***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[ccastro02]

you still aint answer da question of whats da average amount of electricity da united states generates from coal.

I didn't?







































































.....oh,

Link it up than. I told you it's not uncommon to find coal burners in turn of the century buildings. But they are not in use! My sisters building has one, but they don't use it! Oil burners have taken their place. Come on man. Link up your statement or it's untrue.
I AGREE with you that coal is getting burned!! Coal accounts for about 30% of our energy. When did i say other wise??? I swear you love playing devils advocate! I see your reading skills are worse than your weak grammar skills. It seems like me and you are debating completely different issues. I'm debating that we not increase coal consumption, and by that you're implying that what i'm saying is that coal isn't getting burned. Stay focused man.
And i'de rather make more money selling than depending on a source of energy that is inevitably going to deplete within the next 100 years. I'de rather not have to worry about a hole on the o-zone layer and coal smugging up my city. I like my fresh air, thanks.

from post #2527.

Still haven't answered mine. What school was it that still used coal? Please provide the Name of the school so i can call them to confirm. I'm waiting....

 

[ccastro02]

in da United states its damn near infinite, and as long as its DIRT CHEAP alternatives will have to stick around da drawing board until it can under cut da price, NOT artificially make
it more expensive to warp market prices.

Infinite? I'de say you should link that up or that also isn't true, Mr Dyckman.

 

[essential1]

I'll post it again..




This is what you're doing debating Ninjahood

 

[futuremd]

 

[ninjahood]

Hey_

So, we're equating the opinion of a pastor, based on historical facts, to a central belief of the cult of Mormon?

...Wow.

Julius F. Wrek

its harder to persecute an entire relgigion vs one rogue pastor.

 

[futuremd]

Hey_

So, we're equating the opinion of a pastor, based on historical facts, to a central belief of the cult of Mormon?

...Wow.

Julius F. Wrek

its harder to persecute an entire relgigion vs one rogue pastor.

He wasn't a rogue pastor.

He was talking about the 9/11 attacks and the inspiration TERRORISTS had for it and correlating it to how blacks felt in this country, but that we shouldn't hold that against the nation itself.

But context is an argument that requires effort, so of course you don't follow. 

 

[ninjahood]

you still aint answer da question of whats da average amount of electricity da united states generates from coal.

I didn't?








































































.....oh,

Link it up than. I told you it's not uncommon to find coal burners in turn of the century buildings. But they are not in use! My sisters building has one, but they don't use it! Oil burners have taken their place. Come on man. Link up your statement or it's untrue.
I AGREE with you that coal is getting burned!! Coal accounts for about 30% of our energy. When did i say other wise??? I swear you love playing devils advocate! I see your reading skills are worse than your weak grammar skills. It seems like me and you are debating completely different issues. I'm debating that we not increase coal consumption, and by that you're implying that what i'm saying is that coal isn't getting burned. Stay focused man.
And i'de rather make more money selling than depending on a source of energy that is inevitably going to deplete within the next 100 years. I'de rather not have to worry about a hole on the o-zone layer and coal smugging up my city. I like my fresh air, thanks.

from post #2527.

Still haven't answered mine. What school was it that still used coal? Please provide the Name of the school so i can call them to confirm. I'm waiting....

juan pablo duarte P.S. 132

gee that was easy, meanwhile coal is STILL da most abundant and CHEAP energy source in da united states, big bad ninjahood is always da scape goat here, meanwhile

in real world, everyone with common sense sides with me

liberals that troll NT =/= mainstream America

 

[ninjahood]

Hey_


So, we're equating the opinion of a pastor, based on historical facts, to a central belief of the cult of Mormon?


...Wow.

Julius F. Wrek

its harder to persecute an entire relgigion vs one rogue pastor.

He wasn't a rogue pastor.

He was talking about the 9/11 attacks and the inspiration TERRORISTS had for it and correlating it to how blacks felt in this country, but that we shouldn't hold that against the nation itself.

But context is an argument that requires effort, so of course you don't follow. 

obama dropped that boy like da plague, i forget who im talking to sometimes..da same guy who thought da first debate did nuffin to obama lulz...

 

[cj863]

 

[ccastro02]

juan pablo duarte P.S. 132
gee that was easy, meanwhile coal is STILL da most abundant and CHEAP energy source in da united states, big bad ninjahood is always da scape goat here, meanwhile
in real world, everyone with common sense sides with me
liberals that troll NT =/= mainstream America

Thank you. Took a while though. Will have to verify this information tomorrow morning. Until than, stay classy Mr. 181st street.

 

[Betonblck]

[

B]Romney campaign spent $5,000 staging 'supplies' for his storm relief photo-op
[/B]
by Jed LewisonFollow

The plan was for supporters to bring hurricane relief supplies to the event, and then deliver the bags of canned goods, packages of diapers, and cases of water bottles to the candidate, who would be perched behind a table along with a slew of volunteers and his Ohio right-hand man, Senator Rob Portman. To complete the project and photo-op, Romney would lead his crew in carrying the goods out of the gymnasium and into the Penske rental truck parked outside.

But the last-minute nature of the call for donations left some in the campaign concerned that they would end up with an empty truck. So the night before the event, campaign aides went to a local Wal Mart and spent $5,000 on granola bars, canned food, and diapers to put on display while they waited for donations to come in, according to one staffer. (The campaign confirmed that it "did donate supplies to the relief effort," but would not specify how much it spent.)

Not that you needed any more evidence that Romney's event was more about helping his campaign than helping storm relief victims, but the fact is the only reason they collected supplies is because they thought it would make for a better picture than encouraging financial donations. The thing is that the Red Cross does not ordinarily accept physical goods because processing them is a logistical nightmare; instead, they ask for financial donations.

But apparently Romney's campaign bullied the Red Cross into accepting the physical goods that they didn't want, because by the end of the day yesterday, the campaign was distributing a statement from the Red Cross thanking them for their donations.

Romney's campaign told reporters that a Red Cross warehouse in New Jersey was accepting the donation, and distributed a statement they attributed to the Red Cross.

"The American Red Cross appreciates the support from the Romney campaign and is working with the campaign to process this donation of supplies," the statement read. "We are grateful that both the Obama and Romney campaigns have also encouraged the public to send financial donations to the Red Cross. We encourage individuals who want to help to consider making a financial donation or making an appointment to give blood."

That statement is a polite way of saying: "Please don't do what the Romney campaign did with physical goods because we don't need the logistical challenge of processing donations of supplies. Instead, please make a financial contribution or donate blood." In other words, if Romney wanted to help he should have donated the $5,000 instead of spending it on props to make his storm relief photo op look good.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...utm_campaign=Feed:+dailykos/index+(Daily+Kos)

 

[david bowman]

Sketchy really is the perfect word to describe this guy

 

[Nike Jordan]

This is an actual flyer that I received in the mail today...

 

[i lax bro]

Obama buying ad time in Michigan, Oregon is at 47-45, and Bill Clinton set to campaign in Minnesota... Campaign collapse SOON.JPG

 

[kix4kix]

Obama buying ad time in Michigan, Oregon is at 47-45, and Bill Clinton set to campaign in Minnesota... Campaign collapse SOON.JPG

?

 

[Nike Jordan]

Obama buying ad time in Michigan, Oregon is at 47-45, and Bill Clinton set to campaign in Minnesota... Campaign collapse SOON.JPG

?

He's a troll.

 

[fantastic4our]

juan pablo duarte P.S. 132
gee that was easy, meanwhile coal is STILL da most abundant and CHEAP energy source in da united states, big bad ninjahood is always da scape goat here, meanwhile
in real world, everyone with common sense sides with me
liberals that troll NT =/= mainstream America

So because it's cheap (not to mention incredibly harmful to our environment) we should use it until it depletes...FOREVER? Instead of increased development of RENEWABLE and CLEAN forms of energy? Especially with the US consuming more energy than any other nation. I don't see how this makes sense.

"Clean" Coal is largely a myth. There are, technically, 2 such "clean" coal plants in the U.S., but they only separate a small amount of the harmful carbon dioxide from the millions of tons that get released into the atmosphere annually.

Honestly, I'm not a big political person, but I do respect logic and solid reasoning, and I do respect the President's commitment to renewable and clean energy for the country moving forward and farsightedness to not to go with the cheaper alternative.

 

[ninjahood]

juan pablo duarte P.S. 132
gee that was easy, meanwhile coal is STILL da most abundant and CHEAP energy source in da united states, big bad ninjahood is always da scape goat here, meanwhile
in real world, everyone with common sense sides with me
liberals that troll NT =/= mainstream America

So because it's cheap (not to mention incredibly harmful to our environment) we should use it until it depletes...FOREVER? Instead of increased development of RENEWABLE and CLEAN forms of energy? Especially with the US consuming more energy than any other nation. I don't see how this makes sense.

"Clean" Coal is largely a myth. There are, technically, 2 such "clean" coal plants in the U.S., but they only separate a small amount of the harmful carbon dioxide from the millions of tons that get released into the atmosphere annually.

Honestly, I'm not a big political person, but I do respect logic and solid reasoning, and I do respect the President's commitment to renewable and clean energy for the country moving forward and farsightedness to not to go with the cheaper alternative.

da only think supplanting coal is natural gas, and thats because its cheaper, thats how da free market works.

did i say it wasn't a good idea to research and develop future technologies? no, LEGISLATING and making what we already have MORE expensive to artificially

make it less competitive so that alternatives look cheaper in comparison is picking winners and losers, and da government should NOT be in da business of doing that.

 

[essential1]

Obama buying ad time in Michigan, Oregon is at 47-45, and Bill Clinton set to campaign in Minnesota... Campaign collapse SOON.JPG

Obama's winning 6 of 9 Swing States currently... And NC hasn't been a swing state in a month so 6 of 8

He could lose Ohio, VA & FL.. And still win the election..

He could lose 8 of 9 swing states if he only wins FL. Which is trending toward Obama btw, even though Romney's leading..

VA is trending toward Obama as well.. Even with Romney's lead

 

[superblytrife]

Somewhat of an important event tomorrow:  Jobs Report.

Heard they're predicting a slight uptick in unemployment (up to 7.9 from 7..  

Guess we'll see.  

 

[fantastic4our]

da only think supplanting coal is natural gas, and thats because its cheaper, thats how da free market works.

did i say it wasn't a good idea to research and develop future technologies? no, LEGISLATING and making what we already have MORE expensive to artificially

make it less competitive so that alternatives look cheaper in comparison is picking winners and losers, and da government should NOT be in da business of doing that.

How is "let's wean ourselves off of energy sources that are destroying our environment and gonna run out soon forever" picking winners and losers? Fossil fuels are really going to run out, and they really destroy our environment. It's not about the market, which is such a short sighted approach. And the government has enacted policy for the good of its people and the country's continued longevity for some time now, or else we would still have monopolies like back in the 20's. But no, let's continue destroying the ozone layer because it's cheaper.

God, I sound like a hippy.

 

[essential1]

Somewhat of an important event tomorrow:  Jobs Report.

Heard they're predicting a slight uptick in unemployment (up to 7.9 from 7.8.  

Guess we'll see.  

Would have little to no effect if that's the number.

 

[ninjahood]

da only think supplanting coal is natural gas, and thats because its cheaper, thats how da free market works.

did i say it wasn't a good idea to research and develop future technologies? no, LEGISLATING and making what we already have MORE expensive to artificially

make it less competitive so that alternatives look cheaper in comparison is picking winners and losers, and da government should NOT be in da business of doing that.

How is "let's wean ourselves off of energy sources that are destroying our environment and gonna run out soon forever" picking winners and losers? Fossil fuels are really going to run out, and they really destroy our environment. It's not about the market, which is such a short sighted approach. And the government has enacted policy for the good of its people and the country's continued longevity for some time now, or else we would still have monopolies like back in the 20's. But no, let's continue destroying the ozone layer because it's cheaper.

God, I sound like a hippy.

there's over 250 years supply of coal, and thats a ROUGH estimate.

da break thru technologies of hydrolic fracturing have made natural gas DIRT cheap and abundant.

da markets are picking whats da best because PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO PAY ALOT FOR ENERGY.

paying for research and development for future technology is GREAT, however OVER regulations which ARTIFICIALLY makes current technology more expensive

so that technology that ISNT COMPETITIVE OR IN DEMAND can be propped up IS NOT DEMOCRATIC.

cutting off your nose (fossil fuel demonization) to spite your face (raising da cost of energy DRAMATICALLY) is NOT smart financially.

there's a REASON that da kyoto protocol has expired and is not being effectively sought after for a successor, cuz frankly NO COUNTRY especially in a recession that spans

multi world economies is trying to hand cuff their GDPs for "climate change"

when those technologies become VIABLE and PROFITABLE WITHOUT HEAVY government subsidies people will FLOCK to them.

 

[Betonblck]

da only think supplanting coal is natural gas, and thats because its cheaper, thats how da free market works.


did i say it wasn't a good idea to research and develop future technologies? no, LEGISLATING and making what we already have MORE expensive to artificially


make it less competitive so that alternatives look cheaper in comparison is picking winners and losers, and da government should NOT be in da business of doing that.

How is "let's wean ourselves off of energy sources that are destroying our environment and gonna run out soon forever" picking winners and losers? Fossil fuels are really going to run out, and they really destroy our environment. It's not about the market, which is such a short sighted approach. And the government has enacted policy for the good of its people and the country's continued longevity for some time now, or else we would still have monopolies like back in the 20's. But no, let's continue destroying the ozone layer because it's cheaper.


God, I sound like a hippy.

there's over 250 years supply of coal, and thats a ROUGH estimate.

da break thru technologies of hydrolic fracturing have made natural gas DIRT cheap and abundant.

da markets are picking whats da best because PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO PAY ALOT FOR ENERGY.

paying for research and development for future technology is GREAT, however OVER regulations which ARTIFICIALLY makes current technology more expensive

so that technology that ISNT COMPETITIVE OR IN DEMAND can be propped up IS NOT DEMOCRATIC.

cutting off your nose (fossil fuel demonization) to spite your face (raising da cost of energy DRAMATICALLY) is NOT smart financially.

there's a REASON that da kyoto protocol has expired and is not being effectively sought after for a successor, cuz frankly NO COUNTRY especially in a recession that spans

multi world economies is trying to hand cuff their GDPs for "climate change"

when those technologies become VIABLE and PROFITABLE WITHOUT HEAVY government subsidies people will FLOCK to them.

Let me get this straight, you are for fracking and for getting rid of regulations? I've heard enough. SMH.

Do you know what happens to the drinking water/well water when a gas company screws up when fracking?

 

[ninjahood]

over regulation =/= getting rid of regulation

i think we're smart enough to know da difference.

fracking was a technology that was develop in part with da HELP of government investing in research and technology.