Santorum Drops Out - Page 18

HalfManHalfGod · 2012-04-25, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by Sirisian

You realize I replied to the contents of the video right? You sound like someone who readily believes what they're told and only requires quick pieces of information and buzzwords to lock onto. That's fine if you are, but it makes you sound ignorant if you really think that video is targeting an actual problem that exists. If I was an oil company that's the kind of video I would make since it gives the intended audience an emotional attachment to the argument even if it's a red herring for a non-problem. Either that or it's advocating we no longer stress environmentalism in schools. You'd fit into the Ron Paul camp in eliminating the EPA and other "regulations" that hold back the oil industry. I mean they can't profit if we keep holding them responsible at the federal level.

There's that word again. Why must liberals always cast down people who don't agree with them.?

When you says dumbshit like "I'm not sure what the point of the video was" when it was clearly obvious it makes YOU sound ignorant, to use your words.

Its called the political DEBATE forum. Not the, Political "I can't form a proper argument so lets just call you dumb" forum.

**Malorn** · 2012-04-25, 01:56 PM

Meh.

HalfManHalfGod · 2012-04-25, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by Vash02

Yes climate changes, but not at this speed and when this change in climate starts when we really started pumping out the C02... well you can put two and two together.

Ah yes, the famous hockey stick graph from Micheal Mann. That guy its totally credible

Vash02 · 2012-04-25, 02:21 PM

In any case it doesent matter if there is evidence of man made global warming (which there is) or not. The responsible thing to do for the future is for the economy to get off oil and its better to do it early rather than too late.

Ah yes, the famous hockey stick graph from Micheal Mann. That guy its totally credible

Yes, further research by different institutions replicated the graph.

Sirisian · 2012-04-25, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by HalfManHalfGod

Its called the political DEBATE forum. Not the, Political "I can't form a proper argument so lets just call you dumb" forum.

I didn't mean offense. I meant that you were ill-informed about the topic. It was a suggestion to read up on the oil industry discussions. Read up on if drilling is slowing down or if gas and coal are being slowed at all by environmentalists. Also look up the current political discussion about drilling as a solution.

Was reading this earlier today.

HalfManHalfGod · 2012-04-25, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by HalfManHalfGod

Moratorium on offshore drilling, keystone pipeline, no lease for drilling on government owned property, no new oil refineries, EPA cracking down on coal power plants, no new permits for coal plants, no new permits for nuclear power. Just in Illinois alone we are shutting down a half dozen power planets because it would be to expensive to meet new EPA requirements. I could go on and on. So with that said do you not see why speculators are seeing energy prices higher? Simple economics higher demand less supply = higher prices. This is not rocket science.

Just something I wrote a couple pages back. So wouldn't say I'm ill-informed.

Sirisian · 2012-04-25, 03:46 PM

To be fair nuclear has always been hard to get. There's two being built at the moment and they took a while to get okayed. The perceived risk is rather huge. (I'm a huge proponent of nuclear though, but it's odd how research has slowed in that area).

About the "EPA cracking down on coal power" it's overstated. From what I've read it's affecting plants that were created 30+ years ago. Ones that are inefficient.[Source]

(Regarding offshore drilling, keystone pipeline, and drilling on public lands I have no opinion on. They seem like rather complex subjects). Though Obama has been pretty strict about the use of public lands for mining. (Mining around the Grand Canyon for instance).

HalfManHalfGod · 2012-04-25, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by Sirisian

To be fair nuclear has always been hard to get. There's two being built at the moment and they took a while to get okayed. The perceived risk is rather huge. (I'm a huge proponent of nuclear though, but it's odd how research has slowed in that area).

About the "EPA cracking down on coal power" it's overstated. From what I've read it's affecting plants that were created 30+ years ago. Ones that are inefficient.[Source]

(Regarding offshore drilling, keystone pipeline, and drilling on public lands I have no opinion on. They seem like rather complex subjects). Though Obama has been pretty strict about the use of public lands for mining. (Mining around the Grand Canyon for instance).

I agree, big fan of nuclear power. I read something a while ago about thorium? I think that's right but it was a competing technology with uranium and we chose uranium because we could use it to develop weapons (in BOOMING GOD VOICE) OF MASS DESTRUCTION! hehe

Goku · 2012-04-25, 04:29 PM

I just about fell out of my chair when I learned about thorium a couple years ago. Just due to how much energy more can be harnessed verse uranium. If I'm not mistaken there wasn't nearly as big of a issue concerning the radioactive waste either.

Vecha · 2012-04-25, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

That wasn't a Romney campaign ad, that was a lobbyist group ad.

From the video's website, http://www.freemarketamerica.org/

I understand that....but Romney, and Obama, use absolutes..."America is failing...Obama is destroying America...Bush Destroyed America. The sky is falling! Everything will be better when I take office!"

**Malorn** · 2012-04-25, 08:43 PM

Meh.

Vash02 · 2012-04-25, 08:55 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

The problem is that we shut down nuclear reactor building after 3 Mile Island caused a mass panic. The thought of radioactive waste makes environmentalists cringe, in spite of the fact that nuclear is WAAAAAAAAAAY more efficient than any other form of energy and has no pollution other than the waste itself (which can be recycled and reused in breeder reactors).

If we want clean EFFICIENT energy, nuclear is the answer.

Waste + mining the uranium.

I'm waiting till they get the fusion reactors working smoothly. Then we are pretty much good on the energy production front. Just need to get working on some food replicators then

Vecha · 2012-04-25, 11:13 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

If they said "Hey things are kinda OK and I'll do my best to make them better!" there isn't a chance in hell they'd be elected. Nobody wants an unconfident unassertive world leader.

Sure, that's understandable.

Doesn't take away the fact they are giant assholes that won't do much for you me or that guy standing over there. I really think he's up to something.

I think the bigger issues lies with our congressman. The president is more of a CEO who is playing a very dangerous RTS game.

Sirisian · 2012-04-26, 04:44 AM

Interesting policy for republicans. Their cuts seem to be targeted at people with low political control at the moment. Case in point. Poor people have really bad lobbyists.

Baneblade · 2012-04-26, 05:49 AM

Some Republicans maybe, but Ron Paul wouldn't do that. His changes would eclipse that.