dayman Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 It would also be helpful that people understood the difference between oil & gasoline. oil goes under the hood gas goes in the back hehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 oil goes under the hood gas goes in the back hehe Good, you know enough to be Obama's energy secretary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) Don't feel bad. No one can explain it. To your credit, you didn't roll out a bunch of junk science and conjecture which is the normal play. Yes, Dayman is someone that you could probably have a reasonable discussion with. It seems the basic problem here is that on one side people say that we have all this oil and gas, why not just extract it and keep energy cheap? The other side says that we should make fossil fuels so expensive that it would be cheaper to use their contrived energy because we have to "save the planet". Their "contrived energy" has a future, but it might evolve into something totally different than what they invision. Well, we have guys like me who are extremely skeptical about man made global warming. After all, we've found fossils of palm trees in Greenland dating back tens of thousands of years. I don't think the Industrial Revolution was around then to cause that. Anyway, I have a crazy idea and would hope that the people on this board who are involved with the energy sector might have some good input. The U.S. government owns a vast amount of western lands. They are rich in resources. Is there a way for this country to solve its deficit problem without messing with capitalism and still keeping watch on the environment? And before any of you think I'm going Hugo Chavez ,I'm only talking about presently owned federal land. Edited March 8, 2012 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) Yes, Dayman is someone that you could probably have a reasonable discussion with. It seems the basic problem here is that on one side people say that we have all this oil and gas, why not just extract it and keep energy cheap? The other side says that we should make fossil fuels so expensive that it would be cheaper to use their contrived energy because we have to "save the planet". Their "contrived energy" has a future, but it might evolve into something totally different than what they invision. Well, we have guys like me who are extremely skeptical about man made global warming. After all, we've found fossils of palm trees in Greenland dating back tens of thousands of years. I don't think the Industrial Revolution was around then to cause that. Anyway, I have a crazy idea and would hope that the people on this board who are involved with the energy sector might have some good input. The U.S. government owns a vast amount of western lands. They are rich in resources. Is there a way for this country to solve its deficit problem without messing with capitalism and still keeping watch on the environment? And before any of you think I'm going Hugo Chavez ,I'm only talking about presently owned federal land. I'm not so sure the primary thrust of the "get off gas now" party (if you want to call it that...I wouldn't call them that but so be it) is environment. I was actually surprised to learn (not that this is really all that closely related) that if you live in an area w/ coal power you pollute more w/ an electric car than you with gasoline. Only nuclear and to a lesser extend natural gas areas reduce CO2 emissions through those cars use. I'm not sure what you are saying here in the emboldened portion. Edited March 8, 2012 by dayman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 I'm not so sure the primary thrust of the "get off gas now" party (if you want to call it that...I wouldn't call them that but so be it) is environment. I was actually surprised to learn (not that this is really all that closely related) that if you live in an area w/ coal power you pollute more w/ an electric car than you with gasoline. Only nuclear and to a lesser extend natural gas areas reduce CO2 emissions through those cars use. Congratulations. You've stumbled onto a environmentalist truism. If you don't see pollution, it doesn't exist. Go electric cars, go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 I'm not so sure the primary thrust of the "get off gas now" party (if you want to call it that...I wouldn't call them that but so be it) is environment. I was actually surprised to learn (not that this is really all that closely related) that if you live in an area w/ coal power you pollute more w/ an electric car than you with gasoline. Only nuclear and to a lesser extend natural gas areas reduce CO2 emissions through those cars use. I'm not sure what you are saying here in the emboldened portion. It's simple. What's wrong with doing everything to keep the economy going at the same time as looking at the future? BTW, electric cars pollute just as much when you figure the energy they need for their charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) Relevant to the debate about if presidents can control gas prices we were having...I was watching Real Time "overtime" (while failing to fall asleep) and the final question was exactly that! Obviously it's not exactly gospel but Bob Lutz (Vice Chairman at General Motors Company) addressed it. He basically said absolutely not, only way they can effect it is to drive it up with taxes. Maher disagreed saying he thinks a big reason the price is high right now is because of the potential looming Iranian crisis and the rhetoric around it. Lutz basically responded saying there’s always going to be some marginal barrel somewhere in the world, add speculation, add expectation and that's it and that the promise that you could lower gas prices as president is about the most unfulfillable promise you could make while campaigning. One mans opinion anyway. (now to sleep for real). For the record, he is conservative. Edited March 8, 2012 by dayman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 I'm not so sure the primary thrust of the "get off gas now" party (if you want to call it that...I wouldn't call them that but so be it) is environment. I was actually surprised to learn (not that this is really all that closely related) that if you live in an area w/ coal power you pollute more w/ an electric car than you with gasoline. Only nuclear and to a lesser extend natural gas areas reduce CO2 emissions through those cars use. I'm not sure what you are saying here in the emboldened portion. Actually, in any sane cradle-to-grave analysis, you pollute more with an electric car than with a gas powered one. But no one ever considers manufacture & disposal costs. You really want to be environmentally friendly? Don't buy a new car. Unless you're one of the fools that thinks that "pollution" = CO2. In that case, do whatever you want, because you're too !@#$ing stupid to make a rational choice to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) One mans opinion anyway. (now to sleep for real). For the record, he is conservative. That man also ran two car companies which generated huge sales in areas where gas prices are double those in US. Those copanies also employ thousands of engineers in the search for the holy grail. Yet their collective 40-yr effort has only produced novelties, while the only tangible advancements have come to improving the century-old internal combustion engine. I think the fault lies in not enough R&D devoted to flying purple unicorns. Edited March 8, 2012 by GG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 My goodness, it's not like these evil, women hating Republicans are making it difficult for us http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/us/texas-womens-clinics-retreat-as-finances-are-cut.html?_r=1&ref=us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 My goodness, it's not like these evil, women hating Republicans are making it difficult for us http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/us/texas-womens-clinics-retreat-as-finances-are-cut.html?_r=1&ref=us You're late. Detention again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 oil goes under the hood gas goes in the back hehe 2 in the pink and 1 in the stink? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 My goodness, it's not like these evil, women hating Republicans are making it difficult for us http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/us/texas-womens-clinics-retreat-as-finances-are-cut.html?_r=1&ref=us Five kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Five kids. Both women worry about getting birth control pills; the clinic may now have to charge them up to $20 for a month’s supply. “I will have to go without,” Ms. Parra said as she left an English class at a community center and was walking to pick up her two youngest children from a Head Start program. “If I get pregnant again, God forbid.” Wait...what? It's really easy to not get pregnant without the pill, it's called "Don't Have Sex If You Don't Want Kids." When did pregnancy-free sex become a civil right? My goodness, it's not like these evil, women hating Republicans are making it difficult for us http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/us/texas-womens-clinics-retreat-as-finances-are-cut.html?_r=1&ref=us They should be able to cut funding to programs like Planned Parenthood 100%, no problem. We have a Federal health care law that makes sure everyone has access to health insurance now, so those programs are redundant... ...or have you and yours just been blowing smoke up everyone's skirts about the health care law all this time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Wait...what? It's really easy to not get pregnant without the pill, it's called "Don't Have Sex If You Don't Want Kids." When did pregnancy-free sex become a civil right? Don't get me started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Wait...what? It's really easy to not get pregnant without the pill, it's called "Don't Have Sex If You Don't Want Kids." When did pregnancy-free sex become a civil right? They should be able to cut funding to programs like Planned Parenthood 100%, no problem. We have a Federal health care law that makes sure everyone has access to health insurance now, so those programs are redundant... ...or have you and yours just been blowing smoke up everyone's skirts about the health care law all this time? You haven't been following things very well, have you? They're going to collect money until 2075 before providing any benefits in order to make it revenue neutral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Wait...what? It's really easy to not get pregnant without the pill, it's called "Don't Have Sex If You Don't Want Kids." When did pregnancy-free sex become a civil right? They should be able to cut funding to programs like Planned Parenthood 100%, no problem. We have a Federal health care law that makes sure everyone has access to health insurance now, so those programs are redundant... ...or have you and yours just been blowing smoke up everyone's skirts about the health care law all this time? Who ever claimed the federal health care law provided 100% coverage. And sorry 3rding, but I have to call Tom a moron here. The idea that because w e get better coverage in one area means taking away other care won't hurt is pretty stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Who ever claimed the federal health care law provided 100% coverage. And sorry 3rding, but I have to call Tom a moron here. The idea that because w e get better coverage in one area means taking away other care won't hurt is pretty stupid. Hey, call him a moron all you want. I'd be careful calling him a !@#$ing moron though. Remember, he might just eat your children for the fun of it. When I said children, I meant your older brother and sister. Now, get the homework done before any more of this tomfoolery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Who ever claimed the federal health care law provided 100% coverage. "It is with great humility and with great pride that we tonight will make history for our country and progress for the American people. ... Just think–we will be joining those who established Social Security, Medicare, and now tonight health care for all Americans. ... And sorry 3rding, but I have to call Tom a moron here. The idea that because w e get better coverage in one area means taking away other care won't hurt is pretty stupid. But according to your party leadership, it's not just "better coverage", it's coverage for all Americans. So why fund free clinics for people who don't need them, since they're covered under the Affordable Care Act? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 But according to your party leadership, it's not just "better coverage", it's coverage for all Americans. So why fund free clinics for people who don't need them, since they're covered under the Affordable Care Act? Is it total coverage, or just partial moron? 3rding putting a band aid on your bruised ego doesn't make you all better, but you are "covered" Hey, call him a moron all you want. I'd be careful calling him a !@#$ing moron though. Remember, he might just eat your children for the fun of it. When I said children, I meant your older brother and sister. Now, get the homework done before any more of this tomfoolery. Isn't Tom wonderful! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Is it total coverage, or just partial moron? 3rding putting a band aid on your bruised ego doesn't make you all better, but you are "covered" Isn't Tom wonderful! Sure, I hope it's as good for you as it was for Conner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Is it total coverage, or just partial moron? 3rding putting a band aid on your bruised ego doesn't make you all better, but you are "covered" Isn't Tom wonderful! It's kind of gross to have to watch him tongue DC's nuts in his posts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 It's kind of gross to have to watch him tongue DC's nuts in his posts... I'd think that seeing your twin doing what you wanted to do beyond your wildest dreams would be a turn on for you. That's ok, I'm not for swabbing your twin to prove that you guys are relatives. Nice family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I'd think that seeing your twin doing what you wanted to do beyond your wildest dreams would be a turn on for you. That's ok, I'm not for swabbing your twin to prove that you guys are relatives. Nice family. Well, you're not my twin, and I have no wish to tongue DC's nutsack. But each to their own I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Well, you're not my twin, and I have no wish to tongue DC's nutsack. But each to their own I guess. Well, I guess you have a reading comprehension promblem, Fatty. Suck away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Well, I guess you have a reading comprehension promblem, Fatty. Suck away. Nope, you're just that stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Is it total coverage, or just partial moron? 3rding putting a band aid on your bruised ego doesn't make you all better, but you are "covered" Yeah...thanks for making my point for me. Having a discussion with you is the conversational equivalent of a Jackson Pollock painting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts