Where is Chaster off saving the planet?
Sorry, but I couldn't resist posting this for you yankie:
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/071116/opec_brazil.html?.v=1
Last week, Brazil confirmed a monster offshore oil discovery and promising fields near the find, although full-scale extraction is unlikely until 2013 and will be very expensive because it is so far below the surface of the earth.
Full Version: peak oil
| QUOTE (sayitaintso @ Nov 18 2007, 09:42 PM) |
| Where is Chaster off saving the planet? Sorry, but I couldn't resist posting this for you yankie: http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/071116/opec_brazil.html?.v=1 Last week, Brazil confirmed a monster offshore oil discovery and promising fields near the find, although full-scale extraction is unlikely until 2013 and will be very expensive because it is so far below the surface of the earth. |
I don't know what Chaster is up to. Seems strangely quiet. He has a domineering wife, that might be part of it.
Anyway, this notion about oil seeping up from below seems to be tied in some way to the age of the Earth, at least in the sense that if the oil we have now seeped up over the 4.3 Billion years Earth's been at it, it's not going to renew itself much in any human time scale.
BUT, last we mentioned that, you seemed to doubt the age of the Earth. There are biblical scholars who claim it's only 6,000 years old. That is laughable beyond words. A casual stroll outside Colorado City shows sandstone formations that took far longer than that to form. Hell, Say, there are stands of quaking Aspens up in the Utah Mountains that have been growing for over 10,000 years. By the way, quakies are now considered to be one of the longest living life forms on earth, if you consider that a grove is actually all growing off of one big root. The individual trees come and go but the grove itself is the organism. You can see it in the fall because different ones have different colors. You watch. You'll see big groves covering whole hillsides that are all the same, then on the next hill is a big grove with slightly different coloration.
Consider, as just a small part of Earth's natural history, the Atlantic Ocean. I think Lara Avara has mentioned that when scientists from very different disciplines look at the same thing using very different tools and different theories and all come to the same conclusion, it pretty much strengthens their view.
The Americas and old Europe/Africa are moving apart at the rate of a few millimeters a year. I forget the exact number, but if you take the current width of the Atlantic, and divide it by that rate it comes to about 140 million years - meaning that at the present rate it would take that long for the continents to get that far apart.
In the middle of the Atlantic is a mid-ocean volcanic ridge. It is new bare rock. If you start testing at sites to the East or West of that ridge you find there is silt built up. There is a constant rain of dust and stuff, dead animals, plankton, whatever that builds up as muck at the bottom of the sea. The further you go from the middle the deeper that layer of muck is. It increases at a steady rate - meaning that the ocean floor has spread at a steady rate and the amount of crap raining down has been steady. When you get to the Continental shelves, the muck is thousands of feet thick. Divide that thickness by the current rate of muck build up and you get about 140 million years.
Scientists have several dating methods involving radioactive decay and various things. Those methods indicate that the muck at the bottom of the muck layer near the continental shelves is about 140 million years old.
Paleontologists find that the Americas, Europe, Asia, and Africa had the same species of animals and plants up to about 140 million years ago. That means the populations were wandering back and forth with ease among those continents. But after about 140 million years the critters in the Americas started to diverge, developing differently from the old world. This indicates that after about 140 million years ago they were no longer joined and couldn't wander back and forth any more, probably due to - Ta da, the Atlantic Ocean, which hadn't been there before. One big exception was some types of birds which - Ta da, can fly over oceans.
So - it's pretty safe to say the continents used to be joined until the Atlantic ocean began to open up about 140 million years ago.
I'd say, go talk to Deloy Bateman. He'll clear it up. Guy's sharp as can be.
| QUOTE (Cactus Jim @ Nov 18 2007, 11:19 PM) |
| I don't know what Chaster is up to. Seems strangely quiet. He has a domineering wife, that might be part of it. Anyway, this notion about oil seeping up from below seems to be tied in some way to the age of the Earth, at least in the sense that if the oil we have now seeped up over the 4.3 Billion years Earth's been at it, it's not going to renew itself much in any human time scale. BUT, last we mentioned that, you seemed to doubt the age of the Earth. There are biblical scholars who claim it's only 6,000 years old. That is laughable beyond words. A casual stroll outside Colorado City shows sandstone formations that took far longer than that to form. Hell, Say, there are stands of quaking Aspens up in the Utah Mountains that have been growing for over 10,000 years. By the way, quakies are now considered to be one of the longest living life forms on earth, if you consider that a grove is actually all growing off of one big root. The individual trees come and go but the grove itself is the organism. You can see it in the fall because different ones have different colors. You watch. You'll see big groves covering whole hillsides that are all the same, then on the next hill is a big grove with slightly different coloration. Consider, as just a small part of Earth's natural history, the Atlantic Ocean. I think Lara Avara has mentioned that when scientists from very different disciplines look at the same thing using very different tools and different theories and all come to the same conclusion, it pretty much strengthens their view. The Americas and old Europe/Africa are moving apart at the rate of a few millimeters a year. I forget the exact number, but if you take the current width of the Atlantic, and divide it by that rate it comes to about 140 million years - meaning that at the present rate it would take that long for the continents to get that far apart. In the middle of the Atlantic is a mid-ocean volcanic ridge. It is new bare rock. If you start testing at sites to the East or West of that ridge you find there is silt built up. There is a constant rain of dust and stuff, dead animals, plankton, whatever that builds up as muck at the bottom of the sea. The further you go from the middle the deeper that layer of muck is. It increases at a steady rate - meaning that the ocean floor has spread at a steady rate and the amount of crap raining down has been steady. When you get to the Continental shelves, the muck is thousands of feet thick. Divide that thickness by the current rate of muck build up and you get about 140 million years. Scientists have several dating methods involving radioactive decay and various things. Those methods indicate that the muck at the bottom of the muck layer near the continental shelves is about 140 million years old. Paleontologists find that the Americas, Europe, Asia, and Africa had the same species of animals and plants up to about 140 million years ago. That means the populations were wandering back and forth with ease among those continents. But after about 140 million years the critters in the Americas started to diverge, developing differently from the old world. This indicates that after about 140 million years ago they were no longer joined and couldn't wander back and forth any more, probably due to - Ta da, the Atlantic Ocean, which hadn't been there before. One big exception was some types of birds which - Ta da, can fly over oceans. So - it's pretty safe to say the continents used to be joined until the Atlantic ocean began to open up about 140 million years ago. I'd say, go talk to Deloy Bateman. He'll clear it up. Guy's sharp as can be. |
well Jim, we all thought the dinosaurs were wiped out by the asteroid,but according to the new Gold; er, no, platinum, (yea thats it)plates I dug up, under the Berry Knoll,Noah hd two boats, an one uv em sunk! 
| QUOTE (Cactus Jim @ Nov 18 2007, 11:19 PM) |
| I don't know what Chaster is up to. Seems strangely quiet. He has a domineering wife, that might be part of it. Anyway, this notion about oil seeping up from below seems to be tied in some way to the age of the Earth, at least in the sense that if the oil we have now seeped up over the 4.3 Billion years Earth's been at it, it's not going to renew itself much in any human time scale. BUT, last we mentioned that, you seemed to doubt the age of the Earth. There are biblical scholars who claim it's only 6,000 years old. That is laughable beyond words. A casual stroll outside Colorado City shows sandstone formations that took far longer than that to form. Hell, Say, there are stands of quaking Aspens up in the Utah Mountains that have been growing for over 10,000 years. By the way, quakies are now considered to be one of the longest living life forms on earth, if you consider that a grove is actually all growing off of one big root. The individual trees come and go but the grove itself is the organism. You can see it in the fall because different ones have different colors. You watch. You'll see big groves covering whole hillsides that are all the same, then on the next hill is a big grove with slightly different coloration. Consider, as just a small part of Earth's natural history, the Atlantic Ocean. I think Lara Avara has mentioned that when scientists from very different disciplines look at the same thing using very different tools and different theories and all come to the same conclusion, it pretty much strengthens their view. The Americas and old Europe/Africa are moving apart at the rate of a few millimeters a year. I forget the exact number, but if you take the current width of the Atlantic, and divide it by that rate it comes to about 140 million years - meaning that at the present rate it would take that long for the continents to get that far apart. In the middle of the Atlantic is a mid-ocean volcanic ridge. It is new bare rock. If you start testing at sites to the East or West of that ridge you find there is silt built up. There is a constant rain of dust and stuff, dead animals, plankton, whatever that builds up as muck at the bottom of the sea. The further you go from the middle the deeper that layer of muck is. It increases at a steady rate - meaning that the ocean floor has spread at a steady rate and the amount of crap raining down has been steady. When you get to the Continental shelves, the muck is thousands of feet thick. Divide that thickness by the current rate of muck build up and you get about 140 million years. Scientists have several dating methods involving radioactive decay and various things. Those methods indicate that the muck at the bottom of the muck layer near the continental shelves is about 140 million years old. Paleontologists find that the Americas, Europe, Asia, and Africa had the same species of animals and plants up to about 140 million years ago. That means the populations were wandering back and forth with ease among those continents. But after about 140 million years the critters in the Americas started to diverge, developing differently from the old world. This indicates that after about 140 million years ago they were no longer joined and couldn't wander back and forth any more, probably due to - Ta da, the Atlantic Ocean, which hadn't been there before. One big exception was some types of birds which - Ta da, can fly over oceans. So - it's pretty safe to say the continents used to be joined until the Atlantic ocean began to open up about 140 million years ago. I'd say, go talk to Deloy Bateman. He'll clear it up. Guy's sharp as can be. |
Anyway, this notion about oil seeping up from below seems to be tied in some way to the age of the Earth, at least in the sense that if the oil we have now seeped up over the 4.3 Billion years Earth's been at it, it's not going to renew itself much in any human time scale.
__________________________________________________________________
naw, here's what happened, them atlantis guys an them burned up all th last batch uv seeped up oil, an brought on global warming.
it stopped the ocean conveyors an brought on th last ice age,what give the oil seeps time ta build up again. now its our turn.
(exserps frum th platinum plates)
| QUOTE (Cactus Jim @ Nov 18 2007, 11:19 PM) |
| Anyway, this notion about oil seeping up from below seems to be tied in some way to the age of the Earth, at least in the sense that if the oil we have now seeped up over the 4.3 Billion years Earth's been at it, it's not going to renew itself much in any human time scale. |
I've not ever said oil is "renewable" as in more being made down there faster than we can torch it, only that there is lots more of it down there deeper. Renewable is a word they use for seeping up into the current surface oil reserves.
140 Million is a bigger number than I can get my mind around. I think I need someone to give me 140 million dollars so that I can learn to get a grasp on it. I'm a slow learner.
That's a good theory about the continental shift, probably the best I've heard it explained yet. But I'm still gonna stick to my fundamental belief that God had something to do with all that.
I had heard that those Aspens were the worlds biggest most prolific weed. I've seen that root system phenomenon you mentioned on Cedar Mountain. I didn't know they were 10,000 years old though.
The Biblical history is what is 6000 years old. How much actual time it took before the advent of humanity it really doesn't say except 6 days, and one more of rest. And nobody really knows how metaphorical that might be.
It does seem that the "big bang" idea and the mega billon years old theory have some unexplained dichotomy.
Anything in the Plates of Knowah on that Duffy?
| QUOTE (uncaduff @ Nov 19 2007, 07:39 AM) |
| naw, here's what happened, them atlantis guys an them burned up all th last batch uv seeped up oil, an brought on global warming. it stopped the ocean conveyors an brought on th last ice age,what give the oil seeps time ta build up again. now its our turn. (exserps frum th platinum plates) |
Oh Praise JEE-sus Uncaduff.
Praise the lard amen
.
| QUOTE (sayitaintso @ Nov 19 2007, 08:00 AM) |
| I've not ever said oil is "renewable" as in more being made down there faster than we can torch it, only that there is lots more of it down there deeper. Renewable is a word they use for seeping up into the current surface oil reserves. 140 Million is a bigger number than I can get my mind around. I think I need someone to give me 140 million dollars so that I can learn to get a grasp on it. I'm a slow learner. That's a good theory about the continental shift, probably the best I've heard it explained yet. But I'm still gonna stick to my fundamental belief that God had something to do with all that. I had heard that those Aspens were the worlds biggest most prolific weed. I've seen that root system phenomenon you mentioned on Cedar Mountain. I didn't know they were 10,000 years old though. The Biblical history is what is 6000 years old. How much actual time it took before the advent of humanity it really doesn't say except 6 days, and one more of rest. And nobody really knows how metaphorical that might be. It does seem that the "big bang" idea and the mega billon years old theory have some unexplained dichotomy. Anything in the Plates of Noah on that Duffy? |
I don't think Science as an institution says God didn't have anything to do with all this. That's a philosophical question, which is outside the scientist's jurisdiction. All scientists do, or are supposed to do at any rate, is observe and describe the real world objectively. Whether or not there is some unseen force behind the veil
isn't part of it. If someone give you $140 million, chances are you couldn't spend all of it so, seeins as how we're buddies, I'd be glad to help you by spending half of it for you
. OK, Earth is said to be 4.3 Billion years, as measured by some pretty clever science. Modern humans, built like us in body and mind are supposed to be about a hundred thousand years old. So, that's the earth is 43,000 times as old as humanity. In a 24 hour day there are 86,400 seconds so if all of Earth's history was one really long day, humanity would have existed for about the last 2 seconds
. At the rate we're going it really will be the LAST 2 seconds too. 
Anything in the Plates of Knowah on that Duffy?
_______________________________________________________________
naw sayit, th only bang it tells about, (after all th lightnin an thunder a course) wuz wen th ark run aground on th Berry knoll.
ya see, th qukie roots hadn't pushed up Cedar Mountain yet, otherwise he'd a landed there.
_______________________________________________________________
naw sayit, th only bang it tells about, (after all th lightnin an thunder a course) wuz wen th ark run aground on th Berry knoll.
ya see, th qukie roots hadn't pushed up Cedar Mountain yet, otherwise he'd a landed there.
| QUOTE (Cactus Jim @ Nov 19 2007, 06:19 AM) |
| Anyway, this notion about oil seeping up from below seems to be tied in some way to the age of the Earth, at least in the sense that if the oil we have now seeped up over the 4.3 Billion years Earth's been at it, it's not going to renew itself much in any human time scale. BUT, last we mentioned that, you seemed to doubt the age of the Earth... I'd say, go talk to Deloy Bateman. He'll clear it up. Guy's sharp as can be. |
DIAPER SCIENCE
REPLY:
Oh Jimmy, when will the diaper-clad scientists learn. We have been over this before. First, “peek oil” is the anointing oil, for it works toward making one a creator. Secondly, the age of the organized earth in its present organization and population of species, is 6,000 years. However, the material of which it is composed is much older, and that is where science is focused in trying to date the present organization. They know as a fact that matter cannot be destroyed. It can only be reorganized, and that is what the Gods do in creating worlds without end, for matter is eternal.
To create is to organize, just like when Detroit creates a car, or Levits creates a piece of furniture, or any other manufactures creates any kind of a product. Even farmers don’t create, they reorganize matter. Even the service industries just reorganize matter to serve certain ends. No, they don’t create matter. It is already created. So, by God, when God created the earth temporally 6,000 years ago, and spiritually 7,000 years before that, He organized much older matter from the cosmos into the planets, and that is what the diaper-man academic is dating.
Seven days of creation times seven equals 14 days (7x7=14). There it is…140 million years for the age of our present matter (“Tada”): 7x7,000x1000. A day to the Lord = 1,000 of our years, and a day to His Lord is a thousand of His years = 140 million.
In regard to your diaper-man Deloy Bateman, he and his ilk will delay you about 140 million years in your development, and then abate your salvation, because would-be masters are baited.
Street
| QUOTE (uncaduff @ Nov 19 2007, 02:21 PM) |
| well Jim, we all thought the dinosaurs were wiped out by the asteroid,but according to the new Gold; er, no, platinum, (yea thats it)plates I dug up, under the Berry Knoll,Noah hd two boats, an one uv em sunk! |
“Wise”-Guy Skunkeldorf: Atlantis was the Adamic polygamous colony before Eden, with those who created this earth. Yes, there were giants of many species, because the gods are giants, and they hurl chunks of matter everywhere with their faith to move mountains. Have you ever seen photos of the supernovas, whence worlds are created? Eternal matter, from the united effort, consecration, or passing away of older heavens and earths, is flying everywhere, to the organization of new worlds. There’s your “Big Bang”. The Prophets are having a party.
Skunky, you not knowing of the materials of your own plates, nor of the authority that brings them forth, how canst thou know of the materials of worlds without end, and their organization and timelines and priesthoods? If you reject that eternal authority, and their power over the eternity and the organization of matter, you can’t know, worlds without end.
As for the age of things on this earth, John is 2,000 years old temporally, as are the Three Nephite brethren. Those returning here are millions of years old. These are they who shall continue with this earth as they create or reorganize it into a Celestial star, the saints and prophets of God who endured the generations, no matter what. Yes, as you say Skunky, “Praise Jeffs, Jeefs or Jees-us”. Praise to the man who communes with Jehovah.
Street
| QUOTE (Cactus Jim @ Nov 19 2007, 03:13 PM) |
| I don't think Science as an institution says God didn't have anything to do with all this. That's a philosophical question, which is outside the scientist's jurisdiction. All scientists do, or are supposed to do at any rate, is observe and describe the real world objectively. Whether or not there is some unseen force behind the veil isn't part of it. If someone give you $140 million, chances are you couldn't spend all of it so, seeins as how we're buddies, I'd be glad to help you by spending half of it for you . OK, Earth is said to be 4.3 Billion years, as measured by some pretty clever science. Modern humans, built like us in body and mind are supposed to be about a hundred thousand years old. So, that's the earth is 43,000 times as old as humanity. In a 24 hour day there are 86,400 seconds so if all of Earth's history was one really long day, humanity would have existed for about the last 2 seconds . At the rate we're going it really will be the LAST 2 seconds too. |
Jim:
By science divorcing philosophy and theology, your science is worth about as much as the scientific study of a turd. Philosophy is far more real and objective than man’s sciences are, because God is far more real and objective than man himself. Philosophy is of the Philosopher’s stone (D). Physical science is only Malchut (M), the very bottom of the Tree of Life. It is all one science and one tree, like those aspens trees all connected together into one organism, organized matter. God and His theology is the perfect and all-inclusive science, and is as far more expansive over man as true philosophy is over man’s confused and defiled and restricted sciences.
Not knowing or seeing beyond the veil is your death-knell, for beyond is the source of your very life and of all science. You compare man's age or earth’s age in the Biblical account as two-seconds, vs the millions of years for the age of matter. You’ve heard the saying: “Give me a second”, or “give me two seconds”. It is literally so.
Street
| QUOTE (sayitaintso @ Nov 18 2007, 09:42 PM) |
| Sorry, but I couldn't resist posting this for you yankie: |
Sorry, but I couldn't resist posting this for you yankie:
------------------------------------------------------------
Deep oil , peak oil or just controlled steep priced oil . LOL
Well Sayit your oil posts in the past have been mostly a three part topic . I want to do with your approval make it a 4 part topic if I can . Its this 4th part I feel needs to be talked about and if anything something we have touched very little on . We can debate if there is deep oil , if oil production has has peaked , where oil comes from or if its secretly controlled to ensure high fuel costs , yeah we can discuss this second place thought , sure can .
But the fact that we can debate and at the end of the day not knowing for sure who's right is really quite unsettling for me .
I mean we're talking about the most important substance that mankind has ever been addicted too . Oh Yeah we're addicted alright . And belive me we need our fix if we want to eat , heat or have a medical treat. You take oil out of the picture and our world economy wont be the only thing that tail spins into the ground , allot of our modern life style is going to crash as well. Even our world politics and power structure through out the world will change . No oil -no fuel no 6 million dollar airborne fighting tool , battle of the bulge all over again .
Dammit Say , wheres the Mormon in you , wheres you two year supply of food & clothes up bringing , you know ,your save up for a rainy day attitude ?
Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we shall die believe is no better than the silly believe that if I'm righteous God will provide for me . So silly , so self destructive , both believes .
If your a fool pick one of these believes , dosnt matter which one , their both the same and my friend , they are not historical Mormonism , not by a long shot if you know your history lessons .
Sayit with coat of many colors , if were not careful your going to sold to Pharaoh for a slice of bread !!!!!!
-----------------------------------------------------------
I know , but I had fun typing that stuff , but here's the deal , it would be best not too guess about about Oil , what I'd think best would be leaving the guessing to fools and show some intelligence by converting to hydrogen , That's what B. Young would have done by now LOL.
You know I'm right doncha Sayit---Haw haw , gotcha .
| QUOTE (Onthestreet @ Nov 19 2007, 01:56 PM) |
| Jim: By science divorcing philosophy and theology, your science is worth about as much as the scientific study of a turd. Philosophy is far more real and objective than man’s sciences are, because God is far more real and objective than man himself. ... Not knowing or seeing beyond the veil is your death-knell, for beyond is the source of your very life and of all science. You compare man's age or earth’s age in the Biblical account as two-seconds, vs the millions of years for the age of matter. You’ve heard the saying: “Give me a second”, or “give me two seconds”. It is literally so. |
Why is it during the dark ages, when we had an overdose of religion, we nearly forgot how to add two plus two, and now that society is throwing off the shackles of corrupt religion to some extent, technology is starting to happen?
| QUOTE (1 yankie @ Nov 19 2007, 06:28 PM) |
| I know , but I had fun typing that stuff , but heres the deal , it would be best not too guess about about Oil , what I'd think best would be leaving the guessing to fools and show some intelegence by converting to hydrogen , Thats what B. Young would have done by now LOL. You know I'm right doncha Sayit---Haw haw , gotcha . |
Oh ya. You are right yankie. Whether the peak of oil is real, imaginary, contrived or induced by the NWO conspirators it is a very real problem, especially in the next few years of 100 dollar plus crude and 5 bux a gallon fuel.
And I have to add too, that even the 140 million dollars wouldn't be the same if someone gave it to ya as it is like it is for you yankie, when you've earned yours the old fashioned way. That would definitely give you a better grasp for the size of that number. If you spent it on social pork like the Democrats, or on a stupid war like the Republicans.. it just wouldn't quite seem like the same huge number.
I suppose I should worry about that pile of food I don't have stocked up. I'll worry about it later, right after I figure out where the next meal is coming from.
Can you blame those guys for starting a religion.. really?
| QUOTE (sayitaintso @ Nov 19 2007, 07:39 PM) |
| Can you blame those guys for starting a religion.. really? |
Religion is grown men's security blanket. They don't want to face the harsh realities of life.
As far as oil, I hope to live to see the day hydrogen fusion takes over.
Wise”-Guy Skunkeldorf: Atlantis was the Adamic polygamous colony before Eden,
__________________________________________________________________
you rat street, it wuz you what stoled th rock outta ma hat! yer right though, they wuz pligs, an they wuz usin up all th food stamps, an that pissed off the lemuriens, so they dropped a Adamic bomb on em. everbuddy fore that wuz Neanderthals,an the radiation frum th Adamic bomb mutated all the survivors inta Cromagdens.
PS. stidda findin more plates when ma original translation got stoled,I jist got nother rock.
__________________________________________________________________
you rat street, it wuz you what stoled th rock outta ma hat! yer right though, they wuz pligs, an they wuz usin up all th food stamps, an that pissed off the lemuriens, so they dropped a Adamic bomb on em. everbuddy fore that wuz Neanderthals,an the radiation frum th Adamic bomb mutated all the survivors inta Cromagdens. PS. stidda findin more plates when ma original translation got stoled,I jist got nother rock.
| QUOTE (uncaduff @ Nov 20 2007, 07:39 AM) |
| Wise”-Guy Skunkeldorf: Atlantis was the Adamic polygamous colony before Eden, __________________________________________________________________ you rat street, it wuz you what stoled th rock outta ma hat! yer right though, they wuz pligs, an they wuz usin up all th food stamps, an that pissed off the lemuriens, so they dropped a Adamic bomb on em. everbuddy fore that wuz Neanderthals,an the radiation frum th Adamic bomb mutated all the survivors inta Cromagdens. PS. stidda findin more plates when ma original translation got stoled,I jist got nother rock. |
Crikey mate! Does that mean you gotta do the first 116 pages over then? That's going to mean a lot more face in the hat time.
Crikey mate! Does that mean you gotta do the first 116 pages over then? That's going to mean a lot more face in the hat time.
_________________________________________________________________
naw Jim, ma new rock's got updated software, its a lot faster,an don't have spell check an grammer crection, an all that crap ta slow down th translatin.
_________________________________________________________________
naw Jim, ma new rock's got updated software, its a lot faster,an don't have spell check an grammer crection, an all that crap ta slow down th translatin.
| QUOTE (uncaduff @ Nov 20 2007, 08:47 AM) |
| Crikey mate! Does that mean you gotta do the first 116 pages over then? That's going to mean a lot more face in the hat time. _________________________________________________________________ naw Jim, ma new rock's got updated software, its a lot faster,an don't have spell check an grammer crection, an all that crap ta slow down th translatin. |
Wow. If Joseph Smith had of had that, he might have got past "And it came to pass".
| QUOTE (Cactus Jim @ Nov 20 2007, 09:01 AM) |
| Wow. If Joseph Smith had of had that, he might have got past "And it came to pass". |
[QUOTE]
even after Joe got th yermin thumum,(an that muusta been some high tec gadgit), he still cutun git past that "it came ta pass" line.
| QUOTE (sayitaintso @ Nov 19 2007, 07:39 PM) |
| Oh ya. You are right yankie. |
[QUOTE]Can you blame those guys for starting a religion.. really?
Well no I cant , not really . I've been thinking of starting one myself , but I think Uncaduff is getting a head start on me , dang him and his peep stones . If I know where he lived he'd be missing more than 116 pages of manuscript I can tell you that much . I cant even find Peep stones on EBay damn his hide .
OK , if I cant start a religion cause I ain't got the stones to do it, I'm thinking of starting a political party as second choice . Been thinking about it a long time now . Cant use a donkey , elephant or a bull moose as a party symbol . Nope, and if I use a pink chicken I just know I'll end up in court at some point being sued by the far left for their implied intent, years and years of intent .
Thought about using a cross breed between a elephant and a donkey in kinda a independent way , problem is , after your done you got one mixed up looking , acting and sounding critter on your hands , neither half donkey or elephant . Just a donkey that's afraid of a mouse and a elephant with the memory of a jackass with three times as much stubborn .
Well after thirty thousand miles of drive time and thought it came to me the best thing to do would be look elsewhere for a symbol of my new political party . And I did just that .
A squirrel . Laugh if you want too , but even the dumbest squirrel in the Forrest has enough smarts to gather nuts for the upcoming winter . That ol squirrel thinks ahead , OK maybe its only three to four months at a time he's looking forward, but by golly he understands the concept . For what its worth , that's 3-4 months more than any donkey or elephant ever thunk about .
hey Yank, I think yer missin th boat. ya hit on the idea without even knowin it. since religion an polaticks is jist ways ta make $$$$$,jist sell peep stones. ya could price em acordin ta how deep ya had ta dig th well ta find em,an since no two rocks look zactly the same, nobody would know ya wuz mass perducin em. on th really "deep well" models, ya could jack th price up enough ya could throw in th hat fer free. 
| QUOTE (uncaduff @ Nov 21 2007, 07:29 AM) |
| hey Yank, I think yer missin th boat. |
I'm not sure your not right , let me put some thought to it . I've got about 4 hours of drive through the heart of Zion ahead of me today , maybe if I open the window and medicate there just might be something that sticks outside of bugs and slow moving lost migrating librals from the western seaboard.
jist don't throw your medicinal containers out that open window, th guardians of the public tranquility will certainly take umbrage to yer disregard of there authority.
| QUOTE (uncaduff @ Nov 21 2007, 04:47 PM) |
| jist don't throw your medicinal containers out that open window, th guardians of the public tranquility will certainly take umbrage to yer disregard of there authority. |
They disregard their own authority, skunky, and therefore abdicate.
| QUOTE (sayitaintso @ Nov 19 2007, 03:00 PM) |
| And nobody really knows |
Seems like our religionists often duck behind that line in the end.
Take climate change seriously, for example? Well, no one really knows how climate works.
I was listening to Republican candidate Fred Thompson the other day. Somebody asked him about climate change. Seems Republican thinking has advanced these days to the astonishing degree that he acknowledged that it is happening. But is there a human footprint to it? Well no one really knows.
Christ all Friday, this is your idea of leadership? The poles are melting. Look at the satilite photoes. The poles are melting. This is happening.
You know once upon a time I actually believed that these guys would need some convincing, yes, but that they surely had the character and spine to finally face reality at some point when the science behind this became clear enough. No. I realize now these guys do not have it in them. They just don't have it in them to ever move beyond delusion land. No amount of evidence is ever going to be enough.
These are the people who don't want to leave the Titanic because it's just so warm and comfortable.
Guliani talks about the need for energy independance, and there is some overlap between that and the the goal of reducing carbon emissions. Guliani, though, emphasizes reliance on coal power to this end.
Why don't we just put a gun to our heads and pull the trigger?
Actually, out of the Republicans, other than McCain, Mitt Romney seems to come closest to taking climate change seriously. He advocates a "no regret" policy, where we'd get on a track to reducing carbon emissions just in case on the outside chance this might be a goodish idea.
If he were really serious about that, that'd be one thing. After GWB, though, I'm seriously gun shy about taking the word of any Republican on the subject.
GWB, as you recall, seemed to have learned from the Clinton method of out doing the challenger at their own game. Bush actually out-Gored Gore on the topic back in the campaign of '00. The difference between Bush and Clinton, though, Clinton actually meant it when he employed that stategy, whereas, Bush just flat out lies and never has the slightest intent of following through with it. What makes me so stidently anti-Bush? The great and irreversible harm he did in the above tactic. The opportunities that were thus squandered. At least have the guts to be honest about where you're coming from, but beyond that, even, be a responsible citizen. The guy is a poor excuse of a citizen, let alone as a so called leader.
After GWB, for Republicans to run on character and values is a hollow bad joke.
I suspect that Romney would be of that model too. Yes, we'll sorta kinda pretend to take it seriously in a speech here and there, but, nudge nudge wink wink, rest assured, when it comes to actual policy, carbon energy is going to be taken care of just as before. You can trust me that we're going to take this climate change thing very very seriously provided it doesn't actually require anything of anybody or involve any sort of departure whatsoever from business as usual.
The clock has run out on that sort of shiza.
Why don't we just put a gun to our heads and pull the trigger?
Actually, out of the Republicans, other than McCain, Mitt Romney seems to come closest to taking climate change seriously. He advocates a "no regret" policy, where we'd get on a track to reducing carbon emissions just in case on the outside chance this might be a goodish idea.
If he were really serious about that, that'd be one thing. After GWB, though, I'm seriously gun shy about taking the word of any Republican on the subject.
GWB, as you recall, seemed to have learned from the Clinton method of out doing the challenger at their own game. Bush actually out-Gored Gore on the topic back in the campaign of '00. The difference between Bush and Clinton, though, Clinton actually meant it when he employed that stategy, whereas, Bush just flat out lies and never has the slightest intent of following through with it. What makes me so stidently anti-Bush? The great and irreversible harm he did in the above tactic. The opportunities that were thus squandered. At least have the guts to be honest about where you're coming from, but beyond that, even, be a responsible citizen. The guy is a poor excuse of a citizen, let alone as a so called leader.
After GWB, for Republicans to run on character and values is a hollow bad joke.
I suspect that Romney would be of that model too. Yes, we'll sorta kinda pretend to take it seriously in a speech here and there, but, nudge nudge wink wink, rest assured, when it comes to actual policy, carbon energy is going to be taken care of just as before. You can trust me that we're going to take this climate change thing very very seriously provided it doesn't actually require anything of anybody or involve any sort of departure whatsoever from business as usual.
The clock has run out on that sort of shiza.
As we have amply seen, there are candidates who will say anything to please the most people and who really aren't about anything but ambition.
And, now and then, there's a candidate who really does stand for something, who'd be willing to lose an election for something important.
Ideally, our democracy is about sorting these types apart. Well, we've sure got that all right, but it seems it's providing from the wrong category. Course, whose fault is that?
If we want a system that selects those who really are about character and values, only we can give that to ourselves.
And, now and then, there's a candidate who really does stand for something, who'd be willing to lose an election for something important.
Ideally, our democracy is about sorting these types apart. Well, we've sure got that all right, but it seems it's providing from the wrong category. Course, whose fault is that?
If we want a system that selects those who really are about character and values, only we can give that to ourselves.
| QUOTE (chaster @ Nov 28 2007, 01:52 PM) |
| After GWB, for Republicans to run on character and values is a hollow bad joke. |
Hi Chas , off and running like the Chas I've grown to love .
OK Chas , you dont like what the republicans have done concerning global warming . My question is what have the Democrats done out side of whine and blame ?
Do democrats support the Kyoto protocol? You know , the worlds answer to stop Global warming by reducing co2 .
Nope they dont . In 1997 the Byrd -Hagel resolution was passed with the vote of 95-0 not to sign up with Kyoto . This resolution was sponsored by one of the most senior Democrat senators , his highness and long lasting Senator Byrd .
Did Clinton ever try to ratify Kyoto at least one time time ?
Nope he didn't . He never even tried .
Its been over ten years now since the Byrd-Hagel resolution , name one Democrat that has proposed one single resolution to try and ratify Kyoto . Just one Chas , go for it , name just one . And yet you fault Bush for what you your own party has failed to even try . Am I right Chas ? Are Dem's just full of blame and no effort.
But hey , go ahead and hate Bush , call him what you want , but you better save some insults and nasty names for your own parties dirty birds of the same feather , the whole flock of Kyoto non supporters .
Chas ol buddy ,take some advise from a friend and just look around would ya ? Your anger might be out of place just a bit and getting the best of you , Gosh , you even missed spelled independence blinded by anger I guess.
I'm the dumb one big brother chaster , not you . Remember?
| QUOTE (chaster @ Nov 28 2007, 08:52 PM) |
| Guliani talks about the need for energy independance, and there is some overlap between that and the the goal of reducing carbon emissions. Guliani, though, emphasizes reliance on coal power to this end. Why don't we just put a gun to our heads and pull the trigger? Actually, out of the Republicans, other than McCain, Mitt Romney seems to come closest to taking climate change seriously. He advocates a "no regret" policy, where we'd get on a track to reducing carbon emissions just in case on the outside chance this might be a goodish idea. If he were really serious about that, that'd be one thing. After GWB, though, I'm seriously gun shy about taking the word of any Republican on the subject. GWB, as you recall, seemed to have learned from the Clinton method of out doing the challenger at their own game. Bush actually out-Gored Gore on the topic back in the campaign of '00. The difference between Bush and Clinton, though, Clinton actually meant it when he employed that stategy, whereas, Bush just flat out lies and never has the slightest intent of following through with it. What makes me so stidently anti-Bush? The great and irreversible harm he did in the above tactic. The opportunities that were thus squandered. At least have the guts to be honest about where you're coming from, but beyond that, even, be a responsible citizen. The guy is a poor excuse of a citizen, let alone as a so called leader. After GWB, for Republicans to run on character and values is a hollow bad joke. I suspect that Romney would be of that model too. Yes, we'll sorta kinda pretend to take it seriously in a speech here and there, but, nudge nudge wink wink, rest assured, when it comes to actual policy, carbon energy is going to be taken care of just as before. You can trust me that we're going to take this climate change thing very very seriously provided it doesn't actually require anything of anybody or involve any sort of departure whatsoever from business as usual. The clock has run out on that sort of shiza. |
Ramblings on Giuliani
Unchaste: “Ends in Shiza”. Are you trying to say “Shit”? You have to place the tip of the tongue behind the front teeth in order to form the “T”, see, or the Tet. It was the same when you and Jimmy were nursing. The tip of the tongue has to touch the front in order to form the Tet, the milk, tip to tit, see? Then is was “OH YUMMY”! Your widdo tails were wagging like widdo pups. While a child, you do as a child, but when you get all gwowed up, then you’ll put away childish things, including the sucking. You’ll begin to learn to partake of more substantial food or doctrine. Then, you’ll no longer be unchaste, like that Rude Girly On He.
Glad to be of service.
Street
| QUOTE (chaster @ Nov 28 2007, 08:52 PM) |
| Guliani talks about the need for energy independance, and there is some overlap between that and the the goal of reducing carbon emissions. Guliani, though, emphasizes reliance on coal power to this end. Why don't we just put a gun to our heads and pull the trigger? Actually, out of the Republicans, other than McCain, Mitt Romney seems to come closest to taking climate change seriously. He advocates a "no regret" policy, where we'd get on a track to reducing carbon emissions just in case on the outside chance this might be a goodish idea. If he were really serious about that, that'd be one thing. After GWB, though, I'm seriously gun shy about taking the word of any Republican on the subject. GWB, as you recall, seemed to have learned from the Clinton method of out doing the challenger at their own game. Bush actually out-Gored Gore on the topic back in the campaign of '00. The difference between Bush and Clinton, though, Clinton actually meant it when he employed that stategy, whereas, Bush just flat out lies and never has the slightest intent of following through with it. What makes me so stidently anti-Bush? The great and irreversible harm he did in the above tactic. The opportunities that were thus squandered. At least have the guts to be honest about where you're coming from, but beyond that, even, be a responsible citizen. The guy is a poor excuse of a citizen, let alone as a so called leader. After GWB, for Republicans to run on character and values is a hollow bad joke. I suspect that Romney would be of that model too. Yes, we'll sorta kinda pretend to take it seriously in a speech here and there, but, nudge nudge wink wink, rest assured, when it comes to actual policy, carbon energy is going to be taken care of just as before. You can trust me that we're going to take this climate change thing very very seriously provided it doesn't actually require anything of anybody or involve any sort of departure whatsoever from business as usual. The clock has run out on that sort of shiza. |
Unchaste: “That Shiza”? Are you trying to say “Shit”? You have to place the tip of the tongue behind the front teeth in order to form the “T”, see, or the Tet. It was the same when you and Jimmy were nursing. The tip of the tongue has to touch the front in order to form the Tet, the milk, tip to tit, see? Then is was “OH YUMMY”! Your widdo tails were wagging like widdo pups. While a child, you do as a child, but when you get all gwowed up, then you’ll put away childish things, including the sucking. You’ll begin to learn to partake of more substantial food or doctrine. Then, you’ll no longer be unchaste, like that Rude Girly On He.
Glad to be of service.
Street
| QUOTE (chaster @ Nov 28 2007, 08:52 PM) |
| Guliani talks about the need for energy independance, and there is some overlap between that and the the goal of reducing carbon emissions. Guliani, though, emphasizes reliance on coal power to this end. Why don't we just put a gun to our heads and pull the trigger? Actually, out of the Republicans, other than McCain, Mitt Romney seems to come closest to taking climate change seriously. He advocates a "no regret" policy, where we'd get on a track to reducing carbon emissions just in case on the outside chance this might be a goodish idea. If he were really serious about that, that'd be one thing. After GWB, though, I'm seriously gun shy about taking the word of any Republican on the subject. GWB, as you recall, seemed to have learned from the Clinton method of out doing the challenger at their own game. Bush actually out-Gored Gore on the topic back in the campaign of '00. The difference between Bush and Clinton, though, Clinton actually meant it when he employed that stategy, whereas, Bush just flat out lies and never has the slightest intent of following through with it. What makes me so stidently anti-Bush? The great and irreversible harm he did in the above tactic. The opportunities that were thus squandered. At least have the guts to be honest about where you're coming from, but beyond that, even, be a responsible citizen. The guy is a poor excuse of a citizen, let alone as a so called leader. After GWB, for Republicans to run on character and values is a hollow bad joke. I suspect that Romney would be of that model too. Yes, we'll sorta kinda pretend to take it seriously in a speech here and there, but, nudge nudge wink wink, rest assured, when it comes to actual policy, carbon energy is going to be taken care of just as before. You can trust me that we're going to take this climate change thing very very seriously provided it doesn't actually require anything of anybody or involve any sort of departure whatsoever from business as usual. The clock has run out on THAT SORT OF SHIZA. |
Unchaste: “That Shiza”? Are you trying to say “Shit”? You have to place the tip of the tongue behind the front teeth in order to form the “T”, see, or the Tet. It was the same when you and Jimmy were nursing. The tip of the tongue has to touch the front in order to form the Tet, the milk, tip to tit, see? Then is was “OH YUMMY”! Your widdo tails were wagging like widdo pups. While a child, you do as a child, but when you get all gwowed up, then you’ll put away childish things, including the sucking. You’ll begin to learn to partake of more substantial food or doctrine. Then, you’ll no longer be unchaste, like that Rude Girly On He.
Glad to be of service.
Street
seems street's gone an drunk up his frydee paycheck again.
| QUOTE (1 yankie @ Nov 29 2007, 01:32 AM) |
| Hi Chas , off and running like the Chas I've grown to love . OK Chas , you dont like what the republicans have done concerning global warming . My question is what have the Democrats done out side of whine and blame ? Do democrats support the Kyoto protocol? You know , the worlds answer to stop Global warming by reducing co2 . Nope they dont . In 1997 the Byrd -Hagel resolution was passed with the vote of 95-0 not to sign up with Kyoto . This resolution was sponsored by one of the most senior Democrat senators , his highness and long lasting Senator Byrd . Did Clinton ever try to ratify Kyoto at least one time time ? Nope he didn't . He never even tried . Its been over ten years now since the Byrd-Hagel resolution , name one Democrat that has proposed one single resolution to try and ratify Kyoto . Just one Chas , go for it , name just one . And yet you fault Bush for what you your own party has failed to even try . Am I right Chas ? Are Dem's just full of blame and no effort. But hey , go ahead and hate Bush , call him what you want , but you better save some insults and nasty names for your own parties dirty birds of the same feather , the whole flock of Kyoto non supporters . Chas ol buddy ,take some advise from a friend and just look around would ya ? Your anger might be out of place just a bit and getting the best of you , Gosh , you even missed spelled independence blinded by anger I guess. I'm the dumb one big brother chaster , not you . Remember? |
You're seeing me as an attack dog. No. I'm a sheep dog. I just want the sheep to get off their big fat asses and move is all I'm about. There's no offense to it. I'm just doing my job, which I happen to love.
My first reply didn't go through so lets try this again . LOL
Well Chas , your idea of a sheep dog and not a attack dog is different than mine is . I read your three posts and it was clear to me what you out right said and were implying not to mention placing blame of course , just like always its those republicans you fault and only the republicans you cared to mentioned with your editorial style opinions . Just your opinion and no facts to back up your thinking .
Surely you know by now as do most Democrats it was good leadership on their behalf and the Republicans not to go with the Kyoto protocol . The Kyoto protocol's record speaks for its self how well it hasn't worked stopping increasing co2. Also , if you look at Americas success during these last 7 years and compare it with other industrial nations we Americans out performed most of the Kyoto led countries .
Despite how I or any other republican feels about man caused global warming its clearly with out any doubt the republican party who has tried to do more to stop co2 being emitted into our atmosphere than the Democrats .
It was the Republicans who suggested placing monies to further hydrogen research and development . Not a temporary alternate fuel source, but a complete replacement of co2 emitting fossil fuel is their goal .
It's been for the last thirty years the republicans have supported zero co2 emitting Nuclear power . Bush as far back as 2001 spent considerable time trying to promote the increased use of nuclear power .
Nuclear power + hydrogen fuel = 0 co2 & so2 emissions .
These are just a couple of things the republicans are doing and have tried .
Tell me Chas , what have the democrats tried to do in order to stop co2 emissions ? Next, what do they plan to do ? And if you answer these questions whose goals and efforts will reduce the most co2 emissions ? The Reps or the Dem's ?
You love your job as a sheep dog huh? OK , just answer these few questions will you . Iffen ya dont answer them Isa going to recon you as a no good ker dog who's more interested in attacking then taking time to read , look and explain his views .
Look first at the hand your trying to bite sheep dog , could be the hand thats doing the most good while your barking nonsense to the world. LOL
Well Chas , your idea of a sheep dog and not a attack dog is different than mine is . I read your three posts and it was clear to me what you out right said and were implying not to mention placing blame of course , just like always its those republicans you fault and only the republicans you cared to mentioned with your editorial style opinions . Just your opinion and no facts to back up your thinking .
Surely you know by now as do most Democrats it was good leadership on their behalf and the Republicans not to go with the Kyoto protocol . The Kyoto protocol's record speaks for its self how well it hasn't worked stopping increasing co2. Also , if you look at Americas success during these last 7 years and compare it with other industrial nations we Americans out performed most of the Kyoto led countries .
Despite how I or any other republican feels about man caused global warming its clearly with out any doubt the republican party who has tried to do more to stop co2 being emitted into our atmosphere than the Democrats .
It was the Republicans who suggested placing monies to further hydrogen research and development . Not a temporary alternate fuel source, but a complete replacement of co2 emitting fossil fuel is their goal .
It's been for the last thirty years the republicans have supported zero co2 emitting Nuclear power . Bush as far back as 2001 spent considerable time trying to promote the increased use of nuclear power .
Nuclear power + hydrogen fuel = 0 co2 & so2 emissions .
These are just a couple of things the republicans are doing and have tried .
Tell me Chas , what have the democrats tried to do in order to stop co2 emissions ? Next, what do they plan to do ? And if you answer these questions whose goals and efforts will reduce the most co2 emissions ? The Reps or the Dem's ?
You love your job as a sheep dog huh? OK , just answer these few questions will you . Iffen ya dont answer them Isa going to recon you as a no good ker dog who's more interested in attacking then taking time to read , look and explain his views .
Look first at the hand your trying to bite sheep dog , could be the hand thats doing the most good while your barking nonsense to the world. LOL
| QUOTE (1 yankie @ Dec 1 2007, 05:02 PM) |
| Kyoto protocol's record speaks for its self how well it hasn't worked stopping increasing co2. Also , if you look at Americas success during these last 7 years and compare it with other industrial nations we Americans out performed most of the Kyoto led countries . |
Republicans seem to have a funny stance on Kyoto. We couldn't sign on to it because it lets China and India off the hook too easily. Furthermore, Kyoto is ineffective. Why? Because regional efforts don't work. This is a global problem and requires a global approach to it. So therefore we're not going to participate. We're letting ourselves off the hook here.
Hey, don't blame us. Look at China.
Could you explain the Republican philospohy to me again, Yankie? I'm just not comprehending it. Near as I make out, the main points are these:
Climate change: We can't be responsible because others aren't being responsible. And responsible behavior might cost us jobs.
Values: Personal responsibility.
Weakening dollar: Oh It's bad. It's bad. From a commentary by Donald Boudreaux in the Christian Science Monitor "Don't panic about the dollar just yet": "Be afraid, but not very afraid, Yes, the dollare's fall makes Americans poorer. It also reflects concerns about the health of the U.S economy. But so long as policymakers refrain from greater protectionism, foolish gegulations, and loose monetary policy, the U.S. economy and currency won't become second-rate. ... The worst consequence of a falling dollar is that it erodes America's terms of trade. ... A falling dollar will also tend to reduce America's trade deficit....Far from being a curse, a large U.S. trade deficit signals that the American economy is structurally sound. The reason is that this deficit rises as foreigners increase their investmenst in the U.S. .... A growing U.S. trade deficit further improves U.S. economic prospects by bringing to America more investmenst - more factories, more machines, more R&D, more worker training, more competition."
That I don't get. Doesn't a trade deficit in turn bring about a falling currency?
And are regulations necessarily the enemy of a sound economy? Seems to me, climate change is one big illustration of the crisis of the commons. Capitalism is based on property rights. Our system of property rights has evolved over centuries and is fundamental to the successful operation of capitalism. Believe me, I have no agenda of overturning this highly evolved mostly efficient system. At the same time, however, we're not doing ourselves any favor in pretending that this system is perfect. A crisis of the commons illustrates the limitations of this. Commons are like, well, our atmosphere. Property rights are impossible to establsih. We all own the atmosphere and no one owns the atmosphere. So who is responsible for that our atmosphere is maintained well? Individuals have powerful counter-incentives to do it. Thus, we have regulations to protect the commons on which we all depend for not only our economic well being but for our existance.
Do we really yearn to get back to the good old days of robber baron capitalism where the environment is taken as one big infinite sink for industrial waste? Do we really want to overturn child labor laws?
Are we ready to just take our chances when we buy a toy it's not coated with lead paint?
Near as I can tell, today's Republican philosophy amounts to one big liquidation sale of the planet. It's all about the virtues of living beyond our means. Whoopeee.
What ever happened to fiscal conservatism? Where's the common root between conservatism and conservation? Where's the personal responsibility taking? Where's the leadership?
Well you mention more than Global warming in your reply . I was hoping for more direct answers , however we both know these were loaded questions and ones you as a democrat would be better not to even try to answer. I dont blame you for not trying. So embarrassing . But despite their motives or believes give credit to the Republicans for trying to do more towards reducing co2 than the Democrats ever tried--Nuclear & hydrogen .
However there is a irony the political party that presents its self as protector of the environment and pounds the moral responsibility of global warming daily isn't the party that has and could do the most for your global warming cause . Can the democrats do more in the future by following the lead of the republicans ? Perhaps , but I dont see Kyoto being a agreement even they will be up for , Hence they haven't tried to ratify Kyoto to date and have placed resolutions against Kyoto in the past . In time I do think they will be more supportive of Nuke power , but if anything they tend not to take advantage of time they scream we have so little left . Its been close to a year since the democrats gained political power in Washington , with time running out what have the tried to do ? Not one thing I'm aware of . Zippo , nothing . But hey maybe next year , or maybe not . Go figure . Who really knows ? If you ask a democrat they wont answer , right Chas ? LOL
The weakening dollar is always a concern to me . We saw the same thing take place in the 80's when the Japanese yens gained weight on the green back . Back then I was upset the Japanese went about buying up America from profits taken from Americans .
Buying up America or investing in America I struggled with . Over time the US buck gained and the Yen slid and the wealth levels changed as well .
Currently City bank needs lots of help financially , and to thousands of Americans this help means their jobs. Near 7 billion bucks worth of stock was just bought by a oil rich nation . 4.9 % of CB is now in the hands of country we pay money to buy oil from and our money comes back as a loan to help one of our major Corps .
We buy from China , thank you Wall Mart , and china loans us money to fight terrorism in Iraq & Afghanistan .
Its a global market Chaster , these nations are investing in America . As long as they invest in America I'm not as concern about our struggling Buck compared perhaps to theirs , when they dont invest in us or see America as a opportunity for financial gain then neither should we . LOL. But if you Look at the Buck historically and how much it has fluctuated compared to other currencies you may feel better than you do today . However you feel Chas, you'd be best off not to feel Bush or in time Hillary will do as much as the Robber Barron's you dont care for .
Whats with the democrats demonizing very captains of industry who have more control over trade and the worth of a buck ? And then Dems complain about the bucks worth . I just dont get you guys at all , well , unless you truly have socialistic tendencies . I kinda think you guys do , for reals .
However there is a irony the political party that presents its self as protector of the environment and pounds the moral responsibility of global warming daily isn't the party that has and could do the most for your global warming cause . Can the democrats do more in the future by following the lead of the republicans ? Perhaps , but I dont see Kyoto being a agreement even they will be up for , Hence they haven't tried to ratify Kyoto to date and have placed resolutions against Kyoto in the past . In time I do think they will be more supportive of Nuke power , but if anything they tend not to take advantage of time they scream we have so little left . Its been close to a year since the democrats gained political power in Washington , with time running out what have the tried to do ? Not one thing I'm aware of . Zippo , nothing . But hey maybe next year , or maybe not . Go figure . Who really knows ? If you ask a democrat they wont answer , right Chas ? LOL
The weakening dollar is always a concern to me . We saw the same thing take place in the 80's when the Japanese yens gained weight on the green back . Back then I was upset the Japanese went about buying up America from profits taken from Americans .
Buying up America or investing in America I struggled with . Over time the US buck gained and the Yen slid and the wealth levels changed as well .
Currently City bank needs lots of help financially , and to thousands of Americans this help means their jobs. Near 7 billion bucks worth of stock was just bought by a oil rich nation . 4.9 % of CB is now in the hands of country we pay money to buy oil from and our money comes back as a loan to help one of our major Corps .
We buy from China , thank you Wall Mart , and china loans us money to fight terrorism in Iraq & Afghanistan .
Its a global market Chaster , these nations are investing in America . As long as they invest in America I'm not as concern about our struggling Buck compared perhaps to theirs , when they dont invest in us or see America as a opportunity for financial gain then neither should we . LOL. But if you Look at the Buck historically and how much it has fluctuated compared to other currencies you may feel better than you do today . However you feel Chas, you'd be best off not to feel Bush or in time Hillary will do as much as the Robber Barron's you dont care for .
Whats with the democrats demonizing very captains of industry who have more control over trade and the worth of a buck ? And then Dems complain about the bucks worth . I just dont get you guys at all , well , unless you truly have socialistic tendencies . I kinda think you guys do , for reals .
| QUOTE (1 yankie @ Dec 2 2007, 09:52 PM) |
| you truly have socialistic tendencies . |
Yankie, what we're about here isn't overturning capitalism. It's saving it.
You think you are doing capitalism a favor by pretending that everything about it is hunky dory?
Seems that's how folks tend to shut off the discussion, though, by accusing anybody who raises any concern about it as being a socialist. And, sadly that has worked.
With any luck, I hope we're getting to where that tactic won't fly anymore. I hope it's not going to prevail through yet another presidential election cycle. We just don't have the time to waste anymore.
Basically, capitalism is a train wreck in progress here. That's not an pro-socialist anti-capitalist stance; it's a concern some of us have from the perspective of genuinely wanting to avoid the train wreck.
The danger is that capitalism as it presently is operating is operating as one big ponzy scheme. Everyone does great while the pool of participants and available resources continues to grow exponentially. Unfortunately, though, exponential growth isn't sustainable. Natural limits will prevent even a very clever species from exponential population growth into a finite resource base. Over the past few centuries, yes, we’ve pushed these limits back and back with technology and we’ve also been spectacularly lucky in having discovered petroleum. That wonderful gift of nature quickly became an utter necessity and now we’re looking at the downside, the gift coming to an end.
Wow, I'm back on topic, peak oil.
But hey, no worries. We all know that, while science can’t be believed when it delivers any bad news, we can take it as granted without a second thought that it’ll hand over some gift even more excellent than petroleum was. It always has, and it always will. Limits have been banished permanently. Right? In case you haven’t noticed the abundant wake up calls, it hasn’t happened and it aint gonna happen. Limits rule. Is that a defeatist attitude, a Luddite, anti-modernity attitude? No. Indeed, the exciting thing I have been finding just within the past few months is that a carbon-neutral household, for example, is completely doable. We’re doing it. Science isn’t going to banish limits forever, but it can enable us to live within our global means. We’ve got a long long way to go on it, but it’s completely doable. With some more solar panels, a geothermal heat pump furnace, and a couple of plug-in hybrid vehicles, walla, we’re there. It is expensive but still completely within the reach of a middle class family. I make that claim from the perspective that we’re doing it ourselves. This isn’t about overthrowing our modern technical capitalistic society; it’s about saving it. We can live with limits without shivering in the dark and we can live well. But, it absolutely needs a new attitude and some fundamental cultural changes.
Another of the big symptoms of this, I think, is terrorism. Terrorism is another aspect of limits. Cultural problems and environmental problems are intertwined. As your environment is going to hell, your culture will be going to hell too. Jared Diamond’s book, “Collapse, How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed,” is an excellent exploration of several examples of where this happened and also of where people woke up in time, acted sensibly, and prevented collapse. Successful societies learn to address challenges proactively instead of in a crisis-driven mode. You wait until things go to hell, you have far fewer choices and fewer resources with which to deal with it. The danger is that our world community - and that’s how we need to think of ourselves, as within a world community - can deteriorate to a perfect storm of environmental messes and cultural dysfunction to where coping effectively becomes difficult to impossible. An example Diamond often cites is of the person who cut down the last tree on Easter Island. What was he thinking? Well, he probably wasn’t thinking. By then, he was staring starvation in the face. He didn’t have choices anymore. He’d long since squandered his choices. He was being on the receiving end of the cosmos’ shock and awe. You have so many things going wrong at once on so many social and economic fronts that you no longer have an option of responding adaptively and you’re reduced to going along with how the cosmos is sweeping you at any given moment. The luxury of forward thinking is long gone by then. You may not like forward thinking and the discipline it imposes on you, but I suspect it’s a luxury you would crave after it’s gone. We can only guess, as those who went through that experience didn’t have the time or inclination to record the situation other than by their bleached bones.
Your efforts within your own household to decrease your global footprint are precisely the medicines needed for all these problems. The problems won’t disappear, but they might shrink to where we have a fighting chance of making it through another century or two. This isn’t about government imposed measures. This is about You and Your behavior.
| QUOTE (furnace @ Nov 20 2007, 01:31 AM) |
| Why is it during the dark ages, when we had an overdose of religion, we nearly forgot how to add two plus two, and now that society is throwing off the shackles of corrupt religion to some extent, technology is starting to happen? |
Yes, an overdose of false religion certainly puts a damper (or shall we say, a diaper) on things, hear hear.
Street
There it is. I couldn't find my post, but then I realized you guys had been talking about changing the order they appear in. Okey Donkey.
REPLY to Yankie (Dec 2 2007, 09:52 PM):
In regard to social tendencies (last line of your post):
Universal Choice
Well, actually, Sir, socialism is the true order of heaven, and on earth it is the only way to go, as long as the Prophet Warren leadeth the way, that perfection may ensue. No form of government is safe in the hands of men, without God leading the way in one head, in one man, His Prophet and King, and Christ cometh as King of Kings to finalize the New Order. The Theocracy of Heaven is true communism, the Communal Order of Heaven, as instigated by the Prophet of God under the direction of the God of Heaven.
Be it known unto all who condone the confusion and self-serving climes of political land mines, your disorder behoovest not to serve the public good. The self-appointed leaders of government who decry a “self-appointed prophet” bemoan the appointment of God and the vote of thousands of the faithful, and of trillions in the cosmos, while the rigged democratic votes of millions are self-serving and self-destructive. God has ordained it of His ministers in government to bring about the end of kingdoms and the institution of the Kingdom of God.
Thou wouldst raise but disaster upon disaster, and so it ensues by Patriot Act and by Executive Order, and by seeking to cut the Constitutional thread that remains. But what remains for you is the stage that thou hast set, being party to these events against the FLDS Church by vote and by personal activism. Every citizen has taken a stand, so the stage is set. All will rise or fall by that choice.
Street
In regard to social tendencies (last line of your post):
Universal Choice
Well, actually, Sir, socialism is the true order of heaven, and on earth it is the only way to go, as long as the Prophet Warren leadeth the way, that perfection may ensue. No form of government is safe in the hands of men, without God leading the way in one head, in one man, His Prophet and King, and Christ cometh as King of Kings to finalize the New Order. The Theocracy of Heaven is true communism, the Communal Order of Heaven, as instigated by the Prophet of God under the direction of the God of Heaven.
Be it known unto all who condone the confusion and self-serving climes of political land mines, your disorder behoovest not to serve the public good. The self-appointed leaders of government who decry a “self-appointed prophet” bemoan the appointment of God and the vote of thousands of the faithful, and of trillions in the cosmos, while the rigged democratic votes of millions are self-serving and self-destructive. God has ordained it of His ministers in government to bring about the end of kingdoms and the institution of the Kingdom of God.
Thou wouldst raise but disaster upon disaster, and so it ensues by Patriot Act and by Executive Order, and by seeking to cut the Constitutional thread that remains. But what remains for you is the stage that thou hast set, being party to these events against the FLDS Church by vote and by personal activism. Every citizen has taken a stand, so the stage is set. All will rise or fall by that choice.
Street
| QUOTE (Onthestreet @ Dec 5 2007, 05:07 PM) |
| REPLY to Yankie (Dec 2 2007, 09:52 PM): In regard to social tendencies (last line of your post): Universal Choice Well, actually, Sir, socialism is the true order of heaven, and on earth it is the only way to go, |
Well Curious , I guess i otta responded to this post of yours , thanks for no potty mouth jargon or insults .
As far as what Mormon teachings say you are absolutely right about socialism . But not socialism like what we have ever seen today , or in the past even with the old Mormon church . I cant see that the flds has done much better .
My understanding is the law of consecration that Joe Smith teaches the driving factor or inspiration to live this law is done purely out of love for ones fellow man .
Not a doctrine out of force or obligation to to preform but out of want and desire , neither hoping for a reward or faced with a punishment , but rather every thing done out of love for each other .
All saints would be equal in possessions and acceptance with equal responsibility to preform the level they can . The bee hive .
Nice idea but it didn't work for the early Mormons , You cant live in the Lion house in SLC and have others living in dugouts elsewhere . You cant live a life of ease while others struggle .
Tell me what you know about Orderville Utah Curious , The united order town of the early Mormons that was directed by the Mormon prophet B. Young, then tell me about CC 's style of united order under Warrin Jeffs .
Show me the love and motivation .
| QUOTE (1 yankie @ Dec 7 2007, 04:01 PM) |
| Well Curious , I guess i otta responded to this post of yours , thanks for no potty mouth jargon or insults . As far as what Mormon teachings say you are absolutely right about socialism . But not socialism like what we have ever seen today , or in the past even with the old Mormon church . I cant see that the flds has done much better . My understanding is the law of consecration that Joe Smith teaches the driving factor or inspiration to live this law is done purely out of love for ones fellow man . Not a doctrine out of force or obligation to to preform but out of want and desire , neither hoping for a reward or faced with a punishment , but rather every thing done out of love for each other . All saints would be equal in possessions and acceptance with equal responsibility to preform the level they can . The bee hive . Nice idea but it didn't work for the early Mormons , You cant live in the Lion house in SLC and have others living in dugouts elsewhere . You cant live a life of ease while others struggle . Tell me what you know about Orderville Utah Curious , The united order town of the early Mormons that was directed by the Mormon prophet B. Young, then tell me about CC 's style of united order under Warrin Jeffs . Show me the love and motivation . |
Orderville
The pot is flushed when it gets too full of pooey, not to insult but to teach. That is why Orders fail. They miss the lessons, but the faithful go on. The dogs bark, but the caravan goes on. “What son does not the Father chasten, lest ye be bastards”.
“Street, you are absolutely right, but…” Not my butt, yours. Absolutely is absolute, so no buts about it. The Old Mormon or FLDS social law is pure love, for “As many as I love I chasten. Be zealous therefore, and repent” (Rev.3:19).
You say that “the Law of Consecration is not a doctrine of force or obligation to perform, but a doctrine of pure love relating to wants and desires”. Hell, even orgies pertain to desires, so do you include that as part of the Law of God, and pure love, because God’s law pertains to wants and desires? See how stupid? The Law of Consecration’s wants and desires refers to supplying the just economic wants and desires of the faithful who are living in PURE LOVE. Since there were member who were not pure, they do NOT belong to the Order, because impurity is disorder and serves only the law of Lucifer, not the Law of God. So impure minds simply don’t have their thinking straight.
Not a law of force or obligation to perform? The obligation to perform is the entire thrust of the Gospel of Christ, or else He bringeth forth the forces of nature and of His Law to rebuke the slothful who didn’t perform. The doctrine you are suggesting is the doctrine of men and of devils, for Lucifer said in the beginning: “Send me as the Redeemer of man, and I will save them all without obligation. I will clone and program and force all, so that none will be lost. See, you are actually the one who is suggesting force, so that no obligation can be attached to your behavior and immorality. It’s like the government legalizing sex and the slaying of children, without obligation, but no honorable raising of families with obligatory morals. That is too challenging to a guilty nation. So now, what is evil you call good, and what is good you call evil, according to the prophecy (Is.5:20).
You speak of the necessity of equality, and compare it to the beehive. Yah, you just try equalizing that beehive, and every bee will attack you equally, and sting your little hiney until it is fully plump and rosey-red. A beehive has a queen, which means that somewhere in the vicinity there is also a king. Just because there are queens in thee FLDS hives, doesn’t mean that the kings have to always be there stumbling over the little beelings like deadbeat dads without jobs. There’s your equality, which is very lame. A holy church means that there must be more holiness than laziness or impropriety. The men are out working, and even at night they’re at home but leaving the women alone, not molesting them. That’s just good order, as in Orderville.
“The legs of the lame are not equal” (Prov.26:7).
“To whom will ye liken me or shall I be equal, saith the holy one” (Is.40:25).
“Yet ye say the way of the Lord is not equal” (Ezek.18:25).
You say that “Orderville was a nice idea, but it didn’t work for the early Mormons. You can’t live in the Lion House in SLC and have others living in dugouts. You can’t live a life of ease while others are struggling”. Let me tell you, a nice idea is always a nice idea, and never changes with God and His Plan, which is eternal. It never works for morons, but it always works for Mormon. If not, then they are not Mormons, but just morons, apostate, and prostitute. Mansions and living in ease are examples for the people to look up to, or else the whole society remains like savages who lived in Native America, or like aboriginal tribes live to this day.
It was the very example of Brigham Young in his Lion House that built Western Society. The faithful were very industrious, like the FLDS faithful today. Just look at their mansions, if you can be inspired by it and not lust after it. Yes, some FLDS live in trailers next to those mansions, and are glad to have it so, to build up and exalt their leaders, who in turn lift them up to their level. That’s how it works, faithful daddy’s giving faithful juniors a start in life until they are all gwowed up.
It only doesn’t work for those who don’t work it, they being more involved in their lusts than they are in being productive. Even in reproduction, lust has no place among saints. That is why so many are down and out, by their own doing. I like how Uncle Fred put it: “No matter where you go, there you are”. Your glories or your crimes follow you, depending on what kind of person you are. The wheat is sifted from the chaff, the sheep from the goats, the good from the evil, the one taken from the cauldron and the other left, lion-houses for lions and dust for dust. We all are but dust, and the meekest of God’s children are princes and princesses, kings and queens. Yes sir, that’s bewwy bewwy twue.
Do you suffer the envy of Ephraim? “The envy of Ephraim shall depart, and the adversaries of Judah shall be cut off. Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim” (Is.11:13). The nobles of Britannia with their trillions are facing great suffering and are not to be envied. The faithful of the church suffer enough responsibility, and are not to be vexed, for God is quick to respond in either case, even daily in the lives of us all.
Brigham ham, like Abraham, and others, came here as gods already, even before they were born. They were preordained to be great, like the predestination of kings. No one who knows can deny that great they were. It is a true enough principle and fact, if not for the abuses of some. So if you are not quite there, not yet great, get there. Do it by loving and supporting and following the example of the man in his mansion and on his throne, not by bitching about their greatness. They are great examples for us to follow, and are set up by God Himself, He being the source of all things, and of life itself. That is our ticket to the ascent. Otherwise, we cut off our own escape.
You end your gasp by saying: “Show me the love and motivation”. Look as the YFZ community. What love and motivation they have, a light on a hill that all the world must gaze upon, a United Order pointing directly to Zion. It is that close. You have to remember that this is a Telestial world, which means a very messed up system, with a small element of social order on the Texas plains Yearning For Zion, and leading directly to the New and Everlasting Order. Orderville is alive and well. It never ends. Man ends, but the gods continue.
Street