Big Brother is watching!

It's becoming harder and harder to be a republican these days......

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,71778-1.html?tw=wn_story_page_next1

You should link to page 1 and not page 2...

Still love all the bitching about needing tighter security and this and that by Dem's and how the Rep's aren't doing enough and then in the next breath they cry about the same topic and how to much is being done.

The GOP has lost their minds... Crapping on the Constitution in the name of security...

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Ben Franklin

don't get me started on the government...

i have decided to vote against every incumbent from now on, since voting Liberatrian got me no where...

BrewProject said:

since voting Liberatrian got me no where...

Click to expand...

Don't give up yet! Besides some of their positions on immigration, they're the party that actually has answers......

BTW, Kinky for Governor!

You must comment on the Liberties you or I or the people have lost. And not theories, but what has been lost.

I see this thread as being locked soon....

By nature, I'm a Republican....a true Republican. Small government and financial responsibility are my two biggest political ideals. So, in my eyes, Bush is in no way a Republican OR a conservative, he just plays one on TV.

The Libertarians will eventually bring this country to where it needs to go. Take away the welfare state, take away wasteful government projects and departments, and get the gov't out of the economy and trade. Withdraw from the UN, NATO, etc. and start fending for ourselves in a practical manner instead of an idealogical one. Legalize marijuana and gay marriage, etc. Sounds weird for a staunch conservative to say such things, I just don't think that morals should be legislated.

Fatabbot said:

Don't give up yet! Besides some of their positions on immigration, they're the party that actually has answers......

BTW, Kinky for Governor!

Click to expand...

Kinky

Exo said:

You must comment on the Liberties you or I or the people have lost. And not theories, but what has been lost.

Click to expand...

everytime Bush has been to a Federal Court or The Supreme Court he has lost.

If I haven't personally lost liberties, it would just be a matter of time unless someone puts the executive branch in check...

Once a government takes power from the people they will never give it back...

Our government DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to surveillance without a warrant. The 4th amendment guarantees that and the courts are starting to hold the law up to Bush and company...

Bush has chose to bypass the FISA courts claiming he needs that power to fight terrorism. This administration just plays on the fears of Americans... NOT COOL !!!

Fatabbot said:

I see this thread as being locked soon....

By nature, I'm a Republican....a true Republican. Small government and financial responsibility are my two biggest political ideals. So, in my eyes, Bush is in no way a Republican OR a conservative, he just plays one on TV.

The Libertarians will eventually bring this country to where it needs to go. Take away the welfare state, take away wasteful government projects and departments, and get the gov't out of the economy and trade. Withdraw from the UN, NATO, etc. and start fending for ourselves in a practical manner instead of an idealogical one. Legalize marijuana and gay marriage, etc. Sounds weird for a staunch conservative to say such things, I just don't think that morals should be legislated.

Click to expand...

Well said!!

Oops......sorry Mods! (and sorry about linking to the wrong page)

I just can't believe how politicans in general can get away with some of this crap. I think I'll be voting for Stephen Colbert and John Stewart this fall..... :rockin:
That way it will be fair and balanced.

HurricaneFloyd said:

I just can't believe how politicans in general can get away with some of this crap.

Click to expand...

Who is there to stop them?

Perfect example of how special interests control this country:

We b*tch and moan about Big Oil, then all of a sudden we're bombarded with politicians pushing ethanol as the answer.

The agricultural lobby is just as powerful as Big Oil's. No surprise, then, that they start pushing an alternative fuel that might, at best, replace 15% of our energy needs instead of mandating efficiency and VIABLE long-term alternatives.

Jump out of bed with one, right into the bed with another shady character. Low lifes....

Fatabbot said:

Who is there to stop them?

Perfect example of how special interests control this country:

We b*tch and moan about Big Oil, then all of a sudden we're bombarded with politicians pushing ethanol as the answer.

The agricultural lobby is just as powerful as Big Oil's. No surprise, then, that they start pushing an alternative fuel that might, at best, replace 15% of our energy needs instead of mandating efficiency and VIABLE long-term alternatives.

Jump out of bed with one, right into the bed with another shady character. Low lifes....

Click to expand...

don't forget about the pharmaceutical companies

BrewProject said:

don't forget about the pharmaceutical companies

Click to expand...

and the automakers, and defense contractors, and insurance, and tobacco, and the unions etc., etc., etc.

Normal people haven't run affairs since before the industrial revolution.....

Back to my previous example, just think about the 10% ethanol fuel we're burning here in the metroplex. It's absolute crap, lowers mileage more than 10%, does absolutely nothing to lower pollution etc. Yet Clinton gave into the lobbyists for Joe Farmer in Iowa etc. and pushed for this stupid ethanol blend mandate.

Even the EPA's own attorneys have said that there has been no proof of an environmental improvement with the use of the blend. So if you're buying 10% less gas per tank because of the ethanol blend, but getting 10% less mileage, is anyone winning but the agricultural sector?

Man, I'm bitter today......

I need a homebrew

The biggest problem is that people are, in general, stupid. They do what TV says. Whoever has the money/power to tell TV what to say controls the country.

Fatabbot said:

and the automakers, and defense contractors, and insurance, and tobacco, and the unions etc., etc., etc.

Normal people haven't run affairs since before the industrial revolution.....

Back to my previous example, just think about the 10% ethanol fuel we're burning here in the metroplex. It's absolute crap, lowers mileage more than 10%, does absolutely nothing to lower pollution etc. Yet Clinton gave into the lobbyists for Joe Farmer in Iowa etc. and pushed for this stupid ethanol blend mandate.

Even the EPA's own attorneys have said that there has been no proof of an environmental improvement with the use of the blend. So if you're buying 10% less gas per tank because of the ethanol blend, but getting 10% less mileage, is anyone winning but the agricultural sector?

Click to expand...

OK, but to be fair, it's better than paying the farmers to NOT grow anything. The farmers need sustainable income, but there's excess capacity. In order to prevent a market collapse caused by people completely straying from farming, you have to keep supply and demand in check, and right now that means you have to either pay them to NOT grow anything or find new uses for their product.

Or, allow them to grow marijuana and hemp. But the tobacco and alcohol industries would vehemently oppose it due to the loss of income it creates (meanwhile, you'll see a spike in Hostess cupcake consumption).

So yes, Libertarians are right in their drug policies. The "war on drugs" is getting close to being the 100 Years War, and there's no chance of winning it. More and more people smoke pot every year and about 99% of the grass smoked in the US is grown in the U.S.

As for the Republican party, I have to say that the Post GH Bush republican party only cares about dictating morals and standards and preserving their own self-interests. Republicans care little about anyone who's not making money for them. They piss all over the little guy. I really don't know how people can call themselves Republicans, when the main Republican issues out there right now seem to deal more with telling people how to live their lives than how to run a country.

Cheesefood said:

OK, but to be fair, it's better than paying the farmers to NOT grow anything. The farmers need sustainable income, but there's excess capacity. In order to prevent a market collapse caused by people completely straying from farming, you have to keep supply and demand in check, and right now that means you have to either pay them to NOT grow anything or find new uses for their product.

Click to expand...

Right, but why should the government mandate the use of ethanol when it has no tangible efficiency or environmental gains? You make interesting points, but the government still shouldn't be passing mandates in the name of saving the environment and weaning us of foreign oil when its only purpose is to line the pockets of big business. Farming is big business, anymore. It's no longer about the guy out there toiling in his 40 acre plot.

Good job Brewproject. Well stated and to the point. I suppose my big point on it then would be that to have 4th amendment rights you should be a US citizen. However, state court will give even illegal immigrants the same status to keep the "executive branch" in check...namely the police. If a police officer enters the home of an illegal immigrant without a warrant or consent (basically) then anything found will more than likely be shot down criminally...like the finding of cocaine, etc.

I agree with you as well on the domino effect of the loss of rights. Gun-owners across the world know that effect far to well.

So, the need for a warrant for snooping based upon a certain pre-determined and agreed upon standard should definitely be in place. That standard?? Typically probable cause but I believe you could extend it to "reasonable suspicion" very easily. If someone flies in from Pakistan and flew to Pakistan from some other seedy countries and has some remote ties to terrorism/terrorists that in itself is not probable cause. I think the gov't has more than enough reason that he may be a terrorist...hence reasonable suspicion.

Fatabbot said:

Right, but why should the government mandate the use of ethanol when it has no tangible efficiency or environmental gains? You make interesting points, but the government still shouldn't be passing mandates in the name of saving the environment and weaning us of foreign oil when its only purpose is to line the pockets of big business. Farming is big business, anymore. It's no longer about the guy out there toiling in his 40 acre plot.

Click to expand...

Ethanol SAVES the 40 acre farmer from going under. The Gov't knows the folly of giving farming over to big business, and it's that food prices will sky-rocket. If all farms were Corporate, crops would no longer be a commodity as the people who grow them would sell them through their channels. That would be the end of 10 cent per ear corn.

Apart from that, while Ethanol isn't the perfect solution, it's the path to the perfect solution. Biodiesel and Ethanol are the first steps towards creating a sustainable alternative to oil.

You can't discount something simply because it doesn't work right now. You have to keep trying to make it work. If we could get Ethanol and Biodiesel to replace oil, think of the prosperity it would give the U.S.

Cheesefood said:

They piss all over the little guy.

Click to expand...

Let's not make it sound like the Democrats (politicians, anyways) actually care about the little guy.

Cheesefood said:

If we could get Ethanol and Biodiesel to replace oil, think of the prosperity it would give the U.S.

Click to expand...

Please give me one unbiased source that thinks we could even make up half of our current fuel needs with ethanol or biodiesel.....

You won't find it.

Cheesefood said:

Ethanol SAVES the 40 acre farmer from going under.

Click to expand...

What? You really think ethanol is gonna save the 40 acre farmer? Ha, that's just going to increase the corporate takeovers of fertile land.

I suppose you also support the gov't continuously bailing out uncompetitive airlines, allowing them to back out on their pension responsibilities etc.? After all, can't actually have the market work like it's supposed to.

I want a bumper sticker that says Charlie Papazian is my president.

We need a HP (Homebrew Party). We'll run on the "Make Beer, Not War" platform. Our rallies would be cool as hell.

Keep in mind that producing ethanol from corn is not as "perfect" a solution to our problems as one might think. At first glance it may seem so, but take a hard look at what we are really talking about here.

To produce ethanol from corn, what is the process? First, you must grow the corn. The hybrid species used for this requires more nitrogen fertilizer than any other. This produces runoff that will, and is polluting the ground water and water ways. There are also large quantities of pesticides to consider as well, not to mention top soil erosion.

Next, the corn must be milled and mixed with water by machinery that is run by electricity, produced by, you guessed it, fossil fuels, mostly coal, and we all know how clean that is, right? Then the corn mash must be heated to allow for the starches to be converted into fermentable sugars, again by the burning of fossil fuels. After that, yeast is introduced to the mash in order to convert the fermentable sugars into ethanol and guess what else, extremely large volumes of carbon dioxide! That is a green house gas isn't it? While some ethanol producers collect the Co2, compress it and sell it, many do not and just let it escape into the atmosphere!

Next in the process is that the ethanol must now be concentrated by the process of distillation. This is done by boiling, collecting the vapor, and condensing it, all of which consumes vast amounts of energy derived from fossil fuel. After that, it must be dehydrated to remove all of the remaining water still contained in it. This is done by exposing the ethanol to a very deep vacuum by the use of more electromechanical equipment. Finally, the ethanol need to be denatured (rendering it unfit for human consumption) by adding gasoline to it.

I have no agenda, this is just pure science. Does not seem quite so "green" any more does it?

John

Fatabbot said:

Please give me one unbiased source that thinks we could even make up half of our current fuel needs with ethanol or biodiesel.....

You won't find it.



What? You really think ethanol is gonna save the 40 acre farmer? Ha, that's just going to increase the corporate takeovers of fertile land.

I suppose you also support the gov't continuously bailing out uncompetitive airlines, allowing them to back out on their pension responsibilities etc.? After all, can't actually have the market work like it's supposed to.

Click to expand...

First off, no airline is profitable. They make money here and there, but overall the airline industry is a bust. If you were to plot out earnings on all aviation related companies since 1903, you'd see that there's an overall loss. (I haven't plotted it out, I'm taking the word of my Finance professor who happens to be a very smart guy who knows this kind of stuff.) The government needs to bail out the industries from time to time because the cost of the bail-out is less than the cost of a shut-down. The unemployment would be staggering if the entire aviation industry shut down.

Next, on alternative fuels: http://www.faz.net/d/invest/meldung.aspx?id=32706806

http://news.communitypress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060914/NEWS01/609140455/1079/Local

http://www.foodingredientsfirst.com/newsmaker_article.asp?idNewsMaker=12098&fSite=AO545&next=1

Cheesefood said:

The unemployment would be staggering if the entire aviation industry shut down.

Click to expand...

How would the entire industry shut down? If you cut the fat out of the market by eliminating inefficient airlines instead of letting them soldier on, the remaining airlines would grow and prosper. The whole industry wouldn't shut down and you'd actually have a much better aviation industry.

Cheesefood said:

Next, on alternative fuels: http://www.faz.net/d/invest/meldung.aspx?id=32706806

http://news.communitypress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060914/NEWS01/609140455/1079/Local

http://www.foodingredientsfirst.com/newsmaker_article.asp?idNewsMaker=12098&fSite=AO545&next=1

Click to expand...

Didn't see anything in those articles explaining how ethanol and/or biodiesel fuels are going to allow us to be self-sustained, which is what I asked for. Actually, I asked if you could show me how those would supply us with 50% of our energy, and even lower standard......

Fatabbot said:

How would the entire industry shut down? If you cut the fat out of the market by eliminating inefficient airlines instead of letting them soldier on, the remaining airlines would grow and prosper. The whole industry wouldn't shut down and you'd actually have a much better aviation industry.

Click to expand...

So, you see reducing competition and creating even more of an oligopoly as the way to reduce prices? You think that by eliminating resources you'll further reduce the load on existing resources? Explain to me how that works - how less supply will equate to cheaper prices.

I'll agree that the airlines can make some internal changes to improve profitability, but they have to be frugal with what they change.

If airlines didn't think that the government would bail them out in times of need (which they all have) then no one would start up a new airline ever, and the existing ones would eventually all go bankrupt.

Fatabbot said:

Didn't see anything in those articles explaining how ethanol and/or biodiesel fuels are going to allow us to be self-sustained, which is what I asked for. Actually, I asked if you could show me how those would supply us with 50% of our energy, and even lower standard......

Click to expand...

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9596_22-6115658.html

"Japan hopes to replace about 500,000 kiloliters (3 million barrels) of transportation fuels with bio-ethanol a year by 2010. In the United States, the Bush administration has called for improving technologies in order to reduce U.S. oil imports from the Middle East by three-fourths by 2025. "

Fatabbot said:

Let's not make it sound like the Democrats (politicians, anyways) actually care about the little guy.

Click to expand...

that's the truth...

politicians care about who is putting a bribe in their pocket, thus we need strict term limits and Americans to wake up and vote against ALL incumbents... That would make the lobbyists and PACS work harder and make them spend more.

Exo said:

Good job Brewproject. Well stated and to the point. I suppose my big point on it then would be that to have 4th amendment rights you should be a US citizen. However, state court will give even illegal immigrants the same status to keep the "executive branch" in check...namely the police. If a police officer enters the home of an illegal immigrant without a warrant or consent (basically) then anything found will more than likely be shot down criminally...like the finding of cocaine, etc.

I agree with you as well on the domino effect of the loss of rights. Gun-owners across the world know that effect far to well.

So, the need for a warrant for snooping based upon a certain pre-determined and agreed upon standard should definitely be in place. That standard?? Typically probable cause but I believe you could extend it to "reasonable suspicion" very easily. If someone flies in from Pakistan and flew to Pakistan from some other seedy countries and has some remote ties to terrorism/terrorists that in itself is not probable cause. I think the gov't has more than enough reason that he may be a terrorist...hence reasonable suspicion.

Click to expand...

I agree with most of what you say Exo... I just don't want my government infringing on American citizens rights, as guaranteed in the Constitution, in the name of fighting terrorism...

The FISA courts are in place and can be used 3 days after the fact for a warrant. Mr. Bu$h has chosen to not use that path and just take power unto himself...

If the Dems win the House in November we could have impeachment proceedings... :rockin:

http://www.hempcar.org/






The oil industry and tobacco industry will fight this to the bitter end...

Cheesefood said:

So, you see reducing competition and creating even more of an oligopoly as the way to reduce prices? You think that by eliminating resources you'll further reduce the load on existing resources? Explain to me how that works - how less supply will equate to cheaper prices.

Click to expand...

Who said anything about cheaper prices? Because of the surplus in capacity right now, they're having to charge fares that are well below profitability. Absolutely no airline is running anywhere near 100% capacity, and that's part of the problem. Airlines that try to reduce flights in order to reduce vacant seats on said flights are the ones that are actually starting to make money or will soon.

Yes, reducing resources will improve the airline industry, reduce the strain on the aviation industry and drastically reduce pollution by reducing the number of flights with a lot of vacant seats.

Also, let's not act like I'm talking about creating one giant airline, either. There are way too many right now, and a loss of a couple due to liquidation would hardly create any monopolies.

Cheesefood said:

"Japan hopes to replace about 500,000 kiloliters (3 million barrels) of transportation fuels with bio-ethanol a year by 2010. In the United States, the Bush administration has called for improving technologies in order to reduce U.S. oil imports from the Middle East by three-fourths by 2025. "

Click to expand...

Umm....you really think 3 million barrels (ANNUALLY!) is a dent in the Japanese demand for oil (much less 50%.....like I asked for yet again)?

BrewProject said:

The FISA courts are in place and can be used 3 days after the fact for a warrant. Mr. Bu$h has chosen to not use that path and just take power unto himself...

Click to expand...

Why isn't this brought up more in the media? It's (by far) the fastest way to shoot down the Republican argument that these warrantless wiretaps are necessary.

Fatabbot said:

Umm....you really think 3 million barrels (ANNUALLY!) is a dent in the Japanese demand for oil (much less 50%.....like I asked for yet again)?

Click to expand...

So what's your suggestion for a 50% decrease? Don't pick arbitrary goals that are impossible to his in the short-term and not offer a solution.

Let's hear your solution for reducing oil dependance by 50%. No...I'm going to pick 72.5%. Find me something to reduce oil by 72.5%.

BrewProject said:

http://www.hempcar.org/

Click to expand...

Ahhh...hippies...hippies everywhere....a car full of hippies...

What that car lacks in oil consumption, it makes up for in Funyums and Yohoo consumption.

Fatabbot said:

Who said anything about cheaper prices? Because of the surplus in capacity right now, they're having to charge fares that are well below profitability. Absolutely no airline is running anywhere near 100% capacity, and that's part of the problem. Airlines that try to reduce flights in order to reduce vacant seats on said flights are the ones that are actually starting to make money or will soon.

Yes, reducing resources will improve the airline industry, reduce the strain on the aviation industry and drastically reduce pollution by reducing the number of flights with a lot of vacant seats.

Also, let's not act like I'm talking about creating one giant airline, either. There are way too many right now, and a loss of a couple due to liquidation would hardly create any monopolies.

Click to expand...

Staff reductions are a poor morale booster. Poor morale means poor performance. My solution: Increase morale with more ale!

Cheesefood said:

So what's your suggestion for a 50% decrease? Don't pick arbitrary goals that are impossible to his in the short-term and not offer a solution.

Let's hear your solution for reducing oil dependance by 50%. No...I'm going to pick 72.5%. Find me something to reduce oil by 72.5%.

Click to expand...

I didn't claim to have the solution, you did. I was just trying to get you to back up your assertion that somehow ethanol and biodiesel are actually going to do something.....

I'll just assume you can't and move on.

The only reason I brought up ethanol is that our government is selling us out yet again. On the cover, they seem to be looking to reduce the demand for oil. In the end they're pushing the development of ethanol in a manner which could take necessary funds and attention from another resource that might actually help solve the problem. Selling our soles for special interests.

Fatabbot said:

I didn't claim to have the solution, you did. I was just trying to get you to back up your assertion that somehow ethanol and biodiesel are actually going to do something.....

I'll just assume you can't and move on.

The only reason I brought up ethanol is that our government is selling us out yet again. On the cover, they seem to be looking to reduce the demand for oil. In the end they're pushing the development of ethanol in a manner which could take necessary funds and attention from another resource that might actually help solve the problem. Selling our soles for special interests.

Click to expand...

Why do you assume any money the government spends on special interests to be completely wasteful?

I did show how ethanol is reducing oil dependence. You're looking for an immediate return that's impossible to hit. If they knew that Ethanol could reduce oil dependance by 50% in the next 20 years, Ethanol stocks would be flying through the roof.

You need to brush up on your economics before you make assertations about what's a boom or a bust.

Whenever the government bails out an industry, it's because the potential economic loss is far greater than the cost of the bail-out. Our government does not simply hand out money like it's "trick-or-treat". If you think it does, you really are jaded. Most of the people in the know will agree with bailing out a company if it's in the U.S.'s best interest or investing in an emerging technology.

Remember that it took hundreds of years for the computer to get to where it is today. Nothing big happens overnight, especially on the scale we're debating. You're asking for world-wide revolution of EVERYTHING. You're asking for every single vehicle to be scrapped and replaced with a cleaner fuel machine.

Fatabbot said:

Why isn't this brought up more in the media? It's (by far) the fastest way to shoot down the Republican argument that these warrantless wiretaps are necessary.

Click to expand...

Americans apparently don't care. They want the government to take care of all of the problems...

Sickening, if you ask me...

Cheesefood said:

Ahhh...hippies...hippies everywhere....a car full of hippies...

What that car lacks in oil consumption, it makes up for in Funyums and Yohoo consumption.

Click to expand...

i like funyans and Yoohoo !!!

Page four of a political thread and everyone has still kept their cool.

Good to see!

Cheesefood said:

Why do you assume any money the government spends on special interests to be completely wasteful?

I did show how ethanol is reducing oil dependence. You're looking for an immediate return that's impossible to hit. If they knew that Ethanol could reduce oil dependance by 50% in the next 20 years, Ethanol stocks would be flying through the roof.

You need to brush up on your economics before you make assertations about what's a boom or a bust.

Whenever the government bails out an industry, it's because the potential economic loss is far greater than the cost of the bail-out. Our government does not simply hand out money like it's "trick-or-treat". If you think it does, you really are jaded. Most of the people in the know will agree with bailing out a company if it's in the U.S.'s best interest or investing in an emerging technology.

Remember that it took hundreds of years for the computer to get to where it is today. Nothing big happens overnight, especially on the scale we're debating. You're asking for world-wide revolution of EVERYTHING. You're asking for every single vehicle to be scrapped and replaced with a cleaner fuel machine.

Click to expand...

Actually, I have a masters in Economics, so I'm pretty sure I'm more "brushed up" than you on the subject.

I'm not saying that any money spent on special interests is wasteful. However, what the government has done with ethanol cannot be justified, or maybe only "people in the know" realize this.

They are giving energy companies a $.50/gallon tax credit for every gallon of ethanol put out. The majority of this ethanol that makes it to consumer is in a 10% blend with gasoline (as mandated by the lovely scumbags in Washington). This blend has been proven to reduce fuel economy by 10%, so basically nullifying any reduction in the consumption of gasoline. So we actually use roughly the same amount of gasoline, yet we also use (and pay extra for) more ethanol which both the farmer and the producer are being subsidized for. Do the math, who is benefitting here? Not you, me or the environment for sure. Who is it hurting? Not Big Oil, that's for sure, too.

Also, answer this....what's the logic of a $.50/gallon tarriff on any ethanol imported into the U.S.? If ethanol could really help our woes, why not allow more to be imported? It's not going to put anyone here out of work. Oh, that's right.....

I don't think you have a big grasp on the airline issue. The entire airline industry wouldn't implode if the gov't stopped bailing them out. You've yet to give any evidence (or hell, any examples, opinion, etc.) why it's a good thing for the industry (as a whole) and country for the gov't to bail out weak performers.