Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

aberdeenwriter · Oct 25, 2004, 03:12 AM

We're arguing the wrong issues I think.

...Put simply, anytime investment bankers, consulting firms, executives from "Big Oil," Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, officials from OPEC nations, Osama Bin Laden, and the Saudi royal family are in complete agreement with leftist demagogues like Michael Moore and influential environmentalists like Michael Meacher, it's safe to say "the **** is about to hit the fan..."

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

Dear Reader,
Civilization as we know it is coming to an end soon. This is not the wacky proclamation of a doomsday cult, apocalypse bible prophecy sect, or conspiracy theory society. Rather, it is the scientific conclusion of the best paid, most widely-respected geologists, physicists, and investment bankers in the world. These are rational, professional, conservative individuals who are absolutely terrified by a phenomenon known as global �Peak Oil.�

The ramifications of Peak Oil are so serious, one of George W. Bush�s energy advisors, investment banker Matthew Simmons has stated, �The situation is desperate. This is the world�s biggest serious question,� while comparing the crisis to the perfect storm: �If you read The Perfect Storm, where a freak storm materializes out of the convergence of three weather systems, our energy crisis results from the same phenomenon.�
Simmons� investment bank, Simmons and Company International, is considered the most reputable and reliable energy investment bank in the world.

Put simply, anytime investment bankers, consulting firms, executives from "Big Oil," Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, officials from OPEC nations, Osama Bin Laden, and the Saudi royal family are in complete agreement with leftist demagogues like Michael Moore and influential environmentalists like Michael Meacher, it's safe to say "the **** is about to hit the fan."

For a limited time here is a free book download (pdf)
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/...downloads.html

CD Hanks · Oct 25, 2004, 03:58 AM

This isn't a new idea, and it hasn't come to pass. Things will never get that bad.

aberdeenwriter · Oct 25, 2004, 04:35 AM

Originally posted by CD Hanks:
This isn't a new idea, and it hasn't come to pass. Things will never get that bad.

You're right in saying the idea isn't new. What is new to me is the realization of the ramifications, the nearness of the crap hitting the fan and the inevitability of it.

When listening to Matt Savinar on the Art Bell show, I FINALLY understood how much we really depend on oil JUST for our food (fertilizer, pesticides and shipping the food) not to mention the MANY other uses of oil.

The links supply VERY interesting info.

When the supplies begin to dwindle and our global demand increases, it won't take long before we experience economic collapse.

The supplies are finite.

Even if we found the MAGIC BULLET ALTERNATE ENERGY SOURCE tomorrow, it would take years and years (DECADES) to make that energy available to power our industry.

If our industry can't grow, we can't pay even the INTEREST on our national debt.

I hope you are right. What I've read this evening suggests it will get that bad.

Savinar said it's like trying to escape a tidal wave. Once we see it, it's already too late to escape it's effect.

By the time market indicators to give us the signal to begin MASSIVE investment into alternative energy development, it will be too late.

The Bush family, Sr & Jr. are oil men. In this very close election, you'd think if the President had a way to drive gas prices down before Nov. 2, he'd have done it.

He won't, because he can't.

Iraq was for a variety of reasons. Oil may be the best of them.

Ω · Oct 25, 2004, 05:03 AM

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Oil may be the best of them.

I thought it was to spread freedom? Or was it WoMD?

aberdeenwriter · Oct 25, 2004, 05:13 AM

Originally posted by _?_:
I thought it was to spread freedom? Or was it WoMD?

Freedom and fear of WMD's were some of the reasons. Not the most important reason, IMHO.

Ω · Oct 25, 2004, 05:21 AM

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Freedom and fear of WMD's were some of the reasons. Not the most important reason, IMHO.

So it was to secure oil for America?

aberdeenwriter · Oct 25, 2004, 05:25 AM

Originally posted by _?_:
So it was to secure oil for America?

IMHO, the MAIN reason.

aberdeenwriter · Oct 25, 2004, 05:32 AM

"FORGET THE THREAT OF TERRORISM. CHINA IS ABOUT TO FLICK THE SWITCH ON A GLOBAL ENERGY CRISIS AND A TIME BOMB THAT WILL BRING MASSIVE DESTRUCTION WORLDWIDE"

http://www.sundayherald.com/43523

Spheric Harlot · Oct 25, 2004, 05:36 AM

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
IMHO, the MAIN reason.

Dude, you need to get with the program!

Your comrades-in-vote have been VEHEMENTLY denying that oil had ANYTHING to do with Iraq for the past two years!

aberdeenwriter · Oct 25, 2004, 05:37 AM

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/PageTwo.html

Alternatives to Oil: Fuels of the Future or Cruel Hoaxes?

aberdeenwriter · Oct 25, 2004, 05:44 AM

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Dude, you need to get with the program!

Your comrades-in-vote have been VEHEMENTLY denying that oil had ANYTHING to do with Iraq for the past two years!

Didn't you know that ONLY I know everything??? lol

Seriously, once you read from some of the links, you'll see it's difficult for any thinking person to deny it.

Furthermore, I've been among the vehement deniers and I don't apologize for that any more than I apologize for seeing the truth and admitting this:

If we don't secure a steady supply of oil our economic collapse would come sooner rather than later.

We're looking at some VERY dire predictions and some say it's already here.

Read from the links and you'll understand why I say this.

angaq0k · Oct 25, 2004, 05:47 AM

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Dude, you need to get with the program!

Your comrades-in-vote have been VEHEMENTLY denying that oil had ANYTHING to do with Iraq for the past two years!

icruise · Oct 25, 2004, 05:55 AM

Do I sense another flip-flop in the wings?

aberdeenwriter · 06:18 AM

Another reason for the war, in Savinar's opinon (upon listening to the Art Bell show re-broadcast) is that Saddam was about to switch to the Euro, which would have adversely affected the value of the Dollar on the international market.

Icruise, I haven't read anything yet which would change my mind about W. Kerry would have had to do something about oil, whether he says so or not.

Flip flopper that he is, I don't know that he'd risk losing in 08 by facing the oil problem square on. George may have fibbed about the MAIN reason for Iraq in order to avoid the worldwide reaction -- which I believe would have been MUCH worse had he said, 'we're at the brink of economic collapse unless we secure a steady source of oil.

Savinar just reiterated, "sanctity for our petro dollars."

Then, he said if W had announced that oil was the main reason, Americans are so "energy illiterate" that the country would have replied, "no, let's not invade Iraq! We can find alternate energy sources or we can 'invent' our way out of the crisis."

Neither of which is realistic.

chris v · Oct 25, 2004, 06:29 AM

aberdeenwriter · Oct 25, 2004, 06:59 AM

Originally posted by chris v:

Was the "you" in the image referring to me, specifically?

Was it to imply that I am at the lower end of the scale, just a tad more advanced than the cockroach?

And please do carefully consider your response.

aberdeenwriter · Oct 25, 2004, 07:16 AM

Originally posted by _?_:
I thought it was to spread freedom? Or was it WoMD?

Here's a recent article (with some photos*) that details how and why, �Court Rules: Al Qaida, Iraq Linked.�

It includes a more meaningful description of what the $25,000 payments meant.

http://husseinandterror.com/

* Warning: Some images are quite graphic.

djohnson · Oct 25, 2004, 07:29 AM

I am going to read these links when I get to work in about 30 minutes... Very interesting if true. I wonder what potential energy sources are out there that could provide the power like we need? Some kind of safe cold fusion? Anti-matter powered cars? Super rechargable power cells charged by solar power?

chris v · Oct 25, 2004, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Was the "you" in the image referring to me, specifically?

Was it to imply that I am at the lower end of the scale, just a tad more advanced than the cockroach?

And please do carefully consider your response.

OMG I AM ON THE INTARNET!1!1!1!

Really, really, really seek help, dude.

boots · Oct 25, 2004, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Was the "you" in the image referring to me, specifically?

Was it to imply that I am at the lower end of the scale, just a tad more advanced than the cockroach?

And please do carefully consider your response.

You no longer have the right to call anyone fuzzy-brained. Nor do you have the right to complain about anyone else's reading comprehension skills.

chris v · Oct 25, 2004, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Was the "you" in the image referring to me, specifically?

Was it to imply that I am at the lower end of the scale, just a tad more advanced than the cockroach?

And please do carefully consider your response.

Okay, I've thought about it long and hard, because in 5000 + posts, I've never called anyone here an idiot before. And quite frankly, I don't care if it gets me banned for the Pol/War lounge for saying it.

You are an idiot.

Mithras · Oct 25, 2004, 11:37 AM

aberdeen, read that 'Epochs' graphic again. It's a depiction of the impending end of civilization, not a personal attack against you.

aberdeenwriter · 01:47 PM

Originally posted by djohnson:
I am going to read these links when I get to work in about 30 minutes... Very interesting if true. I wonder what potential energy sources are out there that could provide the power like we need? Some kind of safe cold fusion? Anti-matter powered cars? Super rechargable power cells charged by solar power?

According to the author, the answer to your question is, NONE.

He used an analogy of the French Resistance and the Holocaust to describe the potential these new alternate energy sources might have to stave off the coming economic collapse.

The Resistance in WWII was a good thing. They fought hard and deserved support and were an important group. But, if you were in a death camp it would be unreasonable to expect the Resistance to provide any real hope.

Short of a genuine miracle (to paraphrase the author, 'in the same magnitude as the virgin birth') none of the sources we know of have the potential to provide any hope.

aberdeenwriter · Oct 25, 2004, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by boots:
You no longer have the right to call anyone fuzzy-brained. Nor do you have the right to complain about anyone else's reading comprehension skills.

You'll note, Monsieur "Heel 'n Toe," rather than jumping to a conclusion, I asked for a clarification.

You'll ALSO note, if he HAD suffered a slip in judgement I offered him an out.

You, 'bootsy,' have earned yourself a,

FUZZY ALERT!!!

Inability to interpret accurately
Inability to face reality

And rather than spell it out to you, I'll let you twist in the wind and figure out fer yerself exactly where you earned yer alerts.

aberdeenwriter · Oct 25, 2004, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by chris v:
Okay, I've thought about it long and hard, because in 5000 + posts, I've never called anyone here an idiot before. And quite frankly, I don't care if it gets me banned for the Pol/War lounge for saying it.

You are an idiot.

And you have been reported.

icruise · Oct 25, 2004, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
And you have been reported.

You are unbelievable. Again and again you make stupid or inflammatory statements and then accuse the people who call you on them of "not reading carefully" or having "fuzzy brains." Or when I refute your claims you ignore me or quote me song lyrics. Feel free to report me, but I agree with chris v. You are an idiot.

Logic · Oct 25, 2004, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by Icruise:
You are an idiot.

thirded

aberdeenwriter · Oct 25, 2004, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by Mithras:
aberdeen, read that 'Epochs' graphic again. It's a depiction of the impending end of civilization, not a personal attack against you.

The possibility that the graphic might have been a personal attack didn't occur to me at first. However, after some reflection upon the history of Chris v's past comments, I didn't want what might have been a very subtle and clever attack go unnoticed and unappreciated.

But seriously, I wanted to give him the opportunity to clarify his intent before I jumped to a conclusion or failed to respond to an attack.

Thanks, Mithras!

Toutgood · Oct 25, 2004, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
And you have been reported.

And what's with the FUZZY ALERT thing. Are you aware of exactly how offense that silly gimmick is, and how it gets in the way of actual, reasonable debate?

And if you want to report someone for calling you an idiot when it seems you were in fact in error, go right ahead. But it's besides the point. You made your point, others disagreed.

You'd think that'd be enough for someone interested in rational debate.

boots · Oct 25, 2004, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
... I asked for a clarification.

The fact that you had to is enough evidence to me. For anyone with reasonable skills of discernment, it was pretty clear. So much for Fuzzy-ness. Are you sure you're not a zimphire clone?

villalobos · Oct 25, 2004, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
And you have been reported.

100% genuine idiot.

aberdeenwriter · Oct 25, 2004, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by Toutgood:
And what's with the FUZZY ALERT thing. Are you aware of exactly how offense that silly gimmick is, and how it gets in the way of actual, reasonable debate?

And if you want to report someone for calling you an idiot when it seems you were in fact in error, go right ahead. But it's besides the point. You made your point, others disagreed.

You'd think that'd be enough for someone interested in rational debate.

Hi Toutgood,

In previous posts I noticed some common traits about those debating in favor of liberal positions and candidates.

I mentioned this in a post.

Icruise viciously attacked the validity of my claim. He repeatedly challenged me to prove my claims.

If I recall correctly, he said, "Put up or shut up."

That challenge prompted me to begin calling those examples as I saw them, when I saw them.

Icruise has to live with that constant reminder every time he sees a FUZZY ALERT!!! on these pages and know that it is HE who brought it about. I believe he doesn't like that and I believe it has galled him ever since I called his bluff.

At every turn since then he has taken the opportunity to impugn my character and judgement and to discredit me as best he could.

Although, it's continued useage has gone beyond Icruise (I'd forgotten any connection to him at all, in fact, until he took the opportunity to support his fuzzy friend and attack me*) I find it helps point out these real tendencies I've noticed among the left.

When trying to argue a point if the opponent uses a form of reason which defies logic, I believe that should invalidate that point of the debate. In such an instance I would cite the opponent's use of, fuzzy logic.

When someone is unable to separate their pre-conceived ideas and opinions from what they read, or if they haven't read something correctly and it's clear to me, but not to them that they have done so, I feel it is useful to help them see what it is they are doing. I would like to think that the Fuzzy Alerts help improve the level of debate.

For that we should thank Icruise.

If you find the Fuzzy Alerts offensive, just think of how FRUSTRATING it is to try to debate someone who exhibits these traits! The Fuzzy Alerts are like a mirror. If we don't like what we see, it is folly to smash the mirror, isn't it?

And, was I wrong to question chris v's intent? I ASKED him to clarify the meaning of the image because I wanted to avoid accusing him unjustly.

Toutgood, though it might seem I was in error, the ACTUAL fact is that I hadn't made a statement nor come to a conclusion.

He considered the situation and then (with the realization he might be banned) went ahead and intentionally stepped over the line...in effect asking to be banned. I don't know how the mods view this sort of thing, whether they will ban him or not.

But I believe the PL rules are made to be flexible in order to allow as much freedom as possible in expression. It's always going to be a judgement call from mod to mod, from situation to situation.

*To those of you who have scoffed at the possibility of Saddam and Al Qaeda ever joining forces, had the US NOT invaded Iraq, consider the dynamics at work in this situation.

Chris v has an issue with me. Icruise has an issue with me. The two of them aren't really connected to each other in any way but they have similar points of view (left-ish) and both have an issue with me.

When Chris v stepped over the line and risked bannination, Icruise recognized the benefits and possible results of joining Chris v and stepping over the line with him.

That is the likely scenario we might have seen happen in Iraq with Saddam and the terrorists had we not invaded.

aberdeenwriter · Oct 25, 2004, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by boots:
The fact that you had to is enough evidence to me. For anyone with reasonable skills of discernment, it was pretty clear. So much for Fuzzy-ness. Are you sure you're not a zimphire clone?

You do honor me with that comparison. Thank you.

You wouldn't question the meaning of a graphic which has more than one valid interpretation? (Especially when used by a past critic...)

Or is it you can only see one interpretation? Which begs another comparison which I'll use as a way to return your compliment with one of my own...

Are you sure you're not a Bush clone?

aberdeenwriter · Oct 25, 2004, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by villalobos:
100% genuine idiot.

City wolf there's no easy prey for you here. Go howl elsewhere, why doncha?

Nicko · Oct 25, 2004, 03:16 PM

Its official, aberdeenwriter is an

aberdeenwriter · Oct 25, 2004, 03:17 PM

Ladies and Gents, let's stay on topic now, yes?

aberdeenwriter · Oct 25, 2004, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by Nicko:
Its official, aberdeenwriter is an

Beautiful image but, sadly OFF-TOPIC.

We have reached or soon will reach PEAK OIL.

THAT is what's important.

ironknee · Oct 25, 2004, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by villalobos:
100% genuine idiot.

aberdeenwriter · 03:36 PM

Originally posted by ironknee:

Your choice of names is interesting, ironknee. Does that mean you don't worry about carpetburn?

I feel like Charlton Heston in the film "Soylent Green" when he's trying to reveal to the world this vital information, "...Soylent Green is PEOPLE!"

But the world just yawns.

Our very way of life is threatened and no one cares about discussing Peak OIl and what it means?

d4nth3m4n · Oct 25, 2004, 03:39 PM

mmm post apocalyptic twinkies. but only if they're deep fried.

aberdeenwriter · Oct 25, 2004, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by d4nth3m4n:
mmm post apocalyptic twinkies. but only if they're deep fried.

That brings up the question: how reasonable is it to expect twinkies or vegetable oil if the economy collapses?

BTW, Peak Oil doesn't mean there will be no oil. It means the current demand will continue to go up but the maximum supply has been reached and can only plateau for a short time before beginning to fall.

The amount of oil shortage needed to cause complete global collapse is (from what I heard on the radio) about 20%.

Combine the lack of global supply with the increase in global demand and you'll maybe get a sense of how close we may be.

Ω · Oct 25, 2004, 03:51 PM

So by your rationale the US invaded Iraq to secure an oil supply. Liberation and freedom was just a smoke screen for the American people to make it a bit more palatable?

As pointed out above, you need to speak with Team Republican because you are not towing the party line.....

MindFad · Oct 25, 2004, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by chris v:
OMG I AM ON THE INTARNET!1!1!1!

hay me 2! were like bruthers or sumthin

d4nth3m4n · Oct 25, 2004, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
That brings up the question: how reasonable is it to expect twinkies or vegetable oil if the economy collapses?

BTW, Peak Oil doesn't mean there will be no oil. It means the current demand will continue to go up but the maximum supply has been reached and can only plateau for a short time before beginning to fall.

The amount of oil shortage needed to cause complete global collapse is (from what I heard on the radio) about 20%.

Combine the lack of global supply with the increase in global demand and you'll maybe get a sense of how close we may be.

i can say with absolute certainty that the situation in the middle east has no effect on the vegetable oil supply. rest assured.

aberdeenwriter · Oct 25, 2004, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by d4nth3m4n:
i can say with absolute certainty that the situation in the middle east has no effect on the vegetable oil supply. rest assured.

Pesticides, additives, trucks...made possible by oil.

But please take a moment and read at least Matt Savinar's introductory letter.

The economic collapse won't be due to oil per se, but from our nation's inability to grow sufficiently to cover the interest on the national debt.

Toutgood · Oct 25, 2004, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by MindFad:
hay me 2! were like bruthers or sumthin

Holla to an intarnet nigga!!!

This thread has been branded silly�

aberdeenwriter · Oct 25, 2004, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by _?_:
So by your rationale the US invaded Iraq to secure an oil supply. Liberation and freedom was just a smoke screen for the American people to make it a bit more palatable?

As pointed out above, you need to speak with Team Republican because you are not towing the party line.....

If you haven't noticed, I kinda say what I believe. Where there was a time when I was actually toeing the party line, it's just by happenstance now.

Although I believe OIL was the main and most important reason for Iraq (the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world, behind Saudi Arabia) I DID NOT say freedom and liberation was a smokescreen.

That's an inference I disagree with.

There were many reasons for the invasion.

Oil was the best reason.

It's not just my rationale. Read from the links and see why I believe so.

aberdeenwriter · Oct 25, 2004, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by Toutgood:
Holla to an intarnet nigga!!!

This thread has been branded silly�

Yeah, you're right.

xi_hyperon · Oct 25, 2004, 04:42 PM

chris v · Oct 25, 2004, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:

*To those of you who have scoffed at the possibility of Saddam and Al Qaeda ever joining forces, had the US NOT invaded Iraq, consider the dynamics at work in this situation.

Chris v has an issue with me. Icruise has an issue with me. The two of them aren't really connected to each other in any way but they have similar points of view (left-ish) and both have an issue with me.

When Chris v stepped over the line and risked bannination, Icruise recognized the benefits and possible results of joining Chris v and stepping over the line with him.

That is the likely scenario we might have seen happen in Iraq with Saddam and the terrorists had we not invaded.

I'm honored. *blush*

I had no idea that us libruls were being that diabolical. Which one am I, anyway? Saddam Or Osama?