 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan
|
|
|
Subject: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: DougR Date: 09 Jan 02 - 02:19 PM I read a report in the local newspaper that the Bush administration is abandoning an eight year 1.53 Billion dollar program to produce fuel efficient cars; a program touted by the Clinton administration, and particularly Al Gore who hailed the program as "the breakthrough that would quadruple fuel economy in motor vehicle fleets." I found it interesting and wondered if anyone has any comments. :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: Lonesome EJ Date: 09 Jan 02 - 02:40 PM Do you suppose the Big Oil Corporations are for or against a reduction in the consumption and demand of their product? And do you think Bush's orientation is for or against the wishes of Big Oil? Like Mr Dylan said, "you don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows." There are viable technologies extant AT THIS TIME that would reduce our usage and dependance on petroleum. There are two factors preventing implementation of these technologies : 1) The cost to automakers of re-tooling production to accomodate these new designs 2) The resistance of petroleum producers to a lessening of demand for product. A damned shame that, in some flagrant cases, the profit motive works contrary to the national interest. The fact that we could reduce our dependance on volatile Mideastern governments by achieving energy independence is ignored by a Corporate system that propogates short-term profitability, and then hypocritically declares that fattening its bottom line is a patriotic act. Rant over and out LEJ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: CarolC Date: 09 Jan 02 - 02:44 PM Really got us by the collective balls now, haven't they? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: catspaw49 Date: 09 Jan 02 - 02:44 PM Gee Doug, I can't imagine why such a conservation minded and big corporation opponent like Bush would ever do such a thing. It must be an unworkable plan I guess or I'm sure he'd have put his heart and soul behind it. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: breezy Date: 09 Jan 02 - 02:45 PM Bush is an Isolate as far as world leaders are concerned, his ignorance of the world and its needs is only surpassed by his ego.Global warming does not apply where he is concerned. Looking north towards Tennessee from N.Carolina the air didn't look too good to me.I blame the voting system.Discuss. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: CarolC Date: 09 Jan 02 - 03:02 PM BTW, DougR, your figurative balls are in that vice clamp with the rest of ours. You just haven't noticed yet. You will eventually. Or your children and grandchildren will. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: DougR Date: 09 Jan 02 - 03:06 PM Oops! Sorry. I forgot to mention that the Bush administration is going to put the money into developing alternate fuels in order to cut us lose of dependency upon oil. The money is going into Kendall's pet project: the development of Hydrogen fuel cells to run our vehicles. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: SharonA Date: 09 Jan 02 - 03:07 PM Soooooo, this came as a surprise? To anybody? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: SharonA Date: 09 Jan 02 - 03:17 PM Curses, cross-posted again! I meant to say: did Bush's abandonment of the plan backed by the Clinton/Gore administration come as a surprise to anyone? Actually, I am surprised to read that Bush has any interest in alternate fuels. What's in it for him as an oil magnate? Or is it simply a matter of political posturing (he does still have to worry about being re-elected, after all...)? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: CarolC Date: 09 Jan 02 - 03:26 PM Well, now that you've jerked our collective chains a little DougR, I think I'd like to see some actual numbers on this one. Anybody got any? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: Lonesome EJ Date: 09 Jan 02 - 03:30 PM Gals, I think Doug was joshing. The money is going into Kendall's pet project: the development of Hydrogen fuel cells to run our vehicles |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: CarolC Date: 09 Jan 02 - 03:39 PM I don't know... sounds plausible to me. What am I missing here? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: DougR Date: 09 Jan 02 - 04:06 PM Read your newspapers, gang! There is more on it there. I just thought I'd have a little fun on a slow day. **BG** DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: SharonA Date: 09 Jan 02 - 04:10 PM Now, that makes much more sense. *G* back atcha. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: SeanM Date: 09 Jan 02 - 04:44 PM Fuel cells are already 'marketable'. It's a way to get the corporations out from under the alternative fuel research edict, and let them continue with their current schedule of development. In a way, this is a lesser version of the original program - previously, standards were set as to percentages of fuel etc. Now, it seems as if the Bush crew have said "we have an acceptable alternative, screw researching further and go with it". Positives and negatives - positive, as it DOES continue fuel cell research. Negative, as it torpedoes further research in alternative tech for the immediate (and possibly further) future. However, given that he's now said "Read my li..." er... "No new taxes over my dead body" in the face of the current 'slowdown', I'd imagine this seemed like a win-win to the current staff: cut expenses to major corporations (without having to cut their taxes again, which has lately been a point of contention with both the Legislative branch and a growing body of the general public), throw a bone to the environmental lobbies, and claim that he's cutting back the excesses of the previous administration - all without having to get into any messy PR fights. M |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: NicoleC Date: 09 Jan 02 - 04:51 PM I have mixed feelings. I'm all for hydrogen cell cars. However, I'm also not for wasting $1.5 billion just because the Global Village Idiot doesn't want to support anything that Clinton might have supported. Here's the oil industry slant though -- Family size sedans getting 80 mpg on showroom floors by 2004 was the goal under the Clinton plan, and the primary beneficiaries were the auto makers, who stand to make more money by selling more fuel efficient cars. Oil companies lose, because they sell less product. There's a prototype sedan at 70 mpg already. This is no pipe dream. Under the Bush hydrogen cell plan, we won't see any production cars until at least 2012, which is 10 more years to sell highly profitable oil to people driving their mandated gus guzzlers. Remember, Bush fought against even a moderate raise in the average fuel efficiency standard last year -- the cars sold today have worse gas mileage than in the 80's. And the primary beneficiaries under Bush's plan (surprise, surprise) are the oil companies, because they will be the ones selling hydrogen fuel at existing gas stations. Needless to say, it'll be the American taxpayer who pays for building the massive new infrastructure that the refining and delivery of hydrogen fuel will need, leaving the energy companies with lots and lots of profit and no expenditures. Since the oil industry is already the heaviest subsidized industry with American taxpayer dollars, I'm not surprised that Dubya wants to give his oil buddies another perk. After all, they paid for his election :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: artbrooks Date: 09 Jan 02 - 04:59 PM This from cnn.com: WASHINGTON (AP) - After nearly $1.5 billion in subsidies, the Bush administration is ending an eight-year program to help automakers develop high-mileage, family size cars. Instead, it wants to spur the growth of hydrogen fuel cells to power the next generation of motor vehicles. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, addressing an auto show in Detroit, planned Wednesday to tout hydrogen fuel cell development as part of a broader strategy to reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil and help the environment by reducing carbon dioxide emissions and other automotive pollution. Department officials said Abraham would be joined by auto executives in unveiling the new program, called "Freedom Car." It is expected to emerge as the Bush administration's response to critics who are calling for a phase-out of gas-guzzling cars and sport/utility vehicles. Automobile fuel economy is likely to be a major issue when the Senate takes up energy legislation next month. Democrats are calling for the government to require increased auto fuel efficiency, especially as it applies to the popular sport/utility vehicles. The Energy Department and senior White House policy officials in the Bush administration all along have expressed little enthusiasm for the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles, an ambitious government-industry effort aimed at quadrupling automobile fuel economy by the middle of this decade. The department said the new fuel cell program would supersede the new-generation vehicle partnership, which had pushed industry development of hybrid gasoline-electric cars now just entering the market. The old program had focused industry attention on finding ways to improve fuel economy without reducing car size and zip. Begun in 1993 and championed by the Clinton administration -- especially Vice President Al Gore -- the joint venture between the federal government and the Big Three domestic automakers was seen as a way to put family-size sedans that get 80 miles per gallon into showrooms by 2004. Using advanced aerodynamics, new engine technologies and lighter composite materials, the automakers in the program developed prototypes of vehicles capable of getting more than 70 mpg, three times better fuel economy than most cars now on the road. But commercial development of large numbers of these cars in the next few years, as once envisioned, was not expected. Although Abraham supported the program as a senator from Michigan, shortly after he became energy secretary he said the highly touted program had outlived its usefulness because the auto industry was going in a different direction. The administration proposed slashing funding for the program as part of its first budget a year ago. Nevertheless, Congress continued to keep it alive, even as some environmental groups and the watchdog Taxpayers for Common Sense called the program an unnecessary subsidy for the car industry. Instead, the administration intends to focus on speeding up development of hydrogen fuel-cell powered vehicles, a technology that has attracted intense interest in recent years. This new government-industry partnership "will further the president's national energy policy, which calls for increased research in hydrogen technology to diversify and enhance America's energy security," the Energy Department said. It is hoped that the new federal push for development of fuel cells will spur industry efforts to develop motor vehicle engine and power systems that eventually will replace the internal combustion engine. Although several automakers, including DaimlerChrysler, Ford and General Motors, have said they expect to have fuel-cell vehicles in showrooms within the next four or five years, wide availability of such cars is probably a decade or more away. A fuel cell produces energy from a chemical reaction when hydrogen is combined with oxygen. The only byproduct is water. In recent years, the cost of fuel cells has dropped sharply. Hydrogen can be produced from natural gas aboard vehicles or pure hydrogen can be used, requiring development of a new supply infrastructure. It would appear, on the face of it, that development of fuel cell technology is a better option than coming up with better ways to burn gasoline. The question I'd have is, will we would suddenly turn in another direction after seven more years of research in this direction (assuming for the sake of discussion that Mr. Bush lasts that long), and start all over again, again? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: DougR Date: 09 Jan 02 - 05:12 PM Gee whiz. It's awfully hard to please some of you folks. For months many folks have been talking about Bush only being interested in helping his friends in the oil industry. Here he is trying to do something that should please all you folks that hate emission spouting gasoline engines, and you still criticize him. (Sigh) According to news accounts, it will take only a couple more years to develop vehicles powered by hydrogen cells than it will to get the gasoline powered 80 mpg models to market! Bush has made a positive envirnomental move that should tickle you to death, and you still don't like it. (Sigh) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: SharonA Date: 09 Jan 02 - 05:42 PM SeanM: Actually, what he said was "Not over my dead body will they raise your taxes"... which made me laugh. The proper phrase would have been "They'll raise your taxes over my dead body." It seems to me that he's really saying "They don't have to kill me first to raise your taxes. I won't stand in their way." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: LoopySanchez Date: 09 Jan 02 - 05:57 PM A late-afternoon high-five to Doug for reeling in the best catch of the young year so far... Hope that hook didn't leave a mark on anybody's cheek!
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: CarolC Date: 09 Jan 02 - 06:10 PM Just a gentle reminder: each of us has the ability to be mindful of our own fuel consumption, whether or not the current administration chooses to fund the promotion of more fuel efficient cars. If we, the consumers, decide that we want to use less fuel, there are already many ways that we can do that right now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: CarolC Date: 09 Jan 02 - 06:12 PM LoopySanchez, to you it may be a sport. To others of us, it's serious business. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: Gareth Date: 09 Jan 02 - 06:58 PM Personally lets go back to steam! Then us Welsh can hold the World to ransome. Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: gnu Date: 09 Jan 02 - 07:15 PM We use steam here in New Brunswick to generate electricity. We generate the steam with a Candu reactor, which is completely safe and reliable. Well, it went down Saturday, less than a week after the last time it went down, but it;s completely sfae... reely, tust ma, its fin, coodnt be faser. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: GUEST,John Gray / Australia Date: 09 Jan 02 - 07:21 PM Why should gov'ts spend billions of dollars of taxpayers money on fuel efficiency programs when private enterprise will have to solve the problems anyway if they wish to remain in existence. I just can't see the big oil companies one day saying, sorry folks - no more petrol. And the big auto manufacturers will have to develop a fuel efficient engine if they want to keep selling cars. Let the share/stock holders foot the bill, they're the ones deriving a benefit. Bet the Conestoga didn't receive a gov't research grant. JG ( And the meek will inherit the earth-the Amish? ) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: GUEST Date: 09 Jan 02 - 07:23 PM Bush is NOT interested in alternative fuels development. He is interested in alternative fuels development the Republican/corporate cabal can control. BTW DougR, if Bush is so conserved with conservation, global warming, and fuel efficiency, why scrap the legislation designed to address those problems? Why not develop fuel cells AND cleaner, more efficient petroleum based fuels at the same time? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: kendall Date: 09 Jan 02 - 07:34 PM There is another school of thought on this, I overheard a crotchety old guy say, "What we otta do is get the biggest cars and trucks, with the biggest engines, do all short trip driving, and, when we fill up, just let it overflow and let the same amount of fuel we put into the tank run down the street. Use it up! then, when it's all gone they will be FORCED to deal with it." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: NicoleC Date: 09 Jan 02 - 07:39 PM Doug, I agree -- it is a positive environmental move. I want one as soon as they solve that little exploding problem. (Maybe they'll call the first on the Pinto II.) Unfortunately it's combined with the complete waste of $1.5 billion in taxpayer dollars. Why no talk of integrating the plans to capitalize on the research we've already paid for? I wonder what will happen to the international automotive fuel cell partnership down the street from here. Will the domestic car manufacturers pull out? Or will the Japanese and Germans because they don't want to try and keep up with the subsudies? In the meantime back at the ranch, keeping your tires inflated properly can save up to 2 mpg. Americans burn 37o million gallons of gas a day. According to the EPA, "If auto manufacturers increased fuel economy by as little as 3 mpg, consumers would save as much as $25 billion a year in fuel costs... That modest increase in fuel efficiency... would also reduce 140 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year and cut the United States' reliance on foreign oil by 1 million barrels of oil each day..." Wow. Call it up to 600,000 barrels of oil less per year if we all would just inflate our tires properly. (And the manufacturer's sticker is frequently underinflated for most driving conditions.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: DougR Date: 09 Jan 02 - 07:39 PM Probably has to do with cost, Guest. If the overall plan is to wean outselves from petroleum based fuels, why spend billions developing more efficient engines to operate on it? As to his personal interest, I do know for a fact that he had his ranch vehicles converted to operate on either propane or butane. In fact everything on the ranch is fueled by one or the other. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: catspaw49 Date: 09 Jan 02 - 07:46 PM No hook here Loopy. I meant it and any of you that believe you're going to see some massive changeover in the next 15-20 years, say hello to the Easter Bunny for me. Having "cars in dealer showrooms" is a far cry from fueling vehicles with fuel cells. This measure simply lets the OEM's off the hook to actually develop serious workable alternatives in either the short or long term......and in the end, I'll bet you dollars to donuts that hydrogen won't be it. Exxon and General Motors are really enjoying this. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: NicoleC Date: 09 Jan 02 - 07:49 PM Doug, don't try and try Dubya into an environmentalist. You'll have to do some major contortions :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: Lonesome EJ Date: 09 Jan 02 - 08:34 PM Hoping my friend Rex will chime in on this thread. He's been involved in some of the research and can speak knowledgeably on the subject. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: Ebbie Date: 09 Jan 02 - 09:08 PM ...I do know for a fact that he had his ranch vehicles converted to operate on either propane or butane. In fact everything on the ranch is fueled by one or the other. DougR You forgot the other on the list: hot air. And did you also notice that we are going back to underground nuclear testing? Joyous news. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: Bobert Date: 09 Jan 02 - 09:42 PM Now ol' bobert may just be some dumb hillbilly but doesn't the hydrogen cell car depend on extracting the hydrogen from water with the use of electricity. And if so then where do we plan on getting that extra electricity other than burning existing fuels? Now, I was talking to my cousin Rufus the other day and he thought we could have thousands and thousandss of big ol' windmills that make electricity and they could produce enough electricity to meet the entire nations needs without burning the first gallon of foscil fuel, and have enough left over to extract enough hydrogen to fuel all the cars. But I don't know. After all, poor ol' Rufus only went thru the third grade and still thinks his Chevette is the best car ever built. Now, ol' bobert just has one question. Why is it that the fuel prices went up like crazy until the Republicans lost control of the Senate giving the opposition party control of committees and with that, control of subpena powers and investigative powers? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: DougR Date: 09 Jan 02 - 09:43 PM It's about time we had some spirited discussion around here. After all, we are nine days into 2002! WHERE'S Kendall? And Ebbie, I cannot attest to the fact that Bush has any hot air baloons on his ranch. We do have a lot at this time of the year in our Arizona skies, however! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: Ebbie Date: 09 Jan 02 - 10:03 PM :), DougR
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: kendall Date: 09 Jan 02 - 10:08 PM I'm here Doug, check previous post. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: JedMarum Date: 09 Jan 02 - 10:24 PM Investment of resources into Hydrogen powered cars sounds like a good idea to me. Because we scrapped further investment into the previous increased mileage research does not mean that money, time, resources were wasted. The truth is, as John Gray so correctly pointed out, and Carol C likewise in a variation of the same theme ... the market, or we the consumers will make a change happen if we need it to. But if we believe the evil corporations have put our government in place and have fostered a world in which only they really have power and influence - then we could never believe a Hydrogen (or any other program) put in place by the puppet Bush will be good. Some believe in Santa Claus, some believe in Big Foot and Nessie - we believe what we want to believe. So if we've identified all the evils of the world to the corporation and to profit, well; then don't confuse us with the facts. Some of the comments here betray a bigotry that is every bit as ignorant and damaging as racism. There are others on the anti-corporate side that are more reasoned. Corporations need to be watched and monitored and made to follow the laws - but they are NOT evil incarnate. Profit is NOT the ultimate sin. And people who do not believe that the auto and oil industries secretly rule the world are not ignorant pawns or supporters of evil empires. Bush would be a fool to think this sort of move would have any beneficial effect on his political career. We could drop 100 million tons of food into Afganistan's starving population and if they truly hated the USA, as the Taliban did and wanted the population to - they'd burn the food and starve. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: Bobert Date: 09 Jan 02 - 10:30 PM As for underground testing, Ebbie. Kind of reminds me of folks that think that conception is a miracle. You get a couple of teenagers tangled up in the backseat of dad's Honda Accord it's more of a miracle when conception doesn't happen. But, hey, I like a big bang as much as the next guy, but I'd rather keep it in the backseat than in the Nevada desert. I mean like... aahhh... what? Are we worried that a bomb we put together some 57 years ago, before computers, before "Leave it to Beaver", before the Beatles, before smart bombs, smart bags and smart food all of a sudden will find its self too dumb in this smart world to...ahhh... blow it's dumb self up? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: DougR Date: 09 Jan 02 - 10:54 PM Bobbert: Huh? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: catspaw49 Date: 09 Jan 02 - 11:02 PM Jed, think what you will but I too have worked for two large corporations and ran my own small business for years before that, and I can assure you that I do NOT believe that profit is a dirty word. I do think that windfall profits at times are more than excessive and any corporation will get around any regulation possible for the profits accrued. It's like cheating in NASCAR.....you have to keep trying. The difference is that Bush just told them to go ahead and cheat. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: GUEST,misophist Date: 09 Jan 02 - 11:06 PM Let's face it gang. Even the greatest fool can do something right once in a while. But George W. is scum, his daddy is two faced scum, and the whole thing stinks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: Ebbie Date: 09 Jan 02 - 11:10 PM TIC, Bobert, TIC, with just a hint of sneer... (Awful word, ain't it!) I DON'T want fullscale testing to resume, underground or not. And I seem to remember it was the Big Bush who first discontinued the testing and Clinton who signed on in his turn. World tensions will be directly affected, imo, if we renege. It seems like the Cold War is being systematically and efficiently reinstated. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: Bobert Date: 09 Jan 02 - 11:20 PM Spawz is right. There are folks among this population who will do any thing they can to get their hands in our pockets. This ain't about what folks pay for fuel in Europe or the moon for that matter. Its about what corporations here in this counrty percieve their unalienable rights to rip off the American people. I. froggin E., Junior's BIG OIL BUDDIES. Fact #1: Pump prices shot up 60% in Junior's first 90 days in office. Fact #2: When Senator Jeffries switched parties, giving the Democrats investigative and subpena powers, pump prices started going back down. Fact #3: all this oocured before 9-11!!! You can do the math... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: DougR Date: 10 Jan 02 - 12:07 AM Boppert: I think you not only use twisted math, you appear to also use twisted logic! Reduced gasoline prices were realized within the past couple of months. Pray tell me, and my Mudcat friends, what GWB did during his first 90 days in office to cause gasoline prices to increase. Okay? Then: tell me what Jeffords switching parties had to do with the decrease in prices at the pump. Okay? Specifics, por favor. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: WyoWoman Date: 10 Jan 02 - 12:10 AM Actually, I think the switchover to getting the hydrogen fuel cell technology is smart, whatever prompted it -- and I'm exceedingly suspicious of motives here. But, I'll take what we can get right now. Maybe someone started paying attention to the newest scientific opinion which is that global climate change isn't likely to be a gradual phenomenon but a sudden one, and that the only country in the entire world that single-handedly can ruin the future with its carbon emissions hasn't been willing to do a damned thing. Maybe, just maybe, someone's started taking the science seriously. We already could provide enough electricity for the entire country with wind-power plants in just three of the Plains states, but that's a bit far down the road. However -- it's coming, and it's no longer pie in the sky. Wind power generation increased something like 21 percent just last year alone, with no help from the U.S. government. Just imagine what could happen if we actually started getting some tax incentives again like we had back in the '70s. Amazing how quickly progress can happen with just a moderate degree of incentive. I wonder if Bush's decision to do this has anything to do with the investigation into the way his Energy Policy got set, under the direction of Vice Prez Cheney, with what some might say was undue involvement of and influence by the extractive energy companies in the process. What a surprise that two Texas oil men come up with a national energy process that requires sucking every remaining drop of oil out of the earth, regardless where it's found ... So, Doug, yes, I think the decision to use resources to develop fuel-cell technology a good development -- even a really exciting development. But I'm skeptical and will be interested to see how this unfolds ... Oh, and to answer a question/comment posed up there somewhere -- I think the newest iteration of the fuel-cell engines seem to have the exploding part of the program handled. There's been some amazing work done on all this in the past few years. ww |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: DougR Date: 10 Jan 02 - 12:51 AM Well, WW, we all know that we reside in a community of skeptics here at the Mudcat, so your skeptism is not unexpected. However, there is just the bare possibility that (and I grant there will be even more skepticism after my next statement) we have a president now that really, and truly, is committed to doing what he feels is best for the country. One could argue that every president has done that, but few presidents in recent history have been faced with a similar challenge that GWB faces. Clinton could have been, but when the opportunity arose to challenge Osma Bin Laden on his watch, he turned the other cheek. If he hadn't, we might not be in the fix we are in today. I'll modify that. We might not be in as BAD of a fix as we are in today. The feeling that I get from our current president is that his primary interest is to do the best job he can do for the American people during the next eight years, as he sees it. Obviously not everyone is going to agree with the way he sees it, including many here on the Mudcat. But after his eight years are over, I think all he wants to do is go back to his ranch in Crawford, Texas, and live out his days. I don't think he gives a damn about his legacy or what historians say. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: GUEST Date: 10 Jan 02 - 07:49 AM There is no reason why hydrogen fuels can't be developed at the same time that more fossil fuel efficient cars and fuels are produced. It isn't a question of needing more research for the latter, as the technology is already available. The truth of the matter is, the largest corporate interests in the world control the fuel we use to transport ourselves from here to there everyday. Increased fossil fuel efficiency and conservation will result in those corporate interests losing profits. We are ruled by the energy oligarchies, and the Bush family are members of that oligarchy system, pure and simple. I agree there is nothing inherently evil about making a profit. What *is* inherently evil is taking profits at the expense of the majority of the earth's population and resources to do it. Not very wise, now is it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: kendall Date: 10 Jan 02 - 07:54 AM I get a bit tired of folks blaming Clinton for "not doing anything serious" about Bin Laden or any other terrorist. 17 November is a terrorist gang in Greece that has operated since Nixon, with impunity, and they are still at it.The police and the military are in their pockets, and even though they have murdered over 100 people, some Americans, no president has done anything. Big corporations and profit, "money makes the mare go" is an old saying, and although I have nothing against profit, I do have something against profiteering. As I mentioned in another thread, L.L.Bean sells shirts for $37.00, made in China. Now, that is one hell of a profit! On top of that, China is building up her nuclear capability (due to that smirking doofus and his silly "star wars" thing), and we are paying for it! That may not be evil, but, it sure as hell is short sighted. BTW I refused to play L.L.Bean's game, went to another store and paid $10.00 for two nice flannel shirts, made in Pakistan. If Bean's shirts were made in the U.S.A. I would have paid the $37.00. We are selling our country to China, and, one day we will be to China what Canada is to the USA right now. It really burns me up that I can't buy anything electronic made in the USA because all our big companies moved to Mexico, China and Japan. They profit from slave labor while our working people end up in dead end jobs, learning to say "Welcome to Wal-Mart" or "Do you want fries with that"? The love of money is the root of all evil. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: GUEST Date: 10 Jan 02 - 08:27 AM Greed, avarice, and a lust for power is what all the Bushy boys are all about. Anybody who believes they are decent human beings is probably taking too many anti-depressants they believe they need, after being programmed by the drug cartel shows broadcast on their evening propaganda programming devices.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: JedMarum Date: 10 Jan 02 - 10:45 AM Spaw - firstly, I'd have put your points in the reasoned arguments category ... and secondly I agree that profit seekers (big corps as well as small businesses) must be forced to play by the rules - and some will cheat if they can, some will not. Windfall profits are not in and of themselves evil either. Many businesses count on those times when the market place 'moon and stars' align and produce huge profit margins - because they have long periods of lean times as well. When a product or service creates a huge profit for a particular business, you can bet your ass that competitors will arrive very quickly to get their share of that profit - and the resulting competition will improve the quality of the product or service and the price. Real windfall profits are anomolous and short lived. How does Bush give permission for corporations to cheat? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: GUEST Date: 10 Jan 02 - 12:11 PM Ask the board of directors of Enron. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: GUEST Date: 10 Jan 02 - 12:26 PM ENRON ADMITS IT'S REALLY ARGENTINA Now Massive Ineptitude, Corruption Make More Sense, Analysts Say Houston, Texas (SatireWire.com) — Collapsed due to gross mismanagement and insurmountable debt, energy company Enron today confessed to what many observers had long suspected: it is actually Argentina. Congressional leaders, who have called for an investigation into the biggest corporate failure in U.S. history, immediately dismissed Enron's claim, but Argentinians weren't so sure. "The shady deals. The crazy debt. I knew there was something familiar about those guys," said Banco del Argentina director Ernesto Caballo. Enron chairman and CEO Kenneth Lay, speaking through an interpreter via phone from Buenos Aires, apologized for any confusion the subterfuge may have caused, and noted that as a sovereign nation, the company was immune from U.S. prosecution. Lay also insisted that he had not "fled" to Argentina, but had returned home to the capital to visit "mi familia." While not directly stating it, Lay also hinted that he might in fact be Argentinian President Fernando de la Rua. Reached in Buenos Aires, de la Rua admitted he couldn't rule that out. "Things are pretty crazy around here. Who can say?" But Enron creditors, clients, and shareholders, who stand to lose billions over their exposure to the company, weren't buying any of it. "While they may act like it, they are not a South American country, and Ken Lay is not the President of Argentina," declared J.P. Morgan Chase spokesman Alex Firtilly. "They are a malfeasant U.S. corporation that has potentially caused us to lose $500 million. And Ken Lay is from Missouri." "¿Como?," Lay replied. "No hablo Ingles." As proof of his Argentinian roots, Enron CEO Ken Lay faxed this image showing him as a member of the 1978 World Cup champions. Recently ranked as high as No. 7 on the Fortune 500 list of the largest U.S. companies, Enron literally ran itself into the ground by fudging its books, making secretive deals that enriched company insiders, and relying too heavily on debt. Though it was formed in 1986 with the merger of Houston Natural Gas and InterNorth, Enron became Argentina only recently, said Lay, "on the advice of our attorneys." That counsel came none too soon. As a South American state, all pending U.S. and European lawsuits are rendered harmless. And the company escapes what had been a daily fusillade of scorn from its former home. Indeed, much as the French were baffled by America's obsession with President Clinton's sexual affairs, many South Americans say they don't understand why Enron and its leaders have been vilified. As former Colombian President Ernesto Samper explained: "In the United States, you look at corruption as an abomination We look at it as an art." EXTRADITION DENIED The U.S. State Department has refused to recognize Enron as Argentina, and a spokesman said the Bush administration has officially requested the extradition of Lay and the officers who allegedly fled with him. Argentina, however, denied the request, explaining that an entire country cannot be extradited. And besides, they added, Lay had pledged to help pay off the nation's $132 billion debt. Asked where the bankrupt Enron got such a sum, Lay explained that after proclaiming its nationhood status, the company had received an emergency IMF loan. An IMF spokesman later confirmed the payment. "From what we knew of their fiduciary practices, Enron appeared to have all the hallmarks of a typical IMF fundee," said IMF communications director Nestor Svingen. "At first, we did balk when they asked for $232 billion, but when they explained that some of the money would go to repay overdue IMF loans, we thought, 'Oh, that's all right then.'" "Not that we actually expect to see any money from anyone," Svingen added. "It's just this little game we all play. Great fun if you like numbers. Do you enjoy quadratic equations? I could do them all day." Asked what Enron/Argentina had pledged to do with the extra $100 billion it requested, Svingen said the application had specified funding for "civic infrastructure improvements." "That usually means the president is going to build a palace," Svingen explained. RECOMMEND THIS PAGE Copyright © 1999-2002, SatireWire.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: DougR Date: 10 Jan 02 - 12:31 PM Guest: Horse feathers. Why is it illogical when developing an energy policy to consult with those who control most of the energy? If one were going to develop a policy on manufacturing blevits, I assume one would gather information from a blevit manufacturer. The previous administration had ample time to develop an energy policy, and never did it. Why? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: Lonesome EJ Date: 10 Jan 02 - 12:38 PM Are corporations evil? I don't think so. They are basically soul-less entities whose primary focus is on the quarterly profit picture. If the bottom line on the quarterly report doesn't look good, it tends to panic the shareholders, stock prices drop, heads roll, etc. This isn't evil. In fact, its completely understandable. It does tend to become an obstacle to long-term goals, and that's why companies tend to devote the bulk of their energies to maximizing profits in the short term. WW has a good point. If you want to encourage long-term solutions, it is essential to encourage that kind of activity through grants or other incentives. Reward innovative research and new technology exploration with the only reward that these corporations truly understand...cash. Now, I will admit to stepping hard into Doug R's little trap in his first post. I am truly inclined to see Bush as a yes-man for Big Oil. But you know what? I hope I'm wrong. That's why I'd like to hear some hard facts on the progress and application of hydrogen cell technologies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: GUEST Date: 10 Jan 02 - 12:39 PM We aren't talking about Clinton/Gore. Even if we were, at least they didn't create a bogus "energy crisis" to immediately begin energy profiteering, like the Bush/Cheney administration did as soon as they took office. Chairman Lay was one of the largest financial backers of the Bush/Cheney campaign. The connections between the Bush family and the Enron corporation are very well documented (try a Google search with Bush+Enron). They are all a bunch of crooks, nothing more, nothing less. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: DougR Date: 10 Jan 02 - 01:56 PM Pardon me, unidentified Guest. I was under the impression I started this thread! :>) If you will READ my first post, I think you will see that Clinton and Gore were introduced early on. So they, and their "no energy policy" administration, is fair game. LEJ: I think that is a reasonable request myself. I have a hunch WW knows a bit more about the technology than she has let on. Perhaps her publication has looked into it. If so, perhaps she will share more with us. Perhaps she is just being coy ...**BG** As to your reference to Bush and the Enron connection, unidentified guest, the Bush administration has ordered the Justice Department to perform a full review of the Enron bankruptsy. Hmmm. Remember when Loreal was found to have sold America's nuculear secrets to China? Do you recall the Clinton administration ordering an investigation of that company and that situation? I don't think so. Why? Because the Clinton Justice department led by Janet Reno used all their efforts to cover up and protect Clinton and Gore. Prove me wrong. :>) DougR
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: LoopySanchez Date: 10 Jan 02 - 01:57 PM The Clinton administration didn't engage in "energy profiteering"? Funny, I recall Clinton requested that OPEC lower their oil production while he was in office, so that Russia could sell more oil (i.e, get money from us to pay back the money they owed us), and so the Riati family in Indonesia could sell more oil (in other words, "Thanks for your generous donations to the DNC--now here's our donation to you"). I also recall that Al Gore has a family trust with $500,000 in Occidental Oil Company stocks which tripled in value when they were able to start selling the oil in their Naval reserves around that time--the same oil that was at the center of the Teapot Dome scandal when a similar shady deal was attempted. But they're Democrats, so it doesn't count. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: DougR Date: 10 Jan 02 - 03:18 PM Suppose so, Loopy. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: catspaw49 Date: 10 Jan 02 - 03:35 PM Not worth arguing here....same old shit. Let's "assume" that Hydrogen fuel cell technology was completely developed and totally safe and ready to use. How soon would YOU "assume" they would be in complete across the board usage by the big 3? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: DougR Date: 10 Jan 02 - 05:39 PM You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me, Spaw? :>) I see no reason why they wouldn't be put them on the market as soon as practical. The big 3 will make money from them too, right? I think it would be great if the technology can be perfected, and all the gas guzzlers taken off our roads. No pollution, a reduction or perhaps elemination of global warming, and no more dependence on the middle east! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: Lonesome EJ Date: 10 Jan 02 - 06:35 PM Apparently, the big sticking point is that the conversion of base fuel to usable hydrogen must happen instantly on demand, as stored hydrogen would tend to create "the Hindenberg Effect" in a crash situation. Currently, ammonia is the most likely candidate for base fuel. The technology has tremendous potential to power everything from autos to locomotives and freighters. But will it be viable in a reasonable period of time? And how will funds be used to hasten its perfection and adoption? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: DougR Date: 10 Jan 02 - 06:55 PM I, for one LEJ, haven't the foggiest! I trust if we could put a man on the moon, though, there are folks who can figure out how to do it. I hope so anyway. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: CarolC Date: 10 Jan 02 - 07:13 PM You know, DougR, I'm remembering some discussions you and I had on some other threads a few months ago, and I'm shocked and amazed to say that I think you're beginning to sound a bit like me. You been smoking some of the wacky-baccy? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: GUEST Date: 10 Jan 02 - 07:38 PM DougR, why should Bush appointee Ashcroft be trusted to investigate the largest corporate bankruptcy in history, but Clinton appointee Reno not be trusted to investigate a two bit land swindle? You've a very large double standard there. And you are ignoring the obvious conflict of interest. The CEO of Enron is one of the largest financial contributors to the Bush campaign. It don't take a rocket scientist to connect them dots, m'boy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: CarolC Date: 10 Jan 02 - 07:45 PM the Clinton Justice department led by Janet Reno used all their efforts to cover up and protect Clinton and Gore. It is my understanding that the Clinton Justice department led by Janet Reno was the agency that appointed all of those 'special investigators' we all came to know and love during the Clinton Presidency. And we all know how dedicated Ken Starr and his colleagues were to the cause of doing a thorough job.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: Tweed Date: 10 Jan 02 - 07:54 PM Doug, wake up Bub, your man Bush is a beady eyed huckster and ain't qualified to catch dogs. He only speaks in symbolic terms and dodges any direct questioning. I don't believe he's ever had an original idea of his own other than when it's time for him to go to the crapper. I ain't tryin' to flame you here, it's just the impression I get from the guy every time I watch him on the tube. He gives me a bad feeling and I just can't shake it loose. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: kendall Date: 10 Jan 02 - 07:56 PM ENRON...scandal involving even the White House. Savings & Loan scandal. Why is it that every time a huge load of money disappears it is on the watch of the republicans and the common people who get stuck with the bill? What ever happened to Niel Bush? Loopy, I disagree with your comment on big corporations being faceless, souless. They are run by people, greedy people. How about the luxury cruise liner that Trent Lott had being built in his home district? the one that went bankrupt and now is costing the taxpayers (that's us) two hundred a fifty million dollars? Good old Clinton, gone, but, not forgotten. He will come in handy as a means to deflect all kinds of crap from this administration for years to come. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: DougR Date: 10 Jan 02 - 08:29 PM Well Tweed, you have a right to your opinion, no question about that! Carol C: I don't think I ever posted a message stating that I was opposed to the U.S. developing alternative fuels to replace fossil fuels. My arguments, as I recall, centered around our ensuring ourselves that we had an ample supply of fossil fuels until these alternative fuels were available. Is that what you are referring to? Attorney General Ashcroft has recused himself from the Enron investigation BECAUSE he received funds from Enron for his senate campaign. That does not mean that the investigation will not take place and let the chips fall where they may. Also, Enron contributed heavily to Democrats in addition to Republicans and Bush in paticular. Latest news reports are that the Chairman of Enron approached Secretary of the Treasury, O'Neal last fall hinting that the government might be needed to bail Enron out of what was coming up, and he was turned down flat. So while Enron was a major contributor, the Bush administration did nothing to help them! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: CarolC Date: 10 Jan 02 - 09:28 PM No, DougR, it's this bit. I was saying some things that sound a lot like this on one of the earlier threads on the subject of alternative energy sources, and you sounded doubtful about it... I trust if we could put a man on the moon, though, there are folks who can figure out how to do it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: GUEST Date: 10 Jan 02 - 09:43 PM That's right, DougR--Ashcroft has been forced to recuse himself because of the conflict of interest. But if you think Ashcroft recusing himself in any way resolves the conflict of interest between the Bush administration and Enron, then you'll probably buy the copycat designs of your emperor's new clothes, too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: kendall Date: 10 Jan 02 - 10:20 PM It's true, Doug, that Enron contributed to the democrats too, but, no where near the 250 million dollars they gave to Bush. Besides, Bush is president! You may want him to be a "teflon president" but, if those clowns do their job investigating this mess, (as they did investigating Clintons sex scandal) he may well be a "Velcro president."Now, congressional elections are coming up this fall, just watch the republicans try to postpone the investigation until AFTER the elections. It wouldn't be the first time, would it? Are all you Nader voters listening? Are you glad you helped put doofus in the white house? I hope reality replaces emotion this fall. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: DougR Date: 10 Jan 02 - 10:48 PM Well, Kendall, I'll accept your challenge. I'll bet you a Yankee dime that the administration does nothing to stall the investigation. Ok? Guest: I really hate to respond to people who don't have the guts to identify themselves, but here goes. The Attorney General was not FORCED to recuse himself. As an honorable person, he recused himself. If you know otherwise, show me the proof, por favor. How about a Special Counsel? Hire the most talented Democrat that can be found to do the job! I don't think she can find a shred of evidence that the Bush administration did anything wrong in relation to Enron. Kendall: the 250 million figure you report is, I think, a bit higher than what the press is reporting. You got some inside information? If so, I think Senator Daschle would love to hear from you! Now as to Ralph Nader, I'm with you there! Vote for Nader! :>) DougR
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: kendall Date: 10 Jan 02 - 11:15 PM Tom Brocaw said it was 250 million on tonights news. If Ashcroft is so "honorable" how come the voters in his own district preferred a dead man to him? Honor be damned, he's covering his ass that's all. Remember when Gore tried to distance himself from Clinton? Once the excrement contacts the oscillator it's too late to duck! I'm sorry but, I've had a terrible day, and, I'm feeling more pugnacious than usual. I had no right to address the Nader voters that way. Please accept my apology. Doug, if I'm ever in Phoenix, I want to meet you, and buy you a beer. I'm really not a bad sort, right Jed? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: DougR Date: 11 Jan 02 - 01:08 AM T'would be my pleasure, Kendall, my friend! And Brocaw never has been good with numbers. :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: katlaughing Date: 11 Jan 02 - 03:56 AM DougeR? You said, The feeling that I get from our current president is that his primary interest is to do the best job he can do for the American people during the next eight years, as he sees it. When did we elect Dumbya to another four years? Did they steal a future election, too? Or are you just psychic? Tweed, I get the same feeling and am unable to even look at him; harldy able to stomach listening to him. HE is just a puppet of his father, Cheney, and the other good ol' boys. The White House has become like another Wyoming - run by good ol' boys of oil with nothing but profit in mind for themselves and their cronies and they do NOT care how they get it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: Tweed Date: 11 Jan 02 - 07:07 AM DougR, I've had a good friend for forty years who's political ideas are just about the same as yours, (maybe even a little more far right) so I guess I'd buy you a cold one if we run into one another. Kendall, you were right and honorable on both counts up there. (Crackin' on the third party and your follow up apology. Also the spelling of doofus with a lower case "d" caused minor spew on this end.) Kat, I reckon I'd buy you a cold one too. 'Specially if you're still wearin' those purple pasties with the tassles I seen you wearing at Joe's party last nite ;~) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: GUEST Date: 11 Jan 02 - 08:31 AM It seems to me you are nothing but a political troll, DougR. You never put up "proof" to *your* position and then attack every poster who disagrees with you or puts yer boys in what you perceive as an unfavorable light. As I recall, your knowledge of current affairs are gleaned from Fox News, right? That pretty much says it all. BTW, Nader voters aren't to blame for Bush being in the White House. When votes actually get counted, when the Supreme Court follows it's constitutional mandate to stay the hell out of elections, when widespread Voting Rights Act violations don't occur to void the votes of blacks, when the Electoral College is thrown out, and when the Democratic Party actually fields a candidate of substance, I'm sure the Democrats might even be able to win back the White House based upon the qualifications of their candidate. And until then, I'm still voting Green. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: LoopySanchez Date: 11 Jan 02 - 11:27 AM Don't worry, GUEST, I wouldn't use an actual name either if I didn't have anything but unprovable rhetoric and outright lies to add to the discussion. For the record: There have been a total of ZERO black voters to come foward with any evidence that they were denied the right to vote. Why do you think Jesse Jackson left town and quit pursuing the issue? Because he couldn't find anyone to back up the claims! (Also, because it's easier to shakedown corporations for protection payments by threatening to drop the "R" word on them). All LEGAL votes were counted. And recounted. And recounted. And recounted. Bush won the election for EVERY legal method that was used to count votes. The only way the votes go in Gore's favor is if double-punched and partially-punched ballots are interpreted as votes for him. I found the following list of questions about the Enron "Scandal" at the website for the Neal Boortz Show, a syndicated Atlanta talk-show. They're worth a read... So, you want to compare Bush/Enron with Clinton/Madison Guaranty and the Whitewater scandal? Fine! Let's go for it. For starters: Can you show me any evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, that George W. Bush or anyone working for George W. Bush did anything to help Enron hide its financial misdeeds? Can you name one Bush family member who received money from Enron for professional services – as an attorney, for instance? Can you show any loans to George W. Bush or any of his family members from Enron or from any of Enron's principals? Can you show that George W. Bush invested in Enron and that that investment was subsequently protected by Enron officials when the financial picture started to fall apart? Can you provide me with any evidence that any administration official, from Bush's years as Governor of Texas or since he became president, has taken any action whatsoever to prevent, stall or impede an investigation by any government regulatory agency, either state or federal, into the financial affairs of Enron? Can you provide any evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, of any sexual relations between George W. Bush and any officer or the wife of any officer of Enron? Can you produce evidence that either Enron or any Enron official ever made payments on any promissory obligation of George W. Bush or any member of his family? Can you introduce any evidence that George W. Bush, or any member of his immediate family, ever participated in the preparation of any legal documents drawn for the sole purpose of defrauding the federal government? Can you show that either George W. Bush or any member of his administration or his immediate family has lied, whether under oath or not, about any aspect of his relationship with Enron or any Enron officials? Can you provide me the name of any Enron official who is presently serving time in jail for contempt of court for his or her refusal to answer questions under oath about the role of George W. Bush or any member of his family or administration in dealings with Enron? Can you show me that any pertinent documents relating to Enron, which documents were once in the possession of George W. Bush, any member of his immediately family or any administration official has been destroyed, lost, shredded or otherwise disposed of? Explain just why there is so much criticism of George W. Bush over the Enron debacle while Enron is being represented in Washington by Bill Clinton's former attorney? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: DougR Date: 11 Jan 02 - 12:23 PM Tweed, I'd be happy to join you! Maybe you could join me and Kendall! kat: you didn't KNOW I am psychic? Guest: I attack every poster who disagrees with me? When? Who? Loopy: I assume you are not expecting a response from "Guest" to the challenges you posted. Are you? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: GUEST Date: 11 Jan 02 - 12:23 PM And now we know why you call yourself Loopy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: GUEST Date: 11 Jan 02 - 12:30 PM I agree with Spaw, and some others who have noted the futility of trying to engage in reasoned, well thought out political discussions with the vapid Republicans of Mudcat like DougR and Loopy. They obviously don't get to read much, considering all that time they spend getting the truth from Fox News and trolling Mudcat with it.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: LoopySanchez Date: 11 Jan 02 - 01:26 PM Did Mudcat start using new code to define line breaks?
It was that you used brackets instead of < and >. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: LoopySanchez Date: 11 Jan 02 - 01:32 PM I'll try this again. Feel free to delete the earlier version of this post, anyone who has the power to do so. Thanks!
The liberal lexicon book of phrases (definitions translated into English:
"Trolling"--A term used by nameless GUESTS when referring to the actions of a person with an actual identity who states a viewpoint contrary to their own.
"They obviously don't get to read much"--They have the audacity not beileve every word printed in editorial sections of the New York Times and Washington Post. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: katlaughing Date: 11 Jan 02 - 02:37 PM Loopy, we may never know the answers to your questions. See the link I put in up above...the one about shredded documents at Enron. These guys will do all they can to cover their tracks. On NPR this morning it sounded as though the whole Bush regime was going to have to recuse themselves from the investigation; that a LOT of involvment, one way or another! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: DougR Date: 11 Jan 02 - 03:30 PM kat: recusing one's self from an investigation, as I'm sure you know, is not an admission of guilt. It is done, as I'm again sure you know, to avoied be accused of impeding an investigation. Those that are recusing themselves are doing so because they accepted campaign contributions from Enron or Enron officials. Accepting campaign contributions is not a crime. Were it to be, every politician in the nation would likely be behind bars. According to reports I have heard (and not just from Fox News Network) Enron officials or the company itself contributed about $800,000 over about twenty years to Bush's campaign efforts (including governor of Texas). That is out of a total of about 141 million raised over that period of time. John Wong raised over $800,000 for Clinton and the Democrats from two fundraising coffees at the White House. I didn't hear any of my Liberal friends complaining about that! :>) Loopy: excellent response to our little guest friend. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: Bobert Date: 11 Jan 02 - 04:49 PM Hayz, evree body, Iz Bobberz couzin Rufus anz jus stopted by Bobberz ta drop oft dis 6 pak of der Blak Lapelz an sinz hez did lef hez puter ting on Iz figurred I'd jus say, Hayz to ya all an, spechullee Tweezer. Bobberz an me bean worken reel hard on hem a hyde-jin poweared steel. Wad weed deed waz takez de moder out a Rether mayz wrekted Chevette and bolded et in de bak of Bobberz pik up trux an bolded a sturplux genderater to et an den we put dis beg ol wired from da genderater en da drum filt wid de wader and den collexted the hyde-jin an den uset et en der hyde-jin ingeen dat der Bobberz god from de male odor hyde-jin ingeen compnee an dat run dee lectricitee coils dat we took out a 6 or 4 toesters ta hete der couperz tube in der steel. Bud, pleeze don teil nobuddie dat Iz sade nuthin cauze der Bobberz aine god hes patten as yet an wood bee reel mad if hez knowed ol Rufus had bean playen wid his puder eether. Oh, Iz kind ofz greese wid ol Dougz. Remintz ol Rufe a ol Kevinz bak at Tweezerberg. I meen, letz say dat Iz had don somting rong, likez ahh teilin Rether Mayz dat Iz out workin wenz Iz waz at der Sweet Spengs Sto drenken wid Clet in der woodz out dar bac. An soz Rether don beleavez me an soz Iz teils her dat ifinz she wanz den she kan caulz Clete on der fone. Wad der Rether don no es dat me an der Cletis ad godden our storees doun so dat enee time dat eather of uz gotta fone call dat we say dat de udder mus have bean at work. So Iz tinks der prezdent es don jus likez me an der Cletis an dats veree smartz of hem. Yo Tweezer. Whaddaytink bout all dis. I godda go cauze I tinks da Bobberz ez comin... Pleez don teil hem Iz hear... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: LoopySanchez Date: 11 Jan 02 - 04:58 PM Well, if you heard it on NPR it must be true... :>) Yes, we may never know the answers to those questions when it comes to the Enron cheats, but the fact is, we DO know the answer to ALL of them when it comes to Whitewater. Let's don't go calling this "Bush's Whitewater" until we can at least answer four or five of them affirmatively as they apply to him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: GUEST Date: 11 Jan 02 - 06:33 PM Like I said, the difference between a two bit land swindle, and the largest corporate bankruptcy in history is a pretty substantial difference. But then, if you believe that Clinton is really Darth Vader, I suppose both would look the same to you. And pardon my error there--of course you good ole boys don't just get your information from Fox News. There is Rush Limbaugh, Hardball, all kinds of Your Good Guys On The Side of Righteous Truth, laughing at their power over their minions all the way to the bank. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: Tweed Date: 11 Jan 02 - 06:44 PM Rufe, can you send us some photos and any drawings that Boberdz got layin' around over there? Also his credit cards. Seems like hydrogen would be the perfect fuel if someone could just come up with a simple way to store and use it. I bet the answer is one of those real simple things that's laying under everybody's nose. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: Bobert Date: 11 Jan 02 - 07:01 PM Danged, Tweed. That little snaggle toothed wiesel has gotten in here now. Man, what am I going to have to do? Lock the doors? And, no drawings and no credit cards. Ol' Bobert apologized to all Catters for my cousin, Rufus. The boy ain't got a lick of sense. He's got 7 Chevettes parked around his trailer, even though 6 of them have not run since the '80's. But when Bush said he was going to give everyone a check if he was elected- which most of us know he wasn't- well, Rufus kindof lost it. He put hundreds of Bush bumper stickers on all of the Chevettes and the one that runs he made a Bush/Chaney racing stripe down the middle of the car. Looked real good with the Fake Creagars on the back and the hood scoop. Then he went knocking on door in his trailer park telling everyone who voted for Bush would get a check in the mail. I tried to tell Rufe that since he is on S.S.I. Disability check that he wouldn't get a check but he wouldn't listen to me. The day after the election he started going to the post office two and three times a day looking for the check. These days, it's just once a day. Okay, somtimes twice.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: kendall Date: 11 Jan 02 - 07:44 PM All in due time my pretty. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: artbrooks Date: 11 Jan 02 - 08:38 PM Liberal: "...tolerant of views differing from one's own; broadminded; favoring reform or progress, as in religion, education, etc.; specif. favoring political reforms tending toward democracy and personal freedom for the individual; progressive;..." Webster's New World College Dictionary, 3rd Edition, c.1996 {and earlier}. That word gets thrown around a lot by people, but this is the real definition. Sounds good to me. BTW, "conservative" is often used as though it meant gun-toting Fascist, with a barefoot and pregnant wife back in the kitchen and who last had an original thought about the time of the Teapot Dome Scandal. The same sourse defines conservative as "...tending to preserve established traditions or institutions and to resist or oppose and changes in these; moderate, cautious, safe..." That mostly sounds OK too, doesn't it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: GUEST Date: 11 Jan 02 - 08:48 PM The latter doesn't sound reasonable, no. To "preserve established traditions or institutions" Well, to me there must be a very good reason to preserve established traditions or institutions. "Because my father's father's father always did this/believed this way" isn't a justification to "preserve" traditions, particularly those I find abhorrently inhuman. To "resist or oppose changes in these" again--it is only the reactionary who resists and opposes change because they wish to remain "moderate, cautious, safe" IMO. To resist and oppose change, which is inevitable anyway, has never made any sense to me whatsoever. Especially since there is precious little any of us can do to prevent change from coming, regardless of our political persuasion. So no, I don't agree that conservative sounds "mostly OK" at all. I think it sounds much more like a river in Egypt, as they say. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: Bobert Date: 11 Jan 02 - 09:05 PM Neither of those defenitions quite define today's polititcal climate. To the conservatives, "Liberals" are traitors commies, terrorists and demons and to liberals the "conservatives" are the folks with all the money, the power and comprise the ruling class and they plan on keeping it that way. And they have for 200 years in America so I don't realisticly see any end in sight. Every time the peasant class wins anything at allm the conservative ruling class cry like babies and spend lots of their money to take back whatever little gain the working/ peasant class gained. There has been NO REAL PROGRESS IN THE SPENDING POWER OF THE WORKING CLASS IN AMERICA IN DECADES!!! Workers get the shaft and the "consertvative" RULING CLASS gets the elevator, with GWB the elevator operator on duty. (When will the southern voters, who are at the bootom rung of the peasant class figure it out so that America's working class will not be straddled by their masters?) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: artbrooks Date: 11 Jan 02 - 09:27 PM I guess the question is whether or not you choose to find out what a person's actual opinion is on an issue and then discuss (or attack, if you prefer) that opinion, or pin a label on him and then assault him for espousing ALL of the things that YOU associate with that label. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: GUEST Date: 11 Jan 02 - 09:44 PM Nah, that ain't whazzup with DougR. He has already told everyone on Mudcat how much he loves Rush Limbaugh, listens to Fox News, etc. His being a polite and friendly buffoon on Mudcat doesn't change the fact he is still a fascist flame baiting jerk. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: Bobert Date: 11 Jan 02 - 09:56 PM You are right Artbrooks. It does come down to individual issues and on just about any issue that one can discuss there still exists this division of folks that would like to see our lot as human beings move forward and those for personal and finacial reasons like to keep things either the way it is or the way it used to be. Name the issue! Just make it a real issue rather than some "family values" non-sense issue, or we gotta keep America strong. What does that mean? George Bush went around the country telling folks that Bill Clinton had let the military go to hell and then took Bill Clinton's "gone to hell" military that he inherited and kicked the crap out of some folks that Russia couldn't do a danged thing with... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: GUEST Date: 11 Jan 02 - 10:11 PM From today's Washington Post: Politically, Bush administration officials will have to explain how much influence Enron executives had on administration policies after contributing more than $500,000 to Bush's various campaigns. Bush, like Vice President Cheney, once headed an energy production company, and the president has personal and political ties to Enron. Enron has made donations to many Democrats, but the Center for Responsive Politics estimates that Republicans received 73 percent of the contributions from company executives over the past 12 years. Bush reimbursed Enron for the use of its corporate jet during his presidential campaign, and was feted by company officials at Enron Field, home of the Houston Astros, seven months before the election. The Houston Chronicle has reported that Bush conferred a series of nicknames on Enron chief executive Kenneth L. Lay, including "Kenny Boy." Now, the White House faces questions about the six meetings Cheney or his staff held with Enron representatives last year, and the phone calls Lay made to Cabinet members as the company collapsed.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: Bobert Date: 11 Jan 02 - 11:21 PM I read that, GUEST, this morning and I think Enron is what Bush needs. A controversy less distractive than the failed trickle down, voodoo economics that the folks who filled his warchests overnight after Tim Russert et al declared Bush's campaine dead after his blowing his entire $75M war chest defeating McCain in S.C...want so desperatly to further so that their allready stuffed bank accounts will have some new company. This administration is like a football team trying to hold on to a 4 point lead with 4 minutes left in the game. Take away Junior's daddy's little unfinished business and you got a guy counting his days back to the ranch. Even with the war, he IS... his daddy's kid,,, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: DougR Date: 11 Jan 02 - 11:35 PM Guest: Please point out the thread where I stated that I love Rush Limbaugh! Rush is probably lovable to his wife, but I harbor no jealous feelings, I assure you. Horrors of horrors, I do watch the Fox News Channel, because I enjoy hearing both sides of the story instead of a biased one. That's a sin? I am a "facist, flame biting jerk." Well, you have a right to feel that way of course. I suppose you base your opinion on the fact that my beliefs do not coincide with yours. Okie dokie. That's your right, but I'm sorry you didn't heed your mother, because I'm confident she taught you to respect the views of others, even if they were contrary to your own. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: GUEST Date: 12 Jan 02 - 11:35 AM No DougR, I don't base my opinion of you on your beliefs, I base my opinion of you on your posting history in Mudcat. You are nothing more than a right wing political troll, who rarely posts to a music thread. When you do your post is not a helpful contribution, but a "me too" sort of response. You are a right wing political reactionary, and your posting history here proves it. BTW, I know of no legitimate news organizations which recognize Fox News as being unbiased. Fox News is well known for its extreme right wing editorial slant. It has about as much legitimacy in the international journalism community as yellow journalist talk show hosts Rush Limbaugh, Chris Mathers, Pat Robertson, or Christian Broadcast Network does. And BTW, here is your post from the "Where do you get your news?" thread of 30 May 01: I think this is an interesting thread. Not sure it was intended to be, but it could explain a lot about the beliefs and attitudes of Mudcatters. If one only reads newspapers, reads magazines, and watches television news shows that promote one political philosophy over another, it certainly could color one's political beliefs, I think. I read the daily Arizona Republic which is owned by the Gannet chain. It use to be very conservative. It has moved more toward the middle since Gannet purchased the paper last year. It does have a pretty good balance of columnists: George Will, Bill Press, William Safire, Daniel Shorr and others. For national television news, I listen to the Fox News Network, which , I believe, presents the most balanced reporting of the news. I also listen to cable shows featuring Geraldo Rivera (who I never agree with) and Chris Matthews (who I sometims do). I watch on Sunday: Meet the Press, Fox News Sunday and Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts, and I'm partial to vanilla ice cream sodas. I also listen to NPR radio and Rush Limbaugh. DougR
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: RichM Date: 12 Jan 02 - 12:09 PM I suspect that a real alternative to fossil fuels will be developed in Europe or Japan, or maybe India or China. The incentive, as always, will come from economic necessity. Right now, The United States of America has ensured its own current and future supply of gas/oil from Saudi Arabia, and soon, from the Central Asian states. All at bargain prices for the American consumer. And it's always amusing to view American political arguments about Republicans versus Democrats. Viewed from outside the family, there ain't no difference between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Rich McCarthy
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: GUEST Date: 12 Jan 02 - 12:13 PM That is because, even inside the beast Rich, there isn't a difference. That's why more and more folks are goin' Green these days! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: DougR Date: 12 Jan 02 - 01:51 PM Guest: So? Listening and loving are completely different activities, right? You know of no "legitimate" news organization that recognizes Fox News Network as being unbiased. So what? I assume using that same criteria you use to describe me, it would be fair to describe you as (were you to ever show an identity)a left-wing political troll. Right? Rich: Americans will have another choice the next go-around. The Rev. Al Sharpton, who will attempt to earn the right to run as a candidate on the Democratic ticket. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: kendall Date: 12 Jan 02 - 02:58 PM I often disagree with Doug, but, I have never seen him resort to name calling. Rich, if you cant see the difference, And, If you really want to know, Read about the Molly Maguires, and watch the film MATWAN. Sure, that was in the past, but those same attitudes prevail today and, it's the mind set that counts, not so much the acts. We really cant blame the conservatives for wanting to go back to how it used to be, they had ALL the marbles then! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: DougR Date: 14 Jan 02 - 03:50 PM Anyone hear Diane Reame's interview with the Secretary of the Interior this morning on NPR? I thought it was very interesting, myself. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush dumps fuel efficiency plan From: NicoleC Date: 14 Jan 02 - 07:14 PM I work a couple of buildings down from the California Fuel Cell Partnership in West Sacramento, CA, which is funded by 8 international automotive manufacturers, 4 oil companies, 3 fuel cell manufacturers and yep -- you guessed it -- the State of California. I finally saw one of their (over 70) fully-functional vehicles today actually on the road driving around. It was the little Mercedes Necar (and doesn't look anything like what you think a Mercedes would look like). But there are also a couple of SUVs, a small VW sedan and a minivan, plus buses. The CFCP's automotive partners estimate they will have vehicles for sale by 2005. Of course, you'll probably have to wait in a 6 month long line like you do to get one of the hybrid cars. So when these guys do hit the showroom floor, I think the bulk of the credit really needs to go to all the companies involved and the good ol' taxpayers of California (again.)
I just don't want to hear anymore whiney remarks about "tampering with the energy market" from the Bush administration. |