You wonder why Americans are the most over weight people in the world, and companies like this in Cookeville make you realize it in a heartbeat.
Food of Your Mood, "We go so you don't have to."
You tell these people what carry-out you want from what restaurant, and they will call the restaurant, order it, then pick it up and bring it to you, for a charge of around $3-$5 extra. It's for the local Cookeville Area where I go to school.
Now I can see how this would be a benefit for people who either do not have a car, or are unable to drive because of other reasons. But seriously, how lazy do you have to be to have some one else order the food, then pick it up and bring it to you. Can you not take the effort to drive there and get it yourself?
The opposite of right is left. The opposite of right is also wrong. Is it any wonder that the left is always wrong?
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Thursday, March 22, 2007
What Is Carbon Offset?
Aside from a scam? Nothing more than buying a tree in return for your ability to still emit massive amounts of CO2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere. Read this "Carbon Exchange" sale on Ebay.
Yes, this is just one (of many) scam for a person in California to attempt to make an easy bit of money off of ignorant wealthy environmentalists. Granted it's better than threatening to burn a tree unless a $10 ransom is paid, but there is still a flaw in the idea of "Carbon Offsets."
As Christopher Horner stated on Fox News last night, "Buying carbon offsets is like a glutton telling an average person to starve in order to offset his gluttony. The fact is still that the glutton is still a glutton." Not to mention the fact that in a tree's lifetime of 80 years, it will remove about 1100kg of CO2 from the air, replacing it with Oxygen. That's a lot. Per year, that's about 11 kg of CO2. That's not so much, considering that the average person emits over 19,800 kg CO2 per year. That's 1800 trees to be "Carbon neutral" if you actually use the average consumption, and not 20 times the average person. Those 18oo trees spaced 30 feet apart takes up 1.62 million square feet, or 37 acres, per person. Oh and did I mention at $25 per tree per year that's $45,000 per year?
So you're spending $45,000 per year to offset being a glutton? Why not just change your lifestyle to reduce emissions?
CARBON EXCHANGE (Carbon Offsett) - Help stop global warming, we have a 200+ acre property on the pacific coast north of San Francisco California. For every customer who sends $50 we will plant a baby redwood tree in their name. Each year you send an additional $50 to assure that the tree grows and is taken care off properly, we have been planting redwood trees for many years.
We will continue to maintain the property and preserve it for future generations to assure the health and longevity of our children, and our childrens children for many generations to come.
The earth is our gift but it does not come without a price. We could develope our property into a Discount super store, or a Lumber mill but we choose to take the option of environmental preservation and offer to our fellow Americans the opportunity to give something back to the land which has given so much to us. Each year you will recieve a newsletter (Written on recycled paper) explaining the state of our venture and how you can continue your support. Let's do something positive for our children and stop the destruction of our enviorment today. Together we can make this country the world leader in enviormental preservation.
In addition to the the planting of new trees we have set aside a small portion of our property to be developed into an Eco-Friendly Resort with Cabins, RV sites, and other outdoor amenities. We would like to have each donor visit us and participate in one of the most amazing places to visit on the planet. Black sand beaches, Horse back rides, hikes to the Worlds Tallest Tree, and excellent eating establishments are just a few of the things to do in this area. In addition our property is home to one of North Americas largest Rosevelt Elk herds, an Ancient Indian commerce site, as well as a historical Little Red School House which houses our Native American Artifact collection.
The black and white pics below show the damage our previous generations inflicted on much of the northwest, presumebly they did not know the future effects of clear cutting our forest lands, but now we have a chance. Let us fix the mistakes of the past and build a positive future where trees are allowed to grow and provide clean air forever. Help us reverse the mistakes of the past today.
We extend a invitation to each of our donors to come and visit us and see their trees first hand, imagine the joy you can experience bringing the grandparents and the kids to see your trees growing and producing the clean air we so desperately need. You have seen the news, and no matter what the political arguments planting trees can only be a positive thing. We have made a commitment to use a valuable property for the purpose of a better world, please join us and become a contributer today.
Yes, this is just one (of many) scam for a person in California to attempt to make an easy bit of money off of ignorant wealthy environmentalists. Granted it's better than threatening to burn a tree unless a $10 ransom is paid, but there is still a flaw in the idea of "Carbon Offsets."
As Christopher Horner stated on Fox News last night, "Buying carbon offsets is like a glutton telling an average person to starve in order to offset his gluttony. The fact is still that the glutton is still a glutton." Not to mention the fact that in a tree's lifetime of 80 years, it will remove about 1100kg of CO2 from the air, replacing it with Oxygen. That's a lot. Per year, that's about 11 kg of CO2. That's not so much, considering that the average person emits over 19,800 kg CO2 per year. That's 1800 trees to be "Carbon neutral" if you actually use the average consumption, and not 20 times the average person. Those 18oo trees spaced 30 feet apart takes up 1.62 million square feet, or 37 acres, per person. Oh and did I mention at $25 per tree per year that's $45,000 per year?
So you're spending $45,000 per year to offset being a glutton? Why not just change your lifestyle to reduce emissions?
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Why I Love Dave Ramsey
I told you about Dave Ramsey on GOPAC and the blessing that Magotteaux gave me and all the other employees who took the class, with Financial Peace University. Well, here's a preview of some of the information in the class.
Watch this video, or if you have dial-up, I'll give you a synopsis:
In the words of Dave:
"The point of this chart is not that you should have started, it's that YOU'D BETTER START!"
Watch this video, or if you have dial-up, I'll give you a synopsis:
Ben saves 2,000 per year from the time he is 19, until he is 26 years old in a mutual fund that gives a modest 12% annual return, and then stops. Arthur begins saving at 27 and never stops until he retires. At the age of 65, Ben has retired with $2,288,990 off of a mere $16,000 of earned income. Arthur retires with $1,532,160 after saving $78,000, and he will NEVER catch up.
In the words of Dave:
"The point of this chart is not that you should have started, it's that YOU'D BETTER START!"
Monday, March 19, 2007
Monday, March 12, 2007
Global Warming Alarmists Defend The Sun
It's the object that determines the temperature of the Earth, and when scientists notice that Mars, Jupiter, Pluto, and Neptune's moon Triton are warming up along with the Earth, Global Warming Alarmists are the first to say it's NOT the sun's fault. It's those damn carbon emissions!!!
Brian Macdonald has a good explanation of how man is responsible for the warming on Mars:
Brian Macdonald has a good explanation of how man is responsible for the warming on Mars:
Data received from the Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions have disclosed that both ice caps on the Martian poles have been shrinking for at least three consecutive years. A report from National Geographic states "simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural — and not a human-induced — cause." Hmmm, that brings up some questions.Not only that, but Live Science has some misleading information on "affects of global warming," citing the number one affect being an increased risk of forest fires. They claim that global warming has caused an increase of fires in the past decade. However, the actual cause to that is environmental regulations which excessively prevented forests from being logged, allowing a build-up of dead trees waiting to be burnt.
It's claimed that global warming is caused by human-induced pollution, especially exhaust from automobiles. But planet Earth is much closer to the sun, so how do we, er, scientists and other assorted global warming advocates explain the shrinking ice caps on Mars?
Well, there's two vehicles on Mars right now, a pair of diabolical NASA SUVs that are spewing more carbons out of their tailpipes than Al Gore spends to cover up his home heating bills. I bet there's a redneck at the wheel of each, just tossing beer cans out on that lovely Martian dirt while listening to Toby Keith albums.
And the sun is not involved in any of this, or so Gore and company want you to believe.
Stupid 9/11 Truthers...
I originally posted this at GOPAC, but figured it could do some good here as well.
I occasionally go to the page Lies.com due to graphical analysis of the Iraq War with Vietnam. The Iraq War has now entered the same part of the graph where Vietnam gets ugly, and yet, Iraq is still at a stable number roughly about 100 per month. Is 100 soldiers per month upsetting, yes. Everyone would love to see 0 per month, but in the words of Bush, "It's not the fight we wanted, but it's the fight we're in."
But what caught my eyes was the comment of some idiot truther, who after seeing the smoke and mirrors of Dylan Avery took it hook line and sinker. Here's the post:
And of course, I HAVE to give my rebuttal:
People hearing blasts below their feet - Truthers base this mostly on seismic data which shows large spikes when the buildings hit the ground, but htey mostly ignore the increasing magnitude of the spikes before hand, caused by the fact that an increasing portion of the building is falling on itself as time goes, until finally hitting the ground. As for the people, when you are in a building, when a large vibration shakes the building it litterally shakes the WHOLE building, including the floor. If you are in the building, those vibrations actually travel down the supports of the building faster than the sound actually travels through the air. Therefore the sound of the crash actually sounds like it is from within the building before the sound outside the building reaches your ears. The difference is very great. The speed of sound in air is approximately 760 MPH, but it is over 12,200 MPH through the steel. So over 1000 feet, what you can feel shaking the building, and hear from those vibrations is almost instantly, then you hear the actual BOOM approximately 1 second later, giving the impression that something exploded below you. GOPAC - 1, Truther - 0
Buildings fall at freefall - I'm not even going to talk about this crap. Look here, and notice that the building has not caught up to the FREE-FALLING debris next to the building. GOPAC - 2 Truther - 0
The only steel structure to fall due to fire - OK, here's the scoop. There's a MAJOR structural difference between the WTC and normal sky scrapers. Normal scrapers are built like the Empire State building. They are a massive set of steel beams stacked in a slab shape one on top of each other in dimensions of say, 30' wide, by 30' long by 11 feet tall. The World Trade center was VERY different. ALL of the main, load bearing beams were on the OUTSIDE frame of the building, leaving the inside of the building very open for office space. The inside floors were nothing more than 1 1/2 inch steel tubing arranged in a triangular truss shape. It is a light-weight and strong configuration...when it's not heated. Steel loses over half of it's strength at only 1100 F, and has only 10% of its strength by the time it gets to 1800 F. The jet fuel was estimated at burning between 800 and 1500 F. Think about this for a second, a 757 crashes into the building and takes out a 3 floor section of the main load bearing beams, then sets a fire to those floors. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this one out. USA Today has a VERY nice flash animation of the explination. GOPAC -3, Truther - 0
Why did WTC7 collapse of fire? - Umm...I don't know...maybe burning debris? GOPAC - 4 Truther - 0
What about the engines at the pentagon? - Notice there are multiple holes in this picture. There's one about 2/3 to the top on the left side, the next is 1/3 of the way from the bottom a little farther right, then the last is at the bottom, about 1/4 of the way over to the right. I wonder. Could those be the fuselage and engines? Truther-boy claims that the engines are a full 60 feet apart, however a look at the boeing page shows that based on the wheel base, the dimension is actually more about 48 feet apart. On top of that the body of the plane is 12' 4" wide, so that leaves all of 18 feet from the edge of the fuselage to the center of the engine, not including the width of the engines closing the gap further. There aren't many usable images in this contradiction, but not many is better than none. And this picture clearly shows where the left engine impacted away from the collapse. GOPAC - 5, Truther - 0
How does a plane melt into nothing? - Umm...genius, you answered your own question when you talked about the engines hitting at 550 miles per hour. Let's see, an aluminum framed plane hits a concrete and steel building at 550 miles per hour. Who's gonna win that battle? Evidence of the plane is all over the place, but I guess they just missed it. GOPAC - 6, Truther - 0
Looks like you've been beat.
I occasionally go to the page Lies.com due to graphical analysis of the Iraq War with Vietnam. The Iraq War has now entered the same part of the graph where Vietnam gets ugly, and yet, Iraq is still at a stable number roughly about 100 per month. Is 100 soldiers per month upsetting, yes. Everyone would love to see 0 per month, but in the words of Bush, "It's not the fight we wanted, but it's the fight we're in."
But what caught my eyes was the comment of some idiot truther, who after seeing the smoke and mirrors of Dylan Avery took it hook line and sinker. Here's the post:
Iraq is far worse than Vietnam..because Iraq is the start of a global positioning in the world by this administration.
I am sick and tired of all these idiots that swallow the rhetoric passed out by the leashed mass media with their cute keywords ,spat out every five seconds so brain dead flag waving morons can reiterate them with an assumed air of authority …”cut and run” “fight them over there so we dont fight them over here ” “war on terror”…Its like training chimps.
Look into the events of 911..read ..listen ..and question ..most of all question…
Why when every major media outlet going stuck a mic under someones face when they were covered in dust and interviewed them and they said “I heard an explosion below me on the 7th floor ” or I heard a large explosion in the basement ” or a fire chief says I saw huge explosion damage in the basement with the marble wall blown off…were these interviews buried ..never to be shown again by the likes of cnn or fox or abc??? why were over 500 radio messages between firefighters or police or emts and their control stations held by the government under national security ???and when some were released recently under great pressure they too contained NUMEROUS reports of explosions going off that had nothing to do with the planes?
Why did the buildings fall at freefall speed ( scientifically proven ) when it would be scientifically impossible to do so if it encountered resistance at every level on the way down ( science proves the only way is if the base and key points all the way up were demolished in unison)??
Why is this the only steel structure in history to fall as a result of fire?despite the fact that a firefighter having got to the floor where the plane hit , called his control and said it was managable?
Why did WT7 fall when it wasnt even hit by a plane?
Why has traces of thermite been found on supporting beams at the base?
The numerous helicoter footage from news crews show a 15-20 ft hole initially at the Pentagon ( before firefighters pulled the facade down later )
A Boeing 757 has a 112 ft wingsan with two 6 ton engines made of titanium and steel 60 feet apart from each other .
How does two 6 ton engines 60 feet apart hit a building at 500mph and not make a dent on the wall or windows yet somehow slip into a 20 ft hole?????
How does a whole plane melt into nothing ( the official government suggestion) when steel and titanium will melt at 2600f and a carbon based fire could only reach 1300f maximum under ideal circumstances ( not this one either)..These are scientifically proven facts.
This is not fantasy ladies and gents …This is what your government wants you to believe unquestioningly.
The threat to this country was manufactured by a government who wanted a conflict with the middle east for oil and global expansion .This war will expand .
Your government has been complicit in the worst mass murder this country has ever witnessed and you sit back and argue the pros and cons of a war strategy.
History will condemn this time as one of the all time shameful episodes in human endeavours second only to the holocaust.
Read and question…smoke and mirrors
And of course, I HAVE to give my rebuttal:
People hearing blasts below their feet - Truthers base this mostly on seismic data which shows large spikes when the buildings hit the ground, but htey mostly ignore the increasing magnitude of the spikes before hand, caused by the fact that an increasing portion of the building is falling on itself as time goes, until finally hitting the ground. As for the people, when you are in a building, when a large vibration shakes the building it litterally shakes the WHOLE building, including the floor. If you are in the building, those vibrations actually travel down the supports of the building faster than the sound actually travels through the air. Therefore the sound of the crash actually sounds like it is from within the building before the sound outside the building reaches your ears. The difference is very great. The speed of sound in air is approximately 760 MPH, but it is over 12,200 MPH through the steel. So over 1000 feet, what you can feel shaking the building, and hear from those vibrations is almost instantly, then you hear the actual BOOM approximately 1 second later, giving the impression that something exploded below you. GOPAC - 1, Truther - 0
Buildings fall at freefall - I'm not even going to talk about this crap. Look here, and notice that the building has not caught up to the FREE-FALLING debris next to the building. GOPAC - 2 Truther - 0
The only steel structure to fall due to fire - OK, here's the scoop. There's a MAJOR structural difference between the WTC and normal sky scrapers. Normal scrapers are built like the Empire State building. They are a massive set of steel beams stacked in a slab shape one on top of each other in dimensions of say, 30' wide, by 30' long by 11 feet tall. The World Trade center was VERY different. ALL of the main, load bearing beams were on the OUTSIDE frame of the building, leaving the inside of the building very open for office space. The inside floors were nothing more than 1 1/2 inch steel tubing arranged in a triangular truss shape. It is a light-weight and strong configuration...when it's not heated. Steel loses over half of it's strength at only 1100 F, and has only 10% of its strength by the time it gets to 1800 F. The jet fuel was estimated at burning between 800 and 1500 F. Think about this for a second, a 757 crashes into the building and takes out a 3 floor section of the main load bearing beams, then sets a fire to those floors. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this one out. USA Today has a VERY nice flash animation of the explination. GOPAC -3, Truther - 0
Why did WTC7 collapse of fire? - Umm...I don't know...maybe burning debris? GOPAC - 4 Truther - 0
What about the engines at the pentagon? - Notice there are multiple holes in this picture. There's one about 2/3 to the top on the left side, the next is 1/3 of the way from the bottom a little farther right, then the last is at the bottom, about 1/4 of the way over to the right. I wonder. Could those be the fuselage and engines? Truther-boy claims that the engines are a full 60 feet apart, however a look at the boeing page shows that based on the wheel base, the dimension is actually more about 48 feet apart. On top of that the body of the plane is 12' 4" wide, so that leaves all of 18 feet from the edge of the fuselage to the center of the engine, not including the width of the engines closing the gap further. There aren't many usable images in this contradiction, but not many is better than none. And this picture clearly shows where the left engine impacted away from the collapse. GOPAC - 5, Truther - 0
How does a plane melt into nothing? - Umm...genius, you answered your own question when you talked about the engines hitting at 550 miles per hour. Let's see, an aluminum framed plane hits a concrete and steel building at 550 miles per hour. Who's gonna win that battle? Evidence of the plane is all over the place, but I guess they just missed it. GOPAC - 6, Truther - 0
Looks like you've been beat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)