Do you feel guilty about the oil spill?
in [Cars]
|
Prev: Government taxes and services was Re: Toyota safety crisis prompts 'black box' plan for new cars and lorries
Next: Operation Distance Chart: 15.66%
From: Larrybud on 6 May 2010 08:06 "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, ComandanteBanana and Chief of Quixotic Enterprises" <comandante.banana(a)yahoo.com> wrote in news:51bd9347-fd76-4ab7-adeb-a6f6bc85cc82(a)a21g2000yqn.googlegroups. com: > On May 4, 9:17�pm, Phlip <phlip2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On May 4, 4:45�pm, "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrj...(a)yahoo.com> >> wrote: >> >> > Do I feel guilty? >> >> > No, I do not. >> >> > Without regard to any other energy source, America needs oil. >> >> Witness how emasculated the addict feels if he thinks his >> source is threatened. > > Yep, oil junkies are like that. > > You have to be TOUGH and admit your problem. I was drinking too > much diet cola and I just cut it off. ;) How DARE us, wanting to travel freely at our own will!! Who do we think we are, a free people?!!?!
From: Larrybud on 6 May 2010 08:11 > I stay awake until very late. But I shouldn't be afraid of the > CREEPY CREATURE, since I walk as much as I can, and bicycling is > really impossible around here. Oh, so you want ME to cycle everywhere, even though you don't. Perhaps you should move to an area which cycling is available. You know, so you can actually do as you tell others to do.
From: Phlip on 6 May 2010 08:45 On May 4, 8:36 pm, lil abner <@daisey.mae> wrote: > A lot/most people that have this irrational conviction that the world > will be mad right if we regress to a Feudal Agrarian Society are out of > their tree. Of course not. That's why progressives routinely point out that wood- burning fires have as big a carbon foot print as modern systems. Now, the electric car was invented before the gas burner. Can you think of a reason we went with the less efficient design?
From: Jeff Strickland on 6 May 2010 11:39 "lil abner" <@daisey.mae> wrote in message news:8J5En.344637$K81.303465(a)newsfe18.iad... > Jeff Strickland wrote: >> Do I feel guilty? >> >> No, I do not. >> >> Without regard to any other energy source, America needs oil. We can get >> that oil from our own sources and risk the bad effects of spills, or we >> can court the Ragheads and buy their oil. >> >> We could, and arguably should, migrate our energy sources to coal and >> natural gas, but those sources have objectionable overhead too. Perhaps >> not as objectionable as an oil spill, but somebody would pitch a fit for >> something if we used coal or gas. >> >> But coal and natural gas make poor energy sources for automobiles. They >> do make good energy sources for homes and power plants, and lots of other >> kinds of things where stationary energy is needed. >> >> I do not argue that stationary energy loads could be powered better than >> coal or natural gas can do, I only argue that if these energy loads use >> petroleum based energy, then we could switch them away and use the >> petroleum in our automobiles. >> >> I do not argue that natural ghas would not work in an automobile, but it >> hasn't the same energy value that petroleum has, so it would take more to >> drive a car 350 miles than the gasoline that is used now. >> >> I see no reason to not convert energy loads -- cars and factories -- to >> natural gas or coal, and cars would do far better with natural gas than >> with coal. America has coal and natural gas to sell to the world, but we >> should use it locally and wean ourselves from the Ragheads that would >> rather kill us that get rich from us. >> >> But, no, I do not feel guilty. It's not my fault that the envirowhackos >> have not allowed us to migrate to renewable energy, or nukes to power >> stationary energy loads. For example, my state has more than doubled its >> population in the past 30 years, but not added any new energy sources, so >> we need far more foreign oil than we might otherwise need if we had built >> alternative energy sources. >> >> Why do you ask? >> >> >> >> >> > A lot/most people that have this irrational conviction that the world will > be mad right if we regress to a Feudal Agrarian Society are out of their > tree. > If they bring our economy to a screeching halt and ban all automobiles, > air conditioners, and power plants pollution will not be reduced by 20% or > whatever magic number they pull out of the air. So, they pull those numbers out of air? That's not where I was thinking they got them.
From: Jeff Strickland on 6 May 2010 11:41
"Phlip" <phlip2005(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:bc7973f8-a127-401c-bdd2-f767216535f6(a)o14g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... On May 4, 8:36 pm, lil abner <@daisey.mae> wrote: > A lot/most people that have this irrational conviction that the world > will be mad right if we regress to a Feudal Agrarian Society are out of > their tree. Of course not. That's why progressives routinely point out that wood- burning fires have as big a carbon foot print as modern systems. Now, the electric car was invented before the gas burner. Can you think of a reason we went with the less efficient design? <JS> Turns out that electric cars ARE the less efficient design. </JS> |