Hey, when you pump $6 trillion into the banking sector, that money has to go somewhere - and it's into the DJIA. Of course, small businesses are closing everywhere and the small business creation rate is at a record low... The only ones doing well are big companies who get those bailout dollars and the "stimulus" spending dropped into their wallets.
housing market recovering
Still way below where it was back in 2008 - and it's showing all the signs of being in a bubble yet-again...
unemployment consistently down (when Republicans are in office, 5% is considered "full employment")
Unemployment consistently down? Well, when you consider nearly 90 MILLION out of the workforce because they couldn't find a job and their unemployment has run out, I guess you can crow all you want about dropping unemployment. But the reality is the rate is going down not because of more jobs, but because the workforce participation rate has plummeted. We'd be lucky to get back to 5% unemployment even with 9 million fewer workers...
Yes, historically low employment, higher unemployment, fewer jobs, over $6 trillion spent to prop up the DJIA at a time that small business starts are reaching historical lows, falling real wages, higher gas prices, higher food prices. Yeah, that economy is so much better now!
Actually, with the right guide it's pretty darn easy. I've done it, and the results were quite impressive - about as good as modern black powder. Extremely tedious and time consuming, but a good skill/knowledge to have!
Nah, just go hit Amazon and you'll find that with a couple of files, a drill, a hammer, and a jigsaw you can make your very own 9mm submachine gun. With parts you can procure at your neighborhood Home Depot.
Interesting line you spout there Mr. AC! Given that an Oklahoma TV station actually gives out tips on how to make your home more burglar resistant, and RECOMMENDS that you "Install steel doors that aren't as easily kicked in and put in good deadbolts that extend at least one inch into the doorjamb", I'm gonna have to call BULLSHIT on your post. Reference, please?
And what do you think is a reasonable "collective cost" of the Federal Government? Do you realize the US Government will spend just over $1000 per MONTH per man, woman, and child in the US? The US Federal Government is going to spend $1000 every month on you, me and everyone else in these United States. Is that reasonable, are our "collective costs" that are cared for by the Federal Government so high?
And then pay taxes on the interest from that savings, by not spending it. Not to mention the President is now talking about an "upper limit" on some savings vehicles - meaning if you save too much for retirement, you get the pay taxes on that as well...
You should check out DC v. Heller where the Supreme Court found that the right to bear arms for self-defense was Constitutionally protected by the 2nd Amendment. And McDonald v. Chicago where the Surpreme Court found the 2nd Amendment is incorporated to the people - meaning States cannot infringe on the right. The right to keep and bear arms is for individuals, and also covers their own personal self-defense uses.
And where do you draw the line on what kind of weapons people can have, and what is the principle 2nd Amendment reason for having the line exactly there? Some call it an infringement on the rights to limit semi-auto rifles w/large magazines, but why isn't it then an infringement to limit machine guns, and if it is, where do you draw the line and why? (you can escalate forever, up to nuclear/biological/etc)
Pretty much anything the military can have, the citizens should be able to have. Does that include nuclear weapons? Well - if you can scrounge up the $100 billion or so needed to make one, why not? Fully automatic weapons should be allowed; banning them is an infringement - especially if you want to talk about that first part (militia important to a free State). Citizens should be free to own anything the Government owns - why would that not be the default case, and you need to argue why the People should NOT be able to freely purchase whatever the Government purchases?
If I wanted to kill a lot of people, there are MUCH better ways to do it than with a fully automatic weapon (or even a crew-served weapon, or even a tank). I think we learned that back in the 90s, where a single van with a lot of fertilizer took down an entire building and killed hundreds. Paranoia over some "whacko" gunning down dozens isn't a reason to infringe the rights of all, is it?
Restricting liberty and freedom in one area of our Constitutionally recognized rights (not granted - recognized - we already had them) simply leads to restrictions in others. Today firearms. Tomorrow, the 5th and 4th Amendment (already heavily pressured). How about the 3rd, or the 1st? Hey, a little less free speech never hurt anyone, did it?
My Mont Blanc pen has a large metal body on it. I could comfortably carry four.32 ACP rounds within the body, and they'd be invisible because they are covered/surrounded by a substantial tube of stainless steel.
One person with a container and some fertilizer can kill many as well... I guess we should be careful and regulate pressure cookers and fertilizer sales...
You should check out DC v. Heller where the Supreme Court found that the right to bear arms for self-defense was Constitutionally protected by the 2nd Amendment. And McDonald v. Chicago where the Surpreme Court found the 2nd Amendment is incorporated to the people - meaning States cannot infringe on the right. The right to keep and bear arms is for individuals, and also covers their own personal self-defense uses.
Love to see how long it would take you to compress a single frame of 720p video with that P8201a's 0.5 MIPS processor... Could it compress 30 frames a second, whilst projecting another 30 frames per second, and maintain a full interactive 12 Mbps network connection?
Again, more hand-waving. Nothing there to support peak oil and the 50% claim you emphatically reiterated. You're just sticking to a talking point to support your own belief - it has no basis in fact.
Cool, so communism for all! I do believe you need to give up your car, because so many on the planet do not have a car, and the needs of the many outweigh the need of you.
Fully agree. However, in this case he's claiming we know we used 50% of our oil. If the date keeps moving out, and our proven reserves keep increasing, it kind of blows the whole "we've used 50% of our oil" claim out of the water.
At least 3 other people have already made that point. I've already answered it twice.
No, you haven't answered it. You've specifically AVOIDED answering it. Can you point to a link where you did answer it? Nope. How do we know we've used 50% of the available oil? We can't - because that would imply we knew how much oil there was to start with - and given we're constantly finding MORE oil (and upping the proven reserves), your claim is, in fact proven to be wrong.
IF you were correct, we wouldn't find any more reserves. The proven reserves would not increase. But they are. You cannot be right AND we keep finding more reserves. Your position is in direct opposition of the facts. And that explains why you've specifically danced around the question and NOT answered it. For in answering it, you either accept your own fallacious position, or you ignore facts.
Without counting the electrons in an AA battery, how can you know how many are left without destroying the battery? "It's simply impossible - mathematically and logically."
False. I know the chemistry, I know the quantities of the various chemicals within, I can make a pretty highly-accurate prediction (one that can be tested, no less) of the number of joules of energy in my battery - and hence, the number of electrons.
So, how can we test the prediction of "peak oil"? How do we know the original capacity of oil? Short of that, it's a guess - not a theory, not even a hypothesis. It's a sound bite, nothing else.
Slashdot Mirror
stock markets at record highs
Hey, when you pump $6 trillion into the banking sector, that money has to go somewhere - and it's into the DJIA. Of course, small businesses are closing everywhere and the small business creation rate is at a record low... The only ones doing well are big companies who get those bailout dollars and the "stimulus" spending dropped into their wallets.
housing market recovering
Still way below where it was back in 2008 - and it's showing all the signs of being in a bubble yet-again...
unemployment consistently down (when Republicans are in office, 5% is considered "full employment")
Unemployment consistently down? Well, when you consider nearly 90 MILLION out of the workforce because they couldn't find a job and their unemployment has run out, I guess you can crow all you want about dropping unemployment. But the reality is the rate is going down not because of more jobs, but because the workforce participation rate has plummeted. We'd be lucky to get back to 5% unemployment even with 9 million fewer workers...
Yes, historically low employment, higher unemployment, fewer jobs, over $6 trillion spent to prop up the DJIA at a time that small business starts are reaching historical lows, falling real wages, higher gas prices, higher food prices. Yeah, that economy is so much better now!
Actually, with the right guide it's pretty darn easy. I've done it, and the results were quite impressive - about as good as modern black powder. Extremely tedious and time consuming, but a good skill/knowledge to have!
Nah, just go hit Amazon and you'll find that with a couple of files, a drill, a hammer, and a jigsaw you can make your very own 9mm submachine gun. With parts you can procure at your neighborhood Home Depot.
Interesting line you spout there Mr. AC! Given that an Oklahoma TV station actually gives out tips on how to make your home more burglar resistant, and RECOMMENDS that you "Install steel doors that aren't as easily kicked in and put in good deadbolts that extend at least one inch into the doorjamb", I'm gonna have to call BULLSHIT on your post. Reference, please?
First you have define the command for vote...
I give you: the safety deposit box. Someone else's system, facility, physical locality - but the Government requires a warrant to get into it...
And what do you think is a reasonable "collective cost" of the Federal Government? Do you realize the US Government will spend just over $1000 per MONTH per man, woman, and child in the US? The US Federal Government is going to spend $1000 every month on you, me and everyone else in these United States. Is that reasonable, are our "collective costs" that are cared for by the Federal Government so high?
And then pay taxes on the interest from that savings, by not spending it. Not to mention the President is now talking about an "upper limit" on some savings vehicles - meaning if you save too much for retirement, you get the pay taxes on that as well...
You should check out DC v. Heller where the Supreme Court found that the right to bear arms for self-defense was Constitutionally protected by the 2nd Amendment. And McDonald v. Chicago where the Surpreme Court found the 2nd Amendment is incorporated to the people - meaning States cannot infringe on the right. The right to keep and bear arms is for individuals, and also covers their own personal self-defense uses.
And where do you draw the line on what kind of weapons people can have, and what is the principle 2nd Amendment reason for having the line exactly there? Some call it an infringement on the rights to limit semi-auto rifles w/large magazines, but why isn't it then an infringement to limit machine guns, and if it is, where do you draw the line and why? (you can escalate forever, up to nuclear/biological/etc)
Pretty much anything the military can have, the citizens should be able to have. Does that include nuclear weapons? Well - if you can scrounge up the $100 billion or so needed to make one, why not? Fully automatic weapons should be allowed; banning them is an infringement - especially if you want to talk about that first part (militia important to a free State). Citizens should be free to own anything the Government owns - why would that not be the default case, and you need to argue why the People should NOT be able to freely purchase whatever the Government purchases?
If I wanted to kill a lot of people, there are MUCH better ways to do it than with a fully automatic weapon (or even a crew-served weapon, or even a tank). I think we learned that back in the 90s, where a single van with a lot of fertilizer took down an entire building and killed hundreds. Paranoia over some "whacko" gunning down dozens isn't a reason to infringe the rights of all, is it?
Restricting liberty and freedom in one area of our Constitutionally recognized rights (not granted - recognized - we already had them) simply leads to restrictions in others. Today firearms. Tomorrow, the 5th and 4th Amendment (already heavily pressured). How about the 3rd, or the 1st? Hey, a little less free speech never hurt anyone, did it?
But you don't need 2 tons - just a 50 lb bag will do nicely, for a small scale boom. And you can get that at Home Depot, Ace Hardware, even Safeway...
Source?
My kitchen oven would melt the printed pistol in about 30 minutes. How would that metal firearm do?
My Mont Blanc pen has a large metal body on it. I could comfortably carry four .32 ACP rounds within the body, and they'd be invisible because they are covered/surrounded by a substantial tube of stainless steel.
Yeah, confiscation will never happen. Oh wait...
One person with a container and some fertilizer can kill many as well... I guess we should be careful and regulate pressure cookers and fertilizer sales...
You should check out DC v. Heller where the Supreme Court found that the right to bear arms for self-defense was Constitutionally protected by the 2nd Amendment. And McDonald v. Chicago where the Surpreme Court found the 2nd Amendment is incorporated to the people - meaning States cannot infringe on the right. The right to keep and bear arms is for individuals, and also covers their own personal self-defense uses.
So slowing down in the left lane to annoy the person behind you is OK? Intentionally breaking the law you claim to uphold is fine?
Almost all States have a "Keep Right Except To Pass" law. You're breaking the law by sitting in the left lane and traveling at or below the speed limit, in the vast majority of the US.
Love to see how long it would take you to compress a single frame of 720p video with that P8201a's 0.5 MIPS processor... Could it compress 30 frames a second, whilst projecting another 30 frames per second, and maintain a full interactive 12 Mbps network connection?
Again, more hand-waving. Nothing there to support peak oil and the 50% claim you emphatically reiterated. You're just sticking to a talking point to support your own belief - it has no basis in fact.
Cool, so communism for all! I do believe you need to give up your car, because so many on the planet do not have a car, and the needs of the many outweigh the need of you.
Fully agree. However, in this case he's claiming we know we used 50% of our oil. If the date keeps moving out, and our proven reserves keep increasing, it kind of blows the whole "we've used 50% of our oil" claim out of the water.
At least 3 other people have already made that point. I've already answered it twice.
No, you haven't answered it. You've specifically AVOIDED answering it. Can you point to a link where you did answer it? Nope. How do we know we've used 50% of the available oil? We can't - because that would imply we knew how much oil there was to start with - and given we're constantly finding MORE oil (and upping the proven reserves), your claim is, in fact proven to be wrong.
IF you were correct, we wouldn't find any more reserves. The proven reserves would not increase. But they are. You cannot be right AND we keep finding more reserves. Your position is in direct opposition of the facts. And that explains why you've specifically danced around the question and NOT answered it. For in answering it, you either accept your own fallacious position, or you ignore facts.
Without counting the electrons in an AA battery, how can you know how many are left without destroying the battery? "It's simply impossible - mathematically and logically."
False. I know the chemistry, I know the quantities of the various chemicals within, I can make a pretty highly-accurate prediction (one that can be tested, no less) of the number of joules of energy in my battery - and hence, the number of electrons.
So, how can we test the prediction of "peak oil"? How do we know the original capacity of oil? Short of that, it's a guess - not a theory, not even a hypothesis. It's a sound bite, nothing else.