That made a difference, but I also think It also had to do with the literal paid Brooks brothers riot organized for republicans and the Bush legal team which had 3 members who are now supreme court justices. Who cares if the people voted for gore, our supreme court says their vote is more important.

So are you a proponent of AMAB then?

yes, and right leaning

Do you know what literal means?

The slogan is literally right leaning

Right obviously

What a kwinkidink considering this:

JD Vance gets rich by owning an app (acretrader) that helps investors outside of the United States snap up real estate deals (including many family farms and rental properties) that are then owned by people who have never and will never see those places and who ONLY own those places to obtain money and power in our country.

Memphis, I believe is where they said to be planning to target next.

Meanwhile, Reddit: How many subs can we ban for not moderating for Kirk hard enough?

In a week, generally no one will be talking about it and everyone will have moved on. This is how stories get killed.

Meanwhile, release the Epstein files that Kirk likely died for helping to hide. In related news, Did you hear how 51 senators are ok with covering up for pedos? Why don’t you make their lives miserable for agreeing with Kirk instead of telling the serfs people to shut up?

Real humans listen to emotions AND reason and don’t deny them. To do otherwise would be to agree with Kirk that ‘empathy is a new age term that does a lot of damage’.

People who can remember dreams well and in detail like that baffle me. I can barely imagine an apple in my head and you’ve got a whole town. Can I get an invite to imagination?

Look up (or don’t) Groypers and Nick Fuentes. Believe it or not there was some controversy over how Kirk messaged the Epstein Files that Fuentes and his followers are drumming up. Like Flickerman posted in another comment in this post, apparently they are trying to co-opt the use of the song Bella Ciao like the right does with left-wing things that get popular. One of the bullets had that etched in it. I hadn’t heard of any of this either before today, but it is not at all out of character for fascists to infight.

You mean condemn, I think. If you know of any politicians condoning this, I would like to know who.

Walking to a friend’s house is nice as long as there’s not a big multilane highway with no pedestrian infrastructure dividing the town in between. Car dependency is a big problem in most of the US. Portland is probably a bit better than other places in that regard, but I’m sure they have still have some issues with it.

I would think this would be a good use for VOIP landlines since lots of places are probably doing away with dedicated phone wires.

God, I hope my ass ecosystem doesn’t look like that. But then again it might if I eat the wrong type of gummy worms.

Here’s how you can purchase your copy today!

🧑‍🍳🤌

aka Chef’s kiss

Oh boy!!! Just what I was looking for. How much for a pint of certified organic cable syrup? Can you guarantee it’s less than 1% earwax by weight? If so I can go as high as tree fiddy.

My usual source on FB marketplace is playing hard to get. They said ‘I know what I’ve got and I won’t take less than a dub’. What a scammer LOL. Unless that syrup is gold plated I ain’t paying 20 bucks for a pint, smh.

I’m not ignoring the monocrop and other environmental issues, I am instead focusing on the biggest cause of climate change, the burning of fossil fuels and the associated warming from it. Yes, monocrops and destruction of native habitats are an issue, but I can’t do anything about that. I am not cutting down rainforest or logging natural forestland or burning prairieland.

We can’t quantify bioethanol as being better than x times better than fossil fuels because we can’t quantify exactly how fucked we are if we don’t stop practicing large scale agriculture in this destructive fashion.

I think both can be quantified to some extent. Maybe not perfectly, but well enough to figure out which is better overall. We can certainly quantify the impacts of already existing production processes like corn bioethanol, sugarcane bioethanol, and gasoline using GHG life cycle analyses. I didn’t mean to say that bioethanol is always better than fossil fuel, I am sure there are some plants and production practices that could make it worse somewhere. But in the context of US corn bioethanol as produced today, it emits less greenhouse gases than gasoline per mile driven. See the links I already posted.

I would also guess that at Earth’s current population and consumption levels that we need some large scale ag to ensure people don’t starve (more than they already are). We can try to adapt it somewhat but it needs to be done carefully to ensure we don’t cause more harm. This has happened historically in other countries when they tried to radically change their food production processes and could happen again.

Large-scale ag is harmful especially when huge amounts of natural forestry and habitats are destroyed for crops, but it is a somewhat lesser cause than the fuels being burned and their CO2. Burning fossil fuels is responsible for something like 70%+ of emissions related to climate change.

I don’t own two cars, I don’t really drive anywhere even. Public transit is not feasible where I am due to low population density. But when I do drive, I can fuel up with a cleaner fuel (as can anyone else in the country). Different circumstances call for different solutions, so please don’t be so quick to assume that there is one universal best solution.

Ok, here is a study that does factor land use change and transportation, and it is still about a 50% percent reduction. Corn ethanol emits 46% less greenhouse gases than gasoline. The land use changes referenced in the paper you linked seem a lot higher than most other sources I have seen. It makes me question whether they are calculating it accurately. I am no expert on how they should be calculated, but why is there a 30-40g co2 per MJ fuel produced difference in between the different studies? The figures I see in other studies are around ~5g co2 per MJ fuel not 38g.

So you would rather burn gasoline than biofuels even though it is worse for the environment? Because that is the alternative for most of existing vehicles on the road. It is better than gasoline, not perfect.

Yes, I agree there are better crops for biofuels than corn and some of subsidies are not well designed and applied.

My argument is that the existing ICE vehicles are still burning fuel and that it is better to burn a cleaner fuel CO2 wise than dirty fossil fuels in them.

Obviously the concept of producing three times more energy than it requires is absurd.

Yes, It’s called solar power, plants naturally convert the sunlight to energy like solar panels just not nearly as efficiently. Also, as I put in the original comment the energy inputs being referenced are fossil energy inputs and the energy output is a lot cleaner because it is produced by the plant from the sun. I don’t get why people seem thoroughly convinced it is a bad thing to grow plants for fuel instead of burning the harmful fossil fuels that we’ve known for decades are the cause of global warming.

The costs are likewise hidden: costs to the planet and costs to future generations.

I think you must be talking about fossil fuels here because it is absurd to fearmonger about growing plants. It is the carbon released by burning fossil fuels that is full of hidden costs in the form of future climate change and a less hospitable earth. Replacing a fossil fuel with a more clean, less polluting fuel source is helping to lessen those costs.

Stop letting perfect be the enemy of good, Corn ethanol emits 46% less greenhouse gases than gasoline.