Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yeah we want to kill you all with gobs of pollution...God forbid we should do anything to protect the environment. The Right looks to China, belching pollution, as a goal.
What a jerk. We understand being good stewards of the land and what GOD has given us. Get a grip son. YOU are beyond absurd.
That's because he refuses to be a man and leave his comfort zone...HE has to be liked by his fellow Statists...it's just mindless.Yeah we want to kill you all with gobs of pollution...God forbid we should do anything to protect the environment. The Right looks to China, belching pollution, as a goal.
What a jerk. We understand being good stewards of the land and what GOD has given us. Get a grip son. YOU are beyond absurd.
His is the typical knee jerk talking point...Notice he doesn't comment on what Obama is doing to us
That and sewergas...Trucks are driving our roads for profit, private vehicles are not
So what? Do their taxes not make them as worthy as driving the roads as any other vehicle? Why is the word "profit" so distasteful to you? I guess that being poor all your life will do that to a person....
Obama has a pen and a phone.............Congress and the Constitution need not apply to Obama and the Dems.
Again, abuse of power without Congressional Consent.
Executive orders by President
George W. Bush
First Term - 173
Second Term - 118
Total - 291
Barack Obama
First Term - 147
Second Term - 21
Total - 168
Ronald Reagan - 381
Bill Clinton - 364
(If you ever condemned your party for doing any of this shit, we'd take you seriously - we'd believe you'd care about the Constitution. But we're not even sure you understand the Constitution, since you don't reference how executive orders are anti-Constitutional)
People wonder why we're fucked. The OP votes.
The tea party hasn't a goddamn point. There entire case is made of blind hatred of all forms of government. They imagine themselves farming some field or hunting crook in some swamp.
You forgot #3.As independent truckers are forced out of business through having to replace perfectly good vehicles with underpowered Obamamobiles two things will happen:
1. Larger trucking companies will raise their rates, having lost any meaningful competition.
2.a Prices of everything you buy will go up substantially.
2.b Many things you accept as readily available will fall into shortage and prices for the items you can find at all will rise astronomically.
Yes, that indeed will be fundamental change you can believe in.
3. The sky is falling. The sky is falling.
Oh, and if this is like past legislation older vehicles will be grandfathered in. It is my suspicion that this EO will apply to the future generation of trucks rather than those currently in service.
I know that as a wingnut facts have little meaning to you but here are a few you might consider. The average tax on a gallon of gas is around $0.50 (state + federal). A car getting 20 mi/gal and being driven 15,000 miles per year will spend around $375 dollars in gas taxes. That is a lot higher than your uninformed estimate of less than $75 per year.The trucking industry has taken enough hits from the Obama administration. I think he has a problem with people making money.
Indeed. Most folks don't have a clue just how much trucking companies pay in taxes for the "right" to drive on our roads. The average truck will pay in excess of $5,000 per year. Every year. For one truck.
What does the average car pay? Probably less than $75. There are millions more cars on the roads.
And of course, let us not forget the 860 BILLION dollar "stimulus" that was to provide "shovel ready" jobs repairing and re-building infrastructure. Anyone seen a brand new Highway lately?
"I guess "shovel ready" wasn't as "shovel ready" as we thought" - Barrack Hussein Obama
Mt President....where the hell did all that money go??
And yes, here in Las Vegas in Las Vegas I can see where some of that stimulus went. Dozens of freeway interchanges were cleaned up and beautified. After the interchanges had been built there were no plans to landscape them. Now they have attractive rock landscaping with desert plants and occasional statures of big horned sheep and other desert animals. I suspect if you opened your eyes you would see things that have been improved and upgraded in your part of the country. The problem is you do not want to see any improvements. All you look for is things to bitch about. Don't believe me? Give me a list of Obama accomplishments you have approved of.
Oh, and since you are so concerned about the government wasting money, did you ever bitch about the billions of dollars that disappeared in Iraq that were never recovered or explained? I doubt it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/19/u...w-rules-for-cutting-truck-pollution.html?_r=1
The new regulations, to be drafted by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Transportation Department by March 2015 and completed a year later so they are in place before Mr. Obama leaves office, are the latest in a series of actions intended to cut back on greenhouse gases without the sort of comprehensive legislation the president failed to push through Congress in his first term.
Tom Steyer at the office of NextGen Climate Action, his political organization, in San Francisco.Financier Plans Big Ad Campaign on Climate ChangeFEB. 17, 2014
The new regulation would primarily affect the countrys 600 coal-fired power plants, like this one in Texas, and could ultimately shutter hundreds of them.E.P.A. Staff Struggling to Create Pollution RuleFEB. 4, 2014
The limits on greenhouse gas pollution from trucks would combine with previous rules requiring passenger cars and light trucks to burn fuel more efficiently and pending rules to limit the carbon emissions of power plants. Cumulatively, experts said the à la carte approach should enable Mr. Obama to meet his target of cutting carbon pollution in the United States by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. But they said he would still be far short of his goal of an 80 percent reduction by 2050.
Obama has a pen and a phone.............Congress and the Constitution need not apply to Obama and the Dems.
Again, abuse of power without Congressional Consent.
He's from the same stripe is this guy:
Wind energy is a finite resource. At large scale, slowing down the wind by using its energy to turn turbines has environmental consequences. A group of researchers at Princeton University, found that wind farms may change the mixing of air near the surface, drying the soil near the site. At planetary scales, David Keith, who was then at Carnegie Mellon, and coworkers found that if wind supplied 10 percent of expected global electricity demand in 2100, which is a number of years off, the resulting change in the earth's atmospheric energy might cause some regions of the world to experience temperature change of approximately 1 degree Centigrade
Obama has a pen and a phone.............Congress and the Constitution need not apply to Obama and the Dems.
Again, abuse of power without Congressional Consent.
He's from the same stripe is this guy:
This is yet another one of those posts where I start to understand the reason why Right-wing people start resort to flame wars and insults.
When you see something this stupid, how do you respond to an ignorant leftists?
First, you idiots that believe this crap, never looked up the quote did you? Want to know how I divined that fact? BECAUSE HE DID NOT SAY IT YOU MORONS.
"Wind is a finite resource and harnessing it would slow the wind down which would cause the temperature to go up"
This quote does not exist you mind numbingly ignorant fools.
This is why America is falling apart. We have entire political movement based on pure ignorance. Some idiot says something, and you don't even check it.
Further, half of what *YOU CLAIM* he said is in fact true, and you are too ignorant of science.... completely ignorant of basic Elementary School science, to realize you are mocking something that is scientific accurate.
Ok you liberal retards.... for once in your pathetic lives, educate yourselves, or get off the forum for being incompetent....
In Feb, 2009, the House of Representatives had a Subcommittee hearing on `RENEWABLE ENERGY: COMPLEMENTARY POLICIES FOR CLIMATE LEGISLATION''.
A Professor Jay Apt, was asked the speak at the hearing. The committee refused him. Professor Apt is faculty at Tepper School of Business Carnegie Mellon University, has a Ph.D in Experimental Atomic Physics, from MIT, and A.B. in Physics from Harvard. Additionally he is a member of Engineering and Public Policy, and Director of Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center.
He was refused to speak at the Hearing. Therefore Professor Apt made a written statement, which was read into the transcript of the Hearing.
The statement is as follows.....
Wind energy is a finite resource. At large scale, slowing down the wind by using its energy to turn turbines has environmental consequences. A group of researchers at Princeton University, found that wind farms may change the mixing of air near the surface, drying the soil near the site. At planetary scales, David Keith, who was then at Carnegie Mellon, and coworkers found that if wind supplied 10 percent of expected global electricity demand in 2100, which is a number of years off, the resulting change in the earth's atmospheric energy might cause some regions of the world to experience temperature change of approximately 1 degree Centigrade
Did you idiots on the left learn anything? Huh?
Let's start with this real quick... you leftists think you have science on your side. Note how someone educated in science was prevented from speaking at a hearing on the science? This is what you people on the left are all about. You are not about science, you are about politics, and when science doesn't support your position, you ban the evidence from being presented.
Wind is finite. Now that's deep. You leftists can't figure out the wind is not an infinite? This is such elementary level physics, how can you people not figure it out?
Energy can not be created or destroyed. It can only change forms. If energy from wind is being sapped away by a wind mill, do you conclude that the wind still has the exact same amount of energy, as before it went through the blades?
This is so obvious to those without their heads shoved so far up their politics, they can't see. If you are standing in a forest, does the wind blow as hard as when you are out in a grass field? Duh, of course not. The trees absorb the energy of the wind.
Further, the idea that reducing wind speed at ground level, should also not be shocking that it might increase heat. Any moron, with a fan in the summer time, should be able to grasp that blowing air cools you. And stagnant air is hotter.
So let's review what we learned.....
Leftists ban information contrary to their preconceived notions, proving they are anti-science.
Wind energy is in fact finite.
Slowing down wind speeds can in fact raise temperatures.
AND THE QUOTE YOU MORONS SPEW DOES NOT EXIST, and leftists are routinely too ignorant to know this.
He's from the same stripe is this guy:
This is yet another one of those posts where I start to understand the reason why Right-wing people start resort to flame wars and insults.
When you see something this stupid, how do you respond to an ignorant leftists?
First, you idiots that believe this crap, never looked up the quote did you? Want to know how I divined that fact? BECAUSE HE DID NOT SAY IT YOU MORONS.
"Wind is a finite resource and harnessing it would slow the wind down which would cause the temperature to go up"
This quote does not exist you mind numbingly ignorant fools.
This is why America is falling apart. We have entire political movement based on pure ignorance. Some idiot says something, and you don't even check it.
Further, half of what *YOU CLAIM* he said is in fact true, and you are too ignorant of science.... completely ignorant of basic Elementary School science, to realize you are mocking something that is scientific accurate.
Ok you liberal retards.... for once in your pathetic lives, educate yourselves, or get off the forum for being incompetent....
In Feb, 2009, the House of Representatives had a Subcommittee hearing on `RENEWABLE ENERGY: COMPLEMENTARY POLICIES FOR CLIMATE LEGISLATION''.
A Professor Jay Apt, was asked the speak at the hearing. The committee refused him. Professor Apt is faculty at Tepper School of Business Carnegie Mellon University, has a Ph.D in Experimental Atomic Physics, from MIT, and A.B. in Physics from Harvard. Additionally he is a member of Engineering and Public Policy, and Director of Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center.
He was refused to speak at the Hearing. Therefore Professor Apt made a written statement, which was read into the transcript of the Hearing.
The statement is as follows.....
Wind energy is a finite resource. At large scale, slowing down the wind by using its energy to turn turbines has environmental consequences. A group of researchers at Princeton University, found that wind farms may change the mixing of air near the surface, drying the soil near the site. At planetary scales, David Keith, who was then at Carnegie Mellon, and coworkers found that if wind supplied 10 percent of expected global electricity demand in 2100, which is a number of years off, the resulting change in the earth's atmospheric energy might cause some regions of the world to experience temperature change of approximately 1 degree Centigrade
Did you idiots on the left learn anything? Huh?
Let's start with this real quick... you leftists think you have science on your side. Note how someone educated in science was prevented from speaking at a hearing on the science? This is what you people on the left are all about. You are not about science, you are about politics, and when science doesn't support your position, you ban the evidence from being presented.
Wind is finite. Now that's deep. You leftists can't figure out the wind is not an infinite? This is such elementary level physics, how can you people not figure it out?
Energy can not be created or destroyed. It can only change forms. If energy from wind is being sapped away by a wind mill, do you conclude that the wind still has the exact same amount of energy, as before it went through the blades?
This is so obvious to those without their heads shoved so far up their politics, they can't see. If you are standing in a forest, does the wind blow as hard as when you are out in a grass field? Duh, of course not. The trees absorb the energy of the wind.
Further, the idea that reducing wind speed at ground level, should also not be shocking that it might increase heat. Any moron, with a fan in the summer time, should be able to grasp that blowing air cools you. And stagnant air is hotter.
So let's review what we learned.....
Leftists ban information contrary to their preconceived notions, proving they are anti-science.
Wind energy is in fact finite.
Slowing down wind speeds can in fact raise temperatures.
AND THE QUOTE YOU MORONS SPEW DOES NOT EXIST, and leftists are routinely too ignorant to know this.
you do realize that templar is about as far from 'leftists' as you can get - right?
