Report Blames Biofuels for Food Crisis [Archive]

Davey Crockett

01-04-1970, 01:48 PM

Fred Fredburger a écrit profondement:

| ST wrote:
| > NEWS FLASH! Assbags!! (DUH!!)
| >
| > http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=5309161
| >
| >
| > Report Blames Biofuels for Food Crisis
| > A Report Leaked To The Guardian Newspaper Blames Biofuels For Food Shortage
| > July 4, 2008
| >
| > LONDON (Reuters) - Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75 percent
| > -- far more than previously estimated -- according to a confidential World
| > Bank report published in a British newspaper on Friday.
| >
| >
|
| "The figure contradicts U.S. government estimates that plant-derived
| fuels have contributed less than 3 percent to food-price increases,
| the newspaper said."
|
| So you're saying the Bush administration is lying. Give the President
| some respect, man!

George doesn't lie

He's to Firkin stupid.

It's just that nobody told him that biofuels:

Divert farm produce from food production to energy production;

Decrease edible cereal grain acreages as land is earmarked for fuel
related crops by the sodbusters.

Encourage speculation in both food and energy type crops as
opposed to normal hedging

It doesn't take a corrupt World Bank to figure it out.

Davey's been telling anybody that would listen for ages already.

--
Davey Crockett
-
Driving a Stake through the
Heart of the Politically Correct
-
Remember when Oil was $20 per Barrel ?
And Wheat was $7 a Bushel ?
Well Guess what - Wheat is still $7 a Bushel........
-
Hungry Wog ?
Eat yer Firkin' Oil

Mike Jacoubowsky

01-04-1970, 01:48 PM

| > LONDON (Reuters) - Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75
percent
| > -- far more than previously estimated -- according to a confidential
World
| > Bank report published in a British newspaper on Friday.
| >
| >
|
| "The figure contradicts U.S. government estimates that plant-derived
| fuels have contributed less than 3 percent to food-price increases, the
| newspaper said."

It doesn't matter that it's 75% or 3%. Well, OK, it does. But my point is
that it's just plain fundamentally wrong, in so many ways, to grow crops to
feed cars instead of people. It tells us an awful lot about our priorities.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"Fred Fredburger" <FredFredburger@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote in message
news:BNednZ-3Q43YHvPVnZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@comcast.com...
| ST wrote:
| > NEWS FLASH! Assbags!! (DUH!!)
| >
| > http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=5309161
| >
| >
| > Report Blames Biofuels for Food Crisis
| > A Report Leaked To The Guardian Newspaper Blames Biofuels For Food
Shortage
| > July 4, 2008
| >
| > LONDON (Reuters) - Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75
percent
| > -- far more than previously estimated -- according to a confidential
World
| > Bank report published in a British newspaper on Friday.
| >
| >
|
| "The figure contradicts U.S. government estimates that plant-derived
| fuels have contributed less than 3 percent to food-price increases, the
| newspaper said."
|
| So you're saying the Bush administration is lying. Give the President
| some respect, man!

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org

01-04-1970, 01:49 PM

On Jul 4, 2:35 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Fred Fredburger" <FredFredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote in message
>
> > ST wrote:
> >> NEWS FLASH! Assbags!! (DUH!!)
>
> >>http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=5309161
>
> >> Report Blames Biofuels for Food Crisis
> >> A Report Leaked To The Guardian Newspaper Blames Biofuels For Food
> >> Shortage
> >> July 4, 2008 LONDON (Reuters) - Biofuels have forced global food prices
> >> up by 75 percent
> >> -- far more than previously estimated -- according to a confidential
> >> World
> >> Bank report published in a British newspaper on Friday.
>
> > "The figure contradicts U.S. government estimates that plant-derived fuels
> > have contributed less than 3 percent to food-price increases, the
> > newspaper said."
>
> > So you're saying the Bush administration is lying. Give the President some
> > respect, man!
>
> Well, go ahead and ignore the effects of upper class environmentalists.

Biofuels as presently in operation don't have
anything to do with latte-sipping genocidal
environmentalists. Biofuels now are a way for
the corn and soy industry to make bank, often with
state subsidies or tariff protection (against
imported Brazilian ethanol - I guess it's okay
to import Middle East oil, but not Brazilian
ethanol). Get ready to be paying ADM, Supermarket
_and_ Gas Station to the World.

Oil companies are gearing up to sell massive
amounts of ethanol and other fuels. It isn't
because oil companies suddenly turned into
tree-hugging hippies, either.

Ben

Fred Fredburger

01-04-1970, 01:49 PM

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Fred Fredburger" <FredFredburger@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote in message
> news:BNednZ-3Q43YHvPVnZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@comcast.com...
>> ST wrote:
>>> NEWS FLASH! Assbags!! (DUH!!)
>>>
>>> http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=5309161
>>>
>>>
>>> Report Blames Biofuels for Food Crisis
>>> A Report Leaked To The Guardian Newspaper Blames Biofuels For Food
>>> Shortage
>>> July 4, 2008 LONDON (Reuters) - Biofuels have forced global food
>>> prices up by 75 percent
>>> -- far more than previously estimated -- according to a confidential
>>> World
>>> Bank report published in a British newspaper on Friday.
>>
>> "The figure contradicts U.S. government estimates that plant-derived
>> fuels have contributed less than 3 percent to food-price increases,
>> the newspaper said."
>>
>> So you're saying the Bush administration is lying. Give the President
>> some respect, man!
>
> Well, go ahead and ignore the effects of upper class environmentalists.
>

OK, serious answer.

This article raises more questions than it answers. They say that
biofuels have caused a 75% increase in food prices globally. What does
that number mean? I haven't seen a 75% increase in prices. That implies
that there's somewhere else where there's been a 300% increase that
raises the global average to make up for my lack of a big increase.
Where is that? Has this happened in someplace where the local dictator
has decided he can make more money from selling biofuels than feeding
his people? Or maybe they mean a 75% increase in food prices over the
last 20 years, in which case it's really no big deal since everything
else has gone up in price at least that much too.

Treating the globe as uniform mass is just wrong.

Without knowing what this number means, it's hard to blame anyone for
it. But then, I'm less fond of blame than many.

Given the inability to draw a conclusion from this, it's more
interesting to pull chains.

01-04-1970, 01:49 PM

On 7/4/08 2:39 PM, in article 8763rl2usd.fsf@azurservers.com, "Davey
Crockett" <rec@azurservers.com> wrote:

>
> He's to Firkin stupid.
>
> It's just that nobody told him that biofuels:
>
> Divert farm produce from food production to energy production;
>
> Decrease edible cereal grain acreages as land is earmarked for fuel
> related crops by the sodbusters.
>
> Encourage speculation in both food and energy type crops as
> opposed to normal hedging
>
> It doesn't take a corrupt World Bank to figure it out.
>
> Davey's been telling anybody that would listen for ages already.
>
> --
> Davey Crockett
> -
> Driving a Stake through the
> Heart of the Politically Correct
> -

> Remember when Oil was $20 per Barrel ?
> And Wheat was $7 a Bushel ?
> Well Guess what - Wheat is still $7 a Bushel........
Davey is WRONG!
Wheat is at $15 a Bushel....

http://realdealfinancial.blogspot.com/2008/02/wheat-trades-above-15-per-bush
el.html

Donald Munro

01-04-1970, 01:49 PM

ST wrote:
> Wheat is at $15 a Bushel....

Presumably Bush supporters are measured in Bushels and the
supply is drying up.

Tom Kunich

01-04-1970, 01:49 PM

<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
news:19ca41c5-9be3-4e87-88e0-e48eb34fbc48@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 4, 2:35 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>
>> Well, go ahead and ignore the effects of upper class environmentalists.
>
> Biofuels as presently in operation don't have
> anything to do with latte-sipping genocidal
> environmentalists.

Ben, how do you suppose the government got into the ethanol supporting
business?

Jack Hollis

01-04-1970, 01:49 PM

On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 15:04:06 -0700 (PDT), "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org"
<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:

>Biofuels as presently in operation don't have
>anything to do with latte-sipping genocidal
>environmentalists. Biofuels now are a way for
>the corn and soy industry to make bank, often with
>state subsidies or tariff protection (against
>imported Brazilian ethanol - I guess it's okay
>to import Middle East oil, but not Brazilian
>ethanol). Get ready to be paying ADM, Supermarket
>_and_ Gas Station to the World.
>
>Oil companies are gearing up to sell massive
>amounts of ethanol and other fuels. It isn't
>because oil companies suddenly turned into
>tree-hugging hippies, either.

The ironic thing is that biofuels have very little, if any.
environmental advantages over oil.

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org

01-04-1970, 01:49 PM

On Jul 4, 3:19 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
>
> news:19ca41c5-9be3-4e87-88e0-e48eb34fbc48@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jul 4, 2:35 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> >> Well, go ahead and ignore the effects of upper class environmentalists.
>
> > Biofuels as presently in operation don't have
> > anything to do with latte-sipping genocidal
> > environmentalists.
>
> Ben, how do you suppose the government got into the ethanol supporting
> business?

The farm lobby? If the wacko-Green lobby was as
powerful as the farm lobby, you and I would be living
in treehouses and weaving our own cycling jerseys
from locally grown hemp.

"George Bush's drive to reduce dependence on foreign
oil led him to decree that by 2025, the US should
replace 75% of imported oil with biofuel."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jan/21/biofuels.alternativeenergy

That's not a realistic goal by 2025, I think,
but it makes the grain producers happy.

Ben

Tom Kunich

01-04-1970, 01:49 PM

<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
news:8807fcef-96a0-4df0-9d23-53bab6be902e@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 4, 3:19 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
>>
>> news:19ca41c5-9be3-4e87-88e0-e48eb34fbc48@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Jul 4, 2:35 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Well, go ahead and ignore the effects of upper class
>> >> environmentalists.
>>
>> > Biofuels as presently in operation don't have
>> > anything to do with latte-sipping genocidal
>> > environmentalists.
>>
>> Ben, how do you suppose the government got into the ethanol supporting
>> business?
>
> The farm lobby? If the wacko-Green lobby was as
> powerful as the farm lobby, you and I would be living
> in treehouses and weaving our own cycling jerseys
> from locally grown hemp.
>
> "George Bush's drive to reduce dependence on foreign
> oil led him to decree that by 2025, the US should
> replace 75% of imported oil with biofuel."
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jan/21/biofuels.alternativeenergy
>
> That's not a realistic goal by 2025, I think,
> but it makes the grain producers happy.

http://www.syntroleum.com/pdf/AGMPresentationJune22008RevisionFINAL3.pdf

Check out page 6 in particular.

Donald Munro

01-04-1970, 01:49 PM

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> The farm lobby? If the wacko-Green lobby was as powerful as the farm
> lobby, you and I would be living in treehouses and weaving our own cycling
> jerseys from locally grown hemp.

At least we'd be able to recycle our argyle jerseys by smoking
them.

Mike Jacoubowsky

01-04-1970, 01:50 PM

| > "George Bush's drive to reduce dependence on foreign
| > oil led him to decree that by 2025, the US should
| > replace 75% of imported oil with biofuel."
| >
| >
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jan/21/biofuels.alternativeenergy
| >
| > That's not a realistic goal by 2025, I think,
| > but it makes the grain producers happy.
|
| http://www.syntroleum.com/pdf/AGMPresentationJune22008RevisionFINAL3.pdf
|
| Check out page 6 in particular.

What are we looking for on page 6? It's a flow chart showing how the
Bio-Synfining fuel is made, and it appears to my non-engineering mind that
it differs from most bio-fuels by having a 3rd step (step 3 in the flow
chart) that isn't the norm. That 3rd step incorporates materials that would
otherwise be considered waste, but the previous 2 do not (Natural Gas, Coal
or "Biomass").

I did find page 10 interesting. $1/gallon subsidy. But according to their
own figures, it becomes profitable to create fuel without any subsidies at
all at a price lower than what we're currently seeing at the pump.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:0IednSyYobLnXfPVnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@earthlink.co m...
| <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
| news:8807fcef-96a0-4df0-9d23-53bab6be902e@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
| > On Jul 4, 3:19 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
| >> <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
| >>
| >>
news:19ca41c5-9be3-4e87-88e0-e48eb34fbc48@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
| >>
| >> > On Jul 4, 2:35 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
| >>
| >> >> Well, go ahead and ignore the effects of upper class
| >> >> environmentalists.
| >>
| >> > Biofuels as presently in operation don't have
| >> > anything to do with latte-sipping genocidal
| >> > environmentalists.
| >>
| >> Ben, how do you suppose the government got into the ethanol supporting
| >> business?
| >
| > The farm lobby? If the wacko-Green lobby was as
| > powerful as the farm lobby, you and I would be living
| > in treehouses and weaving our own cycling jerseys
| > from locally grown hemp.
| >
| > "George Bush's drive to reduce dependence on foreign
| > oil led him to decree that by 2025, the US should
| > replace 75% of imported oil with biofuel."
| >
| >
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jan/21/biofuels.alternativeenergy
| >
| > That's not a realistic goal by 2025, I think,
| > but it makes the grain producers happy.
|
| http://www.syntroleum.com/pdf/AGMPresentationJune22008RevisionFINAL3.pdf
|
| Check out page 6 in particular.
|

Tom Kunich

01-04-1970, 01:50 PM

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1Czbk.567$cn7.71@flpi145.ffdc.sbc.com...
>
> I did find page 10 interesting. $1/gallon subsidy. But according to their
> own figures, it becomes profitable to create fuel without any subsidies at
> all at a price lower than what we're currently seeing at the pump.

Bingo.

01-04-1970, 01:50 PM

On 7/4/08 5:54 PM, in article 1Czbk.567$cn7.71@flpi145.ffdc.sbc.com, "Mike
Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> | > "George Bush's drive to reduce dependence on foreign
> | > oil led him to decree that by 2025, the US should
> | > replace 75% of imported oil with biofuel."
> | >
> | >
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jan/21/biofuels.alternativeenergy
> | >
> | > That's not a realistic goal by 2025, I think,
> | > but it makes the grain producers happy.
> |
> | http://www.syntroleum.com/pdf/AGMPresentationJune22008RevisionFINAL3.pdf
> |
> | Check out page 6 in particular.
>
> What are we looking for on page 6? It's a flow chart showing how the
> Bio-Synfining fuel is made, and it appears to my non-engineering mind that
> it differs from most bio-fuels by having a 3rd step (step 3 in the flow
> chart) that isn't the norm. That 3rd step incorporates materials that would
> otherwise be considered waste, but the previous 2 do not (Natural Gas, Coal
> or "Biomass").
>
> I did find page 10 interesting. $1/gallon subsidy. But according to their
> own figures, it becomes profitable to create fuel without any subsidies at
> all at a price lower than what we're currently seeing at the pump.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
>
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
> news:0IednSyYobLnXfPVnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@earthlink.co m...
> | <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
> | news:8807fcef-96a0-4df0-9d23-53bab6be902e@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> | > On Jul 4, 3:19 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> | >> <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
> | >>
> | >>
> news:19ca41c5-9be3-4e87-88e0-e48eb34fbc48@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> | >>
> | >> > On Jul 4, 2:35 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> | >>
> | >> >> Well, go ahead and ignore the effects of upper class
> | >> >> environmentalists.
> | >>
> | >> > Biofuels as presently in operation don't have
> | >> > anything to do with latte-sipping genocidal
> | >> > environmentalists.
> | >>
> | >> Ben, how do you suppose the government got into the ethanol supporting
> | >> business?
> | >
> | > The farm lobby? If the wacko-Green lobby was as
> | > powerful as the farm lobby, you and I would be living
> | > in treehouses and weaving our own cycling jerseys
> | > from locally grown hemp.
> | >
> | > "George Bush's drive to reduce dependence on foreign
> | > oil led him to decree that by 2025, the US should
> | > replace 75% of imported oil with biofuel."
> | >
> | >
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jan/21/biofuels.alternativeenergy
> | >
> | > That's not a realistic goal by 2025, I think,
> | > but it makes the grain producers happy.
> |
> | http://www.syntroleum.com/pdf/AGMPresentationJune22008RevisionFINAL3.pdf
> |
> | Check out page 6 in particular.
> |
>
>

Mike,

We all know you only see what you want to see.....
What caught my eye was "Animal Fats"

HUH?

Sounds like taking more food from people to feed our energy needs..
They might be referring to using french fry oil in your diesel car. It also
shows a graphic of Hydrocarbons + H2O. You have heard that it takes up to
1000 gallons of water to make 1 gallon of Biofuel.

Mike Jacoubowsky

01-04-1970, 01:50 PM

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:sq6dnc7dPrr_U_PVnZ2dnUVZ_v_inZ2d@earthlink.co m...
| "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
| news:1Czbk.567$cn7.71@flpi145.ffdc.sbc.com...
| >
| > I did find page 10 interesting. $1/gallon subsidy. But according to
their
| > own figures, it becomes profitable to create fuel without any subsidies
at
| > all at a price lower than what we're currently seeing at the pump.
|
| Bingo.

But that was on page 10, not 6. You said page 6. You're not playing fair!

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

01-04-1970, 01:50 PM

On 7/4/08 6:29 PM, in article
sq6dnc7dPrr_U_PVnZ2dnUVZ_v_inZ2d@earthlink.com, "Tom Kunich"
<cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:1Czbk.567$cn7.71@flpi145.ffdc.sbc.com...
>>
>> I did find page 10 interesting. $1/gallon subsidy. But according to their
>> own figures, it becomes profitable to create fuel without any subsidies at
>> all at a price lower than what we're currently seeing at the pump.
>
> Bingo.
>

Why.......... The only countries that subsidize fuel prices are...anyone?
Socialist! We have some people around here going down to Mexico to put that
watered-down Pemex in their tank for $2.50 per gallon. They subsidize their
gas, that is why it costs less.

You need to have Mexican car insurance to go down there! Especially if your
car is not yours yet! Any issue at all and the police will TAKE your car!
That does not even include the robbing and kidnapping risks. At $10 minimum
per day for Insurance and the time it takes to go down there and come back
minus the money it costs for the drive there is it worth it if you are not
driving a vehicle with an empty 100 gallon tank?

Tom Kunich

01-04-1970, 01:50 PM

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:ddAbk.7567$L_.4032@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com...
>
> But that was on page 10, not 6. You said page 6. You're not playing fair!

But on page 6 they tell you that they can make fuels out of natural gas and
coal, two materials which the USA has one of the world's greatest
abundances.

Think about this Mike - unless the government continues to screw everything
up, the USA has fuel at a reasonable price into the foreseeable future
without any believing in magic or pretending that "green power" is going to
work despite the fact that you can do the numbers yourself and see that
wind, sun and waves aren't ever going to work.

And those who are claiming they will are also pretending that the huge loss
of life that would be caused by cutting power that much isn't important.
Think of this Mike - the "greens" have entire groups that are saying that we
ought to let other countries die - most of Africa for instance.

01-04-1970, 01:50 PM

On 7/4/08 7:28 PM, in article
x_ednTco7trJQfPVnZ2dnUVZ_u6dnZ2d@earthlink.com, "Tom Kunich"
<cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:ddAbk.7567$L_.4032@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com...
>>
>> But that was on page 10, not 6. You said page 6. You're not playing fair!
>
> But on page 6 they tell you that they can make fuels out of natural gas and
> coal, two materials which the USA has one of the world's greatest
> abundances.
>
> Think about this Mike - unless the government continues to screw everything
> up, the USA has fuel at a reasonable price into the foreseeable future
> without any believing in magic or pretending that "green power" is going to
> work despite the fact that you can do the numbers yourself and see that
> wind, sun and waves aren't ever going to work.
>
> And those who are claiming they will are also pretending that the huge loss
> of life that would be caused by cutting power that much isn't important.
> Think of this Mike - the "greens" have entire groups that are saying that we
> ought to let other countries die - most of Africa for instance.
>

That seemed like a given to me........
NG and coal.

Funny how we expect other countries to pump more oil AND do things to
control prices when WE cannot even use our own **** here and we have more!!

The only benefit to this strategy?? After our lifetime of course, other
countries will run out of oil but WE will still have ours. I wonder what
will happen then...

Howard Kveck

01-04-1970, 01:50 PM

In article <x_ednTco7trJQfPVnZ2dnUVZ_u6dnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:ddAbk.7567$L_.4032@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com...
> >
> > But that was on page 10, not 6. You said page 6. You're not playing fair!
>
> But on page 6 they tell you that they can make fuels out of natural gas and
> coal, two materials which the USA has one of the world's greatest
> abundances.
>
> Think about this Mike - unless the government continues to screw everything
> up, the USA has fuel at a reasonable price into the foreseeable future
> without any believing in magic or pretending that "green power" is going to
> work despite the fact that you can do the numbers yourself and see that
> wind, sun and waves aren't ever going to work.
>
> And those who are claiming they will are also pretending that the huge loss
> of life that would be caused by cutting power that much isn't important.
> Think of this Mike - the "greens" have entire groups that are saying that we
> ought to let other countries die - most of Africa for instance.

Cite one - just one - of these groups saying specifically that, Tom. If you can't
then you're as full of **** as ever.

--
tanx,
Howard

The bloody pubs are bloody dull
The bloody clubs are bloody full
Of bloody girls and bloody guys
With bloody murder in their eyes

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Fred Fredburger

01-04-1970, 01:50 PM

Tom Kunich wrote:

> But on page 6 they tell you that they can make fuels out of natural gas
> and coal, two materials which the USA has one of the world's greatest
> abundances.

If gas prices stabilize at a sufficiently high level for long enough, I
believe this resource will start to get exploited. The problem in the
past has been that it takes a while to ramp up for production. Then the
price bubble bursts and oil prices drop back below the cost of oil
shale, coal liquefaction or whatever, and everyone loses interest until
the next oil crises.

I suppose I should also recognize that environmentalists tend to dislike
some of these solutions and they present barriers as well. I think
that, given enough financial pressure, they are a barrier that could be
overcome. In the US, at least, we like our cars and SUVs.

Mike Jacoubowsky

01-04-1970, 01:50 PM

| Mike,
|
| We all know you only see what you want to see.....
| What caught my eye was "Animal Fats"
|
| HUH?
|
| Sounds like taking more food from people to feed our energy needs..
| They might be referring to using french fry oil in your diesel car. It
also
| shows a graphic of Hydrocarbons + H2O. You have heard that it takes up to
| 1000 gallons of water to make 1 gallon of Biofuel.

How's that an issue? We have as much water as we'd ever want, right there in
the ocean. Too much even, because global warming is going to be raising the
shorelines. All we have to do is desalinate it, something that's already
going on large-scale in places like Israel. Oh, but then some "green"
naysayer is going to point out that it takes 2 gallons of oil to desalinate
the sea water so we can get our 1 gallon of biofuel. But we'll mix things up
so wildly with tax credits & direct subsidies and such that only a few will
be able to figure it out, and nobody will pay any attention to them.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"ST" <sdsteve@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:C4942DB1.58037%sdsteve@sbcglobal.net...
| On 7/4/08 5:54 PM, in article 1Czbk.567$cn7.71@flpi145.ffdc.sbc.com, "Mike
| Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
|
| > | > "George Bush's drive to reduce dependence on foreign
| > | > oil led him to decree that by 2025, the US should
| > | > replace 75% of imported oil with biofuel."
| > | >
| > | >
| >
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jan/21/biofuels.alternativeenergy
| > | >
| > | > That's not a realistic goal by 2025, I think,
| > | > but it makes the grain producers happy.
| > |
| > |
http://www.syntroleum.com/pdf/AGMPresentationJune22008RevisionFINAL3.pdf
| > |
| > | Check out page 6 in particular.
| >
| > What are we looking for on page 6? It's a flow chart showing how the
| > Bio-Synfining fuel is made, and it appears to my non-engineering mind
that
| > it differs from most bio-fuels by having a 3rd step (step 3 in the flow
| > chart) that isn't the norm. That 3rd step incorporates materials that
would
| > otherwise be considered waste, but the previous 2 do not (Natural Gas,
Coal
| > or "Biomass").
| >
| > I did find page 10 interesting. $1/gallon subsidy. But according to
their
| > own figures, it becomes profitable to create fuel without any subsidies
at
| > all at a price lower than what we're currently seeing at the pump.
| >
| > --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
| > www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
| >
| >
| > "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
| > news:0IednSyYobLnXfPVnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@earthlink.co m...
| > | <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
| > |
news:8807fcef-96a0-4df0-9d23-53bab6be902e@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
| > | > On Jul 4, 3:19 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
| > | >> <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
| > | >>
| > | >>
| > news:19ca41c5-9be3-4e87-88e0-e48eb34fbc48@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
| > | >>
| > | >> > On Jul 4, 2:35 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
| > | >>
| > | >> >> Well, go ahead and ignore the effects of upper class
| > | >> >> environmentalists.
| > | >>
| > | >> > Biofuels as presently in operation don't have
| > | >> > anything to do with latte-sipping genocidal
| > | >> > environmentalists.
| > | >>
| > | >> Ben, how do you suppose the government got into the ethanol
supporting
| > | >> business?
| > | >
| > | > The farm lobby? If the wacko-Green lobby was as
| > | > powerful as the farm lobby, you and I would be living
| > | > in treehouses and weaving our own cycling jerseys
| > | > from locally grown hemp.
| > | >
| > | > "George Bush's drive to reduce dependence on foreign
| > | > oil led him to decree that by 2025, the US should
| > | > replace 75% of imported oil with biofuel."
| > | >
| > | >
| >
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jan/21/biofuels.alternativeenergy
| > | >
| > | > That's not a realistic goal by 2025, I think,
| > | > but it makes the grain producers happy.
| > |
| > |
http://www.syntroleum.com/pdf/AGMPresentationJune22008RevisionFINAL3.pdf
| > |
| > | Check out page 6 in particular.
| > |
| >
| >
|
|
| Mike,
|
| We all know you only see what you want to see.....
| What caught my eye was "Animal Fats"
|
| HUH?
|
| Sounds like taking more food from people to feed our energy needs..
| They might be referring to using french fry oil in your diesel car. It
also
| shows a graphic of Hydrocarbons + H2O. You have heard that it takes up to
| 1000 gallons of water to make 1 gallon of Biofuel.
|

Bill C

01-04-1970, 01:50 PM

On Jul 4, 11:54*pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>
> How's that an issue? We have as much water as we'd ever want, right there in
> the ocean. Too much even, because global warming is going to be raising the
> shorelines. All we have to do is desalinate it, something that's already
> going on large-scale in places like Israel. Oh, but then some "green"
> naysayer is going to point out that it takes 2 gallons of oil to desalinate
> the sea water so we can get our 1 gallon of biofuel. But we'll mix things up
> so wildly with tax credits & direct subsidies and such that only a few will
> be able to figure it out, and nobody will pay any attention to them.
>
> --Mike-- * * Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
Whatta ya mean Mike?? Potable water, or even water at all for human
use isn't an issue at all. Like you pointed out, there is no problem,
and Global warming will solve that, no problem.
Bill C

01-04-1970, 01:50 PM

On 7/4/08 8:54 PM, in article hgCbk.7572$L_.271@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com, "Mike
Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> | Mike,
> |
> | We all know you only see what you want to see.....
> | What caught my eye was "Animal Fats"
> |
> | HUH?
> |
> | Sounds like taking more food from people to feed our energy needs..
> | They might be referring to using french fry oil in your diesel car. It
> also
> | shows a graphic of Hydrocarbons + H2O. You have heard that it takes up to
> | 1000 gallons of water to make 1 gallon of Biofuel.
>
> How's that an issue? We have as much water as we'd ever want, right there in
> the ocean. Too much even, because global warming is going to be raising the
> shorelines. All we have to do is desalinate it, something that's already
> going on large-scale in places like Israel. Oh, but then some "green"
> naysayer is going to point out that it takes 2 gallons of oil to desalinate
> the sea water so we can get our 1 gallon of biofuel. But we'll mix things up
> so wildly with tax credits & direct subsidies and such that only a few will
> be able to figure it out, and nobody will pay any attention to them.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
>

You guys are not progressives!
Your philosophy of round robin ideals are just sick!!

Bill C

01-04-1970, 01:50 PM

On Jul 5, 12:29*am, ST <sdst...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>
> You guys are not progressives!
> Your philosophy of round robin ideals are just sick!!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

If that's, in part, aimed at me that's hillarious.
It's funny as is, but....
Bill C

01-04-1970, 01:50 PM

On 7/4/08 9:52 PM, in article
5a2e9605-5b3e-4c73-85db-bc76ea4e1c81@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, "Bill C"
<tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Jul 5, 12:29*am, ST <sdst...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> You guys are not progressives!
>> Your philosophy of round robin ideals are just sick!!- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> If that's, in part, aimed at me that's hillarious.
> It's funny as is, but....
> Bill C

Not you..
The other guys

Howard Kveck

01-04-1970, 01:51 PM

In article <486f10b6$0$17670$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>,
Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote:

> ST wrote:
> > Wheat is at $15 a Bushel....
>
> Presumably Bush supporters are measured in Bushels and the
> supply is drying up.

Yes, like all end of season vegetables, that last 24% is close to rotten.

--
tanx,
Howard

The bloody pubs are bloody dull
The bloody clubs are bloody full
Of bloody girls and bloody guys
With bloody murder in their eyes

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

01-04-1970, 01:51 PM

On 7/4/08 11:12 PM, in article
486f10b6$0$17670$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com, "Donald Munro"
<fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote:

> ST wrote:
>> Wheat is at $15 a Bushel....
>
> Presumably Bush supporters are measured in Bushels and the
> supply is drying up.

Pathetic........
All you blowhards can do is say it is Bushs fault! He is responsible for
everything. Just like all the problems in the world (for the last 225 years
at least!) is the fault of the US!

What about before that? After??

I guess there are no statistics majors here! Correlation does NOT mean
causation. But I am sure you can reverse engineer almost any stat and come
to a conclusion that meets your philosophy.

You know......... Like 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon.

Hempy

01-04-1970, 01:51 PM

On Jul 5, 2:13*am, Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> > The farm lobby? *If the wacko-Green lobby was as powerful as the farm
> > lobby, you and I would be living in treehouses and weaving our own cycling
> > jerseys from locally grownhemp.
>
> At least we'd be able to recycle our argyle jerseys by smoking
> them.

Smoking your hemp argyle jerseys isn't going to do much for you.

Bill C

01-04-1970, 01:51 PM

On Jul 5, 8:28*am, ST <sdst...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 7/4/08 9:52 PM, in article
> 5a2e9605-5b3e-4c73-85db-bc76ea4e1...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, "Bill C"
>
> <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Jul 5, 12:29*am, ST <sdst...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >> You guys are not progressives!
> >> Your philosophy of round robin ideals are just sick!!- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > If that's, in part, aimed at me that's hillarious.
> > It's funny as is, but....
> > Bill C
>
> Not you..
> The other guys

Steve you've gotta stop letting Henry get you wound up. I should talk,
right? Anyway, all Mike is saying is that if biofuels are causing some
of the food shortages then we need to be using that land to grow food.
That doesn't take into consideration that tons of farmers in the US
were, and are on life support due to ridiculously low food prices
being paid to them. In the dairy industry in particular the farmers
were, and are going under because the processors wouldn't pay ****,
and the farmers couldn't strike, or dump the milk because they didn't
have the financial resources to survive that action so they died
slowly. Some managed to scrape up the capital to open coop processing
plants and get some relief that way, but that takes mass cash up
front, and is a huge bureaucratic hassle. It's the option I like, and
wish my family had taken, but that's another story.
Now let's open a giant can of worms here, and I'm sure that Henry, at
least, has thought about this.
The planet until very recently has been a brutally self correcting
organism. You populate beyond your resources, you die. Pretty simple.
Occasional natural disaters are the anomaly where areas that are
usuallly self supporting can't for a bit, and in that case food aid
makes sense. Can you see where I'm going with this?
What we have today is increasingly depleted, mostly marginal, land
occupied by people with some of the highest current birth rates. That
behavior rather than leading to natural correction is being enabled by
outside human support in the form of food aid, which is enabling the
unsustainable behavior to not only continue but expand, despite the
increasing reliance on outside artificial support to make this happen.
By providing this without massive, and brutal population control
methods, along with education, and farming improvements we are
enabling these people right into continuing a vicious, suicidal,
unsustainable cycle which is only getting worse.
Mother Nature is a ***** who doesn't give a **** about inalienable
rights or anything else. How "humanitarian" is it to enable people to
overpopulate their resources so that vast numbers of them are brutally
effected by malnutrition issues and diseases when they don't end up
dead?
Unfortunately the Catholic church in particular sees these people as
the key to it's future power and is doing everything in it's power to
keep them breeding, and dependent on them for aid and food, and it's
working out for the Church, but not so well for the people.
This has become a recurring theme in wildlife management, and yes
humans are a form of wildlife for biological survival purposes. Lots
of places deer overpopulation has been enabled and supported by the
reaction of external food aid being delivered to them. This has
resulted in really low quality lives and health for the deer, massive
damage and depletion to the habitat from over grazing, etc...Then it
tends to blow up when there's either a brutal winter and they can't
get the food out to them, or the money runs out on the feeding
programs and there's a massive die off.
This has generally been swept under the rug, and ignored by the
public, and the "Bambi" loving crowd who think Disney movies are
accurate depictions of wildlife and it's management. In several cases
the wildlife biologists who have to live with, and clean up the messes
have taken picture of the giant stacks of corpses of emaciated,
brutally heart wrenching deer piled up waiting for a thaw so they can
be buried, or burned to slam home the folly, and brutality, of
managing lives based on feel good, and emotions. Usually the backlash
is at the biologists, not the people who created the unsustainable
situation in the first place.
All the same applies to humans too.
I've been thinking about this stuff for a long time, and still am not
sure how to deal with it in humans. In animals it's a little easier if
we toss touchy/feely out the window and go with the biologists
reccomendations of increased hunting hwere needed and closely
monitored, along with predator re-introduction which helps put the
natural cycle back together. The predator re-introductions are fought
incredibly hard by livestock types, and ignorant, selfish hunters.
Unfortunately the only real predators today for humans are other
humans.
There's no question the planet would be better off with a smaller
human population, especially in many marginal habitats. This used to
be self correcting, and still is a little bit in wars over basic
resources, but nowhere near enough to get us back to a healthy,
sustainable situation.
Once again I see no good answer other than education, responsibility,
and self control, but those have been almost impossible to make work.
Global warming may very well be Mother Natures answer to human
intrasigence and stupidity, but very few of the folks railing about
global warming want to go anywhere near the population part of the
equation. In a touchy feely world run on emotional spasms that's the
third rail. Again political correctness, or sensibilities, hamstring
the honest discussion of the total, and final solution, and yes I used
that term on purpose.
Nothing is easy, or simple but we need to be discussing ALL of it.
Bill C

Fred Fredburger

01-04-1970, 01:51 PM

ST wrote:

> Pathetic........
> All you blowhards can do is say it is Bushs fault! He is responsible for
> everything. Just like all the problems in the world (for the last 225 years
> at least!) is the fault of the US!

No, Bush gets blamed about like Carter did. Reagan was teflon. Bush Sr.
was velcro, like Carter and GW Bush. Clinton was off the charts. He had
good public approval ratings while being impeached. THAT'S teflon.

Fred Fredburger

01-04-1970, 01:52 PM

Bill C wrote:

> The planet until very recently has been a brutally self correcting
> organism. You populate beyond your resources, you die. Pretty simple.
> Occasional natural disaters are the anomaly where areas that are
> usuallly self supporting can't for a bit, and in that case food aid
> makes sense. Can you see where I'm going with this?

Have you ever heard of this guy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthus

SLAVE of THE STATE

01-04-1970, 01:52 PM

On Jul 5, 8:04 am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:

> The planet until very recently has been a brutally self correcting
> organism.

The planet is not an "organism."

I can't believe Gaia isn't in violation of EPA regulations, or least
some local ordinances for peeing in the soup, river, or whatever:

http://spiritualbooksandgifts.avatarpublication.com/images/stories/halocards/_GAIA.jpg

> You populate beyond your resources, you die.

We-meme Borger,

I know it is popular in your borg to conflate all individuals in a
species into one collective, but that is a rather large stretch of any
known reality.

> Unfortunately the only real predators today for humans are other
> humans.

But I thought you took the species as one giant collective? I don't
get it.

> There's no question the planet would be better off with a smaller
> human population, especially in many marginal habitats.

According to whose value system? Gaia's? Have you been sleeping
with Gaia? Is she hot?

Donald Munro

01-04-1970, 01:53 PM

Fred Fredburger wrote:
> Given the inability to draw a conclusion from this, it's more interesting
> to pull chains.

Careful, you might block the drain.

Fred Fredburger

01-04-1970, 01:53 PM

Donald Munro wrote:
> Fred Fredburger wrote:
>> Given the inability to draw a conclusion from this, it's more interesting
>> to pull chains.
>
> Careful, you might block the drain.

Where'd you leave the plunger?

01-04-1970, 01:53 PM

On 7/5/08 1:11 PM, in article 29lv641t2mkr6gmsm4hmd5j96rbgo7n099@4ax.com,
"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 15:04:06 -0700 (PDT), "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org"
> <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:
>
>> Biofuels as presently in operation don't have
>> anything to do with latte-sipping genocidal
>> environmentalists. Biofuels now are a way for
>> the corn and soy industry to make bank, often with
>> state subsidies or tariff protection (against
>> imported Brazilian ethanol - I guess it's okay
>> to import Middle East oil, but not Brazilian
>> ethanol). Get ready to be paying ADM, Supermarket
>> _and_ Gas Station to the World.
>>
>> Oil companies are gearing up to sell massive
>> amounts of ethanol and other fuels. It isn't
>> because oil companies suddenly turned into
>> tree-hugging hippies, either.
>
>
> The ironic thing is that biofuels have very little, if any.
> environmental advantages over oil.

True......

Every time a latte-sipping genocidal
Environmentalist fills up his gas tank on his yuppie ***** prius (13
gallons?) they waste 1300 gallons of water!!

They need that water to wash off after giving Al Gore a corn cob blowjob!
He has increased his net worth by 100 million $$ with this global warming
bull****!

Fred Fredburger

01-04-1970, 01:53 PM

Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 15:04:06 -0700 (PDT), "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org"
> <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:
>
>> Biofuels as presently in operation don't have
>> anything to do with latte-sipping genocidal
>> environmentalists. Biofuels now are a way for
>> the corn and soy industry to make bank, often with
>> state subsidies or tariff protection (against
>> imported Brazilian ethanol - I guess it's okay
>> to import Middle East oil, but not Brazilian
>> ethanol). Get ready to be paying ADM, Supermarket
>> _and_ Gas Station to the World.
>>
>> Oil companies are gearing up to sell massive
>> amounts of ethanol and other fuels. It isn't
>> because oil companies suddenly turned into
>> tree-hugging hippies, either.
>
>
> The ironic thing is that biofuels have very little, if any.
> environmental advantages over oil.

I've said the same thing before. I was surprised by how pissed off that
idea makes some people. It's just an article of faith that biofuels are
"greener".

Howard Kveck

01-04-1970, 01:53 PM

In article <C4953EE6.580A1%sdsteve@sbcglobal.net>, ST <sdsteve@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Every time a latte-sipping genocidal
> Environmentalist fills up his gas tank on his yuppie ***** prius (13
> gallons?) they waste 1300 gallons of water!!

So if the Prius owner filling up with gas (as the overwhelming majority do)
"wastes 1300 gallons of water" then how much do those who drive big ass SUV waste?
The fact that you'd post a diatribe like this one is ample evidence that you're
concerns are not about the possible starvation of others but are ideological. If it
seems like it's something that a liberal might do, you're against it. Saving gas is a
bad thing to you, apparently. What a genius.

It's particularly amusing that you continue to assert that the whole biofuel thing
is some liberal wetdream in the face of good evidence that it is driven by companies
like ADM rather than groups like MoveOn or other left-leaning organizations.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--
tanx,
Howard

The bloody pubs are bloody dull
The bloody clubs are bloody full
Of bloody girls and bloody guys
With bloody murder in their eyes

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Donald Munro

01-04-1970, 01:53 PM

Fred Fredburger wrote:
> No, Bush gets blamed about like Carter did. Reagan was teflon. Bush Sr.
> was velcro, like Carter and GW Bush. Clinton was off the charts. He had
> good public approval ratings while being impeached. THAT'S teflon.

Clinton wet lube cleans your chain while lubricating it. Even
Monica's dress is clean and slippery.

01-04-1970, 01:53 PM

On 7/5/08 3:35 PM, in article EtadnX_a36W2avLVnZ2dnUVZ_uLinZ2d@comcast.com,
"Fred Fredburger" <FredFredburger@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:

> Bill C wrote:
>
>
>> The planet until very recently has been a brutally self correcting
>> organism. You populate beyond your resources, you die. Pretty simple.
>> Occasional natural disaters are the anomaly where areas that are
>> usuallly self supporting can't for a bit, and in that case food aid
>> makes sense. Can you see where I'm going with this?
>
> Have you ever heard of this guy?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthus

Have you ever heard of this guy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Tytler

Alexander Fraser Tytler, Lord Woodhouselee
(October 15, 1747 - January 5, 1813)

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a
permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until
the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts
from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for
the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with
the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal
policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning
of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations
always progressed through the following sequence:

* From bondage to spiritual faith;
* From spiritual faith to great courage;
* From courage to liberty;
* From liberty to abundance;
* From abundance to complacency;
* From complacency to apathy;
* From apathy to dependence;
* From dependence back into bondage.

Did you know that over 50% of our population receives the majority of their
income from the government??

50% of our population believes in personal responsibility, 50% believes we
should be a nanny state and change everyone's diaper! It is hard to vote
what you think is right when your financial well being is at risk!

Unless you want to say the government is a second cousin twice removed, it
is very rare anyone can say that the government has control over their daily
operations in life OR if they get a job a where or what the occupation.

Go back 100+ years! People did what they had to do to get ahead. There was
none of this constant media barrage of bull**** to tell them that the frost
that ruined half of their corn crop that season was due to the presidents
policies or global warming!

I am making it simple.
Which side of this bed do you get up from in the morning.........

Bill C

01-04-1970, 01:54 PM

On Jul 5, 6:57*pm, ST <sdst...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 7/5/08 3:35 PM, in article EtadnX_a36W2avLVnZ2dnUVZ_uLin...@comcast.com,
>
> "Fred Fredburger" <FredFredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:
> > Bill C wrote:
>
> >> *The planet until very recently has been a brutally self correcting
> >> organism. You populate beyond your resources, you die. Pretty simple.
> >> Occasional natural disaters are the anomaly where areas that are
> >> usuallly self supporting can't for a bit, and in that case food aid
> >> makes sense. Can you see where I'm going with this?
>
> > Have you ever heard of this guy?
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthus

Yeah, and if anything the situation is beyond anything he could've
imagined today, becaue we have the ability, and have moved a tonnage
of food beyond what he would have ever thought possible to
artificially support populations well beyond the carrying capacity of
their environment.
The question is now that we've created a mass of people surviving on,
and demanding constant handouts what do we do now?

>
> Have you ever heard of this guy?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Tytler
>
> Alexander Fraser Tytler, Lord Woodhouselee
> (October 15, 1747 - January 5, 1813)
>
> * * A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a
> permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until
> the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts
> from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for
> the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with
> the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal
> policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.
>
> * * The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning
> of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations
> always progressed through the following sequence:
>
> * * * * * From bondage to spiritual faith;
> * * * * * From spiritual faith to great courage;
> * * * * * From courage to liberty;
> * * * * * From liberty to abundance;
> * * * * * From abundance to complacency;
> * * * * * From complacency to apathy;
> * * * * * From apathy to dependence;
> * * * * * From dependence back into bondage.
>
It's even older than that, back to the Roman "bread and Circusses".

> Did you know that over 50% of our population receives the majority of their
> income from the government??
>
> 50% of our population believes in personal responsibility, 50% believes we
> should be a nanny state and change everyone's diaper! It is hard to vote
> what you think is right when your financial well being is at risk!
>

I'd put it more skewed than that even towards the nanny state.

> Unless you want to say the government is a second cousin twice removed, it
> is very rare anyone can say that the government has control over their daily
> operations in life OR if they get a job a where or what the occupation.
>
> Go back 100+ years! People did what they had to do to get ahead. There was
> none of this constant media barrage of bull**** to tell them that the frost
> that ruined half of their corn crop that season was due to the presidents
> policies or global warming!
>
You must have missed my *****ing in the past that the West in general,
and her people in particular have gone totally gutless.
Good example in today's Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jul/06/knifecrime.ukcrime1?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

Quoted:
The growing fear of knife crime in Britain is forcing hospital trusts
and local authorities to supply body armour to frontline workers,
including A&E staff, hospital porters, teachers, benefits officers and
traffic wardens.

Stab and bullet-proof vests are being ordered in their tens of
thousands to protect employees from increased levels of aggression, a
move described as 'a shameful indictment of violence in Britain
today'.
<<more there>>

These are supposedly the same people who stood proud and unbowed while
the Nazis rained bombs continually on their heads. These are the
people, along with the French, that have the most gallant military
history on the planet, and in the past faced all threats with
resolution and courage.
Just how many public workers have been knifed to death to cause this
panic?

The press was not really so different then, and in many ways nastier,
but the media wasn't able to spread the message as widely, and there
was much less literacy.

> I am making it simple.
> Which side of this bed do you get up from in the morning.........

The side where I think about things, no matter where it leads and I
still have no answer to the real problem under discussion here.

Bill C

Fred Fredburger

01-04-1970, 01:54 PM

ST wrote:

I have significant disagreement with you about one thing in particular
here. It's this:

> 50% of our population believes in personal responsibility, 50% believes we
> should be a nanny state and change everyone's diaper!

Assuming that you're talking about the US, it's nowhere close to 50% who
believe in personal responsibility. The Democrats blame the Republicans.
The Republicans blame the Democrats. Some of the Independents blame both
parties. There's no personal responsibility in any of that.

I realize that you THINK you believe in personal responsibility. But you
spend too much time freaking out about invisible bogey men and blaming
THE VAST LIBERAL CONSPIRACY for it to be persuasive. Continue the
routine, however. It's entertaining.

Really, blaming the President for everything is better than blaming
something you can't even see. But you've set the bar awfully low.

01-04-1970, 01:54 PM

On 7/5/08 4:55 PM, in article
c4b70133-8d59-4245-adfe-a4befdade934@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, "Bill C"
<tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Jul 5, 6:57*pm, ST <sdst...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 7/5/08 3:35 PM, in article EtadnX_a36W2avLVnZ2dnUVZ_uLin...@comcast.com,
>>
>> "Fred Fredburger" <FredFredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:
>>> Bill C wrote:
>>
>>>> *The planet until very recently has been a brutally self correcting
>>>> organism. You populate beyond your resources, you die. Pretty simple.
>>>> Occasional natural disaters are the anomaly where areas that are
>>>> usuallly self supporting can't for a bit, and in that case food aid
>>>> makes sense. Can you see where I'm going with this?
>>
>>> Have you ever heard of this guy?
>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthus
>
> Yeah, and if anything the situation is beyond anything he could've
> imagined today, becaue we have the ability, and have moved a tonnage
> of food beyond what he would have ever thought possible to
> artificially support populations well beyond the carrying capacity of
> their environment.
> The question is now that we've created a mass of people surviving on,
> and demanding constant handouts what do we do now?
>
>>
>> Have you ever heard of this guy?
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Tytler
>>
>> Alexander Fraser Tytler, Lord Woodhouselee
>> (October 15, 1747 - January 5, 1813)
>>
>> * * A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a
>> permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until
>> the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts
>> from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for
>> the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with
>> the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal
>> policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.
>>
>> * * The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning
>> of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations
>> always progressed through the following sequence:
>>
>> * * * * * From bondage to spiritual faith;
>> * * * * * From spiritual faith to great courage;
>> * * * * * From courage to liberty;
>> * * * * * From liberty to abundance;
>> * * * * * From abundance to complacency;
>> * * * * * From complacency to apathy;
>> * * * * * From apathy to dependence;
>> * * * * * From dependence back into bondage.
>>
> It's even older than that, back to the Roman "bread and Circusses".
>
>> Did you know that over 50% of our population receives the majority of their
>> income from the government??
>>
>> 50% of our population believes in personal responsibility, 50% believes we
>> should be a nanny state and change everyone's diaper! It is hard to vote
>> what you think is right when your financial well being is at risk!
>>
>
> I'd put it more skewed than that even towards the nanny state.
>
>> Unless you want to say the government is a second cousin twice removed, it
>> is very rare anyone can say that the government has control over their daily
>> operations in life OR if they get a job a where or what the occupation.
>>
>> Go back 100+ years! People did what they had to do to get ahead. There was
>> none of this constant media barrage of bull**** to tell them that the frost
>> that ruined half of their corn crop that season was due to the presidents
>> policies or global warming!
>>
> You must have missed my *****ing in the past that the West in general,
> and her people in particular have gone totally gutless.
> Good example in today's Guardian:
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jul/06/knifecrime.ukcrime1?gusrc=rss&feed=ne
> tworkfront
>
> Quoted:
> The growing fear of knife crime in Britain is forcing hospital trusts
> and local authorities to supply body armour to frontline workers,
> including A&E staff, hospital porters, teachers, benefits officers and
> traffic wardens.
>
> Stab and bullet-proof vests are being ordered in their tens of
> thousands to protect employees from increased levels of aggression, a
> move described as 'a shameful indictment of violence in Britain
> today'.
> <<more there>>
>
> These are supposedly the same people who stood proud and unbowed while
> the Nazis rained bombs continually on their heads. These are the
> people, along with the French, that have the most gallant military
> history on the planet, and in the past faced all threats with
> resolution and courage.
> Just how many public workers have been knifed to death to cause this
> panic?
>
> The press was not really so different then, and in many ways nastier,
> but the media wasn't able to spread the message as widely, and there
> was much less literacy.
>
>> I am making it simple.
>> Which side of this bed do you get up from in the morning.........
>
> The side where I think about things, no matter where it leads and I
> still have no answer to the real problem under discussion here.
>
> Bill C

Bill,

I have never questioned your views. You are probably the most level headed
rational thinking poster of this bunch.

In your link to the article about Britain & knives..
It is funny how places like Britain, Washington DC, Mexico and others that
have total BANS on guns have the HIGHEST rate of gun crime?!?!

Check out this link, it shows there is MORE shootings in San Francisco than
Long Beach (Los Angeles area) Have any of you ever been to Long Beach? Big
gang area. Guns are BANNED in San Francisco!! People can be real PC idiots!

http://www.spotcrime.com/dc/washington
In a 2 month period there was 160 shootings in DC!

http://www.spotcrime.com/ca/long%20beach
In a 2 month period there was 8 shootings in Long Beach!

http://www.spotcrime.com/ca/san%20francisco
In a 2 month period there was 21 shootings in San Francisco!

Bill C

01-04-1970, 01:54 PM

On Jul 5, 8:26*pm, Fred Fredburger
<FredFredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:

>
> Really, blaming the President for everything is better than blaming
> something you can't even see. But you've set the bar awfully low.

No, NOoooo!! It's the black helicopters! I've gotta get my foil
beanie!
(not aimed at Steve)
No really it's Xenu the Galactic overlord...OMG where's Tom Criuse
and Vinnie Barbarino to save us??

Bill C

"Fear is a tyrant and a despot, more terrible than the rack, more
potent than the snake."
---- Edgar Wallace - The Clue of the Twisted Candle (1916)

Courage is not the lack of fear but the ability to face it."
---- Lt. John B. Putnam Jr. (1921-1944)

Ralph Waldo Emerson:
Don't waste life in doubts and fears; spend yourself on the work
before you, well assured that the right performance of this hour's
duties will be the best preparation for the hours and ages that will
follow it.

01-04-1970, 01:54 PM

On 7/5/08 5:26 PM, in article kcCdnW7Mo-_bjO3VnZ2dnUVZ_sPinZ2d@comcast.com,
"Fred Fredburger" <FredFredburger@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:

> ST wrote:
>
> I have significant disagreement with you about one thing in particular
> here. It's this:
>
>> 50% of our population believes in personal responsibility, 50% believes we
>> should be a nanny state and change everyone's diaper!

Why do you think the majority of citizens who are registered or old enough
and qualified to be registered do not vote? MOST have responsibilities that
THEY control and THEY solve. They are tired of the political bull**** and
vote to not get involved and spend their time running their life.
>
> Assuming that you're talking about the US, it's nowhere close to 50% who
> believe in personal responsibility. The Democrats blame the Republicans.
> The Republicans blame the Democrats. Some of the Independents blame both
> parties. There's no personal responsibility in any of that.
>
> I realize that you THINK you believe in personal responsibility. But you
> spend too much time freaking out about invisible bogey men and blaming
> THE VAST LIBERAL CONSPIRACY for it to be persuasive. Continue the
> routine, however. It's entertaining.
>
> Really, blaming the President for everything is better than blaming
> something you can't even see. But you've set the bar awfully low.

You are so full of ****.........
I never said any stupid conspiracy **** like Bush caused 911 or other stupid
crap!

Even Bill C just said he thinks it is higher than 50%.

01-04-1970, 01:54 PM

On 7/5/08 6:07 PM, in article
d150de26-3c35-4732-bb5b-482fda704c3f@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com, "Bill C"
<tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Jul 5, 8:26*pm, Fred Fredburger
> <FredFredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:
>
>>
>> Really, blaming the President for everything is better than blaming
>> something you can't even see. But you've set the bar awfully low.
>
> No, NOoooo!! It's the black helicopters! I've gotta get my foil
> beanie!
> (not aimed at Steve)
> No really it's Xenu the Galactic overlord...OMG where's Tom Criuse
> and Vinnie Barbarino to save us??
>
> Bill C
>
> "Fear is a tyrant and a despot, more terrible than the rack, more
> potent than the snake."
> ---- Edgar Wallace - The Clue of the Twisted Candle (1916)
>
> Courage is not the lack of fear but the ability to face it."
> ---- Lt. John B. Putnam Jr. (1921-1944)
>
> Ralph Waldo Emerson:
> Don't waste life in doubts and fears; spend yourself on the work
> before you, well assured that the right performance of this hour's
> duties will be the best preparation for the hours and ages that will
> follow it.
>
>

This last post really shows that it is stupid to act like your life depends
on who is president OR that your life kinda sucks because of the existing
president.

Bill C

01-04-1970, 01:54 PM

On Jul 5, 9:24*pm, ST <sdst...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>
> Even Bill C just said he thinks it is higher than 50%.

I try to make a best guess, and in this case it is one. It's also
colored by my biases and education. I'm concious of, in general being
a generation or two back in my attitudes towards responsiblities,
freedoms, patriotism, self sufficiency, and handouts. Comes from being
raised by old fashioned Grandparents who did work themselves to death
rather than take a handout. Respected other people, their property,
and the community and believed in neighbors and helping each other
out, not waiting on the guv'mint. They expected to be treated the way
they treated others, and didn't make excuses.
Combine that with the military mentality of "hope for the best, plan
for the worst" and that means most of the time I'll be wrong on the
pessemistic, cynical, skeptical side of things.
Bill C

Fred Fredburger

01-04-1970, 01:54 PM

ST wrote:

> I never said any stupid conspiracy **** like Bush caused 911 or other stupid
> crap!

The VAST LIBERAL CONSPIRACY TO STARVE THE THIRD WORLD is no better than
believing Bush instigated 911.

Fred Fredburger

01-04-1970, 01:54 PM

ST wrote:

> Why do you think the majority of citizens who are registered or old enough
> and qualified to be registered do not vote? MOST have responsibilities that
> THEY control and THEY solve. They are tired of the political bull**** and
> vote to not get involved and spend their time running their life.

I have qualms about NOT voting as a demonstration of responsibility
(personal or otherwise), but I see your point.

Fred Fredburger

01-04-1970, 01:54 PM

ST wrote:
> On 7/5/08 6:07 PM, in article
> d150de26-3c35-4732-bb5b-482fda704c3f@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com, "Bill C"
> <tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 5, 8:26 pm, Fred Fredburger
>> <FredFredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:
>>
>>> Really, blaming the President for everything is better than blaming
>>> something you can't even see. But you've set the bar awfully low.
>> No, NOoooo!! It's the black helicopters! I've gotta get my foil
>> beanie!
>> (not aimed at Steve)
>> No really it's Xenu the Galactic overlord...OMG where's Tom Criuse
>> and Vinnie Barbarino to save us??
>>
>> Bill C
>>
>> "Fear is a tyrant and a despot, more terrible than the rack, more
>> potent than the snake."
>> ---- Edgar Wallace - The Clue of the Twisted Candle (1916)
>>
>> Courage is not the lack of fear but the ability to face it."
>> ---- Lt. John B. Putnam Jr. (1921-1944)
>>
>> Ralph Waldo Emerson:
>> Don't waste life in doubts and fears; spend yourself on the work
>> before you, well assured that the right performance of this hour's
>> duties will be the best preparation for the hours and ages that will
>> follow it.
>>
>>
>
> This last post really shows that it is stupid to act like your life depends
> on who is president OR that your life kinda sucks because of the existing
> president.
>

100% agreed.

Donald Munro

01-04-1970, 01:54 PM

Fred Fredburger wrote:
>>> Given the inability to draw a conclusion from this, it's more
>>> interesting to pull chains.

Donald Munro wrote:
>> Careful, you might block the drain.

Fred Fredburger wrote:
> Where'd you leave the plunger?

Where's Dave Bailey when you need him ?

01-04-1970, 01:55 PM

On 7/5/08 5:08 PM, in article LeOdnWFioYbotO3VnZ2dnUVZ_hninZ2d@comcast.com,
"Fred Fredburger" <Fred.Fredburger@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:

> ST wrote:
>
>> I never said any stupid conspiracy **** like Bush caused 911 or other stupid
>> crap!
>
> The VAST LIBERAL CONSPIRACY TO STARVE THE THIRD WORLD is no better than
> believing Bush instigated 911.

Dude! You really suck! All I did was show actual news links, even ones from
UN sources!

Even Henry should give you an F for your lame debating skills..

Bill C

01-04-1970, 01:55 PM

On Jul 5, 8:13*pm, Fred Fredburger
<Fred.Fredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:
> ST wrote:
> > Why do you think the majority of citizens who are registered or old enough
> > and qualified to be registered do not vote? MOST have responsibilities that
> > THEY control and THEY solve. They are tired of the political bull**** and
> > vote to not get involved and spend their time running their life.
>
> I have qualms about NOT voting as a demonstration of responsibility
> (personal or otherwise), but I see your point.

My take on that is "If you didn't vote then STFU. You get whatever you
got handed." It's like Jury Duty, one of your responsibilities, and
most of the time there's something local on the ballot that matters if
nothing else.
Bill C

Fred Fredburger

01-04-1970, 01:55 PM

ST wrote:
> On 7/5/08 5:08 PM, in article LeOdnWFioYbotO3VnZ2dnUVZ_hninZ2d@comcast.com,
> "Fred Fredburger" <Fred.Fredburger@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:
>
>> ST wrote:
>>
>>> I never said any stupid conspiracy **** like Bush caused 911 or other stupid
>>> crap!
>> The VAST LIBERAL CONSPIRACY TO STARVE THE THIRD WORLD is no better than
>> believing Bush instigated 911.
>
>
> Dude! You really suck! All I did was show actual news links, even ones from
> UN sources!
>
> Even Henry should give you an F for your lame debating skills..
>

Maybe he would, but it wouldn't be because you drew no conclusions and
placed no blame in these biofuels threads. Maybe you don't remember,
senility happens.

Hey, how's you blood pressure? If it's OK and you're in the mood for
some environmentalist propaganda, check out the video toward the top of
this page:

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/100-oil-liquid-coal/

It's kind of fun, in a Sally Struthers kind of way. Sad piano music, etc.

Tom Kunich

01-04-1970, 01:55 PM

"Fred Fredburger" <Fred.Fredburger@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote in message
news:ytCdnVGcXtEzsu3VnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
> If gas prices stabilize at a sufficiently high level for long enough, I
> believe this resource will start to get exploited. The problem in the past
> has been that it takes a while to ramp up for production. Then the price
> bubble bursts and oil prices drop back below the cost of oil shale, coal
> liquefaction or whatever, and everyone loses interest until the next oil
> crises.
>
> I suppose I should also recognize that environmentalists tend to dislike
> some of these solutions and they present barriers as well. I think that,
> given enough financial pressure, they are a barrier that could be
> overcome. In the US, at least, we like our cars and SUVs.

You've gotten the correct ideas Fred.

Bill C

01-04-1970, 01:55 PM

On Jul 5, 8:35*pm, Fred Fredburger
<Fred.Fredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:

>
> I suppose I should also recognize that environmentalists tend to dislike
> some of these solutions and they present barriers as well. I *think
> that, given enough financial pressure, they are a barrier that could be
> overcome. In the US, at least, we like our cars and SUVs.

Polls show that's happening now with public opinion in relationship
towards increased drilling, as a general question. Most people still
support the environment over drilling, but it's getting closer, and
this is a reccurring trend.
When asked about "in their back yard", though it's overwhelmingly no
still. Last polling I saw was from last week.
Bill C

01-04-1970, 01:55 PM

On 7/5/08 5:51 PM, in article SYadnV16qfPtru3VnZ2dnUVZ_qXinZ2d@comcast.com,
"Fred Fredburger" <Fred.Fredburger@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:

> ST wrote:
>> On 7/5/08 5:08 PM, in article LeOdnWFioYbotO3VnZ2dnUVZ_hninZ2d@comcast.com,
>> "Fred Fredburger" <Fred.Fredburger@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:
>>
>>> ST wrote:
>>>
>>>> I never said any stupid conspiracy **** like Bush caused 911 or other
>>>> stupid
>>>> crap!
>>> The VAST LIBERAL CONSPIRACY TO STARVE THE THIRD WORLD is no better than
>>> believing Bush instigated 911.
>>
>>
>> Dude! You really suck! All I did was show actual news links, even ones from
>> UN sources!
>>
>> Even Henry should give you an F for your lame debating skills..
>>
>
> Maybe he would, but it wouldn't be because you drew no conclusions and
> placed no blame in these biofuels threads. Maybe you don't remember,
> senility happens.
>
> Hey, how's you blood pressure? If it's OK and you're in the mood for
> some environmentalist propaganda, check out the video toward the top of
> this page:
>
> http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/100-oil-liquid-coal/
>
> It's kind of fun, in a Sally Struthers kind of way. Sad piano music, etc.

We are the Saudi Arabia of Coal in the world today!

Fred Fredburger

01-04-1970, 01:55 PM

ST wrote:
> On 7/5/08 5:51 PM, in article SYadnV16qfPtru3VnZ2dnUVZ_qXinZ2d@comcast.com,
> "Fred Fredburger" <Fred.Fredburger@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:
>
>> ST wrote:
>>> On 7/5/08 5:08 PM, in article LeOdnWFioYbotO3VnZ2dnUVZ_hninZ2d@comcast.com,
>>> "Fred Fredburger" <Fred.Fredburger@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:
>>>
>>>> ST wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I never said any stupid conspiracy **** like Bush caused 911 or other
>>>>> stupid
>>>>> crap!
>>>> The VAST LIBERAL CONSPIRACY TO STARVE THE THIRD WORLD is no better than
>>>> believing Bush instigated 911.
>>>
>>> Dude! You really suck! All I did was show actual news links, even ones from
>>> UN sources!
>>>
>>> Even Henry should give you an F for your lame debating skills..
>>>
>> Maybe he would, but it wouldn't be because you drew no conclusions and
>> placed no blame in these biofuels threads. Maybe you don't remember,
>> senility happens.
>>
>> Hey, how's you blood pressure? If it's OK and you're in the mood for
>> some environmentalist propaganda, check out the video toward the top of
>> this page:
>>
>> http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/100-oil-liquid-coal/
>>
>> It's kind of fun, in a Sally Struthers kind of way. Sad piano music, etc.
>
>
> We are the Saudi Arabia of Coal in the world today!
>

Then Mecca must be Grafton, WV.

Fred Fredburger

01-04-1970, 01:55 PM

Donald Munro wrote:
> Fred Fredburger wrote:
>> No, Bush gets blamed about like Carter did. Reagan was teflon. Bush Sr.
>> was velcro, like Carter and GW Bush. Clinton was off the charts. He had
>> good public approval ratings while being impeached. THAT'S teflon.
>
> Clinton wet lube cleans your chain while lubricating it. Even
> Monica's dress is clean and slippery.

Damn. Gotta get me some of THAT!

Fred Fredburger

01-04-1970, 01:56 PM

Bill C wrote:
> On Jul 5, 8:35 pm, Fred Fredburger
> <Fred.Fredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:
>
>> I suppose I should also recognize that environmentalists tend to dislike
>> some of these solutions and they present barriers as well. I think
>> that, given enough financial pressure, they are a barrier that could be
>> overcome. In the US, at least, we like our cars and SUVs.
>
> Polls show that's happening now with public opinion in relationship
> towards increased drilling, as a general question. Most people still
> support the environment over drilling, but it's getting closer, and
> this is a reccurring trend.
> When asked about "in their back yard", though it's overwhelmingly no
> still. Last polling I saw was from last week.
> Bill C

On the other hand, WV voted for Bush twice. And the main reason for that
was that mine workers and the UMW like jobs. Al Gore didn't play well
there at all.

So maybe you have to find the RIGHT back yard.

Bill C

01-04-1970, 01:56 PM

On Jul 6, 9:53*am, Fred Fredburger
<FredFredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > On Jul 5, 8:35 pm, Fred Fredburger
> > <Fred.Fredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:
>
> >> I suppose I should also recognize that environmentalists tend to dislike
> >> some of these solutions and they present barriers as well. I *think
> >> that, given enough financial pressure, they are a barrier that could be
> >> overcome. In the US, at least, we like our cars and SUVs.
>
> > Polls show that's happening now with public opinion in relationship
> > towards increased drilling, as a general question. Most people still
> > support the environment over drilling, but it's getting closer, and
> > this is a reccurring trend.
> > *When asked about "in their back yard", though it's overwhelmingly no
> > still. Last polling I saw was from last week.
> > *Bill C
>
> On the other hand, WV voted for Bush twice. And the main reason for that
> was that mine workers and the UMW like jobs. Al Gore didn't play well
> there at all.
>
> So maybe you have to find the RIGHT back yard.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yeah, that's it. Alaska regularly votes to support more drilling and
mining because everyone in the state gets a nice check from it every
year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund

That was a stark choice for those folks. be put out of work by Gore,
or vote Bush. I'm sure the companies put a LOT of pressure on their
folks to vote Bush too.
It's like the fight here over the Cape Wind project. Everyone wants
clean, renewable energy, and is militant about it, until it comes to
their neighborhood.

http://www.capewind.org/

Bill C

Fred Fredburger

01-04-1970, 01:56 PM

Bill C wrote:
> On Jul 6, 9:53 am, Fred Fredburger
> <FredFredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:
>> Bill C wrote:
>>> On Jul 5, 8:35 pm, Fred Fredburger
>>> <Fred.Fredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:
>>>> I suppose I should also recognize that environmentalists tend to dislike
>>>> some of these solutions and they present barriers as well. I think
>>>> that, given enough financial pressure, they are a barrier that could be
>>>> overcome. In the US, at least, we like our cars and SUVs.
>>> Polls show that's happening now with public opinion in relationship
>>> towards increased drilling, as a general question. Most people still
>>> support the environment over drilling, but it's getting closer, and
>>> this is a reccurring trend.
>>> When asked about "in their back yard", though it's overwhelmingly no
>>> still. Last polling I saw was from last week.
>>> Bill C
>> On the other hand, WV voted for Bush twice. And the main reason for that
>> was that mine workers and the UMW like jobs. Al Gore didn't play well
>> there at all.
>>
>> So maybe you have to find the RIGHT back yard.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Yeah, that's it. Alaska regularly votes to support more drilling and
> mining because everyone in the state gets a nice check from it every
> year.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund
>
> That was a stark choice for those folks. be put out of work by Gore,
> or vote Bush. I'm sure the companies put a LOT of pressure on their
> folks to vote Bush too.
> It's like the fight here over the Cape Wind project. Everyone wants
> clean, renewable energy, and is militant about it, until it comes to
> their neighborhood.
>
> http://www.capewind.org/
>

The theme running through these examples is that it's easy to be in
favor of something until it threatens to cost you something.

Howard Kveck

01-04-1970, 01:56 PM

In article <Ad6dnZc1YLbseu3VnZ2dnUVZ_tjinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Fred Fredburger <FredFredburger@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:

> Bill C wrote:
> > On Jul 6, 9:53 am, Fred Fredburger
> > <FredFredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:
> >> Bill C wrote:
> >>> On Jul 5, 8:35 pm, Fred Fredburger
> >>> <Fred.Fredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:
> >>>> I suppose I should also recognize that environmentalists tend to dislike
> >>>> some of these solutions and they present barriers as well. I think
> >>>> that, given enough financial pressure, they are a barrier that could be
> >>>> overcome. In the US, at least, we like our cars and SUVs.
> >>> Polls show that's happening now with public opinion in relationship
> >>> towards increased drilling, as a general question. Most people still
> >>> support the environment over drilling, but it's getting closer, and
> >>> this is a reccurring trend.
> >>> When asked about "in their back yard", though it's overwhelmingly no
> >>> still. Last polling I saw was from last week.
> >>> Bill C
> >> On the other hand, WV voted for Bush twice. And the main reason for that
> >> was that mine workers and the UMW like jobs. Al Gore didn't play well
> >> there at all.
> >>
> >> So maybe you have to find the RIGHT back yard.- Hide quoted text -
> >>
> >> - Show quoted text -
> >
> > Yeah, that's it. Alaska regularly votes to support more drilling and
> > mining because everyone in the state gets a nice check from it every
> > year.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund
> >
> > That was a stark choice for those folks. be put out of work by Gore,
> > or vote Bush. I'm sure the companies put a LOT of pressure on their
> > folks to vote Bush too.
> > It's like the fight here over the Cape Wind project. Everyone wants
> > clean, renewable energy, and is militant about it, until it comes to
> > their neighborhood.
> >
> > http://www.capewind.org/
> >
>
> The theme running through these examples is that it's easy to be in
> favor of something until it threatens to cost you something.

It's called "human nature" and it knows no political boundaries.

--
tanx,
Howard

The bloody pubs are bloody dull
The bloody clubs are bloody full
Of bloody girls and bloody guys
With bloody murder in their eyes

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Bill C

01-04-1970, 01:56 PM

On Jul 6, 11:40*am, Fred Fredburger
<FredFredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:

>
> >http://www.capewind.org/
>
> The theme running through these examples is that it's easy to be in
> favor of something until it threatens to cost you something.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That's one of the big reasons I have such a deep respect for JT. I
have no idea what he makes at his current job, but I'm damned sure he
could make a LOT more with his talents, education, and skills, but
he's chosen to put others ahead of maximizing his personal gain. Same
for Fernando Cuevas and his love for helping kids in the racing world.
Where some folks do it to win, and stroke their own egos, Fernando put
the kids, as people firstand he used racing to teach them life lessons
on how to be good people.
Seems that JFK, and his "Ask not what your Country can do for you"
ethic has died under a tidal wave of selfishness, and false "needs". I
think the people willing to sacrifice to help others realize that
there's a vast difference between what current society/pop culture say
we "need", and what people actually do.
It's kinda Bhuddist in that once you deal with "attachment" to
physical items, and status symbols and realize their true place it's a
lot easier to be happy, and stay committed to what you think is
right.
It's nice to have things, and all that, but it feels better to do
what's right, even when you know it's gonna suck, and cost you if you
are any kind of thoughtful, considerate human bing.
The things in my life that I'm disappointed with, and bother me at
night are the times I didn't stick to what I thought was right, or
took the easy way out, not things I don't have.
Bill C

SLAVE of THE STATE

01-04-1970, 01:56 PM

On Jul 6, 8:40*am, Fred Fredburger
<FredFredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:

> The theme running through these examples is that it's easy to be in
> favor of something until it threatens to cost you something.

I want a pony
Value, that is a funny word
There must be sacrifices
Think globally, act locally

SLAVE of THE STATE

01-04-1970, 01:57 PM

On Jul 6, 9:58*am, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> In article <Ad6dnZc1YLbseu3VnZ2dnUVZ_tjin...@comcast.com>,
> *Fred Fredburger <FredFredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:

> > The theme running through these examples is that it's easy to be in
> > favor of something until it threatens to cost you something.
>
> * *It's called "human nature" and it knows no political boundaries.

When did you wake up?

Donald Munro

01-04-1970, 02:00 PM

Howard Kveck wrote:
> It's particularly amusing that you continue to assert that the whole
> biofuel thing
> is some liberal wetdream in the face of good evidence that it is driven by
> companies like ADM rather than groups like MoveOn or other left-leaning
> organizations.

Actually its being secretly orchestrated from Arizona.

Bill C

01-04-1970, 02:00 PM

On Jul 7, 4:06*am, Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Howard Kveck wrote:
> > * *It's particularly amusing that you continue to assert that the whole
> > * *biofuel thing
> > is some liberal wetdream in the face of good evidence that it is driven by
> > companies like ADM rather than groups like MoveOn or other left-leaning
> > organizations.
>
> Actually its being secretly orchestrated from Arizona.

And the script is SO predictable. I'm thinking There are a couple of
new Shwartz Stealth Bots out there, and yes it IS now a registered
trademark, witrh several models now starring in Congress.
Bill C

Tom Kunich

01-04-1970, 02:00 PM

"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:0b756e48-1dec-4ed9-95df-1e410392b9a7@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 7, 4:06 am, Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Howard Kveck wrote:
> > > It's particularly amusing that you continue to assert that the whole
> > > biofuel thing
> > > is some liberal wetdream in the face of good evidence that it is
> > > driven by
> > > companies like ADM rather than groups like MoveOn or other
> > > left-leaning
> > > organizations.
> >
> > Actually its being secretly orchestrated from Arizona.
>
> And the script is SO predictable. I'm thinking There are a couple of
> new Shwartz Stealth Bots out there, and yes it IS now a registered
> trademark, witrh several models now starring in Congress.

Why are you people so stupid. Of COURSE it is now being pushed by financial
interests. But it started from loud mouth Liberal idiots. Big surprise
there.

Bill C

01-04-1970, 02:01 PM

On Jul 7, 11:47*am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:0b756e48-1dec-4ed9-95df-1e410392b9a7@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jul 7, 4:06 am, Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Howard Kveck wrote:
> > > > It's particularly amusing that you continue to assert that the whole
> > > > biofuel thing
> > > > is some liberal wetdream in the face of good evidence that it is
> > > > driven by
> > > > companies like ADM rather than groups like MoveOn or other
> > > > left-leaning
> > > > organizations.
>
> > > Actually its being secretly orchestrated from Arizona.
>
> > And the script is SO predictable. I'm thinking There are a couple of
> > new Shwartz Stealth Bots out there, and yes it IS now a registered
> > trademark, witrh several models now starring in Congress.
>
> Why are you people so stupid. Of COURSE it is now being pushed by financial
> interests. But it started from loud mouth Liberal idiots. Big surprise
> there.

To prove I'm an idiot I'm gonna wade back into this.
This isn't a new concept, we also talked about this back when we were
considering putting in a methane digester at the farm too. For a long
time this looked like a good supplemental option to environmentalists
and farmer. The oil co.'s weren't real thrilled though.
We had massive surplusses of corn and grains that was keeping prices
for farmers in the toilet. Along came the Conservation Reserve Program
which subsidized farmers to put marginal lands back into winbreaks,
wildlife corridors, and other habitat, this has been hugely successful
and worked great while the surplusses were keeping prices depressed.
for quite a while we had farmers keeping the least productive land in
CRP, and converting some of the land that generated the surplusses
into biofuels production. Still a good situation all around. Then we
had a bunch of events, political and natural that weren't foreseen
that slashed global food stocks and production. Now prices skyrocket,
and we have the UN and others going ape**** at biofuels coming off
land that without Zimbabwe being diven into a failed State, the
various droughts, and other natural , and manmade disasters, including
exploding populations, and wars, would have just added to the surplus
that had existed for years and kept farmers on the edge of disaster.
Speculation on biofuels takes off, the commodity prices rise, farmers
finally see a chance to make a reasonable living and go that route,
and NOW we have Chicken Little running amuck and everyone trying to
blame everyone else and take political advantage of the situation.
Same **** as usual with the partisans pointing at each other, and
denying ANY responsibility for their folks. That never changes here
either with those folks.
To sum it up we had a pilot/experimental technology, in development
which did NO harm as long as we continued to have the surplusses that
had been holding down prices for decades.
It looked like a good deal to everyone, except the oil companies up
front. Liberal environmentalist, farm lobby, agriCorps, just about
everyone and noone planned for the perfect storm of Mother Nature, and
manmade stupidity and war that turned the surplus into a deficit. This
was a technology that should have had plenty of time to evolve and
become workable as it was primarily derived from land that would've
added to the surplusses anyway. Historically the problem has been
transport and distribution, not a shortage of food.
You want to blame someone, lets blame Mugabe, other State's that use
food as a weapon in their wars, Mother Nature, and the corruption in
the food and aid programs before we start blaming people WAY down the
list of causes, but it's so MUCH easier and better for the true
believers to point at each other, and use this too as a weapon, rather
than honestly evaluate everything that happened and come up with a
workable solution.
It's NOT the "Liberal Left Environmentalists", they aren't real happy
since land and funding is being pulled out of the CRP to encourage
more biofuels on what would be marginal land with reasonable prices
for the commodities. It's not the farmers and corporations who got
into biofuels as a way to bolster miserably low prices, bring down
surplusses, they were being paid, by the Govt. to leave land fallow
with no conservation plan anyway before the CRP, and maybe create a
new market while reducing, to some extent dependence on an unstable
Middle East.
It was a perfectly good and valid, experimental plan, with good
intentions, and still is. The problem now, as usual is true believers
wanting to use the situation for political gain and attacks on each
other, rather than deal with the reality, and readjust the policy and
program.
That's the other group you can blame, activists and true believers
who exploit ANY tragedy/disaster/situation for all its worth in their
wars with each other, and sure as hell don't want to fix it too quick,
because then they couldn't get their mileage out of it. They've also
got to figure out how to take credit for the fix, and dump the blame
before they will do **** towards fixing the problem.
Simply put the environmental left isn't all to blame, or blameless,
and vice versa for the right/agricorp world, but you'd never know that
listening to the bot crap that gets spouted here.
Each bot claims the other is totally guilty, and they are totally
blameless, and so it goes while the problem doesn't get fixed either.
Honesty, intellectual integrity, reality, and people don't count in
the ideology war. Where the **** are all the kneejerk accusations when
people are breaking legs on this ****? Nowhere 'cause they're lined up
in the ideology too, and it's only kneejerk when someone else is being
irrational.
Fire away I really don't give a **** and should've kept my mouth
shut.
Bill C

Bill C

01-04-1970, 02:01 PM

On Jul 7, 1:23*pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com> wrote:
> On Jul 5, 8:04 am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > *The planet until very recently has been a brutally self correcting
> > organism.
>
> The planet is not an "organism."

Pick your terminology. System, contraption, whatever...
>
> I can't believe Gaia isn't in violation of EPA regulations, or least
> some local ordinances for peeing in the soup, river, or whatever:
>
> http://spiritualbooksandgifts.avatarpublication.com/images/stories/ha...
>
> > You populate beyond your resources, you die.
>
> We-meme Borger,
>
> I know it is popular in your borg to conflate all individuals in a
> species into one collective, but that is a rather large stretch of any
> known reality.
>
I feel like you are doing your best Kurgan, chain yanker, impression.
This implies that you think that no species can have a collective
impact, in any way. Yes, individuals within the group may be doing
something different, like vouluntary depopulation, but if the group
breeds beyond the available resources those individuals are screwed
too.

> > Unfortunately the only real predators today for humans are other
> > humans.
>
> But I thought you took the species as one giant collective? *I don't
> get it.
>
No you don't, and it's on purpose.

> > There's no question the planet would be better off with a smaller
> > human population, especially in many marginal habitats.
>
> According to whose value system? * Gaia's? *Have you been sleeping
> with Gaia? *Is she hot?

This is true, some people enjoy sleeping, living, and raising their
kids in piles of filth that other individuals have chosen to dump on
their property and into their lives.
Since you are so kindly supporting the training rides and other
stuff, and seem to not mind other people, and corporations trashing
property you own, could you give us your address se we can dump out
trash, and I'd love somewhere to dispose "hazardous waste" without
paying a fortune for it?
How is polluting, littering, and destroying the economic value of
someone elses property respecting others in a libertarian system.
You are effectively confiscating my property, or at least the value
of it.
It's starting to seem that rather than a libertarian system, what you
support is an a