PDA

View Full Version : Disgusting Politics: Why you should vote NO on prop 87



Terry S
09-25-2006, 11:52 AM
This post is a reposting from a friends blog. See the original post of this here:

www.myspace.com/PhilipKS

****************
Disgusting Politics: Why you should vote NO on prop 87

i went to their website, and (predictably) i was disgusted by the misinformative and manipulative politics being used to convince people to vote yes on this bill.

first, they complain about high gas prices, which have almost nothing to do with the oil companies operating here in california. the democrats here have been blocking the oil companies attempts to build new refineries here for over 30 years, making shortages a major problem. and, worse than that, we pay about 8 times as much money in taxes to the state on each gallon we purchase at the pump as the oil company makes in profit. go look at your gas receipt sometime, notice the tax isnt listed? yeah, thats because its a law in california that it cant be on there, BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT NO ONE WOULD PUT UP WITH THAT BULLSHIT IF THEY KNEW ABOUT IT. we would be paying about 2$ a gallon right now if it werent for the excessive state taxes. if you cant do math, were paying roughly a 30% sales tax on a gallon of gas in this state.

then they claim that california doesnt charge taxes (they do charge taxes, i assure you, just not extra taxes) to drill for oil in california, as if sucker punching the oil companies would solve anything. they say that the oil companies dont pay their fair share, implying that this bill will make them do so. but, in fact, this bill will just flush money down the toilet. its creating a new cash-spending committee to use the money collected. the purpose is to fund clean energy research, but there is no mention of results or responsibility in how its spent. this hands free money to whoever these politicians feel like handing it over to, with no accountability whatsoever.

delving deeper into the site, i find blatant lies:

"Oil companies are gouging California consumers at the pumps with the highest prices in the nation."
- adjusted for the taxes, we pay the same as everyone else.

"California is #1 in the nation in oil use and is too dependent on foreign oil. With nearly 50% of our imported oil coming from Saudi Arabia and Iraq."
- untrue, our biggest oil supplier is mexico, then canada. europe buys most middle-east oil, and we have never gotten a drop from iraq since they have contracts with france and russia that precede the war and are still being honored.

"Oil companies are blocking our access to cleaner, cheaper fuels."
- the person who is smart enough to make a cheaper, cleaner fuel than oil will be a bajillionaire, and there is nothing the oil companies can do to stop it.

"CA's air quality is the second worst in the nation. Pollution from cars, trucks and buses that run on gas and diesel is responsible for asthma, lung disease, and cancer."
- and yet, our asthma, lung disease and cancer rates are the same as most everywhere else... strange.

now that we know "the key facts," lets address the claims of this bill:

"Makes it illegal for oil companies to raise gas prices to pass the cost along to consumers."
- so, now the oil companies are charity groups? sounds like communism to me.

"Reduces gasoline and diesel usage by 25% over 10 years."
- how, exactly? our population will continue to grow in the next 10 years, as it has each 10 years before, and they pretend this is possible.

"Provides consumer rebates for cars and trucks that run on alternative fuels."
- ah, finally a hint at the truth, alternative fuels are so retarded you have to bribe people to use them.

"Requires strict accountability; nonpartisan, expert oversight and no new bureaucracy."
- blatant lie. the "experts" are unelected appointed politicians, appointed by the state legislature, and the money goes into "research" with no gaurantee on results. its easy to be accountable to no results, right?

"Creates thousands of new jobs and economic growth."
- buuullllllshiiiiiiiit! taxing the oil companies will raise gas prices, higher gas prices will suppress the economy. seriously, thats the most moronic statement on the whole site. they think that throwing a few billion dollars into the furnace will outweigh the increased taxation, typical liberal stupidity.

anyway, the point of this bill is to punish oil companies for making money, but the oil companies have no choice but to make money- THEY ARE A BUSINESS. if they dont make money they dont exist. they employ and pay well hundreds of thousands of people, and are accountable to millions of shareholders- when they make huge profits the money ends up in the hands of these people, and gets recirculated into the economy through them. unlike the government, which is a black hole of waste. so, the real effect of this proposition is to steal efficient, healthy profits from hardworking and honest people and put it under the will of worthless, vindictive politicians.

what really pisses me off is that this will probably pass because most people are so damn ignorant of how the real world works, and are so foolishly gullible that they can be dupped into trusting the government and blaming of the oil companies- and im going to pay for it not only at the pump, but also in my business since people with less money to spend spend less money.
**********

If I voted, i'd vote no. You should too. Don't support communism.

Terry S

Blak94GSX
09-25-2006, 01:11 PM
It only taxes California companies, which obviously hurts the California economy and just forces us to get oil from outside of our state.

Really really dumb proposition, but then I guess most of them are...

Terenus
09-25-2006, 01:12 PM
What's the breakdown on our gas taxes? I thought I saw somewhere that we pay 17 or 18 % to federal also, or is that included in the 30%?

Absinthe
09-25-2006, 01:37 PM
terry's friends statistics are made up.

this is simply based on my quick tour of the midwest last week that included Iowa, nebraska, texas, utah and Nevada.

none of those places have $2 gas they all have different cost structures and taxes that we do, his numbers also fail to mention the costs incurred by gasoline reformulation for CA, masive overhead cause by CA labour Laws, CA environmental regulations and the fact that a large percentage of our oil ships in from alaska.

But WAR ommiting all facts (as I have done above) to support your point, but only when I agree.

THAT SAID:

they tried price caps in Hawaii and they do not work it has resulted in thier gas prices staying high as the rest of the nations have come down.

SOmething we should all learn, the Market is always right, this is why we need a futures market in terrrorist threats, the elimination of rent control and the conversion of the entire economy to a consuption based tax while eliminating all others.

Blak94GSX
09-25-2006, 01:44 PM
Basically the government has shown itself to be terrible at managing money. Any increase in taxes is a waste of money. The private sector is WAY more efficient when it comes to putting funds to good use.

Only about 12% of the money spent in taxes goes back to the infrastructure (roads, schools, police), the rest is used up by government bureacracy. So I don't see how taking money away from businesses helps anyone.

Absinthe
09-25-2006, 02:59 PM
Basically the government has shown itself to be terrible at managing money. Any increase in taxes is a waste of money. The private sector is WAY more efficient when it comes to putting funds to good use.

Only about 12% of the money spent in taxes goes back to the infrastructure (roads, schools, police), the rest is used up by government bureacracy. So I don't see how taking money away from businesses helps anyone.


I fully agree, thats why I thought it was great when the governator pointed out that about 30 of the 50 states have part time legislative branches and perhaps CA should too.

x[corwyn]
09-25-2006, 04:42 PM
I have a problem with our shitty gas. We have gas that makes our cars run crappier, doesn't help our enviroment and we get charged extra for it. If we want to reduce our gas costs, allowing us to run the same gas as everyone else would be a step in that direction.

The additional tax isn't going to do anything and seems so ridiculous of a bill that it would almost seem to be in a place to remove the ability to have any other bills that might actually do some good.

Terry S
10-04-2006, 09:38 AM
Just bumping this back up to remind people to vote no on 87

Terry S

EVOL EDO
10-04-2006, 10:20 AM
i still think its gonna pass because most people voting have no idea what they are voting on and vote according to whatever commercial they like best

genrec
10-05-2006, 06:42 PM
i still think its gonna pass because most people voting have no idea what they are voting on and vote according to whatever commercial they like best


+1

4G63 FEVER
10-18-2006, 04:22 PM
For crying out loud, how could you vote yes on this when Al Gore is one of the pitch people? That should tell you everything you need to know. That is one hypocritical individual there. So you going to stop flying all over the place there Al?

Don't know what commercial the earlier poster was saying most of all I see are the no ads which are the correct ones.

I think they should check how you vote and if you vote for this you should be taxed as such. It would work this way for all of the propositions, bet people would pay attention then.

trinydex
10-31-2006, 05:03 AM
the problem with voting no on this bill is where then will the research come from????

it's no surprise that there's going to be a shortage of oil soon or eventually...

bush and the republicans in general have taken a futuristic stance... oh fusion is 50 years off we don't need to do anything about it. oh alternative fuels are 50 years off we don't need to do anything about it. this is terrible.

in the end i'll take the al gore stance, who cares if it costs more, who cares if it costs EVERYONE MORE??? eventually there needs to be something done... and atm since there's still roughly 1 tillion barrels of oil left on the earth well... everyone wants a cut in on that 100 trillion bucks to be made... yet no one cares about what happens AFTER that.

anyone consider that every major conversion of power sources has taken roughly 50 years??? coal to oil... nothing to coal... what's next??? does anyone even know what's next??? does anyone even know if there is enough energy left on the earth's surface in the form of crude oil to power the world AND DEVELOPE the next energy source? you think nuclear fission is gonna hold us over? you think it's not gonna bury us in waste? we can't even get yucca mountain opened and all the waste within the united states already has a spot in there... they have to make a new one as soon as they open it. we can't even get nuclear fuel reprocessing up and running yet. how many more years??????

fuck lazy asses that wanna take projecting futuristic approaches. the united states has been an embarassment to the scientific community, holding up iter for how LONG???? saying we want the experiment in JAPAN???? the united states can pay for ALL OF ITER BY ITSELF yet there are countries contributing to this GLOBAL EFFORT not only MORE than the us but at a significantly higher percentage of their gdp. is this because this alternative energy source is CRUCIAL TO THEM, ABSOLUTELY now ask yourselves WHY it's not CRUCIAL to us????? cuz someone wants to make 100trillion bucks???

fuck that. these shortsighted idiots have not even budgetted the fact that iter is only an EXPERIMENT. IF in fact a net gain can be observed in iter there's still the small quirks that must be worked out in engineering. then they need to make a test reactor and that'll take another 10 years at LEAST. then they need to make a LOT OF THEM all over the world before we run out of oil and get sent back to the stone age.

you wanna run on coal... HAH say hi to global emphasema.

Terry S
10-31-2006, 09:51 AM
the problem with voting no on this bill is where then will the research come from????

it's no surprise that there's going to be a shortage of oil soon or eventually...

bush and the republicans in general have taken a futuristic stance... oh fusion is 50 years off we don't need to do anything about it. oh alternative fuels are 50 years off we don't need to do anything about it. this is terrible.

in the end i'll take the al gore stance, who cares if it costs more, who cares if it costs EVERYONE MORE??? eventually there needs to be something done... and atm since there's still roughly 1 tillion barrels of oil left on the earth well... everyone wants a cut in on that 100 trillion bucks to be made... yet no one cares about what happens AFTER that.

anyone consider that every major conversion of power sources has taken roughly 50 years??? coal to oil... nothing to coal... what's next??? does anyone even know what's next??? does anyone even know if there is enough energy left on the earth's surface in the form of crude oil to power the world AND DEVELOPE the next energy source? you think nuclear fission is gonna hold us over? you think it's not gonna bury us in waste? we can't even get yucca mountain opened and all the waste within the united states already has a spot in there... they have to make a new one as soon as they open it. we can't even get nuclear fuel reprocessing up and running yet. how many more years??????

fuck lazy asses that wanna take projecting futuristic approaches. the united states has been an embarassment to the scientific community, holding up iter for how LONG???? saying we want the experiment in JAPAN???? the united states can pay for ALL OF ITER BY ITSELF yet there are countries contributing to this GLOBAL EFFORT not only MORE than the us but at a significantly higher percentage of their gdp. is this because this alternative energy source is CRUCIAL TO THEM, ABSOLUTELY now ask yourselves WHY it's not CRUCIAL to us????? cuz someone wants to make 100trillion bucks???

fuck that. these shortsighted idiots have not even budgetted the fact that iter is only an EXPERIMENT. IF in fact a net gain can be observed in iter there's still the small quirks that must be worked out in engineering. then they need to make a test reactor and that'll take another 10 years at LEAST. then they need to make a LOT OF THEM all over the world before we run out of oil and get sent back to the stone age.

you wanna run on coal... HAH say hi to global emphasema.


1) Coal can be converted into oil. That technology has been around since at least WWII (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_gasification#Liquification)

2) There are some crazy clean coal powerplants being built in the next 5 years that will capture and re-process a vast majority of the pollutants created by burning coal. (http://www.ge.com/stories/en/20385.html?category=Product_Business)

3) This proposition just allows a bunch of friend of politicians to raise BILLIONS of dollars worth of state bonds and give the money to whomever they want. They can give the money to people in any state or country around the world. And this board would operate outside the state budget (even though they can take money from the budget) AND they dont need to comply with conflict of interest laws. AND they can raise more than the initial 4 billion when they want to. AND the portion of these new taxes dont have to go to public services like a normal tax increase would. (http://nooiltax.com/keyfacts/QuestionsAnswers.htm)

Personally, there are a buttload of private investors dumping billions of dollars out there trying to capitalize on the "alternative energy" bandwagon. Thats awesome. I like alternative energy. But why cant we just not fuck ourselves in the ass dry with a splintery piece of wood for once.

Terry S

trinydex
10-31-2006, 02:47 PM
uhm... so you still want to use an energy source that is open carbon cycle? why use a source that has ANY emissions?

of course it raises billions to give to whoever, whoever can do the research. what do you think the defense budget is??? it's hundreds of billions to whoever can come up with the best jet, the best tank the best air lift.

what do you think rebuilding the twin towers is? friends of politicians getting lots of billions? yeah... what's new??? nothing.

i'll agree with you on one thing... if the technology is there, why don't we use alcohol to power our cars?

Terry S
11-01-2006, 11:34 AM
uhm... so you still want to use an energy source that is open carbon cycle? why use a source that has ANY emissions?

of course it raises billions to give to whoever, whoever can do the research. what do you think the defense budget is??? it's hundreds of billions to whoever can come up with the best jet, the best tank the best air lift.

what do you think rebuilding the twin towers is? friends of politicians getting lots of billions? yeah... what's new??? nothing.

i'll agree with you on one thing... if the technology is there, why don't we use alcohol to power our cars?


It's a matter of giving the money to people not actually doing the research. Because they dont have to produce results and are exempt from oversight, the money can goto anyone for anything. Including hippies and the democratic party. Both of which we dont need to be funding.

And it doesn't take public funding to create technology. If the technology was there, then private money would be funding it already. Private funds gets things done quicker, cheaper and more efficiently.

Terry S

trinydex
11-01-2006, 01:04 PM
then please tell that to all the research physicists in the world... private funding makes known technologies better it makes near to known technologies happen. what about stuff like plasma fusion??? who's gonna privately fund that? who CAN privately fund that? it's not as if this is a small problem where if you sneeze it'll go away. this problem is massive and it takes massive cooperation to make it happen.

it's hilarious that there are people that won't even budge about CARS about POWER PLANTS... how the hell are you ever gonna develope as sci fi as ooooh fusion. just cuz someone is gonna make money? i mean what happens these days without people making money??? even the red cross makes money.

if that money is "wasted" it wouldn't be anything new especially to republicans that spend hundreds of billions on "private" government contractors to build weapons. someone once told me that in the air force, they chage 78 dollars for a "precision" screw driver from boeing to work on jets... one of them broke, they were in a pinch so the 78 cent one from lowes did just fine. waste??? no... it's called building rapport.

Terry S
11-01-2006, 01:09 PM
then please tell that to all the research physicists in the world... private funding makes known technologies better it makes near to known technologies happen. what about stuff like plasma fusion??? who's gonna privately fund that? who CAN privately fund that? it's not as if this is a small problem where if you sneeze it'll go away. this problem is massive and it takes massive cooperation to make it happen.

it's hilarious that there are people that won't even budge about CARS about POWER PLANTS... how the hell are you ever gonna develope as sci fi as ooooh fusion. just cuz someone is gonna make money? i mean what happens these days without people making money??? even the red cross makes money.

if that money is "wasted" it wouldn't be anything new especially to republicans that spend hundreds of billions on "private" government contractors to build weapons. someone once told me that in the air force, they chage 78 dollars for a "precision" screw driver from boeing to work on jets... one of them broke, they were in a pinch so the 78 cent one from lowes did just fine. waste??? no... it's called building rapport.


I agree that cars and powerplants should change! I think we should allow more nuclear power plants. I think we need to find alternative motor platforms. But why hasn't anything become viable yet? We've been at it for over 30 years... Maybe its because the technology 1) isn't there, or 2) was flawed from the get go.

If it works, it will become availible to the public. If it becomes availible to the public it will allow the creator to recoup their costs. Unless they just want to hoard the technology waiting for some "big bad company" to pay them some outrageous price for their technology. Damn hippies.

Terry S

trinydex
11-01-2006, 01:39 PM
that's the thing... who's been at it for 30 years???????????? i wanna know!!!!!!!

no company has produced anything that does not rely directly or indirectly on fossil fuels. electric cars? oil firing powerplants, hydrogen cars?? how do you accumulate hydrogen??? something that uses oil firing powerplants (btw bush thinks hydrogen is the future, he's so determined, my professor working in nanotubes made a company designing hydrogen sensors for use in future automobiles).

the best thing is prolly what we already have, alcohol. but i recall you bagging on that cuz someone was gonna make money off it and there's no way someone could think of a way to grow enough stuff to make enough alcohol. glad we didn't try that one. glad we didn't even TRY. and people talk about fusion... yeah we don't try at that either. this is the reality, soon the plasma physicists that birthed the idea of fusion the 1st generation will start to die. are there enough replacements to continue? is there enough extelligence accumulated to ensure the survivability of knowledge?

nuclear plants... you must have missed the part where we'd be knee deep in waste even with fuel reprocessing (but it's an alternative at least, i'd rather californian money to go building california reactors than doin' something else).

the key here is alternative energy... until there is serious investment in that there will be no headway. somehow people don't understand that this is an issue of national well being, who can even bother to care about the rest of the world let's just talk united states, the fact is that oil firing powerplants are an energy source that is diminishing, politically volatile and all that environment junk. yet no serious considerations (or not enough) are being made to do anything otherwise, becuase too many people are invested in it.

so what do you propose we do? continue to feed bush's family and have the hippies leave you alone?

the creator should be the government, in fact i already said it should be their responsibility and hence the responsibility falls on the nation's citizens to act, move and act.

Ricardon
11-01-2006, 03:43 PM
the creator should be the government, in fact i already said it should be their responsibility and hence the responsibility falls on the nation's citizens to act, move and act.

Sorry brother, but that's a bit of a contradiction in your last statement. Is it the governments responisibility, or the nations citizens responsibility? And, no, they arent the same thing just because the governement is elected by the people. That's always been one of the most blatant ironies about this democracy.

I understand your points about research, but governement funding is NOT the answer.

+1 on leaving things like this to the private sector. Propositions like this make me physically ill. Communism doesn't work mmkay.

Terry S
11-01-2006, 03:50 PM
that's the thing... who's been at it for 30 years???????????? i wanna know!!!!!!!

no company has produced anything that does not rely directly or indirectly on fossil fuels. electric cars? oil firing powerplants, hydrogen cars?? how do you accumulate hydrogen??? something that uses oil firing powerplants (btw bush thinks hydrogen is the future, he's so determined, my professor working in nanotubes made a company designing hydrogen sensors for use in future automobiles).

the best thing is prolly what we already have, alcohol. but i recall you bagging on that cuz someone was gonna make money off it and there's no way someone could think of a way to grow enough stuff to make enough alcohol. glad we didn't try that one. glad we didn't even TRY. and people talk about fusion... yeah we don't try at that either. this is the reality, soon the plasma physicists that birthed the idea of fusion the 1st generation will start to die. are there enough replacements to continue? is there enough extelligence accumulated to ensure the survivability of knowledge?

nuclear plants... you must have missed the part where we'd be knee deep in waste even with fuel reprocessing (but it's an alternative at least, i'd rather californian money to go building california reactors than doin' something else).

the key here is alternative energy... until there is serious investment in that there will be no headway. somehow people don't understand that this is an issue of national well being, who can even bother to care about the rest of the world let's just talk united states, the fact is that oil firing powerplants are an energy source that is diminishing, politically volatile and all that environment junk. yet no serious considerations (or not enough) are being made to do anything otherwise, becuase too many people are invested in it.

so what do you propose we do? continue to feed bush's family and have the hippies leave you alone?

the creator should be the government, in fact i already said it should be their responsibility and hence the responsibility falls on the nation's citizens to act, move and act.


All your precious scientists have been at it for 30 years with PUBLIC FUNDING thats who. Ever since the oil scare of the 70's they've been working on oil replacements and oil alternatives. That's where a ton of these "new" ideas actually came from. Ethanol replacement, bio-diesel, electric cars... all from 30 years ago. But noone could get it to ECONOMICALLY work so nothing went further than the underground cults that it basically remains at today. Again, if it can be feasibly done, it would have been done by now. Who knows, there's been an astronomical amount of changes done in the last 30 years to everything else so maybe one of these will become more likely.

Your precious ethanol idea is flawed by the repost of the reason I gave before. It's been tried for years and has proven to be physically and economically impossible to pull off.

Yea, get the fusion idea past those damn environmental hippies. I'm all for cold fusion, nuclear fusion, hippie fusion. I really could care less. It's all those damn environmentalists that whine and bitch about anything that has the potential to kill a spotted owl or some shit. Just like the Cassini-Hyugens satellite when it was launched. It had a very very small nuclear power source in it and they almost successfully blocked the launch of it because of "environmental concerns". Do you really think these same wackjobs are going to let a fusion powered car get by without some massive protests? No. And scientists aren't equipped to deal with protestors and legal suits so they just turn tail and run like they always have.

We have plenty of oil. We have access to plenty of oil. We have access to plenty of oil alternatives. Hydrocarbons are IMMENSELY easy to come by if we leave our planet. We need to start seriously mining in space if we plan to keep things going like we are.

But to get back on topic here, we could EASILY just leave the 4+billion dollars in the economy and let the people come up with an actual and real solution instead of squandering 4+billion dollars into shit we've already proven wrong.

Terry S

trinydex
11-01-2006, 10:29 PM
that's the thing tho... they dropped it a year after the scare.... so it's been 30 years of one year of research... there's been no headway.

the other thing is why would hippies think that fusion is bad? the only thing that is radioactive is the xrays and the hence the metals that are in the reactor. there is no explosions, they're not even possible. there's no weapons grade anything. you sure don't wanna stand next to it... but who stands next to oil firing plants???

mining in space? wow that's a new one...

in the end... there's just no way things are gonna change. not until lots of people die or something catastrphic happens.

Terry S
11-02-2006, 09:19 AM
that's the thing tho... they dropped it a year after the scare.... so it's been 30 years of one year of research... there's been no headway.

the other thing is why would hippies think that fusion is bad? the only thing that is radioactive is the xrays and the hence the metals that are in the reactor. there is no explosions, they're not even possible. there's no weapons grade anything. you sure don't wanna stand next to it... but who stands next to oil firing plants???

mining in space? wow that's a new one...

in the end... there's just no way things are gonna change. not until lots of people die or something catastrphic happens.


mining in space is already on the slate for some people... China for one is planning on setting up a moon base so they can mine it.

If the space elevator actually goes through (all by public funding by the way), then space travel and mining as a result will become incredibly inexpensive to do.

The reason why it's been so interesting is because we've found entire moons, some as large as the earth, that are literally just hydrocarbons. Like Titan orbiting Saturn. It's covered in methane lakes/oceans and rains down ethane from ethane cloud systems..

Terry S

nine
11-02-2006, 10:39 AM
This post is a reposting from a friends blog. See the original post of this here:

www.myspace.com/PhilipKS

****************
Disgusting Politics: Why you should vote NO on prop 87

i went to their website, and (predictably) i was disgusted by the misinformative and manipulative politics being used to convince people to vote yes on this bill.
first, they complain about high gas prices, which have almost nothing to do with the oil companies operating here in california. the democrats here have been blocking the oil companies attempts to build new refineries here for over 30 years, making shortages a major problem. and, worse than that, we pay about 8 times as much money in taxes to the state on each gallon we purchase at the pump as the oil company makes in profit. go look at your gas receipt sometime, notice the tax isnt listed? yeah, thats because its a law in california that it cant be on there, BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT NO ONE WOULD PUT UP WITH THAT BULLSHIT IF THEY KNEW ABOUT IT. we would be paying about 2$ a gallon right now if it werent for the excessive state taxes. if you cant do math, were paying roughly a 30% sales tax on a gallon of gas in this state.

then they claim that california doesnt charge taxes (they do charge taxes, i assure you, just not extra taxes) to drill for oil in california, as if sucker punching the oil companies would solve anything. they say that the oil companies dont pay their fair share, implying that this bill will make them do so. but, in fact, this bill will just flush money down the toilet. its creating a new cash-spending committee to use the money collected. the purpose is to fund clean energy research, but there is no mention of results or responsibility in how its spent. this hands free money to whoever these politicians feel like handing it over to, with no accountability whatsoever.

delving deeper into the site, i find blatant lies:

"Oil companies are gouging California consumers at the pumps with the highest prices in the nation."
- adjusted for the taxes, we pay the same as everyone else.

"California is #1 in the nation in oil use and is too dependent on foreign oil. With nearly 50% of our imported oil coming from Saudi Arabia and Iraq."
- untrue, our biggest oil supplier is mexico, then canada. europe buys most middle-east oil, and we have never gotten a drop from iraq since they have contracts with france and russia that precede the war and are still being honored.

"Oil companies are blocking our access to cleaner, cheaper fuels."
- the person who is smart enough to make a cheaper, cleaner fuel than oil will be a bajillionaire, and there is nothing the oil companies can do to stop it.

"CA's air quality is the second worst in the nation. Pollution from cars, trucks and buses that run on gas and diesel is responsible for asthma, lung disease, and cancer."
- and yet, our asthma, lung disease and cancer rates are the same as most everywhere else... strange.

now that we know "the key facts," lets address the claims of this bill:

"Makes it illegal for oil companies to raise gas prices to pass the cost along to consumers."
- so, now the oil companies are charity groups? sounds like communism to me.

"Reduces gasoline and diesel usage by 25% over 10 years."
- how, exactly? our population will continue to grow in the next 10 years, as it has each 10 years before, and they pretend this is possible.

"Provides consumer rebates for cars and trucks that run on alternative fuels."
- ah, finally a hint at the truth, alternative fuels are so retarded you have to bribe people to use them.

"Requires strict accountability; nonpartisan, expert oversight and no new bureaucracy."
- blatant lie. the "experts" are unelected appointed politicians, appointed by the state legislature, and the money goes into "research" with no gaurantee on results. its easy to be accountable to no results, right?

"Creates thousands of new jobs and economic growth."
- buuullllllshiiiiiiiit! taxing the oil companies will raise gas prices, higher gas prices will suppress the economy. seriously, thats the most moronic statement on the whole site. they think that throwing a few billion dollars into the furnace will outweigh the increased taxation, typical liberal stupidity.

anyway, the point of this bill is to punish oil companies for making money, but the oil companies have no choice but to make money- THEY ARE A BUSINESS. if they dont make money they dont exist. they employ and pay well hundreds of thousands of people, and are accountable to millions of shareholders- when they make huge profits the money ends up in the hands of these people, and gets recirculated into the economy through them. unlike the government, which is a black hole of waste. so, the real effect of this proposition is to steal efficient, healthy profits from hardworking and honest people and put it under the will of worthless, vindictive politicians.

what really pisses me off is that this will probably pass because most people are so damn ignorant of how the real world works, and are so foolishly gullible that they can be dupped into trusting the government and blaming of the oil companies- and im going to pay for it not only at the pump, but also in my business since people with less money to spend spend less money.
**********

If I voted, i'd vote no. You should too. Don't support communism.

Terry S




I voted no, because you said so. :smitten:

http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/4719/picture011pg8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Terry S
11-02-2006, 10:41 AM
One down and several million more to go. O0 :D

Terry S

nine
11-05-2006, 02:12 PM
Anytime Man, O0 but still everyone's vote is going to be Haxored anyway's. :laugh:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7236791207107726851&q=hacking+democracy

http://pabloonpolitics.com/images/diebold%20voting.jpg

Ricardon
11-08-2006, 09:04 PM
Prop 87 fails!

trinydex
11-09-2006, 05:38 AM
that's the thing tho... they dropped it a year after the scare.... so it's been 30 years of one year of research... there's been no headway.

the other thing is why would hippies think that fusion is bad? the only thing that is radioactive is the xrays and the hence the metals that are in the reactor. there is no explosions, they're not even possible. there's no weapons grade anything. you sure don't wanna stand next to it... but who stands next to oil firing plants???

mining in space? wow that's a new one...

in the end... there's just no way things are gonna change. not until lots of people die or something catastrphic happens.


mining in space is already on the slate for some people... China for one is planning on setting up a moon base so they can mine it.

If the space elevator actually goes through (all by public funding by the way), then space travel and mining as a result will become incredibly inexpensive to do.

The reason why it's been so interesting is because we've found entire moons, some as large as the earth, that are literally just hydrocarbons. Like Titan orbiting Saturn. It's covered in methane lakes/oceans and rains down ethane from ethane cloud systems..

Terry S
mining in space.... i don't know why that sounds like the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard and i can't believe it's actually being considered. how much raw resource i'm not talkin' about money, i'm talkin' about how many barrels of oil does it take to put two tons of mass into space right now? and then to extraterrestrial travel?

how much oil does the earth at it's current rate of consumption use right now? few tens of millions of barrels? few tens of millions of 55 gallon drums (actually 42 gallon)???

you wanna pipe that in from space how? just shoot it at earth's orbit and have it rain??? you wanna pipe in what from space? how much of it???? come on... that's in every way possible ludacris and i think only politicians can pull that off as being believable.

guess what else there's plenty of in the world??? hydrogen. and there's plenty of it right here on earth.

and as for shale oil processing or coal to oil refinement... if it's so great, if it's such a good source. why are we in iraq? is there a need to fuck with oil in the middle east if we have all this coal (which we do) that we can magically transform into oil? or is it actually not worth it??? germany does it outta desperation during the war and it's suppose to be an option? come on... look at the iraq casualties website... every one of those men adn women are getting bombed by fuckin' shitheads that aren't even throwing THEMSELVES at the target anymore they're throwing OTHER UNSUSPECTING PEOPLE'S CARS. are we REALLY considering these options???

there ARE NO ALTERNATIVES TO OIL RIGHT NOW. and there will be none until people get sick of people dying. until someone wakes the fuck up. until some of the right people lose their money, until some of the right people lose their power.

Terry S
11-09-2006, 09:45 AM
mining in space.... i don't know why that sounds like the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard and i can't believe it's actually being considered. how much raw resource i'm not talkin' about money, i'm talkin' about how many barrels of oil does it take to put two tons of mass into space right now? and then to extraterrestrial travel?

how much oil does the earth at it's current rate of consumption use right now? few tens of millions of barrels? few tens of millions of 55 gallon drums (actually 42 gallon)???

you wanna pipe that in from space how? just shoot it at earth's orbit and have it rain??? you wanna pipe in what from space? how much of it???? come on... that's in every way possible ludacris and i think only politicians can pull that off as being believable.

guess what else there's plenty of in the world??? hydrogen. and there's plenty of it right here on earth.

and as for shale oil processing or coal to oil refinement... if it's so great, if it's such a good source. why are we in iraq? is there a need to fuck with oil in the middle east if we have all this coal (which we do) that we can magically transform into oil? or is it actually not worth it??? germany does it outta desperation during the war and it's suppose to be an option? come on... look at the iraq casualties website... every one of those men adn women are getting bombed by fuckin' shitheads that aren't even throwing THEMSELVES at the target anymore they're throwing OTHER UNSUSPECTING PEOPLE'S CARS. are we REALLY considering these options???

there ARE NO ALTERNATIVES TO OIL RIGHT NOW. and there will be none until people get sick of people dying. until someone wakes the fuck up. until some of the right people lose their money, until some of the right people lose their power.


Space mining is being privately funded right now (other than the Chinese government being actively pursuing the idea). There's lots of things to mine out there. And it wouldn't take much oil to get up there. Using the space elevator wouldn't necessarily require oil because then they dont need rockets and rocket fuel. Just electric motors to pull the platform up.

Terry S

x[corwyn]
11-09-2006, 12:18 PM
Space mining is being privately funded right now (other than the Chinese government being actively pursuing the idea). There's lots of things to mine out there. And it wouldn't take much oil to get up there. Using the space elevator wouldn't necessarily require oil because then they dont need rockets and rocket fuel. Just electric motors to pull the platform up.

Terry S


Hope they dont screw up the reentry getting the oil in and dropping it on some neighborhood! That would be a mess then!


*I KID*


I hope we finally get cold fusion working. I dont think electrical, hybrid or any other technology that is out there can give the feasibility that oil does now.

trinydex
11-09-2006, 04:55 PM
space elevator??? so i suppose the country that controls that thing will be the new middle east... and anyway you still didn't answer the question about how you're gonna mine that many millions of barrels a day out in space and bring it back. how far away is the asteroid belt or saturn's moons??? how big of a container are you gonna need? and how much fuel is needed to move that container? what's most hilarious is i'm envisioning an oil rig on an asteroid or even better on a moon of saturn... it takes about a billion dollars to build one of those ON EARTH and it takes a crew of more than 100 people. how the hell are you gonna get 100 people plus their heavy machinery PLUS the materials PLUS the food necessary to sustain these people for more than a year. where are you even gonna get the people to do that??? where are you even gonna get the money to do that?

oh yeah and how many barrels of oil in energy does it take to maintain such a facility, such an expedition? what do you mean it doesn't take barrels of oil? you're going out to mine it so obviously your powerplants are still running it. USING ELECTRICITY IS USING OIL, MAKE NO MISTAKE. we're not fighting iraq to run cars, we're fighting iraq to run america.

and what's the problem with the whole scenario to begin with? if we could just send shit up in space with such ease... why not just use all the uranium in the world with fission reactors and just send that shit to the sun? why? cuz risk analysis that's why... even if you're 99.99% successful out of 1000 tries you have 1 failure that pollutes the entire world with enough fission waste to cause green glowing newborns for let's see.... 10,000 years.

remember the last time an oil tanker ruptured in the open sea? we didn't have to club any baby seals, they clubbed themselves so they wouldn't have to drown in crude oil.

trinydex
11-09-2006, 05:06 PM
]


Space mining is being privately funded right now (other than the Chinese government being actively pursuing the idea). There's lots of things to mine out there. And it wouldn't take much oil to get up there. Using the space elevator wouldn't necessarily require oil because then they dont need rockets and rocket fuel. Just electric motors to pull the platform up.

Terry S


Hope they dont screw up the reentry getting the oil in and dropping it on some neighborhood! That would be a mess then!


*I KID*


I hope we finally get cold fusion working. I dont think electrical, hybrid or any other technology that is out there can give the feasibility that oil does now.
it is unfortunate that cold fusion is merely an urban legend... possibly sprung from some overzealous professor's calculational blunders in the early days of plasma physics. the forerunners of the plasma physics industry these days are creating hot plasmas. in fact one was created at princeton labs where they ACTUALLY got MORE POWER OUT than they put in... for THREE MINUTES!!!!!! that's no small feat.

ITER is the experiment which is being built now in france. it's a humungous device that produces A LOT of hot plasma and the goal is to get 20 times as much power out as they put in. most of the experiment is to work out engineering problems like containment and maintenence. the united states is only in 1/12 of the way when it stands to benefit the MOST PER CAPITA. it's a damn shame... yes it's true other people NEED this resource more than "we do" but the fact is we'd still benefit the most. problem is.... some people wanna make money off oil still............ so that's why we aren't invested in cool new science and we'll continue to bury ourselves and our soldiers in the stupidity of oil.

you know what's so stupid about it all? we're in the information age... information, science and frontier technology should be worth the MOST... not physical capital in the form of crude oil.

in the end THAT is what i find so disgusting about politics and consequently and ironically how disgusting this thread is. politics fill's normal people's minds with bullshit ideas and these people without scientific backgrounds do not look into the numbers and just knod accordingly so that some selfish people can make money. you'd think bush would care about his children's futures, maybe he's stupid enough to believe there is no problem but WHAT IF he thinks or KNOWS that hte money he makes will take care of his family for generations to come... and FUCK ALL THE REST OF YOU PEASANT CLASS UNITED STATES CITIZENS... can't fend for yourself cuz you're not rich? that's ok... that's always how it's been.

x[corwyn]
11-09-2006, 05:11 PM
space elevator??? so i suppose the country that controls that thing will be the new middle east... and anyway you still didn't answer the question about how you're gonna mine that many millions of barrels a day out in space and bring it back. how far away is the asteroid belt or saturn's moons??? how big of a container are you gonna need? and how much fuel is needed to move that container?

oh yeah and how many barrels of oil in energy does it take to maintain such a facility, such an expedition? what do you mean it doesn't take barrels of oil? you're going out to mine it so obviously your powerplants are still running it. USING ELECTRICITY IS USING OIL, MAKE NO MISTAKE. we're not fighting iraq to run cars, we're fighting iraq to run america.

and what's the problem with the whole scenario to begin with? if we could just send shit up in space with such ease... why not just use all the uranium in the world with fission reactors and just send that shit to the sun? why? cuz risk analysis that's why... even if you're 99.99% successful out of 1000 tries you have 1 failure that pollutes the entire world with enough fission waste to cause green glowing newborns for let's see.... 10,000 years.

remember the last time an oil tanker ruptured in the open sea? we didn't have to club any baby seals, they clubbed themselves so they wouldn't have to drown in crude oil.


The initial cost is going to be very scary, very difficult, very expensive and very dangerous. However once there is the ability to get at a limitless supply of resources out there, the people who do it will be set. Everyone else will be screwed or will be left in the dust. The resources of this planet are finite and growing more so every day with more people being born, and less dying. Global warming isnt our biggest danger. Overpopulation is.

So at some point here we are going to have either a major disaster, disease, or a situation like Soylent Green here. None of which is very nice. Whenever a population of species overpopulates its environment bad things happen. So hope and pray for better energy sources and also the ability to not only leave sthi planet but get at resources off planet.

As such NASA, Chinese, and Russians have all announced intentions of getting to the moon and mars. What the wait is for is the real business case of WHY to go. Thats why everyone is looking for water, and other resources. Not just to power up return trips, or for colonies, but as a business case for replenishing our supply. Mark my words.... There WILL be a definable business case, sometime soon and there will be the next part of the space race to get to it.

I wish they would hurry up and find one personally.... Right now, while environment is important, its not THAT important to change something that has worked for 100 years. Oil is fine and there is still a sustainable supply till we develop those technologies to get at the things that will make business sense to get at.

Anyway.... Time for me to go home. More thoughts later....

trinydex
11-09-2006, 05:14 PM
you know what that means right??? united states will have to impose a child policy...

i'll admit that earthlings will probably eventually go to space in search of not only resources but possibly places to stay and explore... but that is not as practical as staying right here on earth and aggressively developing something that could save our asses right now. there's just no excuse.

x[corwyn]
11-09-2006, 06:19 PM
you know what that means right??? united states will have to impose a child policy...

i'll admit that earthlings will probably eventually go to space in search of not only resources but possibly places to stay and explore... but that is not as practical as staying right here on earth and aggressively developing something that could save our asses right now. there's just no excuse.


Oh there is an excuse. There is no money in it. When there is, you will see it happen.

Remember the people who care and are liberal are young. They see things in black and white. As you get older things get grey, and black and white is lost in the shades. What does that mean? The reality of our daily lives hits and overshadows those things that are outside of that bubble.

Also I have noticed that short term thinking at the sacrifice of long term is the norm in business, and in daily lives. Business decisions, and people's personal decisions all are very shortsighted, very narrow. So with that type of thinking going on, you want these same people to actually care about something that may or may not affect them or their children? Cold, hard reality is the only way it will happen. Impact the lives somehow and you will see everyone, and businesses demand those changes. Now how do you get that impact to happen?

trinydex
11-09-2006, 08:12 PM
]


you know what that means right??? united states will have to impose a child policy...

i'll admit that earthlings will probably eventually go to space in search of not only resources but possibly places to stay and explore... but that is not as practical as staying right here on earth and aggressively developing something that could save our asses right now. there's just no excuse.


Oh there is an excuse. There is no money in it. When there is, you will see it happen.

Remember the people who care and are liberal are young. They see things in black and white. As you get older things get grey, and black and white is lost in the shades. What does that mean? The reality of our daily lives hits and overshadows those things that are outside of that bubble.

Also I have noticed that short term thinking at the sacrifice of long term is the norm in business, and in daily lives. Business decisions, and people's personal decisions all are very shortsighted, very narrow. So with that type of thinking going on, you want these same people to actually care about something that may or may not affect them or their children? Cold, hard reality is the only way it will happen. Impact the lives somehow and you will see everyone, and businesses demand those changes. Now how do you get that impact to happen?
well... i already said that nothing will change til a lotta people die. and the way things are goin' and with your accurate predictions about overpopulation, it's only a matter of time.

Terry S
11-10-2006, 08:02 AM
space elevator??? so i suppose the country that controls that thing will be the new middle east... and anyway you still didn't answer the question about how you're gonna mine that many millions of barrels a day out in space and bring it back. how far away is the asteroid belt or saturn's moons??? how big of a container are you gonna need? and how much fuel is needed to move that container? what's most hilarious is i'm envisioning an oil rig on an asteroid or even better on a moon of saturn... it takes about a billion dollars to build one of those ON EARTH and it takes a crew of more than 100 people. how the hell are you gonna get 100 people plus their heavy machinery PLUS the materials PLUS the food necessary to sustain these people for more than a year. where are you even gonna get the people to do that??? where are you even gonna get the money to do that?

oh yeah and how many barrels of oil in energy does it take to maintain such a facility, such an expedition? what do you mean it doesn't take barrels of oil? you're going out to mine it so obviously your powerplants are still running it. USING ELECTRICITY IS USING OIL, MAKE NO MISTAKE. we're not fighting iraq to run cars, we're fighting iraq to run america.

and what's the problem with the whole scenario to begin with? if we could just send shit up in space with such ease... why not just use all the uranium in the world with fission reactors and just send that shit to the sun? why? cuz risk analysis that's why... even if you're 99.99% successful out of 1000 tries you have 1 failure that pollutes the entire world with enough fission waste to cause green glowing newborns for let's see.... 10,000 years.

remember the last time an oil tanker ruptured in the open sea? we didn't have to club any baby seals, they clubbed themselves so they wouldn't have to drown in crude oil.


Space elevator is privately funded so unless that changes, it will basically become what Bahrain/Dubai has become.

No millions of barrels to get it up there. It wouldn't take all that much actually. And it would be internally powered by its own nuclear powerplant (just like the satellites that are already out there). And you wouldn't need people, machines could more than easily perform the task. And again, it wouldn't take too much to get it back here. Gravitational slingshotting would provide the bulk of the acceleration to get there and back (just like it's done now). And it wouldn't take as much to build things because the limitations and weight restrictions dont play nearly as big of a role. And since governments are taken out of the equation, the costs would drop dramatically (like less than 1/10th the cost if not more). And again, making electricity is cheap and easy when its nuclear. And regarding the space stuff, dont forget that the sun is massive. And by massive, I mean FUCKING MASSIVE HUGE GINORMOUS GIGANTE MUY GRANDE HUGE. Spitting a couple hundred tons of radioactive waste at the sun wouldn't even make it to the surface. It would evaporate, yes evaporate, before it got within 1,000,000km of the surface of the sun. And thanks to our naturally huge and powerful magnetic shield on the planet, we would be shielded by the minuscule reaction that has a non-existant chance of happening (our magnetic field blocks almost all of the solar wind/emissions that blow right at us).

Citing oil tanker spills is pretty weak. Clubbing baby seals is good for the environment and the economy of Canada (they are a pest you know).

I do remember when greenpeace ran into a protected coral reef too: http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/33274/story.htm

And yes, I used alot of "and's" because it sounded funny and annoying.

Terry S

Terry S
11-10-2006, 08:07 AM
]


Space mining is being privately funded right now (other than the Chinese government being actively pursuing the idea). There's lots of things to mine out there. And it wouldn't take much oil to get up there. Using the space elevator wouldn't necessarily require oil because then they dont need rockets and rocket fuel. Just electric motors to pull the platform up.

Terry S


Hope they dont screw up the reentry getting the oil in and dropping it on some neighborhood! That would be a mess then!


*I KID*


I hope we finally get cold fusion working. I dont think electrical, hybrid or any other technology that is out there can give the feasibility that oil does now.
it is unfortunate that cold fusion is merely an urban legend... possibly sprung from some overzealous professor's calculational blunders in the early days of plasma physics. the forerunners of the plasma physics industry these days are creating hot plasmas. in fact one was created at princeton labs where they ACTUALLY got MORE POWER OUT than they put in... for THREE MINUTES!!!!!! that's no small feat.

ITER is the experiment which is being built now in france. it's a humungous device that produces A LOT of hot plasma and the goal is to get 20 times as much power out as they put in. most of the experiment is to work out engineering problems like containment and maintenence. the united states is only in 1/12 of the way when it stands to benefit the MOST PER CAPITA. it's a damn shame... yes it's true other people NEED this resource more than "we do" but the fact is we'd still benefit the most. problem is.... some people wanna make money off oil still............ so that's why we aren't invested in cool new science and we'll continue to bury ourselves and our soldiers in the stupidity of oil.

you know what's so stupid about it all? we're in the information age... information, science and frontier technology should be worth the MOST... not physical capital in the form of crude oil.

in the end THAT is what i find so disgusting about politics and consequently and ironically how disgusting this thread is. politics fill's normal people's minds with bullshit ideas and these people without scientific backgrounds do not look into the numbers and just knod accordingly so that some selfish people can make money. you'd think bush would care about his children's futures, maybe he's stupid enough to believe there is no problem but WHAT IF he thinks or KNOWS that hte money he makes will take care of his family for generations to come... and FUCK ALL THE REST OF YOU PEASANT CLASS UNITED STATES CITIZENS... can't fend for yourself cuz you're not rich? that's ok... that's always how it's been.


Well, since we haven't recieved any of the "blood oil" from Iraq yet, i'd say we're pretty clean of any "blood oil" claims.

Also, it takes a BUTTLOAD of cash to "invest" (using that term very very loosely here) in new technologies because the philanthropic scientists demand a kings ransom in markup for their "expertise". Pay scientists a communist style pittance and let them be paid in fame instead I say.

Oh and they've been experimenting with heavy nickel (basically a radioactive version) that has shown to provide a BUTTLOAD of energy for a very long time using a very very tiny amount of the material. Again, the only issues is supply and maintenance which is what it always comes down to when proposing an energy source. Which is why oil is still king daddy.

Terry S

Terry S
11-10-2006, 08:14 AM
Overpopulation is a LONG way off, if it ever occurs. Our technological advances are advancing far faster than the population of the nations that matter are. Hell, there are quite a few nations out there that are actually decreasing in population. Japan is the one at the top of that list. It's actually considered a crisis over there right now. And we're not far behind. We've been leveling off for years now and have the very real possibility of going into a decline (even with the immigration issue).

Shit's been just like this forever. Nothing has changed. Just the quantities have changed. Everything will continue to be fine. People will continue to be short sided. Everything will continue to balance out or go away. In any case, why the hell should we care about it? As individuals, our only goal is to provide ourselves with the greatest amount of self good as possible. Unless your lazy or stupid, then you get to just mosie along thinking that earning just enough to get by is plenty (which it physically cant be). And if we manage to do something good for everyone else, then just make sure you're getting a good cut. lol

Terry S

trinydex
11-10-2006, 04:49 PM
Space elevator is privately funded so unless that changes, it will basically become what Bahrain/Dubai has become.

No millions of barrels to get it up there. It wouldn't take all that much actually. And it would be internally powered by its own nuclear powerplant (just like the satellites that are already out there). And you wouldn't need people, machines could more than easily perform the task. And again, it wouldn't take too much to get it back here. Gravitational slingshotting would provide the bulk of the acceleration to get there and back (just like it's done now). And it wouldn't take as much to build things because the limitations and weight restrictions dont play nearly as big of a role. And since governments are taken out of the equation, the costs would drop dramatically (like less than 1/10th the cost if not more). And again, making electricity is cheap and easy when its nuclear. And regarding the space stuff, dont forget that the sun is massive. And by massive, I mean FUCKING MASSIVE HUGE GINORMOUS GIGANTE MUY GRANDE HUGE. Spitting a couple hundred tons of radioactive waste at the sun wouldn't even make it to the surface. It would evaporate, yes evaporate, before it got within 1,000,000km of the surface of the sun. And thanks to our naturally huge and powerful magnetic shield on the planet, we would be shielded by the minuscule reaction that has a non-existant chance of happening (our magnetic field blocks almost all of the solar wind/emissions that blow right at us).

Citing oil tanker spills is pretty weak. Clubbing baby seals is good for the environment and the economy of Canada (they are a pest you know).

I do remember when greenpeace ran into a protected coral reef too: http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/33274/story.htm

And yes, I used alot of "and's" because it sounded funny and annoying.

Terry S
uhm i'm not understanding what your point was with the nuclear plants... and making cheap electricity. for one it's not cheap to make nuclear energy, it's not efficient either. but the fact is that the fuel is abundant, humanly renewable. it's not "too cheap to meter" or anything. the thing is... we can't even get a place in nevada to put our waste... are we really gonna build a space elevator depending on fission energy?

and the problem with sending the waste into the sun is that if you FAIL A LAUNCH you screw the earth. this same risk analysis can be applied to something like a space elevator (when dealing with nuclear waste, or perhaps bringing IN LOTS OF OIL). the problem is not what happens if it hits the sun and vaporizes... in fact that's the POINT. and yes the earth's tiny 1 gauss field at the equator makes a brilliant magnetic mirror due to the E x gradB drift exhibitted in plasmas... however fissible materials aren't plasmas and if you screw something in near earth orbit they won't bounce around forever like the plamsas from the solar wind. they'll come back to earth. only if you throw them close enough to the sun where everything goes plasma then you can assume that we're shielded. and if you were smart you'd fire the waste such that it orbits the sun for a long time cuz tha sun is hugely radioactive already.

the oil tankers were just examples, comparing what happens when a risk analysis failure DOES happen. it costs billions and kills lots of stuff... but who cares right humans in the republican party are the only ones that matter.

trinydex
11-10-2006, 04:51 PM
Overpopulation is a LONG way off, if it ever occurs. Our technological advances are advancing far faster than the population of the nations that matter are. Hell, there are quite a few nations out there that are actually decreasing in population. Japan is the one at the top of that list. It's actually considered a crisis over there right now. And we're not far behind. We've been leveling off for years now and have the very real possibility of going into a decline (even with the immigration issue).

Shit's been just like this forever. Nothing has changed. Just the quantities have changed. Everything will continue to be fine. People will continue to be short sided. Everything will continue to balance out or go away. In any case, why the hell should we care about it? As individuals, our only goal is to provide ourselves with the greatest amount of self good as possible. Unless your lazy or stupid, then you get to just mosie along thinking that earning just enough to get by is plenty (which it physically cant be). And if we manage to do something good for everyone else, then just make sure you're getting a good cut. lol

Terry S
our technology is advancing so fast..... yet scientists demand a king's ransom... so which one are you condoning?


(which it physically cant be). and what's this supposed to mean???

i don't know how much a buttload of energy is and i don't know if you mean a buttload of NET energy. and the problem of finding an enery souce is NOT maintenance and supply... you're thinking OIL. the main problem in ANY energy source is EXTRACTION. how do you make a powerplant. yes that's solved for oil... but oil sucks as a power source. yes that's solved for fission, but that sucks too. it's NOT solved for tritium/deuterium fussion reacotors and those happen to be the best source of fuel. whether or not it can be extracted and extracted efficiently is the problem.

of course maintenance and supply are a part of the equation but it really depends on which equation you're wanting to discuss. there's plenty of deuterium and tritium (if you decide to make fussion reactors)

safety and emissions are also concerns...

and yes the shit has been like this forever... except it's HUGER MORE BIGGER GIGANTICER now than ever before... is that bad? yes. why? cuz it means A LOT MORE PEOPLE WILL DIE WHEN THE DYING STARTS HAPPENING. are you gonna tell me you don't care? i wanna hear it...

overpopulation is a long way off? look at india man... people die on the streets every day, just lie down and die in the streets (MY FRIEND HAS SEEN THEM). that's what happens when you turn technology off, that's what happens when you turn electricity off. the entire first world is riding on electricity, if it got shut off or curtailed you are well aware of how many would be dead within one week. no hospitols, no clean water, no way to dispose of bodies. i'm not saying that's gonna happen to america... but could it? and if it can't... what's making us so sure? and if we're so sure... what are we doing to stay sure? yes look at japan... look at how badly they are CLAMOURING for plasma physics developement. they have some of the world's BEST plasma facilities, they're so freaki'n high up there on the technology curve they even outpace big badass mean boy america........ so yes... look at japan. like i said... america will likely not have an overpopulation problem, IT WILL HAVE AN OVERCONSUMPTION PROBLEM. which is why america stands to benefit THE MOST OUT OF ANY COUNTRY when a new energy source is DEVELOPED.

and in the end... the earth will shrug us off it's shoulders like we didn't even exist for the past two seconds. but who cares right... who cares about the sustainability of mankind? just fatten yourself up... eat drink and be merry for tomorrow IIIIII die.

Ricardon
11-10-2006, 08:10 PM
and in the end... the earth will shrug us off it's shoulders like we didn't even exist for the past two seconds.

Ok, so your post was good and all, but this was all you needed to say Terry. O0