Carne Seca
Well-Known Member
I live in the vicinity of two major coal fired plants that supply power throughout the west and southwest. There is no such thing as clean coal.
Honestly
- Thread starter mr2shim
- Start date
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
There's also no such thing as black people in the Celestial Kingdom...right?
mr2shim
Well-Known Member
It's a web browser, it allows you to browse the web. The end.
Proof you didn't read his post
Where I live (not the dirty south) the city is powered by two coal plants. I am rather curious as to how the air around here is so clean.
kelly4
Well-Known Member
Was it named after the Clint Eastwood movie?
newatit2010
Well-Known Member
Maybe it is because a man who sits in a church for 20 years GOD DAMNING AMERICA don't need a second term.
canndo
Well-Known Member
Real simple, if you like Alito, if you like Scalia, if you like Thomas, then you should vote for Romney. However, if you live in the legal margines like 99 percent of those of us who grow, sell, buy, or consume marijuana you would be a perfect fool to like any of those justices.
Just sayin.
Just sayin.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
Canndo, this is dumb. You are implying that if Obama wins and gets to appoint a justice to SCOTUS he will appoint one who will be cannabis friendly. Even for a liberal, this is way down on the stupid-list.
As Buck has said in the past, cannabis legalization will come about as a grass roots effort. Forced on reluctant state politicians by voter initiatives, and then forced on even more reluctant federal politicians by the looming revolt of individual states. No mainstream politician from either major party cares one whit about liberty, or the constitution. I know you have the blinders firmly in place, but if you lift one eye patch and peek you will see Obama's position on Cannabis quite clearly.
Fungus Gnat
Well-Known Member
In the Bush years people got arrested for selling bongs. In the Obama years people got their dispensaries closed for pulling in too much profit.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Both fairly retarded reasons IMO, neither less than the other.
Dont let me distract you from servicing Obamas nuts tho.
The Obama people are as mindlessly obsessed as the Turtle Fucker people, you Yanks really fall for the whole personality cult thing.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
hush up, boy.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Who are you voting against?
canndo
Well-Known Member
How do you know it is clean?
mr2shim
Well-Known Member
To be honest, I have no idea I just don't get the feeling that the air is "dirty" Although I did read an article on the local news that they are building this gigantic building to filter the exhaust up to 99% from 97% at it's current rate.
canndo
Well-Known Member
as someone else mentioned, coal will never be clean energy. Particulates are the least of concerns as ash can be trapped. Coal is the enemy in every respect, we are living in the 21st century not the 18th.
kelly4
Well-Known Member
So you like nuclear energy then?
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Bush certainly hated it, the pronounciation of that word just elluded him right to the end.
canndo
Well-Known Member
It has its place, furthermore we finally have to accept the consequences of our failure to plan for our energy future. Wind is disruptive of the surroundings, wind upsets people's views and kills birds and upsets cows. Hydro kills fish and ruins aquastructures, solar involves pollution at its source. I believe that we may have to borrow against the safety of our children with nuclear and that the engineering experience we have gained makes it viable in the short term and manageable in the long term. I would take nuclear over coal any day.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Ask Japan how great nuclear can be.
canndo
Well-Known Member
Well we could begin our new nuclear age by putting advanced plants in places not subject to tsunami and earthquake don'tchathink?
Samwell Seed Well
Well-Known Member
"The ad puts a new twist on a well-worn statistic used by Democrats (and by Republican rivals during the primary) that when Romney was governor, Massachusetts fell to 47th in job creation. Its true that over Romneys four years as governor, the state ranked 47th out of 50 states in percentage of job growth. It had ranked 37th in the four years prior. And its also true that Massachusetts added only 49,100 net jobs for an increase of about 1.5 percent, which was far slower than the national average of 5.3 percent, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But theres another way to look at the numbers."
this is where the spin comes ready
"The year before Romney took office, employment in Massachusetts fell by 1.84 percent. That put it in 50th, dead last. Massachusetts remained 50th in Romneys first year, but the ranking steadily improved year by year. In Romneys last year in office, the state saw a 1.32 percent increase in jobs, ranking Massachusetts 28th. Again, those are one-year snapshots as opposed to the cumulative four-year number."
how is 1.32% in last year in office not a decline from 1.5% increase from first year in office, or am i reading that wrong