Issues

[Norman]

Solar freaking roadways proves it all really.

People who know nothing about technology are obsessed about these "innovations".

Innovations are what brought us gas powered automobiles. Everything has a price - why do you automatically reject if it happens to be green?

No, I don't reject something because it's green. I reject it, because it's pseudoscience.



Solyndra is perfect example too... but hey it's green so it MUST work! Cause... regressive... liberal...

It seems like you reject green energy out of pocket - yes? No? Do you see a legitimate role for it in our energy wardrobe?

No I don't. I also don't think politicians should invest into something because it says green in it.

Hillary certainly is completely clueless and would fund solar roadways untill the dawn.

Why don't you? People were skeptical of gas powered cars at one time. I think it behooves us to invest in it and see if it plays out - if we don't, we'll never know. Solar works quite well in some areas as does wind. There is also geothermal - which powers Iceland. I see what you say that just because it's green doesn't mean we should invest in it - but likewise, just because it's green doesn't mean we should REJECT it.

Solar roadways are pretty out there, I'll agree. But, speaking as an old science fiction buff, there's a lot of stuff happening I never would have believed possible in real life

Yeah, just invest into a perpetual motion machine and see if it works out. Why not? Nothing to lose here! It's not my money!

Or how about NO! How about investing only into something that actually is worthwhile. It's clear that you are clueless. This is why the matters are better left to businessmen, because they don't want to invest into bullshit, and if they do, they lose it all. Which politician lost anything after the Solyndra catastrophe?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Oh please...let's have one thread without sex....

A little levity never hurts....and the dog is hilarious

 

[Disir]

Another important issue for me is Environment.

Trump

• Eminent domain is something you need very strongly. (Feb 2016)
• Cut the EPA; what they do is a disgrace. (Oct 2015)
• Eminent domain pays more than fair market value. (Oct 2015)
• Eminent domain is a very useful tool for job creation. (Oct 2015)
• My sons love trophy hunting, but I'm not a believer. (Sep 2015)
• Won't go to circuses that cut elephants due to animal rights. (Mar 2015)
• Partner with environmentalists when undertaking projects. (Apr 2010)
• Good development enhances the environment. (Jan 2008)
• Asbestos got a bad rap from miners & mob-led movement. (Oct 1997)
• Asbestos got a bad rap from miners & mob-led movement. (Oct 1997)
• Humiliated NYC Mayor by finishing ice rink on time on budget. (Oct 1997)
• Bureaucratic land use reviews make projects unbuildable. (Oct 1997)
• FactCheck: Yes, hybrid family vehicles are available in US

On this - Trump loses me on some, but I agree with on others. The abuse of elephants in circus is well documented - these highly intelligent and endangered animals need our protection, not abuse. Asbestos got a bad rap? WTF? It's bad stuff.

Now - two things I agree on: "Good development (can) enhances the environment" and "Partner with environmentalists when undertaking projects". Often the most successful enviornmental protections come from partnering with ranchers, developers, etc to help them realize that there is value in preserving wetlands, or setting aside conservation areas and that it CAN be done in conjunction with their livelihoods - it does not have to be adversarial. Nature Conservancy is an organization that is strong in this, and which I support.

Clinton

• We need green energy jobs & to build on Paris Agreement. (Mar 2016)
• Federal takeover of Flint water supply if state can't fix it. (Feb 2016)
• FactCheck: No, Hillary didn't grant eminent domain to China. (Mar 2009)
• $5B for green-collar jobs in economic stimulus package. (Jan 2008)
• Voted against and consistently opposed to Yucca Mountain. (Jan 2008)
• A comprehensive energy plan as our Apollo moon shot. (Jan 2008)
• Advocate a cap and trade system. (Dec 2007)
• Better track kids’ products for exposures to toxic materials. (Dec 2007)
• Support green-collar job training. (Aug 2007)
• Launched EPA study of air quality at Ground Zero. (Jun 2007)
• Scored 100% on Humane Society Scorecard on animal protection. (Jan 2007)
• Stands for clean air and funding the EPA. (Sep 2000)
• Reduce air pollution to improve children’s health. (Jun 1998)
• Voted YES on including oil & gas smokestacks in mercury regulations. (Sep 2005)
• Remove PCBs from Hudson River by dredging 200 miles. (Apr 2001)
• Rated 89% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
• EPA must do better on mercury clean-up. (Apr 2004)
• Sponsored bill for tax credit to remove lead-based paint. (Nov 2005)
• Grants for beach water pollution under Clean Water Act. (Apr 2008)
• Inter-state compact for Great Lakes water resources. (Jul 2008)
• Strengthen prohibitions against animal fighting. (Jan 2007)

Clinton's record is lengthy - and much of it I support. Part of her record also ties in to children's issues - lead paint, Flint clean water etc. I would like to know more about how somethings would be paid for (dredging the Hudson) - but I agree with the positions. I would like to see all animal fighting prohibited.

Clinton: “The Whole Idea Of How Fracking Came To Be Available In The Marketplace Is Because Of Research Done By Our Government. And I've Promoted Fracking In Other Places Around The World.” CLINTON: So I am an all-in kind of person, all-of-the-above kind of person when it comes to America's energy and environmental future. And I would like us to get over the political divide and put our heads together and figure out how we can be really, really smart about doing this. I mean, fracking was developed at the Department of Energy. I mean, the whole idea of how fracking came to be available in the marketplace is because of research done by our government. And I've promoted fracking in other places around the world. Because when you look at the strangle-hold that energy has on so many countries and the decisions that they make, it would be in America's interest to make even more countries more energy self-sufficient. So I think we have to go at this in a smart, environmentally conscious way, pursuing a clean-energy alternative agenda while we also promote the advantages that are going to come to us, especially in manufacturing, because we're now going to produce more oil and gas. And that's what I would like to see us talking about instead of standing on two sides of the divide and not working to try to minimize the damage and maximize the upside. [Clinton Speech For Deutsche Bank, 4/24/13]


Hydraulic Fracturing And Has An Obligation To Help Develop Regulations.

“And the federal government which, basically, through the Department of Energy, pioneered hydraulic fracturing, has an obligation to work with states to come up with those kinds of regulations. You know, we've got to make sure that we're not releasing methane in the air. That's a great house gas, that's not a good outcome. We have to be sure that, you know, we are protecting the water supply. We have to, you know, make it possible for local communities to have some greater knowledge about the chemicals that are used.” [02042014 HWA Remarks at Citi [Westchester].DOC, p. 24]


Hillary Clinton Noted That Domestic Oil And Gas Production Were Set To Surpass Russia. “I've dealt with him over a number of years. He is a very tough customer. He has a lot of problems inside Russia, you know, they're much too dependent on oil and gas, and with all of our oil and gas discoveries and production in the United States, we are in a path to surpass Russia in actual oil and gas production. I hope we know what we're doing to take advantage of that, but he's used Russian resources to really intimidate his neighbors.” [LIA Speech, 10/4/13]

Hillary Clinton: I Favor Oil And Gas Exports “Under The Appropriate Circumstances.” In remarks at Robbins, Gellar, Rudman & Dowd in San Diego, Hillary Clinton said, “Secondly, then we have to decide are we going to start exporting? And after the era of embargo back in '73 we stopped. We don't export, because we didn't have enough for ourselves and we didn't want to be giving it away. But, now we have to be, again, smart about trying to figure out how much we can export, what are the triggers for stopping exporting, natural disasters, other kinds of challenges that maybe we export, but we can always shut it off and everybody in the industry knows that, in the event of certain ‑‑ on certain consequences that we have to deal with. I favor going into exporting under the appropriate circumstances and I'll be saying in my remarks later today that exporting to Europe would really weaken Putin's hand, which is very important,

Hillary Clinton Said The United States Has An Opportunity To Be An Energy Exporter. “It will certainly make us less dependent on Middle East oil or on Venezuelan oil over time, which I think gives us an opportunity not only to take care of our own needs but to be an exporter, you know, in the market.” [05162013 Remarks to Banco Itau.doc, p. 35]



And then there is Clinton and Haiti........the gold mining and enviro-racism

Clinton and Martelly more help with elections


Hillary Clinton, Haiti Resources, US Thievery and the Female Butchers

As far as I can see, and with her support over the pipeline, she does not appear to do more than pay lip service to "environmental issues". In fact, she cares more about Russia as the energy exporter.

 

[Coyote]

Innovations are what brought us gas powered automobiles. Everything has a price - why do you automatically reject if it happens to be green?

What? You still drive a GAS powered car...you..you..POLLUTER! I don't reject anything "green" as I'm sure you're aware. I don't enjoy air pollution any more than anybody else. I've long been an advocate of "natural" energy such as thermal and ocean and river current turbines...anything that can spin a wheel can create electricity and we have more ocean coastline and rivers than any continent in the world...yet you leftists are determined to put oil and coal out of business believing sunshine and breezes can power our world...ridiculous.

Cool, then you (a rightist) and me (a leftist) might very well agree on much of this.

Yes, I drive a gas powered car.

No. I don't want to drive fossil fuel industries out of business.

No. I don't believe "sunshine and breezes" will power our world nor have I ever said that.

In fact, you are making the same assumptions about me as you imply I'm making about you.

My position is DIVERSIFICATION - different areas are suited for different types of energy generation, sometimes multiple types. Why such an emphasis to rely on only a handful and disregard the rest?

Some areas and some industries will need to continue fossil fuels. We might not be able to eliminate it, until it naturally eliminates itself - but if we reduce our dependence on it, that would be a good thing.

Where I live, wind energy works pretty well - but not 100%. Solar would not do so well. But both added to traditional sources would reduce our use of those.

Add nuclear, ocean, geothermal....then perhaps we can reduce our dependence on fossil fuels to a level that is less environmentally detrimental.

My state is a good example. We're a coal/energy state and we've long suffered the ups and downs of that industry. Energy is traditionally boom or bust. Coal provides well paying jobs in some of the poorest counties of our state. Now, we are suffering. But coal is not going to come back in the way it was and we never diversafied into other industries and jobs that might offer a similar level of pay. There's a move to train miners in other energy jobs - installing solar, wind etc. Not sure where it's going to go.

 

[Norman]

Innovations are what brought us gas powered automobiles. Everything has a price - why do you automatically reject if it happens to be green?

What? You still drive a GAS powered car...you..you..POLLUTER! I don't reject anything "green" as I'm sure you're aware. I don't enjoy air pollution any more than anybody else. I've long been an advocate of "natural" energy such as thermal and ocean and river current turbines...anything that can spin a wheel can create electricity and we have more ocean coastline and rivers than any continent in the world...yet you leftists are determined to put oil and coal out of business believing sunshine and breezes can power our world...ridiculous.

Cool, then you (a rightist) and me (a leftist) might very well agree on much of this.

Yes, I drive a gas powered car.

No. I don't want to drive fossil fuel industries out of business.

No. I don't believe "sunshine and breezes" will power our world nor have I ever said that.

In fact, you are making the same assumptions about me as you imply I'm making about you.

My position is DIVERSIFICATION - different areas are suited for different types of energy generation, sometimes multiple types. Why such an emphasis to rely on only a handful and disregard the rest?

Some areas and some industries will need to continue fossil fuels. We might not be able to eliminate it, until it naturally eliminates itself - but if we reduce our dependence on it, that would be a good thing.

Where I live, wind energy works pretty well - but not 100%. Solar would not do so well. But both added to traditional sources would reduce our use of those.

Add nuclear, ocean, geothermal....then perhaps we can reduce our dependence on fossil fuels to a level that is less environmentally detrimental.

My state is a good example. We're a coal/energy state and we've long suffered the ups and downs of that industry. Energy is traditionally boom or bust. Coal provides well paying jobs in some of the poorest counties of our state. Now, we are suffering. But coal is not going to come back in the way it was and we never diversafied into other industries and jobs that might offer a similar level of pay. There's a move to train miners in other energy jobs - installing solar, wind etc. Not sure where it's going to go.

Try to have some coherence to your arguments... none of it made any sense.

If you don't know anything about the subject, haven't read about it, haven't checked the actual numbers... then just shut up.

 

[Coyote]

Then there is Trump on energy: Take the oil!

"I’ve always said -- shouldn’t be there, but if we’re going to get out, take the oil," Trump told moderator Matt Lauer at NBC’s Commander-in-Chief Forum on Sept. 7, 2016. "If we would have taken the oil, you wouldn’t have ISIS, because ISIS formed with the power and the wealth of that oil."


When Lauer pressed Trump on how he would have accomplished this, Trump said the United States would have to "leave a certain group behind and you would take various sections where they have the oil. … You know, it used to be to the victor belong the spoils. Now, there was no victor there, believe me. There was no victor. But I always said: Take the oil."​

 

[Coyote]

Innovations are what brought us gas powered automobiles. Everything has a price - why do you automatically reject if it happens to be green?

What? You still drive a GAS powered car...you..you..POLLUTER! I don't reject anything "green" as I'm sure you're aware. I don't enjoy air pollution any more than anybody else. I've long been an advocate of "natural" energy such as thermal and ocean and river current turbines...anything that can spin a wheel can create electricity and we have more ocean coastline and rivers than any continent in the world...yet you leftists are determined to put oil and coal out of business believing sunshine and breezes can power our world...ridiculous.

Cool, then you (a rightist) and me (a leftist) might very well agree on much of this.

Yes, I drive a gas powered car.

No. I don't want to drive fossil fuel industries out of business.

No. I don't believe "sunshine and breezes" will power our world nor have I ever said that.

In fact, you are making the same assumptions about me as you imply I'm making about you.

My position is DIVERSIFICATION - different areas are suited for different types of energy generation, sometimes multiple types. Why such an emphasis to rely on only a handful and disregard the rest?

Some areas and some industries will need to continue fossil fuels. We might not be able to eliminate it, until it naturally eliminates itself - but if we reduce our dependence on it, that would be a good thing.

Where I live, wind energy works pretty well - but not 100%. Solar would not do so well. But both added to traditional sources would reduce our use of those.

Add nuclear, ocean, geothermal....then perhaps we can reduce our dependence on fossil fuels to a level that is less environmentally detrimental.

My state is a good example. We're a coal/energy state and we've long suffered the ups and downs of that industry. Energy is traditionally boom or bust. Coal provides well paying jobs in some of the poorest counties of our state. Now, we are suffering. But coal is not going to come back in the way it was and we never diversafied into other industries and jobs that might offer a similar level of pay. There's a move to train miners in other energy jobs - installing solar, wind etc. Not sure where it's going to go.

Try to have some coherence to your arguments... none of it made any sense.

If you don't know anything about the subject, haven't read about it, haven't checked the actual numbers... then just shut up.

Thank you for your valuable contribution to this discussion.

 

[Disir]

Yeah, just invest into a perpetual motion machine and see if it works out. W

Do not call that dude to the board. Don't jinx us.

Then there is Trump on energy: Take the oil!

"I’ve always said -- shouldn’t be there, but if we’re going to get out, take the oil," Trump told moderator Matt Lauer at NBC’s Commander-in-Chief Forum on Sept. 7, 2016. "If we would have taken the oil, you wouldn’t have ISIS, because ISIS formed with the power and the wealth of that oil."


When Lauer pressed Trump on how he would have accomplished this, Trump said the United States would have to "leave a certain group behind and you would take various sections where they have the oil. … You know, it used to be to the victor belong the spoils. Now, there was no victor there, believe me. There was no victor. But I always said: Take the oil."​

Like Libya? Clinton Discussed Lack Of Institutions In Libya After Gaddafi’s Fall. “Now, you know, in Libya, the United Nations voted how to protect civilians. And the coalition that was put together was unprecedented. It was NATO plus the Arab League. That had never happened before. The over flights, the boat, air, sea and land efforts included Arab nations as well as Europeans, Canadians and Americans. Khadafy was told but then, you know, the lid was taken off. You have a country that had been under the thumb of Khadafy and his henchmen for 42 years. All institutions were destroyed. There was not even a military because he didn't trust anybody since he had been a Colonel who had done a coup, so he had mercenaries, there were African mercenaries and some European mercenaries that were in his direct pay. They had really just conducted themselves as if the entire Libyan oil fortune was personally theirs.” [Clinton Remarks At Boston Consulting Group, 6/20/13]

 

[Tom Horn]

Innovations are what brought us gas powered automobiles. Everything has a price - why do you automatically reject if it happens to be green?

What? You still drive a GAS powered car...you..you..POLLUTER! I don't reject anything "green" as I'm sure you're aware. I don't enjoy air pollution any more than anybody else. I've long been an advocate of "natural" energy such as thermal and ocean and river current turbines...anything that can spin a wheel can create electricity and we have more ocean coastline and rivers than any continent in the world...yet you leftists are determined to put oil and coal out of business believing sunshine and breezes can power our world...ridiculous.

Cool, then you (a rightist) and me (a leftist) might very well agree on much of this.

Yes, I drive a gas powered car.

No. I don't want to drive fossil fuel industries out of business.

No. I don't believe "sunshine and breezes" will power our world nor have I ever said that.

In fact, you are making the same assumptions about me as you imply I'm making about you.

My position is DIVERSIFICATION - different areas are suited for different types of energy generation, sometimes multiple types. Why such an emphasis to rely on only a handful and disregard the rest?

Some areas and some industries will need to continue fossil fuels. We might not be able to eliminate it, until it naturally eliminates itself - but if we reduce our dependence on it, that would be a good thing.

Where I live, wind energy works pretty well - but not 100%. Solar would not do so well. But both added to traditional sources would reduce our use of those.

Add nuclear, ocean, geothermal....then perhaps we can reduce our dependence on fossil fuels to a level that is less environmentally detrimental.

My state is a good example. We're a coal/energy state and we've long suffered the ups and downs of that industry. Energy is traditionally boom or bust. Coal provides well paying jobs in some of the poorest counties of our state. Now, we are suffering. But coal is not going to come back in the way it was and we never diversafied into other industries and jobs that might offer a similar level of pay. There's a move to train miners in other energy jobs - installing solar, wind etc. Not sure where it's going to go.

Okay fine...I believe I've opened your eyes a little and relieved you didn't ban me for my comments on your moderating because I enjoy being on USMB...many bright and talented posters here....even a few misguided lefties. We all believe we have a clear vision of what we should be and do as Americans....it just so happens I've been around longer than many of you and know my history of what's happened and what works and doesn't. And now I have some football to watch and am signing off.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

On the inheritance tax - what's wrong with that? It only effects a very few people who inherit a very large amount of money.

So that makes it okay? To have to sell the farm or business just to give greedy government what they think is owed to them???

So I die with 12 million dollars to my name. I have three kids who each had three kids of their own. If I will out one million dollars to each of my children and grandchildren, that eats up everything I own. A million dollars is a good sum of money, but far from rich.

Do it the liberal way, government gets 6 million, and my children and grand children get about $500,000 each. You think that's fair?

 

[Coyote]

Innovations are what brought us gas powered automobiles. Everything has a price - why do you automatically reject if it happens to be green?

No, I don't reject something because it's green. I reject it, because it's pseudoscience.



Solyndra is perfect example too... but hey it's green so it MUST work! Cause... regressive... liberal...

It seems like you reject green energy out of pocket - yes? No? Do you see a legitimate role for it in our energy wardrobe?

No I don't. I also don't think politicians should invest into something because it says green in it.

Hillary certainly is completely clueless and would fund solar roadways untill the dawn.

Why don't you? People were skeptical of gas powered cars at one time. I think it behooves us to invest in it and see if it plays out - if we don't, we'll never know. Solar works quite well in some areas as does wind. There is also geothermal - which powers Iceland. I see what you say that just because it's green doesn't mean we should invest in it - but likewise, just because it's green doesn't mean we should REJECT it.

Solar roadways are pretty out there, I'll agree. But, speaking as an old science fiction buff, there's a lot of stuff happening I never would have believed possible in real life

Yeah, just invest into a perpetual motion machine and see if it works out. Why not? Nothing to lose here! It's not my money!

Or how about NO! How about investing only into something that actually is worthwhile. It's clear that you are clueless. This is why the matters are better left to businessmen, because they don't want to invest into bullshit, and if they do, they lose it all. Which politician lost anything after the Solyndra catastrophe?

I disagree. Business do not like to take big risks and support research and development. They wait until something is fairly proven, and that is where the government has a role. One good example is the space industry. R&D was almost exclusively funded by the government - not the private sector. From satellites to rockets to manned flights. A lot of spinoffs were subsequently picked up and developed by the private sector, but it's only been recently that the government substantially stepped back (ending the shuttles) and let the private sector take it on because at this point it becomes economically feasible for them to take that risk.

 

[Norman]

No, I don't reject something because it's green. I reject it, because it's pseudoscience.



Solyndra is perfect example too... but hey it's green so it MUST work! Cause... regressive... liberal...

It seems like you reject green energy out of pocket - yes? No? Do you see a legitimate role for it in our energy wardrobe?

No I don't. I also don't think politicians should invest into something because it says green in it.

Hillary certainly is completely clueless and would fund solar roadways untill the dawn.

Why don't you? People were skeptical of gas powered cars at one time. I think it behooves us to invest in it and see if it plays out - if we don't, we'll never know. Solar works quite well in some areas as does wind. There is also geothermal - which powers Iceland. I see what you say that just because it's green doesn't mean we should invest in it - but likewise, just because it's green doesn't mean we should REJECT it.

Solar roadways are pretty out there, I'll agree. But, speaking as an old science fiction buff, there's a lot of stuff happening I never would have believed possible in real life

Yeah, just invest into a perpetual motion machine and see if it works out. Why not? Nothing to lose here! It's not my money!

Or how about NO! How about investing only into something that actually is worthwhile. It's clear that you are clueless. This is why the matters are better left to businessmen, because they don't want to invest into bullshit, and if they do, they lose it all. Which politician lost anything after the Solyndra catastrophe?

I disagree. Business do not like to take big risks and support research and development. They wait until something is fairly proven, and that is where the government has a role. One good example is the space industry. R&D was almost exclusively funded by the government - not the private sector. From satellites to rockets to manned flights. A lot of spinoffs were subsequently picked up and developed by the private sector, but it's only been recently that the government substantially stepped back (ending the shuttles) and let the private sector take it on because at this point it becomes economically feasible for them to take that risk.

Bunch of nonsense again. Businessmen take plenty of risks, it's called venture capital.

Speaking of that, was the risk with solyndra worth it? Perhaps by risk you mean financing bullshit.

Anyway, I am sure even you could invest money better than Hillary so... she would probably invest tax payer money on something that "sounds nice". Like the roadways.

 

[Coyote]

Yeah, just invest into a perpetual motion machine and see if it works out. W

Do not call that dude to the board. Don't jinx us.

Then there is Trump on energy: Take the oil!

"I’ve always said -- shouldn’t be there, but if we’re going to get out, take the oil," Trump told moderator Matt Lauer at NBC’s Commander-in-Chief Forum on Sept. 7, 2016. "If we would have taken the oil, you wouldn’t have ISIS, because ISIS formed with the power and the wealth of that oil."


When Lauer pressed Trump on how he would have accomplished this, Trump said the United States would have to "leave a certain group behind and you would take various sections where they have the oil. … You know, it used to be to the victor belong the spoils. Now, there was no victor there, believe me. There was no victor. But I always said: Take the oil."​

Like Libya? Clinton Discussed Lack Of Institutions In Libya After Gaddafi’s Fall. “Now, you know, in Libya, the United Nations voted how to protect civilians. And the coalition that was put together was unprecedented. It was NATO plus the Arab League. That had never happened before. The over flights, the boat, air, sea and land efforts included Arab nations as well as Europeans, Canadians and Americans. Khadafy was told but then, you know, the lid was taken off. You have a country that had been under the thumb of Khadafy and his henchmen for 42 years. All institutions were destroyed. There was not even a military because he didn't trust anybody since he had been a Colonel who had done a coup, so he had mercenaries, there were African mercenaries and some European mercenaries that were in his direct pay. They had really just conducted themselves as if the entire Libyan oil fortune was personally theirs.” [Clinton Remarks At Boston Consulting Group, 6/20/13]

Not sure what your point is with this? What she says is right - applies to Iraq as well.

 

[Disir]

Yeah, just invest into a perpetual motion machine and see if it works out. W

Do not call that dude to the board. Don't jinx us.

Then there is Trump on energy: Take the oil!

"I’ve always said -- shouldn’t be there, but if we’re going to get out, take the oil," Trump told moderator Matt Lauer at NBC’s Commander-in-Chief Forum on Sept. 7, 2016. "If we would have taken the oil, you wouldn’t have ISIS, because ISIS formed with the power and the wealth of that oil."


When Lauer pressed Trump on how he would have accomplished this, Trump said the United States would have to "leave a certain group behind and you would take various sections where they have the oil. … You know, it used to be to the victor belong the spoils. Now, there was no victor there, believe me. There was no victor. But I always said: Take the oil."​

Like Libya? Clinton Discussed Lack Of Institutions In Libya After Gaddafi’s Fall. “Now, you know, in Libya, the United Nations voted how to protect civilians. And the coalition that was put together was unprecedented. It was NATO plus the Arab League. That had never happened before. The over flights, the boat, air, sea and land efforts included Arab nations as well as Europeans, Canadians and Americans. Khadafy was told but then, you know, the lid was taken off. You have a country that had been under the thumb of Khadafy and his henchmen for 42 years. All institutions were destroyed. There was not even a military because he didn't trust anybody since he had been a Colonel who had done a coup, so he had mercenaries, there were African mercenaries and some European mercenaries that were in his direct pay. They had really just conducted themselves as if the entire Libyan oil fortune was personally theirs.” [Clinton Remarks At Boston Consulting Group, 6/20/13]

Not sure what your point is with this? What she says is right - applies to Iraq as well.

The point is that there is no difference between what he is saying and what the actions of the US, and specifically with HIllary, have been. It is take the oil.

 

[Coyote]

It seems like you reject green energy out of pocket - yes? No? Do you see a legitimate role for it in our energy wardrobe?

No I don't. I also don't think politicians should invest into something because it says green in it.

Hillary certainly is completely clueless and would fund solar roadways untill the dawn.

Why don't you? People were skeptical of gas powered cars at one time. I think it behooves us to invest in it and see if it plays out - if we don't, we'll never know. Solar works quite well in some areas as does wind. There is also geothermal - which powers Iceland. I see what you say that just because it's green doesn't mean we should invest in it - but likewise, just because it's green doesn't mean we should REJECT it.

Solar roadways are pretty out there, I'll agree. But, speaking as an old science fiction buff, there's a lot of stuff happening I never would have believed possible in real life

Yeah, just invest into a perpetual motion machine and see if it works out. Why not? Nothing to lose here! It's not my money!

Or how about NO! How about investing only into something that actually is worthwhile. It's clear that you are clueless. This is why the matters are better left to businessmen, because they don't want to invest into bullshit, and if they do, they lose it all. Which politician lost anything after the Solyndra catastrophe?

I disagree. Business do not like to take big risks and support research and development. They wait until something is fairly proven, and that is where the government has a role. One good example is the space industry. R&D was almost exclusively funded by the government - not the private sector. From satellites to rockets to manned flights. A lot of spinoffs were subsequently picked up and developed by the private sector, but it's only been recently that the government substantially stepped back (ending the shuttles) and let the private sector take it on because at this point it becomes economically feasible for them to take that risk.

Bunch of nonsense again. Businessmen take plenty of risks, it's called venture capital.

Of course they take risks - but not substantial risks. Why should they? They have an obligation to their shareholders. Speaking of which perhaps you can provide me with a list of privately funded R&D into space travel? I suspect it's pretty scanty.

Speaking of that, was the risk with solyndra worth it? Perhaps by risk you mean financing bullshit.[/quoe]

Sure. Nothing is ever guaranteed 100%, but you guys keep popping up Solyndra as it it means it should never be supported.

 

[Coyote]

Yeah, just invest into a perpetual motion machine and see if it works out. W

Do not call that dude to the board. Don't jinx us.

Then there is Trump on energy: Take the oil!

"I’ve always said -- shouldn’t be there, but if we’re going to get out, take the oil," Trump told moderator Matt Lauer at NBC’s Commander-in-Chief Forum on Sept. 7, 2016. "If we would have taken the oil, you wouldn’t have ISIS, because ISIS formed with the power and the wealth of that oil."


When Lauer pressed Trump on how he would have accomplished this, Trump said the United States would have to "leave a certain group behind and you would take various sections where they have the oil. … You know, it used to be to the victor belong the spoils. Now, there was no victor there, believe me. There was no victor. But I always said: Take the oil."​

Like Libya? Clinton Discussed Lack Of Institutions In Libya After Gaddafi’s Fall. “Now, you know, in Libya, the United Nations voted how to protect civilians. And the coalition that was put together was unprecedented. It was NATO plus the Arab League. That had never happened before. The over flights, the boat, air, sea and land efforts included Arab nations as well as Europeans, Canadians and Americans. Khadafy was told but then, you know, the lid was taken off. You have a country that had been under the thumb of Khadafy and his henchmen for 42 years. All institutions were destroyed. There was not even a military because he didn't trust anybody since he had been a Colonel who had done a coup, so he had mercenaries, there were African mercenaries and some European mercenaries that were in his direct pay. They had really just conducted themselves as if the entire Libyan oil fortune was personally theirs.” [Clinton Remarks At Boston Consulting Group, 6/20/13]

Not sure what your point is with this? What she says is right - applies to Iraq as well.

The point is that there is no difference between what he is saying and what the actions of the US, and specifically with HIllary, have been. It is take the oil.

I don't see where she said to take the oil.

 

[Disir]

Yeah, just invest into a perpetual motion machine and see if it works out. W

Do not call that dude to the board. Don't jinx us.

Then there is Trump on energy: Take the oil!

"I’ve always said -- shouldn’t be there, but if we’re going to get out, take the oil," Trump told moderator Matt Lauer at NBC’s Commander-in-Chief Forum on Sept. 7, 2016. "If we would have taken the oil, you wouldn’t have ISIS, because ISIS formed with the power and the wealth of that oil."


When Lauer pressed Trump on how he would have accomplished this, Trump said the United States would have to "leave a certain group behind and you would take various sections where they have the oil. … You know, it used to be to the victor belong the spoils. Now, there was no victor there, believe me. There was no victor. But I always said: Take the oil."​

Like Libya? Clinton Discussed Lack Of Institutions In Libya After Gaddafi’s Fall. “Now, you know, in Libya, the United Nations voted how to protect civilians. And the coalition that was put together was unprecedented. It was NATO plus the Arab League. That had never happened before. The over flights, the boat, air, sea and land efforts included Arab nations as well as Europeans, Canadians and Americans. Khadafy was told but then, you know, the lid was taken off. You have a country that had been under the thumb of Khadafy and his henchmen for 42 years. All institutions were destroyed. There was not even a military because he didn't trust anybody since he had been a Colonel who had done a coup, so he had mercenaries, there were African mercenaries and some European mercenaries that were in his direct pay. They had really just conducted themselves as if the entire Libyan oil fortune was personally theirs.” [Clinton Remarks At Boston Consulting Group, 6/20/13]

Not sure what your point is with this? What she says is right - applies to Iraq as well.

The point is that there is no difference between what he is saying and what the actions of the US, and specifically with HIllary, have been. It is take the oil.

I don't see where she said to take the oil.

Coyote......that's what it was about. She said, "They had really just conducted themselves as if the entire Libyan oil fortune was personally theirs.”

The problem was it actually was personally theirs.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Again - Hillary has a long record to judge by. Why is this an important issue? Because a lot of us are getting older and it's the younger generation that supports the older generation and pays into social security. People are living much longer, many people have aging parents to take care of. That means that not only is it the right thing to do - it's necessary. Jobs, family friendly policies that help young couples raise children and pursue a career, good educational services and healthcare all play into it. This is one issue Clinton has consistently worked on, prior to her public life.

It's unclear where Trump is on this because there really is no record to judge him by. I support paid family leave for both mothers and fathers.

You do? So who is going to pay for this paid leave? If you say government, my response is 20 trillion and growing.

 

[Coyote]

On the inheritance tax - what's wrong with that? It only effects a very few people who inherit a very large amount of money.

So that makes it okay? To have to sell the farm or business just to give greedy government what they think is owed to them???

So I die with 12 million dollars to my name. I have three kids who each had three kids of their own. If I will out one million dollars to each of my children and grandchildren, that eats up everything I own. A million dollars is a good sum of money, but far from rich.

Do it the liberal way, government gets 6 million, and my children and grand children get about $500,000 each. You think that's fair?

Inheritance talks doesn't bother me. The vast majority of estates - like 99.9% pay no inheritance tax. For those that do - you're still looking at a sizeable inheritance even after the tax. It only applies to estates exceeding 5.3 million - we aren't talking small business' and family farms. It's not money your children EARNED, it's money they inherited.

Doesn't bother me at all.

 

[Norman]

No I don't. I also don't think politicians should invest into something because it says green in it.

Hillary certainly is completely clueless and would fund solar roadways untill the dawn.

Why don't you? People were skeptical of gas powered cars at one time. I think it behooves us to invest in it and see if it plays out - if we don't, we'll never know. Solar works quite well in some areas as does wind. There is also geothermal - which powers Iceland. I see what you say that just because it's green doesn't mean we should invest in it - but likewise, just because it's green doesn't mean we should REJECT it.

Solar roadways are pretty out there, I'll agree. But, speaking as an old science fiction buff, there's a lot of stuff happening I never would have believed possible in real life

Yeah, just invest into a perpetual motion machine and see if it works out. Why not? Nothing to lose here! It's not my money!

Or how about NO! How about investing only into something that actually is worthwhile. It's clear that you are clueless. This is why the matters are better left to businessmen, because they don't want to invest into bullshit, and if they do, they lose it all. Which politician lost anything after the Solyndra catastrophe?

I disagree. Business do not like to take big risks and support research and development. They wait until something is fairly proven, and that is where the government has a role. One good example is the space industry. R&D was almost exclusively funded by the government - not the private sector. From satellites to rockets to manned flights. A lot of spinoffs were subsequently picked up and developed by the private sector, but it's only been recently that the government substantially stepped back (ending the shuttles) and let the private sector take it on because at this point it becomes economically feasible for them to take that risk.

Bunch of nonsense again. Businessmen take plenty of risks, it's called venture capital.

Of course they take risks - but not substantial risks. Why should they? They have an obligation to their shareholders. Speaking of which perhaps you can provide me with a list of privately funded R&D into space travel? I suspect it's pretty scanty.

Speaking of that, was the risk with solyndra worth it? Perhaps by risk you mean financing bullshit.[/quoe]

Sure. Nothing is ever guaranteed 100%, but you guys keep popping up Solyndra as it it means it should never be supported.

So you want the government to take in bunch of tax payer money, and take "substantial risks" with it.

Sounds like a BRILLIANT plan! Turn the US government into a taxpayer funded casino!

No wonder the bubbles and crashes keep happening.