Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Green Is the Color of Their Daddies' MoneyGreat, so much for oil independence and getting us out of our perpetual wars in the Middle east....Must be the Military Industrial complex pushing this measure....
idiots, and hypocrites, and war mongers
For Best Results, Pack the Goo in Snowflakes Before UsingEPA chief's travel habits pushed taxpayer-funded costs to at least $90,000 in just a few days
What EPA chief Scott Pruitt promised — and what he’s done
But instead, Pruitt has rolled back or stalled environmental protections, given the fossil fuel and chemistry industries more sway over public health decisions and taken steps that critics fear will undermine work on pollution cleanups, according to an analysis of what he’s accomplished to date. He says he will be tough on environmental crimes, but his agency is also easing up on enforcement and collecting far less in penalties than previous administrations, according to agency watchdogs.
This is the FU Administration.
.... somebody like Jillian taking these massive bumpy cucumbers all the time.... you can just tell from the posts how utterly miserable.... reminds me that I need to take a look at the stocks of the makers of Preparation H
For Best Results, Pack the Goo in Snowflakes Before UsingEPA chief's travel habits pushed taxpayer-funded costs to at least $90,000 in just a few days
What EPA chief Scott Pruitt promised — and what he’s done
But instead, Pruitt has rolled back or stalled environmental protections, given the fossil fuel and chemistry industries more sway over public health decisions and taken steps that critics fear will undermine work on pollution cleanups, according to an analysis of what he’s accomplished to date. He says he will be tough on environmental crimes, but his agency is also easing up on enforcement and collecting far less in penalties than previous administrations, according to agency watchdogs.
This is the FU Administration.
.... somebody like Jillian taking these massive bumpy cucumbers all the time.... you can just tell from the posts how utterly miserable.... reminds me that I need to take a look at the stocks of the makers of Preparation H
The H stands for Hillarrhoid. The treatment is covered under Obamacare.
Good that you ADMIT that you progressively prefer liberal biased studies, over conservative, simple common sense, and clear observation. While conservatives sometimes go to self-evident truths as evidence (ex. watching fish swimming to prove they can swim), Democrats have a special technique. They hold STUDIES from universities, liberal think tanks, and media outlets to the throats of conservatives (and anyone else) like knives. We are supposed to be forced to accept their conclusions, coming from esteemed professors with lots of letters after their names. We can’t contradict them, liberals contend, because they're too highly respected.Yes, studies instead of religious beliefs, folktales, stereotyping, anecdotal evidence and rightwing propaganda.
Good that you ADMIT that you progressively prefer liberal biased studies, over conservative, simple common sense, and clear observation. While conservatives sometimes go to self-evident truths as evidence (ex. watching fish swimming to prove they can swim), Democrats have a special technique. They hold STUDIES from universities, liberal think tanks, and media outlets to the throats of conservatives (and anyone else) like knives. We are supposed to be forced to accept their conclusions, coming from esteemed professors with lots of letters after their names. We can’t contradict them, liberals contend, because they're too highly respected.Yes, studies instead of religious beliefs, folktales, stereotyping, anecdotal evidence and rightwing propaganda.
Problem for liberals is, quite often (too often) the studies have major holes in them. Here's a prime example >>>
The Stephens-Davidowitz "racism" study : in this farce, published as undeniable in the New York Times, it was contended that some places in the US were more racist than other places. The study contended that because 57% of Denver, CO, voted for Obama in 2008, and only 48% of Wheeling WV did, that Wheeling was the 7th most "racist" city in America, while Denver was the 4th most “enlightened” city.
Problems here are twofold. First, in places like the Times, the only 1 dimension at play was Obama's race. The Stephens-Davidowitz study failed to consider that Obama was the most fabulous, celebrity-backed candidate for president in a long time - something more important to people in Denver than in West Virginia.
Secondly, on Nov. 2, 2008, two days before the election, Obama vowed to bankrupt the coal industry. He threatened to impose huge fines on coal companies for emissions of greenhouse gases. West Virginia's economy is 99% (energy) and 60% (business taxes) dependent on coal. The real way to test Stephens-Davidowitz theory about West Virginians, would be to run a non-flashy black candidate who had not pledged to destroy the coal industry, and THEN compare votes.
Here's an alternative to the faulty Stephens-Davidowitz study that the New York Times admired so much >>
Ann Coulter did a study on states' inclinations to racism, also. In Ann's study, different states were compared by participation in the military - an institution with a high level of close-quarter racial mixing, jaw to jaw, in military barracks (hell for racists).
The least racist states were Montana, Texas, Wyoming, Alabama, Alaska, and Idaho. The most racist ones were Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, and Vermont.
I wonder just how competitive would US oil be on the international market? OPEC still controls the price, and many OPEC countries can produce oil more cheaply than the U.S.Green Is the Color of Their Daddies' MoneyGreat, so much for oil independence and getting us out of our perpetual wars in the Middle east....Must be the Military Industrial complex pushing this measure....
idiots, and hypocrites, and war mongers
The only reason we aren't an exporter of oil, like we were for a hundred years, is that Big Oil extorts a huge profit margin on artificial scarcity. So who do you conclude finances the "Environmentalists"?
I wonder just how competitive would US oil be on the international market? OPEC still controls the price, and many OPEC countries can produce oil more cheaply than the U.S.Green Is the Color of Their Daddies' MoneyGreat, so much for oil independence and getting us out of our perpetual wars in the Middle east....Must be the Military Industrial complex pushing this measure....
idiots, and hypocrites, and war mongers
The only reason we aren't an exporter of oil, like we were for a hundred years, is that Big Oil extorts a huge profit margin on artificial scarcity. So who do you conclude finances the "Environmentalists"?
No, computers make cars perform a lot better. They start a 1000 times more reliably, get better fuel mileage and the transmissions last longer because of electronics. Just imagine if they were applied to true muscle cars. -1.9 seconds quarter mile!Can we get rid of the computers and dang crank sensors while they are at it......................
Need a computer to say........YOUR CAR IS CRANKED............LOL
No, computers make cars perform a lot better. They start a 1000 times more reliably, get better fuel mileage and the transmissions last longer because of electronics. Just imagine if they were applied to true muscle cars. -1.9 seconds quarter mile!Can we get rid of the computers and dang crank sensors while they are at it......................
Need a computer to say........YOUR CAR IS CRANKED............LOL
Quoting Albert Einstein, "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen". Conservatives are always falling back on claims of common sense and self evident truths to support their arguments. In reality, they are asking that their beliefs be accepted with no real proof, anecdotal evidence instead of empirical evidence.Good that you ADMIT that you progressively prefer liberal biased studies, over conservative, simple common sense, and clear observation. While conservatives sometimes go to self-evident truths as evidence (ex. watching fish swimming to prove they can swim), Democrats have a special technique. They hold STUDIES from universities, liberal think tanks, and media outlets to the throats of conservatives (and anyone else) like knives. We are supposed to be forced to accept their conclusions, coming from esteemed professors with lots of letters after their names. We can’t contradict them, liberals contend, because they're too highly respected.Yes, studies instead of religious beliefs, folktales, stereotyping, anecdotal evidence and rightwing propaganda.
Problem for liberals is, quite often (too often) the studies have major holes in them. Here's a prime example >>>
The Stephens-Davidowitz "racism" study : in this farce, published as undeniable in the New York Times, it was contended that some places in the US were more racist than other places. The study contended that because 57% of Denver, CO, voted for Obama in 2008, and only 48% of Wheeling WV did, that Wheeling was the 7th most "racist" city in America, while Denver was the 4th most “enlightened” city.
Problems here are twofold. First, in places like the Times, the only 1 dimension at play was Obama's race. The Stephens-Davidowitz study failed to consider that Obama was the most fabulous, celebrity-backed candidate for president in a long time - something more important to people in Denver than in West Virginia.
Secondly, on Nov. 2, 2008, two days before the election, Obama vowed to bankrupt the coal industry. He threatened to impose huge fines on coal companies for emissions of greenhouse gases. West Virginia's economy is 99% (energy) and 60% (business taxes) dependent on coal. The real way to test Stephens-Davidowitz theory about West Virginians, would be to run a non-flashy black candidate who had not pledged to destroy the coal industry, and THEN compare votes.
Here's an alternative to the faulty Stephens-Davidowitz study that the New York Times admired so much >>
Ann Coulter did a study on states' inclinations to racism, also. In Ann's study, different states were compared by participation in the military - an institution with a high level of close-quarter racial mixing, jaw to jaw, in military barracks (hell for racists).
The least racist states were Montana, Texas, Wyoming, Alabama, Alaska, and Idaho. The most racist ones were Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, and Vermont.
No, computers make cars perform a lot better. They start a 1000 times more reliably, get better fuel mileage and the transmissions last longer because of electronics. Just imagine if they were applied to true muscle cars. -1.9 seconds quarter mile!Can we get rid of the computers and dang crank sensors while they are at it......................
Need a computer to say........YOUR CAR IS CRANKED............LOL
That's the common myth folks swallow. The fact is there is nothing to maintain on electronics, they either work or they don't. Used to be that 100,000 miles on a car was just about it's limit. Today it's two or three times that, usually. What you may mean is that modern cars are harder to diagnose than older cars but with a little common sense and some basic understanding of electricity and a few tech tools, you can fix some things on your car. It's actually easier because many of the mechanical devices no longer exist. Electronics have simplified the control valve body on automatic transmission quite a bit. Now instead of a complex series of valves used to control shifts, you have solenoids that if failed, provide a code for your scan tool to read, telling you where to look for the problem. Giving just one example....No, computers make cars perform a lot better. They start a 1000 times more reliably, get better fuel mileage and the transmissions last longer because of electronics. Just imagine if they were applied to true muscle cars. -1.9 seconds quarter mile!Can we get rid of the computers and dang crank sensors while they are at it......................
Need a computer to say........YOUR CAR IS CRANKED............LOL
True, but MUCH harder and expensive to maintain all that modern stuff. I used to do my own repairs on older no computer based models, because it was so much cheaper and simpler to do.
So, when your argument is shown to be flawed, just reframe the discussion. Got it.There are a lot of other considerations in owning a new car today vs. 60 years ago. Urbanization has created huge traffic nightmares in most of our large cities. Today the average America has an hour driving time to and from work in our major cities. And when they get to work, there's a matter of parking. The average cost of parking is $12 a day, and up to $40 in some major cities and this of course is if you can find a parking place. A pleasant Sunday afternoon drive today is more likely to turn into a hour blowing exercise.Let's see if your reasoning stands up to the facts:60 years ago you could buy a new Cadillac convertible for $3400. That's right, not $34,000 but $3400. Who cared if the gas mileage was just 11 mpg. Gas prices were 20 cents a gallon. You could sail down the new interstate highways and freeways at 60 mph+. The world has changed rather drastically. Huge expensive luxury cars and SUV's are white elephants whose appeal is the uber rich .
So, while income grew by 1571%, the cost to buy a new car only rose 993%, a difference of 578% (so the price of a car rose at a rate of about 2/3 that of income). Therefore, are we even comparing apples to apples here? I would argue that now, more than ever, owning a new car is more realistic for the average American.
- The U.S. Census Bureau reported in September 2017 that real median household income was $59,039 in 2016, exceeding any previous year.
- According to Wiki in 1956 it was $3,532.36. An increase of about 1571%.
- Average cost of a new vehilce sold in 2016 was $34,450, according to Average selling price of new vehicles - U.S. 2007-2016 | Statistic
- In 1956 the average was $3,151 (for a Ford) according to Pop History - 1956 Prices| FiftiesWeb For an increase of about 993%.
Note: It is not a direct comparison for the fact that I am comparing the price of a specific make (in 1956) to all makes (in 2017). It was the best I could do without consuming an unreasonable amount of time.
Automobiles are not the status symbol they use to be. Bill Gates drives a Ford Focus. Alice Walton drives 12 year old F-150. Warren Buffett drives a 7 year old Cadillac.
Unlike 60 years ago, people do care about the environment. Motor vehicles are biggest source of air pollution in the US.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-mileage-epa-rule-201803
Great great news for the consumer who has been getting the bumpy cucumber for decades due to these goofball mileage standards!!!
Scott Pruit...EPA head....he is THE MAN
I do my own repairs. having electronics makes cars easier to repair, you just have the learn a little bit about the system. When my transmission on my old trailblazer went out, it cost me 700 dollars to fix it as opposed to 3000 dollars and I know all the parts went into it that should have.No, computers make cars perform a lot better. They start a 1000 times more reliably, get better fuel mileage and the transmissions last longer because of electronics. Just imagine if they were applied to true muscle cars. -1.9 seconds quarter mile!Can we get rid of the computers and dang crank sensors while they are at it......................
Need a computer to say........YOUR CAR IS CRANKED............LOL
Dang.....how dumb.
In the old days I had a Pontiac Ventura with a 350 cubic inch engine. A real POS.... my first car.... but when it broke down I could do the repairs on my own.... and for a song.
Go pull your last 3 or 4 repair bills on your late model car.......
In reality, conservatives know that their beliefs are more than beliefs. Theyare knowledge proven by common sense and direct observation. What liberals do is pretend that their STUDIES (which they try to boost with words like "empirical evidence") are valid, when in fact, often they are about as "valid" as the laughable Davidowitz study (which you just quoted), exposed as foolish nonsense by Ann Coulter. (see post # 144)Quoting Albert Einstein, "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen". Conservatives are always falling back on claims of common sense and self evident truths to support their arguments. In reality, they are asking that their beliefs be accepted with no real proof, anecdotal evidence instead of empirical evidence.
Common sense works very well in resolving simple problems were everyone shares the same set of assumptions. In fact, it's so effective in these circumstances that we are tempted to use it to make decisions, plans, and projections about very complex situation where the basic assumptions are not commonly held and problems are far from simple.
When anyone proposes solutions for the complex problems this nation faces based on common sense, such proposals should be rejected.
Like "common sense" gun laws, right? LOLQuoting Albert Einstein, "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen". Conservatives are always falling back on claims of common sense and self evident truths to support their arguments. In reality, they are asking that their beliefs be accepted with no real proof, anecdotal evidence instead of empirical evidence.Good that you ADMIT that you progressively prefer liberal biased studies, over conservative, simple common sense, and clear observation. While conservatives sometimes go to self-evident truths as evidence (ex. watching fish swimming to prove they can swim), Democrats have a special technique. They hold STUDIES from universities, liberal think tanks, and media outlets to the throats of conservatives (and anyone else) like knives. We are supposed to be forced to accept their conclusions, coming from esteemed professors with lots of letters after their names. We can’t contradict them, liberals contend, because they're too highly respected.Yes, studies instead of religious beliefs, folktales, stereotyping, anecdotal evidence and rightwing propaganda.
Problem for liberals is, quite often (too often) the studies have major holes in them. Here's a prime example >>>
The Stephens-Davidowitz "racism" study : in this farce, published as undeniable in the New York Times, it was contended that some places in the US were more racist than other places. The study contended that because 57% of Denver, CO, voted for Obama in 2008, and only 48% of Wheeling WV did, that Wheeling was the 7th most "racist" city in America, while Denver was the 4th most “enlightened” city.
Problems here are twofold. First, in places like the Times, the only 1 dimension at play was Obama's race. The Stephens-Davidowitz study failed to consider that Obama was the most fabulous, celebrity-backed candidate for president in a long time - something more important to people in Denver than in West Virginia.
Secondly, on Nov. 2, 2008, two days before the election, Obama vowed to bankrupt the coal industry. He threatened to impose huge fines on coal companies for emissions of greenhouse gases. West Virginia's economy is 99% (energy) and 60% (business taxes) dependent on coal. The real way to test Stephens-Davidowitz theory about West Virginians, would be to run a non-flashy black candidate who had not pledged to destroy the coal industry, and THEN compare votes.
Here's an alternative to the faulty Stephens-Davidowitz study that the New York Times admired so much >>
Ann Coulter did a study on states' inclinations to racism, also. In Ann's study, different states were compared by participation in the military - an institution with a high level of close-quarter racial mixing, jaw to jaw, in military barracks (hell for racists).
The least racist states were Montana, Texas, Wyoming, Alabama, Alaska, and Idaho. The most racist ones were Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, and Vermont.
Common sense works very well in resolving simple problems were everyone shares the same set of assumptions. In fact, it's so effective in these circumstances that we are tempted to use it to make decisions, plans, and projections about very complex situation where the basic assumptions are not commonly held and problems are far from simple.
When anyone proposes solutions for the complex problems this nation faces based on common sense, such proposals should be rejected.
in reality, conservatives treat their feelings as facts.
it's quite amusing
