# Will Tea Party Triumphs Unplug Electric Car Initiatives?



## EVDL Archive (Jul 26, 2007)

Jim Motovalli reports on the aftermath of U.S. mid-term elections that saw Republican take back control of the House of Representatives.

More...


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

OMG, what trash.

There isn't a Tea Partier out there who doesn't clamor for electric cars.

They just don't want to destroy our economy getting them.

Funny thing is that if you make the economy healthy again by shutting off the ridiculous spending, electric cars will get here much faster.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Please, I'd bet at least half of the tea partiers are anti EV because they don't understand them. After all their spokesperson is Sarah "drill baby drill" Palin. Republicans have never been known for backing alternative energy or transportation options. Like it or not today's push for EV's is a Democratically driven initiative.


----------



## Jason Lattimer (Dec 27, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> Please, I'd bet at least half of the tea partiers are anti EV because they don't understand them. After all their spokesperson is Sarah "drill baby drill" Palin. Republicans have never been known for backing alternative energy or transportation options. Like it or not today's push for EV's is a Democratically driven initiative.


Todays push for evs come from the fact that we now have technology that makes them better than and not equal to gasoline powered cars. 
And if the Tea Party hates electric cars because they think it is a democrats pet project we have to show people that electrics are better. Not because we have to sacrifice something to save the planet. Ev people are seen by some as automatically being tree huggers.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Think I'll be ignoring EV world articles for the next little while. The image at the top of the page was already a bit of a turn off, but the focus on politics is a bit disturbing too.

Between playing politics and using sex to sell their ideas, they are loosing my respect (survey pop up is annoying too).

I tend to fall right of center in many ways politically, but that doesn't mean I oppose electric cars and I don't know many like me that do. My town is filled with hippies and red necks that harbor far left and far right political views and I haven't found anyone so far that isn't genuinely interested in my car.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

david85 said:


> Between playing politics and using sex to sell their ideas, they are loosing my respect (survey pop up is annoying too).


Typical uptight conservative  I'll never object to a chick's ass, unless it's too big  
It also wasn't an EVworld article to be fair, and Motavalli is a good EV advocate and raises some valid concerns. I can say with the hundreds of articles I've read the majority of negative comments were from those with an obvious conservative bent. Same with the people encountering my EV. The few less than enthusiastic responses, with comments such as "It's still running from coal" and "It only goes 50 miles?" were from the guy with a Carl Paladino sticker on his car.
Sure there are exceptions, and perceptions are changing, but let's not pretend where sentiments really lie.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> Typical uptight conservative


Guilty of stereotyping?



> It also wasn't an EVworld article to be fair, and Motavalli is a good EV advocate and raises some valid concerns.


No one can be a "good" advocate when they stray off the topic and into realms they have no understanding of. It simply brings their lack of credibility into the issue they are trying to promote.



> I can say with the hundreds of articles I've read the majority of negative comments were from those with an obvious conservative bent.


Translation: Liberals lack the critical reasoning necessary to objectively evaluate such articles and the courage to raise obvious objections to poorly-written pieces based on obviously impractical assumptions.



> Same with the people encountering my EV. The few less than enthusiastic responses, with comments such as "It's still running from coal" and "It only goes 50 miles?" were from the guy with a Carl Paladino sticker on his car.


A sample of one is not statistically significant. Drawing conclusions from such a sample indicates an unethical predilection towards valuing emotional arguments over facts.



> Sure there are exceptions, and perceptions are changing, but let's not pretend where sentiments really lie.


Ok, then stop pretending. When Liberals claim Conservatives are "anti-EV," what they really mean is that Conservatives don't favor government pork projects wasting taxpayer dollars on things the government has no business being involved in - particularly when they can't balance the budget in the face of all the spending they've already committed. This position is called, "fiscal responsibility," and it is incomprehensible to the typical Liberal. Fiscal responsibility comes into play whether the argument revolves around direct research spending for EVs; invasive spending and regulations imposed by the EPA or Congress through fraudulent "Cap and Trade" policies; expensive emissions regulations based on fraudulent data (e.g. diesel emissions laws in California); or spending and regulations based on fraudulent climate research. Like small children, Liberals cannot comprehend why more responsible Conservatives won't happily open their wallets to buy every glittering trinket and fund every specious promise for them.

The bare naked truth is that virtually 100% of Conservatives favor clean energy and transportation, but resist supporting unsustainable spending (scams) and regulations (coercion) which are completely unwarranted simply to force us to adopt solutions in the next 15 minutes when it is obvious to the youngest child that such solutions will not only be available economically in the near future but will also be the preferred solution naturally without laws compelling us to adopt them. It also makes Liberals angry that Conservatives won't support their delusional philosophy that Government should be all-powerful; that we should be servants to government rather than the other way around; and that we should pursue impractical goals irrespective of the consequences.

No need to thank me; happy to help clarify these matters any time...


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

JRP3 said:


> Typical uptight conservative  I'll never object to a chick's ass, unless it's too big





PhantomPholly said:


> Guilty of stereotyping?


I think he was kidding.


But seriously, try to fight nicely ok guys? Seems there have been a some extra flames on here lately.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Phantom and I rarely get along, I don't expect that to change since he's usually wrong about everything.


----------



## Jason Lattimer (Dec 27, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> Typical uptight conservative  I'll never object to a chick's ass, unless it's too big
> It also wasn't an EVworld article to be fair, and Motavalli is a good EV advocate and raises some valid concerns. I can say with the hundreds of articles I've read the majority of negative comments were from those with an obvious conservative bent. Same with the people encountering my EV. The few less than enthusiastic responses, with comments such as "It's still running from coal" and "It only goes 50 miles?" were from the guy with a Carl Paladino sticker on his car.
> Sure there are exceptions, and perceptions are changing, but let's not pretend where sentiments really lie.


I have noticed that most of the people who are opposed to EV's are the people who are uneducated people who don't understand them.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Jason Lattimer said:


> I have noticed that most of the people who are opposed to EV's are the people who are uneducated people who don't understand them.


I suppose it comes down to what you mean by "against them." In my post above, which was admittedly a bit sardonic, I was pointing out what I honestly believe to be true because it is also true in politics - that those who have valid objections to a particular approach to the same goal are often falsely labeled as opposing the goal. A good example of this kind of labeling, on BOTH sides of a heated debate, is "Pro Life" and "Pro Choice." Both labels attempt to demonize their opposite side - but I seriously doubt that those who support a woman's right to choice are "pro death," nor are those who oppose abortion advocating for "women as slaves with no choices in life." Yet, this is often how humans disagree.

As much blame can be laid at the feet of those who begin discussions with "so-and-so group opposes" without providing factual context on what actions or words came from that group that leads them to that conclusion. If, for example, JRP3 had said that Conservatives oppose government regulations on emissions as a way to make ICE more expensive in an attempt to steer people towards another solution, that would have been absolutely true - and we could have a discussion about whether or not that is the best way to reach the goal. However, when people are passionate about a subject they are rarely completely honest with themselves, let alone with others.

Back to my original position - I believe it would be difficult to find anyone in the Western world actually opposed to clean, reliable transportation (there are always a few kooks). Therefore, the WHAT of our goal is not in question, merely the HOW. On that, history suggests that there will be endless bickering until someone comes up with an answer unexpected by any of the arguers.

And, a little chaos is good for us!


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Jason Lattimer said:


> I have noticed that most of the people who are opposed to EV's are the people who are uneducated people who don't understand them.


That was actually my point


----------



## Jason Lattimer (Dec 27, 2008)

The only reason I say that is because my dad, who is now in his 70s and a huge fan of the 60s era musclecar years, is hugely opposed to electric cars.
He doesn't really know that much about them, and what he does know comes from garbage on tv. Unfortunately he is the type of person who will not let go of his belief that he is always right and the rest of us don't know what is going on. I have since given up trying to explain it to him. I figure I will just take him for a ride in my 86 Trans Am when I get it done. I am currently looking for a 12" forklift motor to use in a direct drive setup. That should make him a believer.


----------



## jeremyjs (Sep 22, 2010)

I don't know. What I do know is that the number of people actively opposed to electric cars is small. The primary resistance is how much they cost compared to a gas car. The Cheaper batteries get, the fewer people who oppose the electrification of the automobile. Not only that, but people are starting to realize just how important it is. Forget about the emissions factor and look to gas prices. Both where they've been and where they're likely to go. Then add on top of that where the majority of the oil to make it comes from. It really starts becomes something that nearly everyone from the far left to the far right can, and eventually will, get behind.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Price - including cost to install a charging station in your home.
Range - including the ability to travel cross-country.
Time to recharge - both at home and on cross country.

It really all comes down to the batteries, which are improving steadily. It will happen. I'm still betting the price crossover comes within 10 years.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> As much blame can be laid at the feet of those who begin discussions with "so-and-so group opposes" without providing factual context on what actions or words came from that group that leads them to that conclusion.


The track record of conservative politicians speaks for itself on the matter, that's what Motavalli was commenting on. Their motivation is rather irrelevant when their actions have the same result. Government regulation pushed EV innovation and gave us the EV1, RAV4EV, RangerEV, S10EV, etc., removal of those regulations killed it, plain and simple. We need to push for efficiency faster than an unregulated market place will allow. The market often gets things wrong, because people often make stupid purchases. We are on the edge of a crisis and need to act quickly if there is any chance of avoiding it.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> Price - including cost to install a charging station in your home.
> Range - including the ability to travel cross-country.
> Time to recharge - both at home and on cross country.
> 
> It really all comes down to the batteries, which are improving steadily. It will happen. I'm still betting the price crossover comes within 10 years.


The charger should be built into the car, as most of us have done.
Range is dependent upon charge stations, just as ICE's depend upon gas stations. Truth is no one needs to travel across country and rarely do so, if ever. Rent an ICE, take a train, or fly, as most people do. Actually most people just stay home, which makes the most sense.
Price crossover depends on battery price and fuel price. I'll bet it happens in less than 5 years. 100,000 mile of driving at an average of 25mpg is 4000 gallons of gas. At $3 per gallon that's $12K you have to add on to the price of your ICE, plus oil changes. At $4 per gallon it's $16K. I'd say at $3+ a gallon a LEAF looks very attractive even without the rebate, with the rebate it's already a deal.


----------



## Jason Lattimer (Dec 27, 2008)

No, what killed it was the fact that it was an endless pit. The technology wasn't ready for prime time yet. The few people who wanted those vehicles couldn't afford them. They were produced in too small a number, weren't sold outside of the few zones you were allowed to own one and were still using old battery technology that nobody wanted to buy. 
Now we have lithium, its getting cheaper, and the vehicles are going to be sold everywhere. Not just in California and Arizona. I live in Ohio and I couldn't get one if I had the money anyways.

Besides there are no mandates currently pushing people to have to sell a product that doesn't work well, or at all. Yes there are incentives, but that alone won't push people into buying something that is not readily accepted by the mainstream yet.

Another problem I see with your stance is this:
Making current era gasoline cars and whatnot more efficient also translates into making them cost more and more money. It doesn't make electrics and more efficient cars cheaper, it makes currently affordable cars less affordable to lower income people. They will instead choose to buy and run cheaper older cars that dont run as well or efficient. 

An example is myself, my wife and I wanted a new car. So we went out and bought the only new car we could afford, a Toyota Yaris. Almost everything else is close to or more than 20 thousand dollars. Waaaay out of our price range.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> The track record of conservative politicians speaks for itself on the matter, that's what Motavalli was commenting on.p.


Yes, it does. As I pointed out in a post above, "voting no on a spending bill" does not mean that you are against EVs. Considering that a bill containing even a provision that I would not balk at concerning EVs (and I'm pretty much against any legislation targeting them in any way) is likely to contain hundreds of other spending provisions I probably oppose, voting "no" on such bills is common sense and in the best interests of America.



> Their motivation is rather irrelevant when their actions have the same result.


And what result is that? Have Republicans suddenly outlawed EVs, or the invention of better batteries?

Once again, this is a case just as I described in my post above - that Liberals attack anyone not approaching an issue from the perspective that "more regulation and spending is better" are to be attacked and demonized as "against" whatever it is they happen to be promoting that day. 

I would say that exactly the opposite is true - that those who try to involve government through regulation and spending in issues that are best handled by the market are the ones truly AGAINST EVs, because (as YOU say) "Their motivation is rather irrelevant when their actions have the same result." And, I can back that up with concrete examples from history, whereas you can find no such historical supporting evidence to show that overarching government control of the market accelerates advancements.



> Government regulation pushed EV innovation and gave us the EV1, RAV4EV, RangerEV, S10EV, etc., ...


Funny, I thought it was GM; Toyoty; Ford; etc. 



> ... removal of those regulations killed it, plain and simple.


Ah yes, the simplistic world of Progressives. Everything is the fault of those who oppose 100% taxation and believe that those evil rich people could possibly be good for society. But, in the spirit of providing a plain and simple explanation for why these things failed, let's remind everyone that prices for these EVs were too high to attract buyers, and utility (range, ability to take long distance trips) was too low on these vehicles for even the most avid EV supporter to stomach. Regulation cannot bring those prices down nor the utility up; only innovation can. Innovation won't work unless there is profit. Taxing non-EVs lowers profit for everyone, stifling innovation. Thus, government involvement is the cause of slowed research, not the solution.



> We need to push for efficiency faster than an unregulated market place will allow. The market often gets things wrong, because people often make stupid purchases.


"We need more regulation and taxation because people are stupid and I know better than they do!" Yeah, right - see where that has gotten us so far. $13 trillion in debt and growing...



> We are on the edge of a crisis and need to act quickly if there is any chance of avoiding it.


Yes here it is folks, as predictable as rain - the "Crisis" excuse. Ok I'll take this bait. Find me one whole single year - any year in recorded human history - when politicians were NOT saying we are on the edge of a crisis. Document it.

Do that, and I'll allow that Liberalism isn't ABSOLUTELY unworkable, just astronomically unlikely.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

The crisis is the continuing world population explosion coupled with an increasing percentage of that population that is going to driving cars. Add to that increasingly hard to get/expensive oil and what do you think might happen? When the rest of the world starts to consume at the rate the US does it's not going to be good for anyone. We don't have time to wait for the market to make a VHS or Beta choice. There is an opportunity for us as a nation to seize the day and make a concerted effort to live more efficiently and start building products once again instead of more unnecessary service industries that produce nothing but overpriced consumables. The oil industry has benefited from years of governmental support from the very beginning, time for the EV industry to get the same.


----------



## alvin (Jul 26, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> "We need more regulation and taxation because people are stupid and I know better than they do!" Yeah, right - see where that has gotten us so far. $13 trillion in debt and growing...


 Can't blame that on those (tax and spend) liberals. Most of that debt is from the previous administration and the (charge and spend) conservative congress. Look it up.


----------



## Jason Lattimer (Dec 27, 2008)

alvin said:


> Can't blame that on those (tax and spend) liberals. Most of that debt is from the previous administration and the (charge and spend) conservative congress. Look it up.


No it wasn't. The current people in charge have been there for two years now. They have voted to increase the debt ceiling and have successfully spent more in the last two years than the last 40 years worth of presidents combined.

The debt was not more than 9 trillion when Bush left office. Now it is almost 14 trillion. I know this because 

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

is my home page. I have followed it long enough to know that. Don't believe tv pundits. Do the research for youself.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> The crisis is the continuing world population explosion coupled with an increasing percentage of that population that is going to driving cars. Add to that increasingly hard to get/expensive oil and what do you think might happen?


It doesn't take an Einstein - those overpopulated underpaid places aren't going to be driving cars in this lifetime, because with rising gas prices they won't be able to afford it. No crisis, no government intervention required.



> When the rest of the world starts to consume at the rate the US does it's not going to be good for anyone.


When the rest of the free world WANTS to consume at the same rate as the U.S., prices will rise so high that they can't. No crisis, no government intervention required.



> We don't have time to wait for the market to make a VHS or Beta choice.


We don't have time for yet another government-induced disaster. No crisis, no government intervention required.



> There is an opportunity for us as a nation to seize the day and make a concerted effort to live more efficiently and start building products once again instead of more unnecessary service industries that produce nothing but overpriced consumables.


And that opportunity is swiftly vanishing under a mountain of debt and ever-growing government regulation. No crisis, no government intervention required.



> The oil industry has benefited from years of governmental support from the very beginning, time for the EV industry to get the same.


No, it's time to STOP repeating the mistakes of the past. No crisis, no government intervention required.

Really, no kidding, it's time to stop listening to the propaganda of those seeking ever-growing power and start having faith in yourself.


----------



## alvin (Jul 26, 2008)

Jason Lattimer said:


> No it wasn't. The current people in charge have been there for two years now. They have voted to increase the debt ceiling and have successfully spent more in the last two years than the last 40 years worth of presidents combined.
> 
> The debt was not more than 9 trillion when Bush left office. Now it is almost 14 trillion. I know this because
> 
> ...


Sorry but that is wrong. Bush inherited a balanced budget and 3 trillion dollar debt and ran it up to 13 trillion.


----------



## Jason Lattimer (Dec 27, 2008)

alvin said:


> Sorry but that is wrong. Bush inherited a balanced budget and 3 trillion dollar debt and ran it up to 13 trillion.


No he didn't........Just because the budget was balanced doesn't mean the country was completely deficit free. All that means is the yearly budget was balanced, we still had a debt.

After I pay my bills and still have money at the end of the month doesnt mean I am completely out of debt. 

I agree he took us back into the red with the budget and ran the national debt from 3 trillion to 8 trillion but the next 5.6 trillion was accomplished in less than two years by the democrats who are now in charge.

Bush could not have possibly gave us a 13 trillion dollar debt, because up until later this year the debt ceiling was only 12 trillion; after which the democrats in charge voted back in August or so to raise it another 2 trillion dollars or so.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

alvin said:


> Sorry but that is wrong. Bush inherited a balanced budget and 3 trillion dollar debt and ran it up to 13 trillion.


Yes, that's it - Bush forced the all-Democratic Congress to vote for the bailouts, and Bush forced Obama to sign into law all of the other pork projects that doubled our debt in the first 24 months of Obama's Presidency....

Booooooosssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! 

My goodness, what has happened to people? Is it the water?


----------



## jeremyjs (Sep 22, 2010)

Bush Jr. was a "compassionate" conservative. Basically I want to spend and spend and don't want to pay for it. Granted the war that should have been fought, Afghanistan and the farce, Iraq, didn't help matters but still G.W. wanted to spend like a Democrat and tax like a Republican. No one seemed to see it when he was running for office the first time. He didn't make a secret about it. Aside from the religious hoopla in the tea party they seem to be a different animal fiscally. If only they were more socially liberal I would have considered them.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> It doesn't take an Einstein - those overpopulated underpaid places aren't going to be driving cars in this lifetime, because with rising gas prices they won't be able to afford it. No crisis, no government intervention required.
> 
> When the rest of the free world WANTS to consume at the same rate as the U.S., prices will rise so high that they can't. No crisis, no government intervention required.


I guess you've never heard of China? In case you hadn't noticed their pay grade is increasing and they want cars, millions of them! They are the big boys on the block and if they want oil they'll get it. If we aren't in a better position by then we'll suffer drastically as those oil prices shoot up.


> We don't have time for yet another government-induced disaster. No crisis, no government intervention required.


Promoting more efficient and sustainable technology is not a disaster. 100 years of subsidy for oil can't be erased by a free market.


> And that opportunity is swiftly vanishing under a mountain of debt and ever-growing government regulation. No crisis, no government intervention required.
> 
> No, it's time to STOP repeating the mistakes of the past. No crisis, no government intervention required.


It's time to cut back on wasteful spending for sure. Stop funding failures such as hydrogen and ethanol and take some of the money to fund EV's. You can do both, cut spending and spend what you do more wisely. Your slash and burn theory will destroy the economy and get us nowhere. Industry has proven time and time again that when unregulated they will consistently do the wrong thing. You live in a fantasy world where business always knows best and should be free to do as they please. Just as we have regulations for individuals, known as law, and enforcement known as police, businesses need the same.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> I guess you've never heard of China? In case you hadn't noticed their pay grade is increasing and they want cars, millions of them! They are the big boys on the block and if they want oil they'll get it. If we aren't in a better position by then we'll suffer drastically as those oil prices shoot up.


You seem a bit confused - aren't you in the camp that wants to put extreme taxes on oil so prices do exactly that? And, doesn't the prospect of "not enough oil" suggest that we should follow the strategy of "All of the above?"

Anyway, it doesn't matter how much their wages go up. The market will find it's level, and if it's high enough electric will start making sense. Just what we all want. Personally, I think electric will come down before that steep increase in oil prices occurs, but it really doesn't matter.



> Promoting more efficient and sustainable technology is not a disaster.


Fine - run some ads.



> 100 years of subsidy for oil can't be erased by a free market.


We've been over this before. The oil companies are not subsidized - a true subsidy is something that helps an otherwise UN-profitable business continue to exist. The government has played tricks with their taxes to encourage them to divert their resources in certain ways, mostly disastrously, and CALLED it "subsidies" - but at the end of the day they pay more taxes than any other industry except alcohol and tobacco, and are still hugely profitable.



> It's time to cut back on wasteful spending for sure. Stop funding failures such as hydrogen and ethanol and take some of the money to fund EV's.


Or just stop government from trying to pick winners and losers (graft and corruption)? Because in order to do that, they have to steal resources from other worthy investments and inefficiently re-distribute them - usually to the WRONG group.



> You can do both, cut spending and spend what you do more wisely.


I agree. Stop ALL subsidies, including wheat and milk. Eliminate the Department of Energy and other departments that have failed utterly in their missions.



> Your slash and burn theory will destroy the economy and get us nowhere.


Chicken Little - the standard trumpeting of politicians everywhere trying to protect their pork. We went through this at the end of the Great Depression. Government spending was slashed by almost 50%, and guess what? Not only was there no "disaster," but we had a remarkable recovery.



> Industry has proven time and time again that when unregulated they will consistently do the wrong thing.


Subsidies are not regulations - they are mis-allocation of resources based on political, rather then economic, criteria.



> You live in a fantasy world where business always knows best and should be free to do as they please.


We've been over this one, too, and I will ask you nicely once again to stop lying about my position. I have no objection to PRINCIPLED regulations protecting our citizens from harm, fraud, or theft. "Harm" includes intentionally building dangerous products and dumping toxic waste. "Harm" does NOT include making market decisions on which type of product to build - that is simply government intrusion into business. 

It is you who live in the fantasy world that Government makes better business decisions than businesses. There is not one recorded case in history to back up your "theory," and the truth is that if politicians were really better at business than business leaders then they would be running businesses, not running for office.



> Just as we have regulations for individuals, known as law, and enforcement known as police, businesses need the same.


That is true - and as with business Government always wants to overreach itself and dictate every aspect of our personal lives. Who is the servant, and who is the master? Once government stops serving the people, it has outlived it's usefulness and should be abolished - as our Founding Fathers wisely said in our Constitution.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

jeremyjs said:


> Bush Jr. was a "compassionate" conservative. Basically I want to spend and spend and don't want to pay for it. Granted the war that should have been fought, Afghanistan and the farce, Iraq, didn't help matters but still G.W. wanted to spend like a Democrat and tax like a Republican. No one seemed to see it when he was running for office the first time. He didn't make a secret about it. Aside from the religious hoopla in the tea party they seem to be a different animal fiscally. If only they were more socially liberal I would have considered them.


Bush Jr. was a RINO, actually a Progressive pretending to be a Conservative just because he attended church.

I do wish that Conservatives would stop claiming that you have to be Christian to be a Conservative. It alienates many people who share the same universal values of Freedom, Limited Government, and Personal Responsibility. You don't even have to believe in a God to understand that these principles are natural laws of the Universe, and that living by them makes life better for everyone - except for those who seek to be kings and dominate others.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> The crisis is the continuing world population explosion coupled with an increasing percentage of that population that is going to driving cars. Add to that increasingly hard to get/expensive oil and what do you think might happen?


All you have to do is look at history for the answer, War will breakout for what is left.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Sunking said:


> All you have to do is look at history for the answer, War will breakout for what is left.


Some would say that is already what has happened. I personally spent 9 months in Saudi Arabia / Iraq.


----------



## unclematt (May 11, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> Yes, that's it - Bush forced the all-Democratic Congress to vote for the bailouts, and Bush forced Obama to sign into law all of the other pork projects that doubled our debt in the first 24 months of Obama's Presidency....
> 
> Booooooosssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!!
> 
> My goodness, what has happened to people? Is it the water?


No, some people choose to make politics their religion, so facts are dispensable...

And to avoid any confusion, I am referring to what _you_ call "facts".


----------



## unclematt (May 11, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> You seem a bit confused - aren't you in the camp that wants to put extreme taxes on oil so prices do exactly that? And, doesn't the prospect of "not enough oil" suggest that we should follow the strategy of "All of the above?"
> 
> Anyway, it doesn't matter how much their wages go up. The market will find it's level, and if it's high enough electric will start making sense. Just what we all want. Personally, I think electric will come down before that steep increase in oil prices occurs, but it really doesn't matter.
> 
> ...


 The oil companies aren't subsidized? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?!?! In 2006, after a behind closed doors get together with big oil, GW and gang decided he needed to give Exxon oil a TEN BILLION DOLLAR piece of corporate welfare. This was when they were making THE LARGEST profits of any company IN HiSTORY, and gas was around $4 a gallon. And how did Exxon repay the American taxpayer for this HUGE payoff? They subsequently got rid of over 26,000 domestic jobs!

I hear more fantasies coming from the right these days than I ever heard from children's books.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

unclematt said:


> No, some people choose to make politics their religion, so facts are dispensable...
> 
> And to avoid any confusion, I am referring to what _you_ call "facts".


...which would be that the Democratic controlled Congress, now in charge of Washington for 48 months, put forth every spending bill that resulted in our debt increases? Those facts?

Just want to make sure we are talking about the SAME facts...


----------



## unclematt (May 11, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> ...which would be that the Democratic controlled Congress, now in charge of Washington for 48 months, put forth every spending bill that resulted in our debt increases? Those facts?
> 
> Just want to make sure we are talking about the SAME facts...


Since you have yet to post a SINGLE verifiable source for your claims, you are just expressing an uninformed opinion as far as I'm concerned.

And I won't get drawn into an argument with people like you, because no matter how much evidence is provided, you continue to focus more on your political agenda than reality. I could post a dozen sources that totally refute you, but not only would you most likely not read them, you would say they are wrong with nothing to back up that assertion. I have seen this go down on internet chats a million times with conservatives.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

unclematt said:


> The oil companies aren't subsidized? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?!?! In 2006, after a behind closed doors get together with big oil, GW and gang decided he needed to give Exxon oil a TEN BILLION DOLLAR piece of corporate welfare. This was when they were making THE LARGEST profits of any company IN HiSTORY, and gas was around $4 a gallon. And how did Exxon repay the American taxpayer for this HUGE payoff? They subsequently got rid of over 26,000 domestic jobs!
> 
> I hear more fantasies coming from the right these days than I ever heard from children's books.


You are only kidding yourself. The $10 billion you are referring to was a kickback on taxes already taken from "big oil" intended to manipulate their behavior - a legislative technique, it should be understood, which is actually un-Constitutional. It was LABELED a "subsidy" for political reasons by the Democrats specifically to circumvent such Constitutional challenges. You missed prior conversations where this was discussed.

A TRUE subsidy is funding to enable an unprofitable venture to continue operating. In this case, big oil is the subject of a targeted tax (around $0.45 per gallon in the U.S., on top of all the normal taxes) which equates roughly to ten times the cost of road construction and maintenance. Oh, and don't think to deflect by saying that the $0.45 is a sales tax and therefore not taken from the oil companies - that money reduces oil company profitability, and thus is a direct tax on the oil companies.

You keep speaking of fantasies, and I feel I should point out that when you have strong opinions about things which you do not understand (e.g. "what is a subsidy" and "is big oil actually subsidized?") it is you who are engaging in pure speculation and idle fantasy.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

unclematt said:


> Since you have yet to post a SINGLE verifiable source for your claims, you are just expressing an uninformed opinion as far as I'm concerned.


I'm sorry, I thought it was generally understood that the Democrats had control of Congress for Bush's final two years, and that they have held a supermajority in both houses these past two years. I didn't think it was necessary to post a link - are you an American? Do you live in America? Seriously, if you didn't know that I WILL go find some links to verify that for you. 



> And I won't get drawn into an argument with people like you, because no matter how much evidence is provided, you continue to focus more on your political agenda than reality.


Interestingly, I am the one providing facts. All I have stated so far is the OBVIOUS - that Congress controls the budget, not the POTUS. That is a FACT, documented in the Constitution of the United States. It is not a political position. Please let me know if you need a link to that document...

Your posts, on the other hand, have been pure opinion - that Bush "caused the debt." Yet you claim it is "factual," despite the fact that the POTUS, as a lame duck President, only signed into laws bills that the majority party, thus arguably representing the will of the majority of Americans, placed on his desk.

Really, I am no fan of Prez Potato Head. He was not, and is not, a Conservative - had he been so, he would have vetoed the Prescription Drug Bill and the Bailouts. He would also have made strong moves to prevent the meltdown we experienced, because it's arrival was well anticipated and could have been averted with timely action. For that I DO blame him for our economy - at least for his failure to try. But he alone did not, COULD not, "cause" our current economic crisis.



> I could post a dozen sources that totally refute you, but...


...they don't exist, or are not factual, so you wont.

Well, I don't want to keep you from your fantasies. After all, it's SOOOOoooo comforting to have a single human being to blame for all your anger.


----------



## unclematt (May 11, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> I'm sorry, I thought it was generally understood that the Democrats had control of Congress for Bush's final two years, and that they have held a supermajority in both houses these past two years. I didn't think it was necessary to post a link - are you an American? Do you live in America? Seriously, if you didn't know that I WILL go find some links to verify that for you.
> 
> Interestingly, I am the one providing facts. All I have stated so far is the OBVIOUS - that Congress controls the budget, not the POTUS. That is a FACT, documented in the Constitution of the United States. It is not a political position. Please let me know if you need a link to that document...
> 
> ...


 STILL WAITING on some kind of sources for your claims...

And I guess you don't understand how our government actually functions if you think "dos ebil dems" took over in 2006. WHat kind of majority did they have? A 2/3rds majority? NOPE!

Hmmm, was a republican STILL in the Whitehouse then? You DO understand, don't you, that the pres must sign off on legislation before it becomes law, right? So how EXACTLY, SPECIFICALLY would the dems have "taken over" in 2006 then?

ONCE AGAIN, more fantasies from the right.

Try thinking outside the fox...


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

PhantomPholly said:


> Some would say that is already what has happened. I personally spent 9 months in Saudi Arabia / Iraq.


Well I am a Vet from the Desert Storm. But I am speaking more in terms of World War against Asia and India.


----------



## sunworksco (Sep 8, 2008)

*Everytime the Republicans take over the control of the government, the green technologies go down the disposal and the rest of the world makes advancements with green technologies.*This is why we are headed to be a third-world country as far as technologies go and we are trying to catch up with the rest of the world.
This happened when President Nancey/Ronald Reagan told his loyal Moral Majority sheeple and I quote "that green technologies should stand on their own, just like the oil industry does", end quote. What a bold-faced lie from a huge shareholder of Standard Oil Stocks!
His feeble brain was pretty much gone by then anyway and Nancey was calling the shots, in between handfuls of Jelly-Beans!
He then dismantled and removed a brand new, 13-million-dollar solar system that President Jimmy Carter had installed on the White House.
Then if that was not a bad enough message, his Republican Moral Majority disciple, California governor George Deukmejian stood by and let the California solar tax credits and rebates expire.
*What we Americans have now is exactly what former President Eisenhower warned us about.*
In his speech, he said that if we do not downsize the Pentagon Military Complex, it will outpace us in domestic manufacturing and we will end up with a military manufacturing complex monstrosity.
This is true today with most manufactured products being made outside of America.
The Pentagon has also become an oil industry protection business using our taxpayers' money to subsidize the oil industries.
As Americans, we are warned about eminent fear from Al Qaeda, when what we should really be afraid of is completely losing our manufacturing jobs to the rest of the developing third world countries and also spending all of taxes on the Pentagon instead of education which would ensure that we all have a brilliant future.
Regards,
John

*I applaud Thomas Jefferson!*

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion... We have had thirteen States independent for eleven years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half, for each State. What country before ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion?" --Thomas Jefferson to William S. Smith, 1787. ME 6:372


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

unclematt said:


> STILL WAITING on some kind of sources for your claims...


Ok, my bad - I had assumed you were an American, or at least familiar with the Constitution.

My "Unsubstantiated Claim #1": The Congress passes bills, which is how funding is authorized.

Verification Source: The Constitution of the United States, directly from the Federal Government's web site.

My "Unsubstantiated Claim #2": Democrats have controlled the Congress since 2006.

Verification Source: http://clerkweb.house.gov/histrecs/history.html
Specific figures for the House - 110th Congress, Jan 2007-Jan 2009; 111th Congress, Jan 2009 - Jan 2001
110th - Dems - 233 Reps - 198
111th - Dems - 256 Reps - 178



> And I guess you don't understand how our government actually functions if you think "dos ebil dems" took over in 2006.


One of us knows exactly how my government works (I have no direct knowledge of what government you live under). It is not you. And, people are not evil simply because they are in the Democratic party. Mostly just misguided or unethical.



> WHat kind of majority did they have? A 2/3rds majority? NOPE!


From your above statements, I cannot assume you understand the term, "Supermajority." It is the number of seats necessary to insure that one party can absolutely determine the outcome. That did not exist in the 110th Congress; however, Bush - a "lame duck President," decided (for whatever reasons he may have had) to give the Democrats what they asked for. That outcome is a fact (and no, I'm not going to look up links to satisfy your laziness). It is also noteworthy that $3 trillion of the debt you attribute to Bush happened after he left office - something you ought to attempt to explain.

You, on the other hand, have shown not one single piece of evidence to support your extraordinary claim that "our $13 trillion debt is the fault of George Bush."

So, as is always the case in these "discussions," the Liberal demands supporting evidence to "prove" that THEIR claims are untrue ("haha can't prove a negative"), while providing nothing to support their own claims. Not playing your silly game. The Congress writes the laws, the President can only veto - and they usually don't when the Congress demands passage of the bill, which is proper because to do so would not be representing the "Will of the People."

But maybe this time will be different? (What's the definition of insanity?...) Maybe you will actually provide some shred of evidence that supports your allegations that our $13 trillion dollar debt can all be laid at the feet of a past POTUS? Provide away. 

P.S. "MoveOn.Org" is not a credible source....


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Sunking said:


> Well I am a Vet from the Desert Storm. But I am speaking more in terms of World War against Asia and India.


I got it. I think it's more like chess with really high stakes - Desert Storm was just the opening move. People may be irrational, but only the truly crazy want to start lobbing nukes.

At least, not yet.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

sunworksco said:


> *Everytime the Republicans take over the control of the government, the green technologies go down the disposal and the rest of the world makes advancements with green technologies.*


What technology was banned by Republicans?

Why do you think that removal of the solar system from the roof of the White House implied anything against the idea of green technologies? Don't you think it more likely that immature technology simply became a headache to maintain?

In Kalifornia, there are about 13,000 windmills now sitting idle. Why? Because it costs almost twice more to maintain them than they can sell the electricity for. Then, too, there are concerns that the energy used to create and maintain them nearly equals the energy they generate. That is a SERIOUS problem for the credibility of windmills.



> This happened when President Nancey/Ronald Reagan told his loyal Moral Majority sheeple and I quote "that green technologies should stand on their own, just like the oil industry does", end quote. What a bold-faced lie from a huge shareholder of Standard Oil Stocks!


Oil does "stand on its own" economically. Admittedly that makes it tougher to compete when you can just "pump power out of the ground," but eventually it will run out and the economics of the situation will force a correction. In the mean time, we KNOW that that day is coming and our technology is improving quickly.

Here's the thing all the worrywarts forget every day: Letting a solar cell lie in the sun is cheaper than pumping oil. When the technology to PRINT solar cells on PLASTIC ROLLS becomes mature, no one will want to be on the power grid any more.








...and once battery technology exceeds the energy-density of gasoline for some "reasonable price" people will be yanking the ICE engines from their cars - all without Government lifting a hand.



> Then if that was not a bad enough message, his Republican Moral Majority disciple, California governor George Deukmejian stood by and let the California solar tax credits and rebates expire.


Why reward people for buying in early to technology that is not ready, when they will buy in all on their own in a few years? Besides, Kalifornia's problems run too deep to cover in a hundred threads like this one. 



> *What we Americans have now is exactly what former President Eisenhower warned us about.*
> In his speech, he said that if we do not downsize the Pentagon Military Complex, it will outpace us in domestic manufacturing and we will end up with a military manufacturing complex monstrosity.
> This is true today with most manufactured products being made outside of America.


Ike was demonstrably wrong about this. Our military spending today is nearly at its lowest point (relative to our total economy) since the end of WWII - hovering around 4% of GDP. Our greatest economic threat is open-ended entitlement programs with built-in increases in benefits, obligating future generations to work their entire lives just to support old duffers like me in our dotage.
Chart - Entitlement Nation - Government Spending Trends



> The Pentagon has also become an oil industry protection business using our taxpayers' money to subsidize the oil industries.


I agree with this - both what you have said, and in their intent. This is a matter of National Security, and until we DO have a better alternative it is their JOB to defend the resources they need to keep us safe.

Yet the military is a leader in alternative energy. They are now shifting their strategy towards drones that burn around one percent of the fuel of jet fighters, controlled by personnel half way around the world they do not need to transport into harm's way to fight battles. Lockheed has bought into EEStor (even if that one turns out to be a fake, somewhere along the line one such investment will pan out) and other alternative storage devices. The latest military transport vehicles use diesel and support alternative fuels, and trials are being done with everything from fighters to C-5 Galaxies using bio-fuel.



> As Americans, we are warned about eminent fear from Al Qaeda, when what we should really be afraid of is completely losing our manufacturing jobs to the rest of the developing third world countries and also spending all of taxes on the Pentagon instead of education which would ensure that we all have a brilliant future.
> Regards,
> John


I couldn't agree with that statement more. So, given that America has the most productive workers per capita anywhere in the world, why aren't we more competitive?

Once again, it is basic economics. We now have just about the highest tax rates in the world, with additional "hidden" taxes added to the cost of our goods and services in the form of "printing more money" (inflation) and debt. With our "Employment Taxes" we add nearly 16% to the cost of every manufactured good and service, and that extra cost must be added to the price in order for businesses to make a profit. No profit, no jobs. In addition, the onerous burden of work and cost associated with compliance with our 70,000 pages of tax laws costs our society approximately 5% of GDP per year. That works like another "invisible tax" making your earnings worth 5% less in real purchasing power. Added together (and ignoring Income Taxes), that's a 20% cost disadvantage our manufacturers have to overcome to make a profit compared to foreign products.

For years now, I have been an active FairTax supporter for the simple reason that it takes the skullduggery out of taxation. The 5% compliance cost drops to about 0.5% of GDP; employment taxes are eliminated. In one act American goods and services become 20% cheaper to buy at home and abroad.

Of course, it still wouldn't fix the spending problem... 



> *I applaud Thomas Jefferson!*
> 
> "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion... We have had thirteen States independent for eleven years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half, for each State. What country before ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion?" --Thomas Jefferson to William S. Smith, 1787. ME 6:372


As do I - I only hope it is peaceful. I've seen lawless countries enough to know that I'm too old to deal with that here at home.


----------



## sunworksco (Sep 8, 2008)

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. 
*Albert Einstein *
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-bio.html
*(He was decribing the Repulicans!)*


*You can fool some of the people here, but not this 60 year-old solar industry person!*


*You seriously need to keep this on your PC screen!*

*http://www.factcheck.org/*


----------



## karlos (Jun 30, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> Oil does "stand on its own" economically. Admittedly that makes it tougher to compete when you can just "pump power out of the ground," but eventually it will run out and the economics of the situation will force a correction. In the mean time, we KNOW that that day is coming and our technology is improving quickly.


I like your optimism that technology will resolve the issues of using fossil fuels but I will never agree that the real cost of oil is being paid currently due to the pollution/AGW issues and a war that was started to retain the flow. How much has the war cost so far? Not to mention the lives it has cost....


----------



## Jason Lattimer (Dec 27, 2008)

O.K. aside from the fact that this thread has taken on a life of its own I think it should be said that the people on here represent the kind of people we should have in government.

We obviously have conservatives and liberals on the same forum about building their own electric cars and we all seem to cooperate to help each other.

I don't know about any of you but I will not let anybody in government stifle my dreams of seeing electric cars on every corner. I just think we seem to disagree on how to accomplish that. Personally I think,"You shouldn't tell people they are bad, but you should show them there is a better way." to quote John Wayland.


----------



## sunworksco (Sep 8, 2008)

karlos said:


> I like your optimism that technology will resolve the issues of using fossil fuels but I will never agree that the real cost of oil is being paid currently due to the pollution/AGW issues and a war that was started to retain the flow. How much has the war cost so far? Not to mention the lives it has cost....


It has cost us our credibility, American diplomatic status and has destroyed our financial credit status throughout the world.
Russia, China, India and all of the South American countries just met at their own World Financial Trade Meeting and are now designing a new currency system that will circumvent the USD.
Americans have spent our future just like Ancient Greece!


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

sunworksco said:


> Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
> *Albert Einstein *
> http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-bio.html
> *(He was decribing the Repulicans!)*
> ...


Humm, can't slip one past you! Just what is it we are supposed to have tried to fool you with?


Oops,...



> The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Misattributed to various people, including Albert Einstein and Mark Twain. The earliest known occurrence, and probable origin is Rita Mae Brown, _Sudden Death_ (Bantam Books, New York, 1983), p. 68.


By the way, keeping a link on your desktop and actually using it are two separate behaviors...


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

karlos said:


> I like your optimism that technology will resolve the issues of using fossil fuels but I will never agree that the real cost of oil is being paid currently due to the pollution/AGW issues and a war that was started to retain the flow. How much has the war cost so far? Not to mention the lives it has cost....


Actually, compared to giving up the oil the cost of the war was cheap - less than $0.10 / gallon. The reality is that our national defense and economy, and that of our allies, currently depends upon the availability of oil. Thus the "cost" falls on the "profit" side of the ledger (we would be worse off without it). 

Keeping the supply of oil out of the hands of terrorists until such time as we find one or more suitable replacements will be top priority for this and every other regime on the face of this planet.

I won't go into the AGW bit, that's for a different thread.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Jason Lattimer said:


> O.K. aside from the fact that this thread has taken on a life of its own I think it should be said that the people on here represent the kind of people we should have in government.
> 
> We obviously have conservatives and liberals on the same forum about building their own electric cars and we all seem to cooperate to help each other.
> 
> I don't know about any of you but I will not let anybody in government stifle my dreams of seeing electric cars on every corner. I just think we seem to disagree on how to accomplish that. Personally I think,"You shouldn't tell people they are bad, but you should show them there is a better way." to quote John Wayland.


Well said!


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> What technology was banned by Republicans?


Who said banned?


> Why do you think that removal of the solar system from the roof of the White House implied anything against the idea of green technologies?


Symbolic representation of the administration's attitude.


> Don't you think it more likely that immature technology simply became a headache to maintain?


Maintenance on solar panels? They were still working when removed, and I think ended up at some college, still working.


> ...and once battery technology exceeds the energy-density of gasoline for some "reasonable price" people will be yanking the ICE engines from their cars - all without Government lifting a hand.


You should give up on the idea of batteries needing the energy density of gasoline, not necessary. ICE's waste about 80% of the 33kwh potential in gas, and we can already fit 300+ miles worth of batteries in a properly designed vehicle, it just costs too much.


> Once again, it is basic economics. We now have just about the highest tax rates in the world, with additional "hidden" taxes added to the cost of our goods and services in the form of "printing more money" (inflation) and debt.


Highest tax rates?
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/05/the_us_tax_burd.html
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/taxes/p148855.asp
And where is this inflation you speak of?


----------



## sunworksco (Sep 8, 2008)

Well Said!


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

PhantomPholly said:


> I got it. I think it's more like chess with really high stakes - Desert Storm was just the opening move. People may be irrational, but only the truly crazy want to start lobbing nukes.
> At least, not yet.


Not yet, and may not need to be, who knows. Problem is China is about where we the USA was at at the end of WWII and will go through explosive growth that will make the USA look like a high school experiment.

At some point the demand from China will consume about all worlds resources and there is no country that can stop them. China has already defeated the USA, we just have not asked for surrender terms as of yet. All China has to do to overthrow the US government and wreck our economy is quite lending us money and default for what we already owe them. It is just a matter of time before they do that.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> Who said banned?


It was a QUESTION, in response to: "*Everytime the Republicans take over the control of the government, the green technologies go down the disposal "*

It was also rhetorical - nothing has gone down the toilet that wasn't already garbage (impractical / uneconomical).



> Symbolic representation of the administration's attitude. Maintenance on solar panels?


That is my point - people are reading into the act based solely on speculation. If you want to speculate, a much more probable answer is that it simply made it harder for security to do their job.



> They were still working when removed, and I think ended up at some college, still working.


There is more to a solar system than just the panels. And, considering that the White House (and all that lies underneath) uses about a megawatt of power, their PRESENCE was simply symbolic - in this case, a symbol of futility.



> You should give up on the idea of batteries needing the energy density of gasoline, not necessary. ICE's waste about 80% of the 33kwh potential in gas, and we can already fit 300+ miles worth of batteries in a properly designed vehicle, it just costs too much.


You and I might "give up" on that idea, but the typical consumer won't. More weight affects the ride and handling. The cost for 300 mile range is astronomical (nearly 10 times what an entry level car costs). Both of these are non-starters for mass production.



> Highest tax rates?


Everyone likes to compare us to Great Brittain or other European country. However, unlike those mini-countries (sorry to our European friends!) we also have another level of government called "States." This adds another 10-15% tax load. Added all together (State/Federal/Local; inflation caused by runaway printing of money; loss of property value due to irresponsible fiscal policies; cost of compliance with incomprehensible tax laws) our effective tax rate today is well over 50%. The interesting part is that almost as much of it is born by a person making $20,000/year as a person making $2,000,000/yr.



> http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/05/the_us_tax_burd.html


"The United States raises significantly lower tax revenues as a percentage of gross domestic product than do most other countries in the OECD" - note two very misleading parts of this statement. First, the calculation of GDP has been changed over the years to help it "justify" the scam of Keynesian economics. By including Government spending you negate the value of GDP as a true measure of productivity, because GOVERNMENT PRODUCES NOTHING. Second, left out are the other factors I mentioned above - as well as the fact that the actual tax burden of the typical consumer is at least 20% higher than what they see on a paycheck (the effect of "embedded taxes," which are the effect of more emphasis on income and payroll taxes and the cost of compliance, all of which get added to prices).

By the way, the Brookings Institute is not "nonpartisan" - let's put to bed their self-serving propaganda.




> http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/taxes/p148855.asp


This article is even more aggregiously misleading:
"Believe it or not, Americans enjoy some of the lowest income tax rates in the world"
So, once again we deflect by neglecting to say that income taxes account for less than half of Federal taxes, and that many states use only sales taxes and no income taxes. Too, they are again comparing only FEDERAL rates to those of other countries.

Not surprising that this comes from a former IRS person.



> And where is this inflation you speak of?


Milk, bread, butter, etc. - up about 20% already this year and increasing. Energy costs up. The government is denying there is inflation because of the de-flation in housing prices (only relative, because it is the aftermath of an unnatural bubble) is counted as offsetting those real increases. The value of the dollar is down, which acts like inflation to us when buying imported goods.

Inflation driving up commodity prices.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Sunking said:


> Not yet, and may not need to be, who knows. Problem is China is about where we the USA was at at the end of WWII and will go through explosive growth that will make the USA look like a high school experiment.
> 
> At some point the demand from China will consume about all worlds resources and there is no country that can stop them. China has already defeated the USA, we just have not asked for surrender terms as of yet. All China has to do to overthrow the US government and wreck our economy is quite lending us money and default for what we already owe them. It is just a matter of time before they do that.


George Soros is doing his best to help with that task. But we are not out yet. All it will take is to balance our budget and start repaying our debt (as the Chinese did). "All," but I realize that is not simple and that there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

China is not fundamentally disposed culturally to become great entrepreneurs as well as we did following WWII, and their population pressures tend to commodotize their citizens more so than here. We can still be great again if we have the will for it.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

PhantomPholly said:


> All it will take is to balance our budget and start repaying our debt We can still be great again if we have the will for it.


There lies the problem. No politician is willing to stick their neck out and propose huge budget cuts across the board, and no one willing to give up their entitlements which for some reason they think are God given rights. 

You could write book of just federal agencies that do nothing or are redundant and could be written off today no one would miss like the Dept of Education, DEA, USDA, or Homeland Security.

The interest on our debt is fast approaching exceeding tax revenues. When it gets close, it is over, the USD is worthless and not even your neighbor will accept it as tender. Only thing the USD will do is make toilet paper, and kindling for the fire place. The first sign will be our credit rating rating lowered from AAA+. It is already being evaluated by national banks. Once the credit rating is lowered, we are done. Ask the former Soviet Union and Greece what happens?


----------



## notailpipe (May 25, 2010)

Just throwing my opinion up here...

I'm sure it's been said already, but I don't think it's fair to treat all conservatives as anti-EV. I vote Republican right down the line, but I'm still working on an EV in the garage. 

For people like me, who are doing it to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 0.0000000001%, I would even argue that it could correlate with conservatism, as we tend to be more patriotic (and less worshiping of the failing European system that most liberals seem to just wish they were a part of...)

So, even though I would've voted against the EV tax credits if I were in office, I'll claim them since that money's been earmarked.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

notailpipe said:


> I'm sure it's been said already, but I don't think it's fair to treat all conservatives as anti-EV.


Of course, and my general statements were just that, generalizations, but based on a fairly obvious historical track record and present day attitudes, which I do admit are changing. Glad to see some of you guys coming around 


> For people like me, who are doing it to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 0.0000000001%, I would even argue that it could correlate with conservatism, as we tend to be more patriotic (and less worshiping of the failing European system that most liberals seem to just wish they were a part of...)


I agree that using EV's to lessen our dependence on foreign oil should be part of a conservative's platform, and I often use that argument when discussing the topic. However one of the big problems I have with Republicans is they have the false assumption that they are somehow more patriotic. They've done at least as much, (more in my opinion), to weaken our country.


> So, even though I would've voted against the EV tax credits if I were in office, I'll claim them since that money's been earmarked.


A true conservative


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Sunking said:


> There lies the problem. No politician is willing to stick their neck out and propose huge budget cuts across the board, and no one willing to give up their entitlements which for some reason they think are God given rights.


Right on topic: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_cutting_deficits


----------



## notailpipe (May 25, 2010)

JRP3 said:


> However one of the big problems I have with Republicans is they have the false assumption that they are somehow more patriotic. They've done at least as much, (more in my opinion), to weaken our country.


In my view, a government that outspends itself and is heavily leveraging its assets to pay for these programs by indebting itself to foreign governments is the opposite of patriotism. I've never met a _single_ liberal (after 6 years at a VERY liberal college) who truly loved his or her country. It was always "well in Europe" this or "you know what sucks about America" that. Questioning government is great, and everyone should do that, but at some point if there's nothing you like about your own country, how is that patriotic...

And yeah, I would really like to stand on principle and not take the tax credit... but at the same time, is anyone gonna hear my protest besides my wallet?


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

notailpipe said:


> In my view, a government that outspends itself and is heavily leveraging its assets to pay for these programs by indebting itself to foreign governments is the opposite of patriotism.


And who started us down that path?


> I've never met a _single_ liberal (after 6 years at a VERY liberal college) who truly loved his or her country. It was always "well in Europe" this or "you know what sucks about America" that. Questioning government is great, and everyone should do that, but at some point if there's nothing you like about your own country, how is that patriotic...


If your country isn't living up to your expectations should you just bury your head in the sand, become a flag waving cheerleader, or look at what is possibly being done better in other places? We've lost our edge on many fronts and won't gain it back by talking about how great our country is.


> And yeah, I would really like to stand on principle and not take the tax credit... but at the same time, is anyone gonna hear my protest besides my wallet?


So your principles have a price. I support the EV credit because it promotes a technology this country needs and I can take the credit in good conscience.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> Right on topic: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_cutting_deficits


I appreciate the link, and it clearly points out the problem. Democrats want to cut the deficit, well that is ironic. Instead of borrowing 37 cents of every dollar they want to spend, they propose only borrowing 30 cents for every dollar they want to spend. That has got to reverse, and reverse very quickly. We are destroying ourselves within with debt. All our enemies have to do is just wait, and then move in and take over. 

If you think that is crazy well think about this. China and Russia are demanding a World Currency which would wipe the USD completely out of existence.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> That is my point - people are reading into the act based solely on speculation.


 No, it was indicative of the attitude of the regime. I honestly can't believe you are trying to suggest that Regan was helping to promote or even encouraging anything other than the status quo.


> There is more to a solar system than just the panels.


Again, they were still functional. If some components needed replacing, and we don't know that was the case, then replace them.


> And, considering that the White House (and all that lies underneath) uses about a megawatt of power, their PRESENCE was simply symbolic - in this case, a symbol of futility.


No, a symbol of what would could have achieved if we had the will power to push the technology instead of returning to business as usual.


> You and I might "give up" on that idea, but the typical consumer won't. More weight affects the ride and handling.


Solectria Sunrise, 370 miles in 1996, with NiMH. Lithium would be lighter.


> The cost for 300 mile range is astronomical (nearly 10 times what an entry level car costs).


As I said, cost is the only barrier at this point, not equal density of gasoline. Probably will never be equal and just doesn't need to happen. Additionally, in an aerodynamic and lightweight vehicle the pack, and therefore cost, can be much smaller.


----------



## karlos (Jun 30, 2008)

notailpipe said:


> In my view, a government that outspends itself and is heavily leveraging its assets to pay for these programs by indebting itself to foreign governments is the opposite of patriotism. I've never met a _single_ liberal (after 6 years at a VERY liberal college) who truly loved his or her country. It was always "well in Europe" this or "you know what sucks about America" that. Questioning government is great, and everyone should do that, but at some point if there's nothing you like about your own country, how is that patriotic...


Like Beauty, what is Patriotic is very much in the eye of the beholder; in 1775 Samuel Johnson famously said;


> Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.


Of course he did not mean all patriots are scoundrels but implied many are false. I would not say at all that you must like/love everything about your country to be patriotic and can easily understand someone very unhappy under a Bush Gov and the prospect of a future with a Palin in it. 
Sometimes "truely loving your country" is recognizing things can be done better, maybe in many respects and just as they can be in my country too.
Sometimes it is more than just "questioning your government" but questioning yourself as people install governments.
Ideally people would vote governments that implemented long term policy but the flaw in the western style system is governments generally only look forward to the next election. So where does leadership come from that concerns long term solutions to long term requirements like an energy revolution? I would suggest there are numerous scientists with the solutions but they don't have the resources neither to produce themselves or bankroll a government that will support and fund the solutions. 
At this time it's Polluters 1 Solutions 0
It's time there was some more patriotism to the future of the planet I say.


----------



## sunworksco (Sep 8, 2008)

*Very funny the Republican/Tea Party mindset.*
The world just unanimously voted the best countries to live in due to best education,health care and income.
Scandinavia and Australia.
*Republican/Tea Party's comment : Those damn socialists! *
*How dare they live a happier life than us Americans!*


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> And who started us down that path?


The progressives, starting principally with Woodrow Wilson.


----------



## sunworksco (Sep 8, 2008)

A racist president! Right up there with Andrew Jackson, the one responsible for the Cherokee genocide!
http://www.suite101.com/content/woodrow-wilson-and-white-supremacy-a126787


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

sunworksco said:


> A racist president! Right up there with Andrew Jackson, the one responsible for the Cherokee genocide!
> http://www.suite101.com/content/woodrow-wilson-and-white-supremacy-a126787


Everyone rags Hitler for genocide, yet most forget that he got the idea from early Progressives. From what I can make out of Obamacare, they haven't changed any.


----------



## karlos (Jun 30, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> Everyone rags Hitler for genocide, yet most forget that he got the idea from early Progressives. From what I can make out of Obamacare, they haven't changed any.


Strange connections indeed....


----------



## thomas.smith (Jul 22, 2009)

PhantomPholly said:


> Everyone rags Hitler for genocide, yet most forget that he got the idea from early Progressives. From what I can make out of Obamacare, they haven't changed any.


The first person to invoke Hitler loses. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2009/07/first-person-to-invoke-hitler-loses/21892/ I think this thread can now end.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Yes a Hitler-Obama link pretty much ends any hope of rational discourse. Grasping much? This thread has officially Jumped the Shark


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

The reference was to racism and the similar theme to early Progressives, not to Hitler's mass murder of the Jews (although that was certainly a racist program in the extreme).

Consider this a retraction of the word "Hitler" and simply compare the Congress which passed Obamacare with the early Progressives...

John Stossell (Fox Business News for those of you who don't know him because you think everything on Fox is like Kryptonite) has done a hillarious expose on the racism inherent in our government programs, which will be airing tonight at 9pm Eastern time. They set up a stand selling cupcakes as an analog to our current "Affirmative Action" programs to get the reaction from passers-by. Remember, "Affirmative Action" was once meant to eliminate racist government programs such as the Jim Crowe stuff, "sitting in the back of the bus," etc. Today, of course, it means preferential treatment (institutionalized racism) for those of different color skin.

Anyway, his price list for a cupcake is:
Asians - $1.50
Whites - $1.00
Blacks / Latinos $0.50

This is analogous to enrollment in American colleges, where Asians are penalized (required to have higher entry scores than others to gain entry) because they have statistically higher SAT scores, and Blacks/Latinos are subsidized financially.

Should be pretty funny - I simply love it when Progressive programs created "in the name of fairness" are exposed for what they are...


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> unclematt said:
> 
> 
> > STILL WAITING on some kind of sources for your claims...
> ...


Several days later - crickets. As expected.

One more case of wild accusasations that Bush caused the current financial crisis without any supporting evidence, yet demanding evidence from anyone who disputes it and then going silent when the evidence is actually provided...


----------



## unclematt (May 11, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> Several days later - crickets. As expected.
> 
> One more case of wild accusasations that Bush caused the current financial crisis without any supporting evidence, yet demanding evidence from anyone who disputes it and then going silent when the evidence is actually provided...


 As I said, I won't be drawn into a discussion with a right winger who talks like you do. I have seen those conversations go down online thousands of times, and they all end the same: with the right winger with their head in the sand screaming that anything or anyone who disagrees with their pathetic politics is somehow automatically in the wrong.

Good luck to winning more voters to your side with your approach...


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

unclematt said:


> I have seen those conversations go down online thousands of times, and they all end the same: with the right winger with their head in the sand screaming that anything or anyone who disagrees with their pathetic politics is somehow automatically in the wrong.


Wow. *ALL* of your discussions end the same way.... 

Maybe your viewpoint that people who don't agree with you all have "pathetic politics" might have something to do with the fact that all of your discussions end the same way? Do you suppose it's possible that people perceive that attitude, and react negatively to it? 

Or possibly it's because you demand others disprove your positions rather than supporting your own statements? 

Maybe it's just because you walk away from conversations you initiate, assuming they will end badly?

In any event, *you have in this case communicated clearly and I've heard your message loud and clear: *It is not possible (according to your own words) to have a fact-based discussion with you and anyone you perceive as a "Right Winger. To prevent future inadvertent responses to your postings you are now my only active "Ignore."


----------



## thomas.smith (Jul 22, 2009)

PhantomPholly said:


> --SNIP--
> To prevent future inadvertent responses to your postings you are now my only active "Ignore."


I don't care what side you may be on, or not on for that matter. Responses like that show you as unwilling/unable to have an intelligent, on-going discourse. So, I will follow your example... *IGNORED*


----------



## karlos (Jun 30, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> Wow. *ALL* of your discussions end the same way....





PhantomPholly said:


> Too, the motives of companies are obvious, and their reports are easy to corroborate or disprove, and there are no political consequences.





karlos said:


> To think there are no political consequences when large corporations are challenged in this respect makes you plain deluded.


Oh! As shown here I noticed Phantom in another thread you made one of your many unsubstantiated broad assumptions which I told you was deluded and instead of coming back with evidence/verification, to quote you, "just crickets"
Everyone wrong but you Phantom and then you have the cheek to compare those you don't agree with to Hitler....
In your reference, very obviously it appears you know nothing of Hitler or his regime, he would not have subsidized but would have eliminated.
Seems many of your discussions not only end but start the same way as well


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

karlos said:


> Oh! As shown here I noticed Phantom in another thread you made one of your many unsubstantiated broad assumptions which I told you was deluded and instead of coming back with evidence/verification, to quote you, "just crickets"


Nicely taken out of context, Karlos. The context was that the "Climategate crowd is deceitful." By that statement I was referring to scientists shown to have purposefully falsified data, and certain non-scientists making claims with religeous zeal while making billions in a clearly political move. Such a statement does not need substantiation (if you falsify data you are de-facto deceitful; and claiming "science" while scamming people likewise speaks for itself). Nor, looking at that post (and ignoring your insults) do I see a request for information that I did not provide - at least, not in understandable English and my multi-language skills aren't so hot. I don't generally respond to posts where you start ranting that I'm deluded. You don't know me; you don't know what I know; and based on some of your incomplete sentences I'm not convinced you even know what YOU know! 

If you really want to discuss "cheek" (arrogance), let's have that discussion. Arrogance is making a claim and not being willing to back it up with facts and, when the evidence provided is incontrovertible, pretending it doesn't exist. Arrogance is proclaiming a lie, and accusing those who point it out of lying. And arrogance is calling others "deluded" and then claiming it is THEY are the ones calling everyone else wrong...



> Everyone wrong but you Phantom and then you have the cheek to compare those you don't agree with to Hitler....


If you want to go there Karlos, after just having called me "deluded" AGAIN for making a simple axiomatic observation, I can start pulling up many posts of yours that are clearly condemning of anyone who doesn't believe what you believe. 



> In your reference, very obviously it appears you know nothing of Hitler or his regime, he would not have subsidized but would have eliminated.


What are you talking about (incomplete sentence)? In any event, *my post was never about Hitler*, *it was about racism and the fact that the political party / ideology that CLAIMS to be trying to eliminate it has a history of institutionalizing it. *Hitler was not a Progressive, he was a Fascist (although the two ideologies are similar in that they espouse totalitarian State control over everything, which places them on the far end of any spectrum including our Constitution which was crafted to PROTECT us from big government) and the point of my post was that while he got condemned for his position the Progressives got a pass, and in fact somehow fooled a good number of people into believing that they were AGAINST racism. That is no different than pointing out that the Republicans for 40 years CLAIMED to support smaller government but always voted for bigger government (and incidentally fooled a lot of people who voted Republican). Politics is about lies, the only path to freedom is to understand and reveal the lies.

You, and other Progressives, believe in big government - that somehow government will make better decisions about our lives than we will. We disagree about that, but that doesn't mean we can't have a discussion about it. However, when one side of a discussion demands the other provide references and facts and the other side demands to have the privilege of hurling insults and making unsubstantiated claims, it is neither a discussion nor civilized.


----------



## karlos (Jun 30, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> Nicely taken out of context, Karlos. The context was that the "Climategate crowd is deceitful."


No not out of context, you claimed no political consequences for government investigation of companies, I will disagree as long as companies can buy government by making large contributions to election campaigns.


PhantomPholly said:


> If you really want to discuss "cheek" (arrogance), let's have that discussion. Arrogance is making a claim and not being willing to back it up with facts and, when the evidence provided is incontrovertible, pretending it doesn't exist. Arrogance is proclaiming a lie, and accusing those who point it out of lying.


Could not agree more! 



PhantomPholly said:


> If you want to go there Karlos, after just having called me "deluded" AGAIN for making a simple axiomatic observation, I can start pulling up many posts of yours that are clearly condemning of anyone who doesn't believe what you believe.


Please feel free to do so.


PhantomPholly said:


> What are you talking about (incomplete sentence)? In any event, *my post was never about Hitler*, *it was about racism and the fact that the political party / ideology that CLAIMS to be trying to eliminate it has a history of institutionalizing it. *Hitler was not a Progressive, he was a Fascist (although the two ideologies are similar in that they espouse totalitarian State control over everything, which places them on the far end of any spectrum including our Constitution which was crafted to PROTECT us from big government) and the point of my post was that while he got condemned for his position the Progressives got a pass, and in fact somehow fooled a good number of people into believing that they were AGAINST racism. That is no different than pointing out that the Republicans for 40 years CLAIMED to support smaller government but always voted for bigger government (and incidentally fooled a lot of people who voted Republican). Politics is about lies, the only path to freedom is to understand and reveal the lies.


I don't disagree with some of that; it's a better explanation than trying to link the polices of Hitler and Obama.


PhantomPholly said:


> However, when one side of a discussion demands the other provide references and facts and the other side demands to have the privilege of hurling insults and making unsubstantiated claims, it is neither a discussion nor civilized.


Sorry, I thought you were setting the bar by using terms like: 
"scammers" "insidious and deceitful" "Climategate" "fake fundamental data" "sanctimonious lectures"
I know you will correct me (please keep it short) but I would have thought "deluded" rather polite relatively?

Back on topic, if you represent the views of the Tea Party and want less government, then it's my opinion that YES, the Tea Party will "Unplug the Electric Car Initiative" and the oil industry will continue unrestrained to pedal it's interests which are not the interests of Planet Earth long term, however you look at it. Sure oil will run out but we need to make the changes now, according to many reputable scientists. I agree, and accept you don't.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

karlos said:


> No not out of context, you claimed no political consequences for government investigation of companies, I will disagree as long as companies can buy government by making large contributions to election campaigns.


I'm not seeing any correlation between whether or not companies comply with unreasonable harassment about emissions and how many politicians they do or don't manage to get in their pocket. Maybe I'm just missing your point, or maybe you misunderstood my post on this one. Let's review the genesis:



IamIan said:


> The hiding of data ... and refusal to disclose how they come up with their numbers ... no surprise ... it swings both ways.
> 
> Companies are fighting a proposal that would require them to disclose how they determine the estimates of how much green house gases they emit.





david85 said:


> Considering we have yet to establish what exactly climate sensitivity to CO2 even is (if any), I see that as completely irrelavant. The california air resources board was recently caught faking numbers for diesel emissions and so far no one has answered for that, nor has any correction in the regulations been made even though estimates were fudged 3 fold (I guess the ends justify the means???). <snip> If government agencies fudge numbers, then what's the point in corporations to be honest it they are being beat over the head with those fake numbers?





PhantomPholly said:


> Too, the motives of companies are obvious, and their reports are easy to corroborate or disprove, and there are no political consequences. The motives of the Climategate crowd, on the other hand, is insidious and deceitful. It is being used PRIMARILY for political gain (either to promote a party, or to promote funding more bad science at taxpayers' expense under the age-old excuse that "it's for the greater good...").
> 
> As always, the error should be on the side of freedom. Everything else is a criminal scam.


So, we started with companies fighting a proposal from the government to force them to reveal how they arrive at their estimates (presumably fishing for a reason to challenge those estimates?). Yet those same government officials have fudged their data upon which they established legal limits (whose political agenda was that? I will lump that under the "Climategate" crowd...). I pointed out that, while the motives of legislators are murky, those of businesses were straightforward ("quit bugging us, we are innocent until proven guilty and we plan on maximizing our profits). There are no political overtones to the business' response to unreasonable government demands, which in any event they could have satisfied by themselves by performing direct measurements (thus making it completely unnecessary for the government to request estimates). 

I'm gonna stick with my original position - there are no political consequences to the businesses challenging this trumped-up harassment from government.


> I don't disagree with some of that; it's a better explanation than trying to link the polices of Hitler and Obama.


I never attempted to link Hitler to Obama. I placed Hitler's notoriety in CONTRAST to (not comparison to) that of early Progressives - illustrating how people demonized (rightly) Hitler for those actions yet seemed to ignore that odious philosophy when it came from Hollywood (remember Alfalfa?). Several people seem to be determined to take that out of context. If you don't get it by now, no amount of explaining is likely to change it.

Here's the thing - principles either stand or fail on their own. It shouldn't matter who is promoting or declaiming. Yet too often people pay more attention to the messenger than the message.



> Sorry, I thought you were setting the bar by using terms like:
> "scammers" "insidious and deceitful" "Climategate" "fake fundamental data"


More out of context, none of those directed at you. Can't help it if you take it personally when I discuss such groups as intentionally fake data.

Or, maybe I missed your meaning. Here in the South we have a saying: "Hit dog yelps!" (meaning if you throw a stone into the brush and one of the dogs yelps, you hit him...). Are you trying to tell us you are one of the Climate-gaters? 



> "sanctimonious lectures"





> sanc·ti·mo·ni·ous[sangk-tuh-moh-nee-uh
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, it came off that way. If it was not intended that way, then you will have my apology - just as soon as you apologize for your unwarranted remarks! 



> I know you will correct me (please keep it short) but I would have thought "deluded" rather polite relatively?


Let's see - sanctimonious vs. deluded. Hypocritical vs. mentally ill. I'll go with "no" on that one. Short enough?



> Back on topic, if you represent the views of the Tea Party and want less government, then it's my opinion that YES, the Tea Party will "Unplug the Electric Car Initiative" and the oil industry will continue unrestrained to pedal it's interests which are not the interests of Planet Earth long term, however you look at it.


I'm happy to discuss the merits of that opinion. I believe you are not only mistaken, but that the Tea Party offers the fastest path to the goal we all share on this forum. It may even be that it doesn't matter - that the momentum towards that particular solution is such that the date of a solution is virtually fixed in time in the future. But even if that is true, there is still 5,000 years of recorded history to demonstrate that OVERALL innovation is stifled by, not accelerated by, bigger government, and that what innovation DOES occur under government direction comes at a dear cost.



> Sure oil will run out but we need to make the changes now, according to many reputable scientists. I agree, and accept you don't.


Well, the "perceived reputability" (or lack thereof) of many scientists these days seems to rest heavily upon one's political leanings - which is a shame, because that puts us right back in the throes of government-controlled science as in the days of Galileo. Not being a climatologist or a geologist or a big oil expert, I tend to draw my own conclusions based on human indicators that have been accurate for several thousand years. First, follow the money. There are far too many scams surrounding this whole mess, and many have been tried many times before under different guises (global winter, etc.). Second, the world governments are not truly panicking, and there are vast areas of the United States where we COULD be drilling if the end of oil were truly near. That we are not tells me we have time, even if we do no more than continue the trend of 5-6% annual improvement in batteries. 

Thus I agree and accept what is being said by those experts who believe that we will have solutions long before man-induced climate change would be a real issue (if it ever would).

But, no matter who is closer to right on this one we aren't going to change that outcome on this forum...


----------



## karlos (Jun 30, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> Well, it came off that way. If it was not intended that way, then you will have my apology - just as soon as you apologize for your unwarranted remarks!


Yes, in the context I meant it, saying you were deluded was a bit strong and not conducive to a good debate 


PhantomPholly said:


> I'm happy to discuss the merits of that opinion. I believe you are not only mistaken, but that the Tea Party offers the fastest path to the goal we all share on this forum. It may even be that it doesn't matter - that the momentum towards that particular solution is such that the date of a solution is virtually fixed in time in the future. But even if that is true, there is still 5,000 years of recorded history to demonstrate that OVERALL innovation is stifled by, not accelerated by, bigger government, and that what innovation DOES occur under government direction comes at a dear cost.


Well at least you are straight up about your politics.

Of course I would not like to see my taxes doing what private enterprise can do BUT, historically, although new technology comes from private enterprise, much of the infrastructure comes from government to use it, from Roman roads, to modern high speed rail. 
At the moment, the playing field is not level, all I'm asking of any government is to phase in the real cost of using fossil fuels giving alternative private enterprise the incentive to invest and then we would both be happy. To think for one moment, polluters will self regulate until all the tipping points are passed, is not my understand of how a deregulated capitalism works and certainly not while elections can be bought.
In NZ already I can see the carbon credit system working, private enterprise is investing in planting forests again meaning "less government" in having to pay compensation for non existent rural jobs.
To a certain degree, I also am a fan of less government, an example is the government enforced minimum wage and the unemployment benefit. An example is outback Aussie, Aboriginal people worked the cattle stations, UNTIL the government introduced the minimum wage which meant no rancher could afford the workers, the workers went on the dole and made good use of access to alcohol....
In early NZ a Maori elder was quoted as saying "the unemployment benefit will be the death of his people" and to and arguable degree, that has proved to be quite true. Seems like a spiral to me, minimum wages cause jobs to go off shore which cause governments to pay more benefits to less people working who need more benefits etc etc.
So I don't fully disagree with less government but government does have a role to play by at the very least, leveling the playing field but it's generally considered to be a suicidal government that looks after the interests of many generations into the future isn't it and certainly so if it's at the cost of the current generations pursuing the mythical "dream".



PhantomPholly said:


> Well, the "perceived reputability" (or lack thereof) of many scientists these days seems to rest heavily upon one's political leanings - which is a shame, because that puts us right back in the throes of government-controlled science as in the days of Galileo. Not being a climatologist or a geologist or a big oil expert, I tend to draw my own conclusions based on human indicators that have been accurate for several thousand years. First, follow the money. There are far too many scams surrounding this whole mess, and many have been tried many times before under different guises (global winter, etc.).


Exactly! I've followed the money and I don't see the average climate scientist getting rich by sticking his neck out but I am aware to some degree of how seriously and how much money the engergy corperations are putting into politics and 'institutes' to discredit the AGW messengers who are unfairly lumped with terms like "warmists" "climategaters" (because of my stance you even asked me if I was involved ) etc.


PhantomPholly said:


> Second, the world governments are not truly panicking, and there are vast areas of the United States where we COULD be drilling if the end of oil were truly near. That we are not tells me we have time, even if we do no more than continue the trend of 5-6% annual improvement in batteries.


In my opinion, all most governments look after is the next election, no surprise there. It is the climate scientists who are not involved in politics or getting wealthy that I'm inclined to listen to and take seriously as they are just doing their jobs. It goes without saying there are exceptions but also that you can't demonize them all because of it. Will restrain myself from an analogy, as from experience, they have to be perfect and I don't want a new digression!


PhantomPholly said:


> Thus I agree and accept what is being said by those experts who believe that we will have solutions long before man-induced climate change would be a real issue (if it ever would).


Well, maybe somewhere between the two views is the reality, I hope your trusted scientists are correct and I hope mine are wrong. What the evidence says to me is we should act now. 


PhantomPholly said:


> But, no matter who is closer to right on this one we aren't going to change that outcome on this forum...


Pretty much agree but we'll all become better informed, I only know of one person on the forum who has changed their position but when the data and climate evidence become unequivocal, he'll be back with vengeance.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

karlos said:


> Exactly! I've followed the money and I don't see the average climate scientist getting rich by sticking his neck out but I am aware to some degree of how seriously and how much money the engergy corperations are putting into politics and 'institutes' to discredit the AGW messengers who are unfairly lumped with terms like "warmists" "climategaters" (because of my stance you even asked me if I was involved ) etc.


Well put. Anyone see climate scientists getting rich? A dishonest researcher would get a lot more money from the established industrial complex to fake results in their favor.
Anyway, isn't there already a GW thread?


----------



## Overlander23 (Jun 15, 2009)

Actually and ironically, arrogance is defined in the dictionary as: An attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions.

Arrogance has nothing to do with making an argument and refusing to back it up with facts. It's more like making an argument and claiming your facts are indisputably correct... which doesn't make much of an argument... which is the problem with arrogance.

I think what disturbs me the most about our society these days (speaking of the US, specifically) is that, in general people seem to want to believe the crap, left or right. People don't want to see things from more than one side. It leaves moderates out in the cold even though everything really is shades of gray. 

I was at a BBQ on Halloween in the middle of the day. A group of us (four adults) were at a fire pit in a local park across the street from my buddy's house in a gated community. We were just trying to get a fire going for some good grilling for the families (we're all in our mid-30s, professionals, with a gaggle of kids under eight years old) when someone from the neighborhood came up and demanded to know where we lived and that we were drinking beer in public. He took a very quiet but aggressive tone. Upon discovering that we had no beer and that my buddy lived 100 ft away, you could tell that he got REALLY disappointed. And I thought that was amusing. He was more pissed off that we weren't an aggressive group of delinquent outsiders.

People seem to be like this these days. They want desperately to be disappointed and scared.

Now how can I post this without sounding arrogant? 



PhantomPholly said:


> If you really want to discuss "cheek" (arrogance), let's have that discussion. Arrogance is making a claim and not being willing to back it up with facts and, when the evidence provided is incontrovertible, pretending it doesn't exist. Arrogance is proclaiming a lie, and accusing those who point it out of lying. And arrogance is calling others "deluded" and then claiming it is THEY are the ones calling everyone else wrong...


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

karlos said:


> Yes, in the context I meant it, saying you were deluded was a bit strong and not conducive to a good debate


Well, I'm probably guilty of the same. Nicely said.

As for the "real costs" of fossil fuel, I would point out that if you go down that road you should also factor in the "real benefits." Until right this very minute (historically speaking) there has been no possible alternative that could give us the BENEFITS oil has given, nor the technological "infrastructure" to productively pursue such an alternative. Thus, I would argue that there is no "leveling" needed. All we need is good storage; nuclear and other power generating techniques already offer nearly an order of magnitude less pollution per kilowatt of usable energy than ICE, and the work on nanoantennas has proven (at least in the lab) that inexpensive, 85% efficient solar power is nearly within our reach. That will tip the scale all on its own because printed plastic that works day after day is cheaper than pumping and refining oil day after day.

Great example of the Aussies and the Aboriginals - I don't think it matters what category of people you inflict these social programs on, it is demeaning; demoralizing; and disincents self-improvement.

We can argue back and forth whether big oil or political interests seeking an excuse for more intrusive / global government are the ones spending more money and resources to tilt the scientific results - but I think we can agree that any results so skewed make it reasonable for people to be naturally skeptical. I did poke fun at you with the "hit dog yelps" comment - couldn't help myself, you walked right into it. 

I also agree implicitly about the election cycles - this is one of the reasons I believe we should focus on our Constitution (essentially a Charter that should guide us in long term policies) and, by minimizing big government, gain the parallel benefit that their policy thrashing does minimal damage to our economy and society. Only when government is large and overreaching can any election cycle have the profound negative effects on our whole country that we are seeing now - like physicians, they should first seek to "do no harm."

Middle view on "taking action" - I think we ARE acting. All of us. Individuals insulating their homes, buying more economical cars. In this nation and most of Europe we have balanced our population growth too - just wish part of every food package sent to impoverished nation included birth control. That's an action I could get behind! Anyway, the *AWARENESS generated by the debate* over whether we will / won't have global warming and whether we have / have not reached Peak Oil is inspiring thousands, perhaps millions, of entrepreneurs to pursue alternatives - not JUST for the profit motive (although the market is astonishingly big!) but also because (and I hope you can agree with me on this) MOST people want to feel proud about the work they do in life. From THAT perspective, I believe we will gather a bountiful harvest from the manure of politics - which is politics' only truly ennobling feature...


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Overlander23 said:


> Actually and ironically, arrogance is defined in the dictionary as: An attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions.
> 
> Arrogance has nothing to do with making an argument and refusing to back it up with facts.


It seems to me that making such a claim and then refusing to back it up qualifies as "presumptuous claims." If you agree with that, it means your post is "unintentionally ironic..."





> I think what disturbs me the most about our society these days (speaking of the US, specifically) is that, in general people seem to want to believe the crap, left or right. People don't want to see things from more than one side. It leaves moderates out in the cold even though everything really is shades of gray.


Sometimes we need to step back in time to put things in perspective. All it takes is to read old newspapers (10/20/50/100 yrs old) to realize that people have not fundamentally changed. It's just easier to "pick a side" than really dig in and understand all positions.



> I was at a BBQ on Halloween in the middle of the day. A group of us (four adults) were at a fire pit in a local park across the street from my buddy's house in a gated community. We were just trying to get a fire going for some good grilling for the families (we're all in our mid-30s, professionals, with a gaggle of kids under eight years old) when someone from the neighborhood came up and demanded to know where we lived and that we were drinking beer in public. He took a very quiet but aggressive tone. Upon discovering that we had no beer and that my buddy lived 100 ft away, you could tell that he got REALLY disappointed. And I thought that was amusing. He was more pissed off that we weren't an aggressive group of delinquent outsiders.


Ah, a self-appointed morality cop! Always amusing - at your age I doubt that I, or any of the other fighter pilots I hung out with, would have been as nice to him as you were - more likely we'd have told him to get lost before WE called the cops... 



> People seem to be like this these days. They want desperately to be disappointed and scared.
> 
> Now how can I post this without sounding arrogant?


That's the rub, isn't it? Although your post did not "sound" arrogant to me, without tone and context, it's all to easy too read someone's post in a different way than they meant it.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> As for the "real costs" of fossil fuel, I would point out that if you go down that road you should also factor in the "real benefits." Until right this very minute (historically speaking) there has been no possible alternative that could give us the BENEFITS oil has given, nor the technological "infrastructure" to productively pursue such an alternative.


An interesting exercise, and probably impossible, (and most likely ultimately pointless), is to consider where we might be if say the ICE had never been invented. Might we actually be better off in many ways? EV's would likely be much further along in development, as would our grid and alternative sources of electricity. Without the easy long range capability of an ICE, suburban sprawl might not have developed as extensively. The Middle East would look very different without our intense consumption of oil, and our foreign policy would be different as well. Without easy long range shipping local manufacturing of products would be more important and we would not have shipped jobs and dollars out of the country. Who knows what shape the country, and the world would be in, it might have been better over all.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

JRP3 said:


> An interesting exercise, and probably impossible, (and most likely ultimately pointless), is to consider where we might be if say the ICE had never been invented. Might we actually be better off in many ways? EV's would likely be much further along in development, as would our grid and alternative sources of electricity. Without the easy long range capability of an ICE, suburban sprawl might not have developed as extensively. The Middle East would look very different without our intense consumption of oil, and our foreign policy would be different as well. Without easy long range shipping local manufacturing of products would be more important and we would not have shipped jobs and dollars out of the country. Who knows what shape the country, and the world would be in, it might have been better over all.


I think what is more likely is the total speed of advancement would have been much slower during the industrial revolution. It also does not guaranty that whatever other advances that could have happened with EVs or renewable energy without ICEs and fossil fuel would have been cleaner or otherwise greener than what we have now.

Perhaps nuclear power would have been the primary resource that wars were waged over instead of oil. Not a comforting thought.

Considering something simple like carbon steel was made possible on a large scale due to coal being available in large amounts, I do have to wonder if something like advanced storage batteries, photovoltaic cells or electric motors (also made of refinded metals) would be as far along as they are right now. I don't doubt the world would be a very different place, I'm just not sure if it would have been better.

Definately not an easy thing to answer one way or another.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> An interesting exercise, and probably impossible, (and most likely ultimately pointless), is to consider where we might be if say the ICE had never been invented. Might we actually be better off in many ways? EV's would likely be much further along in development, as would our grid and alternative sources of electricity. Without the easy long range capability of an ICE, suburban sprawl might not have developed as extensively. The Middle East would look very different without our intense consumption of oil, and our foreign policy would be different as well. Without easy long range shipping local manufacturing of products would be more important and we would not have shipped jobs and dollars out of the country. Who knows what shape the country, and the world would be in, it might have been better over all.


Lots of things to ponder there. However, we CAN do the exercise of "what would things be like without ICE." Simply scratch it off the list, and leave everything else. Steam would have supplanted electric for long distance travel in any event. Imagine coal-dust powered Stanley Steamers? Ugh.

But, your premise of faster battery development is, I think, likely to derail - for it would still require all of the advances in chemistry and materials apart from ICE to put us right where we are now. Considering how many of our advances happened BECAUSE of oil (for lubrication and synthetics), it doesn't seem likely that that handicap would have in some way helped us.

Then again, in the world of speculation anything, even unlikely, is possible.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

My speculation was a world without ICE, not oil. However, without oil you can still have plant based lubrication, polymers, composites, etc. Without oil we may not have seen the pointless outlawing of hemp. Without oil, but with ICE, biofuels might be more advanced, as early ICE's were designed to run on them.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

I remember reading that whale oil was the primary source for machinery lubricant before the later stages of the industrial revolution when petroleum based lubricants were developed from oil reserves. Never bothered to try and verify that but there is probably at least some truth to it.

Hemp isn't outlawed all over the world even today though. I can buy cheap hemp twine in most hardware stores here in canada without any issues (have a small roll in the shop right now). Hemp cloth was common place in my parent's home country many years ago (some more impoverished regions still use it). After the early 1990s and the fall of the commies, there wasn't much appetite to keep old traditions like that alive and everyone wanted "new" stuff like cotton or wool which was often impossible to get under the previous regime (higher end products were often used for export and crappy stuff was sold locally to citizens - provided they could even afford it). But yep, back in the day when simple things like fresh fruit was a luxury only the rich could afford, they did make their own textiles at home just like you see in the movies.

Tough as hell and very long lasting (decades in some cases) but not very comfortable compared to modern synthetics or blended/strait cotton. Also very labor intensive to make, but back then honest work was essentially worthless and most struggled with what they had. They used hemp because they had to, not because they wanted to.

You could probably make better cloth today out of hemp that is on par with cotton or synthetic fabric but considering most textiles are coming from another communist or developing countries today, and most domestic textile capacity have effectively been crushed, I don't see hemp making much of a come back anytime soon. For now it's either a dirt cheap twine for wrapping a parcel or leveling a cement form, or some expensive specialty garmet that most would not pay for.

Overcoming the stigma will also be a challenge even though it's not what most would consider to be a narcotic.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> My speculation was a world without ICE,


Well here is the deal. There were EV's before there was ICE. Edison developed the nickel iron battery just for that purpose. Then oil was discovered, cheap, and abundant. Once ICE vehicles hit the market, EV were dead from that point with a few niche exceptions.. Even today the ICE still has the same advantages and keeping EV's as a niche market. 

I am a free market person. The market will decide what technology makes it or not as it always has since the beginning of man.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

The market is rather slow and dumb, reflecting much of the population I'm afraid. People often make poor choices in life. It's a harsh reality that shouldn't be ignored.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

david85 said:


> I remember reading that whale oil was the primary source for machinery lubricant before the later stages of the industrial revolution when petroleum based lubricants were developed from oil reserves. Never bothered to try and verify that but there is probably at least some truth to it.


That is correct, but obviously an unsustainable source of oil.


> Hemp isn't outlawed all over the world even today though. I can buy cheap hemp twine in most hardware stores here in canada without any issues (have a small roll in the shop right now). Hemp cloth was common place in my parent's home country many years ago (some more impoverished regions still use it).


My understanding is that Canada has a much more rational policy towards hemp and pot.
US farmers were once required to grow hemp, there are many uses for the plant. http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/ncnu02/v5-284.html I can imagine a jacket with a hemp outer shell and a replaceable cotton lining lasting forever. People are making composites using bio based epoxies and hemp laminates. And that's just one plant. My point is that there are other replacements for petroleum oil that may have been further developed without it.


----------



## thomas.smith (Jul 22, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> That is correct, but obviously an unsustainable source of oil.


I am not so sure about that. The fact is that where there is money to be made, there are people willing to find a way to do it. I can easily imagine a growing whale farm system. Just as paper production has grown tree-farming efforts.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> Well put. Anyone see climate scientists getting rich? A dishonest researcher would get a lot more money from the established industrial complex to fake results in their favor.
> Anyway, isn't there already a GW thread?


Scientist pretty much fall into two categories. Private and Public sectors. Those in the public sector either work directly for the government or depend on grants from government. Like a lot educators they fall into the public sector because they cannot produce tangible results in a free market environment. Like anyone else, they tend to preach what their employers want them to preach. GW is all about money, power, and control taking it away from you the citizen to feed an ever expanding government.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

The Bush administration managed to expand government quite nicely while denying GW. Frankly, industry controls government to a large degree, and industry wants to deny GW. I still say there is more money to be made for the unscrupulous scientist in denying GW. Still have yet to see any evidence of climate researchers getting rich.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Hemp products might not be illegal up here but marijuana most certainly is still a controlled substance. There was some discussion a few years ago in the dying days of the liberal government for "de-criminalizing" it. In other words, it would still be illegal, just instead of a criminal record, you get slapped with a fine. The change never happened though and I can't say I am sympathetic to the "legalize it!" movement.

We used to have young teenagers (some seemed under 12 yo) sneaking into the bush next to and at the bottom of our property to toke up. Saw them sitting on the side of the street getting chewed out by a constable one day. A few weeks later they were back their usual routine. Sad....

Every fall when the first leaves start to change you can spot police choppers searching for grow ops in the bush - harvest season. The stuff seems to grow very well in our climate up here in BC. Underground bunkers are often found too. The lengths to which they will go is amazing. The flip side are house tenants that rent and ultimately destroy property in an effort to grow the plants indoors. Land lords are usually blamed for it even though they have very limited rights to evict or conduct preemptive inspections.

I could rant all day about how I've seen pot, weed, crack, and other drugs destroy lives, families, wealth and quality of living for many people - some of whom I personally knew. Its a mess.



> That is correct, but obviously an unsustainable source of oil.


That was my point. Before crude oil, there was primarily animal fat based lubricants, not so much veggie oil. Considering what environmental awareness was like back then (non existent), I think it's more likely that many more whales would have simply been hunted into oblivion long before any other more sustainable solution was accepted.

I just don't see how things could have evolved any other way.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

david85 said:


> Hemp products might not be illegal up here but marijuana most certainly is still a controlled substance. There was some discussion a few years ago in the dying days of the liberal government for "de-criminalizing" it. In other words, it would still be illegal, just instead of a criminal record, you get slapped with a fine. The change never happened though and I can't say I am sympathetic to the "legalize it!" movement.


Not very Libertarian of you 


> We used to have young teenagers (some seemed under 12 yo) sneaking into the bush next to and at the bottom of our property to toke up. Saw them sitting on the side of the street getting chewed out by a constable one day. A few weeks later they were back their usual routine. Sad....


So the legality of it made no difference.


> Every fall when the first leaves start to change you can spot police choppers searching for grow ops in the bush - harvest season. The stuff seems to grow very well in our climate up here in BC. Underground bunkers are often found too. The lengths to which they will go is amazing. The flip side are house tenants that rent and ultimately destroy property in an effort to grow the plants indoors. Land lords are usually blamed for it even though they have very limited rights to evict or conduct preemptive inspections.


Again, keeping it illegal, and underground, does nothing to stop it. That's the point, we waste resources and fill our prisons with harmless individuals who have a bit of weed on them, to what end? Legalize it, tax it, and eliminate a source of income for real criminals, and create a cottage industry of hemp products.


> I could rant all day about how I've seen pot, weed, crack, and other drugs destroy lives, families, wealth and quality of living for many people - some of whom I personally knew. Its a mess.


I did a lot of experimenting in my younger days and can honestly say I've seen no lives ruined from pot, except for those few who ended up in jail because of the ridiculous laws. Personally I've seen more problems, including a few incidences of my own, caused by perfectly legal alcohol. A recent study backed that up, finding alcohol the most dangerous drug. Regan's misguided "war on drugs" has achieved nothing other than costing billions of dollars and putting many innocent harmless people in prison.
Prohibition didn't work with alcohol and it's not working with pot. I rarely smoke any more so it doesn't affect me directly, other than the waste of resources being used to keep it illegal.


> That was my point. Before crude oil, there was primarily animal fat based lubricants, not so much veggie oil. Considering what environmental awareness was like back then (non existent), I think it's more likely that many more whales would have simply been hunted into oblivion long before any other more sustainable solution was accepted.
> 
> I just don't see how things could have evolved any other way.


That's the thing, since we've evolved this way it's hard to imagine another way. It's true that whales could have been hunted into oblivion, but as they became a scarcer and scarcer resource alternatives would have had to have been found before "Peak Whale" hit.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> That's the thing, since we've evolved this way it's hard to imagine another way. It's true that whales could have been hunted into oblivion, but as they became a scarcer and scarcer resource alternatives would have had to have been found before "Peak Whale" hit.


And just think it did not take the government to do it. The free market found it.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Well it's also possible that people waited too long, didn't find alternatives, and Peak Whale caused an economic world wide disaster.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

"peak whale" - good one

I understand your reasoning of legalizing it because I've heard it many times before, the problem is organized crime will simply move on and find other harder drugs that are still illegal and start selling them instead. Chrystal meth is often used as the next step up from milder drugs like pot and you can make it almost anywhere using off the shelf ingredients. Growing season doesn't matter anymore and you don't need anywhere near as much floor space. I don't see how legalizing these things makes the world better when the same people are still hard at work.


----------



## thomas.smith (Jul 22, 2009)

Sunking said:


> And just think it did not take the government to do it. The free market found it.


Not true. Regulation preventing the wholesale annihilation of species forced a directional shift. Free market is a dangerous thing. Without regulation/intervention, corporations are encouraged to act unscrupulously.


----------



## sunworksco (Sep 8, 2008)

*Everyone who ever thought that there was intellect involved in the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 should read this :*

http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/why-is-marijuana-illegal/


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

david85 said:


> I understand your reasoning of legalizing it because I've heard it many times before, the problem is organized crime will simply move on and find other harder drugs that are still illegal and start selling them instead. Chrystal meth is often used as the next step up from milder drugs like pot and you can make it almost anywhere using off the shelf ingredients. Growing season doesn't matter anymore and you don't need anywhere near as much floor space. I don't see how legalizing these things makes the world better when the same people are still hard at work.


As you point out people are already making meth and other hard drugs, even though pot is illegal. It's very possible that legal pot might stop people from taking the next step and breaking the law with harder drugs. I don't think it's accurate to call pot a gateway drug any more than alcohol is. Point is the law is not stopping many people from getting pot if they want it, and it is costing us billions of wasted dollars prosecuting and incarcerating people who aren't hurting anyone. Then there is the potential of a robust hemp industry which has stagnated because of the misguided law, as well as potential medical benefits. It might be useful to look at areas where pot is legal and see what other drug use and crime looks like. If medical pot has caused an increase in crime and other drug use in California I'm not aware of it.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

The last few posts here were moving toward the topic of climate change, so I moved them to the "climate change debate" thread here:

http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php/climate-change-debate-thread-32508.html

I hope thats ok with everyone.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Great, now I'm sucked back into the GW thread


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

There is no escape...


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)




----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

OK, now that was some funny chit right there!



ROFLMAO










































(sorry)


----------

