Politics

A fellow that I worked with nearly 30 years ago was a LtCom (O4) in the Navy Reserve. For his month active he went to Treasure Island (in SF/SP bay. While there he met with a lot of local people as well as diverse navy personnel. on his return to work his comment about the San Francisco culture was that they claimed to be tolerant, but only of their view- to everything else they were intolerant. That was 1993. 28 years has only seen that ideology spread and intensify.
William F. Buckley once observed, “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."
 
From here on out, I am going to be taking a lighter and more positive approach to politics, and what is transpiring in this country.
The tremendous disdain I have for the Democrat party, and politicians in general, has filled my soul with an unhealthy darkness, and that needs to stop.
I apologize to AH, and to the good folks here that I have locked horns with in the past. At the end of the day, I hope we can all realize that we are on the same team, even if our opinions may differ.
Maybe some day, we might even have some drinks together.

Peace.
 
They blat and bellow about cutting greenhouse gas and carbon emissions yet they fly all over the world for these conferences. Pray tell the logic in that. Oh, I forgot. It's dem dumb democraps. Guess that justifies it all.
Well if the New Green Deal comes to fruition, they won’t be flying anywhere. The banning of aircraft is somewhere in that “deal” too.
 
The Dems and liberals project themselves as the inteligencia and relegate conservatives to the thick basket. Well, almost everything Biden has done so far out of the gate is eyebrow raising stupid in terms of consequence. No long range thought there.
 
Well if the New Green Deal comes to fruition, they won’t be flying anywhere. The banning of aircraft is somewhere in that “deal” too.
Ever since I was at university as an engineer in training I have been fascinated by energy, it's generation, conversion and wasteage. There are some absolutes in this equation that simply cant be ignored, and once accepted the debate must be moulded around them or it is just hot air.
1. People must eat
2. People must travel a certain amount locally.
3. People must travel transcontinentally occasionally.
4. People produce waste. Degeneration of any and all waste creates greenhouse gas. You may as well collect and burn the methane instead of SOME nat gas.
5 people in cold climates must keep warm.

I am sure there are lots more, but you get the point, you cant just turn humanity's needs off, that is stupid denial.

For sure it makes a lot of sense to use as much personal renewable energy as you can, I have five individual solar systems around the house. Water heating is the only one of consequence though, rest just convenience in powercuts and novelties.
BUT for the biggies, like transport, you cant get away from big energy and big grid. Now, how do you power the grid?
Nuclear isn't carbon free either, costs energy to mine and refine the fuel, but in time all of that can feed off the very electricity that nuclear itself produces. In engineering parlance that is called a closed loop, the holy grail.
I forsee a day not too far hence where aeroplanes can be nuclear powered too, not even a massive challenge.

In a nutshell, the future isn't dark and gloomy. There inst one major solution, but lots of little ones and one giant one - nuclear. We have it already!
 
The other aspect of energy is that the Sun is the only producer of energy- all forms that we utilize (wind, wood, coal, oil, NG) are solar energy transformed into chemical form. If the governments impose their will on the use of energy- outlaw using the traditional sources so that all we are allowed to use is direct solar and wind., then another number enters to calculation : Total calories (equivalent watts, joules) that reach the surface of the Earth in a 24 hour period. That's the plus number. Then the minus number is what is present consumption on Earth for 24 hours. I don't have access to the statistics that will answer that equation but the answer will be heavily into negative- Much more energy is used than is provided by the sun. Since there is no Federal Reserve of Energy that allows deficit use, if there is to be a balance in accord with the GND, then consumption must be decreased. My estimation is that we are talking about a factor of at least 20. So then whoever makes decisions is going to decide: should the farmer get the electricity to run his tractor and plant/harvest a crop or should it be used to heat the cold living shelters of the citizens so that they'll be alive. Restricting consumption to Solar output will result in a mass die-off- which may be what some of those "liberals" want all along.
 
The other aspect of energy is that the Sun is the only producer of energy- all forms that we utilize (wind, wood, coal, oil, NG) are solar energy transformed into chemical form. If the governments impose their will on the use of energy- outlaw using the traditional sources so that all we are allowed to use is direct solar and wind., then another number enters to calculation : Total calories (equivalent watts, joules) that reach the surface of the Earth in a 24 hour period. That's the plus number. Then the minus number is what is present consumption on Earth for 24 hours. I don't have access to the statistics that will answer that equation but the answer will be heavily into negative- Much more energy is used than is provided by the sun. Since there is no Federal Reserve of Energy that allows deficit use, if there is to be a balance in accord with the GND, then consumption must be decreased. My estimation is that we are talking about a factor of at least 20. So then whoever makes decisions is going to decide: should the farmer get the electricity to run his tractor and plant/harvest a crop or should it be used to heat the cold living shelters of the citizens so that they'll be alive. Restricting consumption to Solar output will result in a mass die-off- which may be what some of those "liberals" want all along.
I really wouldn't worry about the amount of Solar enrgy becoming rate limiting any time soon. Firstly, nuclear isn't solar derived energy, nor is fusion (if we every work it out) which as @Kevin Peacocke notes, is surey th logical 'solve'.

On the 'there's not enough solar' part of your stantement though.

There's an interesting thought experiment about this called the Kardashev Scale. It ranks the level of a Civilisation based on energy usage and consumption. This consumption considers energy for food, energy for construction and energy for power, trnasport, production etc. Total net energy of the species.

The scale is briefly

Type 1 - can use all of the energy that falls on a parent planet
Type 2 - can use all the energy that is emitted by the parent Star
Type 3 - can use all the energy emitted by their local Galaxy.

Type 1, for Earth, is 1.74 x 10^17 watts. Humanity, right now, uses roughly 2 x 10^13 watts. Assuming a 3% increase in energy use per annum and exponential growth, we'd hit 1 - have energy demands of 100% of incident solar energy, in about 200 years.

In theory, solar can provide (if 100% efficient) 10,000 times more energy than Humanity needs.
Practically, it's not able to meet even current demand becuase it's not 100% efficient an also because it's not a good idea from a food consumption standpoint to cover every squre meter of landmass in solar panels.

A reference, in case anyone cares. Page 1 and 2 cover current and future energy demands, pages 10 and 11 cover potential solar supply.

 
Last edited:
I was arguing with a Liberal on another platform about the effects Biden would have on fuel prices, as well as food and goods. She called me an idiot for claiming that prices would go up under Biden, as he does not have the authority to raise the price on a barrel of oil. Only OPEC does, she said.

I told her to mark down what she is currently paying per gallon, and get back to me in 4 years.
 
Well....dang.... someone in Michigan won my billion dollars. I did win $16. Not nearly enough for my 21 day full bagger.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CJW
They increase the cost of a ticket and add more numbers to get these higher payouts.

They are not going to change it.

It is like a lot of raffles or contest. I just got one in the mail the other day from the NRA. The grand prize winner gets 40 or more firearms. But wouldn't it be better if the grand prize was only a few firearms with others winning the rest........yes, it would be but they get more suckers to send them money at the 1:40million chance that they will be that one person to win those 40 firearms.
 
Mega millions has gotten out of control. So few winners nowadays but huge jackpots. I would rather see more winners of more modest sums.
I was going to buy a group hunt of epic proportions. Lol.
 
authority to raise the price on a barrel of oil. Only OPEC does,
In 1973 OPEC did have the ability to set the price of oil, but those days were long gone since the US became the major producer- but with the Bidet closing down the US industry I guess it will be back to OPEC,so she may be right, OPEC did raise the price of oil-
 
In 1973 OPEC did have the ability to set the price of oil, but those days were long gone since the US became the major producer- but with the Bidet closing down the US industry I guess it will be back to OPEC,so she may be right, OPEC did raise the price of oil-
The actions of Biden can raise gas prices in collateral ways
 
I was too oblique. OPEC is ALLOWED to raise prices because the US (under Bidet) is withdrawing from Oil production, giving monopoly status back to OPEC. People in 1973 would have considered such an action to be treasonous. Guess the citizens are different now.
 
I was too oblique. OPEC is ALLOWED to raise prices because the US (under Bidet) is withdrawing from Oil production, giving monopoly status back to OPEC. People in 1973 would have considered such an action to be treasonous. Guess the citizens are different now.
Well, ya know, Uncle Soros whispered to Joey Ali Ben Biden to be a good little shit and shut down US oil production so the A-rabs can get back in the game. More bucks for his terrorist buddies. That and distributing three trillion dollars to China, Russia, Iran, Syria and God knows what other terrorist cabals. Looks like a continuation of obama.
 
They increase the cost of a ticket and add more numbers to get these higher payouts.

They are not going to change it.

It is like a lot of raffles or contest. I just got one in the mail the other day from the NRA. The grand prize winner gets 40 or more firearms. But wouldn't it be better if the grand prize was only a few firearms with others winning the rest........yes, it would be but they get more suckers to send them money at the 1:40million chance that they will be that one person to win those 40 firearms.

I understand the what and why I just think it sucks.

As far as the NRA goes, they need all those people to pay for LaPierre's lavish lifestyle and any crap they pull doesn't surprise me.
 
But it isn't an actual hunting season. Everyone goes out to find a Big Foot and take pictures of them but can't shoot them. So it's about the same as what around here is called Tourist Season, for which I have always wondered why they keep the bag limit at 0.
 
I'm not sure which term fits the Bidet better: Half-wit, Dim-wit, or Nit-wit. But you decide what applied to a president that removes a bronze of Winston Churchill and adds one of Cesar Chavez.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
53,624
Messages
1,131,368
Members
92,680
Latest member
ChadSimpso
 

 

 

Latest posts

Latest profile posts

Impact shots from the last hunt

Early morning Impala hunt, previous link was wrong video

Headshot on jackal this morning

Mature Eland Bull taken in Tanzania, at 100 yards, with 375 H&H, 300gr, Federal Premium Expanding bullet.

20231012_145809~2.jpg
 
Top