Those cost a tad more than a Vette back then. I had 2 used 928s - which had V8s. The 944 had exactly half a 928 motor. The 928 used the same heads etc.
I don't take global warming seriously. We know there is a natural cycle that exists if we weren't here. Global Warming is likely a political scam.
Foetus 'cannot feel pain before 24 weeks' - Telegraph
Inconsistancy in the “life begins at conception” argument | Human Enhancement and Biopolitics
1991 Porsche 944-S2 with 202,064 miles as of 12/5/2013 (and counting)
Magnacor plug wires, KLA Strut Brace, KLA Monoball strut mounts Koni black double adjustable sport shocks with coil-overs, adj. spring perches & helper springs, Hypercoil springs 300 LBS/In. Front 250 LBS/In. Rear with stock torsion bar setup Complete ground up engine rebuild @ 186,914, with Nikasil bores, Diamond Racing pistons (47 grams lighter ea.), balanced crank, weight matched rotating assembly (1/10 gram difference min to max), all new bearings, seals & gaskets, Ishihara-Johnson Teflon crank scraper, Witchhunter cleaned & flow matched injectors
Rennbay track rated ball joint repair kit, poly-graphite spring plate bushings, Delrin banana arm and trailing arm bushings Stainless Steel braided brake hoses, Period correct Porsche sport seats
2. The geographical distribution of a CO2 increase doesn't start at 30-50 degrees North latitude, which one would expect if the source were mainly created by the fossil fuel industry and transport in the Northern Hemisphere. Instead, the increase of CO2 starts just south of the equator. This is contrary to the IPCC hypothesis that use of fossil fuels is the primary cause of increased CO2 levels.
Just for this statement alone, Prof. Ole Humlum does not seem to be a serious scientist.
He does not take into account the THE TROPICAL HADLEY CIRCULATION to explain the phenomenon.
By the way, anyone can google-together a list of the couple of percent of scientists
who are contrary to the overwhelming evidence that global warming is real.
That's the down side of the internet. Comments by a few non-peer-reviewed
scientists carry the same weight on opinion and policy as the overwhelming majority.
Sell that beach front property in Florida and buy something in the Arctic. It's gonna be valuable someday!
This is true, but I am doing monthly updates and next month's will take into account everything that happened in December. I like to read or go to Charlie Cook, Larry Sabato, Rothenberg and Election Projections, but EP is just setting up for next year and of course Gallup and RCP. I also hope nate Silver comes back with his 538. They put out a lot of information and what I try to do is read it all and then come to my own conclusions.
Things change based on what events happen and what issues come to fore. Normally in the sixth year of any presidency the party out of power usually gains plenty of seats. This probably won't happen in the house as the Republicans already control it. But the senate is another wholly different ball game. The opportunity is there for the GOP, I guess it all boils down to whether they will embrace it or not. The question remains, will the Republican Party pull defeat out of victory. Remember back in December of 2011, Mr. Generic GOP Presidential Candidate was trouncing President Obama and it looked like the GOP would pick up 6 or 7 seats in the Senate and add seats in the house. In reality they lost 2 senate seats, the presidency and some seats in the house. Time will tell, but at this moment, I like the Republican's chances.
Interesting update. What is your favorite polling source? I would also add a few general comments, just like you said odds favor the incumbent, and that is true, but also during mid-term elections odds favor the party opposite the President's. I am not saying it will be dramatic, just that when it is a close race the odds may favor the Party not in power in the White House. Additionally, Obama's approval numbers are around Bush's toward the end of his Presidency. The difference is the majority of the media was often hostile toward Bush. For Obama the opposite is true, since the majority of the media is often friendly to him. And yet they have about the same approval numbers, so Obama did this almost all by himself. Finally, the ACA disaster personally and directly effects many more Americans in a negative way than Bush's decision to go into Iraq, so that will have an impact in 2014.
Originally Posted by DDD
If a two party system is wrong then what is the solution?
We don't have a two party system, we have ignorant people voting for only two parties, for the most part. Things are so close that I have to leave my third party vote in exchange for a Republican to end Obamacare in the next election.
If a two party system is wrong then what is the solution?
Tubby Tubbo as the GOP cand. would be an assured victory for HRC. When did it become acceptable for the opposition to start saying who was a viable candidate for the OTHER party? This is what happen. He's a fat guy in a little shirt, damn, I mean he's a Republican in Name Only....Worse than McCain, and we see what the alternative to that ended up being...
Originally Posted by joko104
I don't see a Republican victory in 2016. I don't like Christie. But I can't really think of any Republican with a better chance if looking at it from the question of how could Republican's win?
I think his weight will be a plus for him. MANY voters are overweight and could tire of the jokes about him for it.
The Beltway Republican Party is trying to be like Democrats, and that's causing the in-fighting. Don't think for a minute that Boehner is leading the opposition; he's a spineless wonder. Christie is what the Beltway Reps think will get them Latino votes. Well forget it! No one can be more liberal than liberals. It won't work, if people want a welfare state they're not going to the Republican Party for that. And after Christie's asskissery during Sandy (whose victims btw appear to have been forgotten by Obama), many on the right don't trust him......just as they didn't trust Romney.
Originally Posted by DSA
I usually tended to vote for Democrats, as I was taught to. With nearly 40 years on this planet I can say I would rather have the opportunity to earn a living rather than have a government destroy my ability to do so, while giving me enough to exist on. Their idea of enough seems aligned with what some see in North Korea.
Then why the hell do you keep voting for them?
You didn't post any links to the stories, so I don't think your post is all that useful. Your claim that MM tries to silence conservatives is just plain stupid, they have First Amendment rights just like anyone else has. Also, one thing you will not find mostly at the word 'lie' because it it hard to prove lie. Occasionally, they do use it, but only sparingly.