jross

Well, we already did hit peak... in the US The rest of the world, it's a little more uncertain; geopolitical and economic uncertainties have affected oil production to the point that it's not entirely clear if we've hit the peak of the Hubbert curve or not. There's actually a chance we've already peaked in the last 5 years or so... I suppose we'll know in 5 more.

Post up!

No, you're a flaming retard, and people like you sicken me. Drill in the Arctic Refuge? That's the second dumbest solution to a made-up problem I've ever heard, right behind Shrub's little Social Security "Crisis". There's not enough oil in Alaska to make any difference in overall national production, I hate to break it to you. This isn't exactly another North Slope. Have you heard of a Hubbert curve? Oil is on it's way out, my friend. Rather than spending piles of cash to ruin the Arctic, we need to be investigating new energy production technologies. We've set the stage for a catalysmic energy crisis in the US... it's time people pulled their heads from the sand and started dealing in the facts.

You know what's really sad? How monkeyed up and uneducated the people of this country are. monkey drilling for oil in Alaska, monkey all the stupid pro-con arguements, everyone just shut the monkey up and go back to school, you dumb as mothermonkeying idiots. [edit: and monkey the poking filter, too]

Kevin's just mad that facts are sneaking into the forum ;)

Uh-huh, and that was just a tiny sapling behind you in the pic...

Will foodstamps make us buff like you?

I agree that part of it is that we live in an instant-gratification country. Personally, if I seem war-weary, it's because I don't support this sort of thing in the first place. While I know Charles is going to delight and call me a hippie, I'm a pacifist. I don't believe in going to war, and especially not for the reasons we gave. There are peaceful alternatives that we decided not to pursue. Unfortunately, the situation would probably result in violence one way or another, but we happened to choose a route that promotes much more than is neccisary. I've got alot of family in the military, so it really irks me to see the way the current administration just seems to feel that they're there to die. Like Patton pointed out, their job isn't to die for their country, it's to make the other side die for theirs. I guess I have alot of conflicting feelings, but first and foremost is this: we shouldn't be there.

Actually, it's attitudes like that which are screwing up our country. Disclaimers? stuff, he's just trying to clarify intent. Now, before you rail against the immigrants, go educate yourself on economics and the real world.

Wow.. um. yea, wow. Go look up the facts, seriously. That's all the breath I'm going to waste on this. Go look up the facts, go read, go digging around and see if you can find a reasonable facimilie of truth. Go beyond your little world, and expand your horizions abit. You sound like you need it.

I see Iraq every day There's that map on the wall.. and all those news pictures.. and other photos.. (I also have pictures taken by a cousin on the ground there.)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't over 60 people die last night from suicide bombings in just two cities in Iraq?

Why does our country insist on becoming more monkeyed up with each passing day?

I know, I've been following that since Cuba first asked the US to remove the Christmas display. It's just sad, both that we're the bastards now, and that most of the country probably doesn't have the intelligence to grasp it.

Believe me, I'm not one to judge others on looking funny. I looked into Nader 4 years ago, and looked into him again.. bit too "kooky" for me.

2-party bad, true. Nader also bad, true. Good ideas? Maybe, but crackpot. [edit: wow, I sound like "ogg make fire. warm." My brain really is frying What I meant to say was that the two party system really is bad, but there's no really good viable 3rd option. Nader has some good ideas, but he's really something of a crackpot at times, and I don't think giving him power is a great idea. Someone like Dean would be good, but good luck with that...]

AHH!! Get away, filthy beast!! (seriously, why would you vote for Nader? Some good ideas there, but more of a crackpot than even Bush.. and I hate Bush... I mean, I voted Kerry in this last election, but that was because I hate him slightly less than Bush.) ^-- Sorry, brain==dead, transmission frying brain.. hurts...

Okay, so we went in to "liberate" them. Fine. They've been liberated, but oh! wait! now they want to kill us. So... why are we sticking around? Seems like a waste of taxpayer money, and more importantly, our soldier's lives. The Iraqi's don't want us, so forget those . I'm just tired of reading about all these suicide attacks, and everything else. We pissed them off, they want us out, so why do we insist on staying? It's just a waste of lives to try and do so. Pull out, and leave them to their own devices -- they'll probably blame us for where they end up, but monkey it, they're going to blame us anyways. I know we're not really there because we give a crap about the Iraqis, but because we want their oil. Fine, secure the oil infrastructure, and leave the rest of the country to it's own devices. It's hard to go after a dug-in enemy, especially if it's a guerilla enemy in a heavily civilain area. So let's dig in outselves, but in an open area. They wanna monkey with us still? Fine, but they can't claim they were innocent bystanders when they come to our front door looking for trouble. monkey this stuff, man... geez.

I hate to say it, but the media is hardly liberal. Now, on the topic of the armored Humvees -- I think Charles is right, they're using the wrong vehicles for the mission. And that isn't something you can blame the Dems for since they still have alot of tanks and Bradleys. At least, I see a whole bunch across the street from my office so...

:(

Whoops, re-reading I think I got misinterpreted. "I don't think anyone did" was aimed at "I wasn't criticizing [...]", not "I just didn't [...]". And there's more than two sides. There's alot of people who think this whole war bit is nonesense...

I don't think anyone did O_o I know I was trying to point out the propaganda war everyone's in denial about. I don't think any of us "hippies" said the troops were in the wrong. It's combat, and the Iraqi combatants were just that -- combatants. You pick up a gun, you monkey with us, we monkey you back, and if we didn't, we monkeyed up.

They are, just not as groundpounders. There was at least one female combat pilot sent over when that B1-B wing shifted out to the Middle East at the start of all this.

Hey, we need to find recruits for the Navy somehow, don't we? Honestly, I think the issue is overrated. Who cares which way they swing? Just apply the same fraternization rules to them as to heterosexuals, they're normal human beings too.

Heh.. as the board's self-nominated Hippy, I just wanna throw something out: I agree with you I can see a use for words like "vision impaired" but not as a substitute for "blind". If you're blind, you're blind, get over it. If you're "vision impaired", you have trouble seeing. Get over it, four-eyes (j/k). I can see how African-Americans might want to identify themselves that way. To a certain degree, European-Americans robbed them of their identity when they shipped them over here as slaves. They (and Mexican-Americans, and Japanese-Americans, and ...) have pride in their ethnic heritage. It also moves away from the direct reference to skin-color, which has been quite historically problematic. Being PC does tend to get carried to far, but historically, people tend to forget with time. Once upon a time, being Irish in America was a huge stigma -- they were seen as underevolved monkeys, brutes, and ruffians (this was around the 1840s, if I recall right). In fact, the term "Scotch-Irish" was coined to describe the early immigrants, who were not, strictly speaking, Irish. The British had displaced a number of lowland Scots into Ulster, Ireland as "colonists". If memory serves, they were Protestants send by the Crown to work the land; the Irish (who were largely Catholic) were prohibited from owning or renting land -- they were in a position roughly similar to that of the Russian serfs. Alot of these displaced Scotsmen eventually immigrated to the US, where they took on the title of the "Ulster Irish". As the more "common" Irish began to immigrate to the US, public sentiment began to rise against them (much as it has risen against every other immigrant group who came in large numbers :-\) and so, to differentiate themselves from the actual Irishmen, the Ulster Irish adopted the title of the "Scotch-Irish". The term did not originally suggest a blend of the Irish and Scotch bloodlines, but rather connoted the Scotch origins of the original "Irish" immigrants. Of course, this term has morphed so that now it generally refers to those of both Scotch and Irish extraction; the original Scotch-Irish had little, if any, Irish blood in them.