|
Bye bye Democrat Party.
The Dems lost the 2000 Presidential Election
The Dems lost the Senate in 2002. The Dems lost even more seats in the House of Representatives in the mid-term elections. Now the Dems are in the process of losing the gubernatorial recall elections in California to a Republican. Go Arnold, go! Come the 2004 elections President George W. Bush is going to win in a landslide. Dems are going to lose at least a half-dozen seats in the Senate and probably more than a dozen in the House. Look at the laughing stock gaggle of Democrat president wannabes who are seeking their doomed party's nomination. It's so very sad. Bobsprit you must just hate the fact that you and your fellow liberals are on a ship that is sinking fast. S.Simon |
Bye bye Democrat Party.
Unfortunately many of the rats that jumped the sinking SS Democratic Party
swam over to the Republican side. They're called neo-cons. They easily outspend the Democrats under Clinton. "I am not interested in streamlining government or in making it more efficient for I mean to reduce its size" Barry M. Goldwater, Mr. Conservative and a real one at that! "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... The Dems lost the 2000 Presidential Election The Dems lost the Senate in 2002. The Dems lost even more seats in the House of Representatives in the mid-term elections. Now the Dems are in the process of losing the gubernatorial recall elections in California to a Republican. Go Arnold, go! Come the 2004 elections President George W. Bush is going to win in a landslide. Dems are going to lose at least a half-dozen seats in the Senate and probably more than a dozen in the House. Look at the laughing stock gaggle of Democrat president wannabes who are seeking their doomed party's nomination. It's so very sad. Bobsprit you must just hate the fact that you and your fellow liberals are on a ship that is sinking fast. S.Simon |
Bye bye Democrat Party.
Now the Dems are in the process of losing the
gubernatorial recall elections in California to a Republican. Go Arnold, go! Didn't you say the recall would never happen? RB |
Bye bye Democrat Party.
On 13 Aug 2003 00:53:02 GMT, (Bobsprit) wrote this
crap: Now the Dems are in the process of losing the gubernatorial recall elections in California to a Republican. Go Arnold, go! Didn't you say the recall would never happen? Was that Total Recall? Ave Imperator Bush! Bush Was Right! Four More Years! |
Bye bye Democrat Party.
No. It wasn't me who said that. But, it may not
happen depending upon which dirty tricks the Dems use to usurp the desires of California voters. Do you even read. Even Hillary doesn't want the recall. How can you steal an election with no dems of note running? Make some sense and try again! RB |
Bye bye Democrat Party.
If you think the Fla. ballot controversey was a farce and a debacle,
wait till you see the Ca. ballot with 170 candidates in random order. Try counting this mutha This election will be tied up in lawsuits till the end of time. If the Ca. voters are smart (unlikely), they'll look at the coming train wreck and derail the recall. .. On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 08:58:20 -0400, "Simple Simon" wrote: "Bobsprit" wrote in message ... Now the Dems are in the process of losing the gubernatorial recall elections in California to a Republican. Go Arnold, go! Didn't you say the recall would never happen? No. It wasn't me who said that. But, it may not happen depending upon which dirty tricks the Dems use to usurp the desires of California voters. I got a feeling the Dems are going to try every dirty trick in the book to try to invalidate the recall election. In other words they are going to do again what they tried and failed to do here in Florida - steal the election and negate the choice of the voters. |
Bye bye Democrat Party.
Get a grip, man, and elect some
moderate people to lead your party. Gore was a a moderate. So far he's been right about everything, including the devastating tax refunds the country couldn't and can't afford! There never was a cash surplus. Bush lied again. RB |
Bye bye Democrat Party.
Gore was just another Clinton liberal. That's why
he lost. I'm telling you - elect some moderate Democrats like JKF who was the last moderate Democrat president and then, and only then, will the Democrat party have a chance of regaining some of its voters. The Democrat party has moved too far left for their base and that's the heart and soul of the present situation. "Bobsprit" wrote in message ... Get a grip, man, and elect some moderate people to lead your party. Gore was a a moderate. So far he's been right about everything, including the devastating tax refunds the country couldn't and can't afford! There never was a cash surplus. Bush lied again. RB |
Bye bye Democrat Party.
Gore wanted to do away with automobiles, for one
thing. ("Earth in the Balance" - read it you uninformed jerk!) I have. Gore did not want to eliminate cars, dopey. RB |
Bye bye Democrat Party.
Sorry, Booby, he did and you lose. "On pages 325-6, I wrote, "It ought to be possible to establish a coordinated global program to accomplish the strategic goal of completely eliminating the internal combustion engine over, say, a 25-year period." It is possible; it needs to be do-ne; it will create more jobs, not destroy jobs. I'm proud that I wrote those words in 1992, and I reaffirm them today." (AL GORE, Earth in the Balance p. xviii & xxiv) "Bobsprit" wrote in message ... Gore wanted to do away with automobiles, for one thing. ("Earth in the Balance" - read it you uninformed jerk!) I have. Gore did not want to eliminate cars, dopey. RB |
Bye bye Democrat Party.
You can't change internal combustion engines with
something not invented yet. Gore is an idiot and a fool and that is why you liberals love him. Eliminate internal combustion engines leaves electric engines. Electric engines need to have batteries charged from the grid. The grid burns fossil fuel to produce electricity. (Hydrogen engines are also internal combustion). Steam engines are external combustion engines; maybe Gore wants to go back to steam power. Yes, sir, stoke them with his precious trees. What an IDIOT! S.Simon "Bobsprit" wrote in message ... Sorry, Booby, he did and you lose. "On pages 325-6, I wrote, "It ought to be possible to establish a coordinated global program to accomplish the strategic goal of completely eliminating the internal combustion engine over, Changing engine technology eliminates cars???!!! Bwahahahahaha! RB |
Bye bye Democrat Party.
You can't change internal combustion engines with
something not invented yet. Can someone please invent a car that can drive all day on batteries, which can be swapped at "gas" stations and... Oh...really? They have? Years ago? bwahahahaha! RB |
Bye bye Democrat Party.
You missed the point, mush for brains! When you
charge those batteries you plug in the charger which gets electricity from the grid. Electricity from the grid is produced primarily from fossil fuels. Why indirectly burn fossil fuels and claim you are doing something worthwhile? Only an ignorant liberal never bothers to think of these things. S.Simon "Bobsprit" wrote in message ... You can't change internal combustion engines with something not invented yet. Can someone please invent a car that can drive all day on batteries, which can be swapped at "gas" stations and... Oh...really? They have? Years ago? bwahahahaha! RB |
Bye bye Democrat Party.
I thought that's what you were advocating... sounding an awful
lot like a liberal to me! "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... It wasn't any church that was concerned about Gore becoming president; it was the business interests. Gore wanted to do away with automobiles, for one thing. ("Earth in the Balance" - read it you uninformed jerk!) Can you imagine what doing away with automobiles would do to the economy? Gore would have willingly destroyed the economy and peoples standard of living just to save a few trees and to forestall global warming which is not even proven to be going on. That's liberalism at its very worse. "Bobsprit" wrote in message ... Gore was just another Clinton liberal. That's why he lost. Clearly you know nothing of Gore, who lived a far more conservative life than Bush. Gore was a dem the republicans could have loved, even of church hated him. RB |
Bye bye Democrat Party.
Where have you been Ganz? Ms. Feinstein cannot get
into the recall race. It's too late to register. Duh! "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message ... going to happen. If Feinstein gets in the race, she'll win, since she's so popular here. I guess that's ok, but I'd rather have her stay in the Senate. |
Bye bye Democrat Party.
And, what about all the acid in those batteries and
the lead? Huh? Huh? Good lord. Lead? Acid? A little behind the times, eh Neal. Given your pathetic grasp of current technology, I'm not surprised that you thought Gore wanted to eliminate cars. RB |
Bye bye Democrat Party.
You are the one who is wrong. Scrubbers only take out
sulphur from coal. The exhaust of today's auto is cleaner than the exhaust stacks of coal fired electricity plants by far. Natural gas might be a little cleaner than gasoline but not by far. Carbon dioxide is carbon dioxide and even alcohol when burned produces carbon dioxide and water. Autos have catalytic converters to control other pollutants and power plants do not. The main emissions of a car engine a a.. Nitrogen gas (N2) - Air is 78-percent nitrogen gas, and most of this passes right through the car engine. b.. Carbon dioxide (CO2) - This is one product of combustion. The carbon in the fuel bonds with the oxygen in the air. c.. Water vapor (H2O) - This is another product of combustion. The hydrogen in the fuel bonds with the oxygen in the air. These emissions are mostly benign (although carbon dioxide emissions are believed to contribute to global warming). But because the combustion process is never perfect, some smaller amounts of more harmful emissions are also produced in car engines: a.. Carbon monoxide (CO) - a poisonous gas that is colorless and odorless b.. Hydrocarbons or volatile organic compounds (VOCs) - produced mostly from unburned fuel that evaporates Sunlight breaks these down to form oxidants, which react with oxides of nitrogen to cause ground level ozone (O3), a major component of smog. c.. Nitrogen oxides (NO and NO2, together called NOx) - contributes to smog and acid rain, and also causes irritation to human mucus membranes These are the three main regulated emissions, and also the ones that catalytic converters are designed to reduce. Cars are cleaner than power plants (excepting nuclear and hydroelectric that is) and that's a fact. Cars don't cause acid rain power plants do. Lord you are one stupid and brainwashed liberal. S.Simon "Bobsprit" wrote in message ... Not true. Automobiles have cleaner exhaust by far than power plants which just run it up higher in the atmosphere through giant stacks. 100% false, Neal. Power plants release cleaner byproducts by far via their scrubbers than any auto. They're also thousands of times more efficient compared to how a gas powered car produces energy via combustion. You're so uneducated on this, it's really sad. RB |
Bye bye Democrat Party.
The exhaust of today's auto is cleaner
than the exhaust stacks of coal fired electricity plants by far. Natural gas might be a little cleaner than gasoline but not by far. Carbon dioxide is carbon dioxide and even alcohol when burned produces carbon dioxide and water. Ohhhhh! So this means George Bush was wrong when he said full implementation of electric cars in the future will reduce auto related polution drastically. I see!!! Bwahahahaha! I lead him to the water and he drank! Capt RB |
Bye bye Democrat Party.
He did not
say existing auto emissions were greater than electrical power plants that burn coal and gas. Yes, he did. He and gore actually agreed on it, but not the timetable. You're busted again! RB |
Bye bye Democrat Party.
Prove it! Let's see a link with a quote, please.
"Bobsprit" wrote in message ... He did not say existing auto emissions were greater than electrical power plants that burn coal and gas. Yes, he did. He and gore actually agreed on it, but not the timetable. You're busted again! RB |
Bye bye Democrat Party.
"JaxAshby" wrote in
ink.net: Unfortunately many of the rats that jumped the sinking SS Democratic Party swam over to the Republican side. They're called neo-cons. no, they aren't Fjukwit. Wrong, as usual. Bertei |
Bye bye Democrat Party.
I'd like to see more R&D with hydrogen fuel cells, (e.g., proton exchange
membrane fuel cells). I built a working Solar / Hydrogen powered model last year (from a kit). It worked well; had a photovoltaic panel that produced DC which was used for electrolysis of water. The water and the resultant H and O gasses were all stored in a baffled tank (attached to car). The H and O gasses were fed to the fuel cell, which used them to produce (1) electricty to power the car, and (2) liquid water, which was dumped back into the storage tank to be reused. Naturally, I did not fail to consider the possibilities of using this technology at sea, either for utilities on board, or for propulsion (for docking purposes only!); hence, this is a sailing post. So why didn't the car use just the solar panel? (I can hear some wondering) The solar panel had to produce a minimum amount of H and O before the car could overcome its initial inertia (move). The output of the solar panel could generate enough H and O to keep an already car moving, but its electrical output alone could not get it moving from a stand still. Also, when the inevitable cloud passed overhead, the stored fuel allowed the car to keep moving (as long as the sun came back in a reasonable amount of time) The same tank holding the water also held the accumulating gasses, providing higher capacity for the start up and sunless time periods. It took about 5-10 minutes in the sun before it began to move. Then it ran and ran and ran, as long as the sun would shine (or in this case, until I got bored). It gave me some faith in the concept of fuel cells. Now, if we can ever get fusion to produce a better than 1 to 1 ratio . . . Scout "Vito" wrote Actually, Bush (and environmentalists) ARE wrong about that. Yasee, electricity comes from dirty coal-burning plants. |
Bye bye Democrat Party.
Bobsprit wrote:
The exhaust of today's auto is cleaner than the exhaust stacks of coal fired electricity plants ... Ohhhhh! So this means George Bush was wrong when he said full implementation of electric cars in the future will reduce auto related polution drastically. Actually, Bush (and environmentalists) ARE wrong about that. Yasee, electricity comes from dirty coal-burning plants. Most of the energy from the coal gets lost in the air or water as heat. Then more of it gets lost heating transmission lines that bring electricity to your car. Then more is lost converting that to DC, then to chemical energy in yer battery, then back to electricity and finally to mechanical energy, some of which is wasted dragging the heavy batteries around. These losses consume over 90% of the energy in the coal. Infernal g combustion is far more efficient, loosing only 70% or so. Reducing emissions of individual cars doesn't help if there are more and more cars. Ie if you reduce emissions by 50% but have twice as many cars you're right back where you started from - except that the 2x more people driving those 2x cars are also farting, taking dumps, heating their houses, et al. So, all of these "solutions" are really band aids covering up the real wound. Oh well, the Yellowstone eruption will take care of it .... (c: |
Bye bye Democrat Party.
Vito wrote: ..... Yasee, electricity comes from dirty coal-burning plants. Most of the energy from the coal gets lost in the air or water as heat. Speaking as a person who has made an embarrassing amount of money (that is, it would be embarassing if I had any shame) working on coal fired combustion control systems, you are full of baloney. I suggest starting out with a good high school level physics text, it appears you tried to skip ahead and missed a lot of the basics. Reducing emissions of individual cars doesn't help if there are more and more cars. Ie if you reduce emissions by 50% but have twice as many cars you're right back where you started from - except that the 2x more people driving those 2x cars are also farting, taking dumps, heating their houses, et al. But we're all still better off than if twice as many cars are putting out unreduced emissions. Basically, the idea that intelligent & responsible citizens can be complacent about the environment is disgusting & destructive. I hope you don't have kids to apologize to about your attitude. DSK |
Bye bye Democrat Party.
DSK wrote:
... it appears you tried to skip ahead and missed a lot of the basics. You're right! CA had me take placement exams then made me skip over basic physics and chem. But tell me, where am I wrong? Why does the coal burning plant near me need water cooling if it's so efficient? What are the transmission losses getting power from (US 301 & Potomac River) into D.C., including voltage transformations? How efficient is a battery charger? A battery? A DC motor or an inverter plus an AC motor as the case may be? Reducing emissions of individual cars doesn't help if there are more and more cars. Ie if you reduce emissions by 50% but have twice as many cars you're right back where you started from - except that the 2x more people driving those 2x cars are also farting, taking dumps, heating their houses, et al. But we're all still better off than if twice as many cars are putting out unreduced emissions. Are we? In 1966 a 'vette was $3500, a Cobra or XKE $5000, and a Ferrari a tad over $10K - all less than a years pay for a recent grad. Today? We have the same air, etc. quality we could have had by reducing population but an average 25 year old cannot have a Cobra or XKE, let alone a Ferrari. He's been forced to give up high performance cars, and a zillion other things, just so fools can have babies they cannot afford. Basically, the idea that intelligent & responsible citizens can be complacent about the environment is disgusting & destructive. I hope you don't have kids to apologize to about your attitude. Complacent? Hardly! I deem idiots who pop/father more than two kids disgusting and destructive, and ignorant to boot - ignorant as in "Du-uh, I just wanna keep the (pick one) safe for my 12 kids to enjoy, ka hilk ka hilk ..." |
Bye bye Democrat Party.
Didn't study thermodynamics did you. Yet another telling post from the
pompous one. Cheers MC DSK wrote: Water cooling has nothing to do with "efficiency." If the plant were 100% efficient, it would still need some sort of outside heat sink to get over the enthalpy threshold.... |
Bye bye Democrat Party.
DSK wrote: Water cooling has nothing to do with "efficiency." If the plant were 100% efficient, it would still need some sort of outside heat sink to get over the enthalpy threshold.... The navigator© wrote: Didn't study thermodynamics did you. Yet another telling post from the pompous one. Hmm, trying to get in a few more cheap shots, Navvie? OK, define "enthalpy" and give a brief description of how the concept applies to heat engines. DSK |
Bye bye Democrat Party.
DSK wrote:
Water cooling has nothing to do with "efficiency." ... Bottom line is if cold water goes in and hot comes out the calories it contains are being wasted. .... For years I worked on the contingency that my pay was a percent of decreased maintenance & fuel costs due to my work. Now how do you think I could afford that trawler, by screwing up & whining to Uncle Sam like an Enron exec? Sounds like you are a very effective BS artist .... Oh great. Next you'll tell me that we'd be better off had there been a nuclear war ... .... albeit ignorant and lacking ability to entertain new complex ideas. Worse yet ... You're another right wing nut case, aren't you? .... .... your over-active imagination has no factual basis. That's prolly why you flim flamed so much $$$ as a BS artist. Works like "magic" on some, but not your betters. |
Bye bye Democrat Party.
What kind of boat do you sail, again? Vito wrote: Catalina 30 Good, at least some tiny bit of your post makes sense & is on topic. Vito wrote: Which means that electric cars make more pollution, they just do it out of town. No, electric cars cause less pollution overall because even the dirtiest fossil fuel electric generating plant is cleaner than car exhaust. You said to tell you when you were wrong, here's one more... getting to be a pretty long list, eh? Challenging the Crapton's batting average? DSK |
Bye bye Democrat Party.
I have yet to find Doug posting incorrect scientific/technical matter. Most
people have a very poor understanding of how the world works at a engineering level. Before I became a programmer I spent 8 yrs courtesy of Uncle Sam on a variety of vessels as a Machinist Mate/Engine Room Supervisor (engine room/steam turbine/pump operator/maintenance tech), Mechanical Systems Operator (through nuclear reactors and their support systems into the mix) and Lead Engineering Laboratory Tech (water chemistry and radiological controls added) I then spent 20 years doing similar things at a variety of commercial power plants. One of the most dangerous things there was an engineer with a little experience. They were convinced that they knew all the answers and constantly misapplied the theory they learned in school. Older engineers generally had such nonsense knocked out of them (unless they were bucking for management in which case they always maintained the world had to match their beliefs because otherwise they wouldn't get their promotion). Heat transfer, fluid flow, and thermodynamics as applied to large generation/industrial installations is a very, very complex subject. And many times the most subtle and obscure principles have significant effects that are surprising to those who work outside the field. JJ On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 16:59:42 -0400, DSK wrote: What kind of boat do you sail, again? Vito wrote: Catalina 30 Good, at least some tiny bit of your post makes sense & is on topic. Vito wrote: Which means that electric cars make more pollution, they just do it out of town. No, electric cars cause less pollution overall because even the dirtiest fossil fuel electric generating plant is cleaner than car exhaust. You said to tell you when you were wrong, here's one more... getting to be a pretty long list, eh? Challenging the Crapton's batting average? DSK James Johnson remove the "dot" from after sail in email address to reply |
Bye bye Democrat Party.
" . . . I went with a heavy heart to one more watchmaker, and looked on
while he took her to pieces. Then I prepared to cross-question him rigidly, for this thing was getting serious. The watch had cost two hundred dollars originally, and I seemed to have paid out two or three thousand for repairs. While I waited and looked on I presently recognized in this watchmaker an old acquaintance -- a steamboat engineer of other days, and not a good engineer, either. He examined all the parts carefully, just as the other watchmakers had done, and then delivered his verdict with the same confidence of manner. He said: "She makes too much steam -- you want to hang the monkey-wrench on the safety valve!" I brained him on the spot, and had him buried at my own expense. My uncle William (now deceased, alas!) used to say that a good horse was a good horse until it had run away once, and that a good watch was a good watch until the repairers got a chance at it. And he used to wonder what became of all the unsuccessful tinkerers, and gunsmiths, and shoemakers, and engineers, and blacksmiths; but nobody could ever tell him." from Mark Twain's "My Watch, An Instructive Little Tale" Scout "James Johnson" wrote One of the most dangerous things there was an engineer with a little experience. |
Bye bye Democrat Party.
"James Johnson" wrote in message ... I have yet to find Doug posting incorrect scientific/technical matter. I agree. Regards Donal -- |
Bye bye Democrat Party.
So what is the pollution per MW for a car comapred to the dirtiest power
station? Pray tell! Cheers MC DSK wrote: No, electric cars cause less pollution overall because even the dirtiest fossil fuel electric generating plant is cleaner than car exhaust. You said to tell you when you were wrong, here's one more... getting to be a pretty long list, eh? Challenging the Crapton's batting average? |
Bye bye Democrat Party. OT OT
James Johnson wrote:
I have yet to find Doug posting incorrect scientific/technical matter. Agreed ... ...One of the most dangerous things there was an engineer with a little experience. A specialist (engineer or garbage man for that matter) who myoptically ignores the whole system in order to concentrate on the one part he specializes in is at least as dangerous. Electric cars' economic failure has little to do with generating electricity and everything to do with their inconvenience and the inefficiency of getting that electricity to the cars, storing it therein, then using it to move people and groceries. Unhampered by expertise, and the myopia it causes, onsumers instinctively know this and vote with their $$$ accordingly. |
lol at this thread
democrats are sweeping the republican scum out of power and it feels SOOOOOOOOO GOOD!!! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:42 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com