From: Larry G on
On Jul 24, 7:03 am, Dave Head <rally...(a)> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 03:51:26 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
> <> wrote:
> >On Jul 23, 11:19 pm, russo...(a) (Matthew Russotto)
> >wrote:
> >> In article <k3kk46dnmh23kimivej7hln45ium28k...(a)>,
> >> Dave Head  <rally...(a)> wrote:
> >> >On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 19:09:16 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
> >> ><> wrote:
> >> >>> Go ahead, ignore the fact they they're poor... compared to us.
> >> >>they are not "poor" compared to the rest of the world - right?
> >> >Screw the rest of the world - I'm only interested in NOT falling to
> >> >their particular level of poverty.
> >> >>they are healthier.. have cars, appliances, cell phones, TV,
> >> >>computers, heating and air conditioning, plumbing, etc.    and they
> >> >>live longer.
> >> >Or it seems longer, since the time passes more slowly when your
> >> >options don't include anything expensive.
> >> There's one well-known and well-studied way to greatly increase
> >> lifespan.  It's called a restricted calorie diet.  And I mean really
> >> restricted, on the edge of starvation.  And I'm sure you feel every
> >> second of that increased lifespan....
> >I don't think any of the folks in the rest of the industrialized
> >countries are on the "edge of starvation" guy.  They actually have
> >fatties also.
> The Euros are known for their overall much-thinner-than-Americans
> population.

cuz they can't afford food?
From: Dave Head on
On 24 Jul 2010 12:25:39 GMT, Otto Yamamoto <steve(a)> wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 07:35:16 -0400, Dave Head wrote:
>> On 24 Jul 2010 11:25:42 GMT, Otto Yamamoto <steve(a)> wrote:
>>>On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 07:03:36 -0400, Dave Head wrote:
>>>> The Euros are known for their overall much-thinner-than-Americans
>>>> population.
>>>I'm 'overall much thinner' than most of the population. Why? Because my
>>>job consists of lifting heavy weights throughout most of the day. I walk
>>>a lot. I don't eat a lot of fast food and avoid fried foods in the main.
>>>I probably could be even thinner if I took up an exercise programme at a
>>>gym. I move a lot faster than a lot of people half my age. It's called
>>>'not having a sedentary lifestyle'.
>> And why do you suppose the Euros are thin? Walking / biking all over
>> the place 'cuz they don't have the $$$ for their $10/gal gas, walking
>> because their cities are more compact 'cuz they don't have the $$$ to be
>> commuting from miles out in the country, etc. I think that's mostly it.
>I don't see where the above is necessarily adverse.

Its adverse when you can't do something you want to do. I want to
live far enough out where I can have an acre for antennas for my radio
hobby. I can't do that, then that's "adverse". Others might want to
live where they have enough land to build a boathouse for their boat.

>Or even particularly
>true. There's more to it than that. There are food and lifestyle choices
>involved as well.
>> That's what the envirowackos are attempting to perpetrate on this
>> country, but we're ALREADY spread out into the country, and HAVE to
>> drive, and so $10/gal gas would simply bankrupt the USA, since the
>> people couldn't drive, and their property value anywhere but the center
>> of the city would go to practically $0.
>Ooo, yr scaring me.

I just think that's the way it'll be if we get expensive gas.

>You saying that the people of this country would fall
>apart if this ever came to pass?

They wouldn't have a choice. They'd either have to abandon their
suburban homes and move where they could get to things like food and
work with very little driving, or they have to do things like hire a
bus to take them wherever they work, on someone else's schedule,
limited in their efficency with going to and from work without being
able to stop for things like groceries (so that's another trip for
them on their own) and not having enough money left over to do
anything else. Its too far out in the boonies to walk to where they
work or anywhere else they want to go, and of course motorcycles are a
death wish, esp. in this country that is populated with drivers that
don't expect to see them, let alone winter with all the ice.

>Maybe you would, personally, I'd be too
>busy doing what I could to adapt.

I'm just saying adapting would be impossible without moving very close
to where you have to normally travel to. People with 2 people working
would have to move close to where the highest paid person worked, and
the other person would have to quit their job and get one closer, no
matter how little it paid. Employers, realizing this, would lower the
pay they offered 'cuz they'd know they could get away with it.

The immediate effect of all that, since people would end up not being
able to sell the property way out in the middle of nowhere, would be
that it would become worthless, and the $300 grand they owe on it
would cause them to go bankrupt.

>I'd be banding up with my homies and
>taking the necessary steps to adapt and survive.

Homies? If you're single, and can live 27 people under 1 roof, you
might just get by. A guy with a wife and 2 kids and an expensive
suburban home is going bankrupt.

>You have a severe case
>of Advanced Entitlement Syndrome. I prescribe a course of

Some people have options, some people don't.
From: Dave Head on
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 10:39:23 -0700 (PDT), Otto Yamamoto
<comrade.otto.yamamoto(a)> wrote:

>> But you wouldn't WANT a real solution to this, right? Interfere with
>> the ability to tell everyone what to do... y'know... I notice you
>> simply ignored it. Tells a lot.
>What I might 'want' is immaterial. I don't see any 'real solution'
>coming down the line.

I knew it! Wow, can I call 'em, or what? Device to lower CO2 to
pre-industrial levels in 10 years, and you want to ignore it. This is
just grand. Just classic!!!! Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
From: Matthew Russotto on
In article <4c4a79e5$0$31275$607ed4bc(a)>,
Otto Yamamoto <steve(a)> wrote:
>On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 22:55:47 +0000, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>> Excuse me if I don't want to go back 30 or 40 years in terms of standard
>> of living.
>Really? Roughly 40 years ago my parents were able to buy and maintain two
>automobiles and a house with only my father working. Try that today.

OK. Accomplished. Next?
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.
From: Matthew Russotto on
In article <epjl46dgioj9f243ldgefs8bc2uk2lkkh6(a)>,
Dave Head <rally2xs(a)> wrote:
>And why do you suppose the Euros are thin?

Mostly because they eat less.
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.