicrats or Demicans to react to your views, get everyone you know to do the same. If a third party garners anywhere close to 20% of the vote, you can bet your bottom dollar the "main" parties will take notice and react accordingly (modification of Garland's Third Law). I can not stress this enough, but they will not notice the lack of your vote, they will certainly notice lots of votes for someone else since that would translate to them losing power.
Show me what 'finer detail' a listener needs (or wants) in the latest Jay-Z or Sluttany Spears album and maybe that will justify the additional costs...
Which additional costs are you referring to? The additional costs of not having to do further post recording compression work to maximize the volume?
I understand your point, for today's prepackaged music it doesn't much matter if it is compressed to high Hades, but your suggestion that not compressing it costs extra is just plain silly.
The second was under Regan. The result- a massive stock crash, followed by the 2nd biggest depression of the 20th century.
Umm, what? I assume you are talking about the crash of '87 (I am amazed how many people have forgotten about it). So let me see, Jan 2nd, 1986 the DJIA closes at $1549.20, we have Black Monday and close at 1,738.74 on October 19th, 1987 (still over 12% above the Jan '86 close!!!). On October 30th, 1987, the DJIA closed at 1,993.53, where is your depression?! What kind of crack are you smoking? Can I please, please, please invest in this depression of yours, I would love to have a return of 29% is under 2 years! Please get your head out of the clouds and realize that you speak utter non-sense. There was a singular depression in the 20th century, there was a mild recession in the early 90s that by all economic standards barely qualifies as a recession.
All in all, the republicans are FAR more corrupt than the dems.
Your naivety is showing. I fear the corruption runs deep in all sects of Washington. When you have that much "free" money available, human beings quickly lose their scruples.
Here's the thing: "Hollywood is [the Democrats'] biggest cash machine [and hence controls them]" is just like "Liberals control the media" and "There's no global warming" and "There are WMDs in Iraq" and "God said Shazam! and then Adam and Eve were standing there" are all assertions that conservatives assert to one another feverishly nodding their heads, based exclusively on the evidence of It Feels Good To Believe It.
You are not using the word "conservatives" correctly. I am a fiscal conservative. I do believe NPR has an amazingly heavy liberal slant (I listen critically, I hear them use loaded introductions, this morning driving in they had a story about some bill they didn't like, so we got to listen to an opposing senator outline his dislike of it for 15 seconds during the headlines, there was no response, what a shock), if you don't think so, I believe you hear what you want to hear and therefore believe it to be complete. Do I listen to NPR? Yes, they do inform me what is happening even if they don't seem to realize that governmental transfers are not the answer to everything. However, I think the world is warming, I am agnostic. I do believe there were WMDs in Iraq that were unaccounted for. Whether they were destroyed or not, I can't say because they were unaccounted for. It was up to Saddam's regime to account for them, they couldn't. Should we have gone to war over that? No. Should we have gone to war because there was a government that did not follow UN orders, that I could back. Has the handling of said war been a disaster? Absolutely. So here is a (fiscal) conservative who is insulted by half of your points, and sure as heck doesn't fit with a third of the four.
I think it is time for true conservatives to start to speak out against the tainting of the word. Conservatives (fiscal) want the government to keep their greedy hands out of our wallets.
"In the last presidential election (2004), the richest 2% of Americans had TWO political parties representing their interests, while the other 98% had NO political parties representing their interests."
Wow, since when were there only two parties? This is what I view as the main source of trouble in the American system, the masses are convinced there are only two parties and steadfastly refuse to force those two parties to diversify by voting for the other parties...that this buffoon doesn't seem to realize exist. As soon as the other parties start to get any reasonable percentage of votes, the two main parties will be forced to adopt their ideas or be relegated to "third party" status. [loose interpretation of Garland's Third Law of Politics, don't bother trying to look it up, he's my high school government teacher]
I have been fairly pleased with my Samsung SGH-T209. It is a phone. It does have a stopwatch and calculator as well, but for the price (extend our contract with T-mobile) it is nice. I too don't want a Swiss Army knife device, my phone is for emergencies.
No, the "liberal" MSM goes after whoever is in power. That's the role of the media, isn't it? As I recall, Bill received quite a lashing from the media over Monica.
Almost. Apparently they don't realize that Hilary has power because they sure don't talk about her, or Berger. Of course, that isn't what this thread is about, but I just wanted to remind you that the MSM is extremely selective about who they go after, and often miss the mark.
My turn to bite. Why the extra cost of malpractice insurance? Because anyone and everyone can sue a doctor for next to nothing out of their pocket. Lawyers (unethical ones in my mind, not all of them, I know many a good lawyer) are happy to take on these cases, they view them as possible big payouts because all they have to do is get a "jury" to see a "doctor" who can afford it, and make them pay. If the lawsuit gets tossed, the people who brought the suit aren't forced to pay the legal fees of the doctor. My wife is a doctor. She isn't making a mint (to the standards everyone seems to expect her to be) because she is a pediatrician. She is young, so right now her malpractice insurance isn't too bad, her boss's premium on the other hand would pay for two cars a year, easily. My wife has already had at least four teen mothers contact lawyers about suing her for malpractice because obviously they knew much more about medicine than my wife. Fortunately, each time the lawyer has looked at the case and after deposing my wife tossed the case on their own. Yes, that's right, only two years out of residency and my wife has already been deposed four times. Not only is that lawyer time, but also lost time at the office, you know, helping patients and such....needless to say, this gets me worked up a bit. So yeah, your excess cost comes because it really doesn't cost much to initiate a suit, that's where the market is broken (in this aspect).
Dingell, ah there's the funny part. I talk to the aide, he hasn't heard about the bill. I tell him H.R.2060 and he's able to look it up. Then says they are not familiar with the bill. I ask when it'll be voted on and the aide says the bill is still in committee. I ask, "how can I find out who is on the committee?" His reply, "Dingell is chair of the committee."
Sounds like his nickname of Dingleberry still fits.
Maybe they could federally tax the internet sales and in doing so, reduce the load that states are required to tax by using more Federal money to contribute to state programs.
What a great idea, let's add more layers of bureaucracy to forced redistribution of wealth and ensure more and more inefficiencies in the economy. I assume you also support the idea of hole digger crews that are followed around by the hole filling crews?
The idea that the states would actually lower their taxes because the Feds got more money to piss away is laughable. Instead, they (the states) will just come up with more ways to piss away the money as well. Besides, where oh where is it mandated that states are required to tax? They are only required to tax because they have decided to spend (too much).
I really hate people who litter their fast food wrappers, don't maintain their cars leaking antifreeze/oil, talk on cellphones while half-driving endangering lives, drink too much and become a public nuisance, and a ton of other things. The bottom line is smoking in this country (US) is a publicly accepted scapegoat making comments like this politically correct. Posts like these are stereotyping all smokers, some of us are more considerate than others.
I concur, I also despise people who litter, don't maintain their cars (they smell worse than the smokers' cars!), talk on the phone while driving, drink too much, and tons of other things too, but this article was about a smoker doing what I think it is extremely safe to say a vast majority of smokers do (yes, I should have included that in my original post vs. saying all smokers).
Smoking offers many benefits to those of us that do it. For example, smoking was the only reason I don't have my reoccuring migraines I've had since highschool, and a large part of me overcoming depression with its stress relieving and ease of accessibility for those old enough to make the concious choice to smoke. There's plenty of PR out there to state the risks of it, I should have the choice & right to smoke.
Couldn't agree more that you should be allowed to smoke if you desire. Couldn't disagree more that limiting where you smoke isn't appropriate. Talking about your migraines, I get them when exposed to cigarette smoke, sometimes as little as following a smoker's car (oddly, cigars don't seem to do this to me?). I select where I go out based on the air quality (ie, I don't go bar hopping, I get sick from the smoke). I remember as a child throwing up on an airplane when I was stuck in the smoking section after going to the restroom and getting trapped by the food service. It slices both ways, and given that your actions will force my environment in many instances, sorry bud, but I have to say tough cookies for you (obviously if I were the smoker, I would probably have a different opinion here, so I can't get too high on my horse). I absolutely disagree with the idea that we have to pass laws forcing restaurants and bars to ban smoking though, let the businesses decide what they want to do, and I will take my business based on their decisions (as should you in my opinion).
Singling smokers out in this regard is naive at best. I should start a civil rights movement for smokers;).
I agree, you should start such a movement, but perhaps you should start with what I am trying to start, and that is recognition that the behavior exhibited by most smokers is unacceptable. My motto is keep your butts to yourself, we don't want them any more than you do. The culture has to be changed so that people realize it is littering, and in my parts, it is probably close to half the problem (ie, routinely I see collections of butts as the only litter in an area, I can't remember ever seeing an area with litter sans butts).
So can anyone give me any reasonable explanation as to why smokers always seem to consider the world their ashtray? What is wrong with these people? I get so disgusted every day driving home from work as I see at least 3-4 smokers drop their lit cigarettes out of their cars. They don't seem to care that we routinely have "red flag" days (high risk of brush fires due to lack of rain), that we have had several brush fires started by fellow members of their club of morons, that their freakin' plastic (they are not cotton) filters are going to take years to biodegrade, or that they are loaded with all sorts of toxins. Needless to say, it really ticks me off. Inconsiderate bastards.
why in the hell is the tax code so complicated we need computer programs to sort it out?
the real problem is the tax system and the fact that Congress does nothing to simplify it. I don't think that is the real problem. The real problem is that Congress keeps thinking it needs to find more ways to spend your money. Imagine if they actually just lived within the resources they had, then they wouldn't need to keep finding new ways to start other revenue streams, which would not need exceptions, etc...
too bad 90% of americans are baying sheep that are too cowardly to vote for a 3rd party.
Is it that they are too cowardly, or that they simply don't know there is a choice? I read earlier today about the lack of media coverage of 3rd parties and this I think bears much more weight than the "fear" of voters to stray from the two party system. Of course, I often am wrong.
Acatully, I stopped giving blood regularly about 10 years ago. I used to give every two months until I had some blood work done for a physical that revealed I was suffering from low ferritin levels (stored iron, as I understood it). The doctor recommended several tests, but after hearing that I gave blood regularly sugessted that I stop for 6-8 months and get re-tested. My ferritin levels came back to normal. I've given very sproadically since then.
I had the exact same thing happen to me, wife convinced me to have a physical since I hadn't been to the doctor in ~5 years, and then was for rotator cuff surgery. My last physical was 10 years prior for work. Anyway, I was recommended to start taking a multi-vitamin with iron supplement. This has brought my ferritin levels back up and am now allowed to donate again. The only reason I take the supplements is so I can donate, I only wish others took donating so seriously.
In related news, Fidel Castro is blasting the production of corn fuel as a blatant waste of food that would otherwise feed 3 billion people who will die of hunger.
I am sorry for being so cold and callous as I enjoy my luxurious life in the US, but why do we fight so hard to have more people living in areas where they apparently shouldn't be living per Mother Nature? I get so frustrated when people talk about the food supply problems and the water supply problems and how are we going to solve all these problems when perhaps, maybe, just maybe it is time to consider that the planet has enough human beings on it and adding to the population isn't the best move? Reminds me of the Matrix and Agent Smith's analysis of the human species as the only one that doesn't live within its bounds.
The jury is in, we know what is causing climat[e] change and its us.
I'll skip the typo, but I am fairly certain you intended to type its. The meaning you wanted is it's, which is the contraction of "it is" vs. what you typed which is the possessive. What your sentence actually says is that we know what is causing "climate change's us," whatever that might mean. Sorry, I figured as long as people are being educated, we might as well include some spelling/grammar lessons. (I don my fire proof suit for errors I am sure I missed in my post)
Boy am I glad I left off all the derogatory comments and insults that were going through my head when I was replying, you seem like a decent guy (an assumption that is becoming less safe these days it seems).
"And as a reminder for those of you who got your hopes up in November of 2006 -- you might want to look at who was President in 1994. Hint: His last name wasn't "Bush"."
What exactly are you saying? His last name wasn't 'Democrat' either, but that's who we voted for in '06.
Oh wait. Do you mean to say that it was Clinton the Democrat who passed all these horrible, evil laws back in 1994? So that means that these '06 Democrats aren't any different from Bush?
Umm, no, I think he is trying to say that the democans can be just as evil as the republicrats. A lot of people seem to be missing the fact that these two groups really are not that dissimilar in most of their goals (taking/keeping power and money).
But wait a minute! The president doesn't make laws! He just signs them. Hm, who was in control of congress back in 1994, making evil Bill Clinton sign all these horrible, horrible laws? Oh yeah, it was Newt Gingrich, and his Contract with America Republicans.
But wait a minute, who was in control of congress in 1994??? Oh yeah, those democans had control that year and the 40 years prior to that! It wasn't until November 8th, 1994 that 54 democan seats in the House were lost to republicrats. Those seats didn't change until the 104th Congress was sworn in January 4th, 1995. So who forced whom to sign those horrible, horrible laws? Oh yeah, it sure wasn't "Newt Gingrich, and his Contract with America Republicans," (that crap didn't start until 1995) it was absolutely the democans and their 258 to 176 seat majority in the House and 56-44 seat majority in the Senate, everyone loves to forget about the Senate.
Slashdot Mirror
My wife and I attended one of their open houses here in town since we were about to do some remodeling on the house. Basically, we eventually got them to discuss the costs of things, and mercifully we had already done some shopping for what we wanted. In order to break even on the membership fees, we would have had to be doing on the order of $30-50k worth of remodeling in the year...not quite what we were planning on. Their membership fee was just about double our cost estimate of the project...of course we went a bit over budget...but not by 2x!
I pretty sure I became a /. regular in late '98, told about it by a friend in grad school from AU, he also got me into Linux (thank goodness!) at the same time. Amazing how quickly the userids started climbing given I am over double the IDs showing for the summer of '98. I know I waited a while before registering to come up with (what seemed at the time like) a good name, as well as to make sure I would actually stick around...guess I did.
Hey, feel like re-reading the author's comments??? Here there are to make it easier for you:
Yeah, notice how he sort of tells you this? The author is not badly mistaken at all, you are simply a very poor reader, no? Sorry to be so harsh, but before you unleash your flamethrower...one should always make sure the target is deserved, and you sure better make sure you don't simply call them mistaken and then say exactly what they were saying.
I have been following this story from the beginning, how nice that they will get axed from the NASDAQ on my birthday.
No, no, no, no, and no. By the way, no!
What you need to do is similar to what others have suggested, vote for third party candidates, vote for candidates that at least speak to smaller government. If you want the Republicrats or Demicans to react to your views, get everyone you know to do the same. If a third party garners anywhere close to 20% of the vote, you can bet your bottom dollar the "main" parties will take notice and react accordingly (modification of Garland's Third Law). I can not stress this enough, but they will not notice the lack of your vote, they will certainly notice lots of votes for someone else since that would translate to them losing power.
Which additional costs are you referring to? The additional costs of not having to do further post recording compression work to maximize the volume?
I understand your point, for today's prepackaged music it doesn't much matter if it is compressed to high Hades, but your suggestion that not compressing it costs extra is just plain silly.
At least read the headline and figure out who's holding the patents.
Umm, what? I assume you are talking about the crash of '87 (I am amazed how many people have forgotten about it). So let me see, Jan 2nd, 1986 the DJIA closes at $1549.20, we have Black Monday and close at 1,738.74 on October 19th, 1987 (still over 12% above the Jan '86 close!!!). On October 30th, 1987, the DJIA closed at 1,993.53, where is your depression?! What kind of crack are you smoking? Can I please, please, please invest in this depression of yours, I would love to have a return of 29% is under 2 years! Please get your head out of the clouds and realize that you speak utter non-sense. There was a singular depression in the 20th century, there was a mild recession in the early 90s that by all economic standards barely qualifies as a recession.
Your naivety is showing. I fear the corruption runs deep in all sects of Washington. When you have that much "free" money available, human beings quickly lose their scruples.
You are not using the word "conservatives" correctly. I am a fiscal conservative. I do believe NPR has an amazingly heavy liberal slant (I listen critically, I hear them use loaded introductions, this morning driving in they had a story about some bill they didn't like, so we got to listen to an opposing senator outline his dislike of it for 15 seconds during the headlines, there was no response, what a shock), if you don't think so, I believe you hear what you want to hear and therefore believe it to be complete. Do I listen to NPR? Yes, they do inform me what is happening even if they don't seem to realize that governmental transfers are not the answer to everything. However, I think the world is warming, I am agnostic. I do believe there were WMDs in Iraq that were unaccounted for. Whether they were destroyed or not, I can't say because they were unaccounted for. It was up to Saddam's regime to account for them, they couldn't. Should we have gone to war over that? No. Should we have gone to war because there was a government that did not follow UN orders, that I could back. Has the handling of said war been a disaster? Absolutely. So here is a (fiscal) conservative who is insulted by half of your points, and sure as heck doesn't fit with a third of the four.
I think it is time for true conservatives to start to speak out against the tainting of the word. Conservatives (fiscal) want the government to keep their greedy hands out of our wallets.
Wow, since when were there only two parties? This is what I view as the main source of trouble in the American system, the masses are convinced there are only two parties and steadfastly refuse to force those two parties to diversify by voting for the other parties...that this buffoon doesn't seem to realize exist. As soon as the other parties start to get any reasonable percentage of votes, the two main parties will be forced to adopt their ideas or be relegated to "third party" status. [loose interpretation of Garland's Third Law of Politics, don't bother trying to look it up, he's my high school government teacher]
I have been fairly pleased with my Samsung SGH-T209. It is a phone. It does have a stopwatch and calculator as well, but for the price (extend our contract with T-mobile) it is nice. I too don't want a Swiss Army knife device, my phone is for emergencies.
Almost. Apparently they don't realize that Hilary has power because they sure don't talk about her, or Berger. Of course, that isn't what this thread is about, but I just wanted to remind you that the MSM is extremely selective about who they go after, and often miss the mark.
My turn to bite. Why the extra cost of malpractice insurance? Because anyone and everyone can sue a doctor for next to nothing out of their pocket. Lawyers (unethical ones in my mind, not all of them, I know many a good lawyer) are happy to take on these cases, they view them as possible big payouts because all they have to do is get a "jury" to see a "doctor" who can afford it, and make them pay. If the lawsuit gets tossed, the people who brought the suit aren't forced to pay the legal fees of the doctor. My wife is a doctor. She isn't making a mint (to the standards everyone seems to expect her to be) because she is a pediatrician. She is young, so right now her malpractice insurance isn't too bad, her boss's premium on the other hand would pay for two cars a year, easily. My wife has already had at least four teen mothers contact lawyers about suing her for malpractice because obviously they knew much more about medicine than my wife. Fortunately, each time the lawyer has looked at the case and after deposing my wife tossed the case on their own. Yes, that's right, only two years out of residency and my wife has already been deposed four times. Not only is that lawyer time, but also lost time at the office, you know, helping patients and such....needless to say, this gets me worked up a bit. So yeah, your excess cost comes because it really doesn't cost much to initiate a suit, that's where the market is broken (in this aspect).
Sounds like his nickname of Dingleberry still fits.
What a great idea, let's add more layers of bureaucracy to forced redistribution of wealth and ensure more and more inefficiencies in the economy. I assume you also support the idea of hole digger crews that are followed around by the hole filling crews?
The idea that the states would actually lower their taxes because the Feds got more money to piss away is laughable. Instead, they (the states) will just come up with more ways to piss away the money as well. Besides, where oh where is it mandated that states are required to tax? They are only required to tax because they have decided to spend (too much).
I concur, I also despise people who litter, don't maintain their cars (they smell worse than the smokers' cars!), talk on the phone while driving, drink too much, and tons of other things too, but this article was about a smoker doing what I think it is extremely safe to say a vast majority of smokers do (yes, I should have included that in my original post vs. saying all smokers).
Couldn't agree more that you should be allowed to smoke if you desire. Couldn't disagree more that limiting where you smoke isn't appropriate. Talking about your migraines, I get them when exposed to cigarette smoke, sometimes as little as following a smoker's car (oddly, cigars don't seem to do this to me?). I select where I go out based on the air quality (ie, I don't go bar hopping, I get sick from the smoke). I remember as a child throwing up on an airplane when I was stuck in the smoking section after going to the restroom and getting trapped by the food service. It slices both ways, and given that your actions will force my environment in many instances, sorry bud, but I have to say tough cookies for you (obviously if I were the smoker, I would probably have a different opinion here, so I can't get too high on my horse). I absolutely disagree with the idea that we have to pass laws forcing restaurants and bars to ban smoking though, let the businesses decide what they want to do, and I will take my business based on their decisions (as should you in my opinion).
I agree, you should start such a movement, but perhaps you should start with what I am trying to start, and that is recognition that the behavior exhibited by most smokers is unacceptable. My motto is keep your butts to yourself, we don't want them any more than you do. The culture has to be changed so that people realize it is littering, and in my parts, it is probably close to half the problem (ie, routinely I see collections of butts as the only litter in an area, I can't remember ever seeing an area with litter sans butts).
So can anyone give me any reasonable explanation as to why smokers always seem to consider the world their ashtray? What is wrong with these people? I get so disgusted every day driving home from work as I see at least 3-4 smokers drop their lit cigarettes out of their cars. They don't seem to care that we routinely have "red flag" days (high risk of brush fires due to lack of rain), that we have had several brush fires started by fellow members of their club of morons, that their freakin' plastic (they are not cotton) filters are going to take years to biodegrade, or that they are loaded with all sorts of toxins. Needless to say, it really ticks me off. Inconsiderate bastards.
the real problem is the tax system and the fact that Congress does nothing to simplify it. I don't think that is the real problem. The real problem is that Congress keeps thinking it needs to find more ways to spend your money. Imagine if they actually just lived within the resources they had, then they wouldn't need to keep finding new ways to start other revenue streams, which would not need exceptions, etc...
Is it that they are too cowardly, or that they simply don't know there is a choice? I read earlier today about the lack of media coverage of 3rd parties and this I think bears much more weight than the "fear" of voters to stray from the two party system. Of course, I often am wrong.
I had the exact same thing happen to me, wife convinced me to have a physical since I hadn't been to the doctor in ~5 years, and then was for rotator cuff surgery. My last physical was 10 years prior for work. Anyway, I was recommended to start taking a multi-vitamin with iron supplement. This has brought my ferritin levels back up and am now allowed to donate again. The only reason I take the supplements is so I can donate, I only wish others took donating so seriously.
I am sorry for being so cold and callous as I enjoy my luxurious life in the US, but why do we fight so hard to have more people living in areas where they apparently shouldn't be living per Mother Nature? I get so frustrated when people talk about the food supply problems and the water supply problems and how are we going to solve all these problems when perhaps, maybe, just maybe it is time to consider that the planet has enough human beings on it and adding to the population isn't the best move? Reminds me of the Matrix and Agent Smith's analysis of the human species as the only one that doesn't live within its bounds.
I'll skip the typo, but I am fairly certain you intended to type its. The meaning you wanted is it's, which is the contraction of "it is" vs. what you typed which is the possessive. What your sentence actually says is that we know what is causing "climate change's us," whatever that might mean. Sorry, I figured as long as people are being educated, we might as well include some spelling/grammar lessons. (I don my fire proof suit for errors I am sure I missed in my post)
Boy am I glad I left off all the derogatory comments and insults that were going through my head when I was replying, you seem like a decent guy (an assumption that is becoming less safe these days it seems).
Umm, no, I think he is trying to say that the democans can be just as evil as the republicrats. A lot of people seem to be missing the fact that these two groups really are not that dissimilar in most of their goals (taking/keeping power and money).
But wait a minute, who was in control of congress in 1994??? Oh yeah, those democans had control that year and the 40 years prior to that! It wasn't until November 8th, 1994 that 54 democan seats in the House were lost to republicrats. Those seats didn't change until the 104th Congress was sworn in January 4th, 1995. So who forced whom to sign those horrible, horrible laws? Oh yeah, it sure wasn't "Newt Gingrich, and his Contract with America Republicans," (that crap didn't start until 1995) it was absolutely the democans and their 258 to 176 seat majority in the House and 56-44 seat majority in the Senate, everyone loves to forget about the Senate.