Stay Hard as Steel!!!

Get Paid For
Using Social Sites!

Want a bigger penis?
Enlarge it At Home
Using Just Your Hands!

Tired of ads
on this site?

NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF III

Discussion Forum on Show Your Dick

Page #1

Pages:  #1   #2   #3   #4   #5   #6   #7   #8   #9   #10   ...#225

Started by CAT52! [Ignore] 14,May,20 02:51  other posts
NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF. POST WHAT YOU LIKE, ASK WHAT YOU LIKE, LEAVE MSGS HERE. PLEASE BE CIVIL. IF YOU ARE GOING TO BITCH, DO IT WITH SOME CLASS. IF YOU LIKE WHAT'S WRITTEN,COMMENT. IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT YOU SEE, COMMENT. ALL I ASK IS PROOF.

New Comment       Rating: 2  


Comments:
By leopoldij [Ignore] 16,Jan,26 18:55 other posts 
only registered users can see external links

Respect international law.
--------------------------------------- added after 90 seconds

92% of Americans, many of whom far right maga mob, oppose invasion.
--------------------------------------- added after 114 seconds

Oppose or unsure
By phart [Ignore] 16,Jan,26 22:02 other posts 
Again, I direct your attention to this,
only registered users can see external links
"To imagine a hypothetical world in which Greenland becomes an American territory, on a path toward
statehood not unlike that which Alaska followed, is to imagine a world in which North America is far
more secure and united than it is today. Greenlandic Inuit, who suffer from a long legacy of neglect and
whose colonial experience, despite recent gains in autonomy, has not been entirely positive, may indeed
stand to benefit in many ways. First and foremost, the defense of Greenland in time of war would be
strengthened by its constitutional integration into the U.S. polity,"

Again as I said, sometimes you get what you need, not what you want. Greenland could be a prosperous place
By leopoldij [Ignore] 17,Jan,26 13:20 other posts 
The words you're saying don't come from your mouth but from your ass, spewing shit in diarrhea style.

Greenland needs to be left alone, as a peaceful democratic country. They do not wish to be taken over by kleptocratic dictators.
By phart [Ignore] 17,Jan,26 15:12 other posts 
You aint spoke from your mouth since you ask your mother for some more black eye peas and corn bread at 3 years old.

europeans that object to greenland becoming part of the US will be paying tariffs of 20% to sell in the US now until they wrap their heads around the NEW reality.

it is just a island territory with roughly less than 60,000 people. denmark can load them up and take them to demark. That is roughly 10% of the population of Wyoming here in the US.
considering how little empathy denmark has for the women and girls their boat would probably accidentally sink to avoid the perceived financial burden they would put on demark and they could file insurance claim on the ship and make money.
By quint [Ignore] 17,Jan,26 16:21 other posts 
you need to give it up. You're getting too fixated on it. You're actually talking about involuntary displacement of Inuit people from their generational land. Greenland is not for sale.. end of story.
By leopoldij [Ignore] 17,Jan,26 16:55 other posts 
Fuck you ASSHOLE.

quint is right: involuntary displacement of Inuit people from their generational land is ILLEGAL, UNETHICAL, UNACCEPTABLE, INHUMAN.
By phart [Ignore] 17,Jan,26 22:38 other posts 
Then Leo explain why YOUR ANCESTORS did it to my ANCESTORS and it was just fine then? That was my intention, to back you into a corner and then explain to you that YOUR ancestors Killed, maimed and stole from Mine, and it was just fucking fine.
Google gives this quick response
"The expansion of various Western European colonial powers such as the British and Spanish empires and the subsequent establishment of colonies on indigenous territories frequently involved acts of genocidal violence against indigenous groups in Europe, the Americas, Africa, Asia, and Oceania."

It would behoove you to read about history!
only registered users can see external links

You claim to be so humane and sane and morally mighty, you are a descendant of heathens and are nothing but a fucking hypocrite. Your ancestors fucked over more people on earth than Hitler.
Fuck off
By quint [Ignore] 18,Jan,26 06:37 other posts 
Are you indigenous?
By phart [Ignore] 18,Jan,26 08:09 other posts 
part Cherokee yes

If I used all the added words I guess I would be German-Scottish-Cherokee-Confederate-American.
By quint [Ignore] 18,Jan,26 08:43 other posts 
well you learn something new everyday. I didn't know Confederate-American was considered an ethnicity. German-Scottish.. etc.. it sounds like you were born from Immigrants.. just as much as Cherokee.
By phart [Ignore] 18,Jan,26 08:51 other posts 
sadly it's not, It is just that a few folks like myself are so damn sick of everyone else being able to put useless pronouns in front of American that we decided to put Confederate in Front of American when we address liberals just to boil the piss in their bladders a little.
By quint [Ignore] 18,Jan,26 11:25 other posts 
Speaking of atrocities again, didn't Confederate Americans steal African men for slaves back in the day too? you failed to mention that on your list
By CAT52! [Ignore] 18,Jan,26 12:03 other posts 
Quint, don’t bring up inconsistencies in Phart’s arguments. That confuses the poor guy.
By phart [Ignore] 18,Jan,26 19:36 other posts 
Cat, go eat your broccoli and cheese!
By phart [Ignore] 18,Jan,26 19:19 other posts 
To some degree you have a point ,there would have been Local dealers or distributors so to speak but the folks that actually went to africa and obtained them for import to the US and other countries WERE NOT American. It may be a shock to you!.

Although Spain and Portugal had originally dominated the trade, by the eighteenth century Britain had become the most important slave-trading nation in the world. Between 1501 and 1866, over 12 million Africans are estimated to have been exported to the New World, around 2 million of whom probably died en route.

only registered users can see external links
By CAT52! [Ignore] 19,Jan,26 12:07 other posts 
Yes but without a buyer there wouldn’t be a market
By phart [Ignore] 19,Jan,26 13:39 other posts 
Yes, if people would have picked their own damn cotton things woulda been alot better.


How many of the slave owners were Jewish?
Jews accounted for only 1.25% of all Southern slave owners.

How many slave owners were black?
By 1830, there were 3,775 black (including mixed-race) slaveholders in the South who owned a total of 12,760 slaves; the Southern slave population at the time was around 2.3 million people. 80% of the black slaveholders were located in Louisiana, South Carolina, Virginia and Maryland.


3,952, 838
According to the 1860 census, the population of the United States that year was 31,429,891. Of that number, 3,952, 838 were reported as enslaved. The 1860 census was the last time the federal government took a count of the Southern slave population.

OH, and by the way, when did maryland become a SOUTHERN state????


On the eve of the Civil War in 1860, there were a total of 34 states in the United States of America. Nineteen of those states were Free States and 15 of those were Slave States. The states of Maryland, Tennessee, and Missouri all abolished slavery during the Civil War.

only 13 states separated from the union, so where those other states???
By leopoldij [Ignore] 18,Jan,26 08:37 other posts 
Who are my ancestors?
By phart [Ignore] 18,Jan,26 08:57 other posts 
unless you are lieing, which,you very well could be, Your profile says you live in the uk "living in United Kingdom" copied from your page.
OK, that is British.
Who did we here in America have to fight to get our independence? Britain. Now if we go back in history, many European country's conquered and "colonized" other places.
Here is what the people of YOUR residence did to the Indians further north of me,
" The British give smallpox-contaminated blankets to Shawnee and Lenape (Delaware) communities—an action sanctioned by the British officers Sir Jeffery Amherst and his replacement, General Thomas Gage. Image of a Mesoamerican infected with smallpox."
only registered users can see external links

By the way, I already knew alot of this history but while trying to address you I am using google to save typing and to provide a broader explanation.

So to think it is so inhuman of Trump just offering to BUY a island with 57,000 people on it, when folks from your country did all this, is quite a stretch,
By CAT52! [Ignore] 18,Jan,26 12:29 other posts 
Phart why do you always go back in history to point out that a wrong was done then to make a point about what’s happening now? Leopoldij is right,

“ involuntary displacement of Inuit people from their generational land is ILLEGAL, UNETHICAL, UNACCEPTABLE, INHUMAN.”

Are you going to state it’s not? And let’s come back to the American Confederacy, that regime, and, yes, it was a regime, promulgated the active practice of enslaving people as a right of white rich people. Whatever else they brought into the argument on why they became seditious, that alone is enough to justify the destruction of the Confederacy and the people who supported it. Don’t try to make it a noble cause that got trampled by an evil government.
Let me also remind you by quoting Google since that’s were the facts seem to come from these days )unless you got an American history class in school)
The first shot of the Civil War at Fort Sumter was fired by Confederate forces on April 12, 1861, with Lieutenant Henry S. Farley firing a signal mortar shell under the command of Captain George S. James; however, secessionist Edmund Ruffin is often credited with firing the first shot that struck the fort, while Union Captain Abner Doubleday fired the first U.S. Army return shot later that morning.
One more thing, @Phart. You may have Native American ancestry. Yes, the conquering of these fine, proud and rightful original owners of these lands was terrible, but, that was then. And, from where I stand, you are not oppressed nor dispossessed. A modern Englishman, or any other European person is not to blame for that. You want to feel proud of your heritage? That’s good, or, obviously, in your case, feel ashamed to put that adjective in front of your Americanism. Others, like me, are not.

Guys, Quint, Leopoldij, it’s hopeless
By phart [Ignore] 18,Jan,26 13:24 other posts 
No, it's not hopeless.
Cat, let's compare a issue that has been in the news lately.
repreations for descendants of slaves.
it is just wrong, plain and simple. And for the exact same reasons you have typed out to me for holding a grudge because of historical of things Englanders did here in the US many moons ago. The folks alive today did no harm to us, Nor have any of us physically harmed them.

To forget history and to refuse to compare it with what is going on now is being naive and stupid.

Have you read about the cost of a slave? 3000 dollars in 1858 money to buy a slave fit for physical work. around 70,000 dollars today,the cost of a average car.
the monthly salary of a confederate soilder was 11 dollars a month. Could he afford a slave? Most who fought in the war were simply trying to defend their homes and farms.I feel like that is a noble cause even if slavery was added to the fray later into the war to foster support for the war up north. In regards to your liberal thinking cat, I think the concept of fighting to protect your home left the equation after the loss of your father apparently.
By CAT52! [Ignore] 18,Jan,26 14:56 other posts 
Phart
The main cause of the American Civil War was the institution of slavery, which created deep economic, social, and political divisions between the North and South, leading to clashes over states' rights, federal power, and westward expansion, ultimately culminating in secession after Abraham Lincoln's election. While factors like economic differences and states' rights were involved, they were intrinsically tied to the Southern states' desire to preserve and expand slavery, their foundational labor system and way of life.
By phart [Ignore] 18,Jan,26 19:22 other posts 
No what caused the 13 states to leave the Union was the tax placed on cotton sold to Europe.
The war started to force reunification of the states and to garner support for the war ,slavery was inserted.
By CAT52! [Ignore] 19,Jan,26 15:16 other posts 
The Eleven States:
First to Secede (7 states): South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas.
Joined Later (4 states): Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee.
Claimed States:
Missouri and Kentucky also had pro-Confederate governments and were claimed by the Confederacy, though they remained divided and had loyalties to both sides.
By CAT52! [Ignore] 19,Jan,26 12:17 other posts 
In 1850 America, the price of an enslaved person varied greatly but averaged around $400, though prime field hands could cost significantly more, with prices rising to $1,450 by the late 1850s, reflecting high demand and the booming cotton economy, with skilled individuals and younger males commanding premium prices, making slavery a significant capital investment.
By phart [Ignore] 18,Jan,26 08:26 other posts 
only registered users can see external links

Well gee,
"Europeans were reeling Sunday from U.S. President Donald Trump's announcement that eight countries will face 10% tariff for opposing American control of Greenland."

With that statement ,and Demarks history of being concerned about the economic burden greenland places on them so badly they neutered the women and girls, perhaps this is what it will take to turn the tables, a economic burden.

BESIDES,Have you bothered to check on HOW denmark wound up with greenland sucking off it's hind tit?

"Greenland's colonial history sheds light on its complex legal status under international law. The Kingdom of Denmark colonized Greenland in 1721. The 1814 Treaty of Kiel, ending hostilities between Denmark and Sweden during the Napoleonic Wars, affirmed Denmark's control over Greenland"

So greenland was taken in by WAR and violence way back when. Trump simply wants to fucking BUY IT without firing a shot. NOW who's the Barbarian?
By leopoldij [Ignore] 18,Jan,26 08:36 other posts 
Congrats for copying history from the Internet. I'm glad you're learning.

You're not telling me anything I don't know.

Greenland does not want to be owned by the US or invaded by it.
By phart [Ignore] 18,Jan,26 08:48 other posts 
well, they may not get what they want, they may get what they need. The income they will earn from the natural resources gleaned from their frozen tundra will create jobs and better homes and towns.which would lead to economic independence from the vicious grip of denmark.
By quint [Ignore] 18,Jan,26 09:59 other posts 
Geez Phart.. vicious grip of Denmark? I don't think so. It kinda moots your point when you have to distort your argument. Greenland is not for sale.. it's like saying your southern ancestors should have just sold their plantations rather than go to war.. just sayin'
By phart [Ignore] 18,Jan,26 10:26 other posts 
there was no offer to buy the plantations, just orders to Sherman to burn them and **** the women and children and destroy crops.Lincoln approved of all that shit but he is considered a hero. only registered users can see external links

I can go into more detail of the more direct affects of all this in a pm, but you don't take pms.
By CAT52! [Ignore] 19,Jan,26 12:21 other posts 
A scorched earth campaign during war is an acceptable way to prosecute a war. Sherman didn’t enslave the non combatants. He just destroyed what could have been aid to the Confederate armies.
By leopoldij [Ignore] 18,Jan,26 12:22 other posts 
They don't want better jobs. They say that themselves. They definitely don't want the US to buy and invade them not least because the US is a fascist state.

No one in the democratic world wants to be under fascism.
By phart [Ignore] 18,Jan,26 12:58 other posts 
there are few humans alive that don't want better for themselves, you are a idiot
By leopoldij [Ignore] 18,Jan,26 13:06 other posts 
Your notion of "better" is that of an American hypercapitalist who equates it with shopping junk every day from target, amazon, gunsinc, etc. Humans don't need materialistic shit. You do. But you're not human. You're just a product of American hypercapitalistic systems, now enhanced by cleptocratic authoritarianism.
By phart [Ignore] 18,Jan,26 13:31 other posts 
you are fucked up as a football bat. Sure I go to walmart, to get something to cook to eat and such, But i don't depend on those sources for my glee and happiness. I build things, fix things and help my neighbors to make my self feel happy and fulfilled in life.
I get harassed by folks all the time about me not having 1 of those "smart" phones. Or a car with built in gps and such.
I despise the hyper portion of capitalism as much as you do probably. I fight it every way I can.,

I just know that greenland is a land filled with resources that could improve the quality of life of all humans and denmark has their thumb over it.
By leopoldij [Ignore] 18,Jan,26 14:12 other posts 
Greenland does not wish to be invaded or bought.

I guess you don't understand simple English.
By phart [Ignore] 18,Jan,26 14:49 other posts 
Oh I understand it better than you think
Let's see'
"What was Hitler's end goal?
Hitler pledged to restore prosperity, create civil order (by crushing industrial strikes and street demonstrations by communists and socialists), eliminate the influence of Jewish financiers, and make the fatherland once again a world power."

ok, so if Trump is facist like hitler, does that also mean the protesters in minnesota are communist and socialist?
By leopoldij [Ignore] 18,Jan,26 17:00 other posts 
Get back to the main topic.
Or quit bullshitting.
quint said it quite eloquently:

"you need to give it up. You're getting too fixated on it. You're actually talking about involuntary displacement of Inuit people from their generational land. Greenland is not for sale.. end of story."
By phart [Ignore] 18,Jan,26 19:23 other posts 
Bullshitting? You Are the 1 bullshitting, bloviating and over heating,
I can hear the piss boiling in your bladder thru the computer screen
By phart [Ignore] 18,Jan,26 09:03 other posts 
only registered users can see external links

Who brought all this sickness to America?
YOU EUROPEANS
"Epidemics of smallpox, typhus, influenza, diphtheria and measles swept the Americas subsequent to European contact, killing between 10 million and 100 million people, up to 95% of the indigenous population of the Americas. "

DO YOU SEE THAT NUMBER LEO?? 95 fucking % of the indigenous people were killed because of European sickness's. But Trumps Offer to BUY a island is inhumane? THey STOLE this country by KILLING it's people
By leopoldij [Ignore] 18,Jan,26 16:46 other posts 
"You Europeans"
By phart [Ignore] 18,Jan,26 19:24 other posts 
what else would I call you all?
By leopoldij [Ignore] 17,Jan,26 16:56 other posts 
only registered users can see external links


By PITBULL [Ignore] 19,Jan,26 13:30 other posts 
Fuck you Saggy granny fake profile


By leopoldij [Ignore] 17,Jan,26 22:04 other posts 
Trading with China rather than with rogue bully states as the US seems to be more viable at the moment.

Congratulations to Canada.
only registered users can see external links

Trump's war towards the US allies will hurt the US too.
By phart [Ignore] 18,Jan,26 09:02 other posts 
Well, perhaps you will get the enjoy the tools that break the second time you use them, the radioactive shrimp, the lead based paint on your kids toys and so on like we have here the states for so long.
By quint [Ignore] 18,Jan,26 10:21 other posts 
you should do some reading before you start to assume so much.. this is a historic deal for both countries and opens the doors to agriculture, auto, energy to name just a few.. not amazon crap. Whether you want to believe it or not, the financial world sees the USA as a volatile market and is moving on without you. Pretty soon your administration's tariffs will hold no leverage on the world stage. Oh.. and unlike you, we have strict government regulations about what's in paint and shrimp, so no poisoning kids here..
By phart [Ignore] 18,Jan,26 10:25 other posts 
we have been told our FDA had all those issues under control to but we are finding out otherwise. So don't be surprised if you find out corruption and pay offs and such don't play a part in your food industry
By quint [Ignore] 18,Jan,26 11:18 other posts 
well Phart, as a social society, we have a different mindset when it comes to profit over health. That's why we have universal healthcare that comes with dental as well, while you chose to vote out any chance of healthcare you had, because of a nickname (obamacare vs ACA). I know that's a pretty bold statement but that's the way I see it.
By phart [Ignore] 18,Jan,26 13:06 other posts 
healthcare is a bit off topic from leo's post but it is not as complicated as people think it is.
IF you work for a company here in the US and you find a chemical compound that can alleviate arthritis pain in the knees, you take it to your supervisor and it goes up the ladder and your company decides to invest in the research to find out any problems and what not before it would go onto market. Simple morals and common sense would dictate that a company would not want to sell a bad product to the people.
Well our government, takes all that control away from the company. IT dictates the amount of research and even places a DOLLAR amount on what has to be spent and the TIME that has to be spent before they will consider approval. The government in and of it's self is a ignorant ,soulless conglomerate that knows little to nothing except what it is fed. With all the regulations in place, that would not be needed if company's could decide for themselves what needed to be done ,remember, they were the 1's smart enough to come up with the potential cure in the first place ,not the government, then pills and healthcare would be MUCH cheaper.

Meds have dates on them that they claim is how long a med is good for. Required by our government. BUT once that date passes, alot of meds go to third world countries because they are still viable, it is all about MONEY/
And I can't choose my dr. Oh, well I can choose from a list my INSURANCE will pay for.
But if my leg gets crushed under a truck wheel, they will try to actually save it. Whereas some of these free health care countries, just cut it off and leave you with a nub.
By quint [Ignore] 18,Jan,26 14:41 other posts 
Damn Phart.. so you're telling me an out for profit private company is going to do more to save your leg than Universal Healthcare? That just doesn't make sense. I've said this before to you, I don't think you understand Universal Healthcare.. As far as being off topic, you were the one who changed the narrative about the deal and said we'd be poisoning our kids, so you went off topic.
By leopoldij [Ignore] 18,Jan,26 16:58 other posts 
You just have realized that phart is a fundamentalist, and operates much in the same way that Muslim fundamentalists do: need ready to accept anything, even die, rather than refute any word coming from the mouth or ass (it's the same in his case) of trump. Trump, for phart, is god.

Remember the vivid parties where Trump supporters were infecting themselves to prove that trump was right? Well, some of them died and only when they were dying did they regret it. But it was too late.

For phart, if trump says that by giving tax breaks to the billionaires is going to create a great health care system, that's it, he believes that. He has no way to fire those synapses in his brain to produce a rational argument. He can't. It's perhaps not his fault for being brain-damaged, just like all those millions of maga-idiots who follow their supreme leader like sheep.

As for changing topic, phart has no way to respond other than changing the topic. All the time. By using random things he picks from far right wing media on the internet.
By phart [Ignore] 18,Jan,26 19:29 other posts 
I am capable of thinking for myself. I just agree with a good portion of what Trump says. NOT all of it.
He sure as hell is better than that laughing idiot that ran against him with that tampon pusher crook for a vice.

The problem with Leo is he thinks he is so much smarter than everyone else. News flash,he aint.
I use other events and topics as examples in my discussions. the fact you can't connect the dots is not my fault.
If you ever dealt with electrical circuits, you might better understand my logic.
By quint [Ignore] 18,Jan,26 20:10 other posts 
I know you're capable of thinking for yourself so I'm curious as to what you don't agree with him on?
By phart [Ignore] 18,Jan,26 21:31 other posts 
Legalization of pot for 1 thing.
Subsidizing ethanol production that takes away from our food supply as most is made from corn.
although it is not "sweet corn " we would buy to eat our selves it is corn that would feed our cows and such.making meat cost more because of higher feed prices.

those are just 2 things off the top of my head. i am not feeling well. will try to take the time to explain more tommorow.
By quint [Ignore] 19,Jan,26 06:08 other posts 
pot and cow corn? I yield my question. don't take anymore time to explain
By phart [Ignore] 19,Jan,26 13:25 other posts 
Well if you weigh the economic damage that both of those things can cause, even you might take a second look at the logic.
Beef has gone out of sight price wise.
Corn is what alot of cow feed is made from along with silage and such.
If it cost more, that makes the beef cost more.
my uncle sold 4 calves at auction in the spring of 2025, the heaviest weighing 700 pounds, 7000 dollars! Yep, 7000 dollars for 4 calves. If feed keeps going up, and the cost of diesel needed to cut and harvest hay goes up, those prices will reflect the cost

Pot, is a entry level drug that once the addict can't get their fix from it they progress to stronger,more dangerous drugs. I have witnessed this several times in my life and january 5th i helped carry my former girlfriend to her grave ,due in part to drug addiction that started on a ride to high school in 1983 in the back seat of a 1971 yellow and black Ford Maverick 4 door sedan, when her boyfriend lit her a joint and said try this. I watched it happen. and watched her suffer for decades with drug addiction afterwards. so yea, I am hell bent against pot. Only those in severe pain should have access to it and should only be able to use it at home with no exposure to others to alleviate their pain.
By phart [Ignore] 18,Jan,26 19:34 other posts 
Yes, I would trust a for profit company to save my leg over a government run heath system. There is no compassion in government. it is all about cost cutting and who bribed me the most last week.
If a company saves my leg and restored my health, i will tell others about it, enticing investment into that company, other people using it's services. Government doesn't have to advertise it's health care, folks are just expected to use it and cope with the results. I wish I could go to a private hospital with my current heart issues. this shit has drug out now for 8 months and no improvement as the dr has to follow insurance guidelines and what it will pay for as treatment. try this pill 2 months then try this 1. all the while I am sitting here with the energy level of a sloth with the gout.
By quint [Ignore] 18,Jan,26 19:58 other posts 
see.. that's what I'm talking about.. we don't have to be approved by an insurance company.. and if you lived in Canada you would've seen a heart specialist by now. When you talk about government health, you're talking about your government health.. and I definitely trust our healthcare over a system where the Dr. has to follow the insurance company's guidelines.. you don't really need that leg now, do you?
By phart [Ignore] 19,Jan,26 08:21 other posts 
Problem is, if we went from letting insurance companies control it to letting the government control it, holy shit.
Read up on our so called VA hospitals for the veterans. what a fucking joke that system was until Trump came along. I had to go into a couple of them as part of my job and I honestly would not have walked my dog down those hall ways they were so filthy. Veterans missing legs laying on beds in the hall ways because they didn't have enough rooms. I had 1 hollar at me not to go in there because there was a bomb and all kinds of other shit. it is my understanding thanks to Trump they are a bit better now. But once I got a view of "government run" health care in the VA i lost interest in the concept. all about pinching pennys and having Dr's that aren't even American. you know, the folks from overseas that graduated with the lowest scores possible and still get the certificate? Those VA hospitals need to be shut down and the veterans givin a debt card to pay their medical bills and let the veterans choose who cares for them
By quint [Ignore] 18,Jan,26 15:14 other posts 
Canada also just signed a similar deal with UAE worth 70 billion in investments, plus new deals with South Korea, Chile and Japan.. Canada is diversifying..PM Mark Carney's a busy man
By leopoldij [Ignore] 18,Jan,26 16:51 other posts 
Also with China.
Indeed, the US is now considered as
-- dangerous
-- unreliable partner
-- unpredictable
So what can Canada do?
They approach other, reliable, countries. Due to his psychological disturbances, trump is only causing problems--ONLY problems-- even to his closest friends and allies. So he, rightly so, the US is losing all of them.
By quint [Ignore] 19,Jan,26 07:00 other posts 
..another Canadian deal made yesterday. this one with Qatar. Good news for the future!
By leopoldij [Ignore] 19,Jan,26 07:02 other posts 
Canada is sensible. It can't tolerate the bullying of the US. It's unacceptable.
By quint [Ignore] 19,Jan,26 07:13 other posts 
the general consensus in Canada is that we just got slapped in the face by a friend, and we really just don't want to be friends anymore.. speaking on a political level. I think the rest of the world is feeling the same these days.
By phart [Ignore] 19,Jan,26 08:07 other posts 
Well maybe some of those 'new' friends can take up the defense deals we have with you so we don't have to protect you to?
only registered users can see external links

only registered users can see external links

Multiple current and former U.S. officials said Trump has been complaining in recent weeks that Canada is not positioned to prevent “any encroachment from Russia or China” in the Arctic, and that he wants Canada to spend more on defense.

In other words, part of the reason canada has all that tax revenue to spend on "free" health care is because we are their hired guns.
You think Trump has been a asshole? Well, if we stop protecting you, then what? Is Qatar going to defend you? No they hire us when they need a gun, is kuwait? No, they already hired us back years ago to get sadam out of their knickers.
When Trump made a deal with Qatar, everyone pissed and moaned about it, now every one is celebrating a deal with canada. No difference, they just didn't give canada a airplane.
By quint [Ignore] 19,Jan,26 08:23 other posts 
I'm starting to think Leo was right about you thinking for yourself.. you'll believe anything you are told as long as it fits your agenda. that article is just not true.. Canada is implementing new 6 billion dollar artic surveillance and defense network aligned with Europe and independent from Trump's big beautiful golden dome, because he can't be trusted to do the right thing.. We cut you out, not the other way around.
By phart [Ignore] 19,Jan,26 11:37 other posts 
Well in alot of cases my thinking just happens to align with Trumps.
I am for America, and the AMERICAN people first and foremost. Even the Bible says help thy Nieghbor. Neighbor means the person near you. Not folks 3000 miles away. If you help your neighbor,and he helps his and the action progress's around the country and then the world, the idea would work great.But every day churchs and civic groups fly over homeless Americans to help someone in a shit hole they made for themselves. up until recently Everyday our government was sending millions in tax dollars to shit hole countries. it's time it all stopped and Trump happens to feel the same way.
I am sick of my country playing rent-a-cop and I am tired it sending money to shit hole countries that use telephones to scam our old people out of their life savings and others that try to kill us.
By leopoldij [Ignore] 19,Jan,26 12:04 other posts 
He can't help it.
Also it's futile to try to argue with him. He will always repeat a maga/fascist mantra.
He's an automaton, programmed to OBEY.
By CAT52! [Ignore] 19,Jan,26 12:27 other posts 
Amén to that
By leopoldij [Ignore] 19,Jan,26 12:29 other posts 
It's not that maga and non-maga have just different ideology. The former have none. They just obey.


By #623135 22,Jun,21 10:16
Phart posted
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.
By phart [Ignore] 22,Jun,21 22:13 other posts 
Regulation? Hahaha,look at californicated, that is what happens when you over regulate. No one can trim trees off the lines, the power company has to cut power off in high winds,that is the result of Liberal-democrat regulation. Hug the trees,to hell with the humans.
I fault the power companys in texas to a point but I also fault the citizens for lack of preparedness.
By Ananas2xLekker [Ignore] 23,Jun,21 08:10 other posts 
The power companies in Texas are now have trouble providing enough power for air-conditioning. The problem in the winter were not a fluke. It happens again only months later. Prices for power skyrocketed again. Many people again received electric bills for thousands of dollars. Texas' power market is not a good example of 'good' deregulation.

Face it, sometimes you need regulation, especially for basic facilities like power.
By #623135 23,Jun,21 12:19
Did I mention California? Was this the subject of the conversation? This is about Texas and it’s power company. Phart reply to this or open another thread.
By phart [Ignore] 23,Jun,21 12:27 other posts 
I posted a link to a news report about california having issues with electric car charging,
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.
By #623135 23,Jun,21 16:34
Phart do you think power companies sat down in the 1920’s and said, “We are building for the future so, in 1945, we stop because there’ll be too many regulations to conduct business”?
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.
By phart [Ignore] 23,Jun,21 19:40 other posts 
newest nuclear power plant started in 2016.
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.
By Ananas2xLekker [Ignore] 24,Jun,21 02:17 other posts 
Maybe those old reactors have become very dangerous over time and/or they are not as efficient as the new ones.
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.
By phart [Ignore] 24,Jun,21 09:18 other posts 
Well Ananas, at least we have some common ground, I h@te nuclear and wish people would have enough sense to study other ideas.
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.
By Ananas2xLekker [Ignore] 24,Jun,21 12:27 other posts 
Glad we agree

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.
By #623135 24,Jun,21 09:43
Phart,,, only registered users can see external links
By phart [Ignore] 24,Jun,21 11:47 other posts 
qoute "Reducing the overall demand for electricity makes it easier for renewables like solar and wind to fill the gap, and targeted projects can reduce demand on the grid at peak times."

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.
By #623135 24,Jun,21 12:29
I don't pretend to be an engineer, but, I do know electric vehicles will not burn fossil fuels and pollute. If (and it looks like they are) the local electric companies can't handle the load they will have to upgrade. Eventually they will reach parity. Again, I say to you, if a problem exists, there will have to be an adjustment. Electric companies are allowed by government to be monopolies, but, they can loose it all if they can't provide proper service.
Coal is pretty much done as an industry. Not just because of regulations, but because investors and insurers are now backing away. If we all switch to electric cars soon, there's definitely a challenge to provide that electricity, but the overall power consumption will go down. Electric cars are more efficient. Now, I'm not talking about Tesla's that do 0 to 60 in 2 s and are comparable to a Porsche, but sensible electric cars that are appearing now.
By leopoldij [Ignore] 24,Jun,21 10:57 other posts 
It's nice to see that the world is moving towards new energy solutions, such as electric cars. We can't afford burning fossil fuels any longer. I'm glad to see that everyone agrees on that. Perhaps Saudi Arabia will be unhappy, but that country is a militant dictatorship with
groas violations of human rights, so the US or Europe don't need them as an ally.
By phart [Ignore] 24,Jun,21 11:50 other posts 
Um, who do you think backed the loans for the solar farms around here? Saudi Arabia.
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.
By leopoldij [Ignore] 24,Jun,21 12:00 other posts 
Glad you agree.
By #623135 24,Jun,21 12:30
Fossil fuels promote pollution. Doesn't that get through your head?
By phart [Ignore] 24,Jun,21 16:47 other posts 
Eh yea,some,but nuclear wipes out MILES of earth for 100's of years. Check out Chernobyl sometime.

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
By #623135 24,Jun,21 21:05
Every time I think I’ve heard all your dippy theories, you come up with a new one.
By phart [Ignore] 24,Jun,21 22:05 other posts 
Same here! No theorys posted, those are technology's already being tested and shown to work,perhaps just not as efficient as others.
I actually use some old equipment that is electric that was made way back before it was "cool" So I research alternative energy sources and what not for that reason. If I lived near a active stream,you better believe there would be a water wheel turning a old Gm alternator to charge back up batterys.
When I build a green house,yep,I will use geothermal to help with temp control.
By #610414 25,Jun,21 07:37
If I lived next to a moving stream, I, too, would use it for power, however, you would need several deep discharged batteries and a back up energy system in case you deplete your batteries too fast. I would also go upstream a few hundred yards and divert some of the water through pipes to have energy free house water.
By Ananas2xLekker [Ignore] 25,Jun,21 12:15 other posts 
Just some old car batteries are better than nothing. It's free energy.
Every bit you can use of it is better than none at all.
That sound very cool. I would love to do some tinkering like that.

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
By phart [Ignore] 25,Jun,21 13:32 other posts 
the third link i watched the whole thing, very interesting,will get the other 2 tonight.
I DO NOT quite understand the amount of AMPS he is getting from that washing machine motor.
By Ananas2xLekker [Ignore] 26,Jun,21 05:46 other posts 
Here they say 600W should be possible. A washing machine motor will use 400 to 1300 watts. They might not be as efficient to generate the same amount, but can still do the job pretty well, as it seams and should be very easy to obtain.

only registered users can see external links
By #623135 28,Jun,21 17:51
Phart
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
By phart [Ignore] 28,Jun,21 18:03 other posts 
3 mile island here in the US. Prompted a nation wide process of adding new cooling systems.1 of my neighbors worked on the crew that went around building it. Made a fortune doing it.

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
By #623135 29,Jun,21 08:16
Sometimes it’s not what you can see but what you can’t
So what's your point? Just let any company kill whatever part of nature is in their way, because US companies are completely inadequate in solving any problem ever?
They can't even take in water, without sucking up all the fishes
By #623135 29,Jun,21 09:23
Ananas2xlekker my point is that all companies have a responsibility to protect the environment. People are part of the environment. In this case, the “sucking up of all the fishes” is not because the plant is nuclear. Yes, the reactors do need cooling. Cooling canals and reservoirs are needed. In this case, some knucklehead got the idea to put a screen on the pickup line. Duh, a cheap fuckup because of a cheap fix. Seems to me that an industry that can build nuclear reactors to make electricity should be able to prevent “little fishies” from clogging the intake of cooling water. Spent nuclear fuel rods are a problem. Finding a location to store them safely is still a problem and hopefully it better be resolved soon.

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.”
By phart [Ignore] 29,Jun,21 10:33 other posts 
only registered users can see external links

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.
By Ananas2xLekker [Ignore] 29,Jun,21 13:39 other posts 
Managing the Chernobyl disaster has probably already cost more energy than several nuclear reactors will produce in their lifetime. The exclusion zone of Chernobyl; 2600 km², if filled with solar panels, would produce 234 TWh/year. That's about twice the whole electricity consumption of The Netherlands.

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.
By #623135 30,Jun,21 08:42
You forget that the disaster in Chernobyl happened to a nuclear electric plant that would never be built in the US. According to the Atomic Energy Commission, this type of reactor was ver vulnerable to the disaster. The USSR didn’t care. Like the Chinese, they wanted results.
By Ananas2xLekker [Ignore] 30,Jun,21 09:54 other posts 
How about Fukushima?
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
By #623135 30,Jun,21 10:08
Fukushima’s disaster included the meltdown but IT WAS THE SUNAMI THAT CAUSED IT AND MOST OF THE DEVASTATION of that city. Last I’ve checked there are no dinamices happening in Kansas. I will give you this one. In Californicate state they’ve built one on the fault line. Engineer had too much Blow.
By Ananas2xLekker [Ignore] 30,Jun,21 11:06 other posts 
Isn't Kansas part of Tornado Alley?
There are al sorts of natural disasters, but it can also be a terrorist attack or a hacker or just basic human error.
By #623135 30,Jun,21 11:21
Yes, it is but you can’t compare a wind storm, even a tornado, to a sunami. Our nuclear plant in Turkey Point went through several hurricanes . Hurricanes produce tornados inside the storm. Hurricane Andrews destroyed large swaths out of the county. Huge communities disappeared. The Turkey Point plan took it in stride.
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,
By Ananas2xLekker [Ignore] 30,Jun,21 12:54 other posts 
Or just choose all the many alternatives and don't build any new nuclear power plants. Why are you such a proponent of nuclear energy? What do you consider the advantage over truly sustainable energy technologies?
By #623135 30,Jun,21 13:30
Except for solar energies nuclear is the most reliable. I guess I’m like a Trump supporter but with nuclear capability--------------------------------------- added after 11

only registered users can see external links
I was talking to phart.
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.
By #623135 29,Jun,21 15:43
I wish we went back to the pre 1860’s. We really don’t need electricity. Natural gas was good enough to live and we don’t need TV or cars.


New Comment   Go to top

Pages:  #1   #2   #3   #4   #5   #6   #7   #8   #9   #10   ...#225



Show your Genitals