Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'd take Bush over obama. obama is out to destroy this country. Bush just didn't know how to run it. You can educate the uneducated. You can't do anything with someone on a mission and I believe obama is on one. He wants to see America turned into a copy of Europe.
I've been to Europe, have you? It's a nice continent.
So, according to you, President Obama's objective is to destroy the country. How do you arrive at this stunningly preposterous conclusion?
I'm left speechless because I can't believe that they just blast their buffoonery in my face, they don't even test the waters to see what my political affiliation is, they just assume and if they're wrong then maybe they think they can sway me.
Personally I never really tell who I voted for, people just always have to assume with me mostly because I'll criticize both political parties. Retail pretty much taught me to never talk politics with people, so up to this day I don't. I remember one day this lady from VA was in the store I worked and she was absolutely in shock that we charged for bags (a simple .5 cents) so she began ranting to me like it was my law and she said its Obama who's turning this country communist (idk how bag taxes have anything to do with communism nonetheless Obama) so I had to hold my tongue. On the other side of the spectrum I've encountered conservatives who I can agree with on certain issues such as balancing the budget (yes, conservatives do believe in a balanced budget but their politicans really don't), or wasteful spending.
Going back to my high school days, I remember when I really didn't know much about politics but my history teachers always talked politics but never stated who they would vote for. Well after learning something about politics and what they said about their personal beliefs, I understand who they voted for. One teacher always preached about cutting taxes (although I'm a liberal, it alway 'sounds' good to hear cutting taxes for the individual), anti-military spending cuts, etc. So I realized now that teacher voted McCain. I'd rather go by that approach of telling us what you believe in, rather than telling us who you voted for or bashing the other candidate.
I've been to Europe, have you? It's a nice continent.
So, according to you, President Obama's objective is to destroy the country. How do you arrive at this stunningly preposterous conclusion?
Pretty much everything he's done since he took office. Massive debt...debackles like Solyndra...going on vacation as we sit at the fiscal cliff....obamacare....tax anyone who makes more than the next guy strategies....(just wait, they'll lower that $250K mark). He's spent a ton and done nothing to stimulate the economy. Robinhood economics never has worked. He's a socialist not a democrat. He wants to turn us into a socialist country.
Pretty much everything he's done since he took office. Massive debt...debackles like Solyndra...going on vacation as we sit at the fiscal cliff....obamacare....tax anyone who makes more than the next guy strategies....(just wait, they'll lower that $250K mark). He's spent a ton and done nothing to stimulate the economy. Robinhood economics never has worked. He's a socialist not a democrat. He wants to turn us into a socialist country.
Obama has done nothing to stimulate the economy? Did you live in a cave during 2009 and 2010? Obama passed a mild stimulus, that the GOP opposed, early in his Administration. According to most economists, it improved the economy and kept us out of a depression. That doesn't sound like someone bent upon destroying the country.
The right-wing line is that it’s all like stuff like Solyndra, that your tax dollars are going to pay for vast numbers of wasteful projects.
Now, even the Solyndra story is a lot more nuanced than that. But this seems like a good time to repeat, once again, the truth about federal spending: Your federal government is basically an insurance company with an army. The vast bulk of its spending goes to the big five: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense, and interest on the debt.
But what about recent deficits? They’re caused mainly by a fall in revenue and a mostly automatic increase in spending on safety-net programs. Oh, and the federal government has been providing aid to state and local governments, largely to limit layoffs of schoolteachers.
The amounts spent on anything remotely resembling Solyndra is a rounding error on a rounding error. It’s just not what your government does on any significant scale.
And if you want smaller government, either you’re talking about cuts in the big five, or you have no idea what you’re talking about -- which is what I suspect is the case.
In most cases power plants are resistant to add the extra equipment to reduce coal emissions.
Also notice that the extra equipment is needed in the first place. Why? Because of the process of burning coal inherently releases harmful chemicals into the environment.
So once again there is no such thing as "Clean Coal" there are just ways to mitigate the harmful chemicals released into the atmosphere once coal is burned.
Well, you're wrong.
The reality is that coal has chemicals in it that are toxic. Just like your tires have chemicals in them that are toxic. Gas has chemicals in it that are toxic. When you burn a tire, you would normally release harmful chemicals into the environment. But there are certainly ways to burn a tire for energy that doesn't produce harmful emissions.
Is coal clean? No. The air you breath isn't clean, the water you drink isn't clean. At least not 100% clean. When you poop in your toilet, it definitely isn't clean. We all understand that coal isn't clean in an absolute sense, and can never be clean by itself. But coal can be processed in a way that can eliminate toxins from being released into the air. These toxins will certainly end up in some kind of filtration system and will still need to be disposed of. Nuclear fuel is certainly not "clean", because it produces nuclear waste. But nuclear power doesn't put radiation in the air either. The radiation is stored and disposed of elsewhere. If properly disposed of, spent nuclear fuel is not of any danger to anyone. Just like if coal is filtered, and the harmful wastes are disposed of properly, they will not become harmful to anyone either. Burning coal doesn't produce mercury, mercury was always in the coal to begin with.
What I'm saying is that, we can refine coal power plants to the point that the only thing they release that would be remotely harmful to anyone, would be CO2. And I don't believe CO2 is really harmful. Thus, as long as coal companies are either required to put in place those filters, or are at least forced to pay for ruining the air we breath. Then I see no problem with burning coal. We can burn all of it that we have tomorrow, and that is perfectly fine.
Most people complaining about clean coal are complaining about its CO2 emissions, not anything else. And most of the discussion these days about "clean coal" has to do with carbon capture and sequestration. Talk of coal generally ends up talking about "carbon credits", not mercury credits, or any other credits. Carbon credits, referring to carbon dioxide. Trying to limit the amount of carbon dioxide that gets released into the air by charging people money for the amount of CO2 they release. I've never heard of a cap and trade arrangement for the amount of mercury being released.
So when you say there is no such thing as clean coal. I disagree with your terms for what clean coal is supposed to represent. Coal in the sense that people are obsessed with its CO2 emissions, is just as clean as burning wood. No one argues that there is no such thing as "clean wood".
You are unable to refute what they said, but all your training tells you that they are automatically wrong, and even contemptible and eeevil.
The disconnect between the two is something you cannot handle.
A liberal recognizing that conservative agenda is correct, is like a colorblind person recognizing blue and red. They are fundamentally unable to do so, and so are left with their brain at a standstill, their mouth open and no words coming out.
How are the conservative agenda and unskewed polls working out for you?
"you guys are still relevant...really???"..."no thanks to you all, a woman can still decide on abortion, minorities can still vote and corporations didn't get to decide the President"!!!
"p.s. and you can call me ugly all you want, the President of the United States still loves my wide butt and I still sleep in the W.H"!!
No! They are not extreme for their party anymore !
They are the only real conservatives. Most of the rest are RINOs. Between Dems and RINOs we have one party rule in this country which explains most of our problems, especially the deficit.
I typically feel the same way about the "true believer" Obama fan types, except I'm not anywhere near far right. I feel the best place to be is in the middle, not at the end of one extreme or the other.
The "true believer" Obama types have the mentality of children. You can't have a logical conversation with them. at least about anything politically. They are emotion based and super naive in that they believe that the government (Obama and Dems in particular) truly care about them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
