|
|
|
![[mccookgazette.com]](http://www.mccookgazette.com/images/nameplate31.png)
|
|
Overcast ~ High: 69°F ~ Low: 45°F Monday, May 20, 2013 |
|
Birds Of a Slacker FeatherPosted Wednesday, November 2, 2011, at 3:32 PM
Zombie at PJ media online has a splendid article on the various radical leftists, Communists, Fascists, Socialists, and other unionists and assorted crazies backing these astro-turfed protests.
The Communist Party USA Oh this is nice to see, Joe Bite-Me Biden and David Duke have also expressed their support for the Slacker Rebellion.
Hugo Chavez Here is the link to the article, and under each person named, you'll see direct links to validation sources. http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2011/10/31/the... The first thing the left does when presented with truth is to deny it. With all of the documentation zombie provides, you can clearly see the Alliance of Slackers.
Slackers and Socialists have a common goal. They wish to enslave and control the producers. Democrats! Listen, this is what your party has become. You really need to take back your party from the Marxists and Socialists. Remember, the first thing Socialists do after conquering a country, is kill the sheep. And you can find all the sheep you want inside the Democrat Party today. They are birds of a Slacker Feather. Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
Road Dog Politics  - Archives - Blog RSS feed ![[Feed icon]](http://www.mccookgazette.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon} - Comments RSS feed - Send email to Sam Eldridge - Login Hot topics Old Time Radio(2 ~ 8:52 PM, Feb 4)
Dealing With BDS (Battered Democrat Syndrome)
Christmas Hope
The Real Valley Forge
Turn Right When You Reach Mars
|
Email link
Read comments (79)
Blog archive
With a list of friends like that, who needs enemies?
So Rattle, the communists liberals are destroying your America. Or is it the conservative liberals? How many illegals have you deported Rattle?
So how do you deport illegals immediately if you never come accross one? Or does this apply to you Rattle? Surely you're not making the rules up as you go along. Is a conservative liberal or a liberal communist still ruining your America if they never have the chance to call INS?
How come no mention of the growing number of Veterans supporting the Occupy Movement?
How come no mention of the Police Departments now supporting the Occupy Movement?
How come no mention of the Christian based organizations now supporting the Occupy Movement?
Are they all part of the Alliance of Slackers mentioned in the article?
Geezer - and after your post, there is STILL no mention...merely a hypothesis.
But Sam raises a good question - I know a lot of Democrats, and I haven't had a conversation strictly on this topic...but does it bother Democrats out there that there is a seemingly rapidly growing outer fringe populace taking over the party?
Does that bother you, and what do you think could be done about it?
Mickel
I believe that everyone has the right to express their opinion in what ever form is allowed by law. I may not personally agree with those opinions, but I do understand it is an integral part of what continues to make America the land of the free. Labeling a person or group as fringe only serves to lend credence to our own definition of what we consider to be acceptable or the norm.
For example, many Christians believe that the Mormon Religion is a fringe religion because many of their beliefs are founded on principals established by the Prophet Joseph Smith, who is not mentioned in the Bible. In fact the name of their church bears this out -- the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Yet two of the GOP candidates for President are Latter Day Saints, and one is leading in the polls I believe. On the other hand, if you were to make a trip to Utah, Idaho, etc. you would find out that the opposite is true -- they are not considered a fringe religion in that area of our country.
The occupy movement in many ways is just an expression of people from nearly every walk of life showing their discontent with our economic and political situation. They are tired of the status quo and have chosen protesting as a means of expressing this. We may not agree with their actions, but they do have that right. Only time will tell if they are successful in their endeavors.
Rattle is a lib.
I see no problems in peacefull demonstrations, but if they start turning into riots like Oakland, then there is going to be a big problem.
Do you receive government assistance Rattle?
Call it a hunch Rattles.
The 1st Amendment applies to all protests, Not just protests you might agree with.
The makeup of the Occupy protesters and their supporters is irrelevant. I expect the government to crack down on these protests soon, and that will violate their constitutional rights, but will also result in widespread violence. You ain't seen nothing yet. We had 3,000 protesters in New York; Athens had 200,000!!
A very high percentage of the folks 20 to 25 years of age are unemployed. This is true in every western nation at the moment. That's what they are upset about. Some of them are not very articulate about expressing it though. Maybe they aren't very experienced at complaining.
Some of us are old enough to remember the Viet Nam War protests. Those protesters were not wanting to attend that foolish war. They got the dogs, fire hoses, tear gas, and arrests. But they had an impact, and they go things changed. They exercised their freedom, and many people attacked the way they looked and acted rather than listening to the message. Do you remember when they tried to levitate the Pentagon by "thinking" it? WOW, man!
In the 1930s there was the Bonus Army protest by WWI veterans who were promised a bonus for fighting in that war. They organized a protest in Washington that was put down by army troops. Some were killed, all because they wanted what was promised them. You might find it interesting who the army commander was who ordered the attack on these peaceful demonstrators in our capital.
We should safeguard our right to assemble and protest government actions. Otherwise, we will be like other places where you are killed for protesting instead of just getting arrested.
Is everyone here euphoric about what our government is doing these days? I think not.
No, Boomer, I am not the least bit euphoric about what our government is up to these days. However, I find little solace in the fact that the list of people and groups that are signing on in support of the OWS'ers is going to "fix" much, except make it more to their liking. The Communist party, the Nazi party, a long list of authoritarian thugs, including North Korea? Just think about what these folks stand for! The OWS'ers would be well-served to denounce their support. That is, unless they welcome it! Then, all bets are off and bring on the hoses and tear gas! Ya think?
By all accounts I read, there was a small percentage of the estimated 7000 participants involved in the vandalism in Oakland. I know, even one is too many (and I agree.) And, the fire and invasion of a building was evidently the act of a group of homeless protesting the closing of a shelter. And yes again, I do not agree that breaking into a building and starting fires is a reasonable expression of freedom of speech and the right to assemble. It should have been dealt with swiftly and decidedly (which sounds like what happened.)
The OWS'ers have a distinct lack of mission and leadership. Until that happens, they will continue to flounder, appear to be mostly spoiled brats, and bring more disdain upon themselves. And, in the list above, I don't see any candidates for leadership that will bring them much success, only more tear gas and fire hoses, which up to now, I sincerely believe, they have brought upon themselves when they have chosen to ignore the rule of law.
It was Douglas MacArthur who commanded the troops who attacked the 17,000 WWI vets and their families (at total of 43,000 people!).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army
Please be clear. I am not saying I agree with the Occupy Wall Street protesters or with their support groups. But I defend their right to protest. And I think you should, too.
I also think there are some of the protesters who are there for the sole purpose of inciting a crackdown by the government, by committing the arson and break ins you refer to. They want a revolution, but they are a very small minority.
In the end the government WILL do what it needs to do, to remain in power. Power over the Occupy folks; power over you and I. I predict major bloodshed soon.
I believe in freedom. I think these protesters pose no danger to the rest of us. I fear our government more than I do OWS participants.
ScienceAboveAll: Your stories are somewhat intriguing, and I for one enjoy them. I'm sure I'm of the minority, but they seem to be as interesting as most of the ongoing narratives. They amuse me to say the least, keep up the good work.
My take on the occupy wall-street is the same as all news stories, its just another turd sandwhich for us, it will all come to past, like everything else. Then there will be another catastrophe or event the media will jump on and run 24 hours a day
until Paris Hilton, Charlie Sheen, Kim kardashian, killer bees, mad cow disease, pit bull attacks, asian flu etc. comes to our rescue and knocks em off the front page.
"My take on the occupy wall-street is the same as all news stories, its just another turd sandwhich for us"
Much like the "turd sandwich" issued to us by the media when the Tea Party was all the rage.
The neo-cons and the wingnuts on here are right we libs just can't wait until they drop their guard so we can destroy America,shoot Lassie,eat their kids,knock over their christmas decorations,spit on their thanksgiving turkeys,put dents in all the cans of cranberries,shovel our snow into the street,catch all the fish in the lakes,stick our tongues out at their mothers,buy the last newspaper in the machines,chop big holes in their highways,burn the apple pie,not spay or neuter our pets,read the ink off of all the library books,not set the clocks back an hour,not mow the lawn,not use our turn signal,feed the dog from the table,step on a crack, whistle in front of the cemetery,open an umbrella in the house,not wipe our feet on the mat,not closing the cover before striking and about a hundred other stupid imagined things that the wingers and cons and teajhadists are scared to death of.These people are a JOKE and when NONE of their fears come to pass I hope they come back here and read their comments and realize like the rest of the majority of America has,how crazy and paranoid they look to the rest of us.If you don't like the way things are then run for office and change them,but I can guarantee that you will get laughed out of the election when you start to spout the stupid things like I've read on here.I've directed several groups of people to here(Conservative and Progressive alike)to read the stupidity and ignorance that abounds here in the comments section of this blog;and almost all agree that the neos and the wingers would rather curse the darkness than light a candle.The ones that didn't agree want to move out there and live amongst you in the dark.You'll have to excuse me now my side is aching from laughing at the ignorance of the "right"that's on display here.
Good Grief and Good Night!!
Wildhorse, that is possibly the funniest post I've read on here yet.
Rattles, no one really believed you could read anyways.
Wildhorse,
Good to know you and your friends are so considerate and kind.
I am guessing wildhorse and his ilk fail to realize that the conservatives look the same way at them.
This is a little off topic and I hope all will excuse my diversion for a few minutes.
The CNA and MAB have published their latest report. This is a military perspective of our dependence on oil and why it constitutes a significant National Security Threat.
It is worth taking a look at.
http://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/M...
Much like the "turd sandwich" issued to us by the media when the Tea Party was all the rage. I agree 100%
Geezer - So why do you want to increase Taxes on oil companies and hurt domestic oil production and have the United States more dependent on foreign oil???????
You want to increase the taxes on Unites States companies so Foreign National Oil companies will realize more oil sales and higher oil prices?
I guess I have to ask which team are you on? United State or OPEC??
I am,
Wallis Marsh
McCook High Class of 1985
United States
Wallis
Is this a continuation from our conversation the other day Wallis? Do mind being specific when you make an allegation of this sort?
Greece's leadership make an overture to democracy by presenting the citizens of the nation with an opportunity for referendum on the most recent international bailout, and as quickly as the proposal materialized, Papandreou was reined in by forces much more powerful than he.
Leaving the eurozone is not an option. Sovereignty is not an option either. Chancellor Merkel and President Sarkozy summoned Papandreou to Cannes to face the full power of the G20, and eyewitness accounts claim that the typically ostentatious Papandreou left the summit pale and broken, muttering morosely of mendacity and the rapine he was made to suffer on behalf of the oligarchs. This is no pleonasm, dear Gazette readers. It is real. Watch and learn.
Wallis
Many of the tax breaks, incentives, allowances, subsidies, etc. granted to the oil and gas industry have outlived their intent and usefulness. Overall, the Oil and Gas Industry has been posting record quarterly profits, in fact Exxon recently posted the highest quarterly profit ever reported in the United States.
Due to the recent financial system meltdown and resulting fiscal crisis, our country is now contemplating corrective steps that will eliminate budget deficits and provide a path for paying off our long term debt. To accomplish this goal will require a reduction of government spending as well as an increase in revenue -- neither one will accomplish the goal by itself.
On the revenue side, it is realistic to assume that cutting some tax expenditures for highly profitable business entities will be considered a viable option for increasing revenue flow. I don't consider this lack of Patriotism or favoring OPEC -- to me it falls in the category of common sense.
Geez-You are for raising taxes on United States oil companies. The US oil business is capital intensive. If that capital is redeployed to the Federal Government that means less drilling, fewer American jobs, less American domestic oil production and a higher oil price.
Therefore, your actions would : Increase unemployment in the private sector, Increase oil prices and increase American foreign oil usage.
If ever anyone seemed pro National Oil Companies it would be you.
Wallis
Geez-Please explain the purpose for your post on oil dependancy. Maybe that is our confusion. I thought you were concerned about our dependency and that was why I questioned your hypocrisy. Taking capital away from US companies and therefore decreasing American oil supply.
If you are happy about our dependence growing, then you are being consistent.
Wallis
in fact Exxon recently posted the highest quarterly profit ever reported in the United States.
Geezer- Exxon hasn't had "record profits" since 2008. Are you really going back that far? Please let's be a little factual.
I'm not sure sefffanie, geezer seems to be one of the most credible posters on the site. He appears to do his research and presents his opinion accordingly.
Let me know when Putin starts posting here.
It seems Zombie took any media source, (most with a negative stigma and associated them with figures such as Obama, Biden, Pelosi etc.), that even reported anything about OWS and used it as a source to claim support. For instance, Wikipedia on Hezbollah mentions nothing that it favors OWS nor does PressTV. You can make the argument either way for the other "supporting" links.
Some things that the green movement people seem not to know.
You cannot get a jet aircraft off the ground with solar panels on the roof--it takes jet fuel.
You cannot move a semi tractor/trailer down the interstate with solar panels on the roof--it takes diesel fuel.
You cannot run electric cars without coal; where do they think the electricity to charge up the car comes from?--the coal-fired plant they didn't want built.
Solar only works when the sun shines. So this time of year when I get home and turn on the lights, they won't work if we depend on solar cells when it's dark out.
Windmills typically only turn from 10:00 am to about 7:00pm. Wind is caused by solar energy from the sun and it dies down after sundown. My lights won't work in the evening if we depend on wind-generated electricity.
Farm tractors will not pull implements with solar panels on the roof. They require diesel fuel to produce crops and food. You can't eat wishful thinking.
Without oil, natural gas, and coal we won't be able to commute to work, produce our food, deliver our food and supplies, travel on jets, or do anything after dark.
The green energy folks don't realize it, but they really propose that we return to life as it was before the steam engine. I say shut off their electricity for a few months; give them a taste of their wish and see how they like it.
Boomer62,
I believe you have missed the argument completely, sorry to say. But I am glad that you seem to have returned to reasonableness (minus the last paragraph of course--but I will ignore that).
When I say you have missed the argument, what I mean is, you have the situation completely backwards:
In Seville, Spain, where the sun shines for most of the year, there is a solar tower that collects energy from the sun throughout the day. The town runs normally during daytime hours on "oil, natural gas, and coal." At night, when energy costs decrease (A/C unit switch off, lights go out, etc) the city diverts a portion of the energy it requires away from "oil, natural gas, and coal" and uses the energy stored up from a renewable source to mitigate the energy it uses from nonrenewable sources.
"Oil, natural gas, and coal," are finite. We all know that. This is not controversial. Sun, wind, water, etc., can potentially be used in several ways: 1) to decrease the cost of energy in the long term; 2) to decrease carbon emissions, 3) to increase the longevity of our nonrenewable resources, 4) to decrease our reliance on foreign oil.
More importantly, whether you like it or not, the rest of the world is going green. This means markets are developing, and new frontiers of research, innovation, capital, etc., are burgeoning. The US has the infrastructure and resources to take the lead in development, research, and design. This means an entirely new industrial sector with potentially hundreds of thousands of new jobs.
With or without the US the world is moving in a particular direction. If we are smart we will act in our own interest, and not against as you suggest.
You were saying, lilhankbot, scumbag...
http://trade.gov/press/publications/news...
უილიამ ი,
Your link is quite helpful, and I thank you for it, as it makes the point well. However, I don't believe that such animosity is warranted, even when directed toward the local trolls.
Verb tenses must be a chore, its okay, let me help you. The argument was that the world is "going" green. As the article demonstrates, there is a multinational effort supported within China and India of course, to achieve the goal of "green energy" in the future. These efforts of course begin in the present, hence the phrase,"Going green." Notice the phrase utilizes the gerund "going" which as language users we understand refers to current activity towards an ultimate (future) outcome. Here is another example, I am going to win this argument. Just the facts. Sorry.
Going green is recognition to the fact that our resources are finite. No one suggests riding a solar panel as a magic carpet nor do they suggest slapping a couple wind turbines to a 747 and try flying with them. They also do not suggest that the majority of the energy they use or receive is green. But, we develop other energy sources to displace our fossil fuels in hope that we become even less dependant on them.
Wallis
Here are the top 5 Oil Company Profits through quarter 3 of 2011 in billions of dollars (my figures from their data, links shown)
BP 16.0 billion
http://www.bp.com/extendedgenericarticle...
http://www.bp.com/extendedgenericarticle...
http://www.bp.com/extendedgenericarticle...
Conoco Phillips 9.0 billion
http://www.conocophillips.com/EN/newsroo...
http://www.conocophillips.com/EN/newsroo...
http://www.conocophillips.com/EN/newsroo...
Chevron 21.8 billion
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.Fil...
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.Fil...
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.Fil...
ExxonMobil 31.7 billion
http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/...
http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/...
http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/...
Shell 24.4 billion
http://www.shell.com/home/content/invest...
http://www.shell.com/home/content/invest...
http://www.shell.com/home/content/invest...
Total $102.9 billion for the first three quarters of 2011.
ExxonMobil best quarter ever was Q4 of 2007 at $11.66 billion and the same year recorded best annual profit of $40.61 billion. Prior to Q4 of 2007 the record was $10.7 billion in Q4 of 2005. Q1 & Q2 of 2011 matched that previous record Wallis.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/01/news/com...
If Exxon projections continue at the same rate of Q3 (10.3 billion) they will surpass their best ever yearly profits and could possibly break their best ever quarterly profits depending on the price/demand of oil through the remainder of the year.
Over 50% of all ExxonMobil profits were used for stock repurchase -- I wasn't able to find any data on how many new jobs that action created. I must have been looking in the wrong places I guess.
In 2004 the US exported 1.048 MMbd and by 2008 that had increased to 1.704 MMbd which is a 62% increase. In 2010 the US was third in world crude oil production at 5.5 MMbd and at the same time we were exporting 2.3 MMbd of crude oil and petroleum products. It appears to me that a significant percent (about 40%) of our domestic oil supply is being sent elsewhere. I am probably looking at this wrong so your take on this would be appreciated.
http://www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/forei...
stefffanie
At least I don't intentionally insult anybody with my posts. I try to stay within the rules the Gazette has established for bloggers - I owe them that much for allowing me the opportunity to participate in this forum.
I don't always agree with Wallis but I do value what he has to say. Isn't that how we all broaden our knowledge and understanding of different points of view?
I am asking you again to refrain from making insulting comments towards me or any other blogger.
well geezer, when you have no argument to make and are out of ideas then name calling and insulting people becomes your defence. its like the "i know you are but what am I?" defence.
People like me feel that we soon will have no need for fossil fuels, and some even find it interesting that, in the design of the Heavens, and Earth, God placed only the amount of fossil fuels we will need to get us through the Millennial Reign of Jesus, when, at the end of that, we will have no need for fossil fuel.... or something like that. We won't need Green, and we won't need oil.
I find that an interesting thought, that is far more fun than fighting over the last drop of oil.
I know, this ain't not as erudite as Going Green, but, having God come to rule over our insanity, pleases my heart. I'm Done.
Riiiiggghtt..
GOD: Jesus, earth is out of oil.
Jesus: Awww, but Dad, do I have to go? Remember what happened last time you sent me down there?
GOD: You're still going, but bring the four horsemen this time.
Jesus: Fine...
I do value what wallis says, he generally types good, well written, thought out posts. I also value what geezer says, he types good, well written, thought out posts. Whats really nice is neither of them are prone to name calling. If they began the name calling I would dismiss them just as I dismiss 99% of what you type.
How am I wrong? I havent typed any opnion. This is the part in the post where I would use the stuffany playbook and call you a name but I think I will just say "i know you are but what am I"?
We get it, we are all hippy type communist pinko fags, if I may suggest a John Wayne blog out there somewhere just waiting for you. I think mayby this blog will send you over the edge, you'll be jumping around like a squirrel on crack.
Oil prices will probably move past $100/bbl this month (November). My old target for oil in the next 18 months was a retest of the old highs which was $147 (WTI). I think that Geezer is probably right and the Governments reaction to high oil prices will be to raise taxes on oil companies and thereby lower oil production. Therefore, as a result of unintended consequences, I am raising my price target to $168.
Oil supply has not grown since 2005. Spare capacity is absorbed and demand is continuing to grow in Asia and the Middle East. Demand destruction will be the only solution.
Wallis
Thanks Wallis
You are probably already up to speed on the Great Bear Petroleum development proposal in Alaska but I have included a link of the latest Press Release, etc. in case you haven't seen them.
http://www.adn.com/2011/11/05/2156518/ha...
http://petroleumnews.com/pnfm/GBP_HRC.pd...
And the sad part, Rattletrap, is your response to Sciences' inane post only serves to encourage him.
And what of your response to Rattletrap, doodle bug?
Seems to me as though more than a few posters here could use less encouragement.
touche` and true. And that is the main reason I havent posted lately.
Thanks for the post Geezer. Have not heard a thing about it.
I typically don't follow Alaska anymore. I was a Arco hand in the mid 1990's and Arco operated in the North Slope at the time.
Alaska is a great place to visit and I would encourage all to do so. The Juneau ice fields are amazing. The largest Glaciers are still advancing (much to the "amazement" of the Global warmers).
Wallis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taku_Glacie...
According to the Taku center this Wikipedia entry is incorrect with the advance much more than is listed. Regardless, this Glacier is the Biggest of em all.
Wallis
Well, nevermind, Doodle. Rattletrap appears to be no more (tear rolls down cheek).
Yes! its true that some of us are not on this blog to write a dissertation or thesis, or try and prove what an intellect we are.
The western coastal areas of Alaska are beginning to feel the brunt of a mega storm carrying sustained winds of 75+ mph, heavy snow, 25 foot seas, and storm surge of 6 to 9 feet resulting in coastal flooding. Evacuations orders have been issued for Nome and other coastal communitites.
Please say a prayer for the Fishing Fleet caught at sea and those having to ride it out in the small Native Villages located along the coast. This could be life threatening weather event.
http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/11/08/mass...
And many are on here to avoid intellectual points, facts, and thinking all together!
I actually realize that oil, gas and coal are finite supplies.
I also know that free markets will provide the solution to the finite supplies.
My problem is with those who think they know what the solution is before it is time. When we begin to run out of those traditional energy sources, the free markets will provide the solutions. Those solutions are not viable compared to the traditional sources right now. They MIGHT be someday, but not now.
But we have fools in government, wasting our taxpayer money on things like Solyndra, every day, every year. The US Dept of Energy has been around for 35 years, growing its budget, wasting taxpayer funds, and getting in the way of real progress, all those years. Today we rely on foreign energy supplies more than we did when that huge department was created.
It should be renamed the US Dept of Declining Energy Production and Oil Import Enhancement!
Seville Spain's solar equipment is nice. But Spain is broke and has cut spending on this project by 50% since the Great Correction in the economy began. The project is not self-funding and doesn't make any economic sense or private enterprise would have built it. Only governments are that stupid.
Why wait till we a nearly out of fossil fuels to find a solution? And while other solutions may not be as viable, they decrease demand and take a step in the direction of replacing fossil fuels. Also, the demand for oil has actually been dropping since 2004. It is also true that oil prices would increase if we did not have these other energy sources. I don't know about you, but I'd rather not pay anymore than necessary.
As far as relying on foreign energy supplies, we import less foreign oil today than we did in the 90's.
In comparison to consumption*
Boomer,
The authors of Freakonomics and Super Freakonomics point out that the automobile was America's first 'Green Energy' revolution. The horse was relatively dirty, the cities were over run by stench from the massive waste produced by all the horses. When it rained, there were rivers of waste careening through the cities. Horses in their height of usage totaled nearly 200,000 in NYC alone. Even green house gas as a result of methane emissions were having environmental impacts in major cities, according to Levitt and Dubner.
Then the automobile was invented. But it was costly, inefficient, and impractical. In the early 20th century, Henry Ford's lawyer advised the president of a large Michigan bank not to invest in Ford Motor Company, saying, "The horse is here to stay but the automobile is only a novelty, a fad." This was a common sentiment. Not only was the automobile impractical and inefficient, it required a great deal of nonexistent infrastructure (e.gs., roads, service stations, mechanics, etc.). We all know, of course, how solid Ford's lawyers advice looks now, and from where I am seeing things, where green energy is concerned, you are sounding a lot like Ford's lawyer.
Boomer, what made economic sense in the early 1900's was to clean up our cities and to forge a more efficient and reliable mode of transportation. That included building a very expensive, tax payer paid, highway and interstate system.
We stand at a new crossroads, and all the same arguments and logic that applied where the car was concerned also apply where the future of our energy is concerned.
The car was invented by an individual not a government sponsored program. Oil is also most efficient.
The next big thing will not be decided in advance by the government. It will be invented by an individual and it will catch on.
The car was first invented in the late 1800's and the interstate was built in the 1950's so it took a couple of generations to become accepted as old hat.
Also remember roads were built long before cars. One of the landmarks of the Roman Empire was their road system.
Wallis
http://www.hardassetsinvestor.com/weekly...
Crude oil prices set to rise. Now doesn't seem like a good time to "punish" oil companies.
http://business.financialpost.com/2011/1...
My $168 target was driven by basic supply and demand. This event could get us to my ultimate target of $225.
Wallis
The market is already purchasing green energy. Wind turbines aren't running simply because people like to watch them spin, nor are biofuels made just to see how much we can accumulate. The energy is being consumed.
The market simply isn't going to say Ok, we're ready now, give us the green! Nor is it feasible to think that waiting til that point we will produce "green things out of thin air" without ever having developed it. This takes money. And like oil, green energy receives tax incentives for doing so.
Why it suddently becomes a liberal standard I've no idea, since conservatives also support them. There is not much merit in pointing a finger while turning a blind eye.
Why would nanobots be required to consume biological matter? To me it would seem similar to shoving carrots in my gas tank.
Wallis,
Solar panels, wind turbines, etc., were not invented by the government, either. The government incentivized and encouraged the spread of the automobile in response to the massive amount of pollution caused by horses in densely populated areas. Where ground-breaking business and innovations are concerned, the US government has historically done an outstanding job creating an environment in which tax money, subsidies (like for oil companies), etc., support those inventions/markets which benefit our nation the most.
Think about it: steel, automobiles, the internet....green energy is the next private sector enterprise that will benefit (that is benefiting) from government support. I suspect that it will not be the last either.
The only thing you are right about are roads. They certainly have existed for a long time. However, I would like to see you drive a model-t down a Roman road...or an 1850's thoroughfare in New York for that matter. I bet you wouldn't make it 1000 meters. The point is, entire cities were replanned and redesigned, old roads and horse trails were either paved and lined with gutters, etc., or removed. Infrastucture, Wallis. The car required it. So does green energy.
Luckily, the issue has a lot of traction because it is nonpartisan, and even a great deal Conservatives in DC and at the state level are on board.
Meanwhile...
The GOP is beginning to understand reality.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/10/news/eco...
ScienceAboveAll
Ironcat with a better education, better punctuation.
still just as crazy, just easier to read.
Ben- no offense but you and I aren't smart enough to "determine" what will replace the car or hydrocarbons.
Hydrocarbons are a Natural resource and the car was invented to utilize this cheap fuel.
The next natural resource play will be something we haven't seen yet or that we haven't considered. Revolutionary ideas are something no one has ever considered. Lot's of people have messed with windmills and solar and hydro and hydrogen, you get my point.
Wallis
Wallis,
No offense taken. We may not be prognosticators, but we don't have to be. The future can be written, luckily. We can also study history.
Remember that the internal combustion engine was originally designed (but never built) way back in 1680 by the Dutch. It was later redesigned by the Swedish to burn hydrogen and oxygen, then again by the French to burn kerosene, etc.
The internal combustion engine went through over 200 years of design and redesign before reaching cost effectiveness, efficiency, and widespread marketability.
The sun, water, wind, etc., have been useful in localized operations and utilities, we know this. Their design and effectiveness are in their infancy, as the engine once was. These energies have not been brought to scale. But it isn't hard to see this is where we are headed. I recently drove to Minnesota to watch the Huskers. Iowa is dotted with wind farms. Kansas too. California, Nevada, etc., are all taking advantage as well.
There is money to made. There is an entire global-industry at our disposal. We do not have to guess at the future Wallis. We can make the future.
Mark Twain said, "Prophecies which promise valuable things, desirable things, good things, worthy things, never come true. Prophecies of this kind are like wars fought in a good cause--they are so rare that they don't count.
Mark Twain also wrote: "We despise all reverences and all the objects of reverence which are outside the pale of our own list of sacred things. And yet, with strange inconsistency, we are shocked when other people despise and defile the things which are holy to us."
I don't think anyone is doubting the potential of green sources of energy...however, they are not currently viable as replacements for fossil fuel powered energy (or nuclear for that matter). The point is, the American economy cannot continue to ignore our current needs for energy (lack of developing our own current sources, including modernization of refining, forcing drillers to relocate globally) and over fund the earth friendly sources that cannot meet our current needs. (Solyndra, for example)
The world needs energy resources - why can't America be a supplier as opposed to merely being a consumer?
Because Mickel politics has deemed American Oil Companies as evil. We have resorted to fighting against our own instead of working together.
Want to win a bar bet? Bet that Exxon isn't one of the 10 largest oil companies in the World. The top 10 are all composed of National Companies which we are helping make more money by "picking on" American Companies.
Wallis
Geezer and Ben - Refinery upgrades that had been planned pre - 2008 were postponed due to pending cap-trade legislation. Cap and Trade was passed by House - Senate never discussed.
The Refinery upgrades were never done due to the House action. Product demand has continued to increase around the World. The oil price run up that began in 2007 - 2008 was led by a Worldwide shortage of diesel.
I am predicting that we are seeing that now. Diesel inventory ( and heating oil) has dropped at a time when it should be building.
What do you you 2 now recommend we do to fix this problem? As I see it - your ideas are what is going to cause it.
Thanks - for your answers. The product problems are reemerging again and the last 3 years are only going to make this next wave even worse.
Wallis Marsh
Wallis,
This is a little off subject, but during a discussion on the supply of petroleum, I asked you how crude oil is made in nature. Never got an answer, but if you could please, enlighten us.
Carbon matter builds is buried and Millions of years pass and Oil and Gas is the by product. The carbon matter are trees, leaves, grass, animals, etc. The oil than migrates subsurface until it is trapped in reservoirs.
We then try to find these traps and reservoir rock to produce the oil and gas. The oil and gas is usually found between 1 to 2 miles underground.
If it seems like it should be hard to find and produce the stuff it is. Yet people have deemed oil producers as evil.
Wallis
"Carbon matter builds is buried and Millions of years pass and Oil and Gas is the by product. The carbon matter are trees, leaves, grass, animals, etc."
...some believe. Maybe it's just really juicy coal...
Kidding about that...but the point is; oil is just as natural as trees. Nature made it - and we as creatures of nature, use it for our own benefit. Green energy cannot heat the homes of people this time of year. Fossil fuels can do the job nicely thank you very much. Why are we putting ourselves in a position to depend on resources from countries that aren't too crazy about us?
You forgot: To appease the environmentalist nut-jobs.