On 11/12/2016 8:42 PM, cshenk wrote:

> It used to be easy to get full time jobs,
> even if minimum wage. No longer. There are a huge number now of
> people working 2-3 part time jobs, all under the level where you have
> to pay benefits.

I was watching This Old House this evening. The contractor (Silva) said
they could not get enough good help. People just don't want to go into
the trades. Sheldon has mentioned the lack of machinists.

There are good paying jobs but you have to learn a skill and get your
hands dirty to make a living. Not many openinigs for college grads with
a degree in fourth century Greek sculpture.

On 11/13/2016 3:37 AM, Ophelia wrote:

> Even Clinton was getting a clue bat on this one. Interesting factoid I
> read. Trump does have part time employees but they get the same
> benefits, just prorated. So if you are the 20 hour a week set, you get
> 50% of what the full time gets or 50% of the company deduction for
> insurance. There was a time when WalMart did that too in 25%
> increments so you could work as little as 10 hours a week and get 25%
> benefits.
> =================
>
> Do you think Trump would make that general?
>
>

He can't. He is not a dictator. Only Congress can.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

On 11/13/2016 3:37 AM, Ophelia wrote:

> Even Clinton was getting a clue bat on this one. Interesting factoid I
> read. Trump does have part time employees but they get the same
> benefits, just prorated. So if you are the 20 hour a week set, you get
> 50% of what the full time gets or 50% of the company deduction for
> insurance. There was a time when WalMart did that too in 25%
> increments so you could work as little as 10 hours a week and get 25%
> benefits.
> =================
>
> Do you think Trump would make that general?
>
>

He can't. He is not a dictator. Only Congress can.

=================

Of course, but what I was thinking was, if what he does would be popular ...



--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

In article >, Ed Pawlowski
says...
>
> On 11/13/2016 3:37 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>
> > Even Clinton was getting a clue bat on this one. Interesting factoid I
> > read. Trump does have part time employees but they get the same
> > benefits, just prorated. So if you are the 20 hour a week set, you get
> > 50% of what the full time gets or 50% of the company deduction for
> > insurance. There was a time when WalMart did that too in 25%
> > increments so you could work as little as 10 hours a week and get 25%
> > benefits.
> > =================
> >
> > Do you think Trump would make that general?
> >
> He can't. He is not a dictator. Only Congress can.

The dictator's going to cancel the Paris climate agreement. The world's
most polluting country is going to stink even harder. Bad first move by
President P. Grabber.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>cshenk wrote:
>
>> It used to be easy to get full time jobs,
>> even if minimum wage. No longer. There are a huge number now of
>> people working 2-3 part time jobs, all under the level where you have
>> to pay benefits.
>
>I was watching This Old House this evening. The contractor (Silva) said
>they could not get enough good help. People just don't want to go into
>the trades. Sheldon has mentioned the lack of machinists.
>
>There are good paying jobs but you have to learn a skill and get your
>hands dirty to make a living. Not many openinigs for college grads with
>a degree in fourth century Greek sculpture.

There are very few going into the skilled trades, and there are no
incentives for manufacturing companys to sponsor apprenticeship
programs. Today about the only way to learn a skilled trade is if a
family member trains a young person... the electrician I use is
training is son and the plumber I use is training his nephew. There
was a time when the US Grubermint subsidized company sponsored
apprenticeship programs, they'd pay about half the wages. But that
was many years ago, now skilled tradesmen retire or die without
training anyone. A case in point before I retired from a large
National Laboratory there were 214 tool & diemakers employed, last I
heard some two years ago there were less than 20 remaining and all
about retirement age... work is contracted out to local private
industry with most jobs done by other countries. They try to hire
apprentices for all their skilled trades departments (there are many
from steamfitter to cabinetmaker, to heavy equipment operator, and any
others you can think of). Young people these days are deathly ascared
of dirty hands, calluses, and perspiring. The vast majority of young
people can't find employment because as Ed says they come out of
school with ridiculous degrees plus being heavily in debt... how many
music majors do yoose think are philharmonic orchestra quality or
capable of becoming a rock star... my sister graduated with a Masters
in music, the best employment she could find is entertaining toddlers
by reading story books and strumming a geetar at a local day care
center. Sometimes she fills in for the fingerpainting instructor who
has a masters in art.

On 2016-11-13 10:52 AM, Bruce wrote:
> In article >, Ed Pawlowski
> says...
>>
>> On 11/13/2016 3:37 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>
>>> Even Clinton was getting a clue bat on this one. Interesting factoid I
>>> read. Trump does have part time employees but they get the same
>>> benefits, just prorated. So if you are the 20 hour a week set, you get
>>> 50% of what the full time gets or 50% of the company deduction for
>>> insurance. There was a time when WalMart did that too in 25%
>>> increments so you could work as little as 10 hours a week and get 25%
>>> benefits.
>>> =================
>>>
>>> Do you think Trump would make that general?
>>>
>> He can't. He is not a dictator. Only Congress can.
>
> The dictator's going to cancel the Paris climate agreement. The world's
> most polluting country is going to stink even harder. Bad first move by
> President P. Grabber.


Sad to say, but the US has a history of backing out of international
treaties, of failing to ratify them,

In article >, Dave Smith says...
>
> On 2016-11-13 10:52 AM, Bruce wrote:
> > In article >, Ed Pawlowski
> > says...
> >>
> >> On 11/13/2016 3:37 AM, Ophelia wrote:
> >>
> >>> Even Clinton was getting a clue bat on this one. Interesting factoid I
> >>> read. Trump does have part time employees but they get the same
> >>> benefits, just prorated. So if you are the 20 hour a week set, you get
> >>> 50% of what the full time gets or 50% of the company deduction for
> >>> insurance. There was a time when WalMart did that too in 25%
> >>> increments so you could work as little as 10 hours a week and get 25%
> >>> benefits.
> >>> =================
> >>>
> >>> Do you think Trump would make that general?
> >>>
> >> He can't. He is not a dictator. Only Congress can.
> >
> > The dictator's going to cancel the Paris climate agreement. The world's
> > most polluting country is going to stink even harder. Bad first move by
> > President P. Grabber.
>
>
> Sad to say, but the US has a history of backing out of international
> treaties, of failing to ratify them,

You'd think nobody wants more hurricanes, bushfires, floodings etc,
whether right wing or left wing.

On 2016-11-13 12:07 PM, Bruce wrote:
> In article >, Dave Smith says...

>> Sad to say, but the US has a history of backing out of international
>> treaties, of failing to ratify them,
>
> You'd think nobody wants more hurricanes, bushfires, floodings etc,
> whether right wing or left wing.


Yeah. We never had any of those things before.
I leave next to a huge deposit of sand and gravel that is supposed to
have been deposited here by receding glaciers in the last ice age, about
15,000 years ago. The ice cap has been receding since then.

I know a lot of people who are upset about the threatened carbon taxes.
First of all, we see it as another excuse to raise taxes, more of a cash
cow than an effective strategy to reduce carbon emissions. We also look
around at the major sources of carbon emissions and ours are a small
drop in a big bucket. We could pretty well eliminate all our carbon
emission and it wouldn't even count in the bog picture.

In article >, Dave Smith says...
>
> On 2016-11-13 12:07 PM, Bruce wrote:
> > In article >, Dave Smith says...
>
> >> Sad to say, but the US has a history of backing out of international
> >> treaties, of failing to ratify them,
> >
> > You'd think nobody wants more hurricanes, bushfires, floodings etc,
> > whether right wing or left wing.
>
>
> Yeah. We never had any of those things before.
> I leave next to a huge deposit of sand and gravel that is supposed to
> have been deposited here by receding glaciers in the last ice age, about
> 15,000 years ago. The ice cap has been receding since then.
>
> I know a lot of people who are upset about the threatened carbon taxes.
> First of all, we see it as another excuse to raise taxes, more of a cash
> cow than an effective strategy to reduce carbon emissions. We also look
> around at the major sources of carbon emissions and ours are a small
> drop in a big bucket. We could pretty well eliminate all our carbon
> emission and it wouldn't even count in the bog picture.

If you say "There is climate change but it's not caused by humans", I
can take that seriously, although most scientists disagree.

If you say "There is no climate change", you're ignoring simple
scientific proof. Only the likes of Trump are that stupid.

On 2016-11-13 1:22 PM, Bruce wrote:

>> I know a lot of people who are upset about the threatened carbon taxes.
>> First of all, we see it as another excuse to raise taxes, more of a cash
>> cow than an effective strategy to reduce carbon emissions. We also look
>> around at the major sources of carbon emissions and ours are a small
>> drop in a big bucket. We could pretty well eliminate all our carbon
>> emission and it wouldn't even count in the bog picture.
>
> If you say "There is climate change but it's not caused by humans", I
> can take that seriously, although most scientists disagree.

Some scientists disagree with each other on that. Don't forget that we
in part of our sun's solar system and receive a lot of energy from the
sun in the form of light. It is not as if we are part of a closed
system. We are living on the thin crust of a large planet with a core of
liquid elements. Some of those elements are radioactive and giving off
heat. Every once in a while some of that heat and a lot of CO2 and ash
are released. We have seem the evidence of cycles of climate change
over millions of years, long before man.



> If you say "There is no climate change", you're ignoring simple
> scientific proof. Only the likes of Trump are that stupid.
>

On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 02:52:20 +1100, Bruce >
wrote:

>In article >, Ed Pawlowski
>says...
>>
>> On 11/13/2016 3:37 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>
>> > Even Clinton was getting a clue bat on this one. Interesting factoid I
>> > read. Trump does have part time employees but they get the same
>> > benefits, just prorated. So if you are the 20 hour a week set, you get
>> > 50% of what the full time gets or 50% of the company deduction for
>> > insurance. There was a time when WalMart did that too in 25%
>> > increments so you could work as little as 10 hours a week and get 25%
>> > benefits.
>> > =================
>> >
>> > Do you think Trump would make that general?
>> >
>> He can't. He is not a dictator. Only Congress can.
>
>The dictator's going to cancel the Paris climate agreement. The world's
>most polluting country is going to stink even harder. Bad first move by
>President P. Grabber.

So says Bruthie PeePee Grabber.

On 11/13/2016 1:22 PM, Bruce wrote:

>
> If you say "There is climate change but it's not caused by humans", I
> can take that seriously, although most scientists disagree.
>
> If you say "There is no climate change", you're ignoring simple
> scientific proof. Only the likes of Trump are that stupid.
>

Climate change has been going on since the beginning of the planet and
will continue until it explodes or otherwise dies. The question, IMO,
is how much man had to do with it.

My non-scientific view is that man has some effect as we burn tons of
carbon based fuel every day. How much? Don't know. At some point we
will run out of oil and natural gas too. Next year? Next century? At
some point solar and geothermal will be very important. Good that we
have a good head start.

On Sunday, November 13, 2016 at 10:15:01 AM UTC-10, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 11/13/2016 1:22 PM, Bruce wrote:
>
> >
> > If you say "There is climate change but it's not caused by humans", I
> > can take that seriously, although most scientists disagree.
> >
> > If you say "There is no climate change", you're ignoring simple
> > scientific proof. Only the likes of Trump are that stupid.
> >
>
> Climate change has been going on since the beginning of the planet and
> will continue until it explodes or otherwise dies. The question, IMO,
> is how much man had to do with it.
>
> My non-scientific view is that man has some effect as we burn tons of
> carbon based fuel every day. How much? Don't know. At some point we
> will run out of oil and natural gas too. Next year? Next century? At
> some point solar and geothermal will be very important. Good that we
> have a good head start.

In the short run, we'll have to just build more nuclear power plants. This is fairly obvious. We're going to have to increase our power output while at the same time reduce our burning of fossil fuels. 1+1=2.

In article >, Ed Pawlowski
says...
>
> On 11/13/2016 1:22 PM, Bruce wrote:
>
> >
> > If you say "There is climate change but it's not caused by humans", I
> > can take that seriously, although most scientists disagree.
> >
> > If you say "There is no climate change", you're ignoring simple
> > scientific proof. Only the likes of Trump are that stupid.
> >
>
> Climate change has been going on since the beginning of the planet and
> will continue until it explodes or otherwise dies. The question, IMO,
> is how much man had to do with it.
>
> My non-scientific view is that man has some effect as we burn tons of
> carbon based fuel every day. How much? Don't know. At some point we
> will run out of oil and natural gas too. Next year? Next century? At
> some point solar and geothermal will be very important. Good that we
> have a good head start.

I agree. The problem is that Trump wants to put all the money on fossile
energy. He doesn't believe climate change is happening, regardless of
what the cause is even.

In article >, dsi1
says...
>
> On Sunday, November 13, 2016 at 10:15:01 AM UTC-10, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > On 11/13/2016 1:22 PM, Bruce wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > If you say "There is climate change but it's not caused by humans", I
> > > can take that seriously, although most scientists disagree.
> > >
> > > If you say "There is no climate change", you're ignoring simple
> > > scientific proof. Only the likes of Trump are that stupid.
> > >
> >
> > Climate change has been going on since the beginning of the planet and
> > will continue until it explodes or otherwise dies. The question, IMO,
> > is how much man had to do with it.
> >
> > My non-scientific view is that man has some effect as we burn tons of
> > carbon based fuel every day. How much? Don't know. At some point we
> > will run out of oil and natural gas too. Next year? Next century? At
> > some point solar and geothermal will be very important. Good that we
> > have a good head start.
>
> In the short run, we'll have to just build more nuclear power plants. This is fairly obvious. We're going to have to increase our power output while at the same time reduce our burning of fossil fuels. 1+1=2.

I believe Trump's going for more coal.

On 11/13/2016 10:07 AM, Bruce wrote:
> You'd think nobody wants more hurricanes, bushfires, floodings etc,
> whether right wing or left wing.


Only a libitard would try and legislate nature.

On 11/13/2016 9:58 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2016-11-13 10:52 AM, Bruce wrote:
>> In article >, Ed Pawlowski
>> says...
>>>
>>> On 11/13/2016 3:37 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>
>>>> Even Clinton was getting a clue bat on this one. Interesting factoid I
>>>> read. Trump does have part time employees but they get the same
>>>> benefits, just prorated. So if you are the 20 hour a week set, you get
>>>> 50% of what the full time gets or 50% of the company deduction for
>>>> insurance. There was a time when WalMart did that too in 25%
>>>> increments so you could work as little as 10 hours a week and get 25%
>>>> benefits.
>>>> =================
>>>>
>>>> Do you think Trump would make that general?
>>>>
>>> He can't. He is not a dictator. Only Congress can.
>>
>> The dictator's going to cancel the Paris climate agreement. The world's
>> most polluting country is going to stink even harder. Bad first move by
>> President P. Grabber.
>
>
> Sad to say, but the US has a history of backing out of international
> treaties, of failing to ratify them,
>

Crap trade treaties are the least of the gobbige we're going to shitcan now.

Deal, you fat-assed canuck hoser.

On 2016-11-13 3:14 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 11/13/2016 1:22 PM, Bruce wrote:
>
>
> My non-scientific view is that man has some effect as we burn tons of
> carbon based fuel every day. How much? Don't know. At some point we
> will run out of oil and natural gas too. Next year? Next century? At
> some point solar and geothermal will be very important. Good that we
> have a good head start.

I wonder how much of it is related to deforestation. Trees are the
compliment to animals. We breath the air, take in oxygen and convert it
to CO2 which we expire. Plants OTOH, take in CO2 and convert it to
oxygen. Look at Google Earth or Google Maps and zoom in on what were
formerly the arable lands where earlier generations farmed. Those areas
are now covered by buildings and parking lots.

When there are heavy rains in the major cities around here the water has
little chance to penetrate the cement and asphalt and everything runs
downhill with little obstruction. We have always had flood plains.
There are areas which, due to the terrain, flood annually. Occasionally
we have heavier than average rains they overflow.


It is interesting that everyone is looking at the role of vehicles and
industry in global warming, but ultimately we have a problem with
population. Despite most westerners having smaller families than
previous generations, our population is increasing at an alarming rate.
It is going to put even more pressure on the land, on the climate and on
the planet.

On 11/13/2016 8:59 AM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> The vast majority of young
> people can't find employment because as Ed says they come out of
> school with ridiculous degrees plus being heavily in debt...

Which is why Demotards wanted to reward them with even MORE college, for
****ing FREE!!!!

On 11/13/2016 11:22 AM, Bruce wrote:
> Only the likes of Trump are that stupid.

Your worthless hemisphere hasn't "warmed" in 17 ****ing YEARS!

On 11/13/2016 1:58 PM, Bruce wrote:
> I believe Trump's going for more coal.

Given we have over 300 years worth of it, GOOD!

On 11/13/2016 1:48 PM, Bruce wrote:
> Trump wants to put all the money on fossile
> energy.

Employs AMERICAN people, uses AMERICAN energy.

ALL good!

On 2016-11-13 3:22 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> On Sunday, November 13, 2016 at 10:15:01 AM UTC-10, Ed Pawlowski
> wrote:
>> On 11/13/2016 1:22 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> If you say "There is climate change but it's not caused by
>>> humans", I can take that seriously, although most scientists
>>> disagree.
>>>
>>> If you say "There is no climate change", you're ignoring simple
>>> scientific proof. Only the likes of Trump are that stupid.
>>>
>>
>> Climate change has been going on since the beginning of the planet
>> and will continue until it explodes or otherwise dies. The
>> question, IMO, is how much man had to do with it.
>>
>> My non-scientific view is that man has some effect as we burn tons
>> of carbon based fuel every day. How much? Don't know. At some
>> point we will run out of oil and natural gas too. Next year? Next
>> century? At some point solar and geothermal will be very
>> important. Good that we have a good head start.
>
> In the short run, we'll have to just build more nuclear power plants.
> This is fairly obvious. We're going to have to increase our power
> output while at the same time reduce our burning of fossil fuels.
> 1+1=2.
>


There are a few problems with nuclear power. Due to the inherent danger
of reactor facilities there are are extremely expensive to build. The
byproducts of reaction are extremely toxic and will remain so for
thousands and thousands of years. A nuclear accident had Chernobyl 30
years ago killed a number of people, increased cancer rates and poisoned
a huge tract of land in the immediate area and contaminated more than a
dozen countries.

Another problem is that there is limited supply of uranium. We are
going to run out of it. Australia has the largest reserves by far,
followed by Russia, Kazakhstan and Canada.

Green technology is a bit of a problem. Solar and wind power are both
very expensive and can only produce power when the sun is shining or the
wind is blowing. That means that the old sources, oil, coal, gas,
nuclear and hydro, have to be available to provide the maximum
requirements when green sources are unavailable. It costs a lot to
build and maintain those facilities, but they cannot make a reasonable
return on the investment if they are not being used closed to their peak
capacity.

In article >, Dave Smith says...
>
> There are a few problems with nuclear power. Due to the inherent
danger
> of reactor facilities there are are extremely expensive to build. The
> byproducts of reaction are extremely toxic and will remain so for
> thousands and thousands of years. A nuclear accident had Chernobyl 30
> years ago killed a number of people, increased cancer rates and poisoned
> a huge tract of land in the immediate area and contaminated more than a
> dozen countries.
>
> Another problem is that there is limited supply of uranium. We are
> going to run out of it. Australia has the largest reserves by far,
> followed by Russia, Kazakhstan and Canada.
>
> Green technology is a bit of a problem. Solar and wind power are both
> very expensive and can only produce power when the sun is shining or the
> wind is blowing. That means that the old sources, oil, coal, gas,
> nuclear and hydro, have to be available to provide the maximum
> requirements when green sources are unavailable. It costs a lot to
> build and maintain those facilities, but they cannot make a reasonable
> return on the investment if they are not being used closed to their peak
> capacity.

The future will be all green energy, no fossile energy, no nuclear
energy. The same countries as usual will be ahead and the same countries
as usual will be lagging behind and stinking up the place.

On Sunday, November 13, 2016 at 12:55:35 PM UTC-10, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2016-11-13 3:22 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 13, 2016 at 10:15:01 AM UTC-10, Ed Pawlowski
> > wrote:
> >> On 11/13/2016 1:22 PM, Bruce wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> If you say "There is climate change but it's not caused by
> >>> humans", I can take that seriously, although most scientists
> >>> disagree.
> >>>
> >>> If you say "There is no climate change", you're ignoring simple
> >>> scientific proof. Only the likes of Trump are that stupid.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Climate change has been going on since the beginning of the planet
> >> and will continue until it explodes or otherwise dies. The
> >> question, IMO, is how much man had to do with it.
> >>
> >> My non-scientific view is that man has some effect as we burn tons
> >> of carbon based fuel every day. How much? Don't know. At some
> >> point we will run out of oil and natural gas too. Next year? Next
> >> century? At some point solar and geothermal will be very
> >> important. Good that we have a good head start.
> >
> > In the short run, we'll have to just build more nuclear power plants.
> > This is fairly obvious. We're going to have to increase our power
> > output while at the same time reduce our burning of fossil fuels.
> > 1+1=2.
> >
>
>
> There are a few problems with nuclear power. Due to the inherent danger
> of reactor facilities there are are extremely expensive to build. The
> byproducts of reaction are extremely toxic and will remain so for
> thousands and thousands of years. A nuclear accident had Chernobyl 30
> years ago killed a number of people, increased cancer rates and poisoned
> a huge tract of land in the immediate area and contaminated more than a
> dozen countries.
>
> Another problem is that there is limited supply of uranium. We are
> going to run out of it. Australia has the largest reserves by far,
> followed by Russia, Kazakhstan and Canada.
>
> Green technology is a bit of a problem. Solar and wind power are both
> very expensive and can only produce power when the sun is shining or the
> wind is blowing. That means that the old sources, oil, coal, gas,
> nuclear and hydro, have to be available to provide the maximum
> requirements when green sources are unavailable. It costs a lot to
> build and maintain those facilities, but they cannot make a reasonable
> return on the investment if they are not being used closed to their peak
> capacity.

If you just consider the numbers, nuclear power is very safe compared to the fossil fuel industry. My guess is that coal mining is one of the most dangerous jobs around as are those of the gas and oil industries. How many people die each year from the pollution caused by the burning of fossil fuels? More than a few.

OTOH, if you want to rely on feelings, fears, and what everybody believes, then there's no doubt that nuke power is absolutely terrifying!

Our little rock in the middle of nowhere might be able to run on sustainable energy sources but then, we're special.

On 11/13/2016 3:22 PM, dsi1 wrote:

>> My non-scientific view is that man has some effect as we burn tons of
>> carbon based fuel every day. How much? Don't know. At some point we
>> will run out of oil and natural gas too. Next year? Next century? At
>> some point solar and geothermal will be very important. Good that we
>> have a good head start.
>
> In the short run, we'll have to just build more nuclear power plants. This is fairly obvious. We're going to have to increase our power output while at the same time reduce our burning of fossil fuels. 1+1=2.
>

The anti-nuke people make it tough to do that. No one wants pollution
from carbon based fuel, they don't like the looks of wind farms, they
don't want nukes, don't want to build hydro dams. Let the power go out
for 10 minutes and they will bitch about the poor service.

On 2016-11-13 7:54 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> The anti-nuke people make it tough to do that. No one wants pollution
> from carbon based fuel, they don't like the looks of wind farms, they
> don't want nukes, don't want to build hydro dams. Let the power go out
> for 10 minutes and they will bitch about the poor service.


Too true. FWIW, there was a lot of opposition to a wind farm in the
township just west of here, but it went ahead. Now I know why they call
them farms. In a period of about 6 months they put up more than 100 huge
turbines at a cost of about $6 million a pop. They sure do affect the
view. Then there is the power lines set up to ship the power to the
people who don't want them in their backyards.

On 11/13/2016 6:30 PM, dsi1 wrote:

> Our little rock in the middle of nowhere might be able to run on sustainable energy sources but then, we're special.
>

Special you are with the highest rates for electric.

In article >, Ed Pawlowski
says...
>
> On 11/13/2016 6:30 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>
> > Our little rock in the middle of nowhere might be able to run on sustainable energy sources but then, we're special.
> >
>
> Special you are with the highest rates for electric.

Lol. Why is it that people who live on islands can't stop talking about
that? Maybe if we all sign a contract that says:

"We get it, you live on an island.
You're special! Congratulations! We're all in awe!"

Would they get over themselves?

On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 14:39:21 +1100, Bruce >
wrote:

>In article >, Ed Pawlowski
>says...
>>
>> On 11/13/2016 6:30 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>>
>> > Our little rock in the middle of nowhere might be able to run on sustainable energy sources but then, we're special.
>> >
>>
>> Special you are with the highest rates for electric.
>
>Lol. Why is it that people who live on islands can't stop talking about
>that? Maybe if we all sign a contract that says:
>
>"We get it, you live on an island.
>You're special! Congratulations! We're all in awe!"
>
>Would they get over themselves?

This entire planet is an island, a microscopically insignificant
island... not one living soul on this island is in any way whatsoever
more meaningful than a mold spore. Get over yourself Bruthie, you are
of far less value than an ameoba's moment of flatulance.

In article >, Brooklyn1
says...
>
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 14:39:21 +1100, Bruce >
> wrote:
>
> >In article >, Ed Pawlowski
> >says...
> >>
> >> On 11/13/2016 6:30 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> >>
> >> > Our little rock in the middle of nowhere might be able to run on sustainable energy sources but then, we're special.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Special you are with the highest rates for electric.
> >
> >Lol. Why is it that people who live on islands can't stop talking about
> >that? Maybe if we all sign a contract that says:
> >
> >"We get it, you live on an island.
> >You're special! Congratulations! We're all in awe!"
> >
> >Would they get over themselves?
>
> This entire planet is an island, a microscopically insignificant
> island... not one living soul on this island is in any way whatsoever
> more meaningful than a mold spore. Get over yourself Bruthie, you are
> of far less value than an ameoba's moment of flatulance.

Reread what I said and follow the words with your finger, simpleton.

On Sunday, November 13, 2016 at 3:21:31 PM UTC-10, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 11/13/2016 6:30 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>
> > Our little rock in the middle of nowhere might be able to run on sustainable energy sources but then, we're special.
> >
>
> Special you are with the highest rates for electric.

That's entirely true. The high rates for electricity and the large percentage of sunny days are what makes us different from most of the US. We have one of the highest photo-voltaic home installations in the country. This is what makes us special in the area of sustainable energy. What the hell is with you guys? Grow up!

On 11/13/2016 4:12 PM, Bruce wrote:
> The future will be all green energy, no fossile energy, no nuclear
> energy.

ROTFLMFAO!

You truly are a moron's moron!

On 11/13/2016 8:39 PM, Bruce wrote:
> Would they get over themselves?

Have YOU?

Bruce wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> In article >, Dave Smith says...
> >
> > On 2016-11-13 10:52 AM, Bruce wrote:
> > > In article >, Ed
> > > Pawlowski says...
> > > >
> > >> On 11/13/2016 3:37 AM, Ophelia wrote:
> > > >
> > >>> Even Clinton was getting a clue bat on this one. Interesting
> > factoid I >>> read. Trump does have part time employees but they
> > get the same >>> benefits, just prorated. So if you are the 20
> > hour a week set, you get >>> 50% of what the full time gets or 50%
> > of the company deduction for >>> insurance. There was a time when
> > WalMart did that too in 25% >>> increments so you could work as
> > little as 10 hours a week and get 25% >>> benefits.
> > >>> =================
> > > > >
> > >>> Do you think Trump would make that general?
> > > > >
> > >> He can't. He is not a dictator. Only Congress can.
> > >
> > > The dictator's going to cancel the Paris climate agreement. The
> > > world's most polluting country is going to stink even harder. Bad
> > > first move by President P. Grabber.
> >
> >
> > Sad to say, but the US has a history of backing out of
> > international treaties, of failing to ratify them,
>
> You'd think nobody wants more hurricanes, bushfires, floodings etc,
> whether right wing or left wing.

The USA isnt the lead. China took over long ago. I assume you mean CO2.
In fact, depending on what is studied, we are now around number 60 when
you combine it all.

--

In article >, cshenk
says...
>
> Bruce wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>
> > In article >, Dave Smith says...
> > >
> > > On 2016-11-13 10:52 AM, Bruce wrote:
> > > > In article >, Ed
> > > > Pawlowski says...
> > > > >
> > > >> On 11/13/2016 3:37 AM, Ophelia wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >>> Even Clinton was getting a clue bat on this one. Interesting
> > > factoid I >>> read. Trump does have part time employees but they
> > > get the same >>> benefits, just prorated. So if you are the 20
> > > hour a week set, you get >>> 50% of what the full time gets or 50%
> > > of the company deduction for >>> insurance. There was a time when
> > > WalMart did that too in 25% >>> increments so you could work as
> > > little as 10 hours a week and get 25% >>> benefits.
> > > >>> =================
> > > > > >
> > > >>> Do you think Trump would make that general?
> > > > > >
> > > >> He can't. He is not a dictator. Only Congress can.
> > > >
> > > > The dictator's going to cancel the Paris climate agreement. The
> > > > world's most polluting country is going to stink even harder. Bad
> > > > first move by President P. Grabber.
> > >
> > >
> > > Sad to say, but the US has a history of backing out of
> > > international treaties, of failing to ratify them,
> >
> > You'd think nobody wants more hurricanes, bushfires, floodings etc,
> > whether right wing or left wing.
>
> The USA isnt the lead. China took over long ago. I assume you mean CO2.
> In fact, depending on what is studied, we are now around number 60 when
> you combine it all.

Maybe that's per capita. Per country you're number 1 or 2. Regardless,
it's bad that this man wants to continue to pollute the planet.

Ophelia wrote:
>
>I hear Chelsea (daughter?) is now being groomed for the top job.

Being a Clinton Chelsea is tainted merchandise, plus she has the
personality of a used teabag.

Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
> Ophelia wrote:
> >
> >I hear Chelsea (daughter?) is now being groomed for the top job.
>
> Being a Clinton Chelsea is tainted merchandise, plus she has the
> personality of a used teabag.

Trump mode: Give me a couple glasses of wine and I'd do her.

On 11/15/2016 3:05 AM, Bruce wrote:

>> It was not a pretty choice here. What is almost amuzing is if the
>> Democrats hadn't been so determined to put Hillary on the list, some of
>> the others would have beat Trump easily. They just didnt talk as well
>> or have the backyard handshakes she had.
>>
>> =================
>>
>> Thank you and yes, it all makes sense. I hear Chelsea (daughter?) is now
>> being groomed for the top job.
>
> And Ivanka Trump. Gonna be fun in 4 years. At least gender won't be an
> issue.
>
I hope you don't handicap horses, your judgment is appalling.

On 11/15/2016 7:06 AM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> Ophelia wrote:
>>
>> I hear Chelsea (daughter?) is now being groomed for the top job.
>
> Being a Clinton Chelsea is tainted merchandise, plus she has the
> personality of a used teabag.
>
ROTFLMFAO!!!!!