Current Events-nothing Trump
Quote: darkoz
So 70% of the glaciers have disappeared since 1850 in that location and you are celebrating victory?
If you studied science you would know that glaciers have been disappearing for 10,000 years. Glaciers cut much of the rough area in the eastern USA. The have been receding since the last ice age.
Quote:Thats according to that same article
There is a difference between getting an estimate wrong and getting an entire theory wrong.
See above. The scientists were totally wrong. And you want to know why I do not believe in GW? It is because they keep putting out this nonsense, which the GW believers lap up. The believers tell us to "listen to the scientists, don't dare question them!" And, AGAIN, the scientists got it wrong.
The only "theory" is noticing we are in a 10,000 year warming cycle. The famous hockey-stick uptick probably just means we are near the end of it.
Quote:Like when a cancer patient given 6 months to live and actually dies in 12 you go around scoffing at the doctors because their estimate for the inevitable was wrong, even though the overall prediction was correct
No, not really. Cancer is easily measurable and provable. GW is not. To call GW "science" is to call People Magazine "journalism."
Quote: AZDuffmanIf you studied science you would know that glaciers have been disappearing for 10,000 years. Glaciers cut much of the rough area in the eastern USA. The have been receding since the last ice age.
See above. The scientists were totally wrong. And you want to know why I do not believe in GW? It is because they keep putting out this nonsense, which the GW believers lap up. The believers tell us to "listen to the scientists, don't dare question them!" And, AGAIN, the scientists got it wrong.
The only "theory" is noticing we are in a 10,000 year warming cycle. The famous hockey-stick uptick probably just means we are near the end of it.
No, not really. Cancer is easily measurable and provable. GW is not. To call GW "science" is to call People Magazine "journalism."
Are you a scientist?
Its a serious question.
Im trying to see if you have done the research
I will admit I am not a scientist and have not done the research. The scientists could be wrong...
However there seems to be an abundance of discussion that points to GW as real.
So if you are simply stating you refuse to believe the professionals there really isnt much to debate, right? I could show you mountains of evidence and you would state it proves nothing since you refuse to believe. (Same is true of me the opposite direction)
If you tell me you yourself are a scientist and have come to a different conclusion about GW, now that will have more weight with me
Quote: darkozAre you a scientist?
Its a serious question.
Im trying to see if you have done the research
I will admit I am not a scientist and have not done the research. The scientists could be wrong...
However there seems to be an abundance of discussion that points to GW as real.
So if you are simply stating you refuse to believe the professionals there really isnt much to debate, right? I could show you mountains of evidence and you would state it proves nothing since you refuse to believe. (Same is true of me the opposite direction)
If you tell me you yourself are a scientist and have come to a different conclusion about GW, now that will have more weight with me
No, I am not a scientist. You need not be a scientist to question GW. I am educated and informed. I know how to use critical thinking skills. The "evidence" you speak of is very weak. And more than once, scientists have been caught gaffing the data to help prove their conclusions. Then we have the number of times their predictions have been wrong.
See, to say "well, temps will go up a tenth of a degree C over the next 50 years" is not very sexy. To say we will have no snow by 2013, or the North Pole will be melted by 2015, or the glaciers will be gone by 2020. That is the kind of thing the news picks up, and the sheep lap up. What was that SciFi GW movie of 2004 or so? I knew a woman at the time who thought it was actually real.
One must be educated in more than science to notice what is really going on. If you graduated HS in the USA you probably read "Animal Farm." In the beginning of the book, the pigs rile the other, lesser animals up by telling of how the farmer sleeps in a bed while they sleep in the barn. After the revolution, the pigs justify their own sleeping in the very same beds because they are in charge and have high stress, need to sleep in comfort.
GW believers get riled up by the Algores and Prince Charles' of the world. These guys preach that the world is ending and we must change our lives. They say this while living in mansions and palaces, flying private jets, and riding in SUV limos.
Do you not see the problems here?
Yes, I refuse to believe the "professionals with mountains of evidence" when their evidence is weak, their predictions wrong, and their positions self-serving.
Quote: AZDuffmanSeems I remember some of the folk here getting upset that I called CA out for Third World conditions. Glad to have the NYT on board!
Democrats vision for America. De evolution of the human species.
California and its local governments are $1.5 trillion in debt. One study says their debt is actually $2.3 trillion. Now they’re going to provide health benefits for illegals, at a cost of no less than $100 million, and the Governor wants to increase taxes another $2 billion.
You might want to avoid their bonds.
More than 130,000 officially homeless. Definitely much more than that. Especially with future dems arriving every minute. 28,084 reports of human feces last year on the streets of San Francisco alone. Those are just the ones reported. Homeless living in trees. Number of Tuberculosis infections at twice the national average, and growing. Return of the medieval diseases typhus and typhoid in LA.
Now, they have to worry about ebola. Congolese are arriving every day, and that disease can incubate up to 21 days.
Quote: beachbumbabsWell, that whole fooforaw is just silly. Watermelon is my favorite fruit. I'm as white as the driven slush. Talk about perpetuating stereotypes.
Seriously, we could just grow out of these things together. The kids understood there was no dog whistle - just sweet fruit and a fun contest. Time for the parents to catch up.
Watermelon is also my most favorite summer food. I have already finished off 3 this summer and it's not even mid June.
But what happened to the good old big black seeds in the watermelons of today. There was nothing better than peppering my younger brother sitting across the picnic table with a barrage of seeds after every bite. Good old days.
Quote: wellwellwellWatermelon is also my most favorite summer food. I have already finished off 3 this summer and it's not even mid June.
But what happened to the good old big black seeds in the watermelons of today. There was nothing better than peppering my younger brother sitting across the picnic table with a barrage of seeds after every bite. Good old days.
When I worked produce in college, seedless watermelon was the new thing. Not many sold as they were very expensive compared to the regular. This was about 1989. Now it looks like seedless is the regular thing. FWIW I never liked watermelon. No reason, just not my thing,
Quote: AZDuffmanWhen I worked produce in college, seedless watermelon was the new thing. Not many sold as they were very expensive compared to the regular. This was about 1989. Now it looks like seedless is the regular thing. FWIW I never liked watermelon. No reason, just not my thing,
Yes, I seem to remember the transition from full seeds in the 1960's and 1970's where the seeds were about the size of a fully shelled sunflower seed to seeds about the size of the sunflower seed without the shell in the 1980's to the seedless version of today.
My guess it probably has something to do with that dastardly global warming thingy.
Quote: darkozQuote: AZDuffmanNational Park Quietly Removed Warning That Glaciers ‘Will All Be Gone’ By 2020 After Years Of Heavy Snowfall
But the scientists said they would be gone!
Maybe they will get one right one day.
So 70% of the glaciers have disappeared since 1850 in that location and you are celebrating victory?
Thats according to that same article
There is a difference between getting an estimate wrong and getting an entire theory wrong.
Like when a cancer patient given 6 months to live and actually dies in 12 you go around scoffing at the doctors because their estimate for the inevitable was wrong, even though the overall prediction was correct
No. It’s more equivalent to doctors saying, “He’s going to die within a week” then 6 days later they say, “he’s gonna die within a week” then another 6 days later....they say “oh no he doesn’t have cancer! But he has this new disease. He’s going to die in a week though”....and every week after that they give him 7 days to live.
Idk about you, but I think it’s amazing that “99% of scientists” agree on global warming, they put out all these predictions, yet somehow it seems they’re frequently retracting the predictions and pushing the dooms day date back another 5-15 years. Maybe they’re just really really unlucky?
I simply do not buy the idea that you can predict climate on a large scale to the level of precision these climate scientists are pushing it. It’s like looking at the price of a stock go from $5 to $5.01 in an hour then predicting a year from now it’s going to be between $4,950 and $5,050. Far too precise with little data. Would make actual sense to look at it over the course of 5 years, see it go from $2.75 to $3 to $3.25 to $4.25 to $5 then predict in a year it’s likely going to be between $5.25 and $6.50 (or whatever a sensible prediction is).
I have the same questions of global warming. When I was in school the world was gonna boil itself into a fiery pit by 2000. In 2006, Al Gore predicted the world had 10 years left. In 2018, AOC predicted 12 years. Needless to say, I don't think anyone should be eager to blow their retirement savings based upon thos predictions.
Quote: Gabes22Furthermore, we have many mathematicians on this site, or at least people who are proficient in math. In many locales in this country we have less than 200 years of weather and climate data, probably even less than that which are reliable. The question that needs to be posited is whether the sample size we have is enough to extrapolate reliable data from billions of years of Earth's history?
I have the same questions of global warming. When I was in school the world was gonna boil itself into a fiery pit by 2000. In 2006, Al Gore predicted the world had 10 years left. In 2018, AOC predicted 12 years. Needless to say, I don't think anyone should be eager to blow their retirement savings based upon thos predictions.
Im just going to mention a show where they interviewed someone who was behind the Y2K scare
Remember that? At midnight 2000 computers would crash due to no foresight from programmers when it came to file date solutions (the files were saved as the year 99 due to then current memory issues i think so the fear was when the dates cycled to 00 the computers around the world would be unable to handle it)
No computers in a computer controlled world means havoc
Y2K
The guy who prominently figured this out has been vilified as on January 1st 2000 pretty much nothing happened
In this interview with him he claims......
Because of the warnings computer programmers were able to put a workaround solution in (I actually remember the solution at the time files became saved NOT as year 00 but as year K0. In other words to preserve the 2 year nomenclature a symbol was chosen to keep the computer from going haywire in the new year) this workaround solution SAVED all the computers from crashing thereby avoiding Y2K.
The guy claims he saved the world from disaster and admits the end result was everyone believes he was lying about Y2K since it never happened.
What a conundrum if true. Save the world from disaster and be labeled a charlatan or just let the world implode with your reputation intact?
What would you guys do?
Quote: darkozIm just going to mention a show where they interviewed someone who was behind the Y2K scare
Remember that? At midnight 2000 computers would crash due to no foresight from programmers when it came to file date solutions (the files were saved as the year 99 due to then current memory issues i think so the fear was when the dates cycled to 00 the computers around the world would be unable to handle it)
No computers in a computer controlled world means havoc
Y2K
The guy who prominently figured this out has been vilified as on January 1st 2000 pretty much nothing happened
In this interview with him he claims......
Because of the warnings computer programmers were able to put a workaround solution in (I actually remember the solution at the time files became saved NOT as year 00 but as year K0. In other words to preserve the 2 year nomenclature a symbol was chosen to keep the computer from going haywire in the new year) this workaround solution SAVED all the computers from crashing thereby avoiding Y2K.
The guy claims he saved the world from disaster and admits the end result was everyone believes he was lying about Y2K since it never happened.
What a conundrum if true. Save the world from disaster and be labeled a charlatan or just let the world implode with your reputation intact?
What would you guys do?
This was a BIG deal in ATC at the time. The engineers were sure the entire system would crash without that patch, but they had to find every instance of it and correct them while the system continued to run. They did shut it down sector by sector over months for reprogramming, with adjoining sectors taking the airspace during reboot, in the midnight hours.
Still, a couple places went unplanned ATC-0 during restart because the patch was incomplete or incompatible. They budgeted something like 200M just for that operation, and they did get it done prior to Y2K, so kudos to them.
Quote: darkozIm just going to mention a show where they interviewed someone who was behind the Y2K scare
Remember that? At midnight 2000 computers would crash due to no foresight from programmers when it came to file date solutions (the files were saved as the year 99 due to then current memory issues i think so the fear was when the dates cycled to 00 the computers around the world would be unable to handle it)
No computers in a computer controlled world means havoc
Y2K
The guy who prominently figured this out has been vilified as on January 1st 2000 pretty much nothing happened
In this interview with him he claims......
Because of the warnings computer programmers were able to put a workaround solution in (I actually remember the solution at the time files became saved NOT as year 00 but as year K0. In other words to preserve the 2 year nomenclature a symbol was chosen to keep the computer from going haywire in the new year) this workaround solution SAVED all the computers from crashing thereby avoiding Y2K.
The guy claims he saved the world from disaster and admits the end result was everyone believes he was lying about Y2K since it never happened.
What a conundrum if true. Save the world from disaster and be labeled a charlatan or just let the world implode with your reputation intact?
What would you guys do?
The fault in the analogy is computers are 100% man-made and controllable. No outside forces to change them. And Y2K was one small issue. Different methods were used to update the programs, but in the end it could all be measured and controlled.
GW is an entire planet being acted on by not just internal forces but outside forces of the Sun. We have no proper measurement to know a trend, we cannot know if it is the Sun doing most of the changes. And we cannot be for sure that anything we do will have any effect at all.
A better comparison to your position is the person who goes to church not because they really believe but "just in case" so they do not go to Hell in the next life. Kind of why I believe GW has become a secular religion. GW believers have a part of their mind that must believe in something greater than themselves, but they do not want all the rule of a traditional religion. So "the scientists" become their priests, but they follow more blindly than most people who go to church out of a true belief.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe fault in the analogy is computers are 100% man-made and controllable. No outside forces to change them. And Y2K was one small issue. Different methods were used to update the programs, but in the end it could all be measured and controlled.
GW is an entire planet being acted on by not just internal forces but outside forces of the Sun. We have no proper measurement to know a trend, we cannot know if it is the Sun doing most of the changes. And we cannot be for sure that anything we do will have any effect at all.
A better comparison to your position is the person who goes to church not because they really believe but "just in case" so they do not go to Hell in the next life. Kind of why I believe GW has become a secular religion. GW believers have a part of their mind that must believe in something greater than themselves, but they do not want all the rule of a traditional religion. So "the scientists" become their priests, but they follow more blindly than most people who go to church out of a true belief.
No, that's a very poor comparison. It depends on buying into your false equivalence that a belief system is EVER comparable to facts derived from application of a scientific method to validate them.
That's a fundamental and pervasive flaw in much current debate. It doesn't work with creationism, global warming, or inserting religious bias into lawmaking. It doesn't belong in civic matters, and it's a nonsense substitution , a gaslighting, for actual, observable events.
Quote: beachbumbabsNo, that's a very poor comparison. It depends on buying into your false equivalence that a belief system is EVER comparable to facts derived from application of a scientific method to validate them.
But we do not have "facts" in GW. We look at a reading from a thermometer today and compare that to tree rings 250 years ago and somehow compare the two? We have nothing we can look at 1,000 years ago to measure, but we somehow have a trend? We have no control-planet to look at to isolate human behavior.
Quote:That's a fundamental and pervasive flaw in much current debate. It doesn't work with creationism, global warming, or inserting religious bias into lawmaking. It doesn't belong in civic matters, and it's a nonsense substitution , a gaslighting, for actual, observable events.
Actually, I am using science to compare things. Anthropology to be specific. Religion pops up in virtually every society in history. Popular culture has been mostly against religion in the USA since the 1960s. This has produced more and more atheist/agnostic folks in our society. But the human brain does not change so easily. The need to believe in something is still there. GW has taken the place of religion for many people. I would bet even money that there is a strong correlation between believing in GW and being atheist/agnostic.
If you look with an open mind, GW followers look and act like the followers of a televangelist. It takes someone outside both groups to see it.
Let’s pollute.
Skeptics are people pushing a sharp knife into their belly and saying, “i thought you said it would cut me by now?”
You’re right, I’m sorry, keep pushing. Nothing will happen just like you said.
Quote: rxwineI’m sure we could intentionally pump enough CO2 into the atmosphere to prove once and for all that humans are affecting ppm levels. What the hell, put or shut up if you think it is having no effect.
Let’s pollute.
Skeptics are people pushing a sharp knife into their belly and saying, “i thought you said it would cut me by now?”
You’re right, I’m sorry, keep pushing. Nothing will happen just like you said.
What on earth are you talking about?
Quote: AZDuffmanWhat on earth are you talking about?
How can you deny GW and not be aware of the underlying cause which is being claimed by scientists?
You are aware of the CO2 emissions being claimed as a cause (i am not even asking if you believe it. Just that you are aware that is the supposed cause)
Quote: darkozHow can you deny GW and not be aware of the underlying cause which is being claimed by scientists?
I have given my reasoning over and over, with you and others.
Quote:You are aware of the CO2 emissions being claimed as a cause (i am not even asking if you believe it. Just that you are aware that is the supposed cause)
I am aware. What is the point of your question? How does it relate to my asking what on earth the other poster is taking about?
Quote: AZDuffmanI have given my reasoning over and over, with you and others.
I am aware. What is the point of your question? How does it relate to my asking what on earth the other poster is taking about?
His post referred to CO2 emissions
It was a sarcastic response but you asked what he was talking about
If someone discusses CO2 emissions in regard to GW and then another poster asks what they are talking about it seems logical that question is because they dont know about CO2 emissions
Quote: darkozHis post referred to CO2 emissions
It was a sarcastic response but you asked what he was talking about
If someone discusses CO2 emissions in regard to GW and then another poster asks what they are talking about it seems logical that question is because they dont know about CO2 emissions
Oh. He needs to work on his sarcasm then. I would have assumed anyone following the thread sees quite clearly that I am very informed about GW theory. Informed enough to not just dismiss it, but to have given multiple reasons for my dismissal. He just said something about pumping out all kinds of CO2 for some unknown reason.
Sarcasm is the use of irony to convey contempt. Like, "Calling for blizzard and record cold, is it time for the GW convention?" This uses irony because there have been several GW conventions held during record snow or/and cold and conveys contempt for the GW position because they are having problems with the same cold weather and snow they say was supposed to not happen.
Saying "then lets pump CO2" is not sarcasm by that definition. So that is why I did not get it.
My x and I went to Glacier national park in the late 70's and were at the lake that that glacier feeds [glacier lake]. Had a blanket on the shore and she stripped naked and went out to about 3 foot deep and squatted down until just her head was sticking out.Quote: AZDuffmanNational Park Quietly Removed Warning That Glaciers ‘Will All Be Gone’ By 2020 After Years Of Heavy Snowfall
But the scientists said they would be gone!
Maybe they will get one right one day.
She said, cuh cuh come on on in in, the wuh water's fuh fine. I said, you're a ****ing liar. She stood up so fast and almost ran out on top of the water it was so frigging cold. I should have known then.
Quote: darkoz
The guy claims he saved the world from disaster and admits the end result was everyone believes he was lying about Y2K since it never happened
What a conundrum if true. Save the world from disaster and be labeled a charlatan or just let the world implode with your reputation intact?
What would you guys do?
I will try and phrase how I see the problem. I would contend there is no problem waiting on doing anything until there is enough satisfying data, with the exception, on any problem where the satisfying data is not received soon enough to solve it. So if the conclusion on the data comes without the ability to resolve it, as you've waited too long to implement it, you've got an issue on your hands if trouble is coming as you waited too long to correct it.
Three things are true. The planet is warming. The CO2 is rising. And the rising coincides steeply with human activity. You can say correlation doesn't equal causation, but you just have to buy that it is a big coincidence then. They may not have temps recorded way back when, but you can look at recent ice cores, older ice cores, and even very very very old ice cores and get CO2 data. It has RISEN very significantly recently at least as large time scales go.
If the argument were that we were endangering lives making the decision to try to circumvent what is happening I think it would be a fair argument against doing anything. But we're not. If the argument was that we will never need alternative energy developed, that too would be a good argument. We will eventually develop it anyway. What we would be doing is something we would do in the future anyway, with the advantage that it might avert some disaster by doing it now. Yes, people will possibly lose jobs in one energy sector but that isn't even a good argument as we can create jobs in a new energy sector.
Quote: Gabes22What method of pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is your preferred method? How about we all just heavily exhale in unison?
Favorite? Deflating T_ _ _ _'s head.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/north-korean-leaders-slain-half-brother-was-said-to-have-been-a-cia-informant-11560203662?shareToken=stf742ea1d97cd46f79d6774c94d2e725b&reflink=share_mobilewebshare
Quote: petroglyphLooks like Kim had a reason to have him killed, if that's what happened. It's ok to kill traitors isn't it?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/north-korean-leaders-slain-half-brother-was-said-to-have-been-a-cia-informant-11560203662?shareToken=stf742ea1d97cd46f79d6774c94d2e725b&reflink=share_mobilewebshare
So if you knew there was an American who was a traitor you would have no problem with him being killed without a fair trial?
And by having a chemical wash slathered in his face in an airport?
Quote: darkozSo if you knew there was an American who was a traitor you would have no problem with him being killed without a fair trial?
No, but let’s not be naive enough to pretend our own government hasn’t likely done this on several occasions throughout history without our knowledge, probably through third parties to retain plausible deniability.
Quote: mcallister3200No, but let’s not be naive enough to pretend our own government hasn’t likely done this on several occasions throughout history without our knowledge, probably through third parties to retain plausible deniability.
Sadly, I will agree with you on that one
I am against most of the killing that our government has been doing. Just pointing out Kim may have had cause, and the link indicates our see eye eh agency may not be angels.Quote: darkozSo if you knew there was an American who was a traitor you would have no problem with him being killed without a fair trial?
And by having a chemical wash slathered in his face in an airport?
Oops, didn't mean to edit after you'd acknowledged this post, apology's.
First deny, then devalue, then deflect, then disengage. It's as if they stole HBO's script for Chernobyl and made it official policy. And we've the hubris to call ourselves "great".
Never Forget™
8/24/1814.
Passed, more nonsense from California.
So now guests get bulk shampoo and soap holders that are proven to contain germs and other items put in by customers.
Is California even still in America?
Quote: Bozhttps://viewfromthewing.boardingarea.com/2019/04/14/california-threatens-to-destroy-the-hotel-bathroom-experience-outlawing-mini-toiletry-bottles/
Passed, more nonsense from California.
So now guests get bulk shampoo and soap holders that are proven to contain germs and other items put in by customers.
Is California even still in America?
They will not be satisfied until they completely collapse the state. Place is getting to be a parallel universe.
Quote: Bozhttps://viewfromthewing.boardingarea.com/2019/04/14/california-threatens-to-destroy-the-hotel-bathroom-experience-outlawing-mini-toiletry-bottles/
Passed, more nonsense from California.
So now guests get bulk shampoo and soap holders that are proven to contain germs and other items put in by customers.
Is California even still in America?
Do you really care that much about toiletries in California hotels? Lol.
Imam Bassem Al-Sheraa
No doubt he's a dem.
Two weeks later, and Muslim democrat congresswomen Tlaib and Omar have kept their mouths shut. They know how to behave.
Inshallah.
Quote: Bozhttps://viewfromthewing.boardingarea.com/2019/04/14/california-threatens-to-destroy-the-hotel-bathroom-experience-outlawing-mini-toiletry-bottles/
Passed, more nonsense from California.
So now guests get bulk shampoo and soap holders that are proven to contain germs and other items put in by customers.
Is California even still in America?
Most CET properties in Vegas are switching to the big shampoo and soap dispensers in the showers.
Is Vegas still even in America?
Quote: darkozDo you really care that much about toiletries in California hotels? Lol.
I do for multiple reasons, I love visiting the Northern part of the state and have friends that own and operate breweries there. The taxes and regulations are killing them, and many lean liberal, yet still complain that it’s gone too far. Once you get north of SF and all it’s homeless and other problems, and over the Golden Gate it’s beautiful country that everyone should visit.
And of course I am concerned about the silliness like this where governments believe they know what’s best for businesses and individuals. Granted, this will save tens of millions a year for the hotel industry and they may even have been involved. But it comes down to the government telling a business what they can and cannot legally offer its customers.
Just remember the next time you use a bulk shampoo dispenser, you never know what a conscientious objector could have put in there.
Quote: ams288Most CET properties in Vegas are switching to the big shampoo and soap dispensers in the showers.
Is Vegas still even in America?
Caesars never met a cost savings option it didn’t like. Any wonder why they are such a mess that Eldorado is even an option to buy them out?
And it’s called CHOICE, not the government telling them they must do it.
Huge difference.
Quote: BozI do for multiple reasons, I love visiting the Northern part of the state and have friends that own and operate breweries there. The taxes and regulations are killing them, and many lean liberal, yet still complain that it’s gone too far. Once you get north of SF and all it’s homeless and other problems, and over the Golden Gate it’s beautiful country that everyone should visit.
And of course I am concerned about the silliness like this where governments believe they know what’s best for businesses and individuals. Granted, this will save tens of millions a year for the hotel industry and they may even have been involved. But it comes down to the government telling a business what they can and cannot legally offer its customers.
Just remember the next time you use a bulk shampoo dispenser, you never know what a conscientious objector could have put in there.
Government makes these decisions.
Alcohol, tobacco, drugs, food.
Im sure the soap issue has to do with the amount of opened and 3/4 unused bottles that add immensely to garbage and waste disposal.
Sometimes the government does overreach. They tried in NYC to pass a soda ban on restaurants limiting how much soda could be sold.
BTW, that was a proposal of Mayor Bloomberg REPUBLICAN and quickly challenged by the NYC liberals.
See you and me can be on the same side sometimes as im certain you dont support the government telling businesses how much soda they can sell right?
Quote: BozI do for multiple reasons, I love visiting the Northern part of the state and have friends that own and operate breweries there. The taxes and regulations are killing them, and many lean liberal, yet still complain that it’s gone too far. Once you get north of SF and all it’s homeless and other problems, and over the Golden Gate it’s beautiful country that everyone should visit.
And of course I am concerned about the silliness like this where governments believe they know what’s best for businesses and individuals. Granted, this will save tens of millions a year for the hotel industry and they may even have been involved. But it comes down to the government telling a business what they can and cannot legally offer its customers.
Just remember the next time you use a bulk shampoo dispenser, you never know what a conscientious objector could have put in there.
I agree. And so does CET, really. When I get a basic room I'm stuck with those dispensers. I use my own. For all I know, some jerk has added hair remover to the shampoo.
The reason I say CET agrees is, when I get an upgraded room, it has the individual soaps and shampoos, even if it also has the dispensers in the shower.
People share lots of things - salt and pepper, sugar shakers, ketchup and condiments, towels and sheets that are laundered - and I rarely think twice. But something about those dispensers and their simple lids gives me the creeps.
I know several other people who bring their own bedlinens, though, so at least I don't take it that far...lol.
Quote: darkoz
BTW, that was a proposal of Mayor Bloomberg REPUBLICAN and quickly challenged by the NYC liberals.
Not exactly. Bloomberg was a lifelong Democrat who switched to the GOP to run for mayor who later left the GOP and stayed as an independent.
RINO at best.
Quote: rxwineThe only bad thing about that policy was the banning part. If soda was banned forever, or never existed it would be absolutely great. A literal gift to humanity.
Do you really want to live in a world without Coca-Cola?--Walter White.
Quote: AZDuffmanNot exactly. Bloomberg was a lifelong Democrat who switched to the GOP to run for mayor who later left the GOP and stayed as an independent.
RINO at best.
Thats funny
Sounds like Donald Trump as well
Lifelong Democrat switches to GOP to run for president
EDIT: oh sorry this is the nothing trump thread.
Never mind
Fewer women are having abortions. Why?
If that not clear enough that they think a decline in abortion rates is not a good thing, how about a quote from the article:
Quote: Mary Ziegler, a professor at the Florida State University College of Law who specializes in the legal history of reproduction
"We've changed what was an undeniable consensus — that reducing abortion was the goal," Ziegler said. "Now we're looking at whether the decline in abortion rates is something to be celebrated or worried about."
So please, do not tell me the "pro-choice movement" is not really pro-abortion. And when you support them, know what you are really supporting.
Quote: AZDuffmanI keep hearing that "pro-choice" folks are not "pro-abortion." Well, look at a recent USA Today headline:
Fewer women are having abortions. Why?
If that not clear enough that they think a decline in abortion rates is not a good thing, how about a quote from the article:Quote: Mary Ziegler, a professor at the Florida State University College of Law who specializes in the legal history of reproduction
"We've changed what was an undeniable consensus — that reducing abortion was the goal," Ziegler said. "Now we're looking at whether the decline in abortion rates is something to be celebrated or worried about."
So please, do not tell me the "pro-choice movement" is not really pro-abortion. And when you support them, know what you are really supporting.
But I am telling you.
Please dont tell me the opposite
Quote: darkozQuote: AZDuffmanI keep hearing that "pro-choice" folks are not "pro-abortion." Well, look at a recent USA Today headline:
Fewer women are having abortions. Why?
If that not clear enough that they think a decline in abortion rates is not a good thing, how about a quote from the article:Quote: Mary Ziegler, a professor at the Florida State University College of Law who specializes in the legal history of reproduction
"We've changed what was an undeniable consensus — that reducing abortion was the goal," Ziegler said. "Now we're looking at whether the decline in abortion rates is something to be celebrated or worried about."
So please, do not tell me the "pro-choice movement" is not really pro-abortion. And when you support them, know what you are really supporting.
But I am telling you.
Please dont tell me the opposite
You can tell me whatever you want. This is at least the third think I have linked to show my point. A John Cleese reply of "no, it isn't" does not compare.
