Gore-Backed Car Firm Gets Large U.S. Loan

Damocles said:
No, you are supporting sending our treasure overseas to other producers. There is no possible way even if we were drilling full-tilt on what we have that we could produce enough oil for our uses. We could, however, produce enough natural gas.

What I promote is different than what I state here, which is solely a separate truth.

This simple statement is true: If we are no longer reliant on foreign energy sources the US will be a safer place.
Click to expand...

I want to Know about your separate truth.

There are many methods besides fascist handouts and backroom deals to get off foreign oil. That's my truth. Why do you just go along with every fascist thing these days. What is WRONG with you? You are lost.
 
WinterBorn said:
I have never said that the electric and hybrid cars were anything but working to get us off fossil fuels.

From the article this thread is based on:

"Fisker's government loans will come from a $25 billion program established by Congress in 2007 to help auto makers invest in the technology to meet a new congressional mandate to improve fuel efficiency."

Gore may be a "global warming loon", but this loan program is about increasing fuel efficiency.
Click to expand...

I agree that this investment is better than doing so in GM. However, if they truly wanted to reduce emissions worldwide and reduce global consumption of fossil fuels, they would invest the money in this non-profit....

http://www.envirofit.org/?q=our-products/2-stroke-retrofit/benefits

That $25b is only $5b short of what it would take to retrofit the 100mm two stroke vehicles in the world (approximate number).

If they wanted to reduce our dependency on foreign oil and gas, they would tap our own resources.

Lastly, if they wanted to invest that kind of money, the least they could have done is invest in an alt energy provider here in the US
 
AssHatZombie said:
I want to Know about your separate truth.

There are many methods besides fascist handouts and backroom deals to get off foreign oil. That's my truth. Why do you just go along with every fascist thing these days. What is WRONG with you? You are lost.
Click to expand...
Except I do not. You simply recruit your own "translation" so that you can argue whatever straw man you deem easiest. The simple minded often do that because actually speaking about ideas beyond their own little world is difficult for them.

It is simply true that if we remove the need for foreign sources of energy we will be safer.

The means here is wrong, but the goal is not.
 
Superfreak said:
I agree that this investment is better than doing so in GM. However, if they truly wanted to reduce emissions worldwide and reduce global consumption of fossil fuels, they would invest the money in this non-profit....

http://www.envirofit.org/?q=our-products/2-stroke-retrofit/benefits

That $25b is only $5b short of what it would take to retrofit the 100mm two stroke vehicles in the world (approximate number).

If they wanted to reduce our dependency on foreign oil and gas, they would tap our own resources.

Lastly, if they wanted to invest that kind of money, the least they could have done is invest in an alt energy provider here in the US
Click to expand...

It's a shit deal all around.
 
WinterBorn said:
We are burning thru the fossil fuels at an amazing rate. You think our being dependent on foriegn oil is a good thing?

A move to electric cars would provide a huge boost in our independence.

To deny that is ignorant.
Click to expand...

It depends on how the electricity is produced. If it is produced by coal plants, then we are really not gaining ground. If it produced by wind/solar etc... then we would.
 
Superfreak said:
It depends on how the electricity is produced. If it is produced by coal plants, then we are really not gaining ground. If it produced by wind/solar etc... then we would.
Click to expand...
Wind at its largest usage, with acres and acres of land used to generate it could still only produce about 1% of the nation's needs... T. Boone Pickings notwithstanding it is a crappy alternative energy source.
 
Superfreak said:
It depends on how the electricity is produced. If it is produced by coal plants, then we are really not gaining ground. If it produced by wind/solar etc... then we would.
Click to expand...

Could we generate power from the rays of sun that shine out of SM's ass?

If not, how about the fetid wind he exhales?
:cof1:
 
Hydroelectric does wonders in the southeast.

And nuclear power is a viable option.
 
WinterBorn said:
Hydroelectric does wonders in the southeast.

And nuclear power is a viable option.
Click to expand...
Yup. Nuclear power for electricity, and natural gas for transportation, we'd be free of the chain of foreign sources. (And yes, we can mine our own uranium for nuclear energy). The oil we produce here would be enough for other uses, plastics, roads, etc.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Because of Emission based global warming?
Click to expand...

I was speaking in terms of pollution. I do not think global warming is occurring due to man's influence. At least not to any significant degree. Especially given the fact that the earth has NOT been any warmer than it was in 1998 (which was the peak year). 2005 matched it, but since that time we have been going down.
 
DNC said:
Could we generate power from the rays of sun that shine out of SM's ass?

If not, how about the fetid wind he exhales?
:cof1:
Click to expand...

LOL The Southern Man's truths have you hating him to the point of utter childishness and stupidity.
 
There's a niche for them:
1. Close-suburb commuters who can afford a second car.
2. City dwellers who would otherwise take the bus.
3. Cross-town deliveries on a limited schedule, like between branches of a company or government agency.
4. A car that a pilot would use to commute to a regional airport.
5. A car for a distant vacation house that you can shuttle to from the airport.
6. A tow-behind for an RV.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top