Page #1
Pages: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 ...#219|
Started by #610414 [Ignore] 14,May,20 02:51
New Comment Rating: 3 Similar topics: 1.Food stuff 2.STUFF, JUST STUFF 3.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF 4.A Forum Topic 5.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF II Comments: | ||
You must be logged in to post here. Log in
“Sir-Skittles mentioned you in a comment in the blog.”
If you had anything between your legs, you would post it here.
Number of members whom PITBULL has blacklisted: 0
and I meant Chemo-Sabe- yer retarded son
/blogs/59848.html
Stupid cunt cat52!
Yeah, whatever, Chihuahua.
only registered users can see external links
Neither the left, nor the right, are addressing the real problem.
right now, and he is from Finland. He cracks me up.
only registered users can see external links About the word "Sir".
only registered users can see external links About the word "ass".
Because a woman was elected as governor of Virginia.
Why is trump fuming?
Because a woman was elected in New Jersey.
Why is trump cantankerous?
Because an immigrant was elected in new York.
I'm so sorry.
Now, if you see this message and are a fascist, don't reply.
It is important to understand that there is no single, static, or monolithic Sharia law; its interpretation (fiqh) varies widely across different cultures, times, and Islamic schools of thought.
CODY, don’t include all Muslims everywhere.
--------------------------------------- added after 2 minutes
Pope John Paul II made many apologies. During his long reign as Pope, he apologized to Jews, women, people convicted by the Inquisition, and almost everyone who had suffered at the hands of the Catholic Church over the years.
only registered users can see external links
at this moment, a second muslim could have made a choice NOT to copy cat the first 1 and not kill, BUT they chose to kill.
only registered users can see external links
Now that same city, has 1 for a mayor.
George orwell and steven speilburg could not have written a movie this ironic in a team effort.
Others chose to kill in other locations that same day. and people are STILL dying from all this with sickness and depression.
The Gun Violence Archive (GVA) and CNN, using a broad definition of four or more people shot (injured or killed), have recorded thousands of mass shootings.
Since 2013, when GVA began tracking, the number has ranged from over 300 to nearly 700 incidents annually in recent years.
A 2023 report in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) found over 4,000 mass shootings from 2014 to 2022 using a similar definition.
For the last 20 years (2005-2025), the total count under this definition is in the thousands.
for those that not blessed with such talent with universal language,
here is what Grok said this word leo is using means,
yet some more of his hatefilled undertones against people he doesn't agree with.
what is fəˈʃɪstɔɪd
fəˈʃɪstɔɪd is the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) transcription for the adjective fascistoid (pronounced roughly fuh-SHIS-toyd).
Meaning
Fascistoid means "resembling or similar to fascism" but not fully fascist.
It describes ideas, behaviors, regimes, or aesthetics that share traits with fascism (e.g., authoritarianism, nationalism, suppression of dissent) without meeting the full definition.
Etymology
From fascist + -oid (Greek -oeidēs = "like" or "resembling").
Similar to "humanoid" (human-like) or "asteroid" (star-like).
Example Usage
"The government's propaganda tactics were fascistoid, though not a full dictatorship."
Often used in political analysis to critique without outright labeling something as fascist.
It’s a term common in academic, journalistic, or activist discourse to signal fascism-adjacent tendencies.
Elections are, after all, part of a democratic society and, as you know, democracy is viewed as a problem by the thugs and sub-thugs and their cult.
only registered users can see external links
So they are already having issues with charging electric cars?
Sheesh,what about in 5 years? The power company are not permited to build new power plants.Solar and wind are going to be important to keep the grid up. But that didn't work in Texas did it?
They make a lot of energy in Texas,but how many folks died over the winter this past 1?
Angel1227!
So a private, for profit, company did not plan on a hard winter so their production of electricity was not sufficient? And this utility, regulated by the states, failed to meet the demands? This state (Texas) governed by Repukers was not regulated correctly so this company spent less on production and got richer because of it? This sounds very much like a Repuker business idea.
I fault the power companys in texas to a point but I also fault the citizens for lack of preparedness.
Face it, sometimes you need regulation, especially for basic facilities like power.
And I then mentioned the issues in texas with electricity.
What everyone is missing here is the fact there is NOT enough electricity being produced to meet CURRENT demand.As Ananas has indicated.So imagine if you will,5-10 years from now,when there is GREATER demand? What a mess we are in for.
Regulation is not the solution. that is how you GOT TO THIS POINT. To many regulations preventing new power plants being built and trying to snuff out coal,a effective energy source.
You think that if they are running short they won’t try to catch up? The regulations you protest are there to protect the people and the environment. But, knowing how you think, fuck that. Let coal continue to pollute. We’ll be dead by the time our grandkids die of poisoned air.
only registered users can see external links
Only 2 under construction according to this chart.
only registered users can see external links
The US shut down how many? lets see
only registered users can see external links
Now, we shut down 39 and we are building 2. Does that sound like regulations are helping any? 2, there are 50 states. So state regulation is not changing anything where it may be either.
If you want coal gone,you need to have a replacement handy before hand.
Nuclear power is not the solution. There are 80 sites in the United States where nuclear waste is stored. Some of it is stored temporary in a location that is not safe long term. The best uranium sites are already running out and it's getting ever more expensive to mine the stuff.
That waste has to be looked after for the next 20,000 to 1M years, before it's safe. Humanity probably kills itself before that or there might be a few survivors that don't know how to keep the waste safe and radiation will finish them off. But who cares, right?
only registered users can see external links
Like nuclear is the only alternative to coal.
I just used nuclear here because MOST tree huggers-liberals,think nuclear is the answer.And it has Ooodles of issues that take Many years to deal with.
Actually, I even prefer fossil fuels over nuclear, even though I'm a tree hugger-liberal. Nuclear might be a bit better on carbon emissions when the reactor is built, but building new ones creates so much emissions, it takes 20 years to recover.
Another problem is that nuclear reactors take ages to start up and stop again, which is not practical as backup for solar and wind. Fossil fuels are at least needed until we have enough geothermal, hydro (incl. wave), biofuel, biogas, hydrogen, chemical storage (formic acid), thermal energy storage, battery storage and whatever I forgot or they think up next.
Then there is off-course the waste and the risk.
Eh so more electric cars will reduce demand?
I know you are not a engineer,but even you should be able to figure out that can't work.
groas violations of human rights, so the US or Europe don't need them as an ally.
If they can't sell us oil ,they will make their money on interest from loans.
We could afford to use fossil fuels if we could finish our pipelines and drill in otherwise useless lands like up north in alaska where there is nothing but woods.
The alaskan pipeline built long ago,was supposed to be such a wildlife disaster,ha,the animals love it,it is warm near the pipeline.
California has MILES of coast line,Why are they not looking into this tech?
only registered users can see external links
Instead of wasting all that coast line for half naked people to lay around and spread covid,there could be power plants there!
NO pollution! No noise that is not already there,and erosion control! WOW,
Kansas,could be using wind and solar to help of course.
Another non polluting power source,
only registered users can see external links
When I build a green house,yep,I will use geothermal to help with temp control.
Every bit you can use of it is better than none at all.
Here are some fun do-it-yourself builds on YouTube.
I had seen them before and it made me regret living next to a stationary ditch.
Maybe there are some ideas you can use:
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
I DO NOT quite understand the amount of AMPS he is getting from that washing machine motor.
only registered users can see external links
How many Chernobyl’s do you know? One in the states, one in Japan, and one in Russia. Here, in Miami-Dade county, FP&L has been operating the local one over 50 yrs. Same in other cities around the state. And no pollution
You don't hear about the Mcquire plant here in NC getting to hot but it did a few years ago. The tree huggers were angry because a type of fish was dieing from getting caught in the cooling system water.So they put a screen over the intake. Worked fine for a while. Until the screen clogged up with little fishes.A employee told me about it.
Here is a long list of potential accidents and how to deal with them
only registered users can see external links
Yea,I know,I got dizzy after 10 minutes of readin!
I can't see a coal plant being any where near as dangerous to operate
They can't even take in water, without sucking up all the fishes
According to the Rainforest Action Network. For decades, climate change has been a global crisis that will impact every single person and living being on this planet. Now, according to the latest UN climate report, we have less than 10 years to cut global emissions in half.
Burning fossil fuels isn’t just bad for the climate, these industries also violate countless fundamental human rights. From frontline communities facing a fossil fuel pipeline on their land to Indigenous people facing fires in the Amazon to worker rights violations on palm oil plantations, the industries fueling climate change are also fueling injustice.
Coal, tar sands, and fracked gas show everything that’s wrong within the fossil fuel industry. These extraction practices are harming people and planet every day, and big banks are fueling this destruction of the planet and negligence of life.
So what’s so bad about coal, tar sands, and fracked gas? Basically everything, from start to the finish these fossil fuels are disastrous. For decades, climate change has been a global crisis that will impact every single person and living being on this planet. Now, according to the latest UN climate report, we have less than 10 years to cut global emissions in half.
Burning fossil fuels isn’t just bad for the climate, these industries also violate countless fundamental human rights. From frontline communities facing a fossil fuel pipeline on their land to Indigenous people facing fires in the Amazon to worker rights violations on palm oil plantations, the industries fueling climate change are also fueling injustice.
Coal, tar sands, and fracked gas show everything that’s wrong within the fossil fuel industry. These extraction practices are harming people and planet every day, and big banks are fueling this destruction of the planet and negligence of life.
So what’s so bad about coal, tar sands, and fracked gas? Basically everything, from start to the finish these fossil fuels are disastrous.
Like I said, “What you don’t see can be more dangerous.”
only registered users can see external links
chernobyl didn just happen and stop.It is still happening today.
Smog will go away at some point.
coal smoke can be filtered.Try filtering radiaton.
So we only would need half that exclusion zone filled with solar panels
and that would cost about 78 Billion Euro's. That would raise our national debt from 56.3% of GDP to 66.2% of GDP.
Jobs for all our unemployed people will pull that debt down soon enough.
Accidents happen. Even if the chance is 1:1M (historically proven it's much higher), when you multiply that risk by the number of nuclear power plants required, something catastrophic will happen at some point. Such catastrophes could cost more than the complete energy transition.
That's not worth it, because nuclear power is only a temporary solution, because the uranium will run out at some point. It's already becoming more and more expensive to mine the stuff.
Even if all those problems didn't exist, it still takes 10 years before any nuclear power plant has compensates his own build. But it first takes 10 years to build any. Then after 20 years, they are just as CO2 effecient as wind and solar. That's too late. We need to lower CO2 emissions ASAP.
Anyone with some money to spare can invest in their own solar panels,
lower their costs and be less dependent on power companies.
It's nice to have air-conditioning in a heat wave, when the government
is telling you not to use power or you can't afford it when power companies are charging you 100x the normal rate.
only registered users can see external links
There are al sorts of natural disasters, but it can also be a terrorist attack or a hacker or just basic human error.
BTW, instead of Kansas I could have picked West Virginia
--------------------------------------- added after 4 minutes
As far as anything else, we have to trust security will prevail. Every thing is a crapshoot. Hopefully we don’t roll snake eyes,
only registered users can see external links
I also don't like nuclear energy and my arguments are in line with the science on climate change. That uranium has to be mined, which also emits CO2.
A nuclear power plant takes a lot of energy to be built and maintained.
Then afterwards we have to keep the waste safe for the next 20,000 years.
On the short term nuclear is about as energy/CO2 efficient as wind power and even less than solar. In the long term nuclear has a horrible energy/CO2 efficiency, because keeping the waste safe also costs energy. Also, building nuclear power plants takes a long time and lots of materials. It takes about 10 years before a nuclear power plant compensates his own build. That's about 1-1.5 years for wind energy and 2 years for solar. However solar is cheaper
on maintenance.
Other than that, I agree with most of what you said.
All energy technology costs money, materials, energy and land to build and maintain. All energy technology has downsides like pollution, mineral shortages, exploitation of people and CO2 emissions. We just need to stop with the worst energy technologies first and expand on the best ones the most.
It doesn't require completely changing our life or have impact on the quality of our life. However climate change already impacts our life and it will only get worse. We can either choose to accept some changes now and prevent total catastrophe later or we can deny the truth until catastrophe proves us wrong.
New Comment Go to top