fortinbras wrote:

...score one for environmental wackjobs, you got your man coming in...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladni … l-industry

You might want to re-read that, the statement is to eliminate the construction of new coal fired plants.  You remind me of my ex-wife, you spend so much time reading between the lines that you neglect to pay attention to what is actually being said.

Oh my God, this is terrible!  Whatever will we do?  Of course if the coal industry doesn't want to go bankrupt the solution is easy enough; they just have to make that "clean coal" we keep hearing about.

Good luck with that.

Last edited by tojo2000 (2008-11-02 17:25:52)

Taint wrote:

Emmeran wrote:

You remind me of my ex-wife, you spend so much time reading between the lines that you neglect to pay attention to what is actually being said.

What do you really mean by this?

Basically this:  you are looking so hard for the message you want to hear that you stop paying attention to what is actually being said and only hear what you desire to hear.  Ergo, no matter what is said you will only hear what you want to hear.

Oh and many bad things about my Ex.

Emmeran wrote:

Taint wrote:

Emmeran wrote:

You remind me of my ex-wife, you spend so much time reading between the lines that you neglect to pay attention to what is actually being said.

What do you really mean by this?

and that FootinBra probably doesn't swallow either.

Swallowing costs extra.

headkicker_girl wrote:

While we're at it, let's go after Henry Ford for bankrupting the horse-and-buggy industry.  Why do conservatives hate progress?

Progress?  Wow...you really are a fucking idiot aren't you?

Why else would all that sweet, sweet coal be underground if not for us to dig up and burn?

fortinbras wrote:

headkicker_girl wrote:

While we're at it, let's go after Henry Ford for bankrupting the horse-and-buggy industry.  Why do conservatives hate progress?

Progress?  Wow...you really are a fucking idiot aren't you?

I stand corrected.  COAL IS THE FUTURE (fucking moron).

headkicker_girl wrote:

fortinbras wrote:

headkicker_girl wrote:

While we're at it, let's go after Henry Ford for bankrupting the horse-and-buggy industry.  Why do conservatives hate progress?

Progress?  Wow...you really are a fucking idiot aren't you?

I stand corrected.  COAL IS THE FUTURE (fucking moron).

We'll go far when we destroy ever central industry in America!

fortinbras wrote:

headkicker_girl wrote:

tojo2000 wrote:

Who told you it was underground?  Why, once you blow the top off of a fucking mountain, it's right there on the surface, just waiting to be harvested!

And let's face it...mining towns are great.  Not only do they look great, but the people are great!  What would the country be like without inbred, snaggle-toothed hillbillies blasting holes into the earth? I say we do that for a 1000 more years rather than develop any new fuel sources.

And those really intelligent people have been historic democrat supporters...way to chomp down on your base.

I wouldn't mind if she chomped down on my base....

tojo2000 wrote:

fortinbras wrote:

headkicker_girl wrote:

And let's face it...mining towns are great.  Not only do they look great, but the people are great!  What would the country be like without inbred, snaggle-toothed hillbillies blasting holes into the earth? I say we do that for a 1000 more years rather than develop any new fuel sources.

And those really intelligent people have been historic democrat supporters...way to chomp down on your base.

Does it ever embarrass you, how wrong you are?  I really hope you're a deliberate troll with amazing trolling stamina, but I kind of suspect you're just an idiot.  Too bad; so sad.

Do you even live near a coal mining town in the eastern part of the country?  All across the Blue Ridge Mountain coal mining areas are massive amounts of support for democrats.  Coal miners, inner city undereducated lower income earners, and senile old couples with bladder problems worried about healthcare who have been scared to think that they'll live on dog food are the major base.  Not exactly the best and brightest.

Last edited by fortinbras (2008-11-03 07:07:56)

GooberMcNutly wrote:

fortinbras wrote:

Do you even live near a coal mining town in the eastern part of the country?

My wife is the Coalminers Daughter and I have lived in multiple coal mining towns throughout central PA and WV.

What I love the most of all is the pleasing yellow color of the streams as they leach acids out of the ground and how they keep all of the vegetation from growing along the banks. No more weed wacking!

Of course, the millions of cubic meters of fly ash and cinders turned out by your average power plant could easily fill the huge gashes in the earth made by blasting out the coal in the first place.

If we would just build about 100 more nuclear plants, we could really pump some electrons without all of this pollution of the ground, water and air.

Really? It destroys the weeds?  We could make a fortune!

note the beaver cut stumps that are bleeding sap the color of the water.









Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs

Last edited by Johnny_Rotten (2008-11-03 09:22:15)

Oh, BTW, the entire issue was a load of bullshit from the beginning:  http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfg … e=politics

headkicker_girl wrote:

tojo2000 wrote:

Oh, BTW, the entire issue was a load of bullshit from the beginning:  http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfg … e=politics

Stupid is as stupid does...if one (Forti) relies on the Drudge Report for journalistic integrity, one (Forti) is likely to make an ass out of oneself over and over again.  Wasn't it just two weeks ago that Drudge scooped a white girl who was beaten, sexually assaulted and maimed by a large black Obama supporter?  Oh, that's right, it was bullshit, wasn't it.

I read this "rebuttal" and the only issue SF Gate actually rebutts is the timing of the release of the audio.  The only rebuttal of Obama's reported position on building coal plants is this:  Obama's campaign responded to Palin's comments today, noting correctly that the wide-ranging interview also included the Illinois Senator's comments that the idea of eliminating coal plants was ''an illusion.''  This is weak and doesn't address his claim that he would make it so difficult to build a new plant that it would bankrupt the utility trying to do so.

phreddy wrote:

headkicker_girl wrote:

tojo2000 wrote:

Oh, BTW, the entire issue was a load of bullshit from the beginning:  http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfg … e=politics

Stupid is as stupid does...if one (Forti) relies on the Drudge Report for journalistic integrity, one (Forti) is likely to make an ass out of oneself over and over again.  Wasn't it just two weeks ago that Drudge scooped a white girl who was beaten, sexually assaulted and maimed by a large black Obama supporter?  Oh, that's right, it was bullshit, wasn't it.

I read this "rebuttal" and the only issue SF Gate actually rebutts is the timing of the release of the audio.  The only rebuttal of Obama's reported position on building coal plants is this:  Obama's campaign responded to Palin's comments today, noting correctly that the wide-ranging interview also included the Illinois Senator's comments that the idea of eliminating coal plants was ''an illusion.''  This is weak and doesn't address his claim that he would make it so difficult to build a new plant that it would bankrupt the utility trying to do so.

Please explain how this is bad?  Construction of new power plants not using "clean coal" technology is something that should definitely be avoided.  So outside of an outright ban a virtual ban can be instituted with fee's and fines.

the twisting went  further then drudge or newsbusters. Palin spent the day claiming the media covered up this story by hiding it. In her speaches today she was very very carefull with her wording about this  as the campaign had realised they had to pull back from telling that lie.

When I listened to the tape of Obama, it sounded as though he was comforting one of his fans who was having a problem with him saying he would not oppose construction of new coal plants.  He assured her that although he was not opposing construction, his cap and trade policy would be so punitive as to bankrupt any utility that actually tried to build one.  So, in true legalese, he has explained that his energy policy would be to support clean coal, but then it depends on what the word "support" means.

Last edited by phreddy (2008-11-03 16:23:22)

How simple it all is. Coal's BAD! No, it's our ticket toward ENERGY INDEPENDENCE!  GOOD! BAD! GOOD! BAD!

Sure, we can and should use coal as an energy source. We've got mountains of the stuff. Literally. But it's no solution.

Coal sits there underground for millions of years, adsorbing stuff from groundwater like it was cubic miles of activated charcoal filter, and when you burn it...well, it's not easy to keep the stuff out of the air. Mercury. Sulfur (acid rain, anyone?). Even uranium, thorium, and suchlike - some coals actually become uranium ore bodies. So you have to select the clean coals, and still scrub the hell out of the smoke to keep it clean. That's not cheap. Nor is strip mining and restoring thousands of square miles of the landscape.

Back in March, I had to attend mandatory training near Pasadena. On the way home, I was on whatever the hell freeway goes through there, the 210 or something, at 5PM. Six lanes of "freeway" each way. Eastbound and westbound, all jammed with cars, most carrying one idiot per, moving at a walking pace. A scene repeated each working day, no doubt, in Pasadena, and over thousands of miles of freeway all over this wonderful nation of ours. California uses more gasoline per year than any nation on earth except the USA itself.* Forget nuclear, coal, wind, tide, biomass, flatulence recovery. That - the single occupant car, long distance commuter - is just part of the shit that needs to end.

It won't, of course. I'm just venting.

But I have been walking  to work for a year now, started for the exercise and now I get to be all self-righteous. Those of you who can, check your local bus schedules, it couldn't hurt to try.

*http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/07/amazing-stat-ca.html which links to the actual California Energy Commission document

Last edited by sigmoid freud (2008-11-04 00:07:25)

Scotty wrote:

Doesn't matter anymore.  The Redskins screwed the pooch.

Say hello to President Obama.  Good bye to freedom.

We had freedom under Bush?  Have I been missing something these last 8 years???

headkicker_girl wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Doesn't matter anymore.  The Redskins screwed the pooch.

Say hello to President Obama.  Good bye to freedom.

We had freedom under Bush?  Have I been missing something these last 8 years???

He grew up thinking Reagan was a freedom fighter.  Forgive him.

Dmtdust wrote:

headkicker_girl wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Doesn't matter anymore.  The Redskins screwed the pooch.

Say hello to President Obama.  Good bye to freedom.

We had freedom under Bush?  Have I been missing something these last 8 years???

He grew up thinking Reagan was a freedom fighter.  Forgive him.

I don't recall losing any freedoms because of Bush the past 8 years...I do remember losing some because of the Islamosandniggers...

First few off the top of my head are the elimination of Posse Comitatus, the Fourth Amendment, and Habeus Corpus.

Dirckman wrote:

I'm not saying coal and oil are perfect, I'm saying that they're the absolute best thing we've got right now and that rather than dictating our energy futures based on what's politically popular at any given time we should let the free market do it's job...  Technologies and infrastructure will improve allowing the "green" energies to become the economically feasible option, but as for now falsely forcing them into existence will bankrupt a lot of people....  The only "green" energy I see as being viable now is nuclear, the technology is already there, we just need to deregulate it to allow the infrastructure to come into play...  I hate to give France too much credit, but it's working for them...

Actually there are a lot of viable technologies right now.  Solar cell efficiency has gone up exponentially in the last decade, and within the next year or two we'll have the first solar thermal plants online.  Wind power actually works pretty well, too. and there's also geothermal and recent advances in electrolysis technologies that will allow for  more efficient generation of hydrogen from water.

On top of all of that, the proposed cap and trade systems don't call for instantly setting the lowest cap possible, but we can't just keep polluting because it's cheap.  We need to start working towards weaning ourselves off of this stuff quickly, like within the next few decades, because until we do, we have no hope of getting the rest of the world to go along with it.

Dirckman wrote:

The free market is bigger and far more intelligent than any one man or politcal ethos ever coud be....

This has nothing to do with coal, Dirckman, I just want to tell you one last time that the phrase "free market" is meaningless, except insofar as it describes an ideological fantasy. I spent years as the editor of a business magazine, forwarding the agenda of supposed "free market" thinkers before I actually did any real study of the "free market" ideology. Once I actually sat down and did my homework (if you're not familiar with at least Hayek, Friedman and Hazlitt then stop saying "free market," because you haven't got a clue) it was obvious that the idea of the free market was a political rallying cry, yelped by people who did not understand a thing about real world economies.

All practical economies, including the American economy, juggle micro and macro necessities, by responding to them with a balance of non-interventionist and interventionist policies. Outside a handful of marginalized nutjobs, you will be very hard pressed to find a practical economist who doesn't recognize the necessity of some intervention. Let's spell this out:

1. All modern economies involve high levels of government intervention.
2. There is no such thing as a modern free market economy - they are all "mixed."
3. There are very few pure "free market" economists - most of them know better.

That's part A of the argument, an attempt to dissuade you from referring to the free market as though it actually existed. Part B may never materialize, but if it did it would be a direct assault on the philosophy of the free market, in an attempt to convince you that it's based in ideology, and it's not a practical or complete answer for the economy of a modern society. And because right wingers tend to be incredibly black & white, let me spell one thing out: I am not any more left-wing than I am libertarian. I believe in mixed, non-ideological responses to economic circumstances. Sometimes a non-interventionist approach is appropriate, sometimes it is not. To go all one way or the other is ideological, not rational.

Finally, to call the markets themselves rational is ridiculous, since capitalism tends to monopoly, and monopolists use their power to control the markets, cynically deflowering the virgin state of "freeness" from which they supposedly sprang. People are cowardly, submissive, tribalistic and plain old dumb. Over and over again they allow themselves to be herded and fucked, by any brand of tyrant, whether his weapons are soldiers, politicians or corporate marketing departments. As George Orwell wrote of Hayek's The Road to Serfdom "...he does not see, or will not admit, that a return to 'free' competition means for the great mass of people a tyranny probably worse, because more irresponsible, than that of the State. The trouble with competitions is that somebody wins them." Well, we know who's winning the competition at the moment - the very rich. And the bastions of "free market" economics, having enjoyed years of unregulated greed, are currently dining out on the American taxpayer, having been bailed out, yet again, by a supposedly non-interventionist government. Reactionary, one-sided ideologies all share one thing in common: hypocrisy.

Johnny_Rotten wrote:

Your lucid when the meds kick in wilbur, now if we can just work on those emotional peaks.

I can't recall if I have seen that Orwell quote before. Do you have the source?

Emotional peaks? Or emotional piques? (Without them I'd lack entertainment value.)
Either way, thanks Johnny - the review is in here (#30), but I first found the quote in Hayek's Wiki.

Last edited by WilberCuntLicker (2008-11-04 03:00:25)