The entire city of Copenhagen is powered by offshore wind turbines.

I didn't claim that it was ineffecient or impractical. However I do think it is fair to say that it is not the most effecient or most practical choice for all areas.

Most of Paris is powered by burning the rubbish/garbage it produces, what's your point?

:p

(Going to bed....zzzzz....exam in the morning....boooo)

Coal is probably the cheapest power source n the US, seeing as 50% of the US electricty is coal power.

Convenient that the U.S. contains 2/3 of the world's coal. 'Course, it's rather dirty...

Yep. And it really screws the eastern part of Canada the most.

Wookie06, I don't understand what memory you were going from, but here's several websites about the Iraq war. Go ahead and say they're all wrong or liberally biased, but the wikipedia entries list a lot of off-site links to articles and appear to be very in depth.

Wikipedia: Iraq Disarmament Crisis
Wikipedia: 2003 Invasion of Iraq

infoplease.com - Iraq War Timeline
Peace Lovers: Iraq War Timeline
MidEastWeb: Iraq Timeline

From my recollection of events, which appears to be faulty by your arbitrary and non-existant standards, I remember President Bush giving the WMD argument long before anything else and as the U.N. inspectors said there was nothing there, and apparently needing more of a case to persuade the American people, he stated that Iraq had conducted Nuclear Talks(confirmed as false), aided and abetted terrorists(only one terrorist was confirmed as having been in talks with Hussein, and it was later shown that was a one-time deal and that there was no further connection to terrorists), and finally made an appeal to pity and put forth the message that we were invading as humanitarians to spread liberty and democracy into the middle east.

Let me ask a question. Why do you(anyone who wants to respond) think that you can spread democracy? Historically has not democracy been a grass-roots movement that has sprung up in the nations that are now stably democratic? Are not the current democratic countries' governments different based on their local take on democracy?


To address the topic, I don't equate conservativism with stupidity. I have however, yet to see a classmate of mine(My classes are literaly all AP classes) be intelligent and a conservative. This may be because I unwittingly equate "liberalism" with intelligence, though I doubt that. There is only one person in any of my classes who might be an intelligent conservative. He is intelligent, of that there is no doubt, but he wont talk about his own views, always provides the excuse that he doesn't know enough to talk about anything, and I think that he is socially liberal yet economically conservative. He is the only intelligent conservative and probably one of the few intelligent, open-minded thinkers in my classes. In fact, if I could get him to talk, I wouldn't mind sitting during lunch and just listening to his ideas. The other conservative in the class is an idiot blowhard with little to know morals (let's blow up Africa to reduce AIDS, let's nuke the middle east, when I get into politics I'll be like everyone else, compromising most of my morals in order to get a few of my most important ones into the government) who speaks only conservative talking points. He plans on going into business or politics. To be honest, there are some stupid liberals in my class. There's this girl who's had sex, done drugs, drank alcohol, made out with other girls, and all for the experience! She's a vegan, among other things. And it all stems from her complete fakeness. She's a fake person who defines herself by the hot-button issues she supports and the kind of radical, anti-traditional lifestyle she lives. And she does all of it for attention. There is also a liberal crowd of Juniors who are liberal because it's a cool thing to do and fits in with their pseudo-emo lifestyle. However, I have yet to meet a conservative in real life who was at all an individual, open-minded, rationally analysing person. All of them except for that one kid have been sub-par intellectually and all of them have been socially conservative. And by "sub-par intellectually" I mean that I had already heard all of their talking points spewed out on the internet and from various talking heads. None of it was original, and none of it was well thought out. Alot of their arguments used the appeal to authority falacy by saying that, "well, the bible says that..." and not providing any information to set up the bible as a credible or reliable source of information. So yeah, I've found the conservatives at my school to be lacking in the open-minded, rationally analysing department. But this is all a personal experience. I hope that I meet intelligent, rational conservatives in college. Then maybe I could finally feel like participating in a debate that isn't full of logical fallacies and regurgitations of what dear old mom or dad said.

Space Elevator.

Another way to get rid of the nuclear waste would be to drop it into the pacific ocean approximately at the subduction zone where the pacific plate dives under the North American plate. The nuclear waste would be pulled down under the crust into the mantle, where it would be melted and dispersed. There's a lot of radioactivity down there anyway from the core, so the nuclear waste would not pose a signifigant risk once its absorbed into the mantle.

A geology teacher that I had a few semesters ago proposed this idea in class once.

Now that is an intriguing solution...

The main thing that prevents us from recycling uranium fuel is the various efforts toward the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons. The same treaty prevents the further purification of uranium from the 5% used in fuels to the 50%-90% used in weapons, which would further reduce the amount of waste generated by a reactor.

I appreciate the links but I don't feel the need to read up on something I clearly understand. The reasons for going to war were always clear to me. I do, of course, encourage others to study the issue if they clearly misunderstand it like many here.



"Democracy", a word that is so incorrectly used now days, is usually seen as a result of a grass roots movement, I guess. However, it also clearly can come about as a result of military action. We've seen this in countries like Germany and Japan.

Germany was a democracy after the fall of the German empire, brought about by the German revolution of 1918. But (one of) the reasons that Hitler was democratically elected was because the German people didn't like democracy and the multitude of weak leaders it provided them with. The German people wanted a strong leader, not democracy. Democracy is not right for everyone.

Wookie: We're aren't talking about your perceptions or your value-added conclusions, but what the administration said.

Fleischer, October 2002 From the White House

Fleischer, October 2002 From the White House

Fleischer, December 2002 From the White House

Fleischer, April 2003 From the White House

Wolfowitz, May 2003: From the Pentagon

I can't believe you think bringing democracy to Iraq was even a minor justification, considering the administration refused to commit to the idea up to and through the beginning of the war, even denying that the US could create a democracy at all. Note also that the above quotes were all that I could extract from more than a year's worth of press conferences, well over a hundred in total.

Also, both Germany and Japan were democracies before the US took over. Mort covered Germany, while Japan's democratic past is related here.

Look, guys, an mass murder in Iraq lost his country. There is no evidence so far of WMD's. That's it. Let's quit arguing and second guessing motives. It happened. It may have been a mistake, but there's nothing we can do about it now and it's being taken care of. It's time to move on. There are other, much more important things in this world.

Now go get a life and read up on E3 or something.

I'll type when I won't have posts filled with [expletive deleted]'s.

But surely you agree, that this topic is getting a bit old... We've only had 30,000 threads on it.

What there needs to be is the OMEGA THREAD on this topic. The one comprehensive thread that finally gets the urge to discuss the war out. Maybe a sub politics forum! I dunno.

And Obi, can't you for once follow your own name, and not post whatever comes to your mind that second.

Obi: Not until those responsible are replaced by Democrats. Holding our officials accountable for their ****ups is crucial if we're going to elect a functioning government in the next year or three.

Well, Obi is sort of right. Regardless of why, the important thing now is that the British and American soldiers stay in Iraq. A lot of those opposed to the war now want to withdraw soldiers as quickly as possible, and that would be catastrophic for Iraq. Iraq is already on the brink of civil war, and a large scale withdrawl would leave the Iraqis defenseless. British and American troops need to stay there, if for no other reason than so insurgents attack them rather than Iraqis. It is British and American soldiers that should be dying, not Iraqis. They need to stay, and for quite some time.

Sorry if anyone misunderstood me, I wasn't trying to bring up whether the justification for Iraq was right or wrong, I was merely addressing what exactly the government's justification was.

All hail the supposedly flawless jackasses.

I hate people who hate/make fun of/insult others just because of their political demonination.

It's stupid.

*eyes post above his*

Yet, I wasn't. This is about his implication that Democrats are always the superior choice.

You are being sarcastic right?

Democrats kinda sorta voted for the war too. They, you know, are sorta in positions of power too. If they, wanted to like, oh, I don't know, actually do something, they could have maybe done something like VOTE AGAINST BUSH'S ACTIONS. Is it just me, or is someone some pretty glaring facts?

I know I irritate some of you guys here because it seems like I don't provide facts or explain my positions. The reasons for that are that I usually don't have the energy to get into lenghty debates anymore, they're usually nearly pointless anyway, and I don't feel as strong a need to since things are generally going my way now anyway. I still feel justified in voicing my opinions but I also realize that I'm not necessarily going to sway any opinions because I don't back much up. Just to make it clear that I understand that and I don't expect anyone to accept what I say just because.

I mean, really, aren't these debates getting so old now? Aren't most of you tired of rehashing the same old crap?

Sarcastic, sure. It's worth pointing out, though, that the Republicans have controlled the all three branches since 2000 (except for a few months in 2001, where the Senate was blue). They've used this rare opportunity to do... what? With their unlimited power to enact their agenda, show the quality of their ideas, et cetera? Be colossal ****ups, that's what. The only reasonable response is send them back into exile. Hopefully, after a couple stunning rejections at the polls, a better side of Republican party will wrest control from the current neocon/fundie cluster**** extravaganza.

You replace people who screw up, and you aren't going to be able to replace them with Republicans without altering the GOP leadership, and you can't do that until they start losing.

I'm not thrilled with the Democrats, but they've been irrelevent for the past 5 years except as ineffectual talking heads. It'd be a better government if they had some power again.

Wookie: Quite the contrary. I know your positions are baseless and inexplicable. :p

And these discussions can and do go places. You just have to keep up.

I can keep up. I just don't care to. Anyone that remembers me from my old debating days knows I can easily keep pace with the best opposition.

I disagree that the Republicans have screwed up in actual policy. I seriously agree that they are screwing up in that they aren't acting like they're in the majority. They need to take charge and quit trying to make friends. The people that elected these guys sent them there to do a job but they're pissing most of their electorate off by not playing hardball. I think that's about to change but we'll see.

Wookie, didnt you serve in Iraq? Just curious.

Also, I'm sick of the Republicans still acting like they're the minority too. All this whining about Judicial filibusters is ridiculous. The democrats blocked 10, TEN!!!!!, nominees out of 230+. How is that unreasonable? The ten that were blocked probably deserved to be blocked. There's no reason for wanna-be President Frist to whine about the Democratic Filibuster! It's not unAmerican to question authority, especially the appointment of people who hold vast amounts of legal power. Washington political power plays piss me off. I cant wait until both parties have exasperated the electorate to the point when they are driven out of power by a 3rd or even 4th party option.... isnt likely to happen anytime soon, however.

....and now for my obligatory, Death to the Right!

Wookie: That's interesting, because the left blogs are filled daily with accounts of Republican-crafted outrages that seem calculated make enemies. I'd chalk up our government's inaction to having no ideas instead of some befuddled benevolence. We get a lazily evil pro-business agenda domestically because all the energy was expended in grandiose plans for leveraging our influence overseas. Lethargic Republican staffers plagiarize the old school Reagan playbook: debt, deregulation, and pork.

With bones thrown to the religious right, of course, which, after a decade of sweating it out as political grunts, only serve to infuriate them, particularly when the selections only amplify how disconnected the generals are. Not doing something about abortion, gay marriage, prayer and creationism in schools, etc. is hard to justify after a half decade of majority rule, and violates the implicit agreement the Right reached with evangelicals.

Meanwhile, fiscal conservatives are driven to tears and inarticulate rants raged through grinding teeth. Also murder.

So, how I see it, the Republican strategy is centered on appeasing their various discontented factions whose faces they've stepped on. Neoconservatives and business types are certain, although the consequences of current pandering will necessitate extravagant pandering in the future, leading to the destruction of our economy and nation. Almost as certain are the militias in Wyoming, because the AWB was actually assaulting their mothers. Almost because they only want the guns to protect their mothers from the Mexicans, who Bush is fine with.

The religious right's allegiance depends on how successful the current smear of liberal activist athestical judges goes. The cluelessness displayed in Schiavo's case and DeLay's subsequent (and ongoing) flaming kamikaze spiral of doom into the zeppelin of Right self-righteousness and moral integrity gives me hope. If the GOP can't convince evangelicals that their abandonment is the result of the judicial tying their hands, rather than haughty disdain, it's over. The Democrats can talk pretty and patronize as well or better.

The Social Security thing, near as I can figure, was the Frankensteinian melding of ideology (FDR boo hiss) with political grandstanding (because fiscal conservatives will love us now). They started going wrong when they confused fiscal conservatives with 14-year-old libertarians.

Personally I expect a massive backlash, a enormous Democratic victory, and a permanent progressive majority, and candy.

I don't why I just wrote all this down.

Surely just 'atheist' is an adequate adjective?
'Atheistic' I've seen quite a few times and it's somewhat unnecessary, but 'atheistical' is just too much.

Yes and will again soon (September-October time frame).



The problem is that these judges will have the votes to be confirmed. The Republicans have offered ample time to debate the nominees. It is rediculous and unprecedented for the minority party to filibuster nominees. There has never been a super majority requirement for them. Fortunately it looks like the Republicans are about the reach down and grab 'em. About time.

I think the whole victory thing will happen. However, the democrats are just as corrupt as the Republicans; they just pander to different groups of people. I.e. they suck just as bad, but in a different way.

What really needs to happen is have a good third party with some balls to stand up to both of the extreme sides of the spectrum, and do what is right but may not be popular or profitable. Leaders would be nice; people who make policies that would produce what would be best for the country would be nice. And I don't see that on either side.

Let's play magic make-believe and pretend all of Bush's actions have been awesome. Still, the reason he was voted in may have come down to something as moronic as gay marrage, and his relegious stance, and not his real policies. He is extremly unpopular, and some here like to think that it's great to be a cowboy and do whatever the hell we want. Ironically, that is the cause of the current state of terrorism in the first place, but some of us don't like to study history (I'm looking a you, supporters of the war). Also, this is not what we want, and the war is far from popular, and has become ver divisive. Bush hasn't been a good president; a good president can do what is right, but at the same time convice his constituents that it is right as well. Look at his approval rating; look the approval of the Iraq war. My point is that he basically has screwed the next candidate for the election... well, if the democrats weren't the democrats...

The Democrats also seem to have boiled down to a bunch of left wing nuts. Kerry was the best you could do? A guy who acted like a complete moron, who was famous for not being confident is his decisions? He was the best? That would be enough to rest my case. But also, living in a "blue" state of California, I can say I hate democrat policy, if again California is any indcation of it. Give mystical money to the poor and downtrodden, free healthcare for all, stop the opressive white man, cops are evil! Criminals are all either innocent or poor misguided souls! Blah, blah, blah. Democrats seem to not be living in the real world, which is also why they lost the election against an incredibly unpopular president. They live in a world where the evil rich are hording money away from the virtouous poor, that throwing money at problems solves them, and where they can pull random one-sided statistics to their favor.

Main point: both sides are idiots, but people will keep voting for them, even if their candidate was a head of lettuce. The strong opinions I've seen on both sides in this thread first make me want to laugh, then I remember you guys really feel that way, and many others do. That makes me laugh even harder.

Right now, I'm with who ever will get rid of abortion. Bush has been a big let down in this area.

We already discussed why you, nor anyone else is qualified to make that decision.

Bush cannot get rid of abortion. There has been a supreme court ruling. Even if the case would ever be revisited, it would only go back to states to determine whether or not to limit abortions. Certainly some would and others would continue to allow no restrictions. However you cut it, nobody at the federal level has the ability to nationally ban abortions and never will.

Mort: When I'm choosing words, I try to maximize the number of syllables to facilitate understanding. It's an added bonus if it actually appears in a English dictionary.

Kuat: I almost wrote a full rant here, but I'm just to call it a moral equivalence fallacy and be done. Past, present, and future Democrats and Republicans were not, are not, and will not be the same. One is currently superior to the other, how ever marginally. That completely disparate sets of people and organizations could reach some sort of ideological or practical parity is a ridiculous notion.

Wookie: This current judicial nomination circus is a Republican answer to that acutely obvious observation. Either the Democrats are frustrating their belated efforts (which everybody is rooting for), or they have to replace the coming SCOTUS vacancy with some wingnut and kill themselves with their own effectiveness.

If the added syllables narrowed down the meaning, reduced possible ambiguity, then I'd thoroughly agree with you. But 'atheistical' is exactly the same as 'atheistic' is exactly the same as 'atheist', so the added syllables are completely unnecessary and if anything are likely only to cause more confusion.
As long as you structure your sentence to make it perfectly obvious that you're using 'atheist' as an adjective and not a noun, which isn't hard to do, you can avoid all those superfluous syllables.
'atheistic' is an example of over-regularisation (in that it's applying the standard adjectival inflection where it isn't appropriate). 'atheistical' is over-regularisation twice.

Yeah...replacing good short words with unnecessarily long ones is considered bad writing, and it adds nothing to your argument except making you seem like your trying to sound smart and arrogant.

I never said they were the same. They both suck, in different ways. I'm saying that getting electrocuted and getting decapitated are both ways to die... of course they are different, just wind up with the same result: you dead.

In this case, either party winning will wind up with the same result: sucking.

Nice way of not reading the post Captain. But then again, when one wants to blindly push an agenda, they can't let a thing like intellegence or rationality get in the way.

I'll put it bluntly, again: both are bad for the country, I don't care what the proverbial rates of decay are, both are bad. One may be less bad, one may be more bad. But what they both have in common is not actually caring about what is good for the country.