Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

So what you're saying is you've found the jewish Hitler.

No, they haven't, which is why both biofuels, specifically ethanol, and solar/wind projects have required huge tax incentives, mandates for use, and subsidies from the government in order to force/fund/encourage their use. If anything, ethanol in particular is a net drain on energy resources, because it takes nearly double the energy to produce as it delivers.



No

it

isn't.

Land is a resource, like any other. In order to "scale" these projects, you have to acquire more of that particular resource. Wind, solar, and (especially) biofuels use exponentially more land resources than other options, which factors into their viability and efficiency. Senator Alexander's op-ed that is linked above compares the amount of land use required for a particular yield of electrical power using a particular option.



One that is never acknowledged when those "crazy libertarians" point it out, but not one that absolves the federal government of providing medical care for employees injured while engaged in their duties.



I'll agree that many federal workers are unnecessarily employed, and that their compensation (money combined with benefits) is excessive. Part of the reason I agree with this is that the federal government is engaged in many activities that it has no Constitutional mandate in which to be involved, which is not something you can say about the military, as providing for the national defense is a valid function of the federal government outlined in the Constitution. You could argue that we shouldn't have a standing army, according to the Constitution, but that wouldn't have applied to my years of service, as I was in the Navy, which is provided for in the Constitution even in times of peace.

Regardless of whether my services were really necessary or not, my employer still had an obligation to provide medical services for injuries sustained while I performed the services for which I was hired.



Whether you read Moore or Franken or Krugman or See Spot Run isn't the point. Your assertion is that, and I quote...



...which clearly, given what I have read, isn't the case. This is yet another example of you deciding what behaviors others do or do not engage in based on nothing more than "oh, they disagree with me, clearly they're somehow uninformed or deficient."



If what I read is of no consequence, why bring it up? I'd suggest here that you no longer consider it to be relevant simply because it has yet again been pointed out that you're wrong.



Yes, I suffered through two of Michael Moore's laughable forays into prose so I could be "clearly unaware" of contrary opinions. Consider this: I don't discuss the contents of books like Moore's or articles by Former Enron Advisors not because I'm brain-washed by Fox News, but because the only time I find it appropriate to quote fools is when I'm responding to them, so they will be aware which particular bit of their silliness I'm addressing.



Yet when directly told that your "impression" is in error, you continue to press the point...and I'm the one incapable of citing those with whom I disagree when they contradict my views? I hope the irony of your statement isn't lost on you now that I've gone through the trouble of pointing it out for you.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

I've always talked in terms of reading general history, not anything contemporary. You're strawmaning.

The fuel inefficiency of biofuels is due to agricultural subsidies which incentivize inefficient and overly mechanized farming. Brazil does not have agricultural subsidies, their agricultural system is more efficient, and they have been using ethanol for decades.

The numbers on that column you linked - all of them on that site - can ultimately be traced back to a bunch of self-serving articles and studies by oil/gas groups. Just because the color green is splashed all over the site doesn't mean its a legit environmental advocate, and just because they have a bunch of hyperlinks doesn't mean all or any of their data is legitimate or even present in their "sources". You need to read more, Google less, or at least read what you Google rather than just spamming hyperlinks. Then again that is a tactic that appeals to those who don't actually like to think.

Even according to the largely imaginary numbers on the site, which aren't even cited in most of the quoted links, there is no serious threat of actually running out of floor space for renewable energy. 20 times the land cost of coal power is still tiny, especially since wind and solar do not require mineral or biological resources in their placement - they can be situated, and are perhaps best situated, on wasteland.



The military, by and large, doesn't provide for the national defense. It's a massive welfare program that operates largely without accountability. Most of its self-declared missions have never gone through the legitimate political process and do less than nothing to enhance our security. The Founding Fathers were adamantly opposed to having a large standing army because they knew the sort of national problems inevitable with standing armies.

You are no different than any other government worker that does something useless and expensive and has self-serving claims to justify his existence and why he's different than all the other baddies in government.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

I like how Aestu is advocating fair treatment of the environment and green energy... but remember that time he crossed the caution tape and stepped on the grass? How inhumane. (I'm sure he hasn't bought enough carbon credits to off-set the years of in-game play time logged in WoW, which required his PSU and a couple servers chugging away to accumulate)

I'm not sure what general history books have to do with green energy.

I'm surprised you guys haven't figured out how much of a waste of time it is to argue with him.

Because this isn't the first time people have made these kinds of "if we reform, the world will implode" arguments. This isn't the first time that reform has been held up by fat cats and useful idiots, or false claims have been made to sound legit through razzle-dazzle.



What this is really about...is stupid and ignorant people like you...who want to pretend you're not stupid and ignorant when really you are.

So you get the crap beat out of you by facts and logic, then rather than changing your views or educating yourself, you just paw over your hurt butt and say, "HE WOULDNT LET ME PRETEND MY VIEWS ARE CORRECT SO I WAS WASTING MY TIME TRYING TO PRETEND THEY WERE".

No shit you're going to get frustrated time and again arguing against views that are actually informed and internally consistent. You can get mad and stay bad, or you can get wise and get better. Go read something.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

^ 9/10 Trolling

anyone else picture Aestu as Paul Christoforo? They're both about as manic.

Hmmmm...they also both live in Boston...a pattern, it is forming: "Ocean Marketing, this is Ethan, how may we fuck today?"

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

guys he thinks I'm stupid and ignorant because i disagree with him.

oh shit, what do i do?

If you disagree with him then he must disagree with you, right?

"See sig."

Not all positions are of equal truthfulness or worth. You're proving my point. You are upset because you want to pretend all views, however flawed (e.g., yours) are of equal worth when that simply isn't the case.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

No, I'm responding to your actual assertion, as written. Your delusions may say otherwise, but as I'm not privy to your delusions (save the ones you type for us here), I can't make an informed response to them.



Oh, good, then we agree that mandates, subsidies, and tax breaks aren't just necessary, they're detrimental to the development of alternative energy sources. In that case, I'm not sure why you're arguing.



Actually, at least one of the studies in question was done by The Nature Conservancy, which isn't an oil/gas group. If not for your abysmal reading comprehension, you'd have probably been able to glean that from at least one of the articles. However, the "it comes from a biased source" routine is one of your most familiar, if not most entertaining, and was not unexpected. I was, however, surprised that it wasn't followed up with "and the BBC said..."

Oh, and here is one of the "fake" studies in question, complete with reference documentation.



You say "wasteland," environmental groups say "unique desert ecosystem."



Sign up for a two-year enlistment, see what military service entails, then get back to me on whether-or-not it's "welfare."

The military is probably the most accountable operation the government has...sometimes voluntarily so. Not only does it answer directly to the executive branch, it also must answer inquiries for the purposes of congressional oversight. Oh, and it even opens itself up to the scrutiny of the American public by taking along embedded journalists. [sarcasm]Yeah, the US military sure is secretive and unaccountable.[/sarcasm]

Regardless of whether or not you may have found my services unnecessary, I was hired/accepted to perform those services. If Wal*Mart hired an employee, and that employee was injured on the job, would you then argue that they shouldn't have to pay for their medical treatment because they didn't really need that employee? That's what you're doing here, you know. And why are you doing that? Oh, yes, because you had to (once again) change the subject because you were wrong about something because you were making assumptions about other people based on your IMAGINATION.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste