Motorcycle Forums banner
41 - 60 of 68 Posts
Unfortunately, the Greenie-pandering EPA won't allow many of these diesels here. Impending regulations will put the existing diesels from VW off the market.



Get a turbo-diesel Beetle or Passat now, while you still can!
 
That's alright, I saw it anyway

I suspect the discrepancy between my numbers and the WP is largely due to the fact that some economists don't put social security into the budget; it is its own separate thing, call it a lockbox if you will. Once one accepts that point, which I do but I won't get too upset if others disagree, it only takes a small amount of haggling about how individual items are reported to end up with a budget that has defense as over 50. I think quite clearly people can argue about the percentages for a long time without ever being able to tell who wins.

Doesn't change my point that defense can be cut dramatically. Frankly, I am a complete isolationist. I think we cause more problems than we solve by inserting ourselves into the affairs of the rest of the world. We have gotten away with it due to our complete economic and military domination since WWII, but those past wins, I think, will come back to haunt us when we are no longer dominant in those areas. And I think it is becoming clear that while we are dominant in the latter category, we are losing our hold on the economic realm.

Anyway, to attempt to stay on point, it is my understanding that if we decided to cut way back on our defense spending and essentially just sit tight in north america, not spending so much on all those imperialist bases, etc, there is very little the rest of the world could do to harm us other than what they're trying to do right now. Iran and North Korea do not have missiles that could reach anywhere near the US, even if this whole missile shield boondoggle could possibly work, which no one with any expertise in the field believes it is anywhere near able to do. Find me someone who thinks it's a good idea, and I'll show you somebody poised to make money off getting government support for the project, or a sucker. In other words, I think most defense spending, as well as most governmental spending in general, is set up to funnel the moneys of the many to the pockets of a few rich investors.

Hence, if we slash that porkpile, we should have enough to throw at developing alternatives to our overweening dependence on the internal combustion engine. That's about enough ***** droning out of me.

Thanks, btw, for doing what you think you're doing regarding smart defense spending. I very much appreciate bringing that thrifty attitude to government spending - please keep it up.
 
are you trying to tell us you really are so ***** stupid

that you think a) either of those countries has anything anywhere close to the ability to fire a missile at the US, and b) that a missile defense system has even a remotely small chance of working? I'm going to have to revise my opinion of who you are. There's a not a latently homosexual 15 year old basement dweller in north america that would believe such tripe. Perhaps you really are a braindead, violent, latent homosexual, slow moving HD rider (no offense to fast moving HD riders). And here I thought you might be a witty poser. Silly me.
 
Nice response, but

what about the fact that that horrifying price increase is on top of the incredible population explosion in those 37 years, the increase in demand from china and india as well as the rest of the world, and the fact that we are very likely in the peak oil moment right now? I mean, 3 years ago everyone was schized out about oil reaching $40 a barrel, and now we are trumpeting when it falls under $70. This is circumstantial, I know, but at a certain point the buildup of circumstantial evidence becomes overwhelming (almost all countries upped their reserve estimates once OPEC decided to tie production to your reserves, etc). And M. King Hubbert was right about US oil production, perhaps he is right about global? What will happen when demand for oil outstrips supply? Perhaps you'll have to give up more than a snack cake.
 
Re: BZZZZT! Sorry, mike nomad!

Incorrect is just bizarre in this case, and I didn't do it. Do you think moderating all of pencildx's posts as idiotic troll is chickenshyt, because I DO THAT WHENEVER (goddamn caps lock button) I get a chance.
 
That was the whole point of my missive. The vehicles already exist all we need to do is import them. We don't need a massive shift away from gas and deisel, just import and sell the same vehicles the rest of the world gets that use it most efficiently.
 
Re: That's alright, I saw it anyway

Thanks for the encouragement. I agree with you about the data manipulation; I hate to see it happen, but it's a fact of life. We really just have to decide for ourselves what assumptions are valid and draw our own conclusions.

What I like is having a reasonable conversation with someone over things we disagree about. Seems like it's getting harder to come by all the time.

Nice chatting with you FOM; stay fast.
 
Discussion starter · #50 ·
Re: Excellent Point

How? you are bad with math aren't you? it's ok to admit it.. To me it is really simple... in constant 2005 dollars gas is approaching the record set in 1981.. Tell me I used to be a Math tutor in college..
 
Discussion starter · #51 ·
Your data is incorrect which is leading you to an incorrect conclusion.

You didn't look at my link with the chart did you? Look at at slope of the line near 2006...That is a big increase from what it was say in 2000.. Where did you get your data? Gas in 1968 costs around 35 cents a gallon.. about $1.75 in 2005 dollars... Where did you get your data?. By the way the slope of a line is the rate of change...the steeper the slope the faster the change..I was a Math tutor in college.. :)
 
Discussion starter · #52 ·
You sound awfully defensive... I think a few people did say that. I had to point out that gas is nearing a 1981 record in constant dollars... By way it sounds like you are confused what constant dollars is... It is a way to compare apples to apples if you will.. I suggest you pick up a finance or an accounting book and look up net preset value..
 
Discussion starter · #53 ·
Re: Excellent Point

I think you should pick up a basic accounting or finance book and look up net present value.. I think there are few you guys who are confused by the concept of constant dollars..
 
Re: are you trying to tell us you really are so ***** stupid

"either of those countries has anything anywhere close to the ability to fire a missile at the US"

Yep, North Korea either capable now or is close to have something to hit the west coast (Although I must admit, if they nuke Hollywood, San Fran and any part of Canada I will not be terribly upset)

Iran has tested missile capable of hitting Israel (which wouldn’t worry an anti Semite like you) and Europe (which would worry a wannabe canuck like you)

"that a missile defense system has even a remotely small chance of working?"

With sufficient funding, research and R&D a functional missile defense system can be developed.

"There's a not a latently homosexual 15 year old basement dweller in north america that would believe such tripe."

Agreed.

"Perhaps you really are a braindead, "

No problem, my ass has mor ecognative abilities than you.

"violent,"

Only when I am faced with you ***** liberal s*****

"latent homosexual, "

I thought you just said homos cannot believe what I do? You sound confused.

"slow moving HD rider"

That is an insult?

"And here I thought you might be a witty poser."

You capable of thought?

" Silly me."

Agreed. Very silly
 
Re: Excellent Point

Let’s see. You go from "Gas prices when adjusted for inflation are higher now then ever " to "in constant 2005 dollars gas is approaching the record set in 1981." in consecutive posts.

If prices are still "approaching the record set in 1981" they cannot be "higher now then ever".

I guess despite being an executive, a pilot, a Lexus driver, a Mensa member and a math tutor, you still rate as the dumbest ******* on the board. Folks like Fastoldman are trying their best to beat you, but you win hands down…
 
I agree.

I don't quite get the disappearance of the lost art of civil disagreement, and it a real loss.

I'm getting too guilty of it myself, allowing myself to get snippy with others who are clearly just trying to ***** me off. I'll have to work on that.

As Laurence Fishburne says in the greatest moving picture of all time (Biker Boyz), Aero_Mongoose "...burn rubber, not your soul."
 
I've decided to leave my pugilistic side

so I will not respond to any of your flamebait anymore. I may respond to reason, but I am tired of pissing you off just because you are obviously trolling around here, trying to ***** the rest of us off.

But, I am under the impression that North Korea can barely hit Japan with missiles, and is likely just trying to extort as much gold as possible out of the rich countries arrayed against it.

And Iran, yes, could hit Israel, but allegedly does not have the capability to build a nuke for the next 3-8 years, unless the noted propagandists that brought us no WMDs in Iraq are correct. While I am no anti-semite, which is a rather odd insult coming from an HD rider, I do believe the situation in the Middle East is complicated enough that there are no real good guys, including Israel.

As well, I am under the impression that most in the military don't think that the missile shield idea has much better than an astronomically low chance of succeeding.

Obviously we disagree. Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between our two positions. I would suggest that there is very little reason to ever start a violent action in order to prevent violence, and that that doctrine, while it has gotten us into trouble in the past, I think it is a truly American legacy that I hate to see left behind.

Cheers,

FOM
 
What is pugilistic?

"Barely hit Japan with missiles" is akin to saying your girlfriend is only a ‘little pregnant’. North Korea have already test fired a missile that traveled over (i.e. past) Japan. In response to your statement, they most certainly can hit Japan already, and it would be naïve if you think they cannot (and will not) improve on their current capabilities.

"is likely just trying to extort as much gold as possible out of the rich countries arrayed against it"

You say that as though that would be a good thing …

"And Iran, yes, could hit Israel, but allegedly does not have the capability to build a nuke for the next 3-8 years"

So best is to nothing and hope they soften their position pertaining to wiping Israel off the map? Sorry, sensible folks do not roll that way

"I am under the impression that most in the military don't think that the missile shield idea has much better than an astronomically low chance of succeeding."

For somebody who has not spend a day in uniform or is in no way occupied with the defense of US interests, I doubt your impression of US military opinion carries much merit. A working missile defense would be a very use tool in eliminating the motivation of rogue nations to pursue ICMB technology.

"I would suggest that there is very little reason to ever start a violent action in order to prevent violence,"

Not quite. A first strike policy is a defensive tactic to eliminate a possible threat. With a working missile defense system in place, there would be little reason to ever employ a ‘first strike’ policy.

Not at all a bad thing to have no?
 
41 - 60 of 68 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top