Sir John Dunn
|
Re: barack's nuts
Jul 18, 2008, 17:39
|
|
tinky10675 wrote: thanks to starbucks in my new topic posting.
And on that bombshell...
|
tinky10675
|
Re: barack's nuts
Jul 18, 2008, 17:50
|
|
12,000 people out of work isn't a bombshell to you? ok
|
tinky10675
|
Re: barack's nuts
Jul 18, 2008, 17:52
|
|
tinky10675 wrote: 12,000 people out of work isn't a bombshell to you? ok
You're arguing with yourself on this one sorry..Im not going to downplay the loss to 12,000 people and the families affected by such a layoff I'll leave that up to you.
|
Sir John Dunn
|
Re: barack's nuts
Jul 18, 2008, 18:12
|
|
tinky10675 wrote: 12,000 people out of work isn't a bombshell to you? ok
No. 12,000 sounds like good news.
Welcome to my world, Tinky-Winky. Where have you been?
Don't leave it so long, next time. Y'hear?
|
ron
|
Re: barack's nuts
Jul 25, 2008, 16:23
|
|
handofdave wrote: Ah, you and your lunar solar power again?.
yep...
i go out and i come back in again... i go out and i come back in again…
and we’ll do again... until... she... diiiies… all nite barry manilow...
handofdave wrote: Someday, someday. Like I said before, there's a lot of much cheaper, direct-to-the-consumer solutions to be explored first. .
everyday brings us closer to the big bad phyre... jc 1991
mayan midnite draws neigh... 3 winters...
handofdave wrote:
Setting up a full scale LSP operation as envisioned would be a massive undertaking that would STILL be controlled by a small number of people. What I'm talking about is a diffusion of tech, a way for people to get OFF the grid, not onto an even more remotely owned and operated one.
not sure how you come up with a small number of people with awl the research and development that will be required, however i would think that it would be no smaller than any other energy monopoly... not to mention the engineering jobs, the quality of life discoveries, advancement of knowledge in physics, mathematics, medicines…
readily available copious amounts of affordable energy…
south tejas has miles and miles of greenhouses growing vegetables 24 x 7 x 365… would it not be a beautiful thing to duplicate in the sudan… millions ‘on the grid’… with powered wells for clean drinking water… how many lives would be saved…
getting ur self OFF of the grid is commendable and I’m quite sure the denizens of las vegas appreciate your compassion…u r caught in a double vegetation…
x
|
Merrick
|
Re: barack's nuts
Jul 25, 2008, 17:07
|
|
tinky10675 wrote: I just didnt see the point of going in circles
'Going in circles' is when the same responses get said over and over.
When one person is repeatedly politely asking the same questions to no avail, it's called 'banging your head against a brick wall'.
The time you've spent dodging the answers far exceeds the time it would take to give answers, if you had any.
|
tinky10675
|
Re: barack's nuts
Jul 26, 2008, 13:04
|
|
Im done with this topic,It's flogging a dead horse if Obama has the fortune to win we will see were this leads us. MC Cain = 4 yrs or less of fucking things up Obama=8yrs or more of fucking things up Neither is a Good Choice I've made mine you make yours Either way we are screwed big time.Mc cain is an old dithering old man who is out of touch while Obama is inexperienced with global economics more than any candidate I can ever think of PLUS he has a very dodgy past filled with racism .Again either way the U.S is Boned.And you can comment on what a creep I am till your fingers are Blue I really don't care Im sick of the Idol worship whilst overlooking the cold hard facts. Vote for who you want Im not interested anymore.(4yrs from now will be a whole new ballgame I hope)
|
nigelswift
|
Re: barack's nuts
Jul 26, 2008, 14:55
|
Obama is inexperienced with global economics more than any candidate I can ever think of
What, you think he knows less about global economics (and everything else) than Bush?!
Not that it matters either way. Being an expert in economics is definitely not a vital quality in a leader. They have panels of expert economists for that. What matters in a leader, especially now, is an ability to lead and inspire and a grasp of what exactly is happening in the world and a willingness to be independent of a mean and self-serving cabal. Something that's been missing for eight years.
|
Merrick
|
Re: barack's nuts
Jul 26, 2008, 15:52
|
You've failed to answer my one real point on your Obama/McCain thing which is; you characterise them as something akin to monarchies. They are not, they are the figureheads for the interests that got them elected and the party they come from.
McCain would surely retain many of Bush's people; he would also be superceded by someone who retained many of his staff. Gore knew the score with climate change before Clinton was elected, yet spent his time in office rolling over to Big Fossil and wrecking the Kyoto agreement.
All this is a side issue. The thread had moved on and you have been repeatedly asked to answer several questions you raised about the USA's right to overconsume and how this can be called Green.
You have singularly failed to answer them. As I've already said, the time you've spent dodging the questions far exceeds the time it would take to give any answers. Thus it's hard to reach any conclusion other than you have no answers.
That being so, it's a tacit admission that western overconsumption is in fact indefensible, racist and anti-human, that you like that because it provides you personally with luxury at the expense of others necessities and are happy to see others killed in vvast numbers so that you don't have to (to pick something you derided as the consequence of not overconsuming) have to have a second hand TV.
I have more respect for racist thugs who beat people up on the street. At least they're active in their commitment to their position rather than just wanting to be spoon fed while others do the murder for them.
|
nigelswift
|
Re: barack's nuts
Jul 26, 2008, 16:10
|
"That being so, it's a tacit admission that western overconsumption is in fact indefensible, racist and anti-human, that you like that because it provides you personally with luxury at the expense of others necessities "
One thing worries me though. That's me you're talking about. And you probably? I probably consume less than Tinky and I'm certainly not so lacking in guilt as he seems to be but I do overconsume, massively, compared with what would be strictly equitable (one six billionth of World production) and I could consume less. So I don't think pointing to the massive selfishness of Tinky can allow me to pretend I'm not (almost) as bad.
|
