Obama wants to limit how much Americans cat eat and use air conditioning?
-
I didn't think it was just a propulsion problem.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:
At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
Paul Watson wrote:
I didn't think it was just a propulsion problem
For getting to the moon, Mars, and the Asteroids - absolutely. There may be problems colonizing them, but even those will be lessened if we have the kind of power that I have been talking about.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The amazing thing is that Obama and McCain both seem to be running to see which one of them can lose the election the fastest.
I've noticed that - and their senior-most elected supporters are helping as hard as they can - Reid/Pelosi provide excellent reasons to vote for McCain every day, while Bush labors far into the night to insure a Democratic Whitehouse next year.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
I've noticed that - and their senior-most elected supporters are helping as hard as they can - Reid/Pelosi provide excellent reasons to vote for McCain every day, while Bush labors far into the night to insure a Democratic Whitehouse next year.
Seems like McCain probably has the best chance though because the democrats are split between Obama and Hillary, and a percentage of each of their supporters says they will vote for McCain if their candidate does not get the nomination. And like Joe Lieberman said, Obama and Hillary are not moderates, they are "hyperpartisan" leftists. That probably gives McCain an advantage because being a moderate he can get conservative democrat votes, but Obama or Hillary have little chance of getting republican votes.
I'm a Christian: I *know* that I'm perverted. - Ilion
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
With proper management, human civilization can survive but not necessarily in a format which we today recognise
Certainly not with the population that this planet tries to support. Long before Global Warming drowns us, or the Sahara takes over more of Africa, the lack of food will begin eliminating overpopulation in that very efficient manner that nature uses. We are beginning to see that happen today. Switching from corn to sugar cane is not going to put rice in the bellies of the starving east. Once the population drops to a sustainable level (Famine will be aided by War and Pestilence) we'll be able to support the fewer of us in a style that may be different but not necessarily unrecognizable.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
the lack of food will begin eliminating overpopulation in that very efficient manner that nature uses
and
Oakman wrote:
Once the population drops to a sustainable level (Famine will be aided by War and Pestilence) we'll be able to support the fewer of us in a style that may be different but not necessarily unrecognizable
Not that very long ago I used similar words but Espeir, Stan and others made it known that this is not a problem at all now or in the medium to long term future. It won't be allowed to happen, or so I was told.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yes, but energy is the primary reason we cannot do that. We need to solve the energy problem and than solve the space problem. Or we are toast in any case.
Well, I'm not so sure I want us to be technically capable of strip mining the solar system. Access to energy and resources does not solve our real problems. If anything our current ways are what have made us easy targets. Our militaries built on our economies and culture are unable to root out peasants in caves. We are unable to convince the people around stone throwing murderers that what we preach is a better way. Those that we do convince end up threatening our way of life through consequences we hadn't thought of. I don't loathe us, I just think we aren't quite so right as we think. The aspirations I grew up with seem trivial. Many of the institutions we are meant to revere and support are on the verge of leaving us for dead (just read that pension thread above.) I want to survive but so do 7 billion other humans. Right now it looks like there is going to be a fight. I'd like to find a different way.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:
At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
Paul Watson wrote:
Well, I'm not so sure I want us to be technically capable of strip mining the solar system. Access to energy and resources does not solve our real problems.
A. Why not? You think the asteroids are some sort of wilderness more in need of protection than Alaska? B. Who do you mean when you say, "Us???" China is heading for outer space right now - and don't think they will use hydrogen and liquid oxygen to get there just like Buzz Aldrin did.
Paul Watson wrote:
Our militaries built on our economies and culture are unable to root out peasants in caves.
The army we had in 1970 could do that (and did do that) every day. Do a Google on Vietnam and Tunnel Rats. It's not our armies, its the idiots like Bush1, Clinton and Bush2 who destroyed the finest fighting force in the world. Reimpose the draft like Charlie Rangel wants and we'll fight fewer wars, but those we fight, we'll fight far better.
Paul Watson wrote:
I want to survive but so do 7 billion other humans.
One thing is for sure. It ain't gonna chance change cause we up the thermostat in the summer.
Paul Watson wrote:
Right now it looks like there is going to be a fight. I'd like to find a different way.
We either remove the reasons for fighting - and that means, IMHO, moving out into the solar system; or we remove those who want to fight us. (With luck, famine will do it for us.) If the best third choice that can be offered is smaller cars, then I'm going to buy a bigger gun.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
modified on Sunday, May 18, 2008 4:09 PM
-
Oakman wrote:
the lack of food will begin eliminating overpopulation in that very efficient manner that nature uses
and
Oakman wrote:
Once the population drops to a sustainable level (Famine will be aided by War and Pestilence) we'll be able to support the fewer of us in a style that may be different but not necessarily unrecognizable
Not that very long ago I used similar words but Espeir, Stan and others made it known that this is not a problem at all now or in the medium to long term future. It won't be allowed to happen, or so I was told.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Espeir, Stan and others made it known that this is not a problem at all now or in the medium to long term future.
Well, I got your back. :-D And to be fair, they may not have been able to anticipate the rapid devaluation of the dollar, the increase in the cost of fuel, and the bonuses offered to American farmers to stop growing food and start growing fuel. I think the problem is a lot closer than medium to long term. Already a number of countries that have been exporters have slapped controls on the amount of food they let leave their borders.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
I've noticed that - and their senior-most elected supporters are helping as hard as they can - Reid/Pelosi provide excellent reasons to vote for McCain every day, while Bush labors far into the night to insure a Democratic Whitehouse next year.
Seems like McCain probably has the best chance though because the democrats are split between Obama and Hillary, and a percentage of each of their supporters says they will vote for McCain if their candidate does not get the nomination. And like Joe Lieberman said, Obama and Hillary are not moderates, they are "hyperpartisan" leftists. That probably gives McCain an advantage because being a moderate he can get conservative democrat votes, but Obama or Hillary have little chance of getting republican votes.
I'm a Christian: I *know* that I'm perverted. - Ilion
DemonPossessed wrote:
That probably gives McCain an advantage because being a moderate he can get conservative democrat votes, but Obama or Hillary have little chance of getting republican votes.
From your mouth to ________________________'s ear (fill in the blank as you choose.) The best we can hope for, it seems to me is a Republican President vetoing the actions of a Democratic Congress, while the Democratic Congress refuses to give the Republican President everything he wishes. In other words, just like that last two years. :(( Of course, if the Dems get a veto proof congress - and they very well might - it's Katie bar the door time.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Paul Watson wrote:
Well, I'm not so sure I want us to be technically capable of strip mining the solar system. Access to energy and resources does not solve our real problems.
A. Why not? You think the asteroids are some sort of wilderness more in need of protection than Alaska? B. Who do you mean when you say, "Us???" China is heading for outer space right now - and don't think they will use hydrogen and liquid oxygen to get there just like Buzz Aldrin did.
Paul Watson wrote:
Our militaries built on our economies and culture are unable to root out peasants in caves.
The army we had in 1970 could do that (and did do that) every day. Do a Google on Vietnam and Tunnel Rats. It's not our armies, its the idiots like Bush1, Clinton and Bush2 who destroyed the finest fighting force in the world. Reimpose the draft like Charlie Rangel wants and we'll fight fewer wars, but those we fight, we'll fight far better.
Paul Watson wrote:
I want to survive but so do 7 billion other humans.
One thing is for sure. It ain't gonna chance change cause we up the thermostat in the summer.
Paul Watson wrote:
Right now it looks like there is going to be a fight. I'd like to find a different way.
We either remove the reasons for fighting - and that means, IMHO, moving out into the solar system; or we remove those who want to fight us. (With luck, famine will do it for us.) If the best third choice that can be offered is smaller cars, then I'm going to buy a bigger gun.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
modified on Sunday, May 18, 2008 4:09 PM
Oakman wrote:
Do a Google on Vietnam and Tunnel Rats. It's not our armies, its the idiots like Bush1, Clinton and Bush2 who destroyed the finest fighting force in the world. Reimpose the draft like Charlie Rangel wants and we'll fight fewer wars, but those we fight, we'll fight far better.
I agree with you and Rangel. However, it takes one more thing - national unity. If you remember, we lost in Vietnam for no other reason than the enemy knew they could out last our political will. We simply cannot allow some political faction to demonize the leadership even when that leadership is flawed and makes mistakes.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
the lack of food will begin eliminating overpopulation in that very efficient manner that nature uses
and
Oakman wrote:
Once the population drops to a sustainable level (Famine will be aided by War and Pestilence) we'll be able to support the fewer of us in a style that may be different but not necessarily unrecognizable
Not that very long ago I used similar words but Espeir, Stan and others made it known that this is not a problem at all now or in the medium to long term future. It won't be allowed to happen, or so I was told.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Not that very long ago I used similar words but Espeir, Stan and others made it known that this is not a problem at all now or in the medium to long term future. It won't be allowed to happen, or so I was told.
I have certainly made no such contrary arguments. There is an argument that this planet can sustain far more people than it does by allowing for ever more free market innovation and economic growth. Which I think would probably occur with less government interference in the international markets. Still, one of my main arguments for years has been that most of our problems are solvable by simply letting nature take its course. Its just that I get in trouble for pointing out that most of the excess population that would die off would necessarily consist of ethnic minorities, which obviously cannot be allowed to happen until the white folks have finished breeding themselves out of existence.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
DemonPossessed wrote:
That probably gives McCain an advantage because being a moderate he can get conservative democrat votes, but Obama or Hillary have little chance of getting republican votes.
From your mouth to ________________________'s ear (fill in the blank as you choose.) The best we can hope for, it seems to me is a Republican President vetoing the actions of a Democratic Congress, while the Democratic Congress refuses to give the Republican President everything he wishes. In other words, just like that last two years. :(( Of course, if the Dems get a veto proof congress - and they very well might - it's Katie bar the door time.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
The best we can hope for, it seems to me is a Republican President vetoing the actions of a Democratic Congress, while the Democratic Congress refuses to give the Republican President everything he wishes. In other words, just like that last two years. Of course, if the Dems get a veto proof congress - and they very well might - it's Katie bar the door time.
Frankly, I hope the dems take the entire thing. I think that most of the leadership of that party are hard core marxists and 60s radicals and suddenly finding themselves unopposed in power would not be able to restrain a feeding freenzy of social reform which would result in an extreme backlash. If a true conservative coalition could be rebuilt in the meantime, it might be well placed to assume power next go round. I think thats the best anyone can hope for.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
DemonPossessed wrote:
That probably gives McCain an advantage because being a moderate he can get conservative democrat votes, but Obama or Hillary have little chance of getting republican votes.
From your mouth to ________________________'s ear (fill in the blank as you choose.) The best we can hope for, it seems to me is a Republican President vetoing the actions of a Democratic Congress, while the Democratic Congress refuses to give the Republican President everything he wishes. In other words, just like that last two years. :(( Of course, if the Dems get a veto proof congress - and they very well might - it's Katie bar the door time.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
The best we can hope for, it seems to me is a Republican President vetoing the actions of a Democratic Congress, while the Democratic Congress refuses to give the Republican President everything he wishes.
TO quote someone else on this thread, A-Bleeping-Men. There's nothing like absolute gridlock at the federal level to make the rest of the country hum right along. The stock market would soar.
Mike - typical white guy. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Oakman wrote:
Do a Google on Vietnam and Tunnel Rats. It's not our armies, its the idiots like Bush1, Clinton and Bush2 who destroyed the finest fighting force in the world. Reimpose the draft like Charlie Rangel wants and we'll fight fewer wars, but those we fight, we'll fight far better.
I agree with you and Rangel. However, it takes one more thing - national unity. If you remember, we lost in Vietnam for no other reason than the enemy knew they could out last our political will. We simply cannot allow some political faction to demonize the leadership even when that leadership is flawed and makes mistakes.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If you remember, we lost in Vietnam for no other reason than the enemy knew they could out last our political will.
We didn't lose in Vietnam, we won and then ran home with our tail between our legs, but I know what you mean. Rangel feels that a draft that cannot be avoided will do much to eliminate the problems that occurred during Vietnam. Personally I'd like to see UMT added in as what happenes on one's 19th birthday. On your 20th, you are either drafted, enlisted, offered OTC, or placed in the ready reserve, complete with monthly training. In such a case, it would behoove the Washingtonians to remember that their next election probably depended on whether the army and the army's parents liked the way things were going and work their tails off to create national unity. Bush, for instance, had it. We could have sustained almost any level of casualties in Afghanistan without there being an outcry. Instead he wasted it by wasting our soldiers on a war of aggression whose announced reasons for being quickly proved false. This isn't any different than Johnson who had the backing of most of the country - until Macnamara proved he didn't know didley squat about being DoD.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Not that very long ago I used similar words but Espeir, Stan and others made it known that this is not a problem at all now or in the medium to long term future. It won't be allowed to happen, or so I was told.
I have certainly made no such contrary arguments. There is an argument that this planet can sustain far more people than it does by allowing for ever more free market innovation and economic growth. Which I think would probably occur with less government interference in the international markets. Still, one of my main arguments for years has been that most of our problems are solvable by simply letting nature take its course. Its just that I get in trouble for pointing out that most of the excess population that would die off would necessarily consist of ethnic minorities, which obviously cannot be allowed to happen until the white folks have finished breeding themselves out of existence.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
most of the excess population that would die off would necessarily consist of ethnic minorities,
If by ethnic minorities you are referring to the ethnic groups that make up about a 3/4ths majority of the human race, I couldn't agree more. ;P
Stan Shannon wrote:
white folks
All of a sudden you sound like Billy Clinton. :(
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Espeir, Stan and others made it known that this is not a problem at all now or in the medium to long term future.
Well, I got your back. :-D And to be fair, they may not have been able to anticipate the rapid devaluation of the dollar, the increase in the cost of fuel, and the bonuses offered to American farmers to stop growing food and start growing fuel. I think the problem is a lot closer than medium to long term. Already a number of countries that have been exporters have slapped controls on the amount of food they let leave their borders.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Paul Watson wrote:
In industry yes, in personal life-style, hell no. We individual Westerners have a lot of cutting back to do.
ANd who precisely gets empowered to define when the cutting back stops? I mean, are we talking 19th century here? How about 12th? Hell, why not 10,000 BC. Cutting back is not the answer. What we need to do is allow for massive tax breaks for all parties who invest in new forms of energy, especially nuclear fusion. Who ever comes up first with a fusion power plant that works gets to hold the patent for the next several centuries. If that fails, then we won't need to worry about cutting back because nature will take care of that for us. We need to respect the free markets and encourage investment not Obama's communist effort to confiscate 'excess profits'. Who the hell is he to say someone has excess profits?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
What we need to do is allow for massive tax breaks for all parties who invest in new forms of energy, especially nuclear fusion.
I must admit, I'm quite suprised to see you advocating that the gov't intervene in the market place massively to subsidize particular industries.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
What we need to do is allow for massive tax breaks for all parties who invest in new forms of energy, especially nuclear fusion.
I must admit, I'm quite suprised to see you advocating that the gov't intervene in the market place massively to subsidize particular industries.
oilFactotum wrote:
I must admit, I'm quite suprised to see you advocating that the gov't intervene in the market place massively to subsidize particular industries.
You sound like you're pissed off that he's showing some vision. Surely you should be applauding.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
And to be fair, they may not have been able to anticipate...
Stan and Espeir can hardly be classified as visionaries. If it doesn't fit their dogma, it's heresy.
2 75 22 6
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
What we need to do is allow for massive tax breaks for all parties who invest in new forms of energy, especially nuclear fusion.
I must admit, I'm quite suprised to see you advocating that the gov't intervene in the market place massively to subsidize particular industries.
Well, obviously, it would be far better if government simply did not tax so much in the first place, we would probably already have nuclear fusion reactors. But since that is not the world we live in, selectively encouraging risk taking in the energy markets is the next best thing.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
And to be fair, they may not have been able to anticipate...
Stan and Espeir can hardly be classified as visionaries. If it doesn't fit their dogma, it's heresy.
2 75 22 6
Tim Craig wrote:
If it doesn't fit their dogma, it's heresy
Well, since your so open minded and willing to change, why don't you just accept our dogma? Isn't it as good as any other dogma? Now that I think about it, how does one distinquish between dogmas without being dogmatic?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
If you remember, we lost in Vietnam for no other reason than the enemy knew they could out last our political will.
We didn't lose in Vietnam, we won and then ran home with our tail between our legs, but I know what you mean. Rangel feels that a draft that cannot be avoided will do much to eliminate the problems that occurred during Vietnam. Personally I'd like to see UMT added in as what happenes on one's 19th birthday. On your 20th, you are either drafted, enlisted, offered OTC, or placed in the ready reserve, complete with monthly training. In such a case, it would behoove the Washingtonians to remember that their next election probably depended on whether the army and the army's parents liked the way things were going and work their tails off to create national unity. Bush, for instance, had it. We could have sustained almost any level of casualties in Afghanistan without there being an outcry. Instead he wasted it by wasting our soldiers on a war of aggression whose announced reasons for being quickly proved false. This isn't any different than Johnson who had the backing of most of the country - until Macnamara proved he didn't know didley squat about being DoD.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
We could have sustained almost any level of casualties in Afghanistan without there being an outcry. Instead he wasted it by wasting our soldiers on a war of aggression whose announced reasons for being quickly proved false. This isn't any different than Johnson who had the backing of most of the country - until Macnamara proved he didn't know didley squat about being DoD.
And I still have to disagree with that. How competent was Stanton? Historically, we have had some real bone headed leadership during war time, yet we saw none of the kind of current vitriole back in the days when we were actually winning wars. Regardless of what your personal opinion is, Irag was given congressional approval. Once the troops are committed the only important thing is victory and that should be our only concern. When one political faction just decides that it doesn't like the reason for the war or the motives of the people who started it and demand disengagment, there can be no victory. And if victory cannot be achieved because of such political turmoil, then who is the real enemy?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
If it doesn't fit their dogma, it's heresy
Well, since your so open minded and willing to change, why don't you just accept our dogma? Isn't it as good as any other dogma? Now that I think about it, how does one distinquish between dogmas without being dogmatic?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.