Obama wants to limit how much Americans cat eat and use air conditioning?
-
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
-
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
-
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
Oakman wrote:
The Japanese Internment was, I believe, a direct result of the national unity that you prize so highly.
Thank you. That is precisely the point I'm making. Military victory simply is not possible without just such national unity and it is the obligation of the government to achieve it as part of any military effort. We will lose every single war we ever fight from now on, regarless of how important it might be, due to this new age attitude of ours that any political faction can act to subvert any military campaign with which it disagrees.
Oakman wrote:
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.
It is not a question of what I admire, it is merely a question of what works and what does not. If this government cannot defend itself against those who would undermine legal militry commitments, than we will be incapable of defending the very values that make us different from those other societies you so fear.
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 Japanese Internment was, I believe, a direct result of the national unity that you prize so highly.
Thank you. That is precisely the point I'm making. Military victory simply is not possible without just such national unity and it is the obligation of the government to achieve it as part of any military effort. We will lose every single war we ever fight from now on, regarless of how important it might be, due to this new age attitude of ours that any political faction can act to subvert any military campaign with which it disagrees.
Oakman wrote:
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.
It is not a question of what I admire, it is merely a question of what works and what does not. If this government cannot defend itself against those who would undermine legal militry commitments, than we will be incapable of defending the very values that make us different from those other societies you so fear.
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:
the obligation of the government to achieve it
Looks like your boy, GWB proved to be as ept at this as everything else. Stan, I have no probvlem saying that the Government needs to motivate its citizens to support its wars. I only object to the idea that someone who sees that the Emperor has no clothes is a traitor.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If this government cannot defend itself against those who would undermine legal militry commitments, than we will be incapable of defending the very values that make us different from those other societies you so fear.
So you think we need big internment camps where we lock up everyone who thinks that George Bush and is administration have totally screwed up this war? This will include, of course, a number of the generals and senior officers who actually had to fight it for him and watch people die because his DoD was such a cretin. It would also include the Republican nominee for President, and 70% of the people in the United States. Aren't you going to be a little lonely when there's no-one left except you, Cheney, Bush and Karl Rove?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
"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
Imagine: I've read "O**
s**ama wants to limit how much Americans cat eat and use air conditioning?"... :rolleyes: -
So? He's right. We can't, and we shouldn't. Marc
-
charlieg wrote:
bs. why not?
Because capitalism functions best when people base their actions out of need rather than greed. Marc
-
charlieg wrote:
bs. why not?
Because capitalism functions best when people base their actions out of need rather than greed. Marc
gag, come on Marc, are you serious? The market does not work this way, and it never has. People base their action on their own motivations. The regulating factor is price. Always has been. Do you really, really want the government telling you what is being "greedy"? Other countries? Because if you do, note that our poverty level is way, way above the world's poverty level. Every single American would fall into the greed catagory. No, our economy is based on the fundamental concept of PRIVATE PROPERTY. You're sounding socialistic... which is exactly what Barry is.
Charlie Gilley Will program for food...
-
gag, come on Marc, are you serious? The market does not work this way, and it never has. People base their action on their own motivations. The regulating factor is price. Always has been. Do you really, really want the government telling you what is being "greedy"? Other countries? Because if you do, note that our poverty level is way, way above the world's poverty level. Every single American would fall into the greed catagory. No, our economy is based on the fundamental concept of PRIVATE PROPERTY. You're sounding socialistic... which is exactly what Barry is.
Charlie Gilley Will program for food...
charlieg wrote:
Do you really, really want the government telling you what is being "greedy"?
Of course not, people should be able to figure this out for themselves.
charlieg wrote:
our economy is based on the fundamental concept of PRIVATE PROPERTY.
Aye, tell that to those people in CT a few years ago when the gov't came in and siezed their property, claiming emminent domain (sp?) and the Supreme Court upheld the state's decision. But I do get your point. Marc