T1B

Posted: **Sun Nov 02, 2008 7:46 pm**

http://media.newsbusters.org/stories/hi ... l-industry

Let me sort of describe my overall policy.

What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there.

I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.

That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.

The only thing I've said with respect to coal, I haven't been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a (sic) ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can.

It's just that it will bankrupt them.

I can understand the strategy, but I am concerned about the economic implications involved in crippling yet another industry. Since it is an industry that involves generating energy - the "trickle down" effect would probably cause a negative impact on other industries.

There's sort of a "tough love" approach and necessity is the mother of invention, so perhaps creating an urgent necessity by severely crippling our economy is what Obama has in mind.

Change, as does growth, typically requires some pain.

How much "pain" are you - individually - prepared to endure for the sake of "Change" and Obama's vision to change the world ?

Higher taxes. Penalties. Is this all good for the economy ?

Posted: **Sun Nov 02, 2008 8:52 pm**

How many threads do you plan on C&Ping this into?

Posted: **Sun Nov 02, 2008 8:55 pm**

It has two purposes. The first was within the context of media's unwillingness to report the news as it pertains to some of the questionable aspects of Obama's "vision". I pasted that where it was appropriate, in the thread discussing that.

Then I created this thread - where it belonged by the way - to stimulate a discussion, I hope, of the merits or lack thereof of his suggested policy. Hence, why it is in the political forum.

So, are you interested in discussing what you, as an invidual, are willing to sacrifice in order to make Obama's "change" come about ?

Or how about an opinion on the potential negative impact on the economy such a policy might have.

Posted: **Mon Nov 03, 2008 7:41 pm**

Tom In VA wrote:
How much "pain" are you - individually - prepared to endure for the sake of "Change" and Obama's vision to change the world ?

I'm prepared to endure the daily pain of having to read post after post of you meltding down over higher taxes, Reverened Wright, secret militias or some other impending doom.

Posted: **Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:46 pm**

mvscal wrote:You won't have to worry about that as we will not have enough electrical power for such frivolity as internet usage after Onogger bankrupts the industry that provides 50% of our generating capacity, cripples another 20% and indifferently "supports" yet another 20%.

Well shit, if an Obama presidency will lead to you giving up posting, then I guess there's more inscentive for me to vote.

Posted: **Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:48 pm**

you'll be one of the first to be lined up and shot, jay

Posted: **Mon Nov 03, 2008 9:01 pm**

Cuda wrote:you'll be one of the first to be lined up and shot, jay

I don't think Obama's going to take his Brother in Law's job that seriously.

Posted: **Mon Nov 03, 2008 11:09 pm**

JayDuck wrote: I'm prepared to endure the daily pain of having to read post after post of you meltding down over higher taxes, Reverened Wright, secret militias or some other impending doom.

A student of Alinsky I see. I don't believe you are incapable of answering the question, so I'll just conclude you're a pussy. Albeit an educated pussy.

Posted: **Mon Nov 03, 2008 11:12 pm**

Tom In VA wrote:
A student of Alinsky I see. I don't believe you are incapable of answering the question, so I'll just conclude you're a pussy. Albeit an educated pussy.

Tom, you are getting down right mean lately.

Everything okay?

Posted: **Mon Nov 03, 2008 11:26 pm**

Bankrupt the coal industry ? I guess that's change. I wonder how many believe in it ?

Posted: **Mon Nov 03, 2008 11:28 pm**

Traffic was a bitch. Obama's rally here in Virginia is two miles from my house and I had to take a shit.

So here I am, with a turtlehead poking out, a mere .25 mile from my house. Walking was out of the question as it would have steamrolled the steamer out as I walked, sitting .... looking ..... some optimism mixed in with some contempt. The contempt was mostly because, I had to take a shit.

But amidst that optimism, one question stood out, just what the fuck will this cats plans do to the economy and do my bottom line in terms of my job, my energy bill, food cost, fuel, etc.. etc..

Has anybody actually even talked about it ? All these "educated" folks who paid good money to capitalist professors preaching socialism from their ivory towers - don't want to, or can't answer a few simple questions. It's all about the money dude.

So, I take my shit, and have to flush the toilet TWICE, thanks to Al Gore's legacy of low flow toilets ....

Kind of leaves me a bit embittered about the whole "good intention" thing. The road to hell is paved with them.

But I'm optimisitc. Tomorrow we'll elect the first black president who - ironically - his ancestors were members of the tribe that sold other blacks into slavery to Europeans and Arabs. He'll "change the world".

Posted: **Tue Nov 04, 2008 2:53 am**

JayDuck wrote: I don't think Obama's going to take his Brother in Law's job that seriously.

I laughed.

Posted: **Tue Nov 04, 2008 4:28 pm**

Wolfman wrote:Bankrupt the coal industry ? I guess that's change. I wonder how many believe in it ?

I feel really bad about all those people who will be deprived of the right to contract black lung disease.

Posted: **Tue Nov 04, 2008 4:43 pm**

BSmack wrote:
Wolfman wrote:Bankrupt the coal industry ? I guess that's change. I wonder how many believe in it ?
I feel really bad about all those people who will be deprived of the right to contract black lung disease.

If what they're predicting will happen to energy costs as a result of this .... you will. Every job has it's risks and steps are taken to mitigate dust getting into the lungs of the miners.

You certainly don't mind using electronic equipment with coltan in it.

Posted: **Tue Nov 04, 2008 4:45 pm**

mvscal wrote:Maybe you ought to try figuring out how we're going to replace 50% of our electrical generating capacity...

Not that it will matter in 10 years if we don't perform substantial upgrades to our nation's power grid, but the answer is in solar, wind, natural gas and hydro.

Posted: **Tue Nov 04, 2008 4:49 pm**

Agreed.

But is bankrupting the industries that provide energy NOW, the right thing to do ? Seems to me the technology needs to be developed and a transition from one source to another would be the most prudent approach.

Posted: **Tue Nov 04, 2008 4:57 pm**

BSmack wrote: the answer is in solar, wind, natural gas and hydro.

you're living in a fucking fantasy world.

solar & wind won't be cost efficient in a million years and the green nazis won't tolerate new gas exploration or new dams

Posted: **Tue Nov 04, 2008 5:13 pm**

mvscal wrote:That would be weapons grade stupidity

Weapons grade stupidity is believing that Obama, or the Democrats, would bankrupt the Coal industry before other methods of energy production are viable and in place. These are people that are always planning on getting re-elected. Hell, they wouldn't even vote for the Bailout without forcing the Republicans to go along, to prevent getting fucked at election time. If you believe that Obama or the democrats are going to force through legislation that's going to make our energy bills increase ten-fold you are the dumbest-fucking-waste-of-space-piece-of-shit-moron on the planet.

You guys continue cringing in fear though. Its going to be a fun 4 to 8 years.

Posted: **Tue Nov 04, 2008 5:36 pm**

mvscal wrote:
JayDuck wrote:Weapons grade stupidity is believing that Obama, or the Democrats, would bankrupt the Coal industry before other methods of energy production are viable and in place.
So he was lying then?

He never said when anything would be put in place. Only what he would like the eventual policy to be. Again, if you believe his policies are going to cause our energy costs to go up ridiculous amounts, or that the Democrats in Congress would even allow that, you're a dumbfuck. They are all trying to get re-elected

Posted: **Tue Nov 04, 2008 5:43 pm**

Jay, please forgive mvscal's paranoid rantings.

You have to understand that he's been feeling quite intimidated by this whole election thing for quite some time now.

Posted: **Tue Nov 04, 2008 5:56 pm**

Ok, dumbshit. I Can't wait to watch the coal industry go under, before other energy sources are viable and for our bills to be quintoupled. What, shall we give it? 30 days into Obama's presidency?

Why are you worried anyway? You've been so spot on with all your other predictions this election, so there's no way Obama can win. You've already garaunteed that "Onogger won't win if he's not up double digits in the polls". He's only up 7, so its a done deal for McCain.

I think we can just chalk up your analysis of Obama's energy plan to another well thought out and solid take.

Posted: **Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:52 pm**

Do you really note these things?
Can we see your notebook?

Are these the same notes that led you to believe that Obama won't win the election today? I have to question your note taking abilities, or probably more importantly, the reasoning you apply to those notes to generate your conclusions.

Posted: **Tue Nov 04, 2008 7:11 pm**

Posted: **Tue Nov 04, 2008 7:31 pm**

mvscal wrote: Wrong again, fuckstick.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/111703/Final ... in-44.aspx

Par for the course.

so I'm guessing that Obama being up 11% indicates a McCain landslide...I think there is some mathematical formula that indicates the size of the McCain win is directly proportional to the percentage he's down in the polls......

I guess I'd better prepare myself for ~~four more years of Bush~~ McCain and his platform of ~~sameness~~ change

Posted: **Tue Nov 04, 2008 7:53 pm**

mvscal wrote:
JayDuck wrote:Why are you worried anyway? You've been so spot on with all your other predictions this election, so there's no way Obama can win. You've already garaunteed that "Onogger won't win if he's not up double digits in the polls". He's only up 7, so its a done deal for McCain.
Wrong again, fuckstick.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/111703/Final ... in-44.aspx

Par for the course.

You've always said he needed to be up double digits in the polls. Gallup is only one of them. He's up 7.5 in an average of all the polls. The other polls you've been touting so highly, Zogby and Rassmussen only have him up by around 5 or so.

You should add those other polls to your notes.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

Posted: **Wed Nov 05, 2008 1:10 am**

Mvscal worked JayDuck like a speedbag in this thread.

Noted.

Posted: **Wed Nov 05, 2008 6:49 pm**

mvscal wrote:
JayDuck wrote:You've always said he needed to be up double digits in the polls. Gallup is only one of them. He's up 7.5 in an average of all the polls.
Yeah, I'm still knocking 10 points off Onogger's number.

Well then it's either McCoot by 2.5% or Onogger by 1%. It's going down to the wire regardless.

Keep diggin'

Final Tally

Obama - 63,286,996, 53%
McCain - 55,936,236, 46%

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/

Posted: **Thu Nov 06, 2008 5:18 pm**

poptart wrote:Mvscal worked JayDuck like a speedbag in this thread.

Noted.

More like reality buttfucked mvscal in the mouth. The poll aggregate was only off by .1% for the popular vote.

Posted: **Thu Nov 06, 2008 5:35 pm**

mvscal wrote:The thread is about alternative energy, fucktard.

"Hey! Stop moving us already!"

Sincerely,

Posted: **Thu Nov 06, 2008 7:08 pm**

I guess the power grid really does need some upgrades, after reading an article about how the wind really got to kicking last summer in the Lower Columbia Valley (South end of central Washington/slice of nothern central Oregon), and they had to start spilling water at the dams, since they had nowhere to ship the extra power to.

WTF?

Nice job, Fed -- do everything the Constitution forbids you to, and completely neglect the things you're actually supposed to have a hand in... nice work.

Posted: **Thu Nov 06, 2008 7:17 pm**

mvscal wrote:
Dinsdale wrote:completely neglect the things you're actually supposed to have a hand in... nice work.
That's not nearly as much fun as buttfucking taxpayers.

BTW-Now that the "election" aka "asshat olympics" is over, I'm quickly gaining great hope for the real conservative movement, Constitutionalism, to rise from the ashes of the absolute joke the GOP has become.

Over the next 8 years, I think the voice of the real conservatives will be heard.

Now, we just need to find some electable real conservatives... which are pretty freaking few and far between.

T1B

Alternative Energy: CHANGE Typically involves some pain.

Alternative Energy: CHANGE Typically involves some pain.

Re: Alternative Energy: CHANGE Typically involves some pain.

Re: Alternative Energy: CHANGE Typically involves some pain.

Re: Alternative Energy: CHANGE Typically involves some pain.

Re: Alternative Energy: CHANGE Typically involves some pain.

Re: Alternative Energy: CHANGE Typically involves some pain.

Re: Alternative Energy: CHANGE Typically involves some pain.

Re: Alternative Energy: CHANGE Typically involves some pain.

Re: Alternative Energy: CHANGE Typically involves some pain.

Re: Alternative Energy: CHANGE Typically involves some pain.

Re: Alternative Energy: CHANGE Typically involves some pain.

Re: Alternative Energy: CHANGE Typically involves some pain.

Re: Alternative Energy: CHANGE Typically involves some pain.

Re: Alternative Energy: CHANGE Typically involves some pain.

Re: Alternative Energy: CHANGE Typically involves some pain.

Re: Alternative Energy: CHANGE Typically involves some pain.

Re: Alternative Energy: CHANGE Typically involves some pain.

Re: Alternative Energy: CHANGE Typically involves some pain.

Re: Alternative Energy: CHANGE Typically involves some pain.

Re: Alternative Energy: CHANGE Typically involves some pain.

Re: Alternative Energy: CHANGE Typically involves some pain.

Re: Alternative Energy: CHANGE Typically involves some pain.

Re: Alternative Energy: CHANGE Typically involves some pain.

Re: Alternative Energy: CHANGE Typically involves some pain.

Re: Alternative Energy: CHANGE Typically involves some pain.

Re: Alternative Energy: CHANGE Typically involves some pain.

Re: Alternative Energy: CHANGE Typically involves some pain.

Re: Alternative Energy: CHANGE Typically involves some pain.

Re: Alternative Energy: CHANGE Typically involves some pain.

Re: Alternative Energy: CHANGE Typically involves some pain.

Re: Alternative Energy: CHANGE Typically involves some pain.