Can someone please PM me with any reason that the american civil war started that wasn't directly or indirectly related to slavery?
I've been looking for 2 days and can't find anything that doesn't lead back to slavery being the only reason, let alone anything indicating it was "just one minor reason of many".
State's rights (to own slaves) vs Federal power (to restrict slaves)
Acquisition of new territories by the North (which makes them non-slave-states which keeps wealthy plantation owners from acquiring new land to use slaves on)
Election of Lincoln (Anti-Slavery Platform).
The only thing I found that wasn't immediately slave related was a Tarriff issue, but this was a minor issue (and could also be indirectly tied into slavery).
One of my good friends basically said "you're wrong for believing it was caused by slavery, but I'm not going to give you any other reasons for it, out of politeness"
I'm not trying to debate the issue (I'm not a historian). I'm just trying to find any evidence to the contrary. I personally don't care either way what caused it, but it seems to me like all signs point to slavery.
But I've read in a book about historical speculation (chapter "What if the South won the Civil War") it was noted that it is a common misconception that Civil War has been started because of slavery, while historical sources show that this issue was brought up after the war has already started. That way the Union could morally justify their actions.
Note that history is written by the victors
If I remember correctly, main reasons were economical and law differences and discrimination of the southern states by the government, which led to secession.
I'm not American, so in my textbooks this war was only mentioned.
But I've read in a book about historical speculation (chapter "What if the South won the Civil War") it was noted that it is a common misconception that Civil War has been started because of slavery, while historical sources show that this issue was brought up after the war has already started. That way the Union could morally justify their actions.
Note that history is written by the victors
If I remember correctly, main reasons were economical and law differences and discrimination of the southern states by the government, which led to secession.
Well, yes, most of that is true.
The economical and law differences were directly related to slavery.
Economically: The North was industrialized and used paid (typically immigrant) labor, the south was agrarian and used slave labor. Of course there were differences between the rich people in the north (factory owners, railroad tycoons, etc) and the south (plantation owners), and I'm sure that they bickered and their struggle for financial dominance may have had a part to play. But for the most part northern business men didn't have anything to gain by forcing southern business men to lose their low-cost workforce, since they used the cheaply harvested cotton to produce their goods...
Legally: The main crux of most political debates at the time was the determination of which new states/territories would be slave states. The South was losing seats in the congress due to population distribution issues, but this ultimately just led to fears that they would lose their rights to keep their slaves or expand their slave owning businesses to other areas. The North was definitely anti-slavery and were trying to get legislation passed to at least restrict the spread of slavery. Of course I can't say that the North were anti-slavery in an effort to be egalitarian or if they were anti-slavery to weaken the South in an effort to gain new territory (land-grabbing via legal restrictions on slaves as it were).
But the Northern Abolishonist movement started in 1775, so I don't see how that could be confused as starting after the Civil war.
I guess to be clear, the war started because of Fort Sumter and a few other events, but the secession happened because of slavery. I'm conflating the two into one event.
And as far as the victors writing the history, I live in East Tennessee. As far as a lot of people around here are concerned, the South hasn't lost yet... and I still can't find a person who can give me a reason that isn't slave related. I don't doubt that many historians are biased in favor of egalitarian fluff, but there are numerous people interested in accurate portrayals of history.
...It is a common misconception that Civil War has been started because of slavery, while historical sources show...
Can you reference the mentioned historical sources? I know thats a pretty big request, but I can't find them!
Slavery was but ONE issue involved in States Rights.
Don't let the Lefts version of history cloud your view of reality.
It also calls the 14th Amendment "the most cynical political manipulation in history of democratic countries".
I think I'd rather let others carry this topic, lest I troll accidentally again.
The war was over States Rights.
Slavery was but ONE issue involved in States Rights.
Don't let the Lefts version of history cloud your view of reality.
I realize that it was about states rights. States Rights to own slaves. I also found the Tarriff of Abominations being a major point of conention for South Carolina, and I agree that this particular tarriff was much more restrictive on the south due to the nature of their economy; but that was because their economy was based on slavery.
I couldn't find any other mention of states rights that weren't directly related to the rights of states to have determine the legality of slavery.
For example, the South delcared "States rights" when going to retrieve their runaway slaves from other states who declared "States rights" when trying to refuse their requests. At which point the South very clearly favored the Federal mandate that free States had to acknowledge the rights of slave States to call people property, regardless of the Free State's States Rights.
You keep saying "don't let the Left's version of history..." where is the Right's version? Where is any counter version?
That's what I'm seeking. You say it wasn't about slavery and that it was but one issue. Fine, but what were the other issues? I can't find any reference to these mystical secret issues that people keep mentioning!!!
I found the book I've mentioned before. It states that by 1860s the North and the South were de facto different countries under one rule and that Lincoln wanted to keep the Union whole at all cost. There was also something about Emancipation Proclamation and how it omitted some states, but it's a little confusing, since it's not common knowledge to me.
It also calls the 14th Amendment "the most cynical political manipulation in history of democratic countries".
I think I'd rather let others carry this topic, lest I troll accidentally again.
As far as unintended trolling I wouldn't worry about it. I expect the thread to be locked down within the next 24 hours, but I'm not trying to ruffle feathers here (its just an inflamatory topic). I'm really, honestly just trying to understand the other side of the argument.
The best counter-argument I've heard so far is "there were more reasons, don't believe the lies" without explaining any other reasons or showing any of the lies to be lies.
Yes the Emancipation proclamation was an odd document. It was a punishment for secession, not an abolishion of slavery. Slavery was still legal, you just lost your current slaves.
That's the thing. The south seceeded because they were worried that Lincoln would abolish slavery, when he very clearly intended to keep the nation united even if it meant allowing slavery to continue. The EP only targetted states that actively seceeded, non-secession states with slaves were specifically and intentionally excluded.
That's what I'm seeking. You say it wasn't about slavery and that it was but one issue. Fine, but what were the other issues? I can't find any reference to these mystical secret issues that people keep mentioning!!!
The book says that North was far more industrialized than the South and makes the impression that the main purpose for war was the secession itself.
There is information about different political goals, forming of the Republican party in 1954 and it's doctrines and that in December of 1860 the South decided that they're a different country.
It also says that Fort Sunter was a perfect opportunity to force the Confederacy back into the Union.
The rest is speculation about hypothetical different outcome of the war.
As were certain locations that were in the process of Union control. I am uncertain why Texas was excluded though. If I am not mistaken the order caused some Confederate slaves to run for Union controlled territory.
The war was over States Rights.
Slavery was but ONE issue involved in States Rights.
Don't let the Lefts version of history cloud your view of reality.
I realize that it was about states rights. States Rights to own slaves. I also found the Tarriff of Abominations being a major point of conention for South Carolina, and I agree that this particular tarriff was much more restrictive on the south due to the nature of their economy; but that was because their economy was based on slavery.
I couldn't find any other mention of states rights that weren't directly related to the rights of states to have determine the legality of slavery.
For example, the South delcared "States rights" when going to retrieve their runaway slaves from other states who declared "States rights" when trying to refuse their requests. At which point the South very clearly favored the Federal mandate that free States had to acknowledge the rights of slave States to call people property, regardless of the Free State's States Rights.
You keep saying "don't let the Left's version of history..." where is the Right's version? Where is any counter version?
That's what I'm seeking. You say it wasn't about slavery and that it was but one issue. Fine, but what were the other issues? I can't find any reference to these mystical secret issues that people keep mentioning!!!
First you have to stop fixating on slavery.
Owning slaves was but ONE issue of States Rights, not THE issue. Taxes, property rights, and gov't control are but a few of the other issues of States Rights.
First you have to stop fixating on slavery.
Owning slaves was but ONE issue of States Rights, not THE issue. Taxes, property rights, and gov't control are but a few of the other issues of States Rights.
I think the OP's problem is that he's not fixatin on slavery, it's that everyone else is, while those who aren't refuse to give him those other reasons for war. You're not helping. (elaborate)
First you have to stop fixating on slavery.
Owning slaves was but ONE issue of States Rights, not THE issue. Taxes, property rights, and gov't control are but a few of the other issues of States Rights.
What ADHadh said.
I'm trying to not fixate, I can't find any references that aren't prefixated.
So I'd like to separate the issue into one of Secession. The War technically came later.
Reasons for Secession:
Tarriff of Abominations, et al.
>The south was hit harder by the tarriff due to its lack of industrialization. It had to pay for goods from the North, while the North generated it's own goods.
Loss of Control/Representation at Federal Level
> After decades of majority control gained through the 3/5th rule the south's 40% slave population was not enough to maintain seats in the Congress with 90% of new immigrants moving to industrialized cities.
Election of a Pro-North President (further loss of control)
> Lincoln was obviously pro-north. He was a republican, which was an abolishionist-friendly party. He also wasn't Southern. He wasn't against slavery because it was such a divisive issue.
Mono-culture of Cotton Farming vs Industrialized North
>The North was frightened that expanding control slave states would threaten the rights of free labor. Basically if you can get slaves to work in the factory, why pay free citizens?
New Territories, Compromises, Etc.
> The Southern Plantation owners needed the new states created by the union to be slave states in order to expand their territory. The Northern citizens who went out to stake claims needed the states to be free states so that they would have a chance against far wealthier competition from Plantation Magnates.
Religion
> The religions of the south used the obviously slave-friendly language of many portions of the bible to justify their violation of civil rights. The religious people of the North felt differently. This eventually devolved into outright bloodshed, and now we have Southern Baptists.
Different Nations.
> Effectively the South and North were separate nations. They had different cultures, different economies, different dialects, different religions, etc.
Did I miss any?
Edit: Yes!
Abolishionist and Anti-Abolishionist Propaganda and Violence
> The Southern Magnates forbade abolishionist talk and reinforced a culture of blatant, ignorant racism based on semi-religious double-talk and group brain-washing through Slave Patrols. When it looked like they were going to lose even more power they incited the common man through threats of Northern Tyrrany attacking the right/good institution of slavery (silly leftist republicans!).
> Northern Abolishionists attempted to incite numerous slave uprisings and generally/violently harrassed otherwise law-abiding citizens (even if looking back at those laws we find them lacking, they were the law of that time).
EDIT: Okay, the link seems to work now
For example, you (roughly) said economy=slavery because the South's economy was based on slavery. But I could say "give me a non-economy issue". If you said slavery, I could say that slavery is just economics at the core since the economy is based on slavery.
So with related issues, its hard to separate them completely. Slavery was obviously a huge issue at the time since it was not just an issue of rights, but so much of the South was built on slavery. Plus it seems like you have a list of different contributing factors.
The thing was that the british cotton textile industry, a very mature and high-output one, had been competing the crap out of the young yankee cotton textile industry. Specifically, the brits could offer a price for the cotton that the yankees simply couldn't keep up with: They wouldn't have been turning a profit. The british, with greater efficiency and a cloth-hungry global market to sell to, could and did. So by forcing the british to impose a punitive customs raise on american cotton, the North was suddenly competitive again, because now they could offer the best price to the South for raw cotton. Obviously, this policy took money away from the South and gave it to the North (by forcing the southerners to sell their cotton at a worse price, as a foreseeable consequence of federal US decisions), and convinced the southern politicians that their prosperity wasn't really a priority for the North-and-allies dominated Federation, so they decided to secede.
"States Rights" was the after motto of the south, "Free Slaves" was the after motto of the north. The north won, so their motto stuck around longer.
The war was over States Rights.
Slavery was but ONE issue involved in States Rights.
Don't let the Lefts version of history cloud your view of reality.
I realize that it was about states rights. States Rights to own slaves.
Slavery is not the whole of the state's rights issue. States rights harkens back to the revolutionary war and the establishment of the articles of federation, which was opposed by many states. Slavery was simply the hot-button states rights issue of the time; just as abortion and gay marriage are the modern hot-button states rights issues.
Other things that fall into the states rights vs federal rights includes the levying of taxes. The south is, and has been, heavy into the production of spirits; which were taxed by George Washington shortly after the revolutionary war. There was even a small rebellion at the time that the army was forced to put down. A lot of these whiskey distillers moved to the south to avoid this taxation.
In short, there are a lot of civil war issues that can be tied to slavery, but slavery did not cause the civil war any more than abortion and gay marriage will cause us to have another civil war. The south left the union because they didn't have the political power to get their way (essentially taking their abll and going home). The reason they didn't have the political power was because they were economically the agrarian mouse comparing size with the union's industrial elephant.
The war was over States Rights.
Slavery was but ONE issue involved in States Rights.
Don't let the Lefts version of history cloud your view of reality.
I realize that it was about states rights. States Rights to own slaves.
Slavery is not the whole of the state's rights issue. States rights harkens back to the revolutionary war and the establishment of the articles of federation, which was opposed by many states. Slavery was simply the hot-button states rights issue of the time; just as abortion and gay marriage are the modern hot-button states rights issues.
Other things that fall into the states rights vs federal rights includes the levying of taxes. The south is, and has been, heavy into the production of spirits; which were taxed by George Washington shortly after the revolutionary war. There was even a small rebellion at the time that the army was forced to put down. A lot of these whiskey distillers moved to the south to avoid this taxation.
In short, there are a lot of civil war issues that can be tied to slavery, but slavery did not cause the civil war any more than abortion and gay marriage will cause us to have another civil war. The south left the union because they didn't have the political power to get their way (essentially taking their abll and going home). The reason they didn't have the political power was because they were economically the agrarian mouse comparing size with the union's industrial elephant.
Paraphrasing of course;
The South: "Due to these reasons, ___________________, we're seccedding from the Union."
The North: "Like Hell you are."
And it was on.
Because in the end it's about power & control - and no goverment yeilds such willingly.
And Slavery was quite prolific as for their reasons for attempting Succession. (and for proof of that, just look up any self proclaimed Sons of The Confederacy type group. I dare you)
What's kind of sad is really it was the Plantation Owners in particular that wanted to wear the Daddy Pants. The mountain hill billies tended to be sympathetic to the North, or against slavery. So even within the South there were two splits on the issue.
But he with the money makes the rules, and the Plantation Owners decided to try to make some rules.
Fun Fact. North Carolina gets the distinction for having the most deserters, on both sides.
The war was over States Rights.
Slavery was but ONE issue involved in States Rights.
Don't let the Lefts version of history cloud your view of reality.
You're joking, right? You didn't actually just try to spin the American Civil War as a leftist plot, did you?
That's grasping at partisan straws so twisted and paranoid it's practically Beckian.
They actually think Washington was against the idea of a strong centralized government.
And that every history book everywhere on the entire freaking planet was changed in a bid to Secure Power by the us government dating back to the 1900s.
But yeah, anything involving Education and Not Religion First is a Leftist plot.
Because you know the Bible is perfect and is straight from the Word of God Almighty and has never been massively edited, in it's creation, and countless translations and reprintings or anything.
It's quite simple really. Conservatives are against education because it's a Leftist plot to teach people how to be able to think for themselves or at least give them the skill sets to be able to along with a load of general knowledge. Nothing the Monopoly Lord/Barons would like more than uneducated masses to easily dominate. Hence why education gets the boot to the head when conservatives come into power.
@Borax
@cpt_Micha
@MechaPilot
THIS IS WHY WE CANNOT HAVE NICE THINGS, DAMNIT!
@Robin_Hoodlum
@Borax
@cpt_Micha
@MechaPilot
THIS IS WHY WE CANNOT HAVE NICE THINGS, DAMNIT!
*Homer Impersonation* It's just a little political. It's still good. It's still good.
But, in the interest of goodwill, you will find my last post voluntarily deleted.
As I recall, the issue that actually sent them to war was customs barriers. The North pushed through a federal customs raise against british goods, and in keeping with the doctrines of the day, the brits responded in kind.
The thing was that the british cotton textile industry, a very mature and high-output one, had been competing the crap out of the young yankee cotton textile industry. Specifically, the brits could offer a price for the cotton that the yankees simply couldn't keep up with: They wouldn't have been turning a profit. The british, with greater efficiency and a cloth-hungry global market to sell to, could and did. So by forcing the british to impose a punitive customs raise on american cotton, the North was suddenly competitive again, because now they could offer the best price to the South for raw cotton. Obviously, this policy took money away from the South and gave it to the North (by forcing the southerners to sell their cotton at a worse price, as a foreseeable consequence of federal US decisions), and convinced the southern politicians that their prosperity wasn't really a priority for the North-and-allies dominated Federation, so they decided to secede.
BAM.
Thanks, this is the best non-slavery, secession-worthy issue I've seen. Thanks everyone else for the commentary...
What bothers me (as an East Tennesseean) is what about the citizens who didn't want to seceed?
Here's what happened in East Tennessee:
The South Seceeds (not tennessee). The North Gets Pissed and Attacks Fort Sumter. Tennessee Seceeds to the South. East Tennessee attempts to Seceed from Middle and West Tennessee to stay un-seceeded with the Union. Middle and West Tennessee Get Pissed and forcefully occupy East Tennessee.
It was like the reverse of the southern secession with the same basic effect.
I think that the real reason for the Civil War is that there is no evidence of intelligent life on this planet.
It certainly is. What else could it be?
Yeah, me neither. I honestly don't know another song called Civil War. I'm ok with that, though.
Yeah, me neither. I honestly don't know another song called Civil War. I'm ok with that, though.
Neither did Axl, "I don't need your Civil War. Eye Eye Eye Eyeyeyah!"
He was referring to his own song. He doesn't need any other Civil War songs.
Interesting. He was right, too. Likely the first and only time that's ever happened.
Civil War - it's an awesome song, man.
Why does it have Breakdown intro? Both songs are great, but it simply doesn't fit.
You know how at concerts, before the headliner, they play music and after each song, the crowd thinks the headliner is coming out so they'll cheer? Well that was happening. Then it slowly became less cheering. Then some booing mixed. Then loud booing. After an hour or something, they announced that the concert was cancelled.
So while the crowd was leaving, there was random stuff broken and apparently a very expensive sound board was broken, which apparently ended the tour. I think someone said that they showed Axl at a Sixers game that same night...
Anyway, you guys like Chinese Democracy?
Did I ever tell the story about how I went to a "Guns 'N Roses" (in quotes because it wasn't the full band) concert around 2004? It was in Philadelphia and Axl was an hour late to the previous concert (in NYC). I went with two friends and we sat through horrible openers (CKY and Mix Master Mike from the Beastie Boys). Then we waited for some Guns 'N Roses.
You know how at concerts, before the headliner, they play music and after each song, the crowd thinks the headliner is coming out so they'll cheer? Well that was happening. Then it slowly became less cheering. Then some booing mixed. Then loud booing. After an hour or something, they announced that the concert was cancelled.
So while the crowd was leaving, there was random stuff broken and apparently a very expensive sound board was broken, which apparently ended the tour. I think someone said that they showed Axl at a Sixers game that same night...
Anyway, you guys like Chinese Democracy?
I liked Chinese Democracy, but I doubt I'd like to see GnR live now. Especially after being to AC/DC in May (and I missed Sonisphere today, arhg!).
The war was over States Rights.
Slavery was but ONE issue involved in States Rights.
Don't let the Lefts version of history cloud your view of reality.
You're joking, right? You didn't actually just try to spin the American Civil War as a leftist plot, did you?
That's grasping at partisan straws so twisted and paranoid it's practically Beckian.
I have to agree with Boraxe. You're going to need a lot more than that to make such a radical claim. It's easy to say everything that's bad is one group's fault, but shouting that everything is the liberal's fault is just making conservatives look bad.
Addressing the original question:
As my History professor once said: "There were many political and economic reasons for the Civil War, but they all boil down to Slavery." If there was no slavery in the US, there wouldn't have been a war. It really is that simple. No minor taxation or tariff issue even compares to the impact of slavery on American politics.
From the signing of the Constitution until the Civil War, the biggest political debate in the US was whether or not new states coming into the Union would be Free States or Slave States. For decades, the country maintained a delicate balance of power between these two blocs. However, this eventually broke down as the growing abolitionist movement fought to keep slavery from expanding into new territories. Eventually, this lead to the doctrine of letting new territories decide for themselves whether or not they would be free or slave states. However, this decision paved the way for "Bleeding Kansas", a guerilla war in the territory of Kansas fought between armed and organized extremists on both sides that killed around fifty-six men over the course of four years.
It is also impossible to ignore John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry, which is undoubtably one of the major sparks of the Civil War.
There might have been a few other minor causes to the Civil War, but slavery was the only one people were spilling blood over years before the Civil War started.
As my History professor once said: "There were many political and economic reasons for the Civil War, but they all boil down to Slavery." If there was no slavery in the US, there wouldn't have been a war. It really is that simple. No minor taxation or tariff issue even compares to the impact of slavery on American politics.
From the signing of the Constitution until the Civil War, the biggest political debate in the US was whether or not new states coming into the Union would be Free States or Slave States. For decades, the country maintained a delicate balance of power between these two blocs. However, this eventually broke down as the growing abolitionist movement fought to keep slavery from expanding into new territories. Eventually, this lead to the doctrine of letting new territories decide for themselves whether or not they would be free or slave states. However, this decision paved the way for "Bleeding Kansas", a guerilla war in the territory of Kansas fought between armed and organized extremists on both sides that killed around fifty-six men over the course of four years.
It is also impossible to ignore John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry, which is undoubtably one of the major sparks of the Civil War.
There might have been a few other minor causes to the Civil War, but slavery was the only one people were spilling blood over years before the Civil War started.
The war was over States Rights.
Slavery was but ONE issue involved in States Rights.
Don't let the Lefts version of history cloud your view of reality.
I call BULLSHIT. States should be subject to the Federal government. Aside from that it was slavery that was the trigger they feared Lincoln would outlaw slavery hence the war. They simply wanted to keep their unethical way of life intact and feared change. Personally I don't think states should have as many rights as they do but that's another matter look at how many are bankrupt or close to it. Look at the state of education in most states.
Addressing the original question:
As my History professor once said: "There were many political and economic reasons for the Civil War, but they all boil down to Slavery." If there was no slavery in the US, there wouldn't have been a war. It really is that simple. No minor taxation or tariff issue even compares to the impact of slavery on American politics.
Then your History "professor" did you a great disservice.
Actually, he presented his opinion as fact, giving it to you as "history", and now you are regurgitating back what he said.
And he is wrong.
Sorry.
The war was over States Rights.
Slavery was but ONE issue involved in States Rights.
Don't let the Lefts version of history cloud your view of reality.
I call BULLSHIT. States should be subject to the Federal government. Aside from that it was slavery that was the trigger they feared Lincoln would outlaw slavery hence the war. They simply wanted to keep their unethical way of life intact and feared change. Personally I don't think states should have as many rights as they do but that's another matter look at how many are bankrupt or close to it. Look at the state of education in most states.
And yet, once again, you are misinformed and wrong.
And my view, personally, is that the Feds should stay the hell outta State business.
You wanna fix education? Get rid of the teachers union and start holding teachers accountable.
I call BULLSHIT. States should be subject to the Federal government. Aside from that it was slavery that was the trigger they feared Lincoln would outlaw slavery hence the war. They simply wanted to keep their unethical way of life intact and feared change. Personally I don't think states should have as many rights as they do but that's another matter look at how many are bankrupt or close to it. Look at the state of education in most states.
I think that Lincoln actually said that he wanted to keep the Union whole and it didn't matter to him whether he's going to free all, none or some of the slaves.
The Emancipation Proclamation would confirm this.
And yet, once again, you are misinformed and wrong.
And my view, personally, is that the Feds should stay the hell outta State business.
You wanna fix education? Get rid of the teachers union and start holding teachers accountable.
Word, on at least two out of three accounts. (I'm not knowledgable enough to comment on the Civil War.)
And my view, personally, is that the Feds should stay the hell outta State business.
Tell that to the people who want to constitutionally ban gay marrage. Not much different from saying blacks and whites can't marry (which was also a state law).
You wanna fix education? Get rid of the teachers union and start holding teachers accountable.
So your "fix" is to make it so no one wants to be a teacher? No one wants a low paying, high responsibility job. No, the way to fix it is to raise taxes (on a federal level, so poor states don't get even further behind), pay them more (then unions wouldn't be neccicaray), and then hold them accountable.
I agree with you that the Federal government shouldn't define marriage. I actually don't the local government should define marriage either. It should just be defined by the individual beliefs or religion. There should just be a legal status of joined in some way which gives you privileges and responsibilities that any group can choose to take.
But I disagree with you stance on teachers:
First, schools are horribly mismanaged, so additional taxes wouldn't make it to the right place. My local school district keeps asking for tax raises to support the schools, but the schools keep building the most ridicilous things with their money. I think they just bought a new scoreboard or electronic sign. And that's not to mention the actual waste in beauracracy and officials.
Secondly, teachers make good pay, especially if you consider that they work less about 200 days a year. According to cbsalary.com, a techer in NJ (my state) makes an average salary of $67,504 with a range of $46,967-$112,630 (lowest 25% to highest 75%). And that's not even with normalization (~90k average). So teachers really shouldn't complain about money.
In addition, the idea that if you paid teachers even more money that they wouldn't have a union doesn't necessary hold. There are plenty of unions for extremely well paid professionals who are in unions.
But I agree that teachers should be made accountable, but not in things like passing rates and the like.
Tell that to the people who want to constitutionally ban gay marrage. Not much different from saying blacks and whites can't marry (which was also a state law).
On a vaguely related note, I laugh bitterly when looking over the party platforms and see all this idealogical talk about smaller government, smaller feds, more rights to states, and all that jazz. And then the second it gets to the social issues it's all about making things federal crimes, constitutional amendments, and so-on.
But then, we are all nothing but human, no? If we were perfectly logical and consistent we wouldn't be here.
So your "fix" is to make it so no one wants to be a teacher? No one wants a low paying, high responsibility job. No, the way to fix it is to raise taxes (on a federal level, so poor states don't get even further behind), pay them more (then unions wouldn't be neccicaray), and then hold them accountable.
Yeah.
That's my fix.
That's exactly what I said...
How much more money do you want to throw down the drain?
Do you have any idea how much money has been flushed down the education system already?
The answer is NOT to throw more money at the problem... that obviously isn't working.
So your "fix" is to make it so no one wants to be a teacher? No one wants a low paying, high responsibility job. No, the way to fix it is to raise taxes (on a federal level, so poor states don't get even further behind), pay them more (then unions wouldn't be neccicaray), and then hold them accountable.
Yeah.
That's my fix.
That's exactly what I said...
How much more money do you want to throw down the drain?
Do you have any idea how much money has been flushed down the education system already?
The answer is NOT to throw more money at the problem... that obviously isn't working.
Throwing money at burocracy doesn't help anyone, i agree. That's why I said pay the teachers, i didn't say to pay the school boards.
And my view, personally, is that the Feds should stay the hell outta State business.
Tell that to the people who want to constitutionally ban gay marrage. Not much different from saying blacks and whites can't marry (which was also a state law).
Did some states have state laws that made interracial marriage illegal? Yes. Did other states have state laws that said interracial marriage was legal? Yes. Both of these laws (making it legal and making it illegal) were state laws. By forcing the states to give up their rights you are saying that states cannot decide right and wrong for themselves.
If this were the case in the civil war, the northern states could never have decided to change their state laws to make slavery illegal. Instead, they would have to garner enough national support to pass an abolition of slavery. Although abolitionism was a serious movement, it was not a majority that could just push candidates into office. With this in mind, freeing the slaves though national law would have taken far longer than doing it on a state-by-state basis in the north (the south is a separate story).
Consider the many slaves who were able to get a better life by being secreted away to the free northern states. If the northern states didn't have their states rights to declare slavery illegal, these people would have stayed slaves until the issue was resolved at a national level.
And as someone else said, they don't get summers off. They don't teach during the summer, but they still have plenty to do. Not to mention that not all school districts give summers off, some have year-round schooling.
mellored:
I agree with you that the Federal government shouldn't define marriage. I actually don't the local government should define marriage either. It should just be defined by the individual beliefs or religion. There should just be a legal status of joined in some way which gives you privileges and responsibilities that any group can choose to take.
But I disagree with you stance on teachers:
First, schools are horribly mismanaged, so additional taxes wouldn't make it to the right place. My local school district keeps asking for tax raises to support the schools, but the schools keep building the most ridicilous things with their money. I think they just bought a new scoreboard or electronic sign. And that's not to mention the actual waste in beauracracy and officials.
Secondly, teachers make good pay, especially if you consider that they work less about 200 days a year. According to cbsalary.com, a techer in NJ (my state) makes an average salary of $67,504 with a range of $46,967-$112,630 (lowest 25% to highest 75%). And that's not even with normalization (~90k average). So teachers really shouldn't complain about money.
In addition, the idea that if you paid teachers even more money that they wouldn't have a union doesn't necessary hold. There are plenty of unions for extremely well paid professionals who are in unions.
But I agree that teachers should be made accountable, but not in things like passing rates and the like.
Again I call BS teachers make squat my mom is a teacher and makes very little. Schools are mismanged because state government can't do it properly we need national standards for schools national standards for teachers and a national teachers union with real power. I dont get why people hate unions. Without them big buisness would still be treating workers as slaves. I hate people on the right who spout this states rights nonsense. The federal government has the right to define marriage, states should not. Everyone should be able to mary who ever they want if they are consenting adults. Have you also looked at the taxes those states take and such? Teachers here in FL make almost nothing and cost of living in NJ is far higher than it is here.
The fact is teaching is a hard and difficult job with few real benifits right now.
As to the civil war yes it was about slavery thats all the southern states cared about was keeping their power base. The only state right that mattered at the time was slavery.
The world is too complex for small government to work, anyone who says otherwise needs to say what government programs they'd cut out, and what they'd leave to private interests. Frankly I distrust private intrest and despise large corporations.
I'm also curious about those income numbers. Are those including university and other higher education teachers? If so, then they aren't really representing the teachers people are talking about. I'm fairly certain that elementary, middle and high school teachers don't average 60k a year.
And as someone else said, they don't get summers off. They don't teach during the summer, but they still have plenty to do. Not to mention that not all school districts give summers off, some have year-round schooling.
Others like my mom are taking teacher training courses and the like, also its not all summer anymore breaks are now down to 8-12 weeks max here in FL mostly closer to 8.
As to the civil war yes it was about slavery thats all the southern states cared about was keeping their power base. The only state right that mattered at the time was slavery.
You can keep repeating that, but it will still be wrong every time you do.
Did some states have state laws that made interracial marriage illegal? Yes. Did other states have state laws that said interracial marriage was legal? Yes. Both of these laws (making it legal and making it illegal) were state laws. By forcing the states to give up their rights you are saying that states cannot decide right and wrong for themselves.
Well, stated. People cannot tolerate cultures that have different views of right and wrong than they do. When possible, they wish to convert those cultures to their own "enlightened" thinking. (see - all of history containing human conquest). The trouble is everyone believing they have it right. How do you know if you don't experiment? Someone once said the purpose of the states was to act as a testing ground for ideas, and see what works best. At every turn, however, their ability to do so is being stripped down.
Someone once said the purpose of the states was to act as a testing ground for ideas, and see what works best. At every turn, however, their ability to do so is being stripped down.
I have heard that as well.
Not to mention that we don't value altruism, individual responsibility, family, and civic duty enough to get by with "small government".
Someone once said the purpose of the states was to act as a testing ground for ideas, and see what works best. At every turn, however, their ability to do so is being stripped down.
Eh. It's too late for that now. With the gross differences between state and federal budgets, states often don't have the resources to manage on their own without Federal intervention. If people paid more in state taxes then federal taxes, and state legislatures had more power to really govern their own states, then that might work.
But these days? The federal government it just too big at this point and state governments can't do enough. And since the only time a government loosen's it's grip on power is at gun-point, I can't say I'm terribly optimistic about things changing enough to matter.
Eh. I imagine small government works for small countries. America is the third largest country (by both land mass and population) in the world. We're a little past "small government" at this point.
Not to mention that we don't value altruism, individual responsibility, family, and civic duty enough to get by with "small government".
Pretty much yeah. There are things ONLY the Federal government can do, and it has to do more as States prove ineffective at doing anything. Look at the new Arizona law which practically spits on the constitution with what it demands. Or all the states on the verge of bankrupcy. Anyone arguing for states rights looks rather Naive in the face of that. Is the federal government as efficient as it should be no. Should a lot of things be reformed yes. does that mean our government should just let corporations and others do what they want NO not by any stretch of the imagination.
As to the civil war hoodlum you are flat out wrong, either that or show what the other issues were.
Not to mention that we don't value altruism, individual responsibility, family, and civic duty ...
And that is the problem.
But big gov't is not the answer.
Getting back to these basics is.
Not to mention that we don't value altruism, individual responsibility, family, and civic duty enough to get by with "small government".
And that is the problem.
But big gov't is not the answer.
I disagre when buisnesses show they wont regulate themselves government has to step in. The modern world is too complex not to have big government.
Again I call BS teachers make squat my mom is a teacher and makes very little.
I'll see your anecdote and raise you one of my own. My mother-in-law is retired on 3/4 pension (3/4 of her final salary). As such, she currently makes only $90K (for doing nothing), as opposed to the $120K she was making. She taught K-4 in public school.
Schools are mismanged because state government can't do it properly
Untrue. "state governments", "federal governments", etc all boil down to people. Management is more about skill than money. It isn't a problem that needs the financial or political might of a nation to achieve, therefore is NOT a INNATE concern of the federal (national) government.
we need national standards for schools national standards for teachers and a national teachers union with real power.
I disagree strongly. National standards are the SUREST way to insure that some children are not educated to their fullest potential. Our current educational system runs under a different set of theories than does a Waldorf, and that, in turn, differs from the Montisorri approach. One thing that can be said regarding the three, however, is that different children respond more favorably to one method over the others. By having a national standard (as stated earlier) you prevent the experimentation that has brought about such innovation, and improvement.
I dont get why people hate unions. Without them big buisness would still be treating workers as slaves.
Not touching that.
I hate people on the right who spout this states rights nonsense.
An emotional response isn't needed. Rather, perhaps your own education regarding the benefit of allowing states to experiment.
The federal government has the right to define marriage, states should not. Everyone should be able to mary who ever they want if they are consenting adults.
I disagree. Federal government has the right only if it is granted. Marriage has ALWAYS been a cultural institution, usually tied with religion. As such, I don't feel government (in any form) should be given that right. That is UNLESS, of course, it is determined that there is some need for demographic adjustment (cf. China's one-child policy).
The world is too complex for small government to work, anyone who says otherwise needs to say what government programs they'd cut out, and what they'd leave to private interests. Frankly I distrust private intrest and despise large corporations.
Again, I disagree.
Eh. I imagine small government works for small countries. America is the third largest country (by both land mass and population) in the world. We're a little past "small government" at this point.
Not to mention that we don't value altruism, individual responsibility, family, and civic duty enough to get by with "small government".
Pretty much yeah. There are things ONLY the Federal government can do, and it has to do more as States prove ineffective at doing anything. Look at the new Arizona law which practically spits on the constitution with what it demands. Or all the states on the verge of bankrupcy. Anyone arguing for states rights looks rather Naive in the face of that. Is the federal government as efficient as it should be no. Should a lot of things be reformed yes. does that mean our government should just let corporations and others do what they want NO not by any stretch of the imagination.
As to the civil war hoodlum you are flat out wrong, either that or show what the other issues were.
Wow.
You are so wrong on so many levels it is almost laughable.
If you weren't serious, it would be laughable.
Arizona's law is the exact same law on the Federal books, Arizona just happens to be enforcing it.
If the Feds can't do their job by protecting the border, then the State has every right to protect its.
As far as the Civil War, you continue to be wrong. I, and others, have provided the issues and causes of the war. You can continue to believe your erroneous version if you wish, no law against being wrong.
Eh. I imagine small government works for small countries. America is the third largest country (by both land mass and population) in the world. We're a little past "small government" at this point.
Not to mention that we don't value altruism, individual responsibility, family, and civic duty enough to get by with "small government".
Pretty much yeah. There are things ONLY the Federal government can do, and it has to do more as States prove ineffective at doing anything. Look at the new Arizona law which practically spits on the constitution with what it demands. Or all the states on the verge of bankrupcy. Anyone arguing for states rights looks rather Naive in the face of that. Is the federal government as efficient as it should be no. Should a lot of things be reformed yes. does that mean our government should just let corporations and others do what they want NO not by any stretch of the imagination.
As to the civil war hoodlum you are flat out wrong, either that or show what the other issues were.
Wow.
You are so wrong on so many levels it is almost laughable.
If you weren't serious, it would be laughable.
Arizona's law is the exact same law on the Federal books, Arizona just happens to be enforcing it.
If the Feds can't do their job by protecting the border, then the State has every right to protect its.
As far as the Civil War, you continue to be wrong. I, and others, have provided the issues and causes of the war. You can continue to believe your erroneous version if you wish, no law against being wrong.
You've proved nothing. You say it was about state rights but what rights were being violated other than slavery? Answer NONE.
Also why is small government better? The government is large for a reason because it has responsiblities and duties it MUST see to.
Eh. I imagine small government works for small countries. America is the third largest country (by both land mass and population) in the world. We're a little past "small government" at this point.
Not to mention that we don't value altruism, individual responsibility, family, and civic duty enough to get by with "small government".
Pretty much yeah. There are things ONLY the Federal government can do, and it has to do more as States prove ineffective at doing anything. Look at the new Arizona law which practically spits on the constitution with what it demands. Or all the states on the verge of bankrupcy. Anyone arguing for states rights looks rather Naive in the face of that. Is the federal government as efficient as it should be no. Should a lot of things be reformed yes. does that mean our government should just let corporations and others do what they want NO not by any stretch of the imagination.
As to the civil war hoodlum you are flat out wrong, either that or show what the other issues were.
Wow.
You are so wrong on so many levels it is almost laughable.
If you weren't serious, it would be laughable.
Arizona's law is the exact same law on the Federal books, Arizona just happens to be enforcing it.
If the Feds can't do their job by protecting the border, then the State has every right to protect its.
As far as the Civil War, you continue to be wrong. I, and others, have provided the issues and causes of the war. You can continue to believe your erroneous version if you wish, no law against being wrong.
You've proved nothing. You say it was about state rights but what rights were being violated other than slavery? Answer NONE.
Also why is small government better? The government is large for a reason because it has responsiblities and duties it MUST see to.
Haven't you read anything in this thread?
You may remain ignorant of the causes of the Civil War if you want to...
If it makes you feel better to believe it was about slavery, go for it...
But I know better.
As far as the Civil War, you continue to be wrong. I, and others, have provided the issues and causes of the war. You can continue to believe your erroneous version if you wish, no law against being wrong.
I'm not going to argue anything else, but I haven't seen any proof for your point. It merely seemed like you stated your point and considered that proof.
Pretty much yeah. There are things ONLY the Federal government can do, and it has to do more as States prove ineffective at doing anything.
Not really... I mean, there's things that our federal government can do that our state government can't, but that's because they built it that way, and in some cases because of the way resources are distributed. If, for example, the duty of securing the nation's borders had been left to individual states to handle instead of the feds, then the law in Arizona would never have happened since the state would have already had the resources to secure it's border without enacting it's controversial law (which won't actually accomplish anything anyway, for reasons I've discussed elsewhere).
What a lot of it comes down to is that, for many things, our government has moved itself, over the last two centuries, to a point where the feds have their fingers in a lot of pots. This isn't necessarily the only way it could work, it just happens to be the way it has worked.
But big gov't is not the answer.
Getting back to these basics is.
Ah, but what do you do when people aren't? What do you do when the people who aren't are the ones that need to change for everyone's benefit? If it's the industrialist whose factory is scarring the workers and poisoning the land? So long as he's making a profit, why should he get "back to the basics"? People are notorious for making long-term decisions that impact them poorly for the short-term gain. Unless he's forced, that industrialist will continue on his destructive path.
So ideally? Sure, ideally we could have a small government in a society where people look out for eachother, industry acts in a benign and concientious way, and so-on. But that isn't the culture and society we're living in, so asking for a government that would suit that world to work in this one seems... odd.
I'll see your anecdote and raise you one of my own. My mother-in-law is retired on 3/4 pension (3/4 of her final salary). As such, she currently makes only $90K (for doing nothing), as opposed to the $120K she was making. She taught K-4 in public school.
Holy smoke, batman! Just where was she teaching? Buckingham Palace?
It isn't a problem that needs the financial or political might of a nation to achieve, therefore is NOT a INNATE concern of the federal (national) government.
Hrm... perhaps. It depends on the solution that works, really. If the solution did come down to an expensive one that involved retooling, retraining, re-etc., then it probably would require the level of financial might that most state governments lack.
That said, the current federal "solutions" aren't exactly working either. But it's certainly possible that whatever "solution" that may someday be found will require federal funding, but frankly schools have always been changing, people are never satisfied, and I imagine that they will continue to twist around as the current social climate decides they should. That is to say: people always say schools are broken. And yet kids still get out fine.
Arizona's law is the exact same law on the Federal books, Arizona just happens to be enforcing it.
If the Feds can't do their job by protecting the border, then the State has every right to protect its.
Ah, but if you'll remember my arguments against this law, it was never that the goal was Arizona overreaching itself, it was that the methods and implementation were too far out of bounds for it to be a good law.
Holy smoke, batman! Just where was she teaching? Buckingham Palace?
One of the districts out here (Suffolk County, NY). We also have some of the highest paid police officers. Taxes hurt - but we take care of ourselves. The only real beef is with educational spending. We get back a LOT less than we send up to Albany for our schools. (and for disclaimer - every year, I vote to raise my taxes - ie. approve the school budget)
Hrm... perhaps. It depends on the solution that works, really. If the solution did come down to an expensive one that involved retooling, retraining, re-etc., then it probably would require the level of financial might that most state governments lack.
True - and in such a case, that is when the "nation" would need to decide if it wished to adopt, enforce, and/or regulate the solution found in the member state.
One of the districts out here (Suffolk County, NY). We also have some of the highest paid police officers. Taxes hurt - but we take care of ourselves. The only real beef is with educational spending. We get back a LOT less than we send up to Albany for our schools.
Right. I think I know where I should try to bag a job if I ever decide to give up doing and start teaching.
Edit: As a side note, just did a quick web-search on median k-12 teacher salaries and the results I found wavered between 40k a year and 45k a year. That 120k is not what most teachers in the US expect or get.
Edit: As a side note, just did a quick web-search on median k-12 teacher salaries and the results I found wavered between 40k a year and 45k a year. That 120k is not what most teachers in the US expect or get.
Not sure about the rest of the U.S., but after 30 years - MOST (in this area) can be expected to be making similar (adjusted for inflation).
I think its funny that it was called the Civil War, wars arent very civil at all.
'What's so civil 'bout war anyway."
BTW., in Poland it's known as "The Secession War".
Robin, you could be a little more helpful. All you do so far is say that it wasn't slavery and give vague "state rights" as an answer. I know some other people (including me) have pointed out a few issues as well, but I ask you again, please elaborate.
Several things to respond to, hopefully I remember them all:
-First, my teacher numbers were for NJ which I believe are fairly accurate. (Different states are going to have different rates and different costs of living. But for comparision, the average teacher makes more money than me, a scientist in a major pharmaceutical company. So they're not in the poor house.) The range was something like $35/40k to $120k (15%-85%) so that should cover first year teachers ($35-40k) and 30 year teachers ($120k) with a middle of $65-70k. Sound good. I dated a first year teacher and she made decent money. I'd say it was about $40k, which is pretty good for fresh out of school. So people really shouldn't complain about the money that teachers make.
And even if they ONLY get half the summer off, that's much more than normal people who actually work through the summer. My wife's brother used to work at a school (not a teacher) and I remember one summer he went to China for 2 months. That's a pretty dang good benefit. Also, schools get tons of holidays off.
While I'm not saying that teachers should be common laborers, but they definately complain way too much. And from personal experience, there are plenty of really bad teachers who make a ton of money with great benefits (because of years of service and the union) and then there are great teachers who get ignored because they don't have the same years of service. So there definately needs to be some sort of accountability and rating on teachers.
-Next, I disagree with the idea that "kids do fine". They only appear to do fine because the standards are so low. A high school education is not seen as valuable. The PRESIDENT stated that a high school education was not enough anymore. That means our public school system is not "good enough". If it were good enough, you'd be able to get jobs based on the standard of schooling. The new standard of schooling (college) adds at least four years and much more money. Some of that slack should be picked up by K-12 schools.
-For unions, the problem is that the union v ownership battle was greatly upset by government regulations. Unions were useful when government regulations were less to ensure safe labor practices and fair wages. Now, since the government regulates businesses and ensures safe labor practices, unions have become bloated, corrupt, and excessive. It just adds another layer of management to suck money and slow down any sort of progress.
There's a big strife in NJ currently between the governor and the teacher's union. Basically the state is refusing to raise property taxes past a point so the budget needs to be cut. So since teachers are refusing to give up or reduce their raises, teachers need to be laid off. So the union is protecting them teachers with tenure, making tons of money, making sure they get their raises, while sacraficing the teachers who make $40k and aren't tenured.
-Oh, big government v small government. I am strongly of the belief that the further a government gets from the people, the worse it is. Theoretically someone in my town can make better decisions on my specific life than someone who has to think about the county. Someone who needs to govern the state knows even less. And move that all the way up to the federal level.
A great example is minimum wage. As a local law and standard, it makes sense (not that I necessarily agree with it). If you want to say the minimum wage you need to earn to live in NJ is 30k (making up numbers), that makes sense to set a wage. But that number because grossly different depending on area. The number would be MUCH higher in NYC or San Francisco. It would be much lower in areas like Alabama. So the idea of a federal minimum wage is just dumb. You either have a number so low that its meaningless in most areas or one which is so high that it ruins economies of poor areas.
But that is not to say that the federal government shouldn't apply some standards, but in many cases, it is too far reaching and bloated.
-For marriage, I think there basically should be no defined standard. It should be something which people agree upon. There should just be a legal status which can be voluntarily taken (which would be equivalent to the current priviledges/responsibilities) and the government shouldn't care about the specifics.
-And finally "what's so civil about war anyway?"
According to the Constitution, only 9 states (not all of them) were required to ratify it for it to take effect. So maybe you're the one who should refresh yourself on it =)
All thirteen states ratified the constitution. It is the supreme law of the land. To be part of the union, the state govt. have to follow the the document. The fedearal govt. has the right to enforce the the constituion. Must I post the whole document here.
Here, I'll save you the trouble. For more on the question of state's rights, I suggest you (general) also review the federalist papers (Jay, Hamilton, Madison), and what is known as the anti-federalist papers. (You'll note - senate.gov only carries the former - although some the AF issues were handled by the bill of rights)
You stated (inaccurately) that all of the states had to ratify the Constitution. I just corrected that statement. Only 9 states needed to ratify the Constitution for it to take effect.
Also, the Constitution specifically reserves power to states. The whole states reserve rights which are not specifically stated in the Constitution. And from my memory, which may be wrong, the Constitution doesn't talk about many of the issues discussed in this thread.
The process by which U.S. territories attain full statehood is, at best, an inexact art. While Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution empowers the U.S. Congress to grant statehood, the process for doing so is not specified.
The Constitution merely declares that new states cannot be created by merging or splitting existing states without the approval of both the U.S. Congress and the states' legislatures. Otherwise, Congress is given the authority to determine the conditions for statehood. "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States…" -- U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 3, clause 2
The Typical Process
Historically, Congress has applied the following general procedure when granting territories statehood:
- The territory holds a referendum vote to determine the people's desire for or against statehood.
- Should a majority vote to seek statehood, the territory petitions the U.S. Congress for statehood.
- The territory, if it has not already done so, is required to adopt a form of government and constitution that are in compliance with the U.S. Constitution.
- The U.S. Congress - both House and Senate - pass, by a simple majority vote, a joint resolution accepting the territory as a state.
So you're just stating that its against the Constitution for states to leave the nation?
First, that doesn't address how you were wrong about ratification.
But yeah, its illegal to leave the nation. That's why they had a war. I don't think that was in question. The whole issue was "why was a war necessary"? Some people believe its solely based on slavery. Other people think that states rights was the primarily concern and slavery was just the posterboy.
So I kind of don't get what you're getting at...
Yep, I'm agree with much of what you are now saying. My issue was with your earlier statement (and the tone). If you're going to come off as a jerk, you should at least have your facts straight. And honestly, I put a smiley in there since it was kind of a joke =P
And again, you only show why the war was necessary. You can't just opt out of the nation, hence the South succeeded and the North waged war. The primarily depute (although there's plenty of side arguments) is if slavery was the only major reason.
I, personally, believe (and I admit that I don't know much about the period) that slavery was just one of many issues. It may have been the most significant since the entire Southern economy was based on it. But issues like states rights appear to be important. The North and South were turning into different nations, but the North got to make all the rules. This is emphasized by the election of Abraham Lincoln which he won without winning one Southern state.
Not to mention that we don't value altruism, individual responsibility, family, and civic duty ...
And that is the problem.
But big gov't is not the answer.
Getting back to these basics is.
Big ANYTHING isn't the answer. Not big state, not big fed, not big walmart, not big oil, not big church, ect... Consolidate too much power in the hands of any group and things get messed up.
On the flip side, groups will fight eachother for power can just be as bad. Virgina fighting Ohio was the bloodiest thing we've ever seen in this part of the world.
You can't just opt out of the nation, hence the South succeeded and the North waged war.
Hrm... why not? That's what just about every country in North and South America did to some European power sooner or later. Some of them even managed it without a bloody conflict.
But based on historical precident, if you try to leave the US, we'll throw soldiers at you until you come back =P
I, personally, believe (and I admit that I don't know much about the period) that slavery was just one of many issues. It may have been the most significant since the entire Southern economy was based on it. But issues like states rights appear to be important. The North and South were turning into different nations, but the North got to make all the rules. This is emphasized by the election of Abraham Lincoln which he won without winning one Southern state.
Which was only a problem in that previously the south could pretty much do whatever they wanted thanks to the 3/5ths rule. Before a certain "Breaking point" the slave population was granting more voting power than the north could muster. Around the early/middle of the 1800s that point broke (due to immigrants and industrialization) and the south suddenly lost a lot of clout.
I think ultimately it was less about slavery or state's rights and more about the politicians and social elite of the south losing hold of their power. They preemtively seceeded because they lost an election and thought they'd lose their livelihood, even though Lincoln obviously wasn't interested in freeing the slaves until after the war started.
It obviously didn't help that they had different cultures, economies, and moral/ethical beliefs. It also didn't help that the North managed to get some pretty prohibitive tarrifs in place that had a huge impact on southern imports and exports- basically attempting to force the South to sell materials to the North for less than they could to Britain and then also purchase goods from the North for more than they'd pay importing them.
Of course almost all of those indiviudal elements are intimately tied to slavery. They had different economies because the south was a plantation-based slave economy. They had different moral beliefs because the South had to justify slavery within their religion (which isn't that hard considering the Bible is very pro-slavery). They had different cultures because of demographics which boils down to slave-owners, subistence farmers, middle-class craftsmen, and slaves versus our current industrialized demographics of corporate leaders, wage-slaves, middle class, etc.
So it isn't "wrong" to say the civil war was caused by slavery. It's just very vague and almost too generalized.
At no point was there an altercation based on the freeing of slaves that wasn't perpetrated by leftist radicals rather than a government army. There was never legislation that freed slaves or threatened to free slaves until after the war. In otherwords, it was not a reason for a secession or civil war.
It would be like saying a plane crash was exclusively caused by gravity or time.
I think ultimately it was less about slavery or state's rights and more about the politicians and social elite of the south losing hold of their power. They preemtively seceeded because they lost an election and thought they'd lose their livelihood
This.
"You lost the election"
"No we didn't"
"Look at the numbers, you did"
"Fine, i'm taking my state and going home"
The people who say teachers need better salaries, well, they are not talking about your new york or new jersey teachers. I know it is strange, but please try to assume that, if you know a teacher/teachers who do not make crap money, and you hear someone saying how teachers make crap money, they are not talking about the teachers you know. Thats rather like objecting to someone suggesting a need for prostetic legs by screaming that both of your brothers legs work just fine. They almost certaintly where not talking about your brother if your objection is truthfull, so voicing it is rather irrelevant and [ommitted -Ed].
By the way, slavery did turn out to be wrong.
Duh.
I'm a huge fan of the civil war and I'm glad the south got trounced. I'm glad they were a bunch of greedy cowards that got stupid.
By the way, slavery did turn out to be wrong.
Duh.
I'm a huge fan of the civil war and I'm glad the south got trounced. I'm glad they were a bunch of greedy cowards that got stupid.
...... cowards?
Out of curiousity, how much do you think teachers should make? $67.5k with the summer off (plus tons of holidays) sounds pretty decent.
It does sound pretty decent. It's not accurate, but it certainly sounds like it'd be pretty nice.
I think ultimately it was less about slavery or state's rights and more about the politicians and social elite of the south losing hold of their power. They preemtively seceeded because they lost an election and thought they'd lose their livelihood, even though Lincoln obviously wasn't interested in freeing the slaves until after the war started.
That was what I attempted to convey in the PM to you, EvilVegan. I did however emphasise more on the politicians using the media to propagate to the southern populace.
The Dixie politicians may have figured they would eventually lose their power struggle and opted to succeed from the Union immediately. The propaganda was likely meant to drive the citizens to rally for the Confederation and to demonise the Union. I am certain the Dixies knew that the rebellion would be confrontational, and militia with low morale isn't good for any army.
Sorry about that Scypio, but I get really confrontational about certain things. Yes, if only 9 had to ratify the Constitution they eventually all had to. You can say that it was decided by the majority voted for the this law then they all have to accepted.
It's alright. I also took a joke too far, which I can do. Its probably all due just to miscommunication.
The people who say teachers need better salaries, well, they are not talking about your new york or new jersey teachers. I know it is strange, but please try to assume that, if you know a teacher/teachers who do not make crap money, and you hear someone saying how teachers make crap money, they are not talking about the teachers you know. Thats rather like objecting to someone suggesting a need for prostetic legs by screaming that both of your brothers legs work just fine. They almost certaintly where not talking about your brother if your objection is truthfull, so voicing it is rather irrelevant and [ommitted -Ed].
Teachers in NJ ask for raises and talk about being underpaid all the time. So yes, (some) people who say teachers need better salaries are talking about NJ teachers. There's a huge confrontation between the teacher's union and the governor over this right now.
Since I only know what the cost of living is in NJ, I have to go on what teachers make here and how they (and others) complain that its too little. So I do not think I was trying to bring up unrelated examples. They relate very well because the teacher's union is being very vocal right now here.
Like I said, the union here is choosing to have their younger members (making that $40k range) be laid off rather than give up raises to the elder members making over $90k. Oh, but they obviously complaining about both.
It does sound pretty decent. It's not accurate, but it certainly sounds like it'd be pretty nice.
I gave references. If you have counternumbers or reasons to suspect the source is fail, please elaborate.
Duh.
I'm a huge fan of the civil war and I'm glad the south got trounced. I'm glad they were a bunch of greedy cowards that got stupid.
Resources and politics (both internal and external) pretty much guaranteed they were destined to failure. With their habit of quite literally holding elections to determine who their military leaders should be, it's no wonder they had some stability issues. Different culture an' all that. But yeah, it's a damned good thing they got beat down. And boy did they. That Sherman was no joke when it came to takin' the war to the people. ;)
It does sound pretty decent. It's not accurate, but it certainly sounds like it'd be pretty nice.
I gave references. If you have counternumbers or reasons to suspect the source is fail, please elaborate.
About 40-45k.
www.payscale.com/research/US/All_K-12_Te...
Which is lower then the average salary (for most states).
www.teachersalaryinfo.com/teacher-salary...
So yea, teachers arn't high payed jobs , and no one's will go into teaching because it was a good job.
About 40-45k.
www.payscale.com/research/US/All_K-12_Te...
Which is lower then the average salary (for most states).
www.teachersalaryinfo.com/teacher-salary...
So yea, teachers arn't high payed jobs , and no one's will go into teaching because it was a good job.
Basically all the sources have different information. A big issue is that averages and medians are used interchangably and they really aren't the same. The first link has teachers making less money than the second link than my link. But look at the second link.
There's a chart that compares average teacher salary to median household income. If you use that chart along with average teacher salary by state, see that teachers make good money. According to the chart, there are 16 states where one teacher's average salary is MORE than the median income of a household. That seems pretty dang good.
Also, if you have two teachers working, you typically have a better household income than most homes. So doesn't that support the idea that teachers make good money? For example, it says that a teacher (in NJ) makes about $32k less than the median household income. Combine that with the chart that says a teacher (in NJ) makes roughly (the chart isn't very well marked) $60k. So that implies that a median income in NJ is roughly $92k. If you have two teachers working, you have $120k, which is well above (130%) the median household income. And according to the charts, NJ was worse in teacher income to household income comparision!
Obviously these calculations are not exact since the median/average mix. And I'm assuming two person income which isn't always the case. But even without calculations, $60k (the middle number of the three sources for NJ) is a good living.
By the way, slavery did turn out to be wrong.
Duh.
I'm a huge fan of the civil war and I'm glad the south got trounced. I'm glad they were a bunch of greedy cowards that got stupid.
...... cowards?
Yes. They were scared of losing their "power". Obviously not too scared to start a war though. But then again, the people in charge of the war weren't usually in the front line, so I could still see them being cowards even starting a war.
But then again, it was probably hyperbole. I'm quite hyperbolic.
Greedy, like using a majority vote to force the minority to sell things to you for less than they could sell them elsewhere?
Cowardly, like not willing to force an issue of great moral importance because your afraid of the possible consequences?
Stupid like letting your greed get out of hand, inadvertently forcing the issue you sought to avoid forcing due to your cowardice?
Not to mention that we don't value altruism, individual responsibility, family, and civic duty ...
And that is the problem.
But big gov't is not the answer.
Getting back to these basics is.
Look up the Robberbarons sometime.
Or better yet. Just look at the Gulf of Mexico right now.
That's what small government with lax regulation will get you everytime in a Capitalist driven society.
Also, "smaller government" is a government that is much easier to control by Special Interests as there are in theory less people to Buy Off that Matter. (which is one of the reasons that Corporat... I mean Red Ties want a "small government". Easier to Buy Off)
That's actually one of the driving principles for, the House of Representatives and the US Senate. Their sizes mean the power is spread over a larger pool of individuals rather than a select few, making abuse much harder to pull off.
Reading the rhetoric of presidents over the thirty years preceding the Civil War one will quite clearly see that the issue was paramount in national politics in the leadup to the war, balanced by who controlled the executive branch and the state of senatorial majority.
www.presidentialrhetoric.com/historicspe...
A primary source is far more valuable than clumsy analysis performed many times removed.
Finally, I also firmly believe that the arguments about "big or small governments" are off the mark as well. Both have shown the capacity to do great or terrible things to a people dependent on the form of governance practiced by the governing body. The big vs small government arguments are largely a social construction of present argumentation. It is the type and mode of governing that I believe one should be concerned with.
Well, if we are gonna do hyperbole:
Greedy, like using a majority vote to force the minority to sell things to you for less than they could sell them elsewhere?
Cowardly, like not willing to force an issue of great moral importance because your afraid of the possible consequences?
Stupid like letting your greed get out of hand, inadvertently forcing the issue you sought to avoid forcing due to your cowardice?
Yep!
Both sides were/are complete jerks, I'm just glad the South lost. Slavery is teh lame.
Yep!
Drat!
Lets try this again:
Both sides were/are complete jerks, I'm just glad the South lost. Slavery is teh lame.
But its so efficient!
Not to mention that we don't value altruism, individual responsibility, family, and civic duty ...
And that is the problem.
But big gov't is not the answer.
Getting back to these basics is.
Look up the Robberbarons sometime.
Or better yet. Just look at the Gulf of Mexico right now.
That's what small government with lax regulation will get you everytime in a Capitalist driven society.
Also, "smaller government" is a government that is much easier to control by Special Interests as there are in theory less people to Buy Off that Matter. (which is one of the reasons that Corporat... I mean Red Ties want a "small government". Easier to Buy Off)
That's actually one of the driving principles for, the House of Representatives and the US Senate. Their sizes mean the power is spread over a larger pool of individuals rather than a select few, making abuse much harder to pull off.
Pretty much yeah. Small government has NO power to effectivley do anything to curtail and control the corporations. WHICH in my mind HAVE to be controlled very very tightly, or they go out of control. Any time you deregulate its a very very bad thing.
That said we also should do something about the rampant corruption in our government. Any official caught taking a bribe should lose their job and all assetts period. Also no politician should be able to get a job with a private company for at least 5 years after they leave office. But that's just me. I don't trust private intrests to do the right thing. I trust the government to at least try to do the right thin.
Well, if we are gonna do hyperbole:
Greedy, like using a majority vote to force the minority to sell things to you for less than they could sell them elsewhere?
Cowardly, like not willing to force an issue of great moral importance because your afraid of the possible consequences?
Stupid like letting your greed get out of hand, inadvertently forcing the issue you sought to avoid forcing due to your cowardice?
Yep!
Both sides were/are complete jerks, I'm just glad the South lost. Slavery is teh lame.
That's inevitable with a civil war. Civil war is bloody and many times disastorous. The civil war also came at a time when technology was changing and not everyone realized this fact, which lead to massive casualties when they were not needed. Union casualties at battles like Fredriksburg where they just charge straight into the teeth of a prepared defensive position, Antietam which was the single bloodiest day of battle in US history. (not sure if it still is but I think so) And Gettysburg where the Confederates lost enough troops to pretty much lose them the war by chargine straight into the Union lines.
But war in general is NOT pretty it is NOT noble. It is NOT something that any sane person should want to see first hand.
But war in general is NOT pretty it is NOT noble. It is NOT something that any sane person should want to see first hand.
Then it's a good thing there are plenty of us who are not fully sane. I wouldn't care if we were at war with China (largest airforce on the face of the earth), I'd join the USAF in an instant if I could pilot a veritech.
I trust the government to at least try to do the right thin.
Ahhhh....
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
But war in general is NOT pretty it is NOT noble. It is NOT something that any sane person should want to see first hand.
Then it's a good thing there are plenty of us who are not fully sane. I wouldn't care if we were at war with China (largest airforce on the face of the earth), I'd join the USAF in an instant if I could pilot a veritech.
LOL I did 5 years in the Navy. I'm not saying joining the military is a bad thing. I'm just saying those who join shouldn't think of war itself as something glorious because it's not.
But war in general is NOT pretty it is NOT noble. It is NOT something that any sane person should want to see first hand.
But quite often it IS necessary.
Sure there's defending yourself. But should you really be doing it to forward the interests of your Defense Contractors?
*cough*you know what, and who *cough*
And how much time should you really spend preparing for it.
85 percent of our government spending? Too much. Especially when at least a third of that is spent on things that are poor performers for their price points. *cough* hummers *cough* F22s *cough* M16s *cough*
But I definately agree that government is awful at controlling costs and being efficient. And that's one of the primary reasons why governments should not control too much. Dollar for dollar, they just aren't very good.
And people need to remember that a government is just a bunch of people. So to imply that they are better than private citizens in their decisions is unfounded. If you're worried about Joe Blow business owner screwing you to make a buck, why aren't you worried about Joe Blow politician screwing you to win an election?
EDIT: Except me. You can trust me. Trust me.
It does sound pretty decent. It's not accurate, but it certainly sounds like it'd be pretty nice.
I gave references. If you have counternumbers or reasons to suspect the source is fail, please elaborate.
"California had the nation's highest average salary in 2002-03, at $55,693"
( www.educationworld.net/salaries_us.html )
"The American Federation of Teachers' teacher salary survey for the 2004-05 school year found that the average teacher salary was $47,602."
( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teacher )
"The latest report indicated that the average teacher salary was $47,602. The Federation indicated that unfortunately, teachers are struggling to find housing in their areas that they can afford on their salaries."
(www.employmentspot.com/employment-articl...)
etc.
Both sides were/are complete jerks, I'm just glad the South lost. Slavery is teh lame.
But its so efficient!
Slaves were basically the fossil-fuel of the 18th century. Replace "slaves" with "oil" in the above exchange and it sounds remarkably current.
Oil ain't just used for fuel. That's actually one of the major, major complications with moving away from its use. We, quite simply, just can't at this point in time. No reason not to do our best to eventually get there, of course.
Question is is when IS it necessary.
Sure there's defending yourself. But should you really be doing it to forward the interests of your Defense Contractors?
*cough*you know what, and who *cough*
And how much time should you really spend preparing for it.
85 percent of our government spending? Too much. Especially when at least a third of that is spent on things that are poor performers for their price points. *cough* hummers *cough* F22s *cough* M16s *cough*
yup theres no way you can justify going into Iraq when we did. A two front war is a failure its caused us to basically lose afghanistan.
But war in general is NOT pretty it is NOT noble. It is NOT something that any sane person should want to see first hand.
But quite often it IS necessary.
No, it's not. We could of avoided pretty much every war ever if people wheren't as greedy, hatefull, and where willing to admit they are wrong on occasion.
I don't know about all that. Unless, of course, slaves were also used to make all sorts of containers, medical equipment, wagon parts, etc, etc and on and on and ...
Yes, slaves made baskets, wagon parts, and cooked food.
Oil ain't just used for fuel. That's actually one of the major, major complications with moving away from its use. We, quite simply, just can't at this point in time. No reason not to do our best to eventually get there, of course.
True, but energy is the part that easiest to replace.
But war in general is NOT pretty it is NOT noble. It is NOT something that any sane person should want to see first hand.
But quite often it IS necessary.
No, it's not. We could of avoided pretty much every war ever if people wheren't as greedy, hatefull, and where willing to admit they are wrong on occasion.
And rainbows are tasty when unicorns bake them.
But war in general is NOT pretty it is NOT noble. It is NOT something that any sane person should want to see first hand.
But quite often it IS necessary.
No, it's not. We could of avoided pretty much every war ever if people wheren't as greedy, hatefull, and where willing to admit they are wrong on occasion.
... right... so in a world where people acted less like people and more like idealized ideas of people war might not be necessary. But that's not the world we live in.
No, it's not. We could of avoided pretty much every war ever if people wheren't as greedy, hatefull, and where willing to admit they are wrong on occasion.
Soooo ... if people didn't exist, people could avoid war. I suppose I have to agree with that notion ...
Yes, slaves made baskets, wagon parts, and cooked food.
True, but also wholly off point. Any other human could have been used to do exactly that - make baskets, cook, etc. Or the slaves could have been made employees and been compensated. Oil, otoh, cannot be instantaneously replaced - as slave labor could have been. So, unless by 'made' you mean 'slaughtered and turned into material components with no better availabe alternative to use in their place', you're off point.
True, but energy is the part that easiest to replace.
Yep, but it ain't just energy that needs replacin'. We're a long, long ways off from bein' able to quit drillin'. Sad, but true. And all the more reason to work harder to get away from it sooner. The reality, however, is that we also need to work to find efficient and safe ways to extract our crutch from the planet.
...Also no politician should be able to get a job with a private company for at least 5 years after they leave office.
Out of curiousity, where does their income come from during those 5 years? Otherwise, you are setting up a precedent where only the affluent can AFFORD to run for office.
...Also no politician should be able to get a job with a private company for at least 5 years after they leave office.
Out of curiousity, where does their income come from during those 5 years? Otherwise, you are setting up a precedent where only the affluent can AFFORD to run for office.
That is actually already the case. Maintaining more than one residence is a significant expense that puts most people out of the running for offices in both the house and senate.
Out of curiousity, where does their income come from during those 5 years? Otherwise, you are setting up a precedent where only the affluent can AFFORD to run for office.
Isn't that pretty much already the case, though (not that I agree with is plan)? I mean, sure, we have that guy that lives in his parents' house and doesn't have a job that just made it past a primary or whatever, but that's sort of the exception. You need lotsa cash to run for office and that's part of the reason we only have the two craptastic parties we do. Attach yourself to one and get cash to aid your campaign. Anyhoo, money makes the political world go 'round. 'Sides, these guys could just run the speaking cicruit and make teh phat lewts 'til that period expired anyway. ;)
I concur with your statement though, ZB. I would prefer to cut out the middle-man in this policy generating scheme and let the citizens decide for themselves. Of course they need a proper education first so they would make more informed decisions on policies. However as Mr. Franklin once stated, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch".
True, but also wholly off point.
Acutally no. What was off-point was this. I know it is the done thing to latch onto post and tear them apart with pedantry, but the intent was patently clear: slaves were pretty much seen as little more than a natural resource and were the essential fuel source that powered the American economy.
Really, a little less bloody minded pedantry on these boards would lead to a lot more productive discussions.
Question is is when IS it necessary.
Sure there's defending yourself. But should you really be doing it to forward the interests of your Defense Contractors?
*cough*you know what, and who *cough*
And how much time should you really spend preparing for it.
85 percent of our government spending? Too much. Especially when at least a third of that is spent on things that are poor performers for their price points. *cough* hummers *cough* F22s *cough* M16s *cough*
yup theres no way you can justify going into Iraq when we did. A two front war is a failure its caused us to basically lose afghanistan.
You don't want to go there, really... you don't.
But war in general is NOT pretty it is NOT noble. It is NOT something that any sane person should want to see first hand.
But quite often it IS necessary.
No, it's not. We could of avoided pretty much every war ever if people wheren't as greedy, hatefull, and where willing to admit they are wrong on occasion.
But that ain't gonna happen, so...
War IS necessary sometimes.
...Also no politician should be able to get a job with a private company for at least 5 years after they leave office.
Out of curiousity, where does their income come from during those 5 years? Otherwise, you are setting up a precedent where only the affluent can AFFORD to run for office.
Stipend from government. They should serve the people and not the corporations. The governments job is to restrict, and regulate big buisnesses not **** out for them. Chenney cough Chenney.
Only when measures are taken to reduce corruption in government will we get an honest working government.
Question is is when IS it necessary.
Sure there's defending yourself. But should you really be doing it to forward the interests of your Defense Contractors?
*cough*you know what, and who *cough*
And how much time should you really spend preparing for it.
85 percent of our government spending? Too much. Especially when at least a third of that is spent on things that are poor performers for their price points. *cough* hummers *cough* F22s *cough* M16s *cough*
yup theres no way you can justify going into Iraq when we did. A two front war is a failure its caused us to basically lose afghanistan.
You don't want to go there, really... you don't.
Oh and why not? There was NO point to going into Iraq when we still had troops in afghanistan none whatso ever no way you can justify that descision in any way shape or form. Its also clear that afghanistan is a waste at this point when they cant even produce a semi competent government. We should pull out of both places now except for a smaller force hunting down the terrorist in afghanistan.
Then there are the contracts given to Halberton way too many of them. So yeah Busch, and Chenney made descisions based soley on greed. I'm disapointed that Guantanumo is still open and that Obama has given up on trying the terrorist in civilian court. THEY ARE NOT combatants they are criminals and should be tried as criminals not treated as military personnel. Treating them as enemy combatants gives them a distinction they do not deserve.
Also torture never works in any circumstances.
Stipend from government.
So... our tax money.
Question is is when IS it necessary.
Sure there's defending yourself. But should you really be doing it to forward the interests of your Defense Contractors?
*cough*you know what, and who *cough*
And how much time should you really spend preparing for it.
85 percent of our government spending? Too much. Especially when at least a third of that is spent on things that are poor performers for their price points. *cough* hummers *cough* F22s *cough* M16s *cough*
yup theres no way you can justify going into Iraq when we did. A two front war is a failure its caused us to basically lose afghanistan.
You don't want to go there, really... you don't.
Oh and why not? There was NO point to going into Iraq when we still had troops in afghanistan none whatso ever no way you can justify that descision in any way shape or form. Its also clear that afghanistan is a waste at this point when they cant even produce a semi competent government. We should pull out of both places now except for a smaller force hunting down the terrorist in afghanistan.
Then there are the contracts given to Halberton way too many of them. So yeah Busch, and Chenney made descisions based soley on greed. I'm disapointed that Guantanumo is still open and that Obama has given up on trying the terrorist in civilian court. THEY ARE NOT combatants they are criminals and should be tried as criminals not treated as military personnel. Treating them as enemy combatants gives them a distinction they do not deserve.
Also torture never works in any circumstances.
I don't even want to talk to you anymore.
It is a waste of my time and not worth the effort.
Didn't California have a homeless man elected as a federal representative?
Probably not. You are required, by law, to maintain a residence in the state/district you are to represent in the senate/house. In addition to that, you need some place in DC to stay while you do your actual job. This means you must have at least one residence (in the place you represent) though you could technically stay at the Y in DC if you chose to.
Stipend from government.
So... our tax money.
Better that than them making descisions on lining their own pockets. They are supposed to regulate buisnesses not cut themselves the best deal they can.
Stipend from government.
So... our tax money.
Better that than them making descisions on lining their own pockets. They are supposed to regulate buisnesses not cut themselves the best deal they can.
That's actually not what they're supposed to do. They are supposed to look out for the public good, which includes creating a climate in which industry can flourish so everyone who can compete in the workforce can have jobs.
Stipend from government.
So... our tax money.
Better that than them making descisions on lining their own pockets. They are supposed to regulate buisnesses not cut themselves the best deal they can.
That's actually not what they're supposed to do. They are supposed to look out for the public good, which includes creating a climate in which industry can flourish so everyone who can compete in the workforce can have jobs.
yeah no I dont trust big companies at all. The government needs to watch them like a hawk to prevent them from cutting corners and screwing people over. Honestly Id be a lot happier if we were more of a socialist country like most of Europe. Giving large corporations any kind of leeway is to me a bad idea, because they will screw over the american people at every chance they can just to make more money.
Damn those greedy companies, trying to make a profit!
Why! Who do they think they are? The owner of a compnay or something?!
Let's make them sell products supa cheap, so we can getb stuff cheap! Who cares they have to pay their workers peanuts!?
!!111!!!!one11!!!1!1eleven!1!1!!!
... idiots.
That is actually already the case. Maintaining more than one residence is a significant expense that puts most people out of the running for offices in both the house and senate.
Not entirely. Most politicians start off at the local level, and work their way up. By the time they reach the federal offices, their salaries make such affordable. However, the stipend idea would bankrupt most local (and even state) governments. The fed should be fine, as I believe the current pension is equivalent.
Better that than them making descisions on lining their own pockets. They are supposed to regulate buisnesses not cut themselves the best deal they can.
Perhaps, but your solution would not solve it. The government pays you 60K to do the right thing, while a corp pays you 200K to look the other way - what'll it be? You address a symptom, not the problem. The problem in this case is greed. The solution is to put ideal people (good luck finding them, and if you do, convincing them that public office is the place to be) in office. It's a utopian solution, not a practical one.
That is actually already the case. Maintaining more than one residence is a significant expense that puts most people out of the running for offices in both the house and senate.
Not entirely. Most politicians start off at the local level, and work their way up. By the time they reach the federal offices, their salaries make such affordable. However, the stipend idea would bankrupt most local (and even state) governments. The fed should be fine, as I believe the current pension is equivalent.
Okay, but what you're basically saying is that you'd need to be either wealthy or a career politician. There was a time when politics was like military service; people could get into it for the sake of serving their country for a few years without needing to be wealthy or making it a career.
yeah no I dont trust big companies at all. The government needs to watch them like a hawk to prevent them from cutting corners and screwing people over. Honestly Id be a lot happier if we were more of a socialist country like most of Europe. Giving large corporations any kind of leeway is to me a bad idea, because they will screw over the american people at every chance they can just to make more money.
Again - more idealism than reality. I posted this elsewhere (forget why), but you'll note - the top 10 corrupt governments ARE socialist countries (for the most part).
Okay, but what you're basically saying is that you'd need to be either wealthy or a career politician. There was a time when politics was like military service; people could get into it for the sake of serving their country for a few years without needing to be wealthy or making it a career.
When? (serious - not being argumentative) The closest we had to a "down home" president was Truman. Even he "worked his way up". I can't (off the top of my head) think of any that didn't have either the class (social/economic), history, or career before getting national office.
Okay, but what you're basically saying is that you'd need to be either wealthy or a career politician. There was a time when politics was like military service; people could get into it for the sake of serving their country for a few years without needing to be wealthy or making it a career.
When? (serious - not being argumentative) The closest we had to a "down home" president was Truman. Even he "worked his way up". I can't (off the top of my head) think of any that didn't have either the class (social/economic), history, or career before getting national office.
You are setting your sights too high. Being in the senate or the house requires you to maintain a home in the state/district you represent and to work in DC (which means maintaining a second household). This requirement alone denies access to congressional service for most Americans.
Again - more idealism than reality. I posted this elsewhere (forget why), but you'll note - the top 10 corrupt governments ARE socialist countries (for the most part).
Not trying to interfere with the discussion or anything, but are you sure you haven't confused the top ten least corrupt countries with the top ten most corrupt countries? From the article: "A CPI Score relates to perceptions of the degree of corruption as seen by business people and country analysts and ranges between 10 (highly clean) and 0 (highly corrupt)."
Chad, Bangladesh, Burma, Haiti, Turkmenistan, Equatorial Guinea, Nigeria etc., don't seem socialist to me, more like non-functional, tribal, and/or with a history dominated by conflict. The top ten least corrupt countries are pretty socialist for the most parts (some of them probably communist by certain US standards).
And I will fight them to the death.
Socialism and communism are bad, evil systems.
And I will fight them to the death.
Reasonable and well thought out, as per normal!
It couldn't be at all possible that all systems are functional in ideal socieities but ultimately "fail" in the real world and it would be absurd to think that the best solution would be to take "what works" from each system and use it to patch up the failings of people involved in the system they think they're using...
(Kind of like how China uses elements of capitalism to enhance it's economy and the US uses socialism to apparently destroy the moral fiber of its citizens)
[Personally I prefer a parliamentary monarchy ruling over a socialist-demorcratic society with limited free-market capitalism.]
Socialism and communism are bad, evil systems.
And I will fight them to the death.
Lucky for you most socialist contries don't have any army. There too busy living peacfull happy lives (seriously, "happiest" country and "least crime" are all primaraly socialist).
The downside of socialism is they advance very slowly, ocasionally even backwards, since innovation isn't rewarded (you get paid the same no matter what you do), and burocracy prevents flexibility.
BTW, North Korea, (old) china, and (old) russia arn't socialsm, they're more theocracy's, where a few own everything, and everyone "worships" the state (used basicly as slaves). Theocracy's are the true "evil" systems.
Also, the US is a socialist/free-market/capitalism mix (though honeslty we've moved to far into capitialism and it's starting to ruin us again).
Yeah!~
Damn those greedy companies, trying to make a profit!
Why! Who do they think they are? The owner of a compnay or something?!
Let's make them sell products supa cheap, so we can getb stuff cheap! Who cares they have to pay their workers peanuts!?
!!111!!!!one11!!!1!1eleven!1!1!!!
... idiots.
WOW you think the companies would pay their employees if the government did not make them? WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING??? Do you even read history? Seriously? Companies paid their employees almost nothing until unions and the federal government MADE them offer fair wages, which proves companies need to be on as short a leash as is possible or else they will take advantage of people. We also need laws to prevent them from just dumping toxic waste where ever they want cause companies have such a great record of regulating themselves.
Not trying to interfere with the discussion or anything, but are you sure you haven't confused the top ten least corrupt countries with the top ten most corrupt countries? From the article: "A CPI Score relates to perceptions of the degree of corruption as seen by business people and country analysts and ranges between 10 (highly clean) and 0 (highly corrupt)."Chad, Bangladesh, Burma, Haiti, Turkmenistan, Equatorial Guinea, Nigeria etc., don't seem socialist to me, more like non-functional, tribal, and/or with a history dominated by conflict. The top ten least corrupt countries are pretty socialist for the most parts (some of them probably communist by certain US standards).
I very well could have, my original post was in a rush :-) In fact, you should know (if I recall), I believe you were part of the original thread I ended up posting it for.
I will take your word on this, and apologize if it is the case, as I'm just passing through. (had a disk drive crash, and had to rebuild, but lost a couple of days of work time, so don't have much to review at the moment)
WOW you think the companies would pay their employees if the government did not make them?
Yes, they would. It's a question of supply and demand. (and for the record, I'm only smoking camels at the moment, and have most likely read more history than you - given nothing but my age, reading habits, and reading preferences).
Companies paid their employees almost nothing until unions and the federal government MADE them offer fair wages, which proves companies need to be on as short a leash as is possible or else they will take advantage of people.
More unions than fed, supply and demand in action once again. Unions cut the supply, demand stayed the same, therefore prices (wages in this case) increased. As someone who has held the responsibility of hiring and setting wages, I can tell you that minimum wage has NEVER effected my decision - market has.
We also need laws to prevent them from just dumping toxic waste where ever they want cause companies have such a great record of regulating themselves.
minor note: Laws don't prevent anything, they (at best) deter. This is easily seen by the fact that the laws exist, yet some still do.
I very well could have, my original post was in a rush :-) In fact, you should know (if I recall), I believe you were part of the original thread I ended up posting it for.
I will take your word on this, and apologize if it is the case, as I'm just passing through. (had a disk drive crash, and had to rebuild, but lost a couple of days of work time, so don't have much to review at the moment)
I didn't believe you would intentionally post misleading data, I was just passing through myself, and I initially thought the top countries were supposed to be the most corrupt (which I knew couldn't be true), so I wondered if you might not have thought the same.
Again, why would you trust a government not to screw you over if you don't trust a business. By your own statements, a government official is equally as corrupt as a business owner. So why would you want these officials to have more power in your life?
If you don't trust the government to wage a war (one of the few areas they have expertise in), why would you trust the government to regulate a business (which they have no expertise in)?
Seriously, watch a Congressial hearing on any subject that you have expertise in. Its comical how poor of a grasp of the subject the politicians (winners of a popularity contest) have. But really, how can you expect them to have expertise in all fields (that you want regulated)?
Acutally no. What was off-point was this. I know it is the done thing to latch onto post and tear them apart with pedantry, but the intent was patently clear: slaves were pretty much seen as little more than a natural resource and were the essential fuel source that powered the American economy.
Really, a little less bloody minded pedantry on these boards would lead to a lot more productive discussions.
Meh, if you think that's what it was, then that's what it was, no? But it wasn't.
Again, why would you trust a government not to screw you over if you don't trust a business. By your own statements, a government official is equally as corrupt as a business owner. So why would you want these officials to have more power in your life?
If you don't trust the government to wage a war (one of the few areas they have expertise in), why would you trust the government to regulate a business (which they have no expertise in)?
Seriously, watch a Congressial hearing on any subject that you have expertise in. Its comical how poor of a grasp of the subject the politicians (winners of a popularity contest) have. But really, how can you expect them to have expertise in all fields (that you want regulated)?
Because we can unelect the officials. But without the government we have no recourse against the companies. A government can work, we just need MASSIVE reforms to ours. We need to look at what works in places like Sweden and fix our government and system to be more like theirs. I trust people I can help kick out of office who are supposed to have the best interest of people than companies who have proven they care ONLY about lining their own pockets at the expense of others. The fact is if companies were not forced by outside forces they would pay wages on which their employees would be starving, have no saftey measures in place and would sell at overly inflated prices.
Look at the factories in third world countries and you tell me those conditions are acceptable I say HELL no. We need serious international regulations on those factories. Companies have to be regulated and watched like hawk's constantly, and hammered hard when they violate the rules. IE I'd force BP to stop operating in the US after this spill and ask for extradition for criminal charges of negligence for their Executives.
I've also said taking a bribe should be equivalent to treason and equal a death sentence or life in prison sentence for ANY public official caught doing it. We deserve honest government.
Again, why would you trust a government not to screw you over if you don't trust a business.
Because when a politician seriously screws up, you can vote the bastard out of office next time. When a CEO screws up, you can just glower as they take a vacation in the Bahamas till the whole thing blows over.
Again, why would you trust a government not to screw you over if you don't trust a business.
Because when a politician seriously screws up, you can vote the bastard out of office next time. When a CEO screws up, you can just glower as they take a vacation in the Bahamas till the whole thing blows over.
And even if he gets fired he gets to cash in his stock options.
Because we can unelect the officials. But without the government we have no recourse against the companies. A government can work, we just need MASSIVE reforms to ours. We need to look at what works in places like Sweden and fix our government and system to be more like theirs. I trust people I can help kick out of office who are supposed to have the best interest of people than companies who have proven they care ONLY about lining their own pockets at the expense of others. The fact is if companies were not forced by outside forces they would pay wages on which their employees would be starving, have no saftey measures in place and would sell at overly inflated prices.
You do have recourse against companies as consumers.
Also, as said earlier, companies typically pay their employees more than minimum wage. That would mean that they are pressured by other factors than simply government regulations.
Look at the factories in third world countries and you tell me those conditions are acceptable I say HELL no. We need serious international regulations on those factories. Companies have to be regulated and watched like hawk's constantly, and hammered hard when they violate the rules. IE I'd force BP to stop operating in the US after this spill and ask for extradition for criminal charges of negligence for their Executives.
I totally disagree. There should be very little to no international regulations. It should be up to individual countries to make decisions as long as it does directly harm us.
Also, why would you attack the executives of BP over the people who actually made the decisions on the oil well? I don't know, maybe Tony Heyward is a genius but most executives do not have knowledge on all aspects of their company. Why not punish whoever was the site lead or whatever manager who made the decision?
I've also said taking a bribe should be equivalent to treason and equal a death sentence or life in prison sentence for ANY public official caught doing it. We deserve honest government.
I would agree with that. I'm both a fan of punishing bribes and the death penalty. I would put extra emphasis on the police force also.
Because when a politician seriously screws up, you can vote the bastard out of office next time. When a CEO screws up, you can just glower as they take a vacation in the Bahamas till the whole thing blows over.
I said "screws you" not "screws up". If a politician wants to be biased for some sort of advantage, they're not screwing up. If a hefty contract is awarded to a company that someone likes or a regulation destroys another company, those effects can reap benefits (for the politician) long after he leaves office.
Also, with term limits, the threat of leaving office loses much of its power. If you are a second term President (for example), you can go and pardone whoever you want with pretty much no recourse. It basically happens whenever any President leaves office.
I was watching a news story that stated that its legal for a politician to have family members be employed as lobbyists. So your spouse can be approached and make a lucrative salary while you vote a certain way... and this is not only legal, but apparently happens. I'm pretty sure it was on CBS's news. So if you're in that case, you can reap lots of benefits even if voters get rid of you next term.
And even if he gets fired he gets to cash in his stock options.
Same thing can happen with politicians. See above. Where's the difference?
Both sides were/are complete jerks, I'm just glad the South lost. Slavery is teh lame.
But its so efficient!
Slaves were basically the fossil-fuel of the 18th century. Replace "slaves" with "oil" in the above exchange and it sounds remarkably current.
Whats your point?
I don't know about all that. Unless, of course, slaves were also used to make all sorts of containers, medical equipment, wagon parts, etc, etc and on and on and ...
Oil ain't just used for fuel. That's actually one of the major, major complications with moving away from its use. We, quite simply, just can't at this point in time. No reason not to do our best to eventually get there, of course.
Well, there are some alternatives for some of thoes things: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polylactic_acid
I was quite confused when I noticed my take-home container from the IKEA cafateria bore a corn symbol and was branded as biodegradable despite appearing to be clear plastic.
PLA is currently used in a number of biomedical applications, such as sutures, stents, dialysis media and drug delivery devices. It is also being evaluated as a material for tissue engineering. Because it is biodegradable, it can also be employed in the preparation of bioplastic, useful for producing loose-fill packaging, compost bags, food packaging, and disposable tableware. In the form of fibers and non-woven textiles, PLA also has many potential uses, for example as upholstery, disposable garments, awnings, feminine hygiene products, and nappies.
It's good that it's biodegradable but it's bad that it's food. Not to mention that then our supply for stuff like this becomes beholden to the whims of nature - drought, flood, aforementioned locusts, etc. Of course everything is beholden to the whims of nature, but there are more problems associated with stuff like this than some other stuff. For example, an increase in need for corn or cane or whatever will mean an increased need for places to grow it. That leaves less room for people or, you know, nature. Somethin' tells me nature would get the short end of that stick even though nature itself is likely what provided us with that stick in the first place. At any rate, I'm not a fan of food based alternative packaging. Never will be.
I totally disagree. There should be very little to no international regulations. It should be up to individual countries to make decisions as long as it does directly harm us.I've also said taking a bribe should be equivalent to treason and equal a death sentence or life in prison sentence for ANY public official caught doing it. We deserve honest government.
I would agree with that. I'm both a fan of punishing bribes and the death penalty. I would put extra emphasis on the police force also.
Those 2 ideas are at odds with eachother.
That whole "We won't have food!" is propaganda by Oil Lobbyists.
Ontop of that anything you can make from Corn, particularly the plastics don't actually use the Corn ear itself, ie it's using the stuff we just discard anyway. But anything fuel wise you can make with Corn you can make from other sources as well, such as Sugar Cane, Rice etc.
We can grow Algae to produce enough biodiesel to fuel america as well, and it doesn't require alot of effort to grow algae, and it grows in sufficient volumes quickly.
Again something brushed aside by the Oil Bought Media.
Furthermore we shouldn't be using Gasoline, it's engines are inferior in every way shape and form to Diesel engines. (why do you think I'm stuffing a Duramax into my Camaro when I get enough space to do the swap?*)
Put it this way, if I took a Duramax Diesel from a pickup, and stuck it into my camaro, it would only gain 300 lbs of weight (which I am going to trim off with interest anyway as a lighter car is more efficient in every manner, even safety if you have a damn brain.) I would be running in the low 12s in the 1/4 mile, while spinning the tires heavily through every gear (most cars that are in the 30mpg+ range run 16+. which is SLOOOOOOW. For that matter the Bad Boy Corvette runs in the mid 12s. Along with most of it's competition. Which in some cases is even slower than the vette)while getting 45 mpg highway and about 37 city, while also producing extremely low emissions.
If I can get traction, the thing would run in the mid to low 11s. And that's without turning the diesel in question. What So Ever. If I tuned it with a performance ecm tune I would gain another 150hp, and another 3-5 mpgs. Which if I could get traction put me in the very low 11s and high 10s. Fun fact. That's as stupid fast as a Bugatti while getting mpgs that would make a Prius Driver commit suicide from sheer envy over.
If it's fueled on say Bio Diesel (which actually there's no conversion process required for by the way. You can run a Diesel on virtually anything without changing a damn thing. And in the case of bio fuels it will run -better-) that means it's saving me even more cash if I make it myself. It would also make more power, make far less emissions, be more reliabe (Scary thought eh?) and get better fuel economy on biodiesel.
Current Crapmaro? 26mpgs, driven with a light foot. And low 13s. And that's with the most state of the art Wonder Gasoline Engine GM has to offer. If you stuffed a truck engine in it, it would be just as fast, and get you alot more mpgs.
*space to park a wrecked duramax pickup next to my camaro and space enough to strip the said pickup of the necessary parts for the conversion, and space to sell off the old camaro stuff to some Gasoline minded Sucker.
International regulation and domestic policy?
'What's that world? You're hungry? So sorry, we'd like to help but we need this 'ere corn to make into fuel for our vehicles and tampons for our womens. Eat a locust or something.'
It's good that it's biodegradable but it's bad that it's food. Not to mention that then our supply for stuff like this becomes beholden to the whims of nature - drought, flood, aforementioned locusts, etc. Of course everything is beholden to the whims of nature, but there are more problems associated with stuff like this than some other stuff. For example, an increase in need for corn or cane or whatever will mean an increased need for places to grow it. That leaves less room for people or, you know, nature. Somethin' tells me nature would get the short end of that stick even though nature itself is likely what provided us with that stick in the first place. At any rate, I'm not a fan of food based alternative packaging. Never will be.
Hmm? Oh I was not actually interested in arguing for that. Just pointing out that there are other was to make thoes things. I'm more interested in picking an argument, for the lulz (Or rather the Evulz, considering the side I'm taking). But now I have been sidetracked with an overwhelming urge to mock Borax's attack upon the concept of efficency of all things.
"Oil's efficent is it? Yah, well you know what else is efficent? Nazies! Erm, I mean Slavery!"
Teehee. Tickles me pink.
Since converting the entire grain harvest of the US would only produce 16% of its auto fuel needs, some experts believe that placing energy markets in competition with food markets for scarce arable land will inevitably result in higher food prices
That's 16% of total fuel need gained from converting the entire grain harvest. That means no food. So, we could get the astonishing amount of 16% of the fuel we need for the low, low cost of all the food value associated with the grain used - which is every last bit produced. This isn't a matter of taking a few ears of corn and squishing them into fuel. It takes massive amounts of the stuff to make any usable quantity. And it takes massive amounts of land to grow it. It isn't just the oil lobby - there are real problems associated with this fuel source.
EDIT: Forgot the source for the quote. It was stupid Wikipedia but it was a cited section. I don't feel like looking it up again but it's under the 'Food vs Fuel' article.
Whats your point?
That while the specifics have changed the arguments haven't. Sorry, I thought it was rather self-evident.
And as an aside, if all posts on these boards are now required to have a "point" we are all doomed.
Hmm? Oh I was not actually interested in arguing for that. Just pointing out that there are other was to make thoes things.
Ah. Yeah, there's other stuff. Umm ... yep. There is. So ... yeah. Silly amphibian.
Also, that still doesn't answer the fact that it's still gasoline based engines.
Which are horrible to start with.
And using Corn, which is a horribly inefficent way to make alcohol to start with.
So it's like taking two train wrecks and combining them.
Ethanol isn't the answer. Sure, it can relieve some of the problems. But ultimately if we are to stick with Internal Combustion for a while, Diesel engines running Biofuels is the way to go. (Which we can easily produce, in sufficient quantities. Hell algae is a damn SIDEFFECT of many of our current Electric power generation methods.. The very algae that can be used in biofuel production.)
Ethanol is also more difficult on the engine seals. Alcohol and rubber do not mix well for long periods of time. Also, the valvetrain has to be tougher to stand up to ethanol for prolonged periods of time due to the way it burns.
Hmm? Oh I was not actually interested in arguing for that. Just pointing out that there are other was to make thoes things. I'm more interested in picking an argument, for the lulz (Or rather the Evulz, considering the side I'm taking). But now I have been sidetracked with an overwhelming urge to mock Borax's attack upon the concept of efficency of all things.
"Oil's efficent is it? Yah, well you know what else is efficent? Nazies! Erm, I mean Slavery!"
If that's what you got from it might I suggest re-reading it. Several attempts may be required.
Teehee. Tickles me pink.
I don't know what your "pink" is, mate, but I sure as hell ain't tickling it fer ya! ;)
Ethanol isn't the answer. Sure, it can relieve some of the problems. But ultimately if we are to stick with Internal Combustion for a while, Diesel engines running Biofuels is the way to go. (Which we can easily produce, in sufficient quantities. Hell algae is a damn SIDEFFECT of many of our current Electric power generation methods.. The very algae that can be used in biofuel production.)
With the added benefit that algae can be grown in dirty water/salt water and can requires no fertaile land. Massive algae farms in countries with poor/little/no agricultural land could be a fantastic two-proged approach to both weaning off fossil-fules and investing in the developing world.
link to site? (sorry if I missed it)
Also, that still doesn't answer the fact that it's still gasoline based engines.
Which are horrible to start with.
And using Corn, which is a horribly inefficent way to make alcohol to start with.
So it's like taking two train wrecks and combining them.
Ethanol isn't the answer. Sure, it can relieve some of the problems. But ultimately if we are to stick with Internal Combustion for a while, Diesel engines running Biofuels is the way to go. (Which we can easily produce, in sufficient quantities. Hell algae is a damn SIDEFFECT of many of our current Electric power generation methods.. The very algae that can be used in biofuel production.)
Ethanol is also more difficult on the engine seals. Alcohol and rubber do not mix well for long periods of time. Also, the valvetrain has to be tougher to stand up to ethanol for prolonged periods of time due to the way it burns.
It was from a Wiki article - but it was in a cited section. I remembered it from a History Channel show about the stuff, though. It's woefully insufficient as a replacement cuz we need so much. And people do like to eat, too.
But yeah, gasoline needs to go. Oil needs to go. It has to happen. I'm not arguing for oil at all but I do think it's important to keep in mind just how tied to it we really are. Biodiesel - as I understand it - is a more viable alternative. In most cases, the stuff used to make it either isn't food at all or has been used to its full potential in food preparation already. That's better. Don't know how much it takes to make the stuff, but, IIRC, it's really not that much - especially compared to corn. So it's one way to look for sure.
Whats your point?
That while the specifics have changed the arguments haven't. Sorry, I thought it was rather self-evident.
And as an aside, if all posts on these boards are now required to have a "point" we are all doomed.
Sooo, your point was that you find it odd that "efficency" is still considered a good thing after all this time?
Somehow that makes less sense than my previous enterpretation of "evil by associastion" even considering that the same argument could be made about round wheels vs square or copper wires vs aluminum ones.
link to site? (sorry if I missed it)
Also, that still doesn't answer the fact that it's still gasoline based engines.
Which are horrible to start with.
And using Corn, which is a horribly inefficent way to make alcohol to start with.
So it's like taking two train wrecks and combining them.
Ethanol isn't the answer. Sure, it can relieve some of the problems. But ultimately if we are to stick with Internal Combustion for a while, Diesel engines running Biofuels is the way to go. (Which we can easily produce, in sufficient quantities. Hell algae is a damn SIDEFFECT of many of our current Electric power generation methods.. The very algae that can be used in biofuel production.)
Ethanol is also more difficult on the engine seals. Alcohol and rubber do not mix well for long periods of time. Also, the valvetrain has to be tougher to stand up to ethanol for prolonged periods of time due to the way it burns.
Depends on what your making the bio fuels out of, and the efficiency of producing said bio fuels. Current tech is at a level where it produces almost as much pollutants as using gassoline. Ethanol is nothing more than a stop gap for the short term. Because bio fuels still produce the same level of pollutants as gassoline does.
As to companies I'm sorry NO without strong laws in place they would abuse their employees and treat them like slaves it happens in every country where they can get away with it. Large corporations are EVIL a necessary evil but without a massive amount or regulation and watching they are worse than the alternative. And Im sorry but the BP top executive new what was going on ultimatley It is HIS fault that HIS compnay cut corners and did not invest in proper saftety equipment and he SHOULD be held accountable.
You can go to a freakin restuarant and get their used cooking oil and make it, pour it through a sock, and dump it straight into your tank.
And it will run.
to say nothing of the various algaes we can use instead, which are incredibly easy to process and grow.
You need to do research on diesel emissions and biodiesels., And vs that against gasoline.
Diesel handedly beats gas, and bio diesel beats diesel.
Bio Diesel produces a MUCH lower emissions quotient than gasoline, or even drilled diesel. No internal combustion isn't a long term solution.
However let's stop lying and pretending the answer lies in Gasoline, Hybrid cars.
We've got our Stop Gap, until the Electric car (where is the Volt chevy? It's supposed to be in showrooms by now. Yeah that's what I thought) becomes a viable prospect.
Take a Duramax diesel, and measure it's emissions against a gas engine of a given cylinder count. Duramax Wins.
Take a vw diesel and measure it against any gas engine. Diesel Wins.
And that's with Drilled Diesel.
I said "screws you" not "screws up". If a politician wants to be biased for some sort of advantage, they're not screwing up. If a hefty contract is awarded to a company that someone likes or a regulation destroys another company, those effects can reap benefits (for the politician) long after he leaves office.
Also, with term limits, the threat of leaving office loses much of its power. If you are a second term President (for example), you can go and pardone whoever you want with pretty much no recourse. It basically happens whenever any President leaves office.
I was watching a news story that stated that its legal for a politician to have family members be employed as lobbyists. So your spouse can be approached and make a lucrative salary while you vote a certain way... and this is not only legal, but apparently happens. I'm pretty sure it was on CBS's news. So if you're in that case, you can reap lots of benefits even if voters get rid of you next term.
And so you demonstrate that the system isn't perfect. But so what? I didn't say that I trusted them a whole lot more.
Biol Diesel is incredibly easy to produce dude.
You can go to a freakin restuarant and get their used cooking oil and make it, pour it through a sock, and dump it straight into your tank.
And it will run.
to say nothing of the various algaes we can use instead, which are incredibly easy to process and grow.
You need to do research on diesel emissions and biodiesels., And vs that against gasoline.
Diesel handedly beats gas, and bio diesel beats diesel.
Bio Diesel produces a MUCH lower emissions quotient than gasoline, or even drilled diesel. No internal combustion isn't a long term solution.
However let's stop lying and pretending the answer lies in Gasoline, Hybrid cars.
We've got our Stop Gap, until the Electric car (where is the Volt chevy? It's supposed to be in showrooms by now. Yeah that's what I thought) becomes a viable prospect.
Take a Duramax diesel, and measure it's emissions against a gas engine of a given cylinder count. Duramax Wins.
Take a vw diesel and measure it against any gas engine. Diesel Wins.
And that's with Drilled Diesel.
I honestly don't know anything about disel isn't it less clean than regular gass? Im very curious.
Diesel Wins.
Yes he does. That's why KGM married him.
@Wil: Diesel burns cleaner because it burns differently than gasoline. The mechanism for ignition is different as well, being heat based rather than spark based (that's why diesel engines get stronger when they warm-up).
Even before the Low Sulfer Diesel it was still cleaner than gasoline (it was just abit more unsightly.)
Even before the Super Low Emission standard passed on diesel it was still cleaner. (it's far cleaner now than it was too)
Mecha: it's not just that. They are.. or rather were working on a spark plug less gasoline engine. But it's so cost prohibitive to even make it comparable, to diesel that most manufacturers are not taking it seriously anymore. (project started fairly recently too) By the time they were done any advantage of the gas engine was removed (lighter weight, cheaper to build)
The way it burns does help tremendously though. The combustion method is sort of secondary.
Gasoline, is also ironically enough harder to refine than Diesel (it's ironic because Diesel usually costs you more at the pump per gallon. But becomes much cheaper over a full tank of fuel due to the mpgs diesel gets)
But even in the 70s Diesel burnt cleaner. The only real reasons why america isn't Diesel based is because of the Changeophobes that think engines should sound a certain way, and cheapo car manufacturers.
And so you demonstrate that the system isn't perfect. But so what? I didn't say that I trusted them a whole lot more.
The point is that government is every bit as corrupt, greedy, and "screw you"-y as business (plus they have the added benefit of being much more incompetant). So I don't want to give them more power and such.
Its just the whole idea of "big business is so corrupt so we have to have big government, who often times is more corrupt and incompetent, tell them what to do". People are people. But when you give the government more power, you lose choices. You have choices when it comes to business (especially under current laws); you don't have similar choices when it comes to governments.
And I don't trust governments more than business since they have similar tendencies towards corruption.
I'm not saying that smaller governments are less corrupt than big governments. I'm saying that governments are corrupt just like business.
But that isn't actually borne out in the evidence.
And so you demonstrate that the system isn't perfect. But so what? I didn't say that I trusted them a whole lot more.
The point is that government is every bit as corrupt, greedy, and "screw you"-y as business (plus they have the added benefit of being much more incompetant). So I don't want to give them more power and such.
So you want the compitent people trying to screw you rather then the incompitent?
The whole point of democracy is they if someone screws you, they loose their job. It works (for the most part). "Good" goveremnt is slightly more likely then "bad" goverment.
The problem with CEO's, is they if they DON'T scew over the customers/employees/other companies, they loose their job. "Bad" CEO's are far more likely then "good" CEO's.
So yes, i trust (democratic) goverments over corperations simply because they have less insentive to mess with you. If we could vote for CEO's, then i'd change my mind.
'Small gov't' is something that could be kinda skewed, no? I mean, in the case of a dictator or a tyrant, many would consider that a 'Gov't of One'. In those cases, yeah, it's pretty likely it's a corrupt system - what with the people callin' the shots totally beholden to one dood's whims. Anyhoo, I just think there are some additional factors that need to be considered before ya get all 'big gov't is less corrupt than small gov't'. Cuz 'small gov't' doesn't necessarily mean a large body of individuals overseeing limited power.
But that isn't actually borne out in the evidence.
How so? Plenty of governments are corrupt: big, small, far reaching, unintrustive, North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa (I'm not sure about Australia and I guess Antartica isn't). You have/had people in the streets protesting corrupt governments a few months ago (Greece and Thailand, right).
So to be clear, are you saying that governments don't tend towards corruption? And there's evidence somewhere...
The whole point of democracy is they if someone screws you, they loose their job. It works (for the most part). "Good" goveremnt is slightly more likely then "bad" goverment.
The problem with CEO's, is they if they DON'T scew over the customers/employees/other companies, they loose their job. "Bad" CEO's are far more likely then "good" CEO's.
So yes, i trust (democratic) goverments over corperations simply because they have less insentive to mess with you. If we could vote for CEO's, then i'd change my mind.
First of all, its much easier to get rid of a CEO than a President/political leader.
Government is also decided by common people in mass. So you shouldn't put too much faith there. Just look at our political arena (if you're American). The biggest problem with democracy is that it assumes competence of the voting group. Whatever your political views, I'm sure you can see that politics is just about popularity and fooling the people.
So I'm not saying I trust businesses like I do my friend. I just don't think there's a huge difference between executives and politicians.
Edit:
And for how corruption is just accepted in government, look at earmarks. Basically you're just buying votes. "Yeah, I'll vote for this bill, just make sure there's a stipulation about my unrelated project getting money." And people just accept it!
I want an external combustion engine.
So get a rocket, or a hot air ballon.
I want an external combustion engine.
So get a rocket, or a hot air ballon.
I'm thinking something powered by my flatulence.
So to be clear, are you saying that governments don't tend towards corruption? And there's evidence somewhere...
Any power currupts.
First of all, its much easier to get rid of a CEO than a President/political leader.
Not that i noticed. The CEO of Walmart has been screwing people for years, but they havn't been voted out, in fact, they got raises. It litteraly takes an ocean of oil to get a CEO fired. Political leaders have trouble using campaign funs to go to a stip club without getting ousted. Big difference.
Edit:
And for how corruption is just accepted in government, look at earmarks. Basically you're just buying votes. "Yeah, I'll vote for this bill, just make sure there's a stipulation about my unrelated project getting money." And people just accept it!
At least it's buying votes from the local people.
Any power currupts.
Thank you! That's been my point. Don't trust people.
Not that i noticed. The CEO of Walmart has been screwing people for years, but they havn't been voted out, in fact, they got raises. It litteraly takes an ocean of oil to get a CEO fired. Political leaders have trouble using campaign funs to go to a stip club without getting ousted. Big difference.
So are you comparing CEOs to lesser politicians? I'm saying its easier for a CEO to be fire than the President. If you want to compare to Senators or lesser politicians, I'm sure there's plenty of lesser level executives that can fit that bill.
But the point remains the same, they're all corrupt so why trust one group?
At least it's buying votes from the local people.
See, people accept corruption when it comes to politicians. When senators pass bills with loads of special interests and earmarks wasting lots of money, people will say "that's just how Washington works". So you don't have that system where people vote out corrupt politicians because corruption is expected.
But dude, if you have an idealized image of government, I'm probably not going to change your mind.
One of the touted solutions is electric cars, though, Idolis. Cars you need to plug in at night just to drive - in all climates during all times of the year. They'll leach their power from the current grids (mostly powered by coal, no?) and add strain there. So a plug for a diesel isn't a big deal (they're also used for gasoline engines in certain areas) when we're looking for an alternative, all things considered.
So change the power grid. All that money going to oil drilling NEEDS to go to developing better electric grid and electric cars.
As to CEOS. Yeah sorry no Ill trust politicians above those greedy bastards who only get their jobs by backstabbing others and raping the resources of other places. I'll trust a CEO when they start paying fair wages for work everywhere. When a CEO signs off on paying people in other countries the same wages they do here in the states. Big government is better because a larger government is better equiped to deal with crisis and has the clout to stamp down the companies when they screw people over. Small government does not work we have tried it before. It does not function and cannot do what has to be done.
I must say though that the trend is changing because when I travel from upper Wisconsin through Illinois to St. Louis, MO, I pass at least 5 wind farms and it is beautiful.
But I agree that much of the hype over electric cars is just that people don't see the pollution. Out of sight, out of mind.
Oh, I realize a lot of people argue for electric cars but when you learn that some portion (not sure what the exact number is) of electric power comes from coal it just doesn't seem to me that electric or plug in cars of any kind are a real solution until we start really putting effort into solar and wind power.
I must say though that the trend is changing because when I travel from upper Wisconsin through Illinois to St. Louis, MO, I pass at least 5 wind farms and it is beautiful.
Here in FL its a lot of solar pannels and other such projects but yes we need more green energy plants. There is NO reason for us to still be using coal and gasoline.
So change the power grid. All that money going to oil drilling NEEDS to go to developing better electric grid and electric cars.
Just change the power grid, eh? And while we're at it, I'll just up an' learn to crap gold.
Nothing is as simple as it sounds. We're quite a ways a way from realistic change of the level we need. In the meantime, that oil drillin' money needs to keep drillin' oil for fuel and the myriad other uses we have for the stuff. Until some real, viable alternatives are here, crippling ourselves in the vain hope that throwing money at science in epic amounts will miracle us a ... miracle, I guess, is not a solution. We do need to get started, though. And soon. But taking something we desperately need away without a replacement is silly. Plain and simple. We may not like the stuff, be we damn sure need it.
Yeah sorry no Ill trust politicians above those greedy bastards who only get their jobs by backstabbing others and raping the resources of other places.
Wha? It sounds to me like you're sayin' you'll trust politicians over politicians. They're guilty of everything you're pinning on execs. And more. Cases in point:
Politicians are trying to divert fresh water from the Great Lakes to aid their voting public in the hope of retaining power.
During elections, partys have placed decoy candidates to play upon a region's racism in order to cripple the campaign of an adversary.
Obama's seat was up for sale after he was elected.
And on and on ...
I must say though that the trend is changing because when I travel from upper Wisconsin through Illinois to St. Louis, MO, I pass at least 5 wind farms and it is beautiful.
That's just ... insane. Wind farms, to me, are anything but beautiful. They utterly destroy the area they're placed in and, I'm sorry, but a giant Wal Mart fan just can't hold a candle to even a single tree.
My fiancee works for an energy company. They're required by law to have a certain percentage of their power derived from stuff like wind and solar power. Wind is about the least efficient source we've got. It takes massive, massive amounts of the ugly turbines to produce any real amount of energy. And if you're concerned about the environment and it's the reason Green is on your mind, wind farms are about the worst thing you can ask for. You think huge fans placed all over the map - in water, out of water, on hills, on plains - doesn't have an impact on the environment? The habits of the native creatures? Ummm ... let's think about that for a second. The stuff just takes up too much space. So it's either we begin to live in 'em or we ask nature to live around 'em. Not a real choice, IMO. Of course we could just go the corn route and turn all of our grain farms into wind farms. But, then again, people do like to eat.
EDIT: And if we ever want those flyin' cars to be a reality, we can't have all these damn mega fans blowin' winds all over da damn place!
I haven't read the entire thread but I saw some arguements for bio diesel and I wanted to just say that diesel of any kind performs badly in cold weather. Bio diesel may work for those of you in warmer climates but where I live it gets down right cold in the winter. Having to leave your engine running or plugging your vehicle in to keep the grease warm just doesn't seem to me to solve the energy problem.
Where do you live Alaska?
I can guarantee I can take the diesel van up to cleveland ohio with as worn out as the rings and cylinder walls are and leaking head gasket as it has (thus lowering compression and making it harder to start)
turn the glow plugs on, and fire it up, in the dead of winter just after heavy snows.
Also depending on the biodiesel used determines it's cold resistance. grease based can -sometimes- have problems (But then those tanks usually have heater in the conversion kit anyway so you don't have that issue. And trust me it heats the grease up to operating temp almost instantly even in below 0 conditions).
But honestly it would have to be so damn cold out to make a diesel not start that, you'd be in the arctic circle where it's just as likely that your gas car wouldn't start, or the car's oil is pretty much solidified sludge anyway.
So you'd be likely golden even if you used a grease based biodiesel.
Actually alot of major truck stops out in wisconsin, use bio diesel exclusively, year round.
Re Electricity. ZB the thing is we had a quadrillion opportunities to ween ourselves off of digging in the dirt for power. But we have repeatedly refused. It's quite clear we do not wish to -voluntarily- change or at least power and oil companies refuse to.
We've got Nuclear, Hydro Electric, Wind, Solar (which with the new solar cells we have we could power america with them, with a 90 mile by 90 mile collection grid out in nevada, year round or was it 90 sq mile. I'll have to look it up again. To say nothing of making it mandatory that every new home be built with em.) geothermal. But what have we done with it? Stick our head in the sand because "it's cheaper!" when in the long run it's not. It's only cheaper in the Short Term. Ie the term that CEOs care about.
That's just ... insane. Wind farms, to me, are anything but beautiful. They utterly destroy the area they're placed in and, I'm sorry, but a giant Wal Mart fan just can't hold a candle to even a single tree.
My fiancee works for an energy company. They're required by law to have a certain percentage of their power derived from stuff like wind and solar power. Wind is about the least efficient source we've got. It takes massive, massive amounts of the ugly turbines to produce any real amount of energy. And if you're concerned about the environment and it's the reason Green is on your mind, wind farms are about the worst thing you can ask for. You think huge fans placed all over the map - in water, out of water, on hills, on plains - doesn't have an impact on the environment? The habits of the native creatures? Ummm ... let's think about that for a second. The stuff just takes up too much space. So it's either we begin to live in 'em or we ask nature to live around 'em. Not a real choice, IMO. Of course we could just go the corn route and turn all of our grain farms into wind farms. But, then again, people do like to eat.
EDIT: And if we ever want those flyin' cars to be a reality, we can't have all these damn mega fans blowin' winds all over da damn place!
That's just it ZB. The wind farms I'm talking about are in the fields of farmers with corn (mostly) growing around them. There is no competition between wind farms and grain farms because in Illinois and Wisconsin they inhabit the same land.
They exist on already man altered farmland where there is no natural eco system to disrupt etc.
And we could do this, over and over and over without affecting the crop yields in significant ways, while generating -more income- for farmers etc, and supplementing the power grid.
Infact the best areas for windfarms is in our bread and corn baskets. (because we get the most wind there, and it can travel uninhibited by Forests, or mountains.)
Sure wind isn't the sole answer but it can generate ALOT of power for us.
So to be clear, are you saying that governments don't tend towards corruption?
Nope.
I can't even bring myself to respond anymore (YAY for you!).
Some of you are beyond help, and beyond redemption.
Sometimes I wonder who in the hell taught some of you the crap you regurgitate...
Nope.
Okay, good. I guess checking every now and then works wonders.
There are so many meatheads in this thread with meathead ideas and ignorant.
I can't even bring myself to respond anymore (YAY for you!).
Some of you are beyond help, and beyond redemption.
Sometimes I wonder who in the hell taught some of you the crap you regurgitate...
Respond anymore?
I know you may not be referring to me in this quote, but honestly you've yet to respond with any information beyond "You're wrong, but I won't tell you why" and "ahhh hahahahaha".
Luckily, we don't have to wonder who taught you the crap you regurgitate because everyone already knows about Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.
Not that I mind. Your claims aren't inherently bad, you just aren't backing anything up with reason or logic.
Not that an internet forum is the best place for that...
As far as my regurgitations I learned through reading several books on economy and governance, watching the news, and *gasp* thinking for myself rather than letting the news agencies and pontificators tell me what to think. Also, unlike some people, I am fairly reasonable and capable of changing my mind.
For example, this thread. I now know how slavery wasn't the cause of the civil war. Furthermore, I can logically and quickly explain it to others. That is what happens when people have actual discourse and present their ideas.
Fanatacism to ideologies and -isms (conservatism/liberalism/socialism/capitalism) is a dangerous and ultimately illogical road.
That's just it ZB. The wind farms I'm talking about are in the fields of farmers with corn (mostly) growing around them. There is no competition between wind farms and grain farms because in Illinois and Wisconsin they inhabit the same land.
Huh. Learn somethin' new every day. That's an idea that's pretty hard to have a problem with, IMO. Thanks for the info!
Politicians are trying to divert fresh water from the Great Lakes to aid their voting public in the hope of retaining power.
Not to say that i trust them, but at least the have to pretend to work for the people. Thus Politicians > CEO's.
Goverment needs to be keept in check by the public, companies need to be kept in check by the goverment.
The only way it would be better, is if workers could vote for CEO's, which would eliminate the need for unions, and a portion of the goverment.
Politicians are trying to divert fresh water from the Great Lakes to aid their voting public in the hope of retaining power.
Not to say that i trust them, but at least the have to pretend to work for the people. Thus Politicians > CEO's.
Goverment needs to be keept in check by the public, companies need to be kept in check by the goverment.
The only way it would be better, is if workers could vote for CEO's, which would eliminate the need for unions, and a portion of the goverment.
Pretty much yeah. And its impossible for the public to fire a CEO.
As to the civil war slavery was the root cause. The southerners were afraid that Lincoln would be anti slavery so the seceded before he even really took office. Simply because they were afraid of losing their forced labor. There were no other state rights at issue.
As to the people who say keep drilling, what will that solve? If we keep doing the same thing nothing will change ever. We have to start changing things over at some point, why not now? IF we never start changing the electic grid it wont get changed. I'd rather start funding the transfer NOW then wait anohter 10 20 or 30 years. Will it hurt in the short term yes, do we have to do it if we want to remain viable YES.
I'm saying that we need to break the power of oil at this moment. Also oil drilling is not safe as proven by the disaster in the gulf.
And its impossible for the public to fire a CEO.
The public yes, the shareholders no.
Shareholders have the right to vote for the executives of a campany, and even to petition for their removal. Companies are like countries in that regard. You get "citizenship" and the right to vote by purchasing shares. The more shares you own, the more your vote counts.
So yes, the CEOs are accountable to the public, but only to the public that owns shares in the company.
Look, we all know oil sucks. We all know we need something else. But it's not that simple. Oil has made everything around you. Unless there's a way to completely and instantly replace everything that runs on gas and everything that uses oil to manufacture or create products from it, we need the stuff. Plain and simple. Since we can't just snap our fingers and stop using oil, we need it until viable alternatives are as widely available as the stuff they're designed to replace. If you don't think we need to keep drilling, you are, quite simply, wrong.
Overall, aside from a few incidents (and wholly discounting the **** of Nigeria - which I'm comfortable doing since the reason oil isn't safe there is corruption of a level unseen most everywhere else), oil is pretty damned safe. It just is. And we need to keep drilling because we still need oil. Unless we can find some new form of energy and instantaneously implement it alongside a replacement for all other oil-based products, we just can't stop drilling. Should we also be looking into alternate supplies of energy and the other stuff? Hells to the yes. But we can't stop drilling. Not yet. It's unfortunate that oil is all we've really got right now, but it's also a fact. We are totally dependant upon the stuff. And you can't quit something like this cold turkey.
Look, we all know oil sucks. We all know we need something else. But it's not that simple. Oil has made everything around you. Unless there's a way to completely and instantly replace everything that runs on gas and everything that uses oil to manufacture or create products from it, we need the stuff. Plain and simple. Since we can't just snap our fingers and stop using oil, we need it until viable alternatives are as widely available as the stuff they're designed to replace. If you don't think we need to keep drilling, you are, quite simply, wrong.
Yeppers. I wouldn't argue with that one bit.
About Wind Farms:
The ones I've seen work best in small communities, you know, farm towns which sell their excess (a lot by the way to suburbs nearby). I don't see it replacing hydroelectric or nuclear power in major cities but its cool that less populated areas don't have to draw on those power sources.
Also farmers and those suburbs are lot more willing to have a windfarm in their area than they are a nuclear powerplant in their back yard.
The only problem I have with nuclear power is everyone wants to put them in the middle of Nowheresville. I say, if you want nuclear power, put them in the middle of the city they are supplying. If they are as safe as people say they are, no one should have a problem with that.
If we keep doing the same thing nothing will change ever.
This is probably the most retarded statment I have seen in the past six months. Hell, even if it was true, it completly invalidates your whole argument.
As to the civil war slavery was the root cause. ... There were no other state rights [besides slavery] at issue.
Except the state issue of determining who they sell their wares to. The politicians of the North forced the South to sell to them rather than their previous clients; much to the detriment of their coffers.
Effectively, what qualified as the "CEO's" of the North bribed politicians into passing legislation that screwed over the "CEOs" of the South.
Slavery was an issue. Not the only issue. Just like gravity is an issue in plane crashes.
Overall, aside from a few incidents (and wholly discounting the **** of Nigeria - which I'm comfortable doing since the reason oil isn't safe there is corruption of a level unseen most everywhere else), oil is pretty damned safe. It just is. And we need to keep drilling because we still need oil. Unless we can find some new form of energy and instantaneously implement it alongside a replacement for all other oil-based products, we just can't stop drilling. Should we also be looking into alternate supplies of energy and the other stuff? Hells to the yes. But we can't stop drilling. Not yet. It's unfortunate that oil is all we've really got right now, but it's also a fact. We are totally dependant upon the stuff. And you can't quit something like this cold turkey.
Look, we all know oil sucks. We all know we need something else. But it's not that simple. Oil has made everything around you. Unless there's a way to completely and instantly replace everything that runs on gas and everything that uses oil to manufacture or create products from it, we need the stuff. Plain and simple. Since we can't just snap our fingers and stop using oil, we need it until viable alternatives are as widely available as the stuff they're designed to replace. If you don't think we need to keep drilling, you are, quite simply, wrong.
We can't afford to do both. IF we keep drilling oil we wil NEVER develope the alternatives. And yes we can quit cold turkey if we have a plan. You start developing electric cars, at the same time you spend money on switching gass stations to electricity and upgrading the power grid. Rather than drilling more oil you use the strategic reserve until the new plans are in place. If we just keep drilling we will never develop those alternatives because we have no incentive to. Doing the same thing will get you the same results. And oil isn't safe there was also the exon valdeze spill, and other spills so no oil is not safe at all.
The fact is until we shift the money around nothing will happen.
As to the civil war my heart bleeds for the south they were using slave labor they were lucky to be able to sell their goods at all.
No, I have no idea what I'm trying to say. Attempts at coherence, on this fine morn, are futile.
As to the civil war my heart bleeds for the south they were using slave labor they were lucky to be able to sell their goods at all.
Lucky that the rest of the world, INCLUDING THE NORTH, didn't have the conviction to simply stop funding their slave-powered culture by not buying cotton from them? I don't think that's luck, my friend.
The market would have corrected the morals if the people purchasing the goods that were known to be slave-made would have stopped buying those goods.
"We should really stop the South from keeping slaves! ... Oh have you seen my new cotton sheets?"
And while we're on the subject:
"We should stop drilling for oil NOW.... Have you seen my new [plastic-based anything]? Do you like my oil-powered car? Do you want to go to any location where anything happens, ever?"
If you really think we should stop using fossil fuels, don't go anywhere and don't do anything that costs money. Farm/manufacture your own goods, don't use electricity, and for god's sake don't pay the amoral oil-companies any more money.
Otherwise, admit that there are more logical solutions to the problems you're putting forth as world-breaking and realize that the only way things will change successfully is either a civil war or a very, very, slow evolution to a non-oil-based society. And since anyone who didn't want to use Oil would lose the war... just wait for it.
If we stopped drilling and processing oil immediately, the civilization we live in would collapse.
If you want to reduce oil usage, stop eating meat:
"if Americans were to reduce meat consumption by just 20 percent it would be as if we all switched from a standard sedan — a Camry, say — to the ultra-efficient Prius."
If all americans reduce meat consumption by 20% its the same as 100% of them switching to a Prius (from a Camry, but still). Alternately if 20% of the population switches to eating no meat...
Edit: And just to be clear, this is store bought meat. Hunting is still environmentally friendly. Especially if you jog/bike to the hunting ground. And hunt with a knife while naked.
If we stopped drilling and processing oil immediately, the civilization we live in would collapse.
Yep. Admittedly very sad, but also very true. At least we ain't in Nigeria, eh? Those poor bastards. Or the Gulf. More poor bastards. I don't buy gas from BP stations (haven't in years) nor do I buy gas from Shell. I get gas from Sheetz or them GetGo things (for the discount on gas and groceries). I don't know whether they get their gas from either of those two abominable companies, though. And, if they don't, I don't know how abominable the companies they do get it from are. Oh well. Such is life.
"We should really stop the South from keeping slaves! ... Oh have you seen my new cotton sheets?"
And while we're on the subject:
"We should stop drilling for oil NOW.... Have you seen my new [plastic-based anything]? Do you like my oil-powered car? Do you want to go to any location where anything happens, ever?"
Ah, people. And yet, we're the most rational of all.
Ah, people. And yet, we're the most rational of all.
There isn't much we can compare ourselves to anyway ;P
Evil Vegan if we keep drilling nothing will ever change and the world will in probably less than 2-3 hundred years be unlivable.
Will - this is entirely untrue, as borne out by history. We've developed solar energy, nuclear energy, built plants of all types WHILE continuing to drill. Stating that nothing will ever change when it has been is just.... well - erroneous, at best.
Evil Vegan if we keep drilling nothing will ever change and the world will in probably less than 2-3 hundred years be unlivable.
Will - this is entirely untrue, as borne out by history. We've developed solar energy, nuclear energy, built plants of all types WHILE continuing to drill. Stating that nothing will ever change when it has been is just.... well - erroneous, at best.
Especially considering the time we live in. The amount of accumulated human knowledge doubles every six months, and technology has been growing at an exponential rate. If we don't kill ourselves off in the next century we could easily reverse the damage we've done to the Earth and learn enough from the process to figure out how to terraform other worlds.
Evil Vegan if we keep drilling nothing will ever change and the world will in probably less than 2-3 hundred years be unlivable. The strategic reserve has more than enough oil for a decade, that should be enough time to switch over if we do a full out effort to do so. If we do not take such an effort we are doomed. I drive a fuel efficient car and drive as little as necessary. The fact is that we need change and we need it quickly. If we keep pumping money into oil NOTHING will ever change, we will still be stuck with an inefficient infastructure and method of energy production.
While I don't disagree that reliance on oil-for-energy could cause earth-wide calamity, I also realize that we are spending money on researching alternative fuels. Demanding that oil-barons stop being oil-barons and waste their money researching a way to stop themselves from being rich is just futile.
Alternate energy research is being done, and it is being done at a reasonable rate. Even after a complete 100% conversion to renewable energy sources we still wouldn't want to stop drilling for oil. We need oil to produce plastics. Plastic that is used to create solar panels and wind farms and tide-generators and whatever new tech comes out.
It isn't the drilling that's a problem (BP's current fiasco excluded). It's the inefficient way we use the finished product.
We need to be less reliant on foreign oil and less reliant on oil in general. We'll never be "non-reliant" on oil. We may find an alternate way to create or harvest oil, but currently it is just more efficient to just get it out of the ground.
The sky is not falling. The things you claim will never change are currently changing.
We need to find more efficient, less dangerous, more effective, and ecologically friendly ways of getting and using oil. We do not need to stop using it though. We need to redistribute some of the money being "pumped into oil", but we dont' need to stop. We may even need to increase spending on oil technology. While still spending money researching other technology.
You speak as if we can't spend money on multiple research fields...
Evil Vegan if we keep drilling nothing will ever change and the world will in probably less than 2-3 hundred years be unlivable. The strategic reserve has more than enough oil for a decade, that should be enough time to switch over if we do a full out effort to do so. If we do not take such an effort we are doomed. I drive a fuel efficient car and drive as little as necessary. The fact is that we need change and we need it quickly. If we keep pumping money into oil NOTHING will ever change, we will still be stuck with an inefficient infastructure and method of energy production.
While I don't disagree that reliance on oil-for-energy could cause earth-wide calamity, I also realize that we are spending money on researching alternative fuels. Demanding that oil-barons stop being oil-barons and waste their money researching a way to stop themselves from being rich is just futile.
Alternate energy research is being done, and it is being done at a reasonable rate. Even after a complete 100% conversion to renewable energy sources we still wouldn't want to stop drilling for oil. We need oil to produce plastics. Plastic that is used to create solar panels and wind farms and tide-generators and whatever new tech comes out.
It isn't the drilling that's a problem (BP's current fiasco excluded). It's the inefficient way we use the finished product.
We need to be less reliant on foreign oil and less reliant on oil in general. We'll never be "non-reliant" on oil. We may find an alternate way to create or harvest oil, but currently it is just more efficient to just get it out of the ground.
The sky is not falling. The things you claim will never change are currently changing.
We need to find more efficient, less dangerous, more effective, and ecologically friendly ways of getting and using oil. We do not need to stop using it though. We need to redistribute some of the money being "pumped into oil", but we dont' need to stop. We may even need to increase spending on oil technology. While still spending money researching other technology.
You speak as if we can't spend money on multiple research fields...
NOT as fast as we need them to though. The research is moving too slowly and all it is is research so far too much of our power grid is still coal based, hybrids are still not affordable enough for most people and how long has that tech been out? We need more money put into research and less into oil. We spend way more on oil than we do alternatives even a quarter of the money being shifted would have dramatic reasults.
NOT as fast as we need them to though. The research is moving too slowly and all it is is research so far too much of our power grid is still coal based, hybrids are still not affordable enough for most people and how long has that tech been out? We need more money put into research and less into oil. We spend way more on oil than we do alternatives even a quarter of the money being shifted would have dramatic reasults.
Well... sure. We need to spend quite a bit more money on energy infrastructure before making any major switches. But its still not as dire as you're making it out to be. We can spend the extra cash on research while maintaining oil production. Oil production makes money, not costs money. We aren't pumping money into oil. Oil in some cases is pumping money into researching other fields.
I for one would prefer we get off of coal before we got off of oil. I live in a valley (knoxville, tn) and we get about 60% of our energy from very old coal plants (IE: grandfather clauses allow them to ignore many emmissions standards). About 4 out of 7 days of the week are "don't go outside if you have breathing problem" days. We get alerts on our radio stations about it.
It doesn't help that we have a lot of cars with pollution problems, but coal is the primary source of pollution in my area. Especially with our coal-ash spill recently. Nasty stuff.
I'll see that and raise you the following quote:
"The ocean will take care of this [oil spill] on its own if it was left alone and left out there. It's natural. It's as natural as the ocean water is." - Rush Limbaugh
I'll see that and raise you the following quote:
"The ocean will take care of this [oil spill] on its own if it was left alone and left out there. It's natural. It's as natural as the ocean water is." - Rush Limbaugh
Wait people pay attention to him? He spouts nonsense.
As to coal yeah no excuse for their being coal plants anywhere at this point in time. I just dont see enough being done to switch from oil and coal. We need more money into those as quickly as we can. The more oil we drill the worse off we are in my opinion.
But we don't have legislation to stop old coal plants from polluting. We don't have emmissions standards on cars. We have a large number of rednecks who think that any amount of trying to stop the world around us from dying is a bad thing. And those rednecks vote for other rednecks that don't try to save us from lung cancer caused by pollution. (I could care less about global warming, there are more immediate impactful drawbacks to pollution, including efficiency, cost, and health issues)
And yea... People pay attention to him. A lot of people. Mostly stupid people.
You know, if you actually have any arguments, like saying WHY things should go the way you want, you should really state them.
As to coal yeah no excuse for their being coal plants anywhere at this point in time. I just dont see enough being done to switch from oil and coal. We need more money into those as quickly as we can. The more oil we drill the worse off we are in my opinion.
Simply put, america has 2-3 times the coal energy as it does oil energy. And it's actually fairly clean now(assuming a modern plant, old plants suck).
Anyways, eventually coal/oil will get more expesive as it get harder to find/dig/drill, and the other options will take over. For example, oil cost about 2.50 a gallon and bio-diesal cost about $3 a gallon, so it's really not as far off as you might imagine.
I'll see that and raise you the following quote:
"The ocean will take care of this [oil spill] on its own if it was left alone and left out there. It's natural. It's as natural as the ocean water is." - Rush Limbaugh
And Rush is correct, is he not?
And yea... People pay attention to him. A lot of people. Stupid people.
So...
You are calling me stupid?
That's a COC violation...
"The ocean will take care of this [oil spill] on its own if it was left alone and left out there. It's natural. It's as natural as the ocean water is." - Rush Limbaugh
I agree with that nutcase on something? The world is inverted: up is blue, the chicken barks at midnight, gjklhb gkj, cfjg klbnkgn kvcvbn... 
And yea... People pay attention to him. A lot of people. Stupid people.
So...
You are calling me stupid?
That's a COC violation...
Indirectly, I guess I was. I assure you it wasn't deliberate though, as I don't think you're stupid. Quite the contrary acutally. I just happen to think you're purposefully abrasive and occasionally obtuse. But you're often funny and I quite like your panache!
And also, indirectly I was calling myself stupid because by quoting him I was paying attention to him.
Feel free to report me if you like, but really I think that's unnecessary. I do think a lot of stupid people do pay attention to him though. I do not think only stupid people listen to him.
Sorry, if I overtly implied you were stupid, it was unintentional. I will edit my post if you like...
I'll see that and raise you the following quote:
"The ocean will take care of this [oil spill] on its own if it was left alone and left out there. It's natural. It's as natural as the ocean water is." - Rush Limbaugh
And Rush is correct, is he not?
Correct? Technically sure. It's just a stupid and pointless thing to say. It's about as correct as saying slavery solely caused the civil war.
AIDS will cure itself when the human race dies out.
Cancer patients don't need to see doctors because they're going to die regardless.
And even if it wasn't a natural disaster we're talking about, that's a lot of lost $$$$!
I just wish we could skim it off the top and still use it. I don't like the concept of just dispersing it really. Waste waste waste!
And yea... People pay attention to him. A lot of people. Stupid people.
So...
You are calling me stupid?
That's a COC violation...
Indirectly, I guess I was. I assure you it wasn't deliberate though, as I don't think you're stupid. Quite the contrary acutally. I just happen to think you're purposefully abrasive and occasionally obtuse. But you're often funny and I quite like your panache!
And also, indirectly I was calling myself stupid because by quoting him I was paying attention to him.
Feel free to report me if you like, but really I think that's unnecessary. I do think a lot of stupid people do pay attention to him though. I do not think only stupid people listen to him.
Sorry, if I overtly implied you were stupid, it was unintentional. I will edit my post if you like...
I don't like to report posts and only very rarely have done so.
IMHO, Rush is a highly intelligent man. The truth hurts and people don't like to be hurt... that's why a lot of people don't like him.
I'll see that and raise you the following quote:
"The ocean will take care of this [oil spill] on its own if it was left alone and left out there. It's natural. It's as natural as the ocean water is." - Rush Limbaugh
And Rush is correct, is he not?
Correct? Technically sure. It's just a stupid and pointless thing to say. It's about as correct as saying slavery solely caused the civil war.
AIDS will cure itself when the human race dies out.
Cancer patients don't need to see doctors because they're going to die regardless.
And even if it wasn't a natural disaster we're talking about, that's a lot of lost $$$$!
I just wish we could skim it off the top and still use it. I don't like the concept of just dispersing it really. Waste waste waste!
Obviously, you take things out of context and only quote the parts you want to draw attention to.
I listen to Rush's show all the time, and he did indeed say that, but only as a response to the enviro-weenies spreading their disinformation about oil and drilling in general.
And yea... People pay attention to him. A lot of people. Stupid people.
So...
You are calling me stupid?
That's a COC violation...
Indirectly, I guess I was. I assure you it wasn't deliberate though, as I don't think you're stupid. Quite the contrary acutally. I just happen to think you're purposefully abrasive and occasionally obtuse. But you're often funny and I quite like your panache!
And also, indirectly I was calling myself stupid because by quoting him I was paying attention to him.
Feel free to report me if you like, but really I think that's unnecessary. I do think a lot of stupid people do pay attention to him though. I do not think only stupid people listen to him.
Sorry, if I overtly implied you were stupid, it was unintentional. I will edit my post if you like...
I don't like to report posts and only very rarely have done so.
IMHO, Rush is a highly intelligent man. The truth hurts and people don't like to be hurt... that's why a lot of people don't like him.
Rush is too blind to know the truth. The world is changing conservative mind sets are counter productive. Rush and those like him want to keep us in the 1950s I despise the man for his social views as much as anything else. No one who listens to him has any credibility on any issue as far as Im concerned.
No one who listens to him has any credibility on any issue as far as Im concerned.
And anyone who spouts off ignorant and radical ideas, like you, has even less credibility.
As far as I'm concerned.
No one who listens to him has any credibility on any issue as far as Im concerned.
And anyone who spouts off ignorant and radical ideas, like you, has even less credibility.
As far as I'm concerned.
You're both doing this right now, and it's hilarious.
I don't know who this Rush fellow is, but I think this quote would be silly regardless of context.
FYI, a broken pipe is not a natural disaster and I don't think ocean can take care of toxic substances that were laying deep underground since they were formed.
No one who listens to him has any credibility on any issue as far as Im concerned.
And anyone who spouts off ignorant and radical ideas, like you, has even less credibility.
As far as I'm concerned.
You're both doing this right now, and it's hilarious.
I don't know who this Rush fellow is, but I think this quote would be silly regardless of context.
FYI, a broken pipe is not a natural disaster and I don't think ocean can take care of toxic substances that were laying deep underground since they were formed.
Rushs point is that oil is a natural substance, a product of the earth. And that nature can, and does, clean itself...
It was a response to the enviro-weenies and other meatheads crying to stop oil drilling, because oil is bad and evil and will destroy the planet.
Rush is critical of the gov't as well as BP for the bungling of the clean-up and stopping the spill.
*shrug*
AIDS will cure itself when the human race dies out.
Not true, lot's of other creatures can get AIDs.
IMHO, Rush is a highly intelligent man. The truth hurts and people don't like to be hurt... that's why a lot of people don't like him.
I don't like him because he's a hatefull evil person, and he get's paid to make other people hatefull. He's certainly one of the more manipulitive persons i've heard, and that does take a far degree of intelligence, but it's hardly a good idea to listent to him.
And anyone who spouts off ignorant and radical ideas, like you, has even less credibility.
Glen Beck spouts off the most ingorant and radical ideas i've ever heard, and then he calls ideas like "take care of poor sick people" radical. Worse yet he then associates it with jesus, who spent alot of time helping and preaching to poor and sick people.
Personally i think he's just insane, which makes him slightly better the Rush, who is diliberatly misleading.
I don't like him because he's a hatefull evil person, and he get's paid to make other people hatefull. He's certainly one of the more manipulitive persons i've heard, and that does take a far degree of intelligence, but it's hardly a good idea to listent to him.
Glen Beck spouts off the most ingorant and radical ideas i've ever heard, and then he calls ideas like "take care of poor sick people" radical. Worse yet he then associates it with jesus, who spent alot of time helping and preaching to poor and sick people.
Personally i think he's just insane, which makes him slightly better the Rush, who is diliberatly misleading.
Heh...
That's your opinion.
I think differently.
*shrug*
I don't like him because he's a hatefull evil person, and he get's paid to make other people hatefull. He's certainly one of the more manipulitive persons i've heard, and that does take a far degree of intelligence, but it's hardly a good idea to listent to him.
Glen Beck spouts off the most ingorant and radical ideas i've ever heard, and then he calls ideas like "take care of poor sick people" radical. Worse yet he then associates it with jesus, who spent alot of time helping and preaching to poor and sick people.
Personally i think he's just insane, which makes him slightly better the Rush, who is diliberatly misleading.
Heh...
That's your opinion.
I think differently.
*shrug*
Well let me put it this way.
If i let Rush watch my dog, i expect to come home to it dead and have him sue me over it.
If i let Beck watch my dog, i expect to come home to it wearing a funny hat and him trying to talk to it.
And for the record, i get most of my news from BBC or other "out of state" sources.