Originally posted by googlefudgeMy bad if I mislabeled you. In fact, I support a green agenda as well even though I am a conservative. However, the difference between a conservative green agenda and a liberal green agenda is that a conservative is willing to use what means are available to go green as of yesterday but the liberal seems only to only find problems with such alternatives even though they continue to say that is what we need to do NOW!!
Also, why does promoting a 'green agenda' (and that doesn't necessarily mean what you might think it does) make one a liberal, and even if it does, what makes you think that all liberals think/act alike or believe in the same things?
What I don't get is why the Gore in the Clinton administration took no steps to get the US off foriegn oil but now that he is not in such a position of authority is now screaming at Bush to do what he was unwilling or unable to do. If you ask me, it is all political positioning on his part. In fact, it would not suprise me in the least to see him take another swipe at the White House in years to come. If he does get into the White House, I would love to see the alternatives for getting off foriegn oil.....oh thats right, he does not seem to have any. My bad once again.
2 edits
Originally posted by googlefudgeMy only point was that those who have alterior motives for keeping us dependent on fossil fuels will always scream that there is no proof that fossil fuels are causing global warming. All they have to do is sit back and smile while stating that the burden of proof resides with those that make such ascertions. As a result, I think that the Gore campaign to convince them is a big waste of time. The angle that should be taken is that other alternative fuels need to be investigated so that Western powers like the US will be less dependent on other foriegn and possibly hostile countries. In addition, they would all free themselves from the OPEC monopoly over the Western powers. For this type of reasoning there is no arguement. We can then spend all our energy and money coming up with alternatives rather than endlessly debating global warming. This is what frustrates me about Al Gore!!
You can prove that smoking causes cancer BTW (just not any particular cancer case), one of the many reasons I don't smoke, the difference between the examples is it doesn't really bother me if others want to kill themselves by smoking, but other peoples CO2 emissions effect me.[/b]
Originally posted by whodeyActually, you DO want to vote for Obama, because he'll reduce the deficit as a function of GDP (as President Clinton did) and cut military spending. Domestic infrastructure is less costly than military spending, and it actually does some good for the country.
Well you don't want to vote for Obama then. 😉
9 edits
Originally posted by karnachzReduce the deficit? Through taxes you mean? One thing you must realize is that the US is dependent now on the economy growing at a certain clip so as to keep up with the deficit. Therefore, if you get some yahoo in there who starts taxing everything that moves, guess what happens to the economy? It drops like a rock!! Guess what then happens with the deficit?
Actually, you DO want to vote for Obama, because he'll reduce the deficit as a function of GDP (as President Clinton did) and cut military spending. Domestic infrastructure is less costly than military spending, and it actually does some good for the country.
I will conceed that if Obama pulls out of Iraq the spending should decrease dramatically, however, what then if the region turns completly against the US shortly afterwards? In other words, what will the US do if all the oil producing countries turn against them? If you think $4 a gallon gas is bad, you just wait because the sky is the limit at that point!! Also, what do you think this will do to the US economy overall? If you think the deficit is bad now you just wait until the GDP is unable to keep up with it!!
Of course I am appalled by the fact that the US felt compelled to go to Iraq to protect its only viable energy source which is foriegn oil, however, I am also a realist. The US had no viable plans for alternatives to fossil fuels so they almost had to do what they did. They needed to protect the likes of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia at ANY cost as well as free up oil fields in Iraq. Unfortunatly, Obama has no other viable energy plans in place either. Heck, he will not even drill for oil in his back yard. However, McCain is more than willing to give nuclear power a go as well as drill in his own back yard. I garauntee that if the US ever gets its act together and no longer feels held hostage by foriegn oil such wars as the Iraq war can and will be averted in the future!!
If you ask me, McCain is Al Gores best hope. He says he wants to impliment alternative fuels to replace fossil fuels as of yesterday. All Obama wants to do is tax us to death and use some of that money to do more research for a pie in the sky alternative that could have no possibility of harming anyone or anything. Meanwhile, we keep burning fossil fuels into the atmosphere in the interim.
Originally posted by whodeyThere's a bit of credit jumping going on here by some folks on the right. Democrats have been wanting alternative fuel sources at least since Carter's presidency, whereas Reagan tossed all that aside. Obama has said he'll consider nuclear power, and I have no idea where you get the idea from that Obama would pursue alternative fuels less than McCain.
Reduce the deficit? Through taxes you mean? One thing you must realize is that the US is dependent now on the economy growing at a certain clip so as to keep up with the deficit. Therefore, if you get some yahoo in there who starts taxing everything that moves, guess what happens to the economy? It drops like a rock!! Guess what then happens with the def ...[text shortened]... anyone or anything. Meanwhile, we keep burning fossil fuels into the atmosphere in the interim.
No, Clinton didn't reduce the deficit through taxes; he reduced the deficit (as a function of GDP) largely through reducing military spending, as well as running the economy well. GHWB actually raised taxes -- ironically, after having made an election promise that he wouldn't; yet we can see how the deficit as a function of GDP decreased only during Clinton's presidency. That's all about cutting down on excess military spending.
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
- Joined
- 30 Dec 07
- Moves
- 9905
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterThey'd probably pick a more socialist and liberal place, but many people tend to expect the US like that- it's not.
You're nuts. I'll tell you why there's so much poverty in America -- because every year tens of millions of immigrants and refugees keep coming in. Think about it: If you gave poor people the option of being poor in the United States vs. being poor anywhere else in the world, where do you think they would choose to be poor? My guess is that they ...[text shortened]... in a U.N. Peacekeeper-run brothel. For someone who goes to college, you sure are foolish.
3 edits
Originally posted by karnachzI could care less what has happened in the past in regards to efforts to get off foriegn oil because it does us precious little other than making us feel good or bad about political parties and/or politicians we like and support. The fact of the matter is that EVERYONE has let us down till this point and the respsibility rests squarly on the shoulders of both polirical parties.
[b]There's a bit of credit jumping going on here by some folks on the right. Democrats have been wanting alternative fuel sources at least since Carter's presidency, whereas Reagan tossed all that aside. Obama has said he'll consider nuclear power, and I have no idea where you get the idea from that Obama would pursue alternative fuels less than McCain.
Having said that, I know that McCain favors trying nuclear energy as well as drilling for American oil verses foriegn oil. As for Obama, he is "agnostic" regarding nuclear power and does not favor drilling for oil in our own backyard. Assuming oil prices do not come down significantly, I think if McCain plays his cards right this is all that he needs to win the election. Last I heard, Obama favors taxing oil companies and using that money for research for alternatives rather than pursuing viable alternatives that exist today. For environmentalists, no alternative energy is acceptable so long as it may be harmful for the environment. Heck, wind power is killing birds for heavens sake. Name me an alternative energy source that does not have a dark side and I have a bridge I would like to sell ya!!
2 edits
Originally posted by smw6869It is called ivory tower politics. You sit back and say that foriegn oil is "bad" and that fossil fuels are destroying the planet and then provide NO alternatives other than to tell you to keep your tires inflated and not to drive SUV's. Then you tax the hoohaa out of the oil companies so they can, in turn, pass those expenses down to you and I. Oh yea, I forgot to mention that Obama will pull out of Iraq ASAP, therefore, if that oil rich region then turns against the US afterwards, oil prices will go through the roof!!
Dear god, just keep your tires properly inflated and we'll have plenty of gas....says Omama. I'm having second thoughts about this Pres.....i mean Presidential candidate.
GRANNY.
Of course what puzzles me the most is that if liberals and environmentalists really think that global warming is destroying this planet via fossil fuels then why would they not be in favor of ANY alternative energy source other than fossil fuels? Instead, all we hear is that we need taxes to fund research for other alternative energy sources that does not yet exist and how current viable technologies simply are not environmentally friendly enough to pursue today. I guess the thinking is that other viable alternative energy sources such as nuclear power are worse than fossil fuels which are destroying the planet. Either that or they do not feel the urgency to erradicate fossil fuels as of yesterday so they sit around and do research to find other viable alternatives that will take years, that is, if it happens at all.
In short, they are either fools or hypocrites or perhaps a combination thereof.