• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rachel Maddow Humiliated For "Lazy" Journalism By Fox Contributor Stuart Varney

Jack Hays said:
I've been quite generous with your effort to derail this thread. Too generous I suppose. That's over.
Click to expand...

Well, that's predictable. When you got nothing, quit the debate.
 
Jack Hays said:
This was not a debate. It was a distraction from the debate.
Click to expand...

But you engaged in the "distraction" until you ran out of indefensible positions.... Bottom line is there is no defensible basis for ignoring the MASSIVE negative externalities that are created by acquiring and burning fossil fuels. And the ones who do ignore them are usually the ones who scream "FREE MARKETS!!" the loudest.
 
JasperL said:
But you engaged in the "distraction" until you ran out of indefensible positions.... Bottom line is there is no defensible basis for ignoring the MASSIVE negative externalities that are created by acquiring and burning fossil fuels. And the ones who do ignore them are usually the ones who scream "FREE MARKETS!!" the loudest.
Click to expand...


I humored you. And you are proving the old adage that no good deed goes unpunished. Next time I'll just report the attempted derailment. And fossil fuels are a boon to mankind.
 
Jack Hays said:
I humored you. And you are proving the old adage that no good deed goes unpunished. Next time I'll just report the attempted derailment. And fossil fuels are a boon to mankind.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, I responded to an old comment made by someone else, and you jumped into the debate. I don't know how you consider that "humoring" me or a "good deed." Presumably you were interested in the debate or would have just ignored the comment. And if you want to report an attempt to derail a old thread when you joined in that "derailment" till it no longer suited you, I guess that's your prerogative.

Finally, whether fossil fuels are a "boon to mankind" isn't the issue - subsidies are. Furthermore, it's not 1900, it's 2014 and we have options now other than burning various carbon based fuels.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Not a Maddow fan, but much like other Fox Hosts... and since he's a fellow Brit I have no reservations in calling him a Bellend.

Whether it's Piers Morgan or this guy, Americans have an affinity for importing really big assholes from the British Isles.
Click to expand...

And they seem to like Canadian rejects...

Beiber, Celine Dion, William Shatner...but we as a nation are very grateful.
 
Jack Hays said:
Rachel Maddow got it exactly backwards.:roll:


  • Rachel Maddow Humiliated For ‘Lazy’ Journalism By Fox Contributor Stuart Varney

    Rachel Maddow received a lesson in journalism for a report that she shared with her viewers on MSNBC chastising Fox Business for claiming that cheap gas prices were bad for the economy.


    The only problem with Maddow’s report: Fox Business contributor Stuart Varney was actually debunking the idea, not supporting it. Maddow had seen a screen cap from the segment that read, “Cheap Gas Hurts Economy?”


    She then shared that with viewers and launched into a monologue where she made fun of the station as if it were supportive of the idea. But as Varney points out, “had she watched 15 seconds” of the program, she would have seen that they were actually against the theory.


    “Rachel Maddow took me on and she got it wrong,” Varney said, adding that she had “turned to the classic style of the left: demagoguery without facts” and “twisting the truth” to fit an agenda. . . .




Click to expand...


Is this really a surprise?

I will let you in on a little secret. I was a TV journalist, if there is such a thing, an assignment editor and producer.

I gave up my television in 1992.

I live a very good life now.
 
Jack Hays said:
No. We do not, unless there is a nuclear power renaissance..
Click to expand...

Sure we do - geothermal, wind and solar, in addition to heavily taxpayer subsidized nuclear energy.
 
JasperL said:
I'm just suggesting that for 'green' energy to compete on a level playing field with fossil fuels requires green energy to receive comparable subsidies. Wake me up in 50 years and $trillions of subsidies for green energy later and we'll have energy competing on level playing fields.

BTW, of course I use gasoline, coal and natural gas (for electricity). What I don't do is pretend that those fuel sources aren't subsidized, because I'm not ignorant.
Click to expand...

What " subsidies " is fossil fuels getting ?

Please point to the line item pay out to Oil Companies in the Federal budget.

Prove that without Federal and State subsidies Fossil fuel technology would collalse.
 
Jack Hays said:
Geothermal, wind and solar could all be useful but only as peripheral niche providers.
Click to expand...

Good evening, Jack. :2wave:

Since neither solar nor wind is a viable option in my area of NE Ohio, as I learned much to my dismay when I investigated them, it appears that even a niche isn't available to me. :sigh: I'll have to continue to use natural gas for heating and electricity for everything else, and continue to pay the bills as they arrive. It figures...... :shrug:
 
polgara said:
Good evening, Jack. :2wave:

Since neither solar nor wind is a viable option in my area of NE Ohio, as I learned much to my dismay when I investigated them, it appears that even a niche isn't available to me. :sigh: I'll have to continue to use natural gas for heating and electricity for everything else, and continue to pay the bills as they arrive. It figures...... :shrug:
Click to expand...

Good evening, Polgara.:2wave:

Well, at least gas is cheap and getting cheaper.:mrgreen:
 
Jack Hays said:
Geothermal, wind and solar could all be useful but only as peripheral niche providers.
Click to expand...

Wind is providing roughly a quarter of the electricity in a few states, over 10% in over a dozen, and the amounts are growing every year. That's not a niche. And there is no reason solar can't contribute huge shares of electricity, especially in the Southwest and other areas with nearly year round sunshine.

Geothermal is largely untapped, but has the potential to be a huge supplier of energy where it's feasible.

You're really showing a committed lack of imagination and backwards looking outlook on energy.
 
polgara said:
Good evening, Jack. :2wave:

Since neither solar nor wind is a viable option in my area of NE Ohio, as I learned much to my dismay when I investigated them, it appears that even a niche isn't available to me. :sigh: I'll have to continue to use natural gas for heating and electricity for everything else, and continue to pay the bills as they arrive. It figures...... :shrug:
Click to expand...

That's sort of the point. Solar, wind and geothermal make a lot of sense in some areas, not others. The idea of a coherent energy policy is to use them where they make sense, and limited fossil fuels where they don't. I'm not aware of any way to fly planes or drive trucks on solar, so we'll probably be using some kind of fossil fuels for transportation for the foreseeable future. But there is no reason to not expand wind in....windy areas, solar in sunny areas, etc. and free up oil or natural gas for the NE.
 
Fenton said:
What " subsidies " is fossil fuels getting ?
Click to expand...

Among others, the offloading of the healthcare costs of breathing polluted air, and the decades of military spending in oil rich regions of the world to protect our oil supplies. Those are the big ones. Just the cost of lead alone from leaded gasoline would fund decades of 'green energy' subsidies.

Please point to the line item pay out to Oil Companies in the Federal budget.
Click to expand...

If you've been following the discussion, that's not the only subsidy. If we compete, and you have to clean up your messes, but I get to run a 24 inch pipe to the local river with my toxic waste, I'm getting a subsidy (or you're getting burdened with excess costs, take your pick). You can't ignore that. Look at a picture of China - I've seen it first hand - and tell me they're not subsidizing energy by allowing coal plants to offload pollution onto the population that is killing an estimated 700,000 Chinese per year. The difference between China and the U.S. in that regard is the magnitude not the type of subsidy. Burning fossil fuels is CLEANER in the U.S. than it was, but not without significant and ongoing and costly effects on health.

Prove that without Federal and State subsidies Fossil fuel technology would collalse.
Click to expand...

I've never made that claim, so not sure why I'd need to prove a strawman of your invention....
 
JasperL said:
Wind is providing roughly a quarter of the electricity in a few states, over 10% in over a dozen, and the amounts are growing every year. That's not a niche. And there is no reason solar can't contribute huge shares of electricity, especially in the Southwest and other areas with nearly year round sunshine.

Geothermal is largely untapped, but has the potential to be a huge supplier of energy where it's feasible.

You're really showing a committed lack of imagination and backwards looking outlook on energy.
Click to expand...

I don't believe your claims.
 
JasperL said:
That's sort of the point. Solar, wind and geothermal make a lot of sense in some areas, not others. The idea of a coherent energy policy is to use them where they make sense, and limited fossil fuels where they don't. I'm not aware of any way to fly planes or drive trucks on solar, so we'll probably be using some kind of fossil fuels for transportation for the foreseeable future. But there is no reason to not expand wind in....windy areas, solar in sunny areas, etc. and free up oil or natural gas for the NE.
Click to expand...

Green tech
[h=1]Shocker: Top Google Engineers Say Renewable Energy ‘Simply won’t work’[/h] Guest essay by Eric Worrall A research effort by Google corporation to make renewable energy viable has been a complete failure, according to the scientists who led the programme. After 4 years of effort, their conclusion is that renewable energy “simply won’t work”. According to an interview with the engineers, published in IEEE; “At the…
 
JasperL said:
I've never made that claim, so not sure why I'd need to prove a strawman of your invention....
Click to expand...



It's not a strawman argument. Its absolutely relevant to the issue of the legitimacy of renewable energy technologies.

Without massive Government subsidies, renewable energy technology could not stand on its own merits as a credible and feasible alternative to fossil fuel technology.

Pull the substantial subsidies and it would disappear altogether.

And NO, it doesn't need to be subsidized so it can grow into a comparable enerw source.

The first Photovoltaic cell was patented over 125 years ago. Bad tech is bad tech.
 
Jack Hays said:
Green tech
[h=1]Shocker: Top Google Engineers Say Renewable Energy ‘Simply won’t work’[/h] Guest essay by Eric Worrall A research effort by Google corporation to make renewable energy viable has been a complete failure, according to the scientists who led the programme. After 4 years of effort, their conclusion is that renewable energy “simply won’t work”. According to an interview with the engineers, published in IEEE; “At the…
Click to expand...


I think 50 years from now all of humanity will look back on all of this nonsense and come to the conclusion that the Human race briefly left their senses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom