User:Waterflaws

PROPOSED pipeline that transports up to 435,000 barrels per day

Notice, all ye who received an epistle from Stephanie Cutter, Oama Deputy Campaign Manager, re: the "Cushing oil pipeline". She be talkin' 'bout the Keystone-XL Pipeline, mon!

A PROPOSED pipeline cannot transport ANYTHING, especially a definitive amount! Instead, try, "that, potentially, could transport up to 435,000 barrels per day". The PROPOSED throughput should also be expressed in terms of NET volume or BTU's, taking into account the volume or BTU's required to PRODUCE the PROPOSED petroleum (and minus any spillage that may occur?).

Currently reads, "the proposed 2,148-mile (3,457 km) Keystone Pipeline that transports up to 435,000 barrels per day (69,200 m3/d) of crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta..." CANADA. Waterflaws (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Yellow-dog encyclo-expediency!

The Audacity of Our Rulers

"The title of 'The Audacity of Hope' was derived from a sermon delivered by Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright." Instead of reading, or talking about, The Audacity of Hope, we need to be talking about, and examining, The Audacity of our rulers. We just can't believe it!

--Waterflaws (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[to the USA_PATRIOT_Act entry] There is no reference to when the PATRIOT Act was actually drafted (I maintain it was before 9/11/2001, nor who wrote it (if that can actually be ascertained is another matter). Viet Dinh appears to be one "author" and Michael Chertoff has been attributed as another. Being a very substantial document, it is unlikely that it was created in less than one month, after 9/11. Are the endless "extensions" of the Act going to be like "our" endless wars? At what point does the U.S. Constitution become irrelevant? At what point do we become a police/military-state?

Although the "talk" section of the PATRIOT Act article states "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject", it appears to be just that!

Want to read an objective and complete, factual and meaningfully informative wikipedia article?

Anybody read the Walmart* [strikethrough]article[strikethrough] advertisement [advertisement here]? Looks like they are THE BEST COMPANY IN THE WORLD(and soon to be the only one in a market-share and an employment sense?)!

I wonder how many people they have tasked to monitor and improve their wikipedia article? And how much effort they spend to litigate against those who would dare criticize them, including wikipedia? I wonder if even wikileaks would risk their holy wrath (they do have a church and a religion, don't they? Or is it really just a "philosophy", like Buddhism?)?

If their revenue was somewhere areound $300 billion and they gave $20 million in merchandise and services (at retail) to, say, Katrina relief, how much would someone making $50,000 a year have to give to equal the same percentage, at wholesale? If they bought a painting worth $20 million, how much would a person making $50,000 a year have to pay and would that person get a multi-million dollar tax break?

We have in “the United States”* a CORPORATE driven news/media, that is motivated by the business interests (i.e. profit) of huge, multinational, Corporations. Geographic sovereignty is only "acknowledged" to deceive, especially when it is more palatable, convenient or profitable to do so, and only in a mercurial way. "We" are really in an age of Corporation-States and have moved away from Nation-States, especially in terms of the "developed" (i.e. "Corporate") world.

and practically everywhere else

Talk about Natural American Spirit cigarettes

corporate Luntz-ian solicitors

Today:

Included the "Jerry" but reinserted his name as it appeared in the State's documents.

The State's argument stated clearly that the statement "additive free" was mileading, therefore, they needed to disclose that it didn't mean they were safer cigarettes - it may have been a "loaded" (as the cigarettes are with carcinogens) word, but it described what specific action Natural American Spirit cigarette brand, nee Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company nee Reynolds American nee R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (the head of the beast should always be named), had to take.

The commercial definition of "natural" should also be included in this article for clarification. "Natural" is another misleading (loaded?) word that is being used flagrantly by all sorts of Corporate Persons to deceive the public.

Is this why I should support Wikipedia, Mr. Wales?

The entry for John Paulson is more like an advert for him and his Paulson & Co., Inc. What an angel he must be.

For example, "Paulson’s donation of $15 million to the Center for Responsible Lending is the largest contribution the non-profit received. The organization works to persuade banks to provide better mortgage terms to applicants with less than stellar credit. [28]", references an article titled "SEC Probe Shouldn't Stop With Goldman Sachs", which implicates his criminal and/or complicit behavior in the Goldman Sachs scandal.

He must pay his wikipedia writers handsomely for their diligence, here. ————————————————— John Varvatos is an American contemporary menswear designer.

"During his time at Calvin Klein, Varvatos pioneered a type of men's undergarment called boxer briefs, a hybrid of boxer shorts and briefs.[8] Made famous by a series of 1992 print ads featuring Mark Wahlberg,[8][9] they have been called "one of the greatest apparel revolutions of the century."[8] Of their creation Varvatos said in 2010, “We just cut off a pair of long johns and thought, this could be cool ...".[8]"

I had a coach, somewhere between 1974 and 1976 who used to wear these "as yet uncreated" boxer briefs. I always thought they were 'hot', although when I wore them (sometime in the '80's, they WERE uncomfotably hot, and tended to ride up my legs.

Do I have to get a sworn, notarized, affidavit to post this here? Waterflaws (talk) 17:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)