Whoever modded that Offtopic didn't read it very carefully, or at least should have modded me Offtopic too.
But it becomes illegal, if it's $1 million of a corporation's money. The people whose interests the corporation represents just had their First Amendment rights taken away.
That's just bullshit. Those individuals can make their own expenditures in support of their First Amendment rights which are no less than the First Amendment rights that anyone not associated with a corporation has. If the corporation has rights then they are in addition to the rights their associates have on their own. I haven't always supported the positions of the corporation I'm associated with and it offends me that they can imply that I do through their expenditures.
You seem to think that money is equivalent to free speech but in reality it is merely an amplifier of free speech. Most corporations (especially the large ones) have resources far in excess of of most individuals. That stacks the deck in favor of corporations and wealthy individuals enough and I'm tired of my voice being drowned out by them.
Yeah, hemp doesn't make very good armor.
and what if it was paid for by using bitcoin...
Created out of thin air by the Federal Reserve.
I don't believe corporations should be able to freely spend their money on partisan politics. The Citizens United decision was a travesty.
September 2016 is two and a half years from now. If NASA's lucky it'll wear out and stop functioning by then. If not then probably a big hue and cry will arise and funding will be found to keep it going.
It turns out that sure, you could - if there was some legal equivalent to corporate personhood to protect your rights in this situation. Otherwise you wouldn't be correct in that assertion.
I fail to see how my rights are curtailed in any way by the corporation I'm associated with not having all the rights you seem to think they should have.
I'm not saying that corporations shouldn't have any rights. There is good reason to grant corporations a limited amount of personhood so they can be treated as a single entity legally and so their investors have liability limited to what they've invested in the corporation but that's about all the rights they need as far as I'm concerned.
I think by treaty Antarctica is a nuclear free area.
One thing to keep in mind is that these towers would be set in ice that is moving so they would have to realigned regularly. The ice at the South Pole is moving about 10 meters per year toward the Weddell Sea.
Finding a sea lion head surprised me considering how much lower sea levels were at the time.
A newer, safer tank car has been designed and is available but the railroads don't have any mandate to use it and are only slowly replacing the thousands of older models as they age out of the fleet.
I think the article is more about the oil from the Bakken fields in North Dakota, USA than any Canadian production.
The EROEI is much lower for tar sands oil than other petroleum sources. It takes a lot of energy to liquify the tar sands and it has to be diluted or kept warm to pump via a pipeline.
I would prefer the KXL pipeline doesn't get built but in the end I'm not sure it matters. This is a problem that needs to be tackled from the demand side. As long as there is strong enough demand the supply will be provided one way or another (until it runs out or gets to costly to use). If demand is reduced enough the KXL just becomes another albatross.
The reason more refineries haven't been built in the USA is because we already have enough. The ones that exist have had no problem keeping up with demand. It wouldn't surprise me if some existing refineries have been upgraded to higher capacity though.