Archive

Hillary Clinton

  • Automatik
    Bush was in office, so I'm sure everything was just peachy.
  • jmog
    ZWICK 4 PREZ;1787186 wrote:it also provides a ton of pollution. so.. there's that.
    Depends if we are talking Sulfur emissions or CO2.

    I am for the "clean coal" part that uses basically the coal fired version of a catalytic converter to de-sulfurize the emissions. This is beneficial for a few reasons.

    1. SOx creates acid rain which is obviously a bad thing for the local environment.
    2. It creates free/cheap artificial gypsum for drywall plants (don't have to dig the rocks out of the ground).

    Now, the unfortunate thing that most liberals are aiming for, however, is to shut down coal due to CO2 emissions. This is just asinine.

    If you want to regulate NOx, CO, SOx emissions by all means that is a great idea as they have immediate impacts on local weather/environments. But to shut down an industry because we BELIEVE it is causing temperatures to rise by 1/2 a degree, is asinine.

    I am all for renewable energy sources, but we need to use them when/where they make sense (solar in the SW, geo-thermal in the MW, wind in the plains, etc). We have a ton of science behind certain renewable energy sources but many times the government won't get out of the way.

    Here is the best for instance since I have actually been to a number of renewable energy source conferences and sat through many research paper discussions.

    There is a process that is patented that will turn ANY organic trash (tires, food, paper, wood, etc) into a fuel similar to ethanol. They can liquefy any organic material into a fuel.

    Why isn't this already happening to have an immediate impact on land fills, lessening our dependence on foreign oil, etc?

    Well, the process involves either a catalyst or a bacteria (can be done with either depending on the trash) and needs to be heated up to somewhere around 1000 deg (going off memory, it has been a couple years).

    Well, in order to heat up the organic trash to 1000 deg one needs an indirect fired burner system. The EPA sees the two words "trash" and "burner" in the same process and puts a big "HELL NO" on there because they ASSUME it is a trash incinerator. To be honest, the EPA engineers are the bottom of the barrel, the guys that barely passed and got their degrees typically (mostly civil).

    So, the company that has this patent, what are they doing with it now since the EPA is in their way of turning trash into fuel? They make liquefied wood/smoke. They turn wood into liquid and make it food grade, then it is sprayed on your "smoked turkey" processed meats, it is also the "smokey" flavor on Burger King hamburgers (the grill lines are sprayed on with this stuff, no actual grill is ever used).

    I kid not, this is the honest to God truth. We have the technology to turn a LOT of our trash into a renewable fuel but our own government is in the way.
  • QuakerOats
    Automatik;1787193 wrote:Bush was in office, so I'm sure everything was just peachy.
    9/17/77 --- Bush was not in office. You are obviously too young (and perhaps naive) to understand the demise of the rust belt.
  • QuakerOats
    Heretic;1787192 wrote:Ask yourself one question: At that time, was it politically convenient for him to put on his FAUX OUTRAGE mask to wail about how sickening things are?

    Government force did not shut down the steel industry.

    Try again.
  • sleeper
    jmog;1787204 wrote:
    Well, in order to heat up the organic trash to 1000 deg one needs an indirect fired burner system. The EPA sees the two words "trash" and "burner" in the same process and puts a big "HELL NO" on there because they ASSUME it is a trash incinerator. To be honest, the EPA engineers are the bottom of the barrel, the guys that barely passed and got their degrees typically (mostly civil).
    .
    Hey Akron grads need to work somewhere!!!
  • jmog
    sleeper;1787241 wrote:Hey Akron grads need to work somewhere!!!
    I resemble that remark...
  • QuakerOats
    http://observer.com/2016/03/hillary-has-an-nsa-problem/


    NSA problems as well ..................
  • Spock
    QuakerOats;1787710 wrote:http://observer.com/2016/03/hillary-has-an-nsa-problem/


    NSA problems as well ..................
    i cannot believe she isnt in jail
  • slingshot4ever
    http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/20/opinions/why-the-hate-for-hillary-clinton-opinion-parini/index.html
  • gut
    Wow, that article makes me think Hillary has a dick...because that writer is sure deep-throating it.
  • CenterBHSFan
    gut;1788272 wrote:Wow, that article makes me think Hillary has a dick...because that writer is sure deep-throating it.

    I'm not suprised at all. The article states, in part, that:

    Editor's Note: Jay Parini, a poet and novelist, teaches at Middlebury College in Vermont
  • rrfan
    This article makes me want to vomit!
  • QuakerOats
    ptown_trojans_1;1787156 wrote:I more read into it was more people voting against Trump than not D.
    Also, 538 has stressed that high turnout in primaries do not translate into general election victories.
    So, it is a misleading stat.

    It could mean something in November, then again, may not.

    http://www.vindy.com/news/2016/mar/20/elephant-room/

    follow up article
  • QuakerOats
    http://nypost.com/2016/03/20/will-hillary-get-charged-or-what/
  • gut
    Who knows what is true and what will happen.

    But I can guarantee Trump will promise to indict her. Can't wait to see how she reacts when he throws that accusation at her in a debate.
  • like_that
    gut;1788331 wrote:Who knows what is true and what will happen.

    But I can guarantee Trump will promise to indict her. Can't wait to see how she reacts when he throws that accusation at her in a debate.
    I truly believe something is going to come out of this. If the DOJ refuses to indict her, I can see the FBI heaving a hearing in front of congress or at the very least leaking information.
  • fish82
    The fact that material/emails from SIPRNet were found on her server makes it a slam dunk that the law was broken, and someone is getting indicted/charged.

    The only question at this point is who it will be.
  • superman
    gut;1788331 wrote:Who knows what is true and what will happen.

    But I can guarantee Trump will promise to indict her. Can't wait to see how she reacts when he throws that accusation at her in a debate.
    I fully expect a high pitched cackle with a dodging of the question.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    QuakerOats;1788323 wrote:http://www.vindy.com/news/2016/mar/20/elephant-room/

    follow up article
    Interesting for sure. I still say that does not translate into a massive Trump turnout in November. But, it is def. something to watch and keep track.
    I'll concede that Trump puts states in play that normally would not be in play in a general.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    gut;1788331 wrote:Who knows what is true and what will happen.

    But I can guarantee Trump will promise to indict her. Can't wait to see how she reacts when he throws that accusation at her in a debate.
    I have no idea how it will turn out either. I've read so many conflicted stories on what is and what was not considered "classified" I just want a final answer.
  • sleeper
    superman;1788342 wrote:I fully expect a high pitched cackle with a dodging of the question.
    This is the 100% correct response.
  • QuakerOats
    ptown_trojans_1;1788346 wrote:Interesting for sure. I still say that does not translate into a massive Trump turnout in November. But, it is def. something to watch and keep track.
    I'll concede that Trump puts states in play that normally would not be in play in a general.
    Yes .........some days I think he could win in a landslide; other days I think the opposite. However, these are the type of crossovers that gave Reagan his landslide. Needless to say, the next 8 months are going to be interesting.
  • gut
    ptown_trojans_1;1788346 wrote:Interesting for sure. I still say that does not translate into a massive Trump turnout in November. But, it is def. something to watch and keep track.
    I'll concede that Trump puts states in play that normally would not be in play in a general.
    I still have no idea. He may be increasing turnout/voter interest, but there's no guarantee that's a positive for him in the general. Seems just as logical many Repubs are turning out to vote AGAINST Trump, and same goes for independents and Dem crossovers (I'm not buying into the conspiracy Dems are crossing over to ensure Trump wins to clear a path for Hillary).

    I don't see any real evidence or reason to believe record turnout in primaries will translate to record turnout for Trump in the general. High voter turnout may actually not translate to a win for Trump as it probably benefits Hillary more. If it comes down to turning out the base, Trump is going to lose. But with lower turnout, he may have a shot to win with independents and crossovers becoming more decisive.
  • Spock
    ptown_trojans_1;1788347 wrote:I have no idea how it will turn out either. I've read so many conflicted stories on what is and what was not considered "classified" I just want a final answer.
    You know the final answer. She should be in prison.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    Spock;1788359 wrote:You know the final answer. She should be in prison.
    I do? Huh, ok.
    No, I don't and neither do you.
    The only people that know the final answer are the people doing the investigations. Everything else is speculation.