35 reasons to not vote for Gore

[Suave1]

A president can't be elected by a popular vote, and I'm not part of the electoral college . That's why I don't vote in presidential elections .

[StSanta]

Eeeeek, Pyro will vote for Bush?!?

<shattered hero worship image>

<Rips apart 3 feet by 3 feet picture of Pyro>

<Burns his HTC altar>

I'll go back to Chtulhu. He was cruel, but at least I KNEW he was.

<Secretly hopes Pyro votes for some of the independents, and starts to reassemble altar and picture.>

 

------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"

[Dowding]

Thanks for the post Miko,  , I thought that was the state of play between them.

 

Since the president has less real power here then, say P.M. in UK, the particular details of the policy are much less important. A president can't impose any drastic changes here because of congress.

The PM has to have the backing of parliament for 'drastic' changes. Also, the opposition get to question him every week in a special session called...err... 'Question Time' (surprise, surprise). The houses of parliament are arranged so that you have the government on one side, and all the other parties on the other; they face each other, with a table in the middle, which they approach and shout at each other.

It just seems to me that the US elections are more Bush vs Gore, whereas here its 'New' Labour Party vs Conservative Party vs Liberal Democrats.

There seems to be a larger range of issues in contention in the US than here. Will Bush ban abortion if he comes to power? In Britain, most of the discussion revolves around taxation, and the standard of services; I can't see either party making a move like banning abortion, here.

[Ripsnort]

 

Originally posted by Pyro:

 I'd much rather people didn't vote than make uninformed choices.  Then it just comes down to a bunch of sheep led by the bigger propaganda machine.

Funny you should mention that, most have made up their decisions before ANY commmercials for candidates come out on TV, and  most follow party lines, though a few claim to 'vote the issues'...trying to sway someone to the 'other side' of the political house is equivelent to climbing Everest in beach wear and surviving.  

[funked]

I thought Charlton Heston was our president?

[Jigster]

Gore's goal of eliminating the internal combustion engine is a real bad one for the campaign trail, yanno?

Fossil fuel burning engines are one thing. internal combustion engines are another.

I wonder why the Teamster's and auto-maker unions are supporting Gore?

I don't like Gore. He makes up all kinds of garbage to gain public appeal. He got caught in 3 of them in the last week. Bush Isn't much better, but, when you come out of a corrupt administration, pick a running mate that shows you sharply want to counter the previous administration, but still get caught lying before even being in office...well, sheesh.


Not to defend Bush, but, in regards to the Air National gaurd thingy...

Remember that GB Sr. Was shot down during service, and often those that make it back (get picked up in this case) sometimes get a few choice options regarding their career (and their son's), through their military connections.

Al Jr. isn't much different. His daddy used his political connections to keep his son out of combat (by getting him into military journalism)

Only differences I think were that GB Sr. got his kid in for free. I bet Al. Sr had to use a little money to get the job done.

- Jig

[leonid]

No, funked, Heston is Speaker of the House.

 

Funny you should mention that, most have made up their decisions before ANY commmercials for candidates come out on TV, and most follow party lines, though a few claim to 'vote the issues'...trying to sway someone to the 'other side' of the political house is equivelent to climbing Everest in beach wear and surviving.
- Ripsnort

If this is the case, then the question begs to be asked: why do you insist on posting so much of this Limbaugh-ish sort of stuff?

As to the internal combustion engine there are many cost-effective alternative methods available right now, but until the supply of oil truly runs dry major oil & automobile corporations will not make any serious attempts with producing ecologically safer forms of fuel/powerplants for cars.  The reason was stated flat out by a spokesperson for a large oil firm on a TV program I saw.  He said that since the supply of oil was still reliable there was no need to think of alternative forms of energy.

[This message has been edited by leonid (edited 09-29-2000).]

[Toad]

Leonid: "internal combustion engine there are many cost-effective alternative methods available"

Gore and the campaign aside, please enlighten me. I'd like to invest EARLY in any company that right now has even the beginnings of a patent on a "cost-effective" alternative method!

Let's see, right now in my job I move 154 people at 8 miles a minute to their "important appointments". I use about 5,500 pounds of distilled dinosaur/hour to do so. My company paid somewhere around $30-35 million each for these inefficient machines. I'm sure THEY would also like to find a "cost effective alternative."

I think the market would instantly react with demand if one of these were available. Fuel is the single largest cost we have, usually in the mid-thirties in terms of percent of budget.

Thanks for your help on this one!

 

[leonid]

Like I said, Toad, the large oil/auto firms have no intention of restructuring their industry when oil is still in fairly abundant supply.  For them, the short-term cost of redesigning, and rebuilding their production and R&D facilities are prohibitive - from their point of view.  The environment does not figure in their decisions at all.  The only reason the auto industry even installed anti-pollution devices, like catalytic converters, was due to public opinion, nothing more.  The almighty dollar is the guiding philosophy of big business - when they can get away with it.

And another thing, you can bet there will be no large scale production of alternative energy vehicles by any 'independent' firm.  The established oil/auto industry would never allow a 'newcomer' to put a dent into their market.

Of course, this a wildly radical opinion with very little supportive evidence, mind you  

[Toad]

Leonid: "internal combustion engine there are many cost-effective alternative methods available"

So, Leonid, you yourself don't actually KNOW of any of the "many cost-effective alternative methods available"?

I see.

And the global energy/automobile industrial complex will quickly smother and sabotage any independent ideas that have promise?

Without letting ANY information about the possible new processes leak out?

Even though the businesses of the entire world would flock to such new technology?

[1776]

toad, I bet someday you will have to show up at work 3 or 4 hours before takeoff to wind the rubberbands. heheeeeeee

[Karnak]

Toad,
Look into Fuel Cell technology and companies developing it.  That looks like the best shot for the long term replacement of the Internal Combustion Engine right now.

Sisu
-Karnak

[Toad]

Karnak,

I am aware of fuel cell technology, breeder reactor progress (EEEK! Nuke Power! Run Away, Run Away!) and some progress in photo-voltaics & battery technology.

My point is that there are NOT "many cost-effective alternative methods available right now" as Leonid states.

Right now, there are in fact NONE that are cost-effective. Saying that some exist right now, ready to go is pure fertilizer.

We'll have some before too long, I hope. I suppose the "bright side" to high oil prices is that research into these technologies will probably accelerate.

The only "cost-effective" alternatives so far have all been subsidized. So they were only "cost-effective" in the sense that the end user wasn't being charged anywhere near the market rate.

[Dowding]

 

The almighty dollar is the guiding philosophy of big business - when they can get away with it.

Right on! This is exactly what big business is about - making a profit from anything they can get away with.

I've got a degree in Applied Physics and I've studied alternative power, from nuclear to thermophotovoltaic power. With the right level of R&D funding, many of these technologies could become affordable. But while there is a supply of oil, the oil companies are unwilling to invest to any great extent. It is left to niche developers who use the technology for very specialised applications.

I think the oil companies are very slowly moving away from oil; one thing I found interesting is BP's change of logo. It used to be the old green shield, it now is a sort of a sun emblem. Maybe relevant, maybe not.

There are alternatives to old fashioned oil burning combustion engines; Light Petroleum Gas burning engines can be made from the conventional engine. Conversion costs will be covered by much, much cheaper fuel costs. They are very clean compared to cinventional engine - there's no reason why taxis and buses shouldn't be converted - they'd make huge savings due to the number of miles they cover alone.

[Toad]

 

Originally posted by Dowding:

The almighty dollar is the guiding philosophy of big business - when they can get away with it.[/i]

Right on! This is exactly what big business is about - making a profit from anything they can get away with.

There are alternatives to old fashioned oil burning combustion engines; Light Petroleum Gas burning engines can be made from the conventional engine. Conversion costs will be covered by much, much cheaper fuel costs.

So big business is ignoring its guiding philosphy then? They COULD be making a huge profit with this LP engine? Surely an LP move would be easy to get away with? The customer would save the cost of the move through lower fuel costs.

This conspiracy runs deeper than I thought!