In article ,
" wrote:

What's next will be here when it's needed.

I guess you think god will provide us with what's next, rather than men
having to actually work at it.

On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 18:33:09 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

What's next will be here when it's needed.

I guess you think god will provide us with what's next, rather than men
having to actually work at it.

No, you don't think. That's obvious to all here.

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


No one has any problem with research. What bugs the heck out of many
is the government skewing the marketplace by taking tax dollars from
the many to impose half-satisfactory solutions on the few. You can't
waste much money in a laboratory, but to build a 10 Gw solar farm is
a big deal.

Some of us would rather the gubmint "throw money" at solar, et al,
than throw it at wars to secure our oil interests elsewhere on the
planet.

Huh?

Where have we thrown money to secure our oil interests elsewhere? The top 15
oil exporters to the U.S. a
Canada
Mexico
Saudi Arabia
Venezuela
Nigeria
Columbia
Algeria
Iraq
Angola
Ecuador
Brazil
Kuwait
Russia
U.K.
Indonesia

You have to get down to number 8 (Iraq) before you get to a place in which
we've "thrown money" at the country. We import about 2 million barrels of
oil a day from Canada and 340,000 bbl/day from Iraq. The top seven,
combined, send us almost 7 million bbl/day. Compared to that, Iraq's
contribution is almost negligible.

Which does prove, however, that if all the money spent on Iraq was to secure
oil, we made a terrifically poor investment.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Which does prove, however, that if all the money spent on Iraq was to secure
oil, we made a terrifically poor investment.

Have always found it interesting that the US is excoriated for taking
out a dictator for oil while the French (who it should be noted tried to
give SH a get out of jail free card by announcing a full two weeks
before the vote that they would vote against military action in the
Security Council) are let off the hook despite the fact that the French
oil company, ELF, had the conscession already in Iraq.
So, it is okay for the French to undermine the UN for oil.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 00:52:40 -0500, wrote Re OT
All this crap about hydrogen cars:

On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 17:16:52 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

No one has any problem with research. What bugs the heck out of many is the
government skewing the marketplace by taking tax dollars from the many to
impose half-satisfactory solutions on the few. You can't waste much money in
a laboratory, but to build a 10 Gw solar farm is a big deal.


We do not have to talk in theory about what you can do today. The
Germans are using state of the art solar plants in a government
sponsored PV utility system. The power costs 0.55 Euro per KWH to
produce, the customer pays 0.25 directly and the rest shows up in
their tax bill.

Those Germans are smart, substituting $0.55/kWh solar electric for
$0.05/kWh nuclear power. We'll be that smart someday soon.

No wonder the Chinese are kicking our ass.

" wrote in
:

On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 08:29:34 -0800 (PST), Harry K
wrote:

On Feb 6, 8:03*pm, Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,

" wrote:
Start drilling in Santa Barbara

Hasn't been too popular here since '69, but still, there's at least
a dozen offshore platforms now, compared to 3 when I got here in
'76. The NIMBYS and those of us you derisively refer to as greenies
really only want one thing: for the ****ing oil companies to
exercise a reasonable measure of precaution. They proved again in
the Gulf that they really do not give one flying **** about safety.

I've never seen a "greenie" yet who didn't want total shutdown of
everything. They do not understand the word "compromise".

That's why the founder of Green Peace left Green Peace. It was
co-opted by watermelons.


the communists of the USSR co-opted the Green movement back in the 80s to
combat deployment of nuclear missiles in W.Germany. They recognized it
would be a useful "front".

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Smitty Two wrote in
news
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


No one has any problem with research. What bugs the heck out of many
is the government skewing the marketplace by taking tax dollars from
the many to impose half-satisfactory solutions on the few. You can't
waste much money in a laboratory, but to build a 10 Gw solar farm is
a big deal.

Some of us would rather the gubmint "throw money" at solar, et al,
than throw it at wars to secure our oil interests elsewhere on the
planet.

Where might that be?
OUR "oil interests" are mainly Canada,Venezuela,Mexico.
Of course,securing the ME (or the world's sea lanes) helps world
stability,which is also in our interest.
It makes the US safer at the same time.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Vinny From NYC wrote in
:

On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 00:52:40 -0500, wrote Re OT
All this crap about hydrogen cars:

On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 17:16:52 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

No one has any problem with research. What bugs the heck out of many
is the government skewing the marketplace by taking tax dollars from
the many to impose half-satisfactory solutions on the few. You can't
waste much money in a laboratory, but to build a 10 Gw solar farm is
a big deal.


We do not have to talk in theory about what you can do today. The
Germans are using state of the art solar plants in a government
sponsored PV utility system. The power costs 0.55 Euro per KWH to
produce, the customer pays 0.25 directly and the rest shows up in
their tax bill.

Those Germans are smart, substituting $0.55/kWh solar electric for
$0.05/kWh nuclear power. We'll be that smart someday soon.

No wonder the Chinese are kicking our ass.


and how often is that solar power available?
how much conventional electric does it replace?
I suspect there's a lot of "downside" you're NOT hearing about.
Just like Holland's windmills.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 09:51:30 -0600, Jim Yanik wrote
Re OT All this crap about hydrogen cars:

Those Germans are smart, substituting $0.55/kWh solar electric for
$0.05/kWh nuclear power. We'll be that smart someday soon.

No wonder the Chinese are kicking our ass.


and how often is that solar power available?
how much conventional electric does it replace?
I suspect there's a lot of "downside" you're NOT hearing about.
Just like Holland's windmills.

Apart from the very high cost and very low availability, there's not
much downside to solar/wind. Of course, those two deficiencies alone
make solar/wind virtually useless except for "feeling good".

On Feb 6, 3:47*pm, aemeijers wrote:
On 2/6/2011 7:32 AM, HeyBub wrote:



Smitty Two wrote:
In articlef8udnTlLoNw4btbQnZ2dnUVZ_sWdn...@earthlink .com,
*wrote:

There is a basic law of physics that goes something like this: "You
can't run this country, or an automobile, off of sunbeams!"

You can make up all the supposed "laws of physics" that you want, but
IIRC it was law you studied, not physics. You keep spouting your
pessimism about alternative energy, but it's coming. People scoffed at
Wilbur and Orville, too. The fact that solar power is currently
expensive and inefficient just means that the technology is immature.

Yep. People also scoffed at the notion of cold fusion when two Utah
professors claimed they had done it. The "deniers" were correct. There are
any number of historical fools who have claimed to have the solution for
saving humanity. I'm reminded of the soy bean(?) fiasco in "Atlas Shrugged."

As to your notion that "expensive" = "immature technology," that's a
simplistic answer designed to encourage pouring MORE money down a rat hole
in the quest for the equivalent of perpetual motion. The physics is quite a
different matter.

In an 8-hour summer day, at 40 degrees of latitude, the earth receives about
600 watts per sq meter of solar radiation. Assuming 50% conversion factor
and the necessity to store for the evening and night, you'll end up with a
bit less than 100 kwh per sq meter of available electricity. That's enough,
in one day, to run a standard lightbulb for one hour (or, if CFLs, four
bulbs for one hour). If you had ten sq meters of collectors, you could run
that one bulb for ten hours. Forget about the TV.

(Physics DOES allow for greater efficiency in the above calculations by the
simple expedient of moving the earth's orbit closer to the sun.)

No, the best way to save energy is to eliminate background music in shopping
malls. Can you imagine how much energy it takes to pipe elevator music to
the 50,000 shopping malls in this country?

How many times have we had this discussion? Solar /= electric.
Electricity is just a very convenient way to move power around, but
there are plenty of other ways to take advantage of free sunshine. We
shoulda started building houses with sunrooms and heat masses and
superinsulation 40 years ago, when we saw all this coming. No, solar is
not the magic bullet, especially if you can only conceive of solar in
term of photovoltaics, or steam plants run by acres of mirrors. But it
is one of many different technologies that can answer part of the
problem. The high-tech answers will take some R&D, and I agree that the
gummint should not pound money down a rathole for expensive buildouts,
but some R&D seed money is probably justifiable. But until the high-tech
solutions become viable (if they ever do), we are fools for not taking
advantage of the low-tech solutions as well, especially the ones with
easily calculable cost-benefits numbers.

And, of course, reduce demand. Not to the point of living in a mud hut,
but there is no useful purpose served by a lot of the electricity we
use. There are mostly painless cuts almost everyone can make. *To expand
on your mall music example- why are their parking lots fully lit all
night, in most cases that I have seen? If they turned off all but a few
an hour after closing (so the rent-a-cops can still see), that alone
would save a pile of electricity and money. And on a residential level-
all these people with pole lights on their pole barns, that burn all
night- how much does a timer or motion sensor cost? (a personal peeve of
mine, since the only time I can see stars in this semi-rural subdivision
is during a power failure. )

--
aem sends...

I totally agree, new homes should be built to take advantage of
GEOTHERMAL HVAC, passive solar heating and super insulation. My in
laws built a home back in the 70s that is super insulated. House was
2700 sq ft in North Fl. Electric bill has only recently began to creep
over the $100/month mark. Geothermal is relatively cheap to install
during construction and will pay for itself in about 5 years,
installed in established homes it may take about 10 years for the
payoff but still a go deal.

Jimmie

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:

Smitty Two wrote in
news
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


No one has any problem with research. What bugs the heck out of many
is the government skewing the marketplace by taking tax dollars from
the many to impose half-satisfactory solutions on the few. You can't
waste much money in a laboratory, but to build a 10 Gw solar farm is
a big deal.

Some of us would rather the gubmint "throw money" at solar, et al,
than throw it at wars to secure our oil interests elsewhere on the
planet.

Where might that be?
OUR "oil interests" are mainly Canada,Venezuela,Mexico.
Of course,securing the ME (or the world's sea lanes) helps world
stability,which is also in our interest.
It makes the US safer at the same time.

It's absolutely staggering that millions of people as intelligent as you
are actually believe that we're in the ME to make the world safe for
democracy. But g'head, stay delusional.

Smitty Two wrote in newsrestwhich-
:

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:

Smitty Two wrote in
news
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


No one has any problem with research. What bugs the heck out of many
is the government skewing the marketplace by taking tax dollars from
the many to impose half-satisfactory solutions on the few. You can't
waste much money in a laboratory, but to build a 10 Gw solar farm is
a big deal.

Some of us would rather the gubmint "throw money" at solar, et al,
than throw it at wars to secure our oil interests elsewhere on the
planet.

Where might that be?
OUR "oil interests" are mainly Canada,Venezuela,Mexico.
Of course,securing the ME (or the world's sea lanes) helps world
stability,which is also in our interest.
It makes the US safer at the same time.

It's absolutely staggering that millions of people as intelligent as you
are actually believe that we're in the ME to make the world safe for
democracy. But g'head, stay delusional.


I believe you're the one with the delusions.
Do you still think Bush stole the 2000 election?
Or lied about Iraq's WMD?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 13:46:33 -0500, wrote Re OT
All this crap about hydrogen cars:

We are there to make the world safe for Israel.

The Arabs would sell us oil, no matter who was running the country
with the wells. The idea that we attacked Iraq over oil is ridiculous.
We only attacked them because we didn't like what Saddam was doing
with the money he got from selling his oil.

Well put.
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 09:43:08 -0600, Jim Yanik wrote:

" wrote in
:

On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 08:29:34 -0800 (PST), Harry K
wrote:

On Feb 6, 8:03*pm, Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,

" wrote:
Start drilling in Santa Barbara

Hasn't been too popular here since '69, but still, there's at least
a dozen offshore platforms now, compared to 3 when I got here in
'76. The NIMBYS and those of us you derisively refer to as greenies
really only want one thing: for the ****ing oil companies to
exercise a reasonable measure of precaution. They proved again in
the Gulf that they really do not give one flying **** about safety.

I've never seen a "greenie" yet who didn't want total shutdown of
everything. They do not understand the word "compromise".

That's why the founder of Green Peace left Green Peace. It was
co-opted by watermelons.


the communists of the USSR co-opted the Green movement back in the 80s to
combat deployment of nuclear missiles in W.Germany. They recognized it
would be a useful "front".

I guess useful idiots make useful fronts.

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:

Do you still think Bush stole the 2000 election?
Or lied about Iraq's WMD?

Sure. I also think 9/11 was an inside job. Have yet to see a credible
explanation for why not a single fragment of the plane that supposedly
hit the Pentagon survived, nor why WTC7 collapsed. (Or for that matter,
a credible explanation of why WTC1 and 2 collapsed.)

wrote:

We are there to make the world safe for Israel.


Israel can pretty much take care of itself.

The Israeli Defense Force (IDF) can field over 18 divisions of infantry and
armor.

The authorized strength of the the United States ground forces is 12
divisions (10 Army and 2 Marine).

Smitty Two wrote in newsrestwhich-
:

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:

Do you still think Bush stole the 2000 election?
Or lied about Iraq's WMD?

Sure. I also think 9/11 was an inside job. Have yet to see a credible
explanation for why not a single fragment of the plane that supposedly
hit the Pentagon survived, nor why WTC7 collapsed. (Or for that matter,
a credible explanation of why WTC1 and 2 collapsed.)


Well,that explains a lot.

a huge building drops to the ground,along with a full load of burning jet
fuel,and you think pieces of the ALUMINUM plane should survive in all that
rubble?
When the fires were hot enough to soften if not melt steel.
Yikes. You aren't rational.

ISTR that Popular Mechanics debunked the 9-11 truthers.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On Feb 8, 6:30*pm, Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
*Jim Yanik wrote:

Do you still think Bush stole the 2000 election?
Or lied about Iraq's WMD?

Sure. I also think 9/11 was an inside job. Have yet to see a credible
explanation for why not a single fragment of the plane that supposedly
hit the Pentagon survived, nor why WTC7 collapsed. (Or for that matter,
a credible explanation of why WTC1 and 2 collapsed.)

Well, I suppose if you ignore finding a motor, airplane parts outside
the building (parts of the landing gear IIANM), and the black box
along with body parts identified to almost every one of the
passengers, crew and hijackers I guess that idiotic statement could be
true.

Harry K

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:

Do you still think Bush stole the 2000 election?
Or lied about Iraq's WMD?

Sure. I also think 9/11 was an inside job. Have yet to see a credible
explanation for why not a single fragment of the plane that supposedly
hit the Pentagon survived, nor why WTC7 collapsed. (Or for that
matter, a credible explanation of why WTC1 and 2 collapsed.)

There WERE bits of the plane that were found. Here's ONE picture of many:
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A..._XRE7xW6_Xe35w

And even if there weren't any fragments, where do you suppose the plane
went? Miracled to an alternate universe? Downed on a remote island in the
Pacific a la "Lost"? Carried directly to heaven like Elijah?

The facts a a) The plane was tracked on radar until moments before
impact. b) Numerous eyeball witnesses saw a plane hit the building. c) The
plane - and the passengers - have never turned up anywhere.

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:

Smitty Two wrote in newsrestwhich-
:

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:

Do you still think Bush stole the 2000 election?
Or lied about Iraq's WMD?

Sure. I also think 9/11 was an inside job. Have yet to see a credible
explanation for why not a single fragment of the plane that supposedly
hit the Pentagon survived, nor why WTC7 collapsed. (Or for that matter,
a credible explanation of why WTC1 and 2 collapsed.)


Well,that explains a lot.

a huge building drops to the ground,along with a full load of burning jet
fuel,and you think pieces of the ALUMINUM plane should survive in all that
rubble?
When the fires were hot enough to soften if not melt steel.
Yikes. You aren't rational.

I'm talking about the Pentagon. The firefighters who responded found no
trace of an airplane.


ISTR that Popular Mechanics debunked the 9-11 truthers.

The official lies are widespread. That doesn't make them true.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

The facts a a) The plane was tracked on radar until moments before
impact. b) Numerous eyeball witnesses saw a plane hit the building.

Those are bits of the official story. I don't consider them facts, at
all. But g'head, take the last word, and the last beer, bullet, and
slice of pizza as well, as you are wont to do.

In article
,
Harry K wrote:

On Feb 8, 6:30*pm, Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
*Jim Yanik wrote:

Do you still think Bush stole the 2000 election?
Or lied about Iraq's WMD?

Sure. I also think 9/11 was an inside job. Have yet to see a credible
explanation for why not a single fragment of the plane that supposedly
hit the Pentagon survived, nor why WTC7 collapsed. (Or for that matter,
a credible explanation of why WTC1 and 2 collapsed.)

Well, I suppose if you ignore finding a motor, airplane parts outside
the building (parts of the landing gear IIANM), and the black box
along with body parts identified to almost every one of the
passengers, crew and hijackers I guess that idiotic statement could be
true.

Harry K

The official story relies on *ignoring* a hell of a lot of stuff. Out.

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

The facts a a) The plane was tracked on radar until moments before
impact. b) Numerous eyeball witnesses saw a plane hit the building.

Those are bits of the official story. I don't consider them facts, at
all. But g'head, take the last word, and the last beer, bullet, and
slice of pizza as well, as you are wont to do.

Yes, they ARE bits of the official story. For these "bits" to not compel a
rational mind of the great probability of the deliberative conclusion means
the mind not convinced is, well, not the sharpest can in the six-pack.

I noticed you a) claimed earlier there were no bits of the alleged plane
that hit the Pentagon and b) Snipped my reference to one of many photographs
completely contradicting your position.

Facts are, I'll admit, inconvenient.

On Feb 9, 5:55*pm, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,
*Harry K wrote:





On Feb 8, 6:30*pm, Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
*Jim Yanik wrote:

Do you still think Bush stole the 2000 election?
Or lied about Iraq's WMD?

Sure. I also think 9/11 was an inside job. Have yet to see a credible
explanation for why not a single fragment of the plane that supposedly
hit the Pentagon survived, nor why WTC7 collapsed. (Or for that matter,
a credible explanation of why WTC1 and 2 collapsed.)

Well, I suppose if you ignore finding a motor, airplane parts outside
the building (parts of the landing gear IIANM), and the black box
along with body parts identified to almost every one of the
passengers, crew and hijackers I guess that idiotic statement could be
true.

Harry K

The official story relies on *ignoring* a hell of a lot of stuff. Out.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So you just ignore the evidence and continue with your lies?

Harry K

On Feb 8, 5:52*am, wrote:
On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 17:16:52 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

No one has any problem with research. What bugs the heck out of many is the
government skewing the marketplace by taking tax dollars from the many to
impose half-satisfactory solutions on the few. You can't waste much money in
a laboratory, but to build a 10 Gw solar farm is a big deal.

We do not have to talk in theory about what you can do today. The
Germans are using state of the art solar plants in a government
sponsored PV utility system. The power costs 0.55 Euro per KWH to
produce, the customer pays 0.25 directly and the rest shows up in
their tax bill.

The same scheme is running in the UK. Anyone can put panels on their
roof.
The return works out at around 8% on outlay.

On Feb 8, 12:26*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

No one has any problem with research. What bugs the heck out of many
is the government skewing the marketplace by taking tax dollars from
the many to impose half-satisfactory solutions on the few. You can't
waste much money in a laboratory, but to build a 10 Gw solar farm is
a big deal.

Some of us would rather the gubmint "throw money" at solar, et al,
than throw it at wars to secure our oil interests elsewhere on the
planet.

Huh?

Where have we thrown money to secure our oil interests elsewhere? The top 15
oil exporters to the U.S. a
Canada
Mexico
Saudi Arabia
Venezuela
Nigeria
Columbia
Algeria
Iraq
Angola
Ecuador
Brazil
Kuwait
Russia
U.K.
Indonesia

You have to get down to number 8 (Iraq) before you get to a place in which
we've "thrown money" at the country. We import about 2 million barrels of
oil a day from Canada and 340,000 bbl/day from Iraq. The top seven,
combined, send us almost 7 million bbl/day. Compared to that, Iraq's
contribution is almost negligible.

Which does prove, however, that if all the money spent on Iraq was to secure
oil, we made a terrifically poor investment.

Iraqs oil industry was devastated. I t will be more in future.

On Feb 8, 12:48*pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

*"HeyBub" wrote:
Which does prove, however, that if all the money spent on Iraq was to secure
oil, we made a terrifically poor investment.

* Have always found it interesting that the US is excoriated for taking
out a dictator for oil while the French (who it should be noted tried to
give SH a get out of jail free card by announcing a full two weeks
before the vote that they would vote against military action in the
Security Council) are let off the hook despite the fact that the French
oil company, ELF, had the conscession already in Iraq.
* * So, it is okay for the French to undermine the UN for oil.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
*---PJ O'Rourke

The US supports financially many dictators. Stupid idea as they are
now discovering in Egypt. But I suppose they need someone to torture
prisoners.

On Feb 8, 1:27*pm, Vinny From NYC wrote:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 00:52:40 -0500, wrote Re OT
All this crap about hydrogen cars:

On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 17:16:52 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

No one has any problem with research. What bugs the heck out of many is the
government skewing the marketplace by taking tax dollars from the many to
impose half-satisfactory solutions on the few. You can't waste much money in
a laboratory, but to build a 10 Gw solar farm is a big deal.

We do not have to talk in theory about what you can do today. The
Germans are using state of the art solar plants in a government
sponsored PV utility system. The power costs 0.55 Euro per KWH to
produce, the customer pays 0.25 directly and the rest shows up in
their tax bill.

Those Germans are smart, substituting $0.55/kWh solar electric for
$0.05/kWh nuclear power. *We'll be that smart someday soon.

No wonder the Chinese are kicking our ass.

Where did you get $0.05? That is incorrect.
Also the prices are in Euros and 0.55 is a subsidised price.

On Feb 8, 5:53*pm, Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
*Jim Yanik wrote:





Smitty Two wrote in
news

In article ,
*"HeyBub" wrote:

No one has any problem with research. What bugs the heck out of many
is the government skewing the marketplace by taking tax dollars from
the many to impose half-satisfactory solutions on the few. You can't
waste much money in a laboratory, but to build a 10 Gw solar farm is
a big deal.

Some of us would rather the gubmint "throw money" at solar, et al,
than throw it at wars to secure our oil interests elsewhere on the
planet.

Where might that be?
OUR "oil interests" are mainly Canada,Venezuela,Mexico.
Of course,securing the ME (or the world's sea lanes) helps world
stability,which is also in our interest.
It makes the US safer at the same time.

It's absolutely staggering that millions of people as intelligent as you
are actually believe that we're in the ME to make the world safe for
democracy. But g'head, stay delusional.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There is no democracy in the ME, nor will there be. Niether does the
US want it.

On Feb 8, 6:46*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 09:53:27 -0800, Smitty Two





wrote:
In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:

Smitty Two wrote in
news

In article ,
*"HeyBub" wrote:

No one has any problem with research. What bugs the heck out of many
is the government skewing the marketplace by taking tax dollars from
the many to impose half-satisfactory solutions on the few. You can't
waste much money in a laboratory, but to build a 10 Gw solar farm is
a big deal.

Some of us would rather the gubmint "throw money" at solar, et al,
than throw it at wars to secure our oil interests elsewhere on the
planet.

Where might that be?
OUR "oil interests" are mainly Canada,Venezuela,Mexico.
Of course,securing the ME (or the world's sea lanes) helps world
stability,which is also in our interest.
It makes the US safer at the same time.

It's absolutely staggering that millions of people as intelligent as you
are actually believe that we're in the ME to make the world safe for
democracy. But g'head, stay delusional.

We are there to make the world safe for Israel.

The Arabs would sell us oil, no matter who was running the country
with the wells. The idea that we attacked Iraq over oil is ridiculous.
We only attacked them because we didn't like what Saddam was doing
with the money he got from selling his oil.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You attacked Saddam to protect your Jewish Fascist friends.

harry wrote:

Huh?

Where have we thrown money to secure our oil interests elsewhere?
The top 15 oil exporters to the U.S. a
Canada
Mexico
Saudi Arabia
Venezuela
Nigeria
Columbia
Algeria
Iraq
Angola
Ecuador
Brazil
Kuwait
Russia
U.K.
Indonesia

You have to get down to number 8 (Iraq) before you get to a place in
which we've "thrown money" at the country. We import about 2 million
barrels of oil a day from Canada and 340,000 bbl/day from Iraq. The
top seven, combined, send us almost 7 million bbl/day. Compared to
that, Iraq's contribution is almost negligible.

Which does prove, however, that if all the money spent on Iraq was
to secure oil, we made a terrifically poor investment.

Iraqs oil industry was devastated. I t will be more in future.

Ah! That must be the "investment" our president is promoting.

harry wrote:

You attacked Saddam to protect your Jewish Fascist friends.

Should we have attacked Sadaam to protect our Jewish Fascist ENEMIES?

That would have been silly.

harry wrote:

There is no democracy in the ME, nor will there be. Niether does the
US want it.

It's not like they don't know what it is; The middle east lived under
British and French rule for over fifty years and were well exposed to
democracy.

Of the fifty-odd Muslim countries, maybe three are democracies (Turkey,
Malaysia, Indonesia). The rest are theocracies (Iran), monarchies (Jordan,
Tunisia), oligarchies (Egypt), militarists (Pakistan, Lybia), or anarchies
(Sudan, Somalia).

Iraq is on the cusp - could go either way.

wrote:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 06:27:25 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

harry wrote:

You attacked Saddam to protect your Jewish Fascist friends.

Should we have attacked Sadaam to protect our Jewish Fascist ENEMIES?

That would have been silly.


It is a bi-polar relationship. Our "friends" have no problem shooting
at us and doing things that are bad for our interests.

We're a forgiving nation.

Heck, my neighbor's wife forgave him for shooting at HER.