luckydevil Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 The problem is that Halliburton has moved so many of its operations offshore that it has removed the federal government the ability to tax it Corporations do not pay taxes, people do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted May 18, 2004 Author Share Posted May 18, 2004 Bravo... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Then please ask Ted Kennedy and the Dems why THEY oppose CapeWinds. I already told you why Teddy opposes it, you just failed to listen, but democrats as a whole do not. Or would you rather say Republicans oppose the farm. . . well Mitt Romney, our governer and a republican opposes the farm. So does that mean all repubs oppose the farm too? Kerry, by the way, is not opposed to the measure. Romney is, so I guess that means using your logic it's not a partisain issue but both sides want it not to happen. Like I said before, read up on it. It's a program supported by most democrats. It's the rich people on the cape's shoreline (republicans I might add) which are opposed to it. Clinton had the WH for 8 years WITH a Dem Congress for part of it. Why didnt he do anything? Because good old Newt Gingrich put the government on hold, you remember that don't you??? Actually, he did do a lot for the enviornment, you just failed to notice because you're too busy listening to propaganda. So sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 chomerics if you're going to bring that government shut down into it, please do the necessary research. Clinton had an agreement with the government unions to allow that shutdown so that he could score his political points. An agreement could have been had, and at least a temporary measure could have been agreed to until a final budget was passed. Also, my life didn't fall apart then, did yours? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin chomerics Simply put--windmills are not an alternative fuel source. period. Nor is putting hydroelectric dams everywhere or fuel cells which actually require greater energy put into them, than what they produce for the car. Funky Hate to break this to you, but you could come up with even longer "lists" of ALLEGED sins for other companies. For example--setting up a Free trade zone in the MIddle East has WHAT to do with Haliburton? I mean seriously, they even went to lawsuits? Do you know almost every company has lawsuits pending and most will lose at least a few. Henry Waxman? Come on. And why no link? Ghost, if we used renewable to generate a fuel cell, how would this not be an alternative fuel source? If we stay with the status quo, we will never develop alternative energy sources, we'll just run out of oil, hit peak oil and collapse (although I don't buy inyo peak oil that much.) Electricity is energy. It is renewable and 450+MWatts of power is a hell of a lot of electricity. It's about 20% of what is currently being produced in all of Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 Ok, I'm sorry chomerics, I was unclear. What I'm saying is that in order to PRODUCE the energy to make a fuel cell for a car, you end having the same problem as with ethanol, which is that it takes a lot of energy to produce. If the energy deficit is great enough, it's not worth it, we might as well use gas. The energy to make ethanol or fuel cells(which are more viable than ethanol, of course) has to come from somewhere. Why not just open nuclear power plants? France gets like 75 percent of its power from nuke reactors. Why not have more here? Also, coal is burning cleaner than ever, it's not a terrible thing to use. But I'd like to address one point: You say if we stay with the status quo we'll never get another source of energy. Well, I agree if we don't research and don't try new things, but you can't just decide to force the situation when it doesn't work. Remember how oil became the fuel source for combustion engines--it was a stroke of luck as much as anything. IF gasoline was not the best choice it wouldn't have established supremacy for autos and planes and other vehicles. I think we'll discover by finding something that makes us go, "A-HA!" Not "let's force people to use inefficient sources of power or types of energy that are not as easily established or located in a central plant." It will come, but it's not going to come unnaturally or by government subsidy. Ethanol is a disaster and has been nothing but a farm state pork barrel waste of time. Let's not repeat that process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin chomerics if you're going to bring that government shut down into it, please do the necessary research. Clinton had an agreement with the government unions to allow that shutdown so that he could score his political points. An agreement could have been had, and at least a temporary measure could have been agreed to until a final budget was passed. Also, my life didn't fall apart then, did yours? And Gingrich had nothing to do with it either? It goes both ways, both sides could have got something done, but Newt played a power move, he was beat by Clinton in the end. The republican bill cut Medicaid & Medicare, Education, the enviornment, the earned income tax credit for poor and promoted tax breaks for oil companies in the Gulf of Mexico and again the drilling in Alaska. It also trimmed veterans retirement benifits and civil service retirement benifits. They knew Clinton would veto the bill, and tried to play a power move on him. In the end, it was Newt who came out of it looking like the fool when Clinton brought their budget proposal to the public. Newt played on the government shutdown in April stating he wouldn't let a budget pass without taking care of the deficit. In the end, it all worked out, but Newt was made out to be the bad guy. He got caught up in power politics and lost. I know about the American Federation of Government Employees union and aslo the article the Washington Times broke. From what I remember, it had no merit. They weren't the ones that pushed a budget to the White House which they knew the president would veto it. No, my life didn't change, but it still started all the partainship going on right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin Ok, I'm sorry chomerics, I was unclear. What I'm saying is that in order to PRODUCE the energy to make a fuel cell for a car, you end having the same problem as with ethanol, which is that it takes a lot of energy to produce. If the energy deficit is great enough, it's not worth it, we might as well use gas. The energy to make ethanol or fuel cells(which are more viable than ethanol, of course) has to come from somewhere. Why not just open nuclear power plants? France gets like 75 percent of its power from nuke reactors. Why not have more here? Also, coal is burning cleaner than ever, it's not a terrible thing to use. But I'd like to address one point: You say if we stay with the status quo we'll never get another source of energy. Well, I agree if we don't research and don't try new things, but you can't just decide to force the situation when it doesn't work. Remember how oil became the fuel source for combustion engines--it was a stroke of luck as much as anything. IF gasoline was not the best choice it wouldn't have established supremacy for autos and planes and other vehicles. I think we'll discover by finding something that makes us go, "A-HA!" Not "let's force people to use inefficient sources of power or types of energy that are not as easily established or located in a central plant." It will come, but it's not going to come unnaturally or by government subsidy. Ethanol is a disaster and has been nothing but a farm state pork barrel waste of time. Let's not repeat that process. Ghost, I understand your point a bit better now. I agree that right now fuel cells defeat the purpose, because the output benifit is less then the input cost. That's not to say things will stay this way, you need to invest in science to reap the benifits. As of right now, we would need a completely new form of energy to have the Eurika moment. Two areas are anti-gravity research and anti-matter or dark matter. We don't have the necessary theories to harness these forms of energy, but hoefully the new satellites will shed some light on the topic. The JWST (James Webb Space Telescope) Hubbles replacement will be launched in 2015. This is supposed to study dark matter. I'm working on another telescope, Constellation X which is also being built to study dark matter, black holes and other exotic physics problems. I think the wind farm is definately a worth while project with the buy back time being under 30 years. We have to start somewhere and this is as good of a place as any. It will produce a ton of electricity and it's a good test bed. If we could just get the damn rich socialites in the Vinyard and Yarmouth to shut the fu*k up (Kennedy is one of them btw) we may be able to accomlish something. I agree on ethanol, I remember the old gasahol pumps in the early 80's. I'm not as convinced with hemp oil though, I don't know enough about the process to form an opinion on it yet. I agree on nuclear power as well. The damn China Syndrome movie along with the Three Mile Island fiasco in the late 70's created a large anti-nuke movement. It's renewable and we can bury the waste. I don't have a problem with it, as long as we don't start dumping the crap in the ocean, or next to water sheds. Bury the crap miles below the surface, keep it in rock and fagetabowdit. There is one thing that has always bothered me about nukes, we are using the power of the sun to esentially make steam, I don't know of anything better, but it has really bothered me for a while. You have the largest energy source known to man and we use it to make steam. :doh: Some links you might find interesting concerning alternitive energies. http://jnaudin.free.fr/ http://www.americanantigravity.com/index.shtml http://universe.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/darkenergy.html http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/dark-energy.html Just to toot my own horn http://constellation.gsfc.nasa.gov/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted May 19, 2004 Share Posted May 19, 2004 There is one thing that has always bothered me about nukes, we are using the power of the sun to esentially make steam, I don't know of anything better, but it has really bothered me for a while. You have the largest energy source known to man and we use it to make steam. :doh I had to keep my food in my mouth when I read that. I'll check those links out when I get the chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.