The Atheist Communist Caliphate Made Flesh, Spread the Clusterfuck Around Thread

[RV]

If you're a fetus-eating pinko you might enjoy this summary of things to be ANGRY about.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/26/comparisions/index.html

Wow, this is a fascinating article.

Gleen talks about "the incestuous relationship between governments and large [] corporate conglomerates" like that is prima facie a bad thing.  He does not, however, follow that to its obvious logical conclusion, that the people best suited to regulate a business are the people who don't know anything about it.  Mainly because if he did, he'd sound like a loon.

Fair point there. I think the anger is more directed at the fact that many of Geithner's plans seem to be based largely on not pissing off the private sector with mean conditions attached to the money, rather than making sure that our taxpayer money for these bailouts is being spent (relatively) wisely.

On to the "war crimes" piece. 

And we just found out the international Red Cross, also the definitive body on torture, found that this was a real torture program.

(Yes, I know that's a quote from Turley, but Gleen uses it to make his point.)  That Red Cross report's source for information was... the prisoners themselves.  And "torture" included "sleep deprivation" and "extreme temperatures."  As I am wont to say in such instances, sure.

I don't think we're going to agree on this subject, but I'll just point out that the Red Cross report isn't the only thing Greenwald is hanging his hat on - he's written many other times supporting the idea of investigating what happened with Guantanamo/wiretapping/etc, before this Red Cross report came out.

Anyway, I don't agree with everything in the post - but I do agree with the central ideas that there seems to be two sets of rules out there, and that it's ridiculous to ask us as taxpayers to simultaneously "make sacrifices" while bailing out these retards.

[Philberto]

Just in case you were worried that Congress is not addressing the issues that matter to you...

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hV4mOJQgUsQthrydU_Vty4iVgC5gD9759GG00

Everyone from President Barack Obama on down to fans has criticized how college football determines its top team. Now senators are getting off the sidelines to examine antitrust issues involving the Bowl Champion Series...

Obama and some members of Congress favor a playoff-type system to determine the national champion. The BCS features a championship game between the two top teams in the BCS standings, based on two polls and six computer ratings.

Behind the push for the hearings is the subcommittee's top Republican, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah. People there were furious that Utah was bypassed for the national championship despite going undefeated in the regular season...

In the House, Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, the top Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, has sponsored legislation that would prevent the NCAA from calling a football game a "national championship" unless the game culminates from a playoff system.

*forehead slap*

*twiddles thumbs*

I'm meaning this to be a legitimate question, but why are members of Congress getting into sports now? 

Congress has meddled in sports before.  I know they got involved during the baseball strike, for one.  It's just way to pander and seem appealing to voters.

Since when is interstate commerce and a multi-billion dollar industry outside of congressional jurisdiction?  Or are we still getting hung up on some naive idea that sport, even collegiate, is not a business?

On one hand, the ultra-conservative side of me says Congress meddling is not right, despite IC and all... However, fuck it. The BCS has pissed me off in their lack of acknowledgment that the current system isn't getting the job done correctly. So Congress, spend my tax dollars and make a fucking playoff. Also, they should read my suggestion on how to do it: http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6230.msg159983#msg159983 because it's right.

[Tank]

IAN offers a compelling argument...

[Philberto]

IAN offers a compelling argument...

Post just to post?

[*In a Nutsack]

IAN offers a compelling argument...

Post just to post?

It was a "THIS," but I forgot to "THIS."  Getoffmybackalready.

[morpheus]

I guess this goes in this thread... http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/cool-paints/cool-paints.htm

"Cool Paints" means, naturally, that dark-colored car paints will be banned in the state of California.  Gil's gonna have to get rid of his Black Crown Vic.

[Wheezer]

I guess this goes in this thread... http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/cool-paints/cool-paints.htm

"Cool Paints" means, naturally, that dark-colored car paints will be banned in the state of California.  Gil's gonna have to get rid of his Black Crown Vic.

A sounder idea.

[Tank]

"Cool Paints" means, naturally, that dark-colored car paints will be banned in the state of California.

Not necessarily.

It's more about the development of ways to make darker colors reflect the infrared spectrum...

http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencaradvisor/2009/02/a-change-in-paint-might-be-the-next-big-thing-in-the-greening-of-cars-and-trucks.html

Now, you might think there'd be lots of ways for paint makers to match existing colors without using carbon black - and therefore meet the legislation California's air-quality regulators are working on - but that's just not the case, Poulsen said. There are only the two ways: the IR-transmissive paints or the IR-reflective paints.

IR-transmissive paints contain a transparent pigment that allows infrared and near-infrared light to pass through the base layer to a light-colored primer layer, where the warm infrared light is reflected away from the car. This technology allows the paint companies to get pretty close to color-matching existing dark automotive paints.

But - and this is a big but - having a light-colored primer layer would mean that if your car was stone-chipped or badly dinged, a light-colored spot of primer would appear.

In fact, the primer could be very apparent, depending on the difference in color between the primer and base coats. That's why automakers tend to use a primer that's a close match to the base coat.

The other way paint companies are approaching the problem is with IR-reflective pigments, in which an infrared-reflecting pigment is mixed into the base coat. But thus far the paint companies that serve the automotive industry have been unable to achieve the colors they've wanted in what they refer to fondly as "the darker space."

As a result, California's air quality officials are giving the companies more time - until the 2016 model year - to develop the technologies they need to come up with true black, browns and other dark colors that won't heat-up interiors and encourage use of  automotive air-conditioners.

Sounds like forward-looking stuff concerned with minimizing negative externalities that the car companies probably couldn't care less about seriously addressing on their own.

[Wheezer]

It's more about the development of ways to make darker colors reflect the infrared spectrum...

To where?  I'm not getting the energy balance here.

[Tank]

It's more about the development of ways to make darker colors reflect the infrared spectrum...

To where?  I'm not getting the energy balance here.

To somewhere where it won't encourage people to crank up their car AC.

Possibly "anywhere but the car itself."

[BH]

It's more about the development of ways to make darker colors reflect the infrared spectrum...

To where?  I'm not getting the energy balance here.

To somewhere where it won't encourage people to crank up their car AC.

Possibly "anywhere but the car itself."

What a waste of time. If they could relieve traffic congestion in LA it would be far better than resurfacing cars... how much could it cost to get everyone using jetpacks? That's where teh focus should be. The future.

[Waco Kid]

So lets see here.

It's 90 degrees in LA, cars are gridlocked on the highway where it's probably 100+ degrees due to the exhaust gasses and the reflected heat from the cars (of which has to go somewhere, possibly the road itself) and they expect people won't turn on their car ACs.

Instead of redoing car paints, redo the engine, of which actually produces the CO2.

[Wheezer]

It's more about the development of ways to make darker colors reflect the infrared spectrum...

To where?  I'm not getting the energy balance here.

To somewhere where it won't encourage people to crank up their car AC.

Possibly "anywhere but the car itself."

Is "the air" somewhere that won't encourage use of air conditioning?

[Jon]

It's more about the development of ways to make darker colors reflect the infrared spectrum...

To where?  I'm not getting the energy balance here.

To somewhere where it won't encourage people to crank up their car AC.

Possibly "anywhere but the car itself."

What a waste of time. If they could relieve traffic congestion in LA it would be far better than resurfacing cars... how much could it cost to get everyone using jetpacks? That's where teh focus should be. The future.

BH, I'll have you know I will be running for President in 2012 on the "Where's My Jetson's Shit?" platform.

[morpheus]

It's more about the development of ways to make darker colors reflect the infrared spectrum...

To where?  I'm not getting the energy balance here.

To somewhere where it won't encourage people to crank up their car AC.

Possibly "anywhere but the car itself."

What a waste of time. If they could relieve traffic congestion in LA it would be far better than resurfacing cars... how much could it cost to get everyone using jetpacks? That's where teh focus should be. The future.

BH, I'll have you know I will be running for President in 2012 on the "Where's My Jetson's Shit?" platform.

I don't care if you're a Crypto-Anrcho-Communist, I'd vote for you on that platform.