Quote Originally Posted by 1inStripes View Post
I thought we had enough coal to last another 100-200 years here in America?

I had saw rumors of Clinton possibly replacing Biden. It would make sense to me given Biden is as much of a hinderance as he is a help.
In SWVA?

I wish, I wished that way back before he picked Biden, but IMO it was really sort of paying her back for the campaign she ran against him. He picked him to balance the ticket on mainly foreign policy, but now that Clinton has some experience there, it would be perfect for her to be...but it's not happening. Him replacing Biden would be jumped on by every GOP contender/pundit/politician in the country too. Biden talks too much, that's his problem. He's very intelligent and experienced, he just keeps rambling on until he says something dumb, but he's not the least bit unqualified for the position. A political liability sometimes, but he's no Palin in the sense of everyone should gtfo if something happened to Obama.

Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
cant keep it in anymore? was this supposed to be some kind of ploy to make me say oh gyah gyah i hate cap and trade blah blah blah, when in reality I never said it was such a horrible thing............ WHEN WE HAVE BETTER TECHNOLOGY. fact is, right now coal powers this country and thats the way it is. BTW, I agree, Mccain was big on cap and trade, thats not really a surprise to anyone, so what exactly were you trying to prove?

oh and BTW, the quotes i posted WERE from Sen. Obama, I was wondering why you were straying so far away from what i was talking about anyway. I simply made the point that he came to russel county claiming to back the coal industry and he clearly doesnt. You asked me to provide you Info on how he lied when he came here, and I clearly did that.
It wasn't really directed towards you at all, just the fact I had get it out.

You haven't proved anything about how he lied, there has to be a lie. I'm pretty sure all he talked about in Lebanon was this very thing, I know for sure he talked about implementing clean coal technology. It's not like he started this whole thing, the Supreme Court did that. The bill isn't anti-coal, it's only aim is lowering pollution, not "lets stop coal". The cap and trade part was only a small part of the actual bill to begin with. The bill mostly is for creating green-jobs and improving the environment, because coal plants aren't exactly eco-friendly and would have to cut down on their emissions...doesn't mean anyone is trying to shut them down. With Bouchers amendments and negotiations that did things like lowering the cap from 20% to 17%, making the permits free and providing 2 billion tons in offsets (for example the companies can invest in rainforest projects that offset what they are emitting)...the bill really would have little effects on the companies.