View Poll Results: Who did you vote for?

Voters
77. You may not vote on this poll
  • George W. Bush

    38 49.35%
  • Al Gore

    23 29.87%
  • Ralph Nadar (you sicken me)

    12 15.58%
  • Pat Buchanon (did you vote for him on purpose?)

    0 0%
  • Other

    4 5.19%
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 94
  1. #61  
    It's cool.

    We could complain about the price of stamps going up again because the regulatory agency is allowing yet another increase in July.

    We have definitely gotten off topic but at least we are in the correct thread for it.

    We will not solve the world problems here but at least we can vent out our frustrations in a civil manner compared to doing so with guns, clubs or other painful devices.
    Moose Man
    Welcome my son, welcome to the machine.
    iPhone 3G, Treo 750, 680, 650, 600 and T5, T3, T, M515, M505, Vx, V, Prizm, Visor, IIIc, IIIe, Palm Pilot Professional, Palm Pilot (ok boys and girls a whopping 128k of memory - those were the days) and former Palm Beta tester.
  2. #62  
    Originally posted by homer
    Destroying one of the last great natural spaces on this planet so we can get a few barrels of oil? How is that a good thing?

    There are better solutions.

    How about fuel efficient cars?

    How about better mass-transit?

    Why are we a country dependant on oil in the first place? If we're the most technologically advanced country in the world how come we can't figure this one out?
    I agree with you on this one. I dislike having to pay over $2/gallon when one of my jobs is driving 500 mi/week. I'm always looking for a more fuel efficient car. The problem is that some of the most fuel efficient cars are some of the worse to drive. It's all about priorities, and ours suck right now. That said,

    Alaska should NEVER be touched. EVER!

    But convince me that the tax cut is something we need first.
    Can't. But I can say that some national debt isn't a threat to the economy, nor a real threat to the government. I think it's too high, but national debt isn't a "bad" thing.



    What was wrong with the treaty? It would cost us a few bucks to clean ourselve up? Sad.
    Actually, it was axed because the U.S. as a country has an impressively low pollution rate when compared with the other industrialized nations. The attitude on Capitol Hill was more along the lines of "What the hell good is dropping the U.S.'s CO2 output a couple of tenths of a percent when Russia/China/etc. aren't doing anything?" Good point, really. We're not giving up on the environment, we're making the statement that a treaty isn't worth the paper it was written on if some countries aren't going to abide by it.


    Why do we tolerate any arsenic in our water?
    Because it is impossible to remove all arsenic from the ground water. The amount of arsenic in the ground water is already impressively low. Going lower looks nice on paper, but may have no real physiological benefits. Why **** away a boatload of money to reduce something that may have absolutely no effect? Why not use that money somewhere else – like curing our oil addiction? You mentioned the need to budget our money, this is one area where we need to do that. We need to see how many people have suffered because of the arsenic levels in the ground water, how low the arsenic level would have to be so they wouldn't suffer, and then decide if it's at all possible to get the levels that low.

    Ok, I concede that the above issues are much more complicated, but it frightens me that as a society, we put money above all else. All of the above issues (pollution, oil dependence, arsenic, etc...) could easily be resolved if we weren't so damn greedy.
    Some yes, some no. Our love of the telephone and the automobile are due in large part to our fairly low population density. There aren't nearly the number of people that are going the same place we are (specifically in rural America) as there is in China, Japan, India, etc..
    Last edited by dick-richardson; 05/11/2001 at 01:49 AM.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  3. #63  
    Who said anything about destroying Alaska? We are talking about drilling a couple of wells, not dropping a nuke on the state.

    Have any of you guys been to Alaska? I have - not the ANWR, but to the State. It's flipping huge. ANWR is, by all accounts, huge. Drilling for oil in ANWR will not "destroy" the refuge. That's a scare tactic put out by the readical environmentalists. If I thought it would, I wouldn't support it.

    A couple of folks have rather cavallierly dismissed the importance of a tax cut, of higher gas prices, etc. It does matter to a lot of people. If you are a family of four making $40k a year, getting to keep a couple of grand of your own money is a real benefit. Having to pay drasticaly higher gas prices is a real detriment.

    In any event, the question I was answering was whether Bush has been successful. For a president (or any other politician) success is measured by whether he has made steps towards keeping his campaign promises. If he has, he's a success. You may think that's a bad thing on the merits, but that wasn't the question.

    I agree we need to have more fuel efficient cars. I agree mass transit is a nice idea - but not necessarilly practical for all localities. However, think about what we are doing now - flapping our gums (metaphorically speaking) on our computers which are greedilly slurping power. If conservation is the answer, the only answer, we should all log off.

    We aren't going to do that, which is why we need to also look at increased production.
  4. #64  
    Originally posted by VTL
    In any event, the question I was answering was whether Bush has been successful. For a president (or any other politician) success is measured by whether he has made steps towards keeping his campaign promises. If he has, he's a success. You may think that's a bad thing on the merits, but that wasn't the question.
    But the beauty of an internet forum such as this is that people aren't just answering your question.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  5. #65  
    Originally posted by homer
    Well, I've been unhappy with his environmental stance completely. Alaska should not be touched...ever...
    Why not? One of the congressmen from Alaska seems to be under the impression that the majority of his constituents _want_ drilling.

    and we should be putting some money into alternative energy sources.
    Why don't you wait until the full release of the energy policy before assuming that we're not going to be? From what I've heard, there will likely be some tax breaks for people who use alternate energy sources like solar.

    I'm also appalled at the whole 'let's put guns into space' program he's trying to push.
    I'm more appalled by the media's portrayal of this when that decision hasn't even been made yet. It seems to me that it's only under consideration.

    That said, it is easier to point out someone's faults than it is to see their good traits.
    That depends on one's outlook on things.

    I'm mixed on the tax cuts.
    Me too. Sometimes I think it needs to be bigger. Sometimes I think that it needs to be _reeeealllly_ bigger.

    I think we do need tax cuts, but I think we need to better budget the money we have BEFORE we start shrinking the bank.
    Shrinking the bank seems to be the only likely way to get Congress to better budget the money they take from us.

    I also think that any surplus should first and foremost go towards paying off the national debt.
    You do realize that we'll never completely pay off the national debt because portions of it are rotating things like Savings Bonds and whatnot, right?

    As for good things he's done...well I'm short of ideas...someone help me out!
    I think it's a bit early to start deciding on good or bad. He did start out 36 days in the hole for preparation, after all. I think he's done less poorly than Gore would have done according to my worldview (although I still think that he should be _shrinking_ government instead of reducing its amount of expansion).
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  6. #66  
    Originally posted by homer
    Destroying one of the last great natural spaces on this planet so we can get a few barrels of oil? How is that a good thing?
    You're buying into too much hype and spin here.

    There are better solutions.

    How about fuel efficient cars?

    How about better mass-transit?
    How about turning off your computer? What's your thermostat set at? How many lights are on in your house right now?

    Why are we a country dependant on oil in the first place?
    3 words: Three Mile Island.

    If we're the most technologically advanced country in the world how come we can't figure this one out?
    It has nothing to do with ability. It has to do with the political, economic, and technological ramifications of the other solutions.

    But convince me that the tax cut is something we need first.
    Don't have to. 3 more words: not their money.

    What was wrong with the treaty? It would cost us a few bucks to clean ourselve up? Sad.
    At the expense of others not having to abide by the same restrictions? No thank you.

    Why do we tolerate any arsenic in our water?
    Because it's in the ground water already, and removing all of it would probably make water prohibitively expensive?

    Ok, I concede that the above issues are much more complicated, but it frightens me that as a society, we put money above all else.
    Nah...as a society, we put 'the children' above all else, even when the issue has nothing to do with 'the children'.

    All of the above issues (pollution, oil dependence, arsenic, etc...) could easily be resolved if we weren't so damn greedy.
    'Do it _for_the_children_!'

    Is that bush's fault? Of course not. He just doesn't seem to be doing a whole lot to change that situation.
    Exactly what do you think he can do about it? If 'The President That Cared®' couldn't change 'our hearts and minds', what do you think Bush could do differently? We need a guy like Harry Browne or Walter Williams in the White House to straighten this mess out.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  7. #67  
    Originally posted by homer
    I'd like to ask who really cares if the gas price goes up?
    You should. How do you think everything you buy gets to the place you buy it from?

    Of course, no one likes paying higher prices for anything, but I guess I can accept the price of gas being whatever it is.
    What about the price of all of the other goods you buy going up because transportation costs have gone up? What about the impact that this will have on the economy?

    The higher it goes, hopefully the less I'll be inclined to drive my car around. Maybe I'll get in shape and use that bike for once.
    Or maybe you'll lose your job and won't have to worry about going anywhere.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  8. #68  
    Originally posted by ****-richardson
    Alaska should NEVER be touched. EVER!
    Why not?

    Can't. But I can say that some national debt isn't a threat to the economy, nor a real threat to the government. I think it's too high, but national debt isn't a "bad" thing.
    Especially if one invests in 'government securities'.

    Actually, it was axed because the U.S. as a country has an impressively low pollution rate when compared with the other industrialized nations.
    Source? According to all the kyotophiles, the U.S. is the worst polluter on the planet.

    The attitude on Capitol Hill was more along the lines of "What the hell good is dropping the U.S.'s CO2 output a couple of tenths of a percent when Russia/China/etc. aren't doing anything?" Good point, really. We're not giving up on the environment, we're making the statement that a treaty isn't worth the paper it was written on if some countries aren't going to abide by it.
    Actually, it's not that they won't abide by it. It's that the treaty doesn't restrict them the same way as it does 'first-world' nations.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  9. #69  
    I have to say that my biggest pet peeve is the national hysteria over gas prices. The fact is that gas prices today, adjusted for inflation, are LOWER than they were in 1950, 1960, 1970 and in 1980. On top of that, even with the proponderance of SUVs on the road, average gas mileage today is significantly higher today than it has ever been. As a result, the average driver today spends a smaller percentage of his or her income on gasoline than they did for the vast majority of the past 50 years.
  10. #70  
    You're buying into too much hype and spin here.
    This is a personal belief of mine. There are very few places on this planet that are relatively untouched by humans. I think, as a planet, we need to respect those areas and preserve them as best we can.

    There's a great quote (buddhist?) that I can not remember where it came from, but it was "we did not inherit this planet from our parents. We are borrowing it from our children".

    I think we loose site of that. We are always looking at the short term...never the long-term.

    How about turning off your computer?
    I'd rather telecommute that drive an oil burning car.

    What's your thermostat set at?
    68 all winter.

    How many lights are on in your house right now?
    Zero.

    3 words: Three Mile Island.
    Nuclear power has a MUCH better safety record than coal and oil. If we'd put as much time, money, and energy into nuclear energy, we'd all be much better off.

    Beside, there are even safer sources of energy...wind, solar, wave...

    Don't have to. 3 more words: not their money.
    Part of living in a society is taxes. Taxes are used to take care of all the things that we don't want to. We don't want to build our own roads, dig our own sewers, take care of our elderly, teach our children, help the poor, etc...

    Taxes aren't a bad thing. The government spending our taxes poorly is, but let's not assume tax cuts are ALWAYS a good thing. Personally, I think we need to spend more taxes on some very important areas such as education.

    At the expense of others not having to abide by the same restrictions?
    As mom would say, just 'cuase little Johnny doesn't wash his hands before he eats dinner does not mean *you* don't have to wash your hands before you eat dinner..

    Nah...as a society, we put 'the children' above all else, even when the issue has nothing to do with 'the children'.
    I think you meant that as sarcasm, right? I agree...I wish wish we actually did put the children above all else.

    We need a guy like Harry Browne
    Hmm...now there's an idea!...

    You should. How do you think everything you buy gets to the place you buy it from?
    I really, honestly don't care if gas prices go up. I think we don't pay enough for gas as it is. Yes, I DO realize that the gas price affects the price of all consumer goods in the short term, but I am willing to accept that in hopes we'll depend less on gas and develop better transportation systems in the long term.

    Actually, it's not that they won't abide by it. It's that the treaty doesn't restrict them the same way as it does 'first-world' nations.
    The US is quite arrogant at times. Most third world countries are doing what we did back in 1900. Pollute like crazy, treat employees poorly, and do it for the almighty dollar.

    We've learned our lesson, and now we need to be perceived as a role model. We can't tell a thrid world country to 'stop polluting' when we did the very same thing 100 years ago. They look at us and think 'you guys did it, and look where you are now...and now you want us to stop it?'

    The treaty, if anything, was simply a commitment to the world that the US does care about this planet, and we will do our part to make it better. We've mad our mistakes, we've learned from them, and now we are ready to lead the world in reducing pollution.

    The administration saw the treaty as financial burden. Again, it was purely an economical decision.

    But, that's just my opinion, of course
    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  11. #71  
    Originally posted by homer
    This is a personal belief of mine.
    Based upon what? Where do you get the idea that it's impossible to get the resources without destroying the environment?

    There are very few places on this planet that are relatively untouched by humans. I think, as a planet, we need to respect those areas and preserve them as best we can.
    I agree. However, respecting and preserving does not have to equate with totally staying away.

    There's a great quote (buddhist?) that I can not remember where it came from, but it was "we did not inherit this planet from our parents. We are borrowing it from our children".
    I'm not sure if anyone knows where the quote came from, but it's recited as mantra often enough. It's also a rather weak argument, since if we can't do anything with it by virtue of 'borrowing it from our children', then logically they can't do anything with it either, which means they don't own it either.

    I think we loose site of that. We are always looking at the short term...never the long-term.
    I don't include myself in that 'we', so...

    I'd rather telecommute that drive an oil burning car.
    So do it.

    68 all winter.
    How about in the summer?

    Zero.
    Do you turn off all your appliances too? Of course, I suppose it would be better not to have them in the first place.

    Nuclear power has a MUCH better safety record than coal and oil. If we'd put as much time, money, and energy into nuclear energy, we'd all be much better off.
    I agree. So, you don't mind if the first plant goes up in your back yard?

    Beside, there are even safer sources of energy...wind, solar, wave...
    Safer perhaps, but they evidently aren't anywhere near as efficient.

    Part of living in a society is taxes.
    Not necessarily.

    Taxes are used to take care of all the things that we don't want to. We don't want to build our own roads, dig our own sewers, take care of our elderly, teach our children, help the poor, etc...
    Again, I don't include myself in that 'we', so...

    Taxes aren't a bad thing.
    I didn't say they were universally. The federal government's handling of them is pretty pathetic, though.

    The government spending our taxes poorly is, but let's not assume tax cuts are ALWAYS a good thing.
    They are in this case, IMO.

    Personally, I think we need to spend more taxes on some very important areas such as education.
    Then self-assess on your local level. That's what we do in these parts. I live in either the poorest or second poorest state in the nation (depending on when the report is made), and we manage to find the money for local level things when they're important to us.

    As mom would say, just 'cuase little Johnny doesn't wash his hands before he eats dinner does not mean *you* don't have to wash your hands before you eat dinner..
    Yeah, and just because little Johnny didn't say anything when the bully stole his lunch money doesn't mean that I have to roll over and accept it when he comes looking for mine.

    I think you meant that as sarcasm, right?
    No. I mean that the American people, in general, are sheep when 'the children' are invoked. Whatever the cause is (gun control, censorship, record banning, book burning, etc.) if someone invokes 'the children', then whatever they do is automatically O.K.

    I agree...I wish wish we actually did put the children above all else.
    The problem is that what's in 'the children's best interest' isn't always what's being invoked in their name.

    I really, honestly don't care if gas prices go up. I think we don't pay enough for gas as it is. Yes, I DO realize that the gas price affects the price of all consumer goods in the short term, but I am willing to accept that in hopes we'll depend less on gas and develop better transportation systems in the long term.
    See you in the bread lines.

    The US is quite arrogant at times.
    This is a human trait, not a uniquely American one.

    Most third world countries are doing what we did back in 1900. Pollute like crazy, treat employees poorly, and do it for the almighty dollar.
    But it's alright for them to do that even though 'we' were 'wrong' for it? That doesn't make much sense.

    We've learned our lesson [...]
    but
    We can't tell a thrid world country to 'stop polluting' when we did the very same thing 100 years ago.
    Why not? One would think that we're uniquely qualified to tell them that if we've done it, and it turned out that we were wrong for doing so. Wouldn't it be a moral and ethical lapse on a grand scale for us not to tell them, if we're their role model?

    They look at us and think 'you guys did it, and look where you are now...and now you want us to stop it?'
    Of course, they also think 'Those guys are in a great position and are stupid enough to put us an advantage to overtake them! Cool!'.

    The treaty, if anything, was simply a commitment to the world that the US does care about this planet, and we will do our part to make it better.
    Treaties are not about feelings. Treaties are about _actions_.

    We've mad our mistakes, we've learned from them, and now we are ready to lead the world in reducing pollution.
    And why do we need a treaty to do that?

    The administration saw the treaty as financial burden. Again, it was purely an economical decision.
    "It's the economy, stupid." means something to Dubya, I suppose.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  12. #72  
    (Toby, I think our posts are getting too big!)

    How about in the summer?
    We use the sun then. We have awnings for cooling...which do a surprisingly good job.

    I agree. So, you don't mind if the first plant goes up in your back yard?
    Well, my back yard isn't that big. But, had I the room, I probably wouldn't mind at all.

    A nuclear plant can be built to be very safe. 3 mile island and chernobyl are really the only two major problems we've had with nuclear power. 3 mile island was decades ago...we can make a much safer plant nowadays. Chernobyl was doomed from the start...it was just a very poor design.

    Safer perhaps, but they evidently aren't anywhere near as efficient.
    Efficient in terms of what? You can argue that they are 100 percent efficient. Once a windmill goes up, it's up. There's no energy expended to product more energy.

    We just haven't been paying attention to these alternative sources. If we'd have spent the same amount of money on research and development on these energy technologies as we did on oil, coal and gas, we'd have some very viable and affordable alternatives today.

    No. I mean that the American people, in general, are sheep when 'the children' are invoked. Whatever the cause is (gun control, censorship, record banning, book burning, etc.) if someone invokes 'the children', then whatever they do is automatically O.K.
    Ah...yes...I agree. We use that silly excuse all to often without trully meaning it.

    This is a human trait, not a uniquely American one.
    True...but when you compare our country's attitudes, policies, and behavior to the other countries of the world, we ARE much more arrogant than a lot of the world.

    Anyone from Europe care to defend/deny that?
    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  13. #73  
    Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
    On top of that, even with the proponderance of SUVs on the road, average gas mileage today is significantly higher today than it has ever been.
    Partially true however, if you replaced the SUV's that are hauling Mom's and Dad's to work with more fuel efficient vehichles we wouldn't be putting out so much CO2 which is really a major cause of global warming. Granted the amount of pollution in the form of HC, NOX and Carbon Monoxide has dropped dramatically in the last 20 years as a result of cleaner burning engines.

    However, if you were to take out the 50% sales of SUV's and replace that with typical passenger cars, you'd have a bare minimum increase in CAFE (corporate average fuel efficiency) of 25%. And thus a savings of 25% of both gasoline and CO2 gases, relative to automobile useage.

    If SUV's were used to haul 7 or 8 people around the majority of the time then I wouldn't be arguing. However, studies of useage have shown that less than 20% of the time is spent hauling to capacity. The other thing is: 4WD cuts fuel efficiency by 20% on a typical SUV. It's truly needed less than 10% of the time and yet 40% of the SUV's sold in the last 5 years have had 4 Wheel Drive.

    Now, ask yourself do I really need that Ford Exploder?

    Tell you what, if everyone monitoring this thread were to go into their garage and simply check/adjust their air pressure and change their Oxygen Sensor on their vehicle if it has more than 40,000 miles, most would see a 5 to 10% increase in fuel efficiency and that would probably pay for most of the increase in gasoline that incur.

    People don't care about the enviroment enough to look at their SUV's and give them up if they don't truly use them to potential.
    Moose Man
    Welcome my son, welcome to the machine.
    iPhone 3G, Treo 750, 680, 650, 600 and T5, T3, T, M515, M505, Vx, V, Prizm, Visor, IIIc, IIIe, Palm Pilot Professional, Palm Pilot (ok boys and girls a whopping 128k of memory - those were the days) and former Palm Beta tester.
  14. #74  
    Originally posted by Toby
    Why not?
    For the children, of course.

    To leave the Alaskan wilderness virginal. I don't disagree that wells can be dug without significant environmental impact. It's just a personal preference that Alaska be left alone. An opinion not based in reason, but emotion.
    Source? According to all the kyotophiles, the U.S. is the worst polluter on the planet.
    http://www.wri.org/ehi/ranksind.html

    Although furthur digging found:
    http://www.audubonpopulation.org/sec...ts/usfacts.pdf
    which states that we lead the world with CO2 pollution. That would also explain the first site a bit better. CO2 isn't poisonous to humans.

    Actually, it's not that they won't abide by it. It's that the treaty doesn't restrict them the same way as it does 'first-world' nations.
    Thanks for the clarification.
    Last edited by dick-richardson; 05/11/2001 at 03:24 PM.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  15. #75  
    Originally posted by homer
    (Toby, I think our posts are getting too big!)
    This one should be shorter.

    We use the sun then. We have awnings for cooling...which do a surprisingly good job.
    That might have something to do with living in MN, though.

    Well, my back yard isn't that big. But, had I the room, I probably wouldn't mind at all.
    I didn't mean your back yard personally. I meant in the NIMBY sense.

    A nuclear plant can be built to be very safe.
    I wasn't saying that _I_ was opposed to nuclear power. I was just saying that fear of a Three Mile Island type thing is why nuclear power never took off. I live within fifty miles of a nuclear power plant, and honestly I'd rather more of them than some of the other stuff here.

    Efficient in terms of what?
    Efficient in terms of the energy they produce compared with the maintenance and opportunity costs of the amount of land they use.

    You can argue that they are 100 percent efficient.
    Not if you have an elementary or better understanding of physics.

    Once a windmill goes up, it's up. There's no energy expended to product more energy.
    Windmills aren't perpetual motion machines. They require maintenance and care. No, I'm not saying they're bad things. I'm only saying that they have considerations, as well. I do think they're good for wide open empty spaces, though. I'm interested in seeing if the solar panel tax credits that I've heard about are real, as well.

    We just haven't been paying attention to these alternative sources. If we'd have spent the same amount of money on research and development on these energy technologies as we did on oil, coal and gas, we'd have some very viable and affordable alternatives today.
    Except that we haven't spent much of any money on research and development in the _energy_production_process_ for those (which would be required for the others). We're still using methods that have been in place for a long time with some fairly minor tweaking. The money spent in that business is in finding new sources.

    True...but when you compare our country's attitudes, policies, and behavior to the other countries of the world, we ARE much more arrogant than a lot of the world.
    I doubt it. I thought the French were.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  16. #76  
    Time for another party to jump in

    Originally posted by homer
    A nuclear plant can be built to be very safe.
    Very true. In fact, you get exposed to 65 times more radiation at the Capitol building in DC then you do at the fence line of a nuclear power plant. You can check out an article on this here. Living not too far from the Nuclear Plant at Calvert Cliffs, I can say I have never really worried about it. More worried about the closed Hazardous Waste dump down the road from my house.


    Efficient in terms of what? You can argue that they are 100 percent efficient. Once a windmill goes up, it's up. There's no energy expended to product more energy.
    If you look at it in terms of energy output per square yard/meter/inch/mile etc. they do very poorly. You need huge amounts of square feet to come even close to the output of oil, coal or nuclear power. Never mind the issue of what happens when there is no wind, rain or waves that day. This is part (in addition to not enough power plants) of what is contributing to the power problems in California. They used some of the alternate power sources out there and found that they have a lot of problems when there is a drought or little to no wind. They also stopped using some of the windmills due to the amount of birds being massacred by them.
    We just haven't been paying attention to these alternative sources. If we'd have spent the same amount of money on research and development on these energy technologies as we did on oil, coal and gas, we'd have some very viable and affordable alternatives today.]
    While I agree that we need to look more closely at alternatives, I don't agree that they would necessarily be more viable and affordable alternatives. That's kind of like Steven Greer saying, "Technologies connected to UFOs and extra-terrestrial vehicles, if declassified and used for peaceful energy generation and propulsion, would solve the looming energy crisis definitively, would end global warming, would correct the environmental challenges that the earth is facing." Not saying that it isn't possible, just a big leap of faith there.

    As for the Kyoto accords and the whole Global Warming issue, take a closer look at the science that they are based off of. The more you look at it, the more you realized how questionable a lot of the science is. Unfortunately, the media only tends to report the more alarmist stuff (bad news sells) and not the counter balance stuff. When you look at both sides you realize how manipulated, slanted and just plain wrong some the "pro-environment" science is. As a local comedian Mickey Cucchiella said, "There are no experts. No one really knows anything, they just make it up as they go along."
    Sven

    If at first you do succeed, try not to look astonished.
  17. #77  
    Originally posted by ****-richardson
    To leave the Alaskan wilderness virginal. I don't disagree that wells can be dug without significant environmental impact. It's just a personal preference that Alaska be left alone. An opinion not based in reason, but emotion.
    I hate when that happens. Thanks for the links.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  18. #78  
    I step away for a couple of days and it takes me half an hour to catch up!
    We don't HAVE to have a National Debt. It has never been, nor will ever be anything but a bad thing. Reform that hopes to effect positive societal change by taking money from some people and giving it to others can't work. It makes some people mad and others lazy. And worse of all it pits the two groups against each other.
    Most of the money that comes from the taxes imposed on us is wasted, always will be. (unless, every year we, the taxpayers, ever get a line by line approval of every expenditure!)
    It is impossible (realistically, not theoratically) for a POLITICIAN to spend our money wisely. There are too many incentives for them not to. Including that voters are traditionally really easy to sway with emotion ( and forget things too!). (which is why our voting system is set up that way- to prevent a democratic system from happening. How many times did I hear Clinton refer to our country as a Democracy?)
    Until Nuclear energy devotees come up with a way to safely dispose of the resulting waste it's no better than coal or oil. We may come up with a nifty tech fix, or we may not.
    Mass transit is not practical for anyone not living in a metro area. An SUV with a mom and two kids is no worse than a Honda sedan with a driver and no passengers. If it really bugs you, figure out how to make a living within walking distance of where you live and show the rest of us how to, too.
    Al Gore is out of touch with reality. The Dems made a bad choice.
    G. W. Bush is a Texas Republican. Get used to having him around for 4 years at least. Some of us had to get used to Clinton.(and some of us have to get used to his wife now).
    It's a fact of politics that you're guaranteed to have to get used to somebody, sometime, being in a position of authority and not liking their idealology. Your 'team' can't always win. Use the time you would have spent watching television the next four years finding a better candidate. You may not win, but you won't have wasted your time.
    (Toby, am feeling that I understand much better where you are coming from now after reading your posts in this forum)

    Michael
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  19. #79  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike
    We don't HAVE to have a National Debt.
    Well, technically, no, but unless we pay off current bonds and securities, and never sell new ones, we'll always have some measure of debt.

    [...] And worse of all it pits the two groups against each other.
    Well, usually more than two, but yeah.

    Most of the money that comes from the taxes imposed on us is wasted, always will be. (unless, every year we, the taxpayers, ever get a line by line approval of every expenditure!)
    That'd be an interesting experiment. It's probably too close to a real Democracy to work, though.

    How many times did I hear Clinton refer to our country as a Democracy?)
    Not as many times as he brought up 'the children', though, I bet.

    Until Nuclear energy devotees come up with a way to safely dispose of the resulting waste it's no better than coal or oil. We may come up with a nifty tech fix, or we may not.
    How is it any worse than oil waste? They haven't come up with a safe way to do _that_ yet. They just shuffle it off to some backwater town with a name that Ed Bradley can't pronounce correctly, and hope that no one notices.

    (Toby, am feeling that I understand much better where you are coming from now after reading your posts in this forum)
    I'm just the average neighborhood INTP, Enneagram Type 5, whacko libertarian, Edge owner, husband, and father of one. I could list more revealing personality traits, but that's enough for now.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  20. #80  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike
    An SUV with a mom and two kids is no worse than a Honda sedan with a driver and no passengers.
    Except that Mom then drives around all day shopping or another 10 miles to work in a 14 mpg versus a 28 mpg Honda Accord.

    If it really bugs you, figure out how to make a living within walking distance of where you live and show the rest of us how to, too.
    Can't, there is no mass transit, hence part of the dilemna. We could go own debating this for days.....and we probably will.

    God I love this country, at least we can still talk about stuff like this and not worry about the KGB or some other secret police force knocking down our doors. Or is this really "The Matrix" and we just think we have freedom?
    Moose Man
    Welcome my son, welcome to the machine.
    iPhone 3G, Treo 750, 680, 650, 600 and T5, T3, T, M515, M505, Vx, V, Prizm, Visor, IIIc, IIIe, Palm Pilot Professional, Palm Pilot (ok boys and girls a whopping 128k of memory - those were the days) and former Palm Beta tester.
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions