The green movement caused climate change with its simultaneous opposition to nuclear power and reduction in particulate sizes and quantity of smoke emissions, and so this is a problem they created. To trust their solutioning to the problem at this point is absolute madness.

Dropping a bunch of nuclear waste into an ocean trench is far less dangerous than the CO2. Just build loads of nuclear power plants, with the Feds eating the capital cost of construction, as, we're going to need mountains of electricity to scrub the atmosphere anyway in any conceivable process put on the table.

Oh, and after 30 years by themselves in a spaceship, once the "astronaut" gets there, they're probably INSANE.

From re-watching Friends and Seinfeld 2400 times.

Crashing is the easy part. Really, everything we put on Mars is just a controlled crash, and that's when everything goes right.

Cranks *ARE* their base.

"The wealthy don't pay taxes" isn't a winning campaign message.

Where would you get the meteor? How would you direct it?

If you were an alien, and you managed to make it across interstellar space to another solar system, maybe you are at the very limit of your civilization's technological advancement, and you have spent 30 years on a one-man one-way mission and after all that just landing "successfully" (not dead) was the best you could manage.

*IF* there are aliens, and *IF* interstellar travel is possible, the first beings to do it are going to be coming in on the space equivalent of a Viking longship, not an aircraft carrier or 787.

First contact isn't going to be with a ship capable of doing anything other than just barely getting there.

The study says that 22% of people with Ivermectin got severe problems, but only 17% of all those that got the standard medical "all the things" did. That's actually pretty interesting, because, it means that if you go to Tractor Supply and hook yourself up with the drops, then, you've got a 78% chance of not developing severe COVID for like, $20. By contrast, if you spend thousands of dollars on prescribed steroids and experimental drugs, then, your odds are only 5% better. That premium for that extra 5% is rather telling, because if you believe that ivermectin is junk, then, what this study really says is that all that extra money for the "good stuff" is basically wasted. That's actually the real complaint underlying this controversy. Exorbitantly expensive treatments actually only provide marginal value over stupid things. There is really nothing or little that medical science can do for you in some cases except charge you (or the public, for those on national health insurances), a titanic amount of money for things that basically provide false hope and don't actually work. The numbers don't lie - 17% of the people doing what the doctor said still got into trouble, versus the 22% who just went and got the same stuff they use to keep their livestock going. Yeah, you can rail on about how these people are stupid, but, if you look at the way they evaluate the odds, they are doing a damned better job than you are!

Nope, your bad planning. If everyone didn't do this or do that is a ridiculous plan. You have to have a plan that understands that many people are not going to do "the thing", and manage it. HIV and the war on drugs and all of that had ridiculed proponents that just said "just don't use needles, have gay sex, and don't start on addictive drugs". That totally did not work, because people used needles, had gay sex that was unprotected, and started on addictive drugs. What do you do? Knowing this, one would have thought a credible public health plan for COVID would have considered that as part of its model making, but no, it did not.

That's actually why the public health failure. Planners can never plan in a free society that "everyone" will do the thing. A good plan is one that manages a society where everyone doesn't.

The irony is that the left wing has been a bunch of seditionist traitors for a hundred years, and, suddenly now they have a new found piety. It's just so hyprocritical its nauseating. It's not like liberals just spent the previous summer, I mean decades, burning down American cities and de-railing any public or private initiative for human benefit they see until they get communism.

That's silly. First off, most people pay to have sex, in some way, rather than expect to get paid for it. Europe has had cradle to the grave services for decades and the one constant there is the birth rate is the worst on the planet. By contrast Africa has a soaring birth rate and much of the continent is third world.

If you have to pay people to screw, you've already got much bigger problems on your hands, and social services isn't going to fix it.

Honestly, when it comes down to the brass tacks, is, any time you have a society that is sufficiently wealthy, women are going to want more out of life and raise their price for it, and men simply are not going to want to pay it, and so they don't. Seriously, if you are a guy, what would you rather do, run the risk of being the next me-too, go through a bunch of rejections, invest all this time into getting a halfway almost cool girlfriend, or even a wife, and then, when you do, run the 50-50 chance of having your life be destroyed in a divorce... or just fire up World of Warships and count your 401k earnings later on?

For younger men, the pursuit of women is just too much work and there's too much risk and no payoff. Remember, even in the days when women were basically property, you still had families paying the men to be married to them, and you expect, gosh, with less value and more bills, what is going to happen?

You can call it what you will, misogyny, whatever, but the numbers don't lie. Men are bailing on married society, if not society altogether. It's just too much of a pain for some people.

Toyota is just looking for a way to turn a thing you buy into a subscription so they can get additional money.

The problem with this diagnosis is the prescription that follows.

The article laments inequality, then, wants to solve it by creating a super powerful government. So, the wealth is never really obtained by the individual when someone else is taxed. It's saying, "I'm going to help you by taking money from someone else". It's a total lie, is what it is.

The way to ensure money "trickles down" is to ensure that it must be risked and therefor spent. As long as governments run massive, chronic deficits, then, there's always an investment place of last resort in guaranteed treasury bills. Additionally, lending must be deregulated, along with the legal recourses given lenders due to default. The idea of creating equality is to create an economy where one either uses the wealth they have, or they lose. If they use it wisely, then, naturally, things will work out for them. But generational handoffs are much less likely to occur.

Additionally, deregulating private property is also good. To create wealth is to create savings and investment. However, one cannot go up the ladder when the cost of doing anything keeps going up due to regulation. While they may be good for some people, the fact is, all the expense around home ownership, building, and so on, is directly related to all the mandated costs and mandated hiring regulation creations. Whenever you get a dollar, there's someone you are mandated to spend it on in their interest, not yours. In that sense, what socialism we have is actually working very well, in that, it is keeping the middle class permanently suppressed.

Taken together, it seems the real story is, "we've ruined everyone else's life by creating economic stagnation, but now we need to ruin the lives of the people that did break out, too."

Left wingers hate individual success and surprises and above all they hate freedom, so they want to make it as impossible for anyone to succeed as they possibly clan by fooling us into thinking that individuals are not capable of anything. One man, as it is, can do a lot, and they on the left just hate that some men have more will and talent than others.

So this middle class man stuck forever who supposedly needs a liberal rescue will stick his wall in the sand with this quote:

"If you want me to care about the planet and all the things you say I should care about, then you can bloody pay me with all that money you are trying to steal."

It SEEMS like you can buy just about any kind of gun part online without a problem, but, the ATF has been wise to this since the days of mail order.

In order to buy a receiver, the part that fires the bullet, well, you must buy them through an FFL and have a background check. So, the problem here is that someone is selling components to Americans without, ahem, following the law.

But, once again, let's go after gun owners based on a left wing lie.

Ivermectin is peer reviewed, double blinded, actually does work against COVID though.

Just dump the radioactive waste in a subduction zone. The interior of the earth is literally radioactive waste... a giant spinning radioactive ball hundreds of miles wide....