Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Reply to thread

Message

He is currently running ahead in the polls. Were it a horse race, I'd be betting on Obama just now.

Yes, that is correct. Of course, the Democrats do exactly the same thing. It is dirty politics, in other words, business as usual in Washington.

You get your scientific and political ideas by watching the Simpsons?

(c'mon, we need some laughing smilies on this forum. Just imagine my mirth.)

I'm for whatever is most practical and can give us the most bang for the buck. We produce a lot of hydro power here in California, and would doubtless build more plants if God would only grant us more rivers. Geo thermal works well in Iceland, which has an unusually large number of geologically active sites. I'm just imagining the outcry should a serious proposal be made to tap geo thermal power in Yellowstone NP. Nuclear is proven technology. Solar is becoming cheaper and more practical. Wind is producing where there is a steady supply of wind. Tides and wave action are possibilities, once the technology is developed.

I agree that we need to get off of oil, especially imported oil as quickly as is practical.
Why ignore any of it?

<blockquote data-quote="PLC1" data-source="post: 43245" data-attributes="member: 301">He is currently running ahead in the polls.&nbsp; Were it a horse race, I&#039;d be betting on Obama just now.Yes, that is correct.&nbsp; Of course, the Democrats do exactly the same thing.&nbsp; It is dirty politics, in other words, business as usual in Washington.You get your scientific and political ideas by watching the Simpsons?(c&#039;mon, we need some laughing smilies on this forum.&nbsp; Just imagine my mirth.)I&#039;m for whatever is most practical and can give us the most bang for the buck.&nbsp; We produce a lot of hydro power here in California, and would doubtless build more plants if God would only grant us more rivers.&nbsp; Geo thermal works well in Iceland, which has an unusually large number of geologically active sites.&nbsp; I&#039;m just imagining the outcry should a serious proposal be made to tap geo thermal power in Yellowstone NP.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f631.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":eek:" title="Eek!&nbsp; &nbsp; :eek:"&nbsp; data-smilie="9"data-shortname=":eek:" />&nbsp; Nuclear is proven technology.&nbsp; Solar is becoming cheaper and more practical.&nbsp; Wind is producing where there is a steady supply of wind.&nbsp; Tides and wave action are possibilities, once the technology is developed.I agree that we need to get off of oil, especially imported oil as quickly as is practical.Why ignore any of it?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="PLC1, post: 43245, member: 301"] He is currently running ahead in the polls. Were it a horse race, I'd be betting on Obama just now. Yes, that is correct. Of course, the Democrats do exactly the same thing. It is dirty politics, in other words, business as usual in Washington. You get your scientific and political ideas by watching the Simpsons? (c'mon, we need some laughing smilies on this forum. Just imagine my mirth.) I'm for whatever is most practical and can give us the most bang for the buck. We produce a lot of hydro power here in California, and would doubtless build more plants if God would only grant us more rivers. Geo thermal works well in Iceland, which has an unusually large number of geologically active sites. I'm just imagining the outcry should a serious proposal be made to tap geo thermal power in Yellowstone NP.:eek: Nuclear is proven technology. Solar is becoming cheaper and more practical. Wind is producing where there is a steady supply of wind. Tides and wave action are possibilities, once the technology is developed. I agree that we need to get off of oil, especially imported oil as quickly as is [B]practical[/B]. Why ignore any of it? [/QUOTE]

Verification