186282@ud0s4.net wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:

> On 1/9/25 9:58 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:
>> On 2025-01-09 00:29, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>> On 1/8/25 8:18 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>> On 2025-01-08 19:42, rbowman wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 17:53:21 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Someone was circulating the theory that Trump's (and Musk's) desire to
>>>>>> annex both Canada and Greenland is the result of wanting access to the
>>>>>> minerals there, which are crucial to the development of electric
>>>>>> vehicles. I would imagine that there are lots of strategic military
>>>>>> reasons too. Maybe the man isn't joking...
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/china-arctic-russia/
>>>>>
>>>>> Shipping, gas, oil, minerals, fisheries...  Historically, Denmark
>>>>> hasn't
>>>>> done well protecting its interests since the Danish-Hanseatic War and
>>>>> certainly can't defend Greenland nor is an independent Greenland
>>>>> feasible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Canada is a far reach but with Trudeau the Lesser quitting, who
>>>>> knows. The
>>>>> SAM provinces might be weighing which is worse, DC or Ottawa.
>>>>
>>>> There will be lots of resistance simply because Canadians have
>>>> traditionally seen themselves as "better" than Americans and don't
>>>> want to be a part of the "inferior" culture. In reality, there is
>>>> nothing better here except for the women in Quebec. They look better
>>>> than what the US produces, but they're just as dim.
>>>
>>>    Talk/jokes/etc aside, Canada will not be joined with
>>>    the USA any time soon. The culture/system/history is
>>>    just too different for a good fit.
>>
>> Loyalists vs rebels, yes. However, most of Canada is still Protestant so
>> there is already similarity there. The United States has also been a
>> melting pot traditionally, but now it is more of a multicultural society
>> like Canada. Clearly, that's a bad thing, but it means that there is
>> similarity.
>>
>>>    Trump makes these statements For EFFECT ... not because
>>>    he's really serious. He mostly wants Canada to deal with
>>>    all the immigrants coming down. He's a native salesman
>>>    and thus creates grand illusions - intending to deal
>>>    somewhere to the middle.
>>>
>>>    With Greenland, for example, it was barely a week after
>>>    he talked about buying/occupying that Denmark suddenly
>>>    put a LOT more money into defense efforts there. This
>>>    is more what he really wanted. As an actual territory,
>>>    Greenland would be a huge money-loser. SO, real world,
>>>    expect more EU and US military watch bases there. That
>>>    is 'good enough'.
>>
>> Militarily, I would imagine that having American bases in Greenland
>> would be interesting to the Americans. They have a base pretty much
>> everywhere else.
>
>
> The US already HAS at least one active base there now.
> Used to have more during the Cold War.
>
> Saw a docu recently about a base they embedded deep in
> a glacier - complete with its own nuke reactor. Soon
> found out that ice was not nearly as stable as they
> imagined ... the whole thing kinda sunk in and fell
> apart.
>
> Then a couple weeks ago there was a tourist photo of
> that glacier ... bits of the mil base were now oozing
> out the side of the ice.
>
> There are a number of micro-settlements all around
> the Greenland coast. Hard to say how many are US
> or EU radar stations - they won't tell.
>
> My grand-daddy visited Greenland in the late 1800s to
> see if there were any farming prospects. Answer - NO !
> Can't even put in roads, gotta hop from fjord to fjord
> by boat and the glaciers are too unstable to try and
> drive on top of.

Not to mention they're a mile or two deep!

Been reading an interesting book "Climate Crash"; it starts out discussing
exploration etc. of Greenland in the first 4 chapters. It's a little
out-of-date (2005).

--
X windows: The ultimate bottleneck. Flawed beyond belief. The only thing you
have to fear. Somewhere between chaos and insanity. On autopilot to oblivion.
The joke that kills. A disgrace you can be proud of. A mistake carried out to
perfection. Belongs more to the problem set than the solution set. To err is
X windows. Ignorance is our most important resource. Complex nonsolutions to
simple nonproblems. Built to fall apart. Nullifying centuries of progress.
Falling to new depths of inefficiency. The last thing you need. The defacto
substandard. Elevating brain damage to an art form. X windows.

On 2025-01-09 10:38, Joel wrote:
> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>> On 2025-01-09 04:16, Beavis wrote:
>>> Joel wrote:
>
>>>> What's so bad about taking it up the ass?
>>>>
>>> https://postimg.cc/GTd7gbyt
>>
>> Not the best explanation, Beavis. Let's just say that taking it up the
>> ass is a fate reserved for people whose manhood is questioned.
>
>
> You gotta let go of that macho BS, and just realize being a bottom
> simply feels good. One need not lose "manhood" over it. That's in
> the mind.

Look at it this way: boys get raped by older men all the time and are
irreversibly traumatized by the experience. If it felt good, they
wouldn't become such damaged people in life. I imagine that this has
happened to you too in youth.

Don't feel bad about it, it almost happened to me after I watched my
good friend get raped by the neighbourhood pedophile when I was a child.
I must have been eight at the time. He got assaulted, I ran away. I
still think about how close I came to being damaged in that way and
wonder what happened to him since we moved from that area soon
thereafter. I don't think I ever saw the poor kid ever again. In fact, I
don't recall him ever leaving the house and he lived two doors from me.
I would not be surprised to discover that he's a homosexual today.

--
CrudeSausage
Gab: @CrudeSausage
Unapologetic paleoconservative

On 1/9/2025 10:38 AM, Joel wrote:
> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>> On 2025-01-09 04:16, Beavis wrote:
>>> Joel wrote:
>
>>>> What's so bad about taking it up the ass?
>>>>
>>> https://postimg.cc/GTd7gbyt
>>
>> Not the best explanation, Beavis. Let's just say that taking it up the
>> ass is a fate reserved for people whose manhood is questioned.
>
>
> You gotta let go of that macho BS, and just realize being a bottom
> simply feels good. One need not lose "manhood" over it. That's in
> the mind.

It's grotesque.

CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>On 2025-01-09 10:38, Joel wrote:
>> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>> On 2025-01-09 04:16, Beavis wrote:
>>>> Joel wrote:
>>
>>>>> What's so bad about taking it up the ass?
>>>>>
>>>> https://postimg.cc/GTd7gbyt
>>>
>>> Not the best explanation, Beavis. Let's just say that taking it up the
>>> ass is a fate reserved for people whose manhood is questioned.
>>
>> You gotta let go of that macho BS, and just realize being a bottom
>> simply feels good. One need not lose "manhood" over it. That's in
>> the mind.
>
>Look at it this way: boys get raped by older men all the time and are
>irreversibly traumatized by the experience. If it felt good, they
>wouldn't become such damaged people in life. I imagine that this has
>happened to you too in youth.
>
>Don't feel bad about it, it almost happened to me after I watched my
>good friend get raped by the neighbourhood pedophile when I was a child.
>I must have been eight at the time. He got assaulted, I ran away. I
>still think about how close I came to being damaged in that way and
>wonder what happened to him since we moved from that area soon
>thereafter. I don't think I ever saw the poor kid ever again. In fact, I
>don't recall him ever leaving the house and he lived two doors from me.
>I would not be surprised to discover that he's a homosexual today.

I probably was molested as a toddler but I don't have a memory of it,
if so. I was sexually assaulted once at 17, but it was oral on me,
not anal rape.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> wrote:
>On 1/9/2025 10:38 AM, Joel wrote:
>> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>> On 2025-01-09 04:16, Beavis wrote:
>>>> Joel wrote:
>>
>>>>> What's so bad about taking it up the ass?
>>>>>
>>>> https://postimg.cc/GTd7gbyt
>>>
>>> Not the best explanation, Beavis. Let's just say that taking it up the
>>> ass is a fate reserved for people whose manhood is questioned.
>>
>> You gotta let go of that macho BS, and just realize being a bottom
>> simply feels good. One need not lose "manhood" over it. That's in
>> the mind.
>
>It's grotesque.

You may think so, not everyone would concur.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2025-01-09 11:34, Joel wrote:
> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>> On 2025-01-09 10:38, Joel wrote:
>>> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>> On 2025-01-09 04:16, Beavis wrote:
>>>>> Joel wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> What's so bad about taking it up the ass?
>>>>>>
>>>>> https://postimg.cc/GTd7gbyt
>>>>
>>>> Not the best explanation, Beavis. Let's just say that taking it up the
>>>> ass is a fate reserved for people whose manhood is questioned.
>>>
>>> You gotta let go of that macho BS, and just realize being a bottom
>>> simply feels good. One need not lose "manhood" over it. That's in
>>> the mind.
>>
>> Look at it this way: boys get raped by older men all the time and are
>> irreversibly traumatized by the experience. If it felt good, they
>> wouldn't become such damaged people in life. I imagine that this has
>> happened to you too in youth.
>>
>> Don't feel bad about it, it almost happened to me after I watched my
>> good friend get raped by the neighbourhood pedophile when I was a child.
>> I must have been eight at the time. He got assaulted, I ran away. I
>> still think about how close I came to being damaged in that way and
>> wonder what happened to him since we moved from that area soon
>> thereafter. I don't think I ever saw the poor kid ever again. In fact, I
>> don't recall him ever leaving the house and he lived two doors from me.
>> I would not be surprised to discover that he's a homosexual today.
>
>
> I probably was molested as a toddler but I don't have a memory of it,
> if so. I was sexually assaulted once at 17, but it was oral on me,
> not anal rape.

In the same way that people who were victims of a car crash often
suppress the memory as a defence mechanism, it is quite possible that
you did the same with the molestation. There is no way a man becomes a
proponent of anal sex being performed on him without there being some
sort of assault.

--
CrudeSausage
Gab: @CrudeSausage
Unapologetic paleoconservative

On Wed, 8 Jan 2025, rbowman wrote:

> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 11:27:32 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> You're racist for even talking about it! :-D
>>
>> "Coloured folks?"
>
> Who came up with BIPOC? Or NAACP for that matter? By the time I was a kid
> 'colored' was out and 'negro' was in. Now we're back to 'people of color'?
> That means they're colored, right?
>

This is the truth! I remember when I was in school, the english teacher
liked negro, while the german teacher said that was racist and preferred
colored.

I stuck with the negro. I've made my choice! ;)

On 2025-01-09 11:47, Joel wrote:
> DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> wrote:
>> On 1/9/2025 10:38 AM, Joel wrote:
>>> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>> On 2025-01-09 04:16, Beavis wrote:
>>>>> Joel wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> What's so bad about taking it up the ass?
>>>>>>
>>>>> https://postimg.cc/GTd7gbyt
>>>>
>>>> Not the best explanation, Beavis. Let's just say that taking it up the
>>>> ass is a fate reserved for people whose manhood is questioned.
>>>
>>> You gotta let go of that macho BS, and just realize being a bottom
>>> simply feels good. One need not lose "manhood" over it. That's in
>>> the mind.
>>
>> It's grotesque.
>
>
> You may think so, not everyone would concur.

Actually, everyone who isn't psychologically damaged would concur.

--
CrudeSausage
Gab: @CrudeSausage
Unapologetic paleoconservative

On Thu, 9 Jan 2025, rbowman wrote:

> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 17:53:21 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
>
>> Someone was circulating the theory that Trump's (and Musk's) desire to
>> annex both Canada and Greenland is the result of wanting access to the
>> minerals there, which are crucial to the development of electric
>> vehicles. I would imagine that there are lots of strategic military
>> reasons too. Maybe the man isn't joking...
>
> https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/china-arctic-russia/
>
> Shipping, gas, oil, minerals, fisheries... Historically, Denmark hasn't
> done well protecting its interests since the Danish-Hanseatic War and
> certainly can't defend Greenland nor is an independent Greenland feasible.
>
> Canada is a far reach but with Trudeau the Lesser quitting, who knows. The
> SAM provinces might be weighing which is worse, DC or Ottawa.
>

I don't understand why the US doesn't just bribe their way to greenland?
Promise every inhabintant 1 MUSD in subsidies or some kind of government
money, and then have a "vote".

Since the EU is bound by democratic values, and, since greenland legally
is allowed to vote for independence, they would be forced to accept a yes
to greenlandish independence.

Once independent, it is then up to them to discuss joining the US.

Argument over, and the EU would not be able to criticize a democratic vote
by the people.

On Thu, 9 Jan 2025, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

> On 1/8/25 8:18 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
>> On 2025-01-08 19:42, rbowman wrote:
>>> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 17:53:21 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>
>>>> Someone was circulating the theory that Trump's (and Musk's) desire to
>>>> annex both Canada and Greenland is the result of wanting access to the
>>>> minerals there, which are crucial to the development of electric
>>>> vehicles. I would imagine that there are lots of strategic military
>>>> reasons too. Maybe the man isn't joking...
>>>
>>> https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/china-arctic-russia/
>>>
>>> Shipping, gas, oil, minerals, fisheries...  Historically, Denmark hasn't
>>> done well protecting its interests since the Danish-Hanseatic War and
>>> certainly can't defend Greenland nor is an independent Greenland feasible.
>>>
>>> Canada is a far reach but with Trudeau the Lesser quitting, who knows. The
>>> SAM provinces might be weighing which is worse, DC or Ottawa.
>>
>> There will be lots of resistance simply because Canadians have
>> traditionally seen themselves as "better" than Americans and don't want to
>> be a part of the "inferior" culture. In reality, there is nothing better
>> here except for the women in Quebec. They look better than what the US
>> produces, but they're just as dim.
>
> Talk/jokes/etc aside, Canada will not be joined with
> the USA any time soon. The culture/system/history is
> just too different for a good fit.
>
> Trump makes these statements For EFFECT ... not because
> he's really serious. He mostly wants Canada to deal with
> all the immigrants coming down. He's a native salesman
> and thus creates grand illusions - intending to deal
> somewhere to the middle.
>
> With Greenland, for example, it was barely a week after
> he talked about buying/occupying that Denmark suddenly
> put a LOT more money into defense efforts there. This
> is more what he really wanted. As an actual territory,
> Greenland would be a huge money-loser. SO, real world,
> expect more EU and US military watch bases there. That
> is 'good enough'.

This is the truth. The way to understand Trump is to look at what the man
does, and not listen to what the man says.

Europes politician still need to learn that lesson.

On 2025-01-09 11:56, D wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025, rbowman wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 11:27:32 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> You're racist for even talking about it!  :-D
>>>
>>> "Coloured folks?"
>>
>> Who came up with BIPOC? Or NAACP for that matter? By the time I was a kid
>> 'colored' was out and 'negro' was in. Now we're back to 'people of
>> color'?
>> That means they're colored, right?
>>
>
> This is the truth! I remember when I was in school, the english teacher
> liked negro, while the german teacher said that was racist and preferred
> colored.
>
> I stuck with the negro. I've made my choice! ;)

They want us to believe that simply saying "black" is racist now. I
assume that's part of that white privilege I keep hearing about, having
my language be double-checked for political correctness.

--
CrudeSausage
Gab: @CrudeSausage
Unapologetic paleoconservative

On 09/01/2025 14:58, CrudeSausage wrote:
> Militarily, I would imagine that having American bases in Greenland
> would be interesting to the Americans. They have a base pretty much
> everywhere else.

I think they have one already.

"The first airports in Greenland were built by and for the United States
defense. The first and largest was Kangerlussuaq Airport in 1941,
followed by Narsarsuaq Airport in 1942 (and now-abandoned USAAF
airfields Bluie East Two and Marrak Point, both in 1942) and Pituffik
Space Base in 1953 (although Pituffik is not operated as a civilian
airport) and Kulusuk Airport in 1956. Due to their distance from major
settlements, these were not initially used for civilian travel."

--
"I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and
all women"

On 09/01/2025 16:56, D wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025, rbowman wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 11:27:32 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> You're racist for even talking about it!  :-D
>>>
>>> "Coloured folks?"
>>
>> Who came up with BIPOC? Or NAACP for that matter? By the time I was a kid
>> 'colored' was out and 'negro' was in. Now we're back to 'people of
>> color'?
>> That means they're colored, right?
>>
>
> This is the truth! I remember when I was in school, the english teacher
> liked negro, while the german teacher said that was racist and preferred
> colored.
>
> I stuck with the negro. I've made my choice! ;)
Ive always felt colored to be more offensive than nigger, and negro
probably the least offensiive term, but its all stupid. Ive heard nigger
both used as a term of endearment and as a term to describe a stupid
black person as well - by blacks.
In this country as in Africa, if you want to refer to anything, you
probably use a far more detailed description. Like afro carribean, or
Pakistani, or Indian, or Chinese, or arab, or Welsh or Scottish, or
Irish...or Iranian...Because no way does one word cover everything that
isn't 'just like you'

--
"Nature does not give up the winter because people dislike the cold."

― Confucius

On Thu, 09 Jan 2025 06:56:46 -0600, chrisv wrote:

> Greenland would be a great place to put all the wannabe migrants. Let
> them prove their worth there, for a few years, before letting them into
> the mainland.

Norway tried that. "We're going to lodge you at a luxury resort -- north
of the Arctic Circle" .

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-sweden-
idUSKBN0U207Y20151219/

It's a paywall but you can see enough to get the idea.

On 09/01/2025 18:01, D wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 9 Jan 2025, rbowman wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 17:53:21 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>
>>> Someone was circulating the theory that Trump's (and Musk's) desire to
>>> annex both Canada and Greenland is the result of wanting access to the
>>> minerals there, which are crucial to the development of electric
>>> vehicles. I would imagine that there are lots of strategic military
>>> reasons too. Maybe the man isn't joking...
>>
>> https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/china-arctic-russia/
>>
>> Shipping, gas, oil, minerals, fisheries...  Historically, Denmark hasn't
>> done well protecting its interests since the Danish-Hanseatic War and
>> certainly can't defend Greenland nor is an independent Greenland
>> feasible.
>>
>> Canada is a far reach but with Trudeau the Lesser quitting, who knows.
>> The
>> SAM provinces might be weighing which is worse, DC or Ottawa.
>>
>
> I don't understand why the US doesn't just bribe their way to greenland?
> Promise every inhabintant 1 MUSD in subsidies or some kind of government
> money, and then have a "vote".
>
> Since the EU is bound by democratic values, and, since greenland legally
> is allowed to vote for independence, they would be forced to accept a
> yes to greenlandish independence.
>
> Once independent, it is then up to them to discuss joining the US.
>
Greenalnd is not formally part of the EU any more. It is associated, only.

> Argument over, and the EU would not be able to criticize a democratic
> vote by the people.

Wanna bet? Criticising peoples votes is a global fashion these days.

--
“Progress is precisely that which rules and regulations did not foresee,”

– Ludwig von Mises

On 09/01/2025 18:52, rbowman wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Jan 2025 06:56:46 -0600, chrisv wrote:
>
>> Greenland would be a great place to put all the wannabe migrants. Let
>> them prove their worth there, for a few years, before letting them into
>> the mainland.
>
> Norway tried that. "We're going to lodge you at a luxury resort -- north
> of the Arctic Circle" .
>
> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-sweden-
> idUSKBN0U207Y20151219/
>
> It's a paywall but you can see enough to get the idea.
Not paywalled for me...

--
"Nature does not give up the winter because people dislike the cold."

― Confucius

-hh wrote:

>No, its purpose wasn't to restrict travel freedoms:

What they claimed in a study 20 years ago means nothing. Today, they
want to be able to shut you down for any reason they want, e.g. some
"public health emergency" such as covid. Or you've hit your "carbon
limit".

>If you don't want expensive utilities, then accept some conveniences.
>Its a simple principle & trade-off.

The "trade off" is from leftists gutting our power generation capacity
for unreliable and inadequate "green" alternatives.

>If you want safe food, expect restrictions on the dangerous stuff.
>Its a simple principle & trade-off.

I'm talking about bugs vs beef.

>Golly, its interesting to see the goalpost shift here from "it ain't
>happening at all" to now being "oh, but its too expensive to fix".

Golly, some people have a different point of view, a different point
to make, than others!

> (idiocy snipped)

On 2025-01-09 17:14, chrisv wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>
>> No, its purpose wasn't to restrict travel freedoms:
>
> What they claimed in a study 20 years ago means nothing. Today, they
> want to be able to shut you down for any reason they want, e.g. some
> "public health emergency" such as covid. Or you've hit your "carbon
> limit".

I've read the same thing. Of course, these are things that are never
admitted in the highly discredited mainstream publications Hugh
Huntzinger relies on to make an ass of himself.
< snip >

--
CrudeSausage
Gab: @CrudeSausage
Unapologetic paleoconservative

On 1/9/25 5:14 PM, chrisv wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>
>> No, its purpose wasn't to restrict travel freedoms:
>
> What they claimed in a study 20 years ago means nothing.

Just providing my perspective.

> Today, they want to be able to shut you down for any reason they want,
> e.g. some "public health emergency" such as covid. Or you've hit
> your "carbon limit".

And of course the same sources have also been shouting that they're
going to take away your guns too ... for the past 40+ years.

>> If you don't want expensive utilities, then accept some conveniences.
>> Its a simple principle & trade-off.
>
> The "trade off" is from leftists gutting our power generation capacity
> for unreliable and inadequate "green" alternatives.

Nope, has nothing really to do with the type of power source: if one
wants a high degree of power demand variance, it is infrastructure that
needs to be built, and thus paid for.

>> If you want safe food, expect restrictions on the dangerous stuff.
>> Its a simple principle & trade-off.
>
> I'm talking about bugs vs beef.

So? Are you actually trying to suggest that beef is 100% safe and no
one has ever died from it? Sounds like you're really just being
squeamish & emotionally triggered about foods which aren't culturally
"normal" to you. I'll have to post a short video clip I have of a plate
of Japanese 'Octopus balls' that's visibly wiggling around.

>> Golly, its interesting to see the goalpost shift here from "it ain't
>> happening at all" to now being "oh, but its too expensive to fix".
>
> Golly, some people have a different point of view, a different point
> to make, than others!

Nope, same poster.

>
>> (idiocy snipped)
>

Because it is more that you can't counter:

[quote]
cv> I agree. There is no answer to the problems with mining.

Depends on what answer one is looking for: a short term gratification
of cheap energy, or more holistic perspective of addressing the costs of
most of its actual externality costs too? For example, a "clean up the
mess you've caused" tax to pay for the damage that it is doing (and has
done) would create the market incentive to reduce its externality costs,
and shift the market to less bad alternatives...even if the tax money is
never spent as it should be on actual clean-up.
[/quote]

Well?

[quote]
cv> There is no answer to the problems from being utterly dependant
cv> upon communist China for everything from minerals to the
cv> completed car or solar panel or wind turbine or power transformer.

True, the West has allowed short term capitalism to be the priority and
outweigh strategic positioning, but there has been some leadership to
allow some rebalancing. For example, because of policy, domestic
manufacturing capacity of solar cells has quadrupled since Biden took
office.

<https://seia.org/news/american-solar-panel-manufacturing-capacity-increases-71-q1-2024-industry-reaches-200-gigawatt/>

<https://www.spglobal.com/commodity-insights/en/news-research/latest-news/electric-power/102224-us-solar-manufacturing-soars-but-gaps-and-uncertainty-persist>
[/quote]

Well?

[quote]
cv> The West takes a massive hit, while China laughs and builds
cv> a hundred coal plants every year. They are happy to take
cv> our money and make everything for us, until we are as dependant
cv> and as weak as babies.

Yet we keep on buying stuff at WalMart, because we're unwilling to pay
more for domestically produced.

Gosh, its almost as if there strategically needs to be Federal mandates
which prevent us from being so dumb and avoid doing what we know is
profoundly bad for us ... but there's folks who bitch it "takes away our
freedoms": one can't have your cake & eat it too.
[/quote]

Well?

Prediction: a very brave "(snipped, unread)" is immanent!

-hh

On 1/9/25 10:43 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:
> On 2025-01-09 10:20, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>> On 1/9/25 9:58 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>> On 2025-01-09 00:29, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>> On 1/8/25 8:18 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-01-08 19:42, rbowman wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 17:53:21 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Someone was circulating the theory that Trump's (and Musk's)
>>>>>>> desire to
>>>>>>> annex both Canada and Greenland is the result of wanting access
>>>>>>> to the
>>>>>>> minerals there, which are crucial to the development of electric
>>>>>>> vehicles. I would imagine that there are lots of strategic military
>>>>>>> reasons too. Maybe the man isn't joking...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/china-arctic-russia/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shipping, gas, oil, minerals, fisheries...  Historically, Denmark
>>>>>> hasn't
>>>>>> done well protecting its interests since the Danish-Hanseatic War and
>>>>>> certainly can't defend Greenland nor is an independent Greenland
>>>>>> feasible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Canada is a far reach but with Trudeau the Lesser quitting, who
>>>>>> knows. The
>>>>>> SAM provinces might be weighing which is worse, DC or Ottawa.
>>>>>
>>>>> There will be lots of resistance simply because Canadians have
>>>>> traditionally seen themselves as "better" than Americans and don't
>>>>> want to be a part of the "inferior" culture. In reality, there is
>>>>> nothing better here except for the women in Quebec. They look
>>>>> better than what the US produces, but they're just as dim.
>>>>
>>>>    Talk/jokes/etc aside, Canada will not be joined with
>>>>    the USA any time soon. The culture/system/history is
>>>>    just too different for a good fit.
>>>
>>> Loyalists vs rebels, yes. However, most of Canada is still Protestant
>>> so there is already similarity there. The United States has also been
>>> a melting pot traditionally, but now it is more of a multicultural
>>> society like Canada. Clearly, that's a bad thing, but it means that
>>> there is similarity.
>>>
>>>>    Trump makes these statements For EFFECT ... not because
>>>>    he's really serious. He mostly wants Canada to deal with
>>>>    all the immigrants coming down. He's a native salesman
>>>>    and thus creates grand illusions - intending to deal
>>>>    somewhere to the middle.
>>>>
>>>>    With Greenland, for example, it was barely a week after
>>>>    he talked about buying/occupying that Denmark suddenly
>>>>    put a LOT more money into defense efforts there. This
>>>>    is more what he really wanted. As an actual territory,
>>>>    Greenland would be a huge money-loser. SO, real world,
>>>>    expect more EU and US military watch bases there. That
>>>>    is 'good enough'.
>>>
>>> Militarily, I would imagine that having American bases in Greenland
>>> would be interesting to the Americans. They have a base pretty much
>>> everywhere else.
>>
>>
>>    The US already HAS at least one active base there now.
>>    Used to have more during the Cold War.
>>
>>    Saw a docu recently about a base they embedded deep in
>>    a glacier - complete with its own nuke reactor. Soon
>>    found out that ice was not nearly as stable as they
>>    imagined ... the whole thing kinda sunk in and fell
>>    apart.
>>
>>    Then a couple weeks ago there was a tourist photo of
>>    that glacier ... bits of the mil base were now oozing
>>    out the side of the ice.
>>
>>    There are a number of micro-settlements all around
>>    the Greenland coast. Hard to say how many are US
>>    or EU radar stations - they won't tell.
>>
>>    My grand-daddy visited Greenland in the late 1800s to
>>    see if there were any farming prospects. Answer - NO !
>>    Can't even put in roads, gotta hop from fjord to fjord
>>    by boat and the glaciers are too unstable to try and
>>    drive on top of.
>
> My favourite depiction of Greenland is the one in the TV show Vikings
> where Kjetill Flatnose and others get there and immediately create
> borders for each family. They quickly get to starving and fight over the
> carcass of some whale that washed up ashore. In the end, Flatnose is all
> that's left and he's overjoyed that he's the king of this vast,
> uninhabited wasteland.

Heh heh ... the one and only king :-)

Yea, Greenland is pretty dismal. The Inuit can 'get by'
but they sure as hell ain't gettin' rich. A 'city' is
like 150 people and the weather is nasty.

Now 100+ years from now, if all remains constant, the
ice will have melted back some more and there might be
a more useful exposed rim. It'll still suck though.
'Minerals' look to be Greenland's main ticket to any
kind of future beyond the village level and drinking
themselves to death.

IMHO, just negotiate for a few more mil base locations
and that's that. Vastly easier and cheaper than trying
to literally assume ownership - or starting a war.

I think Trump, by sounding like an imperialist asshole,
is gonna get most of what he REALLY wants in Greenland -
more bases and more Danish/EU investment in such. Vlad
DOES want to 'own the arctic' and everything everywhere
in it ... so a certain amount of push-back is required.

Some bits of Canada are very very close to the NW tip
of Greenland. Might be a good alt for mil bases. But,
for 'defense', more is gonna be needed along the east
coast of Greenland. Guys caught with the generals'
daughter will be assigned there .....

In any case, Earth the place. Sometimes have to zoom in
pretty close before place names and/or clear signs of
human activity can be seen.

On 1/9/25 10:55 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> 186282@ud0s4.net wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>
>> On 1/9/25 9:58 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>> On 2025-01-09 00:29, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>> On 1/8/25 8:18 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-01-08 19:42, rbowman wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 17:53:21 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Someone was circulating the theory that Trump's (and Musk's) desire to
>>>>>>> annex both Canada and Greenland is the result of wanting access to the
>>>>>>> minerals there, which are crucial to the development of electric
>>>>>>> vehicles. I would imagine that there are lots of strategic military
>>>>>>> reasons too. Maybe the man isn't joking...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/china-arctic-russia/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shipping, gas, oil, minerals, fisheries...  Historically, Denmark
>>>>>> hasn't
>>>>>> done well protecting its interests since the Danish-Hanseatic War and
>>>>>> certainly can't defend Greenland nor is an independent Greenland
>>>>>> feasible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Canada is a far reach but with Trudeau the Lesser quitting, who
>>>>>> knows. The
>>>>>> SAM provinces might be weighing which is worse, DC or Ottawa.
>>>>>
>>>>> There will be lots of resistance simply because Canadians have
>>>>> traditionally seen themselves as "better" than Americans and don't
>>>>> want to be a part of the "inferior" culture. In reality, there is
>>>>> nothing better here except for the women in Quebec. They look better
>>>>> than what the US produces, but they're just as dim.
>>>>
>>>>    Talk/jokes/etc aside, Canada will not be joined with
>>>>    the USA any time soon. The culture/system/history is
>>>>    just too different for a good fit.
>>>
>>> Loyalists vs rebels, yes. However, most of Canada is still Protestant so
>>> there is already similarity there. The United States has also been a
>>> melting pot traditionally, but now it is more of a multicultural society
>>> like Canada. Clearly, that's a bad thing, but it means that there is
>>> similarity.
>>>
>>>>    Trump makes these statements For EFFECT ... not because
>>>>    he's really serious. He mostly wants Canada to deal with
>>>>    all the immigrants coming down. He's a native salesman
>>>>    and thus creates grand illusions - intending to deal
>>>>    somewhere to the middle.
>>>>
>>>>    With Greenland, for example, it was barely a week after
>>>>    he talked about buying/occupying that Denmark suddenly
>>>>    put a LOT more money into defense efforts there. This
>>>>    is more what he really wanted. As an actual territory,
>>>>    Greenland would be a huge money-loser. SO, real world,
>>>>    expect more EU and US military watch bases there. That
>>>>    is 'good enough'.
>>>
>>> Militarily, I would imagine that having American bases in Greenland
>>> would be interesting to the Americans. They have a base pretty much
>>> everywhere else.
>>
>>
>> The US already HAS at least one active base there now.
>> Used to have more during the Cold War.
>>
>> Saw a docu recently about a base they embedded deep in
>> a glacier - complete with its own nuke reactor. Soon
>> found out that ice was not nearly as stable as they
>> imagined ... the whole thing kinda sunk in and fell
>> apart.
>>
>> Then a couple weeks ago there was a tourist photo of
>> that glacier ... bits of the mil base were now oozing
>> out the side of the ice.
>>
>> There are a number of micro-settlements all around
>> the Greenland coast. Hard to say how many are US
>> or EU radar stations - they won't tell.
>>
>> My grand-daddy visited Greenland in the late 1800s to
>> see if there were any farming prospects. Answer - NO !
>> Can't even put in roads, gotta hop from fjord to fjord
>> by boat and the glaciers are too unstable to try and
>> drive on top of.
>
> Not to mention they're a mile or two deep!

Hey, the "high road" fer sure ! :-)

Alas while an aerial photo might make the glacial
tops LOOK kinda flat and solid, they ain't. Big
cracks constantly form, heal, and re-appear in
new locations. It's not even suitable for hovercraft.

So ... it's either aircraft or taking the little boat
from fjord to fjord. It's not a people-friendly place
and not 'modern'-people friendly either.

If the USA wants to invest in far-northern defense
installations, they might do better in Longyearbyen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longyearbyen
There are a number of islands, only one with any
number of people.

> Been reading an interesting book "Climate Crash"; it starts out discussing
> exploration etc. of Greenland in the first 4 chapters. It's a little
> out-of-date (2005).

Seems that 'cooling events' happen for various reasons
maybe every 4-500 years. Most common reason is some
huge volcano near Indonesia blasting megatons of dust
into the upper stratosphere. As such I don't see Greenland
melting anytime soon - just "cycling" between slightly
warmer and slightly cooler global climates.

Alas the whole 'global warming' thing is no longer
any sort of 'science' but politicized to the extreme.
There's objective truth and then there's "political
truth" - and the two rarely cross paths. Any
supposed 'science' becomes totally contaminated
with politically/ideologically biased results.

Look into how long archeological/geological/
biological science went to great lengths to
include the phony "world flood" into the equation.
That there were many big LOCAL floods as the
glacial sheet melted and seas slowly rose - didn't
fit the popular religions. If they'd had "AI"s in
the 18th century they'd have 'politically corrected'
its answers to fit the current sure-nuf truths
and religious assertions.

On 1/9/25 9:17 AM, Farley Flud wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Jan 2025 09:58:07 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Militarily, I would imagine that having American bases in Greenland
>> would be interesting to the Americans. They have a base pretty much
>> everywhere else.
>>
>
> Jesus F. Christ! This idiot shows his idiocy yet again!
>
> Ever hear of Thule AFB? Dumb question.
>
> The US built Thule as a major SAC AFB during the beginning of
> the Cold War.
>
> Thule was also the site of a famous Broken Arrow incident
> when a B-52 crashed and the conventional explosives in the
> H-Bombs went off.
>
> Camp Century is also nearby but is long defunct.
>
> I hate idiots, and this idiot is at the top of my list.
>
>

The guy hasn't lived. That's why.

I was almost sent to one of the bases there in 1980s by the us air
force! Hehe :) I said the story in detail in one of my blogs in
sci.physics.

On 1/9/25 5:35 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
> On 2025-01-09 17:14, chrisv wrote:
>> -hh wrote:
>>
>>> No, its purpose wasn't to restrict travel freedoms:
>>
>> What they claimed in a study 20 years ago means nothing.  Today, they
>> want to be able to shut you down for any reason they want, e.g. some
>> "public health emergency" such as covid.  Or you've hit your "carbon
>> limit".
>
> I've read the same thing. Of course, these are things that are never
> admitted in the highly discredited mainstream publications Hugh
> Huntzinger relies on to make an ass of himself.

Leftists particularly seek to limit travel. Surprised
Euros or even USAians don't have to get "travel permits"
yet to visit the next town. Propaganda needs mean it's
best if people are TRAPPED in their own immediate area
and can't personally compare notes with people elsewhere.

On 1/9/25 11:51 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:
> On 2025-01-09 11:34, Joel wrote:
>> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>> On 2025-01-09 10:38, Joel wrote:
>>>> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-01-09 04:16, Beavis wrote:
>>>>>> Joel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> What's so bad about taking it up the ass?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://postimg.cc/GTd7gbyt
>>>>>
>>>>> Not the best explanation, Beavis. Let's just say that taking it up the
>>>>> ass is a fate reserved for people whose manhood is questioned.
>>>>
>>>> You gotta let go of that macho BS, and just realize being a bottom
>>>> simply feels good.  One need not lose "manhood" over it.  That's in
>>>> the mind.
>>>
>>> Look at it this way: boys get raped by older men all the time and are
>>> irreversibly traumatized by the experience. If it felt good, they
>>> wouldn't become such damaged people in life. I imagine that this has
>>> happened to you too in youth.
>>>
>>> Don't feel bad about it, it almost happened to me after I watched my
>>> good friend get raped by the neighbourhood pedophile when I was a child.
>>> I must have been eight at the time. He got assaulted, I ran away. I
>>> still think about how close I came to being damaged in that way and
>>> wonder what happened to him since we moved from that area soon
>>> thereafter. I don't think I ever saw the poor kid ever again. In fact, I
>>> don't recall him ever leaving the house and he lived two doors from me.
>>> I would not be surprised to discover that he's a homosexual today.
>>
>>
>> I probably was molested as a toddler but I don't have a memory of it,
>> if so.  I was sexually assaulted once at 17, but it was oral on me,
>> not anal rape.
>
> In the same way that people who were victims of a car crash often
> suppress the memory as a defence mechanism, it is quite possible that
> you did the same with the molestation. There is no way a man becomes a
> proponent of anal sex being performed on him without there being some
> sort of assault.

Just a note ... in the longer view, most "repressed/suppressed
memories" pretty much NEVER HAPPENED - at least not remotely
as 'remembered'. Humans are not HDDs.

On 09/01/2025 23:31, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
> Now 100+ years from now, if all remains constant, the
>   ice will have melted back some more and there might be
>   a more useful exposed rim.

Go and calculate the mass of ice on Greenland, and its latent heat of
melting, and divide that by a hundred years and tell me that somehow the
sun is going to provide that level of excess energy to the planet .

The ice age didn't end in a century. In fact it hasn't ended,
technically. We are in an interstadial.

But the point is it took thousands of years for the ice to melt.

--
"If you don’t read the news paper, you are un-informed. If you read the
news paper, you are mis-informed."

Mark Twain