So what you're saying is: 'the established oil industry currently making billions of dollars will be surpassed by a new technology and will lose that aforementioned billion dollar income... and they will be OK with that'.
See, cue the Conspiracy Theory yet again.
"Big Oil" isn't going anywhere because "Big Oil" doesn't really exist. What does exist are several very large companies who *currently* make their money from procuring and processing petroleum into product and fuels.
These companies will simply stop using Petroleum as a feedstock (for fuels at least, the petrochemical industry will still require petroleum but that is *tiny* compared to the fuels business and could probably be supplied from domestic sources) and begin building Fusion Plants to fuel synthetic fuel production.
Among other things, they finally can cut loose of people like Hugo Chavez (who stole *BILLIONS* of their assets through his nationalization schemes) and the OPEC countries (who are just about the only one's left who can guarantee supply, though for how much longer is in serious doubt).
This type of technology would be what allows companies like Exxon-Mobile and Conoco-Philips to thrive in the 21st Century (and most likely beyond) as they did in the 20th.
Again, these round-robin Conspiracy Theories really leave a lot to be desired when you actually look at the facts on the ground.
Once they get it working every energy company on the planet will stall full-scale deployment of fusion (probably by scare-mongering and 'lobbying' a.k.a. bribes) until their current cow is milked dry... and even then they'll first try to get government subsidies (like coal plants already get right now!).
Baloney. If this works (I'm speaking of the Polywell, since even as a long shot it's a lot closer to being proven true or false than the Tokamak), you'll have everyone and their brother lined up to build these things.
I don't think people realize just how valuable an inexhaustible source of cheap, clean energy would be.
Don't think about powering your house, that's small potatoes for what we're talking about.
Imagine being able to build one of these things in Oregon on the coast, drawing the necessary fuel for the reaction directly from the Ocean. With your new source of almost infinite electricity, you now can afford to electrolyze seawater into hydrogen and oxygen.
With a source of infinite cheap hydrogen (again, now made possible because you have a virtually infinite supply of cheap electricity), it suddenly becomes feasible to manufacture -synthetic- automobile and aviation fuels (gasoline, diesel,jet fuel, take your pick of petroleum based fuels).
Even now, electricity is dirt cheap compared to petroleum fuels, even when oil is relatively cheap (Oil has to get *below* about $20 a barrel before it begins to approach the cost of Coal/Nuclear generated electricity).
What you've basically done is built a facility to transform the cheapest source of energy on the planet into the most expensive (environmentally clean electricity -> environmentally neutral synthetic fuels) energy.
You could charge $2.25 a gallon and *still* be cheaper than petroleum based gasoline and, more importantly, be able to guarantee supply.
All the pessimism and "bribes" in the world won't stop that money train from leaving the station at full throttle, my friend.
The Iranians wanted a good, stable OS but the Dell threw Windows XP onto their box. So they nuked the partition and installed Vista.
The Iranians can't blame Dell, err, the American anymore if it's unstable.
Except with cars.
While odd, I think this pretty much sums up the feelings of people like myself (and some of the others here).
Did Iran get a raw deal from the west some half century ago? Probably (I'm an American, I can admit out mistakes).
HOWEVER, that in know way justifies our being lumped into every problem they *now* have.
*THEY* have the government *THEY* wanted. If they no longer like it, then *THEY* are going to have to do something about it.
Sitting back bitching (blaming the United States, Great Britain, Israel, the West in general, or any other *strawman* argument) isn't going to accomplish anything.
Can you show me a single nation that followed, or even approximated, Communism? All I see is a bunch of fascist dictatorships using Karl Marx's Rhetoric to excuse their power grab.
You know what, you're right! That must be why my Water Department is completely private, why the Police Department is completely private, why the United States Military is completely priv...oh wait.
Uhhh.... Not really sure what you are trying to say here, but it's undeniable that all of those are criminal institutions since they are financed by stolen money (i.e. tax dollars). Furthermore, all of those institutions are criminal monopolies astablished by the state. Again, the mere fact that they are using robbery instead of free exchange to finance their activities proves that they are detrimental to the human race. If they were providing value, they wouldn't have to survive on robbery; people would be willing to pay for their services voluntarily. Again, just basic economics.
*I'm* a "National Socialist" because I simply want the United States to be energy independent
No youre a National Socialist because you subscribe to the tenets of National Socialism. Namely, that people ought to be ordered around by the National government at gun point.
Fuck everyone and everyone should be out for themselves, is that your "plan"?
I am talking about freedom. You are the one who is talking about forcing people to bend to YOUR WILL through brutal acts of terrorism. Just because you don't have the courage to put a gun to their head directly and instead have to hide behind a voting booth and an army of armed thugs does not make you less of a sociopath, just more of a coward.
It's clear that one of us is a psychotic with an anti-social personality disorder, but it isn't me.
Basic Conservative...willing to eat the chicken so long as you don't have to be in on the kill.
I've got an idea, why don't you crawl back into the back country with all the other scared children and allow us *adults* to run things,...like we have for the past, say, 235 years.
1. I'm pretty sure the C in OPEC stands for countries, so OPEC is nothing but government price controls.
2. Cut in production does not necessarily mean shortages. It only means shortages when there are price controls in place by the government and prices are not allowed to adjust to equilibrium with the new level of supply and demand. But that's ok. I'm sure it had absolutely NOTHING to do with the draconian price controls implemented by the US government in the early 1970s.
I'm sure National Socialists like yourself who want to exert dictatorial control over other peoples lives don't like to hear this, but there are no shortages in free markets, there are only accurate prices.
You know what, you're right! That must be why my Water Department is completely private, why the Police Department is completely private, why the United States Military is completely priv...oh wait.
SO! Now that we've dispelled *that* myth, I guess we can determine (by your own writings) that *I'm* a "National Socialist" because I simply want the United States to be energy independent (I could care less about the environment, BTW) and *You* are a patriot because you think the chips "should fall where they lay"?
Fuck everyone and everyone should be out for themselves, is that your "plan"?
You mean the one brought on by government price controls?
No, the one brought on by OPEC when we supported our Israeli allies against the Arab attempt to overrun them.
You know, the embargo that should have been seen for what it truly was, and act of war by the OPEC oil cartel against the United States and its interests.
If this is something other than a tax increase in disguise, the first clue will be when diesel fuel is not excessively taxed vs. gasoline. This is why diesel cars are few and far between in the US -- because it diesel fuel costs more than premium gas for about half the octane rating.
I'm afraid you've just lost my interest in your theories when you talk about "octane" like it's some measure of power.
I could also be a smartass and point out that diesel is measured by cetane, and *not* octane, but I was raised better than that:).
Overall, cars have become significantly more efficient over the last 30 years -- so why are we paying so much more per gallon than we did in the 70's and 80's? (Inflation, sure, but oil prices have well outpaced inflation.)
That's like saying that Aircraft have become much faster since the 50s, so why does it still take a bus a week to cross the country?
You're comparing apples to oranges.
Doubling the efficiency of cars doesn't mean anything when the *amount* of cars on the road have tripled.
I say, it's about time, really. 42 mpg sounds rather high - but only because we haven't even TRIED
Wrong. It is ridiculous to think that "WE" havent' tried. If Ford could come out with a standard 4 door family sedan that got 42mpg AND people would buy it they would in a second.
Remember the oil embargo of the '70's? Congress mandated some radical new goals for fuel mileage way back then, to help break our dependence on foreign oil
Yes I do. I remember the government getting involved and saying things like we are 20 years away from running out of oil. I remember the Carter administration (who is much like the Obama administration) getting more and more control (taxes).
Joe Sixpack and Detroit, in their infinite wisdom (selfishness) decided to create new "cars" built on truck frames, which would be exempt from fuel mileage requirements.
Ok, I guess a Joe Sixpack will need to try and explain some basic economics to you. The SUV's and larger vehicles have a better profit margin, and it is what the American car companies do their best. So now the government; specifically Obama wants to do is force them to stop making those cars and focus on their least successful line of small cars. This would have been like someone comming to Apple around 10 years ago and saying "You guys suck because you don't make a cheap computer". I mandate that you make a computer that sell the same cost as Gateway and Dell.". I have an idea, how about we let the FREE MARKET decide what they want. Why does the government need to be setting any fuel standards to begin with? If "Joe Sixpack" wants a car that gets 10mpg then who are you to say no? Isn't it his money? How would you like it if Joe Sixpack said that you don't "NEED" anything but a dial up connection and a 12" monitor?
Ingenuity, huh? Well, that ingenuity has finally come back to bite Joe and Detroit in the ass. Today, we finally start seriously saving fuel, or else.
I like it.
This could be a very long post, but in short the problems that the American automakers are having has little to do with building a better Prius. I mentioned above that super fuel efficient cars is not their market, and the major reasons they are having problems is their pension plans, unions and higher than normal executive salaries. Notice I didn't say anything about the quality of their product? The product is fine, it just has an unnessary tax (mentioned above) that gets put on every car/truck.
Then I guess they shouldn't have BEGGED THE GOVERNMENT FOR MONEY, *should* they?
This sounds like a *perfect* example of Capitalism to me. The Government is now their largest single shareholder and is *daring* to act like it.
It's MY money their running on right now and FOR my money, I want car companies that can stay ahead of the curve, and not just on top of the curve.
I have no problem whatsoever with Detroit building big vehicles (my main two vehicles are a Dodge Ram from work and a GMC Sierra that I own), but this belief that they should be allowed *only* to manufacture huge vehicles in an era of unstable fuel prices is ludicrous, *ESPECIALLY* (just to repeat) when it is now *MY* money they are running on.
They need to be like companies like Toyota, Nissan and Honda, who BTW make *several* lines of mid-size to full-size pickups *but* also make an equal number of more full-efficient cars. What that means is that is that when the Nissan Titan isn't selling like hotcakes, Nissan's Titan division might become a little nervous, but Nissan as a whole doesn't lose a lot of sleep because they know they can survive on their smaller to midsized cars to keep them afloat.
GM, Dodge, nor Chrysler have a God-given right to *only* depend on big gas burners to remain profitable. If they are having such a problem with unions (like I here them, and people here *whining* about), then they need to trot down to their local courthouse and begin procedures to break
> Obama isn't a fool. He knows what the consequences will be.
There is much merit in what you say but I still hold out to one hope. Overreach. Because Obama is fool and almost zero experience he might not listen to wiser heads in his Party (and I'm not talking about the Democrats). Remember that with Specter's coming out Democrats own Washington. Yes the Joker's eventual arrival (if that ain't the Universe having a bit of fun with us what is!) their rule will be total, but with Snowe and/or Collins available to 'be bipartisan' when needed they already have effective control. And come the next elections if the economy is still in the crapper Obama just might be Carter 2.0. Assuming the Republicans can find A) find a leader and B) nominate him/her instead of passing them over for another McCain/Dole/loser.
I think we both agree that barring Obama having an epiphany and suddenly becoming a centrist free market guy the economy ain't getting better. So it is only a question of how bad it gets and will there be enough MSM types still working at places still in business to blow a smokescreen for his sorry ass to hide behind.
Any Company that actually declares in public that these loopholes should be closed, is a Company whining because they are being asked to do their FAIR SHARE and should lose money by paying extra taxes.
If they find the burden of OBEYING THE LAW so difficult, I've got an idea, how about you close your doors so another can spring up and take your place.
That *used* to be what America was all about. You know, FREE MARKET. If one couldn't support itself, it was simply eaten by another and all that.
I don't know when we ever reached the point where some companies came to expect the right to exist forever.
The *people* (through their elected Representatives, INCLUDING the President of the United States) set policy, *NOT* Corporations. If the *people* (again, through their elected Representatives) decide that these companies should no longer enjoy ridiculous tax breaks, then it is *their* burden to evolve into a shape where the *can* conform to the new reality.
If they can't, then I'm sorry, life just ain't fair sometimes.
I find it absolutely laughable when people do every but call Obama a Communist (Which I can only take "I think we both agree that barring Obama having an epiphany and suddenly becoming a centrist free market guy the economy ain't getting better." to mean) when what he is doing is the very definition of Free Market values.
Are you illiterate? This is about choice. Whoever pays makes the decisions. If you let the government pay for your health care (even with YOUR money), the government makes the decisions. I trust my health to ME, not my government.
A GREAT DEAL OF US CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY!!! Why in the hell is that so hard to understand?!
People like you simply make me want to scream. You talk as though we can all choose to pay for our health care, but are for some reason just wanting to sluff it all off on the Government.
IF EVERYONE COULD AFFORD THERE OWN HEALTHCARE, THEN THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY CALLS FOR THIS TO BEGIN WITH!!!
Again, I don't understand why this is so fucking hard to understand. Why is that people like you simply look down your nose on those maybe not so fortunate? Does it *EVER* occur to you, even just once, that maybe they're are people *DIEING* (not just, as you seem to be so concerned, merely being inconvenienced by being forced to wait for a few hours) because THEY CAN'T SO MUCH AS SEE A PHYSICIAN?!?!?!? Much less get treated by one...
It is the INSURANCE Industry who continue to spread FUD that people on the street eat up like soup and run with ("OMG, can't have Government Healthcare, THAT'S WHAT THE ANTI-CHRIST WILL USE!!!, etc.").
Who said that? What, you can't refute the real arguments so you have to make up stupid ones that you can knock down?
Nope, that's -precisely- what the evangelical base of the Republican Party believes. I don't care what bullshit they say about Socialism and "just being concerned for the little guy", they see Barack Obama as the Anti-Christ an his attempt to maybe HELP PEOPLE as some sort of Devil's plot.
Don't believe me? Wonder down to a group Southern Baptist (Who I happen to be a member of, say amen). Get them behind closed doors (though a fair amount will tell you straight out) and that's exactly what they believe.
Whenever you here a Republican use the word "Socialist", THAT is code for everything these people are afraid of (one world government, anti-christ, all the bullshit attached to the Book of Revelation, etc.)
A nationalized health care system will be *more* democratic and more open than any we have now. Who do you think will appoint directors for this system?
Who will appoint directors? Bureaucrats. Just like who appointed the director of FEMA before Katrina? How'd that system work out? Now you want to trust the life of your and your children to that system? More Democratic? Like the highway system? Like the IRS? Like... name me any government program that is "more democratic" than one you pay for yourself... Actually private industry is more like a dictatorship, only YOU are the king.
Most certainly the President (Just as he currently does for every other major Government posting).
So you'd trust your health care to Bush appointee? How about an Obama appointee? What if Obama catches the swine flue and dies? Would you trust your health to Biden? How about Sara Palin, Bobby Jindal, New Gingrich or Al Franken? Really? You put more faith in your health care decisions in Al "Frakkin" Franken than yourself?
I'd trust any of those people over a damn insurance company.
Who will have to confirm them? YOU ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES. If you don't like how your Government Insurance is handled, then get on the horn to your Representative and get them to change it.
Um, I live in State A. All my reps are Party X. Do you think that me calling them up will make a damn bit of difference? Do you think that my call will suddenly make them change their mind and vote with the Party Y?
Now that's just taking the cowards way out "Why even bother, I can't do anything". I can guarantee you sitting on your ass, afraid to
The GP said that he wanted the government to protect him from preventable disease. Heart disease is a preventable disease. So are STD's. How do you think the government will "protect" you from those diseases?
If you are speaking of me, I *DID NOT* say I wanted the Government to "protect" me from a preventable disease, I SAID I DIDN'T WANT TO DIE FROM A TREATABLE/CURABLE DISEASE.
To elaborate, I don't want to die from a treatable/curable disease simply because I lack the funds to pay for private insurance (which would almost certainly mean I also lack the funds to pay for treatment directly).
This entire debate (not just between us, but country wide) is driven by *money*.
The only people starting a fuss over Socialized Healthcare in the United States ARE THE PEOPLE MAKING A FORTUNE WITH THE SYSTEM WE HAVE RIGHT NOW.
Doctors and patients could really care less how they get paid (doctors) or who pays them (patients).
It is the INSURANCE Industry who continue to spread FUD that people on the street eat up like soup and run with ("OMG, can't have Government Healthcare, THAT'S WHAT THE ANTI-CHRIST WILL USE!!!, etc.").
It's hogwash and bunk.
A nationalized health care system will be *more* democratic and more open than any we have now. Who do you think will appoint directors for this system?
Most certainly the President (Just as he currently does for every other major Government posting). Who will have to confirm them? YOU ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES. If you don't like how your Government Insurance is handled, then get on the horn to your Representative and get them to change it.
Let me ask you, if you get denied for an insurance claim for a new heart, who can you run to now who might be able to help you before you die?
Government health care will lead to a world where "papers please" means you have to show your grocery store receipt!
Oh, bullshit. I'm so sick of this "One world Government", single religion, Book of Revelations BULLSHIT coming out *ANYTIME* someone tries to do *anything* to help people on a massive scale.
You know what scares ME, someone like you telling me I've got to die simply so YOU don't have to pay an extra $100 bucks come April. THAT'S what scares me.
Prepare for some extremely Democratic legislation. (In the party sense, not the democracy sense).
YEAH! Like universal health care, and an end to the 35% of health care expenditure that goes to parasite insurance companies! WOOT!
(Just for reference, the US is the only western country to tie health care to one's employer. It is a strange combination, that has many perverse effects such as separating the consumer from the one paying the health care bills, and turning the bill-payers into care-denial organizations. The macro effect is that we spend more of our GDP on health care than any other country in the world, yet our population dies sooner (about 3 years' shorter life span).)
Yeah! I want my government deciding if I get care or not because they can make such a better decision that I can make for myself or my children.
I want my trip to the doctor to be like a trip to the DMV.
Instead of the way it is now? Where your INSURANCE PROVIDER decides what you and your children do or do not get?
As for the DMV, I'd rather it be like the Postal Service. You know, WHERE YOU PAY 42 CENTS AND A LETTER GETS ACROSS THE COUNTRY IN A SINGLE DAY AND NIGHT.
I've *yet* to see a private company match that.
BZZZTT! Wrong. $0.42 MIGHT get your letter across the country in one piece in a week.
Besides, if my insurance provider does not give me the coverage I want, I go with another. What do you do when the government doesn't give you the coverage that you want?
Ah, I don't know who in the hell your local letter carrier is, but I *routinely* get mail from my home state in the south to friends in Maine IN A SINGLE DAY AND NIGHT (mail it Monday morning, they are reading it Tuesday afternoon).
Just because your *LOCAL* postmaster is shitty, don't judge the whole postal system as such.
The postal system works, the DMV works, the Military works, I get clean and safe drinking water, AND I WANT GOVERNMENT HEALTHCARE SO I DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT DIEING FROM A F__KING PREVENTABLE/TREATABLE DISEASE.
Prepare for some extremely Democratic legislation. (In the party sense, not the democracy sense).
YEAH! Like universal health care, and an end to the 35% of health care expenditure that goes to parasite insurance companies! WOOT!
(Just for reference, the US is the only western country to tie health care to one's employer. It is a strange combination, that has many perverse effects such as separating the consumer from the one paying the health care bills, and turning the bill-payers into care-denial organizations. The macro effect is that we spend more of our GDP on health care than any other country in the world, yet our population dies sooner (about 3 years' shorter life span).)
Yeah! I want my government deciding if I get care or not because they can make such a better decision that I can make for myself or my children.
I want my trip to the doctor to be like a trip to the DMV.
Instead of the way it is now? Where your INSURANCE PROVIDER decides what you and your children do or do not get?
As for the DMV, I'd rather it be like the Postal Service. You know, WHERE YOU PAY 42 CENTS AND A LETTER GETS ACROSS THE COUNTRY IN A SINGLE DAY AND NIGHT.
That's because the Federal Government has successfully delayed most of the claims, to this day. They are denying there was any negative health effects. The evidence suggests otherwise.
Just wait six years and Begich will lose. He only managed to win this time because the Republican was under indictment for most of the campaign and convicted before the conclusion. Any halfway popular Republican will beat him in 2014. Hell, if Sarah Palin had any foresight she'd be planning a run at his seat herself instead of trying to get some washed up 85 year old back into the job.
Let us also not forget that Mark Begich isn't a newcomer to politics, his father, Nick Begich was a very popular politician from Alaska (U.S. House of Representatives) until the day he died (disappeared in a famous, well famous in Alaska anyway, plane crash).
In fact, he actually beat his Republican opponent for reelection AFTER HE DIED (56% to 44%).
I'm not sure Mr. Begich is going to be as easy to get rid of as some people think.
Yes, but let's not forget that Sarah Palin also thought that Africa was a country.
I'm not sure she is anywhere near talented enough to pull off a conspiracy like that, considering the Senator Begich can simply ignore her dumbass request for what it is, SOUR GRAPES.
Let us also not forget that Mark Begich isn't a newcomer to politics, his father, Nick Begich was a very popular politician from Alaska (U.S. House of Representatives) until the day he died (disappeared in a famous, well famous in Alaska anyway, plane crash).
In fact, he actually beat his Republican opponent for reelection AFTER HE DIED (56% to 44%).
I'm not sure Mr. Begich is going to be as easy to get rid of as some people think.
Slashdot Mirror
So what you're saying is: 'the established oil industry currently making billions of dollars will be surpassed by a new technology and will lose that aforementioned billion dollar income... and they will be OK with that'.
See, cue the Conspiracy Theory yet again.
"Big Oil" isn't going anywhere because "Big Oil" doesn't really exist. What does exist are several very large companies who *currently* make their money from procuring and processing petroleum into product and fuels.
These companies will simply stop using Petroleum as a feedstock (for fuels at least, the petrochemical industry will still require petroleum but that is *tiny* compared to the fuels business and could probably be supplied from domestic sources) and begin building Fusion Plants to fuel synthetic fuel production.
Among other things, they finally can cut loose of people like Hugo Chavez (who stole *BILLIONS* of their assets through his nationalization schemes) and the OPEC countries (who are just about the only one's left who can guarantee supply, though for how much longer is in serious doubt).
This type of technology would be what allows companies like Exxon-Mobile and Conoco-Philips to thrive in the 21st Century (and most likely beyond) as they did in the 20th.
Again, these round-robin Conspiracy Theories really leave a lot to be desired when you actually look at the facts on the ground.
Once they get it working every energy company on the planet will stall full-scale deployment of fusion (probably by scare-mongering and 'lobbying' a.k.a. bribes) until their current cow is milked dry... and even then they'll first try to get government subsidies (like coal plants already get right now!).
Baloney. If this works (I'm speaking of the Polywell, since even as a long shot it's a lot closer to being proven true or false than the Tokamak), you'll have everyone and their brother lined up to build these things.
I don't think people realize just how valuable an inexhaustible source of cheap, clean energy would be.
Don't think about powering your house, that's small potatoes for what we're talking about.
Imagine being able to build one of these things in Oregon on the coast, drawing the necessary fuel for the reaction directly from the Ocean. With your new source of almost infinite electricity, you now can afford to electrolyze seawater into hydrogen and oxygen.
With a source of infinite cheap hydrogen (again, now made possible because you have a virtually infinite supply of cheap electricity), it suddenly becomes feasible to manufacture -synthetic- automobile and aviation fuels (gasoline, diesel,jet fuel, take your pick of petroleum based fuels).
Even now, electricity is dirt cheap compared to petroleum fuels, even when oil is relatively cheap (Oil has to get *below* about $20 a barrel before it begins to approach the cost of Coal/Nuclear generated electricity).
What you've basically done is built a facility to transform the cheapest source of energy on the planet into the most expensive (environmentally clean electricity -> environmentally neutral synthetic fuels) energy.
You could charge $2.25 a gallon and *still* be cheaper than petroleum based gasoline and, more importantly, be able to guarantee supply.
All the pessimism and "bribes" in the world won't stop that money train from leaving the station at full throttle, my friend.
could somehow...harness this power...channel it,...into the Casimir Warp Drive...it just might work!
So, what you're saying is:
The Iranians wanted a good, stable OS but the Dell threw Windows XP onto their box. So they nuked the partition and installed Vista.
The Iranians can't blame Dell, err, the American anymore if it's unstable.
Except with cars.
While odd, I think this pretty much sums up the feelings of people like myself (and some of the others here).
Did Iran get a raw deal from the west some half century ago? Probably (I'm an American, I can admit out mistakes).
HOWEVER, that in know way justifies our being lumped into every problem they *now* have.
*THEY* have the government *THEY* wanted. If they no longer like it, then *THEY* are going to have to do something about it.
Sitting back bitching (blaming the United States, Great Britain, Israel, the West in general, or any other *strawman* argument) isn't going to accomplish anything.
All Apple has to do is ROT-13 their handshakes.
What, and break all the old iPods' ability to sync? Yeah, that'll go over real well.
Handshaking doesn't exist in hardware, it exists in software.
There isn't an iPod made that Apple could simply release an update for with new handshaking routines (such as ROT-13).
Can you show me a single nation that followed, or even approximated, Communism? All I see is a bunch of fascist dictatorships using Karl Marx's Rhetoric to excuse their power grab.
I kinda like his idea. :)
Uhhh.... Not really sure what you are trying to say here, but it's undeniable that all of those are criminal institutions since they are financed by stolen money (i.e. tax dollars). Furthermore, all of those institutions are criminal monopolies astablished by the state. Again, the mere fact that they are using robbery instead of free exchange to finance their activities proves that they are detrimental to the human race. If they were providing value, they wouldn't have to survive on robbery; people would be willing to pay for their services voluntarily. Again, just basic economics.
No youre a National Socialist because you subscribe to the tenets of National Socialism. Namely, that people ought to be ordered around by the National government at gun point.
I am talking about freedom. You are the one who is talking about forcing people to bend to YOUR WILL through brutal acts of terrorism. Just because you don't have the courage to put a gun to their head directly and instead have to hide behind a voting booth and an army of armed thugs does not make you less of a sociopath, just more of a coward.
It's clear that one of us is a psychotic with an anti-social personality disorder, but it isn't me.
Basic Conservative...willing to eat the chicken so long as you don't have to be in on the kill.
I've got an idea, why don't you crawl back into the back country with all the other scared children and allow us *adults* to run things,...like we have for the past, say, 235 years.
A couple of things:
1. I'm pretty sure the C in OPEC stands for countries, so OPEC is nothing but government price controls.
2. Cut in production does not necessarily mean shortages. It only means shortages when there are price controls in place by the government and prices are not allowed to adjust to equilibrium with the new level of supply and demand. But that's ok. I'm sure it had absolutely NOTHING to do with the draconian price controls implemented by the US government in the early 1970s.
http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm
http://mises.org/story/3025
http://mises.org/story/3107
I'm sure National Socialists like yourself who want to exert dictatorial control over other peoples lives don't like to hear this, but there are no shortages in free markets, there are only accurate prices.
You know what, you're right! That must be why my Water Department is completely private, why the Police Department is completely private, why the United States Military is completely priv...oh wait.
SO! Now that we've dispelled *that* myth, I guess we can determine (by your own writings) that *I'm* a "National Socialist" because I simply want the United States to be energy independent (I could care less about the environment, BTW) and *You* are a patriot because you think the chips "should fall where they lay"?
Fuck everyone and everyone should be out for themselves, is that your "plan"?
>> Remember the oil embargo of the '70's?
You mean the one brought on by government price controls?
No, the one brought on by OPEC when we supported our Israeli allies against the Arab attempt to overrun them.
You know, the embargo that should have been seen for what it truly was, and act of war by the OPEC oil cartel against the United States and its interests.
That one...
If this is something other than a tax increase in disguise, the first clue will be when diesel fuel is not excessively taxed vs. gasoline. This is why diesel cars are few and far between in the US -- because it diesel fuel costs more than premium gas for about half the octane rating.
I'm afraid you've just lost my interest in your theories when you talk about "octane" like it's some measure of power.
I could also be a smartass and point out that diesel is measured by cetane, and *not* octane, but I was raised better than that :).
Overall, cars have become significantly more efficient over the last 30 years -- so why are we paying so much more per gallon than we did in the 70's and 80's? (Inflation, sure, but oil prices have well outpaced inflation.)
That's like saying that Aircraft have become much faster since the 50s, so why does it still take a bus a week to cross the country?
You're comparing apples to oranges.
Doubling the efficiency of cars doesn't mean anything when the *amount* of cars on the road have tripled.
I say, it's about time, really. 42 mpg sounds rather high - but only because we haven't even TRIED
Wrong. It is ridiculous to think that "WE" havent' tried. If Ford could come out with a standard 4 door family sedan that got 42mpg AND people would buy it they would in a second.
Remember the oil embargo of the '70's? Congress mandated some radical new goals for fuel mileage way back then, to help break our dependence on foreign oil
Yes I do. I remember the government getting involved and saying things like we are 20 years away from running out of oil. I remember the Carter administration (who is much like the Obama administration) getting more and more control (taxes).
Joe Sixpack and Detroit, in their infinite wisdom (selfishness) decided to create new "cars" built on truck frames, which would be exempt from fuel mileage requirements.
Ok, I guess a Joe Sixpack will need to try and explain some basic economics to you. The SUV's and larger vehicles have a better profit margin, and it is what the American car companies do their best. So now the government; specifically Obama wants to do is force them to stop making those cars and focus on their least successful line of small cars. This would have been like someone comming to Apple around 10 years ago and saying "You guys suck because you don't make a cheap computer". I mandate that you make a computer that sell the same cost as Gateway and Dell.". I have an idea, how about we let the FREE MARKET decide what they want. Why does the government need to be setting any fuel standards to begin with? If "Joe Sixpack" wants a car that gets 10mpg then who are you to say no? Isn't it his money? How would you like it if Joe Sixpack said that you don't "NEED" anything but a dial up connection and a 12" monitor?
Ingenuity, huh? Well, that ingenuity has finally come back to bite Joe and Detroit in the ass. Today, we finally start seriously saving fuel, or else.
I like it.
This could be a very long post, but in short the problems that the American automakers are having has little to do with building a better Prius. I mentioned above that super fuel efficient cars is not their market, and the major reasons they are having problems is their pension plans, unions and higher than normal executive salaries. Notice I didn't say anything about the quality of their product? The product is fine, it just has an unnessary tax (mentioned above) that gets put on every car/truck.
Then I guess they shouldn't have BEGGED THE GOVERNMENT FOR MONEY, *should* they?
This sounds like a *perfect* example of Capitalism to me. The Government is now their largest single shareholder and is *daring* to act like it.
It's MY money their running on right now and FOR my money, I want car companies that can stay ahead of the curve, and not just on top of the curve.
I have no problem whatsoever with Detroit building big vehicles (my main two vehicles are a Dodge Ram from work and a GMC Sierra that I own), but this belief that they should be allowed *only* to manufacture huge vehicles in an era of unstable fuel prices is ludicrous, *ESPECIALLY* (just to repeat) when it is now *MY* money they are running on.
They need to be like companies like Toyota, Nissan and Honda, who BTW make *several* lines of mid-size to full-size pickups *but* also make an equal number of more full-efficient cars. What that means is that is that when the Nissan Titan isn't selling like hotcakes, Nissan's Titan division might become a little nervous, but Nissan as a whole doesn't lose a lot of sleep because they know they can survive on their smaller to midsized cars to keep them afloat.
GM, Dodge, nor Chrysler have a God-given right to *only* depend on big gas burners to remain profitable. If they are having such a problem with unions (like I here them, and people here *whining* about), then they need to trot down to their local courthouse and begin procedures to break
> Obama isn't a fool. He knows what the consequences will be.
There is much merit in what you say but I still hold out to one hope. Overreach. Because Obama is fool and almost zero experience he might not listen to wiser heads in his Party (and I'm not talking about the Democrats). Remember that with Specter's coming out Democrats own Washington. Yes the Joker's eventual arrival (if that ain't the Universe having a bit of fun with us what is!) their rule will be total, but with Snowe and/or Collins available to 'be bipartisan' when needed they already have effective control. And come the next elections if the economy is still in the crapper Obama just might be Carter 2.0. Assuming the Republicans can find A) find a leader and B) nominate him/her instead of passing them over for another McCain/Dole/loser.
I think we both agree that barring Obama having an epiphany and suddenly becoming a centrist free market guy the economy ain't getting better. So it is only a question of how bad it gets and will there be enough MSM types still working at places still in business to blow a smokescreen for his sorry ass to hide behind.
Any Company that actually declares in public that these loopholes should be closed, is a Company whining because they are being asked to do their FAIR SHARE and should lose money by paying extra taxes.
If they find the burden of OBEYING THE LAW so difficult, I've got an idea, how about you close your doors so another can spring up and take your place.
That *used* to be what America was all about. You know, FREE MARKET. If one couldn't support itself, it was simply eaten by another and all that.
I don't know when we ever reached the point where some companies came to expect the right to exist forever.
The *people* (through their elected Representatives, INCLUDING the President of the United States) set policy, *NOT* Corporations. If the *people* (again, through their elected Representatives) decide that these companies should no longer enjoy ridiculous tax breaks, then it is *their* burden to evolve into a shape where the *can* conform to the new reality.
If they can't, then I'm sorry, life just ain't fair sometimes.
I find it absolutely laughable when people do every but call Obama a Communist (Which I can only take "I think we both agree that barring Obama having an epiphany and suddenly becoming a centrist free market guy the economy ain't getting better." to mean) when what he is doing is the very definition of Free Market values.
Are you illiterate? This is about choice. Whoever pays makes the decisions. If you let the government pay for your health care (even with YOUR money), the government makes the decisions. I trust my health to ME, not my government.
A GREAT DEAL OF US CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY!!! Why in the hell is that so hard to understand?!
People like you simply make me want to scream. You talk as though we can all choose to pay for our health care, but are for some reason just wanting to sluff it all off on the Government.
IF EVERYONE COULD AFFORD THERE OWN HEALTHCARE, THEN THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY CALLS FOR THIS TO BEGIN WITH!!!
Again, I don't understand why this is so fucking hard to understand. Why is that people like you simply look down your nose on those maybe not so fortunate? Does it *EVER* occur to you, even just once, that maybe they're are people *DIEING* (not just, as you seem to be so concerned, merely being inconvenienced by being forced to wait for a few hours) because THEY CAN'T SO MUCH AS SEE A PHYSICIAN?!?!?!? Much less get treated by one...
It is the INSURANCE Industry who continue to spread FUD that people on the street eat up like soup and run with ("OMG, can't have Government Healthcare, THAT'S WHAT THE ANTI-CHRIST WILL USE!!!, etc.").
Who said that? What, you can't refute the real arguments so you have to make up stupid ones that you can knock down?
Nope, that's -precisely- what the evangelical base of the Republican Party believes. I don't care what bullshit they say about Socialism and "just being concerned for the little guy", they see Barack Obama as the Anti-Christ an his attempt to maybe HELP PEOPLE as some sort of Devil's plot.
Don't believe me? Wonder down to a group Southern Baptist (Who I happen to be a member of, say amen). Get them behind closed doors (though a fair amount will tell you straight out) and that's exactly what they believe.
Whenever you here a Republican use the word "Socialist", THAT is code for everything these people are afraid of (one world government, anti-christ, all the bullshit attached to the Book of Revelation, etc.)
A nationalized health care system will be *more* democratic and more open than any we have now. Who do you think will appoint directors for this system?
Who will appoint directors? Bureaucrats. Just like who appointed the director of FEMA before Katrina? How'd that system work out? Now you want to trust the life of your and your children to that system?
More Democratic? Like the highway system? Like the IRS? Like... name me any government program that is "more democratic" than one you pay for yourself... Actually private industry is more like a dictatorship, only YOU are the king.
Most certainly the President (Just as he currently does for every other major Government posting).
So you'd trust your health care to Bush appointee? How about an Obama appointee? What if Obama catches the swine flue and dies? Would you trust your health to Biden? How about Sara Palin, Bobby Jindal, New Gingrich or Al Franken? Really? You put more faith in your health care decisions in Al "Frakkin" Franken than yourself?
I'd trust any of those people over a damn insurance company.
Who will have to confirm them? YOU ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES. If you don't like how your Government Insurance is handled, then get on the horn to your Representative and get them to change it.
Um, I live in State A. All my reps are Party X. Do you think that me calling them up will make a damn bit of difference? Do you think that my call will suddenly make them change their mind and vote with the Party Y?
Now that's just taking the cowards way out "Why even bother, I can't do anything". I can guarantee you sitting on your ass, afraid to
The GP said that he wanted the government to protect him from preventable disease. Heart disease is a preventable disease. So are STD's. How do you think the government will "protect" you from those diseases?
If you are speaking of me, I *DID NOT* say I wanted the Government to "protect" me from a preventable disease, I SAID I DIDN'T WANT TO DIE FROM A TREATABLE/CURABLE DISEASE.
To elaborate, I don't want to die from a treatable/curable disease simply because I lack the funds to pay for private insurance (which would almost certainly mean I also lack the funds to pay for treatment directly).
This entire debate (not just between us, but country wide) is driven by *money*.
The only people starting a fuss over Socialized Healthcare in the United States ARE THE PEOPLE MAKING A FORTUNE WITH THE SYSTEM WE HAVE RIGHT NOW.
Doctors and patients could really care less how they get paid (doctors) or who pays them (patients).
It is the INSURANCE Industry who continue to spread FUD that people on the street eat up like soup and run with ("OMG, can't have Government Healthcare, THAT'S WHAT THE ANTI-CHRIST WILL USE!!!, etc.").
It's hogwash and bunk.
A nationalized health care system will be *more* democratic and more open than any we have now. Who do you think will appoint directors for this system?
Most certainly the President (Just as he currently does for every other major Government posting). Who will have to confirm them? YOU ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES. If you don't like how your Government Insurance is handled, then get on the horn to your Representative and get them to change it.
Let me ask you, if you get denied for an insurance claim for a new heart, who can you run to now who might be able to help you before you die?
Government health care will lead to a world where "papers please" means you have to show your grocery store receipt!
Oh, bullshit. I'm so sick of this "One world Government", single religion, Book of Revelations BULLSHIT coming out *ANYTIME* someone tries to do *anything* to help people on a massive scale.
You know what scares ME, someone like you telling me I've got to die simply so YOU don't have to pay an extra $100 bucks come April. THAT'S what scares me.
Prepare for some extremely Democratic legislation. (In the party sense, not the democracy sense).
YEAH! Like universal health care, and an end to the 35% of health care expenditure that goes to parasite insurance companies! WOOT!
(Just for reference, the US is the only western country to tie health care to one's employer. It is a strange combination, that has many perverse effects such as separating the consumer from the one paying the health care bills, and turning the bill-payers into care-denial organizations. The macro effect is that we spend more of our GDP on health care than any other country in the world, yet our population dies sooner (about 3 years' shorter life span).)
Yeah! I want my government deciding if I get care or not because they can make such a better decision that I can make for myself or my children.
I want my trip to the doctor to be like a trip to the DMV.
Instead of the way it is now? Where your INSURANCE PROVIDER decides what you and your children do or do not get?
As for the DMV, I'd rather it be like the Postal Service. You know, WHERE YOU PAY 42 CENTS AND A LETTER GETS ACROSS THE COUNTRY IN A SINGLE DAY AND NIGHT.
I've *yet* to see a private company match that.
BZZZTT! Wrong. $0.42 MIGHT get your letter across the country in one piece in a week.
Besides, if my insurance provider does not give me the coverage I want, I go with another. What do you do when the government doesn't give you the coverage that you want?
Ah, I don't know who in the hell your local letter carrier is, but I *routinely* get mail from my home state in the south to friends in Maine IN A SINGLE DAY AND NIGHT (mail it Monday morning, they are reading it Tuesday afternoon).
Just because your *LOCAL* postmaster is shitty, don't judge the whole postal system as such.
The postal system works, the DMV works, the Military works, I get clean and safe drinking water, AND I WANT GOVERNMENT HEALTHCARE SO I DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT DIEING FROM A F__KING PREVENTABLE/TREATABLE DISEASE.
Prepare for some extremely Democratic legislation. (In the party sense, not the democracy sense).
YEAH! Like universal health care, and an end to the 35% of health care expenditure that goes to parasite insurance companies! WOOT!
(Just for reference, the US is the only western country to tie health care to one's employer. It is a strange combination, that has many perverse effects such as separating the consumer from the one paying the health care bills, and turning the bill-payers into care-denial organizations. The macro effect is that we spend more of our GDP on health care than any other country in the world, yet our population dies sooner (about 3 years' shorter life span).)
Yeah! I want my government deciding if I get care or not because they can make such a better decision that I can make for myself or my children.
I want my trip to the doctor to be like a trip to the DMV.
Instead of the way it is now? Where your INSURANCE PROVIDER decides what you and your children do or do not get?
As for the DMV, I'd rather it be like the Postal Service. You know, WHERE YOU PAY 42 CENTS AND A LETTER GETS ACROSS THE COUNTRY IN A SINGLE DAY AND NIGHT.
I've *yet* to see a private company match that.
As a Democrat I blame The Jew Puppet George "Chimpy" Bu$Hitler McHaliburtain
Jews, Jews, Jews,...ALWAYS with the Jews.
What ever happened to just blaming whitey in general?
Bill Pullman's presidential speech in Independence Day is better than any speech our last five presidents have given, just putting that out there.
Reminds me of Family Guy:
"Because today, we celebrate...our Independence Day!"
SEE,...THERE! He said it!!!
That's because the Federal Government has successfully delayed most of the claims, to this day. They are denying there was any negative health effects. The evidence suggests otherwise.
Cue the Conspiracy Theories.
It's full of stars!
Just wait six years and Begich will lose. He only managed to win this time because the Republican was under indictment for most of the campaign and convicted before the conclusion. Any halfway popular Republican will beat him in 2014. Hell, if Sarah Palin had any foresight she'd be planning a run at his seat herself instead of trying to get some washed up 85 year old back into the job.
Let us also not forget that Mark Begich isn't a newcomer to politics, his father, Nick Begich was a very popular politician from Alaska (U.S. House of Representatives) until the day he died (disappeared in a famous, well famous in Alaska anyway, plane crash).
In fact, he actually beat his Republican opponent for reelection AFTER HE DIED (56% to 44%).
I'm not sure Mr. Begich is going to be as easy to get rid of as some people think.
Yes, but let's not forget that Sarah Palin also thought that Africa was a country.
I'm not sure she is anywhere near talented enough to pull off a conspiracy like that, considering the Senator Begich can simply ignore her dumbass request for what it is, SOUR GRAPES.
Let us also not forget that Mark Begich isn't a newcomer to politics, his father, Nick Begich was a very popular politician from Alaska (U.S. House of Representatives) until the day he died (disappeared in a famous, well famous in Alaska anyway, plane crash).
In fact, he actually beat his Republican opponent for reelection AFTER HE DIED (56% to 44%).
I'm not sure Mr. Begich is going to be as easy to get rid of as some people think.
The President must be informed immediately that drastic action must be taken to prepare our own Military Space Designs.
Mr. President, we CANNOT ALLOW A SPACE STATION GAP!!!