2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

MightyMandarin

So immigrants who land in America should 'speak American'. Thanks for that Sarah. (At 0:52)

Why CNN interviewed this clown is beyond me; even though they are a joke of a news station.

Overheal

Sidestepping ad hominems about Palin, the point she raises is the adage that citizens of one nation should speak a common language and in a sense have common goals.

Hold that thought and look at a paralleled situation in the EU with the muslim immigrant situation. Would it be socially compatible to take in 40,000 refugees and integrate them into society for perhaps years, and accommodate workers that only speak Arabic for example? I'm not questioning the morality, but the resources and capacity to actually do it.

In the US that is less of a problem I would say, Spanish and English is available pretty much everywhere already, and the argument seems like its obsolete. This issue is unusual in that it is coming up again, it is the same argument presented in 2008 and 2012 and nothing at all changed about the situation. They only raise the issue to polarize and excite the voter base leading up to elections.

Black Swan

MightyMandarin wrote: »

So immigrants who land in America should 'speak American'. Thanks for that Sarah. (At 0:52)

Overheal wrote: »

...Palin, the point she raises is the adage that citizens of one nation should speak a common language

Language in and of itself does not constitute a nation. For example, how many languages are typically spoken and read on a daily basis by the citizens of Switzerland, India, Russia, China, Canada, etc., etc. (It's a very long list). And getting much closer to home, what are the 2 official languages of Ireland?

Palin demonstrated her extraordinary ignorance and lack of understanding international cultures and affairs during her 2008 VP campaign. She didn't even have a passport to travel beyond the US until 2 years before the VP campaign, and had only traveled to Canada and Mexico before that VP campaign. Of course, was there some claim that she could see Russia from Alaska? How could anyone have taken her seriously for the 2nd highest office in the nation in 2008, but McCain, the GOP, and the Republican Tea Party faction did. That says it all. This exemplified the farce that was (as is today) the US presidential nomination process for the Republicans, and if we look at the Democrats, I bet we can find similar exercises in poor judgment when nominating a candidate.

And then to top it off, Palin resigned months after the presidential elections had been decided and concluded in mid-2009 only halfway way through her 1st term as Alaska's governor. Why? Could it have been due to TrooperGate and other questionable activities as governor? She was being investigated by an Alaskan bi-partisan committee of 8 Republicans and 4 Democrats. And with her sudden resignation the investigation ended. What a coincidence. Of course, she too had been using her private yahoo account to conduct government business, which had been cracked by a Florida teenager, but for some reason there are voters today that have encouraged her to run in 2016 (and conveniently forgotten this).

Trabejo

MightyMandarin wrote: »

So immigrants who land in America should 'speak American'. Thanks for that Sarah. (At 0:52)


Why CNN interviewed this clown is beyond me; even though they are a joke of a news station.

That woman was the Republican Vice President nominee. Think about that for a second. The Republican party is completely bonkers. Donald Trump is leading the polls for the republicans. I really don't know if the party can be taken seriously anymore.

Amerika

Based on a recent YouGov poll, 64% of Americans support building a border fence with Mexico. I guess Americans should be required to read what all the “experts” here have to say... before participating in these types of polls. :rolleyes:

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/01si63uzmv/tabs_OPI_Border_Fence_20150902.pdf

Overheal

Probably should be, given the effectiveness that building a border fence would actually have.

Isn't it funny - Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Libya, Syria, Panama, Cuba, Turkey, Korea - we will interfere with all of these other countries so far away but when it comes to helping out our neighbor we don't do ****. We never address the reasons why people wish to illegally immigrate into the US instead of stay in Mexico. But DPRK is more of a threat to US National Security right? Not the 'rapists' hopping the fence in Arizona? Perhaps more of our resources should go to improving Mexico's situation, not dicking around halfway across the world at an exponentially higher cost due to the logistics involved.

Amerika

Palin Derangement Syndrome is alive and well some seven years later. Apparently it might be a lifelong affliction with no known cure. And look what we got instead... Joe Biden. Number 2 in the complete disaster of an administration. In 2008 the team Obama/Biden promised plenty, but has delivered little, or done more damage to the country then before they took office. We probably would have been better off with Palin.

Overheal

Oh go watch Veep or something.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Probably should be, given the effectiveness that building a border fence would actually have.

Isn't it funny - Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Libya, Syria, Panama, Cuba, Turkey, Korea - we will interfere with all of these other countries so far away but when it comes to helping out our neighbor we don't do ****. We never address the reasons why people wish to illegally immigrate into the US instead of stay in Mexico. But DPRK is more of a threat to US National Security right? Not the 'rapists' hopping the fence in Arizona? Perhaps more of our resources should go to improving Mexico's situation, not dicking around halfway across the world at an exponentially higher cost due to the logistics involved.

This is a joke, right? The US is Mexico's largest trading partner, accounting for close to half of all exports. Tell me, what do they do with all that money?

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

If elected president, what will Trump's Wall look like? Great Wall of China? Berlin Wall? Hadrain's Wall? Maginot Line? Siegfried Line? North-South Korea DMZ? What?

I'd say the San Diego Line.

Border fences work, and that’s why the Democrats are so intent on opposing the construction of a full double-layered fence or any effective barrier at the border out of fear of losing future Democrats. The types of border fences most Republicans are advocating have worked in San Diego and in Israel.

Here is a picture of the effective border fence in San Diego, and and example of the type being proposed.

In 2006, Congress passed a bill requiring the construction of a 700-mile double-layered fence along five stretches of the border most appropriate for fencing (watered down from the original proposal of 850 miles). As of October 2014, only 36.3 of the 700 miles of double-layered fencing were constructed, as required by the 2006 Secure Fence Act.

How about we just follow our laws, eh? What a novel idea!

ancapailldorcha

Trabejo wrote: »

That woman was the Republican Vice President nominee. Think about that for a second. The Republican party is completely bonkers. Donald Trump is leading the polls for the republicans. I really don't know if the party can be taken seriously anymore.

The problem is the two-party system. The Republican party is essentially a catch-all of different groups; tea party libertarians, fiscal conservatives, zealous christians, etc... Any of these groups leaving the party will strengthen the hand of the Democrats resulting in a lot of people being grouped by association with the likes of Palin, Romney, etc...

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

This is a joke, right? The US is Mexico's largest trading partner, accounting for close to half of all exports. Tell me, what do they do with all that money?

So you're also advocating we take a more hands on approach to assisting Mexico rather than relying on free market capitalism?

The types of border fences most Republicans are advocating have worked in San Diego and in Israel.

Define working. Does that prevent immigrants flying in, or just walking around the wall?

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

So you're also advocating we take a more hands on approach to assisting Mexico rather than relying on free market capitalism?

Define working. Does that prevent immigrants flying in, or just walking around the wall?

Not at all. It is not our responsibility to deal with Mexico’s poverty problem when it is a result of their own making through a crisis of corruption. It is not our problem that the political and economic institutions of Mexico causes a rich country to have half of their people fall below the poverty line because the money is terribly distributed throughout the population because of their ruling elite organizes the country’s political and economic institutions to that end. Prosperity can never be brought about when a country relies on international foreign aid. Change can only happen from within by the empowerment of the people through inclusiveness in the political process.

It works for the majority who are walking in. Those who fly in have visas and can be tracked if it were not for our incompetent government.

ECO_Mental

Amerika wrote: »

. And look what we got instead... Joe Biden. Number 2 in the complete disaster of an administration. In 2008 the team Obama/Biden promised plenty, but has delivered little, or done more damage to the country then before they took office. We probably would have been better off with Palin.

Are you serious again, Obama did more damage to the country than before he took office. Have you wiped off the whole Dubya 8 years from your memory.....

Obama was given a country by the good old GOP that was literally on its knees with the worst economic crisis in 90 years, two wars which are to cost over 2 TRILLION dollars (take that of the national debt) and a majority Republican Congress that opposed every single thing he wanted to do just because it was Obama... The USA were days from defaulting on its debts.

Have you also forgotten about the CIA agent the previous white house admin exposed just because her husband disagreed with them and wouldn't go along with their lies. That put her entire family lives on the line.

And you are concerned about teleprompters...

Amerika

ECO_Mental wrote: »

Are you serious again, Obama did more damage to the country than before he took office. Have you wiped off the whole Dubya 8 years from your memory.....

Obama was given a country by the good old GOP that was literally on its knees with the worst economic crisis in 90 years, two wars which are to cost over 2 TRILLION dollars (take that of the national debt) and a majority Republican Congress that opposed every single thing he wanted to do just because it was Obama... The USA were days from defaulting on its debts.

Have you also forgotten about the CIA agent the previous white house admin exposed just because her husband disagreed with them and wouldn't go along with their lies. That put her entire family lives on the line.

And you are concerned about teleprompters...

I can't think of a single thing Obama has done that made things better.

And regarding that CIA agent. Someone went to jail over that I believe. And if you can hold Bush responsible for that, can we also hold Obama responsible for Fast and Furious? For the deaths of Americans in Benghazi? For allowing Hillary Clinton to keep top secret information on a unsecured private email server? I think we can!

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

I can't think of a single thing Obama has done that made things better.

Well, I kept my insurance until I was 26; Osama Bin Laden is last I heard, dead; Gas is below $2*; the DOW has more than doubled since his inauguration; there are more jobs in solar than coal; we produce more of our own gas and oil; I could go on but it's basically 5 o'clock

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Well, I kept my insurance until I was 26; Osama Bin Laden is last I heard, dead; Gas is below $2*; the DOW has more than doubled since his inauguration; there are more jobs in solar than coal; we produce more of our own gas and oil; I could go on but it's basically 5 o'clock

Why is keeping your insurance on you parents plan until you were 26 a good thing? Bin Laden dead is a good thing, yes. What did he have to do with gas prices? Or the DOW? More solar than coal is a bad thing as it has caused energy costs to rise substantially. And us producing more gas and oil was accomplished by the private sector in spite of his efforts to curtail it.

MightyMandarin

Amerika wrote: »

Bin Laden dead is a good thing, yes. [...] More solar than coal is a bad thing as it has caused energy costs to rise substantially. And us producing more gas and oil was accomplished by the private sector in spite of his efforts to curtail it.

Amerika praising Obama for something?! Well I never..

More solar than coal is absolutely a good thing. Despite higher costs being annoying, I really don't mind paying more for energy bills if I know that it's going to boost the renewable energy sector, I'm all for it. There are some things in the world important than energy bills; helping to cut Co2 emissions is one of them.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Why is keeping your insurance on you parents plan until you were 26 a good thing?

Family policies are simpler to operate than 5 separate policies, for instance. It means I didn't have to go and shop for insurance. How is staying on a family plan a bad thing, I should really be asking; and if its a bad thing, your parents can boot you off whenever the hell they like.

Bin Laden dead is a good thing, yes. What did he have to do with gas prices? Or the DOW?

Perhaps my graphics card is faulting but my screen says you are saying a President has no effect on the DOW or the price of gasoline?

I remember creating a whole rant thread about gas prices because people such as yourself, often argued in threads about Obama's $4 gasoline long into his 1st term. Here is that thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056608982 and here is you saying,

Amerika wrote: »

I think we can safely assume a US president’s executive actions can have an immediate effect on the price of gas.

Winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and engaging in a domestic production war against OPEC have directly contributed to driving down the cost of gasoline and more certainty in the world economy has given rise to a renewed DOW that is stronger than it was at any time during the previous tenure.

More solar than coal is a bad thing as it has caused energy costs to rise substantially.

That's the same at the Micro-level: if you swap out a coal-fired system and replace it with a solar system you will have a substantially higher startup cost, which will realize savings over time. That's before you even consider that solar technology continually improves. In 2011 we had a mediocre solar industry: http://gizmodo.com/5788238/why-america-doesnt-have-a-respectable-solar-industry

Now, Obama has rolled out his Clean Energy Plan, and the current estimate is solar kWh will be as cheap as fossil fuel kWh by 2016: http://gizmodo.com/study-solar-energy-will-be-as-cheap-as-fossil-fuel-ene-1652714759

Companies like Tesla Motors (that get Obama-influenced tax breaks on alternative energy development) are paving the way for the alternatively fueled road, the Tesla 3 will roll out this year for $35k, and then there are those fancy Tesla home batteries which regulate peak and off-peak power consumption. In addition to all the other iterative enhancements to solar and energy storage technologies in the past 10 years I'm not listing, most of which are in part assisted by policies which give them more space and resources to develop that technology. In one instance, a texas research firm likely benefiting from federal grant money to explore the issue, discovered how to make substantial improvements to solar/grid efficiency: http://energyblog.nationalgeographic.com/2013/11/20/are-those-solar-panels-facing-the-wrong-direction/

And us producing more gas and oil was accomplished by the private sector in spite of his efforts to curtail it.

Its funny you use the term "in spite of", as that's a GOP tactic employed by the failed candidacy of Mitt Romney. CNN already knocked that claptrap out last election cycle:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/04/politics/fact-check-oil-gas/index.html

The facts show, and President Barack Obama and his Republican challenger Mitt Romney agree, that U.S. production of oil and gas has increased over the past four years.

But is this rise because of Obama, or "in spite of his policies," as the former Massachusetts governor said at Wednesday night's debate?

"All of the increase in natural gas and oil has happened on private land, not on government land," Romney said. "On government land, your administration has cut the number of permits and licenses in half."

...

There has been more oil and natural production on private lands than in federally controlled areas. So Romney is correct in pointing out an imbalance.

But it is an overstatement to say that "all of the increase" has been on private lands -- since, by definition, new permits and licenses have been granted for federal lands (bringing in more gas and oil).

Romney's claim that Obama's administration has "cut the number of permits and licenses in half" for federal lands is also not on the mark.

True, there has been a significant drop -- one tied, in part, to the unprecedented Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Yet the actual numbers of permits and licenses haven't been "cut ... in half." As mentioned above (and including data from part of the Bush administration), there has been a 42% decrease in leases and 37% decrease in drilling permits -- not 50%, as Romney implied.

Even the Institute for Energy Research acknowledged that "this decrease isn't a result of President Obama's policies exclusively, but it is the result of decades and policies that have systematically reduced energy production on federal lands."

And that was 2012... what about now?

http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/28/news/economy/obama-oil-boom/index.html

The greatest oil boom in this nation's history has occurred during the tenure of self-proclaimed environmentalist Barack Obama.
Under Obama, the steady drop in U.S. oil production which had occurred virtually unchecked since 1971 has been reversed. Crude oil production has risen every year of his administration. It has jumped 72% since he took office, producing about 3.6 million additional barrels a day during that time.
Oil production has grown so much that last summer the nation caught and passed Saudi Arabia as the world's largest oil producer. Before Obama leaves office, domestic oil production could top the U.S. record set in 1970.

In short, the claim is outdated based on current information. Not in spite of his policies, but in spite of disasters like Deepwater Horizon (which McCain is just glad he didn't have to sit in the office for and wipe the Drill-Baby-Drill egg off his face). And now you'll bring up keystoneXL, and then I will mention the Koch Brothers and their involvement (oil-money in politics), along with the fact that it would have netted no appreciable amount of permanent US jobs - and we're still a top producer...in spite of it

Amerika

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Amerika praising Obama for something?! Well I never..

More solar than coal is absolutely a good thing. Despite higher costs being annoying, I really don't mind paying more for energy bills if I know that it's going to boost the renewable energy sector, I'm all for it. There are some things in the world important than energy bills; helping to cut Co2 emissions is one of them.

Oh I’ve praised President Obama a handful of times. But other than taking Bin Laden out, they have all been minor things he's done.

I’m all for more renewable energy… when it’s feasible and cost effective. I’m even for giving tax incentives to companies who perform R&D into renewable energy. But I’m completely against his war on coal, without a viable and cost effective alternative. Although you may be fine with paying more for your energy, try telling that to the elderly on fixed incomes, or the poor and even the middle class who live paycheck to paycheck. Those are the people he hurts most with his policies. Looking out for the little guy? Yeah right, give me a feakin’ break.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Family policies are simpler to operate than 5 separate policies, for instance. It means I didn't have to go and shop for insurance. How is staying on a family plan a bad thing, I should really be asking; and if its a bad thing, your parents can boot you off whenever the hell they like.

If you were in college you were still able to remain on your parents insurance. Now you can sit in your bedroom of your parents home and play video games until you turn 26... and be a waste to society. Wonderful!

Perhaps my graphics card is faulting but my screen says you are saying a President has no effect on the DOW or the price of gasoline?

I remember creating a whole rant thread about gas prices because people such as yourself, often argued in threads about Obama's $4 gasoline long into his 1st term. Here is that thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056608982 and here is you saying,

Nothing wrong with your graphics card, just your understanding of the question. I most definitely agree a President’s policies can affect the price of gasoline and the DOW. My question was, since you seem to be giving him credit for lower price of gas and the higher DOW, what exactly did he do to cause that to happen?.

Here is Obama himself regarding energy costs and gas prices. So yes, I stand by my statement, that the lower prices were accomplished, in spite of his efforts.

Winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and engaging in a domestic production war against OPEC have directly contributed to driving down the cost of gasoline and more certainty in the world economy has given rise to a renewed DOW that is stronger than it was at any time during the previous tenure.

The winding down of the wars was preset. If anything, Obama’s complete pulling out of Iraq (without keeping a level of troops to ensure stability) has caused the emergence of ISIS, which has resulted severe adverse consequences in Iraq, Libya, Egypt and has destabilized the Middle East and would have increased gas prices if it weren't for other non-Obama influenced factors keeping the price down. So I contend the drop of gasoline prices were accomplished in spite of Obama’s efforts.

That's the same at the Micro-level: if you swap out a coal-fired system and replace it with a solar system you will have a substantially higher startup cost, which will realize savings over time. That's before you even consider that solar technology continually improves. In 2011 we had a mediocre solar industry: http://gizmodo.com/5788238/why-america-doesnt-have-a-respectable-solar-industry

Now, Obama has rolled out his Clean Energy Plan, and the current estimate is solar kWh will be as cheap as fossil fuel kWh by 2016: http://gizmodo.com/study-solar-energy-will-be-as-cheap-as-fossil-fuel-ene-1652714759

Solar will never be as cheap as fossil fuel by 2016, unless Obama's war on coal causes coal energy production cost to rise to unprecedented levels. Which is what he is doing. The coal industry is shutting down many operations because of his war.

Remember this...

“So if somebody wants to build a coal-fired plant they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them…” – Barack Obama speaking to San Francisco Chronicle, January 2008

Since 2008, more than 72 gigawatts (GW) of electrical generating capacity have already, or are now set to close down. 72 GW is enough electrical generation capacity to reliably power 44.7 million homes. How much GW of electrical generating capacity does solar provide?

Companies like Tesla Motors (that get Obama-influenced tax breaks on alternative energy development) are paving the way for the alternatively fueled road, the Tesla 3 will roll out this year for $35k, and then there are those fancy Tesla home batteries which regulate peak and off-peak power consumption. In addition to all the other iterative enhancements to solar and energy storage technologies in the past 10 years I'm not listing, most of which are in part assisted by policies which give them more space and resources to develop that technology. In one instance, a texas research firm likely benefiting from federal grant money to explore the issue, discovered how to make substantial improvements to solar/grid efficiency: http://energyblog.nationalgeographic.com/2013/11/20/are-those-solar-panels-facing-the-wrong-direction/

Remember Bright Automotive, Carbon Motors, Aptera Motors, Coda Automotive, and Fisker Automotive? What happened? Right now Tesla cars cost between $70,000 to $100,000 (including a $7,500 federal tax credit). Lets see if they can make a decent car for $35,000, which isn’t even going to start production until 2017. Get back to me at the end of 2017 or 2018 when they start to hit the roads and tell me about that $35,000 price.

Oh yeah, what is the cost to the environment on producing those batteries, and getting rid of them at the end, that Tesla utilizes?

Its funny you use the term "in spite of", as that's a GOP tactic employed by the failed candidacy of Mitt Romney. CNN already knocked that claptrap out last election cycle:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/04/politics/fact-check-oil-gas/index.html

And that was 2012... what about now?

http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/28/news/economy/obama-oil-boom/index.html

In short, the claim is outdated based on current information. Not in spite of his policies, but in spite of disasters like Deepwater Horizon (which McCain is just glad he didn't have to sit in the office for and wipe the Drill-Baby-Drill egg off his face). And now you'll bring up keystoneXL, and then I will mention the Koch Brothers and their involvement (oil-money in politics), along with the fact that it would have netted no appreciable amount of permanent US jobs - and we're still a top producer...in spite of it

I believe I've made my point that some things have improved in spite of Obama's efforts.

(Keep a watch out for what he intends to do to the fracking industry over the next year through his efforts of using the EPA as his assassins . Higher Energy Bills... OH BABY, OH BABY!)

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Oh I’ve praised President Obama a handful of times. But other than taking Bin Laden out, they have all been minor things he's done.

Amerika wrote: »

I can't think of a single thing Obama has done that made things better.

Im leaving both these quotes here ^.

But I’m completely against his war on coal, without a viable and cost effective alternative. Although you may be fine with paying more for your energy, try telling that to the elderly on fixed incomes, or the poor and even the middle class who live paycheck to paycheck. Those are the people he hurts most with his policies. Looking out for the little guy? Yeah right, give me a feakin’ break.

There hasn't been any substantial bump in the cost of energy, has there? I was unaware of this. Apparently on average American's spend $150 more per year on energy under obama, the average kWh was 12.4 cents, up to 13.8 cents.

Coal is a dirty fuel, we have no further need of it, it is only cheap when you ignore the environmental impact. It wasn't so much a war on coal as it was adding green-policies on to it. Those policies ultimately exchange environmental cost for financial cost, which is the only thing companies care about given they did not proactively make their plants greener without the legislation.

If you were in college you were still able to remain on your parents insurance. Now you can sit in your bedroom of your parents home and play video games until you turn 26... and be a waste to society. Wonderful!

OK: I am in college, and furthermore in what world does someone thing "YEAH I HAVE DENTAL I'm gonna sit at home drinking Mtn Dew playing CoD in my Mom's basement!"

Again, that is not defeating the argument that the policy-holder (parent) can drop you from the plan any time they like.

Nothing wrong with your graphics card, just your understanding of the question. I most definitely agree a President’s policies can affect the price of gasoline and the DOW. My question was, since you seem to be giving him credit for lower price of gas and the higher DOW, what exactly did he do to cause that to happen?.

Here is Obama himself regarding energy costs and gas prices. So yes, I stand by my statement, that the lower prices were accomplished, in spite of his efforts.

Im at work and that thumbnail looks like some attack ad based on quotes from judging by Barry's hair to either be in his first term or previous to his first term. Do you have anything more current?

The winding down of the wars was preset. If anything, Obama’s complete pulling out of Iraq (without keeping a level of troops to ensure stability) has caused the emergence of ISIS, which has resulted severe adverse consequences in Iraq, Libya, Egypt and has destabilized the Middle East and would have increased gas prices if it weren't for other non-Obama influenced factors keeping the price down. So I contend the drop of gasoline prices were accomplished in spite of Obama’s efforts.

That's some hella revisionism, the GOP wailed for years about how winding down the wars was terrible, a threat to national security, letting the terrorists win, etc. - it was most certainly not preset.

ISIS probably had more to do with the 50,000 fake Iraqi soldiers collecting paychecks, than boots on the ground. Unless patrolling payroll departments was in 2nd Platoon's normal rotation, they were not going to help. Even the Blaze misses any opportunity to blame it on Obama in their reporting.

Solar will never be as cheap as fossil fuel by 2016, unless Obama's war on coal causes coal energy production cost to rise to unprecedented levels. Which is what he is doing. The coal industry is shutting down many operations because of his war.

Since 2008, more than 72 gigawatts (GW) of electrical generating capacity have already, or are now set to close down. 72 GW is enough electrical generation capacity to reliably power 44.7 million homes. How much GW of electrical generating capacity does solar provide?

More than 72 Gigawatts, when we are done replacing coal with solar and other sources of energy. Coal is tied to the global climate change issue. Coal's dead baby, coal's dead.

Remember Bright Automotive, Carbon Motors, Aptera Motors, Coda Automotive, and Fisker Automotive? What happened? Right now Tesla cars cost between $70,000 to $100,000 (including a $7,500 federal tax credit). Lets see if they can make a decent car for $35,000, which isn’t even going to start production until 2017. Get back to me at the end of 2017 or 2018 when they start to hit the roads and tell me about that $35,000 price.

Oh yeah, what is the cost to the environment on producing those batteries, and getting rid of them at the end, that Tesla utilizes?

I forgot to mention in my last post how Tesla more or less acknowledged it could not as one company bring about the electric car revolution: so they released their patents. Anyone can build a tesla-inspired electric vehicle royalty-free.

"Given that annual new vehicle production is approaching 100 million per year and the global fleet is approximately 2 billion cars, it is impossible for Tesla to build electric cars fast enough to address the carbon crisis. By the same token, it means the market is enormous. Our true competition is not the small trickle of non-Tesla electric cars being produced, but rather the enormous flood of gasoline cars pouring out of the world’s factories every day.

We believe that Tesla, other companies making electric cars, and the world would all benefit from a common, rapidly-evolving technology platform. "

It's funny you whine about the environmental impact of batteries but when it comes to coal you revert back to ol' grandma noonan freezing in her living room because she had to choose between moving the thermostat or eating. That break you wanted? I'm keeping it. Batteries are not irradiated and do not damage the environment at large. Unlike spent nuclear fuel, we are more likely to research and develop more effective ways of recycling battery content as the technology advances.

(Keep a watch out for what he intends to do to the fracking industry over the next year through his efforts of using the EPA as his assassins . Higher Energy Bills... OH BABY, OH BABY!)

I intern in an industry directly tied to NGV/Fracking, even I and others would agree our extraction methods are basically wild-west at best; we need better, safer methods of extraction, ones that don't cause our tap water to be flammable.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Im leaving both these quotes here ^.

I admitted that killing Bin Laden was a good thing. I can be wrong on the very rarest of occasions, you know. :P

Manach

Amerika wrote: »

I can be wrong on the very rarest of occasions, you know. :P

NEVER!

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

There hasn't been any substantial bump in the cost of energy, has there? I was unaware of this. Apparently on average American's spend $150 more per year on energy under obama, the average kWh was 12.4 cents, up to 13.8 cents.

Since 2012, thanks to Obama's policies, there have been over 25 plants shut down in my state. My electricity bills have gone up over $100 per month because of it. I know... firsthand.

Coal is a dirty fuel, we have no further need of it, it is only cheap when you ignore the environmental impact. It wasn't so much a war on coal as it was adding green-policies on to it. Those policies ultimately exchange environmental cost for financial cost, which is the only thing companies care about given they did not proactively make their plants greener without the legislation.

No further need of it? Dream on!

OK: I am in college, and furthermore in what world does someone thing "YEAH I HAVE DENTAL I'm gonna sit at home drinking Mtn Dew playing CoD in my Mom's basement!"

Plenty. Unemployment rate 16 to 19 years of age runs about 18%, from 20 to 24 is 10%. And that's not even counting those in that age group even bothering to look for employment.

Again, that is not defeating the argument that the policy-holder (parent) can drop you from the plan any time they like.

Sure they can, but how many parents will kick they're lovely little darlings off their insurance.

Im at work and that thumbnail looks like some attack ad based on quotes from judging by Barry's hair to either be in his first term or previous to his first term. Do you have anything more current?

There's an old saying... "A leopard can't change its spots." Regardless, look at what he's currently doing to coal if you need any more proof.

That's some hella revisionism, the GOP wailed for years about how winding down the wars was terrible, a threat to national security, letting the terrorists win, etc. - it was most certainly not preset.

The dates were set for the wind down and withdrawal before Obama took office.

ISIS probably had more to do with the 50,000 fake Iraqi soldiers collecting paychecks, than boots on the ground. Unless patrolling payroll departments was in 2nd Platoon's normal rotation, they were not going to help. Even the Blaze misses any opportunity to blame it on Obama in their reporting.

I've read many accounts that Obama's complete withdrawal of troops from Iraq caused ISIS to form. Should we do dueling articles?

More than 72 Gigawatts, when we are done replacing coal with solar and other sources of energy. Coal is tied to the global climate change issue. Coal's dead baby, coal's dead.

Coal is dead? Look at how much energy is produced in the US by coal, and how much by solar. So once again... DREAM ON!

I forgot to mention in my last post how Tesla more or less acknowledged it could not as one company bring about the electric car revolution: so they released their patents. Anyone can build a tesla-inspired electric vehicle royalty-free.

"Given that annual new vehicle production is approaching 100 million per year and the global fleet is approximately 2 billion cars, it is impossible for Tesla to build electric cars fast enough to address the carbon crisis. By the same token, it means the market is enormous. Our true competition is not the small trickle of non-Tesla electric cars being produced, but rather the enormous flood of gasoline cars pouring out of the world’s factories every day.

We believe that Tesla, other companies making electric cars, and the world would all benefit from a common, rapidly-evolving technology platform. "

It's funny you whine about the environmental impact of batteries but when it comes to coal you revert back to ol' grandma noonan freezing in her living room because she had to choose between moving the thermostat or eating. That break you wanted? I'm keeping it. Batteries are not irradiated and do not damage the environment at large. Unlike spent nuclear fuel, we are more likely to research and develop more effective ways of recycling battery content as the technology advances.

Again, tell me in 2018 how good your $35,000 car is, if it isn’t a pipe dream that is.

And you are the one that always talks about the environment. and my comment was simply to point out some hypocrisy on your part.

I intern in an industry directly tied to NGV/Fracking, even I and others would agree our extraction methods are basically wild-west at best; we need better, safer methods of extraction, ones that don't cause our tap water to be flammable.

All legitimate reports I’ve read point to different findings that those of you and your friends. And do you know I laugh at the standard line at the bottom of every post of yours about tap water burning. You do know it was based on a lie, and that it was happening before fracking occurred, don’t you? Have you seen FrackNation, or do you consider Josh Fox's lies in Gasland to be the leading authority on fracking?

Amerika

Manach wrote: »

NEVER!

I like your thinking, but alas, it's true.

Overheal

Plenty. Unemployment rate 16 to 19 years of age runs about 18%, from 20 to 24 is 10%. And that's not even counting those in that age group even bothering to look for employment.

I doubt very much having health insurance is deeply affecting their decision to find work.

Sure they can, but how many parents will kick they're lovely little darlings off their insurance.

Still does not refute my original point, and question: what negative consequences arose from extending eligibility of children to 26?

I've read many accounts that Obama's complete withdrawal of troops from Iraq caused ISIS to form. Should we do dueling articles?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=96940242&postcount=382 that would be the best thread for that side conversation. Lemming might know more about it than I do, but let's go there.

Coal is dead? Look at how much energy is produced in the US by coal, and how much by solar. So once again... DREAM ON!

That's a static value, look at the calculus wherein coal will phase out and renewables will phase in.

All legitimate reports I’ve read point to different findings that those of you and your friends. And do you know I laugh at the standard line at the bottom of every post of yours about tap water burning. You do know it was based on a lie, and that it was happening before fracking occurred, don’t you? Have you seen FrackNation, or do you consider Josh Fox's lies in Gasland to be the leading authority on fracking?

I have not seen FrackNation to my knowledge and am unfamiliar with who Josh Fox is.

eire4

Amerika wrote: »

I can't think of a single thing Obama has done that made things better.

And regarding that CIA agent. Someone went to jail over that I believe. And if you can hold Bush responsible for that, can we also hold Obama responsible for Fast and Furious? For the deaths of Americans in Benghazi? For allowing Hillary Clinton to keep top secret information on a unsecured private email server? I think we can!

I would say people with pre existing conditions getting insurance is a positive step.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

And if you can hold Bush responsible for that, can we also hold Obama responsible for ... the deaths of Americans in Benghazi?

Although both tragic, in comparison, how many American deaths occurred in Benghazi, and how many American deaths occurred as the result of GW Bush's 2nd Persian Gulf War? Oh, why did the US invade and conquer Iraq the 2nd time beginning 19 March 2003? And in terms of increasing the Federal deficit, how much did Benghazi cost, and how much did Iraq II cost the American tax payer?

If the Obama administration was incompetent regarding security during Benghazi, then was the GW Bush administration incompetent regarding security 11 September 2001? If both administrations were evidencing their security incompetence, how many Americans died in Benghazi, and how many Americans died 9/11?

Amerika

eire4 wrote: »

I would say people with pre existing conditions getting insurance is a positive step.

Yeah, people with pre existing conditions getting insurance is a positive step but we didn't need to screw the pooch to get there. People are paying much higher premiums now to cover the cost of those people getting insurance. And there are very high deductibles and out of the pocket expenses now that people are putting off treatment or not even getting insurance despite the mandate.