Who's looking forward to a 60 state America!!!
- Thread starter B5150
- Start date
Zero V
Well-known member
B5150
Legend
I imagine you missed the point that the angry man had. Potato or potatoe...it's historical because of the media, yet Obama seems to be immune to the media bias. I did not hear of our 60 states until today
b unit
Well-known member
George W has already done a fine job at screwing things
thesinner
Recovering AXoholic
I imagine you missed the point that the angry man had. Potato or potatoe...it's historical because of the media, yet Obama seems to be immune to the media bias. I did not hear of our 60 states until today
I see what you are saying, but he's referencing something from 20 years ago. Can we even call this the same media?
The second story you posted is rather interesting, though.
B5150
Legend
I believe our media has become even more sensationalizing which leads me to find it even more curious that the gaffe did not get more air time.
thesinner
Recovering AXoholic
Well, it is hard to find Obama stumbling over his words, when you're too busy trying to figure out what Joe the Plumber says next or how much Sara Palin spends on her wardrobe.
The media is worried about one thing, and one thing only: selling periodicals and getting people to watch their news programs (so they can charge a higher premium for advertising).
I wonder if Palin was chosen as the running mate to "win potential Hillary Clinton votes" (does that even sound like it makes sense?), or simply because the media would eat it up. Love her, hate her, think dirty thoughts about her, Palin is like the Lindsay Lohan of this presidential election: she has looks and drama. Honestly, I think she's getting more publicity than either of the candidates.
Fastone
Well-known member
Well bend over if that's what you believe. We can't be anymore screwed than we have been over the last 8 but at 21 I doubt you would know much about that.
:bruce3:
Rugger
Well-known member
Fastone
Well-known member
As I said to you once before, someone with a twat under their arm really shouldn't have much to say. Being wrong really hurts you, doesn't it, enjoy your next childish rant:lol:
:bruce3:
rubberring
Well-known member
Careful... if you make him look even more exceptionally unintelligent than you already have, he'll put you on his ignore list. You don't want that.
:lol::lol::lol:
thesinner
Recovering AXoholic
Supposedly, the world ends after the next election. Something about a local maximum rate of polar shift. Although conflicting theories on the cause of this, it certainly does a better job explaining the climate changes over the past few decades a lot better than the global warming theory.
thesinner
Recovering AXoholic
Hahaha. That just open doorways to a whole plethora of doomsday theories.
thesinner
Recovering AXoholic
I think she might be one of her own
In all seriousness, I am not a huge believer in doomsday theories although the Maya (Dresden Codex, etc..) are very interesting
I'm the same way about most doomsday theories, but I am an even bigger disbeliever of the global warming theory and the media's portrayal of this theory as though it were fact.
The whole Nibiru theory, I think, does a better job of explaining the changes in climate, the increases in natural disasters, the elliptical orbit of the planets, why the earth has a tilted axis in the first place, and the drama between Pluto and Neptune.
crawlinmatt
New member
Obama is such a **** tard if i was McCain i would of called him out. How the **** is a Commander in Chief going to disgrace US troops that did serve in WWII by saying his family was part of it and they were not.......... what a ****ing tool bag.
EasyEJL
Never enough
You mean because of Clinton not having followed up on Al Queda ACTIONABLE intelligence he had (even tho he had more military men die than bush has), and his changes to the CRA that forced the subprime market meltdown on us ? yeah, we have been screwed over the last 8 years from what the last democrat president did and didn't do.
Mulletsoldier
Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
You mean it is not valid to analyze sparse data from isolated weather beacons from 1950-2000, compared with contemporary global climate trends?
What I find hilarious is this: Google "Fossil fuel consumption since 1900" and then Google, "Climate tracking since ~1925" (when they began oceanic measurements in earnest) and see if a correlative pattern appears. If the 'CO2 Theory' is correct, the exponentially increased consumption of fossil fuels immediately proceeding the IR should coincide with a steady increase in temperature.
(hint: It doesn't).
thesinner
Recovering AXoholic
I wish Katie Couric and Sarah Palin made out.
EasyEJL
Never enough
tell me its not true, a third thing I agree with mullet on in one month? is it the end of times?
Its comical as well, the other climate change marker is "temperature rise within cities" with the cities being an average of over 2 degrees higher than in 1950. They seem to be missing the point that asphalt holds heat more than grass does, so merely the difference in paving from 1950-2000 would account for the temp shift.
thesinner
Recovering AXoholic
Oh, it's fun.
Some of the conclusions scientists come with, and the experimentation and data used to come up with such conclusions are, in my opinion, outlandishly funny.
If you look at the histories of some fields or look into some of the newly developed fields of study, the research is kinda funny. I've been doing a bunch of research on hydrogen fuel cells for one of my classes, and it's pretty funny stuff once you factor in economics.
1) Hydrogen cannot be produced at any rate of economic feasibility without producing loads of Carbon Dioxide.
2) Hydrogen cannot be mass-produced with a high enough purity that it won't destroy the hydrogen fuel cell.
3) Any sized air leak will turn your car into the Hindenburg.
And don't get me started on ethanol. It's only purpose is making ugly chicks temporarily attractive, and so Pharm companies can make "prescription-strength" fish oil. :lol:
EasyEJL
Never enough
I'd argue that these two aren't true of using electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, but unless we had a lot more nuclear power plants its not cost effective either (and still would burn coal or fossil fuels to create the electricity)
whiskers
Banned
Even better.
Mulletsoldier
Binging on Pure ****ing Rage
Oh, it's fun.
Some of the conclusions scientists come with, and the experimentation and data used to come up with such conclusions are, in my opinion, outlandishly funny.
If you look at the histories of some fields or look into some of the newly developed fields of study, the research is kinda funny. I've been doing a bunch of research on hydrogen fuel cells for one of my classes, and it's pretty funny stuff once you factor in economics.
1) Hydrogen cannot be produced at any rate of economic feasibility without producing loads of Carbon Dioxide.
2) Hydrogen cannot be mass-produced with a high enough purity that it won't destroy the hydrogen fuel cell.
3) Any sized air leak will turn your car into the Hindenburg.
And don't get me started on ethanol. It's only purpose is making ugly chicks temporarily attractive, and so Pharm companies can make "prescription-strength" fish oil. :lol:
Everybody loves alternative fuels; nobody loves energy turnover ratios - specifically, that it takes more crude-oil to produce 1L of hydrogen-fuel than it does 1L of 81 Octane.
thesinner
Recovering AXoholic
Oh yeah.
They've been trying to "make it happen" with hydrogen fuel cells for like 100 years now.
1) You need to put it through a transformer because powerplants produce alternating current. You need direct current or else the anodes and cathodes will flip-flop a billion times per second and nothing gets accomplished. When AC gets transfered into DC, the voltage you maintain isn't even in the same order of magnitude.
2) Time is money. Reaction rates are determined by concentration of BOTH reactants. In order to reduce water into H2 and O2, you will need an assload of amperage.
Electrolysis is expensive as hell for macro-scale production. Hydrocarbon Reformation is much more efficient and less expensive, but purity and wastes are an issue.