Big Sugar
- Thread starter ratwell71
- Start date
Big Sugar, for real.
Everglades: Friends of the Everglades - [FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial]A politically connected industry devastates the Everglades[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial]Future of Freedom Foundation - Destroying the Everglades[/FONT]
Of course, none of this belongs here in this particular Forum, and it's arguable that it even belongs on a site about expediting at all. But, it's interesting on many levels: biomass fuels, political corruption, government subsidies, environmental destruction, how Big Sugar essentially takes taxpayer dollars and launders it, then slips into the pockets of politicians, all the while we're paying 25 cents a pound for sugar while the rest of the world pays about 8 cents.
Everglades: Friends of the Everglades - [FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial]A politically connected industry devastates the Everglades[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial]Future of Freedom Foundation - Destroying the Everglades[/FONT]
Of course, none of this belongs here in this particular Forum, and it's arguable that it even belongs on a site about expediting at all. But, it's interesting on many levels: biomass fuels, political corruption, government subsidies, environmental destruction, how Big Sugar essentially takes taxpayer dollars and launders it, then slips into the pockets of politicians, all the while we're paying 25 cents a pound for sugar while the rest of the world pays about 8 cents.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Ratwell, it is good you bring up these points, but as I questioned in another thread why is this not moved to the soap box. I would have moved both this one and the other one there out of consistency. What's going on Mods?
Everything that is a resource is tied to the gov't. Prices are tied to the Consumer Index and the value of the dollar.
I am not saying sugar is the way to go. What I am doing here is trying to create a discussion on how we can "eliminate" our dependence on foreign oil not just "limit" it.
I have heard discussions on everything from air tabs to hydrogen cells when talking about fuel prices. These ideas are good but they do not eliminate the real issue and that is the elimination of oil all together.
I have heard discussions on everything from air tabs to hydrogen cells when talking about fuel prices. These ideas are good but they do not eliminate the real issue and that is the elimination of oil all together.
Thanks. I agree. I must have been tired.
I am glad you pointed out the destruction part. I am not for destroying anything. I have signed many petitions against drilling for oil in Alaska so this would definetly be against what I am about.
I am for eliminating our reliance on foreign oil.
Well, quite frankly, signing a petition against drilling for domestic oil in Alaska is in direct opposition to wanting to eliminate our reliance on foreign oil, and is nothing more than a feel-good exercise of symbolism over substance. Wanting to eliminate the use of oil altogether is nothing more than yet another emotional knee-jerk reaction without thinking through any of the consequences. It's like those who say, "Pull the troops out, NOW!" without regard to the very real and very detrimental ramifications of such an action. Reminds me of the feel-good bill that Clinton signed into law that made it illegal for anyone every convicted of spousal abuse to own a gun. Sounds good, feels good, let's do it. Whoops, next day hundreds of law enforcement officers had to turn in their sidearms and quit doing their jobs.
Even thinking the real issue is the elimination of the use of oil and other fossil fuels altogether, that it can even be done at all, is a fallacy in the extreme. Man has been using fossil fuels ever since we learned how to make fire, and it's fossil fuels that allow us to exist and survive. There isn't a single thing you possess that wasn't influenced by oil or the burning of fossil fuels. Not one. One hundred years from now, regardless of any technological advances on alternative energy, we'll still be reliant on oil to one degree or another, and probably from OPEC. The only thing that will make a real difference in this world is fusion, and even then we'll still need oil for many things. So the next time you flip on a light switch, turn the they key to your vehicle, or fire up that computer, take a long hard look at how you are making a real, tangible difference in reducing our reliance on oil, both foreign and domestic.
I am for eliminating out reliance of foreign oil, as well, but it won't happen in either of our lifetimes, so there's no point in viewing it as an OMG! crisis that must be solved next week. A bigger crisis for our national security, quite honestly, is the fact that our military fighter jets contain several critical electronic components that are manufactured in foreign countries, like Japan and China.
The Hunt for the Kill Switch: Are chip makers building electronic trapdoors in key military hardware?
Even thinking the real issue is the elimination of the use of oil and other fossil fuels altogether, that it can even be done at all, is a fallacy in the extreme. Man has been using fossil fuels ever since we learned how to make fire, and it's fossil fuels that allow us to exist and survive. There isn't a single thing you possess that wasn't influenced by oil or the burning of fossil fuels. Not one. One hundred years from now, regardless of any technological advances on alternative energy, we'll still be reliant on oil to one degree or another, and probably from OPEC. The only thing that will make a real difference in this world is fusion, and even then we'll still need oil for many things. So the next time you flip on a light switch, turn the they key to your vehicle, or fire up that computer, take a long hard look at how you are making a real, tangible difference in reducing our reliance on oil, both foreign and domestic.
I am for eliminating out reliance of foreign oil, as well, but it won't happen in either of our lifetimes, so there's no point in viewing it as an OMG! crisis that must be solved next week. A bigger crisis for our national security, quite honestly, is the fact that our military fighter jets contain several critical electronic components that are manufactured in foreign countries, like Japan and China.
The Hunt for the Kill Switch: Are chip makers building electronic trapdoors in key military hardware?
1. Petitions are not the only way to keep a check and balance on Congress. If you do nothing then don't complain. Action is needed to create a change. Not to forget to mention it is a Constitutional right.
2. Congress makes laws. Clinton went along with it. Put blame where blame needs to be.
3. So you think it was a bad thing to take guns from bad guys? Guys that have records of abuse. We also keep pedophiles away from schools? I mean this is so stupid and not even worth wasting my time on. People with anger problems should turn in their guns. I wouldn't want that same kind of cop stopping me. Geez. A no brainer.
4. We will have NO choice but to ween ourselves away from oil. It is a FOSSIL FUEL. Once depleted there will be no more. So why not start dealing with the issue in the NOW and stop sweeping it under the rug. The population does not end with you or me.
5. I never said it was a OMG issue, but it does need to be addressed.
6. The troops are another issue that needs to be addressed. It took us less than 5 years to accomplish what needed to be accomplished in World War II without the technology that our soldiers have today. How long do we need to stay over there? We have already accomplished getting Hussein out of power. This conflict is going over 5 years now.
7. The subject is sugar.
Last edited:
JimF51
Seasoned Expediter
And the problem with that? Convictions would have shown up on background checks, person shouldn't have been hired. A urban legend, I think.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
1. Petitions are not the only way to keep a check and balance on Congress. If you do nothing then don't complain. Action is needed to create a change. Not to forget to mention it is a Constitutional right.
The petition itself means nothing, the presentation and the actual content of the petition determines its effectiveness. Meaning that gathering a bunch of signatures is not hard but to make it effective, then those signatures need to have some weight behind them and from voters who vote.
2. Congress makes laws. Clinton went along with it. Put blame where blame needs to be.
Clinton initiated the law with the help of Reno, there was a clear reason that Law enforcement was not excluded from the law. You need to read more about the specifics of that law.
3. So you think it was a bad thing to take guns from bad guys? Guys that have records of abuse. We also keep pedophiles away from schools? I mean this is so stupid and not even worth wasting my time on. People with anger problems should turn in their guns. I wouldn't want that same kind of cop stopping me. Geez. A no brainer.
No taking guns away from bad people is not a bad thing, but we have an incomplete system which privacy rights and other issues stand in the way of it being complete. You have mentioned that our rights are abridged but here is a perfect case, you can have a gun purchase check system but it has to have access to records like medical records and in order to do so, some privacy has to be disclosed – so what is the solution? It is like the juvenile law stuff, there is no constitutional right that says someone under 18 has more rights than an adult, but we seal their records on crimes they commit when they are underage, so what makes you think that someone turns 18 becomes a model citizen?
Oh and speaking of medical records, you do know that there is no requirement or law to keep them private?
4. We will have NO choice but to ween ourselves away from oil. It is a FOSSIL FUEL. Once depleted there will be no more. So why not start dealing with the issue in the NOW and stop sweeping it under the rug. The population does not end with you or me.
Yes we should get off of oil but as I said before, the problem is that until we can get a grip on the present problems of supply and the problems caused by the money issue, we can’t move off of oil. One thing that is preventing us form moving forward is our tax system.
5. I never said it was a OMG issue, but it does need to be addressed.
n/c
6. The troops are another issue that needs to be addressed. It took us less than 5 years to accomplish what needed to be accomplished in World War II without the technology that our soldiers have today. How long do we need to stay over there? We have already accomplished getting Hussein out of power. This conflict is going over 5 years now.
We can not compare a total destruction of a country and the rebuilding of it with what we have today. In order for us to make that comparison, we have to take a step back and ask ourselves; were we willing to wipe out whole cities and ignore the ‘international community’? Germany and Japan were modernized to begin with, Iraq was not. For the time we spent there so far, we have done a lot, more than we did in Europe in the same time frame.
7. The subject is sugar.
Yes the subject is sugar, but also the subject is government involvement in farming, which I think it the bigger issue here. We need to remove the government from agriculture and allow the markets to do what they need to do OR we need to let the government be involved with agriculture 100% and let them tell the farmed what to plant and how to. We can’t continue down the same 1920’s way of thinking in the 21st century.
The other part of my post on this point is that we fail to see an important thing about alternate fuels. Until we can do this without the government involvement, then we must look beyond the touchy feeling stuff. I mean that we have made great strides to fix what was thought as destroyed and we don’t give nature credit when something actually happen in a positive way. The fact that we can’t really destroy anything by farming and that what we farm today in comparison to what we used to farm is just utterly amazing, we use something like 40% of the land we used to use and still out produce farms of 50 years ago.
The other thing is Sugar Cain is not the main sugar crop and there is no reason that we need to try to duplicate Brazil who has been using sugar for ethanol for almost 50 years. There are other crops that can be used instead, with higher yield and ease of conversion. The funny thing about ethanol is that we only use two types of conversion methods and ignore the other ones because of the length of time that was allowed to get the plants up and running. ADM has on experimental plant that uses vacuum technology and reduces the energy consumption by 70% and there is a person who has now been granted a few million to setup a plant using a new process that he claims will cut the energy use by 90% - so there is hope for ethanol.
Which brings me back to the oil issue mentioned before, until we can focus on getting what we already have in the ground out that solves immediate problems first which allows us to grow into an alternative form of energy in the future, we will continue to go down the same path and never be independent, let alone have real alternatives.
The petition itself means nothing, the presentation and the actual content of the petition determines its effectiveness. Meaning that gathering a bunch of signatures is not hard but to make it effective, then those signatures need to have some weight behind them and from voters who vote.
2. Congress makes laws. Clinton went along with it. Put blame where blame needs to be.
Clinton initiated the law with the help of Reno, there was a clear reason that Law enforcement was not excluded from the law. You need to read more about the specifics of that law.
3. So you think it was a bad thing to take guns from bad guys? Guys that have records of abuse. We also keep pedophiles away from schools? I mean this is so stupid and not even worth wasting my time on. People with anger problems should turn in their guns. I wouldn't want that same kind of cop stopping me. Geez. A no brainer.
No taking guns away from bad people is not a bad thing, but we have an incomplete system which privacy rights and other issues stand in the way of it being complete. You have mentioned that our rights are abridged but here is a perfect case, you can have a gun purchase check system but it has to have access to records like medical records and in order to do so, some privacy has to be disclosed – so what is the solution? It is like the juvenile law stuff, there is no constitutional right that says someone under 18 has more rights than an adult, but we seal their records on crimes they commit when they are underage, so what makes you think that someone turns 18 becomes a model citizen?
Oh and speaking of medical records, you do know that there is no requirement or law to keep them private?
4. We will have NO choice but to ween ourselves away from oil. It is a FOSSIL FUEL. Once depleted there will be no more. So why not start dealing with the issue in the NOW and stop sweeping it under the rug. The population does not end with you or me.
Yes we should get off of oil but as I said before, the problem is that until we can get a grip on the present problems of supply and the problems caused by the money issue, we can’t move off of oil. One thing that is preventing us form moving forward is our tax system.
5. I never said it was a OMG issue, but it does need to be addressed.
n/c
6. The troops are another issue that needs to be addressed. It took us less than 5 years to accomplish what needed to be accomplished in World War II without the technology that our soldiers have today. How long do we need to stay over there? We have already accomplished getting Hussein out of power. This conflict is going over 5 years now.
We can not compare a total destruction of a country and the rebuilding of it with what we have today. In order for us to make that comparison, we have to take a step back and ask ourselves; were we willing to wipe out whole cities and ignore the ‘international community’? Germany and Japan were modernized to begin with, Iraq was not. For the time we spent there so far, we have done a lot, more than we did in Europe in the same time frame.
7. The subject is sugar.
Yes the subject is sugar, but also the subject is government involvement in farming, which I think it the bigger issue here. We need to remove the government from agriculture and allow the markets to do what they need to do OR we need to let the government be involved with agriculture 100% and let them tell the farmed what to plant and how to. We can’t continue down the same 1920’s way of thinking in the 21st century.
The other part of my post on this point is that we fail to see an important thing about alternate fuels. Until we can do this without the government involvement, then we must look beyond the touchy feeling stuff. I mean that we have made great strides to fix what was thought as destroyed and we don’t give nature credit when something actually happen in a positive way. The fact that we can’t really destroy anything by farming and that what we farm today in comparison to what we used to farm is just utterly amazing, we use something like 40% of the land we used to use and still out produce farms of 50 years ago.
The other thing is Sugar Cain is not the main sugar crop and there is no reason that we need to try to duplicate Brazil who has been using sugar for ethanol for almost 50 years. There are other crops that can be used instead, with higher yield and ease of conversion. The funny thing about ethanol is that we only use two types of conversion methods and ignore the other ones because of the length of time that was allowed to get the plants up and running. ADM has on experimental plant that uses vacuum technology and reduces the energy consumption by 70% and there is a person who has now been granted a few million to setup a plant using a new process that he claims will cut the energy use by 90% - so there is hope for ethanol.
Which brings me back to the oil issue mentioned before, until we can focus on getting what we already have in the ground out that solves immediate problems first which allows us to grow into an alternative form of energy in the future, we will continue to go down the same path and never be independent, let alone have real alternatives.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
No, really! Gasp! You had a lot of experience with this, talked to a lot of staffers on what makes a senator or congressman take notice? Talked to the editors to find out what causes are effective to present to them to get proper press coverage? You setup a system that will weed out the Mr M Mouse and the Mrs. Daisy Mae Moses out of the petitions?
Look I don’t doubt that you know a lot about petitions but what you are missing it that with the thousands of petitions on the millions of subjects ranging from Hunt’s Catsup flavoring to lets pull our troops out, the ones that really matter are the ones that are put together in a professional manner, signed by people who vote and presented to the people in congress or WH with credibility behind them. They need to be put together to show that the constituents of the senator or congressman care about the subject, not a bunch of meaningless signatures from people they don’t know who they are. Everything I asked you I did, I went to find out how to be different and what needs to be done to get a petition heard, not just showing up at some rally and asking for signatures and then thinking that it will be taken seriously – there is a big difference.
You missed the point I was trying to make. I agree with it don’t matter who initiated the bill, but in fact it was a payback for political support. Well there I go again, anywho the point is that we have not fixed the sexual predator problem as we have not fixed the gun purchasing problem. The thing you miss is that we can fix both with a disclosure of private matters or we can’t – there is no in between on this issue.
But here is something else, we should apply this to the armed forces seeing that we social engineered that. So anyone with a record of spousal abuse should not be allowed to have access to any weapons, right? Well I thought it was supposed to also apply to them but in reality it does not.
No, if you commit a crime, you are charged and tried, then you are supposed to lose your rights.
Read what we had to do to stop Germany and Japan. Learn the problems we had post war and then look at the actions we took in Iraq and Afghanistan. We destroyed Germany and Japan, we had to bring them down to their knees but we didn’t do that in Iraq. Talking to someone about what Berlin was like when the Soviets took over, it amazes me that there was no water, no food, no nothing but here in Iraq, we bought food, clothing and medical attention to the people as we were still fighting. The soviets destroyed Berlin, we didn’t destroy Iraq. Should I go on?
Yes I read the article but before I read it, I already knew about ethanol and its production. I knew about Brazil since the 70’s and what we can do and how we can approach things the right way.
I don’t have the energy to put my bigger ideas in motion, so I do what I can like right now I am trying to figure out how to supplement our needs here on my quarter acre of land, and think I came up with a solution. I already made bio-diesel but my supply of WVO is dried up thanks to the idiots who are selling the $10k mini plants which work the same as my $50 setup but my wife’s van uses gas/ethanol.
My point is this, as individuals we can do a lot more. If I can produce fuel to supplement the 500 plus a month fuel bill we have for her alone, then I am going towards a solution for me and maybe others who watch me. I can’t do the same for the truck and may never be able to but I can for my van and maybe my home (heat).
Will it take a lot of money?
No just determination.
As for commercial production, well I said it.
I think it is time to move this to the Soap Box forum, what you think Ratwell?
Well, first, in response to JimF51's Urban Legend postulation, the law is real. Background checks are only effective on new hires and have nothing to do with those who were currently employed at the time the law went into effect. The law was an amendment to the U.S. Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, which extended the Brady Bill to those who have been convicted of domestic violence, and was championed by Clinton with the enthusiastic support of Janet Reno, largely as a next step after the Council on Family Violence pushed the Violence Against Women Act into the 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill. Police officers and other law enforcement personnel who had previously been convicted of domestic violence had to turn in their weapons and ammunition and were either reassigned to other duties, were dismissed or resigned, or, in a small number of cases, had the convictions expunged from their records.
Ratwell, yes, Congress made the law, but did so at the urging of Bill Clinton and Janet Reno. But who came up with the idea isn't nearly as important as the fact that it was a feel-good idea that wasn't properly thought through, as it was essentially a last minute amendment that was added with little or no fanfare, much less any press coverage, at the urging of a special interest group (Council on Family Violence). Unlike pedophiles (which is a particularly bad comparison, I must say), which have never shown to benefit from counseling or ever change their behavior, people with anger problems have had tremendous success with counseling, with domestic abuse having particularly good results.
Convicted felons cannot own a firearm, and 80% of all convictions are for misdemeanors. Yet, a misdemeanor domestic abuse conviction now removes the right to bear arms. It is the only misdemeanor that has that result. The problem with it is, other than those convicted for it are more often than not helped by counseling, the manner in which prosecutors used the laws to obtain those convictions. Until this law was passed, prosecutors would throw the book at those charged with domestic violence, charging them with a litany of felonies and misdemeanors, then, in a plea agreement that got the prosecutor another notch on the conviction bedpost, the charges would be reduced to simple misdemeanor domestic abuse, counseling was ordered, offenders got both a slap on the wrist and the help they needed, all was good. Very few re-offended.
With this law, all those people who had jumped at the chance to plead guilty to a wrist-slap, including federal, state and local law enforcement officers, police officers, deputy sheriffs, federal drug enforcement officials, customs officers, game wardens, campus police, private police, security guards, warehouse guards, railroad police, prison guards and everyone in any type of law enforcement suddenly found themselves unable to lawfully possess or receive firearms or ammunition for any purpose, including using guns in their official duties.
The government literally put up a STOP sign at an intersection and immediately started giving out tickets to people who failed to stop at the intersection before the sign was put up.
The fact that the frequency of spousal abuse among law enforcement personnel is markedly higher than among the rest of the population is a separate issue. Law enforcement personnel who have engaged in spousal abuse have also shown to be far, far less likely to engage is the reckless or dangerous use of a firearm, which is just the opposite of those who are not in law enforcement and take part in spousal abuse. So, the taking guns away from bad people doesn't necessarily hold water when referencing law enforcement personnel. Since the law has gone into effect, prosecutors have moved away from charging law enforcement personnel with misdemeanor domestic abuse to charging them with misdemeanor battery (or some other non-domestic misdemeanor), with the same caveat of anger management counseling.
"6. The troops are another issue that needs to be addressed. It took us less than 5 years to accomplish what needed to be accomplished in World War II without the technology that our soldiers have today. How long do we need to stay over there? We have already accomplished getting Hussein out of power. This conflict is going over 5 years now."
How long do we need to stay over there? That is the question. Instead of thinking emotionally about the subject, go out and actually find the answer and you'll understand why we can't just yank the troops out of there.
Incidentally, we still have troops in Germany, and Japan. There are currently just 46 countries with no US military presence, and 156 containing US troops. 63 of those countries contain US military bases and troops, and since 911 there are 7 countries with 13 new military bases. Which ones did you want to bring home again?
Yes, the subject is sugar. But it's really not. Sugar is not the answer, it's only a small part of a first step.
"We will have NO choice but to ween ourselves away from oil. It is a FOSSIL FUEL. Once depleted there will be no more. So why not start dealing with the issue in the NOW and stop sweeping it under the rug."
Do you really believe that it's being swept under the rug? Really? Wow. Billions of dollars have been spent just in this country alone, not to mention world-wide, on developing alternative energies.We are, in fact, dealing with it in the NOW. It's simply a matter of the results not happening in the NOW. That's gonna take time. Decades, at least, probably more, maybe even centuries. These are not simple fixes that will happen at the snap of a finger, no matter how badly someone thinks they should.
Ratwell, yes, Congress made the law, but did so at the urging of Bill Clinton and Janet Reno. But who came up with the idea isn't nearly as important as the fact that it was a feel-good idea that wasn't properly thought through, as it was essentially a last minute amendment that was added with little or no fanfare, much less any press coverage, at the urging of a special interest group (Council on Family Violence). Unlike pedophiles (which is a particularly bad comparison, I must say), which have never shown to benefit from counseling or ever change their behavior, people with anger problems have had tremendous success with counseling, with domestic abuse having particularly good results.
Convicted felons cannot own a firearm, and 80% of all convictions are for misdemeanors. Yet, a misdemeanor domestic abuse conviction now removes the right to bear arms. It is the only misdemeanor that has that result. The problem with it is, other than those convicted for it are more often than not helped by counseling, the manner in which prosecutors used the laws to obtain those convictions. Until this law was passed, prosecutors would throw the book at those charged with domestic violence, charging them with a litany of felonies and misdemeanors, then, in a plea agreement that got the prosecutor another notch on the conviction bedpost, the charges would be reduced to simple misdemeanor domestic abuse, counseling was ordered, offenders got both a slap on the wrist and the help they needed, all was good. Very few re-offended.
With this law, all those people who had jumped at the chance to plead guilty to a wrist-slap, including federal, state and local law enforcement officers, police officers, deputy sheriffs, federal drug enforcement officials, customs officers, game wardens, campus police, private police, security guards, warehouse guards, railroad police, prison guards and everyone in any type of law enforcement suddenly found themselves unable to lawfully possess or receive firearms or ammunition for any purpose, including using guns in their official duties.
The government literally put up a STOP sign at an intersection and immediately started giving out tickets to people who failed to stop at the intersection before the sign was put up.
The fact that the frequency of spousal abuse among law enforcement personnel is markedly higher than among the rest of the population is a separate issue. Law enforcement personnel who have engaged in spousal abuse have also shown to be far, far less likely to engage is the reckless or dangerous use of a firearm, which is just the opposite of those who are not in law enforcement and take part in spousal abuse. So, the taking guns away from bad people doesn't necessarily hold water when referencing law enforcement personnel. Since the law has gone into effect, prosecutors have moved away from charging law enforcement personnel with misdemeanor domestic abuse to charging them with misdemeanor battery (or some other non-domestic misdemeanor), with the same caveat of anger management counseling.
"6. The troops are another issue that needs to be addressed. It took us less than 5 years to accomplish what needed to be accomplished in World War II without the technology that our soldiers have today. How long do we need to stay over there? We have already accomplished getting Hussein out of power. This conflict is going over 5 years now."
How long do we need to stay over there? That is the question. Instead of thinking emotionally about the subject, go out and actually find the answer and you'll understand why we can't just yank the troops out of there.
Incidentally, we still have troops in Germany, and Japan. There are currently just 46 countries with no US military presence, and 156 containing US troops. 63 of those countries contain US military bases and troops, and since 911 there are 7 countries with 13 new military bases. Which ones did you want to bring home again?
Yes, the subject is sugar. But it's really not. Sugar is not the answer, it's only a small part of a first step.
"We will have NO choice but to ween ourselves away from oil. It is a FOSSIL FUEL. Once depleted there will be no more. So why not start dealing with the issue in the NOW and stop sweeping it under the rug."
Do you really believe that it's being swept under the rug? Really? Wow. Billions of dollars have been spent just in this country alone, not to mention world-wide, on developing alternative energies.We are, in fact, dealing with it in the NOW. It's simply a matter of the results not happening in the NOW. That's gonna take time. Decades, at least, probably more, maybe even centuries. These are not simple fixes that will happen at the snap of a finger, no matter how badly someone thinks they should.
Last edited:
O.K. Actually I think we are stalling.
Stalling? For what purpose? You're saying that the entire world has gotten together in some grand cosmological conspiracy and spent billions and billions of dollars in alternative energy research as a stalling tactic. Read that aloud and you'll laugh, too. You'll have better luck if you stomp your feet and stick out your tongue, or maybe sign an Internet petition or something. Yeah, that's the ticket, that'll get us alternative energy fast enough to suit you. And if not, at least you'll feel like you've done something about it.
Turtle,
Are you speaking your mind? I never said any of this. How did you get all this from, "We are stalling?" Whoa...
This OIL problem has existed for how long? And how much longer can it go on? That is stalling not what you stated above. Which is just out of this world!
Maybe you act like that, but educated people are active and productive members of society. Not little whiny babies as you suggest us to be.
Your reply is a mere reflection of self.
Last edited:
Jefferson3000
Expert Expediter
I think I need to discuss this with my attorney, Bob Loblaw.