 |
|
 PoliticsForum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics. All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc.. As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself. Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!! *"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned." You are not allowed to post messages to this board. Minimum level of membership required for posting on this board is Brain Pawn. Mode: Everyone can post
<< < 1 2 3 4 5 6 > >> 18. August 2010, 01:24:54 Subject: Re: Modified by Pedro Martínez (18. August 2010, 01:25:26)  Tuesday: There can be (and there probably are) billions of suns and planets like that in the universe. This has nothing to do with God. And by the way, if you wait long enough, you will see the Sun grow bigger and burn “us” up. 18. August 2010, 01:20:12 Subject: Re: obviously, but the proof of existence should be much simpler and easier to do, right? Artful Dodger: In what way? Well, the proof of existence of anything is generally easier than the proof of non-existence, don't you think so? 18. August 2010, 01:12:56 Subject: Re: They can't all be the truth Modified by Pedro Martínez (18. August 2010, 01:15:55) Artful Dodger: Oh I don't expect to find any proofs. :) edit: The above sentence is probably gramatically incorrect, but I hope my intentions are clear enough. lol 18. August 2010, 01:08:28 Subject: Re: They can't all be the truth Jim Dandy: Yup, we're on the same page there. 18. August 2010, 01:06:01 Subject: Re: They can't all be the truth Tuesday: Why? There is no reason why… 18. August 2010, 01:04:41 Subject: Re: They can't all be the truth Jim Dandy: I agree. It has enormous advantages, and as I said, I would love to believe. From the point of view of an individual, religious beliefs are very helpful. 18. August 2010, 00:56:27 Subject: Re: They can't all be the truth Tuesday: You know, I would love to believe in God. In my opinion, believers have, in general, a better life than non-believers. But I just can't lie to myself when I know that people created their Gods for the very purpose to make their lives happier. I can't give you the proof of non-existence, obviously, but the proof of existence should be much simpler and easier to do, right? The fact that nobody has come up with such proof makes my assumptions more probable. 18. August 2010, 00:49:15 Subject: Re: They can't all be the truth Tuesday: And there is no God.  18. August 2010, 00:48:20 Subject: Re: They can't all be the truth Tuesday: At the same time, however, God is not non-religious either. 12. August 2010, 01:35:50 Subject: Re: Tuesday: Hillary (or anyone else) should take Barack's place for reelection. 7. August 2010, 03:09:12 Subject: Re: Courtesy of another fellowship.... Bernice: I love it… and I'd love to know who said that. It doesn't sound like any Czech politician I know, lol. I'll try to google it. 7. August 2010, 02:54:04 Subject: Re: Courtesy of another fellowship.... 29. July 2010, 10:31:53 Subject: Re: Artful Dodger: “VOTE FOR ME AND IF I WIN I WILL IMMUNE YOU FROM ALL STATE CRIMES FOR THE REST OF YOU LIFE!”  17. July 2010, 21:31:16 Subject: Re: Because we are complex, unique and have free will. Tuesday: I don't believe there are other ppl on other planets. If so we would have known by now. Joke of the day.11. July 2010, 17:15:04 Subject: Re: Tuesday:  Your parents “must have been” siblings.11. July 2010, 16:54:06 Subject: Re: Modified by Pedro Martínez (11. July 2010, 16:58:57) Tuesday: Sarah Palin report card/Sarah Palin’s high-school grades have apparently leaked onto the internet.The document claims to be Sarah Palin’s tenth grade report card and shows that the VP mostly had “B’s” and “C’s,” a “D” in foreign languages. And the report card reads as follows: English – B Math – C Foreign Language – D Biological Sciences – B Physical Sciences – C Social Studies – C You don't even read your own links… 8. July 2010, 20:42:31 Subject: Re:You need about 400 square miles of wind turbines to equal 1 nuclear power plant. Modified by Pedro Martínez (8. July 2010, 20:46:08) (V): My post was a response to your statement that “It makes you wonder how much our reliance on big power plants could be reduced if they [electricity generating windmills] became a standard.” As for my figures… my source is Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power (“A typical 1000-MWe nuclear reactor produces…”) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_turbine (referring to this table indicating the outputs of different wind turbines) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power (see the part on capacity factor) As regards the article on the Buena Vista wind farm… yes, there are larger and more efficient wind turbines, as well as there are larger and more efficient nuclear power plants. I was comparing the average figures. 8. July 2010, 17:53:17 Subject: Re:You need about 400 square miles of wind turbines to equal 1 nuclear power plant. (V): Output of a typical nuclear power plant: 1,000 MW per hour. Output of an average wind turbine: 600 kW per hour. A typical wind farm of 70 turbines and 1,500 acres produces 25 MW per hour. So you would need 60,000 acres of wind turbines to equal 1,000 MW. At the capacity factor of 25%, you will need four times as large area, i.e. 240,000 acres = 375 square miles. 8. July 2010, 14:59:32 Subject: Re: (V): You need about 400 square miles of wind turbines to equal 1 nuclear power plant. 16. May 2010, 17:02:10 Subject: Re: Bernice: Yes. The price of water supply and sewerage in my area is CZK 56.57 (approx. AUD 3.10) per 1,000 liters. 9. April 2010, 14:04:19 Subject: Re: AT LAST WE GET TO VOTE (V): Brown is running brown…  6. April 2010, 11:22:12 Subject: Re: RIP Global Warming Modified by Pedro Martínez (6. April 2010, 11:22:26) Artful Dodger: So you're quoting Daily Mail… . Now I see where you look for info. What comes next? The Sun?18. March 2010, 18:25:13 No book that says that night and day and evening and morning on the Earth existed earlier than the Sun, is worth reading. 13. March 2010, 16:26:32 I'm taking this board off my favorite boards list. I don't need to read who rules or owns this board, who makes what grammar or spelling mistakes, or the like. 11. March 2010, 23:03:53 Subject: Re: ReThe similarities between Obama and Lincoln are eerie baddessi: But they're both tall.  10. March 2010, 02:38:44 Subject: Re: I love it when you're wrong. Which is most often. Artful Dodger: Please don't rape my language. Thank you. 10. March 2010, 02:03:06 Subject: Re: I love it when you're wrong. Which is most often. Artful Dodger: Please don't try that ever again. 10. March 2010, 01:43:29 Subject: Re: I love it when you're wrong. Which is most often. Artful Dodger: I don't know, you tell me. We don't eat crows here. 10. March 2010, 00:34:53 Subject: Re: I love it when you're wrong. Which is most often. Artful Dodger: Yes, I did hear of the telephone game, but wasn't it you who insisted on people backing their posts with sources and facts? I just wanted you to do the same thing you require from others, which you often do not. How typical. There is a proverb about it in Czech, but I guess you wouldn't understand it even if I translated it for you to one of those languages you speak. How many are they? I must have forgotten… 9. March 2010, 21:37:31 Subject: Re: I love it when you're wrong. Which is most often. Artful Dodger: By the way, thanks for that “research” at Geocities. Your links are awesome. First you post a quote and refer to a Wikipedia site of Guizot which does not even remotely say anything about the quote you post, and then you refer to a non-existing research. But am I surprised? 9. March 2010, 21:33:33 Subject: Re: I love it when you're wrong. Which is most often. Artful Dodger: Find five differences: A) If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain. B) Not to be a republican at 20 is proof of want of heart; to be one at 30 is proof of want of head. 9. March 2010, 19:12:55 Subject: Re: Modified by Pedro Martínez (9. March 2010, 19:14:46) Artful Dodger: Guizot didn't say that. It's impossible. Being a liberal and a conservative is and was virtually the same thing in France. 7. March 2010, 23:04:15 7. March 2010, 00:28:59 Subject: Re: Ok, so without your usual nonsense when challenged, how about you make your best case to support the above assertion? Vikings: Let me add that the justice system is at the very bottom of the list of the ineffective U.S. “government-run” systems. 5. March 2010, 23:23:31 Subject: Re: So you're basically saying,you don't mind being ripped of, as long as it's done by the private sector Artful Dodger: Don't envy, old man. There is still the Third Age University for you to go too! 4. March 2010, 02:52:42 Subject: Re: Vikings: You can't be serious there. You want to have your courts rule according to and people abide by the original intent of an instrument written in the 18th century? 3. March 2010, 23:46:57 Subject: Re: Vikings: LOL. One of the amendments to your constitution actually provides that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. It does not specify what arms, so it applies to all weapons, just like the word “people” applies to all the people within the jurisdiction of the constitution. So I don't understand your comment. By the way, I'm not trying to sound intelligent here, so I don't have to ask for help with the big words. 3. March 2010, 23:24:54 Subject: Re: It's a constitutional right Pedro Artful Dodger: Good point, but why would I turn to you when trying to sound intelligent? 3. March 2010, 22:10:29 I think people should be free to own nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, too. There will be a few irresponsible owners, but far more will be responsible. 22. February 2010, 17:04:47 Subject: Re: Tuesday: But she's a hockey mom. Domestically she'd be great. 22. February 2010, 01:07:29 Subject: Re: And did Obama really say there are 57 states? Artful Dodger: He meant 47 states, with one more to go, plus Alaska and Hawaii which he was not allowed to go to. 21. February 2010, 00:22:05 Subject: Re: heard on today news... Bernice: I think that at the time when Jesus lived, it was definitely more “normal” to be gay than it is now. It took quite some time for people to get under the influence of those bigoted Christian beliefs. 21. February 2010, 00:10:02 Subject: Re: heard on today news... Artful Dodger: Is there any evidence he was straight? I personally believe that Jesus was a bit retarded and a junkie (ergotism victim). :) 15. February 2010, 00:44:56 Subject: Re: Bwild: lol...recipients 14. February 2010, 21:37:26 Subject: Re: Artful Dodger: I was about to write that I dare say she would be, but then I deleted it because I thought nobody would argue with me anyway… lol 14. February 2010, 21:32:23 Subject: Re: Czuch: I actually don't have anyone specific in mind… it just seems to me that if I take a look back at the last three elections, neither of the presidential candidates, whether Gore, Bush, Kerry, McCain or Obama, had the qualities to become a president I would respect as a competent leader of the country. If Palin gets in the White House, I will start to believe that there are some sort of three-president turns: three proficient presidents (Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton) followed by three fumbling ones (Bush Jr., Obama, Palin). And maybe it would work further into the past too…  14. February 2010, 20:19:36 Subject: Re: Tuesday: To the contrary, I hope you guys will finally nominate someone competent in the primaries. 5. February 2010, 17:52:30 Subject: Re: Whats going on over that side of the pond? Bwild: 5. February 2010, 17:50:13 Subject: Re: Whats going on over that side of the pond? Bwild: Are those two smileys meant to invoke thoughts of an insane asylum? << < 1 2 3 4 5 6 > >> |
Date and time
Friends online
Favourite boards
Fellowships
Tip of the day
|
|
Copyright © 2002 - 2024 Filip Rachunek, all rights reserved. Back to the top |