Originally Posted by Ethmi

I know what was really said. What I want is transcript and sufficient evidence to prove that Obama had no intentions to bankrupt the coal industry. What I want to know is why you conclude that when Obama bluntly stated that his policies would bankrupt the coal industry. Is that so difficult?

Obama said he would bankrupt those attempting NEW coal fired power stations, not that he would bankrupt the coal industry. New coal is a bad idea and a financial disincentive is perfectly sensible.

Originally Posted by Ethmi

That's not the point.

I think that is EXACTLY the point.
You pop up on that GAY thread, whining about statements made in the ELECTION DEBATES thread, and now you want to insist that the "election debates" thread comments weren't what you were talking about?

Take a look around. These "challenge" threads usually start out with a SPECIFIC ISSUE that involves what the "challenge" regards.
This thread is opened up with the header "elsewhere", and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize what you want to do.
You want to AVOID EXPLICITLY stating what you want this to be about, so you can bounce around all sorts of different comments, abandoning them if they prove inconvenient.
You want to exclusively define the parameters of this debate on the fly.

Originally Posted by Ethmi

Link, please. Trasnscript, please.

I just linked to where I stated that.
Obamas plans for our future energy production
Like I pointed out, YOU ABANDONED THE DISCUSSION.

You've got a really annoying habit of doing that.
Abandoning a discussion, and then later on picking it up while THOROUGHLY MISREPRESENTING what happened in that discussion.
I suspect that's why you want to continue this in the "challengers corner" instead of THE VERY THREAD IT STARTED IN.

Originally Posted by Ethmi

Since you seem to be a big fan of technicalities (as you demonstrated when you accused me of lying for using the term "Osama"),

This is a thoroughly meaningless comment.
A personal dig, as you avoid the point I was making.
It is NOT a "technicality".
There is a difference between being "dishonest" and outright lying.

And furthermore, if you are interested in discussing what you just claimed can you link me to that discussion?
Or can I count on you abandoning THAT claim as well???

Originally Posted by Ethmi

I know what was really said.

No. You don't.
You have demonstrated quite clearly that you CANNOT be trusted with "what was really said" when you accused me of saying that ""All McCain supporters are a bunch of greedy liars, no exceptions."

Originally Posted by Ethmi

What I want is transcript and sufficient evidence to prove that Obama had no intentions to bankrupt the coal industry.

Like I said, you want to dictate the terms of this discussion. And you want to do it SEPARATELY from the already established discussion, so you will be less troubled by what we were ALREADY discussing.
Jo Bennett just gave an excellent response to your complaint. You should start with that.

And if you "want" that, can I say that I want the SAME from McCain, who was advocating SIMILAR RESTRICTIONS upon the coal industry???

Originally Posted by Ethmi

What I want to know is why you conclude that when Obama bluntly stated that his policies would bankrupt the coal industry. Is that so difficult?

How I "conclude" what?
HERE is what Ethmi is responding to...

3) I think this is essentially Ethmi's attempt to whine about me.
If you look at the thread, you'll see that I last responded to Ethmi, and then Ethmi dropped the ball.
If Ethmi has any REAL interest in discussing that issue, then Ethmi should respond to what was said IN that thread.
But I don't think Ethmi has any real interest in that at all ...

I explained WHY I concluded what I concluded in WHAT YOU ACTUALLY RESPONDED TO.

Like I said, you're trying to bounce around and rapidly change the subject in a chaotic manner.

Originally Posted by Jo Bennett

Obama said he would bankrupt those attempting NEW coal fired power stations, not that he would bankrupt the coal industry. New coal is a bad idea and a financial disincentive is perfectly sensible.

And going a step further with an INTELLIGENT discussion...
I think Obama's point was obvious. And this has ALREADY BEEN EXPLAINED to Ethmi.

The coal industries EXISTING plants will go on. They will pump out energy. They will continue to supply the consumer, UNAFFECTED by the "NEW" coal fired power station restrictions.
The coal industry will look at the situation and see it is not cost-effective to build a NEW plant, but they already have the EXISTING energy business with the EXISTING coal fired power stations.
The coal industry stays in business, but it cannot build NEW plants.

I would be curious how many new plants are built in a year...
I went looking, and I found other interesting tidbits regarding what is CURRENTLY going on...
Bleeding Heartland:: EPA ruling is XXXX to new coal-fired power plants (updated)

Originally Posted by Jo Bennett

Obama said he would bankrupt those attempting NEW coal fired power stations, not that he would bankrupt the coal industry. New coal is a bad idea and a financial disincentive is perfectly sensible.

Technicalities?

Political Punch

Not a bad policy. Especially as it would inevitably lead to extremely efficient coal technology with low environmental impacts: the type of stuff we export that creates jobs.

I disagree with a cap and trade system, a carbon tax would be superior.

Originally Posted by Ethmi

Technicalities?

No. Not "technicalities".

On one hand, you are falsely claiming that Obama will bankrupt this industry.

On the other hand, you have reality whereby the industry will continue, but not able to build new plants.
And the thing you REFUSE TO ADDRESS is that MCCAIN ADVOCATED SIMILAR RESTRICTIONS.

It's amazing how you throw a fit when Obama talking about new plant restrictions, when you ignore McCain saying the same thing.

Originally Posted by foundit66

No. Not "technicalities".

Then what?

Two can play that game.

Biden, at end of vid:

No coal plants here in America!

See? No "new".

At the beginning of the vid, look at the color of California.

]On one hand, you are falsely claiming that Obama will bankrupt this industry.

Don't bother stating what you've already stating, otherwise you'll be living in a cage, saying "Polly wanna cracker" all day. I've heard that, anything new?

On the other hand, you have reality whereby the industry will continue, but not able to build new plants.

What makes it reality? The fact that it supports you?

And the thing you REFUSE TO ADDRESS is that MCCAIN ADVOCATED SIMILAR RESTRICTIONS.

It's amazing how you throw a fit when Obama talking about new plant restrictions, when you ignore McCain saying the same thing.

This looks like transcript to you? I saw your vid.

Originally Posted by Ethmi

Then what?

It's reality. The circumstances. Details of the plan.
There is a difference between "Jack cannot practice medicine" and "Jack cannot practice medicine in the new field of biometrics".

Originally Posted by Ethmi

Two can play that game.
Biden, at end of vid:
No coal plants here in America!
See? No "new".

What vid?
And do you get that Biden does NOT set the policy?

Originally Posted by Ethmi

Don't bother stating what you've already stating, otherwise you'll be living in a cage, saying "Polly wanna cracker" all day. I've heard that, anything new?

I WILL state it, cause I know that while you will continue to avoid it, others can read what is REALLY going on and note that you are avoiding it.
You "read" things but do you ADDRESS and RESPOND to them?

Originally Posted by Ethmi

What makes it reality? The fact that it supports you?

And this is precisely what I'm talking about.
You jump to the snide response, without EVEN LISTENING to what I am saying. You insist on a conversation, but then you also insist on NOT LISTENING to what is being said.

I've already explained the logic.
The restrictions affect NEW coal plants.
Any businessman that is looking at building a NEW item, and sees that it will give him $X in revenue while costing him $YYY to build will logically decide to not build it.

Does that mean the businessman is now bankrupt? NO.
In this case, the coal industry has their EXISTING plants to run on. They will still make money.


This looks like transcript to you? I saw your vid.[/QUOTE]
And you continue to respond to nothing...
This thread is really about how you didn't like me calling it as it was.
TO THIS DATE, we still can't have any discussion on this where a McCain supporter will discuss BOTH Obama's statements, AND how McCain's plans are eerily similar to Obama's.
Yet, the McCain supporter complains ad nausieum about a FALSE conclusion of Obama's plan, while saying absolutely nothing about McCains.
You insist on trying to establish the ground rules for this discussion, but as I keep pointing out you refuse even the most logical acknowledgement (or response) to the presented facts.