... predicted come August. DC is already over $2.00 in some spots. Didn't we go to war to lower gas prices? I know who I'm voting for come November now.

Bush?

You do know Kerry would raise gas taxes right?

He's voted in favor of increasing them every time it comes before him.

In any case, the price you pay at the pump is influenced more by OPEC jacking up the prices than whoever is in office right now.

No comment on the California gas prices... It's really getting out of control, like I know in Europe it is really expensive as is, but the amount of driving we do in California mileage wise just to get to work even is fucking shit up... but that's just me.

P.S. I'm logging off now and calling ex-girlfriends and about to get hate texts.... P.P.S. FUCK YOU LARK YOU SHITHEAD HAHHA ENJOY VEGAS AND GO BROKE. THERE ARE NO HOOKAH BARS THERE BITCH!!!

OPEC decided to slow production of oil, thereby raising prices, despite Bush asking them not to. Another Foreign Policy triumph!

The thing is that is well past time for this country to invest Heavily in alternative fuel sources. Both canidates have plans to delve heavily into renewable, alternative energy.
Find out for yourself whos you like better
johnkerry.com/issues/energy/plan.html (http://johnkerry.com/issues/energy/plan.html)

georgebush.com/Energy/Brief.aspx (http://georgebush.com/Energy/Brief.aspx)

But also keep in mind Bushs energy bill he just cant get passed does not go in the direction of his campaign Proposal.
Can you take his promise to convert the nation to Hydrogen cells when he wants to with this bill greatly enable Oil Companies. Ignoring enviromental concerns, its not a bad idea. But it is in a direction opposite of his plan for the next 4 years.
Will Bush and Cheney, both former oil men, be willing to pursue a direction that will ultimatly weaken Big Oil?

The price at the pump is bullshit. I do think they should remove taxes completely from gas which would lower the price by like 30-40%. The majority of the tax on gasoline goes to protect trees and shit, which is pointless. With Kerry in office gas prices will probably go up even further since he lobby's with enviormentalists and he taxes everything he can get his hands on.

Lleauaric, alternate fuel source is bullshit aswell, we are in no way going to switch to some hydrogen cells in cars, boats, planes and everything else anywhere in the near future.

Even electric cars are lame because they look gay and have like 50HP.

We are going to be using oil for a long ass time, we should either kill the arabs that got it, or not tax it as much so people can afford it.

Lakers03
Im not really sure why Im responding to you because your level of knowledge on this is so low that I have to explain remedial concepts to you, yet you insist on weighing in on complex ones.. but im bored so..

I do think they should remove taxes completely from gas which would lower the price by like 30-40%.
And how do you propose we pay for roads and highways... you know.. the thing you drive on. Where do you think the bulk of the money to support our infrastructure comes from? Use your head.

The majority of the tax on gasoline goes to protect trees and shit, which is pointless
Perhaps the most idiotic statement ever constructed in the English Language. Wrong on so many levels that I am in awe that your head didnt explode after typing it.

With Kerry in office gas prices will probably go up even further since he lobby's with enviormentalists and he taxes everything he can get his hands on.
Riiiight.. And Bush "Lobbies" (whatever that means) with Exxon, Gulf, Shell...ect ect.. And they have NO interest in raising the price of Gas right? Right??

Lleauaric, alternate fuel source is bullshit aswell, we are in no way going to switch to some hydrogen cells in cars, boats, planes and everything else anywhere in the near future.
www.infield.com/oil_supply_report.htm (http://www.infield.com/oil_supply_report.htm)
At some time during the next 20 years oil supply will be constrained by global production capacity and oil will permanently cease to be abundant.
Do you know what a Fossil Fuel is? There is a limited of amount of oil on this planet.. After its gone, there isnt any more. It isnt coming back.
Keep in mind these facts as well.
There are more people on the Planet today than have lived in the entire history of the human race.
Nations such as China and India with huge populations are growing expotenially with every passing year their consumption of fuel.
We have ONLY been using oil on a major scale since the the 1940s.. So in the last 60 years we have ripped though a VAST portion of the worlds oil supply.

Other nations, especially in Europe are investing heavily in alternative fuel sources. If Supply continues to dwindle as it has and Demand continues to rise, the nations which have the LEAST dependance on gas and Oil will be at the greatest advantage.
Its STUPID to ignore the future.

Even electric cars are lame because they look gay and have like 50HP.
Ya.. and the Model T ford looked JUST like Corvette and had the same horsepower.

We are going to be using oil for a long ass time
If by long ass time you mean 50 years maximum.. then ya.

we should either kill the arabs that got it, or not tax it as much so people can afford it.
I never thought the record of the stupidest statement would ever stand for such a short time. Congrats on being the perfect Republican...

This may prove interesting to some of you (you may need to scroll down some if you click this link after a couple days have gone by):

tnr.com/easterbrook.mhtml (http://tnr.com/easterbrook.mhtml)

And one quick quote from the article:

In real dollars, gasoline currently costs no more than it did in the 1950s; in real dollars, gasoline currently costs about a third less than it did at the real-dollar peak, early in the Reagan administration. Factor in that buying power per capita has more than doubled since the 1950s, and most Americans now spend a significantly smaller share of their incomes at the pump than their parents spent during the 1950s.
If you don't like paying for gas, then drive less or use a more fuel-efficient car. This isn't a helpful answer, but it's the best one you're going to get.

www.artba.org/economics_research/reports/gas_tax_history.htm (http://www.artba.org/economics_research/reports/gas_tax_history.htm)

While I don't consider that a neutral site, it was clear and factual. If you feel like digging deeper, I suggest this:

www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/Transportation/trans-24.cfm?&CFID=8539261&CFTOKEN=71797464 (http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/Transportation/trans-24.cfm?&CFID=8539261&CFTOKEN=71797464)

Though even that is out of date, but gives you lots of background.

Fil

Lakers03, you are perhaps the biggest fucking idiot to grace these boards (on a completely new level to Crist0 and Akipt).
Please do not stop posting.
This could be extremely fun.

Agreed, Lakers03 seems to have zero working knowledge of energy.

I see energy in the future relying more on fuel cells and natural gas...

Solar power would obviously be ideal, but we're a far cry from being able to convert that in an economically efficient manner... As it stands it takes huge amounts of space to convert solar rays into an amount of energy that could make it considerable as an alternative source of energy.

Nuclear power would be promising, but as it stands the world has a fear of it. After Cernobyl, no one wants to construct more plants, and most are slated to be closed in the next 20 years. With more technology to make the reactions safer and more controlled, the only limiting factor would be how much uranium we could find.

Water isn't much of an option, we have dams in most of the ideal places in the United States as it stands. Tidal reactors aren't very efficient either.

Whatever option(s) we go with, we need to start implementing them soon. Estimates on how much longer Oil will sustain us go from 20-50 years.

Fuck you halo, don't you and your guild need to kill some 3 year old content, oh yeah nm it fell apart because you guys finally realized you suck.

Actually, a concept car that Dodge built was a new "Charger". Aluminum block 327 run on natural gas pumping 200+ hp and speeds 140+. It was a working model, but fuel cell size was the inhibiting factor. Due to short trip range the project appears to be on hold. Just a little tidbit for you.

if they can get batteries to run on vodka, i have put all faith that they can get transportation vehicles on something other then fossil fuels

That's a waste of good alcohol if you could pump your car with Vodka though, Gokuu. Besides, it would be weird going to the pump and instead of seeing 87, 89, and 91 octane, you would see Popov, Absolute, and Grey Goose respectively.

Lakers03 banned for racism. Bye

Popov.. *barf*

>That's a waste of good alcohol if you could pump your car with Vodka though, Gokuu. Besides, it would be weird going to the pump and instead of seeing 87, 89, and 91 octane, you would see Popov, Absolute, and Grey Goose respectively.

yea but think about the possibilities, at the pump you could either 1) fill up your car or 2) stock up for a party or 3) get drunk on the spot

Hydrogen fuel cells seems to be the fuel source of the future for our autos.

Too bad Cold Fusion turned out to be such a bust ( or did it!!). That would have really put a kink in OPec's gastank eh?

Fandros

'Fuck you halo'

- No, fuck YOU.
Ha, you can't reply.
I win.

Haha.

Ibudin

You are basically describing ethanol Trimlock, something Bush has pushed extensively but is opposed in doing so by(suprise suprise) democrats like Kerry.

Go look at his voting record on ethanol issues and maybe ask yourself why he would vote against a renewable fuel source like ethanol that not only reduces pollution but boosts our economy while reducing our dependency on imported oil.

www.ethanol.org/Informati...mation.htm (http://www.ethanol.org/Information/ethanol_information.htm)

It needs some work but there is definately a better solution there than fossil fuel.

www.washingtonpost.com/ac...Found=true (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A24644-2001Apr30&notFound=true)

really?

Cheneys Energy Plan SPECIFICALLY calls for GREATER dependance on fossil fuels. It calls for the buidling of 600 new Oil, coal and Gas power plants. It calls for drilling into the ANWR (alaskan nature wildlife reserve) and greater drilling rights and liberties for Oil companies and looser enviromental constrictions.
He was quoted as saying:
"Conservation may be a virture, but it is not the basis for a sound energy policy"
In other words.. use more oil... keep feeding the beast.

Bush may be giving lip service to alternative fuels... but SHOW ME THE MONEY.. whats he proposing to ACTUALLY develop them?

The oil giants will almost surely muscle in working alternate fuel technologies, when the oil supply becomes a real issue.

It would be foolish to think those guys haven't been planning for the oil end-game for a long time. They've got the capital resources to do just about anything, and they have the infrastructure.

Infrastructure is probably 90% of the game. There have been enough viable alternate fuels and power technologies demonstrated, but the real challenge always lies in getting them to the consumer.

I bet big oil will make this happen when it becomes advantageous to them. Until then, it's just not a smart business decision. When the time comes, oil demand will taper off as gasoline powered cars are replaced with newer ones. The whole thing will likely be a y2k-esque non-issue, despite all the doom and gloom that gets tossed around.

Iraqies just fuckin hate us, we take there hairy leader and rape there wives = gas prices ^^^ +++ ^^^...

umm yeah..

-Ickabob-

So you'd rather not lessen our dependence on foreign oil while we work out something new Hartmut Jr?

They should never touch the oil reserves in our country even if they could do so in ways that wouldn't harm the environment to that end?


Cheneys Energy Plan SPECIFICALLY calls for GREATER dependance on fossil fuels.


No, Bush's energy plan calls for increased power plants to meet the rising demand and energy shortages..they suspect it will take 1300-1900 new power plants in the next 20 years to meet that demand.

Is that incorrect?

Do we not need more energy sources?

Was the west coast not having brown outs?

Are there other viable sources of energy they are overlooking?

By the way genius, try to avoid intentional misquotes..especially when you link the quote itself.


"Conservation may be a virture, but it is not the basis for a sound energy policy"


What he actually said:


"To speak exclusively of conservation is to duck the tough issues," Cheney said. "Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis -- all by itself -- for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."


That was a nifty little underhanded hatchet job you did in order make the statement out as something it wasn't, Junior.



Bush may be giving lip service to alternative fuels... but SHOW ME THE MONEY.. whats he proposing to ACTUALLY develop them?


Well part of that energy plan you were knocking was going to use 1.2 billion from the leases in ANWR to further research alternative fuels.

Considering the Clinton administration's highest proposal was 400 million I'd say he's a bit ahead of the curve, wouldn't you?

Do you guys have to turn everything in to a fucking election debate?
The bottom line is, if Kerry cannot beat an illiterate Texan retard, then he doesn't deserve to be president.
So please, shuddup. It's just plain boring.

Now if elections were decided with pistols at ten paces.. well, colour me interested.

So sad when you get caught up in the lies.

JIM LEHRER: … "Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy." Monday your wife reading your words because of your laryngitis problem said, "Conservation is a must; we must become much more efficient in energy used, for the country efficiency helps us make the most of our resources, softens the impact of high prices, and reduces pollution." Did you have a conversion or … what happened?

VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY: No. What happened is you've only quoted my in your first quote there the tail end of a long section on conservation I gave in a speech at the to the Associated Press in Toronto. And there are several paragraphs where I talked about conservation, how important conservation was, about our tremendous record in conservation as a nation over the last 30 years we've grown our economy 126 percent, and only increased energy demand 26 percent; we have to be much more efficient. At the very tail end of that, I said, but it's not enough. Conservation won't close the gap; we also have to produce more supply. And we've been very consistent.

Thats what we call "back tracking". Cheney got hammered when he said that. HAMMERED. So the White House went about to change what he said. He doesnt deny the quote there or anywhere.

That was a nifty little underhanded hatchet job you did in order make the statement out as something it wasn't, Junior.
More like you once again falling for the lies.

Well part of that energy plan you were knocking was going to use 1.2 billion from the leases in ANWR to further research alternative fuels.

Considering the Clinton administration's highest proposal was 400 million I'd say he's a bit ahead of the curve, wouldn't you?

Heh. So, let them rape the ANWR and destroy its viablity and in exchange theyll toss the 1.2 Billion they got right back to companies who paid it. Who do you think will be getting that 1.2 Billion? What a nice sneaky attempt at a backdoor.
Who came up with that deal? Tony Soprano?


Is that incorrect?
Yes
Do we not need more energy sources?
Yes... and not the same old ones.

Was the west coast not having brown outs?
So.. Keep feeding the beast? Or promote conservation and effeciency?

Are there other viable sources of energy they are overlooking?
Yes.. and they arent Coal Gas and Oil.

from www.house.gov/science/ful...awkins.htm (http://www.house.gov/science/full/may23/hawkins.htm)

The president’s energy plan repeats the claim that between 1300-1900 new electric power plants need to be built in the next 20 years. However, an alternative policy, emphasizing energy efficiency and renewable power, could dramatically reduce the number of power plants needed, lower Americans’ electric bills by $30 billion per year, and significantly cut all forms of power plant pollution, including carbon dioxide. According to a November 2000 Department of Energy Report, “Scenarios for a Clean Energy Future,” which the Bush administration has ignored, energy efficiency and renewable power can meet 60 percent of the nation’s need for new electric power plants over the next 20 years. Moreover, an energy policy that takes advantage of efficiency and renewable energy sources could lower Americans’ electric bills by $30 billion per year, cut CO2 pollution by one-third, and slash emissions of other pollutants in half.



There are a wide range of actions that can increase the reliability and performance of our electric supply system. Let me mention a few.



· Restoring effective utility and government programs to carry out cost-effective energy efficiency actions for commercial, industrial, and residential customers;

· Expanding programs to provide discounts for customers that shift their consumption to off-peak periods;

· Promoting clean, distributed generation technologies by adopting simple interconnection rules and streamlined permitting;

· Enacting a Renewable Portfolio Standard to extend the fuel supplies available to electric generators;

· Accelerating the adoption of additional and improved efficiency standards for new appliances, lighting, and heating & cooling systems.



Tax incentives for energy efficient buildings and equipment can also reduce the amount of natural gas, heating oil, and electricity we need to run our homes, businesses, and schools. For example, H.R. 778, cosponsored by Chairman Boehlert and other members of this committee, would provide such incentives and produce huge savings in energy, energy bills and pollution. Under H.R. 778, peak summer demand is projected to drop by 20,000 megawatts (the output of 60 large power plants) and direct economic savings to consumers would exceed $40 billion. The president could have endorsed this sensible bipartisan bill in his plan but he did not.



Sadly, the president’s plan lacks any specific policies to help us reduce energy bills by being smarter about how we use electricity, natural gas and heating oil. His plan includes a vague directive to the secretary of energy to consider increasing energy efficiency standards for appliances and other equipment, but the president already has weakened the new air conditioner standard set by his predecessor, a step that will force construction of at least 40 more power plants by 2020, cost consumers as much as $900 million in higher electric bills in that year, and generate 180 million more tons of carbon dioxide emissions over the next three decades.



The president’s budget would cut by more than half the Energy Department’s funding for setting new energy efficiency standards. And while proposing more spending to weatherize low-income homes, the Bush budget would slash programs to develop the next generation of energy efficiency technologies by $180 million, a crippling 30 percent cut.



The vice president dismissed conservation as just “a personal virtue,” but it is worth remembering what energy efficiency already has achieved. Thanks to private sector investments and government policies, our economy has become far more energy efficient since the genuine energy crises of the 1970s. Without these improvements – due mainly to higher mileage cars, energy-saving refrigerators, light bulbs and other equipment, and energy savings in industry – U.S. energy use in 2000 would have been 40 percent higher, Americans would have spent $260 billion more on energy bills last year, and pollution levels would have been even higher. But to continue this progress real policies are required; last minute additions of general support for efficiency are no substitute for the specific efficiency measures I have mentioned above

L2 shoots, L2 scores!

L2 might be shooting left of center lately.

But by god I love him as a brother and by god he makes me think....

heh

Fandros

L2 you're making me love you all over again.

Ya.. and we havent even talked about Mercury yet.

So Bush goes around saying that he is concerned about the unborn.. opposed to abortion. Thats all well and good, but I guess he isnt concerned enough about them to reduce the emissions of Mercury from power plants is he?
www.sltrib.com/2004/Apr/0...154753.asp (http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Apr/04072004/commenta/154753.asp)
During the 1990s, government regulation greatly reduced mercury emissions from medical and municipal waste incineration, leaving power plants as the main problem. In 2000, the EPA determined that mercury is a hazardous substance as defined by the Clean Air Act, which requires that such substances be strictly controlled. EPA staff estimated that enforcing this requirement would lead to a 90 percent reduction in power-plant mercury emissions by 2008.
A few months ago, however, the Bush administration reversed this determination and proposed a "cap and trade" system for mercury that it claimed would lead to a 70 percent reduction by 2018. Other estimates suggest that the reduction would be smaller, and take longer.
For some pollutants, setting a cap on total emissions, while letting polluters buy and sell emission rights, is a cost-efficient way to reduce pollution. The cap-and-trade system for sulfur dioxide, which causes acid rain, has been a big success. But the science clearly shows that cap-and-trade is inappropriate for mercury.

it literally let the polluters write the regulations: much of the language of the administration's proposal came directly from lobbyists' memos.
Advertisement

EPA experts normally study regulations before they are issued, but they were bypassed. According to The Los Angeles Times: "EPA staffers say they were told not to undertake the normal scientific and economic studies called for under a standing executive order. EPA veterans say they cannot recall another instance where the agency's technical experts were cut out of developing a major regulatory proposal."
Mercury is just a particularly vivid example of what's going on in environmental protection, and public policy in general. As a devastating article in Sunday's New York Times Magazine documented, the administration's rollback of the Clean Air Act has gone beyond the polluters' wildest dreams.
And the corruption of the policy process -- in which political appointees come in with a predetermined agenda, and technical experts who might present information their superiors don't want to hear are muzzled -- has infected every area I know anything about, from tax cuts to matters of war and peace.

Its really sickening the rampant hypocripsy.
8% of American women have levels of mercury in their bodies higher than what the EPA considers safe.
There are warnings about eating too much fish from the Long Island Sound because of the amount mercury fish have in them. The EPA suggests you eat no more than THREE per year.
Mercury is poison, www.chem-tox.com/pregnancy/mercury.htm (http://www.chem-tox.com/pregnancy/mercury.htm)

yet President Bush doesnt feel it is important enough to eliminate it from our enviroment.. 8% is acceptable, 3 Fish is acceptable,.. maybe 15% is acceptable. It seems that Bush is willing to let polluters slide if they pay for "pollution Credits"

This isn't a new revelation L2, why do you put the entire burden upon the current regime?

Along the same lines, why are cigarettes still allowed in their current forms? Christ the level of toxins in them are often higher then in other products that are forced to recall for miniscule portions in comparison.

It's called big business and special interests. The Dems are by no means exempt from pork barrel projects or slush funds from big money are they?

Fandros

Why don't you read the proposed rule instead of spouting lies, half-truths, and spin by Paul Krugman?

Here's a link to help you out:
www.epa.gov/mercury/ (http://www.epa.gov/mercury/)

Read the rule issued on 1/30/04 and then the supplemental proposal issued on 3/16/04.

Remember the final rule will be what is enforced;not some idiotic chicken little editorial.

Also if you want editorial sources, here's some 'information' for you:


A July 2000 report from the National Academy of Sciences noted, “A 66-month study of 711 children in the Seychelles islands assessed the effects of prenatal... mercury in tests of global intelligence and developmental milestones. No adverse effect were seen that could be attributed to... mercury. Maternal hair samples collected at birth contained mercury concentrations that ranged from 0.5 to 27 ppm.” A smaller study of Faroe Islands children reported only "subtle" (invisible?) effects at corresponding exposure levels.

The NAS concluded “the functional importance of the apparent effects is uncertain,” and the studies “provide little evidence” that children are affected appreciably by low-dose prenatal exposure to mercury.

This body of evidence linking low-level mercury exposure with harm to children is so weak that U.S. regulations are based on extrapolation from the Iraqi poisoning data. The Environmental Protection Agency’s current “safe” level of mercury exposure is based on a maternal hair level of about 11 ppm — way above U.S. exposures to mercury from fish consumption.

Even the intake of mercury among women of child-bearing age who consume the most fish is about three times below the level at which risks are thought to begin.

and

It’s not news the Clinton EPA spent much of the last eight years doing the bidding of extreme environmental activists. With little regard for science, the EPA repeatedly jammed expensive regulation of dubious merit down the public’s throat. But Congress barred the EPA from regulating mercury emissions from electric power plants — until the NAS reported on the matter, which it did in July 2000.

Apparently respecting only the report’s issuance and not its content, the Clinton EPA moved in the eleventh hour to bind the Bush administration into issuing regulations.



Oh and by the way, the conclusion of that NAS report:

"based on estimates of methylmercury exposures in the U.S. populations...the risk of adverse effects from current methylmercury exposures in the majority of the population is low."

Clinton did exactly what he did with the Kyoto treaty and with arsenic proposal. In the 11th hour he proposed unworkable and unrealistic targets for mercury reductions. He did it solely to make himself look good knowing that the reductions weren't based on fact and that since he was leaving in a few months, he wouldn't have to worry about them.

Wow.. every time you point out some of the TRUELY fucked up things Bush is doing, A Republican mentions Clinton.. its like a Pavlovian response. Its kinda pathetic.

Whats your point? You think Mercury isnt harmful?
Tell ya what. Break a thermometer on your carpet.. see what happens.

Cap and Trade is a BAD idea for mercury.

Mercury in it's natural state isn't as harmful as you might think, L2. Breaking a thermometer on the carpet will just make a mess. It is VAPORIZED mercury and a few compounds that form during its VAPORIZED state that are truely harmful. I have personally played with laboratory grade mercury and common thermometer / thermostat mercury on many occasions. I've held it in my hands, squished it to 100's of little beads and pushed them all into one common unit again. I have suffered no ill effects and will not in the future due to mercury exposure.

Truth is that environmentalists say whatever they want to scare the general public into believing that whatever they're lobbying against is a life and death, must be fixed NOW or we're all gonna die next week hazard. Guess what L2. The rays of the SUN can kill you. HIDE HIDE HIDE from it til we figure out a way to develop permanent cloud cover!! Oh yeah. Electromagnetic fields from power lines can kill you!! TURN OFF YOUR COMPUTER!! You're killing yourself and your neighbors. Buy candles. Use a wood burning stove. Lobby against the use of electricity!!

Stop letting the fearmongers get to you.

Mercury's effects can be very subtle. Adults who have been exposed to too much methylmercury might begin to experience trembling hands and numbness or tingling in their lips, tongues, fingers or toes. These effects can begin long after the exposure occurred. At higher exposures, walking could be affected, as well as vision, speech and hearing. In sufficient quantities, methylmercury can be fatal.

The greatest risk, however, is for fetuses and young children because their nervous systems are still developing. They are four or five times more sensitive to mercury than adults. Damage occurring before birth or in infancy can cause a child to be late in beginning to walk and talk and may cause lifelong learning problems. Unborn children can be seriously affected even though the methylmercury causes no symptoms in their mothers.



www.pca.state.mn.us/air/m...fects.html (http://www.pca.state.mn.us/air/mercury-effects.html) Its not something we want articifically introduced into our environment

If ever you needed proof that Junior is becoming more of a moron every day:


Thats what we call "back tracking". Cheney got hammered when he said that. HAMMERED.


To me it looks like he took something out of context and mangled it badly, and was corrected by Cheney.

Exactly what you did.

Did you even bother to read the article you linked?

If you had you might have noticed that's not what he said, your own source showed the quote as something entirely different and corroborates what Cheney is saying.


More like you once again falling for the lies


Excuse me there Junior, but your own links show how easily you fall for(or make up) "the lies".


So, let them rape the ANWR and destroy its viablity and in exchange theyll toss the 1.2 Billion they got right back to companies who paid it. Who do you think will be getting that 1.2 Billion?


Rape the ANWR?

You do realize this isn't the 30's and these companies have methods to avoid environmental damage now, right?

Don't you find it interesting that all of the members of congress from Alaska support this?

As for who gets the money..it's slated for research into new sources of energy, does it matter who does the researching?

If Exxon erfected the hydrogen fuel cell would you refuse to use that technology because the evil oil company was behind the R&D, Captain Planet?


Yes.. and they arent Coal Gas and Oil.


Or solar or nuclear or wind, correct?

Because the plan you're knocking mentions every current VIABLE source we have right now.

You know what viable means, right?

If the energy source isn't feasible yet it would be stupid to add it into the plan, now wouldn't it?

That's a nice long quote from www.house.gov/science/ful...awkins.htm (http://www.house.gov/science/full/may23/hawkins.htm)

I guess you're trying to claim it is coming from an ok source because it's got a .gov on it?

What it is is testimony from a partisan environmental activist.

www.nrdc.org/ (http://www.nrdc.org/)

These people want to stop things like testing sonar in the open ocean to safeguard the environment and force energy caps on businesses.

Now your next "gems":

www.sltrib.com/2004/Apr/0...154753.asp (http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Apr/04072004/commenta/154753.asp)

This is a reprint of an editorial.

There are no hard sources, and the closest they come is quoting another paper saying "some epa employees say this".

It is an opinion piece, nothing more.

Then we have this one, which you are trying to suggest that 8% of women in the US have higher than the safe level of mercury due to power plants.

First, it doesn't say that the 8% are a result of power plants.

Secondly, it doesn't say where the women are from, so we can't make the leap that they all live near power plants

It mentions power plants in just one(!) sentence in the entire article.

It then goes on to give a few paragraphs about incinerators, it even gives a few paragraphs about how dentists are at high risk.

If their coverage of the sources are any indication of how dangerous they feel power plants are on the issue, then you have more to worry about when you go to a dentist.


Wow.. every time you point out some of the TRUELY fucked up things Bush is doing, A Republican mentions Clinton.. its like a Pavlovian response. Its kinda pathetic.


Yes, because we all know every problem with government is all Bush's fault, and it was all golden happy land there before he came into office - right Junior?

Like other environmentalist chicken littles you make a conclusory statement without any of the facts supporting that statement. You simply declare a chemical "dangerous" and want to ban it without any consideration for the cause of the chemical and the negative aspects of your proposed "cure". Yes mercury can cause harm in sufficient quantities. No one is disputing that. The Japanese 1950s problem established that. Dihydro oxygen is also dangerous in sufficient quantities yet you're not calling for a ban on that chemical (except for that one nutty city government).

The problem is you (and others) have not shown or even tried to show that (1) the current levels of mercury that are in the environment are affecting the U.S. in a dangerous manner, (2) that the levels of mercury are caused by power plant emissions, (3) that Clinton's plan was feasible and (3) that the positive aspects of Clinton's plan outweigh the negative aspects (this third piece is very crucial). Banning 100% of mercury might be a good thing but if it puts 50% of the countries' power plants out of business then the negatives outweigh the benefit of going with a slightly lesser standard (such as the Bush standard).

Until you establish those facts, all your criticism is simply partisan and baseless.

You still havent explained why "cap and trade" is a good idea for dealing with Mercury. And thats the crux of my arguement.
is mercury anthrax? No. But its not very fucking good either. And instead of using the benefit of a neutral 3rd party, Bush asked the energy companies how they thought they would like to handle it.
/boggle.
But ya know... This is a trivial issue in the campaign. And thats a statement in itself as it alludes to the really VITAL issues in this election. Im really not gonna keep point/counterpointing it. The prime point I was trying to get across is the hypocrisy of Bush in allowing materials that are harmful to Fetus in greater amounts than what was suggested or was being pursued. Go suck down a pint of Mercury.
The over-riding theme is that Bush is willing to sacrifice environmental concerns for profit.
You've all read what I have to say on it.. and read what the republican peanut gallery has.. you decide.

The over-riding theme is that Bush is willing to sacrifice environmental concerns for profit.

You feel this way quite obviously because you simply dislike Bush. Look at reality though. If he were to try to place ALL the reductions that environmentalists have scared you into believing MUST be done TODAY in order to save the environment, then the electric companies would simply say "Ok. Rolling blackouts and brownouts will begin TODAY in ALL the major cities in the US due to insufficient techonolgy to allow our plants to operate long enough to provide the requested outputs of such cities without producing more environmentally hazardous mercurous compounds than regulations now allow. That is all for now. I have to tell my broker to buy stock in Sticks 'n' Wicks."

No. Bush didn't go as far as environmental extremists wanted, but he DID compromise and make a step in the right direction until such technology exists to effect greater changes in mercurous compound output or a plan for other power sources can be put into place. Compromise is the run of the mill, every day, standard operating procedure for ALL politicians in the US. Kerry is NO different in that aspect, as you well know. Personally I don't think Kerry has the nuts to make "unpopular" compromises and will bow down to everyone with a cause, forcing bigger goverment and more spending, which means higher taxes. History shows that the more the Democratic party is in office / majority of congress, the more social programs come about to help everyone become "more equal". Socialism historically has failed miserably, but if that's what you want to vote for, then by all means go for it and eventually maybe we can become the second super power to crumble to their own governmental failures. Though we'd never be number one in that department, second place is still a pretty high goal to shoot for. :p

Bush asked the energy companies how they thought they would like to handle it.


What a nutty concept.

Ask the people who run power plants about ways to improve them?

Fucking insane.

Junior has shown me the light, the scales are gone from my eyes now.

I can never thank you enough!

Hmmmm...are you being sarcastic?!

What a nutty concept.

Ask the people who run power plants about ways to improve them?

Fucking insane.

You really are not that niave are you? Hell, let's just let business decide how much they should pay in taxxes, cause after all it's their business and who knows more about their profit/loss margin. Maybe we should just let CEO's and accounting firms just set their own tax burden since they seem to be such an honest and forthright bunch, I am sure the Energy companies would set profit just below environmental/societal responsibilites like the CEO's of those other companies did. :rollin

man thats awful and i thought i had it bad

$3.00/gallon Gasoline ... ... predicted come August. DC is already over $2.00 in some spots. Didn't we go to war to lower gas prices? I know who I'm voting for come November now.

Yeah, that's what this thread was about.

Prices are going to go up, why? Because they can. If you think prices are too high, get a bicycle and stfu.

Did we go to war to lower gas prices? I thought we went to war (with Iraq) because Sadaam needed his ass kicked. Read that however you want. UN dodging, report(s) of WMD, some civil rights issues, prior links to terrorism and most importantly, thumbing his nose at the US! How dare he!

Vote for Kerry. (Granted, I don't care for the man, based on what I have read.) Really, it's ok. Because while a large portion of your party is out smoking dope in celebration of their great victory, we'll be voting in a Republican Congress. :lol

i don't know weather to smack you or laugh

It is not a bad thing to go to the people who are in the business and say "We need to cut down on pollution, and would like to get some ideas from you about how to go about it."

If you can't grasp that then I can't help you...but I do want to ask - did you get your tickets to Haloworld at a discount?

UN dodging, report(s) of WMD, some civil rights issues, prior links to terrorism and most importantly, thumbing his nose at the US! How dare he!
I thought it was clear there were no WMD meaning he didnt thumb his nose at anyone cause he could not have met our demands. What links to terrorism? If thumbing his nose at the US was the "most important" reason to go to war I really am afraid. Not that he did it since we told him to give up his WMD or we would invade and he didnt have them so we invaded. All the things he did except the gassing of the Kurds was dependant on him having WMD. Funny how people still dont have a clue.

Gas prices will rise and fall its normal.

<what if a police department applied the same logic and methods as the Bush Administration>

Police: Knock Knock
Guy: Who is it?
Police: Its us.. the Police.. we have a warrent.
Scum bag Drug Guy: Ok.. lemme see the warrent.
Police: Here ya go... now where are the Drugs
Guy: I dont have any... If ya came here in 1989 I had a shit load of em.. but ever since Ive been on probation and you all fuckheads have been bugging my house and staking me out.. I dont have any.
Police: Well.. we will just look around if ya dont mind.
Guy: I do mind. Dont expect any fucking help from me Pig.
>several hours later<
Police: (on radio) Ya Sarge.. we havent found any drugs, we've looked everywhere, except the places where we dont know where to look because this scum bag hasnt told us. There have to be drugs here.
Sarge: Ok Johnson... Give him 20 minutes to tell you where the drugs are and if he doesnt, shoot him in the head. This guy might have ties to the Mafia, and thats not a good thing. Besides, he beats his kids.
Police: But Sarge, the warrent says Drugs.
Sarge: Thats ok.. the neighborhood is better off without him, and when hes gone we will tear down his house and build a park, or something, we arent really sure what we are gonna do, hopefully everything wont fall apart and it turns into a crackhouse, we have too many of those on the street. We can figure it out later.

L2 you can do soooo much better then that

Who gives a shit?
He just summed it up.

It's a sad prospect that there are still some Bushites out there roaming the streets, believing that magical WoMD do indeed exist.

Right. And Bin Laden is hiding in a hole in Tikrit.

Obviously, it was George Bush's economy that caused him to resort to dealing drugs so he could feed his family.

It's a sad prospect that there are still some Bushites out there roaming the streets, believing that magical WoMD do indeed exist.

OH! That's me! Seriously.

Made a few changes to your scenario that are a bit closer to the truth:

Police: Knock Knock
Guy: Who is it?
Police: Its us.. the Police.. we have a warrent.
Scum bag Drug Guy: Ok.. lemme see the warrent.
Police: Here ya go... now where are the Drugs
Guy: I dont have any... If ya came here in 1989 I had a shit load of em..I got rid of them but have no proof that I did.
Police: Well.. we will just look around if ya dont mind.
Guy: I do mind. Dont expect any fucking help from me Pig. ..and I'm going to break 17 laws trying to hinder you.
>several hours later<
Police: (on radio) Ya Sarge.. we havent found any drugs, we've looked everywhere, except the places where we dont know where to look because this scum bag hasnt told us. There have to be drugs here.
Sarge: Ok Johnson... Give him 20 minutes to tell you where the drugs are and if he doesnt, shoot him in the head. This guy might have ties to the Mafia, but does sponser terrorists in Isreal, and thats not a good thing. Besides, he raped and gassed to death some of his kids, attacked and killed several neighbors
Police: But Sarge, the warrent says Drugs.
Sarge: Thats ok.. the neighborhood is better off without him, and when hes gone we will tear down his house and build a park,I have some friends we can overpay to rebuild somethin':D , or something, we arent really sure what we are gonna do, hopefully everything wont fall apart and it turns into a crackhouse, we have too many of those on the street. We can figure it out later.

We can figure it out later.

Certainly does that seem that way doesn't it. >:

This is the lamest analogy in the world, but since you liberals really worship this shit as gospel, how about putting even more truth into it?

If anything, this demonstrates the utter retardedness of comparing a national security policy to a police / lawyer scenario...

Drug Guy: I dont have any... If ya came here in 1989 I had a shit load of em,

...I got rid of them but have no proof that I did,

...I paid off the judge already and you're not supposed to come here anyway,

...Ignore those meth labs that I'm not using, but I can in a few hours after you leave,

...Ignore those illegal weapons under my bed I didn't know anything about,

...And ignore the fact I saw you guys coming down the road and hid all my other good stuff next door, where your search warrant has no authority to go.

...I paid off the judge already and you're not supposed to come here anyway,

May be true..no doubting it.

...Ignore those meth labs that I'm not using, but I can in a few hours after you leave,

If your talking about the "mobile labs", even Powell is doubting they were used as first proposed.

...Ignore those illegal weapons under my bed I didn't know anything about,

No idea what your talking about here.

...And ignore the fact I saw you guys coming down the road and hid all my other good stuff next door, where your search warrant has no authority to go.

No evidence of that yet that I know of...you have any. Not trying to be combative just haven't heard of this before.

Why are you getting caught up in the meaningless minutia (sp) of the analogy?

I paid off the judge already and you're not supposed to come here anyway,
Dude.. WE are the judge.. You and I... The world bows to US public opinion. If 90% the people in the US support something, the rest of the world will just get the fuck out of the way. There is no point in opposing it.

The core of it is. If we are gonna wage a prementive War, where thousands of people are going to die, Is it SOOO much to ask that the reason for going there is actual? If a police officer wants a warrent, he has to present GOOD FAITH evidence to the judge. If he presents an unreliable informant, or shakey evidence, put foward as rock solid, as a means to an end he has abused his powers. Judges will stop signing warrents for Police Depts. who do this. Even if a warrent lets the Police get dangerous people off the street, they want the results to be consistant with the presentation. This isnt an analogy, But lets say a judge signs a warrent for the Arrest of a man for Possesing and selling automatic weapons. The home is raided and no Weapons are found, but a quater Kilo of coke and 3 people who had warrents are found. The Judge STILL is gonna want to know WHAT HAPPENED TO THE GUNS.

Obviously, we went in on (intentionally?) bad intelligence. This does a TREMENDOUS diservice to the moves other American Presidents make in the future. How can ANY thing he presents to the country or the world be looked at without the taint of the errors of Iraq coloring it? How can the judgement of this administraition NOT be called into question.
The UN inspectors felt they could do more, didnt think they had time to finish the job. We rushed into a war as Bush capitalized on the public opinion from 9/11. He can ride the WTC/Al-Queda wave a long time, but when it comes time for the Iraq thing to swim on its own, it sinks. And thats the bottom line.
Bush asked the country to trust him.. We did, he fucked up. That is why he will looking for a job this fall.
He is a sitting president. Yet he is vulnerable. The polls are tied at 48%. That is unreal. Millions upon millions more in campaign money, the bully pulpit, a recovering economy and still.. losing ground.
In 84 the dems put up a joke canidate in Mondale and a joke canidate in 88 in Dukakis. Clinton was a fluke to beat Bush 1, none of the more prominent dems expected Bush 1s 80%+ approval rating to evaporate so fast, so none of them decided to run. But the Republicans put up a joke canidate in 96 with Dole.
Thats because incumbants are VERY hard to beat.. but Bush has bungled things so badly that hes totally exposed.
Did he lie? maybe, I think so, but its definitly a fuzzy line.
Did he screw up? Ya. he did. And for that, he will lose his presidency.

Btw.. dont attribute this on me being a "lib". Personally I think the best President has this nation has had in the last 30-40 years is Reagan. This one is shallow cheap imitation.

Why are you getting caught up in the meaningless minutia (sp) of the analogy?

Because you presented it for everyone to laugh at?

Dude.. WE are the judge.. You and I... The world bows to US public opinion. If 90% the people in the US support something, the rest of the world will just get the fuck out of the way. There is no point in opposing it.

Waffle! What happened to your supreme omnipotence of the multilateral UN Secuity Council's approval and participation?

Oil-for-UN/France/Russia/China Wallets program got ya down? Iraqis are taking notice and want the UN involved less and less in the rebuilding. Why don't you ask Kerry how he plans on increasing the UN's participation in Iraq when they're not going to want them there?

The core of it is. If we are gonna wage a prementive War, where thousands of people are going to die, Is it SOOO much to ask that the reason for going there is actual?

Knock knock, hello? - For the uptenth time, you'll choose to ignore the simple facts...

To avoid being pulled out of a shithole, all Saddam had to do was fully comply, cooperate, and hide nothing. He chose the hole. Perhaps because France and Russia promised him a veto on the Security Council? Tough shit.

Remember the radio intercepts of Iraqi agents moving "modified vehicles," "special ammunition," and destroying all evidence of their orders? You know the ones Powell played at the UN that you so convienently forget about?

Blix was smuggly grinning on the TV about all the cooperation he was getting, while behind the scenes Saddam was playing him for the fool he was. Apparently Blix isn't the only fool.

Weapons inspectors would be useless without Iraq's full cooperation. We didn't get it after 17 UN resolutions, and it obviously didn't happen even with our buildup of military forces on his borders.

You've chosen to ignore David Kay's testimony in previous threads and I'm positive (from press releases) that his successor is going to blow all doubt away of our country's decision to remove Saddam from power once and for all.

So get on past your little faerie tale and make-believe that you truly hoped with all your heart that Bush was "doing the right thing" but now you see it for what it truly is or some shit, because it's a blatant fucking lie. You hate Bush, whether it was because he "stole the election" or he banged your mom, I don't fucking care.

Btw.. dont attribute this on me being a "lib". Personally I think the best President has this nation has had in the last 30-40 years is Reagan.

Coming from someone who didn't even bother voting, and then when you do decide to vote, it's for Gore... and now you plan on voting for the most liberal left-wing flip-flopping pinko ever born - isn't very convincing. You're beginning to sound like Kerry explaining away his actual voting record.

Own up to the truth for once in your pathetic life and admit that you are a liberal - but that's such a hard cookie to swallow isn't it?

What happened to your supreme omnipotence of the multilateral UN Secuity Council's approval and participation?
Do you just randomly imagine things? What color is the sky in your world? Never said this. Never even suggested it. Ive CONSISTANTLY stated that the UN is tool that we didnt handle right.
iraqis are taking notice and want the UN involved less and less in the rebuilding.
Link please... or is this just a Random assumption?

Knock knock, hello? - For the uptenth time, you'll choose to ignore the simple facts...
Which simple fact? that no WMDs have been found and no link to AlQueda exists? Oh wait... thats you.

all Saddam had to do was fully comply, cooperate, and hide nothing.
What was Saddam hiding? The last Eggo?

Remember the radio intercepts of Iraqi agents moving "modified vehicles," "special ammunition," and destroying all evidence of their orders? You know the ones Powell played at the UN that you so convienently forget about?
Actually.. I DO remember that... Do you? (http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=487969&section=news)

Apparently Blix isn't the only fool.
Im just glad you 2 love birds found each other.

Weapons inspectors would be useless without Iraq's full cooperation.
yes, they were useless enough to get him to dismantle and destroy his entire weapons program.

You hate Bush
No.. Im sure he'd be a great guy if he owned a landscaping company or something... But hes a pretty crappy president.. I dont Hate him. See, there is a difference between "hating" someone and disagreeing with him. This a lesson you seem in dire need of learning.

banged your mom, I don't fucking care
I think its soo cute when you get all mad. =)

Coming from someone who didn't even bother voting, and then when you do decide to vote, it's for Gore
Ok.. lets do some really simple math.. ready? Ok.. if im 28 now.. and there is an election every 4 years, at what ages were I eligible to vote?

Yes.. Im guilty of not voting for Reagan when I was 8 and 12... /cry
Is it hard to not use your brain when typing?

Own up to the truth for once in your pathetic life and admit that you are a liberal
YAHHHH lets see that pent up rage and frustration bust though! Hehe.. Let it all out.. thats it... and afterward you can have a good cry.

Ive CONSISTANTLY stated that the UN is tool that we didnt handle right.

Mishandled even with the corruption of the Oil-for-Food program?

Actually.. I DO remember that...Did you? (http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=487969§ion=news)

Nice, no mention about the radio intercepts. Thank you for once again proving my point.

yes, they were useless enough to get him to dismantle and destroy his entire weapons program.

Didn't happen even with our military on his borders.

Ok.. lets do some really simple math.. ready? Ok.. if im 28 now.. and there is an election every 4 years, at what ages were I eligible to vote?

Your voting record = 100% Democrat. Can't get any more simple than that.

YAHHHH lets see that pent up rage and frustration bust though! Hehe.. Let it all out.. thats it... and afterward you can have a good cry.

?? Is this some kind of projection or sick fantasy of yours? If anything, I was quite giddy at reading your babble about poll numbers favoring Kerry. Remember to post on here when Kerry's approval numbers jump up another 10% after his convention.

(BEGIN AUDIO TAPE)

(Speaking in Foreign Language.)

(END AUDIO TAPE)

Let's review a few selected items of this conversation.

Two officers talking to each other on the radio want to make sure that nothing is misunderstood:

"Remove. Remove."

The expression, "I got it."

"Nerve agents. Nerve agents. Wherever it comes up."

"Got it."

"Wherever it comes up."

"In the wireless instructions, in the instructions."

"Correction. No. In the wireless instructions."

"Wireless. I got it."

So thats it? The sum total of the "proof"?
No Chem lab bunkers, no stockpiles, no mobile chemical labs, no infrastructure, no delivery systems.
Just a recorded conversation between 2 unnamed Republican Guard officers?

The production of Sarin (the nerve agent that the Iraqis specialized in) is a complicated procedure, as you can tell by looking at the North Koreans production apparatus.
www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dp...anggye.htm (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/facility/kanggye.htm)
Its not something you can just bury in the sand, its a massive undertaking. SOME evidence would exist.. even maybe some former scientists, maybe a out of work Iraqi Army guard looking to make some cash from selling information.. ANYTHING.. maybe a fucking janitor..
But Nothing, and nobody has come foward..

Well, you managed to find 1/3rd of them.

We urge you to... enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power.
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and others, Jan. 26, 1998, www.newamericancentury.or...letter.htm (http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm)

The U.S. should assert its military dominance over the world to shape “the international security order in line with American principles and interests,” push for “regime change” in Iraq and China, among other countries, and “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars….While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”
- “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century,” The Project for the New American Century [members include Cheney and Rumsfeld], Sept. 2000

Judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at the same time. Not only UBL [Osama bin Laden]….Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not.
- Donald Rumsfeld notes, Philadelphia Daily News, Sept. 11, 2001

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction [as justification for invading Iraq] because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.
- Paul Wolfowitz, Vanity Fair interview, May 28, 2003

From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go. Going after Saddam was topic "A" ten days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.
- former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, CBS’ 60 Minutes, Jan. 11, 2004

I don't think they [WMD] existed. What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last [1991] Gulf War, and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the '90s.
- David Kay, former chief weapons inspector of the UN Special Commission on Iraq, Reuters, Jan. 24, 2004

Intelligence “analysts never said there was an imminent threat" from Iraq before the war.
- CIA Director George Tenet, speech, Feb. 5, 2004

You left this next paragrah off:

...Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and others, Jan. 26, 1998

Summed it up quite nicely, and exactly predicted what would happen 6 years later. Thank you so much for finding this letter for me. I now believe beyond a shadow of any doubt that this administration and the defense of our country is in good hands. Rumsfeld for President in 2008, with VP Condi Rice.

And nice chop job. Put the next one in context a little bit?

With the intelligence all pointing toward bin Laden, Rumsfeld ordered the military to begin working on strike plans. And at 2:40 p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted all the "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H. at same time. Not only UBL" – the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden.

And I love those little ... thingies, don't you?

Wow, we had a policy of regime changed enacted by Clinton, obviously meaning Saddam was a threat to our security ... and you have our Defense Secretary asking if Saddam was responsible. Wasn't this his job? /gasp!!!!!!!!!!!!

From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go. Going after Saddam was topic "A" ten days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.
- former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, CBS’ 60 Minutes, Jan. 11, 2004

And yet it was two years later before we did. Again, the previous administration knew he was a threat enough to have Congress vote for a regime change policy. Was Bush just to ignore it ? And didn't O'Neill retract alot of what he said in those initial interviews later? Hmm. Of course it HAD NOTHING to do with selling a book though, nah.

Oh yes, David Kay. I don't know why you libs think he's your hero.

Resolution 1441 required that Iraq report all of its activities -- one last chance to come clean about what it had.

We have discovered hundreds of cases, based on both documents, physical evidence and the testimony of Iraqis, of activities that were prohibited under the initial U.N. Resolution 687 and that should have been reported under 1441, with Iraqi testimony that not only did they not tell the U.N. about this, they were instructed not to do it and they hid material.
...

And like I say, I think we've got other cases other than Iraq. I do not think the problem of global proliferation of weapons technology of mass destruction is going to go away, and that's why I think it is an urgent issue.

- From CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/kay.transcript/)

Urgent?!? Imminent? After all, we're not allowed to use those words leading up to Iraq, but coming out of it, David Kay uses it. Wonder why?

Perhaps if you fucking read his testimony (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KAY401A.html) instead of piece mealing bits together from your DU.com friends you might learn something (besides what kool-aid tastes like.)

Senator Warner: Dr. Kay has stated that, although we have not found evidence of large stockpiles of WMD, or forward-deployed weapons, the ISG group have made the following evidence as a part of their record that will be forthcoming:

1. evidence of Saddam Hussein's intent to pursue WMD programs on a large scale;

2. actual ongoing chemical and biological research programs;

3. an active program to use the deadly chemical ricin as a weapon, a program that was interrupted only by the start of the war in March;

4. and evidence of illegal missile programs;

5. and evidence that in all probability they were going to build those weapons to incorporate in the warheads, what we know not for sure, but certainly the possibility of weapons of mass destruction;

6. evidence that Saddam Hussein was attempting to reconstitute his fledgling nuclear program as late as 2001;

7. and, most important, evidence that clearly indicates Saddam Hussein was conducting a wide range of activities in clear contravention of the United Nations resolutions.

Wow, Saddam was really cooperating! And to quote you from above: "[weapons inspectors] were useless enough to get him to dismantle and destroy his entire weapons program."

Get a fucking clue.

You and Halo continue to call us myopic retarded sheep while you two continue to choose to live in oblivion.

Only fucking thing I do that is retarded is post the facts on here time and again, only for you go lalalalaa with your hands over your eyes so you can live in your faerie tale. What the fuck ever! haha

And nice chop job.

It's LL...whaddya want!?

'Get a fucking clue.
You and Halo continue to call us myopic retarded sheep while you two continue to choose to live in oblivion.
Only fucking thing I do that is retarded is post the facts on here time and again, only for you go lalalalaa with your hands over your eyes so you can live in your faerie tale. What the fuck ever! haha '

- Oh give me a break! You cannot be seriously accusing us of ignoring truths and realities?!
YOU STILL THINK WOMD EXIST.
You post the facts? You have all the clues?

Where are the Al-Qaede ties? Where are the WoMD, mother fucker?

You continually side-step the issue, time and time again. And when you're called out on your points, you abandon your reasoning and fall back on the "Well he was a bastard!" card.

It's boring, it's dull, and it's tired.

Pull the other one, mate.

Oh give me a break! You cannot be seriously accusing us of ignoring truths and realities?!
YOU STILL THINK WOMD EXIST.
You post the facts? You have all the clues?

Where are the Al-Qaede ties? Where are the WoMD, mother fucker?

You continually side-step the issue, time and time again. And when you're called out on your points, you abandon your reasoning and fall back on the "Well he was a bastard!" card.

Halo says: Lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala lalalalalalalalalalalala lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala....

cant answer his question eh?

Anyway.. what chop job? I included the link to the entire letter where, in 98 Rumsfeld, Wolfawitz and (I think Cheney, but im not sure and dont feel like checking atm) advocated invading Iraq. HELLO!

How in good faith can you honestly deny that the 9/11 tragedy was capitalized on to achieve a pre determined aim.

Invading Iraq does not protect us from Terrorism.

I just feel like Bush and companys eye was not on the ball. They wanted Iraq from day one. Even when attacked from a force that was not Iraq, they still lumped it all together.

Oh. and even in a light MOST favorable to you, DAvid Kay is at best. a "flip Flopper" a waffler!! Havent you Republicans been saying thats the worst possible thing a person can be?

Lleauaric says: Lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala 9/11 tragedy lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala pre determined aim lalalalalalalalalalalala I just feel like lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala David Kay is lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala waffler!! lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala Republicans are evil lalalalalala lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala...

Republicans are evil

Now there's something I can get on board with!!!! :rollin

http://www.twaze.com/aolpix/ostrich.gif

I think you just highlighted the difference between me and you Akipt. And thats whats it really about, the individual, you can hide behind your little labels and sterotypes, but the measure of a man isnt in his ideology, but in the quality of his character.
I would honestly rather be proven to be wrong and know the truth, you would rather shut out anything that disagrees with your ideology. The thought that it just might be true is too much for you to bear. So keep with the Lalalalalalas, it serves as a great witness to who you are and the validity of your ideology.

Nice work Akipt.

'Nice work Akipt. '

- Yeah, nice work on running out of answers Akipt.
Good job arsehole.

www.thememoryhole.org/mil/bushsr-iraq.htm (http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/bushsr-iraq.htm)

"Why We Didn't Remove Saddam"
George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft
Time (2 March 1998)

The end of effective Iraqi resistance came with a rapidity which surprised us all, and we were perhaps psychologically unprepared for the sudden transition from fighting to peacemaking. True to the guidelines we had established, when we had achieved our strategic objectives (ejecting Iraqi forces from Kuwait and eroding Saddam's threat to the region) we stopped the fighting. But the necessary limitations placed on our objectives, the fog of war, and the lack of "battleship Missouri" surrender unfortunately left unresolved problems, and new ones arose.

We were disappointed that Saddam's defeat did not break his hold on power, as many of our Arab allies had predicted and we had come to expect. President Bush repeatedly declared that the fate of Saddam Hussein was up to the Iraqi people. Occasionally, he indicated that removal of Saddam would be welcome, but for very practical reasons there was never a promise to aid an uprising. While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

We discussed at length forcing Saddam himself to accept the terms of Iraqi defeat at Safwan--just north of the Kuwait-Iraq border--and thus the responsibility and political consequences for the humiliation of such a devastating defeat. In the end, we asked ourselves what we would do if he refused. We concluded that we would be left with two options: continue the conflict until he backed down, or retreat from our demands. The latter would have sent a disastrous signal. The former would have split our Arab colleagues from the coalition and, de facto, forced us to change our objectives. Given those unpalatable choices, we allowed Saddam to avoid personal surrender and permitted him to send one of his generals. Perhaps we could have devised a system of selected punishment, such as air strikes on different military units, which would have proved a viable third option, but we had fulfilled our well-defined mission; Safwan was waiting.

As the conflict wound down, we felt a sense of urgency on the part of the coalition Arabs to get it over with and return to normal. This meant quickly withdrawing U.S. forces to an absolute minimum. Earlier there had been some concern in Arab ranks that once they allowed U.S. forces into the Middle East, we would be there to stay. Saddam's propaganda machine fanned these worries. Our prompt withdrawal helped cement our position with our Arab allies, who now trusted us far more than they ever had. We had come to their assistance in their time of need, asked nothing for ourselves, and left again when the job was done. Despite some criticism of our conduct of the war, the Israelis too had their faith in us solidified. We had shown our ability--and willingness--to intervene in the Middle East in a decisive way when our interests were challenged. We had also crippled the military capability of one of their most bitter enemies in the region. Our new credibility (coupled with Yasser Arafat's need to redeem his image after backing the wrong side in the war) had a quick and substantial payoff in the form of a Middle East peace conference in Madrid.

The Gulf War had far greater significance to the emerging post-cold war world than simply reversing Iraqi aggression and restoring Kuwait. Its magnitude and significance impelled us from the outset to extend our strategic vision beyond the crisis to the kind of precedent we should lay down for the future. From an American foreign-policymaking perspective, we sought to respond in a manner which would win broad domestic support and which could be applied universally to other crises. In international terms, we tried to establish a model for the use of force. First and foremost was the principle that aggression cannot pay. If we dealt properly with Iraq, that should go a long way toward dissuading future would-be aggressors. We also believed that the U.S. should not go it alone, that a multilateral approach was better. This was, in part, a practical matter. Mounting an effective military counter to Iraq's invasion required the backing and bases of Saudi Arabia and other Arab states.

Who's to say there aren't any WMDs for sure? If there are any or anything similar, they're probably stuffed in some hole in the middle of the miles of endless desert there. Saddam certainly had enough time to do so. Of course, you may be right.. but who is to say for certain? My mind is open on the issue.

P.S. If I'm proven wrong and flamed, take it easy with the F-bombs ;)

Who's to say there aren't any WMDs for sure?
Pretty much everyone

In February 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the United Nations what he described as compelling evidence for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The speech impressed many Americans; an ABC News poll showed that almost 60 percent regarded the speech as "hard proof ... that Iraq possesses banned weapons."

Also impressed was Bay Area resident Jay Davis, a veteran weapons inspector, physicist and former head of the U.S. Defense Threat Reduction Agency. "Those who are not convinced by this (Powell) evidence will not be convinced by any evidence," Davis said in a Chronicle interview at the time.

In an interview last week, Davis said he had no doubts at the time. "I would have bet my house on it, that we would have found chemical weapons," he said. "And the huge surprise is that we found none."

What went wrong? In hindsight, Davis says, he should have realized there was a simple reason to doubt that Iraq retained chemical weapons. The chemicals in the weapons tend to break down over time; only wealthy, technically advanced nations such as the United States, the former Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and World War II-era Japan ever developed chemical weapons that could withstand prolonged storage. So Iraqi chemical weapons might have deteriorated into uselessness by 2003, he now says.

"I didn't think it through," Davis admits. "It was a damned discoverable thing that other people brighter than I should have known. The lesson of life is that the 'obvious' isn't."

'Who's to say there aren't any WMDs for sure?'

- Well of course there's a chance that there could be. We know nothing, NOTHING, for certain.
But you have to go with evidence, facts, and, well, logic.

Hell, when I was fighting against the WoMD accusations a couple years back here, the arguing almost convinced me that there were WoMD. I mean, look at the history and one would be foolish not to suspect.
But what with it being present day, and facing events and facts given to us, it's hard to believe Saddam was nothing but a fucking arsewipe, not someone who supported or harboured Al-Qaede or massive WoMD programmes - the basis for the war (and my objecting to it).

Saddam certainly had enough time to do so. Of course, you may be right.. but who is to say for certain? My mind is open on the issue.
So open that the idea the Bush administration lied/misled us isnt possible?

I think you just highlighted the difference between me and you Akipt.

Yes, I read an entire speech or testimony, versus your chop jobs and out of context clips.

And all you have against David Kay is that he changed his assessment? It's not like he's a politician in front of two different crowds promising two opposing agendas on the same day or anything - like a John Kerry we are getting so well acquainted with huh?

Oh by the way, you got some kool-aid dribbled on your shirt there.

So open that the idea the Bush administration lied/misled us isnt possible?

WHY lie? It's not like he was getting blow jobs from an intern or anything.

Um yea he put thousands of American lives in danger and killed hundreds more for something that wasnt real. Are you comparing that to a blow job? How much less respect could you have for peoples lives than that right there? What you just said was that every American life we lost in Iraq since the war began is equal to less than a hundredth of a blow job. Idiot.

Besides that I think Clinton was a liar too. That doesnt make this administrations misdirections irrelevant or less important.

Uh Bowler, I was trying to ask you what the point of lying would be. Nothing, nada, zilch. We could've gone into Iraq with any number of other reasons, but they chose WMD.

It's still a valid reason, given the ongoing investigations... but obviously not good enough for everyone.

Sorry I was so flippant.

Ifonly he were only lying about getting a blow job instead fucking the US, amoung others, in the ass!!!:eek

Uh Bowler, I was trying to ask you what the point of lying would be. Nothing, nada, zilch. We could've gone into Iraq with any number of other reasons, but they chose WMD.
Is this statement a joke?

"Let's accuse Iraq of stockpiling WMD and invade them, even though we know they don't have any. Maybe we can get reelected before anyone really asks those tough questions."

If you seriously think that's a scenario Bowler, you're beyond hope.

'Is this statement a joke? '

- Afraid not.
Akipt lives in this world where, despite being proved wrong, even by his government and the people that fabricated the justifications for war, he still wants to believe what he wants to believe.

Come out of the fairy-land, where things aren't so hunky-dory.

And all you have against David Kay is that he changed his assessment? It's not like he's a politician in front of two different crowds promising two opposing agendas on the same day or anything - like a John Kerry we are getting so well acquainted with huh?
How about we stick with the facts..
Fact is David Kay before we invaded said there were no WMDs in Iraq and resigned.
Now if you have nothing but vague slander from Roves ass to your mouth about Kerry, then kindly shut up.
Show me where he changed his opinion that day, or in the short space. Id actually enjoy reading it. See, I dont mind reading negative things about Kerry, It all goes on the entire balance, and right now... on the scale Kerry is waaaayyyyy ahead.

How about we stick with the facts..
Fact is David Kay before we invaded said there were no WMDs in Iraq and resigned.

What alternate reality do you live in, or do you just make this shit up as you go?

The Statement of David Kay (http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-10kay.html) before the House Armed Services Committee on September 10, 2002 (obviously before we invaded):

Once Saddam’s survival [after the first Gulf War] became a fact, all hope of his voluntarily yielding up the very weapons that allow him to hope to dominate the region was lost.

What is much less well understood is the impact that the discovery of the gigantic scope and indigenous nature of Saddam’s weapons program had on the prospects of being able to eliminate this program by inspection alone. We now know that the Iraqi efforts to build an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction:

- Spanned more than a decade;
- Cost more than $20 Billion;
- Involved more than 40,000 Iraqis and succeed in mastering all the technical and most of the productions steps necessary to acquire a devil’s armory of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons as well as the missiles necessary to deliver them over vast distances.

The capability to produce weapons of mass destruction arising from a national program on the scale of that of Iraq’s cannot be eliminated by simply destroying “weapons” facilities.


So he goes to Iraq, looks around, interviews thousands of Iraqi scientists and comes back with this conclusion:

I think the world is far safer with the disappearance and the removal of Saddam Hussein. I think that when we have the complete record, you're going to discover that after 1998, it became a regime that was totally corrupt. Individuals were out for their own protection, and in a world where we know others are seeking WMD, the likelihood at some point in the future of a seller and a buyer meeting up would have made that a far more dangerous country than even we anticipated with what may turn out to be not a fully accurate estimate.

Ya. I had the cronology messed up, I forgot Pre War Kay disagreed with post war Kay. Mea Cula on that.
However....
President Bush directed in June 2003 that the hunt for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction be transferred from the Defense Department to the Central Intelligence Agency and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency appointed Dr. David Kay to lead that search and direct the activities of the 1,400 hundred member Iraq Survey Group. In January 2004 having concluded that there had been no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq at the time of the war, Dr. Kay reported that conclusion and resigned his position. This decision immediately led to Congressional hearings and the appointment of an independent commission to investigate the causes of US intelligence failings prior to the war as well as how this intelligence was communicated and used by policymakers.
www.potomacinstitute.org/...ff_kay.cfm (http://www.potomacinstitute.org/who/staff_kay.cfm)


And why do I give 2 shits about Kays opinion? I care about his work in the capacity as a weapons inspector, and he found none, and he said he didnt think Iraq had any. What else is there to say? He doesnt make policy. Why do I care what his geo-political views are? Do you ask your Plumber for Tax tips?

Akipt, you're arguing a moot point. A won point.
Of course the world is a better place without Saddam Hussien. That's the most obvious of truths.

But that in no way justifies the fabricated logics of the initial argument for invasion.

The world was fed a line. Most people ate it up.
A year later, the world found out the line was bullshit. Now most people recognize it. Those in denial and defense are playing the "well he's an arsehole, so doesn't matter about the bullshit" card.
But you're a different breed altogether. You're the rare idiot who still clings on to the original line.

Get a sense of reality.

And why do I give 2 shits about Kays opinion? I care about his work in the capacity as a weapons inspector, and he found none, and he said he didnt think Iraq had any. What else is there to say? He doesnt make policy. Why do I care what his geo-political views are? Do you ask your Plumber for Tax tips?

What the fuck are babbling about now? The fact that he gave an intelligence estimate after his investigation? You know, that's why we sent him over there right?

Akipt, you're arguing a moot point. A won point.

Obviously not, because L2 was in some alternate universe.

You know, that's why we sent him over there right?
Silly me, I thought we sent him over there to find WMDs.
Did he find ANY?
nope.
not one.

So here we have a country with weapons inspectors all over it, the north part and southern part sectioned off in no fly zones, under a microscope.

Now, Why is Iraq more dangerous than North Korea. If Iraq wanted to make money they have a pretty valuable commodity in oil. Why would they sell WMDs?
North Korea on the other hand has no resources, other than weapons technology, has massive massive stockpiles of weapons of all kinds. And a huge cash flow problem, in that they have none. They also possess a pathelogical hatred of the US.

Im just trying to understand why invading Iraq was so critical, why it couldnt wait, why no other option was viable.
Actually im not, I know why.
North Korea is hopeless, its entire population is indoctrined in a god emperor cult of Kim Jong Il. They will fight with the suicidal determination of the Japanese in 1940s.
The Bush Administration honestly thought it would go differently in Iraq. They assumed that the secular, for the most part, non extremist, semi well educated popluation of Iraq would welcome them and work hard with them to rebuild.
While true in some cases. For the most part, this has turned out to be wrong. Iraqis have been taught that survival means keeping your head down and not taking a stand, thus the extremists have a free run, and we arent making progress. Another problem is the fact that even the people who hated Saddam are not really overjoyed to be under an occupying force, a constant reminder that westerns had to do something for them that they themselves were not capable of doing. For a man, this can in some cultures be Humiliating.
Add to the fact that middle-eastern society is hopelessly biased toward anti-americanism.
From the major source of Middle eastern news, Al-Jazeera.
english.aljazeera.net (http://english.aljazeera.net)
Just read this site, look at the political cartoons.
We are losing the fight in the middle east.

Now I dont hate Bush, I dont think he is evil, But he has made ALOT of mistakes and misteps.
Why are you so willing to tolerate all these errors.
We are not better off now in concievable way then we were 4 years ago.
Ask yourself, is there ANYTHING you disagree with Bush about? Stem Cell reasearch? Anything?

The thing that pisses me off, is that we'll be stuck - that's right: stuck - in Iraq now for years to come, tied up both economically and physically.
So what will happen to places that present threats 100 fold more than Iraq did? Of course, I mean North Korea.

How is that issue going to be handled? Or will it not? I hardly see a future where the issue will be avoided.
Lookin' for WoMD? Look no further. That is the mother-fucking manufacturing plant of anti-Western arms.

You see this Akipt? You see the problem we're having in understanding Iraq, when there are states like this abroad?
Iraq was milked to death in an attempt to produce a remotely hazardous reason as to why to invade (and the only good one that's ever come out of it was "cause Saddam was an arsehole"), when there are nations like North Korea when you need not seek reasons.. they slap you in the face.

It would be like the allies concentrating on Spain during WW2 and leaving the German theatre alone.
Mind-boggling.

Well finally, some good discourse.

If Iraq wanted to make money they have a pretty valuable commodity in oil. Why would they sell WMDs?

Did Pakistan sell nuclear refinement and other technologies to Iran, North Korea, or Libya? No, a single Pakistani scientist did, with an elaborate black market network that spanned the globe.

What did we have in Iraq? Thousands of scientists outbidding each other to get contracts to persue these WMD programs, with very little (as it turns out) control over them from Saddam.

THAT is what David Kay means as being more dangerous than we initially estimated.

It’s already documented that Iraq’s weapons research programs were ongoing, even up until the month we invaded – even through the inspections. How can you be so willing and hopeful to just assume it was all safe and no danger presented? If a nation can be bought for a few $billion under the UN’s own control and corruption, how much would it take to have an Iraqi scientist that has made less in his life than you do in a year?

While true in some cases. For the most part, this has turned out to be wrong. Iraqis have been taught that survival means keeping your head down and not taking a stand, thus the extremists have a free run, and we arent making progress. Another problem is the fact that even the people who hated Saddam are not really overjoyed to be under an occupying force, a constant reminder that westerns had to do something for them that they themselves were not capable of doing. For a man, this can in some cultures be Humiliating.

So the going gets tough and we shouldn’t have gone to begin with? I agree with everything you’re saying here, and the humiliation is definitely more so a factor in some parts of Iraq than I think anyone wants believe.

There’s new lessons to be learned, but we just have to stick together and see it through.

Ask yourself, is there ANYTHING you disagree with Bush about? Stem Cell reasearch? Anything?

Campaign finance reform, Steel tariffs, Medicare drug program… and many other issues I know are more important than our professional baseball players using steroids.

Well thats the MAIN reason Halo.
Because they thought it was "do-able"
North Korea is not doable. Its a global fucking nightmare waiting to happen. Its either a meat grinder or a nuclear holocaust.. or both. And there is no benefit from it, other than ridding a potential seller of WMDs.
But I tell you this. If, god forbid, a nuclear device is ever detonated in the US, you can be sure who the source is. The question is will North Korea ever be desperate enough to believe they can get away with selling one. What cash offer will be enough? 100 Billion? If that occurs.. meat grinder/Nuclear war or not, we will no longer have the choice.

In Iraq the Administration saw/see and opportunity to create a friendly government between 2 fierce US enemies Iran and Syria. (Axis of Evil statement on Iran was another one of Bushs huge blunders btw). Im really not sure how even a successful Iraq will transform the rest of the Middle East though. But it will provide a HUGELY strategic advantage if people believe that future conflict in the Middle East at large is inevitable.

The thing that pisses me off, is that we'll be stuck - that's right: stuck - in Iraq now for years to come, tied up both economically and physically.

And how is this new? We've been nation building and supporting standing armies in far away places for the past 60 years - With good success...

How is that issue going to be handled? Or will it not? I hardly see a future where the issue will be avoided.
Lookin' for WoMD? Look no further. That is the mother-fucking manufacturing plant of anti-Western arms.

I don't have shit for answers on North Korea, do you? It's a problem that needs to be resolved. The first step was in recognizing that they needed to be confronted, and Bush did that -> "Axis of Exil" .. and everyone bitched - just like they did when Reagan called Communism evil...

What's that tell you?

and Bush did that -> "Axis of Exil"
People were more complaining about the addition of Iran into the statement than North Korea. It was counterproductive. Iran is a nation that is slowly changing.

In the end, if all things go well, it may be the voluntary, independant transformation of Iran by its own people than the forced one to Iraq that really destroys the forces of Islamic extremism as a global threat.

I am voting for Akipt in '08 when Bush is done with his 8.

Wooo! This thread ballooned out of control, well sorta.

Just to clear my statement up:

Did we go to war to lower gas prices? I thought we went to war (with Iraq) because Sadaam needed his ass kicked. Read that however you want. UN dodging, report(s) of WMD, some civil rights issues, prior links to terrorism and most importantly, thumbing his nose at the US! How dare he!

I stated the reasons that were in mind prior to the war, not what they found, or didn't find, during the war. Those were the reasons given to us when this boogledy-boo started. I even italicized the word "reports" with hope of making that point.

I hope that some of you read the sarcasm that I intended regarding “thumbing his nose”. If we went to war with everyone that thumbed their nose... :eek

I don't have any illusions about the war in Iraq. I just remember when SH was dodging the UN inspectors, leaving us to wonder what he was hiding. He left himself open and he paid the price. It just so happened that he double-dog-dared the wrong US President.

I also believe that given free reign with the oil resources at his disposal, we would be paying a much higher price in Human lives to put him in check x# of years down the road. Instead of hundreds or thousands, it would be more like hundreds of thousands.

Korea is already out of hand, shall we have two or three or twelve more just like them?

Korea is already out of hand, shall we have two or three or twelve more just like them?
Thats like saying ... we have 5 snakes on our door step lets send out our youngest son to find a sixth one and kill it in hopes that the 5 we already have go away nicely. Oops our youngest son died.

Thats like saying ... we have 5 snakes on our door step lets send out our youngest son to find a sixth one and kill it in hopes that the 5 we already have go away nicely. Oops our youngest son died.

Without a doubt the dumbest thing you've ever said. And you've said a lot.

Master Damoiel Mindbend
Retired Enchanter of the 60th Season

Feel free to elaborate on that analogy, Bowler. I'm stumped. http://www.sleepisfortheweak.com/lanparty/images/smiles/102.gif

...and now

The rest of the story:

www.straightdope.com/columns/031128.html (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/031128.html)

"Ethanol contains only about two-thirds as much energy per gallon as gasoline, so cars using ethanol blends get lower mileage. Though ethanol can reduce carbon monoxide emissions, the fuel may well produce more of other air pollutants. True, the ethanol industry drives corn prices up, which helps farmers--but a 1986 USDA study found we'd be better off mailing the farmers checks rather than propping up an entire industry with tax dollars."

Yes, when talking about alternatives to fuels we should use research from the late 70s and early 80s to prove our points.

After all, science certainly couldn't have come very far in 20 years.

After all, science certainly couldn't have come very far in 20 years.

Hasn't changed the fundemental fact that:

It takes more energy to make ethanol from grain than the combustion of ethanol produces.

From 2001 Crist0 :rolleyes

unisci.com/stories/20013/0813012.htm (http://unisci.com/stories/20013/0813012.htm)

I think Crist0's last post was sarcasm.

Since Ethanol is a bad example of a viable alternative energy source, how about you put forth a better example, Christ0?

Nuclear? Hydroelectric? Solar? Wind? Methane? Gravity? Jujubees? Hell, if we could just harness the energy used to click "Add Reply" to the "Why is Kerry so good" thread...

Seriously though, any ideas?

Who says it is a bad example?

Your link, Ailwon, is by a guy who made his name(in the late 70s and early 80s) coming out against ethanol. Even then, he was accused of using bad numbers:

www.ncga.com/public_polic...22_01b.htm (http://www.ncga.com/public_policy/issues/2001/ethanol/08_22_01b.htm)

www.ethanol-gec.org/corn_eth.htm (http://www.ethanol-gec.org/corn_eth.htm)

Not only that, but his "new" study you linked used the data gathered in those earlier studies(from 1979).

How about more recent studies using newer data?

www.carbohydrateeconomy.o...llon_.html (http://www.carbohydrateeconomy.org/library/admin/uploadedfiles/How_Much_Energy_Does_it_Take_to_Make_a_Gallon_.htm l)

LOL, been afraid of touching this one with a 10-foot pole and a 40' extension because I stray from the plantation on this one.

Gas prices? Fuck 'em. They need to go higher.

*waits for the gasps to finish*

Yeah, I said it. They need to go higher. Now, before you get your panties in a wad and figure "Faust is coming over to the good side" or "Faust has turned into a quiche-eating tree-hugger", hear me out.

Oil is old fucking news. I don't want ANWR tapped. Caribou? Nuke 'em, I don't care about the fucking wildlife refuge part. I give a shit about focus on alternative energy. There are not going to be new ideas if science doesn't get support, financial and otherwise. (Women, do you part, support the fuck-a-nerd program.) If we don't have a reason to give a shit, we won't give a shit. The average person (mostly American) will have a conniption if you raise the gas price by a fraction of a cent. This is pretty much the only way you are going to get the majority screaming for blood enough that we get off the tit of the giant oil-sow. The way off this addiction is out there, and it seems that the only way we're going to get it the attention it needs is to beat ass on some pocketbooks.

There. I've done my lefty time, back to the safety of the libertarian right...*skitters off*

I agree faust we do need alternatively fueled vehicles. However our government,wich is run by a bunch of oil funded fat cats,isn't gonna allow that to happen. Guys liek G.W. and Dick aren't gonna allow the oil industry to take that kinda hit.
That and teh average american can't afford to have the gas prices go up.

You make it sound as if Republicans are the only ones that profit from big business.

That and teh average american can't afford to have the gas prices go up.
Oh trust me... You get used... Fast. :|

It's got nothing to do with republican or democrats. It's got to do with fat cat politicians screwing the people to get a buck.
I know its not just greed. If they managedto put out an affordable car that ran on ,say, solar power, there would be a lot of people out of work. The oil stocks would plummet dramaitically as well. So what do ya do?

The major car manufacturers are slowly comming out with Hybrid cars, and they are selling extremely well. The Toyota Pruis is sold out for the run of this year already, Ford has a hybrid SUV coming out that gets 36 to 40 to the Gallon, and Lexus is putting out a hybrid SUV based on the RX330. These are only the first, Dodge has Hybrid RAM in production, of course the increase is almost non existant for it, due to the limitation electric motor they are using, it creates an 18 percent improvement in mileage if memory serves. So there are alternatives to current gas guzzlers that we americans seem to love. But getting real and meaningful research into alternative fuel sources is going take a back seat until oil becomes a scarce commodity. In the meantime, how many of you "liberals" car pool to work or school?

Interesting sub question, how many labeled conservatives have a liberal or two program/idea they support and vise versa for the Liberals. I know I am a conservative and support a womans right to choose and the development of alternative fuel sources and vehicles, but I am against most gun controls, but for gun law enforcement. My father in law who hasnt voted for a Republican in over 30 years, is for more gun enforcement and less gun control etc. migth be an interesting topic to see where people fall out on this.

If they managedto <sic> put out an affordable car that ran on ,say, solar power, there would be a lot of people out of work

Possibly... but how many new jobs would be created by the manufacture and upkeep of those cars?
If they became as widespread as regular, petroleum fueled cars, it might be a zero sum equation.

I get pretty tired of the "US Oil Interests keep fuel advances off the market" conspiracy theorists. Keep in mind the US is not the only technology center - the whole industrialized world has an interest in the subject. The Japanese for example have been unable to crack the alternative fuel problem either and I don't see where US oil companies have any influence over them.

The unfortunate fact of the matter is that it is a challenging goal to come up with an acceptable substitute to fossil fuels. We need to get it done soon though and at least the hybrid solutions may lead to new technologies that will make it feasible to replace gasoline in the future.

I think alot of you don't get that the "oil" companies are some of the largest spenders in researching alternative fuels, precisely because they don't want to "take that hit".

Don't tap the ANWR!

Nevermind that the land leases would quadruple or better the funds going into alternative fuel research.

How about this.

Right now, Putin is making Russia build the largest pipeline in the world. Siberia is dwarfs ANWR, in actuality some estimates place the possible reserves in arctic eastern Russia as as large or larger than most of the Middle East.
You want gas to be .50 a gallon? Its actually coming. Once Russia has the foreign capital OPEC will find it dealing with a hungry competitor.
Interestingly, at the same time, a project is in the works to build a bridge across the Bering Straight.
dsc.discovery.com/converg...ctive.html (http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/engineering/beringstrait/interactive/interactive.html)
When built and finished it will the most expensive engineering project ever undertaken.
Couple this with the proposed Alaska to Chicago pipeline.
www.energyusernews.com/CD...88,00.html (http://www.energyusernews.com/CDA/ArticleInformation/features/BNP__Features__Item/0,2584,108288,00.html)
This will cost Billions upon Billions to build.

Yes ANWR will be drilled, and the profits will be used, not for alternative fuel sources, but for funding of these projects and the funding for exploration into Siberia, which every oil company in the world is tossing billions into.
We arent going to see oil dry up in our lifetime, indeed, what we will see prices go down and the dynamic of power shift from the middle east.

So whats the downside?

Status Quo. I think we have reached a period where new technology that reduces dependance on oil will actually be suppressed. With no real end to the supply in sight, the ones who would stand to lose the most from cheap, renewable, long last energy sources are the ones who control the research into them.
The internal combustion engine is great, but do we really want it artifically chained to our ankles?

LL, you make my head hurt...but this time I think your points don't seem too far off the mark. *sad face*

h8 facts sometimes

Perhaps an open-source alternative energy program will get the garage hobbyist and inventors and students, etc. pointed in the right direction...kinda like Linux, but for fuel.

Anyone wanna grant me some bucks for a machine-shop, beer, some wrenches and a dry-erase board? (Gotta have a dry-erase board to do anything scientific, ya know.)

Bush and Cheney hurting the average American? lol, more like the 18 cent tax on all gas, which liberals put in place.

Also the higher taxes that liberals support to take money away from the average American and use it to set up ineffective social programs to gain votes.

Small business owners and the regular employees get hit the hardest by our tax laws, the rich corporation owners have tons of tax loopholes (but at least they supply millions of jobs), and the bums that sleep at the beach everyday....well they get free government benefits.

Yes ANWR will be drilled, and the profits will be used, not for alternative fuel sources


The administration's plan has the proceeds going into alternative fuel research as a condition of the ANWR being opened.

We've discussed this very point in this very thread.

The main Russian pipelines (not the Bering Straight one) also will go through some of the least stable countries in the world, most of which have restive muslim populations. I would not count on that cheap oil if I were you.

Bush and Cheney hurting the average American? lol, more like the 18 cent tax on all gas, which liberals put in place.

puhleeze

an extra $1.80 per 10 gallons is hurting the average American?

Skip a Starbuck's latte once a fucking week and you've paid that tax for two fillups if you drive a reasonably maintained non-fuel guzzling road hazard.

Mukaz, most cars have around 20 gallon tanks, and if it was up to liberals the tax on gas would be around 70 cents a gallon. The only reason it has remained fairly low is that republicans are opposing it, and the American people are opposing it. I fill my car up with 91 octane gas, and I have to spend $45 a week.

California emmisions is fucking ridiculous, it helps the enviorment in such a small way.

Global warming is a fucking joke, its a way for enviormentalists to scare people into thinking we are all going to die soon if we don't take extreme measures, when in reality it is all theory and is only hypothisized to raise the temperature by 0.1 F every 100 years.

when in reality it is all theory and is only hypothisized to raise the temperature by 0.1 F every 100 years.

hmmm you sure about that?

not saying your wrong but are you right? heh.

Since the discussion has turned in this direction, take a look at Michael Crichton on Global Warming (repost) (http://www.s8int.com/crichton.html)

Perhaps people will discover that its not such a good idea to drive an empty Ford Excursion (well, empty not including driver) 30-40 miles one way to work.

As far as gas goes, yah its ok to bitch about the price of it, but either you have to just pony up more at the pump or find a way to drive less. Supposedly all of America is obese. Maybe we should try walking or riding a bicycle to places that are close and don't require alot of cargo room. Over the years I have become a real fan of not living further from my work than I can walk in 15 minutes. It doesn't always work out that way.Yet,with gas actually keeping up with inflation now, prices on everything else due to go up because of transportation costs, and no one will recieve a raise to offset the price of gas, maybe its time to rethink how we can arrange our days to reduce the pain at the pump without relying so heavily on the politicians.

Yes I am sure, Time magazine had a cover issue on it not long ago.

First to Crist0:
yes we discussed it in this thread. We also came to the same conclusion of how it worked. What the Bush provision says is that companies who drill and profit from ANWR will pay taxes off the profit for research into alternative fuel sources. Of course we also said that the very same people who want to drill the ANWR are also the leading forces in researching alternative fuel sources.
So they pay taxes to themselves, probably with a little federal funding.
The reason this wont work is Economics 101. Guns or Butter.
For the people who arent familar with this concept, it deals with what is called "opportunity cost".
What the example explains is that in a model where a entity can only produce 2 goods, with finite resources that both use, the more a nation produces of one, the less it can produce of another.
http://www.investopedia.com/images/terms/gunsbutter.gif
Apply this to an oil company.
While vastly wealthy, they do still have finite resources and continued wealth and employment of the individual CEO, CFO, ect ect depends on the happiness of the stockholder.
Why would a company with devote large amounts of resource (talented people, cash, facilites) to programs, that if successful effects their profit margins in a negative way?

Think about it this way. Assume XYZ company manufactures lightbulbs. One of their researchers comes up with a light bulb that will NEVER burn out. Do you think think we will ever see that lightbulb?
Also keep in mind the concept of Planned Obsolence.






This is why California Gas tax is so high (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=www.cs.ualberta.ca/~bulitko/aws/photo/03-08-10476km/index-Images/133.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~bulitko/aws/photo/03-08-10476km/index-Pages/Image133.html&h=480&w=640&sz=50&tbnid=ETtObtOuiVkJ:&tbnh=101&tbnw=134&start=95&prev=/images%3Fq%3DLos%2BAngeles%2Bsmog%26start%3D80%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26c2coff%3D1%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN)

couple the fact that California has more cars per person, and the populace disdains the use of public transportation with
http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritter/images/atmosphere/misc/smog.jpg

Besides, what do you think the gas tax is paying for??
You think its going for social welfare programs or something?
Next time you drive, think about what you are driving on, ya know, the road. How did the United States get to have the greatest infrastructure of roads, bridges, tunnels that anywhere else in the world?
Oh ya.. those extra few cents you pay at the pump. Some of it is State Tax and some of it Federal (interstates use federal funding)
So you basically have two things gas tax is paying for, the cleaning up of pollution from the cars you are using (Is it so much to ask people to clean up after themselves?) and the expansion and upkeep of our roads.
Thats on the governmental end of it.
The Energy companies also have a part in the fluxation and rising of prices.
The first thing to look at is the most basic situation of supply and demand. OPEC knows exactally how much oil it has, its supply has been calculated and it coordinates the release of it in a manner to keep the need up for the longest period of time possible. Therefore it wants to keep supply less that demand. But at the same time it has an interest to keep supply great enough to prevent people from looking at alternative sources of fuel. Keeping supply TOO low will drive prices upward to a point where people no longer want the good.
But we have shown not only a willingness to consume at the set demand, but an increase in our consumption. LA probably doesnt have as many snowstorms as vermont, yet it has more SUVs driving in its streets. Big Huge hulking monstrosities with 12cylinder engines that get about 12 miles per gallon.

LL I know that the tax on gas goes to roads and clean up of pollution, but the roads seem to be in order atm with the 18 cent tax, why is there a need to raise it even higher?

Please tell me a way to effectively clean up smog besides just not adding to it and letting it disperse over time. Not adding any smog at all just isn't realistic.

You cannot force people to drive lame looking electric cars that you must constantly recharge, and if people aren't buying them, companies aren't focusing on them. With electricity problems in California, who wants to not be able to drive to work because of a blackout the night before? Electricity prices are high still, and if everyone drove an electric car the need for electricity would skyrocket and we would have to resort to burning fossil fuels (pretty causes the same sort of pollution as refining gasoline), or dealing with Nuclear powerplants and nuclear waste. Another downside of electric cars is that they are unable to drive long distances without being recharged.

More emmision laws in the end will do very little to help the enviroment, California has some of the most strickt laws, collects the most gas tax, but has the most pollution. No one wants to take the bus because face it, its a slow piece of shit that is dirty and hot inside.

Using oil is just the most convinent thing to do atm. When oil begins to be less convinent than electricty or nuclear power or whatever else, then corporations will switch over to that.

Well, the first thing to do, if we can't get rid of the oil consume at all right now, would be to tune down the usage of oil/gas and oil related products.

Not sure how much gas a 'non SUV' vehicle needs in the US, but from the numbers LL provided, I almosted fainted. My car uses 2.9 gallons in 62 miles - and it is 7 years old! In Europe a new car with a gas usage more then 2.1 gallons over 62 miles is damn hard to sell. Because gas prices are even higher over here.

You folks are simply used to cheap gas prices - fine. Now they raise, nothing you can change, so build better, less gas using motors. Hard to grasp, uh? :p

My SUV would take 2.95 gallons to drive 62 miles :rollin and I drive over 75 miles a day. I bought the most economic vehicle that allowed me to get from point A to point B while carrying a ton of stuff for work. As gas goes up, I have been looking at other vehicles that I could buy that can haul as much but get better mileage. Most of the hybrid cars that are out and are comming out produce so little polution that they qualify for some super clean running vehicle program, no car/Truck/Suv meet those. they get about 500 miles to a tank of gas, the only real trade off is that the SUV can only pull 1000 pounds of weight, so no great lose.

You want to save on gas, go buy a hybrid or a very fuel efficeint car, its the only way big oil will learn is to reduce the demand.

The taxes on roads go up from that 18 sent base because more people are driving and they are wearing faster than in the past. Not to mention the need to expand existing roads and bridges that are otherwise in good repair but can't handle current demand and create bottlenecks.

As for the United States being unable to build a high MPG engine, thats just not true. The US could build an engine that would get 100MPG if political forces allowed it and there was a market demand for such a thing. It is not the science and engineering holding back such technology, its social/political/economic issues. If gas goes up higher, that may soon change.

Mukaz, most cars have around 20 gallon tanks, and if it was up to liberals the tax on gas would be around 70 cents a gallon. The only reason it has remained fairly low is that republicans are opposing it, and the American people are opposing it. I fill my car up with 91 octane gas, and I have to spend $45 a week.

1. Most SUVs have 20 gallon tanks sure, but SUVs aren't cars, they are trucks. Trucks with shitty gas mileage.

2. Raising taxes on gas isn't just for liberals anymore. I'm gonna throw my hat in the ring with Faust on this one.

3. I spend less than 20 dollars a week filling my '98 Chevy Prism, drive 50 miles a day round trip between home and work and laugh my ass off at all the SUV drivers bitching about $50 fillups twice a week.

Half the car payment and 1/5 the gas bill makes me think the problem isn't exhorbitant taxes on a gallon of gas.

it helps the enviorment in such a small way.

Any help is welcomed in my book!!

Global warming is a fucking joke, its a way for enviormentalists to scare people into thinking we are all going to die soon if we don't take extreme measures, when in reality it is all theory and is only hypothisized to raise the temperature by 0.1 F every 100 years.

Okay...let's say it is. What about polution, overpopulation, loss of spiecies, deforestation of the rain forest, decreasing fish yields, thining of the ozone layer...are these jokes too.

I have to spend $45 a week

Buy a hybrid, econobox, move closer to work, ride a bus, take light rail (if available), car pool....shut up.

Personally I moved closer to work. Six miles...my car's fun to drive and gets 30mpg.

I wonder how much fuel would be saved if most of the vehicles sold in the US used manual transmissions instead of automatic ones.

Maybe a Euro can confirm this: Aren't most of the vehicles in Europe manual transmission types?

It boggles my mind that there are people who can not drive a stick... (THORMIR!)
_________

I'm also very interested to see what effect the recent redesign (RENSIS) of a Wankel cycle engine has on the research that has been done with those engine types and natural gas as a fuel type.

Esbat

Automatics are now just as good as manual and in some cases exceed stick shifts in fuel economy. Most every component in a car's drivetrain is computer managed, so shift points can be regulated to give the best performance and economy for different driving conditions. Automatics now have up to 6 speeds with some having 2 overdrives for even greater fuel economy.

Huh... how many cars have that quality of equipment, though?

In fact, looking at the Chevrolet Cobalt ( a brand new model) and the Honda Civic (some would argue the standard in economy cars, same deal as above), one can see that even if the technology has been produced, it hasn't been implemented. Both autos listed above come standard with a five speed, and the automatic option is a four speed.

This doesn't even take into account how many cars are still on the road using even older, less efficient systems (three speed hydraulic automatic, anyone?).

Hell, there have been Continuously Variable Transmissions (CVT) (http://cvt.com.sapo.pt/toc_en.htm) around for a long time without much implementation- showing that we're back to the problem that others in the thread have talked about:
If the technology to use less fuel isn't put into production, it isn't a factor.

In Europe you hardly find an automatic transmission, most people enjoy the feeling of actualy driving a car ... what not neccessarily means they drive more economic.

I really don't think you can correlate transmission choice to gas economy, on a macro scale. For every person that shifted 2-3-5, there'd be a person like me that drives like a maniac anytime they touch a manual transmission.

wth i drive mine 1-3-5

then i'll i'll do a 2-4, or i'll pretend to be speed racer and as get on the freeway i'll be a 1-2-3-4-5 person randomly pressing buttons prettening i'm shooting myself up in the air or re-inflating my tires

yes we discussed it in this thread. We also came to the same conclusion of how it worked. What the Bush provision says is that companies who drill and profit from ANWR will pay taxes off the profit for research into alternative fuel sources. Of course we also said that the very same people who want to drill the ANWR are also the leading forces in researching alternative fuel sources.
So they pay taxes to themselves, probably with a little federal funding.


Thank you for proving you read jack shit about the actual proposal.

The fact of the matter is that this proposal would take money gained from the land leases(not taxes...did you also forget to read how additional areas would be set aside for wildlife in proportion to what was being used for oil exploration while you "read" the proposal?) and use it to triple the highest amount of funding for alternative fuel research under the Clinton administration.

BTW, if you want to keep bitching about how energy companies are the biggest researchers of emerging energy technologies, by all means keep at it.

Im not bitching, its reality. Im just pointing it out.

But what you posted doesnt change anything. Its still Guns and Butter and the companies are paying Whatever you want to call it, to themselves.

They're paying it to the government who then decides who to give it to. It could be them, it could be some guy out at MIT or Cal Tech.

If they've got a good R&D department why not give them money they have to spend on alternative fuel technologies?

You do want them to come up with new technologies?

Why does it bother you if they get alot more money towards making that happen?

The more spent on that R&D, the faster those new sources can come about.

If it can be done without harming the environment while boosting our economy, increasing jobs and lowering gas prices..WTF are we waiting for?

Do you need the concept of "Guns and Butter" explained to you?
Go back and read the thread.. You are repeating ground and not taking into accounts points already raised.

If the money was going to some guy at MIT or wherever, great, but in the real world that we both live a person who is on ground level and comes up with a great alternative fuel source will attract a BOAT load of money from Energy Companies who will buy his work and patent. How much money do you think an Energy company would be willing to pay to control a product that could concievably put them out of business?

If they've got a good R&D department why not give them money they have to spend on alternative fuel technologies?
Again...
You are the CEO of an Exxon. Grats to you! You make pretty good profits and earn a nice living. You are an honest man and care about the people who work for you.
Monday morning you go into a board meeting.
Geologists predict that in the Areas you are presently drilling, given current consumption and based on models of population growth, industrial expansion and usage effeciency, you have approx. 15 years of oil production at this current rate, scale up or down for increases.
It is recommended that you redouble efforts to locate and drill new areas and sources of oil. The most likely and unexplored area is in Eastern Siberia. Unfortunatly this is a massively expensive undertaking that will require years of ground work and infrastruction and wind up costing trillions, but, if spread out over 15 years and the current level of income is maintained, then it turns out to be practicle investment of funds and manpower. You commit to it.
The next person to speak is a member of your Alternative Fuel Division.
They have made a incredible break though, they have come up with a engine that gets 600 miles to the gallon without sacrificing any horsepower.
Congratulations on profit skydiving some 200% over the next 5 years.

So your stance is that energy corporations are purposefully and deliberately sabotaging alternative fuel technologies?

You've watched one too many Captain Planet episodes.

Somewhere in the back of your mind there isn't the slightest notion that perhaps instead of sweeping this new technology under the rug they will try to diversify and do both the older fossil fuels and the new fuels? It doesn't make sense to you that instead of putting all of their eggs in one basket with oil they would want to be a leader in emerging energy sources too?

Since you brought up "an" Exxon:


Research alliances exist with Caterpillar, Mercedes, Toyota, and General Motors to bring new fuels and lubricants for current needs as well as advanced engine systems such as hybrids and fuel cells.


www2.exxonmobil.com/Corpo...etails.asp (http://www2.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Notebook/Technology/Corp_N_TechnologyDetails.asp)


Do you need the concept of "Guns and Butter" explained to you?


Do you need the concept of diversification explained to you?

Cmon.. we both live in the real world I assume.

The world where automobile companies design cars with planned obsolence
The world where Tobacco companies engineer a more addictive tobacco.

This isnt evil or bad, its the nature of corperations. They operate in predicable and logical ways with stated and obvious objectives. It isnt sinister any more than a Lion chasing down an Antelope is. Its the nature of the beast.

Answer this one simple question.
If XZY lightbulb Company came up with a lightbulb that would NEVER burn out, would they market and sell this?
If ABC Tire Company invented a type of Rubber that would never wear down, would we ever be able to buy these tires?

It is unfair and unrealistic to ask companies to invent the device of their irrelevance. They just wont do it, they will not dump funds into areas that are Not only NOT going to show a return on profits but HURT them in the short and long term.

Can you honestly with a straight face say you feel the best way to come up with ways to lessen our dependance on gas and oil, is to give the research totally to the people who sell us the oil and gas?

""THE GAS PRICE CRISIS: PRESIDENT'S REMARKS CELEBRATING AMERICANS' PATRIOTIC PRIVILEGE TO INVEST OUR "TAX RELIEF" IN OIL BARON VACATION CHATEAUS
Remarks by the President
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Today I wanted to take a few minutes to speak about an issue which I know is very much on America's mind: the price of sweet, inky-black lubricating crude oil. All across this great land of ours, the average price at the Texaco pump has not only jumped to its highest level in history, but is also poised to maintain its heavenward trajectory straight through the spring and summer as well – perhaps reaching as high as a life-affirming $3.50/gallon.

Now I'm told by my advisors that for some reason, this is considered a problem by certain mysterious persons. Why just yesterday, Karl Rove came into my office and said, "Sir, the people are angry because they have no Regular Unleaded." And I was all, "Well let them have Super-Premium Unleaded instead, lardass!" Yet for some reason which still eludes me, Karl insists we need to give people a fabricated reason to not mind doing that. So here we go.

As America knows, my Administration is comprised of a cadre of fabulously wealthy oil men. Vice President Cheney and I know the oil industry inside and out. In fact, one of the reasons a near-majority of Americans voted for us was they believed that with two petrochemical superstars at the helm of this great national supertanker which is the US of A, we would never suffer the indignity of having to spend as much for a gallon of gasoline as we do for a cup of Dunkin' Donuts coffee. And yet here we are. Funny how life throws you curveballs, ain't it?

Now certain enviro-mental liberals out there would point to the fact that while you people may be feeling the squeeze of these prices, that Americans still pay peanuts for oil compared to what folks in Europe do. And though I usually disagree with anything liberals say, I'm going to flash a wee bit of my famous bipartisanarianship and say that they've got themselves one heck of a point on this one. Indeed, we should all feel privileged to still be enjoying such fuel costs below the inevitable $20/gallon!

Because so what if oil prices have jumped nearly 100% since I took office! And so what if that means an extra $1000 per year at the pump filling up your SUV! Because unlike John Kerry, I have cut your taxes by $300! And if there's one thing people need to understand, it's that price hikes in the free market are NOT corporate taxes! Those additional corporate revenues are put to good use on stuff like executive golden parachutes and investment in Saudi infrastructure. Taxes, on the other hand, get frittered away on worthless liberal pork like American highway upkeep, American public education, and maintaining a prepared and well-equipped American military with which to defend America from America-hating Muslims!

In short, by "investing" your whopping "tax relief" into the coffers of the petrochemical conglomerates that fund my family's political campaigns, American voters do their patriotic part to ensure a future in which all my dearest billionaire oil buddies are so adequately compensated, they need no longer seek out foreign workers when hiring custodial staff for their 100-foot yachts.

(Applause.)

Thank you, and God Bless America. ""

If XZY lightbulb Company came up with a lightbulb that would NEVER burn out, would they market and sell this?

Yes, as long as the XZY Lightbulb Company was not in a monopolistic environment.

Though obviously not forever, the advantages of a traffic light that lasts for decades instead of months is a good enough case in point:

auto.howstuffworks.com/question178.htm (http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question178.htm)

Economics isn't the entire issue as you're arguing L2, it's system engineering and modularity that are the biggest problems. What what the hell will we do with all that prime commercial real estate taken up by gas stations? Anyway, your tin-hatness is shining through.

Can you honestly with a straight face say you feel the best way to come up with ways to lessen our dependance on gas and oil, is to give the research totally to the people who sell us the oil and gas?


Damn, you gotta stop inventing things for me to say.

Where did I say research should be totally given to oil companies?

Point it out for me please.

Oh, and we all know the car companies would never want to work on emerging technologies..


Since the introduction of hybrid vehicles in model year 2000, hybrid vehicle sales have increased over 570 percent with a compound annual growth rate of 88.6 percent


www.canadiandriver.com/news/040423-5.htm (http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/040423-5.htm)

We all know how they are just evil and hell bent on killing the earth(EARTH! WIND! WATER...).

As far as business sense goes they're all dumb as a box of rocks.

Invest in a market where sales have increased 570% in 3 years? Compound growth of almost 90% yearly? You say we can't keep up with the demand?

Nah, this will never work. Let's trash this whole "hybrid" idea and go back to making those earth killing cars we all love - it will give us more time to plot the destruction of the rain forest.

For those saying that energy companies are not researching or supplying funds towards Fuel Efficient R&D

ChevronTexaco subsidiary (http://www.ovonic.com/news_events/5_2_press_releases/20030605.htm)

Nah, this will never work. Let's trash this whole "hybrid" idea and go back to making those earth killing cars we all love - it will give us more time to plot the destruction of the rain forest.

My car has no catlytic converters, and it runs on endangered silverback gorillas for fuel.

mine runs off of the methane that gass puts off and can travel in time

The point being..
There will never be a Wright Brothers or Model T moment in regards to this.
Can you stop technology.. no but you can contain and slow it down.
There wont ever again be an sudden revolution that turns everything on its head. It will be Drip Drip Drip.. technology released and developed not when availible or possible, but in a way that is most convienient for the people developing it.
It is all about profit, and thats not a bad thing, but we need to remember the limitations of free market incentive and understand the trade off we make.

Personally, I would like to see a program like NASA, except totally devoted to the development of Alternative Energy sources. The funds from things like the proposed ANWR "leasing", fines from polluters, gas tax, federal car tax...
Totally independant and attracting the best and brightest minds our nation produces and giving them all the best technology and resources to work with.
How come we dont have an American equiviant of CERN?

I was watching this show on saudi arabia yesterday. They were in a car following a regular guy life and he stop to take gas. He takes his gas then start complaining about how expensive gas has become. The reporter asks him how much and the guy answer 25 cents the gallon. Ah I just stopped tv after that :p

I gotta call bullshit on that show. A barrel is 42 gallons (with regard to oil). A barrel of crude oil is worth around 40 dollars at the moment. There is no way that refined oil is going to be nearly four times cheaper than crude.

Not to mention that they probably use the metric system in Saudi Arabia anyway.

'The reporter asks him how much and the guy answer 25 cents the gallon. Ah I just stopped tv after that '

- :rollin

Woops ya correct will its 25 the liter so I think 75 the gallon?

That'd make it 94ish per gallon. Of course in retrospect, crude oil is much cheaper at the source, so that probably works out.

Hell...im using this time of high gas prices to get myself ready for the madness im going to encounter when I move to Sweden....atm the gas price is 5.00 USD a gallon over there.

INC fuel efficiant car and mountian bike :(

Well if someone didnt have some purple hot rod we still have some damn gas left here in the US for us to enjoy!!!:p

Heh, thank god I sold it eh! But it turned into this...

http://files3.helgon.net/Gallery/{84D/{84D9A972-B3B6-4B3D-A8FA-1F90CE8C7C41}.jpg

Is that 13k? I counted them all but might have miss some. 13k for a PONTIAC!!!!

Whos the sucka:p Grats Daz now dont spend that all in once place.

alot of those don't look like ben franks

I gotta call bullshit on that show. A barrel is 42 gallons (with regard to oil). A barrel of crude oil is worth around 40 dollars at the moment. There is no way that refined oil is going to be nearly four times cheaper than crude.

Did it not occur to you that it's probably not $42 / gallon in Saudi Arabia?

Close Ibudin - 11,500.
The pile of 50s prolly threw ya off.
I was pretty suprised when they guy that bought it ran to his closet and came back with a stack of 100s and 50s...that smelled like mothballs. Maybe I will visit him again soon! :evil