PDA

View Full Version : So no matter what happens in Massachusetts tomorrow..


Writewing
01-18-2010, 11:03 PM
Either Brown is going to pull off a shocker or Coakley is going to survive what looked like a loss and that brings me to my question. The very fact this seat is even showing a chance of Republican control let alone a very real threat of a Democratic staple being lost is IMO very telling about how the population feels about our President and it cant be stated enough that I am not the only one with serious concerns
Will this Senate race, the turns of New Jersey and Virginia on Governor and sliding national poll numbers convince Obama to go more to the center or will he ignore this and maintain his far left course? He did run on a center platform yet ran to the left as soon as taking office and I am convinced he knows the public has caught on and doesnt like what is happening.
Now he can either take this lesson and become a more center minded leader as Clinton did after his wake up call or arrogantly ignore the very folks who put him in power at his, the Democratic party and our country as a wholes peril and I want to know what others think.
What will be his future way of doing things when it is obvious he is losing both support and confidence of the voter?

Fast_Eddie
01-18-2010, 11:58 PM
Eh, who knows. His approval rating is right at 50% according to this article:

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/18/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6113290.shtml

It's interesting to look at the numbers of past Presidents one year in. Look at W- 82%. Sure did erode in a big way after that. Look at Reagan- 49%. He sure did pick it up, and didn't do it by running to the middle.

It's tough to say. I really do think a good deal rides on Health Care. If they get it done his numbers will get better. The right wing guys sure spent a lot of rhetoric on this. No way it can be as bad as they said it would. After that, it's really all about the economy. If things start picking up he's golden, just like Reagan. He'll say "look, it's working!" and he'll be able to move his agenda forward.

But I think you're quite wrong. He's closer to center than W was. Certainly closer to center than Reagan was. You're taking the talk show guys too seriously. What exactly is it that you think makes him so left? Health care reform? Nixon tried to do it and his plan was much more liberal. He's been very cautious on everything else. Can't call that Afghanistan plan liberal. Can't call the tax cuts liberal either. He's playing pretty well down the middle near as I can tell. And no hate filled rhetoric against gays or immigrants like we've seen from the right in recent years.

No, I think Obama will be just fine. I don't think he'll move at all because there is nowhere *to* move unless he becomes a Republican. Shoot, he hasn't done much that a Republican President hasn't already done or tried to do in the past.

Grumpy
01-19-2010, 06:20 AM
I disagree Ed. He has much room to move. A politician who does not adapt would to me, be no better then our last schmuck.

IMO the current prez gives two shits about the middle class. Its gonna come home to bite him in the ass unless he does something.

noonereal
01-19-2010, 07:54 AM
Either Brown is going to pull off a shocker or Coakley is going to survive what looked like a loss and that brings me to my question. The very fact this seat is even showing a chance of Republican control let alone a very real threat of a Democratic staple being lost is IMO very telling about how the population feels about our President and it cant be stated enough that I am not the only one with serious concerns
Will this Senate race, the turns of New Jersey ?

Mass often elects republicans. Don't confuse the love for Kennedy with the party that he was a part of.
NJ was never going to Corzine this time around. It had nothing to do with national DEMOCRAT VS REPUBLICAN rhetoric. It was an anti Corzine vote.

merrylander
01-19-2010, 07:55 AM
The problem is simply letting the right get all the press with their buzzwords, you know "death Panels" "Socialism", "Big Government" "Government Takeover" all certified bull manure but not counterd by the left with the truth.

Frankly Brown is enough of a yahoo that should he win he will most likely do more to piss off the independents than he will to win them over to the do nothing party.

doucanoe
01-19-2010, 08:59 AM
I've said it before and I will say it again. If Obama does not start addressing the economy in a recognized manner, these individuals are going to start to be bounced by association.

At the moment, the administrations primary focus appears to be on; #1 Health Care Reform and #2 Climate Change with the economy trailing in third position.

Disregarding one's personal opinion of the merit or implementation of one or all of the big three, lets for argument sake assume that those are the three. If #3 doesn't move to the #1 position, it may be game over.

I am not trying to start a pissing match over what is more important here. I just think that it is becoming clearer that by in large, people are much more concerned about the state of the economy.


RC

noonereal
01-19-2010, 09:20 AM
I just think that it is becoming clearer that by in large, people are much more concerned about the state of the economy.


RC

I agree. Obama appears to be resolute in his agenda without recognizing that circumstance often dictates agenda for the successful in government.

HatchetJack
01-19-2010, 09:25 AM
Yeah, it would make more sense to build the economy and tax base before
spending money we dont have. But they are backward thinking democrats
out to destroy the free market enterprise in this country.

Fast_Eddie
01-19-2010, 09:25 AM
I disagree Ed. He has much room to move. A politician who does not adapt would to me, be no better then our last schmuck.

IMO the current prez gives two shits about the middle class. Its gonna come home to bite him in the ass unless he does something.

Well, there's no question that I view the world through liberal glasses, so I could certainly be wrong. I'd honestly be intersted in specific initiatives that you feel are far left.

merrylander
01-19-2010, 09:44 AM
Oh for crying out loud, he inherits a fucked up economy, FUBAR'ed by the free market, two effing wars neither of which we needed nor could afford. Manages to keep us from going over the cliff economically and everyone is upset? Spoiled darlings, sitting around pissing and moaning, you want real trouble? Come on back to 1930 with me, I'll show you real problems, oddly enough precipitated by another Republican, you people never learn do you.

noonereal
01-19-2010, 09:52 AM
Yeah, it would make more sense to build the economy and tax base before
spending money we dont have.


Iagree

But they are backward thinking democrats

The term backward applies to folks who don't progress. That is the right wing nuts not the democrats.

out to destroy the free market enterprise in this country.

That is not the intent. The intent is to reel in some of the grotesque excess that pools instead of running downstream.

finnbow
01-19-2010, 09:59 AM
I think it's a mistake to try to read too deeply into a single special election. Polls that measure presidential approval ratings are famously fickle (as is American public opinion from which they derive). Dubya had historically high approval ratings at one time, but will likely go down historically as one of our worst presidents. Similarly, Reagan had the lowest approval after one year of any American president since modern polling began, yet has been canonized as one of the greats (at least by the GOP).

The GOP should be careful about drawing some deeper meaning from current Obama polls or the Massachusetts special election, lest they think that they're actually doing something right. If they continue to kowtow to the right wing crazies and alienate Blacks and Hispanics in the process, they'll paint themselves into a corner called irrelevance.

BlueStreak
01-19-2010, 10:00 AM
Oh for crying out loud, he inherits a fucked up economy, FUBAR'ed by the free market, two effing wars neither of which we needed nor could afford. Manages to keep us from going over the cliff economically and everyone is upset? Spoiled darlings, sitting around pissing and moaning, you want real trouble? Come on back to 1930 with me, I'll show you real problems, oddly enough precipitated by another Republican, you people never learn do you.

Ha, Ha! LMAO! Rob speaks the truth, and I'm loving it.:D

Obama "far left"? Only in America. Compared to the rest of the world he's a staunch Conservative Republican. You guys....................:confused:

Dave

merrylander
01-19-2010, 10:11 AM
Sorry but if I hear the words "Free Market" again I might just buy a gun. Greed is ever with us and will not go away any time soon. Even in Haiti they are running a black market in drinking water,what bigger example of greed do you want?

As for the Wall Street boys they don't see first hand what their greed has done, their neighbourhoods have no foreclosures, they are not the fathers who feel shamed because they can't put food on the table despite their best efforts. Carrion, just plain carrion, evil people who should not live. They contribute nothing to the nation, only take, and take some more, and yet more. I am not a saint nor an especially great person, but there is no one on Wall Street fit to lick my boots..

d-ray657
01-19-2010, 10:41 AM
A reality of our political system is that government representatives cannot accomplish anything if they cannot get elected, especially when the things to be accomplished take more than two or four years. Unless President Obama can pass a healthcare plan, his credibility as a leader, and hence as a political figure take a serious hit. Morever, the perception of his influence becomes diminished in congress, and legislators are less willing to participate in his initiatives, or at least those in congress who actually debate instead of saying no, no, no, like a two-year old.

Accordingly, the reality is that the healthcare bill has to remain priority. Remember, however, that one impetus in going forward with the healthcare bill is the effect of medical costs on our economy, and on the pocketbooks of most working (and retired) Americans. Also remember that the first initiative, occurring before any healthcare bill was proposed, was the stimulus plan. That plan focusecd on the economy (along with secondary goals like rebuilding infrastructure and creating jobs in alternative energy industries).

Regards,

D-Ray

Grumpy
01-19-2010, 11:59 AM
What I am saying is he needs the break the molds and start crossing more lines.

It was no secret I supported Single payer insurance for every last one of us, regardless of income.

Nearly everything else he said hes going to do he handed off to others to screw up. That man needs to get in the ditches and start digging like the rest of us. Then I will respect him. Not a minute sooner.

merrylander
01-19-2010, 12:05 PM
For sure he should not have left it to those lamebrains in Congress to write the bill without giving them a template.

Boreas
01-19-2010, 12:08 PM
Nearly everything else he said hes going to do he handed off to others to screw up. That man needs to get in the ditches and start digging like the rest of us. Then I will respect him. Not a minute sooner.

He needs to jettison Rahm Emmanuel.

John

Fast_Eddie
01-19-2010, 12:31 PM
Oh for crying out loud, he inherits a fucked up economy, FUBAR'ed by the free market, two effing wars neither of which we needed nor could afford. Manages to keep us from going over the cliff economically and everyone is upset?

I remember saying words to this effect during the 2000 election. I kept hearing Bush supporters saying we needed a change. I would ask, what is it you want to change? The relative world peace, or the roaring economy? They got both.

Never can think of a time in my life when people so overwhelmingly defied all logic. One of the most prosperous periods in our nation's history and we didn't elect the guy most like him? Well, most of us *did* vote for him. All the same, why was that election even close?

So we got Bush. We got the "change" we wanted. Two wars and an economy in the toilet. So what do we do now? Blame the guy who replaced him.

This is playing out frighteningly like 1994.

Grumpy
01-19-2010, 12:35 PM
Whose to say we would not have gotten those things without bush in for a second time ?

Boreas
01-19-2010, 12:43 PM
Whose to say we would not have gotten those things without bush in for a second time ?

The wars and the tax cuts which combined to wreck our economy and our image around the world happened in Bush's first term.

John

noonereal
01-19-2010, 01:04 PM
Sorry but if I hear the words "Free Market" again I might just buy a gun. Greed is ever with us and will not go away any time soon.

As for the Wall Street boys They contribute nothing to the nation, only take, and take some more, and yet more. ..

And the most perplexing thing of all are the hoards of well intended, proudly self relent folks who somehow unknowingly act as their bitches.

Let them do their own tea baggin'.

noonereal
01-19-2010, 01:07 PM
It was no secret I supported Single payer insurance for every last one of us, regardless of income.

.

Same here. The bill presently being considered is garbage, more income for the investor class.

doucanoe
01-19-2010, 02:24 PM
I agree. Obama appears to be resolute in his agenda without recognizing that circumstance often dictates agenda for the successful in government.

In all honesty, I respect a man who has convictions and stands by them. I may not agree with them but do respect that. It's just that we have some very pressing issues to address right now and Climate Change (for example) falls pretty far down on the list for me personally. I would have to believe that he is not spending every waking moment on this but by the same token, enough already.

I would like to believe that this, we could agree on.

RC

Writewing
01-19-2010, 02:36 PM
I think Obama needs a big change and I agree bouncing Rahm would be a great start. Polls come and go and swing up or down but I think there is a pattern here and while I am not an the inside I do think Obama needs to not only adjust his goals but needs to seriously make an effort to work with the Right. Like it or not the message of "NO" is working simply because the majority dont like his agenda.
Just like the country held Bush accountable for his "Read my lips" promise the country is turning on Obama for his broken ones aswell but its a series of promises not one big soundbite. Everyone can see its business as usual, everyone can see there is no more transparency but infact there is less, many can see deals being made by special interest groups yet we were told the wouldnt find their way into 1600, he promised a Net across the board cut in spending, sorry folks, he said he was going to "ban all earmarks" that didnt happen, he promised any Bill would be posted for 5 days online for the public to view before he signs, broke that one too, and the latest promise he made that folks have come to remember is the fact he attacked John McCain as a guy who was going to "Tax healthcare benefits" and proudly noted that McCains idea was so unpopular it has never in the history of our country been done.
So the left can blame the Right as the party of NO, can blame the media for relentlessly reminding folks how our President strayed from both his message and promise he ran on, can blame the past administration for what it "inherited", he can blame like the best of him but until he starts taking control and responsibility for his own actions I think he and his party are in for a long cold day in November no matter what happens tonight.

d-ray657
01-19-2010, 02:36 PM
In all honesty, I respect a man who has convictions and stands by them. I may not agree with them but do respect that. It's just that we have some very pressing issues to address right now and Climate Change (for example) falls pretty far down on the list for me personally. I would have to believe that he is not spending every waking moment on this but by the same token, enough already.

I would like to believe that this, we could agree on.

RC

I would agree with you that climate change should not hold top billing now. To the extent that is is relevant to the discussion of the bigger issues, it does make sense, for example, to promote jobs by promoting green jobs. Steps taken for short term solutions should not be inconsistent with what has to be done to resolve long term issues. (That is one of the reasons I believe that focus on the healthcare bill is warranted, because failure to effect some reform now, can have seriously detrimental economic effects.) (For today's English lesson, note that I have utilized two different meanings of the word "effect" in one sentence.)

BTW, as I have stated elsewhere, I have some serious issues with cap and trade.

Regards,

D-Ray

noonereal
01-19-2010, 02:46 PM
In all honesty, I respect a man who has convictions and stands by them. I may not agree with them but do respect that. It's just that we have some very pressing issues to address right now and Climate Change (for example) falls pretty far down on the list for me personally. I would have to believe that he is not spending every waking moment on this but by the same token, enough already.

I would like to believe that this, we could agree on.

RC

convictions without reassessment is not admirable

time is change, it is the nature of life, we need to continually challenge our judgment given new circumstance

cabinover
01-19-2010, 02:48 PM
Me too. Talk about an investor's dream! I don't know which will make more money, health reform as the bill is now or cap and trade.

merrylander
01-19-2010, 02:49 PM
You know it is really strange, when I had my immigration hearing they really wanted to know if I understood the concept of checks and balances. I guess if you are born here they don't care if you grasp the concept or not.

L'homme propose, le Dieu dispose.

The president can propose all he wants but if that dumbass congress wants to go another way the best he can do is veto their bills. If they have enogh votes to override his veto he is SOL.

As Yogi said "When you come to the fork in the road, take it."

doucanoe
01-19-2010, 03:02 PM
I would agree with you that climate change should not hold top billing now. To the extent that is is relevant to the discussion of the bigger issues, it does make sense, for example, to promote jobs by promoting green jobs. Steps taken for short term solutions should not be inconsistent with what has to be done to resolve long term issues. (That is one of the reasons I believe that focus on the healthcare bill is warranted, because failure to effect some reform now, can have seriously detrimental economic effects.) (For today's English lesson, note that I have utilized two different meanings of the word "effect" in one sentence.)

BTW, as I have stated elsewhere, I have some serious issues with cap and trade.

Regards,

D-Ray

I do also (cap and trade that is).

Being in the housing and commercial construction industry for almost 25 years now, I am very attuned to "green" efforts how many have jumped on board for profit and to conform to regulation. If you could see some of the inner workings of it, I believe you might see a lot of it as a bit of a joke. Be that as it may, jobs are jobs as long as they aren't all just built on the notion of green.

We really need to start to produce a viable product in this country soon or it's going to be government and service related jobs for all of us. If you subscribe any to the notion that government does produce a product as such, we had better start investing in the private sector.

For those of you who say, well, don't just bitch, provide some solutions I give you this...

Maybe a good place to start would be to tax the hell out of corporate entities that wish to produce products overseas and at the same time, wish to bring them back for sale here. At the same time, provide incentives to manufactures that produce a product here for sale here. This would stimulate job growth here by allowing companies who wish to play by the rules the additional capitol to grow and hire.

Maybe thats just a naive approach to things from a guy who likes to cut to the chase :confused: I'm just a guy who would like to get to the heart of the problem (some of it anyway) and deal with it accordingly.

Sorry about the somewhat off topic rant. I just can't help myself :D

RC

d-ray657
01-19-2010, 03:08 PM
I do also (cap and trade that is).

Being in the housing and commercial construction industry for almost 25 years now, I am very attuned to "green" efforts how many have jumped on board for profit and to conform to regulation. If you could see some of the inner workings of it, I believe you might see a lot of it as a bit of a joke. Be that as it may, jobs are jobs as long as they aren't all just built on the notion of green.

We really need to start to produce a viable product in this country soon or it's going to be government and service related jobs for all of us. If you subscribe any to the notion that government does produce a product as such, we had better start investing in the private sector.

For those of you who say, well, don't just bitch, provide some solutions I give you this...

Maybe a good place to start would be to tax the hell out of corporate entities that wish to produce products overseas and at the same time, wish to bring them back for sale here. At the same time, provide incentives to manufactures that produce a product here for sale here. This would stimulate job growth here by allowing companies who wish to play by the rules the additional capitol to grow and hire.

Maybe thats just a naive approach to things from a guy who likes to cut to the chase :confused: I'm just a guy who would like to get to the heart of the problem (some of it anyway) and deal with it accordingly.

Sorry about the somewhat off topic rant. I just can't help myself :D

RC

Interesting stuff. I want to discuss it more, when I can.

Regards,

D-Ray

piece-itpete
01-19-2010, 03:14 PM
I understand about green jobs, but I too work around the new green projects (indirectly in the supply chain) and if someone can tell me how increasing costs is going to lead to a net INCREASE in jobs I'd sure like to know how.

Pete

Grumpy
01-19-2010, 03:18 PM
The wars and the tax cuts which combined to wreck our economy and our image around the world happened in Bush's first term.

John


Ok, so say a dem was in office then. Do you really think it would be much different ?

finnbow
01-19-2010, 03:24 PM
Ok, so say a dem was in office then. Do you really think it would be much different ?

It's doubtful that a Dem would have passed Bush's tax cuts or gone to Iraq (I believe a Dem would have gone to Afghanistan after 9/11).

noonereal
01-19-2010, 03:36 PM
Ok, so say a dem was in office then. Do you really think it would be much different ?

I have to agree. I think we would be significantly healthier fiscally if the supremes did not appoint Bush king.

Fast_Eddie
01-19-2010, 03:44 PM
Ok, so say a dem was in office then. Do you really think it would be much different ?

YES!

I think the financial industry would have been regulated more effectively, we probably wouldn't have Bush's tax cuts, we probably wouldn't be in two wars right now. Who knows what other trials we would have faced in their stead, but on the whole, looking at the circumstances of the last decade, I'd say we'd be a world better off had we actually given the election to Gore as the voters wanted.

Grumpy
01-19-2010, 04:00 PM
Your joking right ?

Even Gore would have been forced by the masses to declare war after 911.

Writewing
01-19-2010, 04:00 PM
The view is nice from the cheapseats and hindsight is 20/20, but the office of President isnt anyones to "give" it is earned by the Electoral College.

Fast_Eddie
01-19-2010, 04:20 PM
Your joking right ?

Even Gore would have been forced by the masses to declare war after 911.

There's no way to know, of course, but I suspect there would have been some action in Afghanistan. Not sure what it would have looked like. Perhaps we'd have gone in and gotten Bin Laden and called it a day. I am virtually certain that we would *not* have gotten into the mess in Iraq. Clinton was big on cruise missles and limited engagement. No way to know what Gore would have done, but I suspect it would have been more limited in scope.

So, who knows? Monday morning quarterbacking and all. But we may have been in and out with Afghanistan and not gone to Iraq at all. How many trillions would that have saved?

Fast_Eddie
01-19-2010, 04:25 PM
The view is nice from the cheapseats and hindsight is 20/20, but the office of President isnt anyones to "give" it is earned by the Electoral College.

You know they did go back and count the ballots in Florida, don't you? You do know that more people voted for Gore than Bush, right? Electoral votes aside, and that's an issue we could talk about too, Gore won the election.

And thanks for the Civics lesson. Do you really think anyone here doesn't understand the Electoral College or are you just being condesending?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000

"Ultimately, the Media Consortium hired the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago[47] to examine 175,010 ballots that were discounted; these ballots contained under-votes (votes with no choice made for president) and over-votes (votes made with more than one choice marked). Their goal was not to deduce who actually won the election, but to determine the reliability and accuracy of the systems used for the voting process. Nonetheless, NORC concluded that if the disputes over the validity of the ballots in question had been consistently resolved and any uniform standard applied, the electoral result would have been reversed and Gore would have won by 107-115 votes.[48]"

Writewing
01-19-2010, 04:38 PM
And yet Bush was President, live in the past or step into the here and now with sometihng more than a guess of what may have happened and tired old bitching about an Election almost a decade ago.

noonereal
01-19-2010, 04:39 PM
Your joking right ?

Even Gore would have been forced by the masses to declare war after 911.

I am sure we would have gone to Afghanistan and done a much better job as we would never have taken our recourses or attention away to invade a contained country, Iraq.

noonereal
01-19-2010, 04:41 PM
And yet Bush was President, live in the past or step into the here and now with sometihng more than a guess of what may have happened and tired old bitching about an Election almost a decade ago.

Isn't the reluctance to step into the future a hallmark of the right?

Good god man, do you ever speak with consistence?

Writewing
01-19-2010, 04:50 PM
I am sure we would have gone to Afghanistan and done a much better job as we would never have taken our recourses or attention away to invade a contained country, Iraq.

Maybe but it sure was sweet to see Saddam go to the gallows:D

Fast_Eddie
01-19-2010, 04:54 PM
And yet Bush was President, live in the past or step into the here and now with sometihng more than a guess of what may have happened and tired old bitching about an Election almost a decade ago.

“Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.”

Fast_Eddie
01-19-2010, 04:55 PM
Maybe but it sure was sweet to see Saddam go to the gallows:D

How many American lives and trillions of dollars was it worth? I'm sure a mother who lost her son in Iraq would be consoled by the fact that it amused you.

Writewing
01-19-2010, 05:02 PM
Thats nice, its a cheapshot but par for your way of thought.
When freedom is fully realized in Iraq the citizens of that country and the entire world will be a better place and that makes sacrifice not only worth it but also a necessity.

Writewing
01-19-2010, 05:04 PM
“Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.”

And soon we will see if your party not only lectures with those words but also puts them to practice.

Grumpy
01-19-2010, 05:10 PM
Thats nice, its a cheapshot but par for your way of thought.
When freedom is fully realized in Iraq the citizens of that country and the entire world will be a better place and that makes sacrifice not only worth it but also a necessity.


There will never, ever, be freedom in that part of the world.

One they don't want it.

Two their religion, for the most part forbids it.

Three its be going on for thousands of years and will continue long after we are gone.

Grumpy
01-19-2010, 05:13 PM
There's no way to know, of course, but I suspect there would have been some action in Afghanistan. Not sure what it would have looked like. Perhaps we'd have gone in and gotten Bin Laden and called it a day. I am virtually certain that we would *not* have gotten into the mess in Iraq. Clinton was big on cruise missles and limited engagement. No way to know what Gore would have done, but I suspect it would have been more limited in scope.

So, who knows? Monday morning quarterbacking and all. But we may have been in and out with Afghanistan and not gone to Iraq at all. How many trillions would that have saved?

Clinton, the slimy bastard was smarter then I gave credit. He knew he should have finished what bush's father should have. Instead he let it all simmer over and become the next guys problem.

Fast_Eddie
01-19-2010, 05:17 PM
When freedom is fully realized in Iraq the citizens of that country and the entire world will be a better place and that makes sacrifice not only worth it but also a necessity.

When freedom is fully realized in Iraq? Are you serious? Hell, even Bush knew that was just a line.

Fast_Eddie
01-19-2010, 05:20 PM
Clinton, the slimy bastard was smarter then I gave credit. He knew he should have finished what bush's father should have. Instead he let it all simmer over and become the next guys problem.

This is where these discussions get pointless. On the previous page you asked a question:

Ok, so say a dem was in office then. Do you really think it would be much different ?

I tried to answer as best I could. Given that Gore worked with Clinton for a good while it seemed a logical place to look for a reasonably probably answer. So I answered your question. Never does anyone ever post "that's a good point, you're probably right". Just change the subject.

So, again, the answer to your question is almost certainly "yes". I think things would very probably be different.

Fast_Eddie
01-19-2010, 05:24 PM
And yet Bush was President, live in the past or step into the here and now with sometihng more than a guess of what may have happened and tired old bitching about an Election almost a decade ago.

Another perfect example. You were the one who was trying to tell me what happened in 2000.

The view is nice from the cheapseats and hindsight is 20/20, but the office of President isnt anyones to "give" it is earned by the Electoral College.

When I correct you (and I can only assume you have no issue with the information I provided since you don't address it) you quip some crap about living in the past. Well why did you bring it up then?

It's pointless to even take the time to post direct responses.

HatchetJack
01-19-2010, 05:25 PM
Freedom for us comes at a high price. Lots of good men went down so we can do
what we do. We should be more thankful to our leaders and our fallen
brothers for allowing us to live without oppresion. We must continue to fight
the spread of camelism. I Wonder what our fallen soldiers would say to anti
war types that have no clue why their lives are as good as they are. It would
not be a pretty sight.

Writewing
01-19-2010, 05:28 PM
There will never, ever, be freedom in that part of the world.

One they don't want it.

Two their religion, for the most part forbids it.

Three its be going on for thousands of years and will continue long after we are gone.

So we shouldnt try to give others what we enjoy? So should we try in Haiti?, after all its a mess and likely to remain one and has been for years. Sure they are two very different things but its the idea of wondering do we just sit on our hands or try to do something about it?
I dont agree those in Iraq dont want it, many do and others dont know what it truely is because of the powers that have been in place.
I dont agree also that the religion does not allow it, the perverted interpretation of it does not allow it and we may be able to change that in time. It likely though because if its religion wont ever be a duplicate of our country but it can sure as hell be better than it is now.

djv8ga
01-19-2010, 05:28 PM
The problem is simply letting the right get all the press with their buzzwords, you know "death Panels" "Socialism", "Big Government" "Government Takeover" all certified bull manure but not counterd by the left with the truth.

Frankly Brown is enough of a yahoo that should he win he will most likely do more to piss off the independents than he will to win them over to the do nothing party.
Impossible.

Writewing
01-19-2010, 05:32 PM
Another perfect example. You were the one who was trying to tell me what happened in 2000.



When I correct you (and I can only assume you have no issue with the information I provided since you don't address it) you quip some crap about living in the past. Well why did you bring it up then?

It's pointless to even take the time to post direct responses.

Its obvious you operate under the assumption this sites should revolve around you but there are others here I participate with so remember that in the future, as far as "bringing it up" I started this thread and once again it strays off course and if you stuck to the original topic we wouldnt be waisting time on this.

Writewing
01-19-2010, 05:33 PM
Freedom for us comes at a high price. Lots of good men went down so we can do
what we do. We should be more thankful to our leaders and our fallen
brothers for allowing us to live without oppresion. We must continue to fight
the spread of camelism. I Wonder what our fallen soldiers would say to anti
war types that have no clue why their lives are as good as they are. It would
not be a pretty sight.

THANK YOU:)

Fast_Eddie
01-19-2010, 05:34 PM
So we shouldnt try to give others what we enjoy? So should we try in Haiti?

Give others what we enjoy- you mean spread the wealth around?

Two points- you can't really compare the two. Haiti is a disaster not of their own design. Of course we should try to save the dying after a natural disaster. That has nothing to do with the situation in the Middle-East where factions have been killing each other intentionally for all of recorded history.

Second, this is an ironic statement from someone on the right. I can't recall your position specifically, but this sounds a lot like the kind of thing Democrats say when pushing projects like Health Care. Shoot, what about welfare? Sure, some will abuse it and some may be demotivated to try harder. I don't really buy that, but for the sake of arguement. But some will take advantage of the program, get their lives together and prosper. You can say it's hopeless, but does that mean we shouldn't try to give others what we enjoy?

Fast_Eddie
01-19-2010, 05:36 PM
Its obvious you operate under the assumption this sites should revolve around you but there are others here I participate with so remember that in the future, as far as "bringing it up" I started this thread and once again it strays off course and if you stuck to the original topic we wouldnt be waisting time on this.

For Christ sake. Whatever. Why bother to answer?

Fast_Eddie
01-19-2010, 05:39 PM
Freedom for us comes at a high price. Lots of good men went down so we can do
what we do. We should be more thankful to our leaders and our fallen
brothers for allowing us to live without oppresion. We must continue to fight
the spread of camelism. I Wonder what our fallen soldiers would say to anti
war types that have no clue why their lives are as good as they are. It would
not be a pretty sight.

I completely agree with the first part of your post. I'm not sure what "camelism" is other than I assume some kind of deragatory term for people who weren't fortunate enough to be born in the West.

Being against the war in Iraq doesn't make you an "anti-war type". It was a bad call to go there. I do not believe that the war in Iraq as it has been executed is in any way related to my life being as good as it is.

Writewing
01-19-2010, 05:40 PM
For Christ sake. Whatever. Why bother to answer?

I invite you not to answer, if you going to live in the past with "what ifs" as if this were some Political fantasy league and talk about an Election damn near 10 yrs ago I fully support your choice not to respond. The topic is about today and the future................is that clear?

Boreas
01-19-2010, 05:43 PM
I do also (cap and trade that is).

Being in the housing and commercial construction industry for almost 25 years now, I am very attuned to "green" efforts how many have jumped on board for profit and to conform to regulation. If you could see some of the inner workings of it, I believe you might see a lot of it as a bit of a joke. Be that as it may, jobs are jobs as long as they aren't all just built on the notion of green.

We really need to start to produce a viable product in this country soon or it's going to be government and service related jobs for all of us. If you subscribe any to the notion that government does produce a product as such, we had better start investing in the private sector.

For those of you who say, well, don't just bitch, provide some solutions I give you this...

Maybe a good place to start would be to tax the hell out of corporate entities that wish to produce products overseas and at the same time, wish to bring them back for sale here. At the same time, provide incentives to manufactures that produce a product here for sale here. This would stimulate job growth here by allowing companies who wish to play by the rules the additional capitol to grow and hire.

Maybe thats just a naive approach to things from a guy who likes to cut to the chase :confused: I'm just a guy who would like to get to the heart of the problem (some of it anyway) and deal with it accordingly.

Sorry about the somewhat off topic rant. I just can't help myself :D

RC

Now, see? We do agree sometimes. ;) I agree with everything you said above.

By the way, that idea about penalizing American companies that move offshore and reward those that don't?

John Kerry.

John

John

djv8ga
01-19-2010, 05:48 PM
If the right continues to send kids to their death as they have, they will dissolve the Republican party. Dems, Libertarians, and Independents will not put up with it any longer...IMO.

Boreas
01-19-2010, 05:50 PM
Your joking right ?

Even Gore would have been forced by the masses to declare war after 911.

Well, Gore might have listened to Richard Clark and might have paid attention to the numerous specific warnings of an impending al Qaeda attack on the US. If he had 9/11 might well have been prevented.

We don't know, of course, but we do know that Bush's negligence made al Qaeda's job a lot easier.

John

noonereal
01-19-2010, 05:53 PM
I Wonder what our fallen soldiers would say to anti
war types that have no clue why their lives are as good as they are. It would
not be a pretty sight.

I think you sell the fallen short by assuming their thoughts to be so one dimentional.

Writewing
01-19-2010, 05:55 PM
If the right continues to send kids to their death as they have, they will dissolve the Republican party. Dems, Libertarians, and independents will not put up with it any longer...IMO.

:confused:

Boreas
01-19-2010, 05:55 PM
Being against the war in Iraq doesn't make you an "anti-war type". It was a bad call to go there. I do not believe that the war in Iraq as it has been executed is in any way related to my life being as good as it is.

I would add that being against the decision to go to war in Iraq is in no way the same thing as being "against the troops". Quite the opposite is the case. Rather we are against the senseless waste of our brave young men and women in a futile and illegal military adventure.

John

noonereal
01-19-2010, 05:56 PM
Well, Gore might have listened to Richard Clark and might have paid attention to the numerous specific warnings of an impending al Qaeda attack on the US. If he had 9/11 might well have been prevented.

We don't know, of course, but we do know that Bush's negligence made al Qaeda's job a lot easier.

John

we also know that Bush bolstered the al Qaeda network by his war on Iraq.
we also know the hierarchy of al Qaeda could have been crushed if he had not let Rumsfeld tell the military how to fight the war.

noonereal
01-19-2010, 05:57 PM
:confused:

I think that is a very introspective post writewing.
You seemed to have captured the essence of your participation here.

noonereal
01-19-2010, 05:59 PM
I would add that being against the decision to go to war in Iraq is in no way the same thing as being "against the troops". Quite the opposite is the case. Rather we are against the senseless waste of our brave young men and women in a futile and illegal military adventure.

John

This is another of the chicken hawks distortions.

Writewing
01-19-2010, 06:05 PM
I think that is a very introspective post writewing.
You seemed to have captured the essence of your participation here.

Yea thats right more of your bullshit personal attacks....dont you get bored with being a one trick pony? The difference between you and me is I participate in debate with attacks on a party and ideology while you simply attack me personally but I assure you that you immature tactics serve nothing but your own ego.

noonereal
01-19-2010, 06:14 PM
Yea thats right more of your bullshit personal attacks....dont you get bored with being a one trick pony? The difference between you and me is I participate in debate with attacks on a party and ideology while you simply attack me personally but I assure you that you immature tactics serve nothing but your own ego.

Only in your mind.

BTW, is there anyone here you are not "sparing" with? :rolleyes:

Twodogs
01-19-2010, 06:49 PM
Washington is not listening to the American people. I doubt if this election will change that for the Pelosis and Reids of the party.

Boreas
01-19-2010, 06:55 PM
Washington is not listening to the American people. I doubt if this election will change that for the Pelosis and Reids of the party.

Do you think the McConnells and Boehners of the other party are listening?

John

Writewing
01-19-2010, 07:01 PM
Washington is not listening to the American people. I doubt if this election will change that for the Pelosis and Reids of the party.

I also doubt that, they have a agenda and damn anyone who gets in their way or doesnt agree with them but they will both likely pay for this arrogance soon enough.

Boreas
01-19-2010, 07:03 PM
I also doubt that, they have a agenda and damn anyone who gets in their way or doesnt agree with them but they will both likely pay for this arrogance soon enough.

Please tell us in detail what their agenda is and how they plan to implement it.


John

noonereal
01-19-2010, 07:24 PM
Please tell us in detail what their agenda is and how they plan to implement it.


John

where is that damn popcorn smiley when you need it? :D

doucanoe
01-19-2010, 07:25 PM
Nobody's listening. Some because they have "Bills" to pay and the others are just plain deaf to the people that put them there.

This thread illustrates to me why none of these people can ever get anything accomplished. We can sit and argue the war, medical insurers, pharma. companies and who pissed in who's cornflakes until the cows come home. I love a good debate as much as anyone. I also have many opinions that are similar and sometimes vastly different from the same people here. One thing is true however is that none of it is going to change the past so who gives a rats ass.

I'm starting to believe that they all are two sides of a shitty coin.

Easier said than done, but I say send them all packing and I mean all of them.

RC

noonereal
01-19-2010, 07:31 PM
I'm starting to believe that they all are two sides of a shitty coin.

Easier said than done, but I say send them all packing and I mean all of them.

RC

agree.

Boreas
01-19-2010, 07:44 PM
Originally Posted by doucanoe

I'm starting to believe that they all are two sides of a shitty coin.

Easier said than done, but I say send them all packing and I mean all of them.

RC

agree.

Tempting and emotionally satisfying but there are some very good people in Congress with a lot of valuable experience. Their loss would end up hurting us in the long run.

John

d-ray657
01-19-2010, 07:57 PM
Yea thats right more of your bullshit personal attacks....dont you get bored with being a one trick pony? The difference between you and me is I participate in debate with attacks on a party and ideology while you simply attack me personally but I assure you that you immature tactics serve nothing but your own ego.

Yes indeed, it would be difficult to engage in worthwhile political discussion here if people could not resist the temptation to take part in personal attacks.

Regards,

D-Ray

Writewing
01-19-2010, 07:59 PM
Please tell us in detail what their agenda is and how they plan to implement it.


John

Healthcare, Cap and Trade, Card Check, Fairness Doctrine, google it

Boreas
01-19-2010, 08:09 PM
Healthcare, Cap and Trade, Card Check, Fairness Doctrine, google it

That's what I thought.

You forgot putting ACORN in charge of supervising elections, one world government and confiscating all firearms.

You really don't know squat, do you? All you do is regurgitate talking point you picked up on the radio and the interwebs.

John

Fast_Eddie
01-19-2010, 08:11 PM
Washington is not listening to the American people. I doubt if this election will change that for the Pelosis and Reids of the party.

Well, I can agree with you part way. Washington is not listening to the people. Near as I can tell, the Independent voters behind all this are upset about deficits. Yeah, yeah, that's an oversimplification. But that's kind of what it boils down to, isn't it?

I can get behind that. Pelosi and Reid- guilty as anyone I suppose. But really, look what's happened over the last decade. It's not like the other side was anything but worse.

It kind of sucks. Republicans gain power and they get to have their useless wars and get to fuck the rest of us while they let Wall Street make trillions. Democrats come in and want to give everyone Health Care. Then all of a sudden everyone says "how we gonna pay for it?"

So we have all the money in the world when it's for Halliburton but can't afford to give people benefits that virtually every major country on earth has.

Fast_Eddie
01-19-2010, 08:17 PM
Tempting and emotionally satisfying but there are some very good people in Congress with a lot of valuable experience. Their loss would end up hurting us in the long run.

John

California was in really bad shape when I lived there. So they voted for term limits. Now they're in really, really, really bad shape. Not a lot of motivation to fix things when you know for sure, no matter how well you do your job, you're getting fired in a few years. Let the next guy fix it. Short term grandstanding. Screw that. Maybe we should make them serve longer. You don't get out 'till you fix something.

Writewing
01-19-2010, 08:18 PM
That's what I thought.

You forgot putting ACORN in charge of supervising elections, one world government and confiscating all firearms.

You really don't know squat, do you? All you do is regurgitate talking point you picked up on the radio and the interwebs.

John

I dont think ACORN is an immediate threat and I dont care about firearms, now if you have something besides your tired personal attacks let me know otherwise stop waisting my time. You are a sad little man.

finnbow
01-19-2010, 08:47 PM
Freedom for us comes at a high price. Lots of good men went down so we can do
what we do. We should be more thankful to our leaders and our fallen
brothers for allowing us to live without oppresion. We must continue to fight
the spread of camelism. I Wonder what our fallen soldiers would say to anti
war types that have no clue why their lives are as good as they are. It would
not be a pretty sight.

I fail to see what invading Iraq had to do with our "freedom." I tire very quickly of this jingoistic "defending freedom" trump-card. Had we not invaded Iraq, we would have not lost almost 5,000 brave young American men and women and wounded tens of thousands more, spent trillions of dollars, fostered anarchy that cost nearly 100,000 innocent Iraqi lives, and in the process incited Arabs to hate us all the more. If this is "defending freedom," I'll pass.

d-ray657
01-19-2010, 08:47 PM
I do also (cap and trade that is).

Being in the housing and commercial construction industry for almost 25 years now, I am very attuned to "green" efforts how many have jumped on board for profit and to conform to regulation. If you could see some of the inner workings of it, I believe you might see a lot of it as a bit of a joke. Be that as it may, jobs are jobs as long as they aren't all just built on the notion of green.

We really need to start to produce a viable product in this country soon or it's going to be government and service related jobs for all of us. If you subscribe any to the notion that government does produce a product as such, we had better start investing in the private sector.

For those of you who say, well, don't just bitch, provide some solutions I give you this...

Maybe a good place to start would be to tax the hell out of corporate entities that wish to produce products overseas and at the same time, wish to bring them back for sale here. At the same time, provide incentives to manufactures that produce a product here for sale here. This would stimulate job growth here by allowing companies who wish to play by the rules the additional capitol to grow and hire.

Maybe thats just a naive approach to things from a guy who likes to cut to the chase :confused: I'm just a guy who would like to get to the heart of the problem (some of it anyway) and deal with it accordingly.

Sorry about the somewhat off topic rant. I just can't help myself :D

RC

Now that I have a few minutes to digest this, I will engage in what could be a very enlightening discussion.

First, with respect to cap and trade, I have a fundamental issue with the idea that an appropriate resolution for issues of environmental degradation is to buy, sell and trade licenses to pollute. (Assuming that the best available science is accurate in projecting environmental effects of various enterprises.)

I agree that "green" has been overused and abused. When public awareness of environmental issues increased, even if on a very superficial level, the green paintbrush became a very useful tool for those in the marketing business. I do believe, however, that the increasing level of energy consumption, and the increasing level of dependence on foreign oil are very real environmental and economic issues. Support for the development of commercially viable products that decrease energy consumption is the type of investment that will pay long term dividends. There will always be those who want to collect those dividends without the investment, but that shouldn't result in wholesale rejection of technologies that reduce energy consumption.

To provide some purely anecdotal evidence, we have taken two significant steps in reducing energy consumption (besides shipping the boys away to school). We replaced almost every light bulb in the house with the CFDs. Within a few months, we noticed about a $10 per month decrease in the electric bills. By necessity we replaced our old furnace and air conditioner with a heat pump and much more efficient gas furnace. Because we had our bills on average pay, the decrease in the bills was gradual. Now, after two years, even with increased energy rates, our gas and electric bills are about 60% of what they were. Multiply that experience by thousands of homes, and we would see a substantial reduction in energy consumption.

Next, I agree that we need to again invest brain power in making the best products possible, and to make that a priority over making the most money possible. Those of us who are fans of vintage audio see what happens to products when the bean counters prevail over the product designers. Obviously, a big part of the shift was in response to consumer demand and to price competition. Consumers seem either satisfied with or addicted to cheap, throw-away products. They don't think about spending more to buy five different generations of a crappy product manufactured overseas, when the life of one well-made product could be extended by paying a local repairman. Who else here is old enough to remember when the TV repairman made house calls?

I don't mean to take too much pleasure in seeing one, who often takes a conservative point of view, use the phrase "tax the hell out of . . . " ;) I really couldn't agree with you more that corporations should not profit from taking productive capacity out of the United States. How many corporate bosses received obscene bonuses as a result of ripping the livelihood from hundreds or thousands of American workers under the guise of cost-cutting?

I hope you don't mind my coloring your completely pragmatic ideas with a little lefty rhetoric. (And, yes, I realize that it is unfair and inaccurate to label you as a conservative, liberal or any other limiting term) Although it was necessary for me to maintain proper decorum, when I read your kwityerbitchen suggestion, my mind, at least was yelling yes, yes.

Regards,

D-Ray

d-ray657
01-19-2010, 08:57 PM
California was in really bad shape when I lived there. So they voted for term limits. Now they're in really, really, really bad shape. Not a lot of motivation to fix things when you know for sure, no matter how well you do your job, you're getting fired in a few years. Let the next guy fix it. Short term grandstanding. Screw that. Maybe we should make them serve longer. You don't get out 'till you fix something.

It really is a catch 22, isn't it. On the one hand, professional politicians are the most effective, and on the other hand, professional politicians are the most effective. They can be very good at doing well for the country, but they are all very good at doing well for themselves.

Regards,

D-Ray

d-ray657
01-19-2010, 08:59 PM
I fail to see what invading Iraq had to do with our "freedom." I tire very quickly of this jingoistic "defending freedom" trump-card. Had we not invaded Iraq, we would have not lost almost 5,000 brave young American men and women and wounded tens of thousands more, spent trillions of dollars, fostered anarchy that cost nearly 100,000 innocent Iraqi lives, and in the process incited Arabs to hate us all the more. If this is "defending freedom," I'll pass.

How do you say so well in five or six lines what it takes me five or six paragraphs to say?

Fast_Eddie
01-19-2010, 09:01 PM
I fail to see what invading Iraq had to do with our "freedom." I tire very quickly of this jingoistic "defending freedom" trump-card. Had we not invaded Iraq, we would have not lost almost 5,000 brave young American men and women and wounded tens of thousands more, spent trillions of dollars, fostered anarchy that cost nearly 100,000 innocent Iraqi lives, and in the process incited Arabs to hate us all the more. If this is "defending freedom," I'll pass.

Why do you hate America? Why do you hate freedom?

finnbow
01-19-2010, 09:14 PM
First, with respect to cap and trade, I have a fundamental issue with the idea that an appropriate resolution for issues of environmental degradation is to buy, sell and trade licenses to pollute.

As unsavory as it may be at face value, cap and trade was wildly successful in reducing sulfur dioxide emissions under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. The Economist called it "probably the greatest green success story of the past decade." (July 6, 2002)

That said, I think a fairly compelling argument can be made that the cost of achieving meaningful CO2 emissions reductions could be better spent directly on reducing illness/death in the developing world through inoculations, AIDS prevention, clean water, and agricultural technology support. The cost per life saved pursuing these initiatives would be orders of magnitude less than those saved by reducing global warming (if it were even possible given geopolitical considerations).

d-ray657
01-19-2010, 09:44 PM
As unsavory as it may be at face value, cap and trade was wildly successful in reducing sulfur dioxide emissions under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. The Economist called it "probably the greatest green success story of the past decade." (July 6, 2002)


And hence the reason that I don't reject the idea of cap and trade out of hand. Undoubtedly, this method is necessary kow-towing to capitalism, which is of course chock-full of unsavory characteristics. It might be the castor-oil that some of us lefties will have to swallow, but I would hope that a better solution might evolve.

Regards,

D-Ray

Grumpy
01-20-2010, 05:58 AM
This is where these discussions get pointless. On the previous page you asked a question:



I tried to answer as best I could. Given that Gore worked with Clinton for a good while it seemed a logical place to look for a reasonably probably answer. So I answered your question. Never does anyone ever post "that's a good point, you're probably right". Just change the subject.

So, again, the answer to your question is almost certainly "yes". I think things would very probably be different.


I am sorry but I do not see your point. Gore, in my opinion, would have been just as brainless and listened to those around him, screaming, go to war.

Guess I don't give any politician as much credit as you, to free think.

merrylander
01-20-2010, 07:36 AM
The view is nice from the cheapseats and hindsight is 20/20, but the office of President isnt anyones to "give" it is earned by the Electoral College.

Ah the dear old electoral college - one of the dumbest fucking ideas I have ever seen.:rolleyes:

merrylander
01-20-2010, 07:41 AM
Freedom for us comes at a high price. Lots of good men went down so we can do
what we do. We should be more thankful to our leaders and our fallen
brothers for allowing us to live without oppresion. We must continue to fight
the spread of camelism. I Wonder what our fallen soldiers would say to anti
war types that have no clue why their lives are as good as they are. It would
not be a pretty sight.

Jack it was a stupid choice and good people died. I have a T-shirt that DAV sent me that says "Freedom is not Free" because I send them money. But Iraq has sweet fuck all to do with my freedom or yours. So when the rest of you start supporting the Disabled American Veterans come back and natter at me about patriotism, until then please don't bother me.

If y'all want to raise Al Quaeda to the level of a nation by declaring war on them sobeit. They are nowt but a gang of murderers and should be eliminated much like you step on a cockroach. By declaring war you are tying our troops hands by the "rules of war". This is not a war it is simple pest control and should be handled as such. Six bunker busters and three Trident missiles ought to do it.

piece-itpete
01-20-2010, 07:51 AM
I have to agree. I think we would be significantly healthier fiscally if the supremes did not appoint Bush king.

Kings rarely step down willingly.

YES!

I think the financial industry would have been regulated more effectively, we probably wouldn't have Bush's tax cuts, we probably wouldn't be in two wars right now. Who knows what other trials we would have faced in their stead, but on the whole, looking at the circumstances of the last decade, I'd say we'd be a world better off had we actually given the election to Gore as the voters wanted.

BTW, The whistle was blown on the financial shenanigans that caused this during Clintons watch.

Isn't the reluctance to step into the future a hallmark of the right?

Good god man, do you ever speak with consistence?

NO. The move into Iraq was all about the future, as we will see in coming years.

It's hard to help societies to become stable in unstable regions. The big problem wasn't little backward Afghanistan, it was Saddams Iraq.

He would certainly be doing all he could in helping our enemies in Afghanistan and Al Qaeda would be making hay over the foriegn troops in the holy land (S.A.).



We don't know, of course, but we do know that Bush's negligence made al Qaeda's job a lot easier.


A lot easier - to get to their virgins.


That said, I think a fairly compelling argument can be made that the cost of achieving meaningful CO2 emissions reductions could be better spent directly on reducing illness/death in the developing world through inoculations, AIDS prevention, clean water, and agricultural technology support. The cost per life saved pursuing these initiatives would be orders of magnitude less than those saved by reducing global warming (if it were even possible given geopolitical considerations).

What do you know Finn - we agree on something!

Pete

doucanoe
01-20-2010, 08:27 AM
Now that I have a few minutes to digest this, I will engage in what could be a very enlightening discussion.

First, with respect to cap and trade, I have a fundamental issue with the idea that an appropriate resolution for issues of environmental degradation is to buy, sell and trade licenses to pollute. (Assuming that the best available science is accurate in projecting environmental effects of various enterprises.)

I agree that "green" has been overused and abused. When public awareness of environmental issues increased, even if on a very superficial level, the green paintbrush became a very useful tool for those in the marketing business. I do believe, however, that the increasing level of energy consumption, and the increasing level of dependence on foreign oil are very real environmental and economic issues. Support for the development of commercially viable products that decrease energy consumption is the type of investment that will pay long term dividends. There will always be those who want to collect those dividends without the investment, but that shouldn't result in wholesale rejection of technologies that reduce energy consumption.

To provide some purely anecdotal evidence, we have taken two significant steps in reducing energy consumption (besides shipping the boys away to school). We replaced almost every light bulb in the house with the CFDs. Within a few months, we noticed about a $10 per month decrease in the electric bills. By necessity we replaced our old furnace and air conditioner with a heat pump and much more efficient gas furnace. Because we had our bills on average pay, the decrease in the bills was gradual. Now, after two years, even with increased energy rates, our gas and electric bills are about 60% of what they were. Multiply that experience by thousands of homes, and we would see a substantial reduction in energy consumption.

Next, I agree that we need to again invest brain power in making the best products possible, and to make that a priority over making the most money possible. Those of us who are fans of vintage audio see what happens to products when the bean counters prevail over the product designers. Obviously, a big part of the shift was in response to consumer demand and to price competition. Consumers seem either satisfied with or addicted to cheap, throw-away products. They don't think about spending more to buy five different generations of a crappy product manufactured overseas, when the life of one well-made product could be extended by paying a local repairman. Who else here is old enough to remember when the TV repairman made house calls?

I don't mean to take too much pleasure in seeing one, who often takes a conservative point of view, use the phrase "tax the hell out of . . . " ;) I really couldn't agree with you more that corporations should not profit from taking productive capacity out of the United States. How many corporate bosses received obscene bonuses as a result of ripping the livelihood from hundreds or thousands of American workers under the guise of cost-cutting?

I hope you don't mind my coloring your completely pragmatic ideas with a little lefty rhetoric. (And, yes, I realize that it is unfair and inaccurate to label you as a conservative, liberal or any other limiting term) Although it was necessary for me to maintain proper decorum, when I read your kwityerbitchen suggestion, my mind, at least was yelling yes, yes.

Regards,

D-Ray


As far as the "green" thing goes. I'm not anti-green, I just know how the system and people work. What starts of to be a good and responsible idea, quickly turns in to a convoluted bureaucratic mess. Rebuilding American industry on the notion of and revolving around "green" efforts is dangerous IMO. What do we when the wheels finally come off the global warming train :D In an unsubsidized marketplace, those businesses would just disappear. In a subsidized market place, failed ideas just march on with greater funding.

I guess saying "tax the hell out of..." might make some on the right cringe ;) I really don't have an issue with taxes as such. I do have a problem with who is being taxed and why.

Labels... Might just be that the best thing we could do, would be to do away with them. Ah, what fun would that be :D

RC

noonereal
01-20-2010, 08:38 AM
Rebuilding American industry on the notion of and revolving around "green" efforts is dangerous IMO. What do we when the wheels finally come off the global warming train

Not sure what you mean. Bering environmentally friendly has no down side under any circumstance that I can think of.

noonereal
01-20-2010, 08:44 AM
NO. The move into Iraq was all about the future, as we will see in coming years.

It's hard to help societies to become stable in unstable regions. The big problem wasn't little backward Afghanistan, it was Saddams Iraq.



No the move into Iraq was about corporate profits and has nothing to do with the party based belief that progress is a threat to them.
The right wing extreme would have us in the 19th century in perpetuity.

piece-itpete
01-20-2010, 08:50 AM
It's part of the natural progression to the NWO. 1st we straightened out western Europe, then SA Asia, keep an eye on South and Central America, took care of the mighty USSR and so Eastern Europe, jackasses in the ME let us be attacked repeatedly, they couldn't keep their own house in order so there we are.

Pete

merrylander
01-20-2010, 10:05 AM
It's part of the natural progression to the NWO. 1st we straightened out western Europe, then SA Asia, keep an eye on South and Central America, took care of the mighty USSR and so Eastern Europe, jackasses in the ME let us be attacked repeatedly, they couldn't keep their own house in order so there we are.

Pete


Good Lord, someone get me a shovel, come on Pete you really don't believe that bullshit any more than I do.

Straightened out Western Europe? So the British, Canadian Polish, and Free French had nowt to do with the outcome of WW II? Feh.

In SE Asia we got our arse kicked.

Oh yeah we preserved south and central America for the United Fruit Company.

Gorbachev did as much or more changing the mighty USSR.

Yeah so we attack the right country in the ME, screw that up then hit one that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Ay Dios mio.:rolleyes:

piece-itpete
01-20-2010, 10:07 AM
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one Rob ;)

Although I do want to say I don't want to underrate the allies contributions to ww2 and the NWO (which I don't like btw).

Pete

d-ray657
01-20-2010, 10:45 AM
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one Rob ;)

Although I do want to say I don't want to underrate the allies contributions to ww2 and the NWO (which I don't like btw).

Pete

Pete, forgive me for being slow today, but I thought I read you supporting the invasion of Iraq as continuing development of a NWO, and then you just said that you don't like the NWO. The question is not whether I am missing something, but how much am I missing here in trying to understand this.

Regards,

D-Ray

merrylander
01-20-2010, 11:17 AM
The NWO is a myth.

piece-itpete
01-20-2010, 11:36 AM
I use it as shorthand for the nwo (small letters), you could almost say it's the G8 (or G9 or whatever it is now).

The upper class throughout the developed world is very close now.

Pete

piece-itpete
01-20-2010, 11:39 AM
Whoops sorry D.

I'm conflicted. One of the things I've seen throughout history is that, consolidating power eventually leads to improved living for regular folks.

I've also seen that once consolidated it often ends up in the wrong hands that hurts regular folks (but almost always leads upward over time).

I also believe that the serpent is being brought to a head.

Pete

doucanoe
01-20-2010, 12:01 PM
Not sure what you mean. Bering environmentally friendly has no down side under any circumstance that I can think of.


I guess it depends on how you define "environmentally friendly".

On the Lumber and construction material side of the coin, LEEDS and FSC is a bit of a joke when you really break it down. Once again, a good idea that has expanded into a lot about nothing but costing people thousands in additional home construction costs for no other reason than to support a created industry.

We can tilt at windmills all we like but maybe littering the countryside with them is not where we should be focusing our efforts ($'s) to solve our energy needs. Green yes, but not practical overall. If huge amounts of taxpayer dollars were not available in the form of subsidies and carbon credits, the focus would be in another direction IMO. The other direction may or may not be any more productive but if there if the financial gains in a different area, they would be all about that I believe.

If something can't stand on it's own merit, I tend to question it's validity in real application. Ethanol comes to mind. I'm not at all implying you are saying it, but to say "Well, it may not be effective overall and a huge financial suckhole but at least we are trying. I feel better just knowing we are trying" just doesn't cut it for me.

To summarize: Green is good as long as it's not built on a house of cards. And very costly cards at that.

RC

d-ray657
01-20-2010, 12:16 PM
With respect to the value of environmentally friendly technology. Quite a bit of useful technology or other products came out of the space program - Tang and velcro among the more visible. Similarly, there have been viable products arise from technology developed for the military - GPS for example. The space program was in large part, one of the fronts sin the Cold War. The point - the subsidies paid in the form of a defense budget resulted in commercially viable products There is no telling whether these products would have been developed and made commercially viable without the huge amounts spent on the military.

If the scientists are right that environmental issues significantly threaten our way of life, would not the development of technology and products that reduce the degradation of the environment carry the moral equivalent of war? Invest in the technology and commit sufficient resources to R&D that commercially viable/ environmentally safe products are a regular part of the market.

How many holes does this bucket have in it?

Regards,

D-Ray

doucanoe
01-20-2010, 12:18 PM
Here is another one:

While I will admit that some purchase the evil SUV for whatever "coolness" factor they believe it has, for many others its for practical reasons and just a matter of getting around. If you live in snowless areas you might not get this but up here in the great white north, it's pretty practical.

If you are a family of four of five with kids and want to visit Grandma, the electric scooter with four wheels ain't going to cut it to get everybody there or wherever. So, you end up driving 2 scooters every time you set out. That kinda defeats the reasoning behind it.

RC

d-ray657
01-20-2010, 12:25 PM
Here is another one:

While will admit the some purchase the evil SUV for whatever "coolness" factor they believe it has, for many others its for practical reasons and just a matter of getting around. If you live in snowless areas you might not get this but up here in the great white north, it's pretty practical.

If you are a family of four of five with kids and want to visit Grandma, the electric scooter with four wheels ain't going to cut it to get everybody there or wherever. So, you end up driving 2 scooters every time you set out. That kinda defeats the reasoning behind it.

RC

Another way of looking at it, however, is how much of the time do drivers of SUV's end up toting around high fuel consuming excess capacity? I drive a compact hatchback because I find it to provide a happy medium - for my needs. Most of the time I drive, however, even the hatchback has excess capacity. How much do we pay for something that will suit almost every need all of the time?

Regards,

D-Ray

doucanoe
01-20-2010, 12:29 PM
With respect to the value of environmentally friendly technology. Quite a bit of useful technology or other products came out of the space program - Tang and velcro among the more visible. Similarly, there have been viable products arise from technology developed for the military - GPS for example. The space program was in large part, one of the fronts sin the Cold War. The point - the subsidies paid in the form of a defense budget resulted in commercially viable products There is no telling whether these products would have been developed and made commercially viable without the huge amounts spent on the military.

If the scientists are right that environmental issues significantly threaten our way of life, would not the development of technology and products that reduce the degradation of the environment carry the moral equivalent of war? Invest in the technology and commit sufficient resources to R&D that commercially viable/ environmentally safe products are a regular part of the market.

How many holes does this bucket have in it?

Regards,

D-Ray


Not many actually :D

RC

merrylander
01-20-2010, 12:55 PM
As near as I can tell putting power generation in private hands was a large error. Our local bunch put a former investment banker in as CEO. He invested the profits, not in research or plant maintenance, but in other companies - he lost big time. We got a 72% increase in rates, thanks to Bobby Haircut, and no real improvement in quality.

piece-itpete
01-21-2010, 09:34 AM
With respect to the value of environmentally friendly technology. Quite a bit of useful technology or other products came out of the space program - Tang and velcro among the more visible. Similarly, there have been viable products arise from technology developed for the military - GPS for example. The space program was in large part, one of the fronts sin the Cold War. The point - the subsidies paid in the form of a defense budget resulted in commercially viable products There is no telling whether these products would have been developed and made commercially viable without the huge amounts spent on the military.

If the scientists are right that environmental issues significantly threaten our way of life, would not the development of technology and products that reduce the degradation of the environment carry the moral equivalent of war? Invest in the technology and commit sufficient resources to R&D that commercially viable/ environmentally safe products are a regular part of the market.

How many holes does this bucket have in it?

Regards,

D-Ray

I didn't see this D.

No holes, except in our fellow citizens heads (ok that's too rough :) )

I read a series of articles in the old Analog magazine that discussed what we got from the moon shot. It was Amazing! (No, really, not the magazine :p)

The real boon would be fusion (which was a magazine too :o). Amazing ( :-) ) amounts of power can do amazing seemingly impossible miraculous things. Forget futile efforts to stop global warming, and even the stimulus - spend it all on development of fusion power.

The obvious and simplest way it would generate wealth with fusion is, mine the asteriod belt. Very simple once you have propulsion. How much is a mile diameter chunk of nickle worth?

Pete

merrylander
01-23-2010, 11:30 AM
Tony Auth got it right.