I'll never understand that about liberals, they think they need to take that route to shore-up their Sierra Club vote & whatever, but they had that already... so why?

oh well, not my problem, and my favorites always seem to benefit from it anyway.

LOL... she did... she probably shorted it before she and Obama started all this.

Thanks for what you said about Josh.
He wanted to be a cop but can't with one replaced kidney all there is to make his urine.
What gets me is how Obooboo and Hitlery talk like we already have "alternatives" on hand.
Like what? Solar panels that can really for real light up all of New York state?
Nuclear energy? Like we finally have that safer fusion power now. Bet EcoNazis would still find a problem with that.
How about the diliithium crystals that killed Mr. Spock?
Oh, I know. Maybe they found the wind god of The Odyssey that you could bag to water rocket a ship.

Sure. They're basically mob. I've had a little experience with some organized labor in my engineering work. It quickly became clear to me that they were willing to make me an offer I couldn't refuse. You don't mess with them...

Have you been paying attention to coal stocks over the Obama admin? Holy moly...

The randomness is just as you described, it is not directed at a specific issue, or nuance of an issue, it is a knee jerk "that is bad and must be killed" approach designed to appease the biggest group they can find with their focus group mentality. They have missed entirely that our frigging entire nation is a focus group, and their "whack a mole" method is what is actively destroying it. Look at the deficit, how much effort have they put into whining and moaning about it, putting up show votes and games such as "break the government" (for a week or so) and then everyone runs in terror. Shut down the whole damn thing for 6 months, then we can talk. That is all they will ever pay attention to.

" the randomness of the stupidity is a primary issue here."
Are you saying lack of long-term critical thinking results in a whack-a-mole approach, where we learn something like CO2 released by burning coal is causing costly global warming, so we whack the mallet down: coal bad! But then some other problem crops up and we're on to that. So in a few years we'll be whacking the mallet down on the budget. "Who could have ever imagined long-term rates would rise and gov't would have to cut spending or raise taxes right when people are seeing losses in their bond funds, house prices, and business valuations. No one could have foreseen this." It's really unfortunate.

Again, you're saying there's a lot of pitfalls to rational thought: enticing images, short-term thinking, shallow thinking. Are you saying this lack of critical thinking is why we often don't act until faced with an immediate crisis?

Dino, the shame is it is manipulation of a topic, with no rational framework. I know coal produces bad things, mercury is just one of them. But our structure is based on what it is, not what we wish it was. The total lack of any replacement plan besides spending 60 Billion they do not have, after the debacles of like that energy company they blew 2 billion or so on and flopped, is proof of that. I am sure your stepson is an honest worker, and I respect anyone who will willingly go into the earth and do what they do. May he survive this mess intact...

Quite possibly.

That seems to be the weird thing about the unions, they will support these idiots no matter what. My only idea is that the Union leaders skim so much from this, they don't give a crap about their members. It happens in Oregon all the time. They even supported a criminal candidate, elected him, just so he could resign. As long as they got whatever it is they get from them, you could be a felon like Hillary and get their support. Pelosi lied to all of us, Lerner did, EPA did and does, they suppress evidence and flat out lie to your face, but the Unions still love them. Go figure.

I agree with having a rational debate. I believe Objectivist rationalization of a problem is based on reasoned, fact filled, consideration. I find none of that in the political or even economic discussion on energy. It is everyone for themselves, and oh by the way, we are all going to die from "fill in the blank". The fact these clowns in command have no clue except what their handlers say to say, adds to the mess. Even the "factual science" has become pick and choose your flavor. Your comment above is a summation of current government and political structure, so until we find a way to inject cold common sense factual debate, we have what we have. Even if we do not want it. One reason I am adamantly opposed to both Democrap candidates. There is not a tax they have never not liked.I do not want this crowd of thieves and looters to have any more reason to steal my income.

I think you hit on it when you alluded to the church petition. The image of a wonderful world of sweetness and light is enticing to those who don't think beyond the moment. We live in a society which has the attention span of a handclap, and the depth of thought of a sheet of paper. Stupidity is a natural talent for these people.

CG, the randomness of the stupidity is a primary issue here. You can find hundreds of examples of contradictory policy, where the government should not even be involved, or at best distinct manipulation with regulations (as practiced by the Obamanation) that actively screw up any attempt by the market to stabilize on a good, effective, cost efficient energy system. We have been whacking away at "energy" as a ploy by politicians since the 70's, and it is still just as much a jumbled mess today as it was then. The point of people holding contradictory positions is the point. As long as you have 2 disparate sides to an idea, it can never be resolved to a mutual benefit. They each want it their way or the highway. Pretty soon we will all be walking the highway, and they will all bitch about that then, as well.

Your first paragraph describes the psychotic dysfunction I see going on. A lot of it has roots in the wide dispersal of both understanding of the details, as well as political windage. As long as our culture continues to approve of manipulation and emotional decision making, I do not see any resolution. That fact should hopefully make itself manifest someday, but you never know. Sheeple are not the smartest cookies in the jar.

"The same people "
You list various things about which people could hold contradictory positions. You give an example: Sierra Club suppressing a study they funded whose results were favorable to nuclear energy. What is the point of these apparently random examples of stupidity?

It might actually be real. Of course, that could also be said for her followers, but I guess that won't fly.

That may be her best defense when facing indictment. ;)

Here is a video put out by Rand Paul, who is still very active in his campaign to get reelected to the Senate, so he can work for "liberty".
https://youtu.be/TgttkWQj6D0

As Will Rogers said, "Common sense ain't so common." The same people screaming for clean energy want hydroelectric dams torn down to restore fish spawning; they want wind power, then fight to have it banned because it kills birds; they want solar power, but do everything possible to shut down the mining industry that supplies the materials for solar panels. When a Sierra Club funded energy study found that the cleanest, safest energy source is nuclear, they took the publisher to court to make sure the study was banned from publication.

Most people who support these various clean energy causes remain blissfully ignorant of the implications of the goals. The horrifying fact is that the promoters of the "clean energy future" are adherents to extreme population reduction, with some believing that the Earth won't be safe until the human population is reduced to no more than 100 million.

By eliminating most energy production, nature will take its course, as famine and fighting over food and water will reduce the human population. A good healthy war here and there wouldn't hurt, so long as the weapons aren't going to harm the environment too much.

She said it. The next day her campaign tried to cover it up a little. So the question then is, was she lying when she said it or was she lying when she tried to cover it up? I'm betting the lie is in the cover up. Most lifelong politicians get caught then.

Talk about foolish campaigning. She just lost thousands of votes. Good for her. It think she has become mentally deficient.

Couldn't of said better myself!

Hillary has NO principles at all. She responds only to the polls and her handlers to get more power for herself. She would sell out her own mother if it got her elected.

Being a native of a state (Wyoming) that has been hit extremely hard by the loss of oil jobs and coal companies in serious trouble, the whole state is reeling.