Obama says US must shift cars, trucks off of oil

[jasonnfree]

Ah, man... I thought hydrogen was gonna be the wave of the future like Bush said

Natural gas is cheaper, and has less of an impact on global warming.

So, you're agreeing that man does have an impact on global warming?

 

[jasonnfree]

Often times government must lead the way.

Can you provide some real world examples?

Inspecting meat for one.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ah, man... I thought hydrogen was gonna be the wave of the future like Bush said

Natural gas is cheaper, and has less of an impact on global warming.

So, you're agreeing that man does have an impact on global warming?

Never said he doesn't, I just sneer at the people that tell me it will end the universe.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Often times government must lead the way.

Can you provide some real world examples?

Inspecting meat for one.

No one inspected meat before the government got involved?

 

[tjvh]

Often times government must lead the way.

Can you provide some real world examples?

Inspecting meat for one.

Any others???

 

[tjvh]

Can you provide some real world examples?

Inspecting meat for one.

No one inspected meat before the government got involved?

Common sense would dictate that every person who ate meat probably inspected it prior to cooking it. I don't believe you need the Government to tell you that your steak is spoiled.

 

[Agit8r]

Can you provide some real world examples?

Inspecting meat for one.

No one inspected meat before the government got involved?

That would be correct

 

[OKTexas]

Inspecting meat for one.

No one inspected meat before the government got involved?

That would be correct

And yet, the world continued to turn, how is it possible any of us are here.

 

[Saigon]

If you sit there and tell me that the founders advocated that the federal government be prohibited from funding scientific research and were opposed to federal funding of the arts, I will have a hard time taking you seriously.

That is what you said, is it not?

That is exactly what Atricle 1, Section 8, Clause 8 says, the founders saw the roll of government as a protector of inventors and authors so their works could not be stolen. They did not envision the government having a roll in funding it. Why is the concept of LIMITED government such a hard thing to get your head around?

I am always puzzled with posters would rather lie through their teeth than admit they were wrong.

You claimed the constitution "explicity prohibits" a role in scientific research - this claim has already been proven to be entirely false.

 

[jasonnfree]

Inspecting meat for one.

No one inspected meat before the government got involved?

Common sense would dictate that every person who ate meat probably inspected it prior to cooking it. I don't believe you need the Government to tell you that your steak is spoiled.

People used to do a lot of things in the old days that they can't get away with today. Sometimes bridges collapse if they're not built correctly. People can get salmonella and die. I don't want the guy that built the bridge to do a self inspection, the electrician that wired the house to do the inspection, or the packing plant to certify that the beef is safe. This is where the government and the power of the law does things best. Some of you people are obviously wishing for a time when life wasn't so complicated but sorry, it really is.

 

[bayoubill]

Obama says US must shift cars, trucks off of oil

NEDRA PICKLER and MATTHEW DALY | March 15, 2013 06:03 PM EST | Associated Press
Compare other versions »

Obama says US must shift cars, trucks off of oil

LEMONT, Ill. — Envisioning cars that can go "coast to coast without using a drop of oil," President Barack Obama on Friday urged Congress to authorize spending $2 billion over the next decade to expand research into electric cars and biofuels to wean automobiles off gasoline.

Obama, expanding on an initiative he addressed in his State of the Union speech last month, said the United States must shift its cars and trucks entirely off oil to avoid perpetual fluctuations in gas prices. Citing policies that already require automakers to increase gas mileage, he said he expects that by the middle of the next decade, Americans will only have to fill up their cars half as often.

"We've set some achievable but ambitious goals," Obama said, speaking at Argonne National Laboratory outside Chicago

"The only way to break this cycle of spiking gas prices – the only way to break that cycle for good – is to shift our cars entirely, our cars and trucks, off oil," the president said.

Friday's speech, with its focus on energy, was designed to draw attention to what the White House says is one of Obama's top agenda items for his second term. That focus, however, has been overshadowed as the administration and Congress work on an immigration overhaul, gun legislation and deficit-reduction measures.

Obama cast his proposal as not only a clean energy plan, but as one meant to create opportunities for economic growth.

I'm for research and development...Let the private sector apply it if this is successful without government.

all hail Obama... the all-knowing... the omnipotent...

magic dust is indeed the fuel of the future...

 

[bayoubill]

Often times government must lead the way.

more often than that, the government must get the fuck outta the way...

 

[Agit8r]

If you sit there and tell me that the founders advocated that the federal government be prohibited from funding scientific research and were opposed to federal funding of the arts, I will have a hard time taking you seriously.

That is what you said, is it not?

That is exactly what Atricle 1, Section 8, Clause 8 says, the founders saw the roll of government as a protector of inventors and authors so their works could not be stolen. They did not envision the government having a roll in funding it. Why is the concept of LIMITED government such a hard thing to get your head around?

I am always puzzled with posters would rather lie through their teeth than admit they were wrong.

You claimed the constitution "explicity prohibits" a role in scientific research - this claim has already been proven to be entirely false.

Even in the early days of our country, there were some anti-constitutionalists in congress, who believed in such a limited role (and of course one or two who ratified the document and later had buyer's remorse)

' A member of a majority of the legislature would say to these defamers – "Your politics originate in immorality, in a disregard of the maxims of good faith and the rights of property, and if they could prevail must end in national disgrace and confusion. Your rules of construction for the authorities vested in the Government of the Union would arrest all its essential movements and bring it back in practice to the same state of imbecility which rendered the old confederation contemptible. Your principles of liberty are principles of licentiousness incompatible with all government. You sacrifice everything that is venerable and substantial in society to the vain reveries of a false and new fangled philosophy" '
-- Alexander Hamilton; from letter to George Washington (Aug 18, 1792)

 

[OKTexas]

If you sit there and tell me that the founders advocated that the federal government be prohibited from funding scientific research and were opposed to federal funding of the arts, I will have a hard time taking you seriously.

That is what you said, is it not?

That is exactly what Atricle 1, Section 8, Clause 8 says, the founders saw the roll of government as a protector of inventors and authors so their works could not be stolen. They did not envision the government having a roll in funding it. Why is the concept of LIMITED government such a hard thing to get your head around?

I am always puzzled with posters would rather lie through their teeth than admit they were wrong.

You claimed the constitution "explicity prohibits" a role in scientific research - this claim has already been proven to be entirely false.

I'm sure English is your second language so I've been nice to this point. But since you insist on being an ignorant little fuck I'm going to say in one more time. If our Constitution doesn't explicitly permit something it is explicitly prohibited, if you doubt that see the 10th Amendment. Now go crawl back in your hole. BTW I hope you neg me, so I can return the favor.

 

[sfcalifornia]

We who? I elect representatives, not leaders. I expect the people that work for me to do what I want.

Wow, you did a good job for congress. Which one is your elected representative?

If I told you you would shit a brick.

I will give you a hint though, I live in San Francisco, which is full of people that expect Congress to lead. That probably explains why the representative from here thinks it is beneath the dignity of Congress to take a pay cut.

Nancy's gonna be your rep until she calls it quits. And when she does, another liberal will step in.

 

[Political Junky]

Wow, you did a good job for congress. Which one is your elected representative?

If I told you you would shit a brick.

I will give you a hint though, I live in San Francisco, which is full of people that expect Congress to lead. That probably explains why the representative from here thinks it is beneath the dignity of Congress to take a pay cut.

Nancy's gonna be your rep until she calls it quits. And when she does, another liberal will step in.

You betcha, and at this rate, she'll be Speaker again in 2014.

 

[sfcalifornia]

That is exactly what Atricle 1, Section 8, Clause 8 says, the founders saw the roll of government as a protector of inventors and authors so their works could not be stolen. They did not envision the government having a roll in funding it. Why is the concept of LIMITED government such a hard thing to get your head around?

I am always puzzled with posters would rather lie through their teeth than admit they were wrong.

You claimed the constitution "explicity prohibits" a role in scientific research - this claim has already been proven to be entirely false.

I'm sure English is your second language so I've been nice to this point. But since you insist on being an ignorant little fuck I'm going to say in one more time. If our Constitution doesn't explicitly permit something it is explicitly prohibited, if you doubt that see the 10th Amendment. Now go crawl back in your hole. BTW I hope you neg me, so I can return the favor.

Bush signs off on billions for science, tech | News Blogs - CNET News

President Bush on Thursday signed into law the America Competes Act, which authorizes $33.6 billion from federal coffers for government-sponsored research, education and teacher-training programs in the science and tech arena over the next few years.

nsf.gov - NCSES Federal Funds for Research and Development: Fiscal Years 2006?08 - US National Science Foundation (NSF)



So much for explicitly prohibited.

 

[sfcalifornia]

If I told you you would shit a brick.

I will give you a hint though, I live in San Francisco, which is full of people that expect Congress to lead. That probably explains why the representative from here thinks it is beneath the dignity of Congress to take a pay cut.

Nancy's gonna be your rep until she calls it quits. And when she does, another liberal will step in.

You betcha, and at this rate, she'll be Speaker again in 2014.

 

[Avatar4321]

And when I am President I will declare that snow is now as valuable as gold. And pixies can float around making everyone fart sunshine and roses. All of this will naturally become true by virtue of being President and me saying so absent any sort of fact grounded in reality. [/sarcasm]

The arrogance and ignorance of this man has absolutely no limit. Why the heck does he think the government has any power to dictate what technology science will develop or even what is physically possible for them to develop.

I am all for developing every form of energy possible. I like competition in the private sector. IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR. Government shouldn't be subsidizing any of it. Government shouldnt be regulating any of it. If I want to travel by dog power and have a dog pull me around in a sled, the government shouldn't have any right to tell me I can't. If i want a gas powered car or truck, the government shouldn't have any right to tell me I can't. If i want a solar or electrict power vehicle, the government shouldn't have the right to tell me I can't.

There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with oil. It one of the greatest resources in the history of the world. And through ingenuity, industry, and hard work, man has developed it into something that modern society CANNOT function without. If you can develop an energy source that can compete or surpass the uses and costs of oil. Great! Until then, let's stop making more of society suffer because marxists don't want us using oil to keep ourselves alive or live comforably.

 

[OKTexas]

I am always puzzled with posters would rather lie through their teeth than admit they were wrong.

You claimed the constitution "explicity prohibits" a role in scientific research - this claim has already been proven to be entirely false.

I'm sure English is your second language so I've been nice to this point. But since you insist on being an ignorant little fuck I'm going to say in one more time. If our Constitution doesn't explicitly permit something it is explicitly prohibited, if you doubt that see the 10th Amendment. Now go crawl back in your hole. BTW I hope you neg me, so I can return the favor.

Bush signs off on billions for science, tech | News Blogs - CNET News

President Bush on Thursday signed into law the America Competes Act, which authorizes $33.6 billion from federal coffers for government-sponsored research, education and teacher-training programs in the science and tech arena over the next few years.

nsf.gov - NCSES Federal Funds for Research and Development: Fiscal Years 2006?08 - US National Science Foundation (NSF)



So much for explicitly prohibited.

Guess you missed the discussion, it was about what the Constitution says, not what the feds are actually doing.