smitty

<giggles> Well played sir! If you'd have jumped in earlier you'd have saved me a lot of typing.

...And peace was found... ...I think...right?

It's good to know your handlers give you a green light with the TR, but no PUBBY, it's not politics that lead us away from developing the thorium reactor, but national interests. Thorium reactors didn't fit in the cold war weapons boom like the uranium ---> plutonium reactor did. The 1942 B-17 arried about 2 tons of TNT bombs. The 1944 B-29 carried about 10 tons. A SINGLE 1945 nuclear-capable B-29 carried the equivalent of 18,500 tons of TNT, or 9,250 B-17s worth. A SINGLE 1955 B-36 carried the equivalent of 15,000,000 tons of TNT, or 7,500,000 B-17s worth, or 75,000,000 B-

It seems that maybe the taste of his blood causes you to go for this kill. It also seems the collusion is stronger than usual in this thread.

I estimate you're a believer in prevailing Christian dogma. If you are, then I understand the above probably better than you can comprehend.

I'm willing to die on the hill of equal rights, but not for any particular single issue associated with equal rights.

Abby who?

OK, Mark is one of the anonymous users. I wonder who the other one is.

I'm trying to keep up with too much, and , I'm tired. People choose to have tatoos. People don't chose to be gay. I got lost somewhere.

Interesting choice of words. Replacing the highlighted words with "the truth" would make a more powerful statement, wouldn't it.

Thanks. Just wanted that clarification........for now.

Am I reading your opinion to say that being gay is a choice, and that chosing that lifestyle is OK?

"Normal" is what us wide-hipped (females), and therefore, large-brained apes say it is. National interest is what reasoning directs.

I agree on all counts. I'm trying to give the Left a way toward a technical discussion that isn't the usual and natural dead end, designed and assigned by their handlers. The tools' goal is sunshine in every cupboard. Their handler's goal is the weakening of their rival, the Right, the RR, whitey America. P.S. No. I'm not saying America is Whitey World. The Left is dared to ask why.

You're right. It's not about equal rights. It's about who qualifies for enjoying the benefits of state sanctioned marriage union.

...Ever heard of the Thorium Reactor? The Left are hereby and formally dared to research "Thorium Reactor". I won't link anything so as to appear to be as non-biased as possible.

You know me. I'm OK with it. PLEASE PLEASE! Somebody compare this post with the opinions of mine posted in the thread about contraception. This chalenge is an open invitation.

The ethanol thing IS STOOPID! It appeals to the Right's core is why it happened. (2nd EDIT: Does any Lefty care to guess who they are?) On the surface it looked smart. It was smart in the short term because: how could the Left have fought converting sunshine to gas? I'm not casting an olive branch here; I'm thinking aloud. I DO NOT SUPPORT ANY PARTY! However, I do side with the Right on Election Day.

We need to figure out how to change unreliable resources into usable surplus. Edit: I should add that I could get by, by using less energy than I use now. I'm ready for an electric car. Large employers being onboard is key to the electric car being a nearly immediate, near term success. For the sake of high-paying American jobs, the near term solution needs to incorporate gas-burners in every garage like we have now; just less use. It seems the refinery infrastructure could even use the break. Save me money and I'm your eager bich; my tail, a blur. It would be cool if

I was just changing the subject to give a way out of your dead-end technical approach. If you want to nail yourself to that cross again, go right ahead.

Tell us something we don't know pubby. Objectivity, naturally, will always be hated by the guilt-ridden Left......or is me personally that you hate for chosing to apply objectivity? Didn't I post an alternative energy/transportation idea on your Site a little while ago? You didn't comment II at all RC. Did you not see it or did it not have enough atonement in it to excite you?

What's unsustainable now that is proven to be sustainable with this new technology? Just kidding! I know it doesn't figure in your political presentation here that you've pathetically tried to disguise as a technical analysis--yes, it's that transparent. (Remember that great idea you had years ago about that sunshine powered machine for pumping water in Bumphukt, Egypt? Review that thread and then reconsider your demand to be taken seriously this time.) ...And like I said earlier:

Not always pubby; not anymore. Now conservatism is about trying to prevent the stampeding of stupidity that is Leftism. Is this a "Yes I'm directed to flaunt Leftism by my handlers" -answer, or a "No, I'm a freelance Leftist (who therefore has no political value)" -answer?

An interesting mixture of Leftism and Fascism. The Leftism is evidenced by the author painting as a source of shame one of America's most conspicuous and envied measures of prosperity. The Fascism is evidenced by presupposing that opposition to this idea--even the well written, logical and critical opposition written in this thread--is proof of that person's stupidity; proof he's against progress. And, BTW, I take it you're no longer required to hide your Leftism; now your handlers are telling you to flaunt it? Didn't you just equate progress with bigger-and-bigger government?

In every-day attire I look like Lyle Lovett. When I'm cleaned up and horny, I look like Shrek.