tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post4691396107863766340..comments2024-03-29T06:55:47.109-05:00Comments on Althouse: "I hope Susan Rice was keeping tabs on Trump’s Russia ties."Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger676125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-54142843009907479082017-04-05T11:50:16.317-05:002017-04-05T11:50:16.317-05:00Jeff H said...Are we still allowed to waterboard U...<i>Jeff H said...Are we still allowed to waterboard US citizens?</i><br /><br />Waterboard, no. Obliterate with drone strike and/or JDAM, yes.HoodlumDoodlumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17591221162603652473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-75982929461488564692017-04-05T10:44:12.690-05:002017-04-05T10:44:12.690-05:00Are we still allowed to waterboard US citizens?Are we still allowed to waterboard US citizens?Jeff Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17826755658213329360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-47575589803190511392017-04-05T09:27:44.598-05:002017-04-05T09:27:44.598-05:00@ Todd
Castro was asked if he meant Trump people ...@ Todd<br /><br />Castro was asked if he meant Trump people and he said "Yes." in response. He is lying to distract from the damaging news that Susan Rice likely asked the foreign intelligence apparatus to create spreadsheets of communications of American citizens for political purposes.<br /><br />So there's that.Birkelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14205292523499913507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-70303245865769209342017-04-05T08:59:08.655-05:002017-04-05T08:59:08.655-05:00It takes 671 comments but Bruce Hayden wins the th...It takes 671 comments but Bruce Hayden wins the thread.jaydubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02114209278374751401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-14887449569497921742017-04-05T08:32:45.411-05:002017-04-05T08:32:45.411-05:00Inga said...
"I guess I would say this — tha...<i>Inga said...<br /><br />"I guess I would say this — that my impression is ... I wouldn't be surprised after all of this is said and done that some people end up in jail," Castro said."<br /><br />4/4/17, 7:16 PM</i><br /><br />If that is the entirety of the quote, what makes you think he was referring to Trump people?Toddhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12837407567105543162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-74886466403307780992017-04-05T08:00:30.311-05:002017-04-05T08:00:30.311-05:00Oh, sorry, I forgot. It is apparently both sexist ...Oh, sorry, I forgot. It is apparently both sexist and racist to point out that Susan Rice was a political hack misusing the national security apparatus for political gain. Saw this several times yesterday, which says, to me, that some Dems are worried about this scandal hurting them. Bruce Haydenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10815293023158025662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-22354948625784936982017-04-05T07:54:56.048-05:002017-04-05T07:54:56.048-05:00"The truth is, yes, the Obama national securi..."The truth is, yes, the Obama national security team had a job to do. IF they suspected illegal contact between Trump and foreign contacts then it was their DUTY to investigate."<br /><br />I felt compelled to respond to this. No, it was not the job of the "Obama national security team" to investigate. It was their job to maybe request an investigation. We have entire agencies whose jobs it is to do investigations (e.g. DoJ, FBI, CIA, NSA). The White House and the President's NSA are not on that list. And that is intentional. The heads of those departments and agencies are subject to Senate confirmation and removal by impeachment or cause. The President's NSA serves at his convenience, not subject to any oversight whatsoever, except by the President. They cannot be removed by Congress for any reason or by any method. Rice was NSA because she showed her loyalty with Benghazi, and was the highest office that Obama could appoint her to that did not require Senate confirmation, which, as I noted before, wouldn't have even been forthcoming even for dogcatcher, thanks to her blatantly lying to the American people on national TV about Benghazi. If the White House national security team was concerned about Trump's ties to Russia (and not Crooked Hillary's?), their response should have been to task the investigation agencies to respond to their concerns, like Trump has asked them to research the leaks and unmasking. The last person that the American people should want running an investigation of political enemies is a known political hack like Rice operating with no accountability or reviewability. <br /><br />Maybe the my short answer is that the big reason that we know that the "investigation" was political and not truly involving national security is because the person apparently running it was because it was run out of the White Hiuse by a political hack, and not out of or by our investigative agencies. Bruce Haydenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10815293023158025662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1956307962374574622017-04-05T03:50:25.579-05:002017-04-05T03:50:25.579-05:00There were exactly 666 comments on this post befor...<i>There were exactly 666 comments on this post before I made this comment.</i><br /><br />And the Devil is now pissed that you fucked things up for him.Earnest Prolehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07784404737843553158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-36952726413785473402017-04-05T03:16:01.660-05:002017-04-05T03:16:01.660-05:00Rah! Rah! Rah!Rah! Rah! Rah!Jon Ericsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05548597217632737704noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-39558898698775351692017-04-05T02:44:05.789-05:002017-04-05T02:44:05.789-05:00There were exactly 666 comments on this post befor...There were exactly 666 comments on this post before I made this comment. I think we should all congratulate Ann for a devil of post.jaydubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02114209278374751401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-53945244654773940432017-04-05T02:06:52.570-05:002017-04-05T02:06:52.570-05:00FYI, Forbes is not a reliable source. Not unless y...FYI, Forbes is not a reliable source. Not unless you verify the author's cred, anyway. Forbes is almost a blog these days. It accepts articles from "contributors." <br />The "author info" of the page PB&J links to says:<br /><i><br />Drillinginfo is the leading SaaS and data analytics company for energy exploration decision support, helping the oil and gas industry achieve better, faster results. The company's predictive decision platform combines intelligence, analytics, tools, and services in one seamless system to deliver value at every stage of the E&P process. Drillinginfo services more than 3,200 companies globally from its Austin, Texas-based headquarters, and has more than 500 employees on five continents. For more information, visit www.drillinginfo.com.<br />The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.</i><br />Lewis Wetzelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01200232293505119133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-47534251644986800362017-04-05T02:05:11.002-05:002017-04-05T02:05:11.002-05:003rdGradePB_GoodPerson said...
Chick,
At least you...3rdGradePB_GoodPerson said...<br />Chick,<br /><br /><b>At least you deniers are consistent, since you believe that it's impossible to ever improve storage tech, it makes sense that you'd oppose increases in required efficiency (which nets out the same as increasing renewables re cutting down fossil fuel use), because it's impossible to build more efficient, less polluting engines.</b><br /><br />I realize you think that technology improvements happen by magic. It is also clear you have no idea how storage technology limits solar and wind. It isn't just capacity, but transfer loss. You also refuse to understand that current storage technology is brutal environmentally and so is solar. None of those technologies are produced in the US because they can't be and pass environmental regulations.<br /><br /><b>But, forget that. We'll MAGA for the 21st century by moving mountains to find coal.<br /><br />Got it.</b><br /><br />I know democrats love to put people they don't like out of work by government fiat. These people will all transfer out more or less peacefully.<br /><br /><b>https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-06/wind-and-solar-are-crushing-fossil-fuels</b><br /><br />I spent another 5 minutes reading that article. More unicorns and fairies. You really have no idea about how any of this actually works and neither does the tool who wrote that article.<br /><br /><b>Right Buw,<br /><br />You can believe that the US doesn't subsidize fossil fuels (which is what I wrote), presumably this belief triggers some sorta feeling of satisfaction/accomplishment.<br /><br />I dunno.</b><br /><br />It doesn't subsidize fossil fuels. There are specific rules for how that industry has to calculate expenses because making rules for how companies calculate expenses is what the IRS does. After all of these "subsidies" the extraction industry still pays a 45% tax rate. You are not this dumb. Stop posting garbage in bad faith.Achilleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04109507896997459818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-8659661882583070362017-04-05T01:47:43.339-05:002017-04-05T01:47:43.339-05:003rdGradePB_GoodPerson said...
Ach,
Even Forbes wh...3rdGradePB_GoodPerson said...<br /><b>Ach,<br /><br />Even Forbes while debunking "subsidies" can't get to zero:<br /><br />https://www.forbes.com/sites/drillinginfo/2016/02/22/debunking-myths-about-federal-oil-gas-subsidies/2/#385a2b0ff451<br /><br />Maybe you could forward them your data so they can update their info.</b><br /><br />I just spent 5 minutes reading that article. There are zero subsidies. I realize you think accounting procedures and tax breaks are subsidies. That is because you are dumb. Every one of those "subsidies" were guidelines on how the companies expense costs with the exception of the marginal lands royalty fee absolution. They don't pay royalties on those particular federal lands but they pay taxes on what they extract. <br /><br /><i>On average, the industry pays a 45% tax rate when all state, federal, and foreign taxes are totaled up.</i><br /><br />That is the highest rate of taxation of any industry in the country by a long ways. 45% tax rate? That is egregious by any measure. You are not discussing this in good faith if you keep trying to assert the fossil fuel industry is "subsidized."Achilleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04109507896997459818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-55184992386986979602017-04-05T01:31:53.071-05:002017-04-05T01:31:53.071-05:00Here is Wetzel's first law of global warming:
...Here is Wetzel's first law of global warming:<br /><b>The more enthusiastic a person is about a replacement for fossil fuels, the less likely that person is to know how much electrical power is used in the United States each year. </b><br />People would rather read a pop-sci article about giant windmills than spend a few minutes at the DOE website, I guess.<br />FYI, the number was just shy of 4,000,000 gigawatt hours in 2015.<br /><br />Carry on!<br />Lewis Wetzelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01200232293505119133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-34027540620902451682017-04-05T01:17:21.406-05:002017-04-05T01:17:21.406-05:003rdGradePB_GoodPerson said...
Chick,
At least you...<i>3rdGradePB_GoodPerson said...<br />Chick,<br /><br />At least you deniers are consistent, since you believe that it's impossible to ever improve storage tech,<br />. . . </i><br />Whenever liberals tell conservatives what they believe, they are wrong. It's like a law of nature. <br />Lewis Wetzelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01200232293505119133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-34267854010656674122017-04-05T00:02:19.320-05:002017-04-05T00:02:19.320-05:00661661pacwesthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09818912698472924712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-16060626495768334952017-04-04T23:41:25.308-05:002017-04-04T23:41:25.308-05:00Making synthetic carbohydrates or even hydrocarbon...Making synthetic carbohydrates or even hydrocarbons using solar energy is a "soft" approach which yields "hard" stored energy. It mimics nature, of course. <br /><br />Making Si-based solar panels will never be anything but energy intensive, not to mention incredibly messy, chemically. That's why we outsource it to China. chickelithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10773887469972534979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-77805868874334805772017-04-04T23:36:22.679-05:002017-04-04T23:36:22.679-05:00At least you deniers are consistent, since you bel...<i>At least you deniers are consistent, since you believe that it's<br />impossible to ever improve storage tech, it makes sense that you'd<br />oppose increases in required efficiency (which nets out the same as<br />increasing renewables re cutting down fossil fuel use), because it's<br />impossible to build more efficient, less polluting engines.</i><br /><br />I look at the problem of energy storage periodically.* Carbon,<br />lithium, oxygen, hydrogen are relatively light elements and any useful<br />storage technology should use them. But lithium is not as plentiful<br />as some seem to think and much of it is located in nasty places.<br />Bolivia apparently has lots of untapped lithium. But there we go again<br />with the mining. Hydrocarbons are the obvious and best energy storage<br />medium -- duh! If you want to research more sustainable ways of using<br />carbon, research CO2 reduction using solar or nuclear power. It makes<br />more sense than energy-intensive processes like ripping oxygen away<br />from sand to make solar panels and extracting aluminum to make<br />windmills. Have these "energies" even attained break even?<br /> __________________<br />*Pun intendedchickelithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10773887469972534979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-7245509702222129612017-04-04T23:36:18.981-05:002017-04-04T23:36:18.981-05:00I saw a life-long Republican on Tucker Carlson tha...I saw a life-long Republican on Tucker Carlson that made me wonder if our life-long Republican is bald-headed with a fringe middle-age guy. This one was just about as spittle-flecked as ours.JackWaynehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14711089367463277913noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-44999254881084559952017-04-04T23:29:50.659-05:002017-04-04T23:29:50.659-05:00"In fact frackers are currently in the proces..."In fact frackers are currently in the process of bankrupting several countries you discussed and the Russians."<br /><br />Can we add Kentucky to the list?Sprezzaturahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14859397164637821056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-38105617209580343872017-04-04T23:26:25.440-05:002017-04-04T23:26:25.440-05:00Ach,
Even Forbes while debunking "subsidies&...Ach,<br /><br />Even Forbes while debunking "subsidies" can't get to zero:<br /><br />https://www.forbes.com/sites/drillinginfo/2016/02/22/debunking-myths-about-federal-oil-gas-subsidies/2/#385a2b0ff451<br /><br />Maybe you could forward them your data so they can update their info.Sprezzaturahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14859397164637821056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-56964180922578459812017-04-04T23:21:09.867-05:002017-04-04T23:21:09.867-05:00Chick,
At least you deniers are consistent, since...Chick,<br /><br />At least you deniers are consistent, since you believe that it's impossible to ever improve storage tech, it makes sense that you'd oppose increases in required efficiency (which nets out the same as increasing renewables re cutting down fossil fuel use), because it's impossible to build more efficient, less polluting engines.<br /><br />But, forget that. We'll MAGA for the 21st century by moving mountains to find coal.<br /><br />Got it.<br /><br />https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-06/wind-and-solar-are-crushing-fossil-fuels<br /><br /><br /><br />Right Buw,<br /><br />You can believe that the US doesn't subsidize fossil fuels (which is what I wrote), presumably this belief triggers some sorta feeling of satisfaction/accomplishment.<br /><br />I dunno.Sprezzaturahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14859397164637821056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-40231289258483673322017-04-04T23:15:06.259-05:002017-04-04T23:15:06.259-05:003rdGradePB_GoodPerson said...
"I am perfectly...3rdGradePB_GoodPerson said...<br />"I am perfectly happy to let renewables compete without subsidies against other energy sources."<br /><br /><b>Do we count fossil fuel subsides,</b><br /><br />There are none. The government in fact takes in a huge amount of revenue from fossil fuels in the form of taxes. <br /><br /><b>corn subsidies,</b><br /><br />Nobody wants ethanol in gas. Except people in Iowa and DC. <br /><br /><b>trillions in wars to protect reserves, and the cost of so-called friendly and not friendly Muslim countries who make dough to support terror-religion by sticking a straw in the ground?</b><br /><br />We are net exporters now thanks to fracking. In fact frackers are currently in the process of bankrupting several countries you discussed and the Russians. In addition frackers have made it so the US is the only country in the world to reduce it's CO2 emissions. Without any subsidies. Hug a fracker.<br /><br /><b>Turn the fossil fuel Moooslims into the equivalent of the backwards Africans, as they deserve. I.e., make oil and such obsolete = save dough and dispense justice = win-win.</b><br /><br />We are, without destroying our quality of life like you want. Solar and Wind are just not going to be baseline suppliers of energy until we get to space in mass. They are intermittent sources of power by nature, and this is why they cannot support load in an Alternating Current system. Achilleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04109507896997459818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1399204662781424302017-04-04T23:05:59.234-05:002017-04-04T23:05:59.234-05:003rdGradePB_GoodPerson said...
Notice that I didn&#...3rdGradePB_GoodPerson said...<br /><b>Notice that I didn't incl the cost of climate change?<br /><br />How's that for winning points w/ you deniers?<br /><br />You're welcome.</b><br /><br />You didn't include them because they don't exist. Achilleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04109507896997459818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-16590553546500171522017-04-04T22:58:11.585-05:002017-04-04T22:58:11.585-05:00There are coal subsidies? Where?
Certainly not at...There are coal subsidies? Where? <br />Certainly not at $ .02 kw/h<br />Nor at $40-50/ton<br />Nor at the profit margins of Peabody. <br /><br />PB&J, dont be glib. I order you to research electric rates and the effect of "renewables" thereunto. Go.buwayahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02388691837737324814noreply@blogger.com