Obama Tells San Francisco He Will Intentionally Bankrupt The Coal Industry!!!
 

OBAMA TELLS SAN FRANCISCO HE WILL INTENTIONALLY BANKRUPT THE COAL INDUSTRY!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdi4onAQBWQ

Well, that’s going to go over big in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee. I see a 2-3% swing in a couple of “battleground” states.

Yawn..maybe you should actually listen to the whole thing.

I did.....he will.....

Roscoe

And with no actual viable power producing replacements in place, the whole country could be with no electricity as he is against nuclear power and anything else that at this time is within our limited capabilities. Wind power and all that sounds good, but it is years away from producing anything near what the country will need. And no new dams for water storage or power production.

Ron :(

Obama has enough hot air to warm at least a thousand houses this winter. :p

Do not believe all the polls. They have been way off in most elections.

Vote for Bush, errrr, I mean Palin ... no its McCain. Sorry 'bout that.

Every vote counts. Get out and vote.

No matter who is elected, I'm willing to bet that the amount of foreign oil that we import will increase in the next 4 years, rather than decrease. Anyone want to bet?

Of course it won't happen for some time, but he's on the right track. Coal has to go, we've got to find alternatives.

And racism. And traffic jams. And global warming. And medicare fraud. And greed. And poverty. And AIDS. And corruption. And incompetence. And...........................shall I go on?

Be serious, please. Espousing the elimination of a principle energy source - without offering up a viable, pragmatic alternative - is just plain chickensh*t. Might as well tell us we can all flap our arms and fly - carries the same message.

And talking about it is equally chickensh*t - remember the gas lines of the 70's? All the talking heads were foaming at the mouth about equally-vapid alternatives; all talk and utterly no substance. How heart-warming to see that Obama is cut of precisely the same cloth as those morons - indeed, how progressive!

Ah, what the hell. He's gonna make everything else right, how could I have doubts about him on such a simple subject as this?

100% Right.

The FIRST gas "shortage was in the early 70's [72, 73?]. I was driving a 70 Hemi Cuda then and using a full tank of gas EACH DAY. When they rationed gas, even number tags on even days, odd on odd, I had to leave my car at a station many blocks away from home. [he would fill it after hours]. EVERY politician since then has declared that we must get off foreign oil dependence. 35 years and they are still saying the same and still NOTHING has happened. McCain says do everything, nuke plants, coal, off shore drilling. Doesn't mean he will do squat, but BO says DON'T do ANYTHING that might not be 200% green. But DO tax the hell out of oil companies for their EXCESS profits. What excess profits? The oil companies are grossing around 10%. Yes, they bank BILLIONS, but its not excess profits, its a reasonable percentage, but the business volume in in multi-billions so the lying polos call it EXCESS. And I kinda think that the companies that BO wants to tax viciously are the same ones that have to build more refineries and off shore drill platforms and do research to clean gas and diesel emissions. Does he do another BAILOUT when they are out of money?
McCain may or may not do a damn thing about energy, but the Obamination's "plan" is utter nonsense.

Dan

Turnpike boy, try to stay focused, the subject is COAL, not racism, AIDS, etc. Sheesh with such reactionary dialog we'll never get anywhere looking at the alternatives.

Sure......
 

Since you seemingly missed the point (the subject ain't about COAL), it's about leading, from the front and NOT with mandates and empty rhetoric. But I'll play along. You - like Obama - tell us coal has to go. OK, no problem - what do you propose to replace it with?

Obama intends to supertax conventional coal plants, and simply overtax clean coal plants. He's on record with this. He stated anybody wants to build coal-fired gen plants, go ahead, but you'll be bankrupted by fees and regs and administration costs. Oh, boy, I can't wait to get started on providing for the needs of this society, never mind the economy.

OK, then, Mr. Obama, should we just stand still until you manage to come up with an operating, economically-viable alternative? No more new housing, including low-income mandates; no more industrial expansion, for new jobs; no more new/renovated development, for jobs/increased mobility efficiency/increased world competitiveness/material improvements to living standards.

Time to come clean, Ernie. This proposal is so far beyond a loser that it is impossible to take with any degree of integrity - it is pure pie-in-the-sky, academic chickensh*t. Totally, utterly bereft of any dimension of practicality - and worse, totally, utterly absent of any tangible proposal for substitution. In other words, a loser.

The focus is REALITY, Ernie, not coal. Coal is only the latest rhetorical demon this shill has thrown out; taxes and programs and societial engineering are but a few of the others. He gives NOTHING concrete in replacement; he offers NOTHING demonstrable and do-able. NOTHING but words.

Show me the alternatives. That is all I've said, last post and this one. Show me the alternatives. Because until you do, then threatening the existence of the technologies we have with bankruptcy is just pure chickensh*t.

You're right - sheesh, we're going nowhere with dialogue. But then, substance has never been his strong suit.


-Roger

McFly takes the same position on coal as Obama does, it's a bipartisan subject. Proposed alternatives, by both camps, differ only slightly. Bio Deisel, wind power, cleaner burning (cat converters or whatever), caps on the use, increased tax rates, etc. Hawaii is very dependant on oil and there is a BIG push here to come up with alternative solutions. Wave power is one, wind power another, we gotta do something. A large business here in Hawaii recently spent a million dollars on solar power, they estimate an ROI within 10 years. Mostly because electric power is WAY expensive!

With 50% of the Nation dependant on coal, it sure aint going away anytime soon!

The biggest problem to finding alternatives is the relatively cheap cost of energy. Well it aint cheap in Hawaii and that has spurred a LOT of investigation. Again on Kaui, Wilcox Hospital, I was involved in putting in a co-generation plant. The local electric company fought that project tooth and nail because they were going to, and did, loose a huge client for electrical useage.

You can bet the coal industry will fight just as hard to maintain the status quo. But alternatives ARE coming like a freight train roaring down a mountain, and it won't be stopped.

Yep, another tin-foil hat scare tactic. Their two positions on alternative energy and global warming are almost identical.

And, you're right that the remarks cited on coal pertained to a very long-term phase-out, or alternatively, finding a practical way to pressure a switch to "clean-coal technology."

It is not unlike the pressure the Feds put on auto manufacturers years ago to clean up their acts. They also said they would be bankrupt, and that it would be impossible. And here we are 25+ years later with cars pumping out way more HP, cleaner, and more fuel efficent than anyone said was possible.:)

Yeah...
 

And WHEN they get here, deliverable and useable and economical, they will supplant coal. And oil. And will do so without fights, or imperious mandates.

Hell, we all want oil and coal to be relegated to the dinosaurs they are. But until there is a real (REAL?) choice, standing with hands on hips and barking out ominous empty threats does not inspire confidence or demonstrate admirable quality.



-Roger

Right, Roger. On that point, both candidates would agree that it is a long-term process. That Obama video edited to scare people wasn't talking about next year or at any point during the next 8 years he could possibly serve.

However, sometimes you have to light a fire under an industry's ass to get them to move. On that, I would presume Obama would be more likely to try to light the fire, but it would also take Congress to act.

The difference then was that it was the auto companies who cried they would be bankrupt - now, it's the politician who is assuring the fall. And certain CARB mandates have effectively assured only zero emissions vehicles will be available soon in California, likely to be followed by the rest of the major metropolitan areas. And where does that electricity come from?

The second difference is that clean coal tech is somewhat here; it's making it commercially palatable that's the issue. Cleaning up the ic engine was an environmental move, not a financial one. Fuel was cheap "25+" years ago. As you likely have observed, not so much today.

By the way - I owned a 1963 Corvette roadster, 327/300 hp/4 spd./3.08 rear that delivered a solid 26 mpg at a steady 70 mph, in 1972. Equipped with a Carter AFB. I suppose with the addition of 4 decades of technology it would do even better, and be cleaner.

But it took 4 decades. Not a mandate from a politician. Or, maybe despite one.


-Roger

Oh!
 

And, hey.....it's good to see you're still out here in the world, Foosh. :)

'Sbeen a while. Hope all is just fine in your part.



-Roger

No Roger, it was a Federal mandate that moved the auto industry. And we don't live in a dictatorship, so it wouldn't be an Obama or a McCain mandate. It would be a properly enacted Federal law with a long phase-in period.

If it truly proved to be impossible to find a way to either use clean-coal technology or a phase-out, and to meet our energy needs, that law would be rather quickly repealed.

People need to lay off the hysteria and THINK rationally!

It has been awhile. I hope you and your lovely wife are also doing well.;)

But....but....but...it's for the chiiiilllldren!!!

Roscoe