Birds Of a Slacker Feather

So Rattle, the communists liberals are destroying your America. Or is it the conservative liberals? How many illegals have you deported Rattle?

How come no mention of the growing number of Veterans supporting the Occupy Movement?

How come no mention of the Police Departments now supporting the Occupy Movement?

How come no mention of the Christian based organizations now supporting the Occupy Movement?

Are they all part of the Alliance of Slackers mentioned in the article?

Mickel

I believe that everyone has the right to express their opinion in what ever form is allowed by law. I may not personally agree with those opinions, but I do understand it is an integral part of what continues to make America the land of the free. Labeling a person or group as fringe only serves to lend credence to our own definition of what we consider to be acceptable or the norm.

For example, many Christians believe that the Mormon Religion is a fringe religion because many of their beliefs are founded on principals established by the Prophet Joseph Smith, who is not mentioned in the Bible. In fact the name of their church bears this out -- the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Yet two of the GOP candidates for President are Latter Day Saints, and one is leading in the polls I believe. On the other hand, if you were to make a trip to Utah, Idaho, etc. you would find out that the opposite is true -- they are not considered a fringe religion in that area of our country.

The occupy movement in many ways is just an expression of people from nearly every walk of life showing their discontent with our economic and political situation. They are tired of the status quo and have chosen protesting as a means of expressing this. We may not agree with their actions, but they do have that right. Only time will tell if they are successful in their endeavors.

I see no problems in peacefull demonstrations, but if they start turning into riots like Oakland, then there is going to be a big problem.

Call it a hunch Rattles.

It was Douglas MacArthur who commanded the troops who attacked the 17,000 WWI vets and their families (at total of 43,000 people!).

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

Please be clear. I am not saying I agree with the Occupy Wall Street protesters or with their support groups. But I defend their right to protest. And I think you should, too.

I also think there are some of the protesters who are there for the sole purpose of inciting a crackdown by the government, by committing the arson and break ins you refer to. They want a revolution, but they are a very small minority.

In the end the government WILL do what it needs to do, to remain in power. Power over the Occupy folks; power over you and I. I predict major bloodshed soon.

I believe in freedom. I think these protesters pose no danger to the rest of us. I fear our government more than I do OWS participants.

"My take on the occupy wall-street is the same as all news stories, its just another turd sandwhich for us"

Much like the "turd sandwich" issued to us by the media when the Tea Party was all the rage.

Wildhorse, that is possibly the funniest post I've read on here yet.

Rattles, no one really believed you could read anyways.

I am guessing wildhorse and his ilk fail to realize that the conservatives look the same way at them.

Much like the "turd sandwich" issued to us by the media when the Tea Party was all the rage. I agree 100%

Wallis

Is this a continuation from our conversation the other day Wallis? Do mind being specific when you make an allegation of this sort?

Wallis

Many of the tax breaks, incentives, allowances, subsidies, etc. granted to the oil and gas industry have outlived their intent and usefulness. Overall, the Oil and Gas Industry has been posting record quarterly profits, in fact Exxon recently posted the highest quarterly profit ever reported in the United States.

Due to the recent financial system meltdown and resulting fiscal crisis, our country is now contemplating corrective steps that will eliminate budget deficits and provide a path for paying off our long term debt. To accomplish this goal will require a reduction of government spending as well as an increase in revenue -- neither one will accomplish the goal by itself.

On the revenue side, it is realistic to assume that cutting some tax expenditures for highly profitable business entities will be considered a viable option for increasing revenue flow. I don't consider this lack of Patriotism or favoring OPEC -- to me it falls in the category of common sense.

Geez-Please explain the purpose for your post on oil dependancy. Maybe that is our confusion. I thought you were concerned about our dependency and that was why I questioned your hypocrisy. Taking capital away from US companies and therefore decreasing American oil supply.

If you are happy about our dependence growing, then you are being consistent.

Wallis

I'm not sure sefffanie, geezer seems to be one of the most credible posters on the site. He appears to do his research and presents his opinion accordingly.

It seems Zombie took any media source, (most with a negative stigma and associated them with figures such as Obama, Biden, Pelosi etc.), that even reported anything about OWS and used it as a source to claim support. For instance, Wikipedia on Hezbollah mentions nothing that it favors OWS nor does PressTV. You can make the argument either way for the other "supporting" links.

Boomer62,

I believe you have missed the argument completely, sorry to say. But I am glad that you seem to have returned to reasonableness (minus the last paragraph of course--but I will ignore that).

When I say you have missed the argument, what I mean is, you have the situation completely backwards:

In Seville, Spain, where the sun shines for most of the year, there is a solar tower that collects energy from the sun throughout the day. The town runs normally during daytime hours on "oil, natural gas, and coal." At night, when energy costs decrease (A/C unit switch off, lights go out, etc) the city diverts a portion of the energy it requires away from "oil, natural gas, and coal" and uses the energy stored up from a renewable source to mitigate the energy it uses from nonrenewable sources.

"Oil, natural gas, and coal," are finite. We all know that. This is not controversial. Sun, wind, water, etc., can potentially be used in several ways: 1) to decrease the cost of energy in the long term; 2) to decrease carbon emissions, 3) to increase the longevity of our nonrenewable resources, 4) to decrease our reliance on foreign oil.

More importantly, whether you like it or not, the rest of the world is going green. This means markets are developing, and new frontiers of research, innovation, capital, etc., are burgeoning. The US has the infrastructure and resources to take the lead in development, research, and design. This means an entirely new industrial sector with potentially hundreds of thousands of new jobs.

With or without the US the world is moving in a particular direction. If we are smart we will act in our own interest, and not against as you suggest.

უილიამ ი,

Your link is quite helpful, and I thank you for it, as it makes the point well. However, I don't believe that such animosity is warranted, even when directed toward the local trolls.

Going green is recognition to the fact that our resources are finite. No one suggests riding a solar panel as a magic carpet nor do they suggest slapping a couple wind turbines to a 747 and try flying with them. They also do not suggest that the majority of the energy they use or receive is green. But, we develop other energy sources to displace our fossil fuels in hope that we become even less dependant on them.

stefffanie

At least I don't intentionally insult anybody with my posts. I try to stay within the rules the Gazette has established for bloggers - I owe them that much for allowing me the opportunity to participate in this forum.

I don't always agree with Wallis but I do value what he has to say. Isn't that how we all broaden our knowledge and understanding of different points of view?

I am asking you again to refrain from making insulting comments towards me or any other blogger.

People like me feel that we soon will have no need for fossil fuels, and some even find it interesting that, in the design of the Heavens, and Earth, God placed only the amount of fossil fuels we will need to get us through the Millennial Reign of Jesus, when, at the end of that, we will have no need for fossil fuel.... or something like that. We won't need Green, and we won't need oil.

I find that an interesting thought, that is far more fun than fighting over the last drop of oil.

I know, this ain't not as erudite as Going Green, but, having God come to rule over our insanity, pleases my heart. I'm Done.

I do value what wallis says, he generally types good, well written, thought out posts. I also value what geezer says, he types good, well written, thought out posts. Whats really nice is neither of them are prone to name calling. If they began the name calling I would dismiss them just as I dismiss 99% of what you type.

How am I wrong? I havent typed any opnion. This is the part in the post where I would use the stuffany playbook and call you a name but I think I will just say "i know you are but what am I"?

Oil prices will probably move past $100/bbl this month (November). My old target for oil in the next 18 months was a retest of the old highs which was $147 (WTI). I think that Geezer is probably right and the Governments reaction to high oil prices will be to raise taxes on oil companies and thereby lower oil production. Therefore, as a result of unintended consequences, I am raising my price target to $168.

Oil supply has not grown since 2005. Spare capacity is absorbed and demand is continuing to grow in Asia and the Middle East. Demand destruction will be the only solution.

Wallis

And the sad part, Rattletrap, is your response to Sciences' inane post only serves to encourage him.

touche` and true. And that is the main reason I havent posted lately.

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

According to the Taku center this Wikipedia entry is incorrect with the advance much more than is listed. Regardless, this Glacier is the Biggest of em all.

Wallis

Yes! its true that some of us are not on this blog to write a dissertation or thesis, or try and prove what an intellect we are.

And many are on here to avoid intellectual points, facts, and thinking all together!

Why wait till we a nearly out of fossil fuels to find a solution? And while other solutions may not be as viable, they decrease demand and take a step in the direction of replacing fossil fuels. Also, the demand for oil has actually been dropping since 2004. It is also true that oil prices would increase if we did not have these other energy sources. I don't know about you, but I'd rather not pay anymore than necessary.

As far as relying on foreign energy supplies, we import less foreign oil today than we did in the 90's.

Boomer,

The authors of Freakonomics and Super Freakonomics point out that the automobile was America's first 'Green Energy' revolution. The horse was relatively dirty, the cities were over run by stench from the massive waste produced by all the horses. When it rained, there were rivers of waste careening through the cities. Horses in their height of usage totaled nearly 200,000 in NYC alone. Even green house gas as a result of methane emissions were having environmental impacts in major cities, according to Levitt and Dubner.

Then the automobile was invented. But it was costly, inefficient, and impractical. In the early 20th century, Henry Ford's lawyer advised the president of a large Michigan bank not to invest in Ford Motor Company, saying, "The horse is here to stay but the automobile is only a novelty, a fad." This was a common sentiment. Not only was the automobile impractical and inefficient, it required a great deal of nonexistent infrastructure (e.gs., roads, service stations, mechanics, etc.). We all know, of course, how solid Ford's lawyers advice looks now, and from where I am seeing things, where green energy is concerned, you are sounding a lot like Ford's lawyer.

Boomer, what made economic sense in the early 1900's was to clean up our cities and to forge a more efficient and reliable mode of transportation. That included building a very expensive, tax payer paid, highway and interstate system.

We stand at a new crossroads, and all the same arguments and logic that applied where the car was concerned also apply where the future of our energy is concerned.

http://www.hardassetsinvestor.com/weekly...

Crude oil prices set to rise. Now doesn't seem like a good time to "punish" oil companies.

The market is already purchasing green energy. Wind turbines aren't running simply because people like to watch them spin, nor are biofuels made just to see how much we can accumulate. The energy is being consumed.

The market simply isn't going to say Ok, we're ready now, give us the green! Nor is it feasible to think that waiting til that point we will produce "green things out of thin air" without ever having developed it. This takes money. And like oil, green energy receives tax incentives for doing so.

Why it suddently becomes a liberal standard I've no idea, since conservatives also support them. There is not much merit in pointing a finger while turning a blind eye.

Wallis,

Solar panels, wind turbines, etc., were not invented by the government, either. The government incentivized and encouraged the spread of the automobile in response to the massive amount of pollution caused by horses in densely populated areas. Where ground-breaking business and innovations are concerned, the US government has historically done an outstanding job creating an environment in which tax money, subsidies (like for oil companies), etc., support those inventions/markets which benefit our nation the most.

Think about it: steel, automobiles, the internet....green energy is the next private sector enterprise that will benefit (that is benefiting) from government support. I suspect that it will not be the last either.

The only thing you are right about are roads. They certainly have existed for a long time. However, I would like to see you drive a model-t down a Roman road...or an 1850's thoroughfare in New York for that matter. I bet you wouldn't make it 1000 meters. The point is, entire cities were replanned and redesigned, old roads and horse trails were either paved and lined with gutters, etc., or removed. Infrastucture, Wallis. The car required it. So does green energy.

Luckily, the issue has a lot of traction because it is nonpartisan, and even a great deal Conservatives in DC and at the state level are on board.

ScienceAboveAll

Ironcat with a better education, better punctuation.

still just as crazy, just easier to read.

Wallis,

No offense taken. We may not be prognosticators, but we don't have to be. The future can be written, luckily. We can also study history.

Remember that the internal combustion engine was originally designed (but never built) way back in 1680 by the Dutch. It was later redesigned by the Swedish to burn hydrogen and oxygen, then again by the French to burn kerosene, etc.

The internal combustion engine went through over 200 years of design and redesign before reaching cost effectiveness, efficiency, and widespread marketability.

The sun, water, wind, etc., have been useful in localized operations and utilities, we know this. Their design and effectiveness are in their infancy, as the engine once was. These energies have not been brought to scale. But it isn't hard to see this is where we are headed. I recently drove to Minnesota to watch the Huskers. Iowa is dotted with wind farms. Kansas too. California, Nevada, etc., are all taking advantage as well.

There is money to made. There is an entire global-industry at our disposal. We do not have to guess at the future Wallis. We can make the future.

Mark Twain also wrote: "We despise all reverences and all the objects of reverence which are outside the pale of our own list of sacred things. And yet, with strange inconsistency, we are shocked when other people despise and defile the things which are holy to us."

Because Mickel politics has deemed American Oil Companies as evil. We have resorted to fighting against our own instead of working together.

Want to win a bar bet? Bet that Exxon isn't one of the 10 largest oil companies in the World. The top 10 are all composed of National Companies which we are helping make more money by "picking on" American Companies.

Wallis

Wallis,

This is a little off subject, but during a discussion on the supply of petroleum, I asked you how crude oil is made in nature. Never got an answer, but if you could please, enlighten us.

"Carbon matter builds is buried and Millions of years pass and Oil and Gas is the by product. The carbon matter are trees, leaves, grass, animals, etc."

...some believe. Maybe it's just really juicy coal...

Kidding about that...but the point is; oil is just as natural as trees. Nature made it - and we as creatures of nature, use it for our own benefit. Green energy cannot heat the homes of people this time of year. Fossil fuels can do the job nicely thank you very much. Why are we putting ourselves in a position to depend on resources from countries that aren't too crazy about us?