Apologies for the typos.
I'm not arguing that global warming doesn't exist, nor of it is man made our not. Just asking if the premise that it began in t 30s took into account the dramatic warming of the 30s.
This is what makes this an impossible debate? If you are not lockstep with the AGW faithful, they demonize you as Luddite, ignorant, anti-science, evil.
Take that and stuff it. Reason with me or stop pretending you have science.
My disagreement with you is, in this thread, still hypothetical. At least let me make the statement, please, before you decide if I'm for or against something, k?
Is it unreasonable that claims of warming beginning in the 30s might use data from before, at least the 30s? Certainly from the early 1800s, if not before?
Seriously, is it that hard to discuss this?
Read this carefully, and with an open mind. At least this is an example of the sort is analysis that can lead a skeptic to distrust the scientists trying very hard to prove their hypothesis.
Can we extend that observation to justify the euthanasia of babies, children, out adults with intellects below a certain threshold? Or does birth convey more rights?
Did these observations and conclusions that warming began in the 40s correct for the warming in the 30s? Remember, Dust Bowl and all?
In Europe the socialists can identify and admit their intentions with substantially less backlash Anna ostracization than in America. Here, they mostly must hide their intentions within liberalism.
Perhaps some fine-tuning is in order. If you continue to be a public person, and being a director of a major corporation does qualify yopu as 'public', then perhaps the laws should be more strict. Challenging results for accuracy of the underlying information would be a hugely entertaining process.
The FTC is infamous for bring suit even years after the transgressions occurred.
Typical. Not much to see here.
Indeed, from the Complaint:
"Until at least December 2013, T-Mobile has also charged consumers for other services..."
"Until at least December 2013, in addition to charging for phone services offered
by Defendant, Defendant has charged many consumers for other services offered by third-party
merchants. These purported services have included monthly subscriptions for content such as
ringtones, wallpaper, and text messages providing horoscopes, flirting tips, celebrity gossip, and
other similar information (“Third-Party Subscriptions”). Defendant typically has charged
consumers $9.99 per month for such Third-Party Subscriptions. "
"9. In numerous instances, Defendant has charged consumers for Third-Party
Subscriptions that the consumers did not order or authorize, a practice known as cramming.
Defendant has continued to charge consumers for Third-Party Subscriptions even after large
numbers of consumers complained about unauthorized charges. Refund rates for the
subscriptions were high – in some cases as high as 40%. Further, Defendant has continued to
charge consumers for Third-Party Subscriptions even after industry auditor alerts, law
enforcement and other legal actions, and news articles indicated that the third-party merchants
were not obtaining valid authorization from consumers for the charges. "
FTC boilerplate for these sorts of complaints. Every carrier has done this, some repeatedly, over the past few decades.
"11. In television and other advertisements, and during its sales process, Defendant
markets its telephone and data services to consumers. Defendant’s sales representatives often
discuss these services only, and not purported third-party services, with consumers. Defendant’s
contracts make clear and prominent representations about the services it provides; information
about third-party services is buried in lengthy terms and conditions of its service contract.
12. Defendant has not obtained authorization from consumers before charging them
for Third-Party Subscriptions. Instead, the third-party merchants or billing intermediaries
purportedly have obtained authorization. In many cases, however, these third parties have failed
to obtain authorization from consumers."
And indeed, same old boilerplate. Especially the phrase "buried in lengthy terms and conditions of its service contract"
If the FTC would similarly file complaints against any number of corporations that do just this, they would be very very busy indeed.
This is PR for the FTC. You go, boyz!
I think Big Time's not quite as involved in the military as he once was.
Maybe not in New Mexico...
And what skills do you have that are not available from U.S. applicants?
First, what do your mean by 'direct democracy? We elect our representatives now. Do you mean direct votes on specific bills or actions? That is at the last unnecessary, and risks making is a federalized nation, which at best ensures the demise of our constitution. What technology do we possess that now makes this possible? We have been able to accurately count votes nationally since the 70s, and really before. We don't need to count them instantaneously, nor do we national vote tallies unless you wish to obliterate the state's. Which I oppose without doubt or qualification.
That argument, direct democracy, is the calling card of the Left, especially the Marxist. Count me out.
You are correct, Senators represent the entire state. I'm so used to my old state, Maine , traditionally electing Senators from the North and the South that I think of one as 'my' senator.
But your complaint about gerrymandering falls on deaf ears. Each party practices this, and so called 'direct elections' would change the dynamics in a massive fashion. I would expect 'direct elections' to cement the Democratic Party advantage indefinitely.
I still cling to the 'State's part of 'The United States of America' as critical to our success, and to our political stability. That stability is on jeopardy largely due to, IMHO, Federal overreach and state failures.
I find the Left is generally in favor of 'direct elections'. For what should be obvious reasons.
Lerner was just an administrator of a department. Her bosses boss is responsible for enduring that the law is followed, that systems and processes are being employed to prevent this, and it is this administrator who should answer.
And his testimony so far has been an uninterrupted display of contempt for the law, Congress, and us.