Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on September 25, 2000, 08:28:00 AM
-
35 REASONS NOT TO VOTE FOR
AL GORE, JR.
1. Gore thinks "human civilization is now the dominant cause of change in the global environment." Nevermind the sun, the oceans, volcanoes, and other natural phenomena that actually do control the environment.
2. Gore believes that "industrial civilization" is engaged in a "terrible onslaught against the natural world." Of course, without industrial civilization, we'd all be riding horses and growing our own food. Forget about cars, computers, air conditioning, television, telephones, plastic, pharmaceuticals, et cetera.
3. Gore's "strategic goal" is to "eliminate the internal combustion engine" by the year 2020. This particular kind of engine can be found in automobiles, trucks, vans, and a whole host of labor saving devices.
4. Gore believes that the "cumulative impact" of automobiles "is posing a mortal threat to the security of every nation more deadly than that of any military enemy we are ever again likely to confront."
5. Caught making campaign finance calls from the White House, something that is against the law, Gore declared that there was "no controlling legal authority" regarding this improper behavior. Like any longtime legislator, he knew federal law prohibits soliciting campaign funds in a federal building.
6. Gore favored a government crackdown on the tiny trickle of electricity used by devices like television sets, whether they are on or not, because it results in a steady emission of carbon dioxide. All his talk of greenhouse gases and global warming ignores the fact that 95% percent of all carbon dioxide produced annually comes from the evaporation of water from the oceans, decaying organic matter, and the respiration of human beings and animals.
7. In October 1997, Gore told television weathermen gathered at the White House that global warming could be eliminated if the over-population of Third World nations could be controlled. This is a kind of Final Solution approach. The entire population of the world could live in Texas. Populations in industrialized, prosperous nations have steadily decreased.
8. Gore was responsible in having Timothy Wirth named Undersecretary of State. Wirth is on record saying, "Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we are doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy." Since there is no global warming (the earth hasn't warmed in over 50 years), this is a justification for a bad policy based on bad science. Wirth now administers Ted Turner's billion-dollar gift to the United Nations.
9. Gore has pushed hard to make environmentalism the basis for our foreign policy. He called it "a turning point in US foreign policy." A turn for the worse since national security and the advancement of our economic growth is widely regarded as a sound basis for foreign policy.
10. While the economy of Japan remains stagnant, Gore advised them in 1997 to agree to "limit carbon monoxide and other greenhouse gases" by supporting the much-disputed UN Treaty on Climate Control. This treaty exempts nations that include China and India. The US Senate is on record saying it will never approve it.
11. Gore attended an April 29, 1996 campaign fundraising event at the Hsi Lai Buddhist Temple in Hacienda Heights, California and then called it "a community outreach" program. Three months earlier, his own staff had told him it was a fundraiser.
12. During his Democratic nomination speech, Gore told of his grief over the death of his sister caused by her having smoked cigarettes. He neglected to mention that his family's fortune had been based on raising tobacco in Tennessee and that the family farm continued to do so for years after her death or that he continued to accept tobacco industry political action committee money through his re-election as Senator in l990.
13. Gore once told reporters that Eric Segal's novel, "Love Story", was based on the romance between himself and his wife Tipper. When Segal said this was nonsense, he disclaimed his statement calling it "a miscommunication."
14. Gore has compared the "struggle to save the environment" to "the struggle to vanquish Hitler" adding that this time "the war is with ourselves." Apparently, the entire human race is now the enemy.
15. Gore advocates that the United Nations consider "the idea of establishing a Stewardship Council to deal with matters relating to the global environment." In other words, give the UN total control over the actions and decisions of sovereign nations worldwide. Meanwhile, the UN already has a plan for "global governance" complete with the ability to tax nations, set up its own permanent army, and now has an international court which can indict and convict American citizens.
16. Gore has written that the "deforestation of Haiti, perhaps as much as the repression of the Duvalier regime" was the cause of Haitian immigration, numbering over a million, legally and illegally, to the US. Sure, they all left because trees were chopped down.
17. Gore once claimed that, if the Republicans didn't go along with the Clinton Administration's environmental legislation, "our drinking water would be dirtier; (it) would make more people sick, and would kill more people." This is typical of his habit of over-statement and harsh attacks on opponents of his beliefs.
18. Gore has claimed during a 1999 interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer that "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." The preliminary discussions for the creation of the Internet took place in 1967 and, in 1969, the Defense Department commissioned the creation of the "Arpanet." Gore was 2l years old at the time and it would be eight more years before he was elected to the US House of Representatives.
19. Gore was a supporter of the creation of the so-called "Superfund" to clean up toxic sites. It was supposed to be a short-term program costing $1.6 billion. The program still exists and has cost more than $30 billion without having successfully cleaning up more than a fraction of sites.
20. Gore was an advocate of the "V-chip" to permit parents to block out programming they considered inappropriate for their children. It is widely regarded as a complete failure.
21. Despite the viewing public's disenchantment with the television show, "Ellen", starring Ellen DeGeneris, an outspoken advocate of the lesbian lifestyle, Gore lauded the star for "forcing" millions of Americans to "look at sexual orientation in a more open light." They stopped looking and the show was cancelled.
22. A comparison between the statements found in Gore's book, "Earth in the Balance", and the "Manifesto" of the Unabomber, demonstrates that it is impossible to determine which one is the author of which statement. (See "How to Tell the Difference Between Al Gore and the Unabomber" on this site.)
23. Gore is on record declaring William Jefferson Clinton as one of the greatest Presidents of modern times.
24. Gore has placed some of the most radical advocates of environmentalism in posts throughout the Clinton Administration, first of whom would be Carol M. Browner, director of the Environmental Protection Agency. The bad science, bad laws, and lies coming out of this single agency will impact the US economy for years to come. Another Gore appointee, the former director of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, Kathleen McGinty, has resigned to play a role in his presidential campaign. There are others too numerous to name.
25. Gore was put in charge of "reinventing government" in the Clinton Administration, but not a single union job was found expendable. Nearly three-fourths of the positions that were eliminated came from the Defense Department, which lost 16% of its civilian jobs. Many other jobs that were supposedly eliminated were "privatized", using government contracts. Other reductions came from retirements. The Federal Register of new laws and regulations has increased dramatically during the term of the Clinton-Gore Administration.
26. During the 1992 campaign, Gore said that the government should fund the "information highway", but reversed himself the following year saying the private sector should pay for it.
27. The Gore family had close, personal ties to oil magnate, Armand Hammer. After his defeat as Senator, Al Gore, Sr. was given a $500,000 a year job to head up the Occidental Petroleum's coal division. Hammer, however, was a longtime Soviet agent, a personal friend of Lenin and the only American to receive the Order of Lenin from the then Soviet government. Today, Al Gore, Jr. serves as co-chairman of the US-Russian Joint Commission on Economic and Technical Cooperation, better known as the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission.
28. Despite being provided with evidence in 1995 by the Central Intelligence Agency of the personal corruption of Victor S. Chernomyrdin, Gore dismissed the findings and did not want to receive further reports.
29. Gore's advocacy of the widely disputed global warming theory led him to blame it for everything from floods in North Dakota, droughts in Texas, and forest fires in Florida. One would think that floods, droughts and forest fires had never occurred before, but history reveals they are a common annual occurrence.
30. Gore did serve briefly in Vietnam, but his assertion that he came under enemy fire is false. He served as a journalist behind the front lines and never saw combat.
31. While a journalist in Tennessee, Gore said that his reporting "put people in prison." An examination of the record shows this did not occur and he admitted that he lied about this.
32. Both Al Gore and his wife, Tipper, have admitted to being "recreational" marijuana smokers when he attended Harvard. The Clinton-Gore Administration is notorious for having failed to stem the flow of drugs into the country.
33. When President Clinton gave misleading testimony about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky to the Grand Jury and the tapes were shown on television in September 1998, Gore characterized his behavior saying, "My overall impression was that it was much ado about not much new."
34. On a visit to New Hampshire in 1998, Gore predicted that Clinton would end his term in office "with a distinguished record and will go down in history as a virtuoso performance, producing economic recovery and an American renaissance with new solutions to problems once thought impossible to solve." Most people believe Clinton has disgraced himself and the office of the Presidency. The nation's economic success is attributed to the end of the Cold War and the former Soviet Union. Policies administered by Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve are also credited. By contrast, the Clinton Administration has been engaged in efforts to purchase more of the nation's landmass to put it off limits to any development or the use of our natural resources. The Clinton-Gore Administration has attacked major industries that include tobacco and one of the most successful corporate enterprises, Microsoft.
35. Gore once accused then President Bush of having "taken our tax dollars and subsidized the moving of US factories to foreign countries", but omitted that the program he was describing, the Caribbean Basin Initiative, was one for which he had voted when he served in the Senate.
For these and many other reasons, Al Gore, Jr. is a proven, accomplished liar, an environmental fanatic, and co-equal with President Clinton in the cover-up of the Administration's scandals.
-
Rip, Rip, Rip, rip, RIP!
tsk, tsk, tsk, sigh, sigh, sigh
I thought we had ALREADY proven that the liberals don't have a sense of humor with the "You MIGHT be a Democrat if........." thread.
Now you're going to get them all riled up again and the still won't give us any good Republican jokes in return. Just a few more serious sermons on how life ISN'T funny!
Nonetheless....some of those had me laughing!
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Right on Rip !!
Sad truth is this:
The candidate with the flashiest commercial last will win the election as the typical voter has his/her head up their arse (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif) or in a smoky, who give's a crap, cloud.
Sad reality is the best PR man wins, it's not about track record, integrity or commitment - it's about what was last read in the newspaper or what they saw last on their boob tube. MTV meets politics... I wonder how many "voters" the democratics will bus in this election..
Do your part, vote em out!!!
-
Spewing more lies via misrepresentaion I see.
Tsk, tsk.
I'd think you could come up with real info rather than stooping to the same old Republican scam.
Sisu
-Karnak
-
Originally posted by Karnak:
Spewing more lies via misrepresentaion I see.
Tsk, tsk.
I'd think you could come up with real info rather than stooping to the same old Republican scam.
Sisu
-Karnak
The truth is always hard to digest once you've been brainwashed... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
gonna have to agree with karnak on this one.. and I don't even like Gore.
AKDejaVu
-
Would you like me to start posting pointers to news articles from the past, including Gores book, for reference?
Come guys, this stuff isn't made up, and God help you if he gets elected....
Read Gores book, you'll be convinced.
[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 09-25-2000).]
-
LOL. My Dr. Pepper came out my nose all over my monitor and my mouse pad.
Here, try this:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3750/headlines.htm (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3750/headlines.htm)
-
didn't really mean that Rip.. If someone were willing to take the time, they could do this for any politician in the buisness.
AKDejaVu
-
True, Deja, true.
Heya Gooberz! (MG) Too bad you not only made a bad name for yourself in AH, but in WB's as well, you have to use an alias because no one would listen to you, sad day...hehe!
-
One thing is for sure. You and Bush have about the same IQ.
ROFLMAO. Rootbeer just came out my nose all over the monitor.
-
(http://pages.hotbot.com/games/davekirk/images/hugahunk.jpg)
-
Hehe, Deja
MG, Warbirds gunnery got you so frustrated that you have to come over here to throw rocks? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
OXIDENTAL (SP?) PETROLIUM!!!!!
-
Rip
All of the info in your post is well documented and the facts. Sure anyone can find dirt on anyone if you look hard enough, open enough closets and look under enough rocks. The object is to elect the LEAST corrupt candidate and Gore isn’t it this time! I'd vote for Gore say if he were running against Clinton...maybe he'd have better taste in interns (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
As all politicians make my skin crawl to some degree, I'll take my chances with Bush over Gore any day.
Eagler
-
Let me get this straight, Ripsnort, you don't like Gore much, do you? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Some of the thing Gore talks about concerning the environment, make sense to me (I'm not very interested in the other things (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)). The problem is there is a lot of controversy over man's impact on his environment, as I am sure you realise, and depending on which expert you consult you get a different picture. But I think that man has become almost as powerful in changing the environment as the factors you describe; being able to modify our environment is one ability I would attribute to our civilisation (it might even be a requirement for a race to be called a civilisation).
Just how much CO2 comes from evaporation of the seas? I know that the gas can partially dissolve in water - but I didn't think it could be significant.
Regarding the combustion engine target - I think this is an inherently worthy aim. No country, America included, wants to be reliant on oil once the price starts to rise (as it undoubtedly will as time goes on). I've always thought that burning it up in the engine may prove to be irresponsible, considering all the other uses we have for it (plastics etc). When the price starts to rise on these products, as it must do when oil becomes scarce, life might become very difficult indeed.
Regarding the damage we do to the environment - this is plain to see. Our industries pollute every medium on Earth. Our econmomics assume that raw materials will be available infinitely. We exploit and strip the natural resources of every continent on the planet, except Antarctica and its only a matter of time before the agreements on its protection are 'reviewed'. One major problem is the pollution produced by the developing world, who are aeons behind us in terms of environmental protection. I think Gore or any other politician is right to confront our industry's record on the environment; to brush it under the carpet as unimportant is to completely miss the point.
But as I said before, Gore's suitability as a leader is something I can't comment on, I don't really care about it enough to look into. I'm sure whoever you elect will make little difference in the end - they may promise to make big changes - but anyone can make a promise; keeping it is a different matter (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif). I guess these days it pays to keep any country on an pretty even keel, from one government to the next.
-
I voted for McCain in the primaries.
I have thoughts about shooting Pat.
The Bush mole and the oil reserves...sigh.
Bush is a dork, but I agree on some of his policies. Same with Gore.
But Gore has been spewing so much trash lately, contradicting himself amoung other things, no way he's getting my vote. If he can't even stay straight on the campaign trail then there's no telling what he'll do if he gets elected.
Btw Bush will win anyway. He won 82% to 10% (don't ask, they dunno how to do math) in Cosmopolitain's "Who's the cutest canidate?" poll. Given the average voter, kiss Gore's chances goodbye. Pat got a "I've seen cuter warthogs" vote.
- Jig
-
Although I am Canadian, we're all wondering if George Bush running for president is a conspiracy set up by the CIA to secretly test the nation's I.Q. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Yeah, it is. If you vote for Al, you are on the way low side of the bell curve. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
I would highly doubt that.
------------------
Squadron Leader, Igloo.
C/O RCAF 411 Squadron - County of York (http://www.trueorigins.net/411rcaf)
"Problems cannot be solved with the same awareness that created them" - Albert Einstein[/i]
-
If you vote for Al, you get that idiot moral preacher Liebermann too. He is gonna clean up your tv guys and girls.
He's gonna apply his personal moral standards on you. Don't like it? Too bad, because "he is a man of integrity".
And you also get Al. And not Al as in Al Bundy; he'd rule as a president. State dinners at hooters; I'd run for office in the US.
One prude mothertaterr that one.
Vote for Bush, and you get, well, Bush. I think I made my point.
More porn for all! Free violence on tv! Vote for Herr General StSanta! Sheepshaggers UNITE!
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
-
Originally posted by StSanta:
And you also get Al. And not Al as in Al Bundy
Yes, more like Ted Bundy...
Udie
-
Neither one shines. I'd love to be able to vote for a man with integrity, who had a vision of a better way to do things and could LEAD.
However, that won't be possible in this election.
It boils down to one thing for me.
One guy thinks MORE government intervention in the daily lives of Americans is a good thing.
The other guy thinks LESS government intervention is better.
All else aside, this makes it real easy for me.
My ancestors left Ireland, Italy and France because the governments there were just a bit too involved in the daily lives of their citizens for their liking.
-
And that is the final thing, Toad.
I do not care how smart is a president being elected now. It does not protect us from an idiot being elected in the future.
But electing a president who would limit government now will protect us from an idiots in the future.
We can run our lives and businesses ourselves very well and we do. We do not need smart presidents to prosper in the future. We will not suffer much from dumb presidents in the future as long as the government does not get more influence over our lives.
miko
-
I always get the impression that the elections in the States are personality led, and the policies are not as important. Don't know if that is true, but over here it's more about the party and what the different members of the party say on certain issues. It seems much less focussed on the leader. But that maybe a symptom of the media coverage - I guess the various discussions you have get a lot less coverage over here.
Surely you wouldn't elect an idiot to represent your nation abroad, whatever his promises were?
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 09-26-2000).]
-
Pretty much the same here in US, Dowding.
Republicans are for less ferderal government and trust in market forces, idividual people and local governments - state and municipal.
Unfortunately they are pro-religion and because of that they are anti-abortion and against legalizing drugs (war on drugs does not have any success over the last 100 years but keeps prices high so drug lords can prosper and addicts have to rob people to get money for the next dose). Also "pro-business" , anti-tax and "pro-gun".
Democrats believe that government knows best and can take care of people better and should have more control. (Of course if the people are so stupid that they cannot manage their own lives, how would you entrust them to elect a good government? What logic has to do with that?)
They are pro-choice (abortions), but pro-tax, "anti-business" and "anti-gun".
Since the economy and the enterpreneural freedom is the foundation of the society and civil liberties, I go with Republicans, whoever they nominate.
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. So the congress elections are more important in shaping the country in the long term.
miko
[This message has been edited by miko2d (edited 09-26-2000).]
-
If you have any doubts, this should leave none in anyone's mind. Yes, sad, but true: Ripsnort is a Republican.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Other views:
1. Gore thinks "human civilization is now the dominant cause of change in the global environment." Nevermind the sun, the oceans, volcanoes, and other natural phenomena that actually do control the environment.
Human civilization hasn't been around that long and look how much it's changed the world.
2. Gore believes that "industrial civilization" is engaged in a "terrible onslaught against the natural world." Of course, without industrial civilization, we'd all be riding horses and growing our own food. Forget about cars, computers, air conditioning, television, telephones, plastic, pharmaceuticals, et cetera.
How is that statement interpreted as a denouncement of industrialized civilization?
3. Gore's "strategic goal" is to "eliminate the internal combustion engine" by the year 2020. This particular kind of engine can be found in automobiles, trucks, vans, and a whole host of labor saving devices.
Striving to find a better power source than the internal combustion engine is a bad thing? While his timeframe may be overoptimistic, the same could be said of Kennedy setting the goal of putting a man on the moon in a mere decade.
4. Gore believes that the "cumulative impact" of automobiles "is posing a mortal threat to the security of every nation more deadly than that of any military enemy we are ever again likely to confront."
And the counterpoint to this is?
5. Caught making campaign finance calls from the White House, something that is against the law, Gore declared that there was "no controlling legal authority" regarding this improper behavior. Like any longtime legislator, he knew federal law prohibits soliciting campaign funds in a federal building.
Can't comment on this as I know nothing about it and can't take it at face value since it's being presented as political propaganda. Certainly Gore and probably most other politicians are hypocritical when it comes to campaign finance laws.
6. Gore favored a government crackdown on the tiny trickle of electricity used by devices like television sets, whether they are on or not, because it results in a steady emission of carbon dioxide. All his talk of greenhouse gases and global warming ignores the fact that 95% percent of all carbon dioxide produced annually comes from the evaporation of water from the oceans, decaying organic matter, and the respiration of human beings and animals.
If that statement is true, where does the other 5% come from? What was that figure 100 years ago? How much has the earth's ability to process CO2 changed in the last 100 years?
7. In October 1997, Gore told television weathermen gathered at the White House that global warming could be eliminated if the over-population of Third World nations could be controlled. This is a kind of Final Solution approach. The entire population of the world could live in Texas. Populations in industrialized, prosperous nations have steadily decreased.
Seeing an obvious problem is a final solution approach? Is he going to be called a nazi next? It's great to know that the whole population of the earth could reside in Texas. That would make a population density of 22816 people per square mile, just shy of New York City. A giant metropolis the size of Texas, yeah that'd be great and totally doable. BTW, how many square feet does your house and yard take up?
Oh well, I can't get through them all. This is just pure political propaganda. I'm not a Gore supporter and plan to vote against him, but it won't be because of political propaganda. I hate the fact that there's a push to make people vote. Don't vote just to vote, make an informed decision. 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.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
-
One reason to vote for Al Gore-to keep the hypocrite criminal Bush out of office,I doubt Bush could pour piss out of a boot-even with instructions printed on the heel.The guy is a loser!
Vote for Homer Simpson-he makes as much sense as Bush does.
-
I can't believe it is even a close race and if Gore does not win, then the US and the world as a whole is in a lot of trouble.
But hey, why worry? Sylvia Browne (the psychic) said Gore will win the election. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
Squadron Leader, Igloo.
C/O RCAF 411 Squadron - County of York (http://www.trueorigins.net/411rcaf)
"Problems cannot be solved with the same awareness that created them" - Albert Einstein[/i]
-
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 .
-
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.>
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
-
Thanks for the post Miko, (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif), 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.
-
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. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
I thought Charlton Heston was our president?
-
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
-
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).]
-
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!
-
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 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
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?
-
toad, I bet someday you will have to show up at work 3 or 4 hours before takeoff to wind the rubberbands. heheeeeeee (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
No - there is no demand because of the cost of conversion. This would decrease if their was more demand.
Catch-22 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Now, I'm really confused.
Businesses and consumers would save so much after conversion to LP that the conversion costs would be covered by "much, much cheaper fuel costs", right?
However, "there is no demand because of the cost of conversion"?
Two possibilites...or maybe three...occur to me:
1. The costs of conversion will not be covered by a decrease in fuel costs, thus no demand. This seems to be the case in the US where many "public utility" vehicles have been converted to LP but the companies admit they aren't saving money (in fact possibly losing money), just running cleaner. Thus would indicate it is NOT a "cost effective alternative to the IC engine" as yet.
2. The LP engine producing companies are not very good at marketing their products. Always a possibility but if they truly had a good, well-documented case this one seems an "easy sell". The "better mousetrap" theory and all that.
3. The evil business men of the global energy/automobile industrial complex dirty tricks squad has managed to hide the truth from free-thinking scientists around the world once again. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Reason 36 .....................
RU-486
-
The reason is simple -
People tend not to like spending large amounts of money - even though they could save money gradually in the long run.
It follows that people are unwilling to spend £3000 on LPG conversion, even though it would pay for itself in a couple of years (maximum).
Also - the oil companies are unwilling to place LPG service points in their fill-up stations.
Consequently, people don't like the idea of running out of fuel with no where to fill up, and the oil companies don't like the idea of providing a service that nobody will use.
Catch-22, yet again. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Ah!
So that's why Japan, with no oil of her own, avoids the conversion. Despite the fact that her industry is more closely aligned with her government than any other industrialized nation.
That's probably why Japanese scientists are also ignoring all those many forms of new, alternative technolgy that are sitting rusting on the shelf.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Japan has no oil of her own, and also no LPG of her own. Whereas Britain has the North Sea oil fields. Crucially, taxation of LPG is less than petrol, on top of the difference in the base price of each fuel.
Japanese scientists aren't ignoring alternatives to fossil fuels; it gets most of it's electricity from nuclear power, and is heavily involved with the photoelectric industry.
Besides, I was talking about the situation in the UK, and specifically why people won't convert. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)