When the welfare system in the USA was signed into law, during the FDR days, it was MAINLY for poor families with dependent children. In the 60's LBJ and government really expanded it with the advent of medicare/medicade. People, when they are "given" anything, will work LESS. People can be lazy if they don't have to get up off their butts and work for a LIVING.
Except that's all nonsense. People naturally want "more". Case in point: you aren't still at that first minimum wage job you started in high school, are you? Because you wanted more.
It's both, of course. Ask an islamophobe to physically describe a muslim and they'll give you one of two answers: someone who looks like an Arab, or someone who looks like a black African.
So, completely racist, same as people who cough their bigotry towards Latinos in terms of "illegal immigration", while being the descendants of European invaders.
The Hillary that repeated her Iraq "mistake" with Syria
Do tell - what did she do there?
If you're that ignorant of current events, why do you comment on current events?
and Libya
Funny how the guy Reagan
The Reagan who had thousands of people murdered in South America with CIA-backed death squads? Reagan who sold weapons to Iran to support those death squads? Why would you bring up Reagan wanting to attack someone as evidence of anything?
is cast as a good guy now just because it's a chance to make a Democrat look bad.
So you're going to use the "if you question the Pentagon you're a Saddam lover" reasoning with Gaddafi in the place of Saddam, immediately after it was called out. Your elevator doesn't go to the top floor, does it?
2/ Putin began his move into politics railing against Bill Clinton and the US military actions in Europe that he ordered.
The U.S. war on Serbia was sold on lies, one of it's top generals wanted to attack Russian forces approaching an airfield, and Clinton spent much of the 90's expanding NATO right after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, a naked move of aggression.
So what you call "ranting" could more appropriately be described as "not having his head up his ass".
He's ranted a lot about Hillary when she was Secretary of State.
The Hillary that repeated her Iraq "mistake" with Syria and Libya? The female Dick Cheney with less intelligence? The warmonger who wanted to start WWIII last year by shooting down Russian jets in Syria? See above about "ranting", again.
3/ Instability - a President that "shakes things up" means that the US government is so distracted that Russia can get away with actions in the surrounding countries that would normally draw US attention.
By doing something that would get the media and political establishment talking about little but Russia for months if not years? How much time do you guys spend thinking up these talking points before posting them?
Putin has done that sort of thing before and recognizes someone he can manipulate in Trump.
Manipulate how, exactly. See above on talking points. Speaking of, this is the point where skeptics are accused of being Putin lovers, same as anyone who questioned the rush to invade Iraq was called a Saddam lover.
So the same newspaper that broke Watergate, the same one that has won hundreds of Pulitzer,
The same paper that is owned by a guy with a $600 million contract with the CIA, twice what the paper is worth. The paper that never, ever mentions this conflict of interest. Anyone who believes the WaPo or the Russia hysteria is dumber than a person who's lost their life savings to a Nigerian Prince. A dozen separate times.
And supporter trolls with spam this article with fallacious arguments for climate change.
In the same way that people who argue against lead paint, arsenic, or cars without seat belts are making fallacious arguments. Or...maybe you're just a hand waiving dumbfucker.
...And they *STILL* can't get the computer climate models to even somewhat-accurately track *PAST* climate changes!
Right. In the same way that models in the 60's couldn't predict within 1000 points what the stock market would be today, which means capitalism is a failure. Or maybe that's just hand waiving, and your a Libertarian moron.
A warmer climate means LESS extremes in weather, because as the temperature grows more water vapor enters the system and it acts on a damper (ha!) for really extreme weather.
In some alternate universe where warmer, more humid are doesn't == more tornadoes, hurricanes in the summer, and more blizzards in the winter.
In the US--pursuing child molesters is the last bastion of the bureaucratic tyrant. No right is beyond revoke and no punishment too severe to stand in the way of "protecting the children".
Another reason this is asinine: treat someone as if they were (still) guilty of something long enough, and they might just decide to hell with it, they might as well be guilty of something. Which is just a brilliant position to put a sex offender into.
Would you care to try that again, without the willful obtuseness this time? If Billy Bob trips over his shoe laces, falls down the stairs and breaks his neck at his local nuclear power plant, obviously that is a workplace death. But just as obviously, his death had nothing to do with nuclear power.
Same thing if Bob trips and falls down the stairs at Solar City as opposed to the nuclear power plant. So, again, just how many deaths have there been from the failure of wind and solar power.
Um, ok. Well, anyway, no technological breakthrough is going to change the number of hours per day the sun shines or the wind blows.
All of the FUD with regards to solar can be answered with 70's technology. And I mean the 1870's. Wind and solar generating capacity would be spaced across the grid - as coal and nuclear are spaced across the grid. Excess wind and solar power can be stored in hydrostatic batteries - artificial reservoirs and water towers that will outlast any nuclear power plant.
There is an obsession with sneering at wind and solar, and it's religious.
FTFY. Wind and solar are cheaper and faster to roll out than coal, much less nuclear.
the tech is gonna get there eventually!!!".
The storage tech has been there for over a hundred years. Move water into an artificial pond (or a water tower in a dry climate) and let it flow out to push a turbine when needed. And before you sneer at that idea too, remember the only thing your coal and nuclear power plants do is heat water. To move a turbine to generate electricity.
He is spending vast amounts of money on philanthropic projects.
Which frequently dovetail with capitalist hegemony. Like giving money to schools that is promptly spent on buying Microsoft products, or in supporting charter schools, the ultimate in corporate pork if monied shitbags like himself manage to privatize public education.
This is why the world started building nuclear power plants.
Because it wanted the ultimate in corporate welfare while at the same time providing cover to nuclear weapons programs?
But then there too many idiots appeared who opposed that and now we're going back to coal and oil/gas.
You idiots. Nuclear power cannot be justified based on cost alone. For a fraction of the time and cost, you can build out wind and solar across an entire region for a fraction of the price, while creating more jobs in the process. Disagree, feel free to link to a statement from a nuclear power company that itemizes the full cost of mining, construction, operation, security, disaster preparedness, decommission and storing waste for thousands of years into the rates it charges.
Out here on the Great Plains we don't have many hills.
Changes little. You can still have your artificial reservoir, and use excess energy to pump water into it, then let water flow out through a turbine to generate electricity. Or failing that, water towers. And there are hydroelectric dams and water towers that have been in service for over a century. And the whole point of your phancy pants nuclear power plants is to heat water, to push a turbine to generate electricity.
Even the ineffective management makes it by far the safest form of power generation currently as measured in terms of death per kWh, yet it has the reputation for being the most dangerous.
Uh huh. So how many humans have died from the failure of solar panels again? Wind farms? We're talking failures here, not industrial accidents.
For the amount of money and in the amount of time it takes you to construct a new nuclear plant, you can roll out wind and solar power across an entire region, completely with hydrostatic batteries (reservoirs and water towers). Creating far more jobs in the process in far less time.
And that's ignoring the costs of security, disaster preparedness, plant decommission, and storing the waste for hundreds to thousands of years for nuclear power. Disagree? Fell free to link to a statement from a nuclear power company, showing the fees charged up front to pay for those cradle-to-grave costs.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that's all nonsense. People naturally want "more". Case in point: you aren't still at that first minimum wage job you started in high school, are you? Because you wanted more.
How. By talking shit about them? Don't wear holes in that fainting couch.
Why not bring back child labor and bring back lead paint? As long as this is Ask Stupid Questions day.
It's both, of course. Ask an islamophobe to physically describe a muslim and they'll give you one of two answers: someone who looks like an Arab, or someone who looks like a black African.
So, completely racist, same as people who cough their bigotry towards Latinos in terms of "illegal immigration", while being the descendants of European invaders.
If you're that ignorant of current events, why do you comment on current events?
The Reagan who had thousands of people murdered in South America with CIA-backed death squads? Reagan who sold weapons to Iran to support those death squads? Why would you bring up Reagan wanting to attack someone as evidence of anything?
So you're going to use the "if you question the Pentagon you're a Saddam lover" reasoning with Gaddafi in the place of Saddam, immediately after it was called out. Your elevator doesn't go to the top floor, does it?
The U.S. war on Serbia was sold on lies, one of it's top generals wanted to attack Russian forces approaching an airfield, and Clinton spent much of the 90's expanding NATO right after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, a naked move of aggression.
So what you call "ranting" could more appropriately be described as "not having his head up his ass".
The Hillary that repeated her Iraq "mistake" with Syria and Libya? The female Dick Cheney with less intelligence? The warmonger who wanted to start WWIII last year by shooting down Russian jets in Syria? See above about "ranting", again.
By doing something that would get the media and political establishment talking about little but Russia for months if not years? How much time do you guys spend thinking up these talking points before posting them?
Manipulate how, exactly. See above on talking points. Speaking of, this is the point where skeptics are accused of being Putin lovers, same as anyone who questioned the rush to invade Iraq was called a Saddam lover.
The same paper that is owned by a guy with a $600 million contract with the CIA, twice what the paper is worth. The paper that never, ever mentions this conflict of interest. Anyone who believes the WaPo or the Russia hysteria is dumber than a person who's lost their life savings to a Nigerian Prince. A dozen separate times.
Why. So the proles may be ordered to pay for the sins of their capitalist masters?
Gravity is "just a theory". Jumped off a 20 story building to test it? If not, why not.
In the same way that people who argue against lead paint, arsenic, or cars without seat belts are making fallacious arguments. Or...maybe you're just a hand waiving dumbfucker.
In the same way that a 20% coupon for BBAB means you're "saving" 20% of your money
/capitalistlogic
Right. In the same way that models in the 60's couldn't predict within 1000 points what the stock market would be today, which means capitalism is a failure. Or maybe that's just hand waiving, and your a Libertarian moron.
In some alternate universe where warmer, more humid are doesn't == more tornadoes, hurricanes in the summer, and more blizzards in the winter.
Another reason this is asinine: treat someone as if they were (still) guilty of something long enough, and they might just decide to hell with it, they might as well be guilty of something. Which is just a brilliant position to put a sex offender into.
Would you care to try that again, without the willful obtuseness this time? If Billy Bob trips over his shoe laces, falls down the stairs and breaks his neck at his local nuclear power plant, obviously that is a workplace death. But just as obviously, his death had nothing to do with nuclear power.
Same thing if Bob trips and falls down the stairs at Solar City as opposed to the nuclear power plant. So, again, just how many deaths have there been from the failure of wind and solar power.
All of the FUD with regards to solar can be answered with 70's technology. And I mean the 1870's. Wind and solar generating capacity would be spaced across the grid - as coal and nuclear are spaced across the grid. Excess wind and solar power can be stored in hydrostatic batteries - artificial reservoirs and water towers that will outlast any nuclear power plant.
FTFY. Wind and solar are cheaper and faster to roll out than coal, much less nuclear.
The storage tech has been there for over a hundred years. Move water into an artificial pond (or a water tower in a dry climate) and let it flow out to push a turbine when needed. And before you sneer at that idea too, remember the only thing your coal and nuclear power plants do is heat water. To move a turbine to generate electricity.
Exponential is not what you want. You'll have China producing more solar energy than the universe by 2150.
Pedant.
Ignoring the facts that:
1) Climate models from 30 or even 40 years ago were prescient
2) Models have understated the rate of change
Go form a commune with the anti-vaxxers, wanker.
Neither, as the hand waiving nonsense can be seen from a mile off.
Only if you ignore or externalize all the costs of natural gas production/use.
Which frequently dovetail with capitalist hegemony. Like giving money to schools that is promptly spent on buying Microsoft products, or in supporting charter schools, the ultimate in corporate pork if monied shitbags like himself manage to privatize public education.
Because it wanted the ultimate in corporate welfare while at the same time providing cover to nuclear weapons programs?
You idiots. Nuclear power cannot be justified based on cost alone. For a fraction of the time and cost, you can build out wind and solar across an entire region for a fraction of the price, while creating more jobs in the process. Disagree, feel free to link to a statement from a nuclear power company that itemizes the full cost of mining, construction, operation, security, disaster preparedness, decommission and storing waste for thousands of years into the rates it charges.
Changes little. You can still have your artificial reservoir, and use excess energy to pump water into it, then let water flow out through a turbine to generate electricity. Or failing that, water towers. And there are hydroelectric dams and water towers that have been in service for over a century. And the whole point of your phancy pants nuclear power plants is to heat water, to push a turbine to generate electricity.
Uh huh. So how many humans have died from the failure of solar panels again? Wind farms? We're talking failures here, not industrial accidents.
For the amount of money and in the amount of time it takes you to construct a new nuclear plant, you can roll out wind and solar power across an entire region, completely with hydrostatic batteries (reservoirs and water towers). Creating far more jobs in the process in far less time.
And that's ignoring the costs of security, disaster preparedness, plant decommission, and storing the waste for hundreds to thousands of years for nuclear power. Disagree? Fell free to link to a statement from a nuclear power company, showing the fees charged up front to pay for those cradle-to-grave costs.