Is McCain's Ads Using Code while Attacking Obama?

Ecofreak

Ecofreak

CAGiversary!
Feedback
24 (100%)
Disclaimer: I'm an active volunteer with the Senior Outreach Effort for Northern Virginia for Senator Obama

For the life of me, I couldn't understand what Senator McCain's latest series of ads were trying to convey. The Paris Hilton/Brittany Spears bit, I assume, is trying to make Senator Obama look like a typical liberal detached super start. But the "Messiah" Youtube video, created and paid for by Senator McCain's campaign, made no sense at all and, despite my lack of religious affiliation, thought it is more than a bit inappropriate for a presidential campaign to release and even authorize such a work.

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2dloF--BVg

First of all, the quote in the video of Senator Obama saying that he's the symbol is only half the quote. Here's the full quote:
‘It has become increasingly clear in my travel, the campaign, that the crowds, the enthusiasm, 200,000 people in Berlin, is not about me at all. It’s about America. I have just become a symbol…”

But here's a recent article from the Talking Points Memo talks about a "dog-whistle" - code that only those from the South would understand but can't be concretely proven because the message is so innocuous that only those familiar with the code would understand.

[quote name='Talking Points Memo']God Bless David Gergen! Really--he was on This Week and said (check the video or transcript for exact wording), "When McCain's camp calls Obama "The Messiah" and "The One", he's really calling him "uppity." I'm from the South, and we understand what that means. That's code." Jake Tapper looked like he had been pole axed. Donna Brazille knew what he was talking about, of course. But GS, George Will, and Tapper had to be bluntly told the the way the world works by Mr. Blandly Bi-partisan.... [/quote]

Here's the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfXvK84MPqQ

What is your opinion? If you're from the South, do you actually hear the "dog-whistle"?

And when is Senator McCain going to release some new ads for what he support, and not who he's against?

Here's a money quote from Senator Obama:
[quote name='Senator Obama']“That's why, if you think about this week, what they've been good at is distraction,” Obama told reporters at a press conference this morning. “You've got statistics saying we've lost another 50,000 jobs. That Florida's in recession for the first time in a decade and a half. And what was being talked about were Paris and Britney. And so they're clever on creating distractions from the issues that really matter in people's lives.”[/quote]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm from the south and i thought the ad was just ridiculously stupid, i didn't notice any sort of code or wink and node type material. I guess that you could read that as McCain calling Obama uppity, i didn't though.
 
I don't know. When you have to resort to saying the entire south has a "code" that they use to communicate to one another without anyone else catching on - well my eyes start involuntarily rolling around in my head. I mean, is there some southern dictionary where you can look up "messiah" and it's defined as "uppity" - this sounds like a pretty far-fetched conspiracy theory to me.

I guess I'm trying to say - you'll know it when you see it (case in point below)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r90z0PMnKwI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDwwAaVmnf4
 
[quote name='camoor']I don't know. When you have to resort to saying the entire south has a "code" that they use to communicate to one another without anyone else catching on - well my eyes start involuntarily rolling around in my head.[/QUOTE]

States Rights, Law and Order the list can go on.

I have noticed many hardcore cons use the terms liberal or traitor and now terrorist/muslim as a code because when they actually want to say uppity brown people or crafty Jew which is considered impolite or something nowadays.

Now before I hear the same old spiel from the usual spastic dimwits saying that was a while ago the RNC not more than two years ran an ad against Harold Ford basically telling people not to vote for him because he loved him some white womens.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted by Senator Obama
“That's why, if you think about this week, what they've been good at is distraction,” Obama told reporters at a press conference this morning. “You've got statistics saying we've lost another 50,000 jobs. That Florida's in recession for the first time in a decade and a half. And what was being talked about were Paris and Britney. And so they're clever on creating distractions from the issues that really matter in people's lives.”
Click to expand...

I think it's safe to say that the issue that matters most to most Americans right now is energy/oil/gas prices. What's Obama doing to keep us focused on and solving that issue? What's his plan? What about illegal immigration/border control? Most of America has that on their top 3 list. So what is Obama doing to educate us all on his solutions for these things?

I'd seriously like to know. All he's been seen doing the past month or so is run around the world and toss out tear jerking hyperbole filled speeches. So isn't it a bit hypocritical to accuse his opponent of distraction from issues that matter to Americans most?

I think it's clear to everyone that they both are.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='thrustbucket']I think it's safe to say that the issue that matters most to most Americans right now is energy/oil/gas prices. What's Obama doing to keep us focused on and solving that issue? What's his plan? What about illegal immigration/border control? Most of America has that on their top 3 list. So what is Obama doing to educate us all on his solutions for these things?

I'd seriously like to know. All he's been seen doing the past month or so is run around the world and toss out tear jerking hyperbole filled speeches. So isn't it a bit hypocritical to accuse his opponent of distraction from issues that matter to Americans most?

I think it's clear to everyone that they both are.[/QUOTE]

http://thepage.time.com/prepared-remarks-of-obamas-energy-speech/
 
[quote name='mykevermin']http://thepage.time.com/prepared-remarks-of-obamas-energy-speech/[/QUOTE]

Ah ok, I had read that he had "changed his mind" on the matter, but had not seen a speech.

A few comments from the speech as I read it, until I get busy again:

[quote name='obama']the only energy proposal he’s (McCain) really promoting is more offshore drilling[/quote]
That's really not true. McCain's semi-recent speeches about the subject has included a proposed two pronged approach that includes alternative energy research. Obama clearly, and conveniently, omits this.

[quote name='Obama'] a position he recently adopted that has become the centerpiece of his plan, and one that will not make a real dent in current gas prices[/quote]
Since gas prices are almost entirely set through speculation and futures markets, I'm going to have to disagree.
[quote name='obama']or meet the long-term challenge of energy independence.[/quote]
Umm, why not? It's simple really. Get more oil domestically (which we currently are not allowed to do) should mean we need less from other countries? Right? Is that flawed logic somehow? What am I missing?

Energy independence is only ever going to come from one thing: When America finds an energy source they can create, process, and distribute entirely within our own borders. Whether that be oil or windmills, it doesn't matter.

[quote name='obama']
George Bush’s own Energy Department has said that if we opened up new areas to drilling today, we wouldn’t see a single drop of oil for seven years. Seven years. And Senator McCain knows that, which is why he admitted that his plan would only provide “psychological” relief to consumers.[/quote]
Ok. That seven years thing is assuming all things are equal, and they are not. In an emergency situation, given enough incentive, our country has proven that they can overcome huge gaps of estimated time frames when needed (Manhattan project, moon landing, etc.) So I disagree with that logic, no matter who says it.

But even IF it's guranteed that we have to wait 7 years, so what? I'd much rather have a light at the end of the tunnel to look forward to than just collectively cross our fingers on a replacement. Does Obama seriously think Oil will be supplanted sooner than 7 years from now?

[quote name='Obama']He also knows that if we opened up and drilled on every single square inch of our land and our shores, we would still find only three percent of the world’s oil reserves. [/quote]
Wow.

Ok first, he's assuming that all the potential oil in North America has been discovered, identified, and had it's quantities properly estimated. How is that possible? These would be rough guesses at best. That's exactly what the exploratory drilling would allow us to find out when the bans are lifted. So why does argue we should not even look further?

Also, he's clearly ignoring estimates from Oil company's themselves that say "Colorado and Utah have as much oil as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, Nigeria, Kuwait, Libya, Angola, Algeria, Indonesia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates combined."

Let's not consider Oil Shale. Let's not work on advancement in extraction there. Don't even put it on the table to consider. No we can't!

[quote name='Obama']But we should start by telling the oil companies to drill on the 68 million acres they currently have access to but haven’t touched.[/quote]
Very disappointing to see him toss out such old-news already killed rhetoric. Does he seriously believe Oil Company's have a reason to not drill in those places if there were oil there?

What's his argument for why Oil Company's are so obviously ignoring oil in those reserves? What business sense does that make?

That's like telling a prospector to stop asking for new claims and to keep digging on the one he has that isn't giving him anything.

[quote name='Obama']And if they don’t, we should require them to give up their leases to someone who will.[/quote]


I do agree with this. The smaller oil company's possibly can turn a profit on some of those unused leases. So let them, if they can. But don't do the equivalent of telling Walmart they can't build any more stores in the city until they start building some in rural areas.

[quote name='Obama']We should invest in the technology that can help us recover more from existing oil fields, and speed up the process of recovering oil and gas resources in shale formations in Montana and North Dakota; Texas and Arkansas and in parts of the West and Central Gulf of Mexico.[/quote]
Strange that he ignores the largest estimated deposit of Shale in the world mentioned above. Otherwise, I agree.

[quote name='Obama']We should sell 70 million barrels of oil from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve for less expensive crude, which in the past has lowered gas prices within two weeks. Over the next five years, we should also lease more of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska for oil and gas production. And we should also tap more of our substantial natural gas reserves and work with the Canadian government to finally build the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline, delivering clean natural gas and creating good jobs in the process.[/quote]
I agree with all of that. Good for Barry, in saying this. He should have taken this further and repeated what Gingrich had suggested and continuously threaten to release our oil reserves into the market, and sometimes really do it. That should put a stop to exorbitant speculations.

-------------

Well the rest is the same ol predictable rhetoric we get from every candidate. Finger pointing, blaming, lots of "no-duh's" and talking about potential massive tax increases (150b without saying where it comes from = tax increase)

In summary, I'm glad he's decided to "compromise", even if he had to wrap it into a nice mis-quoting McCain blame package.

I'd love for him to prove that McCain has said domestic oil drilling is the complete solution forever for our energy woes, since he painted that picture nicely.

It's always cute when competing candidates issue speeches/statements of agreeance with one another but have to cover it in bullshit to maintain their perceived difference.

I'm not seeing much "Yes We Can" there, except for tax/spend.

Edit: I'm so bored I'm going to write a summary for anyone too lazy to read the speech:
"I mostly agree with McCain that we need to find and extract more oil domestically, but I'm going to pretend that McCain doesn't talk about alternative energy research, even if he did. Because that's my baby. I'm also going to promise to find a way to make us energy independent within 10 years, and I'm going to spend 150 billion dollars of your money to do it. Republican bad. Democrat good. So say we all."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, I wasn't a big fan of the change on oil drilling and dipping into the reserves.

Gas prices are already coming down some. Personally, they need to stay up. That's the only way we'll see reductions in consumption and tons of pressure on alternative fuel source research and development coming from all angles.

But I do understand that for many people worse off than me the gas prices are a huge problem for making ends meet where as they haven't really affected me much, so it's easier for me to take that stance than it is for many. And I'm also biased as I want to see oil dependence/consumption go away for reasons other than gas prices--ties to middle east, pollution etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yeah, I wasn't a big fan of the change on oil drilling and dipping into the reserves.

Gas prices are already coming down some. Personally, they need to stay up. That's the only way we'll see reductions in consumption and tons of pressure on alternative fuel source research and development coming from all angles.

But I do understand that for many people worse off than me the gas prices are a huge problem for making ends meet where as they haven't really affected me much, so it's easier for me to take that stance than it is for many. And I'm also biased as I want to see oil dependence/consumption go away for reasons other than gas prices--ties to middle east, pollution etc.[/quote]

Wow, a well reasoned and nuanced opinion. That's something I haven't seen in a while :D
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yeah, I wasn't a big fan of the change on oil drilling and dipping into the reserves.

Gas prices are already coming down some. Personally, they need to stay up. That's the only way we'll see reductions in consumption and tons of pressure on alternative fuel source research and development coming from all angles.
[/QUOTE]

Europe has almost always had much more expensive gas than America. It's been at least twice the price for longer than I can remember (decades?). So by using that logic, Europe should have discovered or invented something by now, right? They are now paying $9 a gallon, with no replacement in sight.

So do you think we are smarter than Europe? Or how exactly do you figure never ending rising gas prices will magically create new clean, safe, and cheap new fuel source? At what point will you concede that maybe we should have drilled more? When the economy crashes? When people can't afford to go to work unless it's close enough to bicylce? How long should we wait?

Please explain how making people pay a shit-ton of money for gas is going to motivate alternate energy research if it hasn't happened in enlightened already over-taxed Europe? How exactly is the common man going to "put pressure" on anyone? Write letters to their representatives? Right. That's laughable.

It boggles my mind that anyone thinks that indefinite economic suffering with finger-crossing as a solution. I guess this "Hope for change" is now a solution for everything.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is another of those agree to disagree issues with us.

Europeans have a lot better public transportation and are much less dependent on cars than Americans, they can bear the prices easier.

Hitting people's wallets isthe only way to get people to change their habits--be it driving less, not buying gas guzzlers etc.

Will it have an impact on alternative fueled cars? Maybe if it creates a market for them and gas companies quit paying scientists to keep research quiet. Auto makers have seen hybrids and high MPG gallon cars selling well and we're seeing more of those come out. As that increases they have more incentive to work on plug in hybrids, hydrogen cars, inventing new fuels etc. as they see that due to gas prices their is a very lucrative market for high MPG or alternative fuel cars.

I feel bad for the people who have a hard time handling a $1-1.50 hike in gas prices, but that's life. The economy changes and you have to tweak your life to deal with it.

I think the government should do what it can to keep gas prices from getting too much higher, but I'd hate to see mass domestic drilling to get prices way down and just stretch out our dependence on oil another few decades. Ending dependence on coal and oil is the number 1 issue facing the world IMO.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='thrustbucket']So do you think we are smarter than Europe?[/quote]

Yes.

;) (actually I think Dmaul is right on the money, plus we have brain-drained many scientists from Europe because we tend to reward brilliance and results while in socialist Europe they tend to promote/pay based on seniority and your family situation)
 
[quote name='camoor']...plus we have brain-drained many scientists from Europe because we tend to reward brilliance and results while in socialist Europe they tend to promote/pay based on seniority and your family situation)[/QUOTE]

That's definitely true. Academia (where the bulk of research is done in most fields) is brutal in Europe. Much lower pay, much harder to get tenure etc.

And academia already doesn't pay great here relative to the time you put in to get the doctorate or relevant advanced degree. People like myself choose to do it for liking the work, the flexibility in setting your own research agenda, schedule etc. Definitely not for the money.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114'] Ending dependence on coal and oil is the number 1 issue facing the world IMO.[/QUOTE]

Seriously? Why?

Pollution sucks, I agree with that. But allowing energy as it's presently installed to most people on this planet to get out of control expensive, we are going to have mass starvation, more wars, homelessness, foreclosures, etc. And it will be even worse for third world countries just now modernizing. Do you have any idea how brutal high prices of oil are to the developing world that are just recently able to use things like hot water for sanitation, stoves, electrical appliances and transportation?

I mean, yeah, dirty air sucks, but imo it's not worth the human cost for the ASAP agenda you describe.

I've still yet to hear why it's not possible to do a humane and gradual plan of weaning off oil while at the same time aggressively pursuing alternatives. You sound as if you'd be more than happy if oil production stopped tomorrow and we were thrown back into the dark ages until Mr. Fusion is invented. So the few people that are left alive decades later can have clean air.

Extreme change is not just going to hurt wallets, it's going to cost lives. The tragedy is, it doesn't have to if we're smart.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why? For pollution and being dependent on oil means being linked to some of the worst regimes in the world, meddling needlessly in their affairs etc.

If you read my post I say things should be done to keep it from "getting out of control expensive" as I said "I think the government should do what it can to keep gas prices from getting too much higher, but I'd hate to see mass domestic drilling to get prices way down and just stretch out our dependence on oil another few decades."

I do support a gradual weaning off of oil....that's the only way to do it. I just don't want to see a big expansion in drilling to drive prices way down (i.e. back down to $2-2.50 a gallon) as people will get complacent and the weaning off of oil will be too slow IMO. Keep in in the $3-4 a gallon range and no more than $5 a gallon and we'll keep seing people buying less SUVs and automakers rushing to get high MPG cars on the market as well as spending more on developing hydrogen cars, electric cars, plug in hybrids etc.

I don't think many people are going to die because of gas costing $3-5 a gallon. People will just make necessary adjustments to their other spending, and lifestyle (use public transit, move closer to work, sell vehicle and buy a more fuel efficient one etc. etc.). You're really over stating it. Gas has long been much higher than this in Europe and people aren't dying and starving because of it. Granted Europe was much smarter in developing than US and aren't so dependent on Cars since they have much better public transportation.

But I'll admit I'm a bit callous here as I'm pretty unsympathetic to the lower class for being a fairly liberal person. Anyone that's in shambles over gas prices going up a buck or two a gallon just has to suck it up and live with the consequences of not getting an education and/or doing something with their lives.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']People will just make necessary adjustments to their other spending, and lifestyle (use public transit, move closer to work, sell vehicle and buy a more fuel efficient one etc. etc.). [/quote]

But, in the minds of people in favor of offshore drilling, that isn't fair.

Even the poorest of people should have 100 commutes without any negative consequences.

Even the poorest of people should be able to drive a 15mpg SUV without any negative consequences.

If we give oil companies to drill just a little more land, gas will be 30 cents a gallon before all those terrible taxes.

And there is no way out other than gas. Europe proves that by heavily taxing their fuel. Let's forget that they have incredible public transportation, cars that can get 100MPG and 30 miles in some directions put you in a different country. Europe is exactly the same as the US.

We have to drill our way out of this problem.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Why? For pollution and being dependent on oil means being linked to some of the worst regimes in the world, meddling needlessly in their affairs etc.[/quote]
I totally agree with that. But we are both arguing for energy independence. As you said, consuming 25% of the worlds energy, becoming independent, even with coal and oil, would change the entire global political landscape. Sure, the third world would still depend on the countries we can't stand, but if we were energy independent we'd be in a much better situation to help them.

I do support a gradual weaning off of oil....that's the only way to do it. I just don't want to see a big expansion in drilling to drive prices way down (i.e. back down to $2-2.50 a gallon) as people will get complacent and the weaning off of oil will be too slow IMO. Keep in in the $3-4 a gallon range and no more than $5 a gallon and we'll keep seing people buying less SUVs and automakers rushing to get high MPG cars on the market as well as spending more on developing hydrogen cars, electric cars, plug in hybrids etc.
Click to expand...
I guess the only real difference between you and I with this paragraph is that I don't see a problem making oil as cheap as possible for as long as possible, because the government has the power through regulations and incentives to do far far far more in promoting alternatives. They can give HUGE tax breaks to company's and even consumers that invest in them. Large enough that anyone would be stupid not to. To me, that's a more viable answer, both.

I don't think many people are going to die because of gas costing $3-5 a gallon. People will just make necessary adjustments to their other spending, and lifestyle (use public transit, move closer to work, sell vehicle and buy a more fuel efficient one etc. etc.). You're really over stating it. Gas has long been much higher than this in Europe and people aren't dying and starving because of it. Granted Europe was much smarter in developing than US and aren't so dependent on Cars since they have much better public transportation.
Click to expand...
Europe isn't a third world country, and that's who I was referring to. Most EU countries have small enough populations and large enough GOP that they can essentially maintain welfare states while taxes become unbearable.

I'm talking about countries such as those in Africa. Villages just now getting power and modernizing. Getting real sanitation for the first time. Getting clean water for the first time. Getting transportation options never had before. Almost all of it depends on oil. And to embrace a policy that keeps prices high out of the belief it will make things change faster, I firmly believe costs lives. You can call it overstating, but do some research into it. Go over there and tell those people to their face that you support energy prices they won't be able to afford for the necessities of life.

But I'll admit I'm a bit callous here as I'm pretty unsympathetic to the lower class for being a fairly liberal person. Anyone that's in shambles over gas prices going up a buck or two a gallon just has to suck it up and live with the consequences of not getting an education and/or doing something with their lives.
Click to expand...
Well, and as a fairly liberal person, it isn't terribly surprising you'd support painful extremes as means to an end. You are right though, the average Lexus driving american that now can't afford to trade in for the newer model lexus is hard to sympathize with. But as I pointed out above, I think your severely ignoring just how far reaching the effects of a passive policy will be.

If this were all just about Americans having to cut some of their luxaries, I wouldn't be so passionate about it, and I'd agree with you more. But it isn't.

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']But, in the minds of people in favor of offshore drilling, that isn't fair.

Even the poorest of people should have 100 commutes without any negative consequences.

Even the poorest of people should be able to drive a 15mpg SUV without any negative consequences.

If we give oil companies to drill just a little more land, gas will be 30 cents a gallon before all those terrible taxes.

And there is no way out other than gas. Europe proves that by heavily taxing their fuel. Let's forget that they have incredible public transportation, cars that can get 100MPG and 30 miles in some directions put you in a different country. Europe is exactly the same as the US.

We have to drill our way out of this problem.
[/quote]



Cute. Nobody here is saying any of that. But it was cute nonetheless.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not to backtrack too much, but I feel this point got a little glossed over.

[quote name='thrustbucket']In an emergency situation, given enough incentive, our country has proven that they can overcome huge gaps of estimated time frames when needed (Manhattan project, moon landing, etc.)[/QUOTE]

[quote name='thrustbucket']So do you think we are smarter than Europe?[/QUOTE]

Yes, the US is quite certainly in a unique position when it comes to developmental research.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']But, in the minds of people in favor of offshore drilling, that isn't fair.

Even the poorest of people should have 100 commutes without any negative consequences.

Even the poorest of people should be able to drive a 15mpg SUV without any negative consequences.

If we give oil companies to drill just a little more land, gas will be 30 cents a gallon before all those terrible taxes.

And there is no way out other than gas. Europe proves that by heavily taxing their fuel. Let's forget that they have incredible public transportation, cars that can get 100MPG and 30 miles in some directions put you in a different country. Europe is exactly the same as the US.

We have to drill our way out of this problem.[/QUOTE]

So if you are against drilling and believe people should drive more efficient cars, are you going to pony up the dough to buy all the Americans with under 20mpg vehicles these new hybrid cars you speak of? Only will be a few hundred trillion dollars or so, I'm sure you can afford it with all the money you are saving from "going green." ;)

More fuel-efficient cars is certainly part of a foreign oil independence plan, but it is naive to believe it is the whole plan. We need to increase domestic supply as well as part of a short term impact on market perception as well as long term impact on domestic supply.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
drilling for oil is only going to increase supply to drive down prices.

NOT any part of trying to get away from oil.

The problem is all oil is referenced against the mighty dollar, our dollar sucks, prices have increased, America won't change because we have to drive. Public trans is not the answer, we must change, we are cosumerists, we are driven and lead by our purchases. In order for change to occur we must buy into the solution. Auto companies are just starting to realize this, trucks and suvs down, trade ins for cars and such. Now we must step further, use our vast intelligence and build a car that can beat anything coming from Japan, make it affordable, and get us away from Oil, and coal. Nuclear Plants are effective, but risk is involved and until other sources of energy become efficent, this would be another good step.

but just drilling more oil is not going to fix anything. Nothing at all.
 
Heh. I like people who argue against 'going green' or finding alternative energy sources, standing behind the cardboard cutout of "long term impact."

Because the one thing we need to do as a society is make sure we stay an oil-dependent nation, ruined. That's lookin' into the FYOO-CHA!

;)
 
I don't think ruined, or anyone else, is arguing against finding alternative energy. It's something we all want.

The argument is what we do in the interim.

I find it amazing that anyone that doesn't want to eliminate fossil fuels asap, no matter the cost, is consistently considered to be against alternative energy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='thrustbucket']
I guess the only real difference between you and I with this paragraph is that I don't see a problem making oil as cheap as possible for as long as possible, because the government has the power through regulations and incentives to do far far far more in promoting alternatives. They can give HUGE tax breaks to company's and even consumers that invest in them. Large enough that anyone would be stupid not to. To me, that's a more viable answer, both.
[/QUOTE]

I'm just not optimistic about your plan their. Without semi-high gas prices creating outrage and pressure on politicians, automakers etc. I think change will be slow to come.

If we expand domestic drilling and knock prices back down under $3 consistently I think people will become complacent and progress on reducing consumption, alternative fuels etc. will come much more slowly than if gas prices continue to hover in the $3-5 range.

I think drilling more could be used to help keep prices from getting out of that range and putting too much burden on people, but I fear if we get prices down much lower than $3 we'll see progress stiffled.

Change and innovation is hard to bring about, and generally it requires a crisis for it to happen on a large scale. There's a good book on diffusion of innovation by Everett Rodgers that lays out these ideas in terms of organizational change. I think it's even more applicable to societal changes.

[quote name='thrustbucket']
I find it amazing that anyone that doesn't want to eliminate fossil fuels asap, no matter the cost, is consistently considered to be against alternative energy.[/QUOTE]

And with that you're playing the same strawman bullshit you bashed FoC for doing on the last page. No one has said we want fossil fuels to to away right away. It will be a gradual process over decades. We just have differing opinions on whats the best way to bring that change about as quickly as possible with reasonable burden on citizens.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I don't think ruined, or anyone else, is arguing against finding alternative energy. It's something we all want.

The argument is what we do in the interim.

I find it amazing that anyone that doesn't want to eliminate fossil fuels asap, no matter the cost, is consistently considered to be against alternative energy.[/quote]

I find it funny that my 95 Geo gets more per gallon then what Chevy was advertising less than a month ago... "BUY NOW GETTING 28MPG!!!1111!!"

WTF... about 13 years later and all Chevy can do is just push a vehicle that can't even beat my Geo....

I know a bunch of hybrids getting great gas mileage....

It just boggles my mind that we haven't had something better... something more... something coming from the USA... and I found that we're just lazy... and FINALLY the cries of Gas prices have urged a movement....

Really I'd like to see gas get up to 5... Diseal is already at 4.5 and only thing is that's hurting the farmers/truckers/our pocket books at the grocery store... but reallyto make a good punch is hit that 5 mark and let's see those suv and trucks really take a hit, because if we're not bitching... and demanding anything new and better, we're going to be kept serving the same crap.

That's the fault of our economy driven consumerism.... Something needs to be better, perform faster, be easier, or have better technology before something gets used and bought.....

With gas cheap, there wasn't ever a need to go better...

I wouldn't mind bigger rebates from the Gov'mnt for getting hybrids, right now they are pretty much equal savings, spend more and you'll save that much in gas... not much of a "bonus".

Plus I'd like to see our best tech from Ford/Chevy or even some school research to come out with the next best thing to battery hybrids and freaking mass produce the damn things... It's about time we start seeing "the future" in our cars... and not horsepower and gas guzzling low mpg.

Really right now there isn't much to go on... we could get more cars with hybrids to plug in and offset that with nuclear plants... but then that would take a huge push by Gov which won't happen, OR a huge push by the people, but that won't happen if Gas doesn't get /stay high.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Ruined']So if you are against drilling and believe people should drive more efficient cars, are you going to pony up the dough to buy all the Americans with under 20mpg vehicles these new hybrid cars you speak of? Only will be a few hundred trillion dollars or so, I'm sure you can afford it with all the money you are saving from "going green." ;)

More fuel-efficient cars is certainly part of a foreign oil independence plan, but it is naive to believe it is the whole plan. We need to increase domestic supply as well as part of a short term impact on market perception as well as long term impact on domestic supply.[/quote]

Hundreds of trillion of dollars? You're think of Fannie and Freddie.

$10,000 to convert from gas to pure electric per car for 200 million cars would cost 2 trillion dollars. So, what do you want to do with the other $198 trillion?

Considering you wouldn't have to export $700 billion to buy foreign oil and spend $300 billion to keep Afghanistan and Iraq "stable", that's $1 trillion save PER YEAR.

I know the guy in support of drilling (McCain) doesn't understand economics, but do you think a 50% return on an investment is good or bad?
 
Back to the topic on hand, no code is needed to attack Obama. Just use his own words :

""We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to be OK. That's not leadership. That's not going to happen."
 
[quote name='Heavy Hitter']Back to the topic on hand, no code is needed to attack Obama. Just use his own words :

""We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to be OK. That's not leadership. That's not going to happen."[/quote]

I saw Obama's energy plan. It seemed lackluster.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I'm just not optimistic about your plan their. Without semi-high gas prices creating outrage and pressure on politicians, automakers etc. I think change will be slow to come.

If we expand domestic drilling and knock prices back down under $3 consistently I think people will become complacent and progress on reducing consumption, alternative fuels etc. will come much more slowly than if gas prices continue to hover in the $3-5 range.

I think drilling more could be used to help keep prices from getting out of that range and putting too much burden on people, but I fear if we get prices down much lower than $3 we'll see progress stiffled.[/quote]

Ok, just because I'm bored, lets pretend we are politicians for a second, working on a compromise.

If I concede that we lock gas in at being unable to go lower than $3 or higher than $3.50, would you be ok with that if we had to drill domestically to make that guarantee?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Ok, just because I'm bored, lets pretend we are politicians for a second, working on a compromise.

If I concede that we lock gas in at being unable to go lower than $3 or higher than $3.50, would you be ok with that if we had to drill domestically to make that guarantee?[/quote]

Nope. Revoke the patent rights on the NiMH batteries. Allow anybody to manufacture NiMH batteries at any size without paying a royalty. Then, give the equivalent value in land leases to Chevron.

Isn't that better?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Ok, just because I'm bored, lets pretend we are politicians for a second, working on a compromise.

If I concede that we lock gas in at being unable to go lower than $3 or higher than $3.50, would you be ok with that if we had to drill domestically to make that guarantee?[/QUOTE]

I already said earlier that I was ok with domestic drilling to keep gas in the $3-5 range.

But I have limits on it. I'd like to see all already leased options used before issuing new offshore drilling leases, and I'd prefer not to drill in ANWAR if possible as there's far too little true untouched wilderness left.

And the agreement has to have contractual obligations in it to put A LOT of funding into promoting alternative fuel research and development.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='thrustbucket']Isn't NiMH obsolete?[/quote]

Yes and no.

NiMH can put an electric car's range 2-4 times longer than Lead Acid.

It won't go as far as Lithium Ion, but the range allows for over 100 miles between charges.

More importantly, the batteries last much longer than Lithium Ion, are completely recyclable and don't have that nasty habit of blowing up after overcharging.

If there were no royalties to pay to Chevron, it would be hard to determine how much less the batteries would cost.

In the grand scheme of things, a commuter car with NiMH would either be lighter than a comparable gas guzzler or only require recharging every few days of normal commuting.

For traveling salespeople and the random person/family who can't afford a second car or rent a car for spontaneous long range trips, NiMH is a poor choice.

Another thing to consider is that the energy density of batteries has increases from 18Wh/kg to ~150Wh/kg in the last 20 years. That's nearly a sevenfold increase. IF that were to happen again (~150Wh/kg to >1kWh/kg), using oil to push a car would be pointless since the effective maximum range of an electric car would be around 4000 miles.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Is the misplaced apostrophe intentional?[/QUOTE]
Yeah

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Yes and no.

NiMH can put an electric car's range 2-4 times longer than Lead Acid.

It won't go as far as Lithium Ion, but the range allows for over 100 miles between charges.

More importantly, the batteries last much longer than Lithium Ion, are completely recyclable and don't have that nasty habit of blowing up after overcharging.

If there were no royalties to pay to Chevron, it would be hard to determine how much less the batteries would cost.

In the grand scheme of things, a commuter car with NiMH would either be lighter than a comparable gas guzzler or only require recharging every few days of normal commuting.

For traveling salespeople and the random person/family who can't afford a second car or rent a car for spontaneous long range trips, NiMH is a poor choice.

Another thing to consider is that the energy density of batteries has increases from 18Wh/kg to ~150Wh/kg in the last 20 years. That's nearly a sevenfold increase. IF that were to happen again (~150Wh/kg to >1kWh/kg), using oil to push a car would be pointless since the effective maximum range of an electric car would be around 4000 miles.[/QUOTE]

Interesting. I didn't know any of that. Well I'm all for it then. I have stated in other threads that I am a huge proponent of electric cars. It seems to me, though, a little fish that nobody has made a better competitor to the NiMH battery without the royalty situation.
 
If the battery technology wasn't so expensive it would help a lot, but so long as profit is the aim of these manufacturers, that won't change. Besides the materials needed to produce them, you have the royalty issues like foc was talking about.

Maybe if there were a way to subsidize the cost of the batteries it would help offset the cost of the electric cars. Plus if funding was given to research increases in the capacity of the batteries, the range of the cars could be increased.
 
I strongly support electric cars as part of the solution, as I said repeatedly in the prolonged debate thread a couple months ago, but have little interest in one my self currently due to not wanting range limits on my cars. I'm not willing to buy a car for normal commuting and have to have or rent another car for longer trips (which are at least once or twice a month). Gas prices would have to be encroaching on $10 a gallon for me to consider making that kind of sacrifice. I'd also have to move as there's no where to plug in a car in my condo complex's parking lot and I'd have no recourse to get outdoor plugs installed.

Now if we see the battery leap happen again as FoC hypothesized,then the issue goes away and I'd be on board.

But by all means we should have electric cars on the market as their are a lot of people who pretty much never drive more than 100 miles who such cars would be ideal for.
 
In the news today:
Nissan Motor Co. unveiled a new prototype electric vehicle Wednesday with batteries twice as powerful as conventional technology, aiming to take a lead in zero-emission cars.

Japan's third-largest automaker said the front-wheel drive, boxy-shaped car has a newly developed 80 kilowatt motor with advanced lithium-ion batteries installed under the vehicle's floor to avoid taking up space.

The laminated batteries, jointly developed with electronics giant NEC Corp., pack twice the electric power of conventional nickel-metal hydride batteries currently used in hybrid and electric cars, it said.

Nissan aims to start selling an electric car in the United States and Japan in 2010 and the rest of the world in 2012. It will have a new "unique bodystyle" that is not based on any existing model, the company said.

Nissan has been slower than rivals Toyota Motor Corp. and Honda Motor Co. to embrace petrol-electric hybrids, but it aims to become the industry leader in electric vehicles.

Such cars have so far failed to break into the mainstream, partly because of their limited battery life.

Nissan is also developing hydrogen fuel-cell cars as well as its own hybrid system, betting that zero-emission vehicles will take a 15 percent share of the global auto market in the future.

The company also unveiled a prototype hybrid which will also be launched in the US and Japan in 2010, as well as a new, slimmer fuel cell stack with double the power density of previous ones and 35 percent lower costs.
Click to expand...
 
Only 16 miles round trip to work for me, around 20 on days I go to the gym before work. And I have a Mazda 3 which gets decent mileage so I'm doing my part to cut emmission enough to satisfy myself and to make gas prices not much of a burden.

So I don't really need an electric car right now, and would rather have the unlimited range of a gas car for trips home to my parents (260 miles each way) my girlfriend ( a bit over 500 each way--though I fly more often than driving), occasionaly 250 mile round trips for work, and for random roadtrips.

But again, they need to be out there for people with short enough work commutes who never leave the city/metropolitan area they live in. Price is an issue though, it will be a while before a decent sized electric car is out there for under $15K (your cutoff). They'll be pricey until battery technology comes down in price and they start selling enough that they don't have to charge as much for each car.
 
Even this thread has gotten totally off-topic, I'll throw in on this current discussion also.

I fell pretty much the same way - I'd drive an electric vehicle as long as it provides the same capabilities as my Jeep. I need 4-wheel drive to deal with Winter driving, and I need something roomy enough to haul me, 2 kids, and whatever else I need to haul with me. And fuck those little subcompact deathtraps - y'all want to drive in a form-fitting coffin, you go on.
 
[quote name='Heavy Hitter']Even this thread has gotten totally off-topic, I'll throw in on this current discussion also.

I fell pretty much the same way - I'd drive an electric vehicle as long as it provides the same capabilities as my Jeep. I need 4-wheel drive to deal with Winter driving, and I need something roomy enough to haul me, 2 kids, and whatever else I need to haul with me. And fuck those little subcompact deathtraps - y'all want to drive in a form-fitting coffin, you go on.[/quote]

You put two children in a Jeep?

Which model are you using and how old are the kids?
 
I put lots of things in my Jeep, including my kids.

What does it matter which model I drive and my kids' ages? Do I sense a "gotcha" coming up?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Heavy Hitter']I put lots of things in my Jeep, including my kids.

What does it matter which model I drive and my kids' ages? Do I sense a "gotcha" coming up?[/QUOTE]

Feel a sense of anti-car (especially anti-need a car/big car) rant coming up is what you should feel! ;)
 
Speaking of safety in small cars, i know Volkswagen claims that the new beetle is safer because of the shape of the car, assuming their marketing is true. Not all small cars are "death traps."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top