s/on/in

From an interview on July 2005 about the housing bubble:

        INTERVIEWER: Tell me, what is the worst-case scenario? Sir, we have so many economists coming on our air and saying, "Oh, this is a bubble, and it's going to burst, and this is going to be a real issue for the economy." Some say it could even cause a recession at some point. What is the worst-case scenario, if in fact we were to see prices come down substantially across the country?

        BERNANKE: Well, I guess I don't buy your premise. It's a pretty unlikely possibility. We've never had a decline in house prices on a nationwide basis. So what I think is more likely is that house prices will slow, maybe stabilize: might slow consumption spending a bit. I don't think it's going to drive the economy too far from its full employment path, though.

You're not only missing the point, you're also falling for the line that companies like facebook want you to fall for. There's no way to say this nicely and you'll probably hate me and disagree with me, but I have to tell you anyway.

And for the record - I never even claimed Obama WAS somebody who wished to build a brand rather than appease a donor - the GP claimed that, I never did.

>You've stated opinion as fact
I did absolutely nothing of the kind. I stated only a generic probability. That somebody who wishes to build a brand will likely not fuck you over as badly as somebody who wishes to appease a donor.
I stated no facts nor even an opinion - I merely told you which outcome is more likely. Even if you DO prove that Obama didn't follow that pattern it wouldn't prove me wrong even a little because I never said "that is what happens" - I said "that is what is more likely to happen".
On holed dice it is more likely to roll a 6 than any other number because the 6-side has the most holes and is thus slightly lighter than the other sides, but people throw other sides all the time - even on dice with holes.
An increased probability is not a guarantee, showing an instance where it didn't happen doesn't disprove the probability.

In the long run, the best method is to admit that large portions of California are simply not arable, not without basically robbing every drop of water to be found for about half a million square miles.

Kindly shove that race card up your ass.

Where do you think he pulled it out of?

I'm not the one who claimed Obama was only interested in Hollywood branding, I merely responded generically to the guy who did.
Now as for what you're saying - I don't actually think you're right. Personally I'm not a huge fan of the ACA - single-payer universal healthcare is the one I would have wanted but you have to be a completely ignorant head-in-a-bucket fox-news-only viewer to not realize it's still orders of magnitude better than the craphole the US healthcare system was before this.

That however is not the really interesting part of your post. You're suggesting that Obama went with that plan to appease insurance companies and expects payback. You may be right, time will tell - but I strongly suspect you're very wrong. We know Obama also favoured single-payer, it was during the healthcare reform negotiation period that the plan changed to Romneycare... why ? Well the official story is that it was an attempt be non-partisan, to push healthcare reform in a way the republicans would actually go for, a solid compromise between hell and single-payer, which was actually conceived BY a republican (and the very same republican who ran against him in the next election).

Now it's perfectly possible that you're right and the official account is wrong - that even the very minutes of sessions in congress are nothing but elaborate fakery designed to maintain the ruse (though it seems odd if that was the case that teh republicans were so extremely partisan to this day about something THEY invented !) but I wouldn't hold my breath about it.
Just because something is possible doesn't mean it's likely.

Here is what is also true: greenpeace and other "green" organizations have been found to be taking millions of dollars in money from Russian oil interests, through shell corporations

Hey, you left out your link to a reliable source for this claim.

According to the GAO, $106 billion was spent by US government on climate research by 2010.

A total over an unstated number of years is meaningless. According to Forbes -- hardly a lefty source, and this is a denialist article -- the U.S. Government spent $32.5 billion on climate studies over 20 years between 1989 and 2009. That's $1.6 billion a year. About $5 per American per year. Accoridng to the GAO (notice the hyperlink, please starting using them, thanks) federal climate change acivities in 2010 were $8.8 billion, but that includes "technology to reduce emissions, science to better understand climate change, international assistance for developing countries, and wildlife adaptation to respond to actual or expected changes" -- so climate research is only a small part of that. Figure a quarter to a third of it is climate research. So we're looking at something on the order of $2 or $3 billion a year spent by the federal government on climate change research.

For comparison, the Iraq war was is estimated to have cost $1,100 billion in total.

Exxon Mobills's profits -- not revenues, profits -- last year were $32.5 billion. And that's just one company.

The Army's R&D budget -- not the whole military, just the Army -- is around $21 - 32 billion.Climate research funding is chump change. I kind of liked this line of bullshit better when it was "those scientists telling us smoking causes cancer are just riding the research gravy train!" At least it was a fresh and audacious sort of intellectual dishonesty then. Now it's just pathetic.

No warming for nearly twenty years.

How do people still believe "no warming" bullshit? There is no pause. Please stop speading misinformation. Thank you.

No! You're only allowed to worry about one or the other!

Really? If only there was some one out at sea on a boat who could corroborate that. . .

http://www.internationalpolicy...

Anything that becomes molten will mix into the fuel and dilute it,

Not really. Anything that becomes molten, will pretty much vaporize, because Uranium melts at like 2000 F. If the Uranium is molten, everything else will boil away.

However: It's bollocks because the hole in which the uranium is burning, has fissures and crevases, and the Uranium would unevenly flow into small, tight spaces, spreading out and; ultimately diluting and cooling.

Experiments done at Argonne labs back a few years ago also suggested that the Uranium will form a cooler coating, as an outer shell. The core may remain molten, but the shell is cool enough to harden, and contain the molten core. The core may burn through the shell, but much of the mass will be left behind, as the molten part runs down into the burned-out cavity below, and the process repeats.

In any case, either of these scenarios would generate significant ongoing outgassing, and none of that has been observed at Fukushima; so it's likely the fuel melted and diffused and cooled. Just like Chernobyl.

No, no, no, you are paranoid and delusional to think that they will keep you from disabling secure boot. Microsoft only cares about your security and safety, and you're a conspiracy theorist if you think otherwise.