At first Hitler refused to do air bombing runs at night on England because he only wanted his pilots to hit military targets -- and at night you can't to target very well. The English, heavily influenced by rich hateful Zionists, would destroy Germany by any means necessary and thus were bombing Germany at night indiscriminately hitting civilian and military targets alike. Only after suffering much of such an attack, it became clear to Hitler that this wasn't a war against Germany's political and military machine, but against German People in general. Then Hitler authorized bombing runs at night, to return the attack in kind. The English wouldn't sign a cease fire because they signed a deal with Zionists to bring America into the war. The price the Zionists demanded to bring their USA puppets into the war was the creation of Israel.
I get the picture. You're a Trump supporter, right?
You should really move to like Wyoming or something. Infrastructure is good and no state income tax.
The entire state of Wyoming has like half a million people. The infrastructure they need is considerably different from say, Indianapolis.
Plus, if you move to Wyoming, what are you gonna do? I mean, it's pretty and all, and we go skiing there every year, but there really isn't a hell of a lot of economic activity.
The pendulum must swing back towards nationalism or there will be no turning back
Hitler was nationalism personified. So which is it? Like most binary descriptions of the world, seeing "nationalism" and "globalism" as the only two options, or even two sides of a coin, almost always leads to bad conclusions.
In all, Reagan said ``I don`t recall`` or ``I can`t remember`` 88 times in the eight hours of testimony taken Feb. 16-17 in Los Angeles.
At one point, Reagan said he could not identify Gen. John Vessey, who served for more than three years as his chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. At other times, he said he could not identify a picture of contra leader Adolfo Calero, could not recall a shipment of Hawk missiles to Iran in November 1985, had no memory of signing one presidential finding relating to the shipment of weapons to Iran and had only the slightest recollection of signing a second such finding.
He also appeared hazy on the identity of Eugene Hasenfus, an American whose shooting down over Nicaragua helped precipitate the unraveling of the then-secret Iran-contra operation. And Reagan seemed totally unable to recall what the Tower Commission-a panel he appointed in December 1986 to investigate the affair-said in its report three months later.
It is important to point out that, oil's liquid state is also one of its prime advantages. It is high density fuel that you can easily store or pipe because it is a liquid. It's products like gasoline and diesel are similar.
Good thing there are no downsides to using oil for energy.
Not taxing the money BP spent on oil clean-ups was the biggest example. In what twisted world view should the money spent on oil clean-ups be considered a taxable profit? It is an expense, not profit.
You don't hear about money spent on solar clean-ups. You don't find entire coasts of the United States that have been poisoned for a generation due to a solar spill.
next door should be able to cater to people who want to smoke if they so wish and a person should be able to choose which they go to, that's all I'm saying.
I have no problem with that, but your previous point said there was research that showed second-hand smoke is not dangerous. That's the part that's simply not true.
Oh please, there a just as many studies saying second hand smoke is harmless.
Shame you didn't link to any. And if you do, please link to the actual articles instead of right-wing news sites who claim such studies exist. Do it like this:
See, the thing is, when you dig a little into those claims about "studies that show no risks from second-hand smoke", you find that they don't really exist except in the minds of "skeptic" sources like Reason or the Cato Institute.
It's hard to compare the UK and the US in regard to health issues, because the UK has a health system that actually works for people instead of insurance companies.
I'm all for your personal freedom to smoke. I've got no problem. I was addressing the relative perceptions of tobacco executives and the loved ones of those who died from smoking.
I know someone who died of Emphysema who enjoyed every last cigarette they smoked, to their dying day.
I hope your mom also enjoyed every dollar of taxpayer money it took for her end of life medical care as she sucked down those cigarettes.
And my original comment didn't mention smokers, did it? All I did was compare the perceptions of the benefits of smoking to a tobacco industry executive as opposed to the loved one of someone who choked to death from emphysema.
You're right. If you're a tobacco industry executive, I imagine your perception of the benefits of smoking might be different from say, the surviving loved one of someone who died from emphysema.
I'll bet Americans fear losing their jobs a lot more than ISIS or cyberattacks. Second, they probably fear having a family member get sick and having to pay 40% of their annual salary to a health care system that has sucked ever since health insurance companies were de-regulated decades ago.
Fear is relative. An economy built on wage slavery needs to keep people afraid.
Zayner unwrapped a brand-new syringe and filled its barrel with the brownish liquid. He grabbed one half of a gelatin capsule, pushed the syringe’s plunger, and filled the capsule with the fecal slurry in inconsistent spurts.
Slashdot Mirror
I get the picture. You're a Trump supporter, right?
Jet fuel can't melt steel beams.
The entire state of Wyoming has like half a million people. The infrastructure they need is considerably different from say, Indianapolis.
Plus, if you move to Wyoming, what are you gonna do? I mean, it's pretty and all, and we go skiing there every year, but there really isn't a hell of a lot of economic activity.
Hold that thought...
Hitler was nationalism personified. So which is it? Like most binary descriptions of the world, seeing "nationalism" and "globalism" as the only two options, or even two sides of a coin, almost always leads to bad conclusions.
The same people who endorse a manned mission to Mars and ubiquitous driverless cars want you to know that renewable energy is impossible.
Duly noted.
http://articles.chicagotribune...
Good thing there are no downsides to using oil for energy.
Brother, if your mom needs health care, I'm glad she can get it.
Just tell her to stop smoking, OK? Teach her how to vape. Suffocating is a shitty way to die.
You don't hear about money spent on solar clean-ups. You don't find entire coasts of the United States that have been poisoned for a generation due to a solar spill.
I have no problem with that, but your previous point said there was research that showed second-hand smoke is not dangerous. That's the part that's simply not true.
Shame you didn't link to any. And if you do, please link to the actual articles instead of right-wing news sites who claim such studies exist. Do it like this:
http://thorax.bmj.com/content/...
http://www.jabfm.org/content/2...
http://ash.org.uk/files/docume...
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/dat...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/b...
See, the thing is, when you dig a little into those claims about "studies that show no risks from second-hand smoke", you find that they don't really exist except in the minds of "skeptic" sources like Reason or the Cato Institute.
Yes, and the people around them, too.
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/c...
It's hard to compare the UK and the US in regard to health issues, because the UK has a health system that actually works for people instead of insurance companies.
Trees are actually good for something.
You bet. Nicotine is actually a pretty cool drug. Smoking is the part that stinks.
There are much better delivery systems for nicotine than smoking.
I can't imagine ending up on a ventilator is good for psychosis.
I'm all for your personal freedom to smoke. I've got no problem. I was addressing the relative perceptions of tobacco executives and the loved ones of those who died from smoking.
By all means, light up.
I hope your mom also enjoyed every dollar of taxpayer money it took for her end of life medical care as she sucked down those cigarettes.
And my original comment didn't mention smokers, did it? All I did was compare the perceptions of the benefits of smoking to a tobacco industry executive as opposed to the loved one of someone who choked to death from emphysema.
Hey! How do you get "authoritarian" from my comment? I don't want smoking to be illegal. I think cigarettes make a person look cool and sophisticated.
My comment was strictly about the fact that the benefits of smoking vary based upon perception.
You're right. If you're a tobacco industry executive, I imagine your perception of the benefits of smoking might be different from say, the surviving loved one of someone who died from emphysema.
I'll bet Americans fear losing their jobs a lot more than ISIS or cyberattacks. Second, they probably fear having a family member get sick and having to pay 40% of their annual salary to a health care system that has sucked ever since health insurance companies were de-regulated decades ago.
Fear is relative. An economy built on wage slavery needs to keep people afraid.
In before the first AC makes a racist comment.
Trump 2016
And lubricated, for god's sake. Nothing worse than rope burns on your tallywhacker.
I found a picture of the guy:
http://2d0yaz2jiom3c6vy7e7e5sv...