Fair enough, I agree of the fact that FDR ruled during which all three branches were essentially his party.ludahai said:I don't have a specific complaint to make about the others. I DO have a complaint to make about FDR and as usual, you can't answer it.
BTW, I hope the year of the Dog is treating you well.
She did look like a complete idiot though. This was a state of the union address, sure you would be gleeful that you played your roll as the opposition well, but acts like that only make her look like a complete idiot and a disgrace.aps said:What I find rather disgusting is that there is Bush saying that we need to put partisan politics aside, while at the same time, Karl Rove is making speeches about how the democrats have a pre-9-11 mindset. Yeah, let's set aside partisan politics. :roll:
For shame, a complete disgrace seriously, a bunch of kindergarteners in suits.Trajan Octavian Titus said:The worst bit of partisanship is when Bush mentioned the failure of his social security initiative and the entire left side of the isle stood up and applauded not to mention the fact that they invited Sheehan.
I agree with the Ethanol portion, but that last one with hydrogen, no, it's not a good option at all. You're forgetting of the vast infrastructure needed to supply fuels, it's not just a matter of having vehicles. Finally for energy volume ratio, hydrogen is just not energetic enough. Even chilling the fuel down to liquid form would be extreemly inefficient to sustain a moving vehicle to reach the 300 mile range.Trajan Octavian Titus said:Damn right not even the Democrats can argue with this one, Brazil has been oil free for a while now they now use appx 70% ethanol as a fuel source, if it can work there why can't it work here? We should make it a prerequisite if the farmers want to continue recieving their subsidies then they have to set aside a certain percentage of their crops soully for ethanol production. Combined with a nuclear power inititiative used to produce hydrogen we could easily rid ourselves of oil within a decade.
Again lame act for the dance they did during the address.reaganburch said:Ok, well then, lets firstly stipulate that the Presidents SS Plan is bunk. Even if that's true, the Democrats just didn't clap, they jumped up for joy not for the dismissal of a bad policy, but to show up and embarrass the President and hence, disrespect the office of the President.
Actually yes the dems did have several, not just one. But that's aside the point, the focus is that they can't really do much being in such a minority. The republicans control congress, and it's almost this, if it's not our plan there's no plan, sort of mentality.reaganburch said:Secondly, what is the Democrat plan for the securing and fixing of Social Security? Do they have one? This certainly isn't a problem that has recently come to light, this has been a storm brewing for a long time that everyone has seen.
jfuh said:I agree with the Ethanol portion, but that last one with hydrogen, no, it's not a good option at all. You're forgetting of the vast infrastructure needed to supply fuels, it's not just a matter of having vehicles. Finally for energy volume ratio, hydrogen is just not energetic enough. Even chilling the fuel down to liquid form would be extreemly inefficient to sustain a moving vehicle to reach the 300 mile range.
The short coming in hydrogen is not so much of the methodology of its manufacturing, but more so in the reliability and safety of it's storage and transport. The space program not using hydrogen and oxygen since the apollo program, with all thier specialists and engineers still exhibit catastrophic failures with fuel. Imagine if the average fuel junky or ignorant guy that goes to refuel at the local gas station, leaving the engine running while talking on the cell phone and smoking a cig gets in close proximity to a hydrogen tank. The consequences are unimaginable.Trajan Octavian Titus said:I think Hydrogen is the energy of the future like the President said it still needs more research and development to make it a viable alternative, I've heard that the major drawback of hydrogen is that it takes more energy to extract it from water than the output is but imagine if we hook up the hydrogen production plant to nuclear reactors and/or free energy plants; solar, wind, thermal, current, etc etc, the main thing is that it will still take more energy to create it but uranium is man made and natural energy is infinite, and it's being able to transfer those energy sources into a form suitable for locomotion that is what makes hydrogen such an innovative step forward.
I've no problem with the nuclear option, not though because france has more as they like to set off nuclear tests in paradise. But because it is indeed the cleanest source of energy available today that measures in gigawatts.Trajan Octavian Titus said:Also, even if you don't like the hydrogen idea then take into consideration the nuclear power inititiative, do you realize that France has more reactors than the U.S.? Something like 40% of our electricity comes from fossil fuels, it's not just cars that contribute to our oil dependency it's everything from your t.v. to your computer. There is no reason in the world that France should have more nuclear reactors than the U.S..
alphieb said:This is the email I got from GSFP. This is a freedom violation.
GSFP co-founder Cindy Sheehan was arrested last night at the state of the union address. She was invited to attend by Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey. . She was escorted into the chambers by a representative of Congresswoman Barbara Lees office. Cindy had no intention of disrupting the speech. Partly out of respect for Lynn Woolsey . It was released by someone from the capital that Cindy unfurled a banner and was disruptive.
The truth is Cindy was wearing a t-shirt the VFP had made to commemorate the grime milestone of the death of the 2000th soldier in Iraq. The shirt says 2245 dead how many more. Cindy had been wearing this shirt all day and wore it to the SOTU. I was told by a congressional staffer that as far as they were aware there was no dress code guidelines for the guests who sit in the gallery. Cindy was in the gallery.
She was seated at 8:30 pm. It was hot in the building so Cindy unzipped her sweater to remove it. Before she even had it off a capital police officer began shouting “protestor” and hustled her out of the chambers. They were very rough and rude with her. She was given a citation for demonstrating inside the capital building…..after being detained for 3 ½ hours.
This has got to stop. How many of your civil liberties are you willing to give up?
No one with a dissenting viewpoint is allowed anywhere near where King George speaks.
Ordinances have been put in place in the county around King Georges ranch that effectively hinder protestors from exorcizing their right to free speech and to petition our government officials.
You can’t wear a message t-shirt inside the capital which in effect is another infringement on our 1st amendment guarantee to freedom of speech .
King Georges henchmen are spying on American citizens under the guise of battling terrorism.
Show your support for Cindy and daily wear the number of Service members killed in Iraq on your shirts or blouses. Even you just jot it on masking tape and stick it to your top. We need to show the administration and those Americans with their heads in the sand this horrific number.
UNTIL WE RISE UP AND SAY ENOUGH IS ENOUGH THIS WILL ONLY GET WORSE
In Peace,
jfuh said:The short coming in hydrogen is not so much of the methodology of its manufacturing, but more so in the reliability and safety of it's storage and transport. The space program not using hydrogen and oxygen since the apollo program, with all thier specialists and engineers still exhibit catastrophic failures with fuel. Imagine if the average fuel junky or ignorant guy that goes to refuel at the local gas station, leaving the engine running while talking on the cell phone and smoking a cig gets in close proximity to a hydrogen tank. The consequences are unimaginable.
Hydrogen is just not feaseable. However, bio-fuels are very much feasable.
Also, Uranium is not man made, it's processed and refined, but it is hardly man made. Just what do you mean by natural energy is infinite?
I've no problem with the nuclear option, not though because france has more as they like to set off nuclear tests in paradise. But because it is indeed the cleanest source of energy available today that measures in gigawatts.
alphieb said:This is the email I got from GSFP. This is a freedom violation.
GSFP co-founder Cindy Sheehan was arrested last night at the state of the union address. She was invited to attend by Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey. . She was escorted into the chambers by a representative of Congresswoman Barbara Lees office. Cindy had no intention of disrupting the speech. Partly out of respect for Lynn Woolsey . It was released by someone from the capital that Cindy unfurled a banner and was disruptive.
The truth is Cindy was wearing a t-shirt the VFP had made to commemorate the grime milestone of the death of the 2000th soldier in Iraq. The shirt says 2245 dead how many more. Cindy had been wearing this shirt all day and wore it to the SOTU. I was told by a congressional staffer that as far as they were aware there was no dress code guidelines for the guests who sit in the gallery. Cindy was in the gallery.
She was seated at 8:30 pm. It was hot in the building so Cindy unzipped her sweater to remove it. Before she even had it off a capital police officer began shouting “protestor” and hustled her out of the chambers. They were very rough and rude with her. She was given a citation for demonstrating inside the capital building…..after being detained for 3 ½ hours.
This has got to stop. How many of your civil liberties are you willing to give up?
No one with a dissenting viewpoint is allowed anywhere near where King George speaks.
Ordinances have been put in place in the county around King Georges ranch that effectively hinder protestors from exorcizing their right to free speech and to petition our government officials.
You can’t wear a message t-shirt inside the capital which in effect is another infringement on our 1st amendment guarantee to freedom of speech .
King Georges henchmen are spying on American citizens under the guise of battling terrorism.
Show your support for Cindy and daily wear the number of Service members killed in Iraq on your shirts or blouses. Even you just jot it on masking tape and stick it to your top. We need to show the administration and those Americans with their heads in the sand this horrific number.
UNTIL WE RISE UP AND SAY ENOUGH IS ENOUGH THIS WILL ONLY GET WORSE
In Peace,
"This was purely an example," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said.
GySgt said:Yes, but once again, you miss the point. The point is that this President publicly identified the fact that we receive our oil from unstable regions and countries. He went on to point out the Middle East and that we need to get away from it. This was significant, because in the past, our government has always refrained from speaking out against the Middle East as a problem, because of our oil needs. This is also significant, because where ever we get our oil, we have had to create controversy for ourselves with those host nation for our oil stability. Now that the leader of the free world has finally said it....there's no turning back. Our government can no longer withdraw into the appeasing - turn the other way - comfortable blindess it has always been in. Radical Islam has grown and spread as we are pointed out as their scapegoat by their Mullahs and elite, because of our "addiction" to oil.
This is where it needed to start and it needed to be stated by a President publicly. Do you get it now? It's not about what Presdient said what and what Political Party is in office. The real world problems that we face do not care if our President is a Republican or a Democrat, because our actions abroad to keep our oil supply stable in SA and the Middle East have involved Presidents from both parties over a long period of time.
jfuh said:Fair enough, I agree of the fact that FDR ruled during which all three branches were essentially his party.
However, that was hardly the point I was trying to bring up.
Dog year...... I need sleep.
hipsterdufus said:So a day after the SOTU, the administration is backing off Bush's call for a cut in middle-eastern oil by 75% by the year 2025.
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwas...38.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_nation
Navy Pride said:Sooner or later the obstructionist dems in the Senate will have to give up and we will be able to drill where we know there is oil........If they had done that ten years ago gasoline would still be $1.25 a gallon and we would be weaned from our dependency on Arab oil.......
BWG said:In a few years the GWB apologists can point to the SOTU address and crow that GWB vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, but will conveniently forget to mention the 'opps, just kidding' comment from his energy secretary and national economic adviser the next day.
Edit:
I was going to say that they probably will blame it on the obstructionist dems in the Senate, but someone already has. :rofl
Not to mention the thousands of miles of fuel pipe lines that would require restructuring, that's the real terror, considering that a single junction's malfunction will cause a chain rxn that blows up the entire length of that section. Serious collateral damage.NYStateofMind said:I agree, hydrogen is just not safe or practical. Consider the need to distribute it too, not just the average consumer fueling up at the service stations. Pretty scary.
There's good potential in the newly developed "clean" reactors that use nearly 90% of all the 235 isotope in contrast to the current 5%. Essentially meaning a 10000 fold reduction in the amount of time required for storage of spent rods, thus instead of tens of thousands of year, only a few centuries would be required.NYStateofMind said:Nuclear plants would be wonderful, if you didn't have the pesky problem of spent fuel rods. We still haven't solved that problem.
Not quite so, it's all about profit margins. Petroleum offers incredible profit margins both in the production of and utilization of. That is Petroleum industry and car manufacturers. As demonstrated by Exxon with thier $36.9 billion net profit in the past year.NYStateofMind said:It's a lofty goal, one that many presidents have espoused since the 70s, but far more difficult to do than to talk about.
The simple reason is to provide incentive for the market. The not so simple reason is because the current top developer of hybrids, Toyota, is not an American company and represents foreign technology.debate_junkie said:I heard something on NPR news a few months ago, and now I wish I'd had researched the story a bit more. I had heard there was a proposal to give tax credits, somewhere in the neighborhood of $3,000 to people who owned hybrid vehicles. As I was listening, the first question I'd had was this... instead of offering large tax cuts to those who own them, why not put that money into the development of more hybrids, therefore lowering their prices so that more Americans could buy them?
Hybrids, while not a huge step, because they still rely on gasoline, are definitely a babystep in the right direction.
5/4, no one really was a majority, but point taken.ludahai said:Actually, the Supreme Court was NOT a majority of Democrats, it was conservative. That is why FDR tried to violate all precedent regarding SCOTUS by packing it. Not illegal by any means, but it so flew in the face of tradition and it was clear that it was because he didn't agree with the decisions that they made. That it hardly harmonious. That was a pure partisan power play.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?