885 Forum Posts by "TheloniousMONK"
Supposing this was possible, what do you think the long term effects would be? How long do you really think it would take before man simply rediscovered it?
At 4/18/06 04:27 PM, Elfer wrote: I'm sorry, but there's a major difference between carbon dioxide and H2O, namely the fact that carbon dioxide boils at a temperature 178 degrees lower than that of H2O.
H2O vapour, when released into the atmosphere, will condense quite easily.
Ever looked up the history of Venus?
The 1898 Battle of Guam was pretty sweet.
Preaching to the choir.
Déjà vu!
See also: The Last Supper from Jesus Christ Superstar.
Judas: Cut out the dramatics! You know very well who -
Jesus: Why don't you go do it?
Judas: You want me to do it!
Jesus: Hurry they are waiting
...
Judas: You wanted me to do it! / What if I just stayed here / And ruined your ambition? / Christ you deserve it!
Jesus: Hurry you fool, hurry and go, / Save me your speeches / I don't want to know - Go! Go!
And of course Judas' Death also from Jesus Christ Superstar.
Judas: Christ!
I know you can't hear me
But I only did what you wanted me to
Christ!
I'd sell out the nation
For I have been saddled
With the murder of you
I have been spattered
With innocent blood
I should be dragged
Through the slime and the mud
It should be noted that it is theoretically possible to transit at superluminal speeds, like by manipulating the curvature of space to resemble the Alcubierre metric, as is done in Star Trek, for example.
At 4/5/06 10:12 PM, zzazzman wrote: Rather, don't. The point isn't squabling over statistics from many different surveys... The point is that better education can be acheived in the US. The question of education should not be discarded as an "unsolvable problem."
No doubt about it. But the way to solve the problem is not for the government to throw large sums of money at it.
At 4/5/06 08:55 PM, Gunter45 wrote: A large amount of the budget goes to "peacekeeping" operations in other countries. We could keep our current power and still scale down the budget considerably. In fact, we could probably even widen the gap and still operate on a tighter military budget.
I may be misunderstanding you, but in defense of our policies I say that not only do we have interests in other countries, but obligations to help and defend those who cannot as well.
At 4/5/06 08:21 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: Why in hell, though do we need to prepare to fight a World War III against China? Seriously, there's not a concievable threat. And what's the counter-terror rationale for things like the F-22 (an advanced air superiority fighter, when terrorists don't even have MiG-21s?) or the DD(X) or the FCS?
Is your head so stuck in the sand (pun intended) that you fail to see the big picture? Do you really want to see another nation with the military power the US has? Being number one means that we have to pay more and work harder to stay on top because we will be the ones pioneering new technologies, not simply copying them. Projects like the F-22 have been sized down considerably - any more and you will halt progress. Right now we have about a twenty year lead in military technology; do you really want to lose it in an effort to solve problems that money has never fixed in the past?
At 4/4/06 04:15 AM, jdubwatson wrote: so the democrats are about individual liberties, doctor-given euthanasia, etc. and yet schiavo died in a pretty shitty way. she dies slowly. wouldn't euthanasia have been better?
Sure, if it is legal in that states and it is what Ms. Schiavo and her family wanted.
the major republican political figures wanted her to live. but the thing is, they are also staunchly against stem-cell research. which could help schiavo, probably by recovering her at least a little bit.
At 4/4/06 04:15 AM, jdubwatson wrote: the major republican political figures wanted her to live. but the thing is, they are also staunchly against stem-cell research. which could help schiavo, probably by recovering her at least a little bit.
Wrong. You have been drinking liberal Kool-Aid. Republicans are against harvesting embryonic stem cells from fetuses because it requires an abortion. You can get stem cells from a lot of places, like your very own testes.
What information will the NIR have that the government does not already have? I remain unconvinced that this is a bad idea. It will help with the enforcement of laws, like underage drinking and smoking, and help protect against fraud.
At 3/31/06 03:24 PM, The_Reveiw_man wrote: i think that The U.S. should open its borders because:
without the cheap labour mexicans provide many factories would not make a profit and would close
This only works with illegals because it is all done under the table. If you give them citizenship or give them working visas, you have to start paying them legally.
Many Mexicans are willing to do jobs we do not want to do, for way under the minimum wage.
Once again, they are exploited simply because they are here illegally.
Califronias immigrants alone contribute $12 billion more in in taxes that in schooling and health care.
I am not quite sure what you mean, but the economic ramifications are staggering. If you grant citizenship then you have a sudden influx of welfare recipients.
and they mainly migrate to places that america took off them years ago, so technically it is right fully theirs.
Actually, it is rightfully ours since they ceded that territory to us and they do have every right to live there if they choose, but they need to do it legally.
At 3/26/06 02:31 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: Why are you proud of your mental disability?
disorder*
At 3/26/06 12:53 PM, JoS wrote: If Donald and soem analyit got up and said ti was true, then someone went to 20/20 and said it wasnt, who would you believe?
Wait! What if life is not really life but rather a means to cultivate souls for the government to sell to an advanced alien race to power their warp drives? Government conspiracies sure are fun.
At 3/26/06 12:08 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: Essentially, I say that we have to support the troops and stay in Iraq, since we messed it up. And then there's the occasional "I support the troops" type thing without any qualifier (I.E I support the troops but I hate Bush).
Only extremists are calling for a hasty exit from Iraq.
At 3/25/06 06:56 AM, lapis wrote: If nothing changes drastically then I'm afraid that the US, Great Britain, South Korea and Japan will be the only nations to have significant troop numbers stationed in Iraq next Christmas.
You forgot one: Iraq.
At 3/23/06 11:33 PM, red_skunk wrote: Well you're entitled to your opinion, now aren't you? I don't disagree with any of that, and none of it invalidates anything I've said. I don't see why you ever disagreed with me in the first place.
What I am getting at is if slavery was instituted to fill a labor gap, then it caused more problems than the minor one it fixed, so America would have been better off without it. Therefore, slavery did not help the US. Therefore, slavery was not a highly successful system. Therefore, slavery did not contribute to the US becoming a super power.
At 3/23/06 10:59 PM, red_skunk wrote: Slavery originated because of a lack of a huge labor force. Without it, production in the South would have been stunted. We would not have produced as much. The country would have suffered. I don't see what is so difficult about this concept.
Weak. Labor takes care of itself with the price determined by supply and demand. If there were just not enough people, then immigrants seeking work would come. If one had a huge plot of land and not large enough of a labor force to work it, one would sell it and someone else would take it. In the end, the US would have been much better off, and not just economically, because the labor system would have encouraged innovation, a little more even distribution of wealth, and incentives for laborers.
The basic tenets of capitalism? K.
At 3/23/06 10:24 PM, red_skunk wrote: Slavery was profitable for both those immediately profiting and the country. I didn't "try" anything. You need to work on reading comprehension.
Profit is an extremely poor indicator of economic strength. Mercantilism is all about profit, and as history shows, it is a terrible economic system.
At any rate, the root of this argument is not in whether or not slavery was profitable, but rather in this nugget that I am quoting for the third time:
At 3/23/06 08:52 PM, red_skunk wrote: That's what I was objecting to, people trying to say that slavery either didn't help or actively held the country back.
This is the real argument. So tell me, how do you justify this statement if all you were saying was that slavery was profitable?
At 3/23/06 10:17 PM, red_skunk wrote: Whether or not the country would have flourished more without slavery is an entirely different subject altogether. I was saying that slavery was profitable.
Uh no?
At 3/23/06 08:52 PM, red_skunk wrote: That's what I was objecting to, people trying to say that slavery either didn't help or actively held the country back.
Nice try though.
At 3/23/06 08:52 PM, red_skunk wrote: That's what I was objecting to, people trying to say that slavery either didn't help or actively held the country back. If it was not profitable to use slaves, then people would not have used them. Slave-holders were rational, self-interested human beings just like any of us.
There it is! What is good for a country's economy and what is good for slave-holders are not necessarily the same! I am saying that our country would have flurished more economically (and in every other dimension) without slavery and you are arguing the contrary because slave-holders were profitting. Of course people with free labor will make more money, but is it good for the national economy? The answer is a resounding "no" for the aforementioned reasons!
At 3/23/06 07:49 PM, red_skunk wrote: The basic tenets of capitalism? K.
Profit was obviously not the only thing keeping the South in a slave economy. It was mostly about control over an inferior race. Communism was not a successful economic model, yet various countries continued to use it for a very long time. You see, social and political ideologies can influence an economic system more than profit.
I suggest you read some of the work U. B. Philips, Eugene Genovese and Eric Williams did in regards to slavery before you make any more ridiculous comments.
At 3/23/06 12:18 AM, red_skunk wrote: If slavery was not a successful economic model, then the South would not have been using it.
Worst. Logic. Evar.
Therein lies the proof of it's economic viability.
Proof? What?
Your posts are just uneducated guesses.
Would you say that to U. B. Philips, Eugene Genovese and Eric Williams?
You have no idea about the difference in cost of slave or wage labor.
Or maybe that is you, considering that the only thing you used to "prove" your point was absolutely ridiculous.
At 3/22/06 08:31 PM, pt9_9 wrote: Not neccesarilly surival, but not getting kicked in the ass. Because of oppression, fear, and other acts of coercion, slaves were given an incentive to work. Just like sweatshop workers.
That is why it is called wage slavery. Both of these are inefficient for the same reasons.
i do believe slaves were expensive, but due to the fact that there were 4 million of them in pre-civil war times, there was obviously some sort of revenue made from slaves, no one would just buy them. About training, what training? I thought slaves did labor jobs, requiring little expertise but lots of work. And about buying them, were slaves sold as children? i assumed otherwise. Of course you had to feed a slave, but very miniscule portions, and not so good shelter
If one did not take care of a slave it would become weak and sick, and obviously a weak and sick person is of no use in a field. Also, if a slave died it meant a huge loss of profit, since each slave could be seen as an investment.
North had slaves as well.....or atleast i assumed.
Many Northern states outlawed slavery. Those that did not had few slaves. The difference was that the North centered its economy on technology and innovation rather than slavery. If you study the tactical advantage of the North over the South during the Civil War you would find that the North was far more developed than the South.
Just showing how i feel....I have a major portion of my essay dealing with success of the US via slavery and i want it to be validated.
I think you will find that difficult. There are really just no positive things to say about slavery.
At 3/22/06 07:39 PM, pt9_9 wrote: Reason being?
It is simple really, just think about it.
Slavery is an inefficient system of labor. First, there are no incentives for the laborers. The only incentive slaves have is survival, the therefore they will do only what they have to do to survive. Second, slaves are expensive. To buy a slave one had to pay a considerable amount of money in the first place. Then one had to train the slave, possibly wait for the slave to grow old enough to be of real use, feed it, clothe it, build additional facilities to house the slave, et cetra. Third, slaves are not consumers. Everything a slave needs has to be provided by the owner, and what are the chances of that? Fourth, a slave system stifles technological growth. Just look at the difference between the North and South in antebellum America.
At 3/22/06 06:03 PM, pt9_9 wrote: How about slavery?
If anything slavery was a hinderance to the economy.
I will join the chorus and say that it was really WWII that catapulted the US to super power status.
At 3/16/06 04:17 PM, Forgotten_Janisary wrote: Not quite true, Germany was only weeks away from it's own atomic bomb, and Japan was only months away. It would have more or less turned into a worst-case-possibly-soon-to-be scenerio of nuclear war.
No way.
At 3/16/06 01:49 AM, JoS wrote: Since they dont recognize Palestine as a soverign country.
I was actually referring to Iran, but that's cool.
At 3/15/06 11:19 PM, TehChahlesh wrote: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, you know Jos, we've had the same amount of water on this planet for roughly 4 billion years. With all due respect(yeagh right) it would take a moron to believe there's a "water shortage" in the US.
gg Congress.
