Re: Is Wind Power Worth It?

krw <krw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:MPG.22fad0cdc2009087989f33@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

In article <CfOdnaQqFu8iPg3VnZ2dnUVZ_ovinZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
me@xxxxxxxxxx says...
Jim Yanik <jyanik@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:Xns9AEABED9C2463jyanikkuanet@ 64.209.0.85:

Kris Krieger <me@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:iZSdnSpMHNpa4xLVnZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:

Jim Yanik <jyanik@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:Xns9AEA93C25FB01jyanikkuanet@xxxxxxxxxxx:

Kris Krieger <me@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:fOednQq7WOIy0xLVnZ2dnUVZ_tfinZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:

Jim Yanik <jyanik@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:Xns9AEA6BE0B8C48jyanikkuanet@xxxxxxxxxxx:

Bit Farmer <bit.farmer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:qJSdncNBnbd9tRLVnZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:

Jim Yanik wrote:
krw <krw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:MPG.22f6c2f85cb7cab7989f1c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

In article <Xns9AE764F746B51jyanikkuanet@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
jyanik@xxxxxxxxx says...
James Arthur <bogusabdsqy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:PYyik.46$iM5.0@trnddc07:

Jim Yanik wrote:
James Arthur wrote:


T. Boone Pickens has a point--$700 billion flowing out
of the country every year to buy oil would be awfully
nice to keep here.
well,maybe we should be producing our OWN petro sources.
BTW,I've read that in some places it took only TWO years
to begin oil production.
This "10 years" factoid bandied about is IMO,an attempt
to discourage,maybe a worst-case estimate.

Related, funny: NozzleRage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSaZ5v1eW5I

Cheers,
James Arthur

read this about Pickens and his energy proposal;

Junk Science: Is T. Boone 'Swiftboating' America?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,390821,00.html
Yep, I know T. Boone has a bunch of wind investments and
is pushing things in his interest. Ditto for natural gas.

And most of our oil comes from Canada and Mexico, not
the Middle East.

It's still true, though, that if we used the stuff
more effectively it'd save us a bunch of money, which
couldn't be bad.


Cheers,
James Arthur

sure,but that has to be people's choice,not the
government's. Let the market determine supply,not the
gov't. Blocking US oil production is criminal.(and
unpatriotic)
Are you questioning the patriotism of Democrats? <gasp!>

IMO,DemocRATs have more concern for World Government than any
patriotism for the US.
It appears they are dedicated to tearing down the
US,destroying the Constitution and the concept of "written
law".


The actual problem with the Democrats is that they have no
spine, are unwilling to stand up for what the base of the
party wishes. The Democractic Senators and Representatives are
drinking from the same well of money interests that the
Republicans do. Until we limit the influence of lobbyists,

Translation;
limit free speech and the Constitutional right to petition the
government.

What do lobbyists have to do with either? The problem isn't
with what they say, the problem is in the marginal legality of
their financial influence.


"lobbyists" are people representing a group of other
people,pooling their resources.


WHich is fine until gifts of various sorts become bribes.

We have laws concerning bribes and gifts.

Lobbyists
have huge amounts of money at their disposal, and between that,
and the power held by large corporations, they have *far* greater
access to politicians than does someone with barely enough to
cover his stay at the local budget hotel. If some politician has
a change to be wined'n'dined at an elegant five-star restaurant in
an exclusive area of town, do you seriously think such an offer
would be turned donw in favor of having a chili dog with someone
representing a bunch of peons, or *worse*, going "Dutch"?

Money is power - andyoen whose ever functioned in the real world
or business and politics, or has at all studied politics and
government, knows that. And lobbyists have a lot of money at
their disposal which they can use to influence political decisions
that affect everybody. It'd be one thing is aeveryone who sought
to petition the gov.t was doing so from a level playing field, but
they're not - more money = more access
= more influence over political decisions.




so,to 'save' the People,you would cut off their access to the
representatives.

You are the one cheering the notion that wealth should be required
for access. I'm the one saying that politicians should be equally
willing to meet with "average Joe" constituents, and representatives
thereof, over a chili dog.So, jsut who is it who is militating to cut
the People off from access to their representatives?

No, wealth would be required if you had to personally live in
Washington to petition your representatives. Lobbyists allow a
group (say the Sierra Club) to collectively hire someone to
represent their views.

Oh, nice pull at the heartstrings to try to confuse the issue with
emotionalism, Bravo.

A lot of politicians, including both presidential candidates, have been
expressing concern over the influence of lobbyists with huge amounts of
money at their disposal.


You would diminish the People's access while not affecting the
elites access.

?!?!

That is so astoundingly and pathetically *backasswards* from what I
said, that I can only conclude you're deliberately trolling.

It is *exactly* what you said. You may not realize it, but...

No, it isn't.

It's quoted right above:
"lobbyists" are people representing a group of other
people,pooling their resources.


WHich is fine until gifts of various sorts become bribes.

THe influence is also subtler, but I've been assuming tht most people
here have a general awareness of politics and issues - maybe that's an
incorrect assumption on my part, but I go by it in order to save at least
*some* bandwidth.

One issue of major concern is the influence of lobbyists.


doesn't sound very democratic nor very smart.

You're the one with the reading-comprehension problem.

No, you haven't thought your asinine position through.

As above. If its asinine to be concerned that more money equates to both
more political access,a nd more political influence, then at least I have
one honking huge hell of a lot of company.


.

Loading