Davin News Server

On 2025-08-12 07:59, AlleyCat wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2025 13:48:18 -0700,  Alan says...
> 
>> 
>> On 2025-08-11 13:31, AlleyCat wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2025 01:42:06 +0000,  Mitchell Holman says...
>>> 
>>>> When coal fails
>>> 
>>> Coal only "failed", because Obama had rules and laws made to put
>>> coal out of business.
>>> 
>>> If he hadn't ever done that, coal would STILL be the cheapest.
> 
>> What laws?
> 
> EPA's?

What SPECIFIC law, mandating WHAT change?

> 
> Why didn't you ask, "What rules?" Because there might not have been
> "laws" per se, but there were policies, regulations and rules put in
> place, that are JUST as "powerful" as laws, so quit being a fucking
> faggot with your bullshit liberal semantics games.

OK.

What specific rules did Obama put in place that "put coal out of business"?

> 
> The feeling of superiority you get is fleeting, at best, because I
> know how to counter your faggotty bullshit, so just stop focusing on
> the ONE word that makes you think you can "win" the argument. You
> make yourself look really stupid, ESPECIALLY after I counter it with
> things like those listed below.

This is literally what you do all the time.

Every accusation... ...a confession.

> 
> Oh... and sorry for leaving out "regulations" and "policies" and
> every other word you didn't play your stupid lakehouse rich boy 
> semantics game with.
> 
> Do I need to post words like "laws" and then list every synonym FOR
> those words, so you don't play your faggotty semantics games?
> 
> Not gonna happen.
> 
> If I say rules and laws, THAT covers the gambit of words LIKE those.
> But nooooo... pedantic pussy rich boy just HAD to latch onto the
> word "law", because he tried and tried and tried to look up to see
> if there WERE any laws Obama had put in place and couldn't find any,
> but DID find PLENTY of "rules".

Great. So list some examples of rules OR laws OR regulations OR policies.

> 
> LOL
> 
> Coal only "failed", because Obama had rules and laws and regulations
> and policies made up to put coal out of business.
> 
> Don't bother cherry-picking "laws" out again... we're so over that
> already.
> 
> If your ONLY argument is that Obama didn't have "laws" passed to
> make coal more expensive, then...
> 
> PLONK!
> 
> ;-)
> 
> Admit that I listed "rules" and we'll go from there, otherwise...
> 
> PLONK!
> 
> Oh... and YOU'LL be the one running away, because I PROVED myself
> correct.
> 
>> Give examples.
> 
> YOU can look them up as easily as I did.

So you looked them up...

...but you won't provide them.

> 
> Keywords: Obama, RULES, EPA
> 
> I went ahead and listed the articles speaking of and probably
> listing the rules, regulations and policies of Obama, just to make 
> you look even stupider.
> 
> Can't wait till you rationalize your loss, or completely ignore
> what's listed below, to make yu feel better about losing to a big 
> dumb jock.
> 
> LOL
> 
> Pay attention to capped words.
> 
> =====
> 
> NEW EPA RULES Show Obama's No Longer Hiding War On Coal | TIME
> 
> https://time.com/2806697/obama-epa-coal-carbon/
> 
> For five years, the coal industry and its fossil-fueled allies in
> the Republican Party have accused the Obama Administration of waging
> a war on coal. They claim the administration's new plan to ...

Speaks from before such policies ("Those rules, after all, will be aimed 
at coal plants") and regulations were enacted and lists not a single 
concrete piece of information about any that were going to be put in place.

And the article puts a lot of this in context


'The National Mining Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and 
other coal-friendly groups are already raising alarms about gigantic 
rate increases. But they’ve always raised alarms about gigantic rate 
increases whenever they’ve faced new regulations; that industry official 
admitted “there’s been some crying of wolf in the past.”'

And:

'Dirty coal-fired electricity will get somewhat more expensive, which is 
appropriate, since its price ought to reflect the hidden costs of its 
dirtiness.'

I could go on to the others, but why?

The fact of the matter is the coal SHOULD have additional costs to pay; 
not just for CO2 emissions, but also for the smog and other pollutants.

'In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning 
coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times 
more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of 
energy.'

<https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/>

But you carefully focused on coal while ignoring that wind power is now 
the same cost as natural gas.