View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

 

More praise for fracking

Posted: January 16, 2014 2:00 a.m.
Updated: January 16, 2014 2:00 a.m.
 

I’d like to applaud Sue Hartman’s Jan. 10 column in The Signal (“Fracking for a prosperous California”) regarding the benefits of fracking. And I’d like to add a couple of thoughts.

Funny how the fracking experience in the Dakotas and elsewhere puts the lie to all the Dem/socialist dogma and talking points we’re constantly bombarded with.

Interestingly enough, just a few days ago one of the Saudi princes noted how fracking poses a real threat to the Middle East stranglehold on the oil market.

According to an interview by Michael W. Chapman posted on CNSNews.com, “Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, a billionaire businessman and nephew of Saudi King Abdullah, said the production of shale oil and natural gas in the United States and other countries, primarily done through fracking, is a real competitive threat to ‘any oil-producing country in the world,’ adding that Saudi Arabia must address the issue because it is a ‘matter of survival.’”

I would think that’s a good thing.

Our own energy independence would have the further side benefit of taking us out from under the economic thumb of factions in that part of the world who essentially blackmail us politically due to our need for their product.

Further, we’re positioned to be the world’s largest producer of petro-products, a net exporter, with all the economic benefits that derive from that. We can have those petro-dollars flowing in instead of out.

We have the largest known energy resources in the world. We need to take advantage of that.

 

Comments

ricketzz: Posted: January 16, 2014 8:11 a.m.

Prince Alwaleed, along with Rupert Murdoch, owns Fox "News" parent corporation News Corpse. His quotation is passed along by idiots like Eric Bolling on the propaganda outlets.

Why, Mr. Baker, should we spoil the countryside and endanger our citizens just so foreign oil companies can sell our cheap energy to our economic rivals? Why do you hate America?


BrianBaker: Posted: January 16, 2014 8:20 a.m.

Why would you let American socialists bankrupt this country by leaving a valuable commodity just sitting in the ground, when we can use it to bail out our own fiscal mess? Why do YOU hate America, ricketzz?

All you have to do is look at the Dakotas to see how well the whole thing works.


chico: Posted: January 16, 2014 8:23 a.m.

Don't forget, fracking could be important with all this earthquake weather we are having.

Because we are in deep voodoo... I heard that the current full moon is known as a 'mini moon' because it is actually a little smaller, being at a point farther away, where it hasn't been since 1994....hmmmm....what happened in '94?

What if fracking could reduce seismic pressure? Making smaller or even eliminating earthquake pressure. OMG.

We know another 'big one' is coming - we got the moon anomaly, we got the crazy weather -what other evidence do you want - for people to die and property to be destroyed in an earthquake - come on!

Hurry, we better get fracking...Now!!!!


17trillion: Posted: January 16, 2014 8:43 a.m.

Wow Chico, that was quite the leap! Earthquake weather? 1994? Little moon?

Chico, did you ever wonder why Lois Lane and Mr. White never wondered why they never saw Superman or Clark Kent in the same room?


technologist: Posted: January 16, 2014 8:56 a.m.

Why didn't Superman sweat when layering street clothes over his suit, 17t?


BrianBaker: Posted: January 16, 2014 8:59 a.m.

Amazing how a simple pair of glasses makes him unrecognizable.

Now that there aren't any more phone booths, where does he change clothes?


JamesMcFadden: Posted: January 16, 2014 9:00 a.m.

Baker should try reading some books on the subject rather than just mouthing more talking points from Faux Noise. Let’s set the record straight. 1) Dems are not socialists – they are corporatists just like the Reps - both do the bidding of their Wall Street masters (more books than you can count document this). 2) Fracking is a bubble market, just like the housing bubble, only this time in bundled mining rights. It’s being inflated for the same reasons – so Wall Street can scam investor’s money. Just investigate production curves and the economic return per well investment and it becomes obvious - read “Snake Oil”. 3) Energy independence is a phantasm. We live in a global market – oil is traded to the highest bidder – any book on globalization makes this clear. 4) We are not under the economic thumb of the Middle East. Quite the contrary, the Middle East is under the thumb of our military. Read any book on our empire of bases, or Middle East invasions, or Middle East policy. 5) OPEC has not controlled the price of oil since the 80s. Instead oil prices are manipulated by the unregulated ICE (Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.) – the rigged energy futures trading market -- as documented in the book “Tyranny of Oil”. That is why we have high oil prices in a deep recession, manipulated to make tight oil and tar sands economically viable so Big Oil can make obscene profits. 6) Baker needs to learn the difference in the technical meaning between energy “resources” and “reserves”. “Reserves” are “recoverable resources” using the best technology known or imagined and reserves are generally overestimated. And even when overestimated, they often represent only 1% of the resources. If it costs more money to produce an energy source than the energy selling price, or takes more energy to extract an energy source than is in the energy source, then it is not recoverable. The vast majority of resources are unrecoverable. Saying we have more unrecoverable resources than the Saudis is meaningless. 7) Declining US production of conventional oil was partly offset by tight oil production, but this is a short term bubble that will quickly deflate – look at the production data and drilling rate for wells. Fracked wells peter out in a year. To keep production increasing in an oil or gas play, one must drill proportionately more wells each year. 8) It seems that the only Faux Noise talking point that Baker has left out was climate change denial. You don’t have to look far to see evidence of this change in the crazy weather. To prevent it from getting worse we must get off our fossil fuel addiction. There is a good talk by Stanford professor Mark Jacobson on the economics of clean energy – very doable, and necessary. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5itfavvu8Q


BrianBaker: Posted: January 16, 2014 9:24 a.m.

McFadden, nice recitation of all the standard American socialist dogma and talking points. No sale.

I've been reading a lot lately about how hard-core leftists are now calling the leftists in power "corporatists", as if that makes any difference. It doesn't. They're simply using corporations to enable their socialist goals, Obamacare being a prime example.

Yes, just like every other product and commodity, oil is sold on the open international market. So what? The measure of "energy independence" is whether or not we use more than we extract from the ground. That determines whether or not we're a "net importer" or "net exporter", and that's the determinant of "energy independence", plain and simple.

“'Reserves' are “recoverable resources” using the best technology known or imagined and reserves are generally overestimated."

Wrong. "Reserves" are strictly (and wrongly) defined using such criteria as EXISTING road access and on-site structures, which in no way truly illustrate our recoverable resources.

Many references to production being a "bubble", which is only true in the sense that production "bubbles" are created by the obstacles placed on production by governmental interference. Again, the Dakota experience puts the lie to all of that nonsense.

"Faux Noise"?.... If ANYTHING illustrates the bias of the commenter, that is it. HuffPo or MoveOn reader, are you?

I could go on, but why bother? This was nothing more than the same nonsense Indy regurgitates at the drop of any hat anyplace.


17trillion: Posted: January 16, 2014 9:33 a.m.

How come Lois thinks Superman is hot but Clark isn't? They're the same dude!


17trillion: Posted: January 16, 2014 9:36 a.m.

And where does Clark put Superman's cape when he's dressed as Clark? Wouldn't somebody notice a bundle of cape on his back or in the butt of his pants? And what about the boots? Where do they come from and how does Clark hide them? And why does Superman always allow the bad guys to shoot him instead of using his x-ray eyes to make the gun really super hot so the bad guy would have to drop it? Wasn't anyone worried that Mr. White would keel over from yelling all the time?


BrianBaker: Posted: January 16, 2014 9:46 a.m.

How does he cut his hair? Does he have kryptonite scissors? What about shaving? How come his beard doesn't look like the Duck Dynasty guys?

How'd he sew his costume together, or even cut the material to a pattern?


Unreal: Posted: January 16, 2014 10:02 a.m.

The Dakotas don't have as much going for them as California. We don't need fracking.


JamesMcFadden: Posted: January 16, 2014 10:06 a.m.

Since Baker is such a strong believer in the fracking mythology (in addition to his obvious Libertarian ideology -- I imagine he will be quoting the sociopath Ayn Rand soon), I strongly suggest he put his money where his mouth is and sink his savings in the fracking boom. And when the bust comes before the end of the decade, and he is one of the homeless on the streets, I will happily remind him any handouts from me or the government won't help him and he should instead take one of those high paying jobs at Walmart.


BrianBaker: Posted: January 16, 2014 10:08 a.m.

R-i-i-i-ght....

Which is why in the Dakotas there's virtually no unemployment, and average wages are skyrocketing.

As opposed to how things are so wonderful here in this state, with real unemployment somewhere over 15%, and about a third of the nation's welfare beneficiaries.

We'll show them!


BrianBaker: Posted: January 16, 2014 10:27 a.m.

McFadden: "... I imagine he will be quoting the sociopath Ayn Rand soon"


Typical American socialist. Can't beat the argument on its merits, so the SOP resort to ad hominem nonsense.

Wouldn't you be MUCH more at home at MoveOn?

"Fracking mythology"?.... LOL! I guess the Saudis are pretty stupid, too, having bought into that same "mythology". Or maybe it's some v-a-a-a-st plot, all geared to disrupting the progression of American socialism, and the Saudis are co-conspirators. Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket...

And FYI, I have no doubt that my investment portfolio has positions in the oil industry. It's pretty diversified, with holdings in LOTS of things. Which is one of the reasons I've retired, and have the time to kick back here, with my feet up on my desk in my home office, and entertain myself by spanking the local leftists.

Fun, fun, fun!


17trillion: Posted: January 16, 2014 10:31 a.m.

"I imagine he will be quoting the sociopath Ayn Rand soon"

Can you dimension why you think Rand was a sociopath? Especially in light of her stunning ability to foresee the future?


17trillion: Posted: January 16, 2014 10:34 a.m.

Can someone also explain to me why liberals hate libertarians so much? We stand for many of the same things on issues like abortion, the war on drugs, war in general, war spending, spying on Americans, and lots more.

Do you libs hate libertarians because that's what you're told? Or, are there reasons you formulated all on your own that you can discuss....gasp...intelligently?


BrianBaker: Posted: January 16, 2014 10:52 a.m.

"Liberals", i.e. leftist Big Government statists, hate libertarian-leaning people for the same reason the Establishment GOP hacks -- also statists -- hate us: we don't buy into their Big Government ideology.




JamesMcFadden: Posted: January 16, 2014 10:56 a.m.

To 17trillion
Try reading Rand's writings and examine her personal life and relationships -- it will be obvious - she was a very damaged person -- typical left-brain, I'm-smarter-than-everyone-else, selfish individual who never quite achieved the success that she believed she deserved. Read about how she treated others - her relationships with others -- very much a sociopath. Or better yet, just watch her Mike Wallace interview on youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ukJiBZ8_4k). It will help you better understand her self-centered ideology which has infected our wealthy elite and Libertarians -- people who look for justification for their "greed is good" ideology and who believe nonsensical American mythology like "rugged individualism", "manifest destiny", "American meritocracy" and "Financial institutions create wealth" - to name a few. These elites/libertarians have little understanding of actual history and instead immerse themselves in propaganda that supports their world view. If you want to understand the world - do two things: 1) read more books about history/economics/environment/etc. from both the Right and Left - and read them critically, 2) start talking to working people about their problems -- and listen to their stories.


17trillion: Posted: January 16, 2014 12:15 p.m.

Part 1


"Try reading Rand's writings and examine her personal life and relationships it will be obvious"

I have and it's not obvious. What makes you assume I haven't read as much if not more than you?

"she was a very damaged person -- typical left-brain,"

I'm not aware that being left brained is a negative. Are you a credentialed psychologist?

"I'm-smarter-than-everyone-else, selfish individual who never quite achieved the success that she believed she deserved."

I've read her books and 1 biography and lots of other things about her and I must of have missed that. Don't we all think we should have more success than we necessarily deserve? Is that bad?

" Read about how she treated others - her relationships with others - very much a sociopath. Or better yet, just watch her Mike Wallace interview on youtube"

I did James and I found nothing sociopathic within the interview other than a hostile interview from Mike Wallace. Can you elaborate?

"It will help you better understand her self-centered ideology which has infected our wealthy elite and Libertarians -- people who look for justification for their "greed is good""

That is entirely simplistic James and it's hardly worthy a response to her very complex philosophy. If expecting the fruits of my labor to be mine and not the collectives equates to greed is good, then I'll just disagree. My moral duty is to not serve others, but that doesn't mean I can't be sympathetic and in fact willingly contribute to the collective. It's a matter of degrees that she/I/others are concerned with.

"ideology and who believe nonsensical American mythology like "rugged individualism", "manifest destiny", "American meritocracy" and "Financial institutions create wealth" - to name a few."

Individualism is bad? Are you projecting the other labels upon her or do you have any foundation to equate Rand with manifest destiny? The greatest wealth creating institution today is.........do you know the answer?


17trillion: Posted: January 16, 2014 12:16 p.m.

Part 2

"These elites/libertarians have little understanding of actual history and instead immerse themselves in propaganda that supports their world view."

Huh? Equating elitism and libertarianism is nonsense. It practically doesn't exist today which is kind of the point. As Rand's predictions become more true each day we become stuck with the very system that destroyed the country as she described in Shrugged. Have you read the book?

"If you want to understand the world - do two things: 1) read more books about history/economics/environment/etc. from both the Right and Left - and read them critically,"

Gosh, and here I though I was actually going to have a grown-up conversation with someone that I disagreed with without being talked to like a child. I have read books James and for you information, books on history are not left or right, they are history and truth is not left or right. Where does the arrogance come from that suggests I need to read books on the environment within the context of this conversation? Read them critically? As opposed to????

"2) start talking to working people about their problems -- and listen to their stories."

Can you help me by introducing me to a working person with problems? I've never met one sitting in my castle looking out upon the great unwashed masses. How about the so called working people in Atlas Shrugged? Kind of reminds me of Detroit's working people. Gee, if only I knew a working person with problems I could talk to. I wonder what that's like?


BrianBaker: Posted: January 16, 2014 12:28 p.m.

"Gosh, and here I though I was actually going to have a grown-up conversation with someone that I disagreed with without being talked to like a child."

Well, that was your first mistake, right there.


17trillion: Posted: January 16, 2014 12:42 p.m.

One can always hope Brian! If only I had read more books on history, from the left and right, and hadn't made the mistake of not reading them critically.


BrianBaker: Posted: January 16, 2014 1:00 p.m.

Indeed! The solution is just so simple! Why hadn't WE ever thought of it?

How the hell did I ever manage to live over 60 years without just running out into traffic, since I'm so stupid? Will wonders never cease?


17trillion: Posted: January 16, 2014 1:15 p.m.

Isn't it typical that a progressive would categorize history in the context of left or right? What is left or right about history? History is facts and while actions may be interpreted within the context of a person doing something coming from a leftwing or rightwing perspective, truth knows no such thing. The real irony is that if James did read Atlas, then he should be able to see comparisons in the book with what is happening today even though the book was written 50? years ago.

Where does such arrogance come from? Don't answer, it was purely rhetorical.

To each according to his needs.......


17trillion: Posted: January 16, 2014 1:25 p.m.

I wonder if James has read Brave New World or 1984? If so, I hope they were read critically. I wonder if he thinks those authors were damaged sociopaths as well?


BrianBaker: Posted: January 16, 2014 3:23 p.m.

How about "Animal Farm", also from Orwell?

"Some pigs are more equal than other pigs"... LOL! Gotta love it.


Indy: Posted: January 16, 2014 3:35 p.m.

Here’s a good read on fracking: http://www.earthworksaction.org/issues/detail/hydraulic_fracturing_101

It’s important to educate yourself on the topic beyond the political rhetoric that is sadly driven by oil interest that are understandable protecting their ‘market share’ and losses from ‘stranded assets’ if oil production is reduced.

And sadly, most politicians are ignorant of the energy factors that we’re facing that effect unsustainable economic growth which is the real driver behind the fracking issue.

Many people are willing to take the risk on environmental damage not to slow the economy due to lack of any proactive planning on renewable energy.


Indy: Posted: January 16, 2014 3:41 p.m.

17trillion,

I have to agree with JamesMcFadden regarding the short comings of market fundamentalist based libertarianism.

Since you’ve read Ann Rand, what the main thesis of her work?

Does she base it on individualism?

Does this form the foundation for small government?

And which of Rand’s visions that you noted are coming true today?

Finally, I’ve suggested to BB that one of my goals is to ‘isolate’ him and I guess you with the vision that you’ll have the Ann Rand based world you desire yet BB was unhappy with that. Why?


17trillion: Posted: January 16, 2014 3:54 p.m.

"I have to agree with JamesMcFadden regarding the short comings of market fundamentalist based libertarianism."

I AM DUMBFOUNDED!

"Since you’ve read Ann Rand, what the main thesis of her work?"

When you say thesis are you speaking of an absolute idea or are you looking for something assertible?

"Does she base it on individualism?"

Individualism versus what?

"Does this form the foundation for small government?"

How small are you talking about?

"And which of Rand’s visions that you noted are coming true today?"

I don't call them visions and when you say "today" do you mean today specifically or in general?

"Finally, I’ve suggested to BB that one of my goals is to ‘isolate’ him and I guess you with the vision that you’ll have the Ann Rand based world you desire yet BB was unhappy with that. Why?"

It's "Ayn" not "Ann". I've read your question 5 times Indy and I don't believe it's answerable. Not because it's difficult, but because it makes no effing sense! Are you asking me to read Baker's mind or are you asking me why Baker was unhappy?


BrianBaker: Posted: January 16, 2014 3:56 p.m.

Oh, yeah, Indy... that's right. You were going to try to "isolate" me. How's that coming for ya? Looks like the Signal's editors didn't get your memo. They keep right on publishing my stuff.

When are YOU gonna submit something? Seems like the only person you're "isolating" is yourself. Isn't that kinda like playing Russian Roulette with a single-shot pistol, or something?

BTW, what is it with you lefties and trying to "isolate" people? The only "free speech" you believe in is your own, and people who agree with you? Isn't that kinda -- you know -- TOTALITARIAN of you?

Are "some pigs more equal than other pigs", Indy? Ever read "Animal Farm"?

Gaaawd... you really crack me up, dude.


BrianBaker: Posted: January 16, 2014 3:58 p.m.

PS, Indy. If you want to "isolate" me, simply never mention me, or anything I've written, in any of your inane comments.

I'd be MORE than happy.


17trillion: Posted: January 16, 2014 4:14 p.m.

Yea, that is odd. Isolate you, like a pedophile or leper or something? Just for having a different opinion on the state of our country?

You know, one of the many main thesis in Rand's book was the notion that those not in agreement with collective state needed to be isolated, or worse in the books case. You appear to subscribe to that notion despite protections we enjoy constitutionally or even intellectually. I would never want to isolate my opponent because I firmly believe their theories will collapse on their own merits, (lack of). Amazing that the statists want no dissension and not only are you to be dismissed, which is ok, but you are to be "isolated". Good lord, it's happening right in front of our eyes!


BrianBaker: Posted: January 16, 2014 5:16 p.m.

Hahahaha!


Yeah, I know, and the REALLY funny thing about it is that those who do those things, Indy in particular, are com-puh-letely devoid of any awareness of the irony involved.

I truly, truly find that absolutely hilarious. Their constant self-contradiction. They claim to be "compassionate" and "open-minded" and supportive of "free choice"... but the moment you stray off the leftist plantation you are to be "isolated", or your opinions are in some way "unacceptable", or your "choices" are somehow bad and to be "legislated" away.

Smoking bans; soda bans; helmet laws; seat belt laws; light bulb bans; gun control; "assault weapons" bans; trans-fat bans; shark fin soup bans; liver pate bans; McDonald's toy giveaway bans; refusal to grant oil permits; on and on and on and on, ad nauseum, ad infinitum.

Nothing too large or too small that the Big Government elitists can't find them worthy of regulating to death.

And God forbid you should raise your voice against their "enlightened" dictating of how you should live your own life. All based on their own superior wisdom, and a collectivist view of society.


Indy: Posted: January 16, 2014 5:50 p.m.

17trillion,

Just give me a paragraph or two regarding the libertarian worldview consistent with this forum.

What is the basic thrust of Rand’s work?


Indy: Posted: January 16, 2014 5:55 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: Oh, yeah, Indy... that's right. You were going to try to "isolate" me. How's that coming for ya?

Indy: What’s fascinating is that those that preach individualism, don’t want any ‘collective’, yet when people like me try to satisfy those wishes, I get rebuffed! Wow . . . do you want libertarian based market fundamentalism or not?


Indy: Posted: January 16, 2014 5:59 p.m.

17trillion wrote: Yea, that is odd. Isolate you, like a pedophile or leper or something? Just for having a different opinion on the state of our country?

Indy: Well, let’s take food stamps. Many religious conservatives don’t want to help the poor with them, one reason Boehner wants to cut them.

So why don’t we reduce your taxes by the contribution for same in the tax base then you’re ‘out’ of that program and never can get food stamps even if you become homeless.

This is the same thing with the health care issue. Don’t want it? Great! Sign the affidavit and if you get ill or seriously sick, you don’t get any care from a doctor or hospital. If you go to a ER, we’ll set up the ‘dead/dying’ zones for those with affidavits and thus want to exercise their ‘liberty’ freely thus their wheeled to the zone and left alone, individually of course.

You’re free to have your opinion . . . I’m just trying to fulfill it if you will.


JamesMcFadden: Posted: January 16, 2014 6:18 p.m.

17trillion and Baker,
Wow – such venom from this crowd. I will respond thoughtful humor.
Yes I read 1984, Animal Farm, Brave New World -- and a host of other classics - Frederick Douglas, Adam Smith, Ricardo, Malthus, Marx, Twain, Dickens, Locke, Hume, Paine, Madison, Rousseau, ....
But generally prefer more modern writers who have analyzed our current economic and political crises.
I didn't equate elites with Libertarian -- elite/Libertarian does not mean elites=libertarian. I just said they both fool themselves into believing the same nonsense that justifies their selfish world view.
"Rugged individualism" does not mean individualism -- Rugged individualism is an ideology that suggests all progress stems from super individuals a la "Atlas Shrugged" - which is nonsense.
Yes I read "Atlas Shrugged" -- and I would agree with Raj Patel: "There are two novels that can transform a bookish fourteen-year-old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish daydream that can lead to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood in which large chunks of the day are spent inventing ways to make real life more like a fantasy novel. The other is a book about orcs."
I'm not a psychologist - I'm a physicist, but married to a psychologist -- and have read much on the subject.
Yes - being left brained is a negative -- I see it in some of the emotionally backward scientists & engineers that I supervise.
If you are unable to pick up on Rand's body language, facial expression, I guess you are a bit left brained too – I think its better to be balanced. But more seriously, go read about her relationships and her treatment of others -- a real cult leader. I find it interesting that she was a hypocrite who ruthlessly attacked the State and believed no one should ever go begging the government for money, but collected Social Security and Medicare benefits for 8 years.
Actually all history books do have a slant and a spin -- history books are not truth. History books are an interpretation of selected events told through the cultural and ideological prejudices of the writer - which is why they must be read critically.
Alas, I can see that you two are heavily into the cult of Libertarianism - enjoy your fantasy.


BrianBaker: Posted: January 16, 2014 8:57 p.m.

Indy! How can you "isolate" me when you keep pestering me with your inanities?


BrianBaker: Posted: January 16, 2014 8:59 p.m.

McFadden: "17trillion and Baker, Wow – such venom from this crowd."


Said without a hint of irony. Kudos on your blatant hypocrisy!


JohnnyCash: Posted: January 17, 2014 9:40 p.m.

"Ann" Rand.

LOL!

Is she one of the dogs in "Where the Red Fern Grows" or that curly-haired orphan?

This, coming from the guy who claims to have studied economics for the past 30 years.

He reminds me of another fraud - this one claimed to know the Constitution - who made some unbelievably naive comments about the Federalist Papers last week.


ricketzz: Posted: January 17, 2014 7:19 a.m.

I am a libertarian socialist and I am smarter than you are.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/25/pf/America_boomtown_strippers/index.htm?iid=EL


17trillion: Posted: January 17, 2014 7:48 a.m.

"17trillion,

Just give me a paragraph or two regarding the libertarian worldview consistent with this forum.

What is the basic thrust of Rand’s work?"


Indy, after reading your nonsense for quite a while and noting your absolute refusal to answer any question, I present the following in response to the above:

Pound sand!

I'm definitely inclined to answer questions and engage in dialogue, but not with you. You haven't earned the right to have questions answered.


17trillion: Posted: January 17, 2014 7:51 a.m.

"Indy: What’s fascinating is that those that preach individualism, don’t want any ‘collective’, yet when people like me try to satisfy those wishes, I get rebuffed!"

What's even more interesting is that nobody, I mean nobody, stands for complete and total individualism and nobody, I mean nobody, rejects all forms of collectivism. It's all in degrees which is a concept that liberals can't understand or purposefully lie about in order to advance their agenda.

Are you obtuse or a liar?


17trillion: Posted: January 17, 2014 7:55 a.m.

"Indy: Well, let’s take food stamps. Many religious conservatives don’t want to help the poor with them, one reason Boehner wants to cut them."

That is an absolute and total lie! When a program goes from 35 billion to 70 billion a year in 4 years and someone wants to cut it by 5% this does not equate not wanting to help the poor. Indy, peddle your bs to the idiots that elect liberals. They are the only ones that buy it.

"So why don’t we reduce your taxes by the contribution for same in the tax base then you’re ‘out’ of that program and never can get food stamps even if you become homeless."

Fine by me. Can you set up such a program. There are hundreds of things I would love to opt out of that I pay for starting with medicare, social security, and yes, food stamps!

"This is the same thing with the health care issue. Don’t want it? Great! Sign the affidavit and if you get ill or seriously sick, you don’t get any care from a doctor or hospital. If you go to a ER, we’ll set up the ‘dead/dying’ zones for those with affidavits and thus want to exercise their ‘liberty’ freely thus their wheeled to the zone and left alone, individually of course."

Fine by me! By the way, who doesn't want health insurance? I'm thinking it's mostly Obama supporters since they tend to be less intelligent about such things like insurance.


17trillion: Posted: January 17, 2014 8:06 a.m.

"Wow – such venom from this crowd. I will respond thoughtful humor."

Are you serious? Keep your day job, there is nothing humorous and very little original thought that I can see in your response.

"Yes I read 1984, Animal Farm, Brave New World -- and a host of other classics - Frederick Douglas, Adam Smith, Ricardo, Malthus, Marx, Twain, Dickens, Locke, Hume, Paine, Madison, Rousseau,"

Well, aren't we special. I read Batman comics and Ricardo too but it's Ricky! Were you the guy in the bar that Matt Damon smacked down in Good Will Hunting?

"Yes - being left brained is a negative -- I see it in some of the emotionally backward scientists & engineers that I supervise."

I question if you even know what it is. Can you ask one of your scientists what the definition is?

"I find it interesting that she was a hypocrite who ruthlessly attacked the State and believed no one should ever go begging the government for money, but collected Social Security and Medicare benefits for 8 years."

How dare her getting money back she put into the system. Only a wackjob liberal would criticize someone for getting their own money back. Only a wackjob liberal would equate it with begging. "Please can I have some of the money back I gave you for all those years?"

"Actually all history books do have a slant and a spin -- history books are not truth."

Wow! Actually, you're right to a certain degree. Liberals do slant and spin history to fit their agenda. However, history is nothing if it's not true. If you slant or spin it, it's not history, it's a story.

"Alas, I can see that you two are heavily into the cult of Libertarianism - enjoy your fantasy."

A cult where we just want to be left alone. A cult that says my labor belongs to me. A cult where I proclaim that you have no right to the fruits of my labor. A cult where if I am forced to give you some of my fruits, the least you could do is thank me. Yea, some cult.


Indy: Posted: January 17, 2014 1:03 p.m.

17trillion wrote: "Indy: Well, let’s take food stamps. Many religious conservatives don’t want to help the poor with them, one reason Boehner wants to cut them."

That is an absolute and total lie! When a program goes from 35 billion to 70 billion a year in 4 years and someone wants to cut it by 5% this does not equate not wanting to help the poor. Indy, peddle your bs to the idiots that elect liberals. They are the only ones that buy it.

Indy: What you fail to see is that the GOP wants to cut the food stamps using religious scripture beliefs that are devoid of the economic reality in play.

When the recession recovers, the food stamp eligibility will ‘naturally’ fall.

Grandstanding the ‘cuts’ as ‘fiscal responsibility’ is the nonsense I’ve heard the last 40 years by republicans and democrats alike that sadly poll the economically uniformed for a consensus regardless of the economics in play.

You constant nonsense about ‘liberals’ gives me the impression that you’re more interested in political banter than solving problems . . . but that’s you choice.

17trillion wrote: "So why don’t we reduce your taxes by the contribution for same in the tax base then you’re ‘out’ of that program and never can get food stamps even if you become homeless."

Fine by me. Can you set up such a program. There are hundreds of things I would love to opt out of that I pay for starting with medicare, social security, and yes, food stamps!

Indy: That’s why I’ve suggested this approach to ‘isolate’ you from such realities but once you’ve ‘opted’ out, you’re out for good . . .

17trillion wrote: "This is the same thing with the health care issue. Don’t want it? Great! Sign the affidavit and if you get ill or seriously sick, you don’t get any care from a doctor or hospital. If you go to a ER, we’ll set up the ‘dead/dying’ zones for those with affidavits and thus want to exercise their ‘liberty’ freely thus their wheeled to the zone and left alone, individually of course."

Fine by me! By the way, who doesn't want health insurance? I'm thinking it's mostly Obama supporters since they tend to be less intelligent about such things like insurance.

Indy: Who doesn’t want it? Or who can’t afford it is the better question.

You et al here don’t seem to mind the tens of millions of people without it thus ‘isolating’ them from what conservatives say is the ‘best heath care in the world’.


In any event, you can surmise whatever you wish . . . but I’d suggest doing so based on reality not ‘focus group tested’ slogans used against low info voters to can recite positions but can’t defend them other than with barbs or some other such nonsense.


Indy: Posted: January 17, 2014 1:05 p.m.

17trillion wrote: I'm definitely inclined to answer questions and engage in dialogue, but not with you. You haven't earned the right to have questions answered.

Indy: I get this kind of response from conservatives all the time that can’t defend their positions . . . no matter, I’ll clearly point out the inconsistencies in your remarks as the case may be.


17trillion: Posted: January 17, 2014 1:40 p.m.

Don't be a tool Indy. When you start answering direct questions, I'll be happy to answer yours. Thus far you've shown zero inclination to answer even the simplest of questions and yet you demand I give you a recital on Rand's philosophy? Even though it sounds suspiciously like a test, I would normally be happy to discuss it further. But, not with you!

"Who doesn’t want it? Or who can’t afford it is the better question."

Are you saying that problem is now solved with Obamacare? 30 million uninsured, 5 million cancelled, and 3 million thus far have signed up but only less than 1 million actually paying for anything. I'm not educated like you are Indy, but something is screwy about those numbers.

The brilliance of that plan still escapes me! I'm sorry to say this, but when the small businesses start getting cancelled, this folly will collapse on itself and perhaps cost the Dems the Senate in 10 months. Nobody other than the most partisan like you Indy thinks Obamacare is a great thing.


Indy: Posted: January 17, 2014 4:01 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: Oh, yeah, Indy... that's right. You were going to try to "isolate" me. How's that coming for ya? Looks like the Signal's editors didn't get your memo. They keep right on publishing my stuff.

Indy: The main reason is to actually ‘save your tax dollars’. Don’t want to participate in a government program, great, we’ll refund you the money and you’re out it FOREVER . . . no second chances.

In this manner, you can have your ‘individual liberty’ and not affect others that may want to actually ‘work together’ for the common benefit.

BrianBaker wrote: When are YOU gonna submit something? Seems like the only person you're "isolating" is yourself. Isn't that kinda like playing Russian Roulette with a single-shot pistol, or something?

Indy: Thankfully, the internet forum here at the Signal allows the discussion of various topical issues and you’re free to promote your views.

As I’ve stated to the other conservatives here, I don’t really ‘see you’ personally just a ‘spokesperson’ that recites libertarian conservative ideology and thus my responses to same.

I really don’t care if you agree or not and I’m certainly not trying to convince you since you’re doing a great job of ‘standing on principles’, the only problem is that many of them don’t work in the modern world.

BrianBaker wrote: BTW, what is it with you lefties and trying to "isolate" people? The only "free speech" you believe in is your own, and people who agree with you? Isn't that kinda -- you know -- TOTALITARIAN of you?

Indy: You’d think this poster would have a ‘clue’ that he’s free to post at this forum and that I don’t have the key to who does and doesn’t.

He’s also free to ‘stand in the public square’ if you will and promote his ideology.

Isolating him is merely respecting his liberty and saying, great, don’t want to participate, then ‘see ya’!

And this gets back to the real problem that many conservatives like this guy have in that they want their ‘personal’ liberty, but seem perplexed, puzzled and even angry that everyone agrees with them and likewise want their ‘personal liberty’!

BrianBaker wrote: Are "some pigs more equal than other pigs", Indy? Ever read "Animal Farm"? Gaaawd... you really crack me up, dude.

Indy: It’s always great that we can add humor to lighten up the discussion and it’s a free service! Does it get any better than that . . .


In any event, not going anywhere . . . too much important work to be done here. Stay tuned . . . same Signal Forum . . . Same Signal threads . . .


Indy: Posted: January 17, 2014 4:11 p.m.

17trillion wrote: Don't be a tool Indy. When you start answering direct questions, I'll be happy to answer yours. Thus far you've shown zero inclination to answer even the simplest of questions and yet you demand I give you a recital on Rand's philosophy? Even though it sounds suspiciously like a test, I would normally be happy to discuss it further. But, not with you!

Indy: Hey, if you can’t articulate her positions, great, they stay buried in her books . . . sounds good to me.

17trillion wrote: "Who doesn’t want it? Or who can’t afford it is the better question."

Are you saying that problem is now solved with Obamacare? 30 million uninsured, 5 million cancelled, and 3 million thus far have signed up but only less than 1 million actually paying for anything. I'm not educated like you are Indy, but something is screwy about those numbers.

Indy: It’s good to note the distorted figures about cancellations have been revised especially in that the companies doing the cancelling have given those policy holders ‘new’ policies.

But the enrollment is pretty much following the results found in Massachusetts where Romneycare, which was the foundation for Obamacare, saw similar sign ups over time.

The real tragedy is the republican lead states that are not allowing for the Medicaid expansion for the poor.

Likewise, the individual markets now prohibit insurance companies from ‘cherry picking’ customers and thus workers in companies that lose their policies from leaving a company that provided same, will no longer be screwed, especially those with preexisting conditions that have paid for decades only to get sick then cancelled.

17trillion wrote: The brilliance of that plan still escapes me! I'm sorry to say this, but when the small businesses start getting cancelled, this folly will collapse on itself and perhaps cost the Dems the Senate in 10 months. Nobody other than the most partisan like you Indy thinks Obamacare is a great thing.

Indy: Hey, I’m an independent but can understand your confusion with that since other posters can’t grasp that concept and keep telling me I’m a ‘Obama apologist’. LOL

I do find myself rejecting perhaps 80% of conservative ideology positions, however, mainly since they are based on ideology and don’t map or work in the modern world.

The liberal folks lose me about 50% of the time since they do reject economic scarcity and keep promising the public ‘unlimited’ growth on a ‘fixed rock in space’.

What’s hopeful, however, is globalization is accelerating the consequences of overpopulation with limited resources making the public awareness of same come sooner . . .

The big issue facing is sadly the lobbyist influence to those that we thought we representing ‘we the people’ but now represent ‘we with the money’.


BrianBaker: Posted: January 17, 2014 4:16 p.m.

((((( chuckle )))))

Well, about as expected, Indy seems to have not meant what he said he meant. It looks like, unfortunately, he refuses to "isolate" me in spite of his numerous boring threats, and now insists on boring me to death with his endless blather instead.

Looks like all the "isolation" talk was just more meaningless empty rhetoric, standard Indy Inanities.

What a surprise, I'm sure.


BrianBaker: Posted: January 17, 2014 4:28 p.m.

Indy: "Indy: Hey, I’m an independent but can understand your confusion with that since other posters can’t grasp that concept and keep telling me I’m a ‘Obama apologist’. LOL"


"LOL" is right! That was your funniest line in a l-o-o-o-ng time.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.


Indy: Posted: January 17, 2014 4:35 p.m.

Since we’re talking about ‘humor’, I find it humorous when conservatives like to tell me what I’m really saying . . . LOL!

In any event, this is just a poor attempt to recite conservative ideology positions and being a free forum, go for it!

Thankfully I can speak for myself and clearly show where the conservative positions are failing . . . but again, humor is always a good thing.

Finally, when you really can't support your positions, the technique demonstrated above about the 're-telling' is actualy 'telling' . . . if you get the drift.


BrianBaker: Posted: January 17, 2014 4:49 p.m.

Sorry, Bubba. I guess that, just like everything else you yammer about, you don't understand the definitions of words.

I'm not "re-telling" anything. I'm quoting you directly.

Let's take it a step further, again quoting you directly: "I do find myself rejecting perhaps 80% of conservative ideology positions..."


First of all, you've grossly underestimated that percentage. I have yet to see you agree with ANY "conservative position" at any time.

Which then takes us directly to walking and quacking like a duck.

Jeeez, Indy the self-proclaimed "independent", what's with you socialists? Why can't you simply and PROUDLY declare what you really are? If you really believe in what you babble about, I'd think you'd be PROUD to claim your rightful mantle.

I am very definitely a conservative... VERY conservative. You don't see me denying it, and claiming to be some kind of non-partisan neutral "independent". Hell, I shout it from the rooftops when I can.




technologist: Posted: January 18, 2014 5:30 p.m.

Indy has previously confirmed he's a "social democrat", not an "independent".


BrianBaker: Posted: January 19, 2014 9:37 p.m.

Well, recently -- maybe further up this thread, but if not, on another one within the last few days -- he again went with the self-described "independent" mythology.

"Social democrat"? As far as I'm concerned that's what I call "American Socialist".


In my LTEs, I label them "Dem/socialists", and the Signal prints 'em the way I wrote 'em, with that exact phraseology.


technologist: Posted: January 19, 2014 11:45 a.m.

The labels change but the ideology does not.


technologist: Posted: January 19, 2014 4:18 p.m.

Where Are the U.S.’s Millionaires?

"The state making the fastest climb up the millionaire rankings doesn’t have a single Tiffany or Saks Fifth Avenue store. The closest BMW dealership is a six-hour drive from the capital.

Welcome to North Dakota, which jumped 14 spots in the annual rankings of millionaire households per capita released by Phoenix Marketing International. The firm derives its figures from a combination of data from the Federal Reserve, Census Bureau and polling firm Nielsen Co."

gs.wsj.com/economics/2014/01/16/where-are-the-u-s-s-millionaires/?mod=WSJ_article_EditorsPicks


ricketzz: Posted: January 20, 2014 7:08 a.m.

Alaska had the same deal 30 years ago, how'd that work out? The most meth heads per capita? The stickiest beaches in an Alpine climate? Giant piles of garbage everywhere? How many Alaskans got jobs v how many Texans came to Alaska?

Oil is killing us. I would not try to spec out a future based on a bad concept.


technologist: Posted: January 20, 2014 1:34 p.m.

Dihydrogen Monoxide FAQ

http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html


technologist: Posted: January 20, 2014 1:36 p.m.

Because ricketzz has declared it a wasteland, all future scenic Alaska cruises, guided tours, hiking, camping, hunting and fishing are canceled.

Whales are being rerouted by Eco Warriors on pontoon footgear. --edited.


technologist: Posted: January 20, 2014 7:08 p.m.

Green Fade-Out: Europe to Ditch Climate Protection Goals
By Gregor Peter Schmitz in Brussels

Climate Leaders No More?

With such a policy, the European Union is seriously jeopardizing its global climate leadership role. Back in 2007, when Germany held the European Council presidency, the body decided on a climate and energy legislation package known as the "20-20-20" targets, to be fulfilled by the year 2020. They included:

a 20 percent reduction in EU greenhouse gas emissions;
raising the share of EU energy consumption produced from renewable resources to 20 percent;
and a 20 percent improvement in the EU's energy efficiency.
All of the goals were formulated relative to 1990 levels. And the targets could very well be met. But in the future, European climate and energy policy may be limited to just a single project: reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The Commission plans also set no new binding rules for energy efficiency.

Welcome, Frackers

In addition, the authority wants to pave the way in the EU for the controversial practice of fracking, according to the daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. The report says the Commission does not intend to establish strict rules for the extraction of shale gas, but only minimum health and environmental standards.

The plans will be officially presented next Wednesday ahead of an EU summit meeting in March. Observers, however, believe that a decision is unlikely to come until the summer at the earliest. But action must be taken this year: At the beginning of 2015, a climate conference will take place in Paris at which a global climate agreement is to be hashed out.

The European Parliament is unlikely to be pleased with the Commission's plans. Just at the beginning of January, a strong parliamentary majority voted to reduce carbon emissions EU-wide by 40 percent by 2030 and to raise the portion of renewables to at least 30 percent of energy consumption.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/european-commission-move-away-from-climate-protection-goals-a-943664.html


ricketzz: Posted: January 21, 2014 7:21 a.m.

Natural Gas is worse than coal re: Global Warming.

"...Instead of reducing these problems, natural gas mining, flaring, transport, and production
increase methane and black carbon, posing a danger to the Arctic sea ice on the time
scale of 10-30 years. Methane emissions from natural gas also contribute to the global
buildup of tropospheric ozone resulting in additional respiratory illness and mortality.
In sum, natural gas does not appear to be a near-term “low” greenhouse-gas alternative to
coal although it reduces traditional air pollution relative to coal. A danger in expanding
rather than contracting the use of natural gas is that it will speed the elimination of the
Arctic. Transitioning to WWS will slow that destruction and reduce mortality on a large
scale..."

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/NatGasVsWWS&coal.pdf


technologist: Posted: January 21, 2014 12:28 p.m.

Then you'll be pleased to note that Germany is shutting down nuclear plants and meeting baseline power grid requirements with coal. Coal utilization is growing markedly to feed global energy needs.

Additionally, the EPA is waging a war on coal in the USA.

Green "strategy" makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?


ricketzz: Posted: January 22, 2014 6:21 a.m.

Technologist, experiencing one of an apparent series of auditory hallucinations, claims I called Alaska a "wasteland", which I did not. What I said was true. You don't reply to that in kind; instead wandering off and yammering about whales and cruise ships. Sad, in a way.

If you are in Williston with money to burn you get hookers, drugs, booze. There's nothing else there. Fargo, is the big city in North Dakota. Fargo.

If you want more hookers and meth, start fracking.


technologist: Posted: January 23, 2014 1:53 p.m.

"Technologist, experiencing one of an apparent series of auditory hallucinations, claims I called Alaska a "wasteland", which I did not."

Auditory? I'm reading text here. I don't know what you're up to.

I was referencing this: "The stickiest beaches in an Alpine climate? Giant piles of garbage everywhere?"

My mistake. You were describing aspects of paradise. eh?

"If you want more hookers and meth, start fracking."

Speaking from experience on the first 2 items in the list, ricketzz? Fracking is uniquely evil in corrupting men, is that your assertion? What was it during the Klondike Gold Rush Days? Sailors at ports of call? Hookers and booze, right?

Consistently, your lack of historical knowledge leads you to erroneous conclusions and a distorted worldview.


CaptGene: Posted: January 23, 2014 5:25 p.m.

"Consistently, your lack of historical knowledge leads you to erroneous conclusions and a distorted worldview"

Well, that and he's nuts.


ricketzz: Posted: January 24, 2014 7:20 a.m.

I did catch your idol, Mr. Baker, dismissing reasonable discussion by proclaiming socialist talking points: "McFadden, nice recitation of all the standard American socialist dogma and talking points. No sale."

A sure sign of being Brainwashed is the ability to dismiss alternate viewpoints by proclamation, not by weighing the actual facts. "Talking points", "he's nuts", "liberal dogma" etc. Your masters have trained you well.

"Good Germans, 101"


technologist: Posted: January 24, 2014 4:51 p.m.

"A sure sign of being Brainwashed is the ability to dismiss alternate viewpoints by proclamation, not by weighing the actual facts."

Like this, ricketzz?

ricketzz:
Posted: November 2, 2013
6:45 a.m.

"Only a fascist defines people according to rigid ideological parameters."

http://www.signalscv.com/section/35/article/107832/ --edited.


ricketzz: Posted: January 26, 2014 6:25 a.m.

No. Not at all like that. No one thinks "fascism" is a good thing (except psycho-bully business people). Fascism is all about rigid definitions, conformity and zero tolerance for deviation. It is the opposite of what being an American is all about. Live and let live, mind your own business. If your neighbor's barn burns down you don't gloat, you and the other neighbors gather to rebuild the barn.

If you'd like to make a reasoned defense of fascism I promise to read it. But please no more quotations from the internet. I want to know how your mind works without input from Tucker Carlson.


technologist: Posted: January 26, 2014 3:53 p.m.

"No one thinks "fascism" is a good thing (except psycho-bully business people)."

So, no one but some? And there were/are fascist governments, correct? You seem at war with yourself, ricketzz.

"Fascism is all about rigid definitions, conformity and zero tolerance for deviation."

Like public education's zero tolerance policies and climate orthodoxy?

"But please no more quotations from the internet."

Do you find they erode your unsupported assertions? Does that proscription include quotes from you as well?

You'll no doubt forgive me if I don't take debate advisories from you, ricketzz. --edited.


ricketzz: Posted: January 28, 2014 7:37 a.m.

I don't claim any debating skill and I am not playing games. Fascists are never grounded in Reality. I have always hated public education and favor parents administering the curriculum.

I asked you for your views and you attack my open-mindedness. I really want a conversation unfettered by ideological tethers. What do you think?


technologist: Posted: January 28, 2014 12:59 p.m.

I'm not attacking your "open-mindedness", ricketzz. I'm rebutting your ideological and logically inconsistent assertions.

If you truly desire that level of conversation, it can only be based on the assumption that those who have opinions that differ from your own aren't idiots, pawns, tools and wishers of ill upon their fellow citizens. When you accord respect to others you make yourself worthy of it as well.

Give it a try and see if it moves you in the desired direction.


ricketzz: Posted: January 30, 2014 6:43 a.m.

I don't think I called you anything worse than a co-dependent enabler. You are the tough guy (bravado) when describing muscular foreign policy; why the thin skin regarding an old talk radio guy in the local fishwrap? Am I threatening you?


technologist: Posted: January 31, 2014 9:37 p.m.

You have a memory deficit, ricketzz. You should think a bit more about what I wrote if you were sincere.

Do I consider you a threat? Actually, I find you harmlessly amusing in a lost puppy kind of way.


CaptGene: Posted: January 31, 2014 7:42 a.m.

He asked me the same thing.

As if.

After reading a ricketzz post, I feel the same sense of shame that I get after watching an episode of "Hoarders". I imagine it's similar to what people watching a freak show experience...afterwards.


technologist: Posted: February 2, 2014 12:23 p.m.

Indeed, CG.

You have to question a person's sanity who makes statements like these while mentioning "threats":

"The President should proclaim that ExxonMobil is a threat to the country, arrest their primaries on Long Island and in The Woodlands; and make an example of them for the rest of their cowboy industry."

"What they do is a perversion of Liberty. You can't use Our rights against us, we will repay you tenfold."

"The President should declare them a National Security threat and seize their property, but he won't because BP already owns his skinny butt."

"Technologist is a propagandist and a traitor."

"You don't even know what ad hominem means, you twit."

Rather unbalanced, angry and irrational, isn't he?


ricketzz: Posted: February 3, 2014 6:17 a.m.

Ad hominem would be me making fun of your nose or your latent transvestism, rather than arguing relative merits of an idea.


technologist: Posted: February 3, 2014 2:36 p.m.

Given your penchant for fiction, I thought I'd assist.

ad hominem |ˈad ˈhämənəm| adverb & adjective
1 (of an argument or reaction) arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or logic.
• attacking an opponent's motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain: vicious ad hominem attacks.

Example: "Technologist is a propagandist and a traitor." - ricketzz


ricketzz: Posted: February 4, 2014 7:41 a.m.

When you parrot Right Wing partisan lies and half truths you are propagandizing. When you support corporations who usurp the power of our government and commit criminal acts which go unpunished you are being traitorous to our 1775 Revolution, which was entirely about corporate capture of government. Ignorance is not a valid defense.


technologist: Posted: February 4, 2014 9:23 a.m.

"Ignorance is not a valid defense."

Then why did you seek to correct me in my usage of ad hominem when you had no idea of what you were doing? An admission of your ignorance would be appropriate here.


ricketzz: Posted: February 6, 2014 6:07 a.m.

Why can't you keep your mind on the subject matter? Why should I not assume you have been brainwashed when you support crackpot disproven arguments, rather than face the fact that life as we knew it is over because capitalism has gone too far, because cowardly Americans are too stupid to sacrifice for the common good?


technologist: Posted: February 8, 2014 7:07 p.m.

You beg the questions, ricketzz. You've provided zero compelling arguments for your assertions.

I don't doubt the sincerity of your belief system. However, it doesn't appear to be supported by factual data and therefore must be considered faith based ideology.


ricketzz: Posted: February 9, 2014 6:31 a.m.

I don't agree that I attacked you for personal characteristics not germain to the discussion. I say you, like a lot of posters, try to derail the discussion whenever people get close to an obvious truth; I make sure facts spill out for all to see. There.

Fracked NatGas is just as bad as coal re: carbon pollution.

Regulations did not kill coal; the low price of gas did.


technologist: Posted: February 11, 2014 11:56 a.m.

Agree or not, it is indisputable fact you've called me a "traitor and propagandist" and have repeatedly engaged in ad hominem attacks against myself and other posters. Projecting that I "derail" discussions of "obvious truths" is a rationalization you make because a large percentage of your unsupported assertions are indefensible when challenged.

Carbon isn't a pollutant and is part of the natural state of the Earth's ecosystem.

http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/Images/carboncycle.jpg

"Regulations did not kill coal; the low price of gas did."

Natural gas prices are placing competitive pressure on coal but regulatory fiat without transparent science is shutting down coal fired generation plants. Without the uneconomic regulations, coal is currently less expensive than natural gas for power generation.

What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source?

In 2012, the United States generated about 4,054 billion kilowatthours of electricity. About 68% of the electricity generated was from fossil fuel (coal, natural gas, and petroleum), with 37% attributed from coal.

Energy sources and percent share of total electricity generation in 2012 were:

Coal 37%
Natural Gas 30%
Nuclear 19%
Hydropower 7%
Other Renewable 5%
Biomass 1.42%
Geothermal 0.41%
Solar 0.11%
Wind 3.46%
Petroleum 1%
Other Gases < 1%

http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3


ricketzz: Posted: February 12, 2014 7:55 a.m.

You refuse to get it. The party is over. Radical action is going to happen. Soon. The call is going out for massive civil disobedience. Every day we delay makes survival more uncertain. This is not a drill.

There will be no more business as usual. There will be sacrifice. There will be blood.

Growth is a dirty word. Any economy that requires constant growth is called a Ponzi Scheme, an illegal MLM, or whatever you like to call the house of cards of which capitalists are so proud. "Faith" should not be required of a citizen ever. We don't believe in "unlimited". Funny money is anything but.


technologist: Posted: February 14, 2014 10:05 p.m.

Heh. Alarmists pale when compared to you, ricketzz.

Put down the underground radical literature. --edited.


ricketzz: Posted: February 14, 2014 7:47 a.m.

No one more blind than he who refuses to see.

Technologist, being a logical and reasonable person, not prone to panic nor hyperbole, no doubt has his own criteria that must be met before the Climate Crisis is a challenge worthy of his expertise.

Perhaps he will share his "red line"..

All of Manhattan under water from a hybrid hurricane/nor'easter, not just all south of 13th Street? Staten Island completely inundated. not just the first stories? Coastal Florida is already flooding at high tide; perhaps water gurgling out of the ground all the time, like Vanuatu Island?

Does the new pattern in the Jet Stream tell you anything? You are a man of science; is this normal? Sure there's bad weather in places from time to time, but not all at once like today. If GHGs aren't the culprit, what the Hell is?

Why are you afraid of overwhelming truth? Is it too embarrassing or what?

http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=percentage


CaptGene: Posted: February 14, 2014 12:29 p.m.

ricketzz, just out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on "Chem Trails"?


ricketzz: Posted: February 16, 2014 7:47 a.m.

I see them as panic. They add credibility to AGW.

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=geo%20engineering&go=&form=QBIL&qs=n


CaptGene: Posted: February 16, 2014 9:42 a.m.

I've heard that it's the Illuminati operating through the Trilateral Commission that's behind the Chem Trails, I'm not sure, what do you think? --edited.


ricketzz: Posted: February 17, 2014 7:21 a.m.

CG; that is not helpful. It's a typical thing for frightened out of their wits humans to mock the messenger. I forgive you.


CaptGene: Posted: February 17, 2014 1:22 p.m.

So, you don't think it's the Illuminati?


ricketzz: Posted: February 21, 2014 6:57 a.m.

It is the government. I gave you a never ending page of search results. What did you do with it? Would you like me to search for "geoengineering illuminatti" for you?


CaptGene: Posted: February 21, 2014 11:34 a.m.

I asked for your opinion, was that on the page you offered me? Do you have to check with Bing to see what your opinion should be?


ricketzz: Posted: February 22, 2014 6:19 a.m.

My "opinion" is that "geo-engineering" is responsible for placing reflective long lived aerosols in the sky.

The Illuminati gives the Rothschilds someone to blame...


CaptGene: Posted: February 22, 2014 7:49 a.m.

I figured as much.

My "opinion" is that you're an obnoxious jerk, and if you ever want people to take you seriously you should try and tone it down. One would think a person of your advanced years would have learned that by now.


ricketzz: Posted: February 23, 2014 7:45 a.m.

I have ASD (high functioning). I am a 7th grader inside. Always will be. I have already announced this. Thanks for understanding.

I thought the Rothschilds thing was funny. Why didn't you?



You need to be a registered user to post a comment. Please click here to register.

The Signal encourages readers to interact with one another, following the guidelines outlined in our Comment/Moderation Policy. Click here to read it.

To report offensive or inappropriate comments, e-mail abuse@signalscv.com. The content posted from readers of signalscv.com does not necessarily represent the views of The Signal or Morris Multimedia. By submitting this form you agree to the terms and conditions listed above. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

 
 

Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...