Now, I'm sort of used to signing autographs on the CDs & T-shirts that are sold at my blues shows, but I'm not sure how that works on Slashdot.
You're going to have to get your mommy's permission to talk to the grownups first, though, son. Now, run along like a good little troll, that's a good bigot.
Do you need heavy support structures if you are building in space?
There are these things called "mass" and "inertia" that remain unchanged regardless of the gravitational field they're in, or lack of one.
This is basic Newtonian physics.
If you wanted to do something like, say, create a space station or ship that uses the centrifugal effects of spin to create a form of "pseudo-gravity" for long-term health of the residents/crew and/or for purposes of performing certain industrial operations that involve separating materials of differing masses, or something of significant mass that must endure acceleration, you still need structural supports with enough strength to prevent it from flying apart from centrifugal forces or collapsing under acceleration due to it's mass and inertia.
obama is [a Constitutional scholar] and even he doesn't fucking understand the constitution.
Obama understands the Constitution very well. When one sets out to destroy something, one should first understand as thoroughly as possible what it is that one desires to destroy, so as to do it most efficiently, effectively, and completely.
I was trying to address a point of politics, not economics and history:
Politics involves economics and history, among other things. "Politics" is simply the process by which a society reaches decisions on various issues facing the citizens.
Where did you learn these ideas? I mean, literally, where did you read them? And where did those people get them?
I learned them by reading as much original-source history as possible. As a start, you might try "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine.
As we both know, these are ideas of a group pushing a political agenda. What are their motives?
Well, since the majority of "my ideas" in the posts in this thread come from authors of the US Constitution, I'd say their motives were to establish a free nation by severely limiting the powers of the central government and placing as much of the actual governing of the citizens as locally as possible to insure accountability to those people.
This is all anathema to Progressives, which have been struggling for ~100 years to "progress past" the limits on government power set forth in the Constitution. That's where the political term "Progressive" originated. Progressives believe that people are incapable of governing themselves and making wise choices in their own best interests, and must have a powerful central government make those choices & decisions for them.
This is the root of the struggle...those who believe that Man can govern himself versus those who believe that Man must be governed by a central authority made up of the elite.
*This* is the important issue and the root conflict from which most modern US politics flows.
Now I'm confused, what are you talking about? Capitalism?
Nice try.
>Capitalism is the only system ever created where wealth is a renewable resource for everyone regardless of economic class as long as they are willing to work and/or come up with an idea, skill, or invention that's useful to someone else.
>Capitalism has raised more people from poverty worldwide than any other system ever created.
>Capitalism has allowed more people to live in freedom than any other system ever invented.
>Capitalism has allowed the US to provide more humanitarian assistance to those in need both domestically and around the world than any other system or country in history.
Sorry, but as bad as you may think Capitalism is, it's still light-years ahead of any other system ever tried. Ask some former residents of former Soviet satellite states about your ideas. I'd stay out of arm's reach when you do, however.
We can all see around us societies where government provides services and people continue to work -- all of the most prosperous, productive societies in the history of the world.
Don't tell me you're going to bring out the Nordic countries as an example, as that's failing as we speak. They started out after WW2 with a huge economic and industrial advantage as they're infrastructure wasn't destroyed as they were in most other European countries.
Go read some economic news. Their economies are becoming crippled from entitlement spending and redistributionist policies. It has simply taken longer due to their starting out with a huge economic leg-up after WW2, the same reason in large part why the US has avoided economic collapse while building it's own entitlement-based, redistributionist society. Just as surely as our star fuses hydrogen into helium, the effects are coming home to roost both for the US and the Nordic countries always trotted out as Socialist Utopias.
If you want to see the future, look to Greece Span, etc. That's what eventually happens to a redistributionist, entitlement-based society. More and more people begin to depend on the government for everything and stop creating wealth to pay for it all.
The pool of wealth shrinks and shrinks until eventually there's no way to tax enough (100% of zero is still zero) to pay for what the government spends. That way leads to hyperinflation and economic collapse unless strong austerity measures are enacted, as the government is forced to adopt a fiat currency (if they hadn't already) and to start running the printing presses 24/7/365 to cover the borrowing to finance the entitlements and other spending. You can see the effects such hyperinflation had in the former Weimar Republic.
The question is, why push propaganda like that? It doesn't address any substantive, real question; it just obstructs us from addressing the real issues
I was just going to ask you the same thing. I have facts and history to back my position up. You have hand-waving and appeals to emotion and "fairness". I know which I choose.
If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy. - Thomas Jefferson
It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on will save one-half the wars of the world. - Thomas Jefferson
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. - Thomas Jefferson
I think I'll take TJ's sound and proven advice over that of collectivist, redistributionest, Keynesian statists.
Housing, food, health care and education are basic human rights, so yes it's a responsibility that all of us have to share.
Well, that sounds great. It's a lot easier than working. Let's all just give up struggling to work or create a business to make a living, and we can all just sit back and post on/. all day.
But if nobody is working, creating businesses, and generating wealth, where do we get all the money to support everyone?
To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, collectivism/redistributionism and "social justice" are great until you run out of other people's money. Even confiscating 100% of the "top 1%"'s wealth won't even come close to paying for 4 months at the US government's current spending rate. So, where is all the wealth to pay for all that crap going to come from?
These are the same, tired, failed ideas that have been tried over and over and over again through history and failed every single time, while also killing many millions upon millions of people and condemning even more to abject poverty and despotism.
Socialists, Communists, "redistributionists", and the "social justice" crowd fit perfectly the textbook definition of insanity; to repeat the same actions over and over while persisting in the belief that the results will be different. They're just like crackheads that persist in going back on the pipe time after time while expecting that, this time, it will be different. In the meantime, they scream and violently attack those who are trying to dissuade them while they continue to harm themselves and everyone around them, incapable or unwilling to see the harm they cause.
They'll never be ready as long as we keep underwriting oil exploration, or at least not diverting a hefty amount of money towards research.
That's the great thing about Capitalism (no, not what the US has had for the last >50 years thanks to Progressives). When alternative energy is efficient and practical enough, people will be able to make money from it, and then it's adoption will explode.
Trying to force it's adoption through government mandates before it's ready will only lead to widespread suffering and conflict, and may well result in public perceptions turning so negative towards it that adoption could be delayed decades or centuries. Much like we've seen with public perceptions of AGW and those behind it. There are always unintended consequences in the real world.
The same thing will happen when the price of oil skyrockets.
And
we should be taxing the living fuck out of energy companies
That's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Oil companies don't pay taxes. Businesses don't pay taxes. Taxes on oil companies and other businesses is just a way to tax the people without political blow-back from angry citizens by obfuscation.
or giving them a carrot if they invest a substantial amount of their profits into alternative energies,
That's already happening. Oil companies want to be the leaders in developing alternative energy. They invest heavily. Unlike the MAFIAA or RIAA/labels, they see the business models for energy changing and are determined to be on the leading edge to remain in business as "energy companies".
You still didn't answer the problem of how, if alternative energy sources are not ready yet for prime-time (and they most certainly are NOT!), are people to stay warm and fed for the decades it will realistically take until they are?
Which is exactly why we need to stop burning anything. Including shale oil.
So, I'll ask you what I asked further up the thread.
So, are YOU going to turn off YOUR heat this winter? Or do you just want "those people over there" to freeze this winter? All the while keeping yourself nice & toasty while exporting all the production negatives to less-developed regions of the world for poorer people to suffer with?
Sorry to break this to you, but alternative energy is nowhere near able to supply even a decent fraction of the needs of ~7 billion people (and growing). Even at multiple-national-economy-wrecking levels of investment in alternative energy, it will still take at least 5 decades or more for alternative energy and the infrastructure necessary to be able to supply even a significant fraction of the world's energy needs. *Much* longer to be able to supply a majority. Until then, those people still need energy.
Unless, of course, you're willing to wipe out several billion people and force the rest into a primitive hunter-gatherer level of development. Are you one of those people that think that whole "coming down out of the trees, standing upright, and using fire" thing was a bad idea that you'd like to see reversed?
It's quite easy to scream & rail against our current petroleum use. It's much, MUCH harder to actually come up with a reasonable, viable, practical solution that doesn't require people to live like it's 1499 and/or require implementing mass worldwide genocide through intentional starvation, freezing to death, and lack of modern medical care.
There is a real and not-insignificant cost in human life that is rarely ever considered by those who scream to stop/severely limit all oil/gas/coal use NOW!!! The fact that many are NIMBY-ists that prefer that "those brown people over there" live with the costs in environmental damage to support THEIR lifestyle and standard of living just adds to the dis-ingenuousness of their arguments.
We'd be better off with all the other polution from coal and no CO2 than we would be with all the CO2 from natural gas and none of the other emissions.
This is the kind of ignorant nonsense that makes people stop listening to you. You get CO2 when burning just about anything, including coal.
If you're incapable of even understanding that much extremely basic early-grade-school science, why in $DEITY's name should we listen to anything you have to say on the subject? One could probably get better answers asking a chimp at the zoo about quantum theory.
Sheesh! What has this place become? "News For Luddites, Stuff That Splatters"??
I'd be far more worried about where all that CO2 is going to end up. We're already past the tipping point for serious climate change, and they want to increase fossil fuel production? Stupid crazy bastards.
So, are YOU going to turn off YOUR heat this winter? Or do you just want "those people over there" to freeze this winter? All the while keeping yourself nice & toasty while exporting all the production negatives to less-developed regions of the world for poorer people to suffer with?
Sorry to break this to you, but alternative energy is nowhere near able to supply even a decent fraction of the needs of ~7 billion people (and growing). Even at multiple-national-economy-wrecking levels of investment in alternative energy, it will still take at least 5 decades or more for alternative energy and the infrastructure necessary to be able to supply even a significant fraction of the world's energy needs. *Much* longer to be able to supply a majority. Until then, those people still need energy.
Unless, of course, you're willing to wipe out several billion people and force the rest into a primitive hunter-gatherer level of development. Are you one of those people that think that whole "coming down out of the trees, standing upright, and using fire" thing was a bad idea that you'd like to see reversed?
Those people have a bit of pride, unlike yourself.
LMAO!!!
Coming from someone who only tosses out ad hominems because you're unable to dispute facts, while being too much of a coward to use a real username!
Yeah, OK there, "Junior". Does Mummy and Daddy know you're on their computer? I get the feeling you're either actually or just mentally about 10 years old.
If you are implying that it doesnt matter who you vote for and what their political ideology is, then Id say your idea is as toxic an idea as any other here.
Not implying anything of the kind. I'm saying that if you're justifying, excusing, defending, and denying the responsibility of "your guy's" (whoever that may be) actions and policies simply because you think he's only 99% as evil as the "other guy", then you're part of the problem.
For instance, I detest in the strongest terms Obama's actions and policies, but Bush was also a disaster. That in no way excuses Obama, nor Bush. These recent attempts to lay blame for all of Obama's blunders and plain bad policies on Bush is disingenuous, at best. The same for Bush blaming Clinton.
Don't you hate it when facts make a huge post like yours, with all the time you spent typing it, into nothing but fantasy, nonsense, and drivel? Personally, I'd track down whoever gave you your talking points and slap them for making you look ridiculous in front of the whole world.
Excellent impression of a Zionist troll. Most of the world has been sick and tired of Israel's bullshit for some time now, with only the U.S. government (and it's Security Council veto pen) keeping it's ass out of the fire.
Real nice. Your family must be SO proud.
I don't typically respond to such hate-filled bigoted trolls like yourself, but I see your kind of ignorance, intolerance, & hatred too much these days to allow it to pass without a well-deserved smack-down.
So tell me Mr. Anonymous Coward, why don't you put a username behind your post in favor of treating women like chattel, killing gays, and establishing an Islamic theocracy to rule the world?
Could it be that you ARE a bigoted, ignorant, intolerant, narrow-minded, hate-filled coward? Yes, you most certainly are, and you just proved it to the world.
The apartheid regime in South Africa was finally ended. May the same happen in Israel, the sooner the better.
BTW, since Muslims and other Arabs live and work and raise their children peacefully among the Jews in Israel with equal rights, something the other Arab countries refused and still refuse to do for Palestinians, what "apartheid" do you mean?
The one hate-filled bigots like yourself would like to wage against Israel and Jews...that is, IF you had the balls to fight them like something other than a cowardly bigot?
Yeah, that's what I thought. GTFO and let civilized people have an intelligent discussion, troll.
I doubt if would even get that far. Turns out that NZ and the US aren't just in bed with each other, the US has NZ gimped out. [wikipedia.org]
Good point.
These days, it seems being a US ally is more damaging than being a hostile nation. Look at how the US has all but cut the legs out from under Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, and the only one that doesn't kill gays/lesbians, doesn't treat women as chattel, and allows Muslim Arabs to be citizens and enjoy full citizenship privileges. Compare that to how the Muslim Arab nations treat Christians, Jews, and women within their own borders. For that matter, look at how the Arab nations refused and still refuse to allow Palestinian refugees into their countries in favor of using them and their suffering as a cat's paw to attack Israel and the US.
The antisemitism on open display in the US and elsewhere by groups like OWS scares the piss out of me. Does nobody remember or has anyone not been taught about WW2 and the Holocaust? Just as then, Jews are now increasingly being blamed for all the ills caused by the political leaders of their own political parties & nations.
This way leads to genocide and other horrors on a mass scale, and not just to Jews, either. Remember that the concentration camps were not exclusively for Jews, but for any "defective" people like gays, the mentally challenged, the physically "deformed", and anyone that opposed the regime, or were simply "inconvenient" in some way.
History doesn't always exactly repeat itself, but historical patterns sure do. Hold on tight, because it's going to get really nasty for everyone, and sooner than you think.
Indeed. I'm looking forward to that headline: "U.S. Government sued for damages by MegaUpload, including future loss of business. Total claimed amount is counted in billions.".
Two words:
Sovereign Immunity.
"We don't think we'll allow you to sue us today. We've ordered the judge to drop all proceedings and dismiss the suit with prejudice. You may not refile."
But that wasn't the whole point. He said it as if he was saying that the guy he replied to was claiming that the previous guy did no wrong. He didn't.
What does it matter to what's occurring NOW, what some previous guy did or didn't do?
If the previous guy had burned 10,000,000 live babies to death, does that mean the current guy is OK because he only burned 9,999,999 live babies to death?
Shouldn't we instead be outraged at the whole idea of either guy burning live babies to death?
This is the kind of partisan insanity that keeps those types of leaders in power decade after decade.
Really? After we've seen Senators and Representatives from BOTH political parties on the news saying the exact same thing about how Congress is being bypassed through Executive Orders, and how many of their colleagues are complicit in allowing it to go unchallenged?
This isn't partisan. Take off the Party blinders. They only distract you from reality. The reality that BOTH Parties are corrupt and seek to exercise more and more control over every aspect of everyone's lives while confiscating at gunpoint ever-more of the people's wealth to finance their plans for rolling out a Fascist police state after they collapse the current government under massive debt and expenditures, and line their own and their corporate and labor union crony's pockets.
Slashdot Mirror
BlueStrat is a nigger hater.
Well, well...looky there!
I gots me a FAN CLUB!! w00t!!
Now, I'm sort of used to signing autographs on the CDs & T-shirts that are sold at my blues shows, but I'm not sure how that works on Slashdot.
You're going to have to get your mommy's permission to talk to the grownups first, though, son. Now, run along like a good little troll, that's a good bigot.
Strat
That's because the scale of federal spending isn't nearly as massive as it was in the 80's or 30's-50's...
LOLwut!?!?
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/total
Can I buy some pot from you, Professor? (from "Animal House", for the young'uns)
Strat
Do you need heavy support structures if you are building in space?
There are these things called "mass" and "inertia" that remain unchanged regardless of the gravitational field they're in, or lack of one.
This is basic Newtonian physics.
If you wanted to do something like, say, create a space station or ship that uses the centrifugal effects of spin to create a form of "pseudo-gravity" for long-term health of the residents/crew and/or for purposes of performing certain industrial operations that involve separating materials of differing masses, or something of significant mass that must endure acceleration, you still need structural supports with enough strength to prevent it from flying apart from centrifugal forces or collapsing under acceleration due to it's mass and inertia.
Strat
obama is [a Constitutional scholar] and even he doesn't fucking understand the constitution.
Obama understands the Constitution very well. When one sets out to destroy something, one should first understand as thoroughly as possible what it is that one desires to destroy, so as to do it most efficiently, effectively, and completely.
Hows that "Hoax 'n Chains" working out?
Strat
I was trying to address a point of politics, not economics and history:
Politics involves economics and history, among other things. "Politics" is simply the process by which a society reaches decisions on various issues facing the citizens.
Where did you learn these ideas? I mean, literally, where did you read them? And where did those people get them?
I learned them by reading as much original-source history as possible. As a start, you might try "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine.
As we both know, these are ideas of a group pushing a political agenda. What are their motives?
Well, since the majority of "my ideas" in the posts in this thread come from authors of the US Constitution, I'd say their motives were to establish a free nation by severely limiting the powers of the central government and placing as much of the actual governing of the citizens as locally as possible to insure accountability to those people.
This is all anathema to Progressives, which have been struggling for ~100 years to "progress past" the limits on government power set forth in the Constitution. That's where the political term "Progressive" originated. Progressives believe that people are incapable of governing themselves and making wise choices in their own best interests, and must have a powerful central government make those choices & decisions for them.
This is the root of the struggle...those who believe that Man can govern himself versus those who believe that Man must be governed by a central authority made up of the elite.
*This* is the important issue and the root conflict from which most modern US politics flows.
Strat
Now I'm confused, what are you talking about? Capitalism?
Nice try.
>Capitalism is the only system ever created where wealth is a renewable resource for everyone regardless of economic class as long as they are willing to work and/or come up with an idea, skill, or invention that's useful to someone else.
>Capitalism has raised more people from poverty worldwide than any other system ever created.
>Capitalism has allowed more people to live in freedom than any other system ever invented.
>Capitalism has allowed the US to provide more humanitarian assistance to those in need both domestically and around the world than any other system or country in history.
Sorry, but as bad as you may think Capitalism is, it's still light-years ahead of any other system ever tried. Ask some former residents of former Soviet satellite states about your ideas. I'd stay out of arm's reach when you do, however.
Strat
...as their infrastructure wasn't destroyed...
Oops.
We can all see around us societies where government provides services and people continue to work -- all of the most prosperous, productive societies in the history of the world.
Don't tell me you're going to bring out the Nordic countries as an example, as that's failing as we speak. They started out after WW2 with a huge economic and industrial advantage as they're infrastructure wasn't destroyed as they were in most other European countries.
Go read some economic news. Their economies are becoming crippled from entitlement spending and redistributionist policies. It has simply taken longer due to their starting out with a huge economic leg-up after WW2, the same reason in large part why the US has avoided economic collapse while building it's own entitlement-based, redistributionist society. Just as surely as our star fuses hydrogen into helium, the effects are coming home to roost both for the US and the Nordic countries always trotted out as Socialist Utopias.
If you want to see the future, look to Greece Span, etc. That's what eventually happens to a redistributionist, entitlement-based society. More and more people begin to depend on the government for everything and stop creating wealth to pay for it all.
The pool of wealth shrinks and shrinks until eventually there's no way to tax enough (100% of zero is still zero) to pay for what the government spends. That way leads to hyperinflation and economic collapse unless strong austerity measures are enacted, as the government is forced to adopt a fiat currency (if they hadn't already) and to start running the printing presses 24/7/365 to cover the borrowing to finance the entitlements and other spending. You can see the effects such hyperinflation had in the former Weimar Republic.
The question is, why push propaganda like that? It doesn't address any substantive, real question; it just obstructs us from addressing the real issues
I was just going to ask you the same thing. I have facts and history to back my position up. You have hand-waving and appeals to emotion and "fairness". I know which I choose.
If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy. - Thomas Jefferson
It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on will save one-half the wars of the world. - Thomas Jefferson
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. - Thomas Jefferson
I think I'll take TJ's sound and proven advice over that of collectivist, redistributionest, Keynesian statists.
Strat
Housing, food, health care and education are basic human rights, so yes it's a responsibility that all of us have to share.
Well, that sounds great. It's a lot easier than working. Let's all just give up struggling to work or create a business to make a living, and we can all just sit back and post on /. all day.
But if nobody is working, creating businesses, and generating wealth, where do we get all the money to support everyone?
To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, collectivism/redistributionism and "social justice" are great until you run out of other people's money. Even confiscating 100% of the "top 1%"'s wealth won't even come close to paying for 4 months at the US government's current spending rate. So, where is all the wealth to pay for all that crap going to come from?
These are the same, tired, failed ideas that have been tried over and over and over again through history and failed every single time, while also killing many millions upon millions of people and condemning even more to abject poverty and despotism.
Socialists, Communists, "redistributionists", and the "social justice" crowd fit perfectly the textbook definition of insanity; to repeat the same actions over and over while persisting in the belief that the results will be different. They're just like crackheads that persist in going back on the pipe time after time while expecting that, this time, it will be different. In the meantime, they scream and violently attack those who are trying to dissuade them while they continue to harm themselves and everyone around them, incapable or unwilling to see the harm they cause.
Strat
They'll never be ready as long as we keep underwriting oil exploration, or at least not diverting a hefty amount of money towards research.
That's the great thing about Capitalism (no, not what the US has had for the last >50 years thanks to Progressives). When alternative energy is efficient and practical enough, people will be able to make money from it, and then it's adoption will explode.
Trying to force it's adoption through government mandates before it's ready will only lead to widespread suffering and conflict, and may well result in public perceptions turning so negative towards it that adoption could be delayed decades or centuries. Much like we've seen with public perceptions of AGW and those behind it. There are always unintended consequences in the real world.
Strat
The same thing will happen when the price of oil skyrockets.
And
we should be taxing the living fuck out of energy companies
That's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Oil companies don't pay taxes. Businesses don't pay taxes. Taxes on oil companies and other businesses is just a way to tax the people without political blow-back from angry citizens by obfuscation.
or giving them a carrot if they invest a substantial amount of their profits into alternative energies,
That's already happening. Oil companies want to be the leaders in developing alternative energy. They invest heavily. Unlike the MAFIAA or RIAA/labels, they see the business models for energy changing and are determined to be on the leading edge to remain in business as "energy companies".
You still didn't answer the problem of how, if alternative energy sources are not ready yet for prime-time (and they most certainly are NOT!), are people to stay warm and fed for the decades it will realistically take until they are?
Magic Gaia organic energy beans?
Strat
Which is exactly why we need to stop burning anything. Including shale oil.
So, I'll ask you what I asked further up the thread.
So, are YOU going to turn off YOUR heat this winter? Or do you just want "those people over there" to freeze this winter? All the while keeping yourself nice & toasty while exporting all the production negatives to less-developed regions of the world for poorer people to suffer with?
Sorry to break this to you, but alternative energy is nowhere near able to supply even a decent fraction of the needs of ~7 billion people (and growing). Even at multiple-national-economy-wrecking levels of investment in alternative energy, it will still take at least 5 decades or more for alternative energy and the infrastructure necessary to be able to supply even a significant fraction of the world's energy needs. *Much* longer to be able to supply a majority. Until then, those people still need energy.
Unless, of course, you're willing to wipe out several billion people and force the rest into a primitive hunter-gatherer level of development. Are you one of those people that think that whole "coming down out of the trees, standing upright, and using fire" thing was a bad idea that you'd like to see reversed?
It's quite easy to scream & rail against our current petroleum use. It's much, MUCH harder to actually come up with a reasonable, viable, practical solution that doesn't require people to live like it's 1499 and/or require implementing mass worldwide genocide through intentional starvation, freezing to death, and lack of modern medical care.
There is a real and not-insignificant cost in human life that is rarely ever considered by those who scream to stop/severely limit all oil/gas/coal use NOW!!! The fact that many are NIMBY-ists that prefer that "those brown people over there" live with the costs in environmental damage to support THEIR lifestyle and standard of living just adds to the dis-ingenuousness of their arguments.
Strat
We'd be better off with all the other polution from coal and no CO2 than we would be with all the CO2 from natural gas and none of the other emissions.
This is the kind of ignorant nonsense that makes people stop listening to you. You get CO2 when burning just about anything, including coal.
If you're incapable of even understanding that much extremely basic early-grade-school science, why in $DEITY's name should we listen to anything you have to say on the subject? One could probably get better answers asking a chimp at the zoo about quantum theory.
Sheesh! What has this place become? "News For Luddites, Stuff That Splatters"??
Strat
I'd be far more worried about where all that CO2 is going to end up. We're already past the tipping point for serious climate change, and they want to increase fossil fuel production? Stupid crazy bastards.
So, are YOU going to turn off YOUR heat this winter? Or do you just want "those people over there" to freeze this winter? All the while keeping yourself nice & toasty while exporting all the production negatives to less-developed regions of the world for poorer people to suffer with?
Sorry to break this to you, but alternative energy is nowhere near able to supply even a decent fraction of the needs of ~7 billion people (and growing). Even at multiple-national-economy-wrecking levels of investment in alternative energy, it will still take at least 5 decades or more for alternative energy and the infrastructure necessary to be able to supply even a significant fraction of the world's energy needs. *Much* longer to be able to supply a majority. Until then, those people still need energy.
Unless, of course, you're willing to wipe out several billion people and force the rest into a primitive hunter-gatherer level of development. Are you one of those people that think that whole "coming down out of the trees, standing upright, and using fire" thing was a bad idea that you'd like to see reversed?
Strat
Those people have a bit of pride, unlike yourself.
LMAO!!!
Coming from someone who only tosses out ad hominems because you're unable to dispute facts, while being too much of a coward to use a real username!
Yeah, OK there, "Junior". Does Mummy and Daddy know you're on their computer? I get the feeling you're either actually or just mentally about 10 years old.
Strat
It's people like you who give kikes a bad name.
Coming from a bigot that would call Jews "kikes", I consider it a badge of honor.
Your dry-cleaner left you a message. Your KKK robes are ready for your big cross-burning this weekend. You and the NBPP play nice, now.
BTW, I'm not Jewish. I'm a Christian of mostly German descent. However, I have serious doubts that you even qualify as Cro-Magnon.
Strat
So, a film about Michael Bay making a film about Michael Bay making a film about ...
It's Michael Bay films all the way down?
Someone alert Stephen Hawking ASAP!
Strat
Chicxulub iridium, now with less kaboom
Damn you, and I was drinking coffee! You owe me a new keyboard. LOL!
Strat :D
If you are implying that it doesnt matter who you vote for and what their political ideology is, then Id say your idea is as toxic an idea as any other here.
Not implying anything of the kind. I'm saying that if you're justifying, excusing, defending, and denying the responsibility of "your guy's" (whoever that may be) actions and policies simply because you think he's only 99% as evil as the "other guy", then you're part of the problem.
For instance, I detest in the strongest terms Obama's actions and policies, but Bush was also a disaster. That in no way excuses Obama, nor Bush. These recent attempts to lay blame for all of Obama's blunders and plain bad policies on Bush is disingenuous, at best. The same for Bush blaming Clinton.
"The buck stops here."
Strat
Between seizing Palestinian land without payment,...
I'll just leave this here for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7ByJb7QQ9U
And this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QY6JKALNwKE
Don't you hate it when facts make a huge post like yours, with all the time you spent typing it, into nothing but fantasy, nonsense, and drivel? Personally, I'd track down whoever gave you your talking points and slap them for making you look ridiculous in front of the whole world.
Strat
Excellent impression of a Zionist troll. Most of the world has been sick and tired of Israel's bullshit for some time now, with only the U.S. government (and it's Security Council veto pen) keeping it's ass out of the fire.
Real nice. Your family must be SO proud.
I don't typically respond to such hate-filled bigoted trolls like yourself, but I see your kind of ignorance, intolerance, & hatred too much these days to allow it to pass without a well-deserved smack-down.
So tell me Mr. Anonymous Coward, why don't you put a username behind your post in favor of treating women like chattel, killing gays, and establishing an Islamic theocracy to rule the world?
Could it be that you ARE a bigoted, ignorant, intolerant, narrow-minded, hate-filled coward? Yes, you most certainly are, and you just proved it to the world.
The apartheid regime in South Africa was finally ended. May the same happen in Israel, the sooner the better.
BTW, since Muslims and other Arabs live and work and raise their children peacefully among the Jews in Israel with equal rights, something the other Arab countries refused and still refuse to do for Palestinians, what "apartheid" do you mean?
The one hate-filled bigots like yourself would like to wage against Israel and Jews...that is, IF you had the balls to fight them like something other than a cowardly bigot?
Yeah, that's what I thought. GTFO and let civilized people have an intelligent discussion, troll.
Strat
I doubt if would even get that far. Turns out that NZ and the US aren't just in bed with each other, the US has NZ gimped out. [wikipedia.org]
Good point.
These days, it seems being a US ally is more damaging than being a hostile nation. Look at how the US has all but cut the legs out from under Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, and the only one that doesn't kill gays/lesbians, doesn't treat women as chattel, and allows Muslim Arabs to be citizens and enjoy full citizenship privileges. Compare that to how the Muslim Arab nations treat Christians, Jews, and women within their own borders. For that matter, look at how the Arab nations refused and still refuse to allow Palestinian refugees into their countries in favor of using them and their suffering as a cat's paw to attack Israel and the US.
The antisemitism on open display in the US and elsewhere by groups like OWS scares the piss out of me. Does nobody remember or has anyone not been taught about WW2 and the Holocaust? Just as then, Jews are now increasingly being blamed for all the ills caused by the political leaders of their own political parties & nations.
This way leads to genocide and other horrors on a mass scale, and not just to Jews, either. Remember that the concentration camps were not exclusively for Jews, but for any "defective" people like gays, the mentally challenged, the physically "deformed", and anyone that opposed the regime, or were simply "inconvenient" in some way.
History doesn't always exactly repeat itself, but historical patterns sure do. Hold on tight, because it's going to get really nasty for everyone, and sooner than you think.
Strat
Indeed. I'm looking forward to that headline: "U.S. Government sued for damages by MegaUpload, including future loss of business. Total claimed amount is counted in billions.".
Two words:
Sovereign Immunity.
"We don't think we'll allow you to sue us today. We've ordered the judge to drop all proceedings and dismiss the suit with prejudice. You may not refile."
Strat
But that wasn't the whole point. He said it as if he was saying that the guy he replied to was claiming that the previous guy did no wrong. He didn't.
What does it matter to what's occurring NOW, what some previous guy did or didn't do?
If the previous guy had burned 10,000,000 live babies to death, does that mean the current guy is OK because he only burned 9,999,999 live babies to death?
Shouldn't we instead be outraged at the whole idea of either guy burning live babies to death?
This is the kind of partisan insanity that keeps those types of leaders in power decade after decade.
Strat
Flamebait?
Really? After we've seen Senators and Representatives from BOTH political parties on the news saying the exact same thing about how Congress is being bypassed through Executive Orders, and how many of their colleagues are complicit in allowing it to go unchallenged?
This isn't partisan. Take off the Party blinders. They only distract you from reality. The reality that BOTH Parties are corrupt and seek to exercise more and more control over every aspect of everyone's lives while confiscating at gunpoint ever-more of the people's wealth to finance their plans for rolling out a Fascist police state after they collapse the current government under massive debt and expenditures, and line their own and their corporate and labor union crony's pockets.
Strat