As a U.S. citizen, I must say that I am utterly embarrassed at the actions of my government. On the one hand, there's no way that they'll let Iran or North Korea even so much as attempt to build a reactor, but as soon as India wants on the scene, oh well, no problem. After all, we wouldn't want them to cut us off from that practically free labor force, right?
Your a fucking discuss as an apologist US citizen. What do you suppose that Iran and N.K would do with nuclear weapons? These two countries have a history of state sponsored terrorism. The better thing for the US to do is nuclear both countries back into the stone age, wouldn't take much as they are halfway there. India will eventually screwup and blow themselves up.
In all states but one Prostitution is illegal, but people didn't make the big leap you suggest and make sex itself illegal.
Actually, in all states prostitution is illegal. It is permitted under certain conditions in one state. But there is no constitutional protections about prostitution now is there. So I'm not really sure what your point is, prostitution does not equal the 1st, second, third, or any amendment to the constitution or any provision in it.
There are PLENTY of examples of LIMITS being placed on freedom with the freedom itself being removed.
We are talking about constitutionally protected freedoms. So in the same sense, should there be limits to a fair trial? Should there be limits to your expectation of privacy or your right to be secure in your papers and effect against unreasonable search and seizure? Should there be a poll tax or a means test to your right to vote? How about we limit the right to run for office to free white males over 50 years of age even though the constitution places it's limits way lower and expressly forbid discrimination over race?
You can't limit the freedom the constitution forbid the government from limiting. As soon as you start determining what isn't needed, someone else will make their own determinations and take something that you enjoy away. Constitutionally protected freedoms are not the same as other freedoms like driving, or prostitution.
You can legally drive a car as long as you have a license, but you can't drive under the influence of alcohol.
An in neither case is driving a car or being under the influence of alcohol a constitutionally protected activity.
Following your logic, it was immoral to ban drunk driving simply because *someone* (Whoever *someone* is) might try and limit your right to drive.
No, following my logic, it is immoral to deny someone the constitutionally protected right to defend themselves against someone who has no regard for the law or any other ban. You have failed severely to make any apples to apples connections between what I said and what you have railed over. It is sad that you don't know enough about your own constitution to know the difference between a protected right and something the you can just do. I suggest that you start studying soon. As of now, you just don't get it and that is very sad.
You know what this is?
-- rubs fingers together --
It's the world's smallest violin playing for all the unlicensed constitutional lawyers out there.
Lol.. And of the 7-11 cleark had an asualt weapons or even a handgun, the 17 year old would be murderer would likely have failed at his task.
The second amendment does not give you or anyone else the right to say what I need. The entire concept of a free world, or a free nation revolves around you not telling me what I need and don't need and taking your misguided intentions to the point of denying me of that. You don't like it when someone limits your free speech abilities or picks other parts of the constitution like the 5th amendment or habeas corpus and claims you don't need it. Whenever you attempt to deny rights to anyone, whether it is guns or speech, you set the stage for others to deny rights to you over their same inane justifications. If your happy with the constitution being ignored, then fine. If your not, then stop picking and choosing what you agree with and don't and attempting to limit others based on your simply world view.
What kind of sense does that make?
In all states but one Prostitution is illegal, but people didn't make the big leap you suggest and make sex itself illegal.
There are PLENTY of examples of LIMITS being placed on freedom with the freedom itself being removed.
You can legally drive a car as long as you have a license, but you can't drive under the influence of alcohol.
Following your logic, it was immoral to ban drunk driving simply because *someone* (Whoever *someone* is) might try and limit your right to drive.
Aren't those in the military trained to follow orders from the government no matter what? Surely those who would refuse to raise arms against those they were ordered to kill would be few and far inbetween, and they would be executed on suspicion, right?
DAMN I WISH THEY HADN'T CANCELED JERICHO!
I LOVED that show...
It's discussions like this that really make me miss it...
Did you pay attention to the fact that the AQ lawyers quit using Windows AND encrypting data? Think there is a reason? Don't you wonder just a bit why that section of the trial was put under a gag order? THink there was a reason? If the average person does not encrypt, then the amount of data that requires deep packet inspection (assembly of the packets back into a stream and then inspecting the context of it) suddenly got a LOT smaller.
You MIGHT want to take a lesson from Al Qaeda. Stenography is where it is at.
Or it could be they were cheap and paranoid.
Have you even SEEN the cost of a Vista License for Terrorists Networks!
I say that for EVERY citizen investigated in this manner, that citizen should be able to name ONE other person to be investigated, including but not limited to: politicians, CEOs, military officers, and FBI investigators.
Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.:)
Oh, and you might find this NY Times article enlightening, especially the following:
.
âoeThere is still a lot of oil to develop out there, which is why we donâ(TM)t call this geological peak oil, especially in places like Venezuela, Russia, Iran and Iraq,â said Arjun Murti, an energy analyst at Goldman Sachs. âoeWhat we have now is geopolitical peak oil.â
Oil shortages are not from lack of desire by the oil companies, or lack of technology or existing resources. Oil shortages - and the corresponding high prices - are because Governments, who overwhelmingly control the oil resources (87%) are restricting supply.
And countries with huge resources - like the US - are sitting by, fiddling as the economy burns to the ground.
This conspiracy theory has been put forward before and disproven.
There is no way in God's green Earth that SOMEONE, with these TRILLIONS and TRILLIONS of dollars to be made by increasing to a (virtually) unlimited supply something as indefensible, WOULD NOT have brought these things to market.
You can't convince me that GREED is that powerless a motivator. Whether by countries, or individuals.
HOWEVER, it takes more energy to turn the Shale Oil into these fuels THAN YOU GET FROM USING THE FUELS.
.
False. I point you to the second link I posted that contained the following:
(Shell) asserts a ratio of approximately 18 units of energy produced per unit used
and
A 1984 study estimated the EROEI of the various known oil shale deposits as varying between 0.7â"13.3
.
Yes, you get up to 13 to 18 units of energy out for every unit of energy in. Kind of counter to what you claim.
And why haven't we done it yet? Ask your Democrat Congress why they refuse to allow development of oil shale, or offshore drilling. Utah, Wyoming, and the oil companies want to develop the shale oil; the Democrats in Congress do not.
It's nothing to do with physics, it's everything to do with economics and usage of energy. Electric planes - and to a large extent, electric cars - simply do not have the range or capacity of oil burning vehicles.
Bottom line: Obama and the Democrats do not want to develop the resources we have, and that has a direct result in keeping gasoline and oil costs high.
We are not running out of oil, we have plenty here to use to continue running our society until we find a FEASIBLE and ECONOMICALLY REALISTIC replacement.
Why in the hell would ANYONE want to 'keep' the United States using Oil.
You are HONESTLY going to sit there, and tell me Barack Obama would not LOVE to trot out and say, "Elect me and I'LL MAKE THE UNITED STATES ENERGY INDEPENDENT IN MY FIRST TERM".
More importantly, Why in the Hell wouldn't John McCain be saying that, WERE IT TRUE?
I love the way the Paranoids' Mind runs in circles, constantly sealing any cracks that appear in their paranoid theories almost as fast as they happen.
Also, riddle me this Mr. Wizard...The Republicans were in charge for TWELVE YEARS. Why in the Hell, IF you are correct, didn't THEY champion this? If this is such a DAMN GOOD DEAL why are only a handful of speculators (whom I consider to be modern day alchemists, trying to turn something worthless into something priceless) putting any money into this?
I'm not talking about the couple of Million Shell is throwing into it just to shut their investors up, I mean REAL MONEY. If it were truly this valuable, they would be spending BILLIONS on the leases THEY ALREADY OWN.
I'm afraid you've drank the "Shale Oil will fix everything" kool-aid.
Those articles say nothing accept what has already been said here.
Everyone keeps trying (kinda like how people used to try and turn Lead into Gold, what was that called?) BUT NO ONE HAS SUCCEEDED
Do you not think that after this long of high oil prices if it were possible, someone would have done it?
I'm not disputing the fact that it is technically possible. It is technically possible to turn Shale Oil into Gasoline/Diesel.
HOWEVER, it takes more energy to turn the Shale Oil into these fuels THAN YOU GET FROM USING THE FUELS.
Right now, they are using Electricity to heat the rock in the ground so they can pump the stuff to the surface for processing. It makes FAR more sense to use the MASSIVE amounts of electricity in Electric Vehicles.
Why does everyone act as though you've called them a bad name because you quote physics? Just because you don't like the physics doesn't make them wrong.
Yes, and spouting nonsense about having TRILLIONS of barrels of oil (forgetting they are inconveniently lock IN SOLID ROCK) and those "darned oh Democrats won't let us get to it" isn't playing to your base?
If it were possible, it would have been done already.
These companies already have hundreds of acres to 'practice' on and, guess what, THEY CAN'T MAKE IT WORK.
What makes you think that if they can't make it work on the 200 acres they already have, they will magically make it work if given 200 MILLION acres.
Any thinking to the contrary is naive and wishful.
I believe that if we held the governments feet to the fire more often that we might be surprised how much better it got, absolutely.
It is "We the People..." NOT "Us the Government".
I get very upset (not necessarily at you, but general bumpkins I see on the street) when people keep the attitude "Oh, it's just so terrible", or "I can't do anything because of THEM" (whoever THEM is).
Talking about energy, it's always "well, why even try because you KNOW some big-oil conspiracy will hide it" yada, yada, yada.
I hate people who sit on their asses and wonder why s__t just falls on their shoes, instead of looking in the mirror and realizing THEY are in control of their lives.
"While it wouldn't maybe help the INDIVIDUAL very much, the ENTIRE COUNTRY would benefit a decent amount."
Great, so the country will benefit from [mainly] inflating their tires.
I sure hope those tire gauges from China are accurate, cause the last 2 I bought here and here are different by 9psi.
Looks like the country benefiting from this isn't ours at 14.99 a pop.
Let's face it, neither plan from either candidate satisfies the public--it's because BOTH are relying on industry and corporations (for alternative energy and efficiency) to solve it. Conservation is a start, but a long road--and we're looking at 20-30yrs.
I doubt either candidate will supply the answer we need, but sure would like to give us the answer we want. Hey, it's an election year!
I don't know any country that would make a profit off the.001% of the dumba__ that would pay $14.99 for a tire gauge that the rest of the WORLD can buy at their local gas station for LESS than $1.
We have 100% of our total petroleum needs (20 million barrels a day) sitting right here, in the Continental US. And we have that supply rate for 270 YEARS. And at $40 per barrel.
.
It's called oil shale. In 10 years the US could not only produce every drop of oil it needs on a daily basis, but export over 8 million barrels a day to other countries. And do it for nearly 3 centuries.
What's stopping this? It's not the Governors or State Assemblies of Utah and Wyoming. It's the Democrats in Congress who insist on maintaining the prohibition on oil shale production.
You need to talk to Governor Bill Ritter of the Great State of Colorado.
He has GONE ON THE record to say that Oil Shale mining is "Premature" simply because we don't have the slightest clue what type of environmental impact it will have.
I'm not talking about some possible Global Warming related impact a decade from now, I'm talking about a local disruption that might rob people of drinking water. This in a area that is already looking at droughts because of Snow droughts the last couple of years.
You see, there's a reason why this so called "Gold Mine" isn't being mined (despite what Fox/CNN/MSNBC might have told you). Because we don't have the SLIGHTEST F__CKING CLUE what the long term effects on the surrounding areas might be.
A lot of these areas depend on TOURISM to make money. Very few tourists want to see a pockmarked Mountain.
Actually, I work for my Father (my parents are divorced). He owns a Publishing company, who itself owns seven Newspapers.
Trust me when I say I do pretty well for myself.
However, I still do not WASTE money on garbage, as a lot of people who make a lot less do.
You can make fun of the fact that I live at home all you want, it doesn't change the fact that I pocket more cash than most people I know who make more than I do.
I simply didn't see the need to tie myself up with a house/apartment rent BILL when I didn't have too.
It has been my experience that the people who bitch most about bills are the ones who INCUR the most Bills.
You cut off luxuries (yes, they are luxuries, not necessities) of Cable/Satellite, DSL/Cable and then come talk to me about how much of a burden taxes are.
SO, your defense for being called out is to define yourself as a rich kid living at home.
Sorry man, you fail.
Maybe if you realized you were pushing your responsibilities off to your Dad you would get it. Yeah sure , YOU'RE not paying for the stuff you say other people waste their money on - your Daddy is.
Bragging that you're pocketing more cash than people who choose not to suck off their parents longer than they have to isn't really that impressive. You seem to have a lot to say about how well you are doing and how we should all follow your lead. The reality is your lead is actually copping out and pushing those responsibilities off to another person.
Yeah, that's enlightened.
First, if you had bothered to read my post, you would have seen that my parents are divorced. I live with my Mother.
I pay 60% of the household bills because I have a superior income to hers. HOWEVER, between us (and this was my point, had the chip on your shoulder not have blocked your vision) we BOTH pay LESS together than we would separately.
BY STAYING HOME the cost of paying my own way is LESS than on my own.
To be fair, my system would work just as well for those with a roommate. That is basically what we're doing, sharing a house, both paying 50%, AND BOTH POCKETING MORE MONEY BECAUSE OF IT.
I think that IS enlightened, thank you very much.
Most people I know couldn't WAIT to leave home the minute they turned 18 and, now, might be making more than me, but are pocketing LESS.
Again, these are the people who are the quickest to bitch about *perceived* higher taxes. Instead of being upset about how much they pay in taxes, they should DECREASE their spending.
If you make enough to suit yourself (pay your bills AND buy toys), them good for you. I'm not saying I'm better than you, I'm simply stating that a lot of people are blaming others for their troubles when they should be looking in the mirror.
It is a simple fact of life that we are only as strong as out weakest link, and social security makes sure the weak links of our society are taken care of.
At the expense of those of us who aren't fuckups.
Yes. Even at the expense of those of us who aren't fuckups.
Though I still find it telling that the people who WON'T need Social Security are the first ones wanting to get rid of it.
I find it sad that today we have so little compassion for those less fortunate among us.
What do you think? You're taxes will go down? THEY WON'T. If you aren't paying into Social Security (a person earlier said they paid $6000 a year into it), YOU WILL be paying more taxes into something else.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the motive is the easiest one to argue, really. Bush would have been a one term loser, and there would be no Patriot act if not for 9/11.
You have got to be kidding me.
Really? How much does a nuke cost these days?
--
IP Address Finding
"Go to one of the old Soviet Republics, and they'll fix you up with a couple for about the price of a BMW!"
I'd think a bad idea.
What happens when we get the clouds at this and that location instead of wherever it would be generated without the ships?
Are we 100% sure how the weather will be affected by the ships?
Will richer countries try to get more water by controlling the rain?
What if mother nature takes care about the CO2 emissions without us interfering?
What if it doesn't affect things that much? Or much more than we believe?
Would it be like, you know, much "easier" and safer to stop using fossil fuel? Even if it would put development backwards "a bit" for the moment?
$5.3 Billion dollars is drop in the bucket compared to moving off fossil fuels. That is, of course, IF these things can do the things they advertise.
I'm not saying they can't, but they seem a lot like the 'Magic Bullet' theory at this point.
As a U.S. citizen, I must say that I am utterly embarrassed at the actions of my government. On the one hand, there's no way that they'll let Iran or North Korea even so much as attempt to build a reactor, but as soon as India wants on the scene, oh well, no problem. After all, we wouldn't want them to cut us off from that practically free labor force, right?
Your a fucking discuss as an apologist US citizen. What do you suppose that Iran and N.K would do with nuclear weapons? These two countries have a history of state sponsored terrorism. The better thing for the US to do is nuclear both countries back into the stone age, wouldn't take much as they are halfway there. India will eventually screwup and blow themselves up.
Here, Here!
-- raises hand in agreement --
Actually, in all states prostitution is illegal. It is permitted under certain conditions in one state. But there is no constitutional protections about prostitution now is there. So I'm not really sure what your point is, prostitution does not equal the 1st, second, third, or any amendment to the constitution or any provision in it.
We are talking about constitutionally protected freedoms. So in the same sense, should there be limits to a fair trial? Should there be limits to your expectation of privacy or your right to be secure in your papers and effect against unreasonable search and seizure? Should there be a poll tax or a means test to your right to vote? How about we limit the right to run for office to free white males over 50 years of age even though the constitution places it's limits way lower and expressly forbid discrimination over race?
You can't limit the freedom the constitution forbid the government from limiting. As soon as you start determining what isn't needed, someone else will make their own determinations and take something that you enjoy away. Constitutionally protected freedoms are not the same as other freedoms like driving, or prostitution.
An in neither case is driving a car or being under the influence of alcohol a constitutionally protected activity.
No, following my logic, it is immoral to deny someone the constitutionally protected right to defend themselves against someone who has no regard for the law or any other ban. You have failed severely to make any apples to apples connections between what I said and what you have railed over. It is sad that you don't know enough about your own constitution to know the difference between a protected right and something the you can just do. I suggest that you start studying soon. As of now, you just don't get it and that is very sad.
You know what this is?
-- rubs fingers together --
It's the world's smallest violin playing for all the unlicensed constitutional lawyers out there.
Lol.. And of the 7-11 cleark had an asualt weapons or even a handgun, the 17 year old would be murderer would likely have failed at his task.
The second amendment does not give you or anyone else the right to say what I need. The entire concept of a free world, or a free nation revolves around you not telling me what I need and don't need and taking your misguided intentions to the point of denying me of that. You don't like it when someone limits your free speech abilities or picks other parts of the constitution like the 5th amendment or habeas corpus and claims you don't need it. Whenever you attempt to deny rights to anyone, whether it is guns or speech, you set the stage for others to deny rights to you over their same inane justifications. If your happy with the constitution being ignored, then fine. If your not, then stop picking and choosing what you agree with and don't and attempting to limit others based on your simply world view.
What kind of sense does that make?
In all states but one Prostitution is illegal, but people didn't make the big leap you suggest and make sex itself illegal.
There are PLENTY of examples of LIMITS being placed on freedom with the freedom itself being removed.
You can legally drive a car as long as you have a license, but you can't drive under the influence of alcohol.
Following your logic, it was immoral to ban drunk driving simply because *someone* (Whoever *someone* is) might try and limit your right to drive.
He does have a point about gun control.
You NOR I have any f__cking business with an AK47!
You want a Assault Rifle, you buy an M16, YOU BUY F__CKING AMERICAN!
Jokes aside, I thought Obama made a very valid point that private citizens have no need or right to assault rifles.
I have two shotguns (a double-barrel and a pump) and I feel more than protected from any intruder.
Assault weapons should be banned. We can think the Republicans whenever a 7-11 clerk gets torn to shreds by a 17 year old gang-member.
Until the army is a bunch of robots
In that case, we must IMMEDIATELY take control of all the pharmacies. That way, we can cut off their fuel supply.
We, of course, all know that Robots use old people's medicine as fuel.
Where's "Old Glory" Insurance when you need it.
Aren't those in the military trained to follow orders from the government no matter what? Surely those who would refuse to raise arms against those they were ordered to kill would be few and far inbetween, and they would be executed on suspicion, right?
DAMN I WISH THEY HADN'T CANCELED JERICHO!
I LOVED that show...
It's discussions like this that really make me miss it...
Did you pay attention to the fact that the AQ lawyers quit using Windows AND encrypting data? Think there is a reason? Don't you wonder just a bit why that section of the trial was put under a gag order? THink there was a reason? If the average person does not encrypt, then the amount of data that requires deep packet inspection (assembly of the packets back into a stream and then inspecting the context of it) suddenly got a LOT smaller.
You MIGHT want to take a lesson from Al Qaeda. Stenography is where it is at.
Or it could be they were cheap and paranoid.
Have you even SEEN the cost of a Vista License for Terrorists Networks!
THEY should be the ones with the masks and guns!
I say that for EVERY citizen investigated in this manner, that citizen should be able to name ONE other person to be investigated, including but not limited to: politicians, CEOs, military officers, and FBI investigators.
Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. :)
Oh, you're crazy!
Chicago is at war with Cincinnati.
Chicago has ALWAYS been at war with Cincinnati! :P
Oh, and you might find this NY Times article enlightening, especially the following:
.
âoeThere is still a lot of oil to develop out there, which is why we donâ(TM)t call this geological peak oil, especially in places like Venezuela, Russia, Iran and Iraq,â said Arjun Murti, an energy analyst at Goldman Sachs. âoeWhat we have now is geopolitical peak oil.â
Oil shortages are not from lack of desire by the oil companies, or lack of technology or existing resources. Oil shortages - and the corresponding high prices - are because Governments, who overwhelmingly control the oil resources (87%) are restricting supply.
And countries with huge resources - like the US - are sitting by, fiddling as the economy burns to the ground.
This conspiracy theory has been put forward before and disproven.
There is no way in God's green Earth that SOMEONE, with these TRILLIONS and TRILLIONS of dollars to be made by increasing to a (virtually) unlimited supply something as indefensible, WOULD NOT have brought these things to market.
You can't convince me that GREED is that powerless a motivator. Whether by countries, or individuals.
I use Propane, thank you very much :)
HOWEVER, it takes more energy to turn the Shale Oil into these fuels THAN YOU GET FROM USING THE FUELS.
.
False. I point you to the second link I posted that contained the following:
(Shell) asserts a ratio of approximately 18 units of energy produced per unit used
and
A 1984 study estimated the EROEI of the various known oil shale deposits as varying between 0.7â"13.3
.
Yes, you get up to 13 to 18 units of energy out for every unit of energy in. Kind of counter to what you claim.
And why haven't we done it yet? Ask your Democrat Congress why they refuse to allow development of oil shale, or offshore drilling. Utah, Wyoming, and the oil companies want to develop the shale oil; the Democrats in Congress do not.
It's nothing to do with physics, it's everything to do with economics and usage of energy. Electric planes - and to a large extent, electric cars - simply do not have the range or capacity of oil burning vehicles.
Bottom line: Obama and the Democrats do not want to develop the resources we have, and that has a direct result in keeping gasoline and oil costs high.
We are not running out of oil, we have plenty here to use to continue running our society until we find a FEASIBLE and ECONOMICALLY REALISTIC replacement.
Why in the hell would ANYONE want to 'keep' the United States using Oil.
You are HONESTLY going to sit there, and tell me Barack Obama would not LOVE to trot out and say, "Elect me and I'LL MAKE THE UNITED STATES ENERGY INDEPENDENT IN MY FIRST TERM".
More importantly, Why in the Hell wouldn't John McCain be saying that, WERE IT TRUE?
I love the way the Paranoids' Mind runs in circles, constantly sealing any cracks that appear in their paranoid theories almost as fast as they happen.
Also, riddle me this Mr. Wizard...The Republicans were in charge for TWELVE YEARS. Why in the Hell, IF you are correct, didn't THEY champion this? If this is such a DAMN GOOD DEAL why are only a handful of speculators (whom I consider to be modern day alchemists, trying to turn something worthless into something priceless) putting any money into this?
I'm not talking about the couple of Million Shell is throwing into it just to shut their investors up, I mean REAL MONEY. If it were truly this valuable, they would be spending BILLIONS on the leases THEY ALREADY OWN.
I'm afraid you've drank the "Shale Oil will fix everything" kool-aid.
Those articles say nothing accept what has already been said here.
Everyone keeps trying (kinda like how people used to try and turn Lead into Gold, what was that called?) BUT NO ONE HAS SUCCEEDED
Do you not think that after this long of high oil prices if it were possible, someone would have done it?
I'm not disputing the fact that it is technically possible. It is technically possible to turn Shale Oil into Gasoline/Diesel.
HOWEVER, it takes more energy to turn the Shale Oil into these fuels THAN YOU GET FROM USING THE FUELS.
Right now, they are using Electricity to heat the rock in the ground so they can pump the stuff to the surface for processing. It makes FAR more sense to use the MASSIVE amounts of electricity in Electric Vehicles.
Why does everyone act as though you've called them a bad name because you quote physics? Just because you don't like the physics doesn't make them wrong.
Yes, and spouting nonsense about having TRILLIONS of barrels of oil (forgetting they are inconveniently lock IN SOLID ROCK) and those "darned oh Democrats won't let us get to it" isn't playing to your base?
If it were possible, it would have been done already.
These companies already have hundreds of acres to 'practice' on and, guess what, THEY CAN'T MAKE IT WORK.
What makes you think that if they can't make it work on the 200 acres they already have, they will magically make it work if given 200 MILLION acres.
Any thinking to the contrary is naive and wishful.
I believe that if we held the governments feet to the fire more often that we might be surprised how much better it got, absolutely.
It is "We the People..." NOT "Us the Government".
I get very upset (not necessarily at you, but general bumpkins I see on the street) when people keep the attitude "Oh, it's just so terrible", or "I can't do anything because of THEM" (whoever THEM is).
Talking about energy, it's always "well, why even try because you KNOW some big-oil conspiracy will hide it" yada, yada, yada.
I hate people who sit on their asses and wonder why s__t just falls on their shoes, instead of looking in the mirror and realizing THEY are in control of their lives.
"While it wouldn't maybe help the INDIVIDUAL very much, the ENTIRE COUNTRY would benefit a decent amount."
Great, so the country will benefit from [mainly] inflating their tires.
I sure hope those tire gauges from China are accurate, cause the last 2 I bought here and here are different by 9psi.
Looks like the country benefiting from this isn't ours at 14.99 a pop.
Let's face it, neither plan from either candidate satisfies the public--it's because BOTH are relying on industry and corporations (for alternative energy and efficiency) to solve it. Conservation is a start, but a long road--and we're looking at 20-30yrs.
I doubt either candidate will supply the answer we need, but sure would like to give us the answer we want. Hey, it's an election year!
I don't know any country that would make a profit off the .001% of the dumba__ that would pay $14.99 for a tire gauge that the rest of the WORLD can buy at their local gas station for LESS than $1.
Where in the hell are you buying Tire Gauges?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B000NPPBB0/sr=8-15/qid=1219119626/ref=olp_tab_new?ie=UTF8&coliid=&me=&qid=1219119626&sr=8-15&seller=&colid=&condition=new
And that's from Amazon.
We have 100% of our total petroleum needs (20 million barrels a day) sitting right here, in the Continental US. And we have that supply rate for 270 YEARS. And at $40 per barrel.
.
It's called oil shale. In 10 years the US could not only produce every drop of oil it needs on a daily basis, but export over 8 million barrels a day to other countries. And do it for nearly 3 centuries.
What's stopping this? It's not the Governors or State Assemblies of Utah and Wyoming. It's the Democrats in Congress who insist on maintaining the prohibition on oil shale production.
You need to talk to Governor Bill Ritter of the Great State of Colorado.
http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/GovRitter/GOVR/1216720881519
He has GONE ON THE record to say that Oil Shale mining is "Premature" simply because we don't have the slightest clue what type of environmental impact it will have.
I'm not talking about some possible Global Warming related impact a decade from now, I'm talking about a local disruption that might rob people of drinking water. This in a area that is already looking at droughts because of Snow droughts the last couple of years.
You see, there's a reason why this so called "Gold Mine" isn't being mined (despite what Fox/CNN/MSNBC might have told you). Because we don't have the SLIGHTEST F__CKING CLUE what the long term effects on the surrounding areas might be.
A lot of these areas depend on TOURISM to make money. Very few tourists want to see a pockmarked Mountain.
Maybe if you lived there, you would understand.
P.S. I might also draw your attention to:
http://www.wilderness.org/NewsRoom/Statement/20080610.cfm
I misspoke. Around 5.25 comes from Saudi Arabia itself, the other 5 million or so come from the rest of OPEC, Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela.
My point was that we would never need import oil from Saudi Arabia, which is where the majority of the 9/11 hijackers came from.
Like I said (and you've proved) it's all about the math.
I COULD have said "It's the math, stupid", but that would have been a touch much :).
Actually, I work for my Father (my parents are divorced). He owns a Publishing company, who itself owns seven Newspapers.
Trust me when I say I do pretty well for myself.
However, I still do not WASTE money on garbage, as a lot of people who make a lot less do.
You can make fun of the fact that I live at home all you want, it doesn't change the fact that I pocket more cash than most people I know who make more than I do.
I simply didn't see the need to tie myself up with a house/apartment rent BILL when I didn't have too.
It has been my experience that the people who bitch most about bills are the ones who INCUR the most Bills.
You cut off luxuries (yes, they are luxuries, not necessities) of Cable/Satellite, DSL/Cable and then come talk to me about how much of a burden taxes are.
SO, your defense for being called out is to define yourself as a rich kid living at home.
Sorry man, you fail.
Maybe if you realized you were pushing your responsibilities off to your Dad you would get it. Yeah sure , YOU'RE not paying for the stuff you say other people waste their money on - your Daddy is.
Bragging that you're pocketing more cash than people who choose not to suck off their parents longer than they have to isn't really that impressive. You seem to have a lot to say about how well you are doing and how we should all follow your lead. The reality is your lead is actually copping out and pushing those responsibilities off to another person.
Yeah, that's enlightened.
First, if you had bothered to read my post, you would have seen that my parents are divorced. I live with my Mother.
I pay 60% of the household bills because I have a superior income to hers. HOWEVER, between us (and this was my point, had the chip on your shoulder not have blocked your vision) we BOTH pay LESS together than we would separately.
BY STAYING HOME the cost of paying my own way is LESS than on my own.
To be fair, my system would work just as well for those with a roommate. That is basically what we're doing, sharing a house, both paying 50%, AND BOTH POCKETING MORE MONEY BECAUSE OF IT.
I think that IS enlightened, thank you very much.
Most people I know couldn't WAIT to leave home the minute they turned 18 and, now, might be making more than me, but are pocketing LESS.
Again, these are the people who are the quickest to bitch about *perceived* higher taxes. Instead of being upset about how much they pay in taxes, they should DECREASE their spending.
If you make enough to suit yourself (pay your bills AND buy toys), them good for you. I'm not saying I'm better than you, I'm simply stating that a lot of people are blaming others for their troubles when they should be looking in the mirror.
Yeah see - I'm taking personal responsibility now and saving now.
And that is good.
Social Security isn't supposed to be a replacement for saving, it's meant as an insurance policy.
An insurance policy that is DAMN CHEAP compared to the possible alternatives (if you suffer some financial problem to late in life to recover, etc.)
It is a simple fact of life that we are only as strong as out weakest link, and social security makes sure the weak links of our society are taken care of.
At the expense of those of us who aren't fuckups.
Yes. Even at the expense of those of us who aren't fuckups.
Though I still find it telling that the people who WON'T need Social Security are the first ones wanting to get rid of it.
I find it sad that today we have so little compassion for those less fortunate among us.
What do you think? You're taxes will go down? THEY WON'T. If you aren't paying into Social Security (a person earlier said they paid $6000 a year into it), YOU WILL be paying more taxes into something else.
More than likely something FAR less noble.