I believe for the most part you're correct but, I don't agree with the reason although, that may be applicable to some. I believe the fossil fuel powered vehicles will be around for a very long time due to it being more capable of doing certain things than the current EVs. Future tech may change that but, as I has said many times, the restrictions on distances that can be traveled and the inability of being able to handle/tow larger loads will keep fossil fuel vehicle in many applications. For the average city dwellers (where the grid will support it) an EV may be much more practical. My own wife is interested in a hybrid but none fits her needs, she might go with an EV someday if she can find one that will travel at least 400 miles on a single charge and handle 500 to 1,000 lbs. of cargo. Nothing out there I can use, my loads tend to be quite a bit over the 1K barrier.
I generally agree if we look only through todays eyes. I think it's safe to assume that future EVs will have greater range, and charging will be much more available. Finding liquid fuel for early cars was something like finding charging stations today. We can even collect energy and store it in our batteries at home. That's harder to do with liquid fuel. Yes you can make it but .....
I think that for really heavy equipment, fuel powered engines will continue. And, Vintage and Antique cars like Fierro's will be around for a long, long time.
What gets me is that there are no "simple" EVs out there. Ford's Model T sold like hot cakes because is was simple and affordable. I think that the EV market needs an electric Ford Falcon to break out of what you describe.
Do you even have a clue ... no, you don't. When was the last refinery built ?
Demand has not outpaced production. Why increase output ? Have you ever heard of supply and demand ? One thing which will decrease output is an unfriendly administration. What makes it to the refinery is not the flip of a switch.
An ".... unfriendly administration ... will decrease output ..." Why? how?
As I understand it, oil supply and demand is global business and our "administration" is just one of many world players. I'm sure that there is way more to this subject then we understand, or need to in a discussion of Kamala Harris.
In defense, I think Bing does have at least some "clues".
Perhaps you are splitting hairs, as I'm fairly certain you understood the point being made.
I've so often run into people who don't know the difference that I almost automatically make that point whenever it comes up. I apologize if you feel offended or belittled.
Originally posted by BingB: Brown was 30 years older than Harris.
Pretty much the same as Trump being 24 years older than Melania.
If missing the point was an Olympic sport you'd be a gold medal contender Scooter.
Willie Brown was married at the time and his "side piece" knew it. It's HER morals and judgement that are the point in this instance, nobody else's... but of course all morals are either relative or irrelevant to you Leftists. Morals to you are only something to be used to try to bludgeon your enemies with.
Here is your VP givin' the one boob almost out trashy look "back in the day" in her post Willie to Montel Williams period.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 09-12-2024).]
Heh, here in Bandera we have a long time eating joint named the OST. It is named for the Old Spanish Trail, a road/trail like Route 66. John Wayne ate there a few times when he filmed "The Alamo" in 1960. Signed picture on the wall, among other signed pictures of other notable celebs.
The OST waitresses probably worked there in 1960. It is jokingly referred to as "The Old Saggy Tit". Kamala shows quite the resume randye.
Originally posted by randye: Willie Brown was married at the time and his "side piece" knew it. It's HER morals and judgement that are the point in this instance, nobody else's... but of course all morals are either relative or irrelevant to you Leftists. Morals to you are only something to be used to try to bludgeon your enemies with.
Are you kidding me? A Trump sycophant is actually trying to lecture the left on "morals"?
Your man cheated on his first wife with Marla Maples.
Had a baby with Maples before they got married.
Cheated on Marla Maples and she divorced him.
Cheated on Melania while she was pregnant and did it with a **** star.
Famously told Billy Busch "When you are a star you can do whatever you want. Grab them in the p***y. Anything you want"
And you think you can preach about morals?
You should take this comedy act on the road.
[This message has been edited by BingB (edited 09-12-2024).]
No one is preaching morals, but they are pointing out facts.
That's how predictable that special little Leftist monkey is.
He missed, (or ignored) the point AGAIN and then tried to use morals, (that he doesn't really believe in), as a weapon against his "enemies" AGAIN.
He even quoted that I foretold he would do just that.
Clearly, he doesn't give a single damn what Heels Up Harris has done, but he's squealed and hooted about how Trump supporters will ignore Trump's moral failings.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 09-12-2024).]
I am sure some here will recall an old saw of disputed origin that ends with the line, "We have already established that, Madame. Now we are just haggling over price."
Does anybody have a problem with the fact that Kamala was born to two people who were not US citizens at the time of her birth? Her mother didn't become a citizen until late '67 or '68 and her father according to what I could find became a citizen "prior to 2015" according to Wikipedia. It is time for an official ruling on the 14th amendment.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Originally posted by silver 85 sc: Does anybody have a problem with the fact that Kamala was born to two people who were not US citizens at the time of her birth? Just asking a question.
I have a problem with that fact. She was an anchor baby.
No one is preaching morals, but they are pointing out facts.
Randye is preaching morals. And he is only preaching to one side.
quote
Originally posted by randye:
but of course all morals are either relative or irrelevant to you Leftists. Morals to you are only something to be used to try to bludgeon your enemies with.
Maybe BingB, in his dual roles as a lawyer and a teacher, is qualified to answer it.
If he can't or won't, the fact that she was born in California makes her an American citizen, no matter what the immigration status of her parents.
So, with that said, the DNC candidate is a first generation American.
So if her mother went back to India or her father to Jamaica, she wouldn't have been a citizen of either country? Would she have had to apply for citizenship or a visa to stay with them in their home countries?
You right wingers are just dying to re-write that part aren't you. No respect for the wisdom of our founding fathers.
Right wingers? I have more questions.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Is citizenship is not conveyed through the parents? Are children automatically emacipated at birth? Or do the parents become dependents when the child is born?
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Is citizenship is not conveyed through the parents? Are children automatically emacipated at birth? Or do the parents become dependents when the child is born?
According to the 14th Amendment, the location of the birth of the child determines the child's citizenship.
According to the 14th Amendment, the location of the birth of the child determines the child's citizenship.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,"
I disagree. Two conditions have to be met. 1) born in the US, OR naturalized, and 2) subject to the jurisdiction thereof. The point of contention is the 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' How does one become subject to the jurisdiction thereof? Especially minors, would they not be subject to their parents jurisdiction? in Kamala's case India or Jamaica? She couldn't be emancipated at birth, since she could not possibly handle her legal affairs at birth.
ju·ris·dic·tion /ˌjo͝orəsˈdikSHən/ noun the official power to make legal decisions and judgments.
The parents could not make legal decisions or judgments in the US, and as a minor neither could she. The parents could however make legal decisions or judgments in their home countries.
