Lydia Cornell: HAUNTING "CLOUDS" ~ A TEEN SAYS GOODBYE ~ (BLESS Y...: PLEASE listen to this AMAZING, beautiful song written by 17-year-old Zach Sobiech who suffers from bone cancer and is facing his last Chri...
Sobiech embraced music as a way of bidding farewell to his friends and family. The resulting song, titled "Clouds," is an inspirational and courageous message of hope in the face of a harrowing future. You can hear Sobiech's "Clouds" and learn more about his story on YouTube http://youtu.be/sDC97j6lfyc
LYDIA CORNELL: AFI Best Actress Nominee, People's Choice Award winner; Actor, Writer, Director, Producer; woman and children advocate; teen mentor, comedienne, talk show host, inspirational pubic speaker best known for her starring role on ABC's "Too Close for Comfort" as TV legend Ted Knight's daughter 'Sara'; HBO's Curb Your Enthusiasm, and over 250 shows, episodes and movies worldwide. Turns tragedy into comedy, life-saving issues for women and equal pay for equal work...
It really makes it difficult to comment in here when it keeps changing like this. Shouldn't this be part of the previous article?
ReplyDeleteJohnnymoomoo said...
ReplyDeleteIt has to be an "Evil Genius."
I mean,how could any supreme,highly intelligent, creator make anything so inane as human beings??????? Additionally,even a creator must wonder where he/she/it evolved from.
I just don't get it.
And, how does something appear from nothing???????
Well Johnny, if you want to understand it you have to confront the two biggest questions known to mankind.
1. What was the very "first thing" and how could there be a first anything?
2. What is at the edge of all things and beyond?
Those two questions have never been answered as long as humans have been alive. We don't even have a theory, hypothesis or even a vague guess.
Nothing.
Science has basically said it's either the universe is itself eternal and simply recreates itself every few kazillion years or so, or it began from nothing.
Problem is, neither of those theories are even remotely close to answers or even guesses. They simply do not address they issue. All they do is hand it off to some "unknown event".
Those are not answers. Those are just asking the same question and gilding it in the form of an answer.
Sort of a reverse of how they do it on Jeopardy, if you will.
ReplyDeleteThe two questions, "was it always here" or "was there a "first thing or event" are problematic for the atheist, in that they both point to some event that constitutes the supernatural by any definition of the word.
For everything to just spring forth from one tiny particle that just magically one day "appeared" from "nothing" is by any stretch of the imagination in and of itself a supernatural event by scientific standards.
On the other hand, for anything, the universe for example, to be eternal,
even the particle itself (in other words if there was a big bang, but the particle was just "always here") then that would also constitute the supernatural by any scientific standard or reasoning known to man, as that is also simply impossible.
It had to come from somewhere.
But it could not have since there was no "somewhere" in existence for it to come from.
These are the questions that the atheists avoid, and will get angry at you over if you insist on confronting them. The atheist will declare "its unanswerable" (as if that were somehow a scientific answer and not the same sort of thing a religionist will tell you)or that "we just don't understand it yet", both nothing more than cop outs.
We know one thing about it and one thing only and that it is NOT unanswerable.
There is an answer.
And whatever that answer is, it clearly points to a level of consciousness or thought not immediately available or accessible with our current human brains.
ReplyDeleteThe atheist chooses to believe in the magic bean.
The theist chooses to believe in the magic gardener.
Maybe its a little of both, but one things for certain. It was a grand thing that resulted in self aware and intelligent matter.
Which certainly permits for the plausibility and likelihood of some sort of intelligence and self awareness at the core.
Doesn't prove it. But it certainly is as plausible as the magic bean.
So according to worf,
ReplyDeleteAtheists believe the Universe itself is the un-caused cause;
While deists believe their particular deity is the un-caused cause.
both believe something un-provable.
ReplyDeleteThey are both unprovable. Atheists can no more prove in the non existence of a deity any more than theists can prove the existence of one. Both have beliefs, and often both present their beliefs as fact when they're simply beliefs.
Once you ascribe a cause to something, then you have to produce the cause of that. And so on and so on.
So we can never get to the "first thing" because it is impossible for their to have been a first thing, yet there had to be a first thing.
The existence of the conundrum and its inability to be solved by any human since the dawn of recorded history indicates knowledge and state that exists beyond our brains ability to comprehend. And that constitutes something beyond the natural, i.e. the supernatural.
Agnostics allow a broader thought process but often not one at all, concluding the matter is either unknowable or unimportant.
ReplyDeleteThere really isn't a label for the people who admit there is a question, admit they don't have the answers and conclude that the question is worth exploring if just for the advance in knowledge.
Oh wait, yes there is.
They call them scientists.
ReplyDeleteJust kidding. The majority of scientists take the atheist view, a lot I think due to peer pressure, but there are plenty who are agnostic or even religious.
After all, can't get past the fact the Big Bang theory was from a Catholic Priest.
But I prefer to use the term "Don't-Knowist".
I don't know what its all about.
What I do know, is it does appear to be about "something".
"They are both unprovable. Atheists can no more prove in the non existence of a deity any more than theists can prove the existence of one."
ReplyDeleteYes, I have to agree.But,the big question totally freaks me out.
Think I will watch Lydias video after work......I have been thinking about cancer lately! I used to consume a lot of green tea and leafy vegetables but now all I eat is junk food and microwave dinners......lol!
To those who do not think peak oil is real;
ReplyDeleteFirst:
The definition of peak oil is;
Not enough oil can physically be produced to meet the economic demands of the planet.
Middle East beginning to embrace solar energy
"We are in the middle of a radical rethinking of the energy future of the region," Adnan Z. Amin, director general of the Abu Dhabi-based International Renewable Energy Agency, told The Associated Press.
"One of the real wake up calls for Saudi Arabia, which is a heavily hydrocarbon country, is that they are seeing their current energy demand growing at such a high rate that they risk becoming a net energy importer in 20 years. That would be a major economic issue to deal with."
"Risk" becoming net energy importer?
If the Saudis are IMPORTING oil, who is left to export?????????
BTW don't say the USA, the fracking technique will only raise US production to about 10 million barrels a day, and we currently use over 16 million barrels a day.
That would meet the definition of peak production not being able to meet physical demands for the planets economic needs.
If the planets swing producer of oil is considering renewable energy, because even they fear peak oil and the economic consequences for their society .... maybe it is time for the USA to get it's political heads out of our political posterior on the subject.
Just for historical reference,
ReplyDeleteReagan's electoral victory over Carter was 32 years ago.
Gulf War 1 was 21 years ago.
The Saudis becoming an importer is not that long off, especially if the Oil corps keep fighting against any changes to the way we get and use energy.
Both for climate change and peak oil reasons we need a course correction but time is slipping away with every year of inaction.
If you have teenage children right now, they will only be in their 30's in that time frame ...................
ReplyDelete20-Year-Old Report Successfully Predicted Warming: Scientists
ReplyDeleteTime has proven that even 22 years ago climate scientists understood the dynamics behind global warming well enough to accurately predict warming, says an analysis that compares predictions in 1990 with 20 years of temperature records.
So James Hanson was right after all, when he was warning in the 1980's how bad things might get.
Johnnymoomoo said...
ReplyDeleteBut,the big question totally freaks me out.
That's why the very existence of the big question itself is so important. But there's really two big questions.
1. What was the very "first thing"?
2. If one could travel to the end of the universe and beyond, what is at the very "edge" of it all, and what's beyond that?
The very existence of those two questions, and humans inability to not only answer them but our inability to even fathom a wild guess points to something far grander and remarkable than what we have to date uncovered.
I think we'll find dimensional theory plays a key role, but even that doesn't answer the questions, only helps further define the mechanics.
But when one contemplates the fact that there "is" an answer, then suddenly the idea of some sort of supreme being, etc becomes not so far fetched.
After all whatever the answer is, it is supernatural to us.
If the planets swing producer of oil is considering renewable energy, because even they fear peak oil and the economic consequences for their society .... maybe it is time for the USA to get it's political heads out of our political posterior on the subject.
ReplyDeleteAt the end of Stephen Segal's movie "Under Siege" he gives a 10 minute talk on how Exxon bought up plans for efficient and alternative energies then buried them.
The republican party (and many democrats) are in the pocket of big energy, so a good way out would be for big energy to conclude there's more money to be made in renewable energies, that's for sure.
We need more men with vision like Pickens, who is turning to wind and solar.
One things for sure. We can't keep this up.
clif said...
ReplyDelete20-Year-Old Report Successfully Predicted Warming: Scientists
Time has proven that even 22 years ago climate scientists understood the dynamics behind global warming well enough to accurately predict warming, says an analysis that compares predictions in 1990 with 20 years of temperature records.
I'm telling you guys, when I was a kid in school we knew about Global Warming and science was already predicting it. That was back in the mid to late 60's!
We made these "blanket effect" terrariums back then, where we used vapor, a heat lamp and a thermometer in the soil to demonstrate how the vapor trapped the heat from the heat lamp (which represented the sun) and and caused the surface temperature to actually get hotter than when there was no vapor (allowing the heat to reflect).
Its been known about for a long time.
Problem is, we have a republican party who thinks its cute to get elected on an "anti-science" platform and they're out teaching everything from anti-evolution to a 6000 year old earth etc.
Every time they attack science, by saying ignorant things like "I believe the world is 6000 years old", they're simply helping reinforce the belief among their constituents that science is incompetent therefore cannot be trusted on global warming. That's the whole purpose of it.
Voltron spent years in here mocking global warming. And where is he now?
ReplyDelete....seriously where is he now?
lol
Hell even Pat Robertson ain't buyin' the 6000 year old planet any more;
ReplyDeletePat Robertson challenges creationism
Televangelist Pat Robertson challenged the idea that Earth is 6,000 years old this week, saying the man who many credit with conceiving the idea, former Archbishop of Ireland James Ussher, “wasn’t inspired by the Lord when he said that it all took 6,000 years.”
The statement was in response to a question Robertson fielded Tuesday from a viewer on his Christian Broadcasting Network show "The 700 Club.” In a submitted question, the viewer wrote that one of her biggest fears was that her children and husband would not go to heaven “because they question why the Bible could not explain the existence of dinosaurs.”
“You go back in time, you've got radiocarbon dating. You got all these things, and you've got the carcasses of dinosaurs frozen in time out in the Dakotas,” Robertson said. “They're out there. So, there was a time when these giant reptiles were on the Earth, and it was before the time of the Bible. So, don't try and cover it up and make like everything was 6,000 years. That's not the Bible.”
Before answering the question, Robertson acknowledged the statement was controversial by saying, “I know that people will probably try to lynch me when I say this.”
“If you fight science, you are going to lose your children, and I believe in telling them the way it was,” Robertson concluded.
The guy who blamed 9-11 on gays, doesn't believe in creationism?
Sometimes even scam artists understand that the science is too strong. Wonder how long it will take to filter down to the duped?
Ask yourself this Johnny.
ReplyDeleteWe have the big bang and we have the first sub atomic particle that superheated and expanded.
All things came from that one, sub atomic particle.
But what environment did the sub atomic particle exist in?
We're told "nothing". This particle, appeared from nothing and existed in a nothing environment.
So what's in a nothing? How far does this "nothingness" extend? Forever? Ok, how far is the forever?
What's at the edge of that?
Considering the environment that the first particle existed in omits the notion that it was the first "thing".
Because there was a "thing" that it existed in. That "thing" may have been "no-thing", but "no-thing" is something if a particle appeared in it.
clif said...
ReplyDeleteHell even Pat Robertson ain't buyin' the 6000 year old planet any more;
Pat Robertson challenges creationism
Yet every republican candidate for President except Jon Huntsman raised their hand when they said they did believe in a 6000 year old earth.
Which probably explains one of the reasons why none of them are President.
Its a dark and evil thing when religion starts meddling in science and govt.
ReplyDeleteWe had that once before. It was called "the Dark Ages".
Actually the Soviet Union tried to force their science fit their ideology, and so did Nazi Germany, both on the ash heap of history now BTW.
ReplyDelete"So what's in a nothing? How far does this "nothingness" extend? Forever? Ok, how far is the forever?
ReplyDeleteWhat's at the edge of that?"
And,what would be the purpose of this "nothingness" and its proposed edge and beyond???
Cliffy said
ReplyDelete"If the Saudis are IMPORTING oil, who is left to export?????????"
Why, Canada of course.
You know,Worf,I kinda miss your old friend "British Gary."
ReplyDelete"And,what would be the purpose of this "nothingness" and its proposed edge and beyond???"
ReplyDeleteWho said it had a purpose?
Maybe it has a purpose.
Maybe it doesn't have a purpose.
Who knows?
We don't even know if its there. We don't know what's there.
Just ask YOURSELF the question.
"If I travel to the edge of whatever "something" is around me now, until there is no more, then what will be at the end of that?"
When I've reached the edge of the known universe....
When I've reached the edge of the unknown universe...
When I get to the edge of of "IT ALL"....., what's beyond that?
We're told "nothing".
Ok.
What's a nothing?
And how far does it go?
Wonder if "Drewl" and "Rene" are still alive?
ReplyDeleteAnd,I still don't believe that"Big K" is really TT?
yea, yea, not biting. Could care less.
ReplyDeleteFocus son.
See Johnny, that's why people see you in the light they do.
ReplyDeleteBecause under all the external hype about yourself and interests, at the end of the day you're just very shallow and always come back to trying to promote your right wing sock puppet friends.
At the end of the day, you always turn out to be exactly what every one thought you were the day you first came in.
Gee,I didn't know that I couldn't like/miss someone due to the fact that they have opposing views other than yours?
ReplyDeleteBesides Rene and Drewl were libs.....big time!
So,go sit on an egg and hatch it or something.
ReplyDeleteyou bore me
"So,go sit on an egg and hatch it or something."
ReplyDelete....what are you "the Fonz" now?
:D
"...sit on it,...Nerd....aaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyy..."
ReplyDeleteJohnnymoomoo said...
ReplyDeleteCliffy said
"If the Saudis are IMPORTING oil, who is left to export?????????"
Why, Canada of course.
EPIC FAIL mook mook.
The Saudis pump 9-10 billion barrels a day right now.
Canada will never achieve that level.
Beside oh yea of little intellect, all Canada is producing is already being consumed, you need to find another source to replace the Saudis if they cannot export any more.
EPIC FAIL mook mook.
You still claim to be #2 while you have just proved once again most of what you post is a steaming pile of #2
Cliffy said
ReplyDelete"Canada will never achieve that level"
Never said we would.But we do have a lot of oil that we are no longer going to share with you. Soon you will have to use "Mazola" in your Harley.....LOL!
You are a nerd Cliffy, and I am the Fonz......period!
"The Athabasca Oil Sands have estimated oil reserves in excess of that of the rest of the world, estimated to be 1.6 trillion barrels (250×109 m3). With the advancement of extraction methods, bitumen and economical synthetic crude are produced at costs nearing that of conventional crude."
"You are a nerd Cliffy, and I am the Fonz......period! "
ReplyDeleteaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
Nerds rule.
ohnnymoomoo said...
ReplyDeleteNever said we would.But we do have a lot of oil that we are no longer going to share with you. Soon you will have to use "Mazola" in your Harley.....LOL!
We'll be using alternative energies. Green clean energies.
You can turn Canada into a wasteland digging up your precious dirty oil.
"The Athabasca Oil Sands have estimated oil reserves in excess of that of the rest of the world, estimated to be 1.6 trillion barrels (250×109 m3). With the advancement of extraction methods, bitumen and economical synthetic crude are produced at costs nearing that of conventional crude."
ReplyDeleteIt ain't about reserves, most of which will never be produced for a myriad of reasons.
It is about what you actually can produce and how much how fast.
Peak oil is about peak production, not peak reserves.
Hell mook mook At 3 707 billion barrels of oil shale deposits in the United States are easily the largest in the world. They are locked up in shale oil deposits mostly in the Green River Formation in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah along wiht the deeply buried in Devonian-Mississippian shales, covering 250,000 square miles. There is more oil in these shales then Saudi arabia and Canada combines. US oil corporations have known about these deposits for decades, and have not found a way to economically extract them. Even when the price of oil is above $100 a barrel they still cannot produce these reserves.
See the difference now?
It ain't about reserves most of what exist will not be pumped or mined out of the earth but about production, what you can get out of the earth and how fast that can feasibly occur.
You are a nerd Cliffy, and I am the Fonz......period!
Keep thinking your some fiction character, and I'll stick to being me living in the real world.
BTW numbnuts, the Fonz rode a bike ..... like I do.
Just so's ya know mook mook, on the entire planet only 17,700 barrels a day out of 4,786,131,000,000 reserves were produced in 2010. 0.000000004% of the reserves were produced.
ReplyDeleteDo ya get it yet, mook mook.
It ain't about what's in the ground, but how much we can feasibly get outa the ground to use.
BTW just so ya know corn oil, or any vegetable oil has far too much sulphur content to be used as a lubrication oil.
Sulphur when heated and kept in contact with steel etches it. Bad for bearings and other machined surfaces inside my Harley.
It makes a good machine cutting oil for working metal in machine tools like my drill press or lathe, but never in the my Harley's crankcase.
Guess yer no Fonz if ya didn't know that one.
The Fonz took good care of his bike and would never suggest putting corn oil in the crankcase.
17,700 barrels a day out of 4,786,131,000,000 oil shale reserves
ReplyDeleteclif said...
ReplyDelete17,700 barrels a day out of 4,786,131,000,000 oil shale reserves
Johnny drinks 17,700 barrels a day out of his 4,786,131,000,000 pale ale reserves.
Doing the dishes after work infuriates me.......wheres Lydia!? I'm sure she does a good job.
ReplyDeleteLast day of work tomorrow until January............Yahooooooo!!!
: )
Wont be long now until I make Captain on Battlefield 1943. Wish you would join Cliffy,so I can drop a bomb on your head with my F4U-1 Corsair.....LOL!
sulfur is good for engines it helps lubricate
ReplyDeletevegetable oil has little to no sulfur they add it later to increase its efficiency
http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/22941/PDF
thats why when they came out with low sulfur diesel fuel all the engine manufacturers started suggesting to use additive
dam you dumb
answer 5 paragraff 2
ReplyDeleteDiesel fuels also contain high quantities of sulfur leading to a negative impact on the environment. They prevent the use of catalytic diesel particulate filters to work properly. These filters reduce emissions by using particulate and nitrogen oxide emmisions due to diesel. Laws to reduce the sulfur content have been enforced by many refineries but the result is a less lubricating fuel. Biodiesel is already a low-sulfur fuel and can also be added to mixtures of diesel fuel to replace the lubricity that is lost when sulfur is removed.
http://ciitn.missouri.edu/cgi-bin/pub_view_project_ind.cgi?g_num=8&c_id=2007008
http://www.motor-oilinfo.com/synthetic-diesel-oil/1639-sulfur-compounds/
ReplyDeleteEarly petroleum motor oils were highly ineffective. These oils were composed of basically three hydrocarbon types: naphthalene, paraffin, and aromatics. None of these structures are chemically functional and petroleum chemists quickly found the addition of phosphates and sulfur improved the lubrication ability of petroleum.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/ncnu02/v5-029.html
The current production capacity of AOSP is 255,000 b/d of synthetic crude. Shell has regulatory approvals in place for a 115, 000 b/d expansion of Muskeg River Mine and an additional 100,000 b/d from the first phase of Jackpine Mine. In addition, Shell has submitted regulatory applications for a 100,000 b/d expansion of the Jackpine mine and a 200,000 b/d development of the Pierre River Mine.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.shell.com/home/content/aboutshell/our_strategy/major_projects_2/athabasca/overview/
As expected by markets, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries kept its oil production ceiling at 30 million barrels per day
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dailystar.com.lb/Business/International/2012/Dec-12/198215-opec-to-decide-over-oil-output-to-pick-new-head.ashx#axzz2Ez07WX00
whats 9-10 billion minus 30 million
quite a large overstatement id say
this clif seems to have no relationship with veracity
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteLook Clif. Volty's back.
According to the North Dakota Department of Mineral Resources, oil production from the Bakken field has increased from about 1000 barrels per day in 2004 to almost 1 million barrels per day in mid-2012, corresponding to 12 percent of current U.S. output. For its projections, then, the IEA notes this dramatic, recent increase, and then extrapolates forward, including estimated reserves in several other tight oil formations. In their central scenario, tight oil and related "natural gas liquid" production in the U.S. will reach more than 6 million barrels per day by about 2020
ReplyDeletehttp://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/coal-oil-gas/will-the-us-surpass-saudi-arabia-in-oil-production-14764018
Wow,Cliffy,Anonymous just ripped your turban pretty darn good........LOL!
ReplyDeleteAlso,couldn't help but notice that you ignored this rather important fact:
"With the advancement of extraction methods, bitumen and economical synthetic crude are produced at costs nearing that of conventional crude."
sulfur is good for engines it helps lubricate
ReplyDeleteExcept for the fact cutting oils especially the dark older oils had sulphur. If you want to run your engine on something machinists use for cutting metals go ahead, I prefer not to.
BTW the sulphur you talk about isn't in the OIL directly but in the additive Calcium Sulfonate.
Nice way yo still be dishonest.
Diesel fuels also contain high quantities of sulfur leading to a negative impact on the environment.
ReplyDeleteUmmmm numbnuts, I said motor oil, not diesel fuel .......
One goes in the crank case for lubrication, the other in the fuel tank to burn, but NOT in any Harley IO have ever ridden..
Nice try at derailing what i said by changing the subject to diesel fuel, but not honest;
epic fail dummytron.
no turban ripping here mook mook.
Dummytron's link:http://www.motor-oilinfo.com/synthetic-diesel-oil/1639-sulfur-compounds/
ReplyDeleteWhat it says Sulfur is generally being reduced in diesel fuel and lubricants.
Which is why at refineries large piles of sulphur is seen.
another epic fail by the dummytron mook mook lies and claims as a victory.
The current production capacity of AOSP is 255,000 b/d of synthetic crude. Shell has regulatory approvals in place for a 115, 000 b/d expansion of Muskeg River Mine and an additional 100,000 b/d from the first phase of Jackpine Mine. In addition, Shell has submitted regulatory applications for a 100,000 b/d expansion of the Jackpine mine and a 200,000 b/d development of the Pierre River Mine.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.shell.com/home/content/aboutshell/our_strategy/major_projects_2/athabasca/overview/
This comes from tar sands NOT shale oil .......
to wit;
Albian Sands Energy Inc. is the operator of the Muskeg River Mine, an oil sands mining project located 75 kilometres (47 mi) north of Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada.
See how easily dummytron LIES.
I was talking about oil shale NOT tar sands dummytron.
whats 9-10 billion minus 30 million
ReplyDeleteAgain reserve vs capable daily production.
The price of oil has exploded in the last 10 years, but the ability to actually pump oil out of the grounds has barely gone up.
It isn't not wanting to pump, but the physical ability to actually pump at a certain volume, that affects daily output.
As usual dummytron doesn't address the actually physical ability to pump at much larger volumes.
He googles for a statement he thunks addresses the question he apparently doesn't actually understand and posts hoping nobody knows the difference.
The neither former USSR or the Saudis have even pumped much above the 10 million barrels a day, for quite a few reasons. One is that is most probably the upper limit their infrastructures can handle with out doing permanent damage to the reservoirs of oil in the ground. Damage which would lower the total amounts they ever could extract from the ground.
as usual dummytron lies and uses disinformation to derail the thread, and mook mook in his water carrying capacity cheer leads him on.
Sorry anybody stooping to Popular Mechanics propaganda, which never questions what the effects or trying to produce 6 million barrels a day out of the Bakken fields actually means shows they are fling poo and hoping some of it sticks.
ReplyDeleteWells drilled ion Bakken which produce from fracking, normally produce a significant amount for a short while then start depleting much faster then conventional wells like we used to rely on. (this is the reason until normal conventional sources for oil were effectively drilled and produced, the much higher cost fracking technique wasn't tried, and now given historical records from the actual fracked well heads, we know that they don't have the long term production capabilities that conventional wells had.
Of course the IEA are making two mistakes. confusing what they think is there, with how fast physically they can produce it. But they have done this for YEARS, and still people with little actual knowledge like dummytron still try to use their pie in the sky predictions to prove something they ideologically want to be true.
In 2000 here is the EIA's prediction;
The United States Energy Information Administration projects (as of 2006) world consumption of oil to increase to 98.3 million barrels per day (15.63×106 m3/d) in 2015 and 118 million barrels per day (18.8×106 m3/d) in 2030.
From BP's actualy world production reviews for 2006;
81.687 MBD production in 2006 ....
EIA predicted 98.3 mbd and we actually only produced 81,687 mbd ...... hmmmm not a good track record eh dummytron?
As for their 2000 prediction of 115 bpd in 2015?
Well in 2011 the last year for total production we are at, 83.576 mbd production, far below the levels needed to obtain the 2015 pie in the sky EIA predictions.
Not a good track record for the EIA eh dummytron???????
Yet you want to use their predictions again????????????????????????
Keep spreading the crap dummytron, and ignore the actual facts.
BTW mook mook, don't wear a turban, but dummytorn never touched me at all,
Nice cheerleading though, if ya ever need a job I hear the koch brothers hire cheerleading fooles to lie on the intertubes.
Oh yea forgot the link to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2012 with records back till 2001 in the 2012 review.
ReplyDeletepdf warning
who's the right wing troll with NO relationship with veracity???
ReplyDeletewell that would be YOU dummytron ......
..... of course the EIA you relied on for your predictions .............
....... and mook mook who got caught cheer leading instead of verifying the supposed factoids dummytron was flinging all over the place.
BTW mook mook some of dummytrons factiod crap seems to be stuck to your cheer leading pom-poms.
"With the advancement of extraction methods, bitumen and economical synthetic crude are produced at costs nearing that of conventional crude."
ReplyDeleteYes at $100 a barrel oil, which has put a rather severe economic crunch on the planets economy,
Not at $50 a barrel oil, cause they cannot profitably produce the oil then.
But at $100+ oil the planets economy cannot grow at the rate it used to when the price of oil was much lower.
Heck, when oil gets to $5-600 a barrel even open pit mining of oil shales might be financially profitable, but the economy will be deep in the tank.
If you cannot understand why the world economy is choking on oil at $100 which is where it must be to support non conventional sources, your as dumb as dummytron is mindlessly accepting the EIA's predictions.
need that needle and thread again mook mook?
ahhh, its good to have old volty back in his usual place.
ReplyDeleteGetting his clock cleaned by Clif.
And Johnny.., doing his usual Ed MacMahaon impersonation, ..."nuther good one boss, yuk yuk..".
ReplyDeleteOnly to find out his boy lost again.
..life is good.
ReplyDeleteActually,Cliffy, I do get super hot pissed every-time I fill my SUV. Excessively greedy oil companies do piss me off thus I do kinda agree with your statement that "the planets economy cannot grow at the rate it used to when the price of oil was much lower."
ReplyDeleteNevertheless,the topic was oil shortage........not prices!
hmmmmm, .....I thought it was someone named "anonymous" arguing that point Johnny.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless,the topic was oil shortage........not prices!
ReplyDeleteYO mook mook, the two are inextricably linked.
We will never have enough oil if the price is $20 a barrel now or in the future,
Right now the supplied we have on the planet at $100 is keeping those who can afford $100 a barrel fully supplied.
If oil rose to $150 or even $200 there would be far more than enough to go around at that price.
The price is set by how much oil is available,and how much money people have to offer to buy that oil.
Supply vs demand sets the price.
Since the cheap to produce land based conventional oil (IE $20 a barrel) plays have played out, the price MUST rise if the oil corps are to spend more money to get the same 42 gallon barrel of crude out of off shore (IE usually at least $75 a barrel), or fracking IE usually at least $80-85 a barrel) or using natural gas to heat underground sources of Kerogen (IE usually at least $85 a barrel). Let alone rum a full scale mining operation that require refining before even crude oil even exists (IE usually at least $85+ a barrel).
Oil corps will go bankrupted if they have to produce oil below these prices from the new plays we rely on, which means it cannot happen.
The price has gone up for two reason,
1 More people on the planet are bidding for the oil,
2 The sources of oil is costing more money to produce.
Both mean less oil available per individual then back in the 1990's, and given the population of the planet is rising faster proportionally then the crude supplies they rely on for modern industrial life style(even the poorest rely on large scale industrial agriculture, mostly from UN food supplies), which means prices rise for those who want to use the products of oil.
Higher prices are a symptom of peak oil, especially peak easy to produce conventional light sweet crude oil, what our economy was based on before 2005.
ReplyDeleteWe have passed that peak ....... hence the rapid rise in prices, compared to the very minimal rise in crude+ condensate oil production since 2005.
Which is why the EIA and other mouth pieces for the oil industry keeps pushing their unsubstantiated claims, like the one dummytron pushed here.
Claims which keep failing the test of history.
Now they push unsubstantiated claims about supposed reserves with out acknowledging, the required drilling and support infrastructure, which does not exist for a ramp up they claim.
Far too few drilling rigs to create the number of wells for such a high estimate, especially when the rapid depletion curves for fracked wells is considered. Because wells drilled over 18 months ago are far from their original production rates, which means some drilling has to be done just to rep,lace current wells to keep production at current levels, let alone to increase production.
Then even after drilling wells in places with very little infrastructure to transport crude exists so a second bottle neck after drilling rigs exist before production could be ramped up much further. Most pushing pie in the sky claims never ask if what they claim is to happen what real world changes must be made to current operations. Especially if they are mindlessly repeating unsubstantiated claims by organisations with a very bad track record in the field of future production like the EIA has.
Authorities in Connecticut responded to a mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown Friday morning, the local NBC station reports.
ReplyDeletePolice reported 27 deaths, including 18 dead children and others wounded, according to the Associated Press.
18 dead school kids.
Now comes the NRA, Tea Party trolls to tell us how "guns don't kill people".
Right.
Guns don't kill people.
People with guns kill people.
"If only those kids all had guns too. Then they could have defended themselves"
ReplyDeleteWe're not talking about teenagers here either.
ReplyDeleteWe're talking little babies.
Elementary school tots.
The Tea Party and their lust for guns, sickens me.
Far too many people are being killed because a small minority refuses to place sensible restriction on ownership of the deadly weapons guns are.
ReplyDeleteBut this tragedy might be what it takes to wake the brain dead up to the damage a gun does in hands it never should have been in the first place, and allow ways to keep guns out of the hands of maniacs, who think killing people some how solves their problems.
Hollywood's to blame here too.
ReplyDeleteThis constant culture of the worship of violence and killing.
Every "hero" we see in the movies now is someone who solves their problems with a gun.
Our people are constantly inundated with a never ending stream of violence and guns. We are breeding it and then wonder why it happens.
Who shoots EIGHTEEN TODDLERS?
People who've been fed a steady diet of gun violence playing out on the screen before their eyes. That's who.
America needs to repent.
We need to stand up to the NRA. NO MORE ASSAULT RIFLES in the hands of private citizens. Round the rifles up and melt them down.
You can make bars for the cages of all those who won't give them up.
I for one am sick of this, and 18 little schoolkids ought to be enough, for any society.
Time to get guns out of our society, now.
Of course responsible homeowners and citizens can have guns to hunt with like in Canada, or England.
ReplyDeleteBut collecting high powered assault weapons and such need to go away.
This is really sad. I'm still shocked.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first read the story it said "2 adults dead" and I thought "whew, at least none of the little kids are dead".
Now I read that TWENTY SEVEN PEOPLE ARE DEAD.
And EIGHTEEN of them are little kids.
This is soooooooooo sick. This has to be the worst shooting in US history.
Not the worst shooting, the worst public school, shooting.
ReplyDeleteVA Tech had more poeple killed.
But much worse the Columbine.
Yea but little kids. Real little kids.
ReplyDeleteIt seems worse to me. Maybe not in quantity but in just the horror of it.
These were little babies. Innocent little kids whose whole lives were in front of them. I just cannot fathom it.
They must have been so scared.
ReplyDeleteThe price this country pays for the fear, cowardice and sheer ignorance of the right wing.
ReplyDeleteGlobal warming isn't real.
We need more guns.
We don't need medical coverage for our people.
Rich people shouldn't pay taxes.
Man.
Its like the entire country has to suffer, because we tolerate a right wing.
59 U.S. school shootings since Columbine.
ReplyDeleteThe illogical homicidal gun culture might have something to do with this.
No doubt.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was growing up only nuts stockpiled weapons. Now everyones a nut.
JMM said:
ReplyDelete"Nevertheless,the topic was oil shortage........not prices!"
I kinda ripped my own turban with this statement......LOL! I realized this on my way to work.
However,my excuse is undeniable.In the morning my brain is only at 15.623471904786% of its normal functionality.
I hate these school shooting stories........bums me out!
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with the libs regarding the gun issue.And,I simply cannot comprehend how anyone can shoot school children.
Now its 20 little kids.
ReplyDeleteThe two little kids who were alive and transported to the hospital, both just died.
My God.
These were FIVE year olds.
ReplyDeleteHoly fucking shit.
There are days that I can't wait to die. This is one of them.
ReplyDeleteThis country is a country of fools and rubes.
We feed our young men a non stop, steady diet of ultra violent video games where they kills kids in the virtual world, drive over women with baby carriages with their stolen cars, rape women on the street in virtual reality then beat them to death with a lead pipe.....etc.
Then we feed them a steady diet of violent movies where people torture and murder each other.
Then we feed them a steady diet of right wing NRA BULLSHIT, ...TEA PARTY bullshit, like Sarah Palin wearing a bikini, drinking a beer and holding an ASSAULT RIFLE.....saying things like "don't retreat, RELOAD" ....and Heston saying "FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS"....teaching them that GUNS ARE THE ANSWER TO THEIR PROBLEMS......
...and then we wonder why shit like this happens.
It happens because we are BREEDING IT.
CONDITIONING OUR YOUTH TO IT.
We are SELLING IT to them, then wondering how it happens.
Evolution of a Superspy: Bond Movies More Violent Today
ReplyDeleteBy Tia Ghose, LiveScience Staff Writer | LiveScience.com – 10 hrs ago
James Bond's chest hair, gadgets and love interests aren't the only things that have changed about the 007 franchise over the years.
The superspy and his enemies have become much more violent since the first Bond movie, "Dr. No," came out in 1962, new research suggests.
The 2008 Bond movie "Quantum of Solace" featured more than twice as many violent acts as the first installment, researchers reported in the December issue of the journal Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine. What's more, the 2008 film found Bond or his enemies three times as likely to engage in serious violence – such as punching, kicking or using a weapon – as in the earliest films. (A non-serious form of violence would be slapping, for instance.)
But scientists don't agree on whether such movie violence has any impact on behavior outside the theater. Studies have shown that people become desensitized to repeated violence in movies, but how that affects aggressive play or real-life violence is unclear.
"Our brains are sophisticated enough to make distinctions about what goes on in a fictional universe and what goes on in real life," said Christopher J. Ferguson, a psychologist at Texas A&M International University, who was not involved in the study.
Increasing violence
The new study found violence has become increasingly prominent in the films over time, with twice as many violent acts and three times as many serious ones.
Though body counts vary depending on the source, about 12 characters die in "Dr. No," in which 007 foils Julius No's devious plan to use radio beams to sabotage a manned space mission, according to a body count tracker by the Guardian. In contrast, 31 people meet their end in "Quantum of Solace," in which Bond prevents a faux environmentalist from hijacking Bolivia's water supply. (Numbers aren't available for the latest installment, "Skyfall," but between the bombing of MI6 offices and a helicopter raid in Scotland, the mortality rate is high.) [The 5 Reasons We Love James Bond]
The deadlier 007 is part of a trend toward more violent films in general, said Laramie Taylor, a communications researcher at the University of California, Davis.
Partly, that's because studios are making fewer and pricier films, said Taylor, who was not involved in the study. Because making movies is so financially risky, spicing up a film with a few fights or shootouts is a good way for studios to hedge their bets, Taylor said.
"One of things you can do to make a movie more exciting is add some violence," he told LiveScience. "The violence isn't necessary, but it's easy and it's predictable."
And because violence is a universally understood language, piling the bodies high is an easy way for studios to successfully market their movies in foreign countries, he added.
Uncertain impact
Several studies suggest that violent media may spur people to real-life aggression, Taylor said.
In studies, people who are asked to watch violent media and then compete against other people in a simple game are more likely to blast their virtual opponents with a loud and painful noise if given the option, or feed opponents painfully spicy hot sauce, he said. (Those techniques are commonly used to measure aggression in studies.)
And debonair heroes like James Bond may be the most powerful role models.
"We know that violent media are more influential when the perpetrator of the violence is an attractive figure, and of course James Bond is really charismatic and is living this phenomenal lifestyle," he said.
We are breeding this. And Hollywood is one of the chief culprits.
ReplyDeleteIts not just that the "number" of violent acts per movie has tripled.
The intensity and realism of these acts has more than tripled. Its out of control. As is the complete lack of morality and ethics in our lead characters today.
We are setting up these militaristic "heroes" in everything we do.
ReplyDeleteOur police tase people at the drop of a hat, for no reason when a simple conversation would have done the trick, like yesterday when they tased that Asian lady at the mall simply for not understanding she couldn't buy more IPODS or something. She didn't speak English. They TASED her. Even they are out of control, dressing like Storm Troopers with combat gear and such. Its a militaristic trend that is bad. Very bad.
Our movies and videos are all gun worshiping with people doing impossible stunts flying through the air dodging bullets shooting as they go. Its NONSENSE for simple minds.
And simple minds are easily corrupted and influenced.
People are fed a steady diet of "entertainment" that teaches them that the way to solve their problems is a gun, and that can't help but impact real life.
As Priss said in "Blade Runner"....
"then we're stupid and we'll die".
We're stupid, and we're dying.
What we need now in America, more than ever, is a return to the a more moral society when it comes to respecting humanitarianism (and not mocking it), respecting science and teaching (instead of ridiculing and condemning it) and teaching our kids about science and success.
ReplyDeleteSuccess breeds success. We need republicans to STOP with the constant fighting the President on the economy and start making the country prosper again so our kids have HOPE.
We need to get rid of the assault weapons, institute tighter gun control and start regulating what we allow our KIDS to see and play.
Games like Grand Theft Auto should be BANNED in the US. They should be outlawed.
Hollywood should be put on notice to clean up its act and start showing some responsibility in the content of the movies it puts out, or face "X" ratings on their uber violent movies to keep the kids from seeing them.
We need to stop feeding our society a steady diet of negativity and violence, and start embracing SCIENCE, KNOWLEDGE, SUCCESS, etc.
Its all there. If we can get past the republican loser mindset of "gitcher guns and hole up in your cabin and wait for the second comin of Jeesus.....cuz......gubermant is going soshulist..."
We need to get smart.
'It happens because we are BREEDING IT.
ReplyDeleteCONDITIONING OUR YOUTH TO IT.
We are SELLING IT to them, then wondering how it happens.'
Absurd,Worf,to the extreme and I now seriously judge your study of human history and psychology.
While this is a truly sad and tragic event you CANNOT blame media,Hollywood, or video games on this.
We are both in agreement that mankind has evolved immensely in relation to our most violent and brutal past yet there was no media.
Right now I have a newspaper clipping of a 14 y.o. girl from Texas who slayed her parents and siblings over something trivial. Yet, she was a straight A student who attended Sunday school and went to church with her loving/attentive parents every week??? There are many examples like this.
It is an existing malfunction of the brain. The majority of society lives civilly despite violence in the media, nevertheless there will always be a few crackpots.
Remember the movie “The Bad Seed.” This alone CRUSHES your ridiculous viewpoint………period!
On the other hand,there are some who suffer great travesty in their lives yet go on to live prosperous and civil lives.
ReplyDeleteMedia is a cop-out........PERIOD!
In the fifties,many a group blamed "The Three Stooges" and "Bugs Bunny" for societies violence.
ReplyDeletePuhhleeeeeasssssssse!!!!
I know dumb ass. There's a few million idiots out there like you who say the same thing. "oh no, watching a steady stream of horrific violence as daily entertainment couldn't possibly influence someone"....
ReplyDelete...even though the studies show it does.
A million idiots like you, who say the same thing.
ReplyDeleteJust like there are a million idiots out there who denied smoking caused cancer.
They'd make the exact same arguments.
like;
"I know lots of people who smoke and don't have cancer!
I smoke, and I don't have cancer!!!
But they were just the blind leading the blind.
Just like the idiots like you, today.
The science shows it does impact us. PARTICULARLY IN KIDS growing up.
ReplyDeleteIn fact we've KNOWN this since the studies from the 60s.
But as usual, the inbred trailer trash anti science RIGHT WING MORONS like you Johnny, ....come out and deny the science.
"it kaint be reel cuz I don't buhleeeve it".
Just stupid animals, leading the other dumb animals off the clif.
"What we need now in America, more than ever, is a return to the a more moral society when it comes to respecting humanitarianism"
ReplyDeleteA "return."
To what time period????
Studies????? What studies????
ReplyDeleteIn the 1960s and 70s and 80s our media and entertainment had a degree of morality in it, that steadily degraded over the years.
ReplyDeleteAnd the FREQUENCY and SEVERITY of violent crimes and shootings directly increased in proportion to it.
Today what we can see on regular TV wouldn't have been allowed in a rated R movie in the theaters.
Its gotten bad. It started in the 70s, with the rise of the "DARK HERO" like "Dirty Harry" and we saw crimes in direct proportion to this begin to increase.
Today crimes like this are almost daily.
Which coincides with the almost daily influx of new, uber violent movies, particularly those targeting children.
Recently we had "The Hunger Games" where kids killed each other and the "hero" of the movie killed them with a bow arrow.
Then less than 6 months after the movie comes out, some kid kills his parent with a bow and arrow.
Stupid, ignorant morons like you who pull the covers over their head and refuse to see because you can't think two moves down the road, .......are the reason it'll keep happening.
Until people wake up and stop listening to stupid people, like you.
Johnnymoomoo said...
ReplyDeleteStudies????? What studies????
Thanks for proving that people arguing against this like you, are so stupid that you didn't even read the comment you were attempting to refute.
Try starting with the one in the article I posted, stupid.
There are others, dating back to the 1960s. We've known this for a long time, and you'd have learned about it in any PSY101 class had you attended college.
They can measure violence within MINUTES of showing kids violent shows.
ReplyDeleteIts common knowledge.
But people plug their ears because we have a billion idiots like you on the internet, spreading nonsense and misinformation.
Of course you don't need a study to know that a kid who spends his days playing a video game where he routinely drives his car over women pushing a baby in a stroller, then gets out and rapes her and beats her to death with a pipe, ....is probably going to have issues with moral clarity in society.
Particularly when confronted with difficulty.
But idiots like you can't see that.
So they have to do studies.
Idiot studies.
To show the idiots.
The idiots who can't see the obvious.
But you're idiots, so studies won't teach you anything either.
Because you're idiots.
I'm sorry,Worf,but if you actually believe that forcing people to watch "Sesame Street and "The Sound of Music" on Friday night will create a perfect society then you are WOEFULLY mistaken.
ReplyDeleteYour lack of knowledge seriously astounds me.
There will always be strife no matter what bullshit laws you force on the people.
As usual, the idiot changes the FACTS I posted into some utterly idiotic nonsense, labels it "your argument" and then proceeds to walk away, comforted in the fact that he's defended his idiots argument.
ReplyDeleteWhat else can you expect, from an idiot?
Sad thing is, because of idiots like this, the kids are getting killed.
ReplyDeleteWe can't protect our kids, until we get past the idiots.
Mannnnnnnnn...........your dumb!!!!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry,Worf,but if you actually believe that forcing people to watch "Sesame Street and "The Sound of Music" on Friday night will create a perfect society then you are WOEFULLY mistaken.
ReplyDeleteYour lack of knowledge seriously astounds me.
There will always be strife no matter what bullshit laws you force on the people
As usual, the idiot changes the FACTS I posted into some utterly idiotic nonsense, labels it "your argument" and then proceeds to walk away, comforted in the fact that he's defended his idiots argument.
ReplyDeleteWhat else can you expect, from an idiot?
Sad thing is, because of idiots like this, the kids are getting killed.
ReplyDeleteWe can't protect our kids, until we get past the idiots.
Worf, actually thinks he is smarter than the highly educated founder of F.B.I forensic profiling...............LOL!
ReplyDeleteMedia is a cop-out.............PERIOD!
Mankind is violent by nature and censoring media is not going to change that MORON.
Welcome to the ant-farm Einstein.
Lets all pretend we have a definitive answer by forcing our own personal vision upon others..............it wont work MORON!
New analysis reasserts video games' link to violence
ReplyDeleteBy Sharon Jayson, USA TODAY
A new review of 130 studies "strongly suggests" playing violent video games increases aggressive thoughts and behavior and decreases empathy.
The results hold "regardless of research design, gender, age or culture," says lead researcher Craig Anderson, who directs the Center for the Study of Violence at Iowa State University in Ames.
His team did a statistical analysis of studies on more than 130,000 gamers from elementary school age to college in the USA, Europe and Japan. It is published today in Psychological Bulletin, a journal of the American Psychological Association.
I'm sorry,Worf,but if you actually believe that forcing people to watch "Sesame Street and "The Sound of Music" on Friday night will create a perfect society then you are WOEFULLY mistaken.
ReplyDeleteYour lack of knowledge seriously astounds me.
There will always be strife no matter what bullshit laws you force on the people
Stop Googling Worf..........LOL!
ReplyDeleteplaying violent video games increases aggressive thoughts and behavior and decreases empathy.
ReplyDeletePay particular attention to that "decreases empathy" thingy.
Its that DECREASE in human empathy, (a key characteristic of Johnny Moo Moo, in fact its his trademark) that is most harmful here.
We are removing human empathy from our kids, then wondering why they have none.
Its the stupid.
ReplyDeleteStupid idiots like Moo Moo, (who also is a self professed gamer) don't want to admit it or even see it.
And it will keep happening, as long as we keep listening to idiots like Johnny.
And,the 14 y.o. girl who snuffed her family?????????????
ReplyDeleteSunday school,loving parents, and weekly church...........no video games MORON!
As long as we listen to people so stupid that they smoke cigarettes in this day and age, ....idiots like Moo Moo who spend their free time boozing and playing violent video games, then this will continue.
ReplyDeleteWe need to move past the stupid.
Why video games really are linked to violence.
ReplyDeleteThree kinds of research link violent video games to increased aggression. First, there are studies that look for correlations between exposure to these games and real-world aggression. This work suggests that kids who are more immersed in violent video games may be more likely to get into physical fights, argue with teachers, or display anger and hostility. Second, there is longitudinal research (measuring behavior over time) that assesses gaming habits and belligerence in a group of children. One example: A study of 430 third-, fourth-, and fifth-graders, published this year by psychologists Craig Anderson, Douglas Gentile, and Katherine Buckley, found that the kids who played more violent video games "changed over the school year to become more verbally aggressive, more physically aggressive," and less helpful to others.
Finally, experimental studies randomly assign subjects to play a violent or a nonviolent game, and then compare their levels of aggression. In work published in 2000, Anderson and Karen Dill randomly assigned 210 undergraduates to play Wolfenstein 3-D, a first-person-shooter game, or Myst, an adventure game in which players explore mazes and puzzles. Anderson and Dill found that when the students went on to play a second game, the Wolfenstein 3-D players were more likely to behave aggressively toward losing opponents
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2007/04/dont_shoot.html
First off,lets define empathy Einstein. How far does one go??????
ReplyDeleteI certainly know that you would not sell your house at a loss to save starving children???
I'm done talking to stupid.
ReplyDeleteStupid doesn't get it.
He'll never get it.
Anyone who doesn't understand that feeding our kids brains with non stop images of bloody, awful violence both in movies or games, DESENSITIZES them to it.....will never get it.
He's just too stupid to ever figure it out.
Or how about those rather nice chainsaws?? How many children's lives would you save by selling those???
ReplyDeleteNaturally, your EMPATHY has a limit.And this includes letting hungry kids slowly die.
When you need a study to explain that to you, you're too stupid to get it.
ReplyDeletethis worf fellow seems to be quite the reactionary
ReplyDeletelaws made during times of emotional duress are rarely wise or correct
and clifford and veracity still have no meaningful relationship
he doesn't address the fact that the motor oil he uses in his moped has more sulfur in it than the vegetable oil he falsely asserted
when called on his lie about the saudis pumping 9-10 billion barrels per day he says ooh i meant reserves then calls me a liar
That's right Worf you give up. You always run away when JMM rips your turban.
ReplyDelete"You cant handle the truth."
I'm sorry Johnny, I can't help you.
ReplyDeleteYou're too stupid.
If you need a study to explain to you the difference between "charity" and DESENSITIZING YOUR KIDS TO VIOLENCE, then you're too stupid to help.
ReplyDeleteIts good that you chose hanging sheetrock for a living.
ReplyDeleteBecause you're too stupid to do anything else.
Stupid can't be helped. Stupid has to get smart, and that doesn't happen to most.
ReplyDeleteYou'll just stay stupid till the day you die.
ReplyDelete....probably die doing something stupid.
ReplyDeleteProbably leave a stupid corpse.
ReplyDelete....kids and descendants will probably be stupid too.
and furthermore it was jonathan who brought up the tar sand production
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteYou just can't help stupid.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who doesn't understand that feeding our kids brains with non stop images of bloody, awful violence both in movies or games, DESENSITIZES them to it.....will never get it.
He's just too stupid to ever figure it out.
All you can do is hang your head in shame, and wait for the next senseless, violent shooting where the shooter is DRESSED UP LIKE A VIDEO GAME SHOOTER.
ReplyDeleteAnd then listen to the stupid idiots like Johnny and his sock puppet "anonymouse". ......shake your head, .....and feel shame.
how about promoting good parenting and a return of god to our schools
ReplyDeletewhat if guns were banned would it be any better if he ran around with a claw hammer and just bashed everyone in the head
would you be screaming for us to ban claw hammers then
an armed populace protects us from a tyrannical government that means more than shotguns and hunting rifles
ReplyDeleteShame at being part of the same species, as these stupid creatures.
And they'll say stupid things like "he could kill them with a claw hammer"....
ReplyDeleteyea....
A few dozen teachers couldn't stop a guy with a claw hammer.
: |
Like I said...you just can't help stupid.
ReplyDeleteAll you can do is hang your head in shame, and wait for the next mass murder to occur.
So the stupid can come out, and talk more of their stupid.
Strange,Worf and I previously agree that mankind has evolved well beyond its horrific past. Suddenly he feels that everyone who watches Rambo wants to go out and buy a machine gun thus we are barbaric again........LOL!
ReplyDeleteSorry,Worf,but we are the best we have ever been despite media....period!
ReplyDelete...to ensure the stupid killing, never stops.
They serve the stupid.
ReplyDelete...they are the stupid.
and it was your liberals who led the charge for sex and violence in movies and tv and games under your freedom of speech laws
ReplyDeletenot the tea party
I'm sorry I told you, I can't help the stupid.
ReplyDeleteYou'll just have to learn to live with it.
ReplyDeleteTry wearing a paper bag over your head.
Then you might not feel the stupid so much.
ReplyDelete...just be sure to cut some eyeholes so you can see.
no evolution there jonathon
ReplyDeletethe nature of man has never changed
never will
Otherwise you'd start bumping into things.
ReplyDeleteHelllllllllllllp!!!!
ReplyDeleteI just watched "The Three Stooges" and I no longer know the difference between right and wrong......LOL!
Suddenly,I feel like poking everyone in the eyes.
ReplyDelete...but be sure to ask the bagger at the checkout line for paper.
ReplyDelete...you don't wanna be putting a plastic one over your head.
JMM.......Master Turban Ripper!!!!!
ReplyDelete
ReplyDelete....yea I imagine today is a day to celebrate and cheer, .....for the stupid.
20 dead 5 year old kids.
And the stupid goes on.
We can only hope that some day, the evolution they don't believe in will weed them out.
ReplyDeleteSeriously,Worf,watch 'The Bad Seed" and you may learn something on your outrageous point of view.
ReplyDeleteShangri-la will never exist no matter how much censorship you implement............WAKE UP MAN!!
yes and after a couple of days of ranting cursing and crocodile tears youll be on to a different rant this one all but forgotten
ReplyDeletebut at least now you have documented proof of what a loving caring nice person you are more so than anyone else
ReplyDeleteLike I said, can't help the stupid.
Just hang your head in shame.
ReplyDelete...like their mothers no doubt do.
ReplyDelete...unless they're stupid too.
jonathon there is an old movie by george lucas called thx 1138
ReplyDeletethat is the world worf would have us live in
ReplyDelete...probably runs in the family.
ReplyDeleteThat's why they have to invent crazy, implausible positions for their naysayers.
Wild, strung out stupid positions.....then, its easier for them to pretend to argue against it.
ReplyDelete...easier because they're stupid.
ReplyDelete........so inventing a stupid argument for your opponent, then pretending to argument is.....if you will....a "no brainer"...
just call us caravan park garbage or whatever your usual tag line is
ReplyDelete
ReplyDelete...its much easier than arguing against reality.
ReplyDelete...of course, ...that's only because they're stupid.
ReplyDelete....the stupid makes'em do it.
its all we have left
ReplyDeleteyouve already said that once you declare something a fact there can be no room for further debate
The tobacco company lobbyists and leaders used to stand there with a cigarette and say " ...hey look at me, I'm smoking a cigarette and I don't have cancer! ....so cigarettes don't cause cancer!"
ReplyDeleteAnd folks ate it up.
ReplyDelete...the stupid ones anyway.
ReplyDeleteNow, the stupids in here tell us "hey look at me, I play video games and I'm not shooting people....so...video games don't influence violent behavior!"
....and folks eat it up.
ReplyDelete....the stupid ones anyway.
ReplyDeleteIts because they're stupid.
ReplyDelete...which wouldn't be a problem....
ReplyDelete....if they weren't so stupid.
The guns in the shooting belonged to his mother. Legally purchased.
ReplyDeleteWhat did a kindergarten teacher in a small neighborhood, ...need a Bushmaster or a Glock for?
Guns.
Americas God.
ReplyDelete...for the stupid half of America at least.
ReplyDeleteaka the Tea Party.
Last week another Bourne movie came out.
ReplyDeleteThere is a scene in the movie where a man walks into a research lab, locks the door then proceeds to methodically shoot everyone in the lab.
He walks around and murders like a dozen people.
He is calm and methodical.
The movie goes out of the way to show the victims cowering and trembling while hiding under desks, only to have the shooter walk calmly over, raise the gun and shoot them as they are crying and pleading for their lives.
He does this one by one, and kills like a dozen people.
He uses a 9mm handgun.
He repeatedly reloads as he calmly murders everyone there on the screen.
Finally, as the police arrive, he turns the gun to his own head and shoots himself.
Then, we see the aftermath news story talking about the horrific tragedy that just occurred.
All almost identical to what we saw this shooter do today to those kids.
It would be highly unusual if a 24 year old boy that clearly had a gun fantasies did not see the latest "Bourne" movie. Everyone saw it.
They are extremely popular, particularly with the youth.
The shooter in the Bourne movie as he is killing everyone, appears incredibly in control and looks powerful next to the cowering victims, pleading and trembling for their lives.
ReplyDeleteWhy Hollywood would put a scene in a movie like that is beyond me. It was unnecessary to the story yet they put it in anyway.
Its this constant feeding of violence which keeps growing more intense, more realistic, more graphic and definitely more callous and apathetic to our basic humanity.
These scenes are being fed non stop into our young adults minds, while at the same time we're telling them that government doesn't work, there's no hope for the future and they're screwed.
Then we tell them we all should have guns, cuz we're too stupid to live without them like the rest of the world, while simultaneously showing them "heroes" in the movies who use guns to solve all their problems.
We are BREEDING this violence.
We are TRAINING them, and CONDITIONING them to it.
And while the stupids want to bury their heads in the sand, and say "nuh uh", the times come for the rest of us to face up to it.
ReplyDeleteWe need to talk about the actual causes, and stop pretending there's nothing we can do about it, like the stupids in here like Johnny will tell you.
We CAN do something about it.
We can start giving our youth hope again, show them govt works, show them our society works, show them we don't solve our differences as a nation with guns and war, and show them that there are better things in the world then holing up in a cabin with rifle skinning a deer.
We have to give them hope, and we have to instill faith in science and humanity again. And stop with this negative, dark stupidity we feed them.
Violent video games and movies don't "make" people do these things.
ReplyDeleteWhat they do is desensitize the participants to these actions and the "troubled" and "disturbed" ones copy what they see on the screen.
This shooter followed the same pattern that the shooter in the Bourne movie that came out on DVD this week showed.
The Bourne movie comes out, 2 days later a shooter copies the exact same pattern just like in the movie.
ReplyDeleteThe shooter dropped the magazines on the ground and just kept reloading his 9mm and walking around pumping rounds into the trembling crying victims in the movie.
The shooter today in Conn did the exact same thing.
The exact same thing.
Keep telling yourself its not influencing our kids (this shooter was practically a kid himself) and people.
ReplyDeleteKeep telling yourself its just a coincidence that the exact same scene that plays out in a movie plays out in real life 2 days after the movies released on DVD.
Keep telling yourself its unrelated.
Then sit back and wait for the next one, because as long as we bury our heads in the sand, listening to the stupid people in our society who cannot see a clear pattern when one presents itself, it will keep happening.
Its not just the guns, its the guns, and the culture of death we're breeding combined with an insane political party telling our kids its hopeless and showing them we can't even make the trains run on time or keep the lights on, giving them no hope while simultaneously feeding them a steady diet of gun violence in games and movies and television, then we would be fools to expect anything different.
"Robert Licata said his 6-year-old son was in class when the gunman burst in and shot the teacher. "That's when my son grabbed a bunch of his friends and ran out the door," he said. "He was very brave. He waited for his friends."
ReplyDeleteHe said the shooter didn't utter a word."
In the Bourne movie the shooter also didn't utter a word.
The NRA now pushes guns on people like drug dealers push heroin.
ReplyDeleteGreat line from a good article
Number of gun deaths; 2008-2009
ReplyDeletePolice Officers, 98
That number is far too high;
.
.
.
but
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
139 school children
Is simply too incredible to contemplate.
My mind goes numb.
When are we as a society going to get serious about gun violence?
Or the public appetite for violence in the media and culture we accept.
Carolyn McCarthy is right,
ReplyDeleteToday was not the right time to try to talk about the culture of gun violence we all are forced to live in;:
Because to talk about it today, was far too late to save 20 young innocent lives.
But to prevent the next time, we need to start.
When are we as a society going to get serious about gun violence?
ReplyDeleteOr the public appetite for violence in the media and culture we accept.
Amen to that. We're in love with this culture of violence. The Tea Party takes GUNS to POLITICAL RALLIES, THREATENING the President, saying things like "THIS TIME WE CAME UNLOADED".
Sarah Palin, who at the time was an elected US Governor, and was running for VICE PRESIDENT of the United States, took photos of her in a bikini with a beer and an assault rifle!
How messed up is that?
She tells people "DON'T RETREAT, RELOAD!", while simultaneously putting GUN SITE TARGETS on her opponents districts!
Its insanity.
Our kids see this.
We're teaching them that GUNS are the answer to their problems. Love the gun. Worship the gun. The gun will solve your problems.
Then we show them movies where killers methodically kill screaming trembling, cowering victims all the while making the shooter look powerful and omnipotent, then wonder "how does this happen" when things like yesterday happen.
It happens because we BREED it, and we have a right wing who;
A. Worships guns and teaches the same to their kids
B. Is too stupid to see that a steady diet of gun violence in movies and video games is linked to an increase in violent shootings like this
C. Thinks the answer is to have more guns.
clif said...
ReplyDeleteCarolyn McCarthy is right,
Today was not the right time to try to talk about the culture of gun violence we all are forced to live in;:
Because to talk about it today, was far too late to save 20 young innocent lives.
But to prevent the next time, we need to start.
Exactly. The stupid Tea Party twits are out accusing people of making "politics" out of it.
Its not about politics.
If 20 dead kids isn't the time to talk about gun violence, when is?
We should have already been talking about it. But the right wing wants to sweep it under the rug so they can keep their precious assault rifles.
The time has long since passed when a small group of citizens armed with small arms is going to present any sort of "check or balance" to this govt.
1. The US is NOT able to be overthrown by men with small arms. Small arms do nothing against a drone army that could wipe any such uprising out without the pilots ever leaving the comfort of their command center.
2. What they think even if they could, (which they can't) overthrow the US govt with a band of men with small arms, that China and Russia are going to sit back and watch a bunch of Tea Bagging rednecks in pickups and rifles take over the Nukes?
What are they crazy?
If China and Russia thought for two seconds the US govt was about to fall into the hands of some beer swilling pickup driving gun toting yahoo's.....they'd send in the largest contingent of heavily armed troops, ....somewhere in the neighborhood of a few million, and take over. And if they couldn't do that, they'd nuke em.
There is no legitimate need for private citizens to need assault rifles, armor piercing rounds, etc.
Hunters need hunting rifles. They don't need AR15 Assault Rifles.
They don't need BODY ARMOR.
They don't need to play dress up like Rambo, and they don't need 50,000 rounds of ammunition.
The time to talk about this wasn't yesterday as Clif and so many others are saying.
Because by yesterday, when 20 little 5 year old kids died, it was way to fucking late.
I'm still waiting to hear why a school teacher who lived in one of the safest New England towns that America has to offer, ....why she needed to keep a Glock, a SigSauer and a Bushmaster rifle in her house.
ReplyDeleteEspecially when she had a mentally unbalanced son living with her.
Oh the right wing says "Its her right to protect herself".
Well, ....how'd that "protecting herself" thing work out yesterday for her?
Did that precious gun ownership right keep her "safe"?
How is it my mother lived her entire life without ever owning a gun? 80 freaking years, and she never, EVER had a gun.
Wouldn't have even known how to use one.
My 80 year old mother, was braver than you right wing gun loving rubes. She lived her entire life without one, and never, ever needed one to get through the day.
Why can't you?
And to those who say movies don't influence this sort of behavior, then why would Paramount feel the need to do this?
ReplyDeleteParamount postpones Pa. premiere of Cruise film 'Jack Reacher' after Conn. school shooting
By Alicia Rancilio, The Associated Press | Associated Press – 11 hrs ago
NEW YORK, N.Y. - The U.S. premiere of the Tom Cruise action movie "Jack Reacher" is being postponed following the deadly Connecticut school shooting.
Paramount Pictures says "out of honour and respect for the families of the victims" the premiere won't take place Saturday in Pittsburgh, where "Jack Reacher" was filmed.
This just happened this morning.
ReplyDeleteAlabama Hospital Shooting: St. Vincent's Gunman Wounds 3 Before Being Killed By Police
12/15/12 11:56 AM ET EST
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. -- Authorities in Alabama say a man opened fire in a hospital, wounding an officer and two employees before he was fatally shot by police.
Birmingham Police Sgt. Johnny Williams says the officer and employees suffered injuries that are not considered life-threatening.
Williams says police were called because a man with a gun was walking through St. Vincent's Hospital on Saturday morning. When he was confronted by officers, he started shooting and wounded one of the officers. That's when the second officer shot and killed the man.
ban all the movies
ReplyDeleteNo little anonymouse, changing everything I said into your stupid little braindead lie won't strengthen your argument, nor weaken mine.
ReplyDeleteYou're too stupid to get that though, as most liars are.
DO MEN THINK GUNS ARE SEXY? Remember Glen Beck and the deaths he caused by his fear mongering?
ReplyDeleteIT's time to stop being bullied by the NRA
Please read my new blog and leave a comment there.
I do believe in gun control, nonetheless, I recently posted a comment about “Countess Elizabeth Báthory” (which everyone ignored) who around 1600 slaughtered 650 young girls and children in the most gruesome manner. Why did she do this?? Obviously she had a major brain glitch........media did not exist!
ReplyDeleteAccording to, Worf, mankind was oblivious to violence prior to “The Bionic Man” dueling the Sasquatch or wiping out zombies in the “Resident Evil” video game…………astonishingly absurd !!!! I’m sorry but there are many a good educated and uneducated people out there who enjoy a good horror or action thriller yet live decent and very civil lives. Nevertheless, there will always be some unbalanced twit who will watch “Rambo” and act inappropriately. However, far worse violent acts have been committed long before the onset of media and these weirdies are few and far between.
I love action and horror flicks but don’t get me wrong my favorite show growing up was “Little House on the Prairie.” Watched every episode 5 times over.
“Seeking external motivations for irrational acts, placing blame became a national pastime. Movies, music, working mothers, poor parenting, video games, lack of Christian prayer in schools were all viable scapegoats.
ReplyDeleteThe United States Congress’s investigation of video games was not dissimilar to the 1950’s investigation of such pop culture publications as “Tales from the Crypt” and “Mad Magazine. Television reruns of “Popeye the Sailor “once came under attack for his spinach fueled fisticuffs. And, the “Three Stooges slapstick antics prompted concern that America’s next generation would slap themselves silly while poking each other’s eyes out.”
John Edward Douglas
U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), one of the first criminal profilers, and criminal psychology author.
“except in a few specialized cases, the media(and this includes pornography)do not lead otherwise good or law-abiding people to commit violent antisocial acts.”
ReplyDeleteJohn Edward Douglas
U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), one of the first criminal profilers, and criminal psychology author.
JMM............Master turban destroyer!
ReplyDelete:D