National Debt

[Parker2112]

Post WWII as in the Cold War as in the thing that brought neocons to power. We're only 25 years post cold war, it takes time for people to wake up especially when there is a non stop party going on. Next time the republican mantra is "We need to spread democracy with our freedom bombs" I think you'll see more conservatives say " you". Now you lefties need to see you have your own Democrat neocons to worry about.

I'll point out that I did say "Hope", you gotta have hope boutons. Life sucks without it.

But Libertarians generally dont buy the war. Ron Paul says bring the boys home.

[boutons_deux]

The Repugs, conservatives, capitalists, corps have put America on its financial knees, as has been the objective for 30+ years.

Now they lie that social services are THE cause, and therefore, over citizens, over the poor, keeping sucking wealth out of everybody and send it up to the top.

Raising retirement age to 70 seems to be a real possibility. But the unemployment rate for the 55+, esp men, is already one the highest, and the same age bracket is has the highest percentage of long-term unemployed. Some of them, able, wanting, and needing to work, will never be employed again. So kicking away their retirement pittance from 65 up to 70 means many is extremely cruel.

Note that the extending the Repug tax cuts for the superwealthy will cost $2T+.

Nice ing country, huh?

[Wild Cobra]

But Libertarians generally dont buy the war. Ron Paul says bring the boys home.

Depends on the libertarian. Ever listen to Neal Boortz?

[Capt Bringdown]

The Repugs, conservatives, capitalists, corps have put America on its financial knees, as has been the objective for 30+ years.

You've got to include the Democratic party in the mix. We no longer have an opposition party, that's the big problem IMO. The Democrats are following the hard-right on the path to doom. Clinton and Obama are little more than moderate republicans.

[admiralsnackbar]

Parker, after reading the rest of your posts in this thread, I have concluded you are among the top 5 stupidest posters in SpursTalk that I have come across.

For that reason, I will probably ignore most your posts for now on.

No need to formally state this... you already clearly ignored most of his points in order to make him fit into the "tin-hat liberal" cubbyhole you evidently stuff all people who disagree with you into.

It's a gas how you actively misread posts in order to furnish yourself with positions to disagree with so you can spew the same old talking points bull over and over. Do you even care about political discourse, or do you just want to parrot things you've heard to feel superior and hide the fact you don't reason through practically anything you type? If you want proof of this, look to your sustained and demonstrable inability to cite where you get your information from, or explain why you hold the opinions you do, or even so much as leave a discussion when you reach a point of ambivalence instead of blindly repeating yourself despite being proven wrong. I mean, seriously: that's great you see things with such black-and-white cer ude and all, but that's something you have in common with children, not adults.

I love that with this track record you feel comfortable calling anyone an idiot, much less someone who at least has the wits to see both parties are less interested in serving you than they are their real patrons and themselves. Rock on, rocker

[Wild Cobra]

No need to formally state this... you already clearly ignored most of his points in order to make him fit into the "tin-hat liberal" cubbyhole you evidently stuff all people who disagree with you into.

Most his points are very partisan.

It's a gas how you actively misread posts in order to furnish yourself with positions to disagree with so you can spew the same old talking points bull over and over.

Example please.

Do you even care about political discourse, or do you just want to parrot things you've heard to feel superior and hide the fact you don't reason through practically anything you type? If you want proof of this, look to your sustained and demonstrable inability to cite where you get your information from, or explain why you hold the opinions you do, or even so much as leave a discussion when you reach a point of ambivalence instead of blindly repeating yourself despite being proven wrong.

Inability? I cite sources rather often. I didn't know I needed a source to tell me how to think. is that what you do?

I mean, seriously: that's great you see things with such black-and-white cer ude and all, but that's something you have in common with children, not adults.

If you say so. If anything, I'm guilty of expecting people to know more than they do, and it frustrates me.

[admiralsnackbar]

Most his points are very partisan.

Example please. Most of his points seemed disillusioned with both parties.

Example please.

We need to find cleaner ways to produce energy for my two childrens sake. If not to fend off global warming then to have alternatives in place before the price of oil rises enough to drive a knife into our economic heart.

You have bought into that lie.

Global warming is real, but mostly natural. The biggest impact we have is not from CO2, but from black carbon on snow and ice.

Inability? I cite sources rather often. I didn't know I needed a source to tell me how to think.

Is that why there was a thread not long ago where you were ridiculed for countering facts/data with nothing but opinion as you normally do? I'm not gonna dig it up for you, but I can't be the only one who remembers.

is that what you do?

I'm sure I've done it, but don't think I can be accused of making it a habit.

If you say so. If anything, I'm guilty of expecting people to know more than they do, and it frustrates me.

I think you're confusing people having more knowledge with their agreeing with you. Normally I wouldn't bother calling you out since I generally like shooting the with you despite your obstinacy... but when you're calling a guy a tin-hat idiot for having opinions that are borne-out by hard data (like doubting Iraq2's justification -- see Downing Street Memo, among others) or expressing a desire for development in alternative energy, it frustrates me how blind to your hypocrisy you are.

[Wild Cobra]

Example please. Most of his points seemed disillusioned with both parties.

Most his points indicating any party were only attacking Bush and Cheney, until we called him on his partisanship.

His understanding of a hydrogen economy...

His understanding of global warming and, and acting as if we haven't been developing cleaner technology as time goes on...

Give me a break.

Partisan attacks. See posts 21, 37, 47, 52, 55, 61, 84, 97

Defending Obama, see posts 22

Defending any republican... none!

Liberal ideals, see posts 37, 52, 55, 65, 84

Attacking Obama, see posts.... I only see 116, and he is wrong about his implications!

Both parties my ass.

[Parker2112]

When we are talking about the war, its all bush/cheney, all the time.

When we are talking about hydrogen economy, none of us can say what a trillion dollars would do to relieve our dependence, because big oil will never let that happen. But that includes you.

And as for GW, are you a scientist? you choose who to trust, and I will too. But until you are in the field doing the work, you are taking someone elses word on it. And likely, that choice is completely self serving...done to suit your already made opinions.

Clean tech has been in the works, but if you have been around as long as you claim, you know that the majority of clean tech with real potential to unseat oil has been pushed into the dark...there is too much $$$ at stake. The only thing that will ever counter this is the voice of the voters.

[boutons_deux]

If this current trial works out ...

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62C01Z20100313

... Honda will be selling hydrogen-fuel cars while the Americans will be fighting foreign wars to grab lithium and other rare resources.

[Wild Cobra]

When we are talking about the war, its all bush/cheney, all the time.

Funny how most the democrats were for the war too, but you single out them.

When we are talking about hydrogen economy, none of us can say what a trillion dollars would do to relieve our dependence, because big oil will never let that happen. But that includes you.

It will do nothing but line the pockets of people who don't need it.

And as for GW, are you a scientist?

Not by le, but I have a very firm understanding.

you choose who to trust, and I will too. But until you are in the field doing the work, you are taking someone elses word on it.

That is a completely false assumption. I understand the sciences involving global warming. I have made up my own mind, and if you haven't noticed, I have stated things you will probably not find others on the internet saying before I did.

And likely, that choice is completely self serving...done to suit your already made opinions.

Self serving to the point I pride myself in my understanding of things technical.

Clean tech has been in the works, but if you have been around as long as you claim, you know that the majority of clean tech with real potential to unseat oil has been pushed into the dark...there is too much $$$ at stake.

It's pushed into the dark because it is way too expensive to use. Again, if there was profit to be made rather than requiring unsustainable amounts of tax payer subsidies, the energy companies would be doing it.

How can anyone be so duped by liberals that they only profit in oil? They would profit in alternatives if it was profitable.

The only thing that will ever counter this is the voice of the voters.

Yep, and look what happens. Voters constantly get lied to and vote for agendas that in the end, harm us.

[Wild Cobra]

If this current trial works out ...

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62C01Z20100313

... Honda will be selling hydrogen-fuel cars while the Americans will be fighting foreign wars to grab lithium and other rare resources.

So?

Did you understand the limitations within the article?

[admiralsnackbar]

How can anyone be so duped by liberals that they only profit in oil? They would profit in alternatives if it was profitable.

How can you be so dense to not see that renewable energy is, by definition, less profitable than selling an expendable commodity like oil which is ridiculously cheap to extract and refine with respect to the final selling price? Even nuclear is way less profitable because it actually takes money to run, service, and secure a plant.

[Parker2112]

It's pushed into the dark because it is way too expensive to use. Again, if there was profit to be made rather than requiring unsustainable amounts of tax payer subsidies, the energy companies would be doing it.

How can anyone be so duped by liberals that they only profit in oil? They would profit in alternatives if it was profitable.

Yep, and look what happens. Voters constantly get lied to and vote for agendas that in the end, harm us.

Answer this: why would big oil leave money in the ground by implementing new clean tech before it has maximized profits on its standing resources?

Why would it not buy the patents and hold the technology, with plans to implement them after max oil profits have been fully realized?

EVEN IF THAT MEANS OUR PLANET GETS TRASHED IN THE PROCESS? Why would they act on the best interests of the people, instead of max $$$?

the answer is self-realizing

[Parker2112]

""But Honda is widely seen as the hydrogen leader, while others like General Motors put more effort into battery-powered electric vehicles like the upcoming Volt."

could that be because the coal lobby has no influence on japanes automakers, but stands to up profits if cars begin using the power grid for energy?

[Wild Cobra]

How can you be so dense to not see that renewable energy is, by definition, less profitable than selling an expendable commodity like oil which is ridiculously cheap to extract and refine with respect to the final selling price? Even nuclear is way less profitable because it actually takes money to run, service, and secure a plant.

Ta-da....

You are now making my point.

[Parker2112]

its only when we look at the total cost do we realize the weight that hydrocarbons have on our economy. that is the convenient part that most drill-baby's would like to gloss over

[Parker2112]

And Answer this: why would big oil leave money in the ground by implementing new clean tech before it has maximized profits on its standing resources?

Why would it not buy the patents and hold the technology, with plans to implement them after max oil profits have been fully realized?

EVEN IF THAT MEANS OUR PLANET GETS TRASHED IN THE PROCESS? Why would they act on the best interests of the people, instead of max $$$?

[Wild Cobra]

Answer this: why would big oil leave money in the ground by implementing new clean tech before it has maximized profits on its standing resources?

They look at profit. If they want to continue with oil rather than other methods, that proves it's more profitable. Lets say company "A: decides to stop drilling, and make solar farms. He then just has a small market competing with cheaper coal. He has to sell it at a loss without government intervention. He otherwise doesn't have any significant market to sell to. Same with hydrogen for cars. How many people will pay for hydrogen? Some will as a novelty, or to be more green, but it's a small market and they are doing these things. Just at really small scale. How can you expect energy companies to say "OK, I'll mass market a product that won't sell, unless you regulate my global compe ion."

Your line of thinking is what leads to dictatorial leaders. You want someone to nationalize, price control, or use some other authoritarian power to mold things. You are not a libertarian. You are an authoritarian when you have such thoughts.

Why would it not buy the patents and hold the technology, with plans to implement them after max oil profits have been fully realized?

Again, they do them in small scale, but because their isn't enough demand at the price to sustain it, it remains small scale, but they do test technology for the future.

EVEN IF THAT MEANS OUR PLANET GETS TRASHED IN THE PROCESS? Why would they act on the best interests of the people, instead of max $$$?

What do you mean "Even if?" Yes, we have a disaster from time to time. In the end, the earth will heal. We would really have to focus efforts to hurt Mother Earth.

the answer is self-realizing

I'd say you are misguided.

[admiralsnackbar]

Ta-da....

You are now making my point.

Your point is that PetroCorps will never back end-user power supplies like solar and wind because oil has a geometrically larger profit margin. For them. I get that.

But that's not to say there isn't demand for sustainable energy, because there is. There is crazy demand on the consumer side for a savings margin. So another company will innovate a solution, and when it threatens oil, Petros will either swoop in and buy the company or steal it's business plan and undercut them. I wouldn't be surprised if they went so far as to use Washington to stanch such companies in order to continue with their primary profit engine, because whatever cheap energy we may desire here is dwarfed by the demand in developing nations. In other words, Petros have an profit motive to quash compe ive energy sources. That's my point

All to say that expecting energy companies to relinquish their golden goose isn't going to happen of their goodwill, and waiting for them to transition once the oil starts to run dry isn't good enough.

[CosmicCowboy]

Different markets. Oil derivatives are portable and work well to power vehicles. There aren't any oil fired power plants. Solar, wind etc. are not portable. They are a feasible replacement for power plants. Apples/Oranges.

[admiralsnackbar]

Different markets. Oil derivatives are portable and work well to power vehicles. There aren't any oil fired power plants. Solar, wind etc. are not portable. They are a feasible replacement for power plants. Apples/Oranges.

Electric cars change that equation, however.

[Wild Cobra]

Petros have an profit motive to quash compe ive energy sources. That's my point

That's laughable. They have supply and demand on their side. They don't have to try to squash them.

All to say that expecting energy companies to relinquish their golden goose isn't going to happen of their goodwill, and waiting for them to transition once the oil starts to run dry isn't good enough.

You forget. These energy companies already know about geothermal, solar, wind, hydrogen etc. They know the impracticality of the science, and know it's not a threat.

Why would they spend time against a non-starter. there's your tin hat my friend. You see things that don't exist.

[Parker2112]

they have an interest in maximizing profit on their infrastructure and resource rights. regardless of whether those interests serve the people of the US or not. which they dont. we dont have any interest in being run over the cliff of $10 a gallon oil or the cliff of natural disasters as we have to invade more and more difficult geography when all the easy oil is gone.

The american public deserves policies that would have alternatives in the batters box. elected officials are trying hard to ensure that they get in on the take. Dems and Repugs.

[boutons_deux]

defensive buying of non-oil energy patents is fully expected,

just like BigPharma defensively buys off generic drug makers to keep their drugs off the market,

and just like GM killed regional light rail in LA (I saw it in the do entary/exposay "Who Killed Roger Rabbit")

Corps will always over the country, environment, people to defend/maintain/increase their profits. It's the very definition of corporate behavior.