Just thought I'd stop over on this site to see if you're defending the Muslim terrorists again. You're nothing if not consistent, Larry.

Here's the picture of his clock.

How can you tell without looking behind panels and under the lining? You could hide enough Semtex or C-4 in that box to do some serious damage.

If you saw this device, would you know that it was a clock? Hmmm

The kid shouldn't have been cuffed and taken to the station, but the teacher and cop were completely right to get an expert to investigate the device.

I followed you here on a tip from the jackal network. The Mossad keeps us up to date on your doings.

You should be more careful, Larry. The poster using the name northernlights in this thread is not I.

You don't like him just because he's a shallow, egotistical charlatan? What about Obama or Bill Clinton or most of the other clowns in Washington?

Trump won't be the president in Jan 2017 regardless if he gets the Republican nomination, runs as an independent or even if he were to get the Democrat nomination, so the fundamental question is sort of moot.

But whoever is the new president in 2017, we will not likely see any difference in Obamacare, EPA or IRS management, solution to illegal aliens or a justice department really interested in justice.

What we need is a president who will shake the Washington bureaucracy to its very core and replace it with one that is much smaller and more responsive to the people. Trump might have the balls to attempt that. Hillary won't. Jeb won't. Bernie or Joe will barely be able to drool in their oatmeal. Maybe one of the younger Republican governors or senators could try, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

If you like Washington as it is, vote for anyone except Trump.

It's all relative. When the unemployment rate has improved from 28% to 20%, it is certainly an improvement. I wouldn't call it "doing just fine". Maybe you should google up all the fossil fuel propaganda I suggested just to see the real picture. If you don't want to do that, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

Your asking for sources on Spain's economy being destroyed by going green is almost embarrassing in its naivete. Google "Spain green economy failure".

Do you see an exception when you read John 3:16?

I don't and neither do you.

I do understand that the last time we had a similar concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, we were in a cooling period. There's a lot of political rhetoric in the news regarding CO2 and its effect on temperatures, but not very much real evidence to substantiate it.

That's an irrelevant question on the one hand -- you claimed a 100% reduction on CO2 emissions by electric autos, and I was refuting that claim.

As to your current question, it is obvious that CO2 concentration in our atmosphere at 4 one hundredths of one percent is higher than it has been since the Pliocene Age. Oddly enough, the Pliocene Age was one of cooling from the previous era, so for a number of reasons including that it's not established science that CO2 concentration levels are a cause of global warming.

I think that extraordinary efforts to reduce CO2 emissions from autos are an exercise in futility.

The irony of all that is that if such a system were possible, it would presumably be of most benefit in the crowded cities where tall buildings and pigeon shit would limit you to a couple hours of sunlight on a good day.

You are describing your Utopia - a place that does not exist. In the real world, CO2 is still emitted in the making and propelling of cars.

Average CO2 emissions in the US for a gasoline powered car is 300 g/km. For electric Iit's 200 g/km. You claimed 100% reduction. Bullshit