Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Frontline Ltd. Message Board

keembodakine 149 posts  |  Last Activity: 8 hours ago Member since: Mar 2, 2012
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • keembodakine keembodakine 8 hours ago Flag

    Mr. Rails,

    Since you like to say that Obamacare is actually Obama, Reid, and Pelosi care based on class warfare, let's actually be honest. Below is your statement What you fail to state is that previous to Obamacare, class warfare by the medical industry already existed. A good % of the population could not either buy insurance or afford insurance to have medical care. I would venture to say that is a "class" of people and most likely if not nearly totally the lower income part of the country. Now...as just an example, if the upper 50% can afford healthcare premiums, but the bottom 50% cannot due to income levels, then yes, it IS class warfare and should be called class warfare..not necessarily something brought by democrats, because many republican's employees are in that lower half unable to afford healthcare. Somebody tried to at least alleviate some of the problem and you hated it, because it was class warfare, but it must be, because it already involves different classes of income. The warfare is just a stupid word. The Boehner, McCain, Ted Cruz type of healthcare ideas only made sure class warfare existed. At least admit that. They offered nothing, zip, zilch nada, zero, and still don't. Dependency exists when something is needed but unattainable. The bottom fifty percent can't be in the upper fifty percent. That is basic math...The numbers won't work.

    "You want me to articulate it better so I will. ACA is not Obamacare its actually Obama Reid Pelosi care.
    Since they engage in class warfare and champion dependencyism, therefore it is correct to call them Dependencycrats."

  • Reply to

    Fact check on Ted Cruz

    by keembodakine Mar 27, 2015 4:27 AM
    keembodakine keembodakine Mar 27, 2015 8:49 PM Flag

    Mr. georgesmarsh,
    "You think Obama is honest?" I am assuming you are asking me that question. It has nothing to do with my statement regarding "FactCheckingCruz" , so I don't see why you brought it up, but I will tell you that no, I don't consider Mr. Obama as totally honest. However, I do find Mr. Cruz calling Obama on the carpet for just about everything other than his existence, but yet it was Mr. Cruz who was stretching the truth on several fronts and thus was called on the carpet for such. Mr. Cruz lied about the economy and has been proven wrong. Mr. Obama didn't make the statement. You can go to FactCheckingCruz and see for yourself. Happy day to you.

  • Reply to

    Is this company gone now?

    by keembodakine Feb 6, 2015 3:32 PM
    keembodakine keembodakine Mar 27, 2015 5:36 PM Flag

    I think it is being absorbed.

  • Reply to

    Fact check on Ted Cruz

    by keembodakine Mar 27, 2015 4:27 AM
    keembodakine keembodakine Mar 27, 2015 5:32 PM Flag

    Mr. Dan,
    You make a good point. Remember, however, that many people in the work force are working until a later age to retire, so that might counter the fact there are fewer people in the workforce and therefore reducing unemployment. As a child, I knew nobody over 65 that had a job, and today I know thousands still working. There is no question that eventually they will have to retire and will either be replaced by a younger worker or a machine, so we will have to wait for those figures. There is no question there are more people on SS today, as more have reached an age to which they can draw benefits so long as they paid into SS for adequate time. If the economy slows, it may be because older people slow their consumption, and the younger generations have much fewer children if any, so there are not as many cars needed, etc. It will be interesting in the future as automation really gears up. That Indian that wrote the book on economics predicted that by 2050, 100% of the world's goods and services will only require 5% of the world to produce them, so your education won't matter, just your connections. It doesn't bode well for a peaceful world.

  • Reply to

    OT BS Pricing Solar Power Fairly

    by barbershores Mar 26, 2015 5:14 AM
    keembodakine keembodakine Mar 27, 2015 5:21 PM Flag

    Mr. Shores,
    "I don't know, I have explained this multiple times here, but for some reason you seem to think that the costs disappear as the solar panels are installed. The expense is only diverted to others by regulation."

    No Mr. Shores. You are mistaken. I am very aware what costs disappear. The grid costs are and were there before anybody put solar up here. The poles have been paid for many times over including the electric wires. If everyone with solar turned their solar off today, HELCO would need to do something to pick up the required need for power. As I told you before, every residential customer pays over $21/mo for the grid whether used or not. What costs disappear for HELCO is that they do not need to generate as much with their money and their power plants when they move my extra juice down the lines to my neighbor and charge them for it. They didn't add more lines in order to do that, and if I had such a large system that it would have required a larger transformer, I, the solar producer would have had to pay for the transformer up front, so HELCO would be out ZERO monies but they would have received more free power on their line. You are correct that if everyone went solar on the grid (an impossibility), then HELCO would have nobody to whom they would sell the excess power. The user doesn't exist in life for the purpose of making HELCO shareholders happy. Don't worry, though, because if HELCO continues in the direction they are going, they will just cause many folks like me to drop the grid altogether, at which point they can keep raising the electric rates ad infinitum until so many drop the grid they go bk and then perhaps the county will buy the utility from the bk court and start working for the citizenry instead of shareholders.

  • Reply to

    Obama's Recession coming

    by railsnstocks Mar 27, 2015 10:08 AM
    keembodakine keembodakine Mar 27, 2015 4:52 PM Flag

    Mr. Shores,
    I realize that the production hasn't not waned, and this is due to more efficiency. The railroad car comment that rails was referring to is that in places where oil was transported by rail vs areas where it is being transferred by pipeline, the pipeline transferring is continuing but there is less being shipped by rail. Remember, much of the Keystone pipeline connections were already built and only a certain section was that being argued about, and that was because Canada could not get "their" oil down to the gulf for exportation without having the pipeline be capable of being continuous. Had that gone through, even a greater portion of railcars hauling oil would be put on the sidelines. Much of the shale production is heaviest the first year, and long life strong output isn't the norm in shale, so the production will stay for awhile longer until those wells drilled the most recently begin the drop production, and since many of the rigs are now laid up, that will show up when the wells of today start diminishing and in the shale business, that doesn't take too long.

  • Reply to

    OT BS Pricing Solar Power Fairly

    by barbershores Mar 26, 2015 5:14 AM
    keembodakine keembodakine Mar 27, 2015 3:01 PM Flag

    Mr. Semper,
    "there is an infrastructure cost associated with keeping baseload power available to that grid-connected solar users can draw on baseload when the panels don't supply enough juice."

    I agree to a point. That baseload power was already available to all the folks that didn't have solar power previously. The power was there to "guarantee" that if you plugged in a welder or turned on your electric stove that the grid would provide enough power for your electric need. It works much like when clouds cut solar power output, it is lower just as the need for your power is lower when you turn off your AC or electric stove. That being said, the utility company can cut back their other power sources when you generate electricity. As a solar producer you are responsible for proper frequency of the electricity you produce going into the grid. IF you are producing more than you are using, the utility company is free to sell it to the non solar users. They don't sell it to them at a higher price than they are selling their own generated electricity, so the non solar users should have no qualms. It is the for profit utility company that does not like having their profit margin smaller, because the solar producer now produces their own consumption and that reduces the monthly payment to the utility company. Why do you think FLA P&L has lobbied so hard against solar? Of course the utility company doesn't mind selling my excess to my neighbor and billing them for it while they have their own fossil fuel plant running at lower level and saving money there.

  • Reply to

    Obama's Recession coming

    by railsnstocks Mar 27, 2015 10:08 AM
    keembodakine keembodakine Mar 27, 2015 2:42 PM Flag

    Of course carloads are down. Frackers have shut rigs down and cut production. This in turn results in less oil shipped on railcars. Hardly Obama's fault, but you probably blamed the last tornado in Oklahoma on Obama.

  • keembodakine by keembodakine Mar 27, 2015 4:27 AM Flag

    "In announcing his presidential candidacy, Sen. Ted Cruz painted a bleak picture of “economic stagnation” and “record numbers” of small-business failures. He’s off base on both counts.

    Far from being stagnant, the U.S. economy has chalked up five straight years of growth, gaining nearly 11.5 million jobs since early 2010.
    It is actually new business establishment openings that have recently posted the biggest gains on record. The number of business establishment deaths is currently well below the record — which was set in late 2008 .

    When Cruz announced his run for the Republican nomination March 23, we quickly noted a number of the Texas senator’s dubious claims in an item we called “FactChecking Cruz.” But wait, there’s more."

    Go look it up. To think folks like rails trust this guy is amazing. He is absolutely full of himself but little on facts.

  • keembodakine keembodakine Mar 27, 2015 4:02 AM Flag

    The doctors offices might be emptying out where you are rails, but I had to wait over 3 months to see the ENT doctor. Only one and booked solid. You have a two week to one month wait to see a urologist unless you want to fly to the mainland or possibly Honolulu.

  • Reply to

    Netanyahu should have stayed home.

    by keembodakine Mar 26, 2015 4:35 PM
    keembodakine keembodakine Mar 26, 2015 6:49 PM Flag

    Well, it is a bit strange that Iran has complied with the nuclear non proliferation treaty and signed on to it, and Israel refuses to join. A bit hypocritical I would say.

    Just my take

  • "In a development that has largely been missed by mainstream media, the Pentagon early last month quietly declassified a Department of Defense top-secret document detailing Israel's nuclear program, a highly covert topic that Israel has never formally announced to avoid a regional nuclear arms race, and which the US until now has respected by remaining silent.

    But by publishing the declassified document from 1987, the US reportedly breached the silent agreement to keep quiet on Israel's nuclear powers for the first time ever, detailing the nuclear program in great depth.

    The timing of the revelation is highly suspect, given that it came as tensions spiraled out of control between Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama ahead of Netanyahu's March 3 address in Congress, in which he warned against the dangers of Iran's nuclear program and how the deal being formed on that program leaves the Islamic regime with nuclear breakout capabilities."

  • keembodakine keembodakine Mar 26, 2015 4:00 PM Flag

    In other words...You just decided to break the law Mr. Shores. Do you do a lot of that at tax time also?

    Just my take.

  • Reply to

    OT BS Pricing Solar Power Fairly

    by barbershores Mar 26, 2015 5:14 AM
    keembodakine keembodakine Mar 26, 2015 3:57 PM Flag

    Mr. Shores,
    Below is a direct quote from HELCO itself. Since they charge about 40c/kwh, as you can see their purchased power costs to HELCO (since they buy the power elsewhere where somebody else has fuel or non fuel costs. Non fuel for over 35% here because it is geothermal generated from an Israeli firm called Puna Geothermal. The rest is oil or gas fired. This totals over 33% of costs to HELCO instead of 10%. I could post the profit for HELCO, but I need not do that. Their purchased cost of power from my grid is zero, and it is sold to someone else, but they do have to maintain frequency, so they must have plants producing something although throttled back. The most interesting part though is that my solar, which is not a large setup still produces more total electricity by about 25% than my all electric home consumes per month. Solar has the least maintenance unlike the windpower you posted which requires 3 times more MT than standard power plants.

    "The Energy Adjustment Clause has been a part of all HELCO rate schedules for more than 35 years. The present rates
    are based on a base composite generation power cost effective April 9, 2012 of 1,982.67 cents per million BTU,
    purchased power cost of 18.674 cents per kWh, and DG energy cost of 21.703 cents per kWh. At these rates, HELCO
    must pay about 16.2487 cents per kilowatt-hour to cover the base rate costs of fuel oil and purchased power as well as the related State and County revenue taxes. This amount is specifically identified for residential rate accounts as base
    fuel energy. It is included in the energy charges in all of the other rate schedules. This charge is exclusive of the firm
    capacity surcharge, public benefits fund surcharge, and other surcharges authorized by the Public Utilities Commission."

  • Reply to

    OT BS Pricing Solar Power Fairly

    by barbershores Mar 26, 2015 5:14 AM
    keembodakine keembodakine Mar 26, 2015 1:40 PM Flag

    Mr. Shores,
    You just don't understand HELCO. I live here ...and am involved with them..you are not. Bloomberg is a business loving company...not a consumer loving company. Every residential customer of HELCO has paid a monthly fee for years...It is now $21.50/mo I believe. What HELCO agreed with that billing was to provide the exact grid you are talking about. No electricity...just the grid and availability. Both solar and non solar people are paying for that grid already. Every watt that comes into a home is charged also. Why HELCO wants to raise rates is because solar users are using less from their grid. HELCO doesn't mention that during the daylight hours, when demand is strongest, the excess juice I produce goes to a non solar consumer down the line for which HELCO charges full retail yet did not provide the power plant,. I did that, and I am only one of thousands. So far this year, I have produced nearly an extra megawatt over what I have consumed.
    This extra megawatt got sold to consumers at over $.40/kwh or nearly $400 that Helco got to keep. In fact, HELCO has it so that if they lose power due to pole down, etc., your own solar system is NOT allowed to provide electricity at all to your house even though it would be very easy to guarantee that it couldn't go onto the existing grid and electrocute a lineman. You are correct in that the ultimate good solution will be to go completely off grid and that will be coming soon. What HELCO doesn't like is that there are a number of small systems that don't produce extra. However, those do reduce the KWH consumed and what extra is required from the grid to feed that home is billed at the retail rate but low overall grid consumption. Again, there already is a monthly fee being paid by all that guaranteed the grid. Otherwise, why have a monthly basic fee? For what would it exist?

  • keembodakine keembodakine Mar 26, 2015 1:21 PM Flag

    There are many variables involved Mr. barber. There are lots of folks who could not get insurance or were denied that are now covered by Obamacare. You may consider that a negative, but I do not. I certainly can see some things wrong with facets of Obamacare. First, if a poorer person with Obamacare doesn't come up with the co-pay, they are still treated and somebody will have to pay the bill. In that process, what I fear most is that the insurance companies and the hospitals will be reimbursed with taxpayer monies, where before, folks just went to the hospital with no money, were treated, and the hospital was only able to recover the costs by raising rates to those who did pay to cover those who didn't pay. This resulted in insurance companies raising their rates, passing it off on their paying consumers, who were in turn highly overcharged so that the extra monies going to the doctors and hospitals could cover the cost of those that were not paying but still being treated. At some point some folks could no longer afford the insurance, but they still showed up in hospitals resulting in liens against any belongings and the highest reason for personal bankruptcy. Until we have have fully socialized medicine, this will continue...Obamacare or Nobamacare.

  • Reply to

    Ted Cruz' healthcare options

    by keembodakine Mar 25, 2015 1:53 PM
    keembodakine keembodakine Mar 25, 2015 7:05 PM Flag

    First of all, Ted Cruz' options are and were several, but he chose Obamacare. He could have stayed covered under his wife's Goldman Sach's healthcare policy, but she CHOSE to take a LOA and therefore willingly gave up the health insurance, so when he says that he was forced to go on Obamacare, he is just using his "legal" expertise, but not really telling the whole story. Here are some other options., From another article:

    "However, purchasing health insurance through Obamacare is not Cruz’s only option now that his wife has gone on unpaid leave. For one, he and his family could use the COBRA system to extend her health insurance for up to 18 months, though it would likely cost far more than his employer-based option and has a number of restrictions.

    And if Cruz doesn’t want to go through the exchange, he has the option to purchase a plan directly from an insurance company. But in that case, he would receive no contribution from his employer — the U.S. government — and would end up paying a higher premium. So, ultimately, Obamacare may be the easiest and cheapest easiest health insurance option for Cruz."

  • Reply to

    Ted Cruz' healthcare options

    by keembodakine Mar 25, 2015 1:53 PM
    keembodakine keembodakine Mar 25, 2015 6:55 PM Flag

    Thanks....My heart cries for Ted....lol

  • Reply to

    Pasadena used for a wood pellet terminal?

    by michael446782 Mar 19, 2015 4:00 PM
    keembodakine keembodakine Mar 25, 2015 1:59 PM Flag

    Aloha Star,
    You still hanging around here and poking fun at the former Ramsbottom supporters? I wonder how much Julie Dawajoodie or whatever her name has gotten over the years in salary supporting the debacle this company turned out to be? Ramsbottom got plenty. I hope he left her a tip.

  • keembodakine by keembodakine Mar 25, 2015 1:53 PM Flag

    Although Ted Cruz claims he is being forced on to Obamacare, let's just look at how much he is stretching the truth. The following article is from fact check dot org.

    wwwperiodfactcheckperiodorg/2009/08/health-care-for-members-of-congress/

    Enjoy...Just my take

FRO
2.37-0.02(-0.84%)Mar 27 4:03 PMEDT