Atlantis Online
March 28, 2024, 09:28:41 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Plato's Atlantis: Fact, Fiction or Prophecy?
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=CarolAnn_Bailey-Lloyd
http://www.underwaterarchaeology.com/atlantis-2.htm
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

I am on Arizona's Ballot in Feb 5 Primary election, for President of the USA

Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: I am on Arizona's Ballot in Feb 5 Primary election, for President of the USA  (Read 1867 times)
0 Members and 34 Guests are viewing this topic.
HereForNow
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3279


HUH?


« Reply #15 on: January 23, 2008, 04:50:42 pm »

 Cheesy It's nice to see that everything is becoming so political.

Brigs would love a debate like this.......
Thing is, who is winning when the whole world is blaming you for how everything is?

I'm not asking for the sake of being aggressive in any way.
Thing is; I am a firm beleiver that regaurdless of who the president is,
all the financial decisions are made by international bankers.

All the other big plans are made by a small army of "Yes men", and coast to coast meetings.
The president is the unfortunate one who must deliver the good and bad news.
What's the point of voting?

I mean no disrespect. I just think that America is already owned by others living in other parts of the world, and we are not in control of who will be our next president. Everyone is entitled to have there own opinions and I can completely respect that.

For me on the other hand, I'm simply not interested in world politics.
My life has been effected by the choices everyone else has made for me. atalante, I have nothing against you personally.

I won't however conform to the band wagon effect going on.
My apologies if that offends you. Yet I'm sticking to my guns.
I won't contribute to the support of something I can't beleive in.


« Last Edit: January 23, 2008, 04:53:00 pm by HereForNow » Report Spam   Logged

atalante
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 110


« Reply #16 on: January 24, 2008, 11:20:54 pm »

Rockessence,

Here is link which displays my "Presidential widget".
http://hosted.widgetnest.net/pwh08/skelley
Report Spam   Logged
atalante
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 110


« Reply #17 on: January 24, 2008, 11:48:43 pm »

The conflict in Iraq is serious.  But we have an even tougher conflict at home.  The chief auditer of the US says we are on the verge of economic collapse in this 2 minute video.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2621165089458528794
Report Spam   Logged
HereForNow
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3279


HUH?


« Reply #18 on: January 25, 2008, 03:56:39 pm »

The conflict in Iraq is serious.  But we have an even tougher conflict at home.  The chief auditer of the US says we are on the verge of economic collapse in this 2 minute video.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2621165089458528794


All the more reason we should all be pulling together and regulating the price of fuel and natural gas.
I pay on average $250.00 a month just to heat my home and then another almost $50.00 to fill the tank of my work truck.
That's a little less then a weeks pay for just gas. Instead of endorcing a bill to fork out 250 billion to stimulate the economy.
Put the surplus toward alternative energy production to end the stranggle hold of oil. Then give Americans free energy. Then other things like medical bills, and economic stimulation won't be a problem.
 Undecided Just a thought.......

Report Spam   Logged

atalante
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 110


« Reply #19 on: January 26, 2008, 09:12:07 pm »

The US can generate 69% of its electricity from solar by 2050, generate 3 million new domestic jobs, switch to plug-in hybrid cars, reduce imported petroleum costs by $300 billion per year (referenced to 2007 dollars), and reduce CO2 emissions by 92% in 2100.  But we need $420 billion of subsidies to get this project going.
 
Quoting from Scientific American magazine:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan&print=true
 
It is paramount that major market incentives [for photovoltaic energy] remain in effect through 2020, to set the stage for self-sustained growth thereafter. In extending our model to 2050, we have been conservative. We do not include any technological or cost improvements beyond 2020. We also assume that energy demand will grow nationally by 1 percent a year. In this scenario, by 2050 solar power plants will supply 69 percent of U.S. electricity and 35 percent of total U.S. energy. This quantity includes enough to supply all the electricity consumed by 344 million plug-in hybrid vehicles, which would displace their gasoline counterparts, key to reducing dependence on foreign oil and to mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. Some three million new domestic jobs—notably in manufacturing solar components—would be created, which is several times the number of U.S. jobs that would be lost in the then dwindling fossil-fuel industries.
The huge reduction in imported oil would lower trade balance payments by $300 billion a year, assuming a crude oil price of $60 a barrel (average prices were higher in 2007). Once solar power plants are installed, they must be maintained and repaired, but the price of sunlight is forever free, duplicating those fuel savings year after year. Moreover, the solar investment would enhance national energy security, reduce financial burdens on the military, and greatly decrease the societal costs of pollution and global warming, from human health problems to the ruining of coastlines and farmlands.

Ironically, the solar grand plan would lower energy consumption. Even with 1 percent annual growth in demand, the 100 quadrillion Btu consumed in 2006 would fall to 93 quadrillion Btu by 2050. This unusual offset arises because a good deal of energy is consumed to extract and process fossil fuels, and more is wasted in burning them and controlling their emissions.

To meet the 2050 projection, 46,000 square miles of land [NEAR ARIZONA] would be needed for photovoltaic and concentrated solar power installations. That area is large, and yet it covers just 19 percent of the suitable Southwest land. Most of that land is barren; there is no competing use value. And the land will not be polluted. We have assumed that only 10 percent of the solar capacity in 2050 will come from distributed photovoltaic installations—those on rooftops or commercial lots throughout the country. But as prices drop, these  applications could play a bigger role.

2050 and Beyond
Although it is not possible to project with any exactitude 50 or more years into the future, as an exercise to demonstrate the full potential of solar energy we constructed a scenario for 2100. By that time, based on our plan, total energy demand (including transportation) is projected to be 140 quadrillion Btu, with seven times today’s electric generating capacity.

To be conservative, again, we estimated how much solar plant capacity would be needed under the historical worst-case solar radiation conditions for the Southwest, which occurred during the winter of 1982–1983 and in 1992 and 1993 following the Mount Pinatubo eruption, according to National Solar Radiation Data Base records from 1961 to 2005. And again, we did not assume any further technological and cost improvements beyond 2020, even though it is nearly certain that in 80 years ongoing research would improve solar efficiency, cost and storage.

Under these assumptions, U.S. energy demand could be fulfilled with the following capacities: 2.9 terawatts (TW) of photovoltaic power going directly to the grid and another 7.5 TW dedicated to compressed-air storage; 2.3 TW of concentrated solar power plants; and 1.3 TW of distributed photovoltaic installations. Supply would be rounded out with 1 TW of wind farms, 0.2 TW of geothermal power plants and 0.25 TW of biomass-based production for fuels. The model includes 0.5 TW of geothermal heat pumps for direct building heating and cooling. The solar systems would require 165,000 square miles of land, still less than the suitable available area in the Southwest.

In 2100 this renewable portfolio could generate 100 percent of all U.S. electricity and more than 90 percent of total U.S. energy. In the spring and summer, the solar infrastructure would produce enough hydrogen to meet more than 90 percent of all transportation fuel demand and would replace the small natural gas supply used to aid compressed-air turbines. Adding 48 billion gallons of biofuel would cover the rest of transportation energy. Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions would be reduced 92 percent below 2005 levels.

Who Pays?
Our model is not an austerity plan, because it includes a 1 percent annual increase in demand, which would sustain lifestyles similar to those today with expected efficiency improvements in energy generation and use. Perhaps the biggest question is how to pay for a $420-billion overhaul of the nation’s energy infrastructure. One of the most common ideas is a carbon tax. The International Energy Agency suggests that a carbon tax of $40 to $90 per ton of coal will be required to induce electricity generators to adopt carbon capture and storage systems to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. This tax is equivalent to raising the price of electricity by one to two cents per kWh. But our plan is less expensive. The $420 billion could be generated with a carbon tax of 0.5 cent per kWh. Given that electricity today generally sells for six to 10 cents per kWh, adding 0.5 cent per kWh seems reasonable.

Congress could establish the financial incentives by adopting a national renewable energy plan...

...Although $420 billion is substantial, the annual expense would be less than the current U.S. Farm Price Support program. It is also less than the tax subsidies that have been levied to build the country’s high-speed telecommunications infrastructure over the past 35 years. And it frees the U.S. from policy and budget issues driven by international energy conflicts.

Without subsidies, the solar grand plan is impossible. Other countries have reached similar conclusions: Japan is already building a large, subsidized solar infrastructure, and Germany has embarked on a nationwide program. Although the investment is high, it is important to remember that the energy source, sunlight, is free. There are no annual fuel or pollution-control costs like those for coal, oil or nuclear power, and only a slight cost for natural gas in compressed-air systems, although hydrogen or biofuels could displace that, too. When fuel savings are factored in, the cost of solar would be a bargain in coming decades. But we cannot wait until then to begin scaling up.
Report Spam   Logged
Volitzer
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 11110



« Reply #20 on: January 27, 2008, 03:35:24 pm »

The US Patent Office could give Joe Newman a patent to his autogenerator and solve the energy crisis by the year's end.
Report Spam   Logged
HereForNow
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3279


HUH?


« Reply #21 on: January 27, 2008, 05:37:06 pm »

Agreed Volitzer! Atlante, Run a search on Joe Newman.......

The U.s. Pantent office knows this invention could do the job. Problem is that oil companies would probably have Joe killed for ending this problem with oil usage.

Besides that Atlante, we don't have 42 years to wait. I like the idea of solar panels. However, we will still be stuck paying for energy production costs and it will all be free. We have to end this dependancy on the government and resort to having private enterprise lead the way into the future for everyone's sake.

The people we need to be running the show at this point is the kind who want freedom and survival.
Let's not take the statement of freedom lightly. As Americans, we have only slavery to look forward to as things are. Debate it all you want. Our entire system of exchanging currency is a self-liquidating count-down to needing a one world order to control everything we do. This will also be the very same system the destroyed Russia, soon China, and certainly Canada, America, and Mexico. Europe is already feeling this in the poverty riddled sections of it's many countries.

Atlante, for the sake of this conversation I'm asking you to please look beyond the material world for a moment and think about how it would feel to know that your fellow Americans who make less then 30,000 a year are suffering with homelessness, and real hunger.
How will international banking ensure the survival of these people once it takes over the way we live and work?

Report Spam   Logged

atalante
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 110


« Reply #22 on: January 28, 2008, 09:28:52 am »

The Joe Neuman motor is an interesting theoretical exercise, but if I am reading this PhD's detailed explanation correctly then the motor needs 9000 pounds of copper in the coil alone (today's price for copper is about $3 per pound) just to overcome mechanical friction. 

http://www.josephnewman.com/JN_Theory_by_Hastings.html

Coil weight: 9000 lbs.
Coil length: 55 miles of copper wire
Coil Inductance: 1,100 Henries measured by observing the current rise time when a D.C. voltage was applied.
Coil resistance: 770 Ohms
Coil Height: about 4 ft.
Coil Diameter: slightly over 4 ft. I.D.

Magnet weight: 700 lbs.
Magnet Radius: 2 feet
Magnet geometry: cylinder rotating about its perpendicular axis
Magnet Moment of Inertia: 40 kg-sq.m. (M.K.S.) computed as one third mass times radius squared

Battery Voltage: 590 volts under load
Battery Type: Six volt Ray-O-Vac lantern batteries connected in series
Report Spam   Logged
atalante
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 110


« Reply #23 on: January 28, 2008, 10:17:22 am »

HereForNow,

Various data inside the Grandfather Economic Report (see http://mwhodges.home.att.net/nat-debt/debt-nat-a.htm#component ) indicate that during 2006 the statistically average  2.5-person household in the US owes $123,000 for Financial sector debt (home mortgages to a government agency such as Ginnie Mae or Freddie Mac; plus debt to financing subsidiaries of manufacturers for previously purchased cars, trucks, etc.). It also supports another $111,000 in debt for Household Debt (home equity loans, credit cards, etc.).  And it owes $15,000 to foreigners.   But that amount of debt is still nowhere near enough debt to lift today's 2.5-person household out of debt-poverty.  So the family breadwinner hopes to find a desirable job where the employer helps out by borrowing $78,000 of Business Debt (i.e. corporate debt) to support "working capital" for each US household.   The combined Federal, State, and Local governments are helping out by allowing that average 2.5-person household to make payments on $80,000 of Federal Government Debt plus $2,000 of State and Local government Debt.  Thus during 2006, the total adds up to approximately $409K of debt being supported by this average 2.5-person household. 

The Federal government is doing this to its own people.  The total US debt per US household is now increasing by $30K per year.  So the US today is at the end of a 40 year debt-expansion bubble, which is close to collapsing.  That is why I am running for President. 

In other countries of the world, the overall debt-to-equity ratio is much lower, much more manageable, and not expanding like a soap bubble. 

You asked about people who earn less than $30,000 per year in the US.  But any other amount of earnings in the US is experiencing the same problems.   The Rothchilds of Europe are not causing this. 

The core of the problem is that, for the last 40 years in the US, politicians were unwilling to let equity form in the US as fast as the debt was expanding.  Now the US has a massive capital shortage.  Employers are moving to countries which aren't at the end of a debt-expansion bubble.  And without good-paying jobs, US people think they see conspiracies every where. 

I hope you will use the link I supply below and look at a long-term graph of the Personal Savings Rate in the US.  This graph is worth at least thousand words.  The Federal Government has OBVIOUSLY been strangling the US economy since 1970, when the healthy trend of the Personal Savings Rate suddenly became corrupted.

quoting words which wrap around the graph:

Rate of Personal Saving Plunges 114% - a record low in world history - $1.1 trillion per year of personal savings is now missing in US

If families have less inflation-adjusted income, despite more mothers working, then family personal savings must suffer as a consequence - unless, of course, families reduce their consumption. But, families increased consumption spending and, to cover this, they reduced savings to historic lows and increased household debt to historic highs. Dangerous Trend !!!

The chart at the left shows a 48 year trend of that part of disposable income that has been saved - - called 'personal savings rate'.

Note: prior to 1970 the rate of personal savings was rising smartly -  - despite most families then having but one wage earner while also living without increasing debt ratios.

Then, family incomes stagnated - - and the saving ratio stopped rising as seen in the left chart - - then started falling rapidly - - plummeting since 1992. As of Summer 2007, savings were negative 1.3 percent - an all-time record low!!

Also a record low for any leading global economic power in the modern history of the world, per economist Steven Roach Nov. 2006.

In 2005 consumers drew down savings by over $200 billion compared to the prior year, the biggest dip in savings since record-keeping began in 1929 (Bloomberg). $1.1 Trillion in savings missing in 2005 compared to had savings ratio been as 2 decades ago. (Realized capital gains/losses, if any, are not included, and may slightly mitigate this chart if one wishes to call such savings. Nevertheless, the trend with and without is at an all-time record low).

(reference: http://mwhodges.home.att.net/family_a.htm#Saving )



« Last Edit: January 28, 2008, 10:20:07 am by atalante » Report Spam   Logged
HereForNow
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3279


HUH?


« Reply #24 on: January 28, 2008, 03:53:56 pm »

The Joe Neuman motor is an interesting theoretical exercise, but if I am reading this PhD's detailed explanation correctly then the motor needs 9000 pounds of copper in the coil alone (today's price for copper is about $3 per pound) just to overcome mechanical friction. 

http://www.josephnewman.com/JN_Theory_by_Hastings.html

Coil weight: 9000 lbs.
Coil length: 55 miles of copper wire
Coil Inductance: 1,100 Henries measured by observing the current rise time when a D.C. voltage was applied.
Coil resistance: 770 Ohms
Coil Height: about 4 ft.
Coil Diameter: slightly over 4 ft. I.D.

Magnet weight: 700 lbs.
Magnet Radius: 2 feet
Magnet geometry: cylinder rotating about its perpendicular axis
Magnet Moment of Inertia: 40 kg-sq.m. (M.K.S.) computed as one third mass times radius squared

Battery Voltage: 590 volts under load
Battery Type: Six volt Ray-O-Vac lantern batteries connected in series



 Smiley However it's 820% efficient.

You pay for it once and convert everything in your home to use electric.
As time went on, it pays for itself and no more utility bills.
Ultimately, how much is it really costing Americans to simply refine oil?
Realistically, we then pay to use the oil to make electricity, and run our cars.

Regaurdless of the cost to make the generator, it's still cheaper then the methods we are using now.
Unless you have the math that shows something different. I would be happy to see what is more cost effective.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2008, 03:59:41 pm by HereForNow » Report Spam   Logged

HereForNow
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3279


HUH?


« Reply #25 on: January 28, 2008, 04:06:54 pm »

[quote/][If families have less inflation-adjusted income, despite more mothers working, then family personal savings must suffer as a consequence - unless, of course, families reduce their consumption. But, families increased consumption spending and, to cover this, they reduced savings to historic lows and increased household debt to historic highs. Dangerous Trend !!!

The chart at the left shows a 48 year trend of that part of disposable income that has been saved - - called 'personal savings rate'.

Note: prior to 1970 the rate of personal savings was rising smartly -  - despite most families then having but one wage earner while also living without increasing debt ratios.

Then, family incomes stagnated - - and the saving ratio stopped rising as seen in the left chart - - then started falling rapidly - - plummeting since 1992. As of Summer 2007, savings were negative 1.3 percent - an all-time record low!!

Also a record low for any leading global economic power in the modern history of the world, per economist Steven Roach Nov. 2006.

/quote]


However this is a reflection of there being less jobs for mothers to go to.
Industries are all leaving our country because labor is cheaper in other countries. We wouldn't need the wages we make to be this high if everything in our country wasn't so inflated.
 
Americans are about to become enslaved and expected to work for next to nothing just to pay for the debt that bad business created.

« Last Edit: February 11, 2008, 04:44:12 pm by HereForNow » Report Spam   Logged

HereForNow
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3279


HUH?


« Reply #26 on: February 11, 2008, 04:45:38 pm »

[quote/]If families have less inflation-adjusted income, despite more mothers working, then family personal savings must suffer as a consequence - unless, of course, families reduce their consumption. But, families increased consumption spending and, to cover this, they reduced savings to historic lows and increased household debt to historic highs. Dangerous Trend !!!

The chart at the left shows a 48 year trend of that part of disposable income that has been saved - - called 'personal savings rate'.

Note: prior to 1970 the rate of personal savings was rising smartly -  - despite most families then having but one wage earner while also living without increasing debt ratios.

Then, family incomes stagnated - - and the saving ratio stopped rising as seen in the left chart - - then started falling rapidly - - plummeting since 1992. As of Summer 2007, savings were negative 1.3 percent - an all-time record low!!

Also a record low for any leading global economic power in the modern history of the world, per economist Steven Roach Nov. 2006.



However this is a reflection of there being less jobs for mothers to go to.
Industries are all leaving our country because labor is cheaper in other countries. We wouldn't need the wages we make to be this high if everything in our country wasn't so inflated.
 
Americans are about to become enslaved and expected to work for next to nothing just to pay for the debt that bad business created.


[/quote]
Report Spam   Logged

Volitzer
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 11110



« Reply #27 on: February 11, 2008, 04:56:04 pm »

Yeah but the masses will still vote for the CFR's Hegalian Candidate.

Girl power, Black power, Conservative power, Liberal power.

Stupid people voting for their own enslavement.
Report Spam   Logged
HereForNow
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3279


HUH?


« Reply #28 on: February 11, 2008, 07:49:08 pm »

This thread has been quiet for awhile.....

What is the reason for such corruption? Meaning government, money, international banking, ect.
All the while, we still do what we are expected to do to support the many circles everything runs in.
Report Spam   Logged

Volitzer
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 11110



« Reply #29 on: February 11, 2008, 11:24:44 pm »

Yeah it makes ya sick.

Atlante:

Why not get some videos on youtube and get Ron Paul's endorsement or least try to be his running mate.
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy