He wasn't lecturing us. He was saying we all need help. As long as the crack head reads the pamphlet himself, there's no hypocracy(sp?) there. It's still funny as hell though.
And what do we produce industrial hydrogen from . . . natural gas! Hydrogen will not reduce greenhouse gasses or reduce our dependence on fossil fuels unless we can figure out a way to extract it from the air using less energy to produce it than it eventually yields.
'Hypocrisy,' FYI. The crack dealer (not head - the crack head is the target here) can read the pamphlet all he wants. But the bottom line is, he still stands to benefit by others being addicted to crack, so it would be ironic if he was to try to help them alleviate their addiction. He doesn't even have to smoke crack himself.
when i asked, i was asking what you guys meant in this context. i thought that was apparent. you could have meant subsidies, which really isnt all that different that tax breaks, or if you were an idiot and were using a vague dictionary definition you could have meant the "fear of punishment". i am not sure i favor tax breaks for certain approved industries. why shouldnt every industry pay the same share of the national bill? i dunno if company a should be favored over company b based on what they produce. but i am not sure, i need to think about it a little. i think i oppose any type of "incentives" for corporations. i see no advantage to the government favoring certain industries. and thanks i guess, because now if i think of any words i need dictionary definitions for, i know just the cocksucker to ask.
wouldnt the safe assumption be that bush means for research into hydrogen as an alternatie to fossil fuels? i dont suppose he meant "lets invest in hydrogen as a fuel source, but let's restrict ourself to hydroen extracted from fossil fuels" i dont think he would need to say the specifics when the whole premise of that part of his speech was alternatives to fossil fuels.
Libs rarely watch or read anything of substance. They rely on air america to tell them their "truths". As the "word" bounces from one lib to the next, it gets even more twisted. Just a fact of life. The first lib is mostly clueless and all of the rest, farther down the line, are completely clueless.
