Benutzername: stiffen.henk@disputo.net
Passwort: nogame12
kundennummer 239500

Server EU-1: news.eu.disputo.net
Server EU-2: news2.eu.disputo.net

Server US-1: news.us.disputo.net
Server US-2: news2.us.disputo.net

You are missing the point entirely. Oil & natural gas have chemical potential energy that was received on this planet a long time ago – it is a huge store of energy. Hydrogen does not exist free in nature – you can’t just collect it. It takes a lot of energy to release hydrogen from the chemical bonds in a molecule (eg hydrolosis of water), energy which is given back to you when hydrogen is combined with oxygen again – minus the inefficiency in the process to split the hydrogen free, and to collect it, store it and transport it.

The real problem is the grossly inefficient lifestyle of many, especially in places where large-suburban-house-plus-SUV is the norm. No one seems to recognize this fact, or if they do they have buried their heads firmly in the sand.

As for James, April 20th, 12:08 a.m.- you have quite a bit more homework to do yourself about how gas prices can be and are manipulated; blaming the victim (for anything more than gluttony, which does NOT raise prices) just doesn’t cut it.

Try these resources for a start:

http://www.citizen.org/documents/oilmergers.pdf

http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Security/S90-26_MakeFuelEffGulf.pdf (one of my favorites, from 1988!)

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/cars_pickups_suvs/life-in-the-slow-lane.html

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/bivens_outrage?mm=8&yr=2003

Can you read the words in front of your face? Let’s compare the Washington Times and Think Progress.

Think Progress:

“The key issue is oil, and a regime change in Iraq would facilitate an increase in world oil,” which would drive down oil prices, giving the U.S. economy an added boost.

Washington Times:

“The key issue is oil, and a regime change in Iraq would facilitate an increase in world oil,” which would tend to lower oil prices, he said.

Think Progress has rewritten the entire last part of it. They changed “would tend to lower oil prices” to the much more assertive “would drive down oil prices”.

Please tell me you can read that and comprehend it for what it is: a propaganda trick to support the angle they were going with.

Your Think Progress apologetics aside, you said:

The mere statement by the president’s chief economic advisor creates that expectation among the public (at least it did then, when the public was still willing to believe what the president’s spokespeople said). Perceptions are created by the juxtaposition of words. The qualifications will soon be lost on the hearers of the message. The message becomes ‘the government says that invading Iraq will mean lower gas prices.’ No one has to make a formal “promise.” It is very much like mentioning “Saddam Hussein and the people responsible for 9/11″ over and over in the same sentence or saying “there’s no difference between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden”. The received message will be ‘Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11′, but the propagators of this message will still be able to claim “we never said Saddam Husein was responsible for 9/11.”

Aha, so a promise isn’t actually a promise, and people taking things out of context to give them a different meaning than intended by the speaker suddenly constitutes them saying something they never said.

Gotcha.

Know what that is called? Lies and propaganda.

How many in the public read the article in the Washington Times? How many of them saw private comments made by a Bush administration official as a promise to lower gas prices by invading Iraq, rather than a general statement of what one might expect if that happened, qualifying it with a very successful and quick turnaround?

Yeah, keep spinning my friend.

Think Progress has altered what the Washington Times wrote, and the part about the lower prices isn’t a quote from Lindsey at all.

That is a lie (1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood. 2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression).

This is what Think Progress wrote:

“The key issue is oil, and a regime change in Iraq would facilitate an increase in world oil,” which would drive down oil prices, giving the U.S. economy an added boost.

This is what was written in the original Washington Times story:

“The key issue is oil, and a regime change in Iraq would facilitate an increase in world oil,” which would tend to lower oil prices, he said.

Think Progress has left the quotation exactly as it was given in the Washington Times, including the misplaced closing quotation mark, removing only the “he said” at the end. This was perhaps a mistake since it allows people with very low intelligence, such as you, and even lower editing skills, such as you, to claim that the final part of the statement is not a quotation, which, if you actually bothered to look at the Washington Times article before telling lies, it can be seen that the last part is clearly part of the quotation even if the final quotation mark is misplaced.

What the Times actually wrote is that more oil production would TEND TO lower oil prices. That is a general statement, and it is a true one, generally.

Whether what Lindsey said was true or not is not the issue here. I have already pointed out that Lindsey’s statments were quite competent and his analysis very good. This is the primary reason that he did not work for the Bush administration for very long. Competence and telling the truth to the public are not prized commodoties in the Bush White House. And it doesn’t matter that what Lindsey said was properly qualified and a reasonable statement of market forces. Lindsey was obviously a reality-based person, another disqualification for working for the current administration. Had Iraq been properly managed in the post-conquest phase, lower oil prices might very well have been the result. But when Lindsey spoke, oil was around $30 a barrel; today it is pushing $75 a barrel. Lindsey may have been right, but since his statements were predicated on a short, successfully prosecuted war, we’ll never know.

And it doesn’t matter that he didn’t put his hand on a Bible and promise lower oil prices. The mere statement by the president’s chief economic advisor creates that expectation among the public (at least it did then, when the public was still willing to believe what the president’s spokespeople said). Perceptions are created by the juxtaposition of words. The qualifications will soon be lost on the hearers of the message. The message becomes ‘the government says that invading Iraq will mean lower gas prices.’ No one has to make a formal “promise.” It is very much like mentioning “Saddam Hussein and the people responsible for 9/11″ over and over in the same sentence or saying “there’s no difference between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden”. The received message will be ‘Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11′, but the propagators of this message will still be able to claim “we never said Saddam Husein was responsible for 9/11.”

But what it comes down to in the end is that the only way you can defend Bush is by lying. Why you are willing to do this remains a mystery. But since your lies and rationalizations are so transparently false, I am willing to go with Hanlon’s razor here and attribute it to monumental stupidity.

Perle, Wolfowitz, Libby, Feith? who else has an Israeli passport in the admin?

Comment by Christhughes

I’ve always said that the slack jawed droolers of Stormfront and the Filthy Left make a pretty good team.

Usually, in America, where there is bad policy, there is usually a jew making a killing off it. Follow the money.

Perle, Wolfowitz, Libby, Feith? who else has an Israeli passport in the admin?

Comment by Frankly, my dear, …

As opposed to the Clinton administration where it got you killed. (Allegedly) Could that what W meant by “kinder and gentler”???

Think Progress has altered what the Washington Times wrote, and the part about the lower prices isn’t a quote from Lindsey at all. What the Times actually wrote is that more oil production would TEND TO lower oil prices. That is a general statement, and it is a true one, generally.

How in the world can you twist that into the Bush administration promising lower gas prices from the war? You’ve got to be a psychopath to do that kind of mindbending antics.

In other words, Lawrence Lindsey made a statement that, following the law of supply and demand, you’d expect the war in Iraq, if it was fully successful, which it so far isn’t, then you’d expect lower oil prices.

And this is a PROMISE being made by the Bush administration?????

Holy shit you guys are on drugs.

Chris Matthews on MSNBC Hardball is caught making up quotes again. This time in an effort to play Gotcha Journalism with Dan Bartlett, Matthews quote-shops Bartlett to use “research” already found by his staff to create a lie. The liberal blogosphere…

Comment by Seixon — April 20, 2006 @ 3:15 pm

Seixon, you are simply terminally stupid. If you are literate, simply google “drive down oil prices” Lindsey and read the results. Here, that’s probably beyond your capabilities, so I’ll do it for you: “drive down oil prices” Lindsey.

Now Lindsey was actually correct about what he said because he tied it to a successful war leading to a stable country. Had it not been for the incompetence of the post-conquest occupation, lower oil prices very well might have been the result. But you’ll perhaps remember (but probably you won’t) that Lindsey was forced out of his White House job for saying that the Iraq war might cost as much as $100 to $200 billion. Nothing gets you a faster ticket out of this administration than telling the truth.

It was a question? Let’s look at what “Wackjob” (why do you call him that? I thought you and Think Progress and DailyKos love him for “exposing” this guy…??) said:

MATTHEWS: [W]e’ve been struck by higher gas prices. That was another promise made, that this war would help us get cheaper gas …None of these promises come through.

Are you literate? If so, this doesn’t look like a question to me. It looks like a statement of fact. One that was incorrect. There was no promise made that this war would help us get cheaper gas. Think Progress hasn’t come up with any such promise.

Oh well, keep gulping it up as usual.