T1B

Now even Mikey is saying " _____ out front should have told you"?

Goddammit.

Stop it, people. Just stop it.

Mikey wrote:

mvscal wrote:
Steve Miller, CEO and President of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a group of coal-burning electricity producers
Hal Quinn, chief executive of the National Mining Assn., whose members include coal companies

My bad. Of course these guys are going to give you a completely unbiased picture.



Clean Coal?

x 1000

That term out front should tell you that the guys is nothing but a cheap hack for the coal industry. Clean coal? Doesn't exist now and prolly never will.

As a point of fact, clean coal does exist. Your ignorance doesn't change that fact.

Oh and good job kicking your own ass, you pathetic feeb.

mvscal wrote:Your all to predictable response of hopping up and down and shouting, "COAL INDUSTRY SHILL!!!," in an attempt to deny reality with piss weak ad hominem attacks on the source can be broken off right now. Coal's enemies seem to agree.

The proposed emissions standards are for all new plants, including ones powered by abundant and cheap natural gas, but would hit hardest coal-fired facilities, which would face substantial — perhaps insurmountable — technological and financial obstacles in complying with the limits.

"What this essentially says is we will never be building dirty old coal plants ever again," said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, one of the litigants in the lawsuit that led to development of the new rules. "The dominant power source of the 19th and 20th centuries won't be the same again."

The rules aren't final, and could be changed by a future Republican administration. Still, major business groups, especially those that benefit from cheap coal-fired power, were harshly critical.

"Requiring coal-based power plants to meet an emissions standard based on natural gas technology is a policy overtly calculated to destroy a significant portion of America's electricity supply," said Hal Quinn, chief executive of the National Mining Assn., whose members include coal companies. "This proposal is the latest convoy in EPA's regulatory train wreck that is rolling across America, crushing jobs and arresting our economic recovery at every stop."

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/27 ... s-20120328

mvscal wrote:

Steve Miller, CEO and President of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity...

I don't trust this Miller guy. I'm pretty sure he'll take the money and run.

mvscal wrote:
As a point of fact, clean coal does exist. Your ignorance doesn't change that fact.

Link?

It doesn't, at least on any commercially viable scale and won't in the forseeable future. All of your jumping up and down and shouting that it does exist doesn't change that fact.

Oh and good job kicking your own ass, you pathetic feeb.

Why, because you say that calling a shill a shill isn't a legitimate response, even when he's obviously a shill?

Go fuck yourself. You're nothing narcissistic little dilettante who can't even answer a straightforward question unless you can find it with a google search.

Mikey wrote:

mvscal wrote:
As a point of fact, clean coal does exist. Your ignorance doesn't change that fact.

Link?

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/p ... index.html

It doesn't, at least on any commercially viable scale and won't in the forseeable future.

It is expensive no doubt about that. That's one of the consequences of useless, feel good regulation. Of course nothing else is going to be very commercially viable either with all this cheap natural gas. That will be the next target for dumb fuckwads like you.

Oh and good job kicking your own ass, you pathetic feeb.

Why, because you say that calling a shill a shill isn't a legitimate response..

Not me. The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy. Who he is doesn't matter...unless you are a mentally deranged and mildly retarded liberal douchebag (pardon the multiple redundancies). The only thing that matters is whether or not what he says is true.

In any event, Mr. Coal Shill's enemy, Mr. Environmental Shill, is in complete agreement that these regulations will cripple the coal industry.

You, on the other hand, are spinning and melting. Why are you even trying to deny this? Ofailure came out and SAID point blank that he was going to bankrupt the coal industry with regulations. Now you're shocked into denial that it's actually happening?

mvscal wrote: In any event, Mr. Coal Shill's enemy, Mr. Environmental Shill...

Mr Coal Shill's primary enemy isn't Mr. Environmental Shill.

Three guesses. Go ahead, I'll be waiting...

Martyred wrote:

mvscal wrote: In any event, Mr. Coal Shill's enemy, Mr. Environmental Shill...

Mr Coal Shill's primary enemy isn't Mr. Environmental Shill.

Three guesses. Go ahead, I'll be waiting...

HINT: rhymes with "shock-a-fella"

Martyred wrote:

mvscal wrote: In any event, Mr. Coal Shill's enemy, Mr. Environmental Shill...

Mr Coal Shill's primary enemy isn't Mr. Environmental Shill.

Three guesses. Go ahead, I'll be waiting...

Mr. Oil Sands Shill.

Mikey wrote:

Martyred wrote:

mvscal wrote: In any event, Mr. Coal Shill's enemy, Mr. Environmental Shill...

Mr Coal Shill's primary enemy isn't Mr. Environmental Shill.

Three guesses. Go ahead, I'll be waiting...

Mr. Oil Sands Shill.

No. Coal Shill and Tar Sands Shill are the same shill.

Keep going...

Martyred wrote:

mvscal wrote:

Steve Miller, CEO and President of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity...

I don't trust this Miller guy. I'm pretty sure he'll take the money and run.

His garbage take looked like it came from a book of dreams.

Diego in Seattle wrote: His garbage take looked like it came from a book of dreams.

I'm sure he's busy peddling his game from Phoenix Arizona all the way to Tacoma...

Diego in Seattle wrote:His garbage take looked like it came from a book of dreams.

So these regulations aren't going to cripple the coal industry? It's all just a big lie to make your turd colored hero look bad? Is that your "take"?

We'll check back in with you should the topic turn to the anal rape of young boys. I'm sure you'll have plenty of valuable first hand insight into the subject.

Run along now.

Diego in Seattle wrote: His garbage take looked like it came from a book of dreams.

True, but our resident Space Cowboy seems to think that Clean Coal will be Your Saving Grace.

As opposed to...?

mvscal wrote:
So these regulations aren't going to cripple the coal industry? It's all just a big lie to make your turd colored hero look bad? Is that your "take"?

nope, China will buy all the coal they can produce

want to try again?

mvscal wrote:As opposed to...?

Goin' to Mexico?

Well, look at Mikey. Always the joker.

again... how did obama do the biggest tax raise ever?

Bizzarofelice wrote:again... how did obama do the biggest tax raise ever?

Fucking taxes are going right through the roof.

Bizzarofelice wrote:again... how did obama do the biggest tax raise ever?

The same way that Romney did (but republitards will never admit to).

what exactly is this highest tax thing ever that has Truman all pissy pampers?

I'm impressed. Carried that from Page 4, didja?

Tell you what, Sparky: Answer mvscal's questions and I'll answer yours.

BTW, google is your friend: Obamacare has the American taxpayer on the hook for $71.4 Billion... And counting.

Truman wrote:Answer mvscal's questions and I'll answer yours.

already did. pages ago.


I'm not asking for a search engine. I'm asking you to tell me why it is the biggest tax ever.

Bizzarofelice wrote:

Truman wrote:Answer mvscal's questions and I'll answer yours.

already did. pages ago.


I'm not asking for a search engine. I'm asking you to tell me why it is the biggest tax ever.

Good thing. Hate to think you might get lost on the World Wide Web. You don't strike me as being much of a search engineer.

No, you answered AP's questions.

These were mvscals questions:

You voted for Obama in 2008 and/or are planning to vote for him in 2012. The question is...why? Perhaps I've been wrong the whole time. This is your opportunity to explain your vote in rational terms. Since you might be a little shy and embarassed, I'll help you get started.

Did you vote for Obama because he:

Promised to close Gitmo?
Promised to turn the economy around?
Promised not to raise taxes on those making less than $250K?
Promised the most transparent adminstration in history?
Promised that your energy costs would "necessarily skyrocket"?
Promised vague, ambiguous numbers of "shovel-ready jobs"?
Promised to "slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet"?
Promised to "reset" our diplomatic relations with the world?
Promised to "cut the deficit in half by 2013"?

How is all this working out for you?

The first nine are y/n. The 10th is essay. A Mizzou grad with your highly-superior intellectual talents should easily handle them.

Just answer the questions, Claire.

dear lord...

Barry failed to deliver on all of it - save the energy prices disaster.


The ObaMao 2012 Voter has Battered Wife Syndrome.

Among the symptoms:

The abused believes that the violence was her fault.
The abused has an irrational belief that the abuser is omnipresent and omniscient

The feeling of being both responsible for and helpless to stop the violence leads in turn to depression and passivity.
This learned depression and passivity makes it difficult for the abused partner to marshal the resources and support system needed to leave.


They're beaten bitches, basically.

Obama makes campaign promises.
Republican House makes it their main goal for the next four years to make sure that none of his agenda gets passed.
Republicans shrug their shoulders four years later and ask "so, how come he didn't keep any of his campaign promises?"

Are you all really that fucking stupid? At least you should add a "winkie" smilie when you post that bullshit so we know you aren't. Or maybe you really are.

Who Gives A Rat's Ass anyway?

Barry has had a majority in the senate for 3.5 years and he also had a majority in the house for his first 2 years.

He had Washington completely by the tail for 2 full years.

The 'he was blocked' take is nonsensical.

It's a lie.


Over the past 1.5 years, Barry has shown a complete inability/unwillingness to work toward compromise with a party in opposition to him.

He sucks shit, essentially.

Which items on that list has the house blocked Barry from accomplishing?

poptart wrote:
The 'he was blocked' take is nonsensical.

you don't have a keen grasp on how the political system works do you.....

Then educate me.

Which items on the list did the house block Barry from accomplishing?

Mikey wrote: Republican House makes it their main goal for the next four years to make sure that none of his agenda gets passed.

None of his agenda got passed? Hmm. Well, if he is so easily stymied, why would you vote for him again?

Mikey wrote:

mvscal wrote:As opposed to...?

Goin' to Mexico?

http://mexicovacationawareness.com/mexicostory.html

Coal and fracking and planet killing rapacious profiteering by gargoyle plutocrats must be brought to heel ...or what?


O' course I'm voting for a robot from Kolob...why not?

mvscal wrote:

Mikey wrote: Republican House makes it their main goal for the next four years to make sure that none of his agenda gets passed.

None of his agenda got passed? Hmm. Well, if he is so easily stymied, why would you vote for him again?

You're saying that voting for a bad candidate is better than voting for someone who you view as ineffective?

What planet are you on, shitstain?

poptart wrote:Then educate me.

Which items on the list did the house block Barry from accomplishing?

closing gitmo

On May 20, 2009, as part of a war-funding request, the Senate voted 90 to 6 against appropriating $80 million to close Guantanamo. “Americans don’t want some of the most dangerous men alive coming here,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on the floor of the chamber, adding that he commended Senate Democrats for “fulfilling their oversight responsibilities.”

members from both parties have refused to cooperate with Obama on the closure of gitmo essentially tying his hands....obama can be faulted for not pressing hard enough, but he can't do it alone...he needs the cooperation of the house and senate

turn the economy around?

in order to turn the economy around, new jobs are needed....small business start-ups and hiring has tanked.....more than 60% of jobs created and lost in this country come from small businesses (companies of less than 100 employees)....the table was set in 2000-2005...9/11 hit and contrary to what some idiots would tell you (sup mvscal), that had a major impact on our economy.....airline travel took a major hit as did tourism from abroad.....insurance industries suffered, massive layoffs occurred between September 2001 and March of 2002....then there's the economic burden of the costs of fighting wars on two fronts and these costs were massive.....shortly after the internet bubble burst (yes, George Bush inherited that problem), the Fed began to loosen monetary policy in the hopes of spurring the economy, which it did by creating another bubble-the real estate market....financial institutions were running amok, loaning money like drunken sailors....the Federal Reserve and the Treasury were mismanaging money (and still are to this day).....125% loan to value ratios on houses-interest only mortgages, qualifying buyers with the only requirement being the borrowers were alive? new construction of houses at an alarming rate, assuming that 12%/per annum appreciation rate were going to continue? anyone with experience in real estate knows this is simply unsustainable....in 2005, every highly educated real estate appraiser I know (which excludes residential dinks) knew the real estate market crash was coming and when it did, it absolutely cattle prodded the US economy.....try cutting deficits with that on your plate

raise taxes on those making less than $250K?
as far as I can tell, the tax increases enacted under the obama administration that might effect those making less than $250 k are as follows:
Tobacco Tax hike-yeah, smokers have to pay more money but of course, smokers also cost the insurance industry significantly more money than do non-smokers....
A 10 percent excise tax on indoor tanning services (yeah, this is definitely a tragedy....
Increased corporate taxes by making it more difficult for businesses to engage in activities that reduce their tax liability. (this is more directed at larger corporations, but could effect some making less than $250,000...those are the taxes that are in effect as of today...

the most transparent adminstration in history?

I'm not sure how you measure this

that your energy costs would "necessarily skyrocket"?
they haven't skyrocketed as has been pointed out throughout this thread....

vague, ambiguous numbers of "shovel-ready jobs"?

the infrastructure of this country is deteriorating at an alarming rate and the republicans have fought obama at every turn when he tries to allocate money for new infrastructure projects....it's tough to develop shovel ready jobs when your political opponents effectively kill everything....

"slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet"?
how do you measure this

"reset" our diplomatic relations with the world?

our diplomatic relations are far superior to what they were under Bush and his .45 caliber diplomatic approach

"cut the deficit in half by 2013"?

faced with a housing market crash, wars on two fronts, financial institutions essentially playing "Monopoly" with our money, etc. etc.
what actions could he have taken that would have cut the deficit in half?

Mikey wrote:Obama makes campaign promises.

Ahhh..don't make promises you can't keep..anticipate the downside and consider that before opening your pie hole with bullshit promises.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sYybgdMgUo

poptart wrote:Barry has had a majority in the senate for 3.5 years and he also had a majority in the house for his first 2 years.

He had Washington completely by the tail for 2 full years.

The 'he was blocked' take is nonsensical.

It's a lie.


Over the past 1.5 years, Barry has shown a complete inability/unwillingness to work toward compromise with a party in opposition to him.

He sucks shit, essentially.

Skimming through this thread...I have to ask - what do you care about what we do here in America?

PSUFAN wrote:

poptart wrote:Barry has had a majority in the senate for 3.5 years and he also had a majority in the house for his first 2 years.

He had Washington completely by the tail for 2 full years.

The 'he was blocked' take is nonsensical.

It's a lie.


Over the past 1.5 years, Barry has shown a complete inability/unwillingness to work toward compromise with a party in opposition to him.

He sucks shit, essentially.

Skimming through this thread...I have to ask - what do you care about what we do here in America?

I've asked that question a few times myself. Seems he's already made his choice and left. No skin in the game, so to speak.

Van wrote:Now even Mikey is saying " _____ out front should have told you"?

Goddammit.

Stop it, people. Just stop it.

It's listed as acceptable usage in the T1B Style Guide.

Tell me you knew.