Max Fischer Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Wouldn't want to be beholden to those Canadians, would we? Guess who produces 20% of the world's nickel? Sorry, I should have realized you can't resist showing how smart your are. But if you couldn't read between the lines: the Middle East, Russia, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 But they're powered by electricity that just falls from the sky. Supposedly Tesla had a way of collecting electricity from the air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Sorry, I should have realized you can't resist showing how smart your are. But if you couldn't read between the lines: the Middle East, Russia, etc. How much oil do we import from the Middle East and Russia? And guess who produces about 25% of the world's nickel... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Forget electric cars. I want the same powered engine that is in the latest Mars rover. That thing is going to drive around for 5 years on a single engine/charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Fischer Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Same argument was made for Ethanol and how's that working out? Price of food's gone up along with the price of gas and we're still stuck on oil Getting off foreign oil would be awesome, but there has to be a viable alternative I find it amazing that conservatives latch onto every report on the demise of alternative fuels. It's almost gleeful. Ethanol is far from a bust and the electric vehicle is still in its infancy. Why so quick to dismiss the overall goals of conservation, etc? Why are conservatives resistant to researching viable alternatives. Why do conservative view this as a "liberal" thing? I just don't get that attitude, it makes zero sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 8, 2012 Author Share Posted October 8, 2012 (edited) Supposedly Tesla had a way of collecting electricity from the air. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gklM1AiZX0s Forget electric cars. I want the same powered engine that is in the latest Mars rover. That thing is going to drive around for 5 years on a single engine/charge. You do realize that thing runs off a multimillion dollar nuclear reactor right? If you can afford it, go right ahead. The EPA might raise some concerns but it's worth a shot I find it amazing that conservatives latch onto every report on the demise of alternative fuels. It's almost gleeful. Ethanol is far from a bust and the electric vehicle is still in its infancy. Why so quick to dismiss the overall goals of conservation, etc? Why are conservatives resistant to researching viable alternatives. Why do conservative view this as a "liberal" thing? I just don't get that attitude, it makes zero sense. I find it amazing that liberals latch onto every criticism of "green tech" as a desire of "conservatives" for alternative energy to fail. Saying Ethanol isn't a bust is like saying JP Losman just needs more time to develop, a better Offensive Line, Eric Moulds and Andre Reed split out wide with Thurman Thomas all in their prime, and a new coach before we can judge his play The electric car, it may surprise you, but I'm in favor of the concept. The implementation, not so much. The government picking winners and funneling subsidies to their favored corporations isn't really researching viable alternatives Edited October 8, 2012 by /dev/null Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Why so quick to dismiss the overall goals of conservation, etc? Why are conservatives resistant to researching viable alternatives. Why do conservative view this as a "liberal" thing? I just don't get that attitude, it makes zero sense. Because morons like you aren't supporting the "overall goals" of conservation, you're parroting a very narrow interpretation of environmentalism that oversimplifies it to "low carbon", to the detriment of everything other concern. Ever consider, for example, the land use cost and environmental impact of topsoil degradation in ethanol production? Of course you haven't... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Fischer Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 (edited) I find it amazing that liberals latch onto every criticism of "green tech" as a desire of "conservatives" for alternative energy to fail. Saying Ethanol isn't a bust is like saying JP Losman just needs more time to develop, a better Offensive Line, Eric Moulds and Andre Reed split out wide with Thurman Thomas all in their prime, and a new coach before we can judge his play The electric car, it may surprise you, but I'm in favor of the concept. The implementation, not so much. The government picking winners and funneling subsidies to their favored corporations isn't really researching viable alternatives It's just a fact that conservatives consistently oppose alternative fuels research and development; and continually attack any investment on the campaign trail. It's a knee-jerk reaction. Yes, your Fox News talking points are right on Solyndra (yes, it failed), but the GOP is ALWAYS picking "winners and losers" in government funding, tax incentives, programs, etc. Try as you might, but that is not a partisan concept unique to Democrats. Your talking points suggest you favor some kind of "free market" but it has rarely been that way for either party in control. And, last, Ethanol is only considered a failure of conservative talk-show hosts. Funny how the GOP has never truly tried to get rid of it. Until proven otherwise, I believe ethanol could be a part of the overall energy solution that would include oil, gas, wind, water, bio fuels, etc. There is no one solution, and it would help if the right was a bit more productive in the finding a solution and the crazy left didn't rely on utopian ideas. Because morons like you aren't supporting the "overall goals" of conservation, you're parroting a very narrow interpretation of environmentalism that oversimplifies it to "low carbon", to the detriment of everything other concern. Ever consider, for example, the land use cost and environmental impact of topsoil degradation in ethanol production? Of course you haven't... We can always count on you to "know" what other people think. (Hint: you are not even close). Edited October 8, 2012 by Max Fischer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 8, 2012 Author Share Posted October 8, 2012 (edited) It's just a fact that conservatives consistently oppose alternative fuels research and development; and continually attack any investment on the campaign trail. It's a knee-jerk reaction. Yes, your Fox News talking points are right on Solyndra (yes, it failed), but the GOP is ALWAYS picking "winners and losers" in government funding, tax incentives, programs, etc. Try as you might, but that is not a partisan concept unique to Democrats. Your talking points suggest you favor some kind of "free market" but it has rarely been that way for either party in control. And, last, Ethanol is only considered a failure of conservative talk-show hosts. Funny how the GOP has never truly tried to get rid of it. Until proven otherwise, I believe ethanol could be a part of the overall energy solution that would include oil, gas, wind, water, bio fuels, etc. There is no one solution, and it would help if the right was a bit more productive in the finding a solution and the crazy left didn't rely on utopian ideas. We can always count on you to "know" what other people think. (Hint: you are not even close). Knee Jerk: Check Fox News: Check "GOP": Check Talking Points: Check Talk Radio: Check Okay, you hit all the important fall back keywords. Have some more Kool-Aid® Now for some clarification. I'm not a member of the "GOP". I'm registered Independent but if you put a gun to my head and forced me to pick a party it would be Libertarian. I watch as much CurrentTV and MSNBC as Fox News. Mostly for entertainment purposes. Angry Ed Schulz and the Young Turks are funny in a tragic sort of way. And c'mon dude, if you don't like watching The Five on Fox News, there's something wrong with you. That is some awesome milftastic leggy awesomeness http://media.photobu...87/untitled.jpg http://blog.zap2it.c...e-five-blue.jpg http://www.nndb.com/...y-guilfoyle.jpg Edited October 8, 2012 by /dev/null Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Fischer Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Knee Jerk: Check Fox News: Check "GOP": Check Talking Points: Check Talk Radio: Check Okay, you hit all the important fall back keywords. Have some more Kool-Aid® Now for some clarification. I'm not a member of the "GOP". I'm registered Independent but if you put a gun to my head and forced me to pick a party it would be Libertarian. I watch as much CurrentTV and MSNBC as Fox News. Mostly for entertainment purposes. Angry Ed Schulz and the Young Turks are funny in a tragic sort of way. And c'mon dude, if you don't like watching The Five on Fox News, there's something wrong with you. That is some awesome milftastic leggy awesomeness http://media.photobu...87/untitled.jpg http://blog.zap2it.c...e-five-blue.jpg http://www.nndb.com/...y-guilfoyle.jpg Yes, we can certainly agree on Tantaros, but I have a feeling I would need to keep the TV on Mute. But seriously, you watch Ed Shultz? I can't watch MSNBC after Morning Joe and The Daily Rundown. I had to look up the "Young Turks" . . . and couldn't even tell you how to find Current TV. Most of the TV "news" programs are complete crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 8, 2012 Author Share Posted October 8, 2012 Yes, we can certainly agree on Tantaros, but I have a feeling I would need to keep the TV on Mute. But seriously, you watch Ed Shultz? I can't watch MSNBC after Morning Joe and The Daily Rundown. I had to look up the "Young Turks" . . . and couldn't even tell you how to find Current TV. Most of the TV "news" programs are complete crap. Eyes off Tantaros, I got dibs! Young Turks had a brief run on MSNBC. Don't recall what happened there but they pissed somebody off and got banished to Manbearpig's network and were replaced with Al Sharpton (now there's a fair and balanced commentator ). I watch that and Angry Ed Schulz for the same reason that I watch Ancient Aliens on H2. It's 10% informational and 90% bulls**t that makes me laugh. CurrentTV is 350ish on DirecTV And yes, most "News" shows are crap. The only one I've seen lately (and you can go ahead and hate on Fox News) that isn't a total partisan shill and actually tries to be impartial and objective is Brett Bair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 We can always count on you to "know" what other people think. (Hint: you are not even close). It's a HELL of a lot easier to know what other people think when they tell you what they think: you told us you think we should pursue independence from foreign energy sources, of which ethanol is an important part. Which is not conservation. It's, in fact, quite the antithesis, as the conversion to energy independence would adversely affect the environment - even a conversion to exclusively "renewable" energy, even in the hypothetical and unrealistic ideal where 100% of the country's energy needs are met by "renewables", the environmental and ecological footprint overall would be pretty extreme. In other words - you're far less a conservationist than you claim, and far less than I (and I presume /dev) am myself. Primarily, again, out of complete ignorance - which is of course "knowing what you're thinking," but again only because you continue to tell us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Fischer Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 It's a HELL of a lot easier to know what other people think when they tell you what they think: you told us you think we should pursue independence from foreign energy sources, of which ethanol is an important part. Which is not conservation. It's, in fact, quite the antithesis, as the conversion to energy independence would adversely affect the environment - even a conversion to exclusively "renewable" energy, even in the hypothetical and unrealistic ideal where 100% of the country's energy needs are met by "renewables", the environmental and ecological footprint overall would be pretty extreme. In other words - you're far less a conservationist than you claim, and far less than I (and I presume /dev) am myself. Primarily, again, out of complete ignorance - which is of course "knowing what you're thinking," but again only because you continue to tell us. Thanks again for telling me what I think. I'll be back with you If I can't decide what I want for breakfast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Fischer Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Eyes off Tantaros, I got dibs! Young Turks had a brief run on MSNBC. Don't recall what happened there but they pissed somebody off and got banished to Manbearpig's network and were replaced with Al Sharpton (now there's a fair and balanced commentator ). I watch that and Angry Ed Schulz for the same reason that I watch Ancient Aliens on H2. It's 10% informational and 90% bulls**t that makes me laugh. CurrentTV is 350ish on DirecTV And yes, most "News" shows are crap. The only one I've seen lately (and you can go ahead and hate on Fox News) that isn't a total partisan shill and actually tries to be impartial and objective is Brett Bair I don't mind Bair, he has the closest thing to news show on Fox. Felt the same about Shephard Smith. Others: Soladad O'Brien might be the best interviewer on TV, Morning Joe has good segments but Mika annoys me (self-righteous and zero sense of humor), Joe is amusing and has some good (if repetitive) insight, I'm a big fan of Chuck Todd and most of the people he puts on his show, John King is OK but tries too hard. I rarely watch network news but if I do, it's Brian Williams. IMO, the worst include: anything after 6PM on MSNBC, Fox & Friends (my God, so awful), followed by almost anything else on Fox, Kudlow on CNBC (what a tool), Up with Chris whoever, and anything on HLN after 5PM (though not technically news) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Yes, we can certainly agree on Tantaros, but I have a feeling I would need to keep the TV on Mute. But seriously, you watch Ed Shultz? I can't watch MSNBC after Morning Joe and The Daily Rundown. I had to look up the "Young Turks" . . . and couldn't even tell you how to find Current TV. Most of the TV "news" programs are complete crap. Ed Shultz is a regular poster on PPP. His initials here are DIN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 8, 2012 Author Share Posted October 8, 2012 Soladad O'Brien might be the best interviewer on TV O'Brien is shill and a tool. I'm a couple beers into a case so I don't remember the details, but there's video of her interviewing somebody and you can see her holding a Talking Points email from some Liberal group Morning Joe has good segments Morning Joe. Oh, I'm sorry, you were trying to be serious Chuck Todd Poster child of biased media. And if he ever joined the military he would immediatly be granted the rank of Major Douche Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duck_dodgers007 Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk...siness-19830232 Environmental impact of manufacturing the batteries plus the electricity to charge them may be more harmful than the dirty old combustion engine Even with natural gas producing the electricity?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Fischer Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 O'Brien is shill and a tool. I'm a couple beers into a case so I don't remember the details, but there's video of her interviewing somebody and you can see her holding a Talking Points email from some Liberal group Morning Joe. Oh, I'm sorry, you were trying to be serious Poster child of biased media. And if he ever joined the military he would immediatly be granted the rank of Major Douche Dude, I hate to tell you, but you are a partisan Republican. Care to share who you like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Wait, Soledad O'Brien is not a liberal hack? LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 8, 2012 Author Share Posted October 8, 2012 Dude, I hate to tell you, but you are a partisan Republican. Care to share who you like? Dude, seriously Look at my signature Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts