Yet another Hidden Audio: Obama Tells SF Chronicle He Will Bankrupt Coal Industry
Comments
-
And yeah, I guess I just made up Obama's own words on audio. I imitate his voice really well.
more rolling eyes. can we stay on topic now?0 -
prytoj wrote:jimed just a spinnin'. no facts, no balance. just wants to make the argument that will support his own view.
more eyes rolling.
I answered your copy/paste post ... you didn't respond. You went off topic.
It seems to be your M.O. ... you start a thread with a copy paste, no real thoughts of your own ... then people post rebuttles ... you take the thread somewhere else, then, accuse others of going off topic.
You had the assinine post about San Francisco, and your brother in law's not so tollerant comments ("fags", really? are you in high school?) ... pretty stunning when you then go on to discuss your brother.
Oh, and you may want to check out Cali's state legislature again, you got the numbers wrong during another off topic post of your own.
But again, my first post in this thread stands, unanswered by you."You're one of the few Red Sox fans I don't mind." - Newch91
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez0 -
The OP neglected to post the entire message.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/11/republicans-to.html
Republicans to Try Burning Obama on Coal
November 02, 2008 3:23 PM
“I’m calling on behalf of John McCain and the RNC to tell you that coal jobs, which are so important to our community are in jeopardy,” says the robocall being made to voters in Pennsylvania and Ohio, among other coal-producing states.
Continues the robocall: “Listen to Barack Obama's plans to bankrupt the coal industry.”
The call then plays this quote from Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.: "So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.”
You can listen to the robocall HERE.
The quote comes from a January 2008 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle; the Obama campaign says the quote is being “wildly” taken out of context, that in the full interview Obama praises coal and says that the idea of eliminating coal is “an illusion.”
“The line they pulled out is in the context of cap and trade program,” says an Obama spokesperson. “The point Obama is making is that we need to transition from coal burning power plants built with old technology to plants built with advanced technologies -- and that is exactly the action that will be incentivized under a cap and trade program.”
Is it being taken unfairly out of context? You be the judge. Here’s the entirety of Obama’s remarks:
“I voted against the Clear Skies Bill. In fact, I was the deciding vote -- despite the fact that I’m a coal state and that half my state thought that I had thoroughly betrayed them. Because I think clean air is critical and global warming is critical.
“But this notion of no coal, I think, is an illusion. Because the fact of the matter is, is that right now we are getting a lot of our energy from coal. And China is building a coal-powered plant once a week. So what we have to do then is figure out how can we use coal without emitting greenhouse gases and carbon. And how can we sequester that carbon and capture it. If we can’t, then we’re gonna still be working on alternatives.
“But ... let me sort of describe my overall policy. What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade policy in place that is as aggressive if not more aggressive than anyone out there. I was the first call for 100 percent auction on the cap and trade system. Which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases that was emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants are being built, they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted-down caps that are imposed every year.
“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted. That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel, and other alternative energy approaches. The only thing that I’ve said with respect to coal -- I haven’t been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as an ideological matter, as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it, that I think is the right approach. The same with respect to nuclear. Right now, we don’t know how to store nuclear waste wisely and we don’t know how to deal with some of the safety issues that remain. And so it’s wildly expensive to pursue nuclear energy. But I tell you what, if we could figure out how to store it safely, then I think most of us would say that might be a pretty good deal.
“The point is, if we set rigorous standards for the allowable emissions, then we can allow the market to determine and technology and entrepreneurs to pursue, what the best approach is to take, as opposed to us saying at the outset, here are the winners that we’re picking and maybe we pick wrong and maybe we pick right.”
-- jpt"I'd rather be with an animal." "Those that can be trusted can change their mind." "The in between is mine." "If I don't lose control, explore and not explode, a preternatural other plane with the power to maintain." "Yeh this is living." "Life is what you make it."0 -
I did answer. I refer you and Open (whom I will no longer respond to, so don't bother), to the statement the man himself made. This should sufficiently answer the question, if you care to read the words and think for yourself. It's not about agreeing with every position your candidate takes, it's about the big picture.0
-
prytoj wrote:I did answer. I refer you and Open (whom I will no longer respond to, so don't bother), to the statement the man himself made. This should sufficiently answer the question, if you care to read the words and think for yourself. It's not about agreeing with every position your candidate takes, it's about the big picture.
yes the big picture ... as in, read wolfbear's post."You're one of the few Red Sox fans I don't mind." - Newch91
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez0 -
wolfbear wrote:The OP neglected to post the entire message.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/11/republicans-to.html
Republicans to Try Burning Obama on Coal
November 02, 2008 3:23 PM
“I’m calling on behalf of John McCain and the RNC to tell you that coal jobs, which are so important to our community are in jeopardy,” says the robocall being made to voters in Pennsylvania and Ohio, among other coal-producing states.
Continues the robocall: “Listen to Barack Obama's plans to bankrupt the coal industry.”
The call then plays this quote from Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.: "So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.”
You can listen to the robocall HERE.
The quote comes from a January 2008 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle; the Obama campaign says the quote is being “wildly” taken out of context, that in the full interview Obama praises coal and says that the idea of eliminating coal is “an illusion.”
“The line they pulled out is in the context of cap and trade program,” says an Obama spokesperson. “The point Obama is making is that we need to transition from coal burning power plants built with old technology to plants built with advanced technologies -- and that is exactly the action that will be incentivized under a cap and trade program.”
Is it being taken unfairly out of context? You be the judge. Here’s the entirety of Obama’s remarks:
“I voted against the Clear Skies Bill. In fact, I was the deciding vote -- despite the fact that I’m a coal state and that half my state thought that I had thoroughly betrayed them. Because I think clean air is critical and global warming is critical.
“But this notion of no coal, I think, is an illusion. Because the fact of the matter is, is that right now we are getting a lot of our energy from coal. And China is building a coal-powered plant once a week. So what we have to do then is figure out how can we use coal without emitting greenhouse gases and carbon. And how can we sequester that carbon and capture it. If we can’t, then we’re gonna still be working on alternatives.
“But ... let me sort of describe my overall policy. What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade policy in place that is as aggressive if not more aggressive than anyone out there. I was the first call for 100 percent auction on the cap and trade system. Which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases that was emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants are being built, they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted-down caps that are imposed every year.
“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted. That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel, and other alternative energy approaches. The only thing that I’ve said with respect to coal -- I haven’t been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as an ideological matter, as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it, that I think is the right approach. The same with respect to nuclear. Right now, we don’t know how to store nuclear waste wisely and we don’t know how to deal with some of the safety issues that remain. And so it’s wildly expensive to pursue nuclear energy. But I tell you what, if we could figure out how to store it safely, then I think most of us would say that might be a pretty good deal.
“The point is, if we set rigorous standards for the allowable emissions, then we can allow the market to determine and technology and entrepreneurs to pursue, what the best approach is to take, as opposed to us saying at the outset, here are the winners that we’re picking and maybe we pick wrong and maybe we pick right.”
-- jpt
the first thing I did was point out cap and trade, if you refer to the original post. Thanks for the whole thing, I posted what I could find in it's entirety. And the added paragraphs DO NOT change the context, but rather enforces it.
The technology is being developed right now to capture carbon and other greenhouse gases, and feeding those gases to algae. This interface will produce biofuel as a byproduct. My argument is there is no need to impose governement taxes and penalties for greenhouse emissions when the private sector so close to turning those emissions into a benefit all by itself.
Gub'ment, get out the way.0 -
prytoj wrote:I did answer. I refer you and Open (whom I will no longer respond to, so don't bother), to the statement the man himself made. This should sufficiently answer the question, if you care to read the words and think for yourself. It's not about agreeing with every position your candidate takes, it's about the big picture.
So you cant answer the question, thank you...0 -
jimed14 wrote:I answered your copy/paste post ... you didn't respond. You went off topic.
It seems to be your M.O. ... you start a thread with a copy paste, no real thoughts of your own ... then people post rebuttles ... you take the thread somewhere else, then, accuse others of going off topic.
You had the assinine post about San Francisco, and your brother in law's not so tollerant comments ("fags", really? are you in high school?) ... pretty stunning when you then go on to discuss your brother.
Oh, and you may want to check out Cali's state legislature again, you got the numbers wrong during another off topic post of your own.
But again, my first post in this thread stands, unanswered by you.
what is it, 5 republicans? why don't you clarify it for me smart guy? what's the actual number of all state reps, and how many are republicans?
riiiiiight. sorry I was a little off.0 -
prytoj wrote:
Gub'ment, get out the way.
The only thing I don't understand about this is that there is this overall feeling that government needs to be completely and entirely removed from this monumental and urgent process, and there's very little precedent of that in the 20th century. With the help of government, there was a New Deal. With the help of government, there was an Apollo program and a man on the moon. A rapid move towards energy independence would likely dwarf even those two challenges in scope and importance. All the more recent for government to not necessarily take control, but aid as opposed to hinder. Complete government removal would not have aided either of those two endeavors; do you think we would have created the technology to get a man to the moon and return him safely in less time if the government had been completely uninvolved? Why isn't that type of national commitment, and that semblance of government involvement, welcome in the attempt to become energy independent with alternative energy sources? We've been talking about becoming energy independent for over thirty years, and the private sector has taken baby steps. Let's do it already.0 -
prytoj wrote:what is it, 5 republicans? why don't you clarify it for me smart guy? what's the actual number of all state reps, and how many are republicans?
riiiiiight. sorry I was a little off.
Currently,
State Senate 25D - 15R
State Assembly (House) 48D - 32R
that's more than a little off.
California is pretty conservative in the non coastal regions.
but again, let's stay on topic ... right?"You're one of the few Red Sox fans I don't mind." - Newch91
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez0 -
The New Deal did very little to ease the depression.
United States "welfare" has done nothing to ease poverty. We have more poverty, and more overcrowded jails, and a WORSE school system. (no child left behind sucks too, bush)
Governement does have a legitimate role, and it needs to be payed for by us. You are correct here. The question is, what is the role of government?
The thing is, higher corporate taxes get passed on to the consumer. That's all. If the market will not bear the higher cost, then the business will simply move to an area where they can produce cheaper. It's very simple. The net result is higher prices and fewer jobs. econ 101.0 -
prytoj wrote:The New Deal did very little to ease the depression.
United States "welfare" has done nothing to ease poverty. We have more poverty, and more overcrowded jails, and a WORSE school system. (no child left behind sucks too, bush)
Governement does have a legitimate role, and it needs to be payed for by us. You are correct here. The question is, what is the role of government?
The thing is, higher corporate taxes get passed on to the consumer. That's all. If the market will not bear the higher cost, then the business will simply move to an area where they can produce cheaper. It's very simple. The net result is higher prices and fewer jobs. econ 101.
The New Deal comment is debatable, and I think many economists would dispute it, but I'm willing to forget about that example. What about the space program, then? A national effort with monumental governmental involvement; the question I raised in my earlier is still unanswered. Do you think that the government involvement of the U.S. hindered our race to the moon? Do you think there's any way we would have made it the moon that quickly on the engine of the private sector alone?
If you believe that the answer to that question is "no", then why do you think that similarly substantial government involvement in the development of alternative energy sources and energy independence is unnecessary? Your response to Obama's plans have been "government, get out of the way."0 -
jimed14 wrote:Currently,
State Senate 25D - 15R
State Assembly (House) 48D - 32R
that's more than a little off.
California is pretty conservative in the non coastal regions.
but again, let's stay on topic ... right?
good enough, the point that the house is only slightly dominated by dems (63% and 60% respectively) is well taken. I believe you, but a link would have been helpful.
I exxaggerated.
now for some wife time.0 -
prytoj wrote:good enough, the point that the house is only slightly dominated by dems (63% and 60% respectively) is well taken. I believe you, but a link would have been helpful.
I exxaggerated.
now for some wife time.
A question should be asked can you or should you be believed in anything else you post on here?
Peace*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)0 -
What are the emission standards he wants these companies to meet?
Obviously if it's something attainable then it's a good thing because companies will be forced to utilize the techonology to meet the emission goals.
If the technology doesn't exist yet or is too costly to implement, then there will be a problem."Don't lose your inner heat...ever" - EV 5/13/060 -
Stupid thread
give it upthe Minions0 -
you two are adorable. kinda reminds me alot of the roland and jlew love - hate relationshipprytoj wrote:jimed just a spinnin'. no facts, no balance. just wants to make the argument that will support his own view.
more eyes rolling.
jimed14 will own you everytime because he/she sticks to the facts and doesn't post half links to suit his agenda like you do!0 -
digster wrote:The New Deal comment is debatable, and I think many economists would dispute it, but I'm willing to forget about that example. What about the space program, then? A national effort with monumental governmental involvement; the question I raised in my earlier is still unanswered. Do you think that the government involvement of the U.S. hindered our race to the moon? Do you think there's any way we would have made it the moon that quickly on the engine of the private sector alone?
If you believe that the answer to that question is "no", then why do you think that similarly substantial government involvement in the development of alternative energy sources and energy independence is unnecessary? Your response to Obama's plans have been "government, get out of the way."
What did society forgo to put a man on the moon? Is putting a man on the moon a productive or helpful endeavor?
What will we forgo to pursue arbitrary alternative energy? Will the best energy sources be developed, or will they be squashed by the most politically influential energy entrepreneurs?
Why would we want energy independence?0 -
dmitry wrote:What did society forgo to put a man on the moon? Is putting a man on the moon a productive or helpful endeavor?
What will we forgo to pursue arbitrary alternative energy? Will the best energy sources be developed, or will they be squashed by the most politically influential energy entrepreneurs?
Why would we want energy independence?
Maybe it's just that it's late, but I'm not sure what you're driving at here.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 149K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 278 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help





