[ExI] uranium was: RE: Signal

[William Flynn Wallace]

Reasoning: the constitution places the power to declare war on congress,
not the executive branch.  Congress should collectively control the nukes.



spike


I fully agree.  Congress should have a say in any military action that does
not require instant response.  bill w

On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 7:08 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On
> Behalf Of *John Clark
> *Subject:* Re: [ExI] Signal
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Looking at our energy future we have enough wind power, water power and
> solar installed that we can get some pretty good ideas about what they will
> produce and the environmental impacts of each.  Those three will all be
> players, but we can pretty easily see all three combined are unlikely to
> carry the load.  Anyone wish to dispute that conclusion?  I would like to
> be shown the error of my ways.
>
>
>
> Space-based solar might take off, and I hope it does, but we face some
> daunting challenges.
>
>
>
> If SBS does not work out and we assume optimistic models of renewable
> growth and oil availability, we still get to a foreseeable future in which
> coal and nuclear power are carrying muck or most of the load.  When that
> day comes, the USA will awaken from our slumber and realize we need to
> build nuke plants as fast as we can poke them into the ground.  Then we
> will realize that allowing Russia to gain control of those sources was a
> very bad idea indeed.  So I must ask, why did our State Department do that?
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> ​> ​>…California's electors will go to the Democratic candidate, with
> over 99% probability.
>
>
>
> ​>…there is a 93.5% probability that Clinton will win California and a
> 6.5% probability that Trump will
>
> ​ win​.  John k Clark ​
>
>
>
> Well sure, but the reasoning goes like this: if it is anywhere close in
> California, New York or Texas, then the non-owner of those states has
> already won by a landslide.  So if it is close in any of those three
> states, the outcome of those three states is already irrelevant. In those
> states, if your vote matters, it doesn’t matter.  But if it doesn’t matter
> in those states, it still doesn’t matter because you don’t live in one of
> the states where it does matter.
>
>
>
> Californians, New Yorkers, Texans, animals and proles are free.
>
>
>
> We can easily foresee bad things coming from either of the mainstream
> party candidates winning.  That tells me we should protect our ability to
> claim we voted against that candidate if we live in a free state.  Then we
> should work to remove from the president the ability to launch nukes.
> Reasoning: the constitution places the power to declare war on congress,
> not the executive branch.  Congress should collectively control the nukes.
>
>
>
> spike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160814/d020c881/attachment.html>