I watched Bill O'Rielly last night

bobstod

All-American
Oct 13, 1999
2,282
11
157
83
Magnolia Springs, AL. USA
...and he made good sense in virtually everything he said.

Unlike the vast majority of posters in the other thread about Fallujah, he did not suggest nuclear weapons or carpet bombing. He said that we should evacuate the town of all its citizens, put them in camps somewhere; and then clean the whole place out. Destroy all the weapons found. Arrest all those tied to them. Then, I guess, quarantine the place and put it under martial law when the rest of them are returned to their homes.

That seems like a more American way to handle the problem than carpet bombing.

He addressed some other topics as well; oil prices for one. He said that neither Bush nor Clinton did anything to move us away from dependence on OPEC; which I think is true.

I don't think Fox News is "Fair and Balanced", any more than CBS or NBC. But I thought that on this show, O'Rielly was fair and balanced, and had some things to say that should be heard...
 

Pachydermatous

All-American
Feb 21, 2000
2,151
15
0
Birmingham, AL, Jefferson
Yes, Bill does have his moments of clarity. The worst thing to do is to do nothing. Even if we do no more than haul the population out, strip them naked and paint them red, white and blue it will let them know there's a price for exuberance.

His OPEC observation is right on. The problem is, what to do? They have the oil; we do not.
 

JH-ATL

Suspended
May 17, 2000
970
2
0
atlanta, ga
pachy

You know as well as I do that one of the reasons for our dependence on the rag heads is because the liberals have stopped drilling off the coasts of California and Florida and in Alaska. They then scream that oil prices are to be blaimed on President Bush. Typical demoncrat low brainer screaming.
 

Pachydermatous

All-American
Feb 21, 2000
2,151
15
0
Birmingham, AL, Jefferson
Kerrect, JH-ATL ---

That's the reason.

It's all very well to say, "let there be an energy policy." Then comes the job of writing in the messy details, and the dialog begins to resemble a swearing match among fishwives.

I noticed this week Kerry came out with his stunningly brilliant plan to solve high gas prices --- stop pumping oil into our strategic reserve. Say what?

The eco-nuts have a ready answer every time" "conservation." But this goes only so far, unless we heed Al Gore's admonition and abolish the internal combustion engine. Shall we institute gasless Fridays like the "meatless days" of World War II? Unless we are willing to don grass skirts and return to nature, sooner or later conservation falls afoul of the law of diminishing returns. Then what?

Alternative energy sources, chime in the eco-nuts. Solar power. Wind power. Methane and hydrogen to propel our cars. Perhaps this will eventually work in the age of Buck Rogers, but we are faced with the dilemma of filling our tanks with increasingly expensive gasoline tomorrow and next week.

Oil exploration and drilling --- lots of it --- seem to be the only practical ways out. And start building new nuclear plants. It's time to forget Chernobyl and Three Mile Island and profit from their mistakes. That seems to be a solid start for an energy policy. Any other ideas????
 

CrimsonNan

BamaNation Hall of Fame
Oct 19, 2003
6,501
46
0
Vestavia Hills, Alabama, USA
I watched O'Reilly last night too, and agree with him. Michael Savage had another idea, but I do agree will O'Reilly more.

Ditto, what y'all said about the environmentalists.

Can't handle this forum. Too many pop-ups and screen freezing.

For those of you so inclined, please write President Bush about the terrorist attack at:

president@whitehouse.gov
 

bobstod

All-American
Oct 13, 1999
2,282
11
157
83
Magnolia Springs, AL. USA
I'm not willing to wait until the 25th century for alternative energy sources.

The White House should be a bully pulpit for agressive expansion of our efforts to develop the hydrogen moter, and other energy alternatives.

Yes, we need to drill for more oil. But we don't need disastrous oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico. So be careful, and buy lots of insurance.

But GWB has done nothing to advance a national effort to find and develop new sources of energy; and neither did Clinton. Why? Because the oil companies and the automobile companies don't want it.

Somebody has to have the courage to buck them.

So far, nobody has...
 

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
29,547
34,574
362
Mountainous Northern California
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by bobstod:
I'm not willing to wait until the 25th century for alternative energy sources.

The White House should be a bully pulpit for agressive expansion of our efforts to develop the hydrogen moter, and other energy alternatives.

Yes, we need to drill for more oil. But we don't need disastrous oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico. So be careful, and buy lots of insurance.

But GWB has done nothing to advance a national effort to find and develop new sources of energy; and neither did Clinton. Why? Because the oil companies and the automobile companies don't want it.

Somebody has to have the courage to buck them.

So far, nobody has...
</font>
As I recall, didn't Bush request over $1 Billion ($1,000,000,000) to help research and develope hydrogen fuel cell technology? That's hardly "nothing"!
 

bobstod

All-American
Oct 13, 1999
2,282
11
157
83
Magnolia Springs, AL. USA
Did he? I didn't know about it.

Has he addressed the nation on the subject? Has he held a press conference, devoted to alternative energy sources?

I admit that I am not fully plugged in to the news; but if these things have happened, I missed them. If I missed them, John Q. Public missed them, too.

If the inertia is to be overcome, the White House will have to take a leading role.

I missed it if that happened....

And so did Bill O'Rielly.

[This message has been edited by bobstod (edited 04-01-2004).]
 

Pachydermatous

All-American
Feb 21, 2000
2,151
15
0
Birmingham, AL, Jefferson
In Utopia hydrogen would be the fuel. There's enough of it in the oceans to propel cars forevermore. We just have the problem of extracting it at reasonable cost, taming it and figuring out a way to use it safely in a car.

I played around with the stuff when I was a kid and can attest it is one hot tamale. Just one little spark and it goes off with a bang. Since hydrogen is invisible, odorless and tasteless, it would be difficult to detect a fuel tank leak until somebody struck a match. The future should be exciting.

But it is clean enough to give an eco-freak the orgasms. Hydrogen combines with oxygen to produce water vapor.
 

jdpas29

All-American
i could be wrong, but running everyone out of town to camps is probably not going to be a favorite at the UN or anywhere except here in the US for that matter. that may be a little on the fanciful side.

i think it's going to have to be done the bloody way. just like it is right now. you don't want the war to go good for us and be unbearable for the average iraqi citizen. it's the average iraqi citizen who is preventing an all out assault on americans as we speak.

i think, in general, people are UNDERestimating the sensitivity and speed of reaction that these people have. they should feel that they have minor victories here and there. utter domination will make america the enemy even for the average iraqi that supports us now.

 

bobstod

All-American
Oct 13, 1999
2,282
11
157
83
Magnolia Springs, AL. USA
I don't think the hotbed that is Fallujah is representative of the average Iraqi citizen. I think it is a stronghold for the dispossessed former Saddam faction. They know they have nothing to lose; they have made enemies of the average Iraqi, and they will soon die when they are robbed of their guns.

Interesting concept: letting them have small victories. But I don't think the average guy over there wants killing and continued warfare. They want it over.

Determined, positive, decisive action is needed in Fallujah. Not carpet bombing. Not mass murder. Just a complete old western round-up.
 

Mamacalled

Hall of Fame
Dec 4, 2000
6,786
22
157
58
Pelham, Al
Wow bob,
I think that this is like the third time that we have agreed. I don't think that we should bomb them either. I do think that we should shut down all exits, shut off all services ie. water, power, etc., until they cooperate and turn over the perpetrators. Then we should have a swift trial and have a public execution to those found guilty.
No Bush nor Clinton did much to solve the gas situation. I read an article today in the "Wall Street Journal" that basically said that Bill Richardson, energy secretary under Clinton was too forceful and made them mad and that Bush has been to "soft" with OPEC. I don't know what either could have done.
AS far as Bush's pledge to fund alternative fuel sources it is true. Now I don't know if the pledge has been followed up on or not. I am sure someone on here can find out.
 

Pachydermatous

All-American
Feb 21, 2000
2,151
15
0
Birmingham, AL, Jefferson
Mammacalled ---

"I read an article today in the "Wall Street Journal" that basically said that Bill Richardson, energy secretary under Clinton was too forceful and made them mad and that Bush has been to "soft" with OPEC."

Whether one is hard or soft with OPEC makes no difference. They hold all the aces, the oil. We need it and they know it. They also know we're infected with a band of eco-nuts who prevent us from finding any more of our own oil. I don't think they want to bankrupt us --- just keep the price high enough to bleed us to their profit.
 

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
29,547
34,574
362
Mountainous Northern California
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by bobstod:
Did he? I didn't know about it.

Has he addressed the nation on the subject? Has he held a press conference, devoted to alternative energy sources?

I admit that I am not fully plugged in to the news; but if these things have happened, I missed them. If I missed them, John Q. Public missed them, too.

If the inertia is to be overcome, the White House will have to take a leading role.

I missed it if that happened....

And so did Bill O'Rielly.

[This message has been edited by bobstod (edited 04-01-2004).]
</font>
Yes, he addressed this before, perhaps in his state of the union. it was also mentioned this pm on the radio.
 

bobstod

All-American
Oct 13, 1999
2,282
11
157
83
Magnolia Springs, AL. USA
Thanks, NT12, for the link. That sounds very good to one as inexpert as myself, and it was something I did not know; so thanks.

Now, as to whether 1.7 billion over five years is a sufficient committment; that's where my ignorance comes into play. I really don't know enough to evaluate that.

Also, I don't really know if that is just some pie in the sky comment made during a state of the union speech, or whether the money is really allocated.

That's not a smart-a$$ comment. I really don't know.

What I do know is that there has not been a lot of air time or newsprint devoted to our efforts in this area. You just about have to subscribe to Discover Magazine or Scintific American to learn anything about hydrogen fuel cells. I think that is a mistake by GWB and by Clinton before him. People should be hearing about this every day. There should be a sense of urgency about it. It should be like the Space Program under JFK.

And I think that the reason it is not, is because Big Oil and Big Auto are not ready to see John Q. Public getting impatient and making demands.

That may be an oversimplification; but it is the perception I have. And I'm not the only one....
 

Pachydermatous

All-American
Feb 21, 2000
2,151
15
0
Birmingham, AL, Jefferson
Bob ---

We're off into a complex subject, cars and why people buy them.

Gasoline engines aren't the only method of propelling automobiles. Over the years a lot of methods have been tried, even in one case using pig manure to produce methane which fired up an engine. Steam engines were fielded early in the 20th century but never caught on. Recently one company introduced a modern steam engine car but the buying public still remained apathetic.

In the 1970s Chrysler invented a turbine engine auto which could use kerosene or hair oil to propel it. I took a ride in one of their models and it was like a silent magic carpet. But for some reason Chrysler dropped the project --- maybe because of development costs. The big spinning turbine in its engine acted like a huge gyroscope leading to steering difficulties, at least that was the company line. At the same time there was no big outcry from the public demanding this miracle machine.

There are trucks, vans and buses on the highways today fueled by propane and natural gas. They've been practical items since the 1960s. Exhaust emissions are almost nil. Yet I have yet to meet one car buyer demanding a heap run on natural gas. One reason might be the difficulty an average driver would experience getting his tank refilled. There are lots of gasoline stations and very few propane stops. Vehicles using this fuel are mostly company fleets and are refueled by the company at the end of a run.

Then there are electric cars whose Achilles' heel is the batteries which won't take them very far for long. They're on sale right now in California but I haven't heard of any mobs breaking into auto agencies demanding this eco-friendly vehicle. Someone came up with a hybrid electric car which carries a small gasoline engine aboard that turns a generator to keep the batteries charged. I can predict a world of mechanical problems with this one --- at least I haven't seen the roads swamped with them lately.

Diesel-powered sedans were a short-lived fad with some companies. But again that supreme dictator of the automobile market, the car buyer, looked elsewhere.

So no matter what method of propulsion the engineers come up with, hydrogen, oxygen or uranium, it has to sell. Perhaps higher gasoline prices will spur many to reconsider alternate methods, but don't bet on it. If smokers in New York City will pay $70 for a carton of cigarettes, then you know there will be drivers willing to fork over $5 for a gallon of gasoline.

As for the oil companies and their pressures on research: one of the eternal urban legends I have encountered over the years is the "miracle carburetor." As the story goes, this unsung tinkerer has invented a carburetor which will get your heap 100 miles on a gallon of gas. The oil companies have bought up the rights to his invention are are keeping it locked up in a basement somewhere.

No one ever knows the name of this nameless genius, or when and where he invented the carb. But the story crops up year by year and believed by many.
 

bobstod

All-American
Oct 13, 1999
2,282
11
157
83
Magnolia Springs, AL. USA
Pachy's entrants into the "more efficient automobile" sweepstakes:

THE PIGMOBILE
Over the years a lot of methods have been tried, even in one case using pig manure to produce methane which fired up an engine.

THE TURBINE TOURING CAR
The big spinning turbine in its engine acted like a huge gyroscope leading to steering difficulties, at least that was the company line. At the same time there was no big outcry from the public demanding this miracle machine.

THE PROPANE PONTIAC
One reason might be the difficulty an average driver would experience getting his tank refilled. There are lots of gasoline stations and very few propane stops. Vehicles using this fuel are mostly company fleets and are refueled by the company at the end of a run.

WHY THEY DON'T WORK
So no matter what method of propulsion the engineers come up with, hydrogen, oxygen or uranium, it has to sell.

I understand that many things have been tried. Steam cars predated gasoline ones. But the point you make is valid: they have to sell.

The fallacy in your post, however, is that you seem to imply that they didn't sell because people preferred the internal combustion engine. That's not it at all. People prefer WHAT WORKS. Make a hydrogen cell auto that runs as well, and costs LESS; and you will have a winner.

Yes, that will have to be augmented by having hydrogen service stations as numerous as gasoline ones are now. A huge undertaking.

The alternative is continued dependence on Arab oil, and further damage to our planet.

One of my favorite characters in fiction, a simple man by the name of Samwise Gamgee, said this: "It is the journey as is never begun that takes the longest to finish"!

There are many problems to be dealt with. The oil companies and the auto companies will have to be fully involved; otherwise the economic impact will sink the economy. But my point is this: we should have been pushing this initiative for ten years or more. It is way past time to get started, in earnest, on the project. And if we are to accomplish anything, it will have to be led by the White House.

The auto and oil companies will not push for it, as long as the public isn't demanding it. Why should they? They have a very good thing going.

But once the fire is lit under the average american; once "Joe S**t the ragman" KNOWS that he is spending twice as much as necessary and poisoning the air to boot, when he could be using a fuel whose byproduct is water; then something will begin to happen.

That takes a bully pulpit: and the Oval Office is the best one there is...
 

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.