Obama will cause energy prices to skyrocket

[idlewind]

Obama admited this and also stated he would bankrupt the coal industry in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle.

http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/11...ill-intentionally-bankrupt-the-coal-industry/

That ought to give everyone a pause before their vote.

 

[John R]

running out of straws to grasp for? This has been available on the internet for 9 months. mcpalin also supports a market-based cap-and-trade proposal to reduce carbon emissions. can't you find anything new?

 

[full time]

Obama admited this and also stated he would bankrupt the coal industry in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle.

http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/11...ill-intentionally-bankrupt-the-coal-industry/

That ought to give everyone a pause before their vote.

Not likely to mean much to most of the folks who post here who are generally anti-business environmentalists in favor of much higher energy prices, but in the Midwest, those statements may cause some blow back on Obama assuming there are voters actually voting on election day.

 

[Chickpea]

Not likely to mean much to most of the folks who post here who are generally anti-business environmentalists in favor of much higher energy prices, but in the Midwest, those statements may cause some blow back on Obama assuming there are voters actually voting on election day.

What an easy (and untrue) swipe to make - so easy to brand us all as anti-business environmentalists. But what a crock of ----......

Most of us have been disgusted and have deplored the fact that for the past 8 years, we have basically been at a status quo for developing alternative energies (actually we have lost precious time) and we have done practically NOTHING to curb our demand for oil - and yes, other countries are light years ahead of us in some technologies while scores of other countries have benefited from our addiction to oil - so let's please not be coy - to be remotely pro-active in this game we are going to have to change a lot of things about the way we live and we consume.

 

[full time]

What an easy (and untrue) swipe to make - so easy to brand us all as anti-business environmentalists. But what a crock of ----......

Most of us have been disgusted and have deplored the fact that for the past 8 years, we have basically been at a status quo for developing alternative energies (actually we have lost precious time) and we have done practically NOTHING to curb our demand for oil - and yes, other countries are light years ahead of us in some technologies while scores of other countries have benefited from our addiction to oil - so let's please not be coy - to be remotely pro-active in this game we are going to have to change a lot of things about the way we live and we consume.

It's not the fact that people posting here wish to develop alternative energies that led me to define them as anti business environmentalists, it's the fact that they want the government to artificially inflate energy costs in order to force meeting the goal. That, and the fact that the their definition of alternative energy excludes nuclear power. Apparently, nuclear power is OK for France but not for the good ole USofA.

 

[Geo]

Truth be told- none of us know what energy prices are going to do- not you, not me and not the author of your article. And may I remind you that we paid $4.19 at the local Tom Thumb for a gallon of gas under George Bush's watch...

Am I saying it is W's fault? Nope...

Now back to your desperate fearmongering...

 

[beachmouse]

It's not the fact that people posting here wish to develop alternative energies that led me to define them as anti business environmentalists, it's the fact that they want the government to artificially inflate energy costs in order to force meeting the goal. That, and the fact that the their definition of alternative energy excludes nuclear power. Apparently, nuclear power is OK for France but not for the good ole USofA.

Or you could also argue that current energy pricing does not accurately reflect the true cost of energy because it does not currently include the negative externalities associated with many types of energy production. (ie. are we currently counting the negative environmental issues involved in many types of coal mining in the price of coal)

As for nuclear, it's really bugged me to see McCain making light of tough safety standards for new plants. A plant producing large scale power for commercial use is a lot, lot more dangerous than the one for a nuclear sub, and worse case with a sub, you can bury it deep in the Pacific where the radiation will never come close to affecting land. We simply have to build to Turkey Point standards (that plant took the eyewall of Hurricane Andrew without coming close to losing structural integrity of core systems) or better or we risk another Chernobyl.

 

[Miss Critter]

Even got the date right. ;-)

 

[shellak]

all i keep hearing from mccain supporters is if obama is elected, "this" and "that" is going to happen. well, since mccain has such an extensive record in congress and has supported bush at least 90% of the time, i guess we know what we'll get if he wins. sometimes the unknown is better than the known, especially in this case. if obama wins, and you don't want to give him a chance to right all the wrongs created by mostly republicans, especially bush, then i guess you can move elsewhere. do i expect obama to be perfect? of course not. if he wins, i'm sure i won't agree with him on everything, and i'm sure we will see flaws we have not seen. but, honestly, who is the better choice here? it seems obvious to me.

 

[beacheart]

Something to think about before you vote. Why do we need a civilian national security force - partially funded by the government? One of the many red flags and one we all need to seriously consider.