|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Iran was hiding a second nuclear facility for the past 4-5 years. Yeah they'll never be able to get a bomb in 1 year to use on Saudi Arabia.
|
On March 14 2015 05:55 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2015 05:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 14 2015 03:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Should note that everything being discussed here should note that the US Military is always at least 30 years ahead of what is currently viable or visible, meaning there is always a successor and further R&D being developed and another one to replace that. Anyways... WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration projects the United States could draw 35 percent of its electricity from wind power by 2050, in a new report released Thursday.
The amount of wind power in the U.S. is already on the uptick, with wind representing 30 percent of newly installed electricity-generating capacity in the period from 2009 to 2013. In the "Wind Vision" report, the Department of Energy projects that the country could do even more going forward by installing up to 11 gigawatts of new wind-generating capacity each year between now and the middle of the century. That would bring the U.S. to 400 total gigawatts of such capacity installed across the country -- enough power for 100 million homes, according to the Energy Department's estimates.
The DOE outlines a path to 35 percent, beginning with 10 percent by 2020 and rising to 20 percent by 2030.
The growth in wind power will also help reduce the emissions that cause global warming, they project, helping avoid 12.3 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions that would have been created if that new capacity had been in fossil fuel power. That would save $400 billion related to the costs that stem from climate change, according to the DOE.
They project that the shift to wind power would cause a 1 percent increase in electricity costs through the year 2030, but would produce cost savings of 2 percent by 2050. The report, DOE writes, "concludes that it is both viable and economically compelling" to increase wind-generating capacity to those levels.
The White House touted the report Thursday, saying that expanding wind power will also help support more than 600,000 jobs in engineering, construction, manufacturing and transportation. "Wind energy continues to be one of America's best choices for low-cost, zero-pollution renewable energy, and in an increasing number of markets, may be the cheapest source of new energy available," the White House said in a statement. Source Meh. Wind has had a high growth rate for decades. There isn't much of a story here beyond Huff 'n' Puff pushing identity politics. Also, the story leaves out the cost effects of millions in government subsidies for wind power.
Like bitching that companies are subsidized.
|
On March 14 2015 05:39 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2015 05:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2015 01:32 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 00:48 Jormundr wrote:On March 14 2015 00:41 hannahbelle wrote:On March 13 2015 17:40 Slaughter wrote:
Its not like these figures are coming from polls of scientists. Reviewing the literature shows that something like 97% of surveyed scientific papers published that took a position on climate change supported the idea that humans are contributing to it. Now that doesn't tell you anything about the degree of the contribution, but it does tell you that scientific research has supported this notion. Or more accurately, just tells you about publishing rates. No, a collection of data measuring the length of time for each part of the research and publishing processes and an accompanying analysis of the differences or similarities between them would tell you about publishing rates. But hey, maybe I'm giving you too much credit. MIAMI (AP) — Talk show host Rodner Figueroa was fired from Univision after saying that Michelle Obama looks like someone from the cast of "Planet of the Apes."
Figueroa, who's known for his biting fashion commentary, made his remarks during a live segment of the show "El Gordo y la Flaca" in which the hosts were commenting on a viral video that shows a makeup artist transforming himself into different celebrities, including Michelle Obama.
"Well, watch out, you know that Michelle Obama looks like she's from the cast of 'Planet of the Apes,' the movie," Figueroa, 42, said with a giggle.
When hostess Lili Estefan countered with "What are you saying?" and host Raul de Molina said Obama was very attractive, Figueroa defended his remark, saying "but it is true."
In a statement, Univision called Figueroa's comments "completely reprehensible" and said they "in no way reflect the values or opinions of Univision."
Figueroa, who in 2014 won a Daytime Emmy Award, did not respond to requests for comment Thursday. He worked for Univision for 17 years and had been on "El Gordo y la Flaca" since 2000. SourceI demand an immediate investigation by the DoJ into the racism present at Univision. Is that supposed to be funny or something? I'm committed to rooting out racism wherever it is. Why aren't you? Show nested quote +On March 14 2015 05:28 Sandvich wrote:On March 14 2015 04:55 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 04:00 Gorsameth wrote:On March 14 2015 03:50 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 02:52 Acrofales wrote:On March 14 2015 02:49 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 01:43 Acrofales wrote:On March 14 2015 00:45 always_winter wrote:
Very good points being raised here.
The GMD missile-defense system is largely still in development, but currently only boasts a 53% kill ratio (9 of 17 missiles intercepted). This is a stationary ground-based weapons system (i.e., missiles pop out of silos on air force bases, typically in California or Alaska) and is heavily-scrutinized for going operational prior to adequate testing. There's not a lot of literature surrounding it, however, so it's hard to get a good read of the efficacy of this program as it remains at least partially concealed.
The United States still possesses immense anti-missile capability, however, primarily in the form of the Aegis Combat System attached to an incredible armada of missile guided destroyers currently deployed around the world. The Patriot missile systems are an additional mobile deterrent and work in conjunction with other ABM systems. Together these systems create a quite formidable missile defense, however it is not 100% accurate and the world has already seen what a single atomic bomb made in the 1940's can do to an entire city.
This raises the concept of MAD, mutually-assured destruction, which posits any two nations with second-strike capability (i.e., the ability to absorb a strategic nuclear attack and still possess enough nuclear warheads to respond in kind), will not engage in atomic warfare with one another for fear of self-survival.
The real kicker, however, and what actually makes the succession of these comments quite interesting, is that the entire premise of MAD is based upon Cold War-era capabilities, which did not include the existence of ABM systems. The premise, of course, remains, and still applies widely to a 21st-century context, but as the ABM systems develop more and become more effective, a state actor may consider a nuclear attack upon a nation with second-strike capability with the assurance that the retaliatory strike would be nullified by advanced weapons systems.
Well, I am still assuming that the US has moved past the idea of first-strike using nukes and will be the country retaliating after a nuclear attack by Russia (the scenario we were discussing). While Russia does have ABM, their system is nowhere near as advanced as Star Wars, and even that system is only partially functional. So from a policy point of view, ABM can be pretty much disregarded. And even Putin is not a sufficently power crazy madman that he would accept being carpet bombed by nukes as an acceptable collateral for having wiped out the imperial Americans. Does the Ayatholla feel the same way? I'm not sure if bet my kids my lives on it. How did Iran get dragged into this? And insofar as I know, nobody wants Iran to have a nuke... including Obama. Don't be naive. Under the current negotiations, Iran could get as close to one year away from a nuke. In nuclear development, that is pretty much equivalent to having one. Except for the fact that the negotiation is ongoing and the former Mossad chief who said that the time is longer then a year. But hey lets believe Netanyahu having a PR speech in congress in a scenario that is oddly reminiscent of the lies told prior to the invasion of Iraq. What are you talking about? Do you even keep up on current events? Not the Mossad or Bibi I believe he was talking about this, where a former chief of mossad said that Iran was farther than the year the US estimated. Also included is a critique of the claim that Iran could reach the US with nuclear weapons. That's all well and good but clearly not what I was talking about.
If you want the DOJ going into every business that has shown signs of racism, in an effort to root it out, I'll support you on that. Univision first, then Fox News, then we can keep going.
I don't really think most conservatives would sign onto that, but I don't have a problem with taking groups that have shown racist tendencies and shining a spotlight on their organization to see how deep and pervasive the racism is. I don't think they keep as meticulous details of their racism as the Ferguson PD or that the DOJ would have the legal authority it had over police departments to investigate it, but I have nothing against rooting out racists no matter where they hide.
|
On March 14 2015 05:39 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote + sandvich wroteI believe he was talking about this, where a former chief of mossad said that Iran was farther than the year the US estimated. Also included is a critique of the claim that Iran could reach the US with nuclear weapons. That's all well and good but clearly not what I was talking about.
Well it was clearly what he was talking about, and what you seemingly misunderstood to mean he was uninformed.
|
On March 14 2015 06:35 Sandvich wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2015 05:39 hannahbelle wrote: sandvich wroteI believe he was talking about this, where a former chief of mossad said that Iran was farther than the year the US estimated. Also included is a critique of the claim that Iran could reach the US with nuclear weapons. That's all well and good but clearly not what I was talking about. Well it was clearly what he was talking about, and what you seemingly misunderstood to mean he was uninformed.
He replied to my post? Not the other way around? Just maybe?
It's not my fault you guys don't stay current and continue to obsess over a speech given by an Israeli politician desperate to save his job.
@johnny - not sure of your reply to my reply to your post. Let me know if we need to throw down about corporate subsidies...
|
On March 14 2015 06:35 Sandvich wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2015 05:39 hannahbelle wrote: sandvich wroteI believe he was talking about this, where a former chief of mossad said that Iran was farther than the year the US estimated. Also included is a critique of the claim that Iran could reach the US with nuclear weapons. That's all well and good but clearly not what I was talking about. Well it was clearly what he was talking about, and what you seemingly misunderstood to mean he was uninformed.
The points are not far apart, Yes they are more then 1 year away, Yes the treaty may (likely) allow them to close to 1 year away and if you include such a provision you should expect them to get 1 year away.
|
On March 14 2015 06:37 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2015 06:35 Sandvich wrote:On March 14 2015 05:39 hannahbelle wrote: sandvich wroteI believe he was talking about this, where a former chief of mossad said that Iran was farther than the year the US estimated. Also included is a critique of the claim that Iran could reach the US with nuclear weapons. That's all well and good but clearly not what I was talking about. Well it was clearly what he was talking about, and what you seemingly misunderstood to mean he was uninformed. He replied to my post? Not the other way around? Just maybe? It's not my fault you guys don't stay current and continue to obsess over a speech given by an Israeli politician desperate to save his job.
Ane you replied to him too just maybe? It could just as easily be said you aren't keeping current either because you didn't know what he was talking about.
|
On March 14 2015 06:41 Sandvich wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2015 06:37 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 06:35 Sandvich wrote:On March 14 2015 05:39 hannahbelle wrote: sandvich wroteI believe he was talking about this, where a former chief of mossad said that Iran was farther than the year the US estimated. Also included is a critique of the claim that Iran could reach the US with nuclear weapons. That's all well and good but clearly not what I was talking about. Well it was clearly what he was talking about, and what you seemingly misunderstood to mean he was uninformed. He replied to my post? Not the other way around? Just maybe? It's not my fault you guys don't stay current and continue to obsess over a speech given by an Israeli politician desperate to save his job. Ane you replied to him too just maybe? It could just as easily be said you aren't keeping current either because you didn't know what he was talking about.
Please reread the post chain.
@ Ticklish, not Sarah palin, sorry to say. But good to see you resorting to attempted censorship when you lack a coherent argument.
|
On March 14 2015 06:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2015 05:39 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 05:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2015 01:32 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 00:48 Jormundr wrote:On March 14 2015 00:41 hannahbelle wrote:On March 13 2015 17:40 Slaughter wrote:
Its not like these figures are coming from polls of scientists. Reviewing the literature shows that something like 97% of surveyed scientific papers published that took a position on climate change supported the idea that humans are contributing to it. Now that doesn't tell you anything about the degree of the contribution, but it does tell you that scientific research has supported this notion. Or more accurately, just tells you about publishing rates. No, a collection of data measuring the length of time for each part of the research and publishing processes and an accompanying analysis of the differences or similarities between them would tell you about publishing rates. But hey, maybe I'm giving you too much credit. MIAMI (AP) — Talk show host Rodner Figueroa was fired from Univision after saying that Michelle Obama looks like someone from the cast of "Planet of the Apes."
Figueroa, who's known for his biting fashion commentary, made his remarks during a live segment of the show "El Gordo y la Flaca" in which the hosts were commenting on a viral video that shows a makeup artist transforming himself into different celebrities, including Michelle Obama.
"Well, watch out, you know that Michelle Obama looks like she's from the cast of 'Planet of the Apes,' the movie," Figueroa, 42, said with a giggle.
When hostess Lili Estefan countered with "What are you saying?" and host Raul de Molina said Obama was very attractive, Figueroa defended his remark, saying "but it is true."
In a statement, Univision called Figueroa's comments "completely reprehensible" and said they "in no way reflect the values or opinions of Univision."
Figueroa, who in 2014 won a Daytime Emmy Award, did not respond to requests for comment Thursday. He worked for Univision for 17 years and had been on "El Gordo y la Flaca" since 2000. SourceI demand an immediate investigation by the DoJ into the racism present at Univision. Is that supposed to be funny or something? I'm committed to rooting out racism wherever it is. Why aren't you? On March 14 2015 05:28 Sandvich wrote:On March 14 2015 04:55 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 04:00 Gorsameth wrote:On March 14 2015 03:50 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 02:52 Acrofales wrote:On March 14 2015 02:49 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 01:43 Acrofales wrote:On March 14 2015 00:45 always_winter wrote:
Very good points being raised here.
The GMD missile-defense system is largely still in development, but currently only boasts a 53% kill ratio (9 of 17 missiles intercepted). This is a stationary ground-based weapons system (i.e., missiles pop out of silos on air force bases, typically in California or Alaska) and is heavily-scrutinized for going operational prior to adequate testing. There's not a lot of literature surrounding it, however, so it's hard to get a good read of the efficacy of this program as it remains at least partially concealed.
The United States still possesses immense anti-missile capability, however, primarily in the form of the Aegis Combat System attached to an incredible armada of missile guided destroyers currently deployed around the world. The Patriot missile systems are an additional mobile deterrent and work in conjunction with other ABM systems. Together these systems create a quite formidable missile defense, however it is not 100% accurate and the world has already seen what a single atomic bomb made in the 1940's can do to an entire city.
This raises the concept of MAD, mutually-assured destruction, which posits any two nations with second-strike capability (i.e., the ability to absorb a strategic nuclear attack and still possess enough nuclear warheads to respond in kind), will not engage in atomic warfare with one another for fear of self-survival.
The real kicker, however, and what actually makes the succession of these comments quite interesting, is that the entire premise of MAD is based upon Cold War-era capabilities, which did not include the existence of ABM systems. The premise, of course, remains, and still applies widely to a 21st-century context, but as the ABM systems develop more and become more effective, a state actor may consider a nuclear attack upon a nation with second-strike capability with the assurance that the retaliatory strike would be nullified by advanced weapons systems.
Well, I am still assuming that the US has moved past the idea of first-strike using nukes and will be the country retaliating after a nuclear attack by Russia (the scenario we were discussing). While Russia does have ABM, their system is nowhere near as advanced as Star Wars, and even that system is only partially functional. So from a policy point of view, ABM can be pretty much disregarded. And even Putin is not a sufficently power crazy madman that he would accept being carpet bombed by nukes as an acceptable collateral for having wiped out the imperial Americans. Does the Ayatholla feel the same way? I'm not sure if bet my kids my lives on it. How did Iran get dragged into this? And insofar as I know, nobody wants Iran to have a nuke... including Obama. Don't be naive. Under the current negotiations, Iran could get as close to one year away from a nuke. In nuclear development, that is pretty much equivalent to having one. Except for the fact that the negotiation is ongoing and the former Mossad chief who said that the time is longer then a year. But hey lets believe Netanyahu having a PR speech in congress in a scenario that is oddly reminiscent of the lies told prior to the invasion of Iraq. What are you talking about? Do you even keep up on current events? Not the Mossad or Bibi I believe he was talking about this, where a former chief of mossad said that Iran was farther than the year the US estimated. Also included is a critique of the claim that Iran could reach the US with nuclear weapons. That's all well and good but clearly not what I was talking about. If you want the DOJ going into every business that has shown signs of racism, in an effort to root it out, I'll support you on that. Univision first, then Fox News, then we can keep going. I don't really think most conservatives would sign onto that, but I don't have a problem with taking groups that have shown racist tendencies and shining a spotlight on their organization to see how deep and pervasive the racism is. I don't think they keep as meticulous details of their racism as the Ferguson PD or that the DOJ would have the legal authority it had over police departments to investigate it, but I have nothing against rooting out racists no matter where they hide.
pretty sure no one (not just conservatives) would sign on to that. what a waste of time and money.
|
On March 14 2015 06:48 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2015 06:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2015 05:39 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 05:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2015 01:32 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 00:48 Jormundr wrote:On March 14 2015 00:41 hannahbelle wrote:On March 13 2015 17:40 Slaughter wrote:
Its not like these figures are coming from polls of scientists. Reviewing the literature shows that something like 97% of surveyed scientific papers published that took a position on climate change supported the idea that humans are contributing to it. Now that doesn't tell you anything about the degree of the contribution, but it does tell you that scientific research has supported this notion. Or more accurately, just tells you about publishing rates. No, a collection of data measuring the length of time for each part of the research and publishing processes and an accompanying analysis of the differences or similarities between them would tell you about publishing rates. But hey, maybe I'm giving you too much credit. MIAMI (AP) — Talk show host Rodner Figueroa was fired from Univision after saying that Michelle Obama looks like someone from the cast of "Planet of the Apes."
Figueroa, who's known for his biting fashion commentary, made his remarks during a live segment of the show "El Gordo y la Flaca" in which the hosts were commenting on a viral video that shows a makeup artist transforming himself into different celebrities, including Michelle Obama.
"Well, watch out, you know that Michelle Obama looks like she's from the cast of 'Planet of the Apes,' the movie," Figueroa, 42, said with a giggle.
When hostess Lili Estefan countered with "What are you saying?" and host Raul de Molina said Obama was very attractive, Figueroa defended his remark, saying "but it is true."
In a statement, Univision called Figueroa's comments "completely reprehensible" and said they "in no way reflect the values or opinions of Univision."
Figueroa, who in 2014 won a Daytime Emmy Award, did not respond to requests for comment Thursday. He worked for Univision for 17 years and had been on "El Gordo y la Flaca" since 2000. SourceI demand an immediate investigation by the DoJ into the racism present at Univision. Is that supposed to be funny or something? I'm committed to rooting out racism wherever it is. Why aren't you? On March 14 2015 05:28 Sandvich wrote:On March 14 2015 04:55 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 04:00 Gorsameth wrote:On March 14 2015 03:50 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 02:52 Acrofales wrote:On March 14 2015 02:49 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 01:43 Acrofales wrote:
[quote]
Well, I am still assuming that the US has moved past the idea of first-strike using nukes and will be the country retaliating after a nuclear attack by Russia (the scenario we were discussing). While Russia does have ABM, their system is nowhere near as advanced as Star Wars, and even that system is only partially functional. So from a policy point of view, ABM can be pretty much disregarded.
And even Putin is not a sufficently power crazy madman that he would accept being carpet bombed by nukes as an acceptable collateral for having wiped out the imperial Americans. Does the Ayatholla feel the same way? I'm not sure if bet my kids my lives on it. How did Iran get dragged into this? And insofar as I know, nobody wants Iran to have a nuke... including Obama. Don't be naive. Under the current negotiations, Iran could get as close to one year away from a nuke. In nuclear development, that is pretty much equivalent to having one. Except for the fact that the negotiation is ongoing and the former Mossad chief who said that the time is longer then a year. But hey lets believe Netanyahu having a PR speech in congress in a scenario that is oddly reminiscent of the lies told prior to the invasion of Iraq. What are you talking about? Do you even keep up on current events? Not the Mossad or Bibi I believe he was talking about this, where a former chief of mossad said that Iran was farther than the year the US estimated. Also included is a critique of the claim that Iran could reach the US with nuclear weapons. That's all well and good but clearly not what I was talking about. If you want the DOJ going into every business that has shown signs of racism, in an effort to root it out, I'll support you on that. Univision first, then Fox News, then we can keep going. I don't really think most conservatives would sign onto that, but I don't have a problem with taking groups that have shown racist tendencies and shining a spotlight on their organization to see how deep and pervasive the racism is. I don't think they keep as meticulous details of their racism as the Ferguson PD or that the DOJ would have the legal authority it had over police departments to investigate it, but I have nothing against rooting out racists no matter where they hide. pretty sure no one (not just conservatives) would sign on to that. what a waste of time and money.
Says you? I'm sure the citizens of places like Ferguson would feel differently. They would probably want to start with things like corrupt police departments rather than Univision though. I would tend to agree with them on that.
Money get's wasted on all sorts of crap, paying almost $100k to the corrupt chief to resign would be one small example.
I'm sure we could scrape together the funds to investigate more (Congress seems to enjoy them?). I mean, systematic constitutional violations and corruption at the judicial level should be pretty easy to be bi-partisan about?
I agree stuff like Univision wouldn't get much support for investigations.
|
On March 14 2015 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2015 06:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2015 06:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2015 05:39 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 05:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2015 01:32 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 00:48 Jormundr wrote:On March 14 2015 00:41 hannahbelle wrote:On March 13 2015 17:40 Slaughter wrote:
Its not like these figures are coming from polls of scientists. Reviewing the literature shows that something like 97% of surveyed scientific papers published that took a position on climate change supported the idea that humans are contributing to it. Now that doesn't tell you anything about the degree of the contribution, but it does tell you that scientific research has supported this notion. Or more accurately, just tells you about publishing rates. No, a collection of data measuring the length of time for each part of the research and publishing processes and an accompanying analysis of the differences or similarities between them would tell you about publishing rates. But hey, maybe I'm giving you too much credit. MIAMI (AP) — Talk show host Rodner Figueroa was fired from Univision after saying that Michelle Obama looks like someone from the cast of "Planet of the Apes."
Figueroa, who's known for his biting fashion commentary, made his remarks during a live segment of the show "El Gordo y la Flaca" in which the hosts were commenting on a viral video that shows a makeup artist transforming himself into different celebrities, including Michelle Obama.
"Well, watch out, you know that Michelle Obama looks like she's from the cast of 'Planet of the Apes,' the movie," Figueroa, 42, said with a giggle.
When hostess Lili Estefan countered with "What are you saying?" and host Raul de Molina said Obama was very attractive, Figueroa defended his remark, saying "but it is true."
In a statement, Univision called Figueroa's comments "completely reprehensible" and said they "in no way reflect the values or opinions of Univision."
Figueroa, who in 2014 won a Daytime Emmy Award, did not respond to requests for comment Thursday. He worked for Univision for 17 years and had been on "El Gordo y la Flaca" since 2000. SourceI demand an immediate investigation by the DoJ into the racism present at Univision. Is that supposed to be funny or something? I'm committed to rooting out racism wherever it is. Why aren't you? On March 14 2015 05:28 Sandvich wrote:On March 14 2015 04:55 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 04:00 Gorsameth wrote:On March 14 2015 03:50 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 02:52 Acrofales wrote:On March 14 2015 02:49 hannahbelle wrote:
[quote]
Does the Ayatholla feel the same way? I'm not sure if bet my kids my lives on it. How did Iran get dragged into this? And insofar as I know, nobody wants Iran to have a nuke... including Obama. Don't be naive. Under the current negotiations, Iran could get as close to one year away from a nuke. In nuclear development, that is pretty much equivalent to having one. Except for the fact that the negotiation is ongoing and the former Mossad chief who said that the time is longer then a year. But hey lets believe Netanyahu having a PR speech in congress in a scenario that is oddly reminiscent of the lies told prior to the invasion of Iraq. What are you talking about? Do you even keep up on current events? Not the Mossad or Bibi I believe he was talking about this, where a former chief of mossad said that Iran was farther than the year the US estimated. Also included is a critique of the claim that Iran could reach the US with nuclear weapons. That's all well and good but clearly not what I was talking about. If you want the DOJ going into every business that has shown signs of racism, in an effort to root it out, I'll support you on that. Univision first, then Fox News, then we can keep going. I don't really think most conservatives would sign onto that, but I don't have a problem with taking groups that have shown racist tendencies and shining a spotlight on their organization to see how deep and pervasive the racism is. I don't think they keep as meticulous details of their racism as the Ferguson PD or that the DOJ would have the legal authority it had over police departments to investigate it, but I have nothing against rooting out racists no matter where they hide. pretty sure no one (not just conservatives) would sign on to that. what a waste of time and money. Says you? I'm sure the citizens of places like Ferguson would feel differently. They would probably want to start with things like corrupt police departments rather than Univision though. I would tend to agree with them on that. Money get's wasted on all sorts of crap, paying almost $100k to the corrupt chief to resign would be one small example. I'm sure we could scrape together the funds to investigate more (Congress seems to enjoy them?). I mean, systematic constitutional violations and corruption at the judicial level should be pretty easy to be bi-partisan about? I agree stuff like Univision wouldn't get much support for investigations.
For reals? you're gonna complain about the severance the chief received for resigning that isn't even 100k (isn't it like 96k?) when there's literally trillions of dollars misused by the gov't? Not to mention that the report technically didn't even name the chief as responsible for the racism and he very well could have stayed on. Just be happy the guy resigned and isn't in charge anymore, and that there has been and will continue to be an actual effort made to fix the problem.
|
On March 14 2015 05:58 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2015 05:39 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 05:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2015 01:32 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 00:48 Jormundr wrote:On March 14 2015 00:41 hannahbelle wrote:On March 13 2015 17:40 Slaughter wrote:
Its not like these figures are coming from polls of scientists. Reviewing the literature shows that something like 97% of surveyed scientific papers published that took a position on climate change supported the idea that humans are contributing to it. Now that doesn't tell you anything about the degree of the contribution, but it does tell you that scientific research has supported this notion. Or more accurately, just tells you about publishing rates. No, a collection of data measuring the length of time for each part of the research and publishing processes and an accompanying analysis of the differences or similarities between them would tell you about publishing rates. But hey, maybe I'm giving you too much credit. MIAMI (AP) — Talk show host Rodner Figueroa was fired from Univision after saying that Michelle Obama looks like someone from the cast of "Planet of the Apes."
Figueroa, who's known for his biting fashion commentary, made his remarks during a live segment of the show "El Gordo y la Flaca" in which the hosts were commenting on a viral video that shows a makeup artist transforming himself into different celebrities, including Michelle Obama.
"Well, watch out, you know that Michelle Obama looks like she's from the cast of 'Planet of the Apes,' the movie," Figueroa, 42, said with a giggle.
When hostess Lili Estefan countered with "What are you saying?" and host Raul de Molina said Obama was very attractive, Figueroa defended his remark, saying "but it is true."
In a statement, Univision called Figueroa's comments "completely reprehensible" and said they "in no way reflect the values or opinions of Univision."
Figueroa, who in 2014 won a Daytime Emmy Award, did not respond to requests for comment Thursday. He worked for Univision for 17 years and had been on "El Gordo y la Flaca" since 2000. SourceI demand an immediate investigation by the DoJ into the racism present at Univision. Is that supposed to be funny or something? I'm committed to rooting out racism wherever it is. Why aren't you? On March 14 2015 05:28 Sandvich wrote:On March 14 2015 04:55 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 04:00 Gorsameth wrote:On March 14 2015 03:50 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 02:52 Acrofales wrote:On March 14 2015 02:49 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 01:43 Acrofales wrote:On March 14 2015 00:45 always_winter wrote:
Very good points being raised here.
The GMD missile-defense system is largely still in development, but currently only boasts a 53% kill ratio (9 of 17 missiles intercepted). This is a stationary ground-based weapons system (i.e., missiles pop out of silos on air force bases, typically in California or Alaska) and is heavily-scrutinized for going operational prior to adequate testing. There's not a lot of literature surrounding it, however, so it's hard to get a good read of the efficacy of this program as it remains at least partially concealed.
The United States still possesses immense anti-missile capability, however, primarily in the form of the Aegis Combat System attached to an incredible armada of missile guided destroyers currently deployed around the world. The Patriot missile systems are an additional mobile deterrent and work in conjunction with other ABM systems. Together these systems create a quite formidable missile defense, however it is not 100% accurate and the world has already seen what a single atomic bomb made in the 1940's can do to an entire city.
This raises the concept of MAD, mutually-assured destruction, which posits any two nations with second-strike capability (i.e., the ability to absorb a strategic nuclear attack and still possess enough nuclear warheads to respond in kind), will not engage in atomic warfare with one another for fear of self-survival.
The real kicker, however, and what actually makes the succession of these comments quite interesting, is that the entire premise of MAD is based upon Cold War-era capabilities, which did not include the existence of ABM systems. The premise, of course, remains, and still applies widely to a 21st-century context, but as the ABM systems develop more and become more effective, a state actor may consider a nuclear attack upon a nation with second-strike capability with the assurance that the retaliatory strike would be nullified by advanced weapons systems.
Well, I am still assuming that the US has moved past the idea of first-strike using nukes and will be the country retaliating after a nuclear attack by Russia (the scenario we were discussing). While Russia does have ABM, their system is nowhere near as advanced as Star Wars, and even that system is only partially functional. So from a policy point of view, ABM can be pretty much disregarded. And even Putin is not a sufficently power crazy madman that he would accept being carpet bombed by nukes as an acceptable collateral for having wiped out the imperial Americans. Does the Ayatholla feel the same way? I'm not sure if bet my kids my lives on it. How did Iran get dragged into this? And insofar as I know, nobody wants Iran to have a nuke... including Obama. Don't be naive. Under the current negotiations, Iran could get as close to one year away from a nuke. In nuclear development, that is pretty much equivalent to having one. Except for the fact that the negotiation is ongoing and the former Mossad chief who said that the time is longer then a year. But hey lets believe Netanyahu having a PR speech in congress in a scenario that is oddly reminiscent of the lies told prior to the invasion of Iraq. What are you talking about? Do you even keep up on current events? Not the Mossad or Bibi I believe he was talking about this, where a former chief of mossad said that Iran was farther than the year the US estimated. Also included is a critique of the claim that Iran could reach the US with nuclear weapons. That's all well and good but clearly not what I was talking about. Re: first point. Stop trolling. Re: second point. Ok, great. But why didn't you just link that WSJ article in the first place instead of assuming that everybody here is a mind reader? Either way, my second point from earlier still stands: a year breakout time is 365 days worth of time for Israel, the US and Europe to bomb Iran straight back into the stone age. If you're worried about them doing it in secret: there is absolutely nothing that the presence or lack of a treaty can do to stop them from sneaking around and building nukes in secret. That's what inspections and intelligence services are for. The latest reports from all of these is that Iran is currently not actively pursuing the building of nuclear weapons. Keeping them a year away seems quite okay, and if there are signs that they are (again) actively trying to build a nuke and thus breaking the treaty, then we can return the sanctions, and throw in some carpet bombing their nuclear facilities for good measure.
First:Not trolling, just curious to see how the people of left persuasion react to racism from Latinos. I mean, I can only imagine the howls from this board had this been a Fox anchor that said those things...
Second: Stop pretending like you would ever support carpet bombing Iran from breaking the treaty or removing inspectors. I have shown where they continue to stonewall the current UN mandated inspections, and you don't even raise a peep.
|
On March 14 2015 07:23 Ryuhou)aS( wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2015 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2015 06:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2015 06:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2015 05:39 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 05:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2015 01:32 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 00:48 Jormundr wrote:On March 14 2015 00:41 hannahbelle wrote:On March 13 2015 17:40 Slaughter wrote:
Its not like these figures are coming from polls of scientists. Reviewing the literature shows that something like 97% of surveyed scientific papers published that took a position on climate change supported the idea that humans are contributing to it. Now that doesn't tell you anything about the degree of the contribution, but it does tell you that scientific research has supported this notion. Or more accurately, just tells you about publishing rates. No, a collection of data measuring the length of time for each part of the research and publishing processes and an accompanying analysis of the differences or similarities between them would tell you about publishing rates. But hey, maybe I'm giving you too much credit. MIAMI (AP) — Talk show host Rodner Figueroa was fired from Univision after saying that Michelle Obama looks like someone from the cast of "Planet of the Apes."
Figueroa, who's known for his biting fashion commentary, made his remarks during a live segment of the show "El Gordo y la Flaca" in which the hosts were commenting on a viral video that shows a makeup artist transforming himself into different celebrities, including Michelle Obama.
"Well, watch out, you know that Michelle Obama looks like she's from the cast of 'Planet of the Apes,' the movie," Figueroa, 42, said with a giggle.
When hostess Lili Estefan countered with "What are you saying?" and host Raul de Molina said Obama was very attractive, Figueroa defended his remark, saying "but it is true."
In a statement, Univision called Figueroa's comments "completely reprehensible" and said they "in no way reflect the values or opinions of Univision."
Figueroa, who in 2014 won a Daytime Emmy Award, did not respond to requests for comment Thursday. He worked for Univision for 17 years and had been on "El Gordo y la Flaca" since 2000. SourceI demand an immediate investigation by the DoJ into the racism present at Univision. Is that supposed to be funny or something? I'm committed to rooting out racism wherever it is. Why aren't you? On March 14 2015 05:28 Sandvich wrote:On March 14 2015 04:55 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 04:00 Gorsameth wrote:On March 14 2015 03:50 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 02:52 Acrofales wrote:
[quote]
How did Iran get dragged into this? And insofar as I know, nobody wants Iran to have a nuke... including Obama. Don't be naive. Under the current negotiations, Iran could get as close to one year away from a nuke. In nuclear development, that is pretty much equivalent to having one. Except for the fact that the negotiation is ongoing and the former Mossad chief who said that the time is longer then a year. But hey lets believe Netanyahu having a PR speech in congress in a scenario that is oddly reminiscent of the lies told prior to the invasion of Iraq. What are you talking about? Do you even keep up on current events? Not the Mossad or Bibi I believe he was talking about this, where a former chief of mossad said that Iran was farther than the year the US estimated. Also included is a critique of the claim that Iran could reach the US with nuclear weapons. That's all well and good but clearly not what I was talking about. If you want the DOJ going into every business that has shown signs of racism, in an effort to root it out, I'll support you on that. Univision first, then Fox News, then we can keep going. I don't really think most conservatives would sign onto that, but I don't have a problem with taking groups that have shown racist tendencies and shining a spotlight on their organization to see how deep and pervasive the racism is. I don't think they keep as meticulous details of their racism as the Ferguson PD or that the DOJ would have the legal authority it had over police departments to investigate it, but I have nothing against rooting out racists no matter where they hide. pretty sure no one (not just conservatives) would sign on to that. what a waste of time and money. Says you? I'm sure the citizens of places like Ferguson would feel differently. They would probably want to start with things like corrupt police departments rather than Univision though. I would tend to agree with them on that. Money get's wasted on all sorts of crap, paying almost $100k to the corrupt chief to resign would be one small example. I'm sure we could scrape together the funds to investigate more (Congress seems to enjoy them?). I mean, systematic constitutional violations and corruption at the judicial level should be pretty easy to be bi-partisan about? I agree stuff like Univision wouldn't get much support for investigations. For reals? you're gonna complain about the severance the chief received for resigning that isn't even 100k (isn't it like 96k?) when there's literally trillions of dollars misused by the gov't? Not to mention that the report technically didn't even name the chief as responsible for the racism and he very well could have stayed on. Just be happy the guy resigned and isn't in charge anymore, and that there has been and will continue to be an actual effort made to fix the problem.
Yeah... He lied on national TV. He looked in the camera and told a bold face lie multiple times. I'm not going to argue over his motives, but yes, I'm going to complain about paying a known liar off after running that cesspool of a department.
Disgusting remarks like "Just be happy the guy resigned" not withstanding, I am happy something has gotten done.
As for the government wasting money I don't like that either, although "waste" means different things to different people.
On March 14 2015 07:23 hannahbelle wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2015 05:58 Acrofales wrote:On March 14 2015 05:39 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 05:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2015 01:32 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 00:48 Jormundr wrote:On March 14 2015 00:41 hannahbelle wrote:On March 13 2015 17:40 Slaughter wrote:
Its not like these figures are coming from polls of scientists. Reviewing the literature shows that something like 97% of surveyed scientific papers published that took a position on climate change supported the idea that humans are contributing to it. Now that doesn't tell you anything about the degree of the contribution, but it does tell you that scientific research has supported this notion. Or more accurately, just tells you about publishing rates. No, a collection of data measuring the length of time for each part of the research and publishing processes and an accompanying analysis of the differences or similarities between them would tell you about publishing rates. But hey, maybe I'm giving you too much credit. MIAMI (AP) — Talk show host Rodner Figueroa was fired from Univision after saying that Michelle Obama looks like someone from the cast of "Planet of the Apes."
Figueroa, who's known for his biting fashion commentary, made his remarks during a live segment of the show "El Gordo y la Flaca" in which the hosts were commenting on a viral video that shows a makeup artist transforming himself into different celebrities, including Michelle Obama.
"Well, watch out, you know that Michelle Obama looks like she's from the cast of 'Planet of the Apes,' the movie," Figueroa, 42, said with a giggle.
When hostess Lili Estefan countered with "What are you saying?" and host Raul de Molina said Obama was very attractive, Figueroa defended his remark, saying "but it is true."
In a statement, Univision called Figueroa's comments "completely reprehensible" and said they "in no way reflect the values or opinions of Univision."
Figueroa, who in 2014 won a Daytime Emmy Award, did not respond to requests for comment Thursday. He worked for Univision for 17 years and had been on "El Gordo y la Flaca" since 2000. SourceI demand an immediate investigation by the DoJ into the racism present at Univision. Is that supposed to be funny or something? I'm committed to rooting out racism wherever it is. Why aren't you? On March 14 2015 05:28 Sandvich wrote:On March 14 2015 04:55 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 04:00 Gorsameth wrote:On March 14 2015 03:50 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 02:52 Acrofales wrote:On March 14 2015 02:49 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 01:43 Acrofales wrote:
[quote]
Well, I am still assuming that the US has moved past the idea of first-strike using nukes and will be the country retaliating after a nuclear attack by Russia (the scenario we were discussing). While Russia does have ABM, their system is nowhere near as advanced as Star Wars, and even that system is only partially functional. So from a policy point of view, ABM can be pretty much disregarded.
And even Putin is not a sufficently power crazy madman that he would accept being carpet bombed by nukes as an acceptable collateral for having wiped out the imperial Americans. Does the Ayatholla feel the same way? I'm not sure if bet my kids my lives on it. How did Iran get dragged into this? And insofar as I know, nobody wants Iran to have a nuke... including Obama. Don't be naive. Under the current negotiations, Iran could get as close to one year away from a nuke. In nuclear development, that is pretty much equivalent to having one. Except for the fact that the negotiation is ongoing and the former Mossad chief who said that the time is longer then a year. But hey lets believe Netanyahu having a PR speech in congress in a scenario that is oddly reminiscent of the lies told prior to the invasion of Iraq. What are you talking about? Do you even keep up on current events? Not the Mossad or Bibi I believe he was talking about this, where a former chief of mossad said that Iran was farther than the year the US estimated. Also included is a critique of the claim that Iran could reach the US with nuclear weapons. That's all well and good but clearly not what I was talking about. Re: first point. Stop trolling. Re: second point. Ok, great. But why didn't you just link that WSJ article in the first place instead of assuming that everybody here is a mind reader? Either way, my second point from earlier still stands: a year breakout time is 365 days worth of time for Israel, the US and Europe to bomb Iran straight back into the stone age. If you're worried about them doing it in secret: there is absolutely nothing that the presence or lack of a treaty can do to stop them from sneaking around and building nukes in secret. That's what inspections and intelligence services are for. The latest reports from all of these is that Iran is currently not actively pursuing the building of nuclear weapons. Keeping them a year away seems quite okay, and if there are signs that they are (again) actively trying to build a nuke and thus breaking the treaty, then we can return the sanctions, and throw in some carpet bombing their nuclear facilities for good measure. First:Not trolling, just curious to see how the people of left persuasion react to racism from Latinos. I mean, I can only imagine the howls from this board had this been a Fox anchor that said those things... Second: Stop pretending like you would ever support carpet bombing Iran from breaking the treaty or removing inspectors. I have shown where they continue to stonewall the current UN mandated inspections, and you don't even raise a peep.
Well carpet bombing would be cruel to the population and ineffective at stopping their progress toward developing a nuke. But most people wouldn't have a problem with striking a facility if they had credible intelligence Iran was using it to make a weapon.
Normalization and inspectors mean that will be a lot easier to do if/when it is necessary. We can't take a bad deal, but our current plan is just a matter of when to bomb, not if. No deal means even less intelligence on what/where we need to inevitably strike.
|
On March 14 2015 06:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2015 05:55 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 05:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 14 2015 03:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Should note that everything being discussed here should note that the US Military is always at least 30 years ahead of what is currently viable or visible, meaning there is always a successor and further R&D being developed and another one to replace that. Anyways... WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration projects the United States could draw 35 percent of its electricity from wind power by 2050, in a new report released Thursday.
The amount of wind power in the U.S. is already on the uptick, with wind representing 30 percent of newly installed electricity-generating capacity in the period from 2009 to 2013. In the "Wind Vision" report, the Department of Energy projects that the country could do even more going forward by installing up to 11 gigawatts of new wind-generating capacity each year between now and the middle of the century. That would bring the U.S. to 400 total gigawatts of such capacity installed across the country -- enough power for 100 million homes, according to the Energy Department's estimates.
The DOE outlines a path to 35 percent, beginning with 10 percent by 2020 and rising to 20 percent by 2030.
The growth in wind power will also help reduce the emissions that cause global warming, they project, helping avoid 12.3 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions that would have been created if that new capacity had been in fossil fuel power. That would save $400 billion related to the costs that stem from climate change, according to the DOE.
They project that the shift to wind power would cause a 1 percent increase in electricity costs through the year 2030, but would produce cost savings of 2 percent by 2050. The report, DOE writes, "concludes that it is both viable and economically compelling" to increase wind-generating capacity to those levels.
The White House touted the report Thursday, saying that expanding wind power will also help support more than 600,000 jobs in engineering, construction, manufacturing and transportation. "Wind energy continues to be one of America's best choices for low-cost, zero-pollution renewable energy, and in an increasing number of markets, may be the cheapest source of new energy available," the White House said in a statement. Source Meh. Wind has had a high growth rate for decades. There isn't much of a story here beyond Huff 'n' Puff pushing identity politics. Also, the story leaves out the cost effects of millions in government subsidies for wind power. Like bitching that companies are subsidized.
Coal, Gas, and Oil are subsidized.
|
On March 14 2015 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2015 06:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2015 06:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2015 05:39 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 05:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2015 01:32 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 00:48 Jormundr wrote:On March 14 2015 00:41 hannahbelle wrote:On March 13 2015 17:40 Slaughter wrote:
Its not like these figures are coming from polls of scientists. Reviewing the literature shows that something like 97% of surveyed scientific papers published that took a position on climate change supported the idea that humans are contributing to it. Now that doesn't tell you anything about the degree of the contribution, but it does tell you that scientific research has supported this notion. Or more accurately, just tells you about publishing rates. No, a collection of data measuring the length of time for each part of the research and publishing processes and an accompanying analysis of the differences or similarities between them would tell you about publishing rates. But hey, maybe I'm giving you too much credit. MIAMI (AP) — Talk show host Rodner Figueroa was fired from Univision after saying that Michelle Obama looks like someone from the cast of "Planet of the Apes."
Figueroa, who's known for his biting fashion commentary, made his remarks during a live segment of the show "El Gordo y la Flaca" in which the hosts were commenting on a viral video that shows a makeup artist transforming himself into different celebrities, including Michelle Obama.
"Well, watch out, you know that Michelle Obama looks like she's from the cast of 'Planet of the Apes,' the movie," Figueroa, 42, said with a giggle.
When hostess Lili Estefan countered with "What are you saying?" and host Raul de Molina said Obama was very attractive, Figueroa defended his remark, saying "but it is true."
In a statement, Univision called Figueroa's comments "completely reprehensible" and said they "in no way reflect the values or opinions of Univision."
Figueroa, who in 2014 won a Daytime Emmy Award, did not respond to requests for comment Thursday. He worked for Univision for 17 years and had been on "El Gordo y la Flaca" since 2000. SourceI demand an immediate investigation by the DoJ into the racism present at Univision. Is that supposed to be funny or something? I'm committed to rooting out racism wherever it is. Why aren't you? On March 14 2015 05:28 Sandvich wrote:On March 14 2015 04:55 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 04:00 Gorsameth wrote:On March 14 2015 03:50 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 02:52 Acrofales wrote:On March 14 2015 02:49 hannahbelle wrote:
[quote]
Does the Ayatholla feel the same way? I'm not sure if bet my kids my lives on it. How did Iran get dragged into this? And insofar as I know, nobody wants Iran to have a nuke... including Obama. Don't be naive. Under the current negotiations, Iran could get as close to one year away from a nuke. In nuclear development, that is pretty much equivalent to having one. Except for the fact that the negotiation is ongoing and the former Mossad chief who said that the time is longer then a year. But hey lets believe Netanyahu having a PR speech in congress in a scenario that is oddly reminiscent of the lies told prior to the invasion of Iraq. What are you talking about? Do you even keep up on current events? Not the Mossad or Bibi I believe he was talking about this, where a former chief of mossad said that Iran was farther than the year the US estimated. Also included is a critique of the claim that Iran could reach the US with nuclear weapons. That's all well and good but clearly not what I was talking about. If you want the DOJ going into every business that has shown signs of racism, in an effort to root it out, I'll support you on that. Univision first, then Fox News, then we can keep going. I don't really think most conservatives would sign onto that, but I don't have a problem with taking groups that have shown racist tendencies and shining a spotlight on their organization to see how deep and pervasive the racism is. I don't think they keep as meticulous details of their racism as the Ferguson PD or that the DOJ would have the legal authority it had over police departments to investigate it, but I have nothing against rooting out racists no matter where they hide. pretty sure no one (not just conservatives) would sign on to that. what a waste of time and money. Says you? I'm sure the citizens of places like Ferguson would feel differently. They would probably want to start with things like corrupt police departments rather than Univision though. I would tend to agree with them on that. Money get's wasted on all sorts of crap, paying almost $100k to the corrupt chief to resign would be one small example. I'm sure we could scrape together the funds to investigate more (Congress seems to enjoy them?). I mean, systematic constitutional violations and corruption at the judicial level should be pretty easy to be bi-partisan about? I agree stuff like Univision wouldn't get much support for investigations.
everyone loves justice until they have to open their pocketbooks and pay for it. the cost to investigate "every business that has shown signs of racism" is going to cost billions, if not trillions, of dollars, and is going to basically shut down the DOJ (unless they hire people specifically for this) to doing other enforcement actions, which is kind of their job. its unrealistic to even propose it. the smarter thing to do, which is already done, is let private enforcement actions handle the "issue." i have yet to meet a shy plaintiff's attorney when it comes to a juicy racial harassment/discrimination lawsuit.
this is going to be an unpopular opinion here, but the DOJ investigation of ferguson was a waste of time and money. spending that many resources on such a small ass town was ridiculous. the time and money could have better been spent on more significant (both by size and impact) cities and counties. squeaky wheel gets the oil though.
also an unpopular opinion, but who gives a rat's ass about ferguson. it was a nobody town before this, and after this DOJ thing blows over, it will be a nobody town again.
edit:
here are some statistics on how many racial complaints against businesses are made yearly just in California. thousands per year.
http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/res/docs/Statisitcs/2015/DFEH Report to the Legislature (2).pdf
edit2:
people already filed lawsuits about the illegal practices re Ferguson.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/lawsuit-alleges-ferguson-mo-legal-system-violates-constitutional-protections-by-jailing-poor-for-fines-1423502968
|
On March 14 2015 07:32 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2015 06:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 14 2015 05:55 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 05:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 14 2015 03:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Should note that everything being discussed here should note that the US Military is always at least 30 years ahead of what is currently viable or visible, meaning there is always a successor and further R&D being developed and another one to replace that. Anyways... WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration projects the United States could draw 35 percent of its electricity from wind power by 2050, in a new report released Thursday.
The amount of wind power in the U.S. is already on the uptick, with wind representing 30 percent of newly installed electricity-generating capacity in the period from 2009 to 2013. In the "Wind Vision" report, the Department of Energy projects that the country could do even more going forward by installing up to 11 gigawatts of new wind-generating capacity each year between now and the middle of the century. That would bring the U.S. to 400 total gigawatts of such capacity installed across the country -- enough power for 100 million homes, according to the Energy Department's estimates.
The DOE outlines a path to 35 percent, beginning with 10 percent by 2020 and rising to 20 percent by 2030.
The growth in wind power will also help reduce the emissions that cause global warming, they project, helping avoid 12.3 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions that would have been created if that new capacity had been in fossil fuel power. That would save $400 billion related to the costs that stem from climate change, according to the DOE.
They project that the shift to wind power would cause a 1 percent increase in electricity costs through the year 2030, but would produce cost savings of 2 percent by 2050. The report, DOE writes, "concludes that it is both viable and economically compelling" to increase wind-generating capacity to those levels.
The White House touted the report Thursday, saying that expanding wind power will also help support more than 600,000 jobs in engineering, construction, manufacturing and transportation. "Wind energy continues to be one of America's best choices for low-cost, zero-pollution renewable energy, and in an increasing number of markets, may be the cheapest source of new energy available," the White House said in a statement. Source Meh. Wind has had a high growth rate for decades. There isn't much of a story here beyond Huff 'n' Puff pushing identity politics. Also, the story leaves out the cost effects of millions in government subsidies for wind power. Like bitching that companies are subsidized. Coal, Gas, and Oil are subsidized.
Not really. I broke down the numbers a long time ago. The subsidies are small in absolute amounts and very small as a rate. Usually liberal pubs like Huff 'n' Puff include depreciation as a subsidy when they know they shouldn't.
But what I was referring to was that using say a wind power tax credit... lowers taxes (obviously). What isn't obvious is that the credits are rarely used by the company producing the power. So companies like GE get maligned by the left for not paying taxes when they're often behaving just as the left has asked them to behave.
|
On March 14 2015 07:33 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2015 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2015 06:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2015 06:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2015 05:39 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 05:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2015 01:32 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 00:48 Jormundr wrote:On March 14 2015 00:41 hannahbelle wrote:On March 13 2015 17:40 Slaughter wrote:
Its not like these figures are coming from polls of scientists. Reviewing the literature shows that something like 97% of surveyed scientific papers published that took a position on climate change supported the idea that humans are contributing to it. Now that doesn't tell you anything about the degree of the contribution, but it does tell you that scientific research has supported this notion. Or more accurately, just tells you about publishing rates. No, a collection of data measuring the length of time for each part of the research and publishing processes and an accompanying analysis of the differences or similarities between them would tell you about publishing rates. But hey, maybe I'm giving you too much credit. MIAMI (AP) — Talk show host Rodner Figueroa was fired from Univision after saying that Michelle Obama looks like someone from the cast of "Planet of the Apes."
Figueroa, who's known for his biting fashion commentary, made his remarks during a live segment of the show "El Gordo y la Flaca" in which the hosts were commenting on a viral video that shows a makeup artist transforming himself into different celebrities, including Michelle Obama.
"Well, watch out, you know that Michelle Obama looks like she's from the cast of 'Planet of the Apes,' the movie," Figueroa, 42, said with a giggle.
When hostess Lili Estefan countered with "What are you saying?" and host Raul de Molina said Obama was very attractive, Figueroa defended his remark, saying "but it is true."
In a statement, Univision called Figueroa's comments "completely reprehensible" and said they "in no way reflect the values or opinions of Univision."
Figueroa, who in 2014 won a Daytime Emmy Award, did not respond to requests for comment Thursday. He worked for Univision for 17 years and had been on "El Gordo y la Flaca" since 2000. SourceI demand an immediate investigation by the DoJ into the racism present at Univision. Is that supposed to be funny or something? I'm committed to rooting out racism wherever it is. Why aren't you? On March 14 2015 05:28 Sandvich wrote:On March 14 2015 04:55 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 04:00 Gorsameth wrote:On March 14 2015 03:50 hannahbelle wrote:On March 14 2015 02:52 Acrofales wrote:
[quote]
How did Iran get dragged into this? And insofar as I know, nobody wants Iran to have a nuke... including Obama. Don't be naive. Under the current negotiations, Iran could get as close to one year away from a nuke. In nuclear development, that is pretty much equivalent to having one. Except for the fact that the negotiation is ongoing and the former Mossad chief who said that the time is longer then a year. But hey lets believe Netanyahu having a PR speech in congress in a scenario that is oddly reminiscent of the lies told prior to the invasion of Iraq. What are you talking about? Do you even keep up on current events? Not the Mossad or Bibi I believe he was talking about this, where a former chief of mossad said that Iran was farther than the year the US estimated. Also included is a critique of the claim that Iran could reach the US with nuclear weapons. That's all well and good but clearly not what I was talking about. If you want the DOJ going into every business that has shown signs of racism, in an effort to root it out, I'll support you on that. Univision first, then Fox News, then we can keep going. I don't really think most conservatives would sign onto that, but I don't have a problem with taking groups that have shown racist tendencies and shining a spotlight on their organization to see how deep and pervasive the racism is. I don't think they keep as meticulous details of their racism as the Ferguson PD or that the DOJ would have the legal authority it had over police departments to investigate it, but I have nothing against rooting out racists no matter where they hide. pretty sure no one (not just conservatives) would sign on to that. what a waste of time and money. Says you? I'm sure the citizens of places like Ferguson would feel differently. They would probably want to start with things like corrupt police departments rather than Univision though. I would tend to agree with them on that. Money get's wasted on all sorts of crap, paying almost $100k to the corrupt chief to resign would be one small example. I'm sure we could scrape together the funds to investigate more (Congress seems to enjoy them?). I mean, systematic constitutional violations and corruption at the judicial level should be pretty easy to be bi-partisan about? I agree stuff like Univision wouldn't get much support for investigations. everyone loves justice until they have to open their pocketbooks and pay for it. the cost to investigate "every business that has shown signs of racism" is going to cost billions, if not trillions, of dollars, and is going to basically shut down the DOJ (unless they hire people specifically for this) to doing other enforcement actions, which is kind of their job. its unrealistic to even propose it. the smarter thing to do, which is already done, is let private enforcement actions handle the "issue." i have yet to meet a shy plaintiff's attorney when it comes to a juicy racial harassment/discrimination lawsuit. this is going to be an unpopular opinion here, but the DOJ investigation of ferguson was a waste of time and money. spending that many resources on such a small ass town was ridiculous. the time and money could have better been spent on more significant (both by size and impact) cities and counties. squeaky wheel gets the oil though. also an unpopular opinion, but who gives a rat's ass about ferguson. it was a nobody town before this, and after this DOJ thing blows over, it will be a nobody town again. edit: here are some statistics on how many racial complaints against businesses are made yearly just in California. thousands per year. http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/res/docs/Statisitcs/2015/DFEH Report to the Legislature (2).pdfedit2: people already filed lawsuits about the illegal practices re Ferguson. http://www.wsj.com/articles/lawsuit-alleges-ferguson-mo-legal-system-violates-constitutional-protections-by-jailing-poor-for-fines-1423502968
I forgot about how people in bad towns aren't valuable enough to have constitutional rights get respected. Or that when they are violated, the nothing that was getting done should have been enough.
Disgusting.
|
The economics of justice are not agreed upon; that dAPHREAk considers a town like Ferguson the sort of place more likely to exhibit symptoms rather than the sickness itself is not a disgusting thing lol. Though he'd never make this argument lol, it seems pretty reasonable to consider how systemic changes that affect conditions in Ferguson through incidence rather than direct enforcement protocols would end up a better solution. In other words, a top-to-bottom approach in addressing current day racism is arguably as good or better than a bottom-to-top one; we can try to learn the lessons from Ferguson without being "Ferguson-narrow" in our attempts at mitigating the harms of racism.
|
On March 14 2015 08:20 farvacola wrote:
The economics of justice are not agreed upon; that dAPHREAk considers a town like Ferguson the sort of place more likely to exhibit symptoms rather than the sickness itself is not a disgusting thing lol. Though he'd never make this argument lol, it seems pretty reasonable to consider how systemic changes that affect conditions in Ferguson through incidence rather than direct enforcement protocols would end up a better solution. In other words, a top-to-bottom approach in addressing current day racism is arguably as good or better than a bottom-to-top one; we can try to learn the lessons from Ferguson without being "Ferguson-narrow" in our attempts at mitigating the harms of racism.
I appreciate the sentiment, but considering the reality, it means little. Before Ferguson and the justice department report, suggesting that racism was even a significant problem got one labeled a race-baiter or worse.
Absent Ferguson, I sincerely doubt any such effort would of been much more than a masturbatory exercise.
|
On March 14 2015 08:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2015 08:20 farvacola wrote:
The economics of justice are not agreed upon; that dAPHREAk considers a town like Ferguson the sort of place more likely to exhibit symptoms rather than the sickness itself is not a disgusting thing lol. Though he'd never make this argument lol, it seems pretty reasonable to consider how systemic changes that affect conditions in Ferguson through incidence rather than direct enforcement protocols would end up a better solution. In other words, a top-to-bottom approach in addressing current day racism is arguably as good or better than a bottom-to-top one; we can try to learn the lessons from Ferguson without being "Ferguson-narrow" in our attempts at mitigating the harms of racism. I appreciate the sentiment, but considering the reality, it means little. Before Ferguson and the justice department report, suggesting that racism was even a significant problem got one labeled a race-baiter or worse. Absent Ferguson, I sincerely doubt any such effort would of been much more than a masturbatory exercise.
Ferguson's greatest gift will be its use as an example of what happens when the local police force and the community it is meant to protect and serve fail to interconnect in the fashion necessary for a harmonious society. That being said, there were and are many influential and meaningful forums in which discussing the problems of contemporary racism is not looked down on. For a small example, there are literally hundreds of law review articles on the topic of systemic legal and executive racism published every year, and this has been going on for decades. It can seem like no one is listening when Fox News gets rated the most trustworthy news channel and social media lights up with venom being spit in both directions, but I assure you that much of that is a result of the distortion in media representations of current issues and the very real gridlock that grips most of our nation's ideological politicking.
I'm not sure if there is much solace in that lol, but I think that there is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
