1
PhDinNY 1 point ago +1 / -0

I think the whole "HAARP controlled the hurricanes" is sort of like the "global network of baby-eating pedophiles"; using the outrageous to get people to dismiss what could be happening.

2
PhDinNY 2 points ago +2 / -0

THAT would make sense! People would assume she would be taking over soon after swearing in. A ticket with two of the most despised women in the country.

1
PhDinNY 1 point ago +1 / -0

It's why they are so against having expectant mothers see ultrasound images prior to having an abortion; MANY WOULD change their mind!

4
PhDinNY 4 points ago +4 / -0

They were fortunate that although Milton had the central pressure of a Category 3 hurricane at landfall, the winds were no stronger than Category 2.

5
PhDinNY 5 points ago +5 / -0

How do they know where ballots are mailed from? Mailed ballots would only be in the possession of the entity they are mailed to, so is someone on the inside of various locations gathering the info? (sorry, don't have time to read the article)

3
PhDinNY 3 points ago +3 / -0

I once ate tuna macaroni and cheese three times in one week in college, and I think it took a few decades before I had that again (it actually was pretty good after all those decades :) )

8
PhDinNY 8 points ago +8 / -0

And it's really sick to think that so many women will vote for Kamala because they have been led to believe their precious ability to have an abortion is being threatened!

1
PhDinNY 1 point ago +1 / -0

This issue, and sooooo many others we know about, especially through websites like this one, really does make "ignorance is bliss" seem to be true! We all now have the burden of knowing all the corrupt and evil things going on!

3
PhDinNY 3 points ago +3 / -0

That's one reason my wife and I have an abundant supply of bottled water (in addition to our municipal water being undrinkable; maybe some kind of attack will improve it :) )

2
PhDinNY 2 points ago +2 / -0

THIS ALONE, should unite people to vote for him. But of course, those with TDS will NEVER vote for him, and people like my 93-year-old mother, are just too entrenched and set in voting for Democrats. We can only hope that the 10% "undecideds" see the light, as well as a significant number of people who have previously voted for Democrats.

2
PhDinNY 2 points ago +2 / -0

I reviewed a second bond from 2011 for an additional $1,935,000. This one was totally nebulas in terms of what it was for; essentially a slush fund. They were gracious enough to spread this one out beyond the 402 parcels currently paying for the 2001 bond.

3
PhDinNY 3 points ago +3 / -0

I'm so sick of the media constantly repeating the "Trump spewing disinformation" lies about FEMA in NC, and FEMA in general.

3
PhDinNY 3 points ago +3 / -0

That is what appears to have happened in this case, if it was voted on (or presented to the county as justification to issue the bond). The total amount of the work stated in the bond appears to have cost about half of what the total cost stated in the bond was. And this second bond I found is now beyond the already ridiculousness/outrageousness of the initial bond. I can't wait to see how they justified a second bond for the same, small, group of customers!

3
PhDinNY 3 points ago +3 / -0

I checked that article out, but it doesn't seem to relate to the bond situation, other than bonds being something hidden from the public. (the word "bond" doesn't even appear in the article)

2
PhDinNY 2 points ago +2 / -0

In my situation, they told people they would have to pay ~$750 to get connected to the new "municipal" water supply, so most people agreed. However, the bonds appear to have been issued at the same time, and I don't think these people knew they would then be saddled with the additional $600/year for four decades! And I found out that utility type bonds can be issued without people voting on them, which must have happened in this case because I'm pretty sure people wouldn't vote themselves an additional $600/yr in taxes. What is really funny, actually sick, in this case is, even if a property owner didn't agree to pay the $750 to get the water service to their property, they still get about $300/yr added to their property taxes, because they "might" get connected in the future!

6
PhDinNY 6 points ago +6 / -0

Yes! What is really infuriating in our case is that the bond (or possibly bonds; I just found evidence that a second bond seems to have been issued. The one I originally became aware of was issued in 2001 for $4,268,000, a 40-yr bond!, and a second one for almost $2,000,000 was issued in 2011!). This is all being paid by 402 property owners! My outrage is at the max!

6
PhDinNY 6 points ago +6 / -0

This "water tax" is added to our total property tax bill. A lot of people aren't even aware of it being on their tax bills! We didn't even think to look at the details of property taxes before we move here; it would have been a factor in our decision to buy (but probably wouldn't have been a deal breaker). However, I will certainly be including this as one more thing to check before buying another house!

3
PhDinNY 3 points ago +3 / -0

What is interesting is that the barometric pressure of the hurricane at landfall WAS at what is considered Category 3 level, but the winds CLEARLY were not at Category 3 level! I don't know how often that phenomenon occurs, but perhaps THAT is the miracle!

2
PhDinNY 2 points ago +2 / -0

If the deep state becomes convinced that there is no way to make Kamala win, they WILL resort to some drastic mean(s) to achieve their goal. Cornered rats, even if small, ARE dangerous, and the deep state rat is really big!

2
PhDinNY 2 points ago +2 / -0

I did find some home weather stations where the eye passed the coast, and the lowest air pressure was consistent with Cat 3, but there is not necessarily a one-one correlation between pressure and wind.

8
PhDinNY 8 points ago +9 / -1

Pretty funny that we have to rely on aljazeera for the truth! US media STILL reporting it as a Cat 3 landfall! I have reviewed available wind data from the area and can't find any that comes close to even Cat 2, but there aren't wind gages, that I know of, right on the beach where it came on shore. However, the Sarasota airport, close to where it came onshore, only shows max sustained winds of 40 mph! Max surge I have found was at Ft. Myers, at 6 feet, but again, that was pretty far south of eye. A gage on the coast at St. Pete beach had max sustained winds of about 65 mph; well north of the eye.

2
PhDinNY 2 points ago +2 / -0

They had always forecast it to decrease to Cat 3 at landfall. I have reviewed available wind data this morning and it appears to have landfalled at no stronger than Cat 2 (Sarasota airport only shows sustained wind of 40 mph!, but a station in St. Pete Beach had sustained wind of 65). I couldn't find any station with data from Siesta Key area, where the eye supposedly went onshore, but the eye was big, and the Sarasota airport would have seemingly showed close to what maximum sustained winds were (but it is not on the beach)

2
PhDinNY 2 points ago +2 / -0

It's looking like it was Cat 2 at landfall, and was far enough south of Tampa Bay to prevent significant storm surge there, which would have been pretty catastrophic even at Cat 2 if the eye had passed just north of the entrance to Tampa Bay. They are now just reporting GUST speeds, so I think the weather people are feeling a little embarrassed at their forecasting and reporting gusts to make it seem like it was worse than it turned out to be. Maybe prayers did work :)

view more: Next ›