Posted on 08/09/2008 8:20:46 PM PDT by Syncro
Junk Mail Produces as Much CO2 as 7 States Combined (This is Hugh!)
Daily Green | Aug. 8, 2008 | Dan Shapely
Posted on 08/09/2008 3:00:18 PM PDT by PROCON
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2059191/posts
Not hard to understand.
About 40% of Americans are socialist and apparently like taxes no matter what their I.Q. (or else they wouldn’t vote for Democrats).
And half of the rest should statistically have below average intelligence (well, below average for those wise enough not to fall for socialism).
So with 70% of the people either being socialist or being on the underside of the curve it’s not hard to see where half can believe the incredibly foolish propositions put forth by the Democrats (like raising taxes or regulating free markets through increased federal power will somehow help oil supply).
The republicans have proven themselves to be so spineless as to seek some kind of compromise in this matter (as they always do). They will not take a stand - they never do. I question how they have sufficient spine to stand up in the morning.
I favor the government getting the he!! out of the way and letting private industry find the solution. It is the government that has caused this problem with it's hyper-enviroMENTALism, over-regulation, and no-drilling policy. Does anybody really think that the government could possibly formulate a respectable solution?
I favor the government getting the he!! out of the way and letting private industry find the solution. It is the government that has caused this problem with it's hyper-enviroMENTALism, over-regulation, and no-drilling policy. Does anybody really think that the government could possibly formulate a respectable solution?
I have no idea how the double post happened - sorry.
Did I miss something, or did they not cite what organization came out with this poll? If so, thats garbage reporting.
Durbin revealed the democrap talking points this morning ... taxing the ‘winfall profits’ of big oiul. Christ ‘chip off the liberal block’ Wallace carefully avoided exposing the great democrat lie, when he could have negated the talking point by pointing out that gov’t already taxes the oil companies double what their porfit margin is! Talk about ‘winfall profits’! Of course Durbin would have lied had Wallace exposed that fatc, but it is disgusting to watch such pandering to the dem talking points on FOX.
Nothing of the kind.
Your post is a typical example of thinking like the herd, because it sounds good. The correct decision is based on sound economics, and that decision is based on markets and not on some inane "National Energy Policy." The problem isn't that we don't have a national energy policy, the problem is that we do have one, and it stinks. We are not permitted to drill for oil or natural gas in most parts of the country, we are not permitted to burn or mine coal in many parts of the country, the coal plants we do have are soon going to be heavily penalized and are likely to be shut down, we have no new nuclear power plants and many existing plants are going to go off-line in the near- and mid-term. We have mandates to produce ethanol -- a process which turns valuable cropland into nearly worthless solar energy production, raises the cost of fuel (via subsidies), raises the cost of food, and, because of a highly unfavorable energy balance in producing ethanol produces very little -- perhaps even zero -- net energy.
All of this is the result of laws on the books -- our current "National Energy Policy."
We don't have advanced technologies today because they haven’t been advanced, developed, and deployed yet.
Duh. This is a simple tautology. It says nothing whatsoever and adds nothing to the discussion. The important point is why these alternatives don't exist, and the answer is very simple: they have no viability.
There was no nuclear power in 1900. The Freeper of the day wonders ‘why?’ and concludes that since it isn’t on-line yet, it will never be developed and implemented. He or she would be completely wrong
Your analogy is ridiculous: in fact, it is, as Wolfgang Pauli used to say, so completely ludicrous, it is "not even wrong."
Nuclear power came about as a research project with military applications, and the subsequent peaceful reactors would not have existed had visionary military men not proved their reliability and safety in nuclear submarines and in prototype large reactors for nuclear aircraft carriers. Military applications don't lie in the free market to begin with; they face a far more serious and extreme competitive playing field than that. It was not at any time subsidized by the government for the purposes of providing an "alternative" energy supply simply for the sake of saying we had one.
Nuclear power today provides a significant and highly competitive power supply in countries with the political will to provide it. Nuclear power is thwarted in this country for reasons that have nothing to do with free market economics, and everything to do with chowder heads who want to compare a proven, economical, safe and reliable technology which actually exists to some pie-in-the-sky "alternatives" which either aren't economical, aren't reliable, or don't even exist.
In short, you analogy is complete rubbish. Nuclear power has died in this country because of people like you, chanting the mantra of "alternatives! alternatives!" when in fact we don't need "alternatives." We need to drill for oil, drill for gas, mine coal, and open the nuclear regulatory process to something rational.
The diversion of taxpayer dollars and political will into the development of alternatives is a red herring used by Luddites in the environmental lobby to shut capitalism down. They know the numbers better than you do, and they know quite well that solar, wind, and geothermal aren't ever going to crack 8-12% of current production, max. We've been hearing that solar is "just about to become economical" perennially since the 1960's. Still waiting. If, by some completely unforeseen miracle it ever becomes viable, we'll be told that the erection of solar facilities requires the destruction of far too much wildlife habitat by the same people who supposedly support its development now.
Sorry but its posts like yours that make us all look very bad. It’s not conservatism, it’s ‘something else,’ and that ‘something else’ isn’t very insightful
Sorry, but it's muddle headed nonsense like yours that gets us Republican candidates like John McCain. Alternative sources of energy don't exist because people in the private economy aren't stupid enough to throw billions of dollars into a trash can, but simple minded people allow politicians to convince them that it's OK to steal their tax money to do it. Republicans need to say it, and say it often: there is nothing wrong with the oil companies making money, and there is no requirement that they should waste their shareholders' and employees' bottom line on white elephants that have no chance for success. Successful businesses stick to their knitting and do it well. Oil companies drill for oil, and their profits should be poured back into exploring and drilling for more. If your "alternatives" are anything other than toys or liberal talking-points there will be no shortage of venture capitalists willing to take a risk to get rich. If they aren't, they're wasting valuable resources, including -- most of all precious energy -- and they should stay in the ditch, where they've all been stuck for years.
You were the one that said that since the technology wasn’t available today, it won’t be available in the future.
You’re a remarkably short sighted individual.
If your original statement is "oil companies need to develop other kinds of energy" My question stands. That's a business decision. You don't just do it because it sounds good.
If your original statement is "the US needs to spend taxpayer money to explore new technologies," again, my statement stands. There is no reason why the government should be deciding who to dole money out to for unproven science (or even proven science, for that matter.)
If your original statement is "the US needs to develop solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, cellulosic ethanol, and nuclear fusion," my answer also stands. Billions have been spent on those technologies, and while some of them occasionally produce net energy, they do not do so on a basis that's competitive in terms of safety, reliability or cost with existing technologies -- and some of them have had tens of billions of dollars in development without producing a single net Erg.
Your idea of visionary seems to be "let's waste money!" Please keep that vision to yourself. Shortsighted FRed has to provide money for his kids future education, and pay taxes for governments legitimate functions, such as the shortsighted existence in perpetuity of the United States of America.
I explicitly said that I don’t favor Federal spending for the new, developing technologies. You’re trying to talk way above your pay grade and coming across as foolish.
I don’t advocate wasting money, at all. If the tehcnologies are viable they will develop in time.
That’s a good thing, not a bad thing.
For too many people, being ‘principled’ means turning your brain off at the door.
Agreed! I am amazed that the general population can't seem grasp the idea that corporations don't pay taxes,they collect taxes from the folks that purchase their products/services and send the taxes to goveco.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.