what an idiot

[lpbrian]

http://www.twu.org/default.asp?contentID=598
Hard to think this guy breathes oxygen. Does'nt he realize airplanes run on oil? Bush wants more drilling while Obama opposes it. Airplanes don't run on "alternatives". This jerk does not realize the green lobby and the "Labor movement" are on opposite sides? To prove my point: GM closed an SUV plant in Janesville. 2000 are unemployed. Do you think the green lobby is sympathetic? Hell no! They're rejoicing that means fewer SUV's on the road. Any TWU blowhard's need to realize, the greens are NOT on your side.

 

[lpbrian]

http://www.twu.org/default.asp?contentID=598
Hard to think this guy breathes oxygen. Does'nt he realize airplanes run on oil? Bush wants more drilling while Obama opposes it. Airplanes don't run on "alternatives". This jerk does not realize the green lobby and the "Labor movement" are on opposite sides? To prove my point: GM closed an SUV plant in Janesville. 2000 are unemployed. Do you think the green lobby is sympathetic? Hell no! They're rejoicing that means fewer SUV's on the road. Any TWU blowhard's need to realize, the greens are NOT on your side.

Oh, and I forgot to add the coming carbon "Trade and Cap" scheme that is coming. Talk about a job killer. ALPA is smart enough to figure this out, but the TWU is not...

 

[JS]

I'm not surprised. Democrats are the home of labor unions and environmentalist wackos. Unions will sell their members down the river to stay in the political game.

 

[FRMR12B]

He sure has on one nice shirt. Dont seem any downturn in the economy has affected his livelyhood. Dont know much about him but seems to me he does pretty good for himself.

 

[Ralph]

This thread will be moved to The Water Cooler. It is not about American Airlines, and is distinctly political in the tone of the posts.

 

[Cosworth]

Why are you not angry at GM for being 10-15 years behind the curve? We knew in the 70's that fuel was going to be an issue. We knew a few years ago when fuel spiked that fuel cost would be an issue. Who has been fighting CAFE increases? Was it the auto manufactures?

Why is it that Honda, Toyota, Mercedes, BMW ... etc. opening up new plants to build cars for US consumers?

Why should the the US tax payer bail out the US car industry? Why should we support incompetent management and stupid consumers? This has nothing to do with ANWAR or the Gulf, it has to do with greedy government and gullible voters such as your self.

We had our chance to be leaders in the auto industry but we dropped the ball. Don't blame the liberals for the greed and stupidity of the auto manufactures and the consumers.

The US wants to drive their trucks and SUV's. Now we pay for it.

 

[getreal]

This thread will be moved to The Water Cooler. It is not about American Airlines, and is distinctly political in the tone of the posts.

Go for it Ralph, get it out of here!

 

[Bob Owens]

http://www.twu.org/default.asp?contentID=598
Hard to think this guy breathes oxygen. Does'nt he realize airplanes run on oil? Bush wants more drilling while Obama opposes it. Airplanes don't run on "alternatives". This jerk does not realize the green lobby and the "Labor movement" are on opposite sides? To prove my point: GM closed an SUV plant in Janesville. 2000 are unemployed. Do you think the green lobby is sympathetic? Hell no! They're rejoicing that means fewer SUV's on the road. Any TWU blowhard's need to realize, the greens are NOT on your side.

Airplanes can pretty much run on any liquid or gas that burns so "alternatives" are not forever out of the question for airplanes.

Bush wants to give away public lands, our property, to private industry. We cant, nor should we really want to try and drill our way out of this. We have to try and get away from fossil fuels where other means can be used. The enviormental costs are too high, not just in Global warming but also pollution in general. We should try and pass on a cleaner world to our children.

Currently, when it comes to transportation there isnt any other fuel source out there that delivers the same bang as fossil fuels so other than efficiency gains we arent likely to see a whole lot of progress there in the near term. However when it comes to generating electricity which can be transported long distances over wires its another story. All our electricity should be produced by "green" methods. When solar or wind produces surplus electricity it should be used to create hydrogen, which can then be stored and shipped, when hydrogen is burned it produces pure water. While the production of hydrogen is not energy efficient, as a means of storing energy that would otherwise be completely wasted it makes sense.

Reducing our dependance on oil makes sense in so many ways, Enviornmentally it would reduce pollution, economically it would introduce competition into the energy market, strategically it would reduce our dependance on the products of nations who are hostile to our way of life.

I dont think the "greens" were rejoicing the fact that workers lost their jobs. I think they welcome the demise of fuel guzzling SUVS but would prefer that they kept those workers and had them produce hybrids to help get the older fuel guzzling polluters off the road faster.

The greens are most certianly more on our side than Bush and the oil industry.

 

[delldude]

I'm not surprised. Democrats are the home of labor unions and environmentalist wackos. Unions will sell their members down the river to stay in the political game.

So will the Democrats.

 

[El Che]

So will the Democrats.

So don't you see tha its all a scam to divide and conquer. While the people are fighting amongst themselves with the false left vs. right, democrat vs. republican, conservative vs. liberal paradigms, the ruling PIMPS are busy selling our arses to the highest bidders and making a hefty profit while doing so. WAKE THE FREAK UP! :angry: :angry:

 

[KCFlyer]

Why are you not angry at GM for being 10-15 years behind the curve? We knew in the 70's that fuel was going to be an issue. We knew a few years ago when fuel spiked that fuel cost would be an issue. Who has been fighting CAFE increases? Was it the auto manufactures?

It wasn't really the automakers...you answered the question with your last line:

The US wants to drive their trucks and SUV's. Now we pay for it.

The problem is, the American consumer is loathe to accept any responsibility at all for higher gas prices...it's OPEC or it's speculators or it's the democrats who won't let us drill or its the tree huggers. OUR actions play no role in it. The automakers were only building what the American public demanded. While GM built several vehicles that got excellent gas mileage, we didn't want them...we wanted our luxury trucks. Instead of our government trying anything to discourage the purchase of these things, they provided tax incentives that could equal the purchase price over time - ENCOURAGING the sales. So they gave us what we wanted. Now that filling an SUV is getting about as expensive as paying a mortgage, it's the unions fault that GM and other automakers are in trouble. Nevermind that union workers had been building fuel efficient vehicles...Americans weren't buying them.

We did see the 1970's that being at the mercy of foreign oil could be a bad thing. We even had a president who wanted to cap oil imports - but then he was replaced with a "personal responsibility" administration who ushered in the "if it feels good, do it" age, and the president who urged conservation was called one of the worst presidents ever.

 

[JS]

Airplanes can pretty much run on any liquid or gas that burns so "alternatives" are not forever out of the question for airplanes.

Do you know of any that aren't fossil fuels?

Bush wants to give away public lands, our property, to private industry. We cant, nor should we really want to try and drill our way out of this. We have to try and get away from fossil fuels where other means can be used. The enviormental costs are too high, not just in Global warming but also pollution in general. We should try and pass on a cleaner world to our children.

Currently, when it comes to transportation there isnt any other fuel source out there that delivers the same bang as fossil fuels so other than efficiency gains we arent likely to see a whole lot of progress there in the near term. However when it comes to generating electricity which can be transported long distances over wires its another story. All our electricity should be produced by "green" methods. When solar or wind produces surplus electricity it should be used to create hydrogen, which can then be stored and shipped, when hydrogen is burned it produces pure water. While the production of hydrogen is not energy efficient, as a means of storing energy that would otherwise be completely wasted it makes sense.

That would be nice, but hippies don't like nuclear power, the only energy source that is both reliable and clean. It's not possible to generate all our electricity with non-nuke green energy.

Reducing our dependance on oil makes sense in so many ways, Enviornmentally it would reduce pollution, economically it would introduce competition into the energy market, strategically it would reduce our dependance on the products of nations who are hostile to our way of life.

I dont think the "greens" were rejoicing the fact that workers lost their jobs. I think they welcome the demise of fuel guzzling SUVS but would prefer that they kept those workers and had them produce hybrids to help get the older fuel guzzling polluters off the road faster.

The greens are most certianly more on our side than Bush and the oil industry.

What is Toyota using to produce hybrids? Place mats? Toyota has employees as well but they aren't choked by archaic work rules and benefits that cost more than buying a small country.

 

[Cosworth]

That would be nice, but hippies don't like nuclear power, the only energy source that is both reliable and clean.

Really? You seem to be over looking the fact that once the plant has run it's life cycle (35 years) what do you think we do with the nuclear fuel and the generator it's self? just stick it in a waste bucket and cart it off?

If you think it is so safe and clean, go ahead and move next door to one .... I dare you.

Here is some reading material about your 'clean' power source:

# Nuclear Waste

* Nuclear waste is produced in many different ways. There are wastes produced in the reactor core, wastes created as a result of radioactive contamination, and wastes produced as a byproduct of uranium mining, refining, and enrichment. The vast majority of radiation in nuclear waste is given off from spent fuel rods.
* A typical reactor will generate 20 to 30 tons of high-level nuclear waste annually. There is no known way to safely dispose of this waste, which remains dangerously radioactive until it naturally decays.
* The rate of decay of a radioactive isotope is called its half-life, the time in which half the initial amount of atoms present takes to decay. The half-life of Plutonium-239, one particularly lethal component of nuclear waste, is 24,000 years.
* The hazardous life of a radioactive element (the length of time that must elapse before the material is considered safe) is at least 10 half-lives. Therefore, Plutonium-239 will remain hazardous for at least 240,000 years.
* There is a current proposal to dump nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.
o The plan is for Yucca Mountain to hold all of the high level nuclear waste ever produced from every nuclear power plant in the US. However, that would completely fill up the site and not account for future waste.
o Transporting the wastes by truck and rail would be extremely dangerous.
o For a more detailed analysis of the problems of and risks incurred by the plan, see Top Ten Reasons to Oppose the DoE’s Yucca Mountain Plan
* Repository sites in Australia, Argentina, China, southern Africa, and Russia have also been considered.
* Though some countries reprocess nuclear waste (in essence, preparing it to send through the cycle again to create more energy), this process is banned in the U.S. due to increased proliferation risks, as the reprocessed materials can also be used for making bombs. Reprocessing is also not a solution because it just creates additional nuclear waste.
* The best action would be to cease producing nuclear energy (and waste), to leave the existing waste where it is, and to immobilize it. There are a few different methods of waste immobilization. In the vitrification process, waste is combined with glass-forming materials and melted. Once the materials solidify, the waste is trapped inside and can't easily be released.

full stats

 

[delldude]

It wasn't really the automakers...you answered the question with your last line:

The problem is, the American consumer is loathe to accept any responsibility at all for higher gas prices...it's OPEC or it's speculators or it's the democrats who won't let us drill or its the tree huggers. OUR actions play no role in it. The automakers were only building what the American public demanded. While GM built several vehicles that got excellent gas mileage, we didn't want them...we wanted our luxury trucks. Instead of our government trying anything to discourage the purchase of these things, they provided tax incentives that could equal the purchase price over time - ENCOURAGING the sales. So they gave us what we wanted. Now that filling an SUV is getting about as expensive as paying a mortgage, it's the unions fault that GM and other automakers are in trouble. Nevermind that union workers had been building fuel efficient vehicles...Americans weren't buying them.

We did see the 1970's that being at the mercy of foreign oil could be a bad thing. We even had a president who wanted to cap oil imports - but then he was replaced with a "personal responsibility" administration who ushered in the "if it feels good, do it" age, and the president who urged conservation was called one of the worst presidents ever.

You easily forget the unions contribution to the vehicle price............

 

[JS]

Really? You seem to be over looking the fact that once the plant has run it's life cycle (35 years) what do you think we do with the nuclear fuel and the generator it's self? just stick it in a waste bucket and cart it off?

If you think it is so safe and clean, go ahead and move next door to one .... I dare you.

Fine with me.

Here is some reading material about your 'clean' power source:

# Nuclear Waste

* Nuclear waste is produced in many different ways. There are wastes produced in the reactor core, wastes created as a result of radioactive contamination, and wastes produced as a byproduct of uranium mining, refining, and enrichment. The vast majority of radiation in nuclear waste is given off from spent fuel rods.
* A typical reactor will generate 20 to 30 tons of high-level nuclear waste annually. There is no known way to safely dispose of this waste, which remains dangerously radioactive until it naturally decays.
* The rate of decay of a radioactive isotope is called its half-life, the time in which half the initial amount of atoms present takes to decay. The half-life of Plutonium-239, one particularly lethal component of nuclear waste, is 24,000 years.
* The hazardous life of a radioactive element (the length of time that must elapse before the material is considered safe) is at least 10 half-lives. Therefore, Plutonium-239 will remain hazardous for at least 240,000 years.
* There is a current proposal to dump nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.
o The plan is for Yucca Mountain to hold all of the high level nuclear waste ever produced from every nuclear power plant in the US. However, that would completely fill up the site and not account for future waste.
o Transporting the wastes by truck and rail would be extremely dangerous.
o For a more detailed analysis of the problems of and risks incurred by the plan, see Top Ten Reasons to Oppose the DoE’s Yucca Mountain Plan
* Repository sites in Australia, Argentina, China, southern Africa, and Russia have also been considered.
* Though some countries reprocess nuclear waste (in essence, preparing it to send through the cycle again to create more energy), this process is banned in the U.S. due to increased proliferation risks, as the reprocessed materials can also be used for making bombs. Reprocessing is also not a solution because it just creates additional nuclear waste.
* The best action would be to cease producing nuclear energy (and waste), to leave the existing waste where it is, and to immobilize it. There are a few different methods of waste immobilization. In the vitrification process, waste is combined with glass-forming materials and melted. Once the materials solidify, the waste is trapped inside and can't easily be released.

full stats

You got this drivel from wagingpeace.org? Ha ha ha ha ha!!!! Try using a reputable source and get back to me.