# Stupid question



## terryl965 (Jun 5, 2009)

What has been the dumbest move our government has made in the last ten years? I was reading an article about alternative fuel for cars and I was amazed we have the power to run on pure water but the federal governmennt will not allow this to happen, so to me it has got to be that but I know alot of you have other views and topics that could be an interesting read so I will be waiting to hear them.


----------



## geezer (Jun 5, 2009)

terryl965 said:


> What has been the dumbest move our government has made in the last ten years? I was reading an article about alternative fuel for cars and I was amazed we have the power to run on pure water but the federal governmennt will not allow this to happen...



I'm no scientist or engineer, but Tom and Ray Magliozzi (Click and Clack from the radio show _Car Talk_) are MIT grads and know an awful lot about automobiles. They, and others, have confirmed that the old "cars can be made to run on water" thing is another urban legend. They claim it's totally untrue, but a favorite topic of conspiracy buffs. Anybody have better info. on this topic? Anybody other than _Dale Dribble_, that is.


----------



## terryl965 (Jun 5, 2009)

I am just going by what some are saying. I am no engineer so I would not now if it is true or not, so I will take your word for it. What about the question about what is the dumbest thing our government has done?


----------



## elder999 (Jun 5, 2009)

terryl965 said:


> What has been the dumbest move our government has made in the last ten years?


 

That's easy. The SCOTUS decision in 2000, _Bush v. Gore_.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 5, 2009)

terryl965 said:


> What has been the dumbest move our government has made in the last ten years? I was reading an article about alternative fuel for cars and I was amazed we have the power to run on pure water but the federal governmennt will not allow this to happen, so to me it has got to be that but I know alot of you have other views and topics that could be an interesting read so I will be waiting to hear them.



Water cannot be converted to fuel for cars without expending more energy to do the conversion than you get from the fuel produced.  It cannot be disputed scientifically.  Only crackpots think otherwise.  Seriously.

As to the dumbest thing our government (I presume you mean the US government), I would say it was the invasion of Iraq.  At least, that is the most obviously stupid.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 5, 2009)

not having 100% of our electrical grid produced by nuclear


----------



## Big Don (Jun 5, 2009)

In the last decade? Not convicting Clinton during his impeachment.
In the last 20? Not finishing the job in Iraq in 91. Well, that is a tie with going all namby pamby with North Korea on Nuclear issues...
In the last 35? Giving up control of the Panama Canal.
In the last 40? Choosing not to decisively win in Vietnam.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 5, 2009)

Big Don said:


> In the last decade? Not convicting Clinton during his impeachment.



Um, what?  He was convicted, he stood impeached.  Done deal.  Do you mean not charging him with crimes and taking him to trial?  I don't think the American public had the stomach for that by then.  They just wanted it to be over.  His term ended, and it was over.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 5, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Um, what?  He was convicted, he stood impeached.  Done deal.  Do you mean not charging him with crimes and taking him to trial?  I don't think the American public had the stomach for that by then.  They just wanted it to be over.  His term ended, and it was over.


The trial proceedings were largely party-line, with no Democratic Senators voting for conviction and only five Democratic Representatives voting to impeach. *In all, 55 senators voted not guilty, and 45 voted guilty on the perjury charge. The Senate also acquitted on the charge of obstruction, with 50 votes cast as not guilty, and 50 votes as guilty*


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 5, 2009)

Big Don said:


> The trial proceedings were largely party-line, with no Democratic Senators voting for conviction and only five Democratic Representatives voting to impeach. *In all, 55 senators voted not guilty, and 45 voted guilty on the perjury charge. The Senate also acquitted on the charge of obstruction, with 50 votes cast as not guilty, and 50 votes as guilty*



Thanks for the link instead of a response, but the House voted to Impeach.  He was indeed impeached, despite being acquitted in the Senate.  I presume you mean he should have also been convicted in the Senate.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 5, 2009)

Bill, Impeached by the House is the Congressional equivalent of being indicted. The trial takes place in the Senate and he was acquitted of both charges, mostly because the Republicans were too timid to go all out.


----------



## geezer (Jun 6, 2009)

Big Don said:


> In the last 40? Choosing not to decisively win in Vietnam.


Or a decade earlier... choosing to go into Vietnam in the first place!


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 6, 2009)

standing up to the russians was a noble and needed thing.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 6, 2009)

geezer said:


> Or a decade earlier... choosing to go into Vietnam in the first place!


Well, had the French not abandoned their colonies, we wouldn't have had to...


----------



## geezer (Jun 6, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> *standing up to the russians* was a noble and needed thing.


We did that in Cuba... almost blew the world up in the process. Did we have to fight a proxy war in Vietnam too? As I recall, Ho Chi Minh and his followers didn't want _any_ colonial power to run their country. They didn't want the French, the Chinese, the US, or the Russians. They just turned to Russia for help getting rid of us. And, after we left, they got eventually rid of the Russians too. Now, like the Chinese, they make stuff and sell it to us. And that's just what would have happened if we'd never gone there in the first place. But if you think it was worth 50,000 American lives to show the Russians how tough we were... well nothing I can say will change your mind.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 6, 2009)

yeah, cuz showing weakness i soooooo much more effective when dealing with communists............


----------



## Big Don (Jun 6, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> yeah, cuz showing weakness i soooooo much more effective when dealing with communists............


Or terrorists...
Or sparring partners...


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jun 6, 2009)

Big Don said:


> In the last decade? Not convicting Clinton during his impeachment.



It has always been my understanding that he did not lie according to the definition of 'sexual relationship' as defined by the attorney general. Is this not correct?
Semantics, I know, but that is what legalese is all about.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 6, 2009)

Bruno@MT said:


> It has always been my understanding that he did not lie according to the definition of 'sexual relationship' as defined by the attorney general. Is this not correct?
> Semantics, I know, but that is what legalese is all about.


That Bill Clinton, he can parse words better than anyone. It depends on what your definition of IS is...


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 7, 2009)

terryl965 said:


> What has been the dumbest move our government has made in the last ten years? I was reading an article about alternative fuel for cars and I was amazed we have the power to run on pure water but the federal governmennt will not allow this to happen, so to me it has got to be that but I know alot of you have other views and topics that could be an interesting read so I will be waiting to hear them.


 

Terry,

If you mean by water, you mean a Hydrogen Fuel Cell, then yes it is possible. But, the "engine" would cost of $10,000 USD before the recent spike in precious metals to create. This is not cost effective.

There was a demo done by a Japanese man in Japan, but he had to cancel two days in a rwo as the temeprature was too cold. Think in the high 50 Deg F to Low 60 Deg F range. Of course it is possible to run your car but, only in Certain temperatures. 

From what I have read on a Tesla Electric vehicle ~$90,000 it does have a decent range but one has to let it charge up completely for best or optimum efficeincy when you do charge it and it takes around 29 hours. So one might need three vehicles to operate on a daily basis. 

I say this as many times the data is present with a target impact in mind or with the best intentions, but certain key facts are left out. 

I recently saw an article about Xerox and their new CEO the First African American Woman. They mentioned that 59.6% of the work force are women and that the glass ceiling is still there. What this does not count is what degrees make up CEO's and out of those degrees who many, ..., . My point is that 50% or 59% of the female population does not go and get engineering degrees or MBA's. The data is presented in a manner of the authors choosing. 

Do you have a link to the "water" article?


----------



## geezer (Jun 8, 2009)

Well, if the OP asked for us to come up with really, really_ stupid_ things the government has done... we can all agree that there is no shortage of material. The problem is, since we choose our leaders through a somewhat democratic process, it's hard to come up with anything so stupid that you won't have an equally big bunch of people who think it was a good idea. 

Look at the response to war (which is usually considered a bad thing):

-- the war in Iraq. I say stupid. you?
-- the war in Vietnam? I say stupid. you?
-- Korea? Hell, in light of what Kim Jong Il has been up to... I don't know. Maybe McAurthur was right? 
-- WWII? Not stupid, more like _survival._

Here's a different one. I work with a Canadian who's a permanent resident of the US. He's very capitalistic, conservative, and quite happy to be living down here in the states. Warmer too... here in Arizona, anyway. So the other day, he was going on about how the Revolutionary War was basically an unnecessary waste of time. "Really", he claimed, "All you needed was patience. After all, eventually you would have gotten your independence anyway without having to fight for it ...like Canada". 

My response, "Yeah. except then _this would be Canada_, Mr. Can't stand the creeping socialism, socialized medicine and people who speak French". All of which is very funny since I'm a native Arizonan, but I _like_ Canada. Including Quebec. In the summers anyway.


----------



## K-man (Jun 8, 2009)

geezer said:


> I'm no scientist or engineer, but Tom and Ray Magliozzi (Click and Clack from the radio show _Car Talk_) are MIT grads and know an awful lot about automobiles. They, and others, have confirmed that the old "cars can be made to run on water" thing is another urban legend. They claim it's totally untrue, but a favorite topic of conspiracy buffs. Anybody have better info. on this topic? Anybody other than _Dale Dribble_, that is.


I have two friends who have built these. One is in the testing phase and the other is working on a new diesel 4x4. It has improved the fuel performance by 25%. The unit is about the size of an ordinary battery and he tops up the water each time he fills up with diesel.  The guy is an electronics engineer but there are many kits available on the internet.
Check out this site: http://www.alternate-energy-sources.com/water-fuel.html


----------



## Big Don (Jun 8, 2009)

geezer said:


> -- the war in Iraq. I say stupid. you?


I say stupid was letting Saddam shoot at our aircraft and fund terrorism for ten extra years





> -- the war in Vietnam? I say stupid. you?


 Going in without the will to win? Yeah, that was stupid. 





> -- Korea? Hell, in light of what Kim Jong Il has been up to... I don't know. Maybe McAurthur was right?


Yeah, Mac Arthur was right, there is no substitute for victory...





> -- WWII? Not stupid, more like _survival._
> 
> Here's a different one. I work with a Canadian who's a permanent resident of the US. He's very capitalistic, conservative, and quite happy to be living down here in the states. Warmer too... here in Arizona, anyway. So the other day, he was going on about how the Revolutionary War was basically an unnecessary waste of time. "Really", he claimed, "All you needed was patience. After all, eventually you would have gotten your independence anyway without having to fight for it ...like Canada".
> 
> My response, "Yeah. except then _this would be Canada_, Mr. Can't stand the creeping socialism, socialized medicine and people who speak French". All of which is very funny since I'm a native Arizonan, but I _like_ Canada. Including Quebec. In the summers anyway.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 8, 2009)

K-man said:


> I have two friends who have built these. One is in the testing phase and the other is working on a new diesel 4x4. It has improved the fuel performance by 25%. The unit is about the size of an ordinary battery and he tops up the water each time he fills up with diesel.  The guy is an electronics engineer but there are many kits available on the internet.
> Check out this site: http://www.alternate-energy-sources.com/water-fuel.html



Does not and cannot work.  Ever. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water-fuelled_car

Seriously, anyone who believes this is seriously deluded.  If they have an advanced degree, shame on them.  You cannot get more energy out of the equation than you put into it, period.



> *Electrolysis*
> 
> See also: Electrolysis of water
> Many alleged water-fuelled cars obtain hydrogen or a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen (sometimes called "oxyhydrogen", "HHO", or "Brown's Gas") by the electrolysis of water, a process that must be powered electrically. The hydrogen or oxyhydrogen is then burned, supposedly powering the car and also providing the energy to electrolyse more water. The overall process can be represented by the following chemical equations:
> 2H2O &#8594; 2H2 + O2 [Electrolysis step]2H2 + O2 &#8594; 2H2O [Combustion step] Since the combustion step is the exact reverse of the electrolysis step, the energy released in combustion exactly equals the energy consumed in the electrolysis step, andeven assuming 100% efficiencythere would be no energy left over to power the car. In other words, such systems start and end in the same thermodynamic state, and are therefore perpetual motion machines, violating the first law of thermodynamics. And under actual conditions in which hydrogen is burned, efficiency is limited by the second law of thermodynamics and is likely to be around 20%.[9][10] More energy is therefore required to drive the electrolysis cell than can be extracted from burning the resulting hydrogen-oxygen mixture.


----------



## geezer (Jun 8, 2009)

K-man said:


> I have two friends who have built these. One is in the testing phase and the other is working on a new diesel 4x4. It has improved the fuel performance by 25%. The unit is about the size of an ordinary battery and he tops up the water each time he fills up with diesel.  The guy is an electronics engineer but there are many kits available on the internet.
> Check out this site: http://www.alternate-energy-sources.com/water-fuel.html



Hmmm. I don't know. It looks like it could use electricity to break down water and generate hydrogen and oxygen. And, yes you can use that as fuel. But, you have to burn fuel to power the alternator to generate electricy to do the electrolysis, to generate the hydrogen as fuel so you can burn it and turn it back into water...

And I never took physics, even in high school, but i know that no machine is 100% efficient. That's the whole "perpetual motion" thingie. So, in short, you go to a lot of work to make and burn hydrogen out of water, only to have a net loss of energy and _lower _your milage. 

Or, in short, _What Bill said._


Hell, I'm just an art teacher who flunked math in high school, K-Man. If even I can see through this, you aren't looking hard enough!


----------



## elder999 (Jun 8, 2009)

geezer said:


> Hmmm. I don't know. It looks like it could use electricity to break down water and generate hydrogen and oxygen. And, yes you can use that as fuel. But, you have to burn fuel to power the alternator to generate electricy to do the electrolysis, to generate the hydrogen as fuel so you can burn it and turn it back into water...
> 
> And I never took physics, even in high school, but i know that no machine is 100% efficient. That's the whole "perpetual motion" thingie. So, in short, you go to a lot of work to make and burn hydrogen out of water, only to have a net loss of energy and _lower _your milage.


 
Kind of. There are,_naturally_, several "hippie types" in the Santa Fe area running and selling this and similar systems, and this is what I tell them and anyone else who brings the subject up:

The internal combustion engine isn't very efficient-nothing we use in terms of engines really is, but only about 15% of an engine's energy consumption is actually used to _move_ a vehicle, the rest is normally lost as heat, friction,inertia or supporting auxilliaries (like heat _removal_). Sometimes, as in the case of the biodiesel folks, you can use waste product for processes: a lot of the "greasel" people use exhaust flow to preheat their fuel. The same notion applies to the turbocharger: exhaust gases used to propel air and increase compression.

In theory, you _could _piggyback a system like these electrolysis kits to produce hydrogen, but the energy has to come from somewhere-in this case, since it's electrolysis, not the battery-as the webpage states-but the _alternator._ Consequently, while it's going to produce hydrogen for use, it's making the engine work a little harder, and that means the engine is using more fuel, which kind of should make it a wash. In theory, you could probably come up with some scheme to limit those losses, like a second smaller alternator where the AC compressor goes, but then your mileage would only be as good as if you were running the AC all the time, and you wouldn't have AC anymore. You might be able to work from something lost, like generators that run on braking energy, but that wouldn't do diddly for you on the highway.

I'm also not so sure about the benefits of burning a hydrogen/gasoline mixture: our engines have always been engineered to run "dirty" at one time gasoline had lead in it, and this was taken into account and acted as a lubricant in the cylinders. Making an engine run cleaner-and, more than likely, a little bit cooler-is not necessarily a good thing for it if it wasn't designed to do so.

Sooner or later, though, someone will come up with a good combination for this sort of equipment by starting from scratch-a more efficient lighter and smaller internal combustion engine like The OX2, coupled with some sort of hydrogen from water production system..............
.........at which point, they will of course be promptly killed. :lol:



Twin Fist said:


> not having 100% of our electrical grid produced by nuclear


 
Actually, unlike automotive engineering, which is only a serious hobby for me, this is my field. There are several historical reasons: political, geographical,technological, demographic and business wise for this not happening. You should think of the country's past 52 years of commercial nuclear power production as a long experiment-we've learned some good things, and we've learned a lot about what not to do.  If you  look into the history of that experiment, though, you'll find that even the utilities were reluctant to take the risks, and the government had a variety of incentives to induce them to do so, including underwriting *all* the insurance for such facilities. Quite frankly, nuclear power in the U.S. has been regulated to the point where it's almost economically unviable, and any resumption should really require the kind of controls and system that they've used in places where it's been successful, like *France*. That sort of strict governmental control-even with the partnership of private industry-smacks too much of socialism for some people's tastes, perhaps because it is, so it will probably never happen that way.


----------



## K-man (Jun 9, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Does not and cannot work. Ever.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water-fuelled_car
> 
> Seriously, anyone who believes this is seriously deluded. If they have an advanced degree, shame on them. You cannot get more energy out of the equation than you put into it, period.


Firstly, I did not say that the vehicle was running just on water. The gas generated supplements the normal fuel. Secondly, the system is there, it is running, it is dyno tested. I am not deluded, I am not even seriously deluded, in fact most of the time I am quite sane. :erg: I do get pissed off when someone with obviously no experience with Brown Gas generators makes a categoric statement as set out in the above quote. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Maybe you did not read my post. *THE FUEL SAVING IS 25%. *It can work, it is working. This system also has a boost built in for overtaking but I suppose that is impossible too! :shrug:
I agree with you that you cannot get more energy out of a system than you put in except in this system you are using energy to separate the molecules, then burning the resultant fuel. I do not know where the excess energy is generated from but can surmise it is from energy normally lost in the inefficiency of the engine to the drive. I have no idea what percentage of the power generated actually reaches the road. I have photos of the unit but can't work out how to attach them. If anyone would like to see the unit PM me and I will email it to you. :asian:


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jun 9, 2009)

Well the idiot's that we voted in have sure done a great job of messing thing's up.  Personally I think you could pick a dozen or so things that have really been big mess up's.  All of them deal with utilizing our wealth and resources in a poor manner.  Anything that causes our country to continue to throw money away is a real problem for us at this point. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




We simply are not in good financial shape anymore.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 9, 2009)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Well the idiot's that we voted in have sure done a great job of messing thing's up. Personally I think you could pick a dozen or so things that have really been big mess up's. All of them deal with utilizing our wealth and resources in a poor manner. Anything that causes our country to continue to throw money away is a real problem for us at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
But Brian those were loans, and are to be paid back some time hopefully, unless they negotiated a separate deal such as with the auto companies and taking "interest" in ownership. 

I am not sure if what was done was right, but if I could get a briefing or someone I trusted got a briefing then I could maybe understand why.


----------



## theletch1 (Jun 9, 2009)

> Firstly, I did not say that the vehicle was running just on water. The gas generated supplements the normal fuel. Secondly, the system is there, it is running, it is dyno tested. I am not deluded, I am not even seriously deluded, in fact most of the time I am quite sane. :erg: I do get pissed off when someone with obviously no experience with Brown Gas generators makes a categoric statement as set out in the above quote.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




According to Da Rulez (section 4.17.1) you have to be a supporting member to post images.  Supporting membership also gives you access to quite a few features that you don't already have access to.  Check it out here.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jun 9, 2009)

Rich Parsons said:


> But Brian those were loans, and are to be paid back some time hopefully, unless they negotiated a separate deal such as with the auto companies and taking "interest" in ownership.
> 
> I am not sure if what was done was right, but if I could get a briefing or someone I trusted got a briefing then I could maybe understand why.



Hey Rich,

I have no problem with loans and then collecting them. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




My issues lie with throwing money away in conflict or perceived crisis that may not be necessary or giving wealth away without a significant return in some form.  I also have issues with money management in robbing or taking money from one program and then utilizing it for other things.  Our Government has managed our money poorly and in turn that is why we as a country will be and are having some issues. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




I am all about not throwing our nation's wealth away!  Unfortunately we have been doing a good job of it.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 9, 2009)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Hey Rich,
> 
> I have no problem with loans and then collecting them.
> 
> ...


 
I agree that it seems like a poor job has been done for a long time. For even when things were going well, the loans we borrowed from oursleves were not paid back. 



But, people should complaing, and they should talk to others and they should write blogs and they should most importantly call their elected officals at teh state and fed levels and tell them what they think. Many times there will be an aid that is there to just answer the phone and "listen" while the system records your message.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jun 9, 2009)

terryl965 said:


> What has been the dumbest move our government has made in the last ten years? I was reading an article about alternative fuel for cars and I was amazed we have the power to run on pure water but the federal governmennt will not allow this to happen, so to me it has got to be that but I know alot of you have other views and topics that could be an interesting read so I will be waiting to hear them.


 
I don't think I could pick just one... There's just too many to choose from. 

There are hydrogen cars, but they're not viable at this moment for reasons already stated. But hey...it wasn't viable for everyone to own a computer at one point in history either and now everybody pretty much has one. Patience, Grasshopper. 

If I could answer generally, I'd say it was any piece of legislation or other action that contradicted the US Constitution or human rights. Now... you go dig up all of those occurances and get back to me. It may be hard to do though, because by the time you finish I may have died from old age. LOL


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 9, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> not having 100% of our electrical grid produced by nuclear


Until we start storing Nuclear waste in, say, Minnisota or another state on the continental shelf, we would just be poisoning our selves.
Sean


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jun 9, 2009)

Touch Of Death said:


> Until we start storing Nuclear waste in, say, Minnisota or another state on the continental shelf, we would just be poisoning our selves.
> Sean


 
We could store it in France.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 9, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> We could store it in France.


Too far away.
Mexico or Canada...


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jun 10, 2009)

Geez, I don't know...where do we even begin.

Slightly off topic, I think the dumbest thing General Motors ever did was scrapping the EV-1.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 10, 2009)

Touch Of Death said:


> Until we start storing Nuclear waste in, say, Minnisota or another state on the continental shelf, we would just be poisoning our selves.
> Sean


 

This is a common misconception, actually.

The notion that nuclear fuel is "spent" is something of a misnomer. When a "spent element" is removed from the reactor, it is only 1/3 consumed. It's meant to be recycled. Unfortunately, a byproduct of recycling is plutonium, so, Jimmy Carter, in his infinite wisdom, ordained that there would be no recycling in the U.S.-never mind that France, Canada and every other nation with nuclear power does so, that plutonium can be used in nuclear fuel, and that doing so reduces waste. High-level waste from reprocessing is typically vitrified-solidified as a high-density glasslike solid-kept on site for several decades, and then destined for geologic disposal. 

It is, of course, geologic disposal that's an issue.....not "waste," or even what to do with it.

There was also a viable plan for the transmutation of waste. I was hoping to be involved in that, but it's just not gonna happen....


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 11, 2009)

Phoenix44 said:


> Geez, I don't know...where do we even begin.
> 
> Slightly off topic, I think the dumbest thing General Motors ever did was scrapping the EV-1.


 

$1,000,000,000 in investment.

800 vehicles leased total over the 3 to 4 year life of the car.



> There were law suits against GM (* Generous Motors as they were called *) for Lead batteries going back to teens and twenties of the 20th century. People brought suit as GM was still around, and the people who threwm the batteries into the ground and then went bankrupt or closed their business and left the land for the state or feds to take over and then ahve a developer some in buy the land and build a house complex or parks or buildings and then people get sick. But the developers go out of business or file bankruptcy as many do to protect themselves from court cases, left only the supplier of the car batteries deemed to be the source of the lead poisoning.
> 
> With open cases at the time and previous cases as well, and no precedent in the court system for large batteries and disposal, other than GM being sued for other people not doing it right themselves, so they only leased the vehicles.


 
I provided the above as so many people I hear from state they would have bought one as they did not want to lease. While I prefer to buy myself, I offer the above as why I believe they only offered leases. I also believed that if more people did lease one then it would not have been dropped. 

Of course one of the stupidest things I ever heard which lead to the devlopment of the EV-1 was the State of California legislating that at least at a minimum 2% of all sales had to be zero percent emissions at the tail pipe. 

If it was legislated then why did only GM build an electric vehicle? Why di not the other cars including Toyota and Honda (* very popular in California *) not build something. 

Do you want to know what they did sell? 

They Sold Electric Golf Carts to retirement comuunities and got CARB and the Californaia government to agree that did count.

Of course after the lack of sales of the EV-1 California dropped the legislation for the 2% mandatory sales for zero percent tail pipe emisisons. 

The State of California Wrote a law telling people what they had to sell, but not telling the populating what they had to buy. 

That is one fo the biggest and most stupid things I have ever heard of in my life.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jun 11, 2009)

Big Don said:


> Too far away.
> Mexico or Canada...


 

Hey, hey, hey...they'll be none of that!!! We have our own waste to get rid of. 

In all seriousness, the Canadian shield is one billion years old, I'm sure the idea of drilling down a long way and sealing the waste up would work. Though if I lived in a nearby community? No chance would I allow it in my backyard.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 11, 2009)

Ken Morgan said:


> Hey, hey, hey...they'll be none of that!!! We have our own waste to get rid of.
> 
> In all seriousness, the Canadian shield is one billion years old, I'm sure the idea of drilling down a long way and sealing the waste up would work. Though if I lived in a nearby community? No chance would I allow it in my backyard.


We lack a strong enough government to logicly use and dispose of nuclear waste. Once Obama declares himself our rightfull King we will seeower:
 Sean


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jun 12, 2009)

I don't think it was in the last 10 years, but I have to say Asset Forfeiture Laws.

They have allowed the government to say in any and all circumstances that we can take any property we want, and make you have to prove that you deserve to have it.  And this is not just for drugs.

And example is how the BATFE is enforcing gun regulation.  They change (on a daily basis it seems) how gun laws are to be interpreted.  Then the go to a gun manufacturer/dealer/seller and say what they have is illegal and seize it without any due process.  And in order to get your stuff back, you have to pay (what they consider) 10% of the cost of product taken just to fight it in court.


----------

