The way things are vs. the way they ought to be

[tagos]

*Originally posted by msmith537 *
**

Hydrogen is not an energy source. Energy is required to release the H from H2O.

**

So, by that logic, coal is not an energy source as it requires a combustive process to release the energy and the working prototype hydrogen powered cars a cousin of the unicorn. An interesting grasp of science you have there.

[Bryan_Ekers]

*Originally posted by tagos *
**So, by that logic, coal is not an energy source as it requires a combustive process to release the energy and the working prototype hydrogen powered cars a cousin of the unicorn. An interesting grasp of science you have there. **

Ash, but you betray your ignorance, Young Grasshopper. Coal can just be dug up through a fairly simple mining process that has been around for thousands of years. Even the Ancient Romans could get and use coal.

Elemental hydrogen however, does not exist in pure form anywhere on Earth, except in trace amounts. To get it in sizable quantites, you’ll have to seperate it from water or hydrocarbons in a process that takes up a lot of energy, possibly more than you get from “burning” the result. Ideally, I suppose, someone invents an inexpensive way to seperate out the hydrogen from fossil fuels (i.e. splitting the hydrogen from the carbon in a hydrocarbon molecule) and there are many thousands of people working on it even as we speak. I hope to see it in my lifetime.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Ash, but I betray my poor typing skills which prevent me from saying “Ah” when I want to begin my explantion of some condescending point.

[Debaser]

1. So, you want a one world government that even the superpower nations will bow down to. You want fries with that?

2. Please supply a cite on the “subjugation and murder of millions” you refer to here in our quest to protect their access to a finite natural resource.

“us for obstructing their self-determination”

I have absolutely no clue what this means. There is nothing we need to apologize for.

3. "Israel cannot continue to exist in its present form. "

The Israelis will be shocked to hear about this. Why don’t we just make Palestine “not continue to exist in it’s present form”. Or every country you don’t like. :rolleyes:
4. “There hasn’t been significant racial progress since the '64 Civil Rights Act.”

This statement is laughable and obviously false.

Giving $50 Billion to a goup of people based solely on their race is racist, pure and simple.
5. At least you admit to being a socialist. Most Liberals don’t.

6. The private sector is better suited to making hydrogen and other types of power a reality. The government shouldn’t be muddling.

7. Huh? It’s the job of the mass media to “educate” people. No. They inform. Schools educate.

8. "Politicians spend too much time and energy on elections. "

Why don’t we just get rid of those pesky elections once and for all, eh?

I’m with you on CFR being a bad idea. There was never any public pressure for this issue. The incumbents wanted to protect themselves from losing elections and this was the result. Bad idea from the beginning, and unconstitutional to boot.

9. I’m not worried about the US nuking anyone who doesn’t use WMD on us first. To give up all of our WMD would only encourage our enemies to use them on us, since we would be unable to respond in kind.

10. Agreed.

11. It’s not societys job to treat addicts. But, I don’t want them in jail if their non-violent either.

12. Agreed.

13. All gun laws are asinine. Shagnasty already points out that you don’t even know what you are talking about here. If you don’t like guns, great. Don’t buy one.

14. Agreed, although research into cloning should continue until it’s safe to try on humans.

15. Privatization is the only thing that can save education. Throwing more money at the problem isn’t a solution.

[cainxinth]

*Originally posted by Shagnasty *
**I find it hard to listen to an argument for more gun control from someone that obviously does not know the first thing about guns. You state first that semi-automatic weapons are “questionable” and then go on to say that the only guns that you would allow for protection are like the 9mm. The 9mm is almost always a semi-automatic handgun. **

I apologize for my error. I did say only questionable though. You’re right I’m not a gun expert. All I know is they have little use other than putting bullets into people and animals.

[cainxinth]

*Originally posted by Debaser *
2. Please supply a cite on the “subjugation and murder of millions” you refer to here in our quest to protect their access to a finite natural resource.

Killing Hope by William Blum Worth a look.

**“us for obstructing their self-determination”

I have absolutely no clue what this means. There is nothing we need to apologize for.**

Frankly, that attitude is a good deal of the reason why America is alientating it’s allies and further infuriating it’s enemies.

3.The Israelis will be shocked to hear about this. Why don’t we just make Palestine “not continue to exist in it’s present form”. Or every country you don’t like. :rolleyes:

Could you perhaps point to the country called Palestine on a map?

**6. The private sector is better suited to making hydrogen and other types of power a reality. The government shouldn’t be muddling. **

The private sector won’t invest serious money into alternative fuels until they are cheaper than oil. The government could take the initiative to jump start earlier development in light of current foreign policy issues related to oil.

**8.Why don’t we just get rid of those pesky elections once and for all, eh?

I’m with you on CFR being a bad idea. There was never any public pressure for this issue. The incumbents wanted to protect themselves from losing elections and this was the result. Bad idea from the beginning, and unconstitutional to boot. **

Good god, where in the world did you get the idea that I’m opposed to CFR? I think politicians are generally career liars and corrupt sellouts. We need to place much greater restrictions on their fund raising activities, and make TV air time free to remove much of the cost of modern campaigns and the need for massive fund raising.

**11.It’s not societys job to treat addicts. **

Why not? We’re the ones paying to lock them up.

13. All gun laws are asinine. Shagnasty already points out that you don’t even know what you are talking about here. If you don’t like guns, great. Don’t buy one.

What exactly would the removal of all gun restrictions accomplish? Second, I may not no much about guns, but you’re not exactly a maven when it comes to foreign policy or politics in general.

15. Privatization is the only thing that can save education. Throwing more money at the problem isn’t a solution.

Why does the right always assume that the free market is the ultimate panacea?

[you_with_the_face]

Giving $50 B to African Americans so they can buy 40s and chicken wings will not help a single person. What will help African Americans is to invest a little time and effort into their communities and find role models for their youth other than gangster rappers and illiterate basketball players.

:smack: Brilliant idea! Let me just finish up lunch ( fried chicken and watermelon, of course!), and I’ll get right on top of that. :rolleyes:

[robertliguori]

Why does the right always assume that the free market is the ultimate panacea?

Because, in the great marketplace of the world, the capitalists have brought the most?

[cainxinth]

*Originally posted by Bryan Ekers *
**This is hilarious in its blatant anti-PC premise and provides a refreshing counterpoint to the sanctimony of the OP.

As for the 15 original points, I like the scientific/technological ones and some aspects of the drug-legalization ones (though aspirin is deadlier than marijuana?? Cite, puh-leeze, and you’ll have to take into account fatal accidents caused by drivers and machine operators who’ve smoked a few), all the political/economic ones are Grade-A hooey. **

Drug War Facts I tried to copy the specific data but my browser has been glitchy lately. Check page 15; 7,600 people die from overdoses on NSAIDs like aspirin each year, and none die from overdosing on marijuana, which is for all intents and purposes impossible to do. I didn’t take into account accidents and other externalities, just the pharmacology of the two drugs. However, I couldn’t find a cite but I believe there are studies showing that rarely do emergency room patients have only THC in their system, usually other drugs or alcohol are found as well. Anyone know anything about that?

And, what is hooey about my political opinions? The are ultra-liberal, but that in and of itself shouldn’t disqualify them as valid.

P.S. This isn’t sanctimony, I was being genuine. The sole purpose of this thread was to open myself up to attack to reevaluate and strengthen my opinions.

[msmith537]

*Originally posted by tagos *
So, by that logic, coal is not an energy source as it requires a combustive process to release the energy and the working prototype hydrogen powered cars a cousin of the unicorn. An interesting grasp of science you have there. **

I think you are the one who needs to get a grasp on science. Energy is released from both coal and hydrogen through a combustion process. The diference is that coal and oil you can just dig up out of the ground. Hydrogen has to be separated from water through electrolosis or some catalytic method. That means to a certain extent, you are using the fuel you would have put into cars to run extra powerplants that will provide the electricity for separating hydrogen from water.

The point is that converting from a petroleum based economy to a hydrogen based one is not simply a matter of drilling for hydrogen instead of oil.

[Ludovic]

*Originally posted by msmith537 *
**[T]o a certain extent, you are using the fuel you would have put into cars to run extra powerplants that will provide the electricity for separating hydrogen from water.
**

Well, you can convert electricity from a renewable resource (wind, direct solar, biomass) into hydrogen via your mentioned electrolytic or catalytic methods. Such resources could NOT have otherwise been used to drive cars, excepting methane biomass.

In the short term, of course, you are right, since the energy from power plants currently mostly comes from fossil fuels, but researching hydrogen generation and hydrogen utilization techniques is a good step along the way to producing renewable transportation options.

[Debaser]

*Originally posted by cainxinth *
Killing Hope by William Blum Worth a look.

Why don’t you quote the part of the book where Mr. Blum gives evidence proving this statement:

“The Middle East is a festering wound inflicted by developed nations that have played a part in the subjugation and murder of millions to protect their access to a finite natural resource.”

Where are the mass graves of the millions of people in the Middle east that we devoped nations have killed? What decade did this happen in? Are you going to try to back this up at all or just give me a reading list?

Frankly, that attitude is a good deal of the reason why America is alientating it’s allies and further infuriating it’s enemies.

Taken out of context it is. I meant, we do not need to apologize for murdering millions of people from the middle east. That’s because it didn’t happen.

Could you perhaps point to the country called Palestine on a map?

I never said Palestine was a country. Sorry if my text was unclear. I first compared Isreal to Palestine, meaning that if one could be destroyed to end the conflict what made you choose Isreal, and not Palestine?

The private sector won’t invest serious money into alternative fuels until they are cheaper than oil. The government could take the initiative to jump start earlier development in light of current foreign policy issues related to oil.

Are you just making this up as you go along?

The private sector is investing serious money into alternative fuels. According to This article GM alone has spend nearly a billion dollars on one project to make a hydrogen fuel cell car.

Good god, where in the world did you get the idea that I’m opposed to CFR?

Well, it sounds like you are opposed to McCain-Feingold. Thats what I was referring to. CFR is easier to type.

I think politicians are generally career liars and corrupt sellouts.

McCain-Feingold passed, didn’t you hear. There can’t be any more corruption in politics, it’s illegal now. :rolleyes:

We need to place much greater restrictions on their fund raising activities, and make TV air time free to remove much of the cost of modern campaigns and the need for massive fund raising.

And McCain Feingold is a step in the wrong direction on accomplishing this. If you want to start an anti-gun organization then feel free. But, in the meantime, don’t block the NRA from advertising with unconstitutional legislation.

Why not? We’re the ones paying to lock them up.

We are in agreement that we shouldn’t be paying to lock them up. If given the choice between the two I would choose paying for rehab over prison. But, if given the choice, period, I would choose nothing. I don’t want my tax dollars paying for a junkie to have a roof over his head. Make it legal. The prices would drop, so they wouldn’t need to steal to get it. Let them OD. Personal responsibility and all that.

What exactly would the removal of all gun restrictions accomplish?

For starters there would be less crime and increased safety for all.

But since there are 30,000 less laws on the books, I will retract the “all gun laws” from my statement. Lets just say “99 percent”.

Second, I may not no much about guns, but you’re not exactly a maven when it comes to foreign policy or politics in general.

You should know something about guns if you are suggesting the proper course of action for how to deal with them.

You are the one laying out a groundwork for your perfect socialist society. All I have to do is point out that most of what you are saying is unworkable, dumb, or just an outright lie. If I was coming up with a plan to solve all of the worlds problems then the onus would be on me to be a maven when it comes to foreign policy or politics in general.

Why does the right always assume that the free market is the ultimate panacea?

It’s not. But, it’s the best we’ve got. Why does the left allways assume that government programs are the ultimate panacea?

[Bryan_Ekers]

*Originally posted by cainxinth *
Check page 15; 7,600 people die from overdoses on NSAIDs like aspirin each year, and none die from overdosing on marijuana, which is for all intents and purposes impossible to do.

BZZZT! I’m sorry, you do not win the lifetime supply of Rice-a-Roni. Your original post said “aspirin” specifically, while your cite lists 7600 deaths from a class of six drugs of which aspirin is only one. The causes of those deaths or not indicated, though I’ll assume some were from allergic reactions (making them accidental) and others were deliberate suicide overdoses.

Marijauna may be perfectly harmless as long as you’re sitting quietly in your home (though I have some doubts about the long-term lung-cancer effects of smoking it) but I’m concerned about the operation of heavy machinery while under the influence, which not only puts yourself but others at risk.

Personally, I favour legalization with strong penalties if you take your drugs outside of a controlled environment or your own home. As soon as others are put at risk by your habits, POW!

I didn’t take into account accidents and other externalities

Well, obviously.

And, what is hooey about my political opinions? The are ultra-liberal, but that in and of itself shouldn’t disqualify them as valid.

I stand by my assessment.

P.S. This isn’t sanctimony, I was being genuine. The sole purpose of this thread was to open myself up to attack to reevaluate and strengthen my opinions.

Okay, many of your opinions are stupid and should be modified to be more realistic. Satisfied?

[you_with_the_face]

It’s not. But, it’s the best we’ve got.

Sorry to bust your bubble, but we don’t have a free market. Go ask Bill Gates and he’ll tell you why.

[msmith537]

*Originally posted by Ludovic *
Well, you can convert electricity from a renewable resource (wind, direct solar, biomass) into hydrogen via your mentioned electrolytic or catalytic methods. Such resources could NOT have otherwise been used to drive cars, excepting methane biomass.
**

Yes but as of now you can’t generate enough power from wind or solar. Especially if you need an entire field of windmills or solar collectors to power the equivalent of a small town. I’m not saying it can’t be done. It’s just something that is going to take some time money and research.

And as already pointed out, just because big oil isn’t spending the money (why would they?) that doesn’t mean big automotive wouldn’t if they thought they could market it. That’s the great thing about a free(ish) market economy. There isn’t this big monolitic “they” who controls all the money and power.

[dal_timgar]

no matter how you think things ought to be what method do you use to move in that direction? the traditional and distorted ideas in the heads of millions of people are the major obstacle. the Morons In Authority have control of the boob tube and you see what idiotic crap comes out of it.

theoretically the internet can be used to move in some direction.

i am making my own feeble efforts.

http://presidentjackson.no-ip.org/knavelacademy

Dal Timgar