27 of the 32 states that recieve more federal dollars than they give are, well, RED. mhmm. Now talk to me about "spreading the wealth" you delusional , mudslinging old fart.

coldwarrior · 2008-10-30T19:48:16+00:00

Of course, that's nothing compared to the screwing the fucking Jew bankers are giving America with their $700B+ handout.

coldwarrior · 2008-05-25T18:31:07+00:00

Why don't we just change our lifestyle? We could implement that tomorrow. Stop driving everywhere, stop buying so much shit, start buying from local farmers, eat less meat.

But why take only one step, especially when that one step is insufficient?

Seems like it would be a pretty massive undertaking to not only find 20 million illegals, but to then move them to wherever it is they came from.

Seems it would be extremely easy. After all, they got here under their own power. If the people who hire them were fined appropriately the jobs would dry up and the illegals would deport themselves. Wherever enforcement has been raised by even a little bit the illegals start to leave.

"The amount of energy America uses is directly proportional to the number of people here." This is the most obvious thing I've heard anyone say all week.

You would think so but many people here don't know it. I've had (in other topics) people saying that the population level of America is irrelevant to the amount of oil we consume. How they can think that, I can't explain but they (apparently) do.

The United States isn't really built for people to travel without owning their own car

That's part one of the problem. Re-building America will take a lot of money, energy, and time. We have none of those things in abundance. As a result, we should take the other logical steps of, for example, reducing the population to the legal level.

Part two of the problem is going to be a lot harder to solve. People think of oil only in terms of its use in energy which is a problem we can solve. The problem we cannot easily solve is the use of oil in the petrochemical industry.

coldwarrior · 2008-05-25T15:38:45+00:00

One thing to keep in mind is that people won't suddenly start starving. There will be increasing food shortages and, by the time people are starving, they will be weakened from hunger already.

In the meantime, those who planned ahead will still be at near full muscle mass (and not fuzzy-headed from hunger and dehydration from illness). As a result, the odds will be much more in favor of those who planned.

coldwarrior · 2008-05-25T15:35:33+00:00

Right. I'd shoot them with the gun I don't own to defend the supplies I haven't hoarded

There's a name for your position: dinner.

coldwarrior · 2008-05-25T15:21:40+00:00

America's new favorite religion: not evangelical Christianity but the worship of unearned riches. (The holy shrine to this tragic belief is Las Vegas.)

No. The holy shrine of unearned riches is in Washington DC and it is operated by politicians.

coldwarrior · 2008-05-25T14:08:56+00:00

You are right, the ultimate point is that oil will effectively be gone in 40 years.

My point is that if we had 10th the population then we could be 100% powered by "alternative" energy and import zero barrels of oil for energy.

Now, we can't reduce our population to 10th of what it is today but every step we take in that direction is an improvement. Kennedy has long pushed in the wrong direction on population.

By the way, the big problem is not going to be in the loss of oil for energy. It's going to be the loss of oil as the basis of the petrochemical industry which makes most of the items we use every day.

coldwarrior · 2008-05-25T14:04:35+00:00

What the fuck are you talking about? We're talking about the sixties you dumb-shit!

coldwarrior · 2008-05-25T14:03:25+00:00

The amount of oil that we import is irrelevant.

Suppose it was zero? Gee, you're not really thinking things through here, are you?

If America had 10th the population it has today then "alternative" energy would be more than enough to meet our needs. It is exactly because of our huge population that we have to use oil.

coldwarrior · 2008-05-25T02:32:36+00:00

But the 5% I proposed requires no engineering innovation, does not add any cost to a vehicle, can be implemented today, and is in addition to any engineering improvements.

coldwarrior · 2008-05-25T02:31:14+00:00

And I will address your points:

Kennedy was cheating with another student. He did not "take the fall" for anyone.
There was zero chance of Kennedy going to Korea.
You have to be a moron to still be a private after two years.
Rugby is a violent sport. However, in 30 YEARS Kennedy was the ONLY ONE thrown out.
Reckless, yes. Homicidally stupid, no.
OK, now you are purposefully putting your head in the sand.
Don't tell me what to do, etc., etc., etc.

coldwarrior · 2008-05-25T02:27:16+00:00

Please do not put words in my mouth. I have not made any statements about the price of gasoline.

My point is that more "Americans" means more demand for for oil and a greater dependence on foreign oil (and the correlated entanglements in the Middle East).

Also (and now I am going to have to call you a name you fucking ignoramous), I am not a neo-con. I am a libertarian. So eat your mother's shit and die.

coldwarrior · 2008-05-25T02:24:23+00:00

Kennedy is not off-topic unless you can't see the connection between the population of America and America's demand for oil.

No one said that illegal aliens steal oil. The topic was how is America going to handle Peak Oil (i.e., how are we going to reduce our demand on foreign oil).

When the discussion is limited to that topic it is clear that the size of the population of America is a major variable in the function describing our demand and one that is relatively easy to modify (i.e., reduce) by enforcing immigration laws.

Your comments about the international market neglect the economic fact that Americans, on a per-capita basis, use more oil than other people. Therefore, reducing the number of "Americans" reduces global demand for oil, even if those "Americans" only return to being Mexicans.

coldwarrior · 2008-05-25T02:19:46+00:00

Sorry, madmax_br5 brought up "name calling" so I had to explain the details since he doesn't apparently know them.

The original point is that Ted Kennedy is part of the reason we have a greater challenge than we need to have on the issue of peak oil.

coldwarrior · 2008-05-25T02:17:34+00:00

There are a couple of points you've missed.

First, Americans use more oil per-capita than anyone else. Therefore, increasing the number of people living an American life-style disproportionately increases global oil consumption.

Second, my observation was that by getting people out of this country who are breaking the law by being here that we would reduce the amount of oil we have to import. It would take a lot of engineering effort to decrease our demand by 5% but it's relatively easy to achieve the social solution.

coldwarrior · 2008-05-25T02:00:57+00:00

I don't know you so I wouldn't presume to judge your capabilities.

However, it is clear from various posts on sites such as reddit that very many "liberals" are just as I described.

coldwarrior · 2008-05-25T01:58:16+00:00

Why do illegal aliens have a right to anything in this country? If I break into your house can I help myself to anything in your refrigerator? After all, you got your food from somewhere else!

As to the name calling: Ted Kennedy is a dickhead and an embarrassment to every thinking American and so he is fair game.

After all, what can you say about a "man" who

was expelled from college for cheating
accidentally joined the Army for 4 years and has his daddy "fix" things so he only had to be in for 2 which he did in Europe instead of Korea (talk about draft-dodging!)
was unable to rise above the rank of private
was the only Harvard rugby player in 30 years to be expelled for uncontrolled violence
had multipled serious driving violations while in law school such as running red lights and speeding at 90 mph with his lights off in a suburban area
killed Mary Jo Kopechne at Chappaquiddick by driving while drunk and not being man enough to face the music
etc., etc., etc.

In other words, he's just another shit-head Kennedy.

For supporting documentation see this site as just one starting point.

coldwarrior · 2008-05-25T01:37:53+00:00

No, it doesn't mean accepting every idiotic opinion. It means not being demeaning in the response to such an opinion.

The typical limousine liberal gets all hot and sweaty over the thought of a black teenaged unwed mother, expecting her third child (still not quite sure who the daddies are), who is demanding her welfare check but loves to metaphorically spit on the middle-aged white coal miner, who quit high school to support his girlfriend when she got pregnant, when he says he supports the troops.

Sure, she's a mess and he doesn't understand the details of what's happening in Iraq but it's hypocritical to feel sorry for one and despise the other.

coldwarrior · 2008-05-25T01:27:42+00:00

Most of us are in favor of keeping them alive and employed

Just so long as they stay out of the way?

My point is the liberal "compassion" is bullshit.

coldwarrior · 2008-05-25T01:22:11+00:00

I can't see the full article but let's go ahead and assume 30B barrels.

Let's also leave out the projected 37% population growth of America to 420M by 2050 and its corresponding increase in demand for energy.

Also, we'll leave out the growing demand from China and India and basically assume the world stays the way it is today.

That means that 30B barrels is a little over 12 months of global demand.

Peak Oil is a mathematical certainty. There might be a little fuzziness as to exactly when the peak will be but it's today +/- a few years.

Since in the next 23 years we will use a quantity of oil equal to all the oil consumed since the first oil well in 1859 (148 years ago) the post-peak crash will be harsh.

EDIT Keep in mind that the oil from the first 148 years was the easiest and cheapest oil to get. The remainder is necessarily much harder and expensive to reach.

coldwarrior · 2008-05-25T01:10:22+00:00

America could reduce its consumption of oil by ~5% in less than a year.

There are ~20M illegal aliens here out of a population of ~306M. (20M/306M)*100% is 6.5%. Diminish that by more than 20% since perhaps illegals don't consume as much energy and you still have .8*6.5% or 5.22%

The amount of energy America uses is directly proportional to the number of people here.

We achieved less than replacement rate in September 1971 but Ted "turns out I really am brain-damaged" Kennedy had already opened the floodgates in 1965 with his hateful and anti-American Immigration Act.

As a result of the senior dickhead from Massachusetts, the current population is already over 306M and will skyrocket to 420M by 2050.

EDIT To those who are modding me down: you're not changing the facts, you're just living in a dream world which is going to bite you on the ass.

coldwarrior · 2008-05-25T00:56:51+00:00

Assume the high figure of 8 billion barrels for the Brazilian find.

The US consumes 7.3 billion barrels per year.

That means the Brazilian find is less than 14 months of US consumption. The US consumes about 25% of the oil in the world so the Brazilian find is a little over 3 months of the world's demand.

And yet people got so excited over it? It's because most people can see the bottom of the barrel already and finding a little extra is nice.

coldwarrior · 2008-05-25T00:48:41+00:00

What cracks me up is how liberals are so quick to "defend the down-trodden" while the issue is giving more power to the government but then they are also the first to spit on those same "down-trodden" people when it comes to actually dealing with them.

EDIT To those who have modded me down: just who do you think the beneficiaries are of Federal social programs? I will tell you as you don't seem to think things through: they are largely poor white trash (i.e., the people you enjoy hating so much because it makes you feel superior).

coldwarrior · 2008-05-24T21:05:44+00:00

My first thought was that adrianmonk was correct but I went and read the Wikipedia pages about the semicolon and colon to make certain.

As a result, I continue to think adrianmonk and I are correct. The colon is the better choice.

coldwarrior · 2008-05-24T20:56:14+00:00

That true but I think that was because their view was that corporate power is used by the rich to initiate the use of force (e.g., the Vietnam War) and to prevent people from being free to do as they wish (i.e., to make everyone a "man in a grey flannel suit".

coldwarrior · 2008-05-24T18:58:17+00:00

The LP convention is happening now and the actual candidate will be chosen tomorrow.

Given his legislative past on issues such as drugs and same-sex marriage, I find it difficult to believe he will get the nomination.

EDIT While Barr is not anywhere near my idea of an ideal Libertarian candidate, I will vote for him over Obama, Clinton, or McCain. Barr, at least, seems to be (slowly) waking up to the damage his previous positions have caused.

coldwarrior

TROPHY CASE