At this point kicking me off looks like a cowardly move.

[paperburn1]

>much blather about dust bowls<

So, you were so drunk you couldn't keep track of what I agreed with and what I didn't?

Just askin'.

Sorry I was ignoring you again. Did you have anything important to say or you just wanted to spout off another personal attack.

[Schneibster]

>much blather about dust bowls<

So, you were so drunk you couldn't keep track of what I agreed with and what I didn't?

Just askin'.

Sorry I was ignoring you again. Did you have anything important to say or you just wanted to spout off another personal attack.

Sorry, telling you you're repeating a well-known propaganda lie is not "a personal attack."

[Teahive]

These technologies are going to happen, government funding or not. Not because they reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide, but because they make economic sense.

That's why I made the analogy with electric cars. Electric cars won't win because they're green, they will win because they're better.

You might be right, but I wouldn't want to bet my ass on it considering the guys who said they all were gonna make us rich have blown the entire world economy twice in a century, and now you want them to develop this. I'm having trouble mustering any trust for them.

The people I expect to develop this have little in common with "them", whoever they may be.

[Schneibster]

These technologies are going to happen, government funding or not. Not because they reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide, but because they make economic sense.

That's why I made the analogy with electric cars. Electric cars won't win because they're green, they will win because they're better.

You might be right, but I wouldn't want to bet my ass on it considering the guys who said they all were gonna make us rich have blown the entire world economy twice in a century, and now you want them to develop this. I'm having trouble mustering any trust for them.

The people I expect to develop this have little in common with "them", whoever they may be.

Unfortunately that sounds like mysticism.

[Teahive]

Yes, that's what I thought. I still don't know who "they" are supposed to be.

[paperburn1]

"They" is the easy part, Its no one person or foe in general. Its just a collective of people that can not or prefer not to have the status change because it would directly affect what they are use to doing or having. Usually based on monetary gain, retention of status quo.
Nobody like to have there cheese moved or their rice bowl dipped into no mater what the long term good is.

And S man the dust bowl was a excellent segway into the best example and proof of anthropological climate change and you choose to ignore it to mount and personal attack of accusing me of drunkenness.

[Schneibster]

Yes, that's what I thought. I still don't know who "they" are supposed to be.

It says who "they" are in my post. Maybe if you read it.

You could also go look up US billionaires in Wikipedia. Half of them are the ones ripping us off the worst, and the other half are the only hope left now that the ripoffs have taken all the money. And it's even more true in the rest of the world.

[Schneibster]

"They" is the easy part, Its no one person or foe in general. Its just a collective of people that can not or prefer not to have the status change because it would directly affect what they are use to doing or having. Usually based on monetary gain, retention of status quo.
Nobody like to have there cheese moved or their rice bowl dipped into no mater what the long term good is.

Actually, "them" is comprised of three groups:

1. The greedy, sociopathic ultra-rich. Examples: The Waltons, the Kochs. Between them these two families constitute half the billionaires in the US. These peoples' job is to invest, but there it sits in the bank. And when they do spend it it's on heartless, greedy, or invasive legislation, like Stand Your Ground or rape wands.
2. The banksters, who comprise both investment and mortgage bankers, who instead of maximizing service to customers have maximized profits and then blackmailed the government to pay for it. The honest bankers all seem to be running credit unions. That's where my money is. Lots of my friends lost their shirts up in Silicon Valley.
3. The Libertarians, or fellow-travellers, in the Republican Party.

As far as dipping into their rice bowls, you could take 90% of the capital any billionaire owns and you wouldn't change their lifestyle one iota. Take all that and end poverty, period. Yet there they sit on top of it, they don't need it, they don't use it, they can't spend a millionth of it in their whole lives, they and their children have and will have every possible creature comfort if they lose 90% of it. It's nothing but a status symbol. Well, it will still be a status symbol as long as all the rich get reduced by the same percentage.

Not only that but if they have to invest it or lose it, then we won't need any stimulus from the government. We even have to be careful we don't cause deflation. Can't take it from them too fast or it won't be worth anything.

The rich and the banksters are supposed to be making jobs; that's why we tolerate them. If they're not... well, they're a minority. Oops.

And S man the dust bowl was a excellent segway into the best example and proof of anthropological climate change and you choose to ignore it to mount and personal attack of accusing me of drunkenness.

Sorry I don't read minds and assuming people do is a symptom of some sort of mental impairment. Alcohol is the least insulting impairment I can think of. Would you prefer I called you insane or a stoner?

Meanwhile, next time, if perhaps you bothered with a premise, and actually managed to correctly quote my statements, perhaps I might have a bit more respect. In addition, watching someone who can't correctly format a post on the Internet try to argue against Einstein is, quite frankly, agonizing.

[paperburn1]

Do you have a link for that?

[Schneibster]

Do you have a link for that?

For what?

Each "controversial" scientific piece? Yes.

Did you have a particular one in mind?

[williatw]

And when they do spend it it's on heartless, greedy, or invasive legislation, like Stand Your Ground or rape wands.

I know I will regret this....but what exactly is your problem with SYG laws? A person should have a legal/moral right to defend themselves when attacked. Burdening the defender with an unrealistic expectation of "duty to retreat" when he can "safely" (in eyes of the court after the fact), ignores the reality of how quickly violence can come out of nowhere. Even a verbal disagreement can rapidly become a violent/life threatening situation, with little preamble to afford a "safe retreat". Don't like the idea of someone who wasn't there being able to decide rather I, faced by a life-threatening situation could have retreated, if only I had wanted to badly enough. I won't even ask what a "rape wand" is.

[Schneibster]

And when they do spend it it's on heartless, greedy, or invasive legislation, like Stand Your Ground or rape wands.

I know I will regret this....but what exactly is your problem with SYG laws?

As applied they allow white people in cars to shoot walking black people who make them feel uncomfortable, by carrying tea and raisins back from the 7-eleven on a rainy night. Even after a police dispatcher tells them to stay in their car and let the black dude go home and eat his raisins and drink his tea. Maybe he'll play a video game.

Point of it is there is no question as to competent determination of probable cause. Probable cause becomes "being black." Cops are trained to recognize probable cause; in fact, their jobs depend on it and they may well be fired for blowing a call on probable cause.

And there are plenty of questions about cops.

Now you wanna let AMATEURS in on it? How you gonna train the AMATEURS? You can't even reliably train the cops, you keep cutting funding for it in government shutdowns.

Teh stupid, it burns.

Next question?

[williatw]

And when they do spend it it's on heartless, greedy, or invasive legislation, like Stand Your Ground or rape wands.

I know I will regret this....but what exactly is your problem with SYG laws?

As applied they allow white people in cars to shoot walking black people who make them feel uncomfortable, by carrying tea and raisins back from the 7-eleven on a rainy night. Even after a police dispatcher tells them to stay in their car.

Point of it is there is no question as to competent determination of probable cause. Probable cause becomes "being black." Cops are trained to recognize probable cause; in fact, their jobs depend on it and they may well be fired for blowing a call on probable cause.

And there are plenty of questions about cops.

Now you wanna let AMATEURS in on it?

Next question?

Zimmerman didn't shoot him because he felt uncomfortable, at best he followed him for that reason, he argued that he shot him because he was pinned to the ground being pummeled when he drew his weapon and shot in self-defense. SYG laws didn't enter into it accept in the jury instruction from the judge after both sides had rested. Whether Zimmerman's decision to follow Martin was the right one was therefore irrelevant to his defense & acquittal. The fact that he shouldn't have followed Martin doesn't nullify what Martin did, attacking Zimmerman, pinning him to the ground and pummeling him "ground and pound".

[Schneibster]

Zimmerman... followed him for that reason

against orders from the dispatcher. A cop would be fired for that, and Trayvon's relatives would be the recipients of benefits from insurance companies avoiding a court case.

This odious law twists it around so the bereaved are robbed.

[williatw]

Zimmerman... followed him for that reason

against orders from the dispatcher. A cop would be fired for that, and Trayvon's relatives would be the recipients of benefits from insurance companies avoiding a court case.

This odious law twists it around so the bereaved are robbed.

Under oath (I heard it in the trial) the dispatcher testified that it was not an order, that in fact she had no authority to order him, that it was a suggestion. "We dont need you to do that". And once more SYG laws didn't enter into it. And the idea that someone can attack someone else try to beat their brains out, and have there relatives sue you successfully for your shooting them in self-defense is what's wrong with our laws.