TH3
-
Posts
3,154 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by TH3
-
-
Ok - You guys have proven you are gold medal winners in pointing out what you believe is wrong ...in order to actually prove something - as you want it - what cities are doing things right and can you empirically point to the policies and practices you endorse as the reason for success?
BTW - I am hardly a "lib" so you can hold your canned answer fire...I don't think I have voted for a Democrat in a long time - I voted for Bush1, Perot, Dole, Bush, No vote, and Gary Johnson.
I yearn to be Republican but have re-registered Independent - when someone comes up with actual executable solutions I'll get behind them. I have never really thought the Dem's had the approach - but the R's are so devoid of substance right now - I can't think of myself as one of them....
As far as cities - the answers to our problems are much more complicated and nuanced than cut food stamps and unions suck....but you guys seem to have a great and satisfying time dropping one liners right out of Fox and Beck
Cheers
Oh - someone mentioned Pittsburgh. I do a ton of work in PGH and PA. PA is a total mess -worse than NY - but PGH is a success story and it is the result of huge amounts of public and private cooperation - large amounts of public reinvestment in the city incubating businesses etc...something it looks like Buffalo has just started. Oh and BTW - it doesn't get any union-er or democratic than PGH.
-
Boston - Democratic mayors for pretty much the last 100 years
New York - Largely democratic for last century
Chicago- Democratic since 1931
Dallas - 50/50
San Francisco - Democratic
Those are pretty well run successful cities....maybe its something else.....
-
"Climate policy needs the element of fear," Ott openly admits. "Otherwise, no politician would take on this topic."
And that's the problem for the left: and the right sorry but the element of fear you require, is no longer tenable...Pulease Listen to any right winger....I will help you out:
1. Obama is a socialist and the US will not survive his Presidency
2. War on Christmas, religion.
3. The end of the most liberal gun laws on the planet will be the end of the Republic.
4. Blah blah blah
-
For starters, get my **** together before making asinine statements I won't back up. Going all the way back to the truly incompetent manner in which the Syrian issues weren't handled. Basically, I'd actually HAVE a policy, and not make random, reactionary statements that swerve all over the place in response to whatever happened in the past 24 hours. Watching this foreign policy team at work is like watching Stevie Wonder try to compete at Talledega.
It's interesting to note, too, the role Bradley Manning is playing in all this. The Russians got lots of insight into US thoughts on Ukraine-Russia relations from those leaked diplomatic cables.
For starters, get my **** together before making asinine statements I won't back up. Going all the way back to the truly incompetent manner in which the Syrian issues weren't handled. Basically, I'd actually HAVE a policy, and not make random, reactionary statements that swerve all over the place in response to whatever happened in the past 24 hours. Watching this foreign policy team at work is like watching Stevie Wonder try to compete at Talledega.
It's interesting to note, too, the role Bradley Manning is playing in all this. The Russians got lots of insight into US thoughts on Ukraine-Russia relations from those leaked diplomatic cables.
So from what I read. You have no idea what you would do .....just what you wouldn't......shocker....
-
No, no, no, that's not how it works. "Preventing" something doesn't get you votes. You have to create a class of victims, then make a statement that appeals to them.
So more like "We would have saved X thousand of rape victims if Republicans hadn't obstructed cap-and-trade in their War on Women."
Like the religiously oppressed?
-
The NFL can say whatever they want. They aren't the Market. You're making an argument for big business dictating to small business how they must opperate, and that's the antithiesis of freed markets.
The NFL should not buy cakes from them. Additionally, the NFL should stop doing business with any other business partner it has that they disagree with in this regard. It should also launch an add campaign condeming what they consider to be discriminatory business practices if they want. What it doesn't get to do is dictate to others, who don't do business with them, how they will do business.
Then they should take their dollars elsewhere. They have the right to do that. What they don't have the right to do is dictate to others what moral standards they are allowed to hold.
Stop conflating terms. The Market doesn't mean whatever you want it to mean when it might help your argument. Again, words have meanings. The English language is not mutable.
What you're talking about is anti-Market. It is controls and regulation. That's the oppoosite of the Martket. Your conflation of Market and anti-Market is just about as dishonest of an Orwellian argument as one could make. Knock it off.
Oh, really? Then why is that what we're discussing?
You can't dismissively hand wave away an entire massive segment of the population and our Market based philosophies by fiat simply because they get in the way of your leftist, pro-statist, economy by democracy world view.
Like I said, learn the subject matter.
Actually I am quite a bit more conservative that you know....and I haven't really made a statement as to who is right or wrong....I am merely observing. What I am saying is the US is far from "market based" as you may believe or want. So you can either argue In the esoteric or discuss in the reality of how our country actually works.
-
You might wish to consider understanding the subject matter at hand before opinining on it. It would help you to seem less absurd.
Words have meaning. The English language is not mutable.
The Market has nothing to do with country, or courts. The Market is nothing more than the aggregate of all voluntary transactions between sellers and consumers. It is not impeeded by law, as it has nothing to do with legislation, nor court decisions.
When one says "the market should speak", what they mean is that individual transactions will determine whether or not a business, and it's practices should succeed. If enough individuals value a business' products and practices, or not, then that business with thrive, survive, or fold. It does not take into consideration any desires other than the willingness to exchange, or not; and compromise has nothing to do with it.
Again, you're wrong. Learn the subject matter.
Your view is from an imaginary world - thing is we actually live in a different one. First off - your "transactional" market is speaking, big businesses, other states etc are saying we don't want part of AZ if this law is passed - for cripesake the biggest religion in our country - the NFL - is saying don't do it.
Or are you saying the NFL should just not buy cakes from this guy because they got Michael Sam's back?
Your "transactional market" is speaking to the market of AZ - "We don't want to be part of participating in a market with such rules"
Secondly - The market speaks through legislation. Yup - this is how our country does business or speaks - on both ends of the transaction. Big business controls huge elements of the tax code, legislation etc - that is your market speaking. On the other hand consumers and society speak through legislation about health and safety, environmental controls etc.
One could make the libertarian argument that such laws should be left to the business and let the market decide it wants to buy from non polluting companies - companies that won't sell to blacks, gays, islamics, etc...and that is an argument one can have in a vacuum - in a world where business and transactional decisions are made without reference to society....but that is not the actual world we live in.
-
I'm not sure what you think "the market speaking" means, but whatever it is, you're wrong.
Typical comeback from this inch deep crowd...."Your wrong" ...you forgot to attach "idiot" to your deep thinking and logically structured argument.
The "market" is our country, businesses, individuals, courts, etc....maybe this "market" is saying we don't want a country with these kinds of laws on the books. One can argue the minutia and thinly slice whose freedoms and liberty are getting clipped...but at the end of the day the "market" of our country is speaking.
And..yes...living with one another involves compromise....
-
I don't get it....the freedom and liberty crowd wants the "market to speak" and things will sort themselves out....well the market is speaking...or is it you only want some particular parts of the market to speak?
-
It appears the market IS speaking...Apple, NFL....the governor should sign it and we can really see the market speak....
-
If you are a store owner and hear or feel a guidance telling you not to bake a cake for two people getting married....I am guessing that voice is coming from below your feet....not from the clouds above.....
-
I am saying - Gosh - you guys are SOOOO smart here...I can't believe the world has not stumbled on to PPP and handed the keys to global management to you, DCTOM, 3rdning, Joe Miner and B-Man.....
Yes - because Krauthammer and the National Review don't come with an agenda
-
This is no better.
Say what you're trying to say.
I am saying - Gosh - you guys are SOOOO smart here...I can't believe the world has not stumbled on to PPP and handed the keys to global management to you, DCTOM, 3rdning, Joe Miner and B-Man.....
one more bit from Dr. Krauthammer's column posted earlier.
after discussing how severe weather events have actually gone down in the past 30 years, not up as predicted.
Enviros Target Children in “War on Humans”
From my column:
There should be no disagreement that children should not be taught to hate humanity in the cause of preventing a feared climate catastrophe. But that is precisely the anti-human message too often communicated to the young by global warming warriors.Yes - because Krauthammer and the National Review don't come with an agenda
-
So, you can't provide a link to your original statement re January 2014 being the 4th hottest on record, but you call me stupid for not using someone else's link that doesn't back your contention up? You are out of your league here. Expect that to be pointed out to you..................often.
I know I am SOOOOOOOO out of my league - seriously you need a link to believe my contention that Jan 2014 was the #4 ranked (just missed the bronze!)?
So - Here you go - but beware US NEWS is a left wing rag known to spew slanted facts as part of a massive left wing conspiracy that is using a combination of iffy anecdotal evidence coupled with researchers trying to get funded multiplied by the crazy coincidence of man made green house gasses rising at the same time as global temperatures resulting in a historical transfer of wealth.
-
The myth of settled science is: there is no such thing as settled science. ALL science is open to question or debate.
If it's not...it's not science.
TOTALLY agree...because there is no such thing as settled science....I am still tracking such heated scientific debates such as whether the planets circle the sun or whether cigarettes cause cancer - they just don't show up on PPP - I can give you the links to those threads if you want to add your infallible intellectualness
to those debatesYou're an idiot.
I know....but then again...compared to you...who isn't? I am just one of the statistically insignificant....
-
...
What the !@#$ is this ****?
I am simply drawing up comparison for my feeble IQ to understand and compare to the intellectual and grammatical giants on this thread. DC Tom was positing that one month (Jan 2014) being the fourth warmest since 1880 was too small a sample to call climate - rather than weather. Now in spite of this month being at the end of - say - 500 months of continued warming - I had to dig deeper to understand his statistical humongousness. So to looked at a more easy to grasp - for me - example of sample size equating to statistical significance - and I found - after looking at baseball - he is probably quite right in this and all other things.
-
Why is it that the libtards all refuse to provide their (supposed) sources?
In the spirit of this board....Are you too stupid to even read the thread? Don't you understand that people post things and then UNDERNEATH that post there are others that may include links and other valuable comments information etc?!?! Here I will do it for you!!
http://www.climate.g...ing-past-decade
So apparently we're adding analogies to the list of things you don't understand.
Zing!! So burned and put in my place
-
Weather is not climate.
The more I think about your statistical view you are spot on....its like baseball....I think the BBWA are completely misguided not to include Barry Bonds in the Hall of Fame...after all he says he never did steroids and looking at a single HR, game or parts of a season - or maybe even a whole season...one could not point to those specific results as the direct result of steroid use...after all he was always a good hitter....and the evidence of losing his hair (he is getting older), changing his physical shape (dude kills it in the gym), bulging brow (hey - he is a late bloomer) are anectdotal!
-
Link?
You are right (happy?)....you have caught up with me...I did not want to include the link because the thermometers reporting this information are apparently are not only part of a large left wing conspiracy but they are also inflating their numbers....if they weren't reporting higher and higher numbers the science community would think there is nothing to see and unplug them.
The content of your posts prove you an idiot. Why confirm it with your grammar?
Your aim on shooting the messenger is excellent!
-
Weather is not climate.
You are right...its cold out.
-
January 2014 fourth warmest on record - Globally of course.
-
“dark ages.”
While not accepting that a 2°C rise in temperature is likely, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) explains:
Multiple lines of evidence suggest a 2°C rise in temperature would not be harmful to the biosphere. The period termed the Holocene Climatic Optimum (c. 8,000 ybp) was 2–3°C warmer than today (Alley, 2000), and the planet attained similar temperatures for several million years during the Miocene and Pliocene (Zachos et al., 2001). Biodiversity is encouraged by warmer rather than colder temperatures (Idso and Idso, 2009), and higher temperatures and elevated CO2 greatly stimulate the growth of most plants (Idso and Idso, 2011).The climate change debate should move away from unsubstantiated warming fears and focus instead on determining if the extreme cold of recent years is a precursor to significant global cooling. If it is, then reliable and inexpensive energy sources such as coal-fired electricity generation will become crucially important for our survival. The last thing we should be doing is closing down these stations in the questionable belief that we are helping to prevent global warming, a phenomenon that has already stopped all on its own.
So - When a single Russian astrophysicist (not even...gasp....a climate expert ) publishes a paper calling for global cooling it is taken as proven fact....are you sure that he is not simply part of a complex conspiracy involving his quest for further funding working in concert with the carbon industrial political complex?
-
Oh, give me a break.
The argument isn't about global warming, it's about anthropogenic global warming. Which means it's not enough to just measure rising temperatures, you have to demonstrate conclusively that it's directly tied to man-made activities. Which I presume is what you mean by "anecdotal incidences"...which is beyond stupid. You're arguing that proven science is based on anecdote?
You're a ****head. What kind of engineer are you again? Sanitation?
WTF are YOU talking about?...You guys are truly pathetic....CO2 levels go from 230 to 400 PPM which can be DIRECTLY traced to man made use of FF....global temps go up 2 degrees F parallel to the CO2 rise...I am not making the case for anectdotal evidence which kills me because this thread is full of pictures showing the arctic ice cap frozen.....PROOF! GW not happening anymore!! Ice Breaker frozen!! Its cold outside!!! Its ALL FALLING APART!!!
EFF you
-
Read the original article for this thread.
I'm not saying anything, or making any claim. I'm looking at what is being said. What's being said: "bottom of ocean" and "pollution prevents effects of: pollution" and calling that patently retarded. Thus there is nothing to disagree, with me, on. Either you agree with these 2 ridiculous speculations, which represent the last defense of the entire AGW theory(again, amazing, isn't it?), or you don't.
If you do? Then explain your support, and count on me ridiculing you as much as I possibly can.
If you don't? Then there's nothing to do but join me in laughing at them.
In all cases, we are FAR past the time for NEW MODELS. Instead of creating workaround after workaround(you know what that means, right?), it's time to throw out the design, and start over.
Consider:
The current design has exactly 0 chance of meeting the spec.
If we can't get a decent model together, then we CANNOT make global and national policy decisions on it.
If that's the case? Then this whole thing dies...right here, right now.
Environtologists know ALL of the above is true. Hence? they keep defending the bad design.
Christ, if you really are an engineer: don't tell me you've never seen this behavior before.
Not a creationist...OC what you are saying is the data and positions in the article have no merit as they are fabricated by the authors to perpetuate a mass global conspiracy of academics and politicians to amass power and money. This conspiracy is amazing - taking advantage of a correlation of a man made rise in CO2 levels with a spike in global land and sea temps.
All behavior is self serving...and there probably is an element of it in GW science....as there is in negating the science behind GW as done by the Fossil Fuel Industry (no!....smoking does not cause cancer circa 1960's).
That being said - I looked at the article and others...there has been a deceleration in air temps rise in the last 15 years - although 2013 was the hottest on record. While the rise in air temps have shown a decel, ocean temps continue rise at a static rate and the hold much more energy that air - so in terms of total global energy storage - that continues to rise.
As long as the temps continue to rise - and as well - anecdotal incidences of GW continue - I don't see anything falling apart. I think it is quite micro - "the pause" - to make a claim that the whole of science behind GW is "falling apart" - and as long as total global "heat" continues to rise at a predictable and historically fast rate...what exactly is falling apart?
What is easily proven is the total energy storage on the planet continues to rise but precipitants of this are not easily or totally predictable.
Makes sense to me.
Failing Cities And Their Common Denominator
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Nice way to run away from:
Not sure what I am running away from - The OP was making a statistical statement that failed cities have a common denominator. I am refuting that - many successful cities have the same attributes and are successes - so how is the original post valid? I am telling you that my position does not originate from being a "lib" - as I don't fit the definition in either practice or thought - so you can't just say i am an idiot lib.....I just don't think things are as cut and dry.....