posted
Jealous that the right has an honest person in the White House instead of a constant liar? Someone that actually cares about the people and will do that right thing instead of listening to the latest flash poll. I’m proud of Bush and am anxious for him to be reelected.
Posts: 10 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Jealous that the right has an honest person in the White House instead of a constant liar? Someone that actually cares about the people and will do that right thing instead of listening to the latest flash poll. [...] I’m proud of Bush and am anxious for him to be reelected.
Um. Wow. Do you have any idea how much you're contradicting yourself?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Jealous that the right has an honest person in the White House instead of a constant liar? Someone that actually cares about the people and will do that right thing instead of listening to the latest flash poll. I’m proud of Bush and am anxious for him to be reelected.
Ummmmmm..... if "Iraq is an immenent threat with WMD that we know are there" said not only by Bush but also by Rumsfeld, Powell, Cheney et al isn't a lie then I would like to know what your definition of a lie is.
Of course NOW Bush says we got rid of Hussien because he was "a bad man". Yes he was. But this is not what was said to sell the war to Congress and the nation.
Posts: 986 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not to mention it's not our policy to go around clearing the world of bad men. If it were, we'd have invaded a whole lot of places with much worse dictators by now.
"The President has a substance abuse problem. It's spelled O-I-L."
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jay, out of interest, what prompted Bush to implement steel tariffs and a massive senior drug pork bill if not the latest polls?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom -- no, he clearly lifted the tariffs because he recalled what every economics professor throughout his entire schooling had been telling him, that tariffs had no positive general economic effects.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It could simply be that it's getting harder and harder for even Dittoheads to come up with reasons to not hate Bush, pooka. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I think he implemented the tariffs to please a constituency, not due to polls (despite being taught, presumably well, in his economics classes that tariffs don't make sense). Then he backed out of them because of general polls and the wrath of all the other nations .
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah yeah yeah.... I'm so glad that WMD and spending on our national def is all you can claim that Bush lied on. It's so funny. We knew that Iraq did have them, just because they're gone now does not mean they weren't there. Think maybe that some of our bombs might have taken them out? How about they're been moved to another country? We did the right thing in Iraq and I'm glad we did it.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: We knew that Iraq did have them, just because they're gone now does not mean they weren't there. Think maybe that some of our bombs might have taken them out? How about they're been moved to another country?
Yes, in 1991. So you invaded 12 years later... and, it turns out, the weapons hadn't been there.
I'm not saying Iraq without Hussein isn't a better place. But the pre-war justifications were lies.
And post-war: well, if Bush had sunk as much money into rebuilding Iraq as he did toppling Hussein, I'm sure the Iraqi people would currently be a lot better off.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bush lies about considerably more than that, Jay. Consider his "let's save the forests by cutting them down" initiative, or his "let's reduce our dependence on fossil fuels by using fossil fuels to produce hydrogen less efficiently" program. Consider the fact that "No Child Left Behind" is based on Houston statistics that were apparently fabricated by the man who is now his Secretary of Education -- and who is being investigated for his deception.
There is little that Bush says or does that is sincere.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You almost can’t have a decent discussion on this board with all the hate you all spew.
So Tom. Maybe if those environmental waco wouldn’t made so many restricts on cutting CA wouldn’t had such problems with wildfires. Go figure. The boarder in Mexico has the same environment and didn’t have fire problems. Maybe it’s because they get rid of the underbrush and have a sensible environmental plan. And your Hydrogen argument. Ha!! Do you even know what you’re talking about? Do you know we’re on the verge of making a car that can run on Hydrogen and the waste it produces is water?!?! Gee… wouldn’t that be nice. Maybe if some complainers would quit yelling and help out a little we could finish the technology. And you want to talk about our great education system? Ha! Aren’t we last in about everything now? Thanks to our wonderful teachers unions that do nothing but protect the lazy no good teachers who don’t do anything! Why not reward good teachers? Have school choice and competition. Of course we’re having problems but there is only so much you can do with your hands tied.
Sheeze…….. I know I asked the one time if this is a big liberal board. I’ve made a decision. It is, with a couple of token conservative posters.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So Tom. Maybe if those environmental waco wouldn’t made so many restricts on cutting CA wouldn’t had such problems with wildfires. Go figure. The boarder in Mexico has the same environment and didn’t have fire problems. Maybe it’s because they get rid of the underbrush and have a sensible environmental plan.
Or maybe it's because there is much more housing built up in CA than Mexico, which causes it to be much easier to have problems with wildfires? You may be right, but what you post is opinion, as do the others who disagree.
quote:And your Hydrogen argument. Ha!! Do you even know what you’re talking about? Do you know we’re on the verge of making a car that can run on Hydrogen and the waste it produces is water?!?! Gee… wouldn’t that be nice. Maybe if some complainers would quit yelling and help out a little we could finish the technology.
And did you know that our only current viable and scalable source of hydrogen to power said wonder vehicles is FOSSIL FUELS, and that processing said fossil fuels into clean hydrogen is as bad, or worse than burning them in a car's ICE? I think that was what Tom was getting at.
quote:And you want to talk about our great education system? Ha! Aren’t we last in about everything now? Thanks to our wonderful teachers unions that do nothing but protect the lazy no good teachers who don’t do anything! Why not reward good teachers? Have school choice and competition. Of course we’re having problems but there is only so much you can do with your hands tied.
And yet almost every country in the world with a public education system follows (in a general manner) the example the US started 200 years ago? Maybe it isn't the public school SYSTEM, but the public schools?
These are honest questions from the other side. You are so sure of your own responses, it seems to me, you feel they are self-evident, while requiring the "Other Side" to not only have a counter-opinion but studies (from non-biased sources, of course) that back it up.
posted
One more point on hydrogen power. There have been many here, generally _liberals_ (though no shortage of conservatives as well) that have been publicizing through posts and the like the advances of hydrogen power. I was interested and a proponent of it nearly 20 years ago, back when I was in middle school.
You go from accusation to assumption of motive, Jay, and that isn't possible for you to judge.
Not sure I see much in the way of facts on this board ever. Most of the time it goes like this:
" WHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!! We lost, we hate Bush, I know! We'll say he lied! Yeah, that's it! But where do we find his lies? Oh, let's go around in a circle, we'll find one! Make it up if nothing else! Very Good! Begin spewing my little pawns! Ha Ha Ha Ha! "
About all I can think is:
[ February 03, 2004, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: Jay ]
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Current, viable and scalable, Jay. Key words. Splitting a water molecule requires a very strong electric current and it's difficult to harvest any meaningful amount of hydrogen at levels that don't require huge amounts of water and huge levels of electricity. Very costly and very inefficient. Not saying it'll never be viable, but that's where the key word "current" comes in. Frankly, I like the organic system I set up for one of twink's classes. Go S. Wolfei! Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but currently every process to get hydrogen from water requires MORE ENERGY than you get out. It's a physics/chemistry problem. After all, water doesn't, in any significant amount, spontaneously divide into oxygen and hydrogen. I will add that extracting hydrogen from fossil fuel directly, I believe, is somewhat more efficient, and may be a mid-term answer, but we're still faced with an eventual fossil fuel shortage.
So, you need to build an apparatus to facilitate this (after all, I've seen electrolysis in my high school chemistry class, it works, but you need a catalyst, a battery, and most importantly, time), and a source of power to generate the energy to convert water to hydrogen. Currently, the most effective and scalable method to generate need electricity is fossil fuels (Doh!). In the end, you trade off millions of small ICEs (cars/trucks/etc) for hundreds (or thousands) of large power plants to power the hydrogen extraction process, whether by electrolysis or fossil fuel extraction).
Yes, the tech may be close, but a lot of the funding isn't requiring the acquisition of hydrogen to be equal to or better than the status quo. That means there is a real chance we can make things worse going to hydrogen. This is something to be mindful about.
Yeah, well, Bill Gates got told Windows wouldn't go anywhere either. And I said it's something we need to work on. The thing is that it's possible and one day will work.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll add that I feel we need to go to solar sooner than later, for our electricity generation (with wind water and nuclear to back it up to some degree), and once our electricity infrastructure is based on this, a lot of the rest well sort itself out.
posted
Re: Forest fires. First, they aren't intrinsically bad things. They renew the life cycle of the forest and are actually required for several species of tree to reproduce. Also, the number one contributor to the size and severity of a burn is the wind not the underbrush. So to really get a sense of what's causing these fires you'd have to compare the levels of human activity in these places (cause of most forest fires) and lightning strikes. Then you'd have to see what the prevailing wind patterns tend to be and compare climates. Lastly, you'd look at undergrowth and the density of the forest itself. It isn't as simple as undergrowth==fire. Also, constantly removing the undergrowth has a huge environmental impact, which may be worse for the forest (in the long term) than any fires would be. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that you haven't presented nearly enough information to make your conclusive statement.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
But I don't want us to be polluting worse than currently between now and then. Funding for commercial mass availability of hydrogen power should be that end to end, it is NO WORSE than right now. Currently, that isn't a stipulation.
posted
Jay, are you reading our posts are just homing in on phrases that you can take out of context to vilify anyone who says anything you don't like?
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know........ I think it's impossible to make any of you happy. Sheeze....
"Don't use oil! Wahhhh..." Ok, let's work on Hydrogen power. "But it doesn't work! Wahhhhh...." Well, we need to get it working. "But it's hard! Wahhhhh...."
Sheeze.... what on freaking earth do you want!!!
Oh, I know, if the DNC says it, it'll be ok. Gottcha.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No no no. We're saying hydrogen power doesn't work now and we don't want implemented before the implimentation will cause more pollution than the current system. I think we all agree that it does need to happen, I think we've all said as much. So really we're arguing the same point but you're being really childish about it.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Oh brother.... let me cry for a bit Bob called me a name.... ok, I'm better now.
What?
quote: we're arguing the same point
We are? All I have seen is how it won't work and can't be done. Sorry guess I misread all those glorious posts of "Wow, that'll be nice when that works" and "Yeah, it'll take a bit, but it'll be worth it" and "Won't it be nice to get away from oil"
Oh well.... See ya all on the other side, time to head out!
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with President Bush and the Hydrogen Car is not that it is a possibility, its the lopsided trade that he made.
At the time there was a call to raise the MPG required from cars sold in the USA.
President Bush canceled that plan in favor of what he called an "Environmentally Friendly" promise to push for this Hydrogen Car.
At best projections, this car won't be marketable until long after President Bush is out of office (even if he wins in Oct). In fact, most of the funding for this project hasn't materialized. With the major budget crisis we are facing, it might be cut. In other words, to allow car manufacturers to continue to build heavily polluting SUV's we get the promise that we will look into a replacement that may or may not be better, or may have to be cut due to unforeseen economic problems.
This isn't a lie.
Bush's Healthy Forest initiative involves cutting down of a lot of trees. Forests that are to be saved will be subdivided by roads and construction, allowing easier access for lumber poachers and disrupting the territorial habits of unknown numbers of endangered animals. While this is great for the lumber mills, construction companies, and the paper companies who want lots of cheap wood, its value in keeping forests healthy is very questionable. Evaluations of the problems this will cause will only become available long after President Bush is no longer president.
No Child Left Behind is poorly funded, forcing schools to leave children behind. Many schools find it cheaper to turn away Federal Funds and their regulations than try and meet all the requirements that are associated with it.
President Bush made a giant announcement last year that Billions of dollars were going to fight Aids. However, his Anti-Abortion/Anti-Sex Ed (other than simple Abstinence) rulings has made this money undeliverable.
None of this is technically lying
Its doublespeak. Its con-games. Its bait and switch. Its the Ponzi President. But technically, its not lying.
I mean, it all boils down to what your definition of lie is.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
There are still some safety issues (minor), hydrogen containment/transport issues (a novel wrinkle to the whole Hydrogen Economy thing is that it's proven to be much more difficult to keep it from seeping out of its containment system, with such seepange a serious fire hazard), as well as the extraction issue discussed above. I don't think any of these are insurmountable, but I think they should all be addressed as REQUIREMENTS for rolling out, on a commercial scale, hydrogen vehicles, and other infrastructure needs, and any funding to aid those efforts should likewise only be paid out to those programs that are trying to follow those requirements.
I think hydrogen research should be continued to be funded (of course, even if it weren't, like, say, after Reagan gutted most of Nixon's alternative energy programs, there are private individuals who have been funding this research all along), but I'm wary of no strings attached funding in this case.
posted
"Wrong! You can get Hydrogen from water too!!!"
You know that. I know that. But it doesn't appear that Bush knows that.
Because Bush has not included any additional funding for research into alternative methods of hydrogen production, which is what I originally thought he'd been proposing in his State of the Union speech two years ago. Instead, he has thrown more funding at four or five nuclear and fossil fuel companies -- the companies, ironically, that donated most heavily to his campaign. So since we're agreed that the BEST way to manufacture hydrogen would be to use some kind of renewable resource to do so, you must be disappointed that Bush has instead chosen to ask his friends to do it the half-assed way.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jay you really need to cut this out, and the people responding to him need to ignore him. It's plain to see he is merely trying to provoke responses and "get your goat" with nonsensical posts. I myself am a conservative Jay, and I will tell you that Bush is no conservative. He is what is termed a Neo-Liberal Institutionalist. But, I am forgetting, Jay is not looking for real conversation, he is looking for places to drop cliches and get tard wars started. If you're not ignoring him then you are part of the problem.
Posts: 369 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
Jay, you are embarassing to the actual thoughtful conservatives on this board. Please stop. It is ok to argue in favor of the things you believe in, but random nonsensical posts won't convince anyone of anything.
I didn't realize that the Republicans had a munchkin contingent.
Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Daimler Chrysler makes the Necar 3, GM makes the HyWire, and Toyota has one as well.
Some of them have on-board gasoline reformers that extract hyrdrogen from gas. That eliminates the possibility of being less dependent on oil though.
The car works, but we as a nation are not ready scientifically and infastructurally to recieve the kind of benefits this kind of car can bring.
It's very easy for me to get information because the California Fuel Cell Research Partnership is in West Sacramento, not far from my house. If any of you want information, let me know. I could just stop by there for info, if they would give me any.
[ February 03, 2004, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: Nick ]
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking of lying and deception, has anyone else noticed that Beren One Hand is either remarkably stupid or intentionally misleading? Because the polls are British and therefore obviously not representative of American public opinion. Just wanted to point that out. Moreover, British public opinion is tainted heavily by the incredibly biased (and they don't try to hide it) BBC network.
The worst Bush did was claim something that he thought was true and ended up not being true, the worst . Personally, I supported the war from the beginning and still do because at the least the ends justify the means. No more genocide, no more brutal tyrant who would conquer the world if only he had the army. This was a man who invaded to nations for the sole purpose of gaining oil and then used chemical weapons against his own civilian population. We should have finished Hussein off in 1991 but since we didn't later is better than never. Before you start making comparisons between Bush and Hussein, two countries/oil ha ha ha, keep in mind that both nations Bush invaded were both brutal dictatorships one of whom was definitely harboring Osama bin Laden and company and the other who was probably harboring terrorists intentionally and definitely possessing them intentionally or not. Furthermore, Hussein would have made Kuwait and Iran extensions of his empire while the U.S. is making democracies where freedom didn't exist prior.
As far as other dictatorships are concerned, I say we should remove them if it all possible because an American is no better of a human being then an Iraqi, an Afgahn, a Rwandan, or a Bosnian. When the UN won't clean up the mess we do have an obligation to end mass murder. The UN has an obligation as well but when they don't act someone has to or millions of lives are forfeit.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
WHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!! We lost, we hate Bush, ![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
I know! We'll say he lied! Yeah, that's it! ![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
But where do we find his lies? Oh, let's go around in a circle, we'll find one! Make it up if nothing else! ![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
Very Good! Begin spewing my little pawns! Ha Ha Ha Ha! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
"![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
