# boortz claims CNN Says nuke terror chance 100%



## Bobm

Did you happen to catch "CNN Presents" last night? I know .. it's hard to stomach Aaron Brown for longer than just a few minutes, but last night's program actually made it worth it. The subject was nuclear terror. Just what are the chances that a group of Islamic terrorists could manage to smuggle a nuclear weapon into this country and set it off?

Answer: Pretty close to 100%.

First of all; just how much weapons grade plutonium do you think would be needed to create a nuclear bomb? Would it take 100 pounds or so? Would you be surprised to learn that you can get the necessary plutonium inside a Coke can? Yeah ... that's something that inspectors were going to turn up in Iraq, right?

I didn't get all of the names, but last night's CNN Presents featured a Harvard professor who is writing a book on the subject. He thinks that a nuclear attack on the United States is all but inevitable. Another security expert in Los Angeles just flat-out says it's going to happen.

Where would such a weapon come from? Well, there's North Korea of course. That demented little gargoyle who runs that asylum will sell any weapon to anyone who has the cash. Let's pause for a moment to remember that it was Jimmy Carter's freelancing international diplomacy that gave this little twerp so much valuable breathing room about a decade ago. Then you have that huge stockpile of nuclear weapons that Russia inherited when the Soviet Union collapsed. Everybody who believes that all of these weapons are accounted for raise your hands. (If you're French, raise your other hand.) According to CNN, Pakistan has at least 50 nuclear weapons. We also know that Pakistani nuclear scientists met with Osama bin Laden.

And just how would these Islamic murderers get their nuclear weapon into this country? The most likely scenario is that they would use one of those containers that travel the world sitting on ships. There are anywhere from 16 to 18 million of these containers. Some call them the "poor man's nuclear missile." I was surprised to learn last night that there is no one US standard relating to containers which come into the United States. What's more, there is no one person or agency in charge of making sure that these containers are tracked and inspected. The responsibilities run across several agencies.

Do you have any understanding what an attack with one of these weapons would do? Hide a nuclear bomb on a container, ship that container to the Long Beach container port, load it on a truck and drive it into the middle of Los Angeles. Boom. Over 30,000 dead in a flash. Another 160,000 die from the aftereffects. Drive that same container into downtown Manhattan and you have over 60,000 dead instantly. One expert interviewed on the CNN show said that the reality of the possibility of nuclear terrorism is so great that it has the effect of reducing the life expectancy of any person living or working in downtown New York or Washington DC. (Get out Jamie! Get out now!)

That's just the beginning. As soon as the bomb goes off every single port into the United States is closed down. The shockwaves go through our economy. Products will be in short supply for Americans still in a mood to purchase them. Retail locations will close doors, hundreds of thousands of people will be laid off. The US will face an economic crisis that will make 9/11 look like an expressway fender-bender.

In fact, it wouldn't even take a real bomb. All it would really take would be a believable tip that such a bomb was actually in a container somewhere on a ship bound for an American port. Once a valid tip is received ports would be shut immediately. And just how long do you think it would take to inspect every container on the high seas? What do you think happens to our economy in the meantime?

This wasn't covered on last night's CNN program, but the greatest weapon the United States has to defeat these Islamic monsters is freedom. If freedom can gain a foothold in the Islamic world the effects will be profound. Writer Ben Bova recently wrote a column in which he detailed the past greatness of Islam. While Europe was wallowing in the dark ages Islam was leading the world in science and mathematics. Did you know that Muslims account for about 25% of the Earth's population, but only manage to create an economy about one-half the size of Germany's? Islamic nations have most of the world's petroleum deposits and about one-fourth of the world's natural resources, yet poverty is endemic. Bova points out that one of the things that doomed Islam is that they never developed democracy. People were never given a chance to be free to live their lives as they chose.

Muslims in Iraq now have that chance. True to form other Muslim nations are doing all that they can to make sure it doesn't happen. The Muslims who abhor any degree of individual freedom have plenty of support from the American left. The greatest weapon we have to defeat Islamic terrorism is freedom. Perhaps we need to renew our own love for the idea before we can have any success in promoting the idea to Islamic countries.

In the meantime ... perhaps it's time to limber up. The time may be coming when Islamic terrorists will tell you to bend over, grab your ankles, and kiss your tail goodbye.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Well being that what was it 90% of the cargo going into the US goes unchecked I have no doubts that it could easily smuggle in a nuclear substance. The president has done nothing to rectify this problem.


----------



## Plainsman

Militant_Tiger said:


> Well being that what was it 90% of the cargo going into the US goes unchecked I have no doubts that it could easily smuggle in a nuclear substance. The president has done nothing to rectify this problem.


The president has done nothing? That must be that Pentagon inside information again. I on the other hand don't have any inside information from George, but I'll bet he has done something. We would already have a bill passed that was recommended by the 9/11 commission if some idiot hadn't attached drivers license for illegal aliens to the bill.


----------



## Anas Strepera

If this is in fact true, then there's no way to stop these islamic fanatics from doing this. Maybe we should stop bombing them and sticking our nose in an area of the world we don't belong. Then maybe they won't want to nuke us in the first place.


----------



## Plainsman

That is a perfect example of a victim profile. We were not bombing them when they hit the world trade center. Stop bombing them is an invitation to disaster. They will see that as weakness and be encouraged. These people are not reasonable like the average American. If you have a law enforcement acquaintance as them what it is like to deal with an unreasonable person with alcohol or drug induced stupidity. If democracy in Iraq doesn't solve the problem, then the only solution is bomb their a$$ into the stone age.


----------



## mr.trooper

"We would already have a bill passed that was recommended by the 9/11 commission if some idiot hadn't attached drivers license for illegal aliens to the bill."

--i know what you mean plains. i hate this kinda "pork-barrel" politics. totaly gums up the system.


----------



## Bobm

I heard the show will be aired again on CNN next saturday 6:00am and 8:00 pm. I would double check those times if your interested in watching it.


----------



## Anas Strepera

"They will see that as weakness and be encouraged."

Straight out of the conservative playbook. :lol:


----------



## buckseye

The CIA had nuclear 'suitcase' bombs made back in the 70's. They were sold to almost everybody back then.

The nuclear boogyman is sure busy lately, I guess I would probaly scare the crap out of people and make them buy my product too if I could.... never!!!


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Plainsman said:


> That is a perfect example of a victim profile. We were not bombing them when they hit the world trade center. Stop bombing them is an invitation to disaster. They will see that as weakness and be encouraged. These people are not reasonable like the average American. If you have a law enforcement acquaintance as them what it is like to deal with an unreasonable person with alcohol or drug induced stupidity. If democracy in Iraq doesn't solve the problem, then the only solution is bomb their a$$ into the stone age.


If you read Osama's speech he stated that we were attacked for the bombings in the aid of the isreali's defense in years previous. Who exactly should we stop bombing? The attacks on Afghanistan have all but ended, who were and are the real terrorist threat. The bombings of insurgents in Iraq makes us no safer in America. Speaking of which, have you heard about the CIA release of a document stating that no progress is being made in Iraq and no progress is expected anytime soon?


----------



## buckseye

I still don't want to buy oil from Russia or China, that is the bottom line. If we leave they will most certainly take control of the oil reserves and oil production.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"I still don't want to buy oil from Russia or China, that is the bottom line."

If we are forced to then so be it. This is not colonialism. We do not have the right to invade someone for their resources. In reality we should be researching alternative fuels. The technology was there to set up an ethenol program in the early 80's, but it was closed down by the government. This president wants to run things like it is still 1983.


----------



## mr.trooper

The only ways to get around this is are

A) Get the oil copanys to realize they could make just as much money selling cheap economical, clean fuels

B) Get the Car manufacturors to realize they could make tons of money building hydroge cars and selling the hydrogen generators. (about the sise o a large home power generator, but it extacts hydrogen from water and converts it into fuel usable in hydrogen Power cells)

The only thing stopping me from buying a hydrogen car ( they have just as much Power as gass engine cars, and get about the same milage betweene refueling) are their insane costs. Like i said, IF you can afford one, then fuel is no problem, as you can buy a hydrogen Generator and SAFELY produce your own fuel for a little electricity ( electricity simply extracts the hydrogen to make the fuel, it doesnt power the car).

If cheap hydrogen cars were produced, then we COULD be energy independant rather easily. Germany is the closest to this. they have some hydrogen vehicles in regular service,a nd actualy have a couple hydrogen refuling stations around the country.

It all comes down to GREED. the current fuel and automotive companys siply dont want to spend the time and effort to change production to clean fuel vehicles.

that, and if they did, they wouldnt be able to gouge us on gass prices anymore. Poor babies would actualy have to keep thereprices at a fair level, AND O-NO! THEY WOULD ACTUALY HAE COMPETITITION IN THE MARKET! HEAVEN FORBID!


----------



## Plainsman

Mr Trooper

Yes, the power companies sure deserve some very stiff competition. They have gouged us far to long.

Mt

Ethanol is not a good choice. It takes, I think, approximately 1.2 gallons of fuel to produce a gallon of ethanol. Also, a gallon of ethanol only contains about 80% of the energy found in a gallon of gas. Ethanol is a agricultural program camouflaged as an environmental bill.



Anas Strepera said:


> "They will see that as weakness and be encouraged."
> 
> Straight out of the conservative playbook. :lol:


Actually not. It was straight from my life experience. I have not formed my opinions to support conservatives, I support conservatives because they agree with my ideals. Although environmentally I am more of a liberal.

I believe in peace through strength since a young boy. I come from an age when disagreements were settled behind the school house. Now society has taken it upon itself to suppress all things masculine. None violence is a good idea, as long as it doesn't encourage more violence upon us. Today when a young person has a disagreement that animosity festers in the dark recesses of their little mind until they shoot each other. We have exacerbated the problem with an incessant reinforcement of their self esteem. They feel justified in seriously harming someone as important as themselves. You tell me which generation is more violent.

Watch a flock of chickens or for that matter any other animal. If a chicken shows a wound the others will be after it. Picking at it until it is dead. As civilized as we perceive ourselves the pecking order exists among people. Not only will a third grader exploit his fellow student, but terrorists will look for any weakness within our American society.

For centuries soldiers have died to protect failed diplomacy. Diplomacy is always the first choice of reasonable people, but must end at some point when dealing with unreasonable people. The point where diplomacy should end is nebulous , but exists at different points for each of us. For years we have genetically been selecting for a weaker and weaker society. The diplomats fail then hide under their bed while brave young men and women die to protect them. Then as brave young die the weak diplomats reproduce another generation of even weaker appeasers. Today brave young men and women die in Iraq while the weak at home call for more diplomacy. I respect kind people, but not when their kindness endangers the best America has to offer. Like my parents used to say "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"Today when a young person has a disagreement that animosity festers in the dark recesses of their little mind until they shoot each other. "

This shows just how out of touch you are. 99% of all school disputes are still solved via fists and the occasional knee. It is the rare few who shoot someone, it happened back in your day too but it was not nearly as well covered by the media. This is not to mention that it is your generation who sees it fit to shoot up a workplace if things aren't going their way.

"Ethanol is not a good choice. It takes, I think, approximately 1.2 gallons of fuel to produce a gallon of ethanol. Also, a gallon of ethanol only contains about 80% of the energy found in a gallon of gas. Ethanol is a agricultural program camouflaged as an environmental bill. "

http://www.newfarm.org/features/0804/bi ... ndex.shtml

Apparently it is rather viable. What you have said is basically like saying that oil can only produce X energy with X refinement system. We should be looking for better and cheaper ways to refine it such that it will make for an easier switch.


----------



## Plainsman

MT
I don't know if I should laugh or pull out my hair. You cite an agricultural site for ethanol production and economical viability? That is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house. Of course it is good for agriculture. It might even be good for the economy. It is not good environmentally or as a matter of petroleum conservation. Like I said an agricultural program camouflaged as an environmental program.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"It is not good environmentally or as a matter of petroleum conservation"

You honestly think that burning ethenol is worse for the enviornment than it is to burn petrol? Not to mention the extra farmers it would put in buisness growing corn, which is better for hunters.


----------



## Plainsman

MT

You are being exceptionally dense tonight. If it takes 1.2 gallons of fuel to produce one gallon of ethanol and you burn the ethanol then you have the pollution of the 1.2 gallons of petroleum and the pollution of one gallon of ethanol. In other words instead of burning a gallon of higher energy petroleum you burn 2.2 gallons.

More corn is good for hunters? Since when is corn better than natural habitat? Since when is the extra fuel consumption, the herbicides, the insecticides, the drained wetlands and all the other agricultural practices beneficial to wildlife/hunters? Agriculture is necessary, but I think we can feed ourselves and at the same time have more sane agricultural programs while providing good profits for out farmers. Not every penny needs to be earned with the old rip, rape, and run agricultural practices of the past.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"You are being exceptionally dense tonight. If it takes 1.2 gallons of fuel to produce one gallon of ethanol and you burn the ethanol then you have the pollution of the 1.2 gallons of petroleum and the pollution of one gallon of ethanol. In other words instead of burning a gallon of higher energy petroleum you burn 2.2 gallons. "

You are stating this as though it is fact. That is like stating that the 30-06 can only be loaded to 1500 FPS because a certain load only goes at 1500 fps. Realize that there are other methods of refinement out there.

"More corn is good for hunters? Since when is corn better than natural habitat? Since when is the extra fuel consumption, the herbicides, the insecticides, the drained wetlands and all the other agricultural practices beneficial to wildlife/hunters? "

You have never talked to a hunter who planted corn to bring deer in? Also since when is corn a foreign plant? It was to my understanding that it originated in the US thus making it natural habitat. The extra fuel consumtion only comes with the methods you have stated. Herbicides are no worse for the enviornment than burning natural fuels. Drained wetlands is a bunch of ****, there is ample farmland out there, but it is being developed as we speak. This would help to beat back the urban sprawl and possibly save just a little countryside.


----------



## Plainsman

You have never talked to a hunter who planted corn to bring deer in? Also since when is corn a foreign plant? It was to my understanding that it originated in the US thus making it natural habitat. The extra fuel consumtion only comes with the methods you have stated. Herbicides are no worse for the enviornment than burning natural fuels. Drained wetlands is a bunch of &$#*, there is ample farmland out there, but it is being developed as we speak. This would help to beat back the urban sprawl and possibly save just a little countryside.[/quote]

MT

No I do not know the exact ratio, but I know it takes more than a gallon of fuel to produce a gallon of ethanol. You think herbicides are no worse than burning natural fuels? What natural fuels are you talking about, and dwhat do you know about herbicides?

Corn is a native plant, but monocultures of any plant are not natural. Wetlands are being lost at alarming rates in the Prairie Pothole Region. That is not a bunch of (*&*^%^*. Ample farmland is being created as we speak. It is being created by destroying native prairie and draining wetlands. Habitat is being destroyed because agriculture programs continue to make poor agricultural practices profitable. I know people who plant navy beans here in North Dakota even though they never harvest a crop. They hope to fail because they make more off navy bean crop failure than they do from successful wheat or corn. These people farm the agricultural programs not the land.

The environmental concerns you voiced as a liberal in the political debates must have all been a sham. We are evidently very different. I am conservative, but liberal when it comes to environment and you are far beyond conservative on your environmental vision. You may make Rush Limbaugh look liberal on environmental issues.


----------



## huntin1

MT, ethanol is not refined in the same way that petroleum fuels are refined. It is made basically in the same way the a moonshiner makes whitelighting. A corn mash is heated with petroleum fuel.

The corn that is being harvested today is so far from the maize that was native to America that the people of old would not even recognize it for what it is. And as far as attracting deer, forage plants like clover and chickory do far better.

"Drained wetlands is a bunch of &$#*"

Boy are you misinformed here, come to ND sometime and I'll show you thousands of acres of farmland that was wetland when I was your age. We loose acreage every year to drainage. No matter what excuses you come up with altering the enviornment in this way is not good for the animals.

But we digress from the original post here. The fundamentalist muslims who are responsible for the unrest in Iraq and Afganistan understand one thing and one thing only, violence. They will not be appeased with diplomacy. Try to reason with them and they will believe you do this only because you are too weak to fight. Where did you hear about this CIA document, CNN, ask a serviceman who has spent the past year in Iraq if we are doing any good there, the news media isn't going to tell you. The nuke threat is real.

huntin1


----------



## indsport

Regardless of the refinement method, ethanol still ends up being a net loss of energy. As Plainsman stated correctly, it takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than the energy in that gallon of ethanol. As an example, assume you are a corn farmer, and you have to use the ethanol produced from the corn to power your farm equipment and process the corn You plant enough corn to produce 100 gallons of ethanol. You have to use 120 gallons of ethanol to plant, weed, harvest and process the corn. Therefore, the next year, you have only 100 gallons of ethanol, but that will only allow you to plant enough corn to produce 83 gallons of ethanol. And so on and so on and so on until you do not have enough energy to even plant the corn.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"The environmental concerns you voiced as a liberal in the political debates must have all been a sham. We are evidently very different. I am conservative, but liberal when it comes to environment and you are far beyond conservative on your environmental vision. You may make Rush Limbaugh look liberal on environmental issues."

In that I would prefer farmland over a new subdivision? There is an act in place to ensure that for each acre of wetlands lost one acre is replaced in another area. Farm is not a very profitable buisness these days due to the gigantocorps who grow and supply most of our fruit and vegetables. I am not sure where you are seeing wetlands being drained to put in private farms but I assure you it is not happening in Michigan.


----------



## Plainsman

Wetlands are not being drained in Iowa either. You know why? There are none left to drain. I guess the reality is there are some restorations occurring now because farmers get points for restoring wetlands. If they restore wetlands on CRP they have a better chance of reenrolling. Driving to the northern part of North Dakota last fall I noticed wetlands that were in the process of being drained into channel A. That is the channel that drains to Devils Lake, which has no outlet. I guess they think as long as their neighbors downstream are getting flooded another six inches of water will hurt nothing.

Now I understand what you mean about land being developed. I agree it is being replaced by urban sprawl. But natural habitat is being developed into farmland. If a person has the money to buy up land do you think farming should have a preference?

I much prefer to pay landowners for conservation practices as apposed to support prices. Support prices encourages the destruction of habitat that is less than marginal agricultural land. This is where the animal rights people get it wrong. They think we can feed more people by raising vegetables as apposed to beef for example. They cite the acres it takes to produced a pound of beef and the pounds of vegetables that come from an acre of land. Much of the land in America is not fit for tillage. The most efficient and environmentally sound way to harvest the capabilities of this land is to graze it. Support prices encourage landowners to dump their cattle, break up their native sod pastures, and plant crops they have no hope of harvesting a profit from. Until you add the government subsidy that is.

I say we support conservation practices and dump all support prices. The smart landowners will not only survive, they will prosper. Those who farm the pockets of the taxpayer can sell out to the more adaptable. If memory serves me, the CRP program cost us somewhere around 10 billion. If that same land was cropped the support prices would cost us in the neighborhood of 35 billion. I would support more CRP. It gives the landowner an income, it saves the taxpayer money, and it improves farmland for the next generation of young farmers. Also, it provides habitat for wildlife, and a place for sportsmen to hunt. That's a Win, Win, Win and Win.That brings up another point. If they take the money for CRP they should not be able to post it. If they don't think that's fair don't enroll. Everyone is free to take it or leave it.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"Now I understand what you mean about land being developed. I agree it is being replaced by urban sprawl. But natural habitat is being developed into farmland. If a person has the money to buy up land do you think farming should have a preference? "

The whole problem is that no matter how much you pay the old landowners, they will eventually be bribed out of their land by large corporations looking to put up huge private industrial farms. If this does not happen, eventually the old landowners will die and their children will be bribed out of it. If we can make private farming a profitable industry, as could be done if there was a reasonable way to use ethenol in cars, this wouldn't be such a problem.


----------



## Plainsman

If we can do it right I am all for that MT. I just became a little confused about how you could want this under current technology. I know you are upset because we are in Iraq, but we will be even more dependent on Mid East oil if we go for ethanol now. The total energy expenditure must be taken into account. The cost of bringing the seed to the farm, the cost of seeding, the cost of cultivation, the cost of producing and applying herbicide, the cost of producing and applying pesticide, the cost of harvesting, the cost of transport to the ethanol production site, and on and on. When everything is added up it cost more in energy to get corn to this point than will be derived from the gallon of ethanol when it is produced.

Somehow MT we have to figure out how farmers can make a decent living without it being such a burden on the taxpayer. Also, looking at the future, not only of the taxpayer, but of the young farmers to be, paying for conservation practices makes more sense. Just because hunters and environmental minded people like this idea doesn't mean it is bad for farmers. It will perhaps benefit their son or daughter more than them, but it will benefit the future of all.

Conservation practices take land out of production. Land out of production drives the price of agricultural commodities up. That is free enterprise in action, not the socialist based economic strategies.


----------



## mr.trooper

"I am not sure where you are seeing wetlands being drained to put in private farms but I assure you it is not happening in Michigan."

:toofunny: man! thats because Mitchigan was never all that wet to begin with! im sure settlers drained them all well before 1900. besides, Mitchigan isnt much more marsh prone then Indiana, and the only "wetland" iv ever seen is a single acre of likely aritficial marsh on the 20 bypass!

There were also Wolvs, Black Bear, Bison and Cougar in Indiana before 1900. Indiana Doons supposadly had black bear up untill around 1920. I GUARENTEE. that if you go walk out in the Indiana woodland, the most dangerous thing you will see is a scrawny old Coyote, or maybee, if your lucky, a Weasel. Habitat destruction is MUCH worse than you think.

Personaly, i owudnt mind the government buying up some of the dwindling farmland, leting it grow up, and them releasing these animals again. To bad that will never happen. the only way that could bedone is is 50% of the states population moved away and paid the DNR to take it off their hands. :roll:


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"I just became a little confused about how you could want this under current technology. I know you are upset because we are in Iraq, but we will be even more dependent on Mid East oil if we go for ethanol now."

This is the whole problem. It seems that the republican philosophy is, if it isin't instant gratification then it can't be good. Another example of this is with laura bush talking about stem cells, and how the only benefit could be achieved with 6 some odd years research, so why even begin? If we have to pay an extra 100 dollars for each person a year to move our country to the forefront of the technology based nations once again, I am all for it.


----------



## Plainsman

Do you mean the instant gratification like wanting ethanol now, at any cost? Stem cell research may be six years off, but there is no way you will make me believe Laura Bush said why even begin. You simply have a bur under your saddle about the Bush's and you can't get over it. Move on. You want everyone to pay 100 dollars to move our nation ahead on technology? Any specific technology.

You want to simply keep going in circles MT. It is time to get away from the argument about ethanol that you don't understand, and get back to the original subject.

There are so many cracks in our defense that it will be difficult to plug them all. The only viable alternative is to kill them where they are now. We wipe them out where they are now, or we fight them here. Remember the red and blue states of the election. If those two entities were separate nations how do you think the terrorists would look at them. I contend that they would realize that if they screw with a red state they would be removed from the face of the earth. I also contend that they would be running rampant in the blue states. Liberals are free men and women only because of the actions of the people they despise.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Plainsman said:


> Do you mean the instant gratification like wanting ethanol now, at any cost? Stem cell research may be six years off, but there is no way you will make me believe Laura Bush said why even begin. You simply have a bur under your saddle about the Bush's and you can't get over it. Move on. You want everyone to pay 100 dollars to move our nation ahead on technology? Any specific technology.
> 
> You want to simply keep going in circles MT. It is time to get away from the argument about ethanol that you don't understand, and get back to the original subject.
> 
> There are so many cracks in our defense that it will be difficult to plug them all. The only viable alternative is to kill them where they are now. We wipe them out where they are now, or we fight them here. Remember the red and blue states of the election. If those two entities were separate nations how do you think the terrorists would look at them. I contend that they would realize that if they screw with a red state they would be removed from the face of the earth. I also contend that they would be running rampant in the blue states. Liberals are free men and women only because of the actions of the people they despise.


I realize that for ethenol to become a viable source of fuel it will require many years of research, I hardly call that instant gratification. I would like to move this country to the forefront of the fuel industry, without being dependant on other nations for petrol as we are now.

You will not wipe all of the terrorists out until you kill all of the people in the mid east. For each dissident that is killed his two brothers see the states as the devil, and we create more problems for ourselves. You will also have a hard time finding the terrorists when you are ignoring the main countries that support terror, afghanistan, libya, saudi arabia.

"I contend that they would realize that if they screw with a red state they would be removed from the face of the earth. I also contend that they would be running rampant in the blue states. Liberals are free men and women only because of the actions of the people they despise"

I disagree. I believe that they would see that if they mess with a blue state, they will be pursued until another "threat" (iraq) can we waved in front of their face like a steak to a dog, that will make them forget about the real problem. Republicans are short sighted. If this country was up to the reds only we would still be living in a slavery ridden, technology rejecting society.


----------



## mr.trooper

Alright MT. We will withdraw tomarow, and leave them all to their bickering, and just sit here and wait for them to come to us. BRILLIANT!

And whats up with the ohter slams? alwase the labels and stereotpes.  you complain about us but never change yourself...Theres a word for that, but i cant seem to recall it at the moment.

Im a Electronics and Computer Technology Major, but according to you i hate and reject technology simply because im a Republican. Also, you state that Republicans are for slavery?!?!?!? Now all of a sudden we dont believe the most basic statements of the FOunding faters, that all men were created equal? How is this when it was the Christian (majority of REps, althought i realize many wayward "christians" would have owned slave also, JUST AS DID THE FOUNDERS OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY) that were AGAINST slavery, and helped them to escape? please axplain you fuzzy logic.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"Alright MT. We will withdraw tomarow, and leave them all to their bickering, and just sit here and wait for them to come to us. BRILLIANT! "

If I'm not mistaken 9/11 was caused by us fiddling around in the mid east in the first place. If we could learn to keep to ourselves unless there is a blatent and immediate threat on one of our major allies or ourselves, we would be far better off.

"Im a Electronics and Computer Technology Major, but according to you i hate and reject technology simply because im a Republican. Also, you state that Republicans are for slavery?!?!?!? Now all of a sudden we dont believe the most basic statements of the FOunding faters, that all men were created equal? How is this when it was the Christian (majority of REps, althought i realize many wayward "christians" would have owned slave also, JUST AS DID THE FOUNDERS OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY) that were AGAINST slavery, and helped them to escape? please axplain you fuzzy logic."

It is good and great that you are a electronics major, but alas you are not a politician. In that statement I was refering to the heads of your party, not individuals who agree with them.

As for the slavery statement, being that the south and plains areas of the states supported republicans, and the coasts supported the democrats, it is much like the civil war. If there were no northerners (democrats) to recivilize the south (republicans) in the late 1800's this nation would likely still have slavery.

"How is this when it was the Christian (majority of REps, althought i realize many wayward "christians" would have owned slave also, JUST AS DID THE FOUNDERS OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY) that were AGAINST slavery, and helped them to escape? please axplain you fuzzy logic."

Most of the country was christian in this time, and yet half of them saw it fit to own slaves, mostly the southern states. The democrats also owned slaves for a time, but saw the error of their ways and changed their opinion on the subject, something the republicans have always had a very hard time doing.


----------



## mr.trooper

So areas like say, Indiana wich were heavily Rebublican, and sent many solders to die for the north, and its causes had nothing to do with it. the "plains" area was on the side of the Northerners, and "Democratic" coastal areas. Your statement is faulty.

The point was supposed to be that you cant draw party lines like this, because there will alwase be BOLTH types on BOLTH sides.

You can argue about whatever you want, but that is still the reality.


----------



## huntin1

Militant_Tiger said:


> If I'm not mistaken 9/11 was caused by us fiddling around in the mid east in the first place. If we could learn to keep to ourselves unless there is a blatent and immediate threat on one of our major allies or ourselves, we would be far better off.


Well M-T you are mistaken, read on.

U.S. Navy Captain Ouimette is the Executive Officer at Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Florida. Here is a copy of the speech he gave last June. It is an accurate account of why we are in so much trouble today and why this action is so necessary.

AMERICA NEEDS TO WAKE UP!

That's what we think we heard on the 11th of September 2001 (When more than 3,000 Americans were killed) and maybe it was, but I think it should have been "Get Out of Bed!" In fact, I think the alarm clock has been buzzing since 1979 and we have continued to hit the snooze button and roll over for a few more minutes of peaceful sleep since then.

It was a cool fall day in November 1979 in a country going through a religious and political upheaval when a group of Iranian students attacked and seized the American Embassy in Tehran. This seizure was an outright attack on American soil; it was an attack that held the world's most powerful country hostage and paralyzed a Presidency. The attack on this sovereign U. S. embassy set the stage for events to follow for the next 23 years.

America was still reeling from the aftermath of the Vietnam experience and had a serious threat from the Soviet Union when then, President Carter, had to do something. He chose to conduct a clandestine raid in the desert. The ill-fated mission ended in ruin, but stood as a symbol of America's inability to deal with terrorism.

America's military had been decimated and downsized/right sized since the end of the Vietnam War. A poorly trained, poorly equipped and poorly organized military was called on to execute a complex mission that was doomed from the start.

Shortly after the Tehran experience, Americans began to be kidnapped and killed throughout the Middle East. America could do little to protect her citizens living and working abroad. The attacks against US soil continued.

In April of 1983 a large vehicle packed with high explosives was driven into the US Embassy compound in Beirut. When it explodes, it kills 63 people.

The alarm went off again and America hit the Snooze Button once more. Then just six short months later a large truck heavily laden down with over 2500 pounds of TNT smashed through the main gate of the US Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut and 241 US servicemen are killed. America mourns her dead and hit the Snooze Button once more.

Two months later in December 1983, another truck loaded with explosives is driven into the US Embassy in Kuwait, and America continues her slumber.

The following year, in September 1984, another van was driven into the gate of the US Embassy in Beirut and America slept.

Soon the terrorism spreads to Europe. In April 1985 a bomb explodes in a restaurant frequented by US soldiers in Madrid.

Then in August a Volkswagen loaded with explosives is driven into the main gate of the US Air Force Base at Rhein-Main, 22 are killed and the snooze alarm is buzzing louder and louder as US interests are continually attacked.

Fifty-nine days later a cruise ship, the Achille Lauro is hijacked and we watched as an American in a wheelchair is singled out of the passenger list and executed.

The terrorists then shift their tactics to bombing civilian airliners when they bomb TWA Flight 840 in April of 1986 that killed 4 and the most tragic bombing, Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, killing 259.

Clinton treated these terrorist acts as crimes; in fact we are still trying to bring these people to trial.

These are acts of war.

The wake up alarm is getting louder and louder.

The terrorists decide to bring the fight to America.In January 1993, two CIA agents are shot and killed as they enter CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

The following month, February 1993, a group of terrorists are arrested after a rented van packed with explosives is driven into the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center in New York City. Six people are killed and over 1000 are injured.

Still this is a crime and not an act of war?

The Snooze alarm is depressed again.

Then in November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a US military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing seven service men and women.

A few months later in June of 1996, another truck bomb explodes only 35 yards from the US military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. It destroys the Khobar Towers, a US Air Force barracks, killing 19 and injuring over 500. The terrorists are getting braver and smarter as they see that America does not respond decisively.

They move to coordinate their attacks in a simultaneous attack on two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. These attacks were planned with precision. They kill 224.

America responds with cruise missile attacks and goes back to sleep.

The USS Cole was docked in the port of Aden, Yemen for refueling on 12 October 2000, when a small craft pulled along side the ship and exploded killing 17 US Navy Sailors.

Attacking a US War Ship is an act of war, but we sent the FBI to investigate the crime and went back to sleep.

And of course you know the events of 11 September 2001. Most Americans think this was the first attack against US soil or in America. How wrong they are. America has been under a constant attack since 1979 and we chose to hit the snooze alarm and roll over and go back to sleep.

In the news lately we have seen lots of finger pointing from every high officials in government over what they knew and what they didn't know. But if you've read the papers and paid a little attention I think you can see exactly what they knew. You don't have to be in the FBI or CIA or on the National Security Council to see the pattern that has been developing since 1979.

The President is right on when he says we are engaged in a war. I think we have been in a war for the past 23 years and it will continue until we as a people decide enough is enough. America needs to "Get out of Bed" and act decisively now. America has been changed forever. We have to be ready to pay the price and make the sacrifice to ensure our way of life continues. We cannot afford to keep hitting the snooze button again and again and roll over and go back to sleep.

After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Admiral Yamamoto said "...it seems all we have done is awakened a sleeping giant." This is the message we need to disseminate to terrorists around the world.

This is not a political thing to be hashed over in an election year, this is an AMERICAN thing.

This is about our Freedom and the Freedom of our children in years to come.

Sorry about the bandwidth guys but I think it's time M-T wakes up and faces the fact that this goes back farther and deeper than 9/11.

huntin1


----------



## Militant_Tiger

You wish to fight a war with an entity which does not live in one specific country. We are not fighting the Russians, or the Germans, or the Vietnamese. We are fighting a REGION full of people who could at any time become terrorists. You cannot nuke the mid east, you cannot kill all of the terrorists. We will never, ever kill all or even most of the terrorists, even if we set it as our only objective. We therefore must learn to live with terrorists, or at best former terrorists. To do this America needs to begin by making a clean sweep of the terrorist countries. We must attack with disregard for who we buy our oil from, or who used to be our buddies. We need to not just put a fading offensive on Afghanistan, but also Libya and especially Saudi Arabia. After we feel that enough terrorists have been killed in said areas, or we have taken enough losses, we will pull out of the mid east completely. We will then step up our security measures. I do not mean three extra people waving magic wands around at the airport. I mean armed air marshalls in civilian clothing on each and every flight going to or comming from America. We must next begin scanning ALL of the cargo which is imported into the united states by plane, train or automobile. While this is happening there must be a new large and elaborate government funded program to develop new fuels which will allow us to become independant of the east. This will all cost quite a bit, and there will be tax hikes. This of course will not happen under a republican administration however, as tax raises are the devil, even if it makes the country more secure. After all of this has settled down America will do its best to keep itself out of foreign affairs. No more stepping in unless we or our allies are in great danger.

Tiger


----------



## mr.trooper

I agree that we need to scan more cargo. Its probably not realistic to try and get it ALL scanded anytime soon, but i thin we should have it increased to at LEAST 35% within the next couple years, and continue from there. there is just so much cargo to inspect that its nearly imposssible to get it with the current infrastructure.

Its guna const Oddles of money to get this done...But on the plus side, it would ensure a growing stream of steady new jobs. the tota number of people put into jobs could verry well create eough jobs for eveoryable bodied unimployed to have a decent job.

Wish we would have seen this coming sooner. looking back, we shoul have been prepairng for the last decade.

i also agree that we sould be a little more isolated. WE should keep our noses to ourslves unless the U.S.A, Great Brittain, or....um....who else supports us again? is dirrectly attacked. wewere just fine on our own before WWII. this "global" environment has gone to crud.


----------



## Plainsman

OK, now I can agree with you MT. When you said we shouldn't be in Iraq I didn't agree, but when you say we need to go after them wherever they are that I can agree with.

I guarantee you I could kill enough terrorists that they wouldn't come out from under their rocks for another couple hundred years.

Republicans believe that lowering taxes increased revenue because the free market invests in business. In turn businesses make more money, and pay more taxes.

Also, defense is what republicans have always been willing to spend money on. Maybe you should step back an take a fresh unbiased look at what we really believe. We say straight forward what we believe, and believe what we say.

I also agree with you that we need to mind our own business. I also agree that we should be as loyal to our allies as we expect them to be. France and Germany are not loyal, but Great Britain, and Israel are. At one point after the cold war I was in hopes that Russia would become an allie. I am willing to let bygones be bygones. I never held anything against the people of Russia, but I disliked their world conquest government very much.

I would like my tax money to go to defense first. Health and education next, and finally technology. I don't mind the welfare system either as long as the truly needy benefit. I am not willing to see my tax money go to pay for abortions, or to attack Christianity, or to pay for some of the distasteful things some consider art. When you use my tax dollars for those things you make me part of it. Why do we have the national endowment to the arts. If an artist is worth anything he or she should be able to support themselves through their skills.

You make so many generalities MT. I am for development of alternate fuels, but they must be real, and they must benefit all Americans. Wind energy is clean, and I am all for it. I have a great respect for science and technology.

Your statements are not convincing they are alienating. You have a very elitist attitude for such a young man. It must be terribly tiring for you to get up each morning and try impart some knowledge to all us prairie and southern ignorant red necks.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> Republicans believe that lowering taxes increased revenue because the free market invests in business. In turn businesses make more money, and pay more taxes


Thats good and fine if all you are trying to do is run a basic economy. If you want to have spare government funds to fund research programs which benefit the greater good and make America the top technological nation, you need more.



> Also, defense is what republicans have always been willing to spend money on. Maybe you should step back an take a fresh unbiased look at what we really believe. We say straight forward what we believe, and believe what we say


The republicans have had 4 years to bolster the defenses, nothing which I have stated has yet been done, otherwise I wouldn't have stated it. Our cargo still goes unchecked, there are no air marshalls.



> I also agree with you that we need to mind our own business. I also agree that we should be as loyal to our allies as we expect them to be. France and Germany are not loyal, but Great Britain, and Israel are. At one point after the cold war I was in hopes that Russia would become an allie. I am willing to let bygones be bygones. I never held anything against the people of Russia, but I disliked their world conquest government very much.


I disagree (big surprise). If you were going to beat up an innocent person who you thought might have been making out with your girlfriend without asking around first, and your buddies declined from aiding in the pounding, are they worse people because of it? They stayed out of a war that they did not see as just, which eventually turned out to be unjust. They deserve no punishment.



> I would like my tax money to go to defense first. Health and education next, and finally technology. I don't mind the welfare system either as long as the truly needy benefit. I am not willing to see my tax money go to pay for abortions, or to attack Christianity, or to pay for some of the distasteful things some consider art. When you use my tax dollars for those things you make me part of it. Why do we have the national endowment to the arts. If an artist is worth anything he or she should be able to support themselves through their skills.


Attack Christianity? What are you talking about? Distasteful art, when is the last time you saw a distasteful peice of government funded artwork??



> You make so many generalities MT. I am for development of alternate fuels, but they must be real, and they must benefit all Americans. Wind energy is clean, and I am all for it. I have a great respect for science and technology.


You are for it, but you if push comes to shove you will not want to fund it if it costs you more taxes. Research is the process by which you take new ideas and find out if they are possible. You cannot base whether or not alternative fuels are plausible simple based on the information we have now.



> Your statements are not convincing they are alienating. You have a very elitist attitude for such a young man. It must be terribly tiring for you to get up each morning and try impart some knowledge to all us prairie and southern ignorant red necks


I do not like being called a weak blue wussy who would allow terrorists to run over our states either, I find it to be alienating and uncalled for. I thus retaliate by alienating you. If you find this disheartening, I propose that we cut out the cause, and the effect will not occur.


----------



## Plainsman

Again you don't understand what I was saying. When I said that less taxes causes business to invest, they make more money, hence pay more taxes. That does get you more revenue. When you tax more you ****** business, then businesses make less money and pay less taxes. This is a self destructive economy.

Of course we have bolstered the defense. We simply have different priorities where to put it first. We have gone to war which cost us a lot. We prefer to go after the terrorists first. This does not mean that we will invest in other defense alternatives. Has not the republicans passed a new bill that will change our defense?

I didn't say we should punish France or Germany, we just don't owe them a thing. They didn't want to go to war because they had their hand in the cookie jar. The Iraq people starved while they razed the UN food for oil program. They didn't stay out of the war on principle, they stayed out because it would disrupt their gravy train.

The last time I seen distasteful art was when a man supported by the endowment for the arts put a cross in a quart jar urinated in it until he filled it and called it art. Another man shoved a whip up where the sun doesn't shine, took a picture of it and called it art. The endowment for the arts supported him also.

Research luckily has many wise scientists who try like the rest of us to get the most bang for their buck. New means of producing ethanol from corn will not reduce the price of corn production. You simply want the farmers to milk the system again.

You didn't alienate me, I just pointed out that you alienated geological regions of people. I will put up with it because I can't help seeing liberals as weak, and loving other countries before their own. You know the attitude, that Muslims are just fun peace loving guys, it's us nasty Americans that started this war. France and Germany are civilized even if they are stealing money that should have gone to feed Iraq people, it's us uncivilized Americans that hurt people when only 3000 people were killed in New York. I like holding up the condescending, elitist attitudes of liberals for the rest of America to see. To defeat terrorism we must first defeat liberals who weaken us and are far more dangerous that communism, or terrorists. Like Kruchev said at the UN in the early 1960's as he pounded his shoe on the table " we will not have to fire a shot you will fall like a ripe plum into our hands". He thought the liberals would sell America down the tubes.


----------



## mr.trooper

At the Risk of sondng like a heartless Conserative Ogre:

I agree plains. These people think and speak FEAR. it is their language, and their religion. The NORMAL people of the Mid east fear for their lives like any other human being. Only a small percentage will get around that part of human nature. ther IS a limit to the amount of recruits a body of people can produce. Few beleve in their cause, and most who support them only do so out of fear. If they are crushed there follwers will scatter.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Plainsman said:


> Again you don't understand what I was saying. When I said that less taxes causes business to invest, they make more money, hence pay more taxes. That does get you more revenue. When you tax more you stupid business, then businesses make less money and pay less taxes. This is a self destructive economy.
> 
> Of course we have bolstered the defense. We simply have different priorities where to put it first. We have gone to war which cost us a lot. We prefer to go after the terrorists first. This does not mean that we will invest in other defense alternatives. Has not the republicans passed a new bill that will change our defense?
> 
> I didn't say we should punish France or Germany, we just don't owe them a thing. They didn't want to go to war because they had their hand in the cookie jar. The Iraq people starved while they razed the UN food for oil program. They didn't stay out of the war on principle, they stayed out because it would disrupt their gravy train.
> 
> The last time I seen distasteful art was when a man supported by the endowment for the arts put a cross in a quart jar urinated in it until he filled it and called it art. Another man shoved a whip up where the sun doesn't shine, took a picture of it and called it art. The endowment for the arts supported him also.
> 
> Research luckily has many wise scientists who try like the rest of us to get the most bang for their buck. New means of producing ethanol from corn will not reduce the price of corn production. You simply want the farmers to milk the system again.
> 
> You didn't alienate me, I just pointed out that you alienated geological regions of people. I will put up with it because I can't help seeing liberals as weak, and loving other countries before their own. You know the attitude, that Muslims are just fun peace loving guys, it's us nasty Americans that started this war. France and Germany are civilized even if they are stealing money that should have gone to feed Iraq people, it's us uncivilized Americans that hurt people when only 3000 people were killed in New York. I like holding up the condescending, elitist attitudes of liberals for the rest of America to see. To defeat terrorism we must first defeat liberals who weaken us and are far more dangerous that communism, or terrorists. Like Kruchev said at the UN in the early 1960's as he pounded his shoe on the table " we will not have to fire a shot you will fall like a ripe plum into our hands". He thought the liberals would sell America down the tubes.


The idea that saving a small buisness 1000 dollars a year in taxes will put them into the higher tax bracket by magical investing is rediculous. This is not to mention that it was the rich who got the tax breaks under the Bush plan as well.

We went to war in Afghanistan, which did not cost us a lot, relatively. Then we went into Iraq on faulty evidence, and that cost us a bundle. We have gone after the terrorists as our first priority, over homeland security. Now that we have failed to caputre osama and many of the other terrorists, especially the ones that escaped to the countries whom we purchase oil from, and will not be touched means that we are vulnurable, because of our lack of defense before offense.

"They didn't stay out of the war on principle, they stayed out because it would disrupt their gravy train."

I suppose this was Canada's reason as well then, eh?

"Research luckily has many wise scientists who try like the rest of us to get the most bang for their buck. New means of producing ethanol from corn will not reduce the price of corn production. You simply want the farmers to milk the system again. "

This is why corn costs so much at the market, right? You know in some countries its used as currency. Get over it, corn is far more economical to produce than oil is to dig up, even if the refinement of oil is slightly cheaper.

"I will put up with it because I can't help seeing liberals as weak, and loving other countries before their own. You know the attitude, that Muslims are just fun peace loving guys, it's us nasty Americans that started this war. France and Germany are civilized even if they are stealing money that should have gone to feed Iraq people, it's us uncivilized Americans that hurt people when only 3000 people were killed in New York. "

Wow things are so simple when you generalize them such that they are easy for any moron to agree with your side. First off the oil for food scandal isin't even proven, yet you state it as fact. Don't believe me? Listen to the guys who live over there. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ ... A8E469.htm
We did start the war with Iraq. The Iraqis did not attack us on 9/11. They had nothing to do with 9/11, Nothing! You justifying the attack is like beating up your hunting buddy because you missed a shot. It just doesn't make any damn sense.

"To defeat terrorism we must first defeat liberals who weaken us and are far more dangerous that communism, or terrorists."

To keep America safe we must first defeat the archaic republican oil mongers who hold us back from progress, and make us nearly as bad as those who we are fighting.


----------



## Plainsman

> This is why corn costs so much at the market, right? You know in some countries its used as currency. Get over it, corn is far more economical to produce than oil is to dig up, even if the refinement of oil is slightly cheaper


.

Well, lets just stick to one simple point at a time. Corn is not more economical to produce than oil because to get to one gallon of ethanol you must burn 1.2 gallons of petroleum fuel. In other words to produce the corn for ethanol you must burn fuel. 1.2 gallons of it to get the corn to make 1 gallon of ethanol. I think you must be the only person reading this that doesn't understand what I am saying. The cost of a gallon of ethanol is digging up 1.2 gallons of fuel, and burning 1.2 gallons of fuel. So you see when you burn a gallon of ethanol in your vehicle you are realy causing pollution from 1.2 gallons of fuel and 1 gallon of ethanol to be added to global warming. Ethanol is a lose (dig oil), lose (wast a gallon of fuel), lose (pollute the atmosphere), situation.

I don't know how much simpler I can make it, so now I will simply let everyone decide who is right. Babble on if you like.


----------



## huntin1

Militant_Tiger said:


> We went to war in Afghanistan, which did not cost us a lot, relatively. Then we went into Iraq on faulty evidence, and that cost us a bundle. We have gone after the terrorists as our first priority, over homeland security. Now that we have failed to caputre osama and many of the other terrorists, especially the ones that escaped to the countries whom we purchase oil from, and will not be touched means that we are vulnurable, because of our lack of defense before offense.
> 
> "They didn't stay out of the war on principle, they stayed out because it would disrupt their gravy train."
> 
> I suppose this was Canada's reason as well then, eh?
> 
> "Research luckily has many wise scientists who try like the rest of us to get the most bang for their buck. New means of producing ethanol from corn will not reduce the price of corn production. You simply want the farmers to milk the system again. "
> 
> This is why corn costs so much at the market, right? You know in some countries its used as currency. Get over it, corn is far more economical to produce than oil is to dig up, even if the refinement of oil is slightly cheaper.


M-T, Canada's reason for what, do you think that they are not in Iraq?

At this time, 35 countries, in addition to the United States, have contributed a total of approximately 22,000 troops to ongoing stability operations in Iraq. These 34 are Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Thailand, the Philippines, Romania, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Ukraine and the United Kingdom.
As of 9 Jan 04

Here's the website: http://www.cjtf7.army.mil/the-coalition ... forces.htm

I'm not sure but I believe Canada is mentioned here.

As far as corn being cheaper to produce that petroleum fuels, that could possibly be true. But , what you are obviously forgetting is that after the corn is produced it still must be distilled into enthanol and petroleum fuels are used in the distilling process, so not only are petroleum fuels used to plant, care for and harvest the corn, they are also used to make the ethanol. I can not understand how you can feel that ethanol is a viable alternative fuel. Unless of course you are a corn farmer that has a lucrative contract with an ethanol producing plant.

huntin1


----------



## Militant_Tiger

You again speak this as though it is fact. How are you positive that this is the most efficent process? Where is your proof of this at all? I swear you republicans hear one thing on fox news and take it as though it is written in stone.

As for Canada, they didn't support us in Iraq, and rightfully so. This is not to mention that Poland is still on the coalition site, yet they have dropped support.


----------



## huntin1

Actually M-T I used to work for a guy who thought as you do and invested heavily in an ethanul producing plant. He lost his ***. I also have a cousin who worked at a plant. My information comes from people who actually produced the stuff, where does yours come from, CNN?

As for Canada, I have several friends in Iraq and one who just came home after being there since the start. Canada is there my friend, but because Canada is largely very liberal, their gov. is not vocal about that fact.

huntin1


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"Actually M-T I used to work for a guy who thought as you do and invested heavily in an ethanul producing plant. He lost his a$$. I also have a cousin who worked at a plant. My information comes from people who actually produced the stuff, where does yours come from, CNN?"

My information on ethenol does not come from the news. That is why I don't attempt to give exact figures that aren't proven and mean little.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/ ... 41014.html

No, Canada did not send troops to Iraq.


----------



## Plainsman

MT

My information came from a professional scientific journal that was reproduced in (I think) Audubon magazine. Look in the July or August issue. Nearly everything on the web is an agricultural promotion. You mentioned technology often so get into the latest scientific information, and forget the news, the politicians, and the promotions. Also, some of the economics issues have some information.

The big costs are not making the ethanol, or digging and refining the oil. The big energy consumption is producing the corn. If we are going to use alternate energy sources they must pass a cost benefit ratio that surpasses petroleum. If it doesn't do that then it better offset the shortfall with very clean air.


----------



## mr.trooper

Actualy Tigre....

From an Engeneering Stand-point, it is Nigh imposile to get any heat Engine, like a combusian engine, to Use more than 21% of the Energy that is fed into it! thats just simple Thermo-dynamics. Detroit has been trying to make cars that have more efficient engines for YEARS. but they just CANT. They get higher gass milage in cars USUALY by lightening the ar up, and making engines with fewer cylinders (read, less fuel injected into the engine.). this results in Japan-style cars with low horse power and sub-par acceleration. You cant make a powerfull engine like a combine engine, or the engine in a semi, or an F-350 supper-duty that has good gass milage. You just cant do it. That is the limitation of such engines.

So even if you developed better refinement methods, the energy in Ethanol ( WICH WILL ALWASE BE LOWER THAN THAT OF GASS, DUE TO THE MECHANICAL AND CHEMICAL PROCESSES DURRING REFINEMENT. THAT USE UP ENERGY), the cars engine would just waste the majority of the energy as un used heat.

BOTTOM LINE: Even in a PERFECT world, you will NEVER be able to get Ethanol to have as much energy as gass. The SECOND LAW OF THERMO DYNAMICS says you cant even break even in processes like this. The best you would EVER be able to do, even in the perfect world with the perfect refinement technique, is 99% of the energy of gassoline.

im sorry, but you loose energy in the distilation process. it cant be done. im sure you high school offers a Physics class. TAKE IT.

We need to persue Different types of energy. not just different fuels to polute things with. hydrogen engines, Wind power, solar power, are the ones we need to persue.

Wouldnt it be nice to have a normal car that only spat our pure water vapor? or a viable electrical powerplant that only emited Steam, and was fed by a water pipe? Thats all possible WITH EXISTING TECHNOLOGY. Its up to us to get the manufacturors and politicians on the ball.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"im sorry, but you loose energy in the distilation process. it cant be done. im sure you high school offers a Physics class. TAKE IT. "

I am in physics as we speak, and though you are right about the conservation of energy, you are wrong about the process by which it is refined. I will restate my point, the refinement process by which you speak is not necissarily the most effective. There may be a method of refinement that uses NO petrol. You are however not willing to research it. You know everyone was confident that the world was flat at one time, with a little research and exploration look at what we have learned.


----------



## buckseye

They are starting to use turbine engines in cars. Still testing them yet. They sound real good.


----------



## mr.trooper

Actulay i have researched Ethanol ( CH3CH2OH ). currently the only two methods of refining it are by malting (Read Moonshining) wich produces many impurities, or to supply it with the nesisary hydocarbons to produce it from simple suguars ( like C6H12O6). The only way to make it is to make some whiskey (ILLEGAL), or to mix hydrocarbos with Sugar.

WHY? WHY BOTHER? No mater what method, or how effecient it is, your STILL left with a fuel that releses less energy than gassoline. Even if some method could be found to produce it ecomonicaly, its STILL an inferior fuel, AND ITS A HASSLE TO MAKE.

for a hundred bucks you could buy an Electrolisis rig, and hook it up to a solar panel and a rechargible lantern batery, and extract hydrogen from WATER. EVEN an elementary setup like this could at least supply enough fuel to let you mow your yard, providing you had a hydrogen powered mower.

hydrogen is Cheaper, Cleaner, and Easyer to produce, and its just as, if not safer! Im not saying Ethanol could never be viable, IM SAYING TIS NOT WORTH THE EFFORT TO MAKE IT VIABLE. Especialy when we have the technology to make acceptable hydrogen cars NOW, if detroit owuld get off there butts.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"Actulay i have researched Ethanol ( CH3CH2OH ). currently the only two methods of refining it "

Exactly my point, those are the only CURRENT methods of refining it. What I am proposing is to look for new methods of refining the ethenol. You know wind power is a lot less effective than coal power, but we still use it because it pollutes less. If a method can be found to produce an obviously less efficent, but more enviornmentally minded fuel to replace petrol, we can move away from oil.

"Especialy when we have the technology to make acceptable hydrogen cars NOW, if detroit owuld get off there butts."

If we could get the heartland to supply some funds to the few auto manufacturing buisnesses still left in detroit, we might be able to get something done.


----------



## Plainsman

Mr Trooper

Very good post. I have been to lazy and wasn't willing to put the effort into it. Your information falls right in line with the data presented by unbiased scientists. I read an ethanol feasibility study that concentrated more on the cost of using corn. It was a very comprehensive list of expenses. The fuel energy requirement depending on the publication you read ranging from 1.2 to 1.5 gallons of petroleum to produce sufficient corn for a gallon of ethanol. I used the lowest figure so I wouldn't have egg on my face if people take the time to read some of the professional journals.

What is the percentage of energy in ethanol as compared to gasoline. I had read it was 78%, but can't find that information again. I use it in the winter time rather than buying isopropyl (heat) because isopropyl is a lipid solvent, and I don't want to run that through my nice oily cylinders. Of interest to people who would like to degrease their firearm is that the degreasers you buy at the sport shop are isopropyl. You get four times as much at Wal Mart when you buy isopropyl at 1/6 the cost. I do get two to three miles to the gallon less in my Tahoe with ethanol. Not just in the winter time, summer time too.

Mt, I'm not against a continuous search to make this and many other things feasible. It is just that at the moment it doesn't meat my personal criteria. For the ethanol companies to survive it currently requires federal subsidies. If it wasn't for the subsidies it would be much more expensive at the pump. Here is where I currently stand. Continue research even though it is an inefficient fuel, who knows what we may find. Don't however expect to circumvent the laws of physics. I don't want to put a lot or research money on a single alternative and ignore the rest.

Are you a member of a farm family?


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"Mt, I'm not against a continuous search to make this and many other things feasible. It is just that at the moment it doesn't meat my personal criteria. For the ethanol companies to survive it currently requires federal subsidies. If it wasn't for the subsidies it would be much more expensive at the pump. Here is where I currently stand. Continue research even though it is an inefficient fuel, who knows what we may find. Don't however expect to circumvent the laws of physics. I don't want to put a lot or research money on a single alternative and ignore the rest. "

I do not want to ignore all but ethenol in any way shape or form. I have used ethenol as an example. I support a large scale new government program to supply ample cash towards the research and development of ALL alternative fuels. This will save us more money in the long run, as we won't have to buy our stuff from the islamics any longer. I do not expect to circumvent the laws of physics either. If you take a gallon of gasoline, and burn it in a bucket you gain nothing but heat, if you put a squirt of gas into a steel cylinder and light it, you get kenetic energy. The laws of physics cannot be avoided, but they can be played with.

PS: I live in the suburbs, and have never farmed a day in my life, nor has anyone else in my family.


----------



## mr.trooper

"If we could get the heartland to supply some funds to the few auto manufacturing buisnesses still left in detroit, we might be able to get something done."

If i had the money to spare, i would GLADLY give American car companys what they need to manufacture cheap hydrogen cars, and be competetive again. but, since im poor, i cant.

Also, why do you think the heartland should pay for it? why not make the rich people in California and the East Coast pay for it? ill tell you why. because people shouldnt be forced to give their money away.

I honestly thik clean energy is a better use of our tax money than most. why not cut some o the rediculous things the FEDS pay for and put the money to real use?


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"If i had the money to spare, i would GLADLY give American car companys what they need to manufacture cheap hydrogen cars, and be competetive again. but, since im poor, i cant.

Also, why do you think the heartland should pay for it? why not make the rich people in California and the East Coast pay for it? ill tell you why. because people shouldnt be forced to give their money away. "

No reason in particular, it just seemed as if you threw all of the blame for the technology refusing car industry onto detroit, thus I threw the blame right back at you. I do not believe that the heartland should pay for it, but they should sure as hell embrace it.

"I honestly thik clean energy is a better use of our tax money than most. why not cut some o the rediculous things the FEDS pay for and put the money to real use?"

Bingo.


----------



## mr.trooper

...Whell, detroit has been the center of American Car manufacturing, and they have never been particularly fast to embrace new technology...

The feds pay for idiotic stuff. like 500 bucks for special hammers for the repairmen, and a few thoulsand over here to find out how a frizbee flies. :roll: Imnot talking about National policies, im talking abot the IDIOTIC little stuff like that wich takes up so much extra money. Its not any one admin either. Our tax money has been used for pointless stuff like those for the lase several decades.

BTW: MT, do you watch RED GREEN? I LOVE that show!


----------



## Militant_Tiger

You bet trooper, one of my favorites.


----------

