5,911 Forum Posts by "Jimsween"
At 9/22/05 01:39 PM, bcdemon wrote: And in other news. Russia and China are backing Iran. Due to this the EU is now postponing its request to have Iran put before the UN SC. The US says they want Iran to face the SC immediately.
Russia and China, thank god. Finally we have some people we can trust. :-/
At 9/22/05 09:25 AM, bcdemon wrote: Still no proof or sources to your claima huh? Ok I'll wait a bit longer, but don't expect me to respond to your silly circle-jerk anymore unless you have something concrete worth responding to, oki?
Hey, can ya read? I shouldn't have to repeat myself just because youre childish. If you question the validity of a claim I made, quote my claim, and ask for a source on it.
You can't go from direct rebuttals, then blanket accusations, then indirect rebuttals. Thats just fucking dumb. Respond to the direct quote, doing anything other than that makes it obvious your not trying to debate and just stalling.
At 9/21/05 11:40 PM, TimeFrame wrote: It just sounds funny. He was impeached, but...here he is.
Same happened to johnson.
At 9/21/05 11:34 PM, TimeFrame wrote: Strange how clinton was impeached, yet was able to continue as president somehow.
Impeachment doesn't mean one has to resign, it's just an acknowledgment that the president commited a crime. They just didn't think it was too important of a crime.
I take it youre out of sedatives.
At 9/19/05 11:30 PM, night_watch_man18 wrote: You do realize that WalMart currently has approximately 1,700,000 employees right. That's a large number of people to gather together to form a union. The earlier unions were forged by smaller groups, which made it easier to ban together for a cause.
You don't need all of the stores, just enough that they wouldn't be able to shut down. The earlier unions had to be formed by word of mouth, now we have things like the internet and television, theres no reason they can't do it other than lack of initiative.
Also, the living conditions were deplorable in the past, and that's why they formed unions in the first place. 100 years later, I think we can still improve on the system, don't you? Or are we only to settle, and allow the number of people living below the poverty line to increase as it is.
Yes. There is no point in the government aiding unions, if they are going to aid unions they might as well just pass laws to force Wal-Mart to raise wages. When unions are given too much support, our workers become overpaid and underqualified, thats why America loses jobs to India and China. It's not as simple as give everyone money and then everyone is happy.
Oh please, don't give me that sack of shit for an answer. Yeah, I don't stand for "real human rights". Tell me Jim, seeing as you seem to know me so damn well, what is it that you have done personally in your life to benefit human rights for others? Gone to any protests/rallies for causes? Researched in great detail about the sufferings of other human beings (I'm talking months, not five minutes on the interweb). Hmmm? Have you? Well guess what genius, I have. So don't feed me your bull about me disgracing human rights. I fight injustice on all fronts, whether it's on our own soil, or half-way across the world.
Are you fucking kidding me? Don't get your panties in a bundle. I never said you don't stand for real human rights, I said when you call those things human rights, you make the term human rights mean nothing. That doesn't neccesarily hurt the cause for human rights, but its annoying and retarded because we will have to make new words just because some dumbshit wanted to make a point by being 'edgy'.
And FYI, "basic pay" and "health benefits" aren't the bare minimum of human rights. I'm saying, that if we can see that it's achievable in other retail stores (or companies in general), then it should be. What would be so bad about it if it were to happen?
I never said it is bad. I'm saying, if it's going to happen, it needs to happen because the employees do it themselves. At no point in human history has government assistance of unions worked out well. It's the same as corporate welfare, we all get fucked in the end. People need to be fired, people need to be poor, people need to lose thier pention, I figured that should be more clear now than ever but apperantly not.
What the fuck are you talking about mofomojo?
This thread is about rising college prices, not communism. Take a fucking sedative.
At 9/21/05 10:26 PM, FAB0L0US wrote:5. Woodrow WilsonWhat did he do that was so bad? The only thing he did I didnt like was the income tax. Everything else considered, he was a pretty good President, despite the racism.
Oh hush, income tax is the most efficient form of tax.
And at that, the south started the war when they attacked Fort Sumter.
Geeze... It's hard for me not to be in favor of that. I'm usually very much a liberatarian but I mean... hmm... I'll have to think about that one.
WTF?
Stop whoring out the word right. You don't need to have a right to do something to do it. And at that, just because you should be able to do something, doesn't mean you have a right to do it.
Stupid people.
At 9/21/05 11:47 AM, punisher19848 wrote: Nice thoughts; but Guliani is a politician, not a lawyer. Only lawyers are eligable for judgeships of any kind (including the Supreme Court). Guliani isn't qualified to hold court anywhere in the U.S.
Thats not true, you don't actually have to be a lawyer, nowhere does it say that. However, to appoint anyone else is retarded cause they wont understand a thing.
At 9/21/05 03:03 AM, bcdemon wrote: For one, I never said anything about "getting rid of waste", all I did was give you a link about "recycling" nuclear waste.
Uhhuh, yeah exactly. Hey wait a tic, if you didn't think it was actually getting rid of any waste, why would you bring it up in response to an argument that you have lots of waste to get rid of. Hmm?
But apparently Argonne CAN reduce the amount of waste that needs disposal.
It doesn't reduce anything but the mass, which doesn't help anyone. It just con
"In a single step, commercial fuel, which is a ceramic, can be converted to a metallic form for processing with Argonne?s pyroprocessing technology. This technology can greatly reduce the amount of waste that needs disposal in a repository."
But the radioactivity remains the same. You reduce the mass, but in the process create an even more hazardous thing in a smaller space.
Yep, many times, you ever take linguistics?. Better yet, you ever read a fucking dictionary?
Hey, read the second number three dumbass.
In your original post you made this claim "Nuclear power is incredibly expensive" which I showed it is not when compared to oil, gas and coal power. Then in another post you made this claim "Nuclear power isn't cleaner than Natural Gas" which again, I showed it was, although you did denounce the source as bias. Then this claim "Iran has more than enough fossil fuel to power itself forever", which I showed you that their supply (of NG) would not last "forever", it (NG) would only last about 335 years, thats at current consumption rates and no exports.
Thats so funny, I posted thinking I would get a response to the arguments I put fourth previously, nope. Not at all. Wierd how that worked. If my arguments are incorrect, don't summarize them innacurately while in the process ignoring key parts. Go back to them and quote them as if you were actually continuing the debate. Don't try to pretend the last few posts you made were anything more than a stall tactic. So in case you forgot, we left off here:
At 9/20/05 12:32 AM, bcdemon wrote:I never said it was did I?
But since you mentioned it, nuclear is cleaner than natural gas.
Woah wacky, who would have guessed that the IAEA would downplay the problems with nuclear power.
And no, thats not any cleaner. The sulfur produced in natural gas sweetening can handled, but radioactive waste can't. Your comparing apples and oranges.
Actually about 335 years, providing they don't export any of it.
355 years with thier proven reserves. Nevertheless, I don't see what your getting at, you just reinforced my point.
Nuclear waste can be recycled.
No, it can't. That is a complete lie and I'm offended that you would think I would fall for it.
According to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, nuclear power cost 1.72 cents per kilowatt hour in 2003, while gas and oil cost above 5.5 cents. Coal cost about 1.8 cents.
Thats for America genius. And not even correct. Nuclear costs more than 2 cents, and thats just to run the plant not to build it. The government pays more than 1.8 cents per kilowatt to subsidize nuclear power. Find a study that actually exists next time.
US coal plants collectively emit over 85 percent of the sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the nation's entire electric power industry. Good enough reason to stop using coal I would say.
Iran doesn't use coal. Thats the point. DUH
You can speculate all you want on how Iran only wants nuclear power to build a bomb, but at the end of the day, it is still just speculation.
Youre a fucking moron. It's not just speculation, it's speculations with FACTS and EVIDENCE to back it up. According to you it's just speculation that Hitler killed the jews, none of us really saw it.
You never cease to impress me with your boundless idiocy.
At 9/20/05 11:39 PM, therealsylvos wrote: yes ok i dont type very well amazing can we get on with our lives? the fact still remains that the first ammendment is untouchable while the 2nd is tottally ignored
Mainly because the intention of the first amendment isn't stated, while the intention of the second is stated.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The inclusion 'a well regulated militia, being neccessary to the security of a free state' can be argued to mean that the only purpose for not infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms is for the well regulated militia, and since we have a well regulated militia, there is no need for that.
I'm not sure I agree with it, but it is a perfectly legitimate argument.
At 9/20/05 11:17 PM, Gunter45 wrote: Dude, it's right after the exclamation point amendment, look at your keyboard dumbass.
Psh, go back to middle school. They didn't have keyboards back then, they operated through a system of slide whistles.
Is that after the ampersand amendment or before the asterisk amendment?
At 9/20/05 10:47 PM, bcdemon wrote: Maybe you should read up on how Israel plans to "recycle" Chernobyls nuclear waste.
Maybe YOU should read up on it. Your not getting rid of any waste, your just concentrating it and taking out the things you want. Your not changing the amount of radioactivity at all.
You do a pretty damn good job of making an ass of yourself, next time someone gives you advice take it.
Ahhh, so you don't have to back up arguements with facts or evidence?
No you don't, you have to back up claims with facts or evidence. An argument doesn't have to contain any facts of evidence, ever take geometry?
Hhere, let me rebut your arguements with your approach, nuclear power is not more expensive than oil/gas or coal power. Nuclear power is not dirtier than oil/gas or coal power.
Thats funny, because thats not what I said at all. Those are claims, not arguments, which is what I gave. In fact, you have still yet to rebut the arguments I gave. If there is a specific claim please show me where exactly I said it and then ask for a source, but you still have to rebut my arguments.
At 9/20/05 06:01 PM, lapis wrote: Using the technology of your conquered enemies is not a vice. The Mongols were quick to take over the advancements of the Chinese (gunpowder) like the Romans learned everything from the Greeks. The Mongols were skilled metal workers and among the first to use stirrup - other than that technology wasn't their forte.
Which would hint that really they were in power only by force... And that it wasn't as much of a civilization as much as it was an army.
But look at Roman scientific achievements - they were good at architecture but that's about it. The only great inventions in the Mediterranean in the period 200 BC - 400 AD were made by Greeks under Roman rule (if any). The only thing that the Romans could do which the Mongols couldn't was keep their empire together.
If any? And all by the greeks? Come on now. They had conquered the greeks by 200BC. While they may have no made huge strides in technology, they spread thier technology all across Europe. Thier cultural achievements were massive. Which is something you certainly can't say for the mongols.
Lol, a little more respect please. Greeks were wise to fear the nomads of the east. These 'ineffective' horse archers smashed Crassus at Carrhae and the Roman empire in it's last days couldn't stand up to Hunnic horse archers. It's a pretty simple technique maybe, and it neads good generals, experience and trained men (hunters and nomads) to handle them, but when used effectively they beat can most other non-gunpowder armies.
Because the armies are not equipped to deal with such a tactic. It's the same as urban warfare, everyone forgets about it after long enough, and then someone uses it again. Horse archers can easily be taken by foot archers and light cavalry, two things rome wasn't exactly famous for, nor was eastern Europe.
And "nobody uses it"? Only people who have learned to handle bows and horses sine childhood are able to use the techniques effectively, that's why Europeans didn't use it. That and a simple lack in horses.
If it was so massively effective they would have trained people to do that very thing. It's just not, it's effective mainly because tactics are not suited to deal with it. Much like the American army's logistical warfare during the revolutionary war, or the German army's blitzkreig.
At 9/20/05 07:18 PM, bcdemon wrote: LMAO, you're hilarious Lil Jimmy. Recycling nuclear waste is a lie, ROFL. You have yet to give up any facts or evidence to back up your claims. So either put up, or shut up.
You are an idiot. You can't recycle nuclear waste, all your thinking about is reusing the uranium which doesnt reduce the amount of radioactive waste at all. Don't talk big when youre talking out of your ass.
Seriously, you have to be like 5 years old. You don't need to cite a source unless you make a claim, I didn't make any claims I gave arguments, you tried to make claims to rebut those arguments but I proved that all your sources were either innapplicable or false. Unlike you, I don't cite statistics that aren't even applicable and other statistics that aren't even true. And since you have not rebutted my arguments, I take that as a sign that you conceed the point.
At 9/19/05 07:55 PM, Empanado wrote: To say that Mongols were short-lived and relied solely on their force would be an understatement. The Mongols lasted some good centuries, and while a good share of their existence they were despotic, in Khan's times they were pretty advanced in comparison to the Western World.
Oh come on now, the mongols had control for less then half a century, and lost it all in one century. And advanced? I really want to hear you reasoning for this... The only real technology they had was what they used from thier polish and Russian territory. The strategy was using a bow while on a horse is rather old, think back, the Scythians were famous for exactly that. While it is effective, really it's greatest advantage is it catches everyone by suprise, since it's such a massively innefective strategy nobody ever uses it and nobody thinks to build a defense for it, but then every thousand years someone tries it again.
Now, while being attacked by a Mongol Horde wasn't particularly a good thing, the Mongol system itself was pretty well-stablished, if notoriously, well, tough. Example:
(The Yassa prescribes these rules:) to love one another, not to commit adultery, not to steal, not to give false witness, not to be a traitor, and to respect old people and beggars. Whoever violates these commands is put to death.
Eh? Am I speaking to a priest all of the sudden? Since when was the advancement of the civilization gauged by its morals.
Anyways. My personal favorites were the incans. They didn't do much for the world, but they had a nice system going on. Too bad a civil war screwed them up.
Who build an empire lengthwise? I mean seriously, that can't be efficient.
Blah blah blah. They talk about Native American history all the time, far too much. Don't give me that crap that it's ignored, we've all heard it a billion times, and then we had to go read wounded knee in english class.
At 9/19/05 08:14 PM, SmellyCat wrote: Let this die... We have opposite views, it makes no sense to argue.
Wait, hold on one second. Thats the exact point of debate, it's not just so everyone can agree.
And besides that..... I've yet to hear you state your views, you were just saying that laws have to apply to both people and businesses, and I was pointing out that they dont.
They should not be forced to sell anything. What difference does it make whether they sell birth control? You don't need it to survive, and there are enough pharmacies around that they cna go anywhere else. Pharmacies should not be forced to sell anything people want them to.
There was a time in which there were not enough pharmacies to go around, none were selling birth control. The fact is that if pharmacies are allowed to choose, then people will try and make the choice for them. Anti-abortionist groups will be protesting around the clock against the morning after pill, scientologists will be protesting against phsycology medicine. It's just to save everyone the hassle. If you are going to deal in medicine, you should expect to sell medicine, not your opinion.
At 9/19/05 08:23 PM, SmellyCat wrote: They should be looking at that, although not necessarily of developments like that. Today, a great SS program could have lasted longer than 50 years... All they need to do is update the currency amounts and change technologies.
Are you kidding me?
No, no, no. Thats just stupid. For one, what the hell purpose would the legislature have? Most of thier work is updating things, not making new laws. It makes the best sense to let them adjust it to fit with thier world as of now.
Second, are you dumb? Are you honestly saying that FDR should have predicted that people would live until 80 and that we would go off the gold standard and that computers would be invented and that the US would no longer be a manufacturing economy? Cause if you are you should kill yourself.
Third, if you write your bill trying to adjust for every possible advancement we will make in the future, you are gauranteed to be wrong at least once. It's better to let it be updated when new situations arise then to try and predict those new situations.
At 9/20/05 12:32 AM, bcdemon wrote: I never said it was did I?
But since you mentioned it, nuclear is cleaner than natural gas.
Woah wacky, who would have guessed that the IAEA would downplay the problems with nuclear power.
And no, thats not any cleaner. The sulfur produced in natural gas sweetening can handled, but radioactive waste can't. Your comparing apples and oranges.
Actually about 335 years, providing they don't export any of it.
355 years with thier proven reserves. Nevertheless, I don't see what your getting at, you just reinforced my point.
Nuclear waste can be recycled.
No, it can't. That is a complete lie and I'm offended that you would think I would fall for it.
According to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, nuclear power cost 1.72 cents per kilowatt hour in 2003, while gas and oil cost above 5.5 cents. Coal cost about 1.8 cents.
Thats for America genius. And not even correct. Nuclear costs more than 2 cents, and thats just to run the plant not to build it. The government pays more than 1.8 cents per kilowatt to subsidize nuclear power. Find a study that actually exists next time.
US coal plants collectively emit over 85 percent of the sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the nation's entire electric power industry. Good enough reason to stop using coal I would say.
Iran doesn't use coal. Thats the point. DUH
You can speculate all you want on how Iran only wants nuclear power to build a bomb, but at the end of the day, it is still just speculation.
Youre a fucking moron. It's not just speculation, it's speculations with FACTS and EVIDENCE to back it up. According to you it's just speculation that Hitler killed the jews, none of us really saw it.
You never cease to impress me with your boundless idiocy.
At 9/19/05 08:11 PM, SmellyCat wrote: Did you notice I said it only needed ot last one or two decades? It didn't even work by that amount of time.
Where are you coming up with this? There were no problems by 1955, it was lasting fine until even after that.
And you are wrong. Do you HONESTLY believe that I am going to do what today's government does? What people do is different than what they should do.
I'm not sure at all what your talking about right here.
And the mindset they ahve is because of all the corruptness, not just the incompetancy or Bush. People are getting more and more ignorant. If only they would realize that everything doesn't come to them immediately and all they have to do is not do anything...
I agree. It's part of partisan politics, people are allowed to be incompetent just because of party loyalty.
At 9/19/05 08:02 PM, SmellyCat wrote: This is a dead end. Anyway, the drugs are not a private institution, and the rules apply to all people in the nation, not just businesses.
What? FYI, laws can apply to just businesses and not people, and vice versa.
Right, that shouldn't be the case. Especially if the people running it are against birth control. Why should they be forced to sell birth control? It is not necessary to prolong life, my parents have never used it. They use NFP, which is actually more effective.
They should be forced to because if they might not do it if they aren't. Thats the same as not serving black people. Allowing them not to opens up a whole can of worms, and places who may not be against brith control may be forced not to sell it by lobbyist groups protesting at thier doors. Basically, the law was made because in the 60's nobody would sell them for that exact reason.
At 9/19/05 07:56 PM, SmellyCat wrote: No need for threats. The short-term makes no difference in the long-term. It sounds stupid, but it is so blatantly true. Presidents need to help and protect our nation. By thinking only short-term, how can they take precautions or anything? For an extreme example, why would they want to beuild protections against hurricanes? After all, it isn't happening RIGHT NOW! Unless you think in advance, we will get nowhere.
Thats completely incorrect. Did you just ignore my example? When president Bush writes a budget, he doesn't think, hey, what if some idiot 50 years from now decide to use this again. Do you think that senators write thier traffic laws with the assumption that some day they will have to apply in space? NO!
Hes didnt write it for it to be unchanged for 70 years because he didn't want it to be unchanged for 70 years, if it went unchanged for 70 years it would be shit no matter how hard he thought about the future. It is much much better for it to be written to last for 10-20 years and for other people to update it to adjust with society. That is a fact. The problems with social security are not FDR's fault, they are the people from 1960-2005s fault for not doing anything. If you fail to maintain train tracks, it's not the builders fault for them breaking, its yours.
Agreed. But then why do people accredit him with the growth of the economy? And put him as the best? He wasn't good unless he DID something to become good. He didn't do anything, so he remains at a mediocre status.
People accredit him because he made sure nothing hurt the economy. Like, maybe, a war in Iraq. They accredit him because in thier mindset, fucking up is mediocre, and not fucking up is good, thats why people like Bush get elected and not flogged.
At 9/19/05 07:27 PM, SmellyCat wrote: About schools, the people make the choice. If the school doesn't teach good things, or anything, and doesn't deny this, why should they be shut down? What LAW are they breaking?
The law that says they have to teach good things.... I'm sure there is one, it's not as if it's in the bill of rights though. However, the argument shouldn't be if there is a law or not, it should be whether there should be a law or not.
Schools have to be required to teach certain things because schools are what teach our kids, we don't let parents give thier kids drugs, why should we let them neglect thier schooling?
And health care is personal. Pharmacies are usually private businesses. And you are right, a piece of paper separates them from drug dealers. This is the choice that people have made today about how to help themselves. Pharmacies should be allowed to do whatever the heck they want, as long as they don't break the laws....
Thats what regulations are...... laws. There is a law that says Pharmacies have to sell birth control.
At 9/19/05 07:43 PM, SmellyCat wrote: Thank you. A GOOD president should do that, instead of looking myopically at ways to gain more popularity. In the long-term, it hurt us. Long-term is what matters, short-term is what FDR did. He needs to look at what consequences could arise and act accordingly. I am not asking him to predict 9/11, but if he did a thorough job, we should be able to go at least two decades without any major changes. If we can't even do that, what is the point in the first place apart from immediate gratification?
NO! YOU ARE RETARDED!!!
FDR doesn't need to think in the long term, if he tries to do that he might hurt the long term. His bill was never meant to apply for the long term, which is a good thing. The chances of anyone being able to write a good social security plan that will apply 70 years later is almost zero. If you write yours only applying to the short term, you can't hurt anybody, because your plan only applies to the now. However, stupid politicians just renewed FDR's plan years later, that wasn't his fault, that was thiers. It would be like Bush renewing an energy plan from 1905, it's not going to work, and it's not the person who wrote it in 1905's fault, Bush is supposed to come up with something else. THATS HOW IT WORKS THE BEST.
Now choke and die you partisan hack.
Ah, I consider a good president to be one who takes action to make things better. Good is more than the absence of bad. Clinton was only the absence of bad, so he wasn't good. Lincoln took action. TR took action. Polk took action. Clinton sat there and performed with someone who he wasn't even married to. Why am I supposed to admire him?
Teddy took action yes, thats why he is the best president we have ever had. And I hope every president will live up to that standard, however that simply isn't true, does that make Clinton the worst? No, that makes him average, the worst are the ones that failed to even stop the bad things.
At 9/19/05 07:37 PM, MattMan1 wrote: same thing happend to us
what major scientific breakthroughs have we had within the last ten years?
a toilet that washes our ass for us? wait that wasnt even us it was japan?!?
look us and russia were the only ones with nukes now koriea might have nukes maybe iraq other countries are catching up to us
Thats differen't, it only takes two hours minimum to get across the US. And almost no time to send a message across. My example for rome was to justify it's existance despite it's huge mass.
