Obama says US must shift cars, trucks off of oil

[Quantum Windbag]

Newsflash, I know people that own cars that can drive from coast to cast without using gasoline. They have existed for decades, and run on propane of CNG. What I am laughing at is the idea that any car can go coast to coast without oil and grease to lubricate the moving parts.

Care to back up and try again now that you have shown the entire word how stupid you are?

Wow, you really are defensive about this, aren't you?!

To repeat my point - surely it is possible that scientists could invent a synthetic oil, or one that could be recycled more effectively, or one that needed to be changed less frequently?

Closed-mindedness is not a friend of science. I don't see what is stupid about being open to the idea of a replacement or a reduced need for oil in future.

Not defensive at all, I am mocking Obama.

by the way, we do have synthetic oils that don't use petroleum products. Unfortunately, they are still oil, and they are needed to protect moving parts, which means that Obama is still mockable. First, for not knowing that the technology already exist to get a car from coast to coast without using petroleum products, thus eliminating the need to fund research into discovering the technology to do so, and second because he is so stupid he does not know that even electric cars require oil.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Funding Basic Science Research. Most research on basic scientific topics – in physics, biology, chemistry, etc. – does not have immediate commercial applications and so this work is highly dependent on government funding. Federal funds pay for 80% of the basic science research in this country, through laboratory facilities in universities and in government agencies such as the National Institutes for Health. For this reason, the government deserves a great deal of credit for the important scientific and technological breakthroughs produced by these efforts. In just one area – biomedical science – basic research has provided the foundation to develop new diagnostic technologies, such as nuclear magnetic resonance machines, and new treatments for cancer, diabetes, and many other diseases. It is revealing that nearly half of the most important medical treatments in the field of cardiovascular-pulmonary medicine have their origins in basic research attempting to unravel the mysteries of the lungs, heart, and muscles – work done by scientists not working in this specific disease area.9 Beyond such practical payoffs, government-funded basic research has also made important progress in answering many of the most profound questions that have baffled humanity for centuries: What is the nature of matter and energy – and the nature of reality itself? How did the universe begin? How will it end? Are we alone in the universe? What is the nature of life – and how did it begin? The achievements of basic science in the United States have been many and stunning – and these are achievements of government as well.

More: Government is Good - The Forgotten Achievements of Government

Yet many companies actually fund basic science research, and most of the scientific advancements come from people who are not getting government grants. Where would we be if we had waited for the government to make up its mind to fund research into solid state devices? My guess is we would still be using tubes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Forgotten Achievements of Government

Although conservatives portray government as incompetent, public sector programs have actually amassed an admirable record of success in a wide variety of policy areas.

One of the most persistent myths about American government is that it has a poor record of achievement. Conservatives and libertarians have constantly promoted the idea that government fails more often than it succeeds. They have been telling Americans for years that government is an incompetent institution that has achieved little of real value in society. As one conservative critic put it: “The more important question is not why government is so big … but why with few exceptions, it fails in even its simplest tasks.”1 Another critic, Charles Murray, puts it even more bluntly: “The reality of daily life is that, by and large, the things the government does tend to be ugly, rude, slovenly – and not to work.”2 Or consider the bold challenge uttered by Rush Limbaugh on one of his radio shows: “With the exception of the military, I defy you to name one government program that has worked and alleviated the problem it was created to solve. Hhhmmmmmmm? I'm waiting. . . . Time's up.”3

But how accurate is this popular image of the government as a bumbling fool? Actually, this is largely a stereotype – one based primarily on myth and selective anecdotal evidence. Of course anyone can cite a number of failed government policies – such as the war on drugs or public housing programs. But it is wrong to leap from this kind of anecdotal evidence to the conclusion that government as a whole is inherently incompetent. The reality is this: most government programs are successful most of the time. By and large, the public sector does a good job providing clean water to drink, keeping the peace, sending out Social Security checks, reducing workplace injuries, ensuring aircraft safety, feeding the hungry, putting out fires, protecting consumers, and so on.

Much More: Government is Good - The Forgotten Achievements of Government

Interesting.

I read that very carefully, then went back and read it again, and I did not see a single example of a government program that is successful. Why is that?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

More: Government is Good - The Forgotten Achievements of Government

Then you have all those necessary studies like how to reduce the alcohol intake of Chinese hookers while their on the job or studies of Brazilian frog farts. And we are forced to pay for that shit.

We are all forced to pay for "shit" we don't like. Religion is my biggest gripe. Foreign aid comes second.

The Democrats are the ones that are pushing that Sandy Relief bill that pays for churches to rebuild. I am 100% positive that violates the Constitution, and federal guidelines put in place by Bush, yet you have not started a single thread that complains about it. The only complaint you made was that Republicans were holding it up, mostly because they object to the points I just mentioned.

Why is that?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

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

He wants cars that ignore the laws of physics? Has he ever heard of friction? Does he want us to start killing sperm whales and use them to make grease for the various parts of the car that rub against each other.

That's moronic, clearly he's talking about not using a drop of oil as fuel, but you inadvertently pointed out that another reason to not burn all the oil besides the fact that it is poisoning the planet, and that is the fact that is very useful for a wide variety of applications such as lubrication, plastics, chemicals, fertilizers , etc. All far more difficult to replace than as a form of energy. Our progeny would think us the greatest fools if we burned it all up.

That is even more moronic, I drove a car that could go from coast to coast without using oil as fuel in 1984. That puts him about 30 years behind the tech curve, which is a really bad position for a guy throwing government money around to be in.

 

[Borillar]

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.

Quite so, and we have lots of it right here in North America. No need for middle East oil.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Cool. When someone comes up with a way to do it I am all for it.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0mU6DIZWlQ"]Comparison: 2010 Tesla Roadster Sport vs. 2011 Porsche Boxster Spyder - YouTube[/ame]

How long does it take to refuel the Tesla in comparison with the Boxster? Did they cover that? Did they cover its tendancy to break down even more than Porsches are famous for?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I can see where it would be really REALLY BAD if the technology to power cars and trucks with a minimum of oil products were invented here in the USA. Where all great inventions used to come from.

I mean, the oil companies would take a big hit on profits. And they won't let that happen.

And hell it could create thousands of good paying jobs in America. Can't have that.

And it could make us even more energy independent. Can't have that.

And it would give us a product we could sell around the world. Bad bad bad.

Yea, an alternative to oil and gas for vehicles would be really bad.


Now, if that was a rethug President saying what Obama said, you know the rethugs would love the idea and that nothing would ever be done to make it happen. rehtugs love oil companies to much.

We have technology that does that, and have had it for decades. Why on Earth should the government be spending money to find ways to do things we already do?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Often times government must lead the way.

Can you provide some real world examples?

In the realm of transportation?

Canals
Railroads
Roads & Highways
Sea Ports
Airports

All of which existed before the government started building them. I guess that makes the answer no.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

one heck of a speech....
you are supposed to drive in one of these...

while Obama rides in these....

 

[Borillar]

The Forgotten Achievements of Government

Although conservatives portray government as incompetent, public sector programs have actually amassed an admirable record of success in a wide variety of policy areas.

One of the most persistent myths about American government is that it has a poor record of achievement. Conservatives and libertarians have constantly promoted the idea that government fails more often than it succeeds. They have been telling Americans for years that government is an incompetent institution that has achieved little of real value in society. As one conservative critic put it: “The more important question is not why government is so big … but why with few exceptions, it fails in even its simplest tasks.”1 Another critic, Charles Murray, puts it even more bluntly: “The reality of daily life is that, by and large, the things the government does tend to be ugly, rude, slovenly – and not to work.”2 Or consider the bold challenge uttered by Rush Limbaugh on one of his radio shows: “With the exception of the military, I defy you to name one government program that has worked and alleviated the problem it was created to solve. Hhhmmmmmmm? I'm waiting. . . . Time's up.”3

But how accurate is this popular image of the government as a bumbling fool? Actually, this is largely a stereotype – one based primarily on myth and selective anecdotal evidence. Of course anyone can cite a number of failed government policies – such as the war on drugs or public housing programs. But it is wrong to leap from this kind of anecdotal evidence to the conclusion that government as a whole is inherently incompetent. The reality is this: most government programs are successful most of the time. By and large, the public sector does a good job providing clean water to drink, keeping the peace, sending out Social Security checks, reducing workplace injuries, ensuring aircraft safety, feeding the hungry, putting out fires, protecting consumers, and so on.

Much More: Government is Good - The Forgotten Achievements of Government

Interesting.

I read that very carefully, then went back and read it again, and I did not see a single example of a government program that is successful. Why is that?

No successful government programs? How about the Interstate Highway system? How about Electrification programs around the country such as the TVA, which brought electricity to everyone? How about our National Park system? How about NASA putting a man on the moon? How about the Manhattan Project, which allowed us to win WW2? How about our system of weather and communication satellites? How about our military which keeps our country safe? How about Social Security and Medicare, which keeps our seniors from dying in the streets? Food and Drug safety? Student loans? Workplace safety? These are just off the top of my heqd. There are probably hundreds more examples of our government working for our benefit successfully.

 

[Mustang]

Much More: Government is Good - The Forgotten Achievements of Government

Interesting.

I read that very carefully, then went back and read it again, and I did not see a single example of a government program that is successful. Why is that?

No successful government programs? How about the Interstate Highway system? How about Electrification programs around the country such as the TVA, which brought electricity to everyone? How about our National Park system? How about NASA putting a man on the moon? How about the Manhattan Project, which allowed us to win WW2? How about our system of weather and communication satellites? How about our military which keeps our country safe? How about Social Security and Medicare, which keeps our seniors from dying in the streets? Food and Drug safety? Student loans? Workplace safety? These are just off the top of my heqd. There are probably hundreds more examples of our government working for our benefit successfully.

Just in the area of health -- vaccinations, anyone? Yet for some odd reason (a lack of education comes to mine) some conservatives now want to prevent their kids from being inoculated due to fears of what? Autism? Implied sexual freedom due to an immunity to disease 20-30 years in the future?

Then there's clean water and the disease prevention made possible by sewage treatment plants? Thankfully, there have been no protests against that...so far.

How about automobile safety? The death rates on our highways is actually going down even though the mileage driven has gone up. Air bags? Shoulder harnesses? Mandated safety recalls?

How about building codes which require sprinkler systems in public buildings and/or minimum construction standards which helps prevent electrical fires in homes. Or bldg codes which prevent thousands from dying in our earthquake zones (unlike 3rd world countries who routinely loose 100-300 THOUSAND lives when a quake arrives).

You're right. There ARE hundreds of examples.

 

[ScienceRocks]

It is obvious that we should end using fossil fuels. Grease, plastics and other products do not deplete the reserves at anything like the same rate and do not pollute at all to the same degree.

What is needed, however, is much more than just changing cars, or the electoral system, or ending marijuana prohibition. We need a much higher general capacity for understanding, reason and debate. That means education. Not 'Harvard', just human basics.

But, I am dreaming...

The problem is your avg human isn't very intelligent. Things are getting worse as the third world floods our borders...

I'd be against dumbing down the population anymore.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Interesting.

I read that very carefully, then went back and read it again, and I did not see a single example of a government program that is successful. Why is that?

No successful government programs? How about the Interstate Highway system? How about Electrification programs around the country such as the TVA, which brought electricity to everyone? How about our National Park system? How about NASA putting a man on the moon? How about the Manhattan Project, which allowed us to win WW2? How about our system of weather and communication satellites? How about our military which keeps our country safe? How about Social Security and Medicare, which keeps our seniors from dying in the streets? Food and Drug safety? Student loans? Workplace safety? These are just off the top of my heqd. There are probably hundreds more examples of our government working for our benefit successfully.

Just in the area of health -- vaccinations, anyone? Yet for some odd reason (a lack of education comes to mine) some conservatives now want to prevent their kids from being inoculated due to fears of what? Autism? Implied sexual freedom due to an immunity to disease 20-30 years in the future?

Then there's clean water and the disease prevention made possible by sewage treatment plants? Thankfully, there have been no protests against that...so far.

How about automobile safety? The death rates on our highways is actually going down even though the mileage driven has gone up. Air bags? Shoulder harnesses? Mandated safety recalls?

How about building codes which require sprinkler systems in public buildings and/or minimum construction standards which helps prevent electrical fires in homes. Or bldg codes which prevent thousands from dying in our earthquake zones (unlike 3rd world countries who routinely loose 100-300 THOUSAND lives when a quake arrives).

You're right. There ARE hundreds of examples.

I ask for a single example of the government leading the way, and you come up with all sorts of things the government fought against, and then accepted after the overwhelming evidence buried them as proof that the government gets it right.

 

[Misty]

Look at this fucking idiot;

USA TODAY
President pushes $2B alternative-fuel research fund

"President Barack Obama in front of a Chevy Volt and other plug-in electric vehicles at Argonne (Ill.) National Laboratory today as he urges congress to authorize a $200-million-a-year fund for research into alternative energy technology to move vehicles from use of oil."

by Todd Spangler, Detroit Free Press

Published: 03/15/2013 04:26pm

"WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is in Chicago today, talking up the need for a $2-billion Energy Trust Fund he wants to help fund research into how to run the cars and trucks of the future on fuels other than oil."





This is another payback scam. You can't tell me that this country needs to put 2 billion dollars into alternative energy. He's such a crook.

I can't stand to look at his face or hear his fucking voice or read his fucking bullshit lies.

 

[Stephanie]

Look at this fucking idiot;

USA TODAY
President pushes $2B alternative-fuel research fund

"President Barack Obama in front of a Chevy Volt and other plug-in electric vehicles at Argonne (Ill.) National Laboratory today as he urges congress to authorize a $200-million-a-year fund for research into alternative energy technology to move vehicles from use of oil."

by Todd Spangler, Detroit Free Press

Published: 03/15/2013 04:26pm

"WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is in Chicago today, talking up the need for a $2-billion Energy Trust Fund he wants to help fund research into how to run the cars and trucks of the future on fuels other than oil."





This is another payback scam. You can't tell me that this country needs to put 2 billion dollars into alternative energy. He's such a crook.

I can't stand to look at his face or hear his fucking voice or read his fucking bullshit lies.

Obama is a crook who is stealing our money to give to his cronies and then they end up going bankrupt like many already have..
most corrupted administration eva

 

[Mustang]

Look at this fucking idiot;

USA TODAY
President pushes $2B alternative-fuel research fund

"President Barack Obama in front of a Chevy Volt and other plug-in electric vehicles at Argonne (Ill.) National Laboratory today as he urges congress to authorize a $200-million-a-year fund for research into alternative energy technology to move vehicles from use of oil."

by Todd Spangler, Detroit Free Press

Published: 03/15/2013 04:26pm

"WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is in Chicago today, talking up the need for a $2-billion Energy Trust Fund he wants to help fund research into how to run the cars and trucks of the future on fuels other than oil."





This is another payback scam. You can't tell me that this country needs to put 2 billion dollars into alternative energy. He's such a crook.

I can't stand to look at his face or hear his fucking voice or read his fucking bullshit lies.

Obama is a crook who is stealing our money to give to his cronies and then they end up going bankrupt like many already have..
most corrupted administration eva

You're thinking of Cheney and Halliburton.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I wonder if the president knows the roads are paved with oil? what are we going to have brick roads and cars built out of rock and wood llke the flintstones? lol, Henry Ford and George Washington Carver already proved you could build plastics out of food and the electric car has been around for over a 100 years. the technology is still not there and I doubt it would be in another 100 years.

 

[ScienceRocks]

What did Chaney do?

 

[OKTexas]

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

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

He wants cars that ignore the laws of physics? Has he ever heard of friction? Does he want us to start killing sperm whales and use them to make grease for the various parts of the car that rub against each other.

That's moronic, clearly he's talking about not using a drop of oil as fuel, but you inadvertently pointed out that another reason to not burn all the oil besides the fact that it is poisoning the planet, and that is the fact that is very useful for a wide variety of applications such as lubrication, plastics, chemicals, fertilizers , etc. All far more difficult to replace than as a form of energy. Our progeny would think us the greatest fools if we burned it all up.

You are aware that the carbon footprint to build an electric car is more than double that of a conventional auto. If your lucky and the batteries last as long as they are supposed to you might break even over the life of an electric car, but so far they haven't lived up to their billing.