101

(32 replies, posted in Politics)

lol

102

(32 replies, posted in Politics)

excellent idea. smile

a year isn't long term, is it? tongue

104

(39 replies, posted in Politics)

lol

I'm not a believer either. I was just commenting on arby's post that specifically talking about einstein posts, not worldwide skeptics in general.

I might stand alone none the less, I believe we don't know enough about our climate to make any precise predictions whatsoever. Most people think they know precisely how the world is either going to cool, warm or stay the same. Ridiculous imo.

Not a single long term climate model ever made was correct, unless it is very very vague in its predictions. It will probably stay that way for a long time.

106

(39 replies, posted in Politics)

idd, prices going down still, and the end is not in sight. smile

lol

108

(39 replies, posted in Politics)

They will never reduce over 30%. They'll have budget deficits.

109

(32 replies, posted in Politics)

It wouldn't surprise me. The media is quit silent on that subject here btw.

Yes Arby, Einstein and IC politics forum sure have that kind of influence on the entire world. big_smile

111

(39 replies, posted in Politics)

"Do they have to be opinions related to the oil thing?"
The topic is the power OPEC has over oil prices and production and the effect of oil prices on the econ worldwide.

A mod might remove your posts if you go off topic tough.

112

(39 replies, posted in Politics)

Oil prices are going down. Saudi Arabia announces a planned reduction in production to increase prices again, but I don't think they will succeed any time soon.

Low oil prices means we will witness an economic boost soon worldwide. Question is not IF but WHEN.

You can be for or against it but its a fact shale gas and oil makes the world less dependent on opec.

Any opinions?

113

(32 replies, posted in Politics)

for now it looks like we were all wrong and the option "quitly, no changes to the gov but vague promisses" is whats going to happen. Quitly, but Quitly like Einstein describes earlier in this thread.

114

(32 replies, posted in Politics)

lol

115

(32 replies, posted in Politics)

why would they destroy the land and econ if they can destroy protesters specifically? Makes no sense. It would drive even hard-core pro-communist party members in the hands of the protestors. China's econ can't take the loss of Hong Kong. An economic downfall would mean giant riots. The only time when people don't care about their life or ideals is when they are hungry. That is how the Arabic spring started.

I bet they send in the army first or even bomb the place if they don't succeed (which is highly unlikely given the protestors don't have any arms). Its cheap practice for both soldiers and medical personnel.

116

(32 replies, posted in Politics)

you don't honestly think they are gonna (try to) drown Hong Kong do you?

117

(32 replies, posted in Politics)

"tsunami bomb"
can you clarify your argument? On its own it could be easily misinterpreted for a pornographic request.

118

(19 replies, posted in Politics)

lol

119

(19 replies, posted in Politics)

funny how the IC-politics vote resembles the actual vote quit accurately, lol.
the real vote was 45-55 and the ic-pol is 44-56%

I claim fraud.

120

(32 replies, posted in Politics)

I think if they have a go for democracy, they should do it now. In the future world there won't be any drones refusing to shoot innocent civilians while an army is always a liability for any dictator.

121

(32 replies, posted in Politics)

they use a lot of water compared to other major cities in the world so there is room for a correction. If you ration it on top of that you only need 20-30%, and they import 70-80% from china. So using it as a weapon won't work in the short run except to spread fear.

I'm more afraid of what the police/army will do.

122

(36 replies, posted in Politics)

"LP i dont want to play the russia defender again:P"
sorry, couldn't resist. wink

"0.06% is still more then the third on the list with 0.05%"
My point exactly. They invest "only" 1.4 trillion but in % off gdp they are second (although comparison to Europe isn't exactly fair). In short it is a sum they cannot afford. Much of the current day technology comes from USSR times when there often wasn't even enough money for basic goods. USA, EU and Japan have much more commercial return on their space programs.

If your point is, "Nasa wastes to much of its budget" its probably true but the corruption in Russia is probably far worse.

123

(32 replies, posted in Politics)

any predictions?

124

(36 replies, posted in Politics)

@schniepel:
Doesn't matter. Space program was adapted after the fall of the USSR in a spirit of cooperation. Nobody could have predicted they would go back to a USSR style gov under putin. It was illogical at the time to invest in these types of rockets.

They deserved an honest chance. Many Russians protested while Russia became more and more authoritarian again. You make it sound like an easy choice between your own freedom and your countries. Its probably not.

Still if you compare Russians space program to their gdp in percentages it indicates it is a developing country.

125

(36 replies, posted in Politics)

Agreed. Its quit amazing how you are still able to ruin your own country if you have got the advantage of so much natural resources.

I had some respect for Gorby or even Jeltsin, but none whatsoever for Putin. He completely ruined it for the Russians and many neighboring countries. He's the worst that could happen to them. They deserved some liberty and prosperity after all those years of terror and hardship in the USSR.