FCS Football | Message Board | News
https://www.championshipsubdivision.com/forums/
https://www.championshipsubdivision.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=34284
He hasn't done anything about jobs either. Which comes first, climate change or jobs?Seahawks08 wrote:The mention of climate change was encouraging. After completely neglecting it in his first term, he better do something about it this term.
Lip service. The world can't live without carbon based fuels.Seahawks08 wrote:The mention of climate change was encouraging. After completely neglecting it in his first term, he better do something about it this term.
I'd worry more about an asteroid hitting the Earth than I would climate change. I hate cold winters, I'm pro-global warming.Seahawks08 wrote:The mention of climate change was encouraging. After completely neglecting it in his first term, he better do something about it this term.
Indeed. He really needs to prioritize saving us from ourselves...whatever the cost.Seahawks08 wrote:The mention of climate change was encouraging. After completely neglecting it in his first term, he better do something about it this term.
It'll have to eventually. It won't happen overnight, but do you really think we'll still be using coal to generate most of our power a hundred, two hundred years from now?HI54UNI wrote:Lip service. The world can't live without carbon based fuels.Seahawks08 wrote:The mention of climate change was encouraging. After completely neglecting it in his first term, he better do something about it this term.
Coal use will be minimized due to it's cost/btu, but natural gas, petroleum and biomass will always be around.Grizalltheway wrote:It'll have to eventually. It won't happen overnight, but do you really think we'll still be using coal to generate most of our power a hundred, two hundred years from now?HI54UNI wrote:
Lip service. The world can't live without carbon based fuels.
travelinman67 wrote:Coal use will be minimized due to it's cost/btu, but natural gas, petroleum and biomass will always be around.Grizalltheway wrote:
It'll have to eventually. It won't happen overnight, but do you really think we'll still be using coal to generate most of our power a hundred, two hundred years from now?
Where will they get the guns...since if the prez has his way, they will go the way of coal...DSUrocks07 wrote:travelinman67 wrote:
Coal use will be minimized due to it's cost/btu, but natural gas, petroleum and biomass will always be around.
The idea of eliminating the use of ALL fossil fuels is a pipe dream. no pun intended
Any new technology will be inherently expensive BECAUSE its new. And having liberals holding a gun to someone's head to force them to use these new sources with no consideration to the cost is irresponsible. pun intended
Col Hogan wrote:Where will they get the guns...since if the prez has his way, they will go the way of coal...DSUrocks07 wrote:
The idea of eliminating the use of ALL fossil fuels is a pipe dream. no pun intended
Any new technology will be inherently expensive BECAUSE its new. And having liberals holding a gun to someone's head to force them to use these new sources with no consideration to the cost is irresponsible. pun intended
Obama is not throwing away the 2nd Amendment. I took you for a smarter man Hogan...Four major gun control acts have been passed in this country...National Firearms Act in 1934; the Gun Control Act of1968; the Firearm Owners Protection Act was passed in 1986; and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act was passed in 1993...along with about a dozen more minor laws...each chipped away at the Second Amendment...always punishing law-abiding people by treating them as criminalsIbanez wrote:Col Hogan wrote:
Where will they get the guns...since if the prez has his way, they will go the way of coal...
Asleep at the wheel I see. It's ok, I forgive you.He hasn't done anything about jobs either. Which comes first, climate change or jobs?
Yeah the Reset Button and the Cairo Speech delivered so well for us...Seahawks08 wrote:Asleep at the wheel I see. It's ok, I forgive you.He hasn't done anything about jobs either. Which comes first, climate change or jobs?
What I am expecting from him is at least an attempt at another Kyoto Protocol. Capping emissions has to be a world event, not just the U.S.
IMO, it's better for the states to discuss this matter than at the federal level. If NY doesn't want assault rifles, then simply move to PA. As long as a state doesn't ban guns totally, I don't see the problem.Four major gun control acts have been passed in this country...National Firearms Act in 1934; the Gun Control Act of1968; the Firearm Owners Protection Act was passed in 1986; and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act was passed in 1993...along with about a dozen more minor laws...each chipped away at the Second Amendment...always punishing law-abiding people by treating them as criminals
Democrats in New York discussed total confiscation for the POS law they passed last week...and Connecticut is considering a law where more than ONE bullet in a gun by a law-abiding citizen will be a felony...
Senator Feinstein will introduce a bill tomorrow that will make all modern semi-automatic handguns equal to assault weapons...and will confiscate mine when I die, prohibiting me from giving them to my son...
He's surely building to the day when the Second Amendment is effectively dead...
Wake up, Mark...
Funny, since China and India were part of the Kyoto Protocol. Actually, the only country who didn't ratify it was the good old U.S. of A!Yeah the Reset Button and the Cairo Speech delivered so well for us...
All the Lightbringer will have to do is make a couple speeches in Beijing and Mumbai and snap his fingers.
Sorry, Al: Not true.Seahawks08 wrote:Funny, since China and India were part of the Kyoto Protocol. Actually, the only country who didn't ratify it was the good old U.S. of A!Yeah the Reset Button and the Cairo Speech delivered so well for us...
All the Lightbringer will have to do is make a couple speeches in Beijing and Mumbai and snap his fingers.
There's a reason Kyoto is dead. It is bad policy driven by politics. No emerging economies are going to follow through even if they sign on. The US honors the treaties it signs, which is why we did not sign off on Kyoto. If you think for one second that any developing economy would actually abide by the terms then you are very naive.Seahawks08 wrote:Maybe you should learn to read. Every country in the world ratified the Kyoto Protocol besides the US. I never said there were countries afterwards who bolted b/c they couldn't reach the limit.
They've bolted because the original targets were derived from hypothesis later found to be false. Despite the errors, the U.N. has continued to force through the original target reductions, still, arguing that without compliance, there will be a 3-5 deg/C global temp rise by 2100: A projection not supported by ANYONE including the IPCC report #4.Seahawks08 wrote:Maybe you should learn to read. Every country in the world ratified the Kyoto Protocol besides the US. I never said there were countries afterwards who bolted b/c they couldn't reach the limit.
Grizalltheway wrote:It'll have to eventually. It won't happen overnight, but do you really think we'll still be using coal to generate most of our power a hundred, two hundred years from now?HI54UNI wrote:
Lip service. The world can't live without carbon based fuels.
It would be unsporting to try cut into the Republicans' last remaining demographic.93henfan wrote:So it looks like he covered every group but straight, white, Christian males born in the United States.
Agree...same with abortion.Seahawks08 wrote: IMO, it's better for the states to discuss this matter than at the federal level. If NY doesn't want assault rifles, then simply move to PA. As long as a state doesn't ban guns totally, I don't see the problem.