By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - If a suitcase nuke went off, would you vote to re-elect Obama?

Rath on 24 January 2009
Snesboy said:
akuma587 said:

Global warming doesn't cause people to invade other countries...

 

You have a point but it is still corruption so a certain few can make loads of money.

 

 

Or it is true and you're being mislead into believing its a lie. But lets not get onto a debate about climate change on a topic fill of interesting fearmongering.

If a suitcase bomb went off in America I wouldn't blame it on the person who shut down Guantanamo bay, I would blame it on the people who caused America to be hated in the way it currently is. Thats at least partially the neo-cons by the way.



Around the Network
akuma587 on 24 January 2009
Snesboy said:
akuma587 said:
HappySqurriel said:

Global warming doesn't cause people to invade other countries...

 

You have a point but it is still corruption so a certain few can make loads of money.

 

There are hundreds of reasons to invest in renewable energy rather than spending money on oil.  Corruption?  You have to be kidding me.  Overzealousness maybe, but renewables are a viable industry with or without global warming.

1) Oil funds terrorism (for everyone who thinks Iran is so bad, what do you think they make most of their money on)

2) We can produce renewables domestically

3) We have more control over the price of energy if we go renewable and nuclear.

4) Wind turbines and solar panels can often be put in places that aren't used for anything.

5) Renewable energy doesn't require us to maintain complex relationships (and often wholly corrupt ones) with Middle Eastern countries just so we can run our country on a day to day basis.

The vast "conspiracy" of global warming is honestly doing everyone a favor by moving us towards energy independence (which the Republicans always claim to be for...).  Its like you looked in your pocket for a $20 bill and found a $50 instead.  Everybody wins.  Honestly I see no good reasons why Republicans aren't more onboard with renewables when oil is the life blood of some terrorist organizations and countries hostile to our own.  It is completely illogical.

Its like those Saturday morning cartoons where Elmer Fudd takes the head on approach to try and catch Bugs, but Bugs always pulls the rug out from underneath him by thinking ahead.  Bugs Bunny always wins.  Remember that.  Taking away the money that funds terrorism prevents you from having to fight as many of them in the first place.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

spdk1 on 24 January 2009

News Flash: Obama won the election in November ----> get over it folks



VGChartz PS3 Trophy League

The Official Pro Wrestling Thread

  
HappySqurriel on 24 January 2009
halogamer1989 said:
HappySqurriel said:

Fear mongering isn’t limited to one end of the political spectrum ...

Where progressive politicians and conservative politicians differ is on what they use to evoke fear and who they try to make afraid. To see progressive fear mongering all you have to do is look at how Global Warming (or Climate Change) is being sold to people ... The most extreme projections from a variety of questionable studies are cherry picked to create the feeling of immanent doom so that people will accept massive changes without question.

 

Back to the OP ... While a nuclear strike in the United States would be awful, I don't think that terrorists really need to go to such extremes to get the kind of reaction they want. Most cities in North America have critical infrastructure (like the electrical power grids) which can be knocked out using a stick of dynamite or a simple denial of service attack ... If this was timed correctly (right as a long deep-freeze started) and was well planned widespread fear could be built quite easily.

You are referring to a fire sale Happy which is extremely hard to pull off given redundent systems for exactly such a scenario. Thanks, btw, for staying OT and not trashing me as a POS racist, just another one of them, rich, redneck "Repugs". (I don't know what I did do deserve that)

 

 

I think you put far too much faith in the existence of redundant systems ... Work on a SCADA project and you will see that "Security through obscurity" is often the only protection in the system, and you will learn that critical pieces of physical infrastructure have very little redundancy and take a long time to repair because there are no "extras" and these items take a long time to repair.

 

akuma587 said:
HappySqurriel said:

Fear mongering isn’t limited to one end of the political spectrum ...

Where progressive politicians and conservative politicians differ is on what they use to evoke fear and who they try to make afraid. To see progressive fear mongering all you have to do is look at how Global Warming (or Climate Change) is being sold to people ... The most extreme projections from a variety of questionable studies are cherry picked to create the feeling of immanent doom so that people will accept massive changes without question.

 

Back to the OP ... While a nuclear strike in the United States would be awful, I don't think that terrorists really need to go to such extremes to get the kind of reaction they want. Most cities in North America have critical infrastructure (like the electrical power grids) which can be knocked out using a stick of dynamite or a simple denial of service attack ... If this was timed correctly (right as a long deep-freeze started) and was well planned widespread fear could be built quite easily.

Global warming doesn't cause people to invade other countries...

 

 

No, but it does make us drive up the cost of food to a level where 80% of the world's population has amazing difficulty eating ...

 



im_sneaky on 24 January 2009

I might.



 

 

Around the Network
invisible29 on 24 January 2009

i cant vote! im too young and im not in the USA



http://browse.deviantart.com/?qh=§ion=&q=ulquihime+stamp
NiKKoM on 24 January 2009

I'm still wondering why Bush got re-elected in 2004... >_>



 

Face the future.. Gamecenter ID: nikkom_nl (oh no he didn't!!) 

Bboid on 24 January 2009
HappySqurriel said:
halogamer1989 said:
HappySqurriel said:

Fear mongering isn’t limited to one end of the political spectrum ...

Where progressive politicians and conservative politicians differ is on what they use to evoke fear and who they try to make afraid. To see progressive fear mongering all you have to do is look at how Global Warming (or Climate Change) is being sold to people ... The most extreme projections from a variety of questionable studies are cherry picked to create the feeling of immanent doom so that people will accept massive changes without question.

 

Back to the OP ... While a nuclear strike in the United States would be awful, I don't think that terrorists really need to go to such extremes to get the kind of reaction they want. Most cities in North America have critical infrastructure (like the electrical power grids) which can be knocked out using a stick of dynamite or a simple denial of service attack ... If this was timed correctly (right as a long deep-freeze started) and was well planned widespread fear could be built quite easily.

You are referring to a fire sale Happy which is extremely hard to pull off given redundent systems for exactly such a scenario. Thanks, btw, for staying OT and not trashing me as a POS racist, just another one of them, rich, redneck "Repugs". (I don't know what I did do deserve that)

 

 

I think you put far too much faith in the existence of redundant systems ... Work on a SCADA project and you will see that "Security through obscurity" is often the only protection in the system, and you will learn that critical pieces of physical infrastructure have very little redundancy and take a long time to repair because there are no "extras" and these items take a long time to repair.

 

akuma587 said:
HappySqurriel said:

Fear mongering isn’t limited to one end of the political spectrum ...

Where progressive politicians and conservative politicians differ is on what they use to evoke fear and who they try to make afraid. To see progressive fear mongering all you have to do is look at how Global Warming (or Climate Change) is being sold to people ... The most extreme projections from a variety of questionable studies are cherry picked to create the feeling of immanent doom so that people will accept massive changes without question.

 

Back to the OP ... While a nuclear strike in the United States would be awful, I don't think that terrorists really need to go to such extremes to get the kind of reaction they want. Most cities in North America have critical infrastructure (like the electrical power grids) which can be knocked out using a stick of dynamite or a simple denial of service attack ... If this was timed correctly (right as a long deep-freeze started) and was well planned widespread fear could be built quite easily.

Global warming doesn't cause people to invade other countries...

 

 

No, but it does make us drive up the cost of food to a level where 80% of the world's population has amazing difficulty eating ...

 

 

 

prime example was Italy when the government subsidized crops to produce biofuel for government vehicles. It cause a 60% spike in pasta prices. 

 

 

 



akuma587 on 24 January 2009

The rise in food prices had as much or more to do with the ludicrously high oil prices (transport costs) as did production of ethanol. Furthermore, renewables are much broader than ethanol, and ethanol isn't being pushed as hard as some other measures recently.

You guys are ignoring that our dependence on foreign oil also drove up the cost of food, arguably far more than did production of any biofuels.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Bboid on 24 January 2009
akuma587 said:
The rise in food prices had as much or more to do with the ludicrously high oil prices (transport costs) as did production of ethanol. Furthermore, renewables are much broader than ethanol, and ethanol isn't being pushed as hard as some other measures recently.

You guys are ignoring that our dependence on foreign oil also drove up the cost of food, arguably far more than did production of any biofuels.

 

 

transportation costs accounted for 15% increase in ALL consumer goods, so on some products yes transportation did have a larger impact than renewable grain energy sources.  Spikes in grain prices are directly linked to mass production of biofuels and ethanol.  Using grains to produce any type of fuel is going to have a far larger impact on price than you think.  Transportation costs didn't cause my brothers grain bill to increase 250% in 1 year, I am well aware of what it costs for the transportation of the products for raising livestock.  Your right though, the ethanol push is dying (but biodeisel support is growing) mostly due to the fact that ethanol plants kill amost everything around it and the world doesnt produce enough corn to meet the already existing demand.

I'm also well aware of the other renewables and all of their problems.  I suggest before you say they are great ideas you visit towns built around the largest pushed renewables and review the not in my backyard arguments.  If you look deep enough you will find that the renewables being pushed and horribly planned and built on corporate greed and redistribution of wealth.  Find an answer that doesn't pass the burden onto another aspect of everyday human life and I'll listen.