A modest proposal

[Fairweather]

Better check the Bio-Fuels Farce thread, JoshK. Even j_b sees the issue clearly.

 

 

Thanks, I have. And I care to listen to more of the issue than what is in one article. I am sick and fucking tired of people bitching about us being dependent on middle east oil and at the same time supporting administrations like the one we have. NOTHING IS GOING TO CHANGE WITH THEM IN POWER!!! Vote in people who actually see the point of doing long term work to reduce our dependence, such as, again, fuel efficieny standards, alternative energies, etc. rather than giving oil companies more money.

 

So you're saying oil dependence is a new problem? So you support drilling in ANWR to reduce our addiction to Saudi crude? More Gulf drilling? Wind? Your Kennedy clan friends stopped an offshore windfarm that would have interfered with their ocean view. Enviros have shut down windfarms in CA because of bird kills. You support more nuke plants? How will solar be stored? Are you the guy who wants to tear down hydro projects? Face it, Josh. You're a victim of hysteria politics, angry prof's, and junk mail...or maybe you're just mad that your rich daddy gave away half of your inheritance trying to get Kerry elected. I really don't know. But just because someone points out a flaw in a single idea, and jabs at someone like AlpineK who has bitten down on it hook/line/sinker, does not mean they don't support change. In the meantime, get a grip junior.

[Dru]

How will solar be stored?

 

Solar power----> Electricity---->water----> Hydrogen & oxygen. Store hydrogen.

 

Hydrogen + oxygen-----> water + electricity.

[olyclimber]

Dru, we are not actually looking for answers here. We are just looking for partisan bitch slapping. Take your answers and stuff them up your canuck hole.

[Dru]

Look you prolapsed rectum, why don't you snort that dangling booger back up your nose cause its actually yuor brain dribbling out. Tehn yuo can call 1-800-OLY-SUCK and see if they waaahmbulance can come and pick yuo up. OMFG ROFL LMAO LOL 733t 0lysuxx0r

[olyclimber]

more like it beyotch. prolapsed rectums! extra points for spelling three letter words incorrectly in a spray induced spasum.

[Dru]

your mom

[olyclimber]

your mom

 

 

Text book example of exactly the kind of shoddy spray that will be the downfall of this website, unless you nancy boy lurkers step up.

[JoshK]

Better check the Bio-Fuels Farce thread, JoshK. Even j_b sees the issue clearly.

 

Thanks, I have. And I care to listen to more of the issue than what is in one article. I am sick and fucking tired of people bitching about us being dependent on middle east oil and at the same time supporting administrations like the one we have. NOTHING IS GOING TO CHANGE WITH THEM IN POWER!!! Vote in people who actually see the point of doing long term work to reduce our dependence, such as, again, fuel efficieny standards, alternative energies, etc. rather than giving oil companies more money.

 

So you're saying oil dependence is a new problem? So you support drilling in ANWR to reduce our addiction to Saudi crude? More Gulf drilling? Wind? Your Kennedy clan friends stopped an offshore windfarm that would have interfered with their ocean view. Enviros have shut down windfarms in CA because of bird kills. You support more nuke plants? How will solar be stored? Are you the guy who wants to tear down hydro projects? Face it, Josh. You're a victim of hysteria politics, angry prof's, and junk mail...or maybe you're just mad that your rich daddy gave away half of your inheritance trying to get Kerry elected. I really don't know. But just because someone points out a flaw in a single idea, and jabs at someone like AlpineK who has bitten down on it hook/line/sinker, does not mean they don't support change. In the meantime, get a grip junior.

 

It is *you* my friend, that is so extreme to one side or another that any chance of being in some way "liberal" will make you dismiss an idea. You seem to really know what I think. Do I support Nuke plants? Yes, actually I do. Hydro? Yes, indeed. They are both fair trade-offs, I believe, for getting rid of much of our fossil power. I am not somebody who believes that we can get something for free. I know we can't. I just happen to believe in doing *SOMETHING* which you and your bushCo buddies don't seem to.

 

Also, ANWR is only going to make us more dependent on oil in the long run. I could waste my time explaining why here but I dont need to waste my breath. It is fairly easily illustrated using basic economics and readily available energy predictions the energy dept churns out.

 

Mad profs? No, only had very friendly ones actually. Mad about losing inheritance? Not really, i don't have one. In fact, if you cared not to stereotype me you'd know that what money I do have is self made. I started working in high school and figured out how to save and invest. And amazing enough I did it all while our oppresiive communist liberal government was trying to hold me down!

 

I come to my own conclusions based on what I learn. I don't buy into "liberal" media or spin like you would like to think. I'm not the one constantly posting tired re-churned conservative "think tank" articles and what not.

 

If you want to insult somebody's intelligence, you've picked the wrong person.

[foraker]

the only possible response to this is the one my mother used on me once when she was losing an argument: "don't go usin' all that high-falootin' college learnin' on me boy! i'm still yer mother!"

[Stonehead]

March 23, 1945

August 6, 1945

August 9, 1945

 

August 6 & 9, 1945....Two historians have new evidence disputing the 'official' explanation of using the atomic bombs to yield a surrender to prevent a planned invasion.

 

From their research:

New studies of the US, Japanese and Soviet diplomatic archives suggest that Truman's main motive was to limit Soviet expansion in Asia, Kuznick claims. Japan surrendered because the Soviet Union began an invasion a few days after the Hiroshima bombing, not because of the atomic bombs themselves, he says.

 

According to an account by Walter Brown, assistant to then-US secretary of state James Byrnes, Truman agreed at a meeting three days before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima that Japan was "looking for peace". Truman was told by his army generals, Douglas Macarthur and Dwight Eisenhower, and his naval chief of staff, William Leahy, that there was no military need to use the bomb.

 

"Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan," says Selden. Truman was also worried that he would be accused of wasting money on the Manhattan Project to build the first nuclear bombs, if the bomb was not used, he adds.

--source

 

These people were more willing to die than the current batch of jihadists we see today. But, in the end, they chose to live - as most reasonable human beings do.

 

I think the correct way to state this is that their government was more than willing to sacrifice it's people. The government exploited nationalistic sentiment.

 

The government is culpable. That's why we see the heads of government and other authority figures who get tried in war crimes trials.

 

Maybe this GWOT makes it difficult to find the responsible leaders (e.g. Osama) but as I understand it, many religious leaders have been rounded up (I think it's something called extraordinatory rendition--'kidnapped') and sent to states that use torture.

 

Sometimes I think of the horror stories (actual stories) I have heard of what happened in South Africa during apartheid. These are two different things, of course, but illustrative of what lengths a group in power will go to stay in control.