[and I'm still researching] an Obama presidency does not look like a good prospect for America, and it further underscores just how much more dangerous HIS presidency would be than John McCain's. This alone exposes just how radical the man is.
From Gateway Pundit:
EXPLOSIVE NEW AUDIO-- Obama Promises San Francisco Audience He Will Bankrupt Coal Industry!!
Not only this but in the very same interview he said his policy will make energy prices "skyrocket". I remember this interview-- it is explosive, but not "new". I didn't think much of it last January, but then I hadn't just spent several months with gas prices circling $4 a gallon. Gas around here has finally fell to $2.21 at the Flying J, and it feels like it's been forever since we've seen prices this "reasonable."
Someone has brought this interview back into light. The San Francisco Chronicle says this tape has been in the public domain for months, and I know this to be true. Now, Obama's stated policies have been as shifting sands for all these months, who knows what he believes or wants, one day to the next? If one of the two congressional houses were in Republican hands I wouldn't worry so much. But with the possibility of a super-majority in Democratic hands coupled with a president Obama, who is there to stop the rolling blackouts of skyrocketing energy prices? Who is there to keep the new fascists from destroying the first amendment?
If this is true [and I only say "if" because as someone recently said, pinning Obama down on specifics is like nailing Jello to the wall] ...if this is true the Change we'll be seeing is the kind of change that looks backward to darker more sinister, totalitarian times. New fascists [speaking strictly of the threat to our 1st amendment rights] for a new century .
The irony in all this [to me at least] is the amount of national "blood and treasure" we expended to combat a brand of fascism in the middle east only to slip into a different-- and not so different at all --brand of fascism here.
America can't afford an Obama presidency. But Americans tend to buy a lot of things they can't afford; like the mortgages a lot of homeowners discovered they couldn't afford. Who will bailout the American people should we discover that we can't afford the president we elected?
1. The audio is cut in both instances right after Obama says bankrupt. I wonder if he had any following sentences or clauses that further explained that word? We can't tell because both snippets are out of context.
2. The plan Barack Obama has proposed would have an auction where producers and industries purchase pollution credits for their businesses. The money from the sale of those credits would be used to spur new environmental research and technologies and industries, offsetting any economic harm from the credits. After a few years the number of credits available for sale would be lowered making them more expensive, hence making pollution heavy businesses less profitable. It is a way to introduce market forces that would move the nation to more environmental industries.
3. The McCain plan in contrast would just the initial pollution credits away. Essentially a couple billion dollars in worth given to industry.
The Obama plan would eventually bankrupt pollution heavy coal power plants. This is a desired end because air pollution leads to major health problems that become a burden on the populace.
She saw nothing dangerous about raising taxes on the profits of oil companies.
Last year, she “raised taxes on oil profits by $1.5 billion a year” in Alaska, “a step that has generated stunning new wealth for the state as oil prices soared.”
In a statement released after signing the tax bill, she said the tax increase would give Alaskans “an equitable share for our resources.”
"Tax increase gives an equitable share" This sounds like... like... no! Say it ain't so.
What do you believe that Obama could possibly have said that would have made that statement sound like a good idea?
Where in the Constitution is the President authorized to bankrupt anything?
Do you believe that the only thing that the Coal Industry produces is pollution?
Do they do absolutely no good at all?
What do you believe is going to take the place of coal for Electrical Generation when Obama bankrupts the industry with his brilliant plan?
Why do you believe that the Coal Companies owe anything to anyone because of pollution, anyway? Were it not for demand by consumers, there would be no coal industry, nor subsequent pollution. Why doesn't Obama simply tell the Middle Class that he is going to strangle their ability to heat and cool their houses, since they are the ones who will ultimately bear the burden of this stupidity anyway?
Last but not least, you cannot prove beyond doubt that the Earth is even warming at all, nor can you prove that if it is, that it's the result of human activity.
Neither can Obama.
Neither can anyone else.
And I'd be willing to bet that if Obama had declared his intention to bankrupt the industry in which YOU work, just because he thinks he can, you would see this issue differently.
1. Ben did not say that the president is authorized to bankrupt anyone.
2. Ben did not say that the only thing that coal companies produce is pollution.
3. Obviously, there are some good results (energy, jobs) that come from coal companies. No one has claimed otherwise.
4. I don't know what Ben thinks will replace coal when it is no longer viable or available, but I would suggest living within our means will have to replace living beyond our means eventually. There's not really another option but to live with what we can reasonably produce. It's about personal and societal responsibility.
5. I would suggest that anyone or any industry owes society living responsibly. I can't dump my waste from my toilet in your backyard. That's all reasonable people would expect of any company - produce your product responsibly or don't produce it at all.
6. Then, strangely, you bring up global climate change when, so far as I can see, no one else has brought it up. What's up with that?
Do you lose often when you argue with yourself?
Clean technology exists and plants by the hundreds have refitted already.
Tugboat wants proof of warming but cannot provide the same for gravity. Science never provides proof in his sense. All results are explained by theory. Even salt molecules are explained by a theory of electron sharing that has no proof in his sense.
We can show him but unless the Bible tells him so all he knows for sure is that it tastes great on french fries.
No discussion can be had when he doesn't know what it is he's talking about or looking for.
"What do you believe that Obama could possibly have said that would have made that statement sound like a good idea?"
Well obviously nothing Obama could say would get your support for the plan. But after reading the rest of his energy plan I support it, because I think an energy policy based on a finite resource is unsound.
"Where in the Constitution is the President authorized to bankrupt anything?"
The president has wide ranging powers and executive authority and if that won't accomplish his goals he can draft legislation and submit it to Congress.
"Do you believe that the only thing that the Coal Industry produces is pollution?"
NO
"Do they do absolutely no good at all?"
NO
"What do you believe is going to take the place of coal for Electrical Generation when Obama bankrupts the industry with his brilliant plan?"
Well this question makes the assumption that Barack Obama will bankrupt an entire industry in four years. I think America has to transfer to a more diverse and sustainable and abundant energy supply. Coal is finite and increasing production is logistically difficult. I foresee initially wind power being most practical. Then solar and hydro. After that nuclear energy is certainly feasible. In thirty years with investment we could have fusion power. Beyond that bioenergy is possible.
"Why do you believe that the Coal Companies owe anything to anyone because of pollution, anyway?"
Because they take natural resources and along with electricity they disperse materials into the air that cause harm to children and elderly, buildings and public works. The people that mine coal for them risk their health. Call me a strict ethicist but I feel a responsible business should work to make amends for the negative effects of their business.
"Why doesn't Obama simply tell the Middle Class that he is going to strangle their ability to heat and cool their houses, since they are the ones who will ultimately bear the burden of this stupidity anyway?"
Because such a statement would be a gross exaggeration. And of coarse such a statement discounts the new innovations in energy efficiency and production that the Obama plan may spur.
I wasn't talking to you.
Ben, once again, you don't know that coal is a "finite resource".
And even if it is, we have enough coal to supply our own needs for about 100 years, and the technology to do it cleanly.
And within 100 years or so, someone probably will come up with something to replace it.
We don't have anything right now.
Bankrupting the coal industry right now for no good reason doesn't seem like a smart plan to me.
If it does to you, then you have the right to be wrong.
The people who mine coal for the coal indrustry are free to choose their occupation, Ben.
If mining coal pays their bills, and there is a market for coal, then it is up to them whether they participate.
You (and Obama) would remove the option.
I find it amazing that you, Ben, and those who agree with you find it more plausible that innovation will come up with a replacement for "Fossil Fuels" (as if there were such a thing), but refuse to believe that innovation could ever find a way to use them cleanly and efficiently.
And you guys would put thousands of people out of work, drive the price of energy through the roof, and make it impossible for working people to get to work or heat and cool their homes by shutting off the saupply of the only resource we have that will do the job, just because you believe using coal or oil is somehow immoral.
Idiots.
Until you can tell me that, then stop attacking coal and oil until an alternative is discovered.
And make it cheaper. while you're at it.
Energy costs way too much lately, thanks to Democrats.
Do you believe that electricity generated from coal saves lives?
If so, do you believe that it takes more lives than it saves, and what is your evidence?
Do you believe that the quality of life would be better for people who have cancer from working in coal mines all their lives die in the cold and dark because the coal industry has been bankrupted by Barack Obama and they cannot have electricity?
What exactly are you supporting here?
As I understand it, in Alaska, resources such as oil are considered to be "owned" by the people of the state. It's sorta like how the people of Green Bay owns the Packers, except that the Alaskans own the resources by virtue of being Alaskans and don't have to buy shares like Packer fans do.
Anyway, the taxes on the oil company was done so that the Alaskans get "their cut" as it were.
I believe I had heard Palin herself explain this, but I can't be sure. Maybe someone else knows more about it.
This has to be one the most stupid things I've heard an adult say this week.
And even if it is, we have enough coal to supply our own needs for about 100 years, and the technology to do it cleanly.
This has to be one of the most disingenuous things I've heard a person say this week.
And within 100 years or so, someone probably will come up with something to replace it.
And this has to be one of the most superstitious, disingenuous and stupid things I've heard an adult say this week.
Yeah. Maybe we'll find something to replace it. Maybe fairies will share magic fairy dust with us that will make us all have clean energy shoot out our bottoms. Since that MIGHT happen, we might as well keep on using up a finite resource on the assumption that it will.
Makes sense.
To actually say, in essence, that one's policies would result in 'bankrupting the coal industry' has got to be one of the most colossal gaffes in the history of gaffes. And there's no way to legitimately parse these favorably statements. The context is not skewed in the least. He said, incredibly, what he said, and a good many people believe he means it. What did Biden say? 'New coal plants in this country? No way! Not here!' Something there about.
It is both irresponsible and stupid to NOT make use of resources that will save lives-- like the man on the roof of his house escaping the flood waters refusing to accept the helicopters help because God is going to save him. What new technology is going to save us from coal?
We can't hyperconsume at a rate that will use up resources (whether that is in ten years or 100 years) and base our economy upon that dependence and then assume that some magic pill will come along and save us. It is irresponsible to live beyond one's means year in and year out and to build one's household on the assumption that one can KEEP living beyond one's means forever.
It is irresponsible and stupid at the individual level and just plain idiotic and dangerous at the societal level.
Why is living within our means such a scary thought for "conservatives"?
Secondly Tug and EL are acting as if on Obama would on January 21st flip a switch to shutdown all the coal power plants and mines. That's not what this policy does. It adds an economic element to production that makes environmental responsibility as integral part of the capitalist business plan as profitability.
Obama's plan would make encourage new power plants to be pollution free and older factories and power plants to be retrofitted with pollution fighting technology.
Imagine if 30 years ago congress had the balls to regulate that CAFE fuel efficiency standards rose by 10% each year. Today American cars would be the most fuel efficient in the world. Ford and GM would have innovated at a time when there wasn't a profit demand, but the dividends of those investments in research would be bearing fruit now.
"In the United States, it is estimated that over one million(two million[4]) workers are exposed to free crystalline silica dusts and 59,000 of these workers will develop silicosis sometime in the course of their lives.[3]"
Why is living within our means such a scary thought for "conservatives"?
I have pointed out at least twice that Dan repeatedly engages in questioning the conservatism of those with whom he disagrees, by invoking phrases HE DOES NOT DEFINE.
I don't think he can define "living within our means," since his previous attempts to do so involves lame invocations of other cliches and platitudes and avoids the tough questions of what the phrase implies or doesn't imply.
He doesn't seem capable of providing a substantive response to those with whom he disagrees, so he keeps repeating these same idiotic bumper-sticker mantras to level ad hominem attacks.