Survivalist Forum banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Watchin tha world go by
Joined
·
8,151 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)

Obama will bankrupt coal industry in america. and with the largest cap and trade taxes will raise your utility bill---- thru the roof. so we will have higher taxes on income --- business-- and utilities (who produce 49% of our energy) all this during a recession?

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/02/obama-ill-make-energy-prices-skyrocket/
and here is your utilitiy bills going up - in the ones own words

oh yea --- let the good times roll.
 

·
I help enlighten folks
Joined
·
16,624 Posts
why are you conceding the election?
 

·
Watchin tha world go by
Joined
·
8,151 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
I support the constitution and Ron Paul --- your the one w the socialist candidate


for once respond to your candidates stand and --- if you can defend it
 

·
I help enlighten folks
Joined
·
16,624 Posts
I support the constitution and Ron Paul --- your the one w the socialist candidate


for once respond to your candidates stand and --- if you can defend it
If you go to the SFgate website you can see the entire interview and not just this snippet and you'll be able to tell that Obama clearly means that the ones that would go bankrupt would be the ones who didn't build clean coal plants. Seriously this is the reason Republicans are losing. Instead of new ideas all they have is cheap smears.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,025 Posts
Thank God for the clean, renewable hydro power that my neighbors in Quebec sell me. It's expensive, sure, but unlike coal it's not causing respiratory illnesses, raising CO2 levels and destroying entire eco-systems in West Virginia.

Death to Coal! Nuclear, wind and hydro rule!

HippieSurvivalist
 

·
Watchin tha world go by
Joined
·
8,151 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
i did --- now defend that cap and trade idea. and those words he said he meant.

the taxes are imediate- the solution takes years.

explain how by burdening industry with taxes to be passed on to the consumer - the little guy you care for so much- and giving no lead time for industry compliance it is going to do anything but choke off economic growth. explain how untested and un developed wind and solar are going to take the place of 49% of our energy needs not including future growth given tha amount of time construction takes a nuclear plant takes how many years to build?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sweeper

·
Say no to NWO PLEASE!
Joined
·
1,009 Posts
AS F*cking if Hydro doesn't have it's own huge problems and critics. Think of the thousands of acres of land that become submerged. That is lost habitat, farming or otherwise usable land. In China it's even worse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_gorges_dam#Criticism

These problems exist in most places that use hydro. Get off your high horse, anything we do will have an adverse effect on nature.

Thank God for the clean, renewable hydro power that my neighbors in Quebec sell me. It's expensive, sure, but unlike coal it's not causing respiratory illnesses, raising CO2 levels and destroying entire eco-systems in West Virginia.

Death to Coal! Nuclear, wind and hydro rule!

HippieSurvivalist
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,817 Posts
My wife is from an area of Colorado where they have a huge coal mine several miles away. The trains run day and night 120 cars at a time. The coal goes to a huge stockpile I think it is in Utah. The reason why they have millions of tons of coal in huge piles is so they can keep the price up and that is straight from the mine foreman's mouth. So coal would be cheep if they used all they mined out. Its dirty crap anyway but what a great system.
.
 

·
I help enlighten folks
Joined
·
16,624 Posts
you've been duped again

McCain's Latest Desperate Attack Debunked: Obama And Coal

On Sunday, John McCain launched the final attack of his campaign, a fraudulent assault on Barack Obama that serves as a fitting reminder of the fundamental dishonesty not only of his own campaign, but also of the dishonesty of his allies in the right-wing propaganda establishment: Matt Drudge and FOX News.

All you need to know to understand the video is that the Drudge, FOX, and the McCain campaign joined forces with Newsbusters to push a story that the San Francisco Chronicle had concealed an eleven month old recording that supposedly contained devastating audio of Barack Obama proposing to bankrupt the entire coal industry.

Not only was that story false (more detail below), but it turns out that Barack Obama and John McCain have the same position on clean coal technology, and Ohio's Republican senator said McCain's plan to fight global warming would "put coal out of business." Here's the video:



YouTube link

::: :::

Here's the facts that the McCain-Drudge-FOX axis of weasel does not want you to know: The Chronicle had not concealed the recording, which had been on the newspaper's website all along. And rather than reveal some sinister scheme, what it actually demonstrated was that Barack Obama supported clean coal technology -- a position he shares with none other than John McCain.

Despite the fact that both candidates support clean coal technology, the McCain campaign tried to make the case that Barack Obama wanted to take away jobs from coal country in Ohio and Pennsylvania, and both Drudge and FOX were happy to oblige.

But just three years ago on the floor of the United States Senate, John McCain's Republican colleague George Voinovich of Ohio took to the floor to argue against a proposal by McCain to curb greenhouse gas emissions. McCain's proposal, Voinovich said, would "put coal out of business" and cost thousands of jobs, an argument that McCain did not contest.

In fact, McCain agreed that his plan would require sacrifice, but he also argued (correctly) that in the long-run, America would be better off. In other words, he made the exact same arguments as Barack Obama -- and as you can see above, it was all on video.

The clips I used from FOX were actually attacking Barack Obama, but the fact that you could just as easily have swapped McCain in place of Obama reveals how their media enterprise is really a propaganda operation in which political figures are nothing more than character actors taking up space in their pre-ordained dramatic narrative.

They aren't dealing with reality, they are trying to construct a new reality. For years, they've been able to maintain political power by doing just that, but now that the reality of their disastrous governance has caught up to them, their ability to lie their way to victory has been severely damaged.

For better or for worse, it's a lesson they still haven't learned. They still think they can fake their way through it.

But that's not really the important thing. The important thing is that we are overcoming their grip on power. And for that, the world is a better place.

p.s.: By popular demand, the siren stays up.

::: :::

Original post: As you probably know, the last gasp of the desperate McCain campaign is to attack Barack Obama for supporting clean coal technology and legislation that would protect us from the threat of global warming.

Video of a June 21, 2005 Senate floor debate between Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) and John McCain on legislation proposed by McCain to fight global warming has just surfaced. I'll post video within the next couple of hours, but for now, here's some text. Voinovich told McCain that his legislation would "put coal of out of business." McCain agreed that his legislation would "require sacrifice" acknowledging that critics said it would cost "thousands of jobs." Nonetheless, McCain (correctly) stood by his legislation, and even said that he wanted a tougher set of rules.

Here's more from Voinovich's statement:

On one side of this debate, there are proposals to create a mandatory domestic program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as the amendment that will be proposed by Senator McCain, to my understanding, and I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

It is my understanding that the amendment, according to Charles Rivers Associates, which analyzed its provisions, would cause the loss of 24,000 to 47,000 Ohio jobs, in 2010, and energy-intensive industries to shrink by 2.3 to 5.6 percent in 2020. We are talking about manufacturing industries, energy-intensive manufacturing and chemical and many others.

The McCain amendment will put coal out of business by forcing fuel switching to natural gas.

And John McCain's counter-argument:

Does it involve some sacrifice on the part of the American people? Yes. ... This amendment, I am sure, will be attacked--thousands of jobs will be lost, we will find some obscure scientist, some will talk about the dangers of encouraging the use of nuclear power. The fact is, we are going to win on this issue. The reason we are going to win is because every single month there is another manifestation of the terrible effects of what climate change is doing to our Earth.

The video coming soon.

http://www.jedreport.com/2008/11/ohios-gop-senator-mccain-will.html
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,025 Posts
These problems exist in most places that use hydro. Get off your high horse, anything we do will have an adverse effect on nature.
Hydro doesn't kill people (coal buring causes lung illnesses), doesn't cause the acid rain that's rotting New England's forests and doesn't produce CO2. Of course Hydro has adverse effects, but they're no where near the bad effects coal has.

HippieSurvivalist
 

·
Watchin tha world go by
Joined
·
8,151 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
still waitin fer ya ta defend cap and trade --
because i dont think it can be --
and am sure you wont even try--

a govt tax on ALL carbon fuels.

more money into politicians greedy hands and less for the industries who need it for modernization. all paid for by the same ones who pay for it all anyway --- the consumer

at least hippie will debate
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
215 Posts
Hydro doesn't kill people (coal buring causes lung illnesses), doesn't cause the acid rain that's rotting New England's forests and doesn't produce CO2. Of course Hydro has adverse effects, but they're no where near the bad effects coal has.

HippieSurvivalist
Not all coal burning plants are bad. I grew up less than a mile from one. I lived there for close to 26 years. No health problems. . . .no biological problems. . . .no smog. You wouldn't even know it was there unless you drove past it. Don't believe the hype. Coal can be good.
 

·
The Punisher
Joined
·
1,607 Posts
still waitin fer ya ta defend cap and trade --
because i dont think it can be --
and am sure you wont even try--

a govt tax on ALL carbon fuels.

more money into politicians greedy hands and less for the industries who need it for modernization. all paid for by the same ones who pay for it all anyway --- the consumer

at least hippie will debate

goose, you may as well wait on satan himself showing up on your front doorstep, before you get an answer from brainwashed individuals. They buy into the 2 party system of divide and conquer. My side's right, no my side's right. Like a bunch of kids on the playground, especially our favorite troll, who's got more tunnel vision than a crack addled heroin addict.:D:
 

·
Watchin tha world go by
Joined
·
8,151 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Hydro doesn't kill people (coal buring causes lung illnesses), doesn't cause the acid rain that's rotting New England's forests and doesn't produce CO2. Of course Hydro has adverse effects, but they're no where near the bad effects coal has.

HippieSurvivalist
so how about coal gasification? burns cleaner as a fuel.
since we are the saudi arabia of coal, and a good idea to switch from old coal tech to clean coal tech?

instead of taxing for emissions under a cap and trade - why not a credit for amount reduced, and a penalty down the road after enough time to do it?
that way you git yer clean air and economic expansion ta do it by making it possible for it to be affordable.
 

·
Watchin tha world go by
Joined
·
8,151 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
goose, you may as well wait on satan himself showing up on your front doorstep, before you get an answer from brainwashed individuals. They buy into the 2 party system of divide and conquer. My side's right, no my side's right. Like a bunch of kids on the playground, especially our favorite troll, who's got more tunnel vision than a crack addled heroin addict.:D:
I enjoy a challenge

and he has shown up --- well on phone anyway, both have called ta git my vote

told em too late - voted early, and it wasnt fer yall
 

·
Scarred for life...
Joined
·
3,295 Posts
Not all coal burning plants are bad. I grew up less than a mile from one. I lived there for close to 26 years. No health problems. . . .no biological problems. . . .no smog. You wouldn't even know it was there unless you drove past it. Don't believe the hype. Coal can be good.


When they have all those scrubbers and filters installed the air is actually cleaner when it leaves the plant that it was when it went in.

I know where one is in a residential area and like Truthseeker said if you didnt see it you would never know it was there. No smell, no dust, no smoke, nothing.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,025 Posts
so how about coal gasification? burns cleaner as a fuel.
since we are the saudi arabia of coal, and a good idea to switch from old coal tech to clean coal tech?

instead of taxing for emissions under a cap and trade - why not a credit for amount reduced, and a penalty down the road after enough time to do it?
that way you git yer clean air and economic expansion ta do it by making it possible for it to be affordable.
sure, if gassification is economically viable and produces lots less particulates, then by all means lets have it in the mix. I still am opposed to mountaintop removal and similar enviornmentally disasterous means of getting stuff out of the ground. I also just read about a breakthrough in photovoltaic cells that might make large-scale solar much more cost efficient.

HippieSurvivalist
 

·
AKA The Dragon
Joined
·
2,819 Posts
Power prices have increased here by about 6% and are set to rise again in the near future as soon as our gooberment sorts out carbon trading.
We have an option of green power on the grid to the consumer, but it costs extra on the power bill. In these tough times, there is no incentive to use this option, it should be a discount instead.
To fully solar power a house off the grid, even with government rebates, the cost is beyond most consumers, roughly $30k - $40k depending on requirements.
The average life cycle of solar panels is about 25 years, decreasing efficiency over this time, batteries, regulators and inverters require replacing over the same period of time.
To recover the total cost of installation and maint in savings for being off the grid, it takes longer than the life span of the solar equipment at todays prices.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top