Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - kidcoyote

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 250
1
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: November 25, 2014, 04:46 PM »

Anyway, he slept in my SUV which I gave him, and after being declined job after job, he did day work digging ditches, then landed a job in Walmart. I had been sending him $100 or so per week so he could get gas and food.


It's a good thing that he was in a position to get a little subsidy from you.  Not everyone is so fortunate.

Subsidy?  It's called family, and we help out the little we can. But many on public assistance have or can afford a functioning car, so it's a weak argument, as usual.

2
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: November 25, 2014, 11:54 AM »
An update on ND. The NY Times is recently running pieces(again) on ND, and the horrors, as they hit 1 million barrels per day in production, one of the reasons, along with the Eagle Ford(1.4 millon barrels per day) for lower prices at the pump.

My son went out there Nov 2011, no job, impossible to get a job in Vermont. He couldn't get a messenger job, no joke. Anyway, he slept in my SUV which I gave him, and after being declined job after job, he did day work digging ditches, then landed a job in Walmart. I had been sending him $100 or so per week so he could get gas and food. At Walmart, he started making $1,200 per week working 70+ hours. He met a guy who had a trailer he shared with another guy, a Native American, who also worked at Walmart. The Native American got drunk every night, every night, and my son slept in the living area next to him, on a very uncomfortable convertible couch. It was awful, as the trailer leaked, the electricity was intermittent, and it required 100 lbs of propane every two weeks. I filled once, a real pain taking it to a site and back. Nonetheless, after a month at Walmart, he landed an oil job, then another on his first anniversary, after he paid $4,500 to get a CDL license. Here's his progression:

Level 1 November 2012-April 2013
Level 2- May 2013-November 2013
Level 3- December 2013- April 2014
Level 4- May 2014- current

He's now being considered for a supervisor position, where he'd run his own crew of 12-16 frackers. He's learned diesel mechanics, hydraulics, operations, chemicals, etc. His position comes with 6% fully matched 401k, a million dollar life policy, stock bonuses which doubled at level 3, and will double again at supervisor. Each promotion came with a raise. In addition, he gets $800 per month for housing, but now they provide housing(it's like a prison cell), but he gets to keep the housing stipend, and it's tax free, per diem. He's travelled to Brazil, is going to South Korea, and has used his savings to visit friends and attend weddings in places like Vermont, Cleveland, Denver and Minneapolis. At Cleveland, Denver and Minneapolis, he goes to major league sporting events. He's even found a girlfriend in Denver, as a HS buddy lives there, and he drove there on his week off and back last night, 660 miles each way. Speed limits in Montana are 70 or 75 mph. Costs him $150 round trip vs $600 for a flight.

I no longer ask what he makes, as I am jealous, but at level 3, it was about $100k. With stock bonuses, that goes up, and at supervisor, the stock bonuses could double again. My guess is that his annual grant will be around $20k in stock. He went there as I saw the Halliburton Pres on TV, saying if you move to ND, you could make supervisor in 1.5-2 years and make $150k. That appears dead on. He got in the SUV and took the 2,000 mile drive. It took him 40 days to land a job at Walmart, but probably a week after he applied, after striking out in the oil biz, unwilling to turn around and drive back home, despite my wife's pleadings. He worked nights as it was so cold(minus 31 when I was out there once), and he slept days in the SUV. My son is now 28.

He was a finance major, and did not graduate. He needs 30 credits. Some day, he might get a petroleum engineering degree. But he's saving so much money, with no housing costs, living at the site, minor food costs, healthcare paid for, he's saving 80% of his take home pay, maybe more, then there's the 401k. He works 16 hour days, two weeks on, 1 week off, or 17 weeks off per year. He has little time to spend money. Compare his story to college grads living in their parents' basements.

3
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: November 25, 2014, 11:02 AM »
Not me, I'd expect the opposite.

Q: What will happen to the price of oil if demand for oil drops?    A: The price of oil would drop.

Initially, yes.  But at a certain point, it won't be worth it to stay in business.  Then the supply will drop and the price will increase.  Sort of like farming.

It's not long ago that oil was at $20/barrel, a oil companies were still mightily wealthy.

The oil companies are currently having the most profitable stretches in the entire history of capitalism.  We are a FAR, FAR distance away from "it won't be worth it".

You couldn't be more wrong, Skeeza. In 1980, oil traded about $40 per barrel. In 1986, it dropped to $12, from $20, in less than 2 weeks. There were wipeouts in oil states, like Texas, Oklahoma, etc. Then, it traded below $30 per barrel til at least 2003. All of the Texas banks failed, all of them, save a couple small ones. There probably hasn't been a similar wipeout except maybe farms, around the same time. Rig equipment, which sold for $1 million new, sold for pennies on the dollar at auction. You don't remember this? Underinvestment in the business then occurred for at least 15 years. Then, as prices started to perk up, circa, 2003, money started to flow back into the space. In 2008, with oil at $150 per barrel, oil profits peaked. They've been down, on balance, since. The big companies, and service companies, all have lower profits than in 2008. The smaller ones, wildcatters, firms like Continental, or Oasis, newer entries, yes are successful. Even today, Exxon Mobil's profits as a percentage of revenues pales in comparison to google, Apple, Microsoft, and most tech or media companies.

I paid $2.89 pre gallon in Springfield, MA on Thursday, and it's probably lower this week. In 1979, gas prices hit ~$1.75. That's up 50%. Compare that to the price of college tuition increases. I graduated in 1976, SUNY, tuition was $350 per semester, $2,000 per year all in. Now it's $18,000-$20,000.

Luv ya, but your're misinformed. Many oil companies will go bust in this lower price environment. Not Exxon, but this Halliburton buying Baker Hughes is a sign of desperation. They'll combine, lay off 10,000-20,000 workers, and cut costs to remain profitable. They have to. It's called survival. Now, if only government would cut costs to reduce their drag on the economy.

4
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: November 24, 2014, 11:43 AM »
Here's the google article at its source. I may have provided a review. I don't see anything about "incentives" other than cost. Their point is clear. Renewables are hopeless, and anything developed to replace fossil fuels has to be cheaper. It's that simple. There's only one problem I see with the piece. They cite Hansen and the desire to get CO2 down to normal levels. What are normal levels? What about optimum levels? And what are those? Will Happer of Princeton believes from 400 ppm, maybe 1000-1500 ppm might be better and that the increase over the last 150 years or so may have been a big boost to agricultural production. But nobody knows what optimal or even normal levels are. Svensmark believes CO2 killed the dinosaurs, but it was more than 5X what it is today. But he believes a lack of supernovas from the Milky Way caused this spike, as the climate warmed due to lack of cloud cover, and was followed by higher CO2, not preceded by it. He uses 500 million year old fossils to support his case, as the carbon is shown in them.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change

They do say things like this:

Similarly, we need competitive energy sources to power industrial facilities, such as fertilizer plants and cement manufacturers. A cement company simply won’t try some new technology to heat its kilns unless it’s going to save money and boost profits. Across the board, we need solutions that don’t require subsidies or government regulations that penalize fossil fuel usage. Of course, anything that makes fossil fuels more expensive, whether it’s pollution limits or an outright tax on carbon emissions, helps competing energy technologies locally. But industry can simply move manufacturing (and emissions) somewhere else. So rather than depend on politicians’ high ideals to drive change, it’s a safer bet to rely on businesses’ self interest: in other words, the bottom line.


We’re not trying to predict the winning technology here, but its cost needs to be vastly lower than that of fossil energy systems. For one thing, a disruptive electricity generation system probably wouldn’t boil water to spin a conventional steam turbine. These processes add capital and operating expenses, and it’s hard to imagine how a new energy technology could perform them a lot more cheaply than an existing coal-fired power plant already does.

5
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: November 24, 2014, 10:56 AM »
TOP GOOGLE ENGINEERS: 
Renewable Energy Simply Won't Work
Two highly qualified Google engineers who have spent years studying and trying to improve renewable energy technology have stated quite bluntly that renewables will never permit the human race to cut CO2 emissions to the levels demanded by climate activists. Whatever the future holds, it is not a renewables-powered civilisation: such a thing is impossible.

Both men are Stanford PhDs, Ross Koningstein having trained in aerospace engineering and David Fork in applied physics. These aren’t guys who fiddle about with websites or data analytics or “technology” of that sort: they are real engineers who understand difficult maths and physics, and top-bracket even among that distinguished company. The duo were employed at Google on the RE<C Project. They closed it down after 4 years after it was a failure.

Well, there you are. The science is settled.

Money quote:

At the start of RE<C, we had shared the attitude of many stalwart environmentalists: We felt that with steady improvements to today’s renewable energy technologies, our society could stave off catastrophic climate change. We now know that to be a false hope ...

Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.


One should note that RE<C didn't restrict itself to conventional renewable ideas like solar PV, windfarms, tidal, hydro etc. It also looked extensively into more radical notions such as solar-thermal, geothermal, "self-assembling" wind towers and so on and so forth. There's no get-out clause for renewables believers here.

Koningstein and Fork aren't alone. Whenever somebody with a decent grasp of maths and physics looks into the idea of a fully renewables-powered civilised future for the human race with a reasonably open mind, they normally come to the conclusion that it simply isn't feasible. Merely generating the relatively small proportion of our energy that we consume today in the form of electricity is already an insuperably difficult task for renewables: generating huge amounts more on top to carry out the tasks we do today using fossil-fuelled heat isn't even vaguely plausible.

Poor Al Gore, Tom Steyer et al. Then again, they were relying on, er, call it, "the stupidity of the American voter."


I don't even know where to start with this, so I'm not going to bother.  And I'm not one who thinks humans are overly responsible for climate change.  Do you even understand the "money quote"?


Yes. Renewables are hopeless. What's to not understand?


Are hopeless with regards to what potential outcome?


Exactly.  Kid either didn't read or he didn't understand the complete article.   Or, more likely, understood it completely but twisted it to suit his agenda.

The article clearly states that renewables can most definitely be competitive with fossil fuels but, without additional incentives, people won't convert fast enough to halt global warming.  They will ameliorate but not forestall the impact of climate change.   

Coincidentally, yesterday's New York Times reiterates that renewable energy sources such as wind and solar are competitive with conventional fuels in some markets.

I'm sure that kid can find a way to spin this one as more evidence that "renewables are hopeless"   ::)


Incentives? You mean subsidies or taxes? Yeah, raise gas taxes to $5 per gallon as Steven Chu recommended. Incentives. US based companies are paying under $4 per MmBtu for gas, in Europe it's $10 per MmBtu, which is why Europe is going back to coal in droves.

6
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: November 24, 2014, 10:53 AM »
mjg, the point expanded on the two google engineers is this. Google is a supporter/believer in climate change. That said, they put in a major effort, I think over 4 years to find renewable energies which could be competitive. They wanted it to compete with coal. They gave up, as it's impossible. They disbanded the group. Google has to have some of the brightest engineers imaginable. They did the math and science, and moved on. Renewables are ridiculous as a major power source. Sure, someday, it will get better and better, but I think they represent 1-2% of the electricity in the US.  Maybe they go to 10-15%, optimistically.

So, really the question is, what does the AGW crowd want? IMO, they want $$$, subsidies, that's all. They know renewables is a loser's game, but if they get $500 million in grants, so what? That's the issue. This is what the climate change crowd is about....free money...taxpayer money. From the most dominant news source....no one else will run this story, which is why Fox dominates.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/08/world-largest-solar-plant-applying-for-federal-grant-to-pay-off-its-federal/


7
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: November 24, 2014, 10:22 AM »
I get to read some of kid's Tea Party/Ayn Rand talking points when they are quoted, which is mercifully not that often.

http://www.vox.com/2014/11/19/7247103/google-renewable-energy-research


Not sure what Ayn Rand has to do with the Tea Party, but coming from someone who likes Nassim Taleb and Paul Krugman, who are polar opposites, I can understand your confusion. Try googling Nassim Taleb Paul Krugman, just like that. Taleb thinks both he and Tom Friedman are idiots, but then, so do most Americans.

Tim, you think your views are mainstream and mine not. Check the election results. Check what people are watching. Check your preconceptions. You're in denial. The people have not only spoken, they reveal their preferences every day by what they watch and read. Drudge is #1 on the internet, and Fox #1 on TV.  People want honest, competent leadership, not crony capitalism, and not enviro multi millionaires and billionaires looking to steer government policy so they can enrich themselves. And they don't want executive orders or legislation shoved down their throats on a single party vote.

David Zurawik, Baltimore Sun Media Critic, on Fox News' Dominance

8
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: November 24, 2014, 09:59 AM »
TOP GOOGLE ENGINEERS: 
Renewable Energy Simply Won't Work
Two highly qualified Google engineers who have spent years studying and trying to improve renewable energy technology have stated quite bluntly that renewables will never permit the human race to cut CO2 emissions to the levels demanded by climate activists. Whatever the future holds, it is not a renewables-powered civilisation: such a thing is impossible.

Both men are Stanford PhDs, Ross Koningstein having trained in aerospace engineering and David Fork in applied physics. These aren’t guys who fiddle about with websites or data analytics or “technology” of that sort: they are real engineers who understand difficult maths and physics, and top-bracket even among that distinguished company. The duo were employed at Google on the RE<C Project. They closed it down after 4 years after it was a failure.

Well, there you are. The science is settled.

Money quote:

At the start of RE<C, we had shared the attitude of many stalwart environmentalists: We felt that with steady improvements to today’s renewable energy technologies, our society could stave off catastrophic climate change. We now know that to be a false hope ...

Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.


One should note that RE<C didn't restrict itself to conventional renewable ideas like solar PV, windfarms, tidal, hydro etc. It also looked extensively into more radical notions such as solar-thermal, geothermal, "self-assembling" wind towers and so on and so forth. There's no get-out clause for renewables believers here.

Koningstein and Fork aren't alone. Whenever somebody with a decent grasp of maths and physics looks into the idea of a fully renewables-powered civilised future for the human race with a reasonably open mind, they normally come to the conclusion that it simply isn't feasible. Merely generating the relatively small proportion of our energy that we consume today in the form of electricity is already an insuperably difficult task for renewables: generating huge amounts more on top to carry out the tasks we do today using fossil-fuelled heat isn't even vaguely plausible.

Poor Al Gore, Tom Steyer et al. Then again, they were relying on, er, call it, "the stupidity of the American voter."


I don't even know where to start with this, so I'm not going to bother.  And I'm not one who thinks humans are overly responsible for climate change.  Do you even understand the "money quote"?


Yes. Renewables are hopeless. What's to not understand?

9
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: November 23, 2014, 09:59 PM »
TOP GOOGLE ENGINEERS: 
Renewable Energy Simply Won't Work
Two highly qualified Google engineers who have spent years studying and trying to improve renewable energy technology have stated quite bluntly that renewables will never permit the human race to cut CO2 emissions to the levels demanded by climate activists. Whatever the future holds, it is not a renewables-powered civilisation: such a thing is impossible.

Both men are Stanford PhDs, Ross Koningstein having trained in aerospace engineering and David Fork in applied physics. These aren’t guys who fiddle about with websites or data analytics or “technology” of that sort: they are real engineers who understand difficult maths and physics, and top-bracket even among that distinguished company. The duo were employed at Google on the RE<C Project. They closed it down after 4 years after it was a failure.

Well, there you are. The science is settled.

Money quote:

At the start of RE<C, we had shared the attitude of many stalwart environmentalists: We felt that with steady improvements to today’s renewable energy technologies, our society could stave off catastrophic climate change. We now know that to be a false hope ...

Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.


One should note that RE<C didn't restrict itself to conventional renewable ideas like solar PV, windfarms, tidal, hydro etc. It also looked extensively into more radical notions such as solar-thermal, geothermal, "self-assembling" wind towers and so on and so forth. There's no get-out clause for renewables believers here.

Koningstein and Fork aren't alone. Whenever somebody with a decent grasp of maths and physics looks into the idea of a fully renewables-powered civilised future for the human race with a reasonably open mind, they normally come to the conclusion that it simply isn't feasible. Merely generating the relatively small proportion of our energy that we consume today in the form of electricity is already an insuperably difficult task for renewables: generating huge amounts more on top to carry out the tasks we do today using fossil-fuelled heat isn't even vaguely plausible.

Poor Al Gore, Tom Steyer et al. Then again, they were relying on, er, call it, "the stupidity of the American voter."

10
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: November 21, 2014, 02:03 PM »

11
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: November 21, 2014, 01:58 PM »
http://www.wired.com/2014/11/solutions-shape-factual-belief


More cognitive stuff? When the facts don't support you, use the old Marxist trick. When pressed by the London School of Economics to explain certain parts of his economic theories, Marx responded, "You have a bourgeosie mind, you need a proletariat mind to understand it." While you don't realize it, you're doing the same thing. Like some fell for climate change, and the ACA, in Gruber's words on the latter, due to their stupidity, it's always better to stick to facts, not question the mindset or the preconceptions of those who disagree. Otherwise, Gruber's right. But, if one can't do that, then resort to tricks Marx used. Hollow. Unsupported by facts. Desperate.

The ACA is likely to go down in flames, based on facts, not preconceptions. And on climate change, wake me up when the sea level rises another foot, or the temperature comes within 10% of these dire model predictions, which have been laughable to date. I'll take my lawn furniture in when those days come. But as we are seeing record low temperatures in the US, I'm more concerned at the moment with my heating bill, as most Americans are. Wait, don't tell me, global warming causes global cooling. Guess one has to have a proletariat mind to get it.


Like I have to keep reminding you, what you are experiencing is LOCAL cooling not global.   2014 will go down as the hottest year on record.


I know, every year is the hottest year on record. You realize you've stated that 5 years in a row. Get serious. You just had 141 year cold record in Florida. Let's just stick to the US, cause that's all I care about. We had over 1800 cold records set this week. Okay, October was warm, November is the coldest ever.



Put your blinders on.

Stephen Colbert sums it up better than I could:




I post an 18 year satellite map, and you post a joke from an idiot. My bet? He kills the Late Show. He stinks.

12
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: November 21, 2014, 01:56 PM »
Two google engineers on renewable energy.

Energy Flotsam and Jetsam

13
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: November 20, 2014, 10:54 PM »
Bob Schieffer, owned by the WH. Sad. Destroying a long career, and for what? Access? Justice contacts Sharryl Attkinson' producer and Schieffer to get her to shut up. Welcome to Venezuela, or Russia. At least they're not killing journalists like in Russia, yet. And trying to discredit Issa by influencing the press? Wow. Makes Nixon look like Snow White. Corruption at the highest levels. Endemic.

Judicial Watch on Holder's Justice Dept

Here's the relevant email. Can you believe Schultz asks why nobody but Sharryl Attkinson wrote about it? And Schmaler answers, NYT, AP, Reuters, WaPo, NBC, Bloomberg....(meaning nothing). In the tank for the WH. Then they get set to use influence to shut her up. Chilling. Used to be a time when the left supported freedom of speech, and did 'real' investigative journalism. No wonder MSM is tanking in viewership/readership. They're corrupt.


14
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: November 20, 2014, 10:32 PM »
http://www.wired.com/2014/11/solutions-shape-factual-belief


More cognitive stuff? When the facts don't support you, use the old Marxist trick. When pressed by the London School of Economics to explain certain parts of his economic theories, Marx responded, "You have a bourgeosie mind, you need a proletariat mind to understand it." While you don't realize it, you're doing the same thing. Like some fell for climate change, and the ACA, in Gruber's words on the latter, due to their stupidity, it's always better to stick to facts, not question the mindset or the preconceptions of those who disagree. Otherwise, Gruber's right. But, if one can't do that, then resort to tricks Marx used. Hollow. Unsupported by facts. Desperate.

The ACA is likely to go down in flames, based on facts, not preconceptions. And on climate change, wake me up when the sea level rises another foot, or the temperature comes within 10% of these dire model predictions, which have been laughable to date. I'll take my lawn furniture in when those days come. But as we are seeing record low temperatures in the US, I'm more concerned at the moment with my heating bill, as most Americans are. Wait, don't tell me, global warming causes global cooling. Guess one has to have a proletariat mind to get it.


Like I have to keep reminding you, what you are experiencing is LOCAL cooling not global.   2014 will go down as the hottest year on record.


I know, every year is the hottest year on record. You realize you've stated that 5 years in a row. Get serious. You just had 141 year cold record in Florida. Let's just stick to the US, cause that's all I care about. We had over 1800 cold records set this week. Okay, October was warm, November is the coldest ever. You want to talk global? Talk to this chart. Satellite chart, the most reliable and tamper proof. Can't wait til Mann gets his butt shot off in court. He's toast. Are you aware of this, from Steyn's site?

A few weeks ago, you'll recall, the ACLU, The Washington Post, NBC News, The Los Angeles Times and various other notorious right-wing deniers all filed amici briefs opposed to Michael Mann and his assault on free speech. They did this not because they have any great love for me, but because their antipathy to wackjob foreign blowhards is outweighed by their appreciation of the First Amendment - and an understanding of the damage a Mann victory would inflict on it. After noting the upsurge of opposition to Mann, Reuters enquired of Catherine Reilly (one of his vast legal team) whether there would be any amici filing pro-Mann briefs:

I asked Reilly if the professor would have any supporting briefs next month when he responds to the defendants in the D.C. appeals court.

"At this point, we don't know," she said.


No one is supporting Mann in his ridiculous lawsuit, not by filing briefs supporting him.  And he's been counter sued, I think for $5 million, maybe $10 million.

Gruber's right. The stupidity of the American people allowed them to believe the premiums for a family of 4 would drop by $2,500, they could keep their health plan, period, they could keep their doctor, period, and costs would go down for all. The taxes would be on the insurance companies, not them(Gruber pointed out the stupidty of this on numerous occasions). And now, climate change, which used to be known as global warming, is taking advantage of the same American stupidity, funded by multimillionaire/billionare rent seekers like Gore, George Kaiser, Vinod Khlosam RFK, Jr. and Tom Steyer(the former coal king).

You see a "heat" problem with this satellite chart? If you do, tell me what you see. These are facts.


15
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: November 19, 2014, 07:43 PM »
I've posted this before, but think it's worthy. No, it's not on cognitive dissonance(aka preconceived notions), but fact based.

Super Amnesty will turn all Cities Into Detroit

For those think the above is far fetched, let's use Sweden as an example. Sweden, with a large Muslim population, as they sort of have open borders for these "oppressed people", has some very big issues, including:

6 x the rate rape of the US, only surpassed by South Africa. No, they did not have this rate prior to the Muslim immigration.
80% of its welfare recipients are Muslims
It's estimated that 25+% of Stockholm is Muslim
There are 55(I'm not making this up) no-go zones in Sweden, places so dangerous that the police won't even go. See link.

55 No Go Zones

Anybody here for super amnesty? Why?

16
OT / Re: King v. Burwell
« on: November 19, 2014, 07:27 PM »
The Ultimate Grubergate. Anybody want to defend this guy and this process? How is this guy going to avoid jail time? I mean, conning Americans in what represents 1/6th of the US economy. Can anyone imagine if a corporate CEO did such a thing? This makes Bernie Madoff's scheme look like chump change.  Outright fraud and deception, including the WH. And he's bragging about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDomkBtJC7Q

17
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: November 19, 2014, 03:17 PM »

18
OT / Re: OT - Music Thread
« on: November 19, 2014, 01:48 PM »
Lake Street Dive, IMO, one of more interesting new groups. This girl has pipes. Playing tonight in Philly, tomorrow in Burlington, VT(sold out) and Portland, ME on the 22nd. Don't hear many young girls with voices like this, certainly not live.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kELt1iqHwfY

19
OT / Re: OT: Movie Thread
« on: November 19, 2014, 01:47 PM »
Don't think I mentioned this film, sort of stumbled on it. Very good, low budget, lots of awards won at film festivals. Simple story. Guy convicted of double murder is getting out after 20 years. The child of the two killed(his parents), now in his 30's, wants justice and peace of mind. Tense. For a low budget film, as good as it gets.

Where can you find the movie?  Is it in theaters or Netflix?

Sorry, missed this one. I dowloaded it off the net. Netflix? Yes, just googled it. Google play apparently has it for $3.99. Not bad.

https://play.google.com/store/movies/details?id=DbP2cu-SK28&utm_source=HA_Desktop_US&utm_medium=SEM&utm_campaign=ActionAds&pcampaignid=MKTAD0610MO1DAM&gclid=COiQtLOsh8ICFYJ5KgodqjYATg&gclsrc=ds


20
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: November 19, 2014, 11:30 AM »
For what will be said an enormous times, older people  made up a greater portion of the voters than in presidential elections and young people voted 33% less than they had in 2012. The Republicans win is not an indictment of the Demcocratic party on its face. This happened in 2010 as well and Republicans still lost the presidency, which it appears they are set to do again. And i would expect the next mid term elections in 2018 to be better represented by young people. Democrats will push the issue of participation to its supporters more so than they did this last term.

I think you're mistaken. And younger people are moving away. The Dem coaltion is fractured. You can't just abandon people like Mary Landrieu, Kay Hagan, Michele Nunn. There are no moderate Dems, other than say, Joe Manchin. The party has been stolen by the fringe left. The fight isn't between the right vs. left, it's the left vs the far left. Witness the fake Indian, Liz Warren, now of prominence. You think this is smart based on what happened? You think she sells nationally? NFW. A guy like Manchin has no place in the Dem party, and look at the Arkansas results. Bill Clinton and Hillary couldn't save it. Governorships in MI, MD, MA and IL? Are you kidding me? The EPA, the ACA, the IRS, Justice, are killing jobs. Those are facts. Americans know it, and don't give a s*** about multimillionaire/billionaire environmentalists like Tom Steyer, Gore, George Kaiser(Solyndra bundler), Khlosa, Bloomberg, in many cases, looking to line their own pockets, just like Gruber did with ACA. He made $6 million, supposedly an independent analyst. This is how the party of government works, corruptly. And due to the internet and youtube, everyone knows it.

The Dems, after this recent election, need to look in the mirror. Who do they represent? Did Jay Rockefeller represent his contituents in WV with his vote on Keystone? So, how can a guy like that get elected going forward? You might see a guy like Joe Manchin switch parties. And why not? The Dem leadership doesn't care about him, nor do they care about WV residents hopes and dreams. Why should he care about them?

21
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: November 19, 2014, 10:59 AM »
http://www.wired.com/2014/11/solutions-shape-factual-belief


More cognitive stuff? When the facts don't support you, use the old Marxist trick. When pressed by the London School of Economics to explain certain parts of his economic theories, Marx responded, "You have a bourgeosie mind, you need a proletariat mind to understand it." While you don't realize it, you're doing the same thing. Like some fell for climate change, and the ACA, in Gruber's words on the latter, due to their stupidity, it's always better to stick to facts, not question the mindset or the preconceptions of those who disagree. Otherwise, Gruber's right. But, if one can't do that, then resort to tricks Marx used. Hollow. Unsupported by facts. Desperate.

The ACA is likely to go down in flames, based on facts, not preconceptions. And on climate change, wake me up when the sea level rises another foot, or the temperature comes within 10% of these dire model predictions, which have been laughable to date. I'll take my lawn furniture in when those days come. But as we are seeing record low temperatures in the US, I'm more concerned at the moment with my heating bill, as most Americans are. Wait, don't tell me, global warming causes global cooling. Guess one has to have a proletariat mind to get it.

22
OT / Re: King v. Burwell
« on: November 18, 2014, 09:44 PM »

23
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: November 18, 2014, 09:42 PM »

It's obvious some don't like that, as they don't get their way, don't care what the voters say, encourage the of use executive orders to thwart the will of the people.



Obama issued 147 executive orders during his first term.  He's on pace to issue even fewer this term.   How does that stack up against past presidents?  Well, he's averaging fewer executive orders than any president in the last century (you have to go back to Grover Cleveland in 1897 to find one that used the power less often).   

Don't let that fact get in the way of your rant tho.   ::)


I won't. It's the seriousness of the executive orders, not the quantity. Many of his have changed laws, like welfare reform, in that people no longer need to work(done under Clinton) to get benefits. He destroyed the law. Show me one example of someone who's done that. Show me one instance, one, where a President has taken a law like the ACA, and just changed it on a whim. I can't think of a single example. The employer mandate? The individual mandate? Federal subsidies where none existed. This is unprecedented. I think he's changed the ACA over 20 times. This is 1/6th of the economy. And now it's exposed as fraudulent, and the WH is denying even knowing Gruber, despite him being there 19 times.

What do you think the election was about? People woke up. They're tired of being lied to. "You can keep your doctor, period", "you can keep your insurance, period", "a family of 4 will see their premiums drop by an average of $2,500." Gruber's right. It was able to be implemented due to "the stupidity of the American people". Not me, but apparently you. You were either stupid/ignorant, or you knew it was deceptive and fraudulent, but wanted it anyway. Which is it? There's no other choice. Why don't you look at yourself and see which it is?

You better be careful what you wish for. If a President can just change a law, how would you feel if a future President just eliminated minimum wage laws? Or censored certain publications, like the NY Times, Washington Post, or threatened the removal of broadcast licenses(oh, wait Obama's FCC is already doing that), or taxed the internet based on content(oh wait, Obama's FCC is considering that)? He's setting a precedent of lawlessness. You think it's okay, now. But with a Nixon as President? Or Ted Cruz? Dangerous ground. Get out of your liberal head and think of the consequences of his actions to the republic, not some stupid agenda you may like. Other Presidents have other agendas, and you're not going to like them all. Ever think of that?

24
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: November 18, 2014, 05:57 PM »
The author, Reihan Salam, is a senior fellow at the R Street Institute and lead writer of The Agenda blog at National Review.


The economist Brad DeLong addresses Salam's arguments and claims:

Continuing on the “What Are Conservative Policy Ideas for Replacing ObamaCare?” Beat: (Early) Wednesday Focus


Brad DeLong from Berkeley? The epicenter of left wing nut jobs? You've put up his posts before. Next we'll hear from Said, and his buddy. Only the extreme fringe listens to fringe economists at whacko universities.

Forget what's better for a moment. We have a nation of laws. We have a separation of powers. It's obvious some don't like that, as they don't get their way, don't care what the voters say, encourage the of use executive orders to thwart the will of the people. We know that. But some of us respect the Constitution and the vote. We just had an election, now we'll have a court case in King v Burwell. Let's see what the justices say. Let's see if this law, and the federal subsidies hold up. The law is clear, and one's opinion really doesn't matter. It is what it says it is. Regarding repeal and replace, the free market is significantly better, cheaper, and better serves the people, the medical community and all involved in the patient/doctor relationship. And it's not coercive, but voluntary. The left likes coercion, at least when they're doing the coercing. Most don't.

Or use Obama's words if you like: "we won, you lost", or "go win some elections". I wouldn't say that. I'd say let's see what the Supreme Court says. But the left doesn't like laws. They have an agenda, the law be damned. Like a child who doesn't get his way, screaming in defiance.  Elections have consequences. The left needs to get over it. But they'd rather undermine the Constitution and the rule of law. Dangerous stuff. Can you imagine Nixon unrestrained? Nixon turned over the tapes. Obama's IRS destroyed hard drives. Be careful what you wish for. Regroup and win in '16.

This should be interesting as well. A liberal law prof, who voted for Obama twice, is now going to be representing Congress v the President on Constitutional grounds. Big stuff. My bet: Hillary won't run. Too much damage to the Dem brand, and she can't get far enough away from Obama, who has destroyed his party. They'll have to look to 2020, with new blood, and not fake Indian Liz Warren, but someone who can get votes outside the Northeast, DC and California, and 1 or 2 other states. Most Americans don't like liars, and she's a liar.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/boehner-taps-jonathan-turley-for-obamacare-lawsuit/article/2556315#!

25
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: November 18, 2014, 05:24 PM »

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 250