US News
Feb 6, 2008, 8:28 GMT
Clinton, Obama extend battle; McCain soars on Super Tuesday (Roundup)
And Also
Similar articles
- ANALYSIS: On Obama's election anniversary, Republicans claim victory
- Republican victories in first election test for Obama (Roundup)
- Republican victories in first election test for Obama (3rd Lead)
- Republican victories in first election test for Obama (2nd Lead)
- Republicans take Virginia in first election test for Obama (1st Lead)
Latest Headlines in US
- 1. Tiger Woods' slightly injured in car mishap (Roundup)
- 2. It's official: Tiger Woods' injuries were slight (3rd Lead)
- 3. Tiger Woods treated after car accident (2nd Lead)
- 4. Tiger Woods seriously injured in car accident (1st Lead)
- 5. REPORT: Tiger Woods seriously injured in car accident
Older Talkback
page: 1
If Obama loses this time, maybe he can team up with the American Republic and run with Judah Ben-Hur for 2012!
haven't heard from sp4 lately .
maybe someone shot him in the ass.
For crying out loud, man. Merely involking that name is enough to raise that braindead demon spawn from his graveyard slumbers. This is a peaceful site without his stinky trash cluttering the landscape. Now, if the great thinker, noharness, would f-off, this would be a better, less contentious site where REAL discussions could take place. The way it used to be in other words. The same could be said for Charles and 'Realist.'
Dammit, you just raised 3 more demons, yourself.
Funny - somewhere along the line I made a rather cute remark against SP4 and it brought a big, bad comment :
They didn't print the last of my comment - which said 'I'm puzzled'!
sorry
mccain said if he is elected he has no intentions of bringing the troops home...sound familiar? just another bush clone.
No apology needed from you, my good man. At the begining, it was meant in jest, but unfortunately my distaste for those other people sort of made it look I was slamming you. That was not intended. But I still stand by my remarks about that neocon cabal.
I have absolutely no life either and I too like to whine that other people have opinions that I am too stupid to challenge intellectually.
Lets all get together and whine that some 'neo-con' wrote on the internet that we reflexively disagree with but are not smart enough to articulate an intelligent counterargument.
Hurray for the basement dwellers!
So, do you have a point to make that is on-topic, or are you just going to whine and snivel?
Things that remain unexamined or even mentioned.
From the Clinton Clan: www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/energy/
RE:'Hillary has a bold and comprehensive plan to address America's energy and environmental challenges that will establish a green, efficient economy and create as many as five million new jobs.'
Buzzwords with something close to zero in the way of semantic content.
RE:'Centered on a cap and trade system for carbon emissions, stronger energy and auto efficiency standards and a significant increase in green research funding, Hillary's plan will reduce America's reliance on foreign oil and address the looming climate crisis.'
Talk is cheap.
RE:'Setting ambitious targets, the plan would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050 to avoid the worst effects of global warming, and cut foreign oil imports by two-thirds from 2030 projected levels, more than 10 million barrels per day.'
Will The Clintons set greenhouse emission targets at the level that nuclear power plants produce? No. Will they require all internal combustion engines over 25HP and used in ground vehicles be diesel engines? No. Will The Clintons favor ethanol over bio-diesel? No. They will sink billions of taxpayer dollars into 'clean' coal while driving the price of groceries and fuel through the roof with an ethanol program. They will also waste billions on nearly completely ineffective solar and windpower systems, both of which need an economically viable energy storage method to be effective. We will watch for some shred of decent engineering while reading the rest of this fluff, but I do not hold out a lot of hope.
RE:'Hillary would transform our economy from carbon-based to clean and energy efficient, jump starting research and development through a $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund and doubling investment in basic energy research.'
So, once again, we have a politician who tells us that we must wait for a collection of shiny doohickies that will solve all our problems in the future. Does anyone see a hard schedule in this anywhere? No, you do not, because it is intended to be nothing more than a diversion from the real solutions that would cause The Clintons political grief.
RE:'She would also spur the green building industry by funding the retrofitting and modernization of 20 million low-income homes and take concrete steps to reduce electricity consumption, including enacting strict appliance efficiency standards and phasing out incandescent light bulbs.'
Uh-huh. I suppose this is one way to prop up the ridiculous real estate industry we have here--direct subsidies. Oh, and what about all that mercury and lead, Billary?
RE:'Recognizing that transportation accounts for 70 percent of U.S. oil consumption, Hillary would increase fuel efficiency standards to 55 miles per gallon by 2030, but would help automakers retool their production facilities through $20 billion in 'Green Vehicle Bonds.''
The way I look at things, this is us giving dangerous people money for twenty-two years longer than we need to. For anyone in the green camp, this has to be taken as a very nasty joke. There are ways to fix this faster, but it will require castigating the oil and auto lobbies. The 'Green Bonds' are life support for the dinosaurs of our automobile industry. None of those companies can be salvaged as they now exist. All of them need to be burned downed so that new automobile companies can rise from the ashes.
RE:'To take the steps necessary to transition to a clean and renewable energy future, Hillary will urge all of the nation's stakeholders to contribute to the effort.'
I'll give the Clintons credit for this idea, as I agree with them that this is the only approach that will work. If we leave anyone free of the pain of making changes, no one will do anything.
RE:'Automakers will be asked to make more efficient vehicles;'
Albeit at a snail's pace.
RE:'oil and energy companies to invest in cleaner, renewable technologies;'
This one actually makes sense. There is no reason Big Oil should not be endeavoring to produce bio-diesel. There is also no reason not to encourage them, even by spanking local governments where necessary, to replace their aging refineries with newer, cleaner and more efficient designs. We waste unspeakable amounts of fuel making fuel and do not even get any electricity out of the waste. It is shameful. Other industries should be encouraged to produce electricity from waste heat as well, but there is no mention of such a program here.
RE:'utilities to ramp up use of renewables and modernize the grid;'
Would that include methane from cellulose, Billary? We know how to do that already and it works very well, unlike the cellulose-to-ethanol process that has yet to be demonstrated as being remotely economical.
RE:'coal companies to implement clean coal technology;'
If you want a real belly laugh, take a look at this so-called 'clean coal technology.' Rube Goldberg would have loved it. It really is that frikkin' silly.
RE:'government to establish a cap and trade carbon emissions system and renew its leadership in energy efficient buildings and services;'
This is a boondoggle that has not worked in Europe or anywhere else it has been tried and it will NOT work in the US,either. It was one of those truly stupid things originally championed by the neocons. It is nothing more than an opportunity to make billions for King Al Gore and other friends of the Billary, not to mention a host of Wall Street bankers and brokers.
RE:'individuals to conserve energy and utilize efficient light bulbs and appliances in their homes; and industry to build energy efficient homes and buildings.'
And all of this is to be built by whom, pray tell? The Chinese and illegal aliens no doubt.
RE:'Hillary's plan to promote energy independence, address global warming, and transform our economy includes:
* A new cap-and-trade program that auctions 100 percent of permits alongside investments to move us on the path towards energy independence
*** That Frenchman who accused Al Gore of being a crook was right. This will be the biggest ripoff of American Taxpayers short of our Social Security program.
* An aggressive comprehensive energy efficiency agenda to reduce electricity consumption 20 percent from projected levels by 2020 by changing the way utilities do business, catalyzing a green building industry, enacting strict appliance efficiency standards, and phasing out incandescent light bulbs;
******New appliances and homes are already about as efficient as they are going to get. What this will translate into is fewer people being able to afford new appliances and homes--unless they happen to qualify for government assistance.
* A $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund, paid for in part by oil companies, to fund investments in alternative energy. The SEF will finance one-third of the $150 billon ten-year investment in a new energy future contained in this plan;
*****And what will actually be done with this money? In truth, it is just a way to punish oil companies. It will accomplish nothing and is a punitive tax in disguise. The money will go into the general revenue and be used for pork barrel projects. In other words, this will allow politicians to buy more votes while looking like they have done something great when in fact they are simply behaving as armed robbers.
* Doubling of federal investment in basic energy research, including funding for an ARPA-E, a new research agency modeled on the successful Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
******And what avenues of research will the government pursue with this money? More fusion research? Tide power? Are we going to try and insert monstrous great turbines in the Gulf Steam? Will this money be spent on building improved fast breeder reactor designs? By The Clintons? Don't let's be silly!
* Aggressive action to transition our economy toward renewable energy sources, with renewables generating 25 percent of electricity by 2025 and with 60 billion gallons of home-grown biofuels available for cars and trucks by 2030;
**** Here's the bad news, folks! All of the so-called 'renewables' forms of energy, excepting plutonium, are forms of solar energy. That energy does not and will not come in at a rate sufficiently high to sustain anyone's economy, let alone the economy of the United States.
* A requirement that all federal buildings designed after January 20, 2009 will be zero emissions buildings.
****Who ever it was who thinks that this is actually possible is not in contact with the real world and knows nothing of engineering or thermodynamics.
Barak Obama's energy plan:
www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/
Almost completely interchangeable with the Billary's 'energy plan', with less in the way of detail. At least Senator Obama urges his readers to contribute there ideas and express their opinions on these matters.
If John McCain has an energy plan, I cannot find it: www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/
The word 'energy' never appears in his plans for national defense which tells me that he is a piss-poor strategist. I say this because energy is the underlying cause of our defense woes. Anyone who is running for high office and fails to recognize this fact is not fit for the job he or she is asking for.
Mike Huckabee hints at, but does not reveal his energy plan here:
www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=21
He establishes very laudable difficult-to-reach goals, but offers us nothing to review in terms of how he plans to reach those goals. Perhaps he intends to pray us through it, I cannot say.
What little Mitt Romney has to say about energy makes more sense than all the ooglia put out by other candidates combined:
www.mittromney.com/Issue-Watch/Energy
He does not, however, give us enough detail to make a decent assessment of what he actually has in mind.
'Talk is cheap.'
Bull crap must be even cheaper, the way he spreads it around and so thick.
noharness says: 'Buzzwords with something close to zero in the way of semantic content.'
He's a fine one to talk. He's anti-semantic.
page: 1
Your Talkback on this Story