Bluegrassrivals

Somewhere around 4,000 to 5,000 people showed up at the expo center recently to beg the federal government to let them keep thier jobs. I don't remember anything like this the last eight years. So why do people contunie to vote the same old party. example pike co dems-35,905 reps 10,101 floyd dems 27,662 reps 2,966 The local elected officails in floyd co ran a full page ad in the local paper asking all the dems to vote straigt party lines. even after obama said he would bankrupt the coal industry. I respect anyones right to vote the way they want. I only ask that they know something about the person.

Uneducated I suppose.

Pike County Democrats aren't truly 'democrat'. If you ask them issue by issue, they almost always take the conservative stance. They're anti-abortion, pro-gun, pro-death penalty, religious, deeply American, and anti-government. If George W. Bush would have been a democrat, every house in Virgie Ky would have a monument in the front yard.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMwBbl6RoIs"]YouTube - Shock VIDEO Unearthed Obama says he will bankrupt coal indus[/ame]

Twist it. :popcorn:

congressman Wrote:Uneducated I suppose.

Pike County Democrats aren't truly 'democrat'. If you ask them issue by issue, they almost always take the conservative stance. They're anti-abortion, pro-gun, pro-death penalty, religious, deeply American, and anti-government. If George W. Bush would have been a democrat, every house in Virgie Ky would have a monument in the front yard.

Good description :Clap:

i think thats what bad hop is talking about. if you don't believe in your party why are you in it

congressman Wrote:

Twist it. :popcorn:

"Twist it"... and this from a person who blows the horn of his/her own open mindedness? "Twist is" suggests a mind made up that will filter anything said that happens to disagree with its bent. Barack Obama used the word "bankrupt" in terms of someone opening a new coal plant. He talks about "cap and trade" as a way limiting carbon emissions. Now here's a question: let us say that Barack Obama truly believes that global warming (scientific data looking back over hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years... not simply because last year was warmer or it snowed in Atlata or other such idiotic nonsense) is related to human activity within the carbon zone. Wouldn't he want to do something about emissions, then? So, rather than saying he's a commie or anti-American, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that you don't agree that global warming is a man-made phenomenon so Obama's policy is mistaken, badly mistaken? Thus, ultimately, the video presented as it is is misleading, simplistic and misleading.

There is nothing misleading about posting a video of Obama stating that any utility that chooses to build a coal-fired power plant will go bankrupt. There is also nothing misleading about showing Obama stating that cap and trade legislation will "necessarily" cause electric bills to "skyrocket."

These two positions, taken together paint a dire picture for the coal industry, particularly since the Obama administration has pulled nearly 80 surface mining permit applications from consideration and is threatening to revoke permits that have already been issued.

Obama is the biggest threat against the coal industry and capitalism in general - ever. He is making Jimmy Carter look like a greedy capitalist pig.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:There is nothing misleading about posting a video of Obama stating that any utility that chooses to build a coal-fired power plant will go bankrupt. There is also nothing misleading about showing Obama stating that cap and trade legislation will "necessarily" cause electric bills to "skyrocket."

These two positions, taken together paint a dire picture for the coal industry, particularly since the Obama administration has pulled nearly 80 surface mining permit applications from consideration and is threatening to revoke permits that have already been issued.

Obama is the biggest threat against the coal industry and capitalism in general - ever. He is making Jimmy Carter look like a greedy capitalist pig.

Does the global warming debate strike anyone else as resembling the whole smoking causes cancer debate? Science established it... other "science" disputed it vehemently for years upon years.... until, in reality, it couldn't be disputed any longer. Why? Vested interest. Money. The pain of truth. The discomfort of change. Here's a question for you, hootgibson: if you thought that carbon emissions did lead to global warming (not saying you do, but if you did), would you be for weaning ourselves as a society and world, off of coal and onto alternative forms of energy?

thecavemaster Wrote:Does the global warming debate strike anyone else as resembling the whole smoking causes cancer debate? Science established it... other "science" disputed it vehemently for years upon years.... until, in reality, it couldn't be disputed any longer. Why? Vested interest. Money. The pain of truth. The discomfort of change. Here's a question for you, hootgibson: if you thought that carbon emissions did lead to global warming (not saying you do, but if you did), would you be for weaning ourselves as a society and world, off of coal and onto alternative forms of energy?

I am too well schooled in science and statistics to fall for such a hoax. The world has been much cooler and much warmer in the past and there is no evidence that it will not continue to go through similar cycles in the future. In the meantime, Obama's agenda will put millions of people out of work and surrender US sovereignty to socialist organizations like the UN as our wealth gets redistributed globally. A vote for Obama is a vote against freedom and prosperity.

O.K. lets say that global warming is real. (i'm not sold yet) But if it is and we stop burning coal tomorrow what do you do for electricty KY 98% from coal, the nation 54% from coal. In relation to bad hop's post the UMWA(UNITED MINE WORKERS UNION) endosed Obama after the bankrupt statement. Now in fairness Obama did not say coal mines just power plants. Thats about the same as saying that we won't ban gas just cars. This union along with every other one i know of always vote with the dems. To me it just doesn't make sence.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:I am too well schooled in science and statistics to fall for such a hoax. The world has been much cooler and much warmer in the past and there is no evidence that it will not continue to go through similar cycles in the future. In the meantime, Obama's agenda will put millions of people out of work and surrender US sovereignty to socialist organizations like the UN as our wealth gets redistributed globally. A vote for Obama is a vote against freedom and prosperity.

Ah, from your vaulted scientific viewpoint, firmly enhanced by the latest climatalogical statistics, you have concluded global warming as a man-made phenomenon is a hoax. Lungs? Living tissue. Filled with smoke, chemicals, etc. Atmosphere? Living ecosystem. Filled with smoke, chemicals. Don't worry about it. From a common sense viewpoint, a virtue often touted on here, it doesn't add up, Sir. It doesn't add up.

thecavemaster Wrote:Ah, from your vaulted scientific viewpoint, firmly enhanced by the latest climatalogical statistics, you have concluded global warming as a man-made phenomenon is a hoax. Lungs? Living tissue. Filled with smoke, chemicals, etc. Atmosphere? Living ecosystem. Filled with smoke, chemicals. Don't worry about it. From a common sense viewpoint, a virtue often touted on here, it doesn't add up, Sir. It doesn't add up.

As many proponents of the global warming hoax so often do, you have resorted to tossing red herrings into the debate. Of course, anybody with a basic understanding or chemistry or biology knows that neither gas is toxic to humans, animals, or plants.

High concentrations of CO2 and/or methane in a confined space reduces the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere, which can lead to asphyxiation but the victim will die with a healthy set of lungs if they were healthy before death.

FYI, smoke and carbon monoxide are products of incomplete combustion, neither of which have anything to do with the debate over the global warming hoax.

Those of us who believe that the anthropogenic global warming theory is being promoted as mechanism for governments to exert more control over their citizens are generally not opposed to tightly regulating the emission of actual pollutants into the air and water.

Trying to paint opponents of the global warming hoax as anti-environmentalists is a cheap shot but then you already know that, don't you?

TCM,

You asked to see him say it, because you didn't believe he did. I didn't either, however, I decided to do what you could have done for yourself (bgr safety net?), and researched the issue. Turns out, I didn't have to research it. I just had to type it in google, and found a few thousand links to this story in particular. Mission accomplished.

Do I think Obama wants to bankrupt the coal industry? No. Do I think he says it to make people believe he does? Yes.

The message he gave was simple. There's no twisting it, he said point blank, that coal plants would be bankrupt under his plan.

Now... lemme make TCM think about what I believe for second. I too want to see the coal industry crumble, but slowly. I, as you do, can agree that the pollutants that plants put into the air, HAVE to have a negative impact on health. I TOO, believe that the future of this country is in alternative and renewable energies. Not a mineral/rock/black stuff (whatever it may be called), that is under the ground. However, I'm quite slow to embrace man made global warming. We've only been keeping records for 100-150 years on temps, and accurately for a period MUCH shorter than that. I stand by my belief that those who feel they can predict the weather a few hundred years from now, will probably be 50/50 at best when predicting it a few days from now. I do support enviromental cleanup... especially pollutants in the atmosphere. So cleaner emmissions is something I support, at least on the surface. It depends on how its regulated, as to whether or not I support the actual attempts. I strongly believe that if oil were 100% in America, and cost a few penny's per barrell, Barrack Obama and the liberals in Congress would probably be burning it by the truck load just to watch the glow. I think motivation to switch to other energies are less driven by pollution, than it is just plain old corporate warfare, and anti-capitalism. The fact is, give them 20 year or so of ethanol, some hydrogen fuel cells, and a solar field here and there... and no doubt, liberals would produce evidence of cancer, slave wages, and new endangered species.

Its a constant message from the liberals... Change 'this', because it hurts 'them'. If it were possible to fix all the problems with creating other ones, we'd not have a need for congress after a few years. It'd eliminate the need for itself. Reminds me of the Reagan quote, "If Welfare were effective, it would be able to eliminate the need for its own existance and stated purpose."

TCM, I'm absolutely sick and tired of you misrepresenting every single thing I say. Its absolutely entertaining to watch you try to debate on here. And I stress, "watch YOU try to debate.." Because thats all it takes, just one person. You give your view. Then make up mine. It'd be much simpler to ask, instead of being corrected on a daily basis. Doesn't it make you feel... well... a bit silly at times? I dunno, maybe I shouldn't be so upset. As I said, it is a bit entertaining.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:As many proponents of the global warming hoax so often do, you have resorted to tossing red herrings into the debate. Of course, anybody with a basic understanding or chemistry or biology knows that neither gas is toxic to humans, animals, or plants.

High concentrations of CO2 and/or methane in a confined space reduces the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere, which can lead to asphyxiation but the victim will die with a healthy set of lungs if they were healthy before death.

FYI, smoke and carbon monoxide are products of incomplete combustion, neither of which have anything to do with the debate over the global warming hoax.

Those of us who believe that the anthropogenic global warming theory is being promoted as mechanism for governments to exert more control over their citizens are generally not opposed to tightly regulating the emission of actual pollutants into the air and water.

Trying to paint opponents of the global warming hoax as anti-environmentalists is a cheap shot but then you already know that, don't you?

I do not know your overall views on the environment. I believe the earth is a living ecosystem. Based on what I've read, which isn't exhaustive nor complete, I think present levels of pollutants are unsustainable... and are amping up warming per climatological trend studies. Am I right in concluding that you think human activity upon the earth has nothing to do with the climate whatsoever? That a human activity correlation/causation theory as to global warming is a sinister plot to move us closer to one world government? Is that close to accurate?

^ congressman.... I'm asking, now, not suggesting or telling, attempting to soften my approach so as to meet you demand for debate: are you saying that liberals seek the downfall of capitalism? seek the end of free markets? Is that what you are getting at?

thecavemaster Wrote:^ congressman.... I'm asking, now, not suggesting or telling, attempting to soften my approach so as to meet you demand for debate: are you saying that liberals seek the downfall of capitalism? seek the end of free markets? Is that what you are getting at?

Wow thats not a leading question at all.:HitWall:

Matman Wrote:Wow thats not a leading question at all.:HitWall:

Dont' worry Matman, he doesn't have to lead me. It just goes to show that he doesn't read the posts he responds to. I answered his question point blank in the very post he quoted.

Quote:I think motivation to switch to other energies are less driven by pollution, than it is just plain old corporate warfare, and anti-capitalism. The fact is, give them 20 year or so of ethanol, some hydrogen fuel cells, and a solar field here and there... and no doubt, liberals would produce evidence of cancer, slave wages, and new endangered species.

So TCM, yes. Thats what I believe.

And as I said, I would support liberals more on this issue, if I could be convinced that were actually 'for the enviorment' and not just 'against making a dollar.'

Why do you struggle with such simple concepts/principles...??

thecavemaster Wrote:I do not know your overall views on the environment. I believe the earth is a living ecosystem. Based on what I've read, which isn't exhaustive nor complete, I think present levels of pollutants are unsustainable... and are amping up warming per climatological trend studies. Am I right in concluding that you think human activity upon the earth has nothing to do with the climate whatsoever? That a human activity correlation/causation theory as to global warming is a sinister plot to move us closer to one world government? Is that close to accurate?

No, your conclusions about me are wrong but I do not believe that you were going for accuracy.

You continue to confuse the theory of man-made global warming with real pollution issues and legitimate health hazards. If you are unable or unwilling to grasp the distinction between these two separate issues, then I will not waste time explaining the difference to you again.

I have not been travelled abroad much but I can tell you from personal experience that the environment in the US is much, much cleaner than it was 35 years 40 years ago. I remember when the Cuyahoga River was so polluted that it caught fire. I lived in the Cleveland area for a brief period a few years ago and Cleveland has the nicest public parks system and bicycle paths of anywhere I have been. Parks now line the Cuyahoga and the air no longer smells of smokestacks.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:I am too well schooled in science and statistics to fall for such a hoax. The world has been much cooler and much warmer in the past and there is no evidence that it will not continue to go through similar cycles in the future. In the meantime, Obama's agenda will put millions of people out of work and surrender US sovereignty to socialist organizations like the UN as our wealth gets redistributed globally. A vote for Obama is a vote against freedom and prosperity.

Well it seems to me that you need to be re-educated in science becuase you are way off base here. Yes the earth has gone through cycles, yes it will continue to do so, but it has never happened at this pace, and the records show that an increase in CO2 directly corresponds to rise in tempature. We know that high amounts of CO2 in atmospheres can cause extremely high temps, and it occurs not only on earth, but other planets also just look at the atmosphere of Venus, 90% CO2, and has an average temp of 753K (476 C, 888 F, Earths avg T is 59 F). Our atmosphere has no where near that amount of CO2, its something like 0.004%, but with the vast amounts of CO2 we put in the atmosphere, the % can drastically change.

So TCM, yes. Thats what I believe.

And as I said, I would support liberals more on this issue, if I could be convinced that were actually 'for the enviorment' and not just 'against making a dollar.'

Why do you struggle with such simple concepts/principles...??
Bare with me just a little here: scientists (liberal ones I guess) are not to be believed on global warming because they are against the profit motive, or against rich people?

bad hop Wrote:Somewhere around 4,000 to 5,000 people showed up at the expo center recently to beg the federal government to let them keep thier jobs. I don't remember anything like this the last eight years. So why do people contunie to vote the same old party. example pike co dems-35,905 reps 10,101 floyd dems 27,662 reps 2,966 The local elected officails in floyd co ran a full page ad in the local paper asking all the dems to vote straigt party lines. even after obama said he would bankrupt the coal industry. I respect anyones right to vote the way they want. I only ask that they know something about the person.

I vote my job, I vote Democrat. Republicans hate unions, and try to pass legislation to kill them.

thecavemaster Wrote:[align=right]

Bare with me just a little here: scientists (liberal ones I guess) are not to be believed on global warming because they are against the profit motive, or against rich people?

Wow....

ok, check it out. liberals overall IMO are more driven because of anti-capitalism. There are exceptions, the above case is one actually. Most scientists in America that study global warming are funded by the government by way of federal grants. Keeping a job in such a specialized field requires new thinking, new findings, and new grants. I'm of the opinion that those who study it are actually more interested in job security. I've used this example too often for you to not get it yet. If a scientist specializes in climatology, and specifically man made global warming (within the former category), then obviously they have an interest in keeping the hype alive or else, they have nothing to study. This is a theory. As I said, I support some form of control, erroring on the side of caution, but not yet believing in man-made global warming.

Quote:Well it seems to me that you need to be re-educated in science becuase you are way off base here. Yes the earth has gone through cycles, yes it will continue to do so, but it has never happened at this pace, and the records show that an increase in CO2 directly corresponds to rise in tempature. We know that high amounts of CO2 in atmospheres can cause extremely high temps, and it occurs not only on earth, but other planets also just look at the atmosphere of Venus, 90% CO2, and has an average temp of 753K (476 C, 888 F, Earths avg T is 59 F). Our atmosphere has no where near that amount of CO2, its something like 0.004%, but with the vast amounts of CO2 we put in the atmosphere, the % can drastically change.

The fact is, we don't know what the weather was 3 million years ago. We can guess.. but we have no definitive answer. To say that we know, is just plain silly. As I've stated a few times thus far, predicting weather trends year to year is nearly impossible, and forecasting the weather much more than 48 hours into the future is pretty much just a guessing game.

The world once was flat. Roman gods were real. And people are still looking for bigfoot. The fact of the matter is, a clean enviorment is great. We need that. I support that. How concerned am I with global warming in general... Zero.

I really don't get what the whole fuss is about anyways.. People will adapt, as they always have. This is a slow change. A projected increase of a few degrees. Which is currently not going as planned. And with the proven fraud that exists in the temp guage locations and lack of concern for the rules that govern them.. I don't know how much of what I hear about even climate change is true. I will however default to caution. I'd rather be safe, than sorry. Especially in regards to a healthy enviorment.

But I promise you, if liberals dedicated as much time defeating evil terrorists, as they do grandma in her SUV... we'd have a safer, better, and happier world... much sooner than we'd have a cooler one.

I can't believe for the life of me that any person on this forum or that i've ever met is truly as concerned about this topic as they would like to portray themselves as. If quality of life of others is your greatest concern, you can start today and have results... you don't have to look down from a heavenly place 250 years from now to see if you lucked out and were right.

I have just one question for those that support climate change legislation that will raise energy prices... actually 2 questions. I want an honest answer. How much are you willing to pay extra to keep this looming 'catastrophe' from happening? And what are you doing to actively change things within your own life/actions to control your carbon footprint? This should be interesting. :lmao: (i'm guessing we have some people that are willing to pay an extra couple bucks a gallon for fuel, probably a few that sold their suv not because of the cost of operation, but because how much damage they were doing.... then i'm sure that there's a few johnny appleseeds that plant trees across the nation year round, protest at coal producing plants, ect.. ect.. and vomit..)

Guess what I do.. as of now, nothing. In fact, I helped burn some stuff earlier that nearly blackened the sky.. I drive an SUV, and it needs a tune-up. I don't volunteer my time teaching illegal immigrants how to recycle... Heck, i don't recycle myself. Bad guy? Ahhh maybe. I just need some motivation to do a few things different. I figure I'll find it someday. Not today though.

TheRealVille Wrote:I vote my job, I vote Democrat. Republicans hate unions, and try to pass legislation to kill them.

OK thats fine but would you vote for obama if you worked in a coal fired powerplant? As far as unions are concerned I have never needed a group to stand up for me i have always been able to do that on my own. But if you do need one that great.

TheRealVille Wrote:I vote my job, I vote Democrat. Republicans hate unions, and try to pass legislation to kill them.

Unions make me puke.

bad hop Wrote:OK thats fine but would you vote for obama if you worked in a coal fired powerplant? As far as unions are concerned I have never needed a group to stand up for me i have always been able to do that on my own. But if you do need one that great.

Yes, if that plant did flagrant emissions violations, like AEP at Louisa does.

bad hop Wrote:OK thats fine but would you vote for obama if you worked in a coal fired powerplant? As far as unions are concerned I have never needed a group to stand up for me i have always been able to do that on my own. But if you do need one that great.

Thats exactly what I was thinking. I've never once needed a union, and I've never taken a job that didn't pay me what I was worth to begin with or offered the benefits I thought I needed.

Republican try to kill unions. Got ya.

Unions kill jobs. Got that? Hope so. :Clap:

Coach_Owens87 Wrote:Well it seems to me that you need to be re-educated in science becuase you are way off base here. Yes the earth has gone through cycles, yes it will continue to do so, but it has never happened at this pace, and the records show that an increase in CO2 directly corresponds to rise in tempature. We know that high amounts of CO2 in atmospheres can cause extremely high temps, and it occurs not only on earth, but other planets also just look at the atmosphere of Venus, 90% CO2, and has an average temp of 753K (476 C, 888 F, Earths avg T is 59 F). Our atmosphere has no where near that amount of CO2, its something like 0.004%, but with the vast amounts of CO2 we put in the atmosphere, the % can drastically change.

Wow! That is one big load of unrelated information. Actually, ice cores indicate that on earth, CO2 has risen in response to temperature increases.

As for Venus, it is roughly one-third closer to the main heat source in our solar system = the Sun - a fact that most likely contributes heavily to the planet's high temperatures. There is no evidence to suggest that Venus was ever an earth-like planet, so I am not sure what kind of point you are trying to make here. One thing is almost certain - the temperatures on Venus have not been affected by humans.

If you want to use other planets to make your case for man-made global warming, you might want to look at the warming trends on the planets further from the sun than earth and ask yourself why warming trends have been detected elsewhere in the solar system without any human contributions of CO2 emissions.

Another fact on which you might want to educate yourself is the relative precision of the instruments used decades ago to compile historical temperature records. Many thermometers that were used were incapable of measuring temperatures with a precision of more than a couple of degrees and the accuracy of those measurements depended on the skill of the observer and the calibration of the instrument. Just how accurately do you think scientists are capable of estimating temperatures based on ice cores, tree rings, or other methods in the absence of direct thermometer readings?

What we do know is that areas like Greenland and northern Britain were once much warmer than they are today and that was hundreds of years before the Industrial Revolution. Within a couple of centuries, the earth's temperatures had dropped precipitously and mankind found itself in the middle of the Little Ice Age.

congressman Wrote:Unions make me puke.

Oh well. Brush your teeth. A typical Republican, I didn't expect anything else. They make you sick because without us you could pay Mexico and China style wages.

TheRealVille Wrote:Oh well. Brush your teeth. A typical Republican, I didn't expect anything else. They make you sick because without us you could pay Mexico and China style wages.

What do you think that union leadership in this country has done to protect jobs and wages of American workers? They have supported Democrats in lockstep and what do they have to show for their party loyalty?

Bill Clinton signed NAFTA into law. Both parties deserve abundant blame for the flood of illegal aliens into this country, which if left unchecked will continue to depress everybody's wages, including your union negotiated rate. The few people in Congress who strongly advocate regaining control over our borders are not Democrats and they are not supported by union leadership.

Democrats have controlled Congress for the better part of six decades. What has happened to union membership and union wages during that period? How did Republicans manage to do so much damage when they have been the minority party for so many years?

I really do not understand people who automatically vote for Democrats because Democrats claim to be the "friend of the working man." Nothing could be further from the truth. Democratic policies have devastated the American manufacturing sector and they deserve equal blame for their role at the very least.

If you want to know what has happened to good paying manufacturing jobs in this country, take a look at the ever increasing tax bite that has been taken out of union paychecks over the years, both directly and as taxes on the companies that employ union workers. Big government programs are antithetical to good paying blue collar jobs in the private sector.