Chuck Norris Loves Babies

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='princessgianna' post='1940730' date='Aug 4 2009, 11:36 PM']1) only a couple places in the US are "windy" enough to benefit from the windmills. Places include but not limited to Iowa, Kansas, Some of Illinois, western Texas, a bit of Missouri, Florida is also on the list. Over all it is not like we can randomly put these all over the country. Only certain places have somewhat "ideal weather patterns" that putting the windmill would be worth it. You need tons of wind. A simple breeze won't cut it.[/quote]

Nobody is suggesting windmills are the sole answer to weaning our economy off fossil fuels, but there's a lot of land in those states you just mentioned. Why not take advantage of the resource? As the technology develops, they will be able to work as well in less-than-ideal areas too. The proposal for Coal Mountain, West Virginia is to install wind power there in order to save the area's last mountain and provide good, permanent jobs.

[quote name='princessgianna' post='1940730' date='Aug 4 2009, 11:36 PM']2) A thing to remember -do we want all the gorgeous country side to have these big silver things in the middle and all around it? Just so you know what it entitles.[/quote]

Certainly don't want them everywhere I'm sure there's a balance that can be sought. Still, windmills don't poison wide swaths of the environment, destroy neighborhoods, harm or kill children, and permanently destroy what once were beautiful mountain ranges. By comparison, making a case against windmills because they might be unsightly is grabbing at straws. It's one of the few undesirable side effects and it doesn't even compare to all the horrid side effects to coal power.

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1940798' date='Aug 5 2009, 01:04 AM']They also call windmills "bird guillotines". I don't know how much you guys love birds, but the two don't mix so well. [/quote]

Can't they install some kind of super-sonic siren, such as the ones used to scare deer from oncoming vehicles?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1941237' date='Aug 5 2009, 01:23 PM']Can't they install some kind of super-sonic siren, such as the ones used to scare deer from oncoming vehicles?[/quote]
Maybe. Probably a pretty expensive solution if you're looking on a larger scale. I've personally never seen ones for deer, and deer are definitely a major danger to traffic where I live. We just deal with it.

[Piccoli Fiori JMJ]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1935842' date='Jul 30 2009, 03:12 PM']i edited it so it was easier to read. also, if you follow the link, you'll see the chuck norris reference, which was originated here: [url="http://cplc.blogspot.com/2009/06/another-chuck-norris-joke-oh-wait-its.html"]http://cplc.blogspot.com/2009/06/another-c...h-wait-its.html[/url][/quote]
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v359/LausTibiChriste/chucknorrisemote.gif[/img]

There is still a typo in the title of the thread.

[princessgianna]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1941237' date='Aug 5 2009, 01:23 PM']Nobody is suggesting windmills are the sole answer to weaning our economy off fossil fuels, but there's a lot of land in those states you just mentioned. Why not take advantage of the resource? As the technology develops, they will be able to work as well in less-than-ideal areas too. The proposal for Coal Mountain, West Virginia is to install wind power there in order to save the area's last mountain and provide good, permanent jobs.[/quote]
I think many people are open to that idea. Whenever something is new like this -it's a couple years to get it up there. The place my Dad works just ordered some so by the time it gets through-they should be up in a couple years. Just as long as people understand the full ramafactions. Too many times people make thier opinion with alot of ignorance and do not seem to care

[quote]Certainly don't want them everywhere I'm sure there's a balance that can be sought. Still, windmills don't poison wide swaths of the environment, destroy neighborhoods, harm or kill children, and permanently destroy what once were beautiful mountain ranges. By comparison, making a case against windmills because they might be unsightly is grabbing at straws. It's one of the few undesirable side effects and it doesn't even compare to all the horrid side effects to coal power.[/quote]

I am sure. Just like I stated before -people make up thier opinion with out even trying to understand how it works.Then when a situation comes up that is less than ideal-guess who complains the loudest? Many companys are headed in more wind-solar power thankfully - though since it is new-you do need to allow time.

[quote]Can't they install some kind of super-sonic siren, such as the ones used to scare deer from oncoming vehicles?[/quote] Possiably but that would result to more money being spent and more time designing the finished product. Now I am not saying that I am against the idea - I whole hearitly agree that we need to resonably protect God's creatures!

EDIT: Deer still get hit by vehicals! So what we need to ask ourselfs is "would the extra money and time be worth it?" Just somthing to think about!

Edited August 5, 2009 by princessgianna

[Seven77]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1936500' date='Jul 31 2009, 09:50 AM']For that matter, I'll have a la carte from both sides of the menu... calling myself a Cafeteria Democrat.[/quote]

[kamiller42]

I missed where in the article it promoted the republican party as the answer. I saw this as a little of worries written by a conservative. And yes, many conservative principles are in line with the Catholic faith. I see nothing wrong with that.

In regards to future energy demands, we all know it will be left to Texas to supply the bulk of America's energy needs, just like petroleum. Texas already has the largest windmill farms, larger than the "progressive and clean" California. Of course, this might be because the ones who are loudest in calling for windmills are usually the ones loudest in saying "Not in my backyard!" Maybe the Pacific Ocean doesn't generate enough wind.

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/United_States_installed_wind_power_capacity_by_state_2008.jpg/800px-United_States_installed_wind_power_capacity_by_state_2008.jpg[/img]

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Texas"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Texas[/url]

[Lil Red]

+J.M.J.+
i heard that the windmills don't work/need replaced after 20 years. if that's the case and they don't get repaired/replaced, you'll have a lot of unsightly windmills around that don't work.

and where i live, they have put some windmills up in very windy places, but honestly they do wreck the landscape.

[Socrates]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1941232' date='Aug 5 2009, 02:12 PM']Seems to me it's the other way around... for some reason, being politically conservative is often considered the "authentic" Catholic position, in spite of the fact that our faith is primarily concerned with morals and ethics; conservative politics is primarily concerned with fiscal matters. Do you see the disconnect?[/quote]
It was you who came into this thread with the crack,[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1935667' date='Jul 30 2009, 02:30 PM']So ya'll can have your American conservative Republicanism... I'll stick with Catholicism.[/quote]
This implies that American conservatism and Catholicism are somehow incompatible (a notion which I had shown to be nonsense in an older thread, but which I have no time to rehash here.)

A chief reason conservatism is seen as "more Catholic" is that by-and-large it is conservatives that stand up for moral beliefs in line with Church teachings, while modern liberalism tends to blatantly oppose "traditional morality" (pro-abortion, "gay rights," etc.)


[quote]The only thing that truely worries me about Obama is his anti-life agenda. I don't care for his approach to economics and healthcare, but I'm not concerned that much is really going to change. Just take the good with the bad and work to change what you can.[/quote]
Much of Obama's policies build on ill-advised tax-and-spend policies which came before him, but take it to new depths of socialistic absurdity (6 trillion dollars [or whatever the number is now] in debt, yet more bail-outs, the federal government taking over private business, etc.
No, I don't think Obama will resurrect Joseph Stalin, but I do believe his economic policies will be disastrous in the long run.
Rather than sitting around singing Kumbaya with Obama & co., I think we should expose them for the malicious charlatans that they are.

And Obama's anti-life agenda should be reason in itself for any serious Catholic to oppose him. That much should be obvious.

[quote]My problem with the conservative talk show hosts is their abrasive and arrogant attitudes push people towards the Democratic/liberal side of issues. Unfortunately, it would violate the Constitution to shut them up.[/quote]
Your opinion. I used to listen to Limbaugh in the day, and found him entertaining. I sincerely doubt they really push people that much one way or the other. People who agree with them like them, those who don't hate them (and usually don't listen to them), and those who don't care much one way or the other just listen to the sports station instead.
But if you'd rather have the government shut up dissenters, you can always try moving to China or North Korea.

[quote]The USPS does not operate on tax revenue. They will need to raise postage prices, just like any business raises prices over time. Still, our mail gets delivered just fine and since the fixed costs are so significant, competition wouldn't provide much benefit.[/quote]
Having some inside information, I can tell you the USPS is not currently doing well. But if it's entirely a free market business, government ownership, shouldn't really make a difference anyway.

[quote]Do you like when gas prices jump 40 cents in a weekend? That's kind of volatility would occur all over the economy without regulation of interest rates. Perhaps there are other answers besides the Federal Reserve, or maybe the Fed needs some sort of reform, but remember that whatever you gain in a trade-off comes with corresponding costs. With the Fed, we gain long-term stabililty and more predictable growth at the cost of the efficiency of a more purely capitalist economy. It's a trade-off, but one that most Americans gladly accept.[/quote]
Government price fixing of gasoline or any other commodities would not help the economy but wreck it. In a truly free market, interest rates (the price of a loan) would reflect actual supply and demand, and we would not have huge bubbles and the resulting prolonged busts.
In a free market the rates would reflect the actual amount of wealth consumers have to spend, rather than pure thin air. When consumers have money saved up, rates go down, when they spend rather than save, rates go up.
Government fixed low interest rates essentially involved the government creating money out of thin air, which led to bad loans and money invested excessively in things like housing construction beyond the true market demand, which led to a huge bust, as it was unsustainable in the true market.
The recent market crash this caused was hardly "predictable growth" as virtually nobody but the free-market "Austrian school" economists saw it coming.
John McCain to the contrary, the fundamentals of the economy were not sound, and Obama's bail-outs and pulling trillions of dollars out of his own rear-end will only worsen things in the long run.
It's an economy built on quick-sand.
I don't have time to explain all this in sufficient detail here, but I strongly recommend getting Dr. Woods' book I linked to previously. He explains it all in clear and compelling detail.
Read the book in its entirety, then get back to me and tell me what you think.

[quote]Then take that up with your representatives. Everything sounds great on paper, including a "true free market," but in real life it doesn't work out so well. It's easy to give government a bad rep just like it's easy to blame our problems on any large institution (General Motors, Microsoft, the Catholic Church). I agree that there are plenty of problems; I disagree that there are solutions. Every so-called "solution" only presents different problems. Fortunately, as a republic, our society has a say in which side of the trade-off we prefer.[/quote]
Ironically, government manipulation of the market and the Federal Reserve was conspiciously about the only thing [b]not[/b] blamed by the "mainstream" media talking heads.
This isn't just idle conspiracy-mongering, but is solidly backed up by economic fact and history - again [url="http://www.amazon.com/Meltdown-Free-Market-Collapsed-Government-Bailouts/dp/1596985879/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1249515911&sr=8-1"]read the book![/url]

Artificial government intervention in the market has almost invariably led to problems in the long run, and caused and prolonged both the Great Depression and our current economic mess.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1941328' date='Aug 5 2009, 06:39 PM']In regards to future energy demands, we all know it will be left to Texas to supply the bulk of America's energy needs, just like petroleum. Texas already has the largest windmill farms, larger than the "progressive and clean" California. Of course, this might be because the ones who are loudest in calling for windmills are usually the ones loudest in saying "Not in my backyard!" Maybe the Pacific Ocean doesn't generate enough wind. [/quote]

Or maybe when it comes to buying up hundreds of acres of land for an experimental and not-yet-profitable technology, Texas is the place to be. Dallas and Houston are two of the most affordable housing markets in the country.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1941397' date='Aug 5 2009, 08:47 PM']This implies that American conservatism and Catholicism are somehow incompatible (a notion which I had shown to be nonsense in an older thread, but which I have no time to rehash here.)[/quote]

American conservatism does not equal Catholicism. Nor does American liberalism (though I grant that is more obvious). I'm saying this as one who usually leans conservative, but not always. On some issues, I much more appreciative of the liberal position.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1941397' date='Aug 5 2009, 08:47 PM']A chief reason conservatism is seen as "more Catholic" is that by-and-large it is conservatives that stand up for moral beliefs in line with Church teachings, while modern liberalism tends to blatantly oppose "traditional morality" (pro-abortion, "gay rights," etc.)[/quote]

This is true. My problem is that the environment, healthcare, and certain other social issues that are basically neutral territory for Catholics become taboo because they just happen to be associated with liberals. Instead of aligning myself with other side politically, I prefer to be Catholic, American, and make up my own mind.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1941397' date='Aug 5 2009, 08:47 PM']And Obama's anti-life agenda should be reason in itself for any serious Catholic to oppose him. That much should be obvious.[/quote]

That's why I voted for McCain/Palin.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1941397' date='Aug 5 2009, 08:47 PM']Your opinion. I used to listen to Limbaugh in the day, and found him entertaining. I sincerely doubt they really push people that much one way or the other. People who agree with them like them, those who don't hate them (and usually don't listen to them), and those who don't care much one way or the other just listen to the sports station instead.[/quote]

People do listen to commentators they don't agree with, especially during the high school/college phase of life when they are sorting out their own beliefs. And commentators on both sides are highly biased like nobody's business. That's why I don't watch any of them. I do listen to NPR, which I don't find biased so much as simply being mostly liberal, and at least they don't yell at me.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1941397' date='Aug 5 2009, 08:47 PM']But if you'd rather have the government shut up dissenters, you can always try moving to China or North Korea.[/quote]

Where do you get the impression I'm in favor of censureship?

[quote name='Socrates' post='1941397' date='Aug 5 2009, 08:47 PM']Having some inside information, I can tell you the USPS is not currently doing well. But if it's entirely a free market business, government ownership, shouldn't really make a difference anyway.[/quote]

USPS, like Amtrak, have always been a mess, but they get the job done. The purpose to USPS being government-sponsored is that the whole nation has a personal interest in affordable and reliable mail delivery, regardless of its profitability (in rural areas, mail delivery is definitely not profitable, nor is delivery a letter across the country for the same price as sending it across town).

[quote name='Socrates' post='1941397' date='Aug 5 2009, 08:47 PM']Government price fixing of gasoline or any other commodities would not help the economy but wreck it. In a truly free market, interest rates (the price of a loan) would reflect actual supply and demand, and we would not have huge bubbles and the resulting prolonged busts.
In a free market the rates would reflect the actual amount of wealth consumers have to spend, rather than pure thin air. When consumers have money saved up, rates go down, when they spend rather than save, rates go up.[/quote]

Those are true points. However, there have always been bubbles and busts as long as economies have existed. The problem is human psychology, greed and fear. In a free market, bubbles and busts are even more pronounced because there is no "buffer" to smooth out the extremes. Look at how the economy behaved before the Fed was formed. Look at the tulip bubble of the 1600s. These things have happened long before government started intervening on a wide scale.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1941644' date='Aug 6 2009, 12:36 AM']Or maybe when it comes to buying up hundreds of acres of land for an experimental and not-yet-profitable technology, Texas is the place to be. Dallas and Houston are two of the most affordable housing markets in the country.[/quote]
What are the financials on wind farming in Texas? It doesn't seem like it would take long to turn a profit. The biggest hurdle is getting the electricity from way out west into cities and metro areas. I think the energy companies are looking for government assistance in making that possible, logistics and monetarily.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1941765' date='Aug 6 2009, 04:32 AM']What are the financials on wind farming in Texas? It doesn't seem like it would take long to turn a profit. The biggest hurdle is getting the electricity from way out west into cities and metro areas. I think the energy companies are looking for government assistance in making that possible, logistics and monetarily.[/quote]

Don't know anything about the financials... I'm sure manufacturers of wind equipment are making a lot more money than the operaters, but obviously wind generation is not expected to be highly profitable at this point. It's in the high-growth/high-investment phase for the forseeable future.