Because the Democrats couldn't figure out ways to both bring Castro back from the dead and get him elected as POTUS so they had to settle for the runner-up, HRC?
In some alternate universe, I'm sure that's very witty. Here, though, where Bernie Sanders - who's a 120 leagues left of any other elected Democrat - smeared Hugo Chavez as a "dead communist dictator". Here, where Chavez is 360 leagues to the right of Castro....
You mean, only in America do the gullible believe that lawyers making some money is worse than letting monied interests get away with screwing over consumers, and instead they should get away scot free with their incompetence, negligence and putting people at risk.
I would ask if you are for real, but then I've seen people go on blathering that atheism is a religion, no matter how many variations of "atheism is a religion like 'off' is a tv channel" are bounced off their thick heads.
So you are saying Muslims don't be the Koran? that's stupid and illogical.
So you are saying Christians don't be[sic] the Bible? That's stupid and illogical. They MUST believe in the Bible, otherwise they wouldn't be Christians, which means they MUST believe in mother-son fucking!!!
You can get grumpy at me all you want, but the reality is you are wrong. You are projecting your Western memes onto an Eastern religion and blather blather bullshit blather bullshit blah blah blah
It's obvious that you know shit about Muslims and Islam in general. You're just mindlessly regurgitating islamophobic crap that you've read somewhere else in order to make them the Other.
Because "We pass the emissions test" is an entirely verifiable fact.
As are the false claims of a software company. "Our software does XYZ" when it actually doesn't, is a lie, and not subjective. Which is the point of the complaints. And no, consumers should not have to do research to find out a company is simply making shit up about their products capabilities.
If I buy a game console that prominently displays a DVD video logo on it - then it damn well better play DVD's.
If I buy a car that advertises GPS as a standard feature - then it damn well better come with GPS.
If I buy a soda that says Sugar Free on the label, then it damn well better not have 40 grams of sugar in it. I should not have to spend five minutes on my phone searching to see if the company is lying, and then another five minutes verifying claims and counter-claims.
What proxy science. Data and methodologies are publicly accessible and subject to peer review.
I don't trust it since Climategate.
You mean since you found an excuse to get your confirmation bias on - just like the anti-vaxxers. You guys come up with a reason yet for why, in an industry where a single company can make $40 billion in a single quarter, they haven't been able to debunk climate science if it's all faked? When even their own paid scientists admit that climate change is happening, when they actually examine the facts?
while renewable energy is just not nearly as cheap or efficient on the large scales needed to do away with fossil fuels
Outdating talking point #3,475: Wind now competes with fossil fuels. Solar almost does - and that's allowing the fossil fuel industry to externalize most of their side effects. Feel free to skip the baseline red herring, as production capacity can be spaced across the grid to account for the rare windless periods or times of low sunlight.
and the world has no appetite for nuclear
Slight correction: the world has no appetite for the cost of nuclear. Nuclear power is by far the most expensive and ludicrous form of corporate welfare invented by man, with the exception of defense contractors. It simply costs too damn much to mine, refine, construct, secure, maintain, decomission, and store the waste for hundreds of years.
Your deflection, I'm addressing the fallacy of "X believes Y because their book says so" head on. The only difference between saying Muslims believe (insert fearmongering of choice here) "because the Koran says so" and saying Christians believe in mother-son fucking "because the Old Testament says so" is the chosen passage of a millennia old rag.
If Congress hadn't killed the plans for more Navy nuclear powered ships then they'd be using a lot less fossil fuels.
How's that? New submarines are nuclear, and new aircraft carriers are nuclear. The U.S. has been out of the battleship business for some time - so where are these new nuclear ships going to be? And even then, if they started slapping them on cruisers, you couldn't tell the difference in the military's overall energy consumption. And aside from the Navy's use of oil, the Army, Air Force, and Marines are more or less 100% driven by fossil fuels.
The US Navy has been researching synthesized fuels, still carbon based but derived from nuclear power and seawater, not fossil fuels. If Congress would just fund this project properly then we could see this deployed in the military very soon.
Or....Congress could completely gut every single military program and institution outside of the various Guards: Coast, National and Air. It would be more than enough for this nation's actual defense needs. Having a thousand military bases around the world and special forces deployed to 130+ countries has nothing to do with defense and everything to do with empire.
The "drill, baby, drill" people see domestic oil production as a means to stop sending so many of our warriors over to so many sandy places to die for what we can produce here.
Which is another red herring. There is no such thing as a nationalized energy sector in the United States, else the CIA would have have to overthrow its own government. Most of the oil drilled in Alaska, for example, is exported to Japan, because there is only the world oil market.
The Democrats have been openly hostile to nuclear power
As much as they've been hostile to corporate trade agreements like NAFTA and the TPP. Which is to say, not at all. Nuclear power hasn't been held back by liberals, peacenicks or Green Peace. Nuclear power has been held back by the fact that it is completely and utterly unjustifiable based on cost alone. You can't square the circle of spending 15 years building a $15 billion nuclear power plant when wind and solar are far faster and cheaper to roll out, even building in capacity across the grid to address the baseline red herring.
While many people might not like it things like domestic oil and gas production, and more pipelines, are necessary for a smooth transition away from fossil fuels.
Sorry, but I have to ask: did your eyes get a little crosseyed while writing that? We need more fossil fuel production to transition away from dependence on fossil fuels?
I'm tired of so much arguing on if CAGW is real. I want to see people discuss real solutions.
Real solutions have been around since the 70's - and sometimes the 1870's. When wind and solar are already cost-competitive with coal - and that's allowing coal to externalize most of its costs - what justification can there be for nuclear power plants? And again, we can skip the "baseline power" canard as 1) there's no such thing 2) green power generation can be spread across the grid, same as coal or nuclear 3) store excess energy for when it's needed.
If nothing else, you can use spare electricity to pump water into a reservoir, either a lake or water tower, and then use gravity to power a turbine to produce electricity. If that just sounds silly, remember what nuclear power plants do: they heat water. To move a turbine to produce electricity.
Burning more natural gas means burning less coal and oil
Until you factor in all the fossil fuels used in the production of said natural gas, in which case it's a wash. With a side order of earthquakes and poisoned ground water.
Key word being "military". The U.S. military is the single largest user of carbon fuels. The U.S. military gets most of it's funding to ensure the world's gas station (the Middle East) keeps pumping oil.
So, yeah, you might want to pay attention if even the Pentagon is saying climate change is going to have serious consequences. It's like Philip Morris talking about the cancerous substances in tobacco - if even they are admitting it's a problem, why are you continuing to deny it?
They're never called on their (many) mistakes, shitty science and deplorable conduct towards climate realists.
I'm glad you "realists" have such great WiFi out in the Maldives. That's where you've all gone to, right, since beachfront property is so cheap these days? Just make sure you stay there.
It used to be "what happened to that ice age we were going to have", then it was "sun spots" or "volcanoes". The chickens are getting sore and would like to lay down for a while.
But it was all futile anyway because you are asking people to reduce their standard of living by choice to accomplish a community goal.
...making this post a pantload of denailist dumbfuckery. The only people that would be hurt by climate change mitigation are the capistlists driving climate change in the first place.
Then there's the fact that the cost of addressing climate change is insignificant next to the costs of not addressing it.
What happened to all that grandstanding about free speech being sacrosanct? Don't tell me it's just about the right to be racist assholes towards Muslims?**
* AE's, don't bother whining about the Nice attack etc when for every drop of innocent western blood spilled, entire swimming pools are filled due to western-backed violence.
* Yes, islmaophobia is racism, because when you're bitching about Muslims, you're using that as a stand in for "Arab" and "black".
Yeah, Ratzo, the "jihadis" in Afghanistan helped end the cancer that was the USSR.
Uh huh. How many democracies were overthrown by the USSR? Why don't you come up with a list and compare it to the number overthrown by the CIA and get back to me.
Trunka lunka, donka dee doo, I've got a gulag ready for you...
This is way beyond holocaust denial - which actually requires denying the holocaust, not just visiting websites talking about it.
This ISIS fan was actively demonstrating sympathy for ISIS terrorism (his defense is laughable
What's laughable is the size of the stones being thrown from within the glass house. The United States and it's allies are the worst terrorist nations on the planet - should we lock people up for reading terrorism-supporting news outlets like the NYTimes or the Washington Post?
not his doing business with a American banks which funds terrorists
FTFY. Iran hasn't attacked another country since the War of 1812, and the people it funds are resisting the terrorism of the United States and it's Gulf Coast allies.
If you didn't part with your money until it was released, reviewed, tested, a handful of brave souls blah blah blah
Name a consumer product where a company can lie about its features and tell the consumer to pound sand and get away with it. Volkswagen lied through their teeth about your Golf's emissions? Grab your ankles, n00b, it's your own damn fault.
The problem here is the shareholders are being fanboys first and businessmen a distant distant second.
Eh - didn't they spend billions buying Nokia? Didn't they spend spend tens to hundreds of millions developing their desktop OS to double as a mobile OS? Didn't piss away marketshare with the Windows 8 debacle?
And we're saying that a lot of people do a lot of things out of necessity and get paid less than they'd like for it.
"Like" is Randian wankery, a non-response to the issue of people working below the poverty line to pay seven figure salaries to a few executives, and a few billion in profits to investment banks.
Unless, of course, you're in favor of universal housing, universal health care, and a universal annual income, so working a shit job is an actual choice and not a responsibility if you want to get by. And want your taxes raised accordingly.
Minimum Wage: Not necessary in general. If you can't live off of the job, then don't take it. If the company can't find anyone, they'll raise the pay.
Which means:
1) You're demanding your taxes be raised to provide not just a minimum wage, but a universal basic income AND free housing AND free access to health care AND first rate public schools for people's kids.
2) You expect people to take as many jobs as needed to pay for their necessitates. Which means that in your eyes, getting a job is not a choice, but a responsibility. And when the only job is one that abuses and exploits you for the sake of quarterly profits and seven figure executive salaries? Take it or die in the streets.
These ride sharing services were set up to allow people to casually earn a little extra money
By preying on people who need to make next month's rent least they start getting eviction notices. Even if over the long term (after gas, insurance and maintenance costs) it means you'll be making less than minimum wage, fascist.
Slashdot Mirror
In some alternate universe, I'm sure that's very witty. Here, though, where Bernie Sanders - who's a 120 leagues left of any other elected Democrat - smeared Hugo Chavez as a "dead communist dictator". Here, where Chavez is 360 leagues to the right of Castro....
It's just dumfuckery.
You mean, only in America do the gullible believe that lawyers making some money is worse than letting monied interests get away with screwing over consumers, and instead they should get away scot free with their incompetence, negligence and putting people at risk.
Gosh, Americans are stoopid.
FTFY. Five Samsung devices on the first page alone.
Now mic is dropped.
I would ask if you are for real, but then I've seen people go on blathering that atheism is a religion, no matter how many variations of "atheism is a religion like 'off' is a tv channel" are bounced off their thick heads.
So you are saying Christians don't be[sic] the Bible? That's stupid and illogical. They MUST believe in the Bible, otherwise they wouldn't be Christians, which means they MUST believe in mother-son fucking!!!
It's obvious that you know shit about Muslims and Islam in general. You're just mindlessly regurgitating islamophobic crap that you've read somewhere else in order to make them the Other.
As are the false claims of a software company. "Our software does XYZ" when it actually doesn't, is a lie, and not subjective. Which is the point of the complaints. And no, consumers should not have to do research to find out a company is simply making shit up about their products capabilities.
If I buy a game console that prominently displays a DVD video logo on it - then it damn well better play DVD's.
If I buy a car that advertises GPS as a standard feature - then it damn well better come with GPS.
If I buy a soda that says Sugar Free on the label, then it damn well better not have 40 grams of sugar in it. I should not have to spend five minutes on my phone searching to see if the company is lying, and then another five minutes verifying claims and counter-claims.
What proxy science. Data and methodologies are publicly accessible and subject to peer review.
You mean since you found an excuse to get your confirmation bias on - just like the anti-vaxxers. You guys come up with a reason yet for why, in an industry where a single company can make $40 billion in a single quarter, they haven't been able to debunk climate science if it's all faked? When even their own paid scientists admit that climate change is happening, when they actually examine the facts?
Outdating talking point #3,475: Wind now competes with fossil fuels. Solar almost does - and that's allowing the fossil fuel industry to externalize most of their side effects. Feel free to skip the baseline red herring, as production capacity can be spaced across the grid to account for the rare windless periods or times of low sunlight.
Slight correction: the world has no appetite for the cost of nuclear. Nuclear power is by far the most expensive and ludicrous form of corporate welfare invented by man, with the exception of defense contractors. It simply costs too damn much to mine, refine, construct, secure, maintain, decomission, and store the waste for hundreds of years.
Your deflection, I'm addressing the fallacy of "X believes Y because their book says so" head on. The only difference between saying Muslims believe (insert fearmongering of choice here) "because the Koran says so" and saying Christians believe in mother-son fucking "because the Old Testament says so" is the chosen passage of a millennia old rag.
How's that? New submarines are nuclear, and new aircraft carriers are nuclear. The U.S. has been out of the battleship business for some time - so where are these new nuclear ships going to be? And even then, if they started slapping them on cruisers, you couldn't tell the difference in the military's overall energy consumption. And aside from the Navy's use of oil, the Army, Air Force, and Marines are more or less 100% driven by fossil fuels.
Or....Congress could completely gut every single military program and institution outside of the various Guards: Coast, National and Air. It would be more than enough for this nation's actual defense needs. Having a thousand military bases around the world and special forces deployed to 130+ countries has nothing to do with defense and everything to do with empire.
Which is another red herring. There is no such thing as a nationalized energy sector in the United States, else the CIA would have have to overthrow its own government. Most of the oil drilled in Alaska, for example, is exported to Japan, because there is only the world oil market.
As much as they've been hostile to corporate trade agreements like NAFTA and the TPP. Which is to say, not at all. Nuclear power hasn't been held back by liberals, peacenicks or Green Peace. Nuclear power has been held back by the fact that it is completely and utterly unjustifiable based on cost alone. You can't square the circle of spending 15 years building a $15 billion nuclear power plant when wind and solar are far faster and cheaper to roll out, even building in capacity across the grid to address the baseline red herring.
Sorry, but I have to ask: did your eyes get a little crosseyed while writing that? We need more fossil fuel production to transition away from dependence on fossil fuels?
Real solutions have been around since the 70's - and sometimes the 1870's. When wind and solar are already cost-competitive with coal - and that's allowing coal to externalize most of its costs - what justification can there be for nuclear power plants? And again, we can skip the "baseline power" canard as 1) there's no such thing 2) green power generation can be spread across the grid, same as coal or nuclear 3) store excess energy for when it's needed.
If nothing else, you can use spare electricity to pump water into a reservoir, either a lake or water tower, and then use gravity to power a turbine to produce electricity. If that just sounds silly, remember what nuclear power plants do: they heat water. To move a turbine to produce electricity.
Until you factor in all the fossil fuels used in the production of said natural gas, in which case it's a wash. With a side order of earthquakes and poisoned ground water.
Key word being "military". The U.S. military is the single largest user of carbon fuels. The U.S. military gets most of it's funding to ensure the world's gas station (the Middle East) keeps pumping oil.
So, yeah, you might want to pay attention if even the Pentagon is saying climate change is going to have serious consequences. It's like Philip Morris talking about the cancerous substances in tobacco - if even they are admitting it's a problem, why are you continuing to deny it?
It's also known that humans are driving climate change faster than any natural cycle. Stop hand waiving.
I'm glad you "realists" have such great WiFi out in the Maldives. That's where you've all gone to, right, since beachfront property is so cheap these days? Just make sure you stay there.
It used to be "what happened to that ice age we were going to have", then it was "sun spots" or "volcanoes". The chickens are getting sore and would like to lay down for a while.
Then there's the fact that the cost of addressing climate change is insignificant next to the costs of not addressing it.
Reality has a well known anti-American Exceptionalist bias.
What happened to all that grandstanding about free speech being sacrosanct? Don't tell me it's just about the right to be racist assholes towards Muslims?**
* AE's, don't bother whining about the Nice attack etc when for every drop of innocent western blood spilled, entire swimming pools are filled due to western-backed violence.
* Yes, islmaophobia is racism, because when you're bitching about Muslims, you're using that as a stand in for "Arab" and "black".
Uh huh. How many democracies were overthrown by the USSR? Why don't you come up with a list and compare it to the number overthrown by the CIA and get back to me.
Trunka lunka, donka dee doo, I've got a gulag ready for you...
Oh, I do understand. I understand you're as full of it as someone saying Christians believe in rape victims being forced to marry their rapists, "because the Bible says so".
This is way beyond holocaust denial - which actually requires denying the holocaust, not just visiting websites talking about it.
What's laughable is the size of the stones being thrown from within the glass house. The United States and it's allies are the worst terrorist nations on the planet - should we lock people up for reading terrorism-supporting news outlets like the NYTimes or the Washington Post?
FTFY. Iran hasn't attacked another country since the War of 1812, and the people it funds are resisting the terrorism of the United States and it's Gulf Coast allies.
The greedy, dishonest company.
Name a consumer product where a company can lie about its features and tell the consumer to pound sand and get away with it. Volkswagen lied through their teeth about your Golf's emissions? Grab your ankles, n00b, it's your own damn fault.
The problem here is the shareholders are being fanboys first and businessmen a distant distant second.
Eh - didn't they spend billions buying Nokia? Didn't they spend spend tens to hundreds of millions developing their desktop OS to double as a mobile OS? Didn't piss away marketshare with the Windows 8 debacle?
All of which affected shareholder value.
"Like" is Randian wankery, a non-response to the issue of people working below the poverty line to pay seven figure salaries to a few executives, and a few billion in profits to investment banks.
Unless, of course, you're in favor of universal housing, universal health care, and a universal annual income, so working a shit job is an actual choice and not a responsibility if you want to get by. And want your taxes raised accordingly.
Which means:
1) You're demanding your taxes be raised to provide not just a minimum wage, but a universal basic income AND free housing AND free access to health care AND first rate public schools for people's kids.
2) You expect people to take as many jobs as needed to pay for their necessitates. Which means that in your eyes, getting a job is not a choice, but a responsibility. And when the only job is one that abuses and exploits you for the sake of quarterly profits and seven figure executive salaries? Take it or die in the streets.
So which is it...one or two.
By preying on people who need to make next month's rent least they start getting eviction notices. Even if over the long term (after gas, insurance and maintenance costs) it means you'll be making less than minimum wage, fascist.
It takes money to make money, espeically as a capitalist shitbag.