September 13, 2011 by Richard A. Kessler in Recharge News
If elected US president, Republican candidate Mitt Romney would end federal government support for the solar and wind industries, and curtail the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA's) “reckless regulatory behaviour” and “war on carbon
Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, is touting his 35 years in the public and private sectors as giving him the right background to turn around the country’s stagnant economy and cut its dependence on foreign oil.
In “Believe in America,” his 88-page plan for economic growth and jobs, Romney is critical of Obama’s policies that promote renewable energy and green jobs, claiming they are distorting the free market.
More...
29 comments:
For crying out loud, lets get behind Romney's run for the Presidency. He's the only one that has shown any leadership that I know of about this rip off by big business. Let democracy work!
I'm not sure Mitt Romney is committed to his rhetoric. Looking at Spain's own financial changes tells the story best. They realize that solar and wind are inefficient and require huge subsidies, and each job created costs far more than the revenues can justify. It's not hard to get on that band wagon. With people such as those promoting the benefits of wind energy and their propaganda, and spreading the subsidies around like free candy which it is,it's also easy to see why even a small town gets caught up in the controversy. Frankly, I see Romney a political opportunist not fully committed to the ideals. He failed miserably in Massachusetts,even among a strong conservative base. Take a state where education is one of the top industries,, such as MIT, and wind power is looked upon as it is in Cape Vincent at the moment and put those two together. Then, ask why Mitt Romney failed so miserably. He really has no substance. Then again, neither did John Kerry, among others.
I stick to my initial assumption that wind power must fail to continue the stranglehold oil companies have on the economy and the military support in enjoys for free. You can't justify a military budget to protect wind energy. Romney promotes drilling in Alaska, which is their environmental issue. It's simply convenient that windpower is so economically inefficient that it's seen as as such, but look at the cost of oil in comparison. Also, and this is a very serious point, Afghanistan opium isn't blown in on the wind either. So, as far as I'm concerned , any candidate who stands there and promotes either doesn't get my vote. Take a look; http://www.youtube.com
watch?v=UM3mmLEPKgA
The US sits on 65% of the world's natural gas. This was revealed many years ago, and it sits right in the Northeast region of the US. One of the richest men in the world drives a VW converted to NG. At the time he told this story, it was costing him about $1.14 to the equivalent to a gallon of gas. The emissions are water vapor. Water vapor can be recirculated into an engine which actually increases horsepower and the engine runs cooler as well. Solar powered EV vehicles are popular in California, and GM crushed (literally) that project some years ago because ot was such a huge success the top 3 auto companies were pressured by the oil companies to trash the project. Then, after GM claimed a huge bail out package it revived the project under the guise of "research and development" taking another huge tax write off.
Also, They designed hybrid cars rather than EV vehicles to assuage oil companies. Turbo vehicles are actually more fuel efficient as well, and turbos have been around a very long time. Alos, the first vehicle Mercedes ever designed was electric. Ferdinand Porsche contributed to Mercedes engineering as well. Put the military industrial complex to work building cars. Absurd? Mitzubishi got its technology from Boeing. Porsche designed tanks. GE builds jet engines, or turbines. Why fight so hard to keep oil our slave master? Why is war over oil not seen as the worst waste of human life and money? They hide behind the flag and controlled diatribe. It's time for a new breed of leader in the world.
"Hyannis, MA (September 14, 2011) –The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound and the Town of Barnstable, which owns the Barnstable Municipal Airport located on Cape Cod, will appear today before the United States Court of Appeals to appeal a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) decision that ignores the significant hazards to air travel in Nantucket Sound created by Cape Wind’s proposed 130 turbines. At 440 feet tall and covering an area the size of Manhattan, the turbines would severely hamper aviation and endanger passenger safety.“Cape Wind puts profits before public safety,” said Audra Parker, president and CEO of The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound. “The FAA has failed to take into account substantial evidence indicating the enormous safety risks to pilots and passengers in the 400,000 flights per year that fly over Nantucket Sound.”
The appeal states that the FAA acted in an “arbitrary and capricious manner” by ignoring evidence submitted demonstrating that the wind turbines would in fact create a hazard to aviation and cause interfere with radar facilities used by air traffic control, failing to consider the cumulative effects of the turbines in Nantucket Sound, and exceeding its own authority.
“Our first responsibility is to the safety of our residents and visitors,” said Charlie McLaughlin, assistant Barnstable town attorney. “Airspace over Nantucket Sound is unique due to its heavy volume of low altitude flights concentrated in the summer season and in an area of frequent fog and rapidly changing weather. As a result this project poses a hazard to passenger safety and the economic health of the region.”
The FAA ruling poses an inherent safety risk by placing a large industrial facility in the middle of frequently used airspace, forcing flights to significantly alter their regular course and altitude, requiring changes to existing flight patterns, limiting the capacity and efficiency of nearby airports, and interfering with the operation of existing FAA radar facilities."
So, Cape Vincent isn't the only Cape dealing with this issue.
Currently, many govt leaders that are supposed to be representing and protecting citizens are serving special interests. Perhaps laws should be changed to forbid former government employees to work as lobbyists when they leave govt service. So many go to work as lobbyists after govt service, what does it benefit them to protect the citizens? It seems we are all being sold out to the highest bidder on a national level. The presidential candidates I see running are all so full of hypocrisy it is sickening.
I wonder how many people see candidates such as Ron Paul in debates, or interviews. Hands down, he says it like it is. I believe he believes what he says. To me, Romney is political babble, then again, I don't like Palin, the Tea party, the GOP or the Democratic party in general, Ron Paul is consistent and reasonable when it comes to the mainstream diatribe which is so well controlled by the media. Money is the root cause of political evil, and always has been. Try this and see what you think; http://www.youtube.com
watch?v=IY53jfitdSM
I think someone like Donald Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney epitomized the revolving door problem , and it was at the highest level of politics. Rumsfeld's main feat was getting Aspartame passed for Searle industries as he sat on the FDA and CEO at the same time. Goldman Sachs runs the Federal Reserve, and simply dumped the US Treasury into their own banks. Cheney's Haliburton took billions out of the war budget for both Iraq and Afghanistan and was part of the Walter Reed scandal where $300 million simply disappeared. $300 BILLION disappeared in a single shipment of cash under Rumsfeld's watch. When asked, he simply said there were more important issues. What do they care? They take the money and simply charge it to your children and your grandchildren's future.Ron Paul at least recognizes these things and also wants all National Guard veterans to get full benefits for "part time" service in two wars.
Ah yes, the commentor says Ron Paul says it like it is. His son that is a Doctor also says it like it is....that is, if you are poor, do not have medical insurance, just die and decrease the surplus population. And, if Ron Paul or his son were on the road to Damascus rather than the good Samaritan, the injured man would have died where he lay. It is good to be careful what you wish for. Many elderly will lose their assisted medical care if many running for office have their way. So....if you need medical care, sucks to be you. In other words "let them eat cake" and we know what happened next.
There's no lack of medical care. I think the scare tactics of lobbyists for "Pharms" and insurance companies are very effective. People are already dying who have health insurance. The cost of medical care was driven by the insurance companies and the pharmaceuticals. Millions go into lobbying politicians and propaganda against progressive health care reforms. Stop repeating what they tell you and listen to the other side of the argument. When I see the opinions of the Rush Limbaugh crowd here take over here on Pandora, that will be the end of Pandora's Box. Trust me. There is also another old Jewish expression. If you aren't getting where you want to go in life, turn around and walk in the opposite direction. I was born in the House of the Good Samaritan. If I find myself on the "Road to Damascus" I'd have to ask how the hell I got in the middle of a frikkin desert in the first place. Sorry, just not buying the argument.
The debate over "Let him Die" wasn't about factual events. It was a hypothetical from Wolf Blitzer. Yeah, he's a real liberal, you think? Bush's closest propagandist. The hypothetical was a guy who could afford health care didn't bother getting any insurance. If I didn't have any I wouldn't be sitting here writing this.As Bob Dole once said "I'd be at the mercy of that God forsaken Veteran's hospital." Aslo, Ron Paul went on to say that people with ne health care insurance don't get turned away any where near the way thise with insurance do. He was drowned out by an audience who was perfectly tuned to do exactly that in response to Blitzer's perfectly orchestrated question. Bring down the profit structure in health care. Those profits are going into very wealthy pockets and the cost of research and health care is paid for by the taxpayer anyway. Ron Paul was comparing the cost of subsidizing health care to the cost of anything else that was subsidized. Like wind farms, maybe? Subsidies go into political pockets.
Doesn't Ron Paul want to legalize marjuana also?
"Anonymous Anonymous said... Doesn't Ron Paul want to legalize marjuana also?" September 15, 2011 7:29 PM
And your point? From what I read in independent new reports, the GOP crowd is into some pretty kinky stuff. Oh yeah, and it's spelled WEED, HERB, Ganja, smoke, doobie, mj, and marijuana. Sweet Jane. Sweet Sweet Jane. And so many others. I hear Cape Vincent has some "madness" of its own. MAYBE even YOU !!! haha I hear it's harvest time. Gotta go.
Lou Reed or the Cowboy Junkies? Which version of Sweet Jane was the best? Now that's what I call a topic of discussion. If Ron Paul gets up and sings Sweet Jane, he gets my vote. OK, Masons? Now, hit the bricks.
What other candidate would chance political suicide by suggesting people take responsibility for themselves? "I'll ponder that question over a bottle of whiskey and a pack of cigarettes. They tell me at the EMERGENCY ROOM I should quit both. Hey,I have my rights." There, you got your quotation marks for a change.
Reference my question about whether Ron Paul was interested in legalizing marijuana. I feel it is a valid question in light of money spent in law enforcment for crimes relating to it. And, I do not smoke and I am an independent voter. Arent you a little touchy, or are you off your meds???
September 15, 2011 11:27 PM
First, you take no position actually. The "war on drugs" is a farce and so is the "war on terror". Whether Ron Paul or for or against legalization makes no difference to me. Marijuana is continuously being decriminalized and I don't see it a s big national issue. GWB had plenty of people thrown in prison for possession, but then he gave us the "war on terror". By your cliche' remarks, I still say you're a phony. The "meds" thing is a tiny clue. You don't present an argument, you simply ask a question. The whole issue regarding marijuana has been the waste of taxpayer's money and the attacks on civil liberties as a result. The same with the "war on terror". The CIA is accused of being responsible for both bringing drugs into the country and the creation of Osama Bin Laden. You, however, say nothing in the form of an opinion. Then expect others to be defensive over your mindless attack.As I've said to others just like you. Take your own meds, and wear your own "tin foil hat" . No thanks, I'll keep what I have. A question is neither a comment or an opinion. Your attack , however, is. Try again.
The reference to "Reefer madness" must have slipped by someone. Ron paul referred to the 1937 creation of Henslinger's bureaucracy. The same thing that started it is still going on. Almost all Mexican workers smoked it. Henslinger siad at that time it was a stupid idea, but millions of dollars poured into the law enforcement against a "weed" and created the endless war on drugs that has both funded a black government and taken away many civil liberties. I agree with Ron Paul's comments 100%. Just because the media tells me to think otherwise makes me thing some people buy into the same old propaganda ministry. There was another film simply called "MARIJUANA" which was even more absurd than Reefer Madness. Seriously, those who believe this is anything more than a propagandist attack on Ron Paul is living in the DEPRESSION. A depression started by the same banks that started the first one. Marijuana didn't force people into sub-prime loans. They were tricked into them by hyperbole created by the financial industry. The same way that landowners were tricked into these "leases". Really, try another attack.
I have yet to hear anything from Ron paul with which I disagree, like it or not. I suppose if I were to take "meds" and wear a "tin foil hat" I could reduce my 175 IQ to that of those who would attack me. To those who understand what I say in my comments, you are not alone in the world. Don't let these morons keep you quiet. In the great words of their talk show friends and great friend Bill O'Reilly,,, just tell them to SHUT UP. They live in the past where everyone is supposed to act like they do.
"Russian national debt lowest of all G20 countries 15/11/2008
A British paper put Russia's debt at $76 billion - less than 1% of the United States' $8.4 trillion. As a percentage of gross domestic product, Moscow's situation is not quite as rosy, but George Bush would probably take a national debt running at 6% rather than 60% of GDP."
This was in 2008. Our debt not is closer to TEN TRILLION $$. Russia was bankrupted by military spending. The US outspent every other country combined and we still support most of them with military aid. The Federal Reserve, which holds about half of that debt is owned by Goldman/Sachs and Britain's Rotchchild family. Keeping Americans in debt was the key in overthrowing the government itself by the banks. As stated in the New American Century by the CFR's Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Haas, spending was the "end run" around our own sovereignty. Maybe that's wht all we see are Global Multinationals taking over all of our industries, and our Town Governments.
For the record, those that are stating I am a phony and attacking Ron Paul, I am not. Although I would not vote for him simply because he is too damn old. I believe both of you are misconstruing my comment. Quite frankly, I think all drugs should just be legalized and strict enforcement for those that wish to drive or commit crimes under influence, whether it be alcohol, pot, cocaine or whatever. Give sterile needles, cut down on aids, etc. If you want an opinion, that is mine. I hardly think asking a question about what a candidate believes or wants to do is a mindless attack. And ref you IQ since I test at genius level, I find your comprehension level startling low.
Whoever uses phrases such as "are you off your meds" isn't likely "genius level" when all you can do is attack. Finally, what difference does it make how old a person is? My dentist is 94 and he does better work than any dentist I've ever had. Ron paul has always spoken the truth. I'd elect Noam Chomsky if he ran. We had a "genius" running the country. That's how we got where we are. I worry about anyone who focuses on "clean needles and aids" as their main topic of discussion. Willaim s Burroughs was a genius, but he was also the favorite author of junkies. "A mind is a terrible thing to waste." Besides, it all depends on what intelligence you consume, not the IQ itself. Think of it as a big old trash bag. Some are filled with trash, and some are just used as cheap luggage. Being a Scot, I go with the cheap luggage. Instead of using sterile needles? Don't use needles. That's probably what Ron Paul,you know, the doctor, would tell you. I can see why you think you're brilliant. You're taking your "meds". No thanks.
IQ Range Classification
140 and over Genius or near genius
120-140 Very superior intelligence
110-120 Superior intelligence
90-110 Normal or average intelligence
80-90 Dullness
70-80 Borderline deficiency
Below 70 Definite feeble-mindedness
Noam Chomsky is a linguistics professor at MIT. I asked him about IQ. He explained it as such; " Two sisters are pregnant. Which one is more pregnant?"
If anything, these blogs and comments just prove, people are not so different after all. People from all walks of life love argument. Most of us must not be that interesting or we would not be on this website.
2:35 , You're right. People will agree on some things, and will work together to solve problems. After that, they will return to their differences. Argument is good. I like the French translation, and the pronunciation. My own talents lay in math. Understanding the basic concepts of the square root can apply to many things.
Most calculations are done with at least two factors.Each additional factor squares the calculation, or the variables. Apply that to humans an the variables are endless. If people are going to argue they have to add something that is unknown to the calculation. In engineering the most popular phrase is, "there are no problems, there are only solutions."
It's also a world where theory is welcome and rhetoric is disregarded. One interesting thing I learned was the difference between a professional and an academic. One shouldn't be confused with the other. The proof is in the outcome. How you get there has no strict rules, just the ability to adapt.
5:20AM You still didn't add anything to prove your point. try to add something useful, OK? Wanna know why you weren't comprehended? You didn't say anything. Try " I don't like Ron Paul because he's old" in your initial statement rather than " Doesn't he want to legalize mariuana". Or was that someone else who made no real comment? If you're going to enter a debate, try to at least contribute something.William F. Buckley was a conservative, but he wasn't a neo-con. He said something once that said it all. "All of the world's problems truly are related to drugs". He was no a capricious speaker, and he even had a real conversation with Noam Chomsky where he actually agreed with one of his statements. If you suggest that the problems with drugs are the profits and the corruption the money fuels in global government, then you are in agreement with Buckley's remark. That's what he meant.
arseromIf I throw a tennis ball 100 feet and my Golden Retriever fetches it in 30 seconds while my cat just lays there and licks itself, the calculation is dog=100, cat=0 making the dog 100 times smarter than the cat. Both cats and dogs eat mice. Both lick themselves. Both starve for attention. So, why is one so much dumber than the other? Oh, and I'm tired of the dog stealing the cat food. As soon as I put it on the floor, the dog gets it.
Thank you Anonymous 11:28 AM for enlightening me. Now I know why my rock hard Scot loves me, his cheap luggage, my best med ever.
To 7:23 PM. I've been told a few times that a rock hard Scot is the best medicine. Lot to be said for cheap luggage. Nothing like a stubborn Scot to get the job done. Tenacity. If a man walks into a bar and says his name is Bounty, you'd probably get the joke. Bottoms up.
Oh yeah, this was about Romney. He was thrown out of Massachusetts. Like it or not, Mass. has a very high per-capita educated population. William Weld found that out quickly enough. let's say 20 million people actually liked GWB. Sounds like a lot? That's not even ten percent of the population. More like 5% at this point. Out of all the people registered to vote, only 37% voted. Whether more than half that number actually voted for Bush is still highly debated. Take away the rhetoric like seen and heard on FOX and Rush Loud Mouth Limbaugh, and look at the facts that 200 paid lobbyists were allowed to stop the recount in Florida with the help of Bush's Brother, his State Att'y General who was on his re-election committee, the same in Ohio where the Governor was also on his re-election committee and what you have is an entirely illegitimate government. Throw in the fact he walked away just before BP and all the banks were bailed out by his current lackey in the White House.
There is only one candidate who tells it like it is, and those who hang onto the lies don't want him in charge.Too bad. Don't even complain about anything while at the same time praising Bush for what he did to the country. Mainstream media may let you out shout the opposition, but the day is coming when you will be out shouted. I think it's commendable that party lines are irrelevant when it comes to important issues. That's how democracy is supposed to work. So, as long as Ron Paul is the only one telling it like it is, he has my vote. All the rest are telling it the way they want you to hear it.
Post a Comment