Sorry, but lulz:
http://amp.star-telegram.com/news/st...219551530.html
interesting take, cruelty, is the point of it all:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...-point/572104/
social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.
Sorry, but lulz:
http://amp.star-telegram.com/news/st...219551530.html
https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/10/01/opi...eality-driver/
Manzanar all over again.
This is your doing.
Ever so many citizens of this republic think they ought to believe that the Universe is a monarchy, and therefore they are always at odds with the republic. -Alan Watts
I work for the company building the Paragon
http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/p..._P48_spm.shtml"Every extra bit of warming matters, especially since warming of 1.5?C or higher increases the risk associated with long-lasting or irreversible changes, such as the loss of some ecosystems," said Hans-Otto P?rtner, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group II.
Limiting global warming would also give people and ecosystems more room to adapt and remain below relevant risk thresholds, added P?rtner. The report also examines pathways available to limit warming to 1.5?C, what it would take to achieve them and what the consequences could be. "The good news is that some of the kinds of actions that would be needed to limit global warming to 1.5?C are already underway around the world, but they would need to accelerate," said Valerie Masson-Delmotte, Co-Chair of Working Group I.
The report finds that limiting global warming to 1.5?C would require "rapid and far-reaching" transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, transport, and cities. Global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching 'net zero' around 2050. This means that any remaining emissions would need to be balanced by removing CO2 from the air.
"Limiting warming to 1.5?C is possible within the laws of chemistry and physics but doing so would require unprecedented changes," said Jim Skea, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group III.
social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.
Kinetic Paintball
Owner
totally agree, the larger the pool, the larger the leverage to lower costs. it literally works everywhere. and with better outcomes, for cheaper. its no contest. there isn't a policy debate based on facts to be had here. it just works.
and like canada, and western europe, if you want to buy supplemental private insurance, or go and get private operated care ... you can.
its a no-brainer.
but a social safety net is communism now. crazy how fringe right this country has gone.
Last edited by cockerpunk; 10-12-2018 at 03:59 PM.
social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.
the outright theft of the boomer generation from there own children will be complete when they end social security. of course they won't do this for about another 10 years, but you can see it happening right now. milk there own children for 20 years, and then cancel the program for the very folks that paid for there retirement. there selfishness literally knows no bounds.
social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.
This is a real gem.
Ever so many citizens of this republic think they ought to believe that the Universe is a monarchy, and therefore they are always at odds with the republic. -Alan Watts
I work for the company building the Paragon
"Most transparent in history". Literally pulling the wool over his supporters' eyes. Although at this point it's pretty clear that's how they want it.
https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/...VuSaMkkpXKFMKM
Ever so many citizens of this republic think they ought to believe that the Universe is a monarchy, and therefore they are always at odds with the republic. -Alan Watts
I work for the company building the Paragon