yoink

When you look at it like that it's absolutely insane that they're not already

But YOUR question was if someone could explain why the book is ‘controversial’? What, exactly, are you looking for?

There is not an infinite supply of coal / gas / other fossil fuel. Please correct me if you think I'm wrong. Again - I don't get your logic if you think that we won't, at SOME POINT, run out of fossil fuels. Arguing when that will happen is the next step, but do we at least agree on that?

Actual recap because I genuinely don't think you see the Hillary. Sorry. *Hilarity. You probably see the Hillary in absolutely everything! Rushmc: 'What about Obama's Tax returns? Huh? Huh? What about them!!! Obama hid his!!!!' Ryoder: 'here they are'. ... ... ... ... Rushmc: 'What about Obama's GRADES??!!! Huh!!! WHAT ABOUT THEM!!!' Do you even understand what fool you look when you do this? Why would anyone bother responding to you when as soon as your're confronted you shift the goalposts? It must be pretty depressing being shot down continually.

From talking to the people bidding that work behind closed doors, $50 - $70bn.

That's not the way ANY progress works. you don't get to go 'I embrace X but only when it's already proven' and still make out like you're some sort of luminary. It's a cowardly position to take while still trying to make out like you've got some sort of economical point. At no point have you ever compared apples with apples... All technologies, coal and gas included, initially go through periods of making them more efficient, MORE economically viable. They NEVER start out like that. That's why being an early adopter of any technology sucks - it's inefficient and as a consumer you pay a premium. But that changes as more people adopt it and the technology and delivery matures. You've stated yourself that oil is STILL evolving with new technologies like horizontal fracking etc, but apparently that's not OK for renewables? It has to INSTANTLY be more economically viable than a 100+ year-old industry. Give whatever renewables 100 years to refine their manufacturing and delivery services and they'll be a dozen times more cost effective than coal or gas, at least. I'm already regretting not getting in on solar 4 years ago.

Jesus Christ. And there's why I could never serve in the navy. Just watching this scares the crap out of me.

I don't get you. you're obviously intelligent but you talk like there's some magical power that will cause non-renewable power sources to go on and on for ever. You DO understand that short of 100% efficiency (unachievable in this particular universe, laws of the universe being what they are) AND 100% uptake by everyone that by their very nature non-renewable resources WILL run out at some point, right? That's not a guess. That's not an estimate. It's absolute cold logic. If there is a finite amount of something and we're using it faster than it regenerates then it WILL run out. Even if we get to 99.99999% efficiency in its use. There's no getting around that. It may be 10 years. Or 100. Or 1000. Or whatever... but it WILL happen. You seem not to want to plan for that because RIGHT NOW, right this second 'hey, I'm allright, Jack'...?

Holy shit I can't believe you posted that. "The Navy released John McCain’s military record after a Freedom of Information Act request from the Associated Press. The record is packed with information on McCain’s medals and commendations but little else." OK, sounds good. Maybe it's been edited. Maybe it's because he actually only did that. WMR has learned additional details regarding the deadly fire aboard the Navy aircraft carrier, the USS Forrestal, on July 19, 1967 in the Gulf of Tonkin. The additional details point to then-Lt. Commander John McCain playing more of a role in triggering the fire and explosions than previously reported. That's quite a claim. I'm sure they'll back it up with sources for this aspersion...oh. no. Guess not. Do you REALLY buy into this, Billy? If this guy had the evidence do you really think he wouldn't be publishing it far and wide? As it's published it's a fucking bar story that he's turning into fact. Talk about 'fake news'.

‘My side, your side’ is a remarkably powerful blinder, as is ‘Anything but Hillary’. Thats all it takes to be a believer.

Fair comment. Are they an echo chamber of what Trump says or is it the other way around? Depends on the day, I reckon, which is a bit fucking scary.

Sorry. You missed my admittedly poor sarcasm. Billy thinks McCain is a jackass because Trump thinks so.... Trump thinks McCain is a jackass for serving and getting captured, because he never had to. Because he’s a weasel*. If Trump’s done or said it, it’s good. If he say’s it’s bad, it’s bad. I reckon that’s 40% of his base right there. *As weasely and cowardly as dodging the draft is it IS something that made me think and continues to do so. If I had the means would I do / have done any different? This is probably a different thread, but I suspect the answer is no. I comfort myself that I have put my life at risk for a friend, so I’m not completely self centered. I’ve yet to see that in Trump.

Being captured in a war, obviously. Because Trump said so. Trump's never been captured.

It's not disdain for ANY power they wield. It's frustration at the unbalanced amount of power they wield. Your vote should count for exactly the same as mine when it comes to selecting a person to represent us both. Regardless of where we live. ANY other system is inherently unfair to one of the two parties.

I can't now.

People in favor of the electoral college keep saying this but haven't really looked at the mathematics of it. It's simply not true. CGP Grey edumacates folk. Skip to 3:17 for an idiots guide as to why, but the cliffs notes version is that if you won the 100 biggest cities in the US because you focused your time there you'd win less than 20% of the popular vote. In fact, not only is it not true, but it's exactly backwards. The system we have encourages candidates to actively ignore large population centers and it behooves them to spend the MOST time where lots of electoral college votes are held by relatively small populations. Same link - skip to 4:16 to see how you can win the election by focusing on the SMALLEST populations and have less than 22% of the popular vote but still win the electoral college. So not only do you have the same situation you're apparently concerned about - a politician 'ignoring' a population or area because of the effect it has on their chances to win, but rather now it's ignoring the areas where MOST Americans live. To decide the American president... That's just fucking nuts.

Firstly, why the fuck would any normal person choose to watch it??? Second, I applaud the NZ prime minister for stating that she will never mention the shooter by name or give them any moment of fame. We should all do the same. Sharing the existence of links like this is pretty despicable, Billy. Even for you.

I love that you capitalize DEMOCRATIC. It makes me think that you don't actually give a shit about the functioning of the electoral college and would be fine if it were REPUBLICAN elites who can't get their shit together telling you what to do, but the fact that it's the other team's party means that you just have to oppose it otherwise your brain will fizzle out in a mouth frothing frenzy of apoplexy.

Maybe you missed the entire point of my post. The problem of you making a conclusion on the authenticity of data before having the slightest clue where it originated was the problem I was referring to. The obvious bias in your thinking leading you to disregard any possible alternates that don't align with your particular opinion is the end result. You saw some data you don't believe. Fine. You asked for the source, BETTER than fine. You already decided that it must be from an anti-firearms propaganda outlet. BZZZZT. That ain't how logic works, sonny.

Do you not see the problem here? You’ve already made a determination about the validity of the data before seeing it or even knowing its source. Because it doesn’t fit with your viewpoint it MUST be anti firearm propoganda. QED. This type of thinking on any subject limits your ability to rationally consider any viewpoint but your own and shows you have at best limited interest in having a discussion about it.

You’re onto a loser here. Rush has no interest in relative ratios or comparative mathematics and has only ever cherry picked figures that support his trolling. Pointing out the flaws in the numbers or argument will only ever get a ‘lol!’ or similarly pointless response before he moves the goalposts yet again to generate yet more responses.

Edit. Stupid fucking quote system.

You've got to wonder how the hell a plane that was out of control due to a systems malfunction and required intervention by a passenger can be flying again the next day with a full load of passengers. "The FAA last week said it planned to mandate changes in the system to make it less likely to activate when there is no emergency. The agency and Boeing said they are also going to require additional training and references to it in flight manuals." Awesome. Another cludge.

Fuck yes. I've always said that I'd vote for anyone who ran on this platform, almost regardless of their other politics. I AM concerned with her suggestion about using anti-monopoly laws to break up large tech companies because of ‘trust’ issues, however... that’s not what that law is for.

Nothing new here. I reported the girl next to me for cheating during finals. She literally brought sheaves of notes into the exam hall with her. They caught her in the next exam and did nothing because as a foreign student she brought in a LOAD more cash than a local one. She got a 1st. I got a 2:1...