Delusional Underground and their attempts at logic
The Delusional Underground folks are trying to learn how to think using logic and facts, while their logic is demonstrably false and flawed, it's nice to see them try linear thinking.
The specific ideals put forth by this insane attempt at logic and rational thought are asinine to begin with. This post is called "Five Questions that rock the conservative world" and I wish I was making this up. As an assist to my Delusional Underground lunatics, I am going to help you all out, and answer these questions.
THE FIVE QUESTIONS - LISTEN TO THEIR ANSWERS and ask for more detail.
1. What do you think it is going to take to move from a oil based consumer culture to a renewable energy based one?
The answer to this one is simple, for the Renewable energy to be as dependable, and as financially affordable as the "fossil fuel" economy. While there has been some progress in this area, it's simply put, not dependable, nor feasible, at this time, to depend on renewable energy sources. Solar for example, only works during daylight. Wind, well besides being opposed near the Kennedy Compound, is opposed by Environmentalists who denounce the dangers posed to birds. When you environmental friendly folks get on the same page about some of this, come back and discuss the matter some more.
I will admit to a number of questions about the so called energy independence desire of Liberals. Why don't they ever embrace Nuclear energy? It is dependable, safe, and produces no atmospheric pollution, yet it is universally opposed by Liberals.
2. Do you honestly believe that continued war in the Middle East going to move us forward to that goal? Explain.
This flawed argument presumes that we are fighting the War on Terror for oil. If that was the case, we could have easily declared war on Mexico, or Canada, as both have oil, and are much closer. The presumtion of this argument is that the only reason for the War on Terror is the oil located in the region. Yet, we support Israel, despite the hatred of Israel by those who have the Oil. If our only motivation was the Oil, wouldn't it have been logical to throw Israel overboard, and instead focus our diplomatic efforts on friendship with the other Arab states?
Your argument on this point is obviously flawed, and demonstrates how delusional your side of this discussion truly is. It assumes that Halliburtion and Exxon are the only motivating factor for the War on Terror, and ignores the three generations of history that have clearly shown ignored Terrorism getting more audacious, and more violent. From the 1960's to today, Terrorism has been growing, to the situation we face today, where we must fight to guarantee the future of our way of life in the face of a steadily growing threat. We are not fighting for oil, again, Canada and Mexico are much closer, despite the hysterical screams from the left claiming we are.
3. Do you think our current consumer based culture is a path to energy independence? Explain. (this is very interesting and can go yes or no I have found.)
Yes, as necessity is the mother of invention, and the future is bright. We are looking at the ability to create Nuclear Fusion devices, which will offer tremendous amounts of energy, in the next Generation or two. We are looking at breakthroughs on Wind Power, despite the Kennedy opposition to the plan, and more efficient solar systems, most of which as you know operate at less than 12% efficiency ratings. As the systems become more efficient, and more economical, the demand for those systems will reduce the demand on oil, instead looking towards other systems for dependable energy needs.
As a historical let's consider shipping. At the end of the last century, the most abundant power system for the shipping industry was Wind. Second was coal powered steam ships. Coal powered was efficient and the standard until oil fired steam creation was created, and standardized. It was more efficient to use Oil fired boilers to get the steam needed to power the ships. Diesel started to make inroads, and now Diesel turbines are the power system of choice for large ships which require large amounts of power to drive them. Large Naval vessels are powered by Nuclear Reactors, replacing the oil fired boilers with nuclear powered boilers.
Each system was more efficient and dependable than the one before, and each one replaced the one before. Unless you ignore the obvious evolution of these power systems, then it is possible to claim no progress has been made. Today, experimentation is underway to look at fuel cells, and while it is interesting, it's not more efficient or dependable than the current methods. When it is, and only when it is, will it be accepted by the world as the preferred method of powering ships on the seas.
4. What tools will you give your children and their children to enable them to live and survive in a world that is running out of oil?
I am teaching them that Abortion is a good thing, because the Liberals are more likely to Abort children than Conservatives, and with luck we can see the end of Liberalism in the next few Generations. That by the way is a joke. Only partly a joke, because some of those aborted children could have grown up to be brilliant scientists who solved many of the problems facing us, but were denied the opportunity.
Seriously, the question is asinine. It assumes that in ten years the world is going to grind to a halt. Commerce will stop, the lights will go out, and anarchy will rule the day. Education at good private schools, which are the last bastion of true education, where children are actually taught information that is useful, is the real hope, as it has always been. Instead of dependence upon failing public schools, which are frankly a failure. Children can't find their own state on a map, can't find their own nation on a map, and can't perform even the most basic required skills like reading comprehension, and the answer from the left is defend the public schools. If a Business operated like that, producing nothing, it would be bankrupt in days, not months.
5. Do you think it is important to teach children about peace and love?
Certainly, to an extent. To love your fellow being is important. However it's also important to understand that the old lie of "Violence never solved anything" is problematic here.
If I am to save a people from extermination by another group, I must use violence.
Look at the Military Operations in the Middle East. Our military personnel are placing themselves between innocents and the threats from Terrorists. They risk their own lives to move women and children from the area, often weeping over the victims of the Terrorists. They love the innocent so much that they are willing to risk their own lives to protect the non combatants often with their own lives. By comparison, the Terrorists hide behind civilians, using them as shields, to protect their own lives. The Terrorists then claim, and you folks on the left carry the water for them, that the Americans slaughtered innocents when returning fire at the barbarians.
Which is the greater love? The willingness and attempts to save innocents, or the attempts to murder them? Judging from the willingness of the Left to abandon innocents to barbarities, and abandon innocents to sub human existence, we know who loves more. Peace is not an absence of war, Peace is an absence of threat. If someone is holding a gun to your head, you are not at peace, even though you are not being physically harmed by the gun just pointing at you. You are being the victim of violence. The difference between you and I is pretty simple, I would seek to remove the person holding the gun to your head, while you wouldn't do the same for me. If I act, you may die, you may be wounded, you may be unharmed physically. If you do what you say we should, I would be dead, because you want to understand the person holding the gun, and show him the error of his ways through compassion and tenderness.
You don't negotiate with barbarians like that, you kill them. You keep killing the rabid animals until there are no more rabid animals. Otherwise more are infected with the Rabies. You eliminate the rattlesnakes from your yard, because they are a threat. I should say if you want to live, you eliminate the rabid animals and the rattlesnakes. You do this because that is what survival demands.
That is a major difference between the ideas of Conservatives and Liberals, we believe in eliminating the threat, while you strive to eliminate the war.
The specific ideals put forth by this insane attempt at logic and rational thought are asinine to begin with. This post is called "Five Questions that rock the conservative world" and I wish I was making this up. As an assist to my Delusional Underground lunatics, I am going to help you all out, and answer these questions.
THE FIVE QUESTIONS - LISTEN TO THEIR ANSWERS and ask for more detail.
1. What do you think it is going to take to move from a oil based consumer culture to a renewable energy based one?
The answer to this one is simple, for the Renewable energy to be as dependable, and as financially affordable as the "fossil fuel" economy. While there has been some progress in this area, it's simply put, not dependable, nor feasible, at this time, to depend on renewable energy sources. Solar for example, only works during daylight. Wind, well besides being opposed near the Kennedy Compound, is opposed by Environmentalists who denounce the dangers posed to birds. When you environmental friendly folks get on the same page about some of this, come back and discuss the matter some more.
I will admit to a number of questions about the so called energy independence desire of Liberals. Why don't they ever embrace Nuclear energy? It is dependable, safe, and produces no atmospheric pollution, yet it is universally opposed by Liberals.
2. Do you honestly believe that continued war in the Middle East going to move us forward to that goal? Explain.
This flawed argument presumes that we are fighting the War on Terror for oil. If that was the case, we could have easily declared war on Mexico, or Canada, as both have oil, and are much closer. The presumtion of this argument is that the only reason for the War on Terror is the oil located in the region. Yet, we support Israel, despite the hatred of Israel by those who have the Oil. If our only motivation was the Oil, wouldn't it have been logical to throw Israel overboard, and instead focus our diplomatic efforts on friendship with the other Arab states?
Your argument on this point is obviously flawed, and demonstrates how delusional your side of this discussion truly is. It assumes that Halliburtion and Exxon are the only motivating factor for the War on Terror, and ignores the three generations of history that have clearly shown ignored Terrorism getting more audacious, and more violent. From the 1960's to today, Terrorism has been growing, to the situation we face today, where we must fight to guarantee the future of our way of life in the face of a steadily growing threat. We are not fighting for oil, again, Canada and Mexico are much closer, despite the hysterical screams from the left claiming we are.
3. Do you think our current consumer based culture is a path to energy independence? Explain. (this is very interesting and can go yes or no I have found.)
Yes, as necessity is the mother of invention, and the future is bright. We are looking at the ability to create Nuclear Fusion devices, which will offer tremendous amounts of energy, in the next Generation or two. We are looking at breakthroughs on Wind Power, despite the Kennedy opposition to the plan, and more efficient solar systems, most of which as you know operate at less than 12% efficiency ratings. As the systems become more efficient, and more economical, the demand for those systems will reduce the demand on oil, instead looking towards other systems for dependable energy needs.
As a historical let's consider shipping. At the end of the last century, the most abundant power system for the shipping industry was Wind. Second was coal powered steam ships. Coal powered was efficient and the standard until oil fired steam creation was created, and standardized. It was more efficient to use Oil fired boilers to get the steam needed to power the ships. Diesel started to make inroads, and now Diesel turbines are the power system of choice for large ships which require large amounts of power to drive them. Large Naval vessels are powered by Nuclear Reactors, replacing the oil fired boilers with nuclear powered boilers.
Each system was more efficient and dependable than the one before, and each one replaced the one before. Unless you ignore the obvious evolution of these power systems, then it is possible to claim no progress has been made. Today, experimentation is underway to look at fuel cells, and while it is interesting, it's not more efficient or dependable than the current methods. When it is, and only when it is, will it be accepted by the world as the preferred method of powering ships on the seas.
4. What tools will you give your children and their children to enable them to live and survive in a world that is running out of oil?
I am teaching them that Abortion is a good thing, because the Liberals are more likely to Abort children than Conservatives, and with luck we can see the end of Liberalism in the next few Generations. That by the way is a joke. Only partly a joke, because some of those aborted children could have grown up to be brilliant scientists who solved many of the problems facing us, but were denied the opportunity.
Seriously, the question is asinine. It assumes that in ten years the world is going to grind to a halt. Commerce will stop, the lights will go out, and anarchy will rule the day. Education at good private schools, which are the last bastion of true education, where children are actually taught information that is useful, is the real hope, as it has always been. Instead of dependence upon failing public schools, which are frankly a failure. Children can't find their own state on a map, can't find their own nation on a map, and can't perform even the most basic required skills like reading comprehension, and the answer from the left is defend the public schools. If a Business operated like that, producing nothing, it would be bankrupt in days, not months.
5. Do you think it is important to teach children about peace and love?
Certainly, to an extent. To love your fellow being is important. However it's also important to understand that the old lie of "Violence never solved anything" is problematic here.
If I am to save a people from extermination by another group, I must use violence.
Look at the Military Operations in the Middle East. Our military personnel are placing themselves between innocents and the threats from Terrorists. They risk their own lives to move women and children from the area, often weeping over the victims of the Terrorists. They love the innocent so much that they are willing to risk their own lives to protect the non combatants often with their own lives. By comparison, the Terrorists hide behind civilians, using them as shields, to protect their own lives. The Terrorists then claim, and you folks on the left carry the water for them, that the Americans slaughtered innocents when returning fire at the barbarians.
Which is the greater love? The willingness and attempts to save innocents, or the attempts to murder them? Judging from the willingness of the Left to abandon innocents to barbarities, and abandon innocents to sub human existence, we know who loves more. Peace is not an absence of war, Peace is an absence of threat. If someone is holding a gun to your head, you are not at peace, even though you are not being physically harmed by the gun just pointing at you. You are being the victim of violence. The difference between you and I is pretty simple, I would seek to remove the person holding the gun to your head, while you wouldn't do the same for me. If I act, you may die, you may be wounded, you may be unharmed physically. If you do what you say we should, I would be dead, because you want to understand the person holding the gun, and show him the error of his ways through compassion and tenderness.
You don't negotiate with barbarians like that, you kill them. You keep killing the rabid animals until there are no more rabid animals. Otherwise more are infected with the Rabies. You eliminate the rattlesnakes from your yard, because they are a threat. I should say if you want to live, you eliminate the rabid animals and the rattlesnakes. You do this because that is what survival demands.
That is a major difference between the ideas of Conservatives and Liberals, we believe in eliminating the threat, while you strive to eliminate the war.
posted by Max Conservative at 1:11 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home