Screw Al Gore

[Mute]

Why the hell is that SOB doing commercials about a CALIFORNIA proposition (Prop 87)? The idiot doesn't even live here. I hope this blows up in the face of all the Prop 87 supporters. :mad:

[halifax]

Hey, easy now! That's the guy that invented the internet :D

[Patriot]

Um, maybe because he's a extreme evironmentalist and proponent of global-warming?

[Besides, member of that administration have a tendency to mettle - AFAIK most former executives fade out of the political forum and let the new people do their jobs. These guys however, naysay, extole their accomplishments, and criticize the process/current administration to their hearts' content. Not to mention a little incident with documents from the National Archive.]

These guys are delusional - after years of record gas prices, they decide to try and levy an additional tax on gasoline. Real political savvy there.

[Chaingun]

I laughed at that commercial, since 87 is going to loose just like Ghore. Just wondering how much he received.

[mblat]

Um, maybe because he's a extreme evironmentalist and proponent of global-warming?

proponent of global warming?:)

[Patriot]

proponent of global warming?:)

Main Entry: pro·po·nent
: one who argues in favor of something : ADVOCATE

Ok, technically he's a proponent of certain global warming THEORIES.

Al Gore advocates a theory of catastrophic global warming caused by human emissions that will drastically and irreparably alter the earth's climate in a few years.

[mow]

Hey, easy now! That's the guy that invented the internet :D

While he did not invent the internet. The administration that he was part of helped make it what it is today.

No on 87.

[Spaceghost]

When I first saw him on TV, I thought he was going to warn of us about the dangers of man/bear/pig. That would of been worth watching.

[bwiese]

While he did not invent the internet. The administration that he was part of helped make it what it is today.

No, innovation leading to cheap semiconductors in turn leading to ready home PC availiability - along with reasonable prices for bandwidth did.

Algore & Clinton administration did nothing that made any real difference. Actually, tax reform in the 80s led to a more favorable investment environment that likely accelerated semiconductor, etc. development & mfg.

And for all you pro-.Gov folks that think we wouldn't have the interent without Big G: the internet would've existed without any government intervention, including the original military/ARPAnet stuff. It was simply an idea whose time had come. Sure, the internet may look different that what it does now if it emerged from alternate origins, but its broad functionality would still be here. Different standards would exist, etc. but you'd still be able to do what you can today, just perhaps in a different manner.

Remember BBSes and FIDOnet and email on BBSes? That alternate universe coulda become the internet.

[Patriot]

Higher gas prices. Unproductive alternative energy subsidies.

Vote Yes on 87 -

More green in the environment; Less in your wallet.

or

Green: it's the environment, not what's in your wallet

[drclark]

Heck, Bill Clinton is supposedly speaking at UCLA today in support of prop87.

Heard it on the news this morning....sorry no link.

What's with the high power dems getting interested in this prop for?


drc

[Patriot]

My guess is that they want it to pass so they can use CA as a blueprint/example of how to screw over the country in the name of global warming

I should probably calm down, but this whole global warming thing really pisses me off. Not only does it hurt our economy (while not impacting China or India), but I commute to school and the - comparatively - high gas prices really hurt.

[tenpercentfirearms]

Anyone with half of a brain should be able to read right through this prop. They want us to place higher taxes on OIL PRODUCTION in this state. That will only cause us to have to buy more oil from out of the state and even from overseas. This is the stupidest prop ever and the sad thing is there is a slight chance the morons of this state will buy it. God I hope not.

[Richie Rich]

I have a client that owns a company in the california oil industry.. Had a pretty interesting discussion with him about this prop.

A talking point that the tree huggers like to use is that oil produced in Ca is not taxed like the way it is in other oil producing states..

He said this is true, there is no special tax..... They just call it a "production fee". It is something that he has to pay every year, it is equal to the revenue generated by his company for an entire month, on top of the regular taxes, and myriad of enviornmental fees.

He told me that if this passes, his oil and gas holdings will no longer be profitable and that he will shut down or sell them off. Many of the other independents that he knows will do the same, thus killing a lot of that industry in this state, increasing our dependence on foreign oil....

Wonder if I could get Algore to drive me to work every day in his Prius....

[milsurplover]

While he did not invent the internet. The administration that he was part of helped make it what it is today.

No on 87.

I would really like to know why and how you think Clinton's administration helped make the Internet what it is today. They had nothing to do with it.

This is akin to the argument that Clinton's administration somehow gets credit for all the tax revenue generated by the productivity improvements related to the widespread technology adoption of the 90's and all the related tax revenues thrown off by the crazy amounts of dot com wealth, day trading, reduction in capital gains, etc.

I think it's more likely that most administrations INHERIT their lot from the previous administation moreso than they create their own.

[mblat]

I would really like to know why and how you think Clinton's administration helped make the Internet what it is today. They had nothing to do with it.

This is akin to the argument that Clinton's administration somehow gets credit for all the tax revenue generated by the productivity improvements related to the widespread technology adoption of the 90's and all the related tax revenues thrown off by the crazy amounts of dot com wealth, day trading, reduction in capital gains, etc.

I think it's more likely that most administrations INHERIT their lot from the previous administation moreso than they create their own.

+1 on that.
Economy in the country like ours is so huge, it has so much inertia, that it takes years before changes in policy will take an effect.
Look at the housing market – FEDs started to tighten monetary policies when? 2 years ago? And housing market started to cool off (probably with the rest of the economy) may be 4 month ago…..

[mow]

No, innovation leading to cheap semiconductors in turn leading to ready home PC availiability - along with reasonable prices for bandwidth did.

Algore & Clinton administration did nothing that made any real difference. Actually, tax reform in the 80s led to a more favorable investment environment that likely accelerated semiconductor, etc. development & mfg.

And for all you pro-.Gov folks that think we wouldn't have the interent without Big G: the internet would've existed without any government intervention, including the original military/ARPAnet stuff. It was simply an idea whose time had come. Sure, the internet may look different that what it does now if it emerged from alternate origins, but its broad functionality would still be here. Different standards would exist, etc. but you'd still be able to do what you can today, just perhaps in a different manner.

Remember BBSes and FIDOnet and email on BBSes? That alternate universe coulda become the internet.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and you are partially correct.

The clinton admin. allowed commerce on the intraweb to flourish through legislation rather than constricting it. They fostered legislation and policies that allowed people/businesses/programmers to make it what it is today.

Vincent Cerf (often refered to as the father of the internet) had this to say about Al Gore's assertion.

"The Internet would not be where it is in the United States without the strong support given to it and related research areas by the Vice President in his current role and in his earlier role as Senator."

Gore's High Performance Computing Act also helped small companies with grants for computing/intraweb technologies.

The list of people which agree that while he did not necessarily "invent" the internet but that the clinton administration was instrumental in making it what it is today is huge.

It is fact that they had legislation and policies in place that allowed commerce on the intraweb to flourish. To deny that is to deny reality.

Any of you gamble online? Not for long, if you do.

[mow]

I would really like to know why and how you think Clinton's administration helped make the Internet what it is today. They had nothing to do with it.

You obviously were not paying attention to legislation and policies during their administration because this statement is flatly false.

Educate yourself.

[blacklisted]

You're all wrong.

The internets are a series of tubes.

Series of tubes


Ten movies streaming across that, that internet, and what happens to your own personal internet? I just the other day got...an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday, I got it yesterday. Why? [...] They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the Internet. And again, the Internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a big truck.

It's a series of tubes.

And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.

[bwiese]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and you are partially correct.

The clinton admin. allowed commerce on the intraweb to flourish through legislation rather than constricting it. They fostered legislation and policies that allowed people/businesses/programmers to make it what it is today.


Um, that'd've happened if they just left things alone.


Vincent Cerf (often refered to as the father of the internet) had this to say about Al Gore's assertion.

"The Internet would not be where it is in the United States without the strong support given to it and related research areas by the Vice President in his current role and in his earlier role as Senator."

Maybe Vinny's just a Democrat. The best they can claim, really, is they did nothing to stop it.


Gore's High Performance Computing Act also helped small companies with grants for computing/intraweb technologies.

I'd bet most all of that went into a black hole. I don't see much if any of that landed 'in the real world'. The real innovation in the 90s was on the line (transport) side, by some of the companies Cisco bought out. These guys got their money from VCs.



The list of people which agree that while he did not necessarily "invent" the internet but that the clinton administration was instrumental in making it what it is today is huge.

Those people are often just lefty Democrats doing a bit of kiss-arse with a buddy.

I'll say it again: cheap silicon and cheap(er) bandwidth made the internet, along with Tim Berners-Lee's WWW.


It is fact that they had legislation and policies in place that allowed commerce on the intraweb to flourish.

Having laws to 'allow'? Things work fine on their own. They're taking credit for not interfering with something, wow.

The only minor support they might have given was to not specially tax web sales.

[tenpercentfirearms]

That is right. Vote no on giving parents the right to be informed when their child is going to have a major operation. We don't require parental notices for tattoos, we don't require parents to be informed when their kid is going to get their appendix removed, we don't inform parents when their kid wants to play a school sport, we don't inform parents when their kids want to go on a field trip. Why would we inform them when their child is getting an abortion? :rolleyes:

[soopafly]

when I see my neighbors who are principals and teachers driving Lexuses, retiring at 55 or 60 and buying Porches

This part about teachers is way off base. It might be true for PRINCIPALS and SCHOOL BOARD members, but not teachers. If a teacher drives an expensive car, it's DEFINITELY NOT from their salary-it's from their spouses salary. My wife drives a Jeep. And that's only becaue I can help pay for it. I always try to discourage anyone from getting into teaching. Too much work for little compensation. Easily 12 hour days(teach at school, then come home and do lesson planning, correct homework, etc.) Then you have to deal with the parents and their BS. Plus administrative politics and BS.

Do you see Wes driving a Lex, 'Lac or a Porshe?:rolleyes: If he ever does make enough to drive a fancy car, it will be from his OTHER endeavor–not teaching.

[mblat]

Considering your average CA proposition voting 'NO' is probably safe choice - you will be right more time then you'll be wrong.
Last special elections had to be exception from that rule, that is probably why all of them went down in flames.
So basically if you are too lazy to read any of the propositions - vote NO. You'll be correct more than 50%.
However, I read them and that is what I came up with:

1A seems fine
83 and 85 should be YES

90 looks like HUGE YES,YES,YES - need to read "exemption" section again to make sure, but how in a world anybody except real estate developers and goverment officials would vote NO on that one - I don't know. It is our protection against Kilo.

The rest of them looks like NO

[soopafly]

Oh yea, NO on 87

[MikeK]

Considering your average CA proposition voting 'NO' is probably safe choice <snip>
Reading them is a better choice. ;)

[xenophobe]

"The Internet would not be where it is in the United States without the strong support given to it and related research areas by the Vice President in his current role and in his earlier role as Senator."

I'm calling BS on that.

AOL has made more of an impact to the internet than the ex-VP ever did.

The internet was alive and well, and quite popular before the Clinton Administration.

The WWW was just the next natural progression for the internet, and would have happened no matter who was president.

IF anything, you can blame the Clinton Administration for the commercialization of the internet. Before them, it was a tool for hobbyists... afterwards, it became a tool for making money.

Do you remember the days you could surf for hours, not see any advertisments, without popup ads, and commercial sites were few and far between?

[mblat]

Do you remember the days you could surf for hours, not see any advertisments, without popup ads, and commercial sites were few and far between?

Yes, of cause... You HAD to surf for hours to get anything at 9600 bauds...:)

[luvtolean]

So Gore is taking credit because he didn't pass silly laws to screw up the internet?

Sheeze...sounds about right for an elitist.

[xenophobe]

Yes, of cause... You HAD to surf for hours to get anything at 9600 bauds...:)

I remember FTP and TELNETing through my shell account at 2400bps.

Even before that, I remember having to manually dial a BBS by hand, put the handset on the modem and hope the board I was calling was on a clean line at 240bps.


And as for the GORE thing having anything to do with the internet. There is no-pre Gore or Post-Gore eras... There are pre-AOL and post-AOL intenet eras.

[Mute]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and you are partially correct.

The clinton admin. allowed commerce on the intraweb to flourish through legislation rather than constricting it. They fostered legislation and policies that allowed people/businesses/programmers to make it what it is today.

Vincent Cerf (often refered to as the father of the internet) had this to say about Al Gore's assertion.

"The Internet would not be where it is in the United States without the strong support given to it and related research areas by the Vice President in his current role and in his earlier role as Senator."

Gore's High Performance Computing Act also helped small companies with grants for computing/intraweb technologies.

The list of people which agree that while he did not necessarily "invent" the internet but that the clinton administration was instrumental in making it what it is today is huge.

It is fact that they had legislation and policies in place that allowed commerce on the intraweb to flourish. To deny that is to deny reality.

Any of you gamble online? Not for long, if you do.

In other words, the only thing they "did" right was not doing anything at all. I'm sure they were tempted though. The Clinton Administration wsan't intrumental in making the internet what it is today. It was all those who contributed to the World Wide Web by developing new forms of commerce and communication that had mass public appeal.

[jumbopanda]

As usual, I will be voting NO on everything. No more taxes. No more feel-good laws. No more money for schools -- when I see my neighbors who are principals and teachers driving Lexuses, retiring at 55 or 60 and buying Porches I don't think schools need more money. No more penalties for smoking (which I hate) because I see it setting a precedent that will be put on guns next. No more healthcare benefits for the grossly overweight nurses. No extending BART to places where there are people that I don't want coming to my house.

Until there are measures on the ballot that get RID of laws currently on the books, or limit lawmakers to part-time, or reform CCW, my answers will be:

NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO

And everybody in office gets voted out, unless they're pro-gun. And my wife will be voting the same.

hey i like this guy :)

[anotherone]

I highly doubt Prop 87 is going to pass. Gas prices are already higher than anyone wants to pay even after they've gone down a bit. I know I won't be voting to tax gas and create yet another governement bueracracy.

[milsurplover]

You obviously were not paying attention to legislation and policies during their administration because this statement is flatly false.

Educate yourself.

Mow...I asked the "why and how" about your statement and you reply with the above? I've read all your other responses. None of which - to me - come across as anything more than retorts.

Please enlighten us with your broad and deep knowledge (or point us to the specific 'legislation and policies' that supposedly back up your claim.) If you are so sure, then go ahead and give us some specific info. I suspect you cannot.

FYI...I've been in IT for 24+ years and follow politics pretty closely. Please...enlighten me as to what I've supposedly missed about the Clinton administrations's grand contribution to the Internet. I really want to understand what I missed.

[milsurplover]

Top Ten Other Achievements Claimed By Al Gore

10. Was first human to grow an opposable thumb

9. Only man in world to sleep with someone named "Tipper"

8. Current Vice President - Moesha fan club

7. He invented the dog

6. While riding bicycle one day, accidentally invented the orgasm

5. Pulled U.S. out of early 90's recession by personally buying 6,000 T-shirts

4. Starred in CBS situation comedy with Juan Valdez, "Juan for Al, Al for Juan"

3. Was inspiration for Ozzy Osboune song "Crazy Train"

2. Came up with popular catchphrase "Don't go there, girlfriend"

1. Gave mankind fire

[colossians323]

While he did not invent the internet. The administration that he was part of helped make it what it is today.

No on 87.
BLITZER: I want to get to some of the substance of domestic and international issues in a minute, but let's just wrap up a little bit of the politics right now.

Why should Democrats, looking at the Democratic nomination process, support you instead of Bill Bradley, a friend of yours, a former colleague in the Senate? What do you have to bring to this that he doesn't necessarily bring to this process?

GORE: Well, I will be offering -- I'll be offering my vision when my campaign begins. And it will be comprehensive and sweeping. And I hope that it will be compelling enough to draw people toward it. I feel that it will be.

But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.


Al Gore definitely did not create the internet, the only one who probably disagrees with you, is the man himself, Al Gore, explaining how he, and he alone took the initiative to create the internet.

Why would you try to defend another liberal liar?

[Kestryll]

While he did not invent the internet. The administration that he was part of helped make it what it is today.

No on 87.

Actually Mow is right, the Clinton administration had a large hand in making the internet what it is today.

The Clinton administration's obvious and frequent deceptions and prevarications, presented and defended by the mainstream media outlets made the internet become the greatest means of sharing news and ideas.

So yes, he did help to make the internet what it is today.

[Scarecrow Repair]

Why would you try to defend another liberal liar?[/COLOR]

But defending a conservative liar would be ok?

Too many people here toss out the word liberal as if liberal is bad and conservative is good. Almost all of my friends are some of each rather than pure bred, and there is nothing in common among the gun haters and gun lovers other than their position on guns. I know right hand wingnuts who despise guns as evil and want to ban all ammo in civilian hands, and I know left hand wingnuts who can't buy enough guns or spend enough time at the range.

Using "liberal" in this quote is just silly.

[Patriot]

1. Gave mankind fire

Hmm, maybe he should be punished like the mythological figure who allegedly gave mankind fire. Can't have your cake AND eat it too. At least not without some really large birds with a hankering for liver. However, odds are that no one writes an epic entitled, "Gore Bound" - it just doesn't have the same ring (plus no one really gives a hoot).


When in doubt, just say NO*

*The above statement does not apply [IMHO] to Prop 1A, 85, 90. As far as 83, YMMV.

[ldivinag]

Hey, easy now! That's the guy that invented the internet :D


he also have the top grossing POWERPOINT presentation ever... (read: his movie on global warming...)

[xenophobe]

Actually Mow is right, the Clinton administration had a large hand in making the internet what it is today.

The Clinton administration's obvious and frequent deceptions and prevarications, presented and defended by the mainstream media outlets made the internet become the greatest means of sharing news and ideas.

So yes, he did help to make the internet what it is today.

Sorry, that isn't even valid.

The Clinton Administration only made commerce thrive on the internet. Most people who remember the internet before and after the Clinton Administration would tell you that it's vastly different, but mostly in a bad way.

[Kestryll]

Sorry, that isn't even valid.

The Clinton Administration only made commerce thrive on the internet. Most people who remember the internet before and after the Clinton Administration would tell you that it's vastly different, but mostly in a bad way.

It is vastly different, and while it is a small way, the fact that so many people consider the internet to be their main source of news and information is in part due to the intentional (in my opinion) misreporting by the media helping out there champion. The internet is what showed the biases of the network news agencies to the public.

It's not a major event but it was a way, however ancillary, that Al Gore helped 'shape' the internet.

[xenophobe]

It is vastly different, and while it is a small way, the fact that so many people consider the internet to be their main source of news and information is in part due to the intentional (in my opinion) misreporting by the media helping out there champion. The internet is what showed the biases of the network news agencies to the public.

It's not a major event but it was a way, however ancillary, that Al Gore helped 'shape' the internet.

Okay, so you're saying that by the spin put on by the Clinton Administration and the liberal media, the internet grew to support alternative news that the major outlets wouldn't touch, so the internet got bigger. I'll buy that.


In this sense there is a grain of truth in the claim that Al Gore is one of the fathers of the Internet - after all, Internet is the name we use today for the technology (namely interconnecting dissimilar networks) that was developed in the ARPAnet prototype.

Sorry, I don't buy your explanation. By the time the Clinton Administration was elected, there were already several commercial backbones to the internet, (Mae East/West, MCI, AT&T and a couple of others,) and many smaller companies providing hundreds of thousands of UNIX shell accounts... with plenty of FTPers, Telneters, MUDs, Usenet, Gopher,etc... The internet was way past it's original ARPAnet size, and by the time the Clintons took office, the ARPAnet connectivity to "the commercial internet" was already mostly severed.

The "World Wide Web" was invented by a bunch of researchers and scientists to be able to view pictures of naked women online. Absolute internet truth from a friend who worked at NASA while Mosiac was first being tested and distributed as a 'hobby'...

[jerryg1776]

Why the hell is that SOB doing commercials about a CALIFORNIA proposition (Prop 87)? The idiot doesn't even live here. I hope this blows up in the face of all the Prop 87 supporters. :mad:


Maybe he invented prop 87... HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA

[paradox]

...Sorry, I don't buy your explanation. By the time the Clinton Administration was elected, there were already several commercial backbones to the internet, (Mae East/West, MCI, AT&T and a couple of others,) and many smaller companies providing hundreds of thousands of UNIX shell accounts... with plenty of FTPers, Telneters, MUDs, Usenet, Gopher,etc... The internet was way past it's original ARPAnet size, and by the time the Clintons took office, the ARPAnet connectivity to "the commercial internet" was already mostly severed.

Did you even read treelogger's post? Everything Al Gore did for ARPA he did while a congresscritter, long before he ever heard of Clinton.


The "World Wide Web" was invented by a bunch of researchers and scientists to be able to view pictures of naked women online. Absolute internet truth from a friend who worked at NASA while Mosiac was first being tested and distributed as a 'hobby'...

Wrong again. The WWW was created by Tim Berners-Lee across the pond at CERN so the eggheads could easily share papers. It wasn’t meant for anything other than research articles: HTTP and all the kludges that have been tacked on prove that. Geeks at the time were perfectly happy sharing porn via ftp and usenet.

[colossians323]

But defending a conservative liar would be ok?




No, is that what you took from my post.
What conservative liar did I defend in my post?
I simply copied and paste the facts on the post, and you turn this into liberal vs conservative?

Again I ask why would you want to defend a liberal liar?

[mow]

Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn worked at DARPA and co-designed TCP/IP, which as we shoiuld all know is what the internet runs on.

Vint Cerf definitely was more of the inventor of the internet than Al Gore was.

Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn (the real pioneers) agree that without Al Gore the intraweb wouldn't be what it is today.

Here is link which gives a very even-keeled view of Al Gore's contributions to the intraweb (http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue5_10/wiggins/)

To set the record straight it was not lack of action by the members of the Clinton Administration that helped get the internet where it is today.

[steps on soap box]
I am not a democrat, nor am I a republican (nor am I technically incompetent). I just call em like I see em. Socrates was a great guy.

It is sad that very few here are able to give credit where it is due, Al Gore did a lot for the internet. We can choose to open our eyes and see that not everythiing is as black and white as we'd like them to be, or continue walking around blindfolded.
[/steps off soap box]

BTW no on 87.
lmL

[colossians323]

Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn worked at DARPA and co-designed TCP/IP, which as we shoiuld all know is what the internet runs on.

Vint Cerf definitely was more of the inventor of the internet than Al Gore was.

Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn (the real pioneers) agree that without Al Gore the intraweb wouldn't be what it is today.

Here is link which gives a very even-keeled view of Al Gore's contributions to the intraweb (http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue5_10/wiggins/)

To set the record straight it was not lack of action by the members of the Clinton Administration that helped get the internet where it is today.

[steps on soap box]
I am not a democrat, nor am I a republican (nor am I technically incompetent). I just call em like I see em. Socrates was a great guy.

It is sad that very few here are able to give credit where it is due, Al Gore did a lot for the internet. We can choose to open our eyes and see that not everythiing is as black and white as we'd like them to be, or continue walking around blindfolded.
[/steps off soap box]

BTW no on 87.
lmL

This is true, but once again, it is not just about giving credit where credit is due.

From the mans own lips, he states that he CREATED the internet.

[mblat]

People please!

Trust me, anybody who knows me at all won't mistake me for Democrat or Al Gore fan. I resent his “global warming” crusade and can only shrug my shoulders when trying to understand how he managed to loose 2000 elections.
However, in this instance Al Gore probably just misspoke. He really contributed into development of Internet as we know it today. I don’t understand is why when whole “invent the internet” thing started to go around he wouldn’t just come out and say “I misspoke, that is what I meant” and he definitely had something to say about his involvement with internet development. But that goes to the point on how he managed to loose the election that was his.
We ( I mean conservative/libertarians suppose to deal with truth, and not by factoid invented by Jay Leno. Give Al the break – after all he lost at everything he attempted. I truly hope that that streak continues with his pop 87 support.

[Scarecrow Repair]

Again I ask why would you want to defend a liberal liar?

And again I ask why it is important to use the word liberal in front of liar, as if to imply that there is nothing wrong with defending other kinds of liars.

If you had said "green liars" or "short liars" or anything else, it would have been just as silly.

The point of using specific words is to imply specific meaning. Using any adjective in front of "liar" implies only that specific kind of liars. This is rudimentary grammer.

What bugs me is people who classify the world into such pure sides as "liberal" and "conservative". These same people trash Clinton for dodging the draft but not Bush; trash Kerry for possibly spinning his third purple heart, but not Bush for deserting; trash McCain for telling the truth but not Rove for spreading lies; and generally act as if they have such a narrow experience with the world that they have never met anyone who is not pure "liberal" or pure "conservative". I have met so few people of those pure breeds that it seems to me any other kind of experience must imply a very narrow limited experience, and it makes me wonder how much of anything they say is based on any kind of useful experience.

There are all kinds of gun nuts in the world, both pro and anti in general, not to mention AK vs AR vs shotgun vs pistals vs crossbows vs everything else, and of the ones I know, very few of them could be classified as conservative or liberal. Thus the silly adjective in front of liar makes me wonder what kind of narrow world you live in, and makes me wonder how well informed you are on other matters too.

If you don't mean a word, don't use it. If you use it, mean it. Language is pretty good if you pay attention to it. Could say the same for guns, eh? Take care of your guns, they will take care of you. Treat the sloppily, they will backfire on you.

[colossians323]

And again I ask why it is important to use the word liberal in front of liar, as if to imply that there is nothing wrong with defending other kinds of liars.

If you had said "green liars" or "short liars" or anything else, it would have been just as silly.

The point of using specific words is to imply specific meaning. Using any adjective in front of "liar" implies only that specific kind of liars. This is rudimentary grammer.

What bugs me is people who classify the world into such pure sides as "liberal" and "conservative". These same people trash Clinton for dodging the draft but not Bush; trash Kerry for possibly spinning his third purple heart, but not Bush for deserting; trash McCain for telling the truth but not Rove for spreading lies; and generally act as if they have such a narrow experience with the world that they have never met anyone who is not pure "liberal" or pure "conservative". I have met so few people of those pure breeds that it seems to me any other kind of experience must imply a very narrow limited experience, and it makes me wonder how much of anything they say is based on any kind of useful experience.

There are all kinds of gun nuts in the world, both pro and anti in general, not to mention AK vs AR vs shotgun vs pistals vs crossbows vs everything else, and of the ones I know, very few of them could be classified as conservative or liberal. Thus the silly adjective in front of liar makes me wonder what kind of narrow world you live in, and makes me wonder how well informed you are on other matters too.

If you don't mean a word, don't use it. If you use it, mean it. Language is pretty good if you pay attention to it. Could say the same for guns, eh? Take care of your guns, they will take care of you. Treat the sloppily, they will backfire on you.


YAAAAAAAAAAAWN!
Nice diatribe to avoid a simple answer.
Words have meaning, and I meant what I said.
Is Al Gore liberal?
Here, since you don't know how to answer, let me do it for you.
Yes, Al Gore is liberal.
Next question, Is he a liar?
Yes, he lied about being the creator of the universe, I mean the internet.
Hence the easily asked and accurate question of why would you come to the defence of a LIBERAL LIAR?

Its a shame that you would associate all liberals with this.
Are you having some sort of guilt complex?
Do you think that this question is directed at you?
How silly and petty your arguments are, when all I did is post the evidence that is irrefutable, and you go on about all liberals aren't liars.
Please quit sidestepping the issue, and reading things into my cogent and coherent posts.

[mow]

This is true, but once again, it is not just about giving credit where credit is due.

From the mans own lips, he states that he CREATED the internet.

OK, he did say something to that effect.

Did I deny it?

Do you deny that he did a lot to create the current conditions of what is now the internet?

Actually Mow is right, the Clinton administration had a large hand in making the internet what it is today.

The Clinton administration's obvious and frequent deceptions and prevarications, presented and defended by the mainstream media outlets made the internet become the greatest means of sharing news and ideas.

So yes, he did help to make the internet what it is today.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

What an ignorant statement!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You really got me rolling with that one.

Please keep them coming! PLEASE!

Oh ya almost forgot....

NO ON 87!

[Scarecrow Repair]

How silly and petty your arguments are, when all I did is post the evidence that is irrefutable, and you go on about all liberals aren't liars.
Please quit sidestepping the issue, and reading things into my cogent and coherent posts.

The enemy of gunners is anti gunners, whether liberal or conservative. By only targeting liberals, you offend those liberals who would otherwise be inclined to support gun rights. By letting lying conservatives off the hook, you gather liars and crooks as your allies, again offending those liberals who would otherwise support you.

When you can limit your diatribe to all liars, you will make a much better pro gun advocate. As it is, you are like all those conservatives who support Bush even tho he has destroyed just about everything conservatives used to stand for, like fiscal responsibility, small government, states rights, and family values, and opened the door for a Democrat takeover of Congress this year, and probably a Democrat president in two years. Was that worth it? The Republican party is fast becoming as discredited as the Democratic party of Hube the Cube and Dukakis.

All because true conservatives didn't have the guts to stand up and call that fake conservative a fraud.

We finally got rid of Democrats who think tax and spend is good policy, and the unions no longer have as much power over them as they used to. Now it is the Republicans' turn to learn that honestly calling out your own liars and frauds is the only way to go in the long term.

When you are as offended by ALL liars as you are by liberal liars, you will be part of the solution. Until then, you are just another self deluded fool who refuses to admit the emperor has no clothes because he is your emperor. You do the pro gun cause no good.

[colossians323]

When you are as offended by ALL liars as you are by liberal liars, you will be part of the solution. Until then, you are just another self deluded fool who refuses to admit the emperor has no clothes because he is your emperor. You do the pro gun cause no good.

Where do you get this dribble from?
Please tell me how you come to such a conclusion?
What conservative liar doesn't offend me?
You waste alot of bandwith to say nothing.
Please limit your arguments to the facts, and not how you feeeeeeel about something.
Your emotional instability does not make for good rhetoric.
Back on topic please.
We are talking about Al Gore here.

Fact 1: Al Gore is liberal
Fact 2: Al Gore is a liar. (by his own mouth, recorded for history)
Fact 3: Some one was defending his lying.
Fact 4: This is a post about Al Gore, and his creation of the internet.

If you would like to bring up the topic of conservative liars, please have the decency to start your own post, or pm me if you feel the need to hear more facts. Otherwise don't let your pre-conceived notions get in the way of the obvious factual evidence.:rolleyes:

[artherd]

And for all you pro-.Gov folks that think we wouldn't have the interent without Big G: the internet would've existed without any government intervention, including the original military/ARPAnet stuff. It was simply an idea whose time had come.
Yep, we saw it maybe 3 years sooner thanks to a big gov project. Dont' get me wrong gov spending has it's place, I still feel we could deal with 1/5th of it comfortably, and focus harder on outsourcing to private industry (look what Burt Rettan and Rich Branson put into space with $30mil. NASA can't run one BUILDING on $30mil!)

[dwtt]

Like the original poster said,
Screw Al Gore!

[luvtolean]

Dont' get me wrong gov spending has it's place, I still feel we could deal with 1/5th of it comfortably, and focus harder on outsourcing to private industry (look what Burt Rettan and Rich Branson put into space with $30mil. NASA can't run one BUILDING on $30mil!)

Terrible example.

Those guys went to space on $30mil because almost everything NASA does is public property under the freedom of information act.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/FOIA/

Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge admirer of Rutan, but NASA has been a boon to private industry.

[mblat]

Terrible example.

Those guys went to space on $30mil because almost everything NASA does is public property under the freedom of information act.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/FOIA/

Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge admirer of Rutan, but NASA has been a boon to private industry.

no to mention they have used hell out of existing infrastructure built by NASA, DoD etc....
For example they launched this craft from Edwards AFB and (if I am not mistaken) had the flight monitored by one of the NORAD radars.
That along probably cost $30 mil....

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

I'm pretty sure that I am going to vote yes on 87.

I was not too happy with gas prices last year, at all. $3.30 for 87 unleaded while Exxon made record profits every quarter. What was it in total, 300 or 400 billion?

The discrepancy of what the oil was going to the refineries at was around 40 cents last year. Right now it's at 8 cents and that is why gas low. These companies are not going to get hurt by an adjustable 1.5-4% tax that fluctuates depending on the price of oil per barrel. $4 billion dollars is going to be pretty easy to get, and I think the tax would disappear after that mark is reached. The government should be looking into alternative energy anyways. If the feds won't do it, the state needs to.

Gas prices are not going to up either if 87 passes because oil is a world market. Refineries won't have to pay for jacked up prices if the big california companies decide to pull a stunt after the election. Remember that this tax only effects oil produced in California. I don't see it hurting workers either because of how much money is made in the entire business.

[Can'thavenuthingood]

All costs of doing business is passed on to the consumer.
There is no way around it.

The consumer, the individual taxpayer not the company will pay more.

The government revenues increase and the blame for higher costs goes to the companies.

Vick

[colossians323]

I'm pretty sure that I am going to vote yes on 87.

I was not too happy with gas prices last year, at all. $3.30 for 87 unleaded while Exxon made record profits every quarter. What was it in total, 300 or 400 billion?

Refineries won't have to pay for jacked up prices if the big california companies decide to pull a stunt after the election. Remember that this tax only effects oil produced in California.

Why is California, next to Hawaii in the highest price for gas in the US?

California has a special boutique gas which is specially formulated for Ca.

I own a business, and when the gas went up, I just passed it on to my customers.
I am sure that if people are insane enough to vote in more new taxes, the "big oil" corporations, will have no problem passing it on to the consumer.

Think man, use your head.

I think the profits that you are quoting are grossly exagerrated!
The most I've been able to find is 36 billion, where did you fine the 300-400 billion number?

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

Why is California, next to Hawaii in the highest price for gas in the US?

California has a special boutique gas which is specially formulated for Ca.

I own a business, and when the gas went up, I just passed it on to my customers.
I am sure that if people are insane enough to vote in more new taxes, the "big oil" corporations, will have no problem passing it on to the consumer.

Think man, use your head.

Exxon made $1,318 a second last year. Does that seem 'OK' to you?

Refineries won't have to buy their increased oil prices on a world market if 'big oil' chooses to hike up prices. And remember, the tax is on California's own domestic production, not oil from out of state.

I am willing to bet that even if 87 doesn't pass, gas is going to go up.

[luvtolean]

Let's see if I understand the logic:

Price of gas is high, so you vote to put more taxes on it. :confused:

Forcing "punitive" damages on the oil company, ESPECIALLY at the state level, is only going to see us suffer.

It's the same as the power dereg.

[mblat]

Exxon made $1,318 a second last year. Does that seem 'OK' to you?

Refineries won't have to buy their increased oil prices on a world market if 'big oil' chooses to hike up prices. And remember, the tax is on California's own domestic production, not oil from out of state.

I am willing to bet that even if 87 doesn't pass, gas is going to go up.

I am sorry Dr. I am not sure how much you made last year, but does it seem OK to you when a lot people straggle to pay cable TV bill on minimum wage?:rolleyes:
This proposition will definetly increase cost of gas. Period. BTW that doesn't say nothing about need to pass it.
For example sit belts law is the good law, even if it does increase cost of every car sold on the market.....

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

This proposition will definetly increase cost of gas. Period. BTW that doesn't say nothing about need to pass it.
For example sit belts law is the good law, even if it does increase cost of every car sold on the market.....

The only way gas would increase in price is if the world's oil market price went up considerably. I doubt this will happen because the tax is only for domestic oil produced in California. On top of that, oil is getting taxed, not gas refineries. That means if domestic "big oil" like Exxon tries to get smart and force voters to see their "I told you so line", refineries could buy oils per barrel cheaper elsewhere. If they would want to stay competitive, they couldn't sell oil at a higher price. Perhaps they would have to bite their toungues and only make $5 billion a quarter. Proposition 87 will not affect our top three oil suppliers either. Two of those being south of the border, the other Canada.

[luvtolean]

What it means is they cut production in California.

Exactly why do you think 87 will help anything?

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

What it means is they cut production in California.

Exactly why do you think 87 will help anything?

Then we can import more for less. The tax is adjustable anyways, so if the companies hit "hard times" only making a few billion a quarter, the tax will go down to as low as 1.5%. It is not a fixed rate.

As to why:

We are too oil dependent and researching alternative fuels will certainly help in the long run. It'd be great for a private company to research it (outside of the oil companies, go figure), but where is the funding going to come from? You can't research hydrogen/ethanol/hybrids with no funding, considering how many millions of dollars are going to be needed. That's a bit too much for charitable donations. Do you honestly feel that the oil companies are doing everything they can to research the very thing that would destroy their business? Absolutely not.

[luvtolean]

Alternate power is pretty well funded. The government is pouring billions in, Arnold is trying to put together the hydrogen highway, E85 is being adopted, there is plenty happening without this BS bill.

This ballot measure is silly.

You speak of oil production like it is limitless. Increasing the cost of oil in Cali, means reducing the capacity of cheap oil in the world. It means more pollution importing it in from somewhere else. It means more danger of oil spills.

This bill is decidedly anti-environment, doesn't have good provisions for how to spend the money, and is typical whiny nonsense; "WE MUST MAKE EVIL OIL PAY!"

[6172crew]

Im wondering how many new jobs this prop would make and what will happen to those jobs when the money is made and the prop goes away.

Do those that worked on the project have to find work or are we going to continue to pay them for the next 30 years?

On a side note, the Feds had a program like this and it worked well but I dont know if its still applies to the aviation feild but a percentage of the $$$ made by Boeing and other companies from contracts had to be put back into R&D which worked pretty well seeing how we went supersonic in under 100 years.

[mblat]

The only way gas would increase in price is if the world's oil market price went up considerably. I doubt this will happen because the tax is only for domestic oil produced in California. On top of that, oil is getting taxed, not gas refineries. That means if domestic "big oil" like Exxon tries to get smart and force voters to see their "I told you so line", refineries could buy oils per barrel cheaper elsewhere. If they would want to stay competitive, they couldn't sell oil at a higher price. Perhaps they would have to bite their toungues and only make $5 billion a quarter. Proposition 87 will not affect our top three oil suppliers either. Two of those being south of the border, the other Canada.
Argument is ridiculous.
Oil supply in the world is finite. It is huge, but it is limited. Reducing it even by small amount (and that what 87 will do - it will reduce amount of oil produced in CA) will put a pressure (however small) on gas prices world wide. Because if taxes don’t increase prices of the things, I have perfect solution for national debt problem – let’s tax hell out beef producing farmers. And don’t forget to forbid restaurants to increase prices on steaks. After all major sources for meet in this country are from abroad. So us, taxing our beef, shouldn’t affect them at all. Let see how that will work out.

Besides. Will anyone please explain to me, why we need alternative energy? None of this solar/wind etc stuff will move my car from home to work. All this alternative energy biasness deals only with heating/cooling/lighting. Why we should tax one energy area to solve problems in other? And if you want cheap and clean source of electricity – you already have it. It is called nuclear energy. Liberals like to point us toward Europe for example. Well, France has over 60% of it’ energy produced by nuclear stations. That is the sample I wouldn’t mind to follow.

Let me tell you where it is all going. There are technologies that allow us to go away from internal combustion engine. Problem is they are too expensive. But instead trying to make them cheaper and therefore readily acceptable certain environmental group trying to address it from other end – they are trying to make gas more expensive. Let’s see 87 for what it is. It is nothing more than an attempt to covertly raise gas prices.

EDIT: I see you dropped all that fairness argument. What - are you making so much, so it isn't fair to MacDonald’s employees?
EDIT2: BTW , when I am saying that oil supply is limited I am referring to oil supply currently used. Total oil supply (that includes both known and potential reserves) is so big it literraly has no end.

[bwiese]

Dr., you must have your "Dr." in something other than reality.

You are mad at the oil companies for making money, fine.

But it cuts all ways: if you're an MD kinda "Dr.", many people may think you're overpaid. People have a right to sell what they want at the price they want.

If you don't like it, don't buy it. Walk to work, move where you work, etc.

Prop 87 creates regulatory & economic boundaries that further separate the CA fuel marketplace from the rest of the US'.

CA already has some of the highest fuel prices due to its different 'boutique' forumation, as well as various enviro restrictions on CA refineries. Added to that are our commuter lifestyle (which can't change for 80% of the population).

Anytime you create special economic 'punishments' these costs will be moved back into the marketplace. Just the additional special overhead for "dealing with California BS" will add costs even if there were no tax, and this new law were just a reporting matter.

Just because the law says something can't be done, doesn't mean it won't be done in numerous other fashions. It's the law of Unintended Consequences. 'Outsourcing', for example, is a response to the high taxes & regulatory costs (and heavy unionization in certain sectors) of doing biz in the US. Reducing .GOV overhead will bring back jobs.

Also, I have little hope this tax would end up producing anything of use.

WE ALREADY KNOW WHAT MAKES ENERGY. THERE IS NO 'ALTERNATIVE' ENERGY.

Ethanol? A laugh - a sop to the farm lobby. The energy supplied to the process (fertilizer, etc.) is a big portion of what is extracted. And the 'energy volume' from ethanol is less than that of petroleum-based fuels. Furthermore, it's a 2D attempt (thin surface of earth) trying to compete with a three-dimensional supply (petro).

Wind & solar? Sure, it can add a bit into our power system. Not huge amounts, nor will there be 'payback' for costs of such massive ventures.

Hybrid vehicles? Quite a bit more energy is used to manufacture a car than it consumes for the first several years of its driving history, so reducing energy consumed during driving is attacking the problem at the wrong point.

We've got 1000 years of extractable oil left, if that low. Coal conversion provides another massive amount of carbon fuels. From the non-vehicle side, we've got to get nuclear going too, no reason to burn oil, etc. when clean, safe near-free power exists.

[mblat]

Dr., you must have your "Dr." in something other than reality.

You are mad at the oil companies for making money, fine.

But it cuts all ways: if you're an MD kinda "Dr.", many people may think you're overpaid. People have a right to sell what they want at the price they want.

If you don't like it, don't buy it. Walk to work, move where you work, etc.

Prop 87 creates regulatory & economic boundaries that further separate the CA fuel marketplace from the rest of the US'.

CA already has some of the highest fuel prices due to its different 'boutique' forumation, as well as various enviro restrictions on CA refineries. Added to that are our commuter lifestyle (which can't change for 80% of the population).

Anytime you create special economic 'punishments' these costs will be moved back into the marketplace. Just the additional special overhead for "dealing with California BS" will add costs even if there were no tax, and this new law were just a reporting matter.

Just because the law says something can't be done, doesn't mean it won't be done in numerous other fashions. It's the law of Unintended Consequences. 'Outsourcing', for example, is a response to the high taxes & regulatory costs (and heavy unionization in certain sectors) of doing biz in the US. Reducing .GOV overhead will bring back jobs.

Re: outsourcing.
If I am not mistaken current unemployment rate is at 4.6%. And that is AFTER millions of jobs were outsourced. That truly makes me wonder if we (USA) could actually sustain it’ economic grows without outsourcing….

[luvtolean]

mblat, the answer to that is a resounding NO!

For everyone giving Dr. Venkman credit for being a doc...you must not be much of a Bill Murray or Ghostbusters fan.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087332/

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

Argument is ridiculous.
Oil supply in the world is finite. It is huge, but it is limited. Reducing it even by small amount (and that what 87 will do - it will reduce amount of oil produced in CA) will put a pressure (however small) on gas prices world wide. Because if taxes don’t increase prices of the things, I have perfect solution for national debt problem – let’s tax hell out beef producing farmers. And don’t forget to forbid restaurants to increase prices on steaks. After all major sources for meet in this country are from abroad. So us, taxing our beef, shouldn’t affect them at all. Let see how that will work out.


For one to call my argument ridiculous, you are making a huge strawman fallacy here. Why would big oil reduce reduction on their money maker? Oil is going take a chip off of their billion dollars every quarter for a limited time until the four billion mark is reached. It has nothing to do with production. Again, if they want to try and choke the supply, oil is cheaper elsewhere. I don't know about you, but I think Exxon can handle only making $6 billion a quarter. And even you stated that oil is nearly infinite. Infinite oil, so why would limited production in California matter when there are other cheaper oil exporters?

Will anyone please explain to me, why we need alternative energy? None of this solar/wind etc stuff will move my car from home to work. All this alternative energy biasness deals only with heating/cooling/lighting. Why we should tax one energy area to solve problems in other? And if you want cheap and clean source of electricity – you already have it. It is called nuclear energy. Liberals like to point us toward Europe for example. Well, France has over 60% of it’ energy produced by nuclear stations. That is the sample I wouldn’t mind to follow.

Why do we need alternative energy? Is it not obvious? There is only so much oil, and there is only so much oil that can be pumped in a given day. It is better to take care of a pending problem now then deal with the huge mess it will leave later. A leaky pipe left untouched over a period of time will only get worse.

Nuclear energy would be a plus, but I don't think any of our cars are going to have flux capacitors anytime soon.

Let me tell you where it is all going. There are technologies that allow us to go away from internal combustion engine. Problem is they are too expensive. But instead trying to make them cheaper and therefore readily acceptable certain environmental group trying to address it from other end – they are trying to make gas more expensive. Let’s see 87 for what it is. It is nothing more than an attempt to covertly raise gas prices.

The technologies are too expensive at the moment because research needs to be done to make things effecient and cost effective. It doesn't matter how high gas prices are going to be as a result of 87 passing or not, despite what you think is an attempt to raise gas prices for nothing for a short period of time. No matter what the greenies try to do, people will still buy gasoline because it is a need, not a want and is the cheapest (laff) thing available.

EDIT: I see you dropped all that fairness argument. What - are you making so much, so it isn't fair to MacDonald’s employees?

Your fairness argument has no pertinence to the discussion. Gas prices will continue to go up because people need it. Limited supply, high demand. It is not a matter of "getting even" or "sticking it to big oil", it's a matter of getting tomorrow's technology today so we don't have to deal with a huge crisis somewhere down the line. Saying "hola" and flipping burgers at Mickey Ds has nothing to do with this discussion.

EDIT2: BTW , when I am saying that oil supply is limited I am referring to oil supply currently used. Total oil supply (that includes both known and potential reserves) is so big it literraly has no end.

If oil has no end, this just further proves that the companies are ********ing us. Why charge so much for a product that you know will always be there? And even if that was the case, production is not going to meet demand in a minimum of two to three decades. India and China are going to get huge and they are going to want oil. There wouldn't be a need for worry if alternative fuels would have been researched, made efficient, and put to use by that time.

[bwiese]

We are also forgetting that CA - and indeed US - has a de facto cap on building new refineries.

Refining capacity plays a big part in US oil prices.

Fairly recently, the Saudis even offered to build us new refineries for free so as to remove a contentious element from policy debates. They don't wanna get blamed for our environmentalist whackos.

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

Yes, that is also a huge piece of the puzzle. Even the refineries we have are falling apart.

[mblat]

Argument is ridiculous.
Oil supply in the world is finite. It is huge, but it is limited. Reducing it even by small amount (and that what 87 will do - it will reduce amount of oil produced in CA) will put a pressure (however small) on gas prices world wide. Because if taxes don’t increase prices of the things, I have perfect solution for national debt problem – let’s tax hell out beef producing farmers. And don’t forget to forbid restaurants to increase prices on steaks. After all major sources for meet in this country are from abroad. So us, taxing our beef, shouldn’t affect them at all. Let see how that will work out.

For one to call my argument ridiculous, you are making a huge strawman fallacy here. Why would big oil reduce reduction on their money maker? Oil is going take a chip off of their billion dollars every quarter for a limited time until the four billion mark is reached. It has nothing to do with production. Again, if they want to try and choke the supply, oil is cheaper elsewhere. I don't know about you, but I think Exxon can handle only making $6 billion a quarter. And even you stated that oil is nearly infinite. Infinite oil, so why would limited production in California matter when there are other cheaper oil exporters?

Yes, of cause and taxing farmers won’t increase price of Minion I am going to have for dinner tonight. You read my post, right? Reserves of oil are infinite, production aren’t. Restrictions on California production will affect us in many ways, including (but not limited) to changes that needed to be made to delivery infrastructure. (More oil from abroad means we have to increase capacity of oil terminals – that costs money)

Quote:
Will anyone please explain to me, why we need alternative energy? None of this solar/wind etc stuff will move my car from home to work. All this alternative energy biasness deals only with heating/cooling/lighting. Why we should tax one energy area to solve problems in other? And if you want cheap and clean source of electricity – you already have it. It is called nuclear energy. Liberals like to point us toward Europe for example. Well, France has over 60% of it’ energy produced by nuclear stations. That is the sample I wouldn’t mind to follow.

Why do we need alternative energy? Is it not obvious? There is only so much oil, and there is only so much oil that can be pumped in a given day. It is better to take care of a pending problem now then deal with the huge mess it will leave later. A leaky pipe left untouched over a period of time will only get worse.

Nuclear energy would be a plus, but I don't think any of our cars are going to have flux capacitors anytime soon.


No need for alternative energy is far from clear. Oil reserves are infinite. At least from our today prospective. I like to remind people that the first “oil is running out” campaign is dated 1902.


Quote:
Let me tell you where it is all going. There are technologies that allow us to go away from internal combustion engine. Problem is they are too expensive. But instead trying to make them cheaper and therefore readily acceptable certain environmental group trying to address it from other end – they are trying to make gas more expensive. Let’s see 87 for what it is. It is nothing more than an attempt to covertly raise gas prices.

The technologies are too expensive at the moment because research needs to be done to make things effecient and cost effective. It doesn't matter how high gas prices are going to be as a result of 87 passing or not, despite what you think is an attempt to raise gas prices for nothing for a short period of time. No matter what the greenies try to do, people will still buy gasoline because it is a need, not a want and is the cheapest (laff) thing available.

Totally correct. So you want to tax something that people need without having viable substitute? You lost me here. Let’s tax milk.


Quote:
EDIT: I see you dropped all that fairness argument. What - are you making so much, so it isn't fair to MacDonald’s employees?

Your fairness argument has no pertinence to the discussion. Gas prices will continue to go up because people need it. Limited supply, high demand. It is not a matter of "getting even" or "sticking it to big oil", it's a matter of getting tomorrow's technology today so we don't have to deal with a huge crisis somewhere down the line. Saying "hola" and flipping burgers at Mickey Ds has nothing to do with this discussion.



Correct again. But it was you, who brought it up. I just hit it back at you.


Quote:
EDIT2: BTW , when I am saying that oil supply is limited I am referring to oil supply currently used. Total oil supply (that includes both known and potential reserves) is so big it literraly has no end.

If oil has no end, this just further proves that the companies are ********ing us. Why charge so much for a product that you know will always be there? And even if that was the case, production is not going to meet demand in a minimum of two to three decades. India and China are going to get huge and they are going to want oil. There wouldn't be a need for worry if alternative fuels would have been researched, made efficient, and put to use by that time.

Nobody knows what happened to Chine in 20 years. After all who knew in 1986 what would happen to Soviet Union? Besides, it is well known, but little publicized, fact that amount of energy on every dollar produced in Western countries ( US included) is decreases and decreases fairly rapidly. Meaning – we need less fuel (comparatively) today, than we needed 20 years ago. If this process continues ( and it is most likely will) argument of us running out of oil becoming mute. Again – oil is the irreplaceable ( today) source of energy for vehicles, but not everything else. Second we get over our fears of nuclear power majority of our energy problems will be solved.

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

We will just have to wait and see what the results are going to be.

I think we are going to get a lovely hike in prices for now apparent reason 1st quarter, 2007. If not, great. I can drive my '91 Bronco around more.

[luvtolean]

We will just have to wait and see what the results are going to be.

I think we are going to get a lovely hike in prices for now apparent reason 1st quarter, 2007. If not, great. I can drive my '91 Bronco around more.

Right, the conspiracy theory prices are down for the elections. Hey, maybe they are.

But the run up to the Presidential elections is long, and candidates would love to stump on "beating down big oil".

I don't think we're going to see prices spike up absent some big geo-political event.

You still haven't explained the merits of this bill. You try with the nonsensical argument it's to fund alternate energy, but what you really want is to punish oil companies.

Well, look inward man, you drive fuel inefficient vehicles and use plenty of energy everyday.

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

I want to see alternative fueling, not necessarily punish oil companies. It just so happens that they have not been very what I would call 'ethical' in their dealings. Posting super high profits while we all got to chomp the bit while we were paying $3.50 a gallon. I shouldn't complain, however. My dad was paying $3.99 9/10 for Diesel.

We need alternative fueling and we need a way to prevent a looming problem. I think $4 billion for researching it would only be beneficial. Small tax that would go away after the mark is reached. We are not about to get new refineries either. The greenies won't allow for it. 87 or not, oil is not going to be kind to us in about 20 years.

[luvtolean]

There is no way, in utter hell, they will be able to extort $4billion out of the oil industry. It simply will not happen. CA legislators are not smart enough about money to make it happen. Think about it.

This is politicians, taking on capitalists. They will not win. This is like the Dodgers taking on the Radiers in a game of tackle football. And the Raiders' salaries are on the line. There is no way the Dodgers are going to win.

They got taken to the cleaners on the power dereg last time they took on energy companies.

Why in the hell do you think they've suddenly got smart enough to do it now?

Alternate energy has been picking up steam. It will continue to do so as the economics justify it. If you believe in capitalism, you inherently believe the market will take care of itself, and alternate energy will be here when it is most efficient that it be.

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

The problem is not capitalism, it's the lack of voter initiative (environmentalists) that are going to result in a huge mess down the road, along with the emerging superpowers. We played a large part in bringing down the Soviet Union by screwing with their trading. We are addicted to chinese ******** because they keep their currency artificially low, not the other way around. Our jobs are being outsourced overseas to both China and India as we speak. When those guys really start booming, they are going to need the energy we can't refine. It is going to be a very hard adjustment when non-capitalistic factors come into play.

[luvtolean]

The problem is not capitalism, it's the lack of voter initiative (environmentalists) that are going to result in a huge mess down the road, along with the emerging superpowers. We played a large part in bringing down the Soviet Union by screwing with their trading. We are addicted to chinese ******** because they keep their currency artificially low, not the other way around. Our jobs are being outsourced overseas to both China and India as we speak. When those guys really start booming, they are going to need the energy we can't refine. It is going to be a very hard adjustment when non-capitalistic factors come into play.


What, does any of that have to do with the topic at hand.

The technologies of "alternate" power sources are simply not ready for the big time.

A Prius, despite what so called "environmentalists" tell you, is one of the least environmentally friendly cars to hit the road in decades. It's battery pack is full of nasty materials. The cost of the car is massively subsidized. If you consider the total cost, it is better for the environment if you keep your old Bronco rather than sell it and buy a Prius.

E85 is quite interesting as we make it, but we don't make near enough of it.

I am most certainly an environmentalist, but I am also a person of science, and I demand good information, and lack of emotion in matters like this. I know the difference between a BS law that is based on emotion, and well thought out programs that benefit all parties.

Good lasting legislation takes the needs of all parties into account, and provides for them.

Read Collapse by Jared Diamond. I think you'll learn a lot...

[colossians323]

How did we go from Al Gore to oil?
Oh well since we are here.
The new theory is that we have unlimited supply of oil, is called the Abiotic theory.



Oil unlimited?


By Bruce Bartlett

Predictably, the recent rise in oil prices has the usual doom-and-gloom crowd, which has consistently been wrong for 30 years, saying once again that this proves we are running out of oil and that severe curbs on gasoline consumption must be imposed to preserve what little is left for future generations. They need not worry. There is growing evidence that oil is far more plentiful than we have been led to believe.
The prevailing theory of the origin of oil is the dead dinosaur hypothesis and dates back to the 18th century. Its originator was a Russian scientist named Mikhail Lomonosov, who put it this way in a 1757 paper: "Rock oil (petroleum) originates as tiny bodies of animals buried in the sediments which, under the influence of increased temperature and pressure acting during an unimaginably long period of time, transforms into rock oil."

However, in the 1950s, Russian and Ukrainian scientists developed a new theory about petroleum's origins called the abiotic or abiogenic theory. According to this view, oil is fundamentally inorganic and has no relationship to dead plant or animal life. Rather, oil originates deep in the Earth's crust from inorganic material that is part of the planet's origin.
In the words of geologist Vladimir Porfir'yev, "The overwhelming preponderance of geological evidence compels the conclusion that crude oil and natural gas have no intrinsic connection with biological matter originating near the surface of the Earth. They are primordial materials which have erupted from great depths."
For more than 50 years, Russian and Ukrainian scientists have successfully used the abiotic theory to find oil and natural gas. For example, the Dnieper-Donets Basin has yielded a significant amount of oil and natural gas even though it is an area that conventional biological theories reject as unpromising. A recent technical paper found that the results "confirm the scientific conclusions that the oil and natural gas found in ... the Dnieper-Donets Basin are of deep, and abiotic, origin."
As Russia has opened up since the fall of the Soviet Union and because it has become a large and growing factor in the international oil market, American scientists are becoming increasingly knowledgeable about and interested in the abiotic theory of petroleum. Recently, the National Academy of Sciences published a paper on the topic. The Gas Research Institute has financed exploration based on abiotic theories, with encouraging results. And the American Association of Petroleum Geologists has taken an interest in the subject as well.
The leading supporter of the abiotic theory in the United States is Thomas Gold of Cornell University. His 1999 book, "The Deep Hot Biosphere" (Springer-Verlag) is a thorough discussion of the issues. It is based in part on research financed by the U.S. Geological Survey. Among leading scientists whose work supports the abiotic theory are Jean Whelan of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Mahlon Kennicutt of Texas A&M University and J.F. Kenny of the Gas Resources Corporation.
Interestingly, economic research also implicitly supports abiotic theory. A leading researcher in this regard is Michael C. Lynch, president of Strategic Energy and Economic Research and formerly chief energy economist for DRI-WEFA.
In a new paper, Mr. Lynch debunks a common theory called the Hubbert Curve, which postulates that the yield of oil fields is inherently limited. The problem, as Mr. Lynch points out, is that actual experience in many instances contradicts the Hubbert theory. Its primary flaw is that it views geology as the sole factor in oil discovery, recovery and depletion. In fact, oil prices, government policy and technology play critical roles. But the evidence he presents of oil fields that yielded far more than the Hubbert Curve predicts is consistent with the abiotic theory, which says that oil fields can be refilled from sources well below those in which production now takes place.
Finally, it is important to remember that improving technology improves the oil situation regardless of the theory of its origins. A study last year by Cambridge Energy Research Associates found that five emerging technologies — remote sensing, visualization, intelligent drilling and completions, automation and data integration — will greatly improve the ability of energy companies to increase their drilling success rate, better manage reserves and operate more efficiently.
William Severns, the study's leader, explained, "With these capabilities, companies may be able to increase the amount of oil and natural gas recovered in a given field by 2 percent to 7 percent, reduce lifting costs by 10 percent to 25 percent, and increase production rates by 2 percent to 4 percent."
Of course, higher prices also make known deposits of oil that were previously too costly to exploit viable economically, as well as reducing demand. Consequently, it is impossible to ever literally run out of oil. The possibility should not be a factor in the energy debate.
You can find that story here (http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20040608-092733-4642r.htm)

Or more, here (http://ranprieur.com/crash/abiotic.html), here (http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives/peak_oil/index.htm), or here. (http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Theory/SustainableOil/)

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

I have never heard of oil being infinite. I can't have an argument if the main foundation of it might be faulty.

Either way, there are two things. Prepare (unecessarily) for oil to be gone, still a possible because these are theories, or wait until it runs out. I don't like the second scenario. I don't take comfort in nice possibilities. Aren't we supposed to prepare for the worst case scenario?

[Can'thavenuthingood]

Aren't we supposed to prepare for the worst case scenario?


Yes, however taxing oil companies and expecting no increase in retail price is thinking in the fog.

The market place forces will work if the government can keep its greedy fingers out of it.

Vick

[luvtolean]

I have never heard of oil being infinite. I can't have an argument if the main foundation of it might be faulty.

The fact is we don't know. It might be infinite, it might not.

I'm personally guessing it is not infinite.

Either way, there are two things. Prepare (unecessarily) for oil to be gone, still a possible because these are theories, or wait until it runs out. I don't like the second scenario. I don't take comfort in nice possibilities. Aren't we supposed to prepare for the worst case scenario?

It's not like one morning we'll wake up and go, "damn, no more oil"! OH CRAP!

It will be a slow process. Though oil is a commodity with inelastic demand, and is therefore not simple supply and demand, price most certainly is affected by supply.

As the supply of oil decreases, the cost of oil increases, and other technologies will become cost efficient, and the market will provide efficient solutions to the problem.

[colossians323]

I have never heard of oil being infinite. I can't have an argument if the main foundation of it might be faulty.

Either way, there are two things. Prepare (unecessarily) for oil to be gone, still a possible because these are theories, or wait until it runs out. I don't like the second scenario. I don't take comfort in nice possibilities. Aren't we supposed to prepare for the worst case scenario?


With this line of reasoning, we should all prepare for the sun burning out, the scientists say this will happen, and we don't know, how do we prepare for this?:eek:

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

With this line of reasoning, we should all prepare for the sun burning out, the scientists say this will happen, and we don't know, how do we prepare for this?:eek:

Not quite. The prediction for the sun blowing up is a few billion years. Oil is a tossup.

[mblat]

I have never heard of oil being infinite. I can't have an argument if the main foundation of it might be faulty.

Either way, there are two things. Prepare (unecessarily) for oil to be gone, still a possible because these are theories, or wait until it runs out. I don't like the second scenario. I don't take comfort in nice possibilities. Aren't we supposed to prepare for the worst case scenario?

Oil supply is infinite from our today point of view. However, not all oil supplies are created equal.
You have oil field in Saudi Arabia where all you need to do is punch the hole and it will start coming out.
Second you have oil supply in Siberia where you need to drill several hundred feet in below 0 temperatures, then pressurize field and it will start coming out.
Third you have oil filed under Norwegian sea, where you need to install oil platform several hundreds miles from the coast, etc, etc….

Needless to say, that in above examples cost of the barrel of the oil is different. Quality of the oil is different too. Oil from Russia always cost several $ per barrel less since it has different chemical composition form Arabs oil, which makes it more difficult to process.

So supply of the cheap oil isn’t infinite, sooner or later we will run out of cheap oil. However, if you take in account oil sands, supply is truly never-ending. It isn’t viable today to produce oil from oil sands, however if there is no other oil it will be.

Besides, Nazi Germany managed to fight a WAR with constant oil shortages. Huge portions of the petroleum demand by military was covered by using synthetic fuel. Again it was much more expansive than gas produced from Saudi oil, however it is the proof that nation that has it’ head straight can produce enough gas from coal.

And coal reserves is so huge, it isn’t even funny.

So, when discussing need for alternative fuel, you can assume that oil reserves are infinite. It will cost more, but it is infinite.

[luvtolean]

mblat, I have a couple friends making a killing from the tar sands up in Alberta.

New technologies, and the current price of oil, means they are able to pull oil out profitably...it's almost a gold rush mentality up there right now.

[mblat]

mblat, I have a couple friends making a killing from the tar sands up in Alberta.

New technologies, and the current price of oil, means they are able to pull oil out profitably...it's almost a gold rush mentality up there right now.

Yes... I heard about it, but wasn't sure if it is true or not. If it is true it validates my point - we can find replacement for cheap Arab oil if:
1. It is no longer cheap for one reason or other.
2. It is gone because we (or China, India etc.) used it all.