Nice going George

Davey Crockett said:

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/public.pages/davey/bush/index.html

--
Le Vent à Dos
Davey Crockett
Dit 'NON' aux brevets Logiciels
http://brevets-logiciels.info/

Well Davey
If we had intelligent leadership which would follow along, or help
drive by pushing, and funding research, along with Sweden and actually
start living up to all the lies about creating a less dependent US we
wouldn't have to worry about the brutal 10th century religious nutcases
living in the big sandbox. :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4694152.stm
Sweden says it aims to completely wean itself off oil within 15 years
- without building new nuclear plants.

Better for everyone on the planet, including cyclists for sure, but
don't hold your breathe on it even beginning to happen here any time
until the oil runs out and we have an oil well in every back yard, and
a world war over the last few drops. Until the politicians get out of
bed with the oil companies we aren't going to do [censored] except spout pipe
dreams.
Ever since the Kennedy administration the US has had it's head firmly
up it's ass on basic research. We don't spend [censored], and the short
sighted morons consider it all pork, since they can't see a profit in 5
minutes. They won't fund it unless it's military research for their
incestuous pals, or the US population has gone into a mass panic for
something medical.
It's too bad the Jackass Proxmire isn't still around handing out
Golden Fleeces to things like alternative energy research, basic fusion
research, mass transportation research etc...
He should've stayed a flat-earther.
Wonder how long it'll take Denmark to join in with Sweden now that
they've had a real wake-up call. Well, we've all had the call, but most
of our "leaders" seem to be sleeping through it again.
Bill C

Bill C said:

Davey Crockett said:

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/public.pages/davey/bush/index.html

--
Le Vent à Dos
Davey Crockett
Dit 'NON' aux brevets Logiciels
http://brevets-logiciels.info/

Well Davey
If we had intelligent leadership which would follow along, or help
drive by pushing, and funding research, along with Sweden and actually
start living up to all the lies about creating a less dependent US we
wouldn't have to worry about the brutal 10th century religious nutcases
living in the big sandbox. :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4694152.stm
Sweden says it aims to completely wean itself off oil within 15 years
- without building new nuclear plants.

Better for everyone on the planet, including cyclists for sure, but
don't hold your breathe on it even beginning to happen here any time
until the oil runs out and we have an oil well in every back yard, and
a world war over the last few drops. Until the politicians get out of
bed with the oil companies we aren't going to do [censored] except spout pipe
dreams.
Ever since the Kennedy administration the US has had it's head firmly
up it's ass on basic research. We don't spend [censored], and the short
sighted morons consider it all pork, since they can't see a profit in 5
minutes. They won't fund it unless it's military research for their
incestuous pals, or the US population has gone into a mass panic for
something medical.
It's too bad the Jackass Proxmire isn't still around handing out
Golden Fleeces to things like alternative energy research, basic fusion
research, mass transportation research etc...
He should've stayed a flat-earther.
Wonder how long it'll take Denmark to join in with Sweden now that
they've had a real wake-up call. Well, we've all had the call, but most
of our "leaders" seem to be sleeping through it again.
Bill C

Here's a link I missed but apparently both Brazil and Sweden were
originally thinking the same way I was on the situation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4603272.stm
More bicycles and walking would help the fatty explosion too, and
since the air and water would be cleaner there'd be less problems with
respiratory ailments, and carcinogens in our fish and water.
Damn what a stupid idea.
Bill C

Bill C said:

Quoted message said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4694152.stm
Sweden says it aims to completely wean itself off oil within 15 years
- without building new nuclear plants.

Quoted message said:

Here's a link I missed but apparently both Brazil and Sweden were
originally thinking the same way I was on the situation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4603272.stm
More bicycles and walking would help the fatty explosion too, and
since the air and water would be cleaner there'd be less problems with
respiratory ailments, and carcinogens in our fish and water.
Damn what a stupid idea.

You're missing the obvious solution to the problem. The
problem is that oil makes it cheaper to drive around instead
of walking (causing fat) and to do industrial scale farm
processing to produce corn syrup sweetener and partially
hydrogenated oil (causing fat). But re-engineering society
to be less dependent on oil and cars will be slow and
traumatic. Turn the problem around.

We have a fatty explosion plus a coming oil and energy shortage.
I have a modest proposal: what we need is a national strategy
to produce energy from fatties.

It's Fight Club meets Soylent Green. Americans like sequels.
It's a winner.

Ben
social engineer

Davey Crockett said:

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/public.pages/davey/bush/index.html

Am I the only one that scrolled down far enough to see the beaver?

Quoted message said:

...Turn the problem around.

We have a fatty explosion plus a coming oil and energy shortage.
I have a modest proposal: what we need is a national strategy
to produce energy from fatties.

It's Fight Club meets Soylent Green. Americans like sequels.
It's a winner.

Ben
social engineer

Dumbass,

The first rule of Fight Club is - you do not talk about Fight Club. The
second rule of Fight Club is - you DO NOT talk about Fight Club.

But as long as we're talking about Fight Club: "Tyler sold his soap to
department stores at $20 a bar. Lord knows what they charged. It was
beautiful. We were selling rich women their own fat asses back to
them." Soap, energy, whatever.

Of course it's a winner.

Cheers,

Eric
social ticket-puncher

Bill C said:

Davey Crockett said:

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/public.pages/davey/bush/index.html

--
Le Vent à Dos
Davey Crockett
Dit 'NON' aux brevets Logiciels
http://brevets-logiciels.info/

Well Davey
If we had intelligent leadership which would follow along, or help
drive by pushing, and funding research, along with Sweden and actually
start living up to all the lies about creating a less dependent US we
wouldn't have to worry about the brutal 10th century religious nutcases
living in the big sandbox. :

Well of course Davey's post wasn't to be taken too seriously

However, there does seem to be trouble ahead

I hate to see conflicts over ridiculous things like religion though

Maybe we should get that Mohammed guy to duke it out with Jesus or
Moses or whomever on a winner take all basis............

The holco$t cartoon competition in Iran promises to be interesting though

--
Le Vent à Dos
Davey Crockett
Dit 'NON' aux brevets Logiciels
http://brevets-logiciels.info/

Davey Crockett said:

I hate to see conflicts over ridiculous things like religion though

Maybe we should get that Mohammed guy to duke it out with Jesus or
Moses or whomever on a winner take all basis............

The holco$t cartoon competition in Iran promises to be interesting though

I'm giving 2:1 on whoever carries a staff. I'm assuming swords,
flaming or otherwise, are not permitted.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Davey Crockett said:

Bill C said:

Davey Crockett said:

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/public.pages/davey/bush/index.html

--
Le Vent à Dos
Davey Crockett
Dit 'NON' aux brevets Logiciels
http://brevets-logiciels.info/

Well Davey
If we had intelligent leadership which would follow along, or help
drive by pushing, and funding research, along with Sweden and actually
start living up to all the lies about creating a less dependent US we
wouldn't have to worry about the brutal 10th century religious nutcases
living in the big sandbox. :

Well of course Davey's post wasn't to be taken too seriously

However, there does seem to be trouble ahead

I hate to see conflicts over ridiculous things like religion though

Maybe we should get that Mohammed guy to duke it out with Jesus or
Moses or whomever on a winner take all basis............

The holco$t cartoon competition in Iran promises to be interesting though

--
Le Vent à Dos
Davey Crockett
Dit 'NON' aux brevets Logiciels
http://brevets-logiciels.info/

Hey Davey
Religion's only silly when people aren't being slaughtered in it's
name, or Tammy Fay Baker is bawling like a calf.
I do like your suggestion though, maybe we could get them on here:
http://www.mtv.com/onair/deathmatch/
To avoid discriminating we could toss all of them in and make it a
huge free for all. That, I'd watch. I'd have to bet on one of the
polytheistic religions though.
Bill C

Bill C said:

If we had intelligent leadership which would follow along, or help
drive by pushing, and funding research, along with Sweden and actually
start living up to all the lies about creating a less dependent US we
wouldn't have to worry about the brutal 10th century religious nutcases
living in the big sandbox. :

Dumbass -

They are at least 15th or 16 century.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Davey Crockett said:

Maybe we should get that Mohammed guy to duke it out with Jesus or
Moses or whomever on a winner take all basis............

I trust you will be offering odds on this contest as well ? Buddha would
have to be 100-1 outsider if he lives up to his philosophy, but the Hindu
Shiva (destroyer of worlds according to his advertising blurb) must be the
odds on favourite.

Gee, maybe you and Bill can get together and invent this new technology
and the new sources of energy and you can both be rich beyond your
wildest dreams.

Since doing so would give you so much money that you'd make Bill Gates
look like a homeless person, I just can't figure out why you don't do
it. Or maybe someone else?

Hey, I know - FRANCE can invent a new source of energy. After all,
they're really a major seat of scientific learning. Wouldn't look good
on the French resume' to be able to say, "Invented New Source of Energy
and Saved the World From Bush"?

So far all of the "fixes" I've seen for this problem are totalitarian
suggestions that we force everyone and their grandma onto a bicycle.
What with the main subject of this group I'm sure that everyone here
thinks that's a really good idea. And there is that other Socialist
policy of siezing the energy companies so that we can steal their
energy and pretend that we have a right to it.

And pardon me, but I've found that most Americans who are complaining
about how the US Government should make an "Energy Policy" are driving
SUVs.

And while we're talking about "Energy Policy" what do you suppose that
is and how do you suppose it will do anything? Does "Energy Policy"
produce any energy? Invent new sources? What is this thing all of the
leftists are touting? I'm unclear how talking about stuff solves any
real problems.

http://www.jesusandmo.net/page/5/

Tom Kunich said:

Gee, maybe you and Bill can get together and invent this new technology
and the new sources of energy and you can both be rich beyond your
wildest dreams.

Since doing so would give you so much money that you'd make Bill Gates
look like a homeless person, I just can't figure out why you don't do
it. Or maybe someone else?

Hey, I know - FRANCE can invent a new source of energy. After all,
they're really a major seat of scientific learning. Wouldn't look good
on the French resume' to be able to say, "Invented New Source of Energy
and Saved the World From Bush"?

So far all of the "fixes" I've seen for this problem are totalitarian
suggestions that we force everyone and their grandma onto a bicycle.
What with the main subject of this group I'm sure that everyone here
thinks that's a really good idea. And there is that other Socialist
policy of siezing the energy companies so that we can steal their
energy and pretend that we have a right to it.

And pardon me, but I've found that most Americans who are complaining
about how the US Government should make an "Energy Policy" are driving
SUVs.

And while we're talking about "Energy Policy" what do you suppose that
is and how do you suppose it will do anything? Does "Energy Policy"
produce any energy? Invent new sources? What is this thing all of the
leftists are touting? I'm unclear how talking about stuff solves any
real problems.

Hey Tom
I'm not sure why you are making this a right/left thing other than
possibly conservation versus exploitation which tends to run along
those lines, but it's about National Security. That's not a right/left
issue when it comes down to it, and this is a bigger threat than
Islamic terrorists will ever be, but they might very well trigger it.
Here's a link detailing our top 15 importing countries:
http://tinyurl.com/7ldt
Now, the way I see it Isalmic and leftist radicals could esily cut off
about 56% of that flow. I'm figuring that when it got serious we'd
lose, inclusive, the block from Saudi to Ecuador.
The 73/74 oil crisis would be minor compared to a new one but here's
some info on that one:
http://www.buyandhold.com/bh/en/education/history/2002/arab.html
We are much more dependent today than we were then, and they would
have a wiiling buyer in China which is desperate for more oil that it
can control, and you know Russia would jack the prices out of sight for
anything they sold us like they did to the Ukraine.
Do you know why Japan decided to launch it's WW2 offensive? It's
because the oil embargo that was imposed was strangling them and they
were desperate. You know why Rommel lost in N. Africa? Because he ran
out of fuel at the worst possible time and what he needed was diverted
to other needs. Do you know one of the huge reasons the Nazi eastern
front campaign failed?
It was because [censored] overrode his General Staff and forced the
Panzers to Moscow when they were all insisting on taking the Caucasian
oil fields first.
The Brits knew the danger:
http://www.historynet.com/mhq/bloperationunthinkable/

Oil is THE strategic commodity in the industrialized world and our
security rests on people who hate us being greedier than hostile.
That's not a real good idea when there are religious fanatics involved.
The other thing that the Soviets did was to scorch and wreck everything
as they retreated, the Islamics would do the same if we did go to war
to actually secure an oil supply. They did it in Iraq, and a handfull
of sabateours are still crippling their oil industry despite our best
efforts, now lets spread that over the whole region and try and protect
it when we ARE trying to take something from them. Wouldn't work real
well, and even using neutron bombs to depopulate the areas around the
oil filds you are still going to have a good chunk of time when those
fields are out of commission, and I'd doubt we'd ever go that far, or
be allowed to by China and Russia.
So Tom, tell me how we don't need to develop more energy independence,
and how this is a right/left thing?
As for other options that are viable, when compared to having our
economic nuts cut off by the Arabs and leftists in the Americas, most
all of them are viable as National Security options. We have huge
surplusses of farm goods, we could turn a lot of those into GM wheat
type products designed for maximum ethanol production. We could do more
fission plants, though that's a high dollar, temporary option. Just
here in New England we have thousands of dams that once generated power
that have been abandoned and are falling apart, they could be brought
back on line.
Fusion isn't that far off with a "Manhattan Project" like
international effort, but we are growing mushrroms in our half done
super-collider.:
http://www.ofes.fusion.doe.gov/More_HTML/AboutFusion.html
There are plenty of viable wind/wave/tidal power projects for filling
small percentages of our needs.
As for meeting the mobile power needs, there is still a problem
sourcing hydrogen for vehicles, but with fusion that would go away and
it would be plentiful and cheap.
The point is Tom that we do NOT have anything close to the ability to
sustain our economy and way of life, even if we exploit every resource
we have, at it's current level if we are strangled for petroleum, and
while the other options would eventually destroy the US petroleum
industry, that would be replaced with other types of industry. They are
a dying business anyway, the only thing that would change is the time
frame.
It's more Un-American and anti-patriotic to insist that we continue to
depend on the greed of people who would love to see us go the way of
the Roman Empire for the single resource we can't currently do without.
It's not about forcing everyone onto bicycles. It is, as much as JFK's
push for space and the "Manhattan Project" something we need to do for
the country's long term viability and security.
I'm surprised that you, of all people, oppose this.
Bill C

Donald Munro said:

Davey Crockett said:

Maybe we should get that Mohammed guy to duke it out with Jesus or
Moses or whomever on a winner take all basis............

I trust you will be offering odds on this contest as well ? Buddha would
have to be 100-1 outsider if he lives up to his philosophy, but the Hindu
Shiva (destroyer of worlds according to his advertising blurb) must be the
odds on favourite.

The South Park "Spirit of Christmas" short (the one that predates
the TV series) covered this pretty well. Jesus vs. Santa, steel cage
death match.

Bill, I don't like the knee-jerk reaction to everything Republican just
like a bunch of Haight-Ashbury groupies.

There are NO reasonable "alternative energy" sources regardless of the
articles in Science Fiction Magazine or Rolling Stoned (Apparently the
most popular magazine to those here.) But I'll discuss that later.

That means that either we learn to live on the amount of oil we have or
face world wide war for what's available. China recognizes that better
than anyone right now but people here don't seem to see straight enough
through that fog of really cool attitude.

We can't afford wars in the middle east that will disrupt the FREE
MARKET in oil. Was Iraq all about the oil? You bet your ass, but NOT
about us siezing the oil but about it being available for EVERYONE to
buy off of a free market. Democratic governments tend to have
Capitalist economic systems and laissez-faire capitalist systems tend
to be the most peaceful and productive in history. What's more, they
tend to change the attitudes of other countries around them. Do you
think that China hasn't been strongly effected by the success of Hong
Kong and Singapore?

However, totalitarian government have a difficult time adjusting to
laissez-faire. They tend to see it as war on an industrial scale and
presently that's what we're seeing. If oil becomes a pawn in
international politics instead of a commodity freely available to the
highest bidder we are likely to see a shooting war in short order. Do
you suppose that isn't the state of affairs that Saddam was going for?
Or Al Qaida now?

Now, concerning your ideas of alternate energy sources:

Wind, wave and sun power projects are all strongly subject to weather
conditions and the times when power is required the most, are the times
when these sources are least likely to be efficient. This isn't to say
that we can't make use of them and indeed power companies have been
experimenting with these sources since the early 1920's. Do you notice
any large installations outside of the solar thermal plants in the
Mojave Desert? Did you know that until 1990 the largest wind power
project had been a private undertaking by the Morgan Company on the
east coast in the 1930's and which ran through the war years? After a
decade they closed the project up and released ALL of the patents into
the public domain and published a book showing that it simply wasn't
economically feasible. That is TODAY'S EXPERIENCE AS WELL.

Fusion is not a practical source of power. We've been putting BILLIONS
of dollars into development and theory and at this point we still
haven't had a break even reaction nor any real faith that one can be
achieved. Moreover, the engineering hasn't even been scratched on how
to extract the energy from such a fusion source.

My own personal experience with the science leads me to believe that IF
a fusion power plant could be developed it would have to be so large
that it couldn't be economically effective unless it supplied the power
for the majority of the United States from a single plant. We're
talking a trillion dollar investment and a single energy source that
would be essentially the most vulnerable spot on the planet.

Why is it that automobiles in France and the rest of Europe make 35%
better gas mileage on the average? Why is it that you can buy a car in
Europe that makes 80 mpg but you couldn't even get that car approved
for sale here? The whacked out Liberals have forced so many "safety"
standards on the US Auto Industry that it is simply impossible to
achieve high mileage. Instead we see the perfectly preposterous idea
that TWO power types in a single vehicle are more efficient. If that's
the case why does the Prius make about the same mileage as the much
better performing Honda Civic?

The GOVERNMENT is a really bad source of priorities. Bureaucrats are
only intererested in keeping their jobs and expanding their own
personal power and politicians are only interested in extending their
own power and getting reelected. As we've seen, if an adminstration
DARES to get a commercial business involved in anything the politicians
turn it into a cry of corruption and EVERYONE here is willing to
believe it.

The McCain-Feingold law had one effect - it stiffled free speech and
made it much easier for encumbents to be re-elected. And yet Liberals
have lauded that as if it were the most important move forward in
government history.

The sum result of all of this is that the USA is not going to be able
to develope alternate power sources via ANY other route than tax
incentives. Wind Power Associates who own the windmill farms over most
of northern California were only able to break even when investors were
receiving 2 or 3 times investment value in tax write-offs. Whacked out
Liberal-cause jerk-offs have been trying to drive the cost of
hydrocarbon fuels up high enough so that alternate sources of power
become economically feasible. But if they are successful at that the
results would be that the USA would be paying a lot more for power than
China, Japan, India and Russia and we could simply kiss our small
industrial lead off and our lifestyles of $3K bicycle frames would be a
thing of the far distant past.

One of the things that irritates me is that those who think the least
about the world around them are the first to leap to judgement of
others. The world is a large and complicated place and people here
would much rather write off something that sounds "like really
knowledgeable man" than actually study the situation. And it couldn't
be more plainly demonstrated than to just look at the comments on this
group.

Tom Kunich said:

That means that either we learn to live on the amount of oil we have ....

moron,

that's what most people mean when they say we should reduce our
dependence on oil. but bush wants to reduce his dependence on middle
eastern oil, and the first step won't be to look at alternative energy
(solar and stuff), it will be to look for other oil suppliers, which is
good news for alberta, bad news for the environment.

http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/index.html?blog=/tech/htww/2006/02/07/oil_sands/index.html

"Exhibit A: Canada's massive oil-sands deposits. These vast mixtures of
sand and bitumen used to be known by the more accurate name of "tar
sands" until the provincial government decided that moniker was too
dirty. But whatever you call them, they are huge: There are proven
reserves of some 174 billion barrels of oil in the province of Alberta,
giving Canada oil reserves second only to Saudi Arabia."

"Chinese oil companies have already cut three separate deals with
Canadian companies, including one to build a pipeline from Edmonton to
the West Coast. On Jan. 30, India's oil minister announced plans to
invest a billion dollars in Canadian oil-sands production. Since the
SOTU speech, stock prices of Canada's big energy companies have shot up
with a vengeance"

"The larger issue is that extracting oil from Canadian oil sands is
possibly the most environmentally destructive form of mining ever
practiced. High oil prices: good for solar, but also good for the
wiping out hundreds of thousands of acres of pristine boreal forest."

Thanks for demonstrating what I was complaining about.

Someone else might wonder what alternative sources of "energy" might be
used to fuel their automobiles but not you.

amit said:

Tom Kunich said:

That means that either we learn to live on the amount of oil we have ....

moron,

that's what most people mean when they say we should reduce our
dependence on oil. but bush wants to reduce his dependence on middle
eastern oil, and the first step won't be to look at alternative energy
(solar and stuff), it will be to look for other oil suppliers, which is
good news for alberta, bad news for the environment.

http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/index.html?blog=/tech/htww/2006/02/07/oil_sands/index.html

"Exhibit A: Canada's massive oil-sands deposits. These vast mixtures of
sand and bitumen used to be known by the more accurate name of "tar
sands" until the provincial government decided that moniker was too
dirty. But whatever you call them, they are huge: There are proven
reserves of some 174 billion barrels of oil in the province of Alberta,
giving Canada oil reserves second only to Saudi Arabia."

"Chinese oil companies have already cut three separate deals with
Canadian companies, including one to build a pipeline from Edmonton to
the West Coast. On Jan. 30, India's oil minister announced plans to
invest a billion dollars in Canadian oil-sands production. Since the
SOTU speech, stock prices of Canada's big energy companies have shot up
with a vengeance"

"The larger issue is that extracting oil from Canadian oil sands is
possibly the most environmentally destructive form of mining ever
practiced. High oil prices: good for solar, but also good for the
wiping out hundreds of thousands of acres of pristine boreal forest."

Hey Amit
I'm with you on this one philosophically too. I'm [censored] about US
policy for both security and environmental reasons.
I grew up farming, fishing, hunting, hiking, etc...I was always
outdoors doing something. Now unfortunately a big chunk of our farmland
is buried under an industrial park because my old man's a scumbag, but
even he is protecting some of the familiy's land. The places I loved
best to hunt squirrels, and the mountain trout stream I fished when I
was a kid are buried under houses. The pond I grew up knowing all year
round and loving that had great fishing, especially for kids was
sprayed with massive amounts of pesticides. My grandfather and I spent
a day netting floating fish out of it and transferring them to the
Conneticut river in the hopes of saving some. The mountain where I used
to ride dirtbikes and snowmobiles on the old fireroads is now covered
in $400,000 dollar boxes. The ancient oak tree that has been there
since colonial times, and was a local landmark, has been killed.
Quality of life is related more to things that aren't about creature
conveniences, cheap gadgets, and stupid materialism. You'd think that
cyclists in particular would really understand and feel that, and I
think most do.
John Muir, Thoreau, and Teddy Roosevelt all realised how important
that was too, but my favorite is Aldo Leopold.:
http://www.treelink.org/woodnotes/vol2/no1/sandcnty.htm
Here's some more stuff:
http://www.bigeastern.com/eotp/ep_aldol.htm

Maybe it's got something to do with growing up with [censored] on your
boots, dirt under your nails, and calf slobber on your fingers from
them sucking the salt, but it really can put you in touch with, and
make you love and protect the land.
Bill C

Tom Kunich said:

So far all of the "fixes" I've seen for this problem are totalitarian
suggestions that we force everyone and their grandma onto a bicycle.
What with the main subject of this group I'm sure that everyone here
thinks that's a really good idea. And there is that other Socialist
policy of siezing the energy companies so that we can steal their
energy and pretend that we have a right to it.

Kunich, you O'Reilly-spouting nincompoop. I didn't give any
overarching socialist five-year plan for government taking
over Enron. I offered a modest proposal to burn fat people
for energy. I'm sure private enterprise would be happy to do
that more efficiently than a centralized government, in fact.
Get your facts straight man.

Ben
What's the world coming to when you can't advocate genocide
without some net-nanny calling you a totalitarian anymore?