Thread: Where Do We Draw The Line?

Originally Posted by joebehar

Nope....Although free elections are part of the freedoms we enjoy, I believe voting is an obligation not a right. Its one of the very, very small prices we pay for democracy.Theseus, I'm sure you're a great guy, but you're off the mark on this one.

I never said I don't vote. I'm saying that you shouldn't feel "obligated" to vote if the only reason you are voting is to choose the lesser of two evils. I tend to hold my moral obligations much higher than my political ones.

Originally Posted by joebehar

Nope....Although free elections are part of the freedoms we enjoy, I believe voting is an obligation not a right. Its one of the very, very small prices we pay for democracy.

Theseus, I'm sure you're a great guy, but you're off the mark on this one.

+1 I was actually quite surprised at the voter turnout for the 2008 presidential elections. But even at 58% That means that 30% of the voters determined who would lead the country for the next four years. Little wonder our elected officials run buck wild when nearly half of the voting aged public isn't engaged enough or just doesn't care to go vote. True, lots of elections boil down to the lesser of two evils but it seems to me that if you flat don't vote, that's one less vote that the crappiest candidate will have to get to be elected. What if 30% of the vote wouldn't win an election? What if it took a full 51%? Seems to me that while whoever this person was, I probably wouldn't agree with all of his platform but if 51% of the voting age public voted for him, I think odds are good that he/she would do a good job. If not, he/she would have a tough time getting re-elected. Call me a simpleton if you will but a lot of these crooks run our country and line their own pockets simply because we're too tired, or too busy to let them know we won't take it anymore. Then there's the other half of the equation, career politicians, lobbyists and labor unions. The first two should be outlawed and labor unions should not be allowed to make political contributions on behalf of their members (IMHO).

So you want to draw the line towards mandatory voting? Doesn't sound like a step toward more freedom to me. For most people voting is a waste of time.
Of course, you can do a market based solution - let voters be able to openly sell their vote to the highest bidder. You'll probably get the same results as now, but at lower overall cost.

Originally Posted by gugi

I don't think you understand the issue at all, because what you are saying is irrelevant to the matter. Demand for energy varies throughout the day by factor of about 2. Plus not many people are using fossil or nuclear energy directly to meet all of their household needs.

The issue is that energy storage and delivery on the scale for transportation is cheaper through fossil fuel at current market rates than the alternatives. But the fossil fuel isn't a limitless resource - it's just a storage of a tiny fraction of the solar energy over millions of years.
You can grow crops and convert much much larger fraction of the solar energy into fuel (like ethanol), but it's still more expensive than converting something accumulated over millions of years.

We already have hybrid and electric cars though, so we're closing to the crossover point.

Hybrid and electric cars are the stupidest thing we have come up with in a long time. By the time you pay for all the expensive electronics you could have purchased several years worth of gas. The pollution and extra energy you expend to make them negates any energy savings. Electronics plants use huge amounts of water and generate some of the most toxic byproducts. After you have used them for just a few years the battery pack goes out and you are looking at a $5000 replacement battery.

All electric? 45% of our electricity is from coal. There is generation and transmission losses to deal with. So a coal power car makes sense? We don't have enough generation capacity to charge everyone's cars, especially with Obama's war on the coal industry shutting down existing plants and blocking the building of new ones.

Sure fossil fuel isn't limitless but we have 200 years worth of coal and MANY decades worth of oil right here is the US if Obama would just let us go get it. Obama lies when he takes about increased production here. Any increased production is only coming from private land. The oil companies are still being blocked on government land and in the gulf.

Originally Posted by Crotalus

Hybrid and electric cars are the stupidest thing we have come up with in a long time.

No, that was the computer, and may be the space program. Do you know how much these things used to cost when they start making them?

Originally Posted by Crotalus

All electric? 45% of our electricity is from coal. There is generation and transmission losses to deal with.

I see you're very good with numbers. Did you ever learn in school to both add and subtract?

Originally Posted by Crotalus

Sure fossil fuel isn't limitless but we have 200 years worth of coal and MANY decades worth of oil right here is the US if Obama would just let us go get it.

There's plenty of geothermal energy too - the Earth's core is liquid. And let's not forget the thermonuclear synthesis. The issue is not what is available, but what is practical and how much it costs. You want cheap energy? Stop all the government regulation nuclear production, including how the fuel is generated and what happens with it afterwards. A great place to start with is Iran.

But I can tell none of this matters the least bit to you, everything is Obama's and the Democrat's fault.

Originally Posted by joebehar

Interesting...although you're mostly right, the question that comes up is how do we keep companies that are less than ethical from ripping people off?

Its precisely the lack of regulation that got your fine country into that mortgage debacle that started this downward spiral,

I'm all for free markets, but free does not mean you can cheat and steal. if a private company willfully cheats and lies, they need to be held accountable. If you or I misrepresented ourselves at a bank and managed to get a million dollar loan and then refused to pay it back I think the full weight of the law would be upon us. Not one single person or company has been charged, let alone convicted in the sub prime mortgage fiasco.

I believe government should protect its citizens...all of them, not just the ones that donate millions to re election campaigns.

Lawyers keep bad corporations in check by taking all their money. Do you have Mesothelioma? Did you take Actos and have bladder cancer? Did your breast implants leak? You've seen the ads. The lawyers circle like sharks on the scent of blood.

I spell out to you step by step on how too much regulation on banks and how the government caused the housing and financial bust and your answer is MORE regulation. This does not compute.

Originally Posted by BobH

The hysterical response to "socialized medicine" south of the border leaves me puzzled. I live in a country that has a form of socialized medicine, one of many variations out there, and do not want to see privatized medicine gain anymore of a foothold here than it already has. I trust large corporate entities even less than than I do governments. There are certain key things that I do not think privatization would improve. To me privatization in health care with the over riding motive of profit is a "death squad" waiting to happen. That is just the view from other side of the fence.

I recall having a conversation with a Minnesotan about taxes we both paid and it turned out that we were both tax free about the same time of year. The difference was that he had to pay a huge amount monthly for family private medical coverage which I did not. My medical coverage was included in the taxes I had paid. I think I will keep what I have and know.

No system is perfect but I would rather have a system where everyone is entitled to the same level of medical coverage rich or poor. There are many ways to get there but a two tiered system is not one of them for me.

Bob

The hysterical response is triggered by National stories about Canadian medicine. Like the parents of a child that had a terminal illness. They wanted to continue to treat the kid and the government refused. They wouldn't even allow the parents to purchase treatment. The hospitals were ordered to let him die. They brought the kid here to the US for treatment. The kid finally died, but the frightening part was the governments decision to kill the kid instead of leaving it up to the parents.

That's exactly what I mean about a faceless bureaucrat deciding if you live or die. It wasn't the doctors.

Originally Posted by Theseus

Why should I vote if I don't believe in or agree with any of the candidates? Having the right to vote is also having the right to not vote.

The fact of life is that there are are few perfect candidates. So you are left with choosing the better of the two no matter how pathetic he may be.

We are in that scenario right now. Romney was picked by the media and the republican establishment. He was almost my last choice but that how it usually goes. At least he is a hell of a lot better than Obama.

Originally Posted by Grizzley1

Just one thing.. storage isnt the problem,BMW has a hydrogen car which works fine and at this moment they are building a hydrogen highway in Finland I believe.

There storage cell seems to work fine.

Where do they get the hydrogen? I haven't heard of a car able to store even 100 miles worth. Hydrogen is the lowest energy density fuel on the planet.

With no distribution infrastructure we are a LONG way from being able to use hydrogen.

Hydrogen does have the advantage of being so light that even if it catches fire the flames go UP instead of spreading out on the ground. That's why there were so many survivors of the Hindenburg.

Oh, I forgot to mention two more BIG disadvantages of electric cars. In a crash the batteries rupture and eat the car. This happened to a friend of mine. If they have to cut someone out of a car the battery cables are a real danger to the rescuers.

Originally Posted by gugi

No, that was the computer, and may be the space program. Do you know how much these things used to cost when they start making them?


I see you're very good with numbers. Did you ever learn in school to both add and subtract?


There's plenty of geothermal energy too - the Earth's core is liquid. And let's not forget the thermonuclear synthesis. The issue is not what is available, but what is practical and how much it costs. You want cheap energy? Stop all the government regulation nuclear production, including how the fuel is generated and what happens with it afterwards. A great place to start with is Iran.

But I can tell none of this matters the least bit to you, everything is Obama's and the Democrat's fault.

If you think the space program and computers an computers are bad you are off your nut.

Nasa did more to improve our standard of living than any other government program.

Have you ever had a friend saved by a Mobile ICU? That technology came directly from Nasa. Inertial navigation for aircraft and submarines. GPS. The list is endless.