[ionia23]

Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
We could still ship food in with trains and the like. And New York only has about 10 million.

It'd be amazing to see, switching from fossil fuels to alternatives, over a course of 10 years....

Yeah, we could adjust.

[Grey Wolf]

Originally posted by Gank
Thought it was twenty, and your whole train system is electric? And the electrical grid is totally oil free?

No, but there is biodiesel. Costs a hell of a lot, but we do have the vegetable oil for it
And NYC is definitely not 20, considering the fact the entire State of New York has about 14-16.

[Kazan]

ionia23: you imply i use argumentum ad populi (argument is valid from the number of people who agree with me)

No, I base my argument off IDEPENDANT VERIFIABLE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE

Real Scientific studies, etc - Implying I would use A.A populi is a grave insult to my intelligence

[Ghostavo]

If most people here would politly stop using argumentum ad terrorem...

Regarding the isolationism some of you are discussing here, it would be impossible for any country in it's current state to continue functioning normally (except those who may be currently experiencing international embargos). It's economy would simply colapse within a month max.

[ionia23]

Originally posted by Kazan
ionia23: you imply i use argumentum ad populi (argument is valid from the number of people who agree with me)

No, I base my argument off IDEPENDANT VERIFIABLE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE

Real Scientific studies, etc - Implying I would use A.A populi is a grave insult to my intelligence

and several of those arguments have been negated or thrown into question already, though the push behind them is strong.

And to address your last point, with respect, if-ay uh-thay ooe-shay its-fay

[ionia23]

Originally posted by Ghostavo
If most people here would politly stop using argumentum ad terrorem...

Regarding the isolationism some of you are discussing here, it would be impossible for any country in it's current state to continue functioning normally (except those who may be currently experiencing international embargos). It's economy would simply colapse within a month max.

Oh, I'm not saying that it's a good idea, not by a long shot.  And the effects would be pretty grave indeed.  I can't even fathom it on a grand scale.  But do you think a nation could adjust? I"m of the opinion, sure, but I'm also ignorant of everything that would be involved.

[Grey Wolf]

Depends on what measures they're willing to undertake. And their grip on their military.

[Gank]

19 million 3 years ago, most likely near 20 now
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36000.html
As for the biodeisel thats nice, but wont you have to build new engines? Theres lots of alternative means besides oil, but oil is needed for the construction of these things.

[ionia23]

There I go back to Stalinism again...dammit...

Good point.

[Grey Wolf]

Biodiesel runs on anything that uses diesel. And ethanol runs on a good deal of modern cars (the car companies get tax breaks).

[Grey Wolf]

Originally posted by Gank
19 million 3 years ago, most likely near 20 now
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36000.html
As for the biodeisel thats nice, but wont you have to build new engines? Theres lots of alternative means besides oil, but oil is needed for the construction of these things.

That's the state, not the city. And the population of the state is decreasing, not increasing.

[Gank]

So it is. Not really relevant anyways. Biodiesel needs arable land right? How much arable land would be needed to replace 25% of world oil consumption? And how badly is that going to affect food supply in the US? Isolationism would drop the US back to the living standards of at least the 20s, with possibly higher unemployment rates,

[Grey Wolf]

We have quite a bit of arable land that's being wasted as we speak. To prevent overproduction of crops, the government pays farmers not to farm all their land. And if we weren't exporting any grains, then that land could also go to biodiesel production.

[Kazan]

exactly

next thing we need to do is eliminate the stupid economically-ineffecient (impossible to self sustain) "family" farm an replace it with corporate farming (not to be confused with factory farming)

[Grey Wolf]

Family farms are virtually extinct anyway, at least in the plains.

[Rictor]

Actually, "family farms" have been known to be 4-5 times as efficient as corporate farms. Don't ask me for a link, cause I don't remember where I got that info from.

[Liberator]

I live on a Family Farm.  They would be sustainable if the price of operation wasn't so high.  

The cost of seed is outrageous and have you price farm implements lately?

BTW, Kazan, I was specifically challenging your statement that Unemployment was at an all time high.  As far as that goes, you're full of crap.

City Folk are always complaining about food quality and price, never once considering how much work goes into the food they buy at the Kroger/Food World/Publix.  

You cannot imagine the pain and heartache involved when you have to put something slightly less important off because the tractor needs to be fixed or one of the implements needs to be replaced.

[Kazan]

my grandfather is a farmer - he makes money because he knows what an ECONOMY OF SIZE is

Your problems with your 'family farm' is because of the economic inefficiency of the family farm - and i feel no pity for you because it's your/your families own decision to try to continue scratching an income out of an economically infeasable system

As for your 'challenge' to my statement about unemployeement - it's LAUGHABLE -- 'REAL' unemployeement is at it's highest level SINCE the great depression

the government numbers of somewhere around 8% are an underestimate - because they're only counting people that are drawing EB and are registered for looking for jobs at govt job centers - it ignores people who are looking for jobs on their own, who have given up until the economy rebounds, etc

'REAL' unemployeement counts all of them, not just what the government counts - our REAL unemployeement numbers are disgustingly high

[Bobboau]

Originally posted by Kazan
the government numbers of somewhere around 8% are an underestimate - because they're only counting people that are drawing EB and are registered for looking for jobs at govt job centers - it ignores people who are looking for jobs on their own, who have given up until the economy rebounds, etc

'REAL' unemployeement counts all of them, not just what the government counts - our REAL unemployeement numbers are disgustingly high

so the governments numbers a wrong and the reality is horable. we don't know quantifiably how much worse, but it's horable horable horable

[mikhael]

Originally posted by ionia23
I can think of a number of married couples where sexual activity is non-existent (ho ho ho).  Does this render a marriage null and void?  Boy i'd love to see THAT on Court TV.

Actually, in almost every state in the United States, lack of sexual activity IS grounds for an anullment.

I assume you actually meant "sexual activity is non-existent [later, after a marriage has been consummated]". That won't render a marriage null and void. However, it is grounds for divorce in several states.

You may all go back to your ceaseless bickering now. I would join you, but I'm too tired and bitter.