Wow….

Great info, keep up the good posts!…

Keep up the informative posts!…

Keep up the informative posts!…

Nuclear is the only way for us to meet the demands of cap and trade while not paying through the nose. Wind and solar just are WAY too expensive, and used solar cells fill up our landfills while windmills exterminate the birds.

Don't get me started on hyrids…they are a small step forward, but the batteries are worse for the environment than the oil…it turns out they are not as recycleable as once thought. One day we can all go visit Mount Energizer and they can carve Obama's face into it…

Ethanol? A disaster. Starve the children to some not-so-cheap fuel that is carbon positive vs. regular gas?

Come on!

Obviously renewables and energy efficiency measures won't replace conventional sources anytime soon. I am not aware of anyone (including but not limited to Obama) suggesting they will. But I'm pretty well convinced that renewables and energy efficiency measures will not only accommodate growth, but will significantly reduce the consumption of conventional sources. That's particularly true in terms of stationary energy (electricity, heating and cooling, etc.). Transportation energy will occur more slowly, but the same statement applies. It's already starting. People are already moving to more fuel efficient vehicles. People are car-pooling, and using public transportation more than before. The amount of oil consumed this year is already down 3% from the year before. That's the equivalent of about 630 million bbls/day. This is going to continue. People will continue to transition to more fuel efficient vehicles, and the vehicles themselves will continue to get more efficient. So I categorically reject your statement.

It's flat-earth to argue that such a viewpoint. to which the Left appeals and which if otters, isnot unrealistic, or to take issue with the word “unrealistic” at all.

I'm afraid this statement is so fractured that I can't understand it.

Even when we provide them? Even when it's obvious that conservation or alternative energy sources cannot replace all our existing conventional sources and won't accomodate the growth we're still bound to need to make in the years to come? It's flat-earth to argue that such a viewpoint. to which the Left appeals and which if otters, isnot unrealistic, or to take issue with the word “unrealistic” at all.

They didn't run thing sright when things were good, but kept their mishandling and now their management and the UAW (in denial of reality or obstinate in defying it) are paying now that there is crashing on the rocks.

Neocon: I would prefer a VAT over a retail federal sales tax.

Well, no. It is as I described.

” But either way, the BIG problem as I see it is economic. And NOBODY seems to be talking about costs. And that I would characterize as 'zero-IQ obstinacy'. Those aren't my words, they're yours.”

Oh, yes, same as my _frequent_ words about costs, and words about others' words about costs.

They see government as their parent, too.

* * *

'”McCain's positions on energy are superior to Obama's

Would you care to elaborate?”

No, because this statement of mine only encapusulates and summarizes what I elaborated on _already_. No repetitive (or even recursive) games allowed.

The rest of our government could be asked to cut spending by a whopping 3 percent………….3 percent………..that would translate to around another 75 billion in cuts……..

Raise taxes by an amount that equals about 200 billion in increased revenue and voilla you have essentially a balanced budget.

Start a national sales tax program that is dedicated by law to paying off the debt…….once the debt is paid off it must be illiminated. This tax could start out 1 percent year one, 2 percent year 2 and 3 percent year 3 up to 5 percent until the debt is paid off. In addition any budget surpluses would be mandated to paying off the debt.

Very easy George.

Very easy to say–but what are you actually going to cut?

You Cut the budget by xxx dollars and raise taxes but dont give them back.

You know thats like what families and businesses all over do to make ends meet. Except companies like GM and FORD and such who are now on the verge of Freakin Bankruptcy because they cant run their ships upright in a storm.

Actually I shouldn't be that hard on GM and Ford, they have been a ping pong ball in politics since 1973

How do you get to a balanced budget by 2010?

I want to see a congress that has a balanced budget.

I don't care about supreme court justices. I believe that no matter who gets put on the court that they are fine upstanding men and women who sincerely want to do what is best for this country in the best way that they know how.

What I care more about is an America that is strong and sound financially so that we have the resources to take care of those in need without wondering how we are going to pay for it.

Give me a balanced Budget and zero national debt and Ill show you a country that has a whole lot less problems then we do now.

So your assuming I am right in your question. If I am right then Obama is not going to be the moderate bipartisan that he professes because if that were true then the Democrats would already have gone there.

Whats better is someone who will show leadership. Thats why we elect a president. Not a party yes man. Thats where it looks like Obama is taking his party. Yes to rejecting public finance because the DNC wanted more money. No to drilling because the party says so. Whats next. I bet he changes his mind of FISA here shortly too.

think about it real hard.

As opposed to what — a Republican Yes man? Or a No man? I mean seriously… what? What's better? Think about that really, really hard.

I would agree. But let me also add… it depends on your mindset. In other words, you (or more specifically McCain) have to convince enough voters of that. I'm afraid there's quite a few of them that perceive those humongous oil company profits as another form of corporate welfare.

Obama is anti-nuclear. At this time it may just be lip service to the faithful who demonize nukes, but this is wrong. The technology has one flaw — cost (startup construction). Reduction of this is as merited as an object of federal R&D as anything else, like wind, solar, etc. McCain is pro-nuclear. That puts him on the correct side of the issue.

First of all, cost isn't the only flaw with nuclear. You said in a previous comment that “The waste problem with nuclear energy is political, not a technical or scientific or engineering problem.” Well, yes and no. But either way, the BIG problem as I see it is economic. And NOBODY seems to be talking about costs. And that I would characterize as “zero-IQ obstinacy”. Those aren't my words, they're yours.

Obama is silent on coal-to-liquids, the obvious near-term thing to do R&D on and proceed with industrializing to provide additional transportation liquid fuels, for which there are no substitutes currently. McCain supports “clean coal,” which may be interpreted to include coal-to-liquids…

Taking the last first, I think you're putting words in McCain's mouth. It would surprise me greatly if McCain were, in fact, in favor of coal-to-liquids. But that is an important question to ask him, don't you think? By the way, you're wrong about it being a “cleaner” alternative. That is only so if you don't consider the first step — i.e., the conversion of coal to liquid. Once it's liquid, I agree. But that doesn't happen by magic.

Obama is unrealistic with alternative energy sources. You can fault McCain for not being as “progressive” as he could be with these, but it is unrealistic to expect the kind of conversion that so many Obama fans and Dem voters are expecting (let alone Al Gore's ludicrousness).

I think you're lapsing into talking points here. But I don't think Obama is at all unrealistic. By the way, this to me, is very much the crux of the issue. Let me say that again… This is a REALLY..BIG..DEAL. Study after study have indicated that renewables, especially in the form of wind, solar thermal, or solar PV, and in certain cases geothermal as well, are not at all unrealistic. In fact, they require far less help than does nuclear. We're talking tens, and when you figure everything in, more likely hundreds of billions less. That's my big problem with McCain. He doesn't seem to get it. He's working in the past, thinking that because existing nuclear plants are cheap now, that's what we should concentrate on. That's a fallacy. Dwelling on the past is stupid. It's juvenile. It's not what “better people” do, lol! Okay, maybe that was a cheap shot. But I'm getting a little tired of you and others trying to minimize and marginalize those that think differently than you — without any substantial facts.

As far as I can tell, you have nothing but old data. And that old data only looks good in hindsight. Nuclear power facilities that were built 20 or more years ago are very cost-efficient — now. But they weren't then. Many windmills (e.g., in Tehachapie) and solar thermal plants (e.g. in the Mojave desert) built around the same time were much more expensive — then. But they aren't now. And they're getting cheaper. Nuclear plants are getting more expensive. I don't know what I need to do to drive this point home. But I'm starting to suspect that intellectual luddites will always base their opinions in the past, rather than analyzing things as they are now — or (horrors!) projecting into the future. Plants built now will be operating 40-50 years from now. To not project into the future is, to me, the epitome of stupidity.

We have before us right now the opportunity for the Democrats to convince us that they want to get along that they truly want to be the bipartisan champions that they SWEAR on a stack of constitutions that Barak Obama wants to be.

All I hear is reasons why it wont work. Why we wont give in on drilling and why it will be a cold day in hell before Barak Obama will compromise on Drilling.

Thus ends the era of bipartisanship from THE ONE as he cowers to the will of Nanny Pelosi.