My Insurance Haven Everything you want to know about insurance

1. 

   StarvingForTruth
   January 21st, 2011 - 22:06

   @ Deskset24 Yup. They do not ‘get’ science on one, then they wave? great brutal hand anti-intellectual and dismiss the whole lot of it ci.C is a little? taking precedence.
2. 

   StarvingForTruth
   January 21st, 2011 - 22:39

   @LockDeltz The trouble is that if we wait for markets to be fully developed, we will have waited too long. Markets don’t do foresight. We can’t be fundamentalist about such enormous issues. In the long run, yes, the market will shape the outcome. But we can’t wait so long to initiate change. There is plenty going on out there in R&D to get behind. We can still employ the force of competition to spur ingenuity. But we do have to plan ahead.
3. 

   StarvingForTruth
   January 21st, 2011 - 23:27

   @LockDeltz I think it’s pretty safe to say that there are more motives than the given for most major programs, and the carbon tax is no different. Many people from the IEA have spoken about the intense pressure from the USA to downplay the issue. Great effort was taken to bury the oil motives for war in the middle east. There are multiple good reasons why the issue is buried. And it’s not quite like a conspiracy theory – it wasn’t engineered. It just, isn’t being explained enough.
4. 

   deskset24
   January 22nd, 2011 - 00:03

   You will notice that those which deny l' existence of the oil peak also deny that the quantity of oil is finished (or at least one can never make them admit). And, unfortunately, without only one exception, they deny climate warming anthropic. I would like for once, to intend one of these sums of money oil peak to say: it n' ya not of oil peak, but, not, we should not burn all, because it is likely to destroy l' environment.
5. 

   deskset24
   January 22nd, 2011 - 00:13

   @ Hadesqq Unfortunately you? Vrai.Mais your 100%, although s? R, none of this makes AGW wrong. Russia and the U.S. (and Iran and China and the P? Road and virtually every country on earth, except? Possibly in the Scandinavian countries) do terrible injustices that can and should? Be spilled? That e by the use of force r? revolutionary.
6. 

   deskset24
   January 22nd, 2011 - 00:55

   Perhaps that egoistic people who do not want to control the qu' quantity; they consume do not deserve d' to be controlled to limit their uncontrolled behavior with the remainder d' between us.
7. 

   deskset24
   January 22nd, 2011 - 01:26

   @ LockDeltz Why not cons facts? You have proof that the main cause of rising prices p? TROL is due? the weak dollar and fewer refineries and exercises and certainly not because the supply of p? Trole over? No, you do pas.M? me if you just say that the price of p? Trole (when it exists) can be brought due? several reasons. So finished / p peak? Tanker is one of eux.Comme I have no r? Direct response, it means you? Your back here to read this thread without? Be invited? by my r? response.
8. 

   LockDeltz
   January 22nd, 2011 - 02:02

   @StarvingForTruth It’s not a conspiracy, it’s simple basic economics. New ways of alternative energy should handled by the market, not the government. Look what happened in Spain, they poured billions of dollars into “green energy” and it become a failure now they have an unemployment rate of 20%. We have to accept energy that is “cost efficient” if that means reusing coal or oil. The government doesn’t what’s the best form of alternative energy.
9. 

   LockDeltz
   January 22nd, 2011 - 02:31

   @deskset24 If you’re going to counter my arguments, don’t talk out of your ass, and instead try to counter with facts. The cost of oil is rising due to many reasons. One of the reasons is the value of our dollar. Because oil is a commodity, when the dollar weakens the price of oil goes up. The other reason is simple basic economics. If we produced oil refineries and we started drilling for oil, there would be more supplies of oil, thus prices would go down.
10. 

    StarvingForTruth
    January 22nd, 2011 - 02:50

    @pimporosz IMO, the carbon tax makes more sense seen through the lens of peak oil. It’s truly odd, to me, how hard TPTB have tried to keep Peak Oil a secret. It’s hardly an establishment ruse – the establishment has fought hard to deny it’s reality for many years. Except now, they just can’t anymore. The cat is our of the bag. And it puts US foreign policy in an ugly, true light to lay bare that our middle east policy, and frankly our monetary policy (complicated, that) is all about oil.
11. 

    pimporosz
    January 22nd, 2011 - 03:12

    @ StarvingForTruth Ouais I do not know Monckton large-thing. I am d' agreement with him approximately 97% of time. You heard of the tax on carbon Al gor was while trying to push itself, N goerment with much of control, already I thank you much.
12. 

    StarvingForTruth
    January 22nd, 2011 - 03:12

    @Elvensteel0 IF you don’t get it, try Chris Martenson’s website, which is very sane, and explains things quite clearly.

    The hydrogen economy is a fantasy. Hydrogen is a STORE of energy, not a source of energy. Important distinction.

    Anybody arguing against Peak Oil, inevitably just is not up on the facts. Not that I’m a world leading expert, but this is just. . . . math.
13. 

    StarvingForTruth
    January 22nd, 2011 - 04:03

    @lumberjak5010

    Yes. As the IEA has finally admitted (weakly and still not fully), peak was in 2005.

    Ponder this. We’ll need to discover and pump MORE oil than we are today – from entirely new sources – just to meet demand in 25 years.

    Which is of course, impossible.

    I’m sorry, but you are entirely incorrect.
14. 

    StarvingForTruth
    January 22nd, 2011 - 04:33

    @LockDeltz You’re all wrong about oil supplies. Just look over the latest IEA documents on the matter. There is no data to back your assumptions, and plenty to support Kunstler. You conspiracy guys are really confused. And let’s be very clear – peak oil is about the lack of ability to increase rates of extraction – NOT about suddenly not having any. Chris Martenson does more sophisticated work on the matter. Check out his website.

    And please, accept the facts. It’s life and death.
15. 

    StarvingForTruth
    January 22nd, 2011 - 05:09

    @pimporosz Monckton is a know nothing. Seriously. There’s no reason at all to take him seriously. All he cares about, is Monckton.
16. 

    deskset24
    January 22nd, 2011 - 06:07

    @Icriedtoday As long as I can proudly profess to be an atheist and also run for any office in this country, including president.

    The US Constitution is a worthless piece of shit. Other people over a hundred years ago wrote great ideas, too. We could (and should) follow the work of Karl Marx, for example. And stop all this anti-war bullshit. We need war against CEOs & bankers.
17. 

    ppsychol
    January 22nd, 2011 - 06:41

    Self-reliance in america? I don’t think so.
18. 

    ericdreher1
    January 22nd, 2011 - 06:42

    -> optionsupdate – Yeah, Stacy’s a total babe! Max, the unapologetic hostility towards the current the Wall Street financiers and economic terrorists is fantastic. Please feel free to step it up a notch or two or three or ten! One of the most entertaining financial reporting channels on youtube.
19. 

    Icriedtoday
    January 22nd, 2011 - 07:26

    @ Radicalsquare Not, I n' did not miss the point. You missed the point. Denninger wants an EXCLUSION Tea Party, where the social conservatives are not authorized to express their points of view! You call l' usurpation THAT! C' is what j' call " the freedom of r
20. 

    Icriedtoday
    January 22nd, 2011 - 07:46

    @radicalsquare Oh, your “religious test” language for holding office CLEARLY shows the attempt not to demand that office holders be of the “right” religion, but NOT to separate office holders FROM their religion (which is really what you separationist demand–no public expression of faith). People today should follow John Adams’ advice: he would never be offended by the prayer of a pious person regardless of whether he agreed with the prayer or not. See Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U. S. 783 (1983).
21. 

    Icriedtoday
    January 22nd, 2011 - 07:52

    radicalsquare @ I Am at the Court? Am I really at the Court here? D' agreement, the Congress will not make any law." NOT (to include/understand the word " non" on the right?): The Congress must require a separation of the religion and government! " L' amendment was d' to prevent l' imposition d' a national religion, not to separate the religion from l' state! Did these same Founding fathers, who wrote what to ignore you, also opened the sessions of the Congress with prayers, etc forget separation so quickly? To read again the letter of Jefferson!
22. 

    optionsupdate
    January 22nd, 2011 - 08:02

    Stacy Herbert is very beautiful
23. 

    pimporosz
    January 22nd, 2011 - 08:27

    @ Radicalsquare Lord Monckton: Global Warming craze great scientist, there is also a documentary titled? “The swindle of the r? Global warming great”
24. 

    MrDoublehappy
    January 22nd, 2011 - 09:21

    KEISER IS KING!!!
25. 

    radicalsquare
    January 22nd, 2011 - 10:15

    @Icriedtoday
    Is that how you speak in court? Instead of insults, explain how “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” would otherwise be interpreted if not a separation of church and state? Note, “respecting” can be defined as “agreeing to abide by (a legal requirement),” or article VI-no religious test. . (for a) public trust”. Or, perhaps you can offer a criticism of the current legal interpretations in support of this doctrine? Or maybe you’re a bankruptcy lawyer?

Leave a comment