Last winter a local builder made one of these by draping an insulated tarp over the can and blowing a diesel heater into it. The humidity from the heater combined with the heat made it feel like walking into a shit jungle, you could practically taste the shit fumes.
A genuine Dutch Oven.
An ideology doesn’t cause pollution.
Capitalism causes pollution under externalities.
Communism causes pollution because of the tragedy of the commons.
A capitalist country only pollutes if its government does not adequately regulate polluting industries.
A communist country only pollutes if its government does not adequately regulate polluting industries.
Do you see a pattern here?
I actually do, good point, however they kinda become the ideology plus a patch, because those ideologies by themselves arent green
Creating a “Green” (ecologically sustainable civilization) is a political choice that is compatible with most ideologies - capitalism, socialism, communism...
It is not compatible with anarchism or libertarianism though, and we have a big problem with libertarian fantasists who believe removing government will magically fix the environment.
Load more comments
You did not counter the logic in my comment at all.
What you are doing is looking at these countries and seeing what you want to see. How do you know that had China embraced a more free market that it wouldn't be far better off than it currently is today? Same with the other countries that you mentioned.
In fact, there is a strong correlation between China's economic acceleration and their adoption of more free market principles, which runs counter to your theory.
Please explain why you think the government is better at picking winners than the free market? The people in government pay essentially no price for being wrong (compared to private citizens) so there is a huge difference in incentives that you seem to just ignore. Indeed with corruption government often benefits for making the wrong decision... What logic supports your position? How do you counter this reasoning?
How do you know that had China embraced a more free market that it wouldn't be far better off than it currently is today?
Let's deal with facts, not hypotheticals.
China has grown immensely by transitioning from a communist to a fascist ("state capitalist") economy.
Yes, China liberalised parts of its economy, but like the other asian countries I mentioned, the state retains a lot of control, can override the markets at any time, and creates 5 year plans to direct immense government investment into sectors that it deems strategic.
There is no such thing as a free market economy and never will be. It's as much a childish fantasy as a communist economy. Every country has a mixed-market economy.
The actual discussion is - what's the right balance between state intervention and private markets in each sector of the economy, and when should that balance shift?
In Canada, for example, the balance is heavily pushed to private markets in the food sector, and state intervention in the healthcare sector.
In the US, the balance is pushed more to private markets in the healthcare sector, and state intervention in the pension sector.
Talking about free markets as if (a) they exist, and (b) trying to force them into every sector of the economy magically leads to better outcomes, does not align with history or reality.
the state retains a lot of control, can override the markets at any time, and creates 5 year plans to direct immense government investment into sectors that it deems strategic.
On what grounds do you claim that those things are overall better than the alternative? There is absolutely no evidence of that whatsoever.
5 year plans
Yeah because those have such a good historical track record...
There is no such thing as a free market economy
So what? What does that even mean? This was about corporate welfare. You've totally twisted this into some "we don't need government for anything" strawman because you can't acknowledge the logic of my actual point.
what's the right balance between state intervention and private markets in each sector of the economy, and when should that balance shift?
Yeah, the right balance is to err on the side of private markets unless you're sure the public has a better solution or better framework in which to help the market find a solution. Those cases are extremely rare, and also depend heavily on the actual format of your government. In many cases, even if you've identified an externality or failing of the free market, it's not likely that the government will end up doing a better job. It's more likely to make things worse (as I commented to the other person here, just see the global adjustment Ontarians have to pay for their electricity as a prime example - http://www.ieso.ca).
the balance is pushed more to private markets in the healthcare sector
The US is not a "free market" for healthcare, it is a government protected monopoly. Just look up certificate of need laws as one obvious example of the perverse incentives created by government that protect the industry from competition.
magically leads to better outcomes, does not align with history or reality.
It's not magic. It's logical reasoning and mathematics. How can you say it doesn't align with history? Free market economies are the backbone of our socioeconomic success. There is an obvious correlation. Maybe there is a limit to how far you can embrace free markets but I see no indication or good reason to believe that we are anywhere even close to that.
Free market economies are the backbone of our socioeconomic success.
No, well regulated markets are the backbone of economic success and modern civilisation.
"Free" is a meaningless buzzword added by neo-liberals to pursue radical libertarian theories and justify their own magical thinking.
It's more likely to make things worse (as I commented to the other person here, just see the global adjustment Ontarians have to pay for their electricity as a prime example - http://www.ieso.ca).
Ah ok, so Ontario is your case against government run utilities? Cast your eyeballs one province over and your argument is demolished by Quebec, which has a 100% government run electricity called Hydroquebec, and has some of the cheapest electricity rates in the world.
Load more comments
yeah wash that coal and make it clean!
Washing coal literally transforms the carbon molecules that make up coal into clean molecules that refuse to bond with oxygen to form CO2 gas during the combustion process. Science is magic!
It's a talking point often mentioned, but how much area of optimal area would be needed? Electrolysis takes a lot of energy for what you get out, and it would have to be enough to keep up with potential demand if fuel cells became a substantial percentage of vehicles. Most hydrogen now is made in a process using methane and steam.
Not to mention there’s probably plenty of toxic chemicals created and used in the production of hydrogen fuel cells.
I see your point, but I think these guys are also looking at autonomous driving taking over soon and the massive amount of battery research being done. Rather than trying to make leap they are taking a step.
It would make sense to have electric trucks with hot swappable batteries so that batteries can be swapped at every docking point.
They already have a system in Taiwan for electric scooters that have hot swappable batteries and a subscription service, with lots of battery recharge stations where people can quickly drop and swap.
"I got fired for being lazy and incompetent, but I deserve my job back because I want it".
I guess 61 is the new age of entitlement.
Putin’s freaky baby face look could also be the result of stem cell beauty therapy, which is popular among Russia’s elites.
I love how you say “among the elites”. If it was in America I’m sure you would use much different words. Stop spreading your propaganda.
Yeah you don’t know shit about me.
Russia and America are oligarchies run by billionaire elites. Many of the elites are desperate to live forever so they’re injecting themselves with stem cells and other rejuvenating therapies.
Why would the Proud Boys hit themselves?
Because it's part of their initiation as Proud Boys
So ... utterly... cringe.
This has never worked. Republican voters only care if their Rep/Sen increases their taxes or decreases gun rights. They don't have the same values. You see it as exposing them as shills but their base doesn't, they don't care. Also they know voter suppression ensures their vote has more weight.
Also people can justify away any vote. It happens all the time. Bring up Sanders' past voting record on gun control, immigration, crime and you'll get whole bunch explanations of why it's okay or doesn't matter.
That’s why Democrats and progressives need to coordinate on media messaging to immediately attack and demolish right-wing narratives as they appear.
Call them out as liars, don’t let their narratives take hold.
For example, if Obama and the Democrats had pushed back angrily and loudly against “death panels” while also calling Sarah Palin a liar for spreading the term, it would have prevented that narrative from taking hold and getting out of control.
They tried branding it as the “Paris Hilton Tax” a while back. It never stuck.
For good reason. Most people don't know or care who Paris Hilton is.
They should call it something more generic and universally relatable like the "spoiled prince tax" or the "lazy royals tax".
The key is to attach a negative word that will justify the reason for the tax in the minds of regular people not versed in tax law. It will also help inoculate them against propaganda campaigns like "death tax" when the rich try to repeal it again.
Hijacking top post to transcribe my favorite part so far:
Interviewer: And how did the special counsel react to your defense?
Corsi: They didn't believe it. Jeannie Rhee, one of the prosecutors, said 'Dr. Corso, you are asking us to believe that on an extended international flight with your wife for an anniversary, you had divine intervention. God inspired your mind and told you Assange has Podesta's emails, he's going to dump them in October, and they're going to be dumped in a serial fashion. Is that what you're saying?' I said, 'Well, I guess Ms. Rhee, that's about what I'm saying.'
Interviewer: Did they give you the impression they were upset with you?
Corsi: Absolutely.
Edit: Got the name of the prosecutor wrong, updated thanks to sahdu and fvtown714x's tips below.
He's creating a cover story for Roger Stone.
In Sam Nunberg's emails, Stone told Nunberg he ate dinner with Assange in 2016.
“I dined with my new pal Julian Assange last nite,” Stone wrote in the August 2016 email to former Trump campaign aide Sam Nunberg.
Then when this information came out, Stone said it was "a joke".
Yeah bullshit.
Corsi is covering for Stone and Trump to angle for a pardon. He's all in, and doing media interviews to push the, "Mueller is making me lie" narrative that Trump and the conservative media has pivoted to.
I haven't been keeping up lately. Are they seriously pushing a "Mueller is making people lie" strategy? The same people that are super cool with torturing people because they think it's an effective way to get accurate information?
Yep, the second top story on Foxnews.com right now begins with:
Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s tough tactics with investigation targets and witnesses are fueling complaints about the probe from President Trump and his allies at a critical stage, as key cooperation efforts seem to break down.
Just this week, conservative author Jerome Corsi balked at a plea deal after complaining the Mueller team wanted him to admit to lying (which he claims he didn't do) only after he “couldn’t give them what they wanted.” He tweeted Wednesday he now plans to pursue a complaint against Mueller's team.
Trump this morning Tweeted:
While the disgusting Fake News is doing everything within their power not to report it that way, at least 3 major players are intimating that the Angry Mueller Gang of Dems is viciously telling witnesses to lie about facts & they will get relief. This is our Joseph McCarthy Era!
This is the narrative they are all coordinating to push.
It's corruption, criminality, and collusion all the way down.
Did Karl hear anything that young girl said?
So well spoken and presented in any case, our government could learn a few things from that girl.
No Karl was too preoccupied with the massive gum tree jammed up his arse.
Oligarchs are the new aristocracy of Russian society. Putin, as emperor, has an uneasy mutual co-dependency on them. He needs their support and they need his support.
He's a baby-sitter for spoiled oligarchs. He need to curb their self-interest to preserve the national interest. However, if he upsets them sufficiently and then turn against him in unison he's still fucked.
According to Bill Browder, Putin has a deal with the oligarchs - they can continue extracting Russia’s wealth and rely on the power of Russia’s state to protect their assets around the world, and in exchange Putin gets 50%.
Putin is king of the oligarchs.
The Magnitsky act is a problem for Putin, because allowing other countries to freeze oligarch assets and block their travel means he’s not holding up his end of the bargain.
He doesn’t want a mutiny.
Getting Magnitsky removed is Putin’s number one priority.
I'm sitting here trying to wrap my head around the idea of a sitting president, sharing memes...
I'm sitting here trying to wrap my head around the idea of congress and the senate doing nothing while the US President threatens to imprison all of his political enemies without evidence of any crimes.
This is tin-pot dictator bullshit. It should be grounds for immediate impeachment.
The Republican Party allowing this makes them traitors to US democracy.
He is not threatening to imprison his political enemies “without evidence of any crimes”. His tweet implies that he has evidence and that he believes that evidence will put them behind bars. If Trump just goes around and throws his political opponents into jail with no trial, then I will be the first to resist that action. If however he has evidence that these people abused their positions of power and their connections to people in positions of power to gain MORE political power, then they should be tried and the evidence laid out and they should be judged accordingly.
If Obama was aware and had influence over the spying on of his political enemies on the basis of made up information, he should be in prison.
If Hillary paid foreign agents to compose a fake dossier on her political opponent and then used her political connections to launder that misinfo into official channels, then she should be in prison.
If Hillary used her position as SOS to sell influence and then laundered the money through her foundation, and then destroyed evidence when it was subpoenaed then she should be in prison.
If Comey leaked classified info to his friends, so that they could leak it to the press, then he should be in prison. Furthermore if he and Loretta Lynch used their positions to keep Hillary from facing charges for selling influence and obstructing justice by destroying evidence, then they should be imprisoned for that too.
If Mark Warner gave his staffer classified info to leak to the press then he should be in prison.
I am not asserting that any of these things actually happened, I have my theories, but I do not have access to that level of information. There are people who do have access to that information, and if it is determined that these people used their political influence to undermine our Republic then they should absolutely be tried and, if found guilty, should be imprisoned.
His tweet implies that he has evidence and that he believes that evidence will put them behind bars.
No it doesn't imply evidence at all.
This tweet is an open declaration that these people have committed treason.
There was no trial, there was no presentation of evidence.
The President of the USA just officially broadcast that his political opponents are guilty of being traitors, which is a capital offense subject to the death penalty.
If Trump just goes around and throws his political opponents into jail with no trial, then I will be the first to resist that action.
Trump doesn't yet have the powers of a king and cannot declare traitors be put to death as much as he wants to.
No, what he's hoping is that by broadcasting this message to his millions of followers, some will take "justice" into their own hands like his MAGA Bomber.
The President of the USA is inciting his unhinged supporters to kill his political opponents, because he is seeing his former allies going to jail for committing crimes, and he's now terrified that the investigations into his Russian money laundering and other criminal activities are going to eject him from office.
If the USMCA or rewriting of the telecommunications act encourages cross-border investment in the telecommunications industry that is win-win for everybody.
In both Canada and the States the telecommunication industry are virtually regional monopolies and competition can do nothing but good for the consumer.
Is Comcast a terrible company? Yes. Is Telus a terrible company? Yes. Is both of them competing for my business in my best interest? Yes
Is Comcast a terrible company? Yes is tell us a terrible company? Is both of them competing for my business in my best interest? Yes
Up until the point that Comcast buys or merges with its smaller Canadian rivals to create an international super-monopoly.
And then it becomes an unfixable problem because the international behemoth will be able to wield NAFTA and other multinational trade agreements as weapons to protect it from government attempts to break up its market abuse.
The best option is for the Canadian government to nationalise telecommunications infrastructure under a public utility, and open access to any private retailers so they can create their own custom plans and compete for customers on an even playing field.
So the Canadian government has the power to nationalize the entire telecommunication industry but can't block a merger?
It only takes one bad/corrupt government to allow the merger (after what will undoubtedly be intense lobbying, rivers of cash, and empty promises about being a good corporate citizen by Comcast), after which point the rest of us are then stuck with the monopoly and future governments will be unable to reverse it due to these shitty trade agreements.
Wikileaks pushed the theory too knowing full well that they got the emails from the Russians.
So did Fox News.
It makes you wonder if this group might have had Seth Rich murdered in order to pin their conspiracy on him.
Edit: We also know that this group loves to project their own crimes onto their political enemies, so blaming Hillary for Seth Rich's murder makes it even more likely that they did it.
I can't even comprehend the mental gymnastics mixed with ignorance it must take to be a Trump supporter. They really are going to become a terrorist cult in the future.
I can't comprehend the corruption of the Republican Party.
The US President just called for his perceived political enemies and members of his own government (who he appointed) to be imprisoned for treason...and the Republican Party is just letting it happen.
This is tin-pot dictatorship territory.
This is a defcon level 1 threat for US democracy.
Trump should be impeached immediately.
i think Impeached isnt what you think it is. He has to be tried for a crime, its not a simple vote him out of office thing.
Impeachment is a political process triggered by congress.
The courts and the legal system have nothing to do with it.
It is as simple as a majority vote in Congress followed by a 2/3 majority vote in the Senate to remove a sitting President.
The Republicans are too corrupt and complicit in Trump’s attack on US democracy to do this.
Load more comments
There are people who don't know it's all scripted?
Because Fox is allowed to deceive the public by labeling itself "news".
If the FTC forced "Fox News Channel" to rename itself "Fox Entertainment Channel" then the public would be better served.
Food companies have to call their product "Frozen Dairy Dessert" instead of "Ice Cream" if the cream content is below a certain level. It should be the same with News organizations.
They should only be allowed to label themselves a news channel if over 70% of their prime time viewing is the delivery of news by actual reporters and journalists.
What is with Australian conservatives thinking (or desperately wishing) that Australia is a smaller version nof the USA.
Massachusetts as a percentage of US population: 2%
Victoria as a percentage of Australia's population: 25%
Smart one Howard, dismiss a quarter of Australia. That'll help the Libs win elections.
Talk about arrogant and out of touch!
Fox News averages about 1 million viewers a night. That's more like 1/300th of the country. Facebook is where the real brainwashing is happening.
Fox News averages about 1 million viewers a night. That's more like 1/300th of the country. Facebook is where the real brainwashing is happening.
INCORRECT.
Not to mention Fox News is also broadcast in places that expand its reach much wider - on televisions in doctor's clinics, gyms, and other businesses.
Then there's the multiplying effect of disinformation, which is the people who watch Fox spreading its fake news bullshit to other people who do not watch Fox.
Fox is injecting poison into US democracy and needs to be held accountable for that.
For all their talk of disunity, Labor never had it this bad when they were in government. Really goes to show how bad this garbage of a party is
Edit: spelling
But, but, Tony told me the "adults" are in charge!
Arrested for protesting
Well, or like attacking people for political ends
Yeah sure buddy, and occupy Wall Street is basically western ISIS right.
Alt-righters are so delusional.
I’m not sure you know what that word means. That is an unbiased statement of what happened.
Desperately trying to create a false equivalence between rowdy protestors and terrorists because you sympathise with the terrorists is sleazy.
Load more comments
Don't forget the shit his daughters have said about him.
Everyone in his life fucking hates him. That tells you a lot about a person.
President Donald Trump: “He (Manafort) happens to be a very good person”
The alt-right: But, but, the Podestas, ReeeEeeee!!1!1!1
She’s of a non Anglo background and pro SSM, so she’s not culturally right wing. But she did say $40 a day was enough to live off, so she’s probably one who thinks the poor have it too good.
So I’d put her in the socially liberal but economically right wing moderates Liberal camp. But not the xenophobic Christian fundamentalist conservative Liberal camp.
Sounds like she's from the socially liberal corporate wing of the Liberal Party rather than the religious reactionary corporate wing.
He doesn't care what he said or says. He never suffers consequences.
The piece of shite.
You mean the Republican Party has chosen not to fire this corrupt traitor and pathological liar because they are equally corrupt traitors?
