• 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!

Boehner Demands $2 Billion for Ohio Plant After Solyndra

apdst said:
Oh the horror!!!! God forbid we invest money into something actually works. :rofl
Click to expand...
The Chinese are doing quite with solar. I bet some of their products are in your chain.
 
winston53660 said:
The Chinese are doing quite with solar. I bet some of their products are in your chain.
Click to expand...

I guess that's why they're busting their asses to get their hands on as much oil as possible, because solar power is such a big hit. Yes?
 
obvious Child said:
Anyone surprised that Apdst has no problem calling for more spending when it's a Republican asking for it?
Anyone surprised that Apdst has no problem calling for more government subsidies when t's a Republican asking for it?

*chirp*

*chirp*

No hands go up.
Click to expand...

But...but...but...it's a loan! It's not a subsidy. :spank:
 
apdst said:
I guess that's why they're busting their asses to get their hands on as much oil as possible, because solar power is such a big hit. Yes?
Click to expand...

They have also built the worlds biggest dam. The US use to do things like that.

And they are beating us on solar as well.
 
apdst said:
I guess that's why they're busting their asses to get their hands on as much oil as possible, because solar power is such a big hit. Yes?
Click to expand...

In terms of power grid, China isn't a big oil user. It's liquid fuel they need oil for. And the various oil products. Solar and oil are two somewhat non-competing energy sources. You should know this by now.

Solar is a big hit in terms of providing day light peak energy. And its a big export.
 
obvious Child said:
I now question your capacity to read much less think. You cited several countries who are doing both as evidence that green energy doesn't work. I like how you attacked Green energy as being non-viable by citing a country who's building the largest solar plant in the world. That's amusing.

How does that make you intelligent? Furthermore, after someone pointed that out to you, you not only refuse to change your position but you start insulting someone who is clearly superior to you in knowledge and education much less critical thinking skills. Cruisin' for a bruisin' you are.
Click to expand...

A bit vain and narcissistic here not to mention the obvious lack of civility that must come with your supposed "superior" mind.

Asking questions that were already answered in the post you quoted suggests you either can't read or understand English properly, or simply don't give a **** what people write, you just go off on whatever you want.



You look really stupid when you make an argument that was refuted in the posts above you.

1) Countries you named are doing both green and nuclear
2) Countries doing nuclear are sometimes doing it for nuclear weapons programs
3) Countries who are importing nuclear are doing it somewhat because manufactures offer lending reducing short term capital costs.

None of those back your arguments up. You seem very intent upon ignoring whatever contradicts your arguments. You may be selected for a certain basement award if you keep going like this.
Click to expand...

I think if you must read what you like into what I post and have to resort to such vitriol as this rather than the subject matter then it is clearly you that is inferior in knowledge and education much less critical thinking skills.

As for you looking stupid
1) the countries I cited DO NOT HAVE NUCLEAR up and running but are PLANNING to in the near future,
2) if you have knowledge beyond the IAEA that shows beyond any doubt that these are nsuclear weapons programs please post that superior evidence,
3) the countries I cited do not have nuclear plants so please show me your superior evidence, shipping manifests etc, that show they are "importing nuclear"!

Time to back up your arguments or rather your insults.
 
I hadn't known this until this morning...you?

Lazard was hired to look at Solyndra's financing after the company received a $528 million loan in 2009 and $69 million in private money earlier this year in a restructuring deal approved by the Obama administration. Under the second deal, the private investors moved ahead of U.S. taxpayers in case of a default on the loan, a fact that GOP investigators have sharply criticized.

Read more: House Panel Votes To Subpoena White House For Solyndra Records | Fox News
Click to expand...

Why would taxpayers be in a secondary position? Who are these investors? What connection do they have to the White House? This makes absolutely no sense at all.
 
Yes, the fact that the investments of the private investors were placed in front of the publics interests were noted early on. I haven't heard much complaint from the OWS crowd yet though which is too bad.
 
Disputatious71 said:
A bit vain and narcissistic here not to mention the obvious lack of civility that must come with your supposed "superior" mind.
Click to expand...

You cite countries doing both as a sign that green doesn't work.

Do you reject that? Or do we need to go back over the list of large scale green projects countries you listed are doing? You can attempt to insult me all you want, but I'm hitting you on very specific points you made, to which you have no response.

I think if you must read what you like into what I post and have to resort to such vitriol as this rather than the subject matter then it is clearly you that is inferior in knowledge and education much less critical thinking skills.

As for you looking stupid
1) the countries I cited DO NOT HAVE NUCLEAR up and running but are PLANNING to in the near future
Click to expand...

1) No one argued that they didn't. In fact, I explicitly stated that the countries you named were doing both. Perhaps you do not understand the word "Both?." Where you got that, I'm not sure, but it clearly wasn'tfrom what anyone except for yourself posted. Perhaps you made that up because you are unable to actually address rebuttals to your poorly thought out and executed arguments? You however cited them as proof that green technology doesn't work. Except that you are now going to some pretty absurd lengths to pretend that they aren't engaging in green tech at the same time.

It's rather dumb to say I look stupid for arguing something no one did except for you.

2) if you have knowledge beyond the IAEA that shows beyond any doubt that these are nsuclear weapons programs please post that superior evidence
Click to expand...

You mean that North Korea and Iran aren't using them for nuclear weapons? Really? You're actually asking for that? Israel bombed the Syrian plant because Israeli intel concluded they were building a nuclear weapons program. Are you seriously saying Mossad was wrong?

I named those three countries as using their nuclear power for nuclear programs. I never argued the others were explicitly doing so. They MIGHT be, but that does not mean they are. Trying to argue that I argued all of them were doing so is pretty absurd and dishonest.

3) the countries I cited do not have nuclear plants so please show me your superior evidence, shipping manifests etc, that show they are "importing nuclear"!
Click to expand...

All systems go for Jordan's first nuclear reactor

Jordan signed a deal with a South Korean manufacturer to import nuclear technology. And oh look, they offered them financing. Just as I said.

UEA Nuclear*Project! | expressi neng ai

The UAE also is importing nuclear tech from a contract with South Koreans.

Going Nuclear - Forbes.com

France and Russian firms wooing Thailand on its nuclear contracts.

Do I need to keep going or will you admit you are wrong?

All of these were found on a less than a minute Google search. Are you simply unwilling to make the effort to educate yourself? That's pretty bad considering the sheer utter ease at which I found such data.

Time to back up your arguments or rather your insults.
Click to expand...

Would you like a towel to wipe that egg off your face?
 
Last edited:
obvious Child said:
You cite countries doing both as a sign that green doesn't work.

Do you reject that? Or do we need to go back over the list of large scale green projects countries you listed are doing? You can attempt to insult me all you want, but I'm hitting you on very specific points you made, to which you have no response.
Click to expand...
Please bring the list of green projects that are planned to offset future demand in all these countries since, according to you, they ALL are doing large scale green projects.

1) No one argued that they didn't. In fact, I explicitly stated that the countries you named were doing both. Perhaps you do not understand the word "Both?." Where you got that, I'm not sure, but it clearly wasn'tfrom what anyone except for yourself posted. Perhaps you made that up because you are unable to actually address rebuttals to your poorly thought out and executed arguments? You however cited them as proof that green technology doesn't work. Except that you are now going to some pretty absurd lengths to pretend that they aren't engaging in green tech at the same time.

It's rather dumb to say I look stupid for arguing something no one did except for you.



You mean that North Korea and Iran aren't using them for nuclear weapons? Really? You're actually asking for that? Israel bombed the Syrian plant because Israeli intel concluded they were building a nuclear weapons program. Are you seriously saying Mossad was wrong?
Click to expand...
I asked you for evidence and you again imply superior knowledge without citations to back up your assumptions !
I named those three countries as using their nuclear power for nuclear programs. I never argued the others were explicitly doing so. They MIGHT be, but that does not mean they are. Trying to argue that I argued all of them were doing so is pretty absurd and dishonest.



All systems go for Jordan's first nuclear reactor

Jordan signed a deal with a South Korean manufacturer to import nuclear technology. And oh look, they offered them financing. Just as I said.
Click to expand...
Can you please remind me again how you import funding and how said import is considered nuclear ?

UEA Nuclear*Project! | expressi neng ai

The UAE also is importing nuclear tech from a contract with South Koreans.

Going Nuclear - Forbes.com

France and Russian firms wooing Thailand on its nuclear contracts.
Click to expand...

How do you import woo?

Do I need to keep going or will you admit you are wrong?

All of these were found on a less than a minute Google search. Are you simply unwilling to make the effort to educate yourself? That's pretty bad considering the sheer utter ease at which I found such data.



Would you like a towel to wipe that egg off your face?
Click to expand...

LOL :)
 
Disputatious71 said:
Please bring the list of green projects that are planned to offset future demand in all these countries since, according to you, they ALL are doing large scale green projects.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "offset future demand?"

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...io-plant-after-solyndra-7.html#post1059924329

Furthermore, I never cited all of them doing "large" scale green projects. I cited some of them engaging in green projects. Please cease and desist with the obvious lying.

I asked you for evidence and you again imply superior knowledge without citations to back up your assumptions
Click to expand...

Actually you lied. I specifically stated the countries using nuclear for weapons. You lied about my argument saying all of the countries were doing it for nuclear weapons programs. If you don't care about actually representing what I said honestly, then I will be a total complete prick to you making your posts the laughing stock of the forum. This is your first and only warning. You can either reply to my posts in a honest fashion, or you can lie and I can bust your chops for it. Which is it going to be?

Can you please remind me again how you import funding and how said import is considered nuclear ?
Click to expand...

That was incoherent. You originally asked how they were importing nuclear power in post #81. I gave you a list of links regarding contracts where the host country is either in a contract, or looking for one to hire a foreign firm to build (and possibly operate) a nuclear power plant. That is by all measures importing nuclear power to which you originally asked and to which I provided. One of the links happened to discuss that foreign firm offering financing to that host country. I previously argued that some countries (you do know what SOME means do you?) are going nuclear because foreign firms offer financing reducing upfront capital costs. You have not responded to this at all. Maybe you do not understand what that means.

How do you import woo?

LOL :)
Click to expand...

So you're one of those incapable of admitting he's wrong. I get it. I'd going to love busting your chops here on a regular basis.

You are still a fool for citing countries who are using both green and nuclear power as proof that green doesn't work.

You either do not know what the word "some" means or you are extremely dishonest.
 
obvious Child said:
What do you mean by "offset future demand?"

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...io-plant-after-solyndra-7.html#post1059924329

Furthermore, I never cited all of them doing "large" scale green projects. I cited some of them engaging in green projects. Please cease and desist with the obvious lying.
Click to expand...

So picking and choosing which countries you are talking about having green projects rather than being a specious argument on your part is now you telling me I am lying?

Actually you lied. I specifically stated the countries using nuclear for weapons. You lied about my argument saying all of the countries were doing it for nuclear weapons programs. If you don't care about actually representing what I said honestly, then I will be a total complete prick to you making your posts the laughing stock of the forum. This is your first and only warning. You can either reply to my posts in a honest fashion, or you can lie and I can bust your chops for it. Which is it going to be?
Click to expand...
Again you attempt to attack me rather than back up your "superior" knowledge of nuclear weapons programs with evidence... Strange how it is YOUR statement that has no evidence, yet I am supposedly the one lying, is this what makes your debate skills "elite"?



That was incoherent. You originally asked how they were importing nuclear power in post #81. I gave you a list of links regarding contracts where the host country is either in a contract, or looking for one to hire a foreign firm to build (and possibly operate) a nuclear power plant. That is by all measures importing nuclear power to which you originally asked and to which I provided. One of the links happened to discuss that foreign firm offering financing to that host country. I previously argued that some countries (you do know what SOME means do you?) are going nuclear because foreign firms offer financing reducing upfront capital costs. You have not responded to this at all. Maybe you do not understand what that means.
Click to expand...

I actually asked you to clarify YOUR implication here notice the EXACT wording you used ... no where except above did you say the nuclear imports were power so exactly who is being incoherent in their statements?

obvious Child said:
I now question your capacity to read much less think. You cited several countries who are doing both as evidence that green energy doesn't work. I like how you attacked Green energy as being non-viable by citing a country who's building the largest solar plant in the world. That's amusing.

How does that make you intelligent? Furthermore, after someone pointed that out to you, you not only refuse to change your position but you start insulting someone who is clearly superior to you in knowledge and education much less critical thinking skills. Cruisin' for a bruisin' you are.



Asking questions that were already answered in the post you quoted suggests you either can't read or understand English properly, or simply don't give a **** what people write, you just go off on whatever you want.



You look really stupid when you make an argument that was refuted in the posts above you.

1) Countries you named are doing both green and nuclear
2) Countries doing nuclear are sometimes doing it for nuclear weapons programs
3) Countries who are importing nuclear are doing it somewhat because manufactures offer lending reducing short term capital costs.

None of those back your arguments up. You seem very intent upon ignoring whatever contradicts your arguments. You may be selected for a certain basement award if you keep going like this.
Click to expand...

So you're one of those incapable of admitting he's wrong. I get it. I'd going to love busting your chops here on a regular basis.

You are still a fool for citing countries who are using both green and nuclear power as proof that green doesn't work.

You either do not know what the word "some" means or you are extremely dishonest.
Click to expand...
I do not need to admit to you I am wrong, but if I am you sure are inept at pointing errors out, but it appears very good at attempting to insult and ridicule others. These traits are not "superior" debating skills unless you are using Alinsky's rules of debate, and even then it does nothing to prove you know anything more than anyone else on a subject.
As for being a fool it would appear that when one intentionally ignores the lack of efficiency and economic sustainability of "green" energy over tried and true technology such as coal & nuclear then I can see how an ignorant fool would believe that others were actually the fool.
 
Disputatious71 said:
So picking and choosing which countries you are talking about having green projects rather than being a specious argument on your part is now you telling me I am lying?
Click to expand...

So you don't know what the word "some" is nor what the word "large" means. That's pretty sad. You do know there's a limit on age here? You are clearly under 13 if you do not know what those words mean as you do not appear to be an ELS user.

And you are in fact lying*. I cited some countries engaging in green projects. Some of those projects were large. You, being a liar, argued that I said all were doing large scale projects. Nothing in any of my posts suggests that at all.

For your reference:

[h=2]Definition of LARGE[/h]1
obsolete : lavish

2
obsolete a : ample, abundant b : extensive, broad

3
a : having more than usual capacity or scope : comprehensive <take the large view> <will take a larger role in the negotiations> b : powerful, forceful c : very successful or popular <a large rock band>

4
a : exceeding most other things of like kind especially in quantity or size : big b : dealing in great numbers or quantities <a large and highly profitable business>

[h=2]Definition of SOME[/h]1
: being an unknown, undetermined, or unspecified unit or thing <some person knocked>

2
a : being one, a part, or an unspecified number of something (as a class or group) named or implied <some gems are hard> b : being of an unspecified amount or number <give me some water> <have some apples>

3
: remarkable, striking <that was some party>

4
: being at least one —used to indicate that a logical proposition is asserted only of a subclass or certain members of the class denoted by the term which it modifies

You either do not know what those words, or you are a liar.

*Which it is? Small vocabulary or dishonest prick?




Again you attempt to attack me rather than back up your "superior" knowledge of nuclear weapons programs with evidence... Strange how it is YOUR statement that has no evidence, yet I am supposedly the one lying, is this what makes your debate skills "elite"?
Click to expand...

Are you seriously rejecting that Syria, North Korea and Iran are using their programs for nuclear weapons? You once again lied about my position. I never said that all of them were. Just some. Look the two words you either do not understand or you are being a dishonest hack about because you know if you admitted it, you'd have to admit you were wrong. Which we all know you lack the maturity to do so. You lied about what I said by asking for evidence about all of your named countries. I never said all of them, and I specifically named the ones that were.

So, do you reject that Syria, North Korea and Iran are using their programs for nuclear weapons? Or are you unable to answer simple questions?



I actually asked you to clarify YOUR implication here notice the EXACT wording you used ... no where except above did you say the nuclear imports were power so exactly who is being incoherent in their statements?
Click to expand...

Maybe you are an ELS user. Importing nuclear power is the same as importing nuclear plants in this context. It's really sad that you're attempting this semantic tactic as you have nothing else. Maybe you really don't know what the words "some" and "large" mean?

I do not need to admit to you I am wrong
Click to expand...

Well, for your own maturity you should, but considering your posts, that ain't going to happen as you don't have any. You made the asinine argument that green tech doesn't work by citing countries doing both. To which you are now trying to change the subject away. You still look incredibly foolish for citing countries engaging in both as proof that green doesn't work. And your reliance upon lying about what I said when it's painfully clear I never argued what you claimed just further annihilates whatever shred of credibility you ever had here.

but if I am you sure are inept at pointing errors out, but it appears very good at attempting to insult and ridicule others.
Click to expand...

You are the one lying about what I said.
You are the one trying to change the focus off your idiotic argument.
You are the one trying to weasel out of admitting that North Korea, Iran and Syria are using nuclear power for weapons.

I'm citing specific points where you are being dishonest or wrong. You offer nothing but general baseless accusations against me without any rebuttal of my points. Who's winning here again?

You have yet to refute anything I said.

These traits are not "superior" debating skills unless you are using Alinsky's rules of debate, and even then it does nothing to prove you know anything more than anyone else on a subject.
Click to expand...

I know far more than you do. Well, at least I can Google search better then you. Seriously, are you that lazy you can't even run a simple search?

As for being a fool it would appear that when one intentionally ignores the lack of efficiency and economic sustainability of "green" energy over tried and true technology such as coal & nuclear then I can see how an ignorant fool would believe that others were actually the fool.
Click to expand...

And there we see the fallacy of not only raising the bar, but changing the subject. And you are once again lying.

No one was discussing the efficiency of green power vs fossil. You just added that now. To say I intentionally ignored it when it wasn't even a discussion item is pretty absurd. Seriously dude, do you even know what honesty even means? God I hope you don't have kids, they're going to grow up under your parenting to be pretty immoral people. Furthermore, you have yet to address the economic inefficiencies of nuclear itself. You are running away from addressing the issue of financing.

I guess you want to be in the running for most dishonest hack here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom