navigator

Once again the OP is completely missing the point. Who is in charge of implementing the oversight committees and hiring its members? Those comittee members have stated they don't know where all the money went in the 1st stimulis program. If the money in the financial bailout also disappears, all your points shedding light on its merit are mute.

...which completely misses the point! It doesn't take much objectivity to understand, nice deflection though.

Fair enough. In order to be objective you have to include both sides of the story, you only included one side in order to prop up your opinion. You made it about the left and right, I included the other side of the story for balance. I ask you again, who is hiring who, effectively reducing the the quality of discourse in your opinion?

If this doesn't make you impatient, I doubt anything will.

This thread is filled with so much disinformation and so lacking in objective reasoning I don't even know where to start. The Op started by highlighting parts of the memo from the right, so lets look at parts of the memo from the left. Both sides organized groups and gave them ideas to make them themself visible and have their opinion heard. The left has included tactics that are more likened to shutting down the debate. Disagree? Lets look at what happened... Looks like this dem followed the memo from the left to a T. I always thought town halls were a forum for voters to discuss their concerns with their representatives, so the reps could accurately represnt them in washington. Does Obamas hope and change, in this context, mean now the representatives tell their constituents what they will be legislating for in washington? What happened in St. Louis? You may disagree with the source, but the videos at the link speak for themself. I have heard no reports of an opponent of Health care reform being arrested, only those in favor of it. That included one lady that admitted to being an employee of Carnahan. And who called out the union thugs? So who is hiring who? Still disagree? how about this? flag@whitehouse.gov. An email set up by the white house to report opposers. What could that information be used for? Clarification? Objective reasoning would say no, given the reputation Chicago style politics are known for. More likely it would be used to marginalize opposers in the future or maybe set up political re-education programs for dissenters. Still disagree? lets continue... So I ask you again, who is hiring who? Another fact that has seemed to go right over the OPs head, is that almost everybody wants health care reform, but not in the form of a 1000 page bill that Obama is supporting, but has curiously exempted the unions, himself and the rest of the bureaucrats from, not to mention doing everything he can to keep from reading it so the American people understand it. Thats whats being opposed, not health care reform. Has everybody forgotten during the campaign he wanted every American to have access to the same health care the politicians get? Or how about stating that he would invite members of the senate and congress to the white house to read the bill line for line if he were elected? As far as the OP not being able to connect the relevance in the bill being a single-payer program, let me help you out. The bait you swallowed, hook, line and sinker was calling this plan health care reform. If you would actually read it before you project whats in it you would know that after 01/01/10 no new private health care policies will be written. When your current policy expires, you quit or switch jobs, you are automatically enrolled in the govenrments program, effectively eliminating private health insurance. Thats single payer, socialized health care and what the opposers are opposing, not health care reform. Go to youtube an search "Obama in his own words" and see what he has to say about eliminating private health care and the single payer system. You can also go here and see for yourself whats in the bill. I appeal to the OP to remove the blinders and allow yourself to look at this from both sides.

True, a valid argument can be made that calling them prisoners of war is lending them rights under the Geneva convention, many believe they don't deserve. Isn't this what military tribunals are for? Good point. Austrailia, Japan, Canada? Do you believe there is a government conspiracy brewing? If I implied anything different it was unintentional Habeas corpus applies to criminals. IMO this is the where military tribunals should be used. Look up sharia law. Not following you here when you say "its". What did I say to give the impression I felt any different? Freedom doesn't come without a price though.... Ok, I wasn't sure, what he says really depends on whos listening. My knee-jerk response...Nothing like comedy to legitamize an otherwise illogical opinion. To be honest, I haven't watched it yet. Very true, I guess thats why Im not so worried about this slippery slope many are presenting here.

Is the story linked by Pangloss not the exception? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I guess I was unaware of all the erronous, ill-considered detentions. On the contrary, I guess I am happy with that number, although I wish it were zero. It would be interesting to know how close they keep tabs on them. I understand what your saying, I am just not under the impression that there is some covert operation within our government to take away our rights. I believe the Presidents #1 responsibilty is national security. Given the vote, it doesn't appear to be a partisan opinion.

If someone is making bombs in their bedroom, then I feel it would be justified. You are speaking as if this whole situation is a grey area. I trust those that have been trained in these areas to make the determination of good and evil, although, I am sure they make mistakes from time to time. As far as defining "battlefield" and "threat" it almost has to be a case by case determination giving the tactics these people use. Unless I know the circumstances behind each detainees cature, it is impossible to define either. I would think that both have taken on a much broader scope vs. 10 years ago. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged There are always exceptions. War is a terrible and sometimes an unjust fact of life. Often innocent people are caught in the crossfire, the methods terrorists use magnify these 10 fold. In my opinion, asking me to define the battlefield is absurd, unless you want a broad generalization, which still would be near impossible to cover all the circumstances around each detainees capture. Obama may have said we are no longer at war, but IMO, that is being intellectually dishonest. If not, then why are we still sending troops to Afghanistan? It was really just political posturing in order to close Gitmo. Understood.

Which war and the battlefield it happens on is irrelevant, unless your building strawmen. What does my definition matter anyway, they are enemies of this country and our freedoms. Attack? I felt the questions about "which war" and "which battlefield" were intellectually dishonest or baiting. I don't think I should have to clarify the difference between being arrested for commiting a crime and being captured on the battlefield or put a name on the war a bomb maker is fighting. Good grief!!! I guess I get bored reading 3 paragraphs saying the same thing in different ways. Keeping it short and succinct is always more interesting to me, if you disagree then ignore me. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Then look up the definition of criminal and prisoner of war, I guess I didn't feel neccessary to lay out support for something that simple. You guys are just attacking my debating style, instead of debating what I said, that says alot.

Mokele, I didn't reread the whole thread, this is the first example I found, but to say nobody would be wrong.

Sorry, but it really is that simple. Clarification? I simply stated that there are statutes and war precedent that we use as guidelines on how to deal with enemies of the nation. Maybe your not used to a comprehensive argument in a couple of sentences. When should an enemy of the nation be released, when the threat they pose is gone. As long as there are organized groups intent on our destruction and these people are unrepentant members and in support of these groups, they should be detained, justifyably so. Elaborate more? I can only think of two quotes. "The Constitution is not a suicide pact" Abraham Lincoln "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds" -- Bertrand Russel. Both of these apply to "demanding we treat these people as criminals."

Without knowing the circumstances behind each individuals capture, no. This is what we have elected officials for, they voted, and the results were very conclusive.

Call it what you want, Iraq war, war on terrorism, regardless, these people were captured on the battlefield and represent a threat to national security.

I agree, I was just giving an example that technology is advancing and river bed hydro-electric system, similiar to the power generating capabilities of a dam, may not be too far in the future.

On a comparative scale it is very efficient. No dam, the type your reffering to, would come close to generating 150 kw with a 1.3m head and low water volume. Thats not to mention the affect on the ecological system is almost zero, do that with a dam.

It seems some are either proposing a shift in the handling of prisoners of war or they are confusing them with criminals. They are very different and the laws for handling these two types of people are very well established in statute and war time precedent. All nations in wartime have held prisoners of war until the threat they pose is gone. Thats how its always been done, now there are a few that feel it should be changed using "rights" and "justice" platform as a strawman for ideas that have long been settled and rejected.

here is a system that uses the low head of a river very efficiently... Pictures and the rest of article can be found here... http://www.zotloeterer.com/our_company/water_vortex_engineering/water_vortex_power_plant.php

You must not be aware the your placing your reputation on the line with only theory and speculation, the majority of which the supporting evidence is not conclusive, backing you up. How many experiments have you actually performed?

The intent was to discuss the Law of energy Conservation and how it relates to the processes in a hydroeletric system. If I started the thread in the wrong forum, I apologize. This could be ended very easily, but nobody is able to tell me what is being converted other than saying KE, which only describes the state the energy is in, not its form. Its no wonder technology around energy has progressed so little in the last 100 years. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged In order for it to be converted, some must have been expended. Are you saying that the gpe in the field the water falls is decreased? Earlier in the thread Swansont agreed that GPE was not being converted. I have been told that, but after being reminded that you cannot convert a constant everybody backs away from that position???

Resorting to personal attacks only shows you cannot answer the question either. All youv'e done is used euphimisms for mechanical energy, in an effort to avoid actually naming it. Then it won't seem so odd that you cannot tell me the form of energy converted in a hydroelectric system. Mechanical energy turned the prop. Another form of energy, electrical, nuclear, etc. was converted into the mechanical energy at the cost of expending some of the PE in the electricity, uranium, etc. I really don't see what reversing the process does??? I am perplexed that I have been labeled a crackpot, because nobody can tell me what form of energy is being converted, a very elementary question. A nuclear plant uses uranium/fuel to increase the pressure in the system and convert it to another more usable form of energy depending on the demand. The uranium is expended changing it from PE to KE. I don't think I need to continue describing the processes in coal plants, steam plants, etc. you get the point. The point I am not getting, is why a layman can explain the processes in other plants, but you "experts" cannot tell me what form of energy is converted in a Hydroelectric plant.

You contradicted yourself, not sure what you mean here. Touche' Impressive, I am curious how that converts to amps? Your arm transferred force into the cue stick which transferred that force into the cue ball. Your arm expended fuel in the process:rolleyes: So the GPE doesn't have to become GKE in order to do work. If thats the case GPE should be re-classified as free energy, that is what your describing. Your really stretching now. Back to reality...but this is not converting anything, but the path the water travels. Free energy? Please elaborate. I never said the water doesn't have KE, what I did say is its not converted. I will ask you again, how can you validate your theory if you can't even identify the form of KE and its fuel you are reffering to? Like I said before, you would have no problem doing this with any other power plant, whats so unique about this one?

In the real world, KE requires a medium to do work. You are using options as a euphimism and you know it! Good point. True, but in 1100' the change would be minimal. Thats part of it, theres also they fact that once converted the original form is lost. Chemical energy is expended when converted. You burn a log, converting it to heat, the log loses its original form and converts to ash. All forms of energy expend some type of fuel when converted to another form of energy. If you can't tell me the form you mean when you say "that energy", you know like, solar energy or chemical energy, then what fuel is being expended in the conversion? The water doesn't just simply have KE!!! KE cannot be created, remember, it had to come from somewhere! It sounds like your trying to converting gravity to me. I ask again, how can you convert a constant? The gravity expends nothing maintaining its original form and PE in the field of the falling water. Can you at least tell me the fuel used in the conversion? Still waiting to hear the form your referring to... I am not surprised. You have danced around the answer so many times I am running out of ways to ask a very simple question. I bet you would have no trouble defining the form of energy and the fuel expended, in a nuclear plant, coal plant, steam plant etc. Why can you not do the same for a hydroelectric plant?

In the context of the Lagrangian mechanics described here, the form of energy has no relevance. It is only discussing the types, PE and KE. The Law of energy Conservation uses the term convert to describe what can and cannot happen to PE and KE. In order to calculate the KE and PE in the falling water, we have to have a medium to measure. That has to be the water, because gravity is constant and does not change. The form of energy is very relevant to understanding what is happening in the systems we are discussing. In otherwords, the losses due to air resistance in system A are equal to the gains in system B with ten turbines? Maybe so, although, it actually reinforces the reason develop is the correct term, not convert. We have reduced the losses in order to increase the output of the overall system. Thats development, not conversion. Nevertheless, this does not address or name the form of energy that has the KE inside it, which goes directly to the point of this thread. According to the Law of Energy Conservation, some form of energy has to be converted for there to be an increase in PE at the bottom of the systems. Then there also has to be gravitational KE, no? KE and PE are only adjectives used to describe whether the form of energy is in motion or motionless. If KE is being converted it has to have a form or medium to convert from. KE and PE describe the state the energy is in, how can you convert a description of the energy? You cannot establish and validate the thoery that the KE in the water is converted if you cannot even define the form of energy that has the KE.

Thats wikis list, otherwise I agree with you. Can you provide a reference or link to validate that statement(I understand you meant forms)? I quite clearly showed that nothing was converted. The waters KE and PE are equal at the bottom of the two systems, no? Gravity cannot be converted and it is not created, its always there. So how can you classify it as energy and reconcile those two facts with the Law of Energy Conservation? Absolutely not. But you and everyone else have failed to logically show which form of energy is being converted. Now your back pedaling claiming there is no difference between forms of energy and types of energy. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Thats wikis list, otherwise I agree with you. Can you provide a reference or link to validate that statement(I understand you meant forms)? I quite clearly showed that nothing was converted. The waters KE and PE are equal at the bottom of the two systems, no? Gravity cannot be converted and it is not created, its always there. So how can you classify it as energy and reconcile those two facts with the Law of Energy Conservation? Absolutely a possibility. But you and everyone else have failed to logically show which form of energy is being converted. Now your back pedaling claiming there is no difference between forms of energy and types of energy.

Lets take the experiment one step further. Lets say the distance the water falls is 1100'. Lets also say that water reaches terminal velocity in a 100' fall. the first system has no turbine just water shooting out of the penstock and falling directly into the lower resevoir, 1100'feet below. The second system has 10 turbines, one placed in the path of the water every 100' interval. The system with no turbine starts out as potential energy and then begins to fall. As it speeds up its KE increases until it reaches terminal velocity. At this point the KE in the water is at its maximum and does not increase. It maintains this maximum KE until it reaches the bottom and impacts the lower resevoir. When the water settles in the lower resevoir it has x amount of PE. The system with 10 turbines, the water goes from PE to its maximum KE and then impacts the 1st turbine, which decreases its KE. When it exits the turbine and begins to fall again its KE agian begins to increase until it reaches terminal velocity at which point it impacts the 2nd turbine. This cycle repeats itself 8 more times, the kinetic energy going from a lesser amount to its maximum amount. When the water exits the last turbine it falls a 100' feet again reaching maximum KE just prior to impacting the lower resevoir. Due to terminal velocity, the KE of the water at the bottom of both systems is the same as well as the PE once it settles. The system with the 10 turbines just has much more energy in the form of mechanical energy which could be stored in a battery increasing the overall PE of the system. Just to be clear, the terminal velocity of the water is directly proportianate to the atmospheric pressure, so assuming water reaches terminal velocity in a 100' fall does not invalidate this experiment. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I am beginning to think you do not understand the difference in types of energy, there are only 2 PE and KE, and the forms of energy. from wiki... Which one of these is forms is using its KE to spin the turbine? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThe fact that wiki lists gravitational energy as form of energy tells me the editors do not understand the definition of convert either.