A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

California's Fires



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old October 23rd 17, 07:19 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default California's Fires

On Saturday, October 21, 2017 at 4:48:54 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/21/2017 4:55 PM, wrote:

Can you imagine what I feel like standing in line at the grocery store when a lady with two children has to pay $15 for a SMALL package of hamburger meat?


Hmm. I just checked the package of lean ground beef we bought two days
ago. 1.2 pounds, $7.66. I hope her small package was at least two pounds
of meat.


So you have two kids and are going to live on 1.2 lbs of hamburger meat for a month until the next welfare check. Or for two weeks until the next minimum wage check. You always show such compassion for people other than yourself. I suppose that's why you spent 1/2% over "the average charitable donations".

What do you suppose Frank or Jay do around these people?


Hmm. Tell her to shop at a less expensive store?


And as usual you do not remember that I shop at the cheapest place in town. Unless you want to shop at a Mexican market where people are getting rotten mean and vegetables that the FDA is banning because of insecticide contamination.

Or I could adopt the right wing strategy: tell those out of work that
eventually, prosperity will "trickle down" to their recently-laid-off
level, if we give tax breaks to the corporate heads who make big bucks
by laying them off.

But in actual fact, I give more than the national average to charity,
and that's just the documented amount for which I have receipts. Some of
my recent donations to hurricane relief, etc. were just cash, no receipt.


Do you means like it did for John F. Kennedy's tax cuts? Or Reagan's tax cuts? In both of those cases the average income of working people rose substantially.But you couldn't care less could you?

Someone sent me an interview of Cal students. To a man they considered Trump's tax plan as being diabolical and anti-poor. They then explained each stipulation of the tax plan and assigned them to Bernie Sanders and again to the last man they thought it brilliant. You and Jay in action.

And no I'm not going to give you a link. I'm not doing the work of an ass. Too bad you're not running for public office. I would LOVE to print this conversation in your local paper's letters to the editor so people can see you for what you are.

Ads
  #62  
Old October 23rd 17, 08:57 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,511
Default California's Fires

On Monday, October 23, 2017 at 2:19:08 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Saturday, October 21, 2017 at 4:48:54 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/21/2017 4:55 PM, wrote:

Can you imagine what I feel like standing in line at the grocery store when a lady with two children has to pay $15 for a SMALL package of hamburger meat?


Hmm. I just checked the package of lean ground beef we bought two days
ago. 1.2 pounds, $7.66. I hope her small package was at least two pounds
of meat.


So you have two kids and are going to live on 1.2 lbs of hamburger meat for a month until the next welfare check. Or for two weeks until the next minimum wage check. You always show such compassion for people other than yourself. I suppose that's why you spent 1/2% over "the average charitable donations".

What do you suppose Frank or Jay do around these people?


Hmm. Tell her to shop at a less expensive store?


And as usual you do not remember that I shop at the cheapest place in town. Unless you want to shop at a Mexican market where people are getting rotten mean and vegetables that the FDA is banning because of insecticide contamination.

Or I could adopt the right wing strategy: tell those out of work that
eventually, prosperity will "trickle down" to their recently-laid-off
level, if we give tax breaks to the corporate heads who make big bucks
by laying them off.

But in actual fact, I give more than the national average to charity,
and that's just the documented amount for which I have receipts. Some of
my recent donations to hurricane relief, etc. were just cash, no receipt.

  #63  
Old October 23rd 17, 09:34 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default California's Fires

On Saturday, October 21, 2017 at 10:19:38 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 14:42:11 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, October 20, 2017 at 5:17:13 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 08:18:05 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Thursday, October 19, 2017 at 1:41:59 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/19/2017 4:20 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/19/2017 1:34 PM,
wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 4:54:27 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:

Hmmmm.
http://www.wri.org/blog/2017/10/cali...g-worst-record


Funny you didn't feel the need to look further.

While the total amount of fires this year is about 170,000 acres inb a
total of 17 wildfires, those of the Laguna fire in 1970 was 175,000
acres and 382 homes.

Those of 1889 called the Santiago Canyon Fire covered 300,000 acres.

New York had a wild fire covering a half million acres. New Brunswick
had one in 1825 that covered three million acres.

But when you can demonstrate a legal mind I suppose you needn't
actually know anything.

NASA seems to disagree with you.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ I'll put my money on
NASA.Â* They had to be super-smart to fake that whole moon landing thing.

Supersmart indeed:

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...erature-fraud/

NASA reports 3.2 mm of sea level rise per year.

Over a 50 year period the tidal gauge on the Battery in New York
showed the sea level presently lower than it was in 1940.

In San Francisco Bay the tidal gauges used since the 1880's show no
sea level changes.

In Seattle again the sea levels are below what they were in 1940..

In Baltimore the sea level is 1 mm below what it was in 1950.

"Every single thing NASA says about sea level is fraudulent. NASA’s
own data says that Antarctica ice growth is reducing sea level."

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...-climate-data/

So you stick with NASA because they're really looking out for you.


Peshtigo Wisconsin Fi 1.5 million acres 2400 dead.

Jay's "worst fires on record in California" may have meant to exclude
Wisconsin.

And Jay was given a couple of examples of California fires that were MANY times larger. The 300,000 acre fire was one single fire while the loss of what will be 170,000 acres is 17 fires. There were just five in the wine country and surrounds.

From the Pall Mall Gazette 1971: "We have often noticed that in the tabular statements of those compilers of weather records who write to the Times, useful and welcome as their communications are, every season is sure to be “extraordinary,” almost every month one of the driest or wettest, or windiest, coldest or hottest, ever known. Much observation, which ought to correct a tendency to exaggerate, seems in some minds to have rather a tendency to increase it"

An absolutely PERFECT example of this mindset is Jay. He's cold today so it's the coldest day in history. He's hot today so he believes in the discredited theory of man-made global warming.

This was based upon a theory of Arrenhius from the last quarter of the 19th century and was seized upon by environmentalists from the 1980's. They made many claims about how the scientist had proven this and that through direct experiment.

I searched out his paper and it was written in German so I had to do a great deal of searching to find a translation. Guess what - he made NONE of the claims attributed to him. He made not one single experiment as he said he did not have the money nor space to do so. Instead his work was based upon another paper about the light reflected from the moon. He made well thought out observations but not one of them would support the man-made global warming theory. This was generated firstly by Dr. Michael Mann. Mann's work ("known as the hockey stick") counterfeited data so blatantly that a Canadian scientist called him on it. Mann made the stupid mistake of suing that scientist in a Canadian court for defamation of character. Apparently he thought that Canadian would withdraw. Suddenly faced with court Mann's legal staff asked for additional time to prepare their case since the Canadian scientist had ALL his ducks in a row. The Canadian's advisers agreed ONLY on the grounds that Mann
supply the data he had in totality. The court so ordered.

Mann did not turn his records over. Ask Jay how the court will take this when they reconvene.

And the public documents Mann had been bandying about did not show two extreme climate events - the Medieval Warm Period which was warmer than today -significantly so - and the little ice age. By taking these ghastly events out of the data he was free to predict these horrible climate events without anything to compare them with.

Since this time NASA and NOAA have been forcing most of their scientific staff to agree with Mann's papers in public. But the worm has long since turned. Scientists from all over the world are plainly saying that these two government entities have counterfeited data.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...-climate-data/

The article here shows how NASA has changed the data sets. Not a great deal mind you, but no change is legitimate unless they carefully explain why. And they have not.

If you read https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...-at-ushcngiss/

You can see the extraordinary changes in the data from NASA.

While Jay is taking Seattle's "word for sea level rise" check this out:
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-co...6-04-22-54.png

Slightly down the page is a picture of a rock outcrop in La Jolla, CA near San Diego. It shows high tide in 1871 and today. You will note that there is maybe a slight REDUCTION in sea levels. Now of course this could easily be manipulated by not showing the same moon generated tide levels, but that is unlikely since the date of both pictures is public knowledge.

As a sailor I could go into the science of tides in depth but it is significant that Jay is willing to make comments outside his area of expertise with such frequency.

The one outstanding feature of man-made global warming is that those who know the least science are those that speak of it the most.

Re your rock, mentioned above, you seem to be arguing that the mean
sea level is lower today then it was in 1871 while every reference to
agencies that make it their business to measure mean sea level state
that the mean sea level has been increasing for the past 100 years.

Actually since sea levels measured in one location, unless corrected
for variations in atmospheric pressure, water temperature, wind
velocity, currents, even topographical features are meaningless. The
Panama Canal spans a sea level difference of 20 centimeters, for
example.


John, the problem is that several things have happened: the major problem is that the measurements of mean sea level has changed from tide gauges in most coastal areas to satellite radar measurements. That wouldn't have been bad except the inserted several "corrections" which essentially doubled the yearly sea level change. Even if tidal gauges showed no sea level growth at all the satellite measurements would be reported as showing 1 mm growth per year. This was the "sudden" change from 2 mm per year to 3.


The charts I see shows two levels. One based on tide charts with a
base line dated 1880 which shows a steady increase in sea levels since
that date.

And yes, there has been a satellite based sea level measurement, since
about the middle 1980's but unfortunately that line while not reading
exactly the same levels parallels the increase in the tide table data.
The authorities on who's measurements the charts are based seem to be
(1) The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
(CSIRO) and (2)The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA).


You do not see the overnight doubling of sea level rise to be suspicious? One of the "corrections" they made was an assumed and NEVER MEASURED shrinking of the Earth's mantle from cooling. So even if there wasn't any change in sea level they would STILL report substantial increases since the seas would have to increase in order to maintain it's present height.

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-co...08-PM-down.gif

Do you remember me quoting the paper that explained that despite our weather reports declaring the hottest or coldest ever or the windiest or the driest or wettest that the weather was simply the weather? (If memory serves the actual hottest record years were in the 1900's and 1910's leading into the dust bowl years and the great depression.)

As I said, sea levels are in part effected from recovery from the little ice age when a great deal of water was tied up in glaciers in Iceland and Greenland. These glaciers have been melting back to the levels they were before the little ice age - do you wish to freak out perhaps with the idea that we will be invaded by Vikings? Glacier Bay melted more between 1750 and 1899 than after.

And secondarily - there are standing waves in the sea that rotate about the world in different manners. These waves cause sea levels to be higher here and lower there. Small islands in the Pacific that were supposed to be gone long ago have in fact growth while at the same time NOAA claims that the sea levels have risen 30 cm. One group of islands has grown by nearly 45 ACRES.

As I said, you can see for yourself in places where they are claiming sea levels have risen dramatically that the tidal gauges from the late 1800's aren't showing these claims at all.

The Earth's oceans cover some 510 million square kilometers. They have claimed 200 mm of ocean's rise since 1900. That is 8 inches or 102,000 cubic kilometers of sea water.

And yet the glaciers and land ice sheets in Antarctica which make up the overwhelming majority of land ice are expanding faster each year. Indeed the glaciers in Glacier Bay Alaska, Greenland and Iceland have been melting but do these loses equal that immense amount of increase reported?

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...er-than-losses

The number above would be 102,000,000 cubic meters which weighs 3900 gm/m^3 x 102,000,000 m^3 = 4 million kilograms.

Interestingly enough NASA claims that we have lost 4.3 Trillion tons of ice from the world's glaciers from 2003 to 2010.

https://thinkprogress.org/nasa-earth...-8a98466e7e8b/

Think of this: 4.3 Trillion tons = ~2 x 10^12 Kilograms. So if this were really the case we would have seen a rise in sea levels between 2003 and 2010 of:

2 x 10^15 grams/3900 grams/m^3 = 500,000,000 m^3/510,000,000 m^2 = ~1 meter of ocean increase in just seven years.

These are the problems in science that non-scientists do not understand. Things are NOT cut and dried. At the original meeting of the IPCC there were about 3,900 scientists there. They gave this presentation of suspected man-made global warming.

On exit they asked whether the scientists believed in it. 39 scientists answered either affirmative or in the negative 37:2. This is about 95% in agreement or 5% against it.

THERE is where the number of "97% of all scientists believe in global warming". Maybe the polling staff included themselves - who know what the hell they did. The fact that 3,861 scientists said that there was insufficient data to reach any decision was totally ignored in the media and by NASA and NOAA.

If you presently look at those "97% of all scientists" at the NASA site part of that "all scientists" are the AMA. AMA??? What in the hell could they possibly know about climate science? They also have the damn Boys Clubs of America!!!

Let Jay tell us that he has all the answers handed to him by NASA or NOAA and remember the absolute crap that is in these papers. More than half of the "peer reviewed" papers were not peer reviewed and so it shouldn't be any surprise that math errors are so blatant - the majority of these are doctoral thesis from people who didn't graduate because of these errors.


  #64  
Old October 23rd 17, 09:38 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default California's Fires

On Monday, October 23, 2017 at 12:57:33 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2017 at 2:19:08 PM UTC-4, wrote:

Do you means like it did for John F. Kennedy's tax cuts? Or Reagan's tax cuts? In both of those cases the average income of working people rose substantially.But you couldn't care less could you?

Someone sent me an interview of Cal students. To a man they considered Trump's tax plan as being diabolical and anti-poor. They then explained each stipulation of the tax plan and assigned them to Bernie Sanders and again to the last man they thought it brilliant. You and Jay in action.

And no I'm not going to give you a link. I'm not doing the work of an ass. Too bad you're not running for public office. I would LOVE to print this conversation in your local paper's letters to the editor so people can see you for what you are.


Tom, debating you is like playing chess against a fish, one that's flopping
about in the bottom of a boat. Not only do your moves not make sense; the
pieces don't even stay put long enough for logic to work.


Yeah we all read your liberal tripe and see it for what it is. A woman is paying $13 or $14 for a package of hamburger and you would suggest to her to go to a cheaper store. What a contemptible cur you are. Then you tell us you're charitable? You are an F-ing liar.
  #65  
Old October 24th 17, 03:28 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default California's Fires

On Monday, October 23, 2017 at 11:19:08 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Saturday, October 21, 2017 at 4:48:54 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/21/2017 4:55 PM, wrote:

Can you imagine what I feel like standing in line at the grocery store when a lady with two children has to pay $15 for a SMALL package of hamburger meat?


Hmm. I just checked the package of lean ground beef we bought two days
ago. 1.2 pounds, $7.66. I hope her small package was at least two pounds
of meat.


So you have two kids and are going to live on 1.2 lbs of hamburger meat for a month until the next welfare check. Or for two weeks until the next minimum wage check. You always show such compassion for people other than yourself. I suppose that's why you spent 1/2% over "the average charitable donations".

What do you suppose Frank or Jay do around these people?


Hmm. Tell her to shop at a less expensive store?


And as usual you do not remember that I shop at the cheapest place in town. Unless you want to shop at a Mexican market where people are getting rotten mean and vegetables that the FDA is banning because of insecticide contamination.

Or I could adopt the right wing strategy: tell those out of work that
eventually, prosperity will "trickle down" to their recently-laid-off
level, if we give tax breaks to the corporate heads who make big bucks
by laying them off.

But in actual fact, I give more than the national average to charity,
and that's just the documented amount for which I have receipts. Some of
my recent donations to hurricane relief, etc. were just cash, no receipt.

  #66  
Old October 24th 17, 03:35 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default California's Fires

On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 7:28:34 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2017 at 11:19:08 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Saturday, October 21, 2017 at 4:48:54 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/21/2017 4:55 PM, wrote:

Can you imagine what I feel like standing in line at the grocery store when a lady with two children has to pay $15 for a SMALL package of hamburger meat?

Hmm. I just checked the package of lean ground beef we bought two days
ago. 1.2 pounds, $7.66. I hope her small package was at least two pounds
of meat.


So you have two kids and are going to live on 1.2 lbs of hamburger meat for a month until the next welfare check. Or for two weeks until the next minimum wage check. You always show such compassion for people other than yourself. I suppose that's why you spent 1/2% over "the average charitable donations".

What do you suppose Frank or Jay do around these people?

Hmm. Tell her to shop at a less expensive store?


And as usual you do not remember that I shop at the cheapest place in town. Unless you want to shop at a Mexican market where people are getting rotten mean and vegetables that the FDA is banning because of insecticide contamination.

Or I could adopt the right wing strategy: tell those out of work that
eventually, prosperity will "trickle down" to their recently-laid-off
level, if we give tax breaks to the corporate heads who make big bucks
by laying them off.

But in actual fact, I give more than the national average to charity,
and that's just the documented amount for which I have receipts. Some of
my recent donations to hurricane relief, etc. were just cash, no receipt.


Do you means like it did for John F. Kennedy's tax cuts? Or Reagan's tax cuts? In both of those cases the average income of working people rose substantially.But you couldn't care less could you?

Someone sent me an interview of Cal students. To a man they considered Trump's tax plan as being diabolical and anti-poor. They then explained each stipulation of the tax plan and assigned them to Bernie Sanders and again to the last man they thought it brilliant. You and Jay in action.

And no I'm not going to give you a link. I'm not doing the work of an ass. Too bad you're not running for public office. I would LOVE to print this conversation in your local paper's letters to the editor so people can see you for what you are.


I don't know what you're talking about. Nothing I said was incorrect or even controversial.

Now this may be controversial: estimates are that the tax plan will reduce federal revenue between $4.4T and $5.9T. No new revenue sources have been identified. What usually happens with giant tax cuts is that they get reversed in part (Reagan/Bush) to fill the massive revenue shortfall, and the people filling the shortfall are those with the least clout -- ordinary tax-payers. So what will happen is that the standard deduction/personal exemptions will be rolled back and marginal rates may creep up again. The corporate rate would undoubtedly stay the same. The biggest winners would continue to win. I've itemized for decades, and the planned changes would probably mean a tax increase for me (even with the elimination of the AMT) -- but I haven't seen actual proposed code sections, so who knows.

Reagan filled the revenue gap in part by phasing out certain deductions for the wealthy. That wouldn't happen today. Reagan couldn't get elected today and would be considered a back-stabbing RINO. What happens these daysy is that the little(r) guy carries the load.

-- Jay Beattie.


Jay, the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts both increased personal income and taxable income to the point that government income increased. If you look at
http://www.econdataus.com/taxcuts.html you have to be somewhat skeptical of their conclusions because everything appears to be "corrected" by the value of today's dollar.
  #67  
Old October 24th 17, 03:43 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,374
Default California's Fires

JB

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/23/u...=71480105&te=1

incroyable... Kansas trickle down again in DC.....3 Rep governments intent on destroying the economy with bizarre discredited economic 'theories' and inability to function. ...

the trickle goes to the Chinese

crap like eliminating estate tax goes into Wall Street n has near nothing to do with industrial robustness.

absolute mindless BS ....self interest fools groping for a rationale

easily giving rise to conspiracy charges of weakening the state for Chinese Russian gains.





  #68  
Old October 24th 17, 03:44 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default California's Fires

On 10/24/2017 9:28 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2017 at 11:19:08 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Saturday, October 21, 2017 at 4:48:54 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/21/2017 4:55 PM, wrote:

Can you imagine what I feel like standing in line at the grocery store when a lady with two children has to pay $15 for a SMALL package of hamburger meat?

Hmm. I just checked the package of lean ground beef we bought two days
ago. 1.2 pounds, $7.66. I hope her small package was at least two pounds
of meat.


So you have two kids and are going to live on 1.2 lbs of hamburger meat for a month until the next welfare check. Or for two weeks until the next minimum wage check. You always show such compassion for people other than yourself. I suppose that's why you spent 1/2% over "the average charitable donations".

What do you suppose Frank or Jay do around these people?

Hmm. Tell her to shop at a less expensive store?


And as usual you do not remember that I shop at the cheapest place in town. Unless you want to shop at a Mexican market where people are getting rotten mean and vegetables that the FDA is banning because of insecticide contamination.

Or I could adopt the right wing strategy: tell those out of work that
eventually, prosperity will "trickle down" to their recently-laid-off
level, if we give tax breaks to the corporate heads who make big bucks
by laying them off.

But in actual fact, I give more than the national average to charity,
and that's just the documented amount for which I have receipts. Some of
my recent donations to hurricane relief, etc. were just cash, no receipt.


Do you means like it did for John F. Kennedy's tax cuts? Or Reagan's tax cuts? In both of those cases the average income of working people rose substantially.But you couldn't care less could you?

Someone sent me an interview of Cal students. To a man they considered Trump's tax plan as being diabolical and anti-poor. They then explained each stipulation of the tax plan and assigned them to Bernie Sanders and again to the last man they thought it brilliant. You and Jay in action.

And no I'm not going to give you a link. I'm not doing the work of an ass. Too bad you're not running for public office. I would LOVE to print this conversation in your local paper's letters to the editor so people can see you for what you are.


I don't know what you're talking about. Nothing I said was incorrect or even controversial.

Now this may be controversial: estimates are that the tax plan will reduce federal revenue between $4.4T and $5.9T. No new revenue sources have been identified. What usually happens with giant tax cuts is that they get reversed in part (Reagan/Bush) to fill the massive revenue shortfall, and the people filling the shortfall are those with the least clout -- ordinary tax-payers. So what will happen is that the standard deduction/personal exemptions will be rolled back and marginal rates may creep up again. The corporate rate would undoubtedly stay the same. The biggest winners would continue to win. I've itemized for decades, and the planned changes would probably mean a tax increase for me (even with the elimination of the AMT) -- but I haven't seen actual proposed code sections, so who knows.

Reagan filled the revenue gap in part by phasing out certain deductions for the wealthy. That wouldn't happen today. Reagan couldn't get elected today and would be considered a back-stabbing RINO. What happens these daysy is that the little(r) guy carries the load.


Doesn't every system depend on screwing the little guy?
There are just more of us, targets of every scheme.

an old observation but still true:
Under capitalism, it's man against man.
Under enlightened communism, it's the other way around.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


  #69  
Old October 24th 17, 03:58 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,374
Default California's Fires

1 April, 1971

lacking overview here...Capitalism failed several times leading to the Great Depression with Democratic Socialism, a more analytic not evolutionary economic structure replacing

The current tax cuts No. 3 are evolutionary

writing as a Darwinist


  #70  
Old October 24th 17, 04:02 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,374
Default California's Fires

On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 7:58:23 AM UTC-7, wrote:
1 April, 1971

lacking overview here...Capitalism failed several times leading to the Great Depression with Democratic Socialism, a more analytic not evolutionary economic structure replacing

The current tax cuts No. 3 are evolutionary

writing as a Darwinist


https://earth.nullschool.net/#curren...4.21,34.89,356
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bicycle Fires Frank Krygowski[_3_] Techniques 5 September 13th 12 03:41 AM
California fires raisethe UK 4 October 28th 07 05:34 PM
California fires [email protected] Australia 0 October 25th 07 09:38 PM
Fires around Bright Walrus Australia 17 December 14th 06 09:14 AM
After the fires - a RR Michael Paul Mountain Biking 9 November 11th 03 05:35 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.