do we need oil? (Page 3) LiptonCambell: Lol I don't think Matt disagreed with you Jack- I think he was just suggesting we use it for space travel- and given that Spaceships are in....erm...space, what planets are they going to harm? More importantly, since you jumped down his throat about it, one wonders- what energy alteratives do you propose for space travel? >>>In the past you have vehemently represented the rights of corporations at the expense of the environment And you've vehemently opposed the rights of individuals and business's for your forced collectivist federal dream of "protecting the enviroment". Your "protection of the enviroment" are run by shody politiicans who care nothing for results, but rather control. I veiw enviromentalism not as another charitable organsation, but rather an organsation that wishes to ditacte how I may eat, where I may live, what products I may or may not consume, and frankly, how I may live. My issue isn't that I adore corporations, my issue is the people who will lead us to protecting the enviroment are incompentent fools who have ambitions of a world where they rule- regardless if they solve our enviromental problems or not. I don't "side" with corportations because I have a hard-on for enviromental destruction- I oppose enviromentalists because their intention is encouraging their own fascist poltician beliefs. I don't veiw this as "corporations versus the enviroment"- I veiw it as politics. Of course, there are quite a few enviromentalists whose intentions are not to push people around- Ducks Unlimited in an excellent example, where they ask people who agree with them donate towards private land to be used for conservation. But there are others, like yourself jack, whose sole intention for supporting "enviromentalism" is to push your idealogy, politics, and beliefs, whilst hiding in sheeps clothing. You wish to push socialism- collective rule- and simply view this as a means to an end. My issue isnt with corportations- it is with your politics.  T_bone_24: What kind of question is that? Put on your dunce cap we have a genious. Lets ask this, do you want to recieve the food you are currently available to get, do you want the health and emergency care services with have, of course "we" need oil. The world runs on it. I hate to break it to you greenpeace s**t disturbers who do dangerous actions adn breaking onto companies private property to demonstrate this, but oils gonna be around for a long time.  MattyD89: anti matter is the future! NO waste, pure energy! Intersteller space travel here we come!!!!! Outbackjack: "Lol I don't think Matt disagreed with you Jack- I think he was just suggesting we use it for space travel- and given that Spaceships are in....erm...space, what planets are they going to harm? More importantly, since you jumped down his throat about it, one wonders- what energy alteratives do you propose for space travel?" Oh so you believe that Nuclear power to explore other gallaxies is possible McLipton? Seeing as though there are roughly 200 billion stars in our galaxy,the Milky Way,the idea of actually getting to another galaxy is sheer insanity! As for Nuclear powered ships etc not doing in harm in space.I dont know about you but I would not at all feel comfortable with a nuclear reactor in orbit above our earth.It could come crashing down to earth at anytime. Nows the actually the best cast scenario because if this thing actually burnt up as it re-entered earth.Then it could spread radioactive waste into our upper atmosphere therefore possible contaminating the whole planet! Sheeeeesh! It aint rocket science you know. "And you've vehemently opposed the rights of individuals and business's for your forced collectivist federal dream of "protecting the enviroment"." HA HA HA HA HA!!!! What an interesting statement."Forced collectivest federal dream". Where do you think up these things? The irony of that statement is quite clearly shown by lunatics like you who endorse Nukes in space when I have quite clearly shown how it can affect our entire environment(the whole planet). "Your "protection of the enviroment" are run by shody politiicans who care nothing for results, but rather control. I veiw enviromentalism not as another charitable organsation, but rather an organsation that wishes to ditacte how I may eat, where I may live, what products I may or may not consume, and frankly, how I may live." Another great example of irony McLipton. The truth is when it comes to food we dont actually have a choice in what we must consume.For example in most countries we dont have mandatory labelling of genetically engineered food. The corporations are quite happy to ram their Frankenstein science down our throats and not give us any freedom of choice over what we consume. So environmental groups who advocate mandatory labelling are actually defending a persons right to choose what they eat where your precious Mega Corpse are not. "My issue isn't that I adore corporations, my issue is the people who will lead us to protecting the enviroment are incompentent fools who have ambitions of a world where they rule- regardless if they solve our enviromental problems or not. I don't "side" with corportations because I have a hard-on for enviromental destruction- I oppose enviromentalists because their intention is encouraging their own fascist poltician beliefs. I don't veiw this as "corporations versus the enviroment"- I veiw it as politics." Outbackjack: You dont adore corporations? I suppose you dont adore them too much when that monthly retainer arrives a bit late. Regardless of if they solve our problems or not? Ummmm who actually are these people and can you site examples? I will give you a classic example.Just look at all the Greenwash that comes out of Image conscience Corporations like British Petroleum who are negligent in causing the U.S's worst ever oil disaster. They continually spruik the idea that they are investing money in green solutions which actually means buying up renewable patents and sitting on them whilst denying access to them for everyone else so they can sell more oil.  "Of course, there are quite a few enviromentalists whose intentions are not to push people around- Ducks Unlimited in an excellent example, where they ask people who agree with them donate towards private land to be used for conservation. But there are others, like yourself jack, whose sole intention for supporting "enviromentalism" is to push your idealogy, politics, and beliefs, whilst hiding in sheeps clothing. You wish to push socialism- collective rule- and simply view this as a means to an end. My issue isnt with corportations- it is with your politics. " HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!! Mate. You should seriously go into stand up comedy! What a great example by citing Ducks Unlimited!!! The whole name itself is an oxymoron. Lets see why: Ducks Unlimited was founded by waterfowl hunters intent on preserving their recreational interests, and remains a pro-hunting organization. Some other environmental groups and anti-hunting lobbyists have consequently had a historically difficult relationship with DU. These groups accuse DU of simply breeding ducks to be shot. Supporters counter that many species live in the habitat restored and protected by DU dollars, not just game birds, and DU continues to complete many more successful conservation projects than do its detractors. Furthermore, supporters contend it would be unrealistic to expect that the money for wetland conservation would be forthcoming if waterfowl had no recreational value to hunters. Difficulties came to a head in the 1980s when DU Canada proceeded to construct their national headquarters on the shore of Oak Hammock Marsh, a critical wildlife habitat. Critics said that the traffic and noise associated with the building would disrupt the wildlife. However, the marsh is not a natural one, and was in fact recreated out of marginal farmland by Ducks Unlimited themselves.The building is also an education and interpretive center, introducing many school children and adults to the ecology of the marsh habitat. Wildlife have also become used to the building and its people, as its roof has become a popular nesting spot and deer frequent the grounds. Could I expect anything more from an Anarcho-Capitalist such as yourself? You cite a pro hunting group as a beacon of Environmentalism? Truly a classic. You arent a Canadian love child of Sarah Palin are you? If your idea of a Socialist is someone like me who believes in a fair go for the billions who live in poverty and protecting the environment then so be it. Though I do suggest that you actually do your research about Socialism/Marxism first before attempting to bandy around terms you have little knowledge of. I am glad you have a problem with my politics because it is silver spooning Anarcho/Capitalists like you who fail to come to terms with the fact that your free trade dog eat dog society,has utterly failed. If it goes on then our whole planet/environment will be worse off. MattyD89: In all honesty with the space travell remark I do think that we could put relativly small reactors into relativly small satelites that travel through our galexy taking pictures and receving information like NASA has many already exploring space. BUT with a nuclear powered one it could go MUCH faster. BUT we don't know the ecctcs the radations would have on space BUT we could make the reactor start to work once its very far away so a least hopefuly the effects wouldnt matter to us. haha. AND I do agree with nuclear power on the planet earth. The waste isnt the major problem, it's the threat of power plant meltdowns and such. When the waste and radioactive materials needed leak is when MAJOR problems occur: Trunoble. But with mistakes there is progress. Outbackjack: Well the rest of the world disagrees with you. The start II treaty strictly forbids Nukes in space. MattyD89: hahahahahahahahaha a nuclear bomb and a nuclear reactor for aquiring energy are two completly different things. There hasnt been any debate yet for nuclear powered spacecrafts of any kind. It's all hypothetical. Shows how much you know douche xwyk Outbackjack: Your last statement shows that I am dealing with someone who knows nothing of what they speak and has the I.Q of a common house brick. Nuclear propulsion of spacecraft has been proposed by NASA for over 50 years. Why not start with this instead of talking out of your arse: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_ LiptonCambell: >>When the waste and radioactive materials needed leak is when MAJOR problems occur: Trunoble. Are.....are you trying to say Chernobyl? MattyD89: and yes that project orion was VERY serious and and STILL it's NOT about nuclear reactors its about nuclear bombs. before you start talking out of your ass after googling "nuclear powered space ships" and clicking on the first wikipedia page you find. direct quote from 'project orion' on wikipedia: "During the late 1940s, Stanisław Ulam realized that nuclear explosions could not yet be realistically contained in a combustion chamber. Such a project did briefly exist, named Helios, but while its theoretical performance was similar to that of what would become the Orion, the lack of materials that could withstand the propulsion generating process meant that Helios never got beyond the drawing board. Instead, the Orion design would have worked by dropping small shaped charge fission or thermonuclear explosives out the rear of a vehicle, detonating them 200 feet (60 m) out, and catching the blast with a thick steel or aluminum pusher plate." This is talking about blowing up small nuclear bombs behind the spacecraft where in turn the blast will propell the craft. BUT with a nuclear reactor it would be MUCH different, and MUCH more efficint. BUT there hasnt been any SERIOUS talk of this tpe fo technology you stupid fy^&y&* idiot c~y^ sucking douche bag fyxw. plinn: Yes we need oil. This country is dependent on it. It does so many things from fuel are vehicles to warm our houses. The world couldn't go one day without oil. Yes there needs to be alternative way but for now its all we have so we use it. It also makes lots of ppl money. And as the old saying go oil and gas feeds my family and yours Outbackjack: You really are pretty thick arent you.I gave that example to show that Nuclear spacecraft have been considered for over 50 years.  I am glad we dont have idiots like you running NASA as we would never have invented the wheel let alone make it to the moon. I suggest you read the various articles properly and see the various reasons why nuclear propulsion/reactors was not taken up. If you are seriously interested in some of the latest deveolpments in rockets(and not episodes of fantasy sci-fi)then look at this link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramjet But dont get too close to that Warp core.  MattyD89: outback jack youre a stupid australian what the fx#w do you know about anything? i cant see ANYONE on wireclub taking ANYTHING seriously that a stupid australian has to say. i said nuclear reactors in ships for thurst power. you sent me a link on wikipedia about a spaceship debated 30 years ago about blowing nuclear bombs behind ships for thrust - BIG F%#$yw@ DIFFERENCE! and now youre trying to say you were telling me its been debated and you were showing proof? well, no you didn't because you showed me proof of a debate of something i never stated. australians r so dumb Outbackjack: Well this just shows that you are not only extremely stupid but you have a toilet mouth.You also are obviously a bigoted racist who seems to rant and rave like a lunatic all the while bringing his bigoted stupidity out for all the world to see. I assume you are one of those few North Americans who suffers from acute delusionary,superiority syndrome and gives all their fellow countrymen a bad name. Still I am sure you would make great fodder for an episode of South Park. As for this so called "debate" Heres the link: http://www.wireclub.com/Forums/ViewTopic.aspx?ForumId=772987&ParentId=878117&Page=6 I have used the word nuclear propulsion quite clearly(I suggest you purchase a dictionary)whether it is by explosion or other means then it is quite clearly nuclear powered. Anyhow I suggest you wipe the foam from your chin and avoid this site when consuming alcohol.  Either you cant handle your booze or you are suffering from Rabies. MattyD89: youre crazy hommie. and i was very clear when i first said nuclear powered shap crafts through nuclear reactors on the ship. Such as submarines and aircraft carriers by armed forces around the world. with nuclear reators we need VERY little amount of products to produce a very large amount of power for a very long amount of time. hell, the united states new battle sub is equipt with one and doesnt have to come ashore for 25 years if it doesnt want to (for refueling only). As with thier new aircraft carrier. and really the idea of a nuclear reactor on a space ship has not been brought forth yet. and i think excelencys post bring up the reason why. with a nuclear reactor we could create the energy to propel something faster then ever. the only problem is we cant build a ship that cant handle those type of forces. either way this is a stupid as f@z# conversation. and either way nuclear, hydro, and wind power are our BEST alternatives for porducing power besides oil. as it is now our world is dependant on oil. near everyone everywhere in some way uses it. and the large corporations that run it near run the world. the death of the electric car is the real deal... Excellency: at first the arguing annoyed me, then i realized you were enjoying the ribbing and prodding..to each their own i say.. lol have fun boys |
