***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[aeropower]

I love how ninjahood, like most other republicans pretend to know everything there is about everything based on a couple of articles they've read and a few minutes on wikipedia. You do know there are people who's profession is based on the topics of which you're debating. I mean there's nothing wrong with you debating energy and energy policy with me, but if you're going to come at me come correct. Come knowledgable. I'm an engineer, speak in numbers and studies. You're not going to win this ninjahood, you're just not knowledgable enough to speak on energy policies. Stick to economics and foreign policy, something i willingly admit i know nothing about. But energy?? Like i said, had you mentioned coal to any of my professor's they would've asked you to drop. Engineering is a progressive academic. We don't resort to coal and oil to solve issues. We don't use old technology to solve technological issues of the future.

Just to play devil's advocate here (I'm an engineer as well), I completely understand where you're coming from (I'm pretty sure nobody wants to talk to me about aerospace), but sometimes this is good! You're helping him understand/testing your knowledge as well! And on a side note... this is somewhat trivial, bc a small portion of the alternative energy companies are failing, but my company recently sold off one of our businesses, it was a clean alt. energy business.... Just no demand...

 

[ccastro02]

Lol @ u, claiming im lying..go google my statement and see where i copied & pasted
Any of that rhetoric.
NYC is one of da oldest cities on da US, OF COURSE there's a ton of buildings that still burn coal.
And i love how your dodging what im saying, da coal is going to get burned REGARDLESS.. now
Would you rather pay MORE for da energy or LESS for it cuz da environmental effects will ne da same.

Link it up than. I told you it's not uncommon to find coal burners in turn of the century buildings. But they are not in use! My sisters building has one, but they don't use it! Oil burners have taken their place. Come on man. Link up your statement or it's untrue.

I AGREE with you that coal is getting burned!! Coal accounts for about 30% of our energy. When did i say other wise??? I swear you love playing devils advocate! I see your reading skills are worse than your weak grammar skills. It seems like me and you are debating completely different issues. I'm debating that we not increase coal consumption, and by that you're implying that what i'm saying is that coal isn't getting burned. Stay focused man.

And i'de rather make more money selling than depending on a source of energy that is inevitably going to deplete within the next 100 years. I'de rather not have to worry about a hole on the o-zone layer and coal smugging up my city. I like my fresh air, thanks.

 

[Betonblck]

I love how ninjahood, like most other republicans pretend to know everything there is about everything based on a couple of articles they've read and a few minutes on wikipedia. You do know there are people who's profession is based on the topics of which you're debating. I mean there's nothing wrong with you debating energy and energy policy with me, but if you're going to come at me come correct. Come knowledgable. I'm an engineer, speak in numbers and studies. You're not going to win this ninjahood, you're just not knowledgable enough to speak on energy policies. Stick to economics and foreign policy, something i willingly admit i know nothing about. But energy?? Like i said, had you mentioned coal to any of my professor's they would've asked you to drop. Engineering is a progressive academic. We don't resort to coal and oil to solve issues. We don't use old technology to solve technological issues of the future.

We have CPAs on here so that leaves ninjahood with just discussing foreign policy. I enjoy refuting ninjahoods responses on taxes and economics.

 

[futuremd]

I love how ninjahood, like most other republicans pretend to know everything there is about everything based on a couple of articles they've read and a few minutes on wikipedia. You do know there are people who's profession is based on the topics of which you're debating. I mean there's nothing wrong with you debating energy and energy policy with me, but if you're going to come at me come correct. Come knowledgable. I'm an engineer, speak in numbers and studies. You're not going to win this ninjahood, you're just not knowledgable enough to speak on energy policies. Stick to economics and foreign policy, something i willingly admit i know nothing about. But energy?? Like i said, had you mentioned coal to any of my professor's they would've asked you to drop. Engineering is a progressive academic. We don't resort to coal and oil to solve issues. We don't use old technology to solve technological issues of the future.

We have CPAs on here so that leaves ninjahood with just discussing foreign policy. I enjoy refuting ninjahoods responses on taxes and economics.

He won't get far on healthcare. 

 

[ccastro02]

Just to play devil's advocate here (I'm an engineer as well), I completely understand where you're coming from (I'm pretty sure nobody wants to talk to me about aerospace), but sometimes this is good! You're helping him understand/testing your knowledge as well! And on a side note... this is somewhat trivial, bc a small portion of the alternative energy companies are failing, but my company recently sold off one of our businesses, it was a clean alt. energy business.... Just no demand...

Though i think demand is also based on where you are. For many, alternative energy is a necessity especially for those off the grid or for those who live in countries in which availability of power is inconsistent. Companies in 3rd world countries are prospering because demand is so high. In north america and in 1st world countries, alternative energy is attractive and ideal, but as of now isn't a complete necessity.

 

[True Blues]

already ahead of you. have made a different thread.

but just to be on topic, I don't understand why we as the people are still putting faith in these corporate backed goons. lobbyists and other business interests are paying for their campaign, and hence their opportunity of being elected. these figures are in the hundreds of thousands and add up to millions.

WE are not their constituency. when they get elected, do you think they'll care about us? I mean they will have to eventually because when people get organized, it's always trouble for the ruling class. BUT, who do you think they'll be attending to first? the issues of poverty and the people OR will it be the CEO's and Top Executives financing the super PACs?

sorry to say, these CEOs and Top Executives are part of another tax bracket, what the media has called the 1%. and well, THEIR interests aren't OUR interests.

Co-sign most of you said.

Campaign finance in America requires a serious overall. It's creating a huge democratic deficit.

Also, a related point: Based on conversations I've had with public officials, I think many are far more self-interested than most voters hope/expect. It's a chance to enhance their personal status, improve their self-worth or simply a logical career step.

 

[ninjahood]

I love how ninjahood, like most other republicans pretend to know everything there is about everything based on a couple of articles they've read and a few minutes on wikipedia. You do know there are people who's profession is based on the topics of which you're debating. I mean there's nothing wrong with you debating energy and energy policy with me, but if you're going to come at me come correct. Come knowledgable. I'm an engineer, speak in numbers and studies. You're not going to win this ninjahood, you're just not knowledgable enough to speak on energy policies. Stick to economics and foreign policy, something i willingly admit i know nothing about. But energy?? Like i said, had you mentioned coal to any of my professor's they would've asked you to drop. Engineering is a progressive academic. We don't resort to coal and oil to solve issues. We don't use old technology to solve technological issues of the future.

Just to play devil's advocate here (I'm an engineer as well), I completely understand where you're coming from (I'm pretty sure nobody wants to talk to me about aerospace), but sometimes this is good! You're helping him understand/testing your knowledge as well! And on a side note... this is somewhat trivial, bc a small portion of the alternative energy companies are failing, but my company recently sold off one of our businesses, it was a clean alt. energy business.... Just no demand...

And that's really da bottomline, aint no demand for expensive alternatives to energy when

Over 50% if our electric infer structure is run by ABUNDANT cheap coal & now even CHEAPER natural gas.

Cry to big bad ninjahood all u want, at da end of da day thats da truth.

 

[ccastro02]

And that's really da bottomline, aint no demand for expensive alternatives to energy when
Over 50% if our electric infer structure is run by ABUNDANT cheap coal & now even CHEAPER natural gas.
Cry to big bad ninjahood all u want, at da end of da day thats da truth.

Please refer to post # 2530. i Cant i really can't twith you anymore. Had no clue you were this much into the bubble. Demand is dependant on where you are is it is for any other industry including the oil industry, coal, and aviation industry. Didn't i post up a job opening, didn't i post the average salary of a solar technician at sharp, didn't i inform you about how affordable going solar is now, didn't i post a link on how one can get checks every two weeks for installing solar?? And after all that, you're still debating with me.

I didn't want to resort to this but,
At sharp as a solar technician i make 70k, 2 years after graduating. You?
My profession in this "no demand industry" is about to buy me a home next year in Brightwaters, ny. How's dyckman treating you?

For an industry that has no demand, i'm making out pretty well, wouldn't you agree?

And for the record, demand is not limited to the US. Global market is insane. But, w/e you say ninjahood. You're the electrical engineer, with a masters in mechanical engineering, and a phd in civil engineering.

 

[futuremd]

ccastro02   is swinging the goddamn battle axe in here. 

Dude is looking at ninjahood like:

 

[ninjahood]

And that's really da bottomline, aint no demand for expensive alternatives to energy when
Over 50% if our electric infer structure is run by ABUNDANT cheap coal & now even CHEAPER natural gas.
Cry to big bad ninjahood all u want, at da end of da day thats da truth.

Please refer to post # 2530. i Cant i really can't twith you anymore. Had no clue you were this much into the bubble. Demand is dependant on where you are is it is for any other industry including the oil industry, coal, and aviation industry. Didn't i post up a job opening, didn't i post the average salary of a solar technician at sharp, didn't i inform you about how affordable going solar is now, didn't i post a link on how one can get checks every two weeks for installing solar?? And after all that, you're still debating with me.

I didn't want to resort to this but,
At sharp as a solar technician i make 70k, 2 years after graduating. You?
My profession in this "no demand industry" is about to buy me a home next year in Brightwaters, ny. How's dyckman treating you?

For an industry that has no demand, i'm making out pretty well, wouldn't you agree?

And for the record, demand is not limited to the US. Global market is insane. But, w/e you say ninjahood. You're the electrical engineer, with a masters in mechanical engineering, and a phd in civil engineering.

oh sure because specialized industry =/= da mainstream

im still waiting on whats da AVERAGE way electricity is generated in da united states, since your a professional im astounded that

your playing da "big bank" talk like you impressing anyone over here, da fact of da matter is solar, wind, etc. are heavily dependant on tax

subsidies that da government is alotting ya, instead of trying to "wow" with attempt at telling me what your salary is, why dont you tell me

how does solar, wind, which are expensive to deploy on a large scale basis plan on replacing coal & natural gas at a affordable rate?

 

[julius wrek]

Hey_

As an relatively new Engineering student,

its really cool to see in depth information from others that are already in the field.

Julius F .Wrek

 

[af1 1982]

The problem with Ninja sometimes is that he thinks:

His own personal experiences >>>>>>> a formal education.

I'm reading this stuff and wondering "Is this dude really trying to argue with a dude about a topic in which he has an engineering degree in?"

 

[blco02]

All this green energy crap is speculation for the future. There's not enough demand to support it in the free market at this time. Government subsidies still aren't helping - just look at Solyndra.

By the way, how many Chevy Volts are being sold these days?

 

[ninjahood]

All this green energy crap is speculation for the future. There's not enough demand to support it in the free market at this time. Government subsidies still aren't helping - just look at Solyndra.

By the way, how many Chevy Volts are being sold these days?

this, they rather attack my character then to acknowledge this simple fact.

 

[cj863]

So much for progress :x

 

[crcballer55]

All this green energy crap is speculation for the future. There's not enough demand to support it in the free market at this time. Government subsidies still aren't helping - just look at Solyndra.

By the way, how many Chevy Volts are being sold these days?

It only depends on what kind of energy we're talking about. California is artificially inflating the price of energy by mandating energy companies produce a certain percentage of the total demand as "green" energy. If we want to talk about the "free market", we need to talk about Tesla's partnership w/ Toyota. The Prius has been a success even though the economics of the car don't match people's perceptions. If we want energy independence, hybrid technology is the future since we're diversifying our needs rather than trying to push a single energy source. The one thing the government is completely missing the ball on is rail. We can transport MUCH more freight, MUCH more efficiently over rail than we can with diesel trucks. Plus you would take more long haul trucks off the road, freeing space on the freeways allowing traffic to run much smoother and decreasing emissions from vehicles sitting in traffic.

 

[ninjahood]

All this green energy crap is speculation for the future. There's not enough demand to support it in the free market at this time. Government subsidies still aren't helping - just look at Solyndra.


By the way, how many Chevy Volts are being sold these days?

It only depends on what kind of energy we're talking about. California is artificially inflating the price of energy by mandating energy companies produce a certain percentage of the total demand as "green" energy. If we want to talk about the "free market", we need to talk about Tesla's partnership w/ Toyota. The Prius has been a success even though the economics of the car don't match people's perceptions. If we want energy independence, hybrid technology is the future since we're diversifying our needs rather than trying to push a single energy source. The one thing the government is completely missing the ball on is rail. We can transport MUCH more freight, MUCH more efficiently over rail than we can with diesel trucks. Plus you would take more long haul trucks off the road, freeing space on the freeways allowing traffic to run much smoother and decreasing emissions from vehicles sitting in traffic.

i agree with high speed rail...

but obama pushed da initial stimulus as being a infrastructure project, and most of da money ended up going to da banks...

he should've pushed ALL of that when he had a super majority, not that republicans would've even stood in da way of that.

 

[crcballer55]

All this green energy crap is speculation for the future. There's not enough demand to support it in the free market at this time. Government subsidies still aren't helping - just look at Solyndra.


By the way, how many Chevy Volts are being sold these days?

It only depends on what kind of energy we're talking about. California is artificially inflating the price of energy by mandating energy companies produce a certain percentage of the total demand as "green" energy. If we want to talk about the "free market", we need to talk about Tesla's partnership w/ Toyota. The Prius has been a success even though the economics of the car don't match people's perceptions. If we want energy independence, hybrid technology is the future since we're diversifying our needs rather than trying to push a single energy source. The one thing the government is completely missing the ball on is rail. We can transport MUCH more freight, MUCH more efficiently over rail than we can with diesel trucks. Plus you would take more long haul trucks off the road, freeing space on the freeways allowing traffic to run much smoother and decreasing emissions from vehicles sitting in traffic.

i agree with high speed rail...

but obama pushed da initial stimulus as being a infrastructure project, and most of da money ended up going to da banks...

he should've pushed ALL of that when he had a super majority, not that republicans would've even stood in da way of that.

I'm not even talking about high speed rail. I'm talking about normal locomotives. They're incredibly efficient at what they do and if we would invest in modernizing the rail system we already have then we could start carrying more freight along the established routes.

The Stimulus? Most of it went to the states, and more specifically, state workers whose jobs were backed by unions or construction companies who used union labor.

 

[futuremd]

All this green energy crap is speculation for the future. There's not enough demand to support it in the free market at this time. Government subsidies still aren't helping - just look at Solyndra.


By the way, how many Chevy Volts are being sold these days?

It only depends on what kind of energy we're talking about. California is artificially inflating the price of energy by mandating energy companies produce a certain percentage of the total demand as "green" energy. If we want to talk about the "free market", we need to talk about Tesla's partnership w/ Toyota. The Prius has been a success even though the economics of the car don't match people's perceptions. If we want energy independence, hybrid technology is the future since we're diversifying our needs rather than trying to push a single energy source. The one thing the government is completely missing the ball on is rail. We can transport MUCH more freight, MUCH more efficiently over rail than we can with diesel trucks. Plus you would take more long haul trucks off the road, freeing space on the freeways allowing traffic to run much smoother and decreasing emissions from vehicles sitting in traffic.

i agree with high speed rail...

but obama pushed da initial stimulus as being a infrastructure project, and most of da money ended up going to da banks...

he should've pushed ALL of that when he had a super majority, not that republicans would've even stood in da way of that.

YO. NINJAHOOD. STOP SAYING THAT.

ITS.

NOT

TRUE.

OBAMA DID NOT HAVE A FUNCTIONAL SUPERMAJORITY AT ANY POINT. ONLY ON PAPER DID HE HAVE THE REQUIRED 60, BUT SOMEONE WAS ALWAYS NOT PRESENT, NAMELY TED KENNEDY or Al Franken not being approved or Paul Kirk having to fill in etc. So he was only ever working with 58 or 59.

AND EVEN THEN, HIS "SUPERMAJORITY" LASTED FOR LIKE 7 WEEKS. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-m-granholm/debunking-the-myth-obamas_b_1929869.html

 

[createdestroy]

YO. NINJAHOOD. STOP SAYING THAT.

ITS.

NOT

TRUE.

OBAMA DID NOT HAVE A FUNCTIONAL SUPERMAJORITY AT ANY POINT. ONLY ON PAPER DID HE HAVE THE REQUIRED 60, BUT SOMEONE WAS ALWAYS NOT PRESENT, NAMELY TED KENNEDY or Al Franken not being approved or Paul Kirk having to fill in etc. So he was only ever working with 58 or 59.

AND EVEN THEN, HIS "SUPERMAJORITY" LASTED FOR LIKE 7 WEEKS. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-m-granholm/debunking-the-myth-obamas_b_1929869.html

Constant repetition of lies is a great strategy.... ninjahood's mindset is evidence of that

 

[crcballer55]

All this green energy crap is speculation for the future. There's not enough demand to support it in the free market at this time. Government subsidies still aren't helping - just look at Solyndra.


By the way, how many Chevy Volts are being sold these days?

It only depends on what kind of energy we're talking about. California is artificially inflating the price of energy by mandating energy companies produce a certain percentage of the total demand as "green" energy. If we want to talk about the "free market", we need to talk about Tesla's partnership w/ Toyota. The Prius has been a success even though the economics of the car don't match people's perceptions. If we want energy independence, hybrid technology is the future since we're diversifying our needs rather than trying to push a single energy source. The one thing the government is completely missing the ball on is rail. We can transport MUCH more freight, MUCH more efficiently over rail than we can with diesel trucks. Plus you would take more long haul trucks off the road, freeing space on the freeways allowing traffic to run much smoother and decreasing emissions from vehicles sitting in traffic.

i agree with high speed rail...

but obama pushed da initial stimulus as being a infrastructure project, and most of da money ended up going to da banks...

he should've pushed ALL of that when he had a super majority, not that republicans would've even stood in da way of that.

YO. NINJAHOOD. STOP SAYING THAT.

ITS.

NOT

TRUE.

OBAMA DID NOT HAVE A FUNCTIONAL SUPERMAJORITY AT ANY POINT. ONLY ON PAPER DID HE HAVE THE REQUIRED 60, BUT SOMEONE WAS ALWAYS NOT PRESENT, NAMELY TED KENNEDY or Al Franken not being approved or Paul Kirk having to fill in etc. So he was only ever working with 58 or 59.

AND EVEN THEN, HIS "SUPERMAJORITY" LASTED FOR LIKE 7 WEEKS. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-m-granholm/debunking-the-myth-obamas_b_1929869.html

How you define the Super Majority is semantics because they regularly picked off Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, & Tom Coburn.

 

[ninjahood]

All this green energy crap is speculation for the future. There's not enough demand to support it in the free market at this time. Government subsidies still aren't helping - just look at Solyndra.



By the way, how many Chevy Volts are being sold these days?

It only depends on what kind of energy we're talking about. California is artificially inflating the price of energy by mandating energy companies produce a certain percentage of the total demand as "green" energy. If we want to talk about the "free market", we need to talk about Tesla's partnership w/ Toyota. The Prius has been a success even though the economics of the car don't match people's perceptions. If we want energy independence, hybrid technology is the future since we're diversifying our needs rather than trying to push a single energy source. The one thing the government is completely missing the ball on is rail. We can transport MUCH more freight, MUCH more efficiently over rail than we can with diesel trucks. Plus you would take more long haul trucks off the road, freeing space on the freeways allowing traffic to run much smoother and decreasing emissions from vehicles sitting in traffic.

i agree with high speed rail...


but obama pushed da initial stimulus as being a infrastructure project, and most of da money ended up going to da banks...


he should've pushed ALL of that when he had a super majority, not that republicans would've even stood in da way of that.

YO. NINJAHOOD. STOP SAYING THAT.

ITS.

NOT

TRUE.

OBAMA DID NOT HAVE A FUNCTIONAL SUPERMAJORITY AT ANY POINT. ONLY ON PAPER DID HE HAVE THE REQUIRED 60, BUT SOMEONE WAS ALWAYS NOT PRESENT, NAMELY TED KENNEDY or Al Franken not being approved or Paul Kirk having to fill in etc. So he was only ever working with 58 or 59.

AND EVEN THEN, HIS "SUPERMAJORITY" LASTED FOR LIKE 7 WEEKS. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-m-granholm/debunking-the-myth-obamas_b_1929869.html

How you define the Super Majority is semantics because they regularly picked off Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, & Tom Coburn.

exactly, silly putty gotta stop acting like obama had to deal with "gridlock"

da man basically was able to pass whatever he wanted to, should've used da stimulus for infrastructure and "shovel ready jobs"

 

[david bowman]

The fact that he needs 60 votes is ridiculous

 

[futuremd]

All this green energy crap is speculation for the future. There's not enough demand to support it in the free market at this time. Government subsidies still aren't helping - just look at Solyndra.


By the way, how many Chevy Volts are being sold these days?

It only depends on what kind of energy we're talking about. California is artificially inflating the price of energy by mandating energy companies produce a certain percentage of the total demand as "green" energy. If we want to talk about the "free market", we need to talk about Tesla's partnership w/ Toyota. The Prius has been a success even though the economics of the car don't match people's perceptions. If we want energy independence, hybrid technology is the future since we're diversifying our needs rather than trying to push a single energy source. The one thing the government is completely missing the ball on is rail. We can transport MUCH more freight, MUCH more efficiently over rail than we can with diesel trucks. Plus you would take more long haul trucks off the road, freeing space on the freeways allowing traffic to run much smoother and decreasing emissions from vehicles sitting in traffic.

i agree with high speed rail...

but obama pushed da initial stimulus as being a infrastructure project, and most of da money ended up going to da banks...

he should've pushed ALL of that when he had a super majority, not that republicans would've even stood in da way of that.

YO. NINJAHOOD. STOP SAYING THAT.

ITS.

NOT

TRUE.

OBAMA DID NOT HAVE A FUNCTIONAL SUPERMAJORITY AT ANY POINT. ONLY ON PAPER DID HE HAVE THE REQUIRED 60, BUT SOMEONE WAS ALWAYS NOT PRESENT, NAMELY TED KENNEDY or Al Franken not being approved or Paul Kirk having to fill in etc. So he was only ever working with 58 or 59.

AND EVEN THEN, HIS "SUPERMAJORITY" LASTED FOR LIKE 7 WEEKS. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-m-granholm/debunking-the-myth-obamas_b_1929869.html

How you define the Super Majority is semantics because they regularly picked off Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, & Tom Coburn.

Are you freaking kidding me?

Like hell its just "semantics"

Obama didn't have the strict super majority he claims you all did...and when the claim gets debunked, then its just "semantics"

Those are republicans, not a "democratic party super majority"

That claim is wrong.

If people chose to cross party lines...THATS A GOOD THING!

If not, then you can't just run back behind the supermajority claim. 

http://www.politicususa.com/obama-debunks-myth-supermajority-congress-years.html

http://current.com/shows/the-war-room/videos/debunking-the-myth-of-obamas-two-year-supermajority

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast...super-majority-in-congress-for-two-years.html

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/09/03/13641077-a-fleeting-illusory-supermajority?lite

 

[ninjahood]

The fact that he needs 60 votes is ridiculous

for some bills they didn't even need all 60

da president had certain trump cards in where he could do some kind of procedure and just used under da 60 votes needed.

he was scared to use to cuz he was afraid republicans were gonna him out on "bypassing da democratic process"

could've used that power to tell senator nelson with his cornhusker kickback to kicks rocks and pass da public option.

obama was just too arrogant and didn't see da tidal wave of tea party support in 2010 that decimated his dem congress and weakened his senate control