"bill" <ford_prefect42@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:57b5590f-aa07-4ff9-990d-45725778309c@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > the dot com bust NOT HAPPENING). In addition to this, Clinton left
>> > the US utterly devoid of intelligence services, the result of which
>> > was 9-11. Bush failed to improve on any of these situations, and
>>
>> Bull. In the transition, Clinton's people warned Bush's people about
Al
>> Qaeda. Then Bush proceeded to let bin Laden get away at Tora Bora.
>> Finally, Bush decide to go destroy an inherent enemy of radical Sunni
>> Islam
>> (the Ba'ath state in Iraq) instead of committing resources to fight
>> against
>> AQ.
>
> Yes. "we think AQ may be planning something at some point. But you
> have no resources to find out what where or when". Thanks a lot
Sure they had resources. Google "president's daily brief."
> guys. That's just great. And I guess that saddam was joking all
> those times he offered to destroy the US? and probably he didn't
> REALLY mean it when he gassed his own city?
Uh, how would Saddam have destroyed the US?
> Besides, AQ is only the smallest tip of a vast popular movement.
> really, we're at war with islam and have been since biblical times.
Who's "we"?
>> > then, along comes peak oil. That ALSO wasn't bush's fault, in fact,
>> > he several times proposed measures that would have vastly improved
the
>> > situation (anwr drilling, continental shelf drilling) but was
>> > resoundingly shouted down for "environmental reasons". Bush has been
>>
>> Drilling in ANWR wouldn't help much, because oil is a fungible
commodity
>> traded on the world market. It certainly wouldn't help nearly as much
as
>> increasing CAFE limits or increasing gasoline taxes.
>
> Neither would make any real difference in the long term, but
> short term survival is just as im****tant. Drilling anwr would either
> push back peak oil or extend the plateau while battery technology has
> a further chance to develop into something that MAY be useful in the
> trans****t picture. It would also flatten oil prices long enough to
> allow the construction of alternative energy facilities.
Of course it wouldn't affect prices much at all, because oil is a traded
fungible commodity.
This is an economics USENET group; you're not doing yourself any favors by
posting illiterate gibberish.
> Increasing the cafe standards is of limited utility. we will be
> unable to meet the limits we have recently put in place. There is no
> fleet on the planet that meets the 40 mpg aferage requirement. In
Where did I say anything about "40 mpg"?
I'm claiming that currently available technology would easily allow a
reduction in gasoline consumption that would far exceed what we could get
out of ANWR.
Besides, taking oil out of ANWR now would be just downright stupid. Much
better to leave it in the ground, because it's going to get far more
valuable with time if peak oil is nearby.
> fact, there is not one automobile on the market in the US that meets
> those requirements. The best improvements that can be made on that
> front will be swamped by population increases and emerging markets.
> we need the PHEVs and we need em soon, but that really is not
> appropriately a government issue.
>
>> > the most ineffectual president in US history, partly due to... his
>> > own ineffectually, and partly due to rampant opposition on the
>> > political front by those who view his failures as their own successes
>> > regardless of the results to the nation (democrats). And all this at
>>
>> Bush's greatest failure is, of course, the invasion and occupation of
>> Iraq.
>> How is the role of the Democrats relevant to his decision to invade at
>> all,
>> except insofar as they were insufficiently opposed to Bush on the
issue,
>> which hardly bolsters your argument?
>
> Having failed to get the GOOD ideas past the democrats, he went
> with the only remaining option. can't blame him for trying.
LOL!! What good ideas would those be?
>
>> > a time when we desperately needed cooperation and... a hero. Pity
>>
>> It's clear from the US political scene that, while the Democrats might
be
>> bad and all, the Republicans are complete thugs.
>
> Please. The democrats are not the least bit better in any
> respect. They are BOTH thugs, thieves and liars.
Not compared to the brown****rt Republicans, who impeached a sitting
president for petty infractions, stole an election in 2000, disgraced
themselves during the Terry Schiavo episode, have pre-Enlightenment
attitudes about science and religion, etc etc etc.
>> > about the world, it was good while it lasted, but it's over now.
>> > Stock up on ammunition people, you're pretty likely to need it.
>>
>> LOL! Right. When the tanks and fighter-bombers come after you, your
>> assault rifle won't do squat.
>
> Assuming that there armies with tanks and fighters at that time.
> What will they use to run the tanks/ bombers? Tanks do not run on
> malevolence, they need oil. Oil requires industry. Industry only
> functions in stable political climates. My hunting rifle works fine
> against other guys with hunting rifles :) Not much use against the
> army I will grant you, but great against the cripps.
If things get that bad, big bad guvmint is going to be the least of your
worries.
>> A necessary and sufficient condition for opposition to tyranny is
>> effective
>> organization. Guns are not necessary, insofar as a well-organized
group
>> will be able to procure them even if they start without them; and they
>> certainly aren't sufficient.
>
> Effective organization is only effective when the ultimate threat
> of force exists. without that you got nothing. As evidence, look at
> any oppressed populace. the only difference between a genocide and a
> democracy is the armament level of the populace. Government should
> always be more afraid of the people than the people are of the
> government.
<yawn> To repeat myself, if you have organization, you can easily get
guns.
If you don't have organization, you're screwed. Period.
|
