XC.Morrison

What would Reagan do?

Well, he is a great musician but I don't have any tats.

Which one of you is this:

I'm watching it right now. It's pretty good, definitely learning some things and it's entertaining too. That day of terror plot in like 95 that included the Statue of Liberty was crazy - glad that got thwarted.

Trump misquoted himself: Here

Just wait till Starbucks rolls out their plain red holiday cup in a few months and we'll all see just how sensitive republicans are. Or let's watch the collective outrage the next time a democratic congresswoman accidentally refers to a magazine as a clip or vice versa. Y'all complain about every bit as many things as the dems - don't be so self righteous.

Also, if a person is pardoned, they lose their 5th amendment right not to testify about others involvement in the same matter. A commutation on the other hand, would preserve 5th amendment rights.

Look it up. Someone on the news commented this is why W. commuted Scooter Libby's sentence rather than issuing a pardon.

I don't know, but I heard Illinois is a sanctuary state now.

I believe he was prosecuted by Jeff Sessions' DOJ.

I know, pardon my sarcasm. You won't find me out there.

True, but not really the topic of this thread.

How's bout you contribute or GTFO.

There's some cost to getting us less dependent on fossil fuels as well and this is where the debate gets really interesting. Make no mistake, folks are right to be fearful over these costs and on top of that it's harder to predict the long term cost-benefit than it is the actual climate change. One such analysis is here Major reports are concluding that stabilizing greenhouse-gas emissions to avoid catastrophic climate change is possible and can be done at a relatively low cost. I'm not sure if they are factoring in the job creation that comes along with the new industries, but I would imagine so.

The cost of goods should be in line with inflation, which their loss payouts are exceeding. Also, they're not factoring employee salaries into these analyses. Try to keep up.

Insurance companies have been concerned for some time now, seeing as their loss claims are outpacing inflation.

But if you tolerate the intolerant, then are you really being tolerant at all?

A "hate" shield doesn't make you hateful any more so than rain boots make you rainful. It's to shield them from the hate. Besides, shields don't hate - people hate.

Mind you, I'm not the one trying to stick my head up the bull's ass because I refuse to take the butcher's word for it like he's conspiring against me or something.

Whoa whoa, that's a whole separate discussion; should probably have its own thread. We've got to get these guys walking before we can ever hope to run with that discussion.

No, that's why you can believe me, I've got no financial motive. But in case you don't believe me, here's a fun little experiment you can do at home. Start any water cooled internal combustion engine that is equipped with a coolant temp gauge. The coolant circulating around the engine represents the oceans. The hydrocarbon based fuel consumed by the engine represents man burned fossil fuels. Just after starting the engine, record the temperature. Take another reading 10 minutes later (this represents time). If the second number is bigger than the first then you've just proved AGW to yourself. Unless you're a climate scientist, then don't believe anything you just did. Granted, this doesn't get into greenhouse effects, but I don't have a greenhouse at home and I wouldn't expect you to build one. It'd be neat if you did though; you could maybe discharged some CO2 fire extinguishers to boost the ppm level. Anything much beyond this and we'd have to involve real scientists.