Religion is easy. It is obsurd to think that the car came into existance through millions of random design mutations that somehow did not cause it to blow up. The only reasonable explanation for the existance of the car is that it was designed and created by some intelligent being. Therefore God exists. QED.
Are you saying that Henry Ford is God?
(Note: I am well aware that Henry Ford did not invent the car... its a joke!)
Outsourcing in general is caused by the minimum wage. Companies are able to get cheaper labor outside the country, and we end up paying more through transport costs than we would if there was no minimum wage. As we all know from calling tech support based overseas, certain things get lost in translation:
South park: Cartman: Did you write the essays? Mexican: Si, I wrote my essay back in mexico. Mexican2: And I wrote 2 essays, one wrote back "Hey thanks for writing, essay"
It goes like this. You call me a liar, yet, I have told no lies. You can point to no lies that I have told, and yet you call me a liar. Now tell me, genius, if I'm not lying and you are calling me a liar, who is the liar here?
Get out of your echo chamber. Not sure what I have to say about a long extended quote from an op-ed article.
But in the interests of clarity, I'll offer up this link which, although from a blog, pretty much tears apart your strawman by actually quoting directly from the actual report rather than by leaving out much by omission. FUN FACT: that's exactly what Freddie Hiatt, whom you quote at length, seems to do himself!
The fact that you consider that "blog" a viable source shows your ignorance of how things work above "entry level" jobs. Here is a quote from your link
(U) Conclusion 8: Statements by the President, Secretary of Defense, and Secretary of State that Iraq was developing unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) that could be used to deviler chemical or biological weapons were generally substantiated by intelligence information, but did not convey the substantial disagreements that existed in the intelligence community. But, the bold part is what I really want to take about as it is mentioned several times in the "blog".
Now, if you have ever attended any type of executive meetings, where important decisions are made, you will know that there will be disagreements, sometimes loud ones. That's OK, it's how decisions are made and how management works issues out. Now, given that, do you ever hear of a company saying, "Check out the new Ford Flipper! It's got 15 square feet of cargo space! Some of our executives thought that 15 feet was a joke and we shouldn't even build a car with such a pathetic amount of storage, but the engineers won out by pointing out that it would save on gas mileage to limit the space."
Of course not! So yeah, there were disagreements in the intelligence community. There is always one asshole that says, "hey wait a minute... I know we saw him pick up and pay a hooker, but are we sure he boned her?" Do you think the prosecution would put that one asshole on the stand?
And this one:
(U) Conclusion 5: Statements by the President, Vice-President, Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense regarding Iraqâ(TM)s possession of weapons of mass destruction were generally substantiated by intelligence information, though many statements made regarding ongoing production prior to late 2002 reflected a higher level of certainty than the intelligence judgments themselves. Again, do you expect Bush, Cheney and Powell to go to the US public and say, "we are going to war because the intelligence is pretty darn sure that Iraq is a threat."? No, again, like before, you look at the evidence, make a decision and you make your case. What you are bitching about is what was said when making the case. You don't bring up the oppositions points when making your case. Just like Obama won't admit that McCain has a better understanding of foreign affairs. I don't ding him for that. He'd be a moron for bringing that up!
I'm pretty certain that GWB and company truly believed what they were saying. Were they wrong? Sure, on the WMD part. Does that make them liars? Nope. Honest people are wrong every day. That doesn't make them liars... No more than it makes you liar for bitching about an op-ed article and responding with a blog.
First, nothing from the Huffington Post can be used as a source... EVER. It is opinions posted by the most ignorant of Americans, celebrities. If anything, having something said in the Huffington post should be used as COUTNER-evidence to whatever was said. However, I did notice that there was no mention of Sandy Berger, the Clinton security advisor stealing top secret documents and cutting them up with scissors during the 9-11 investigation. I guess that was no big deal, what with Bush lying and all.
But, speaking of willful ignorance of obvious facts, if you go back to my first post, you will read this:
"There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can." Who said that? Rockefeller himself. So, was Rockefeller lying when he said that quote or was he lying when wrote that paragraph you quoted? Should he be impeached too? What about all the other people that claimed that Iraq was a threat? Should they be impeached? You accuse me of ignoring the facts, yet you sit here and call Bush a liar when so many others said the EXACT SAME THING. So, when you say, They all lied. I'm not a lawyer, but I'd say it's obvious that in lying about matters of national security, with the result of initiating war despite lack of any clear and present danger in the world of fact, they all knowingly undermined the United States' ability to confront our real enemies, thus giving them comfort. Ergo, they all committed treason." So, should ALL the people in the link I just provided, including Nancy Pelosi, Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger, John Kerry, Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, and the oracle himself, Al Gore all be tried for treason? Tell me again how I'm the one who is "willfully ignorant of the facts"?
Let's look at another paragraph from Rockefeller's report:
The intelligence reporting did support the conclusion that chemical and biological weapons were within Iraq's technological capability, that Iraq was trying to procure dual-use materials that could have been used to produce these weapons, and that uncertainties existed about whether Iraq had fully destroyed its pre-Gulf War stocks of weapons and precursors. Why didn't we know? Because Iraq threw out the UN inspectors, which was a direct violation of the cease-fire agreement that was signed after the first gulf war. There were 16 other such violations. Of course, this is excusing the whole trying to assassinate a former US President, firing on US and UN personnel, and a credible warning from foreign intelligence agencies claiming that a terrorist attack from Iraq was imminent.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said yesterday that his intelligence service had warned the Bush administration before the U.S. invasion of Iraq that Saddam Hussein's government was planning attacks against U.S. targets both inside and outside the country. Still, given all of the above, each a justification for war by itself, it appears that somehow, I'm the one with willful ignorance of the facts, even though I've just given you so many that you will willfully remain ignorant of.
Where is the impeachment for LYING ABOUT WHY THE COUNTRY WAS DRAGGED INTO A PROTRACTED WAR!... not for the war itself.
There are two problems with that. First, if Bush lied, then a whole slew of other people lied and would deserve equal treatment. Bill and Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and even John D. Rockefeller would all be guilty of the same "crime". Funny, considering that John D. Rockefeller (chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence) even created a report to try to prove that Bush lied. It found nothing:
But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.
On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."
On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."
On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."
On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."
As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.
But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.
Even Rockefeller himself at one point said:
"There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can." So that whole Bush lied thing no longer carries any water. It doesn't matter either way as lying to the public is not an impeachable offense. That's why Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath and obstruction of justice, NOT for saying to the American public "I did not have sexual RELATIONS with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky".
Please move on to something else now. May I recommend something a little more On Topic. Thank you.
Your conclusion does not follow. If you still think that, then you completely missed my point (which was that if we combine renewables, they become viable). Sure, waste veggie oil can't power the entire American vehicle fleet, but that doesn't make it non-viable. You combine it with ethanol and higher efficiency in general (i.e. smaller, lighter cars) and then it can. Ethanol is a great idea that needs to be researched further, but it's not ready for prime time. Here's another kicker to consider when thinking of ethanol. It still requires fuel to make! Meaning that we still need oil to make it. As for switchgrass, it produces about 3.5 times more energy than corn in ethanol production. It's a great start, but it's still not enough to power the US auto fleet. Also, even E85 is 15% gasoline, so we will still need oil to turn the switchgrass to ethanol and for that extra 15% gasoline. But, you are correct that the dent this can make, combined with increased domestic oil production can make the US energy independent, which is the goal, IMHO. It will also help drive prices down worldwide. I would throw in environmental benefits of ethanol, but there are issues that may make the CO2 reductions a wash.
As for vegan oil, how many cars do you think our current crop of vegetable oil will power? I would be shocked if it were more than 1%. Actually, I looked it up:
Briante said there are about 100 million gallons of waste restaurant oil generated annually. That would only replace about 0.07 percent of the 140 billion gallons of gas Americans use each year, and that's assuming everyone switched from gasoline to diesel engines. Using new vegetable oil - not the used stuff from restaurants -raises similar scarcity questions. You said:
What we really need is a technology for synthesizing hydrocarbons like gasoline from CO2 + H20 + electricity. Then we could use the existing (except for the particular thing I'm talking about, of course) technology and infrastructure just fine. I agree completely! Unfortunately, these types of technologies as well as the ethanol mentioned above are at least decades away. What do we do in the meantime? I say we increase domestic energy production (drill for oil!) and use the revenues from that to fund the research required to speed these technologies along. Provided the trillions (yes, TRILLIONS) of dollars that could be invested here, we will find an energy solution long before the oil runs out and not ruin our economies in the process.
Unfortunately, renewables won't be viable for another 20 years at best
That's BS. My girlfriend's diesel VW runs on renewable biodiesel (from used restaurant grease) right now, and it's a ten-year-old car! Half of Brazil's cars run on renewable ethanol from sugar cane. Renewable hydro, nuclear, solar, wind, tidal, and geothermal are all viable today, when used appropriately (e.g. see Iceland for geothermal). Sure, neither wind nor solar is reliable enough to replace base load by itself, but if you use them together, in a distributed fashion, then they can even each other out and work just fine.
It's really not that hard.
That's awesome that your GF has a car that runs on vegetable oil. Is there enough restaurant vegetable oil to run all of America's cars? No. Is there enough to run a decent size percentage of America's cars? No. So this is not a viable option.
It's great that Brazil can run half of their cars on ethanol. If we were to turn all of the US into sugar cane fields, would it be enough ethanol to power America's cars? Unfortunately, NO. So this is not a viable option either.
Hydro, nuclear, solar, wind tidal and geothermal are all available today, but can THEY power our cars? No. Sure, some cars are electric, but we are decades away from the technology that will allow us rely on them for our transportation needs. So while these are great for powering our homes and businesses, but we don't use oil for that anyway. Electricity will not be a viable option for powering our cars until the technology and infrastructure allows for vehicles to be completely charged in less than 5 minutes. Again, decades away.
Now all these are great options and will, someday, be viable to power our cars and get us to work, and our planes to travel, our trucks to move products to the market and our ships to get products imported and exported. But right now, and for the foreseeable future, our cars run on refined crude oil. We need crude oil NOW to power our economies that will pay for the research to get these ideas to the drawing board and then to our garages.
This has hit the general public in a way they never really ever imagined before, and they are shocked.
They will be even more shocked when they come to realize that all of these price increases are simply a symptom of America's slip from "world superpowe" to " average wealthy western nation". Fuel and consumer products have cost this much in Europe for decades. The EU is doing just fine dealing with $5+ for a gallon of gas, and they aren't strip mining the Alps. But we can expect to have European sized cars and European sized houses at the european $3000 per sq ft not the US $125 per sq ft.
First, the EU pays that much for gas because the government taxes it that much. In other words, the reason the people in the EU live that way is because the government makes them. It is artificial. They are living in misery for no good reason.
Why should we live that way? Sure, you say that they are "getting along just fine" and then you point out how much better we have it over here. Why would we drop our standards of living to shit just because the EU does it?
Well, if you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem. Rather than sitting around bitching about it, why don't you do something about it? Why don't you become part of the solution?
I'm not so sure, currently Americans have the option to drill in Alaska. It is absolutely beautiful and pristine up there, but drilling would arguably have much less impact on human settlement than strip mining the Rockies or the Appalachians. Maybe I'm an optimist but I think this shows some consideration for environmental problems. I know that we all like to think that the entire ANWR region is full of beautiful mountains and pine trees, and much of it is, however, the parts we want to drill in are on the coast, about five miles from where we are already drilling (with minimal environmental impact) at Prudhoe Bay. It looks more like THIS.
Also, the 1002 area (the area where we want to explore) is about 2000 acres, or the size of Dulles Airport, out of a total ANWR size of 20 MILLION acres, or about the size of N. Carolina. Less than.01% of ANWR would be touched. Would your governor forbid your from building an airport in your state because of a NON-endangered species that lives on the other side of the state?
Besides, oil and gas development and wildlife are successfully coexisting in Alaska 's arctic today. For example, the Central Arctic Caribou Herd which migrates through Prudhoe Bay has grown from 3000 animals to its current level of 32,000 animals. The arctic oil fields have very healthy brown bear, fox and bird populations equal to their surrounding areas. So any supposed environmental catastrophe is a myth anyway.
And, don't get me wrong, I'm all about conservation and renewable research. Unfortunately, renewables won't be viable for another 20 years at best, so WTF are we supposed to do until then? This forced conservation that we are in now is going to ruin the economy and punish everyone for no apparent reason other than unfounded, outdated environmental concerns. Local drilling serves the purpose of making the US energy independent until we can develop alternatives and get the infrastructure set up to replace petroleum.
I understand that drilling in ANWR is not THE solution. But then again, neither is wind and/or solar. Should we give up on those ideas also because they are not THE solution to all of our energy problems? Of course not. Wind and solar are only part of a total energy solution. Just as conservation and alternatives are part of the solution as well.
Oh, and as for the topic at hand, rather than blame oil as the sole reasons jobs are returning home, it may be wise to also consider that the falling dollar has made outsourcing that much more expensive.
"But, these things take time and patience, which is what McCain was showing he has."
By avoiding the question, he's shown himself to be an able politician, but hardly the 'straight talk express'.
Let me update your signature for you: -- To imprison men in GITMO forever, judicial proof is unnecessary -- GW Buch.
How did McCain avoid the question? Seems to me like his answer is only honest answer I've seen from ANY politician where Iraq is concerned.
And are you saying that Bush is the same as "Che"? First, Great! Tell that to the next ignorant punk you see wearing a Che shirt. Next, sorry, but I haven't heard of any firing squads at Gitmo. I haven't head Bush say anything to the effect of, "Try them in the morning if you must, but they are being executed tonight." Finally, last I heard, the detainees at Gitmo are getting trials. They've had lawyers for years and now they are getting Miranda Rights. I can see it now: Interrogator: Where did you plant the rest of your IED's? Terrorists Lawyer: You don't have to answer that!
I understand your argument and probably don't agree with the google manipulation either.
However, you are failing to understand what McCann actually said. He said that we can stay up to 100 year, then add "as long as no Americans are harmed". The first part sounds tough and committed which appeals to his hawkish supporters.
But then he tags on the tail which said "Well I mean only if there is no risk or harm done to Americans" which is a sop to those despairing of the human and financial costs to the USA.
There IS a principled way to interpret this, "As long as US people are not harmed, then we can station they in Iraq." But if he really belives this as the primary criterion, then he would advocate immediate withdrawal. Now we don't belive that that's what he means, do we?
So in combination, the statement is total irrelevant. It's like saying "I'm going to move to the Park Avenue apartment next to Michael Bloomberg... so long as the rent is lower than $500..."
- a totally meaningless statement since the precondition can NEVER be met in our lifetime!
Fine, but that was not the point of the discussion. The point was that some sites are reporting that McCain WANTS troops in Iraq, as if a formerly tortured POW somehow enjoys the idea of having troops in harms way. That is not true and it is not at all what McCain said. That is the type of article that these guys want showing up first on a Google search.
In response to your point, I see the hole you are pointing to in McCain's logic. However, I don't think you understand what McCain meant when he said that. If you listen to the rest of his statement, he points out that we still have troops station in Germany, Japan, S. Korea, Bosnia and other posts all over the world. It would be fine with McCain if we set up a permanent post in Iraq for 100 years or more, provided that it is not an active war zone at that time. But that has nothing to do with what is going on there now. Before we can set up permanent bases in Iraq, we need to get past the violence that is going on there today. This is what the "surge" is attempting to accomplish, and it is doing a good job. But, these things take time and patience, which is what McCain was showing he has.
'when McCain was asked whether U.S. troops might have to remain in Iraq for as long as 50 years, he replied, "Maybe 100" -- explaining, "As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it's fine with me"'
So McCann said 100 years is OK as long as no Americans are being harmed. How about 1 year? Is he advocating immediate withdrawal since obviously Americans are being killed RIGHT NOW?
He sounds tough and committed --- as long as there is no cost!
Who is really shoveling polically motivated BS?
OK, read that quote you just posted. Now, go read the title of the article I linked to earlier. "Maybe 100" -- explaining, "As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it's fine with me" Is a far cry from "I want troops to be over there for 100 years! Having troops over there for 100 years is what I WANT! I long for a century of US troops in Iraq."
See the difference? If someone wants to shoot themselves in the head, that's fine with me. Does that mean I WANT someone to shoot themselves in the head? See how they changed what he said around. They changed "fine with me" to "WANT".
Tell me, Is it that you WANT to believe that McCain is that fucking evil that you will believe anything that supports it, even if you have to literally warp reality to match your own preconceived view of the world, or are you just a fucking idiot?
Really, dude. It has to be one or the other. You even finished it off with, Who is really shoveling polically (sic) motivated BS? Uh... well, YOU are now.
You are attempting to limit the amount of data a searcher receives [...] How is he attempting to limit the amount of data a searcher receives? How do I have any positive information about McCain (if there is any) purged from Google? This is just an attempt to make sure that something relevant becomes known. Is it dishonest to give a speech, if you don't tell the whole truth? In science, yes, but politics is carried out with much less integrity than science---you are "allowed" to only discuss what you want. Really? You have to ask that question? How often do you look beyond page 1 when searching for something? How often do you look beyond the first page of a newspaper. Unless you are unlike 99.999% of the people out there (read: Normal), then the answer is almost never.
So, are you can sit here and tell me that since all the articles are displayed, all is fair, even if a researcher has to go to page 10,000 before sees a neutral or positive article about McCain, you think that is, somehow, OK? And you are going to tell me that you are so naive to think that all potential voters are going to research all 10,000 pages down to get ALL the data?
Sorry, but that's just pathetic to even try to pull over on me. I hope you are smart enough to not actually believe that shit.
If it's "a bit" dishonest, it's a lot less so than the actual google bombs. I'm not saying this is the right thing to do, I'm just saying it's not a google bomb. And, in fact, it's only slightly different from what goes on anyway -- you have a blog, you don't like mccain, you post links to these articles, other people read those articles and find them worth linking to, they post to their blogs, and so on... eventually if enough people think it's worthwhile, it climbs the google charts -- really, the only difference is that they're thinking about the google placing in the first place, which was bound to happen anyway. If someone creates a blog and links to articles, it's no big deal and there is nothing wrong with that. But to INTENTIONALLY do so with the intent of skewing search engine results in your favor is dishonest. You are attempting to limit the amount of data a searcher receives while only forwarding the data you WANT them to receive. It's dishonest. If the government were doing this, it would be called censorship.
Oh and by the way, McCain actually did say the troops could be in Iraq for a hundred years. So for people who think that's important, that fact will be repeated. Yes, he did. Just like in Germany, Japan, S. Korea and a slew of other places we have troops stationed. But saying that troops COULD be stationed there is very different than saying he WANTS troops there for 100 years. Take THIS article for instance. It is titled, "Day 3: McCain Wants 100 Years in Iraq". Sorry, but that is a lie. McCain doesn't WANT troops in Iraq for 100 years. No one does. This is the type of article that we are talking about here. It is blatantly dishonest and if this is the only type of article that appears when searching for McCain, a previously uninformed voter will get the wrong idea based complete, 100% politically motivated bullshit.
He's trying to manipulate google, sure, but in a more legit way than doing this: warmongering douchebag. The guy in the article is simply promoting 9 specific articles about McCain and suggesting that others link those articles as well to make sure they climb the search results. It's not that different from just passing the links around and telling people to make sure everyone they know reads them. Whereas doing this charming imposter doesn't just get more people to go to a link; it makes a clear association between that link and a phrase denigrating the object of the link. I disagree. I think it's a bit dishonest. If this guy gets his way, when someone searches for John McCain, they are likely to get negative articles. I mean, let's forget about getting balanced results and letting people make up their own minds when presented with ALL the facts. Nope, let's make sure they only see the facts WE want them to see so they can make up their minds the way WE want them to.
Yeah. It's a pretty shitty thing to do, although, with all the people saying things like "McCain WANTS troops to be in Iraq for 100 years", it's not surprising.
I'm not saying be a pacifist, just don't kill everyone and everything that moves. I'm saying use a little common sense. You are correct. With all the world wide WWII era carpet bombing that is happening around the world, common sense is needed.
What we need is a bomb so accurate that it can take out a target without damaging the buildings around it. The bomb would need some kind of self guidance that would allow it maneuver itself. You could even say that such a bomb would be "smart".
I think this exchange is proof that RightBad=Insightful and LeftBad=Troll in the minds of some mods. And now look, your comments are both at +4 Insightful. I'd say that's proof that complaining about phony liberal bias is insightful in the minds of some mods.
You got modded down for comparing "left wing" California to the "left wing" USSR, China, and Cuba, as if those countries are even on the same political spectrum as the US. Then you got modded back up, a net positive, for whining about the moderation. Does that mean the system works? And if I hadn't made that second post, no one would have read the first post as it was modded below the threshold of most/. readers. It would have stayed at -1, TROLL
I didn't mod GP, but the part that strikes me as the "troll" is the part where you call California left wing, just after the extreme left wing examples above, as if somehow California is left wing in the same way that soviet Russia was. To me that is a troll, because the implicit comparison is invalid. It does very little towards having an informed and informing conversation. Both extremes (left and right) are obviously bad, but in the US and in the Slashdot community there seems to be a name calling mentality which breaks down to: you disagree with me, and I am [right,left] leaning so you must be a [commie hippie,fascist]. I don't see either side of the US political spectrum as being particularly interested in personal freedoms of the general population. I was not trying to compare California to Cuba (although some in California do think Cuba is a paradise). That's why I used the word "even", as in "even left wing states like California..." The word "even" in this case draws similarities between two different subjects, while stating how far they are apart. For exmaple, Democrats are against drilling in ANWR. Hell, even John McCain is against drilling in ANWR! I use the word "even" to say that even though John McCain is very different than Democrats, he shares some of their views. I also used a paragraph to separate the California statement from the communist nations statement.
Also, you can't deny that CA is one of the more left leaning states in the nation. The fact that the government there even considered fiddling with the thermostat in your own home if THEY think you're using too much energy should punctuate that point.
Here in New Mexico there is water shortage, if not actual drought, and municipalities govern the use of water during the hot and dry periods. This does not strike me as "big brother", "left", or "right", but as a pragmatic compromise because for every environmentally conscious person of any political bent there are a few more who will attempt to install new lawns, run sprinklers during the day, and water sidewalks as much as they do plants. I think the thermostat example you bring up falls closer to the water use than to totalitarian regimes, and is not a political issue, but a practical issue. No, there is a difference. If you use too much water in New Mexico, they charge you more, or maybe even fine you. They do not walk into your home and turn your shower off. Also, energy is different than water. Energy is only limited by our reluctance to make it. Water is limited by how much is in the reservoir and it is fed by mother nature via rain. Electricity is man made product. If you run out, it's because you don't make enough. California (not mother nature) refuses to build power plants, therefor, California runs out of electricity.
I think it is dialog, and good communication in general that is breaking down in political/governmental conversation attempts. Why is this? What political party stands for not telling other people how to live period? What political party does not pander to religious groups when making laws (indecency, substance abuse, etc)? I don't see it, but wish that I did. I feel like I am an old time conservative in economic and environmental policies, and a progressive when it comes to social agendas. And by social agendas I mean laws that govern how people live their private lives like same sex marriage, drug use, etc. You know, the ol' moral majority crap. Sounds like we mostly agree politically, but there are limits. For example, I'm against government recognizing same sex marriage, but I'm against government recognizing marriage at all. I say, "Civil Unions for everybody!". A marriage is between a couple and their God, family or whoever they think they need to get married for. Civil unions are for wills, power of attorney, health insurance and so on...
This is what happens when countries vote in right-wing governments. Yes, that's right. Sweden has a right-wing government. Maybe not by US standards, but certainly by European standards. Yes! And the far left wing governments, like those in Soviet Russia, China, and Cuba are known for their championing of civil rights.
Hell, even the left wing states like California, where they want the government to control the thermostat in your own home are known for their personal freedom records. Only on slashdot, does the truth get modded troll.
I think this exchange is proof that RightBad=Insightful and LeftBad=Troll in the minds of some mods.
Remember, the first part of freedom is tolerating those that have different opinions than yourself and even defending their right to have those opinions. When I get downmodded for something like this, it proves to me that regardless of all the talk,/.'ers don't give a rat's ass about freedom of speech unless the speech agrees with them.
This is what happens when countries vote in right-wing governments. Yes, that's right. Sweden has a right-wing government. Maybe not by US standards, but certainly by European standards. Yes! And the far left wing governments, like those in Soviet Russia, China, and Cuba are known for their championing of civil rights.
Hell, even the left wing states like California, where they want the government to control the thermostat in your own home are known for their personal freedom records.
I love to have someone run 'blocker' for me... I call them bait, but the idea is the same.
Speaking of road rage and people driving too slow in the left lane, I've seen people in Houston get around those driving below the speed limit in the left lane, pull in front of them and slam their brakes. While it's dangerous and immature, it does tend to get those people out of the left lane, for a few miles at least.
Then we should completely throw out our entire legal system. Both sides are biased, so we should dump their arguments entirely without reading them or looking at the data they reference. There's no way they could possibly illuminate any points that have been missing. Of course both sides are biased. They wouldn't be doing their job if they were impartial. Would you hire a lawyer that presented evidence that may point to your guilt? The second my lawyer says, "Hmmmm.. You have a point there" to the prosecution is the second before I'm looking for a new lawyer!
When a lawyer is representing a client, it's his sworn duty to be biased. If he's not, then he's not doing his job and not representing his client. He is bound to the bias of his client. That's why a lawyer representing a client is not a good source when doing research.
Slashdot Mirror
Religion is easy. It is obsurd to think that the car came into existance through millions of random design mutations that somehow did not cause it to blow up. The only reasonable explanation for the existance of the car is that it was designed and created by some intelligent being. Therefore God exists. QED.
Are you saying that Henry Ford is God?
(Note: I am well aware that Henry Ford did not invent the car... its a joke!)
Mexican: Si, I wrote my essay back in mexico.
Mexican2: And I wrote 2 essays, one wrote back "Hey thanks for writing, essay"
Masterful riposte there mister RNC.
It goes like this. You call me a liar, yet, I have told no lies. You can point to no lies that I have told, and yet you call me a liar. Now tell me, genius, if I'm not lying and you are calling me a liar, who is the liar here?But in the interests of clarity, I'll offer up this link which, although from a blog, pretty much tears apart your strawman by actually quoting directly from the actual report rather than by leaving out much by omission. FUN FACT: that's exactly what Freddie Hiatt, whom you quote at length, seems to do himself!
The fact that you consider that "blog" a viable source shows your ignorance of how things work above "entry level" jobs. Here is a quote from your link (U) Conclusion 8: Statements by the President, Secretary of Defense, and Secretary of State that Iraq was developing unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) that could be used to deviler chemical or biological weapons were generally substantiated by intelligence information, but did not convey the substantial disagreements that existed in the intelligence community. But, the bold part is what I really want to take about as it is mentioned several times in the "blog".Now, if you have ever attended any type of executive meetings, where important decisions are made, you will know that there will be disagreements, sometimes loud ones. That's OK, it's how decisions are made and how management works issues out. Now, given that, do you ever hear of a company saying, "Check out the new Ford Flipper! It's got 15 square feet of cargo space! Some of our executives thought that 15 feet was a joke and we shouldn't even build a car with such a pathetic amount of storage, but the engineers won out by pointing out that it would save on gas mileage to limit the space."
Of course not! So yeah, there were disagreements in the intelligence community. There is always one asshole that says, "hey wait a minute... I know we saw him pick up and pay a hooker, but are we sure he boned her?" Do you think the prosecution would put that one asshole on the stand?
And this one:
(U) Conclusion 5: Statements by the President, Vice-President, Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense regarding Iraqâ(TM)s possession of weapons of mass destruction were generally substantiated by intelligence information, though many statements made regarding ongoing production prior to late 2002 reflected a higher level of certainty than the intelligence judgments themselves. Again, do you expect Bush, Cheney and Powell to go to the US public and say, "we are going to war because the intelligence is pretty darn sure that Iraq is a threat."? No, again, like before, you look at the evidence, make a decision and you make your case. What you are bitching about is what was said when making the case. You don't bring up the oppositions points when making your case. Just like Obama won't admit that McCain has a better understanding of foreign affairs. I don't ding him for that. He'd be a moron for bringing that up!I'm pretty certain that GWB and company truly believed what they were saying. Were they wrong? Sure, on the WMD part. Does that make them liars? Nope. Honest people are wrong every day. That doesn't make them liars... No more than it makes you liar for bitching about an op-ed article and responding with a blog.
> But willful ignorance of obvious facts is never admirable.
It is, however, a job requirement for a cabinet position the Bush administration.
Call the OP what he is: a liar.
Liar? Prove it? If not, STFU as you are the one lying.First, nothing from the Huffington Post can be used as a source... EVER. It is opinions posted by the most ignorant of Americans, celebrities. If anything, having something said in the Huffington post should be used as COUTNER-evidence to whatever was said. However, I did notice that there was no mention of Sandy Berger, the Clinton security advisor stealing top secret documents and cutting them up with scissors during the 9-11 investigation. I guess that was no big deal, what with Bush lying and all.
But, speaking of willful ignorance of obvious facts, if you go back to my first post, you will read this:
"There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can." Who said that? Rockefeller himself. So, was Rockefeller lying when he said that quote or was he lying when wrote that paragraph you quoted? Should he be impeached too? What about all the other people that claimed that Iraq was a threat? Should they be impeached? You accuse me of ignoring the facts, yet you sit here and call Bush a liar when so many others said the EXACT SAME THING. So, when you say, They all lied. I'm not a lawyer, but I'd say it's obvious that in lying about matters of national security, with the result of initiating war despite lack of any clear and present danger in the world of fact, they all knowingly undermined the United States' ability to confront our real enemies, thus giving them comfort. Ergo, they all committed treason." So, should ALL the people in the link I just provided, including Nancy Pelosi, Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger, John Kerry, Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, and the oracle himself, Al Gore all be tried for treason? Tell me again how I'm the one who is "willfully ignorant of the facts"?Let's look at another paragraph from Rockefeller's report:
The intelligence reporting did support the conclusion that chemical and biological weapons were within Iraq's technological capability, that Iraq was trying to procure dual-use materials that could have been used to produce these weapons, and that uncertainties existed about whether Iraq had fully destroyed its pre-Gulf War stocks of weapons and precursors. Why didn't we know? Because Iraq threw out the UN inspectors, which was a direct violation of the cease-fire agreement that was signed after the first gulf war. There were 16 other such violations. Of course, this is excusing the whole trying to assassinate a former US President, firing on US and UN personnel, and a credible warning from foreign intelligence agencies claiming that a terrorist attack from Iraq was imminent. Russian President Vladimir Putin said yesterday that his intelligence service had warned the Bush administration before the U.S. invasion of Iraq that Saddam Hussein's government was planning attacks against U.S. targets both inside and outside the country. Still, given all of the above, each a justification for war by itself, it appears that somehow, I'm the one with willful ignorance of the facts, even though I've just given you so many that you will willfully remain ignorant of.OK ... to further that then.
Where is the impeachment for LYING ABOUT WHY THE COUNTRY WAS DRAGGED INTO A PROTRACTED WAR! ... not for the war itself.
There are two problems with that. First, if Bush lied, then a whole slew of other people lied and would deserve equal treatment. Bill and Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and even John D. Rockefeller would all be guilty of the same "crime". Funny, considering that John D. Rockefeller (chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence) even created a report to try to prove that Bush lied. It found nothing: But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."
On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."
On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."
On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."
As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.
But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.
Even Rockefeller himself at one point said: "There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can." So that whole Bush lied thing no longer carries any water. It doesn't matter either way as lying to the public is not an impeachable offense. That's why Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath and obstruction of justice, NOT for saying to the American public "I did not have sexual RELATIONS with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky".Please move on to something else now. May I recommend something a little more On Topic. Thank you.
As for vegan oil, how many cars do you think our current crop of vegetable oil will power? I would be shocked if it were more than 1%. Actually, I looked it up:
Briante said there are about 100 million gallons of waste restaurant oil generated annually. That would only replace about 0.07 percent of the 140 billion gallons of gas Americans use each year, and that's assuming everyone switched from gasoline to diesel engines. Using new vegetable oil - not the used stuff from restaurants -raises similar scarcity questions. You said: What we really need is a technology for synthesizing hydrocarbons like gasoline from CO2 + H20 + electricity. Then we could use the existing (except for the particular thing I'm talking about, of course) technology and infrastructure just fine. I agree completely! Unfortunately, these types of technologies as well as the ethanol mentioned above are at least decades away. What do we do in the meantime? I say we increase domestic energy production (drill for oil!) and use the revenues from that to fund the research required to speed these technologies along. Provided the trillions (yes, TRILLIONS) of dollars that could be invested here, we will find an energy solution long before the oil runs out and not ruin our economies in the process.That's BS. My girlfriend's diesel VW runs on renewable biodiesel (from used restaurant grease) right now, and it's a ten-year-old car! Half of Brazil's cars run on renewable ethanol from sugar cane. Renewable hydro, nuclear, solar, wind, tidal, and geothermal are all viable today, when used appropriately (e.g. see Iceland for geothermal). Sure, neither wind nor solar is reliable enough to replace base load by itself, but if you use them together, in a distributed fashion, then they can even each other out and work just fine.
It's really not that hard.
That's awesome that your GF has a car that runs on vegetable oil. Is there enough restaurant vegetable oil to run all of America's cars? No. Is there enough to run a decent size percentage of America's cars? No. So this is not a viable option.It's great that Brazil can run half of their cars on ethanol. If we were to turn all of the US into sugar cane fields, would it be enough ethanol to power America's cars? Unfortunately, NO. So this is not a viable option either.
Hydro, nuclear, solar, wind tidal and geothermal are all available today, but can THEY power our cars? No. Sure, some cars are electric, but we are decades away from the technology that will allow us rely on them for our transportation needs. So while these are great for powering our homes and businesses, but we don't use oil for that anyway. Electricity will not be a viable option for powering our cars until the technology and infrastructure allows for vehicles to be completely charged in less than 5 minutes. Again, decades away.
Now all these are great options and will, someday, be viable to power our cars and get us to work, and our planes to travel, our trucks to move products to the market and our ships to get products imported and exported. But right now, and for the foreseeable future, our cars run on refined crude oil. We need crude oil NOW to power our economies that will pay for the research to get these ideas to the drawing board and then to our garages.
So, yeah, it is that hard.
They will be even more shocked when they come to realize that all of these price increases are simply a symptom of America's slip from "world superpowe" to " average wealthy western nation". Fuel and consumer products have cost this much in Europe for decades. The EU is doing just fine dealing with $5+ for a gallon of gas, and they aren't strip mining the Alps. But we can expect to have European sized cars and European sized houses at the european $3000 per sq ft not the US $125 per sq ft.
First, the EU pays that much for gas because the government taxes it that much. In other words, the reason the people in the EU live that way is because the government makes them. It is artificial. They are living in misery for no good reason.Why should we live that way? Sure, you say that they are "getting along just fine" and then you point out how much better we have it over here. Why would we drop our standards of living to shit just because the EU does it?
Real problem is still TOO MANY PEOPLE.
Well, if you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem. Rather than sitting around bitching about it, why don't you do something about it? Why don't you become part of the solution?Also, the 1002 area (the area where we want to explore) is about 2000 acres, or the size of Dulles Airport, out of a total ANWR size of 20 MILLION acres, or about the size of N. Carolina. Less than .01% of ANWR would be touched. Would your governor forbid your from building an airport in your state because of a NON-endangered species that lives on the other side of the state?
Besides, oil and gas development and wildlife are successfully coexisting in Alaska 's arctic today. For example, the Central Arctic Caribou Herd which migrates through Prudhoe Bay has grown from 3000 animals to its current level of 32,000 animals. The arctic oil fields have very healthy brown bear, fox and bird populations equal to their surrounding areas. So any supposed environmental catastrophe is a myth anyway.
And, don't get me wrong, I'm all about conservation and renewable research. Unfortunately, renewables won't be viable for another 20 years at best, so WTF are we supposed to do until then? This forced conservation that we are in now is going to ruin the economy and punish everyone for no apparent reason other than unfounded, outdated environmental concerns. Local drilling serves the purpose of making the US energy independent until we can develop alternatives and get the infrastructure set up to replace petroleum.
I understand that drilling in ANWR is not THE solution. But then again, neither is wind and/or solar. Should we give up on those ideas also because they are not THE solution to all of our energy problems? Of course not. Wind and solar are only part of a total energy solution. Just as conservation and alternatives are part of the solution as well.
Oh, and as for the topic at hand, rather than blame oil as the sole reasons jobs are returning home, it may be wise to also consider that the falling dollar has made outsourcing that much more expensive.
"But, these things take time and patience, which is what McCain was showing he has."
By avoiding the question, he's shown himself to be an able politician, but hardly the 'straight talk express'.
Let me update your signature for you:
How did McCain avoid the question? Seems to me like his answer is only honest answer I've seen from ANY politician where Iraq is concerned.--
To imprison men in GITMO forever, judicial proof is unnecessary -- GW Buch.
And are you saying that Bush is the same as "Che"? First, Great! Tell that to the next ignorant punk you see wearing a Che shirt. Next, sorry, but I haven't heard of any firing squads at Gitmo. I haven't head Bush say anything to the effect of, "Try them in the morning if you must, but they are being executed tonight." Finally, last I heard, the detainees at Gitmo are getting trials. They've had lawyers for years and now they are getting Miranda Rights. I can see it now:
Interrogator: Where did you plant the rest of your IED's?
Terrorists Lawyer: You don't have to answer that!
I understand your argument and probably don't agree with the google manipulation either.
However, you are failing to understand what McCann actually said.
He said that we can stay up to 100 year, then add "as long as no Americans are harmed". The first part sounds tough and committed which appeals to his hawkish supporters.
But then he tags on the tail which said "Well I mean only if there is no risk or harm done to Americans" which is a sop to those despairing of the human and financial costs to the USA.
There IS a principled way to interpret this, "As long as US people are not harmed, then we can station they in Iraq." But if he really belives this as the primary criterion, then he would advocate immediate withdrawal. Now we don't belive that that's what he means, do we?
So in combination, the statement is total irrelevant. It's like saying "I'm going to move to the Park Avenue apartment next to Michael Bloomberg ... so long as the rent is lower than $500..."
- a totally meaningless statement since the precondition can NEVER be met in our lifetime!
Fine, but that was not the point of the discussion. The point was that some sites are reporting that McCain WANTS troops in Iraq, as if a formerly tortured POW somehow enjoys the idea of having troops in harms way. That is not true and it is not at all what McCain said. That is the type of article that these guys want showing up first on a Google search.In response to your point, I see the hole you are pointing to in McCain's logic. However, I don't think you understand what McCain meant when he said that. If you listen to the rest of his statement, he points out that we still have troops station in Germany, Japan, S. Korea, Bosnia and other posts all over the world. It would be fine with McCain if we set up a permanent post in Iraq for 100 years or more, provided that it is not an active war zone at that time. But that has nothing to do with what is going on there now. Before we can set up permanent bases in Iraq, we need to get past the violence that is going on there today. This is what the "surge" is attempting to accomplish, and it is doing a good job. But, these things take time and patience, which is what McCain was showing he has.
'when McCain was asked whether U.S. troops might have to remain in Iraq for as long as 50 years, he replied, "Maybe 100" -- explaining, "As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it's fine with me"'
So McCann said 100 years is OK as long as no Americans are being harmed.
How about 1 year? Is he advocating immediate withdrawal since obviously Americans are being killed RIGHT NOW?
He sounds tough and committed --- as long as there is no cost!
Who is really shoveling polically motivated BS?
OK, read that quote you just posted. Now, go read the title of the article I linked to earlier. "Maybe 100" -- explaining, "As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it's fine with me" Is a far cry from "I want troops to be over there for 100 years! Having troops over there for 100 years is what I WANT! I long for a century of US troops in Iraq."See the difference? If someone wants to shoot themselves in the head, that's fine with me. Does that mean I WANT someone to shoot themselves in the head? See how they changed what he said around. They changed "fine with me" to "WANT".
Tell me, Is it that you WANT to believe that McCain is that fucking evil that you will believe anything that supports it, even if you have to literally warp reality to match your own preconceived view of the world, or are you just a fucking idiot?
Really, dude. It has to be one or the other. You even finished it off with, Who is really shoveling polically (sic) motivated BS? Uh... well, YOU are now.
So, are you can sit here and tell me that since all the articles are displayed, all is fair, even if a researcher has to go to page 10,000 before sees a neutral or positive article about McCain, you think that is, somehow, OK? And you are going to tell me that you are so naive to think that all potential voters are going to research all 10,000 pages down to get ALL the data?
Sorry, but that's just pathetic to even try to pull over on me. I hope you are smart enough to not actually believe that shit.
Yeah. It's a pretty shitty thing to do, although, with all the people saying things like "McCain WANTS troops to be in Iraq for 100 years", it's not surprising.
What we need is a bomb so accurate that it can take out a target without damaging the buildings around it. The bomb would need some kind of self guidance that would allow it maneuver itself. You could even say that such a bomb would be "smart".
You got modded down for comparing "left wing" California to the "left wing" USSR, China, and Cuba, as if those countries are even on the same political spectrum as the US. Then you got modded back up, a net positive, for whining about the moderation. Does that mean the system works? And if I hadn't made that second post, no one would have read the first post as it was modded below the threshold of most
Also, you can't deny that CA is one of the more left leaning states in the nation. The fact that the government there even considered fiddling with the thermostat in your own home if THEY think you're using too much energy should punctuate that point. Here in New Mexico there is water shortage, if not actual drought, and municipalities govern the use of water during the hot and dry periods. This does not strike me as "big brother", "left", or "right", but as a pragmatic compromise because for every environmentally conscious person of any political bent there are a few more who will attempt to install new lawns, run sprinklers during the day, and water sidewalks as much as they do plants. I think the thermostat example you bring up falls closer to the water use than to totalitarian regimes, and is not a political issue, but a practical issue. No, there is a difference. If you use too much water in New Mexico, they charge you more, or maybe even fine you. They do not walk into your home and turn your shower off. Also, energy is different than water. Energy is only limited by our reluctance to make it. Water is limited by how much is in the reservoir and it is fed by mother nature via rain. Electricity is man made product. If you run out, it's because you don't make enough. California (not mother nature) refuses to build power plants, therefor, California runs out of electricity. I think it is dialog, and good communication in general that is breaking down in political/governmental conversation attempts. Why is this? What political party stands for not telling other people how to live period? What political party does not pander to religious groups when making laws (indecency, substance abuse, etc)? I don't see it, but wish that I did. I feel like I am an old time conservative in economic and environmental policies, and a progressive when it comes to social agendas. And by social agendas I mean laws that govern how people live their private lives like same sex marriage, drug use, etc. You know, the ol' moral majority crap. Sounds like we mostly agree politically, but there are limits. For example, I'm against government recognizing same sex marriage, but I'm against government recognizing marriage at all. I say, "Civil Unions for everybody!". A marriage is between a couple and their God, family or whoever they think they need to get married for. Civil unions are for wills, power of attorney, health insurance and so on...
Hell, even the left wing states like California, where they want the government to control the thermostat in your own home are known for their personal freedom records. Only on slashdot, does the truth get modded troll.
I think this exchange is proof that RightBad=Insightful and LeftBad=Troll in the minds of some mods.
Remember, the first part of freedom is tolerating those that have different opinions than yourself and even defending their right to have those opinions. When I get downmodded for something like this, it proves to me that regardless of all the talk,
Hell, even the left wing states like California, where they want the government to control the thermostat in your own home are known for their personal freedom records.
Speaking of road rage and people driving too slow in the left lane, I've seen people in Houston get around those driving below the speed limit in the left lane, pull in front of them and slam their brakes. While it's dangerous and immature, it does tend to get those people out of the left lane, for a few miles at least.
When a lawyer is representing a client, it's his sworn duty to be biased. If he's not, then he's not doing his job and not representing his client. He is bound to the bias of his client. That's why a lawyer representing a client is not a good source when doing research.