Graphs for you to ignore

[edthecynic]

I understand that it doesn't exist in your folks basement....but change out of those
pajamas, shave, and get out in the real world.

You will find a relationship between one's efforts and remuneration.
That's called the free market.

There is no "free market." The free market exists only in the fantasy land of elitist CON$ervative academics who have never run a business.

Hard to have a "free market" with all the regulations the Democrats like to impose. Case in point, Health Care. There would be a "free market" if government allowed insurance companies to compete over state lines. Instead regulations are imposed to stiffle "free market" and, as we can see with the past three years, kill any chance of allowing for growing economy.

That is, of course, pure bullshit. Companies can compete over state lines as long as they meet the standards established by each state. You are now, as a CON$ervative, arguing for the Federal Government to overrule states rights.

As I have shown many many times before, CON$ are on both sides of every issue depending on what is convenient at the time.

 

[edthecynic]

You idiot, we haven't had a Communist/Marxist Revolution because useful idiots such as yourself are legislating Communism/Marxism a little at a time.

Fool.

Obama explained it well in an interview long before he was a candidate. In which he said he was for Single Payer Health Care, but that you had to take Baby steps to get to it, because the Nation would not accept it as a whole all at once.

That's how their whole agenda of Making America a copy of European Socialist countries work. Baby steps, Because the people would run them out of DC if they told the truth about what they really want.

The problem is useful idiots such as Carby and other mindless Obamabots don't even realize what they're supporting.

Of course, that's why Uncle Vlad called them "useful idiots".

As opposed to "useless" idiots like YOU!

 

[daveman]

Obama explained it well in an interview long before he was a candidate. In which he said he was for Single Payer Health Care, but that you had to take Baby steps to get to it, because the Nation would not accept it as a whole all at once.

That's how their whole agenda of Making America a copy of European Socialist countries work. Baby steps, Because the people would run them out of DC if they told the truth about what they really want.

The problem is useful idiots such as Carby and other mindless Obamabots don't even realize what they're supporting.

Of course, that's why Uncle Vlad called them "useful idiots".

As opposed to "useless" idiots like YOU!

Impotent leftist butthurt on display, ladies and gentlemen.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Should I repeat the question?

Does anyone want to help PC on this one?

You've shown no ability to comprehend the material that I've provided...

...instead, you change the subject and feel that that is a winning strategy.

Wrong.

" ...fall under my reference to alleviating the condition of the poor - note: poor being a relative term)"

Had you the most rudimentary understanding, comprehension, you would have realilzed that I eviserated the feeble idea that the system had "...alleviat[ed] the condition of the poor."


I do so appreciate your use as a foil, allowing me to reveal the truth.

You suffer from the common affliction of thinking you're smarter than you are.

Your question is,

would ending Medicaid, and letting all low income people simply get what healthcare they could out of their own pocket,

make America a better place?

If so, how?

You misunderstand the dynamic.

It is you that I think I am smarter than.
The only way you would ever be considered bright would be if I threw a lamp at you.

But, of course, it depends on the meaning of 'smarter.'
If it is alright with you, I'll specify two areas:
I'm more well-read.
and
I actually understand what I am reading.


Now, if you have a greater natural ability than I do, you have to
admit to world class laziness and/or obsessive drug use.
'Else, how to explain your obvioius density.

Now, as for you determining the questions to ask...
a. Who died and made you Fox News?

b. You have yet to demonstrate an understanding of the
vast amount of remediation that I have provided for you.

c. If you do understand my posts, well, then it is interesting
that you have been unable to find any errors in same...
Which should lead to 1) you slapping yourself on the forehead, or
2) emitting such phrases as "Oh, now I get it," or " nobody 'splained
it to me that way before," or "geeez, I shudda stayed in school," etc.,
etc.


Considering your ADD, let me give you the Cliff Notes version:
The progresive-liberal-Left has an erroneous view of human nature, which
accounts for the welfare state.

Details of the above are in my posts in this thread. You would be a far
wiser person if you study and incorporate same into your worldview.



Brutal, huh? Sorry you didn’t run with scissors when you had the chance?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Before people question the validity of these, note that this statistic came from Forbes--the worst of all the bootlicking defenders of the rich.
Trickle down economics is the biggest trick on the American people ever. And you boneheads out there still believe it works. There is no excuse for that level of ignorance.

I love it when ignorant people talk about ignorance.

First, the stats did not come from Forbes, they cam from an analysis of Forbes.

Second, Forbes does not defend the rich, they report on business.

Third, supply side economics has resulted in more poor people getting rich than anything ever tried as a financial policy, your own post actually proves that. That top 5% include people who make half of what Obama targets as being rich. The fact that you have to delve into the middle class to try to make the rich look bad proves you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Before people question the validity of these, note that this statistic came from Forbes--the worst of all the bootlicking defenders of the rich.
Trickle down economics is the biggest trick on the American people ever. And you boneheads out there still believe it works. There is no excuse for that level of ignorance.

I love it when ignorant people talk about ignorance.

First, the stats did not come from Forbes, they cam from an analysis of Forbes.

Second, Forbes does not defend the rich, they report on business.

Third, supply side economics has resulted in more poor people getting rich than anything ever tried as a financial policy, your own post actually proves that. That top 5% include people who make half of what Obama targets as being rich. The fact that you have to delve into the middle class to try to make the rich look bad proves you have no idea what you are talking about.

I don't believe we have given our new friend the greeting he expected....he vanished from his own thread.

Oh, well...there'll be another child born to carry on.....

 

[Intense]

oh listen to her spit on what she sees as the unwashed masses.


Get this through your little pea brain.

The founders set up a democracy because of the excesses of the wealthy and powerful.

The Founders set up a Constitutional Federalist Republic to Establish Justice, Protect Society from All Enemies, Foreign and Domestic, including the Government Itself, and guard against Tyranny.

I know that it is beyond the capacity of your pea sized brain to comprehend the threat born of too much authority.

The founders set up a democracy because of the excesses of the wealthy and powerful.

Where do you even come up with this propaganda, did you learn it in a training camp in Afghanistan? Did you attend Public School and stay home sick through most of it?

 

[Intense]

Before people question the validity of these, note that this statistic came from Forbes--the worst of all the bootlicking defenders of the rich.
Trickle down economics is the biggest trick on the American people ever. And you boneheads out there still believe it works. There is no excuse for that level of ignorance.

I love it when ignorant people talk about ignorance.

First, the stats did not come from Forbes, they cam from an analysis of Forbes.

Second, Forbes does not defend the rich, they report on business.

Third, supply side economics has resulted in more poor people getting rich than anything ever tried as a financial policy, your own post actually proves that. That top 5% include people who make half of what Obama targets as being rich. The fact that you have to delve into the middle class to try to make the rich look bad proves you have no idea what you are talking about.

I don't believe we have given our new friend the greeting he expected....he vanished from his own thread.

Oh, well...there'll be another child born to carry on.....

I'm sure He'll be back. What get's me is that there is no thought as to how all this redistributed wealth get's pissed away, by those that have no capability to generate. No matter how much is taken, it never satisfies. Learn how to generate. Envy is a Vice, confront it in your own self. You want change, do something about it within your own means.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I love it when ignorant people talk about ignorance.

First, the stats did not come from Forbes, they cam from an analysis of Forbes.

Second, Forbes does not defend the rich, they report on business.

Third, supply side economics has resulted in more poor people getting rich than anything ever tried as a financial policy, your own post actually proves that. That top 5% include people who make half of what Obama targets as being rich. The fact that you have to delve into the middle class to try to make the rich look bad proves you have no idea what you are talking about.

I don't believe we have given our new friend the greeting he expected....he vanished from his own thread.

Oh, well...there'll be another child born to carry on.....

I'm sure He'll be back. What get's me is that there is no thought as to how all this redistributed wealth get's pissed away, by those that have no capability to generate. No matter how much is taken, it never satisfies. Learn how to generate. Envy is a Vice, confront it in your own self. You want change, do something about it within your own means.

Tapping into the envy quotient has been quite a windfall for the Left. But they have overplayed their hand, and made the mistake of awakening the American people....

 

[Intense]

Anyone stupid enough to believe anything your MessiahRushie says is "documented" has to be the most gullible person on Earth!

Obviously the claim that your MessiahRushie is right 99+% of the time is part of the <1%.

How about the specifics...

1. Is Obama a gonner?

2. Is it a good idea to shrink the welfare state?


C'mon...don't be afraid of agreeing with your guru!

1. Obama is not gone yet.

2. Running up $12 trillion in debt is NOT the way to reduce welfare.

Here is one for you. Your MessiahRushie's opinion of his following words is they are BRILLIANT.
C'mon...don't be afraid of disagreeing with your MessiahRushie!

April 3, 2007
RUSH: Mark my brilliant words on this. That's how this stuff starts. Now, the question is: is CO2 even a pollutant? Is it an air pollutant? Because if it is, then all the water vapor on this planet is a pollutant. The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor.

BTW, not one molecule of CO2 in the entire universe came from H2O!!!

No, just Oxygen, Einstein.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvUaYoRVdbA]CO2 is Life: Betrayal of the Public&#39;s Trust - YouTube[/ame]

CO2 is Life: Betrayal of the Public's Trust

 

[NYcarbineer]

[Okay, you tell us how the U.S. gets to a better place by ending all of the following (all of which fall under my reference to alleviating the condition of the poor - note: poor being a relative term)

End the following:

1. Medicaid
2. Food stamps (and any other needs based assistance related to food)
3. Housing assistance
4. Heat/energy assistance
5. Public schools (i.e., education available regardless of your ability to pay)
6. the progressive income tax and all income based tax benefits (i.e. lower taxes based on lower income)
7. needs based higher education benefits (i.e. tuition assistance, etc.)
8. the minimum wage
9. the right to bargain collectively
10. cash assistance to the poor (i.e. 'welfare')

...and whatever I've left out...

All of the above are policies imposed by the GOVERNMENT to alleviate the condition of being (relatively) poor.

You call the above a 'trap', or whatever, and call it all a detriment?

Then show us how America gets better if all of that were gone.

Okay, since no one here will step up and say that they want to get rid of the government programs and policies they're bitching about, the question is...

...why are you bitching??

 

[saveliberty]

BTW, not one molecule of CO2 in the entire universe came from H2O!!!

Ever hear of Soda Water. H2CO3

Breaks down to water and CO2. True story.

 

[edthecynic]

BTW, not one molecule of CO2 in the entire universe came from H2O!!!

Ever hear of Soda Water. H2CO3

Breaks down to water and CO2. True story.

Carbonic acid is NOT water vapor. True story.

April 3, 2007
RUSH: Mark my brilliant words on this. That's how this stuff starts. Now, the question is: is CO2 even a pollutant? Is it an air pollutant? Because if it is, then all the water vapor on this planet is a pollutant. The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor.

 

[edthecynic]

How about the specifics...

1. Is Obama a gonner?

2. Is it a good idea to shrink the welfare state?


C'mon...don't be afraid of agreeing with your guru!

1. Obama is not gone yet.

2. Running up $12 trillion in debt is NOT the way to reduce welfare.

Here is one for you. Your MessiahRushie's opinion of his following words is they are BRILLIANT.
C'mon...don't be afraid of disagreeing with your MessiahRushie!

April 3, 2007
RUSH: Mark my brilliant words on this. That's how this stuff starts. Now, the question is: is CO2 even a pollutant? Is it an air pollutant? Because if it is, then all the water vapor on this planet is a pollutant. The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor.

BTW, not one molecule of CO2 in the entire universe came from H2O!!!

No, just Oxygen, Einstein.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvUaYoRVdbA"]CO2 is Life: Betrayal of the Public's Trust - YouTube[/ame]

CO2 is Life: Betrayal of the Public's Trust

There sure are a lot of empty seats!!!!

My favorite bit of BS in the video was the claim that there has been no net warming for 3 decades and using the discredited University of Alabama at Huntsville Lower Troposphere data where Spencer and Christy got caught using the opposite sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift. Deniers bill Christy and Spencer as the foremost satellite experts, but they didn't seem to know one of the most basic adjustments necessary to get accurate satellite data. Could experts really be that stupid, or was it deliberate? Curious minds want to know.

The phony UAH chart with the doctored data:

 

[Intense]

However, there is a downside to using CO2 as a refrigerant. Many studies, both theoretical and experimental, have demonstrated that the thermodynamic efficiency of transcritical CO2 cycles is lower than that of conventional fluorocarbon-based vapor compression systems, particularly at high ambient temperatures. This decrease in system efficiency could negate part or all of the environmental advantage of the CO2 system by increasing its indirect contribution to global warming due to the higher energy consumption. Furthermore, it would likely be unacceptable from a marketing or regulatory standpoint to introduce new air-conditioning and refrigeration systems with lower efficiencies than existing units. Therefore, an approach to improving the efficiency must be found in order to spur commercialization. Fortunately, such an opportunity exists by recovering the losses that occur during the expansion process as the refrigerant leaves the high-pressure gas cooler and enters the evaporator.

In theory, recovery of energy lost during the expansion process in a vapor compression cycle is of interest for any refrigerant. However, the relatively large expansion losses attributable to the high operating pressures of CO2 make a work-recovery device particularly important. Design studies at my company have found that a reasonably efficient CO2 expander based on scroll technology can improve the efficiency of a CO2-based system to parity with fluorocarbon-based equipment while achieving the aforementioned environmental benefits described.

With these potential benefits, why aren&#8217;t we seeing more research or accelerated efforts by manufacturers to get CO2 on the market sooner? The answer, of course, is that history has shown us that introducing new refrigerants is never easy. However, expect to see systems that accommodate the unique characteristics of CO2 as a &#8220;green&#8221; refrigerant in the years ahead.

ApplianceMagazine.com | Carbon Dioxide Refrigerant Makes a Comeback - From The Top

 

[Intense]

&#8226; Creation of the first computer model that accurately simulates the performance of carbon-dioxide-based air conditioners. The model could be used by engineers to design air conditioners that use carbon dioxide as a refrigerant. A paper about the model will be presented on July 26 during a special session sponsored by the U.S. Army in which researchers from several universities will present new findings.

&#8226; The design of a portable carbon-dioxide-based air conditioner that works as well as conventional military "environmental control units." Thousands of the units, which now use environmentally harmful refrigerants, are currently in operation. The carbon dioxide unit was designed using the new computer model. A prototype has been built by Purdue engineers and is being tested.

&#8226; The development of a mathematical "correlation," a tool that will enable engineers to design heat exchangers &#8211; the radiator-like devices that release heat to the environment after it has been absorbed during cooling &#8211; for future carbon dioxide-based systems. The mathematical correlation developed at Purdue, which will be published in a popular engineering handbook, enables engineers to determine how large a heat exchanger needs to be to provide cooling for a given area.

&#8226; The development of a new method enabling engineers to predict the effects of lubricating oils on the changing pressure inside carbon dioxide-based air conditioners. Understanding the drop in pressure caused by the oil, which mixes with the refrigerant and lubricates the compressor, is vital to predicting how well an air conditioner will perform.

Although carbon dioxide is a global-warming gas, conventional refrigerants called hydrofluorocarbons cause about 1,400 times more global warming than the same quantity of carbon dioxide. Meanwhile, the tiny quantities of carbon dioxide that would be released from air conditioners would be insignificant, compared to the huge amounts produced from burning fossil fuels for energy and transportation, says Eckhard Groll, an associate professor of mechanical engineering at Purdue.

Carbon dioxide is promising for systems that must be small and light-weight, such as automotive or portable air conditioners. Various factors, including the high operating pressure required for carbon-dioxide systems, enable the refrigerant to flow through small-diameter tubing, which allows engineers to design more compact air conditioners.

More stringent environmental regulations now require that refrigerants removed during the maintenance and repair of air conditioners be captured with special equipment, instead of being released into the atmosphere as they have been in the past. The new "recovery" equipment is expensive and will require more training to operate, important considerations for the U.S. Army and Air Force, which together use about 40,000 portable field air conditioners. The units, which could be likened to large residential window-unit air conditioners, are hauled into the field for a variety of purposes, such as cooling troops and electronic equipment.

"For every unit they buy, they will need to buy a recovery unit," Groll says. "That's a significant cost because the recovery unit is almost as expensive as the original unit. Another problem is training. It can be done, but it's much more difficult than using carbon dioxide, where you could just open a valve and release it to the atmosphere."

The recovery requirement would not apply to refrigerants made from natural gases, such as carbon dioxide, because they are environmentally benign, says Groll, who estimates that carbon dioxide systems probably will take another five to 10 years to perfect.

Carbon dioxide was the refrigerant of choice a century ago, but it was later replaced by synthetic chemicals.

"It was actually very heavily used as a refrigerant in human-occupied spaces, such as theaters and restaurants, and it did a great job," says Groll, who is chair of the Gustav Lorentzen Conference.

But one drawback to carbon dioxide systems is that they must be operated at high pressures, up to five times as high as commonly seen in current technology. The need to operate at high pressure posed certain engineering challenges and required the use of heavy steel tubing.

Carbon dioxide could replace global-warming refrigerant

 

[Intense]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6zpHtbM3hc&feature=related]Global Warming - Al Gore sued by 30.000 Scientists - YouTube[/ame]
Global Warming - Al Gore sued by 30.000 Scientists

 

[Intense]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWRqQ_iI7qQ&feature=related]Al Gore and the Global Warming Errors - YouTube[/ame]
Al Gore and the Global Warming Errors

 

[Intense]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_NM5SLcNwM&feature=relmfu]United Nations & Global Warming - YouTube[/ame]
United Nations & Global Warming

 

[saveliberty]

BTW, not one molecule of CO2 in the entire universe came from H2O!!!

Ever hear of Soda Water. H2CO3

Breaks down to water and CO2. True story.

Carbonic acid is NOT water vapor. True story.

April 3, 2007
RUSH: Mark my brilliant words on this. That's how this stuff starts. Now, the question is: is CO2 even a pollutant? Is it an air pollutant? Because if it is, then all the water vapor on this planet is a pollutant. The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor.

So...soda water is not in the universe and it is impossible for soda water to separate and the water to evaporate. Are you really this desperate?