McCain flips Rand and other conservatives the bird

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Re: McCain flips Rand and other conservatives the bird

Well, McCain has shown his socialist, liberal tendencies that he believes gov't has a role in the free market. More to the point, he goes directly with Ty and against Rand.

McCain to offer a "$300 million prize for the development of a battery package that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars."

You read that right: McCain wants the U.S. government to offer $300 million for the development of a car battery that is 30% cheaper than current technology. As the Senator pointed out in a speech at California State University, Fresno: “that’s one dollar, one dollar, for every man, woman and child in the U.S. . .A small price to pay for helping to break the back of our oil dependency. . .’’

I am OUTRAGED. How can this be? He actually wants the gov't involved? Fucking commie.

Nice try. 300 mil for a COMPETITION for a battery? Sounds like a good idea to me. Far better than a no-bid contract as part of an earmark on an unrelated bid. even better than a competitive bid for a new plane, for example. Any business or individual who wants the reward has to produce the battery before they get it. This type of thing, handled in the normal way, likely as a military project, might be less efficient. As an incentive-based project, especially with a low cost for the government, it's forward thinking. But, if you're going to invest in an energy policy that stresses electric, then the government must support upgrading the electrical grid, support increased nuke reactor licensing and/or more coal burning plants. McCain supports more nuke plants. With 100 nuke plants and a push towards electric cars, we could break the back of foreign oil, with respect to the U.S. in the next 30 years. Given the likely increase in demand for oil in China and India, McCain's is the smart path. Obama is opposed to nukes, and is opposed to developing a nation storage site at Yucca Mt. McCain, once again, is in the lead, and completely correct on yet another issue, just like war policy in general and the Surge in Iraq specifically.

Hilarious...when i suggested the same thing..and said we need an energy policy...you were up in arms. the gov't shouldn't be involved.

[Kiwon]

Free market, profit-incentive competition is bad policy for libs.

Instead they decree that government oversight from such experts as perspective "Energy-Czar" Al Gore is needed (I'm going to be sick).

Congress is at a 9% approval rating yet Nancy Pelosi announced that President Bush is a failure in every area. He's done nothing right in 7 years.

Not to worry, though. A savior is coming and Barack's 10 years in the White House will not only "heal the planet" but put the whole universe in good shape as well.

[mraynrand]

Re: McCain flips Rand and other conservatives the bird

Well, McCain has shown his socialist, liberal tendencies that he believes gov't has a role in the free market. More to the point, he goes directly with Ty and against Rand.

McCain to offer a "$300 million prize for the development of a battery package that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars."

You read that right: McCain wants the U.S. government to offer $300 million for the development of a car battery that is 30% cheaper than current technology. As the Senator pointed out in a speech at California State University, Fresno: “that’s one dollar, one dollar, for every man, woman and child in the U.S. . .A small price to pay for helping to break the back of our oil dependency. . .’’

I am OUTRAGED. How can this be? He actually wants the gov't involved? Fucking commie.

Nice try. 300 mil for a COMPETITION for a battery? Sounds like a good idea to me. Far better than a no-bid contract as part of an earmark on an unrelated bid. even better than a competitive bid for a new plane, for example. Any business or individual who wants the reward has to produce the battery before they get it. This type of thing, handled in the normal way, likely as a military project, might be less efficient. As an incentive-based project, especially with a low cost for the government, it's forward thinking. But, if you're going to invest in an energy policy that stresses electric, then the government must support upgrading the electrical grid, support increased nuke reactor licensing and/or more coal burning plants. McCain supports more nuke plants. With 100 nuke plants and a push towards electric cars, we could break the back of foreign oil, with respect to the U.S. in the next 30 years. Given the likely increase in demand for oil in China and India, McCain's is the smart path. Obama is opposed to nukes, and is opposed to developing a nation storage site at Yucca Mt. McCain, once again, is in the lead, and completely correct on yet another issue, just like war policy in general and the Surge in Iraq specifically.

Hilarious...when i suggested the same thing..and said we need an energy policy...you were up in arms. the gov't shouldn't be involved.

Go ahead and dig up the thread if you care. I'm guessing you're view was to have government take over - maybe build a solar panel to cover all of Nevada or something like that. The government is involved and strongly influences energy use. The best thing they can do in general is get out of the way and let the market work. But the reality that has to be dealt with is that the government influences energy policy all over the place (through research grants, EPA, drilling restrictions, power plant licencing, etc.) and thus influences the market. May as well have it influence in a positive way, through incentive-based methods, just so long as it isn't a market stifling takeover.

[HowardRoark]

I think it was about a year ago that I recommended that the Gov’t take the $500,000,000 that the Nazi, child hating, dumb, oilman, George Bush currently earmarks for “Green Sciences” and offer it up to the first person/organization that solves the “so-called” problem.

I guess McCain was reading OT: Movie Recommendation too.

I think it is rather Solomonesque. Let’s see who the real Greenies are; if the problem is solved will they really be happy? Where will some of these assclowns make a living?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Well,, here we go rand:

I seem to recall a republican led gov't in the 80s that destroyed whatever cohesive enery plan that was trying to be implemented by a fairly ineffective democrat president. A president who really fell down in terms of picking staff and working with congress to implement those ideas

Carter, who was a major proponent of taking the oil industry out of U.S. foreign policy, solar energy, and controversially nuclear energy.

Carter was a major proponent of coal and nuke power. He created the Dep't of Energy.

Oil imports plummeted during the Carter administration. Renewable energy research skyrocketed. Cars got more miles per gallon of gas. Thermostats were lowered to 55 degrees at night. On Feb. 2, 1977, Carter donned a wool cardigan and asked a national TV audience to conserve energy. Two months later, he likened America's struggle to reduce Middle Eastern oil imports to the "moral equivalent of war."

Conserving...something that a current VP dismissed...may be a personal virtue.

This, of course, became fodder for the repub party...ie, the "malaise" speech. But, to be fair...term first coined by Teddy Kennedy.

Ethanol, biodiesel, solar and other alternative fuels supply no more energy than they did in 1980.

Reagan in 1986 took out the solar panels off the white house. That, my friend, is a major symbol..or repudiation of a previous admin...of how we are looking progressively forward.

Reagan halved the Energy Department's conservation and alternative fuels budget. Spending on photovoltaic research dropped by two-thirds. Energy tax credits for homeowners disappeared. Reagan rolled back fuel-efficiency standards for cars.

You can praise RR for things he did well..restore pride, defeat the USSR (even if i and others dont' agree), etc...but, a fair and accurate assesment demands that he and the repub party be held accountable for his destructive policies as well.

This current admin has yet to ask anything from US. Remember, self sacrifice...it helped us win a WW2. Has this gov't asked us to do one thing that would drastically reduce our oil consumption. Nope.

What should Bush do? Abandon Exxon and Halliburton and do what's good for this country and good for the American people.

It is in our own best interest to lessen our demand on oil. Take away power from those crazy, unstable countries...and return us to self sufficiency, and foreign policy that isn't dependent on oil.

No mention of solar..or gov't leading/doing it all. Just of having a policy.

Rand:

Nice job, Tyrone.

It's all up to the government. Reagan taking the solar panels off prevented anyone from breakthrough research in solar energy. Without government, there can be no advancement in research and discovery. Jimma was all for Nuke plants. That's why he pushed for the construction of hundreds of new plants despite the thousands of dead lying in the streets following three mile island - and the lefty obstruction due to fears of a China Syndrome. Your cute little tag line about religions could easily apply to your religious faith in government - if only the liberal were in charge, all problems would be magically solved. I imagine that you really believe the same thing that Obama believes - that IF ONLY the Iraq war money had gone to engine research, we'd have an emission-free, non-oil burning engine powering all our cars, running on fuel that is obtained with zero environmental impact. Perhaps that's another throw back to the 70s - you'd fit in well on Fantasy Island. Still, I'm certain with enough tax money, the government will come up with the zero-point electrical energy engine based on the wish to have something like it, and Jimma Carter, sitting in his 54 degree living room in his sweater will be smiling.

Ty:

1. No it isn't up only up to the gov't. HOwever my post was in response to Leaper's point about a cohesive energy policy.Hmm, who should determine the energy policy.

What? The gov't!! Shocking. You mean the Dep't of Energy would actually perform this..and lead us? Wow.

2. Soar panels. The point is that it makes a statement to the people. Let me dumb it down for you since it is obvious that is what it takes. When, a previously hat wearing country, saw JFK without a hat..voila..hat sales plummeted. Or, do you suppose the nation's interest in cowboy wear and brown suits was by accident when RR was prez.

What? You think that the country takes it's cues from the president? Shocking. that the man or woman we elect to lead us might have some cultural/social/etc. impact on the way we do things. I, for one, can't believe that.

3. Initiatives were started in the late 70s. They were abandoned or destroyed by RR. That can't be dismissed, no matter how you try. For example, ethanol research was started under Carter, but was killed by RR and cheap oil prices. Is ethanol the solution now..most likely not. But, who knows where we would be with 25 years of solid research.

Let me repeat..since it is fun to watch you ignore this part..since you have no answer.

Reagan halved the Energy Department's conservation and alternative fuels budget. Spending on photovoltaic research dropped by two-thirds. Energy tax credits for homeowners disappeared. Reagan rolled back fuel-efficiency standards for cars.

I always know when a conservative has lost an argument. They resort to sarcasm, cliches, and labeling people as living on fantasy island.

I fair and balanced post is what i gave..noting Carter's problems. You gave back...well,..not exactly sure. But, it wasn't even on the same playing field.

Rand:

No, you talked about sweaters and that Carter had a solar panel on his roof. Now you parallel a president wear a hat to Carter having a solar panel. Tell me, did sweater sales go up after Jimma appeared in one? Again, the point is that you led with the government - with the implication that the reduction of government research necessarily doomed solar and ethanol research, ignoring the fact that there innumerable research paths the feds fund that lead to nothing (AIDS vaccine anyone?). Throwing money at a problem, specifically through the government is no guarantee of success - in most cases it leads to massive amounts of money spent for less gain than the private sector. Money in the private sector is no guarantee either. That's the point. Who knows though, Barak might ride around in his magical fuel cell car and that may result in the technology appearing out of thin air, because we wish it. But it's clear that your view is the government leading is the solution. As if there isn't enough 'solid research' going on with ethanol and solar.

well, loser....i directly said...no not all the gov't. Never proposed gov't anything...except a POLICY. Pretty much exactly what McCain is doing..now.

Time for you to go.

[mraynrand]

Ty:

1. No it isn't up only up to the gov't.

Good enough. But the point still remains that it looks very much that you think government leading through energy policy is the best path. The Government will decide which types of alternative fuels will be funded and which won't by virtue of research dollars, will decide which fuels will be used by controlling licensing of nuke plants, coal plants, drilling, and by throwing up endless environmental impact studies for all sorts of energy sources - even for SOLAR and WIND farms.

Granted that I went on a rant re: Carter, but your 'commies' remark shows that you're over the edge the opposite way - as though I believe any intervention or involvement by the government is necessarily bad. It's not, and practically speaking it's impossible to not have some involvement; however my view of the government is that it's far better to have less involvement than more. Get out of the way for the most part and let the people innovate and respond to markets as much as possible. Right now it seems to me that government is an impediment to solutions to the energy problems. I suspect under Obama, that all sorts of monies will be dedicated to alternative fuels and alt. fuels research, and use of current, energies will be increasingly hampered. But there's no guarantee that any of those decisions will be made re: what is practical (wind and solar and biofuels have some limited value in certain areas, but at present technologies and supplies are not capable or profitable enough to provide the country with enough fuel).

It seems to me that the left has made up it's mind that Global Warming is a dire threat and any carbon emitting fuels will be blocked (of course this makes opposition to nuke plants almost incomprehensible). In the meantime, our economy, which depends on a multi-trillion dollar fossil fuel infrastructure, suffers.

It think the practical solutions are to allow drilling, allow nuke plant construction, allow clean coal plants, and then fund through incentives all sorts of alternative fuel research. Once you have the big breakthrough on (for example) more efficient solar, or bioengineering to create soy or rapeseed plants that can kick out 1000X the hydrocarbons or normal plants, or fourth generation nuke reactors, etc., you let those take over. Also, you allow the relatively high price of fuel work on the market - people are already moving to more fuel efficient cars, for example - rather than having a government mandate (CAFE standards). I'm opposed to government dictating energy policy favoring ideology (e.g. alternative fuels are better no matter what the practicality or even drill no matter what the environmental consequences or actual output) over practicality.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

A simple, "i was wrong" woulda sufficed.

Stop projecting what you think i think.