• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The House Energized!!!


The problem with a hybrid car is that at $3.00 per gallon your payback because of the expense of the hybrid in the first place is over 9 years. That's how long it would take you to save with fuel economy and break even after the expense of buying the car. Hybrids are priced beyond the means of the very people that need more fuel economy. You can pay $21,275 for a Prius and get 51/60 miles per gallon or you can pay $9,999 for a Hyundai Accent and get 27/35 mpg (comparison by Toyota Motor Company). You figure it out.

Purchase price - fuel savings = what? Will you keep your Prius 10 years? Will you keep your Accent 5?

Any alternative fuel economy car whether hybrid or fuel cell or a combination will cost you more in the long run than a standard fuel efficient internal combustion vehicle. That is the inherent problem with alternative energy. It costs more to produce or in it's final form of product it costs more to buy. It may be a wonderful thought to conserve but most Americans will try to conserve energy based on how much money they can conserve. To do otherwise is to be a Republican or Democrat doing nothing in Congress. :duel
 
The people who buy vehicles in the $20,000.00 range will buy the hybrid Prius, gordontravels, and those who can't afford them will buy the Accent, these being the only choices you offered.

Don't you think that many people will choose the $21,275.00 Prius, or a hybrid SUV, over a conventional car that gets 21 city/27highway and may cost as much or more?

Since you are approaching this issue purely from the expense angle, and are not mentioning the other vital considerations, include in your equation the fact that as hybrids are produced in much larger numbers, due to demand, their prices will drop significantly.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I disagree that the GOP is dismantling all environmental protections. Some environmental regulations were unnecessary and counterproductive.
Click to expand...
Would you please be specific which ones and why? I'm quite curious to read what you consider to be unnecessary and counterproductive?
 
Navy Pride said:
What was the reason then? Or were you to young for that too?:roll:
Click to expand...
More outrageously STUPID words, what a surprise! Not only have you completely missed his point, but you also found it necessary to make a personal attack. What's your problem? Are you so incapable of debating that you run out of words to write so you throw in something nasty and personal?

I would explain his point to you, but why waste bandwidth?

You're a frickin' genius Navy Pride.
 
26 X World Champs said:
Would you please be specific which ones and why? I'm quite curious to read what you consider to be unnecessary and counterproductive?
Click to expand...

Okay, here's one example.

For years, the forestry department has wanted to allow some selective tree cutting and brush clearance to protect New Mexico's beautiful state and national forests. The fire hazard was building year by year and excessive growth was crowding and weakening the trees making them more susceptible to fire and disease. Loggers were perfectly willing to take out only trees marked by Forestry.

The environmentalists said no. The forests must be left pristine and in their natural state. No logging. No brush clearance.

So when the forest burned, the fire did not burn slow and small and purifying as nature intended with rapid recovery and fresh new replenishing growth. It burned hot and explosive and destroyed all the brush and all the trees it touched as well as more than 200 homes and businesses in Los Alamos. And even then, after the damage was done, and the firewood sellers wanted to go in and clear out any usuable firewood that was left and thus give the forest room more room to come back, the environmentalist wackos still said no. The regulations were on their side, so that black scar still remains on those mountains and the forest will be a long time returning.

Here's another:

The environmentalists fight tooth and nail to prevent new exploration on the coastal shelves on in places like ANWAR despite the fact that modern technology is providing safe, clean processes with negligible effect on the indigenous plants and wildlife. Sea life thrives around Gulf oil rigs and probably thinks each one is a small reef. Then of course there is all that environmental regulation that has made it unprofitable for any oil company to significantly increase its refining capability. The result, increased dependence on foreign oil imports, gasoline shortages, high prices at the pump, and a drag on the economy.

And one more:

After five years of severe drought, the water flow in Rio Grande through New Mexico was the least in anybody's memory. The environmental nuts who thought the silvery minnow, unique to the Middle Rio Grande, must be preserved at all costs--never mind this tiny fish has surved thousands of years of various of degrees of drought--and demanded that the state release reservoir waters because the river was too low. Failing that, they petitioned the state and Feds to spend several million dollars catching and moving a up to two hundred thousand fish to deeper waters. All the moved fish died. When the rain and snow returned this past winter, the river is healthy again and there are so many silvery minnows they are considering taking them off the endangered species list.

And one more:

In order to prevent damage to the habitat of an endangered rat in California, homeowners were forbidden to cut brush away from their homes. When the Santa Ana driven fires came, they took out the homes and, of course, destroyed the habitat of the rats--not to mention the rats themselves.
___________________________

It is screwy thinking like this that gives the environmental wackos their bad name with conservatives. Conservatives look for environmental policies that do not do more harm than good and that allow human to coexist peacefully and in harmony with their environment. I prefer the conservative way.
 
The conservative way? Do you mean as in our current administration? Because if you do please explain the following, and please explain how the "conservative way" is not destroying our environment and greatly endangering the lives of our children and their children?
Source: http://www.nrdc.org/media/pressReleases/050119.asp

If you want to read the full report in PDF format click here:

http://www.nrdc.org/legislation/rollbacks/rr2005.pdf

Here's the 2005 Bush record on the environment. You'll see that it is unbiased, listing all environmental events credited to Bush, pro and con:
Source: http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/2005.asp

I do not doubt that you can find several environmental decisions that in retrorespect were incorrect, yet were done in good faith to PROTECT our world. Sadly, the Bush record is the opposite as things are being done in bad faith to earn money, not to protect us.

To me, that is exactly the difference between Liberal environmental policies and Conservative policies. As a rule (though not always), Liberals support laws to protect all of the inhabitants on this planet for the long term.

As a rule (IMHO) Conservative environmental policies are pro bigg business and anti-environment. Their policy is shaped by the almighty dollar, not by right or wrong.

How crazy is it that water & air quality are worse today than when Bush took office? Shouldn't it always be the opposite? Shouldn't water and air quality always be getting better, no matter what?
 

guess you have always lived a comfortable life
most people i know can only afford to put a few thousand into a car
and it is usually a used car

while LIberals want to focus on the Ideals it is the conservatives that show them the failure in practical use
Most people can not afford to buy a Hybrid
there is no immediate return on the investment
most people who can afford to buy a $20,000 car, really dont care how much gas is. I know i dont. I am in Real Estate. I have to drive all day regardless of the price of gas.
am i supposed to say: " i could sell this house and make a few thousand dollars, but gas is too high, so i am going to sit at home on the internet and debate numb-nuts :lol: "
those who are hurt by high gas prices are the poor, who count every penny
and those with poor monetary responsibility, by them i mean
those who max out their budget regardless of how much they make
those who have steady income yet have no reserves to fall back on
those who get the biggest house that their mortgage approval will afford them, instead of settling for a more modest home and a cushion of security
 
Yes, I have seen most of the stuff you posted 26X and I know the hissy fit the Democrats are throwing about it, and also how they have greatly exaggerated the implications of the initiatives.

But let's look at this more objectively. I used the term 'conservative way' and defined that as finding ways for people to live in their environment without harming it. I would define the 'liberal' way as thinking that the most desired way to protect the environment is to remove humans from it altogether.

For instance, the conservative way is to recognize that those silvery minnows have survived hundreds if not thousands of severe droughts and the likelihood that they would not survive this last one wasn't worth ruining the livelihood of farmers or jeopardize drinking water to protect it. The liberal way was to improve the habitat for the minnow and the people could be damned.

The conservative way is to either a) allow natural burns of forests or b) do selective clearing of forests to give the trees room to grow and get strong enough to resist disease and natural fire. The liberal way is to put out the fires and not allow humans to touch the forest either before it is destroyed by fire or afterwards after the destruction.

The conservative way is to allow homeowners to clear a firebreak around their homes and thus stop wildfires before they destroy the homes and the endangered rats' habitate. The liberal way is to not allow humans to do anything like that.

The conservative way is to do careful oil and gas exploration and production while taking necessary precautions to protect the environment. The liberal way is to keep humans out.

Now I could have pointed out varous policies of this and previous administrations and the part they played in all this, but I intentionally did not because then the debate becomes whose policies instead of what policies we should adopt. All administrations generally are a mix of conservative and liberal policies.

I prefer conservative policies when it comes to the environment. If you prefer liberal policies, could you explain your rationale for your support?

The GOP is not gong to be in the White House or the majority in the legislature forever. But our environment is going to be around forever.
 
tryreading said:
Looks like you don't like Republicans or Democrats, judging by the text of your note, and the GOP thing. Also, I like ******s.
Click to expand...

He just hates President Bush..That is what its all about........
 

Sorry but automobile marketing is one of my former hats so I know how to follow it and although you may find electronic equipment falling in price after a new format is introduced that is not the situation with vehicles. I only used the Toyota and the Accent for illustration and realize there are other manufacturers. The illustration shows a real difference in mileage and price.

The auto manufacturers have a profit margin built into any vehicle below the MSRP and if you do your homework you can save varying amounts on a purchase. However, the cost of a vehicle goes up every year and the cost of energy to produce cars is intense. You can bet the cost of vehicles will continue to climb as it has every year since at least 1950. The exception is a new model but you can't base your argument on a vehicle that doesn't exist.

You also need to do your homework on some of the hybrids. Hybrid SUV's get approximately the same gas mileage as their regular counterparts because of torque. You still need to move the vehicle and people don't want a vehicle that goes from 0 to 60 in slow fashion. The Honda Accord Hybrid is a good example getting virtually the same mileage as the Honda Accord EX. All these vehicles are is "green" but won't do anything to help energy dependence or save on fuel.

The SUV/truck craze gave manufacturers and dealers healthy markups. Now the hybrid will take that slot. The difference between the Toyota Prius and the Hyundai Accent in price is $9978.00. At $3.00 a gallon that is 3,326 gallons of gas as the difference. Look at your own weekly mileage X 52 into 3,326 and the savings in the Accent over the Prius amounts to 6.4 years of fuel. I figured 10 gallons a week so in the accent with it's average you could travel 310 miles per week for 6.4 years. And remember, you say a conventional car getting 21/27 while I cite the Accent at 27/35; a significant difference. Of course, if you buy a full size car or truck with a V8 you will get less but aren't we discussing hybrid and economy cars?

Finally I return to your mistake thinking that a hybrid will come down in cost. A new model could be introduced but no matter what the vehicle, once introduced, they go up every year. The only thing that will effect what you pay is your cash down and then the interest rate on balance payments. We are currently in a rising interest rate environment.

I don't know what buying a hybrid has to do with being "patriotic" so please explain. Most of the parts of automobiles including the huge aftermarket are made overseas. I consider myself "patriotic" but I still shop at Wal-Mart. :duel
 
AlbqOwl said:
Yes, I have seen most of the stuff you posted 26X and I know the hissy fit the Democrats are throwing about it, and also how they have greatly exaggerated the implications of the initiatives.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but this paragraph is so weak! Instead of specifically rebutting the list of events that I posted you ignore it completely and use a term like "hissy fit" as your universal rebuttal. Weak, really, really weak.

How can you ignore that water and air quality are WORSE today than when Bush took office? Stop the BS with the fish, the forest et al and address the meat of the argument, namely that the Bush Administration has relaxed or ignored 150+ environmental laws to make money for Bush's cronies! Rebut that, do not repeat the exact same post you've written twice now!

Air and water quality are worse under Bush! WHY? Justify it for me please. Indulge me, you know I'm just a loony environmentalist who has this crazy notion that our air and water quality are sacred. Don't dodge, please reply, and prove what you're writing with sources please.
Then you would be 100% wrong, again, sorry. Don't you feel foolish writing drivel like this? Remove humans all together? God, that is pathetic, especially to use it as your focal point. Dude, your creditability has been lowered dramatically by bullshit like this. What were you (not) thinking?

For the record I want to protect the environment for ALL of us, human and animal. I think conservatives don't give a rat's (or any other animals) ass about anything but themselves and for the most part the furtherment of their own personal financial gain. I really believe conservative policy is based on economics, not science. Which is why conservatives go crazy over Liberal policies because for conservatives there is a disconnect here. I think conservatives cannot understand Liberals valuing the environment over the dollar. This is one man's opinion....
 

Okay, so you do not wish to discuss policy but just want a p***ing match about whose is blackest? Not interested. But thanks for participating.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Okay, so you do not wish to discuss policy but just want a p***ing match about whose is blackest? Not interested. But thanks for participating.
Click to expand...
What a cop out! :sinking: I'm shocked that you've chosen to run away.

I asked you to defend the fact that Bush's policies have led to dirtier water and air and you choose to run away?

I rest my case. I said it in my last post, weak, very, very weak.

One last chance....defend Bush's policies that have led to dirtier air and water? Isn't Bush the poster boy for the "Conservative Way"?
 

I'm not running away at all. I'm hoping to have some good discussions on policy such as Gordon is offering. I'm not interested in playing the 'whose is blackest?' game that you're offering. There are just gobs of threads out there to bash George Bush, the administration, or the GOP. I don't see any reason that has to be the subject of every single thread and I hope this thread won't be one of them.
 

Actualy it seems President Bush is a conservative. It also seems he was elected with a 3 million vote margin over John Kerry. There is also a majority in congress on his side put there by their constituents. Someone gets elected and someone goes home. I'm glad John Kerry wasn't elected because with Kyoto in our wallets along with what we have now from the price of oil and the storms (neither the fault of President Bush), $3.00 a gallon for gasoline would look good.

I know you are waiting for this other poster to answer your 150+ relaxed and ignored environmental laws but I want to ask you, while you're waiting. I'm not sure I know what you mean by ignoring the law because the law is inherent in prosecuting those that break the law but - let me ask you anyway. Did relaxing or ignoring any of those environmental laws help or benefit us in any way? I know laws have been repealed in the past when it was proven they were unjust or not needed or even were detrimental to the good of the people.

Believe me, I don't want to get into a weak, really weak argument here but I just thought I'd ask. Oh and, if you cite where a law was "ignored or relaxed" for the good of our country could you tell me what it was or why it was good to "ignore or relax" it? Out of 150+ laws that were either "ignored or relaxed" I know you know a few that should have been right? :duel
 

26 Champs has the dem talking points down pat.......He thinks if you keep saying something over and over again it will eventually be true.....
 
Navy Pride said:
26 Champs has the dem talking points down pat.......He thinks if you keep saying something over and over again it will eventually be true.....
Click to expand...
Do you ever debate or are every one of your posts total bullshit? No one in this community contributes less to any debate than Navy Pride's posts.

Maybe the number of posts credited to him should start going backwards? If you read his posts just from the last 24 hours all that you will see are bullshit, meaningless words like the post he just wrote.
 

"The Yankees are going down and going down hard.":lol:
 
gordontravels said:
Did relaxing or ignoring any of those environmental laws help or benefit us in any way? I know laws have been repealed in the past when it was proven they were unjust or not needed or even were detrimental to the good of the people.
Click to expand...
Not a problem...before I list a long list of what you asked for I need to point out that in this community there's one poster who contributes to "vision" polution. I find myself skipping over most of your posts because the coloring that you select I find to be intrusive, or, in the spirit of this thread, polluting...:yes:


The report is preceded by this:
Source for both: http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/science/default.asp

I'm out of space for this post. I will follow with the wildlife impact.
 
The remainder of my last post....
Source: http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/science/default.asp
 
4.5 million people use the subways in NYC every weekday.

Millions more commute via train or bus.

Parking in midtown on a weekday is about $35.

NYC's air quality is improving due to strong state environmental laws...which is one of the benefits of living in a blue state.
 
Improving from an "F" to a "D"...Congrats...

Looks like all of Southern California, The New England & Mid-Atlantic coastline, and the Great Lakes areas are the three worst spots...

Gotta love those blue state benefits...:roll:

http://creativemethods.com/airquality/maps/united_states_hires_letter.htm
 
Navy Pride said:
26 Champs has the dem talking points down pat.......He thinks if you keep saying something over and over again it will eventually be true.....
Click to expand...

Well, since nobody's perfect I would suppose that some of the Democrat talking points are just as true as some of the Republican's. The point is that a term like "dirtier air and water" is definite. Since it is and he mentions 150+ environmental laws that have been "ignored or relaxed", I want a few, just a few, examples. :duel
 

The fact is, the air has improved just about everywhere during the last five years, both in red states and blue states. And Bush policies get at least some of the credit for that. The NRDC site posted is one of the most rabidly leftwing anti-Bush environmental extremist sites on the internet and I will look elsewhere for realistic data.

The whole point of the thread, however is that the GOP has finally gotten off the dime and is doing something. They'll probably get some of it wrong, and the opposition will make the most possible hay out of it when they do, but I'll settle for getting most of it right and then fixing the inevitable screw ups.

But write, call or e-mail your senators now and do some arm twisting so hopefully this won't die in the Senate.
 
The democrats don't like to admit it but the Republicans are just as much for the environment as they are........The difference is the democrats are in the back pockets of the radical environmentalists.......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…