turtlespeed

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    63,487

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by turtlespeed

  3. On 9/18/2020 at 12:24 PM, kallend said:

    Explain why it takes 10 years for British police to kill as many people as US cops kill in an average month.

    Because they don't have the criminal element we have here.

  4. On 9/17/2020 at 4:43 PM, kallend said:

    Must be time to dig out  the Boston Tea Party picture again.

    Well, when you can explain the taxation that is not represented . . .

    If anything it is overly represented.

  5. On 9/17/2020 at 4:42 PM, SkyDekker said:

    Except that when LEO steps out of bounds they tend to be put on paid administrative leave for a few years. Generally even if fired, they get rehired by another agency. 

    Because there are labor laws, unions, and a litigious society.

  6. · Edited by turtlespeed

    On 9/18/2020 at 12:15 PM, billvon said:

    Just - wow.  Using presidential powers to protect an enemy of the US who is attacking the electoral process, because it might benefit the president.  There's a word for that.

    LONDON—Lawyers representing the United States at Julian Assange’s extradition trial in Britain have accepted the claim that the WikiLeaks founder was offered a presidential pardon by a Congressman on the condition that he would help cover up Russia’s involvement in hacking emails from the Democratic National Committee.

    Jennifer Robinson, a lawyer, told the court that she had attended a meeting between Assange, then Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, and pro-Trump troll Charles Johnson at Assange’s hide-out, the Ecuadorian embassy in London, on August 15, 2017.

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/us-admits-that-putins-favorite-congressman-offered-pardon-to-assange-if-he-covered-up-russia-links

    Is there proof of this?

    Or did it just get said?

  7. · Edited by turtlespeed

    On 9/17/2020 at 2:29 PM, SkyDekker said:

    So which exact decision did Obama make that turned "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" into a lie?

    What evidence do you have that indicates this was untrue when he said it. What specific decision did he make that changed this?

    His advisors admission.

    Here is some info - https://www.politifact.com/article/2013/dec/12/lie-year-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/

    His "You can keep your plan" mantra was just as true as Trumps comments about the covid being gone - Sounded good at the time, but anyone with a brain knew what was probably going to happen.

    The left doubled and tripled and quadrupled down on that though didn't they?

  9. 7 hours ago, brenthutch said:

    To address your point, I don’t believe that renewable power companies rely 100% on government handouts.  However, if they were truly  profitable, private capital would flood in and finance their efforts.  But they are not and that is why they need governmental backstops in the form of direct subsidies, tax breaks, feed-in tariffs and mandates.

    They could be profitable, but the cant be Affordable, and profitable.

  11. · Edited by turtlespeed

    22 hours ago, mistercwood said:

    Almost. For a true level playing field you'd strip the subsidies from fossil fuels completely now, but continue providing them to green energy for about another century, so that they've each had roughly the same support overall.

    This is my *massive* bugbear with Brent's constant crying about subsidies and how big oil doesn't need them - he never, ever, ever acknowledges that the fact they're viable now without them is also a product of how long they've had them in the past.

     

    Its not a zero sum game.

    Its a what can we afford now game.

    If that's the case we would need to roll back the dollar amounts and adjust for inflation.

    Plus - we would then need to take innovation, technology, and invention into account, if you wanted it to be fair.

    All of those three were a substantial. and VITAL part of the ability to create the batteries we have now.

    So - I say lets call it even and just drop the subsidies.

    Quote

    It's the equivalent of a trust fund kid whose parents bought their way into Harvard, complaining that their poorer classmate shouldn't be allowed in if they're using any scholarship funds.

    While that scholarship fund kid has been given all the answers to the test before he even had to study for it. 

  12. · Edited by turtlespeed

    23 hours ago, kallend said:

    I'm good with that, just so long as ALL the costs associated with fossil fuels are included.  That would include the costs of remediation and cleanup currently borne by taxpayers or ignored altogether.

    We do agree on some things  . . . ALL - each and every one of its drill sites.

    But that also means that Green energy needs to foot its own bill for clean up and remediation in ALL of its material gathering and Mining sites.

    Side Note: I bet you didn't know I was an avid believer in the clean water act and think it stopped short, did you?

  13. On 9/18/2020 at 4:58 PM, olofscience said:

    If all fossil fuel AND green energy subsidies were removed, both would survive. But renewable energy will actually win out eventually - like electric cars, there's plenty of other reasons to buy them even though Brent thinks upfront cost is everything and that everyone should just buy a Honda like him.

    Eventually isn't even in this century though.

    I agree - but what is the fix right NOW?

    I still say to let the chips fall where they may.  Use those subsidies toward Social Security Debt.

  14. · Edited by turtlespeed

    21 hours ago, headoverheels said:

    I'm sure that McConnell will push to wait for the new President to nominate a justice next year.

     

    Why would he?

    This is what Hilary had to say:

    image.png.b96d4de9ac1065d4ec33c485596c4421.png

    LOL

    How soon we forget, eh?

    Hypocrisy is exactly what the left has now.

    Quote

    It's all about power. You either have the votes or you don't. There are no morals involved whatsoever.

     

    And then THIS little nugget.

    Quote

    The brazen hypocrisy is astounding. Has there ever been a more odious smear of shit in a position of power than Mitch McConnell?

    Evidently, yes, and it was Hillary.

    • Like 1

  15. Just so I'm clear - Subsidies for oil is Good on Brent's side, but horrific to behold on the Green side.

    All the while - The green side is OK with Solar and Wind subsidies, even though they are much less efficient.

    The subsidies are keeping the prices artificially low so the public doesn't get hit in the pocketbook quite so hard. 

    That's easy - remove all subsidies and let the market figure it out.

    BUT - that would kill green energy, because people are greedy.

    Is that about right?

     

     

  18. · Edited by turtlespeed

    3 hours ago, nigel99 said:

    I’m genuinely surprised at some of the attitudes here. Within my family age gap relationships have been quite common and both ways. My brothers wife was 21 years older than him and they were very happy until she passed away after 20+ years of marriage.

    i has an 18 year gap 

    Its not about the size of the gap - It's ALL about the age at which the participants start the romantic relationship.

    Now that I typed that - I wanted to place in there a caveat that I suppose in some circumstances, where a platonic relationship was fostered before the romantic one, that MIGHT not apply . . . but then I didn't want to think about that anymore. It was a creepy thought.

  19. 3 hours ago, kallend said:

    So far.  The season isn't over yet.

    3/5ths or so has passed.

    2/5ths remain . . .

    And the rate we are going - we will meet and exceed all of the NOAA predictions, with the exception of maybe the strength of Cat 3 or above.

    But Brent will take that micro point and disqualify the entire prediction and say - "See NOAA cant predict anything - so Climate change caused by (non natural introduction of chemicals and elements and compounds into the air)AKA Man Made Climate Change is a hoax!"

    Am I right?

  20. · Edited by turtlespeed

    10 hours ago, headoverheels said:

    Had McCain chosen Kasich as VP, they likely would have won, and Kasich would be President now.  I disagree with both of them on some issues, but they would not have used the office to line their own pockets, and would not have lost American stature and influence in the world.

    I believe they would have lined their pockets just like every other politician would have.

    Probably not to the extent, nor as blatantly as Trump, but, the coffers would be much fuller. (more full?)

  21. 13 hours ago, murps2000 said:

    One of his sons died in May of 2015. That may have affected his decision on whether or not to run in 2016.

    The DNC had Hillary scheduled for the Presidency.  Anything other than that, the DNC wouldn't have considered.

  22. 13 hours ago, kallend said:

    He only hires "the best people".  He told us.

    Nobody knows more about the military (or anything else) than he does.  He told us that too.

    Did he say that he knows more about ad agencies, their hiring practices, and low to mid level management practices?

    I'm sure the university that you worked for hired several employees that have made grand mistakes before. 

    I know you are above such reproach, as you are perfect.  I'd imaging that someone was to be held accountable for a misdeed there somewhere though, eh?

    Or, is this just a bunch of back slapping, Trump Hating, good ol' boys humor?

    The reason I ask is that you seem to be taking it very seriously.  That isn't to say that you have any real reasoning behind it, but serious nonetheless.

     

     

  24. 15 hours ago, murps2000 said:

    Okay. So I'm still wondering what is your point? There are dozens of active fires in California right now, including at least 15 that are either close to or well above 100,000 acres in size. 

    https://firemap.sdsc.edu/

    This is a very comprehensive site for following them. The map has layers much like google, and it gets interesting when you overlay current and historic fires. Trends are noticeable. Of course, nothing is mentioned about causes, so it may not provide information that is of interest to you.

    There is controversy over brush clearing, forest management, Global Warming, Climate change, and people have started fires in order to prove their point in the past.

    It is also extremely difficult to prove arson in that situation.

    It seems reasonable to me that someone with an agenda has made some of this happen intentionally. 

  25. 12 hours ago, mistercwood said:

    I didn't read this correctly the first time but I think... yes? Assuming that stat rape was not a felony for hetero engagements, yes.

    My understanding is the explicit change in the language of the existing law was to add anal and oral intercourse, whereas it had previously only stated vaginal.

    Oral isn't sex.  Bill said so! ¬¬