sweet baboo Posted September 24, 2004 Posted September 24, 2004 http://washingtontimes.com/world/20040924-120647-9243r.htm
KD in CA Posted September 24, 2004 Posted September 24, 2004 Hardly a surprise considering the complete lack of outrage by muslims following 9-11.
Typical TBD Guy Posted September 24, 2004 Posted September 24, 2004 "Who told them to come here and sell our fortunes?" he asked. "I would not only kill an American, I would slaughter him and drink his blood. We'll never forget what the Americans have done to us." :I starred in Brokeback Mountain:
sweet baboo Posted September 24, 2004 Author Posted September 24, 2004 what he means is, he prefers to get robbed and killed by Saddam's secret police and his wife and daughters raped by Saddam's sons...
Tux of Borg Posted September 24, 2004 Posted September 24, 2004 As much as I hate to agree with environmentalist, I'm all for developing alternative fuels for our cars. In 10 to 20 years the need for oil will drop causing a rippling effect across the middle east. Let Allah save them from that.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted September 25, 2004 Posted September 25, 2004 As much as I hate to agree with environmentalist, I'm all for developing alternative fuels for our cars. In 10 to 20 years the need for oil will drop causing a rippling effect across the middle east. Let Allah save them from that. 44845[/snapback] Exactly. hydrogen and fusion mean we send those camel-jockeys back to the middle ages. Ta Ta, Arabs, it wasn't nice knowing ya. Enjoy the goat herding.
Tux of Borg Posted September 25, 2004 Posted September 25, 2004 Exactly. hydrogen and fusion mean we send those camel-jockeys back to the middle ages. Ta Ta, Arabs, it wasn't nice knowing ya. Enjoy the goat herding. 45144[/snapback] There was an article up on CNN.com a few month ago, about how OPEC expected to be fully compensated if we switch to alternative fuels. Their argument was based on how the US government pays its farmers. They wanted to be paid to produce so much oil, even if no one will use it.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted September 25, 2004 Posted September 25, 2004 There was an article up on CNN.com a few month ago, about how OPEC expected to be fully compensated if we switch to alternative fuels. Their argument was based on how the US government pays its farmers. They wanted to be paid to produce so much oil, even if no one will use it. 45290[/snapback] Yeah good luck with that you rat bastards. Starve for all I care
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted September 26, 2004 Posted September 26, 2004 As much as I hate to agree with environmentalist, I'm all for developing alternative fuels for our cars. In 10 to 20 years the need for oil will drop causing a rippling effect across the middle east. Let Allah save them from that. 44845[/snapback] Excellent point... so why isn't Bush pushing for much more alternative research, instead of propping up the oil companies by drilling in the reserves, etc?? The package he put through only scratches the surface, and it is NOT a long-term solution!!!! Conflict of interest, that's why. We need intelligence...
Alaska Darin Posted September 26, 2004 Posted September 26, 2004 Excellent point... so why isn't Bush pushing for much more alternative research, instead of propping up the oil companies by drilling in the reserves, etc?? The package he put through only scratches the surface, and it is NOT a long-term solution!!!! Conflict of interest, that's why. We need intelligence... 45678[/snapback] You mean like a 19 year Senator that hasn't sponsored any meaningful legislation in that arena either?
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted September 26, 2004 Posted September 26, 2004 You mean like a 19 year Senator that hasn't sponsored any meaningful legislation in that arena either? 45708[/snapback] The President of the United States has the means and power to propose that sort of a step forward, and you know it. Putting the issue out there as a top priority, and getting it done COULD be accomplished is there was no conflict of interest. He may not be able to submit legislation DIRECTLY, but his indirect pressure would go a LONG ways. For the record, I am NOT a Kerry supporter, I vote for the lesser of two evils. This contest is not about what Kerry hasn't done, it's what Bush has or has not done, plain and simple!! And I am just pointing out what is obvious and lacking.
Tux of Borg Posted September 26, 2004 Posted September 26, 2004 Ethanol (corn fuel) is costly to produce. I think over time the cost will drop and it will become an alternative to gasoline. I'm all for taking money out of OPEC's pockets and giving it to the American farmers. It's a win-win situation.
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted September 26, 2004 Posted September 26, 2004 Ethanol (corn fuel) is costly to produce. I think over time the cost will drop and it will become an alternative to gasoline. I'm all for taking money out of OPEC's pockets and giving it to the American farmers. It's a win-win situation. 45760[/snapback] Solar power ALSO is a great idea, for the advancement in that area has really taken off. Something is frightfully wrong when we have all of this technology that, when applied and paid for (albeit expensive), could REALLY sever our dependence on oil, propel our economy to new heights, and make us look REALLY good as compared to the EU, even though we aren't a part of Kyoto. Could you imagine the possibilities? DAMN if only we had a TR now. DAMN.
Alaska Darin Posted September 26, 2004 Posted September 26, 2004 The President of the United States has the means and power to propose that sort of a step forward, and you know it. Putting the issue out there as a top priority, and getting it done COULD be accomplished is there was no conflict of interest. He may not be able to submit legislation DIRECTLY, but his indirect pressure would go a LONG ways. For the record, I am NOT a Kerry supporter, I vote for the lesser of two evils. This contest is not about what Kerry hasn't done, it's what Bush has or has not done, plain and simple!! And I am just pointing out what is obvious and lacking. 45757[/snapback] No he doesn't. We can keep pretending he does, but reality says Congress controls the purse strings of this country and virtually nothing happens without them. Kerry has been a huge part of the problem for the last 19 years. Ignoring this fact and trumpeting him as the lesser of two evils is at best disingenuous. For whatever reason, most of you have more than enough facts to know that these two parties are in it for their own power only, yet you continue to follow them down the primrose path - right off the cliff. 4 years from now, regardless of which of these buffoons holds the Executive and which of these parties controls the legislature, AMERICA will be worse off. Our children will be even more poorly educated. The cost of health care will continue to spiral upwards. The military will continue to cost more and more money, despite the fact that we already spend as much as the next 11 countries COMBINED. The deficit will continue to increase, as they trade our very future for short term political appeasement. You are getting exactly what you deserve.
UConn James Posted September 26, 2004 Posted September 26, 2004 No he doesn't. We can keep pretending he does, but reality says Congress controls the purse strings of this country and virtually nothing happens without them. Kerry has been a huge part of the problem for the last 19 years. Ignoring this fact and trumpeting him as the lesser of two evils is at best disingenuous. For whatever reason, most of you have more than enough facts to know that these two parties are in it for their own power only, yet you continue to follow them down the primrose path - right off the cliff. 4 years from now, regardless of which of these buffoons holds the Executive and which of these parties controls the legislature, AMERICA will be worse off. Our children will be even more poorly educated. The cost of health care will continue to spiral upwards. The military will continue to cost more and more money, despite the fact that we already spend as much as the next 11 countries COMBINED. The deficit will continue to increase, as they trade our very future for short term political appeasement. You are getting exactly what you deserve. 46027[/snapback] Well, I rather think this would be an issue much like the Moon Mission. Issue a challenge to America's scientists and businesses as to where they put their resources b/c it's important to the national interests. AD, I'm sorry but if your political aims don't include being elected President, or if we have 126 candidates like S. Africa, you're NEVER going to be voting for someone you agree with 100 percent of the time on 100 percent of the issues. The system requires a candidate have so many electoral votes, which, if divided among more than three candidates, the House elects the Pres. But there's another thread for this.... So, you do a cost-benefit analysis and choose the candidate who most nearly accurately is in line with your own views when you balance all and bring all to mind, to borrow from Yeats. Kerry has a consistent voting record on energy independence. Provide more funding now to acheive independence by 2010, including to get 100,000 hydrogen-powered cars on the road by that year. Voted not to de-fund solar energy tax credits. Look at Bush-Cheney's proposals and actions and it focuses on drilling in ANWR and tribal lands that wouldn't net any oil for 25 years (if any is there), letting the Clean Air Act disappear into the wind, and trying to de-fund sloar energy credits through Republican Senators. The problem w/ alternative energies is that the monolpolistic oil industry doesn't have a monopoly on hydrogen fuel, solar power, wind energy, etc. Bush's employment history doesn't lead me to believe he wants to change things.
sweet baboo Posted September 27, 2004 Author Posted September 27, 2004 Excellent point... so why isn't Bush pushing for much more alternative research, instead of propping up the oil companies by drilling in the reserves, etc?? The package he put through only scratches the surface, and it is NOT a long-term solution!!!! Conflict of interest, that's why. We need intelligence... 45678[/snapback] i'd really like to know how you think the president would be able to PUSH for more alternative research when the level of research for alternative sources of energy have been pushed to the max by the scientific community already...that's pretty much an insult to those involved in the field as you're basically saying they're not trying...throwing more money into this research won't make a difference either...in any case, what the general public doesn't seem to understand is, conceptually or ideally throwing more money or attention towards research won't make a difference as the field is already highly saturated with both brains and funding...unless someone can break the laws of physics and thermodynamics, it's going to take a VERY long time to find another viable source of energy think of it this way, with the ridiculous number of top scientists busting their asses to cure cancer and aids, would giving them a billion dollars a day make them find a cure any faster? would the president standing on his podium yelling at them to hurry it up make things go any faster? the answer is no...scientific research is slow and tedious and don't worry about the evil monopolistic oil industry...when a viable source of alternative energy becomes developed, companies will be scrambling all over each other to develop it as the potential to make big bucks will spread like wildfire
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted September 27, 2004 Posted September 27, 2004 No he doesn't. We can keep pretending he does, but reality says Congress controls the purse strings of this country and virtually nothing happens without them. Kerry has been a huge part of the problem for the last 19 years. Ignoring this fact and trumpeting him as the lesser of two evils is at best disingenuous. For whatever reason, most of you have more than enough facts to know that these two parties are in it for their own power only, yet you continue to follow them down the primrose path - right off the cliff. 4 years from now, regardless of which of these buffoons holds the Executive and which of these parties controls the legislature, AMERICA will be worse off. Our children will be even more poorly educated. The cost of health care will continue to spiral upwards. The military will continue to cost more and more money, despite the fact that we already spend as much as the next 11 countries COMBINED. The deficit will continue to increase, as they trade our very future for short term political appeasement. You are getting exactly what you deserve. 46027[/snapback] All right then... you leave me no choice but to look around for a myriad of sources proving that the President has a lot of pull when it comes to proposing necessary legislation through others. I'll get back to you. Choosing the lesser of two evils is MUCH better than what you offer... no solutions to this problem. I asked you for your thought on solutions, and you didn't have any to share. So I have no choice but to vote for one or the other.
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted September 27, 2004 Posted September 27, 2004 i'd really like to know how you think the president would be able to PUSH for more alternative research when the level of research for alternative sources of energy have been pushed to the max by the scientific community already...that's pretty much an insult to those involved in the field as you're basically saying they're not trying...throwing more money into this research won't make a difference either...in any case, what the general public doesn't seem to understand is, conceptually or ideally throwing more money or attention towards research won't make a difference as the field is already highly saturated with both brains and funding...unless someone can break the laws of physics and thermodynamics, it's going to take a VERY long time to find another viable source of energy think of it this way, with the ridiculous number of top scientists busting their asses to cure cancer and aids, would giving them a billion dollars a day make them find a cure any faster? would the president standing on his podium yelling at them to hurry it up make things go any faster? the answer is no...scientific research is slow and tedious and don't worry about the evil monopolistic oil industry...when a viable source of alternative energy becomes developed, companies will be scrambling all over each other to develop it as the potential to make big bucks will spread like wildfire 46432[/snapback] Bull. They have the technology to make it happen NOW, and yet these products are trickling out like they were running on plutonium or something. You know as well as I that those big industries are fighting the alternative energy people tooth and nail to protect their profits now. Sooner or later the pressure will become too great, but by that time, we'll be fighting half the Middle East and paying $5.00 a gallon in gas. The time is NOW to get going.
sweet baboo Posted September 27, 2004 Author Posted September 27, 2004 Bull. They have the technology to make it happen NOW, and yet these products are trickling out like they were running on plutonium or something. 46485[/snapback] like what? I'm a chemical engineering PhD student that almost went in the direction of alternative energy source development (specifically hydrogen fuel cells for me)...I decided not to choose that path partially because I was more interested in biomedical engineering applications, but also because most of the work I'd be doing in alternative energy would be theoretical rather than developmental since the end is still far out of sight GM is in rochester with a big hydrogen fuel cell development facility...i have friend doing his PhD work jointly with them and the university of rochester...they currently have a 10 year plan to make a viable and efficient fuel cell...if they could finish it faster, you don't think they would? toyota is kicking GM's ass up and down with the hybrid technology (which really isn't that great)...since GM needs to pay toyota to use the hybrid tech, the conspiracy theory that big oil is holding down other solutions is pretty bunk another example of alternative energy not being used is wind energy...i'm not entirely sure of its efficiency, but I do remember reading that it has been shot down repeatedly in many communities because it was deemed too unsightly
Fan in San Diego Posted September 28, 2004 Posted September 28, 2004 Exactly. hydrogen and fusion mean we send those camel-jockeys back to the middle ages. Ta Ta, Arabs, it wasn't nice knowing ya. Enjoy the goat herding. 45144[/snapback] I completely agree. Lets get hydrogen cars rolling along. I'll be first in line to buy one ! Send the middle east back to making carpets and baskets for a living.
Recommended Posts