Oh, the humanity!
But seriously, I wasn’t surprised by this move from Obama. Even before I voted for him, I knew he was a middle-grounder and would do things that I disliked. I dislike this thing. Other things he did I liked. It’s better to vote someone in that you agree with 50% of the time than someone you never agree with, amirite?
I had to fight tooth and nail to convince some comrades of that. Some wanted to teach the country a lesson by getting the freakwad opposing candidate elected… I finally managed to convince them (and narrowly) to vote for Opra—err—Obama.
Alright, time to start this central healthcare system!
Sir, no one wants to pay for it!
Well, I guess the environment can afford to foot the bill instead…
baconeggs: We’re already paying for it, and paying through the nose; the health care bill will reduce the amount we’re paying out.
As for offshore drilling, I’m thinking Obama might be pulling a stunt. He’ll try to do everything the Republicans way for half of his first term and then, when they oppose literally everything he does, he can then turn around and say, “I tried to work with them for over two years and not only did they oppose everything I tried to do, they opposed things they were for.”
Of course, that’s my own personal hopes which may be dashed. Obama is a middlegrounder. I knew that going into the booth. But, given the choice between a middlegrounder and a nutjob, I’ll pick the middlegrounder.
Stop taking sarcastic comments seriously! 
Sorry. My sarcasm meter is busted after a long day of debating politics. My bad.
EDIT: So, I looked into this and I see that Obama is doing just as he promised before his election. He came into office supporting this and now he’s doing it. It’s true that he campaigned before against off-shore drilling but changed his mind a couple months before the election.
I bolded what makes me facepalm now.
Although the hydrogen aboard the Hindenburg certainly did burn with incredible force, it wasn’t the hydrogen that created the disaster, It was aluminum powder. To reflect sunlight, the skin of Hindenburg was covered in this powder, a form equivalent to rocket fuel . And the cotton fabric that made up the blimp’s skin was waterproofed with highly flammable acetate . Hydrogen proponents also point out that the flames in the Hindenburg disaster burned upward rather than out because the element is so lightweight. This left the passengers in the carrier beneath relatively unmolested by the flames. Thirty-five of the 36 Hindenburg deaths were the result of passengers jumping from the airship; all of those who remained aboard survived .
A container made out of steel or dense composite material would tremendously help safe storage. i hope yo were being sarcastic, that’s the kind of argument that crooked politicians use, comparing Fuel cell technology to a accident over 70 years ago.
Perhaps the aluminium powder did start the fire, but without the hydrogen I doubt the fire would have been as intimidating and a lot less people would have jumped.
I was, hence the “But seriously” afterwards.
ok, lol. my bad.
EDIT: i called it a Blimp also, that is incorrect, it’s actually a Rigid Airship. Theres a huge difference between the two.
If we had more dirigibles we wouldn’t need to drill offshore
I thought it was called a Zeppelin.
well, theres non-Rigid, which means it has no internal framework aka a blimp. theres semi rigid, which like the name suggests, had a partial frame. Then theres Rigid, which like the Hindenburg, was non pressurized and had a frame.
A Zeppelin is a specific type of rigid airship, this is because the frame is made of metal. the LZ129 Hindenburg aka Deutsches Luftschiff Zeppelin #129 was a Zeppelin due to the frame being mad of lead.
They only make no-rigid blimps now a days, this is mostly due to the Hindenburg and also Hitler investing in Aircraft instead of Airships due to combat usability.
Anyways, back on Topic: Hydrogen should be our fuel source, simple logic.
hahah americans
pwhooo
As I recall, hydrogen isn’t an actual fuel resource, it’s just a carrier, like a battery. You still need energy from windmills or whatever, and the transfer isn’t 100%.
No, hydrogen can be burnt to produce heat and thus energy, making it a fuel. However, the actual energy required to get large quantities of hydrogen isn’t even equivalent to the energy you get from burning it.
Oh, well, yeah, that’s pretty much the same thing then.
It’s not really about “getting large quantities” of Hydrogen as much as it is about storing it. There’s plenty of Hydrogen everywhere, problem is to be even remotely useful as a fuel it has to be stored/used in it’s liquid state; since it’s boiling point is around -252ºC, it costs A LOT to get it to that temperature and maintain it afterwards, rendering it a very expensive alternative to other cheaper fuels such as oil, ethanol, etc.
stop writing comments that a right-winger would say seriously, and expecting everyone to magically know you’re being sarcastic!
first off, your not we wouldn’t use it as a combustible fuel. We would use it in Fuel Cell Technology
Iceland has already done this with it’s public transportation.
Germany is replacing Nuclear power submarines with it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_212_submarine
The infrastructure is quite possible as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_highway
EDIT: I can’t believe none of you have ever heard of this, this is a serious contender (in the eyes of science) to replace petroleum.
Founded in 2004, Leakfree.org became one of the first online communities dedicated to Valve’s Source engine development. It is more famously known for the formation of Black Mesa: Source under the 'Leakfree Modification Team' handle in September 2004.