Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Rockies – It's all downhill from here...' started by HellSickle, Sep 29, 2012.
Bunker? I thought you had an entire "Compound".
Beer is good.
Hell do you use vanilla scented two stroke oil.
I think Wannabeeuro uses jasmine scented.
Best "Helicopters over my House" song ever
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/rNNk_3dcU3g" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Wind power in Texas is being developed but also highly touted and the touted and developed stuff was developed with federal support (and the foresight of Florida Power and Light). My brother in law is involved in a pyramid scheme to swipe people's money touting wind power (and I have told him as much ). Now about natural gas legislation, don't you like the combo of T. Boone and Harry Reid, which is backed by the Pres (not his job to make legislation, just sign it).
Isn't there a Texas forum?
Show some respect for the President.
I don't vote for him, but he's still my President and I call him President Obama.
Frankly I think Harry Reid is a retard, but I don't give a rat's patootie...yes, I had to check that spelling in Google...who teams up with who as long as they get the job done. T. Boone may be a Texan, but he's been a bit of an A-hole over the years too, but I agree with many of his pursuits in the wind and natural gas energy efforts. Man, around here the electricity produced by our wind farms has required a huge power distribution infrastructure upgrade...a good thing overall. I know quite a few people in my area associated with the wind farm boom over the years and not just construction folks. While wind energy obviously can't stand alone to supply the grid, it's a truly viable component of energy production in my area. I'm wondering when the next technological breakthrough might involve an ability for power storage to make it an even better source. Maybe a pipe dream I know, but some pipe dreams have come to fruition over time. We're going to have to think outside the box to achieve energy independence, and even that pursuit is probably a pipe dream.
Can't have it both ways Jeff. Although I find the conversation that FatChance, TNC and Doc are having very interesting and informative.
On the other hand I have been thinking about a 300 for quite a while now, need to get a newer bike for Meg first, but want something other then the 500 for harder single track and how is the 300 at the moto track? Also any different to get them plated?
Regarding the highlighted text, I wasn't aware that the two were mutually exclusive. I'll leave it at that
Re: storage, that is the big challenge. We need an inexpensive and recyclable battery technology. Amounts of Lithium are finite and not cost effective. A technology based on a plentiful element would be huge (carbon? ). Incremental advances continue, but large break thrus are what is needed. Any storage based on a thermodynamic cycle is inherently low efficiency. It really needs to be a chemical storage system.
And don't forget solar power, where some new breakthroughs are probably coming just like in integrated circuit development in the 70s to 90s. Also I worked in geothermal energy exploration and there is still a big resource in places like Nevada which can be developed. Here is my view of the energy future:
1)transition from coal and oil to natural gas
2)wind and solar energy research, development, and funding
3)geothermal energy as a fill in source and as a means to grow food in the wintertime
4)many more nuclear fission plants, which is a main key to energy stability
5)long term research and final development of fusion energy
6)strong efforts to reduce overall energy useage through efficient homes, cars, and industrial requirements
Sure, as soon as the President shows some respect for this country.
and yea, there's a central states section, but I'm closer to the rockies than I am the mid west
keeping the discussion cordial and facts based is probably the only thing that keeps this thread civil and from being punted.
Name calling of the elected President and lack of respect given the title is a slippery slope that will only divide people.
Doc - Of course the president does not make legislation, I never said he did. But presidents are expected to initiate, promote and lead the legislative process to get their agenda to fruition unless they want to totally rely on Executive Orders. Obamacare is a prime example of a president leading and getting his agenda passed by congress.. That was passed by both houses (without a single Republican vote, BTW) because it was Mr. Obama's over-riding passion (at the expense of focusing on the economy as he had promised the last time he was elected, IMHO). So, in a real sense, he did make that legislation reality.
The article you cited was 8 months old. Is there any update on any progress on that proposal? I would welcome the president to focus on the economy and realistic energy independence (especially natural gas) with the same zeal he displayed with Obamacare. That is what a leader is supposed to do if he believes in the issue and intends to back up his words with action.
My apologies to the civil
You are correct, the name calling, if any, should be done in the basement. I'll go back to reading
You've made the reference to "most derisive president since Nixon" three times. What is your basis for this? Do you have some quantifiable measure, or is this simply your opinion? Sometimes you've stated derisive, other times divisive. They are somewhat different.
Every time I hear statements like this repeated, I start to suspect that the author is simply repeating something he heard elsewhere. If so, this falls into the category of "repeat something often and loudly and others will start to take it as fact".
Edit: I mis-typed when I said "derisive" in a previous post or two. I meant "divisive". Sorry for the confusion and my occasional PUI...
It is my opinion based on being an adult during the time period. Also based upon how divided the country was at the time, much worse than now. In my experience, during the Viet Nam war was the most divided our country has been since WW2 and Nixon was in the center of that conflicted time and the cultural divide. There were marches and violent rioting in the street and people leaving the country to avoid being prosecuted for avoiding the draft. Yes, we have recently had the cute anti-Wall Street demonstrations, but they pale in comparison, again, IMHO. Sure, other presidents have been divisive (usually in direct relation to whether you voted for him or not), but I think a valid argument can be made that Nixon was the most divisive in our lifetimes. And I think Mr. Obama is the second most divisive as shown by the total paralysis in Washington. Even both Bushes, Clinton, Reagan et. al. were able to get things done with their congresses.
Who do you think the most divisive president was during that time? Wait, let me guess, does his name have a "W" in the middle?
Actually, I thought W was good at compromise, both as governor of Texas and as president. BTW, I voted for him both times. I didn't start voting for democrats until the tea party idiots took over the GOP.
hrm, interesting. I find myself more closely identifying with Tea Party than more of the traditional Republican ideals. In my view, Tea Party means don't spend more than you make - PERIOD.
I'm curious what you see in the Tea Party that is objectionable?
Oh, I think you've earned your Trolling merit badge with this thread
Same here, except I view the Tea Party as two seperate movements. There was the original Tea Party movement which was simple, pure and very bi partisan that the one I identify with and support. Then there was a faction that splintered off that was hijacked by Rand Paul and others. That faction is decisive, noisy and gets all the media attention.