suv_guy_19 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 (edited) Oh yes, it looked so much like the President was dragging the Prime Minister kicking and screaming. They both did an excellent job today and they seem to have gotten along quite well. BTW, its jsut a technology dialog. its nothing for anyone to be afraid of. Edited February 19, 2009 by suv_guy_19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 (edited) Oh yes, it looked so much like the President was dragging the Prime Minister kicking and screaming. They both did an excellent job today and they seem to have gotten along quite well. BTW, its jsut a technology dialog. its nothing for anyone to be afraid of. We almost lost the government to a socialist/separatist coalition. I am a paying member of the Conservative Party. I know what they are about, and it is not about any carbon credit crackpot scheme. We finally have a government which is on the right track, and it is being derailed by a Messiah wannabe and a bunch of worshipping zombies on both sides of the border. Hopefully, in two years the American people will wake up. Edited February 19, 2009 by Trimdingman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted February 20, 2009 Author Share Posted February 20, 2009 Cap-and-trade has to be about the stupidest idea I have ever heard of. Believer in global warming or not, it's a bad idea. How about this one? Astronomer Devises Giant Sun Shield To Protect Earth From Global Warming Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 How about this one? Astronomer Devises Giant Sun Shield To Protect Earth From Global Warming If you took 787 Billion $1 bills, and another 410 Billion (watch for next week's Omni-pork bill) and sewed them together, could you build one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 (edited) The Alberta tar sands is undergoing environmental assessment. It is just barely viable as it is with the low price of oil. This is the worst time to be doing this. Obama's socialist power grab will only be acceptable to an American public which is experiencing a lot of pain. If Canada goes in a different direction, and escapes this pain, the American people will see through the socialism and reject it. That is why Obama will make sure that Canada follows the same path. I know, the Democrats had big plans of getting the Liberals in power in Canada, but so far, the Tories are hanging in. However, if they try to resist Obama's socialism, we will pay a heavy price. A compromise is the best that we can hope for. At least that is better than having the Liberals bowing and kneeling and crawling to them. Edited February 20, 2009 by Trimdingman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted February 20, 2009 Author Share Posted February 20, 2009 If you took 787 Billion $1 bills, and another 410 Billion (watch for next week's Omni-pork bill) and sewed them together, could you build one? Yes, and we can ship our current politicians with a one way ticket into space to sew it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephenhawkings Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Cap-and-trade has to be about the stupidest idea I have ever heard of. Believer in global warming or not, it's a bad idea. what free market economics don't work, look at oil? its bound to only work better with a more obscure item like cap and trade. just kidding trim! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Yes, and we can ship our current politicians with a one way ticket into space to sew it. Assuming an average one dollar bill with dimensions of 6x2.5 inches, 1.197 Trillion one-dollar-bills would cover an area of 4473 square miles. That would cover the entire states of Delaware and Rhode Island as well as Washington D.C. with about 900 sq miles left over. OR it would cover about 80% of the State of Connecticut. Take your pick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted February 20, 2009 Author Share Posted February 20, 2009 Assuming an average one dollar bill with dimensions of 6x2.5 inches, 1.197 Trillion one-dollar-bills would cover an area of 4473 square miles. That would cover the entire states of Delaware and Rhode Island as well as Washington D.C. with about 900 sq miles left over. OR it would cover about 80% of the State of Connecticut. Take your pick. I don't care where, just send our politicians to sew it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Assuming an average one dollar bill with dimensions of 6x2.5 inches, 1.197 Trillion one-dollar-bills would cover an area of 4473 square miles. That would cover the entire states of Delaware and Rhode Island as well as Washington D.C. with about 900 sq miles left over. OR it would cover about 80% of the State of Connecticut. Take your pick. How much area would its shadow cover? That is the key. It is not entirely out of the realm of science to accomplish something of this nature to cool the earth. The only problem is that the earth does not need cooling, so it would be a boondoggle, and would take too many smarts to accomplish. It is easier for them to use people's stupidity and just tax them. The objective is to cause a depression by taking money out of the economy so that they can acquire more power over the people by pretending to try to solve it. That is how the dictators came to power back in the 1930s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 How much area would its shadow cover? An umbrella for 300,000,000 people measuring over 20 feet across. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 An umbrella for 300,000,000 people measuring over 20 feet across. I am talking about if it was between us and the sun, thousands of miles out in space. It would be made of plastic, tinted enough to allow the right amount of sunlight. A similar idea was proposed for the generation of energy by creating a magnifying effect through the use of huge sheets of mylar plastic in space between the sun and earth. Microwave energy would be created which could power the whole earth. If we really were in danger of global warming, the government would be working on something of this nature. They aren't because they know that it is a hoax. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 I am talking about if it was between us and the sun, thousands of miles out in space. It would be made of plastic, tinted enough to allow the right amount of sunlight. A similar idea was proposed for the generation of energy by creating a magnifying effect through the use of huge sheets of mylar plastic in space between the sun and earth. Microwave energy would be created which could power the whole earth. If we really were in danger of global warming, the government would be working on something of this nature. They aren't because they know that it is a hoax. I admit I was being a bit of a goof, but if you were serious about "shading the earth", here's where my brain takes me..... It is possible to nullify a wave using a counter-wave. The theory works in those Bose "Noise-cancelling" headphones. If you can counter a sound wave, then I would theorize you could counter an infrared, or any other wave. However this would mean (in effect) creating a sun to counter the sun, but given that the effect we're trying to achieve is miniscule (ie. you wouldn't completely block the sun), perhaps you could focus on certain wavelengths that give you "bang for the buck"? While this would consume monumental amounts of power, I would suggest that it might be feasible using a series of prisms and mirrors to create a "reflection" using the sun's own rays as their own countersource. Perhaps a simple phase-shift would be enough to create this effect. Sounds a bit far-fetched I admit (and I'm a bit out of my area of expertise), but we're brainstorming anyway. What could be accomplished with such an outlandish idea, could also be accomplished with simply more clouds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 I don't care where, just send our politicians to sew it. +1 Now this is the type of "outside the atmosphere box" thinking we need in Washington!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 well if you can find historic records before 1850 please feel free to share them. I can. And they show much of the northern hemisphere covered in ice. Way more than it currently is. So if anything we should be enjoying this warm spell we have been having for the last couple thousand (or million) years. Peace and Blessings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 You know, MMGW is a lot like a religion: - It has its prophet (Al Gore), standing atop the mounting, finger pointed skyward, castigating the masses with the sermon "Repent or face damnation!" - It attempts to control the masses with fear. - It brooks NO disbelief. - It has its own "theocracy" that attempts to proselytize the infidels (that's "non-believers" for those that don't speak "zealotry"). Those that don't convert are labeled as heathens and marginalized. - It's predicated on faith in events yet to occur. - It demands a monetary sacrifice as penitance for our "sins". - It lays claim to the belief there is one and only one TRUTH. - It reinvents itself in order to maintain societal relevance (i.e. "global warming" has become "global climate change") Amen! Peace and Blessings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 In case you haven't read much i am not a big al fan, at least as not as much as you like gay sex. and i am not religious either, as you pray for penis in your hairy butt. maybe i am being mean and childlike, but than again i think its par for the course blah blah blah now you can quote it correctly! Lame... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 I admit I was being a bit of a goof, but if you were serious about "shading the earth", here's where my brain takes me..... It is possible to nullify a wave using a counter-wave. The theory works in those Bose "Noise-cancelling" headphones. If you can counter a sound wave, then I would theorize you could counter an infrared, or any other wave. However this would mean (in effect) creating a sun to counter the sun, but given that the effect we're trying to achieve is miniscule (ie. you wouldn't completely block the sun), perhaps you could focus on certain wavelengths that give you "bang for the buck"? While this would consume monumental amounts of power, I would suggest that it might be feasible using a series of prisms and mirrors to create a "reflection" using the sun's own rays as their own countersource. Perhaps a simple phase-shift would be enough to create this effect. Sounds a bit far-fetched I admit (and I'm a bit out of my area of expertise), but we're brainstorming anyway. What could be accomplished with such an outlandish idea, could also be accomplished with simply more clouds. It sounds a lot more sensible than a carbon tax, no matter how outlandish it is. You see, dumb people are also not good at making money. Unfortunately, they get to vote. Since tax increases will not affect them, they are all in favor of any idea which involves tax increases. Everybody should pay the same amount of tax. Then the government would not be able to screw us around this way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 (edited) It sounds a lot more sensible than a carbon tax, no matter how outlandish it is. You see, dumb people are also not good at making money. Unfortunately, they get to vote. Since tax increases will not affect them, they are all in favor of any idea which involves tax increases. Everybody should pay the same amount of tax. Then the government would not be able to screw us around this way. Which is why I am in favor of the FairTax. It is a simple consumption tax that replaces all Federal taxes (income and payroll) but completely eliminates taxation up to the poverty line, and it's essentially a progressive tax system; in that it's taxation by choice, so the more you choose to spend, the more tax you pay. It's a flat consumption tax, so it affects everybody equally. No more class warfare political tactics. Edited February 21, 2009 by RangerM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted February 21, 2009 Author Share Posted February 21, 2009 Which is why I am in favor of the FairTax. It is a simple consumption tax that replaces all Federal taxes (income and payroll) but completely eliminates taxation up to the poverty line, and it's essentially a progressive tax system; in that it's taxation by choice, so the more you choose to spend, the more tax you pay. It's a flat consumption tax, so it affects everybody equally. No more class warfare political tactics. I'd say it's better than what we have now. The best idea I think would be shrink the government back down to it's intended size and have little to no tax. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 (edited) I'd say it's better than what we have now. The best idea I think would be shrink the government back down to it's intended size and have little to no tax. I would tax everybody at a percentage of their income from the first dollar, and cap income tax. For instance, to start off, it could be 20% with a cap of $5000. If you paid the $5000, there would be no questions asked. There would be 100% employment, so nobody would have to file anything. The government would have lots of money because there would be no need for any social programs. From there, the tax could be reduced down to about $1000 per year at the end of ten years. There would be no tax on businesses, just a tax of $1000 per year on each person over 13. Edited February 21, 2009 by Trimdingman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rn4 Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 (edited) I would tax everybody at a percentage of their income from the first dollar, and cap income tax. For instance, to start off, it could be 20% with a cap of $5000. If you paid the $5000, there would be no questions asked. There would be 100% employment, so nobody would have to file anything. The government would have lots of money because there would be no need for any social programs. From there, the tax could be reduced down to about $1000 per year at the end of ten years. There would be no tax on businesses, just a tax of $1000 per year on each person over 13. I could go with everyone pays the same percentage, but not a cap. How is it fair that the guy making 25,000 dollars pays 20% ($5000) in taxes and the person making 1,000,000 dollars only pays 5 thousandth of a %. ($5000) Edited February 21, 2009 by rn4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 (edited) I could go with everyone pays the same percentage, but not a cap. How is it fair that the guy making 100,000 dollars pays 20% in taxes and the person making 1,000,000 only pays 5 thousandth of a %. You have to get rid of the notion that you deserve to have somebody else's money. If he spends it on something that you create, then you get it. Your kind of thinking leads to Communism and big government. Don't you want to be free? As long as you have as much money as you want or need, you shouldn't worry about how much money somebody else has. You will have a lot more money with a small government than you will have living under a Totalitarian system, where the government controls your every move because it has all of the money. Money isn't something of which there is a limited supply and has to be shared. When you do something useful, you create money. Money is just a convenient way for people to trade their skills with each other. If the other person doesn't have the skill or goods that you want in return for what you are providing him, he gives you money. When the government interferes and takes peoples earned money, and gives it to people who did not earn it, the whole system goes haywire, as it is now. Edited February 21, 2009 by Trimdingman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rn4 Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 You have to get rid of the notion that you deserve to have somebody else's money. If he spends it on something that you create, then you get it. Your kind of thinking leads to Communism and big government. Don't you want to be free? As long as you have as much money as you want or need, you shouldn't worry about how much money somebody else has. You will have a lot more money with a small government than you will have living under a Totalitarian system, where the government controls your every move because it has all of the money. Money isn't something of which there is a limited supply and has to be shared. When you do something useful, you create money. Money is just a convenient way for people to trade their skills with each other. If the other person doesn't have the skill or goods that you want in return for what you are providing him, he gives you money. When the government interferes and takes peoples earned money, and gives it to people who did not earn it, the whole system goes haywire, as it is now. So your saying the rich should just keep getting richer. How does everyone paying the same percentage without a cap turn into communism. I didn't say anything about giving money away to people who did not earn it. I said the tax cap is not fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 So your saying the rich should just keep getting richer. How does everyone paying the same percentage without a cap turn into communism. I didn't say anything about giving money away to people who did not earn it. I said the tax cap is not fair. I don't agree with Trim's idea, but he is not saying the rich should just keep getting richer. BUT, I will say the rich WILL keep getting richer, so long as they keep doing the things that made them rich. Just as a poor person, who keeps doing things that keep them poor, will likely remain poor. You don't get rich buying houses you can't afford, fake fingernails, the latest/greatest I-phone you don't need, lottery tickets, new cars every couple of years, carrying high levels of credit card debt, etc. You get rich by being frugal with your money, and spending when you have truly "disposable" income. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.