# How do you think the right would respond if...



## uscitizen (Apr 6, 2012)

Cheap and safe cold fusion power generation was suddenly developed.
Along with new energy storage techniques that allowed very feasable electric vehicles?

How would the govt handle this?  Woudl they try and keep it down to protect the existing energy ifrastructure?

would they embrace full implementation as soon as possible.

would they dither while the rest of the world passed us by?

And I said the right becuase as far as business goes the govt is very right.


----------



## B. Kidd (Apr 7, 2012)

I don't mind.

What If 6 Were 9?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6teeBW5tB-8]The Jimi Hendrix Experience If 6 Was 9 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Oddball (Apr 7, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> Cheap and safe cold fusion power generation was suddenly developed.
> Along with new energy storage techniques that allowed very feasable electric vehicles?
> 
> How would the govt handle this?  Woudl they try and keep it down to protect the existing energy ifrastructure?
> ...


With such numerous sources of tax revenue suddenly evaporating, how do you believe the politicians and bureaucrats would respond?


----------



## Trajan (Apr 7, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> Cheap and safe cold fusion power generation was suddenly developed.
> Along with new energy storage techniques that allowed very feasable electric vehicles?
> 
> How would the govt handle this?  Woudl they try and keep it down to protect the existing energy ifrastructure?
> ...



whatever dude.....you are usually better at trolling than this....weak...


----------



## Ragnar (Apr 7, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBmrwMfNxrI]government has a car that runs on water man - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 7, 2012)

Imagine no possession, I wonder if you can?


----------



## starcraftzzz (Apr 7, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> Cheap and safe cold fusion power generation was suddenly developed.
> Along with new energy storage techniques that allowed very feasable electric vehicles?
> 
> How would the govt handle this?  Woudl they try and keep it down to protect the existing energy ifrastructure?
> ...



Consideirng clean energy is ALREADY cheaper the fossil fuels I'd say the respond like the always do and claim that cold fusion would destroy jobs and be bad


----------



## Liability (Apr 7, 2012)

How would the ussitandspin respond if he ever got one of his trolling efforts rewarded with a semblance of credibility rather than derision?


----------



## daveman (Apr 8, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> Cheap and safe cold fusion power generation was suddenly developed.
> Along with new energy storage techniques that allowed very feasable electric vehicles?
> 
> How would the govt handle this?  Woudl they try and keep it down to protect the existing energy ifrastructure?
> ...


I have seen your vision:


----------



## ThinkCritically (Apr 8, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Cheap and safe cold fusion power generation was suddenly developed.
> ...



Can you back this up with anything?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Apr 8, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> Cheap and safe cold fusion power generation was suddenly developed.
> Along with new energy storage techniques that allowed very feasable electric vehicles?
> 
> How would the govt handle this?  Woudl they try and keep it down to protect the existing energy ifrastructure?
> ...



I'd support implementation as fast as possible!


----------



## Douger (Apr 8, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> Cheap and safe cold fusion power generation was suddenly developed.
> Along with new energy storage techniques that allowed very feasable electric vehicles?
> 
> How would the govt handle this?  Woudl they try and keep it down to protect the existing energy ifrastructure?
> ...


Enjoy.
ThriveMovement - YouTube


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 8, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> Cheap and safe cold fusion power generation was suddenly developed.
> Along with new energy storage techniques that allowed very feasable electric vehicles?
> 
> How would the govt handle this?  Woudl they try and keep it down to protect the existing energy ifrastructure?
> ...



What does being able to afford cheap energy have to do with being left or right?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 8, 2012)

daveman said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Cheap and safe cold fusion power generation was suddenly developed.
> ...


----------



## editec (Apr 8, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> Cheap and safe cold fusion power generation was suddenly developed.
> Along with new energy storage techniques that allowed very feasable electric vehicles?
> 
> How would the govt handle this? Woudl they try and keep it down to protect the existing energy ifrastructure?
> ...


 
THAT is a damned good question.

One does wonder if the oiliocracy would do everything it could to keep us dependent on our carbon based energy economy.

They've got a lot to lose if oil and coal lost their appeal as energy sources.

How much would they have to lose?

Well I don't Know what the value of  world domination really is in monetary terms, but I'm guessing its a number with a whole lotta zeros at the end of it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 8, 2012)

editec said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Cheap and safe cold fusion power generation was suddenly developed.
> ...



Look when Al gore was on his save the global warming world tour how much of a carbon foot print did he leave fling around the world and when he was at home. While he was asking for people to cut energy usage? You lead by example When Al can get his energy bill down too under 90.00 a month we can talk not until then.


----------



## Iplaynaked (Apr 8, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> Cheap and safe cold fusion power generation was suddenly developed.
> Along with new energy storage techniques that allowed very feasable electric vehicles?
> 
> How would the govt handle this?  Woudl they try and keep it down to protect the existing energy ifrastructure?
> ...



They would keep it down almost immediately and probably keep it in safe keeping's, the entire time improving it and benefiting from its resources, until we ran out of all the oil and our would was on an energy crisis then the oil companies would invest into this and make another couple billions saying they're green or some other bullshit spin they put on EVERYTHING.


----------



## Trajan (Apr 8, 2012)

editec said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Cheap and safe cold fusion power generation was suddenly developed.
> ...



the problem with that is, there is no reason to lose fossil fuels. 


and the green lobby has locked out nuclear power,  the best large scale effort that could,  if we undertook a Manhattan project like energy policy to wean us off say coal. when you take the best option off the table, whats left?


----------



## daveman (Apr 8, 2012)

Trajan said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...


The ecofascists totally don't understand that there is more use for oil than just vehicle fuel.

A partial list of products made from Petroleum (144 of 6000 items) 

One 42-gallon barrel of oil creates 19.4 gallons of gasoline. The rest (over half) is used to make things like:

Solvents
Diesel fuel
Motor Oil
Bearing Grease
Ink
Floor Wax
Ballpoint Pens
Football Cleats
Upholstery
Sweaters
Boats
Insecticides
Bicycle Tires
Sports Car Bodies
Nail Polish
Fishing lures
Dresses
Tires
Golf Bags
Perfumes
Cassettes
Dishwasher parts
Tool Boxes
Shoe Polish
Motorcycle Helmet
Caulking
Petroleum Jelly
Transparent Tape
CD Player
Faucet Washers
Antiseptics
Clothesline
Curtains
Food Preservatives
Basketballs
Soap
Vitamin Capsules
Antihistamines
Purses
Shoes
Dashboards
Cortisone
Deodorant
Footballs
Putty
Dyes
Panty Hose
Refrigerant
Percolators
Life Jackets
Rubbing Alcohol
Linings
Skis
TV Cabinets
Shag Rugs
Electrician's Tape
Tool Racks
Car Battery Cases
Epoxy
Paint
Mops
Slacks
Insect Repellent
Oil Filters
Umbrellas
Yarn
Fertilizers
Hair Coloring
Roofing
Toilet Seats
Fishing Rods
Lipstick
Denture Adhesive
Linoleum
Ice Cube Trays
Synthetic Rubber
Speakers
Plastic Wood
Electric Blankets
Glycerin
Tennis Rackets
Rubber Cement
Fishing Boots
Dice
Nylon Rope
Candles
Trash Bags
House Paint
Water Pipes
Hand Lotion
Roller Skates
Surf Boards
Shampoo
Wheels
Paint Rollers
Shower Curtains
Guitar Strings
Luggage
Aspirin
Safety Glasses
Antifreeze
Football Helmets
Awnings
Eyeglasses
Clothes
Toothbrushes
Ice Chests
Footballs
Combs
CD's & DVD's
Paint Brushes
Detergents
Vaporizers
Balloons
Sun Glasses
Tents
Heart Valves
Crayons
Parachutes
Telephones
Enamel
Pillows
Dishes
Cameras
Anesthetics
Artificial Turf
Artificial limbs
Bandages
Dentures
Model Cars
Folding Doors
Hair Curlers
Cold cream
Movie film
Soft Contact lenses
Drinking Cups
Fan Belts
Car Enamel
Shaving Cream
Ammonia
Refrigerators
Golf Balls
Toothpaste


Americans consume petroleum products at a rate of three-and-a-half gallons of oil and more than 250 cubic feet of natural gas per day each! But, as shown here petroleum is not just used for fuel.​
There will ALWAYS be a need for petroleum.  Wind, solar, nuclear, and other energy sources can't make plastics or medicines or paints or fertilizers.

Ecofasists are amazingly ignorant.


----------



## RGR (Apr 8, 2012)

Trajan said:


> when you take the best option off the table, whats left?



Why...all the others, of course.


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 8, 2012)

Humans are not ready for the technology yet.  So I will not release it.


----------



## Mr. H. (Apr 8, 2012)

editec said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Cheap and safe cold fusion power generation was suddenly developed.
> ...



I'm part of the "oilocracy". Third generation in fact. This would ruin our business and put me out in the streets. I would welcome it and embrace it.


----------



## starcraftzzz (Apr 8, 2012)

ThinkCritically said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



*Yep here is a study that finds clean energy is cheaper the fossil fuels.*
Economists: Coal Is Incredibly Costly | ThinkProgress

And another
Life-cycle study: Accounting for total harm from coal would add "close to 17.8¢/kWh of electricity generated" | ThinkProgress

And another
Coal Does More Harm Than Good in Kentucky: $62 Million for Asthma Costs, $10 Billion for Lost Lives | ThinkProgress

And another
Coal's hidden costs top $345 billion in U.S.: study | Reuters

And another
Existing U.S. Coal Plants - SourceWatch


----------



## Oddball (Apr 8, 2012)

ThinkProgress....


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 8, 2012)

Oddball said:


> ThinkProgress....



oh yell think progress is really partial in their opinion aren't they?


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 8, 2012)

daveman said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



Of course your dumbass strawman is totally transparent. It is not the use of oil for an industrial stock that is the problem. It is the burning of the fossil fuel and the release of GHGs into the atmosphere that is the problem. 

Seems to me to be an idiotic thing to do to burn such a valuable industrial stock.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 8, 2012)

Wonderful avatar, by the way


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 8, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...



btw Diesel fuel is a fuel but it is in the list....


----------



## whitehall (Apr 8, 2012)

Why not ponder how the right would respond to E.T. technology or changing water into wine? How about a meteor strike? The sky is the limit, why not turn any improbable event into a political issue? It beats talking about the price of gas.


----------



## ThinkCritically (Apr 9, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> ThinkCritically said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...



I get it now.  Clean Coal is not cheaper to produce.  It is cheaper to clean up.  So it is projected that the additional cost of producing clean coal is less than the cost of cleaning up dirty coal, correct?  

It is a little misleading to say that clean en is cheaper to produce because it isn't, but if the studies are accurate then yes the costs of clean coal for society is less than the current method of coal burning.  Please let me know if I got this right.


----------



## Iplaynaked (Apr 9, 2012)

daveman said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



Don't forget 99% of the food dyes used in the "food" we eat and drink. Mmmmm petrolium never tasted so good!


----------



## daveman (Apr 9, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Of course your dumbass strawman is totally transparent. It is not the use of oil for an industrial stock that is the problem. It is the burning of the fossil fuel and the release of GHGs into the atmosphere that is the problem.
> 
> Seems to me to be an idiotic thing to do to burn such a valuable industrial stock.


No strawman.  You idiots want to do away with oil entirely.

Civilization would collapse.  Completely.

This is you, isn't it?


----------



## daveman (Apr 9, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> btw Diesel fuel is a fuel but it is in the list....



"One 42-gallon barrel of oil creates 19.4 gallons of *gasoline*. The rest (over half) is used to make things like:"

Dumbass.


----------



## sparky (Apr 9, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> Cheap and safe cold fusion power generation was suddenly developed.
> Along with new energy storage techniques that allowed very feasable electric vehicles?
> 
> How would the govt handle this?  Woudl they try and keep it down to protect the existing energy ifrastructure?
> ...



the problem with today's brand of partisans is, they'll believe whatever the corporatists _tell_ them to

this is more than evident in _any _facts presented being lauded as liberal tree hugger bias

~S~


----------

