The "anything" bit is your projection.manolo wrote:Typhoon,Typhoon wrote: Given that the pretext of "global warming" is the one most likely to sway the scientifically challenged bureaucrats,
it may be a cynical but clever move to get his way.
Good grief - Trump would say anything to get his way? I'm shocked!
Alex.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 55751.htmlNapLajoieonSteroids wrote:noddy wrote:awww not fair. doesnt count if you dont put it out in public.
apparently they guy id vote for is still irrelevant but polling stronger each year.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ls/484151/
The liberatarians, as currently constructed, are just a pot&immigration uber alles party full of tree house builders. As for Mr.Johnson, he's another with a potted understanding looking for access to the hothouse flowers.
looks like a group focused on the real issues to me.The Libertarian Party convention saw an unexpected striptease after a candidate for the party chair began dancing and stripping down to a thong during his two minute speech.
Typhoon,Typhoon wrote: Given that the pretext of "global warming" is the one most likely to sway the scientifically challenged bureaucrats,
it may be a cynical but clever move to get his way.
The drought, now in its fourth year, is by many measures the worst since the state began keeping records of temperature and precipitation in the 1800s. And with a population now close to 39 million and a thirsty, $50 billion agricultural industry, California has been affected more by this drought than by any previous one.
But scientists say that in the more ancient past, California and the Southwest occasionally had even worse droughts — so-called megadroughts — that lasted decades. At least in parts of California, in two cases in the last 1,200 years, these dry spells lingered for up to two centuries.
The new normal, scientists say, may in fact be an old one.
nod,noddy wrote: perhaps an arid land with droughts that last centuries ...
Beat me to it. Still, don't know what a President would do with a state issue like this.noddy wrote:before we discuss words like 'drought' we need to come to an understanding of what is in fact 'normal'
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/scien ... .html?_r=0
The drought, now in its fourth year, is by many measures the worst since the state began keeping records of temperature and precipitation in the 1800s. And with a population now close to 39 million and a thirsty, $50 billion agricultural industry, California has been affected more by this drought than by any previous one.
But scientists say that in the more ancient past, California and the Southwest occasionally had even worse droughts — so-called megadroughts — that lasted decades. At least in parts of California, in two cases in the last 1,200 years, these dry spells lingered for up to two centuries.
The new normal, scientists say, may in fact be an old one.
perhaps an arid land with droughts that last centuries shouldnt be wasting water on an agriculture business that cant sustain itself, perhaps the government should reallocate it more wisely.
the science is backing him, its up to you to choose between the facts and the progressive faith.
I agree that its incorrect to talk of drought in a dry place as if it means the same thing as drought in a wet place, it most certainly is factually incorrect to claim califorinia should be wetter than it currently is.manolo wrote:nod,noddy wrote: perhaps an arid land with droughts that last centuries ...
I agree with you that Trump was factually incorrect to claim that "There is no drought" in California.
The question of whether scarce water during a drought should be prioritised for agricultural purposes or golf links is a different matter of course, and one for Californians to debate.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/ ... california
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_in_California
Alex.
Quite.noddy wrote:I agree that its incorrect to talk of drought in a dry place as if it means the same thing as drought in a wet place, it most certainly is factually incorrect to claim califorinia should be wetter than it currently is.manolo wrote:nod,noddy wrote: perhaps an arid land with droughts that last centuries ...
I agree with you that Trump was factually incorrect to claim that "There is no drought" in California.
The question of whether scarce water during a drought should be prioritised for agricultural purposes or golf links is a different matter of course, and one for Californians to debate.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/ ... california
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_in_California
Alex.
Nap,NapLajoieonSteroids wrote: Beat me to it. Still, don't know what a President would do with a state issue like this.
SM,Simple Minded wrote: ...as others have noted, humans are one of the few species that knowingly will soil their own nests.
Vote Brexit while you still can! Syria has run out of rapists and are sending hamsters!manolo wrote:SM,Simple Minded wrote: ...as others have noted, humans are one of the few species that knowingly will soil their own nests.
I think about this when I am attending to Felix, our Syrian hamster.
Alex.
Alex,manolo wrote:SM,Simple Minded wrote: ...as others have noted, humans are one of the few species that knowingly will soil their own nests.
I think about this when I am attending to Felix, our Syrian hamster.
Alex.
dont be so flippant, ive heard richard gere has a horror story to tell about the dangers of swarthy rodents.Nonc Hilaire wrote:Vote Brexit while you still can! Syria has run out of rapists and are sending hamsters!manolo wrote:SM,Simple Minded wrote: ...as others have noted, humans are one of the few species that knowingly will soil their own nests.
I think about this when I am attending to Felix, our Syrian hamster.
Alex.
In terms starting malevolent gossip that grew into a cultural meme and finally into an urban legend,noddy wrote:dont be so flippant, ive heard richard gere has a horror story to tell about the dangers of swarthy rodents.Nonc Hilaire wrote:Vote Brexit while you still can! Syria has run out of rapists and are sending hamsters!manolo wrote:SM,Simple Minded wrote: ...as others have noted, humans are one of the few species that knowingly will soil their own nests.
I think about this when I am attending to Felix, our Syrian hamster.
Alex.
The poor fellow. Long after his films have been forgotten, his name will still be associated with "gerbiling".Snopes.
The rumor's spread was aided by an anonymous prankster who, not long after the film Pretty Woman led to a tremendous increase in Gere's popularity, flooded fax machines in Hollywood with a phony "press release" purportedly issued by the Association for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, claiming that Gere had "abused" a gerbil. But, as a reporter from the National Enquirer found when he attempted to track down the gerbil story, there were no facts to be had.
Who doesn't want a President who can thong-bomb a press gathering at the drop of a hat?noddy wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 55751.htmlNapLajoieonSteroids wrote:noddy wrote:awww not fair. doesnt count if you dont put it out in public.
apparently they guy id vote for is still irrelevant but polling stronger each year.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ls/484151/
The liberatarians, as currently constructed, are just a pot&immigration uber alles party full of tree house builders. As for Mr.Johnson, he's another with a potted understanding looking for access to the hothouse flowers.
looks like a group focused on the real issues to me.The Libertarian Party convention saw an unexpected striptease after a candidate for the party chair began dancing and stripping down to a thong during his two minute speech.
It depends on the math. I think I could show you mathematically that in theory you can win so many arguments that your opponents will exclaim, "You're out of your mind!" Thus proving that you can indeed win arguments outside your own head.Simple Minded wrote:A simple re-calibration will change those perceptions......NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:I see Ymix is putting us on double secret probation and Alex is winning arguments in his head.
But others are the ridiculous ones.
Isn't that where all of us win arguments? Except the losers?
(This isn't all directed at you noddy, I'm using your post as a jumping off point because you touch on something I think a lot of people believe- they can get conservative ends by libertarian means- that I don't fully understand.)noddy wrote:hah. probably true, i was under the vague impression he did have state power once and did a decent job of it.
the basic stance of "do what you will but dont expect me to pay for it" that the economic conservative libertarians have is the closest to my worldview.
makes me a 10%er, if only i could piss off that pesky 90%
Amen. Facts, facts, facts, that'll destroy the intellectual Bilderberg front group called OTNOT quicker than........ something really quick.noddy wrote:colonel sun: blah blah facts blah
napster: https://www.google.com/search?q=tony+abbott+speedos
(australias recently deposed conservative leader had a thing for budgie smugglers in public appearances)
NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:It depends on the math. I think I could show you mathematically that in theory you can win so many arguments that your opponents will exclaim, "You're out of your mind!" Thus proving that you can indeed win arguments outside your own head.Simple Minded wrote:A simple re-calibration will change those perceptions......NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:I see Ymix is putting us on double secret probation and Alex is winning arguments in his head.
But others are the ridiculous ones.
Isn't that where all of us win arguments? Except the losers?
NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:(This isn't all directed at you noddy, I'm using your post as a jumping off point because you touch on something I think a lot of people believe- they can get conservative ends by libertarian means- that I don't fully understand.)noddy wrote:hah. probably true, i was under the vague impression he did have state power once and did a decent job of it.
the basic stance of "do what you will but dont expect me to pay for it" that the economic conservative libertarians have is the closest to my worldview.
makes me a 10%er, if only i could piss off that pesky 90%
The thing about libertarians is that there are never around when you need them and they'll always fold when it comes to practicing what they preach. 'Cause there are too many of them that have their own pet issue that is an exception to their nighwatchmen, anything goes mentality. And the party has no way to compromise these positions between people because at heart they uphold the same rotten principles that are eating away at any decency in the political portside.
And what I mean by that goes beyond my own preferences to an increasing inability of people to cope with the ambivalence and ambiguities which are apart of life. And you see it in all political sets- (since we're talkin' American politics here I'll use American terms) the Republicans are not immune. It's just by nature and disposition that it is slower in an omnibus party with social and financial conservatives to express itself as the dominant attitude of its politicos, its affluent and its aspirational....but by God, are they trying their darnedest for it to be so. And that's before we get to the increasingly obnoxious and self-promoting alt-right and that box of misfits...
If we go through the Democratic Party platform, we'd be hard pressed to find an issue that isn't decided around establishing more patron-client relations or increasing rent-seeking behaviors or adjudicating issues depending on who is or isn't a mascot group. It's a way of circumventing legislative rule on all scales as a means to avoid having to make a choice (or compromise) on any issue which has no clear cut solution. The other trick to be found is to hide themselves in status or word games that only the articulate can keep up with. Being articulate and deft enough to keep up with these games has little to do with smarts or wisdom but it sure looks impressive when you lack the confidence to make any choices in life.
And the same goes for the libertarians, who have their own status and word games; but in practice, prefer the courts over legislative bodies, adhere to fashionable class prejudices, assume their own superiority, view the relationship between gov't and its people as a patron-client situation....All you have to do is read a Tyler Cowens' or Peter Thiel, and its really hard to see the utility of the libertarian label or how its going to bring about some alternative to American liberal hegemony.
