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.
OK, sorry. He only claimed to bankrupt anyone who wants to build new coal plants. And no, his statement on the issue made no exception for "clean coal" power plants though he carefully worded his anwser to make it sound like it.
That's a preferred policy position, not an explanation for why West Virginia did not go for Obama.
Uhm... which logical claim are you referring to?
This is what I am talking about. He gave a big speech, and people took one statement out of context to try and create a position he didnt have. If there was any doubt he clarified it. His position is quite clear on clean coal. I disagree with Obama a lot, but I agree clean coal is the way to go. Everyone wins, except the owners of coal mines and coal power plants who lose a little revenue, but still make tons of money.
So the biggest reason WV did not go for Obama is demographics as I explained in my first post and this misconception put out by energy interest. So if we are to define 'anti-coal' as being for clean coal then yes he is anti-coal.
The anti-earth anti-life comment was not serious but an example of how stupid your logic in this case is. The logic you are using to say Obama is anti-coal, well I could say those that are against clean coal are anti-earth and anti-life due to the massive pollution from coal.
That may be true, but his personal position on abortion is irrelevant to that claim.
He accused you, in a round about way, of being anti-life, which implies he's pro-life, so just a test for hypocrisy on his part. BTW - you the new Mod or something??
He accused you, in a round about way, of being anti-life, which implies he's pro-life, so just a test for hypocrisy on his part. BTW - you the new Mod or something??
anti-life is broader than abortion, which I believe you are referring to.
I also didnt accuse dover of being anti-life. I said using his logic I could make an argument that he is anti-life. This was not to say the poster was anti-life, but rather to illustrate how stupid this rhetoric was. I think comparing abortion to pollution caused by power plants is rather stupid. Let's even assume I said I was pro-choice, and you used to make some argument that I was hypocrite, you just made a tu qouque which is a type of logical fallacy. This is the anti-intellectualism I have been talking about. It would all be rather irrelevant and instead of addressing and discussing an issue, you would be resorting to attacking my character.
My intention is to point out how these anti-"insert whatever" is ridiculous. simplifying complex issues into a catchphrase is one reason politics in this countries is so toxic and people misinformed.
anti-life is broader than abortion, which I believe you are referring to.
I also didnt accuse dover of being anti-life. I said using his logic I could make an argument that he is anti-life. This was not to say the poster was anti-life, but rather to illustrate how stupid this rhetoric was. I think comparing abortion to pollution caused by power plants is rather stupid. My intention is to point out how these anti-"insert whatever" is ridiculous. simplifying complex issues into a catchphrase is one reason politics in this countries is so toxic and people misinformed.
I agree that there are many people in this country that are just plain too stupid to be allowed to vote. That said, the founding father's never made any provision regarding IQ and voting rights, so it is what it is.
This is what I am talking about. He gave a big speech, and people took one statement out of context to try and create a position he didnt have. If there was any doubt he clarified it. His position is quite clear on clean coal. I disagree with Obama a lot, but I agree clean coal is the way to go. Everyone wins, except the owners of coal mines and coal power plants who lose a little revenue, but still make tons of money.
Here's the full content of his response to the SF Chronicle editorial board question: [youtube]DpTIhyMa-Nw[youtube]
Quote:
Originally Posted by cry_havoc
So the biggest reason WV did not go for Obama is demographics as I explained in my first post and this misconception put out by energy interest. So if we are to define 'anti-coal' as being for clean coal then yes he is anti-coal.
It's not much of a stretch to call promises to bankrupt attempts to build new coal-burning plants and tax the holy hell out of existing ones to subsidize research into competing energy sources, or even take coal off the table to be "anti-coal." But what would I know. Even so, if you'd take the time to read what I post instead of reflexively lashing out at anything you imagine to be "pro-dirty-coal" or whatever, you'd notice that I agree with you that being "anti-coal" doesn't explain the recent election results.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cry_havoc
The anti-earth anti-life comment was not serious but an example of how stupid your logic in this case is. The logic you are using to say Obama is anti-coal, well I could say those that are against clean coal are anti-earth and anti-life due to the massive pollution from coal.
Again, it's not a big stretch to call policies that are clearly hostile to coal interests to be "anti-coal."
Quote:
Originally Posted by cry_havoc
Tell me why are you against clean coal?
I've made no such claim nor advocated any policy position at any time during the course of this discussion. This isn't the place for it. If you want to have a policy fight, do it in the P&OC forum.
So the biggest reason WV did not go for Obama is demographics as I explained in my first post and this misconception put out by energy interest. So if we are to define 'anti-coal' as being for clean coal then yes he is anti-coal.
It's not much of a stretch to call promises to bankrupt attempts to build new coal-burning plants and tax the holy hell out of existing ones to subsidize research into competing energy sources, or even take coal off the table to be "anti-coal." But what would I know. Even so, if you'd take the time to read what I post instead of reflexively lashing out at anything you perceive to be "pro-dirty-coal" or whatever, you'd notice that I agree with you that being "anti-coal" doesn't explain the recent election results.
Again, it's not a big stretch to call policies that are clearly hostile to coal interests to be "anti-coal."
I've made no such claim nor advocated any policy position at any time during the course of this discussion. This isn't the place for it. If you want to have a policy fight, do it in the P&OC forum.[/quote]
You are acting awfully Mod-like. If you are, you need to tone it down a little, or else you will run everyone away from the boards you moderate. If you aren't the new mod, then you need to quit acting like you are.
Here's the full content of his response to the SF Chronicle editorial board question: [youtube]DpTIhyMa-Nw[youtube]
It's not much of a stretch to call promises to bankrupt attempts to build new coal-burning plants and tax the holy hell out of existing ones to subsidize research into competing energy sources, or even take coal off the table to be "anti-coal." But what would I know. Even so, if you'd take the time to read what I post instead of reflexively lashing out at anything you imagine to be "pro-dirty-coal" or whatever, you'd notice that I agree with you that being "anti-coal" doesn't explain the recent election results.
Again, it's not a big stretch to call policies that are clearly hostile to coal interests to be "anti-coal."
I've made no such claim nor advocated any policy position at any time during the course of this discussion. This isn't the place for it. If you want to have a policy fight, do it in the P&OC forum.
I think it is safe to say Obama is catering to the crowd, and being somewhat dishonest. All politicians do this while campaigning. They tell the audience what they want to hear, and word it in ways that misleads them. So yes in SF he comes off as an environmentalist. In PA if asked this question he would have said how much he supports clean coal, and how it will create new demand for coal and expand the coal industry. What can I tell you politicians are like this.
Still despite the catering, you are taking what he said out of context, AND you are failing to grasp what the issue being discussed is. I am not saying in an insulting manner, most people dont due to the media. What is being discussed is not even coal, but [Carbon taxes](Carbon tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), and climate change. In this case he told an audience in SF that under his plan, one which he never tried to pass to this day, it would not be possible to build a NEW non-clean coal power plant without incurring very high taxes which could bankrupt it.
To be fair it is not a stretch for you to assume that he is anti-coal given the way this way spun. Hell, even if this was not spun he was addressing catering to an audience so without really understanding both politics and his environmental policy he pays lip service to you could easily conclude he is anti-coal. I will give you that point.
However, this is all irrelevant since he never tried to pass any carbon taxes. In fact 2 days ago he said he was not going to pursue carbon taxes. Coal is not an issue he actually cares about despite what the coal companies and Obama want you to believe. For propaganda purposes Obama likes to portray himself as a champion of alternative energy, clean energy like clean coal, and working on combating global warming, but in practice he hasnt done anything. Likewise, energy interest love to portray him as 'anti-coal' and all sorts of unflattering things, but they know his position better than any of us since their lobbyist have regular contact with the federal government, and you would see them freaking out if he was a serious threat to their interest, rather than a slight inconvenience. Other countries do have carbon taxes and carbon credits, see Kyoto protocol, and they still use and open new coal plants. The taxes increase the incentives to make them clean, and they are still profitable.
So how is Obama anti-coal? You would be hard pressed to show any actual examples of his policies actually hurting the coal industry. All the evidence is out of context statements, and a desire to slightly regulate it more, which is far down his to-do list and will never get done.
Even assuming he was serious about carbon taxes, they only would apply to new coal plants and not any previous ones, plants that used clean coal technology would be fine, and by the time the lobbyist, committees, house, and senate got through the bill there would be so many amendments making exceptions it is highly doubtful they would bankrupt new coal plants. Also, demand for coal and new coal plants is pretty stagnant in the US right now, the growth is now in other parts of the world like China, India, and Brazil who import it from the US and would continue to do so. So worst case for the energy industry would be he passed carbon taxes and increased regulation that would increase their expenses a little. However, this is all irrelevant since he is not trying to pass carbon taxes.
So no Obama is not anti-coal. His policies have not done anything in regard to coal, nor does it appear he will try to implement regulation that will effect it. Given his rhetoric though I could understand why you would perceive he was, and is, anti-coal. The reality is very different.
I would have loved to see how these backwards holler bible thumpers who voted for Romney would have survived without their food stamps, medicare, medicaid, unemployment benefits etc.
I'm anti coal too... No need to go all the way to DC to blame Obama for coal. BLAME ME here in Elkins. I would absolutely hate for a coal company to move into this area and destroy it like much of the southern part of the state.
Natural Gas burns cleaner... That's most of the reason for coal prices plummeting. The market has been flush with all the drilling in the state and its now cheaper to convert the power plants to natural gas and also not face the government regulations for burning coal. The EPA has made it SLIGHTLY more difficult to get SURFACE mining permits... The whole argument that Obama is anti coal blows my mind. It's like, I'm imagining these people whining because the EPA wont let some dangerous non union mining outfit blow up a mountain and smooth over streams and valleys. WHERE DO YOU GET YOUR WATER!?!?!?!?!!?? Who wants to live near that??? In turn causing low property values and destroying your long term productivity when you develop cancer from drinking polluted water. This has been happening for generations now but people are too ignorant to do anything about it, and the companies can put out anti environmental and anit obama signs because his administration IS MAKING SURE they follow their safety policies and mine in appropriate areas. Not just say... have at it boys... level the whole dam* state...
For the pro choice pro birth thing....
This argument no matter whether in WV or CA or TX is so stupid. It's been settled!!! ROE V WADE...
Also, no one is pro-abortion. Just pro choice... Let the woman decide what she does with HER body.
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.
