You don't sniff them you watch them dance, and no I haven't been sniffing glue or petrol but I certainly think AOC has. What a dope, but then Tal what do you expect from these leftists, they are all hop heads
![]() |
In America, we have a full spectrum of humans, left, right with fringes on both sides and a variety in the middle. That's why we are a melting pot that needs constant stirring. The pendulum of ideas and self governing has always swung both ways as we reach a consensus and make adjustments. By law, the vote rules, and as more people vote we get a more defined direction to travel. The conflict has always been who makes the law and how it's enforced, and who gets control of the money.
That's the story of America Clete, from hip hop newbies, to old duffers who can't dance and can barely walk, and everybody in between. Doesn't matter how you do your dope. Or don't!
Who makes the laws and assuring they are enforced are certainly two keys. Those are two great points you make, and so long as that is fairly done, then no one should complain. I have no idea why the government should care about who has or controls the money.Quote:
The conflict has always been who makes the law and how it's enforced, and who gets control of the money.
I think that having to many people who think they are unfairly treated by those that control the money is a HUGE issue. Seems that government would have a huge interest in it's citizens being treated fairly by those with that kind of power and influence. I think we both know that those who have more money are treated differently than those who don't have as much I mean they even have country clubs that rich wrong doers go to when they break the law which is nothing like what the average citizen experiences. Such disparity is but the tip of the iceberg, and only one example off the top of my head as an example of unequal protection under the law.
she actually graduated CumLaud from Boston U majoring in economics. I think she deserves a refund because she did not learn any economics.Quote:
I haven't been sniffing glue or petrol but I certainly think AOC has. What a dope, but then Tal what do you expect from these leftists, they are all hop heads
I'm actually astonished at her level of ignorance. She thought that the $3 billion in tax incentives NYC was offering to Amazon would now be available for public works projects . But of course that money would not be available until Amazon was paying taxes into NYC.
She lives in this leftist fantasy that money grows on trees. Note her proposal in the GND that public banks would be available to give money away. In the FAQ section she writes :“The Federal Reserve can extend credit to power these projects and investments and new public banks can be created to extend credit. There is also space for the government to take an equity stake in projects to get a return on investment.”It is typical with positions she has taken in the past when asked how her proposals like Medicare for all ,and other proposals that liberal economists estimate would cost into the $40 trillion range would be paid for; she replies ……"just pay it!"
I also have to note that the level of economic understanding appears to be on low low side for people of the left. Note how often the complaint you are hearing is that the tax cuts are hurting people because they are getting less of a refund from their taxes .Well the reason you are getting less of a refund is because you had less taken out of your pay check . https://www.fool.com/taxes/2019/02/1...ult-its-y.aspx
Well said and exactly true.Quote:
I also have to note that the level of economic understanding appears to be on low low side for people of the left. Note how often the complaint you are hearing is that the tax cuts are hurting people because they are getting less of a refund from their taxes .Well the reason you are getting less of a refund is because you had less taken out of your pay check
I feel the same way about Nunes, Ryan, and McConnell, and many times worse about the dufus, so I can understand your feelings.
you can make a case again Yertl and Ryan and convince me . But Nunes knows what he talks about .
Over the last 50 years, there is no fresh source of energy: what we have is legacy energy.
Hydrocarbons are unrivaled, no matter the subsidies.
Wind and solar are cynical political gestures.
You need to get out more.
https://ktla.com/2019/03/25/more-bad...tting-cheaper/
I read the ridiculous link. Yeah, solar and wind are great so long as we are all prepared to spend twice as much for our electricity and do without when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining sufficiently to generate power. It is nonsense. I want to see what New Mexico plans to do on those nights when the wind is not blowing. Good luck with that one.
I guess we will find out when New Mexico goes green just like Texas and those other states mentioned in the article. Hold on a minute... the wait is over.
https://tucson.com/news/local/tucson...f058c2977.html
You are a bit behind there guy.
It is all a fallacy, the largest part of the cost of power is distribution, so whether solar or wind is cheaper is a Moote point and it is a zero sum gain due to the emissions associated with production of these technologies. Just papering over the problem.
Do you even read your links? If so, then tell me, from the article, what percentage of it's power will be "green" in the next ten years? What will they do when the wind is not blowing? What will they do at night?Quote:
Hold on a minute... the wait is over.
1. I would have to see documentation to believe that. I would think, by far, the greatest cost is fuel.Quote:
the largest part of the cost of power is distribution, so whether solar or wind is cheaper is a Moote point
2. The cost is not the only consideration. I'll ask again. What do you do on those days when the wind is not blowing and it's cloudy? Just do without? Hardly a "moote point" or a fallacy.
Either you are going to have massive over installation of wind or massive battery storage or nuclear or the hated coal
Quote:
1. I would have to see documentation to believe that. I would think, by far, the greatest cost is fuel.
2. The cost is not the only consideration. I'll ask again. What do you do on those days when the wind is not blowing and it's cloudy? Just do without? Hardly a "moote point" or a fallacy.
You can believe what I tell you because I spent twenty years in the power industry. The greatest part of the cost is poles and wires, the distribution network, and there are significant losses in that, the power can be generated for a few cents a Kwh, but renewables are much more expensive even if the cost is coming down. Anyway you want evidence, I'm sure you have heard of Google
For us it will be natural gas. Best of the fossil fuels and we have a lot of it.
Yeah, I've heard of Google, but no, I'm not going to try and document your point for you. At any rate, that grid is largely already in place.
Makes logical sense if many states are already going green and yes that does includes the much cleaner natural gas, and closing it's coal burning power plants, they have obviously figured out how to stay warm at night and have lights. One could conclude the GND is already here and growing. Don't know how long ago you worked in the power industry Clete, but even in Australia they are moving forward.
Oh yes moving forward, solar massively oversold, wind farms dot the countryside in the most unlikely places and in places where they have done away with coal fired generation they have summer blackouts. It is progress. The solar feed-in tariff competes with base load for dispatch because it is cheaper, poor fools those who thought they could sell power to the grid, and Hydro is being reengineered. The only thing that has changed here is the ownership of the industry.
Wehave moved so far the government is once again going to compensate the poor for the world's highest cost of power. Thank you renewables
It's all a fantasy world. When we can no longer borrow money, and let us hope that day comes soon, then maybe having to live within our means will demolish this dreamland liberals love to contemplate.
What the states are doing to move from fossil fuel energy to renewables is a fantasy? Really? Obviously they don't think so. No matter where your political sentiments lie, the transition is under way and has been for a while now. I doubt we go back.
No. I'm saying that the idea that we can get a steady, cheap flow of energy from wind and solar is a fantasy. What do you do when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining? Think of it as though you have a car that only runs half the time. What good would that be?
They have demonised Coal, they have demonised Oil, they have demonised transporting Oil, they have demonised exploration, why haven't they demonised lithium production, very polluting? Why haven't they demonised silicon production, very polluting, they have demonised CO2 without realising that it is all that is preventing the next ice age, when they will be happy to be warmed by coal
Please elaborate on this high pollution lithium and silicon production. Is it more polluting than refineries and steel mills? Is the risk of global warming more likely than the coming ice age?
how do you figure they extract that rare mineral out of the ground ? How are you going to extract it without steel production to make the equipment , and fuel to power the heavy equipment to extract the lithium ? Geeze you don't get it yet that solar and beanie and cesil propeller caps can't fuel a 21st century economy ?
How do you figure we have a 21st century economy yet when we still are using 20th century thinking? My questions were to pin down the assertions Clete was making. By your statement though you obviously think that we will be stuck in the last century for most of this century. I think we can forge ahead at a quicker pace myself.
Tal, for example to refine silicon you need charcoal which is created by burning wood in large quantities so there is no advantage as far as CO2 is concerned. Lithium pollutes the ground as well as needing equipment, etc, created in industries which are themselves polluting as Tom indicated. Renewables are premised in the idea you don't Have to count certain costs but they are a zero sum gain overall. If you want energy without CO2 the best option is nuclear but you need to effectively deal with the waste
Well stated, except that I would say nuclear is the only realistic option. Solar and wind would not exist at all without fed subsidies.Quote:
If you want energy without CO2 the best option is nuclear but you need to effectively deal with the waste
We don't use wood anymore, LOL, we invented electric arc furnaces quite a while back. You are correct though about nuclear but did you know nuclear waste can be used as fuel?
https://whatisnuclear.com/recycling.html
removed post image was too big.
Quote:
f you want energy without CO2 the best option is nuclear but you need to effectively deal with the waste
Theoretically fast breeder reactors recycle spent waste . The world has been pretty much scared off from investing in nuclear technology . I for one believe the next generation of power will be fusion ;and that is where investments should be made .Quote:
Yes we have almost solved the nuclear waste problem
Don't be so sure of that Clete
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/0...jct-still.html
Clete ,electic generation was a technology that did not exist in the 19th century . Nuclear power did not exist beyond concept until the 1940s . It took investment to make those realized. We won't be around to see it fully realized. But fusion power will happen . https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielco.../#7d68a9789bb4
It took investments and time, and a few failures along the way.
Breeder reactors are least a few decades away for widespread use. Wind and solar are bad jokes. Nuclear would work but we are too afraid of it, so it would seem we are left with fossil fuels.
Yes, that is the opinion of some
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:01 AM. |