You are not logged in.
Tom Kalbfus wrote:if we kill enough of them, they will get the message that killing Americans is a bad idea!
You realize they have the same idea. You kill them, they kill you. When does the cycle stop?
When they are dead! Since they are not afraid of dying, we are going to have to kill them in order to get them to stop, it is a shame really, most normal people know when to stop when they feel that continued fighting will almost certainly get them killed, not these fanatics. Fanatics need to be killed, as we can't convince them that they won't go to Heaven when they die, we just have to remove them from the board so they can no longer threaten us!
When Bill Clinton was president, the cycle with al-Qaeda escalated until it became 9/11. ISIS hasn't attacked the US on American soil...yet. Do you want to push them until they do?
Funny, that wasn't the Bill Clinton I remembered. The Bill Clinton I remembered didn't have a lot to do with the Middle East, he bombed the Iraqis to protect the Kurds in the north, he got involved in the Balkans to save the lives of Bosnian Muslims against the Serbs, that wanted to rape and murder them. (The Serbs were Russia's allies, it was with the Balkan conflict that we got the first inklings that there was something wrong with the Russians!) Bill Clinton didn't actually do much to the Muslims, many Muslims were immigrating to the United States, and they were conservatives that were trending Republican until the 9/11 attack! And after the 9/11 attack, the Democrats suddenly realized they needed to stand up to the religious rights of Muslims not to be discriminated against! The Democrats didn't think much about them before, except that one was the assassin of Robert F. Kennedy! After 9/11 the Democrat suddenly saw this disadvantaged group that was facing prejudice because of public perceptions in the immediate aftermath of that attack, instead of thinking about protecting Americans, they were thinking about protecting Muslims from a backlash in the aftermath of that attack. Their priorities were backwards! They even go around trying to bring in more Muslims into the Country, Chuck Schumer does that while at the same time demanding more money for Homeland security. It occurs to me, maybe they wouldn't need as much money for Homeland security if they weren't trying to stop Trump from banning people from 6 dangerous Muslim majority countries, they want t bring them in here, and the wan Federal money so the Government can keep an eye on them, all without profiling! Does this make any sense?
Look. The US supported general Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Look how well that turned out. The US supported Osama bin Laden against Soviets in Afghanistan. Again, didn't that work? Iran elected a Prime Minister in 1951, had a modern liberal democracy. An Anglo-American coup in 1953 overthrew that government, installed the Shaw who was corrupt. This isn't sounding good, is it?
The US didn't support Saddam Hussein when he was invading Kuwait, in fact we actively opposed him! What is your point? What we don't have a crystal ball so we can see who is going to betray us next? Does anyone have such a crystal ball? Benedict Arnold was an important part of the cause for American Independence before h betrayed it to he British, should we have known he was going to be a traitor? How? We try to find allies wherever we can, we don't know what they are going to do in the future, Saddam Hussein was one such ally.
Now there's ISIS. Bad guys. The only reason they have any chance is the ongoing civil war in Syria. The fight between Syrian army and rebels ties up all their resources. If that wasn't ongoing, they Syrian army would have long ago gotten rid of ISIS. And you realize ISIS gets most of their weapons by intercepting weapons drops by the US intended for rebels.
And the Syrians are the good guys? I recall decades after decades of them launching missiles into Israel targeting civilians, why should I care if these bad guys defeat the other bad guys? I want to defeat them both! If that devastates Syria, then too bad, they chose to be bad guys, so that tends to leave their cities in ruins, just like the Germans and the Japanese!
Tom: Have you bothered to try to read their statements? Do you have any idea why they're fighting?
There statements have little to do with why they are fighting, they are fighting for power, they are fighting against liberals like you, they hate women's rights, they hate Jews and Christians, there is nothing just about what they are fighting for, they are simply two-legged monsters that look human. You see what they did, putting people in cages and burning them alive? They stone women for adultery, they cut off heads and put them in baskets, they are simply monsters, and we need to hunt them down!. I don't know why you bother to try and see things from their point of view, they are not civilized, they are not humane, they behave in ways that are similar to the orcs of Middle Earth. So when they start acting like human beings, then maybe they'll deserve to be treated like human beings, but until then they are monsters!
Or do you only read propaganda?
What propaganda, the 9/11 attack was real, I was there! I believe humans were really burned in cages, I can show you the baskets of human heads they collected, and they trained children to shoot other children that weren't what they considered to be Muslim. They are barbarians, and they deserve no respect from us, and we should make it clear to them that they are not going to get any respect from us, so long as they behave this way.
They have said the United States started it. The United States murdered their leaders.
It was their leaders idea to have this Jihad against the West, if they would fight like civilized soldiers, they would get more respect from us, but they don't, they target civilians on purpose!
The United States has soldiers on their soil.
What is their soil? Syria or Iraq? The Levant, they claim a lot of land, and there are modern states that occupy that land and don't agree with them, and the fact that they act like monsters and violate all the rules of war while they fight indicates they don't really deserve any land. If they act like orcs, they are not going get Mordor!
The United States is occupying their land. Did you ever stop to think that your own government is the bad guy?
Not once, if we were as evil as they are, we would have exterminated them the way Hitler intended to do with the Jews!
They see themselves as freedom fighters.
Well they are not freedom fighters, they haven't freed anyone, and have enslaved quite a few women and forced marriages on them after murdering their husbands!
They certainly won't knuckle under to a military oppressor who kills their leaders, imposes a puppet government with collaborators who are completely corrupt, embezzling their tax dollars and extorting their business.
Then we need to kill them! People who burn POWs in cages deserve nothing.
That's what they claim.
I can tell a lie too, and so can you, saying something doesn't make it true, and people who murder and enslave are capable of lying
Did you ever stop to think they could be right?
You mean about enslaving women and burning people in cages? Don't you believe in equal rights for women. We're the country that does, they do not, that is one of the reasons they are fighting us, but you are more than willing to think of the United States as evil, no matter who says it, even if its a bunch of Islamo-Nazis that hate women and who are intolerant of other religions and homosexuality. These are monsters!
That large American corporations operating in their country have committed atrocities?
You take the word of an orc?
That American military operating under orders from corrupt American politicians receiving bribes from those large American corporations have sent covert ops to commit murder?
Murder people who stone women for adultery and immodesty?
So you want to "crush" them.
Yes they are killing us, if we kill enough of them, they will get the message that killing Americans is a bad idea!
Uh huh. This is what one of their cities look like now. And you wonder why they continue to defend themselves?
https://www.thestar.com/content/dam/the … 86x720.jpg
We will stop when they stop attacking us, its quite simply, but they love fighting and sending their men and women to die in suicide bombs, they fact that they are using such things indicates they don't value their own lives so why should we? They are a bunch of monsters that look human, that have got this meme in their head that they are part of a Jihad against the West, and we've played softball with them for too long, letting them think they can win, and that God is on their side. We need to show them the error of their ways.
That is propaganda, the United States doesn't occupy any land in the Middle East, they say we do, but that doesn't make it true. and also I might add, the Middle East was the birthplace of Judaism and Christianity, Islam was a latecomer that arrived in the 7th century, 700 years after the birth of Jesus Christ, so no they don't have exclusive rights to the place. Islam is just an overly successful cult, it would be like the Mormons taking over North America and saying no other religions belong here!
Tom Kalbfus wrote:when we still have not solved the terrorist problem?
Yes you did. President Barack Obama had Osama bin Laden assassinated. And that was done wrong. He should have been captured alive, brought to the US for trial. I wanted to see a long, prolonged, televised trial. I wanted to see bin Laden in handcuffs, his beard shaved off, his hair cut in a prison crew cut, and orange prison jump suit. I wanted to see him face the families of those he killed. That would have been cathartic for the American people. But no, he was assassinated. Terrorists assassinate people, civilized countries bring perpetrators to trial. America hasn't accepted it's over.
Really? I don't seem to recall Al Qaeda or ISIS ever surrendering or giving up the fight! What we need to do is crush their will to fight and their will to sacrifice themselves, and when that happens, when the world gets back to normal and we no longer have to worry about suicide terrorists then the War on Terror will be good and won!
And today we see on the news that the US has banned carry-on laptops and tablets. What!?!? That affects me. I haven't checked any baggage since 1997.
Blame the Jihad! Unfortunately, you don' win wars by enhancing security and building walls, what you have to do is go out and destroy the enemy, make such an example of him so that other people and countries will no better than to start a war with you, this is what we did to Japan and Germany at the end of World War II, but unfortunately over time, the enemy forgets and needs to be reminded, they agan think they can wage a war against you and win, so we need to show them that they are wrong, by destroying enough of them to make them think that further fighting would be too costly and not worth it!
I bought a bag called a "weekender", the largest bag that fits under the seat of an economy class seat. It has a central compartment for clothes, and a side compartment for laptop and papers. I haven't travelled in a couple years, but when I do I buy my ticket online, use the airport check-in kiosk to get a boarding pass, and walk straight onto the plane. When the plane arrives, I walk straight to the taxi area. I never waste time waiting in lines, never waste time at the luggage carousel. I've had my luggage lost or damaged too many times, just don't trust airlines. That means the laptop I use to make my presentation has to be in my carry-on. If I can't carry a laptop, then I can't give a presentation at a Mars Society convention. If I can't give a presentation, there's no point in me going.
Defense defense defense, over the last 8 years the emphasis has always been on defense and not on offense, if the Enemy fails to get through and make his attack, he says, "Oh darn," and tries again and again until he finanlly succeeds and auses the casualities that he wants! It is time we fought back and retaliated, make their societies pay the price for getting into a war with the United States!
This reminds me of the ban on liquids. Airport security experts have long admitted that the ban on liquids does absolutely nothing for safety. It's just "theatre", to appear to be doing something. I creates inconvenience without doing anything for safety. Just an appearance of doing something.
The something we could do is bomb the enemy, bomb him and bomb him until his people grow tired of the war and the mounting causalities. What is this war for anyway? What do they hope to achieve? Obama would have ended this war at the negotiating table if he could, but they just kept attacking and attacking, and by doing so, they kept the war alive for the next Administration, the Trump Administration, and Donald Trump needs to do what Obama could not, finish off this enemy so it is no longer a threat!
However, TV news stated the ban, but reading online showed a clause the talking head on TV didn't mention. This is only for jets coming from Mideast or North Africa. Oh, so this doesn't affect me. Ok.
Back to your point. How much longer is the US going to meddle in Middle East affairs? Bin Laden is now dead, but the US appears determined to create new enemies. You can't "solve the terrorist problem" when you keep creating new enemies. You keep creating your own problem.
A long as the Middle East meddles on our affairs by attacking us! That is the answer, our goal is clear, to stop terrorism, to stamp it out, what I their goal, to be destroyed by the West? Also why do you want them coming here? It seems they are proving that Islam is a menace, that is what their Jihad is showing us! Why do we continue to let Muslims in here and walk among us, and pull out a dagger or a bomb every now and then, or run us over with a truck or take over an airplane and crash it! If your argument is we shouldn't be meddeling in their affairs, that also seems to be a strong argument for not letting them come here, yet you liberals say we should get out of the Middle East, and you roll out the red carpet for middle easterners that want to come here, especially Muslims! You seem determined that Americans not feel safe. th only argument for pulling out of the Middle East is for safety, but you undermine that by insisting that we don't band Muslims. So we are back to square one, you refuse to follow a true isolationist policy, yet you want us to withdraw from the middle east without banning Muslims from coming here. So my question is, why should we do what you ask? There seems to be nothing in it for us! No matter what we do, they keep on killing us, so the only choice left is to go out and destroy them! That is the logic and my conclusion, do you have a better answer?
Creating a giant fresh water reservoir in East Antarctica is sure as heck a lot easier than terraforming Mars. The main problem with global warming is the rise in ocean levels as the polar ice caps on land melts, so basically Antarctica already has a reservoir of fresh water, except this water is in frozen form. We simply need to devise a way for Antarctica to hold onto this water in liquid form, and unlike Mars Terraforming, this I something we can start doing today. Usually the way you build a reservoir is to find certain land features such as mountains and a river valley and you build a wall to hold back the water from pouring through the gap, but there is nothing in physics that says we can't build a wall that completely encloses the major par of East Antarctica and retains most of the water from melting glaciers. The Earth will get warmer, but the oceans will not go higher, and to combat desertification, we have this giant reservoir that covers most of a continent, if we can do that, we can build aqueducts that can irrigate most of the dry places across the globe. You see the problem, as many have stated is that it my already be too late to halt global warming, the amount of carbon-dioxide is already too high, and it can't be removed very easily, but we can still halt global flooding with a massive engineering project, and it seems to me that it would be a lot easier to put a wall around East Antarctica that one around the six other continents, I mean that is just stupid, and why spend the resources to cut carbon emissions if it is already too late, seems to me the effort should be applied more directly to prevent global flooding. Do you disagree?
Tom Kalbfus wrote:...I wonder why you didn't propose that the Vatican City in Rome govern Mars...
The Holy See is a party to the Outer Space Treaty so it is not a sovereign that could claim a portion of Mars. Please see the "Holy See" at...
That kind of leaves Taiwan doesn't it. Since Taiwan can't be a party to the Outer Space Treaty as its not recognized as a country by the UN. So does Taiwan get Mars?
How much did Poland spend on National Defense in 1939? Was that a sustainable Defense Budget?
Yes, I said military spending has to be sustainable. The last year the US federal government had a balanced budget was year 2000. Every budget since has to be compared to that. The military and national security budget that year was $288 billion. Apply inflation from that year to today, you get $398 billion. I said you have to cut military spending to that. It would still leave you with 60% more than Russia plus China plus North Korea combined. Canada's military budget last year was CAD$19.7 billion. Canada's population is 35 million, the US has 324.7 million. The American equivalent based on population and exchange of the dollar would be $182 billion. So the US military budget I asked is still generous.
So in that case, what's wrong with Donald Trump cutting the budget of PBS and the National Endowment of the Arts? Those contribute nothing to the National Defense, and Trump needs to find money to increase the Defense Budget by $50 billion in order to undo the damage Obama wrought. I don't think we need the Federal government subsidizing art, especially such examples as Jesus on a cross in urine, and a painting of the Virgin Mary made with elephant dung, do we need the Federal government paying for that, when we still have not solved the terrorist problem?
Military - you said "no one person should ever have authority to take our country to war". The Constitution of the United States says Congress has that authority. The President administers the war once declared, but only Congress can decide to go to war. This has been abused more time than I can count. Congress must defend its authority.

What about when war comes to our country? Is the President of the United States allowed to defend the American People without the Congress giving him permission? What if instead that airplane had flown into the Capitol Building while Congress was in session, would the President have the authority to act then if given that most of Congress was killed in that attack?
There was a book written by Tom Clancy that began with that premise.
Equilibrium would take thousands of years to be established, because of the slowness of isostatic adjustment of the crust. This process is still going on in and around the formerly glaciated areas.
On the other hand, ice melting is, and has been, very rapid. The effect of these two processes is that initially the sea level will rise very quickly as warming proceeds and then will slowly retreat, over thousands of years, in areas that previously had big masses of ice, whilst shorelines advance further in the peripheral regions as mantle material slowly flows from one region to the other.
There is a way to lower the ocean level without refreezing the Earth. We can build a vast system of resevoirs on Antarctica, and store the water there as water, it would be a monumental engineering project, but I think Antarctica has enough material that if we redistribute it towards the coastline, we can make a vast fresh water/sea lake in the interior of the Antarctic continent.
This is a map of Antarctica, not imagine if we dug a giant artificial crater in the center of this continent and moved all the dirt and rock we excavated over to the shoreline to make a giant 360 degree earthen dam surrounding the South Pole and then filled it with water, making sure most of it stays in this giant lake. the Ocean level would then stay low instead of rising with the melting glaciers adding their water content to the oceans, We can instead cup all this water in the center of Antarctica and have it remain there as water. humans can act swiftly compared to climate change, and Antarctica has a very sparse ecology, no forests etc. We can import out own flora and fauna to the rim of this giant artificial lake we wish to make, and we can even have human settlements there in this largely vacant continent.

Here is the New Antarctica I would propose!
Tom:
Your arch-conservative political belief system prevents you from seeing the science as it really is, so you misuse things with erroneous interpretations to suit your own political positions, rather than fact or truth. It’s a chronic pattern I’ve noticed about you. This is because your political belief system requires you to deny science anytime corporate profit might be reduced by it.
I don't rely on the proxy temperature data that some few have fudged, and many others have mishandled. That's inherent with noisy data, and offers too many opportunities to game the system, and too many vulnerabilities to political ideologues like yourself.
Instead, I look at the ice, which ebbed and flowed during the 3-4 million years of the ice ages in lockstep with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Glaciated in the lower-200 ppm, deglaciated in the upper-200 ppm. There's no proxies here, there are only hard data. Measured CO2 in gas bubbles trapped in ice cores, dated by annual "ring" count and correlated to geological evidence of glaciatedness. The statistical correlation among these data is very, very strong. Thus to deny any of it defies all common sense.
Causality lies not in that statistical correlation, any more than any statistical correlation establishes causality. Causality comes from the simple bell jar experiment that anyone can run, and which has been in physics and chemistry laboratory teaching settings for over a century now. How it works is fully understood with no ambiguities at all, in terms of radiative energy conservation, and IR transmissibilities that vary from gas to gas, and which can be reliably measured.
What it says is that higher CO2 content inevitably warms the atmosphere close to the surface, thus also warming surface features. Warmth melts ice, coming from basic phase change physics. That means it is rising CO2 that melts glaciers, not glacier-melting releasing CO2 from somewhere, that is recorded in the ice core records. There's your causality. This is all hard science. To deny that part is so egregiously stupid I have no words for it.
Now comes the part where your political belief system persistently keeps you from seeing what is, only just what you want to believe. Over the last couple of centuries, atmospheric CO2 as measured in the ice cores has departed from the near-constant 280 ppm since the last deglaciation. This is confirmed by the Keeling curve measurements made since 1958 in Hawaii. In 1958 the annual average number was 300 ppm, it is now 400 ppm, and the trend says over 500 ppm in less than 30 years.
These are major departures from the low-200's to high-200's over the entire ice age, which in turn indicates that a difference of only 50 ppm makes a huge difference in ice cover, once equilibrium is attained after the flip-flop. The change in CO2 over the last 2 centuries, most of it in the last 50 years, is over 150 ppm! And the ice sheets that seem to have been stable since 11,000 years ago do indeed seem to be very seriously destabilizing in the last 50 years, based field observations and photography. The only known difference between 11,000 years ago and now, is us and our fossil fuel use combined with our exploding population. That's an inference, but it's an awfully strong one, almost a "smoking gun".
As an aside, the estimated atmospheric CO2 during the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum was over 500 ppm, which is where we'll be in less than 30 years if business-as-usual continues. It does require multiple lifetimes for things to equilibriate after the change is made. That world was fully deglaciated and somewhere between temperate-to-tropical at the poles, with sea levels over 100 m higher than today, according to the geological records.
Doesn't really matter whether we humans are causing this with our CO2 emissions, although it certainly looks like we are, to anyone not blinded by a political belief system. What really matters is (1) recognizing the problem implied by rising CO2, destabilizing glaciers, and the science that ties this together, and (2) acting to reduce that which we already know aggravates the melting of the ice: our CO2 emissions. We might not succeed in arresting this, but we will be overwhelmed even sooner if we do not try.
As for the pictures of the world in your posting, you selectively misinterpret them to match yor politics which demands denial-of-science and do-nothing-about-it from you. As the ice ages ebbed and flowed, the world looked like your first photo at low-200’s ppm CO2 during the glaciations, and more-or-less like today’s world in your second photo during the deglaciations at high-200’s ppm CO2, or even your third photo. Change was rapid moving from one state to the other, and rather static for thousands of years in each state. It flip-flops, it doesn’t gradually change, according to the geological record.
Your third picture is of a world with ~5 m sea level rise, with the mountain glaciers gone, part of Greenland deglaciated, and maybe just a little of west Antarctica melted. It can be a lot worse than that, and it has been in the geological past. Fully deglaciated pole to pole, seas rise from current levels by something like 34 meters. If the waters warm further, as they did in the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum, that’s over a 100 m due to simple thermal expansion.
The disaster comes about from the unprecedented rapidity with which this change is happening: 1 or at most 2 lifetimes, versus dozens of them. There is not time to adapt smoothly. So, resource wars are coming, along with widespread famine as agriculture fails due to rainfall pattern shifts. Fast enough, and it is a near-extinction event for humanity.
Now to quote you: “This is a map of the Earth if Global Warming were to continue. What makes you think we can stop it? “
My answer: Our world has looked like your second picture pretty much statically for the last 11,000 years. It wasn’t continually changing since then. It jumped from glaciated 18,000 years ago to current conditions by 11,000 years ago. Now in the last 50 years it is starting to change again, in the direction of your third photo.
With the disaster portended by massive sea level rise and unpredictable changes to rainfall, why should we not try to arrest this? At least it might buy us some extra time to adapt. At best we might stop it, although I really doubt that. In any event, the cost to us all if this disaster strikes is far higher than any corporation’s profit loss if we switch energy supplies.
So, how do you value lost human lives versus corporate economics?
GW
The Earth was recorded to have been wetter and cooler during recorded history, the fertile crescent was a wetter more vegetated place than it is now, The Sahara desert was smaller. Anyway if we really want to stop global warming we will have to block some of the sunlight from reaching Earth and that means we have to become wealthy enough to go into space in a major way, we shouldn't undertake policies that curb economic growth if we want to stop global warming. Obama's environmental policies has kept our economy on a low growth trajectory at an annual rate of 1.6% over the past 8 years. I think crippling industry through overregulation of carbon emissions is a bad idea! We need to get wealthy as quickly as possible if we are to stop global warming! Also the Sun's out put varies, we need to regulate the amount of light reaching Earth if we are to act as a thermostat!
I think the Democrats deserve to be replaced with either the Green Party of the Libertarian Party after trying to run Hillary Clinton as their candidate for President and rigging the primary so she would win! Candidates need t get back to serving the public and having ideas that work instead of demagoguery and a political machine that gets them elected no matter who they are! Bernie Sanders had an unfair contest in that primary, and that's wrong! The Democrats need to learn to be competitive and not rely so heavily on trickery propaganda and their control of the media to get them elected, and we need a more unbiased media, not the one we have now! We need a media that is mostly fair and balanced, not one that is partisan and Pro-Democrat, this yellow journalism has got to stop for the good of the country, Americans deserve to know the truth and not hear on party's propaganda only when they turn on the supposed news! Also we should be more interested in the welfare of the country than in whether the Democrats win or lose. and most of all, you need to give Donald Trump a chance to do right by the American people instead of attacking him from day one! I don't think every candidate that Trump nominates has a scandal or some skeleton in his or her closet that the media needs to expose, this level of scandal is extremely unrealistic and I think the liberal media is making this stuff up and trying to smear nominees and obstruct the Trump Administration from doing its job, rather than the media doing its job of reporting the news and not fighting to achieve specific political results that they want through propaganda and slanted biased reporting! Lets get back to the job a journalist is supposed to be doing, and they are not supposed to be politicians!
recently Chuck Schumer has been complaining that Trump wants to cut the homeland security spending for New York, and I'm thinking, well maybe Chuck Schumer should have thought of that before attacking the President from day one of his inauguration! Maybe he shouldn't have been such a booster of bringing all sorts of refugees from the middle east, who may be terrorists, if he is so concerned about homeland security!. I think Trump simply assumes that if Chuck thinks terrorism isn't a problem and that we should roll out the red carpet for Middle East refugees, then the homeland security budget becomes a target for cuts. One follows from the other, and maybe of Chuck wasn't acting like such a jerk towards Donald Trump, he could serve his constituents better!
Well we didn't, we also had Jill Stein for the Green Party and Gary Johnson for the Libertarian Party, they gave people choices to vote for other that Hillary Clinton, because she was such a liar that even many liberal people couldn't stomach her. if you wanted a woman President, you could have voted for Jill Stein. Gary Johnson wasn't much competition for Trump and the Trump people weren't that much interested in legalizing Marijuana. Gary Johnson was in many ways just another liberal regarding foreign policy, so there were three candidates vying for the same pot of voters, people who were skeptical about America, and if they couldn't tolerate Hillary's dishonesty, there were two other candidates they could have voted for.
RobertDyck wrote:As soon as you have more than one sovereign power, you have competition. And when sovereigns compete, it's called war.
The Principality of Andorra is located in the Pyrenees mountains between France and Spain. There are Mars Society chapters in France and Spain. Those chapters and several other chapters could jointly request that the Principality of Andorra claim sovereignty over a portion of Mars in order to provide a legal foundation for the establishment of permanent human settlements on Mars. Your concern that some other sovereign would violently attack Andorra is not realistic. France is not going to attack Andorra; Spain is not going to attack Andorra; Canada is not going to attack Andorra. And the extremely violent United States of America is not quite stupid enough to attack Andorra.
Why do you suppose no one attacks Andorra? There is very little to be gained from doing so, it is a tiny country and you would gain the approbation of all the countries in Europe if you did so, there might be sanctions imposed on your country for making such a blatantly aggressive act, and the territory you would have gained from invading that county would be small. For a similar reason Nazi Germany did not invade Switzerland, it had its hands full dealing with the allies, the Third Reich already had Switzerland surrounded, and Switzerland wasn't a threat, and occupying that country would only have held down troops which could have been used to fight the allies, so as long as the Allies were a going concern, Switzerland was safe from the Nazis, however should the Allies fail, Hitler could have brought some of his troops home and filled in that "hole" in his empire. Being small and inoffensive seems to be your criteria for worthiness to govern Mars, I wonder why you didn't propose that the Vatican City in Rome govern Mars, it is after all the smallest country in the World, not Andorra! Do you want the Pope to be in charge of Mars?
Trumps closest are full of the dispicable as another top Trump Adviser Faces Calls For Resignation After Reports Of Ties To Nazi-Aligned Group. Sebastian Gorka proudly wears a medal from a Hungarian group that collaborated with Nazis during World War II. The group, known as Vitézi Rend in Hungarian, collaborated with the Nazi government during World War II, according to the State Department. Members of the group are ineligible for American visas born in the United Kingdom, “falsified his naturalization application or otherwise illegally procured his citizenship” by failing to disclose his membership in the banned Hungarian group.
You mean they were fighting the Soviets, and thus by extension Joseph Stalin? Unforgivable! Stalin was murdering millions of people by the time Germany got around to invading that country, to many non-Jews in Eastern Europe, Hitler represented an opportunity to turn the tables on Joseph Stalin, if Hitler gave them weapons to do so, they would use them! Now lets look at Spain, the only reason Spain is not under a Communist dictatorship like Cuba's is because of the Nazi's participation in the Spanish Civil War, because of Franco and Hitler's support of him, Spaniards today get to vote in a multi-party election instead of having a pretend vote in a one-party state as the Cubans do. Of course it all depended on the Germans losing World War II and Spain staying neutral in that conflict and making nice with the victorious allies afterwards and joining NATO.
This is not the first time that Trump and members have been likened to being part of the Nazi-Themed, which we did see during his election campaigning from those that heard make america great as a call for make america white. A Billboard is to Stay Up As Long As He’s President, Owner Says. The explosive sign, recently erected in Arizona, features dollar-sign swastikas and mushroom clouds.
http://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/cro … cscncno9ez
Another part of that capaigning heard make America white....A small group of protesters flew a large Confederate flag from the top of a parking garage next to the arena hosting two men's NCAA Tournament games.
Then again with all the Russian flap of hacking and so much more its should be no surprise that that ship is back.... Russian Spy Ship Back on East Coast but Making No Waves in Washington
Then everyweek he is down to Margo to vacation and we pay the bill for his stay at his own place.... How Much Does Trump Actually Work At Mar-A-Lago? Maybe Not So Much, Staff is cagey about how much time president spends golfing on pricey trips to his resort president’s fifth trip to Mar-a-Lago in eight weeks in the White House each trip to Mar-a-Lago costs taxpayers at least $3 million. (Protecting wife Melania and son Baron back in New York has been estimated to cost an additional $1 million a day.) But then again Secret Service Racks Up Bills for Trump Kids' Trips. Next Stop Aspen? There are no hotel bills for Aspen in the Federal Procurement Data System yet, but the database does show a $12,208.25 contract by the Secret Service with Aspen Valley Ski/Snowboard Club for "recreational good rental/ski equipment lease" between the dates of March 10 and March 23.
$53,155.25 during Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump and Tiffany Trump's business trip to Vancouver in late February.
$16,738.36 during Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump's business trip to Dubai in mid-February.
$97,830 for Eric Trump's business trip to Uruguay in early January.
Sure is nice to spend americans money... not....
Tom Kalbfus wrote:Those two in the middle picture aren't Republicans, the one on the left is Debbie Wasserman Shultz, I recognize her face! We're 20 trillion in debt because of the Democrats, the Republicans are only beginning to get to work, but they find it easier just to let the Democrats destroy the country as the have been doing. Republicans or at least the career Republicans don't like this responsibility, they do like their jobs and their perks however, so they won't willingly vacate their seats so some real Republicans can get to work on our Nation's problems
OMG! Are you really that stupid? The first picture criticizes Democrats for criticizing Republicans for doing something trivial. The second criticizes Republicans for criticizing Democrats for doing something trivial. The third picture says the rest of us are concerned about a very real and very serious problem.
You can't blame the debt on either party. The debt has been growing for so long that I don't even know when the US federal government was debt free. Ronald Regan started massive debt with his Star Wars program. He left with $3 trillion debt. Trillion, with a "T". Bill Clinton just balanced the budget for his last year in office, but exaggerated. He claimed surpluses in his last 3 years of office; reality was 1998 and 1999 were still in deficit, and the surplus of year 2000 was much smaller than he claimed, so ridiculously small that it was practically non-existent. George W. Bush massively and irresponsibly over-spent on military, throwing America back into massive deficits. Barack Obama failed to slash military spending, but instead went on a massive domestic spending program, making the deficit even worse. Both parties are to blame.
50% of the national debt rests solely on the shoulders of the Obama Administration and the democrats in congress and the feeble republicans that let the Democrats walk all over them, the Media shares a blame portion of the blame by stacking the cards against the Republicans in Congress with their reporting. When Obama shut down the government because he wasn't getting everything he wanted from the Republican Majority in Congress, the Media portrayed it as the Republicans in Congress shutting down government, this is when Ted Cruz led the filibuster to shut down spending for Obamacare, the Republican leadership quickly gave in due to pressure from the Media, which was under the control of the Democrats. The Media also arranged to nominate Donald Trump as the Republican candidate in 2016, most of the American People weren't paying much attention until the general election started, most Americans do not vote in primaries, so it was easy for he media to influence those who do! Most Americans vote between two candidates that the two major parties give them on the first Tuesday of November, they don't typically participate in the selection process of those two candidates presented. Now the second 50% was primarily the fault of the Democrats, and the weak limbed Republicans who are only in Congress because they want a job. The first 50% of the debt, that is the first $10 trillion of it was about 50% the responsibility of the Republicans and 50% the responsibility of the Democrats, but the Obama Administration doubled the debt in only 8 years, and he was mostly interested in borrowing and spending, and raising taxes so he looks responsible while doing so, the only thing he cut was defense spending, but he was willing to give the Iranians billions of dollars and $100 million per person for four American hostages he wanted released. Obama sent billions of dollars to the Third World at US taxpayers expense!
You really think George W. Bush overspent on the military? I take that to mean we won the war on terrorism but we just kept spending money on the military afterwards, is that what you mean by overspending? Did FDR overspend on fighting World War II? Was there a cheaper way to do it? Are you unhappy with the results? I do know one thing though, there wasn't a Cold War between the US and Russia when Obama was first sworn into office in 2009, that is entirely on him, and Trump inherits Obama's Cold War because of the actions and inactions of the Obama Administration that allowed us to get to this point! So now the Democrats are pretending to be Cold War Hawks in this new Cold War that began during Obama's Administration and all the while they advocated cutting the defense budget as the World got more dangerous! Do you see something wrong with this picture?
Here's how the budget would affect key medical and scientific agencies:
CDC: The budget "reforms" CDC with a $500 million block grant to states. The White House says the idea is to allow states flexibility. "Devastating impacts on state asthma programs, tobacco prevention and cessation and tuberculosis control.
FDA: The budget doesn't say much about the FDA but specifically doubles user fees — money paid by pharmaceutical companies to speed approvals, from $1 billion to $2 billion.
NIH: NIH had just gotten a big boost in the budget resolution Congress passed in December — a 6.6 percent funding increase to $32 billion. Trump's budget takes $6 billion of that back out, and eliminates the Fogarty International Center, which coordinates international medical research. Pretending that Ebola doesn't exist and that it doesn't come into our country.
In Appalachia, Trump's proposed budget has people worried
Trump's budget proposal has alarmed much of the region, including longtime Republican Congressman Hal Rogers, who represents the mountainous eastern Kentucky coal region where Trump won every county, a first for a Republican presidential candidate.
"I am disappointed that many of the reductions and eliminations proposed in the President's skinny budget are draconian, careless and counterproductive," Rogers said.
SO with the AG's gone we now know whom will be getting fired next as Former dairy farmer leads Trump-Russia investigation from the rural Central Valley of California is running one of the most scrutinized, complex and politically fraught congressional investigations in recent memory.
That is why it is difficult to cut the budget for most politicians, Donald Trump however has not developed those political instincts not to offend anyone, he thinks like a businessman, he makes the decision on what needs to be cut, and not everyone is going to like the cuts he makes. Unlike most politicians, Donald Trump isn't there to have a career, the perks and privileges of the office of President are something he can replicate himself, he is President to get something done, something that he feels most other politicians won't do of their own accord. It is much easier for the average politician to deficit spend than to offend potential voters by making budget cuts that they don't like. Donald Trump doesn't care, he is not thinking like a politician, he knows he has at least 4 years, and he needs to get something done in those 4 years, and he wants to get something done in those four years, if the people reelect him fine, if they don't, then he had better have what he intended completed by the time those four years are over with, if he gets another four years, that is a bonus but he shouldn't tailor his actions so as to get reelected by avoiding the hard stuff. I think its refreshing that he is willing to make some unpopular decisions in order to cut the budget, that to me is a good sign! Also it is clear to be that spending a billion dollars on something will not always get you your money's worth. Trump is going to try to do stuff cheaply rather than trying to "create jobs" by throwing taxpayer money around! Growth is created by money people don't pay in taxes and invest rather than on what government spends. The government doesn't care if it throws you money away creating a useless job that doesn't contribute to the economy, it can always reach into your pocket and grab more after all! Spending money to directly create jobs for government workers is bad policy and will wreck the economy in the long run!
Tom:
The atmosphere of Mars is not capable of sustaining human life at this time. I therefore expect that most Martians will reside and work in pressurized structures, and that most personal residences will be components of "common interest developments".
The construction of common interest developments is becoming more and more prevalent all around the world. Please watch the first 4 minutes of the first video on the page at:
So all of one's eggs are in one basket? If everybody lives under one dome and the seal fails, then everyone dies! The initial home Martian astronauts will use will be small, about the size of a single family home or smaller, it will house about 4 to 6 astronauts, about the size of a typical American family. Now as we increase the size of the base, we are likely to bring more of these prefab structures to Mars, so there will be a number of structures sitting on landing legs with rocket engines underneath. At some point we will decide to make habitable structures out of local materials. There are two directions we can go with this, a large municipal dome or underground structure, or a lot of smaller domes made to order by each family that migrates to Mars. On Mars, the clothes one wears to go outside is literally life or death. Do you suppose there will be junior size spacesuits? If we go with 1950s America and transfer it to Mars, imagine this: June Cleaver packs the children's lunches in pressurized lunch boxes, and says to the children before the enter the airlock on the way to he school bus, "Don't forget to check your pressure seals before going outside!" "Okay Mom!" replies both the son and daughter together. The yellow pressurized Mars rover that says "School Bus" on top pulls up in front of the family dome, inside can be seen a bunch of children in their space suits, helmets removed. The children cycle through the airlock of the family dome and bound out side in leaps and jumps, Sarah leaps over a boulder on the way to the bus, Little Jonnie in his spacesuit yells, "Wait for me!" to his big sister over the suit radio, the two skip over to the bus' airlock and one after the other the two cycle through the airlock and they remove their helmets so they can talk to their friends. The school bus silently pulls away with children onboard kicking up a cloud of dust in the thin Martian atmosphere.
Is there anything wrong with this scene I just described?
Tom Kalbfus wrote:It is just common sense, your percentage ownership in a company determines how much voting rights you have...
Section 12200 of the California Corporations Code provides, in part, “This part shall be known as the Cooperative Corporation Law.” And Section 12480 provides, in part, “each member entitled to vote shall be entitled to one vote on each matter submitted to a vote of the members”.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces … nNum=12480.
Please do not try to tell me that democratically controlled cooperative corporations do not exist. If you do so then I will conclude that you are just jerking me around.
You ever run a business? Who should control the business other than the majority shareholders? It is your money, why should other people control what you own?
Your assuming that what were doing is what is causing global warming, but global warming has been happening for 18,000 years which was the height of the last ice age, there has been global warming for far longer than there has been carbon dioxide emissions from industrial processes and transportation.
This is the map of the World during the last ice age.
This is a map of the World today. See the extent of Global Warming?
This is a map of the Earth if Global Warming were to continue. What makes you think we can stop it? As you can see the globe has been warming before we actual were adding to the carbon dioxide levels, this is kind of like saying the crowing rooster caused the Sun to rise. We are in the middle picture. In the middle picture we suddenly get people saying we are causing global warming and we should stop. If we actually wanted to stop this global warming, we would probably have to shade the Earth with structures in space, because our cutting our carbon-dioxide emissions probably would not be sufficient to do the job, because our carbon-dioxide emissions weren't responsible for most of the global warming that has occurred on Earth in the first place. We would have to actively engineer this planet if we wanted to stop global warming, we'd need some of the terraforming techniques we would use on Venus to cool the planet, we would have to put something between the Earth and the Sun to do this, and I'm not sure it would be a good idea to mess with Earth's climate! The Earth was doing fine without us, having those ice ages and warming periods, we don't need to act as a thermostat for Earth and hold climate change in check!
Hey, somebody unplugged the sewer for the politics!
Keep the flushed amounts smaller, and maybe it won't get plugged up/shut down again!
I see I'm not the only one to notice the analog to 1932 Germany.
At this point in time, the evident alternative to the con man is just another con man. Trump stole the angry-voter insurgency role from Cruz, being a better rabble-rouser.
That leaves Cruz as just a Trump "mini-me". He's just as much a con man, too. He has no plans other than to exercise personal power and to shut the government down if he doesn't get what he wants (something he has already done).
We don't need either one of them.
GW
This is so far from the reality of Donald Trump, here you are trying to paint him as a Nazi, this is all fake news, 99% of all of this was made up by the Democrats and distributed by the media in order to smear Trump, and it didn't work! Trump is President, and we are not finding an "Adolf Hitler" in the White House! The Democrats and the Media's attempt to smear Trump has failed, and now the truth I coming out, and hopefully the Media will pay for this!
Those two in the middle picture aren't Republicans, the one on the left is Debbie Wasserman Shultz, I recognize her face! We're 20 trillion in debt because of the Democrats, the Republicans are only beginning to get to work, but they find it easier just to let the Democrats destroy the country as the have been doing. Republicans or at least the career Republicans don't like this responsibility, they do like their jobs and their perks however, so they won't willingly vacate their seats so some real Republicans can get to work on our Nation's problems
Tom Kalbfus wrote:The Enemy can do some terrible things to us if we lose!, if we get cheap on defending ourselves!
NAZI death camps were what the government of Germany did to their own people! This was never done by a foreign invader, it was what the government did to their own. So now ask what the government of the US will do to you. And you want to support the US government taking more money from you? Look at those pictures again? Now think of a US marine standing in front of a truck with US citizens piled inside. That's what you are funding.
My wife is from Poland, I visited one of those Death Camps in Poland. In fact most of those Death Camps were built by slave labor in Poland directed by the conquering Germans, most of those people exterminated in those camps weren't German citizens, the Germans didn't have to invade Poland so they could have a site to kill their own citizens. About half the people killed in those Death camps were Jews, but if you categorize those populations differently, it is also true that half of those people killed in the Death Camps were Poles, many were also Jews, but they were still Poles as well. The Germans invaded Poland without provocation and then they built the Concentration Camps an started killing Poles and many other Europeans in them. I would suggest you read up on your World War II history. The Germans would not have had access to all those Europeans, if those European states had not cut their defense budgets so much because of the Great Depression! It is a mistake to think that Defense Spending is what causes wars, that is "Hippie Think!" Hippies tend t have this simplistic answer to what causes wars, they see a soldier in uniform with a gun and instead of seeing someone who is defending their rights and freedoms against a foreign aggressor, they see a warmonger intent on starting a war for his own enjoyment! Hippies were spoiled rotten after World War II, they were never taught what caused it, they mistook America's reaction to if for the cause of World War II! They figured that because we put a gun in a soldier's hand, that is why he was sent to Europe, forgetting there was something called the Enemy that started this War. Most Hippies weren't Poles. Most Poles realized that having an ill-equipped armed forces defending Poland did not stop the Germans from invading, most hippies in America embrace this dangerous myth!
A couple people told me the US government has secret trains hidden somewhere; passenger cars with handcuffs built into each seat. What do you think those are for?
Tomi Lahren likes to refer to American liberals as "snowflakes". You realize the term "snowflake" refers to a prisoner in a NAZI death camp. After they were burned, sometimes burned alive, in cremation ovens, their ashes would float up the chimney and come down as "snowflakes". When you call someone a "snowflake" you are threatening them with death in a NAZI death camp. That means you call yourself a NAZI.
Yet those "snowflakes" don't melt, ours do! What you are attempting here is guilt by association, because we happened to use the same word or phrase that might have been used by the Nazis, you try to label us as such. One could also perhaps label Eisenhower a Nazi, because he had a program to build highways just like the Nazis did in Germany before the war. All those Hippies driving around in Volkswagen Beetles and Campers could be called Nazis because they are driving "Nazi-mobiles" those cars were invented during the Hitler era in Nazi Germany, don't you know! This is guilt by association.
They still might get stuck in ice and have their hulls crushed and spill their fuel contents into the Ocean as a result. Besides, its stupid that everything is run by the government or on a cost plus contract at this base, they've hemmed it in with government rules and regulations so that there is no room for economic growth or expansion at McMurdo! If you can have a SpaceX building rockets, how about private development of Antarctica, enough of this socialist garbage? When are we going to stop pretending to be the Soviet Union when it comes to Antarctica?
Tom Kalbfus wrote:...if it is democratically elected, it is not a corporation.
You seem to be unaware that many states have laws that allow the formation of democratically controlled cooperative corporations. I was a member of a food coop when I lived in Sacramento County, California. The State of California has laws that apply specifically to cooperative corporations. The California Codes are all online so you can look up those laws if you want to inform yourself.
A coop summary is provided in the Rochdale Principles; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochdale_ … er_control
Do you invest your money in stocks? Do you think a person who has more of his money invested in a corporation should have more say in how his investments are spent than someone who has no investments in that corporation? It is just common sense, your percentage ownership in a company determines how much voting rights you have, a person with the largest amount invested should by right have the greatest say, otherwise why should he invest his money in the first place, if other people who have not invested are going to use their democratic vote to determine how it is spent. A corporation is not a democracy, all investors do not have equal shares so they do not have equal votes. The main concern for shareholders is their return on their investment, people who do not own shares have no concern for a return on their investments as they have nothing invested in the corporation.
Ice age man did not care about the lowering or rising of the oceans he just moved as there was no fancey ocean shore homes. We are the only level of inteligence that cares to hold onto what we own. But with all of this is the fact that intensity of storms of distruction have increased not only in power level but with frequency as well as locations which have never had them.
Loss of the ice cap does more than just lower the sea as it creates an eco enviroment for the life that is there and does keep earth from being a runaway venus even if it does correct itself by cyclic events of global ice sheets which have covered continents.
WE all I think agree that there is a cyclic pattern to the past climate but that is not the case for what we are seeing today as we are making the cycle fluctuate within that old pattern. That said that CO2 is not the only piece of this puzzle called into that pattern and its science that will identify all the others which can contribute to what we are seeing now.
Poor people don't live in fancy ocean shore homes, they can't afford them, the people who live in them can afford to move!
We are a long way from a runaway Venus.
You know when this scene occurred, this could have been Canada with palm trees! The Earth was warmer in this scene when these dinosaurs had this battle, Does it look barren to you and incapable of supporting human life? If it could support these dinosaurs why couldn't it support us? We still have ice caps, at the time of the dinosaurs there were no permanent ice caps at the poles. Dinosaurs frolicked in Antarctica of all places!
"I have not seen any evidence that Global Warming actually kills! We are intelligent creatures, we should be able to adapt to a changing environment over many generations and survive! We don't need those ice caps on the north and south poles, how do we know this? The human population in the Polar Regions is extremely low!" -- quoted from Tom Kalbfus in the previous posting.
Tom, you idiot! You are so ignorant of the science on this that you do not understand that we do not have have "many generations" to adapt. We have 1, maybe 2, before it gets quite catastrophic.
2 generations ago, how much lower was the sea level? The ice caps have been melting and shrinking since 18,000 years ago, chance are they will continue to do so until a climatic reversal happens and we begin a new ice age.
What happens at the poles (ice melt) affects everywhere else. Because sea levels rise by a minimum of the volume of ice melted on land that is above current sea levels, divided by the ice/water density ratio 0.90. Max is 1 m rise for the land glaciers, 6 m rise for the Greenland ice sheet, 7 meter rise for west Antarctica, and 20+ m rise for east Antarctica. Actuals should be crudely half of those figures, for 0.5 + 3 + 3.5 + 10+ m = 17 m sea level rise. Less if less-than-half actually melts, which is where my 6-10 m rise figure comes from.
As the waters warm further, thermal expansion raises sea levels further. This does take longer. Geologists have identified fossil beaches as high as 350 feet (107 m) above current sea levels, and as low as 480 feet (146 m) below current sea levels. That bounds what can happen. Because it has happened before.
What will happen within about 3 generations (2100 AD) is less, at something closer to my 6-10 m sea level rise (~25% melting), and some unpredictable but incredible changes in desertification and rainfall patterns (also consistent with the geological record). Half of humanity lives within 6-10 meters of current sea levels, and 90+% of them are so poor they cannot move to higher ground.
You are saying they are so poor they cannot move a mere 6 meters to higher elevations? Why is that, are all their legs broken? Is the air too thin for them to breathe at 6 to 10 meters altitude? I know there are a lot of poor people in Appalacia, there are poor people living in Tibet and Nepal, these are high altitude places, and poor people can live here, and if most of them live in cardboard boxes and other shanties, moving shouldn't be such a big problem for them.
Nearly all the high-population cities, and nearly all the business and financial institutions, fall within this danger range.
High population cities can move, if the ocean level rises, you get new coast lines and people can live their, move their shanties and cardboard boxes to higher elevation, they are light enough, I think they can carry them!
If technological agriculture fails (and it easily could), 90% of humanity dies, by famine.
Oh please, because the oceans rose 6 to 10 meters? 90% is hyperbole. More melted ice means more water not less! Also your talking about 2100 AD, well into the age of robots, on what basis would people be poor that they can't move their legs?
And the resulting wars over sharply-dwindling resources.
What are the resources of the Solar System anyway, You saying that humanity would use them up by 2100. We can dump more water from Europa on Earth if you think that would help, but I think the ice sheets of Antarctica contain enough water in them'
That is based on pre-industrial agricultural output versus industrial agricultural output, which is roughly a factor of 10. Just a matter of the data record. Screw your politics, that's just hard historical data.
Why are you concerned about preindustrial, there won't be any preindustrial in 2100? You know for a guy in the New Mars forums, you really have little faith in the future!
Fast yet drastic change. That's what actually faces us. You would know that, if you looked at the real data from real scientists working in the field, and not that fake-news Breitbart-news and Tea Party shit.
GW