Wind generators in the back yard are less efficient in terms of capital
investment, installation and energy return, though if we were to subsidise them
from savings on nuclear production, and fed the results into the national grid,
that would be helpful in saving on carbon fuel burning. If we were to
subsidise wind farms as much as we subsidise nuclear research, nuclear
reactors and the companies which produce them, including free government
security and protection as well as "support to build grants" "Development
grants" and "Regional Grants" and maintenance grants, and "clean up after
nuclear accident grants", and then last of all decommissioning grants, then
wind farms and solar panels and hydroelectricity and other forms of water and
tidal based production of electrical energy would be considerably cheaper to
the consumer including business as well as society. After all mass production
makes such things a lot cheaper. Individuals in our society would be safer, and
more jobs would be created, more money would circulate in the economy; and it
would be better for the environment in terms of carbon dioxide and other
pollution and containing nuclear pollution for hundreds of thousands of years.
We could even subsidise electric car production...now what is wrong with that?
It would be better for most of the population surely, to subsidise the
environment in that way rather than pay all that taxpayers money to
non-taxpayers in large companies and international corporations. I am sure
that the reasonable man on the Clapham omnibus could be convinced of such a
Is America not a socialised state? Does it not have communal and state
ownership of things, Is there no such thing as a co-operative movement. What
is Fannie May. Is there not voluntary groups which support various causes.
Are there not charitable and philanthropic and educational trusts, which are
paid for purely out of tax savings from very wealthy people and subsidised in
what they do by the American State? Do not wealthy people take advantage of
those areas much more than most people with a lower income do, particularly in
Food for thought....
On 12/08/2017 04:23, Chien Fume wrote:
Wind generators are a great idea when they're used in private dwellings. In
most parts of the world, once you get 40 feet above the ground, there's enough
wind to turn the blades and generate electricity. At sea, a ship can use the
devices with great efficiency.
However, 'Wind Farms' haven't proven to be cost-effective. And even in the
idealized Socialist states where health care is 'free' and people have access
to 'welfare', cost eventually trumps clever ideas and wishful thinking.
On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 7:46 PM, douglas rankine
Oops! Ooops! and another one. This time on Trumps opposition to wind farms.
I could of course, go on and on, but I will try to spare our readers the
tediousness and free them from my "wee" obsessions....if you will pardon the
On 30/07/2017 17:41, douglas rankine wrote:
Ooops! I forgot to add this url:
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: [cryptome] Re: Will Breitbart Stop Making Death Threats Against
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2017 16:18:27 +0000
From: douglas rankine
To: Cryptome Mailing List
What is the difference between a Conservative and Liberal? And what is the
difference between a Conservative, a Liberal and Marxist? And, this series of
questions are not rhetorical by the way, they are a request for knowledge and
information, because I really don't know the difference, and it might help if
you can tell me the difference between them, I can't make an argument over a
blank page. I am sure that there are differences, at least in your mind, but
for me, I find it hard to tell.
Regarding the assassination of the President, I don't know why you raised it.
One of the reasons I don't like the attitude of Mr. Trump and the organisations
which he represents very much, is because of what he did to the ecological
environment of a part of Scotland, near Aberdeen. He made a lot of promises to
the Scottish government about bringing economic prosperity, huge amounts of
investment and they, like the gullible politicians they are, believed him, and
in the teeth of local opposition gave him planning permission. A lot of damage
was done, a whole load of sand dunes which had been there on the coast near
Aberdeen, for thousands of years were destroyed. Steps were taken to try and
force some of the more recalcitrant Scots to give up their land for a pittance,
because "The Donald" thought it might spoil the view, for those whom he wished
to attract to the golf complex, and then when a woman protested, he sent his
surveillance team of security guards to take photos of the woman going for a
piss, which was on land on which she was entitled to roam, and then had the
photos sent to the police, in an attempt to have the woman prosecuted under
some act or another. The film was published on the web and, criminal court
proceedings were started and then withdrawn, because Mr. Trumps organisation
was found not to have a licence to carry out such surveillance, and was doing
it off the land that they were supposed to, so invading the privacy of the
woman concerned. And, she, like any other Scots person, has the right to roam
the land in Scotland, and the right to go for a piss on said land when they
need to. There are a number of other instances where his staff, in his name,
bullied people, particularly because they refused to sell off their property to
him, even though he offered them, what he thought was money way over the price
they were worth. He really did not understand the Scottish psyche, and yet
that is the man who wants to tell the rest of the world what he wants them to
On 29/07/2017 10:39, Chien Fume wrote:
"Apple poly loggies, oh my Brothers [Sisters, and Ambiguous folk]" for the
The Subject line is an intentional bit of dissembling. It is NOT a veiled
threat; nor does it express any desire on my part, or the part of anyone I know
(or know of), that harm should come to Obama. It's sarcasm and mockery of a
popular but dangerous trend. Anyone calling for or planning such a thing should
be immediately questioned by the proper authorities (this is NOT sarcasm).
Those engaging in increasingly vociferous HATE TRUMP activity might consider
how things turn out in the Dark Mirror 'Hated In The Nation' episode.
Specifically, note the outcome of 'The Game of Consequences'. Pay close
attention to the final scenes. Trailer here: https://youtu.be/SAJfyDTTHE4
Will the Media Stop Making Death Threats Against President Trump?
Employees of a media organization should not joke about assassinating the
President of the United States. That this needs to be said indicates liberals
at those companies need a primer on how to understand people who voted for
Trump. In fact I know many liberals who are earnest and cannot understand our
seething disdain for media.
Imagine if someone at Breitbart said this about Obama. Use this as your guiding
principle. I know, I know. You are not like Breitbart. You are honest truth
tellers! You’re totally not biased at all, unlike “conservative media outlets”
and “pro-Trump trolls.” (Isn’t it interesting how you throw those
parentheticals in when talking about the Daily Caller, but you won’t call Media
Matter’s a Soros-owned website? And you don’t call Huffington Post a liberal
media outlet? Also, David Brock literally ran a Super PAC called Correct the
Record, which hired trolls. Do you describe David Brock as a pro-Clinton troll?)
This is a thought exercise. Humor us all.
Tonight it was revealed that employees at
in an official work Slack during work hours, hoped for Donald Trump to be
“But they were joking! Like, don’t take it that seriously. They even lol’ed!”
My question to you is — What would the story have been if Breitbart employees
had made those comments about Barack Obama? Y’all get mad when we say Barack
Hussein Obama, because that’s like totally a dog whistle!
Jokes about murdering Trump are OK, though? Do explain the logic behind that
Here are a few more thought experiments:
What if someone on FoxNews had said, “Hillary Clinton needs to stop using
Huma’s p*ssy as a purse!”
You’d let that slide?
Then why can Colbert insult men who engage in intimate contact with one another?
What if Hank Williams Jr. had Tweeted, ‘“Ayo Barack Obama shut your punk a — up
talking s — t about my uncle before we pimp your wife and make her work for us.”
You’d be OK with that?
I didn’t see many Tweets from “verified Twitter” when a failed rapper made rape
and death threats against Melania
Where we you?
What if a reporter at Breitbart made a joke about Hank William Jr’s Tweet?
You’d let that slide?
Then why did totally-fair-minded-and-objective journalits freak out when the NY
Times public editor said that NY Times reporters shouldn’t joke about rape and
Opinion | Snoop Dogg, Bow Wow and an Ill-Advised Retweet
Amid the thousands of tweets that fly from the keyboards of journalists every
day, occasionally comes one that sets
We aren’t going anywhere, so y’all may as well play fair.
Even if you’re a total sh*tbag “hack” journalist like Glenn Thrush, who sent
his articles to John Podesta for pre-approval, you may as well get used to us.
We aren’t going anywhere, and we demand fair play.
If you want to avoid a “harassment campaign,” which is what you call the right
when we do exactly what the left has done for years, ask yourself a simple
question: What if someone Breitbart said this about Obama?
It doesn’t matter, really. We are on the phones and sending emails and holding
our own counter-events.
Conservatives are weak. They’d let liberals spit on them and take the high road.
We are showing up to your events, taking the microphones, and calling Bill
Clinton a rapist.
The new right is a totally different movement. We fight the way the left has
fought for years.
America’s Leading Mindset Expert Attacked by Feral Mob, Maintains Emotional
“Bill Clinton is a rapist,” mindset expert and journalist Mike Cernovich
declared during an anti-Trump rally in
But if you are a remotely decent person, you’ll want to hold yourself to the
same standards you hold others to.