Strange Days Indeed
mrspo...@yahoo.com
Please watch and share these with all your friends:
Capitalist Conspiracy - Inside International Banking (Playlist - 5
videos)
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=F78FF0E705488CD8&playnext=1
MARTIAL LAW OCT. 1 , 2008 - what will you do ??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JH-L0dqaRBk
A CRY FOR HELP
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fy01-t2dCks
=-=
Don't ever say I never warned you.
mrspo...@yahoo.com
>Please watch and share these with all your friends:
>
>
>
>Capitalist Conspiracy - Inside International Banking (Playlist - 5
>videos)
>
>http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=F78FF0E705488CD8&playnext=1
>
>
>MARTIAL LAW OCT. 1 , 2008 - what will you do ??
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JH-L0dqaRBk
>
>
>A CRY FOR HELP
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fy01-t2dCks
>
>
Oh, and . . .
Hillary Militia Obama Martial Law McCain Freedom Ron Paul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IP7TDQQ-e6s
The War Against You
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_gY_KKfGvc
26,000 Pastors for Martial Law Continuity of Government
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X69EYLjpNR4
Don't let tyranny take hold - Vote Ron Paul 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA-MOr-i6vQ
And on, and on, and on, anon . . .
David Johnston
>
>Please watch and share these with all your friends:
>
>
>Capitalist Conspiracy - Inside International Banking (Playlist - 5
>videos)
>
>http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=F78FF0E705488CD8&playnext=1
>
>
>MARTIAL LAW OCT. 1 , 2008 - what will you do ??
Laugh at you when martial law isn't declared on October first.
Although I don't suppose you'll have the decency to be embarassed.
mrspo...@yahoo.com
That's the title of the video, Wiseass. Take it up with Freeamerica.
Good luck.
=-=
On September 02, 2008, a "Rally for the Republic" was held in the
Target Center in Minneapolis, as the kickoff to America's "Campaign
for Liberty", while the Republican National Convention was taking
place in St. Paul. Before a sold out crowd of over 20,000 supporters,
and millions of others who watched it via CSPAN2's, live television
coverage, Representative Ron Paul's delivered his featured speech
about defining our country's place in history. He was introduced by
former Representative Barry Goldwater, Jr.
Interested parties may watch the speech on CSPAN's web archive at the
following link:
Wouter Valentijn
> Please watch and share these with all your friends:
<snip>
> MARTIAL LAW OCT. 1 , 2008 - what will you do ??
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/marital.html
Coincidence?
I think not!
www.nksf.scifics.com/nksfseries.html
liam=mail
Quadibloc
> On Sep 25, 5:01 pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 16:00:22 -0700 (PDT), mrspook2...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >MARTIAL LAW OCT. 1 , 2008 - what will you do ??
>
> > Laugh at you when martial law isn't declared on October first.
> > Although I don't suppose you'll have the decency to be embarassed.
>
> That's the title of the video, Wiseass. Take it up with Freeamerica.
>
> Good luck.
Oh, so while you're a harmless nut, they're hostile nuts?
Yes, "Freeamerica", whoever they are, are responsible for the video.
You, however, are responsible for thinking it was worth bringing it to
our attention, so why shouldn't the evident lack of rationality in
these items not also be valid as a criticism of yourself?
John Savard
Quadibloc
> mrspook2...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Please watch and share these with all your friends:
>
> <snip>
>
> > MARTIAL LAW OCT. 1 , 2008 - what will you do ??
>
> http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/marital.html
>
> Coincidence?
> I think not!
Maybe the Martians will invade and impose their laws on October 31,
2012. But I don't think I'm going to make contingency plans for that
event either.
John Savard
Wouter Valentijn
Yeah.
And if they do invade they'll forget to inoculate.
Gets them every time.
www.nksf.scifics.com/nksfseries.html
liam=mail
Tim Bruening
Quadibloc wrote:
Laws they should impose: One setting up a Universal Health Care System.
One abolishing nuclear weapons.
One indexing the minimum wage to inflation.
Quadibloc
> One abolishing nuclear weapons.
Ah, yes. If the Martians do it, it is not a problem. If Congress did
it, there would be a problem, since that wouldn't affect what the
other fellow has.
But a law abolishing nuclear weapons, by itself, would only make war
possible again. Instead, it would be better for the Martians to get to
the heart of the matter. Universal health care, indexing the minimum
wage? How about abolishing tyranny, and ethnic and religious
persecution?
Get rid of the reasons to fight wars, and H-bombs become *tools*, that
can be used to do things like changing the courses of rivers.
John Savard
William R. Cousert
"Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:9946c720-a281-48cf...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> > Get rid of the reasons to fight wars, and H-bombs become *tools*, that
> can be used to do things like changing the courses of rivers.
It will never happen. Most people don't want their rivers to be radio active
for thousands of years.
Wouter Valentijn
> On Oct 22, 9:13 pm, Tim Bruening <tsbru...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>
>> One abolishing nuclear weapons.
>
> Ah, yes. If the Martians do it, it is not a problem. If Congress did
> it, there would be a problem, since that wouldn't affect what the
> other fellow has.
It should be 'equal opportunity's for all.
>
> But a law abolishing nuclear weapons, by itself, would only make war
> possible again. Instead, it would be better for the Martians to get to
> the heart of the matter. Universal health care, indexing the minimum
> wage? How about abolishing tyranny, and ethnic and religious
> persecution?
All that too.
I'm thinking the Four Freedoms becoming reality. Ah, what a dream....
>
> Get rid of the reasons to fight wars, and H-bombs become *tools*, that
> can be used to do things like changing the courses of rivers.
>
Well.... I'm thinking about more conventional water management devices. The
methods would be more precise, and I doubt my government would ever use
nuclear bombs to manipulate rivers. We don't have much land and the
population density is high. Plus the damage to the ecology would never be
accepted.
Heh, I think that between four or ten of the heaviest H-bombs there wouldn't
be a Netherlands anymore.
About actually using H-bombs...
I once heard about a possible starship that would use nuclear explosions to
achieve high velocities.
www.nksf.scifics.com/nksfseries.html
liam=mail
Fred
Yeah, I think diverting dangerous asteroids is the only legitimate
use for H-Bombs. It would take some care that the asteroid doesn't
break up into smaller ones or if it does, that most of the pieces
miss the Earth and so on, but it's one option.
--
Peace,
Fred
(Remove FFFf from my email address to reply by email).
Wouter Valentijn
Andrew
> On Oct 22, 9:13 pm, Tim Bruening <tsbru...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>
>> One abolishing nuclear weapons.
>
> Ah, yes. If the Martians do it, it is not a problem. If Congress did
> it, there would be a problem, since that wouldn't affect what the
> other fellow has.
>
> But a law abolishing nuclear weapons, by itself, would only make war
> possible again.
*Make war possible again"??? Did I miss something? Are there no troops
in Afghanistan? Iraq? Has the Earth become a place of universal
harmony? Or is it just possible that the US military (and those of
other countries) has actually been involved in more conflicts since the
invention of nuclear weapons, rather than fewer?
Tim Bruening
Quadibloc wrote:
Laws they should impose: One setting up a Universal Health Care System.
One abolishing nuclear weapons.
One indexing the minimum wage to inflation.
Tax incentives for alternative energy sources, such as solar and wind.
Jaxtraw
> Quadibloc wrote:
>
>> On Sep 28, 2:37 pm, "Wouter Valentijn" <l...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
>>> mrspook2...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> Please watch and share these with all your friends:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> MARTIAL LAW OCT. 1 , 2008 - what will you do ??
>>>
>>> http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/marital.html
>>>
>>> Coincidence?
>>> I think not!
>>
>> Maybe the Martians will invade and impose their laws on October 31,
>> 2012. But I don't think I'm going to make contingency plans for that
>> event either.
>
> Laws they should impose: One setting up a Universal Health Care
> System.
Result: universal low quality care, waiting lists, bureaucrats rationing and
denying treatments which patients are unable to obtain elsewhere. The rich
at least can escape to other countries for treatment; no such luck for the
less well off.
> One abolishing nuclear weapons.
Result: now only your enemy has nuclear weapons.
> One indexing the minimum wage to inflation.
Result: increased unemployment, uncompetitive industries, retarded economy.
In aggregate, the poor get poorer.
> Tax incentives for alternative energy sources, such as solar and wind.
Result: lack of investment in essential baseload energy supplies (fossil,
nuclear) leading to insufficient grid provision, loss of energy security. A
windfall only for large corporations engaged in subsidy farming while the
poor pay higher energy bills for less provision.
Ian
Tyralak
news:49a660e4$0$2521$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk:
Damnit, Ian! This is Usenet! Injecting logic and reason is NOT allowed!
What's wrong with you?
--
Tyralak,
Supreme Commander of the Imperial Romulan Warbird, Psionax
Official ASVS Token Trekkie
Led4Aces
Jaxtraw wrote:
> Tim Bruening wrote:
> > Quadibloc wrote:
> >
> >> On Sep 28, 2:37 pm, "Wouter Valentijn" <l...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
> >>> mrspook2...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>> Please watch and share these with all your friends:
> >>>
> >>> <snip>
> >>>
> >>>> MARTIAL LAW OCT. 1 , 2008 - what will you do ??
> >>>
> >>> http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/marital.html
> >>>
> >>> Coincidence?
> >>> I think not!
> >>
> >> Maybe the Martians will invade and impose their laws on October 31,
> >> 2012. But I don't think I'm going to make contingency plans for that
> >> event either.
> >
> > Laws they should impose: One setting up a Universal Health Care
> > System.
>
> Result: universal low quality care, waiting lists, bureaucrats rationing and
> denying treatments which patients are unable to obtain elsewhere. The rich
> at least can escape to other countries for treatment; no such luck for the
> less well off.
>
> > One abolishing nuclear weapons.
>
> Result: now only your enemy has nuclear weapons.
You know what the word 'abolish' means right?
>
> > One indexing the minimum wage to inflation.
>
> Result: increased unemployment, uncompetitive industries, retarded economy.
> In aggregate, the poor get poorer.
Typical conservative bullshit talking point. We can't pay you more
because if we do that will make you MORE poor. Good economies are
built from the ground up. Trickle down supply-side economics has been
completely repudiated. Apparently you think the Wal-marting of the
American and world economies is a GOOD thing, low wages, little
benefits, poor working conditions. Yes it is a good thing....if you
fucking own Walmart. No coincidence that the five kids of Sam Walton
are worth at least 15 billion each and are big supporters of the
Republican party. Paying people a living wage makes for a better
economy, the rich can only consume so much, it's the worker bees,
having money to spend that is NOT on credit, that makes the economy
fly. No stop drinking the kool-aid.
>
> > Tax incentives for alternative energy sources, such as solar and wind.
>
> Result: lack of investment in essential baseload energy supplies (fossil,
> nuclear) leading to insufficient grid provision, loss of energy security. A
> windfall only for large corporations engaged in subsidy farming while the
> poor pay higher energy bills for less provision.
>
More hogwash. Alternative energy is THE FUTURE....the sooner we get
there the better for all, and if the govt can provide incentives, all
the more better. But conservatives live in a myopic little world in
which they try and wring every last nickel out of fading and harmful
ideas. Wind? How can someone possibly make energy and create jobs from
something we can't see? Poppycock! The Sun?? You're too busy staring
into it.
Jaxtraw
> Jaxtraw wrote:
>> Tim Bruening wrote:
>>> Quadibloc wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sep 28, 2:37 pm, "Wouter Valentijn" <l...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
>>>>> mrspook2...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>> Please watch and share these with all your friends:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> MARTIAL LAW OCT. 1 , 2008 - what will you do ??
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/marital.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Coincidence?
>>>>> I think not!
>>>>
>>>> Maybe the Martians will invade and impose their laws on October 31,
>>>> 2012. But I don't think I'm going to make contingency plans for
>>>> that event either.
>>>
>>> Laws they should impose: One setting up a Universal Health Care
>>> System.
>>
>> Result: universal low quality care, waiting lists, bureaucrats
>> rationing and denying treatments which patients are unable to obtain
>> elsewhere. The rich at least can escape to other countries for
>> treatment; no such luck for the less well off.
>>
>>> One abolishing nuclear weapons.
>>
>> Result: now only your enemy has nuclear weapons.
>
> You know what the word 'abolish' means right?
I certainly do. What you and millions like you, especially the powerful
elites you support, need to understand is that making a rule against
something is not the same as making it cease to exist. Drugs have been
"abolished". How's that going? What happens when you abolish abortion? Does
it cease to exist? No. You aren't making a choice between X existing and X
not existing, you're making a choice between legal X and illegal X.
>>
>>> One indexing the minimum wage to inflation.
>>
>> Result: increased unemployment, uncompetitive industries, retarded
>> economy. In aggregate, the poor get poorer.
>
> Typical conservative bullshit talking point.
Firstly, I'm not a conservative. Secondly, your use of the phrase "talking
point" strongly suggests you're just regurgitating stuff you read elsewhere
without any proper understanding. You can always spot that by the use of
buzz-phrases. "Talking point". That means, you are "educated" because you've
read the Daily Kos, which warns you against enemy propaganda, while those of
us who have spent a great deal of effort learning about economics are mere
drones for Fox News, right?
Well wake up kiddo. You're the propaganda drone here.
> We can't pay you more
> because if we do that will make you MORE poor. Good economies are
> built from the ground up. Trickle down
Oooooh lookee, another buzzword. Well, here's a clue; free markets aren't
about "trickling down". You don't give money to the rich so it "trickles
down" to the poor. Things don't work that way, and nobody who understands
markets suggests that they do. Try again.
> supply-side economics
Not half as much as demand side economics, which laughably doesn't
understand that production is what creates wealth, not spending.
> has been
> completely repudiated. Apparently you think the Wal-marting of the
> American and world economies is a GOOD thing, low wages, little
> benefits, poor working conditions. Yes it is a good thing....if you
> fucking own Walmart. No coincidence that the five kids of Sam Walton
> are worth at least 15 billion each and are big supporters of the
> Republican party. Paying people a living wage makes for a better
> economy, the rich can only consume so much, it's the worker bees,
> having money to spend that is NOT on credit, that makes the economy
> fly. No stop drinking the kool-aid.
Epic fail. Keynesianism has entirely failed to achieve the economic utopia
it was supposed to. Failure to understand that, and belief that spending
drives the economy, leads to the absurdity of governments taking money from
the poor and giving it to their friends, a "bail out" as it is known. Think
about it. If that worked, why stop at at trillion? Why not a trillion every
hour, making everyone rich via its magic multiplier?
The problem is, you're only looking at part of the economy. Think of this;
suppose the government forces up the price of bread, because every
breadmaker deserves a "living wage". Who benefits? Bakers benefit. Who is
hurt? Buyers of bread. What's gone wrong? By focussing on money, you've
ignored production. Your transfer of wealth from bread purchasers to bread
sellers hasn't created any production. There isn't any more bread; in fact,
there is now less bread. You've caused more harm than you've alleviated.
Now think of that in terms of other products, such as labour. Raise the
price of labour, where does that money come from? From the rest of the
economy. Every dollar you give to your friends by government fiat is *at
least* a dollar taken from another part of the economy. Now at this point
you say, "it's been taken from the rich haha". But it ultimately comes out
of the pockets of the purchasers of the products made by the worker. The
price of bread goes up, people have less bread. Yay, socialism.
Now you might say, "it comes out of rich capitalists' profits" and feel
good. But wait, even if that's true and the capitalist absorbs the loss-
where were those profits before? In the bank. Being loaned out to people to
start new businesses. Less credit, less new businesses, less economic
growth. You've caused more harm, by taking not just the dollar but the
dollar+productive growth of that dollar from where the economy- that's us,
all of us- chose it to be, and put it where you want it to be, which was
less productive. Everything you do hurts everybody else.
>>
>>> Tax incentives for alternative energy sources, such as solar and
>>> wind.
>>
>> Result: lack of investment in essential baseload energy supplies
>> (fossil, nuclear) leading to insufficient grid provision, loss of
>> energy security. A windfall only for large corporations engaged in
>> subsidy farming while the poor pay higher energy bills for less
>> provision.
>>
> More hogwash. Alternative energy is THE FUTURE....the sooner we get
> there the better for all, and if the govt can provide incentives, all
> the more better. But conservatives live in a myopic little world in
> which they try and wring every last nickel out of fading and harmful
> ideas. Wind? How can someone possibly make energy and create jobs from
> something we can't see? Poppycock! The Sun?? You're too busy staring
> into it.
No, it's not that. It's that these technologies can't supply the baseload
effectively. They aren't efficient enough. Solar in partcular has a good
role in the future as a subsidiary supply source in the right locations. But
these technologies just aren't efficient enough to supply the massive stable
baseload an advanced society requires.
But, oh, you're a mediaevalist greenie, right? You think everyone would be
happier as a subsistence farmer, with only a few rich people having access
to energy and wealth. Because that's good for the planet, right? Save Gaia,
yes?
No. You want to be a poor serf, struggling with turnips on your strip of
land, go ahead. Nobody's stopping you. The rest of us prefer progress. We
want to see poor Africans reach our level of comfort and wealth, not see the
whole world reduced to the level of the poorest, most destitute parts of
Africa.
You don't understand economics. You sure as hell don't understand the
economics and technological issues regarding energy provision.
Ian
Led4Aces
wrote:
LOL. Uh-huh. Meso stoopid.
You can always spot that by the use of
> buzz-phrases. "Talking point". That means, you are "educated" because you've
> read the Daily Kos,
Can honestly say I haven't. Heard of it though.
which warns you against enemy propaganda, while those of
> us who have spent a great deal of effort learning about economics are mere
> drones for Fox News, right?
>
It's spelled "Faux" News.
>
> > We can't pay you more
> > because if we do that will make you MORE poor. Good economies are
> > built from the ground up. Trickle down
> Oooooh lookee, another buzzword. Well, here's a clue; free markets aren't
> about "trickling down". You don't give money to the rich so it "trickles
> down" to the poor. Things don't work that way, and nobody who understands
> markets suggests that they do. Try again.
Hmm let's examine. "You don't give money to the rich"..... Wow really
Jax? I thought the rich lined up right at the Govt mint and waited to
be handed money, and then as they flew over cities in their private
jets, would flush a few bills out the shitter till it trickled down to
us po folk. Jeez where did I say that? I understand 'trickle down
theory' is a rhetorical device; despite your derision of this term it
is indeed practiced through supply side economics in the form of tax
xuts and deregulation...the notion that if we give ALL the advantages
to people with money that they'll make even more money and spur the
economy forward... is provng to be horseshit.
>
> > supply-side economics
>
> Not half as much as demand side economics, which laughably doesn't
> understand that production is what creates wealth, not spending.
Yes....and where did America's manufacturing base go? You know, the
base that PRODUCED goods and offered decent wages and benefits. The
big money people who you worship at the feet of decided it would be
better for them to take their business to 3rd word countries in order
to maximize profits.
>
> > has been
> > completely repudiated. Apparently you think the Wal-marting of the
> > American and world economies is a GOOD thing, low wages, little
> > benefits, poor working conditions. Yes it is a good thing....if you
> > fucking own Walmart. No coincidence that the five kids of Sam Walton
> > are worth at least 15 billion each and are big supporters of the
> > Republican party. Paying people a living wage makes for a better
> > economy, the rich can only consume so much, it's the worker bees,
> > having money to spend that is NOT on credit, that makes the economy
> > fly. No stop drinking the kool-aid.
>
> Epic fail. Keynesianism has entirely failed to achieve the economic utopia
> it was supposed to.
Now your just wanking. Keynesian economics have never been practiced
in full anywhere, although Post WW2 was more Keynesian than not...and
I think they use a word for it.... BOOM.
Failure to understand that, and belief that spending
> drives the economy,
Only an idiot would think otherwise. Spending that isn't done on
credit. If you think supply creates demand regardlessof economic
conditions.... than you, without a doubt, do all your shopping at
"Going out of business" sales. Quite a few of those right now. I'm
sure you can find some baragins.
leads to the absurdity of governments taking money from
> the poor and giving it to their friends, a "bail out" as it is known. Think
> about it. If that worked, why stop at at trillion? Why not a trillion every
> hour, making everyone rich via its magic multiplier?
What the fuck are you talking about? You seem to think I believe in
endless bailouts. Why does the private sector need bailing out in the
first place? Because the basics behind supply-side, (and what you had
under Bush was supply-side run amok) have FAILED. That's an epic fail
that you can stick in pipe and smoke.
>
> The problem is, you're only looking at part of the economy. Think of this;
> suppose the government forces up the price of bread, because every
> breadmaker deserves a "living wage". Who benefits? Bakers benefit. Who is
> hurt? Buyers of bread. What's gone wrong? By focussing on money, you've
> ignored production. Your transfer of wealth from bread purchasers to bread
> sellers hasn't created any production. There isn't any more bread; in fact,
> there is now less bread. You've caused more harm than you've alleviated.
You really need to stop creating strawmen. Or maybe you think you're
talking to someone else.
>
> Now think of that in terms of other products, such as labour. Raise the
> price of labour, where does that money come from? From the rest of the
> economy.
Wow what a broad statement. Makes it sound like stealing almost.
Every dollar you give to your friends by government fiat is *at
> least* a dollar taken from another part of the economy. Now at this point
> you say, "it's been taken from the rich haha". But it ultimately comes out
> of the pockets of the purchasers of the products made by the worker. The
> price of bread goes up, people have less bread. Yay, socialism.
Socialism. Is that one of your 'buzzwords"? Here's a fact to wrap your
brain around. If the owners of Walmart paid their employees a living
wage and better benefits, they'd still be worth billions. Just not 75
billion. Ths notion that higher wages lead to socialism....now who's
propagand droid?
>
> Now you might say, "it comes out of rich capitalists' profits" and feel
> good. But wait, even if that's true
It is. But according to you it's not true. Seems like you don't know.
Not good for someone who claims to have studied economics. But here he
is ow making an argument for something he doesn't believe...trying to
cover your bets.
and the capitalist absorbs the loss-
A real wank here. You assume higher wages mean poor Mr Capitalist will
LOSE money. Sorry...it just means smaller profits.
> where were those profits before? In the bank. Being loaned out to people to
> start new businesses. Less credit, less new businesses, less economic
> growth. You've caused more harm, by taking not just the dollar but the
> dollar+productive growth of that dollar from where the economy-
You clearly don't know anything about banks...or logic. Ya see there
bud, working class people stopped putting their money under the
mattress years ago. You're so busy jerking yourself over your knowlege
of economics that you fail to realize the myopia you suffer from. Only
the rih put their money in banks....interesting theory.
that's us,
> all of us- chose it to be, and put it where you want it to be, which was
> less productive. Everything you do hurts everybody else.
>
>
> >>> Tax incentives for alternative energy sources, such as solar and
> >>> wind.
>
> >> Result: lack of investment in essential baseload energy supplies
> >> (fossil, nuclear) leading to insufficient grid provision, loss of
> >> energy security. A windfall only for large corporations engaged in
> >> subsidy farming while the poor pay higher energy bills for less
> >> provision.
>
> > More hogwash. Alternative energy is THE FUTURE....the sooner we get
> > there the better for all, and if the govt can provide incentives, all
> > the more better. But conservatives live in a myopic little world in
> > which they try and wring every last nickel out of fading and harmful
> > ideas. Wind? How can someone possibly make energy and create jobs from
> > something we can't see? Poppycock! The Sun?? You're too busy staring
> > into it.
>
> No, it's not that. It's that these technologies can't supply the baseload
> effectively.
I'll explain this slowly. The original poster talked about tax
incentives for alt energy. He did not talk about instantly replacing
oil/coal/nuclear with sun/wind. You got so many Strawmen going you're
ready to dance a jig with Dorothy and sing about not having a brain.
They aren't efficient enough. Solar in partcular has a good
> role in the future as a subsidiary supply source in the right locations. But
> these technologies just aren't efficient enough to supply the massive stable
> baseload an advanced society requires.
See above buddy. Investment in the future spurs innovation.
>
> But, oh, you're a mediaevalist greenie, right? You think everyone would be
> happier as a subsistence farmer, with only a few rich people having access
> to energy and wealth. Because that's good for the planet, right? Save Gaia,
> yes?
And you are as we say in the States, completely "off the farm". I mean
wow, it's like you read my mind.
>
> No. You want to be a poor serf, struggling with turnips on your strip of
> land, go ahead. Nobody's stopping you. The rest of us prefer progress.
Oh please, everything you have said antithetical to progress.
We
> want to see poor Africans reach our level of comfort and wealth, not see the
> whole world reduced to the level of the poorest, most destitute parts of
> Africa.
No you don't. You want Africans to lift themselves up by their
bootstraps.... if only they could afford boots.
>
> You don't understand economics. You sure as hell don't understand the
> economics and technological issues regarding energy provision.
Economics is like quantum mechanics. If you think you understand
quantum mechanics, YOU DON"T understand quantum mechanics. You've
barely make a cogent argument without contradicting yourself or
constructing strawmen. And really, that statement about banks was
downright imbecilic.
Tim Bruening
Jaxtraw wrote:
> Tim Bruening wrote:
> > Quadibloc wrote:
> >
> >> On Sep 28, 2:37 pm, "Wouter Valentijn" <l...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
> >>> mrspook2...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>> Please watch and share these with all your friends:
> >>>
> >>> <snip>
> >>>
> >>>> MARTIAL LAW OCT. 1 , 2008 - what will you do ??
> >>>
> >>> http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/marital.html
> >>>
> >>> Coincidence?
> >>> I think not!
> >>
> >> Maybe the Martians will invade and impose their laws on October 31,
> >> 2012. But I don't think I'm going to make contingency plans for that
> >> event either.
> >
> > Laws they should impose: One setting up a Universal Health Care
> > System.
>
> Result: universal low quality care, waiting lists, bureaucrats rationing and
> denying treatments which patients are unable to obtain elsewhere. The rich
> at least can escape to other countries for treatment; no such luck for the
> less well off.
>
> > One abolishing nuclear weapons.
>
> Result: now only your enemy has nuclear weapons.
I was assuming that the Martians would be in control of the entire Earth, so
would be able to abolish all of Earth's nuclear weapons!
Wouter Valentijn
Tim Bruening
Jaxtraw wrote:
> Tim Bruening wrote:
> > Quadibloc wrote:
> >
> >> On Sep 28, 2:37 pm, "Wouter Valentijn" <l...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
> >>> mrspook2...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>> Please watch and share these with all your friends:
> >>>
> >>> <snip>
> >>>
> >>>> MARTIAL LAW OCT. 1 , 2008 - what will you do ??
> >>>
> >>> http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/marital.html
> >>>
> >>> Coincidence?
> >>> I think not!
> >>
> >> Maybe the Martians will invade and impose their laws on October 31,
> >> 2012. But I don't think I'm going to make contingency plans for that
> >> event either.
> >
> > Laws they should impose: One setting up a Universal Health Care
> > System.
>
> Result: universal low quality care, waiting lists, bureaucrats rationing and
> denying treatments which patients are unable to obtain elsewhere. The rich
> at least can escape to other countries for treatment; no such luck for the
> less well off.
>
> > One abolishing nuclear weapons.
>
> Result: now only your enemy has nuclear weapons.
I was assuming that the Martians would be in control of the entire
Anim8rFSK
Tim Bruening <tsbr...@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
Well, that's just stupid. If they're in charge, nobody will be using
them anyway.
--
As Adam West as Bruce Wayne as Batman said in "Smack in the Middle"
the second half of the 1966 BATMAN series pilot when Jill St. John
as Molly as Robin as Molly fell into the Batmobile's atomic pile:
"What a terrible way to go-go"
tsbr...@gmail.com
> Please watch and share these with all your friends:
>
>
> Capitalist Conspiracy - Inside International Banking (Playlist - 5
> videos)
>
> http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=F78FF0E705488CD8&playnext=1
>
>
> MARTIAL LAW OCT. 1 , 2008 - what will you do ??
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JH-L0dqaRBk