TURBO
CAGiversary!
http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/fisa-compromise.ars
Summation: Terrorists, Terrorists, Terrorism, Terror, Evildoers, P2P? online poker?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
FISA: Big Brother is watching you. 1984 here we come
- Thread starter TURBO
- Start date
http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/fisa-compromise.ars
Summation: Terrorists, Terrorists, Terrorism, Terror, Evildoers, P2P? online poker?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
TURBO
CAGiversary!
[quote name='evanft']
ing democrats. They don't want to seem weak on national security, so they roll over whenever Bush wants. What a bunch of pansies.[/quote]
at least it wasnt "unanimous"
& if you think there aren't any democrats in the pocket as well youre living in lalaland
most politicians are just lazy sycophants who took the job because wanted to feel powerful. i'd be willing to bet maybe 10% of the people who actually showed up to vote on it actually read it, let alone understood it.
like my poli-sci prof used to say. republicans & democrats are both corrupt. democrats are just less so.
ing democrats. They don't want to seem weak on national security, so they roll over whenever Bush wants. What a bunch of pansies.[/quote]at least it wasnt "unanimous"
& if you think there aren't any democrats in the pocket as well youre living in lalaland
most politicians are just lazy sycophants who took the job because wanted to feel powerful. i'd be willing to bet maybe 10% of the people who actually showed up to vote on it actually read it, let alone understood it.
like my poli-sci prof used to say. republicans & democrats are both corrupt. democrats are just less so.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
I'm, honestly, considering abstaining from voting in November because I'm absolutely livid that Obama, who has bandied about the sorts of anti-FISA talk he had, voted "yea" on this bill.
I support a good clip of his approached and policy proposals, but how can I trust him now?
I support a good clip of his approached and policy proposals, but how can I trust him now?
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']I'm, honestly, considering abstaining from voting in November because I'm absolutely livid that Obama, who has bandied about the sorts of anti-FISA talk he had, voted "yea" on this bill.
I support a good clip of his approached and policy proposals, but how can I trust him now?[/quote]
I'm old enough to avoid the draft. I guess it would be OK to vote for McCain.
Enjoy Iran, bitches!
I support a good clip of his approached and policy proposals, but how can I trust him now?[/quote]
I'm old enough to avoid the draft. I guess it would be OK to vote for McCain.
Enjoy Iran, bitches!
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='TURBO']
like my poli-sci prof used to say. republicans & democrats are both corrupt. democrats are just less so.[/QUOTE]
Your prof is half right.
[quote name='mykevermin']I'm, honestly, considering abstaining from voting in November because I'm absolutely livid that Obama, who has bandied about the sorts of anti-FISA talk he had, voted "yea" on this bill.
I support a good clip of his approached and policy proposals, but how can I trust him now?[/QUOTE]
And I can't imagine Obama supporters are very pleased with his non-answer flip flopping of late concerning Iraq. Most potential Obama supporters desire cut and run, and thought he did to, but his statements as of late essentially translate to = "Well I really don't know what we'll do , we'll have to look it over and think about it".
Anyway, glad to see my Democrat leaning CAG friends are finally starting to realize that we only have Republicats and Demicans. That's all we've had for a while and that's all we are going to have. Both parties talk differently but they ultimately have the same agendas. It's been clear to me for awhile.
like my poli-sci prof used to say. republicans & democrats are both corrupt. democrats are just less so.[/QUOTE]
Your prof is half right.
[quote name='mykevermin']I'm, honestly, considering abstaining from voting in November because I'm absolutely livid that Obama, who has bandied about the sorts of anti-FISA talk he had, voted "yea" on this bill.
I support a good clip of his approached and policy proposals, but how can I trust him now?[/QUOTE]
And I can't imagine Obama supporters are very pleased with his non-answer flip flopping of late concerning Iraq. Most potential Obama supporters desire cut and run, and thought he did to, but his statements as of late essentially translate to = "Well I really don't know what we'll do , we'll have to look it over and think about it".
Anyway, glad to see my Democrat leaning CAG friends are finally starting to realize that we only have Republicats and Demicans. That's all we've had for a while and that's all we are going to have. Both parties talk differently but they ultimately have the same agendas. It's been clear to me for awhile.
TURBO
CAGiversary!
[quote name='thrustbucket']Your prof is half right.
And I can't imagine Obama supporters are very pleased with his non-answer flip flopping of late concerning Iraq. Most potential Obama supporters desire cut and run, and thought he did to, but his statements as of late essentially translate to = "Well I really don't know what we'll do , we'll have to look it over and think about it".
Anyway, glad to see my Democrat leaning CAG friends are finally starting to realize that we only have Republicats and Demicans. That's all we've had for a while and that's all we are going to have. Both parties talk differently but they ultimately have the same agendas. It's been clear to me for awhile.[/quote]
Come on, there has been a fair bit of democratic corruption as well. but can you think of any time where the dem were both in the exec & leg like rep have been that has been remotely as corrupt? You'd have to go way back to Franklin Pierce (who ironically is related to GB; barbara "pierce" bush being a direct descendant). & that was only right before democrats became republicans & the whig party disappeared. before the term republican & democrat switched meanings.
And I can't imagine Obama supporters are very pleased with his non-answer flip flopping of late concerning Iraq. Most potential Obama supporters desire cut and run, and thought he did to, but his statements as of late essentially translate to = "Well I really don't know what we'll do , we'll have to look it over and think about it".
Anyway, glad to see my Democrat leaning CAG friends are finally starting to realize that we only have Republicats and Demicans. That's all we've had for a while and that's all we are going to have. Both parties talk differently but they ultimately have the same agendas. It's been clear to me for awhile.[/quote]
Come on, there has been a fair bit of democratic corruption as well. but can you think of any time where the dem were both in the exec & leg like rep have been that has been remotely as corrupt? You'd have to go way back to Franklin Pierce (who ironically is related to GB; barbara "pierce" bush being a direct descendant). & that was only right before democrats became republicans & the whig party disappeared. before the term republican & democrat switched meanings.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='thrustbucket']Most potential Obama supporters desire cut and run[/QUOTE]
"cut and run"?
Don't talk to me like you're an idiot man-child caught up in the cool empty phrases of the day, and I won't act as condescending in my responses to your posts.
We're not idiots, and we aren't children. So keep your naive framing in your pocket and save it for someone who deserves it. We certainly do not.
"cut and run"?
Don't talk to me like you're an idiot man-child caught up in the cool empty phrases of the day, and I won't act as condescending in my responses to your posts.
We're not idiots, and we aren't children. So keep your naive framing in your pocket and save it for someone who deserves it. We certainly do not.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']"cut and run"?
Don't talk to me like you're an idiot man-child caught up in the cool empty phrases of the day, and I won't act as condescending in my responses to your posts.
We're not idiots, and we aren't children. So keep your naive framing in your pocket and save it for someone who deserves it. We certainly do not.[/QUOTE]
So why are you sensitive about a phrase that more than half of the country falls into now? I hardly think it carries negative connotations. Why don't you go ahead and enlighten us with the more politically correct way of referring to those that want to pull out of Iraq ASAP, that you won't jump down my throat for.
Don't talk to me like you're an idiot man-child caught up in the cool empty phrases of the day, and I won't act as condescending in my responses to your posts.
We're not idiots, and we aren't children. So keep your naive framing in your pocket and save it for someone who deserves it. We certainly do not.[/QUOTE]
So why are you sensitive about a phrase that more than half of the country falls into now? I hardly think it carries negative connotations. Why don't you go ahead and enlighten us with the more politically correct way of referring to those that want to pull out of Iraq ASAP, that you won't jump down my throat for.
Last edited by a moderator:
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Those who are against the war.
"Most Obama supporters are against the war."
Much better than aping a phrase used by Jean Schmidt to talk down on John Murtha, and one that has connotations of cowardice. If you don't think that the vast majority of times that phrase is used involve implying that someone is both against the war and a giant coward, than you are light years beyond the level of willfully ignorant that I typically think of you as. You're like a Level 99 Paladin of blissful, willful ignorance if you think it's not used virtually solely in a negative light.
"Most Obama supporters are against the war."
Much better than aping a phrase used by Jean Schmidt to talk down on John Murtha, and one that has connotations of cowardice. If you don't think that the vast majority of times that phrase is used involve implying that someone is both against the war and a giant coward, than you are light years beyond the level of willfully ignorant that I typically think of you as. You're like a Level 99 Paladin of blissful, willful ignorance if you think it's not used virtually solely in a negative light.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
Sigh.... PC is so fun, but have it your way.
Cut and Run is now known as "Those against the war".
Database overwritten.
c:\
Cut and Run is now known as "Those against the war".
Database overwritten.
c:\
TURBO
CAGiversary!
I dont even think it's "against the war" so much as thinking at this point in time, staying there does not have a good cost/benefit ratio.
Even many people i know who were 100% gung ho to go take out saddam are now starting to feel tired & angry w/ the debt it's digging the country into.
Even many people i know who were 100% gung ho to go take out saddam are now starting to feel tired & angry w/ the debt it's digging the country into.
Autumn Star
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
I feel even less safe with this in place.
I mean, I guess there's always Sweden to move to...
I mean, I guess there's always Sweden to move to...
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='TURBO']
Even many people i know who were 100% gung ho to go take out saddam are now starting to feel tired & angry w/ the debt it's digging the country into.[/QUOTE]
Right. Well it's important to note that most of those people aren't upset that we went to war. They are upset by how it's been handled, planned, and managed.
[quote name='Autumn Star']I feel even less safe with this in place.
I mean, I guess there's always Sweden to move to...[/QUOTE]
Have you been to Sweden? I was just there. Good luck immigrating permanantly, then good luck making enough $ to afford the cost of living and astronomical taxes.
Even many people i know who were 100% gung ho to go take out saddam are now starting to feel tired & angry w/ the debt it's digging the country into.[/QUOTE]
Right. Well it's important to note that most of those people aren't upset that we went to war. They are upset by how it's been handled, planned, and managed.
[quote name='Autumn Star']I feel even less safe with this in place.
I mean, I guess there's always Sweden to move to...[/QUOTE]
Have you been to Sweden? I was just there. Good luck immigrating permanantly, then good luck making enough $ to afford the cost of living and astronomical taxes.
TURBO
CAGiversary!
[quote name='thrustbucket']Right. Well it's important to note that most of those people aren't upset that we went to war. They are upset by how it's been handled, planned, and managed. [/quote]
that's what i'm saying
also, as time went on, especially w/ the WMD fiasco, people started to realize they were a little bamboozled in the first place.
the reason expensive places places are expensive is because there are more people who want to live there than can live there. whether it be for work or pleasure. tokyo, NYC, LA, chicago, miami, stockholm, helsinki, london, paris, milan, frankfurt, luxembourg, copenhagen, sydney, vancouver, shanghi, hong kong, etc..
personally i'd like to live in vienna or zurich for a few years.
that's what i'm saying
also, as time went on, especially w/ the WMD fiasco, people started to realize they were a little bamboozled in the first place.
there's always Ethiopia. i hear it's very economical to live there.
the reason expensive places places are expensive is because there are more people who want to live there than can live there. whether it be for work or pleasure. tokyo, NYC, LA, chicago, miami, stockholm, helsinki, london, paris, milan, frankfurt, luxembourg, copenhagen, sydney, vancouver, shanghi, hong kong, etc..
personally i'd like to live in vienna or zurich for a few years.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='thrustbucket']Sigh.... PC is so fun, but have it your way.
Cut and Run is now known as "Those against the war".
Database overwritten.
c:\[/quote]
I'm against the war, but not because the task is too tough.
I'm against it because it isn't worth it.
If we stay in Iraq, we'll spend at least another trillion dollars we don't have so that Iraq becomes a Muslim democracy which is one or two steps removed from sharia law.
If we leave Iraq, there'll be a bloody, nasty war between peoples we don't care about. In the worst case scenario, Iran takes over and has more control over the region and the price of oil.
If Iran is winning, we'll have years to start expanding our domestic oil production or convert to alternative energy.
Cut and Run is now known as "Those against the war".
Database overwritten.
c:\[/quote]
I'm against the war, but not because the task is too tough.
I'm against it because it isn't worth it.
If we stay in Iraq, we'll spend at least another trillion dollars we don't have so that Iraq becomes a Muslim democracy which is one or two steps removed from sharia law.
If we leave Iraq, there'll be a bloody, nasty war between peoples we don't care about. In the worst case scenario, Iran takes over and has more control over the region and the price of oil.
If Iran is winning, we'll have years to start expanding our domestic oil production or convert to alternative energy.
TURBO
CAGiversary!
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I'm against the war, but not because the task is too tough.
I'm against it because it isn't worth it.
If we stay in Iraq, we'll spend at least another trillion dollars we don't have so that Iraq becomes a Muslim democracy which is one or two steps removed from sharia law.
If we leave Iraq, there'll be a bloody, nasty war between peoples we don't care about. In the worst case scenario, Iran takes over and has more control over the region and the price of oil.
If Iran is winning, we'll have years to start expanding our domestic oil production or convert to alternative energy.[/quote]
there's almost no domestic oil. if you took the high estimates of oil in all of alaska, not even taking into consideration the effect of drilling on the ecosystem; it would last the U.S. a matter of months (2) used at 100%. but in reality if they started work now it wouldn't be ready for another 20 years. & then it would only produce at about 1/2% a day of the oil demand & take 10+ years to actually pump out.
it's not even remotely close to anything resembling the semblance of an answer to peak oil.
There's oil in canada. & if Troy Hurtubise is to be believed, he's invented an easy way to extract it from the sand pits while experimenting w/ a fire suppressant he invented FSA 333. There's a whole story around that and some mysterious, serious men who visited him letting him know his life's in danger & whatnot. who knows if it's true. weirdly despite how fast the story propagated, it seems to have almost vanished from google.
edit: found an old story mentioning it. towards the bottom
http://deconsumption.typepad.com/deconsumption/2005/01/sometimes_you_e.html
the only way we're going to be able to deal w/ energy & transportation problems is by moving strongly to diesel & plug in hybrids immediately. then having another new initiative reminiscent of the great "space race" only w/ eco tech. its going to take solar, wind, hydro, magnetic/tide, & nuclear (hopefully fusion).
the power should be used to produce hydrogen to replace oil as a portable, refillable, physical storage medium for energy.
I'm against it because it isn't worth it.
If we stay in Iraq, we'll spend at least another trillion dollars we don't have so that Iraq becomes a Muslim democracy which is one or two steps removed from sharia law.
If we leave Iraq, there'll be a bloody, nasty war between peoples we don't care about. In the worst case scenario, Iran takes over and has more control over the region and the price of oil.
If Iran is winning, we'll have years to start expanding our domestic oil production or convert to alternative energy.[/quote]
there's almost no domestic oil. if you took the high estimates of oil in all of alaska, not even taking into consideration the effect of drilling on the ecosystem; it would last the U.S. a matter of months (2) used at 100%. but in reality if they started work now it wouldn't be ready for another 20 years. & then it would only produce at about 1/2% a day of the oil demand & take 10+ years to actually pump out.
it's not even remotely close to anything resembling the semblance of an answer to peak oil.
There's oil in canada. & if Troy Hurtubise is to be believed, he's invented an easy way to extract it from the sand pits while experimenting w/ a fire suppressant he invented FSA 333. There's a whole story around that and some mysterious, serious men who visited him letting him know his life's in danger & whatnot. who knows if it's true. weirdly despite how fast the story propagated, it seems to have almost vanished from google.
edit: found an old story mentioning it. towards the bottom
http://deconsumption.typepad.com/deconsumption/2005/01/sometimes_you_e.html
the only way we're going to be able to deal w/ energy & transportation problems is by moving strongly to diesel & plug in hybrids immediately. then having another new initiative reminiscent of the great "space race" only w/ eco tech. its going to take solar, wind, hydro, magnetic/tide, & nuclear (hopefully fusion).
the power should be used to produce hydrogen to replace oil as a portable, refillable, physical storage medium for energy.
Last edited by a moderator:
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
I would love to see
your official and credible sources for your claims about domestic oil.
your official and credible sources for your claims about domestic oil.
TURBO
CAGiversary!
[quote name='thrustbucket']I would love to see
your official and credible sources for your claims about domestic oil.[/quote]
have you tried just using google? look up multiple sources for yourself & compare figures to see which are credible. no matter what I say you're possibly going to be able to find some lobby/partisan based site professing otherwise. So, research it yourself. From multiple sources. Take the time, if you care to find out the reality of the situation.
do some research. see how much the low, high & average estimates for total barrels in ANWR. see how long it would take to set up infrastructure. see the rate they estimate it's pumpable at. then see how much the U.S. uses & then see how much it's projected to use in 20 years.
you also might want to look up the rate of domestic oil being exported for sales overseas currently. & see how much oil the rest of the world, namely china & india are projected to use in the future.
your official and credible sources for your claims about domestic oil.[/quote]
have you tried just using google? look up multiple sources for yourself & compare figures to see which are credible. no matter what I say you're possibly going to be able to find some lobby/partisan based site professing otherwise. So, research it yourself. From multiple sources. Take the time, if you care to find out the reality of the situation.
do some research. see how much the low, high & average estimates for total barrels in ANWR. see how long it would take to set up infrastructure. see the rate they estimate it's pumpable at. then see how much the U.S. uses & then see how much it's projected to use in 20 years.
you also might want to look up the rate of domestic oil being exported for sales overseas currently. & see how much oil the rest of the world, namely china & india are projected to use in the future.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
Oh I've already done tons of research on the matter. That's why my BS alarm went off when you made the claim about the quantity of oil available in this country.
The 10 year claim is pseudo-true. All things being normal, it does take 10 years to set up. But things are not normal. And this country has proven that they can do the "impossible" in a time of emergency (read up on the Manhattan project, and what was accomplished, and how quickly). And by the way, that "It will take ten years" excuse was used by congress almost exactly ten years ago when debating anwr. Wouldashouldacoulda.
But your two months of oil claim is ridiculous, that's where I'd like to see proof. Based on a number of credible sources, multiply that number by 1200 and your closer. And that's just crude oil. If you want to start talking shale oil, we two to three times that number. (Yes I know the common arguments against shale oil. But I refer back to my manhatan project example)
The simple fact of the matter is this:
A) OIL INDEPENDENCE - It normally would take 10 years to start a high volume oil flow. I am sure America is resourceful enough to cut that number in at least half, given the proper motivation to make oil independence a huge priority.
B) ALTERNATIVE ENERGY - Obviously we should be developing oil replacements. It should remain a top priority. But there aren't even concrete ESTIMATES for how long it would take to develop a new technology, as well as an infrastructure to replace oil. It's really a gamble. Throwing all our eggs into this basket is fool-hearty, especially since it could potentially take much longer than 10 years given our best effort. Anyone that says we should just continue with the status-quo, suffer rising gas prices, while crossing fingers for an energy replacement to come soon, is a dumbass.
So given the choice of picking one or hedging our bets to do both? The answer seems painfully obvious.
The 10 year claim is pseudo-true. All things being normal, it does take 10 years to set up. But things are not normal. And this country has proven that they can do the "impossible" in a time of emergency (read up on the Manhattan project, and what was accomplished, and how quickly). And by the way, that "It will take ten years" excuse was used by congress almost exactly ten years ago when debating anwr. Wouldashouldacoulda.
But your two months of oil claim is ridiculous, that's where I'd like to see proof. Based on a number of credible sources, multiply that number by 1200 and your closer. And that's just crude oil. If you want to start talking shale oil, we two to three times that number. (Yes I know the common arguments against shale oil. But I refer back to my manhatan project example)
The simple fact of the matter is this:
A) OIL INDEPENDENCE - It normally would take 10 years to start a high volume oil flow. I am sure America is resourceful enough to cut that number in at least half, given the proper motivation to make oil independence a huge priority.
B) ALTERNATIVE ENERGY - Obviously we should be developing oil replacements. It should remain a top priority. But there aren't even concrete ESTIMATES for how long it would take to develop a new technology, as well as an infrastructure to replace oil. It's really a gamble. Throwing all our eggs into this basket is fool-hearty, especially since it could potentially take much longer than 10 years given our best effort. Anyone that says we should just continue with the status-quo, suffer rising gas prices, while crossing fingers for an energy replacement to come soon, is a dumbass.
So given the choice of picking one or hedging our bets to do both? The answer seems painfully obvious.
Last edited by a moderator:
TURBO
CAGiversary!
[quote name='thrustbucket']Oh I've already done tons of research on the matter. That's why my BS alarm went off when you made the claim about the quantity of oil available in this country.
The 10 year claim is pseudo-true. All things being normal, it does take 10 years to set up. But things are not normal. And this country has proven that they can do the "impossible" in a time of emergency (read up on the Manhattan project, and what was accomplished, and how quickly). And by the way, that "It will take ten years" excuse was used by congress almost exactly ten years ago when debating anwr. Wouldashouldacoulda.
But your two months of oil claim is ridiculous, that's where I'd like to see proof. Based on a number of credible sources, multiply that number by 1200 and your closer. And that's just crude oil. If you want to start talking shale oil, we two to three times that number. (Yes I know the common arguments against shale oil. But I refer back to my manhatan project example)
The simple fact of the matter is this:
A) OIL INDEPENDENCE - It normally would take 10 years to start a high volume oil flow. I am sure America is resourceful enough to cut that number in at least half, given the proper motivation to make oil independence a huge priority.
B) ALTERNATIVE ENERGY - Obviously we should be developing oil replacements. It should remain a top priority. But there aren't even concrete ESTIMATES for how long it would take to develop a new technology, as well as an infrastructure to replace oil. It's really a gamble. Throwing all our eggs into this basket is fool-hearty, especially since it could potentially take much longer than 10 years given our best effort. Anyone that says we should just continue with the status-quo, suffer rising gas prices, while crossing fingers for an energy replacement to come soon, is a dumbass.
So given the choice of picking one or hedging our bets to do both? The answer seems painfully obvious.[/quote]
you're missing many of my points. i said months if it was able to feed U.S. demand 100%. obviously it's not because it can only be pumped around 3/4 mil bbl/day & the U.S. uses 21 mil bbl/day. the total in area 1002 available is estimated around 2.6 bbl. U.S. consumption is estimated to increase 30-45% in the next 20 years. average that out that's about 29 mil/bbl. a couple months if like i said, it was used 100% (which is impossible due to the pump rate). these figures are from "Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge - May 2008 - Energy Information Administration Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting"; oddly enough in a report Sen. Ted "The internets is a series of tubes" Stevens ordered. Being the in-the-pocket brain-dead pawn he is, trying to 'rep' Alaska.
now as i said, a large amount of oil produced now in off shore drilling.
[which btw is a huge scam & ripoff to taxpayers since it's public land being leased for a pittance & because of a loophole the gov/taxpayers dont see a dime of oil revenue from royalties for about 1/3 of all U.S. oil produced. due to a loophole Kerr-McGee found, based on a simple typo in the royalty relief act. that's 16 years, and about $80-100 billion that should have gone to the treasury disappeared.
You have to wonder, how much it would have taken to get a "typo" like that into the bill. It also makes me strongly support strengthening the "Open Government Act" which FINALLY passed last year after the dems took congress & Bush felt the pressure from the ever accumulating landslide of scandals.]
If you look at where that oil goes, & think; it's domestic oil it should go to the U.S. Especially since they're getting all those write-offs & cut backs, & since the gov Subsidies the industry to mask the true cost at the expense of taxpayers. Well you'd be wrong. A very large portion (around 50%) of it is sold to japan & europe, even SA (due to NG shortages) simply because they're willing to pay more for it. But that money doesn't find it's way into the U.S. it finds it's way into off shore banking institutions & international investments; because the dollar is so weak.
The current system & any extension of it certain interests are lobbying for (opening up ANWR) are like putting a band-aid on an axe wound. This "manhatten project" you talk about for getting more oil is less rational than a similar project for renewable energy independence. But renewable also means distributed. & the PTB know that this means less monopolistic & less money/power for them. You are VERY wrong when you say there isn't an estimable or achievable future in renewable currently. There is. The technology exists ALREADY, it's just not as profitable as oil.
If like I suggest & you seem to agree w/ on some level, the gov got behind renewable energy like it did the space-race then in 20 years it's very likely we wouldn't even have to be worrying about gas at all. Only countries like China & India would. & those countries would be buying U.S. products derived from said eco-race (just like what happened w/ the space-race) because of the predictably high cost of the alternative. The problem is people are thinking singly. They're hoping for a single solution to peak oil. & unless Esso wants to start putting solar cells orbiting earth & beaming energy down via lasers, it's not going to happen.
The 10 year claim is pseudo-true. All things being normal, it does take 10 years to set up. But things are not normal. And this country has proven that they can do the "impossible" in a time of emergency (read up on the Manhattan project, and what was accomplished, and how quickly). And by the way, that "It will take ten years" excuse was used by congress almost exactly ten years ago when debating anwr. Wouldashouldacoulda.
But your two months of oil claim is ridiculous, that's where I'd like to see proof. Based on a number of credible sources, multiply that number by 1200 and your closer. And that's just crude oil. If you want to start talking shale oil, we two to three times that number. (Yes I know the common arguments against shale oil. But I refer back to my manhatan project example)
The simple fact of the matter is this:
A) OIL INDEPENDENCE - It normally would take 10 years to start a high volume oil flow. I am sure America is resourceful enough to cut that number in at least half, given the proper motivation to make oil independence a huge priority.
B) ALTERNATIVE ENERGY - Obviously we should be developing oil replacements. It should remain a top priority. But there aren't even concrete ESTIMATES for how long it would take to develop a new technology, as well as an infrastructure to replace oil. It's really a gamble. Throwing all our eggs into this basket is fool-hearty, especially since it could potentially take much longer than 10 years given our best effort. Anyone that says we should just continue with the status-quo, suffer rising gas prices, while crossing fingers for an energy replacement to come soon, is a dumbass.
So given the choice of picking one or hedging our bets to do both? The answer seems painfully obvious.[/quote]
you're missing many of my points. i said months if it was able to feed U.S. demand 100%. obviously it's not because it can only be pumped around 3/4 mil bbl/day & the U.S. uses 21 mil bbl/day. the total in area 1002 available is estimated around 2.6 bbl. U.S. consumption is estimated to increase 30-45% in the next 20 years. average that out that's about 29 mil/bbl. a couple months if like i said, it was used 100% (which is impossible due to the pump rate). these figures are from "Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge - May 2008 - Energy Information Administration Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting"; oddly enough in a report Sen. Ted "The internets is a series of tubes" Stevens ordered. Being the in-the-pocket brain-dead pawn he is, trying to 'rep' Alaska.
now as i said, a large amount of oil produced now in off shore drilling.
[which btw is a huge scam & ripoff to taxpayers since it's public land being leased for a pittance & because of a loophole the gov/taxpayers dont see a dime of oil revenue from royalties for about 1/3 of all U.S. oil produced. due to a loophole Kerr-McGee found, based on a simple typo in the royalty relief act. that's 16 years, and about $80-100 billion that should have gone to the treasury disappeared.
You have to wonder, how much it would have taken to get a "typo" like that into the bill. It also makes me strongly support strengthening the "Open Government Act" which FINALLY passed last year after the dems took congress & Bush felt the pressure from the ever accumulating landslide of scandals.]
If you look at where that oil goes, & think; it's domestic oil it should go to the U.S. Especially since they're getting all those write-offs & cut backs, & since the gov Subsidies the industry to mask the true cost at the expense of taxpayers. Well you'd be wrong. A very large portion (around 50%) of it is sold to japan & europe, even SA (due to NG shortages) simply because they're willing to pay more for it. But that money doesn't find it's way into the U.S. it finds it's way into off shore banking institutions & international investments; because the dollar is so weak.
The current system & any extension of it certain interests are lobbying for (opening up ANWR) are like putting a band-aid on an axe wound. This "manhatten project" you talk about for getting more oil is less rational than a similar project for renewable energy independence. But renewable also means distributed. & the PTB know that this means less monopolistic & less money/power for them. You are VERY wrong when you say there isn't an estimable or achievable future in renewable currently. There is. The technology exists ALREADY, it's just not as profitable as oil.
If like I suggest & you seem to agree w/ on some level, the gov got behind renewable energy like it did the space-race then in 20 years it's very likely we wouldn't even have to be worrying about gas at all. Only countries like China & India would. & those countries would be buying U.S. products derived from said eco-race (just like what happened w/ the space-race) because of the predictably high cost of the alternative. The problem is people are thinking singly. They're hoping for a single solution to peak oil. & unless Esso wants to start putting solar cells orbiting earth & beaming energy down via lasers, it's not going to happen.
Last edited by a moderator:
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
You seem to know your stuff, and I aim to read your link and look more into this when I can find time.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='thrustbucket']The 10 year claim is pseudo-true. All things being normal, it does take 10 years to set up. But things are not normal. And this country has proven that they can do the "impossible" in a time of emergency (read up on the Manhattan project, and what was accomplished, and how quickly). And by the way, that "It will take ten years" excuse was used by congress almost exactly ten years ago when debating anwr. Wouldashouldacoulda.[/QUOTE]
Actually, Clinton vetoed opening ANWR to exploration in 1995, 13 years ago. By this time we would be getting a flow of oil from ANWR just when we needed it. Like you said, wouldacouldashoulda...except the same folks are doing the same thing today. The "we won't get it for five/ten years" argument is just stupid on its face. If we made decisions based solely upon immediate production capability, we wouldn't have much now, would we?
Actually, Clinton vetoed opening ANWR to exploration in 1995, 13 years ago. By this time we would be getting a flow of oil from ANWR just when we needed it. Like you said, wouldacouldashoulda...except the same folks are doing the same thing today. The "we won't get it for five/ten years" argument is just stupid on its face. If we made decisions based solely upon immediate production capability, we wouldn't have much now, would we?
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='elprincipe']Actually, Clinton vetoed opening ANWR to exploration in 1995, 13 years ago. By this time we would be getting a flow of oil from ANWR just when we needed it. Like you said, wouldacouldashoulda...except the same folks are doing the same thing today. The "we won't get it for five/ten years" argument is just stupid on its face. If we made decisions based solely upon immediate production capability, we wouldn't have much now, would we?[/QUOTE]
Well politicians tend to legislate for the quick fix nearly every time. When they give the "but it will take ten years!" argument, what they are really saying is "Shit man, that's several election cycles away! Why not give the people a quick fix that makes them happy now so they'll vote for me again?"
Well politicians tend to legislate for the quick fix nearly every time. When they give the "but it will take ten years!" argument, what they are really saying is "Shit man, that's several election cycles away! Why not give the people a quick fix that makes them happy now so they'll vote for me again?"
TURBO
CAGiversary!
the difference is ANWR is not a solution. funding for alternative fuels is. but, the amount of funding for it is ridiculously small. clinton passed the clean air act & started funding for alternative energy. then the bush admin tore it down reducing funding for alternative energy research to a few million $ & disembowling the clean air act w/ their "clear skies" one.
the administration talks a lot about alternative fuel & renewable energy & "breaking the addiction on foreign oil"; but everything it does supports exactly the opposite ends. not that surprising considering the company they keep. & cheney's secret meetings when they formed the energy policy. meetings w/ people who have an interest in stunting the growth of alternative/renewable energy/fuel.
maybe they think enough americans are lazy enough to take them at their word.
the administration talks a lot about alternative fuel & renewable energy & "breaking the addiction on foreign oil"; but everything it does supports exactly the opposite ends. not that surprising considering the company they keep. & cheney's secret meetings when they formed the energy policy. meetings w/ people who have an interest in stunting the growth of alternative/renewable energy/fuel.
maybe they think enough americans are lazy enough to take them at their word.
level1online
Banned
"cut & run"
"stay the course"
"come home with honor and victory"
"the troops say let us win"
"the surge is working"
"mission accomplished"
"to withdraw would create a bloodbath"
"fight them there, so we don't have to fight them over here"
"they attacked us because of our freedoms"
"the smoking gun - that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud"
what else am i missing?
"stay the course"
"come home with honor and victory"
"the troops say let us win"
"the surge is working"
"mission accomplished"
"to withdraw would create a bloodbath"
"fight them there, so we don't have to fight them over here"
"they attacked us because of our freedoms"
"the smoking gun - that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud"
what else am i missing?
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='TURBO']the difference is ANWR is not a solution.[/quote]
Solution for what?
Solution for changing our energy over to a cleaner cheaper one? No it's not
Solution for trying to negate skyrocketing oil prices that threaten our economy for the next 20 years? Yes it likely is.
There is no doubt we need many more government INCENTIVES (Read: non-punishing legislation) to speed up alternative energy. Absolutely. Company's driving that research should be rewarded, big time.
But then again, your talking to someone that believes in the conspiracy theories concerning energy. That believes the combustible engine has been obsolete for 60 years. That believes there are already several alternative energy/engines that have been developed, and surpresed. So you see, I think the sickness of oil independence is much deeper than simply a solution of finding something better. It's breaking down the conspiracies that suppress them. And I'm not sure how to do that.
Solution for what?
Solution for changing our energy over to a cleaner cheaper one? No it's not
Solution for trying to negate skyrocketing oil prices that threaten our economy for the next 20 years? Yes it likely is.
There is no doubt we need many more government INCENTIVES (Read: non-punishing legislation) to speed up alternative energy. Absolutely. Company's driving that research should be rewarded, big time.
But then again, your talking to someone that believes in the conspiracy theories concerning energy. That believes the combustible engine has been obsolete for 60 years. That believes there are already several alternative energy/engines that have been developed, and surpresed. So you see, I think the sickness of oil independence is much deeper than simply a solution of finding something better. It's breaking down the conspiracies that suppress them. And I'm not sure how to do that.
[quote name='level1online']"cut & run"
"stay the course"
"come home with honor and victory"
"the troops say let us win"
"the surge is working"
"mission accomplished"
"to withdraw would create a bloodbath"
"fight them there, so we don't have to fight them over here"
"they attacked us because of our freedoms"
"the smoking gun - that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud"
what else am i missing?[/QUOTE]
something fisa related
[quote name='thrustbucket']Well politicians tend to legislate for the quick fix nearly every time. When they give the "but it will take ten years!" argument, what they are really saying is "Shit man, that's several election cycles away! Why not give the people a quick fix that makes them happy now so they'll vote for me again?"[/QUOTE]
aka, the diane feinstein arguement.
"stay the course"
"come home with honor and victory"
"the troops say let us win"
"the surge is working"
"mission accomplished"
"to withdraw would create a bloodbath"
"fight them there, so we don't have to fight them over here"
"they attacked us because of our freedoms"
"the smoking gun - that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud"
what else am i missing?[/QUOTE]
something fisa related
[quote name='thrustbucket']Well politicians tend to legislate for the quick fix nearly every time. When they give the "but it will take ten years!" argument, what they are really saying is "Shit man, that's several election cycles away! Why not give the people a quick fix that makes them happy now so they'll vote for me again?"[/QUOTE]
aka, the diane feinstein arguement.
VanillaGorilla
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 18 (100%)
God I hate it whenever someone compares something to 1984. As far as I remember from reading that book in high school, things would have to get A LOT worse before it's truly a 1984 situation, with armed soldiers bursting into our homes while we try to our girlfriends.
our girlfriends.
VanillaGorilla
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 18 (100%)
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I'm old enough to avoid the draft. I guess it would be OK to vote for McCain.
Enjoy Iran, bitches![/quote]No chance in hell America attacks Iran, unless Iran attacks one of our interests first, or America attacks Iran before Bush leaves office. An American attack on Iran would pretty much destroy the US economy, with gas prices shooting up to astronomical levels, since Iran controls an oil straight or canal (blanking on what it's called) that controls the flow of something like 40% of the worlds oil.
It's a shame, but Iran really holds all the cards.
Enjoy Iran, bitches![/quote]No chance in hell America attacks Iran, unless Iran attacks one of our interests first, or America attacks Iran before Bush leaves office. An American attack on Iran would pretty much destroy the US economy, with gas prices shooting up to astronomical levels, since Iran controls an oil straight or canal (blanking on what it's called) that controls the flow of something like 40% of the worlds oil.
It's a shame, but Iran really holds all the cards.
level1online
Banned
[quote name='VanillaGorilla']God I hate it whenever someone compares something to 1984. As far as I remember from reading that book in high school, things would have to get A LOT worse before it's truly a 1984 situation, with armed soldiers bursting into our homes while we try to our girlfriends.[/quote]
I like Fahrenheit 451 comparisons better.
our girlfriends.[/quote]I like Fahrenheit 451 comparisons better.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='VanillaGorilla']God I hate it whenever someone compares something to 1984. As far as I remember from reading that book in high school, things would have to get A LOT worse before it's truly a 1984 situation, with armed soldiers bursting into our homes while we try to our girlfriends.[/quote]
Look at the way the government controls vocabulary. Orwell really nailed it.
If 1984 is too over your head, there's this really great piece by Carlin where he describes how "shell shock" became "post traumatic stress disorder" in a matter of decades.
Sci-fi is typically an analogy for the events of the day, an exaggeration to bring philosophical/societal issues out of the shadows. It is rarely meant to be taken literally. For example, if you watch "Children of Men" and think it's about the dangers of infertility then you're missing the entire point.
our girlfriends.[/quote]Look at the way the government controls vocabulary. Orwell really nailed it.
If 1984 is too over your head, there's this really great piece by Carlin where he describes how "shell shock" became "post traumatic stress disorder" in a matter of decades.
Sci-fi is typically an analogy for the events of the day, an exaggeration to bring philosophical/societal issues out of the shadows. It is rarely meant to be taken literally. For example, if you watch "Children of Men" and think it's about the dangers of infertility then you're missing the entire point.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='camoor']
Sci-fi is typically an analogy for the events of the day, an exaggeration to bring philosophical/societal issues out of the shadows. It is rarely meant to be taken literally. For example, if you watch "Children of Men" and think it's about the dangers of infertility then you're missing the entire point.[/QUOTE]
Come on now, you and I know which scifi nails all of that the best currently.
Sci-fi is typically an analogy for the events of the day, an exaggeration to bring philosophical/societal issues out of the shadows. It is rarely meant to be taken literally. For example, if you watch "Children of Men" and think it's about the dangers of infertility then you're missing the entire point.[/QUOTE]
Come on now, you and I know which scifi nails all of that the best currently.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='VanillaGorilla']No chance in hell America attacks Iran, unless Iran attacks one of our interests first, or America attacks Iran before Bush leaves office. An American attack on Iran would pretty much destroy the US economy, with gas prices shooting up to astronomical levels, since Iran controls an oil straight or canal (blanking on what it's called) that controls the flow of something like 40% of the worlds oil.
It's a shame, but Iran really holds all the cards.[/quote]
Hmm. Interesting and with good points.
What did Israel do 1981 and 2007 to known or suspected nuclear sites?
America doesn't have to attack Iran. Israel will be more than happy to drag us along for the ride.
If we didn't have more than 100,000 troops between Iran and Israel, we could just step back and watch the fireworks.
It's a shame, but Iran really holds all the cards.[/quote]
Hmm. Interesting and with good points.
What did Israel do 1981 and 2007 to known or suspected nuclear sites?
America doesn't have to attack Iran. Israel will be more than happy to drag us along for the ride.
If we didn't have more than 100,000 troops between Iran and Israel, we could just step back and watch the fireworks.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
The more I read, the more I hear, and the more people I talk to. I am confident we will see a strike on Iran before Christmas. Just a matter of how involved, with Israel, we get.
TURBO
CAGiversary!
[quote name='thrustbucket']Solution for what?
Solution for changing our energy over to a cleaner cheaper one? No it's not
Solution for trying to negate skyrocketing oil prices that threaten our economy for the next 20 years? Yes it likely is.
There is no doubt we need many more government INCENTIVES (Read: non-punishing legislation) to speed up alternative energy. Absolutely. Company's driving that research should be rewarded, big time.
But then again, your talking to someone that believes in the conspiracy theories concerning energy. That believes the combustible engine has been obsolete for 60 years. That believes there are already several alternative energy/engines that have been developed, and surpresed. So you see, I think the sickness of oil independence is much deeper than simply a solution of finding something better. It's breaking down the conspiracies that suppress them. And I'm not sure how to do that.[/QUOTE]
I partially agree w/ your conspiracy theories. Not to the extent of the magic car that runs on garbage, but to the extent that there are & have been viable alternative fuels already & we've passed the point where we should refrain from evolving to the next generation in energy production. the renewable clean-energy revolution will be like a new industrial revolution all over. once it gets up & going energy will be plentiful & cheap, the air will begin to be clean again. our grandchildren will look at us using oil & coal like we were cavemen.
& again ANWR is not a solution to anything. gas prices or peak oil. there's just not enough oil to make an impact. oil price is based 90% on speculation. & it's so high now because it's speculated to have a exponentially increasing demand and a logarithmically decreasing supply. there's more oil being pumping now than ever, it's not a issue of oil drying up; it's an issue of demand overflowing it. & if ANWR were drilled, assuming nothing is done to offset energy demand w/ renewables & we stay stuck on gas engines (the biggest obstacle, nobody wants their cars to become obsolete. there will need to be gas for many many years to come. & there will likely be a synthetic gas replacement even after most of the world moves to hydrogen & electric). If gas is $8 a gallon & ANWR is open & all of it's capacity goes to the U.S. at great discount (2 things VERY unlikely to happen) you'd be looking at about a 20 cent a gallon reduction. So only $7.80. not going to prevent you from draining your bank account visiting grandma.
& yea, i can't see us invading iran unless there's another WMD scare; & this time it's going to take a lot more convincing since so many people have had the wool pulled out from over their eyes re: the first yellowcake demo.
Solution for changing our energy over to a cleaner cheaper one? No it's not
Solution for trying to negate skyrocketing oil prices that threaten our economy for the next 20 years? Yes it likely is.
There is no doubt we need many more government INCENTIVES (Read: non-punishing legislation) to speed up alternative energy. Absolutely. Company's driving that research should be rewarded, big time.
But then again, your talking to someone that believes in the conspiracy theories concerning energy. That believes the combustible engine has been obsolete for 60 years. That believes there are already several alternative energy/engines that have been developed, and surpresed. So you see, I think the sickness of oil independence is much deeper than simply a solution of finding something better. It's breaking down the conspiracies that suppress them. And I'm not sure how to do that.[/QUOTE]
I partially agree w/ your conspiracy theories. Not to the extent of the magic car that runs on garbage, but to the extent that there are & have been viable alternative fuels already & we've passed the point where we should refrain from evolving to the next generation in energy production. the renewable clean-energy revolution will be like a new industrial revolution all over. once it gets up & going energy will be plentiful & cheap, the air will begin to be clean again. our grandchildren will look at us using oil & coal like we were cavemen.
& again ANWR is not a solution to anything. gas prices or peak oil. there's just not enough oil to make an impact. oil price is based 90% on speculation. & it's so high now because it's speculated to have a exponentially increasing demand and a logarithmically decreasing supply. there's more oil being pumping now than ever, it's not a issue of oil drying up; it's an issue of demand overflowing it. & if ANWR were drilled, assuming nothing is done to offset energy demand w/ renewables & we stay stuck on gas engines (the biggest obstacle, nobody wants their cars to become obsolete. there will need to be gas for many many years to come. & there will likely be a synthetic gas replacement even after most of the world moves to hydrogen & electric). If gas is $8 a gallon & ANWR is open & all of it's capacity goes to the U.S. at great discount (2 things VERY unlikely to happen) you'd be looking at about a 20 cent a gallon reduction. So only $7.80. not going to prevent you from draining your bank account visiting grandma.
& yea, i can't see us invading iran unless there's another WMD scare; & this time it's going to take a lot more convincing since so many people have had the wool pulled out from over their eyes re: the first yellowcake demo.
Last edited by a moderator:
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
I don't think we will initiate conflict with Iran, Israel will.
As far as oil: You may be right. Maybe not. But I just really don't see the big deal, or what it would hurt. IF there are private company's out there that think they can jump on a drill, afford some innovation, and try to get oil out as fast as possible, who does it hurt? They are the ones that take the risks, not us. It doesn't cost the taxpayer anything. I don't see what good it does to keep it illegal for them to try. Let them try, let them risk. We have everything to gain, and only private company's wallets to lose.
With today's restrictive environmental regulations, and emergency economy - I really don't see the environmental argument standing up any longer. Get rid of the restrictions, let the private sector do what they can, and let the government keep a watchful eye on their impact on the environment.
As far as oil: You may be right. Maybe not. But I just really don't see the big deal, or what it would hurt. IF there are private company's out there that think they can jump on a drill, afford some innovation, and try to get oil out as fast as possible, who does it hurt? They are the ones that take the risks, not us. It doesn't cost the taxpayer anything. I don't see what good it does to keep it illegal for them to try. Let them try, let them risk. We have everything to gain, and only private company's wallets to lose.
With today's restrictive environmental regulations, and emergency economy - I really don't see the environmental argument standing up any longer. Get rid of the restrictions, let the private sector do what they can, and let the government keep a watchful eye on their impact on the environment.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='TURBO']the difference is ANWR is not a solution. funding for alternative fuels is. but, the amount of funding for it is ridiculously small. clinton passed the clean air act & started funding for alternative energy. then the bush admin tore it down reducing funding for alternative energy research to a few million $ & disembowling the clean air act w/ their "clear skies" one.
the administration talks a lot about alternative fuel & renewable energy & "breaking the addiction on foreign oil"; but everything it does supports exactly the opposite ends. not that surprising considering the company they keep. & cheney's secret meetings when they formed the energy policy. meetings w/ people who have an interest in stunting the growth of alternative/renewable energy/fuel.
maybe they think enough americans are lazy enough to take them at their word.[/QUOTE]
I disagree. ANWR is part of the solution. it's not the whole solution, and alternative fuels are just as important if not more, but it's part of the solution. I agree this administration has done a horrible job on energy policy, but then again Clinton did a horrible job as well. It's just that with Clinton there were no new refineries, no new nuclear plants, no new drilling, whereas with this administration it's tax breaks for oil companies (who are making record profits), subsidies to ethanol (a huge waste) and not enough funding/credits for alternative energy.
What we really need are leaders who realize that today's energy is important while at the same time we need to do everything we can to develop the technology and infrastructure to change the way the system works. These, sadly, seem to be in short supply.
the administration talks a lot about alternative fuel & renewable energy & "breaking the addiction on foreign oil"; but everything it does supports exactly the opposite ends. not that surprising considering the company they keep. & cheney's secret meetings when they formed the energy policy. meetings w/ people who have an interest in stunting the growth of alternative/renewable energy/fuel.
maybe they think enough americans are lazy enough to take them at their word.[/QUOTE]
I disagree. ANWR is part of the solution. it's not the whole solution, and alternative fuels are just as important if not more, but it's part of the solution. I agree this administration has done a horrible job on energy policy, but then again Clinton did a horrible job as well. It's just that with Clinton there were no new refineries, no new nuclear plants, no new drilling, whereas with this administration it's tax breaks for oil companies (who are making record profits), subsidies to ethanol (a huge waste) and not enough funding/credits for alternative energy.
What we really need are leaders who realize that today's energy is important while at the same time we need to do everything we can to develop the technology and infrastructure to change the way the system works. These, sadly, seem to be in short supply.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='VanillaGorilla']God I hate it whenever someone compares something to 1984. As far as I remember from reading that book in high school, things would have to get A LOT worse before it's truly a 1984 situation, with armed soldiers bursting into our homes while we try to our girlfriends.[/QUOTE]
I agree that level1 is a kook, but take it from me, we are way too close to this for comfort. The FISA law that was passed, wrecking a system needing only minor adjustments, is a move in that direction. There is already way too much power in the executive branch.
our girlfriends.[/QUOTE]I agree that level1 is a kook, but take it from me, we are way too close to this for comfort. The FISA law that was passed, wrecking a system needing only minor adjustments, is a move in that direction. There is already way too much power in the executive branch.
bread's done