I like to think of myself as a rather unique individual. I am a logical creative musician kind of person. Most of the time science doesn't collide with poetry to often. So, I was thinking about the volt and how the effects of it being mass produced could effect the mentality of our nation and cause the two to collide like a particle excellerator. I have begun a home town campaign without anyone knowing it. I don't like to come out in advertisement because it makes it seem as if you have something to sell. So, I have spread the word of the volt through conversation whenever it applies and it has been rather interesting. The reaction to the idea has been very solid. People have no alliance to the combustion engine. It is all about the gas prices at this point and anything to get rid of them is a GO.

I have seen a lot of very informed post on this forum about the technology behind these cars. The thing that I have been wanting to see is some of the deep rooted feelings about our nation and how strongly you feel about this current situation.

I look at these climbing gas prices as a weapon and these oil nations are pointing them straight at us. So many questions about why, how, or straight up WTF comes out of the oil industry. Like...the simple question of "why are gas prices so high?" I mean it isn't costing anymore now to produce and refine the oil than it was a few years back yet the price keeps climbing....there is no shortage of oil because obviously we just keep coming up with it day after day...yet the prices keep climbing......so for me this is a very emotional thing. It leads me to thoughts that I wish I never had to have. Like the idea that our nation has been basically ignorant to it's flaws and our elected leaders have ignored things that should have been taken care of long ago. It builds fear in me and anger toward so many different targets that I can't truly explain them. With answers as simple as "revamp our electric grid to run mainly on renewable, clean, and independent energy sources, and transform our transportation to electric powered vehicles", just sitting their for the taking, why doesn't someone just stand up and say it? Why all this hum hawlin around? All this just bothers me greatly and the other day a video was showed to me by a friend. After, watching it I imagined our world coming to this and the reason for it coming to what was in that video. I know it isn't reasonable and so highly unlikely that I'd bet everything I own against it yet it is powerful enough that it made me take notice. So, I want to share it with you now......I am not sure what kind of music lovers we have on these forums but here we are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuK2A1ZqoWs

What do you think? No handlebars?

Cute video, but I am too old for that. That is why I bought an ebike. It has a top speed of 20MPH, but I do not have to put up with plates, insurance, or the other stuff for motorcycles. It goes further and faster than I can on my bicycle.

If you follow the "Progressive" movement, it is very much a commie-fascist movement intent on taking control of corporations, natural resources and setting wages and prices. Right now, they are hyping their messiah Obama, but the electorate is wising up.

Maxine Waters and another Dem Congressman tried floating "government take over of the oil industry" trial balloons, but it was quickly shot down - they were so sure that rising gas prices would get the voters on their side.

If you take time to read the writing of "futurists" from the turn of the previous century, you will see that those movements were very real, and led to the deaths of 10's or 100's of millions of people through the first half of that century.

Required reading:

Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand
Fountainhead, by Ayn Rand
We, by Yevgeny Zamyatin
Animal Farm, by George Orwell
1984, by George Orwell
The Time Machine, by HG Wells
The Island of Dr. Moreau, by HG Wells
Non-fiction works of HG Wells to skim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Books_by_H._G._Wells)

All these early 20th century novelists had very real experiences and knowledge of these "grassroots" movements, which we now define as fascism, communism, Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc.

The Flobots video / song "Handle Bars" can demonstrate how an individual can start such a movement through the cult of personality. If you want modern examples, just view any video of Markos (Kos) Moulitsas (Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markos_Moulitsas)) and his netroots movement. His self indulgence was so obvious during one speech, that Steven Colbert summed it up by simply showing a photo of Kos with Hitler's mustache.

If you follow the "Progressive" movement, it is very much a commie-fascist movement intent on taking control of corporations, natural resources and setting wages and prices. Right now, they are hyping their messiah Obama, but the electorate is wising up.

Maxine Waters and another Dem Congressman tried floating "government take over of the oil industry" trial balloons, but it was quickly shot down - they were so sure that rising gas prices would get the voters on their side.

If you take time to read the writing of "futurists" from the turn of the previous century, you will see that those movements were very real, and led to the deaths of 10's or 100's of millions of people through the first half of that century.

Required reading:

Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand
Fountainhead, by Ayn Rand
We, by Yevgeny Zamyatin
Animal Farm, by George Orwell
1984, by George Orwell
The Time Machine, by HG Wells
The Island of Dr. Moreau, by HG Wells
Non-fiction works of HG Wells to skim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Books_by_H._G._Wells)

All these early 20th century novelists had very real experiences and knowledge of these "grassroots" movements, which we now define as fascism, communism, Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc.

The Flobots video / song "Handle Bars" can demonstrate how an individual can start such a movement through the cult of personality. If you want modern examples, just view any video of Markos (Kos) Moulitsas (Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markos_Moulitsas)) and his netroots movement. His self indulgence was so obvious during one speech, that Steven Colbert summed it up by simply showing a photo of Kos with Hitler's mustache.

Do you believe that the the people of the United States should expect and even demand that the U.S. government take responsibility to ensure sustainable use of natural resources? If not, should there just be a free-for-all that leaves future generations to deal with the consequences?

Do you believe that the the people of the United States should expect and even demand that the U.S. government take responsibility to ensure sustainable use of natural resources? If not, should there just be a free-for-all that leaves future generations to deal with the consequences?

Commie-fascists will seize upon any crisis or devisive issue to decry a free market democracy and call for communist / fascist rule.

Here is a simple challenge - if environmentalists have such viable solutions, then they should raise the capital, start compaies, develop products and compete in the marketplace. Nanosolar, Tesla Motors, Fisker Automotive and many others are doing it, so the environmentalists need to put up or shut up.

Just because there is a problem with a current approach, doesn't mean the opposite approach is better. Free market democracy works.

Commie-fascists will seize upon any crisis or devisive issue to decry a free market democracy and call for communist / fascist rule.

Here is a simple challenge - if environmentalists have such viable solutions, then they should raise the capital, start compaies, develop products and compete in the marketplace. Nanosolar, Tesla Motors, Fisker Automotive and many others are doing it, so the environmentalists need to put up or shut up.

Just because there is a problem with a current approach, doesn't mean the opposite approach is better. Free market democracy works.

The problem with your challenge is that the unsustainable and environmentally damaging approaches are often cheaper in the short term, so that sustainable and environmentally benign approaches can't compete in the free market. This type of problem has been solved in democracies by regulations (which is why, for example, Nanosolar is installing in Germany). I'm suggesting that in order for the free-market to provide solutions, the free market needs constraints that don't allow unsustainable or environmentally damaging solutions (which is what happened for tail-pipe emissions, and power-plant NOx and SOx emissions to name two).

We agree that free market democracy works. The democracy part allows for a well-informed society to elect leaders who enact restrictions on the free-market that ensure the best sustainable and environmentally benign solutions win.

The problem with your challenge is that the unsustainable and environmentally damaging approaches are often cheaper in the short term, so that sustainable and environmentally benign approaches can't compete in the free market. This type of problem has been solved in democracies by regulations (which is why, for example, Nanosolar is installing in Germany). I'm suggesting that in order for the free-market to provide solutions, the free market needs constraints that don't allow unsustainable or environmentally damaging solutions (which is what happened for tail-pipe emissions, and power-plant NOx and SOx emissions to name two).

We agree that free market democracy works. The democracy part allows for a well-informed society to elect leaders who enact restrictions on the free-market that ensure the best sustainable and environmentally benign solutions win.

I will allow you to argue that point with Amory Lovins:

Link (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1222713259384774131)

He tells everyone flat out that there are already enough economic incentives for homes and businesses to go green without any additional government regulations.

Progressives are lazy, as they would rather mandate a result and have someone else come up with solutions, than creating the solutions themselves. Wind and solar energy solutions are already feasible, and being quickly built out. PHEV's and Air Cars are already feasible in large numbers, and BEV's are feasible in small numbers at high price / performance and low price / performance, and fuel cells are feasible in small numbers at high price / performance (but still lower than BEV's).

I will allow you to argue that point with Amory Lovins:

Link (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1222713259384774131)

He tells everyone flat out that there are already enough economic incentives for homes and businesses to go green without any additional government regulations.

Progressives are lazy, as they would rather mandate a result and have someone else come up with solutions, than creating the solutions themselves. Wind and solar energy solutions are already feasible, and being quickly built out. PHEV's and Air Cars are already feasible in large numbers, and BEV's are feasible in small numbers at high price / performance and low price / performance, and fuel cells are feasible in small numbers at high price / performance (but still lower than BEV's).

Amory Lovins has made a long career out of saying that (I've seen him speak over at least a decade and I know he's been doing it longer than that), but has yet to make a huge world-changing business to prove it.

Wind and Solar: Feasible yes, but much more expensive than coal, especially if energy storage costs are factored in. Yes, several companies are talking about "solar cheaper than coal", but you can't buy those products and it simply will not be true in many geographic locations: even if the panels are free, the other infrastructure costs are much more expensive than coal (see solarbuzz.com). Without regulations, coal will always win on costs.

Are you honestly saying that you don't think any regulations are needed to restrict a free market from damaging the environment? If so, history does not support that position.

Amory Lovins has made a long career out of saying that (I've seen him speak over at least a decade and I know he's been doing it longer than that), but has yet to make a huge world-changing business to prove it.

Wind and Solar: Feasible yes, but much more expensive than coal, especially if energy storage costs are factored in. Yes, several companies are talking about "solar cheaper than coal", but you can't buy those products and it simply will not be true in many geographic locations: even if the panels are free, the other infrastructure costs are much more expensive than coal (see solarbuzz.com). Without regulations, coal will always win on costs.

Are you honestly saying that you don't think any regulations are needed to restrict a free market from damaging the environment? If so, history does not support that position.

I am saying that lazy commie-fascist Progressives put the cart before the horse. If a company has a PROVEN feasible innovation, then the government can tighten regulations to protect that innovation from competition from previous techs with some other type of disadvantage. When catalytic converters were proven feasible, then regulation could require tighter emissions standards without fear that the price increase would hurt auto sales, or cause a shortage of autos for sale. Instead, Progressive just want to pass laws and pick winners without any demonstration of the technology. The Dem Congress rushed through an increase in ethanol use for the US without demonstrating that it could be done without hurting food prices.

Proglodytes would rather just smoke pot and act smarter than everyone else, instead of doing the hard work to ensure good policy.

I am saying that lazy commie-fascist Progressives put the cart before the horse. If a company has a PROVEN feasible innovation, then the government can tighten regulations to protect that innovation from competition from previous techs with some other type of disadvantage. When catalytic converters were proven feasible, then regulation could require tighter emissions standards without fear that the price increase would hurt auto sales, or cause a shortage of autos for sale. Instead, Progressive just want to pass laws and pick winners without any demonstration of the technology. The Dem Congress rushed through an increase in ethanol use for the US without demonstrating that it could be done without hurting food prices.

Proglodytes would rather just smoke pot and act smarter than everyone else, instead of doing the hard work to ensure good policy.

What do you propose as good policy to move our energy infrastructure towards renewables?

I propose nothing. The less government involvement the better. Socializing energy is not the solution. Let good ole' capitalism work. Believe it or not, greed is a great motivation for progress.

I propose nothing. The less government involvement the better. Socializing energy is not the solution. Let good ole' capitalism work. Believe it or not, greed is a great motivation for progress.

History does not support that assertion if the progress you refer to is towards protecting the environment.

If you follow the "Progressive" movement, it is very much a commie-fascist movement intent on taking control of corporations, natural resources and setting wages and prices. Right now, they are hyping their messiah Obama, but the electorate is wising up.

Maxine Waters and another Dem Congressman tried floating "government take over of the oil industry" trial balloons, but it was quickly shot down - they were so sure that rising gas prices would get the voters on their side.

If you take time to read the writing of "futurists" from the turn of the previous century, you will see that those movements were very real, and led to the deaths of 10's or 100's of millions of people through the first half of that century.

Required reading:

Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand
Fountainhead, by Ayn Rand
We, by Yevgeny Zamyatin
Animal Farm, by George Orwell
1984, by George Orwell
The Time Machine, by HG Wells
The Island of Dr. Moreau, by HG Wells
Non-fiction works of HG Wells to skim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Books_by_H._G._Wells)

All these early 20th century novelists had very real experiences and knowledge of these "grassroots" movements, which we now define as fascism, communism, Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc.

The Flobots video / song "Handle Bars" can demonstrate how an individual can start such a movement through the cult of personality. If you want modern examples, just view any video of Markos (Kos) Moulitsas (Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markos_Moulitsas)) and his netroots movement. His self indulgence was so obvious during one speech, that Steven Colbert summed it up by simply showing a photo of Kos with Hitler's mustache.

I really, REALLY hope this post was satire, like the brilliant avatar you feature. If so...well, just ignore the rest.

And you really need to re-read 'Animal Farm'. Animal Farm was not a book that said Socialism in and of itself was evil, but attempted to recreate Stalin's corruption of it and it's ultimate change of the USSR into totalitarianism. The 1950's cartoon movie version definately tries to twist the ending into being a counter-revolutionary message, but being that it was created with CIA funds...well, what do you expect for that time period?

Orwell was primarily concerned with those who betrayed the so-called "grassroots" and became what they were initially fighting against (the main theme behind Animal Farm). Totalitarianism in an of itself he said was right to rail against, in ALL it's forms, from Nazi Germany to Communist Russia to North Korea. The grassroots in and of itself isn't the problem, but the corruption and manipulation of it is.

And anyone that uses the term commie-facist or islamo-facist or anything -facist needs to be beaten about the head with a large sack of retarded kittens. All it is is a pathetic attempt to link whatever the speaker/author thinks is evil to the true evils that were in existence in Nazi Germany. Yes, communism is a very unrealistic way of looking at the world (there will always be haves and have-nots), but the root versions of it had little to do with facism.

What the two DID have in common was their execution that was delivered by thier figureheads, Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler.

Take two seconds and read about how closely related this execution really was by the men that made it happen. It is trully frightening. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism#Communism_and_Fascism)

As for the video posted in #1....ehhh....little simplistic in my mind. Those of the psuedo-Anarchist movement like to think that those of us who wear a uniform are all evil men that want nothing more than to beat their heads in without thought.

Speaking as a Correctional Officer....if you didn't have us, you'd have some real monsters and thugs to deal with. If there is one true evil in this world today, it is the thug culture glorified by Hollywood and lived out by mostly young blacks. It's causing them to self-destruct into mindless selfishness that is simply passed on to the next generation. There are thugs and gangstas and dealers in there that will never change, and that need a bullet to the back of the head, to keep society protected from them. All they will do is go right back to the streets and right back into what they were doing, because it's easy. It takes little effort to sell drugs, get rich, and then sit on your ass in a 6x9 mooching off the state for a few months or years, then go right back to it.

I think Mr. Orwell said it best:

'I worked out an anarchistic theory that all government is evil, that the punishment always does more harm than the crime and the people can be trusted to behave decently if you will only let them alone.' In typical Orwellian style, he continues to deconstruct his own opinion as 'sentimental nonsense'. He continues 'it is always necessary to protect peaceful people from violence. In any state of society where crime can be profitable you have got to have a harsh criminal law and administer it ruthlessly'.

cpukill,

Very well put!

And you really need to re-read 'Animal Farm'. Animal Farm was not a book that said Socialism in and of itself was evil, but attempted to recreate Stalin's corruption of it and it's ultimate change of the USSR into totalitarianism. The 1950's cartoon movie version definately tries to twist the ending into being a counter-revolutionary message, but being that it was created with CIA funds...well, what do you expect for that time period?

Orwell was primarily concerned with those who betrayed the so-called "grassroots" and became what they were initially fighting against (the main theme behind Animal Farm). Totalitarianism in an of itself he said was right to rail against, in ALL it's forms, from Nazi Germany to Communist Russia to North Korea. The grassroots in and of itself isn't the problem, but the corruption and manipulation of it is.

In your last paragraph, you answer your own statement that you made in the above paragraphs. Socialist / communist / fascist movements only reward ruthlessness, as you remove any merit as a means for advancement. It all then comes down to power brokering to gain control. Socialist / communist / fascist movements create monsters like Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro, Chavez and Kim Jung Il - every time, no exception.


And anyone that uses the term commie-facist or islamo-facist or anything -facist needs to be beaten about the head with a large sack of retarded kittens. All it is is a pathetic attempt to link whatever the speaker/author thinks is evil to the true evils that were in existence in Nazi Germany. Yes, communism is a very unrealistic way of looking at the world (there will always be haves and have-nots), but the root versions of it had little to do with facism.

Read "Today's Ism's":

Link (http://www.amazon.com/Todays-ISMS-Socialism-Capitalism-Libertarianism/dp/0130257141)

for the proper definitions of these terms, and you will understand why I use them. Progressives have merely relabeled their commie-fascist tactics, and will shout down anyone who points them out, but I will keep a bright spotlight on their activities.


What the two DID have in common was their execution that was delivered by thier figureheads, Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler.

Take two seconds and read about how closely related this execution really was by the men that made it happen. It is trully frightening. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism#Communism_and_Fascism)

Again, you just cannot accept that socialism / communism / fascism yield these types of leaders. If you remove merit, it is only about ruthlessness.


As for the video posted in #1....ehhh....little simplistic in my mind. Those of the psuedo-Anarchist movement like to think that those of us who wear a uniform are all evil men that want nothing more than to beat their heads in without thought.

Real events and real concerns filtered through an ignorant mind often sounds simplistic.


Speaking as a Correctional Officer....if you didn't have us, you'd have some real monsters and thugs to deal with. If there is one true evil in this world today, it is the thug culture glorified by Hollywood and lived out by mostly young blacks. It's causing them to self-destruct into mindless selfishness that is simply passed on to the next generation. There are thugs and gangstas and dealers in there that will never change, and that need a bullet to the back of the head, to keep society protected from them. All they will do is go right back to the streets and right back into what they were doing, because it's easy. It takes little effort to sell drugs, get rich, and then sit on your ass in a 6x9 mooching off the state for a few months or years, then go right back to it.

Security is the cornerstone of a society and its economy.


I think Mr. Orwell said it best:

'I worked out an anarchistic theory that all government is evil, that the punishment always does more harm than the crime and the people can be trusted to behave decently if you will only let them alone.' In typical Orwellian style, he continues to deconstruct his own opinion as 'sentimental nonsense'. He continues 'it is always necessary to protect peaceful people from violence. In any state of society where crime can be profitable you have got to have a harsh criminal law and administer it ruthlessly'.

No argument there - now we only have to sort out what behavior is considered criminal. Capitalists and socialists have radically different ideas on that, and there-in lies the fundamental conflict.

In your last paragraph, you answer your own statement that you made in the above paragraphs. Socialist / communist / fascist movements only reward ruthlessness, as you remove any merit as a means for advancement. It all then comes down to power brokering to gain control. Socialist / communist / fascist movements create monsters like Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro, Chavez and Kim Jung Il - every time, no exception.

As they have been excecuted thus-far, yes, they have. Had Stalin not come to power and it been Lenin or Trotsky....would have been interesting to observe...but would it have changed the outcome, or just created a Stalin-like leader later on?

Who knows. History has seen to it that Communism is instantly put together with Stalin whenever it is mentioned, and as a system of politics, it requires total commitment to the ideals of equality that are unrealistic by whoever is executing the revolution. That, flat-out won't happen.

Some people seem to assume because I carry some leftist ideas that I think communism is a good thing, because, well, a lot of hard-leftists do...but, if I can put it another way, I'm more of a Libertarian Democrat than anything else.

I know you don't much like Markos, but I think that the ideas of what he wrote about Libertarian Democrats are spot-on with 90% of the people in this country. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/7/131550/7297)

As for whether he's betrayed his ideals with books and power-hunger...well, I won't 100% disagree with you there. But for it being two years old, that set of ideals still rings true in my mind.


Read "Today's Ism's":

Link (http://www.amazon.com/Todays-ISMS-Socialism-Capitalism-Libertarianism/dp/0130257141)

for the proper definitions of these terms, and you will understand why I use them. Progressives have merely relabeled their commie-fascist tactics, and will shout down anyone who points them out, but I will keep a bright spotlight on their activities.

I wouldn't neccisarilly call the tactics used by the leftists today in the vein of facism...simply because people have enough sense anymore to see through them. Facists desired an Authoritarian state, which isn't unlike Communist Russia, but that completely believed in the state. Communism in its theoretical forms claims to be stateless (though of course history has proven that impossible), leaving the populace to be completely equal and want for nothing, whereas facism always has a hierachy by which those at the top control all other levels.

Now...STALINISM was similar to Facism. You had complete state control concentrated in one man, repression of dissenting opinions, and a personality cult very similar to National Socialism of Nazi Germany.

And if I recall correctly, the two facist regimes in the 20th Century, Nazi Germany and Facist Italy, were vehemently anti-communist.


Again, you just cannot accept that socialism / communism / fascism yield these types of leaders. If you remove merit, it is only about ruthlessness.

In the current form, Communism and Facism, yes, have both yielded dictators the likes of which we have never seen. Facism was never intended to be equal for all, just a concentration of power in the few. Communism was, but is impossible to carry out.

Now...SOCIALISM is a questionable term. Different aspects of Socialsm have been used in different societies to mixed results, whether socialized medicine, socialized oil companies (ala Venezuela), or socialized economic structures, such as the French and other European countries taking complete control of power generation. Hell, we even have it in a partial form in terms of the USPS.

Sometimes it has worked, sometimes it hasn't, unlike Communism, Socialsm in and of itself is very fluid, whereas Communism has a strict goal set and a way to achive it. True Socialism as the loonies would have it, yes, would fall into the same pitfalls as Communism. But blindly dismissing it and leaving the markets completely open as Ayn Rand's wet dream of free-market Capitalism is what has gotten us $4.00+/gallon gas in the US (and much, much higher in the Euros). The market has decided to completely ignore what happens to the rest of us, and rules of supply and demand, just as long as they make money by investing in oil futures.

But State control of all facets of gas and oil production? Would work in theory...but in practice...well, Venezuela ain't exactly what I'd call a good example since I think 40% of their vehicles run on ethanol anyways?


Real events and real concerns filtered through an ignorant mind often sounds simplistic.

I'm going to assume you were talking about the video's creator, and not me :p


Security is the cornerstone of a society and its economy.

So long as it doesn't inhibit personal liberty.

I've got no problem with people demonstrating, but the second it interferes with someone else trying to listen to a speech, destroys public or private property, it's interfering with others rights to personal freedom and freedom from destruction.

If it turns violent and starts causing innocent casualties and/or my brothers and sisters in blue to be injured, it's game on. Violence on that scale has to be met with force, whether at the end of a club, a can of OC, or the barrel of a gun, dissent on that scale can quickly turn into chaos.

Order has to be present, or else anarchy and its evils will rule.


No argument there - now we only have to sort out what behavior is considered criminal. Capitalists and socialists have radically different ideas on that, and there-in lies the fundamental conflict.

Completely agree with that. Honestly...a middle ground is going to have to be met, in my eyes. Capitalists have to accept that government regulation is neccisary to prevent abuse of monopoly and price manipulation, and Socialists have to accept that the Government is NOT the solution to every single problem, and that Government control can do more harm than good in some situations.

As they have been excecuted thus-far, yes, they have. Had Stalin not come to power and it been Lenin or Trotsky....would have been interesting to observe...but would it have changed the outcome, or just created a Stalin-like leader later on?

Who knows. History has seen to it that Communism is instantly put together with Stalin whenever it is mentioned, and as a system of politics, it requires total commitment to the ideals of equality that are unrealistic by whoever is executing the revolution. That, flat-out won't happen.

Several data points make a trend. If you remove merit as a means of advancement in an organization, then the only remaining quality for getting ahead is ruthlessness.


Some people seem to assume because I carry some leftist ideas that I think communism is a good thing, because, well, a lot of hard-leftists do...but, if I can put it another way, I'm more of a Libertarian Democrat than anything else.

I am a full blown Randian Objectivist, and only support government in its ability to reinforce free market forces.


I know you don't much like Markos, but I think that the ideas of what he wrote about Libertarian Democrats are spot-on with 90% of the people in this country. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/7/131550/7297)

As for whether he's betrayed his ideals with books and power-hunger...well, I won't 100% disagree with you there. But for it being two years old, that set of ideals still rings true in my mind.

Kos is brazenly intellectually dishonest, preferring to manipulate indicators like opinion polls to support his statements, instead of any real objective metrics. Steve Colbert nailed Kos after his speech, and showed him to be exactly who he was, a power drunk megalomaniac.


I wouldn't neccisarilly call the tactics used by the leftists today in the vein of facism...simply because people have enough sense anymore to see through them. Facists desired an Authoritarian state, which isn't unlike Communist Russia, but that completely believed in the state. Communism in its theoretical forms claims to be stateless (though of course history has proven that impossible), leaving the populace to be completely equal and want for nothing, whereas facism always has a hierachy by which those at the top control all other levels.

Make no mistake, Progressives are completely hiding their agenda behind promises of a bright future, without explaining what policies they intend to implement.


Now...STALINISM was similar to Facism. You had complete state control concentrated in one man, repression of dissenting opinions, and a personality cult very similar to National Socialism of Nazi Germany.

Communism always evolves into fascism. "Today's Isms, 11th edition" states that communism is the coerced industrialization of a undeveloped economy, whereas fascism is a means to redirect the policies of an industrialized economy, so when communism succeeds in industrializing an economy, it is then an operating fascist state. Look at modern Russia, withholding natural gas and petroleum from Ukraine and other neighboring states in an attempt coerce their governments into various policy positions - they are the next rising fascist state, as well as Venezuela.


And if I recall correctly, the two facist regimes in the 20th Century, Nazi Germany and Facist Italy, were vehemently anti-communist.

Fascists and communists compete for the same grassroots support. Again, in "Today's Isms", communists are left with over educated (indoctrinated) elitists, whereas fascist appeal to them and most all sub-classes of society who want a new deal.


In the current form, Communism and Facism, yes, have both yielded dictators the likes of which we have never seen. Facism was never intended to be equal for all, just a concentration of power in the few. Communism was, but is impossible to carry out.

Communism will always evolve into fascism - no exceptions.


Now...SOCIALISM is a questionable term. Different aspects of Socialsm have been used in different societies to mixed results, whether socialized medicine, socialized oil companies (ala Venezuela), or socialized economic structures, such as the French and other European countries taking complete control of power generation. Hell, we even have it in a partial form in terms of the USPS.

There may be socialist policies and socialized constructs, but those are inevitably displaced. Witness how USPS is challenged by UPS, FedEx and others for the most profitable segments of parcel delivery. Space X and Virgin Galactic are starting to move in on the most profitable parts of NASA's domain of space travel. Even England's socialized medicine is being "supplemented" by insurance for those who can afford it.


Sometimes it has worked, sometimes it hasn't, unlike Communism, Socialsm in and of itself is very fluid, whereas Communism has a strict goal set and a way to achive it. True Socialism as the loonies would have it, yes, would fall into the same pitfalls as Communism. But blindly dismissing it and leaving the markets completely open as Ayn Rand's wet dream of free-market Capitalism is what has gotten us $4.00+/gallon gas in the US (and much, much higher in the Euros). The market has decided to completely ignore what happens to the rest of us, and rules of supply and demand, just as long as they make money by investing in oil futures.

Ayn Rand believed in security, and the use of force against "looters" of a Capitalistic system, so she understood the place of regulation.


But State control of all facets of gas and oil production? Would work in theory...but in practice...well, Venezuela ain't exactly what I'd call a good example since I think 40% of their vehicles run on ethanol anyways?

Nationalizing oil revenues was merely a means for Chavez to maintain power, using socialism as a selling point.


I'm going to assume you were talking about the video's creator, and not me :p

Correct.


So long as it doesn't inhibit personal liberty.

I've got no problem with people demonstrating, but the second it interferes with someone else trying to listen to a speech, destroys public or private property, it's interfering with others rights to personal freedom and freedom from destruction.

If it turns violent and starts causing innocent casualties and/or my brothers and sisters in blue to be injured, it's game on. Violence on that scale has to be met with force, whether at the end of a club, a can of OC, or the barrel of a gun, dissent on that scale can quickly turn into chaos.

Order has to be present, or else anarchy and its evils will rule.

Mob violence is easy to incite - it's those who incite it that should be severely punished.


Completely agree with that. Honestly...a middle ground is going to have to be met, in my eyes. Capitalists have to accept that government regulation is neccisary to prevent abuse of monopoly and price manipulation, and Socialists have to accept that the Government is NOT the solution to every single problem, and that Government control can do more harm than good in some situations.

I think Capitalism, especially Venture Capitalism will leave, or has already left government behind, and is solving problems government has failed to address. Space X, Tesla Motors, Virgin Galactic, Nanosolar, etc. are already addressing things that our current system isn't, so it's best to vote defensively - divided government, blocking tax increases - basically anything that reduced the power and size of government.

Jason,

Be specific about how you think the government should be involved in the shift to a sustainable energy infrastructure. Wind and solar would have no chance against coal on a large scale without government subsidies and regulations.

Jason,

Be specific about how you think the government should be involved in the shift to a sustainable energy infrastructure. Wind and solar would have no chance against coal on a large scale without government subsidies and regulations.

You only need to look at the example of compact flourescent lightbulbs. Only after Wal-Mart sold millions of them, did the Congress pass a law to phase out incandescents. When our country has converted over to renewable energy sources, then incandescents can be sold again (but by then LED lights will be of sufficient quality to compete).

If you read my other posts, the 10 GW solar farm planned for the Mojave anticipates $0.08 per Watt - competitive with coal. Wind is already there, as larger and larger turbines give you more and more cost competitive rates.

As Amory Lovins states, there is no need for anymore regulations from our governments - there is enough financial and security reasons to use renewable energy.

You only need to look at the example of compact flourescent lightbulbs. Only after Wal-Mart sold millions of them, did the Congress pass a law to phase out incandescents. When our country has converted over to renewable energy sources, then incandescents can be sold again (but by then LED lights will be of sufficient quality to compete).

If you read my other posts, the 10 GW solar farm planned for the Mojave anticipates $0.08 per Watt - competitive with coal. Wind is already there, as larger and larger turbines give you more and more cost competitive rates.

As Amory Lovins states, there is no need for anymore regulations from our governments - there is enough financial and security reasons to use renewable energy.

Assuming you meant $0.08/kWh, that is still 2X more expensive than coal and that's for a plant in the Mojave. What about all the places that need power that aren't near a desert? Saying solar and wind can compete with coal doesn't make it true.

Again, Amory Lovins has been saying that for a long time without building a profitable world-changing business.

Assuming you meant $0.08/kWh, that is still 2X more expensive than coal and that's for a plant in the Mojave. What about all the places that need power that aren't near a desert? Saying solar and wind can compete with coal doesn't make it true.

Again, Amory Lovins has been saying that for a long time without building a profitable world-changing business.

Costs can be viewed in terms of a threshhold. As long as renewable energies become affordable, they needn't meet or beat the cost of coal. Utilities, municipalities, cities and states will opt for the renewable energy source for other reasons, once the cost threshold is met.

I like to think of myself as a rather unique individual. I am a logical creative musician kind of person. Most of the time science doesn't collide with poetry to often. So, I was thinking about the volt and how the effects of it being mass produced could effect the mentality of our nation and cause the two to collide like a particle excellerator. I have begun a home town campaign without anyone knowing it. I don't like to come out in advertisement because it makes it seem as if you have something to sell. So, I have spread the word of the volt through conversation whenever it applies and it has been rather interesting. The reaction to the idea has been very solid. People have no alliance to the combustion engine. It is all about the gas prices at this point and anything to get rid of them is a GO.

I have seen a lot of very informed post on this forum about the technology behind these cars. The thing that I have been wanting to see is some of the deep rooted feelings about our nation and how strongly you feel about this current situation.

I look at these climbing gas prices as a weapon and these oil nations are pointing them straight at us. So many questions about why, how, or straight up WTF comes out of the oil industry. Like...the simple question of "why are gas prices so high?" I mean it isn't costing anymore now to produce and refine the oil than it was a few years back yet the price keeps climbing....there is no shortage of oil because obviously we just keep coming up with it day after day...yet the prices keep climbing......so for me this is a very emotional thing. It leads me to thoughts that I wish I never had to have. Like the idea that our nation has been basically ignorant to it's flaws and our elected leaders have ignored things that should have been taken care of long ago. It builds fear in me and anger toward so many different targets that I can't truly explain them. With answers as simple as "revamp our electric grid to run mainly on renewable, clean, and independent energy sources, and transform our transportation to electric powered vehicles", just sitting their for the taking, why doesn't someone just stand up and say it? Why all this hum hawlin around? All this just bothers me greatly and the other day a video was showed to me by a friend. After, watching it I imagined our world coming to this and the reason for it coming to what was in that video. I know it isn't reasonable and so highly unlikely that I'd bet everything I own against it yet it is powerful enough that it made me take notice. So, I want to share it with you now......I am not sure what kind of music lovers we have on these forums but here we are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuK2A1ZqoWs

What do you think? No handlebars?

I'm skipping back to the original post made by "everything.imp" because it's so different from most of the techno-nerd babble we post on this site; which is all very appropriate to discuss technical issues, but 95% of the world doesn't even grasp these discussions; and if 95% of the world doesn't care, then there is no political power pushing the development of the Plug-In Series Hybrid to market.

When the Volt project was first unveiled it was recognized as a technological revolution, but now that our economy is taking the hit from high oil prices, and from30 years and $3.5 Trillion of bleeding money to OPEC, and with people losing jobs, now the energy, intensity and passion is there to move plug-ins into the national political spotlight. The masses don't need to know the details, the prospect of doing your daily driving with NO GAS is just the knockout punch everyone would love to throw at OPEC, Big Oil, and the wimps in Washington who have failed for 30 years to bring balance to America's Energy policy (no new CAFE standards since 1985, why not just hold a gun to America's head and shoot).

So maybe we need a Volt-Nation March on Washington, or better yet an EV drive-in where everyone from GM and Tesla Motors, to the Rav-4, Ford Ranger EV owners clubs, Pheonix motors, Fisker motors, and a thousand EV hobbyists park their EVs on the Washington Mall and make speeches from the Lincoln Monument, and do this every year as an annual event until the market is full of driving options. The least we can do is drop a letter to your congressmen asking them to support this idea:

https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml

If GM would bring the Malibu-Volt mule test car, and dust off a few EV1s (especially the 1998 EV-1 Series-Hybrid 40-mile prototype) and bring them to D.C. I think the rest of us could get the word out to clubs and maybe pluginamerica.org could pull the organizing strings (permit to use the Lincoln Monument and park on the Mall, etc). America doesn't know any of this is possible and all I can ask is Why Isn't Anyone Showing Them. And we especially don't want the government running down any more dark alleys like hydrogen power or ethanol. Let's make sure this time that PHEVs with longer and longer ranges become the cornerstone of America's Energy Policy.

It looks like my plan worked. Took a little longer than expected but it did work. Although, the first person that replied talking about that video being cute and to kiddie for him....must not have watched it all...or was being rather sarcastic which he evidently needs to work on a bit.

Can't wait to vote for Barak!