"Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong - Page 65

02-13-2007, 10:17 AM

>>>>>>> Such locations are supposed to have reduced speed warning signs
>>>>>>> so that stopping from the reduced speed is possible. If these
>>>>>>> signs don't exist, the transportation engineer in charge should
>>>>>>> be notified.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Transportation engineer <BAHHH HAAA HAA COUGH!!> <wiping tears
>>>>>> from my eyes> Oh man THAT IS A GOOD ONE. The county I came from
>>>>>> didn't even have building inspector (note that is for the entire
>>>>>> COUNTY) and you expect them to have a transportation engineer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for the state roads the spot is well known because during the
>>>>>> summer tourist season there is usually at least two MAJOR traffic
>>>>>> accidents (one time involving a state trooper).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The point is slow speed objects in a place where they are not
>>>>>> expected are dangerous. It doesn't matter if the object is a car,
>>>>>> tractor, bike or cow..
>>>>>
>>>>> Wow. A state transportation department full of ingoramuses
>>>>> responsible for a known hazardous situation that could easily be
>>>>> fixed.
>>>>
>>>> Have you ever tried dealing with a state department? Been there
>>>> (several times) and didn't even get a lousy tee shirt. I was sure
>>>> that after in one year a trooper had been rear ended and a
>>>> motorcyclist KILLED at that intersection something would be done. I
>>>> was on that same road last year and there was a change. . .they
>>>> repainted the lines.
>>>> Remember you can't sue the state w/o its permission.
>>>
>>> Pig ignorant fantasy.
>
>> Why don't you try to sue your state.
>
> Not that stupid.

Glad to see your self-esteem is getting better.

>
>> You'll find out that something controled by a bunch of power hungry
>> lawyers has made itself fairly lawyer proof.
>
> Pig ignorant fantasy.
>
> Have fun explaining those who have done just that and won.

Why should I, I never claimed it couldn't be done. People have even sued
the feds and won. Which is even harder.
>

02-13-2007, 10:17 AM

>>>Where lanes are narrow I use the full lane and force motorists to wait
>>>behind me. So for me, there is no easier or harder roads. There is always
>>>plenty of room for my 2 foot wide bike.
>>
>>
>> Now there's something smart to do. Let's see if we can piss off someone
>> in control of 2000+ pounds of car while I'm on a bicycle. I've had
>> people in cars try to push me out of the way when I was driving a loaded
>> grain truck doing 45 mph. I don't want to think what they would do if I
>> were on a bicycle.
>
> I suggest you not ride a bike, because motorists obviously hate you.
> Either that, or carry some grain you can offer. Perhaps the driver was
> hungry and wanted your booty.

So you are saying that you have NEVER had a problem with a dangerous driver?
If so you are very luckily.

02-13-2007, 10:17 AM

]] Now that north american society has little use for the totally unskilled
]] who dont want to work,
]
] How many can there be, with a 4.5 percent
] unemployment rate, and 3.0 percent means everybody
] holds a job for 3 years and takes 4 or 5 weeks to
] find another job.

>>Because if you aren't looking for a job you are not included in the
>>unemployment rates. IOW, all the people sitting at home drawing welfare
>>checks are not unemployed, they are government employees.
>
> I hate using facts with you - you seem to do so well with very few at
> all - but a general requirement to draw unemployment in most U.S.
> states is that you ARE looking for employment, unless you have a
> qualified reason to not do so - generally a current impairment.

I went back and got the msg I was replying to.

Mea culpa, it seems that I failed make my point clear. My point is there
can be million of them in the US because the unskilled bums don't have to
work because they can sit at home and the government will pay them.

Since they have a great job working for the government they are not looking
for jobs and therefore not counted in the unemployment numbers. This is
where all the "totally unskilled who dont want to work" are.

02-13-2007, 10:17 AM

>>> One of the grade schools around here had a guy shooting students at an
>>> elementary school. That wasn't even a school related thing but some
>>> looney who went over the edge. He just drove up and started shooting
>>> through a chain link fence.
>>> I would put a pointer to the newspaper but out hick town paper wants
>>> money to go through the archives.
>>
>> You must be be mistaken. This could not have happened because the
>> government has made it illegal to carry a firearm within 1000 feet of a
>> school.
>>
>> Isn't it strange how you very rarely hear about shootings in places where
>> the criminals think there might be someone with a gun?
>>
>>
> When was the last time you saw a 'law abiding' criminal, or flat out
> lunatic?
> "Uh, let's see now, I can't go near the school so I'll just snipe a few."
>
> Sign of the times??

Sarcasm is lost on some people but others get it. Unfortunately on only 3
hrs of sleep I'm not sure which category your reply fits into.

02-13-2007, 10:18 AM

>>> Here is one link. The author on this one thinks that 9.5--11 billion
>>> will be the limit. He does mention that 'Getaway' places are more
>>> popular than ever, indicating the stress of over population is
>>> getting to people even now.
>>
>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

I seem to have missed the org msg so what other links do you have other than
one from a com-si major?

>>
>> The trouble is that what "people even now" see are only side effects
>> of population, not that we are overpopulated already. Of course the
>> first knee jerk response to that is "Whom are you proposing to kill
>> first?" This of course is a rude misinterpretation of the condition.
>> Humans have a finite life and need not be "killed" to reduce
>> population. Birth rate makes the difference.
>
> Correct logic since I was only proposing a fertility inhibitor.
> Some would label even that as murder, but it will have to be done to limit
> the exponential population growth. 6 billion people can not be sustained
> at our way of living. Not ever gonna happen. There will be wars, either
> holy or territorial, and anyone who thinks otherwise just doesn't
> understand the human condition.
>>
>>> It's at best a messy conundrum we have gotten into.
>>
>> The messy part is that our economic goals demand we live in a Ponzi
>> scheme in which we need an ever increasing number of participants.
>> Birth rate makes the difference.
>>
>> That is true for developed countries as well as the most economically
>> backward ones.

If all this is true then things will get really messy when nature works it
out via famine, disease and/or wars.

>
> It gets messy when you consider that I (we baby boomers) and many others
> will be retiring within the next decade and we should like some of our
> money returned to us. What appears to have happened is that the government
> puts the SS money into a "General fund" and dips into it for things like,
> oh say, Bush's war games. Both senior and junior are guilty of starting
> things they can't control. I think that general fund is pretty wiped right
> now since it has probably been supporting welfare and 'friendly'
> countries. That made sense during the communist days but not now.
> We will be seeing a long and treacherous journey.

First off you can thank FDR for the basic problem with SS. Anyone with a
little sense should have known that a pyramid scheme such as this would fail
at some point. Remember your money is going to pay for the people retired
today, not being saved. Had to be that way because the first people who got
it (my grandparents for one) had paid almost nothing into it.

Second, its LBJ and the dems who have gotten SS into the problem its in now.
They are the ones who decided since there was so much money just laying
around in the SS funds they should use it to start buying votes (remember
the war on poverty which we seem to still be losing). It was supposed to be
a retirement safety net. They expanded it to cover more and more people.

Third, the SS fund was empty LONG before either Bush (IIRC, or even Reagan)
got into office. I believe it was sucked dry in the Carter years but I may
be off on that. Any way, the dems were the ones who got a great idea to get
around not using SS funds for general revenue. They just started
'borrowing' from the SS fund.

Fourth, there is no way the SS system will last much longer. When it
reaches the point where you have just 2 or 3 workers to support one SS
recipient AND welfare AND the rest of the other government expenses they
will just say 'screw this'. There is already a fairly large 'under the
table' and barter economy going out there that is not taxed now. How large
do you thing its going to get when 50+% of wages are going to taxes?

02-13-2007, 10:31 AM

no spam <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> True Christians have two rules to follow (if someone isn't
>>>>>>>>>> following them then it doesn't matter what name they use)
>>>>>>>>>> those rules are: Love God completely and love your neighbor
>>>>>>>>>> as you love yourself.

>>>>>>>>> How odd that that fool that was stupid enough to get
>>>>>>>>> nailed up by the romans didnt say anything like that.

>>>>>>>> Your ignorance is showing, where do you think it comes from?

>>>>>>> Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

>>>>>>> That fool never ever said that there are just those two rules.

>>>>>>> Really,

>>>>>> Yep.

>>>>>>> what other rules did he say there were?

>>>>>> Even you cant actually be THAT stupid.

>>>>> IOW, there are no others or you would have posted them.

>>>> Guess which pathetic little rabid fundy has just got egg all over
>>>> its pathetic little face, as always ?

>>>> Even someone as stupid as you must have noticed the one about the
>>>> eye of the needle.

>>>> Then there's the one about throwing stones too.

>>>> They aint the only ones either.

>>> You are funny.

>> You are pathetic.

> You are pathetic.

Corse this wouldnt be you repeating yourself would it ?

>>> Those are called parables and they are not rules.

>> Bull**** with that throwing stones line.

> Which is related to the two rules,

Nope.

> if you love your neighbor like you love yourself you aren't going to stone them.

Mindlessly silly. Stoning to death is one of punishments for some
crimes, it aint just throwing stones at your neighbours, fool.

> Think of it this way;

Not a shred of evidence that you are actually capable of thought, fundy.

> in football you have a rule that covers all personal fouls not one rule against kicking an
> opponent, another against late hits, another against giving weggies, etc.

Irrelevant to stoning to death for adultery, fool.

>>> Parables are told to show how you should live up to the only two
>>> rules you are to follow.

>> Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

>>>>> Thank you for helping proving my point.

>>>> No thanks for that pathetic excuse for bull****.

>>> You did it again.

>> Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.

>>> You examples proved that there are only two rules that Christians
>>> have to follow.

>> Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

> Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

Any 2 year old could leave that for dead, rabid fundy.

>>>>>>> Try reading the Bible yourself.

>>>>>> Been there, done that,

>>>>> And that's why you can't tell me any more rules Christ pointed out.

>>>> Just did.

>>> You tried. And failed. Want to try again?

>> Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

>>>>>> Because they ain't in there.

>>>> Fraid so.

>>> Prove it.

>> Just did.

> And I unproved your proof.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed rabid fundy fantasyland.

> So try again.

Go and **** yourself.

>>>>> Another example to show your docs of you repeating yourself.

>>>> Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ?

>>> Only in response to someone who does it.

>> Bare faced lie, obvious from your posts to others today alone.

> Again you need to show proof,

I just did, your posts to others that day alone.

> I may restate a point because I think someone didn't get it the first time but I don't keep using
> the same phrase over and over and over.

Bare faced lie.

> That and insulting people instead of trying to support your position is a sign of a small mind.

Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ?

You're so stupid that you havent even noticed
that you did precisely that yourself right there.

And since you cant manage anything better than that sort of
puerile ****, here goes the chain on the rest of your puerile ****.

02-13-2007, 12:30 PM

no spam wrote:

>>>>Where lanes are narrow I use the full lane and force motorists to wait
>>>>behind me. So for me, there is no easier or harder roads. There is always
>>>>plenty of room for my 2 foot wide bike.
>>>
>>>
>>>Now there's something smart to do. Let's see if we can piss off someone
>>>in control of 2000+ pounds of car while I'm on a bicycle. I've had
>>>people in cars try to push me out of the way when I was driving a loaded
>>>grain truck doing 45 mph. I don't want to think what they would do if I
>>>were on a bicycle.
>>
>>I suggest you not ride a bike, because motorists obviously hate you.
>>Either that, or carry some grain you can offer. Perhaps the driver was
>>hungry and wanted your booty.
>
>
> So you are saying that you have NEVER had a problem with a dangerous driver?
> If so you are very luckily.
>
>

Yes, I've had motorists mess with me. But that doesn't mean I'm going to
change my behavior. They've messed with me no matter how I've ridden, so
I do what reduces my overall risk, which is, counterintuitively, to use
more space, not less.

Wayne

02-13-2007, 01:30 PM

On Feb 13, 2:17 pm, "no spam" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> >>>Where lanes are narrow I use the full lane and force motorists to wait
> >>>behind me. So for me, there is no easier or harder roads. There is always
> >>>plenty of room for my 2 foot wide bike.
>
> >> Now there's something smart to do. Let's see if we can piss off someone
> >> in control of 2000+ pounds of car while I'm on a bicycle. I've had
> >> people in cars try to push me out of the way when I was driving a loaded
> >> grain truck doing 45 mph. I don't want to think what they would do if I
> >> were on a bicycle.
>
> > I suggest you not ride a bike, because motorists obviously hate you.
> > Either that, or carry some grain you can offer. Perhaps the driver was
> > hungry and wanted your booty.
>
> So you are saying that you have NEVER had a problem with a dangerous driver?
> If so you are very luckily.

This is typical SUV behavior on our Darwinistic roads...

http://www.enricovalenza.com/img/carn.jpg

Bikes better use same survival strategy as early mammals: hide away

While they pollute our beloved earth and talk about the end of times,
we can't claim our place under the sun. The asteroid must come soon.

02-13-2007, 01:47 PM

On Tue, "no spam" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>Mea culpa, it seems that I failed make my point clear. My point is there
>can be million of them in the US because the unskilled bums don't have to
>work because they can sit at home and the government will pay them.

Not able and healthy men or women, the welfare
program was redesigned 10 or 15 years ago (or more),
and by the end of the Clinton administration, all able
bodied people were removed.

There are quite a few reasons a person of working
age can get some type of benefit, single mothers may be
the biggest group, the concern is for the children.

>Since they have a great job working for the government they are not looking
>for jobs and therefore not counted in the unemployment numbers. This is
>where all the "totally unskilled who dont want to work" are.

Not at all, there are essentially no people like that
in the US, unless they have falsified some type of medical
condition.
In fact, there are very few people that don't have a
job or self employment. Inner cities may be a little
different, and there are a lot of homeless, there are
even homeless who work, but can't make enough
to pay the deposits and rent in advance to have
a place to live in some areas.

Affordability of heating fuel and rental homes
and apartments is a serious problem, and it can
only get worse.

There are a number of well trained and willing
workers who are not employed regularly, alcohol and
drugs are a big problem.
But chances are it is relatives that are feeding
them, not the state or federal government.

Joe Fischer

02-13-2007, 02:03 PM

On Tue, "no spam" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>Fourth, there is no way the SS system will last much longer. When it
>reaches the point where you have just 2 or 3 workers to support one SS
>recipient AND welfare AND the rest of the other government expenses they
>will just say 'screw this'.

Fortunately there are also self employed paying
into social security. There are a very large number
of people who do pay SS withholding taxes, but they
effectively contribute nothing because they get a tax
credit for having kids.

>There is already a fairly large 'under the
>table' and barter economy going out there that is not taxed now. How large
>do you thing its going to get when 50+% of wages are going to taxes?

It is already 50+ for many people, for very successful
self employed, the tax rate is 33 percent on the amount over
a certain amount, and the self employment SS taxes are
15.3 percent, plus local and state income tax and sales
tax on some things and real estate tax and personal
property tax.
And if they have employees, there is state and
federal unemployment tax, 7.65 percent SS contribution
on all of the employee earnings, plus workers compensation
taxes,

Fabian socialism has been making advances, and
is causing problems with the free economy, and apparently
that is exactly the objective of Fabian socialism.

And because of all this, the artificially high gasoline
prices are have more of an effect than otherwise.

Joe Fischer