And lunar conspiracy theorists make equally facile claims that the landings were fake, because you can't see any stars in the photos taken by astronauts and lunar dust wasn't blown away from the landing site. Facile claims that are easily dismissed by the fact that fast exposure film was necessary (so no stars captured) and there is no atmosphere for the dust to float away on.
Making a case for public infrastructure to a Randian is like making a case for evolution to a young-earth creationist. Can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
All the projects seem great if you forget that you took the money from the people who earned it so you could spend it on yourself/your priorities.
Randians: always wanting to live in civilization, never wanting to pay for it.
Yes it is. 2.5 million euros is a drop in the bucket of London's budget and pollution levels STILL DROPPED while VW "cheated"
Something in the AC water this morning? Murder rates have also been in decline for decades - that mean you should be able to go out, shoot someone and get away with it?
Your... stupidity. Coal releases more radiation, and there are also no coal power plants that "charges its customers for the full cost from cradle to grave: everything from mining & refining, to plant construction & maintenance, to waste disposal/recycling/reuse".
5th person with the straw man/false dichotomy that being against nuclear power means supporting coal power. You guys think this is a radio show where the 9th caller wins a prize?
There is no amount of CO2 scrubbing that will make coal power cost effective. Disagree, name the coal power plant that charges its customer for the full cost from cradle to grave: everything from mining & refining, to plant construction & maintenance, to waste disposal/recycling/reuse.
Why? Didn't say anything about coal. We just had an election. If you said something critical of Hillary, did that make you a Trump supporter? Or vice versa. This pro-nuke straw man/false dichotomy is painfully facile, and needs to be retired.
Profitable or not, it's still a nearly carbon neutral way of generating significant power.
But why bother, when alternatives are cheaper, and with none of the long-term safety & security issues? The real Achilles heel for nuclear power is that it's just not cost effective.
I'd love to see that same boldfaced-full standard applied to coal-burning plants.
I've love you guys to Google "false dichotomy", then retire this trite pro-nuke talking point. I suppose you spent election season crying that any criticism of Hillary translated to support for Trump?
You can choose between nuclear, fossil and renewable energy. Given that renewable is not cheap and stable enough at the moment
In the context of nuclear power??? That's like saying you can't afford $2,000 to fix your leaky roof (before hurricane season) so you can take a $200,000 vacation to Paris.
Renewables are already cost effective next to coal, much less the mother-of-all-corporate-welfare-programs, nuclear power. There is no nuclear power plant in existence that charges its customers the full cost of mining, refining, construction, security, maintenance, disaster preparedness and waste disposal.
All of this has been known since the '70's, and nothing has changed. So, drab and beige, or maybe a nice bondi blue? The color of the plug in your head, I mean.
Your stupidity. There is no amount of reprocessing that will make nuclear power cost effective. Disagree, name the nuclear power plant that charges its customers for the full cost from cradle to grave: everything from mining & refining, to plant construction & maintenance, to waste disposal/recycling/reuse.
You can't do that because that nuclear power plant doesn't exist. Because nuclear power is corporate welfare masking ongoing nuclear weapons programs.
Right, in the same way the number of deaths from smoking will be "zero" if you and your circle of friends start smoking 3 packs of cigarettes a day, every day, for the next four years.
P.S. You do know that coal mining releases more radiation into the air, and kills more people, than nuclear power - right?
You know that's clever idiocy - right? Opposition to nuclear does not mean support for coal. Now, here's a buttplug you can use to fill that hole in your head:
Trump had no interest in changing the GOP platform presented at the Republican convention, with one exception, he pulled all the hawkish lingo that condemned the Russian intervention in the Ukraine.
The Russian intervention in Ukraine?
Russians gave Ukraine a low interest loan and a cheap rate on gas. The west wanted Ukraine to take on IMF loans with crushing austerity measures. The assistant secretary of state, Victoria Nulan, is on video bragging (in front of Chevron banners) about the billions spent to bring the country "the future it deserves" to mold Ukrainian politics to American Exceptionalist liking. And then you asshats have the chutzpah to claim that Russia was trying to influence the presidential election in the United States.
The IMF side couldn't win at the ballot box, so they started a goddamn coup against the elected government, even after early elections were agreed to. You think for a nanosecond that the United States would sit with its thumb up its ass if Russia overthrew the duly elected government of Canada or Mexico?
Was she? Everything she got politically was based on her last name. Her time as SOS was a complete clusterf***, exporting fracking to the world when she wasn't busy overthrowing democracies and repeating her Iraq "mistake" in Libya and Syria.
South Africa, Nigeria and probably even Kenya have economies in far better shape than Libya ever had.
Other than Libya having a higher GDP than any of them. But American Exceptionalists have never let facts get in the way of their storylines before, why start now?
Hillary is old news now
You drunk? Who said anything about Hillary?
don't have to pretend that Ghadaffi was some wonderful ruler any more
Your logical fallacies are....straw man + false dichotomy.
It's safe to remember him now as the guy Reagan taught a lesson when he sent bombers after his ass.
If the rest of the world responded to American violence the way America responds when it gets a paper cut, the North American continent would be a radioactive crater, down to the bedrock.
You really need to learn more about the continent of Africa than whatever sound bytes have informed your education previously.
You first.
Libya was a shit hole with a dictator.
You mean it's a shite hole now after you turned the most prosperous nation on the continent, with high rates of education and education for women into a playground for ISIS. Why you guys continue to claim otherwise when at the same goddamn time the U.S. was selling weapons to the dictatorship of Bahrain to put down their Arab Spring protests, is beyond me.
And that's before the U.S. started helping the Saudi's bomb the Houthis, who rebelled against their dictator. Believing in Santa Clause as a grown-assed man is more believable and respectable than continuing to parrot stupid bullshit from the military-industrial-complex.
Personally I'm all for requiring identification to vote.
You also for requiring an ID to enter a church, engage in free speech, associate with others or have the right to an attorney?
You don't need an ID to exercise your rights.
Now, before Burt Gummer comes in and whines about having to show an ID to buy a firearm....read the first sentence of the 2nd Amendment.
However I also feel that at that point said identification should be provided to any eligible citizens free of charge
It's only "free" if your time is worthless and you already have documentation to get an ID.
Don't have an ID, Social Security card or birth certificate? Prepare to wait months (and possibly spend a large sum of money for a poor person) to get one.
And for what? VOTE FRAUD IS FUNCTIONALLY NON-EXISTENT.
First off, most of the cases voter ID proponents can name are actually cases of vote registration fraud, which would not be stopped by ID. Then, the rest of the cases they can name are examples of people voting in person and then by absentee, or when not eligible (residency requirements, convicted felon). ALSO not prevented by voter ID.
Actual cases of Mickey Mouse trying to vote are on the order of 30 or so out of a billion votes cast in the United States. Compared that to 70,000 people stricken from voter rolls, just in Florida, just in the year 2000.
Not quite. British helicopter carriers were instrumental to the joint British and French military support for Al Queda and proto-ISIS terrorists in a proxy war to overthrow the most prosperous African nation
FTFY.
radicals created by Western Exceptioanlists bombing their homes
Slashdot Mirror
They shouldn't. The point is that Google is being hypocritical, and all the "two wrongs don't make a right" wankers here are supporting hypocrisy.
And lunar conspiracy theorists make equally facile claims that the landings were fake, because you can't see any stars in the photos taken by astronauts and lunar dust wasn't blown away from the landing site. Facile claims that are easily dismissed by the fact that fast exposure film was necessary (so no stars captured) and there is no atmosphere for the dust to float away on.
TSTRT
Making a case for public infrastructure to a Randian is like making a case for evolution to a young-earth creationist. Can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
Randians: always wanting to live in civilization, never wanting to pay for it.
Something in the AC water this morning? Murder rates have also been in decline for decades - that mean you should be able to go out, shoot someone and get away with it?
The consumer didn't receive what she paid for, so your comment is nonsensical. The only entity that benefited from the cheating was Volkswagen.
Six year olds, and pedantic schoolmarms who are in desperate need of some colon blow. Your wankery is a non-response to Google's hypocrisy.
5th person with the straw man/false dichotomy that being against nuclear power means supporting coal power. You guys think this is a radio show where the 9th caller wins a prize?
You're seriously the third person so far to engage in the trite straw man/false dichotomy that criticizing nuclear means supporting coal. Yawn.
Why? Didn't say anything about coal. We just had an election. If you said something critical of Hillary, did that make you a Trump supporter? Or vice versa. This pro-nuke straw man/false dichotomy is painfully facile, and needs to be retired.
But why bother, when alternatives are cheaper, and with none of the long-term safety & security issues? The real Achilles heel for nuclear power is that it's just not cost effective.
I've love you guys to Google "false dichotomy", then retire this trite pro-nuke talking point. I suppose you spent election season crying that any criticism of Hillary translated to support for Trump?
Fainting couch aside, no. I'm not.
In the context of nuclear power??? That's like saying you can't afford $2,000 to fix your leaky roof (before hurricane season) so you can take a $200,000 vacation to Paris.
Renewables are already cost effective next to coal, much less the mother-of-all-corporate-welfare-programs, nuclear power. There is no nuclear power plant in existence that charges its customers the full cost of mining, refining, construction, security, maintenance, disaster preparedness and waste disposal.
All of this has been known since the '70's, and nothing has changed. So, drab and beige, or maybe a nice bondi blue? The color of the plug in your head, I mean.
Your stupidity. There is no amount of reprocessing that will make nuclear power cost effective. Disagree, name the nuclear power plant that charges its customers for the full cost from cradle to grave: everything from mining & refining, to plant construction & maintenance, to waste disposal/recycling/reuse.
You can't do that because that nuclear power plant doesn't exist. Because nuclear power is corporate welfare masking ongoing nuclear weapons programs.
Right, in the same way the number of deaths from smoking will be "zero" if you and your circle of friends start smoking 3 packs of cigarettes a day, every day, for the next four years.
You know that's clever idiocy - right? Opposition to nuclear does not mean support for coal. Now, here's a buttplug you can use to fill that hole in your head:
Your logical fallacy is...false dichotomy.
The Russian intervention in Ukraine?
Russians gave Ukraine a low interest loan and a cheap rate on gas. The west wanted Ukraine to take on IMF loans with crushing austerity measures. The assistant secretary of state, Victoria Nulan, is on video bragging (in front of Chevron banners) about the billions spent to bring the country "the future it deserves" to mold Ukrainian politics to American Exceptionalist liking. And then you asshats have the chutzpah to claim that Russia was trying to influence the presidential election in the United States.
The IMF side couldn't win at the ballot box, so they started a goddamn coup against the elected government, even after early elections were agreed to. You think for a nanosecond that the United States would sit with its thumb up its ass if Russia overthrew the duly elected government of Canada or Mexico?
Dumb.
Fuck.
Er.
Eee.
Was she? Everything she got politically was based on her last name. Her time as SOS was a complete clusterf***, exporting fracking to the world when she wasn't busy overthrowing democracies and repeating her Iraq "mistake" in Libya and Syria.
Other than Libya having a higher GDP than any of them. But American Exceptionalists have never let facts get in the way of their storylines before, why start now?
You drunk? Who said anything about Hillary?
Your logical fallacies are....straw man + false dichotomy.
If the rest of the world responded to American violence the way America responds when it gets a paper cut, the North American continent would be a radioactive crater, down to the bedrock.
You first.
You mean it's a shite hole now after you turned the most prosperous nation on the continent, with high rates of education and education for women into a playground for ISIS. Why you guys continue to claim otherwise when at the same goddamn time the U.S. was selling weapons to the dictatorship of Bahrain to put down their Arab Spring protests, is beyond me.
And that's before the U.S. started helping the Saudi's bomb the Houthis, who rebelled against their dictator. Believing in Santa Clause as a grown-assed man is more believable and respectable than continuing to parrot stupid bullshit from the military-industrial-complex.
You also for requiring an ID to enter a church, engage in free speech, associate with others or have the right to an attorney?
You don't need an ID to exercise your rights.
Now, before Burt Gummer comes in and whines about having to show an ID to buy a firearm....read the first sentence of the 2nd Amendment.
It's only "free" if your time is worthless and you already have documentation to get an ID.
Don't have an ID, Social Security card or birth certificate? Prepare to wait months (and possibly spend a large sum of money for a poor person) to get one.
And for what? VOTE FRAUD IS FUNCTIONALLY NON-EXISTENT.
First off, most of the cases voter ID proponents can name are actually cases of vote registration fraud, which would not be stopped by ID. Then, the rest of the cases they can name are examples of people voting in person and then by absentee, or when not eligible (residency requirements, convicted felon). ALSO not prevented by voter ID.
Actual cases of Mickey Mouse trying to vote are on the order of 30 or so out of a billion votes cast in the United States. Compared that to 70,000 people stricken from voter rolls, just in Florida, just in the year 2000.
Red herring.
1) Trump wasn't an elected official in Congress and had no vote on the matter
2) Trump wasn't an elected official in Congress and didn't have access to classified information. Hillary did.
You'll need a tiger stone long before you need a ludicrously large military like the UK's, much less the U.S.
FTFY.
FTFY2.