# Carter put solar panels on the White House & Reagan took them off



## sealybobo (Jan 23, 2009)

In June, 1979, President Jimmy Carter proposed a "new solar strategy" to "move our Nation toward true energy security and abundant, readily available energy supplies." In an effort to set an example for the country, Carter had solar panels installed on the roof of the White House West Wing. The panels were used to heat water for the staff mess and other areas of the White House.

The White House solar panels were a symbol of the Carter Administrations commitment to reduce Americas dependence of foreign sources of energy, according to Hakes, who was the Administrator of the Energy Information Administration at the U.S. Department of Energy during the Clinton presidency. "Behind that was a whole package of tax incentives, research and development and loans that made it much more than a symbol," Hakes added. "There was actually a very substantive attempt to move ahead the expanded use of solar energy."

President Ronald Reagan took the solar panels down in 1986 when the White House roof was being repaired.

wis.dm - Ronald Reagan removed the solar panels on the White House's roof installed by Jimmy Carter. Can you think of anything more stupid?

Why?

The Reagan Administration says it will not replace a solar water-heating system that was installed in the White House in the Carter Administration. 

The panels of the system had been dismantled to fix the roof underneath. Dale A. Petroskey, a White House spokesman, said Friday, ''Putting them back up would be very unwise, based on cost.'' 

or

President Reagan took the solar hot water panels off the Whitehouse roof because he did not support the solar energy industry. 

At the time Reagan said, Thats enough of that! when he ordered their removal. The act was symbolic. Between 1981 and 1986, the Reagan administration cut funding for renewable energy research and public renewable energy tax credits by 90%. His election campaign was strongly backed by the US oil and energy industry.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 23, 2009)

I don't think the GOP really wants the US to become energy independent.  The oil industry clearly owns the GOP.  (Drill baby Drill).


----------



## Chris (Jan 23, 2009)

The GOP are idiots.

That's why they got voted out of office.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 23, 2009)

Chris said:


> The GOP are idiots.
> 
> That's why they got voted out of office.



Remember when the Republicans sent that email around showing how Green Bush's home was compared to Al Gore's energy guzzler?  They made a HUGE deal over that.

I tried to explain to them that one green home does not make up for Bush's environmental policies.  

It is corporate pollution that is causing the most damage.  Big deal Bush's home is environmentally friendly when he allows corporations to wreck the entire planet.  

snopes.com: A Tale of Two Houses


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 23, 2009)

At present solar energy is perhaps the vastly dominant source of energy we use. It just comes in a form we don't really contemplate, which is oil. The first step of oil formation is the photosynthesis of sunlight by extremely small plankton like plants millions of years ago.

These days, we need a quicker way to convert sunlight into energy. There is more than enough energy in a day's worth of sunlight to meet our energy needs for a year. The question is how to harness it in an efficient and cost effective manner. Currently, we are failing when it comes to both elements, but are making progress.

The solar panel has always been the prime component of the solar industry, but it has one major flaw. It is incredibly inefficient. It traditionally converts 6 to 10 percent of the energy hitting it in sunrays into usable energy. Recent trends have pushed this into the mid teens. The really exciting news is new technology could push this number into the 40 to 60 percent conversion rates. If this occurs, the viability of solar becomes much greater because a smaller amount of panel is needed to produce vastly more energy.
Another area where solar is making jumps is in new products. The solar panel has its limits, but few every thought beyond it. Now various companies are. The advent of solar dots is exciting a lot of people. Solar dots work by converting the energy in sunlight at a molecular level.

The dots are actually quantum nano dots. Yes, nano. They work by forming a crystalline structure of certain materials. When sunlight hits them, they release multiple electrons. These electrons, of course, form an electrical current that can be harnessed for use. Since the dots are on such a small scale, they could literally be imbedded in just about any structure exposed to the sun.

Solar dots are expected to be cheap and easy to make. The big, bulky solar panels will most likely become a thing of the past. With a high rate of efficiency and low cost, they will truly make solar power a viable energy platform for our needs.

So, when can we expect to see these dots on the market? It is unclear. No commercially viable product has been put together yet as there are hurdles to jump. The hurdles include how to capture the currents being created and how to deal with reliability and such. While the future is certainly bright, pun intended, it will probably be a few years yet before we all become very fond of solar energy"



Yeah, he took them off because the tech in the 70's sucked dick...something I am sure you 2 are very fond of.  The technology isn't even there today, until we hit 50-70% effiecency on these panels its a waste of money because they can't meet the demand of we require


----------



## DiamondDave (Jan 23, 2009)

Yeah.. nothing about the damage they caused from roof leaks etc... 

And again.. big fucking whoop.. it was a symbolic gesture by Carter... it was more of a 'feel good' thing than anything else


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 23, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> Yeah, he took them off because the tech in the 70's sucked dick...something I am sure you 2 are very fond of.  The technology isn't even there today, until we hit 50-70% effiecency on these panels its a waste of money because they can't meet the demand of we require



Boy Andrew, you really don't get it.  You argue/defend the party that has blocked alternative energy because their oil buddies have paid them to do so.  Wake the fuck up boy!

America will be much better off the day you realize you do not belong to the GOparty.  They laugh at your broke ass.  They work against you and you defend them.

No wonder they don't ever improve.  Why should they?  You accept every excuse they give.  

I bet Carter putting up those solar panels helped advance the solar panel technology, just as I'm sure Reagan's actions of tearing them off the White House helped to slow down its progress.  Did Reagan invest federal dollars in alternative energy?  Oh yea, I forgot, he was too busy shrinking government so he could drown it in a bathtub.   

Your solution is to give the oil companies tax breaks and hope they invest it in alternative energy.    As if they would look into hemp or water as fuel and ruin their industry.  What a stupid cock sucker you have grown up to be Andrew.


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 23, 2009)

wow, no response from sealy from the facts that were posted except for his normal

WAH WAH WAH GOP BIG OIL BUSH EVIL


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 23, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> Yeah.. nothing about the damage they caused from roof leaks etc...
> 
> And again.. big fucking whoop.. it was a symbolic gesture by Carter... it was more of a 'feel good' thing than anything else



Do you have something to show that they were causing the roof to leak?  

And by the way, when I was researching this, I did find something about roof leaks.  That was SQUASHED as bullshit.  

So try again Dave.  

Symbolic?  Yes it was symbolic Dick head.  Just like Reagan tearing them down sent a message.

The reason Carter failed as President is because he was too left/liberal.  You can't be a lefty liberal president.  If you are, the GOP and Corporations will take you fucking down.  That's why Clinton & Obama are smart to stay in the center.

Although I do believe Obama will not be a centrist like Clinton was.  He will not deregulate the media so large corporations can buy up all the media.  He will not allow NAFTA to fuck the American people up.

And I bet you that alternative energy makes huge leaps and gains under Obama, now that the GOP aren't around to stop progress.

How about the Kyoto treaty?  My numbers are rough, but here was the gist.  Kyota had a plan where companies could stop polluting so much and their plan was a 20 year plan.  Bush didn't sign on.  He came up with his own plan.  His plan would take 40 years.

Now you can get on your knees close your eyes and unzip the GOP's pants and suck whatever comes out, but I'm certainly not willing to swallow anything they try to give me.

So which way are you going to take this dave?  Are you going to go with "the dems are no better" argument or are you going to stick with defending the GOP as if they really have our best interests at heart.


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 23, 2009)

Andrew?

WTF do you think taking these panels off the house and defunding research did to the progress of the industry?


If we had listened to Carter we would have the industry much further down the line and we would be manufacturing and selling it to the entire world.

THe ONLY reason it was done by Ronny was to protect the oil industry.


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 23, 2009)

Solar Panels at the White House « Cooler Planet

In 2003, solar photovoltaic panels were installed at the White House.   Two smaller solar thermal systems were also installed to heat water:  one for landscape maintenance personnel, the other for the presidential pool and spa.



OMG WHO WAS PRES IN 2003


ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 23, 2009)

Yeah Im sure Bush made that dicision personally, not.


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 23, 2009)

Yes, we should have listened to Carter...I mean he did such a bangup job


----------



## DiamondDave (Jan 23, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Do you have something to show that they were causing the roof to leak?
> 
> And by the way, when I was researching this, I did find something about roof leaks.  That was SQUASHED as bullshit.
> 
> ...



It was the explanation given... and NATURALLY, the leftists and enviro-nazis would put it off as "bullshit"... typical move

let alone, as stated, the reliability and efficiency of SP's back then was more of a joke than anything else

And whether any prez puts solar panels or fucking bee hives on the white house, is of no consequence as to how research goes on those things.. if there is profit to be made and a viability, it will be researched and advanced REGARDLESS

But you certainly suck swallow and smile about anything the left-wing gives you.... you're one of the most blinded and partisan hacks on this board... apologetically

Kyoto was a joke... a way to try and slow down the US and benefit others... a fucking joke


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 23, 2009)

Truthmatters said:


> Yeah Im sure Bush made that dicision personally, not.



yes, go crawl back to your hole....he could have said no to the decision you fucking nitwit


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 23, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> wow, no response from sealy from the facts that were posted except for his normal
> 
> WAH WAH WAH GOP BIG OIL BUSH EVIL



You basically said that Reagan cock blocked solar energy because the technology wasn't good enough for him.  What a fucking joke.  You'll swallow anything.  I'm going to become a GOP so you can suck my dick idiot.  

With that thinking, we would have never went into outer space because in the beginning, we weren't yet able to land on the moon.   

Baby steps stupid.

Or, go with what Reagan did, tear down those solar panels and don't invest in alternative energy because the oil companies are so far up his ass it gave him alzheimer desease.  

And you cock suckers brag that you've held the white house for a lot more years than we have, and that is true, so what have you done?  NOTHING.  Gas went up to $4 a gallon and still you did NOTHING.  Drill baby drill would not have solved the problem, stupid.

Who Killed the Electric Car
who killed the electric car


The Inventor of the Car That Runs on Water Has Been Killed! 

Convert your car to run on water as fuel The inventor of the water fueled car has been killed, is it an unrelated death, or is a plot the oil companies made in order to prevent a better and cheaper replacement for gas to be developed? 


But I'm sure you think it is just coincidence, because the GOP and the Robber Baron's are not greedy or evil or ruthless.

I'm just baffled as to why you defend them.  What do you think you have in common with the Robber Baron's you fucking retard?


----------



## Amanda (Jan 23, 2009)

Why is something that happened nearly 30 years ago an issue now?


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 23, 2009)

Because it was the same shit they have done for thity years and we would SURE like to have the same shit stop happening every time the Rs vote someone in.

Never forget the past or you are doomed to repete the same mistakes.


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 23, 2009)

actually, who killed the electric car woul dbe your shitty auto companies you so love to defend.  GM admits they had electic car tech in the 70's and refused to act on it...the GOP didn't tell them to not produce it...It was their decision an dmaybe a stupid decision and maybe why we are bailing thier shitty ass out...persoanlly let them drown I say, hopefully they take you with them


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 23, 2009)

Omg bush let them put in solar panels again


i cant beleive it he is evil nooooooooooooooooooooooo


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 23, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> actually, who killed the electric car woul dbe your shitty auto companies you so love to defend.  GM admits they had electic car tech in the 70's and refused to act on it...the GOP didn't tell them to not produce it...It was their decision an dmaybe a stupid decision and maybe why we are bailing thier shitty ass out...persoanlly let them drown I say, hopefully they take you with them



Whos auto companies?

have you lost your mind?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 23, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> It was the explanation given... and NATURALLY, the leftists and enviro-nazis would put it off as "bullshit"... typical move
> 
> let alone, as stated, the reliability and efficiency of SP's back then was more of a joke than anything else
> 
> ...



No, the GOP told you SP's were a joke and you swallowed it.  Just like they are telling you now that Global Warming is a joke.  

So is it going to take you 30 years to catch up on Global warming, just like it took you 30 years to realize SP's are a  good fucking idea?  

No wonder progress is so slow.  We have environmentalists fighting with corporations and idiots like you are on the corporations side.  Why?  Little bitch.

Ha!  Busted your crappy reply again.  So you say that research will only be done if there is a profit to be made.  EXACTLY!  So why did Bush give oil companies tax breaks to do research when alternative energy would cut into their profits?


----------



## DiamondDave (Jan 23, 2009)

Amanda said:


> Why is something that happened nearly 30 years ago an issue now?



Because it fits bobo the assclown's shtick  of anything REP or CON is evil... all blame for everything in the history of the US goes on them, while all praise goes on the DEMs and LIBs

again.. explanations and details mean nothing..


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 23, 2009)

lol, yes the GOP told us SP's were a joke, not the fact that in the 70's they only captured 7-8% of the suns rays and converted it into electric.

God you are fucking stupid


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 23, 2009)

Amanda said:


> Why is something that happened nearly 30 years ago an issue now?



Maybe we'd be a much greener planet if it weren't for Reagan.

And the GOP today is worse than Reagan.  That's why.  

It sort of proves the left's point when you see that Carter put up solar panels and Reagan ripped them down.  

And remember the GOP made a big deal about Gore's energy inefficient home vs Bush's green home?  

Carter was way ahead of his time and Reagan was just another typical Republican.  Working for put the cabosh on alternative energy.    

People who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.


----------



## Mr. President (Jan 23, 2009)

Amanda said:


> Why is something that happened nearly 30 years ago an issue now?



Because when all valid arguements end.  Bring up the past turn it into a conspiracy theory and use it in the next election!


----------



## DiamondDave (Jan 23, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> No, the GOP told you SP's were a joke and you swallowed it.  Just like they are telling you now that Global Warming is a joke.
> 
> So is it going to take you 30 years to catch up on Global warming, just like it took you 30 years to realize SP's are a  good fucking idea?
> 
> ...



SP's are still not as viable as you are led to believe.. but are getting better.. but not practical for every use...

And keep biting on your man-made-global-warming cookie.. just as your fear mongering enviro-nazi's want you to do

You think that companies will strictly go with the status quo.. you are fucking naive.... emerging technologies with an opportunity to put a company above competition are EMBRACED and SOUGHT after.. even with your 'big bad oil' companies... if you would get a clue, it would be your first

The only think you have busted are your nuts, like whenever you hear a far lefty talk... "all left good, all right bad"... and you cream all over yourself


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 23, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> actually, who killed the electric car woul dbe your shitty auto companies you so love to defend.  GM admits they had electic car tech in the 70's and refused to act on it...the GOP didn't tell them to not produce it...It was their decision an dmaybe a stupid decision and maybe why we are bailing thier shitty ass out...persoanlly let them drown I say, hopefully they take you with them



You wish ill of American companies and pray for Japanese car companies?  Boy, we've come a long way since ww2.  

Maybe the technology wasn't that good in the 70's, just like SP's?  

The only reason I defend the Big 3 is because they employ so many Americans.  And, those Americans are paid well.

But as far as the Big 3 being evil greedy corporations, I agree.  But so are Toyota and Honda.  They'll get away with whatever they can get away with too.  

The Big 3 were in collusion with the oil companies, until the oil companies fucked them by jacking up the oil prices to $4 a gallon.  No doubt the oil companies told GM to shelve the battery cars.  

And of course GM's cars only lasted 5 years.  If you were the only game in town, you'd do the same thing.

Toyota would do that too.  Why wouldn't they want you to come back and buy another car in 4 years?  

The only reason Toyota's cars ran longer is that is how they were able to win over so much US business.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 23, 2009)

Mr. President said:


> Because when all valid arguements end.  Bring up the past turn it into a conspiracy theory and use it in the next election!



Hey, i brought this topic up stupid.  And before I brought it up, you and I have never argued about solar panels, have we?  

So you think I'm bringing this up now to use it in the 2010 midterms? 

I just thought this was an interesting fact.  Reagan tore down solar panels.  

Wow!  He was way ahead of his time.


----------



## Mr. President (Jan 23, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Hey, i brought this topic up stupid.  And before I brought it up, you and I have never argued about solar panels, have we?
> 
> So you think I'm bringing this up now to use it in the 2010 midterms?
> 
> ...



Yet another meeting of the minds Bobo?  I tip my hat to your persistance!  Reagan didn't want solar panels that is correct but at that time there was no massive legislation calling for them either.  Neither the United States nor any other country was seeing an energy crisis.  The development and increase in automotives and use of oil errupted and that was what caused alternative fuels to become a hot topic and that was 20 years later.


----------



## Amanda (Jan 23, 2009)

I know I shouldn't do this.... but... I can't stop typing....



sealybobo said:


> Maybe we'd be a much greener planet if it weren't for Reagan.


Maybe, huh? Strong case.



sealybobo said:


> And the GOP today is worse than Reagan.  That's why.


How are you quantifying "worse"?



sealybobo said:


> It sort of proves the left's point when you see that Carter put up solar panels and Reagan ripped them down.


What _is_ the Left's point?  



sealybobo said:


> And remember the GOP made a big deal about Gore's energy inefficient home vs Bush's green home?


Ok, what's that got to do with anything?  



sealybobo said:


> Carter was way ahead of his time and Reagan was just another typical Republican.  Working for put the cabosh on alternative energy.


I think it's possible that Carter was trying to appeal to the Left, and Reagan was trying to appeal to the right. I could be wrong, of course, but I have seen examples of politicians pandering to their base... just saying.



sealybobo said:


> People who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.


So... if we don't let Reagan pull down anymore solar panels we'll have dodged the bullet?

Sorry, I didn't take this more seriously. It's difficult to see why what was essentially a non-event 30 years ago needs to be brought up now. How is it relevant to _anything_ that's going on today? The Dems are in power, Reps won't be doing much of anything for at least the next two years, so why are we talking about this now? Is it "find some old slight and trumpet about it" week?


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 23, 2009)

You are ignoring the point that Carter also allotted funds for research.

If we had presued the technology we would be at the top of the heap on an great emerging market we could sell to all other countries right now.


The Left was right and the right was protecting a dying industry that has left us beholden to the middle east oil and look at what that got us?


----------



## Amanda (Jan 23, 2009)

Truthmatters said:


> You are ignoring the point that Carter also allotted funds for research.



Am I? It couldn't just be that I think it's irrelevant, I'm actually ignoring it? Good to know.


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 23, 2009)

Amanda said:


> Am I? It couldn't just be that I think it's irrelevant, I'm actually ignoring it? Good to know.




If you think research into emmerging markets is irrelevant than you must think your computor, cellphone and many other things in your life are irrelevant.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 23, 2009)

Amanda said:


> I know I shouldn't do this.... but... I can't stop typing....
> 
> 
> Maybe, huh? Strong case.
> ...



It is a hobby of mine to find and post examples of how/why the GOP sucks.

And I thought this was an interesting example.  

And I do it because the American voter has a very short memory.

Were you alive when HW Bush was president?  He was horrible!!!!

Yet 8 years later, his son won the Presidency, with a little help from Jeb & Katherine Harris in Florida of course. 

So I guess the point I'm trying to make is this.  The GOP don't want to come up with alternative energy solutions because the corporations they work for don't want them.


----------



## Mr. President (Jan 23, 2009)

Maybe Amanda realizes that the solar energy solutions were not all they were cracked up to be.  She probably knows that even now if you are not going to immediately use the energy from solar panels you have to have a coal powered storage which is an oxymoron if we are trying to save the enviroment.  She may also know that solar powered plants are backed by Coal or Fuel powered generators because the solar energy is not reliable.  Best to have a reliable source of energy in the White House dont ya think?


----------



## Amanda (Jan 23, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> It is a hobby of mine to find and post examples of how/why the GOP sucks.
> 
> And I thought this was an interesting example.
> 
> ...



Well... I guess everyone needs a hobby. 
It doesn't seem that interesting to me but then again, it's not my hobby.
I was alive when Bush I was pres, but I wasn't paying attention to what he was doing. Too busy learning to walk and stuff.

Isn't it possible that the GOP didn't see the viability of solar? It's not like it's made a big splash around the world. The GOP didn't keep solar or other alternate energies down all around the globe, did they?


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 23, 2009)

Sealy

did you know during Bush's tenure they put solar panels back on the white house


still no comment from you on this you hack


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 23, 2009)

Because the technology was not persued and refined.


----------



## Amanda (Jan 23, 2009)

Truthmatters said:


> Because the technology was not persued and refined.



And the GOP caused this world wide?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 23, 2009)

Mr. President said:


> Reagan didn't want solar panels that is correct but at that time there was no massive legislation calling for them either.  Neither the United States nor any other country was seeing an energy crisis.  The development and increase in automotives and use of oil errupted and that was what caused alternative fuels to become a hot topic and that was 20 years later.



Your reply is the kind of bullshit lie I expect from Republicans.  Thanks for not letting me down.  

Are you telling me Carter's energy crisis went away when Reagan got into office?  

Are you suggesting we should stop looking into alternative energy now because gas is down to $2 a gallon?  

Because Carter had an energy problem.  Do you think that went away under Reagan?  No fucking way.  I even remember him reducing the speed limit to conserve energy.

The GOP will come up with every solution, like slow down when you drive, but they will never come up with a solution to replace gas, because they work for the oil companies.

Carter:

I'm asking you for your good and for your nation's security to take no unnecessary trips, to use carpools or public transportation whenever you can, to park your car one extra day per week, to obey the speed limit, and to set your thermostats to save fuel... I have seen the strength of America in the inexhaustible resources of our people. In the days to come, let us renew that strength in the struggle for an energy-secure nation.[64]


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 23, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> Sealy
> 
> did you know during Bush's tenure they put solar panels back on the white house
> 
> ...



But wait your friend just said its a failed technology?


Bush personally installed them huh?


It was very likely not his choice and if he was so interested in the technolgy why did he not announce it to the nation and FUND its research.


----------



## Mr. President (Jan 23, 2009)

Amanda said:


> And the GOP caused this world wide?



HELL YEAH we did.  Sometimes we even make it cloudy so they have to use the backup generators


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 23, 2009)

Mr. President said:


> HELL YEAH we did.  Sometimes we even make it cloudy so they have to use the backup generators




Can we call you Barrak for short?


----------



## Mr. President (Jan 23, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Your reply is the kind of bullshit lie I expect from Republicans.  Thanks for not letting me down.
> 
> Are you telling me Carter's energy crisis went away when Reagan got into office?
> 
> ...




THERE WAS NO CRISIS!  Energy secure nation meaning he didn't want to be dependent on foreign oil not that there wasn't enough in the world.


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 23, 2009)

Amanda said:


> And the GOP caused this world wide?




What country is the top technology producer?

It used to be us.


----------



## Mr. President (Jan 23, 2009)

Truthmatters said:


> Can we call you Barrak for short?



Far be it from me to rain on your parade.  Carry on.


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 23, 2009)

Truthmatters said:


> Bush personally installed them huh?




Reagen personally took them down?

moron


----------



## Angel Heart (Jan 23, 2009)

Truthmatters said:


> Yeah Im sure Bush made that dicision personally, not.



He has one of the most environmentally friendly houses in the country. Or did you miss that fact. His house in Texas is very Eco friendly. It wouldn't surprise me if he demanded it be done.

Bush Loves Ecology -- At Home

Keep up with the hate... It will keep you warm at night.


----------



## Mr. President (Jan 23, 2009)

Truthmatters said:


> What country is the top technology producer?
> 
> It used to be us.



We also used to be a colony, things change.


----------



## Anguille (Jan 23, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> I bet Carter putting up those solar panels helped advance the solar panel technology, just as I'm sure Reagan's actions of tearing them off the White House helped to slow down its progress.  Did Reagan invest federal dollars in alternative energy?  Oh yea, I forgot, he was too busy shrinking government so he could drown it in a bathtub.



I remember seeing a documentary last summer on one of the major networks about alternative energy. The CEO of as Danish corporation was being interviewed about why solar energy use is more advanced and less expensive in Europe. He said his fledgling company got a huge break back when Reagan slashed all the funding for solar energy research that Carter had instituted. A US research company had gone bankrupt as a result of losing it's grants. The Danish company bought them out and brought their equipment and scientists to Denmark. Now the Danish company is booming and exports to the US. The Danish CEO was laughing saying Reagan did a huge favor to the European business community by sending solar energy research and manufacturing to them and screwing the US because now it's a multimillion dollar industry benefiting Europe instead of the US.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jan 23, 2009)

Truthmatters said:


> Andrew?
> 
> WTF do you think taking these panels off the house and defunding research did to the progress of the industry?
> 
> ...



You are making an assumption that by funding research, we would be much further ahead technologically than we are currently.  The problem with your argument is that other countries did fund more research, and they still are where we are.  The technology is going to take time more than money.

The problem with trying to fund everything is that it rarely works.  Look at all the money we have put into cancer research.  We still don't have a cure.  In fact, we are no closer to a cure today than we were thirty years ago.  Throwing money at everything and anything that is considered a problem, very rarely has any benefit other than to increase the budget and our taxes.


----------



## Amanda (Jan 23, 2009)

Truthmatters said:


> What country is the top technology producer?
> 
> It used to be us.



Stay on point or don't bother.

What country is/isn't was/wasn't isn't relevant to the argument. The claim was that since the technology wasn't pursued, it isn't viable today. So the question was: Are you really saying the GOP stopped worldwide research into solar and other alternative energy? Answer that or don't bother.


----------



## sitarro (Jan 23, 2009)

Truthmatters said:


> Andrew?
> 
> WTF do you think taking these panels off the house and defunding research did to the progress of the industry?
> 
> ...



Hey dimwit, with the amount of dollars the evil rich oil companies have, wouldn't they have dumped the money into research to take advantage of a free source of energy like the sun. If it is such a viable substitute, why wouldn't they want to be a major player in it? If there is so much money to be made why wouldn't the greedy oil men friends of the former President be jumping all over it? Oil is a royal pain in the ass and extraordinarily expensive to bring out of the earth, they would want to take over the solar industry too, easy money.


----------



## editec (Jan 23, 2009)

Carter was right about energy, folks.

Naturally, the partisans of the GOP have never forgiven him for that.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 23, 2009)

Truthmatters said:


> But wait your friend just said its a failed technology?
> 
> 
> Bush personally installed them huh?
> ...



I'll give him this one Truth.  I believe Bush did put solar on the white house.  His house in Crawford is very very green.  

That doesn't excuse his environmental policies.  Fuck his house.  How about all the corporations you allow to pollute.  How about the whales in the Pacific dying because of his navy sonar?  How about the nukes they drop in the Pacific that will be radioactive for the next 1000 years?  

One house isn't going to make up for all that.  

I get the feeling Bush goes green personally just to look good.  "See, I care about the environment."

Gives his defenders something to use when they argue with us.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jan 23, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> In June, 1979, President Jimmy Carter proposed a "new solar strategy" to "move our Nation toward true energy security and abundant, readily available energy supplies." In an effort to set an example for the country, Carter had solar panels installed on the roof of the White House West Wing. The panels were used to heat water for the staff mess and other areas of the White House.
> 
> The White House solar panels were a symbol of the Carter Administrations commitment to reduce Americas dependence of foreign sources of energy, according to Hakes, who was the Administrator of the Energy Information Administration at the U.S. Department of Energy during the Clinton presidency. "Behind that was a whole package of tax incentives, research and development and loans that made it much more than a symbol," Hakes added. "There was actually a very substantive attempt to move ahead the expanded use of solar energy."
> 
> ...



Reagan was cutting taxes. Something had to go. Sorry it was your pet project. You can be energy independent without solar.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jan 23, 2009)

editec said:


> Carter was right about energy, folks.
> 
> Naturally, the partisans of the GOP have never forgiven him for that.



What exactly was he right about? Energy is pretty broad. That would include the "Carter Doctrine" that makes protection of the Persian Gulf an American National interest. I'm not sure how many here would support that. Basically, he said "Our blood for their oil" unless you can think of another way to read the Carter Doctrine.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 23, 2009)

Mr. President said:


> THERE WAS NO CRISIS!  Energy secure nation meaning he didn't want to be dependent on foreign oil not that there wasn't enough in the world.



How many years worth of oil did Reagan think we had?  

Let's face it, you are defending Reagan because he's a Republican, and you would defend a Republican even if that Republican murdered a room full of kittens.  

He knew, just like Presidents before him knew, that we needed alternative energy. 

Just like the GOP today knows we need alternative energy.  Yet they veto/vote against every alternative energy idea that is ever brought up.  And they never come up with alternative ideas.  Or their ideas suck on purpose, and they know it.  

You know what?  I'm done arguing about this.  Last year I heard a Democrat say they had a solution to all this, but they couldn't even introduce it on the floor without having the GOP filabust it or have Bush veto it.  

So fuck it.  That lady wanted to know why I am bringing up this Reagan/carter story?  Its because soon the GOP will block progress on Alternative Energy.  I just want to call them out on it before they even do it.  That way it'll be obvious to people like you who normally swallow whatver they tell you.  I think now you'll start to see what I mean.  

And you can either keep defending them or join our side.  Its nice over here.  Our ideas work.  And we are inclusive.  Are you poor or rich?  Doesn't matter, the Dems work for you.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 23, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> At present solar energy is perhaps the vastly dominant source of energy we use. It just comes in a form we don't really contemplate, which is oil. The first step of oil formation is the photosynthesis of sunlight by extremely small plankton like plants millions of years ago.
> 
> These days, we need a quicker way to convert sunlight into energy. There is more than enough energy in a day's worth of sunlight to meet our energy needs for a year. The question is how to harness it in an efficient and cost effective manner. Currently, we are failing when it comes to both elements, but are making progress.
> 
> ...



Sunpower has at present a cell that is over 21% efficient. Had Reagan invested money into solar cell research, we might well have a very high efficiency solar cell at present. The University of Delaware is playing with manufacturing methods for a 40+% cell they have developed. We are far closer than many years for effective solar cell. Even the low efficiency ones, the present thin films, are now manufactured by a couple of companies for less than a dollar a watt. This would be reflected in the market at present, except for the fact that all the factrories that these companies have built, have sold their first two years production before the factories were even producing. Supply and demand. As the supply catches up with demand, these will become affordable.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 23, 2009)

Angel Heart said:


> He has one of the most environmentally friendly houses in the country. Or did you miss that fact. His house in Texas is very Eco friendly. It wouldn't surprise me if he demanded it be done.
> 
> Bush Loves Ecology -- At Home
> 
> Keep up with the hate... It will keep you warm at night.



And approved of changes in regulations that will poison thousands of miles of waterways below open pit coal mines. Bush was a disaster for the environment.


----------



## Modbert (Jan 23, 2009)

Amanda said:


> Stay on point or don't bother.
> 
> What country is/isn't was/wasn't isn't relevant to the argument. The claim was that since the technology wasn't pursued, it isn't viable today. So the question was: Are you really saying the GOP stopped worldwide research into solar and other alternative energy? Answer that or don't bother.



Well Amanda, do tell us what the GOP did while Reagan was in office to further advance alternative energy and Solar Energy?


----------



## Modbert (Jan 23, 2009)

Angel Heart said:


> He has one of the most environmentally friendly houses in the country. Or did you miss that fact. His house in Texas is very Eco friendly. It wouldn't surprise me if he demanded it be done.
> 
> Bush Loves Ecology -- At Home
> 
> Keep up with the hate... It will keep you warm at night.



 That's great, maybe it will make up 1/whatever of this:

Environment Worsened Under Bush in Many Key Areas, Data Show

Bush team rushes environment policy changes | Environment | Reuters



> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - As the U.S. presidential candidates sprint toward the finish line, the Bush administration is also sprinting to enact environmental policy changes before leaving power.
> 
> Whether it's getting wolves off the Endangered Species List, allowing power plants to operate near national parks, loosening regulations for factory farm waste or making it easier for mountaintop coal-mining operations, these proposed changes have found little favor with environmental groups.



Gee, all of those sound like swell ideas huh? It's a good thing we don't have a clusterfuck of a President in office anymore to ignore Global Warming and  actually have a President who will do something positive! First thing for the environment would be to reverse all of Bush's "wonderful" policies.

Bush backpedals on environment

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/us/22brfs-PERMISSIONTO_BRF.html



> Last year, the Bush administration, breaking with precedent, denied California the right to establish its own standards* in the absence of any federal mandates.* Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, in his own separate letter to President Obama, urged him to direct the E.P.A. &#8220;to act promptly and favorably&#8221; on the request.


----------



## Amanda (Jan 23, 2009)

Modbert said:


> Amanda said:
> 
> 
> > Stay on point or don't bother.
> ...



Maybe you didn't read my post... let me reiterate: Stay on point or don't bother.

Let me clarify that for you: I didn't make a claim, I asked for an answer. If you can't answer the question then I have no use for your reply.


----------



## manu1959 (Jan 23, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > The GOP are idiots.
> ...




we can only hope that obama puts all the evil corporations out of business....pity clinton and gore didn't do anything to stop the evil corporations when they were in power.....maybe now we will get things changed.....


----------



## michiganFats (Jan 24, 2009)

This is all pointless. Carter was obviously making a gesture, as was Reagan. None of it matters because surface level solar collectors will never be viable, and neither will electric cars.


----------



## Modbert (Jan 24, 2009)

michiganFats said:


> This is all pointless. Carter was obviously making a gesture, as was Reagan. None of it matters because surface level solar collectors will never be viable, and neither will electric cars.



 foolish comments.

We would of had them long ago, say 1911. Why don't we? The oil and automobile companies conspired together to buy any patents of such products and destroyed them. A cheap electric car would of destroyed both industries in the sense of making the max profits.


----------



## michiganFats (Jan 24, 2009)

Foolish comments eh? Lets look at solar tech first. Solar as we are doing it now won't work for one very simple reason, the weather. In order to run a large energy grid you need one thing, consistency. Without it, you get brownouts and blackouts. We may incorporate solar someday, but it won't be based upon any ground level collectors. There is only one place where you are guaranteed constant access to sunlight, and that is outside of the atmosphere. At that point, in order to transfer the energy to the ground, you would have to convert to microwave tech or something like it that isn't affected by weather. in order to do that in a cost effective way, you need limited targets, such as existing energy plants. As long as we can convert them so that microwaves produce the steam that turn the turbines, it's possible and in my humble opinion likely. Another alternative is tidal generators, but that probably won't fly for political reasons. In order to place the generators so that they can turn 24/7, you would have to be in International waters. Not likely to happen, what with the save the whales crap the UN believes in. Electric cars will never happen, so put it out of your mind now. Diesel is much more likely to become the standard. Diesel engines are more efficient than gasoline engines, and since the delivery infrastructure already exists, don't hold your breath waiting for anything else anytime soon. In addition, no matter how efficient electric cars become, we still can't use them on a wide scale because most of them would be recharged at night. Our energy grids recharge at night. If everyone bought an electric car and recharged it at night, we'd crash our grids. I'd like to reduce our dependence on foreign oil as much as the next guy, but cutting off your nose to spite your face is ridiculous.


----------



## Chris (Jan 24, 2009)

michiganFats said:


> Foolish comments eh? Lets look at solar tech first. Solar as we are doing it now won't work for one very simple reason, the weather. In order to run a large energy grid you need one thing, consistency. Without it, you get brownouts and blackouts. We may incorporate solar someday, but it won't be based upon any ground level collectors. There is only one place where you are guaranteed constant access to sunlight, and that is outside of the atmosphere. At that point, in order to transfer the energy to the ground, you would have to convert to microwave tech or something like it that isn't affected by weather. in order to do that in a cost effective way, you need limited targets, such as existing energy plants. As long as we can convert them so that microwaves produce the steam that turn the turbines, it's possible and in my humble opinion likely. Another alternative is tidal generators, but that probably won't fly for political reasons. In order to place the generators so that they can turn 24/7, you would have to be in International waters. Not likely to happen, what with the save the whales crap the UN believes in. Electric cars will never happen, so put it out of your mind now. Diesel is much more likely to become the standard. Diesel engines are more efficient than gasoline engines, and since the delivery infrastructure already exists, don't hold your breath waiting for anything else anytime soon. In addition, no matter how efficient electric cars become, we still can't use them on a wide scale because most of them would be recharged at night. Our energy grids recharge at night. If everyone bought an electric car and recharged it at night, we'd crash our grids. I'd like to reduce our dependence on foreign oil as much as the next guy, but cutting off your nose to spite your face is ridiculous.



The Israelis are building one solar energy plant which will supply 5% of their energy needs. The Danes already get 20% of their energy from wind. The Israelis are also organizing a series of switching stations for electric cars that would operate like a gas station. You would drive in and switch out your exhausted battery for a fresh one. The Israelis plan on being energy self sufficient by 2030. It can be done. All that is required is the political will.


----------



## michiganFats (Jan 24, 2009)

Denmark and Israel are two very small nations that do not have the commercial demands on their energy grids that the United States has to deal with. If Wyoming wanted to go solar augmented by wind, maybe they could. The United States as a whole cannot.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 24, 2009)

michiganFats said:


> Foolish comments eh? Lets look at solar tech first. Solar as we are doing it now won't work for one very simple reason, the weather. In order to run a large energy grid you need one thing, consistency. Without it, you get brownouts and blackouts. We may incorporate solar someday, but it won't be based upon any ground level collectors. There is only one place where you are guaranteed constant access to sunlight, and that is outside of the atmosphere. At that point, in order to transfer the energy to the ground, you would have to convert to microwave tech or something like it that isn't affected by weather. in order to do that in a cost effective way, you need limited targets, such as existing energy plants. As long as we can convert them so that microwaves produce the steam that turn the turbines, it's possible and in my humble opinion likely. Another alternative is tidal generators, but that probably won't fly for political reasons. In order to place the generators so that they can turn 24/7, you would have to be in International waters. Not likely to happen, what with the save the whales crap the UN believes in. Electric cars will never happen, so put it out of your mind now. Diesel is much more likely to become the standard. Diesel engines are more efficient than gasoline engines, and since the delivery infrastructure already exists, don't hold your breath waiting for anything else anytime soon. In addition, no matter how efficient electric cars become, we still can't use them on a wide scale because most of them would be recharged at night. Our energy grids recharge at night. If everyone bought an electric car and recharged it at night, we'd crash our grids. I'd like to reduce our dependence on foreign oil as much as the next guy, but cutting off your nose to spite your face is ridiculous.



OK, fats.

 Toyota made the electric RAV enticing but it is now unavailable. Ever wonder what a regular old gasoline RAV4 converted into a electric RAV4 would be like? Some folks have taken matters in their own hands. A RAV4 in Oregon converted to electric drive is up on eBay. Take a look. 

The NiMH batteries that propel the Toyota-built EV over 100 miles on a charge are, of course, unavailable on the open market. (Wikipedia has an entry on the much-debated "Patent encumbrance of NiMH batteries.") Using lead-acid batteries, this car has less than half that range. But as GM keeps hammering home with its Volt commercials, the average car drives under 40 miles per day. This conversion's claimed range is over 40. The lead acid make this EV affordable compared to the $50,000+ RAV4 EVs that pop up on eBay from time to time. The Buy It Now price is just $22,000.
eBay Find of the Day: Toyota RAV4 electric conversion - AutoblogGreen

The RAV-4 Toyota had a 120 mile range with NiMH batteries. Many people with urban businesses found this a perfect vehicle for them. Some added solar panels to their roofs, and, combining the money that they saved on fuel and heating and cooling their homes, paid for those panels in about 3 years time.

We have the technology right now to produce an excellent all electric vehicle. Many people here in Portland, Oregon are building their own, to the extent that PGE is putting charging stations up for them. The problem is not technology, the problem is will and leadership.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 24, 2009)

michiganFats said:


> Foolish comments eh? Lets look at solar tech first. Solar as we are doing it now won't work for one very simple reason, the weather. In order to run a large energy grid you need one thing, consistency. Without it, you get brownouts and blackouts. We may incorporate solar someday, but it won't be based upon any ground level collectors. There is only one place where you are guaranteed constant access to sunlight, and that is outside of the atmosphere. At that point, in order to transfer the energy to the ground, you would have to convert to microwave tech or something like it that isn't affected by weather. in order to do that in a cost effective way, you need limited targets, such as existing energy plants. As long as we can convert them so that microwaves produce the steam that turn the turbines, it's possible and in my humble opinion likely. Another alternative is tidal generators, but that probably won't fly for political reasons. In order to place the generators so that they can turn 24/7, you would have to be in International waters. Not likely to happen, what with the save the whales crap the UN believes in. Electric cars will never happen, so put it out of your mind now. Diesel is much more likely to become the standard. Diesel engines are more efficient than gasoline engines, and since the delivery infrastructure already exists, don't hold your breath waiting for anything else anytime soon. In addition, no matter how efficient electric cars become, we still can't use them on a wide scale because most of them would be recharged at night. Our energy grids recharge at night. If everyone bought an electric car and recharged it at night, we'd crash our grids. I'd like to reduce our dependence on foreign oil as much as the next guy, but cutting off your nose to spite your face is ridiculous.



Our energy grids do not 'recharge' at night. We just use a lot less energy at night. So solar would be a great help as it delivers power at exactly the time that we need it the most. Another point, is that there is thermal solar which generates power 24-7. And, in places like South Eastern Oregon, you have a very large wind potential, as well as geo-thermal, and solar. And we 'the people' own 99% of that land. All it lacks is a grid to get the energy there to where it is needed. Another point is that there are new methods of generating from alternative sources being investigated every day. The University of Michigan is working with one that looks to be scalable, and gets energy from water currents that are only moving at the rate of 1 to 3 knots. 

We have all the energy we can possibly use, without burning either coal or oil. However, it will take leadership to get us off the fossil fuel tit. It looks like we may have that leadership now.


----------



## Amanda (Jan 24, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> We have the technology right now to produce an excellent all electric vehicle.



Hmmm. So the GOP isn't to blame after all. Couldn't see how that claim had any credibility, but I thank you for putting it to rest.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 24, 2009)

Amanda said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > We have the technology right now to produce an excellent all electric vehicle.
> ...



Chevron and GM are to blame for the fact that the RAV-4 electric is not available here in the US. GM is to blame for failing to follow up on the popularity of it's EV-1. The GOP is only to blame for not providing the leadership to say to these companies that there is a national interest above that of their oil profits. The GOP failed itself, and now the Democrats have the chance to provide that leadership. We shall see what they do.


----------



## xsited1 (Jan 24, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> Solar Panels at the White House « Cooler Planet
> 
> In 2003, solar photovoltaic panels were installed at the White House.   Two smaller solar thermal systems were also installed to heat water:  one for landscape maintenance personnel, the other for the presidential pool and spa.
> 
> ...



  I wonder why solar panels weren't installed at the White House during the Clinton Administration?


----------



## garyd (Jan 25, 2009)

Ye gods what pure unadulterated idiocy from the left, but then they are leftists so what did I really expect?  Carter wanted energy independence? And yet he all but guarateed it wouldn't happen in the forseeable future when he essentially shut down all oil drilling in the US.

Exxon builds wind farms and makes and sells solar panels as well you idiots. My God the Bullshit leftist believe never ceases to amaze me.


----------



## Amanda (Jan 25, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> The GOP is only to blame for not providing the leadership to say to these companies that there is a national interest above that of their oil profits. The GOP failed itself, and now the Democrats have the chance to provide that leadership. We shall see what they do.



So you're saying the Dems have had their hands tied all this time, and now, finally, they have their chance? You're either giving the GOP a lot of credit for power they don't have or you're giving the Dems one heck of a pass for the last 30 or so years.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 25, 2009)

Amanda said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > The GOP is only to blame for not providing the leadership to say to these companies that there is a national interest above that of their oil profits. The GOP failed itself, and now the Democrats have the chance to provide that leadership. We shall see what they do.
> ...



No one is getting a pass. Clinton should have done far more. And there are plenty of Dems that have no qualms about taking money from the big energy people. As I said, we shall see what they do.

The power to control the money for research is one of the primary drivers of technology. Now before anyone tries the idiocy, fiscal 2006 is done in 2005, still a Republican Congress;


The National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden plans to lay off as many as 100 scientists and researchers, or 11 percent of its total staff, beginning early next month as it faces drastic cuts in its budget. 

The fiscal 2006 cuts, estimated at more than $20 million, or 10 percent of its $200 million budget in fiscal 2005, are the result of Congress earmarking or diverting a big chunk of federal funds toward other projects.

In fiscal 2006, Congress cut the Department of Energy's budget for all renewable energy programs by more than 35 percent. As a result, DOE, which funds NREL as well as other national labs, has cut the total amount it will give the lab in Golden. NREL does research in wind, biomass, solar and hydrogen technologies.

"We are going to face a very difficult year at NREL," said Bob Noun, NREL's deputy associate director. "This is a real paradox.

"At a time in which renewable energy enjoys significant bipartisan support in Congress, that very support has spawned all of these projects around the country that have diverted funds from NREL's research programs."

Layoffs in store at NREL : Energy : The Rocky Mountain News


----------



## Amanda (Jan 25, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> No one is getting a pass. Clinton should have done far more. And there are plenty of Dems that have no qualms about taking money from the big energy people. As I said, we shall see what they do.



No one is getting a pass? Then I shall be quite pleased to post in the thread you start about how Dems have bungled energy policy for the last 30 years and kept the WORLD from making any advances in solar or other alternative energies. This ridiculous thread could really use a counterpart to balance the incredibly partisan malarky that's been posted.


----------



## ericwmiller (Apr 20, 2010)

"And I bet you that alternative energy makes huge leaps and gains under Obama, now that the GOP aren't around to stop progress."

Actually during Obama the funding and progress has slowed drastically because of inability to turn the economy around. Or wanting to use the chaos to breed hysteric and hasty adoption of burden onto the electorate. to grow the government dah.

Anyway this result two main ways slower economy less money for research. The main reason is that the slow economy results in lower gas prices and less alternative technology being competitive.

I study process engineering of biological fuels and i have see this happen.


----------



## gslack (Apr 21, 2010)

Funny how yesterdays idiotic embarrassment is todays hero and visionary...

Jimmy Carter, the same Jimmy Carter that was left hanging out to dry because of a correct and good decision involving pay rate increases to the Unions. The same man who is called anti-semite by the media for his very unpopular although accurate book regarding Israeli and Palestinian disputes. Yeah the same one the democrats have been embarrassed about for so long, is now suddenly the visionary of solar energy. And of course the evil Ronald Reagan came along and ruined it..... Uh-huh....

Dam, is there no end to the hypocrisy in political parties these days? Seriously, he has been the creepy relative no one talks to or wants to know for decades, and now because its convenient you change the way you looked at him just yesterday... WTF? Whats next? You going to ignore the escalation of Vietnam by Johnson and praise him for Eco-friendly private thoughts? Give me a break..

Lets be honest here. The solar panels back then were junk, the way they installed them was equally garbage, and the entire premise back then was a novelty and not a viable resource. They said the panels were to power the water heaters? or to heat water (same thing)... I would love to see how that worked out back then... Dude we can't even get a solar panel to power a water heater fully now much less back then.

The roof needed repairing, they took them off to do that, and when told the costs to replace them and weighed it against the benefits from them, they opted to leave them off...

Why haven't any of the other Democrats put new ones on? Hmmm, funny how that works huh...


----------



## dextercath96 (May 12, 2010)

How funny this quarrel is. Only a solar power make Carter and Reagan. Solar power generator which I've seen in Solar Power Generator is useful in our environment. I am in favor to Carter. I don't like what Reagan did to that solar panels.


----------



## JimH52 (May 12, 2010)

Personally, I am hoping that Flalin Palin runs for Pres. in 2012.  I want to see all the Democratic poster with the term, "DRILL BABY DRILL!"

By that time, maybe the oil spill will have made it up the east coast and all the way to DC.  YEAH!


----------



## konradv (May 12, 2010)

_Yeah the same one the democrats have been embarrassed about for so long, is now suddenly the visionary of solar energy. And of course the evil Ronald Reagan came along and ruined it..... Uh-huh....

Dam, is there no end to the hypocrisy in political parties these days? Seriously, he has been the creepy relative no one talks to or wants to know for decades, and now because its convenient you change the way you looked at him just yesterday..._
--------------------------

Who's been embarrassed by Carter?  He's been a great ex-President and has much more global popularity than Reagan.  How many Nobels does Ronnie have?  LOL!!!


----------



## gslack (May 12, 2010)

konradv said:


> _Yeah the same one the democrats have been embarrassed about for so long, is now suddenly the visionary of solar energy. And of course the evil Ronald Reagan came along and ruined it..... Uh-huh....
> 
> Dam, is there no end to the hypocrisy in political parties these days? Seriously, he has been the creepy relative no one talks to or wants to know for decades, and now because its convenient you change the way you looked at him just yesterday..._
> --------------------------
> ...



Oh? well then why did so many of you decided NOT to re-elect him in 80'?

Do you even understand one of the major reasons he lost that vote? 2 big ones, Iran and the hostages, and he lost the unions votes. How did he lose the union votes? Well he talked the auto and steel union fat cats into holding union members pay rate increases to 5% instead of their previous 10% for the next 5 years. This was the right thing to do for the economy at the time, but the union members didn't like it so they voted Reagan....

THink its made up? Well then explain how if there are about 72 million democrat voters, and only 55 million republican voters; how in the hell do democrats ever loose? What do all the 42 million independents always vote republican? Yeah right....

Believe it or not, not all in the democratic party will always agree with their party. And they definitely didn't agree on Carter.....


----------

