That's right. It's not our problem if the government of the people locks out a portion of the population over ideological reasons for purely technical aspects that could otherwise easily be tackled. In fact, it serves them right for thinking differently about their freedoms and whatnot. Those type of people need to either conform of be left out.
Now where amis that damn sarcasm tag when you need it.
No superfund site has been created for activities that has taken place after 1986. The private sector simply doesn't operate that way anymore.
Co2 most definitely is born by the private sector. Almost all negative aspects if any are actually measurable are realized through reduced costs of products and lowered land values (most of which is controlled or owned by the rich who can afford the losses ).
Well, The other costs are largely already accounted for. But for Co2, why not? What is the costs to removing co2 from the air? The costs of dealing with it is already largely on the private sector.
Currently, the power grid is privately owned. It was built because of necessity and profit. It is heavily regulated though. If there was profit or necessity the alterations would be made already. One thing you cannot really do is accuse a greedy business of not seeking profits. Your argument is sort of shot in the foot right there.
How about making a right of way, stop lawsuits, and remove the barriers and see if there is a will to do it.
It's not a matter of favor or not favor. It's a matter of propping up something that otherwise would not compete by passing a great expenses to the public by means of taxation instead of volunteer association.
Suppose I make software. I cannot distribute it and sell it at a profit. Should the government step in and distribute it for me at a cost to you via taxes? Why? I mean if it is a matter of you not wanting taxes spent this way it doesn't matter because that is what your trying to tell me.
Wrong. The argument is not build this out so I can buil a coal power plant in Montana or a national gas plant in Wisconsin. The argument is specific to less profitable types of energy in an attempt to subsidize the delivery.
It is all about alternative fuels and less profitable sources of energy.
That's a good question. Here is another. At what point in trying to avoid that does it start costing more than losing it and why is convoluted plans for enriching alternative energy at the costs to others more expensive than just capturing carbon instead? I mean if every factory and every city just installed carbon sequestration equipment supposing it exists, we could achieve the same goals but that seems absent from the conversation.
My parents, for instance, would read the newspaper article about some incident or other, and have no way to judge whether the opinions and position were in any way correct
Your a bit young so I guess I should point out that in my parent's day, you simply wouldn't have opinion in newspaper articles. You would have statements by people related to the stories and the who, what, were, why, and when facts and the statements were clearly marks as somebody said something. That is old School Jounalism. The opinions were saved for the op-ed pages which everyone knew was not news but opinions and editorials. I recently saw someone citing an op-ed page as if it was reported fact when it was just someone's opinion so I guess no one can tell the difference any more.
lol.. Idiot. They have likely already sent over lots of Russian women to sleep with Snowden in order to find out if there are any other secrets they could be interested in. They would already know Snowden wasn't gay and that gay porn would be a plant to manipulate him.
Besides, the type of problems gayness would generate is not the kind of international problems that would be pressuring them to boot Snowden out of the country. For instance, for being gay, they would just throw him in prison in secrecy. Even if they overlooked it because it is benificial to them, giving a gay person sanctuary isn't the type of thing to cause international outcry that would hurt Russian diplomatic efforts. In fact, it could help in some instances with some of the more liberal European countries. But child porn, that is universally hated- even if on the surface and Russia would likely suffer too badly if they were protecting a pedophile. Snowden would need to go to France for that (Roman Polanski And French culture)
Ok, I'm coming right out and calling you a liar on this. If it happened i could easily find reference to it and you could easily cite one. That just isn't happening so I have to ask why you insist on perpetuating this lie? Is Obama doing something so important to you that you have to lie and make shit up? Why? Can't you see that it makes your support delusional?
I'm sort of wondering if this nude pictures problem isn't a trap.The US government just took over a kiddie porn site and ran it in order to trap visitors. So what is to stop them from sending 14 or 15 year old nudes that look a little older so they can tip some Russian officials off about child porn sitting on a computer that gets tracked down to Snowden. He then losses his sanctuary and gets swept up by the feds and is a positive notch in Obama's legacy (killed Bin Laden and captured Snowden )
Of course Snowden is too smart for that and complains publicly that unrequested nudes are being sent that he doesn't want them. Now if it happens, its a setup that is obviously a setup beyond his control.
Who cares? I mean seriously - do you think that women who cannot take a joke are the only ones contemplating going into ITor that scenario is a good thing? I say let them become mechanics and bitch about snap on tools instead.
That is not always possible for everyone. It really is that simple. Sometimes the loss is too valuable. Yes, you should not pay ever in an ideal world. The world isn't always ideal though.
Actually, yes you should only pay the ethical attacker. It will teach the unethical hacker that his profits are extremely limited when word gets out that paying doesn't fix the problem.
Of course in an ideal world you wouldn't have to pay any hacker. But there are times you might not have that choice.
Three replied from three different people and no cite in sight. Could this be because there isn't one and this entire line of conversation is nothing more than a conversion of the truth designed to falsely give credit where none is due? I mean seriously, there are many things to give Obama credit for, we do not need to make crap up in the hopes that no one will notice. You have stooped so low that you are not even backing the original statement now, just attempting to attack the opposing side of the argument. If it really happened, a cite should be simple. If it only exists in your mind, it would explain the complete lack of references.
That says a lot more about you than it does about me. Your comment is in the same light. Lack of evidence or empirical evidence of it happening points strongly to it not happening. Your mind seems troubled or something.
As I already said. I can find absolutely no reference to it other than you saying so and someone else thinking he remembered something. Post a link to cite or it never happened.
I did however find a little spat where Obama claimed Romney's lows gas price claim was conceivable because we would be in economic turmoil just like when Bush left office with Romney's economic plans. That seems to counter what you are saying though.
So he didn't say he would get $2 a gallon gasoline, he just said demand would drop and prices would be lower?
I don't seem to be able to find anything on it. In fact, I seem to be only able to find a politifact article claiming some Florida politician was not telling the truth when he claimed Obama made a statement of $2.50 a gallon gas (which would have been an increase at the time) and attributed that to Newt Gingrich's statements. And this is from around 2008
I need a cite for this. All I can find on it is references to his mocking of the drill baby drill slogans and an old interview that Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle that his plans would result in âskyrocketingâ(TM) energy prices.
Slashdot Mirror
That's right. It's not our problem if the government of the people locks out a portion of the population over ideological reasons for purely technical aspects that could otherwise easily be tackled. In fact, it serves them right for thinking differently about their freedoms and whatnot. Those type of people need to either conform of be left out.
Now where amis that damn sarcasm tag when you need it.
No superfund site has been created for activities that has taken place after 1986. The private sector simply doesn't operate that way anymore.
Co2 most definitely is born by the private sector. Almost all negative aspects if any are actually measurable are realized through reduced costs of products and lowered land values (most of which is controlled or owned by the rich who can afford the losses ).
Part of the 192.168 address range is routeable (class b) in case you didn't know.
Well, The other costs are largely already accounted for. But for Co2, why not? What is the costs to removing co2 from the air? The costs of dealing with it is already largely on the private sector.
Currently, the power grid is privately owned. It was built because of necessity and profit. It is heavily regulated though. If there was profit or necessity the alterations would be made already. One thing you cannot really do is accuse a greedy business of not seeking profits. Your argument is sort of shot in the foot right there.
How about making a right of way, stop lawsuits, and remove the barriers and see if there is a will to do it.
I mean your original claim was false. I cannot find it, you cannot find it, and it appears you were reading into something that you posted.
It's not a matter of favor or not favor. It's a matter of propping up something that otherwise would not compete by passing a great expenses to the public by means of taxation instead of volunteer association.
Suppose I make software. I cannot distribute it and sell it at a profit. Should the government step in and distribute it for me at a cost to you via taxes? Why? I mean if it is a matter of you not wanting taxes spent this way it doesn't matter because that is what your trying to tell me.
So no on the 2$ gas claim then.
Wrong. The argument is not build this out so I can buil a coal power plant in Montana or a national gas plant in Wisconsin. The argument is specific to less profitable types of energy in an attempt to subsidize the delivery.
It is all about alternative fuels and less profitable sources of energy.
That's a good question. Here is another. At what point in trying to avoid that does it start costing more than losing it and why is convoluted plans for enriching alternative energy at the costs to others more expensive than just capturing carbon instead? I mean if every factory and every city just installed carbon sequestration equipment supposing it exists, we could achieve the same goals but that seems absent from the conversation.
So it is really just a plea to get government to subsidize alternative energy and threaten traditional energy sources then?
All lies.. Give it up man. Put up or shut up..lol
Your a bit young so I guess I should point out that in my parent's day, you simply wouldn't have opinion in newspaper articles. You would have statements by people related to the stories and the who, what, were, why, and when facts and the statements were clearly marks as somebody said something. That is old School Jounalism. The opinions were saved for the op-ed pages which everyone knew was not news but opinions and editorials. I recently saw someone citing an op-ed page as if it was reported fact when it was just someone's opinion so I guess no one can tell the difference any more.
lol.. Idiot. They have likely already sent over lots of Russian women to sleep with Snowden in order to find out if there are any other secrets they could be interested in. They would already know Snowden wasn't gay and that gay porn would be a plant to manipulate him.
Besides, the type of problems gayness would generate is not the kind of international problems that would be pressuring them to boot Snowden out of the country. For instance, for being gay, they would just throw him in prison in secrecy. Even if they overlooked it because it is benificial to them, giving a gay person sanctuary isn't the type of thing to cause international outcry that would hurt Russian diplomatic efforts. In fact, it could help in some instances with some of the more liberal European countries. But child porn, that is universally hated- even if on the surface and Russia would likely suffer too badly if they were protecting a pedophile. Snowden would need to go to France for that (Roman Polanski And French culture)
The child porn website they just ran for weeks to catch pedophiles. I even referenced it in my post.
Ok, I'm coming right out and calling you a liar on this. If it happened i could easily find reference to it and you could easily cite one. That just isn't happening so I have to ask why you insist on perpetuating this lie? Is Obama doing something so important to you that you have to lie and make shit up? Why? Can't you see that it makes your support delusional?
I'm sort of wondering if this nude pictures problem isn't a trap.The US government just took over a kiddie porn site and ran it in order to trap visitors. So what is to stop them from sending 14 or 15 year old nudes that look a little older so they can tip some Russian officials off about child porn sitting on a computer that gets tracked down to Snowden. He then losses his sanctuary and gets swept up by the feds and is a positive notch in Obama's legacy (killed Bin Laden and captured Snowden )
Of course Snowden is too smart for that and complains publicly that unrequested nudes are being sent that he doesn't want them. Now if it happens, its a setup that is obviously a setup beyond his control.
Who cares? I mean seriously - do you think that women who cannot take a joke are the only ones contemplating going into ITor that scenario is a good thing? I say let them become mechanics and bitch about snap on tools instead.
That is not always possible for everyone. It really is that simple. Sometimes the loss is too valuable. Yes, you should not pay ever in an ideal world. The world isn't always ideal though.
Actually, yes you should only pay the ethical attacker. It will teach the unethical hacker that his profits are extremely limited when word gets out that paying doesn't fix the problem.
Of course in an ideal world you wouldn't have to pay any hacker. But there are times you might not have that choice.
Three replied from three different people and no cite in sight. Could this be because there isn't one and this entire line of conversation is nothing more than a conversion of the truth designed to falsely give credit where none is due? I mean seriously, there are many things to give Obama credit for, we do not need to make crap up in the hopes that no one will notice. You have stooped so low that you are not even backing the original statement now, just attempting to attack the opposing side of the argument. If it really happened, a cite should be simple. If it only exists in your mind, it would explain the complete lack of references.
That says a lot more about you than it does about me. Your comment is in the same light. Lack of evidence or empirical evidence of it happening points strongly to it not happening. Your mind seems troubled or something.
As I already said. I can find absolutely no reference to it other than you saying so and someone else thinking he remembered something. Post a link to cite or it never happened.
I did however find a little spat where Obama claimed Romney's lows gas price claim was conceivable because we would be in economic turmoil just like when Bush left office with Romney's economic plans. That seems to counter what you are saying though.
So he didn't say he would get $2 a gallon gasoline, he just said demand would drop and prices would be lower?
I don't seem to be able to find anything on it. In fact, I seem to be only able to find a politifact article claiming some Florida politician was not telling the truth when he claimed Obama made a statement of $2.50 a gallon gas (which would have been an increase at the time) and attributed that to Newt Gingrich's statements. And this is from around 2008
http://www.politifact.com/flor...
So otherwise no, you cannot cite anything but your mind?
Come on, if he said it, it shouldn't be too hard to find. We do not need to make crap up just to support some politician
I need a cite for this. All I can find on it is references to his mocking of the drill baby drill slogans and an old interview that Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle that his plans would result in âskyrocketingâ(TM) energy prices.
http://www.ijreview.com/2015/0...
But please enlighten me with a reference I can verify.