Global warming err Climate change HOAX

[Deranged Rhino]

No, no they do not

 

They do. Especially your own sources. They all point to the same, irrefutable conclusion along with your posts: Gator has no idea what he's talking about.

[DC Tom]

Itgoes to the people that run the federal reserve system? Imagine that!

 

But you admit the board of governors is part of the federal government at least, yes?

 

I never said it wasn't, !@#$tard. But the Board of Governors is not the Federal Reserve. It's part of the Federal Reserve. There is a difference between "is" and "part of."

[Chef Jim]

But it makes profits. It makes billions each year. Your own link you posted said it wasn't a non-profit.

 

But they don't keep their profits.

[DC Tom]

But it makes profits. It makes billions each year. Your own link you posted said it wasn't a non-profit.

 

A federal agency that makes profits? You really are retarded.

[IDBillzFan]

 

They do. Especially your own sources. They all point to the same, irrefutable conclusion along with your posts: Gator has no idea what he's talking about.

 

Here likes gatorman. He still has no idea what he's talking about.

[DC Tom]

 

Here likes gatorman. He still has no idea what he's talking about.

 

"Here lies Gatorman. Double dumbass on you!"

 

Actually, I might have that put on my tombstone...

[B-Man]

CBS HYPES EARTH’S ‘CHRONIC FEVER’ IN EXTREME WEATHER SEGMENT:

 

“Even when NASA states a weather pattern has not been caused by climate change, the media still can’t help bringing it up.”

 

Although perhaps things are getting worse, if CBS is saying that the earth has a “fever.”

 

I can remember when CBS said it merely had a cold:

 

https://youtu.be/H4JX1S9YZBo

[Tiberius]

 

A federal agency that makes profits? You really are retarded.

Yes, a Federal agency that makes profits. That is confusing to a nit wit like you I know.

 

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-federal-reserve-profit-20150109-story.html

 

And you are wrong that the branches are private, they are not

[Deranged Rhino]

Yes, a Federal agency that makes profits. That is confusing to a nit wit like you I know.

 

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-federal-reserve-profit-20150109-story.html

 

And you are wrong that the branches are private, they are not

 

You continue to demonstrate you're wrong. The banks are not public institutions. They are privately run and owned. This is basic stuff.

[DC Tom]

Yes, a Federal agency that makes profits. That is confusing to a nit wit like you I know.

 

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-federal-reserve-profit-20150109-story.html

 

And you are wrong that the branches are private, they are not

 

Yes, you fool, they are private. They are chartered, private corporations. That is so unambiguous and easily verifiable, there is no excuse for you believing otherwise.

[Tiberius]

 

That's ironic.

 

Even if it's part of the federal government (it's not), it's still not a government agency.

I knew you had claimed it was not part of federal government. So you do not have a clue. It is part of the federal government and it is an agency--Or at least Board of Governors that runs it is.

 

You are a retard

 

Yes, you fool, they are private. They are chartered, private corporations. That is so unambiguous and easily verifiable, there is no excuse for you believing otherwise.

Verify it then

[Deranged Rhino]

Verify it then

 

Why? So you can continue to ignore the evidence that's already been provided to you?

 

Do your own homework, Sue. It'll be incorrect and chalk full of errors, but at least it'll be your own work.

By the way, care to finally answer the charge you leveled earlier in this thread? What exactly is the conspiracy theory you believe is being put forth?

[DC Tom]

I knew you had claimed it was not part of federal government. So you do not have a clue. It is part of the federal government and it is an agency--Or at least Board of Governors that runs it is.

 

This sounds suspiciously like you're trying to backtrack on being wrong, without admitting you were wrong. And as tough as that is to do, it's even tougher when you're stupid as you are.

 

Verify it then

 

I did. It was incorporated by the National Commercial Bank, Albany; National Park Bank, New York; Marine National Bank; Buffalo; First National Bank, Syracuse; and Irving National Bank, New York. The certificate of incorporation was presented to the Comptroller of the Currency on May 18th, 1914, at which point the Federal Reserve Bank of New York became incorporated.

 

Of course, you won't accept that. So I've asked the New York Fed if a copy of their articles of incorporation is available.

 

See? Easy...

[B-Man]

Is Nuclear Power Really Too Expensive?

by Kevin D Williamson

One of the ways you can tell when Democrats are out of even remotely plausible arguments is that they turn to cost. They never give a damn what anything costs, until they’ve run out of reasons to hate whatever it is they hate for whatever reason: military projects, school-choice programs, etc.

You’ll recall congressional Democrats raising an unholy fuss over the fact that the Benghazi investigation cost a little over $4 million; the federal government currently spends about $7 million a minute, 24/7/365. You could fund a dozen Benghazi investigations with whatever the government spends in the time it takes Hillary Rodham Clinton to find her glasses on the nightstand at 4 a.m.

No surprise then to find our friends at ThinkProgress (h/t Heather Boulware) arguing that nuclear power, the cleanest form of reliable electricity generation currently known to man, is just “too expensive” to play a role in reducing carbon-dioxide emissions in the campaign against global warming. About that: The International Energy Agency forecasts the price of switching to low-carbon energy sources at $44 trillion over the next 35 years or so. You could build a lot of nuclear plants for $44 trillion.

How many? ThinkProgress cites a study that nuclear “decarbonization” would require building about 115 new nuclear plants a year between now and 2050. If we take the IEA’s $44 trillion and divide it by the total number of new plants in that scenario, that’s about $11 billion per new nuclear plant, which is a bit more than they average now. (Never mind, for the moment, that the cost of building a new nuclear plant is a relatively small part of the cost of building a new nuclear plant, regulatory payoffs and the like representing an enormous share of the expense.) Looks like a few billion left over for spillage, to me.

I don’t know whether nuclear power is the right solution to our future power needs; I am generally suspicious of the notion that there is a single “right” solution, and deeply suspicious of the notion that politicians and activists are well-positioned to discern it should it exist. But we are constantly being told that there is no price too high to pay to prevent global warming . . . except whatever it costs to build nuclear plants that progressives hate for reasons that have nothing to do with cost.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner

[keepthefaith]

 

Is Nuclear Power Really Too Expensive?

by Kevin D Williamson

One of the ways you can tell when Democrats are out of even remotely plausible arguments is that they turn to cost. They never give a damn what anything costs, until they’ve run out of reasons to hate whatever it is they hate for whatever reason: military projects, school-choice programs, etc.

You’ll recall congressional Democrats raising an unholy fuss over the fact that the Benghazi investigation cost a little over $4 million; the federal government currently spends about $7 million a minute, 24/7/365. You could fund a dozen Benghazi investigations with whatever the government spends in the time it takes Hillary Rodham Clinton to find her glasses on the nightstand at 4 a.m.

No surprise then to find our friends at ThinkProgress (h/t Heather Boulware) arguing that nuclear power, the cleanest form of reliable electricity generation currently known to man, is just “too expensive” to play a role in reducing carbon-dioxide emissions in the campaign against global warming. About that: The International Energy Agency forecasts the price of switching to low-carbon energy sources at $44 trillion over the next 35 years or so. You could build a lot of nuclear plants for $44 trillion.

How many? ThinkProgress cites a study that nuclear “decarbonization” would require building about 115 new nuclear plants a year between now and 2050. If we take the IEA’s $44 trillion and divide it by the total number of new plants in that scenario, that’s about $11 billion per new nuclear plant, which is a bit more than they average now. (Never mind, for the moment, that the cost of building a new nuclear plant is a relatively small part of the cost of building a new nuclear plant, regulatory payoffs and the like representing an enormous share of the expense.) Looks like a few billion left over for spillage, to me.

I don’t know whether nuclear power is the right solution to our future power needs; I am generally suspicious of the notion that there is a single “right” solution, and deeply suspicious of the notion that politicians and activists are well-positioned to discern it should it exist. But we are constantly being told that there is no price too high to pay to prevent global warming . . . except whatever it costs to build nuclear plants that progressives hate for reasons that have nothing to do with cost.

 

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner

 

Nuke power is the least expensive per KwH but yes initial cost for plant is very high. Once upon a time I saw a good article that talked about the total economic impact of Nuke plants. The article talked about how cooling lakes spawn recreational activity and other property development and that these plants are good economic generators. Also the high paying jobs created within the plant. If the private sector is willing to invest in these plants and they are clean and safe, they should be politically supported.

[....lybob]

 

This sounds suspiciously like you're trying to backtrack on being wrong, without admitting you were wrong. And as tough as that is to do, it's even tougher when you're stupid as you are.

 

 

I did. It was incorporated by the National Commercial Bank, Albany; National Park Bank, New York; Marine National Bank; Buffalo; First National Bank, Syracuse; and Irving National Bank, New York. The certificate of incorporation was presented to the Comptroller of the Currency on May 18th, 1914, at which point the Federal Reserve Bank of New York became incorporated.

 

Of course, you won't accept that. So I've asked the New York Fed if a copy of their articles of incorporation is available.

 

See? Easy...

Tom why don't you talk about the 1935 reorganization? oh yeah because you are a disingenuous prick- well Gatorman like all private corporations the Federal Reserve's board of Governors are appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate- and like with all private corporations the President of the United States picks chairman and like with all private corporations the chairman has to report to congress twice a year to congress .

[Deranged Rhino]

Tom why don't you talk about the 1935 reorganization? oh yeah because you are a disingenuous prick- well Gatorman like all private corporations the Federal Reserve's board of Governors are appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate- and like with all private corporations the President of the United States picks chairman and like with all private corporations the chairman has to report to congress twice a year to congress .

 

And yet, the Federal Reserve is NOT the same thing as the Board of Governors. And, as we've seen, the head of the Fed doesn't have to say anything to congress when he reports to it because they are PRIVATE, as Bernake actually says in his testimony:

 

"The fox is guarding the hen house"

 

Sanders

 

(better link for the 2009 session)

Edited January 7, 2016 by Deranged Rhino

[DC Tom]

Tom why don't you talk about the 1935 reorganization? oh yeah because you are a disingenuous prick- well Gatorman like all private corporations the Federal Reserve's board of Governors are appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate- and like with all private corporations the President of the United States picks chairman and like with all private corporations the chairman has to report to congress twice a year to congress .

 

 

Wow. You've out-gatormaned gatorman.

I did. It was incorporated by the National Commercial Bank, Albany; National Park Bank, New York; Marine National Bank; Buffalo; First National Bank, Syracuse; and Irving National Bank, New York. The certificate of incorporation was presented to the Comptroller of the Currency on May 18th, 1914, at which point the Federal Reserve Bank of New York became incorporated.

 

 

Addendum: the Federal Reserve Bank of NY is what's referred to here. I should have specified that, on the principle that some of you are too damned retarded to understand that, in a conversation about the Federal Reserve banks, I was talking about a Federal Reserve bank.

 

I'm not bothering to check the other eleven certificates of incorporation. If anyone wants to know when the Federal Bank of St. Louis was incorporated, check it yourself.

[Tiberius]

 

 

Wow. You've out-gatormaned gatorman.

 

Addendum: the Federal Reserve Bank of NY is what's referred to here. I should have specified that, on the principle that some of you are too damned retarded to understand that, in a conversation about the Federal Reserve banks, I was talking about a Federal Reserve bank.

 

 

 

 

Wow. You've out-gatormaned gatorman.

 

Addendum: the Federal Reserve Bank of NY is what's referred to here. I should have specified that, on the principle that some of you are too damned retarded to understand that, in a conversation about the Federal Reserve banks, I was talking about a Federal Reserve bank.

 

I'm not bothering to check the other eleven certificates of incorporation. If anyone wants to know when the Federal Bank of St. Louis was incorporated, check it yourself.

I'm not bothering to check the other eleven certificates of incorporation. If anyone wants to know when the Federal Bank of St. Louis was incorporated, check it yourself.

Congrats, You have finally squirmed your way to a kernel of truth in a wholly pathetic attempt to make a blatantly false argument. You said the Fed was not part of the government and you are wrong. Yes, technically the NY fed is a "private" institution which has no resemblance at all to any corporations in the private sector. It turns all its profits over to the treasury and only makes money conducting business to allow the financial system to function smoothly. It's stock is non-tradable and it's board members are not simply composed of bank members but also other regional interest groups, so yours and Greggy's argument that its a "banker's cartel" of some sort is nonsense. Its board has to be approved by the Fed and it carries out the Federal Laws enacted by Congress.

[DC Tom]

Congrats, You have finally squirmed your way to a kernel of truth in a wholly pathetic attempt to make a blatantly false argument. You said the Fed was not part of the government and you are wrong. Yes, technically the NY fed is a "private" institution which has no resemblance at all to any corporations in the private sector. It turns all its profits over to the treasury and only makes money conducting business to allow the financial system to function smoothly. It's stock is non-tradable and it's board members are not simply composed of bank members but also other regional interest groups, so yours and Greggy's argument that its a "banker's cartel" of some sort is nonsense. Its board has to be approved by the Fed and it carries out the Federal Laws enacted by Congress.

 

Get help. Seriously.