Personal belief in God (whoever you think he/she is is good. There does not exist a single religion that men have not totally fucked up.
Yes, Tommy, organized religion is BAD. On Oct 19, 2:22 pm, Tommy News <[email protected]> wrote: > Re-neg. As expected. False statments yet again. How predictable. > > RE: Your blatant Islamophobia > FYI: > Pure Islamic religion is good as are all other religions, however the > corrupted extremist forms of it are not good. > > On 10/19/10, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > There is no help for Tom. He refuses to read, look at the facts, and just > > continues to spew out hatred. > > > No need to worry about me paying off Tom's mortgage, he hasn't taken the > > time to even read the article(s)!! > > > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 1:49 PM, dick <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> You keep saying those things and they are all lies. Saying something > >> without providing proof and when someone calls you on it you just wash, > >> rinse, repeat does not make what you say true - and it is not. Almost to > >> the point where I just delete your messages as being nothing but BS. > > >> On 10/19/2010 01:43 PM, Tommy News wrote: > > >>> The GOP created the meltdown, ignored the American people, started > >>> unwarranted wars, took us from a $236 billion dollar surplus to $1.3 > >>> trillion dollar deficit, and now tells us they are the ones to fix it! > >>> Even though they have no plan! > > >>> A return to the failed GOP Bush policies is no plan, which will only > >>> fail yet again. > > >>> On 10/19/10, Keith In Tampa<[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>> Yes, Tommy, the articles totally debunk the horse hockey that you wrote. > > >>>> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 12:27 PM, Tommy News<[email protected]> > >>>> wrote: > > >>>>> Thanks for all this. > > >>>>> On 10/19/10, MJ<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> > The Myth of Energy Deregulation > > >>>>>> Monday, November 07, 2005 > >>>>>> by Adam Summers > > >>>>>> While the initiatives on the upcoming November 8 California special > > >>>>> election > > >>>>>> ballot backed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger have been receiving > >>>>>> all > > >>>>> of > > >>>>>> the media attention, another initiative that addresses an important > >>>>>> issue > > >>>>> is > > >>>>>> being overlooked. Proposition 80, the so-called "Repeal of Electricity > >>>>>> Deregulation and Blackout Prevention" initiative, would make some > >>>>>> significant and detrimental changes in the state's energy policy. > > >>>>>> The fact that even a government regulatory body such as the California > >>>>>> Public Utilities Commission (PUC) is actually against a measure that > > >>>>> would > > >>>>>> increase its regulatory powers should tell you something right off the > > >>>>> bat > > >>>>>> about the merits of Prop. 80. > > >>>>>> California energy consumers are currently served by one of three types > >>>>>> of > >>>>>> providers: investor-owned utilities (IOUs), local publicly-owned > >>>>>> electric > >>>>>> utilities, and independent electric service providers (ESPs). Before > >>>>>> the > >>>>>> state's "deregulation" experiment of the 1990s was suspended in 2001 > > >>>>> during > > >>>>>> California's energy crisis, customers could choose to purchase their > >>>>>> electricity services directly from ESPs through "direct access" > > >>>>> contracts, > > >>>>>> rather than through an intermediary such as the local IOU or public > > >>>>> utility. > > >>>>>> Proposition 80 Would Reduce Consumer Choice and Increase Costs > > >>>>>> Proposition 80 would permanently prevent all customers receiving > > >>>>> electricity > > >>>>>> services from an IOU from switching to an ESP, effectively eliminating > > >>>>> any > > >>>>>> new direct access (existing direct access contracts would be > > >>>>> grandfathered > > >>>>>> in).[1] Thus, under Prop. 80, instead of having the option to buy > >>>>>> electricity directly from independent producers, consumers would have > >>>>>> no > >>>>>> choice but to buy their electricity from utilities. By effectively > >>>>>> eliminating an entire class of providers, the state has stifled > > >>>>> competition > > >>>>>> (and would continue to do so), thereby leading to higher prices and, > > >>>>> likely, > > >>>>>> lower-quality service. > > >>>>>> The effect of this provision on prices would be significant. ESP > > >>>>> customers > > >>>>>> include hospitals, local governments, the California State University > >>>>>> system, several University of California campuses, community college > >>>>>> districts, and local school districts. The nonpartisan Legislative > > >>>>> Analyst's > > >>>>>> Office (LAO) estimates that the UC system alone saves about $12 > >>>>>> million > > >>>>> per > > >>>>>> year by purchasing its electricity from a lower-cost independent > > >>>>> provider. > > >>>>>> According to Mike Florio, an attorney for The Utility Reform Network > > >>>>> (TURN, > > >>>>>> one of the chief proponents of Prop. 80 that helped craft the > >>>>>> measure), > > >>>>> the > > >>>>>> ability of consumers to purchase electricity directly from independent > >>>>>> service providers "destabilizes the whole business … and we'll truly > >>>>>> be > > >>>>> at > > >>>>>> the mercy of the gods of the free market."[2] How dare people be able > >>>>>> to > >>>>>> choose whom they want to do business with! I suppose TURN hired Mr. > > >>>>> Florio > > >>>>>> not for his legal expertise, but rather by the sheer providence of the > >>>>>> "free-market gods." > > >>>>>> Proposition 80 Would Impede Innovation and Efficiency > > >>>>>> Another provision of Prop. 80 would prohibit the broader > >>>>>> implementation > > >>>>> of > > >>>>>> "dynamic pricing" of electricity without the consent of the consumer. > >>>>>> Currently, all but the largest energy consumers pay a flat rate for > >>>>>> electricity that does not vary by the time of day. Clearly, energy use > >>>>>> is > >>>>>> not constant throughout the day, however. There are certain "peak" > >>>>>> hours > > >>>>> of > > >>>>>> the day when consumers use lots of electricity, and "non-peak" hours > >>>>>> when > >>>>>> they use very little. The costs of providing electricity vary > > >>>>> accordingly. > > >>>>>> As such, the IOUs have submitted proposals to the PUC to charge all > >>>>>> consumers higher rates during peak hours and lower rates during > >>>>>> non-peak > >>>>>> hours. This price discrimination would be accomplished through the use > >>>>>> of > >>>>>> high-tech "smart" meters. > > >>>>>> In addition to making good sense one should pay more for something > >>>>>> when > > >>>>> it > > >>>>>> is in higher demand dynamic pricing would encourage conservation via > > >>>>> the > > >>>>>> pricing mechanism. Dynamic pricing would be a more efficient system > > >>>>> because > > >>>>>> higher prices would discourage some from consuming such a scarce > >>>>>> resource > >>>>>> while ensuring that those who place the highest value on energy use > >>>>>> are > >>>>>> still able to consume it. Similarly, those who have some flexibility > >>>>>> over > >>>>>> when they consume their energy would be encouraged to utilize it > >>>>>> during > >>>>>> non-peak hours, thus placing less strain on the system. > > >>>>>> Allowing the consumer to opt out of a dynamic pricing model would be > >>>>>> like > >>>>>> forcing a hotel owner to offer customers the choice of the nightly > >>>>>> room > > >>>>> rate > > >>>>>> or an average of the nightly room rates throughout the week. Since > >>>>>> significantly more people stay at hotels during the weekend, rates are > > >>>>> much > > >>>>>> higher on Friday and Saturday nights. The average weekly rate, > >>>>>> however, > >>>>>> would be higher than normal weekday rates but lower than normal > >>>>>> weekend > >>>>>> rates. The cheaper "opt-out" weekend rates and higher weekday rates > >>>>>> would > >>>>>> encourage even more people to stay during the weekend and fewer to > >>>>>> stay > >>>>>> during the week. The result would be a shortage of hotel rooms during > >>>>>> the > >>>>>> weekend and a loss of revenue for the hotel owner. No wonder demand > > >>>>> strains > > >>>>>> the electrical grids during hot summer days. > > >>>>>> Environmental Issues > > >>>>>> Under current regulations, energy producers must increase the portion > >>>>>> of > >>>>>> energy derived from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, > >>>>>> and > >>>>>> hydroelectric by one percent per year until 2017, when 20 percent of > > >>>>> the > > >>>>>> energy produced must come from these sources. Proposition 80 would > >>>>>> accelerate this deadline to 2010. Interestingly, some > >>>>>> environmentalists > >>>>>> oppose Prop. 80 because a provision requiring a two-thirds vote of the > >>>>>> Legislature to amend the measure could make it more difficult to > >>>>>> increase > >>>>>> the renewable energy standard in the future. > > >>>>>> According to the LAO's analysis, Prop. 80 would also require that "the > > >>>>> first > > >>>>>> priority for IOUs in procuring new electricity is to be from > >>>>>> 'cost-effective' energy efficiency and conservation programs, followed > >>>>>> by > >>>>>> 'cost-effective' renewable resources, and then from traditional > >>>>>> sources > > >>>>> such > > >>>>>> as fossil fuel burning power plants."[3] Of course, if renewable > >>>>>> energy > >>>>>> sources and energy efficiency and conservation programs were truly > >>>>>> "cost > >>>>>> effective," producers would already be utilizing them in higher > >>>>>> numbers > >>>>>> because it would make them more profitable. This clearly is not the > >>>>>> case. > >>>>>> Forcing > > ... > > read more » -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
