[Hoot Gibson]

No market at all for alternative energy: what was I thinking?

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/null/null/pc...9900050024

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuse..._a_product.

Again, you post links to articles or ads that have nothing to do with alternative energy sources. Are you reading these articles yourself before posting?

[tvtimeout]

TheReal thing,

I have had some fun today with some of the post, but just to show no hard feelings here is a site that you can use for your business or your home to see which is cheaper for you natural gas or electric. It is a free comparison, or at least it was for me.

http://www.energyshop.com/

I hope that you have a great Sabbath and God bless you and the entire Bluegrass Gang:Thumbs:

[tvtimeout]

Again, you post links to articles or ads that have nothing to do with alternative energy sources. Are you reading these articles yourself before posting?

No, I was showing that there is a market to FIND a cheaper alternative source of energy, that is all! If there was not these products would not exist!

[tvtimeout]

[quote=tvtimeout]The article to which you posted a link has absolutely nothing to do with alternative (i.e., "green") energy. Google is proposing a standardization of the voltage of the power supplies used in servers. Google claims that the change would save energy, not that it would cause a any shift from fossil fuels to some alternative source.

The deeper question though is why would google want to save energy?

[Hoot Gibson]

No, I was showing that there is a market to FIND a cheaper alternative source of energy, that is all! If there was not these products would not exist!

Energy Star appliances have been available for quite some time but energy conservation has nothing to do with alternative energy sources. When alternative energy sources are available that can compete cost-wise with fossil fuels, then there will be a market for them. Some people will pay a small premium to use energy that they perceive is more "green," but American companies that are competing against foreign manufacturers that continue to use the cheapest fuels available will not make the switch.

In a nutshell, you have done nothing to demonstrate that there is a market for alternative fuels. There is a market for energy and when something comes along that is cheaper than coal, oil, gas, hydroelectric, and nuclear produced energy, then a market will exist and not one minute sooner.

Until then, alternative energy sources such as solar cells, windmills, and fuel cells will only make sense in unusual circumstances.

[tvtimeout]

I want to clear up a few things:

First, it is an assumption on my part that some do not want alternative energy or realize that there could be a market for that.

That is why I posted first the Google link, to show a business looking to save on energy cost. (The want)

Then I post two other links to show that companies that are doing well are making money, on saving energy costs. (Fulfilling some of the need)

That tells me if they a customer wants cheaper energy costs, and companies are feeling that need, there must be a market.

Then I provided everyone an alternative source other than electricity (fulling some of the need) in natural gas.

I choose natural gas because it is right in our back door. The people of S.Ky could make a lot of money off of that, and it fits the "tree huggers" need for clean energy.

Solution solved, just call me Henry Clay the Second. (he was known as the great compromiser):biggrin:

[Hoot Gibson]

[quote=Hoot Gibson]

The deeper question though is why would google want to save energy?

Read the article. Google operates an estimated 450,000 servers. Standardizing computer power supplies at 12 volts would save Google millions of dollars. Google is not a government entity - it is in business to maximize profits for its shareholders.

[tvtimeout]

Energy Star appliances have been available for quite some time but energy conservation has nothing to do with alternative energy sources. When alternative energy sources are available that can compete cost-wise with fossil fuels, then there will be a market for them. Some people will pay a small premium to use energy that they perceive is more "green," but American companies that are competing against foreign manufacturers that continue to use the cheapest fuels available will not make the switch.

In a nutshell, you have done nothing to demonstrate that there is a market for alternative fuels. There is a market for energy and when something comes along that is cheaper than coal, oil, gas, hydroelectric, and nuclear produced energy, then a market will exist and not one minute sooner.

Until then, alternative energy sources such as solar cells, windmills, and fuel cells will only make sense in unusual circumstances.

How about Natural Gas?

[Hoot Gibson]

I want to clear up a few things:

First, it is an assumption on my part that some do not want alternative energy or realize that there could be a market for that.

That is why I posted first the Google link, to show a business looking to save on energy cost. (The want)

Then I post two other links to show that companies that are doing well are making money, on saving energy costs. (Fulfilling some of the need)

That tells me if they a customer wants cheaper energy costs, and companies are feeling that need, there must be a market.

Then I provided everyone an alternative source other than electricity (fulling some of the need) in natural gas.

I choose natural gas because it is right in our back door. The people of S.Ky could make a lot of money off of that, and it fits the "tree huggers" need for clean energy.

Solution solved, just call me Henry Clay the Second. (he was known as the great compromiser):biggrin:

First, companies have always looked for ways to minimize their costs, including their light bills. Second, natural gas is not an alternative energy source. Like coal, [B]natural gas is a fossil fuel[/B] that is already generating more than 23 percent of the electricity produced in this country.

[tvtimeout]

Hoot, it has been a pleasure! Look forward to reading response after church!

[tvtimeout]

First, companies have always looked for ways to minimize their costs, including their light bills. Second, natural gas is not an alternative energy source. Like coal, [B]natural gas is a fossil fuel[/B] that is already generating more than 23 percent of the electricity produced in this country.

Correct and it can do more than 23 percent, if we would let it! It is also clean

So why will we not let it do more, if it fits the criteria set out by those "hippies"...


I seriously got to go though, I can not wait to read your response, $5 says it will be Obama's fault or Clinton or some democrat
:biggrin:

Just joking, take care!

[Old School]

No market at all for alternative energy: what was I thinking?

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/null/null/pc...9900050024

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuse..._a_product.

I once thought products which were awarded the energystar label were more energy efficent than others without energystar approval. However more than a dozen bogus products were submitted by Congressional auditors posing as companies. These bogus products were approved and awarded the energystar label.

"In a nine-month study, four fictitious companies invented by the accountability office also sought EnergyStar status for some conventional devices like dehumidifiers and heat pump models that existed only on paper. The fake companies submitted data indicating that the models consumed 20 percent less energy than even the most efficient ones on the market. Yet those applications were mostly approved without a challenge or even questions, the report said."

Auditors concluded that the EnergyStar program was highly vulnerable to fraud.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/scienc...6star.html

I once looked for the energystar label, but after this report came out last year, the once mighty energystar label means very little to me.

[Hoot Gibson]

Correct and it can do more than 23 percent, if we would let it! It is also clean

So why will we not let it do more, if it fits the criteria set out by those "hippies"...


I seriously got to go though, I can not wait to read your response, $5 says it will be Obama's fault or Clinton or some democrat
:biggrin:

Just joking, take care!

I have no problem with increasing the production and utilization of natural gas but I don't think that power generation is the best way to utilize it.

Buses in the DC Metro area run on natural gas and as gasoline prices rise, it makes more sense to me to build more cars that run on natural gas than to burn natural gas to generate electricity.

As for the criteria set out by those "hippies" running Obama's administration, natural gas produces CO2, which Obama and others who have fallen for the AWG scam believe is going to destroy the Earth by melting the ice caps, flooding New York City, killing polar bears, etc. Natural gas, in their collective opinion, is part of the problem not the solution.

Have a good evening.

[tvtimeout]

I have no problem with increasing the production and utilization of natural gas but I don't think that power generation is the best way to utilize it.

Buses in the DC Metro area run on natural gas and as gasoline prices rise, it makes more sense to me to build more cars that run on natural gas than to burn natural gas to generate electricity.

As for the criteria set out by those "hippies" running Obama's administration, natural gas produces CO2, which Obama and others who have fallen for the AWG scam believe is going to destroy the Earth by melting the ice caps, flooding New York City, killing polar bears, etc. Natural gas, in their collective opinion, is part of the problem not the solution.

Have a good evening.

You and I agree what in the world is going on around here.


Why do you think this hasn't happened yet for all cars?

Now we agree with the premises, that it natural gas should be used for vehicals.

However, I think why it has not happened we will probably disagree...

I will say first for the left, they have not figured out how to make some money off of it.

I will say for the right, it hurts the companies that support the right, by directly cutting into their pocket books.

So, I again I say both parties have failed the people, because they did not let the free market work. But I would because I am a libertarian.

I also knew you would say something about Obama, but Obama was not the President when oil prices hit an all time high was he?

[Hoot Gibson]

You and I agree what in the world is going on around here.


Why do you think this hasn't happened yet for all cars?

Now we agree with the premises, that it natural gas should be used for vehicals.

However, I think why it has not happened we will probably disagree...

I will say first for the left, they have not figured out how to make some money off of it.

I will say for the right, it hurts the companies that support the right, by directly cutting into their pocket books.

So, I again I say both parties have failed the people, because they did not let the free market work. But I would because I am a libertarian.

I also knew you would say something about Obama, but Obama was not the President when oil prices hit an all time high was he?

No offense, but you do not seem to be a libertarian to me at all, at least not based on your view of economics.

Natural gas use in vehicles should not be increased in vehicles until production can be increased. Otherwise, costs for electricity generated by natural gas, the cost of heating homes with gas, and the cost of manufacturing many chemicals from natural gas would all soar.

The laws of supply and demand do apply to energy prices. They cannot be avoided through legislation. The best thing that the federal government can do to stabilize energy costs is to let the free market work its magic. That is the libertarian approach.

If you believe that the federal government has a major role to play in making energy affordable or developing alternative energy sources, then you need to read a few books by Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell and then ask yourself if you are really a libertarian or not. However, you seem to have an open mind, and I think that reading some of Dr. Friedman's work might change your mind on several important issues. I highly recommend reading Capitalism and Freedom, which was written in the early 1960s.

[tvtimeout]

No offense, but you do not seem to be a libertarian to me at all, at least not based on your view of economics.
Natural gas use in vehicles should not be increased in vehicles until production can be increased. Otherwise, costs for electricity generated by natural gas, the cost of heating homes with gas, and the cost of manufacturing many chemicals from natural gas would all soar.

The laws of supply and demand do apply to energy prices. They cannot be avoided through legislation. The best thing that the federal government can do to stabilize energy costs is to let the free market work its magic. That is the libertarian approach.

If you believe that the federal government has a major role to play in making energy affordable or developing alternative energy sources, then you need to read a few books by Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell and then ask yourself if you are really a libertarian or not. However, you seem to have an open mind, and I think that reading some of Dr. Friedman's work might change your mind on several important issues. I highly recommend reading Capitalism and Freedom, which was written in the early 1960s.

I said to let the market work without manipulation... i.e. tax breaks, tarrifs, etc.

I said to let the companies make their own mind up, not to be forced through legislation to choose what is best for one self.

I offered alternatives to the two main fossil fuels for choice.

I say that nothing should be subsides by government, because it is not the government's place to spend the people's money in such of a way.

I have shown that supply is up and demand is down, but the price of oil is going higher. All I have done is ask the question why?

It is my theory that because of government manipulation is the reason and the left and right both gain because of this.

Nor did I ever say that people should close down coal fields or nuclear power plants, or pumping gas out of the gulf coast or Alaska, or anywhere.

I also pointed out that S.Ky could benefit with more production of natural gas, that is all I said.

Now where have I not been a libertarian on this view point.

My conservative friend, do you wish to dictate what energy source a person should be able to choose? I believe from your answers that you probably make them choose coal because that is the business you are in (I could be assuming wrongly), you have something to be gained with they did. I understand that.

What I disagree with is that someone might not have an equal oppertunity to develop alternatives or choose differnment alternatives because of regulations as before mentioned. Because of these regulations, it slows down development of new technologies. This is what I believe!

As you have pointed out many times, the left has done this over and over with EPA. However, when I discuss things that the right has done, well, your answers all of a sudden get very defensive. Is it that you believe that the right does no wrong? I don't think so, you are very intelligent person, judging again by responses. You probably think the right is the lesser of two evils and they help fill your pocket book.

How close am I?

Thanks for offering the book titles and I will be checking them out soon at the public library.

[TheRealThing]

I said to let the market work without manipulation... i.e. tax breaks, tarrifs, etc.

I said to let the companies make their own mind up, not to be forced through legislation to choose what is best for one self.

I offered alternatives to the two main fossil fuels for choice.

I say that nothing should be subsides by government, because it is not the government's place to spend the people's money in such of a way.

I have shown that supply is up and demand is down, but the price of oil is going higher. All I have done is ask the question why?

It is my theory that because of government manipulation is the reason and the left and right both gain because of this.

Nor did I ever say that people should close down coal fields or nuclear power plants, or pumping gas out of the gulf coast or Alaska, or anywhere.

I also pointed out that S.Ky could benefit with more production of natural gas, that is all I said.

Now where have I not been a libertarian on this view point.

My conservative friend, do you wish to dictate what energy source a person should be able to choose? I believe from your answers that you probably make them choose coal because that is the business you are in (I could be assuming wrongly), you have something to be gained with they did. I understand that.

What I disagree with is that someone might not have an equal oppertunity to develop alternatives or choose differnment alternatives because of regulations as before mentioned. Because of these regulations, it slows down development of new technologies. This is what I believe!

As you have pointed out many times, the left has done this over and over with EPA. However, when I discuss things that the right has done, well, your answers all of a sudden get very defensive. Is it that you believe that the right does no wrong? I don't think so, you are very intelligent person, judging again by responses. You probably think the right is the lesser of two evils and they help fill your pocket book.

How close am I?

Thanks for offering the book titles and I will be checking them out soon at the public library.

Do you believe that the Obama admistratrions moratorium on oil drilling in the gulf is govenmental manipulation? How about in the afore mentioned Alaska? There have been dozens of appropriations funding everything from wind farms to demonstrably defective solar panels and house caulking here in the US how is that holding back alternative forms of energy? Sounds like a pretty big boost for alternative energy to me.

[tvtimeout]

Do you believe that the Obama admistratrions moratorium on oil drilling in the gulf is govenmental manipulation? How about in the afore mentioned Alaska? There have been dozens of appropriations funding everything from wind farms to demonstrably defective solar panels and house caulking here in the US how is that holding back alternative forms of energy? Sounds like a pretty big boost for alternative energy to me.

Again, I say that the government should not be involved. Do you agree?

[TheRealVille]

Do you believe that the Obama admistratrions moratorium on oil drilling in the gulf is govenmental manipulation? How about in the afore mentioned Alaska? There have been dozens of appropriations funding everything from wind farms to demonstrably defective solar panels and house caulking here in the US how is that holding back alternative forms of energy? Sounds like a pretty big boost for alternative energy to me.

Hmmmmm, I heard Obama just the other day say, he was going to open up drilling in the gulf, as long as they proved they were doing it safe. You won't hear that on Faux News though.

[Old School]

Hmmmmm, I heard Obama just the other day say, he was going to open up drilling in the gulf, as long as they proved they were doing it safe. You won't hear that on Faux News though.

When can we expect to see this happen? Next month.....in a couple of months....or next year. Next month will make a year since the spill and still no drilling.

I seem to remember Barry saying that he was going to close Gitmo once he took office. Is Gitmo closed? Just saying!

BTW Barry and crew gave Brazil 2 Billion to explore offshore drilling, which is where some of the deepwater rigs were moved to, while keeping the drilling ban in the Gulf.

[Hoot Gibson]

I said to let the market work without manipulation... i.e. tax breaks, tarrifs, etc.

I said to let the companies make their own mind up, not to be forced through legislation to choose what is best for one self.

I offered alternatives to the two main fossil fuels for choice.

I say that nothing should be subsides by government, because it is not the government's place to spend the people's money in such of a way.

I have shown that supply is up and demand is down, but the price of oil is going higher. All I have done is ask the question why?

It is my theory that because of government manipulation is the reason and the left and right both gain because of this.

Nor did I ever say that people should close down coal fields or nuclear power plants, or pumping gas out of the gulf coast or Alaska, or anywhere.

I also pointed out that S.Ky could benefit with more production of natural gas, that is all I said.

Now where have I not been a libertarian on this view point.

My conservative friend, do you wish to dictate what energy source a person should be able to choose? I believe from your answers that you probably make them choose coal because that is the business you are in (I could be assuming wrongly), you have something to be gained with they did. I understand that.

What I disagree with is that someone might not have an equal oppertunity to develop alternatives or choose differnment alternatives because of regulations as before mentioned. Because of these regulations, it slows down development of new technologies. This is what I believe!

As you have pointed out many times, the left has done this over and over with EPA. However, when I discuss things that the right has done, well, your answers all of a sudden get very defensive. Is it that you believe that the right does no wrong? I don't think so, you are very intelligent person, judging again by responses. You probably think the right is the lesser of two evils and they help fill your pocket book.

How close am I?

Thanks for offering the book titles and I will be checking them out soon at the public library.

Not granting tax breaks is "letting the market work without manipulation?" Is that your idea of a libertarian approach? How about eliminating corporate income taxes because salaries and dividends are already taxed?

Money belongs to the people and businesses who earn it. Reducing tax rates and letting companies or individuals keep more of their own money does not constitute a subsidy. That is the libertarian view of taxes. Taxes should be collected only to support necessary and constitutional functions of the federal government - not to "spread the wealth around," which is Obama's theory of fair taxation.

If you want to know what a real subsidy looks like, check out ethanol subsidies. Ethanol is a bipartisan waste of money. In addition, when it is burned it produces toxic pollutants and drives the cost of corn up around the world.

I agree that government subsidies on energy should be eliminated but we must be careful to remember whose money the federal government is confiscating and spending. It bears repeating - government produces no wealth, it consumes or destroys the wealth of others.

In terms of closeness, you are not. :biggrin:

[TheRealThing]

again, i say that the government should not be involved. Do you agree?

totally

[tvtimeout]

Not granting tax breaks is "letting the market work without manipulation?" Is that your idea of a libertarian approach? How about eliminating corporate income taxes because salaries and dividends are already taxed?Money belongs to the people and businesses who earn it. Reducing tax rates and letting companies or individuals keep more of their own money does not constitute a subsidy. That is the libertarian view of taxes. Taxes should be collected only to support necessary and constitutional functions of the federal government - not to "spread the wealth around," which is Obama's theory of fair taxation.

If you want to know what a real subsidy looks like, check out ethanol subsidies. Ethanol is a bipartisan waste of money. In addition, when it is burned it produces toxic pollutants and drives the cost of corn up around the world.

I agree that government subsidies on energy should be eliminated but we must be careful to remember whose money the federal government is confiscating and spending. It bears repeating - government produces no wealth, it consumes or destroys the wealth of others.

In terms of closeness, you are not. :biggrin:

Yes on the first and I agree with you on the second point.

I would redefine our entire tax code if I could. I own major own in a small C corp, I could go on and on, how I get messed over. Again, I see government tax breaks as well as taxes, government intervention. I also think both of these do change the market, (i.e. the short wasteful housing boom, because of $8,000 tax break and companies choosing not to stay in states with high corp tax rates).

[tvtimeout]

totally

Now would you agree to get rid of the subsides as well as the tax breaks?

[Old School]

Hmmmmm, I heard Obama just the other day say, he was going to open up drilling in the gulf, as long as they proved they were doing it safe. You won't hear that on Faux News though.

From an article in the Investor's Business Daily.

"Now, with a seven-year offshore drilling ban in effect off of both coasts, on Alaska’s continental shelf and in much of the Gulf of Mexico — and a de facto moratorium covering the rest — Obama tells the Brazilians:

“We want to help you with the technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely. And when you’re ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers.”

Obama wants to develop Brazilian offshore oil to help the Brazilian economy create jobs for Brazilian workers while Americans are left unemployed in the face of skyrocketing energy prices by an administration that despises fossil fuels as a threat to the environment and wants to increase our dependency on foreign oil.

Yet in his alleged quest for "secure-energy supplies," he refuses to develop oil and natural gas resources in U.S. waters. His administration has locked up areas in the West where oil shale reserves are estimated to be triple Saudi Arabia's reserves of crude. His administration is even stalling on plans to build a pipeline to deliver oil from Canada's tar sands to the U.S. market.

That project would build a 1,661-mile pipeline from the tar sands of Alberta to U.S. refineries near Houston. It would create 13,000 "shovel-ready" jobs and provide 500,000 more barrels of oil per day from an ally.
Yet it's now being held up by the State Department because it crosses an international border, on the grounds that it needs further environmental review. Shipping oil by tanker from Brazil is safer and more secure?

[TheRealThing]

From an article in the Investor's Business Daily.

"Now, with a seven-year offshore drilling ban in effect off of both coasts, on Alaska’s continental shelf and in much of the Gulf of Mexico — and a de facto moratorium covering the rest — Obama tells the Brazilians:

“We want to help you with the technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely. And when you’re ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers.”

Obama wants to develop Brazilian offshore oil to help the Brazilian economy create jobs for Brazilian workers while Americans are left unemployed in the face of skyrocketing energy prices by an administration that despises fossil fuels as a threat to the environment and wants to increase our dependency on foreign oil.[/I

[I]Yet in his alleged quest for "secure-energy supplies," he refuses to develop oil and natural gas resources in U.S. waters. His administration has locked up areas in the West where oil shale reserves are estimated to be triple Saudi Arabia's reserves of crude. His administration is even stalling on plans to build a pipeline to deliver oil from Canada's tar sands to the U.S. market.

That project would build a 1,661-mile pipeline from the tar sands of Alberta to U.S. refineries near Houston. It would create 13,000 "shovel-ready" jobs and provide 500,000 more barrels of oil per day from an ally.
Yet it's now being held up by the State Department because it crosses an international border, on the grounds that it needs further environmental review. Shipping oil by tanker from Brazil is safer and more secure?

When Obama was running for President I heard him say several things that made me nervous;
1 "Currently the USA consumes over 64% of the worlds' total energy usage, we cannot continue to use energy at that rate"
2 "Under my plan the cost of electricity would neccessarily skyrocket"
3 "We are several days (whatever the actual number was prior to his inauguration) away from "fundamentally transforming the United States of America"

I think the liberals WANT the cost of energy to skyrocket so that the rest of the people of this country will more easily accept the green energy agenda. You got people out there that can't sleep at night because they are so sure that the consumption of fossil fuels is destroying the environment.

That's why we won't be drilling during his Presidential tenure. They look at it like forcing us to swallow the HORSEPILL CURE. We'll gripe about it but it's what we need and we'll all be publicly admitting that after it's all over. See, we're too stupid to get it so we're being legislated into submission by the SMART LIBERALS.

They don't care if gas goes to 10 dollars or 15 dollars a gallon, for that matter. That's why Obama was in Brazil making deals to buy their oil. The ones that can afford it will pay the going rate no matter what it is, and the rest of us will have to accept their vision of the Brave New World. It's not complicated just inevitable.

[TheRealThing]

Now would you agree to get rid of the subsides as well as the tax breaks?

I think all businesses should be on their own. And that includes the green energy efforts by American industry. I don't like the ethanol subsidies the solar panel subsedies or any other gifts to business. It's unethical for the federal govenment to give money to fledgling industry or any body else in name of commerce. Tax breaks would neccessarily fall under the same criteria in my book.

For the record, if somebody comes up with a car that does run on water, let them bring it on. Cheap and clean aren't bad concepts they just don't exist right now and won't for quite a while that I can see. therefore, we should develope the energy reserves we have until the technology evolves to accomplish the great green hype, I mean hope.

[tvtimeout]

I think all businesses should be on their own. And that includes the green energy efforts by American industry. I don't like the ethanol subsidies the solar panel subsedies or any other gifts to business. It's unethical for the federal govenment to give money to fledgling industry or any body else in name of commerce. Tax breaks would neccessarily fall under the same criteria in my book.For the record, if somebody comes up with a car that does run on water, let them bring it on. Cheap and clean aren't bad concepts they just don't exist right now and won't for quite a while that I can see. therefore, we should develope the energy reserves we have until the technology evolves to accomplish the great green hype, I mean hope.

I agree with you 100% ! It would be interesting to have a key to the patents office. See, if I believe that the US landed on the moon with no more computing power than it is to run this desk top that I am using. Something tells me that there has been a way to run a car either better or totally a new way of doing things. However, I think that both of the political parties can not gain favor with this new way of doing things, for an example you a very conservative person have no problem with a car that could run on water in this case. How could the right or the left point out that this would be not in your best interest and therefore you should vote for that party? The fact is they could not and thus probably would have to run on another issue that could divide you to make you think their party is right. I think that this manipulation has gone on and on and on, in the meantime nothing changes. A few topics that are "hot" aboration, gay marriage, tax breaks for the rich, dig baby dig, war in Iraq, Afganhastan.

Has any of these topics changed, even though we have a completely new white house, new congress. No, abortion is still there, gay marriage is looked down upon and not recognized, taxes have not changed, people still crying that the oil prices, (even in the Bush era, where more oil was being drilled, but prices still remained high, I still can not figure that one out) We are still at war in both of the countries, I have mentioned. However, next election cycle "change" will happen, both parties will beat their war drums, the working class against the rich, education against valture system, moral ethic choices against alternative life styles. Again, and Again, in the mean time our country will think be divided once more and nothing will change, but wait to next election cycle, then it will. :lmao::ChairHit::HitWall::please:

As for the tax thing, I also say get rid of the tax right off on morgage on houses, children, marriage, Government should not have any thing to do with my house, my children, and my marriage. I would also say get rid of all property taxes as well. In fact I would say get rid off all breaks and get rid of all taxes except for a sales tax. There I just took care of the IRS. :rockon::Clap:

[TheRealThing]

I agree with you 100% ! It would be interesting to have a key to the patents office. See, if I believe that the US landed on the moon with no more computing power than it is to run this desk top that I am using. Something tells me that there has been a way to run a car either better or totally a new way of doing things. However, I think that both of the political parties can not gain favor with this new way of doing things, for an example you a very conservative person have no problem with a car that could run on water in this case. How could the right or the left point out that this would be not in your best interest and therefore you should vote for that party? The fact is they could not and thus probably would have to run on another issue that could divide you to make you think their party is right. I think that this manipulation has gone on and on and on, in the meantime nothing changes. A few topics that are "hot" aboration, gay marriage, tax breaks for the rich, dig baby dig, war in Iraq, Afganhastan.

Has any of these topics changed, even though we have a completely new white house, new congress. No, abortion is still there, gay marriage is looked down upon and not recognized, taxes have not changed, people still crying that the oil prices, (even in the Bush era, where more oil was being drilled, but prices still remained high, I still can not figure that one out) We are still at war in both of the countries, I have mentioned. However, next election cycle "change" will happen, both parties will beat their war drums, the working class against the rich, education against valture system, moral ethic choices against alternative life styles. Again, and Again, in the mean time our country will think be divided once more and nothing will change, but wait to next election cycle, then it will. :lmao::ChairHit::HitWall::please:

As for the tax thing, I also say get rid of the tax right off on morgage on houses, children, marriage, Government should not have any thing to do with my house, my children, and my marriage. I would also say get rid of all property taxes as well. In fact I would say get rid off all breaks and get rid of all taxes except for a sales tax. There I just took care of the IRS. :rockon::Clap:

I'm sorry but, reading your posts is a little like watching somebody trying to ram their own head into a pencil sharpener. Where you see the ultimate conspiracy theory I just see agendas. Naturally we are going to agree on some things after all, you are an educator, right?

Governance should neccessarily be done from the middle, otherwise great unrest would ensue. You correctly define my politics as conservative, for the most part. The problem in my mind is that the majority doesn't rule on some very explosive issues. For instance, the majority of Americans don't support abortion on demand, (which again, is a case where liberals are legislating Americans into a submissive posture, they may not ever be converted to a view of moral acceptance but, in this manner they can certainly be controlled). By the way, I think the majority should rule over all matters not just the explosive ones.

I can accept a liberal democratic admistration, including the present one, because the will of American voters should and did prevail in the last election. What I don't like is their thinly veiled attempts to advance the agendas eminating from the extreme left wing such as the Weather Underground. If asked, the liberal reformers of our time would say that of all things they cherish the laws of our land above all else. I say that in fact they have little or no respect for any law or doctrine that doesn't facilitate movement to their extreme left agenda, and further would have no compunction what ever in going around or over any of those laws that were to get in the way of the fundamental transformation of this land. All that has to be done, is declare the law blocking the way outdated. That is exactly the case being made against the language and the integrity of the US Constitution document.

I am not ready to abandon the political structure which has served this country so well. If that structure were suddenly removed the resulting vacuum would draw in what ever was nearby. In other words in my opinion, we need to police the system we have, if not, we certainly won't be able to police the one that would replace it. Hence, my contempt for all these new laws being enacted. There is layer upon layer of bureaucracy (new law intrepteters) at the state and federal level trying to make sense of all these overlapping and layered laws we already have. That's like getting a mortgage with a dozen or so lenders, the proverbial Philadelphia Lawyer/Accountant wouldn't stand a chance of keeping it all staightened out. When one imagines this lunacy at the federal level it becomes easy to see how waste, fraud and stupidity would ensue. If we indeed live in a day when common sense will not be allowed to rule, then we will fall into chaos IMO. I'd guess that things were not that dissimilar in the Roman Senate during the inexplicable collapse of that once great empire.

Hopefully we didn't escape the destruction that once loomed over this land during the war years and cold war years so we could literally just throw it all away someday. Arguing to the point of impasse over every little thing that comes to the floor of the House and Senate.

My opinion is based on the fact that our nation has stood the test of time and tribulation. History bears out our success. The two party system isn't broken but I certainly agree that some respect among legislators, a tune-up and a brush up on what works wouldn't hurt.

[Old School]

When Obama was running for President I heard him say several things that made me nervous;
1 "Currently the USA consumes over 64% of the worlds' total energy usage, we cannot continue to use energy at that rate"
2 "Under my plan the cost of electricity would neccessarily skyrocket"
3 "We are several days (whatever the actual number was prior to his inauguration) away from "fundamentally transforming the United States of America"

I think the liberals WANT the cost of energy to skyrocket so that the rest of the people of this country will more easily accept the green energy agenda. You got people out there that can't sleep at night because they are so sure that the consumption of fossil fuels is destroying the environment.

That's why we won't be drilling during his Presidential tenure. They look at it like forcing us to swallow the HORSEPILL CURE. We'll gripe about it but it's what we need and we'll all be publicly admitting that after it's all over. See, we're too stupid to get it so we're being legislated into submission by the SMART LIBERALS.

They don't care if gas goes to 10 dollars or 15 dollars a gallon, for that matter. That's why Obama was in Brazil making deals to buy their oil. The ones that can afford it will pay the going rate no matter what it is, and the rest of us will have to accept their vision of the Brave New World. It's not complicated just inevitable.

There's no doubt that this administration is doing it's best to increase the cost of coal to make wind and solar more attractive. Just as they would like to see the cost of oil remain high so it will help the sells of smaller hybrid cars.