The Official "Making America Woke Again" Thread

[AZGrizFan]

I know plenty more teachers that love teaching and would do just about anything for "their kids". Many more good teachers than bad teachers. Their biggest complaint that I have heard is that their hands are tied by school administration in how they teach.

My daughter spends several hundred dollars of her own money getting shit for her classroom every year. Education-wise, NC is Boogereater Central.

Just like in police forces across the country, there’d be a LOT fewer shitty cops AND shitty teachers if the unions would quit protecting them.

[houndawg]

My daughter spends several hundred dollars of her own money getting shit for her classroom every year. Education-wise, NC is Boogereater Central.

Just like in police forces across the country, there’d be a LOT fewer shitty cops AND shitty teachers if the unions would quit protecting them.

Trut so pure

[SeattleGriz]

Nancy is drunk woke. What a lush. Took her awhile to get to the rehearsed part of her word salad.

[AZGrizFan]

Just like in police forces across the country, there’d be a LOT fewer shitty cops AND shitty teachers if the unions would quit protecting them.

Trut so pure

[SeattleGriz]

Fucking white nationalist Hispanics.

Axios. What a joke.

[houndawg]

Fucking white nationalist Hispanics.

Axios. What a joke.

You think that there aren't white nationalist Hispanics?

[UNI88]

Fucking white nationalist Hispanics.

Axios. What a joke.

You think that there aren't white nationalist Hispanics?

Are they white nationalists or are the majority of them simply racist?

There is definitely conflict between Team Brown and Team Black but that conflict and racism is a two-way street.

[Baldy]

Fucking white nationalist Hispanics.

Axios. What a joke.

As Team Brown becomes more and more red pilled, you'll see more and more stories just like this.

[SeattleGriz]

Fucking white nationalist Hispanics.

Axios. What a joke.

You think that there aren't white nationalist Hispanics?

I think the term "white" is shoehorned in there for bullshit factor.

But yes, If you want to call a group of people that I have known to be hard working family people, white nationalist Hispanics, be my guest Houndie.

[CID1990]

Well, it was only a matter of time before some lefty scribe penned a name for conservative Hispanics

Because all conservatives are white nationalists


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

Well, it was only a matter of time before some lefty scribe penned a name for conservative Hispanics

Because all conservatives are white nationalists


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Latinocons has a better ring to it.

[SeattleGriz]

Well, it was only a matter of time before some lefty scribe penned a name for conservative Hispanics

Because all conservatives are white nationalists


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Latinocons has a better ring to it.

That's Latinxocons.

[houndawg]

You think that there aren't white nationalist Hispanics?

I think the term "white" is shoehorned in there for bullshit factor.

But yes, If you want to call a group of people that I have known to be hard working family people, white nationalist Hispanics, be my guest Houndie.

wow.....nice with the broad brush

[UNI88]

Well, it was only a matter of time before some lefty scribe penned a name for conservative Hispanics

Because all conservatives are white nationalists


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Latinocons has a better ring to it.

Isn't incendiary enough to demonize the fascist right while circling the wagon for the self-righteous true believers.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

[kalm]

Latinocons has a better ring to it.

Isn't incendiary enough to demonize the fascist right while circling the wagon for the self-righteous true believers.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

I must be having a slow day.

[UNI88]

Isn't incendiary enough to demonize the fascist right while circling the wagon for the self-righteous true believers.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

I must be having a slow day.

You whine about liberals being painted as socialists but have no problem will conservatives being painted as white nationalists/fascists?

[kalm]

I must be having a slow day.

You whine about liberals being painted as socialists but have no problem will conservatives being painted as white nationalists/fascists?

Paint white nationalists as white nationalists. Paint socialists as socialists.

Conservative and liberal (in their truest forms) is basically an argument of tradition versus change and how soon that change occurs.

[AZGrizFan]

You whine about liberals being painted as socialists but have no problem will conservatives being painted as white nationalists/fascists?

Paint white nationalists as white nationalists. Paint socialists as socialists.

Conservative and liberal (in their truest forms) is basically an argument of tradition versus change and how soon that change occurs.

Negative, ghost rider. It’s an argument of reality vs lunacy. Example: mandating all electric vehicles within the next 10 years, without a power grid or power sources to support it or even a plan to GET to that point. Conservatives understand the need to move forward in areas like these, but painting your state (or the country) into a corner and fighting the global economic battle with both hands tied behind our backs is not a productive way to go through life.

[UNI88]

You whine about liberals being painted as socialists but have no problem will conservatives being painted as white nationalists/fascists?

Paint white nationalists as white nationalists. Paint socialists as socialists.

Conservative and liberal (in their truest forms) is basically an argument of tradition versus change and how soon that change occurs.

Then please ask your fellow liberals to stop labeling conservatives as white nationalists.

You're being too simplistic about conservatives in their truest form. A fiscal conservative isn't for tradition and against change, they're for being intelligent in how and when you allocate fiscal resources.

[AZGrizFan]

Paint white nationalists as white nationalists. Paint socialists as socialists.

Conservative and liberal (in their truest forms) is basically an argument of tradition versus change and how soon that change occurs.

Negative, ghost rider. It’s an argument of reality vs lunacy. Example: mandating all electric vehicles within the next 10 years, without a power grid or power sources to support it or even a plan to GET to that point. Conservatives understand the need to move forward in areas like these, but painting your state (or the country) into a corner and fighting the global economic battle with both hands tied behind our backs is not a productive way to go through life.

Copied and pasted from the bastion of truth….Facebook….but it perfectly explains the difference between conservatives and liberals when it comes to something as basic as renewable energy and EV’s.

This is an excellent breakdown.

Batteries, they do not make electricity – they store electricity produced elsewhere, primarily by coal, uranium, natural gas-powered plants, or diesel-fueled generators. So, to say an EV is a zero-emission vehicle is not at all valid.

Also, since forty percent of the electricity generated in the U.S. is from coal-fired plants, it follows that forty percent of the EVs on the road are coal-powered, do you see?"

Einstein's formula, E=MC2, tells us it takes the same amount of energy to move a five-thousand-pound gasoline-driven automobile a mile as it does an electric one. The only question again is what produces the power? To reiterate, it does not come from the battery; the battery is only the storage device, like a gas tank in a car.

There are two orders of batteries, rechargeable, and single-use. The most common single-use batteries are A, AA, AAA, C, D. 9V, and lantern types. Those dry-cell species use zinc, manganese, lithium, silver oxide, or zinc and carbon to store electricity chemically. Please note they all contain toxic, heavy metals.

Rechargeable batteries only differ in their internal materials, usually lithium-ion, nickel-metal oxide, and nickel-cadmium. The United States uses three billion of these two battery types a year, and most are not recycled; they end up in landfills. California is the only state which requires all batteries be recycled. If you throw your small, used batteries in the trash, here is what happens to them.

All batteries are self-discharging. That means even when not in use, they leak tiny amounts of energy. You have likely ruined a flashlight or two from an old, ruptured battery. When a battery runs down and can no longer power a toy or light, you think of it as dead; well, it is not. It continues to leak small amounts of electricity. As the chemicals inside it run out, pressure builds inside the battery's metal casing, and eventually, it cracks. The metals left inside then ooze out. The ooze in your ruined flashlight is toxic, and so is the ooze that will inevitably leak from every battery in a landfill. All batteries eventually rupture; it just takes rechargeable batteries longer to end up in the landfill.

In addition to dry cell batteries, there are also wet cell ones used in automobiles, boats, and motorcycles. The good thing about those is, ninety percent of them are recycled. Unfortunately, we do not yet know how to recycle single-use ones properly.

But that is not half of it. For those of you excited about electric cars and a green revolution, I want you to take a closer look at batteries and also windmills and solar panels. These three technologies share what we call environmentally destructive production costs.

A typical EV battery weighs one thousand pounds, about the size of a travel trunk. It contains twenty-five pounds of lithium, sixty pounds of nickel, 44 pounds of manganese, 30 pounds cobalt, 200 pounds of copper, and 400 pounds of aluminum, steel, and plastic. Inside are over 6,000 individual lithium-ion cells.

It should concern you that all those toxic components come from mining. For instance, to manufacture each EV auto battery, you must process 25,000 pounds of brine for the lithium, 30,000 pounds of ore for the cobalt, 5,000 pounds of ore for the nickel, and 25,000 pounds of ore for copper. All told, you dig up 500,000 pounds of the earth's crust for just - one - battery."

Sixty-eight percent of the world's cobalt, a significant part of a battery, comes from the Congo. Their mines have no pollution controls, and they employ children who die from handling this toxic material. Should we factor in these diseased kids as part of the cost of driving an electric car?"

I'd like to leave you with these thoughts. California is building the largest battery in the world near San Francisco, and they intend to power it from solar panels and windmills. They claim this is the ultimate in being 'green,' but it is not. This construction project is creating an environmental disaster. Let me tell you why.

The main problem with solar arrays is the chemicals needed to process silicate into the silicon used in the panels. To make pure enough silicon requires processing it with hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, hydrogen fluoride, trichloroethane, and acetone. In addition, they also need gallium, arsenide, copper-indium-gallium- diselenide, and cadmium-telluride, which also are highly toxic. Silicon dust is a hazard to the workers, and the panels cannot be recycled.

Windmills are the ultimate in embedded costs and environmental destruction. Each weighs 1688 tons (the equivalent of 23 houses) and contains 1300 tons of concrete, 295 tons of steel, 48 tons of iron, 24 tons of fiberglass, and the hard to extract rare earths neodymium, praseodymium, and dysprosium. Each blade weighs 81,000 pounds and will last 15 to 20 years, at which time it must be replaced. We cannot recycle used blades.

There may be a place for these technologies, but you must look beyond the myth of zero emissions.

"Going Green" may sound like the Utopian ideal but when you look at the hidden and embedded costs realistically with an open mind, you can see that Going Green is more destructive to the Earth's environment than meets the eye, for sure.

[kalm]

Paint white nationalists as white nationalists. Paint socialists as socialists.

Conservative and liberal (in their truest forms) is basically an argument of tradition versus change and how soon that change occurs.

Then please ask your fellow liberals to stop labeling conservatives as white nationalists.

You're being too simplistic about conservatives in their truest form. A fiscal conservative isn't for tradition and against change, they're for being intelligent in how and when you allocate fiscal resources.

I have and I will continue to. BTW…you’re sounding like Adam Smith who was…wait for it…not regarded as a conservative.

This is why labels are tricky.

“A conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling “stop!”

- William F Buckley Jr.

(Btw that quote is not a slam. Sometimes brakes are needed)

[kalm]

Negative, ghost rider. It’s an argument of reality vs lunacy. Example: mandating all electric vehicles within the next 10 years, without a power grid or power sources to support it or even a plan to GET to that point. Conservatives understand the need to move forward in areas like these, but painting your state (or the country) into a corner and fighting the global economic battle with both hands tied behind our backs is not a productive way to go through life.

Copied and pasted from the bastion of truth….Facebook….but it perfectly explains the difference between conservatives and liberals when it comes to something as basic as renewable energy and EV’s.

This is an excellent breakdown.

Batteries, they do not make electricity – they store electricity produced elsewhere, primarily by coal, uranium, natural gas-powered plants, or diesel-fueled generators. So, to say an EV is a zero-emission vehicle is not at all valid.

Also, since forty percent of the electricity generated in the U.S. is from coal-fired plants, it follows that forty percent of the EVs on the road are coal-powered, do you see?"

Einstein's formula, E=MC2, tells us it takes the same amount of energy to move a five-thousand-pound gasoline-driven automobile a mile as it does an electric one. The only question again is what produces the power? To reiterate, it does not come from the battery; the battery is only the storage device, like a gas tank in a car.

There are two orders of batteries, rechargeable, and single-use. The most common single-use batteries are A, AA, AAA, C, D. 9V, and lantern types. Those dry-cell species use zinc, manganese, lithium, silver oxide, or zinc and carbon to store electricity chemically. Please note they all contain toxic, heavy metals.

Rechargeable batteries only differ in their internal materials, usually lithium-ion, nickel-metal oxide, and nickel-cadmium. The United States uses three billion of these two battery types a year, and most are not recycled; they end up in landfills. California is the only state which requires all batteries be recycled. If you throw your small, used batteries in the trash, here is what happens to them.

All batteries are self-discharging. That means even when not in use, they leak tiny amounts of energy. You have likely ruined a flashlight or two from an old, ruptured battery. When a battery runs down and can no longer power a toy or light, you think of it as dead; well, it is not. It continues to leak small amounts of electricity. As the chemicals inside it run out, pressure builds inside the battery's metal casing, and eventually, it cracks. The metals left inside then ooze out. The ooze in your ruined flashlight is toxic, and so is the ooze that will inevitably leak from every battery in a landfill. All batteries eventually rupture; it just takes rechargeable batteries longer to end up in the landfill.

In addition to dry cell batteries, there are also wet cell ones used in automobiles, boats, and motorcycles. The good thing about those is, ninety percent of them are recycled. Unfortunately, we do not yet know how to recycle single-use ones properly.

But that is not half of it. For those of you excited about electric cars and a green revolution, I want you to take a closer look at batteries and also windmills and solar panels. These three technologies share what we call environmentally destructive production costs.

A typical EV battery weighs one thousand pounds, about the size of a travel trunk. It contains twenty-five pounds of lithium, sixty pounds of nickel, 44 pounds of manganese, 30 pounds cobalt, 200 pounds of copper, and 400 pounds of aluminum, steel, and plastic. Inside are over 6,000 individual lithium-ion cells.

It should concern you that all those toxic components come from mining. For instance, to manufacture each EV auto battery, you must process 25,000 pounds of brine for the lithium, 30,000 pounds of ore for the cobalt, 5,000 pounds of ore for the nickel, and 25,000 pounds of ore for copper. All told, you dig up 500,000 pounds of the earth's crust for just - one - battery."

Sixty-eight percent of the world's cobalt, a significant part of a battery, comes from the Congo. Their mines have no pollution controls, and they employ children who die from handling this toxic material. Should we factor in these diseased kids as part of the cost of driving an electric car?"

I'd like to leave you with these thoughts. California is building the largest battery in the world near San Francisco, and they intend to power it from solar panels and windmills. They claim this is the ultimate in being 'green,' but it is not. This construction project is creating an environmental disaster. Let me tell you why.

The main problem with solar arrays is the chemicals needed to process silicate into the silicon used in the panels. To make pure enough silicon requires processing it with hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, hydrogen fluoride, trichloroethane, and acetone. In addition, they also need gallium, arsenide, copper-indium-gallium- diselenide, and cadmium-telluride, which also are highly toxic. Silicon dust is a hazard to the workers, and the panels cannot be recycled.

Windmills are the ultimate in embedded costs and environmental destruction. Each weighs 1688 tons (the equivalent of 23 houses) and contains 1300 tons of concrete, 295 tons of steel, 48 tons of iron, 24 tons of fiberglass, and the hard to extract rare earths neodymium, praseodymium, and dysprosium. Each blade weighs 81,000 pounds and will last 15 to 20 years, at which time it must be replaced. We cannot recycle used blades.

There may be a place for these technologies, but you must look beyond the myth of zero emissions.

"Going Green" may sound like the Utopian ideal but when you look at the hidden and embedded costs realistically with an open mind, you can see that Going Green is more destructive to the Earth's environment than meets the eye, for sure.

Ha! Perfect for this discussion! A FB friend just shared that this morning. It took 30 seconds to view multiple sources confirming that while coal represented 40 % of electricity production in 2014 it’s been cut in half since.

Using erroneous numbers in the 2nd paragraph to boost an argument doesn’t help.

[AZGrizFan]

Copied and pasted from the bastion of truth….Facebook….but it perfectly explains the difference between conservatives and liberals when it comes to something as basic as renewable energy and EV’s.

Ha! Perfect for this discussion! A FB friend just shared that this morning. It took 30 seconds to view multiple sources confirming that while coal represented 40 % of electricity production in 2014 it’s been cut in half since.

Using erroneous numbers in the 2nd paragraph to boost an argument doesn’t help.

The numbers may change slightly, but the argument remains the same. Try again.

[BDKJMU]

Copied and pasted from the bastion of truth….Facebook….but it perfectly explains the difference between conservatives and liberals when it comes to something as basic as renewable energy and EV’s.

Ha! Perfect for this discussion! A FB friend just shared that this morning. It took 30 seconds to view multiple sources confirming that while coal represented 40 % of electricity production in 2014 it’s been cut in half since.

Using erroneous numbers in the 2nd paragraph to boost an argument doesn’t help.

And 40% is Natural Gas, which replaced much of coal, but despite the low carbon emissions, according to the left we can’t have that because of the fracking.
And 20% is nuclear, which the left is against.
So that leaves 20% of current electrical power supply acceptable to the left. Good luck with that.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/ele ... the-us.php

[kalm]

Ha! Perfect for this discussion! A FB friend just shared that this morning. It took 30 seconds to view multiple sources confirming that while coal represented 40 % of electricity production in 2014 it’s been cut in half since.

Using erroneous numbers in the 2nd paragraph to boost an argument doesn’t help.

And 40% is Natural Gas, which replaced much of coal, but despite the low carbon emissions, according to the left we can’t have that because of the fracking.
And 20% is nuclear, which the left is against.
So that leaves 20% of current electrical power supply acceptable to the left. Good luck with that.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/ele ... the-us.php

So why did the author need to pull numbers out of their bum to start with?

Pulling numbers out of your ass is wrong!