|
Re: (OT:) New Energy Sources... Was: Why do I have such a strong dislike for Ragheads?
On Oct 28, 6:37 pm, "F.H." <connec...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Dan Bloomquist wrote: > > F.H. wrote: > >> Enrico Fermi wrote: > > >>> "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims > >>> may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber > >>> barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's > >>> cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be > >>> satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us > >>> without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." > >>> -- C.S. Lewis > > >> Lewis underestimates the all encompassing nature of greed. Genetics > >> suggests an endless supply of wannabe "robber barons" and history show > >> no record of any "satiation point." > > >> Lewis described his younger self as "very angry with God for not > >> existing". Apparently when he discovered God he then channeled his > >> anger towards what he saw in Church on Sunday ("those who torment us > >> for our own good will torment us without end"). > > >> And sure enough, in a rigged game with that pesky mortality always > >> playing in the background he finds plenty to agree. And disagree. > > > Good an evil are human inventions. It has been a long time since I read > > C.S.Lewis. He did seem to have suffered the deeper implications of god > > and morality. > > > If anyone that has read Lewis and hasn't read 'The Screwtape Letters', I > > highly recommend it... > > I tried and couldn't finish. It's been a long while. I should try it > again. I liked Ayn Rand when I was 20, now I see what she has spawned > and its unsettling, to say the least. She didn't spawn this mess. None of this was possible without a whole lot of exactly what she made it absolutely clear was immoral BS. You cannot blame the actions of a government licensed regulated monopoly on free enterprise. Reason being, it isn't. All utilities and energy suppliers in this country are totally the province of government or at the most, products of an unholy union between government and business. What we are seeing is exactly, precisely what was warned against in atlas shrugged. Read it again. |
Re: (OT:) New Energy Sources... Was: Why do I have such a strong dislike for Ragheads?
On Oct 28, 6:37 pm, "F.H." <connec...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Dan Bloomquist wrote: > > F.H. wrote: > >> Enrico Fermi wrote: > > >>> "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims > >>> may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber > >>> barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's > >>> cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be > >>> satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us > >>> without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." > >>> -- C.S. Lewis > > >> Lewis underestimates the all encompassing nature of greed. Genetics > >> suggests an endless supply of wannabe "robber barons" and history show > >> no record of any "satiation point." > > >> Lewis described his younger self as "very angry with God for not > >> existing". Apparently when he discovered God he then channeled his > >> anger towards what he saw in Church on Sunday ("those who torment us > >> for our own good will torment us without end"). > > >> And sure enough, in a rigged game with that pesky mortality always > >> playing in the background he finds plenty to agree. And disagree. > > > Good an evil are human inventions. It has been a long time since I read > > C.S.Lewis. He did seem to have suffered the deeper implications of god > > and morality. > > > If anyone that has read Lewis and hasn't read 'The Screwtape Letters', I > > highly recommend it... > > I tried and couldn't finish. It's been a long while. I should try it > again. I liked Ayn Rand when I was 20, now I see what she has spawned > and its unsettling, to say the least. She didn't spawn this mess. None of this was possible without a whole lot of exactly what she made it absolutely clear was immoral BS. You cannot blame the actions of a government licensed regulated monopoly on free enterprise. Reason being, it isn't. All utilities and energy suppliers in this country are totally the province of government or at the most, products of an unholy union between government and business. What we are seeing is exactly, precisely what was warned against in atlas shrugged. Read it again. |
Re: (OT:) Was Ragheads, now Energy...
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 12:33:50 -0600, Morris Dovey wrote:
> bill wrote: > > | you give them too much credit. if they had the levels of > | control and foresight you are crediting them with, there would be no > | reason for concern. This situation happened not because some plutocrats > | decided it should happen, it happened because a bunch of small minded > | little maggots no different from you and I decided that the alternatives > | SHOULDN'T happen. floats. > > Hmm. Perhaps it'd be worth taking a shot at doing what needs to be done on > whatever scale you can. > > Pick something you (or you plus whoever you can talk into working with > you) have a reasonable shot at success. Just /do/ it! It won't be a > nuclear power plant (probably) but it'll be better than nothing. > > Me? I build solar heating panels (good ones) to keep people warm without > electricity/oil/gas. It's not much, but it's something - better than > nothing. > > Were you waiting for permission? Or are we all sitting around waiting for > someone /else/ to do the job? OK, try this one from the BBC on for size: A United Nations expert has condemned the growing use of crops to produce biofuels as a replacement for petrol as a crime against humanity. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7065061.stm |
Re: (OT:) Was Ragheads, now Energy...
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 12:33:50 -0600, Morris Dovey wrote:
> bill wrote: > > | you give them too much credit. if they had the levels of > | control and foresight you are crediting them with, there would be no > | reason for concern. This situation happened not because some plutocrats > | decided it should happen, it happened because a bunch of small minded > | little maggots no different from you and I decided that the alternatives > | SHOULDN'T happen. floats. > > Hmm. Perhaps it'd be worth taking a shot at doing what needs to be done on > whatever scale you can. > > Pick something you (or you plus whoever you can talk into working with > you) have a reasonable shot at success. Just /do/ it! It won't be a > nuclear power plant (probably) but it'll be better than nothing. > > Me? I build solar heating panels (good ones) to keep people warm without > electricity/oil/gas. It's not much, but it's something - better than > nothing. > > Were you waiting for permission? Or are we all sitting around waiting for > someone /else/ to do the job? OK, try this one from the BBC on for size: A United Nations expert has condemned the growing use of crops to produce biofuels as a replacement for petrol as a crime against humanity. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7065061.stm |
Re: (OT:) New Energy Sources... Was: Why do I have such a strong dislike for Ragheads?
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 16:57:05 +0000, F.H. wrote:
> Hachiroku ハチク wrote: >> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 14:47:25 +0000, Grumpy AuContraire wrote: >> >> >>> Hachiroku ハチク wrote: >>>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 20:46:56 -0700, bill wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> In the town where I live, there is a planned 500 MW windfarm. It >>>>> is being hotly disputed on NIMBY grounds. The most recent planned >>>>> nuclear power plant (seabrook) in the US was fully constructed and >>>>> never went operational due to environmentalism. This crap has got to >>>>> stop. >>>> >>>> >>>> Are you in Mass by any chance? There was one that was killed about 15 >>>> miles from where I live, and the company went further west to the next >>>> best site, where they are also meeting strong opposition. >>>> >>>> The funny thing is, the one posing the opposition are also the ones >>>> crying for independance from Foreign Oil and coal and nuclear power >>>> plants. >>>> >>>> Can't have it ALL ways, people! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> That's for sure. >>> >>> To clarify, the original Seabrook (Unit 1) was completed and is >>> operational today. It is Unit 2 that was never completed and later >>> canceled. >>> >>> That said, nuclear power is the only interim option for energy >>> independence or at least a reduction in dependence on foreign sources >>> of fossil fuels. >> >> >> Wind power is excellent, and after the intial outlay, it's free. I don't >> know why the Cruchies/Granolas in Western Mass have such an aversion to >> it. > > It will be widely used as soon as the multinationals and other corporate > "trickle up" ideologists can figure out a way to corner the market and > sell it. At a price you can afford of course. ;) They've tried, but the towns where the Crunchies live are also the best suited, so when the companies go in to do studies, they are met with strong opposition. I don't get it!! |
Re: (OT:) New Energy Sources... Was: Why do I have such a strong dislike for Ragheads?
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 16:57:05 +0000, F.H. wrote:
> Hachiroku ハチク wrote: >> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 14:47:25 +0000, Grumpy AuContraire wrote: >> >> >>> Hachiroku ハチク wrote: >>>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 20:46:56 -0700, bill wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> In the town where I live, there is a planned 500 MW windfarm. It >>>>> is being hotly disputed on NIMBY grounds. The most recent planned >>>>> nuclear power plant (seabrook) in the US was fully constructed and >>>>> never went operational due to environmentalism. This crap has got to >>>>> stop. >>>> >>>> >>>> Are you in Mass by any chance? There was one that was killed about 15 >>>> miles from where I live, and the company went further west to the next >>>> best site, where they are also meeting strong opposition. >>>> >>>> The funny thing is, the one posing the opposition are also the ones >>>> crying for independance from Foreign Oil and coal and nuclear power >>>> plants. >>>> >>>> Can't have it ALL ways, people! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> That's for sure. >>> >>> To clarify, the original Seabrook (Unit 1) was completed and is >>> operational today. It is Unit 2 that was never completed and later >>> canceled. >>> >>> That said, nuclear power is the only interim option for energy >>> independence or at least a reduction in dependence on foreign sources >>> of fossil fuels. >> >> >> Wind power is excellent, and after the intial outlay, it's free. I don't >> know why the Cruchies/Granolas in Western Mass have such an aversion to >> it. > > It will be widely used as soon as the multinationals and other corporate > "trickle up" ideologists can figure out a way to corner the market and > sell it. At a price you can afford of course. ;) They've tried, but the towns where the Crunchies live are also the best suited, so when the companies go in to do studies, they are met with strong opposition. I don't get it!! |
Re: (OT:) New Energy Sources... Was: Why do I have such a strong dislike for Ragheads?
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 20:52:53 +0000, Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>> Wind power is excellent, and after the intial outlay, it's free. I don't >> know why the Cruchies/Granolas in Western Mass have such an aversion to >> it. >> >> > Well, it ain't quite free... The systems must be maintained. > > I would favor windmills for individual residences and these are indeed > productive. > > When it comes to large windmill farms, there are issues and probably most > of these facilities should be limited to rural flattish areas. > > You know, "Not in my back yard buster!" NIMBYs. Yes, I know. But on Marketplace, an evening look at the markets, business and industry on NPR, I heard a much better one a couple years ago: COVE Citizens Opposed to Virtually Everything... |
Re: (OT:) New Energy Sources... Was: Why do I have such a strong dislike for Ragheads?
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 20:52:53 +0000, Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>> Wind power is excellent, and after the intial outlay, it's free. I don't >> know why the Cruchies/Granolas in Western Mass have such an aversion to >> it. >> >> > Well, it ain't quite free... The systems must be maintained. > > I would favor windmills for individual residences and these are indeed > productive. > > When it comes to large windmill farms, there are issues and probably most > of these facilities should be limited to rural flattish areas. > > You know, "Not in my back yard buster!" NIMBYs. Yes, I know. But on Marketplace, an evening look at the markets, business and industry on NPR, I heard a much better one a couple years ago: COVE Citizens Opposed to Virtually Everything... |
Re: (OT:) New Energy Sources... Was: Why do I have such a strong dislike for Ragheads?
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 09:30:06 -0700, bill wrote:
> On Oct 28, 12:17 pm, Hachiroku <Tru...@AE86.gts> wrote: >> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 14:47:25 +0000, Grumpy AuContraire wrote: >> >> > Hachiroku wrote: >> >> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 20:46:56 -0700, bill wrote: >> >> >>> In the town where I live, there is a planned 500 MW windfarm. >> >>> It >> >>>is being hotly disputed on NIMBY grounds. The most recent planned >> >>>nuclear power plant (seabrook) in the US was fully constructed and >> >>>never went operational due to environmentalism. This crap has got to >> >>>stop. >> >> >> Are you in Mass by any chance? There was one that was killed about 15 >> >> miles from where I live, and the company went further west to the >> >> next best site, where they are also meeting strong opposition. >> >> >> The funny thing is, the one posing the opposition are also the ones >> >> crying for independance from Foreign Oil and coal and nuclear power >> >> plants. >> >> >> Can't have it ALL ways, people! >> >> > That's for sure. >> >> > To clarify, the original Seabrook (Unit 1) was completed and is >> > operational today. It is Unit 2 that was never completed and later >> > canceled. >> >> > That said, nuclear power is the only interim option for energy >> > independence or at least a reduction in dependence on foreign sources >> > of fossil fuels. >> >> Wind power is excellent, and after the intial outlay, it's free. I don't >> know why the Cruchies/Granolas in Western Mass have such an aversion to >> it. >> >> >> >> > I'm afraid that we have lost our way and are doomed to a role of third >> > world status and already have made considerable progress in that >> > direction. >> >> > Sometimes, I think that the country would be better off under a >> > benevolent dictator than our current free for all form of government. >> > At least we would not be subject to continuous political bombardment >> > that never seems to end or ever produces anything of worth for that >> > matter... >> >> > JT >> >> Problem is, WHO? Hitlary? BWAHAHAHA! >> >> Anyone who gets in there will either sway with his/her particular >> 'group', or not pay attention to anyone and probably end up power >> hungry. >> >> It's supposed to be Majority Rule, but the fact is, the Squeaky Wheel >> gets greased, and the Squeaky Wheel are usually the k00ks... > > The squeaky wheels ARE the majority. We the people really are > this dumb. Power doens't corrupt, it attracts the corruptible. Big Bill > Clinton was murdering threats, raping interns and selling out this country > before he was even elected governor. who would want to be president? > Only scum would be willing to take the job. No, unfortunately, I think it really is the Slient Majority. Those of us who sit here and watch the Libs and the Activists squawk, and thereby get their agendas pushed through. I don't think it's apathy; I think it's more like we think they won't win. But most of the time, they do. Look at a school of 1,000 students, where one Muslim mother goes to the school and sees Jell-O and halowe'en decorations. She marches into the Principal's office and squawks, et voila! No Jell-O on the school menu (she wanted it banned because it contains pork products) and found the decorations offesnive, so they were removed. Because of two students out of 1,000... |
Re: (OT:) New Energy Sources... Was: Why do I have such a strong dislike for Ragheads?
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 09:30:06 -0700, bill wrote:
> On Oct 28, 12:17 pm, Hachiroku <Tru...@AE86.gts> wrote: >> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 14:47:25 +0000, Grumpy AuContraire wrote: >> >> > Hachiroku wrote: >> >> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 20:46:56 -0700, bill wrote: >> >> >>> In the town where I live, there is a planned 500 MW windfarm. >> >>> It >> >>>is being hotly disputed on NIMBY grounds. The most recent planned >> >>>nuclear power plant (seabrook) in the US was fully constructed and >> >>>never went operational due to environmentalism. This crap has got to >> >>>stop. >> >> >> Are you in Mass by any chance? There was one that was killed about 15 >> >> miles from where I live, and the company went further west to the >> >> next best site, where they are also meeting strong opposition. >> >> >> The funny thing is, the one posing the opposition are also the ones >> >> crying for independance from Foreign Oil and coal and nuclear power >> >> plants. >> >> >> Can't have it ALL ways, people! >> >> > That's for sure. >> >> > To clarify, the original Seabrook (Unit 1) was completed and is >> > operational today. It is Unit 2 that was never completed and later >> > canceled. >> >> > That said, nuclear power is the only interim option for energy >> > independence or at least a reduction in dependence on foreign sources >> > of fossil fuels. >> >> Wind power is excellent, and after the intial outlay, it's free. I don't >> know why the Cruchies/Granolas in Western Mass have such an aversion to >> it. >> >> >> >> > I'm afraid that we have lost our way and are doomed to a role of third >> > world status and already have made considerable progress in that >> > direction. >> >> > Sometimes, I think that the country would be better off under a >> > benevolent dictator than our current free for all form of government. >> > At least we would not be subject to continuous political bombardment >> > that never seems to end or ever produces anything of worth for that >> > matter... >> >> > JT >> >> Problem is, WHO? Hitlary? BWAHAHAHA! >> >> Anyone who gets in there will either sway with his/her particular >> 'group', or not pay attention to anyone and probably end up power >> hungry. >> >> It's supposed to be Majority Rule, but the fact is, the Squeaky Wheel >> gets greased, and the Squeaky Wheel are usually the k00ks... > > The squeaky wheels ARE the majority. We the people really are > this dumb. Power doens't corrupt, it attracts the corruptible. Big Bill > Clinton was murdering threats, raping interns and selling out this country > before he was even elected governor. who would want to be president? > Only scum would be willing to take the job. No, unfortunately, I think it really is the Slient Majority. Those of us who sit here and watch the Libs and the Activists squawk, and thereby get their agendas pushed through. I don't think it's apathy; I think it's more like we think they won't win. But most of the time, they do. Look at a school of 1,000 students, where one Muslim mother goes to the school and sees Jell-O and halowe'en decorations. She marches into the Principal's office and squawks, et voila! No Jell-O on the school menu (she wanted it banned because it contains pork products) and found the decorations offesnive, so they were removed. Because of two students out of 1,000... |
Re: (OT:) Why do I have such a strong dislike for Ragheads?
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:40:47 -0700, witfal wrote:
You have a strong dislike for ragheads because: 1- You are an 2- You are stupid enough to believe the media. 3- You are also a crossposting twit. |
Re: (OT:) Why do I have such a strong dislike for Ragheads?
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:40:47 -0700, witfal wrote:
You have a strong dislike for ragheads because: 1- You are an 2- You are stupid enough to believe the media. 3- You are also a crossposting twit. |
Re: (OT:) Why do I have such a strong dislike for Ragheads?
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 21:01:51 -0400, qarzhz wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:40:47 -0700, witfal wrote: > > You have a strong dislike for ragheads because: > > 1- You are an I'm the one who hates Ragheads. > > 2- You are stupid enough to believe the media. When I see a radical Islamist running a terrorism school and saying "Death To Americans", yeah, I guess I am stupid enough to believe the media. BTW, it was the NBC Nightly News, not Fox/Glenn Beck/Limbaugh. NBC, you know, one of the Liberal news outlets? > > 3- You are also a crossposting twit. *I* posted this in Toyotas. How it got crossed isn't clear...I don't feel like looking back. |
Re: (OT:) Why do I have such a strong dislike for Ragheads?
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 21:01:51 -0400, qarzhz wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:40:47 -0700, witfal wrote: > > You have a strong dislike for ragheads because: > > 1- You are an I'm the one who hates Ragheads. > > 2- You are stupid enough to believe the media. When I see a radical Islamist running a terrorism school and saying "Death To Americans", yeah, I guess I am stupid enough to believe the media. BTW, it was the NBC Nightly News, not Fox/Glenn Beck/Limbaugh. NBC, you know, one of the Liberal news outlets? > > 3- You are also a crossposting twit. *I* posted this in Toyotas. How it got crossed isn't clear...I don't feel like looking back. |
Re: (OT:) Why do I have such a strong dislike for Ragheads?
On 2007-10-28 19:09:27 -0700, Hachiroku ハチク <Trueno@AE86.gts> said:
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 21:01:51 -0400, qarzhz wrote: > >> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:40:47 -0700, witfal wrote: >> >> You have a strong dislike for ragheads because: >> >> 1- You are an > > I'm the one who hates Ragheads. > >> >> 2- You are stupid enough to believe the media. > > > When I see a radical Islamist running a terrorism school and saying "Death > To Americans", yeah, I guess I am stupid enough to believe the media. BTW, > it was the NBC Nightly News, not Fox/Glenn Beck/Limbaugh. NBC, you know, > one of the Liberal news outlets? > >> >> 3- You are also a crossposting twit. > > > *I* posted this in Toyotas. How it got crossed isn't clear...I don't feel > like looking back. Now you did it, Hachi. He's going to post another equally erudite statement. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:20 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands