Quote from: taxed on February 26, 2013, 05:26:49 PM
Thanks goodness it isn't just me.  It looks like he's trying to blame the link in the OP on conservatives.  I'm hoping he has the intellect to articulate that position.

Actually, what I clearly did was debunk supsalemgr's uninformed and false assumption that Falmouth is liberal, along with pointing out that every other poster here, including Solar, was gullible enough to believe him. At best it is moderate, though the vote for Brown over Warren might suggest that it leans con.

It's not my problem that supsalemgr and the others chose to ridicule a place that votes GOP, take it up with them.

Quote from: John Barth on February 26, 2013, 07:35:32 PM
It was elaborated on in a subsequent post. I can't help it if your dogma creates language blinders.

Yeah, I read that mess the best I could, (learn to use the quote function) but you neglect the main point, Green energy regardless of subsidy is a Complete and utter failure on a grand scale.
Ng, nuclear and Hydro are all proven sources of cheap energy and readily available, if Govt would get out of the way, there would be no need for subsidies.

Quote from: taxed on February 26, 2013, 05:36:19 PM
A "free market" greenie?? hahahaha

It's adorable when they try and load up all their talking points into one post.

Despite my posting it very coherently, you remain confused. hahahaha

I am fine with free market energy policy. Get rid of all the anti-free market subsidies and externalized costs - pollution, trade deficits, support for dictators, flattened Appalachians, wars, dirty water, loan guarantees, liability limits, etc. - for nukes and fossil fuels, and then the subsidies for sustainable energy and I'm confident that green energy will do just fine in the free market.

But, we all know that will never happen. Con these days means shilling for corporate welfare and has nothing at all to do with being ideologically conservative. It's adorable that y'all pretend otherwise.

Again - What do you think of supsalemgr's mis-description of Falmouth politics and the unquestioning acceptance of it by every other poster here? It's not very courageous of you to have ducked it 6 times now, taxed. Does "con" also mean endorsing con fallacies rather than proven truth? That didn't used to be ideologically conservative, either.

Quote from: John Barth on February 26, 2013, 07:41:51 PM
Actually, what I clearly did was debunk supsalemgr's uninformed and false assumption that Falmouth is liberal, along with pointing out that every other poster here, including Solar, was gullible enough to believe him. At best it is moderate, though the vote for Brown over Warren might suggest that it leans con.

It's not my problem that supsalemgr and the others chose to ridicule a place that votes GOP, take it up with them.

You debunked nothing, It's Mass for crying out loud and the fact that these people were stupid enough to buy into the hype of so called Green Energy is proof they're liberal.
Conservatives know better, we knew long before Husein forced the Nation into this plot to destroy our energy infrastructure that is was a boondoggle.
It was a feel good for libs and a kick in the balls of the country.

A Massachusetts liberal is a typically ultra-liberal in or from Massachusetts, in many ways the most liberal state in the United States. It is the only state where it is a crime, with a mandatory prison sentence of at least one year, to transport a lawfully owned gun for a lawful purpose in an automobile without a special permit. Out-of-state drivers traveling to hunting or gun competitions in the Northeast have to choose between going hours out of their way to avoid Massachusetts, or spending hours attempting to obtain a permit.[1]
http://www.conservapedia.com/Massachusetts_liberal

Quote from: John Barth on February 26, 2013, 07:49:48 PM
Despite my posting it very coherently, you remain confused. hahahaha

I am fine with free market energy policy. Get rid of all the anti-free market subsidies and externalized costs - pollution, trade deficits, support for dictators, flattened Appalachians, wars, dirty water, loan guarantees, liability limits, etc. - for nukes and fossil fuels, and then the subsidies for sustainable energy and I'm confident that green energy will do just fine in the free market.

But, we all know that will never happen. Con these days means shilling for corporate welfare and has nothing at all to do with being ideologically conservative. It's adorable that y'all pretend otherwise.

Again - What do you think of supsalemgr's mis-description of Falmouth politics and the unquestioning acceptance of it by every other poster here? It's not very courageous of you to have ducked it 6 times now, taxed. Does "con" also mean endorsing con fallacies rather than proven truth? That didn't used to be ideologically conservative, either.

OK, back that confidence up with proof.
I'll add, meaning in full competition with accepted energy, like comparing cost of watt and let the customer decide which they want, the cheap cost of nuclear, hydro, or the cost per watt of solar, wind.

Quote from: Solar on February 26, 2013, 07:46:05 PM
Yeah, I read that mess the best I could, (learn to use the quote function)

I've quoted every post I've replied to. Why be dishonest about that? It's not my problem that this format, unlike most others, makes sub-quotes disappear. I'm just not going to go to a lot of extra effort to rectify your confusion or your inability to look back and comprehend.

but you neglect the main point, Green energy regardless of subsidy

False narrative. You can't ignore the massive direct and indirect subsidies for nukes and fossil fuels.

is a Complete and utter failure on a grand scale.

Wrong, it's been quite successful notwithstanding a handful of failed loans.

Ng,

"Ng"?

nuclear

Most subsidized of all. You just endorsed socialism.

and Hydro

Hydro is not the worst and in some applications can be considered "green". That said, most hydro has been and is a government thing. You just endorsed socialism, again.

are all proven sources of cheap energy and readily available, if Govt would get out of the way, there would be no need for subsidies.

If government gets out of the way fossil fuel and nuclear power prices will skyrocket, as they should in a truly free market where all true costs are reflected in the consumer purchase price.

Quote from: John Barth on February 26, 2013, 08:07:12 PM
If government gets out of the way fossil fuel and nuclear power prices will skyrocket, as they should in a truly free market where all true costs are reflected in the consumer purchase price.

Pure BS, solar is more heavily subsidized than any other energy, yet it still costs more per watt than it's closest competitor.
For this reason Husein tried to stop drilling on Federal lands, has all but killed coal.
He didn't like the cheap competition.

I'll be back in the morning to finish this, it's getting late.

Quote from: Solar on February 26, 2013, 08:01:32 PM
You debunked nothing, It's Mass for crying out loud

I see, in your strange world every county in a state that votes Dem is the same as that state. Wow.

and the fact that these people were stupid enough to buy into the hype of so called Green Energy is proof they're liberal.

Silly, they voted GOP.

Conservatives know better, we knew long before Husein forced the Nation into this plot to destroy our energy infrastructure

I see, you're one of them.

that is was a boondoggle.
It was a feel good for libs and a kick in the balls of the country.

We're producing far more oil and natural gas than we ever did under Bush. Didn't you know?

(long, irrelevant rant about Massachusetts that has nothing to do with Falmouth's voting patterns)

supsalemgr screwed up royally by making the same mistake, you swallowed it whole, and now you can't bring yourself to admit that you were duped so easily.

Quote from: Solar on February 26, 2013, 08:12:57 PM
Pure BS, solar is more heavily subsidized than any other energy,

Wrong, you're just making things up now. Look up the Price-Anderson Act or tell us which wars we've entered to protect access to the sun.

yet it still costs more per watt than it's closest competitor.

Agreed, but this thread is about wind, not solar electric which is one of the least green of the green energy sources.

For this reason Husein tried to stop drilling on Federal lands,

We're producing far more oil and natural gas than we ever did under Bush. Didn't you know?

has all but killed coal.

He hasn't done nearly enough to stop Big Coal from foisting their true costs off on all of us, but every informed person knows that it's the fracking boom that has really hurt coal. You're just making things up again.

He didn't like the cheap competition.

Coal is only "cheap" because it's actual costs are not reflected in the price thanks mostly to "con" lovers of corporate welfare.

Quote from: John Barth on February 26, 2013, 08:15:05 PM
supsalemgr screwed up royally by making the same mistake, you swallowed it whole, and now you can't bring yourself to admit that you were duped so easily.

Learn the quote function, it really is easy.

But I was not duped in the slightest, liberals are gullible beyond belief where Green energy is concerned.
The people elected these morons as leaders of community and the fact that they decided to install this crap is a glaring example of stupidity, it costs more than it's worth, maintenance costs are ridiculous, they kill thousand of birds yearly, they're noisy, and require steady wind between 25 and no higher than 50 Mph.
Did I mention noise? It was a feel good move, they didn't research it, had they done so, they would never have stuck it so close to people, let alone even bought them.
No, that my friend is the business move of a nonthinking liberal, pure and simple.

Quote from: John Barth on February 26, 2013, 08:15:05 PM
supsalemgr screwed up royally by making the same mistake, you swallowed it whole, and now you can't bring yourself to admit that you were duped so easily.

No true price is reflected where Govt is involved.
Get Govt out of the way and all prices would plummet.

Still waiting for that proof that solar could compete in a level playing field.

Quote from: Solar on February 26, 2013, 08:22:28 PM
Learn the quote function, it really is easy.

I've quoted every post I've replied to. Why be dishonest about that?

But I was not duped in the slightest...

Sure you were. On page one you endorsed supsalemgr's fallacy that Falmouth is liberal. Be a big boy and just admit it.

...It was a feel good move, they didn't research it, had they done so, they would never have stuck it so close to people...

You may be correct, but that's a planning issue, not a wind energy issue. And who were the planners? Why, folks that just voted 55-45 for the GOP Senate candidate.

No, that my friend is the business move of a nonthinking liberal, pure and simple.

Got it, in your bizarre world people that vote GOP are liberals when they screw up. That's a hoot!

Learn to quote what you're replying to, it really is easy. Instead you quoted a sentence about supsalemgr's Falmouth civics flub while replying about energy.

Quote from: Solar on February 26, 2013, 08:25:27 PM
No true price is reflected where Govt is involved.
Get Govt out of the way and all prices would plummet.

Wrong. Nukes couldn't afford the insurance if their liability wasn't limited by government fiat and none of us would be driving cars if Exxon had to defend its own supply routes. Those are just 2 of the many, many ways that government is currently making prices cheap.

Still waiting

First time you asked, no wonder you're waiting.

for that proof that solar

This thread is about wind. Why are you still confused about that? I pointed out your straw man earlier.

could compete in a level playing field.

Others have made the case, try Google. All I've done is say that I think so. However, given the huge direct and indirect corporate welfare that so-called cons have long supported, you can't prove that it won't.

Paging Senator Kennedy...