Get your Obamanometer!

old europe wrote:

Obama Energy Plan (pdf)

Dang. That was actually the factsheet from Obama's energy speech. Here's the Obama Energy Plan Factsheet. Same point about nuclear power, though.

0 Replies

All that is clever code to mask the fact that Obama is opposed to the construction of any new nuclear plants in this country. He deceitfully masks this opposition behind selected preconditions such as international non proliferation agreements and domestic high-level radioactive waste storage facilities - neither of which can be attained. In particular the waste storage issue is completely cynical and deceitful on his part, in that we already have a suitable and well-designed facility at Yucca Mountain Nevada. It is finished and ready to operate, but the Democrat leaders in the Congress have prevented its opening. The non-proliferation issue is equally phoney in that we have ample domestic sources of nuclear fuel - enough for a century or more. There is no non-proliferation issue for us. Thus it isn't necessary for Obama to oppose nuclear energy - he merely omits reference to it in most summaries of his "plan" and hides behind these fake issues when he is challenged.

I am surprised that you don't see through this, even from Germany.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

All that is clever code to mask .......

.

I guess we need to pay attention to your "clever code" designed to ignore reality and spout what you want us to believe.

Quote:

he merely omits reference to it in most summaries

I thought the point of a summary was to NOT include every detail of the entire plan. There is a reason why they call it a "summary."

0 Replies

Please specify the elements of the reality of Obama's energy plan that I have omitted.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

H2O_MAN wrote:
Quote:
"We could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups."

What a putz !!

It's true. <shrugs>

A tuned vehicle burns no fuel on flat tires and I don't need Obama to tell me tires need to be inflated.

It's true, Obama is a putz !!

0 Replies

Interesting editorial in today's Wall Street Journal about Obama's "energy plan".

They reference the unrealism of his plan to achieve energy independence rapidly; the fantasy behind his promise to build a "new energy economy"; the likely bad side effects of his promise to "mandate" the construction of "flexible fuel vehicles"; and the unrealism of his promise to build a new energy system on the basis of wind and solar which today deliver no more than 1% of our electrical power, and which cost much more than any alternatives.

Here is the wrapup,

"...But just because Mr Obama's plan is wildly unrealistic doesn't mean that a program of vast new taxes, subsidies and mandates won't be destructive. The U.S. has a great deal invested in fossil fuels not because of a political conspiracy or because anyone worships carbon, but because other sources of energy are, right now, inferior.

Consumption isn't rising because of wastefulness. The U.S. produces more than twice as much GDP today per unit of energy as it did in the 1950s, yet energy use has risen threefold. That's because energy use is tethered to growth, and the economy continues to innovate and expand. Mr Obama seems to have other ideas."

0 Replies

Yeah, the WSJ is a real impartial source of information on all things energy-related.

I guess they can see through Obama's 'secret code' just like you can, George. Where do the rest of us get decoder rings?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

H2O_MAN wrote:

I don't need Obama to tell me tires need to be inflated.

It's true, Obama is a putz !!

Did you feel the same way about George H.W. Bush, when his administration was telling Americans that their tires need to be inflated, back in 1990?

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

Good ole Uncle Hanno, the one no one wants to sit beside.

lol, yep - I am an expert at being 'that weird uncle'.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Consumption isn't rising because of wastefulness. The U.S. produces more than twice as much GDP today per unit of energy as it did in the 1950s, yet energy use has risen threefold.

Oh. Wow. More than twice as much GDP/unit of energy as in the 1950s?

That puts America somewhere between Iran and China...

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

H2O_MAN wrote:
I don't need Obama to tell me tires need to be inflated.

It's true, Obama is a putz !!

Did you feel the same way about George H.W. Bush, when his administration was telling Americans that their tires need to be inflated, back in 1990?

Obama was a putz back in 1990, so yes.

0 Replies

H2O_MAN wrote:

old europe wrote:
H2O_MAN wrote:
I don't need Obama to tell me tires need to be inflated.

It's true, Obama is a putz !!

Did you feel the same way about George H.W. Bush, when his administration was telling Americans that their tires need to be inflated, back in 1990?

Obama was a putz back in 1990, so yes.

H2O_MAN, seriously, if you don't have a point to make, and if you don't want to discuss politics and limit yourself to idiotic statements like the one above - what the heck are you doing on the politics forum?

Your statements rarely, if ever, rise above the standard of "and so's your momma". You contribute nothing. You don't bother whether or not your statements are even true. You mindlessly repeat smears and flat out lies.

Do you think you're helping your boy McCain this way? Do you think your convincing independents?

Or are you doing this merely to disrupt any kind of discussion that rises above this level of discourse, to annoy other posters, or to spam all the threads on this forum?

I'd really like to know.

Seriously.

0 Replies

OE, seriously now it's great fo have wingnuts like waterboy and shiksa making posts, the more the better, this helps to keep the focus on just how bizarre the McCain agenda really is and who it appeals to. The best waterboy can come up with regarding reality is "you've been duped" facts are not within his realm of reasoning.

0 Replies

Seriously

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

OE, seriously now it's great fo have wingnuts like waterboy and shiksa making posts, the more the better, this helps to keep the focus on just how bizarre the McCain agenda really is and who it appeals to. The best waterboy can come up with regarding reality is "you've been duped" facts are not within his realm of reasoning.

Ha!

It certainly seems like the Ron Paul Nut Jobs Infiltration Redux...

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
Consumption isn't rising because of wastefulness. The U.S. produces more than twice as much GDP today per unit of energy as it did in the 1950s, yet energy use has risen threefold.

Oh. Wow. More than twice as much GDP/unit of energy as in the 1950s?

That puts America somewhere between Iran and China...

I agree. It makes more sense if you recognize these are PPP statistics, based on a comparison with the prevailing prices of other goods.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Yeah, the WSJ is a real impartial source of information on all things energy-related.

I guess they can see through Obama's 'secret code' just like you can, George. Where do the rest of us get decoder rings?

Cycloptichorn

It really isn't hard. You just have to inform yourself about the relevaant facts and think a little bit.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Yeah, the WSJ is a real impartial source of information on all things energy-related.

I guess they can see through Obama's 'secret code' just like you can, George. Where do the rest of us get decoder rings?

Cycloptichorn

It really isn't hard. You just have to inform yourself about the relevaant facts and think a little bit.

What if one does that, and then comes to different conclusions then you and the WSJ do?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

That would depend on the particular conclusions you made. Some might be quite reasonable: others very questionable.

For example if you were to conclude that subsidies and mandates for the production of (say) wind power at any significant level could be accomplished without very significantly raising the cost of energy to consumers of all kinds, and negative impacts on the economy, then I would say that either your judgement or your arithmetic were seriously deficient.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

That would depend on the particular conclusions you made. Some might be quite reasonable: others very questionable.

For example if you were to conclude that subsidies and mandates for the production of (say) wind power at any significant level could be accomplished without very significantly raising the cost of energy to consumers of all kinds, and negative impacts on the economy, then I would say that either your judgement or your arithmetic were seriously deficient.

Do you believe that the various subsidies we give the coal, oil and gas industries - and these take many different forms, and I know we've been over this before - make energy more expensive?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Get your Obamanometer!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know