totally lost it, troll.
"A recent peer-reviewed study, which itself looked at 116 other studies from the U.S. and Canada, confirms that wind turbines are waaaay down the list of problems for birds; in fact by displacing fossil fuels they are helping birds, as well as everything else that is alive on the planet.
Wind turbines kill between 214,000 and 368,000 birds annually — a small fraction compared with the estimated 6.8 million fatalities from collisions with cell and radio towers and the 1.4 billion to 3.7 billion deaths from cats, according to the peer-reviewed study by two federal scientists and the environmental consulting firm West Inc.
"We estimate that on an annual basis, less than 0.1% ... of songbird and other small passerine species populations in North America perish from collisions with turbines," says lead author Wallace Erickson of Wyoming-based West.
For those who don't have an envelope nearby to do the math, that's about 10,000x more deaths from just house cats than from wind turbines."
On October 9, 2006, North Korea announced it had successfully conducted its first nuclear test. An underground explosion was detected, its yield was estimated as less than a kiloton, and some radioactive output was detected.
On January 6, 2007, the North Korean government further confirmed that it had nuclear weapons.
In April 2009, reports surfaced that North Korea has become a "fully fledged nuclear power", an opinion shared by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Mohamed ElBaradei. On May 25, 2009, North Korea conducted a second nuclear test, resulting in an explosion estimated to be between 2 and 7 kilotons. The 2009 test, like the 2006 test, is believed to have occurred at Mantapsan, Kilju County, in the north-eastern part of North Korea.
All Hillary's fault, naturally
Sec of Defense
" Interviewed in 2007, when the U.S. had been fighting in Iraq for more than four years in a war initiated by Bush's son, President George W. Bush, Colin Powell remarked, "In recent months, nobody's been asking me about why we didn't go to Baghdad. Pretty good idea now why Baghdad should always be looked at with some reservations." "
"Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998): While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs.
P.S. Actually the costs have been calculated; about $3T, and
"Scientific surveys of Iraqi deaths resulting from the first four years of the Iraq War found that between 151,000 to over one million Iraqis died as a result of conflict during this time. A later study, published in 2011, found that approximately 500,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the conflict since the invasion. Counts of deaths reported in newspapers collated by projects like the Iraq Body Count project found 174,000 Iraqis reported killed between 2003 and 2013, with between 112,000-123,000 of those killed being civilian noncombatants.
For troops in the U.S.-led multinational coalition, the death toll is carefully tracked and updated daily, and the names and photographs of those killed in action as well as in accidents have been published widely. A total of 4,491 U.S. service members were killed in Iraq between 2003 and 2014"
I remember when the banking crowd moved in on internet growth. Watched it, very depressed. Started selling piles of hype. Today it is the US economy, actual earnings. The way things are supposed to be. Of course those outraged at the level of melanin in the White house will insist it must be horrible.
They should die off in less than a generation now, so there is that.
" The Nasdaq 100 hit its highest level since the tech bubble in March 2000, with Netflix, eBay, Stericycle and Micron jumping nearly 3 percent or more. The Nasdaq Composite surpassed its tech bubble high earlier this year.
"I think earnings continue to be the swing factor," said Terry Sandven, chief equity strategist at U.S.Bank Wealth Management. "I know it's early but I sense that the delta is to the upside." "
So, you despise talk of spreading the wealth....I suppose you believe that money is going into the wrong pockets.
Since Obama has profited American pockets by $35.5T since Q1-2009, then on average every American has gained about $1M. Since you complain, you must have gained much more than that average. Congratulations. I'm not complaining myself.
Just more from the clown circus.
"WASHINGTON (AP) — Members of Congress who are demanding Hillary Rodham Clinton’s emails are largely exempt from such scrutiny themselves.
Congress makes its own rules, and has never subjected itself to open records laws that force agencies such as the State Department to maintain records and turn them over to the public when asked.
There’s also no requirement for members of Congress to use official email accounts, or to retain, archive or store their emails, while in office or after. That’s in contrast to the White House and the rest of the executive branch. Official emails there are supposed to be retained, though the controversy over Clinton’s use of a personal email account while secretary of state has exposed vague and inconsistent requirements from one agency to another.
But if the rules at federal agencies are unclear, at least there are rules. On Capitol Hill, there are almost none. That means that the same House Republicans who are subpoenaing Clinton’s emails as part of their inquiry into the Benghazi, Libya, attacks are not required to retain emails of their own for future inspection by anyone."
“Members of Congress can burn everything when they’re finished if they want,” said John Wonderlich, policy director at the Sunlight Foundation, which advocates for government transparency. “They have discretion.”
Only you are debunked. And totally without facts.
From the factcheck site, this year:
"Republicans say the average family health insurance premium has increased by $4,154 under President Obama. That’s right — and it’s a much slower rate of growth than under President George W. Bush. In fact, employer-sponsored premiums have been growing at moderate rates for the past few years.
This is a prime example of what we call a “true, but” claim: an assertion that’s technically correct, but changes in meaning or significance once it’s put in context or fully explained.
The Republican National Committee took to Twitter before Obama gave his State of the Union address to spread this statistic: “Under Obama, Average Family Premiums Have Increased $4,154.” Two days later, Rep. Barbara Comstock tweeted the same stat, and the RNC lists it, along with other premium numbers, in a State of the Union “fact check.”
The average employer-sponsored family premium has gone up by $4,154 under Obama, from 2008, before he took office, to 2014, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s annual employer survey conducted with the Health Research & Educational Trust. The catch? That’s relatively slow growth for premiums. The RNC may cast it as bad news, but it’s an improvement compared with the growth in premiums before Obama took office.
Under Bush, the average family premiums (including both what employers and employees pay) went up $4,677 in his last six years in office, from 2002 to 2008, an increase of 58 percent. That $4,154 growth under Obama is a 33 percent increase. If we look at Bush’s first six years, the discrepancy gets even bigger: From 2000, the year before Bush was first inaugurated, to 2006, the average family premium went up $5,042, or an increase of 78 percent. (See Exhibit 1.11 on page 31 of the KFF report for these numbers.)"
Did you look around, on the Intuit site itself, maybe?
"Minimum system requirements
1.2 GHz (2 GHz recommended)
1 GB of RAM (2 GB of RAM recommended)
2.5 GB of disk space (additional space required for data files)
512 MB Sybase Cache recommended
Linux Distribution (operating system)
QuickBooks Enterprise Solutions 15.0
QuickBooks Enterprise Solutions 14.0
QuickBooks Enterprise Solutions 13.0
QuickBooks Enterprise Solutions 12.0
QuickBooks Enterprise Solutions 11.0
QuickBooks Enterprise Solutions 10.0
QuickBooks Enterprise Solutions 9.0 and earlier versions"
Then put him on the Republican ballot. Please. Pretty please.
Because he exactly represents the Republican mind.
So, you want the Constitution to still support slavery? We already noticed that you simply can't help lying.
" several influential Republicans, including President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, have articulated a similar view:
At a July 19 event at the Council on Foreign Relations, Rice said: "In our first Constitution, my ancestors were three-fifths of a man. What does that say about American democracy at its outset? I've said it's a great birth defect. And we have had to overcome a birth defect. And, like any birth defect, it continues to have an impact on us. It's why we have such a hard time talking about race, and dealing with race."
During a July 10, 2003, interview on CNN's Larry King Live, former Secretary of State Colin Powell said: "It took us a while to recognize that we could not live our Constitution truly unless we eliminated slavery, and hundreds of thousands of young men fought a civil war to end slavery and then it took us a long time to get rid of the vestiges of slavery and we're still working on it to this very day."
In July 8, 2003, remarks made at Goree Island in Senegal, Bush said that the "moral vision" of abolitionists "caused Americans to examine our hearts, to correct our Constitution, and to teach our children the dignity and equality of every person of every race." He added: "The racial bigotry fed by slavery did not end with slavery or with segregation. And many of the issues that still trouble America have roots in the bitter experience of other times.""
Hawcreek-xyz ignoring everything except what comes in over the AM radio in the tractor does not help either. Or determination to somehow blame a handful of people of the wrong color for it all. Ignoring they were pushed into too much debt, which was then leveraged 10 times higher. Blaming a defaulted $100K loan as entirely at fault for the $1M exposure the banks created (and got paid a fortune for), yeah, that's a real sign of intelligence.
The larger picture is worse.
"The notional value of the world's derivatives actually is estimated at more than $600 trillion. Notional value, of course, is the total value of a leveraged position's assets. This distinction is necessary because when you're talking about leveraged assets like options and derivatives, a little bit of money can control a disproportionately large position that may be as much #$%$ 10, 30, or, in extreme cases, 100 times greater than investments that could be funded only in cash instruments.
The world's gross domestic product (GDP) is only about $65 trillion, or roughly 10.83% of the worldwide value of the global derivatives market, according to The Economist. So there is literally not enough money on the planet to backstop the banks trading these things if they run into trouble."
They did run into trouble, eh?
The numbers are plain, proven.
Q1/07 $65.8T Highest peak under Bush
Q1/09 $49.4T When Obama took over
Q2/15 $85T After Obama. $20T above Bush's highest peak
Obama has added to American's wealth, nearly twice the entire national debt.
A windfall profits tax is in order; about 50% on this easy gain would pay off the national debt.
That may give me a bit of a haircut, but cost you nothing, since you sat this out, clutching your gold.
But we are different, I support my country. Being a freeloading deadbeat like Florida would be humiliating.
Every nation on earth is studying American economy.
Q1/07 $65.8T Highest peak under Bush
Q1/09 $49.4T When Obama took over
Q2/15 $85T After Obama
Obama has managed to put 35 trillion into American pockets. Actual real money, from massively improved economy. The emotionals, by definition, can't count.
Obama is right, far too much of that is going to just a few pockets. The other party is making that happen.
"agenda he imposed on the masses"
A minority of primitive bigots focused on color or other people's marriage is not equal to "the masses".
The only bloodshed is from you and your fellow Dylan Roof types.
General Sherman to the south:
"You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing! … The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth — right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with."
General Sherman proven correct. South still can't operate an economy without free labor.
Is it surprising some people like to retire where there is a ready supply of natural-born serf-mentalities to serve their betters?
It was always a pigsty down there, this is recorded history.
"Over half of all new British immigrants in the South initially arrived as indentured servants. They were mostly poor young people who couldn't find work in England and couldn't afford passage to America and repaid their passage costs by work contracts (indentures) from 5–7 years. In addition about 60,000 British convicts were transported to the new British colonies in Georgia in the 18th century. Most of these so-called convicts were mostly guilty of being very poor and out of work. "Serious" criminals were generally executed. Ironically, these "convicts" are often the only immigrants with nearly complete immigration records. "
"The mostly agricultural Southern English colonies initially had very high death rates for new settlers from malaria, yellow fever and other diseases as well as Indian wars. Despite this, a steady flow of new settlers, mostly from central England and the London area, kept the population growing. The large plantations were mostly owned by friends (mostly minor aristocrats) of the British-appointed governors initially. Many settlers arrived as indentured servants who had to work off their passage with five to seven years of work for room and board, clothing and training, but no cash wages."
There are genetic challenges arguing with such inferior hicks.
"The New England colonists were the most urban and educated of all the colonists and had many skilled farmers as well as tradesmen and skilled craftsmen among them. They started the first college, Harvard, in 1635". Family records go back before that; we never were into pig farming.
On the other hand, the south was hickville for peasants. Until the revolution, it was England's dumping ground for deported criminals, until that shifted to Australia. The rest were mostly indentured peasants.
The more industrious immigrants joined the Union Army is large numbers, seeing the slavers as the serfdom society they were trying to escape in the first place.
Net result of the south is a dark stain on America;s honor, better if never settled at all. And expensive, having to support all those dependent crackers who can't comprehend economies beyond the dark ages.