OT: Bush's Energy Plan

More Fossil fuels
More refineries
More nuclear Plants
Oh, BTW drive more fuel efficient cars (wink wink)

Bush's plan is clearly designed for the benefit of the
oil and nuclear power plant companies and lacks any
vision or any attempt to create a long range
plan for energy independence. It's obvious where
his allegiances are, and it's not the American people.

"ToMh" <Teelhumm@hotm.com> wrote in message
news:1114627762.21f49400026aab5ac94ef63f680294a6@t eranews...
> More Fossil fuels
> More refineries
> More nuclear Plants
> Oh, BTW drive more fuel efficient cars (wink wink)
>
> Bush's plan is clearly designed for the benefit of the
> oil and nuclear power plant companies and lacks any
> vision or any attempt to create a long range
> plan for energy independence. It's obvious where
> his allegiances are, and it's not the American people.
>
>

The truth is that his plan is being well received outside of the political
circles.

We haven't seen any new refinery capacity going in for the past 30 years in
this country. During that time there has been a serious drop in the demand
of gas (oil) for any individual automobile, but a huge increase in the
number of automobiles, so there is a higher overall demand for refined oil,
but no new refineries. Not only have we as consumers made major strides in
consuming less in our cars, but we have also made significant strides in
making less pollution from our cars. I know that my car in the 70s sucked up
gas and spewwed alarming amounts of pollution, and today my car meets the
most stringent standards of pollution on the planet, and sips gas at the
miserly rate of nearly 30 miles per gallon.

But even if I use 1/3 the gas I used in 1970, there are way more than 3
times the number of cars, so there is a net increase in demand. With this
increase, there has been a consolidation of refiners, and a reduction in the
number of refineries. We are closing refineries and consolidating refiners
while the net demand for gasoline is going up.

Lots of electricity is made from burning petroleum products, including
natural gas among others. If we can switch that demand away from the fossil
fuels and into nukes, then we can reduce the demand on oil, and our
dependance goes down.

All of the major car companies are working on alternative fuel programs,
most notably hybrid and fuel cell technology, so the "wink wink" is a crock
of shit.

Well dickhead ... your plan ... oh wait .... you don't have one. We are
beyond saving ourselves into new energy. We have only closed refineries
here in CA for the past 35-40 years. There is no shortage of crude. As
usual ... you're full of baloney.

ToMh wrote:
> More Fossil fuels
> More refineries
> More nuclear Plants
> Oh, BTW drive more fuel efficient cars (wink wink)
>
> Bush's plan is clearly designed for the benefit of the
> oil and nuclear power plant companies and lacks any
> vision or any attempt to create a long range
> plan for energy independence. It's obvious where
> his allegiances are, and it's not the American people.

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 19:47:11 GMT, "Philip"
<1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:

>Well dickhead ... your plan ... oh wait .... you don't have one. We are
>beyond saving ourselves into new energy. We have only closed refineries
>here in CA for the past 35-40 years. There is no shortage of crude. As
>usual ... you're full of baloney.

Don't confuse him/them with the facts, Philip.

I love it when the fringe element that puts the kabosh on refineries
complains so loudly about fuel prices.


------------------------------------------------
The DNC - Building a bridge to the 20th Century.

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
news:3%Rbe.693$GQ5.208@newsread1.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
> Well dickhead ... your plan ... oh wait .... you don't have one. We are
> beyond saving ourselves into new energy. We have only closed refineries
> here in CA for the past 35-40 years. There is no shortage of crude. As
> usual ... you're full of baloney.
>

Why no incentives for alternative fuels? This plan will just keep the
price of oil low enough so there will be no incentive for change.
My plan would have included real incentives even mandates
for alternative fuels. The real problem is dependence on fossil fuels, not
how to get more in the short run. Dickheads like yourself only care about
the next few
years cause you'll be dead by then and you could care less about the future.
No shortage of crude? Then why drill for more? How is building more
refineries going to lessen our dependence on the MidEast for Oil?
I really don't have any problem with any single point of the plan (except
for nuclear)
but without a long term solution, its just a plan to get through his term
and put more money in the pockets of his true bosses. We are going to have
to come up with a real solution
sooner or later, but it's obvious it will never happen with the Republicans
in charge.




> ToMh wrote:
>> More Fossil fuels
>> More refineries
>> More nuclear Plants
>> Oh, BTW drive more fuel efficient cars (wink wink)
>>
>> Bush's plan is clearly designed for the benefit of the
>> oil and nuclear power plant companies and lacks any
>> vision or any attempt to create a long range
>> plan for energy independence. It's obvious where
>> his allegiances are, and it's not the American people.
>
>
>

"ToMh" <Teelhumm@hotm.com> wrote in message
news:1114633166.cd32873191055ff490334940efefc6f2@t eranews...
>
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> news:3%Rbe.693$GQ5.208@newsread1.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
> > Well dickhead ... your plan ... oh wait .... you don't have one. We are
> > beyond saving ourselves into new energy. We have only closed refineries
> > here in CA for the past 35-40 years. There is no shortage of crude. As
> > usual ... you're full of baloney.
> >
>
> Why no incentives for alternative fuels? This plan will just keep the
> price of oil low enough so there will be no incentive for change.
> My plan would have included real incentives even mandates
> for alternative fuels. The real problem is dependence on fossil fuels, not
> how to get more in the short run. Dickheads like yourself only care about
> the next few
> years cause you'll be dead by then and you could care less about the
future.
> No shortage of crude? Then why drill for more?

Because the crude is in a part of the world where things are very volitile,
and the supply of crude can be cut off.





How is building more
> refineries going to lessen our dependence on the MidEast for Oil?

This isn't going to reduce dependence, it's going to give us the ability to
actually make more gas. If we can make more gas, then the price can come
down. You have to read the answer (above) to see how we plan on reducing our
dependence on Middle East oil.





> I really don't have any problem with any single point of the plan (except
> for nuclear)

You should be interested to know that France produces about 70% of its
electricity from nuke plants.




> but without a long term solution, its just a plan to get through his term
> and put more money in the pockets of his true bosses. We are going to have
> to come up with a real solution
> sooner or later, but it's obvious it will never happen with the
Republicans
> in charge.
>

The truth is that the automakers are already working on alternative energy,
and the alternatives that they have already come up with can't be produced
fast enough. I am not suggesting that hybrid technology is the end of the
line when it comes to alternative sources, but the few hybrids that are
being made have long lines of customers waiting for delivery.

Personally, I see fuel cells being used in homes as something to explore.
Fuel cell technology does need hydrogen, or natural gas, but we already have
the delivery infrastructure in place for most homes in America. I suppose it
wouldn't take very much to adapt the infrastructure to deliver natural gas
to your fuel cell powered car or truck.

ToMh, 4/27/2005, 2:49:05 PM, wrote:

> More Fossil fuels
> More refineries
> More nuclear Plants
> Oh, BTW drive more fuel efficient cars (wink wink)
>
> Bush's plan is clearly designed for the benefit of the
> oil and nuclear power plant companies and lacks any
> vision or any attempt to create a long range
> plan for energy independence. It's obvious where
> his allegiances are, and it's not the American people.

My Toyotas that are made in America will like more energy.

--
For your convenience I have included forums that you may find
interesting.
alt.discuss.politics,alt.politics,alt.politics.bus h,alt.politics.congres
s,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.conservative,a lt.politics.democrat,a
lt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.liberal,alt.pol itics.liberalism,alt.p
olitics.usa.republican,alt.politics.usa.republican s,alt.politics.world

"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:PrudnahxHsnha_LfRVn-1w@ez2.net...
>
> "ToMh" <Teelhumm@hotm.com> wrote in message
> news:1114633166.cd32873191055ff490334940efefc6f2@t eranews...
>>
>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>> news:3%Rbe.693$GQ5.208@newsread1.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
>> > Well dickhead ... your plan ... oh wait .... you don't have one. We
>> > are
>> > beyond saving ourselves into new energy. We have only closed
>> > refineries
>> > here in CA for the past 35-40 years. There is no shortage of crude. As
>> > usual ... you're full of baloney.
>> >
>>
>> Why no incentives for alternative fuels? This plan will just keep the
>> price of oil low enough so there will be no incentive for change.
>> My plan would have included real incentives even mandates
>> for alternative fuels. The real problem is dependence on fossil fuels,
>> not
>> how to get more in the short run. Dickheads like yourself only care about
>> the next few
>> years cause you'll be dead by then and you could care less about the
> future.
>> No shortage of crude? Then why drill for more?
>
> Because the crude is in a part of the world where things are very
> volitile,
> and the supply of crude can be cut off.
>

>
>
>
>
> How is building more
>> refineries going to lessen our dependence on the MidEast for Oil?
>
> This isn't going to reduce dependence, it's going to give us the ability
> to
> actually make more gas. If we can make more gas, then the price can come
> down. You have to read the answer (above) to see how we plan on reducing
> our
> dependence on Middle East oil.
>
Only by a little, and we still are dependent on fossil fuels.
>
>
>
>
>> I really don't have any problem with any single point of the plan (except
>> for nuclear)
>
> You should be interested to know that France produces about 70% of its
> electricity from nuke plants.
>
I'm actually not entirely against nuclear power, as long as they come up
with
and acceptable waste disposal plan, but I haven't seen one yet that isn't
more politically motivated that scientifically sound. Even so , Nuke power
would be a little more palatable if this administration supported green
alternatives as fervently as it does fossil fuels and nuclear power.

>
>
>
>> but without a long term solution, its just a plan to get through his term
>> and put more money in the pockets of his true bosses. We are going to
>> have
>> to come up with a real solution
>> sooner or later, but it's obvious it will never happen with the
> Republicans
>> in charge.
>>
>
> The truth is that the automakers are already working on alternative
> energy,
> and the alternatives that they have already come up with can't be produced
> fast enough. I am not suggesting that hybrid technology is the end of the
> line when it comes to alternative sources, but the few hybrids that are
> being made have long lines of customers waiting for delivery.
>
That's true, but the government could speed things along by settings goals
and incentives for alternate fuels, like Biodiesel, ethanol and Hydrogen.


> Personally, I see fuel cells being used in homes as something to explore.
> Fuel cell technology does need hydrogen, or natural gas, but we already
> have
> the delivery infrastructure in place for most homes in America. I suppose
> it
> wouldn't take very much to adapt the infrastructure to deliver natural gas
> to your fuel cell powered car or truck.
>
I think eventually we may get there, but the more we keep cheap
gas around the longer things like fuel cells, Biodiesel, ethanal will
not have the incentive to progress. That's my point about Bush's
plan, not that it won't help in the short run, but that it does nothing
to wean us off fossil fuels.

>

Eric Dreher wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 19:47:11 GMT, "Philip"
> <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>
>> Well dickhead ... your plan ... oh wait .... you don't have one. We
>> are beyond saving ourselves into new energy. We have only closed
>> refineries here in CA for the past 35-40 years. There is no shortage
>> of crude. As usual ... you're full of baloney.
>
> Don't confuse him/them with the facts, Philip.
>
> I love it when the fringe element that puts the kabosh on refineries
> complains so loudly about fuel prices.

Speaking of that, how come The Media is not charged the oil companies with
price gouging this time around? Eh? What epiphany has The Media had?

ToMh wrote:
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> news:3%Rbe.693$GQ5.208@newsread1.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
>> Well dickhead ... your plan ... oh wait .... you don't have one. We
>> are beyond saving ourselves into new energy. We have only closed
>> refineries here in CA for the past 35-40 years. There is no shortage
>> of crude. As usual ... you're full of baloney.
>>
>
> Why no incentives for alternative fuels?
snip

Because there is no shortage of crude oil to be pumped from Mother Earth.

Furthermore, your ilk has not learned that goverment has been wholly
unsuccessful in mandating solutions that meet "demand."

Jeff Strickland wrote:
> "ToMh" <Teelhumm@hotm.com> wrote in message
> news:1114633166.cd32873191055ff490334940efefc6f2@t eranews...
>
>> How is building more
>> refineries going to lessen our dependence on the MidEast for Oil?
>
> This isn't going to reduce dependence, it's going to give us the
> ability to actually make more gas. If we can make more gas, then the
> price can come down. You have to read the answer (above) to see how
> we plan on reducing our dependence on Middle East oil.

Another way to reduce dependence on the Middle East is to ..... reduce the
Middle East.

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:09:34 GMT, "Philip"
<1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:

>> I love it when the fringe element that puts the kabosh on refineries
>> complains so loudly about fuel prices.
>
>Speaking of that, how come The Media is not charged the oil companies with
>price gouging this time around? Eh? What epiphany has The Media had?

None whatsoever. They've just changed their "scapegoat du jour".

Why blame Big Oil when you can divert attention to Bush and DeLay?

So very predictable, transparent, and disingenuous.


------------------------------------------------
The DNC - Building a bridge to the 20th Century.

"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xn0e1i5jk19ur5g000@news.readfreenews.net...
> ToMh, 4/27/2005, 2:49:05 PM, wrote:
>
>> More Fossil fuels
>> More refineries
>> More nuclear Plants
>> Oh, BTW drive more fuel efficient cars (wink wink)
>>
>> Bush's plan is clearly designed for the benefit of the
>> oil and nuclear power plant companies and lacks any
>> vision or any attempt to create a long range
>> plan for energy independence. It's obvious where
>> his allegiances are, and it's not the American people.
>
> My Toyotas that are made in America will like more energy.
>
> --
> For your convenience I have included forums that you may find
> interesting.
> alt.discuss.politics,alt.politics,alt.politics.bus h,alt.politics.congres
> s,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.conservative,a lt.politics.democrat,a
> lt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.liberal,alt.pol itics.liberalism,alt.p
> olitics.usa.republican,alt.politics.usa.republican s,alt.politics.world

Do they talk about Toyotas in those forums?
--
Ray O
correct the return address punctuation to reply

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:09:34 GMT, "Philip"
<1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:

>Furthermore, your ilk has not learned that goverment has been wholly
>unsuccessful in mandating solutions that meet "demand."

An interesting aside: Virtually no government program is criticized
by major media EXCEPT the military.

The one that actually works.


------------------------------------------------
The DNC - Building a bridge to the 20th Century.

"Eric Dreher" <ericd@cox.nét> wrote in message
news:5t0071d9qtki9q7168vrksjfdsr0jq5hic@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:09:34 GMT, "Philip"
> <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>
> >Furthermore, your ilk has not learned that goverment has been wholly
> >unsuccessful in mandating solutions that meet "demand."
>
> An interesting aside: Virtually no government program is criticized
> by major media EXCEPT the military.
>
> The one that actually works.

The way it is funded it's not surprising it works. If only one could
overcharge the way they do in the civilian sector.

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:39:57 -0700, "S Narayan"
<narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"Eric Dreher" <ericd@cox.nét> wrote in message
>news:5t0071d9qtki9q7168vrksjfdsr0jq5hic@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:09:34 GMT, "Philip"
>> <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>
>> >Furthermore, your ilk has not learned that goverment has been wholly
>> >unsuccessful in mandating solutions that meet "demand."
>>
>> An interesting aside: Virtually no government program is criticized
>> by major media EXCEPT the military.
>>
>> The one that actually works.
>
>The way it is funded it's not surprising it works. If only one could
>overcharge the way they do in the civilian sector.
>

I want our military to have the very best weapons.

....and they have them.

The one government program that is a required program in the
Constitution and it works...

The rest is just fluff and not in the Constitution...


--
Scott in Florida

In article <Q4ydnVwlFqg7efLfRVn-ug@ez2.net>,
"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote:


> The truth is that his plan is being well received outside of the political
> circles.
>
> We haven't seen any new refinery capacity going in for the past 30 years in
> this country. During that time there has been a serious drop in the demand
> of gas (oil) for any individual automobile, but a huge increase in the
> number of automobiles, so there is a higher overall demand for refined oil,
> but no new refineries. Not only have we as consumers made major strides in
> consuming less in our cars, but we have also made significant strides in
> making less pollution from our cars. I know that my car in the 70s sucked up
> gas and spewwed alarming amounts of pollution, and today my car meets the
> most stringent standards of pollution on the planet, and sips gas at the
> miserly rate of nearly 30 miles per gallon.
>
> But even if I use 1/3 the gas I used in 1970, there are way more than 3
> times the number of cars, so there is a net increase in demand. With this
> increase, there has been a consolidation of refiners, and a reduction in the
> number of refineries. We are closing refineries and consolidating refiners
> while the net demand for gasoline is going up.
>
> Lots of electricity is made from burning petroleum products, including
> natural gas among others. If we can switch that demand away from the fossil
> fuels and into nukes, then we can reduce the demand on oil, and our
> dependance goes down.
>
> All of the major car companies are working on alternative fuel programs,
> most notably hybrid and fuel cell technology, so the "wink wink" is a crock
> of shit.

You have three choices:

1. Kill off large amounts of people. (this would not fly).

2. Take the cars away from people, by force if needed. Limit energy
use such as air conditioning, hot water and TVs including computer
monitors and other large energy uses. It is surely understood the
biggest users of electricity are private individuals. Therefore would
limit them to just a few KW hours per month. Severe energy rationing
would be the norm. In a short, we'd be moving back a hundred years or
so, read by candlelight, woodstoves, REAL ice boxes. You folks down
South would have to get more used to preserving food the old fashion way
using lots of salt and smoke, perhaps the Democrats could help with the
smoke.

3. Build more refinery capacity and more nuclear power generating
plants. In the meantime work toward an useable and practical
alternative power source for private vehicles. Continue to develop mass
transit where it can be made most effective. Don't waste government
money on wind power ect tax rebates fiascos like during the Carter years.

The far left wing socialist extremists, including old tomh, would go
with number 1 and 2. The rest of us, all reasonable people will go with
number 3.

Old tom and his brothers and sisters like to be critical when their
favorites are out of power. They have no plan.
--

"Scott in Florida" <NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote in message
news:312071p857osfguh0krumfvvoft40i2q75@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:39:57 -0700, "S Narayan"
> <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Eric Dreher" <ericd@cox.nét> wrote in message
> >news:5t0071d9qtki9q7168vrksjfdsr0jq5hic@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:09:34 GMT, "Philip"
> >> <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Furthermore, your ilk has not learned that goverment has been wholly
> >> >unsuccessful in mandating solutions that meet "demand."
> >>
> >> An interesting aside: Virtually no government program is criticized
> >> by major media EXCEPT the military.
> >>
> >> The one that actually works.
> >
> >The way it is funded it's not surprising it works. If only one could
> >overcharge the way they do in the civilian sector.
> >
>
> I want our military to have the very best weapons.
>
> ...and they have them.

Err, no. Soldiers are making do without adequate equipment in Iraq. Don't
take my word for it.

>
> The one government program that is a required program in the
> Constitution and it works...

Nobody said anything about not funding them *adequately* as required in the
Constitution, but sending them off to fight in illegal wars is not in the
Constitution. Neither is there any requirement for corporate welfare when it
comes to supporting those companies/individuals profitting from it.

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:56:53 -0700, "S Narayan"
<narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"Scott in Florida" <NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote in message
>news:312071p857osfguh0krumfvvoft40i2q75@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:39:57 -0700, "S Narayan"
>> <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Eric Dreher" <ericd@cox.nét> wrote in message
>> >news:5t0071d9qtki9q7168vrksjfdsr0jq5hic@4ax.com...
>> >> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:09:34 GMT, "Philip"
>> >> <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Furthermore, your ilk has not learned that goverment has been wholly
>> >> >unsuccessful in mandating solutions that meet "demand."
>> >>
>> >> An interesting aside: Virtually no government program is criticized
>> >> by major media EXCEPT the military.
>> >>
>> >> The one that actually works.
>> >
>> >The way it is funded it's not surprising it works. If only one could
>> >overcharge the way they do in the civilian sector.
>> >
>>
>> I want our military to have the very best weapons.
>>
>> ...and they have them.
>
>Err, no. Soldiers are making do without adequate equipment in Iraq. Don't
>take my word for it.

I have first hand knowledge...that you are wrong...
>
>>
>> The one government program that is a required program in the
>> Constitution and it works...
>
>Nobody said anything about not funding them *adequately* as required in the
>Constitution, but sending them off to fight in illegal wars is not in the
>Constitution. Neither is there any requirement for corporate welfare when it
>comes to supporting those companies/individuals profitting from it.

Our war in Iraq is not illegal...

We are enforcing UN resolutions.

Please check your facts...


>
>
>

--
Scott in Florida

Scott in Florida wrote:
>
> I want our military to have the very best weapons.
>
> ...and they have them.
>
> The one government program that is a required program in the
> Constitution and it works...
>
> The rest is just fluff and not in the Constitution...

The total bill for social programs far exceeds the bill for the military.
Hence the selective bitching from socialist faction of The Media.

Dbu,~' wrote:
> In article <Q4ydnVwlFqg7efLfRVn-ug@ez2.net>,
> "Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote:
>
>
>> The truth is that his plan is being well received outside of the
>> political circles.
>>
>> We haven't seen any new refinery capacity going in for the past 30
>> years in this country. During that time there has been a serious
>> drop in the demand of gas (oil) for any individual automobile, but a
>> huge increase in the number of automobiles, so there is a higher
>> overall demand for refined oil, but no new refineries. Not only have
>> we as consumers made major strides in consuming less in our cars,
>> but we have also made significant strides in making less pollution
>> from our cars. I know that my car in the 70s sucked up gas and
>> spewwed alarming amounts of pollution, and today my car meets the
>> most stringent standards of pollution on the planet, and sips gas at
>> the miserly rate of nearly 30 miles per gallon.
>>
>> But even if I use 1/3 the gas I used in 1970, there are way more
>> than 3 times the number of cars, so there is a net increase in
>> demand. With this increase, there has been a consolidation of
>> refiners, and a reduction in the number of refineries. We are
>> closing refineries and consolidating refiners while the net demand
>> for gasoline is going up.
>>
>> Lots of electricity is made from burning petroleum products,
>> including natural gas among others. If we can switch that demand
>> away from the fossil fuels and into nukes, then we can reduce the
>> demand on oil, and our dependence goes down.
>>
>> All of the major car companies are working on alternative fuel
>> programs, most notably hybrid and fuel cell technology, so the "wink
>> wink" is a crock of shit.
>
> You have three choices:
>
> 1. Kill off large amounts of people. (this would not fly).

Does in China and southeast Asia.

> 2. Take the cars away from people, by force if needed.

That doesn't fly anywhere gas stations are available.

> 3. Build more refinery capacity and more nuclear power generating
> plants.

The pendulum is swinging the other way now. Time has come to 'plant' the
Green activists.

snip
> The far left wing socialist extremists, including old tomh, would go
> with number 1 and 2. The rest of us, all reasonable people will go
> with number 3.
>
> Old tomh and his brothers and sisters like to be critical when their
> favorites are out of power. They have no plan.

Their plan is to disrupt, detract, and subvert. Neither 'tomh' nor his
subversive loons are involved in making biodiesel or alcohol or solar cars
or anything USEFUL.

Oh wait ... tomh and his fellow loons expel a lot of methane.

In article <sZTbe.201$HL2.142@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:


> Oh wait ... tomh and his fellow loons expel a lot of methane.

and drink a lot of alcohol, LOL.
--

Dbu,~' wrote:
> In article <sZTbe.201$HL2.142@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>
>
>> Oh wait ... tomh and his fellow loons expel a lot of methane.
>
> and drink a lot of alcohol, LOL.

I'm not convinced tomh has graduated yet from cooking sherry.

"Dbu,~'" <notspam@sp.com> wrote in message
news:notspam-D2B4A3.16511327042005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> In article <Q4ydnVwlFqg7efLfRVn-ug@ez2.net>,
> "Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote:
>
> You have three choices:
>
> 1. Kill off large amounts of people. (this would not fly).
>
> 2. Take the cars away from people, by force if needed. Limit energy
> use such as air conditioning, hot water and TVs including computer
> monitors and other large energy uses. It is surely understood the
> biggest users of electricity are private individuals. Therefore would
> limit them to just a few KW hours per month. Severe energy rationing
> would be the norm. In a short, we'd be moving back a hundred years or
> so, read by candlelight, woodstoves, REAL ice boxes. You folks down
> South would have to get more used to preserving food the old fashion way
> using lots of salt and smoke, perhaps the Democrats could help with the
> smoke.
>
> 3. Build more refinery capacity and more nuclear power generating
> plants. In the meantime work toward an useable and practical
> alternative power source for private vehicles. Continue to develop mass
> transit where it can be made most effective. Don't waste government
> money on wind power ect tax rebates fiascos like during the Carter years.
>
> The far left wing socialist extremists, including old tomh, would go
> with number 1 and 2. The rest of us, all reasonable people will go with
> number 3.
>

"Resonable people?" Try "ostriches." You've got your head in the sand - or
worse.

> Old tom and his brothers and sisters like to be critical when their
> favorites are out of power. They have no plan.
> --
>

As it happens, I like nukes. I like them a lot. But there's going to be a
lot of opposition to it (like, where are you going to put them - noboby
wants one in their neighborhood) and there's no denying there's a very high
degree of risk in them.

Choice #4:

Invest in new technologies and energy industries. The payoff could be
immense. A minor example is the Prius - Toyota is selling its 3rd
generation of hybrid car. They've gained experience and market-and-mind
share. Ford is an also-ran and GM is a never-started. Consequently, the
Prius is commanding full list price and there's a waiting list for it and GM
is shoveling rebates and incentives at the customers.

Flourescent lamps are much larger share of the lighting market than they
were 30 years ago and incentives are a part of the reason - incentives
helped build up the industry. What about LED technology for lighting?

What would it take to build a solar-shingle industry? What would it take to
develop the wind-tech industry to the point you could buy a cost-effective
complete off-the-shelf wind generation system at the local hardware store?
What would it take to develop the biomass industry to the point where it
could be effective at reducing farm energy costs?

Not only would developing new energy industries reduce our own energy costs,
this would be something we could export (what's our monthly balance-of-trade
deficit right now? $50 billion or so?). Other nations would be lining up
at our door to buy equipment that helped them reduce oil imports.

However, without some government prodding or other incentive, American
business is business-as-usual. America's large corporations would rather
"invest" in high CEO salaries than expand their technology base. The
Chinese are going to eat our lunch.

Want an example of American business goofing off? Look at the "new" Pontiac
G6. It has a pushrod engine! How laughable is that? I bought a Japanese
minivan 4 years ago and it came with double overhead cams and variable valve
timing! I've got a 4 year old grocery hauler and it has a more
sophisticated engine than Pontiac's latest "performance" sedan!

"Scott in Florida" <NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote in message
news:7s2071logggb1nujaa9c1qacgprcv6k2q2@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:56:53 -0700, "S Narayan"
> <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Scott in Florida" <NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote in message
> >news:312071p857osfguh0krumfvvoft40i2q75@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:39:57 -0700, "S Narayan"
> >> <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Eric Dreher" <ericd@cox.nét> wrote in message
> >> >news:5t0071d9qtki9q7168vrksjfdsr0jq5hic@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:09:34 GMT, "Philip"
> >> >> <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Furthermore, your ilk has not learned that goverment has been
wholly
> >> >> >unsuccessful in mandating solutions that meet "demand."
> >> >>
> >> >> An interesting aside: Virtually no government program is criticized
> >> >> by major media EXCEPT the military.
> >> >>
> >> >> The one that actually works.
> >> >
> >> >The way it is funded it's not surprising it works. If only one could
> >> >overcharge the way they do in the civilian sector.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I want our military to have the very best weapons.
> >>
> >> ...and they have them.
> >
> >Err, no. Soldiers are making do without adequate equipment in Iraq. Don't
> >take my word for it.
>
> I have first hand knowledge...that you are wrong...

Of course you do...
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041210/news_1n10armor.html

And all those complaints to Rumsfeld that we saw must have been an illusion.

> >
> >>
> >> The one government program that is a required program in the
> >> Constitution and it works...
> >
> >Nobody said anything about not funding them *adequately* as required in
the
> >Constitution, but sending them off to fight in illegal wars is not in the
> >Constitution. Neither is there any requirement for corporate welfare when
it
> >comes to supporting those companies/individuals profitting from it.
>
> Our war in Iraq is not illegal...
>
> We are enforcing UN resolutions.
>

Right... on what basis do we selectively enforce UN resolutions on certain
countries? At the same time saying that the UN is "irrelevant". Convenient
how you bring up the UN when it is advantageous to do so. If it were in our
national interest to go to Iraq the UN doesn't enter the picture. Moreover
the spineless Congress absolved its responsibility to declare war -- perhaps
it was the cooked up intelligence that convinced them to stay out of it.
Learn YOUR facts.

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
news:icTbe.297$BE3.245@newsread2.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
> ToMh wrote:
>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>> news:3%Rbe.693$GQ5.208@newsread1.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
>>> Well dickhead ... your plan ... oh wait .... you don't have one. We
>>> are beyond saving ourselves into new energy. We have only closed
>>> refineries here in CA for the past 35-40 years. There is no shortage
>>> of crude. As usual ... you're full of baloney.
>>>
>>
>> Why no incentives for alternative fuels?
> snip
>
> Because there is no shortage of crude oil to be pumped from Mother Earth.
>
Sure there isn't. Problem is that people like you believe that.

> Furthermore, your ilk has not learned that goverment has been wholly
> unsuccessful in mandating solutions that meet "demand."
>

This administration certainly won't change that

"Eric Dreher" <ericd@cox.nét> wrote in message
news:5t0071d9qtki9q7168vrksjfdsr0jq5hic@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:09:34 GMT, "Philip"
> <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>
>>Furthermore, your ilk has not learned that goverment has been wholly
>>unsuccessful in mandating solutions that meet "demand."
>
> An interesting aside: Virtually no government program is criticized
> by major media EXCEPT the military.
>
What world do you live in? That's pure stupidity.

> The one that actually works.

Too bad it's not working against the insurgents in Iraq.


>
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> The DNC - Building a bridge to the 20th Century.

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
news:sZTbe.201$HL2.142@newsread3.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
> Dbu,~' wrote:
> > In article <Q4ydnVwlFqg7efLfRVn-ug@ez2.net>,
> > "Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> The truth is that his plan is being well received outside of the
> >> political circles.
> >>
> >> We haven't seen any new refinery capacity going in for the past 30
> >> years in this country. During that time there has been a serious
> >> drop in the demand of gas (oil) for any individual automobile, but a
> >> huge increase in the number of automobiles, so there is a higher
> >> overall demand for refined oil, but no new refineries. Not only have
> >> we as consumers made major strides in consuming less in our cars,
> >> but we have also made significant strides in making less pollution
> >> from our cars. I know that my car in the 70s sucked up gas and
> >> spewwed alarming amounts of pollution, and today my car meets the
> >> most stringent standards of pollution on the planet, and sips gas at
> >> the miserly rate of nearly 30 miles per gallon.
> >>
> >> But even if I use 1/3 the gas I used in 1970, there are way more
> >> than 3 times the number of cars, so there is a net increase in
> >> demand. With this increase, there has been a consolidation of
> >> refiners, and a reduction in the number of refineries. We are
> >> closing refineries and consolidating refiners while the net demand
> >> for gasoline is going up.
> >>
> >> Lots of electricity is made from burning petroleum products,
> >> including natural gas among others. If we can switch that demand
> >> away from the fossil fuels and into nukes, then we can reduce the
> >> demand on oil, and our dependence goes down.
> >>
> >> All of the major car companies are working on alternative fuel
> >> programs, most notably hybrid and fuel cell technology, so the "wink
> >> wink" is a crock of shit.
> >
> > You have three choices:
> >
> > 1. Kill off large amounts of people. (this would not fly).
>
> Does in China and southeast Asia.
>
> > 2. Take the cars away from people, by force if needed.
>
> That doesn't fly anywhere gas stations are available.
>
> > 3. Build more refinery capacity and more nuclear power generating
> > plants.
>
> The pendulum is swinging the other way now. Time has come to 'plant' the
> Green activists.
>
> snip
> > The far left wing socialist extremists, including old tomh, would go
> > with number 1 and 2. The rest of us, all reasonable people will go
> > with number 3.
> >
> > Old tomh and his brothers and sisters like to be critical when their
> > favorites are out of power. They have no plan.
>
> Their plan is to disrupt, detract, and subvert. Neither 'tomh' nor his
> subversive loons are involved in making biodiesel or alcohol or solar cars
> or anything USEFUL.
>
> Oh wait ... tomh and his fellow loons expel a lot of methane.


Tell us what constructive things you have done regarding this issue besides
make inflammatory ethnic comments and name calling?

"Scott in Florida" <NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote in message
news:312071p857osfguh0krumfvvoft40i2q75@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:39:57 -0700, "S Narayan"
> <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Eric Dreher" <ericd@cox.nét> wrote in message
>>news:5t0071d9qtki9q7168vrksjfdsr0jq5hic@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:09:34 GMT, "Philip"
>>> <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Furthermore, your ilk has not learned that goverment has been wholly
>>> >unsuccessful in mandating solutions that meet "demand."
>>>
>>> An interesting aside: Virtually no government program is criticized
>>> by major media EXCEPT the military.
>>>
>>> The one that actually works.
>>
>>The way it is funded it's not surprising it works. If only one could
>>overcharge the way they do in the civilian sector.
>>
>
> I want our military to have the very best weapons.
>
> ...and they have them.
>
> The one government program that is a required program in the
> Constitution and it works...
>
The constitution only provides for a militia to execute the Laws of the
Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions. It does not call or
support a militia to invade foreign countries or
any actions outside our borders.

Someone said...
<snip>
>> Personally, I see fuel cells being used in homes as something to explore.
>> Fuel cell technology does need hydrogen, or natural gas, but we already
>> have
>> the delivery infrastructure in place for most homes in America. I suppose
>> it
>> wouldn't take very much to adapt the infrastructure to deliver natural
>> gas
>> to your fuel cell powered car or truck.

Hmmm... I have no idea how many gas stations there are in the U.S. but in
order to make the math easy, let's use a round number of 250,000. Let's use
a lowball very conservative figure of $20,000 per station to add hydrogen
storage capacity, even though I suspect it will be 3 or 4 times that if you
also factor in the eventual cost of removing underground storage tanks.
That is 5 billion dollars. A billion here, a billion there, and pretty
soon you are starting to talk about real money. This is just a wild
unsubstantiated guess, but I'd be willing to bet that the fueling station
owners will pass this on to consumers. I read somewhere that a possibility
is to deliver propane to fueling stations and the stations would have
infrastructure to convert the propane to hydrogen for use in vehicles. Add
the cost of that infrastructure to the cost of storage.

I have no idea how many fuel delivery trucks there are in the U.S. or how
many will be needed to replenish the fueling stations, but I'm feeling lucky
with my guesses and say that the cost of acquiring those trucks, insuring
them, training drivers, etc. will also be passed on to consumers.

Here's something else to think about... if you read the labels on refillable
propane cylinders, it says something about not storing it indoors. Will
individual homes with attached garages have to be modified so a vehicle with
a tank full of compressed hydrogen can be safely parked? Is every homeowner
going to be happy to spend thousands of dollars to do that? I kind of doubt
it. Is the gubmit going to give a tax credit to reimburse every homeowner
for the modifications? Yeah, sure!

When fuel cell vehicles start to become commercially available to consumers,
buyers will only be able to drive where the infrastructure is in place and
conversely, fueling station owners will only spend the money where there are
consumers. Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? Does the gubmint
force the fueling station owners to fork out $20,000 to $50,000 so that they
can fuel a dozen fuel cell vehicles a week for the first few years? How
about the extra inventory the gas station owner has to carry - on top of all
the gas, he will have to carry the propane/hydrogen.

I'm sure the insurance companies won't jack up insurance rates for the gas
stations and delivery vehicles that transport the propane/hydrogen or for
owners who park with a hundred pounds or so of compressed gas in their
garage so don't worry about your insurance going up.

Yup, it won't take much to establish the infrastructure to deliver hydrogen
to run your fuel cell vehicle, certainly less than the Federal budget!

--
Ray O
correct the return address punctuation to reply

In article <1114640873.d81b1430d4091c734f3aceb5c7b970cc@terane ws>,
"DH" <DH@stargate.nospam.com> wrote:


>
> "Resonable people?" Try "ostriches." You've got your head in the sand - or
> worse.

You sound like old tomh. Therefor I will killfile your ass. Goodby
--

"Dbu,~'" <notspam@sp.com> wrote in message
news:notspam-D2B4A3.16511327042005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> In article <Q4ydnVwlFqg7efLfRVn-ug@ez2.net>,
> "Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote:
>
>
> > The truth is that his plan is being well received outside of the
political
> > circles.
> >
> > We haven't seen any new refinery capacity going in for the past 30 years
in
> > this country. During that time there has been a serious drop in the
demand
> > of gas (oil) for any individual automobile, but a huge increase in the
> > number of automobiles, so there is a higher overall demand for refined
oil,
> > but no new refineries. Not only have we as consumers made major strides
in
> > consuming less in our cars, but we have also made significant strides in
> > making less pollution from our cars. I know that my car in the 70s
sucked up
> > gas and spewwed alarming amounts of pollution, and today my car meets
the
> > most stringent standards of pollution on the planet, and sips gas at the
> > miserly rate of nearly 30 miles per gallon.
> >
> > But even if I use 1/3 the gas I used in 1970, there are way more than 3
> > times the number of cars, so there is a net increase in demand. With
this
> > increase, there has been a consolidation of refiners, and a reduction in
the
> > number of refineries. We are closing refineries and consolidating
refiners
> > while the net demand for gasoline is going up.
> >
> > Lots of electricity is made from burning petroleum products, including
> > natural gas among others. If we can switch that demand away from the
fossil
> > fuels and into nukes, then we can reduce the demand on oil, and our
> > dependance goes down.
> >
> > All of the major car companies are working on alternative fuel programs,
> > most notably hybrid and fuel cell technology, so the "wink wink" is a
crock
> > of shit.
>
> You have three choices:
>
> 1. Kill off large amounts of people. (this would not fly).
>
> 2. Take the cars away from people, by force if needed. Limit energy
> use such as air conditioning, hot water and TVs including computer
> monitors and other large energy uses. It is surely understood the
> biggest users of electricity are private individuals. Therefore would
> limit them to just a few KW hours per month. Severe energy rationing
> would be the norm. In a short, we'd be moving back a hundred years or
> so, read by candlelight, woodstoves, REAL ice boxes. You folks down
> South would have to get more used to preserving food the old fashion way
> using lots of salt and smoke, perhaps the Democrats could help with the
> smoke.

You have no clue about the waste, do you? Do you know how many kWhrs (not KW
hours) per month an average Southerner uses say compared to a West Coaster
or say compared to a German? The average GDP per Geman is 80% of the US but
consumes less than the third of the energy per capita. Also don't give me
any cock and bull story about how the US exports to the rest of the world,
we are talking about individuals here and not industry. Moreover, if you
looked at industry, our "production" of goods has shifted to China and SE
Asia (and therefore our consumption should have drastically gone down). We
are now a net importer of goods. In fact, our industrial power consumption
has dropped in the last decade.

>
> 3. Build more refinery capacity and more nuclear power generating
> plants. In the meantime work toward an useable and practical
> alternative power source for private vehicles. Continue to develop mass
> transit where it can be made most effective. Don't waste government
> money on wind power ect tax rebates fiascos like during the Carter years.
>
> The far left wing socialist extremists, including old tomh, would go
> with number 1 and 2. The rest of us, all reasonable people will go with
> number 3.

Very reasonable of you. Thanks for your largesse.

>
> Old tom and his brothers and sisters like to be critical when their
> favorites are out of power. They have no plan.
> --
>

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
news:sZTbe.201$HL2.142@newsread3.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
> Dbu,~' wrote:
>> In article <Q4ydnVwlFqg7efLfRVn-ug@ez2.net>,
>> "Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The truth is that his plan is being well received outside of the
>>> political circles.
>>>
>>> We haven't seen any new refinery capacity going in for the past 30
>>> years in this country. During that time there has been a serious
>>> drop in the demand of gas (oil) for any individual automobile, but a
>>> huge increase in the number of automobiles, so there is a higher
>>> overall demand for refined oil, but no new refineries. Not only have
>>> we as consumers made major strides in consuming less in our cars,
>>> but we have also made significant strides in making less pollution
>>> from our cars. I know that my car in the 70s sucked up gas and
>>> spewwed alarming amounts of pollution, and today my car meets the
>>> most stringent standards of pollution on the planet, and sips gas at
>>> the miserly rate of nearly 30 miles per gallon.
>>>
>>> But even if I use 1/3 the gas I used in 1970, there are way more
>>> than 3 times the number of cars, so there is a net increase in
>>> demand. With this increase, there has been a consolidation of
>>> refiners, and a reduction in the number of refineries. We are
>>> closing refineries and consolidating refiners while the net demand
>>> for gasoline is going up.
>>>
>>> Lots of electricity is made from burning petroleum products,
>>> including natural gas among others. If we can switch that demand
>>> away from the fossil fuels and into nukes, then we can reduce the
>>> demand on oil, and our dependence goes down.
>>>
>>> All of the major car companies are working on alternative fuel
>>> programs, most notably hybrid and fuel cell technology, so the "wink
>>> wink" is a crock of shit.
>>
>> You have three choices:
>>
>> 1. Kill off large amounts of people. (this would not fly).
>
> Does in China and southeast Asia.
>
>> 2. Take the cars away from people, by force if needed.
>
> That doesn't fly anywhere gas stations are available.
>
>> 3. Build more refinery capacity and more nuclear power generating
>> plants.
>
> The pendulum is swinging the other way now. Time has come to 'plant' the
> Green activists.
>
Rather doubtful. All the problems with nuclear power arn't going away, and
the majority of people know this, that's why the latest polls already show
68% oppose
Bush's energy plan.

> snip
>> The far left wing socialist extremists, including old tomh, would go
>> with number 1 and 2. The rest of us, all reasonable people will go
>> with number 3.

I live in an area where power is plentiful cheap and they have developed
a lot of green alternatives. You want to build a Nuclear plant in crapville
Arkansas go right ahead, just don't ship your waste out west.


>>
>> Old tomh and his brothers and sisters like to be critical when their
>> favorites are out of power. They have no plan.
>
We do have a plans, read some and you can learn about them.

> Their plan is to disrupt, detract, and subvert. Neither 'tomh' nor his
> subversive loons are involved in making biodiesel or alcohol or solar cars
> or anything USEFUL.
>
There are people who do, and we need to support them. Do you make your
own gas?


> Oh wait ... tomh and his fellow loons expel a lot of methane.
>
I>
Too bad, the greens are winning, niener, niener, niener! Bush's plan
won't change that a bit.

>

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:39:57 -0700, "S Narayan"
<narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

>> An interesting aside: Virtually no government program is criticized
>> by major media EXCEPT the military.
>>
>> The one that actually works.
>
>The way it is funded it's not surprising it works. If only one could
>overcharge the way they do in the civilian sector.

LOL! Ten TRILLION dollars in give-aways over the past forty years
in tax payer funded civilian programs.

I'd say they don't take a back seat to the military in any way, and
worse, we have nothing to show for that ten trillion.


------------------------------------------------
The DNC - Building a bridge to the 20th Century.

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 15:34:06 -0700, "ToMh" <Teelhumm@hotm.com> wrote:

>> An interesting aside: Virtually no government program is criticized
>> by major media EXCEPT the military.
>>
>What world do you live in? That's pure stupidity.

You misspelled "verified by observation". I simply dare you to tell
me the media isn't critical of our military to the exclusion of any
of their Sacred Cow favorite spending programs.

>> The one that actually works.
>
>Too bad it's not working against the insurgents in Iraq.

In your ignorant opinion.


------------------------------------------------
The DNC - Building a bridge to the 20th Century.

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 15:21:28 -0700, "S Narayan"
<narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"Scott in Florida" <NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote in message
>news:7s2071logggb1nujaa9c1qacgprcv6k2q2@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:56:53 -0700, "S Narayan"
>> <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Scott in Florida" <NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote in message
>> >news:312071p857osfguh0krumfvvoft40i2q75@4ax.com...
>> >> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:39:57 -0700, "S Narayan"
>> >> <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"Eric Dreher" <ericd@cox.nét> wrote in message
>> >> >news:5t0071d9qtki9q7168vrksjfdsr0jq5hic@4ax.com...
>> >> >> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:09:34 GMT, "Philip"
>> >> >> <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Furthermore, your ilk has not learned that goverment has been
>wholly
>> >> >> >unsuccessful in mandating solutions that meet "demand."
>> >> >>
>> >> >> An interesting aside: Virtually no government program is criticized
>> >> >> by major media EXCEPT the military.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The one that actually works.
>> >> >
>> >> >The way it is funded it's not surprising it works. If only one could
>> >> >overcharge the way they do in the civilian sector.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> I want our military to have the very best weapons.
>> >>
>> >> ...and they have them.
>> >
>> >Err, no. Soldiers are making do without adequate equipment in Iraq. Don't
>> >take my word for it.
>>
>> I have first hand knowledge...that you are wrong...
>
>Of course you do...
>http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041210/news_1n10armor.html
>
>And all those complaints to Rumsfeld that we saw must have been an illusion.

ROFL....

Have YOU been in the military?


--
Scott in Florida

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:09:34 GMT, "Philip"
<1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:

>ToMh wrote:
>>
>> Why no incentives for alternative fuels?
>>snip
>
>Because there is no shortage of crude oil to be pumped from Mother Earth.

Sorry, but this seems like a nonsense statement to me, Philip.
Whether there's a "shortage" or not isn't the issue. The issues, as I
can think of them at the moment, are:

1. Increased demand results in increased prices, for any given
supply. The recent price increases are, as I understand it, the
result of global demand truly approaching global capacity.

2. Being dependant on foreign oil hurts our national security, and
forces us into conflicts in areas were we would be better-off staying
out-of.

3. Sending so much money out of the country (for oil) drains our
economy. I'll also point-out that the many of the recipients of this
massive amount of money are NOT our friends.

4. The ecological effects of burning fossil fuels. (CO2 is a
greenhouse gas.)

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 15:34:24 -0700, "S Narayan"
<narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

>
>Tell us what constructive things you have done regarding this issue besides
>make inflammatory ethnic comments and name calling?
>

1. I voted for George W. Bush (that kept the traitor Kerry out of the
picture).

2. I served in the military.

3. Two of my sons are in the military.

name calling?

nope...

Truth telling...yup!!!


--
Scott in Florida

"Scott in Florida" <NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote in message
news:v56071d7h96qh6n5jvusvmvd19tc824l5a@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 15:21:28 -0700, "S Narayan"
> <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Scott in Florida" <NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote in message
> >news:7s2071logggb1nujaa9c1qacgprcv6k2q2@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:56:53 -0700, "S Narayan"
> >> <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Scott in Florida" <NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote in message
> >> >news:312071p857osfguh0krumfvvoft40i2q75@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:39:57 -0700, "S Narayan"
> >> >> <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"Eric Dreher" <ericd@cox.nét> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:5t0071d9qtki9q7168vrksjfdsr0jq5hic@4ax.com...
> >> >> >> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:09:34 GMT, "Philip"
> >> >> >> <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Furthermore, your ilk has not learned that goverment has been
> >wholly
> >> >> >> >unsuccessful in mandating solutions that meet "demand."
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> An interesting aside: Virtually no government program is
criticized
> >> >> >> by major media EXCEPT the military.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The one that actually works.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The way it is funded it's not surprising it works. If only one
could
> >> >> >overcharge the way they do in the civilian sector.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> I want our military to have the very best weapons.
> >> >>
> >> >> ...and they have them.
> >> >
> >> >Err, no. Soldiers are making do without adequate equipment in Iraq.
Don't
> >> >take my word for it.
> >>
> >> I have first hand knowledge...that you are wrong...
> >
> >Of course you do...
> >http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041210/news_1n10armor.html
> >
> >And all those complaints to Rumsfeld that we saw must have been an
illusion.
>
> ROFL....
>
> Have YOU been in the military?

No. Neither has Bush and most of his friends running the government. Your
point?

"Eric Dreher" <ericd@cox.nét> wrote in message
news:ip5071pt4svp7fku8vttdvi1vjgp3hgf89@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:39:57 -0700, "S Narayan"
> <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> An interesting aside: Virtually no government program is criticized
> >> by major media EXCEPT the military.
> >>
> >> The one that actually works.
> >
> >The way it is funded it's not surprising it works. If only one could
> >overcharge the way they do in the civilian sector.
>
> LOL! Ten TRILLION dollars in give-aways over the past forty years
> in tax payer funded civilian programs.
>
> I'd say they don't take a back seat to the military in any way, and
> worse, we have nothing to show for that ten trillion.

They have worked exactly as they intended. Both the military and the social
programs can do with a tune up from time to time to account for the changing
times..

"Scott in Florida" <NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote in message
news:h86071dj24d0nrjb8f20n77f1tdjm52is6@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 15:34:24 -0700, "S Narayan"
> <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Tell us what constructive things you have done regarding this issue
besides
> >make inflammatory ethnic comments and name calling?
> >
>
> 1. I voted for George W. Bush (that kept the traitor Kerry out of the
> picture).
>
> 2. I served in the military.
>
> 3. Two of my sons are in the military.
>
> name calling?
>
> nope...
>
> Truth telling...yup!!!

I was responding to "Philip", but feel free to butt in to tell us that you
have served in the military. Anytime.
And oh incidentally, Kerry served and Bush didn't. Whether or not he was a
traitor is not for you to decide.

In article <1114642082.2ff793e6253e912016910e0eaba41b03@terane ws>,
"S Narayan" <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:


>
> You have no clue about the waste, do you?

What do you talk about when you say "waste"?

> Do you know how many kWhrs (not Kw hours) per month an average Southerner uses say compared to a West Coaster

Tell me. Also tell me about the Midwest and the Northeast. While
you're at it, tell me what a kilowatt hour is, but first explain what a
kilowatt is and before that tell me what a watt is.

> or say compared to a German? The average GDP per Geman is 80% of the US but

Tell me about the German.

> consumes less than the third of the energy per capita. Also don't give me

What the hell did I say about GDP? Why are you bringing this into the
discussion?

> any cock and bull story about how the US exports to the rest of the world,

Who's giving you a cock and bull story?

> we are talking about individuals here and not industry. Moreover, if you
> looked at industry, our "production" of goods has shifted to China and SE
> Asia (and therefore our consumption should have drastically gone down). We

What the hell.....did I mention China and the far East? Where you
coming up with all this crap?

> are now a net importer of goods. In fact, our industrial power consumption
> has dropped in the last decade.

You talk like a drunk or a crazy man, or a far left wing extremist
radical.



> Very reasonable of you. Thanks for your largesse.

You're welcome.
--

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 15:39:54 -0700, "ToMh" <Teelhumm@hotm.com> wrote:

>
>"Scott in Florida" <NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote in message
>news:312071p857osfguh0krumfvvoft40i2q75@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:39:57 -0700, "S Narayan"
>> <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Eric Dreher" <ericd@cox.nét> wrote in message
>>>news:5t0071d9qtki9q7168vrksjfdsr0jq5hic@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:09:34 GMT, "Philip"
>>>> <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >Furthermore, your ilk has not learned that goverment has been wholly
>>>> >unsuccessful in mandating solutions that meet "demand."
>>>>
>>>> An interesting aside: Virtually no government program is criticized
>>>> by major media EXCEPT the military.
>>>>
>>>> The one that actually works.
>>>
>>>The way it is funded it's not surprising it works. If only one could
>>>overcharge the way they do in the civilian sector.
>>>
>>
>> I want our military to have the very best weapons.
>>
>> ...and they have them.
>>
>> The one government program that is a required program in the
>> Constitution and it works...
>>
>The constitution only provides for a militia to execute the Laws of the
>Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions. It does not call or
>support a militia to invade foreign countries or
>any actions outside our borders.
>
>

Killing people that are at war with us....is repelling invasions..

To quote from the Constitution...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the
United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called
into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the
Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive
Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their
respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and
Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of
Impeachment.

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules
concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use
shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval
Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the
Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and
for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of
the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the
Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia
according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
--
Scott in Florida

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 15:51:13 -0700, "ToMh" <Teelhumm@hotm.com> wrote:

>We do have a plans, read some and you can learn about them.

Tell us about your plans....


--
Scott in Florida

"Eric Dreher" <ericd@cox.nét> wrote in message
news:pu507158n8pic3pqrnsa0u9viqc0im9on5@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 15:34:06 -0700, "ToMh" <Teelhumm@hotm.com> wrote:
>
>>> An interesting aside: Virtually no government program is criticized
>>> by major media EXCEPT the military.
>>>
>>What world do you live in? That's pure stupidity.
>
> You misspelled "verified by observation". I simply dare you to tell
> me the media isn't critical of our military to the exclusion of any
> of their Sacred Cow favorite spending programs.
>

I hear and read critical stories about all facets of government
all the time. Do you read a newspaper. Do you read the Op-ed page.
Do you ever watch any of these news magazine shows, or any
news programs for that matter?

>>> The one that actually works.
>>
>>Too bad it's not working against the insurgents in Iraq.
>
> In your ignorant opinion.
>
Really, how many insurgent attacks in the last week? Doesn't
look like much progress to me.


>
> ------------------------------------------------
> The DNC - Building a bridge to the 20th Century.

Do you ever get anything right? The economy of the world runs on
oil. The demand for it is ever increasing and until we can
develop other viable vast sources of energy we will need MORE
oil. If the available oil supply would for some reason drop by
20% the whole world would go into the deepest depression in
history. Thousands of people will die of starvation and lack of
water. We must increase our domestic supply until such time as
other sources can be added to the energy stream just to make up
for the increased worldwide demand before we can even think of
replacing oil as the worlds primary energy source.. Anybody
suggesting that there is anything available today or even in the
near further to replace oil is a lunatic. The Presidents bill
calls for more conservation efforts, the use of wind, clean
burning coal, and nuclear power.

Until hydrogen can become the energy source of the future, at a
realistic price, in the real world those are the ONLY currently
viable alternatives. In the real world the environuts will fight
every one, including wind power because the blades kill birds.
The nuts are indeed running the asylum, they think we can just
conserve our way to energy independence.

At last we finally have a President who is willing to take on the
tough problems in this country and make the tough decisions to
correct them, rather than follow the polls as do most politicians
including his predecessor. What would you suggest the President
do in this situation?


mike hunt



ToMh wrote:
>
> More Fossil fuels
> More refineries
> More nuclear Plants
> Oh, BTW drive more fuel efficient cars (wink wink)
>
> Bush's plan is clearly designed for the benefit of the
> oil and nuclear power plant companies and lacks any
> vision or any attempt to create a long range
> plan for energy independence. It's obvious where
> his allegiances are, and it's not the American people.

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 15:52:01 -0700, Eric Dreher <ericd@cox.nét> wrote:

>On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:39:57 -0700, "S Narayan"
><narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> An interesting aside: Virtually no government program is criticized
>>> by major media EXCEPT the military.
>>>
>>> The one that actually works.
>>
>>The way it is funded it's not surprising it works. If only one could
>>overcharge the way they do in the civilian sector.
>
>LOL! Ten TRILLION dollars in give-aways over the past forty years
>in tax payer funded civilian programs.
>
>I'd say they don't take a back seat to the military in any way, and
>worse, we have nothing to show for that ten trillion.

We have 'slaves' to show for it...

The Democrats enslaved a whole people with the welfare state.

The Republicans pushed Clinton and he had to end the welfare
state...and people are going to work.


--
Scott in Florida

In article <1114643029.0026452e0ca6c771989aa3ce564c2a12@terane ws>,
"S Narayan" <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

>
> No. Neither has Bush and most of his friends running the government. Your
> point?

You are a fool!! Bush was a U.S.A.F. command pilot of an F-102.
--

Just what fuel source do you think we can use in place of crude
oil?


mike hunt



ToMh wrote:
>
> "Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote in message
> news:PrudnahxHsnha_LfRVn-1w@ez2.net...
> >
> > "ToMh" <Teelhumm@hotm.com> wrote in message
> > news:1114633166.cd32873191055ff490334940efefc6f2@t eranews...
> >>
> >> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> >> news:3%Rbe.693$GQ5.208@newsread1.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
> >> > Well dickhead ... your plan ... oh wait .... you don't have one. We
> >> > are
> >> > beyond saving ourselves into new energy. We have only closed
> >> > refineries
> >> > here in CA for the past 35-40 years. There is no shortage of crude. As
> >> > usual ... you're full of baloney.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Why no incentives for alternative fuels? This plan will just keep the
> >> price of oil low enough so there will be no incentive for change.
> >> My plan would have included real incentives even mandates
> >> for alternative fuels. The real problem is dependence on fossil fuels,
> >> not
> >> how to get more in the short run. Dickheads like yourself only care about
> >> the next few
> >> years cause you'll be dead by then and you could care less about the
> > future.
> >> No shortage of crude? Then why drill for more?
> >
> > Because the crude is in a part of the world where things are very
> > volitile,
> > and the supply of crude can be cut off.
> >
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > How is building more
> >> refineries going to lessen our dependence on the MidEast for Oil?
> >
> > This isn't going to reduce dependence, it's going to give us the ability
> > to
> > actually make more gas. If we can make more gas, then the price can come
> > down. You have to read the answer (above) to see how we plan on reducing
> > our
> > dependence on Middle East oil.
> >
> Only by a little, and we still are dependent on fossil fuels.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> I really don't have any problem with any single point of the plan (except
> >> for nuclear)
> >
> > You should be interested to know that France produces about 70% of its
> > electricity from nuke plants.
> >
> I'm actually not entirely against nuclear power, as long as they come up
> with
> and acceptable waste disposal plan, but I haven't seen one yet that isn't
> more politically motivated that scientifically sound. Even so , Nuke power
> would be a little more palatable if this administration supported green
> alternatives as fervently as it does fossil fuels and nuclear power.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >> but without a long term solution, its just a plan to get through his term
> >> and put more money in the pockets of his true bosses. We are going to
> >> have
> >> to come up with a real solution
> >> sooner or later, but it's obvious it will never happen with the
> > Republicans
> >> in charge.
> >>
> >
> > The truth is that the automakers are already working on alternative
> > energy,
> > and the alternatives that they have already come up with can't be produced
> > fast enough. I am not suggesting that hybrid technology is the end of the
> > line when it comes to alternative sources, but the few hybrids that are
> > being made have long lines of customers waiting for delivery.
> >
> That's true, but the government could speed things along by settings goals
> and incentives for alternate fuels, like Biodiesel, ethanol and Hydrogen.
>
> > Personally, I see fuel cells being used in homes as something to explore.
> > Fuel cell technology does need hydrogen, or natural gas, but we already
> > have
> > the delivery infrastructure in place for most homes in America. I suppose
> > it
> > wouldn't take very much to adapt the infrastructure to deliver natural gas
> > to your fuel cell powered car or truck.
> >
> I think eventually we may get there, but the more we keep cheap
> gas around the longer things like fuel cells, Biodiesel, ethanal will
> not have the incentive to progress. That's my point about Bush's
> plan, not that it won't help in the short run, but that it does nothing
> to wean us off fossil fuels.
>
> >

"Dbu,~'" <notspam@sp.com> wrote in message
news:notspam-568461.18090627042005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> In article <1114642082.2ff793e6253e912016910e0eaba41b03@terane ws>,
> "S Narayan" <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > You have no clue about the waste, do you?
>
> What do you talk about when you say "waste"?
>
> > Do you know how many kWhrs (not Kw hours) per month an average
Southerner uses say compared to a West Coaster
>
> Tell me. Also tell me about the Midwest and the Northeast. While
> you're at it, tell me what a kilowatt hour is, but first explain what a
> kilowatt is and before that tell me what a watt is.
>
> > or say compared to a German? The average GDP per Geman is 80% of the US
but
>
> Tell me about the German.
>
> > consumes less than the third of the energy per capita. Also don't give
me
>
> What the hell did I say about GDP? Why are you bringing this into the
> discussion?
>
> > any cock and bull story about how the US exports to the rest of the
world,
>
> Who's giving you a cock and bull story?
>
> > we are talking about individuals here and not industry. Moreover, if you
> > looked at industry, our "production" of goods has shifted to China and
SE
> > Asia (and therefore our consumption should have drastically gone down).
We
>
> What the hell.....did I mention China and the far East? Where you
> coming up with all this crap?
>
> > are now a net importer of goods. In fact, our industrial power
consumption
> > has dropped in the last decade.
>
> You talk like a drunk or a crazy man, or a far left wing extremist
> radical.
>
>
>
> > Very reasonable of you. Thanks for your largesse.
>
> You're welcome.
> --

I must be an extremist since I talk about energy efficiency. That's a new
one.

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:03:41 -0700, "S Narayan"
<narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

>> Have YOU been in the military?
>
>No. Neither has Bush and most of his friends running the government. Your
>point?
>

George W. Bush was in the Texas Air National Guard. He is a trained
fighter pilot. He served honorably and received an honorable
discharge. That IS serving in the military.


--
Scott in Florida

What Toyota do you own that was made in America?


mike hunt



badgolferman wrote:
>
> ToMh, 4/27/2005, 2:49:05 PM, wrote:
>
> > More Fossil fuels
> > More refineries
> > More nuclear Plants
> > Oh, BTW drive more fuel efficient cars (wink wink)
> >
> > Bush's plan is clearly designed for the benefit of the
> > oil and nuclear power plant companies and lacks any
> > vision or any attempt to create a long range
> > plan for energy independence. It's obvious where
> > his allegiances are, and it's not the American people.
>
> My Toyotas that are made in America will like more energy.
>
> --
> For your convenience I have included forums that you may find
> interesting.
> alt.discuss.politics,alt.politics,alt.politics.bus h,alt.politics.congres
> s,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.conservative,a lt.politics.democrat,a
> lt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.liberal,alt.pol itics.liberalism,alt.p
> olitics.usa.republican,alt.politics.usa.republican s,alt.politics.world

"Dbu,~'" <notspam@sp.com> wrote in message
news:notspam-840B18.17063127042005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> In article <sZTbe.201$HL2.142@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>
>
> > Oh wait ... tomh and his fellow loons expel a lot of methane.
>
> and drink a lot of alcohol, LOL.
> --
>

Careful with those wrists, patting yourselves on your back any harder you
might fracture them.

In article <1114643333.07f2833818abd323843adedf7ea50913@terane ws>,
"S Narayan" <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:



> And oh incidentally, Kerry served and Bush didn't. Whether or not he was a
> traitor is not for you to decide.

I will butt in also and again tell you that you are a fool. Bush was a
U.S.A.F command pilot of a F-102.
--

ToMh wrote:
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> news:icTbe.297$BE3.245@newsread2.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
>> ToMh wrote:
>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>> news:3%Rbe.693$GQ5.208@newsread1.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
>>>> Well dickhead ... your plan ... oh wait .... you don't have one. We are
>>>> beyond saving ourselves into new energy. We have only
>>>> closed refineries here in CA for the past 35-40 years. There is no
>>>> shortage of crude. As usual ... you're full of baloney.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why no incentives for alternative fuels?
>> snip
>>
>> Because there is no shortage of crude oil to be pumped from Mother
>> Earth.
> Sure there isn't. Problem is that people like you believe that.

The oil companies believe it too. But you can't put crude in your fuel tank.

>> Furthermore, your ilk has not learned that goverment has been wholly
>> unsuccessful in mandating solutions that meet "demand."
>
> This administration certainly won't change that.

Nor will any Democrat administration.

ToMh wrote:
> "Eric Dreher" <ericd@cox.nét> wrote in message
> news:5t0071d9qtki9q7168vrksjfdsr0jq5hic@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:09:34 GMT, "Philip"
>> <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>
>>> Furthermore, your ilk has not learned that goverment has been wholly
>>> unsuccessful in mandating solutions that meet "demand."
>>
>> An interesting aside: Virtually no government program is criticized
>> by major media EXCEPT the military.
>>
> What world do you live in? That's pure stupidity.

Eric's statement is mostly accurate. It's only after a program bankrupts
some public fund that it gets criticized

S Narayan wrote:
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> news:sZTbe.201$HL2.142@newsread3.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
>> Dbu,~' wrote:
>>> In article <Q4ydnVwlFqg7efLfRVn-ug@ez2.net>,
>>> "Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> The truth is that his plan is being well received outside of the
>>>> political circles.
>>>>
>>>> We haven't seen any new refinery capacity going in for the past 30
>>>> years in this country. During that time there has been a serious
>>>> drop in the demand of gas (oil) for any individual automobile, but
>>>> a huge increase in the number of automobiles, so there is a higher
>>>> overall demand for refined oil, but no new refineries. Not only
>>>> have we as consumers made major strides in consuming less in our
>>>> cars,
>>>> but we have also made significant strides in making less pollution
>>>> from our cars. I know that my car in the 70s sucked up gas and
>>>> spewwed alarming amounts of pollution, and today my car meets the
>>>> most stringent standards of pollution on the planet, and sips gas
>>>> at the miserly rate of nearly 30 miles per gallon.
>>>>
>>>> But even if I use 1/3 the gas I used in 1970, there are way more
>>>> than 3 times the number of cars, so there is a net increase in
>>>> demand. With this increase, there has been a consolidation of
>>>> refiners, and a reduction in the number of refineries. We are
>>>> closing refineries and consolidating refiners while the net demand
>>>> for gasoline is going up.
>>>>
>>>> Lots of electricity is made from burning petroleum products,
>>>> including natural gas among others. If we can switch that demand
>>>> away from the fossil fuels and into nukes, then we can reduce the
>>>> demand on oil, and our dependence goes down.
>>>>
>>>> All of the major car companies are working on alternative fuel
>>>> programs, most notably hybrid and fuel cell technology, so the
>>>> "wink wink" is a crock of shit.
>>>
>>> You have three choices:
>>>
>>> 1. Kill off large amounts of people. (this would not fly).
>>
>> Does in China and southeast Asia.
>>
>>> 2. Take the cars away from people, by force if needed.
>>
>> That doesn't fly anywhere gas stations are available.
>>
>>> 3. Build more refinery capacity and more nuclear power generating
>>> plants.
>>
>> The pendulum is swinging the other way now. Time has come to
>> 'plant' the Green activists.
>>
>> snip
>>> The far left wing socialist extremists, including old tomh, would go
>>> with number 1 and 2. The rest of us, all reasonable people will go
>>> with number 3.
>>>
>>> Old tomh and his brothers and sisters like to be critical when their
>>> favorites are out of power. They have no plan.
>>
>> Their plan is to disrupt, detract, and subvert. Neither 'tomh' nor
>> his subversive loons are involved in making biodiesel or alcohol or
>> solar cars or anything USEFUL.
>>
>> Oh wait ... tomh and his fellow loons expel a lot of methane.
>
>
> Tell us what constructive things you have done regarding this issue
> besides make inflammatory ethnic comments and name calling?

The only thing you need to know about me is that I do not exist to answer to
you. Got it, pal?

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:08:35 -0700, "S Narayan"
<narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

>And oh incidentally, Kerry served and Bush didn't. Whether or not he was a
>traitor is not for you to decide.

It is for his 'band of brothers' to decide...and they did. Kerry is a
traitor.

George Bush served honorably in the US Military.


--
Scott in Florida

ToMh wrote:
> "Scott in Florida" <NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote in message
> news:312071p857osfguh0krumfvvoft40i2q75@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:39:57 -0700, "S Narayan"
>> <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Eric Dreher" <ericd@cox.nét> wrote in message
>>> news:5t0071d9qtki9q7168vrksjfdsr0jq5hic@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:09:34 GMT, "Philip"
>>>> <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Furthermore, your ilk has not learned that goverment has been
>>>>> wholly unsuccessful in mandating solutions that meet "demand."
>>>>
>>>> An interesting aside: Virtually no government program is
>>>> criticized by major media EXCEPT the military.
>>>>
>>>> The one that actually works.
>>>
>>> The way it is funded it's not surprising it works. If only one could
>>> overcharge the way they do in the civilian sector.
>>>
>>
>> I want our military to have the very best weapons.
>>
>> ...and they have them.
>>
>> The one government program that is a required program in the
>> Constitution and it works...
>>
> The constitution only provides for a militia to execute the Laws of
> the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions. It does not
> call or support a militia to invade foreign countries or
> any actions outside our borders.

The Constitution (capital 'C') does not call for the Federal Government to
do a LOT of the other things you want it to do more of either. How about
that?

S Narayan wrote:
> You have no clue about the waste, do you? Do you know how many kWhrs
> (not KW hours) per month an average Southerner uses say compared to a
> West Coaster or say compared to a German?

NO. Do you? How about putting the numbers to your argument? Yeah
Numbers. Actual kilowatt hours. I got my Edison bill in front of me.

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 23:09:06 GMT, "Dbu,~'" <notspam@sp.com> wrote:

>You talk like a drunk or a crazy man, or a far left wing extremist
>radical.

LOL...and what...pray tell...is the difference?


--
Scott in Florida

In article <1114643922.648387de885581296b1cf47fd2691b42@terane ws>,
"S Narayan" <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

> I must be an extremist since I talk about energy efficiency. That's a new
> one.

Why don't you answer my questions?
--

"Dbu,~'" <notspam@sp.com> wrote in message
news:notspam-AACD20.18164427042005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> In article <1114643029.0026452e0ca6c771989aa3ce564c2a12@terane ws>,
> "S Narayan" <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > No. Neither has Bush and most of his friends running the government.
Your
> > point?
>
> You are a fool!! Bush was a U.S.A.F. command pilot of an F-102.

Yeah, how could I forget! Silly me.

Not so, there is another. The new welfare program, where the
feds give the states less than half the money they did under the
federal welfare department, that now does more with less money
without the folks in Washington telling them how to do their
job. Just one more of the better ways republicans do things. It
took a republican congress three years to get Clinton on board
but it has proven its value LOL



mike hunt



Eric Dreher wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:09:34 GMT, "Philip"
> <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>
> >Furthermore, your ilk has not learned that goverment has been wholly
> >unsuccessful in mandating solutions that meet "demand."
>
> An interesting aside: Virtually no government program is criticized
> by major media EXCEPT the military.
>
> The one that actually works.
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> The DNC - Building a bridge to the 20th Century.

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
news:X7Vbe.802$GQ5.689@newsread1.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
> ToMh wrote:
>> "Eric Dreher" <ericd@cox.nét> wrote in message
>> news:5t0071d9qtki9q7168vrksjfdsr0jq5hic@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:09:34 GMT, "Philip"
>>> <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Furthermore, your ilk has not learned that goverment has been wholly
>>>> unsuccessful in mandating solutions that meet "demand."
>>>
>>> An interesting aside: Virtually no government program is criticized
>>> by major media EXCEPT the military.
>>>
>> What world do you live in? That's pure stupidity.
>
> Eric's statement is mostly accurate. It's only after a program bankrupts
> some public fund that it gets criticized
>
Give me an example of a program that deserves to be criticized
and I bet I can found lots of media reports about it. Of course
the criticism need to be based on real facts.


>

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
news:v8Vbe.805$GQ5.724@newsread1.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
> S Narayan wrote:
> > You have no clue about the waste, do you? Do you know how many kWhrs
> > (not KW hours) per month an average Southerner uses say compared to a
> > West Coaster or say compared to a German?
>
> NO. Do you? How about putting the numbers to your argument? Yeah
> Numbers. Actual kilowatt hours. I got my Edison bill in front of me.
>


Thought you weren't talking to me... :-)

A southerner, about 1100 kWhrs/month
A west coaster, about 670 kWhrs/month
A german, about 330 kWhrs/month

"Scott in Florida" <NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote in message
news:qk6071phcmhsd2sa6ej541h7kkga74072b@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 15:39:54 -0700, "ToMh" <Teelhumm@hotm.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Scott in Florida" <NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote in message
>>news:312071p857osfguh0krumfvvoft40i2q75@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:39:57 -0700, "S Narayan"
>>> <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Eric Dreher" <ericd@cox.nét> wrote in message
>>>>news:5t0071d9qtki9q7168vrksjfdsr0jq5hic@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:09:34 GMT, "Philip"
>>>>> <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >Furthermore, your ilk has not learned that goverment has been wholly
>>>>> >unsuccessful in mandating solutions that meet "demand."
>>>>>
>>>>> An interesting aside: Virtually no government program is criticized
>>>>> by major media EXCEPT the military.
>>>>>
>>>>> The one that actually works.
>>>>
>>>>The way it is funded it's not surprising it works. If only one could
>>>>overcharge the way they do in the civilian sector.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I want our military to have the very best weapons.
>>>
>>> ...and they have them.
>>>
>>> The one government program that is a required program in the
>>> Constitution and it works...
>>>
>>The constitution only provides for a militia to execute the Laws of the
>>Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions. It does not call or
>>support a militia to invade foreign countries or
>>any actions outside our borders.
>>
>>
>
> Killing people that are at war with us....is repelling invasions..
>
> To quote from the Constitution...
>
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
> State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
> infringed.
>
> The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the
> United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called
> into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the
> Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive
> Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their
> respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and
> Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of
> Impeachment.
>
> To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules
> concerning Captures on Land and Water;
>
> To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use
> shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
>
> To provide and maintain a Navy;
>
> To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval
> Forces;
>
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the
> Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
>
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and
> for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of
> the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the
> Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia
> according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> --
> Scott in Florida

None of which support our armies being on foreign land.

"Scott in Florida" <NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote in message
news:147071h2oi86sg2d0a7v65hrg7v8vgllv7@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 15:51:13 -0700, "ToMh" <Teelhumm@hotm.com> wrote:
>
>>We do have a plans, read some and you can learn about them.
>
> Tell us about your plans....
>
>
>
Do a google search for Green energy, it's not that hard to learn
about new things.

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
news:68Vbe.803$GQ5.443@newsread1.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
>S Narayan wrote:
>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>> news:sZTbe.201$HL2.142@newsread3.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
>>> Dbu,~' wrote:
>>>> In article <Q4ydnVwlFqg7efLfRVn-ug@ez2.net>,
>>>> "Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The truth is that his plan is being well received outside of the
>>>>> political circles.
>>>>>
>>>>> We haven't seen any new refinery capacity going in for the past 30
>>>>> years in this country. During that time there has been a serious
>>>>> drop in the demand of gas (oil) for any individual automobile, but
>>>>> a huge increase in the number of automobiles, so there is a higher
>>>>> overall demand for refined oil, but no new refineries. Not only
>>>>> have we as consumers made major strides in consuming less in our
>>>>> cars,
>>>>> but we have also made significant strides in making less pollution
>>>>> from our cars. I know that my car in the 70s sucked up gas and
>>>>> spewwed alarming amounts of pollution, and today my car meets the
>>>>> most stringent standards of pollution on the planet, and sips gas
>>>>> at the miserly rate of nearly 30 miles per gallon.
>>>>>
>>>>> But even if I use 1/3 the gas I used in 1970, there are way more
>>>>> than 3 times the number of cars, so there is a net increase in
>>>>> demand. With this increase, there has been a consolidation of
>>>>> refiners, and a reduction in the number of refineries. We are
>>>>> closing refineries and consolidating refiners while the net demand
>>>>> for gasoline is going up.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lots of electricity is made from burning petroleum products,
>>>>> including natural gas among others. If we can switch that demand
>>>>> away from the fossil fuels and into nukes, then we can reduce the
>>>>> demand on oil, and our dependence goes down.
>>>>>
>>>>> All of the major car companies are working on alternative fuel
>>>>> programs, most notably hybrid and fuel cell technology, so the
>>>>> "wink wink" is a crock of shit.
>>>>
>>>> You have three choices:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Kill off large amounts of people. (this would not fly).
>>>
>>> Does in China and southeast Asia.
>>>
>>>> 2. Take the cars away from people, by force if needed.
>>>
>>> That doesn't fly anywhere gas stations are available.
>>>
>>>> 3. Build more refinery capacity and more nuclear power generating
>>>> plants.
>>>
>>> The pendulum is swinging the other way now. Time has come to
>>> 'plant' the Green activists.
>>>
>>> snip
>>>> The far left wing socialist extremists, including old tomh, would go
>>>> with number 1 and 2. The rest of us, all reasonable people will go
>>>> with number 3.
>>>>
>>>> Old tomh and his brothers and sisters like to be critical when their
>>>> favorites are out of power. They have no plan.
>>>
>>> Their plan is to disrupt, detract, and subvert. Neither 'tomh' nor
>>> his subversive loons are involved in making biodiesel or alcohol or
>>> solar cars or anything USEFUL.
>>>
>>> Oh wait ... tomh and his fellow loons expel a lot of methane.
>>
>>
>> Tell us what constructive things you have done regarding this issue
>> besides make inflammatory ethnic comments and name calling?
>
> The only thing you need to know about me is that I do not exist to answer
> to you. Got it, pal?

Then keep your mouth shut if you can't back up your rhetoric.

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
news:i8Vbe.804$GQ5.503@newsread1.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
> ToMh wrote:
>> "Scott in Florida" <NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote in message
>> news:312071p857osfguh0krumfvvoft40i2q75@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:39:57 -0700, "S Narayan"
>>> <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Eric Dreher" <ericd@cox.nét> wrote in message
>>>> news:5t0071d9qtki9q7168vrksjfdsr0jq5hic@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:09:34 GMT, "Philip"
>>>>> <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Furthermore, your ilk has not learned that goverment has been
>>>>>> wholly unsuccessful in mandating solutions that meet "demand."
>>>>>
>>>>> An interesting aside: Virtually no government program is
>>>>> criticized by major media EXCEPT the military.
>>>>>
>>>>> The one that actually works.
>>>>
>>>> The way it is funded it's not surprising it works. If only one could
>>>> overcharge the way they do in the civilian sector.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I want our military to have the very best weapons.
>>>
>>> ...and they have them.
>>>
>>> The one government program that is a required program in the
>>> Constitution and it works...
>>>
>> The constitution only provides for a militia to execute the Laws of
>> the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions. It does not
>> call or support a militia to invade foreign countries or
>> any actions outside our borders.
>
> The Constitution (capital 'C') does not call for the Federal Government to
> do a LOT of the other things you want it to do more of either. How about
> that?
>
Your point?

In article <1114644751.f011f059cb2b2a9790690d0c002fd428@terane ws>,
"S Narayan" <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:


> A southerner, about 1100 kWhrs/month
> A west coaster, about 670 kWhrs/month
> A german, about 330 kWhrs/month

Where do you get those figures from?
--

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
news:68Vbe.803$GQ5.443@newsread1.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
> S Narayan wrote:
> > "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> > news:sZTbe.201$HL2.142@newsread3.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
> >> Dbu,~' wrote:
> >>> In article <Q4ydnVwlFqg7efLfRVn-ug@ez2.net>,
> >>> "Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> The truth is that his plan is being well received outside of the
> >>>> political circles.
> >>>>
> >>>> We haven't seen any new refinery capacity going in for the past 30
> >>>> years in this country. During that time there has been a serious
> >>>> drop in the demand of gas (oil) for any individual automobile, but
> >>>> a huge increase in the number of automobiles, so there is a higher
> >>>> overall demand for refined oil, but no new refineries. Not only
> >>>> have we as consumers made major strides in consuming less in our
> >>>> cars,
> >>>> but we have also made significant strides in making less pollution
> >>>> from our cars. I know that my car in the 70s sucked up gas and
> >>>> spewwed alarming amounts of pollution, and today my car meets the
> >>>> most stringent standards of pollution on the planet, and sips gas
> >>>> at the miserly rate of nearly 30 miles per gallon.
> >>>>
> >>>> But even if I use 1/3 the gas I used in 1970, there are way more
> >>>> than 3 times the number of cars, so there is a net increase in
> >>>> demand. With this increase, there has been a consolidation of
> >>>> refiners, and a reduction in the number of refineries. We are
> >>>> closing refineries and consolidating refiners while the net demand
> >>>> for gasoline is going up.
> >>>>
> >>>> Lots of electricity is made from burning petroleum products,
> >>>> including natural gas among others. If we can switch that demand
> >>>> away from the fossil fuels and into nukes, then we can reduce the
> >>>> demand on oil, and our dependence goes down.
> >>>>
> >>>> All of the major car companies are working on alternative fuel
> >>>> programs, most notably hybrid and fuel cell technology, so the
> >>>> "wink wink" is a crock of shit.
> >>>
> >>> You have three choices:
> >>>
> >>> 1. Kill off large amounts of people. (this would not fly).
> >>
> >> Does in China and southeast Asia.
> >>
> >>> 2. Take the cars away from people, by force if needed.
> >>
> >> That doesn't fly anywhere gas stations are available.
> >>
> >>> 3. Build more refinery capacity and more nuclear power generating
> >>> plants.
> >>
> >> The pendulum is swinging the other way now. Time has come to
> >> 'plant' the Green activists.
> >>
> >> snip
> >>> The far left wing socialist extremists, including old tomh, would go
> >>> with number 1 and 2. The rest of us, all reasonable people will go
> >>> with number 3.
> >>>
> >>> Old tomh and his brothers and sisters like to be critical when their
> >>> favorites are out of power. They have no plan.
> >>
> >> Their plan is to disrupt, detract, and subvert. Neither 'tomh' nor
> >> his subversive loons are involved in making biodiesel or alcohol or
> >> solar cars or anything USEFUL.
> >>
> >> Oh wait ... tomh and his fellow loons expel a lot of methane.
> >
> >
> > Tell us what constructive things you have done regarding this issue
> > besides make inflammatory ethnic comments and name calling?
>
> The only thing you need to know about me is that I do not exist to answer
to
> you. Got it, pal?

Yeah, I got it.. You are one of those blowhards.

Did you forget about NUMMI? My Corolla. Engine and transaxle from KY
plant, sheet metal here, plastics here, electronic Delphi, assembled in
Fremont.

RustyFendor@mailcity.com wrote:
> What Toyota do you own that was made in America?
>
>
> mike hunt
>
>
>
> badgolferman wrote:
>>
>> ToMh, 4/27/2005, 2:49:05 PM, wrote:
>>
>>> More Fossil fuels
>>> More refineries
>>> More nuclear Plants
>>> Oh, BTW drive more fuel efficient cars (wink wink)
>>>
>>> Bush's plan is clearly designed for the benefit of the
>>> oil and nuclear power plant companies and lacks any
>>> vision or any attempt to create a long range
>>> plan for energy independence. It's obvious where
>>> his allegiances are, and it's not the American people.
>>
>> My Toyotas that are made in America will like more energy.
>>
>> --
>> For your convenience I have included forums that you may find
>> interesting.
>> alt.discuss.politics,alt.politics,alt.politics.bus h,alt.politics.congres
>> s,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.conservative,a lt.politics.democrat,a
>> lt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.liberal,alt.pol itics.liberalism,alt.p
>> olitics.usa.republican,alt.politics.usa.republican s,alt.politics.world

ToMh wrote:
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> news:sZTbe.201$HL2.142@newsread3.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
>> The pendulum is swinging the other way now. Time has come to
>> 'plant' the Green activists.
>>
> Rather doubtful. All the problems with nuclear power arn't going
> away, and the majority of people know this, that's why the latest
> polls already show 68% oppose Bush's energy plan.

You're making up figures too. Pathetic.

snip
>> Their plan is to disrupt, detract, and subvert. Neither 'tomh' nor
>> his subversive loons are involved in making biodiesel or alcohol or
>> solar cars or anything USEFUL.
>>
> There are people who do, and we need to support them. Do you make your
> own gas?

I've made my own biodiesel. What a freakin' mess and so time consuming that
I learned homebrew is not worth the effort, especially when I can buy
finished product 35 miles away for ONLY .... $3.65 per gallon for B100. But
I am not the one in question. YOU ARE. All you have to say is that you
have somebody elses 'plans' to offer. Bullcrap.

>> Oh wait ... tomh and his fellow loons expel a lot of methane.
>>
>>
> Too bad, the greens are winning, niener, niener, niener! Bush's plan
> won't change that a bit.

Only in methane cloud between your ears.

S Narayan wrote:
> "Eric Dreher" <ericd@cox.nét> wrote in message
> news:ip5071pt4svp7fku8vttdvi1vjgp3hgf89@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:39:57 -0700, "S Narayan"
>> <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> An interesting aside: Virtually no government program is
>>>> criticized
>>>> by major media EXCEPT the military.
>>>>
>>>> The one that actually works.
>>>
>>> The way it is funded it's not surprising it works. If only one could
>>> overcharge the way they do in the civilian sector.
>>
>> LOL! Ten TRILLION dollars in give-aways over the past forty years
>> in tax payer funded civilian programs.
>>
>> I'd say they don't take a back seat to the military in any way, and
>> worse, we have nothing to show for that ten trillion.
>
> They have worked exactly as they intended. Both the military and the
> social programs can do with a tune up from time to time to account
> for the changing times..

Share with us FIVE corrective measures that would 'tune-up' the social
entitlement arena.

dizzy wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:09:34 GMT, "Philip"
> <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>
>> ToMh wrote:
>>>
>>> Why no incentives for alternative fuels?
>>> snip
>>
>> Because there is no shortage of crude oil to be pumped from Mother
>> Earth.
>
> Sorry, but this seems like a nonsense statement to me, Philip.
snip

Coming from a fella calling himself "Dizzy'

S Narayan wrote:
> "Scott in Florida" <NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote in message
> news:h86071dj24d0nrjb8f20n77f1tdjm52is6@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 15:34:24 -0700, "S Narayan"
>> <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Tell us what constructive things you have done regarding this issue
>>> besides make inflammatory ethnic comments and name calling?
>>>
>>
>> 1. I voted for George W. Bush (that kept the traitor Kerry out of the
>> picture).
>>
>> 2. I served in the military.
>>
>> 3. Two of my sons are in the military.
>>
>> name calling?
>>
>> nope...
>>
>> Truth telling...yup!!!
>
> I was responding to "Philip", but feel free to butt in to tell us
> that you have served in the military. Anytime.
> And oh incidentally, Kerry served and Bush didn't. Whether or not he
> was a traitor is not for you to decide.

Is military relevant or is what they have done in government office
afterward relevant? Kerry is obviously the traitor.

Haven't you read about the French air car? It is propelled by compressed
air! Really! You refill it just like gasoline ... at a pump. A few
thousand psi in the tank and you're good to go. Has an onboard compressor
regenerative braking too.

RustyFendor@mailcity.com wrote:
> Just what fuel source do you think we can use in place of crude
> oil?
>
>
> mike hunt
>
>
>
> ToMh wrote:
>>
>> "Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote in message
>> news:PrudnahxHsnha_LfRVn-1w@ez2.net...
>>>
>>> "ToMh" <Teelhumm@hotm.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1114633166.cd32873191055ff490334940efefc6f2@t eranews...
>>>>
>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>> news:3%Rbe.693$GQ5.208@newsread1.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
>>>>> Well dickhead ... your plan ... oh wait .... you don't have one.
>>>>> We are
>>>>> beyond saving ourselves into new energy. We have only closed
>>>>> refineries
>>>>> here in CA for the past 35-40 years. There is no shortage of
>>>>> crude. As usual ... you're full of baloney.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why no incentives for alternative fuels? This plan will just keep
>>>> the price of oil low enough so there will be no incentive for
>>>> change.
>>>> My plan would have included real incentives even mandates
>>>> for alternative fuels. The real problem is dependence on fossil
>>>> fuels, not
>>>> how to get more in the short run. Dickheads like yourself only
>>>> care about the next few
>>>> years cause you'll be dead by then and you could care less about
>>>> the future. No shortage of crude? Then why drill for more?
>>>
>>> Because the crude is in a part of the world where things are very
>>> volitile,
>>> and the supply of crude can be cut off.
>>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> How is building more
>>>> refineries going to lessen our dependence on the MidEast for Oil?
>>>
>>> This isn't going to reduce dependence, it's going to give us the
>>> ability to
>>> actually make more gas. If we can make more gas, then the price can
>>> come down. You have to read the answer (above) to see how we plan
>>> on reducing our
>>> dependence on Middle East oil.
>>>
>> Only by a little, and we still are dependent on fossil fuels.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I really don't have any problem with any single point of the plan
>>>> (except for nuclear)
>>>
>>> You should be interested to know that France produces about 70% of
>>> its electricity from nuke plants.
>>>
>> I'm actually not entirely against nuclear power, as long as they
>> come up with
>> and acceptable waste disposal plan, but I haven't seen one yet that
>> isn't more politically motivated that scientifically sound. Even so
>> , Nuke power would be a little more palatable if this administration
>> supported green alternatives as fervently as it does fossil fuels
>> and nuclear power.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> but without a long term solution, its just a plan to get through
>>>> his term and put more money in the pockets of his true bosses. We
>>>> are going to have
>>>> to come up with a real solution
>>>> sooner or later, but it's obvious it will never happen with the
>>>> Republicans in charge.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The truth is that the automakers are already working on alternative
>>> energy,
>>> and the alternatives that they have already come up with can't be
>>> produced fast enough. I am not suggesting that hybrid technology is
>>> the end of the line when it comes to alternative sources, but the
>>> few hybrids that are being made have long lines of customers
>>> waiting for delivery.
>>>
>> That's true, but the government could speed things along by settings
>> goals and incentives for alternate fuels, like Biodiesel, ethanol
>> and Hydrogen.
>>
>>> Personally, I see fuel cells being used in homes as something to
>>> explore. Fuel cell technology does need hydrogen, or natural gas,
>>> but we already have
>>> the delivery infrastructure in place for most homes in America. I
>>> suppose it
>>> wouldn't take very much to adapt the infrastructure to deliver
>>> natural gas to your fuel cell powered car or truck.
>>>
>> I think eventually we may get there, but the more we keep cheap
>> gas around the longer things like fuel cells, Biodiesel, ethanal will
>> not have the incentive to progress. That's my point about Bush's
>> plan, not that it won't help in the short run, but that it does
>> nothing
>> to wean us off fossil fuels.

S Narayan wrote:
> "Dbu,~'" <notspam@sp.com> wrote in message
> news:notspam-840B18.17063127042005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>> In article <sZTbe.201$HL2.142@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Oh wait ... tomh and his fellow loons expel a lot of methane.
>>
>> and drink a lot of alcohol, LOL.
>> --
>>
>
> Careful with those wrists, patting yourselves on your back any harder
> you might fracture them.

Unlike you who sprained his wrist jerking off.

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 23:54:01 GMT, "Philip"
<1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:

>dizzy wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:09:34 GMT, "Philip"
>> <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>
>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Why no incentives for alternative fuels?
>>>> snip
>>>
>>> Because there is no shortage of crude oil to be pumped from Mother
>>> Earth.
>>
>> Sorry, but this seems like a nonsense statement to me, Philip.
>snip
>
>Coming from a fella calling himself "Dizzy'

Gee. Nice rebuttal.

"Dbu,~'" <notspam@sp.com> wrote in message
news:notspam-2E0DEF.18385827042005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> In article <1114644751.f011f059cb2b2a9790690d0c002fd428@terane ws>,
> "S Narayan" <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > A southerner, about 1100 kWhrs/month
> > A west coaster, about 670 kWhrs/month
> > A german, about 330 kWhrs/month
>
> Where do you get those figures from?
> --
>

Oh, now you want to talk?
I got them off a google search yesterday through the worldenergy.org and
other such websites, I can't repeat the same keywords now. The US Average is
easy to find, about 10500 kWhrs/year or 877 kWhrs/month. The US regional
numbers are bit harder to find. Perhaps the only other country that uses
more energy per capita/household is Canada.

"dizzy" <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:fqa0719qs430ghh4phri2iaame2il5ue9k@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 23:54:01 GMT, "Philip"
> <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>
> >dizzy wrote:
> >> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:09:34 GMT, "Philip"
> >> <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
> >>
> >>> ToMh wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Why no incentives for alternative fuels?
> >>>> snip
> >>>
> >>> Because there is no shortage of crude oil to be pumped from Mother
> >>> Earth.
> >>
> >> Sorry, but this seems like a nonsense statement to me, Philip.
> >snip
> >
> >Coming from a fella calling himself "Dizzy'
>
> Gee. Nice rebuttal.
>

That must be the neocon/con way. Attack the person when you don't have a
point.

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 19:28:16 -0400, some stupid top-posting,
nym-shifting troll, currently callin ghimself RustyFendor wrote:

>It took a republican congress three years to get Clinton on board
>but it has proven its value

Typical dumbshit right-wing spin, claiming for their own something
that was accomplished under the Clinton administration.

We all know that right-wingers will claim responsibility for anything
that went right, while blaming others for anything that went wrong.
Scumbag hypocrites, they are.

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:59:42 GMT, Scott in Florida
<NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote:

>1. I voted for George W. Bush (that kept the traitor Kerry out of the
>picture).
>
>2. I served in the military.
>
>3. Two of my sons are in the military.
>
>name calling?
>
>nope...

Yep.

>Truth telling...yup!!!

Nope. You're a bald-faced liar, actually, as we all can plainly see.

For example, calling Kerry a "traitor".

These Neocons are amazing. They'll lie through their teeth, and they
don't care who knows it. Some of them seem to take pride in being a
known liar.

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:18:36 -0700, "S Narayan"
<narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

>I must be an extremist since I talk about energy efficiency. That's a new
>one.

That's the viewpoint of the Goebbels gang - if you're not with them,
and their filthy, selfish, "live for today" agenda, you're a "left
wing extremist".

We expect things like this from you Dizzy, since you live in a
netherland someplace. Enlighten yourself, search the
Congressional record for the truth. You can apologize for you
mistaken beliefs later.


mike hunt



dizzy wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 19:28:16 -0400, some stupid top-posting,
> nym-shifting troll, currently callin ghimself RustyFendor wrote:
>
> >It took a republican congress three years to get Clinton on board
> >but it has proven its value
>
> Typical dumbshit right-wing spin, claiming for their own something
> that was accomplished under the Clinton administration.
>
> We all know that right-wingers will claim responsibility for anything
> that went right, while blaming others for anything that went wrong.
> Scumbag hypocrites, they are.

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
news:%BVbe.408$BE3.144@newsread2.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
> ToMh wrote:
>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>> news:sZTbe.201$HL2.142@newsread3.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
>>> The pendulum is swinging the other way now. Time has come to
>>> 'plant' the Green activists.
>>>
>> Rather doubtful. All the problems with nuclear power arn't going
>> away, and the majority of people know this, that's why the latest
>> polls already show 68% oppose Bush's energy plan.
>
> You're making up figures too. Pathetic.
>
Check out CNN

> snip
>>> Their plan is to disrupt, detract, and subvert. Neither 'tomh' nor
>>> his subversive loons are involved in making biodiesel or alcohol or
>>> solar cars or anything USEFUL.
>>>
>> There are people who do, and we need to support them. Do you make your
>> own gas?
>
> I've made my own biodiesel. What a freakin' mess and so time consuming
> that I learned homebrew is not worth the effort, especially when I can buy
> finished product 35 miles away for ONLY .... $3.65 per gallon for B100.
> But I am not the one in question. YOU ARE. All you have to say is that
> you have somebody elses 'plans' to offer. Bullcrap.
>
You make no sense. I can't decipher what kind of point you
are trying to make.


>>> Oh wait ... tomh and his fellow loons expel a lot of methane.
>>>
>>>
>> Too bad, the greens are winning, niener, niener, niener! Bush's plan
>> won't change that a bit.
>
> Only in methane cloud between your ears.
If it wern't true, you wouldn't be so pissed off.

>
>

>

That was true at one time

Philip wrote:
>
> Did you forget about NUMMI? My Corolla. Engine and transaxle from KY
> plant, sheet metal here, plastics here, electronic Delphi, assembled in
> Fremont.
>
> RustyFendor@mailcity.com wrote:
> > What Toyota do you own that was made in America?
> >
> >
> > mike hunt
> >
> >
> >
> > badgolferman wrote:
> >>
> >> ToMh, 4/27/2005, 2:49:05 PM, wrote:
> >>
> >>> More Fossil fuels
> >>> More refineries
> >>> More nuclear Plants
> >>> Oh, BTW drive more fuel efficient cars (wink wink)
> >>>
> >>> Bush's plan is clearly designed for the benefit of the
> >>> oil and nuclear power plant companies and lacks any
> >>> vision or any attempt to create a long range
> >>> plan for energy independence. It's obvious where
> >>> his allegiances are, and it's not the American people.
> >>
> >> My Toyotas that are made in America will like more energy.
> >>
> >> --
> >> For your convenience I have included forums that you may find
> >> interesting.
> >> alt.discuss.politics,alt.politics,alt.politics.bus h,alt.politics.congres
> >> s,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.conservative,a lt.politics.democrat,a
> >> lt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.liberal,alt.pol itics.liberalism,alt.p
> >> olitics.usa.republican,alt.politics.usa.republican s,alt.politics.world
but they no longer make the Corolla in California, its now made
in Canada.


mike hunt

RustyFendor@mailcity.com, 4/27/2005, 7:19:49 PM, wrote:

> What Toyota do you own that was made in America?
>
>
> mike hunt
>

2000 Sienna and prior to that 1994 Camry. My 1997 Camry is made in
Japan.

--
No matter what happens someone will find a way to take it too seriously.

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:19:10 -0700, "S Narayan"
<narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

>"dizzy" <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>news:fqa0719qs430ghh4phri2iaame2il5ue9k@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 23:54:01 GMT, "Philip"
>> <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>
>> >dizzy wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:09:34 GMT, "Philip"
>> >> <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> ToMh wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Why no incentives for alternative fuels?
>> >>>> snip
>> >>>
>> >>> Because there is no shortage of crude oil to be pumped from Mother
>> >>> Earth.
>> >>
>> >> Sorry, but this seems like a nonsense statement to me, Philip.
>> >snip
>> >
>> >Coming from a fella calling himself "Dizzy'
>>
>> Gee. Nice rebuttal.
>>
>
>That must be the neocon/con way. Attack the person when you don't have a
>point.

Pretty much. I post a respectful, thoughtful post, with well laid-out
points, and what do I get back? "Coming from a fella calling himself
"Dizzy'"

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:26:12 -0700, "S Narayan"
<narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

>Silly me.

On THAT we agree.

Mr. Narayan, it's apparent that you're just one more LLL (Lefty Loony
Lemming) to happen upon this group. Your "rebuttals" are composed of
pedestrian, recycled, ridiculous retorts that we've all heard time and
time again.

It WOULD be interesting to read something original but, alas, you're
just not the one.

Adios. <plonk>



------------------------------------------------
The DNC - Building a bridge to the 20th Century.

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 23:53:46 GMT, "Philip"
<1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:

>> They have worked exactly as they intended. Both the military and the
>> social programs can do with a tune up from time to time to account
>> for the changing times..
>
>Share with us FIVE corrective measures that would 'tune-up' the social
>entitlement arena.

Or even one that HAS been tried. LOL


------------------------------------------------
The DNC - Building a bridge to the 20th Century.

Eric Dreher wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:26:12 -0700, "S Narayan"
> <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Silly me.
>
> On THAT we agree.
>
> Mr. Narayan, it's apparent that you're just one more LLL (Lefty Loony
> Lemming) to happen upon this group. Your "rebuttals" are composed of
> pedestrian, recycled, ridiculous retorts that we've all heard time
and
> time again.
>
> It WOULD be interesting to read something original but, alas, you're
> just not the one.
>

what a whole bunch of nuthin

> Adios. <plonk>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> The DNC - Building a bridge to the 20th Century.

ToMh wrote:
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> news:X7Vbe.802$GQ5.689@newsread1.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
>> ToMh wrote:
>>> "Eric Dreher" <ericd@cox.nét> wrote in message
>>> news:5t0071d9qtki9q7168vrksjfdsr0jq5hic@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:09:34 GMT, "Philip"
>>>> <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Furthermore, your ilk has not learned that goverment has been
>>>>> wholly unsuccessful in mandating solutions that meet "demand."
>>>>
>>>> An interesting aside: Virtually no government program is
>>>> criticized by major media EXCEPT the military.
>>>>
>>> What world do you live in? That's pure stupidity.
>>
>> Eric's statement is mostly accurate. It's only after a program
>> bankrupts some public fund that it gets criticized
>>
> Give me an example of a program that deserves to be criticized
> and I bet I can found lots of media reports about it. Of course
> the criticism need to be based on real facts.

Multi generational welfare in WI

S Narayan wrote:
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> news:v8Vbe.805$GQ5.724@newsread1.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
>> S Narayan wrote:
>>> You have no clue about the waste, do you? Do you know how many kWhrs
>>> (not KW hours) per month an average Southerner uses say compared to
>>> a West Coaster or say compared to a German?
>>
>> NO. Do you? How about putting the numbers to your argument? Yeah
>> Numbers. Actual kilowatt hours. I got my Edison bill in front of
>> me.
>>
>
>
> Thought you weren't talking to me... :-)
>
> A southerner, about 1100 kWhrs/month
> A west coaster, about 670 kWhrs/month
> A german, about 330 kWhrs/month

Am still considering putting you in the killfile.

Southern CA, near the ocean: 270 kW hrs. this past month. And we ran an
electric heater in one room.

I would not doubt the kW usage in the deep south. It's HUMID for
temperatures experienced. Refrigerative a/c dehumidifies the air ... also
uses quite a bit of electricity.

Germany .... colder, certainly. So they use WHAT for heating? Does not
appear to be electricity off their grid. If they used electricy for
heating, you have to assume their kW usage would be much higher.

S Narayan wrote:
> "Dbu,~'" <notspam@sp.com> wrote in message
> news:notspam-2E0DEF.18385827042005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>> In article <1114644751.f011f059cb2b2a9790690d0c002fd428@terane ws>,
>> "S Narayan" <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> A southerner, about 1100 kWhrs/month
>>> A west coaster, about 670 kWhrs/month
>>> A german, about 330 kWhrs/month
>>
>> Where do you get those figures from?
>> --
>>
>
> Oh, now you want to talk?
> I got them off a google search yesterday through the worldenergy.org
> and other such websites, I can't repeat the same keywords now. The US
> Average is easy to find, about 10500 kWhrs/year or 877 kWhrs/month.
> The US regional numbers are bit harder to find. Perhaps the only
> other country that uses more energy per capita/household is Canada.

With further research, I believe you will find an inverse correlation
between electricity and natural gas use for home heating and cooling.

ToMh wrote:
> "Scott in Florida" <NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote in message
> news:147071h2oi86sg2d0a7v65hrg7v8vgllv7@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 15:51:13 -0700, "ToMh" <Teelhumm@hotm.com> wrote:
>>
>>> We do have a plans, read some and you can learn about them.
>>
>> Tell us about your plans....
>>
>>
>>
> Do a google search for Green energy, it's not that hard to learn
> about new things.

Sure. Why not. That's ALL you have done ... which still amounts to nothing
but expelling more gas.

But compressed air is 50C a cubic foot. LOL


mike hunt

Philip wrote:
>
> Haven't you read about the French air car? It is propelled by compressed
> air! Really! You refill it just like gasoline ... at a pump. A few
> thousand psi in the tank and you're good to go. Has an onboard compressor
> regenerative braking too.
>
> RustyFendor@mailcity.com wrote:
> > Just what fuel source do you think we can use in place of crude
> > oil?
> >
> >
> > mike hunt
> >
> >
> >
> > ToMh wrote:
> >>
> >> "Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote in message
> >> news:PrudnahxHsnha_LfRVn-1w@ez2.net...
> >>>
> >>> "ToMh" <Teelhumm@hotm.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:1114633166.cd32873191055ff490334940efefc6f2@t eranews...
> >>>>
> >>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> >>>> news:3%Rbe.693$GQ5.208@newsread1.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
> >>>>> Well dickhead ... your plan ... oh wait .... you don't have one.
> >>>>> We are
> >>>>> beyond saving ourselves into new energy. We have only closed
> >>>>> refineries
> >>>>> here in CA for the past 35-40 years. There is no shortage of
> >>>>> crude. As usual ... you're full of baloney.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Why no incentives for alternative fuels? This plan will just keep
> >>>> the price of oil low enough so there will be no incentive for
> >>>> change.
> >>>> My plan would have included real incentives even mandates
> >>>> for alternative fuels. The real problem is dependence on fossil
> >>>> fuels, not
> >>>> how to get more in the short run. Dickheads like yourself only
> >>>> care about the next few
> >>>> years cause you'll be dead by then and you could care less about
> >>>> the future. No shortage of crude? Then why drill for more?
> >>>
> >>> Because the crude is in a part of the world where things are very
> >>> volitile,
> >>> and the supply of crude can be cut off.
> >>>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> How is building more
> >>>> refineries going to lessen our dependence on the MidEast for Oil?
> >>>
> >>> This isn't going to reduce dependence, it's going to give us the
> >>> ability to
> >>> actually make more gas. If we can make more gas, then the price can
> >>> come down. You have to read the answer (above) to see how we plan
> >>> on reducing our
> >>> dependence on Middle East oil.
> >>>
> >> Only by a little, and we still are dependent on fossil fuels.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> I really don't have any problem with any single point of the plan
> >>>> (except for nuclear)
> >>>
> >>> You should be interested to know that France produces about 70% of
> >>> its electricity from nuke plants.
> >>>
> >> I'm actually not entirely against nuclear power, as long as they
> >> come up with
> >> and acceptable waste disposal plan, but I haven't seen one yet that
> >> isn't more politically motivated that scientifically sound. Even so
> >> , Nuke power would be a little more palatable if this administration
> >> supported green alternatives as fervently as it does fossil fuels
> >> and nuclear power.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> but without a long term solution, its just a plan to get through
> >>>> his term and put more money in the pockets of his true bosses. We
> >>>> are going to have
> >>>> to come up with a real solution
> >>>> sooner or later, but it's obvious it will never happen with the
> >>>> Republicans in charge.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> The truth is that the automakers are already working on alternative
> >>> energy,
> >>> and the alternatives that they have already come up with can't be
> >>> produced fast enough. I am not suggesting that hybrid technology is
> >>> the end of the line when it comes to alternative sources, but the
> >>> few hybrids that are being made have long lines of customers
> >>> waiting for delivery.
> >>>
> >> That's true, but the government could speed things along by settings
> >> goals and incentives for alternate fuels, like Biodiesel, ethanol
> >> and Hydrogen.
> >>
> >>> Personally, I see fuel cells being used in homes as something to
> >>> explore. Fuel cell technology does need hydrogen, or natural gas,
> >>> but we already have
> >>> the delivery infrastructure in place for most homes in America. I
> >>> suppose it
> >>> wouldn't take very much to adapt the infrastructure to deliver
> >>> natural gas to your fuel cell powered car or truck.
> >>>
> >> I think eventually we may get there, but the more we keep cheap
> >> gas around the longer things like fuel cells, Biodiesel, ethanal will
> >> not have the incentive to progress. That's my point about Bush's
> >> plan, not that it won't help in the short run, but that it does
> >> nothing
> >> to wean us off fossil fuels.

In article <1114647358.c79ef51340a3ba174d8f626db8fa8f0e@terane ws>,
"S Narayan" <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

> I got them off a google search yesterday through the worldenergy.org and
> other such websites, I can't repeat the same keywords now. The US Average is
> easy to find, about 10500 kWhrs/year or 877 kWhrs/month. The US regional
> numbers are bit harder to find. Perhaps the only other country that uses
> more energy per capita/household is Canada.

They're way off.
--

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 00:28:48 GMT, dizzy <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:59:42 GMT, Scott in Florida
><NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote:
>
>>1. I voted for George W. Bush (that kept the traitor Kerry out of the
>>picture).
>>
>>2. I served in the military.
>>
>>3. Two of my sons are in the military.
>>
>>name calling?
>>
>>nope...
>
>Yep.
>
>>Truth telling...yup!!!
>
>Nope. You're a bald-faced liar, actually, as we all can plainly see.
>
>For example, calling Kerry a "traitor".
>
>These Neocons are amazing. They'll lie through their teeth, and they
>don't care who knows it. Some of them seem to take pride in being a
>known liar.

Kerry is a traitor...

Traitor...

someone who betrays his country by committing treason

a person who says one thing and does another

He did both....


--
Scott in Florida

Scott in Florida wrote:

>
> Kerry is a

Real American Hero, thanks

>
> Traitor...
>

> a person who says one thing and does another
>

holy mackerel Scott, you really set the bar high.

ToMh wrote:
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> news:68Vbe.803$GQ5.443@newsread1.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
>> S Narayan wrote:
>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>> news:sZTbe.201$HL2.142@newsread3.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
>>>> Dbu,~' wrote:
>>>>> In article <Q4ydnVwlFqg7efLfRVn-ug@ez2.net>,
>>>>> "Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The truth is that his plan is being well received outside of the
>>>>>> political circles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We haven't seen any new refinery capacity going in for the past
>>>>>> 30 years in this country. During that time there has been a
>>>>>> serious drop in the demand of gas (oil) for any individual
>>>>>> automobile, but a huge increase in the number of automobiles, so
>>>>>> there is a
>>>>>> higher overall demand for refined oil, but no new refineries.
>>>>>> Not only have we as consumers made major strides in consuming less in
>>>>>> our
>>>>>> cars,
>>>>>> but we have also made significant strides in making less
>>>>>> pollution from our cars. I know that my car in the 70s sucked up
>>>>>> gas and spewwed alarming amounts of pollution, and today my car
>>>>>> meets the most stringent standards of pollution on the planet,
>>>>>> and sips gas at the miserly rate of nearly 30 miles per gallon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But even if I use 1/3 the gas I used in 1970, there are way more
>>>>>> than 3 times the number of cars, so there is a net increase in
>>>>>> demand. With this increase, there has been a consolidation of
>>>>>> refiners, and a reduction in the number of refineries. We are
>>>>>> closing refineries and consolidating refiners while the net
>>>>>> demand for gasoline is going up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lots of electricity is made from burning petroleum products,
>>>>>> including natural gas among others. If we can switch that demand
>>>>>> away from the fossil fuels and into nukes, then we can reduce the
>>>>>> demand on oil, and our dependence goes down.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All of the major car companies are working on alternative fuel
>>>>>> programs, most notably hybrid and fuel cell technology, so the
>>>>>> "wink wink" is a crock of shit.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have three choices:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Kill off large amounts of people. (this would not fly).
>>>>
>>>> Does in China and southeast Asia.
>>>>
>>>>> 2. Take the cars away from people, by force if needed.
>>>>
>>>> That doesn't fly anywhere gas stations are available.
>>>>
>>>>> 3. Build more refinery capacity and more nuclear power generating
>>>>> plants.
>>>>
>>>> The pendulum is swinging the other way now. Time has come to
>>>> 'plant' the Green activists.
>>>>
>>>> snip
>>>>> The far left wing socialist extremists, including old tomh, would
>>>>> go with number 1 and 2. The rest of us, all reasonable people
>>>>> will go with number 3.
>>>>>
>>>>> Old tomh and his brothers and sisters like to be critical when
>>>>> their favorites are out of power. They have no plan.
>>>>
>>>> Their plan is to disrupt, detract, and subvert. Neither 'tomh' nor
>>>> his subversive loons are involved in making biodiesel or alcohol or
>>>> solar cars or anything USEFUL.
>>>>
>>>> Oh wait ... tomh and his fellow loons expel a lot of methane.
>>>
>>>
>>> Tell us what constructive things you have done regarding this issue
>>> besides make inflammatory ethnic comments and name calling?
>>
>> The only thing you need to know about me is that I do not exist to
>> answer to you. Got it, pal?
>
> Then keep your mouth shut if you can't back up your rhetoric.

Same to you prick.

ToMh wrote:
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> news:i8Vbe.804$GQ5.503@newsread1.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
>> ToMh wrote:
>>> "Scott in Florida" <NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote in
>>> message news:312071p857osfguh0krumfvvoft40i2q75@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:39:57 -0700, "S Narayan"
>>>> <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Eric Dreher" <ericd@cox.nét> wrote in message
>>>>> news:5t0071d9qtki9q7168vrksjfdsr0jq5hic@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:09:34 GMT, "Philip"
>>>>>> <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Furthermore, your ilk has not learned that goverment has been
>>>>>>> wholly unsuccessful in mandating solutions that meet "demand."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An interesting aside: Virtually no government program is
>>>>>> criticized by major media EXCEPT the military.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The one that actually works.
>>>>>
>>>>> The way it is funded it's not surprising it works. If only one
>>>>> could overcharge the way they do in the civilian sector.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I want our military to have the very best weapons.
>>>>
>>>> ...and they have them.
>>>>
>>>> The one government program that is a required program in the
>>>> Constitution and it works...
>>>>
>>> The constitution only provides for a militia to execute the Laws of
>>> the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions. It does not
>>> call or support a militia to invade foreign countries or
>>> any actions outside our borders.
>>
>> The Constitution (capital 'C') does not call for the Federal
>> Government to do a LOT of the other things you want it to do more of
>> either. How about that?
>>
> Your point?

My point is like casting pearls before swine where you are concerned.

dizzy wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 23:54:01 GMT, "Philip"
> <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>
>> dizzy wrote:
>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:09:34 GMT, "Philip"
>>> <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>
>>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Why no incentives for alternative fuels?
>>>>> snip
>>>>
>>>> Because there is no shortage of crude oil to be pumped from Mother
>>>> Earth.
>>>
>>> Sorry, but this seems like a nonsense statement to me, Philip.
>> snip
>>
>> Coming from a fella calling himself "Dizzy'
>
> Gee. Nice rebuttal.

I did not need to reply with more than you could understand.

S Narayan wrote:
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> news:68Vbe.803$GQ5.443@newsread1.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
>> S Narayan wrote:
>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>> news:sZTbe.201$HL2.142@newsread3.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
>>>> Dbu,~' wrote:
>>>>> In article <Q4ydnVwlFqg7efLfRVn-ug@ez2.net>,
>>>>> "Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The truth is that his plan is being well received outside of the
>>>>>> political circles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We haven't seen any new refinery capacity going in for the past
>>>>>> 30 years in this country. During that time there has been a
>>>>>> serious drop in the demand of gas (oil) for any individual
>>>>>> automobile, but a huge increase in the number of automobiles, so
>>>>>> there is a higher overall demand for refined oil, but no new
>>>>>> refineries. Not only have we as consumers made major strides in
>>>>>> consuming less in our cars,
>>>>>> but we have also made significant strides in making less
>>>>>> pollution from our cars. I know that my car in the 70s sucked up
>>>>>> gas and spewwed alarming amounts of pollution, and today my car
>>>>>> meets the most stringent standards of pollution on the planet,
>>>>>> and sips gas at the miserly rate of nearly 30 miles per gallon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But even if I use 1/3 the gas I used in 1970, there are way more
>>>>>> than 3 times the number of cars, so there is a net increase in
>>>>>> demand. With this increase, there has been a consolidation of
>>>>>> refiners, and a reduction in the number of refineries. We are
>>>>>> closing refineries and consolidating refiners while the net
>>>>>> demand for gasoline is going up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lots of electricity is made from burning petroleum products,
>>>>>> including natural gas among others. If we can switch that demand
>>>>>> away from the fossil fuels and into nukes, then we can reduce the
>>>>>> demand on oil, and our dependence goes down.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All of the major car companies are working on alternative fuel
>>>>>> programs, most notably hybrid and fuel cell technology, so the
>>>>>> "wink wink" is a crock of shit.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have three choices:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Kill off large amounts of people. (this would not fly).
>>>>
>>>> Does in China and southeast Asia.
>>>>
>>>>> 2. Take the cars away from people, by force if needed.
>>>>
>>>> That doesn't fly anywhere gas stations are available.
>>>>
>>>>> 3. Build more refinery capacity and more nuclear power generating
>>>>> plants.
>>>>
>>>> The pendulum is swinging the other way now. Time has come to
>>>> 'plant' the Green activists.
>>>>
>>>> snip
>>>>> The far left wing socialist extremists, including old tomh, would
>>>>> go with number 1 and 2. The rest of us, all reasonable people
>>>>> will go with number 3.
>>>>>
>>>>> Old tomh and his brothers and sisters like to be critical when
>>>>> their favorites are out of power. They have no plan.
>>>>
>>>> Their plan is to disrupt, detract, and subvert. Neither 'tomh' nor
>>>> his subversive loons are involved in making biodiesel or alcohol or
>>>> solar cars or anything USEFUL.
>>>>
>>>> Oh wait ... tomh and his fellow loons expel a lot of methane.
>>>
>>>
>>> Tell us what constructive things you have done regarding this issue
>>> besides make inflammatory ethnic comments and name calling?
>>
>> The only thing you need to know about me is that I do not exist to
>> answer to you. Got it, pal?
>
> Yeah, I got it.. You are one of those blowhards.

And you are one of the three little pigs hiding in an environmentally
correct house of straw.

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:53:10 -0700, Eric Dreher <ericd@cox.nét> wrote:

>Mr. Narayan, it's apparent that you're just one more LLL (Lefty Loony
>Lemming) to happen upon this group. Your "rebuttals" are composed of
>pedestrian, recycled, ridiculous retorts that we've all heard time and
>time again.

Translation: I'm a thick-headed, stubborn asshole, and I don't cotton
to anyone explaining to me the error of my pig-headed thinking.

>It WOULD be interesting to read something original but, alas, you're
>just not the one.

Translation: You defeated me, and I have no rebuttal.

>Adios. <plonk>

Translation: I want to continue with my right-wing circle-jerk and any
dissention is distracting.




On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 11:31:33 -0500, "El Kabong"
<ampscience@toonland.com> wrote:
>
>No one can blame the people who plonk the off-topic posters,
>but what I find hilarious and pathetic is in the political off-topic
>exchanges, it's almost *always* the fascist conservative lemming
>drones who brag about their abiltity to plonk or how they have just
>plonked someone as if the plonker thinks he has some superiority
>over the plonkee. However, the plonker is also revealing to everyone
>that either he is simply a closed-minded twit and/or he is so retarded,
>he is unable to engage in a lively debate by addressing the issues.

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 01:30:32 GMT, "Philip"
<1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:

>dizzy wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 23:54:01 GMT, "Philip"
>> <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>
>>> dizzy wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:09:34 GMT, "Philip"
>>>> <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why no incentives for alternative fuels?
>>>>>> snip
>>>>>
>>>>> Because there is no shortage of crude oil to be pumped from Mother
>>>>> Earth.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, but this seems like a nonsense statement to me, Philip.
>>> snip
>>>
>>> Coming from a fella calling himself "Dizzy'
>>
>> Gee. Nice rebuttal.
>
>I did not need to reply with more than you could understand.

You honestly feel that my points had no validity? I feel that they're
clearly valid, which, I feel, is the reason why you choose to ignore
them.

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 01:17:07 GMT, Scott in Florida
<NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote:

>On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 00:28:48 GMT, dizzy <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:59:42 GMT, Scott in Florida
>><NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote:
>>
>>>1. I voted for George W. Bush (that kept the traitor Kerry out of the
>>>picture).
>>>
>>>2. I served in the military.
>>>
>>>3. Two of my sons are in the military.
>>>
>>>name calling?
>>>
>>>nope...
>>
>>Yep.
>>
>>>Truth telling...yup!!!
>>
>>Nope. You're a bald-faced liar, actually, as we all can plainly see.
>>
>>For example, calling Kerry a "traitor".
>>
>>These Neocons are amazing. They'll lie through their teeth, and they
>>don't care who knows it. Some of them seem to take pride in being a
>>known liar.
>
>Kerry is a traitor...

You're a bald faced liar, and you're proud of it. Amazing.

On 27 Apr 2005 18:20:18 -0700, "Learning Richard"
<learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote:

>Scott in Florida wrote:
>>
>> Kerry is a
>
>Real American Hero, thanks
>
>> Traitor...
>
>> a person who says one thing and does another
>
>holy mackerel Scott, you really set the bar high.

Heh. Yeah, I'd like to find a SINGLE politician that passes that
test....

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 02:23:21 GMT, dizzy <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 01:17:07 GMT, Scott in Florida
><NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 00:28:48 GMT, dizzy <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:59:42 GMT, Scott in Florida
>>><NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote:
>>>
>>>>1. I voted for George W. Bush (that kept the traitor Kerry out of the
>>>>picture).
>>>>
>>>>2. I served in the military.
>>>>
>>>>3. Two of my sons are in the military.
>>>>
>>>>name calling?
>>>>
>>>>nope...
>>>
>>>Yep.
>>>
>>>>Truth telling...yup!!!
>>>
>>>Nope. You're a bald-faced liar, actually, as we all can plainly see.
>>>
>>>For example, calling Kerry a "traitor".
>>>
>>>These Neocons are amazing. They'll lie through their teeth, and they
>>>don't care who knows it. Some of them seem to take pride in being a
>>>known liar.
>>
>>Kerry is a traitor...
>
>You're a bald faced liar, and you're proud of it. Amazing.

I'd call it typical. Neocons believe that if they repeat a talking
point enough times, it's true.

BTW, DeLay's buddies are moving away from him like he's got bAAAAd
B.O.

Hahahahahaha.



--
gburnore@databasix dot com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
DataBasix | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ 3 4 1 4 2 ݳ޳ 6 9 0 6 9 ÝÛ³
Black Helicopter Repair Svcs Division | Official Proof of Purchase
================================================== =========================
Want one? GET one! http://signup.databasix.com
================================================== =========================

I was referring to my 2003 Corolla.

RustyFendor@mailcity.com wrote:
> That was true at one time
>
> Philip wrote:
>>
>> Did you forget about NUMMI? My Corolla. Engine and transaxle from
>> KY plant, sheet metal here, plastics here, electronic Delphi,
>> assembled in Fremont.
>>
>> RustyFendor@mailcity.com wrote:
>>> What Toyota do you own that was made in America?
>>>
>>>
>>> mike hunt
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> badgolferman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ToMh, 4/27/2005, 2:49:05 PM, wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> More Fossil fuels
>>>>> More refineries
>>>>> More nuclear Plants
>>>>> Oh, BTW drive more fuel efficient cars (wink wink)
>>>>>
>>>>> Bush's plan is clearly designed for the benefit of the
>>>>> oil and nuclear power plant companies and lacks any
>>>>> vision or any attempt to create a long range
>>>>> plan for energy independence. It's obvious where
>>>>> his allegiances are, and it's not the American people.
>>>>
>>>> My Toyotas that are made in America will like more energy.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> For your convenience I have included forums that you may find
>>>> interesting.
>>>> alt.discuss.politics,alt.politics,alt.politics.bus h,alt.politics.congres
>>>> s,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.conservative,a lt.politics.democrat,a
>>>> lt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.liberal,alt.pol itics.liberalism,alt.p
>>>> olitics.usa.republican,alt.politics.usa.republican s,alt.politics.world
> but they no longer make the Corolla in California, its now made
> in Canada.
>
>
> mike hunt

RustyFendor@mailcity.com wrote:
:: Do you ever get anything right? The economy of the world runs on
:: oil. The demand for it is ever increasing and until we can
:: develop other viable vast sources of energy we will need MORE
:: oil. If the available oil supply would for some reason drop by
:: 20% the whole world would go into the deepest depression in
:: history. Thousands of people will die of starvation and lack of
:: water. We must increase our domestic supply until such time as
:: other sources can be added to the energy stream just to make up
:: for the increased worldwide demand before we can even think of
:: replacing oil as the worlds primary energy source.. Anybody
:: suggesting that there is anything available today or even in the
:: near further to replace oil is a lunatic. The Presidents bill
:: calls for more conservation efforts, the use of wind, clean
:: burning coal, and nuclear power.
::
:: Until hydrogen can become the energy source of the future, at a
:: realistic price, in the real world those are the ONLY currently
:: viable alternatives. In the real world the environuts will fight
:: every one, including wind power because the blades kill birds.
:: The nuts are indeed running the asylum, they think we can just
:: conserve our way to energy independence.
::
:: At last we finally have a President who is willing to take on the
:: tough problems in this country and make the tough decisions to
:: correct them, rather than follow the polls as do most politicians
:: including his predecessor. What would you suggest the President
:: do in this situation?
::
*Finally*, he could display some of the honor he likes to talk about, admit
he's the most colossal screw-up in the history of the office and leave.

"Eric Dreher" <ericd@cox.nét> wrote in message
news:asc071teupghici53trg39fg8u5lc28h3a@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:26:12 -0700, "S Narayan"
> <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Silly me.
>
> On THAT we agree.
>
> Mr. Narayan, it's apparent that you're just one more LLL (Lefty Loony
> Lemming) to happen upon this group. Your "rebuttals" are composed of
> pedestrian, recycled, ridiculous retorts that we've all heard time and
> time again.
>
> It WOULD be interesting to read something original but, alas, you're
> just not the one.
>
> Adios. <plonk>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> The DNC - Building a bridge to the 20th Century.

Shot down again, huh? It must get old...lol

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
news:U0Xbe.549$pe3.480@newsread3.news.atl.earthlin k.net...
> ToMh wrote:
>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>> news:i8Vbe.804$GQ5.503@newsread1.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>> "Scott in Florida" <NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote in
>>>> message news:312071p857osfguh0krumfvvoft40i2q75@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:39:57 -0700, "S Narayan"
>>>>> <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Eric Dreher" <ericd@cox.nét> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:5t0071d9qtki9q7168vrksjfdsr0jq5hic@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:09:34 GMT, "Philip"
>>>>>>> <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Furthermore, your ilk has not learned that goverment has been
>>>>>>>> wholly unsuccessful in mandating solutions that meet "demand."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An interesting aside: Virtually no government program is
>>>>>>> criticized by major media EXCEPT the military.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The one that actually works.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The way it is funded it's not surprising it works. If only one
>>>>>> could overcharge the way they do in the civilian sector.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I want our military to have the very best weapons.
>>>>>
>>>>> ...and they have them.
>>>>>
>>>>> The one government program that is a required program in the
>>>>> Constitution and it works...
>>>>>
>>>> The constitution only provides for a militia to execute the Laws of
>>>> the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions. It does not
>>>> call or support a militia to invade foreign countries or
>>>> any actions outside our borders.
>>>
>>> The Constitution (capital 'C') does not call for the Federal
>>> Government to do a LOT of the other things you want it to do more of
>>> either. How about that?
>>>
>> Your point?
>
> My point is like casting pearls before swine where you are concerned.
>
I was pointing out what the constitution says, not what you'd like it
to say.

In article <jEWbe.358$HL2.282@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, 1chip-
state1@earthlink.n0t says...
> Germany .... colder, certainly. So they use WHAT for heating? Does not
> appear to be electricity off their grid. If they used electricy for
> heating, you have to assume their kW usage would be much higher.
>
Europe uses a lot of natural gas for heating.
--
"Sorry Sir, the meatballs are Orf"
The poster formerly known as Skodapilot.
http://www.bouncing-czechs.com

In article <MPG.1cdad623de9ef32f98ada3@news.individual.net>,
Sleeker GT Phwoar <carl.robson@bouncing-czechs.com> wrote:


> Europe uses a lot of natural gas for heating.

Nobody that I know uses electricity for heating. It's gas, oil or wood.
We have gas here.
--

ToMh wrote:
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> news:U0Xbe.549$pe3.480@newsread3.news.atl.earthlin k.net...
>> ToMh wrote:
>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>> news:i8Vbe.804$GQ5.503@newsread1.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
>>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>>> "Scott in Florida" <NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote in
>>>>> message news:312071p857osfguh0krumfvvoft40i2q75@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:39:57 -0700, "S Narayan"
>>>>>> <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Eric Dreher" <ericd@cox.nét> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:5t0071d9qtki9q7168vrksjfdsr0jq5hic@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:09:34 GMT, "Philip"
>>>>>>>> <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Furthermore, your ilk has not learned that goverment has been
>>>>>>>>> wholly unsuccessful in mandating solutions that meet "demand."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> An interesting aside: Virtually no government program is
>>>>>>>> criticized by major media EXCEPT the military.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The one that actually works.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The way it is funded it's not surprising it works. If only one
>>>>>>> could overcharge the way they do in the civilian sector.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I want our military to have the very best weapons.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...and they have them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The one government program that is a required program in the
>>>>>> Constitution and it works...
>>>>>>
>>>>> The constitution only provides for a militia to execute the Laws
>>>>> of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions. It does
>>>>> not call or support a militia to invade foreign countries or
>>>>> any actions outside our borders.
>>>>
>>>> The Constitution (capital 'C') does not call for the Federal
>>>> Government to do a LOT of the other things you want it to do more
>>>> of either. How about that?
>>>>
>>> Your point?
>>
>> My point is like casting pearls before swine where you are concerned.
>>
> I was pointing out what the constitution says, not what you'd like it
> to say.

Not true and furthermore, you like a lot of other 'interpreted' liberties
various Congress' have taken that are NOT specifically named in the
Constitution. Not consistant you. You're not a Constitutional scholar,
pal.

Sleeker GT Phwoar wrote:
> In article <jEWbe.358$HL2.282@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> 1chip- state1@earthlink.n0t says...
>> Germany .... colder, certainly. So they use WHAT for heating? Does
>> not appear to be electricity off their grid. If they used electricty
>> for heating, you have to assume their kW usage would be much higher.
>>
> Europe uses a lot of natural gas for heating.

Thank you. :-) I was hoping the kid would make the inverse relationship.
Less electricity for heat means more gas.

Dbu,~' wrote:
> In article <MPG.1cdad623de9ef32f98ada3@news.individual.net>,
> Sleeker GT Phwoar <carl.robson@bouncing-czechs.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Europe uses a lot of natural gas for heating.
>
> Nobody that I know uses electricity for heating. It's gas, oil or
> wood. We have gas here.

And where ARE you, "Dbu"?

In article <cE4ce.571$V01.155@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:

> Dbu,~' wrote:
> > In article <MPG.1cdad623de9ef32f98ada3@news.individual.net>,
> > Sleeker GT Phwoar <carl.robson@bouncing-czechs.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Europe uses a lot of natural gas for heating.
> >
> > Nobody that I know uses electricity for heating. It's gas, oil or
> > wood. We have gas here.
>
> And where ARE you, "Dbu"?

I'm in a Northern state bordering Canada and it was 27 degrees this
morning in my back yard, yes ice in the birdbath.
--

In article <d4phto$rbc$2@wilhelp.databasix.com>, gburnore@databasix.com
says...
> I'd call it typical. Neocons believe that if they repeat a talking
> point enough times, it's true.
>
>
Sounds so like our PM (soon to be exPM if the people have any sense).
--
"Sorry Sir, the meatballs are Orf"
The poster formerly known as Skodapilot.
http://www.bouncing-czechs.com

In article <ix4ce.565$V01.30@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>, 1chip-
state1@earthlink.n0t says...
> Sleeker GT Phwoar wrote:
> > In article <jEWbe.358$HL2.282@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > 1chip- state1@earthlink.n0t says...
> >> Germany .... colder, certainly. So they use WHAT for heating? Does
> >> not appear to be electricity off their grid. If they used electricty
> >> for heating, you have to assume their kW usage would be much higher.
> >>
> > Europe uses a lot of natural gas for heating.
>
> Thank you. :-) I was hoping the kid would make the inverse relationship.
> Less electricity for heat means more gas.
>
>
>
>
>
We in the UK have our own offshore gas fields as well as oil fields
within UK waters.

The Missus used to work for the company that provided the raw gas and
pipe line network (Transo), for the individual shippers to buy in bulk,
ship through Transco pipes to end user customers.

In the UK at least, heating buy electric is uneconomical, and is even
the prefered fuel method for cooking for most, especially in the
catering industry, but more and more in the home. Getting especially
popular to find dual fuel stoves, with Gas burners, but electric ovens.
--
"Sorry Sir, the meatballs are Orf"
The poster formerly known as Skodapilot.
http://www.bouncing-czechs.com

In article <notspam-AACD20.18164427042005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
notspam@sp.com says...
>
> You are a fool!! Bush was a U.S.A.F. command pilot of an F-102.
>
He enlisted, but did he actually serve his whole term?
Was ever AWOL?
Did his doctored records show that he was ever disciplined for not being
there?
--
"Sorry Sir, the meatballs are Orf"
The poster formerly known as Skodapilot.
http://www.bouncing-czechs.com

Dbu,~' wrote:
> In article <cE4ce.571$V01.155@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>
>> Dbu,~' wrote:
>>> In article <MPG.1cdad623de9ef32f98ada3@news.individual.net>,
>>> Sleeker GT Phwoar <carl.robson@bouncing-czechs.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Europe uses a lot of natural gas for heating.
>>>
>>> Nobody that I know uses electricity for heating. It's gas, oil or
>>> wood. We have gas here.
>>
>> And where ARE you, "Dbu"?
>
> I'm in a Northern state bordering Canada and it was 27 degrees this
> morning in my back yard, yes ice in the birdbath.

Nice. Short sleeve weather for you people. LOL

Was rainging here from 04:00 to 06:00, temperature 58°F. Haven't turned on
the GAS heat yet. LOL

In article <ie7071pdovfhehgl90cusij57cd6f8sm3a@4ax.com>,
NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't says...
> George W. Bush was in the Texas Air National Guard. He is a trained
> fighter pilot. He served honorably and received an honorable
> discharge. That IS serving in the military.
>
He enlisted, did he serve his whole term uninterupted without abscence?
--
"Sorry Sir, the meatballs are Orf"
The poster formerly known as Skodapilot.
http://www.bouncing-czechs.com

In article <MPG.1cdaf39461ea7aff98adad@news.individual.net>,
Sleeker GT Phwoar <carl.robson@bouncing-czechs.com> wrote:

> In article <notspam-AACD20.18164427042005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
> notspam@sp.com says...
> >
> > You are a fool!! Bush was a U.S.A.F. command pilot of an F-102.
> >
> He enlisted, but did he actually serve his whole term?
> Was ever AWOL?
> Did his doctored records show that he was ever disciplined for not being
> there?

So what if he did not serve his whole term. I was released from active
duty 1.5 months early too. Does that mean I did not serve, does that
mean I did not go to Vietnam for a year does that I did not serve with
SAC, ADC? The type of AC Bush flew was a F-102, it is not the type of
aircraft which is used in close air support or dog fighting or making
bomb runs. It's sole job was to intercept incoming bombers over the
poles and attack those bombers with guided missiles. No bomb bays on
F-102s, just missile bays.

Get a grip will ya, Bush and military is really really long in the tooth.
--

Sleeker GT Phwoar wrote:
> In article <ix4ce.565$V01.30@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>, 1chip-
> state1@earthlink.n0t says...
>> Sleeker GT Phwoar wrote:
>>> In article <jEWbe.358$HL2.282@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>>> 1chip- state1@earthlink.n0t says...
>>>> Germany .... colder, certainly. So they use WHAT for heating?
>>>> Does not appear to be electricity off their grid. If they used
>>>> electricty for heating, you have to assume their kW usage would be
>>>> much higher.
>>>>
>>> Europe uses a lot of natural gas for heating.
>>
>> Thank you. :-) I was hoping the kid would make the inverse
>> relationship. Less electricity for heat means more gas.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> We in the UK have our own offshore gas fields as well as oil fields
> within UK waters.
>
> The Missus used to work for the company that provided the raw gas and
> pipe line network (Transo), for the individual shippers to buy in
> bulk, ship through Transco pipes to end user customers.
>
> In the UK at least, heating buy electric is uneconomical, and is even
> the prefered fuel method for cooking for most, especially in the
> catering industry, but more and more in the home. Getting especially
> popular to find dual fuel stoves, with Gas burners, but electric
> ovens.

Southern California. Gas rules for heating homes and water. Outlying desert
communities have much higher electricity usage simply because for four
months of the year, temperatures are 90° degrees at night and upwards of
115° during the day so ... the household A/C is running a lot!! In
contrast, the ocean breeze keeps my summer electricity usage low. When one
makes a blanket comparison of electricity usages, the truth is not
appreciated.

Microwave ovens are in virtually every home. I cannot say I have ever seen
a duel fuel cooking range. Small counter top electric ovens are popular. We
just purchased a small countertop infrared oven ... uses less juice than a
conventional electric coil oven and cooks faster.

Sleeker GT Phwoar wrote:
> In article <notspam-AACD20.18164427042005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
> notspam@sp.com says...
>>
>> You are a fool!! Bush was a U.S.A.F. command pilot of an F-102.
>>
> He enlisted, but did he actually serve his whole term?
> Was ever AWOL?
> Did his doctored records show that he was ever disciplined for not
> being there?

You are an ass. Let's say your child graduated with honors but you ignore
that ... preferring to tell everyone that you child played hooky a few
times. Good Grief. Oh wait ... you paid the records office to "doctor"
your kid's school records so he could graduate at all, right? Ah haa!

"Dbu,~'" <notspam@sp.com> wrote in message
news:notspam-22DC99.20164927042005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> In article <1114647358.c79ef51340a3ba174d8f626db8fa8f0e@terane ws>,
> "S Narayan" <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I got them off a google search yesterday through the worldenergy.org and
> > other such websites, I can't repeat the same keywords now. The US
Average is
> > easy to find, about 10500 kWhrs/year or 877 kWhrs/month. The US regional
> > numbers are bit harder to find. Perhaps the only other country that uses
> > more energy per capita/household is Canada.
>
> They're way off.
> --
>

No they are not. Look them up yourself. The information is out there if you
cared. Specifically, California electricity consumption is about
650kWhrs/month on an AVERAGE. Now there are those who live in smaller
households perhaps using 200-400kWhrs/month but those are the exceptions.
Our family of four uses about 300kWhrs/month and we are slightly inland so
experience temps from freezing to 110deg in summer.

It is a lot more efficient to use gas for heating and it is about six times
as more efficient (from my own calculations for my level of usage). Since
Europeans also use gas for heating (as most sane Americans do) we are
comparing apples to apples when it comes to electricity usage. It's just
that most Americans are stupid when it comes to appliances buying cheap or
oversized appliances for low initial investment and then paying long term
with energy costs.

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
news:jEWbe.358$HL2.282@newsread3.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
> S Narayan wrote:
> > "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> > news:v8Vbe.805$GQ5.724@newsread1.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
> >> S Narayan wrote:
> >>> You have no clue about the waste, do you? Do you know how many kWhrs
> >>> (not KW hours) per month an average Southerner uses say compared to
> >>> a West Coaster or say compared to a German?
> >>
> >> NO. Do you? How about putting the numbers to your argument? Yeah
> >> Numbers. Actual kilowatt hours. I got my Edison bill in front of
> >> me.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Thought you weren't talking to me... :-)
> >
> > A southerner, about 1100 kWhrs/month
> > A west coaster, about 670 kWhrs/month
> > A german, about 330 kWhrs/month
>
> Am still considering putting you in the killfile.

Go ahead! IF you don't believe my numbers that's not my fault. Putting your
head in the sand doesn't changes the FACTS!

>
> Southern CA, near the ocean: 270 kW hrs. this past month. And we ran an
> electric heater in one room.

about 300 kWhrs/month, natural gas heating... family of four, A/C rarely
used. Energy efficient appliances.

>
> I would not doubt the kW usage in the deep south. It's HUMID for
> temperatures experienced. Refrigerative a/c dehumidifies the air ... also
> uses quite a bit of electricity.
>
> Germany .... colder, certainly. So they use WHAT for heating? Does not
> appear to be electricity off their grid. If they used electricy for
> heating, you have to assume their kW usage would be much higher.
>

Most smart people would not use electricity for heating. ANYTHING but
electricity.

"Eric Dreher" <ericd@cox.nét> wrote in message
news:asc071teupghici53trg39fg8u5lc28h3a@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:26:12 -0700, "S Narayan"
> <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Silly me.
>
> On THAT we agree.
>
> Mr. Narayan, it's apparent that you're just one more LLL (Lefty Loony
> Lemming) to happen upon this group. Your "rebuttals" are composed of
> pedestrian, recycled, ridiculous retorts that we've all heard time and
> time again.
>
> It WOULD be interesting to read something original but, alas, you're
> just not the one.
>
> Adios. <plonk>

Yeah, adios. It must simplify ones life when you things are made up for you.
Being a liberal, there's a good chance that you agree on some issues with
other liberals/conservatives and disagree on others. Life is more
interesting that way.

"S Narayan" <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1114703457.514c704d29170a5cfd5bd5facf21f8e4@t eranews...
snip
> Since
> Europeans also use gas for heating (as most sane Americans do) we are
> comparing apples to apples when it comes to electricity usage. It's just
> that most Americans are stupid when it comes to appliances buying cheap or
> oversized appliances for low initial investment and then paying long term
> with energy costs.

Europeans range from Italians to Norwegians. Should we include
Greenlanders? I am not buying your "apples with apples" BS when you try to
equate electricity usage of a German in Berlin to a Californian in Palm
Springs.

And it is real revealing how you have the chutzpah to say "...most Americans
are stupid ..." because you live on the cheap. Let's drop your candy ass in
Houston for a summer and see how things change.

"S Narayan" <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1114703659.7cb7e37dccbcacf5abf51a112d5684ed@t eranews...
>
snip
> Most smart people would not use electricity for heating. ANYTHING but
> electricity.

Have you noticed any gas fired bathroom heaters? Or personal gas fired
space heaters? All appliance makers still sell a lot of electric cooking
ranges. Gas fired coffee makers? Electric water heaters are still popular
and are required in some instances. Seen any gas operated refrigerators
since 1935? Ever wonder why carbon monoxide alarms are increasingly
popularity, right behind smoke detectors? If you lived out in the Palm
Springs / Indio area, you would know how much cheaper electricity is on the
north side of Interstate 10 compared to the south side due to electric
companies.

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
news:P%8ce.800$pe3.297@newsread3.news.atl.earthlin k.net...
>
> "S Narayan" <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1114703457.514c704d29170a5cfd5bd5facf21f8e4@t eranews...
> snip
> > Since
> > Europeans also use gas for heating (as most sane Americans do) we are
> > comparing apples to apples when it comes to electricity usage. It's just
> > that most Americans are stupid when it comes to appliances buying cheap
or
> > oversized appliances for low initial investment and then paying long
term
> > with energy costs.
>
> Europeans range from Italians to Norwegians. Should we include
> Greenlanders? I am not buying your "apples with apples" BS when you try
to
> equate electricity usage of a German in Berlin to a Californian in Palm
> Springs.

This is a usenet group. I don't want to come up with a treatise on energy
use. Take any average Western European country with similar standard of
living and use some common sense. I have seen how Germans, Australians, New
Zealanders live.

>
> And it is real revealing how you have the chutzpah to say "...most
Americans
> are stupid ..." because you live on the cheap. Let's drop your candy ass
in
> Houston for a summer and see how things change.

I lived near College Station, Texas for a couple of years. You don't need to
tell me. I also lived in Michigan so I know how real winters are like. Face
it, we are an inefficient country when it comes to personal energy usage.

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
news:Q%8ce.801$pe3.438@newsread3.news.atl.earthlin k.net...
>
> "S Narayan" <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1114703659.7cb7e37dccbcacf5abf51a112d5684ed@t eranews...
> >
> snip
> > Most smart people would not use electricity for heating. ANYTHING but
> > electricity.
>
> Have you noticed any gas fired bathroom heaters? Or personal gas fired
> space heaters? All appliance makers still sell a lot of electric cooking
> ranges. Gas fired coffee makers? Electric water heaters are still popular
> and are required in some instances. Seen any gas operated refrigerators
> since 1935? Ever wonder why carbon monoxide alarms are increasingly
> popularity, right behind smoke detectors? If you lived out in the Palm
> Springs / Indio area, you would know how much cheaper electricity is on
the
> north side of Interstate 10 compared to the south side due to electric
> companies.

You bring up anecdotal evidence of one extremely hot, dry area of the
country as a rebuttal? Look at the big picture.

One has to use common sense here, I should have spelt that out for the
morons residing this group. If you use electricity as primary heat --you
deserve the electricity bill you get. Space heating based on thermostatic
control may work for some people for low duty cycle operations or where it
would be expensive to run gas lines to. Most people could convert electric
ranges to gas ranges or electric dryers to gas dryers if they cared enough
or had the option. But electric appliances are cheaper to buy so that's what
they get.

Gas would be the wrong source of energy for cooling (at least residential),
but was used then because of necessity. Fridges are much more efficient with
electricty, but I am sure you knew that.

"S Narayan" <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1114709901.0e19604abb52c338093bad5e5e6e5dab@t eranews...
>
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> news:P%8ce.800$pe3.297@newsread3.news.atl.earthlin k.net...
snip
> This is a usenet group. I don't want to come up with a treatise on energy
> use. Take any average Western European country with similar standard of
> living and use some common sense. I have seen how Germans, Australians,
> New
> Zealanders live.

You could not do the subject justice regardless.

>> And it is real revealing how you have the chutzpah to say "...most
>> Americans are stupid ..." because you live on the cheap. Let's drop your
>> candy ass in Houston for a summer and see how things change.
>
> I lived near College Station, Texas for a couple of years. You don't need
> to
> tell me. I also lived in Michigan so I know how real winters are like.
> Face
> it, we are an inefficient country when it comes to personal energy usage.

I notice you failed / dodged telling how your electricity usage changed from
TX to MI.

Yeah ... everybody is wasteful except you. You are the shining light showing
us the way out of darkness. What a self absorbed narcissist. Yes, that is
redundant.

"S Narayan" <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1114710598.ecf7af93f4efb915dd39266052f32332@t eranews...
>
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> news:Q%8ce.801$pe3.438@newsread3.news.atl.earthlin k.net...
>>
>> "S Narayan" <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1114703659.7cb7e37dccbcacf5abf51a112d5684ed@t eranews...
>> >
>> snip
>> > Most smart people would not use electricity for heating. ANYTHING but
>> > electricity.
>>
>> Have you noticed any gas fired bathroom heaters? Or personal gas fired
>> space heaters? All appliance makers still sell a lot of electric cooking
>> ranges. Gas fired coffee makers? Electric water heaters are still
>> popular
>> and are required in some instances. Seen any gas operated refrigerators
>> since 1935? Ever wonder why carbon monoxide alarms are increasingly
>> popularity, right behind smoke detectors? If you lived out in the Palm
>> Springs / Indio area, you would know how much cheaper electricity is on
> the
>> north side of Interstate 10 compared to the south side due to electric
>> companies.
>
> You bring up anecdotal evidence of one extremely hot, dry area of the
> country as a rebuttal? Look at the big picture.

Is it necessary to list all the major cities along Interstate 10 from Palm
Springs to Houston for you to get the idea? The southwestern United States
is more than just Indio. Look at a map.


> One has to use common sense here, I should have spelt that out for the
> morons residing this group. If you use electricity as primary heat --you
> deserve the electricity bill you get. Space heating based on thermostatic
> control may work for some people for low duty cycle operations or where it
> would be expensive to run gas lines to. Most people could convert electric
> ranges to gas ranges or electric dryers to gas dryers if they cared enough
> or had the option. But electric appliances are cheaper to buy so that's
> what
> they get.

"I should have spelt that out for the morons residing this group." MY MY
MY ... but could you be any more condescending? I'm sure you will answer
that soon enough. You're the self absorbed Prick in a Prius. LOL

Gas vs. electric dryers are often within $50 of each other at most model
levels.

"ToMh" <Teelhumm@hotm.com> wrote in message
news:1114635253.5013065fd5f894731c8dd0793eceff2d@t eranews...
>
> "Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote in message
> news:PrudnahxHsnha_LfRVn-1w@ez2.net...

> >> I really don't have any problem with any single point of the plan
(except
> >> for nuclear)
> >
> > You should be interested to know that France produces about 70% of its
> > electricity from nuke plants.
> >
> I'm actually not entirely against nuclear power, as long as they come up
> with
> and acceptable waste disposal plan, but I haven't seen one yet that isn't
> more politically motivated that scientifically sound. Even so , Nuke power
> would be a little more palatable if this administration supported green
> alternatives as fervently as it does fossil fuels and nuclear power.
>


Aren't YOU the one that said, "I really don't have any problem with any
single point of the plan (except for nuclear)?" Now you are saying that you
are not against nukes, per se, but have issues with what to do with the
waste.

Envirowhackos are a difficult group to appease.

They don't want to burn fossil fuel because we don't suck our own out of the
ground and we are beholding to foreign sources. But when we try to suck our
own out of the ground, they bitch that it will bother a calf, and it makes a
mess. There is no evidence that the calves are annoyed, and we can mitigate
the mess if we give the proper considerations. And, the space needed in ANWR
to suck the oil out is roughtly equivelent to a newspaper page unfolded and
spread out on a tennis court.

Coal is too dirty, but we have clean ways to burn coal. And we have plenty
of our own coal.

Wind is clean, and renewable. There will always be wind, but we can't build
windfarms because the birds get chopped up or the view of the horizon is
spoiled. Ironically, it is the loudest voices against nukes and coal that
complain about the view of the horizon.

Nukes are clean and reliable, but they do create a waste issue, this is
true. But, the waste can be secured and stored. Lots of countries with nuke
plants have devised a scheme to secure and store the waste.

It doesn't really matter what the solution is, any solution has a downside
that the envirowhackos object to. Different solutions garner a different
group of envirowhackos to forward their objections. The objections seldom
come from the same places, except that those objecting to the view of a
windfarm also object to the fumes of the coal plants and the waste of the
nuke plants.

A huge part of the problem in California - arguably the largest market in
the USA - is that the enviro groups object to each and every solution that
is set on the table for discussion. At some point, we have to take the
bitter with the sweet, and take an energy policy that does the least damage
and move with it. We can't piss and moan that a bird gets chopped up if we
are going to place greatest value on renewable sources. We can't demand
breaking the dependence from foreign sources, then complain about a calf.

We have to learn from our past mistakes, and build facilities that meet our
need for energy, and can contain the leak should one develop. If we need to
accomodate the calves by raising the line above the ground, or secure the
line by burying it, then that is what we need to do to tap that source.

Enviros can't spend the eternity bitching about what we are doing, they need
to give constructive criticism about how to do it right. We can't simply
abandon these projects, we have to build them properly to mitigate the risks
that are raised. Maybe Area A is going to be wasted from an environmental
perspective, but we can set aside Area B for protections in the future.

But, just because we set an area aside, we have to be cognizant of the idea
that the protected area might contain some of what we need in the future. If
this happens, then we might have to use a small part of the area and protect
what remains. Perhaps the protected space is adjacent to places where we are
already developing, simply move the boundaries over and put the new project
in the old boundary area. Some projects should be shot down, and not
pursued. But many projects are basically sound, but may require modification
to clear the objections. When there are projects that can be made sound,
then we should work on them, and if there is simply no acceptable way of
completing a project, then it should not be done. But every project in the
past 30-some odd years has been rejected in California, and this is very bad
policy.





> >
> >
> >
> >> but without a long term solution, its just a plan to get through his
term
> >> and put more money in the pockets of his true bosses. We are going to
> >> have
> >> to come up with a real solution
> >> sooner or later, but it's obvious it will never happen with the
> > Republicans
> >> in charge.
> >>
> >
> > The truth is that the automakers are already working on alternative
> > energy,
> > and the alternatives that they have already come up with can't be
produced
> > fast enough. I am not suggesting that hybrid technology is the end of
the
> > line when it comes to alternative sources, but the few hybrids that are
> > being made have long lines of customers waiting for delivery.
> >
> That's true, but the government could speed things along by settings goals
> and incentives for alternate fuels, like Biodiesel, ethanol and Hydrogen.
>
>
Perhaps. If the rest of the country used California blended gasoline, the
Smog Days across the nation would drop dramatically, and fuel prices would
drop because all fuel would be the same blend.

As for the technologies, people are chomping at the bit to get at this
stuff, but it just isn't feasable to get it out. Hybrid is very popular, but
the cars that it is available in are very small, with the exception of the
new Honda Accord with the hybrid power plant. One of the problems with
hybrid cars is that they are expensive, and it takes tens of thousands of
miles for the fuel savings to pay the added costs of the power plant. So,
two things have to happen, the technology needs to be available on a wider
range of cars and trucks, and it has to be cheaper so the pay off comes
sooner.

A busniess looks at a factor called Return On Investment, ROI. If they buy
something for X, and it saves them Y, then X / Y = ROI. If the savings is
$100 per month, and the system cost is $1000, then the ROI is 10 months, and
they justify the expense because by not taking the expense today, after 10
months, they are losing $100 per month that they could be saving.

As a consumer, you should be looking at the ROI as well. But in the case of
Hybrid, the ROI doesn't come until 70,000 miles or so. This is too long for
consumers that are driven by the money. Consumers like you that are driven
by enviromental concerns won't care about the ROI, so their motivation is
that they are using less oil and polluting less, and this reduction in their
personal impact is sufficient to justify the added expense. But, when mayn
people are living from week to week, their motivation is the almighty
dollar. If they can recover the extra dollar in a year or two, then save the
dollar every month thereafter, they'll buy the technology.



> > Personally, I see fuel cells being used in homes as something to
explore.
> > Fuel cell technology does need hydrogen, or natural gas, but we already
> > have
> > the delivery infrastructure in place for most homes in America. I
suppose
> > it
> > wouldn't take very much to adapt the infrastructure to deliver natural
gas
> > to your fuel cell powered car or truck.
> >
> I think eventually we may get there, but the more we keep cheap
> gas around the longer things like fuel cells, Biodiesel, ethanal will
> not have the incentive to progress. That's my point about Bush's
> plan, not that it won't help in the short run, but that it does nothing
> to wean us off fossil fuels.
>

The problem with some of the solutions is that they actually take more
energy to produce the fuel than the fuel produces, and when this happens we
are taking a giant leap backwards.

Biodiesel - using cooking oil as diesel fuel - is kind of cool, and many
biodiesel operators collect used cooking oil that the McDs of the community
have to pay to have hauled off but biodiesel operators will take off their
hands for free. These people then go home and clean the oil and pour it into
the car and drive to work or wherever they go. The trouble is, McD can only
produce so much used cooking oil, and the oil doesn't produce very much
enregy, so the fuel economy isn't quite as good as regular diesel, therefore
it will take alot of cooking oil as more and more biodiesel cars make it to
the street. And, it takes more energy to make cooking oil in the first place
than it takes to make diesel.

When biodiesel is using used cooking oil, it looks pretty good. But when the
cooking oil is fresh and clean, then there are costs that come up that make
it look not quite so good. Yes, we can make more cooking oil, but there is
only so much crude. This is a good argument. But, part of the mfg process of
cooking oil requires crude, and it requires more energy to make cooking oil
that cooking oil creates in a biodiesel. So, another good question is, is
this really a good idea or does it only look good at the first glance?


> >
>
>

"Ray O" <rokigawa@tristarassociatesDOT.com> wrote in message
news:28464$4270151b$44a4a10d$17130@msgid.meganewss ervers.com...
>
> Someone said...
> <snip>
> >> Personally, I see fuel cells being used in homes as something to
explore.
> >> Fuel cell technology does need hydrogen, or natural gas, but we already
> >> have
> >> the delivery infrastructure in place for most homes in America. I
suppose
> >> it
> >> wouldn't take very much to adapt the infrastructure to deliver natural
> >> gas
> >> to your fuel cell powered car or truck.
>
> Hmmm... I have no idea how many gas stations there are in the U.S. but in
> order to make the math easy, let's use a round number of 250,000. Let's
use
> a lowball very conservative figure of $20,000 per station to add hydrogen
> storage capacity, even though I suspect it will be 3 or 4 times that if
you
> also factor in the eventual cost of removing underground storage tanks.
> That is 5 billion dollars. A billion here, a billion there, and pretty
> soon you are starting to talk about real money. This is just a wild
> unsubstantiated guess, but I'd be willing to bet that the fueling station
> owners will pass this on to consumers. I read somewhere that a
possibility
> is to deliver propane to fueling stations and the stations would have
> infrastructure to convert the propane to hydrogen for use in vehicles.
Add
> the cost of that infrastructure to the cost of storage.
>
> I have no idea how many fuel delivery trucks there are in the U.S. or how
> many will be needed to replenish the fueling stations, but I'm feeling
lucky
> with my guesses and say that the cost of acquiring those trucks, insuring
> them, training drivers, etc. will also be passed on to consumers.
>
> Here's something else to think about... if you read the labels on
refillable
> propane cylinders, it says something about not storing it indoors. Will
> individual homes with attached garages have to be modified so a vehicle
with
> a tank full of compressed hydrogen can be safely parked? Is every
homeowner
> going to be happy to spend thousands of dollars to do that? I kind of
doubt
> it. Is the gubmit going to give a tax credit to reimburse every homeowner
> for the modifications? Yeah, sure!
>
> When fuel cell vehicles start to become commercially available to
consumers,
> buyers will only be able to drive where the infrastructure is in place and
> conversely, fueling station owners will only spend the money where there
are
> consumers. Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? Does the gubmint
> force the fueling station owners to fork out $20,000 to $50,000 so that
they
> can fuel a dozen fuel cell vehicles a week for the first few years? How
> about the extra inventory the gas station owner has to carry - on top of
all
> the gas, he will have to carry the propane/hydrogen.
>
> I'm sure the insurance companies won't jack up insurance rates for the gas
> stations and delivery vehicles that transport the propane/hydrogen or for
> owners who park with a hundred pounds or so of compressed gas in their
> garage so don't worry about your insurance going up.
>
> Yup, it won't take much to establish the infrastructure to deliver
hydrogen
> to run your fuel cell vehicle, certainly less than the Federal budget!
>



One of the benefits of fuel cells is that the hydrogen can be used as it
exists in natural gas. Many Americans already have natural gas piped right
into the house, so at least some of the distribution infrastructure is
already in place. The only point I am making is that the cost of providing
the infrastructure is going to be much lower than your estimate.

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 12:26:48 GMT, "Philip"
<1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:

>Dbu,~' wrote:
>> In article <MPG.1cdad623de9ef32f98ada3@news.individual.net>,
>> Sleeker GT Phwoar <carl.robson@bouncing-czechs.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Europe uses a lot of natural gas for heating.
>>
>> Nobody that I know uses electricity for heating. It's gas, oil or
>> wood. We have gas here.
>
>And where ARE you, "Dbu"?
>
>
Most homes in Florida use electric to heat...

Of course we don't need much of it...lol


--
Scott in Florida

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 14:20:53 +0100, Sleeker GT Phwoar
<carl.robson@bouncing-czechs.com> wrote:

>In article <notspam-AACD20.18164427042005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
>notspam@sp.com says...
>>
>> You are a fool!! Bush was a U.S.A.F. command pilot of an F-102.
>>
>He enlisted, but did he actually serve his whole term?

According to his discharge he served his whole term.
>Was ever AWOL?

According to his records he was not AWOL

>Did his doctored records show that he was ever disciplined for not being
>there?

I am not aware of 'doctored' records. Perhaps you are referring to
the 'doctored' ie fake records Dan Rather and CBS news tried to
use to get Kerry elected?



--
Scott in Florida

Better check the first number of your VIN. You will
find it was only assembled in the US of mostly imported parts.


mike hunt



badgolferman wrote:
>
> RustyFendor@mailcity.com, 4/27/2005, 7:19:49 PM, wrote:
>
> > What Toyota do you own that was made in America?
> >
> >
> > mike hunt
> >
>
> 2000 Sienna and prior to that 1994 Camry. My 1997 Camry is made in
> Japan.
>
> --
> No matter what happens someone will find a way to take it too seriously.

In article <1114703457.514c704d29170a5cfd5bd5facf21f8e4@terane ws>,
"S Narayan" <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

> "Dbu,~'" <notspam@sp.com> wrote in message
> news:notspam-22DC99.20164927042005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > In article <1114647358.c79ef51340a3ba174d8f626db8fa8f0e@terane ws>,
> > "S Narayan" <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I got them off a google search yesterday through the worldenergy.org and
> > > other such websites, I can't repeat the same keywords now. The US
> Average is
> > > easy to find, about 10500 kWhrs/year or 877 kWhrs/month. The US regional
> > > numbers are bit harder to find. Perhaps the only other country that uses
> > > more energy per capita/household is Canada.
> >
> > They're way off.
> > --
> >
>
> No they are not. Look them up yourself. The information is out there if you
> cared. Specifically, California electricity consumption is about
> 650kWhrs/month on an AVERAGE. Now there are those who live in smaller
> households perhaps using 200-400kWhrs/month but those are the exceptions.
> Our family of four uses about 300kWhrs/month and we are slightly inland so
> experience temps from freezing to 110deg in summer.
>
> It is a lot more efficient to use gas for heating and it is about six times
> as more efficient (from my own calculations for my level of usage). Since
> Europeans also use gas for heating (as most sane Americans do) we are
> comparing apples to apples when it comes to electricity usage. It's just
> that most Americans are stupid when it comes to appliances buying cheap or
> oversized appliances for low initial investment and then paying long term
> with energy costs.

I won't disagree with you on the gas. Unless you have a super insulated
house the electric bill would be quite high in this climate.

The electricity is .065894 c. per KWH. What is it where you are? How
about the gas? We pay .83047 per therm for natural gas here. I've had
it here for about 30 years.

Here the airconditioning boys are forbid to install oversized A/C
systems. They have to be sized right. Nor would anyone want a
oversized A/C because what happens when you have too much air
conditioning capacity the system fails to dehumidify and in the house
you get this clammy feeling sort of like living in a basement. So you
sure heck don't want a oversized A/C, that goes for the heating system
too.
--

In article <LG5ce.714$pe3.471@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:

> Sleeker GT Phwoar wrote:
> > In article <notspam-AACD20.18164427042005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
> > notspam@sp.com says...
> >>
> >> You are a fool!! Bush was a U.S.A.F. command pilot of an F-102.
> >>
> > He enlisted, but did he actually serve his whole term?
> > Was ever AWOL?
> > Did his doctored records show that he was ever disciplined for not
> > being there?
>
> You are an ass. Let's say your child graduated with honors but you ignore
> that ... preferring to tell everyone that you child played hooky a few
> times. Good Grief. Oh wait ... you paid the records office to "doctor"
> your kid's school records so he could graduate at all, right? Ah haa!

You along with many Bush and Republican haters continue this whining
about his military service. I've said all I'm going to say. It's a
dead horse and if you feel you have to get your blood pressure up and
have another bad day over it then be my guest. Just don't go quoting
some of that fat disgusting movie directors crap. Only blind assed
fools follow that turd.
--

In article <RK6dnbCESuywqezfRVn-qQ@ez2.net>,
"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote:


> One of the benefits of fuel cells is that the hydrogen can be used as it
> exists in natural gas. Many Americans already have natural gas piped right
> into the house, so at least some of the distribution infrastructure is
> already in place. The only point I am making is that the cost of providing
> the infrastructure is going to be much lower than your estimate.

That would be great if we could fill-er-up at home, but how would the
greedy state governments get their road/gas tax.
--

Scott in Florida wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 12:26:48 GMT, "Philip"
> <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>
>> Dbu,~' wrote:
>>> In article <MPG.1cdad623de9ef32f98ada3@news.individual.net>,
>>> Sleeker GT Phwoar <carl.robson@bouncing-czechs.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Europe uses a lot of natural gas for heating.
>>>
>>> Nobody that I know uses electricity for heating. It's gas, oil or
>>> wood. We have gas here.
>>
>> And where ARE you, "Dbu"?
>>
>>
> Most homes in Florida use electric to heat...
>
> Of course we don't need much of it...lol

Just hazarding a guess ... could there also be an aversion to a network of
underground gas plumbing throughout the city with the water table being so
close to the surface and the hurricane factor?

Dbu,~' wrote:
> In article <1114703457.514c704d29170a5cfd5bd5facf21f8e4@terane ws>,
> "S Narayan" <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "Dbu,~'" <notspam@sp.com> wrote in message
>> news:notspam-22DC99.20164927042005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>>> In article <1114647358.c79ef51340a3ba174d8f626db8fa8f0e@terane ws>,
>>> "S Narayan" <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I got them off a google search yesterday through the
>>>> worldenergy.org and other such websites, I can't repeat the same
>>>> keywords now. The US Average is easy to find, about 10500
>>>> kWhrs/year or 877 kWhrs/month. The US regional numbers are bit
>>>> harder to find. Perhaps the only other country that uses more
>>>> energy per capita/household is Canada.
>>>
>>> They're way off.
>>> --
>>>
>>
>> No they are not. Look them up yourself. The information is out there
>> if you cared. Specifically, California electricity consumption is
>> about 650kWhrs/month on an AVERAGE. Now there are those who live in
>> smaller households perhaps using 200-400kWhrs/month but those are
>> the exceptions. Our family of four uses about 300kWhrs/month and we
>> are slightly inland so experience temps from freezing to 110deg in
>> summer.
>>
>> It is a lot more efficient to use gas for heating and it is about
>> six times as more efficient (from my own calculations for my level
>> of usage). Since Europeans also use gas for heating (as most sane
>> Americans do) we are comparing apples to apples when it comes to
>> electricity usage. It's just that most Americans are stupid when it
>> comes to appliances buying cheap or oversized appliances for low
>> initial investment and then paying long term with energy costs.
>
> I won't disagree with you on the gas. Unless you have a super
> insulated house the electric bill would be quite high in this climate.
>
> The electricity is .065894 c. per KWH. What is it where you are? How
> about the gas? We pay .83047 per therm for natural gas here. I've
> had it here for about 30 years.
snip

Dbu: In my area (temperate), the price is 12 cents per kW hr for your
historic base rate. The moment you exceed that consumption level, the price
increases 2 cents per for the remaining usage.

Dbu,~' wrote:
> In article <LG5ce.714$pe3.471@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>
>> Sleeker GT Phwoar wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <notspam-AACD20.18164427042005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
>>> notspam@sp.com says...
>>>>
>>>> You are a fool!! Bush was a U.S.A.F. command pilot of an F-102.
>>>>
>>> He enlisted, but did he actually serve his whole term?
>>> Was ever AWOL?
>>> Did his doctored records show that he was ever disciplined for not
>>> being there?
>>
>> You are an ass. Let's say your child graduated with honors but you
>> ignore that ... preferring to tell everyone that you child played
>> hooky a few times. Good Grief. Oh wait ... you paid the records
>> office to "doctor" your kid's school records so he could graduate at
>> all, right? Ah haa!
>
> You along with many Bush and Republican haters continue this whining
> about his military service. I've said all I'm going to say. It's a
> dead horse and if you feel you have to get your blood pressure up and
> have another bad day over it then be my guest. Just don't go quoting
> some of that fat disgusting movie directors crap. Only blind assed
> fools follow that turd.

Dbu: When you pick out a post to respond to that is not the most recent one
in the thread you are quoting, you should trim off all subsequent entries.
Your response is directed to "Sleeker GT Phwoar", not me.

Corolla starts with a 1.

RustyFendor@mailcity.com wrote:
> Better check the first number of your VIN. You will
> find it was only assembled in the US of mostly imported parts.
>
> mike hunt
>
>
>
> badgolferman wrote:
>>
>> RustyFendor@mailcity.com, 4/27/2005, 7:19:49 PM, wrote:
>>
>>> What Toyota do you own that was made in America?
>>>
>>>
>>> mike hunt
>>>
>>
>> 2000 Sienna and prior to that 1994 Camry. My 1997 Camry is made in
>> Japan.
>>
>> --
>> No matter what happens someone will find a way to take it too
>> seriously.

In article <1114709901.0e19604abb52c338093bad5e5e6e5dab@terane ws>,
"S Narayan" <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

>Face it, we are an inefficient country when it comes to personal energy
usage.

I'm curious to know what you think the solution to this may be. Please
tell me/us your thoughts as to what should be done.

I'll wait and check again in a little while for your answer.
--

"Dbu,~'" <notspam@sp.com> wrote in message
news:notspam-61E4DD.14512728042005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> In article <RK6dnbCESuywqezfRVn-qQ@ez2.net>,
> "Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote:
>
>
> > One of the benefits of fuel cells is that the hydrogen can be used as it
> > exists in natural gas. Many Americans already have natural gas piped
right
> > into the house, so at least some of the distribution infrastructure is
> > already in place. The only point I am making is that the cost of
providing
> > the infrastructure is going to be much lower than your estimate.
>
> That would be great if we could fill-er-up at home, but how would the
> greedy state governments get their road/gas tax.


All they need to is put a new meter on the valve that pumps gas into the
car. The gas company bills for the total gas used by the house and car, and
the governemnt bills for the gas that goes into the car. Simple really.

In article <qdbce.811$V01.155@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:


>
> Dbu: When you pick out a post to respond to that is not the most recent one
> in the thread you are quoting, you should trim off all subsequent entries.
> Your response is directed to "Sleeker GT Phwoar", not me.

Yes I know, I saw the error of my posting as soon as I hit the button.
I shall not make that mistake again. If you see me do that again
publicly disgrace me.
--

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
news:RT9ce.757$V01.266@newsread1.news.atl.earthlin k.net...
>
> "S Narayan" <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1114709901.0e19604abb52c338093bad5e5e6e5dab@t eranews...
> >
> > "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> > news:P%8ce.800$pe3.297@newsread3.news.atl.earthlin k.net...
> snip
> > This is a usenet group. I don't want to come up with a treatise on
energy
> > use. Take any average Western European country with similar standard of
> > living and use some common sense. I have seen how Germans, Australians,
> > New
> > Zealanders live.
>
> You could not do the subject justice regardless.

That is your opinion. Let's keep it that way.

>
> >> And it is real revealing how you have the chutzpah to say "...most
> >> Americans are stupid ..." because you live on the cheap. Let's drop
your
> >> candy ass in Houston for a summer and see how things change.
> >
> > I lived near College Station, Texas for a couple of years. You don't
need
> > to
> > tell me. I also lived in Michigan so I know how real winters are like.
> > Face
> > it, we are an inefficient country when it comes to personal energy
usage.
>
> I notice you failed / dodged telling how your electricity usage changed
from
> TX to MI.

You asserted how I could not survive a Houston summer, I have lived in very
humid, tropical and very cold climates and done very well without wasting
energy. End of story.

>
> Yeah ... everybody is wasteful except you. You are the shining light
showing
> us the way out of darkness. What a self absorbed narcissist. Yes, that is
> redundant.
>

Getting defensive, are we?

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
news:XT9ce.758$V01.393@newsread1.news.atl.earthlin k.net...
>
> "S Narayan" <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1114710598.ecf7af93f4efb915dd39266052f32332@t eranews...
> >
> > "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> > news:Q%8ce.801$pe3.438@newsread3.news.atl.earthlin k.net...
> >>
> >> "S Narayan" <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1114703659.7cb7e37dccbcacf5abf51a112d5684ed@t eranews...
> >> >
> >> snip
> >> > Most smart people would not use electricity for heating. ANYTHING but
> >> > electricity.
> >>
> >> Have you noticed any gas fired bathroom heaters? Or personal gas fired
> >> space heaters? All appliance makers still sell a lot of electric
cooking
> >> ranges. Gas fired coffee makers? Electric water heaters are still
> >> popular
> >> and are required in some instances. Seen any gas operated
refrigerators
> >> since 1935? Ever wonder why carbon monoxide alarms are increasingly
> >> popularity, right behind smoke detectors? If you lived out in the
Palm
> >> Springs / Indio area, you would know how much cheaper electricity is on
> > the
> >> north side of Interstate 10 compared to the south side due to electric
> >> companies.
> >
> > You bring up anecdotal evidence of one extremely hot, dry area of the
> > country as a rebuttal? Look at the big picture.
>
> Is it necessary to list all the major cities along Interstate 10 from Palm
> Springs to Houston for you to get the idea? The southwestern United
States
> is more than just Indio. Look at a map.

The big picture is that we consume close to 700k-1100 kWhrs/month as a
NATION and relate that to our GDP. Let's not try to weasel out of that one.
Anecdotal stories don't mean much.

>
>
> > One has to use common sense here, I should have spelt that out for the
> > morons residing this group. If you use electricity as primary heat --you
> > deserve the electricity bill you get. Space heating based on
thermostatic
> > control may work for some people for low duty cycle operations or where
it
> > would be expensive to run gas lines to. Most people could convert
electric
> > ranges to gas ranges or electric dryers to gas dryers if they cared
enough
> > or had the option. But electric appliances are cheaper to buy so that's
> > what
> > they get.
>
> "I should have spelt that out for the morons residing this group." MY MY
> MY ... but could you be any more condescending? I'm sure you will answer
> that soon enough. You're the self absorbed Prick in a Prius. LOL
>

I didn't call you a moron (maybe you were trying to score points with the
'electricity use for heating' comment), in fact you are one of the few
intelligent posters in this group, but feel compelled feel free to assign
yourself the title if you wish.

In article <a8d2715gb1fcrhe50mt8f3e40nnvvoa188@4ax.com>,
NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't says...
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 14:20:53 +0100, Sleeker GT Phwoar
> <carl.robson@bouncing-czechs.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <notspam-AACD20.18164427042005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
> >notspam@sp.com says...
> >>
> >> You are a fool!! Bush was a U.S.A.F. command pilot of an F-102.
> >>
> >He enlisted, but did he actually serve his whole term?
>
> According to his discharge he served his whole term.
> >Was ever AWOL?
>
> According to his records he was not AWOL
>
> >Did his doctored records show that he was ever disciplined for not being
> >there?
>
> I am not aware of 'doctored' records. Perhaps you are referring to
> the 'doctored' ie fake records Dan Rather and CBS news tried to
> use to get Kerry elected?

I'm refering to the security service altered records that had dates,
names and details blacked out. When the whole purpose of releasing the
records was to show the names dates and details.

--
Carl Robson
"Sorry Sir the meatballs are orf"
(The poster formerly known as Skodapilot)
http://www.bouncing-czechs.com

"Dbu,~'" <notspam@sp.com> wrote in message
news:notspam-23CB83.17451627042005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> In article <1114640873.d81b1430d4091c734f3aceb5c7b970cc@terane ws>,
> "DH" <DH@stargate.nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > "Resonable people?" Try "ostriches." You've got your head in the
sand - or
> > worse.
>
> You sound like old tomh. Therefor I will killfile your ass. Goodby
> --
>

Feel free, ostrich. However, bear in mind two things I noticed just today.
First:

http://www.abundantre.com/

The exclusive importer for a wind generator from Africa. We're importing
equipment from Africa? Frankly, I think that's sad enough right there. Then
I noticed:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/28/business/28cnd-econ.html?hp&ex=1114747200&en=691e9dd5b9809237&ei=5094&partner=homepage

(may require registration - doing so did not seem to increase spam). The
article is titled "New Data Offer More Signs that Economy is Weakening."
Here's the pertinent tidbit that caught my eye:

"Moreover, net exports subtracted 1.5 percentage points from G.D.P. as
imports soared nearly 15 percent, their steepest rise since late 2003,
substituting for production at home and offsetting a 7 percent surge in
exports. "

Sure, you can killfile me and endorse Bush's "enrich my CEO buddies" energy
plan, if you want. But you can't escape the economy.

"Dbu,~'" <notspam@sp.com> wrote in message
news:notspam-980071.15001028042005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> In article <1114709901.0e19604abb52c338093bad5e5e6e5dab@terane ws>,
> "S Narayan" <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Face it, we are an inefficient country when it comes to personal energy
> usage.
>
> I'm curious to know what you think the solution to this may be. Please
> tell me/us your thoughts as to what should be done.
>
> I'll wait and check again in a little while for your answer.
> --

Consumption is the name of the game! It keeps the economy humming, or so
they say. Lots of ways to reduce consumption - we buy oversized houses (just
like the oversizing of everything else) which need to heated and/or cooled
with central heat and A/C, our appetite for energy wasting appliances (until
the recent trend towards energy efficiency and the energy "crisis" in CA).
In general there is no energy efficiency awareness for the most part (to
give an example, lot of people don't even have programmable thermostats and
thus are heating/empty homes), inefficient lighting and leaving lights, TV
etc on without occupants. Lots of people will spend money on a pool, but use
gas/electricity to heat the water! A simple solar water heater would cost
~$5k and easily save a lot of money in the long run. It doesn't take much to
reduce ones consumption by 20-30% without giving up comfort. If you tried
harder one could save even 50%. Energy has been cheap, but now that we have
to pay for it with imported oil or other limited natural resources,
conservation is the first step. If you travelled or lived abroad, I would
hazard you wouldn't be asking this question.

"Dbu,~'" <notspam@sp.com> wrote in message
news:notspam-C9172F.14321628042005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> In article <1114703457.514c704d29170a5cfd5bd5facf21f8e4@terane ws>,
> "S Narayan" <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > "Dbu,~'" <notspam@sp.com> wrote in message
> > news:notspam-22DC99.20164927042005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > > In article <1114647358.c79ef51340a3ba174d8f626db8fa8f0e@terane ws>,
> > > "S Narayan" <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I got them off a google search yesterday through the worldenergy.org
and
> > > > other such websites, I can't repeat the same keywords now. The US
> > Average is
> > > > easy to find, about 10500 kWhrs/year or 877 kWhrs/month. The US
regional
> > > > numbers are bit harder to find. Perhaps the only other country that
uses
> > > > more energy per capita/household is Canada.
> > >
> > > They're way off.
> > > --
> > >
> >
> > No they are not. Look them up yourself. The information is out there if
you
> > cared. Specifically, California electricity consumption is about
> > 650kWhrs/month on an AVERAGE. Now there are those who live in smaller
> > households perhaps using 200-400kWhrs/month but those are the
exceptions.
> > Our family of four uses about 300kWhrs/month and we are slightly inland
so
> > experience temps from freezing to 110deg in summer.
> >
> > It is a lot more efficient to use gas for heating and it is about six
times
> > as more efficient (from my own calculations for my level of usage).
Since
> > Europeans also use gas for heating (as most sane Americans do) we are
> > comparing apples to apples when it comes to electricity usage. It's just
> > that most Americans are stupid when it comes to appliances buying cheap
or
> > oversized appliances for low initial investment and then paying long
term
> > with energy costs.
>
> I won't disagree with you on the gas. Unless you have a super insulated
> house the electric bill would be quite high in this climate.
>
> The electricity is .065894 c. per KWH. What is it where you are? How
> about the gas? We pay .83047 per therm for natural gas here. I've had
> it here for about 30 years.

About 11c/kWhr for electricty and 53c/therm . As I said earlier, it is about
6 times as more efficient for me to use gas for heating at the base rates I
am paying. However I have switched to time of use metering, that is 29c/kWhr
peak time and 9c/kWhr non peak time.

>
> Here the airconditioning boys are forbid to install oversized A/C
> systems. They have to be sized right. Nor would anyone want a
> oversized A/C because what happens when you have too much air
> conditioning capacity the system fails to dehumidify and in the house
> you get this clammy feeling sort of like living in a basement. So you
> sure heck don't want a oversized A/C, that goes for the heating system
> too.

True. Where I live, we need a humidifier or things get too dry.

In article <1114721787.2dd806f8d2461af9c5dbf638951d654c@terane ws>,
"S Narayan" <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

> "Dbu,~'" <notspam@sp.com> wrote in message
> news:notspam-980071.15001028042005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > In article <1114709901.0e19604abb52c338093bad5e5e6e5dab@terane ws>,
> > "S Narayan" <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Face it, we are an inefficient country when it comes to personal energy
> > usage.
> >
> > I'm curious to know what you think the solution to this may be. Please
> > tell me/us your thoughts as to what should be done.
> >
> > I'll wait and check again in a little while for your answer.
> > --
>
> Consumption is the name of the game! It keeps the economy humming, or so
> they say. Lots of ways to reduce consumption - we buy oversized houses (just
> like the oversizing of everything else) which need to heated and/or cooled
> with central heat and A/C, our appetite for energy wasting appliances (until
> the recent trend towards energy efficiency and the energy "crisis" in CA).
> In general there is no energy efficiency awareness for the most part (to
> give an example, lot of people don't even have programmable thermostats and
> thus are heating/empty homes), inefficient lighting and leaving lights, TV
> etc on without occupants. Lots of people will spend money on a pool, but use
> gas/electricity to heat the water! A simple solar water heater would cost
> ~$5k and easily save a lot of money in the long run. It doesn't take much to
> reduce ones consumption by 20-30% without giving up comfort. If you tried
> harder one could save even 50%. Energy has been cheap, but now that we have
> to pay for it with imported oil or other limited natural resources,
> conservation is the first step. If you travelled or lived abroad, I would
> hazard you wouldn't be asking this question.

So your answer is to make energy so expensive that Americans will cut
back their use. What about the rich that can afford to pay for high
energy costs?

How do you force some of the things you say are needed upon the
consumers? Would this be taking away the freedoms that some of your
like minded associates cry about with Bush and the patriot act? Freedom
is freedom.
--

"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:0O6dnavBdOOoruzfRVn-qg@ez2.net...
>
> "ToMh" <Teelhumm@hotm.com> wrote in message
> news:1114635253.5013065fd5f894731c8dd0793eceff2d@t eranews...
>>
>> "Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote in message
>> news:PrudnahxHsnha_LfRVn-1w@ez2.net...
>
>> >> I really don't have any problem with any single point of the plan
> (except
>> >> for nuclear)
>> >
>> > You should be interested to know that France produces about 70% of its
>> > electricity from nuke plants.
>> >
>> I'm actually not entirely against nuclear power, as long as they come up
>> with
>> and acceptable waste disposal plan, but I haven't seen one yet that isn't
>> more politically motivated that scientifically sound. Even so , Nuke
>> power
>> would be a little more palatable if this administration supported green
>> alternatives as fervently as it does fossil fuels and nuclear power.
>>
>
>
> Aren't YOU the one that said, "I really don't have any problem with any
> single point of the plan (except for nuclear)?" Now you are saying that
> you
> are not against nukes, per se, but have issues with what to do with the
> waste.
>
> Envirowhackos are a difficult group to appease.

What can't you understand? What to do with the waste, is my main problem
with nuclear energy.

>
> They don't want to burn fossil fuel because we don't suck our own out of
> the
> ground and we are beholding to foreign sources. But when we try to suck
> our
> own out of the ground, they bitch that it will bother a calf, and it makes
> a
> mess. There is no evidence that the calves are annoyed, and we can
> mitigate
> the mess if we give the proper considerations. And, the space needed in
> ANWR
> to suck the oil out is roughtly equivelent to a newspaper page unfolded
> and
> spread out on a tennis court.
>
> Coal is too dirty, but we have clean ways to burn coal. And we have plenty
> of our own coal.
>

I never said I was against using fossil fuels, If you payed attention
instead of
trying to lump me in with the environmentalist extremists, you would know
that
my problem with the Bush plan is it's lack of support for alternative fuels
as
a way of reducing our need for fossil fuels.


> Wind is clean, and renewable. There will always be wind, but we can't
> build
> windfarms because the birds get chopped up or the view of the horizon is
> spoiled. Ironically, it is the loudest voices against nukes and coal that
> complain about the view of the horizon.
>
I fully support wind farms as do most people. Your making up stuff.

> Nukes are clean and reliable, but they do create a waste issue, this is
> true. But, the waste can be secured and stored. Lots of countries with
> nuke
> plants have devised a scheme to secure and store the waste.
>
That's very debatable, but if an area benefits from nuclear energy, then
they have no right to ship there waste someplace else that doesn't
want it. I have no problem with build a nuclear power plant if the waste
is deposited in the area that benefits from it.

> It doesn't really matter what the solution is, any solution has a downside
> that the envirowhackos object to. Different solutions garner a different
> group of envirowhackos to forward their objections. The objections seldom
> come from the same places, except that those objecting to the view of a
> windfarm also object to the fumes of the coal plants and the waste of the
> nuke plants.
>
You certainly can't please everybody, but I really don't know were you get
this idea
that the "same" people that are anti Nuke are anti wind farm. I suspect
it's just the opposite. I personally think wind farms are pretty cool
looking.
The few I've seen make the area look better than the barren land they
were put on. I would have a problem with destroying pristine land to put one
in, but that doesn't seem to be an issue.


> A huge part of the problem in California - arguably the largest market in
> the USA - is that the enviro groups object to each and every solution that
> is set on the table for discussion. At some point, we have to take the
> bitter with the sweet, and take an energy policy that does the least
> damage
> and move with it. We can't piss and moan that a bird gets chopped up if we
> are going to place greatest value on renewable sources. We can't demand
> breaking the dependence from foreign sources, then complain about a calf.
>

I have no idea what's happening in CA. But here in Oregon, I have not heard
any objections to wind farms. I'm sure you can always find someone that
objects to anything, but not enough to change any minds.

> We have to learn from our past mistakes, and build facilities that meet
> our
> need for energy, and can contain the leak should one develop. If we need
> to
> accomodate the calves by raising the line above the ground, or secure the
> line by burying it, then that is what we need to do to tap that source.
>
> Enviros can't spend the eternity bitching about what we are doing, they
> need
> to give constructive criticism about how to do it right. We can't simply
> abandon these projects, we have to build them properly to mitigate the
> risks
> that are raised. Maybe Area A is going to be wasted from an environmental
> perspective, but we can set aside Area B for protections in the future.
>
> But, just because we set an area aside, we have to be cognizant of the
> idea
> that the protected area might contain some of what we need in the future.
> If
> this happens, then we might have to use a small part of the area and
> protect
> what remains. Perhaps the protected space is adjacent to places where we
> are
> already developing, simply move the boundaries over and put the new
> project
> in the old boundary area. Some projects should be shot down, and not
> pursued. But many projects are basically sound, but may require
> modification
> to clear the objections. When there are projects that can be made sound,
> then we should work on them, and if there is simply no acceptable way of
> completing a project, then it should not be done. But every project in the
> past 30-some odd years has been rejected in California, and this is very
> bad
> policy.
>

I agree that people have to make a compromise. They need to choose if
the risks to the environment is worth it. If Californians choose the
environment, then that's their right. I think the majority of people in the
US
will err on the side of the environment if given the choice, and most are
not
enviro wacho's like you'd like to lump every body who cares about the
environment in.


>
>
>
>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> but without a long term solution, its just a plan to get through his
> term
>> >> and put more money in the pockets of his true bosses. We are going to
>> >> have
>> >> to come up with a real solution
>> >> sooner or later, but it's obvious it will never happen with the
>> > Republicans
>> >> in charge.
>> >>
>> >
>> > The truth is that the automakers are already working on alternative
>> > energy,
>> > and the alternatives that they have already come up with can't be
> produced
>> > fast enough. I am not suggesting that hybrid technology is the end of
> the
>> > line when it comes to alternative sources, but the few hybrids that are
>> > being made have long lines of customers waiting for delivery.
>> >
>> That's true, but the government could speed things along by settings
>> goals
>> and incentives for alternate fuels, like Biodiesel, ethanol and Hydrogen.
>>
>>
> Perhaps. If the rest of the country used California blended gasoline, the
> Smog Days across the nation would drop dramatically, and fuel prices would
> drop because all fuel would be the same blend.
>
> As for the technologies, people are chomping at the bit to get at this
> stuff, but it just isn't feasable to get it out. Hybrid is very popular,
> but
> the cars that it is available in are very small, with the exception of the
> new Honda Accord with the hybrid power plant. One of the problems with
> hybrid cars is that they are expensive, and it takes tens of thousands of
> miles for the fuel savings to pay the added costs of the power plant. So,
> two things have to happen, the technology needs to be available on a wider
> range of cars and trucks, and it has to be cheaper so the pay off comes
> sooner.
>
> A busniess looks at a factor called Return On Investment, ROI. If they buy
> something for X, and it saves them Y, then X / Y = ROI. If the savings is
> $100 per month, and the system cost is $1000, then the ROI is 10 months,
> and
> they justify the expense because by not taking the expense today, after 10
> months, they are losing $100 per month that they could be saving.
>
> As a consumer, you should be looking at the ROI as well. But in the case
> of
> Hybrid, the ROI doesn't come until 70,000 miles or so. This is too long
> for
> consumers that are driven by the money. Consumers like you that are driven
> by enviromental concerns won't care about the ROI, so their motivation is
> that they are using less oil and polluting less, and this reduction in
> their
> personal impact is sufficient to justify the added expense. But, when mayn
> people are living from week to week, their motivation is the almighty
> dollar. If they can recover the extra dollar in a year or two, then save
> the
> dollar every month thereafter, they'll buy the technology.
>

That's why government needs to drive it. This is simular to landing
a man on the moon. The investment will pay for itself for generations.



>
>
>> > Personally, I see fuel cells being used in homes as something to
> explore.
>> > Fuel cell technology does need hydrogen, or natural gas, but we already
>> > have
>> > the delivery infrastructure in place for most homes in America. I
> suppose
>> > it
>> > wouldn't take very much to adapt the infrastructure to deliver natural
> gas
>> > to your fuel cell powered car or truck.
>> >
>> I think eventually we may get there, but the more we keep cheap
>> gas around the longer things like fuel cells, Biodiesel, ethanal will
>> not have the incentive to progress. That's my point about Bush's
>> plan, not that it won't help in the short run, but that it does nothing
>> to wean us off fossil fuels.
>>
>
> The problem with some of the solutions is that they actually take more
> energy to produce the fuel than the fuel produces, and when this happens
> we
> are taking a giant leap backwards.
>

But that is changing and if our government made a serious investment in
it, it would change a lot faster.


> Biodiesel - using cooking oil as diesel fuel - is kind of cool, and many
> biodiesel operators collect used cooking oil that the McDs of the
> community
> have to pay to have hauled off but biodiesel operators will take off their
> hands for free. These people then go home and clean the oil and pour it
> into
> the car and drive to work or wherever they go. The trouble is, McD can
> only
> produce so much used cooking oil, and the oil doesn't produce very much
> enregy, so the fuel economy isn't quite as good as regular diesel,
> therefore
> it will take alot of cooking oil as more and more biodiesel cars make it
> to
> the street. And, it takes more energy to make cooking oil in the first
> place
> than it takes to make diesel.


>
> When biodiesel is using used cooking oil, it looks pretty good. But when
> the
> cooking oil is fresh and clean, then there are costs that come up that
> make
> it look not quite so good. Yes, we can make more cooking oil, but there is
> only so much crude. This is a good argument. But, part of the mfg process
> of
> cooking oil requires crude, and it requires more energy to make cooking
> oil
> that cooking oil creates in a biodiesel. So, another good question is, is
> this really a good idea or does it only look good at the first glance?
>
>
Bio diesel is not raw cooking oil. Here's a website were you can
get more info on how Biodiesel works. Again I'm not saying this is a
solution, but part of the solution, and anything that can help our energy
problem and help our farmers is worth a substantial investment from
our government.

http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/faqs/default.shtm

>> >
>>
>>
>
>

"Dbu,~'" <notspam@sp.com> wrote in message
news:notspam-E82BFB.16131428042005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> In article <1114721787.2dd806f8d2461af9c5dbf638951d654c@terane ws>,
> "S Narayan" <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > "Dbu,~'" <notspam@sp.com> wrote in message
> > news:notspam-980071.15001028042005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > > In article <1114709901.0e19604abb52c338093bad5e5e6e5dab@terane ws>,
> > > "S Narayan" <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Face it, we are an inefficient country when it comes to personal
energy
> > > usage.
> > >
> > > I'm curious to know what you think the solution to this may be.
Please
> > > tell me/us your thoughts as to what should be done.
> > >
> > > I'll wait and check again in a little while for your answer.
> > > --
> >
> > Consumption is the name of the game! It keeps the economy humming, or so
> > they say. Lots of ways to reduce consumption - we buy oversized houses
(just
> > like the oversizing of everything else) which need to heated and/or
cooled
> > with central heat and A/C, our appetite for energy wasting appliances
(until
> > the recent trend towards energy efficiency and the energy "crisis" in
CA).
> > In general there is no energy efficiency awareness for the most part (to
> > give an example, lot of people don't even have programmable thermostats
and
> > thus are heating/empty homes), inefficient lighting and leaving lights,
TV
> > etc on without occupants. Lots of people will spend money on a pool, but
use
> > gas/electricity to heat the water! A simple solar water heater would
cost
> > ~$5k and easily save a lot of money in the long run. It doesn't take
much to
> > reduce ones consumption by 20-30% without giving up comfort. If you
tried
> > harder one could save even 50%. Energy has been cheap, but now that we
have
> > to pay for it with imported oil or other limited natural resources,
> > conservation is the first step. If you travelled or lived abroad, I
would
> > hazard you wouldn't be asking this question.
>
> So your answer is to make energy so expensive that Americans will cut
> back their use. What about the rich that can afford to pay for high
> energy costs?
>
> How do you force some of the things you say are needed upon the
> consumers? Would this be taking away the freedoms that some of your
> like minded associates cry about with Bush and the patriot act? Freedom
> is freedom.
> --
>

The rest of the world is far poorer than us and they are not whining.
I give up.

In article <1114723230.4fa6ad8ea4941b329dcd964902ac9a24@terane ws>,
"S Narayan" <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

> "Dbu,~'" <notspam@sp.com> wrote in message
> news:notspam-E82BFB.16131428042005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > In article <1114721787.2dd806f8d2461af9c5dbf638951d654c@terane ws>,
> > "S Narayan" <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "Dbu,~'" <notspam@sp.com> wrote in message
> > > news:notspam-980071.15001028042005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > > > In article <1114709901.0e19604abb52c338093bad5e5e6e5dab@terane ws>,
> > > > "S Narayan" <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Face it, we are an inefficient country when it comes to personal
> energy
> > > > usage.
> > > >
> > > > I'm curious to know what you think the solution to this may be.
> Please
> > > > tell me/us your thoughts as to what should be done.
> > > >
> > > > I'll wait and check again in a little while for your answer.
> > > > --
> > >
> > > Consumption is the name of the game! It keeps the economy humming, or so
> > > they say. Lots of ways to reduce consumption - we buy oversized houses
> (just
> > > like the oversizing of everything else) which need to heated and/or
> cooled
> > > with central heat and A/C, our appetite for energy wasting appliances
> (until
> > > the recent trend towards energy efficiency and the energy "crisis" in
> CA).
> > > In general there is no energy efficiency awareness for the most part (to
> > > give an example, lot of people don't even have programmable thermostats
> and
> > > thus are heating/empty homes), inefficient lighting and leaving lights,
> TV
> > > etc on without occupants. Lots of people will spend money on a pool, but
> use
> > > gas/electricity to heat the water! A simple solar water heater would
> cost
> > > ~$5k and easily save a lot of money in the long run. It doesn't take
> much to
> > > reduce ones consumption by 20-30% without giving up comfort. If you
> tried
> > > harder one could save even 50%. Energy has been cheap, but now that we
> have
> > > to pay for it with imported oil or other limited natural resources,
> > > conservation is the first step. If you travelled or lived abroad, I
> would
> > > hazard you wouldn't be asking this question.
> >
> > So your answer is to make energy so expensive that Americans will cut
> > back their use. What about the rich that can afford to pay for high
> > energy costs?
> >
> > How do you force some of the things you say are needed upon the
> > consumers? Would this be taking away the freedoms that some of your
> > like minded associates cry about with Bush and the patriot act? Freedom
> > is freedom.
> > --
> >
>
> The rest of the world is far poorer than us and they are not whining.
> I give up.

I'm not whining either, but seems like I hear much whining from the left
side of the isle regarding patriot act and freedoms lost. I would think
mandate to force people into small cars, and other harsh changes would
go against the grain of some that are so worried about their freedoms in
the first place. Would you agree?

As far as the rest of the world being poorer, what could we do about
that? Are you in favor of taking away our riches here in the U.S. and
giving it to poorer countries? How would that be accomplished and who
would oversee it? What would it mean to the individual U.S. citizen,
would it mean a lower standard of living? More and higher taxes? What
country would take our place, China?
--

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 19:55:41 GMT, "Philip"
<1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:

>Scott in Florida wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 12:26:48 GMT, "Philip"
>> <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>
>>> Dbu,~' wrote:
>>>> In article <MPG.1cdad623de9ef32f98ada3@news.individual.net>,
>>>> Sleeker GT Phwoar <carl.robson@bouncing-czechs.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Europe uses a lot of natural gas for heating.
>>>>
>>>> Nobody that I know uses electricity for heating. It's gas, oil or
>>>> wood. We have gas here.
>>>
>>> And where ARE you, "Dbu"?
>>>
>>>
>> Most homes in Florida use electric to heat...
>>
>> Of course we don't need much of it...lol
>
>Just hazarding a guess ... could there also be an aversion to a network of
>underground gas plumbing throughout the city with the water table being so
>close to the surface and the hurricane factor?
>
>
Well there is a natural gas line just across the street from me...

I don't think water table or hurricanes come into it.

My air conditioning system is the old style. It has electric heat
strips in it for heating.

A friend of mine has a new fangled heat pump. That thing is
complicated and doesn't heat worth a sh*t!

I like my stuff simple and easy to repair...just like my Toyotas...LOL


--
Scott in Florida

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 20:19:12 GMT, "Dbu,~'" <notspam@sp.com> wrote:

>In article <qdbce.811$V01.155@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Dbu: When you pick out a post to respond to that is not the most recent one
>> in the thread you are quoting, you should trim off all subsequent entries.
>> Your response is directed to "Sleeker GT Phwoar", not me.
>
>Yes I know, I saw the error of my posting as soon as I hit the button.
>I shall not make that mistake again. If you see me do that again
>publicly disgrace me.

He will...LOL


--
Scott in Florida

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 21:43:49 +0100, Sleeker GT Phwoar
<carl.robson@bouncing-czechs.com> wrote:

>In article <a8d2715gb1fcrhe50mt8f3e40nnvvoa188@4ax.com>,
>NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't says...
>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 14:20:53 +0100, Sleeker GT Phwoar
>> <carl.robson@bouncing-czechs.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <notspam-AACD20.18164427042005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
>> >notspam@sp.com says...
>> >>
>> >> You are a fool!! Bush was a U.S.A.F. command pilot of an F-102.
>> >>
>> >He enlisted, but did he actually serve his whole term?
>>
>> According to his discharge he served his whole term.
>> >Was ever AWOL?
>>
>> According to his records he was not AWOL
>>
>> >Did his doctored records show that he was ever disciplined for not being
>> >there?
>>
>> I am not aware of 'doctored' records. Perhaps you are referring to
>> the 'doctored' ie fake records Dan Rather and CBS news tried to
>> use to get Kerry elected?
>
>I'm refering to the security service altered records that had dates,
>names and details blacked out. When the whole purpose of releasing the
>records was to show the names dates and details.

cite...

--
Scott in Florida

RustyFendor@mailcity.com, 4/28/2005, 3:18:20 PM, wrote:

> Better check the first number of your VIN. You will
> find it was only assembled in the US of mostly imported parts.

Isn't "assembled" and "made" synonymous? I would guess most American
cars have their parts made in foreign countries also.

--
No matter what happens someone will find a way to take it too seriously.

"Dbu,~'" <notspam@sp.com> wrote in message
news:notspam-4CC7A9.16460428042005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> In article <1114723230.4fa6ad8ea4941b329dcd964902ac9a24@terane ws>,
> "S Narayan" <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > "Dbu,~'" <notspam@sp.com> wrote in message
> > news:notspam-E82BFB.16131428042005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > > In article <1114721787.2dd806f8d2461af9c5dbf638951d654c@terane ws>,
> > > "S Narayan" <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Dbu,~'" <notspam@sp.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:notspam-980071.15001028042005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > > > > In article <1114709901.0e19604abb52c338093bad5e5e6e5dab@terane ws>,
> > > > > "S Narayan" <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >Face it, we are an inefficient country when it comes to personal
> > energy
> > > > > usage.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm curious to know what you think the solution to this may be.
> > Please
> > > > > tell me/us your thoughts as to what should be done.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll wait and check again in a little while for your answer.
> > > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Consumption is the name of the game! It keeps the economy humming,
or so
> > > > they say. Lots of ways to reduce consumption - we buy oversized
houses
> > (just
> > > > like the oversizing of everything else) which need to heated and/or
> > cooled
> > > > with central heat and A/C, our appetite for energy wasting
appliances
> > (until
> > > > the recent trend towards energy efficiency and the energy "crisis"
in
> > CA).
> > > > In general there is no energy efficiency awareness for the most part
(to
> > > > give an example, lot of people don't even have programmable
thermostats
> > and
> > > > thus are heating/empty homes), inefficient lighting and leaving
lights,
> > TV
> > > > etc on without occupants. Lots of people will spend money on a pool,
but
> > use
> > > > gas/electricity to heat the water! A simple solar water heater would
> > cost
> > > > ~$5k and easily save a lot of money in the long run. It doesn't take
> > much to
> > > > reduce ones consumption by 20-30% without giving up comfort. If you
> > tried
> > > > harder one could save even 50%. Energy has been cheap, but now that
we
> > have
> > > > to pay for it with imported oil or other limited natural resources,
> > > > conservation is the first step. If you travelled or lived abroad, I
> > would
> > > > hazard you wouldn't be asking this question.
> > >
> > > So your answer is to make energy so expensive that Americans will cut
> > > back their use. What about the rich that can afford to pay for high
> > > energy costs?
> > >
> > > How do you force some of the things you say are needed upon the
> > > consumers? Would this be taking away the freedoms that some of your
> > > like minded associates cry about with Bush and the patriot act?
Freedom
> > > is freedom.
> > > --
> > >
> >
> > The rest of the world is far poorer than us and they are not whining.
> > I give up.
>
> I'm not whining either, but seems like I hear much whining from the left
> side of the isle regarding patriot act and freedoms lost. I would think
> mandate to force people into small cars, and other harsh changes would
> go against the grain of some that are so worried about their freedoms in
> the first place. Would you agree?
>
> As far as the rest of the world being poorer, what could we do about
> that? Are you in favor of taking away our riches here in the U.S. and
> giving it to poorer countries? How would that be accomplished and who
> would oversee it? What would it mean to the individual U.S. citizen,
> would it mean a lower standard of living? More and higher taxes? What
> country would take our place, China?
> --
>

The global economy is already transferring the riches, it has happening as
we speak. China and India can now afford to compete for oil and convert to a
cleaner fuel economy as its middle class gets richer.

I gave some painless suggestions about reducing our personal power
consumption. Nothing about transfer of wealth or taking away "freedoms" or
forcing people into small cars. How severe a penalty or "loss of freedoms"
is it if we closed the CAFE loop holes? If you want to waste fuel by driving
a Hummer to WORK, go ahead, be prepared to pay a gas guzzler tax! We may
have the freedom to pollute or waste, other countries do too, but don't. To
the right, everything about conservation is seen as taking away freedoms. In
fact, it is quite the opposite, you will free yourself from big oil in the
long run. It takes a small sacrifice and some adjustments to ones way of
life. That is, if you want to be ahead of the energy issue in the long run.
If you are worried about the short term costs, then don't do anything, live
happy and die dumb.

S Narayan wrote:
snip
> I gave some painless suggestions about reducing our personal power
> consumption. Nothing about transfer of wealth or taking away
> "freedoms" or forcing people into small cars. How severe a penalty or
> "loss of freedoms" is it if we closed the CAFE loop holes? If you
> want to waste fuel by driving a Hummer to WORK, go ahead, be prepared
> to pay a gas guzzler tax!
snipped the crap

Ok. Your cars including Prius consume too much energy for the size of your
family. AND, your house is too large for the number of people living there.
An energy waster. So "We" are going to subject you to confiscatory and
punitive measures sufficient to make you reform your energy consumptions to
fit "Our" formula.

We are the New Communist government. Resistance is futile. You will
comply.

S Narayan wrote:
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> news:RT9ce.757$V01.266@newsread1.news.atl.earthlin k.net...
>>
>> Yeah ... everybody is wasteful except you. You are the shining light
>> showing us the way out of darkness. What a self absorbed narcissist.
>> Yes, that is redundant.
>>
>
> Getting defensive, are we?

We? You do have something crawling around in your head. I'm on the
offensive against self annoited, holier than thou, do-gooders.

Scott in Florida wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 19:55:41 GMT, "Philip"
> <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>> Just hazarding a guess ... could there also be an aversion to a
>> network of underground gas plumbing throughout the city with the
>> water table being so close to the surface and the hurricane factor?
>>
>>
> Well there is a natural gas line just across the street from me...
>
> I don't think water table or hurricanes come into it.
>
> My air conditioning system is the old style. It has electric heat
> strips in it for heating.
>
> A friend of mine has a new fangled heat pump. That thing is
> complicated and doesn't heat worth a sh*t!
>
> I like my stuff simple and easy to repair...just like my Toyotas...LOL

I"ve repaired a couple of heat pumps. The redirectioning valve that controls
the direction of refridgerant flow along with the electric heating elements
are always the weak sister on those things. They work best when the distance
between the heat exchangers is short ... like the ones you see in motel
rooms.

S Narayan wrote:
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> news:XT9ce.758$V01.393@newsread1.news.atl.earthlin k.net...
snip
>> "I should have spelt that out for the morons residing this group."
>> MY MY MY ... but could you be any more condescending? I'm sure you
>> will answer that soon enough. You're the self absorbed Prick in a
>> Prius. LOL
>>
>
> I didn't call you a moron (maybe you were trying to score points with
> the 'electricity use for heating' comment), in fact you are one of
> the few intelligent posters in this group, but feel compelled feel
> free to assign yourself the title if you wish.

You POMPUS ASS. Let us see how you now try to wriggle out of excluding me
from "...the morons in this group." YOUR words. Look pal, you are on a
crusade. Own that fact.

badgolferman wrote:
> RustyFendor@mailcity.com, 4/28/2005, 3:18:20 PM, wrote:
>
>> Better check the first number of your VIN. You will
>> find it was only assembled in the US of mostly imported parts.
>
> Isn't "assembled" and "made" synonymous? I would guess most American
> cars have their parts made in foreign countries also.

NOT the same. Assembled is only that. Complete components are collected in
one place and the car is "assembled" like a "kit" on site. "Made" is where
raw materials are melted, molded, forged, into complete assemblies and then
.... "assembled" into the finished product that you buy.

badgolferman wrote:

> RustyFendor@mailcity.com, 4/28/2005, 3:18:20 PM, wrote:
>
>
>>Better check the first number of your VIN. You will
>>find it was only assembled in the US of mostly imported parts.
>
>
> Isn't "assembled" and "made" synonymous? I would guess most American
> cars have their parts made in foreign countries also.

No. That's the nasty secret of the whole numbering system.
Assembled in Canda or the U.S. counts. Where the parts
that they assemble to make your radio or seats or whatever
come from - it's not factored in. Only where the finished
product that they ship to the auto maker is assembled.

In reality, it's mostly made overseas.

In article <Q%8ce.801$pe3.438@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, 1chip-
state1@earthlink.n0t says...
> Have you noticed any gas fired bathroom heaters? Or personal gas fired
> space heaters?
>
Actualy, in the UK, anything electrical in the Bathroom is almost
strictly Verbotten.

You can have a low amp 2 pin shave plug that self isolates when the
shaver out, you can have a ceiling mounted light (with or without
electrical heating element), as long as the switch is either ceiling
mounted, or mounted outside the room, you can have an extractor fan as
long as it is either operated by a high mounted draw string, or mounted
outside the room.

No normal electrical sockets are allowed.

Most UK heating is based on either a gas fired boiler (most common) or
electrical boilers (rare as vastly more expensive to run) providing hot
water to the taps (Faucets), and running a network of radiators through
pipe work. Under floor heating is getting more common from a design
point of view, and a lot of people are starting to turn back to solid
fuel/duel heating through an Ago cooking range with a back boiler.

Plus people are starting to look toward alternative energy such as
solar/wind/heat pump recycling or used heat energy on self build
projects as more and more people are designing their own homes.
--
"Sorry Sir, the meatballs are Orf"
The poster formerly known as Skodapilot.
http://www.bouncing-czechs.com

In article <1114633166.cd32873191055ff490334940efefc6f2@terane ws>,
Teelhumm@hotm.com says...
> This plan will just keep the
> price of oil low enough so there will be no incentive for change.
> My plan would have included real incentives even mandates
> for alternative fuels. The real problem is dependence on fossil fuels, not
> how to get more in the short run.
>
In the UK, Propane, or LPG started to become more popular, as it was
vastly less taxed, as a road vehicle fuel, because the government
claimed it was left damaging to the environment, and even offered grants
to partially or even fully cover the cost of fitment/conversion for cars
dependant on age.

Filling stations started fit more and more LPG pumps, people used them,
and usage and supply grew, then after 4 years of freezing the tax/duty
levels because of the "environmental benefits", The Chancellor suddenly
decided in one of his budget speeches about 2 years ago that "it might
not be so friendly after all" and placed a small duty increase on it. He
then went on to say that, he planned to bring it into line with duty
charged on other fuels, but didn't give a time scale. He hasn't made any
further rises yet, but I don't think he would dare with the threat of,
and current start of new rounds of blockade based fuel cost protests
over fuel costs. We are currently paying upwards of £3.82GBP an imperial
gallon for Premium unleaded (the lowest grade currently available at
95RON (91 Octane in the US I think). Roughly 75% of that is tax/duty
broken down as
Sales tax (VAT) on the fuel,
Excise duty on the fuel,
Sales tax (VAT) on the excise duty.

If it was for the tax on fuel, pump price per litre would be about 24-
26p a litre, or little more than £1.2GBP a gallon. Instead it is average
83.9p a litre.

--
"Sorry Sir, the meatballs are Orf"
The poster formerly known as Skodapilot.
http://www.bouncing-czechs.com

You guessed incorrectly. For a vehicle to be awarded a '1,'
like the Toyota based Pontiac Vibe, made in California, the parts
must be at lease 75% American. '4' is less that 75% but more
that 40%. A '5' indicates less than 40%, the content in a 5
could even be zero. Current Camrys are a 4 at best, most are a 5
and Tundras are all a 5 as well.


mike hunt



badgolferman wrote:
>
> RustyFendor@mailcity.com, 4/28/2005, 3:18:20 PM, wrote:
>
> > Better check the first number of your VIN. You will
> > find it was only assembled in the US of mostly imported parts.
>
> Isn't "assembled" and "made" synonymous? I would guess most American
> cars have their parts made in foreign countries also.
>
> --
> No matter what happens someone will find a way to take it too seriously.

Like I said, you don't ever get anything right. LOL


mike hunt



FanJet wrote:
>
> RustyFendor@mailcity.com wrote:
> :: Do you ever get anything right? The economy of the world runs on
> :: oil. The demand for it is ever increasing and until we can
> :: develop other viable vast sources of energy we will need MORE
> :: oil. If the available oil supply would for some reason drop by
> :: 20% the whole world would go into the deepest depression in
> :: history. Thousands of people will die of starvation and lack of
> :: water. We must increase our domestic supply until such time as
> :: other sources can be added to the energy stream just to make up
> :: for the increased worldwide demand before we can even think of
> :: replacing oil as the worlds primary energy source.. Anybody
> :: suggesting that there is anything available today or even in the
> :: near further to replace oil is a lunatic. The Presidents bill
> :: calls for more conservation efforts, the use of wind, clean
> :: burning coal, and nuclear power.
> ::
> :: Until hydrogen can become the energy source of the future, at a
> :: realistic price, in the real world those are the ONLY currently
> :: viable alternatives. In the real world the environuts will fight
> :: every one, including wind power because the blades kill birds.
> :: The nuts are indeed running the asylum, they think we can just
> :: conserve our way to energy independence.
> ::
> :: At last we finally have a President who is willing to take on the
> :: tough problems in this country and make the tough decisions to
> :: correct them, rather than follow the polls as do most politicians
> :: including his predecessor. What would you suggest the President
> :: do in this situation?
> ::
> *Finally*, he could display some of the honor he likes to talk about, admit
> he's the most colossal screw-up in the history of the office and leave.

Sleeker GT Phwoar wrote:
snip
>We are currently paying upwards of £3.82GBP an
> imperial gallon for Premium unleaded (the lowest grade currently
> available at 95RON (91 Octane in the US I think). Roughly 75% of that
> is tax/duty
> broken down as
> Sales tax (VAT) on the fuel,
> Excise duty on the fuel,
> Sales tax (VAT) on the excise duty.
>
> If it was for the tax on fuel, pump price per litre would be about 24-
> 26p a litre, or little more than £1.2GBP a gallon. Instead it is
> average 83.9p a litre.

$6.07 per US gallon. In my area of southern California, we are ALL up in
arms over $2.85 per US gallon for Premium grade which is a considerable hike
on our scale of things. The UK governments see fit to heap much of your
social program funding on motor fuel while our government socialists coerce
funding from more varied sources.

Sleeker GT Phwoar wrote:
> In article <Q%8ce.801$pe3.438@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> 1chip- state1@earthlink.n0t says...
>> Have you noticed any gas fired bathroom heaters? Or personal gas
>> fired space heaters?
>>
> Actualy, in the UK, anything electrical in the Bathroom is almost
> strictly Verbotten.
>
> You can have a low amp 2 pin shave plug that self isolates when the
> shaver out, you can have a ceiling mounted light (with or without
> electrical heating element), as long as the switch is either ceiling
> mounted, or mounted outside the room, you can have an extractor fan as
> long as it is either operated by a high mounted draw string, or
> mounted outside the room.
>
> No normal electrical sockets are allowed.
>
> Most UK heating is based on either a gas fired boiler (most common) or
> electrical boilers (rare as vastly more expensive to run) providing
> hot water to the taps (Faucets), and running a network of radiators
> through pipe work. Under floor heating is getting more common from a
> design point of view, and a lot of people are starting to turn back
> to solid fuel/duel heating through an Ago cooking range with a back
> boiler.
>
> Plus people are starting to look toward alternative energy such as
> solar/wind/heat pump recycling or used heat energy on self build
> projects as more and more people are designing their own homes.

Good grief. How paranoid and backward regarding electricity in bathrooms.

If what you believe to be true, were actually true, then
all those Camrys and Tundra with the '5' would have a
'1' instead. If you like to by Toyota that your privilege but
don't delude yourself or confuse others to think they are made in
the US when they are not. Honda, who actually builds cars in the
US and have a '1,' complained to the FTC about Toyota false
advertising for saying their cars and trucks are American made.
Now Toyota ads talk about the money they spend in the US and
their advertising includes the phrase assembled in the US of
world sourced parts. LOL


mike hunt



Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>
> badgolferman wrote:
>
> > RustyFendor@mailcity.com, 4/28/2005, 3:18:20 PM, wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Better check the first number of your VIN. You will
> >>find it was only assembled in the US of mostly imported parts.
> >
> >
> > Isn't "assembled" and "made" synonymous? I would guess most American
> > cars have their parts made in foreign countries also.
>
> No. That's the nasty secret of the whole numbering system.
> Assembled in Canda or the U.S. counts. Where the parts
> that they assemble to make your radio or seats or whatever
> come from - it's not factored in. Only where the finished
> product that they ship to the auto maker is assembled.
>
> In reality, it's mostly made overseas.

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
news:mMice.1064$V01.803@newsread1.news.atl.earthli nk.net...
> S Narayan wrote:
> > "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> > news:XT9ce.758$V01.393@newsread1.news.atl.earthlin k.net...
> snip
> >> "I should have spelt that out for the morons residing this group."
> >> MY MY MY ... but could you be any more condescending? I'm sure you
> >> will answer that soon enough. You're the self absorbed Prick in a
> >> Prius. LOL
> >>
> >
> > I didn't call you a moron (maybe you were trying to score points with
> > the 'electricity use for heating' comment), in fact you are one of
> > the few intelligent posters in this group, but feel compelled feel
> > free to assign yourself the title if you wish.
>
> You POMPUS ASS. Let us see how you now try to wriggle out of excluding me
> from "...the morons in this group." YOUR words. Look pal, you are on a
> crusade. Own that fact.

OK. So be it.You are a moron, the self "annointed" moron of
alt.autos.toyota.

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
news:kMice.1062$V01.57@newsread1.news.atl.earthlin k.net...
> S Narayan wrote:
> snip
> > I gave some painless suggestions about reducing our personal power
> > consumption. Nothing about transfer of wealth or taking away
> > "freedoms" or forcing people into small cars. How severe a penalty or
> > "loss of freedoms" is it if we closed the CAFE loop holes? If you
> > want to waste fuel by driving a Hummer to WORK, go ahead, be prepared
> > to pay a gas guzzler tax!
> snipped the crap
>
> Ok. Your cars including Prius consume too much energy for the size of
your
> family. AND, your house is too large for the number of people living
there.
> An energy waster. So "We" are going to subject you to confiscatory and
> punitive measures sufficient to make you reform your energy consumptions
to
> fit "Our" formula.
>
> We are the New Communist government. Resistance is futile. You will
> comply.

I gave you way too much credit. We have now reached the realm of labelling
liberals as communists or nazis. Just another neocon with blinders.

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
news:kMice.1063$V01.664@newsread1.news.atl.earthli nk.net...
> S Narayan wrote:
> > "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> > news:RT9ce.757$V01.266@newsread1.news.atl.earthlin k.net...
> >>
> >> Yeah ... everybody is wasteful except you. You are the shining light
> >> showing us the way out of darkness. What a self absorbed narcissist.
> >> Yes, that is redundant.
> >>
> >
> > Getting defensive, are we?
>
> We? You do have something crawling around in your head. I'm on the
> offensive against self annoited, holier than thou, do-gooders.
>

I like to get dumb neocons all riled up. Looks like it's working.

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
news:lbYbe.690$7F4.213@newsread2.news.atl.earthlin k.net...
> I was referring to my 2003 Corolla.
>

http://www.toyota.com/about/operations/manufacturing/

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
news:hx4ce.564$V01.515@newsread1.news.atl.earthlin k.net...
> ToMh wrote:
>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>> news:U0Xbe.549$pe3.480@newsread3.news.atl.earthlin k.net...
>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>> news:i8Vbe.804$GQ5.503@newsread1.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
>>>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>>>> "Scott in Florida" <NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote in
>>>>>> message news:312071p857osfguh0krumfvvoft40i2q75@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:39:57 -0700, "S Narayan"
>>>>>>> <narayan@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Eric Dreher" <ericd@cox.nét> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:5t0071d9qtki9q7168vrksjfdsr0jq5hic@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:09:34 GMT, "Philip"
>>>>>>>>> <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Furthermore, your ilk has not learned that goverment has been
>>>>>>>>>> wholly unsuccessful in mandating solutions that meet "demand."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> An interesting aside: Virtually no government program is
>>>>>>>>> criticized by major media EXCEPT the military.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The one that actually works.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The way it is funded it's not surprising it works. If only one
>>>>>>>> could overcharge the way they do in the civilian sector.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I want our military to have the very best weapons.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...and they have them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The one government program that is a required program in the
>>>>>>> Constitution and it works...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The constitution only provides for a militia to execute the Laws
>>>>>> of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions. It does
>>>>>> not call or support a militia to invade foreign countries or
>>>>>> any actions outside our borders.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Constitution (capital 'C') does not call for the Federal
>>>>> Government to do a LOT of the other things you want it to do more
>>>>> of either. How about that?
>>>>>
>>>> Your point?
>>>
>>> My point is like casting pearls before swine where you are concerned.
>>>
>> I was pointing out what the constitution says, not what you'd like it
>> to say.
>
> Not true and furthermore, you like a lot of other 'interpreted' liberties
> various Congress' have taken that are NOT specifically named in the
> Constitution. Not consistant you. You're not a Constitutional scholar,
> pal.
Obviously you are not either if you think the constitution mandates a
militia
to intervene in foreign lands.

>

>

But one can not buy a 2003 Carrrola, Toyota only sells 2005 today
and the d like most Toyotas are not made in America.


mike hunt



Philip wrote:
>
> I was referring to my 2003 Corolla.
>
> RustyFendor@mailcity.com wrote:
> > That was true at one time
> >
> > Philip wrote:
> >>
> >> Did you forget about NUMMI? My Corolla. Engine and transaxle from
> >> KY plant, sheet metal here, plastics here, electronic Delphi,
> >> assembled in Fremont.
> >>
> >> RustyFendor@mailcity.com wrote:
> >>> What Toyota do you own that was made in America?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> mike hunt
> >>>

> > but they no longer make the Corolla in California, its now made
> > in Canada.
> >
> >
> > mike hunt

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
news:4EWbe.357$HL2.186@newsread3.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
> ToMh wrote:
>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>> news:X7Vbe.802$GQ5.689@newsread1.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>> "Eric Dreher" <ericd@cox.nét> wrote in message
>>>> news:5t0071d9qtki9q7168vrksjfdsr0jq5hic@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:09:34 GMT, "Philip"
>>>>> <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Furthermore, your ilk has not learned that goverment has been
>>>>>> wholly unsuccessful in mandating solutions that meet "demand."
>>>>>
>>>>> An interesting aside: Virtually no government program is
>>>>> criticized by major media EXCEPT the military.
>>>>>
>>>> What world do you live in? That's pure stupidity.
>>>
>>> Eric's statement is mostly accurate. It's only after a program
>>> bankrupts some public fund that it gets criticized
>>>
>> Give me an example of a program that deserves to be criticized
>> and I bet I can found lots of media reports about it. Of course
>> the criticism need to be based on real facts.
>
> Multi generational welfare in WI
>
>
I wasn't aware that this was a government program. But if you do a
little search on welfare reform, welfare abuse, you can find hundreds
of articles on the subject.

>

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
news:N7Vbe.801$GQ5.546@newsread1.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
> ToMh wrote:
>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>> news:icTbe.297$BE3.245@newsread2.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>> news:3%Rbe.693$GQ5.208@newsread1.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
>>>>> Well dickhead ... your plan ... oh wait .... you don't have one. We
>>>>> are beyond saving ourselves into new energy. We have only
>>>>> closed refineries here in CA for the past 35-40 years. There is no
>>>>> shortage of crude. As usual ... you're full of baloney.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why no incentives for alternative fuels?
>>> snip
>>>
>>> Because there is no shortage of crude oil to be pumped from Mother
>>> Earth.
>> Sure there isn't. Problem is that people like you believe that.
>
> The oil companies believe it too. But you can't put crude in your fuel
> tank.
>
>>> Furthermore, your ilk has not learned that goverment has been wholly
>>> unsuccessful in mandating solutions that meet "demand."
>>
>> This administration certainly won't change that.
>
> Nor will any Democrat administration.
The country demand social reform in the 60's and
Johnson provided it, as did Rooselvelt in the 40's.
I'm sure you hate all that reform, but it still happened.

>
>

"ToMh" <Teelhumm@hotm.com> wrote in message
news:1114723178.a977c791bd4adb86678cecc1c691b187@t eranews...
>
> "Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote in message
> news:0O6dnavBdOOoruzfRVn-qg@ez2.net...
> >
> > "ToMh" <Teelhumm@hotm.com> wrote in message
> > news:1114635253.5013065fd5f894731c8dd0793eceff2d@t eranews...
> >>
> >> "Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote in message
> >> news:PrudnahxHsnha_LfRVn-1w@ez2.net...
> >
> >> >> I really don't have any problem with any single point of the plan
> > (except
> >> >> for nuclear)
> >> >
> >> > You should be interested to know that France produces about 70% of
its
> >> > electricity from nuke plants.
> >> >
> >> I'm actually not entirely against nuclear power, as long as they come
up
> >> with
> >> and acceptable waste disposal plan, but I haven't seen one yet that
isn't
> >> more politically motivated that scientifically sound. Even so , Nuke
> >> power
> >> would be a little more palatable if this administration supported green
> >> alternatives as fervently as it does fossil fuels and nuclear power.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Aren't YOU the one that said, "I really don't have any problem with any
> > single point of the plan (except for nuclear)?" Now you are saying that
> > you
> > are not against nukes, per se, but have issues with what to do with the
> > waste.
> >
> > Envirowhackos are a difficult group to appease.
>
> What can't you understand? What to do with the waste, is my main problem
> with nuclear energy.
>


I phrased that wrong. Aren't you the one that said, "I really don't have any
problem with any single point of the plan (except for nuclear)."

Then on closer inspection, the issue is the waste, not nukes per se. The
answer to yout objection lies, at least in part, with how Europe -
particularly France - handles the problem. Europe is considerably more
environmental conscious than the USA is, yet they are building nukes all
over the place there. One has to assume they have a safe and secure storage
scheme.



> >
> > They don't want to burn fossil fuel because we don't suck our own out of
> > the
> > ground and we are beholding to foreign sources. But when we try to suck
> > our
> > own out of the ground, they bitch that it will bother a calf, and it
makes
> > a
> > mess. There is no evidence that the calves are annoyed, and we can
> > mitigate
> > the mess if we give the proper considerations. And, the space needed in
> > ANWR
> > to suck the oil out is roughtly equivelent to a newspaper page unfolded
> > and
> > spread out on a tennis court.
> >
> > Coal is too dirty, but we have clean ways to burn coal. And we have
plenty
> > of our own coal.
> >
>
> I never said I was against using fossil fuels, If you payed attention
> instead of
> trying to lump me in with the environmentalist extremists, you would know
> that
> my problem with the Bush plan is it's lack of support for alternative
fuels
> as
> a way of reducing our need for fossil fuels.
>
>

Sorry, I wasn't trying to lump you in with anybody. My point was that it
doesn't matter what we do, somebody is going to crawl out of the woodwork
and complain. You might accept the problem, but somebody esle won't. We can
come up with a new solution that the same somebody will accept, but you flag
it as a problem.

If every solution has a problem, then we have to decide which solutions
create acceptable problems and which problems are too great to ignore all of
the solutions.




> > Wind is clean, and renewable. There will always be wind, but we can't
> > build
> > windfarms because the birds get chopped up or the view of the horizon is
> > spoiled. Ironically, it is the loudest voices against nukes and coal
that
> > complain about the view of the horizon.
> >
> I fully support wind farms as do most people. Your making up stuff.
>

No, I'm not. That is the problem.

There is a windfarm in California that is killing birds. There is a windfarm
in Mass. (off of Cape Cod) that is being objected to because it blocks the
view. Lots of people are complaining of one or the other, and some are
complaining of both.




> > Nukes are clean and reliable, but they do create a waste issue, this is
> > true. But, the waste can be secured and stored. Lots of countries with
> > nuke
> > plants have devised a scheme to secure and store the waste.
> >
> That's very debatable, but if an area benefits from nuclear energy, then
> they have no right to ship there waste someplace else that doesn't
> want it. I have no problem with build a nuclear power plant if the waste
> is deposited in the area that benefits from it.
>

They have every right. Just because there isn't a nuke plant in Nevada does
not mean that Nevada doesn't benefit from a nuke plant somewhere else. Most
of the complaints against storage facilities don't even come from the
residents where the facility is considered.





> > It doesn't really matter what the solution is, any solution has a
downside
> > that the envirowhackos object to. Different solutions garner a different
> > group of envirowhackos to forward their objections. The objections
seldom
> > come from the same places, except that those objecting to the view of a
> > windfarm also object to the fumes of the coal plants and the waste of
the
> > nuke plants.
> >
> You certainly can't please everybody, but I really don't know were you get
> this idea
> that the "same" people that are anti Nuke are anti wind farm. I suspect
> it's just the opposite. I personally think wind farms are pretty cool
> looking.
> The few I've seen make the area look better than the barren land they
> were put on. I would have a problem with destroying pristine land to put
one
> in, but that doesn't seem to be an issue.
>
>

I was making a gross oversimplification to illustrate the point. Sure, we
can pull individuals out of the crowd that don't fit the generalization. The
point is, we can't do shit because no matter what we do, somebody is going
to complain. There are those that complain about all of the options and
solutions, but like you, some complain about one and accept another.




> > A huge part of the problem in California - arguably the largest market
in
> > the USA - is that the enviro groups object to each and every solution
that
> > is set on the table for discussion. At some point, we have to take the
> > bitter with the sweet, and take an energy policy that does the least
> > damage
> > and move with it. We can't piss and moan that a bird gets chopped up if
we
> > are going to place greatest value on renewable sources. We can't demand
> > breaking the dependence from foreign sources, then complain about a
calf.
> >
>
> I have no idea what's happening in CA. But here in Oregon, I have not
heard
> any objections to wind farms. I'm sure you can always find someone that
> objects to anything, but not enough to change any minds.
>
> > We have to learn from our past mistakes, and build facilities that meet
> > our
> > need for energy, and can contain the leak should one develop. If we need
> > to
> > accomodate the calves by raising the line above the ground, or secure
the
> > line by burying it, then that is what we need to do to tap that source.
> >
> > Enviros can't spend the eternity bitching about what we are doing, they
> > need
> > to give constructive criticism about how to do it right. We can't simply
> > abandon these projects, we have to build them properly to mitigate the
> > risks
> > that are raised. Maybe Area A is going to be wasted from an
environmental
> > perspective, but we can set aside Area B for protections in the future.
> >
> > But, just because we set an area aside, we have to be cognizant of the
> > idea
> > that the protected area might contain some of what we need in the
future.
> > If
> > this happens, then we might have to use a small part of the area and
> > protect
> > what remains. Perhaps the protected space is adjacent to places where we
> > are
> > already developing, simply move the boundaries over and put the new
> > project
> > in the old boundary area. Some projects should be shot down, and not
> > pursued. But many projects are basically sound, but may require
> > modification
> > to clear the objections. When there are projects that can be made sound,
> > then we should work on them, and if there is simply no acceptable way of
> > completing a project, then it should not be done. But every project in
the
> > past 30-some odd years has been rejected in California, and this is very
> > bad
> > policy.
> >
>
> I agree that people have to make a compromise. They need to choose if
> the risks to the environment is worth it. If Californians choose the
> environment, then that's their right. I think the majority of people in
the
> US
> will err on the side of the environment if given the choice, and most are
> not
> enviro wacho's like you'd like to lump every body who cares about the
> environment in.
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> but without a long term solution, its just a plan to get through his
> > term
> >> >> and put more money in the pockets of his true bosses. We are going
to
> >> >> have
> >> >> to come up with a real solution
> >> >> sooner or later, but it's obvious it will never happen with the
> >> > Republicans
> >> >> in charge.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > The truth is that the automakers are already working on alternative
> >> > energy,
> >> > and the alternatives that they have already come up with can't be
> > produced
> >> > fast enough. I am not suggesting that hybrid technology is the end of
> > the
> >> > line when it comes to alternative sources, but the few hybrids that
are
> >> > being made have long lines of customers waiting for delivery.
> >> >
> >> That's true, but the government could speed things along by settings
> >> goals
> >> and incentives for alternate fuels, like Biodiesel, ethanol and
Hydrogen.
> >>
> >>
> > Perhaps. If the rest of the country used California blended gasoline,
the
> > Smog Days across the nation would drop dramatically, and fuel prices
would
> > drop because all fuel would be the same blend.
> >
> > As for the technologies, people are chomping at the bit to get at this
> > stuff, but it just isn't feasable to get it out. Hybrid is very popular,
> > but
> > the cars that it is available in are very small, with the exception of
the
> > new Honda Accord with the hybrid power plant. One of the problems with
> > hybrid cars is that they are expensive, and it takes tens of thousands
of
> > miles for the fuel savings to pay the added costs of the power plant.
So,
> > two things have to happen, the technology needs to be available on a
wider
> > range of cars and trucks, and it has to be cheaper so the pay off comes
> > sooner.
> >
> > A busniess looks at a factor called Return On Investment, ROI. If they
buy
> > something for X, and it saves them Y, then X / Y = ROI. If the savings
is
> > $100 per month, and the system cost is $1000, then the ROI is 10 months,
> > and
> > they justify the expense because by not taking the expense today, after
10
> > months, they are losing $100 per month that they could be saving.
> >
> > As a consumer, you should be looking at the ROI as well. But in the case
> > of
> > Hybrid, the ROI doesn't come until 70,000 miles or so. This is too long
> > for
> > consumers that are driven by the money. Consumers like you that are
driven
> > by enviromental concerns won't care about the ROI, so their motivation
is
> > that they are using less oil and polluting less, and this reduction in
> > their
> > personal impact is sufficient to justify the added expense. But, when
mayn
> > people are living from week to week, their motivation is the almighty
> > dollar. If they can recover the extra dollar in a year or two, then save
> > the
> > dollar every month thereafter, they'll buy the technology.
> >
>
> That's why government needs to drive it. This is simular to landing
> a man on the moon. The investment will pay for itself for generations.
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >> > Personally, I see fuel cells being used in homes as something to
> > explore.
> >> > Fuel cell technology does need hydrogen, or natural gas, but we
already
> >> > have
> >> > the delivery infrastructure in place for most homes in America. I
> > suppose
> >> > it
> >> > wouldn't take very much to adapt the infrastructure to deliver
natural
> > gas
> >> > to your fuel cell powered car or truck.
> >> >
> >> I think eventually we may get there, but the more we keep cheap
> >> gas around the longer things like fuel cells, Biodiesel, ethanal will
> >> not have the incentive to progress. That's my point about Bush's
> >> plan, not that it won't help in the short run, but that it does nothing
> >> to wean us off fossil fuels.
> >>
> >
> > The problem with some of the solutions is that they actually take more
> > energy to produce the fuel than the fuel produces, and when this happens
> > we
> > are taking a giant leap backwards.
> >
>
> But that is changing and if our government made a serious investment in
> it, it would change a lot faster.
>
>
> > Biodiesel - using cooking oil as diesel fuel - is kind of cool, and many
> > biodiesel operators collect used cooking oil that the McDs of the
> > community
> > have to pay to have hauled off but biodiesel operators will take off
their
> > hands for free. These people then go home and clean the oil and pour it
> > into
> > the car and drive to work or wherever they go. The trouble is, McD can
> > only
> > produce so much used cooking oil, and the oil doesn't produce very much
> > enregy, so the fuel economy isn't quite as good as regular diesel,
> > therefore
> > it will take alot of cooking oil as more and more biodiesel cars make it
> > to
> > the street. And, it takes more energy to make cooking oil in the first
> > place
> > than it takes to make diesel.
>
>
> >
> > When biodiesel is using used cooking oil, it looks pretty good. But when
> > the
> > cooking oil is fresh and clean, then there are costs that come up that
> > make
> > it look not quite so good. Yes, we can make more cooking oil, but there
is
> > only so much crude. This is a good argument. But, part of the mfg
process
> > of
> > cooking oil requires crude, and it requires more energy to make cooking
> > oil
> > that cooking oil creates in a biodiesel. So, another good question is,
is
> > this really a good idea or does it only look good at the first glance?
> >
> >
> Bio diesel is not raw cooking oil. Here's a website were you can
> get more info on how Biodiesel works. Again I'm not saying this is a
> solution, but part of the solution, and anything that can help our energy
> problem and help our farmers is worth a substantial investment from
> our government.
>
> http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/faqs/default.shtm
>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>