UPNetwork  

Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-25-2012, 12:58 AM   #1
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
Obama n' Stuff

Put all of your things about Obama in here that you can't really put anywhere else. Because it's bound to happen at some point.

I made this primarily because the State of the Union was tonight and I'm not sure where else to put this, so check this out:

Obama: "Send me a bill that bans insider trading by members of Congress, and I will sign it tomorrow."

In the background, right after he says it, you can vaguely here Darth Vader screaming "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO..." repeatedly. I wish I was joking. As someone put it: "That was really awkward watching members of congress at the address give a standing ovation to the idea they need to pass a law to stop themselves from insider trading. "

Anyway, I more or less wanted to share this, and I guess we can debate it, but this discussion probably needed at some point, so place all miscellaneous Obama gripes and debates in here.
__________________





MAL - Fizzy Bubbles - Twitter



deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2012, 01:06 AM   #2
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
Possibility 1: He knows that he can talk that talk without being made to walk the accompanying walk -- because Congress will never pass a bill like this -- and so he's just saying this to drum up public support as we press on, bit by bit, towards the election this November.

Possibility 2: He knows that insider trading will still happen even if it's formally illegalized -- because a lot of other, already-illegal things also happen on Capitol Hill all the time and aren't brought before the courts -- so, once again, he can talk about bringing an end to one of the most corrupt practices in politics and drum up public support even if, in the end, no real change will come of such legislation.

Possibility 3: I'm just being too cynical and it's all roses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by deoxys View Post
In the background, right after he says it, you can vaguely here Darth Vader screaming "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO..." repeatedly. I wish I was joking. As someone put it: "That was really awkward watching members of congress at the address give a standing ovation to the idea they need to pass a law to stop themselves from insider trading. "
That was hysterical. You really could hear him, too. "NOOOOOOOOOOOO! Nooooooooooo! " hahahahaha
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2012, 01:13 AM   #3
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
I don't think you're being cynical, you're right on all possibilities. However, I wouldn't be surprised if they try to pass a bill to get back some of that approval rating. The catch obviously would be that the bill would take effect in 10 years or something.

It's definitely pandering, though, no doubt about it. He wants to keep his job, after all, so he's going to bring out the fancy talk again.
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2012, 01:18 AM   #4
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyranidos View Post
Dunno if this deserves its own thread, but I'll just leave this here for now.

T-dos posted this in the "Controversial Candidates" thread. Thought I'd pull it over here.

This is really interesting... again, probably pandering, he knows people want justice brought to Wall St., but really, I highly doubt Obama or anybody is going to charge anyone on Wall St. with anything when they've been lining his and other politicians pockets with campaign money and favors. I refuse to believe this unit will be anything but pandering until the day they shut down a major bank or arrest some CEOs.
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2012, 06:19 AM   #5
Selena
Aroma Lady
 
Selena's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,760
Good things about Obama...

Well I don't live in the states so I can only speak for foreigners, but he made America popular again in Europe, we too were fed up with Bush.

Also healthcare.
__________________
Trainer level 3: 53 KO \\ 187 TP \\ 37.5 SP
21 win 29 loss 1 draw (17/21/1 Without DQ)

B- grade ref.
Quote:
Originally Posted by empoleon dynamite View Post
Shouldn’t the Hoff be doing something if he’s still around? I have strict rules about leaving the pool, and I’m sure vanishing the pool out of existence breaks those rules in some way :P
Selena is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2012, 02:11 PM   #6
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Pandering, it's all pandering. I'll believe nothing of it, until he actually signs such bills. And even then, it's highly likely they'll just "name" the bills something like the "Stop Insider Trading in Congress Act" and "Wall Street Justice Act," but on the inside it will be nothing but more regulatory bureaus, taxes, and loopholes, just like every other bill he's signed.

Government banks hard on the common person being incapable of understanding the laws being written and passed, and Obama is no exception. If there's no one who can understand fully the implications of a law, there'll be no outcry, and government is free to expand itself until it's so large it's impossible to ignore, but impossible to restrict ever again.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2012, 02:30 PM   #7
Kindrindra
大事なのは自分らしいくある事
 
Kindrindra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Determined
Posts: 5,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milotic111 View Post
Good things about Obama...

Well I don't live in the states so I can only speak for foreigners, but he made America popular again in Europe, we too were fed up with Bush.

Also healthcare.
I know I'm only one country away, but a lot of the common folk here are of a similar mind.
__________________
PASBL(TL: 4 RL: B-) --- FB (Kin Blackstone) --- WF (Adelie Fleur)
Quote:
Originally Posted by captainmisato View Post
People should watch what they enjoy regardless of what others think, even if it's a terribad guilty pleasure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger View Post
Though, I also dislike the concept of lamenting the current day while wishing to re-experience the past. At least, my modern attitude is to try and make each new day magical even if it's not, since exclusively reminiscing about the past is too pathetic.
Kindrindra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2012, 02:44 PM   #8
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Well, I'm sure anyone who panders to a country would gain a bit of favor in that country's eyes. Bush may not have been popular, or right 100% of the time, but at least he was consistent, and unapologetic.


Personally, I care little how the rest of the "popular" world perceives America. I care only that America continues to stand for the ideals that made it the #1 immigrant destination in the past, that made it the superpower it was during WWII and the Cold War, and the Exception to the rule of government Tyranny that it was while the Constitution was still en Force and interpreted based on it's Founding Principles.


Since this thread is about Obama, I may as well post this here as well..

Obama's Unconstitutional Acts:
Spoiler: show

1. Signed the unconstitutional American Recovery and reinvestment Act into Law, AKA the stimulus Bill
2. Signed the unconstitutional Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law, AKA Obamacare.
3. Signed the unconstitutional National Defense Authorization Act into law, AKA the Indefinite Detention and torture of Americans Act.
4. Appointed officials to over 30 newly created executive positions, "Czars," without the Constitutionally mandated Approval of Congress
5. Intervened in the affairs of Private Companies (certain automotive industries), and displaced control over them to the Federal Government for a time.
6. Used executive powers to intervene in the affairs of a Private Company (a certain oil company), to create a slush fund of $20 Billion, without any law, legal control, or other binding rules for it's use.
7. Overstepped lawful bounds which where already questionable in their constitutionality, to engage in acts of War in Libya without Congressional Declaration of War.
8. Attempted to sue a certain state for enforcing preexisting National Laws on immigration.
9. Failure to enforce preexisting National immigration laws.
10. Made Recess Appointments while Congress was verifiably Not in recess.
among others..
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2012, 11:28 PM   #9
Slash
Silver LO
 
Slash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Tokyo Underground Sewage Facility
Posts: 6,760
Send a message via Yahoo to Slash Send a message via Skype™ to Slash
Bush being consistent and unapologetic, I actually see as a pretty shite example for a president. A president, for one, is supposed to ensure good relations with other sovereign nations, because peacekeeping is a good thing for human lives. Without good relations, we get overzealous declarations of war and invading nations for unconfirmed reasons. Also, overzealous presidents get acts like the Patriot Act, which disbands a fair amount of rights and encourages profiling, passed before the general populace can really see what it'll do. And then the expiration clauses are amended out, effectively making it permanent.

Moreover, not admitting when you're wrong, not apologizing for wrongful acts is not only a dick move, it sets an example for Joe Average to be a profiling dick, because hey, the president gets away with it. That ties back in to foreign policy as well. If the leader is a dick, it's assumed the population is chock full of ignorant dicks, which severs ties to what could be allied nations had we not offended them.

Moreover, consistency isn't that good of an attribute for a president. As an elected official, it is his duty to represent the interests of the people, which cannot happen if he just sticks to his own guns and doesn't listen to popular opinion. That is what democracy is designed to do, listen to, and answer to, the people. By refusing to budge on anything, a president, in my opinion, does a huge disservice to his country, the country that elected him.

As for unconstitutional stuff, see higher about Patriot act.
__________________
--- ---
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sneezey12 View Post
KAIRNE I WILL RIP OFF YOUR SCROTUM AND FEED IT TO YOU THROUGH A FUCKING SWIRLY STRAW.

Slash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2012, 11:47 PM   #10
Chaotic
Boulder Badge
 
Chaotic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 110
Obama is fine. We couldn't have done much better, no matter who we picked. He's good for foreign policy, that being, "We'll back it, but we won't back it alone. That shit fucked us up last time."

Also, as of now, it's pretty clear that Obama's going to win with a 60%-70% majority in the electoral college. There's too much of a split in the Republican party. I would have LOVED to see Huntsman as the president. Much more levelheaded and clear-cut than Obama, But, sadly, he dropped. /:
Chaotic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2012, 09:48 PM   #11
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kairne View Post
Bush being consistent and unapologetic, I actually see as a pretty shite example for a president. A president, for one, is supposed to ensure good relations with other sovereign nations, because peacekeeping is a good thing for human lives. Without good relations, we get overzealous declarations of war and invading nations for unconfirmed reasons. Also, overzealous presidents get acts like the Patriot Act, which disbands a fair amount of rights and encourages profiling, passed before the general populace can really see what it'll do. And then the expiration clauses are amended out, effectively making it permanent.

While this thread is supposed to be about Obama, not Bush, I'd like to say, the president is not "supposed to ensure good relations with other sovereign nations," the president is supposed to "Support the Constitution," "Provide for the common defense," (which includes assessing whether a war should or should not be waged, and determining which countries do and do not deserve to have peace with America.) and "uphold the Rule of Law."

There's nothing in the President's job description that says "make peace with every nation, no matter the cost to America's interests"


Quote:
Moreover, not admitting when you're wrong, not apologizing for wrongful acts is not only a dick move, it sets an example for Joe Average to be a profiling dick, because hey, the president gets away with it. That ties back in to foreign policy as well. If the leader is a dick, it's assumed the population is chock full of ignorant dicks, which severs ties to what could be allied nations had we not offended them.
Admitting you were wrong but standing by your decision as the "best you could do with the information you had," is not dickish.


Quote:
Moreover, consistency isn't that good of an attribute for a president. As an elected official, it is his duty to represent the interests of the people, which cannot happen if he just sticks to his own guns and doesn't listen to popular opinion. That is what democracy is designed to do, listen to, and answer to, the people. By refusing to budge on anything, a president, in my opinion, does a huge disservice to his country, the country that elected him.

As for unconstitutional stuff, see higher about Patriot act.
The system of election determines whether a president represents the people.
The reason we have elections instead of a full democracy where every person has a vote in the day-to-day workings of government, is because of a compromise between: having "wise leaders who know what's best for the people", and having people who are "intimately aware of their own situations", determine policy.

A president that does everything a person asks of him, is a very terrible president to have. Likewise, a president that does not listen to anyone or anything brought to his attention. A president that will stand steadfast by his own principles, but consider the opinions of others would be ideal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaotic View Post

Also, as of now, it's pretty clear that Obama's going to win with a 60%-70% majority in the electoral college. There's too much of a split in the Republican party. I would have LOVED to see Huntsman as the president. Much more levelheaded and clear-cut than Obama, But, sadly, he dropped. /:
I personlly believe he doesn't have that much of a chance, considering how dismal his approval rating has been. The GOP is split greatly now, yes, but I think that once a candidate is picked, the majority will side on the side against Obama, and elect whomever is nominated the Republican Candidate for President.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2012, 10:29 PM   #12
Chaotic
Boulder Badge
 
Chaotic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 110
Take into account that there's a great statistical bias when looking at approval ratings. If people are dissatisfied, they are much more likely to say they are so, as opposed to people that are satisfied.
Chaotic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2012, 01:28 AM   #13
phoopes
Double Dragon
 
phoopes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,776
So according to this article, ACTA was signed by Obama. Without the consent of Congress.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dat Article
In 2010, 75 law professors signed a letter to President Obama urging him not to sign the pact.They went unheeded. Obama signed the pact -- which was originally developed by the United States and Japan -- last year. Other current signatories include Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Morocco, Singapore, and South Korea. There are questions as to whether it was even legal for Obama to sign without the consent of Congress.
Have at it.
__________________
phoopes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2012, 02:50 AM   #14
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by phoopes View Post
Fresh meat for unownmew

If true, this is complete BS, but I think I heard somewhere it was preliminary and therefore didn't count. US signed on, but signed on to push through legislation. Or something.
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2012, 12:35 PM   #15
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by deoxys View Post
If true, this is complete BS, but I think I heard somewhere it was preliminary and therefore didn't count. US signed on, but signed on to push through legislation. Or something.
Assuming it is a Treaty, or other agreement, according to the Constitution, Obama need the approval of two thirds of the sitting Congress, in order to sign it into enforceable law.

Not that the Constitution means anything to Obama, particularly mean enough for him to abide by it's rules...
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2012, 03:23 PM   #16
phoopes
Double Dragon
 
phoopes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,776
Unownmew: Rush Limbaugh's spiritual advisor.
__________________
phoopes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2012, 02:34 PM   #17
Tyranidos
beebooboobopbooboobop
 
Tyranidos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Krusty Krab
Posts: 3,800
Send a message via AIM to Tyranidos Send a message via MSN to Tyranidos
Spoiler: show


4chan hath spoken.
__________________
Tyranidos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2012, 08:50 PM   #18
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
You guys hate Crony Capitalism?
Obama's at the forefront of it.

Edit:
Here's a site detailing the problems with Obamacare.

Edit2:
And Here's why Gas Prices are going up.

Last edited by unownmew; 02-29-2012 at 03:20 PM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-29-2012, 07:45 PM   #19
Shuckle
Problematic Fave
 
Shuckle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
And Here's why Gas Prices are going up.
Yessssss!

I now all of a sudden very much like Stephen Chu. That's brilliant Pascal's Wager might be a shitty reason for Christianity, but when it comes to global warming and oil crises, it's foolproof. Alternative energy is in our future, and in one of the most genius ways possible! (economic incentives not to use gasoline/oil) Now that this is public, car companies and the American public are going to be veeeery attentive to smaller, more efficient cars or even electric cars, something that I bet Ford and Chevrolet have been looking at for a while now. This is fantastic!

And unownmew, before the "OMG I hate it it's soshulism", weren't you upset at countries like Saudi Arabia and Yemen who are raising the price of oil so that they can enrich their own coiffers? Aren't you angry at corporations that are pulling in billions of dollars in profits in the name of Big Business? Alternative energy, if it becomes widespread like oil and coal are today, is not only a sustainable energy source but an environmentally cleaner world (see tankers overturning, petroleum explosions, cyanide streams). There will be fewer chemicals in our waters, as well.

Now to address the problem of plastic We're still manufacturing cheap plastic goods (curse you McDonald's!) and wasting our resources...but this is a topic for another thread.
__________________
Shuckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 09:26 AM   #20
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
I fully support alternative energy. I'd love to see it become efficient and profitable one day. However, driving up free market Oil prices Artificially through the use of government regulations, mandates and taxes, among other thing, and then Artificially reducing the cost of alternative energy through government subsidies and rebates, using MY tax dollars, in order to Artificially produce the Illusion that alternative energy is cost efficient and competitive with Fossil Fuels, is a No-Go.
It's not right, and it doesn't work.

I'd love to see a return to Mechanical Energy and the utilization of Solar Thermal Energy (as opposed to the poor efficiency Solar Electric), but, it's not as competitive, or cost efficient, as fossil fuels. And it won't be for a LONG time after much development, if at all.
Let the free private market and human ingenuity determine when it's ready to replace Oil, and don't take even One Cent out of my taxes to try and Artificially create some Illusion of Competitiveness between the two industries.

People aren't going to buy electric cars just because gas is expensive. Some people need the range an electric car just can't reach. And to be honest, electric cars aren't much better now then they were when they were first invented, which is still much worse then gasoline cars, and that's just historical fact. I think most Americans are much more likely to vote in a president who'll lower gas prices then buy electric cars. For one, it doesn't cost them anything.


Was I upset at countries raising the price of Oil to enrich their coffers?
No, not really. Why should I? It's their Oil, they have the right to set prices to watever they want. Just like if we sold our oil to foreign nations, we could set the prices.

Am I upset at large corporations for making large profits from oil?
Uh, no. I'm not susceptible to Class Warfare and Class Envy appeals. It's dishonest, and disgusting. They have all the right in the world to make profits, be they huge or small. And if they can jump through the tax loopholes so they owe the government nothing, that's the government's fault, and not their problem. Corporations have every right to every penny they earn, since they're already double taxed anyway, and the rich who own them are triple taxed already.

What Am I mad at then?
Government. For being corrupt enough to take bribes from corporations. For using my tax dollars to subsidize Alternative energy where it's clearly unprofitable, to Scandal proportions! (*Eyes Solyndra Scandal*) For imposing regulations and taxes on Oil Corporations that gouge into their profits and demolish their ability to expand, forcing them to raise their prices just to stay a solvent business (I.E. not bankrupt after paying all expenses incurred in running an business), thus increasing the price of gas much beyond what is necessary, and punish Americans just trying to live their lives, and destroy those who are already suffering! And for NOT letting us drill at home, where we have at least a century's worth of Oil, that would immediately lower energy prices, and totally eliminate our dependence on foreign oil (so we don't have to pay their jacked up prices), and create stable energy prices that would then reduce the cost of pursuing Alternative energies, and the cost of living of All Americans, letting them prosper! Among other things government's been doing that are just as equally heinous...

THAT's what makes me upset! *Fumes*


Plastic though, I agree with ya. That infernal junk needs to go. Except for rare cases, and special applications (like Wire covering), Wood and Metal are the better materials by far. We need to stop making throw-away crap too, conserving our resources, and start making heirloom-quality, lasting, and repairable stuff again.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 09:33 AM   #21
Rangeet
Foot, meet mouth.
 
Rangeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Beyond the Wall
Posts: 4,362
Send a message via MSN to Rangeet Send a message via Skype™ to Rangeet
It's funny because on the one hand you want to improve US's Economy. On the other you don't want to increase taxes and you don't want to manufacture cheap stuff.

I know next to nothing about economics but this sounds like a pretty simple logic fail.
__________________
Spoiler: show
Rangeet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 09:52 AM   #22
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rangeetsuper View Post

this sounds like a pretty simple logic fail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rangeetsuper View Post
I know next to nothing about economics
Maybe that's why.

Lowering taxes makes them more bearable to those paying them. So they take less pains trying to avoid paying. Thus opening up more revenue.

Broadening the Tax base makes the 40% who pay nothing, which outnumber the 10% who already pay half the bill, start paying. Thus opening up more revenue.

Lowering taxes on businesses decreases the cost of operation, thus allowing them to expand and employ more people, which in turn opens up more revenue.

Making Business tax rates competitive or even lower then other foreign countries' tax rates, induces business owners to move their base of operations to America for the lower costs (which also creates more profits for them), or simply start their business here to begin with, because they can make more profit from the lower taxes. Thus creating more people and businesses and wealth to be Taxed, and opening up more revenue.

All this without raising a single person's or business' tax one single %.

It's really quite simple, I don't understand how people can't understand it.

Last edited by unownmew; 03-01-2012 at 09:55 AM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 06:48 PM   #23
Shuckle
Problematic Fave
 
Shuckle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
I fully support alternative energy. I'd love to see it become efficient and profitable one day. However, driving up free market Oil prices Artificially through the use of government regulations, mandates and taxes, among other thing, and then Artificially reducing the cost of alternative energy through government subsidies and rebates, using MY tax dollars, in order to Artificially produce the Illusion that alternative energy is cost efficient and competitive with Fossil Fuels, is a No-Go.
It's not right, and it doesn't work.
Here's the clincher, unownmew. I'll put it in nice big letters.

WIND IS FREE. SUNLIGHT IS FREE.

Good. Why is buying fossil fuels in the billions of barrels more cost-effective than putting windmills in fields and harvesting a never-ending supply of wind created by natural temperature fluctuations? Or putting black strips of glass (created by filtering sand, of all things, and then burninating it

IN FLAMES) on rooftops so we no longer need to heat our water? Tell me, please, why using fossil fuels is a better idea than using alternative energy?

We don't even need to get rid of our regular electrical plants. We now have the technology to make heat with electricity. I say just put a windmill/solar panel outside a power plant and use it to make heat to boil water to make steam to spin a big turbine to rotate the magnet inside a coil of wire. We reconcile existing technology with existing technology to produce AWESOME TECHNOLOGY.

In addition, it's extremely cost-effective because we don't have to tear anything down, and we stop buying an increasingly expensive commodity in the form of gasoline. Point being, there is absolutely no reason to continue buying gas other than the fact that gas companies and Republicans don't want to for entirely different reasons; one wants profit. The other can't stand Obama and therefore opposes everything he supports.

And that, my friend, is what I am angry at.
__________________
Shuckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 06:58 PM   #24
Tyranidos
beebooboobopbooboobop
 
Tyranidos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Krusty Krab
Posts: 3,800
Send a message via AIM to Tyranidos Send a message via MSN to Tyranidos
Alternative energy is seriously the best way to fix a lot of the country's problems.
__________________
Tyranidos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 08:08 PM   #25
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuckle View Post
Here's the clincher, unownmew. I'll put it in nice big letters.

WIND IS FREE. SUNLIGHT IS FREE.

Good. Why is buying fossil fuels in the billions of barrels more cost-effective than putting windmills in fields and harvesting a never-ending supply of wind created by natural temperature fluctuations? Or putting black strips of glass (created by filtering sand, of all things, and then burninating it

IN FLAMES) on rooftops so we no longer need to heat our water? Tell me, please, why using fossil fuels is a better idea than using alternative energy?

We don't even need to get rid of our regular electrical plants. We now have the technology to make heat with electricity. I say just put a windmill/solar panel outside a power plant and use it to make heat to boil water to make steam to spin a big turbine to rotate the magnet inside a coil of wire. We reconcile existing technology with existing technology to produce AWESOME TECHNOLOGY.

In addition, it's extremely cost-effective because we don't have to tear anything down, and we stop buying an increasingly expensive commodity in the form of gasoline. Point being, there is absolutely no reason to continue buying gas other than the fact that gas companies and Republicans don't want to for entirely different reasons; one wants profit. The other can't stand Obama and therefore opposes everything he supports.

And that, my friend, is what I am angry at.
*sigh* Oh the naivety... If you would take a couple hours or so to actually educate yourself on these alternative energies instead of lapping up the soundbites Democrats and company advertisements feed you, you'd be a lot better off.

Yeah, Wind is Free, and Sunlight is free. But what is NOT free, is the technology required to Transform the mechanical energy of the wind, and the heat energy of the sun, into electrical energy.
  • And the maintenance required to keep those facilities running at peek efficiency.
  • And the Batteries needed to charge for use during the times when the sun just doesn't shine, and the wind just isn't blowing.

Did you seriously just recommend using a Windmill to generate Electricity, to turn into heat energy, to boil water to make steam to turn a turbine and rotate a magnet, which is generally then used to generate electricity? Seriously?!


If you know anything about energy, you should know that the act of transforming one form of energy into another form, creates a loss of total energy available for work in that new form. Efficiency is how much energy you retain during the transformation, and Windmills and Solar Cells don't do it as well as burning oil, coal, and gas.

Our ancestors were smarter then we, because they used Energy in it's original form without transforming it and losing efficiency. Windmills-a great example of using mechanical energy for mechanical work. Fires/Forges-great examples of using heat energy for heating things up.

Furthermore, the overwhelming type of needed energy used anywhere, is Heat energy. Heat is required to boil water for turning turbines. Heat is required for the vast majority of manufacturing processes, which produce all the refined materials we use in things from large structures, to tiny children's toys, and computer chips. Heat is also required in cooking, bathing, and home heating, among numerous other functions.
Obviously the most efficient method of generating heat, is burning something, rather then transforming electric power, and Fossil fuels (gas, oil, and coal) have the largest fuel density. So naturally, they are the most energy efficient method of heating.

Besides this, Windmills and Solar Cells have other problems which plague their use with additional costs:

Windmills don't turn unless the wind is blowing hard enough, which is rare and unpredictable in most geographical locations, thus limiting their use to certain locations where the wind can be relied upon to blow fast enough, consistently. You can't just plop a windmill down in a random location and expect any sort of useful or consistent energy return.

Solar Cells need to be clean, and in an open space in order to work at peek performance. Regular maintenance is required to keep those conditions, or you'll start to loose efficiency, this costs extra money. They also need a lot of sun, so a Solar Cell would be practically useless in places like Washington State, where it's rainy and cloudy 80% of the year.

Last edited by unownmew; 03-01-2012 at 08:18 PM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:44 AM.


Design By: Miner Skinz.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.