backtop

Print 163 comment(s) - last by danrien.. on Sep 26 at 3:49 PM

Rush Limbaugh plus an Electric Ford Focus should equal craziness, as the vocal critic of the green car movement takes on Jay Leno's Green Car Challenge.  (Source: AutoBlog)
One of America's loudest pundits is taking on the electric vehicle

Rush Limbaugh made headlines earlier in the year when he blasted hybrid vehicles, exclaiming, "Nobody's buying 'em! Nobody wants them! The manufacturers are making them in droves to satisfy Obama!"

Now he's turning over a new leaf and is going to give green vehicles a chance.  He will be competing against other celebrities in the Green Car Challenge, a segment on the Jay Leno Show.  So far he's among the handful celebrities to publicly agree to race on the segment.  Drew Barrymore was the first to take a few laps around the track while Paul Reubens, better known as Pee-wee Herman, and sportscasters Bob Costas and Al Michaels have all since committed.

The electric vehicle used in the challenge is a retrofitted European Ford Focus Hatchback modified with a racing suspension and beefy brakes, in addition to a battery system and electric drive motor.  Its electric motor is approximately as powerful as the motor found in competitor GM's 2011 Chevy Volt, set to release next year.

A production electric Ford Focus is planned to be released in the 2012 model year.  Ford also has other electric vehicles in the works, including an electric commercial van.

It should be interesting to see how Rush Limbaugh, a staunch critic of the green vehicle movement, enjoys the plug-in.  He may at least give Ford a break as, after all, they are the only major U.S. automaker not to have gone bankrupt and taken on government assistance.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Rush
By bradmshannon on 9/23/2009 2:40:21 PM , Rating: 3
I don't care what anyone says. I like Rush. I don't always agree with him, but he calls it how he sees it, and that's respectable. Which is much more than I can say for any politician out there. :)




RE: Rush
By Meinolf on 9/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: Rush
By lightfoot on 9/23/2009 2:46:36 PM , Rating: 1
Because then he would be a smart Nancy Pelosi.


RE: Rush
By amanojaku on 9/23/2009 3:07:37 PM , Rating: 5
Smart + Politician = Error: Undefined

One or more arguments are invalid for this operation


RE: Rush
By Motoman on 9/23/2009 3:23:59 PM , Rating: 4
All arguments are invlid for the Politics operations.


RE: Rush
By goz314 on 9/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Rush
By bradmshannon on 9/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: Rush
By SPOOFE on 9/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Rush
By PrezWeezy on 9/23/2009 5:38:25 PM , Rating: 2
Does that make it an excuse?


RE: Rush
By Spuke on 9/23/2009 6:37:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Does that make it an excuse?
Nope, makes it a living.


RE: Rush
By Voo on 9/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: Rush
By Griswold on 9/24/09, Rating: -1
RE: Rush
By therealnickdanger on 9/24/2009 8:10:29 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Unfortunately, theres a couple million illiterates in that country who wouldnt know satire (assuming it is..) if it jumped into their face and rammed its schlong down their throat... its sad, I know.

Are you talking about viewers of "The Daily Show"?

quote:
But thats a problem the right wing republicans have to live with.

Oh, and BTW, you sound like an idiot when you say "right wing Republicans". It's redundant. You could just simply say "righter wingers" or "Republicans". The last time I saw a "left wing Republican" was Arlen Specter, but he had really just been a closet-Democrat for many years anyway - he just decided to make it official.


RE: Rush
By Indianapolis on 9/24/2009 12:10:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Are you talking about viewers of "The Daily Show"?


I guess you would be one of the millions who would not recognize satire when it "rammed its schlong down your throat". "The Daily Show" is not satire...it's an unambiguous Obama love fest (at least it was when I stopped watching it circa 2008). "The Colbert Report", in which the host assumes the persona of an ultra conservative in order to bash conservatism, would be satire.

quote:
Oh, and BTW, you sound like an idiot when you say "right wing Republicans". It's redundant.


I think you sound like an idiot for saying somebody else sounds like an idiot for saying "right wing Republicans". The term "right wing" refers to a conservative political view. Republicans vary widely in how conservative they are, so "right wing Republicans" would be the more-conservative Republicans. John McCain is a good example of somebody who is NOT a right wing Republican.


RE: Rush
By MadMan007 on 9/23/2009 2:50:19 PM , Rating: 2
You mention this later but I thought it after reading just your initial post - it's all about the ratings for these guys, whether they believe what they say or not doesn't matter to them. Sadly the diehard listeners don't realize this and believe what he says hook line and sinker.


RE: Rush
By bradmshannon on 9/23/2009 2:56:30 PM , Rating: 5
I disagree with you, but only in Rush's case. I believe that he believes everything that he seriously says. Ya, he jokes a lot, but he usually points out when he's joking.


RE: Rush
By Griswold on 9/24/09, Rating: -1
RE: Rush
By FITCamaro on 9/23/2009 2:58:25 PM , Rating: 3
Agreed. Don't listen to him, but when I hear about something he says, I generally agree with the main point behind what he's saying.

He's definitely a bit over the top though. And think he should calm it down a little to a) give the media less to play with and b) better present the conservative side of the argument. Yelling and screaming doesn't get you taken seriously.

I listen to the previous days Mark Levin show everyday at work though. He actually has the background to justify what he's saying. He can go on rants too, but generally goes over topics far more calmly than Rush. His books are excellent too.


RE: Rush
By Schrag4 on 9/23/2009 3:11:05 PM , Rating: 5
I actually think Levin gets far more worked up than Rush. At any rate, you're right, Rush IS over the top. If you understand that before you start listening, though, you'll find him amusing. Just like John Stewart is amusing. Over the top, yes, but amusing.


RE: Rush
By danrien on 9/26/2009 3:49:57 PM , Rating: 2
The difference is - John Stewart is on a late night comedy show and never bills himself as anything different.


RE: Rush
By ZachDontScare on 9/23/2009 3:16:04 PM , Rating: 5
Levin is more calm?? Levin? No one, and I mean no one, rants on the radio like Mark Levin. And I mean that as a compliement. The man's brilliant... but when he rants, he rants.

I wouldnt say Rush 'needs to calm down' by any means. People who dont listen to his show probably have that impression because they'll see a few seconds long clip of him saying something controversial while not being around to hear the other 99% of what he says. What they need to realize is that the 'drive by' (main stream) media hates his guts and will do anything to destroy him, including playing clips out of context. If you listen to his show, he's really pretty calm, and one of the least 'over the top' radio guys out there (in terms of ranting/anger/etc). If anything, he finds more humor in his political opponents than anything else.


RE: Rush
By Motoman on 9/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Rush
By Durrr on 9/23/2009 3:33:24 PM , Rating: 5
Conservatives aren't anti-green vehicles, just don't shove them on us, that's all. It's all about choice.


RE: Rush
By chenjf on 9/23/2009 5:16:27 PM , Rating: 2
You mean like Pro-Choice vs Pro-Life argument?


RE: Rush
By SPOOFE on 9/23/2009 5:45:16 PM , Rating: 2
All conservatives aren't pro-life, at least not to the point where they insist on banning it (take a look at Huckabee). Similarly, all liberals aren't pro-choice, or at least there are a number that wouldn't mind seeing Roe V. Wade get overturned.

When it comes to Rush, I don't know enough about the guy to know what his stance is.


RE: Rush
By rs1 on 9/23/2009 7:02:08 PM , Rating: 5
The problem is that one word is being used to describe two things. "Conservative" can mean "socially conservative". Or it can mean "fiscally conservative" (and the same applies to "liberal" also, really). The problem is that because of the two different meanings, most people assume that "conservative" means both at once, even though that's not always (or even often) the case.

Personally, I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal, which leaves no party that I can fully support. I tend to vote for the democratic candidate as the "lesser evil", because the fiscal conservatives have pretty much let the social conservatives take over their party, and the social conservatives are the most detrimental group of all. At least with a fiscally liberal government all you really end up losing is some cash. That has far less worth to me than the individual liberties that the social conservatives want to destroy.


RE: Rush
By BPB on 9/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: Rush
By rs1 on 9/24/2009 12:18:07 AM , Rating: 5
Being socially liberal doesn't necessarily mean that I support large social programs (at least not in my case). To me it means more that I'm opposed to things like trying to overturn Roe v. Wade and the general tendency of the social conservatives to want to codify their Christian morals into the laws of our supposedly secular democracy, and in favor of things like equal rights/gay marriage/etc.. Those are all "liberal" views, but none of them cost any money.


RE: Rush
By DominionSeraph on 9/24/2009 1:05:32 AM , Rating: 2
He's referring to Libertarianism, which is socially liberal without the social engineering of Democrats.

Compare the repeal of sodomy laws to spending millions of dollars for midnight basketball so that inner-city black gays can pork each other in the locker rooms. Both are liberal, and Democrats could get behind both. Libertarian support would be limited to the former.


RE: Rush
By BPB on 9/24/2009 7:17:31 AM , Rating: 2
I know what a libertarian is. And I've never seen it work politically. I understand the thinking behind it, but I know of no politician who has made it work. Mind you, I think the ones with the best chance are those who don't like abortion or gay marriage and the like, because those will put less pressure on themselves to please the social liberals. The libertarians who actually support abortion and all the social liberal programs are ones who find it easy to pay for the big programs. There are libertarians who don't support abortion but for philosophical reason think the government should stay out of it, those are the ones I think have a shot at staying fiscally conservative. But I'd still bet against them. Again, I ain't seen one of them make it happen.

By the way, I think the best definition of a libertarian is that they are conservatives without values.


RE: Rush
By Rhaido on 9/24/2009 1:33:24 PM , Rating: 2
Why do you equate a social liberal with someone who should support social programs in the first place?

social liberal = socially tolerant != Statist

http://www.lp.org/platform


RE: Rush
By lco45 on 9/23/2009 11:34:40 PM , Rating: 4
Welcome to the grey area, glad you made it.

Labels like conservative, liberal, left and right are basically idiotic, and are embarrassingly broad.

Everyone has a finely nuanced set of opinions and principles, which are formed and re-formed as we gain life experience.

Most of our views are not our own choice.
They are usually formed subconsciously by a desire to either:
- fit in with family and friends, or
- differentiate ourselves from family and friends

So much of our own formation is out of our control, a kicked dog grows up aggressive or scared, it's not his choice.
It's sad to see how earnestly we uphold our beliefs and principles, even though they are hardly ours at all.

Luke


RE: Rush
By Chaser on 9/24/2009 11:59:30 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Most of our views are not our own choice. They are usually formed subconsciously by a desire to either: - fit in with family and friends, or - differentiate ourselves from family and friends


Or once in a while with a reasonable amount of common sense their views make good sense. Some people have enough brains to look further ahead in the future than their next twelve pack of beer, lottery ticket, or SSI check.


RE: Rush
By Rhaido on 9/24/2009 1:52:38 PM , Rating: 2
"So much of our own formation is out of our control, a kicked dog grows up aggressive or scared, it's not his choice."

All valid points; however, a human is not a dog and we do have a choice of how we adjust to environmental stimuli. In an abuse example, we can choose to hold a lifelong grudge or we can seek professional help. Carrying this over to the formation of views, each of us has the ability to educate ourself and spend time introspecting.


RE: Rush
By lco45 on 9/24/2009 8:53:41 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that humans can make choices that go against their own instincts and upbringing. This is a fascinating capacity that seems unique to humans.

However, I always remember an episode of the Simpsons where Homer is depressed and wanders around Springfield all night.
In the morning Marge drives straight to where she know's he'll be. He asks her how she found him, and she said:
"Simple, the town gently slopes down in this direction".

You can make a conscious decision to walk up the hill instead of down, but very few of us do. Have you ever seen a politician say that they've changed their mind? Or a person change their religion in their sixties?
It's so rare that when it happens it actually stands out.

Luke


RE: Rush
By Reclaimer77 on 9/24/2009 1:55:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Labels like conservative, liberal, left and right are basically idiotic, and are embarrassingly broad.


Not really. Each group has core beliefs that define, for the most part, what the label means.

quote:
So much of our own formation is out of our control, a kicked dog grows up aggressive or scared, it's not his choice. It's sad to see how earnestly we uphold our beliefs and principles, even though they are hardly ours at all.


That is true if it's applied to Liberals. NOT Conservatives. Because Liberals truly are ruled by their emotions and instincts, which is why so many times they exhibit a lack of common sense on various issues.


RE: Rush
By erple2 on 9/24/2009 7:28:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not really. Each group has core beliefs that define, for the most part, what the label means.


That's nonsense. There are plenty of people I know that are "Conservative" that are against a ban on gay marriage, against a ban on abortion, for reckless spending (on the military, not social programs) and the like. The problem with the labels is that the labels have been applied as stigmas. "If you're not for us, you're against us". And as a result, it's impossible to be one vs. another without having to compromise your own values to be included in "the club". Hopefully, one of these days, someone will figure out that it's not "Us or Them" that has dominated the political landscape for the past 15 years.

quote:
That is true if it's applied to <them> . NOT <us> . Because <they> truly are ruled by their emotions and instincts, which is why so many times they exhibit a lack of common sense on various issues.


There, fixed that for you.

Your statement follows in both camps just fine.


RE: Rush
By Reclaimer77 on 9/25/2009 12:35:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's nonsense. There are plenty of people I know that are "Conservative" that are against a ban on gay marriage, against a ban on abortion, for reckless spending (on the military, not social programs) and the like.


No those are people who CALL themselves Conservatives. Come back to me when you've found one, cause it's obvious these "plenty of people" are not Conservatives.

Or they are "moderates" which is really a fancy word for idiots with no beliefs who never take a stand and place agreement over substance.


RE: Rush
By Spuke on 9/25/2009 3:37:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Or they are "moderates" which is really a fancy word for idiots with no beliefs who never take a stand and place agreement over substance.
How do you define "taking a stand"? Does "taking a stand" equate to agreeing with you exactly? Or can there be some variation?


RE: Rush
By FITCamaro on 9/24/2009 7:59:46 AM , Rating: 5
Murder is a crime. Regardless of how old the person is. Go pull DNA off a fetus. It's human.

Everyone has a choice on having a baby or not having a baby. It's called not having sex. No method of contraception is 100% effective. You either accept the risks and live with any consequences or you don't have sex. Simple as that.


RE: Rush
By BPB on 9/24/2009 8:55:40 AM , Rating: 1
Touché


RE: Rush
By thurston on 9/25/2009 11:58:06 AM , Rating: 2
I bet you are pro death penalty too. Why don't you antiabortion people put your money where your mouth is and adopt an unwanted child.


RE: Rush
By pequin06 on 9/25/2009 4:56:11 PM , Rating: 2
Why don't the people who make the choice to produce a child take responsibility for their actions?


RE: Rush
By thurston on 9/25/2009 11:21:41 PM , Rating: 2
Because we don't live in a perfect world, you can't legally force someone to want a child. Even if they are forced to give birth and raise the child, they can't be forced to want the child and provide it with love.


RE: Rush
By Spuke on 9/25/2009 3:39:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Murder is a crime. Regardless of how old the person is. Go pull DNA off a fetus. It's human.
Do you make exceptions for rape or possible death of the mother?


RE: Rush
By FITCamaro on 9/23/2009 3:44:17 PM , Rating: 5
Pretty easy to guess who'd win that fight. Moore is a crying, liberal pussy who needs to go die in a fire. He is a hack who couldn't make it doing real work so he makes BS political "documentaries" that distort the facts so far its not even funny. I mean Cuba has a better health care system than the US? Please. They ran out of f*cking toilet paper to give to their citizens earlier this year. So Michael Moore wouldn't even be able to wipe his own @$$ to get rid of the sh*t he puts out.

And Limbaugh would probably shoot you before you got your finger on the trigger. ;)


RE: Rush
By Motoman on 9/23/2009 4:32:00 PM , Rating: 2
Mmmm...maybe. I'm a fairly quick draw though.

But you do have a good point. Moore would clearly lose out in that fight. Bleeding-heart vs. rabid whacko - rabid whacko wins every time.


RE: Rush
By 67STANG on 9/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: Rush
By Fracture on 9/23/2009 3:33:03 PM , Rating: 1
Listening to Rush is fine, just make sure you listen to Keith Olbermann to get the corrected version.

Sadly, Rush probably does what he does just for money. That's ok, the problem is that he IS a good speaker, and can pursuade too many idiots. Stick to the conservative financial points to counter left-wing idealism, use info on stimulus gains to defend against protesters, and HIRE TWO FACT CHECKERS.

In defense of the left, right-wing zealots seem particularly eager to jump on any bandwagon - birthers, guns rights, racists, and Confederates - they all just come off crazy, and this comprises the majority of Rush's listeners. If Rush just repeats what they want to hear, he may come off as crazy as Glen Beck.


RE: Rush
By FITCamaro on 9/23/2009 3:45:43 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Listening to Rush is fine, just make sure you listen to Keith Olbermann to get the corrected version.


HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAAA!!!!!!

Thanks. I needed that laugh.


RE: Rush
By FITCamaro on 9/23/2009 4:22:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In defense of the left, right-wing zealots seem particularly eager to jump on any bandwagon - birthers, guns rights, racists, and Confederates - they all just come off crazy


Missed this so gonna comment.

My opinions on yours:

Birthers - Indifferent. If they can prove something, fine. It's their time and money to spend. I do think Obama is one of the most mysterious presidents we've had in a long time since he has released extremely few records about his past and the majority of the media hasn't even mentioned it.

Gun rights - You're kidding right? It's part of the Bill of Rights moron. So everyone who wants the rights given to them is crazy? So where do you live? Since I know I won't get shot and the police will take at least 5 minutes to get there. That's how a criminal thinks.

Racists - Since when does Rush Limbaugh support racism? Wait, nevermind. You listen to Keith Olbermann. So you're probably just another idiot who thinks Limbaugh is one.

Confederates - Where did this even come from? Again, I don't listen to Limbaugh, but I seriously doubt he has EVER supported the Confederates. Now maybe has he said another Civil War is potentially brewing? I could see that because I honestly see one if things continue to go as they are. That doesn't mean he's supporting the Confederacy of old. Even if he was, so what? The last Civil War was fought over what a new one would be, economics and representation in government(or lack thereof).


RE: Rush
By Yawgm0th on 9/23/2009 5:09:05 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Birthers - Indifferent. If they can prove something, fine. It's their time and money to spend. I do think Obama is one of the most mysterious presidents we've had in a long time since he has released extremely few records about his past and the majority of the media hasn't even mentioned it.
He is the only president to ever release his birth certificate. He released the last, what, seven years of tax records during the primaries? What records has he not released that so many other presidents have? Last time this topic came up, you said "he should release [his birth certificate]" many months after he already had and now you just call him "mysterious". Maybe he is mysterious because you just don't happen to know much about him.

quote:
Racists - Since when does Rush Limbaugh support racism? Wait, nevermind. You listen to Keith Olbermann. So you're probably just another idiot who thinks Limbaugh is one.
Rush makes all kinds of racial jokes and lots of racial asides. It's a little more subtle and maybe not blatant hate-mongering, but he's not pretending to hide his racial views. Do you listen to him? I used to (not as a fan, mind you), for quite some time actually. That was before the Internet was as prevalent, so maybe he has toned himself down.

quote:

Confederates - Where did this even come from? Again, I don't listen to Limbaugh, but I seriously doubt he has EVER supported the Confederates. Now maybe has he said another Civil War is potentially brewing? I could see that because I honestly see one if things continue to go as they are. That doesn't mean he's supporting the Confederacy of old. Even if he was, so what? The last Civil War was fought over what a new one would be, economics and representation in government(or lack thereof).
Note the quote refers to "right-wing zealots", not Rush specifically. I've never heard Rush so much as bring up the Civil War in any memorable sense, but you can't deny that much of the right wing (Hint: the Southeast) is big into the Confederacy. Mind you, I will gladly admit that much, maybe most of that is more about their views of states' rights and the federal government than racism or slavery.


RE: Rush
By Reclaimer77 on 9/23/2009 5:22:57 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
He is the only president to ever release his birth certificate.


Nope. A Hawaiian certificate of live birth is NOT a United States birth certificate. His birth certificate is sealed by court order. So to make your statement accurate "He is the only president who has made it ILLEGAL to obtain his birth certificate."

quote:
Rush makes all kinds of racial jokes and lots of racial asides. It's a little more subtle and maybe not blatant hate-mongering, but he's not pretending to hide his racial views. Do you listen to him? I used to (not as a fan, mind you), for quite some time actually. That was before the Internet was as prevalent, so maybe he has toned himself down.


It's called irony and social satirical comedy. Some people don't get it, clearly you don't. It's always in context of a particular story or comment someone ELSE made. Like Jackson's comment that " Obama doesn't have slave blood ".

And Confederates ? I'm not supporting civil war, but only an IDIOT would claim that our country isn't better for it that the civil war happened. The Civil War, and the following legislation, helped shape states rights and further better our Constitution.


RE: Rush
By rs1 on 9/23/2009 6:34:27 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Nope. A Hawaiian certificate of live birth is NOT a United States birth certificate.


Then please explain what the actual difference is between the two. Are you saying that a Hawaiian certificate of live birth is not a document that certifies that a live birth occurred in Hawaii? Or are you saying that a birth certificate does something other than certify that a live birth occurred in some particular location?

The funny thing is, my Virginian birth certificate is called a "certificate of live birth" as well. I guess that means that I wasn't born in the U.S. either.


RE: Rush
By Spuke on 9/23/2009 6:42:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I guess that means that I wasn't born in the U.S. either.
Yeah, I'm really confused on this whole birth certificate thing. How of these does one have? I only have one. Are Presidents required to carry multiple versions?


RE: Rush
By deeznuts on 9/24/2009 12:16:28 AM , Rating: 3
Hawaii just recently changed it's laws, but an original BC is one that is created at birth, with a witness, doctor etc. signing the document. The one Obama released is a printout you get when you show up and ask for it. Look at what Obama released. Does it look it was created on a typewriter? Does it look like it was handwritten? Or does it look like it was printed? Remember, this is 1963 ...

It was a certification of live birth by the way. And again, before it was pointed out in the Obama controversy, keep in mind a certification of live birth, which is what Obama released, could not be used alone to apply for Hawaii's Home Lands program (benefits reserved for those of native hawaiian heritage). They've since changed that law. So, last year, you could show this certification of live birth and become POTUS, but you could not to receive benefit from the Department of Home Lands.

Virginia vs. Hawaii. Each state has different procedures and names for their birth certificate process. Funny how some people forget that we are the United StateS not the United State. ;)


RE: Rush
By Rhaido on 9/24/2009 2:02:58 PM , Rating: 2
"Funny how some people forget that we are the United StateS not the United State. ;)"

Funny in a pathetic funny way. Thanks to the 16th and 17th Amendments and what followed in the 20th century, we have seen a destruction of state's rights thanks to an increasing tyrannical federal government.


RE: Rush
By samoya22 on 9/24/09, Rating: 0
RE: Rush
By Fracture on 9/23/2009 5:27:45 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Note the quote refers to "right-wing zealots", not Rush specifically


It's so great when people can read and think at the same time, thank you Yawg. Here's some fun Rush quotes:

quote:
"They oughtta change Black History Month to Black Progress Month and start measuring it."

quote:
"Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it."

quote:
"The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies."


Think he's pro-war?
quote:
"The only way to reduce the number of nuclear weapons is to use them."

quote:
"The phony soldiers." --on U.S. service members who support withdrawal from Iraq


I don't wonder for a second why the groups I mentioned like to listen to him.


RE: Rush
By Spuke on 9/23/2009 6:47:23 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
It's so great when people can read and think at the same time, thank you Yawg. Here's some fun Rush quotes:
I challenge you to find quotes of the ENTIRE discussions that those quotes are taken from. People don't speak only in one liners nor can an entire train of thought be taken from someone's one liner. For example, I'll take a part of what you said.

quote:
It's so great when people can read

From this quote, it would seem that you champion eliminating illiteracy. But that's not what you're talking about, is it now?


RE: Rush
By SPOOFE on 9/23/2009 7:11:27 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
"The phony soldiers." --on U.S. service members who support withdrawal from Iraq

I call BS. Limbaugh used that term when talking about a war critic that claimed he was in the army but really wasn't. He NEVER used the term to refer to actual U.S. service members that supported withdrawal.

I don't see the racism in the other quotes, either. Yeah, there's a lot of black people in the NFL. Are we supposed to pretend otherwise?


RE: Rush
By MadMan007 on 9/23/2009 7:42:50 PM , Rating: 2
Do you really not understand the difference between 'a lot of black players in the NFL' (a simple, factual statement) and 'a fight between bloods and crips' (a severely negative stereotype.)


RE: Rush
By SPOOFE on 9/24/2009 1:40:05 AM , Rating: 3
I never claimed it was nice. I just said I don't see the racism. There are more similarities between pro sports teams and street gangs aside from skin color. I remember when many California school districts banned Raiders jackets... because those were the clothes that gang-bangers were wearing.

Gang-bangers deliberately emulating the appearance of their favorite sports teams? Thugs going around in jerseys and BKs? And you're surprised someone noticed a similarity? Sir, I assert that your perception of racism in what is clearly not a racial connection indicates a bigotry on YOUR part.


RE: Rush
By FITCamaro on 9/24/2009 10:37:08 AM , Rating: 2
How about the fact that many NFL players ARE criminals. Some have been arrested numerous times. Ever think that maybe THAT is why he made the reference?

There's been plenty of times after listening to liberal BS on diversity when I think to myself "So when are they going to have affirmative action in the NFL and NBA?"


RE: Rush
By FITCamaro on 9/24/2009 8:11:00 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
He is the only president to ever release his birth certificate. He released the last, what, seven years of tax records during the primaries? What records has he not released that so many other presidents have? Last time this topic came up, you said "he should release [his birth certificate]" many months after he already had and now you just call him "mysterious". Maybe he is mysterious because you just don't happen to know much about him


Others have already addressed the birth certificate issue. But he has blocked all attempts to attain any information from his school years or while working at a school.

quote:
Rush makes all kinds of racial jokes and lots of racial asides. It's a little more subtle and maybe not blatant hate-mongering, but he's not pretending to hide his racial views. Do you listen to him? I used to (not as a fan, mind you), for quite some time actually. That was before the Internet was as prevalent, so maybe he has toned himself down.


Making jokes does not make one racist. I make them too. Do I hate black people though? No. I make fun of everyone. My only rule is I do not like the n word. And yes that includes when black people use it. If it's offensive for one group to say it, its offensive for all to say it. Ever seen the video from NY when Popeye's ran out of chicken? If you couldn't laugh at the typical stereotype of the people in the video, then you just need to stay at home all the time.

quote:
Note the quote refers to "right-wing zealots", not Rush specifically. I've never heard Rush so much as bring up the Civil War in any memorable sense, but you can't deny that much of the right wing (Hint: the Southeast) is big into the Confederacy. Mind you, I will gladly admit that much, maybe most of that is more about their views of states' rights and the federal government than racism or slavery.


Ah so because people in the Southeast are generally more conservative we still consider ourselves part of the Confederacy and want to separate from "those Yankee Northern bastards"? You're an idiot.


RE: Rush
By lco45 on 9/23/2009 11:49:24 PM , Rating: 2
I know the 2nd amendment gives the right to bear arms, but can't you just amend it again?

We update our technical documentation all the time, when circumstances change. I'm pretty sure circumstances have changed since the 2nd amendment was added.

I still like the 5th amendment though, always good in courtroom dramas.

Luke


RE: Rush
By Steve1981 on 9/24/2009 9:55:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I know the 2nd amendment gives the right to bear arms, but can't you just amend it again?


Theoretically, sure. Realistically? Probably not. A lot of people value the right to own a gun, as it is a tool for self defense, sport (target shooting and hunting), and most importantly, an insurance policy against tyranny.

quote:
I'm pretty sure circumstances have changed since the 2nd amendment was added.


Some things never change...

Power still corrupts, and there is always a thin line between a government that is here to serve the people and a government that is served by the people.


RE: Rush
By FITCamaro on 9/24/2009 12:52:46 PM , Rating: 2
You can try to amend the Constitution. But the fact is liberals don't try to. They try to ignore the 2nd amendment and twist its words. If they tried to pass and amendment to repeal the 2nd amendment, more power to them. But they know that amendment would never pass. Even with today's Congress. So they try to twist the language into what they want it to mean.

The same goes for immigration and many other topics. They know they'd never be able to pass an amendment that would do what they want, so they try to twist whats there into what they want.


RE: Rush
By ImJustSaying on 9/23/2009 5:57:36 PM , Rating: 2
FIT-

None of the stuff that you're saying surprises me, and neither does your response about Keith Olbermann. It was predictable. Here's the thing that bugs me:

Olbermann sites his sources, and he fact-checks, especially when it comes to Limbaugh. He actually bothers to dig a little, if not as much as I would like him to. This is a far cry from what Rush does. However, viewing Rush from the angle of sensationalism and ratings, I wouldn't expect him to fact-check. I just think he does his listeners a disservice by blowing smoke up their asses so frequently. As someone else mentioned in a previous comment, his listeners don't seem to realize that he does it to get the exact reaction that their giving him; that of blind, knee-jerk emotional response, with a total lack of cognition.


RE: Rush
By ClownPuncher on 9/23/2009 6:26:10 PM , Rating: 2
It really doesn't matter which one you think is correct. Olbermann and Limbaugh are both angry, irrelevant men.


RE: Rush
By sgw2n5 on 9/23/2009 7:04:48 PM , Rating: 2
And this is coming from a Levin fan who tunes in DAILY for a bit of smooth brainwashing and dissemination of talking points...


RE: Rush
By pequin06 on 9/23/2009 3:57:12 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
birthers, guns rights, racists, and Confederates - they all just come off crazy, and this comprises the majority of Rush's listeners


Gee, I'm glad you told me what group(s) I belong to! /sarcasm

I bet you haven't listened to Rush for longer than 5 minutes.

quote:
listen to Keith Olbermann to get the corrected version.


Yeah, I'm sure you look at everything with an open mind..not.


RE: Rush
By Fracture on 9/23/2009 4:15:32 PM , Rating: 2
I'm a pro-reform, fiscal conservative that is a huge fan of Ron Paul that likes to watch msnbc's commentary (I'm not a Keynesian). I'd say its a pretty open spread.

I've weeks worth of Rush's content, and agree with his sentiments, its his reasoning that's off base. He stretches for any tangential evidence and may just skip to using coincidence as proof without proving causation. Countdown corrects his evidence to bolster their arguments using the "Thank you for Smoking" argument that "it doesn't matter if I'm right if I can prove you're wrong".


RE: Rush
By FITCamaro on 9/23/2009 4:27:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
pro-reform, fiscal conservative


If you listen to Olbermann and believe what he says, you are not a conservative. He is as far from a conservative as they come. He joined the media crowd in calling people at the Tea Party's extremists, racists, etc. He might as well get on his knees and open his mouth for c*m shot whenever Obama speaks as well with how much he fawns over Obama. I have yet to see him express a single conservative viewpoint.

And conservatives are for reform too. TRUE reform. Not government takeovers, mandates, and extreme regulation pitched as reform.


RE: Rush
By Fracture on 9/23/2009 5:02:59 PM , Rating: 2
Fiscally conservative means against mass government spending my friend. Please try to keep up, I was talking about myself not the host of Countdown. Nor did I say I believe what he says, only that I enjoy listening to it (best / worst persons segments are hillarious).

I'm against the welfare state that the US has become and if you knew anything of Ron Paul, believe an audit of the Fed is in order. The commonly held concept is that big business is ruled by the right-wing. Amazingly, Sñr. Camero misconstrued gov't takeovers and bailouts as a left-wing socialist movement instead of a right-wing big business boost at the taxpayer expense. I don't think they'll be handing over their banks to gov't control anytime soon. Talk of true reform just sounds more like the truthers junk:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Truth_movement


RE: Rush
By Jalek on 9/23/2009 7:30:07 PM , Rating: 2
I think you have it backwards.. the fear is that the right-wing is ruled by big business.

Washington, Jefferson, and several other dead guys expressed concern that "moneyed corporations" could usurp the power of the people. A few USSC rulings and the change to make corporations eternal have made that not just a concern, but a likelihood.

Unfortunately, most "right-wing" noisemakers seem to assume that corporations are inherently moral and nationalist and will act in the best interests of America, when common sense indicates that they'll do whatever it takes to maximize profit, following their raison d'etre, even if it means going against national interests.


RE: Rush
By SPOOFE on 9/24/2009 1:43:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
the fear is that the right-wing is ruled by big business.

A fear that is fostered by the left-wing, which is also ruled by big business.


RE: Rush
By SPOOFE on 9/24/2009 1:46:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
the fear is that the right-wing is ruled by big business.

A fear that is fostered by the left-wing, which is also ruled by big business.


RE: Rush
By FITCamaro on 9/24/2009 10:31:18 AM , Rating: 2
I am well aware of what a fiscal conservative is. As far as Ron Paul, I agree that he has many great ideas. I do not agree with him though on foreign policy.

The bailouts and takeovers were nothing but the government taking control (hence takeover) of private sector industry which is a socialist goal and a payoff to those who largely voted for Obama and the Democrats. The auto bailout gave the government control of a large majority of the domestic auto industry as well as further solidified the UAWs hold on the industry, while screwing over all the private investors in the company.


RE: Rush
By tdawg on 9/24/2009 11:55:03 AM , Rating: 2
In all fairness, the auto industry got their first bailout prior to Obama taking office. Also, private shareholders of GM and Chrysler wouldn't have been any better off had the companies gone bankrupt. It was a lose-lose situation either way. Now we just have to hope that GM and Chrysler are successful so the "investment" the taxpayers got stuck with can get repaid, hopefully with some gains.


RE: Rush
By FITCamaro on 9/24/2009 12:54:30 PM , Rating: 2
Even if that was true (who knows if it would have been), the fact is that contract law was violated.


RE: Rush
By samoya22 on 9/24/2009 6:28:50 AM , Rating: 1
I find it hard to believe that a person of your intellectual caliber is able to muster the cognitive strength to eat food or make poopy in the morning, let alone work that screen in front of you.

Arguing with you is like arguing with kindergartners. You barely understand the concepts we're working with and have a very hard time forming complete sentences.


RE: Rush
By FITCamaro on 9/24/2009 10:25:35 AM , Rating: 2
I like that you're trying to make yourself sound smart by using 63 words to say you think I'm stupid.


RE: Rush
By Maxima2k2se on 9/24/2009 11:51:59 AM , Rating: 2
ZING!!!!


RE: Rush
By thurston on 9/25/2009 12:15:57 PM , Rating: 1
The thing is he really thinks he is smart, but really he is a selfish asshole who could give a shit about the rest of the world.


RE: Rush
By deeznuts on 9/24/2009 12:09:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
In defense of the left, right-wing zealots seem particularly eager to jump on any bandwagon - birthers, guns rights, racists, and Confederates - they all just come off crazy, and this comprises the majority of Rush's listeners. If Rush just repeats what they want to hear, he may come off as crazy as Glen Beck.


OK I logged on just to respond to this bullshit. Right wing zealots? Look, there are right wing crazies, I will not deny that. But don't be so sanctimonious and oblivious to the fact that the left side do not have their crazies. You mention birthers. I think birthers are wrong, and a little kooky, however, while not a rational basis, they have SOME basis for making the claim they do. Again, I do not think they're right, nor do I think the claims have merit, however, Obama's birth is peculiar. This is not exclusive to Obama, McCain was born in an area where, at the time he was born, he was not a natural born citizen. It became so later, but after his birth. However, it was a military base, so apparently he got a pass. Do not believe for a second the left side would not be birthers had McCain won. But we all know the weird facts surrounding Obama (how about claiming to be born at Queen Medical center for years, then Kapa'olani more recently?)

Back on topic, the left wing have people that believe something so psychotic, to compare it to birther beliefs is stupid. 9/11 truthers. "OH nobody believes in that." Oh really?

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/pol...
quote:
Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure.

These numbers are higher than they are for republicans who are birthers. To believe there is a conspiracy where one guy is hiding his true place of birth and a few covering up for him is a little kooky perhaps. To believe there was a conspiracy by a whole government to murder 3,000 of their own citizens, or knew about it and just let it happen? That's psychotic.

Gun rights are a bandwagon? Oh my. Let me quote someone who is a tiny bit important in our history.
quote:
"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
James Madison

Note, I dont' even own a gun. And racism, let me just say nobody is more racist than the left. Let me leave you with the definition of racism, and a quote.
Racism. Racism is the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities.
"But she is a typical white person"

Nobody clings to race more than the left.


RE: Rush
By samoya22 on 9/24/2009 6:33:34 AM , Rating: 2
I think the problem with your argument is a problem of numbers. These "crazies" we're talking about (like the ELCA) total roughly 40 million Americans. Ok, so that's more than 1 out of 10. But, we're not even counting all of the OTHER right wing crazies.

1 out of 10 is bad enough.

Funny thing is, I run into more right wing crazies who do IT for a living than anywhere else. I wonder why that is...


RE: Rush
By FITCamaro on 9/24/2009 2:23:51 PM , Rating: 2
What is your definition of "crazy" for this 40 million you are speaking of?

The only people on the right who I consider crazy are the truly out there religious wackos who say crap like "god is killing soldiers because of gay people" and those who truly believe Obama is a Muslim agent trying to let Muslim's take over the country (although he has made statements like "America is a Muslim nation" which irk me to no end).

Then theres idiots like those in the KKK and other hate groups which I don't really classify as left or right wing anyway. They're in their own separate world. Of course the media groups them in with conservatives because that's just what the media does.


RE: Rush
By jmvaughn on 9/23/2009 3:49:01 PM , Rating: 2
Rush is always interesting to listen to, whether you agree with him or not.

And mark me down as a pro-EV, pro-Hybrid conservative. As the other poster mentioned, just don't try to force them on people.


RE: Rush
By Breathless on 9/23/2009 4:14:06 PM , Rating: 2
There are actually conservatives here on dailytech? Where have you guys been? Suddenly, i don't feel so very... very... alone here...


RE: Rush
By FITCamaro on 9/23/2009 4:29:56 PM , Rating: 1
Didn't you hear? We're hiding in churches with our guns. Wait I don't go to church.....

*scrambles for cover*


RE: Rush
By Reclaimer77 on 9/23/2009 3:47:07 PM , Rating: 1
Rush isn't anti-electric car. He's pro common sense.


RE: Rush
By Low Key on 9/23/2009 4:52:14 PM , Rating: 2
I am going to assume you are joking about the common sense thing. I have yet to hear one argument from Rush that can be called common sense through any stretch of the imagination.


RE: Rush
By pequin06 on 9/23/2009 5:08:49 PM , Rating: 2
You should try to listen to the show then.


RE: Rush
By Reclaimer77 on 9/23/2009 5:10:30 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah then you must be hearing from second and third hand sources. The ones without common sense are Liberals. At least on THIS planet, not sure where you are from.


RE: Rush
By Looey on 9/23/2009 5:21:26 PM , Rating: 1
I would rather listen to Rush than the blow job Obama gave the UN today.


RE: Rush
By lco45 on 9/23/2009 11:55:01 PM , Rating: 2
Who would name their kid "Rush"?

No wonder he's mad...

Luke


RE: Rush
By deeznuts on 9/24/2009 12:20:26 AM , Rating: 2
So say you, skywalker ...


RE: Rush
By lco45 on 9/24/2009 3:11:45 AM , Rating: 2
Too mean ... school days flooding back ...


RE: Rush
By samoya22 on 9/24/2009 6:36:18 AM , Rating: 2
At least the guy we voted for speaks our language. The last time you were given the reigns, you handed them to a retard with an itchy trigger finger and a speech impediment.


RE: Rush
By Griswold on 9/24/2009 7:47:14 AM , Rating: 2
owned


RE: Rush
By pequin06 on 9/24/2009 9:23:38 AM , Rating: 2
You're one of the ones that no matter what the ex president did it would be wrong, even when / if the current presidnet does exactly the same thing as the predecessor.
Your choice of words show at the minimal you're an elitist and that you are very partisan.
Not like President Obama has made any gaffs or screwed up on simple stuff himself? Oh but he does, it's just not shoved down everyones throat for a good week when they occur.


RE: Rush
By Maxima2k2se on 9/24/2009 12:06:29 PM , Rating: 2
This is because the vast majority of media outlets worship Obama as their savior. I am sure you already knew this but I had to say it lol.


RE: Rush
By FITCamaro on 9/24/2009 2:35:45 PM , Rating: 2
Bush didn't need a teleprompter to say hello either. We could go on like this forever.

Obama may sound good in a prepared speech. But he absolutely sucks when he's put on the spot without a prepared answer.

"If a kid goes to the hospital because he's got asthma....and....they gave him some treatment....he got some treatment....and a breathalyzer.....I mean an inhalator...not a breathalyzer..."

Of course part of why he stumbles is because he has to reword what he really thinks so it doesn't sound so far out there.


RE: Rush
By Reclaimer77 on 9/24/2009 3:10:00 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget his thoughtful "uhh's" every other word and weird pauses in the wrong places like he's trying to be a black William Shatner or something.


RE: Rush
By danrien on 9/26/2009 3:47:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't care what anyone says. I like Rush. I don't always agree with him, but he calls it how he sees it, and that's respectable. Which is much more than I can say for any politician out there. :)


No, he says things that will get him listeners. Just as politicians say things that will get them votes.


EV != Hybrid
By lightfoot on 9/23/2009 2:45:13 PM , Rating: 4
It is possible to be anti-hybrid, but be pro-EV.

Personally I think that EVs are the way to go, with a little more advancement in the way of battery technology.

Depending on what happens with Hydrogen, a fuel cell could be used in place of a battery pack with little or no changes to the design.

Hybrids are literally the worst of both worlds. They have the added weight of the battery pack, no reduction in the parts or complexity of the ICE, and the added expense of additional generators and motors.




RE: EV != Hybrid
By Motoman on 9/23/2009 3:28:10 PM , Rating: 2
K, well you fix the following problems and get back to us then...

1. Power grid problems.

2. Power production issues (especially clean power production)

3. Availability of Li for batteries.

4. Production and distribution of hydrogen.

I'm sure there's a few more 800-pound gorillas in the room, but get started with those and let us know how it goes.


RE: EV != Hybrid
By lightfoot on 9/23/2009 3:46:19 PM , Rating: 3
1. Nuclear
2. Nuclear (although coal burning power plants are already more than twice as efficient as a typical ICE.)
3. Needs research, but Lithium is one of the most abundant elements in the universe (just under Hydrogen and Helium) it just requires power to process (see answer #1 and #2)
4. Requires power (see answer #1 and #2)

Using an onboard generator to burn fossil fuels does not solve the fossil fuel issue. It just increases the efficiency of burning of that fuel marginally.


RE: EV != Hybrid
By cabjf on 9/23/2009 3:57:53 PM , Rating: 3
I was going to post essentially the same thing. I would add though that even a coal plant powering thousands of electric vehicles would be cleaner than the equivalent thousands of gasoline engines. Also, many people would just plug their cars in overnight, when the grid is at low demand anyhow.

On the topic of nuclear, it's interesting how the environmentalists who love pushing these green technologies are so against the greenest scalable power source we have though. If we were to reprocess our spent fuel like France does, there is even less waste left over to store.


RE: EV != Hybrid
By Motoman on 9/23/2009 5:10:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If we were to reprocess our spent fuel like France does, there is even less waste left over to store.


For what it's worth, although I'm pro-nuke, it's not quite that fun.

Reprocessing is exceedingly expensive, and not exactly cost efficient. And you still have leftovers, and IIRC you don't get to reprocess the 2nd time through...


RE: EV != Hybrid
By AnnihilatorX on 9/23/2009 5:18:49 PM , Rating: 2
Reprocessing? Breeding?

Breeding is highly effective at reducing waste, generating more fuel in the process. The only problem is the danger of weapon grade plutonium falling into unsafe hands.


RE: EV != Hybrid
By Motoman on 9/23/2009 5:20:58 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah, but AFAIK we haven't gotten to the point where we can make commercially-viable breeder reactors.


RE: EV != Hybrid
By Jalek on 9/23/2009 7:05:22 PM , Rating: 2
The first commercial reactor was called Experimental Breeder Reactor 1, where Ferme gave criticality demonstrations in an open room. It was used for Atomic City, Idaho in the 1950's.

The technology's been around a while, if not always properly utilized.


RE: EV != Hybrid
By Motoman on 9/23/2009 8:33:22 PM , Rating: 1
...I don't think you quite get the concept of "commercial" - especially since you seem to think something with the word "experimental" in it's title means that it's in "commercial" use.


RE: EV != Hybrid
By slunkius on 9/24/2009 9:52:02 AM , Rating: 2
yeah, i keep hearing about those mystical breeder reactors which produce almost no waste, and the ones which should be able to use thorium which is abundant, but...where are they? can you point me to a working reactor of this type? would love to check it out!


RE: EV != Hybrid
By Motoman on 9/24/2009 12:04:49 PM , Rating: 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

Although it pains me to refer to Wikipedia, here you go - whoever you people are who are rating me down for pointing out that breeder reactors are not commercially-viable.

The experimental reactor mentioned above was shut down in 1964. Other breeders were never finished, or horribly sucked. And all were considered experimental. None are successful.


RE: EV != Hybrid
By Samus on 9/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: EV != Hybrid
By Steve1981 on 9/23/2009 6:05:44 PM , Rating: 3
Source?

Info that I've heard in the past suggests considerably more than 50 years worth of nuclear fuel.

http://www.nea.fr/html/pub/newsletter/2002/20-2-Nu...


RE: EV != Hybrid
By Steve1981 on 9/23/2009 6:09:57 PM , Rating: 3
RE: EV != Hybrid
By SPOOFE on 9/23/2009 7:00:36 PM , Rating: 3
A misconception based on some strange circumstances. We have 50 years of
quote:
accessible fuel
at
quote:
current market prices
. Translation: There's 50 years' worth of fuel that would be profitable to mine. There is MUCH more fuel that would cost much more to mine. This is actually negligible, because for nuke plants the cost of fuel is much, much smaller compared to the overall cost of running the thing. You can increase the cost of nuclear fuel ten times and it would still be an insignificant cost compared to the bottom line.

So... we have plenty of fuel, it's just that some of it is easier to get to.


RE: EV != Hybrid
By Jalek on 9/23/2009 7:08:16 PM , Rating: 2
The EU estimated 42 years with current sources, 70+ using the existing weaponized uranium if nuclear weapons were ever actually repurposed.

Molten salt breeders using thorium to produce u-233 could also extend that. They're also much simpler and stable energy producers but are smaller in scale.


RE: EV != Hybrid
By SPOOFE on 9/23/2009 7:16:27 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The EU estimated 42 years with current sources, 70+ using the existing weaponized uranium if nuclear weapons were ever actually repurposed.

At current market costs. If you were to spend twice as much mining the uranium, there would be much more accessible for many, many more decades to come. Please make sure you completely understand an issue before you start babbling about it.


RE: EV != Hybrid
By Jalek on 9/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: EV != Hybrid
By SPOOFE on 9/24/2009 1:30:19 AM , Rating: 3
The EU is not here making assertions. You are.

So I am going to argue the assertions you made in proxy for the EU. If you don't feel prepared to argue, I understand and accept your concession.

http://www.nea.fr/html/general/press/2008/2008-02....

"the identified resource base will remain sufficient for 100 years. However, total world uranium resources are dynamic and related to commodity prices."

Ball's in your court. You can start by linking to this supposed EU report. Regardless, as the easy Uranium is mined, the price for Uranium will rise; this money will generate further exploration for deposits and provide access to fuel that could not be mined for a profit at current market prices. I am absolutely certain that, even if you did see an EU report, you either misunderstood its findings or you didn't read the whole thing.


RE: EV != Hybrid
By SPOOFE on 9/23/2009 4:10:26 PM , Rating: 2
More nuke plants would be great for power supply, but the issues with the power grid are more complicated than simply having enough electrons flying around. Load-balancing and peak times are a major concern; but what really hampers all of it is the slight discrepancies between Eastern, Western, and Texas power grids that make shunting electricity between them very inefficient. A lot of talk about the power grid involves making the various zones compatible, which is a massive infrastructure task that's only going to get more difficult the longer we wait.


RE: EV != Hybrid
By spwrozek on 9/23/2009 4:19:09 PM , Rating: 2
1) That does not solve any problems with the grid and electric transmission and distribution. What is needed for that is money to do the engineering and then build new lines and upgrade existing.

Personally I think the grid isn't in as bad of shape as everyone claims. EV's will cause to much power consumption which means generation is needed. By the time the generation is added (how many new plants coal/nuclear are bring built now...) the transmission and distribution network will be rather robust. Since the blackout in 2003 there has been a major push to improve the grid and it is one industry that has remained strong (even through the tough times) due to the absolute need to continue improvements.


RE: EV != Hybrid
By Motoman on 9/23/2009 5:01:44 PM , Rating: 1
1. Has nothing to do with the power grid.

2. OK. So go on and replace all the coal power plants with nuke plants. We'll wait.

3. While that may be true, it is very scarce here on Earth. Supplies are very limited. Very.

4. That's rather the understatement. Sure, with enough power you can split all the water apart that you want. How about the energy efficiency of that operation? Then the distribution issue? How are we going to transport and dispense the explosion-happy H all around the world?


RE: EV != Hybrid
By PrezWeezy on 9/23/2009 5:37:17 PM , Rating: 2
Why not ship clean water to the gas stations which then use electrolysis to split the O off the H2 and away you go! Plus the O can be harvested and sold off to places like hospitals, welding supply plants, you name it. Splitting water isn't exactly difficult. In fact you can do it as a home experiment.
http://www.energyquest.ca.gov/projects/split_h2o.h...


RE: EV != Hybrid
By Motoman on 9/23/2009 8:36:22 PM , Rating: 2
To do such liberation of H from H2O in a commercial volume would require equipment and costs impossible to support in that manner.

No one said it was difficult. It simply requires massive amounts of power and sophisticated equipment to do commercial volumes of it. And then proper storage/transport stuff so it doesn't blow the bejeezus out of everything around you.


RE: EV != Hybrid
By BladeVenom on 9/23/2009 5:17:35 PM , Rating: 2
Lithium isn't that abundant.
quote:
...although it is found in many rocks and some brines, but always in very low concentrations.... At 0.00002 kg lithium per kg of Earth's crust, lithium is the 25th most abundant element.
-Wikipedia


RE: EV != Hybrid
By lightfoot on 9/23/2009 6:45:36 PM , Rating: 2
I stand corrected.

Lithium is an exception to the rule.

quote:
Because of the method by which elements are built up by fusion in stars, there is a general trend in the cosmos that the lighter elements are more common. However, lithium (element number 3) is tied with krypton as the 32nd/33rd most abundant element in the cosmos


Even opinionated know-it-alls like myself can sometimes learn something. And I learnt it from the internets!


RE: EV != Hybrid
By Jalek on 9/23/2009 5:51:24 PM , Rating: 2
I believe Ford was the first to propose a nuclear-powered car..

But really, modern nuclear technology doesn't even use Uranium so the zealots against it would have to start over from scratch in attacking it. Well, they would if they wanted to use facts, so I guess they wouldn't have to wait at all.


RE: EV != Hybrid
By Yawgm0th on 9/23/2009 5:15:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
1. Power grid problems. 2. Power production issues (especially clean power production) 3. Availability of Li for batteries. 4. Production and distribution of hydrogen.
1, 2, and 3 are not problems. Fuel cells suck, so I agree on 4. Current problems are the price and recharge time. Wait three to six years and both problems will work themselves out thanks to the virtually inevitable exponential advancement of technology and incremental cost reduction that follow said technological advancement.

quote:
I'm sure there's a few more 800-pound gorillas in the room
You mean elephants. There are more elephants in the room. There are more 800-pound gorillas in some kind of contest or fight.


RE: EV != Hybrid
By Motoman on 9/23/2009 5:22:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
1, 2, and 3 are not problems.


...that seems to be a rather curious position to take...as it's pretty clear that all 3 are issues, frankly, whether or not we start doing EVs en masse...


RE: EV != Hybrid
By MadMan007 on 9/23/2009 6:58:08 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm if only we could harness the power from 800-pund gorilla fights we'd be all set!


RE: EV != Hybrid
By johnsonx on 9/23/2009 3:39:24 PM , Rating: 2
yes, I agree. I think Hybrids are pretty silly, but am interested in seeing EV technology mature. I could easily see buying one in 5 to 10 years.


RE: EV != Hybrid
By rs1 on 9/23/2009 5:13:00 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree. I think hybrids make a lot of sense, especially in the near-term. The only thing hybrid technology is really doing is making the internal combustion engine more efficient by using it to drive an electric generator instead of directly powering the wheels (yes, despite your "worst of both worlds" opinion, hybrid technology does improve efficiency). That seems like a reasonable approach to me, and I don't see why anyone would be opposed to a technology that improves the efficiency of something that millions of people use every day.

That's not to say that pure-electrics are bad, but right now they certainly do not meet adequate requirements in terms of performance and range. Until they can do that, hybrids remain the best option for improving vehicle efficiency. In fact, I see no reason why a current-generation pure-electric vehicle should not be supplemented by a combustion engine that can kick in should the battery pack ever become depleted. Of course, that turns it into a hybrid, which is apparently bad. But I'd much rather have that than a car that craps out after < 100 miles and needs hours to recharge.


RE: EV != Hybrid
By Reclaimer77 on 9/23/2009 5:16:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I disagree. I think hybrids make a lot of sense, especially in the near-term. The only thing hybrid technology is really doing is making the internal combustion engine more efficient by using it to drive an electric generator instead of directly powering the wheels (yes, despite your "worst of both worlds" opinion, hybrid technology does improve efficiency). That seems like a reasonable approach to me, and I don't see why anyone would be opposed to a technology that improves the efficiency of something that millions of people use every day.


Hybrids only make sense under a premise that is false though.


RE: EV != Hybrid
By rs1 on 9/23/2009 5:51:08 PM , Rating: 3
What premise would that be? Global warming?

Regardless, it makes no difference. Improved efficiency is a worthwhile thing, whether or not you believe that it's going to help save the world (and if improved efficiency is not worthwhile, then why bother with pure-electric vehicles either?). Why would you want to use more resources to accomplish the same amount of work, especially when you're the one that's paying for them?


RE: EV != Hybrid
By Reclaimer77 on 9/23/2009 8:27:57 PM , Rating: 3
Global Warming, the stupidity of not drilling for our own oil and importing it. The belief that current ultra low emissions vehicles still aren't "green" enough. The fact that hybrids had to be government subsidized instead of letting the free market decide. The idea that they are "greener" even though the batteries will end up in landfills and are full of toxic materials, and that they are made from elements even MORE rare than oil.


RE: EV != Hybrid
By rs1 on 9/23/2009 9:38:54 PM , Rating: 3
So you're saying that hybrids are stupid because:

1. Global warming is made up.
2. We have sufficient domestic oil supply available to meet our demands.
3. Existing vehicles are efficient enough already.
4. Batteries are toxic, and moreover, rare.

...I'm not giving you the subsidies point, because I'm pretty sure the Prius was selling just fine even before the subsidies. In fact, I don't think hybrids are popular because they got subsidized, I think hybrids got subsidized because they were so popular.

So given your other criticisms, the only one that really seems relevant is #4. #1 is neither here nor there, as consuming fewer resources is generally worthwhile whether or not global warming is a lie. #2 is flat out false, as even if we did expand drilling, the domestic oil supply would not cover our demand. Maybe if we switch to run our vehicles on natural gas, then we would have sufficient domestic resources to meet our needs. However, even if we could produce enough domestic oil to meet demands, that oil is a finite resource, and the more efficiently we use it, the longer it would be before we had to go back on the international market when the domestic supply finally ran out. So hybrids would still make sense in that case. If #3 is accepted as valid, then we might as well just stop all forms of technological development right now. It's easy to argue that what we have is "good enough", but that's really not a reason to avoid trying to make it even better.

And as for #4, the rarity of lithium relative to oil is a non-issue, first because the lithium used to make the car isn't consumed by the daily use of the car (i.e. cars are not *made* of oil, they run on it) and second because the rarity of lithium is reflected in the final cost of the vehicle. If lithium is too rare to be practical, then the market will bear that out in the end, which seems like a fine solution to me.

So that just leaves the toxicity, which is a valid concern. Though at the same time, I'm reasonably certain that the battery components can be recycled. And because lithium is such a rare resource, there's a high incentive for people to do so, so it seems unlikely that the majority of the hybrid/EV batteries would end up just rotting away in a landfill. If there's money to be made by reclaiming the lithium, somebody is going to find a way to do it.


RE: EV != Hybrid
By martinw on 9/24/2009 1:17:32 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think toxicity is really an issue either. It certainly was when Cadmium was used in batteries, but NiMH batteries are almost completely recyclable, and don't contain anything anywhere near as nasty as Cadmium. So I don't think the poster really managed to make a single valid point.


RE: EV != Hybrid
By TSS on 9/24/2009 7:46:29 AM , Rating: 2
i totally agree with your post save for 1 little thing.

quote:
And as for #4, the rarity of lithium relative to oil is a non-issue, first because the lithium used to make the car isn't consumed by the daily use of the car (i.e. cars are not *made* of oil, they run on it) and second because the rarity of lithium is reflected in the final cost of the vehicle. If lithium is too rare to be practical, then the market will bear that out in the end, which seems like a fine solution to me.


Doesn't mean the politicians will be practical and let the free market bear it.

that the market price will go up is rather expected, since that'll always happen with something that was in low demand and is now in high demand. My problem is more with when.

suppose there are 200m cars in the US, and the lithium price will start to rise significantly around 60m cars (supplies start to get harder to mine/bolivia acts up/recycling is at it's max). It'll seem viable to transfer to lithium at the start, but it'll get really expensive really fast.

what makes matters worse, those 60m car's lithium batteries will all need to be replaced within 10 years, even if you'd stop making new cars (i doubt that car lasts 10 years but decent cars should). I know alot of lithium can be recovered. But you cannot replace 60m car batteries with the same 60m car batteries. this'll increase the price of supply even further, due to increased demand (and this stacks with the new cars needing to be made).

And to make matters *even* worse, as you said, car's don't run on lithium, so *in addition* to the lithium cost will come the fuel cost, and if everybody starts using electric, prices go up for that as well (much higher demand against a capped supply because your grid really needs updating)raising the cost of ownership even further.

now i know there are other battery types then just lithium based ones. I also don't know the exact amount of supplies (i only know that depends very much on bolivia), how much 1 battery needs of that supply, how long that lithium will last in that battery and finally, how many batteries will need to be made. Same as i don't know the state of the american electrical grid (but i hear it's atrocious).

I am in favor of efficiency. Heck i try to dedicate my life to that very fact. I just have a hard time accepting that EV/hybrids are it, because it just seems they aren't. Maybe they are in the absolute theoretical sense (equal and infinite supply of oil/lithium+electricity/other fuels) but the real world just doesn't work like that.


RE: EV != Hybrid
By MadMan007 on 9/24/2009 7:55:01 AM , Rating: 2
I think you've misunderstood his point about what cars are made of versus what they run on. Oil is consumed to provide locomotion but a car isn't built from a set amount of locomotion-providing oil (yes there are non-consumable oil products like plastic but those aside), whereas with Lithium batteries the car, or really the battery, is made from Lithium (or whatever else) as a non-consumable that *does* provide locomotion.


RE: EV != Hybrid
By Reclaimer77 on 9/24/2009 11:00:14 AM , Rating: 2
Not giving me the subsidies point ? My tax dollars going to vehicles SO good and practical according to you, the government has to pay people to buy one. And you aren't giving me the point ?

Hey I'll tell you what man. I really want a Vette, but just need about 10 grand more to get one. Do you mind giving me the money ? Hell no ?

Your first paragraph has offended me so much I can't even bother with your other points. If you aren't going to "give me" valid points, then I don't see why I shouldn't do the same for you.

quote:
I think hybrids got subsidized because they were so popular.


Do you understand how the WORLD WORKS ??!! This is the dumbest statement I have ever read. Do you mind explaining to me how in the HELL subsidized are used to make products 'more popular' ?? God you are without a doubt an idiot.

If hybrid cars were so good and popular, they wouldn't NEED subsidies because people would already be buying them without government incentives. Wtf, are you that stupid ?


RE: EV != Hybrid
By Targon on 9/24/2009 8:17:07 AM , Rating: 2
The situation with oil is a bit more complex than that. If we drill for our own oil, the oil companies get it, and it goes at the current market value. Even if the USA went crazy with offshore drilling and pulling from every source out there, between OPEC and the commodity market in general, the price would STILL remain where it is, and the only people who make money would be the oil companies.

The only way to make domestic drilling of oil good for the people as a whole would be for the government to claim ownership of all the oil found in the USA, then SELL it to the oil companies with some compensation package to pay for the labor of getting the oil out of the ground. If the government made money from the oil gathered, then that would cover much of the debt, help reduce taxes, and THAT would make it beneficial to the people.


RE: EV != Hybrid
By Spuke on 9/23/2009 7:24:40 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The only thing hybrid technology is really doing is making the internal combustion engine more efficient by using it to drive an electric generator instead of directly powering the wheels
The only hybrid that does what you describe is the Volt.


RE: EV != Hybrid
By rs1 on 9/23/2009 8:11:47 PM , Rating: 2
Fair enough, though increased efficiency is increased efficiency, no matter how you get there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_vehicle_drivet... has some good details about the different kind of hybrid powertrain setups.


RE: EV != Hybrid
By Jalek on 9/23/2009 7:50:15 PM , Rating: 2
This technology always seemed the most practical. That could be from my experience with the old diesel submarine designs though.

At speed, cars without large drag coefficients don't require a lot of power, so the engine burning fuel could be small, recharging the acceleration power used to reach cruising speed.

Of course in stop and go traffic, it would end up depleting batteries intended just for takeoff power, so battery capacity has always seemed to be the Achilles heel for true electric-drive vehicles.

I'm still waiting to see how the Volt and the other newly announced EV's work out in everyday use. The hybrids seemed more like gadgets to me, and gadget designs on cars inevitably cost money to maintain, like the pushbuttons on an Edsel.


RE: EV != Hybrid
By therealnickdanger on 9/24/2009 8:29:00 AM , Rating: 3
I completely agree. I think hybrid cars are like hybrid hard drives: a waste of time.

On the one hand, you have a large SUV and a 2TB HDD. Both items are relatively slow and cheap and will hold just about anything you need. On the other, you have EVs and SSDs offering blistering performance without all the excess waste involved. Unfortunately for the middle-ground, hybrid cars don't really offer much except for more expensive versions of cars that already exist. Hybrid HDDs might make it to the mainstream one day, but the reality is that by then solid-state technology will have every single advantage.

Sure, you pay a big premium right now for pure EV cars and SSDs, but the economy and performance can't be beat.


It's like Jay ripped the segment from Top Gear
By noxipoo on 9/23/2009 4:08:25 PM , Rating: 2
Instead of star in a reasonably priced car.




RE: It's like Jay ripped the segment from Top Gear
By 67STANG on 9/23/2009 5:14:34 PM , Rating: 3
Jay has already been a "star in a reasonably priced car"....

It's more like Ford is advertising on Jay's show to promote a car that will be available in the future.


RE: It's like Jay ripped the segment from Top Gear
By noxipoo on 9/23/2009 5:17:16 PM , Rating: 2
they are bringing the euro focus to the US? Isn't it just a Mazda 3 here?


By 67STANG on 9/24/2009 2:06:12 AM , Rating: 2
It is rumored that the euro Focus will be a "world" car by 2011 or 2012, much like the Fiesta.


beefy breaks?
By random2 on 9/23/2009 5:10:00 PM , Rating: 2
I think this vehicle has beefy brakes....not "beefy breaks".

signed,
The Soup Nazi
(currently expanding)




By Saist on 9/23/2009 10:07:10 PM , Rating: 2
I just find this so hilarious that the Star in a Green Car came about right after Jay Leno appeared on Top Gear. You just know that he, Andy, and Jeremy sat down and figured out how to get the Star in a Reasonably Priced Car segment to work under the ludicrously liberal democrat US broadcasting media.




Senseless
By mindless1 on 9/24/2009 1:15:27 AM , Rating: 2
The key thing EVs need is to be priced low enough for the average car buyer (or else it makes no sense, the impact is then minimized), and that there is no other more desirable car in the same price range.

For example, suppose a Chevy Volt at $30,000, there is no way I'd rather have the volt than many other $30K cars.




The rest of the story
By owyheewine on 9/24/2009 4:57:23 PM , Rating: 2
Apparently on one really listens to Rush. His stated objective for driving the electric car is to bash as many Al Gore balloons as possible. (I don't watch much network TV so I'm unsure of the function of the balloons).
As usual Rush is right. Electric cars are the folly of the thermodynamics challenged.




Who care?
By nofumble62 on 9/24/09, Rating: -1
RE: Who care?
By Maxima2k2se on 9/24/2009 1:20:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
He is an far right oxymoron and also an idiot. Who care of his opinion is


What a bold statement from someone who can't even form a proper sentence.


Aha
By Griswold on 9/24/09, Rating: -1
Bottom Out...
By 8BitVirus on 9/24/09, Rating: -1
"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki