He didn't say "WE WILL BANKRUPT THEM!! MUWAHAHAHAHA!!!" he said "do it, it will bankrupt you" He's forcing companies that dump shit into the air to be accountable for it. (even IF man made climate change is fake) all the other shit in the air from burning coal isn't good for US to breathe in.
Also about the firefighter talking earlier about pure O2 being harmful and CO2 isn't toxic it just suffocates you.
Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Makes perfect sense if we lived in a time when the environment were in balance. We'd be foolish to believe that there is not a MAN MADE imbalance of carbon and CO2 in the air. The very nature of building a coal power plant generates CO2 that prior to that power plant DID NOT exist. It is FOOLISH and downright IGNORANT to ignore FACTS. This extra CO2 DID NOT EXIST before this new plant was built. End of story, that is clear reasoning and logic. Now argue that Obama told me this and made me crazy when I drank his magical Kool-Aid.
Also, why is accountability bad?
Toy manufacturer's are accountable when they put a recommended age on their products.
Music producers are accountable when they place a GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED/REQUIRED Explicit Content warning on their album cases.
Drug companies are "accountable" when they issue warnings, and blah blah (i don't really believe that, but they tell us they are)
Why shouldn't this industry be held accountable for what it is doing?
Shack
LOL! Yet another
post-rebuttal edit-response.
You scholars are proving yourselves
brilliant in
hindsight debate.
Too bad you couldn't cook up this brilliant response
before I actually responded to the original post.
The coal industry is responsible
now. I have
already explained this. Otherwise you must concede that the E.P.A. and all of the state natural resource agencies are
impotent. Nothing more than worthless, parasitic bureaucracies.
In the interview the Chosen One is
not talking about accountability, he is talking about punishment. Chastising even unto death an entire industry. But he does not
call it 'punishment,' of course. He's more diplomatic than that even in San Francisco.
He calls it his 'overall policy' - following an
epic Obama-stammer. LOL! He states categorically that his
Cap & Trade proposal is more aggressive than any other out there. Clearly stating that if the individual companies within the industry do not meet caps which are 'ratcheted down every year' (his words), the companies will not survive in the government-dictated 'market.'
The man is willing to use a
scam, based on flawed science concealed by a fixed peer-review process, to bankrupt companies and eliminate coal as an energy source.
The only thing I've said with respect to coal, I haven't been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.
I can't exactly determine what he is saying here except that he does not support coal. Could it be that he advocates eliminating coal entirely as a matter of
ideology even if clean coal technology is possible?
Perhaps one of you O-pologists could shed some light on that statement, preferably in a separate post
after any rebuttal I offer to your subsequent response.
Fixing typos is one thing, but adding entire
paragraphs after another poster has responded to the original post is quite another. The edit-debate technique is
chickenshit. Kindly make
all your points
before I respond.
