Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

"This Sucker Could Go Down"

Discussions about the economic and financial ramifications of PEAK OIL
Post a reply

Re: "This Sucker Could Go Down"

Unread postby SeaGypsy » Sat 16 Apr 2016, 05:59:37

Since it appears Trump could pull a Mussolini mandate, his economic mandate could change the whole ballgame. Interesting times.
SeaGypsy
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 9285
Joined: Wed 04 Feb 2009, 04:00:00
Top

Re:

Unread postby onlooker » Sat 16 Apr 2016, 07:44:10

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', 'S')ince it appears Trump could pull a Mussolini mandate, his economic mandate could change the whole ballgame. Interesting times.

I would not describe Trump as President as interesting, more like a disaster. :shock:
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10957
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA
Top

Re: "This Sucker Could Go Down"

Unread postby Plantagenet » Sat 16 Apr 2016, 12:31:01

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ennui2', ' ')the Reverend Wright scandal in the 2008 election.


It THAT what you are so wee-wee'd up about? The what? The Reverend Wright scandal? Thats whats upsetting you?

For heaven's sakes, man--that happened 8 years ago. It was a little tiny two-day scandal thats been forgotten for eight years now.

Gosh you are a weird person. [smilie=bduh.gif]

My advice to you is to just forget about the Rev. Wright scandal. Its totally unimportant, dude----just let it go. Relax. Deep breathing. In-out. In-out. In-out. Ahhhhh. Now hold that breath. Think of your happy place. Hold that breath.......hold it.

Now let it out.

There. Don't you feel better now?

Cheers!
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Top

Re: "This Sucker Could Go Down"

Unread postby efarmer » Sat 16 Apr 2016, 12:55:42

Tanada, I read your reply to my post and I see your point in how predatory the fractional banking system is in cultural and "big picture" terms. I did use the terms productive and vital, and agree that some better overall system would be a healthier situation for civilization going forward. My point would be to consider the chaos of the system crashing and locking up, and the immediate and wide ranging chaos so created. In this environment a segway to a better scheme based on less predatory principles would in my opinion be lost and chaos would simply rule the vacuum. Like any of our systems including energy, transitioning to a more desirable scheme involves enough stability to manage such a transition and directing the inertia of the present system into a new one with some care and consensus. In the case of the money system collapsing, such stability is very improbable.
Best,
EF
User avatar
efarmer
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2003
Joined: Fri 17 Mar 2006, 04:00:00
Top

Re: "This Sucker Could Go Down"

Unread postby Hawkcreek » Sat 16 Apr 2016, 13:26:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('efarmer', 'T')anada, I read your reply to my post and I see your point in how predatory the fractional banking system is in cultural and "big picture" terms. I did use the terms productive and vital, and agree that some better overall system would be a healthier situation for civilization going forward. My point would be to consider the chaos of the system crashing and locking up, and the immediate and wide ranging chaos so created. In this environment a segway to a better scheme based on less predatory principles would in my opinion be lost and chaos would simply rule the vacuum. Like any of our systems including energy, transitioning to a more desirable scheme involves enough stability to manage such a transition and directing the inertia of the present system into a new one with some care and consensus. In the case of the money system collapsing, such stability is very improbable.
Best,
EF

I agree with almost all of what you say. But a look at history shows that the number of occasions in which an unjust system this firmly entrenched is changed without violence, is far fewer than the opposite. The elite would literally rather lose their heads than give back any of their wealth.
I expect lots of violence, beginning within a year or two.
The world has always been about change, and our responses to it. Just part of the experience.
"It don't make no sense that common sense don't make no sense no more"
John Prine
Hawkcreek
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 1468
Joined: Sun 15 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Washington State
Top

Re: "This Sucker Could Go Down"

Unread postby Subjectivist » Sat 16 Apr 2016, 14:05:26

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Hawkcreek', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('efarmer', 'T')anada, I read your reply to my post and I see your point in how predatory the fractional banking system is in cultural and "big picture" terms. I did use the terms productive and vital, and agree that some better overall system would be a healthier situation for civilization going forward. My point would be to consider the chaos of the system crashing and locking up, and the immediate and wide ranging chaos so created. In this environment a segway to a better scheme based on less predatory principles would in my opinion be lost and chaos would simply rule the vacuum. Like any of our systems including energy, transitioning to a more desirable scheme involves enough stability to manage such a transition and directing the inertia of the present system into a new one with some care and consensus. In the case of the money system collapsing, such stability is very improbable.
Best,
EF

I agree with almost all of what you say. But a look at history shows that the number of occasions in which an unjust system this firmly entrenched is changed without violence, is far fewer than the opposite. The elite would literally rather lose their heads than give back any of their wealth.
I expect lots of violence, beginning within a year or two.
The world has always been about change, and our responses to it. Just part of the experience.


Most people, elite or not, have a mental image that they are in control of their life, their future or what not. The thing is, all of that control is at least 80 percent illusion in the heads of the person involved. Sure if you are rich enough you can get away with virtual, maybe even real, slavery. You can, with a plan and a cash payment, arrange for some minor annoyance to be removed, beaten or killed. However when it comes to things like consequences from actions that have built up for years or even decades? You might escape, but you can not control the crumbling of the house of cards once the winds of change blow too strongly.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
Subjectivist
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4705
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 07:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio
Top

Re: "This Sucker Could Go Down"

Unread postby Plantagenet » Sat 16 Apr 2016, 19:22:32

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', 'B')ush started better wars.


Bush might be ahead on quality, but Obama is winning on quantity. AND there's still time for Obama to start another war or two.

Even Obama admits his war on Libya was catastrophic, Obama's war against the Caliphate in Syria isn't over yet, and what Obama calls the "good war" in Afghanistan is heating up again.

Image
cheers!
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Top

Re: "This Sucker Could Go Down"

Unread postby Lore » Sat 16 Apr 2016, 19:37:38

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', 'B')ush started better wars.


Bush might be ahead on quality, but Obama is winning on quantity. AND there's still time for Obama to start another war or two.

Even Obama admits his war on Libya was catastrophic, Obama's war against the Caliphate in Syria isn't over yet, and what Obama calls the "good war" in Afghanistan is heating up again.

Image
cheers!


If he is second, it's a pretty poor second just from comparing casualties alone. Interventions don't make very good wars and as far as Afghanistan, didn't Bush start that one?
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
Lore
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Fri 26 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Fear Of A Blank Planet
Top

Re: "This Sucker Could Go Down"

Unread postby Plantagenet » Sat 16 Apr 2016, 20:24:43

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', ' ')Interventions don't make very good wars


No war is a good war.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', 'a')nd as far as Afghanistan, didn't Bush start that one?


In the US war is declared by the Congress, not the President. Its unconstitutional for a president to start a war without Congressional approval. Bush went to the US Congress after the 9/11 attacks to ask them to vote for the Afghanistan War. Obama was not in the Senate in 2001, but he supported the US entering the Afghanistan War. Once in the Senate Obama voted to support the US war in Afghanistan many times. Just as Hillary shares the responsibility for the Iraq War because of her vote to go to war, Obama shares responsibility for the Afghanistan War because of his statements in favor of the war and his numerous votes for the Afghanistan War.

AND, Once he became President in 2009 Obama bears personal responsibility for his decision to surge tens of thousands of US troops into Afghanistan, resulting in heavy US casualties.
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Top

Re: "This Sucker Could Go Down"

Unread postby Lore » Sat 16 Apr 2016, 20:59:14

It was Bush that started the wars. That was the question. Not who supported him in them, or who they got turned over to.
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
Lore
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Fri 26 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Fear Of A Blank Planet
Top

Re: "This Sucker Could Go Down"

Unread postby onlooker » Sat 16 Apr 2016, 21:08:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', 'I')t was Bush that started the wars. That was the question. Not who supported him in them, or who they got turned over to.

Yep, the Neocons started the conflagration in the Middle East. Nothing henceforth has equaled that.
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10957
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA
Top

Re: "This Sucker Could Go Down"

Unread postby ennui2 » Sat 16 Apr 2016, 21:11:36

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', 'I')t was Bush that started the wars. That was the question. Not who supported him in them, or who they got turned over to.


Don't feed the troll. Planty's purpose is merely to harangue Obama. There is no consistent policy position to Planty's complaints, especially when you consider Planty's past political endorsements, such as McCain "Bomb, Bomb, Iran" in 2008.

Image
"If the oil price crosses above the Etp maximum oil price curve within the next month, I will leave the forum." --SumYunGai (9/21/2016)
User avatar
ennui2
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3920
Joined: Tue 20 Sep 2011, 10:37:02
Location: Not on Homeworld
Top

Re: "This Sucker Could Go Down"

Unread postby ennui2 » Sat 16 Apr 2016, 21:19:35

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '
')It THAT what you are so wee-wee'd up about? The what? The Reverend Wright scandal? Thats whats upsetting you?

For heaven's sakes, man--that happened 8 years ago. It was a little tiny two-day scandal thats been forgotten for eight years now.

Gosh you are a weird person. [smilie=bduh.gif]


Exhibit A above.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
"If the oil price crosses above the Etp maximum oil price curve within the next month, I will leave the forum." --SumYunGai (9/21/2016)
User avatar
ennui2
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3920
Joined: Tue 20 Sep 2011, 10:37:02
Location: Not on Homeworld
Top

Re: "This Sucker Could Go Down"

Unread postby jedrider » Sun 17 Apr 2016, 16:38:51

"In the US war is declared by the Congress, not the President."

Difference between 'de jure' and 'de facto'.
User avatar
jedrider
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3107
Joined: Thu 28 May 2009, 10:10:44
Top

Re: "This Sucker Could Go Down"

Unread postby AdamB » Sun 17 Apr 2016, 20:06:39

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('onlooker', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', 'I')t was Bush that started the wars. That was the question. Not who supported him in them, or who they got turned over to.

Yep, the Neocons started the conflagration in the Middle East. Nothing henceforth has equaled that.


Your kidding, right?

I don't even think neocons had been invented yet, to blame everything on, when conflagration started in the ME.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-hist ... proclaimed
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."

Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 11018
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26
Top

Re: "This Sucker Could Go Down"

Unread postby Plantagenet » Sun 17 Apr 2016, 20:23:27

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jedrider', '&')quot;In the US war is declared by the Congress, not the President."

Difference between 'de jure' and 'de facto'.


No, actually its the difference between constitutional and unconstitutional, i.e. legal and illegal.

Under the U.S. Constitution the power to declare war is given to the Congress. Thats why Roosevelt, for instance, went to Congress the day after the Pearl Harbor attacks by Japan and asked the Congress to declare war against Japan. Similarly Bush went to Congress after the 9/11 attacks and got Congressional approval to wage war against Iraq, and then later got a separate vote from Congress authorizing the war in Iraq (FYI thats the infamous vote where Hillary voted to authorize the war in Iraq).

After the VietNam war disaster the Congress in 1973 passed a resolution to assert Congressional power over war-making and to set limits on what a President like Lyndon Johnson can do on his own to take the US to war. The Congress thought it was important to limit presidential power to unilaterally take the US into a war after the VietNam war ended with 500,000 US combat casualties. Under the 1973 "War Powers Act" the president is empowered to respond instantly to threats to US national security, but even in those cases the War Powers act requires the president to go to Congress for approval after 48 hours, and forbids US forces to engage in military action more than 30 days without Congressional voting to declare war or voting to authorize the war under the war powers act.

Under the constitution and the 1973 War Powers Act, President Obama's wars in Libya and Syria are clearly illegal and unconstitutional. Obama has never gone to congress for authorization for either war and Congress has never voted to authorize either war. Of course Obama is a D, so no one seems to care if he wages illegal wars. Back when President Lyndon Johnson (D) took the US into Viet Nam the Ds were some of his harshest critics---but these days the Ds just passively roll over when Obama unilaterally takes the US to war. Basically Obama has thrown the Constitution and the War Powers Act into the trash, and shown that, much as happened in Viet Nam, the President in the 21st century can ignore the constitution and take the US into war whenever he wants, with no Congressional vote needed.

Image
Cheers!



War Powers Act
Last edited by Plantagenet on Sun 17 Apr 2016, 20:29:01, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Top

Re: "This Sucker Could Go Down"

Unread postby onlooker » Sun 17 Apr 2016, 20:24:02

Other than the ongoing feud between Israel and Palenstine, wholesale invasions and destruction of countries and all out civil war and terrorists multiplying in number it seems daily was not happening till after 911 and Bush was in power. So yes they're was some violence and some terrorism already but all hell broke loose with the invasion of Iraq after 911.
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10957
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA
Top

Re: "This Sucker Could Go Down"

Unread postby Plantagenet » Sun 17 Apr 2016, 20:40:25

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('onlooker', ' ')wholesale invasions and destruction of countries and all out civil war and terrorists multiplying in number it seems daily was not happening till after 911


Actually, all these things were happening prior to 9/11, then they happened during and just after 9/11, and these things are all continuing today, and will likely there will be more of them in the future.

For instance Al Qaida was nothing new. Yes they attacked the US on 9/11 but they had previously waged a multi year against the USSR after the USSR invaded Afghanistan and then killed US military personal in two attacks at the Khobar Towers and on the USS Cole during the Clinton administration. Clinton failed to respond effectively, so Al Qaida struck again on 9/11. And Islamist terroist attacks on the World Trade Center were nothing new----the WTC was attacked a few years earlier by Islamic terrorists during the Clinton administration and almost was knocked over then. And the US going war against Saddam Hussein was nothing new--- the US had previously waged a war against Saddam Hussein after he invaded Kuwait under George H. W. Bush.. And civil war in Syria is nothing new---Syria had a huge civil war with the Sunni population rebelling against the Assad regime a few decades ago, when the current Assad's dad was in power there and it ended much like this one is ending---with the defeat and slaughter of the Sunni rebels. And the terror attacks in Paris and Brussels are horrible, but there have been several prior cycles of islamist terrorist attacks on Paris, Madrid, London etc. in the past---this is just the latest version of that.

I wish things were great in the past and then George Bush caused the world to go crazy, but really the world had already been crazy all on its own for a very long time. Everything that we are seeing now is just more of the same old things---the wars and terrorist attacks and civil wars we see now happened before in mostly the exact same countries in the past. 8)
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Top

Re: "This Sucker Could Go Down"

Unread postby Lore » Sun 17 Apr 2016, 21:29:12

Yeah, George just managed to stir the pot a lot more.
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
Lore
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Fri 26 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Fear Of A Blank Planet
Top

Re: "This Sucker Could Go Down"

Unread postby Plantagenet » Sun 17 Apr 2016, 21:38:02

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', 'Y')eah, George just managed to stir the pot a lot more.


Yup. And Obama's the one stirring the pot now, and Hillary will be the one stirring the pot starting in 2017.

I'd like to think that Hillary will change course and the end all the wars, but she's made it clear she's going to continue Obama's policies, so presumably that means continuing the wars in Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan, and maybe going back into Libya if the Caliphate continues to gain ground there.

Cheers!

Image
Soon Hillary will be commander in chief. She has pledged to keep Obama's wars going.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Economics & Finance

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests



cron