Vito wrote:
"twoguns" wrote

...... The big problem in the next
few years is going to be IF there is enough oil available


Nope! There is just as much oil (and air and water and ....) now as there
was 100 years ago. There are too many people using it.


I wish our leaders would have been wise enough 30 years ago to
recognize that alternative clean and renewable power sources were going
to be needed but they weren't.


I wish PEOPLE had been wise enough to realize we needed to limit population.

Why expect leaders to invent new band aids when they cannot see the root
problem and take steps to mitigate it.


The problem is political decisions made at the behest of business
interests who don't give a damn about anything other than profit,
and tax breaks. Why they need another billion is beyond me. Any
business big enough to seriously affect the economy must be
regulated by someone with the population's best interest at heart.

Party politics is to blame. Once elected, politicians should be
required to serve their constituents, not toe the party line. Elect
independants if you want to see individuals put before corporations.

There is only one taxpayer. Party line governments kowtow to
industry to redirect routing of tax money to the benefit of those
with the most influence. The rich get richer, the poorest get
screwed the worst.

The masses will eventually get ****ed off enough to kill a few
corrupt politicians, cops, and lawyers, and their benefactor /
benefitees, then we will have equity for a while, until some one
else comes along with subtle plans to skim the cream again.

Not providing enough product to satisfy the demand is a sure fire
profit booster. Why does not Petro Canada take over the refining
industry? The oil belongs to the people, not some goon with a
license to steal.

This method is not really subtle, but the machinations they go
through to ensure they are not permitted to increase refinery
capactity satisfactorily would be, if we could detect their efforts
and reason out how they arrange convenient protests to defend their
interests, pupeteering environmentalists to prevent competition.

It is the politicians who benefit from their ability to manipulate
the spin.

Audits will show the truth, but who will take action to fix it?

On the other hand, environmentalists would have a role, if they
weren't so dippy as to think baby seals are more important than
codfish entrees for people.

If unlimited nuclear, (presuming subduction or the rocks from which
the uranium is mined could continue to contain glassified
radioactive waste materials for another billion years or so,) is the
way to go, then the end result would be plain heat generation, not
runaway greenhouse effect. If that is a problem, the answer is, of
course, efficiency. Use less. Insulate better. Accelleate slower,
decellerate regeneratively. Return to railroads for mass transport.

Alternative generation and excess power storage is not a problem, it
is just not developed. Hydrogen gas made from solar powered
electroysis can be stored just as natural gas can be. If pure
hydrogen is too difficult, combine it with a little carbon to make
methane, which liquifies more easily, and can be used for vehicles,
if you refuse H2 dirigibles. On land, huge bladders or caverns
could contain moderate reserves of H2 easily and cheaply. Further,
wild H2 fires are less hazardous than most think, since a leak in a
bladder would simply allow H2 to rise as opposed to pool. H2 will
not explode unless mixed with oxygen.

We have the technology, what we lack is firm controlled development,
which is hampered exclusively by oil company profiteers.

Nationalize them! Or, threaten to do it as a bargaining chip. Jail
the profiteersing national plunderers.

Terry K

Terry Spragg wrote:
Vito wrote:

"twoguns" wrote

...... The big problem in the next
few years is going to be IF there is enough oil available



Nope! There is just as much oil (and air and water and ....) now as there
was 100 years ago. There are too many people using it.


I wish our leaders would have been wise enough 30 years ago to
recognize that alternative clean and renewable power sources were going
to be needed but they weren't.



I wish PEOPLE had been wise enough to realize we needed to limit
population.

Why expect leaders to invent new band aids when they cannot see the root
problem and take steps to mitigate it.


The problem is political decisions made at the behest of business
interests who don't give a damn about anything other than profit, and
tax breaks. Why they need another billion is beyond me. Any business
big enough to seriously affect the economy must be regulated by someone
with the population's best interest at heart.

Party politics is to blame. Once elected, politicians should be
required to serve their constituents, not toe the party line. Elect
independants if you want to see individuals put before corporations.

There is only one taxpayer. Party line governments kowtow to industry to
redirect routing of tax money to the benefit of those with the most
influence. The rich get richer, the poorest get screwed the worst.

The masses will eventually get ****ed off enough to kill a few corrupt
politicians, cops, and lawyers, and their benefactor / benefitees, then
we will have equity for a while, until some one else comes along with
subtle plans to skim the cream again.

Not providing enough product to satisfy the demand is a sure fire profit
booster. Why does not Petro Canada take over the refining industry? The
oil belongs to the people, not some goon with a license to steal.

This method is not really subtle, but the machinations they go through
to ensure they are not permitted to increase refinery capactity
satisfactorily would be, if we could detect their efforts and reason out
how they arrange convenient protests to defend their interests,
pupeteering environmentalists to prevent competition.

It is the politicians who benefit from their ability to manipulate the
spin.

Audits will show the truth, but who will take action to fix it?

On the other hand, environmentalists would have a role, if they weren't
so dippy as to think baby seals are more important than codfish entrees
for people.

If unlimited nuclear, (presuming subduction or the rocks from which the
uranium is mined could continue to contain glassified radioactive waste
materials for another billion years or so,) is the way to go, then the
end result would be plain heat generation, not runaway greenhouse
effect. If that is a problem, the answer is, of course, efficiency. Use
less. Insulate better. Accelleate slower, decellerate regeneratively.
Return to railroads for mass transport.

Alternative generation and excess power storage is not a problem, it is
just not developed. Hydrogen gas made from solar powered electroysis
can be stored just as natural gas can be. If pure hydrogen is too
difficult, combine it with a little carbon to make methane, which
liquifies more easily, and can be used for vehicles, if you refuse H2
dirigibles. On land, huge bladders or caverns could contain moderate
reserves of H2 easily and cheaply. Further, wild H2 fires are less
hazardous than most think, since a leak in a bladder would simply allow
H2 to rise as opposed to pool. H2 will not explode unless mixed with
oxygen.

We have the technology, what we lack is firm controlled development,
which is hampered exclusively by oil company profiteers.

Nationalize them! Or, threaten to do it as a bargaining chip. Jail the
profiteersing national plunderers.

Terry K


I agree. Hang the top 20 executives and the rest will get the message.
One gov't charged us an extra 10 cents a liter to buy the old Fina oil
company and renamed it Petro Canada. Then another gov't came along and
sold our national oil company back to us. Same thing happened to our
provincial power company. Federal and provincial governments are
clearly in the pockets of large business interests.

"Don White" wrotenb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
Terry Spragg wrote:
The problem is political decisions made at the behest of business ...
Party politics is to blame. Once elected, politicians should be
required to serve their constituents, not toe the party line.

I agree. Hang the top 20 executives ....

Each political party is designed to be run from the bottom "grass root"
level. Every county, town or urban neighborhood has precinct meetings.
People at these grass roots meetings elect one or more of their fellows to
represent them at the next higher level - county, state and national. Your
reps at each level nominate who the party will run at that level right up to
the president and VP. You did take part in this process didn't you? You
did attend precinct meetings and offer yourself as a candidate for state and
national conventions, didn't you? And you did raise money for your party's
candidates at each level, right? Oh! YOU weren't there so they nominated
somebody who owed his soul to "business" instead of his constituants? Which
constituants - the business execs who did attend party meetings and raise
money, or folks who show up for 5 minutes every other year to vote? Who
would you listen too if you were a congressman, the people who nominated you
and funded your election or the voters who's vote that money bought?

The Communist party was set up the same way but when nobody showed for
precinct meetings Stalin ended up running the show.

Terry Spragg wrote:
The problem is political decisions made at the behest of business ...

We've gotten around that problem by having business lobbyists author the
legislation. Cuts out the middleman!


Vito wrote:
Each political party is designed to be run from the bottom "grass root"
level.

??? Maybe 100 years ago that was true.

.... You did take part in this process didn't you?

No, all I did was vote. That *should* be enough... this (the U.S.) is a
democratic republic, right?

... You
did attend precinct meetings and offer yourself as a candidate for state and
national conventions, didn't you? And you did raise money for your party's
candidates at each level, right?

Aha! Now we get to the root of the matter... money. Politicians feel
beholden to those who give them money... big surprise. But does money
put them in office? No, the voters do. So what do they do with the
money? Buy expensive campaign ads, and hire top-salaried consultants to
tell them what to say about the issues.

Voters have been complicit in this process by electing the people who
spent the most money, for the most part, in the past 50 years. For a
while there in the late 1980s and mid 1990s, it looked like this trend
was going to reverse. But ever larger infusions of under-the-table cash
straightened it out again, and now we are happily on the road to
totalitarian plutocracy.

A novelty was the politically slanted entrtainment program. Every single
item was given a "spin" and hammered relentlessly into the listeners.
Surprisingly, some of these shows turned out to be popular. Now we have
whole networks devoted to nothing but political campaigning, with a
large segment of the population so hypnotized that when the most utter
nonsense is ballyhoo'd, they all shout in chorus 'Yes, that's right,
hooray for our side and let's kill those other guys.' Kind of scary...
it also makes you wonder why the current administration bothered to
spend hundreds of millions of Federal dollars filming & distributing
slanted fake news for political purposes.


The Communist party was set up the same way but when nobody showed for
precinct meetings Stalin ended up running the show.


Nah, he just set about killing the people who disagreed with him. AFAIK
he's got the all-time heavyweight world record, too.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Nah, he just set about killing the people who disagreed with him. AFAIK
he's got the all-time heavyweight world record, too.

DSK

For the time being, anyways.

John Cairns

"DSK" wrote
Vito wrote:
Each political party is designed to be run from the bottom "grass root"
level.

??? Maybe 100 years ago that was true.

The handles and knobs are still there but nobody uses them.

.... You did take part in this process didn't you?

No, all I did was vote. That *should* be enough... this (the U.S.) is a
democratic republic, right?

Ummm - wrong. That's why we were forced to choose between village idiots,
one from New England and one from Texas.

Aha! Now we get to the root of the matter... money. Politicians feel
beholden to those who give them money... big surprise. But does money
put them in office? No, the voters do. So what do they do with the
money? Buy expensive campaign ads, and hire top-salaried consultants to
tell them what to say about the issues.

Yes! Money does put them in office. All candidates are *trained* to find out
what you (voters) want to hear and say it as loudly and often as possible -
even if they plan to do the opposite! The one who can find out what you
want to hear most and say it the loudest will inevatibly get your vote.
That's the guy who can afford the best pollsters and campaign ads. Sad fact
of life and politics.

Voters have been complicit in this process by electing the people who
spent the most money,....

If the only time a voter pays any attention is in the weeks before election
all he is going to hear is what pollsters tell the candidates he wants to
hear. He listens then votes for the one who says it the loudest. Then the
winner does whatever the folks who paid for the polls and advertising tell
him to do. Any similarity between this and his promises is coincidental.

Again, take the last presidential campaign. We had to choose between a
draft-dodger who'd needlessly suckered us into another quagmire and a slave
to old money. But the draft dodger's pollsters found that many believed war
protesters like Kerry had lost us the war. Then he spent so much $$$ telling
us that that somehow Kerry's combat service in 'nam became less honorable
than Bush's drunken parties - and enough good christian voters believed it
to re-elect him. But the sorry thing is that these two loosers were our
choices.

I apologize for the recent off-topic political posts. This will be the
last one, this kind of stuff has a place elsewhere. But it is a fairly
serious issue.

... But does money
put them in office? No, the voters do. So what do they do with the
money? Buy expensive campaign ads, and hire top-salaried consultants to
tell them what to say about the issues.


Vito wrote:
Yes! Money does put them in office.

No it doesn't, the ignorance & the apathy of the voters (hence their
propensity to believe TV ads) is what puts them in office.

American voters have forgotten how to hold a grudge... a very useful
skill in the real world. When somebody rips you off, you don't give them
a chance to do it again.

DSK

Terry Spragg wrote in
:

Nationalize them! Or, threaten to do it as a bargaining chip. Jail
the profiteersing national plunderers.

Terry K


Terry, are you in Canada? I see rogers.com in your address.

In socialist countries, like Europe, your nationalization isn't working
very well, at all. The government bureaucrats are selling Europeans gas at
$6/US gallon....hardly looking out for the masses.

No, our problem isn't creating some kind of socialist bureaucracy
controlling us all from the commune, it's price fixing and collusion
trashing competition in the free marketplace.

--
Larry

You know you've had a rough night when you wake up and your outlined in
chalk.