Re: Queen of Ignorance

Like this?

There are basically two standard sizes now in the UK in various colours. Black is usually garbage but Green is in some rural places. The "green recycling" bin in Salford is shocking pink for instance. Trucks will accept either on an automatic tip rig. Full size is 0.5m x 0.5m x 1m and skinny is 0.35mx0.35mx1m. The latter fall over easily in a stiff breeze.

They have recently started charging for green waste collection (that isn't a statutory service). Garbage and other recycling are.

In the UK the minimum is Third Party, Fire & Theft (aka "Liability") and the most common policy for a decent car is Fully Comprehensive which covers everything except depreciation. You can protect an NCB and insure to as new too for a price and have additional legal assistance cover.

For an annual policy you can cancel part way through and get the remainder back less an admin fee (and cancel for free inside a ~20 day cooling off period after reading all the insurers policy small print).

They will pick up other things, not in their "can", but they'll add it to the next bill. Makes perfect sense to me.

"Green waste"?

Recycling isn't required here. Most places comingle it all anyway. There is very little actual recycling done here. The exception is cardboard. I do recycle cardboard because we, for some reason, get a lot (I guess we like Amazon too much ;-) and it would take too much room in the can. About every four or six weeks, I'll pile it in the back of my pickup and take it to the transfer station (they don't accept garbage, only recyclables).

Yes, liability is required in most, if not all states, now (though for different values of "required"). Yes, "comprehensive" has a different meaning.

Same here (not sure about the "cooling off" period, though they're not going to be happy if you do it every day you want to drive the vehicle. ;-) In some states, you're required to turn in the plates if the vehicle is no longer insured. If you don't the sheriff will pay you a visit*]. Other states, you can get away with canceling the insurance the day after the vehicle is registered. They get tight-jawed if you get in an accident but it's not enough to be a deterrent. My wife was hit by an uninsured motorist a few years back and they tried to collect from my insurance. That didn't work out so well for them.

It's the real world. A lot of WWII soldiers already knew how to shoot. I wish we had a system like the Swiss so everybody could get various kinds of training.

In the 80's I read an article about the lamentations of the head of phys ed at West Point. He said most of the cadets had probably never been in a fist fight. He pointed out that the WWII generation grew up brawling and swimming naked in rivers. (Yeah, I remember his words if not the complete quote.)

Now we are a nation of pansies. I fear for our survival. If the NoKo's attack Californica, Congress will probably forbid Trump to retaliate... pushing "diplomacy" instead.

(I remember swimming in rivers and creeks so muddy you weren't quite sure what might be in there with you ;-) ...Jim Thompson

Den onsdag den 1. november 2017 kl. 19.52.16 UTC+1 skrev Jim Thompson:

I DO remember swimming in rivers and creeks so muddy you weren't quite sure what might be in there with you... WV is full of such tributaries.

As for "The Guardian"... it's a junk/scandal-sheet newspaper... unfit for human consumption. ...Jim Thompson

Until the Clintons came onto the national stage we never really saw what corruption could do to a country.

You could be sure there was a brain-eating amoeba here and there but you were just lucky it didn't find you.

There was a college girl who died from one a few years ago, after swimming in a river.

I guess I'm a chlorinated pansy. And I don't care if it causes cancer. (One day there will certainly be TV ads for lawyers going after the chlorine manufacturers for keeping its toxicity a secret. And the lawyers' secretaries will each make huge campaign contributions to Dems.)

I never saw a swimming pool until the main Boy Scout Camp eventually added one... though we still showered down by the river and had to watch out for Water Moccasins hanging from the plumbing ;-) ...Jim Thompson

They've got both, and since Murdoch doesn't own anything there, more of the press is a lot freer to say nasty stuff about people with lots of money.

Trump doesn't seem to have as much as he claims - Fox News have started giving him a hard time.

Their press doesn't spend as much time propagating the kind of half-witted misinformation you choose to spout, but that's an advantage.

Krw repeatedly demonstrates that he can't learn anything, and this seems to be likely to be true of anybody included in his "we".

Norway is currently ruled by a centre-right coalition - Conservative Party, Progress Party, Christian Democratic Party, Liberal Party - and the Labour Party is out of power, despite the fact that it is still the largest party (56 seats out of 169).

The Liberal Party in Norway won't be "liberal" in the American sense, but pro-free trade and pro-business. It has only got nine seats, one fewer than the Christian Democrats.

Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson at it again. "The Guardian" is a quality newspaper, about as far from junk and scandal sheet as you can get.

It's unique in being owned by the Scott Trust, which was set up by the original owners to maintain it's independence.

Jim likes his right-wing delusions, but the media services that serve them up to him - many of them Murdoch owned - do look a whole lot more like scandal sheets delivering junk than the Guardian does, not that Jim knows enough to be able to see this.

Then you weren't looking. Eisenhower's comments about the military-industri al complex point up the fact that the US spends a lot more on arms than it needs to, which is a much longer-running corrpution scandal than anything the Clintons might - theoretically - have been involved in. It also involve s a great deal more money than the Clintons have ever got their hands on.

You think so?

Chlorine doesn't cause cancer. Some chemicals containing chlorine atoms may , but dysentery is a lot more likely to kill you than the by-products of th e bugs killed by chlorine.

If the water was reasonably clean before you chlorinated it, there's even l ess risk.

That Ike would make that comment demonstrates his ability to protect us from that corruption. So he sent the U2 missions to prove there was no missile gap, but the Democrats needed a campaign issue so they kept on claiming there was a gap. JFK announced in the third debate that he would invade Cuba, while Nixon said he wouldn't because he just wasn't foolish and irresponsible enough to announce it. The public got the idea that JFK was tougher. Then JFK ordered 1000 Minutemen, probably more than we needed. So where precisely should we perceive the corruption there?

Anything that Billy the Slowman utters matches his initials, BS, and should be "valued" accordingly. ...Jim Thompson

Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson has any number of self-serving delus ions. This is just one more of them. It's typical that Jim doesn't have any thing to say about the influence of the military-industrial complex, or tha t fact that the US spends as much on defense as the next ten nations down t he pecking order put together - historically the top dog would spend as muc h as it's two closest rivals, which would be a whole lot less than the US s pends at the moment.

That might be related to the fact that the vast majority of the 160 million killed last century were killed by our enemies in spite of their meager expenditures. Which metric you consider more important says something about you I think.

Tom Del Rosso doesn't think - he reacts.

The number deaths in the wars of the 20th century don't have anything to do with what the US is spending on defense now, and the fact that Tom Del Ros so should dredge up this irrelevant number is just one more indication that he doesn't know what a rational argument might look like.

I reacted to your irrational assertion that the US is immoral for spending on defense.

The latter has everything to do with the former.

Oh that's so rational. You offer moral condemnation for defense spending and claim genocide is irrelevant to moral evaluations.

I wasn't suggesting that the US was immoral for spending money on national defense. I was pointing out that the US was foolish to be spending so much money with the military-industrial complex, ostensibly on national defense, but in practice on keeping the industrialists well-fed with taxpayer money .

But you can't explain how the number of people killed outside the US in the previous century has anything to do with the amount the US should be spend ing on defense now.

It's not a moral condemnation. You are buying more defense (of uncertain qu ality) than you need. That's not so much immoral as wasteful. The set-up th at lets it happen is defective for purely pragmatic reasons (though the mor ality of allowing the military-industrial complex to rip-off the US taxpaye r is - incidentally - questionable).

If your extravagant spending was doing anything to stop genocide now, or ha d done at any time in the past, the existence of past genocides might be re levant.

The fact that Japanese aggression got you involved in WW2 might have saved a few Jews from the Nazi gas-chambers, but that was an incidental benefit.

Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot killed their millions without hearing a squeak from the US.