Posted on 04/06/2016 5:07:12 AM PDT by central_va
How close is the nearby mosque?
I will vote for the Republican nominee, whoever it is. I worry about the prospects of both Trump and Cruz in the general election against Hillary. I don’t have a clear favorite among the remaining candidates.
That did not end well for Denethir, and would not for you, FRiend.
Further, as the story well explains, Denethir was bad for his country, they were better off without him.
The opposite is true of conservatives in the United States.
In the story's analogy, we are the warriors, the last defenders of civilization, standing at the gates of Mordor.
I’m all in favor of letting the liberals get slaughtered by the Muslims, then launching all the nukes at everything, even incinerate Switzerland and New Zealand, and let a nuclear winter sort everything out.
(Better dead than Red or Muslim)
I'll say it again: no high price of a particular oil will "destroy the West", so long as free markets are allowed to function and replace one form of energy with others, according to their costs, utilities, etc.
Substitutions are keys to long-term viability of industrialized economies.
When cheap-oil (or any other raw material) grows too expensive, other energies will take its place, and life will go on.
So, don't worry, be happy. ;-)
;-)
Ooooo ooooo! Dilithium crystals. Ooooo oooO! Anti-matter.
LOL. Not.
Are you for Cruz?
“Are you for Cruz?”
I have answered that question twice. Why do you keep asking? Even though I think some candidates have a better chance of winning the general election, I will vote for the Republican candidate.
Question for you: If Trump doesn’t win the nomination, would you vote for some one other than the Republican nominee even if that increases the chance of a democrat victory?
A cowardly crap weasel non answer.
“A cowardly crap weasel non answer.”
I’m beginning to think you must be a Trump supporter since you indulge in ‘name-calling’ like Trump does.
Why don’t you answer this question: If we are going to protect jobs from offshoring, why shouldnt we protect them from productivity increases or technology changes?
BTW, it’s not necessary that you agree that productivity or technology changes reduce jobs, you only have to state whether jobs should be protected from those changes.
Without ever touching on science-fiction, there are still endless energy substitutions possible, when price and demand call for them.
Just off the top of my head, nuclear, solar & wind power all could be expanded by orders of magnitude, if necessary.
As replacements for imported petroleum, we have fracking which is now being shut down, due to low prices.
We also have potential off-shore fields, currently off-limits.
And we have natural gas which could power vehicles.
During the 1930s, Germans even built plants to convert coal to gasoline -- yes expensive, but Germany had lots of coal, no oil.
And we also have lots of coal, which Democrats are trying their best to keep buried underground.
And a little research could produce several other realistic alternative energies, if & when price & demand make them economical.
Point is: there's no reason to think that life as we know it will be destroyed just because some raw materials become scarcer than today.
You can be 100% certain that many, if not most, of those killed on September 11, 2001, and in San Bernardino last December 2, were liberals.
Indeed, we can well say that liberalism enabled San Bernardino because people who suspected the terrorists were too "politically correct" to report them to authorities.
So in a sense, liberal-progressivism is its own worst enemy.
That's why many liberals eventually see the light, and become more conservative.
For their sake, we don't reject them all.
——How close is the nearby mosque?-—
I would guess 200 miles
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.