Did the POTUS really say this?

#2
#2
ObamaBlogImage.jpg


dem_obama_soros_puppet.jpg


3214160148_69cd8a0c3e.jpg


Mortimer Snerd is a quite appropriate name for the doofus we currently refer to as potus, imo.
 
#4
#4
I wasn't home and didn't get to see it but from what I've heard on the radio on the way into work not many appear to be impressed. What are your opinions on the speech?
 
#6
#6
i'm glad he talked about getting more windmills and cap and trade in this middle of this crisis. the fact is that obama is going to take advantage of this crisis to push his socialist agenda. what does global warming have to do with the spill? this guy is scary, no substance and no regard with the constitution.
 
#7
#7
He also said we are drilling out so far because we are running out of oil and running out of shallow water places to drill. This is a complete lie. I can't believe libs let him get away with this garbage...
 
#8
#8
The wind turbine stuff made me laugh out loud. It was like, "what does that have to do with ANYTHING right now?"

I could see some convoluted logic of, "we use oil for energy right now, if we didn't this wouldn't have happened" but it isn't like we can power our cars and trucks with a wind turbine.
 
#9
#9
he should brought have brought up the fact that we need a college football playoff. that would have been no diference from what he said in his speech.
 
#10
#10
Actually, he steered clear of mentioning cap and trade directly, IIRC. He did mention the energy and climate bill, and that it would "finally make clean energy the profitable energy." There are a few mechanisms by which it would do this, but cap and trade is probably the biggest. I just found it funny that there was no way he was going to use the words "cap and trade" in this speech.
 
#11
#11
We're going to get there because we're American and we're resiliant. We landed on the moon, we can do this. But, we have no idea how we're going to do it.

That's leadership.
 
#12
#12
VOLinthaATL said:
We're going to get there because we're American and we're resiliant. We landed on the moon, we can do this. But, we have no idea how we're going to do it.

That's leadership.
Click to expand...

we went to the moon because we knew how to do it. we do not know how to get off of oil and be efficient about it.
 
#13
#13
TennTradition said:
Actually, he steered clear of mentioning cap and trade directly, IIRC. He did mention the energy and climate bill, and that it would "finally make clean energy the profitable energy." There are a few mechanisms by which it would do this, but cap and trade is probably the biggest. I just found it funny that there was no way he was going to use the words "cap and trade" in this speech.
Click to expand...

cap and trade hasn't worked in Spain, how is it going to work here? Also, how does wind and solar become profitable considering the massive subsidies they enjoy?
 
#14
#14
MG1968 said:
cap and trade hasn't worked in Spain, how is it going to work here? Also, how does wind and solar become profitable considering the massive subsidies they enjoy?
Click to expand...

I should say that the comment was made assuming what the administrations intent with the bill is - not necessarily what would actually happen were the bill to be implemented. I was just suggesting what Obama might mean by "making clean energy profitable."

But...to your questions...

1) I'm not sure it would work. I'm also not convinced that it would fail. I believe that in principle it could succeed in reducing CO2 emissions - but the political reality is that by the time special interests were dealt their credits, it would have no teeth left.

2) I think that depends on the box that you are (or the President is) drawing. You can subsidize something to local profitability, but not global, unless said subsidies lead to either a sufficient increase in deployment leading to a significant decrease in cost (not really the issue here) or increased research into said technology that leads to cost-reducing breakthroughs (more possible). He could have also been talking about cap and trade...for better or worse, you could potentially set a price point on carbon to make these alternatives profitable due to increased demand for their price-point.
 
Last edited:
#16
#16
The comments I originally posted weren't from the speech but since we are talking about it:

I thought he performed horribly. His action plan is to study the problem more and create more commissions, panels, etc. He had no passion or leadership when discussin the problem at hand or solutions for it.

He did get passionate when he dreamt about a future with no oil (and gumdrop rain and chocolate waterfalls).

To make matters worse, he admitted he has no plan and doesn't know how we'll achieve his vision but acknowledged it will cost money and we need to start now. His rationale? We've done stuff before, we'll figure it out.

I've thought he was weak in the past but his performance last night confirmed it. Absolutely terrible.
 
#17
#17
volinbham said:
The comments I originally posted weren't from the speech but since we are talking about it:

I thought he performed horribly. His action plan is to study the problem more and create more commissions, panels, etc. He had no passion or leadership when discussin the problem at hand or solutions for it.

He did get passionate when he dreamt about a future with no oil (and gumdrop rain and chocolate waterfalls).

To make matters worse, he admitted he has no plan and doesn't know how we'll achieve his vision but acknowledged it will cost money and we need to start now. His rationale? We've done stuff before, we'll figure it out.

I've thought he was weak in the past but his performance last night confirmed it. Absolutely terrible.
Click to expand...

Yep, because economically depressed times are the best times to increase taxes and government spending on unproven technologies. This guy is just so narcissistic. "To heck with y'all out there, I have a vision and will not set it aside just because common folks out there are struggling." :crazy:

He will have quite the legacy in the annals of history! :fool:
 
#18
#18
IPorange said:
The wind turbine stuff made me laugh out loud. It was like, "what does that have to do with ANYTHING right now?"

I could see some convoluted logic of, "we use oil for energy right now, if we didn't this wouldn't have happened" but it isn't like we can power our cars and trucks with a wind turbine.
Click to expand...

Four nuclear reactors would equal a row of wind turbines, each one three times as tall as Neyland Stadium skyboxes, strung along the entire length of the 2,178-mile Appalachian Trail, and you would still need the reactors to have a steady supply of energy during times the wind isn't blowing.





TennTradition said:
Actually, he steered clear of mentioning cap and trade directly, IIRC. He did mention the energy and climate bill, and that it would "finally make clean energy the profitable energy." There are a few mechanisms by which it would do this, but cap and trade is probably the biggest. I just found it funny that there was no way he was going to use the words "cap and trade" in this speech.
Click to expand...

Actually he did directly mention it when he referred to the bill passed by the house last year, he just called it by another name.

Without a defection by some republican they don't have the required 60 votes to ram 'energy reform' through the senate so here is their new plan.

Revealed: White House Scheme to Exploit Oil Spill Crisis By Imposing Nat'l Energy Tax | Republican Leader John Boehner
 
#19
#19
gsvol said:
Actually he did directly mention it when he referred to the bill passed by the house last year, he just called it by another name.

Without a defection by some republican they don't have the required 60 votes to ram 'energy reform' through the senate so here is their new plan.

Revealed: White House Scheme to Exploit Oil Spill Crisis By Imposing Nat'l Energy Tax | Republican Leader John Boehner
Click to expand...

Are you talking about what he called the "last year's energy and climate bill", which I referred to in my post? My point is that he avoided saying cap and trade and he left himself room for deflection because there are several parts of that bill that could be construed as making 'clean energy finally profitable' besides cap and trade. He knew he couldn't go there without getting crucified, so he danced around it...I just found it funny.
 
#20
#20
volinbham said:
I thought he performed horribly. His action plan is to study the problem more and create more commissions, panels, etc. He had no passion or leadership when discussin the problem at hand or solutions for it.

He did get passionate when he dreamt about a future with no oil (and gumdrop rain and chocolate waterfalls).

To make matters worse, he admitted he has no plan and doesn't know how we'll achieve his vision but acknowledged it will cost money and we need to start now. His rationale? We've done stuff before, we'll figure it out.
Click to expand...

That was the funniest part, selling the big rock candy mountain, he sounded like he didn't know his butt from a hole in the ocean.

It only makes sense if you think of it in Trotskyite terms.

"Society should be in a constant state of crisis in order to forment a constant state of revolution."

Anyone who buys Barry's load of crap probably still believes in the Easter Bunny.

20090413_obamabunny_560x375.jpg
 
#21
#21
TennTradition said:
Are you talking about what he called the "last year's energy and climate bill", which I referred to in my post? My point is that he avoided saying cap and trade and he left himself room for deflection because there are several parts of that bill that could be construed as making 'clean energy finally profitable' besides cap and trade. He knew he couldn't go there without getting crucified, so he danced around it...I just found it funny.
Click to expand...

Yep, and I thought it funny also, just like 'global warming' morphed into 'climate change.'

It goes along with a statement by Lenin that does sort of like this; "communist rhetoric should always remain in a state of flux."

No part of 'clean energy' is ever going to be profitable without huge government subsidies except for perhaps nuclear, and the environmental lobby has had that option on hold for over thirty years in American now.
 
#22
#22
gsvol said:
Yep, and I thought it funny also, just like 'global warming' morphed into 'climate change.'

It goes along with a statement by Lenin that does sort of like this; "communist rhetoric should always remain in a state of flux."

No part of 'clean energy' is ever going to be profitable without huge government subsidies except for perhaps nuclear, and the environmental lobby has had that option on hold for over thirty years in American now.
Click to expand...

I don't know about 'no part' 'ever going to be profitable'. The huge energy content and relative abundance of coal, oil, and gas make alternatives un-profitable right now. But at some point, whether it is 75 years, 200 years, or 500 years, I would imagine that the most competitive alternative, or 'clean', energies will become profitable.
 
#23
#23
TennTradition said:
I don't know about 'no part' 'ever going to be profitable'. The huge energy content and relative abundance of coal, oil, and gas make alternatives un-profitable right now. But at some point, whether it is 75 years, 200 years, or 500 years, I would imagine that the most competitive alternative, or 'clean', energies will become profitable.
Click to expand...

But not today.

Realistically the only alternative to fossil fuel energy is nuclear.

There are several unanswered questions in my mind as to why we havn't built any new nuclear energy facilities in the last thirty or so years, do you have the answers?
 
#24
#24
gsvol said:
It goes along with a statement by Lenin that does sort of like this; "communist rhetoric should always remain in a state of flux."

No part of 'clean energy' is ever going to be profitable without huge government subsidies except for perhaps nuclear, and the environmental lobby has had that option on hold for over thirty years in American now.
Click to expand...

TennTradition said:
I don't know about 'no part' 'ever going to be profitable'. The huge energy content and relative abundance of coal, oil, and gas make alternatives un-profitable right now. But at some point ... I would imagine that the most competitive alternative, or 'clean', energies will become profitable.
Click to expand...

gsvol said:
But not today.

Realistically the only alternative to fossil fuel energy is nuclear.
Click to expand...

Apparently it's not only communist rhetoric that remains in a constant state of flux.
 
Last edited:
#25
#25
gsvol said:
But not today.

Realistically the only alternative to fossil fuel energy is nuclear.

There are several unanswered questions in my mind as to why we havn't built any new nuclear energy facilities in the last thirty or so years, do you have the answers?
Click to expand...

I don't know the specifics. I worked at NEI for a summer in college, so I was generally indoctrinated with the pro-nuclear mantra :) (not that I really needed to be anymore than I was). However, there are a couple of reasons that stand out in my mind.

1) No clear solution for nuclear waste. Nuclear power operators still continue to pay into a disposal fund that has no conclusion in sight. This means that operators must a) pay money into a fund that they will likely never see the benefit of a-la me and social security and b) they still have to assume the risk of storing the spent nuclear fuel locally in storage ponds despite paying the government for disposal. This is also tied to a political unwillingness to go to a closed nuclear fuel cycle and a lack of research into more politically-feasible options for recycling spent nuclear fuel.

2) Real risk, perceived risk, and regulation. Because of the large potential impacts from a nuclear accident, which are very real, there exists both a real risk and an even higher perceived risk for operating nuclear power plants. This, along with an anti-nuclear agenda among legislators like Ed Markey, has led to incredible costs for building a nuclear power plant due to regulatory requirements. I know some people in the industry that claim that greed among a few commercial outfits has also led to incredible costs, but that isn't as clear to me (e.g., why do it, if it is going to kill your industry...we're not talking about a union here!).
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top