"Let me sort of describe my overall policy.

What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place
that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else’s out
there.

I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade
system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases
emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in
which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented,
whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to
meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are
being placed, imposed every year.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s
just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a
huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.

That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in
solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.
The only thing I’ve said with respect to coal, I haven’t been some
coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the
table as a ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology
allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/ne.../posts?page=11

The guys a f**king economic genius.

I wonder if the folks in WVA, PA and OH know about this?

Atomic Abusement Park Clown wrote:
"Let me sort of describe my overall policy.

What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place
that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else’s out
there.

I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade
system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases
emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in
which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented,
whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to
meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are
being placed, imposed every year.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s
just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a
huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.

That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in
solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.
The only thing I’ve said with respect to coal, I haven’t been some
coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the
table as a ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology
allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/ne.../posts?page=11

The guys a f**king economic genius.

I wonder if the folks in WVA, PA and OH know about this?

Sounds like lawyer speak to me. Says nothing. Means nothing. Commits to
nothing. Implys anything you want it to. Prepare for 4 years or less of
Lawyer speak. If you liked Bill Clinton you are going to love this guy.

Jim wrote:
Atomic Abusement Park Clown wrote:
"Let me sort of describe my overall policy.

What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place
that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else’s out
there.

I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade
system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases
emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in
which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented,
whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to
meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are
being placed, imposed every year.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s
just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a
huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.

That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in
solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.
The only thing I’ve said with respect to coal, I haven’t been some
coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the
table as a ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology
allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/ne.../posts?page=11

The guys a f**king economic genius.

I wonder if the folks in WVA, PA and OH know about this?

Sounds like lawyer speak to me. Says nothing. Means nothing. Commits to
nothing. Implys anything you want it to. Prepare for 4 years or less of
Lawyer speak. If you liked Bill Clinton you are going to love this guy.


Most Americans would love to go back to the economic times of Bill
Clinton. Most Americans who are smart. Those Americans who are as dumb
as dog**** - like you - prefer the economic chaos of Bush-McCain.

On Nov 2, 3:33*pm, Boater wrote:
Jim wrote:
Atomic Abusement Park Clown wrote:
"Let me sort of describe my overall policy.

What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place
that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else’s out
there.

I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade
system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases
emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in
which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented,
whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to
meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are
being placed, imposed every year.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s
just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a
huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.

That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in
solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.
The only thing I’ve said with respect to coal, I haven’t been some
coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the
table as a ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology
allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/ne.../posts?page=11

The guys a f**king economic genius.

I wonder if the folks in WVA, PA and OH know about this?

Sounds like lawyer speak to me. Says nothing. Means nothing. Commits to
nothing. Implys anything you want it to. Prepare for 4 years or less of
Lawyer speak. If you liked Bill Clinton you are going to love this guy.

Most Americans would love to go back to the economic times of Bill
Clinton. Most Americans who are smart. Those Americans who are as dumb
as dog**** - like you - prefer the economic chaos of Bush-McCain.-

No one beleives that BS... save it. All thinking people know we're
paying for the Clinton era and the Dem's screwups now with the
economy. The Republicans tried to ring the warning bell, and the Dems
shut them down. Nice going, liberal idiots.

Boater wrote:
Jim wrote:
Atomic Abusement Park Clown wrote:
"Let me sort of describe my overall policy.

What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place
that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else’s out
there.

I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade
system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases
emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in
which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented,
whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to
meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are
being placed, imposed every year.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s
just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a
huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.

That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in
solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.
The only thing I’ve said with respect to coal, I haven’t been some
coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the
table as a ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology
allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/ne.../posts?page=11

The guys a f**king economic genius.

I wonder if the folks in WVA, PA and OH know about this?

Sounds like lawyer speak to me. Says nothing. Means nothing. Commits
to nothing. Implys anything you want it to. Prepare for 4 years or
less of Lawyer speak. If you liked Bill Clinton you are going to love
this guy.


Most Americans would love to go back to the economic times of Bill
Clinton. Most Americans who are smart. Those Americans who are as dumb
as dog**** - like you - prefer the economic chaos of Bush-McCain.

The circumstances that led up to the prosperity of the Clinton days have
been explained to you time and time again. As was, what Clinton did to
get us where we are now. You are either too stupid to understand or too
loyal to admit it. I think it is the latter because you do like opera
and can spell pretty good.

wrote in message
...
On Nov 2, 3:33 pm, Boater wrote:
Jim wrote:
Atomic Abusement Park Clown wrote:
"Let me sort of describe my overall policy.

What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place
that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else’s out
there.

I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade
system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases
emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in
which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented,
whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to
meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are
being placed, imposed every year.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s
just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a
huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.

That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in
solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.
The only thing I’ve said with respect to coal, I haven’t been some
coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the
table as a ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology
allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/ne.../posts?page=11

The guys a f**king economic genius.

I wonder if the folks in WVA, PA and OH know about this?

Sounds like lawyer speak to me. Says nothing. Means nothing. Commits to
nothing. Implys anything you want it to. Prepare for 4 years or less of
Lawyer speak. If you liked Bill Clinton you are going to love this guy.

Most Americans would love to go back to the economic times of Bill
Clinton. Most Americans who are smart. Those Americans who are as dumb
as dog**** - like you - prefer the economic chaos of Bush-McCain.-

No one beleives that BS... save it. All thinking people know we're
paying for the Clinton era and the Dem's screwups now with the
economy. The Republicans tried to ring the warning bell, and the Dems
shut them down. Nice going, liberal idiots.
-------
Unfortunately it was the liberal idiots that created the problem now people
are going to vote for them. Scary.

The new USSR: United States Socialist Republic

Boater wrote:
Jim wrote:
Atomic Abusement Park Clown wrote:
"Let me sort of describe my overall policy.

What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place
that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else’s out
there.

I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade
system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases
emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in
which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented,
whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to
meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are
being placed, imposed every year.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s
just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a
huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.

That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in
solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.
The only thing I’ve said with respect to coal, I haven’t been some
coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the
table as a ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology
allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/ne.../posts?page=11

The guys a f**king economic genius.

I wonder if the folks in WVA, PA and OH know about this?

Sounds like lawyer speak to me. Says nothing. Means nothing. Commits
to nothing. Implys anything you want it to. Prepare for 4 years or
less of Lawyer speak. If you liked Bill Clinton you are going to love
this guy.


Most Americans would love to go back to the economic times of Bill
Clinton. Most Americans who are smart. Those Americans who are as dumb
as dog**** - like you - prefer the economic chaos of Bush-McCain.

The economic times of Bill Clinton were all flash and no substance.
Every business plan, in the technology/Internet sector had to have an
exit strategy which was how you were going to sell your self off before
going public or just after going public. If after you went public it had
to before your first year of public reporting. Also, most investors
wanted to know to know if you had your AOL advertising deal in place
already. Most companies weren't selling into the technologically
ignorant AOL consumer space but, you had to have this AOL advertising
deal check box checked off.

The economic climate of Bill Clinton was nothing but smoke and mirrors
that started to fall apart in December of 1999 and imploded in March of
2000.

BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
Jim wrote:
Atomic Abusement Park Clown wrote:
"Let me sort of describe my overall policy.

What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place
that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else’s out
there.

I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade
system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases
emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in
which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented,
whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to
meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are
being placed, imposed every year.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s
just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a
huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.

That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in
solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.
The only thing I’ve said with respect to coal, I haven’t been some
coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the
table as a ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology
allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/ne.../posts?page=11

The guys a f**king economic genius.

I wonder if the folks in WVA, PA and OH know about this?

Sounds like lawyer speak to me. Says nothing. Means nothing. Commits
to nothing. Implys anything you want it to. Prepare for 4 years or
less of Lawyer speak. If you liked Bill Clinton you are going to love
this guy.


Most Americans would love to go back to the economic times of Bill
Clinton. Most Americans who are smart. Those Americans who are as dumb
as dog**** - like you - prefer the economic chaos of Bush-McCain.

The economic times of Bill Clinton were all flash and no substance.



Sure, Mr. Edu-ma-cated.