–Secretary of State John Kerry, who served
Apparently 300,000-400,000 turned out for the People’s Climate March in New York City, Sunday.
NEW YORK — More than 300,000 people marched through the streets of New York City on Sunday in what organizers called the largest climate-change demonstration in history.
With banners, flags, floats and drums, protesters at the “People’s Climate March” overwhelmed midtown Manhattan in flocks of vivid color, demanding action ahead of the United Nations Climate Summit this week.
And as typically seems to be the case, the aftermath belies the message espoused.
Noah Rothman at Hot Air has the scoop:
“We live in a grotesque era where we have everything we want right now,” one protester told Foster, graciously packaging her entire movement up in one self-hating nutshell.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZlsKvOkHIY[/youtube]
There appear to be two strains of protesters who attended the People’s March. Some cling desperately to the ideals of Marx and who repeat rhetoric and slogans which have largely remained unchanged since the Rutherford B. Hayes administration. These folks ironically consider themselves “progressives.” The other strain of protester who spoke with Foster seemed lost, misplaced, left behind in a world which no longer made much sense.
It is a condition as old as time; the aimless in search of personal meaning complement the ranks of a movement which promises personal purpose. The revolution is over, but the tragically committed revolutionaries persist.
What Foster uncovered in New York City was what so many on the right have known for years, but the public rarely sees. The modern climate alarmism movement has been hijacked by the remnants of those who still adhere to the defunct tenets of revolutionary Marxism. It is no wonder, then, that so few climate change devotees in government and the media go out of their way to make sure you never hear from their grassroots supporters.
And today:
NEW YORK, Sept 22 (Reuters) – Hundreds of protesters plan to risk arrest on Monday during an unsanctioned blockade in New York City’s financial district to call attention to what organizers say is Wall Street’s contribution to climate change.
~~~ Flood Wall Street organizers said they wanted to use the momentum gained by Sunday’s march to “highlight the role of capitalism in fueling the climate crisis.”
I remember attending a couple of anti-war rallies in Los Angeles. These protests were full of fringies spouting all sorts of sideshow agendas that had little to nothing at all to do with what the rally was organized for.
A former fetus, the “wordsmith from nantucket” was born in Phoenix, Arizona in 1968. Adopted at birth, wordsmith grew up a military brat. He achieved his B.A. in English from the University of California, Los Angeles (graduating in the top 97% of his class), where he also competed rings for the UCLA mens gymnastics team. The events of 9/11 woke him from his political slumber and malaise. Currently a personal trainer and gymnastics coach.
The wordsmith has never been to Nantucket.
Rich, sorry, but unlike last nights game, tonights game was a real snoozer.
@Redteam #201:
First, you are reminded of what I said in post #200:
Note the “more often than not” part. That part means that as much as 49% of the oil being discovered today is being found on land. So what’s your point?
Second, you are reminded of what I said in the rest of that sentence in my post #200:
AS you will find in the quotes and references listed below, the recent West Texas reserves are being exploited by using horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (fracting) techniques – methods that were not developed until quite recently. Prior to the development of those techniques, this West Texas reserve would not have been counted as a “reserve,” since the oil would not yet have been recoverable. Only recoverable oil counts as a reserve.
And one last point: The NEW reserves in the Odessa-Midland region are in fact reserves that are located on land that was previously pumped “dry” by older techniques. The area is part of what is known as the Permian Basin, a region in which oil was first pumped from in 1921. If you’ve driven recently through this wasteland of an area, you’d know that it is covered (littered) with the dead hulks of oil rigs that have long passed their expiration date. The oil they’re getting out of there now was there when they gave up on it years ago.
http://res.dallasnews.com/interactives/2013_November/oilboom/#.VC1B86N0ycw
http://www.dallasnews.com/business/energy/20130725-a-massive-oil-field-in-west-texas-but-how-massive.ece
What’s that, and what bearing does it have on the information I am providing to you?
The information I’ve supplied you is accurate and verifiable.
I’ve been quoting you reams of facts and science, and I’ve also provided you with the source information and links to the Universities, periodicals, websites and CONSERVATIVE news channels that supplied the information. There certainly isn’t anything “pseudo” about it.
Neither is there anything “liberal” about it. Science is necessarily a very conservative undertaking, with any new information being received with cautious skepticism and being subjected to the most thorough analysis possible. Results must be replicated independently to be confirmed. Yes, mistakes are made, but the process isn’t “liberal.”
@Redteam: Don’t be sorry. That’s baseball–you saw a great pitcher who dominated. BTW Bumgartner also hit 250 with 4 homeruns–Like MVP winner Kershaw,who we’ll see tomorrow, a great athlete.
Lotta snoozers on Sun. football. I’m a college football fan. Some great games coming up this Sat.
@Richard Wheeler:
That was my point exactly.
makes it easy to change channels. As in baseball. I changed channels after the 7th inning. Hitters didn’t do their homework on Bumgartner. Pick these 3 games:
T A&M vs Mss State, Ala at Miss, LSU at Auburn.
@Redteam: And my point made in that incredible Tues. night game.
Re Bumgarner Yogi Good pitchin beats good hittin and vici versi
A@M 37 Miss. State 31 Al 28–Ol Miss 24 Auburn 24- LSU 21 ALL CLOSE GREAT GAMES Ol Miss could upset Bama. I’ll be rooting for them—What say you?
@George+Wells: Some odd responses:
You’re talking about how they are getting the oil. The discussion was about finding oil. They didn’t even know this oil was down there 10 years ago. Where did it come from? Was it there 10 years ago or is that reservoir just filling up from new oil developing deep in the earth? How do you know?, apparently they didn’t.
Sure it was.
George, you and I both know that you don’t know if there was oil already there back then but they just didn’t choose to drill for it. That is just ‘wild speculation’, or ” pseudo science of liberals”. Yes, I know all about these oil field techniques, I live in Louisiana amidst unlimited fields of oil and natural gas. “Natural gas” the fuel of the future. Withing 10 years or so, all tractor trailer trucks will be using Natural gas instead of diesel. And there is enough of that in the US to fuel those trucks forever. If not, God will quickly make some more and put it there in the wells.
uh, well, with the exception of climate change where the liberals happily spew their ‘pseudo science’ as if it is true.
@Richard Wheeler: Yeah, I think ole Miss might pick off Bama, I also think LSU might pick off Auburn. Score about right, 24-21 just think it might be other way.
comment about homework on Bumgartner. He was very predictable. batters should have known 97% of the time what was coming on strike 3 and layed off of it. But no, swing away at a pitch in the ground that was, as I said, predictable.
@Redteam: Pretty indecisive RT –might say as usual lol–give me picks and scores.
Bumgarner told relievers to “take the night off” before the game–a confidant great pitcher, on his game, can dominate any hitters–that’s what he did. Watch Weaver tonight and Kershaw on Fri.
@Richard Wheeler: TA&M 35 Miss St 31, Miss 28 Al 42(might, is not same as, will) LSU 24- Aub 21.
not much to disagree with there. But the problem is, it was the ‘hitters’ that took the night off. First, I agree that a good pitcher almost always dominates a good hitter, but Bumgartner was very predictable (too much so) last night. I could almost call all of his pitches, why couldn’t the hitters? I’m talking after 2 strikes.
@Redteam #207:
?
Seems “odd” to you because it’s real science.
Here’s more:
The following is from an American Chemical Society report, the ACS being the preeminent organization of chemists in the American chemical industry:
http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/newsreleases/2013/april/natural-soil-bacteria-pump-new-life-into-exhausted-oil-wells.html
I explained before that we can never recover all of the oil that is present in the porous strata surrounding a given well, and that we similarly cannot recover all of the oil that is contained in a given reservoir. When we can recover no more oil by current methods, the reservoir is classified as being “depleted”, the wells “dry”. When new methods – like fracking – increase recovery efficiency, some depleted reservoirs can be and are reclassified, an action that “adds” oil to the total known oil reserves.
But I’ll tell you what: In spite of my having supplied you with bountiful proof of my science, you choose to supply virtually nothing in return but snarky insults. On this subject you seem to be thick as a brick. You live in Louisiana. Enough said. I’ve been wasting my time with you. From now on, you can play with yourself.
@Redteam: Same cept you got your beloved Tigers on the road over the other Tigers—not Princeton.
You start taking with 2 strikes he’ll eat you up.
George seems to think you and o5 are snarky. Surprise
@George+Wells:
Trying to get me to take up gay habits?
you said:
So the level gets low, they stop pumping, nature refills the reservoir, then they start pumping again. Now you’ve got it figured out. See and I only had to tell you a dozen times.
@Richard wheeler: Count is 3-2, he throws one into the ground, batter takes. repeated a dozen times. then he figures he’s gotta throw down the pike, only thing is, the batter has that figured out also.
That’s obvious, Princeton doesn’t have a football team, does it? LSU/Auburn….close except first start for Harris at QB, I think it’ll be the difference.
@Richard wheeler:
From George? not at all.
@George+Wells:
Louisiana is one of the states that could survive by itself it it seceded fromthe US, many states couldn’t.
@Redteam:
Nit picking here, but that’s not entirely correct. The Earth is a gravity well and mass is continually added to it either from being draw in by it’s gravitational field or when the path of an asteroids of various size intersects with Earth’s orbit at the same point in time that the planet is at that orbital position.
We should also remember that the Earth is like an onion with layers and layers of build up accumulating continually from level after level of organic and non-organic matter. The continual depositing of layers over centuries of dead organic matter is part and parcel with the continual creation of what will eventual become new oil reserves. The great rainforests of South America is a living example of this continual process. Centuries from now this build up of degenerating organic matter will too under pressure and bacterial process be turned into oil.
@Ditto #217:
Thank you for contributing a correct assessment of some science that Redteam, for all of his CLAIMED science education, seems unusually incapable of understanding.
Your “onion” analogy is a reasonably good one, although it only applies to surface (earth’s crust) sedimentation. The mantle is characterized by slow-moving convection cells that move the tectonic plates that “float” on the surface of the mantle, and the core (predominantly composed of a pseudo-liquid sphere of iron and nickel) spins at a rate slightly different than Earth’s period of rotation and so accounts for the Earth’s magnetism.
The onion analogy DOES correctly characterize the general process of material accumulation, although in the case of an onion, the growth occurs from the core, while the Earth accumulates matter at the outer shell. As you said: Nit-picking.
Yes, the Amazon rain forests are the place on Earth where the greatest amount of organic sediment is being deposited today. It will eventually yield some oil. However, the forests that covered the earth in prehistoric times usually covered most if not all of the Earth’s land mass (the part that isn’t covered by the sea) and in warmer periods those forests were PROBABLY far more dense and taller than the Amazon is today. It was in those periods of EXCEPTIONAL growth and decay that the lion’s share of the organic material that was to eventually become today’s oil and coal was deposited.
Of additional concern is the fact that we are clear-cutting the Amazon at a rate of 10% of its total area every 50 years, removing forever, in increasing amounts, the last best source of organic matter that will eventually be converted into oil. The Amazon has lost 250,000 square miles of jungle to human exploitation and development since 1950.
I’m pointing this out as a simple fact. I’m not a bit concerned for the loss of potential Amazon oil that would not have been ready for use for, what… maybe another million years? I’m also not worried that we will run out of oil in my lifetime, because there seems to be enough to last well beyond the ten years, give or take, that I have left. So PLEASE, enough of the liberal, tree hugging crap. I’m just commenting on the science as I see it. And unlike some, I WAS a scientist.
@Redteam: Princeton Tigers been playing football since before LSU or Auburn existed.
Bumgarner had the Pirates totally confused–and 8 runs to work with against his 2.3 ERA.–BALLGAME
Got any baseball picks? Who is gonna be in the super bowl—college football 4 game playoff?
@George+Wells:
Of course it only applies to the surface. That’s clearly implied by my description of the process.
Well, duh!!!
Sediment buildup of organic and in organic matter also continues in the Earth’s bodies of water, which is why crude oil chambers also are created deep below under the ocean floor. The great weight of the ocean’s water would also naturally compress such matter greater than what occurs on the land.
This means that Redteam was correct in stating that that the natural creation of new oil is a continual process. I would seriously doubt during the last 80 years that such creation matches the averaged rate of consumption, (especially with China’s finally catching up to modern technology and considering industrial booms in other nations thanks to the moving of US manufacturing overseas,) but I certainly wouldn’t go out on a limb and say that this will always be the case. In fact with the development of synthetic lubricants and the very possible advancement/growth of natural gas and hydrogen fueled vehicles, the dependance on crude oil based fuels will decline. Until, “battery” storage technology advances farther beyond it’s current level, I don’t see purely electrical vehicles as a viable option (unless this nation were to build more nuclear fusion/fission power plants. The use of crop-grown ethanol is wasteful and hardly even worth the energy and carbon costs to create.
@Ditto #220:
It is very refreshing to be able to say that I agree with everything in your #220 post.
Your assessments of recent oil consumption, of the near-term prospects of electric cars, and in particular your identification of the wasteful failure of the corn-to-ethanol “experiment” are all valuable additions to our conversation. Thank you.
The one thing that I find missing from your #220 post is a sense of fairness. You bothered to point out that:
Redteam was not alone in this position. See my post #183:
It is indeed a continual process. However, as I REFERENCED in my post #178, it is not continuing at a constant rate:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale)
Most of the oil THAT EXISTS was deposited during these periods of exceptionally robust life on Earth. The present time is not one of them.
You should not allow your distress over my position on gay marriage to prevent you from giving credit where credit is due. I give you deserved credit when you are right. You could return the favor.
“Well, Duh!!!”
Be nice, and I’ll return that favor, too.
@George+Wells:
My reading of this thread was that Redteam first mentioned the fact of continual transformation processes of organic matter into crude oil, and you were engaged in dispute over it with him. That you yielded and later accepted the premise gives you credit but the point goes to him for first mention.
I have no interest whatsoever in your position on gay marriage which I’ll point out has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. I strongly object to your trollish, obsessive continual interjection of it into every damn discussion when it has no relevance.
Incidentally, I neglected to mention that while I believe that full-electric powered vehicles are not currently a very viable alternative. (until such time as battery technology improves or atomic powered fission/fusion generators are built,) I strongly support the hybrid concept as a sensible way to power vehicles and yet keep fuel uses low. As one of the benefits of electric drive-trains is superior acceleration and the fact that some electrical energy can be reclaimed 0n deceleration and braking, I think it would behoove us to include the development and design of hybrids coupled with compressed natural gas or hydrogen fueled generators.
@richard wheeler:
I guess we all know they used to play football, but switched over to flag football quite a few years ago. Nobody follows pansy league flag football.
Don’t have any baseball picks. None of them should be in the playoffs. teams that can’t do better than 500 should stay home out of embarrassment.
No prediction.
@George+Wells:
George, I don’t see where Ditto said anything that I have not basically said. He correctly points out that space dust, etc are constantly added. I’m aware of that but it’s not significant in the makeup of the earth so no real reason to discuss it. The mass of the earth is so great that the addition of a 5 or 10 ton asteroid is of no importance. I can’t understand why you seem to hold the position that millions of years ago, there was this great oil building boom and then it just shut down while at the same time acknowledging that the same ‘laying it all down’ process is still going on. I’d say the number of tons created per day today is the same as was created per day many eons ago, probably even more since you seem to think our natural resources are being consumed (and then laid down as waste which begins it transformation into oil) at a faster rate than was back then. If the rate of petroleum formation is proportional to the rate of consumption of vegetation, then according to your claim that vegetation is being consumed much faster today then, presto, you are admitting that the formation rate has increased. Or are you now gonna start backpedaling?
Since the use of petroleum is such a recent development, the efficiency of it’s consumption will be greatly improved as time goes by. For example the use of LNG instead of diesel fuel in trucks. Much more efficient and lots less wasteful and reserves the diesel for more appropriate uses.
I agree with Ditto that the use of ethanol fuels is foolish and wasteful of resources.
You said:
While I agree generally with that statement, I slightly differ in that, if as you said, natural resources are being consumed at a greater rate and that consumption is what results in the formation of petroleum products, then the rate of formation would be increasing in conjunction with that increased consumption. Right?
The future use of nuclear fuels for power generation will/should result in less consumption of fossil fuels and therefore eventually in the formation of less. But that’s hundreds of years down the road (or more)
I certainly second Ditto’s enthusiasm for the hybrid car. It has all the advantages and very little downside as the development of batteries improve.
@Ditto #222:
Regarding my argument with Redteam, it centered squarely on his remark to Retireo5 in his #134 post:
I found this assertion to be patently false, and repeatedly asked him for supporting evidence to no avail.
At NO time did I ever suggest that oil wasn’t being created now. It is a fact that was not being argued, although Redteam’s statement of it implied that it WAS. He was wrong in that, too.
I don’t blame you for not following the thread closely enough to pick out this distinction. The argument was protracted, as Redteam sought repeatedly to move the goalpost and evade my requests for supporting evidence. It was my fault that I continued with him on that – it won’t happen again.
Your discussion of the advantages of hybrid technology reveals that you possess formidable powers of perception and understanding. I am impressed. You have a good mind, and I respect you for that.
With such intelligence, I am surprised that you are having difficulty understanding the relevance of the gay rights issue vis-a-vis charges coming from others here that I am an incoherent liberal. I may be incoherent, but I’m certainly not liberal. I’m just gay, and while that means nothing to you, it compels me to vote for democrats in spite of being conservative. You may not respect that choice, but it is mine to make.
When asked, I answer. If you don’t like it, don’t read it.
@Ditto: Ditto, thanks for your statements. I find nothing to disagree with you about. I do think George is beginning to come around. He seems to be especially concerned with proving that his ‘science’ background is somehow superior to most. I don’t claim to be a premier scientist, just that I have a BS degree in a field of Science but I spent at least 98% of my working years in upper management, in the field of my degree and as most know, the usage of basic science in manufacturing management is not the primary focus. I think most people don’t care much one way or the other about how fossil fuels are created. Probably many of them think they are created in a factory and pumped into their gas tanks.
I do share your beliefs about the hybrid cars (I prefer the fuel be natural gas, rather than Hydrogen mostly for safety reasons) I also think the world needs to get back into nuclear power (for peaceful purposes, of course)
@George+Wells:
What an interesting statement. you are equating being gay with being stupid. If you think that liberals are out to ‘advance the rights’ of gays rather than to advance the rights of liberals, you have been sadly mislead. liberals are out to sustain and improve the government output to insure that the liberals are able to live off the efforts of the people that are willing to work for a living rather than to steal from others and they use whomever (including gays) that they can to improve their swindle.
About my statement, which you quoted above you said:
you forgot to add the words “in my opinion”.
But if you will re-read my statement :
At no time did I say it was a scientific fact, only that there was a ‘strong likelihood’. You are now supporting my statement by the fact that you have said that fossil fuels are being created by the consumption of earth’s resources and the deposition of them into the formation of the fossil fuels and you have made the claim that that consumption is now more than it has ever been. So if the rate of formation is proportional to consumption, then you have your answer, in your own words.
@Redteam #224:
“If the rate of petroleum formation is proportional to the rate of consumption of vegetation, then according to your claim that vegetation is being consumed much faster today then, presto, you are admitting that the formation rate has increased.”
You lying sack of fecal material!
I am admitting no such thing!
You inserted a fatal flaw in your otherwise seemingly reasonable hypotheses, rendering it false.
The flaw resides in your selection of the word “consumption,” which was apparently intended to give cover to the burning of vegetation.
The vegetation that ultimately becomes oil isn’t “consumed,” it is “deposited”. Vegetation is “deposited” when it dies and sinks to the bottom of a body of water and is subsequently covered with silt. The deposited sediment eventually turns into oil shale.
Do you know what oil shale looks like? It is a porous rock that has crude oil in the pores. It doesn’t form from carbon dioxide, which is a gas that you get when vegetation is “consumed” by burning or by animal ingestion vis-à-vis respiration.
Carbon dioxide goes into the air, where much of it stays. Some carbon dioxide gets recycled when it is absorbed by plants, where the photosynthesis that occurs in chlorophyll converts it ultimately into living plant tissue. This is the so-called “carbon cycle.”
Other carbon dioxide combines with water vapor in the air to form carbonic acid, the stuff of acid rain. Acid rain corrodes basic rock, forming inorganic carbonates. It was the discovery of inorganic carbonate sediments on the surface of Mars that confirmed the historic presence of water on that planet. Inorganic carbonated do not form oil.
But a large portion of the carbon dioxide that comes from eating or burning vegetation, and from the respiration of animals, and from volcanic eruptions, and from chemical manufacturing processes that acidify basic carbonates, and from a host of other sources, goes into the atmosphere where it stays, increasing the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Today, the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere is approximately 400 parts-per-million. It was 280 ppm at the start of the industrial revolution.
Maybe you lack the intellectual capacity to see the difference between “consumption” and “deposition”, but that difference makes all of the difference in the world when it comes to the formation of oil.
I promised myself that I wouldn’t continue to argue with you, but the stupidity of your interpretations of natural history compels me to provide counter-explanations as a public service.
@ Redteam #227:
Read my #228.
” you are equating being gay with being stupid.”
If you want to believe that, be my guest. It doesn’t surprise me that your twisted logic dropped that silly conclusion in your lap. Since you have already explained that gays have accomplished absolutely nothing at all, politically, and that gays are sick perversions of nature, what do you care if they are also stupid, and why do you care who they vote for?
@George+Wells:
Hey, you’re the one that said that libs are favorable to gays. What other conclusion could be reached if you believe that?
“You lying sack of fecal material!” Well, being in the gay business, I’m sure you are a lot more familiar with fecal matter than I am.
Whoops, your bad. consumption includes all manner of conversion of living matter to fossil material. You think trees weren’t burned in phehistoric times? Fire is not a recent invention. It matters not how it is ‘consumed’ the end result is the same, some ways may take more steps in the conversion, but conversion is the same. You are the one that created the status of ‘more being consumed’ now, if true, then more is being ‘converted’ now. You can’t have it both ways.
This is rather humerous:
and then turns into oil and is then consumed and then the journey starts over. It is a full cycle, it doesn’t start with the dying of trees and end with formation of shale. There are more steps in the operation.
You’re inconsistent. Carbon dioxide can’t mostly stay in the air if there is a ‘carbon cycle’. Do you need a definition of the word ‘cycle’? Seems you do, but I’m not going to humor you, look it up. you said:
But consider
Note that they are saying that 800,000 years ago, the CO2 level was about 400 ppm, about the same as now. How much would you say the Industrial Revolution is responsible for that high level 800,000 years ago? I’d say none. But that’s really about the same as they are responsible now. Why do libs think people don’t recognize these inconsistencies?
I realize you’re attempting to display your brilliance, but you do realize that we’re talking physics where matter is not created or destroyed, only the forms change. What is ‘consumed’ becomes the ‘deposit’ that becomes the oil that becomes consumed, etc.
Thanks for allowing yourself to be on display.
@Redteam: Continue to waste time with GW. YOU GUYS REALLY GOT NOTHING TO DO.
@rich wheeler: George really is a waste of time. But I am watching KC play right now
@Redteam</Cinderella Royals—no teams under 500 in playoffs.
Kershaw VS Wainright tomorrow Arizona upsetting Oregon over on ESPN.
@Rich Wheeler: I think I’m going with KC to win it all. Yep, watched that whipping of Oregon. Arizona was ready, Oregon wasn’t. Bye bye Mariota’s Heisman hopes.
@Redteam #230:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere
The entire entry is worth reading.
You are very welcome.
@Redteam:
Certainly I understand some apprehension about using hydrogen as a fuel for vehicles (most students of science and history remember the floating bombs called zeppelins,) The greatest danger being the possibility of a tank or delivery line rupture either through negligence or accident. This is also a possibility with natural gas, but hydrogen does burn hotter.
What I really like about the concept of using hydrogen fueled engines is that the exhaust is water vapor (with some small amounts of nitrogen oxide ). The main concern for the environment is the source of electrical power used for the electrolysis to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen. If atomic power were used the whole cycle would be of minimal effect on the environment.
@Redteam:
I think the following pretty well sums up George’s mindset:
“I voted for Obama because he promised to advance gay rights, and he did. I’m sorry about his foreign policy blunders and his IRS blunders and his sloppy Affordable Care Act and a lot of other things that he has mismanaged. But keeping myself out of prison was and is my first priority. Too many Republicans think that all gay people belong in prison or worse. Until Republicans make peace with gays, they won’t get my vote.
And yes, Retire05, the country can go to Hell in the meantime“.
You see, George doesn’t care if 13 people are slaughtered at Fort Hood, or people are killed and maimed on the streets of Boston. He doesn’t care that radical Islam is marching across the Middle East, committing genocide as they do. He doesn’t care that four Americans were slaughtered in Benghazi or that people exercising their First Amendment rights were persecuted by the IRS. He cares naught for the hundreds of dead Mexicans or the death of Brian Terry in the Fast and Furious disgrace, or that an American hero languishes in a Mexican jail for taking a wrong turn. He doesn’t care that we have the smallest work force since 1978, the days of Jimmy Carter. Nor does he care that gasoline remains high, groceries are getting even higher, utility bills continue to increase, our dependence on oil from nations that support our enemies, and that our respect from foreign nations is in the toilet. No, George does not care because ……………………..gay.
Never mind that sodomy laws were abolished in 2003, eliminating his fear of being jailed for his debauchery.
Obama, himself, has done nothing to further the interest of gays. Oh, yeah, he used his pen and phone to abolish DADT. You see, it was not enough that gays could serve in our military as long as they didn’t make an issue of being gay. No, no, that was not enough for George. He wanted gays to be able to rub it in the face of every heterosexual soldier. But did Obama really do anything else? No. Everything gays have acquired have been done through the courts and activist judges who should have recused themselves due to a personal investment in the outcome of the cases.
You can go to Hell. I can go to Hell. The nation can go to Hell. George doesn’t care. He thinks all the errors made by Obama will not affect him. He thinks the Gay Liberation Movement is winning and that, and only that, is all George cares about. Not the rest of Americans. Not the nation. Not the world in general. Just himself.
Now, tell me homosexuality is not a mental illness. How about malignant narcissism?
George hasn’t realized that the Democrats do not care about the 2% of the vote that he and his fellow sodomists represent. The DNC has a new mistress, and it’s not black Americans or gay Americans. It’s illegal aliens and the blacks and gays have been tossed to the side for a bunch of people who a) entered our nation illegally and b) are bringing with them diseases that we cannot combat. But I guess George thinks he is immune to those diseases. Guess he thinks he can’t catch them while at his tony grocers.
Yeah, I would say, if he is representative of the majority of gays, they are stupid. They don’t even realize they have been tossed to the side by the DNC for a new lover.
@Ditto #236:
Regarding the use of hydrogen as an automobile fuel (hybrid or otherwise) as opposed to the use of battery operated cars (current battery limitations notwithstanding): Which of these two alternative methods of powering automobiles is ultimately more efficient?
I am asking you this because you were aware that the heat of combustion of hydrogen is greater than the heat of combustion of commonly used organic fuels (approximately three times as much as gasoline, propane and natural gas, for example) and this fact is not widely known. Unfortunately, the much higher heat of combustion of hydrogen is not quite the advantage in hydrogen fuel cells (which are electrochemical) as it would be if the hydrogen was being burned in an internal combustion engine.
My presumption is that the electricity used, either to recharge batteries or to crack water through electrolysis, would necessarily come from a nuclear power plant, as that source DOES have a better CHANCE of not immediately polluting the environment than does the combustion of fossil fuels.
Unfortunately, some 95% of our hydrogen is currently produced from natural gas, or, rather, from the methane (CH4) that compromises most of natural gas.
The hydrogen for use in hydrogen fuel cell vehicles will most likely be produced in the future by electrolysis, which involves passing electricity through water. And at least in the foreseeable future, that electricity will come from the same potentially polluting sources as the electricity used to charge the electric car’s batteries.
But even if all of the electricity comes from ENTIRELY clean and non-polluting power plants, my main concern remains:
“The entire process of electrolysis, transportation, pumping and fuel-cell conversion (of hydrogen) would leave only about 20 to 25 percent of the original electricity to drive the motor. In a plug-in hybrid, the process of electricity transmission, charging an onboard battery and discharging the battery would leave 75 to 80 percent of the original electricity to drive the motor. Thus, a plug-in should be able to travel three to four times farther on an original kilowatt-hour of electricity than a hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle could.”
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/08/05/3467115/tesla-toyota-hydrogen-cars-batteries/
In other words, the hydrogen fuel cell technology is approximately three times LESS efficient than the electric battery technology.
When combined with the widespread availability of electricity (to charge batteries) and the present lack of an infrastructure to store and distribute hydrogen, I am not optimistic that this technology will prevale.
Do you not arrive at the same conclusion?
@retire05 #237:
Preaching to the choir, are we?
“Never mind that sodomy laws were abolished in 2003, eliminating his fear of being jailed for his debauchery.”
Those “sodomy laws” provided for the incarceration of “practicing” gays, and SCOTUS Justice Scalia maintains to this day that the 2003 decision that ended such incarceration was wrong. He is not alone on the high court in this opinion.
A Republican presidential win could result in soon-retiring liberal justices being replaced with conservative justices of Scalia’s stripe, raising the possibility of a reversal of the 2003 decision. Gay rights in this country are not settled law. The surest way to lose a right is to fail to remain vigilant and aggressive in its protection.
“Everything gays have acquired have been done through the courts and activist judges who should have recused themselves due to a personal investment in the outcome of the cases.”
I think that you forgot – AGAIN – the EIGHT state legislatures that passed gay marriage laws and the THREE state referendums that approved gay marriage. “Everything” we gained was NOT gained through the courts, and not all 39 Federal and state judges and 7 district appeals court judges who approved gay marriage did so because they had a “personal investment” in the outcome, other than that they were all human and this is a human rights issue.
The rest of your angry rant is but so many sour grapes.
But just think how happy you’ll be when, as you predict, you see my corpse hanging from an ISIS noose, and you’re wearing a nice new burka, all because George Wells didn’t vote for Romney, a speculation of yours suggesting that a diagnosis of stage 3 mental hyperventilation is warranted.
@George+Wells:
I am willing to concede same sex marriage for national security, a work force that represents our population and not the population of 1978, lower gas prices, lower grocery costs, lower utility bills, less reliance on oil from nations that want to harm us, reduced national debt, less restrictions due to regulations, the cessation of the slaughter of unborn children, the end of frivolous laws suits and installing of tort reform, a fairer tax system and more freedom from what has become an oppressive government.
Are you willing to achieve all those things if it meant an abolition of same sex marriage?
@George+Wells:
Oh, you don’t have to worry about any of that, George. You see, real men, not those who are classified as male, will be there to protect you although you do not care about them. Real women, not those who are classified as female, will also pick up a weapon to protect your girly-man ass although you do not care about them.
@retire05 #240:
“I am willing to concede same sex marriage for national security, a work force that represents our population and not the population of 1978, lower gas prices, lower grocery costs, lower utility bills, less reliance on oil from nations that want to harm us, reduced national debt, less restrictions due to regulations, the cessation of the slaughter of unborn children, the end of frivolous laws suits and installing of tort reform, a fairer tax system and more freedom from what has become an oppressive government.
Are you willing to achieve all those things if it meant an abolition of same sex marriage?”
What a delightfully absurd proposal!
What a sophomoric attempt at bald, fork-tongued trickery!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
You DO understand how absurd it is, right?
If achieving national security means MY giving up same sex marriage, your willingness to concede same sex marriage is a moot point, a worthless concession of nothing. Your offer expires the moment I accept it, a fine example of a logical conundrum, a Mobius loop of unresolvable paradox, a logically invalid combination of two mutually exclusive conditionals. You really DO think I’m stupid, don’t you?
Saving the United States from destruction at the hands of incompetent Democratic Presidents won’t do me much good if the Republican President I instead vote for throws me in jail (through judicial replacement).
When the Republican Party Platform adopts language explicitly supporting gay rights, Republicans will get my vote. Until then, YOU get to save the world without my help.
As I pointed out – and you dropped from your quote – I served my country honorably in war, worked my job and paid my taxes. I deserve more than to be witch-hunted for my sexual orientation. The Republican Party has supported those witch hunts in the past, and the leopard has not yet changed its spots.
But thanks for the good laugh!
XOXO!
@retire05 #241:
“Oh, you don’t have to worry about any of that, George. You see, real men, not those who are classified as male, will be there to protect you although you do not care about them. Real women, not those who are classified as female, will also pick up a weapon to protect your girly-man ass although you do not care about them.”
No they won’t. I’ll be long dead. Nothing of mine to protect, no children, no narcissistic monument placed above a rotting corpse. I’ve donated my body to science, the cheapest way to go. They don’t even send ashes anymore.
The problems of the next generation belong to that generation. I voted to protect some of the environment for them – little good that did. But if Redteam is correct, nothing we do can harm the World anyway, so why worry?
Populations will grow and shrink, political boundaries will move back and forth, and if there is a God, he’ll get plenty more souls in Heaven to keep him company. I’ll never know why HE bothered.
@George+Wells:
Actually, it is not moot. I am willing to make a social concession for the good of the nation. You are not, and that speaks volumes about you.
Judicial replacement will have nothing to do with overturning Lawrence. There is a little thing called stare decisis that the modern court subscribes to. I fully expect Roe will never be overturned, even if the court was solidly conservative, although I could hope that it be moderated.
Why should Republicans support an agenda that allows mentally ill people to walk around untreated? The fact that you are so singularly fixated, and willing to elect those who you know support the destruction of our nation, again, says volumes about you.
And Democrats supported the oppression of black Americans. But since it was not your ox being gored, I’m sure you didn’t care.
You are not a man, George. You are a small, small person who happens to be male.
@Redteam: Rich Rod 5-0 with Wildcats after being dumped by Mich which is so bad it’s a 3 point dog to Rutgers-ouch
KC playing Billyball but doubt if they get by powerhouse Orioles with best manager in baseball.
Dodgers in N.L IF Kershaw dominates.
Going to Eagles concert tonight.
@retire05 #244:
“Actually, it is not moot. I am willing to make a social concession for the good of the nation. You are not, and that speaks volumes about you.”
I may have been guilty for giving you more credit than you deserve. It didn’t occur to me that you might have been suggesting that we both simply stop ADVOCATING for our respective positions on gay marriage. Was that it? Because if it was, I still can’t see how it works at all.
You aren’t God. You cannot make gay marriage happen or not happen at will. So the “social concession” that you offer to make is empty. It doesn’t affect what happens to you or to me or to the country. On the other hand, If I give up gay marriage, what is it again that I lose? I lose my marriage- something that means nothing to you but everything to me. You offer to give up nothing at all, and suggest that I give up what I have already gained. You do not offer a fair exchange. Your offer is not accepted.
“There is a little thing called stare decisis that the modern court subscribes to.”
As Chief Justice John Roberts remarked during his Senate confirmation hearing, “stare decisis” informs the court but does not bind it. The court occasionally makes mistakes, and these must eventually be overturned. There are numerous instances in the court’s history where previous SCOTUS decisions have indeed been overturned. The Lawrence decision overturned the Hardwick decision, in spite of “stare decisis.”
“Stare decisis” applies most compellingly to cases in which the law is considered to be “settled,” as in no longer in question. With Justice Scalia still arguing that the Lawrence decision was wrong and should be overturned, and joined as he is in this opinion by other conservative justices on the court, the issue is clearly not “settled.”
“Why should Republicans support an agenda that allows mentally ill people to walk around untreated?”
As that DOES reflect the core Republican view of gay people, why, again, should I or any other gay person vote for a Republican? Ever?
You make my point better than I can. Thanks for your help!
@George+Wells:
No, George, I am not God, and I fully accept that. But what I am is a voter, someone who speaks in the voting booth. I have a responsibility to elect those who will best serve the nation, AS A WHOLE, not pander to a certain segment of our national society. You, on the other hand, will cast your ballot over a singular issue and not what is best for the nation as a whole.
I understand that in many instances you are not real bright, but all decisions of the highest court can be considered “settled”, until they’re challenged and are no longer “settled”. Judge Sotomayor answering Senator Hatch [almost a quote]: All decisions of the Supreme Court I consider “settled law” to the extent that the doctrine of stare decisis (respect for precedent) applies.
In other words, all law is settled . . . except when it isn’t.
Humans are hard wired to procreate by having sexual intercourse with a member of the opposite sex. That is undeniable. So you have two choices, George. You can a) claim that being gay is a choice, at which point it becomes an abnormal condition due to mental imbalance (mental illnesses should be treated) or b) you are gay by birth, at which point that makes you a freak of nature.
I, as a voter, would vote for someone who was willing to make social concessions that go against my beliefs, if, and only IF, they adhered to the other things I listed in my previous post. Someone who supports national security, fairer taxation, reduced national debt, reduction of oppressive regulations, personal responsibility expected from all citizens and the abolition of the redistribution of wealth would get my vote even if they supported same-sex marriage. You would not vote for someone who supported all those things if they did NOT support same-sex marriage. You are a one-issue voter and the rest of us be damned.
That is why you are not a man but a small, small person who happens to be male.
@George+Wells:
While I like the hybrid car, with either of the two fuels, I also don’t think either of them will be the car of the future. I think the availability of LNG will be so dominant and low in cost, that it will become the fuel of the future. The reason battery(alone) powered cars won’t make it, in general, is range. If you have to stop and spend the night while your car recharges about every 300 miles on a cross country trip, you will likely look for another mode. Goodbye battery, hello LNG.
@George+Wells: 239
George, do you think this was the correct way to get to gay marriage? Do you think that the will of the people should be recognized and that where the states passed gay marriage laws that those laws should be respected? What about those states that passed laws prohibiting gay marriage? Don’t those people have rights?
I think you can wait awhile on that diagnosis George, you may not be quite that far along yet.
@George+Wells: 242
Ha Ha, LOL, I don’t think ‘thought’ is a part of the equation. I think knowledge is involved.
@richard wheeler:
Take it to the Limit, one more time……..