Longwood50

Except they use the term "your fair share" Only the terms have been changed. The philosophy is the same.

How many links would you like? Is it a slam dunk, no but then again neither is global warming. https://www.safespaceprotection.com/news-and-info/exposure-to-power-lines-linked-to-cancer/ https://letstalkscience.ca/educational-resources/stem-in-context/does-living-near-high-voltage-power-lines-cause-cancer https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/radiation-electromagnetic-fields https://www.bmj.com/content/330/7503/1290?ehom= https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/electromagnetic-fields-fact-sheet#what-do-expert-organizations-conclude-about-the-cancer-risk-from-emfs

No fossil fuels are not completely clean. However if you remember I said we are trading one form of pollution for another. Those who think their electric car is somehow saving the enviorment forget about the fact that 500,000 gallons of water are required to mine just 1 ton of lithium with is enough to only produce 190,000 cell phones. They are still using electricity which is generated predomintely by coal, natural gas, and nuclear. The generation of that electricity creates pollution and its transmission likewise has pollution associated with it. So does the drilling for oil, its distilling to gasoline, and its trucking to service station. However it is a fool who thinks that somehow electric vehicles and the generation of electricity is not without associated pollution. Here is the link https://healthyliving.azcentral.com/health-risks-with-a-high-voltage-transformer-12280084.html

Yes Biden tanked the economy. Don't you remember you were the one who hailed his trillion dollar spending to "save" those poor businesses that were suffering. Why were they suffering? Because the Democrats spearheaded by Biden shut down the economy with mask mandates, quarantines, restricted hours, social distancing mandates, etc.  In April 2020, the unemployment rate reached 14.8%—the highest rate observed since data collection began in 1948. In July 2021, unemployment remained higher (5.4%) than it had been in February 2020 (3.5%).  The labor force participation rate declined to 60.2% in April 2020—a level not seen since the early 1970s—then began a partial recovery in May 2020. The labor force participation rate was 61.7% in July 2021, 1.7 percentage points below the level in January 2020, before the pandemic and the economic recession.  Nonfarm payrolls shed 22.1 million jobs between January 2020 and April 2020, with employment declining to 86% of its pre-recession level. In July 2021, aggregate employment remained 5.4 million jobs below its pre-recession level.  The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted economic sectors disparately. The leisure and hospitality sector lost the largest number of jobs since January 2020, and persons last employed in this sector have consistently exhibited some of the highest unemployment rates throughout the pandemic. Additionally, the education and services sector and the government sector have exhibited the second and third-largest losses in jobs since January 2020, despite relatively low unemployment rates among persons last employed in these sectors. Now you can say Biden was not responsible for Covid. BUT HIS RESPONSE TO IT IS WHAT CRATERED THE ECONOMY. Real GDP FELL 3.4% in 2020. One other factor that you overlook with the price of oil. Yes it has declined. However oil is pegged predominately to the USD. As dollars weaken the price of oil and gold rise to offset. The reverse is true when dollars strengthen. That is the major reason for the price of oil declining. The dollar strengthened by 12% in 2022. at $100 that is a $12 decrease in the price of oil. Again should Biden get credit for that. Only if you favor the ridiculous spending that fueled inflation and caused the Federal Reserve to boost interest rates making U.S. dollars more attractive to investors.

Chomper 1. if you have wind, solar, or hydro electric. Did you ever consider the pollution created by the construction of the solar panels, wind turbines, or hydro electric dam. 2. That power is created in a region often far away from the electric power company that has the grid to distribute it to home or business. Maybe you have not noticed the poles that are strung to hang the electric wires. 3. Those poles then have transformers The World Health Organization cautions that those who live within a mile of a high voltage transformer could develop neurological disorders. Exposure to electromagnetic field waves, even weak ones, can impair the brain's chemical balance and ability of the immune system to fight diseases. 4. Those transformers have oil which is mostly polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) which is responsible for producing toxicity in humans. Chronic exposure with PCB may cause some toxicity such as hepatotoxicity and neurotoxicity. 5. Now perhaps again since you didn't notice the poles, you might have missed the wires hanging from the poles. The metal inside those wires is mostly Aluminum Steel which guess what has to be manufacturered and creates pollution to be produced. 6. Perhaps you missed it but those electric wires are coated. That coating is PVC is the most environmentally damaging plastic. The PVC lifecycle -- its production, use, and disposal -- results in the release of toxic, chlorine-based chemicals. These toxins are building up in the water, air and food chain. 7. Energy from wind, solar, and hydroelectric is generated and if not used it is wasted. Unlike hydrocarbons that can be stored, excess electricity sent to a power company can only be retained by the use of batteries. Neither efficient, and extremely toxic to produce.

LOL, Oh you mean the price of oil at $75 to $80 a bargain. Perhaps economics was not your best subject. Of course prices of oil go down when you have a weak economy. So are you suggesting Biden should get credit for the low prices because he tanked the economy. That is like saying the house was full of termites but he exterminated them by burning the house down.

You remind me of the story of the scientist who wanted to study the impact of pulling the wings off flies. He pulled the first set off and slapped his hand and the fly flew off. He wrote down that pulling the wings off had no impact on the fly's ability to fly. He then pulled off the second set and slapped his hands and the fly remained. He then put in this notes that though pulling the first set of wings off had no effect, pulling the second set off caused the fly to lose its hearing since it obviously could no longer hear him clap. If both administrations but more with the Democrats had not locked down the country over the overblown fears of Covid the economy would not have tanked. As to stimulus spending to aid a recovery that again is a bogus theory. If it worked, there would never be an economic slowdown. The government upon seeing the economy slow would just pump some money into the system and it would be reinvigorated. It has not worked that way. Despite trillions of dollars the USA is entering a recession brought on soley because those trillions of dollars caused uncontrolled inflation. The best thing for the government to do is to get out of the business of trying to micromanage the economy. Anytime government interferes with the marketplace it distorts it. Loans for everyone for home. Hence the housing crisis. Lets move to Ethanol, a cleaner burning fuel. That only cost hundreds of billions in subsidies to produce a fuel that is less energy efficient and caused the price of anything like cereal, flower, beef, pigs, etc to go up as corn was used to make ethanol instead of food products. The government is like a giant example of munchausen syndrome where it inflicts injury on the economy and then rushes in to declare that it will safe the economy from the disaster that its policies created.

Oh there is no question that Trump like the presidents before him was no fiscal dove. However this is like a snowball running down a hill. The deficits and spending keep increasing. As to inflation, the only thing you can say is that it was low during the Trump years. Whether he was responsible for that or it was purely lucky, is up for debate. As to Biden, his spending has outstripped Trump and certainly these huge "stimulus" bills are nothing more than throwing gasoline on a fire. Certainly a major reason for the inflation is the huge run up in oil. Biden and the Democrats position on oil was a significant factor in the oil price going up. He killed the Keystone Pipeline, he cancelled some existing leases for oil exploration and placed a moratorium on signing new leases. That told the oil markets that the USA which was a net exporter of oil would now have to purchase it and it started the spiraling of oil prices up. Oil goes into almost every product that is produced and certainly is used for every product that has to be transported.

Now Ozimoron, under which president did the SPENDING skyrocket. It is not a lack of tax revenue we are now approaching 50% for all Federal, State, and Local tax receipts. It is no matter how much is collected the government spends more. That creates inflation. Now the top half of wage earners already pay 97% of the taxes how much more do you want? Now at the point where taxes become so confiscatory at the top levels that there is no point in being productive, those who previously earned the large incomes have ZERO INCENTIVE to produce. https://taxfoundation.org/publications/latest-federal-income-tax-data/

You have an administration that is not Republican that has controlled the White House, Senate, and House for the past two years as inflation skyrocketed. Blaming Republicans is a total misrepresentation of the facts. In terms of the expansion of Medicaid or for that matter anything else, does it never dawn on liberals that spending money no matter how noble to person thinks the cause is, CREATES INFLATION that robs everyone. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. You can not run multi-trillion dollar deficits and spend your way to prosperity. What should be the objective is to enhance the economy to provide good paying jobs so people can afford their own healthcare and not placing the burden of their care on those already working and paying the freight. This is a chart of the inflation rate. Please note when INFLATION RAGED causing everything including housing prices and rents to skyrocket.

Try showing them this. Or don't you believe the words of Lincoln who was the person responsible for declaring the civil war as to what his objective was. This letter was written as a response to Horace Greely asking the President to declare emancipation as the reason for the war. Now if the purpose from the onset was to free the slaves WHY WOULD GREELY IN AN OPEN LETTER ENCOURAGE THE PRESIDENT TO DECLARE IT SO. The fact is the war was strictly on economic and states rights issues. However killing ones brothers to preserve the tarrifs that protected the industry of the Northern States was hardly as sympathetic reason as freeing enslaved men. Hence the revisionist history that ignores the facts. While Lincoln waited for his generals to secure a victory, New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley provided Lincoln with an opportunity to test public reaction to emancipation as a war measure. In an open letter to President Lincoln published on August 20 under the heading "The Prayer of Twenty Millions," Greeley urged Lincoln to recognize slavery as the root cause of the war and act boldly with regard to emancipation This letter was written as a response to Horace Greely asking the President to declare emancipation as the reason for the war. Now if the purpose from the onset was to free the slaves WHY WOULD GREELY IN AN OPEN LETTER ENCOURAGE THE PRESIDENT TO DECLARE IT SO. The fact is the war was strictly on economic and states rights issues. However killing ones brothers to preserve the tarrifs that protected the industry of the Northern States was hardly as sympathetic reason as freeing enslaved men. Hence the revisionist history that ignores the facts. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that Abraham Lincoln Letter Now Omicron unless you can't read, this response very clearly articulates that abolishing slavery was not the cause of the war and the abolitionists later brought up emancipation well after the war was already underway. https://www.loc.gov/resource/mal.4233400/?r=-3.463,-0.034,7.926,3.132,0

Use your own advise. THESE ARE LINCOLNS OWN WORDS RESPONDING TO HORACE GREELEY Perhaps you might believe Lincoln's own words on the subject as printed in the National Intelligencer. HE VERY CLEARLY STATES THAT THE WAR WAS NOT ABOUT SLAVERY. Or do you think Lincoln's own words on the subject don't matter and are trumped by the PC crowd portrayal of the Civil War as some sort of moral crusade. Clearly it was not. While Lincoln waited for his generals to secure a victory, New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley provided Lincoln with an opportunity to test public reaction to emancipation as a war measure. In an open letter to President Lincoln published on August 20 under the heading "The Prayer of Twenty Millions," Greeley urged Lincoln to recognize slavery as the root cause of the war and act boldly with regard to emancipation. Although he already had a draft emancipation proclamation prepared, Lincoln responded with his own open letter to Greeley, which he published in the National Intelligencer in Washington, D.C. Lincoln stated plainly that the goal of his administration's policies, including those related to slavery, was to save the Union. "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that." Lincoln carefully noted that this represented his official position. He intended "no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free." https://www.loc.gov/resource/mal.4233400/?r=-3.463,-0.034,7.926,3.132,0

show me where there was any affirmative action taken against the South to end slavery. THERE WAS NOT. Note Lincoln even rebuffed abolionists and to use his war power to strike against slavery. Since the war was already in progress it is obvious that they would not have been pressuring Lincoln since according to you that was the reason for the war. We often associate the Civil War with the end of slavery — and for good reason. But Lincoln’s primary goal in going to war was to save the Union, slavery or not. The Emancipation Proclamation changed the equation. The Civil War began on April 12, 1861. Though Lincoln morally opposed slavery, he avoided any public comments connecting the war and the rights of slaves. He was concerned more with acting constitutionally and a swift victory to prevent the Union from dissolving. So according to you the war was about Slavery but Lincoln himself avoided all public comment connecting the two. He publicly stated the goal was TO PRESERVE THE UNION. While Lincoln opposed slavery he was never for emancipation. He favored exporting the slaves to either the Carribean or Liberia. AGAIN THE SOUTH HAD NO REASON TO SECEDE DUE TO THE ABOLOITON OF SLAVERY. None had been suggested or threatened. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 ALREADY GUARANTEED THE SOUTH THE PRESERVATION OF SLAVERY.

No it was not. SHOW ME WHERE THE NORTH introduced any action to ban slavery. As said the Missouri Compromise already GUARANTEED that those states that were slave states could remain so as well as any below the Missouri Compromise line. So the argument that they fought over slavery is patently false. Neither Lincoln, or Congress took any legislative action to stop slavery. So there was NO REASON TO SECEDE. There was not even any discussion in congress to ban slavery. It is an "urban legend" spread through the ages as some form or moral crusade. It was not. Slavery would have ended one way or another without the war. Mechanization was already starting the end of slavery

You could be correct but as mentioned as a casual observer, I see precious few charging stations. Also, unlike the 3 minutes or less it takes to refuel a gasoline powered car it takes in some cases hours to recharge on a Level 2 charger. Not all the cars or charging stations have level 3 charges even then you are 15 minute to 30 minutes. Perhaps acceptable if you are the only one in the queue but hardly desireable if there were many waiting to charge. I know this, in warm or cold weather I certainly don't want to be sitting inside my car for 15 minutes to 30 minutes to have my car charged. I also know having used electric lithium batteries for a golf cart that they reccomend slow charging since fast charging can degrade the life of the battery. Now this may not happen in Thailand however in the PC world of the USA, electric vehicles must now have noise to protect blind pedestrians alerting them to oncoming vehicles.

All you have to do is look at virtually every country including Thailand and their actions to see this played out.

Yes and with that "hope" and 30 baht you can get a smoothie at the Night Market. Here is the cost of lithium. And that is with only 2.2% of the cars in the world now being Electric. Lithium is a rare earth metal and as its supply is exhausted the price will have to go up exponentially. What percent of the world's cars are electric? On a global scale, only 1 in 250 cars on the road is electric. Meaning, electric vehicles account for only 2.2% of the global vehicle market share.

Ozimoron, No it was not about slavery. Tell me. Where was the "legislation" or threats to remove slavery from the North. There were none. As mentioned the Missouri Compromise was ENACTED LEGISLATION. It guaranteed that all states that were slave states could remain so and that new states below the 36º 30' latitude line could be slave and those above could not. HENCE THE SOUTH HAD NO REASON TO SECEDE DUE TO SLAVERY. The war started not because of slavery or threats to abolish it. It started because the South seceded and declared its independence. It seceded strictly because of what it considered unfair legislation that damaged the agricultural industry of the south with high product costs for imported products and benefited the north whose factories were protected from imported products via the tarrifs. By the time of the civil war, slavery was ALREADY BEING PHASED OUT in the South by industrialization. Inventions like the cotton gin were making it less economical to use slaves. The civil war ended slavery but slavery was not the impetus that started the war. That is as fake as Marie Antoinnette saying "let them eat cake" or that you can see the Great Wall in China from space. It is politically popular to say the Civil War was a great crusade to end slavery but that is patently false. Though Lincoln opposed slavery, he was governed by the consitution, and the Missouri Compromise which guaranteed it. This legislation admitted Missouri as a slave state and Maine as a non-slave state at the same time, so as not to upset the balance between slave and free states in the nation. It also outlawed slavery above the 36º 30' latitude line in the remainder of the Louisiana Territory.May 10, 2565 BE Missouri Compromise (1820) - National Archives

I suggest we are trading one form of pollution for another. The USA right now Renewables amount to only 21% of the electric produced. Even with renewables like sun, wind, and water, you have pollution from the contruction of dams, solar panels, and wind turbines plus the pollution from the transmission to the power company. It takes 2.2 million liters of water to make 1 ton of lithium used in the batteries. 1 ton is enough to make 190,000 cell phones. In Chile 65% of the available water is used to extract the lithium deposits robbing the residents of water needed for daily living and crops. But you feel good driving your electric car and "thinking" it doesn't pollute.

What is true is that the Civil War was not fought over slavery and over the years it has become politically popular to say it was. The North and South had already agreed that those states that were slave states could remain so. It was passed in congress and labeled the Missouri Compromise. The compromise was worked out because the South did not want representation in new states to be non slave and hence wanted protection that slavery would be allowed to continue. They got that assurance with the passage of the Missouri Compromise of 1820 It was later repealed but not until after the Civil War. Since the states that had slavery were expressly in the law allowed to keep it, the issue with the South was not about retaining slavery. The real issue as always was economic. The North possessed the factories and wanted protection from cheaper imported products hence the Morrill Tarrifs which greatly increased the cost of imported goods. The North benefited from higher prices for its manufactured products and the South with fewer factories had the brunt by paying more for imported products than they otherwise would. After the Civil War the slaves were free, but the war was not fought to free the slaves, it was fought to stop the South from leaving the Union and the reason that the broke from the Union was the tarrifs. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26062020#:~:text=In Britain%2C the tariff thus,European recognition of the Confederacy.

Again perhaps, but as I drive around Thailand I see precious few charging stations. As to your claim of getting 510 KM perhaps you should advise Mercedes that unlike published reports your car outstrips theirs. As to a range of 400KM at 20 years I find that pretty difficult to believe.. This report says at 8 years the battery would be at 70%. Now this is not an issue in Thailand but both battery charging time, range, and life of battery are considerably less in cold weather. Ford recently advised owners of its new EV truck to avoid using the heater during cold weather and to rely on heated seats and steering wheel to save the battery. The same applies to using the AC during the summer. It would seem to me, the only people who will greatly benefit from and EV would be those that travel a lot such as taxi drivers in major cities. If you drive very little you won't save enough in reduced energy costs to recoup the additional expense of purchasing an EV. The unknown question is if the owner decides to change vehicles at the end of 5 to 8 years what the resale value will be. I "suspect" buyers will know the battery is towards the end of its normal life, will have reduced range, and might need to be replaced. Given that I would conjecture the resale value will plummet. Also unknown, all of the studies are based on todays cost of electricity. As more electric cars are on the roads it is almost a certainty that government will tax the EV's either directly or through higher electric costs to offset the loss of fuel tax. Though it wont impact immediately existing owners. The price of lithium has skyrocketed and that is with only a small fraction of the cars being Electric. That alone could significantly increase the cost of a new EV and destroy any resale value entirely on the used one if it required now a much more expensive battery replacement.

If not of more value, then why the showcasing on TV. As mentioned there seems to be this mindset that because someone can catch a ball, hit a ball, dunk a ball, sing, act, or is born to someone of royalty that they are showcased to the public as if what they have to say is really more germaine and insightful. Now if Anderson Cooper was interviewing a person who had invented something, was an expert on medical issues, was Warren Buffet talking about investing, then it is totally appropriate. As to Prince Harry and his wife, they are just two human beings with no particular expertise or experience on any issue. The very fact that Britain continues to have a monarchy astounds me since they are nothing more than symbollic.

If you use a new device or have recently cleared your cache you will get this for awhile. Each time I clear my cache in my computer it takes the cookies that the sites use to verify me. After I verify for a number of times, it restores enough times the cookies that Lazada and Shopee and other sites now recognize it isn't a hacker.

I did not say it is of less value. I said it is mistaken to somehow think that his opinion is worth hearing merely because he is a member of the lucky sperm club. I don't listen to Kim Kardashian, Kayne West, or Labron James for exactly the same reason. They hold no special knowlege that would render their "opinion" important.

Perhaps it is has always been true, but why does the public think that TV personalities, movie stars, atheletes and royalty have some unique insight into the worlds issues that makes their opinion of value. Prince Harry's sole accomplishment has been to be a member of the "lucky sperm club". That is hardly an accomplishment to engenders any sort of special expertise. It is akin to listening to Kim Kardashian and putting some value in her opinion.