- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Posted on 5/19/14 at 8:26 pm to CptBengal
You know very little about Marxism and socialism if you think using the environment is the way toward socialism.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 8:27 pm to GumboPot
quote:
Because the greenies are statist first.
That's just not true, dude. There are plenty of people who lean left but who would welcome fusion. Hell, almost all of my liberal friends from college would wet themselves at the prospect of a viable fusion option.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 8:34 pm to Ralph_Wiggum
quote:
You know very little about Marxism and socialism if you think using the environment is the way toward socialism.
Need More, clown?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 8:37 pm to CptBengal
Sooooo . . . the "Socialist Party of Great Britain" speaks for whom? I mean, clearly themselves, but other than that?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 8:45 pm to VOR
lol, socialists taking about exactly what he referenced isn't good enough?
fine, how about Stalin using environmentalism to advance socialism
fine, how about Stalin using environmentalism to advance socialism
Posted on 5/19/14 at 8:52 pm to VOR
quote:
Hell, almost all of my liberal friends from college would wet themselves at the prospect of a viable fusion option.
I don't doubt that. These guys are true believers and have good intentions. However lets follow the money for a second.
1.) Academia - research grants.
2.) Federal Government - carbon taxes (via carbon credits)
3.) Wall Street - I'm using that term loosely (for example, LINK) And:
quote:
Goldman wants this bill. The plan is (1) to get in on the ground floor of paradigm-shifting legislation, (2) make sure that they're the profit-making slice of that paradigm and (3) make sure the slice is a big slice. Goldman started pushing hard for cap-and-trade long ago, but things really ramped up last year when the firm spent $3.5 million to lobby climate issues.
LINK
1, 2, or 3 won't be happy about fusion technology. Well, maybe Goldman Sachs. They have their hands in every damn thing. They are so well hedged.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:15 pm to GumboPot
quote:
1.) Academia - research grants.
2.) Federal Government - carbon taxes (via carbon credits)
3.) Wall Street - I'm using that term loosely (for example, LINK) And:
quote:Soooooo much fail. You don't think that universities will be going gaga over building fusion reactors? You don't think that the federal government would love to solve the energy crisis? You don't think there is money to be made in new technology?
1, 2, or 3 won't be happy about fusion technology.
Most of all, you don't think that a ground breaking source of new energy won't create a whole new industry developing new ways to utilize it? Tell me, in your opinion, did the internal combustion engine help or hurt the economy?
This post was edited on 5/19/14 at 9:16 pm
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:22 pm to CptBengal
Why do so many "gotcha" 's in political rhetoric involve predictions and/or questions about things that have never happened?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:22 pm to mmcgrath
Isn't this pretty simple? Who does "free" or crazy crazy cheaply made energy hurt? Those who offer expensive energy right? Thats gotta be the first thought. You guys are all about markets right? Who are the competitors?
The first thing I think about with fusion is how much it will likely spur scientific advancement, but also economic. I will say this though, there is no way that something this big doesn't scare a lot of people. Probably a lot of people you wouldnt immediately think of. I truly hope I live to see it.
The first thing I think about with fusion is how much it will likely spur scientific advancement, but also economic. I will say this though, there is no way that something this big doesn't scare a lot of people. Probably a lot of people you wouldnt immediately think of. I truly hope I live to see it.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:24 pm to AUbused
quote:
Who does "free" or crazy crazy cheaply made energy hurt? Those who offer expensive energy right? Thats gotta be the first thought. You guys are all about markets right? Who are the competitors?
the most expensive energy is from the current green energy field...hence the OP.
glad you could finally catch up on page 2 of the thread.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:27 pm to CptBengal
quote:
Let's see....Obama and co have attempted to prop up an entire solar, wind, unicorn industry that just cant compete. When skunkworks releases their model in 2017, it wont take more than a week before all the liberals who have invested in wind and solar go apoplectic.
You are a lunatic, no question about it.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:30 pm to CptBengal
quote:
the most expensive energy is from the current green energy field...hence the OP.
Sure it includes plenty of them...but also virtually every other energy player.
quote:
glad you could finally catch up on page 2 of the thread.
So butthurt.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:31 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
You don't think that universities will be going gaga over building fusion reactors?
Sure. However the pool of researcher and research grants studying climate change will likely come to a screeching halt. That's a big change for this industry. So they'll have to adapt or go to the house.
quote:
You don't think that the federal government would love to solve the energy crisis?
I'm skeptical. However if there is sufficient pressure from the people the federal government will do what the people tell it to do. So, if the people buy into the fusion technology will the the federal government get out of ME wars and carbon tax ideas?
![](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/Images/icons/shrug.gif)
quote:
You don't think there is money to be made in new technology?
Of course there is money to be made. That's the current incentive behind this technology.
quote:
Most of all, you don't think that a ground breaking source of new energy won't create a whole new industry developing new ways to utilize it?
Absolutely.
quote:
Tell me, in your opinion, did the internal combustion engine help or hurt the economy?
Of course it helped.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:31 pm to mmcgrath
DP
This post was edited on 5/19/14 at 9:36 pm
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:33 pm to AUbused
quote:
Sure it includes plenty of them...but also virtually every other energy player.
look again at how much of a barrel of oil goes to energy and how much goes to "other".
how much of green energy goes to "other"?
zero. They will be the laser-disc of the energy world.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:34 pm to AUbused
quote:
Who does "free" or crazy crazy cheaply made energy hurt? Those who offer expensive energy right?
Green energy is the most expensive energy of them all. I for one welcome fusion energy and I work in the O&G field. Lubes, waxes, and plastics will keep this field going for a long time, fuel is just the cherry on top.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:36 pm to GumboPot
quote:
grants studying climate change will likely come to a screeching halt
These leaches are the first ones I though of. Fusion can't get here fast enough if not to just make these frickers baristas again.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:37 pm to AUbused
quote:
why would the green lobby be mad?
The true believers would be ecstatic. The Obama/Van Jones types want the power derived from rationing carbon emissions and wealth. They would be PISSED.
Popular
Back to top
![logo](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/images/layout/TDIcon.jpg)