magekillr

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008/06 ... 07ee0f.txt They're rubbish.

There was a ban on exporting oil from 1980 or so until 1995. They never renewed it. Even if it was exported it still creates American jobs and would lower prices globally. Thats one of two good ideas I've heard from the democrats in total. I'm not sure if it is already included in the American energy act. If Nancy Pelosi would at least let it come up for a vote they could introduce amendments to it and debate it instead of going on vacation without doing anything. The democrats were so adamantly against it that when they get back they are going to look pretty stupid now that there is the gang of 10 and Obama changing their minds. Of course now that Obama would support offshore drilling it's a genius idea. Nope. I disagree with Obama, but I know why he is stating what he is stating. Everyone knows offshore drilling is a bad idea, except for people who believe the talking points of the Republicans. The Republicans know it's a bad idea, the Democrats know it's a bad idea. May I ask, why didn't the Republicans make this an imminent issue when they controlled Congress with Bush? I'll tell you why: so they can use it as a wedge issue, just as they use abortion. They know they can't do jack about abortion, and they wouldn't if they could; they like to talk about it just so they have voters. He's taking the wind out of their sails. He's playing some serious chess here, and people are mad that he isn't making the right checkers moves. This isn't so much about drilling as it is about ridiculous Republican attacks. They know drilling is BS, and we know drilling is BS, and Obama knows that drilling is BS. So, what's the best way to diffuse the BS that is nonetheless popular with low info voters? Offer it to them. This is an instance of be careful what you wish for in the Republican camp. Obama says, basically, "You guys think that drilling is a good way to help our energy problems? Fine, I'll give you that, I'll take my approach, and we'll see what works." Republicans really don't even want to drill so much as they want to play politics with the issue. So Obama one ups them, and says "Sure, I'll let it happen, if you meet these criteria (which are also popular, such as using already leased lands and low environmental impact)" Now they can't criticize him on drilling even though they had no intention of doing it either, and if they do decide to go ahead with this and continue to push it, it gives him the political leverage as President necessary to pass more comprehensive energy policy. This is smart, it's good politics and good governing, and people are mad. They're perfectly willing to call Obama a flip flopper and a panderer on the strength of him saying "If its part of a comprehensive energy policy, and these certain stringent conditions are met, and leased lands are actually developed, then I'd be willing to consider some low impact offshore drilling if Republicans will support my energy bill" and people read it as "OMGZ OBAMA SUPPORTS OFFSHORE DRILLING!" Obama is playing chicken with John McCain and the Republicans, and it's going to drive you mad \

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/38674/113/ Visual summary :D

Oh and Jack, another thing that Americans don't realize: People for drilling frame the argument to make it seem like the oil that comes from the depths of the ocean will go directly to America. The irony is, the only way this would happen would be if they U.S. had a national oil company run by the government. So much for the free market! The oil will be traded in a worldwide market, making the prospect of lowered fuel prices specifically for America pretty darned laughable. It won't belong to America. It will belong to Exxon and they will put it on the free market that the GOP loves so much. That is, until the market betrays them. edit: to dusqi, further clarification of what I consider a breakthrough: You're right, the solar cells themselves aren't more efficient. The difference is that now it'll be more cost effective to create a large-scale hydrogen generator, which would have been prohibitively expensive before. Basically you could deploy fields of solar cells in huge open spaces and harvest mass volumes of hydrogen in an economically viable way. I think it's good news, since this was one of the big reasons why people would dismiss the mass deployment of solar. Certainly finding enough platinum to make a large-scale generator would be a lot more expensive than oil is even now. So, to contextualize the finding, they may have solved one big limiting factor in the entire chain. I imagine this is a nice catalyst for the other areas of solar power research, like solar cell efficiency, to receive more focus and funding.

Nope. Not the guns, the gun culture that you yourself ascribe to is the problem.

As long as they aren't drawing welfare and are supporting themselves having children is an important part of a society. When population of certain ages is unrestricted you need a lot of children to help pay for all the old people. It's a never ending cycle that eventually leads to over-population, however more people means a better chance of a smart person that can make life easier for everyone. This is also the reason why the space program is so important, we need to constantly expand to give more places for all the new people to live. If we are still on Earth when there isn't enough room for everyone most likely mother nature will take care of it via a plague or mass starvation. See, but that's just it. Why should they be having children of their own, just for their own gene pool to continue, when there's plenty of other children suffering just waiting to be adopted? It becomes apparent that it's no longer about a want for children, but a need to pass on their genes unnecessarily in an already over-populated world. I don't mind people having their own children, but I'm talking the families of 5 to 10...have 2 of your own, maybe 3...then you need to look into adopting. Oh, and it also would seem to me that many of the overpopulated families, so to speak, are generally not wealthy and are quite poor. Oh, and also keep in mind these are just my thoughts, not necessarily things I would deem worthy of putting into place lol.

I think that people who have excessive amounts of children are a burden on society, in their own vanity to metaphorically spit on children who are suffering elsewhere.

Hmmm, perhaps. However, lowering the costs from almost $2,000 an ounce in raw material for the catalysts to a mere few dollars is pretty damned close to a breakthrough, in my opinion. Lol. What was used before? Rhodium?

Nobody's saying we shouldn't bother with offshore drilling, at least I'm not. What we're saying is offshore drilling is not the immediate solution nor is it a long term solution because we have a finite supply of oil. Oil companies already have millions of acres of land leased to them for drilling but they won't use it because they're trying to maximize their profits. Even if the oil companies got what they want it would only lower the price of oil .20-.30 cents a gallon 10 years from now. Meanwhile we can take other steps to lower our dependency, but no one cares, and hasn't cared for 30 years. The Republican leaders are playing us. They are raking in millions in money from oil lobbyists in return for passing legislation that helps drive up oil profits, leading to even more money for the Republicans. Offshore drilling isn't better for us, its better for them.

No, they're not, and I won't even bother talking about that because I do not wish for this to turn into an oil debate. The breakthrough here, however, is that the MIT researchers were able to accomplish this using using cobalt and phosphate. To quote a Scientific American article found here: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=hyd ... -the-cheap "But Nocera and postdoctoral fellow Matthew Kanan discovered it could be accomplished by simply adding the metals cobalt and phosphate to water and running a current through it. In contrast to platinum, cobalt and phosphate cost roughly $2.25 an ounce and $.05 an ounce, respectively." In comparison, platinum and other precious metals cost about $1,700 to $2,000 per ounce. So, this newly discovered process is a LOT more cost effective for mainstream use. This is too exciting :thumbsup:

Yeah sure, I'll edit it in. blogs.usatoday.com/sciencefair/2008/07/mits-major-brea.html For more detailed information: www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080731143345.htm

Now, the BIG that this is a big deal is because this is not some company claiming to have made a breakthrough that may not have a chance of going anywhere... this is an MIT laboratory, which will be publishing its work in a peer-reviewed journal, Science. That already speaks volumes for the veracity of this research. Furthermore, it gets around the efficiency problems we've been having with silicon solar panels because it mimics an efficient process found in nature. Finally, once we find an efficient manufacturing process for this technology, it would render power plants virtually obsolete when it comes to powering homes. But the process also has chemical byproducts that can be recombined in fuel cells that could power other things too. This is pretty cool, but I'm forgetting that OFFSHORE DRILLING is the energy breakthrough of the year. :lol: SOURCE: www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080731143345.htm http://blogs.usatoday.com/sciencefair/2 ... -brea.html

The problem is, this can be used for both sides. In my opinion, we have not advanced into an age where self-defense is unnecessary. We have advanced to the age where GUNS are not needed for self-defense, and only make things worse.

So your argument is that all of our rights is a joke, thats interesting. Is it just me or do way to many people just say wanting self defense is barbaric. Ill take a barbaric practice over an advanced death thank you very much are a joke* And no, way to straw man it up. Killing someone over a possession is barbaric. The chance to use a gun in self-defense to keep yourself from being harmed is few and far between, and more lives would be saved if guns were banned. The 2nd amendment is the only amendment with "well regulated" mentioned...it was for a reason. We no longer have a militia, the need for it goes away.

Gays do have equal rights. Any gay man can marry any woman and any straight man cannot marry any other straight man. It's not an argument of gay rights (or shouldn't be), it's an argument regarding the definition of marriage. So I guess the question is - do you think it immoral for the churches definition of a religiously based marriage = man and woman only? Even when the religion the marriage is based on states it as such? Seems to me that the definition has never been the same :roll:

Nope. It was Thomas Jefferson...who also favored progressive taxation. So any more of that malarkey that "the Bill of Rights are God given and are not able to be amended", is just that: malarkey. The "right" to wield a weapon like a gun is an ancient and barbaric traditional mind-set, nothing more.

Here's a game: guess the quote, no googling.

The church pays no taxes...it should have no leverage about what it can/cannot do while existing in the USA. Even if they did, they still should not be allowed to openly discriminate. However, they are already not paying their entry fee, they should have no voice in the matter. Other private businesses pay taxes on their property to make their own discrimination (like country clubs barring women from certain areas), but they do not. edit: wow that was poorly worded, but w/e...you get the gist.

Until the Church starts paying their entry fee, they should have no voice in any political decisions being made. Actually, scratch that, they never should. Marriage is not the "church's" decision, it is the state's. We are talking about state bans here.

Well 51% of Americans (on average) oppose gay marriage. This is a majority. There are no secular arguments for this opposition but fear that was instilled by a people who were afraid of heterosexual sex that discovered the land mass now known as "America, land of the FREE".

I love nudity, I love the human body, male or female. I think it's a wonderful thing, and people need to feel more comfortable with their bodies. If I had my way, I'd walk around naked pretty much all the time.

[hide=]No Lenin, it was revealed that she was cast out, and not killed[/hide]

Really? More injustice? Sorry, but the use of guns in the form of self-defense stories are a not a dime a dozen here; they are rare anecdotal moments pulled up by the NRA every time such a case happens. People still claim that if people in my school carried concealed weapons, they would have been able to kill Cho and stop his murdering rampage. I call shenanigans on that one. I go here, I have seen the carnage first hand, I know the classrooms that he butchered. There is absolutely no way it would be possible for anyone to react to an armed gunman holding 2 semi-automatics, firing with military-training precision. Your first thought would be, "Duck under desk, pretend I'm dead." No frightened student would have been able to react "Get down, pull out gun, and shoot him while he's shooting me." The average body had 3 bullets a piece; give me a break. University is a place of learning, and this absurd rational makes me want to puke. I'd feel more nervous if people were allowed to carry concealed weapons, than the thought of them possibly being used in "self-defense" to stop a deranged murderer. Here's a way you could have stopped Cho: forced him into therapy, rather than just shrug off his obvious symptoms. If people were taught how to recognize symptoms better, and if it were easier to place the person in a facility, this issue could have been avoided altogether. I always hear people, "Well, now that I think about it he did seem to have problems...severe problems," and yet they do nothing. More people die due to accidents involving guns, than people die due to crime. More than half of the suicides in the US are done using a gun. Sorry, more injustice? Please...justice is not even taking their life. That's the problem in this god damned country. It's not the guns, it's the gun culture, and the need for a blood-thirsty society to seek redemption, vengeance, and "justice".

Heart Breaker, Since I've Been Loving You, Whole Lotta Love.

Put that into context, for the love of sanity. In a country of 300,000,000, that really isn't high at all. It's an example. So many arguments against guns are based on the belief that outlawing guns would make the deaths from them nonexistent. Really? Who says that?