[Gio]

I don't really think I am going to state my opinion just yet. I want to sit back for a while and see what everyone else thinks first.

Maybe you will persuade me to think differently.....highly doubt it.

[Someone Else]

Subprime mortgage deals.

[Quacnar]

The Iraq war and Bush's decisions.

[Ironsight]

^What a generic and expected answer.

If you ask me, the main reason our economy is on its deathbed is because our government continues to bend over backwards for the millions of illegal imigrants streaming into our country every day.

[Gio]

DS just got half of my opinion, but there is another half.

btw I can tell you since I live in Florida, There is a CRAP load of illegal immigrants.
They take all the construction jobs here.

[Mysterious Adept]

I believe its a bunch of little things that piled up.

- Housing Market: With people buying fewer and fewer homes, Construction workers have been losing jobs. Plus foreclosure and morgages, this has created quite a problem

- War in Iraq: Dont get me wrong, I do support President Bush and the war, but it has taken its toll on the economy. It has used resources to replenish weapons and send in more soldiers

- Immigrants: The rise of immigrants comming into the country has sparked some problems as well. With the current amount of immigrants comming ( and is expected to rise) they have looked for available jobs, and have found them. This has left citizens without work and the unemployment rate has risen.(Not to insult them in anyway)

With these three points and a bunch of others, the economy has shown the consequences of our actions, causing it to go into a recession.

[Gio]

You influenced my opinion a bit by mentioning the housing market. I really do have to agree with that, and of course every war takes a toll on the economy, but I still think there is a bit more to it.

[Mysterious Adept]

True, very true. These are the only things i could think of at the time lol <_<

[Toasty]

Well it certainly isn't being caused by one thing alone. There's the war (who's cost fails in comparison to the debt that the two Democratic candidates will put us in), there's the illegal immigration (which Hillary is for), and there's also the support of ethanol as a main alternative fuel source. Alternative energy is great, but ethanol is not. You could also include the stupidity and greedyness of many Americans for allowing themselves to go into debt and not doing anythign about it, but I can't see that being changed as easily as any of the other three problems.

The war would've been over with by now if the Liberals would've just sat down and shut their pie holes. But no, they had to play tug o' war with the Conservatives to prove a point. If you want to blame someone for our "failure" in Iraq, or the length of the war, blame the Liberals. The Conservatives may have put us in there, but once we were in, it was a pretty stupid idea to try and cut funding. It would've been a better decision to push on through and finish it. However, people like Hillary just can't stand doing the right thing for once. <_<

Most illegal immigrants cross our borders and work at minimum wage jobs, or jobs that Americans are "just not willing to do," and then they send that money back to wherever they're from. That doesn't help us because that money isn't being spent in the US. It's being spent in Mexico. So while our economy is failing, their poor excuse for a president get's richer.

Ethanol is NOT a good idea. Not even E85. We do NOT have the resources to be able to produce enough ethanol to fuel all of our cars and trucks on the roads these days. Even if that ethanol is mixed with gasoline in an E85 mixture. On top of that, it takes 1.29 gallons of gasoline to make 1 gallon of ethanol if made from corn. Corn is the best plant we can grow for making ethanol. Hemp would be better, but we don't have the right conditions in enough places to grow it. Like Glenn Beck said, "It's like trying to get rich by buying a dollar for $1.29. It just doesn't work." Plus, the Liberal half of the government passed a law of sorts that pays farmers, with the governments much needed money, to produce ethanol. So instead of growing wheat or other crops, they're growing corn since they can make more money off of it. Because of that, we're having to PAY to IMPORT wheat from CHINA. Making China's economy grow, and furthering the decline of ours.

That is what I have to say on the subject. It may be a heavily conservative opinion on the matter, but tell me this: How are the Liberals helping our economy? And I don't want to hear any of the "Oh, they're trying to make us energy independant!" Because the ways that they're trying to do that aren't, and haven't been working. Now answer this: BESIDES the war in Iraq (which could've been over with by now if the Liberals had just stayed out of the matter), how are the Conservatives hurting our economy?

Give me one good answer to each of those questions and I'll shut up about this.

Somehow, I think I'll be posting in this topic for a long, long time.

[PDM]

ebay

[Gio]

Toasty, on Feb 20 2008, 01:05 AM, said:

That is what I have to say on the subject. It may be a heavily conservative opinion on the matter, but tell me this: How are the Liberals helping our economy? And I don't want to hear any of the "Oh, they're trying to make us energy independant!" Because the ways that they're trying to do that aren't, and haven't been working. Now answer this: BESIDES the war in Iraq (which could've been over with by now if the Liberals had just stayed out of the matter), how are the Conservatives hurting our economy?

Give me one good answer to each of those questions and I'll shut up about this.

Somehow, I think I'll be posting in this topic for a long, long time.

Democrats aren't going to help the economy. They are going to raise taxes when our country is entering a recession. This is going to take money out of the peoples pockets, and with the less money people are go to stop spending money which is going to hurt the economy. Take Michigan for example.

So basically I agree with Toasty

[Eugine]

I understand your logics Toasty and Gio, but I hope you know the USA had a surplus under a democrat, and now has a 4 billion dollar deficit under a republican.
Republican thinking seems more logical on paper (let everyone decide their own life!), but in reality it never work.

You may not like Bill Clinton, but more people enjoyed the American dream under him. And let us not forget, Bill Clinton came into a White House with a deficit, and managed to give it a surplus.

Mind you, let us not say we are in a different time. Bill Clinton successfully faced the challenges of his time, while Mr. Bush failed.

[Gio]

I hope you realize that the government has very little control over the economy. All they can do is lower and raise taxes and interest rates. And a democrat would definitely raise taxes and to that during a time of recession is pure idiocy. It's just like what happened in Michigan. Everybody was having having a hard time keeping their jobs in the Auto-Industry because of foreign competition and then along came the democrats raising taxes and now just about everyone with a job in the auto-industry has gotten layed-off.

[Mysterious Adept]

.eugine, on Feb 20 2008, 08:02 AM, said:

I understand your logics Toasty and Gio, but I hope you know the USA had a surplus under a democrat, and now has a 4 billion dollar deficit under a republican.
Republican thinking seems more logical on paper (let everyone decide their own life!), but in reality it never work.

You may not like Bill Clinton, but more people enjoyed the American dream under him. And let us not forget, Bill Clinton came into a White House with a deficit, and managed to give it a surplus.

Mind you, let us not say we are in a different time. Bill Clinton successfully faced the challenges of his time, while Mr. Bush failed.

Personally, I really dont care if the person is a Republican, democrat or Independent. What i do care about is what the person will DO. And i would like to state that no president has "Failed" they have just dealed with their problems in a different way. I mean say Bill Clinton was president now, what would he do?Maybe he would of let the attacks on 9/11 lead to an increase in national security, or maybe he would do the exact same thing as President Bush. We dont know and we cant say for sure. Point is: People deal with issues differently much like we are posting and debating right now. (My own personal opinon)

[PDM]

the FCC

[Eugine]

We will never know.

We can look at Clinton's presidency and ask "Did he successfully face the challenges of his time?". Most Americans will say yes, and the world will say yes surely. I hope you know, the US was loved by the world during Bill Clinton's reign.
We can ask the same for Bush, and 80% of the Americans population will say "No." currently. The world will say a definite "NO!". He has about a year to fix his legacy though.

[Toasty]

They may say that now, but they didn't say that during his 1st term. People only hate him because he went to war in Iraq.

.eugine, on Feb 20 2008, 04:02 AM, said:

I understand your logics Toasty and Gio, but I hope you know the USA had a surplus under a democrat, and now has a 4 billion dollar deficit under a republican.
Republican thinking seems more logical on paper (let everyone decide their own life!), but in reality it never work.

You may not like Bill Clinton, but more people enjoyed the American dream under him. And let us not forget, Bill Clinton came into a White House with a deficit, and managed to give it a surplus.

Mind you, let us not say we are in a different time. Bill Clinton successfully faced the challenges of his time, while Mr. Bush failed.

Yeah, by selling nuke plans to China. Bill Clinton may have gotten us out of a hole, but at what cost?

On one hand, giving the Government more power basically turns our
democracy into a Communism. If we give them the power to control our lives (which is practically what the Democrats are trying to do), then we wouldn't be free anymore, now would we?

On the other hand, it's obvious that most Americans don't know how to manage their money. There's WAY too many Americans in debt nowadays, and it only seems to be getting worse. Giving the Government more control could fix that, but again, at what cost?

That's the predicament we're in right now. If someone can find a compromise (without selling our weapon plans to our enemies), then they'll gain my interest.

Mysterious Adept, on Feb 20 2008, 07:38 PM, said:

Personally, I really don't care if the person is a Republican, democrat or Independent. What i do care about is what the person will DO. And i would like to state that no president has "Failed" they have just dealt with their problems in a different way. I mean say Bill Clinton was president now, what would he do?Maybe he would of let the attacks on 9/11 lead to an increase in national security, or maybe he would do the exact same thing as President Bush. We don't know and we cant say for sure. Point is: People deal with issues differently much like we are posting and debating right now. (My own personal opinion)

I don't really care if they're Democrat or Republican either. I care about whether they're Conservative or Liberal. All Liberals nowadays don't have the right ideas on how to fix the economy, or take care of the war. We need to first become an exporter, drop taxes (or better yet, switch to a flat tax system), drop interest rates, and give some support for our troops so we can get this war over with, WITHOUT repercussions.

[Eugine]

Before I reply, care to link me to a reputable source which covered the 'Bill Clinton sold nukes the China' story?
Dunno why, but it just seems really unlikely to me. I'm sure he would have gotten impeached for something like that...

[Toasty]

He did get impeached, and a number of times at that. Amazingly, he got out of all of them.

One reason why he didn't get thrown in federal prison for the nuke thing though, is because he had one of his staff members do it for him. It was found that he authorized it, but he didn't directly sell them the plans. In my eyes though, it's basically the same thing.

I'll have to find the article, but this was WAY back in like, the 90's. So I don't know if I'll be able to find it burried under 8+ years of articles about the Clintons.

[Golden Legacy]

.eugine, on Feb 20 2008, 08:02 AM, said:

I understand your logics Toasty and Gio, but I hope you know the USA had a surplus under a democrat, and now has a 4 billion dollar deficit under a republican.
Republican thinking seems more logical on paper (let everyone decide their own life!), but in reality it never work.

You may not like Bill Clinton, but more people enjoyed the American dream under him. And let us not forget, Bill Clinton came into a White House with a deficit, and managed to give it a surplus.

Mind you, let us not say we are in a different time. Bill Clinton successfully faced the challenges of his time, while Mr. Bush failed.

Quoted for truth. It was under a Democrat's reign that the United States experienced the most successful period of economic growth, stability, and the largest surplus ever.

[Eugine]

Toasty, on Feb 21 2008, 12:20 AM, said:

On one hand, giving the Government more power basically turns our
democracy into a Communism. If we give them the power to control our lives (which is practically what the Democrats are trying to do), then we wouldn't be free anymore, now would we?

On the other hand, it's obvious that most Americans don't know how to manage their money. There's WAY too many Americans in debt nowadays, and it only seems to be getting worse. Giving the Government more control could fix that, but again, at what cost?

How exactly are the democrats trying to control lives by offering universal health care? Democrats believe health care is a right and not a reward. I honestly believe health care is a right since no one asks for ill health, or wants it. Having the private market control health care is total chaos since their main objective will be to make profit.
Secondly, the democrats are elected officials. I am tired of people saying having a big government is bad or communistic. A bad government is bad, not a big government x.x
Yes, it creates more bureaucracy, but as long as the government is managed properly and transparent, I hardly see the problem.

Also increasing taxes democrat style isn't bad dude.
http://money.cnn.com...ws/buffett_tax/

Anyway, besides those two things, how exactly are the democrats trying to control your life?

[Toasty]

.eugine, on Feb 21 2008, 02:04 PM, said:

How exactly are the democrats trying to control lives by offering universal health care? Democrats believe health care is a right and not a reward. I honestly believe health care is a right since no one asks for ill health, or wants it. Having the private market control health care is total chaos since their main objective will be to make profit.
Secondly, the democrats are elected officials. I am tired of people saying having a big government is bad or communistic. A bad government is bad, not a big government x.x
Yes, it creates more bureaucracy, but as long as the government is managed properly and transparent, I hardly see the problem.

Also increasing taxes democrat style isn't bad dude.
http://money.cnn.com...ws/buffett_tax/

Anyway, besides those two things, how exactly are the democrats trying to control your life?

First off, too many people nowadays want to just let the government handle all of their problems. That's why many people are voting Democrat this time around.

Universal Health care gives the government near complete control over health care. We won't really get a say in the matter anymore. We'll only be able to hope that whoever we've elected into whatever position in the government will do what we want them to do. Unfortunately, the people we elect won't always do what we want them to.

That's why it's better to keep it the way it is, and just try to drive the cost down instead of instituting a Universal Health care plan (which, by the way, WILL give the government the power to choose your doctor for you).

And whose to say that the Government won't try to make a profit off of UHC as well? They could certainly use the money.

And Eugine, the bigger a government is, the harder it is to control. So if we can't control our government, there's nothing to stop it from turning bad. However, if the government is small, then the people will still have control over it, and will still be able to keep it from becoming a communism. A big government won't necessarily make a communism, but it'll make it a hell of a lot easier for it to become one.

[Drizzy Drake]

Canada has UHC, and there isn't any problems. Who says America can't do the same.

[Toasty]

Because America is corrupted and full of lazy people.

[Gio]

I am sorry guys but I don't want to work really hard to make money and then have to give it to the government so they can buy healthcare for people who don't work. I just don't see me ever liking that.

[Toasty]

Yeah, and being fat is NOT a disability. It's a chosen lifestyle. It may be hard for some to lose weight, but it's possible.

I'm not going to accept anything that makes it easier for US citizcens to be lazy.

[Golden Legacy]

You'll want to check this out.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...r/2187rank.html

[Toasty]

Ouch. We're one trillion dollars behind China. D;

Seriously. We need cash, and Alaska is the fastest and most profitable way of getting it.

[EDIT] ****. Russia is 800 billion dollars ahead of us. We REALLY need that cash now.

[Eugine]

So, any of the Presidential candidates has a plan on reducing the national debt?

[Golden Legacy]

Reducing national debt?
Certainly not a Republican.

http://i27.tinypic.com/120m447.jpg

[Gio]

Just about all of the increases were when the world wasn't at peace.

And Jimmy Carter was just a freaking idiot.

[Laharl]

the world has never been at peace

by all means continue to fail at economics for many years to come, i love buying things in $ XP

[Eugine]

Yeah lol. My family, especially my sister in Canada is pretty happy. She shops in NY now x3.

You know, it's like going to Cuba with a US dollar. You're freakin rich when you go there with a dollar. Canadians feel the sameway when they go to USA =)

[Gio]

Laharl, on Mar 29 2008, 03:21 PM, said:

the world has never been at peace

by all means continue to fail at economics for many years to come, i love buying things in $ XP

let me correct myself by saying important peace-threatening situations that the U.S. played a major role in. for example cold war, gulf war, and war on terror.

[Toasty]

That, and if you look at what the current Democratic candidates are willing to spend, and what the Republican ones are, the Dems are willing to spend a LOT more money on trivial things that may or may not (usually not) be good for our country.

Scientists (not under a liberal's payroll) have noticed a correlation between sun activity and global temperatures, and it fits a hell of a lot better than the correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures. Infact, the CO2 levels correlate to global temperatures less than half the time, versus sun activity's correlation to global temperatures being 100% of the time.

The democrats, because of "Global Warming," aren't willing to drill for our 3trillion+ barrels of oil located in not only Alaska, but the Gulf of Mexico. And now groups from other countries are trying to drill for the oil in the Gulf, and get a lot of money from it. That money could easily put us hundreds of billions of dollars ahead of even the Chinese, who might I remind you are one trillion dollars ahead of us.

Also, they're already implimenting plans to make ethanol more easily available than gasoline. Doing so will kill our agriculture, and force us to spend more money buying food from other communities. We were, and are supposed to be, the biggest producer of agricultural products (i.e. wheat, corn, meat, etc.). We're already having to import wheat from China because our farmers are deciding to plant corn over wheat. Corn that will be used to make ethanol and not food. Ethanol that takes more than a gallon of gas to make a single gallon of. And the farmers are choosing to do so, because the Democrats are paying them to do so. Paying them with money we don't have.

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, on Mar 30 2008, 01:45 AM, said:

That, and if you look at what the current Democratic candidates are willing to spend, and what the Republican ones are, the Dems are willing to spend a LOT more money on trivial things that may or may not (usually not) be good for our country.

Trivial things? Spending money on our education system (instead of that fence on the Mexican border), on health care for the elderly, Social Security for the retired - all of that is "trivial" eh?

Quote

Scientists (not under a liberal's payroll) have noticed a correlation between sun activity and global temperatures, and it fits a hell of a lot better than the correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures. Infact, the CO2 levels correlate to global temperatures less than half the time, versus sun activity's correlation to global temperatures being 100% of the time.

You do realize that the rest of the civilized world realizes global warming is occurring?

Quote

The democrats, because of "Global Warming," aren't willing to drill for our 3trillion+ barrels of oil located in not only Alaska, but the Gulf of Mexico.

Wrong.

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/rese.../spr-facts.html
http://maps.unomaha.edu/Peterson/funda/Sid...onsumption.html
http://www.oilgasarticles.com/articles/102...orts/Page1.html
http://www.csmonitor...14s01-wogi.html

21.4 billion barrels is what the United States has in its reserves. But don't worry Toasty, you were only off by two order of magnitudes, no big deal.

Quote

That money could easily put us hundreds of billions of dollars ahead of even the Chinese, who might I remind you are one trillion dollars ahead of us.

Because spending $500 billion on the war had nothing to do with that.

Quote

Also, they're already implimenting plans to make ethanol more easily available than gasoline. Doing so will kill our agriculture, and force us to spend more money buying food from other communities. We were, and are supposed to be, the biggest producer of agricultural products (i.e. wheat, corn, meat, etc.). We're already having to import wheat from China because our farmers are deciding to plant corn over wheat. Corn that will be used to make ethanol and not food. Ethanol that takes more than a gallon of gas to make a single gallon of. And the farmers are choosing to do so, because the Democrats are paying them to do so.

First of all, ethanol isn't replacing gasoline - it's being added to it. It's never more than 10%, it won't change the fact that oil is still the primary component of gasoline. Ethanol has been proven to be more densely packed with oxygen, making it burn cleaner and more efficient. And that said Toasty, that's why you invest money into research and development. You always seem to be raising the question of ethanol - which is starting to progress, as have most other nations in the world that are incorporating it now (look at Brazil, ENTIRELY self-sufficient because of ethanol!) - I wonder if you're also against wind and solar fuel too?

Quote

Paying them with money we don't have.

Wonder where it all went.
Oh wait, Republican president, $500 billion+ war? That's right.

[Toasty]

First off, it doesn't matter whether ethanol is being added, or used straight. IT TAKES MORE ENERGY TO MAKE IT THEN WE GET OUT OF IT, AND IT'S NOT "ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY". End of story. And E85 is 85% ethanol. Yeah....no more than 10%.....
The process for making one gallon of ethanol puts more CO2 emissions into the atmosphere than burning one gallon of gasoline. Why? Because like I've said a thousand times, it takes 1.07 gallons of gasoline to make one gallon of ethanol.

Solar isn't a bad source for energy, but only after we can actually get them to a decent level of efficiency. Right now, they're useless. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be researched though. Wind will never be as efficient as water power (i.e. dams with water turbines) because water is a heck of a lot denser in particles, meaning that it's a heck of a lot denser in energy. A cubic foot of water moving at ten miles an hour will ALWAYS have more energy than a cubic foot of wind moving at 10 miles per hour.

Nuclear (fission for now, fusion later on), Solar power (eventually), coal, and hydroelectric dams are our best sources for electric energy. Wind is scientifically a stupid idea, and Ethanol's impact on our economy, and it's obvious inefficiency make it ten times worse.

Oh and, by the way, about America having only 20 billion barrels of oil? Try multiplying that by 10 times and then some. http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-e...-news2.13s.html And I doubt that those sites you mentioned included ANWR because it's labeled as an "Environmental Safe Haven" or whatever you want to call it, so it's closer to at least 300 to 400 billion. I may have been off by a lot, but not nearly as much as you said I was.

The worlds oil supplies accumulate to about a trillion or more, though, so any statements saying that we're running out of oil are null and void. I probably got that mixed up.

Yeah. We've spent a half trillion in Iraq. It already happened, and we can't get the money back. Get over it. It doesn't change the fact that either Hillary or Baracks plans will cost us in all, 400 Billion or more. Either one of them. Basically, it'll be about as bad as the Iraq war, and it'll all be spent within two to three years. Not 5 or 6.

And if you actually want an America, and not a Mexico that's twice as large, then I'd say that the Mexican/US border could sure as hell use a fence. I'd say it's more important than trying to force lazy kids to ;earn. If they don't want to learn, then they can work at McDonald's. Simple as that. The border between Mexico and the US needs to be locked down and fast. If not, then it'll just be that much harder to save our economy, and we'll see that much of an increase in murders and deaths. Not all Mexicans are killers, but there's plenty of them living on the border to be concerned about.

And both of the Democratic candidates ideas for social security are plain ****. In a few decades, if it doesn't get fixed, we're going to be $53 Trillion in debt. And as we've seen in the past with the economy and numerous other issues, just handing it over to the government to fix doesn't work. That's basically what they both want to do.

[Eugine]

Toasty, on Mar 30 2008, 01:45 AM, said:

Scientists (not under a liberal's payroll) have noticed a correlation between sun activity and global temperatures, and it fits a hell of a lot better than the correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures. Infact, the CO2 levels correlate to global temperatures less than half the time, versus sun activity's correlation to global temperatures being 100% of the time.

(To give you the benefit of the doubt, I did some research.)

Isn't it obvious sun activity and global temperatures are related? Our entire climate basically depends on the sun (and also to a lesser extent the tilt of the Earth, the atmosphere). So obviously the sun has the most effect.

Now, did the sun influence global temperature change? Definitely.

Unfortunately... Solar activity has been constant since 1975 according to this source. This means it has little effect on the current global warming situation. And the fact that you said "Infact, the CO2 levels correlate to global temperatures less than half the time, versus sun activity's correlation to global temperatures being 100% of the time." is so blatently false, it makes me wonder where you get your info from, or maybe you're conveniently misrepresenting the facts?

But yeah, global warming is a complicated topic. I doubt CO2 emission is the only factor which contributes to global warming.

[Gio]

It is a complicated topic indeed.
Personally I don't care about global warming one way or another.
Basically both sides have very good arguments and explain themselves well.
Sites saying that global warming is a fact will have more facts saying it is fact and sites that disagree will say the opposite. Since global warming is only a theory and has yet to be proven, sending links to sites back and forth to each other is going to change nobody's mind.

[Eugine]

Well, you should start to care. The fact that people still do not recognise the deadly consequences of global warming is frightening.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=P-0_gDXqYeQ (2 degrees increase)
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=6rdLu7wiZOE (3 degrees increase)
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=skFrR3g4BRQ (4 degrees increase)
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=7nRf2RTqANg (5 degrees increase)
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=O8qmaAMK4cM (6 degrees increase)

^ doesn't discuss the science, but it shows the consequences of global warming.

And global warming is a fact Gio. Whether its manmade or natural is debatable (although, imo, it's caused by both).

[Golden Legacy]

Toasty, on Mar 30 2008, 04:31 AM, said:

First off, it doesn't matter whether ethanol is being added, or used straight. IT TAKES MORE ENERGY TO MAKE IT THEN WE GET OUT OF IT, AND IT'S NOT "ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY". End of story. And E85 is 85% ethanol. Yeah....no more than 10%.....
The process for making one gallon of ethanol puts more CO2 emissions into the atmosphere than burning one gallon of gasoline. Why? Because like I've said a thousand times, it takes 1.07 gallons of gasoline to make one gallon of ethanol.

That's why you INVEST money into research and development. Tell me how Brazil became energy independent then, just based solely on Ethanol?

Furthermore, read Eugine's post. Global Warming is very much a real threat. A threat that has been acknowledged for decades and that the entire world is trying to solve now.

Quote

Solar isn't a bad source for energy, but only after we can actually get them to a decent level of efficiency. Right now, they're useless. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be researched though. Wind will never be as efficient as water power (i.e. dams with water turbines) because water is a heck of a lot denser in particles, meaning that it's a heck of a lot denser in energy. A cubic foot of water moving at ten miles an hour will ALWAYS have more energy than a cubic foot of wind moving at 10 miles per hour.

You agree to put effort into developing solar energy, but not for ethanol?

Quote

Oh and, by the way, about America having only 20 billion barrels of oil? Try multiplying that by 10 times and then some. http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-e...-news2.13s.html And I doubt that those sites you mentioned included ANWR because it's labeled as an "Environmental Safe Haven" or whatever you want to call it, so it's closer to at least 300 to 400 billion. I may have been off by a lot, but not nearly as much as you said I was.

Don't try to be a hypocrite Toasty! You did not mention this AT ALL in your past arguments - it was always "ALASKA WILL SAVE US", when in reality Alaska only has around 5 billion barrels (about 25% of the 20 billion I cited from multiple sources.

As for drilling miles into the ground to reach this reserve, that's clearly not going to cost any money, especially when it's shale oil and not actual petroleum.

Quote

Yeah. We've spent a half trillion in Iraq. It already happened, and we can't get the money back. Get over it. It doesn't change the fact that either Hillary or Baracks plans will cost us in all, 400 Billion or more. Either one of them. Basically, it'll be about as bad as the Iraq war, and it'll all be spent within two to three years. Not 5 or 6.

Get over it? You try telling that to the families of the victims of the 4000+ casualties in the war.

And would you mind explaining what you mean that Hillary and Barack's plans will "cost" us that much money in a few years? How about you actually explain where they're losing money?

Oh, and remember McCain's statement, "I'll stay in Iraq 100 years if I have to?" Obviously not literally a century, but if you agree that the war is such a drain on our economy, you can't honestly tell me that STAYING in Iraq will IMPROVE our economy, not to mention the decline of the US' name in foreign politics?

Quote

And if you actually want an America, and not a Mexico that's twice as large, then I'd say that the Mexican/US border could sure as hell use a fence. I'd say it's more important than trying to force lazy kids to ;earn. If they don't want to learn, then they can work at McDonald's. Simple as that. The border between Mexico and the US needs to be locked down and fast. If not, then it'll just be that much harder to save our economy, and we'll see that much of an increase in murders and deaths. Not all Mexicans are killers, but there's plenty of them living on the border to be concerned about.

"Not all Mexicans are killers, but there's plenty of them living on the border to be concerned about".

Uh-huh, because that wasn't the least bit racist.

Quote

And both of the Democratic candidates ideas for social security are plain ****. In a few decades, if it doesn't get fixed, we're going to be $53 Trillion in debt. And as we've seen in the past with the economy and numerous other issues, just handing it over to the government to fix doesn't work. That's basically what they both want to do.

So you're against social security now? Pensions, money for the retired and disabled, all that? The whole point is to continue funding social security, from the government, to PROVIDE for the people. That's the point of the government, that's why it exists.

[Saturos S.]

Too be honest, I'm partly glad the US is losing their grip on the world economy. That they're not the economy capital in the world anymore. The only reason why I don't want them to lose it, is that the alternative is worse.

20th century America ftw.
21st century America has only been pissing me off for now.

[Toasty]

GL, Brazil can produce Hemp, which produces far more ethanol per pound than corn. Even of we could make gigantic greenhouses, there's no way we would be able to produce enough hemp for it to be practical. The best plant that we can mass produce for ethanol is corn, and even if we're able to increase the efficiency, it'll still be dependant on gasoline to produce it. On top of that, from a logical and scientific point of view, hydrocarbons have a lot more energy than ethanol. They were made from organic material that was heated and compacted over a very long period of time. To make ethanol, we're just using plant material, and processing it (inneficiently) with gasoline. Therefore, it's basically like trying to transform gasoline into another substance, and using the plant material (like corn or hemp) to replace the energy lost in the process. So in reality, even though the plants being produced for ethanol suck up carbon emissions, you're still putting that carbon right back into the air.

Besides that, the way the democrats are trying to impliment ethanol is only helping to kill our economy. We don't physically have the land mass to produce enough corn for ethanol without replacing other crops with corn, and thus reducing our supply of the other crops and forcing us to buy those crops being replaced (like wheat), from countries like China who hate us.

And GL, have you ever heard of "global cooling"? Yeah. That was only a few decades ago. People were freaking out, just like they are now, about the "next ice age".

Fact is, when CO2 levels were dropping, the globe was warming. And then when they started to rise again, the globe was still warming. Because of that, people started to think that CO2 emissions were causing global warming. People like Al Gore saw it as a good opportunity to get some publicity make people awar of the imminent disaster that will undoubtedly end us all.

Glenn Beck throws some good points into the subject. Though I'm sure you'll likey say that he's just spouting a bunch of conspiracy theories.
http://www.glennbeck...ticle/219/3284/

Not that it really matters though. Pretty much everyone who's worried about global warming will be worried about global cooling (again) a decade or two from now.

And darn right I support solar energy over ethanol! Unlike ethanol, solar energy does not require gasoline to produce energy (satisfying and ultimately shutting up all the tree huggers), and it won't threaten to destroy our economy. Plus, Solar energy harnesses the power of the sun. Last I checked, the sun had a lot more energy to offer than ethanol.

True, I didn't bring up the North Dakota deposit earlyer on. But 5 billion barrels is still more than enough to keep us from importing 14 million barrels a year from our enemies. True, we have 20 billion altogether (not including the Bakken Formation), but that 5 billion barrels is all in one spot. Easy to drill for and transport. Heck, we even have an oil pipeline up there! The only real reason why we're importing and not producing all of oir own oil, is because the Democrats (who have yet again miscalculated what's best for the country) decided to make it harder for drilling platforms and oil refineries to be built or repaired. If we had more refineries, we wouldn't be paying three and a half dollars fora gallon of gas. We'd be paying $2 or less.

And for your information, the Bakken Formation is only 2 miles below the surface. I know people in my high school who could run that far in 16 minutes. I can't see that as being a real problem for a drilling platform.

And quit trying to make me look like a warmonger that doesn't care for anything else other than world domination! I said to get over the financial cost of the war. Not the fact that we've lost 4000 lives. But one reason why we HAVE spent that kind of money on the war, and HAVE lost so many lives, is because the Liberals in congress keep trying to pull our troops out when it's not safe to do so. When they do that, they cause a lot of our troops to lose the backup they need to stay alive. If we had had the full force of our military available, this war would've been one in half the time, half the cost, and with half the casualties. THAT'S why it's cost us so much to go to war.

Hillary wants to give every child $7k for either school or health coverage. I can't remember which. But if you take all the chhildren ages 14 and younger, which account to 61million children (and that's only 14 and younger, not 17 and younger), you'll get a total of nearly 50 Billion dollars.
Population of the US found here.

And GL, every nationality has killers in them. That's a no brainer. I'm not denying it, and neither should anyone else. All I was saying is that a lot of the killers in the Mexican nationality, are found on the border. Most noteably in the area close to Texas.

And wow GL, just....wow. The government exists to provide for us, huh? WRONG. The origional idea of the government, as invisioned by the founding fathers, is that every citizen is INDEPENDANT FROM THE GOVERNMENT. Financially speaking, we are on our own. That's the best way to keep people in the government from having the power to control who gets how mucyh money, which is exactly what socialism is. Barrack wants to basically give everyone the same salary, despite their job. That's the stupidest idea I've ever heard! People who work at McDonald's do NOT deserve to be paid $50k a year, and experienced Engineers (in any field, be it design engineering or whatever) don't deserve anything less than $70k a year.

And even just providing money for the disabled or whatever, well it's obvious that people are just going to try and find some way to get disability funds. It's already happening with obese people and people with fake injuries.

I'm not saying we don't need social security, but the way the government already tries to do it, it's just not working.

If we revert to socialism, then everybody's just going to try and get the easiest job they can, because it'll pay just as much as a really hard job. That's just plain stupid, and will kill America. It's a stupid, stupid idea, and Obama wants to implement it.

Here's another good article by Glenn that gives an outline of socialism. Read the whole thing, but focus on the last paragraph. It'll make everything you read clearer. But you still need to read the whole thing.
http://www.glennbeck...ticle/198/7916/

All I'm saying, as far as socialism goes, is that when I'm older, I want the chance to be really succesful doing something I love to do. I won't be able to do that in a socialist society.

[Eugine]

You have too much time on your hands.

Toasty, on Mar 31 2008, 12:23 AM, said:

And GL, have you ever heard of "global cooling"? Yeah. That was only a few decades ago. People were freaking out, just like they are now, about the "next ice age".

Yes, you mentioned global cooling lots now. People were not 'freaking out' like you said, since it never really gained much traction. Yes, global cooling occured, but most scientists rightfully predicted that global cooling would stop once CO2 emission increased. Global cooling occured because of natural and human factors. The tilting of the planet, and more importantly aerosols. 'Fact is', human activity usually offset the natural factors. Also, correlations with climate change and the Earth's tilt isn't widely accepted, since most scientists realise human activity has basically ruined their models.
My point is: Global cooling did occur for a short period of time. Unfortunately, it was more manmade, rather than natural.

Toasty, on Mar 31 2008, 12:23 AM, said:

Fact is, when CO2 levels were dropping, the globe was warming. And then when they started to rise again, the globe was still warming. Because of that, people started to think that CO2 emissions were causing global warming. People like Al Gore saw it as a good opportunity to get some publicity make people awar of the imminent disaster that will undoubtedly end us all.

Why do you continually point to CO2 levels? CO2 isn't the only green house gas anyway, and like I said, it's a combination of natural and human activity (who, btw, have a larger effect). Also, where did you get your information from? CO2 levels dropped? Care to provide a link (since I dunno if that's true).
http://en.wikipedia..../Global_cooling

Toasty, on Mar 31 2008, 12:23 AM, said:

Glenn Beck throws some good points into the subject. Though I'm sure you'll likey say that he's just spouting a bunch of conspiracy theories.
http://www.glennbeck...ticle/219/3284/

Not that it really matters though. Pretty much everyone who's worried about global warming will be worried about global cooling (again) a decade or two from now.

So... Basically, he's saying GE is paying the entire world to lie about global warming?

[Blue]

The economy is failing? I know its not doing too hot, but I don't feel that its failing. I just think that if it was really failing, stocks would be about as bad as they were before the stockmarket crash.

[Toasty]

.eugine, on Mar 31 2008, 06:05 AM, said:

You have too much time on your hands.

Yes, you mentioned global cooling lots now. People were not 'freaking out' like you said, since it never really gained much traction. Yes, global cooling occured, but most scientists rightfully predicted that global cooling would stop once CO2 emission increased. Global cooling occured because of natural and human factors. The tilting of the planet, and more importantly aerosols. 'Fact is', human activity usually offset the natural factors. Also, correlations with climate change and the Earth's tilt isn't widely accepted, since most scientists realise human activity has basically ruined their models.
My point is: Global cooling did occur for a short period of time. Unfortunately, it was more manmade, rather than natural.

Why do you continually point to CO2 levels? CO2 isn't the only green house gas anyway, and like I said, it's a combination of natural and human activity (who, btw, have a larger effect). Also, where did you get your information from? CO2 levels dropped? Care to provide a link (since I dunno if that's true).
http://en.wikipedia..../Global_cooling

So... Basically, he's saying GE is paying the entire world to lie about global warming?

No, he's saying GE is paying some companies to advertise that Global Warming is caused by greenhouse gas, because the more people who think it is, the more likely certain bills are to pass in Congress. Those bills will make GE a rich, happy, over-stuffed bunny. That's the only reason why GE supports it.

And truthfully, few scientists agree with the general thoughts that global warming is caused by greenhouse gas. Most scientist's studies conclude other things are causing it. I.E. the sun's activity.

The ice shelf in Antarctica/Greenland/Whatever, is actually growing. Not shrinking. A chunk just broke off last weekend becuase it was either a)growing, or b)shaken loose by volcanic activity on the seafloor.

By the way, NASA's studies show that the ocean ISN'T increasing in temperature. If I remember right, it's actually decreasing in temperature.

And contrary to Al Gore's movie, increased global temperature actually decreases the occurrence of most natural disasters. Like Hurricanes.

One more thing. Last Sunday, it SNOWED where I live. And it snowed the day before aswell. Global climate change? Well first, I'd also like to add that the same thing happened 8 years ago.
If the concensus is that the globe is warming, than Winters should be warmer aswell. Apparently, not even Springs are warmer.

And as for the chart that's commonly used on wikipedia, like in the global cooling (or warming) article, the temperature readings of the last few years are innacurate. Many temperature monitoring stations are located in places that could easily skew the results. Like on black asphalt, or right next to the exterior part of an air conditioner.
As far as regulation goes, those boxes that hold the temperature monitoring systems are not to be located anywhere near either of those.

And eugine, I'm aware that CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas. Infact, reducing methane is, pound for pound, much more effective since it's more powerful than CO2. However, most scientists like to blame it all on CO2 levels, and CO2 is more commonly used in this subject.

[Saturos S.]

Toasty, on Apr 2 2008, 08:28 AM, said:

No, he's saying GE is paying some companies to advertise that Global Warming is caused by greenhouse gas, because the more people who think it is, the more likely certain bills are to pass in Congress. Those bills will make GE a rich, happy, over-stuffed bunny. That's the only reason why GE supports it.

And truthfully, few scientists agree with the general thoughts that global warming is caused by greenhouse gas. Most scientist's studies conclude other things are causing it. I.E. the sun's activity.

The ice shelf in Antarctica/Greenland/Whatever, is actually growing. Not shrinking. A chunk just broke off last weekend becuase it was either a)growing, or b)shaken loose by volcanic activity on the seafloor.

By the way, NASA's studies show that the ocean ISN'T increasing in temperature. If I remember right, it's actually decreasing in temperature.

And contrary to Al Gore's movie, increased global temperature actually decreases the occurrence of most natural disasters. Like Hurricanes.

One more thing. Last Sunday, it SNOWED where I live. And it snowed the day before aswell. Global climate change? Well first, I'd also like to add that the same thing happened 8 years ago.
If the concensus is that the globe is warming, than Winters should be warmer aswell. Apparently, not even Springs are warmer.

And as for the chart that's commonly used on wikipedia, like in the global cooling (or warming) article, the temperature readings of the last few years are innacurate. Many temperature monitoring stations are located in places that could easily skew the results. Like on black asphalt, or right next to the exterior part of an air conditioner.
As far as regulation goes, those boxes that hold the temperature monitoring systems are not to be located anywhere near either of those.

And eugine, I'm aware that CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas. Infact, reducing methane is, pound for pound, much more effective since it's more powerful than CO2. However, most scientists like to blame it all on CO2 levels, and CO2 is more commonly used in this subject.

Most American scientists perhaps, a lot of scientists from the rest of the world believe there is a link between global warming and CO2 levels. In fact it's more of 50/50 split then the split you suggested.

Moreover, as much as you blame the democrats for thinking up inefficient plans for alternative energy, alternative sources are needed. Fossil fuels are limited, they'll last for a few 100 years if we deplete ALL of the earths resources. But eventually it will happen, maybe this isn't the solution but they should open up and test alternative energy sources.

As for money being "wasted" on energy research and such. You act as if the war on Iraq was free or something. If the US had put that money in it's own economy, the dollar wouldn't have been at this all time low, eventually it would have happened though. Because face it, the US economy as leading economy is on life support. It's a matter of time, debts are growing, investments are dwindling. Maybe Saddam Hussein would still have been free, but the money gone to war, could and should have been spent on more important things. And don't give me crap about national security being more important, there was no proof for a WMD threat and no super cannon or whatever. The US isn't the world police, leave that to the UN.

[Eugine]

Wow Toasty, I was about to reply to your post, then suddenly this article was posted on BBC News.
http://news.bbc.co.u...ure/7327393.stm

lolz, you're one of those climate "sceptics".

[I'm Always BROKE]

Every supernation's economy will die eventually, that cannot be helped. China will be the new supernation eventually, but they also will fail one day... when we're all dead. =P It might be very possible that Africa becomes the world economy over 400 years or something.

Anyways, I'm not all knowlegdable in this subject but... Isn't fighting in the war also a real big ass waste of money? And so far as I've heard, the citizins of Afghanistan rather had Saddam ruling over them than war...

[Saturos S.]

Diddy Kong, on Apr 3 2008, 02:26 PM, said:

Every supernation's economy will die eventually, that cannot be helped. China will be the new supernation eventually, but they also will fail one day... when we're all dead. =P It might be very possible that Africa becomes the world economy over 400 years or something.

Anyways, I'm not all knowlegdable in this subject but... Isn't fighting in the war also a real big ass waste of money? And so far as I've heard, the citizins of Afghanistan rather had Saddam ruling over them than war...

Psst... saddam is from Iraq. The Afganistan project was NATO/UN approved and done by them.

[Toasty]

.eugine, on Apr 3 2008, 04:38 AM, said:

Wow Toasty, I was about to reply to your post, then suddenly this article was posted on BBC News.
http://news.bbc.co.u...ure/7327393.stm

lolz, you're one of those climate "sceptics".

*sigh* Eugine, the theory of how the sun effects the climate is not based off of cosmic rays. The media would rather you believe that, though, because cosmic rays have pretyy much no effect on the global temperature.

The theory goes like this: When the sun is more active, it produces more heat (i.e. radiation in the ultraviolet and infrared spectrums, among many others). More heat means higher global temperatures. The theory that I'm talking about, is NOT based off of cosmis rays.

Therfore, my point still stands.

And I'm not saying most scientists in the United States believe the sun is responsible, I'm saying most in general.

Anyway, take a look here, and take the "Origional Global Warming Quiz."

This is an interesting read, and it's in the quiz.

[Laharl]

Toasty, on Apr 5 2008, 07:59 AM, said:

The theory goes like this: When the sun is more active, it produces more heat (i.e. radiation in the ultraviolet and infrared spectrums, among many others). More heat means higher global temperatures. The theory that I'm talking about, is NOT based off of cosmis rays.

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/9928/20070902facepalm1np8.jpg

you really dont know what you're talking about ¬_¬

For the record Cosmic Rays come from other Celestial Bodies (Neutron Stars, Supernovae, Black Holes etc.)

you would be referig to Solar Energetic Particles. get your damn terminology right before stating something to be gospel truth

This "change of activity" you refer to are Solar Flares and the Forbush Decrease, both have no evidence at all linking to climate change. Unless the Aurora Borealis is climate change now :b

Solar Flares are a bigger threat to us than our climate.

[Eugine]

I agree with that article Toasty =)

Al Gore (who have no experience in climate, so I wonder why he's so popular x.x) and company are putting blame on entirely on carbon emission, when anyone with basic knowledge knows the climate is so unpredictable, and so complex x.x
Personally, I think Al Gore is trying to make some money from carbon taxes (though, this is pure conspiracy)

Regarding to your 'theory' (which is a no brainer), isn't it obvious the sun has (if not the most) an influence on the Earths's climate? What we really want to know if sun activity has caused the recent climate change. Answer: No.
It has had no influence what so ever. Maybe, if you said the El Nino caused the temperature increase, I would have said it's plausable, but solar avtivity? Can't agree.

And I don't know why, we, armchair climatologist, are really debating this. Let us believe the collective intelligence of the real climatologists plz. I think more research is needed before we come to a firm conclusion, and do not base it solely on man or the environment though x.x
The main point is, we're seeing its effects, and need solutions now.

[Golden Legacy]

My simple argument is this - say all you want about the validity of global warming (however much it contradicts the mass scientific theory and support its gotten) - what's wrong with the idea of wanting cleaner energy? How can it hurt to produce and invest in alternative energy instead of continuing to rely on a finite supply of fossil fuels? What's wrong with setting higher and cleaner standards in the world? You can't surely even be opposed to that?

[Gio]

Golden Legacy, on Apr 5 2008, 08:32 PM, said:

My simple argument is this - say all you want about the validity of global warming (however much it contradicts the mass scientific theory and support its gotten) - what's wrong with the idea of wanting cleaner energy? How can it hurt to produce and invest in alternative energy instead of continuing to rely on a finite supply of fossil fuels? What's wrong with setting higher and cleaner standards in the world? You can't surely even be opposed to that?

I agree with GL's statement. We should pursue clean energy, but we should go about it in a well thought out, cheap, and effective way.

[Laharl]

Gio, on Apr 6 2008, 04:51 AM, said:

I agree with GL's statement. We should pursue clean energy, but we should go about it in a well thought out, cheap, and effective way.

yeah....because wind, solar and tidal power is expensive and inefficient :/

[Gio]

Your right, but I mean something that can be used all the time. There isn't always wind and the sun isn't always out. Solar energy is probably the most efficent green energy we have now.

[Toasty]

Golden Legacy, on Apr 5 2008, 06:32 PM, said:

My simple argument is this - say all you want about the validity of global warming (however much it contradicts the mass scientific theory and support its gotten) - what's wrong with the idea of wanting cleaner energy? How can it hurt to produce and invest in alternative energy instead of continuing to rely on a finite supply of fossil fuels? What's wrong with setting higher and cleaner standards in the world? You can't surely even be opposed to that?

Cleaner energy is a great idea. I'd love to have less smog, and be able to spend less money on gas. However, the way that people like Al Gore want to impliment cleaner energies, just won't turn out well. Mainly, and I'm saying this for the umpteenth time, ethanol. It's not a plausible source. Hydro-electric, Fusion/Fission, and eventually solar energy, they're all much better choices. As for cars. Electric cars are starting to become more plausible, but I'd much rather see more efficient gasoline or diesel engines. We already have the infrasturcture to support them, and we definately have the technology to make highly efficient internal combustion engines.

And Laharl, the article Eugine linked to mentioned COSMIC RAYS as the theory behind "Climate Sceptics" thinking.

Quote

The research contradicts a favoured theory of climate "sceptics", that changes in cosmic rays coming to Earth determine cloudiness and temperature.

I mentioned nothing of cosmic rays being produced by the sun. I said that the theory of sun activity is NOT based off of cosmic rays. I know very good and well what a cosmic ray is, so quit being an asshat.

When the sun is more active (not meaning sloar flares, or whatever, but how much energy it is directing towards earth), it produces more heat. Obviuosly. The theory, is that the change in sun activity corellates to global temperature. Which it does.

As for CO2, Both methane and water vapor are far more potent greenhouse gasses. Plus, the atmosephere contains about 60 times more water vapor particles than CO2 particles.
http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/GWQu...3D6%26cor%3D216

Maybe we should start freezing water to keep it from evaporating.

Anyway, this is another good read found in that quiz.