"the future's looking so ugly nobody wants to face it

Moderators: DrVolin, Elvis, Jeff

Freep this

Postby professorpan » Mon Aug 14, 2006 10:59 pm

Roth wrote:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr> I take an extremely dim and sinister JeffWells-type view of the 'powers that be'...<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I don't think that's fair to Jeff. Jeff's thoughts are nuanced and not easily categorized. It's just not polite to co-opt his name for your own musings.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Ah yes. Mindless sneering, smirking putdowns, and brutal smacks and slaps for anyone who doesn't tow (sic) the status quo line....the hallmark of FreeRepublic.com.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Funny, but the closest thing to FreeRepulic.com that I have seen on these boards is your trashing of liberals and your continued defense of unregulated vulture capitalism (i.e. "syndicoanarchistic libertarianism" or whatever the hell it is). <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
professorpan
 
Posts: 3592
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Freep this

Postby chiggerbit » Mon Aug 14, 2006 11:35 pm

In other words, wintler, it really doesn't matter if we are going to run out of oil or not, it just makes sense to find better forms of energy, for many reasons. I say, why waste time arguing the peak oil point, let's get on with solving a problem of monster proportion and find safe, efficient, affordable, clean forms of energy that hopefully don't involve geo-politics.. In my mind, for now that is wind and solar. Tomorrow it may be found in volcanos or in the magnetic field, whatever, but let's get going now. <p></p><i></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Freep this

Postby wintler » Tue Aug 15, 2006 12:03 am

I wish oil supply didn't matter chiggerbit, but i'm afraid it very much will - how to build, install and service 10,000's wind turbines on horseback? Wind and solar will be big parts of our energy solutions, biomass too IMHO, but cultural change is where the action needs to be. <p></p><i></i>
wintler
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 5:28 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Freep this

Postby chiggerbit » Tue Aug 15, 2006 12:12 am

If we make the cultural changes and do the science, oil will be practically obsolete as a form of energy. Maybe it will still be useful in greasing gears and in producing products made from oil, but big changes are possible in energy if we put our minds to it. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=chiggerbit@rigorousintuition>chiggerbit</A> at: 8/14/06 10:18 pm<br></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Trying to get back 'on topic'.

Postby rothbardian » Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:03 am

Jezebelladonna--<br><br>I am so thankful to have brought festive cheer to this discussion thread. Laughter heals. It actually prevents cancer. I think I'm saving lives.<br><br>And I am indebted-- Your compassionate concern for my well-being after that unbalanced over-reaction on my part to yesferatu's warm-hearted and well-intentioned "chuckling". I have to admit, by the time yesferatu got to his dozenth or so "ha ha"....I think I knew deep down, this is just a happy, cheerful, "visualize-world-peace" kind of guy. <br><br>And that was certainly confirmed today when he twice referred to people with my views as "a__holes". As long as he was "chuckling" when he said it, I guess. (I wish the three of us could all be together right now, for a big 'group hug'.) <br><br>Anyway, back to business-- If per chance, you could take a brief break from your "bubbling mirth" and somehow reach into my darkened world...I am missing out on all this joy and happiness the two of you have been blessed with. <br><br>I see nothing unreasonable or inaccurate about the generalization that liberals support bicycle helmet laws. <br><br>It is also an accurate and fair generalization to say that 'conservatives' support the war. In short, I do not understand your complaint about 'generalizations'. Let the merriment begin. <br><br>The original topic of this thread was about how badly things seem to be getting in the world. I was trying to explain my view on that issue. If I'm so far off on my views in that 'bicycle helmet' post then...set aside your "mirth" (if for only a moment), and provide me a few brief details of where I have gone wrong. <br><br>yesferatu--<br><br>You are badly mis-categorizing me and my stated views. I'm a Libertarian. I have libertarian views, not Republican views. <br><br>I certainly understand that you do not view gun-toting 'baby-sitter'/park rangers who are micro-managing my two mile bike trip...as an intrusion. <br><br>Likewise, Rush Limbaugh does not view armed federal agents who are confiscating my shampoo and fingernail clippers (at the airport) as an intrusion. <br><br>Therefore, I see huge commonality between the supporters of armed 'bicycle babysitters' and the supporters of armed 'shampoo-confiscators'. <br><br>Libertarians believe in getting rid of the coercive powers of government. If Bush didn't have coercive powers, the world wouldn't be on the brink of totalitarianism.<br><br>You can be sweepingly dismissive of other people's views and spend half your evening typing h's and a's if you like. That's fine. But the obvious implication one gets from observing both you and Jezebel just sitting there, bursting with "mirth" is that I'm so 'slow', there's no sense in wasting the effort to explain anything to me. All that's left is the giggling. <br><br>That's a silly notion. Almost everybody I see posting here would fit somewhere into the 'average intelligence' category (maybe some are slightly higher?) So the idea that you two are a couple of gigantic Einsteins who simply can't bridge the gap to my lowly level, is ridiculous. This is a discussion board. Let's have a discussion. Pull up a chair. Sit down and stay a while. I won't bite. I like discussing things.<br><br>I gave people plenty to chew on, in my 'health care' comments. It's interesting that you guys rush past my more detailed remarks and seize on a passing reference to 'helmets'. But I can certainly have a 'go around' on the subject of bicycle helmets also. I have actually thought it through, you might be surprised to know. I don't grab my political views from bumper stickers, as you may be assuming.<br><br><br>Pan---<br><br>Your animosity is amazing. I believe in pulling the plug on these evil 'powers that be'. Isn't that a pretty big area of agreement? Yes, I have arguments with many aspects of liberalism (in it's many shades). This is a discussion board. We come here to discuss and debate. Good grief.<br><br>You would prefer to have NO disagreements? <br><br> <p></p><i></i>
rothbardian
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 11:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Trying to get back 'on topic'.

Postby yesferatu » Tue Aug 15, 2006 10:28 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>We come here to discuss and debate. Good grief.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>So how come you did not answer my question I asked you about what your definition of false flag ops is, and how <br>voting yes or no on helmet laws fits into your description of such? If you can make an argument that very normal ideas within the center of the spectrum (i.e. the good old days of arguing ideas on their merits in a public discussion) are ACTUALLY false flag ops by the PTB, then please make the argument. If leeeeberul Teddy Kennedy wants a helmet law so the taxpayers are not burdened with 30-40 years of medical care for the asshole who rode without one straight into a tree, how the hell is that "false flag ops by the PTB"???<br>It's like me saying since a "libertarian" politician in power who wants assholes to be given the right to run into trees and burden us with their medical costs (it's the individuals right to do that to the public!!)....it's like (by your argument) I can then say that that politician is part of a false flag op by the ptb for thrusting that view into public discourse. How sinister! <br>Now you see how stupid your argument sounds.<br><br>Good grief indeed.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
yesferatu
 

Re: Trying to get back 'on topic'.

Postby nopui » Tue Aug 15, 2006 10:45 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>If leeeeberul Teddy Kennedy wants a helmet law so the taxpayers are not burdened with 30-40 years of medical care for the asshole who rode without one straight into a tree<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> YFTA "because some fuckwit in a car ran the poor bastard off the road." <p></p><i></i>
nopui
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 12:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Trying to get back 'on topic'.

Postby rothbardian » Wed Aug 16, 2006 2:32 am

yesferatu--<br><br>You ask why didn't I answer your questions. I answered a lot of questions. Can't answer them all at the same time, can I? <br><br>Again, seems like a little bit of unnecessary roughness. I gave a good effort to address a lot of disingenuous baloney from a handful of posters in my last post.<br><br>It was you and they who created all these 'off topic' peripheral issues. I was minding my own business, and sticking the thread topic.<br><br>Anyway...you describe this example of the Libertarian politician forcing the community to cover the cost of some guy who injured himself: You have it completely wrong. It doesn't work that way in a free world (libertarian world). <br><br>The guy who injured himself would have to pay his own way. So...you're misunderstanding the scenario, I would say.<br><br>I can partially address the issue of 'false flags' (i.e. artificially manufactured crises) in relation to domestic social issues, by simply re-quoting what I said earlier about the health care industry and drug industry:<br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Instead of recognizing...that the PTB have colluded with corrupt politicians to drive the cost of medical care and drugs up to stratospheric levels, lefties turn a blind eye towards all of that and insist that the government drive our nation into bankruptcy with Disneylandesque tax-funded health care and prescription drugs.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>$90 per pill" medications are a false flag operation, a huge scam, a deliberate rip-off...and mainstream libs (with some pleasant exceptions here among more savvy RI libs) buy it ALL...hook, line and sinker.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>There's your 'false flag'</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> by the way, yesferatu-- the government creates an artificial crisis (the burning of the Reichstag, the 9/11 scam, $90/pill medications)...which then gives it the excuse to step in with a "solution". It's the age-old 'protection racket'.<br><br>Once the health care officials have immorally colluded with corrupt politicians to channel huge percentages of health and medical costs through government, they can then easily jack up the prices to almost anything they want. <br><br>Anyone who follows the news has heard the horror stories of how the military paid $700 for a single toilet seat...or work that was contracted out by the Education department was charged at $500/hour etc. etc.<br><br>This allows the 'Public Safety' (bicycle helmet) official to then rationalize--"Gosh, the cost of medical care is monstrous. It costs $5000 just to get 10 stitches at the emergency clinic. We need to impose intrusive new safety regulations...and by the way, we'll now need a bigger budget and I will need expansive new powers." This, of course, makes the bureaucrat very sad. Not.<br><br>The bicycle helmet bureaucrat doesn't care any more about our actual safety than the military defense bureaucrat actually cares about defense. It is pollyannish to think otherwise.<br><br>Do the nitwits at the Pentagon care about national defense? They do not. They care about themselves and their own personal well-being and aggrandizement.<br><br>Again (with apologies to Jezebel?), liberals generally tend to understand this negative dynamic only when it comes to the military bureaucracy...but apparently see the other bureaucracies through rose-colored glasses. Their enthusiasm for government-funded health care is a case in point.<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>In fact, coercive government has such a strong inclination towards rottenness, that in most cases a given bureaucracy will be the very SOURCE of the problem it is purporting to address:</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>In other words, for example, the worst threats and dangers to <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>our national security</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> right now, are coming from precisely those who have been entrusted with our national security. <br><br>According to Gary Webb (of the San Jose Mercury News) <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>the DEA</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> has been heavily involved in smuggling drugs...and smuggling them INTO our country (along with the CIA).<br><br>The <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Federal Reserve Bank</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->, presumably tasked with the oversight and health of the U.S. currency has been counterfeiting our currency into a slow but certain destruction, for almost 95 years.<br><br>The <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Education Department</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> is doing just the opposite of education. Public schools have been cynically shaped into "obedient, illiterate sheeple" factories. As evidence, I would present to you 800 million semi-literate Americans who obediently hang on every word that proceeds forth from CNN and Fox News.<br><br>The #1 priority of any bureaucracy is...it's own well-being...not bicycle helmet security and not national security. <br><br>Consequently, it will have a strong tendency to literally PRODUCE artificial problems that, in turn, create an artificial requirement for the bureaucracy's "services".<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
rothbardian
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 11:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Trying to get back 'on topic'.

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Wed Aug 16, 2006 5:54 am

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I wish oil supply didn't matter chiggerbit, but i'm afraid it very much will - how to build, install and service 10,000's wind turbines on horseback?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Right on. We have got to the point where we can develop better forms of energy production because of our wasteful use of oil.<br><br>With whats left we shouldn't be wasting time fighting wars over who gets to burn it. Just using it to develop the infrastructure we need to live without it. Whatever that is. <p></p><i></i>
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 9380
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "the future's looking so ugly nobody wants to face

Postby stickdog99 » Wed Aug 16, 2006 6:46 pm

For Peak Oil Chicken Littles:<br><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/PAPRPIQ.gif"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/PAPRPIR.gif"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><br>Iraq has proven, extremely cheap to extract and refine oil reserves second only to Saudi Arabia. Yet because of US/UN policies and three wars, Iraq's oil production has been kept under 2 million barrels a day for over 13 of the last 25 years, and has almost never surpassed the 3 million barrel a day mark since 1981.<br><br>Why did the US fund the Iraq/Iran war, the Gulf War and the new, woefully "failing" Iraqi occupation? Primarily to help keep oil prices HIGH -- just where Big Oil likes them. Hussein was a threat because he nationalized the oil fields and used oil money to make his country into a power. He was a loose cannon who would have gone around OPEC/Big Oil production restrictions to rebuild his country and flooded the market with cheap Iraqi oil just as soon as UN sanction policy refinements (and/or renegade purchasers) made this possible. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=stickdog99>stickdog99</A> at: 8/16/06 4:51 pm<br></i>
stickdog99
 
Posts: 3497
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "the future's looking so ugly nobody wants to face

Postby wintler » Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:32 pm

How exactly does even 3mil.b/day matter that much in a world that burns 84 mil.b/d? Interests profiting from high oil pices may have pushed for Iraq invasion solely to push up price, but it would prove nothing about total global reserves or production. No herring today thanks. <br> <p></p><i></i>
wintler
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 5:28 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Previous

Return to Energy Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests