• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Romney burned by solar flare

IndepCentristMA said:
Actually... the subject was brought up by you, deriding someone else for adding nothing to the discussion, by also adding nothing to the discussion, which I pointed it out the hyprocrisy of your statement (which I believe was done at the very time that hypocrisy was being heavily discussed on 3 separate threads)...

Here, I was responding to your criticism that someone else on this site didnt have the right to voice their personal opinion on a topic (just because it's of a different political pursuation than yours)... which if they don't there is no discussion material... and the site would not exist... That's very reason we all come to the site... to debate and discuss political topics...

Now Im going to point out that this is the 3rd time youve posted on this thread without mentioning solar panels, Romney, or Obama... whereas I've been heavily active in the discussion of the thread title...

So please, enough with the mod envy... stop paying attention to the quality and style points of people's posts, and post something substantive of your own...
Click to expand...

So let me get this straight... you are bitching about a hypocrisy of me pointing out someone's pointless rant about hating liberals in a thread that actually had a topic and guess what.. it wasn't called (why I hate liberals)... to which you continue to chase me off topic to tell me how hypocritical I am for going off topic? I would commend you if your consistent enough to have gotten onto your own partisan puppy up there for having done it in the first place but... ya didn't. Have a nice day pointing out hypocrisy by being hypocritical to do so.
 
poweRob said:
So let me get this straight... you are bitching about a hypocrisy of me pointing out someone's pointless rant about hating liberals in a thread that actually had a topic and guess what.. it wasn't called (why I hate liberals)... to which you continue to chase me off topic to tell me how hypocritical I am for going off topic? I would commend you if your consistent enough to have gotten onto your own partisan puppy up there for having done it in the first place but... ya didn't. Have a nice day pointing out hypocrisy by being hypocritical to do so.
Click to expand...
Actually, it appears you're too thick to get what I'm talking about...

This is my 10th post on this thread.... 4 of them were in response to specific comments you've made which fail to address the topic of the thread, but point out people's comments... the other 6 were full of detail, evidence related to the thread topic....

Youve posted 4 times on this thread... all 4 talk about the style of people's comments... 0 have actually advanced anything relevant to the thread... The very thread you've been discussing how other people add nothing to the discussion...

So I'm sure you have some childish comment to say back, like "Im rubber, you're glue"...

But clearly the topic of solar companies failing that recieved hundreds of millions / billions of dollars by Obama without any real independent analysis which pointed to a positive financial outlook is a BIG win for Romney...
 
IndepCentristMA said:
You're such a clown...
Click to expand...

Says the Romney shill.... :lol:

Romney spent that $5M over the course of his 4 years in office, on all the investments combined (And they were all paid off... the companies you speak of failing didn't fail unto +5yrs after Romney left office)... Whereas Obama spent that $535M on Solyndra alone, in his first year in office... along with many many others... many of which failed while he's in office, before the loans were paid off... Notice the difference?
Click to expand...

The difference is that China blew up the solar market after Romney left office. If they had done it earlier his loans would have suffered the same fate.

A source, huh?… NPR acceptable to you?

Political Fact-Checking Under Fire : NPR

"CONAN: Mark Hemingway, in a piece titled "Lies, Damned Lies and Fact Checking," you concluded that the fact-checker is less often a referee than a fan with a rooting interest. How did you arrive at that?

HEMINGWAY: Well, there's a number of reasons why I arrived at that conclusion. One of the facts I pointed out in the piece was that the University of Minnesota School of Public Affairs had actually done a survey of PolitiFact, and they evaluated all 500 statements that PolitiFact had rated from January of 2010 to January of 2011.
Click to expand...

So what you're trying to show here is that you don't know the difference between the Tampa Bay Times, which puts out Polifact, and the Washington Post?
 
AdamT said:
This one truly maxes out the irony meter. One day after Romney made a public appearance excoriating Obama for the Solyndra failure, calling it "crony capitalism", Konarka Technologies goes belly up. What is Konarka Technologies you ask? Konarka was a solar company that Romney subsidized as Governor of Massachusettes! ..............And Konarka isn't the only example of Romney's failed ventures into "crony capitalism". As one of his first acts as governor, Romney also doled out a $2.5 million subsidy to Evergreen Solar, which has also gone belly up.
Click to expand...


We have been investing in alternative energy projects for years, George W. Bush invested in alternative energy projects as well, it's nothing new that the Federal Government or the State Governments have been doing this. I'm all for investments in science, technology, research and alternative energy, so my conservative stance isn't against these investments at all.

The problem with Obama at this point is not that he's doing investments in alternative energy, it's that our national debt is so high and there's no real plan of getting our house in order proposed BY Obama. That's my issue.
 
AdamT said:
The difference is that China blew up the solar market after Romney left office. If they had done it earlier his loans would have suffered the same fate.
Click to expand...

No... the difference is that Romney only gave a small amount, like $5M in total... Obama gave out like $25B... 1 is a lot easier to pay back... Also Romney did it with companies that had enough private backing, and independent analysis which said their financial outlook was worthy of investment... Obama gave it to companies that every1 knew would fail, then did... so Obama thought he'd wave the magic wand of public financing to create industries that dont exist... since he lives in dreamland...

AdamT said:
So what you're trying to show here is that you don't know the difference between the Tampa Bay Times, which puts out Polifact, and the Washington Post?
Click to expand...
So what youre saying here is you don't know how to read a source?

In that very interview done with NPR, they had the guy who awards the pinocchios for the Washington Post, and he said they looked at an equal number of statements from Democrat and Republican candidates, and begrudgingly admitted there were more pinoccios awarded to Republicans, which he falsely attributed to that when he did his formulations the Republicans were in a primary process at the time (which would've also then precipitated an adverse number of statements by Republicans, which it didn't...)

Also, the portion you're talking about was just 1 of the facts that Hemingway put forth in his article on the topic of fact check sites, which he holds in very low regard, since they don't measure facts, but opinions... So it's completely misleading...
 
Last edited:
IndepCentristMA said:
No... the difference is that Romney only gave a small amount, like $5M in total... Obama gave out like $25B... 1 is a lot easier to pay back... Also Romney did it with companies that had enough private backing, and independent analysis which said their financial outlook was worthy of investment... Obama gave it to companies that every1 knew would fail, then did... so Obama thought he'd wave the magic wand of public financing to create industries that dont exist... since he lives in dreamland...
Click to expand...

As usual you have a truth telling problem. There was a great deal of private equity invested in Solyndra:

Solyndra was led by Brian Harrison, a veteran of Intel Corporation. He took the reins on July 27, 2010 when founder Chris Gronet was replaced as CEO.

Major investors included George Kaiser Family Foundation, U.S. Venture Partners, CMEA Ventures, Redpoint Ventures, Virgin Green Fund, Madrone Capital Partners, RockPort Capital Partners, Argonaut Private Equity, Masdar and Artis Capital Management.
Click to expand...

So what youre saying here is you don't know how to read a source?
Click to expand...

Foolishly I assumed that you would quote the part that you thought was relevant. :lol:

But here's a thought that apparently hasn't occurred to you: maybe fact checking sites are harder on Republicans because REPUBLICANS LIE ALL THE TIME? God knows Romney does, and with the exception of Paul and Huntsman, the rest of the GOP primary dwarves were comically divorced from the real world.

But I'm still not going to let you get away with your dodge. Here's what the Washington Post writer's statement was:

CONAN: And the number of Pinocchios per party was just about the same, too.

KESSLER: It was just about the same, as well. I mean, in fact there was a slight higher average Pinocchio for Republicans, which I attributed to the fact that there is a Republican presidential primary going on these days, and there were a few Republican candidates that had very high Pinocchio ratings.
Click to expand...

Now why didn't you quote THAT paragraph? Probably because it contradicts your assertion that, "their decisions have been proven to go 70-30% to Democratic candidates". Again, you and Mitt have major problems telling the truth.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
As usual you have a truth telling problem. There was a great deal of private equity invested in Solyndra:





Foolishly I assumed that you would quote the part that you thought was relevant. :lol:

But here's a thought that apparently hasn't occurred to you: maybe fact checking sites are harder on Republicans because REPUBLICANS LIE ALL THE TIME? God knows Romney does, and with the exception of Paul and Huntsman, the rest of the GOP primary dwarves were comically divorced from the real world.But I'm still not going to let you get away with your dodge. Here's what the Washington Post writer's statement was:



Now why didn't you quote THAT paragraph? Probably because it contradicts your assertion that, "their decisions have been proven to go 70-30% to Democratic candidates". Again, you and Mitt have major problems telling the truth.
Click to expand...

-- Politfact does lean left, center left, but left.
-- There was some of the same during the 2004 primary season amongst the dems. Primaries make that sort of thing occur. Every sentence and statement is scrutinized.
-- You take away from an article that some Republicans made false assertions, that all of them and Romney specifically do? Unless they mention Romney specifically and describe the changes I dont think you can make that assertion truthfully. You are assuming it.
-- Not everyone that disagrees with you and your heavily biased sources is a liar, rebut their argument. Tossing that liar crap around over and over shows a pattern that says you toss that when you run out of arguments. You use it so often, I'm surprised you arent at the 30 point cap by now.
-- Bolded: demonization and emotional outburst? Thats your basis for a post? Man up, and try some logic.
 
AdamT said:
This one truly maxes out the irony meter. One day after Romney made a public appearance excoriating Obama for the Solyndra failure, calling it "crony capitalism", Konarka Technologies goes belly up. What is Konarka Technologies you ask? Konarka was a solar company that Romney subsidized as Governor of Massachusettes! :lol:



And Konarka isn't the only example of Romney's failed ventures into "crony capitalism". As one of his first acts as governor, Romney also doled out a $2.5 million subsidy to Evergreen Solar, which has also gone belly up.

Crossroads ad slams Obama over company that got taxpayer money from Governor Romney - The Plum Line - The Washington Post
Click to expand...

It's obamney... I still don't get how in a democratic republic that we actually allow that these two dummies are the cream of the crop that deserves to be president on merit.
 
AdamT said:
As usual you have a truth telling problem. There was a great deal of private equity invested in Solyndra:
Click to expand...

The factory they built cost $737M, with $535M from the US Govt... 72.5% of their funding came from the govt... That's called not having "a great deal of private equity"... You have trouble admitting to the relevant facts, just because they go against what you'd like them to say...

AdamT said:
Foolishly I assumed that you would quote the part that you thought was relevant. :lol:

But here's a thought that apparently hasn't occurred to you: maybe fact checking sites are harder on Republicans because REPUBLICANS LIE ALL THE TIME? God knows Romney does, and with the exception of Paul and Huntsman, the rest of the GOP primary dwarves were comically divorced from the real world.

But I'm still not going to let you get away with your dodge. Here's what the Washington Post writer's statement was:
Click to expand...

They were both relevant... 1 statement was from an indepent academian who studied the whole industry of fact check sites / opinion blogs... and found huge glaring problems with it from heavy bias, to advanced opinions, to not giving credit to the complexity of issues compared to the brief statement investigated...

AdamT said:
Now why didn't you quote THAT paragraph? Probably because it contradicts your assertion that, "their decisions have been proven to go 70-30% to Democratic candidates". Again, you and Mitt have major problems telling the truth.
Click to expand...

My statement was that i trust my own barometer better than listening to bogus statements from fact check sites... and that there was a heavy liberal bias, with decisions going 70-30% to Democratic candidates...

An independent/unaffiliated academian says theres heavy bias towards the liberals on most sites, but that there are sites biased to the right as well... but they are all horribly innaccurate, since rather than measuring the statements based on facts, they use the analysis to advance opinions, and that they fall short of assessing the complexity of the issues being discussed by addressing one small statement on the matter...

Then a biased affiliate of one of the agencies being discussed in describing his own site, still admitted that there was a greater amount or Republicans who were given "pinocchios", and that the veracity of going after certain members of the Republican Party was greater...

"KESSLER: It was just about the same, as well. I mean, in fact there was a slight higher average Pinocchio for Republicans, which I attributed to the fact that there is a Republican presidential primary going on these days, and there were a few Republican candidates that had very high Pinocchio ratings. "

That doesnt disprove my argument, it further enhances it... when the actual guy who puts them out has to admit there's a bias against the Republicans...

Once again... learn how to read a source...
 
IndepCentristMA said:
The factory they built cost $737M, with $535M from the US Govt... 72.5% of their funding came from the govt... That's called not having "a great deal of private equity"... You have trouble admitting to the relevant facts, just because they go against what you'd like them to say...
Click to expand...

You really think that their capital cost for the new factory was their only asset? They were expected to have a market cap of over a billion dollars, meaning that about half their funding came from private equity. But then no one is accusing private equity guys of being smart.

As for your Pinocchio dance ... :2rofll:
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
You really think that their capital cost for the new factory was their only asset? They were expected to have a market cap of over a billion dollars, meaning that about half their funding came from private equity. But then no one is accusing private equity guys of being smart.

As for your Pinocchio dance ... :2rofll:
Click to expand...

Wow... you really are a fool... If their private equity was as great as it was... then they wouldn't have needed the government funding... So you're damned if you do or damned if you don't there...

Please make my argument for me... that they didn't need government money... so, yes, Obama should not have been giving them money...

The fact of the matter is, the private equity guys said that the company will go bankrupt in Sep 2011... and that's exactly what happened...

Which is why, while they were in trouble, Obama tried to turn them around, by having the US Govt do the heavy lifting on building a new factory for them to expand (eventhough they didnt have the means to do so)...

72.5% of an expansion, being paid by the government is a clear sign that the company was in trouble...
 
IndepCentristMA said:
Wow... you really are a fool... If their private equity was as great as it was... then they wouldn't have needed the government funding... So you're damned if you do or damned if you don't there...
Click to expand...

Falling back on a straw man argument isn't a very winning strategy. Obviously I never argued that the didn't need the government funding. My argument -- unrefuted -- was that there were plenty of private equity firms who also bought into their prospects.
 
AdamT said:
This one truly maxes out the irony meter. One day after Romney made a public appearance excoriating Obama for the Solyndra failure, calling it "crony capitalism", Konarka Technologies goes belly up. What is Konarka Technologies you ask? Konarka was a solar company that Romney subsidized as Governor of Massachusettes! :lol:

And Konarka isn't the only example of Romney's failed ventures into "crony capitalism". As one of his first acts as governor, Romney also doled out a $2.5 million subsidy to Evergreen Solar, which has also gone belly up.

Crossroads ad slams Obama over company that got taxpayer money from Governor Romney - The Plum Line - The Washington Post
Click to expand...

That's comedy at it's best. Konarka Technologies received money from the Romney administration in 2003 and files chapter 11 in 2012. That's 9 years later. Sept. 3, 2009 Solyndra officially received the loan guarantee from the DOE. On 31 August 2011 Solyndra announced it was filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, less than 2 years later. Your premise has quite the time frame discrepancy
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
Falling back on a straw man argument isn't a very winning strategy. Obviously I never argued that the didn't need the government funding. My argument -- unrefuted -- was that there were plenty of private equity firms who also bought into their prospects.
Click to expand...
That argument, (as with most things you say, is completely irrelevant... The point is clearly, this factory would not have gotten built without that government loan of $535M... they had 27.5% of the funding from private capital... When you have 27.5% of the money raised, it doesn't get done... They didn't have enough private capital investment... Forecasts had it going bankrupt the very month it went bankrupt... It's a simple formula... Obama couldn't follow it, and now our tax dollars were wasted as a result...

Even worse, they let a private campaign donor remove his private capital from the company days before it went bankrupt... proving collusion and corruption... and showing Obama's true priorities... He doesnt care if our money gets wasted... he only cares what his campaign donors feel is done with their money...

When taxpayers money takes a backseat, it's time to put that failed leader in the backseat where he belongs...
 
AdamT said:
No, it wasn't. The process was ongoing throughout Bush's last term. They even made a last-minute push to try and gitter done before he left office.
Click to expand...

Jan. 9, 2009 Solyndra transaction reviewed by DOE Credit Committee, and remanded for further analysis

Jan. 15, 2009 Loan Programs staff notifies the DOE Credit Review Board (CRB) that it has developed a schedule to complete Solyndra due diligence that would bring the project to approval in early March 2009 and final closing by early to mid-April 2009.

Jan. 20, 2009 Obama Administration takes office

Jan. 30, 2009 DOE formalizes agreement with RW Beck for Independent Market Consultant’s Report

Feb. 17, 2009 Sec. 1705 Loan Guarantee Program created by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).

Feb. 27, 2009 Final draft of Independent Engineer’s report submitted

Feb. - Mar. 2009 DOE continues to negotiate terms/conditions with Solyndra

Mar. 12, 2009 DOE Credit Committee considers and approves Solyndra transaction

Mar. 17, 2009 DOE CRB considers and recommends that the Secretary issues a conditional commitment to Solyndra

Mar. 20, 2009 DOE issues a conditional commitment to Solyndra

Mar. – August 2009 Additional and final due diligence and loan documentation of the Solyndra transaction undertaken by DOE and its external advisors. Solyndra raises additional private equity to meet loan requirements.

April 27, 2009 Independent market consultant report submitted

Sept. 3, 2009 DOE formally issues the loan guarantee to Solyndra (i.e., the deal reaches financial close)

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/Solar Background Document 1.pdf
 
IndepCentristMA said:
That argument, (as with most things you say, is completely irrelevant... The point is clearly, this factory would not have gotten built without that government loan of $535M... they had 27.5% of the funding from private capital... When you have 27.5% of the money raised, it doesn't get done... They didn't have enough private capital investment... Forecasts had it going bankrupt the very month it went bankrupt... It's a simple formula... Obama couldn't follow it, and now our tax dollars were wasted as a result...
Click to expand...

Still flogging the same straw man, and spreading the same lies.

Even worse, they let a private campaign donor remove his private capital from the company days before it went bankrupt... proving collusion and corruption... and showing Obama's true priorities... He doesnt care if our money gets wasted... he only cares what his campaign donors feel is done with their money...
Click to expand...

I'd like to see you back up that claim. :popcorn2:
 
AdamT said:
Still flogging the same straw man, and spreading the same lies.

I'd like to see you back up that claim. :popcorn2:
Click to expand...

Sorta.
Energy Department Wanted to Give More Money to Solyndra, Emails Show | Fox News

Another big point in the new emails is that administration officials told the Energy Department in early 2011 that they should consult with the Justice Department before restructuring Solyndra's loan in a way that put private investors ahead of taxpayers in case of a bankruptcy.

But the emails show that lawyers at the Energy Department moved ahead with the restructuring in February 2011 without ever consulting with the Justice Department. Private investors put up another $150 million in capital, and half of it was put to the front of the line ahead of taxpayers receiving their money in case of a failure.

"In February, we requested in writing that DOE seek the Department of Justice's approval of any proposed restructuring," Treasury official Mary Miller wrote on Aug. 17, 2011, to Zients. "To our knowledge that never happened."


Read more: Energy Department Wanted to Give More Money to Solyndra, Emails Show | Fox News
Click to expand...

So yes and no. Investors ponied up more money but they wanted first lien consideration so they would get paid back first, whether they have or not, I dont know.
 
AdamT said:
Falling back on a straw man argument isn't a very winning strategy. Obviously I never argued that the didn't need the government funding. My argument -- unrefuted -- was that there were plenty of private equity firms who also bought into their prospects.
Click to expand...

Ad hominem aside, I am confused. Your argument is they needed government funding but there was 'plenty' (synonymous with enough) of private equity money? This seems antithetical to me.
 
Dickieboy said:
Ad hominem aside, I am confused. Your argument is they needed government funding but there was 'plenty' (synonymous with enough) of private equity money? This seems antithetical to me.
Click to expand...

There was no ad hominem. But you're right that I shouldn't have used the word plenty — implying sufficient. I was just making the point that about half of Solyndra's funding came from private equity, so it wasn't a case of the government being dumber than the private sector.
 
Dickieboy said:
I personally have no issue with this. I believe the States have the latitude (and self-serving motivation) to engage in 'investing' to stimulate commerce in their selves. Tax preferences/deferments, land grants, utility grants are commonly used by states and municipalities to court manufacturers. And if residents of said state are against this practice they can move to another state, no so when the federal government participates in such actions.

Why are you against it?
Click to expand...

LOL The diffrence is that you can move out of State? You can also leave the country you know. The Federal Govt. has the right to make the same mistakes that Romney did in Mass.
 
iguanaman said:
LOL The diffrence is that you can move out of State? You can also leave the country you know. The Federal Govt. has the right to make the same mistakes that Romney did in Mass.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And of course energy independence is a national issue on many levels.

Solyndra was poorly handled, but the loan guarantee program over all has actually performed better than expected. Of course no one expected that all of the companies involved would succeed. There is always a high failure rate in fledgling industries. What you hope is that you will facilitate job creation and innovation.

A123 Batteries is another company that's received a lot of government assistance. They have been having a hard time for several reasons, but just yesterday they made this announcement, which is a pretty big deal:

A123 Systems*shares are trading sharply higher Tuesday morning after the company said it has developed a new lithium ion battery technology it calls Nanophosphate EXT which it says can operate at extreme temperatures “without requiring thermal management.” The company said the approach should “significantly reduce or eliminate the need for heating or cooling systems,” creating “sizeable new opportunities within the transportation and telecommunications markets, among others.”

A123 CEO David Vieau said in a statement that the new approach allow the company’s batteries to offer “high power, energy and cycle life capabilities over a wider temperature range,” and “dramatically enhance the business case for deploying A123′s lithium ion battery solutions for a significant number of applications.”
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom