Joe just looked old.
Debate ? What debate ?
- Thread starter SteelChip
- Start date
Can't stop laughing at the end scene where they're dancing. Having trouble deciding whether that's the best thing on the internet today, or this:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Next week will be a THRILLER, I guarantee it.<br><br>Election insiders contact VeritasTips@protonmail.com <a href="https://t.co/ztOfYCmObz">pic.twitter.com/ztOfYCmObz</a></p>— James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) <a href="https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/1319717203151826945?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 23, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Not only a great investigative journalist (where would we be without guys like him?), but he's actually got some moves. And spot on choreography to the original.
And then we have this dipshit:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Imagine calling the immigrant parents that bring their children to the United States for a better life “Coyotes” <br><br> The level of xenophobia is sickening.</p>— David Hogg (@davidhogg111) <a href="https://twitter.com/davidhogg111/status/1319460648431046658?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 23, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Isn't he attending Harvard University? (Like that's an actual qualifier)
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Imagine calling the immigrant parents that bring their children to the United States for a better life “Coyotes” <br><br> The level of xenophobia is sickening.</p>— David Hogg (@davidhogg111) <a href="https://twitter.com/davidhogg111/status/1319460648431046658?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 23, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Isn't he attending Harvard University? (Like that's an actual qualifier)
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2014
- Messages
- 11,806
- Reaction score
- 15,518
- Points
- 113
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/33wExgstydk" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
So that explains what the time check was all about....."let's see, I took those pills at"
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 5,323
- Reaction score
- 11,748
- Points
- 113
So that explains what the time check was all about....."let's see, I took those pills at"
Biden after the pills wear off.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 8,104
- Reaction score
- 7,799
- Points
- 113
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2014
- Messages
- 14,590
- Reaction score
- 16,953
- Points
- 113
Yep... but look there has to be some balance though... new nuclear plants are much safer and more Efficient than all these ones using designs from the 70’s. Nuclear should make up the backbone of the country’s power... however every nuclear plant needs a supporting power plant especially in case of emergency to provide power to its pumps and emergency systems ... these should absolutely still be coal plants.. because in an emergency gas lines can be disrupted easier than a pile of coal... and all the non hydro green power is too unpredictable... so there still is a very important piece of the energy landscape for coal to fill... its just a lot smaller than the old way where it was the majority of the power
Gas is very effective as peaker power and for some grid stability.. we still have a use for that...
Oil is only burned for power when it is cheaper than gas for dual fuel plants.. quit letting people export gas to foreign Countries without taxing it and that will never ever happen
Other green energies are fine, but quit ******* subsidizing them... basically they aren’t profitable in many cases... these politicians subsidize them and heavily invest in them until those subsidies run out... its a scam... green power shouldn’t be a goldmine.. its a small profit gig at best
Yep... but look there has to be some balance though... new nuclear plants are much safer and more Efficient than all these ones using designs from the 70’s. Nuclear should make up the backbone of the country’s power... however every nuclear plant needs a supporting power plant especially in case of emergency to provide power to its pumps and emergency systems ... these should absolutely still be coal plants.. because in an emergency gas lines can be disrupted easier than a pile of coal... and all the non hydro green power is too unpredictable... so there still is a very important piece of the energy landscape for coal to fill... its just a lot smaller than the old way where it was the majority of the power
Gas is very effective as peaker power and for some grid stability.. we still have a use for that...
Oil is only burned for power when it is cheaper than gas for dual fuel plants.. quit letting people export gas to foreign Countries without taxing it and that will never ever happen
Other green energies are fine, but quit ******* subsidizing them... basically they aren’t profitable in many cases... these politicians subsidize them and heavily invest in them until those subsidies run out... its a scam... green power shouldn’t be a goldmine.. its a small profit gig at best
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 10,364
- Reaction score
- 14,454
- Points
- 113
You couldn't have said it any better. I agree 1000%
Same here. Too practical though, just get those wind turbines a spinning!
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 7,497
- Reaction score
- 5,032
- Points
- 113
Green energy isn't even really green. Those massive solar panels wear out over time. Guess where they end up? Yup.. landfills. The batteries used in electric cars are loaded with environmentally unfriendly chemicals. I've been out west and seen those wind turbines. I've never seen them all blowing at the same time. They are always being worked on. They are either replacing the blades, working on the turbine or the generator. None of this technology is ready for prime time. If not heavily subsidized by the feds it would have been out of business years ago. Even some companies like Solyndra who were heavily subsidized still couldn't make it.
Don't forget the mining that is needed to obtain the vast minerals needed to manufacture batteries and panels.
And who's doing the mining.
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2014
- Messages
- 10,999
- Reaction score
- 13,091
- Points
- 113
Uh... James Biden. Why do you ask?
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 10,364
- Reaction score
- 14,454
- Points
- 113
Wyoming folk. Keep it going!
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2014
- Messages
- 11,806
- Reaction score
- 15,518
- Points
- 113
We absolutely should be researching "green" energy. We should always be looking for better, safer ad cheaper sources of energy. But that doesn't mean you just force it before it's ready. None of these technologies are ready to carry a major workload. That's why CA is having power shortages. Solar is perfect for a calculator or for your walkway LED track lighting, but it's not heating or cooling your house or powering large vehicles without help from fossil fuels.
There are only 3 groups of people who demand green energy NOW
1. Ignorant people who have been indoctrinated with climate hysteria and also have been lied to that green energy can be used right now today to power all their needs
2. Socialists who are using green energy as a Trojan Horse
3. Scam Artists. They know it doesn't work but they set up government subsidies and give the contracts to their friends. Many belong to both group 2 and 3 at the same time.
Anybody truly serious about the environment would push for nuclear. These are the same people who claim to be all for following science, just not that science. No, when it comes to energy, they'd rather be back in the middle ages using windmills and hydro.
There are only 3 groups of people who demand green energy NOW
1. Ignorant people who have been indoctrinated with climate hysteria and also have been lied to that green energy can be used right now today to power all their needs
2. Socialists who are using green energy as a Trojan Horse
3. Scam Artists. They know it doesn't work but they set up government subsidies and give the contracts to their friends. Many belong to both group 2 and 3 at the same time.
Anybody truly serious about the environment would push for nuclear. These are the same people who claim to be all for following science, just not that science. No, when it comes to energy, they'd rather be back in the middle ages using windmills and hydro.
Patrick Moore (co-founder of Greenpeace) @EcoSenseNow is good follow on Twitter for anything/everything nuclear. Big proponent of going to nuclear. It's the only viable alternative now if people really want to slowly get away from fossil fuels.
And more to your and Vader's point, solar and wind are essentially garbage powering anything large. My family have a place in Palm Springs CA (where a ****-ton of the windmills are) and he's absolutely right. Half of them aren't working or getting work done on them all the time. It's constant. And solar panels are great for lighting or even powering a small generator for an RV or something, but how long do the panels really last, and like he said, where do they dump them?
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2014
- Messages
- 14,590
- Reaction score
- 16,953
- Points
- 113
Whose to say the massive wind farms don't have an abnormal effect on mid and upper level wind patterns and then abnormally effect the weather. They very well could be causing more harm than good, but again I'm sure that's being studied and reported on by an inquisitive main stream media who are constantly searching for answers.
Wind farms don't create wind, they run off of it. Problems I see with them are they kill birds and make noise. Solar fields **** up the wildlife and flora and fauna.
The problem with green energy is that none of it stores energy. Wind power is great until there's no wind. Solar is great until there's no sun. A lump of coal or a gallon of oil is energy just sitting there waiting to be used.
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2014
- Messages
- 14,590
- Reaction score
- 16,953
- Points
- 113
I realize they don't generate wind, Ron. They are transforming the energy of the low level wind into energy we can use but my question is, how does that loss of low level wind energy translate to mid and upper level wind energy? Maybe it's negligible but maybe not. The proponents of wind energy might be screwing up the environment a lot more than they know.
There's an old saying, don't mess with Mother Nature and there's nothing more unnatural than industrial wind turbines in my opinion.
Last edited:
I don't see how anyone could disagree with this... but....there are always going to be people that consider the Chernobyl effect still viable despite the new technologies and I always thought the dark side of nuclear to be the waste. Serious arguments against nukes always bring up the question of what to do with the waste from these plants.
If politics continue to dominate the energy field, we can look forward to a long hard road getting our heads above water in the coming years.... Axe Commiefornia.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 18,576
- Reaction score
- 29,904
- Points
- 113
- Location
- The nearest Steelers bar.
Well, to be fair, solar would work in Michigan and Nebraska. California just doesn't get enough sun.
Oh, and the next politician who preens on and on about the United States ceasing using fossil fuels as a primary energy source need to answer correctly the following three questions. If they can't, they should be punched in the mouth and told to shut the **** up:
Idiot politicians glom onto phrases and are too stupid to analyze what is actually going on. Studying is hard, repeating a meaningless phrase is easy. So guess what politicians do?
The answers to the questions, by the way:
So is Annoying Oral Crap going to bomb China? Biden and his ilk talking about impoverishing this great nation to insure that China becomes the dominant world power is a stunning example of abject stupidity.
Oh, and the next politician who preens on and on about the United States ceasing using fossil fuels as a primary energy source need to answer correctly the following three questions. If they can't, they should be punched in the mouth and told to shut the **** up:
- What change has happened to the United States' CO2 emissions over the past 10 years?
- What is the reason for that change?
- And where does the United States currently stand in terms of CO2 emissions among nations?
Idiot politicians glom onto phrases and are too stupid to analyze what is actually going on. Studying is hard, repeating a meaningless phrase is easy. So guess what politicians do?
The answers to the questions, by the way:
- The United States has reduced CO2 emissions by about 20% since 2010, the most by far of any industrialized nation. https://www.dailywire.com/news/united-states-led-entire-world-in-reducing-co2-emissions-in-2019
- The reduction is due in part to better mileage in automobiles, more efficient energy production, more "green" energy, but the vast majority of the reduction is due to the use of natural gas as a huge power source - natural gas, you know, a fossil fuel we get from fracking.
- China produces basically twice the CO2 emissions as does the United States. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019...ies-create-most-of-the-world-s-co2-emissions/ China has stated very plainly that they are NOT going to stop using fossil fuels, and in fact is building massive numbers of coal-fired plants since the natiion has coal, but basically no oil or natural gas.
So is Annoying Oral Crap going to bomb China? Biden and his ilk talking about impoverishing this great nation to insure that China becomes the dominant world power is a stunning example of abject stupidity.
Similar threads
