|
SOTU
What an uplifting speech, eh? I got a kick out of Madame Pelosi's
pickle face and the Chuckster's slouching in his chair. What a bunch of babies their section of the audience was. They can't seem to handle positive leadership. -- x ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/ |
SOTU
On 1/31/2018 6:34 AM, justan wrote:
What an uplifting speech, eh? I got a kick out of Madame Pelosi's pickle face and the Chuckster's slouching in his chair. What a bunch of babies their section of the audience was. They can't seem to handle positive leadership. And the glares of Cory Booker and Luis Gutierrez. Pelosi couldn't focus on what was being said. She was too busy squirming around, looking at others as if trying to judge which way the wind was blowing. Yeah. Many of the Democrats looked like absolute fools. I watched some of MSNBC's analysis after. They had a Democrat congressman who had invited a DOCA "Dreamer" as his guest. The Dreamer was asked what he thought of the President's speech. He's comments were a wish list for *exactly* what Trump had said. The congressman was visibly nervous because the Dreamer was blowing the whole reason he had invited him and went on to rant about how Trump's goal to limit the number of "chain migration" candidates and move to a merit based immigration system was anti-American. Best line by Trump: "Americans are Dreamers too." |
SOTU
On 1/31/18 6:57 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/31/2018 6:34 AM, justan wrote: What an uplifting speech, eh? I got a kick out of Madame Pelosi's Â* pickle face and the Chuckster's slouching in his chair. What a Â* bunch of babies their section of the audience was. They can't Â* seem to handle positive leadership. And the glares of Cory Booker and Luis Gutierrez. Pelosi couldn't focus on what was being said.Â* She was too busy squirming around, looking at others as if trying to judge which way the wind was blowing. Yeah.Â* Many of the Democrats looked like absolute fools. I watched some of MSNBC's analysis after.Â* They had a Democrat congressman who had invited a DOCA "Dreamer" as his guest. The Dreamer was asked what he thought of the President's speech. He's comments were a wish list for *exactly* what Trump had said. The congressman was visibly nervous because the Dreamer was blowing the whole reason he had invited him and went on to rant about how Trump's goal to limit the number of "chain migration" candidates and move to a merit based immigration system was anti-American. Best line by Trump:Â* "Americans are Dreamers too." I instead watched the movie "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" and two episodes of National Geo's "Life Below Zero," about survivalists scratching out a living in Alaska. I did watch Joe Kennedy III's rebuttal to Trump's "me, me, me" speech. Tinker Tailor is a great genre movie. Read as much of the transcript of Trump's SOTU as I could tolerate without upchucking. Thought it was funny how he tried to claim he was a united, thought it sad he had so little to say about the opioid crisis, thought it was funny he was praising coal, considering how much that product contributes to air pollution, thought his comments on North Korea were disgusting, and his comments about immigrants were hateful and way, way off base. Didn't notice whether he mentioned the threats from Russia. Not an uplifting SOTU. |
SOTU
On 1/31/2018 7:50 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 1/31/18 6:57 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/31/2018 6:34 AM, justan wrote: What an uplifting speech, eh? I got a kick out of Madame Pelosi's Â* pickle face and the Chuckster's slouching in his chair. What a Â* bunch of babies their section of the audience was. They can't Â* seem to handle positive leadership. And the glares of Cory Booker and Luis Gutierrez. Pelosi couldn't focus on what was being said.Â* She was too busy squirming around, looking at others as if trying to judge which way the wind was blowing. Yeah.Â* Many of the Democrats looked like absolute fools. I watched some of MSNBC's analysis after.Â* They had a Democrat congressman who had invited a DOCA "Dreamer" as his guest. The Dreamer was asked what he thought of the President's speech. He's comments were a wish list for *exactly* what Trump had said. The congressman was visibly nervous because the Dreamer was blowing the whole reason he had invited him and went on to rant about how Trump's goal to limit the number of "chain migration" candidates and move to a merit based immigration system was anti-American. Best line by Trump:Â* "Americans are Dreamers too." I instead watched the movie "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" and two episodes of National Geo's "Life Below Zero," about survivalists scratching out a living in Alaska. I did watch Joe Kennedy III's rebuttal to Trump's "me, me, me" speech. Tinker Tailor is a great genre movie. Read as much of the transcript of Trump's SOTU as I could tolerate without upchucking. Thought it was funny how he tried to claim he was a united, thought it sad he had so little to say about the opioid crisis, thought it was funny he was praising coal, considering how much that product contributes to air pollution, thought his comments on North Korea were disgusting, and his comments about immigrants were hateful and way, way off base. Didn't notice whether he mentioned the threats from Russia. Not an uplifting SOTU. So, you, Maxine and a few others had better things to do, huh? Maybe she watch "Tinker Tailor" also. You could share your impressions with each other. I also watched Joe Kennedy III's rebuttal. Don't know much about him but he seems to be a sincere young guy with Kennedy DNA but obviously following the current ideology and instructions of his party. What struck me more though was how amateur hour the presentation of his speech was, especially following the SOTU speech by Trump. Standing on a temporary podium in front of a small but well programmed audience sitting on folding chairs. They would erupt in applause for almost every other word Kennedy uttered. Looked like it took place in the gymnasium of a vocational school in Fall River with a car with the hood open in the background. Point is ... I think the Democrats really blew it big time by selecting him in this setting to deliver a rebuttal to the SOTU speech. It sorta looked like a high school mock SOTU speech or something. They really should have selected someone more well known and have it done in a more appropriate setting. Again, the Dems appear to be on a rowboat without oars. Nothing they do or say makes any sense. |
SOTU
On 1/31/2018 7:50 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 1/31/18 6:57 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/31/2018 6:34 AM, justan wrote: What an uplifting speech, eh? I got a kick out of Madame Pelosi's Â* pickle face and the Chuckster's slouching in his chair. What a Â* bunch of babies their section of the audience was. They can't Â* seem to handle positive leadership. And the glares of Cory Booker and Luis Gutierrez. Pelosi couldn't focus on what was being said.Â* She was too busy squirming around, looking at others as if trying to judge which way the wind was blowing. Yeah.Â* Many of the Democrats looked like absolute fools. I watched some of MSNBC's analysis after.Â* They had a Democrat congressman who had invited a DOCA "Dreamer" as his guest. The Dreamer was asked what he thought of the President's speech. He's comments were a wish list for *exactly* what Trump had said. The congressman was visibly nervous because the Dreamer was blowing the whole reason he had invited him and went on to rant about how Trump's goal to limit the number of "chain migration" candidates and move to a merit based immigration system was anti-American. Best line by Trump:Â* "Americans are Dreamers too." I instead watched the movie "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" and two episodes of National Geo's "Life Below Zero," about survivalists scratching out a living in Alaska. I did watch Joe Kennedy III's rebuttal to Trump's "me, me, me" speech. Tinker Tailor is a great genre movie. Read as much of the transcript of Trump's SOTU as I could tolerate without upchucking. Thought it was funny how he tried to claim he was a united, thought it sad he had so little to say about the opioid crisis, thought it was funny he was praising coal, considering how much that product contributes to air pollution, thought his comments on North Korea were disgusting, and his comments about immigrants were hateful and way, way off base. Didn't notice whether he mentioned the threats from Russia. Not an uplifting SOTU. BTW, I think his speech was very good but probably was not the greatest SOTU address in history. It highlighted things that probably are not important to you, like traditional patriotism and pride in being an American. These are cornerstones of his presidency and antithetical to the current Democratic dogma. BTW, I think you miss a lot by only reading transcripts. Reminds me of the Nixon/Kennedy debate when those who saw it on TV thought Kennedy won and those who listened on the radio thought Nixon won. Either way, you just stuck your head in the sand again and missed a very decent delivery by Trump. You also missed seeing many members of your party making complete fools of themselves. It was very interesting to watch. |
SOTU
On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 8:26:49 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/31/2018 7:50 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/31/18 6:57 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/31/2018 6:34 AM, justan wrote: What an uplifting speech, eh? I got a kick out of Madame Pelosi's Â* pickle face and the Chuckster's slouching in his chair. What a Â* bunch of babies their section of the audience was. They can't Â* seem to handle positive leadership. And the glares of Cory Booker and Luis Gutierrez. Pelosi couldn't focus on what was being said.Â* She was too busy squirming around, looking at others as if trying to judge which way the wind was blowing. Yeah.Â* Many of the Democrats looked like absolute fools. I watched some of MSNBC's analysis after.Â* They had a Democrat congressman who had invited a DOCA "Dreamer" as his guest. The Dreamer was asked what he thought of the President's speech. He's comments were a wish list for *exactly* what Trump had said. The congressman was visibly nervous because the Dreamer was blowing the whole reason he had invited him and went on to rant about how Trump's goal to limit the number of "chain migration" candidates and move to a merit based immigration system was anti-American. Best line by Trump:Â* "Americans are Dreamers too." I instead watched the movie "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" and two episodes of National Geo's "Life Below Zero," about survivalists scratching out a living in Alaska. I did watch Joe Kennedy III's rebuttal to Trump's "me, me, me" speech. Tinker Tailor is a great genre movie. Read as much of the transcript of Trump's SOTU as I could tolerate without upchucking. Thought it was funny how he tried to claim he was a united, thought it sad he had so little to say about the opioid crisis, thought it was funny he was praising coal, considering how much that product contributes to air pollution, thought his comments on North Korea were disgusting, and his comments about immigrants were hateful and way, way off base. Didn't notice whether he mentioned the threats from Russia. Not an uplifting SOTU. BTW, I think his speech was very good but probably was not the greatest SOTU address in history. It highlighted things that probably are not important to you, like traditional patriotism and pride in being an American. These are cornerstones of his presidency and antithetical to the current Democratic dogma. BTW, I think you miss a lot by only reading transcripts. Reminds me of the Nixon/Kennedy debate when those who saw it on TV thought Kennedy won and those who listened on the radio thought Nixon won. Either way, you just stuck your head in the sand again and missed a very decent delivery by Trump. You also missed seeing many members of your party making complete fools of themselves. It was very interesting to watch. As they all do, Trump as POTUS in his SOTU made some very generic, feel-good statements that no one could have a problem with. Anyone with any sense at all would find the statements positive. The Dems sat on their hands with scowls on their faces. They were acting like spoiled brat children. |
SOTU
On 1/31/2018 9:19 AM, Its Me wrote:
On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 8:26:49 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/31/2018 7:50 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/31/18 6:57 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/31/2018 6:34 AM, justan wrote: What an uplifting speech, eh? I got a kick out of Madame Pelosi's Â* pickle face and the Chuckster's slouching in his chair. What a Â* bunch of babies their section of the audience was. They can't Â* seem to handle positive leadership. And the glares of Cory Booker and Luis Gutierrez. Pelosi couldn't focus on what was being said.Â* She was too busy squirming around, looking at others as if trying to judge which way the wind was blowing. Yeah.Â* Many of the Democrats looked like absolute fools. I watched some of MSNBC's analysis after.Â* They had a Democrat congressman who had invited a DOCA "Dreamer" as his guest. The Dreamer was asked what he thought of the President's speech. He's comments were a wish list for *exactly* what Trump had said. The congressman was visibly nervous because the Dreamer was blowing the whole reason he had invited him and went on to rant about how Trump's goal to limit the number of "chain migration" candidates and move to a merit based immigration system was anti-American. Best line by Trump:Â* "Americans are Dreamers too." I instead watched the movie "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" and two episodes of National Geo's "Life Below Zero," about survivalists scratching out a living in Alaska. I did watch Joe Kennedy III's rebuttal to Trump's "me, me, me" speech. Tinker Tailor is a great genre movie. Read as much of the transcript of Trump's SOTU as I could tolerate without upchucking. Thought it was funny how he tried to claim he was a united, thought it sad he had so little to say about the opioid crisis, thought it was funny he was praising coal, considering how much that product contributes to air pollution, thought his comments on North Korea were disgusting, and his comments about immigrants were hateful and way, way off base. Didn't notice whether he mentioned the threats from Russia. Not an uplifting SOTU. BTW, I think his speech was very good but probably was not the greatest SOTU address in history. It highlighted things that probably are not important to you, like traditional patriotism and pride in being an American. These are cornerstones of his presidency and antithetical to the current Democratic dogma. BTW, I think you miss a lot by only reading transcripts. Reminds me of the Nixon/Kennedy debate when those who saw it on TV thought Kennedy won and those who listened on the radio thought Nixon won. Either way, you just stuck your head in the sand again and missed a very decent delivery by Trump. You also missed seeing many members of your party making complete fools of themselves. It was very interesting to watch. As they all do, Trump as POTUS in his SOTU made some very generic, feel-good statements that no one could have a problem with. Anyone with any sense at all would find the statements positive. The Dems sat on their hands with scowls on their faces. They were acting like spoiled brat children. I truly believe that what we are witnessing is a form of long term shell shock (now-a-days called PTSD) suffered by most of the members of the Democratic Party and of the progressive left political media pundits. They were so sure that Hillary would be sitting in the Oval Office right now ... right up to about 10 pm on Nov. 8th, 2016 when their giddiness turned to dismay. The shock and reactions they exhibited that night tells the whole story and they still haven't been able to get over it. |
SOTU
On 1/31/18 9:34 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/31/2018 9:19 AM, Its Me wrote: On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 8:26:49 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/31/2018 7:50 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/31/18 6:57 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/31/2018 6:34 AM, justan wrote: What an uplifting speech, eh? I got a kick out of Madame Pelosi's Â*Â* pickle face and the Chuckster's slouching in his chair. What a Â*Â* bunch of babies their section of the audience was. They can't Â*Â* seem to handle positive leadership. And the glares of Cory Booker and Luis Gutierrez. Pelosi couldn't focus on what was being said.Â* She was too busy squirming around, looking at others as if trying to judge which way the wind was blowing. Yeah.Â* Many of the Democrats looked like absolute fools. I watched some of MSNBC's analysis after.Â* They had a Democrat congressman who had invited a DOCA "Dreamer" as his guest. The Dreamer was asked what he thought of the President's speech. He's comments were a wish list for *exactly* what Trump had said. The congressman was visibly nervous because the Dreamer was blowing the whole reason he had invited him and went on to rant about how Trump's goal to limit the number of "chain migration" candidates and move to a merit based immigration system was anti-American. Best line by Trump:Â* "Americans are Dreamers too." I instead watched the movie "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" and two episodes of National Geo's "Life Below Zero," about survivalists scratching out a living in Alaska. I did watch Joe Kennedy III's rebuttal to Trump's "me, me, me" speech. Tinker Tailor is a great genre movie. Read as much of the transcript of Trump's SOTU as I could tolerate without upchucking. Thought it was funny how he tried to claim he was a united, thought it sad he had so little to say about the opioid crisis, thought it was funny he was praising coal, considering how much that product contributes to air pollution, thought his comments on North Korea were disgusting, and his comments about immigrants were hateful and way, way off base. Didn't notice whether he mentioned the threats from Russia. Not an uplifting SOTU. BTW, I think his speech was very good but probably was not the greatest SOTU address in history.Â* It highlighted things that probably are not important to you, like traditional patriotism and pride in being an American. These are cornerstones of his presidency and antithetical to the current Democratic dogma. BTW, I think you miss a lot by only reading transcripts.Â* Reminds me of the Nixon/Kennedy debate when those who saw it on TV thought Kennedy won and those who listened on the radio thought Nixon won. Either way, you just stuck your head in the sand again and missed a very decent delivery by Trump.Â* You also missed seeing many members of your party making complete fools of themselves.Â* It was very interesting to watch. As they all do, Trump as POTUS in his SOTU made some very generic, feel-good statements that no one could have a problem with.Â* Anyone with any sense at all would find the statements positive.Â* The Dems sat on their hands with scowls on their faces.Â* They were acting like spoiled brat children. I truly believe that what we are witnessing is a form of long term shell shock (now-a-days called PTSD) suffered by most of the members of the Democratic Party and of the progressive left political media pundits. They were so sure that Hillary would be sitting in the Oval Office right now ... right up to about 10 pm on Nov. 8th, 2016 when their giddiness turned to dismay.Â* The shock and reactions they exhibited that night tells the whole story and they still haven't been able to get over it. Your boy Trump is a divisive, hate-filled, ignorant, intellectually lazy, misogynistic, xenophobic, racist pig. My disdain for him has nothing to do with Clinton's electoral college loss. Frankly, you remind me of some of those Jesus-freak evangelists I'd sometimes encounter at social gatherings down south. When they found out you weren't one of them, they'd double-down on attempts to convince you to see their way, as if encountering people who believed otherwise or not at all in religion, Jesus, god, whatever...was a threat to them and had the possibility of raising serious doubts in what passed for their minds. Hey, we need more nuclear weapons and an increase in defense spending, right, because our infrastructure is falling apart, Trump has no workable plan to improve it, tens of thousands are dying of opioid abuse, the country is full of mentally ill, native-born white men who shoot up schools, the environment doesn't need protection, and the 10% of Americans who own 80% of corporate shares need more money. I get it. |
SOTU
Keyser Soze
- show quoted text - Your boy Trump is a divisive, hate-filled, ignorant, intellectually lazy, misogynistic, xenophobic, racist pig.... Hey, we need more nuclear weapons and an increase in defense spending, right, because our infrastructure is falling apart, Trump has no workable plan to improve it, tens of thousands are dying of opioid abuse, the country is full of mentally ill, native-born white men who shoot up schools, the environment doesn't need protection, and the 10% of Americans who own 80% of corporate shares need more money. I get it. —— Harry, that’s one of the most cynical comments I’ve heard you make this year. But , it’s still January though, so I’m sure there’ll b plenty more to come |
SOTU
On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 10:03:25 AM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 1/31/18 9:34 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/31/2018 9:19 AM, Its Me wrote: On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 8:26:49 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/31/2018 7:50 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/31/18 6:57 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/31/2018 6:34 AM, justan wrote: What an uplifting speech, eh? I got a kick out of Madame Pelosi's Â*Â* pickle face and the Chuckster's slouching in his chair. What a Â*Â* bunch of babies their section of the audience was. They can't Â*Â* seem to handle positive leadership. And the glares of Cory Booker and Luis Gutierrez. Pelosi couldn't focus on what was being said.Â* She was too busy squirming around, looking at others as if trying to judge which way the wind was blowing. Yeah.Â* Many of the Democrats looked like absolute fools. I watched some of MSNBC's analysis after.Â* They had a Democrat congressman who had invited a DOCA "Dreamer" as his guest. The Dreamer was asked what he thought of the President's speech. He's comments were a wish list for *exactly* what Trump had said. The congressman was visibly nervous because the Dreamer was blowing the whole reason he had invited him and went on to rant about how Trump's goal to limit the number of "chain migration" candidates and move to a merit based immigration system was anti-American. Best line by Trump:Â* "Americans are Dreamers too." I instead watched the movie "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" and two episodes of National Geo's "Life Below Zero," about survivalists scratching out a living in Alaska. I did watch Joe Kennedy III's rebuttal to Trump's "me, me, me" speech. Tinker Tailor is a great genre movie. Read as much of the transcript of Trump's SOTU as I could tolerate without upchucking. Thought it was funny how he tried to claim he was a united, thought it sad he had so little to say about the opioid crisis, thought it was funny he was praising coal, considering how much that product contributes to air pollution, thought his comments on North Korea were disgusting, and his comments about immigrants were hateful and way, way off base. Didn't notice whether he mentioned the threats from Russia. Not an uplifting SOTU. BTW, I think his speech was very good but probably was not the greatest SOTU address in history.Â* It highlighted things that probably are not important to you, like traditional patriotism and pride in being an American. These are cornerstones of his presidency and antithetical to the current Democratic dogma. BTW, I think you miss a lot by only reading transcripts.Â* Reminds me of the Nixon/Kennedy debate when those who saw it on TV thought Kennedy won and those who listened on the radio thought Nixon won. Either way, you just stuck your head in the sand again and missed a very decent delivery by Trump.Â* You also missed seeing many members of your party making complete fools of themselves.Â* It was very interesting to watch. As they all do, Trump as POTUS in his SOTU made some very generic, feel-good statements that no one could have a problem with.Â* Anyone with any sense at all would find the statements positive.Â* The Dems sat on their hands with scowls on their faces.Â* They were acting like spoiled brat children. I truly believe that what we are witnessing is a form of long term shell shock (now-a-days called PTSD) suffered by most of the members of the Democratic Party and of the progressive left political media pundits. They were so sure that Hillary would be sitting in the Oval Office right now ... right up to about 10 pm on Nov. 8th, 2016 when their giddiness turned to dismay.Â* The shock and reactions they exhibited that night tells the whole story and they still haven't been able to get over it. Your boy Trump is a divisive, hate-filled, ignorant, intellectually lazy, misogynistic, xenophobic, racist pig. My disdain for him has nothing to do with Clinton's electoral college loss. Frankly, you remind me of some of those Jesus-freak evangelists I'd sometimes encounter at social gatherings down south. When they found out you weren't one of them, they'd double-down on attempts to convince you to see their way, as if encountering people who believed otherwise or not at all in religion, Jesus, god, whatever...was a threat to them and had the possibility of raising serious doubts in what passed for their minds. Hey, we need more nuclear weapons and an increase in defense spending, right, because our infrastructure is falling apart, Trump has no workable plan to improve it, tens of thousands are dying of opioid abuse, the country is full of mentally ill, native-born white men who shoot up schools, the environment doesn't need protection, and the 10% of Americans who own 80% of corporate shares need more money. I get it. Heh, heh. There is little doubt you're going to have a massive stroke one morning sitting on the throne grunting one out. |
SOTU
On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 08:15:46 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 1/31/2018 7:50 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/31/18 6:57 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/31/2018 6:34 AM, justan wrote: What an uplifting speech, eh? I got a kick out of Madame Pelosi's Â* pickle face and the Chuckster's slouching in his chair. What a Â* bunch of babies their section of the audience was. They can't Â* seem to handle positive leadership. And the glares of Cory Booker and Luis Gutierrez. Pelosi couldn't focus on what was being said.Â* She was too busy squirming around, looking at others as if trying to judge which way the wind was blowing. Yeah.Â* Many of the Democrats looked like absolute fools. I watched some of MSNBC's analysis after.Â* They had a Democrat congressman who had invited a DOCA "Dreamer" as his guest. The Dreamer was asked what he thought of the President's speech. He's comments were a wish list for *exactly* what Trump had said. The congressman was visibly nervous because the Dreamer was blowing the whole reason he had invited him and went on to rant about how Trump's goal to limit the number of "chain migration" candidates and move to a merit based immigration system was anti-American. Best line by Trump:Â* "Americans are Dreamers too." I instead watched the movie "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" and two episodes of National Geo's "Life Below Zero," about survivalists scratching out a living in Alaska. I did watch Joe Kennedy III's rebuttal to Trump's "me, me, me" speech. Tinker Tailor is a great genre movie. Read as much of the transcript of Trump's SOTU as I could tolerate without upchucking. Thought it was funny how he tried to claim he was a united, thought it sad he had so little to say about the opioid crisis, thought it was funny he was praising coal, considering how much that product contributes to air pollution, thought his comments on North Korea were disgusting, and his comments about immigrants were hateful and way, way off base. Didn't notice whether he mentioned the threats from Russia. Not an uplifting SOTU. So, you, Maxine and a few others had better things to do, huh? Maybe she watch "Tinker Tailor" also. You could share your impressions with each other. I also watched Joe Kennedy III's rebuttal. Don't know much about him but he seems to be a sincere young guy with Kennedy DNA but obviously following the current ideology and instructions of his party. What struck me more though was how amateur hour the presentation of his speech was, especially following the SOTU speech by Trump. Standing on a temporary podium in front of a small but well programmed audience sitting on folding chairs. They would erupt in applause for almost every other word Kennedy uttered. Looked like it took place in the gymnasium of a vocational school in Fall River with a car with the hood open in the background. Point is ... I think the Democrats really blew it big time by selecting him in this setting to deliver a rebuttal to the SOTU speech. It sorta looked like a high school mock SOTU speech or something. They really should have selected someone more well known and have it done in a more appropriate setting. Again, the Dems appear to be on a rowboat without oars. Nothing they do or say makes any sense. I wasn't quite sure who the "response" was aimed at but he acts like all democrats are illegal alien, transgendered, homosexuals on welfare. That seemed to be the only ones he was speaking for. I am not surprised they can't seem to hold on to the working class voter. Bernie appeals to them but they went out of there way to discredit him and his message in 2016 leaving Hillary who only seems to appeal to the upper 95% liberals on the coasts. and the ones on welfare. It is really true that the parties have pretty much switched sides since the 60s. |
SOTU
On 1/31/2018 11:14 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
Trump is your evangelism. You're in the bag for him, and it makes you nervous when everyone else doesn't share your Trump fandom. Trump announced in his State of the Union speech that his administration had “ended the war on beautiful, clean coal.†It was a puzzling remark. Most of the coal plants Trump has tried to boost are hardly clean compared with other forms of energy. In fact, they create some of the most polluting power there is. Rather than just regurgitating the approved position of the left regarding coal, let's examine the real world, shall we? First of all, coal still generates 30 percent of the energy used in the United States. It is second only to natural gas that produces 34 percent. Energy produced by nuclear power currently supplies 20 percent. Renewable energy sources consisting of hydro, wind, biomass, solar and geothermal contribute 15 percent. "Petroleum" makes up 1 percent. Looking forward and planning for future energy needs, the outlook for nuclear power looks bleak. There are 61 nuke plants in operation with one new one that came on line in 2016. Two more are being built in Georgia despite calls to stop their construction. If completed, they will come on-line some time in 2021 or 2022. However, the scheduled shutdown of existing and aging nuke plants is happening faster than new plants can be approved, permitted and built. Plus, the cost of a modern nuke plant is incredibly expensive. So, we can't plan on that 20 percent of energy for very long. For future planning, where will that energy deficit come from? Renewable sources are being built anywhere land can be acquired and permits can be obtained. But, despite technological advances especially in solar, it's a stretch to think renewables can contribute enough to produce as much power as coal, nuke and the 15 percent they contribute now. Some of the sources have devastating affects on geology and other environmental concerns. Technological advances is being, and should continue to be developed to keep coal in the game. Coal supplies in the United States are far more plentiful than domestic oil or natural gas; they account for more than 90 percent of the country's fossil fuel reserves and more than 60 percent of the world's fuel reserves. It's a planning thing ... not an idealistic brain fart. |
SOTU
On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 10:03:21 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote: 10% of Americans who own 80% of corporate shares need more money. I heard MSBNC say that too but what they ignore is just because most working class Americans do not hold individual stock shares, they are still invested in the market through their IRA and 401k plans. That statistic they like to throw around assumes mutual funds are not stocks. My wife is a Trump hater too but she certainly likes the 10 grand she made in her 401k last year. |
SOTU
|
SOTU
On 1/31/18 12:36 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/31/2018 11:14 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: Trump is your evangelism. You're in the bag for him, and it makes you nervous when everyone else doesn't share your Trump fandom. Trump announced in his State of the Union speech that his administration had “ended the war on beautiful, clean coal.†It was a puzzling remark. Most of the coal plants Trump has tried to boost are hardly clean compared with other forms of energy. In fact, they create some of the most polluting power there is. Rather than just regurgitating the approved position of the left regarding coal, let's examine the real world, shall we? First of all, coal still generates 30 percent of the energy used in the United States.Â* It is second only to natural gas that produces 34 percent. Energy produced by nuclear power currently supplies 20 percent. Renewable energy sources consisting of hydro, wind, biomass, solar and geothermal contribute 15 percent. "Petroleum" makes up 1 percent. Looking forward and planning for future energy needs, the outlook for nuclear power looks bleak.Â* There are 61 nuke plants in operation with one new one that came on line in 2016.Â* Two more are being built in GeorgiaÂ* despite calls to stop their construction.Â* If completed, they will come on-line some time in 2021 or 2022.Â* However, the scheduled shutdown of existing and aging nuke plants is happening faster than new plants can be approved, permitted and built.Â* Plus, the cost of a modern nuke plant is incredibly expensive.Â* So, we can't plan on that 20 percent of energy for very long. For future planning, where will that energy deficit come from? Renewable sources are being built anywhere land can be acquired and permits can be obtained.Â* But, despite technological advances especially in solar, it's a stretch to think renewables can contribute enough to produce as much power as coal, nuke and the 15 percent they contribute now. Some of the sources have devastating affects on geology and other environmental concerns. Technological advances is being, and should continue to be developed to keep coal in the game.Â* Coal supplies in the United States are far more plentiful than domestic oil or natural gas; they account for more than 90 percent of the country's fossil fuel reserves and more than 60 percent of the world's fuel reserves. It's a planning thing ... not an idealistic brain fart. Try reading for content. My comment was about Trump boasting about "ended the war on beautiful, clean coal." Coal isn't beautiful or clean. |
SOTU
|
SOTU
Keyser Soze Wrote in message:
On 1/31/18 12:36 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/31/2018 11:14 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: Trump is your evangelism. You're in the bag for him, and it makes you nervous when everyone else doesn't share your Trump fandom. Trump announced in his State of the Union speech that his administration had ?ended the war on beautiful, clean coal.? It was a puzzling remark. Most of the coal plants Trump has tried to boost are hardly clean compared with other forms of energy. In fact, they create some of the most polluting power there is. Rather than just regurgitating the approved position of the left regarding coal, let's examine the real world, shall we? First of all, coal still generates 30 percent of the energy used in the United States. It is second only to natural gas that produces 34 percent. Energy produced by nuclear power currently supplies 20 percent. Renewable energy sources consisting of hydro, wind, biomass, solar and geothermal contribute 15 percent. "Petroleum" makes up 1 percent. Looking forward and planning for future energy needs, the outlook for nuclear power looks bleak. There are 61 nuke plants in operation with one new one that came on line in 2016. Two more are being built in Georgia despite calls to stop their construction. If completed, they will come on-line some time in 2021 or 2022. However, the scheduled shutdown of existing and aging nuke plants is happening faster than new plants can be approved, permitted and built. Plus, the cost of a modern nuke plant is incredibly expensive. So, we can't plan on that 20 percent of energy for very long. For future planning, where will that energy deficit come from? Renewable sources are being built anywhere land can be acquired and permits can be obtained. But, despite technological advances especially in solar, it's a stretch to think renewables can contribute enough to produce as much power as coal, nuke and the 15 percent they contribute now. Some of the sources have devastating affects on geology and other environmental concerns. Technological advances is being, and should continue to be developed to keep coal in the game. Coal supplies in the United States are far more plentiful than domestic oil or natural gas; they account for more than 90 percent of the country's fossil fuel reserves and more than 60 percent of the world's fuel reserves. It's a planning thing ... not an idealistic brain fart. Try reading for content. My comment was about Trump boasting about "ended the war on beautiful, clean coal." Coal isn't beautiful or clean. I'm not sure anyone want's to have a conversation with you. Most just want to blow a little wind up your skirt. -- x ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/ |
SOTU
On 1/31/2018 1:06 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 1/31/18 12:36 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/31/2018 11:14 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: Trump is your evangelism. You're in the bag for him, and it makes you nervous when everyone else doesn't share your Trump fandom. Trump announced in his State of the Union speech that his administration had “ended the war on beautiful, clean coal.†It was a puzzling remark. Most of the coal plants Trump has tried to boost are hardly clean compared with other forms of energy. In fact, they create some of the most polluting power there is. Rather than just regurgitating the approved position of the left regarding coal, let's examine the real world, shall we? First of all, coal still generates 30 percent of the energy used in the United States.Â* It is second only to natural gas that produces 34 percent. Energy produced by nuclear power currently supplies 20 percent. Renewable energy sources consisting of hydro, wind, biomass, solar and geothermal contribute 15 percent. "Petroleum" makes up 1 percent. Looking forward and planning for future energy needs, the outlook for nuclear power looks bleak.Â* There are 61 nuke plants in operation with one new one that came on line in 2016.Â* Two more are being built in GeorgiaÂ* despite calls to stop their construction.Â* If completed, they will come on-line some time in 2021 or 2022.Â* However, the scheduled shutdown of existing and aging nuke plants is happening faster than new plants can be approved, permitted and built.Â* Plus, the cost of a modern nuke plant is incredibly expensive.Â* So, we can't plan on that 20 percent of energy for very long. For future planning, where will that energy deficit come from? Renewable sources are being built anywhere land can be acquired and permits can be obtained.Â* But, despite technological advances especially in solar, it's a stretch to think renewables can contribute enough to produce as much power as coal, nuke and the 15 percent they contribute now. Some of the sources have devastating affects on geology and other environmental concerns. Technological advances is being, and should continue to be developed to keep coal in the game.Â* Coal supplies in the United States are far more plentiful than domestic oil or natural gas; they account for more than 90 percent of the country's fossil fuel reserves and more than 60 percent of the world's fuel reserves. It's a planning thing ... not an idealistic brain fart. Try reading for content. My comment was about Trump boasting about "ended the war on beautiful, clean coal." Coal isn't beautiful or clean. Holy crap. You really are something else. |
SOTU
On 1/31/2018 1:07 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 1/31/18 12:40 PM, wrote: On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 10:03:21 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: 10% of Americans who own 80% of corporate shares need more money. I heard MSBNC say that too but what they ignore is just because most working class Americans do not hold individual stock shares, they are still invested in the market through their IRA and 401k plans. That statistic they like to throw around assumes mutual funds are not stocks. My wife is a Trump hater too but she certainly likes the 10 grand she made in her 401k last year. What is the basis for your comment about "most" working Americans, and how does that conflict with the claim that 80% of corporate shares are owned by 10% of Americans? Heh. You are certainly demonstrating why you are an English major. Logic and thinking is not your forte. |
SOTU
On 1/31/18 1:17 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/31/2018 1:06 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/31/18 12:36 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/31/2018 11:14 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: Trump is your evangelism. You're in the bag for him, and it makes you nervous when everyone else doesn't share your Trump fandom. Trump announced in his State of the Union speech that his administration had “ended the war on beautiful, clean coal.†It was a puzzling remark. Most of the coal plants Trump has tried to boost are hardly clean compared with other forms of energy. In fact, they create some of the most polluting power there is. Rather than just regurgitating the approved position of the left regarding coal, let's examine the real world, shall we? First of all, coal still generates 30 percent of the energy used in the United States.Â* It is second only to natural gas that produces 34 percent. Energy produced by nuclear power currently supplies 20 percent. Renewable energy sources consisting of hydro, wind, biomass, solar and geothermal contribute 15 percent. "Petroleum" makes up 1 percent. Looking forward and planning for future energy needs, the outlook for nuclear power looks bleak.Â* There are 61 nuke plants in operation with one new one that came on line in 2016.Â* Two more are being built in GeorgiaÂ* despite calls to stop their construction.Â* If completed, they will come on-line some time in 2021 or 2022.Â* However, the scheduled shutdown of existing and aging nuke plants is happening faster than new plants can be approved, permitted and built.Â* Plus, the cost of a modern nuke plant is incredibly expensive.Â* So, we can't plan on that 20 percent of energy for very long. For future planning, where will that energy deficit come from? Renewable sources are being built anywhere land can be acquired and permits can be obtained.Â* But, despite technological advances especially in solar, it's a stretch to think renewables can contribute enough to produce as much power as coal, nuke and the 15 percent they contribute now. Some of the sources have devastating affects on geology and other environmental concerns. Technological advances is being, and should continue to be developed to keep coal in the game.Â* Coal supplies in the United States are far more plentiful than domestic oil or natural gas; they account for more than 90 percent of the country's fossil fuel reserves and more than 60 percent of the world's fuel reserves. It's a planning thing ... not an idealistic brain fart. Try reading for content. My comment was about Trump boasting about "ended the war on beautiful, clean coal." Coal isn't beautiful or clean. Holy crap.Â* You really are something else. You mean because I posted something specific about a false Trump comment and you didn't get it? |
SOTU
On 1/31/2018 1:22 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 1/31/18 1:17 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/31/2018 1:06 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/31/18 12:36 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/31/2018 11:14 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: Trump is your evangelism. You're in the bag for him, and it makes you nervous when everyone else doesn't share your Trump fandom. Trump announced in his State of the Union speech that his administration had “ended the war on beautiful, clean coal.†It was a puzzling remark. Most of the coal plants Trump has tried to boost are hardly clean compared with other forms of energy. In fact, they create some of the most polluting power there is. Rather than just regurgitating the approved position of the left regarding coal, let's examine the real world, shall we? First of all, coal still generates 30 percent of the energy used in the United States.Â* It is second only to natural gas that produces 34 percent. Energy produced by nuclear power currently supplies 20 percent. Renewable energy sources consisting of hydro, wind, biomass, solar and geothermal contribute 15 percent. "Petroleum" makes up 1 percent. Looking forward and planning for future energy needs, the outlook for nuclear power looks bleak.Â* There are 61 nuke plants in operation with one new one that came on line in 2016.Â* Two more are being built in GeorgiaÂ* despite calls to stop their construction.Â* If completed, they will come on-line some time in 2021 or 2022.Â* However, the scheduled shutdown of existing and aging nuke plants is happening faster than new plants can be approved, permitted and built.Â* Plus, the cost of a modern nuke plant is incredibly expensive.Â* So, we can't plan on that 20 percent of energy for very long. For future planning, where will that energy deficit come from? Renewable sources are being built anywhere land can be acquired and permits can be obtained.Â* But, despite technological advances especially in solar, it's a stretch to think renewables can contribute enough to produce as much power as coal, nuke and the 15 percent they contribute now. Some of the sources have devastating affects on geology and other environmental concerns. Technological advances is being, and should continue to be developed to keep coal in the game.Â* Coal supplies in the United States are far more plentiful than domestic oil or natural gas; they account for more than 90 percent of the country's fossil fuel reserves and more than 60 percent of the world's fuel reserves. It's a planning thing ... not an idealistic brain fart. Try reading for content. My comment was about Trump boasting about "ended the war on beautiful, clean coal." Coal isn't beautiful or clean. Holy crap.Â* You really are something else. You mean because I posted something specific about a false Trump comment and you didn't get it? I got exactly what he was implying. You don't. You are wasting my time trying to discuss anything with you. You're as slippery as an eel. |
SOTU
On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 17:31:11 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote: Keyser Soze wrote: Trump announced in his State of the Union speech that his administration had “ended the war on beautiful, clean coal.†It was a puzzling remark. Most of the coal plants Trump has tried to boost are hardly clean compared with other forms of energy. In fact, they create some of the most polluting power there is. The DNC is your evangelical leader. As to coal. How are we to generate power? We close nuclear plants, most of the rivers good for hydroelectric power are already dammed. Governor Moonbeam Brown is committed $2.5 Billion to get 5 million EV on California roads. Problem is we already have brownouts in the summer. Closed San Onofre nuclear plant, which supplied 20% of California power. Wind and solar are not yet a viable supply. And most of the solar panels are imported crap. Don't worry they mine a ****load of clean beautiful coal just east of you and there is always that shale sludge coming down from Canada. Jerry can keep the lights on ;-) I do think it is funny when they talk about electric cars being zero emission but they don't ask where the electricity comes from and how much is lost before it gets to you. There was a great article in the IAEI magazine about how hot transmission cables typically run and that is almost all I2R losses. Basically those lines you see running across the country are big toasters and where the grid is stressed the most is where the most is wasted. |
SOTU
On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 13:06:07 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote: Try reading for content. My comment was about Trump boasting about "ended the war on beautiful, clean coal." Coal isn't beautiful or clean. I choked a little on that myself but it is only money. The Germans figured how to make clean fuel from coal 75 years ago and there is a coal gassification plant that we got a look at in Beulah North Dakota. It just can't compete with gasoline from shale or fracked natural gas. |
SOTU
On 1/31/18 1:27 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/31/2018 1:22 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/31/18 1:17 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/31/2018 1:06 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/31/18 12:36 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/31/2018 11:14 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: Trump is your evangelism. You're in the bag for him, and it makes you nervous when everyone else doesn't share your Trump fandom. Trump announced in his State of the Union speech that his administration had “ended the war on beautiful, clean coal.†It was a puzzling remark. Most of the coal plants Trump has tried to boost are hardly clean compared with other forms of energy. In fact, they create some of the most polluting power there is. Rather than just regurgitating the approved position of the left regarding coal, let's examine the real world, shall we? First of all, coal still generates 30 percent of the energy used in the United States.Â* It is second only to natural gas that produces 34 percent. Energy produced by nuclear power currently supplies 20 percent. Renewable energy sources consisting of hydro, wind, biomass, solar and geothermal contribute 15 percent. "Petroleum" makes up 1 percent. Looking forward and planning for future energy needs, the outlook for nuclear power looks bleak.Â* There are 61 nuke plants in operation with one new one that came on line in 2016.Â* Two more are being built in GeorgiaÂ* despite calls to stop their construction.Â* If completed, they will come on-line some time in 2021 or 2022.Â* However, the scheduled shutdown of existing and aging nuke plants is happening faster than new plants can be approved, permitted and built.Â* Plus, the cost of a modern nuke plant is incredibly expensive.Â* So, we can't plan on that 20 percent of energy for very long. For future planning, where will that energy deficit come from? Renewable sources are being built anywhere land can be acquired and permits can be obtained.Â* But, despite technological advances especially in solar, it's a stretch to think renewables can contribute enough to produce as much power as coal, nuke and the 15 percent they contribute now. Some of the sources have devastating affects on geology and other environmental concerns. Technological advances is being, and should continue to be developed to keep coal in the game.Â* Coal supplies in the United States are far more plentiful than domestic oil or natural gas; they account for more than 90 percent of the country's fossil fuel reserves and more than 60 percent of the world's fuel reserves. It's a planning thing ... not an idealistic brain fart. Try reading for content. My comment was about Trump boasting about "ended the war on beautiful, clean coal." Coal isn't beautiful or clean. Holy crap.Â* You really are something else. You mean because I posted something specific about a false Trump comment and you didn't get it? I got exactly what he was implying.Â* You don't. You are wasting my time trying to discuss anything with you.Â* You're as slippery as an eel. Coal is neither beautiful nor clean. That statement of Trump's was a lie, no matter how you try to spin it. What was Trump "implying" with those words? |
SOTU
On 1/31/18 1:13 PM, justan wrote:
Keyser Soze Wrote in message: On 1/31/18 12:36 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/31/2018 11:14 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: Trump is your evangelism. You're in the bag for him, and it makes you nervous when everyone else doesn't share your Trump fandom. Trump announced in his State of the Union speech that his administration had ?ended the war on beautiful, clean coal.? It was a puzzling remark. Most of the coal plants Trump has tried to boost are hardly clean compared with other forms of energy. In fact, they create some of the most polluting power there is. Rather than just regurgitating the approved position of the left regarding coal, let's examine the real world, shall we? First of all, coal still generates 30 percent of the energy used in the United States. It is second only to natural gas that produces 34 percent. Energy produced by nuclear power currently supplies 20 percent. Renewable energy sources consisting of hydro, wind, biomass, solar and geothermal contribute 15 percent. "Petroleum" makes up 1 percent. Looking forward and planning for future energy needs, the outlook for nuclear power looks bleak. There are 61 nuke plants in operation with one new one that came on line in 2016. Two more are being built in Georgia despite calls to stop their construction. If completed, they will come on-line some time in 2021 or 2022. However, the scheduled shutdown of existing and aging nuke plants is happening faster than new plants can be approved, permitted and built. Plus, the cost of a modern nuke plant is incredibly expensive. So, we can't plan on that 20 percent of energy for very long. For future planning, where will that energy deficit come from? Renewable sources are being built anywhere land can be acquired and permits can be obtained. But, despite technological advances especially in solar, it's a stretch to think renewables can contribute enough to produce as much power as coal, nuke and the 15 percent they contribute now. Some of the sources have devastating affects on geology and other environmental concerns. Technological advances is being, and should continue to be developed to keep coal in the game. Coal supplies in the United States are far more plentiful than domestic oil or natural gas; they account for more than 90 percent of the country's fossil fuel reserves and more than 60 percent of the world's fuel reserves. It's a planning thing ... not an idealistic brain fart. Try reading for content. My comment was about Trump boasting about "ended the war on beautiful, clean coal." Coal isn't beautiful or clean. I'm not sure anyone want's to have a conversation with you. Most just want to blow a little wind up your skirt. Your time would be better spent blowing up Herring's skirt. I'm sure he has something there you'd like... |
SOTU
On 1/31/18 12:36 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/31/2018 11:14 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: Trump is your evangelism. You're in the bag for him, and it makes you nervous when everyone else doesn't share your Trump fandom. Trump announced in his State of the Union speech that his administration had “ended the war on beautiful, clean coal.†It was a puzzling remark. Most of the coal plants Trump has tried to boost are hardly clean compared with other forms of energy. In fact, they create some of the most polluting power there is. Rather than just regurgitating the approved position of the left regarding coal, let's examine the real world, shall we? First of all, coal still generates 30 percent of the energy used in the United States.Â* It is second only to natural gas that produces 34 percent. Energy produced by nuclear power currently supplies 20 percent. Renewable energy sources consisting of hydro, wind, biomass, solar and geothermal contribute 15 percent. "Petroleum" makes up 1 percent. Looking forward and planning for future energy needs, the outlook for nuclear power looks bleak.Â* There are 61 nuke plants in operation with one new one that came on line in 2016.Â* Two more are being built in GeorgiaÂ* despite calls to stop their construction.Â* If completed, they will come on-line some time in 2021 or 2022.Â* However, the scheduled shutdown of existing and aging nuke plants is happening faster than new plants can be approved, permitted and built.Â* Plus, the cost of a modern nuke plant is incredibly expensive.Â* So, we can't plan on that 20 percent of energy for very long. For future planning, where will that energy deficit come from? Renewable sources are being built anywhere land can be acquired and permits can be obtained.Â* But, despite technological advances especially in solar, it's a stretch to think renewables can contribute enough to produce as much power as coal, nuke and the 15 percent they contribute now. Some of the sources have devastating affects on geology and other environmental concerns. Technological advances is being, and should continue to be developed to keep coal in the game.Â* Coal supplies in the United States are far more plentiful than domestic oil or natural gas; they account for more than 90 percent of the country's fossil fuel reserves and more than 60 percent of the world's fuel reserves. It's a planning thing ... not an idealistic brain fart. So, coal is "clean"? |
SOTU
|
SOTU
On 1/31/18 3:00 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 13:07:49 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/31/18 12:40 PM, wrote: On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 10:03:21 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: 10% of Americans who own 80% of corporate shares need more money. I heard MSBNC say that too but what they ignore is just because most working class Americans do not hold individual stock shares, they are still invested in the market through their IRA and 401k plans. That statistic they like to throw around assumes mutual funds are not stocks. My wife is a Trump hater too but she certainly likes the 10 grand she made in her 401k last year. What is the basis for your comment about "most" working Americans, and how does that conflict with the claim that 80% of corporate shares are owned by 10% of Americans? Because you are talking about "shares" not money in funds where most Americans have their retirement money. It doesn't really matter whether that is a 401k/IRA, a private pension plan or a union/government employee plan. A significant part of all of that money is in equities and it is ultimately the worker's (later retiree's) money. The only exception I can think of is the federal government and they have no real investments at all other than whatever our kids can bear in taxes. What percentage of equities, directly or indirectly through funds, are held by the 10% of the wealthiest? |
SOTU
wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 17:31:11 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Keyser Soze wrote: Trump announced in his State of the Union speech that his administration had “ended the war on beautiful, clean coal.†It was a puzzling remark. Most of the coal plants Trump has tried to boost are hardly clean compared with other forms of energy. In fact, they create some of the most polluting power there is. The DNC is your evangelical leader. As to coal. How are we to generate power? We close nuclear plants, most of the rivers good for hydroelectric power are already dammed. Governor Moonbeam Brown is committed $2.5 Billion to get 5 million EV on California roads. Problem is we already have brownouts in the summer. Closed San Onofre nuclear plant, which supplied 20% of California power. Wind and solar are not yet a viable supply. And most of the solar panels are imported crap. Don't worry they mine a ****load of clean beautiful coal just east of you and there is always that shale sludge coming down from Canada. Jerry can keep the lights on ;-) I do think it is funny when they talk about electric cars being zero emission but they don't ask where the electricity comes from and how much is lost before it gets to you. There was a great article in the IAEI magazine about how hot transmission cables typically run and that is almost all I2R losses. Basically those lines you see running across the country are big toasters and where the grid is stressed the most is where the most is wasted. Years ago, when I was still a young engineer, we figured 5% line loss. Last I heard was up to 9% line loss. Probably more now. I own a Volt for my running around car. On 120v takes about 11 hours to charge. 18 kWh I think. The pollution is probably 300 miles from me, so does not matter. :) On gas hets about 32-34 mpg. Lots of the new compact gars are getting 40mpg, so the electric drive has a fairly large energy loss component, besides the inefficiency’s of power generation, and battery charging. |
SOTU
|
SOTU
Keyser Soze Wrote in message:
On 1/31/18 1:17 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/31/2018 1:06 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/31/18 12:36 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/31/2018 11:14 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: Trump is your evangelism. You're in the bag for him, and it makes you nervous when everyone else doesn't share your Trump fandom. Trump announced in his State of the Union speech that his administration had ?ended the war on beautiful, clean coal.? It was a puzzling remark. Most of the coal plants Trump has tried to boost are hardly clean compared with other forms of energy. In fact, they create some of the most polluting power there is. Rather than just regurgitating the approved position of the left regarding coal, let's examine the real world, shall we? First of all, coal still generates 30 percent of the energy used in the United States. It is second only to natural gas that produces 34 percent. Energy produced by nuclear power currently supplies 20 percent. Renewable energy sources consisting of hydro, wind, biomass, solar and geothermal contribute 15 percent. "Petroleum" makes up 1 percent. Looking forward and planning for future energy needs, the outlook for nuclear power looks bleak. There are 61 nuke plants in operation with one new one that came on line in 2016. Two more are being built in Georgia despite calls to stop their construction. If completed, they will come on-line some time in 2021 or 2022. However, the scheduled shutdown of existing and aging nuke plants is happening faster than new plants can be approved, permitted and built. Plus, the cost of a modern nuke plant is incredibly expensive. So, we can't plan on that 20 percent of energy for very long. For future planning, where will that energy deficit come from? Renewable sources are being built anywhere land can be acquired and permits can be obtained. But, despite technological advances especially in solar, it's a stretch to think renewables can contribute enough to produce as much power as coal, nuke and the 15 percent they contribute now. Some of the sources have devastating affects on geology and other environmental concerns. Technological advances is being, and should continue to be developed to keep coal in the game. Coal supplies in the United States are far more plentiful than domestic oil or natural gas; they account for more than 90 percent of the country's fossil fuel reserves and more than 60 percent of the world's fuel reserves. It's a planning thing ... not an idealistic brain fart. Try reading for content. My comment was about Trump boasting about "ended the war on beautiful, clean coal." Coal isn't beautiful or clean. Holy crap. You really are something else. You mean because I posted something specific about a false Trump comment and you didn't get it? Post something specific about the Fat Harry Krause bankruptcies. I've never heard of anyone getting away with it TWICE. Your story would be a fascinating read. -- x ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/ |
SOTU
"Mr. Luddite" Wrote in message:
On 1/31/2018 1:07 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/31/18 12:40 PM, wrote: On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 10:03:21 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: 10% of Americans who own 80% of corporate shares need more money. I heard MSBNC say that too but what they ignore is just because most working class Americans do not hold individual stock shares, they are still invested in the market through their IRA and 401k plans. That statistic they like to throw around assumes mutual funds are not stocks. My wife is a Trump hater too but she certainly likes the 10 grand she made in her 401k last year. What is the basis for your comment about "most" working Americans, and how does that conflict with the claim that 80% of corporate shares are owned by 10% of Americans? Heh. You are certainly demonstrating why you are an English major. Logic and thinking is not your forte. Lying is the only thing that Fat Harry is even semi skilled at. Try to find ANYTHING he has published. -- x ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/ |
SOTU
On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 15:12:38 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote: I choked a little on that myself but it is only money. The Germans figured how to make clean fuel from coal 75 years ago and there is a coal gassification plant that we got a look at in Beulah North Dakota. It just can't compete with gasoline from shale or fracked natural gas. Trump talks up the idea of clean coal, but where in the United States would one be doing the carbon capture and storage? How about under Trump Tower or below Mar-a-Lago? Like I said it is only money. Scrubbing the stacks makes it better to live near the plant but it is not cheap. Up until this latest fad, CO2 was the good gas that came out of the tail pipe "just like the fizz in soda pop" according to the people who sold us the catalytic converter back in the leisure suit days. They just need another stage in the scrub cycle to extract the CO2. The real problem with coal is it isn't clean, unless you are in the anthracite country in West Virginia. |
SOTU
On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 13:07:49 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote: On 1/31/18 12:40 PM, wrote: On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 10:03:21 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: 10% of Americans who own 80% of corporate shares need more money. I heard MSBNC say that too but what they ignore is just because most working class Americans do not hold individual stock shares, they are still invested in the market through their IRA and 401k plans. That statistic they like to throw around assumes mutual funds are not stocks. My wife is a Trump hater too but she certainly likes the 10 grand she made in her 401k last year. What is the basis for your comment about "most" working Americans, and how does that conflict with the claim that 80% of corporate shares are owned by 10% of Americans? === You've spent 20 years in this group trying to convince us that you are an affluent yachtsman. Do you really think that's possible without being in the top 10 percent? So were you a fraud then or are you a fraud now? My guess is both. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com |
SOTU
On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 15:16:05 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote: On 1/31/18 3:00 PM, wrote: On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 13:07:49 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/31/18 12:40 PM, wrote: On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 10:03:21 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: 10% of Americans who own 80% of corporate shares need more money. I heard MSBNC say that too but what they ignore is just because most working class Americans do not hold individual stock shares, they are still invested in the market through their IRA and 401k plans. That statistic they like to throw around assumes mutual funds are not stocks. My wife is a Trump hater too but she certainly likes the 10 grand she made in her 401k last year. What is the basis for your comment about "most" working Americans, and how does that conflict with the claim that 80% of corporate shares are owned by 10% of Americans? Because you are talking about "shares" not money in funds where most Americans have their retirement money. It doesn't really matter whether that is a 401k/IRA, a private pension plan or a union/government employee plan. A significant part of all of that money is in equities and it is ultimately the worker's (later retiree's) money. The only exception I can think of is the federal government and they have no real investments at all other than whatever our kids can bear in taxes. What percentage of equities, directly or indirectly through funds, are held by the 10% of the wealthiest? Define "wealthiest". Are you just talking about what you call the middle class? (households making $110k+) That is going to be a pretty big number since they will have the biggest 401ks, assuming they did not raid them. I am sure if you just want to talk about hedge funds and guys like Buffett they have huge holdings but they also have stockholders themselves. They are essentially those funds I was talking about. You can't confuse that with individual investors. I suppose We could actually track down what percentage of stocks are held by the real middle class, that guy who makes $50k or so but you really need to figure out how much is in his pension or 401k. I tend not to believe some of the things that the left (or the right) says until I see how they arrived at their statistic. I crunched numbers at work long enough to figure out you can make a database say pretty much anything you want, just by what "view" you define in your query. |
SOTU
On 2/1/18 1:17 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 15:16:05 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/31/18 3:00 PM, wrote: On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 13:07:49 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/31/18 12:40 PM, wrote: On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 10:03:21 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: 10% of Americans who own 80% of corporate shares need more money. I heard MSBNC say that too but what they ignore is just because most working class Americans do not hold individual stock shares, they are still invested in the market through their IRA and 401k plans. That statistic they like to throw around assumes mutual funds are not stocks. My wife is a Trump hater too but she certainly likes the 10 grand she made in her 401k last year. What is the basis for your comment about "most" working Americans, and how does that conflict with the claim that 80% of corporate shares are owned by 10% of Americans? Because you are talking about "shares" not money in funds where most Americans have their retirement money. It doesn't really matter whether that is a 401k/IRA, a private pension plan or a union/government employee plan. A significant part of all of that money is in equities and it is ultimately the worker's (later retiree's) money. The only exception I can think of is the federal government and they have no real investments at all other than whatever our kids can bear in taxes. What percentage of equities, directly or indirectly through funds, are held by the 10% of the wealthiest? Define "wealthiest". Are you just talking about what you call the middle class? (households making $110k+) That is going to be a pretty big number since they will have the biggest 401ks, assuming they did not raid them. I am sure if you just want to talk about hedge funds and guys like Buffett they have huge holdings but they also have stockholders themselves. They are essentially those funds I was talking about. You can't confuse that with individual investors. I suppose We could actually track down what percentage of stocks are held by the real middle class, that guy who makes $50k or so but you really need to figure out how much is in his pension or 401k. I tend not to believe some of the things that the left (or the right) says until I see how they arrived at their statistic. I crunched numbers at work long enough to figure out you can make a database say pretty much anything you want, just by what "view" you define in your query. Your assumption, I suppose, is that the guy making $50k these days has some sort of defined benefit pension. Well, that's not 2018 America so much. Defined benefit pension are disappearing. And at a $50k income level, I wonder how many workers are contributing to an employer-sponsored 401k, or hang around long enough to get vested, or have enough left over after living expenses for putting away some bucks in an IRA. |
SOTU
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/1/18 1:17 AM, wrote: On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 15:16:05 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/31/18 3:00 PM, wrote: On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 13:07:49 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/31/18 12:40 PM, wrote: On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 10:03:21 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: 10% of Americans who own 80% of corporate shares need more money. I heard MSBNC say that too but what they ignore is just because most working class Americans do not hold individual stock shares, they are still invested in the market through their IRA and 401k plans. That statistic they like to throw around assumes mutual funds are not stocks. My wife is a Trump hater too but she certainly likes the 10 grand she made in her 401k last year. What is the basis for your comment about "most" working Americans, and how does that conflict with the claim that 80% of corporate shares are owned by 10% of Americans? Because you are talking about "shares" not money in funds where most Americans have their retirement money. It doesn't really matter whether that is a 401k/IRA, a private pension plan or a union/government employee plan. A significant part of all of that money is in equities and it is ultimately the worker's (later retiree's) money. The only exception I can think of is the federal government and they have no real investments at all other than whatever our kids can bear in taxes. What percentage of equities, directly or indirectly through funds, are held by the 10% of the wealthiest? Define "wealthiest". Are you just talking about what you call the middle class? (households making $110k+) That is going to be a pretty big number since they will have the biggest 401ks, assuming they did not raid them. I am sure if you just want to talk about hedge funds and guys like Buffett they have huge holdings but they also have stockholders themselves. They are essentially those funds I was talking about. You can't confuse that with individual investors. I suppose We could actually track down what percentage of stocks are held by the real middle class, that guy who makes $50k or so but you really need to figure out how much is in his pension or 401k. I tend not to believe some of the things that the left (or the right) says until I see how they arrived at their statistic. I crunched numbers at work long enough to figure out you can make a database say pretty much anything you want, just by what "view" you define in your query. Your assumption, I suppose, is that the guy making $50k these days has some sort of defined benefit pension. Well, that's not 2018 America so much. Defined benefit pension are disappearing. And at a $50k income level, I wonder how many workers are contributing to an employer-sponsored 401k, or hang around long enough to get vested, or have enough left over after living expenses for putting away some bucks in an IRA. Lots f those $50k workers have 401k. What replaced defined benefit plans. Was good for most of the high tech world. As most jobs did not stay long enough to very in a defined benefit plan. I get monthly checks from 2 plans. One place I worked 17years and left in 1979. A little over $230. Another place I was there 5 years, but turned 55. $250 a month. Not much. My 401k / iras are worth a shot pot more a month if I need to tap them. For now I get the RMD’s. And live off my other investments. Spend 85% of your income and invest the rest, and you will never notice the 15% loss and will be well off at retirement. |
SOTU
On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 07:41:31 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/1/18 1:17 AM, wrote: Define "wealthiest". Are you just talking about what you call the middle class? (households making $110k+) That is going to be a pretty big number since they will have the biggest 401ks, assuming they did not raid them. I am sure if you just want to talk about hedge funds and guys like Buffett they have huge holdings but they also have stockholders themselves. They are essentially those funds I was talking about. You can't confuse that with individual investors. I suppose We could actually track down what percentage of stocks are held by the real middle class, that guy who makes $50k or so but you really need to figure out how much is in his pension or 401k. I tend not to believe some of the things that the left (or the right) says until I see how they arrived at their statistic. I crunched numbers at work long enough to figure out you can make a database say pretty much anything you want, just by what "view" you define in your query. Your assumption, I suppose, is that the guy making $50k these days has some sort of defined benefit pension. Well, that's not 2018 America so much. Defined benefit pension are disappearing. And at a $50k income level, I wonder how many workers are contributing to an employer-sponsored 401k, or hang around long enough to get vested, or have enough left over after living expenses for putting away some bucks in an IRA. I agree defined benefit pension plans started disappearing rapidly during the Clinton phoney "prosperity" days and most were gone by the time his tech bubble popped. Most employers are offering matching 401k program s now and the idea of "vesting" is pretty much an obsolete term. Your 401k is all yours from day one. The employer contribution may have a time on the job requirement at some places tho. BTW if you plan on living after you stop working, your savings ARE living expenses. That new big screen TV you buy when you are 25 would be 8 to 10 times as much when you retire if you invested it. The same is true of that new car. Many years ago I heard you have to pay yourself first. I put my first raise at IBM into the stock plan and continued doing that until I maxed out at 10% of my gross. It really just meant I deferred getting a raise for a while but I was racking up savings. When I finally got over the "new car" thing and paid off my car, I saved that money too. Pretty soon I was buying cars with cash. By your standards I was never rich but I still managed to save money. I would rather be financially secure than have a lot of flashy things. I think that is rare in the US. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:53 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com