Political signs

Page 2 of 11  
wrote:

you go right ahead in cutting back.
global warming is a bunch of nonsense.
we need more nuclear power plants.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

hence...we're screwed

agreed about nuclear tho, but i don't understand....if global warming is "nonsense" why not more coal plants?
Watch "Heat":
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/heat /
olddog
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
olddog wrote:

I agree whole heartedly that we cannot go on consuming at the rate we currently do in the west. I've used CFL lighting for more than 25 years and ensured that my home is well insulated, (UK and mostly cold!). I switched to diesel powered motors more than 20 years ago, walk and use a bicycle.
We have to limit our impact and set examples. China set an excellent example with their one child policy and despite their growing environmental impact, we have to recognise that their country is presently the factory for the planet, i.e. we are exporting our footprint to them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The USA is not setting a good example. Europe is taking the lead in reduction of green house gasses according to Frontline (pbs TV show) because Europe historically has paid much higher prices for fuel.
Good for you guys. Don't wait for us because we still have that Cowboy, throw-the-beer-can-out-the-window attitude going here. It's actually encouraged. Read some of our colleagues posts and you'll see what I mean.
I just shake my head and go about my business.
I wouldn't be too enthused about the Chinese. China and India are building coal-fired power plants literally as fast as they can. China overtook the United States in 2006 as the world's biggest emitter of carbon dioxide.
Watch " Heat".
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/heat /
It's getting very grim.
olddog
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
retired54 wrote:

Yes, I think you right about that. It's rather strange after CA took the lead in the 70s. Having watched the programme, I now appreciate why. The tax on road fuel in Europe is indeed much higher than in the US which I think is a good thing. We have much more efficient and smaller vehicles as a result. Sadly though, there has been (note the past tense) a growing trend here for SUVs. Ignoring Land Rover that has always produced large off roaders formerly for a practical purpose, Volvo (GM), VW, BMWand Merc are now producing the things as well as an incredible amount of imported Japanese pick-ups that do little to the gallon.
What I fail to understand is why US vehicle manufacturers wish to kill themselves. Ford being the prime example producing massive large engined trucks that no one wants and going down the tube as a result. In Europe they have produced smaller much more efficient vehicles successfully for many years. Similarly, GM. Why do they seem to have a death wish allowing overseas competitors to steal the market? I understand that there is a waiting list for diesel powered VW Jettas in the US market. Ford produce Mondeos for the European market that are just as good.

Appreciated, but I hope (and suspect) you exaggerate a little.

I do appreciate you comments re China and India and recognise the issue regarding coal fired power plants. They are just trying to catch up with us, though obviously more aware of the impact than we were at the time.I worked in Beijing for a short period in 2003 providing advice on infrastructure prior to the Olympics. Interestingly, buses and trucks were running on LPG. I suggested that their principal sewage works, being next to a coal fired power station should send its sludge there but they were concerned about the emissions. Whilst at an International Environment Conference in China in 2006, I as well as some local folk were surprised at the concern that some of their politicians were expressing re environmental issues. I was most pleased to find that the Beijing Municipal government had picked up on some of my recommendations, appointing a US based consultancy to address their sewage sludge issues. The intention was to use the material for cement manufacture which is just right at present with their development of infrastructure.

What a rotten fellow you are. You hijacked my Friday night, for which I thank you. That was a highly objective programme with key players being prepared to be interviewed. Brilliant, well done PBS. Reminded me of what the BBC could do in former days.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Clot wrote:

Heh. Back when, cheap, small imports from Japan were ruining the domestic car industry in the States. The Congress, in its infinite wisdom, passed a law limiting the NUMBER of foreign automobiles that could be imported.
Since Nissan, Honda, (et al) could not import five $10,000 automobiles, they decided to make luxury cars and import ONE $50,000 car (this was back when $50,000 was a lot of money). Enter Accura, Lexus, Infinity and others.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
olddog wrote:

Oh, fiddle-de-dee.
So what if parts of New Jersey and other places go under water - we'll move inland. If we can put up with the population density of Hong Kong, the entire planet's population could fit in a space the size of Georgia - and Hong Kong has a pretty high standard of living.
By every economic standard, we are better off putting resources into adjusting to whatever climate changes come upon us than trying to mitigate them.

Conserve is good. Consumer recycling is usually not good - it costs more to recycle than to discard. Reuse is better. I live in one-half of a duplex and my office is in the other. I don't have a bike. I'm not fat. I don't have babies.
Our "over-indulgent life style" is the problem? You have a point there. Our technology allows us to have an average life expectancy somewhere in the 70's. Were it not for the technology, we'd live to an average of half that (which is true for many non-technological societies today still).

I am pleased that you've done what you could to cut back. That means there's more for me.
As for "they just don't get it," I suggest there's nothing - or at least not much - to "get." But, for the True Believer, there IS the chance to add meaning to their useless lives, something to use as an excuse to mind other people's business, something (or someone) to hate.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I can't tell if you're joking or not.
Party on Cowboy. I'll be the guy flipping you off as you drive by in your Denali.
olddog
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
retired54 wrote:

It's easy to tell if I am joking: Did you laugh with a thigh-slapping, out loud, guffaw of such intensity that tears ran down you cheek? If not, well, then, I'm not joking.
You mean "Denali" as in "Winnebago?" The one with the "Our House is Off" bumper sticker?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nobody is laughing. Just disgusted.
I'm used to Cowboys now. Been here awhile.
Reminds me of the Neil Young lyrics:
"Your Cadillac has got a wheel in the ditch And a wheel on the track"
olddog
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I don't want fire ants in Michigan. I don't want everybody who got flooded out or burned out or whatever moving here. I don't want this place to turn into Hong Kong (or even California).
Luckily, things will probably hold together well enough until I'm gone, and I don't have any children to worry about. But that's no excuse for me to say "I got mine--screw you."
We're going to have to cut back AND pursue other technologies. Everybody is looking for a single answer, and there isn't one.
And so what if climate change isn't caused by human activities? It's a worthy goal to not use up every damn thing we can. I'd be giddy if we never sent another dollar to buy oil from unfriendly countries.
Cindy Hamilton
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Cindy Hamilton wrote:

I wholeheartedly agree that we should keep looking. Some things actually help a bit: Walmart is putting skylights in its stores and reducing lighting costs during the day. Almost anybody can erect a solar water heater and save a few bucks a year.
A couple of points about "using up" every damn thing. Starting with the Romans, much of Europe was denuded of trees and North Africa was turned into a desert over the need for wood - mainly for charcoal. When the wood essentially ran out, coal was developed. The industrial revolution was run on coal.
Just before coal got scarce, oil was found to be a viable substitute.
If the oil runs out, we'll find something else.
The problem with being self-sufficient in oil is: we can't be. Oil is fungible. Oil from here is much like oil from there, the only difference being price. If we drill for oil in ANWAR, it'll probably be more profitable to ship it to Japan than to the lower 48, one reason being the states of Washington, Oregon, and California won't allow tankers to dock, so the oil will have to be off-loaded in Mexico then piped through Texas. But that's okay, because the oil Japan currently buys from Sri Lanka (or wherever) is now available to us.
Another aspect of this fungibility problem is the malovelence of foreign suppliers. Suppose a domestic company has to get, oh, $30/bbl delivered to justify the development of a field. Nigeria or Iran could cut their price to $25/bbl delivered and put a domestic supplier out of business.
What we COULD do in the short run is develop enough domestic oil supplies to offset boycotts by mid-east countries. We currently get about 15% of our oil from Saudi Arabia and its neighbors, so we could remove them as a threat by relying on domestic production (if we had to). We get most of our foreign-supplied oil from Canada, Mexico, and Nigeria.
Regarding other technologies: It's possible that alternate forms of energy can nibble at the margins but many don't stand a chance of doing more. For example, reliance on solar power is doomed by the laws of physics. The earth receives about 700 watts/sq meter of energy from the sun. At the equator. At noon. With no clouds. The only way to increase that value is to move the orbit of the earth closer to the sun.
Accounting for latitude, cloud cover, hours of daylight, and efficiency of solar collectors, it would take a "farm" the size of the Los Angeles basin (about 1200 square miles) to provide enough energy for California. During the daylight hours. Not counting the immense cost of such a contraption (and its ongoing maintenance), everybody in Los Angeles would be in the dark!
Which, when you think on it, may not be such a bad idea.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

We could (theoretically) be self-sufficient, because that is solely a function of how much we pump. As long as we pump the same amount (or more) as we consume we are self-sufficient. The fungibility is beside the point unless there is some kind of major dislocation and we want to keep it all at home. In that case, the above is likely the least of our problems.

That is largely what happened in the past. HOwever, most experts suggest that most of the ability of OPEC to open the spigots and play games to that extent is largely over as their oil fields have peaked. Russia might be in a position, but they really don't have enough of their oil fields open and flowing yet to do much damage.

But the fungibility issue also works to our favor. Oil prices are based on a WORLD market. So, to the extent that additional pumping from US sources messes with the supply/price equilibrium point, oil prices could come down. Which could impact on another kind of threat.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HeyBub wrote:

GPS? Internet? Modern fast-response medevac and trauma care? Modern jet transport aircraft?
-- aem sends...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
retired54 wrote:

That's a powerful speech that I do not recall hearing before. Thanks for the link.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You are getting your time periods mixed up. Going into the playoffs the Rays were definitely the underdogs. They were in last place just last year. Palin correctly called them the underdogs during this time period.
Once the Rays became the American league champs most all sporting news authorities ranked the Rays as the team to beat. The Redsox became the underdogs at that later time. Palin then identified the Redsox correctly as the underdogs. Look it up if you don't believe it.
So it seems that she may be more on top of the changing times than you think.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:34:31 -0400, snipped-for-privacy@mucks.net wrote:

I must make a correction. Change all references of the Redsox to the Phillies. Sorry Philadelphia.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Oct 23, 3:34pm, snipped-for-privacy@mucks.net wrote:

Well, you sure did miss my point!
The reason for the quotes was not to voice my opinion on whether or not she is "on top of the changing times".
I was responding to "she isn't an airhead and can think on her feet"
In this age of instant playback of anything said by a candidate, not to mention the plethora of satirical news shows, you'd think that she (or at least her speechwriters) would be agile enough to change the words she uses when sucking up to different audiences. I'm not saying she wasn't correct in what she was saying at the time she said it, but there is more than one way to say that the underdogs were victorious.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Oh, I get your point. Other proper examples for the same point would be.........
It's time for change
It's time for a change
and.........
Under George Bush's economic plan
Under Bush's economic plan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

ONly by the Democrats. Low approval hardly equates to hate or certainly desire to kill, outside of certain rabid circles, olddog.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.