posted 01-29- 07:03 PM               

On the other hand, what do we do with these guys after we get all the info out of them? Even a military tribunal would have to try them for a specific crime, not just that they are bad guys we rounded up...wouldn't they?. You know damn well that some bleeding heart will sue to have them released if we don't convict them of some crime, or some World Court will say we are being inhumane, or some such crap.

And of course we are going to have the Brits and the Australians asking for their guys back too, so some process/procedure/guideline has to be developed.

posted 01-29- 10:08 PM            

"4. Cut by 50% funding for research into renewable energy sources.

8. Cut funding by 28% for research into cleaner, more efficient cars
and trucks."

Then his fanboy posts:

"the sooner we become energy self-suficient the better, "

posted 01-29- 11:41 PM               

Personally, I think more should be done. We heap "sin taxes" on cigarettes and liquor, why not on SUV's and other gas hogs (greater than the current mileage penalty).

posted 01-30- 04:48 AM               

I'd rather they didn't particularly come back here so they can be set free to publish inflammatory hate-inciting b/s, or spark off outrages on this soil, all because some hot-shot human rights lawyer smells a quick profit when or if they're ever tried here

posted 01-30- 02:14 PM               

As far as I know, the Bush administration has only 900 million dollars slated for research into renewable energy sources. Of that, I think only 45 million goes to fuel cell research. Not sure if any portion of that 900 million goes to ANWR.

posted 01-30- 04:54 PM               

The article on projo.com is vague and probably inaccurate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry:
JT, $1.5 billion for fuel cells and $33.5 billion total for energy developement and consevation of all types to make us more independent.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A16582-2001 Aug1
http://www.projo.com/report/html/06942961.htm

---

posted 01-30- 05:52 PM            

The only lapse in memory I have is I always forget where your wife puts the back door key.

Why do you want to tax people for their choice of lifestyle? Sin taxes and gas guzzling cars are some people's way of life. Are you telling me that you want to control someone else's life?!?! Why, that would make you a

C...
C...
C...
Communist!!

Comrade Jerry.

What a hypocrite you are. You say the government attempts to tax and control big business too much, yet you want to tax the hell out of joe citizen for his simple choice of life style. Nice concept.

posted 01-30- 07:02 PM               

I never said all taxes are bad. I'm not a Libertarian or an Anarchist. Taxes have become our way of social engineering. We tax undesireable actions and give tax incentives to desired behaviors. Taxing unhealthy behaviors like smoking is beneficial to society if it discourages smoking which has no redeeming quality. So would be a tax on gas guzzling autos and trucks that people don't need.

Taxing success and productivity like we do to people and companies is not desireable if it discourages them from making the effort. Simple as that.

posted 01-30- 07:26 PM               

$1.5 billion is vague? How precise a number do you want? Since the article as a whole wasn't all that flattering to Bush I thought you would believe it since you seem to doubt the accuracy of anything positive about the man. I also read the $1.5 billion figure in the newspaper. It probably didn't get a lot of coverage by the biased media because it doesn't support the liberal view that he just wants to help the oil companies.

posted 01-31- 12:38 PM               

The Washington Post article was written before the attacks. It's simply not relevant at this point. Do you honestly think the Bush administration would prescribe the exact same budget they came up with before the attacks?

>I don't know where your numbers come from. You can also read about it here.

Sorry, I forgot to cut and paste my sources in. Here you go... http://www.s-t.com/daily/03-01/03-01-01/a02wn015.htm#top

Some select quotes from the article...

"The budget provides $19 billion for the Energy Department, a decline of 3 percent, including a sharp cut for energy efficiency and renewable energy research."

"Money for efficiency technology and renewable energy sources such as solar and fuel cell technology would drop from $1.2 billion to about $900 million. The budget calls for tax credits for private-sector development of renewable sources."

From The Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Letter... http://www.hfcletter.com/letter/December01/

The relevant quote...

"DoE News House, Senate Agree on $31 Million FY '02 Hydrogen Budget, Bush Signs"

Dan was exactly right.

posted 01-31- 12:49 PM               

The entire article is vague. It's a short 5 paragraph article in the Opinion section, of all places, of some obscure journal from Providence, RI. I have no idea where the author got his numbers, but they sure as heck don't jive when anything I've read.

>It probably didn't get a lot of coverage by the biased media because it doesn't support the liberal view that he just wants to help the oil companies.

Oh please.

posted 01-31- 12:54 PM               

Are you saying that the sources I've cited are inaccurate? Or maybe they being untruthful?

Of course the Energy policy was affected by the attacks. Besides defense, I can't think of any other policy that would be more affected than Energy. Look where we get most of our energy from.

Look, I've provided two up-to-date and reputable sources for my numbers... The Associated Press and The Fuel Cell Letter.

So far, all you've given us is an outdated article from August of 2001 and some vague abbreviated opinion piece from an obscure journal in Providence.

Who should we believe? I think the choice is clear.

posted 01-31- 01:36 PM               

As typical liberals you have a hissy fit whenever someone proposes spending less on anything. You're never happy unless every line item in every budget is increased every year. That's why Democrats are called "Tax and Spend Liberals". Then you turn around give Bush grief about the budget surplus going away. You damn him if he doesn't spend as much as you want and you damn him when the money runs out!

His energy budget has different priorities than you have. I don't agree with all the piece parts either but I'm willing to look at the big picture which your narrow biased mind is evidently not capable.

If you think that his massive increases in spending on Education and National Defense and the war on terrorism and aid to New York should be reduced so we can spend more on "environmentally friendly" energy resources, that's your opinion. I happen to agree, for the most part, with Bush's priorities. We don't have the money to do it all at once, especially when the economy is sluggish.

posted 01-31- 01:48 PM               

You were the one who specifically mentioned fuel cells and ANWR. You said...

"I think you left out the 1.5 billion he wants to spend on fuel cell research for cars, and ANWR."

I'm not trying to flame you... all I'm saying is that the 1.5 billion you came up with is not correct.

posted 01-31- 03:34 PM               

Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham proposed that we shift funding from the 80 MPG auto project to fuel cell development. The 80 MPG program has cost $1.5 billion so far, and failed. That’s where the article I referenced and my local newspaper came up with the fuel cell program cost. They were doing a dollar for dollar transfer. It could cost even more or less I guess. There is no hard legislation yet since the proposal was only made about 10 days ago in Detroit where GM revealed a prototype fuel cell auto.

The main point is that Bush wants to replace fossil fuels for cars so the Arabs aren’t holding a gun to our head. He knows it will take time so he wants to open a small part of ANWR for oil exploration. We need more domestic oil for our cars until the fuel cells are developed. Now if you think a few acres of frozen tundra are more important then the economic blackmail of the US by the Arab world, then that’s your opinion. I just don’t agree with it.

I’m sure you will join the liberal reaction so far to this proposal, saying that Bush is abandoning mileage standards for cars. But what good is an 80 MPG car if no one buys it? There are some pretty economical cars out there today, but people buy 12 MPG SUV’s and trucks! Rather than force people into something they don’t want, Bush is proposing an alternative which is even cleaner and less Arab dependent than the Clinton/Gore 80 MPG fiasco.

posted 01-31- 04:44 PM               

Actually, I'm all for digging in ANWR.

My general view of oil is rather simple... People won't seriously consider alternative energy sources until we run out of oil. For that reason, I hope we rip through all available oil supplies as fast as possible so that we can move on to better ways of making energy.

I'm also all for building more nuclear power facilities.

When it comes to energy policy, my practical side takes over my liberal side.

posted 01-31- 05:58 PM               

Hopefully, the technology will come on line and it will end up being more cost effective to build and operate fuel cell cars than fossil fuel. Either that or we can hope that Arab politics change. If neither one happens a lot of people are going to die before it's all over. The next ten years is going to be interesting, to say the least.