Posts made by Smacktard

@dezrtfish:

Read this slow so you can understand it better, when 60% of oil contracts are made by non consumers there is something broken.  That is artificial demand.
  http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8878

Hmm, their most popular story on that website is: "The launching of an outright war using nuclear warheads against Iran is now in the final planning stages. Coalition partners, which include the US, Israel and Turkey are in “an advanced stage of readiness”.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=mostPopular

That was written in 2006.

Its en vogue to blame oil cartels and speculators for the high price of oil, perhaps with help by the freemasons and illuminati. The real story is much more mundane: worries over Mideast, tight supplies, falling dollar, and growing demand from India/China. Do you know what speculators do? They bet on the price of oil. Right now its a winning bet that’s oils going to go up.

This isn’t because some execs in a smokefilled room got together and decided it to jack up the price. If that were true, why was gas ever cheap in the first place? It’s because of the reasons I just gave. I have friends that trade on the commidities markets (too volatile for me). They’re speculators too and they see where we’re headed.

No I didn’t, and no I wouldn’t.  I paid $5000 for my truck, 1) there are no electric cars that will do what I need. 2) If I have a $500 dollar car payment for a car that only uses $300 a month that is still more than the $600 I pay for gass now.  3) The money I am paying for gas is going primarily it seems to investors not AV researchers.

1. If gas is high enough, there eventually WILL BE electric vehicles that do what you need.

2. My point was the new car market. People will now pay thousands more for better fuel economy. They weren’t doing that two years ago. As gas goes up, MPG efficiency begins to trump everything else. Thus, higher gas prices lead to billions spent on R&D, like Toyota’s hydrogren fuel cell car and GM’s Volt.

3. The money you pay for gas goes to the gas station, refineries, and oil companies. Oil companies do not pump all the oil they sell. They buy it on the open market from OPEC and other countries. It’s then refined and sold. Exxon makes huge profits, but percentage wise, they’re right in line with other industries- they just happen to sell more of their product than every other company.

For the life of me I can’t see why people think inorder to get alternative fuels gas has to be expensive.  We certainly didn’t get out of the stone age because rocks got too expencive.  We left the stoneage because Bronze worked better.

We left the stoneage because it was much more efficient to kill someone and make tools with a sharpened piece of metal than a stone. That’s the story of human innovation: efficiency. You don’t see paddleboats because steam engines were incredibly inefficient, but MORE efficient than windpower or a galley full of slaves. They were the best thing around, but people were already trying to improve/replace them. The internal combustion engine is a marvel of efficiency, and Henry Ford would could easily look at a new car today and know what most of the parts do. But the efficiency of our cars is due mostly to the price of the fuel we put in it. Spending billions in R&D to develop an electric car that no one would buy didn’t make sense. Now it does.

If there was a 20k electric car it available even 5 years ago, you wouldn’t be able to keep them in stock.  If is gets 60mpg its not electric its a hybred, and 60mpg isn’t very good for a hybred anyway the VW TDI gets that.  Talk about ignorant, how many cars have you owned, how many car payments have you made? aparently everyone in the world should either ride a bicyle or pay a $500 car payment.  Are you realy so ignorant to believe that every american can aford to go finance a new car so that you can get a nice warm fuzzy feeling about the environment?

I really think you missed the point here.

Ah, I see, I should make myself uncomfortable for the polar bears.  Well don’t concern yourself too much with me being too comfortable in a few weeks I’ll be in Iraq doing my part to be uncomfortable.

Why do you think we’re in Iraq? By switching to electric and hydrogen (or developing our own reserves), we can give a nice big f**k you to the Mid East. Not everyone pushing for electric/fuel cells is a tree hugger.

And since you’re going to Iraq, doesn’t it bother you that you’re participating in “The Illegitimate and Disastrous U.S. Military Occupation of Iraq”?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9336

That website ring a bell?

But I saved the best for last:

“Global Gridlock: How the US Military-Industrial Complex Seeks to Contain and Control the Earth and Its Eco-System”

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8499

Aint bein a part of the ol US Military-Industrial Complex great? Maybe GlobalResearch is not the best source on the internet to use…

@Cmdr:

Exaggerating much:

The Dow fell as much as 313.79, or 2.66 percent, to 11,498.04, well under its 2008 trading low of 11,634.82, and its lowest level since September 2006.

http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/271679/18/

The Daily Herald, a major news publication, not a blog.

Also you report the 2000 record HIGH, which was in early January.  You are clearly omitting the FACT that just 3 months later the DOW dropped more than 600 points in a single day resting at 10,300

14 April 2000
Biggest points loss in history, with the Dow shedding 617.78 points or 5.66% to close at 10305.77

Far lower than today, far, FAR lower.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/145986.stm the BBC, hardly a blog, it is a major media outlet.

Further more, you are clearly twisting the tale to portray the message you want portrayed.  That’s fine, but the readers need to know you are utilizing yellow journalism tactics to make an economic commentary and that you are not portraying a true comparison of apples to apples.  You did, however, almost chose the value correctly for 12/31/2000, you were only off by 1000 points, it was actually 10,700 not 11,700 as you reported, and to be perfectly fair, we would have to wait until trading ended on 12/31/2008 to make a fair comparison between this year and 2000.

Dec 27, 2007 … John Prestbo is editor and executive director of Dow Jones … On 12/31/2000 the DOW was 10786.80

www.marketwatch.com/…/story.aspx?guid={C6A63CA3-DF20-4C03-957B-EC248D1342D8} - 161k -

Also interesting is that 2000 saw the first calender LOSS in DJIA since 1994, two losses in the same decade, but the people seem to have considered the 90’s a very good economic time regardless of the 6% drops in a single day AND the net loss of all assets twice in under a decade.

but the market seemed far worse because the Dow sustained its first calendar-year loss since 1994, falling 6.18%.

http://www.djindexes.com/mdsidx/index.cfm?event=showavgDecades&decade=2000
Dow Jones Indexes

In summation:

12/31/2000 the DJIA was 10,787
6/27/2008 the DJIA was 11,347
(Source: http://www.marketwatch.com)

Comparing those two years, the DJIA actually GREW, not LOST as the original post portends.  The actual growth is pathetic, but it was not a loss by any definition.  The actual GROWTH RATE was 560 points, but bear in mind, that’s only comparing the end of 2000 with the most recent date in 2008.  I’ve been unable to find the actual close amount for 6/27/2000.

It may be easier to find a figure on July 1st than June 27th from 2000 just due to the fact that nothing special happened that summer, it was very slow recovery from the MASSIVE financial damages of February, March and April and the year ended significantly below where it peaked on Jan 14th of that year.

Your link doesn’t even reference a DJIA chart. Mine does:

The DOW hit a peak in 2000 just shy of 12,000. It just closed at 11346 on Friday. A NET LOSS over the last 8 years, as Switch pointed out. Your inability to read a simple chart makes you either retarded or an idiot.

http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=djia&sid=1643&o_symb=djia&freq=2&time=13

If the North Pole ice melts, it will beat predictions by about 50 years or so. The loss of ice leads to less of an albedo, whice raises temperatures, which melts more ice…

@dezrtfish:

I agree that the ecconomy in general doesn’t seem that bad, but gas is rediculus.  I’m a conservative free market guy, but when speculators are buying up to 60% of the oil production and becoming a major cause of the inflated prices, there’s something wrong.

Why do you think speculators are buying up oil? Maybe they know something the rest of us already know: the dollar is in the toilet, demand for oil is going up, supplies are limited. It’s easy to blame speculation for the cost of oil, but the real problem is much more intractable.

I agree that we need fuel alternatives, but me paying $600 a month for gas isn’t making electric cars.

you just answered your own question. If an electric car cost you $300 a month, wouldn’t you buy it? Why do you think billions are being spend by GM and Toyota on electric and fuel cell cars? Do you think they would be doing this if gas were still at $1.50 a gallon?

For the life of me I can’t see why people think inorder to get alternative fuels gas has to be expensive.  We certainly didn’t get out of the stone age because rocks got too expencive.  We left the stoneage because Bronze worked better.

Altnerative fuels ONLY become practical when gas becomes expensive. Let’s imagine you’re trying to start a company and picthing an idea to some investors: I can make an electric car that costs $20,000 and gets 60 MPG. Probably not a hot idea when gas was $1.50. Now it’s a VERY GOOD investment with gas about to hit $5 a gallon. Are you really so ignorant that you don’t know that the high cost of a commodity spurs innovation? When’s the last time you saw a steam engine train or paddle boat?

I have a small pickup, I get ±25mpg and I paid $70 for friggen gas this morning.  But hey as long as we get electic cars my kids don’t need to eat this week, that’s cool.

If your financial situation is that desperate, you have only yourself to blame. I’m guessing you do like the rest of us: less road trips, cut back on non-essentials (latte, HBO, turn up the thermostat a couple degrees, etc.). Gas prices suck, but I’m not exactly looking at starvation in the face. Me thinks there’s a little hyperbole going on here…

I’d still rather have the economy we have now than the late 70’s early 80’s. Remeber odd and even days? But the warning signs are ominous.

I agree with you that gas prices should be higher (whether by market or govt intervention). Like a Saudia Arabian once said: “We didn’t move out of the Stone Age because we ran out of stones…”

" It seems unimaginable, but it is possible that for the first time in recorded history the North Pole will be free of ice this summer, according to a published report Friday."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,372542,00.html

Invest in shipping companies.

@HolKann:

Err, do you guys get how biofuels work? The only pollution coming out of them is by producing them, not using them. If it would cost us nothing to produce, it would be the ultimate recoverable energy source (except for the “less room for food”-part). CO2 isn’t produced by burning biofuels. As it isn’t “produced” by burning fossile fuels. This seems counter-intuitive, but let me explain it:

-warning long post without summary, but I did my best to keep it readable-

An easy-to-use form of energy is fuels (either fossile or bio). These fuels are carbohydrates, connections of carbon and hydrogen (C and H). These are the connections, when burned with oxygen (O2), that supply us with energy, resulting in carbo-oxydes (dunnow the right English word) (like CO2) and hydro-oxydes (like water: H2O).

How did these fuels develop? Both fossile and bio developed the same way: Plants take CO2 from the air, H2O from the ground and energy from the sun’s light. They combine these elements to form the C and H connections we use. As you can see, the circle is round: CO2 is removed from air by growing plants, CO2 gets back to air by humanity burning plants. (Solar) Energy is captured by plants, energy is used by humanity. And as everyone knows, both fossile and biofuels are made of plants.

So burning both fossile and bio fuels is like putting CO2 back where it belongs: in the air, ready for new plants to grow. Why is burning fossile (bio: see later) fuels bad for our environment then? Because it has to do with the time-scale: all the CO2 in fossile fuels is gathered over millions of years, and didn’t get back in the atmosphere. The atmosphere found a balance of it’s own, not needing the CO2 from all these plants. Now we are burning all these plants (under the form of oil), and putting this incredible amount of CO2 back in the atmosphere, with global warming as a result. Which ofcourse is bad  :-(

Why is burning biofuels not bad (in theory)? Because it takes the CO2 we have in our atmosphere TODAY (as opposed to fossile fuels containing CO2 from millions of years ago) to grow these fuels. So all of the CO2 produced by burning biofuels, was removed from our atmosphere whilst growing biofuels. So the net gain of CO2 in our atmosphere by growing and burning biofuels is 0 seen on a timescale of a couple of months! It doesn’t matter how much CO2 biofuels produce when burned, because that’s also the amount they took from the atmosphere whilst being produced some months before. Which clearly is not bad  :-)

This is why some years ago governments started supporting biofuels: it is better for the environment when done right. Nowadays, problems have become clear: extra high food prices, burning of rainforests to make way for biofuelcrops, too much energy invested in growing the biofuelcrops, extra chemicals needed to grow the crops etc. Nonetheless, there are ways to make good use of biofuels bypassing most of these problems, so don’t give biofuels the bad name it doesn’t deserve. But as with all things, theory is only the first step towards reality…

@Smacktard:

There’s no doubt that current biofuels are more pollutive, even if the fuel itself is LESS pollutive, because WE have to make the biofuels. In the case of oil, nature’s already done the dirty work for us, over millions of years. All we need to do is get it out of the ground, which is ridiculously easy to do in the Middle East.

I’m sorry, but current biofuels are less pollutive (in terms of CO2) when done right (this is when grown in places with enough sun/water/…, where no forests needed to be burned down, and when the resulting fuels aren’t transported to the other end of the world. Unfortunately, these are also the ideal circumstances to grow food…).

That’s a good point, and, as a rule of thumb, we probably shouldn’t be massively releasing CO2 that’s been stored in the earth over millions of years, but…

Do you live near an agricultural area? I live about 45 miles from Bakersfield, CA. I can tell you that farming is very energy intensive, involving all sorts of exhuast spewing machines: Tractors, migrant farm workers riding around on ATV’s, planes (not all the time, but there still is crop dusting going on), harvesters, and whatever machines they use to turn corn into a refinable product. Not to mention all the chemicals that go into modern-day farming (Bakersfield has a rather peculiar smell, when the wind blows right). Even though the end product has a net CO2 value of zero, developing it is another story.

"THE RESULTS  Both studies found that changes in land use related to biofuel production would be a significant source of greenhouse gases in the future. Fargione reported that, overall, biofuels would cause higher total emissions for tens to hundreds of years. Some ecosystems had surprisingly high emissions—grasslands in the United States converted to corn farms would increase carbon dioxide for 93 years.

Searchinger’s outlook is bleaker: He estimates that the rise in corn-based ethanol production in the United States would increase greenhouse gases, relative to what our current, fossil-fuel-based economy produces, for 167 years.

THE MEANING  “Any biofuel that causes clearing of natural ecosystems is likely to increase global warming,” Fargione says. But not all bio­fuels are alike. For one, sugarcane ethanol, produced in Brazil, stands out to both researchers as the most efficient source studied, in terms of emissions. As long as there is land conversion, though, biofuels do not diminish carbon dioxide emissions. Biofuels made from sources that do not require land conversion, such as corn stover (the parts of corn plants left over after the ears are harvested), animal waste, damaged trees, algae, and food waste are promising alternatives.

STATS BEHIND THE STUDY
• Plants and soils contain almost three times as much carbon as the atmosphere.
• About 20 percent of total current carbon emissions comes from land-use change.
• In 2004, 74 million acres of U.S. land were devoted to corn for livestock feed as well as food crops. By 2016 about 43 percent of that area will be used to harvest corn for ethanol.
• 27 percent of new palm oil plantations in Indonesia are created on land that began as tropical rain forest; 1.5 percent of these lands are being deforested each year.
• In 2006 the United States produced 250 million gallons of biodiesel. Total production capacity is already 1.4 billion gallons a year and is expected to more than double with new plants and expansion of existing ones.
• 2006 ethanol capacity was 4.4 billion gallons, with an expected increase of 2.1 billion gallons with current construction and expansion projects.
• U.S. gasoline consumption is 389 million gallons per day, or about 142 billion gallons per year."

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/may/03-biofuel-farming-looks-to-be-an-environmental-disaster

And that study didn’t even go into the pollution of biofuel production- it was strictly based on land change-over.

http://www.ewg.org/factsheets/cornethanol

Just some info on how damaging to the environment corn is.

@stuka:

That chart ONLY looks at the waste products of the material after it is burned.

Which is where the majority of pollution comes from.

Not in the case of current biofuels. How much energy do you really think an oil derrick uses? But in the case of biofuels, there is a massive energy investment: preparing the soil, irrigation and maintenance of the crop, harvesting, and then turning the corn into something you can refine. For the time and energy needed to grow one acre of corn, that oil derrick is just pumping away, drawing thousands of barrels of oil out of the ground.

There’s no doubt that current biofuels are more pollutive, even if the fuel itself is LESS pollutive, because WE have to make the biofuels. In the case of oil, nature’s already done the dirty work for us, over millions of years. All we need to do is get it out of the ground, which is ridiculously easy to do in the Middle East.

Even though the current policy is a failure, theres a chance it might lead to an innovation in next-generation biofuels, which would extract oil from food crop leftovers.

In fact, it is doing more damage than atomic and nuclear weapons have done throughout history, and I include Chernobyl the nuclear plant that melted down in Russia.  (Scientists are amazed at how well nature recovered in these areas and how fast, filmatleven.)

:roll: Someone was hitting the Vodka when they typed that.

Consumer Reports just had a huge article on this as well in conjunction with the new mileage standards on hybrids and why their mileage ratings dropped between 10-30% into more realistic numbers. (The focus of that article was more on the damage caused to the environment by producing the batteries, but they also covered why pure ethanol gas stations and other biofuel stations are not found on every street corner.)

I have a subsription to CR and I didn’t see anything like this, nor would I expect to. CR is an indepedently run ratings agency for consumers. You go there to find out what kind of flat screen to buy or how sucky Kias still are, not whether biofuels are cost-effective or energy efficient.

Try to avoid sites sponsored or supported by The Seirra Club.  It’s a propaganda machine and they have an agenda which is to scare us into buying into these off the wall ideas which they sell to the politicians who in turn send contracts their way to buy them.  In other words, they are in the business of environment “enhancement.”

There are plenty of online reputable sources to make a point with. If you can’t find any, the point you’re making is probably no good.

@Jermofoot:

@Cmdr:

And bio-fuel has not been proved to be any better for the environment in regards to CO2.  However, it has been shown to cause significantly more damage to the environment in other chemicals and compounds as well as being extremely unstable (which is why it has to be trucked, not piped like regular fuel.)

I have no idea on your claim of trucking.  Or the more damage part.  What would that be exactly?

And the price of oil is all speculation.  People “think” the market is bad because the media’s been telling us the market is “bad” for the past decade.  As soon as people realize they were lied too, oil prices (and gold and all the other commodities which are currently insanely too high in value to be supported) will plummet in a Commodity Bubble Burst.

Uh…you are blaming prices on the media?  Seriously? People complain about the price of oil, not the market, which is doing very well for itself.

Neither has, or should have, anything to do with politics.  Both have everything to do with the media conglomerates creating yellow journalism to bolster sales to increase profit just like they did during the Spanish American War and other times in World History.  Remember, the media is in the business of making the news!  If there is no news, there is no media!!!  (The same can be said about commentators, disc jockeys, clowns, etc.  All out to make a profit.)

Wow.  And how exactly does the media benefit from your conspiracy? And prices of food and oil have EVERYTHING to do with politics.

@Amon:

but, personally i see a link between the two issues( food and oil), and not just some marginal one.

In the US, food prices are increasing for a variety of reasons, but one of them is that hardly anyone eats locally.  As gas prices go up, so do the costs of shipping your food.

Jermo, I don’t think your chart takes into account the energy costs that go into creating/extracting biofuels/oils. The energy needed to grow and harvest an acre of corn for biofuel use is going to be much greater than the energy needed to extract a like number of barells of  crude. In some places in the Middle East, it literally bubbles to the surface.

That being said, we need to be develping technology that efficiently makes use of the lleftovers of crops (corn husks, etc.)

Even if oil were priced in non-dollars, it would be expensive, for some of the reasons already listed:
1. Demand for light sweet crude soon to outpace supply, and not enough new fields to satisfy future demand. That’s why speculators are driving up the price somewhat- they can see the writing on the wall.
2. Instability in countries where cheap crude is found.

As China and India continue to modernize, OPEC will have their hands full just meeting world demand. There’s only so much easily pumped crude in the ground, and we’ve probably reached peak oil and are on the downward slope.

That’s not to say we’ll run out of oil. Canada has billions of barrells in its tar-sands, and the U.S. has over a trillion in shale rock. But getting oil out of tar sand or shale is energy intensive, expsneive, and hell on the environment (60 gallons of cruse for every TON of shale rock). The days of cheap oil are over, but maybe thats a good thing. America was an oil EXPORTER up until the 60’s. If we innovate and find ways to get oil out of shale more efficiently, we can become an exporter again, which would give us HUGE leverage over China.

But that’s not going to happen if we artificially manipulate gas prices just to keep American consumers happy.

@ncscswitch:

No matter what we as Mods have done, some members have sought to take it and expand the discussion beyond what was permitted.

Among the issues that we as Mods have to contend with are such factors as:
1.  Legal restrictions

What legal issues are involved in politiical discussion?  :?

2.  Server Host TOS

What, Simple Machine Forums? It would be news to me that they banned political discussion.

3.  The fact that minor children are members and guests of this site

Then put a password on a political discussion forum. And do you reallu think a minor will care about a heated Bush vs. Clinton discussion? Even back when we had the PD board, I never remember anyone cussing anyone else out. It was always “liberal” this and “conservative” that.

As a result, the Site Owner has determined that the site shall be non-political and somewhere between PG and PG13.

If that’s what owner wants, OK, but your other reasons are a little strange.

Why not just make an “anything goes” section? We’re all adults here, no? The paranoia the mods have over anything remoptely contentious reminds me of a hippie lovein.

Is it Too political to talk about whether we should tax companies for making too much money?

@cystic:

To the original topic - consider your goals, and then develop the plan to address those goals.  NOT setting a goal is simply setting a bad goal.  Saying “be wealthy” or “be happy” as a goal - IS a goal. 
It is very difficult to attain these last two goals without an appropriate education.

Lincoln has a great quote: “people are as happy as they let themselves be”. I’ve known plenty of college drop-outs who were perfectly happy being cops, mechanics, electricians, etc. Formal education just wasnt for them. Doesnt mean they’re any less happy because theyre driving a Honda instead of a Lexus. Maybe M36 is perfcetly happy being a grunt. Maybe serving his country is his idea of bliss. He’ll never get rich from it, but so what? Do what you love, even if its toting around an M16 in some shithole like Iraq.

because although i am working my a** off now, i am building an amazing house, i’ve got a great car, i’ve got the most amazing wife, and i’m taking 4 people that i love to Orlando soon.  I can take a day off whenever i need/want, and yet i expect to retire in my early-50’s as a multi-millionaire.

My wife’s father was a bit like this. Very prominent tax attorney here in the states. Worked very hard, even argued a few cases in front of the Supreme Court. Married a Circuit Court of Appeals judge. He was worth a couple million by the time he flew his Cessna into a mountain on a clear blue day. Maybe it was an accdient, but he was a fighter pilot in Korea and knew his way around planes. She thinks he killed himself. What she thinks happened is that he had this IDEA that money, status, and things would make him happy (this is a very powerful idea in America, and is what drives our economy, in fact). So when he got those things, and still wasn’t happy, it was like, what can I do now?

I’m not saying you’re like that my father-in-law, but basing happiness on a nice house, great car, and loads of cash, can ultimately leave you unfulfilled.

Now if pumping gas is your idea of a great time, then drop out of school RIGHT NOW!!  Who knows - you could even aspire to be a waiter or a retail worker!

This is elitist crap. My brother-in-law was never happier than when he was working as a checker at Albertsons, making like $30K a year. Very much a people person. Then he got a job that paid twice as much working as a prison guard. He now makes $90,000+ a year working as a Probationary Officer and hates every minute of it. I ask him why he doesn’t go back to checking, but he’d have to sell his house, and his car. He’s become emotionally invested in this idea that money will make him happy.

You don’t have to be a doctor or lawyer to be happy. Its all your attitude. Why do you think there’s so much suicide, divorse, and substance abuse among the rich and famous? Don’t they have everything you listed? Car, house, money, vacations?

Here’s a good article:

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/invest/forbes/P95294.asp

“Surveys have found virtually the same level of happiness between the very rich individuals on the Forbes 400 and the Maasai herdsman of East Africa. Lottery winners return to their previous level of happiness after five years. Increases in income just don’t seem to make people happier – and most negative life experiences likewise have only a small impact on long-term satisfaction.”

One last: Jen made the point that to almost win is the same as losing. Not true. For example, if I punch someone in the face repeatedly, and ALMOST knock him out, did I somehow lose the fight? Meade’s forces were defeated on the first day… Meade was punched repeatedly on the 2nd, but stayed on his feet… Lee thought he could land the knock-out blow with Pickett, and failed.

That is basically Gettysberg, in one paragraph.

Edit:

Just to extend the metaphore further, Gettysberg was like a three-round fight:

Round 1: Lee cautiously approaches Meade. Lee lands several devastating blows. Meade staggers. Lee continues pummelling Meade, but Meade is saved by the bell. Meade retreats to his corner and regroups.
Lee wins the round.

Round 2: Meade assumes a defensive stance. Lee pummels Meade the entire round, opening up several cuts. Meade reels, staggers, drops to the ground twice, but Lee misses several knockout blows. Meade counters and bloodies Lee.
Lee narrowly wins the round on points.

Round 3: Meade keeps his defensive stance, knows Lee will go for the knockout blow to the center. Lee begins the round with a weak attack that Meade easily counters. Lee and Meade circle each other warily. Lee, unaware he is ahead on points, throws one last desperate haymaker. Meade guards his center. Lee breaks his hand on Meade’s forearm. Meade, barely conscious, has a chance to finish the fight, but is too battered, bruised and bloodied to do anything but wait for the bell.

Lee is unable to continue the fight. Meade wins a TKO.

Edited cause I like boxing.

You “note”? Here are some actual QUOTES from Foote (who NEVER considers the idea Lee ordered Pickett’s charge out of any other motive other than VICTORY).

On Meade:

"One more item concerned Lee, though few of his lieutenants agreed that it should be so. They were saying that Meade was about as able a general as Hooker, but considerably less bold, and they were exchanging congratulations on Lincoln’s appointment of another mediocre opponent for them. Lee, who had known the Pennsylvanian as a fellow engineer in the old army, did not agree. “General Meade will commit no blunder on my front," he said, "and if I make one he will make haste to take advantage of it.”

Day 1:

“The Federals were retreating pell-mell into the streets of Gettysburg, already jammed with other blue troops pouring down from the north, under pressure from Ewell, as into a funnel whose spout extended south.”

“These two hills, their summits a hundred feet above the town, which in turn was about half that far below the crest of Seminary Ridge, afforded the enemy a strong position — indeed, a natural fortess — on which to rally his whipped and panicky troops”

“Moreover, both of these reasons for continuing the offensive were merely adjunctive to Lee’s natural inclination, here as elsewhere, now as always, to keep a beaten opponent under pressure, adn thus off balance, just as long as his own troops had wind and strength enough to put one foot in front of the other.
        - The Federals are driven from Seminary Ridge”

Day Two:

“And yet, in light of the fact that each of the three attacking divisions in turn had come close to carrying the day, there was more to it than that. Specifically, there was Warren and there was Hancock, both of whom had served their commander in a way that none of Lee’s chief lieutenants had served him.”

http://homepage.eircom.net/%257Eodyssey/Quotes/History/Shelby_Foote_2.html#2-4

Odd, how Foote’s actual quotes dovetail with Catton. Both admit the federals were routed on day 1, both admit Lee had come very close on day two, and (though Foote doesn’t specifically mention Ewell), both talk about the strengths of certain Union officers (Chamberlain, Hancock, Warren), and the weaknesses of others (Ewell, Sickles).

Now, as Drzt says, maybe we can put this to rest? What turned into an interestikng hypothetical has become an exercise in fanaticism and futility.

I think I can succintly sum it up: You can either believe a Pullitzer prize winning author of more than a dozen civil war books… or Jen.

M36, did you get a sense of history of the place? Ive always wanted to tour some of the battlegrounds but something always comes up.

I’ll quote from Bruce Catton’s “Never Call Retreat” (my favorite volume (first edition). My dad has the other two at his house).

Day 1:

pg. 183
“by half past three or thereabouts the survivors of the two defeated Federal Corps were going helter-skelter back through Gettysburg to take refuge on the high ground South of town, where Howard has posted a brigade of infantry and some artillery to stem the rout.”

“In killed, wounded, and capotured, the Federals had lost 9000 men, half of all they had put into action; the Confederates, with substantial losses of their own, had swept the field, and this first encounter had been a smashing victory for General Lee.”

Day 2:
pg. 185

“The army of Northern Virgina tried to storm Little Round top, fought in a gloomy valley, swept across the Emmitsberg Road, wrecking Sickel’s III Corps, mangling the V Corps of George Sykes, and each time it came within an inch of success but had to fall back before that final inch could be gained.”

Day 3:

186
“So there was only one card left to play, and it was plkayed so magnificently that it is not always easy to see that it probably was a losing card all along”

That’s from someone whose forgotten more Civil War history than any of us will ever know.

@Cmdr:

I apologize, I did accidentally replace the names of the two Cavalry commanders.  I am sure that Brigadier General John Buford was spinning in his grave being mistaken for Major General JEB Stuart.

For that I apologize.  However, your condescending attitude about a simple mistake of using the wrong name only proves your position has no strength of its own and relies on attacks on the character of other conversation participants, Mr.  Smacky.

it was quite a gaffe, and I think rather telling.

Now, with that said, here’s how I see Gettysburg going down.

2)  General Buford, realizing that there were 12 major roads passing through Gettysburg, and realizing that the Army of Northern Virginia (here-after referred to as ANV) would have extremely good positioning if he allowed them to pass and waited for General Mead (who was commonly seen as a man who would be patient and move slowely so as to not over extend himself) and that Gettysburg could mean the difference between stopping the AVN or not; put up a scrap (fight.)

Buford had no idea what he was fighting against. The union had only the vaguest idea of Lee’s position. Lee had abolutely no idea where Meade even was. Heth had sent two brigades into Gettysberg. That’s ALL Buford had. He held Heth off for about an hour, then he  found himself up against an entire division and fell back. Reynolds arrived and was promptly killed.

The confederates, through sheer luck, were able to get more men into the fight, and the Union withdrew to the hills. Ewell was in an excellent position to take the heights, but hesitated because he had lost a leg and just assumed command of Stonewall’s old Corps.

Meade was a very competent general (Grant kept him on throughout the entire war), and shored up his position, wisely preferring to let Lee come to him. If Sickles hadn’t fucked up the entire line, the 2nd day would have gone disastrously for Lee.

3)  General Heth, assuming he was attacking local militia, directed two brigades forward (under Gen. Archer and Davis), however he miscalculated, he was actually attacking dismounted cavalry who were soon supported by 1st Corps.

Heth caused the Union to abandon the town, and just as soon as he was exhausted, Pender’s division rode up and attacked. The Union was in full retreat, and took a defensive position at cemetary Hill and Seminary Ridge. Ewell could have stormed the heights but didn;t.

4)  Gen. Buford’s tactics won The Army of the Potomac (hereafter referred to as AP) the strong defensive positions.

Luck (and Ewell’s temerity) got them the position.

Thus, I say that General Lee’s army lost on Day 1.  They failed to achieve their primary objectives (getting the shoes)

LOL, so Lee’s primary objective was to get shoes? He was there to compell Meade’s army to battle, and destory it.

Day 2:

1)  With the strong positions on Culp’s Hill, Cemetary Ridge and both Round Tops (Round Top and Little Round Top) dugin and defended with artillery batteries and infantry units; the AP deserted the less secure Gettysburg city for the stronger positions to the south of Gettysburg.

Dug in? LOL, Little Round Top was defended by a Signal Corps. Both sides saw the danger/oppurtunity. There was a race to take it, Chamberlain got there with about ten minutes time to spread out his unit and dig in.

Meanwhile, Sickles (an idiot who got his commission through politics) rode out ahead of everyone, and got his a** handed to him. Give him this though: he took the loss of his leg well, and donated it to a museum later. I think it’s still there.

2)  Lee, smelling victory, directed General Longstreet’s First Corps to attack Little Round Top where he could roll up the APs “Fish Hook” emplacements.  Unfortunately, General Stuart’s cavalry was not present to give Lee accurate intelligence, and this allowed the 20th Maine, under the direct command of Colonel Chamberlain, as well as the defense of the Peach Orchard sent General Longstreets divisions reeling.

Longstreet’s problem was he got lost. If he’d taken the right road, he would have been in a much better position to attack the Union’s flank. Longstreet hardly went “reeling”. The Peach Orchard was abandonded after Sickels was attacked on all three sides.

It should be noted that in this engagement it was Union Commanders such as Colonel Chamberlain, who lead bayonet charges against superior numbers, that allowed the AP to destroy Caldwell’s Division, Anderson’s division, and many other of Lee’s armies.

Highly doubtful. Chamberlain was in command of about 500 men. And as I showed before, both sides suffered similar casualties BEFORE Pickett’s charge. None of Lee’s divisions were “destroyed”.

Meanwhile, the Union, having the defensive advantage, the strong defensive positions, and good internal lines, was able to switch out units as needed to keep the ground.

So it is, on Day 2, after the Peach Orchard Battle, the Battle of Little Round Top, the Plum Run Valley (“Valley of Death”) and other scirmishes along the Union lines, and with the retreat of Gen. Lee without gain, that I award day 2 to the Union.

Except that there was a whole nother attack going on against Hancock’s line. Ewell again delayed and the attack didn’t begin until 4. The confederates broke through in some spots, but it was too late to exploit anything.

Ewell has a great quote about Gettysberg: “It took a lot of mistakes to lose Gettysberg, and I made most of them”. You have to admire people who were willing to accept responsbility for failure.

The Union held there position due to several factors:
1. Meade recognized the value of good defensive terrain
2. Longstreet got lost
3. Ewell lost his nerve (again)
4. Chamberlain had been born

Lee had come SO close attacking the flanks, the only thing left was to either retreat to fight another day (hard to do since the Confedrates were foraging from the countryside and were far away from their base of supply), or attack the center.

Now.  After being bested twice in a row, not having achieved your objectives and not destroying your enemy.  With your enemy in control of the best defensive positions on the field and with you attacking from the worst possible angle.  With your general staff advising against your attack plan for day 3, your common sense as an experienced field commander telling you the battle is lost, why would General Lee order a suicide run with 3 divisions through an open field (a LARGE open field, it was over a mile from the tree line to the top of the ridge), over a picket fence which was sure to disrupt your formations and slow your infantry advance; against every gun the Union had in the region first firing concussive rounds and later firing grape shot?

1. Lee WON the first day. The Union was in full retreat to the hills. It wasn’t a tactical decision. They got their asses kicked in the town itself. The hills were the only place left to go.
2. Lee’s general staff supported Lee. Picket was raring to go. Only Longstreet was adamantly opposed.
3. Lee had done a MUCH MORE daring attack at Chanclersville, seperating his smaller army into two smaller pieces. A capable general would have destroyed Lee. Lee had Jackson, and Fortunately, for Lee, Hooker had been in charge. The confederates had also won at 2nd Manassas, forced McCellan to abandon the Peninsula Campaign, won Frederickberg, tied at Antietam (DESPITE having their battlke plans fall into McClellan’s hands). All against long odds.

Lee’s mistake was in believing that Meade was like all the other commanders he had bested. He finally ran up against a good commander with an excellent general (Hancock) in his command. Lee might still have done it (as someone else poiinted out), but his artillery barrage overshot the union lines.

By the way, this was the mistake quite a few competent generals made in WWI. They believed that massive artillery barrages would pave the way for massed infantry assaults. Doesn’t work that way- the defenders just burrowed deeper, waited for the guns to fall silent, and mowed down the attackers. Tactics almost always lag behind technology. Guderian was probably the best general in history to RECOGNIZE, in THEORY, what the power of artillery, the tank, infantry, and plane could do, in combination.

The only two options I have to chose from are:

1)  Lee lost his mind and suffered from temporary insanity after having to admit he lost a battle for the first time in the war.

2)  Lee sabotaged his own army for reasons personal to him, but which I will speculate relate to his desire to end the war to save further punishment on his home state of Virginia (who was suffering greatly as the AP roamed about pillaging and destroying.)

Start with Sharra (Killer Angels), then read Foote and Catton for more indepth history. You will soon abandon this ridiculous theory.

I’ve already asked you politely, if you want to shorten my name, Smack will do.

But we can avoid all that, if you do what I already asked you nicely to do.  :-)

Lee got stopped by General Stuart’s dismounted cavalry on day one.

ROFL. General Stuart? Lee’s own cavalry commander? Who wasn’t even there the first day? And there we have it, ladies and gentlemen. Lee was counterattacked by his own cavalry. Is it any wonder he sent his own division to the slaughter?

Do I even need to go on? Well done, Jen. Well done indeed!