Poll: Americans losing confidence in Obama

[Voice of Sanity]

GRANDPA NICOLAI wrote:

<quoted text>
Dummy me!
How about 1 smart meter in 45 million homes in America?

No thanks. You can have mine. I prefer to have as much control in my own life as I can, and the less the government knows about me, my family and my life, the better!

[Voice of Sanity]

GRANDPA NICOLAI wrote:

<quoted text>
Our sense of humor must be as different as our ideologies.
After a while it becomes tiresome replying with civility to inanities such as: Obama is Nazi , Obama is a Communist Liberal, Obama has got an evil agenda, you tree huging *****liberals .... all of which are in opposition to my views
With that in mind, my reply was not at all unkind, would it have been better had I said F*#$ Y*$ A**%#*& ?

I have a great sense of humor....nothing in your posts piques it, however. Sentiment I seem to share with many other posters. IMHO.

I'm interested.....you state your views oppose the opinion (which I have never, at any time, mentioned in my posts) that Obama is "liberal", that Obama has an "evil agenda", that Obama is not Communistic in his views, and that there exists "tree-hugging" liberal environmentalists. How, I am wondering, with any familiarity with fact, can you defend the opposition of any of those views, all well established, and extremely obvious to the watchful eye.....?

[GRANDPA NICOLAI]

Voice of Sanity wrote:

<quoted text>
since you have admonished us not to rely on anything you post (your last sentence), I will assume your points are "meaningless". I will make a comment on them in any case.
1. "smarter and bigger" grid? What does that mean exactly. Sounds like buzz words, to me. We don't "need" bigger, and "smarter" IS a buzz word for "governmental control". That has been long established.
2. "smart meters"? No thanks. I don't want the government putting a control meter in my home so when I am ill, or need extra heat or cooling for a spell, I cannot have it. That is wrong, it is communistic, and IMHO, totally outrageous.
3. "low income houses will be weatherized"....and who is paying for that....? I cannot even afford to weatherize my own home, why would I want to pay for someone else's?
4. As for "federal buildings" being made more "energy efficient"....again, what does that look like? More buzzwords, sans the real facts, costs, scope.
5. "New, ultraeffecient batteries".....? Huh? Well, get on it. Why does this research and development need to be done by the government? Or funded by the government? More liberal drivel. More buzzwords. More nonsense.
As for the "work" being done here in the U.S......first of all, what work is necessary? Most likely none of the above. Secondly, whose making that "promise" to you? Is that something like the promise Obama made about the unemployment rate?....the Cash for Clunkers?....the transparency?.....the,..well, you get the picture.
Come on, folks. Let's get our heads out of the clouds. Let's discuss ground-level, hard-core, tried-and-true facts that may actually benefit our country and the economy. Let's look at the big picture. Let's take care of the problems that are ongoing as we speak.....waste, fraud, corruption and the protection of free enterprise.

First off, anyone who considers anything on these forums as the Gospel truth has got a screw missing.

1) Smarter grid will make for more efficient use of power, and possibly lower your electric bill because they act like the time of use meters currently in use, the more electricity you use during peak hours the more you pay, if the bulk of the usage is during off peak hours you pay less.

If "smarter" is a buzz word for "government control," as you claim, does that must mean that all you conservative rabble rousers using "smarter" phones are controlled by the government?

2) Instead of looking for Communists behind every power meter you ought to educate yourself on "smart grid" and "smart meters" before spouting party propaganda.

3) By weatherizing homes we will save on energy, if you can not afford to weatherize your home, you qualify for the program, I will not raise a stink if my tax dollars pay for it, your other option would be to get a job at Mc Donald's and earn the money to weatherize your home.

4) You are either unclear on the concept of energy efficiency or you like making all the Arab emirates wealthier than they already are.

5) Ultra efficient batteries for the electric cars, You will love them! especially when gas hits the $10 to $15 dollar range.

Why does R&D have to be done by the government? Do you think we would have had half of all the technological wonders that surround us today had the government not invested in many forms of R & D? I K.F.D

You folks have been saying no to everything President Obama proposed, instead you al have been blabbering about some sort of nebulous "hard-core, tried-and- true" gibberish, you all are beginning to sound like a bunch of modern day Luddites.

[GRANDPA NICOLAI]

Voice of Sanity wrote:

<quoted text>
No thanks. You can have mine. I prefer to have as much control in my own life as I can, and the less the government knows about me, my family and my life, the better!

Paranoia runs deep, are you afraid of yourself?
have you forgotten you are the government?
Do you consider "government of the people, for the people and by the people" a mere bromide?

[ritedownthemiddl e]

Thanks to Barak Obama, I now hold Jimmy Carter in a higher regard. Carter now is only the second worst POTUS of all time thanks to B.O.

[Stoneman]

Voice of Sanity wrote:

<quoted text>
The "engineers" at GM were producing the cars that were selling. The "hybrid" cars have one inherent flaw....they must be recharged. It must be assumed that there was pollution (depending on the source of generation for the electricity) and, at the least, electricity from "the grid" that supplies the charge every time it is necessary. I don't know which is worse, the use of oil or the use of electricity....both are polluters.
We also must consider the billions being expended for oil to the Middle East. Were it not for the rabid environmentalists, we could have had in place the infrastructure supplying our own oil. And we would find ourselves closer to our goal of energy independence.

There is another inherent problem with electric cars, and you almost hit on it.

The batteries in an electric car are not permanent. They wear out, just like the battery in your current car.

And the pollution involved with recycling, processing or disposing of millions and millions of batteries from all the electric cars that Lord Obama wants us to drive HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED.

Does it surprise anyone that liberals haven't thought it all the way through? As I said earlier, they wanted us all to drive corn ethanol cars until that scheme collapsed.

The solution? Create electricity from breeder-type nuclear reactors (virtually waste-free), use the electricity to electrolyze water to hydrogen, and from that make hydrogen fuel cells.

Only one problem. Liberals are afraid of nuclear power -- it frightens and confuses them. They don't understand math, much less nuclear physics. So unless we can make liberals less stupid, we're stuck with the next nitwit energy solution they hatch.

Anybody want a windmill in their back yard?

[GRANDPA NICOLAI]

Voice of Sanity wrote:

<quoted text>
The "engineers" at GM were producing the cars that were selling. The "hybrid" cars have one inherent flaw....they must be recharged. It must be assumed that there was pollution (depending on the source of generation for the electricity) and, at the least, electricity from "the grid" that supplies the charge every time it is necessary. I don't know which is worse, the use of oil or the use of electricity....both are polluters.
We also must consider the billions being expended for oil to the Middle East. Were it not for the rabid environmentalists, we could have had in place the infrastructure supplying our own oil. And we would find ourselves closer to our goal of energy independence.

The "engineers" at GM were producing the cars that were selling?????

Is that why GM went to the government hat in hand begging for a bailout?

What was GM's problem? They couldn't keep up with the demand for their gas guzzlers????

Of course hybrids have to be "recharged" all vehicles must be "recharged" (with electricity or gas)

You should look into what this engineer from California is doing in Denmark.

They are using windmills to generate electricity which "recharges" electric cars, when the cars are not being driven, they are plugged into the grid, and during high peak electricity usage, the grid can tap into the battery of the vehicles as needed.

Zero pollution.

When it comes to oil, when are the conservanuts going to understand that oil is a polluting, and more importantly, a finite resource?

[Mac-7]

GRANDPA NICOLAI wrote:

<quoted text>

1) Smarter grid will make for more efficient use of power, and possibly lower your electric bill because they act like the time of use meters currently in use, the more electricity you use during peak hours the more you pay, if the bulk of the usage is during off peak hours you pay less.

Obama has already told us that we won't be allowed to set the thermostat anywhere we choose.

He considers that unfair to the rest of the world.

Your explaination that homeowners should pay different rates during the day and night is reasonable.

But you only need a slightly smarter meter to record electricity use by night or by day.

But slightly smarter meters outside the home wouldn't tell Obama if we were using the electricty for cooking or heating or watching TV.

That's what the smart thermostat is for.

The smart thermostats he wants to install are snoops meant to inform the central government who is keeping their homes cooler or warmer than the environmentalists allow.

[Mac-7]

GRANDPA NICOLAI wrote:

<quoted text>
The "engineers" at GM were producing the cars that were selling?????
Is that why GM went to the government hat in hand begging for a bailout?
What was GM's problem? They couldn't keep up with the demand for their gas guzzlers????
Of course hybrids have to be "recharged" all vehicles must be "recharged" (with electricity or gas)
You should look into what this engineer from California is doing in Denmark.
They are using windmills to generate electricity which "recharges" electric cars, when the cars are not being driven, they are plugged into the grid, and during high peak electricity usage, the grid can tap into the battery of the vehicles as needed.
Zero pollution.
When it comes to oil, when are the conservanuts going to understand that oil is a polluting, and more importantly, a finite resource?

"The "engineers" at GM were producing the cars that were selling?????"

GM had already turned the corner on design and quality.

GM got in trouble for not managing the cash on hand and so was not able to weather the storm created by the credit crunch.

So what did Obama in all his wisdom do?

He fired the man who turned production around and promoted the guy who mismanaged the cash.

[ritedownthemiddl e]

ritedownthemiddle wrote:

Thanks to Barak Obama, I now hold Jimmy Carter in a higher regard. Carter now is only the second worst POTUS of all time thanks to B.O.

I LOVE IT when trolls give me these little 'judgcons', but can't debate me with a response. Cowards. Hahahahahahahahaha

[Marin Local 84ER]

WOW 2,846 post and not one thing done about it....And the OBAMA CORP keeps on workin to take your money/freedom/life.....

[Marin Local 84ER]

I will come back at 3K and tell you all how little you have accomplished and how much time you wasted arguing points that only exist theoretically. We are being domesticated and controlled....

[GRANDPA NICOLAI]

Stoneman wrote:

<quoted text>
There is another inherent problem with electric cars, and you almost hit on it.
The batteries in an electric car are not permanent. They wear out, just like the battery in your current car.
And the pollution involved with recycling, processing or disposing of millions and millions of batteries from all the electric cars that Lord Obama wants us to drive HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED.
Does it surprise anyone that liberals haven't thought it all the way through? As I said earlier, they wanted us all to drive corn ethanol cars until that scheme collapsed.
The solution? Create electricity from breeder-type nuclear reactors (virtually waste-free), use the electricity to electrolyze water to hydrogen, and from that make hydrogen fuel cells.
Only one problem. Liberals are afraid of nuclear power -- it frightens and confuses them. They don't understand math, much less nuclear physics. So unless we can make liberals less stupid, we're stuck with the next nitwit energy solution they hatch.
Anybody want a windmill in their back yard?

We can do like they do in Denmark, you don't own the battery in your car, when you start running out of charge you drive into a service station, a robot replaces your battery and you are out in 40 seconds, the owner of the system handles the recycling/reconditioning of the batteries .

Can't you use windmill generated and photovoltaic electricity to electrolyze water into hydrogen just as well?

"They don't understand math, much less nuclear physics?"

You are a riot, didn't you learn in engineering school that Albert Einstein was a liberal's liberal?

[GRANDPA NICOLAI]

Mac-7 wrote:

<quoted text>
Obama has already told us that we won't be allowed to set the thermostat anywhere we choose.
He considers that unfair to the rest of the world.
Your explaination that homeowners should pay different rates during the day and night is reasonable.
But you only need a slightly smarter meter to record electricity use by night or by day.
But slightly smarter meters outside the home wouldn't tell Obama if we were using the electricty for cooking or heating or watching TV.
That's what the smart thermostat is for.
The smart thermostats he wants to install are snoops meant to inform the central government who is keeping their homes cooler or warmer than the environmentalists allow.

I was not aware there was a law telling you how high or low you can set your thermostat, when did it go into effect?

Time of day usage is not my idea, some people in California have been on the system for over a decade.

What I think you are going to start seeing is appliances with built in chips that will identify themselves to the grid (this is my idea, maybe i should patent it) <:)=

The government has better ways of snooping on people than seeing who has the thermostat set where.

The idea behind smart thermostats is that if you have, lets say a real hot day, 110 outside, the grid is overloaded, and some ignorant clowns have their thermostat set to 50 degrees and there is a chance of a brownout the grid will tell those thermostats to throttle themselves up to lets say 65 degrees, alleviating the load on the power grid, nothing sinister here.

[GRANDPA NICOLAI]

Melman68 wrote:

I am still trying to understand why liberals need goverment control to survive. This country, though not perfect, has fed more people, protected more people, healed more people, and created a level of prosperity the world has never seen in its history, yet the liberals want to destroy it.
Name one program the goverment has forced on the American people that has done what it promised or remained within the stated budget.
Tell me how this healthcare bill is not just another federal grab for control over the states. Remember the bill to reduce highway speeds to 55 mph or the bill do increase the drinking age to 21? Both were voluntary until the federal government withheld the highway repair funds from states who didn't "volunteer" to follow their lead. THAT WAS OUR TAXDOLLARS THEY USED TO FORCE THE STATES UNDER THEIR CONTROL. Now you want them to control another 20% of the economy?
It is kind of like the duck test: if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, you don't need to lick it to know it is a duck. In this case it is a pile of ****!!!

Great rhetoric, but you know what?

If Dubya would have proposed the same kind of HCR, all of you conservatives would have been in lockstep with Bush.

[Telstar]

GRANDPA NICOLAI wrote:

<quoted text>

I was not aware there was a law telling you how high or low you can set your thermostat, when did it go into effect?

When Cap and Trade triples your utility bill.

[BobbySomers]

GRANDPA NICOLAI wrote:

<quoted text>
I was not aware there was a law telling you how high or low you can set your thermostat, when did it go into effect?
Time of day usage is not my idea, some people in California have been on the system for over a decade.
What I think you are going to start seeing is appliances with built in chips that will identify themselves to the grid (this is my idea, maybe i should patent it) <:)=
The government has better ways of snooping on people than seeing who has the thermostat set where.
The idea behind smart thermostats is that if you have, lets say a real hot day, 110 outside, the grid is overloaded, and some ignorant clowns have their thermostat set to 50 degrees and there is a chance of a brownout the grid will tell those thermostats to throttle themselves up to lets say 65 degrees, alleviating the load on the power grid, nothing sinister here.

You know grandpa, It's scum like you that are destroying our country.

[GRANDPA NICOLAI]

Telstar wrote:

<quoted text>
When Cap and Trade triples your utility bill.

You mean when we are going to start paying for energy what the rest of the world pays?

[GRANDMA NICOLAI]

GRANDPA NICOLAI wrote:

<quoted text>
You mean when we are going to start paying for energy what the rest of the world pays?

Get your butt to bed already! You spend more time on your posts than with your family.

[REALITY]

BobbySomers wrote:

<quoted text>You know grandpa, It's scum like you that are destroying our country.

Amen! Grandpa and his stupid views are what will make life worse for the rest of us. Wait until Obama starts messing with his medicare and social security.