Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by aerok, Apr 23, 2015.
That's what I was thinking.
That last one?
Yeah, not stupid. Blatantly, intentionally IGNORANT and TROLLING.
It's man-made alright.
It is created by humans treating an arid desert as though it's a rain-forest Shangri-La, with an endless supply of water to wash driveways, sidewalks, automobiles, and raise water intensive food stuffs.
Food for feeding to food, and then the height of absurdity, wasting vast quantities of precious water on more carbon polluting fossil fuel extraction.
So yeah, stupid, but not the culprits Fiorina would have you believe are responsible.
She also calls patent reform "big government".
Shouldn't that headline read "Fired, err forced to resign with a $20 million golden parachute, HP CEO..."?
I love that Wikipedia has four footnote cites for Fiorina being "ranked as one of the worst tech CEOs of all time."
My prediction. She'll announce on May 4th, lay off 40% of her staff in July and negotiate a golden parachute when she quits the race in August.
Every tech company suffered in 2000 and for several years following. Her downfall was the acquisition of Compaq... which was actually quite a good acquisition. She just couldn't get a "synergy" going to make use of anything out of Compaq. She had no executive vision to pave the way for the future. Mark Hurd had a good vision. HP was short sighted to get rid of him because he had sound a executive vision.
That being said... All of the peaks and lows from your attachment follow the 2000 tech bubble crash, the sub prime mortgage crash, and the flash crash. Just compare your attachment to the price of CSCO, MSFT, and DELL.
Just looking at a picture of stock price matched with CEO doesn't offer any insight. That being said... I said she has no executive vision so she doesn't seem like a good candidate to be the president.
On the upside, she didn't have to come into contact with Bill Clinton's sperm to get to run for president.
This comment will have validity when Lewinsky runs for POTUS; something I don't believe will ever happen.
I think he was referring to Chelsea Clinton's mother.
Oh, I definitely know.. but if it took Bill's sperm to get to run for POTUS, Lewinsky should carry every Blue state, Ohio, and Florida, and cruise all the way into the Oval Office.
That we know of.
Never underestimate Bill
Fiorina's ex-husband: "In the clown car that is the Republican Party, shes the ultimate clown. (via)
Glenn Beck still has a radio program? In any case, she is now blaming environmentalists for
, topped off by
She's just filler for the 2016 race, just like Carson.
Oh, regulation would save us. Moah regulation!
No mention of the lack of water infrastructure investment for four decades? The cancellation of third- and fourth-phase long-planned reservoir and delivery systems? The doubling of the state population in that same period?
Nah, gotta be the lack of regulation, not the lack of planning. And hipster disdain for farmers in a state where agriculture is still the #1 industry. Yet, ironically, even hipsters like to eat.
I'm guessing that you are a "libertarian"? So, how do libertarians justify massive public cost to build dams that, in a normal year, sell water for pennies on the dollar? I thought libertarians were opposed to that? How much do you know about how water rights work in the arid West?
Well first, I'm a lifelong Californian. This state's history is written in water. Water is why the state capitol was moved from San Jose to Sacramento. Water has been a simmering, looming issue for decades. Water was the legacy of the current governor's father. He left a blueprint for a sustainable state. And for the subsequent decades it's all been rolled back, while the population has skyrocketed.
Beyond that, way to hoist up a straw man, sir. I'll ignore your clumsy attempt to deflect my point by sticking labels on me. Because my point is that the root cause is not a lack of regulation, it's a lack of planning, a lack of investment, a lack of understanding of the importance of water to the state's history, and a willful disregard of the importance of California's agriculture to the state's economy and for feeding the nation and the world.
Meanwhile we're building a billion-dollar bullet train no one wants and no one will ride.
Some of the crops they plant shouldn't be grown in California. Even without offering cheap water to agriculture, the farms would still be there. In some cases they might plant different crops though.
How has it been rolled back? What dams and/or aqueducts were dismantled?
...adding, you can build 100 more dams and they'd be useless without more rain (and snowpack) for them to catch. Dammed lakes are at historic lows - there's plenty of unused capacity to catch, store and deliver water. Building even more dams isn't going to make it rain.
The Peripheral Canal. Dos Rios, Los Banos, Temperance Flat and Ah Pah reservoirs. Expansion of Shasta Dam. ...All planned since the '60s as part of Pat Brown's blueprint. Millions of acre-feet of planned storage capacity, cancelled without replacement while population has been encouraged to skyrocket.
Sure, but you're not thinking it through. Building more dams and reservoirs would bank water in wet years to get us through the inevitable dry ones, reducing load on the existing reservoirs you note.
Note also that a significant fraction of the planned storage was to be subterranean. Depletion of the state's aquifers is one of the little-remarked but scariest aspects of today's mismanagement of our water resources.
And if dams and reservoirs are suddenly politically incorrect, there's desalinization. Costly, but other countries have demonstrated its viability, and a desal plant or three certainly sounds preferable right about now to a bullet train no one'll ride.
You have a point, but someone who believes that more government and regulation is the answer to everything might not want to go there. For example, vast swaths of prime central valley farmland used to grow high-quality cotton, until government subsidies made corn more economically attractive.
To a point, this is absolutely correct. Had most of this been put into place, California would be able to endure this drought for longer.
That said, California's drought is a much bigger problem that goes beyond the failure to implement Brown's plans.
Absolutely. Sitting here in Arizona, currently a junior partner to California in the usage of the Colorado River, it's not looking good.
Desalinization is very expensive and require vast amounts of power to run. The Yuma Desalinization Plant just across the Arizona-California border shows the limitations of such a program. That said, it might be a valuable program for the San Francisco Bay-area, which currently pulls water from Hetch Hetchy dam in Yosemite.
Until at least 2009, the cotton industry in California got its own government subsidy worth about $57 million, but many farmers switched to almonds.
Of course, almonds have become a scapegoat for the shortage (unlike Nestle and Starbucks, who just export California's water in plastic bottles), but there are a raft of water users who aren't helping the situation.
Speaking of deflection -- you haven't stated whether you want to tax everyone to subsidize farmers.
Is that a "yes" or a "no"?
Desalination has never been economically viable for large scale agriculture and has only been cost-effective for domestic water (e.g. Perth, Australia).
Sounds libertarian to me. Yet, you apparently want taxpayers to spend vast sums subsidizing farmers. I don't understand you, sir.
Rolled back means something in existence or service is taken out of existence/service. Cancelling something planned is not a roll back.
The Peripheral Canal is a way to move water; It doesn't increase storage. Dos Rios was cancelled by noted leftist tree-hugger Saint Ronald Reagan. Temperance Flat would've added only a very modest 100k acre feet of storage. Los Banos has a dam and the google provides no information about a cancelled project there.
With respect to Ah Pah, setting aside environmental and ecosystem concerns, from a pure economic standpoint the product of that water belongs to the salmon fishing industry and the towns supported by it on the northern California coast. If central valley agribusiness wants the value of that water they need to compensate those who would be harmed AND pay the infrastructure costs of building it.
I'll happily ride it. We could have ten (!) 400+ mile bullet trains for what we blew on our grand Iraq adventure and imagine how much better off we'd be if we'd done that instead. It's funny (sad, frustrating) how we look at some things and say ZOMG!!&! it's going to cost $100 billion and don't bat an eyelash when that much and more is wasted elsewhere.
High speed rail is financially viable in a multitude of highly developed countries and there's no reason why it couldn't be viable here too. Why can't we have nice things?
Oh, and on topic, "Here Are Carly Fiorina's Most Anti-Gay Comments."