Your facts are not facts, they are fantasy.
-
......You know you want one!! -
Don't be ignorant. I have never denied climate change, I believe in it strongly and that it been going on through human history and millennia prior. I would have thought that link I gave explained a few things.
Has the human race interfered with natural climactic change? Ever since the first man brought fire into the cave.
Will the accelerated interference of centuries destroy the planet? This globe has endured worse and survived.
Can mankind destroy themselves? It is, as they say, inevitable.
The article saying "first of its kind" is false. They were working on nuclear fuel cells fifty years ago. That's where our nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers get their power.
The first authorized for connection to the grid may be correct.
So, why did it die? The article cited claims inflated costs and supply issues. I suspect other factors. After all, it's no more than a high-tech steam turbine.
Go figure. We have dozens of portable, safe, and effective atomic energy plants active supplied by the government for use in warships, yet nothing for the people who finance these expenditures through taxes.CT Co-ordinator, Paintball MarshalsComment
-
Prove it. Simple as that. Take something I say is true or a fact and show the evidence where I am wrong.Don't be ignorant. I have never denied climate change, I believe in it strongly and that it been going on through human history and millennia prior. then i am mistaken. I assumed that you and your other GOP drum beaters were all on the same bandwagon.
I would have thought that link I gave explained a few things. in all fairness, which link? You drop so many of them, i can'ttell the difference.
Has the human race interfered with natural climactic change? Ever since the first man brought fire into the cave.
Will the accelerated interference of centuries destroy the planet? This globe has endured worse and survived.
Can mankind destroy themselves? It is, as they say, inevitable. well tell Tuna that, cause it seems like we of the same conclusion, just from 2 different sides
The article saying "first of its kind" is false. They were working on nuclear fuel cells fifty years ago. That's where our nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers get their power. last i looked, we have reactors, not cells. It could be pedantic, but i am not a nuclear physicist.
The first authorized for connection to the grid may be correct.
So, why did it die? The article cited claims inflated costs and supply issues. I suspect other factors. After all, it's no more than a high-tech steam turbine.
Go figure. We have dozens of portable, safe, and effective atomic energy plants active supplied by the government for use in warships, yet nothing for the people who finance these expenditures through taxes. well, the private sector for nuclear power does not adhere to itself the idea of problem free nuke plants. Just look at the penny pinching and slash & burn business practices of 3 mile island power. What you need is a company that can not only intill confidence that there would be no problems, but to put the the profit 2nd.Comment
-
Does this article have their math right?
With a 33 trillion debt, assuming a 330 million population, the debt owed is $100,000 per citizen.
An increase in taxes of 800 billion a year would require 40 years to pay off. If there were no interest on those debts.
Unfortunately that interest is currently over one trillion a year, still more than the 800 billion a year even keeps up with.
They tell us that Gov't economics are not like a citizen, because a Gov't lives longer than an individual and can pass the burden onto the next generation.
And then tell us they need to spend more to keep the Gov't open every few months. But they have no money of their own, they spend our money in our name supposedly for our benefit.
What happens when it does collapse? All those debts come due. Remember history. No culture has survived forever.
Possibly more often than you'd think.CT Co-ordinator, Paintball MarshalsComment
-
Not 15 minutes after posting that, this comes up in my feed;
I was warned this new komputer would customize according to my history, didn't think it would be so quick based on my comments here.CT Co-ordinator, Paintball MarshalsComment
-
If I'm not mistaken, the UK, within the last 20 years paid off a debt to the US from WW1. And the UK also has debts that reach far back as the 18th century(or at least the reign of King George III, the last king to rule over the US). Debt while important means nothing. The US or any government can wave away the debt but it can also enforce those persons that Owe money's that where avoided.Does this article have their math right?
With a 33 trillion debt, assuming a 330 million population, the debt owed is $100,000 per citizen.
An increase in taxes of 800 billion a year would require 40 years to pay off. If there were no interest on those debts.
Unfortunately that interest is currently over one trillion a year, still more than the 800 billion a year even keeps up with.
They tell us that Gov't economics are not like a citizen, because a Gov't lives longer than an individual and can pass the burden onto the next generation.
And then tell us they need to spend more to keep the Gov't open every few months. But they have no money of their own, they spend our money in our name supposedly for our benefit.
What happens when it does collapse? All those debts come due. Remember history. No culture has survived forever.
Possibly more often than you'd think.
So what does that mean? I really don't know. I am not strong on economics, just that I lack in what I think my economics should be at.Comment
-
CT Co-ordinator, Paintball MarshalsComment
-
Are you from the planet Jibber? I have trouble translating Jibberish.
(10 points to anyone who can name the author of that quote
)
No. No Gov't can simply waive away debt. Do you think the countries who hold these debts would sit still for that? In our case you're talking China, U.K., France, Iran, Russia, India, Japan...The list goes on.
We took out loans, we made commitments, we owe these countries money. To the tune of 33 trillion.
To suddenly say "Uh, No. We aren't going to pay. We decided to waive that." That is something that would not be tolerated, I mean from the back alleys of Baltimore drug rings all the way up to Global superpowers that sort of disrespect always has a negative and sometimes violent response.
Our whole economy is based on debt. Who owes what to whom. Our national budget is determined by how much money the Gov't is owed, not by what it actually has. Things like student loan debt, which is a more significant percentage than I would have thought. The budget is based on what it is owed, current Admin wants to cancel some of what is owed, budget reduced by like amount = less money to spend.
That's not something to be proud of, and I don't wish our Country to repeat that.the UK also has debts that reach far back as the 18th century(or at least the reign of King George III, the last king to rule over the US)
And technically, King George was the last to rule over "America" due to the Revolutionary War. It wasn't the "U.S." until the after the civil war.
That one lost translation. As I interpret it, you seem to state that the Gov't ~ simply because it is a Gov't, is capable of squeezing blood out of a stone.but it can also enforce those persons that Owe money's that where avoided
How can "enforcement" take what people do not have? Threats of imprisonment?
I get it that you already shell out 30% of your income to avoid going to jail. Just remember, The Boston Tea Party was held over a 3% tax increase.CT Co-ordinator, Paintball MarshalsComment
-
CT Co-ordinator, Paintball MarshalsComment
-
Replies in redAre you from the planet Jibber? I have trouble translating Jibberish.
(10 points to anyone who can name the author of that quote )
No. No Gov't can simply waive away debt. Do you think the countries who hold these debts would sit still for that? In our case you're talking China, U.K., France, Iran, Russia, India, Japan...The list goes on. except the Soviet Unionwhich after the Iron curtainfell, ignored the US about the money loaned for debts acrued in WW2.
We took out loans, we made commitments, we owe these countries money. To the tune of 33 trillion.
To suddenly say "Uh, No. We aren't going to pay. We decided to waive that." That is something that would not be tolerated, I mean from the back alleys of Baltimore drug rings all the way up to Global superpowers that sort of disrespect always has a negative and sometimes violent response. except in those cases where we freely give money to prop up countries and governmentslike bjt totally: Israel, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Vietnamand many others.
Our whole economy is based on debt. you have it backwards. The economy is based on either projections of what we have earned or money we have on hand. It used to be the gold standard.Who owes what to whom. Our national budget is determined by how much money the Gov't is owed, not by what it actually has. again, it was the gold standard. It is also wrong to base this off of the budget, even though that is bow our government works now.Things like student loan debt, which is a more significant percentage than I would have thought. The budget is based on what it is owed, current Admin wants to cancel some of what is owed, budget reduced by like amount = less money to spend. student loans are predatory and a different subject, all together.
That's not something to be proud of, and I don't wish our Country to repeat that.
And technically, King George was the last to rule over "America" due to the Revolutionary War. It wasn't the "U.S." until the after the civil war. ummm, what were we before the Civil war then? I am pretty sure when the confederate states seceeded from the union, it was from the union of the United States.
That one lost translation. As I interpret it, you seem to state that the Gov't ~ simply because it is a Gov't, is capable of squeezing blood out of a stone. yes. If you owe taxes and/or found to be defrauding the government of the those taxes, then they will get you for that.
How can "enforcement" take what people do not have? Threats of imprisonment? well, you can either, from what I understand: pay ot outright, agree to make payments, declare bankruptcy(which to an earlier point, isn't it waving off the debts earned), or go to jail. Those are the laws that were agreed upon in this country
I get it that you already shell out 30% of your income to avoid going to jail. Just remember, The Boston Tea Party was held over a 3% tax increase. oh yes the BTP argument. Which every foxnews lovin' mouth breather loves to site, except the point of it was partly yes, an increase on the tax, but the whole was an increse of tax without those taxes being used upon the 13 colonies or having a say on what those taxes are being used for.Comment
-
So much wrong there. Especially your understanding of American History. However, while I would enjoy tearing that little diatribe apart notwithstanding the rest of your psychoses, I would point out the last bit.
oh yes the BTP argument. Which every foxnews lovin' mouth breather loves to site, except the point of it was partly yes, an increase on the tax, but the whole was an increse of tax without those taxes being used upon the 13 colonies or having a say on what those taxes are being used for.
Gee, am I seeing a trend here? Do you or I have a say in how our taxes get spent? Whether they go to homeless vets here or armaments to other Countries? Or just make Politicians rich?
Is that Democracy? Doesn't sound like it to me. Whether it was King George or Biden, the result will likely be the same.CT Co-ordinator, Paintball MarshalsComment
-
I don't see much on this site anymore, so why not explain yourself? You pose topics but without any proof. Well, actually you pose "news" articles that catch your interest and you comment on them(now that your keyboard has been released/rescued), but you don't really expand upon them. Then when challenged, you scramble to the next topic.
As for the taxes, as for what and where our money is spent, you vote. You contact your representatives to better represent your wants and needs. If they don't uphold what they were put in office to do, you vote them out. That is foundational to how this country works.
But do you really expect to have a say in anything that the GOP is offering? They are not there to give you a choice. They only wish to tell you what you will like. That is exactly what fascism is. You have no choice, you have no say and you can't have a vote because there are no other choices. Regardless if you are pro-life or not, denying every women a choice on how they should act while pregnant is not a choice. You sir are totally deranged to think otherwise. Do not confuse the fact that if the party is mostly going with your views that you have a choice.Comment
-
I have no need to explain myself, I'm not here to argue or prove anything. So I just move on, not letting my yesterday take up too much of today. It's called "let it go & live with it".
Something some folks seem incapable of.
As far as taxes, did I have a chance to vote on the gas tax hike here in Va? Was my opinion considered when the State mandated higher car insurance rates to help pay for the uninsured?
The House and Senate here are Democrat controlled. Hard to blame the GOP.
You're starting to sound like Nancy Pelosi's parrot.
CT Co-ordinator, Paintball MarshalsComment
-
For 1, talking politics is against the rules. All of us are wrong for that. 2, when someone asks you a direct question, it is not good ethics or manners to ignore direct questions to you, especially if it's an opinion that is not widely shared. Moving on, well, actions have consequences. On this forum, there are not many but in other aspects of life there are a lot.
Didn't the state's house and senate JUST change at the midterm elections? So do not play coy of how it was always Democrat run, and you've been under the totalitarian regime. Seems the only trick anyone that supports the GOP is to fry victim. But what you did fail to connect is, that while your vote is your voice, it doesn't always get heard. So you have to speak out, start petitions, garner local news, get your opinion out so more people can be better informed. Now, our elected officials can and will not always listen to their constituents. And in that case, you vote them out. Someone as old as you, though far removed from high school civics, should know this.
If I write something, but then Pelosi seems to say the same things, isn't she who is parroting me? Maybe that those that follow the liberal ideals are united.Comment
-
CT Co-ordinator, Paintball MarshalsComment
Comment