[quote]lixy wrote:
hedo wrote:
Drudge is frequented by both parties and seems to have contacts in both camps.
Fairly large sampling of people.
[i]The Drudge Report is a conservative,[2][3] U.S.-based news aggregation website run by Matt Drudge.
[…]
According to the online advertising company linked to his site, the Drudge Report audience is 78 percent male, 60 percent Republican, and 8 percent Democratic.[16][/i]
Assuming all the above figures are accurate, there’s almost a 1:7 ratio between loyalists on both sides. 68% against 30% on a website that does 60% GOP and 8 Democrat. The poll you quote is telling alright, just not what you want it to say.
But hey, don’t let that get in your way.[/quote]
I won’t assclown. You know nothing about world affairs and politics in general so stfu and sit the fuck down and try and learn something.
Wikpedia as your reference. You really don’t realize how fucking stupid you sound.
The math you stated is usually reversed and Democrats are sampled at a much higher percentage. Simply because the moonbats call a site conservative doesn’t make it so. Drudge is read by the Obama camp every day and leaked to on a frequent basis.
You interent Jihad on the US bodybuilding site has been a dismal failure…watch out you might get scheduled for a martydom mission.
[quote]hedo wrote:
lixy wrote:
hedo wrote:
Drudge is frequented by both parties and seems to have contacts in both camps.
Fairly large sampling of people.
[i]The Drudge Report is a conservative,[2][3] U.S.-based news aggregation website run by Matt Drudge.
[…]
According to the online advertising company linked to his site, the Drudge Report audience is 78 percent male, 60 percent Republican, and 8 percent Democratic.[16][/i]
Assuming all the above figures are accurate, there’s almost a 1:7 ratio between loyalists on both sides. 68% against 30% on a website that does 60% GOP and 8 Democrat. The poll you quote is telling alright, just not what you want it to say.
But hey, don’t let that get in your way.
I won’t assclown. You know nothing about world affairs and politics in general so stfu and sit the fuck down and try and learn something.
Wikpedia as your reference. You really don’t realize how fucking stupid you sound.
The math you stated is usually reversed and Democrats are sampled at a much higher percentage. Simply because the moonbats call a site conservative doesn’t make it so. Drudge is read by the Obama camp every day and leaked to on a frequent basis.
You interent Jihad on the US bodybuilding site has been a dismal failure…watch out you might get scheduled for a martydom mission.
[/quote]
I think your bias is getting the best of you. It’s common knowledge that Drudge is a right-wing site, and I would be very surprised if his readers weren’t leaning the same way.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
hedo wrote:
lixy wrote:
hedo wrote:
Drudge is frequented by both parties and seems to have contacts in both camps.
Fairly large sampling of people.
[i]The Drudge Report is a conservative,[2][3] U.S.-based news aggregation website run by Matt Drudge.
[…]
According to the online advertising company linked to his site, the Drudge Report audience is 78 percent male, 60 percent Republican, and 8 percent Democratic.[16][/i]
Assuming all the above figures are accurate, there’s almost a 1:7 ratio between loyalists on both sides. 68% against 30% on a website that does 60% GOP and 8 Democrat. The poll you quote is telling alright, just not what you want it to say.
But hey, don’t let that get in your way.
I won’t assclown. You know nothing about world affairs and politics in general so stfu and sit the fuck down and try and learn something.
Wikpedia as your reference. You really don’t realize how fucking stupid you sound.
The math you stated is usually reversed and Democrats are sampled at a much higher percentage. Simply because the moonbats call a site conservative doesn’t make it so. Drudge is read by the Obama camp every day and leaked to on a frequent basis.
You interent Jihad on the US bodybuilding site has been a dismal failure…watch out you might get scheduled for a martydom mission.
I think your bias is getting the best of you. It’s common knowledge that Drudge is a right-wing site, and I would be very surprised if his readers weren’t leaning the same way.[/quote]
The lixy-hate in this forum has gotten retarded. Why don’t they lash out at Headhunter or his “twin” this way?
lol my brother in law is a member of the SWAT team in Kansas City. Occasionally he does undercover vice work and they see how low they can get prostitutes to agree to sex for. His personal best is negotiating a blow job for a cigarette…that’s a true free-market at work. [/quote]
The only thing I have to ask is, did he get the blowjob?
And Mccain came off where he stated specific things that need to be done Obama just talked about how he thinks his “plan” will pan out. Talking about the end product and not the things that have to be done to accomplish it may entice fools, but for anyone with critical thinking skills he came off as extremely flawed. After the innitial stutter before he speaks, he is a pretty good speaker. Did anyone else laugh when they saw his face when mccain said that thing about him being different then bush?
[quote]borrek wrote:
<<< I worked at Air Force Research Labs for 8 years >>>[/quote]
You keep coming back to the defense industries and yes I realize that civilian and defense concerns overlap quite a bit, but I already said that’s not what I’m talking about. Those expenditures are constitutional and necessary and appear to influence a lot of your thinking. I have no problem with public funding along those lines.
[quote]borrek wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
My comment was on how you look to government first and then declare what a wonderful addition a bit of free market might be.
That was taken out of context, as I meant the quasi free-market already in the current government research paradigm. Its a little off topic though so I’m gonna just let it go.
[/quote]
Fair enough.
For the record I do not apply the same principles to militarily applicable spending and the civilian free market.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
The lixy-hate in this forum has gotten retarded. Why don’t they lash out at Headhunter or his “twin” this way?[/quote]
Yeah…considering their “desecration” of “Ike Is Coming” thread and the people affected by it. Its been viewed over 3000 times and few have called them on the bullshit they’re spewing in that thread.
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
Professor X wrote:
The lixy-hate in this forum has gotten retarded. Why don’t they lash out at Headhunter or his “twin” this way?
Yeah…considering their “desecration” of “Ike Is Coming” thread and the people affected by it. Its been viewed over 3000 times and few have called them on the bullshit they’re spewing in that thread.
[/quote]
I haven’t read that. I will have to check it out.
Edit: I just skimmed a few pages. He should be tribunaled.
I realize im a bit late on this but cant help it I sleep during the day…
[quote]dhickey wrote:
The free market has given us every significant technological advancement in the history of this country. I really don’t understand why poeple don’t think it will give us alternative energy sources. Gov’t can not give us the efficient alternatives. It can only confuse market signals and has the potential to shut out investments in the most efficient technologies. One need look no further than ethenol.[/quote]
Really? I thought War(except the one we are in) and Govt funding gave us most of our tech in the past 150 years.
Not sure if you are aware but Brazil, BRAZIL of all places are 95% oil indepndant alond with Iceland…and guest what…Govt funded. O and all the Cars the they drive are GM
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
No one is asking why the US doesn’t have more oil refineries and nuclear powerplants-- the ‘ultra-ist’ clean technology.
[/quote]
The reason there wasnt more $ put into nuclear powerplants was b/c of the Chernobyl disaster in '86. Most ppl thought it was unsafe
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I think it may be better than what I am experiencing right now. Most of you complaining about this are NOT making 250K a year or anywhere near it.[/quote]
I dont! Tax the shit out of them for all I care b/c you know what…they will still have more $ then most of us
[quote]Himora22 wrote:
Not sure if you are aware but Brazil, BRAZIL of all places are 95% oil indepndant alond with Iceland…and guest what…Govt funded. O and all the Cars the they drive are GM
[/quote]
That’s a tough comparison because first Iceland is tiny and already was ahead of the game using geothermal power generation and hydro power.
Brazil on the other hand is huge, but is able to efficiently grow sugar cane for ethanol production. Sugar cane is much easier to turn into ethanol than corn. Our entire corn crop could only cover about 12% of our fuel needs, whereas their sugar cane crop makes up over 40% (not to mention that we kinda need corn for other things too, like cows and bellies)
This one gets me. All of the science people I know realize that nuclear is the way to go. It was funny when every summer, student employees would come into the lab from the university and try talking about how solar was the future, and we’d disabuse them pretty quickly. If anything is unsafe, it’s that mass paranoia has kept us from updating and building new reactors for so long…
[quote]borrek wrote:
Himora22 wrote:
Not sure if you are aware but Brazil, BRAZIL of all places are 95% oil indepndant alond with Iceland…and guest what…Govt funded. O and all the Cars the they drive are GM
That’s a tough comparison because first Iceland is tiny and already was ahead of the game using geothermal power generation and hydro power.
Brazil on the other hand is huge, but is able to efficiently grow sugar cane for ethanol production. Sugar cane is much easier to turn into ethanol than corn. Our entire corn crop could only cover about 12% of our fuel needs, whereas their sugar cane crop makes up over 40% (not to mention that we kinda need corn for other things too, like cows and bellies)
[/quote]
Yes but we have switch grass, and that yields up too 20% more ethonal than SC and can be havested twice a year AND it grows just about every where
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Professor X wrote:
The lixy-hate in this forum has gotten retarded. Why don’t they lash out at Headhunter or his “twin” this way?
We blast HH plenty and he doesn’t support terrorism.
Lixy is a low life piece of shit.
Well…yeah…I wasn’t really focused on lixy. I’ve actually learned to act as if he doesn’t exist. I haven’t had that success with the “others” just yet.[/quote]
The lixy-hate in this forum has gotten retarded. Why don’t they lash out at Headhunter or his “twin” this way?
We blast HH plenty and he doesn’t support terrorism.
Lixy is a low life piece of shit.[/quote]
I had to make a conscious decision to not allow Lixy and a couple other guys, but especially him, to succeed in making me view him that way. I was sliding fast for a bit there.
I’ve come to understand Lixy a bit better in the last couple weeks which isn’t to say he’s not still a crackpot America hating fanatic, but he isn’t an idiot and he does have discernible views that go beyond us simply being wrong about everything.
I’ll get clubbed by some of you guys, and understandably so, but I even think he’s worth listening to if for no other reason than to hear first hand what much of the world does in fact think of us.
You guys know better than to think I’m saying we should base policy in any way on that, but it is beneficial to at least listen.
[quote]Himora22 wrote:
Yes but we have switch grass, and that yields up too 20% more ethonal than SC and can be havested twice a year AND it grows just about every where
[/quote]
I hadn’t read about that, I’ll have to look into it. I know for a while people were looking into sugar beets. Not sure if that went anywhere
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Professor X wrote:
The lixy-hate in this forum has gotten retarded. Why don’t they lash out at Headhunter or his “twin” this way?
We blast HH plenty and he doesn’t support terrorism.
Lixy is a low life piece of shit.
I had to make a conscious decision to not allow Lixy and a couple other guys, but especially him, to succeed in making me view him that way. I was sliding fast for a bit there.
I’ve come to understand Lixy a bit better in the last couple weeks which isn’t to say he’s not still a crackpot America hating fanatic, but he isn’t an idiot and he does have discernible views that go beyond us simply being wrong about everything.
I’ll get clubbed by some of you guys, and understandably so, but I even think he’s worth listening to if for no other reason than to hear first hand what much of the world does in fact think of us.
You guys know better than to think I’m saying we should base policy in any way on that, but it is beneficial to at least listen.[/quote]
[quote]Himora22 wrote:
The reason there wasnt more $ put into nuclear powerplants was b/c of the Chernobyl disaster in '86. Most ppl thought it was unsafe
[/quote]
Um, no.
[quote]borrek wrote:
This one gets me. All of the science people I know realize that nuclear is the way to go. It was funny when every summer, student employees would come into the lab from the university and try talking about how solar was the future, and we’d disabuse them pretty quickly. If anything is unsafe, it’s that mass paranoia has kept us from updating and building new reactors for so long…
[/quote]
This is the enviro-nazi Achilles Heel. Nukes are stable, proven, and clean. The US has fallen well out of the lead compared to others in the world, largely because of regulatory and misguided environmental derailment.
The number of plants decommissioned (read: lost clean energy) is staggering. Dems, who claim the environmental mantle (another misconception), are largely and adamantly against nuclear power. The ‘waste’ issue is largely a government and environmental lobby construction (much like asbestos remediation is/was). Europe and other nations are way ahead of US in dealing with nuke waste and recycling.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Himora22 wrote:
The reason there wasnt more $ put into nuclear powerplants was b/c of the Chernobyl disaster in '86. Most ppl thought it was unsafe
Um, no.
[/quote]
umm, yes.
More than 10 planed nuclear powerplants were canceled after this happened. That is what has set nuclear power back. The waist and storage are more recent issues