Obama wants to limit how much Americans cat eat and use air conditioning?
-
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.
-
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.
Stan Shannon wrote:
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.
Well, I'm not sure we won the war of 1812, but during it New England came close to seceding they were so set against it. During the Civil War, the Copperheads (Jeffersonians, all) believed the South had the right to secede and actively opposed the war in the north. Meanwhile in Appalachia, northern loyalists carried out an active guerrilla campaign against the Virgina government. WWI was opposed by the fledgling Trade Unionists and the poem containing the following lines was widely published: If in some smothering dreams you too could pace Behind the wagon that we flung him in, And watch the white eyes writhing in his face, His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin; If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs, Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,-- My friend, you would not tell with such high zest To children ardent for some desperate glory, The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori. WWII was the good war of course. The Japanese insured a level of national unity I don't think most democracies ever reach - even Charles Lindbergh stopped arguing against involvement in the war. The Republicans were not so much opposed to the Korean War as they were to Harry Truman's administration of the war effort - their criticisms sound a lot like McCain's (or mine) of Bush. When Macarthur was fired, there was some talk of impeaching Truman - hardly the kind of absolute unquestioning loyalty you think Bush deserves. Meanwhile public support for the war began to decline after Red China forced the Marines back to the 38th parallel, although it never reach the level of opposition the Vietnam war did. Eisenhower won in '52 by promising to end the war in Korea.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And if victory cannot be achieved because of such political turmoil, then who is the real enemy?
Actually we have achieved victory while tolerating opposition from the Revolutionary War onwards. It is a fantasy to assume that citizens of the U.S have ever marched in lockstep with its leaders. We're too good, and too smart for that kind of bullshit.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original po
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
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.
Well, I'm not sure we won the war of 1812, but during it New England came close to seceding they were so set against it. During the Civil War, the Copperheads (Jeffersonians, all) believed the South had the right to secede and actively opposed the war in the north. Meanwhile in Appalachia, northern loyalists carried out an active guerrilla campaign against the Virgina government. WWI was opposed by the fledgling Trade Unionists and the poem containing the following lines was widely published: If in some smothering dreams you too could pace Behind the wagon that we flung him in, And watch the white eyes writhing in his face, His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin; If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs, Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,-- My friend, you would not tell with such high zest To children ardent for some desperate glory, The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori. WWII was the good war of course. The Japanese insured a level of national unity I don't think most democracies ever reach - even Charles Lindbergh stopped arguing against involvement in the war. The Republicans were not so much opposed to the Korean War as they were to Harry Truman's administration of the war effort - their criticisms sound a lot like McCain's (or mine) of Bush. When Macarthur was fired, there was some talk of impeaching Truman - hardly the kind of absolute unquestioning loyalty you think Bush deserves. Meanwhile public support for the war began to decline after Red China forced the Marines back to the 38th parallel, although it never reach the level of opposition the Vietnam war did. Eisenhower won in '52 by promising to end the war in Korea.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And if victory cannot be achieved because of such political turmoil, then who is the real enemy?
Actually we have achieved victory while tolerating opposition from the Revolutionary War onwards. It is a fantasy to assume that citizens of the U.S have ever marched in lockstep with its leaders. We're too good, and too smart for that kind of bullshit.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original po
All of that is complete bullshit. First, secession would be an honorable act. Second, in the civil war Lincoln virtually trashed the constitution to effectively deal with the copperhead movement. Third, Wilson imposed very strictly imposed anti-sedition laws. Fourth, Charles Lindbergh had the FBI on his ass for most of the war, and an entire ethnic minority was imprisoned in the name of national security. And Truman never received the kind of repugnant name calling that Bush has received and remains one of our great national heroes. There simply is no historic precedent for what this country has experienced for the last 8 years. Now, granted, had the internet existed in earlier times, and people's opinions could have been more easily made known, there may well have been more criticism. But it would have meant defeat in every war we fought. There is a reason we used to win really tough wars and now lose wars tht should be nothing more than an extended training operation. That difference is political disharmony and a government incapable of acting forcefully to suppress it.
Oakman wrote:
ctually we have achieved victory while tolerating opposition from the Revolutionary War onwards.
Not true. It may well have existed but it was never tolerated. And those who doing so today are not participating in some kind of nobel American tradition of dissent. Earliar generations would have considered them traitors, which they are.
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.
-
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
I'm not sure how you read me being pissed in my statement of suprise over his advocacy of gov't intervention in the free market.
Oakman wrote:
Surely you should be applauding.
My personal opinion is that sort of subsidy wouldn't work any better that the ethonol subsidies have. I think the direction we should go more likely will be in the form of cap-and-trade and/or carbon tax.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
Stan and Espeir can hardly be classified as visionaries. If it doesn't fit their dogma, it's heresy.
But what do you think about the issue?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
But what do you think about the issue?
I think there's nothing wrong with the world that a 90% reduction in population can't fix. The question is how peacefully that reduction occurs so I concur with you on that part. I think for tool long short sighted economists have been running things and it's so obvious they can't see past the ends of their noses. They keep claiming that exponential population is good since it creates new markets and prosperity...for someone. Any fool knows exponential growth in anything can't be sustained. In the past technology has mitigtated some of the effects of population growth but now it's getting down to where the rubber meets the road and it's fundamental availability of prime resources that are becoming limited. Some "humanitarians" want us to feed the starving of the world but unless you do something about their birthrate at the same time, it makes no sense. Save one today and tomorrow there will be ten starving and they may have access to nuclear weapons. With that scenario it's the shit hits the fan there sooner or everywhere later.
2 75 22 6
-
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.
Stan Shannon wrote:
if government simply did not tax so much
This isn't about taxes, it about you advocating gov't intervention in the free market in a massive way.
Stan Shannon wrote:
we would probably already have nuclear fusion reactors
I'd really like to see the data that makes the correlation between federal taxes and the lack of nuclear fusion.
Stan Shannon wrote:
selectively encouraging risk taking in the energy markets is the next best thing.
Again, you suprise me. When have you ever had confidence that the federal gov't has the forsight and judgement to determine the best research possibilities for alternative energy? - Better than the free market.
-
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:
Well, since your you're so open minded and willing to change
I suspect I've changed a lot more in my life than you have. And am still much more capable of learning and changing. BTW, Oakman's right, we can always tell when we're getting to you because your spelling and grammar start to become Henizish. :laugh:
Stan Shannon wrote:
why don't you just accept our dogma? Isn't it as good as any other dogma?
Because your dogma is dog crap. It's not thought out. It's a kneejerk reaction to keeping up what you mistakenly believe the status quo to be. I suspect Ned Ludd is also one of your heroes.
2 75 22 6
-
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
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
if government simply did not tax so much
This isn't about taxes, it about you advocating gov't intervention in the free market in a massive way.
Stan Shannon wrote:
we would probably already have nuclear fusion reactors
I'd really like to see the data that makes the correlation between federal taxes and the lack of nuclear fusion.
Stan Shannon wrote:
selectively encouraging risk taking in the energy markets is the next best thing.
Again, you suprise me. When have you ever had confidence that the federal gov't has the forsight and judgement to determine the best research possibilities for alternative energy? - Better than the free market.
oilFactotum wrote:
This isn't about taxes, it about you advocating gov't intervention in the free market in a massive way.
No, its completely about taxation. Giving people tax breaks for investing is a hell of a lot better than penalizing them for making too much money and than wasting that money on some government program.
oilFactotum wrote:
I'd really like to see the data that makes the correlation between federal taxes and the lack of nuclear fusion.
Clearly, we would be far more advanced than we are if the government would stop interferring with human progress. American innovativeness has fallen off in almost direct proportion to the interference of government in our lives.
oilFactotum wrote:
When have you ever had confidence that the federal gov't has the forsight and judgement to determine the best research possibilities for alternative energy? - Better than the free market.
I don't. Allowing people to freely invest in those technologies they think are most likely to return a profit is free market capitalism. I personnally believe that nuclear fusion is the best alternative. If I were a multibillionaire oil executive, thats where I would put my money, especially if given large tax incentives to do so.
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.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
This isn't about taxes, it about you advocating gov't intervention in the free market in a massive way.
No, its completely about taxation. Giving people tax breaks for investing is a hell of a lot better than penalizing them for making too much money and than wasting that money on some government program.
oilFactotum wrote:
I'd really like to see the data that makes the correlation between federal taxes and the lack of nuclear fusion.
Clearly, we would be far more advanced than we are if the government would stop interferring with human progress. American innovativeness has fallen off in almost direct proportion to the interference of government in our lives.
oilFactotum wrote:
When have you ever had confidence that the federal gov't has the forsight and judgement to determine the best research possibilities for alternative energy? - Better than the free market.
I don't. Allowing people to freely invest in those technologies they think are most likely to return a profit is free market capitalism. I personnally believe that nuclear fusion is the best alternative. If I were a multibillionaire oil executive, thats where I would put my money, especially if given large tax incentives to do so.
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:
No, its completely about taxation.
No, I disagree. It's about researching alternative energy - and tax breaks is simply one option - in my opinion not a very good one.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Giving people tax breaks for investing is a hell of a lot better than penalizing them for making too much money and than wasting that money on some government program.
Well those aren't the only 2 choices. So it's not a choice between one or the other. Besides, the way I see it, your tax breaks are just another gov't program.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Clearly,...
Not clearly at all. Have any real data to back that assertion up?
Stan Shannon wrote:
Allowing people to freely invest in those technologies they think are most likely to return a profit is free market capitalism.
But that is not what you were suggesting. You were suggesting that the gov't interfere by influencing the free market through the tax code.
Stan Shannon wrote:
especially if given large tax incentives to do so
Very likely. But the free market response would be to maximize the tax benefit, not to maximize the research.
-
"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said. "That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added. http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-wpxs1Re-8vx2Zk5xnYygW1W67w[^]
I'm a Christian: I *know* that I'm perverted. - Ilion
-
One study I saw says that per-capita consumption of food grain in the US is more than 1000 kilograms a year. How can that be true? It is more than 3 kg per person. :omg: If it is true, there is scope to reduce consumption without starving anyone.
Thomas George wrote:
One study I saw says that per-capita consumption of food grain in the US is more than 1000 kilograms a year.
I think you're confusing consumption with production. US per capita grain production is over 1200 kg per year but most of it is not directly consumed by people. The bulk of it is used as livestock feed. The US is also a major food exporter, too.
2 75 22 6
-
All of that is complete bullshit. First, secession would be an honorable act. Second, in the civil war Lincoln virtually trashed the constitution to effectively deal with the copperhead movement. Third, Wilson imposed very strictly imposed anti-sedition laws. Fourth, Charles Lindbergh had the FBI on his ass for most of the war, and an entire ethnic minority was imprisoned in the name of national security. And Truman never received the kind of repugnant name calling that Bush has received and remains one of our great national heroes. There simply is no historic precedent for what this country has experienced for the last 8 years. Now, granted, had the internet existed in earlier times, and people's opinions could have been more easily made known, there may well have been more criticism. But it would have meant defeat in every war we fought. There is a reason we used to win really tough wars and now lose wars tht should be nothing more than an extended training operation. That difference is political disharmony and a government incapable of acting forcefully to suppress it.
Oakman wrote:
ctually we have achieved victory while tolerating opposition from the Revolutionary War onwards.
Not true. It may well have existed but it was never tolerated. And those who doing so today are not participating in some kind of nobel American tradition of dissent. Earliar generations would have considered them traitors, which they are.
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:
First, secession would be an honorable act.
ROFL. Do you really think that your opinion about this matter counters jack? No matter how loud you shout, no matter how outrageous your presumption, history does not change.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Second, in the civil war Lincoln virtually trashed the constitution to effectively deal with the copperhead movement.
And this proves there was no opposition??? Sounds like it was very strong opposition.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Third, Wilson imposed very strictly imposed anti-sedition laws.
More proof that there was very strong opposition.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Fourth, Charles Lindbergh had the FBI on his ass for most of the war, and an entire ethnic minority was imprisoned in the name of national security
The Japanese Internment was, I believe, a direct result of the national unity that you prize so highly.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And Truman never received the kind of repugnant name calling that Bush has received and remains one of our great national heroes
Remains??? Main you don't know your history at all, do you? His reputation was in the toilet during his second term, there was serious talk of impeaching him, and the Republicans called him every name in the book. Look it up! His reputation was rehabilitated(properly, I believe) well after he left office.
Stan Shannon wrote:
It may well have existed but it was never tolerated
That's quite a step back from claiming opposition didn't exist, isn't it?
Stan Shannon wrote:
And those who doing so today are not participating in some kind of nobel American tradition of dissent.
Nor was America marching in lockstep like Germany in WWII, no matter how much that image warms your heart. Every war we have fought has faced loud, determined opposition. Call the reaction what you will, it was not the kind of savage elimination that it would have faced in the countries whose political systems you admire.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
I'm not sure how you read me being pissed in my statement of suprise over his advocacy of gov't intervention in the free market.
Oakman wrote:
Surely you should be applauding.
My personal opinion is that sort of subsidy wouldn't work any better that the ethonol subsidies have. I think the direction we should go more likely will be in the form of cap-and-trade and/or carbon tax.
oilFactotum wrote:
cap-and-trade and/or carbon tax.
Thats exactly the sort of accept the status quo thinking that will guarantee that the present situation will be perpetuated. Unless we start looking for solutions, not just bandaids, we'll all starve in the cold and the dark.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface