[SPY]

Originally Posted by robinski

Oh lets leave it to the Americans to sort out. Im sure they will do a great job of fixing it seeings that they are still in denial about the problem even existing in the first place.

We always do "fix it"
Obviously YOU are not doing anything about it. So WHEN there is a problem... YES rob****stick we will "fix it"

Originally Posted by robinski

Stirring up Americans is like shooting fish in a barrel ..... with an AK47 . You take everying so personally. Maybe thats why terrorists attack civilians, because they get pissed off with the were the best crap you all spin.

Terrorists attack civilians because they are low life pieces of **** and are fed a line of bullshit from a complete idiot and take it hook, line, and sinker... Oh ****, Wait... That sounds like you!

Originally Posted by robinski

You have such a sence that your country is the best and how dare anyone ever question that. I like Australia too, but i do recongnise its faults. It seems you too are willing to state that America does have some faults, but when ever anyone wishes to critisize, you come back with the how dare you we are the best crap.

No.... Retard, when we are attacked we pull together and get defensive.

Originally Posted by robinski

Your soils are not as fertile as you think once all the phosphorous reserves run out. You have depleated the natural nutirent retaining capacity. You are a huge virtual water importer.

Yeah? Really? Were you here recently to test our soils fertility? Again... Retard

Originally Posted by robinski

Not saying the underpriveleged dont do well out of the military, if they dont get shot first. My mistake about the congressmen's sons serving, didnt realise the were on the front line. Have any died yet.

Are you in the military? have you even ever seen anyone die or get shot? I had a Marine DIE in MY arms over in Iraq while trying to rescue him and two others you asshole! Why not try to be a little less ignorant with your future posts.

Originally Posted by robinski

If you had jumped into the war early enough there wouldnt have been a war in the pacific. No you had to wait till the rest of the world was bankrupt and you were forced into it before you got involved. How convinient that you bounced back after the war better than other countries. Maybe this was because you didnt expend all of your wealth on the war but instead waited till everyone else had.

Typical.... Blame EVERYTHING on America.

Damned if we do, Damned if we dont!

[gt702]

Originally Posted by CBR929RE

the planet is dying, there's nothing we can do about it.

I find this comment very entertaining (ignoring all the political sparring going on) ... fact is, and it has been fact for many thousands of years like Abtech alludes to, the planet isn't dying, it is living. We've had global warming and cooling for years. It is part of the natural cycle of this earth

The great lakes were formed by the polar caps melting, the ice flowing down, freezing, and so forth. It happened before and will happen again. I recently saw a very respected scientist reviewing all of this on public TV (think it was a Discovery channel show too).

In middle school they were telling us that within our lifetime, the weather in the Cleveland Ohio area would be like that of Texas, simply because of the natural cycles that have been well documented in history and in the geology of the earth.

So what is the big deal and why is there such a "scare" about it now ... other than political gain?

We should be good stewards of this earth. We should also be good students of reality ... not hype.

[CBRVFR]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

Exactly what I was saying above.

In China there are intelligent/ambitious poor people held down by an awful system of government.

In the US/UK/Canada, and several others, the barriers have been almost non-existent for hundreds of years.

Well, decades, anyway...

[Proto]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

In the US/UK/Canada, and several others, the barriers have been almost non-existent for hundreds of years.

From a previous link:

The most vivid evidence of social sclerosis comes from politics. A country where every child is supposed to be able to dream of becoming president is beginning to produce a self-perpetuating political elite. George Bush is the son of a president, the grandson of a senator, and the sprig of America's business aristocracy. John Kerry, thanks to a rich wife, is the richest man in a Senate full of plutocrats. He is also a Boston brahmin, educated at St Paul's, a posh private school, and Yale—where, like the Bushes, he belonged to the ultra-select Skull and Bones society.
Mr Kerry's predecessor as the Democrats' presidential nominee, Al Gore, was the son of a senator. Mr Gore, too, was educated at a posh private school, St Albans, and then at Harvard. And Mr Kerry's main challenger from the left of his party? Howard Brush Dean was the product of the same blue-blooded world of private schools and unchanging middle names as Mr Bush (one of Mr Bush's grandmothers was even a bridesmaid to one of Mr Dean's). Mr Dean grew up in the Hamptons and on New York's Park Avenue.
The most remarkable feature of the continuing power of America's elite—and its growing grip on the political system—is how little comment it arouses. Britain would be in high dudgeon if its party leaders all came from Eton and Harrow. Perhaps one reason why the rise of caste politics raises so little comment is that something similar is happening throughout American society. Everywhere you look in modern America—in the Hollywood Hills or the canyons of Wall Street, in the Nashville recording studios or the clapboard houses of Cambridge, Massachusetts—you see elites mastering the art of perpetuating themselves. America is increasingly looking like imperial Britain, with dynastic ties proliferating, social circles interlocking, mechanisms of social exclusion strengthening and a gap widening between the people who make the decisions and shape the culture and the vast majority of ordinary working stiffs.

[CBRVFR]

Proto -

that article seems to measure social mobility by the number of people who break into the most elite group of old-money presidential candidates.

I think I'd measure it by the ability of people to take advantage of a free education, and by appklying themselves, bettering their circumstances for themselves and their children exponentially.

While there doesn't seem to be much movement in some socio-economic strata, the often-demonstrated ability of immigrant peoples to come here and kick ass in 1 generation gives the lie to the idea that the opportuniity no longer exists.

[luvtolean]

I think that link has a pretty flimsy house-of-cards argument that the UK is somehow different, but I'll agree that rich people give their kids more opportunity.

I disagree with the tone in many ways too.

I think it's more fundamental than the couple of silly political examples they gave.

I really believe it has more to do with the kind of people that make more money, and those that don't, and the traits that lead to that path in life. Intelligence, hard work, etc etc are inherited and learned behaviors. In the US and UK, an intelligent person, willing to work hard, is not poor.

There might be more social mobility in other societies (though I think that may be a trait of other things), but the US remains one of the most barrier free places for anyone to set up a business, and to get rich. In about an hour or two of minimal effort and paperwork, you can have a business up and running in the US.

Our tax scheme isn't as burdensome as many other countries, and despite my generation not taking advantage, we have what is arguably the easiest access to the best universities in the world. (meaning here in the country)

All this despite the color of your blood...

[sheepofblue]

Originally Posted by oldfogey

I have to agree with the stats Proto is quoting here: the US isn't as upwardly mobile a place for the poorest as US citizens think.

L2L and Phobe may be correct, there are good reasons for it, but the facts are there.

Perhaps in reasonably open, competitive societies (US and UK) we are getting a cultural effect of persistent low achievement in some groups?

One of the biggest reasons in my opinion that there is a lower amount of transfer is the wealth transfer system. Before people wanted to improve and even more so wanted thier children to improve. Today we have made being lower class pretty cushy (not that I would want it nor recommend it) so to many that are capable of so much decide it is 'good enough' Usually the decision is a passive one but still a choice rather than a barrier. That is why the military is such a fantastic way to improve your lot, they do not tolerate slackers

[ConqSoft]

Anyone know how I can decrease the MPG on a 2004 F150?

[luvtolean]

Drive it with your tailgate down.

[ConqSoft]

Yeah, I watch MythBusters too.

[sheepofblue]

Originally Posted by ConqSoft

Anyone know how I can decrease the MPG on a 2004 F150?

Drive it in L1 everywhere

[gt702]

Originally Posted by ConqSoft

Anyone know how I can decrease the MPG on a 2004 F150?

Swap in a supercharged 460 and big gears and tires ... that should decrease the mpg down to maybe 3 or 4

[abtech]

Originally Posted by gt702

Swap in a supercharged 460 and big gears and tires ... that should decrease the mpg down to maybe 3 or 4

and only run MR9 in it. That should resolve several politically correct issues while you're at it . . .

[seamus]

Originally Posted by robinski

Stirring up Americans is like shooting fish in a barrel ..... with an AK47 . You take everying so personally. Maybe thats why terrorists attack civilians, because they get pissed off with the were the best crap you all spin.

You have such a sence that your country is the best and how dare anyone ever question that. I like Australia too, but i do recongnise its faults. It seems you too are willing to state that America does have some faults, but when ever anyone wishes to critisize, you come back with the how dare you we are the best crap.

First, this is a political forum. Were you expecting roses and How-Do-You-Do's?

Second, I have taken nothing personally. You'll see I called you no names, made no outlandish remarks and provided information for you to peruse. You stated your premise. I disagreed with it and refuted it. I even provided you some corrected information. Do a little research.

Third, terrorists attack civilians because military targets are "hard targets" while civilians are "easy" and can possibly create an air of fear that won't be felt elsewhere. But that's another subject.

Originally Posted by robinski

Your soils are not as fertile as you think once all the phosphorous reserves run out. You have depleated the natural nutirent retaining capacity. You are a huge virtual water importer.

Lets have this conversation again in 10 years and see what your opinion is then.

That is like saying "Once you have no water, you're going to be real thirsty." No soil is fertile once the "nutrient retaining capacity" is depleted. Depleting the "nutrient retaining capacity" you speak of was a lesson learned by cotton farmers almost 100 years ago here. It's what sparked the agricultural engineers to develop the current systems and fertilizers that are in use now.

As for virtual water importer, you'll have to clarify that.

Originally Posted by robinski

The natural environment is a very resiliant thing, but you can only push it so far before it switches to another steady state.

If you paraphrase me, at least give me credit in your footnotes.

Originally Posted by robinski

Ice cores go back hundreds of thousands of years and what we are doing now is nothing like what has happened in the past. Also, in the past things happened slowly allowing species to adapt to the changes. This is happening too quickly.

Right. Hundreds of thousands of years isn't even a blink in the history of this planet. I tried to get a percentage but my basic calculator keeps giving me a percentage with so many zeros after the decimal point that it defaults into e^-5. That, to me, is a small percentage of the Earth's existance. We already know Earth goes back approximately 4.5 billion years. And that's what we GUESS we know. Hundreds of thousands of years brings us back to the ICE AGE, caused by an event that moved thousands of times faster than any human could destroy ANYTHING and it still took THOUSANDS of years to kill off life. Since we already know that Earth existed and had a different climate BEFORE the Ice Age, what do your ice cores hold that speak of that age?

But, like I said earlier, what if it's not "global warming" but "global returning"? What if this is just a return to the steady state before the Ice Age?

Originally Posted by robinski

Not saying the underpriveleged dont do well out of the military, if they dont get shot first. My mistake about the congressmen's sons serving, didnt realise the were on the front line. Have any died yet.

Is that what it means to serve? You have to die? You're very morbid.

But you're right. You didn't say they don't do well out of the military. You implied that the military is here to reduce unemployment for people who don't have and can't do. And that's simply not the case. If you don't have and can't do on the outside, you definitely won't be in the military long. There's no room for can't do here.

Originally Posted by ConqSoft

Anyone know how I can decrease the MPG on a 2004 F150?

This should put you in GPM...

[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by robinski

Your soils are not as fertile as you think once all the phosphorous reserves run out. You have depleated the natural nutirent retaining capacity. You are a huge virtual water importer.

Lets have this conversation again in 10 years and see what your opinion is then.

Originally Posted by seamus

That is like saying "Once you have no water, you're going to be real thirsty." No soil is fertile once the "nutrient retaining capacity" is depleted. Depleting the "nutrient retaining capacity" you speak of was a lesson learned by cotton farmers almost 100 years ago here. It's what sparked the agricultural engineers to develop the current systems and fertilizers that are in use now.

As for virtual water importer, you'll have to clarify that.

This discussion point by robinski is the absolutely most perfect example of a man in a pre-cracked glass house throwing rocks. Normally I ignore someone as aggressively ignorant of the world around him as Robinski, but this was too much.

Australia is the poster child for mining her soils. The book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Succeed or Fail by Jared Diamond has a whole chapter on how Australia mines her soil. The name of the chapter is "Mining" Australia. Let me give a few quotes from it:

Mining in the literal sense--ie, the mining of coal, iron and so on--is a key to Australia's economy today, providing the largest share of its export earnings

Australia has been and still is "farming its renewable resources as if they were mined minerals. That is, they are being overexploited at rates faster than their renewal rates, with the result that they are declining. At present rates, Australia's forests and fisheries will disappear long before its coal and iron reserves, which is ironic in view of the fact that the former are renewable.

While many countries today besides Australia are mining their environments, Australia is an especially suitable choice for this final case study of past and present societies, for several reasons...Ecologically the Australian environment is exceptionally fragile, the most fragile of any First World country except perhaps Iceland. As a consequence, many problems that could eventually become cripplin in other First World countries and already are so in some Third World countries--such as overgrazing, salinization, soil erosion, introduced species, water shortages, and man-made droughts--have already become severe in Australia.

...Australia's soils have caused even bigger problems than has its water availability. Australia is the most unproductive continent: the one whose soils have on the average the lowest nutrients levels...

In Australian forests, most of the minerals are in the trees themselves, not in the soils.

...only 25% (of native forests) remain intact. Of forest product exports, half are not in the form of logs or finished materials but are turned into wood chips and sent to Japan. While the price that Japan pays to Australia for those wood chips has dropped to $7 per ton, the resulting paper sells in Japan for $1000 per ton, so that almost all the value added to the timber after it is cut accrues to Japan rather than to Australia. Thus, the Australian forest products trade results in a double irony. On the one hand, Australia, one of the First World countries with the least forest, is still logging those shrinking forests to export their products to Japan, the First World country with the highest percentage of its land under forest (74%)and that percentage still growing. Second, Australia's forest products trade in effect consists of exporting raw material at a low price, to be converted in another country into finished material at a high price and with high added value, and then importing finished materials. One expects to encounter that particular type of asymmetry not in the trade relations between two First World countries, but instead when an economically backward, non-industrialized Third World colony unsophisticated at negotiations deals with a First World country sophisticated at exploiting Third World countries...That is, it would appear that Australia is squandering a valuable resource, and receiving little money for it.

I am going to add my own personal third irony. The very country the Kyoto Treaty was signed in and named after, is mining and exploiting your country like a Third World one. Funny how they don't seem to care much about you isn't it?

So, Robinski. Take a damn second from your sophmoric, silly America-hate vitriol and look inward. Your country, with it's unrenewable mineral resources, least forested surface, is shipping all your minerals that are tied up in your trees, in the form of woodchips, to Japan for $7/ton.

I could also get into droughts, overgrazing, disastrous cotton programs on the west coast...but I don't need to now do I?

[BladeRider]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

Junk science to push a political agenda.

Jaim summed it up pretty nicely.

The only people that think this tripe is important think Mikey Moore's films are important too.

Kinda like the democratic converse of the morons who take Rush Limbaugh seriously.

While I certainly agree "Mikey Moore's" films are ****. And I don't claim to be an expert on the subject I do have some (admittedly dumb) first hand glacier experience and it does seem like they have eroded at an extreme rate the past few years.
Maybe this is a climate shift that is natural but I have personally seen glaciers that have eroded with a water content that is scientifically "very old". I have an addiction to state and national parks, I have been to the Chugach national (and state) park twice as well as others in Alaska and seen big changes (scientifically significant). I have no idea whether global warming exists or not but doesn't it seem weird that large amounts of ice is melting that hasn't melted in thousands of years? All I know is you can see the changes in 10's of kilometers in the few years, larger by 10X then any changes since they can study via ice contents.


I don't know either way my mind is open to new ideas but I find it really hard to believe that modern society isn't having an effect on the planet we live on.



And more on topic I haven't seen "An Inconvenient Truth" because it is probably full of political bullshit I don't care to watch.

[robinski]

Luvtolean
Agree totally with all of your statements. I have never said my country doesnt have problems and agree with most problems that you guys point out. Thats the difference with Australians, they are normally quite happy to accept critisism of their faults.

Australia is bad with its soil fertility, salinisation and mismanagement of water resources. This is my field of study and it continually flustrates me how many bad management decisions still happen. Victoria cleared their lands resulting in erosion, salinisation and desertation. NSW then followed suit stating that their land was a different state and wouldnt have the same problems. They did. Queensland is now doing exactly the same with the same excuse.

American soils are suffering similar problems in terms of damage to the A Horizon from over use. You just dont have the salinity issue and as harsh environment. Artificial fertilizers are added as a band aid in terms of soil fertility, but do allow maximisation of returns in the short term.

Tasmanian timber leaving the country for Japan. Yes i have been against this for years. You state $7/Tonne. My research states that the Tasmainan & Federal government through subsidies, tax exemptions etc in effect actually pay Japan/Gunns Timber to take the timber. It would be cheaper for them to put everyone who works in that industry on the dole than it does for them to sell the timber. Oh, just remembered why they still sell the timber, the ex-premier of Tasmania (who got sacked for corruption) is the chair of Gunns Timber. Backhanders go everywhere.