Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.
Article Source: CNNMcCain is fond of saying on the stump that Obama is against a comprehensive energy plan that includes drilling, solar power, nuclear energy, wind turbines, etc.
That always ends up sounding like Obama would rather we stay dependent on Middle East Oil.
He's even gone so far as to say that Obama is against nuclear power. FactCheck.org's verdict: FALSE.
I'm so sick of McCain lying about Obama!
What's happens is that Obama is more considerate of the side effects. He's not interested in the quick fix of pandering to Americans. Obama knows that nuclear waste has very damaging results. He knows that there is a proper way to regulate nuclear expansion and McCain's plan leaves it relatively unbridled.
Careful consideration for a long-term energy plan is a bad thing according to McCain. Considering any solution we undertake is supposed to be a long-term solution, why the hell is it bad to enter into those solutions with caution for the negate potential outcomes?
Both this post and your link, Arcane, make his stance pretty crystal clear. And if you think about it, it does kind of make a little sense to tread carefully when dealing with, oh i don't know, massive amounts of volatile and potentially catastrophic amounts of radioactive material. Call me a WILD and CRRRRRAZY liberal, but I remember the days of Chernobyl, and I think it's OK to be cautious here.
Does he really think he will get away with this type stuff?
I guess Sarah Palin answers that question----doh!
Fact Check Needs a little fact checking these days.
Obama claims that while he supports Nuclear power that storage and terrorism has to be addressed. That is like Nancy Pelosi saying that she supports offshore drilling.
Here is an ad that Obama ran attacking John McCain for supporting the development of a nuclear waste storage site.
http://thepage.time.com/2008/08/09/obama-skewers-mccain-in-nevada-tv-spot/
To make it worse, while he was saying that he was against it and skewering McCain for being for it, he actually voted for funds for Yucca mountain twice!
In 2005, Barack Obama Voted Twice To Fund The Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository. "Passage of the bill that would provide $31.2 billion in fiscal 2006 for energy and water development projects, including $5.3 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers and $25 billion for the Energy Department. It also would provide $577 million for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository." (H.R. 2419, CQ Vote #172: Passed 92-3: R 50-3; D 41-0; I 1-0, 7/1/05, Obama Voted Yea; H.R. 2419, CQ Vote #321: Adopted 84-4: R 48-2; D 35-2; I 1-0, 11/14/05, Obama Voted Yea)
Now who is lying here?
Obama was against it after he was for it or against it while claiming McCain was for it.
Which is it?
Thank God for you spaceguy. At least someone bothers to check the actual facts.
US nuclear dump plan in danger after seismic shock
Yucca Mountain: Transporting Nuclear Waste May Put Millions At Risk
Yucca Mountain safety plan is 'doomed,' nuclear company says
GLOBAL NUCLEAR ENERGY PARTNERSHIP: ENVIRONMENTAL, ECONOMIC, AND SECURITY RISKS
"I think we have to reprocess; I really do," he said. "I think that's one of the only ways out. I'm not a total expert on Yucca Mountain. My understanding is that the first priority to go to Yucca Mountain, if it ever opened ... it will be the defense spent nuclear fuel.
"I'm not like, a total expert or anything." ;]
The funding for the Yucca Repository was established before the heavy risks began to come to light. As soon as the project appeared to be too risky, the supporters of the repository brought the funding to a halt and started to question whether our nation's prominent scientists and energy companies had researched the area fully or not.
Spaceguy,
The same factcheck that is funded by the Annenburg FDN? The same Annenburg FDN that Obama and Ayers worked at together (administering a $150million grant to their Chi-town buddies)? THAT factcheck.org? I'm sure it was an innocent oversight. (gag)
Seriously, I do wonder about the chinese walls at factcheck.....
Barack Obama was a board member of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge 1995-2000.
Chicago received $49 million from a $500 million endowment by Walter H. Annenberg, the billionaire publisher, for school reform efforts nationwide, and the city added $98 million in matching funds for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a philanthropic campaign that financed enrichment projects at a third of the city's 600 schools.
Mr. Obama was nominated to the Challenge board and was elected chairman in 1995, said Ken Rolling, executive director of the group, which operated through 2001. Mr. Obama continued to teach law during his five-year unpaid tenure as board chairman, and he was twice elected to the Illinois Senate.
The Annenberg Foundation was established in 1989
The Annenberg Foundation, established in 1989, is the successor corporation to the Annenberg School at Radnor, Pennsylvania founded in 1958 by Walter H. Annenberg. Serving as Ambassador to the Court of St. James from 1968 to 1974, Ambassador Annenberg enjoyed a distinguished career as a publisher, broadcaster, diplomat and philanthropist. He was President, and subsequently, Chairman of the Board, of Triangle Publications, which included TV Guide and Seventeen Magazine, as well as radio and TV stations nation-wide.
The Annenberg Foundation exists to advance the public well-being through improved communication. As the principal means of achieving this goal, the Foundation encourages the development of more effective ways to share ideas and knowledge. Ambassador Annenberg founded The Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania in 1958 and The Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Southern California in 1971. In 1983, he established the Washington Program in Communication Policy Studies in response to the growing awareness that difficult government and industry problems were emerging in the rapidly changing telecommunications field.
Factcheck.org established in 1994 by Walter Annenberg
The Annenberg Political Fact Check is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg in 1994 to create a community of scholars within the University of Pennsylvania that would address public policy issues at the local, state, and federal levels.
The APPC accepts NO funding from business corporations, labor unions, political parties, lobbying organizations or individuals. It is funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation.
Nice job laying that out, Arcane. Thank you. I still see that Walter Annenberg funded at least $49 million (several report as high at $150M, not that it matters) to be adminstered to Chicago schools (et. al.) through Ayer's group (which included Obama on the board...paid/volunteer doesn't matter. I know, I've sat on boards as a volunteer, too). He did this the year after he founded FactCheck. FactCheck gets most of its funding from the Foundation, established five years before the other two events. It's a cozy relationship which may or may not include sturdy chinese walls. Not saying it IS bad, just that it looks bad. If BO was in another party, MSM would be all over it. Peace.
Arcane 1.7
Then why attack McCain for voting for the same project that Obama voted for? Nice dodge but irrelevant to the question at hand, which is that Obama voted for the same project, at the same time that McCain did and then put out a television commercial attacking McCain for the vote!
Obama has come up with nothing since then and I still say that Obama is for nuclear power about as much as Nancy Pelosi is for offshore drilling.
Right. It looks bad. And Obama could be a Muslim. And Michelle might not love her country. And they may have been close to Rezko.
Of course, nothing like McCain's known without a doubt land deal, private jet use, Keating Five involvement, or Cindy's drug addiction and theft.
Straighten up, get some integrity, and think about the good of the country for once.
Obama think carefully about Energy Plan! It may be sounding like he talking about it, but he carefully how to implement it with special interest and there plans.
McCain already have plans in action with his Energy Plans. It has to do with powerful energy company getting guarantee contracts with any true oversight, research or anything. McSame will continue the Bush 3rd term. Do you think McSame will completely have different set of energy plans form Bush/Cheney? No! McSame will hire many of the same political appointees to heading the Energy plan positions as McCain.
These lies should come to no surprise to any one.
Mr. McCrazy can not run on his voting record (when he did bother to show up) or on his old man moments that seem to be coming on more and more so all he has in his arsenal is half truths and lies to convince the public to vote for 4 for years of these failed polices that he has supported for most of his years in public service.
Space guy-
I am not sure how you managed to link Obama not supporting the Yuca waste storage facility with Obama being against Nuclear power? I am also unsure of how his apparent change in position about the Yuca Storage facility (flip-flop) which was based on the discovery of new information has anything to do with him being against Nuclear power???
Perhaps you have some other reason for why you think he is against Nuclear power?
Space guy- I am not sure how you managed to link Obama not supporting the Yuca waste storage facility with Obama being against Nuclear power?
Because space guy is not interested in actual facts, he's interested in trying to spin straw into gold. Check out, for instance, his "fact-checking" on Palin's support for "the Bridge to Nowhere." Despite clear evidence of her support, space guy went so far as to claim that she never supported it and that "the money was all spent before she got into office." When you're that allergic to the actual facts, your credibility on other issues becomes suspect.
Note, in this instance regarding McCain lying about Obama's position, space guy is attempting to spin this around to be discussion of Obama lying about McCain. How so? Well, obviously because Obama hates nuclear power, as is evident from the fact that he thinks we should consider the problems of waste storage and terrorism. That f*cker! See how against nuclear power he is?
And then we should also consider that Obama, while blasting McCain for supporting the Yucca Mountain storage facility, supported it in a vote! Of course, the lion's share of that vote provided money for the Army Corps of Engineers, energy and water development, and the Energy Department, but since there was a provision for Yucca Mountain in there, it's easy to see that Obama really supported Yucca Mountain. Right? I mean, it should be easy for everyone to see that the 1.8% of funding from that bill going to the nuclear waste repository makes that the "Yucca Mountain Bill."
Or, you know, maybe Obama opposed Yucca Mountain, but voted for the bill anyway, because he believed the other 98% of funding was going to programs that were necessary and smart.
Nah, couldn't be.
The truth is that Obama has consistently said that the selection of Yucca Mountain was politically motivated, and that he thought the project should be stopped in favor of selection of a site based on sound science and respect for the wishes of the citizens in states where such sites might be located. Does that mean the storage of nuclear waste is problematic? Obviously. Does that mean that Obama opposes nuclear power? Not at all.
Anyone trying to tell you that he does, is looking to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge. And that includes space guy.
Sound science. Yeah, let's not vote for the candidate who supports that.
The trouble with refuting a lie is that the people who have an emotional stake in believing it only dig in and defend it more adamantly, and in the process convince themselves even more strongly that it must be true. When Cramer warned a few years ago that the dot-com bubble was headed for a bust, he got absolutely enraged letters and some threats. Same with the housing bubble. When people want to believe that the good times will never end, they get pretty defensive about it. Same when they want to believe that no one but a white male conservative will ever be President.
Okay, let's admit in all fairness that people everywhere on the political spectrum do this. There are posters here on the Vine who won't give up the loopy notion that Trig Palin is actually Bristol's son, even now that they know it's biologically impossible. But the right has been circulating more lies, more scurrilous lies, and for a much longer time than the left during this presidential campaign.
Of course, the lion's share of that vote provided money for the Army Corps of Engineers, energy and water development, and the Energy Department, but since there was a provision for Yucca Mountain in there, it's easy to see that Obama really supported Yucca Mountain. Right? I mean, it should be easy for everyone to see that the 1.8% of funding from that bill going to the nuclear waste repository makes that the "Yucca Mountain Bill."
Man, thanks for that post. There was so much wrong with space guy's posts, I couldn't even bring myself to start typing...
It seems that if an issue is complex and someone tries to address it intelligently, he gets criticized for it. I, for one, am sick of having a "decider" president who acts without thinking, who sees the world's complex issues in black and white and looks for a simple answer. Not all answers fit on a bumper sticker. Pandering to the uninformed and ignorant may get one elected, but it also gets us in Iraq, in debt, in a financial crisis and in a police state.
Spaceguy saying just because Obama doesn't like Yucca Mountain he doesn't want nuclear power is the kind of non sequitur you see alot from conservatives.
It's because they don't use logic to decide but use instinct. The only part their intellect plays is to rationalize. "me hate obama he has bad idea mus fine reason".
McCain is their alpha leader. Obama is running against him. Therefore Obama is evil. Therefore Obama's ideas are evil. Must find reason they are evil. The only difference between conservatives and a clan of merkats is rationalization.
Not approving of the Yucca Mountain Repository does not automatically mean that someone is anti-nuclear power. I wish you all would at least research the many ways of which nuclear waste can be stored/disposed of safely. The truth of the matter is that Obama stated he is pro-nuclear power, we just need to find the safest way possible to make, transfer and store it. John McCain is pandering to Americans when he states off the cuff that he's going to build 40+ new reactors and dump it in an area that has been repeatedly and recently questioned by major scientists and energy companies - that or he's not thinking.
If you check out Joe Biden and Barack Obama's energy plans for this country and put them up right next to the McCain/Palin plan - you'll notice that Obama's plan is not only more extensive - but also more cautious and dependent on scientific research. Palin has even supported Obama's energy plan. lol
Yes I can understand that you guys cannot bear to look at the truth.
What part of these votes of Obama can you refute, after he ran television ads criticizing McCain for supporting Yucca mountain?
In 2005, Barack Obama Voted Twice To Fund The Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository. "Passage of the bill that would provide $31.2 billion in fiscal 2006 for energy and water development projects, including $5.3 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers and $25 billion for the Energy Department. It also would provide $577 million for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository." (H.R. 2419, CQ Vote #172: Passed 92-3: R 50-3; D 41-0; I 1-0, 7/1/05, Obama Voted Yea; H.R. 2419, CQ Vote #321: Adopted 84-4: R 48-2; D 35-2; I 1-0, 11/14/05, Obama Voted Yea)
This is like Pelosi supporting offshore drilling, except for anywhere there is oil.
Space, you've obviously read past my comments in this thread so that you could simply repeat yourself.
You all have made some pretty interesting points. Space Guy, did you notice that Obama's votes for Yucca Mountain were attached to other things? That's kinda like how Michigan ended up with their votes not counting for the Primary. The vote was attached to something else.
Obama criticized McCain not for his vote, but for his views. McCain for some reason thinks the free market is the solution to all this country's ills. And believe me, a free market on nuclear power is horrible. Obama is right that there needs to be regulation for storage and when those things come to light, past vote or not, there must be some changes.
And believe me, a free market on nuclear power is horrible.
Why? I am writing a white paper on the subject even as we speak and the fully loaded cost to produce power with a nuke plant is about 3.2 cents per kilowatt hour, just slightly above that of coal. Just in the past year, equipment upgrades to 15 nuke plans (out of 109), increased their power output more than twice the entire installation of solar panels in the U.S. From a low of 65% in the late 70's nuke plant operating time is above 80%, which has increased the percentage of nuclear power in the U.S. by 6%, saving tens of billions of dollars and displacing millions of tons of CO2.
Nuclear Plants today provide over 20% of the electrical power consumed in the United States, which is as much as ALL of the natural gas plants put together. Could you imagine how much worse the power crisis would be today without those 109 plants?
Space, you've obviously read past my comments in this thread so that you could simply repeat yourself.
Arcane it is my hope that at some point in the future, the truth of my statements will pierce the partisan filters that you have fitted to your brain in regards to these issues. Shall I play the fool for you again?
Space,
You have no idea what is going on in my brain, discussion of such is off limits. I'm guessing this response means that you're not going to address my comments?
Space guy, the final frontier. These are the voyages of the Starship Reason.
Her election year mission: To explore strange non-sequiturs. To seek out old lies
and new desperations. To boldly go where no logic has gone before.
vas
That's pretty good! (I admire good work no matter the source).
Arcane
I did, you just don't want to listen.
Sure, I responded to you and you just chose to repeat your previous comment. Great. Well, I can do that too.
The funding for the Yucca Repository was established before the heavy risks began to come to light. As soon as the project appeared to be too risky, the supporters of the repository brought the funding to a halt and started to question whether our nation's prominent scientists and energy companies had researched the area fully or not.
I'm sorry but I'm with Crashlanding. I mean I, MYSELF, was for the Yucca project until the new discoveries. Look, politics aside, nuclear energy is a LOT safer then people tend to give it credit for mostly, I think because, when it DOES go bad- it goes bad BIG TIME. And, yes, there also seems to be a vast lack of understanding of radioactivity, etc, etc, etc as well, which SO doesn't help!
At this juncture, there is however, no longer any way to deny that nuclear power is going to have to be apart of ANY energy plan that will help us see the future. This means that two things have to be taken care of: 1) a safe, remote, stable site that can be defended MUST be found to put the stuff and 2) people have GOT to be educated on what the security measures for it's transportation TO that site really ARE so that the waste can be allowed to finally get there.
Frankly? For me, that's not politics, it's just simple, basic, common sense.
The funding for the Yucca Repository was established before the heavy risks began to come to light. As soon as the project appeared to be too risky, the supporters of the repository brought the funding to a halt and started to question whether our nation's prominent scientists and energy companies had researched the area fully or not.
If the site is your only problem. There are plenty of others. Problem solved.
We need to double the number of nuclear plants, That would eliminate oil as a power generating means (upping our 21% nukes to 45%). This would save a LOT of oil.
space guy
Fact Check Needs a little fact checking these days.
Here is an ad that Obama ran attacking John McCain for supporting the development of a nuclear waste storage site.
To make it worse, while he was saying that he was against it and skewering McCain for being for it, he actually voted for funds for Yucca mountain twice!
Now who is lying here?
Obama was against it after he was for it or against it while claiming McCain was for it.
Which is it?
Space guy,
This is a fair question to ask and I wanted to know as well. I am curious where did you get your information? Did you look that bill up? I went to the Library of Congress website and read the actual bill the McCain camp cited. I found nothing in the bill to support that Obama was wrong and I found nothing that said McCain's camp did not lie. Perhaps you can show us the section that validates the McCain camp's assertions? If not I think you would have answered your own question!
Good call, JEN. I just went to THOMAS, looked up HR 2419 as passed by the House and Senate, pulled up the full-text, printer-friendly version, and searched on "Army Corps of Engineers," "Army," "Department of Energy," "Energy Department," "Yucca Mountain," "nuclear waste," "waste disposal," "spent fuel," "reactor," "nuclear energy," and the like. Result? Nada. The word "nuclear" occurs exactly once-- In this subtitle: (1) AGENT- The term `agent' means a nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological substance that causes agricultural disease or the adulteration of products regulated by the Secretary of Agriculture under any provision of law.
The bill seems mainly geared toward farming.
It doesn't appear as though the bill even references Yucca Mountain, nuclear waste disposal, or anything else space guy's quote claims.
Maybe they got the bill # wrong? I'm sure it's something as simple as that.
iarnuocon
I read each section but I could not find it either. I want to give Space guy the chance to refute, but I think that the Republicans did not expect anybody to read past the first page. It is rather tedious reading, nevertheless, I could not find it. We will wait to see what Space guy had to say.
If they got the bill # wrong, they got the date and vote and subject wrong too, because all of that matched their claims. That said, I did check the energy and environmental bills; but again, I came up with nothing that matched.
Do you guys even attempt to do you own research?
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:7:./temp/~c109JM6FUb::
This may not be a permalink.
Search at Thomas.gov (you know the official record of the U.S. congress)
Search in the 109th congress (the same bill number with completely different purposes show up in different congresses)
Search H.R. 2419
This educational service brought to you by me.
Thanks, space guy.
Looking at that particular document provides two pieces of information in regard to nuclear waste disposal--
For nuclear waste disposal activities to carry out the purposes of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Public Law 97-425, as amended (the `Act'), including the acquisition of real property or facility construction or expansion, $150,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which $100,000,000 shall be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund
For nuclear waste disposal activities to carry out the purposes of Public Law 97-425, as amended, including the acquisition of real property or facility construction or expansion, $350,000,000, to remain available until expended.
Nowhere is Yucca Mountain mentioned by name, although I suppose we could interpret that since it's the primary nuclear waste disposal site in Nevada, the bill assigns that money to Yucca Mountain.
Care to address the fact that the money "for Yucca Mountain" amounts to less than 2% of the total expenditures, or that politics is the art of the possible?
Because you seem to be making the perfect the enemy of the good, here.
Not that you would ever do so for political reasons, right?
Look, I gave you the references the bill is there, he voted for it, end of story. Then he attacks John McCain for supporting it.
I can't help you any more than that.
Ah Space guy,
Let me help you a little. They vote for a lot of bills. If there is no connection between the bill they state to prove the point and the subject of the ad, it stands to the intelligent mind that YOUR camp has just LIED AGAIN! You want to prove you are right post the information you found that validates the statement. If you can not, you are not only proving the camp lied, but you are clueless.
iarnuocon
And then we should also consider that Obama, while blasting McCain for supporting the Yucca Mountain storage facility, supported it in a vote! Of course, the lion's share of that vote provided money for the Army Corps of Engineers, energy and water development, and the Energy Department, but since there was a provision for Yucca Mountain in there, it's easy to see that Obama really supported Yucca Mountain. Right? I mean, it should be easy for everyone to see that the 1.8% of funding from that bill going to the nuclear waste repository makes that the "Yucca Mountain Bill."
Precisely, only $577 million of a $31.2 billion dollar bill would go to Yucca:
$31.2 billion in fiscal 2006 for energy and water development projects, including $5.3 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers and $25 billion for the Energy Department.
Average Americans should never be expected to understand the complexities of voting for or against a bill. Hell, if average Americans will accept John McCain and Hilary Clinton's pandering idea of a Gas Tax Holiday and believe that Barack Obama is Muslim - it's really far-fetched to accept them to understand that voting for a $31.2 billion dollar bill dedicated to energy and water development projects does not automatically mean that you support every facet of the bill.
Did any of you people ever attend a class that talked about how the U.S. congress works?
This happens all the time. If your guy did not like that part of it he did not have to vote for it. I hear that he voted present a whole lot during his state Senate tenure so it's not like he didn't understand how to do that.
Using your logic you can't attack McCain for the same vote, but guess what your guy did.
I've made my point here.
Space guy,
Minoring in Poli Sci, Majoring in Physics.
That comment reflects a very narrow-minded and shallow view of how our Congress works, my friend.
Barack Obama did not "attack McCain for that vote", he attacked McCain for consistently supporting the Yucca Mountain Repository.
Yes, you have made your point here.
That comment reflects a very narrow-minded and shallow view of how our Congress works, my friend.
So Obama is willing to sell out his vote on something he thinks is wrong? Yes I do understand how congress works.
Senator Obama on many occasions (and this is where this all started) has indicated his support (supposedly) for nuclear power. If you are going to have nuclear power, you have to store the waste in some manner, therefore you must also support some form of nuclear waste storage system. Which is it? Does he support nuclear power or dosen't he?
footnote - Illinois has 6 of the nation's 65 nuclear energy sites and 11 of the nation's 103 reactors. The nuclear energy business is an important concern in Illinois. Obama has taken flack from his home state on issues of nuclear waste (though there is not a strong consensus on how to best with disposal).
Melony
Oh I agree, that is why it is so interesting that an Obama supporter like Arcane makes statements about Obama's support for nuclear power at the same time she talks about his lack of support for the means of disposing of said waste while attacking McCain for attempting to deal with the issue!
The logical inversion is mind boggling.
If you are going to have nuclear power, you have to store the waste in some manner, therefore you must also support some form of nuclear waste storage system. Which is it? Does he support nuclear power or dosen't he?
Not approving of the Yucca Mountain Repository does not automatically mean that someone is anti-nuclear power. I wish you all would at least research the many ways of which nuclear waste can be stored/disposed of safely. The truth of the matter is that Obama stated he is pro-nuclear power, we just need to find the safest way possible to make, transfer and store it.
yeah, arcanebliss has had it right since back at 1.22.
Space Guy - you are working on a false choice there. One might be supportive of nuclear energy and also concerned about waste disposal issues which is what arcanebliss has said.
Uh huh, just like Nancy Pelosi is for drilling for oil offshore, except maybe where the oil actually is known to be.
I hate Pelosi, but that issue doesn't compare at all. There is oil 50 miles offshore, it wasn't Pelosi's request that the drilling be that far out - but actually the request of the states involved. The state has to approve of the drilling before the rigs can be set up.
You do know that, right?
Also, there has been little research on how much oil is available 50 miles or more off the coast because oil companies don't want to dish out the expense for going any deeper. It's about money - it's a business. It's not about benefitting American voters, never has been.
Spaceguy
This started for me with your posting that said:
In 2005, Barack Obama Voted Twice To Fund The Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository. "Passage of the bill that would provide $31.2 billion in fiscal 2006 for energy and water development projects, including $5.3 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers and $25 billion for the Energy Department. It also would provide $577 million for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository." (H.R. 2419, CQ Vote #172: Passed 92-3: R 50-3; D 41-0; I 1-0, 7/1/05, Obama Voted Yea; H.R. 2419, CQ Vote #321: Adopted 84-4: R 48-2; D 35-2; I 1-0, 11/14/05, Obama Voted Yea)
Well please post the sections with the section numbers that support this claim. I do not see it and you have not posted it as far as I can see. Put an end to this dispute for me and give me the section number and/or post the section with the number here so I will know where you are getting this from. I have no problems admitting I was wrong, but I want to see it in writing and know where it came from. Show me the bill section(s).
but actually the request of the states involved.
References.
88% of the oil is within fifty miles of the shore. There are multiple platforms in california ready to pump within 12 months that would not be able to do so.
I'll find the article I read last week on the issue, however - here is where we see Florida not wanting ANY drilling off of their shores:
''Most times one would say the status quo isn't good, but in this volatile energy environment, it's great,'' said Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Miramar, one of several Florida Democrats who met behind closed doors with House leaders to ensure that Florida was left out of the drilling plans.
``I'm delighted we have kept what we had.''
Offshore drilling bill spares Florida
88% of the oil is within fifty miles of the shore. There are multiple platforms in california ready to pump within 12 months that would not be able to do so.
As I said,
there has been little research on how much oil is available 50 miles or more off the coast because oil companies don't want to dish out the expense for going any deeper. It's about money - it's a business. It's not about benefitting American voters, never has been.
therefore, you can not make that statement so matter-of-factly - we don't know for sure how much oil is that far out.
Obama: Time To End Debate On Yucca, Find Alternatives
Obama is against Yucca Mountain as a permanent nuclear waste repository. He took flack from his homies for it too because Illinois is generating the waste & needs to find a permanent way to get rid of it (ha!).
Spaceguy
The response you attached does not include the subject I asked you about or the section of the bill you claim supports McCain's and your accusation of a false ObamaYucca Mountian/Nuclear ad. I know you did not misunderstand so I will take it to mean you know you and McCain were not expecting any one to question this.
Meloney
Thank you for the information.
You are welcome JEN.
Some folks do a razzle dazzle, baffle 'm w/bs thing, throwing out information as if it supports a claim when it really doesn't. Good for you for asking ; )
Americans wanted to "get even" for 9/11, so we attacked without thinking about the long-term consequences.
Americans want a quick fix to energy without thinking about the long-term consequences. Oh, yeah. Let's drill right now...even though we won't see any gains in 30 years!
Americans want a quick fix without having to think for themselves. Why think, when you can shoot or bully someone? That's the American Way, right?
#2 - Fri Sep 19, 2008 9:38 PM EDTYou hit the nail on the head. I'm sick of people talking about doing stuff for our children and then making policies that leave larger and larger messes that will need to be cleaned up by our children. Sometimes America sucks. Not the entire country, the people we keep putting in charge.
I think it's admirable that a leader would take some pause and give some extensive thought to his solutions for energy. McCain would impress me if he would even consider the long-term effects. Does he seriously not see the potential negative side effects of extensive nuclear energy exploration?
Everytime I hear "Drill, baby, drill!" I want to jump in the ocean and swim far, far away.
There are no short term quick fixes for an energy crisis that has been brewing for over 30 years. While the Japanese buckled down and started working on fuel efficiency, the geniuses in Detroit decided that it was more profitable to crank out gas guzzlers for a higher profit margin per unit. Tragic mistake, one we will not recover from unless we shift gears and work towards alternative transportation systems that do not rely on fossil fuels.
Bottom line, vehicles should serve the purpose of transporting people from point A to point B, not as a platform for burning oil. When people finally figure this out, there may be just enough oil left to save the airline industry, that will never run on anything but enriched petroleum products...
Right On!!! It's time we started taking responsibilty for letting ourselves be led like sheep to the slaughter.
The tragedy is that if Jimmy Carter's policies of encouraging alternative energy sources hadn't been ended by Reagan, we might not be in this jam now.
You watch your mouth. There are some who think Carter's presidency was a bad thing... Fear fear scare scare, lol.
Seriously though, you make a very good point. Reagan convinced everyone that Carter's foresight was "taking the country in a bad direction." The craziness to be more concerned about future generations than the economic growth of the next 8 years. Everything ebbs and flows anyway. It's senseless to be so concerned about money that's gonna be devalued and then re-valued and then devalued, you get my point.
First McCain shovels some populist poop by promoting a Gas Tax Holiday, then he scoffs at Obama's reference to proper tire pressure, and now he is the Drill Shill. As if it isn't simple minded enough to believe drilling will solve our energy problems, conservatives believe Pelosi is the sole obstacle to our energy solutions (though both she and Obama are willing to make compromises on drilling in exchange for alternative fuels). And Obama does support nuclear power, just not in asking Nevada to store the entire nation's nuclear waste.
Before we get ourselves in a tizzy and make an election mistake (or re-elect the wrong candidate like we did after 9-11), let's review a few things. Here are some questions I've had:
1) If we drill more oil, how soon can we expect any relief in prices at the pump?
2) How much known reserves are there in U.S. territories?
3) How much of a factor is speculation in setting the price of oil?
4) If we produced more oil, including lower grade crude, do we have refineries that can handle the larger quantity and/or lower grade of crude?
5) When oil is drilled in U.S. territory, is it slated for domestic use, or is it sold on the global market?
6) How much public land is already approved for drilling that isn't being utilized, and if not, why not?
7) Are there legitimate environmental concerns, for example, how much are the refineries and off-shore platforms in the Gulf of Mexico at risk during hurricane season?
8) Is it short-term thinking to remain addicted to fossil fuel rather than focusing on new alternative forms of energy?
Here is some information I've found so far:
1) The time frame for if/when more drilling would bring relief at the pump has been all over the map. Here is what the EIA reports:
"But there's a flaw in that logic: even if tomorrow we opened up every square mile of the outer continental shelf to offshore rigs, even if we drilled the entire state of Alaska and pulled new refineries out of thin air, the impact on gas prices would be minimal and delayed at best. A 2004 study by the government's Energy Information Administration (EIA) found that drilling in ANWR would trim the price of gas by 3.5 cents a gallon by 2027. (If oil prices continue to skyrocket, the savings would be greater, but not by much.)" - http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1815884,00.html
By 2027 is hardly in a year or two as claimed by Republicans/FOX News. Also, see: "Arctic Drilling Wouldn't Cool High Oil Prices – Federal energy analysts say it would take 10 years for production to begin, and its impact could be very modest" -
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/05/23/arctic-drilling-wouldnt-cool-high-oil-prices.html
2) Reserves are also difficult to determine, because even the experts have different numbers. T. Boone Pikens says the U.S. has only 3% of the world's reserves, but it was reported on MSNBC that the U.S. has about 6% of the world's known reserves. Either way, that's not much. Here is information from Wikipedia:
"United States proven oil reserves were 21 billion barrels (3.3×109 m3) in 2006 according to the Energy Information Administration. [49] This represents a decline of 46%, or 18 billion barrels (2.9×109 m3) from 39 billion barrels (6.2×109 m3) in 1970. U.S. crude production peaked in 1970 at 9.6 million barrels per day (1.53×106 m3/d), and had declined 47% to 5.1 million barrels per day (810×103 m3/d) by 2006. [50] United States crude oil production has been declining since reaching a smaller secondary production peak in 1988 (caused by Alaskan production). Total production of crude oil from 1970 through 2006 was 102 billion barrels (16.2×109 m3), or roughly five and a half times the decline in proved reserves.[51]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves#United_States
Based on these numbers from the EIA, this calculates to about 11 years of supply, though I've heard it as being as high as 60 years supply (at current consumption) from oil company advertisement. Okay, so let's say there are more reserves to be tapped than indicated by the EIA, or that there is a 60-year supply rather than 11 years. That still means drilling is a temporary strategy. And this kind of short-term, instant-gratification consumer mentality is why the Middle East is now a thorn in our side, and why countries like China will soon kick our bums as well. If we keep thinking we should have started drilling ten years ago, then we deserve to go under.
Further to this topic, and in regard to reserves such as oil shale, these reserves are expensive to extract. I recently read an article in the financial section of MSN that discussed Exxon/Mobil and their requirement for a minimum ROI in order to drill. As such, government tax credit subsidies have not been an incentive for them in regard to land already approved for exploration/drilling (or for alternative energy). Unless there is low-hanging fruit to be picked with large profits, they won't go after it. -http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/04/30/8405398/index.htm
3) While there are many factors affecting the price of oil (global demand, value of US$, inventories, etc.) supply and demand is NOT the only factor. Speculation has contributed to the soaring prices for oil. Congress seems to think so too. "Lawmakers are threatening to get tough on traders and have introduced 9 different bills." – on CNN Money (http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/24/news/economy/oil_legislation/?postversion=2008062413) Though supply hasn't changed and demand continues to increase, why the swings in price including the recent drop in price? Conservatives are claiming that speculators have been scared by talk of more drilling. I doubt speculators invest large amounts of money without doing their homework first, and they know oil reserves in the U.S. are limited. Interestingly, when lawmakers began threatening to close Cheney & Co.'s "Enron Loophole," that's when traders backed off and prices dropped.
4) This financial article is a good overview on refineries - "Behind high gas prices: The refinery crunch" http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/17/news/economy/refineries/index.htm. "So why hasn't a new refinery been built since 1976?" I live near one, and it isn't pleasant. As with nuclear waste, no one wants it in their backyard. Sure, there are environmental laws that make it more expensive to build a refinery now, but with the large profits oil companies are raking in, what's their excuse? Let's face it. A just-in-time delivery method controls for risk and is more profitable for oil companies. So in the meantime we are stuck with limited refineries, not only in regard to quantity, but also in regard to capability to refine lower-quality crude. -http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_46/b3908079.htm
5) Finding information on how U.S. oil is sold is difficult. It appears that most may be slated for domestic consumption, but not all. More importantly, it appears U.S. oil is nonetheless sold in the U.S. according to global pricing. So it remains questionable in my mind whether drilling more oil in the U.S. will significantly reduce the price of gas in the U.S. regardless of how quickly it could be produced.
6) This is a great article in regard to the topic of U.S. reserves in general, but this is what is said specifically about leased land:
"But for all this activity, the Wilderness Society says, in a state like Colorado, where 4.9 million acres are leased out, just 1.4 million acres are under production. And of 7,124 drilling permits approved on public lands in fiscal year 2007, only 5,343 wells were drilled. Whether the cause of the lag time between leasing federal lands and producing oil and natural gas is due to environmental restrictions or strategy by energy companies, the delays mean that "opening protected areas of the coasts or public lands to new leasing is not going to lower the price of gasoline," said David Alberswerth, a senior policy adviser at the Wilderness Society."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/us/03drill.html
Once again, it is difficult to find reliable articles on this topic (which makes me more wary of what people like Rush are claiming). But it appears that the Rockies consist mostly of natural gas reserves, so that leaves extreme and expensive areas like Alaska, and risky areas like off-shore platforms in the Gulf of Mexico.
7) How risky is it to increase drilling in the Gulf, and in regard to refineries in the same area? Remembering Katrina, we know there is some risk. Apparently speculators think so too.
"And given that the hurricane season is not even halfway over, traders remain nervous about the possibility of storms striking oil facilities in the Gulf of Mexico." - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12400801/
If the burning of fossil fuel is contributing to global warming, and ice caps continue to melt causing sea levels to rise, areas in the Gulf such as New Orleans will be at even more risk.
8) The answer to this last question is a no-brainer so doesn't even warrant Googling. Even if one doesn't believe in global warming (or the more acceptable term "climate change"), people do believe that pollution is a real problem. But what if a focus on alternative energy could also create jobs and possibly exports? More drilling won't do any of this in improving our economy.
Pelosi told CNN's Larry King late Monday: "Well, we can do that [drill in protected areas]. We can have a vote on that. But it has to be part of something that says we want to bring immediate relief to the public and not just a hoax on them." http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0808/11/lkl.01.html - Her interview on Meet the Press shortly after that was great. She really doesn't want the American people to be lied to.
#3 - Fri Sep 19, 2008 10:47 PM EDTInteresting.
Too bad you left out the $3 trillion dollars worth of revenue that this oil would bring, enough to finance our complete weaning from oil.
If you decide to run for office you have my vote. We need intellectuals who take time to do their homework on subjects. Thanks for the info.
Space guy-
Where do you see 3 trillion dollars worth of revenue???? The government has not proposed to extract the oil themselves. I am not sure that has ever been an option. If anything it will be 3 trillion dollars worth of revenue for the oil companies...!!!! and truly, who the hell cares about that?
The only way I can see the American people making 3 trillion dollars worth of revenue from this oil drilling would be from the land lease the Feds give to the oil companies for the oil on Federal Property (ANWR), in which case I don't know of any company that can afford 3 trillion dollars plus the cost of drilling for access to this oil....
Maybe I am missing something, or maybe you are just throwing numbers in the air?
Space, could you post a link to where you got the 3 trillion please? Thanks
Long post, but full of substance. I wish all voters did their homeworks before they vote.
In order to support their point on drilling, Palin became the caraboose whisperer (they love the warmth from the oil tunnels) and McCain a fish whisperer ( apparently the fishes love the oil rigs!)
Really?! We're screwed my friends.
I too am wondering about the $3 trillion dollars of revenue. Who would be making that money? Would it come from selling the oil? Not purchasing it from someone else? I did a quick Google and couldn't find anything.
Anyone?
3 million barrels of oil per day x 100 dollars, = 300 million dollars per day x 365 = 109.5 billion per year x 30 years = $3 trillion dollars.
Now we can quibble over a trillion of that, depending on the true size of the reserves but those are the numbers. If it is $150 per barrel which is very probable then the money doubles or the oil needed is 1/2.
This is not rocket science.
It is American oil that we do not have to send money out of the country for. Do you not understand that a good part of what is going on is that we are impoverishing our nation by sending $700 billion dollars per year out of the country for oil?
Space guy-
Thank you for clarifying your 3 trillion dollar logic.
With that said, 3 million barrels a day is ambitious. Even so x 365 days a year is is just over 1 billion barrels a year. At the top most estimates (which range from 5-17 billion barrels) and extracting every last drop of oil (which is very unlikely) that is only 17 years worth of oil... not 30.
Additionally you are talking about 100 dollars per barrel, thats the price it is now and thus the need for alternative energy. If that price were recalculated at helpful prices along with these more realistic numbers 3 trillion dollars (give or take) is a vast over estimation.
And finally, even if all of your numbers are right, that is 3 trillion dollars in the pockets of the oil companies. I was under the impression "revenue" referred to the American peoples take, which is based on the taxes (?) of that private income, which even at "horrible liberal tax rates" would not go up more than 55%....
(To be clear I am talking about ANWR. If we are talking about ALL U.S. oil, then it is something like 200 billion barrels total- 11 years at 50 million barrels a day. Then what? Jobs and profit for 11 years followed by dependance FOREVER!?.)
Additionally you are talking about 100 dollars per barrel, thats the price it is now and thus the need for alternative energy. If that price were recalculated at helpful prices along with these more realistic numbers 3 trillion dollars (give or take) is a vast over estimation.
It is likely to go much higher long before it gets cheaper.
And finally, even if all of your numbers are right, that is 3 trillion dollars in the pockets of the oil companies. I was under the impression "revenue" referred to the American peoples take, which is based on the taxes (?) of that private income, which even at "horrible liberal tax rates" would not go up more than 55%....
Where in the world do you get that the entire amount of money goes in their pockets? Ever watch Ice Road truckers, or Tougher in Alaska? These guys are getting some of that Money. The state of Alaska gets 90% of their budget from that money. The federal government makes 35% of every dollar of profit from the oil companies. The shareholders (i.e. your pension funds) get a lot of that money.
Oil company profit margins are around 10%. Microsoft's profit margin is 28% and Google's is 32%.
I would much rather have that money in the U.S. as one thing is for sure, if we do not ALL of that money goes into a FOREIGN oil company or more likely government's coffers.
I really don't understand this willing level of simply refusing to understand basic economics.
It is likely to go much higher long before it gets cheaper.
This is EXACTLY the problem. If it is going higher before it goes cheaper what is the point? being independent from mid east oil is not about hating the mid east, it is about not paying so much a the pump.
As far as "simple economics." There is nothing simple about it. But to get down to what you have mentioned, no, I do not know anything about "ice road truckers", or "tougher in Alaska". I do know that Truckers will NOT have a significantly higher income based on increased oil production in Alaska simply because they are delivering their goods according to the demand not according to the supply. The demand should not be going up, so their jobs should remain quite the same.
Alaska's budget stats and the fed's take are all really great things but as I was calculating before those numbers are not so high and certainly not a long term solution, maybe 20 years worth of mediocre riches after which we are here again. And regarding the shareholders' take, are you a shareholder of an oil company? I am not. I cannot afford it and I do not know many people who can. At 80 dollars a share I would say that the people who are making money off of their stocks in oil companies probably do not have so much to worry about to begin with.
The one thing I can agree with you on is that it would be nice if all of this money was circulating within American hands and not mid east hands. But I have not been shown yet how these solutions will have a lasting affect on the average joe. All I have seen are temporary solutions giving temporary wealth to people who probably could do just fine without the money to begin with.
You still don't get it. Those resources equal money. The reason that we are having these economic problems is that $700 billion dollars of our money leaves the country every year. ANY amount of that that we can keep in the country, while creating jobs and generating tax revenue is a good thing.
I think all McCain's 45 reactors should be built in Arizona (23) and Alaska ( 22)
#4 - Fri Sep 19, 2008 10:47 PM EDTWhat about the people who live there who wouldn't like that very much? The entire state shouldn't have to suffer because their home to two hotheads who never research their pandering ideas.
Get real, space guy. Do you actually think the oil companies are going to part graciously with three trillion dollars? Our government will get chump change, as usual, and the oil barons will line their pockets as long as they can, and use their spare change to ensure there are no rivals to oil consumption for the foreseeable future...
#5 - Fri Sep 19, 2008 11:20 PM EDTIt's OK. The McCain campaign keeps telling the same old lies, even after they have been debunked. It is certainly firming up their base, the people that wouldn't know the truth if it bit them in the face.
In the mean time, the democrats and independents continue to make up their minds and are moving in Obama's direction. As far as I am concerned, McCain and Palin can continue their lies all the way to the voting booth. The electorate is tired of it and are looking past them at this point.
#6 - Fri Sep 19, 2008 11:22 PM EDTHe's either lying through his teeth in the orgasmic idea that he could be President (I think now that he is in reach of the Highest office in the land he's thrown all ideas of reason out the window) or he's honestly having episodes of delusion due to age and health.
#7 - Fri Sep 19, 2008 11:32 PM EDTGet real, space guy. Do you actually think the oil companies are going to part graciously with three trillion dollars? Our government will get chump change, as usual, and the oil barons will line their pockets as long as they can, and use their spare change to ensure there are no rivals to oil consumption for the foreseeable future...
Uh, yea, its called taxes. Also, if a deal is cut similar to the one that Palin cut with the oil companies in the state, the royalties to the federal government will be greater. Are you saying that Palin at the state level is a better negotiator than congress?
The irony abounds.
Uh, yea, its called taxes.
The Republicans love to give tax breaks in the billions to oil companies while they are "earning" record profits. Do you really think they will allow the Democrats to tax them to the tune of $3 trillion?
Do you guys even attempt to carry on a rational discussion?
$3 trillion in revenue that stays in the USA. Hundreds of thousands of jobs, billions in salaries (high paying), taxes from that and from the sale of the oil (look at how much in taxes you pay on a gallon of gas).
Duh and how much of that "oil tax" will the oil companies suck up and how much will be passed at the pump. Hmm let me think.....
Space Guy, your way off with your 3 trillion comment - do you work in the banking or investment field?
Do you guys seek to enter into discussion or to merely spout off at the mouth?
wow space guy.
If this is how people from space act, then I'll be keeping my feet planted firmly on earth, thank you very much.
You might find that your arguments would be better heard if:
1. You can identify the underlying logic to your arguments. So far, I'm missing it.
2. You stop using abstract and unrelated examples to prove the validity of this particular argument (i.e. since google's profit margins are high, surely the oil companies will follow suit)
3. Quit your belligerence and participate in an intelligent and civil discourse.
John McCain's behaviour in this Election will be confined to the Dustbin of History. The Republicans positions are Lies, More Lies and Many Lies. They have an assumption that most Americans are Low Information Voters and will support the Republicans even against their Own Self Interest. They are also banking that Ethnicity will give them an advantage, despite their miserable and damaging 8 years in the White House.
#8 - Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:52 AM EDTDon't forget religion!
People support McCain/Palin for religious similarities. They don't care what else happens outside religion.
If McCain choose David Duke, Tom Metzger as the VP Candidate, then still get the support. If Adolf Hitler preaching genocide of Jews is still alive and McCain VP choice. The same people will support even if they disagree with those three view on race. As long as they support Guns, Anti-Abortion and other religious issues.
Arcanebliss & True Patriot: Thank you for putting ignorant mouths to silence. In other words, "you guys kick butt."
#9 - Sat Sep 20, 2008 1:24 AM EDTI would be all for Nuclear IF I could be assured regulations were in place. I have been in mid-level sales of process equipment to many chemical plants for 30 yrs. The lack of knowledge of some maintenance/engineers is astounding and scary. A nuclear plant, now closed, would call my company for parts. I would not sell to them; they were supposed to go direct to mfg. to assure the proper parts were supplied. A proper o-ring or gasket can make a huge difference. Caution in this is nothing to belittle.
#10 - Sat Sep 20, 2008 2:14 AM EDTDo we have enough truly trained and qualified people to run a nuclear plant? It exactly not a popular field in college or even a trade school.
Our Nuclear employees have to be very well trained and qualified for the job.
We are not talking about placing one Sarah Palin High School Friends or George W Bush choice for Fema, Michael D. Brown or someone with only a community college degree.
PA
you are absolutely right. The NRC has been bending over backwards to accommodate the wishes of the nuclear industry compared to the time I worked in the industry years ago!
As a related aside, there was a move to place a toxic waste dump near our town (500 ft from a school).. One of our many objections was there would be no govt rep present on site for 24 hours! Remember midnight dumping? We won!
I sense from some of the comments that many are feeling much as I do. It isn't so much that I disagree with nuclear power. it's that I don't trust the judgement and honesty of those purporting the plans. When you consider the multiple debacles in recent years ( Iraq War, Katrina, Financial Institutions, etc..) it is difficult to trust the judgement of our leaders on anything.
McCain chides Obama for not making split decisions, but I for one am a lot more comfortable with a
person who takes pause to give consideration to the pro's and con's of the issues before dedicating the
country to a cause.
We have politicians we vote for to make those decisions for us in a knowledgeable and thoughtful manner and act in a way for the betterment of the lives of the Americans who are paying them WELL to do so.
We have been hearing about a possible financial crash ever since Enron. We assume our politicians are taking heed to prevent a further downward spiral. Not so. They were asleep at the wheel.
They were not paying attention, they were not doing their jobs and the American people who were hard at work to pay them for their inadequate performance are screwed again.
I am a registered republican and I apoligize to my fellow Americans for placing my vote for the wrong people. I won't make that mistake this November.
Our political system stinks but it's all we have to work with. I feel a little guilty for seeing the handwriting on the wall and not being a more pro-active citizen. I'm sure there are millions of others who thought the government would fix our financial situation before it got this bad. Obviously our elected officals are dominated by unintelligent, ignorant parasites feeding off the labor of the American people.
I will not be so complacent in the future. I'll be writing the newspapers, the representatives, the congress and anyone else I can think of that might light a fire under their butts. I was very concerned with what happened with Enron -but as part of the silent majority, did nothing. I guess we asked for it.
#11 - Sat Sep 20, 2008 3:45 AM EDTWashington Transcripts (What is really being said in DC)
I have been meeting with party backers ever since this investment thing started up, mostly explaining to them that John McCain is not for any regulating of the investment business. Not even on a slow day in his brain he is not! Look, I have been telling them, ever since coming to Washington, John has been dead set against regulation. Right now, he is just hyping it so people will elect him. Once in the Oval Office, he will be back to backing Republican trickle down economics. I have built my Bush economic miracle on trickle down, on taking big risks for gains and on having no government do-gooders sticking their snots into Wall Street books, derivatives and stuff like that. John knows the new economic reality and so does Sarah: that is why we must see them elected.
From the blog about political hacks betraying democracy!
#13 - Sat Sep 20, 2008 6:58 AM EDTFunny...half of the debunked lies on factcheck.org are coming from the McCain campaign, the other half are coming from the Obama campaign. Yet the Obama lies don't seem to bother you...don't seem worthy of being seeded.
You know what I'm sick of? Both sides. I'm sick of Republicans whitewashing their candidate while blowing their opponent's flaws out of proportion. I'm sick of Democrats doing exactly the same thing. I'm sick of the hypocrisy.
Most of all, I'm sick of the campaign season.
#14 - Sat Sep 20, 2008 7:49 AM EDTObama is defending his vision against liars and criminals. He is doing what his supporters are demanding to take back the nation from those who say "country first" but really mean 'power and money first.'
McCain is simply a grasping liar. Where is the truth of his vision? Where is the truth of his beliefs? Who is he and what would he really do if elected?
I am no Republican or Democrat. If you are really sick of politics as usual, then do the right thing. Vote for the candidate that has promised and demonstrated a commitment to change. Vote for the candidate who has been ahead of the curve on the economy, on Iraq, on Pakistan, on Afghanistan, on helping the Red Cross, on health care.
Do what's right for this country. Don't vote for the guy who had to steal a campaign theme that he laughed at. Don't vote for the guy who said he would follow bin Laden to the gates of Hell, but not across the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. Don't vote for the guy who blackmails his opponent, saying "I wouldn't be smearing you if you only did what I told you to do - have debates on my terms." Don't vote for the guy who criticizes his opponent for not taking public financing after he passed on it, then accepted it, then tried to back out of it, then accepted it.
Don't vote for the man who picked for the second highest office in the world a lightweight beauty queen who charges women for the tools to catch the men who raped them. The women who fired the man who attempted to get money to end Alaska's reign as the nations leader in forcible rape, because his attempts to fund anti-rape efforts were "the last straw."
Here's a question to ponder? Why are the people who are "so sick" of this campaigning season or politics in general always commenting on political blogs? There's a lot more on Newsvine that doesn't focus on politics.
If you're so sick of it, why are you still talking about it? I'm not sick of it yet, so I still talk about it. That's like getting mad at all people who like pop music cause you're "so over it." Chill out dude.
And McCain definitely takes more than half of the debunked statements on FactCheck.
Also...you have one candidate promising to dramatically expand our use of nuclear electricity generation, while the other one says "I'm not against it, per se, but here are all of the 'issues' that have to be studied in a committee for four to eight years (until I'm safely out of office) before I can agree to build another nuclear power plant".
Does anyone really believe that Obama will push for new nuclear power plants in the United States? I mean, he's throwing out atom bomb proliferation as an issue that needs to be studied first??? What, we're going have to figure out how to keep ourselves from secretly rerefining spent nuclear fuel rods into weapons-grade material to sell to Hammas?
McCain's campaign is technically exaggerating Obama's anti-nuke-ness, if you strictly base it on whether or not Obama has come right out and said "no more nukes", but they do a very good job of capturing his actual intentions when they say he's against it.
I am no Republican or Democrat.
But you are quite clearly a liberal. There are conservative democrats voting for McCain, so I think the usual party divisions are a little less important here.
quite a number of Conservative publicians voting for obama
But you are quite clearly a liberal.
Really? What makes me a liberal? I don't know what the word means.
I will tell you that I consider myself a rational progressive.
I have no idea what you are talking about when you mention 'atom bomb proliferation.'
And bottom line, whether or not Obama is for nuclear power, the truth is right now it is not a solution. So, once again, Obama is on the correct side of the issue. And so, whatever he is, 'liberal' or 'lefty', Dem or Repub, I will be voting for the guy who makes the right call consistently, not the guy who shoots from the hip and still manages to shoot himself in the foot.
Obama does say that nuclear fuel and waste security, waste storage, and proliferation must be taken into account "before an expansion of nuclear power is considered."
There's that proliferation excuse, right at the end of the list. Bottom line is that in lieu of admitting that he's against it, he's throwing out a list of issues to be studied before he can even think about signing up. That's called saying he's against it without giving up a sound byte to use against him.
Really? What makes me a liberal? I don't know what the word means.
I will tell you that I consider myself a rational progressive.
"progressive" and "liberal", when used in the political sense, are 90% congruent.
the truth is right now it is not a solution
Why not?
yep same one you use for your spin
What link do I use for my spin? I haven't posted any links. I think you are fabricating stuff here...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/105691/McCain-vs-Obama-28-Clinton-Backers-McCain.aspx
Fabrication? I think not. Your turn. Post the link showing evidence that conservative barkeepers are voting for Obama.
In March, it was 28% of Clinton supporters that would vote McCain if Obama was nominated.
/edit/
Here are the current numbers. 14% of democrats intended to vote McCain, as of September 9th. Considering how close the primary was, 14% of democrats is pretty close to 28% of Clinton supporters. So it hasn't changed much since March.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/110137/McCain-Now-Winning-Majority-Independents.aspx
That's called saying he's against it without giving up a sound byte to use against him.
Fair enough.
progressive" and "liberal", when used in the political sense, are 90% congruent.
Really? You still haven't defined it, but I will let it go.
Since when is being responsible about the use and consequences of a dangerous science a backhanded way of being against it?
There are so many things wrong with this notion I don't even know where to begin...
Perhaps with this congruent-
If Bush had sat for two minutes with his advisors and weighed the pros and cons of invading Iraq they would have realized that reckless immediate action should have given way to responsible perhaps slower action.
Nuclear proliferation and waste management seem like logical questions that should be asked BEFORE Nuclear facilities are built all across the country. These are NOT the kinds of problems that should be being solved AFTER tons of radioactive ooze is looking for a place to live. Any person who thinks that these questions are trivial or otherwise useless should not be allowed within earshot of the decision makers. This is something I think anyone can agree on regardless of political view.
Crashlanding,
First of all, the French have managed to do it safely...surely we can peek over their shoulders a little and get over our 1970s "no more nukes" mentality, especially when the alternative is coal? Not that I'm against coal, since 40% of our coal reserves are in my home state...
Second, please, I'm begging you, enlighten me. What are the proliferation issues associated with building more nuclear power plants in the United States??? The issues of waste management are at least legitimate, although certainly not the insurmountable "we need 50 more years of research" problems that some people would like us to believe they are. But the proliferation "issue" is a red herring.
Third, do you seriously believe that there would be an end to "studying the problem" of more nuclear power plants, and actual action on the issue, before the end of a theoretical second term of office for Obama? It might surprise you, but I do. If he wins, and if he wins a second term, he'll have a change of heart as soon as he doesn't have to worry about another reelection campaign. Until then, he has to tread a fine line of sending the party faithful the message that he's against nuclear power while sending independents the message that he's open to them.
James,
Issue: 2nd Ammendment
Liberals: gun control
Conservatives: gun rights
Issue: Abortion
Liberals: pro-choice
Conservatives: pro-life
Issue: Separation of church and state
Liberals: elimination of religion from public
Conservatives: equal space/time for all religions in public
Issue: Law enforcement
Liberals: rehabilitating the criminal (oh, poor criminal)
Conservatives: punishing the criminal (oh, poor victim)
Issue: Environment
Liberals: reservation
Conservatives: conservation
Issue: Business
Liberals: greedy rich people screwing over the little guy
Conservatives: jobs
Issue: Welfare
Liberals: womb to the tomb, baby!
Conservatives: there's too much already, trim it!
That's just a sample. You can find yourself to be conservative in some areas, liberal in others. I'd categorize you based on the side you find yourself on more often than the other. Bill O'Reiley, for example is liberal on business, but I'd still say it's safe to call him a conservative...
In March, it was 28% of Clinton supporters that would vote McCain if Obama was nominated. Here are the current numbers. 14% of democrats intended to vote McCain, as of September 9th. Considering how close the primary was, 14% of democrats is pretty close to 28% of Clinton supporters. So it hasn't changed much since March.
Here's what Gallup has to say about that. Pre-convention, 16% of Clinton supporters claimed they were voting for McCain, down from 28% in March. Post-convention, that number dropped to 12%. Whether it will drop further is anyone's guess, although one would certainly think that if these voters are voting on the issues, that 12% support would go even lower.
This Gallup poll notes support for Obama at about 10% in the Republican party, although it doesn't look as though Gallup is specifically polling that segment of the population.
It's also informative to consider that staunch conservatives such as Doug Kmiec, Wick Allison, and Doug Giles, as well as conservative magazines such as the American Conservative have endorsed Obama, so it would be a stretch to conclude that there isn't a similar problem for conservatives of party members defecting from their own "side."
Regarding nuclear power, the salient difference between McCain and Obama is that Obama recognizes and admits that there is more to consider on the issue than simply building the plants. McCain is completely silent on the safety and waste disposal issues regarding nuclear power. Claiming that Obama's recognition of the problem means he's opposed to nuclear power essentially says that we can have nuclear power or safety, but not both.
I don't really believe that. Do you?
Your other post popped up in the intervening time, so I will try to address these issues in less than four minutes (since that's the time I'm allotted for making changes to this post.
Issue: 2nd Ammendment
Liberals: gun control
Conservatives: gun rights
Not all liberals are for gun control. I'm a liberal, and I own a crapload of guns, and oppose gun control. You should be seeking to find common ground with us, rather than ridiculing us. Thanks
Issue: Separation of church and state
Liberals: elimination of religion from public government
Conservatives: equal space/time for all religions in public For government support of and intermingling with religion
There, fixed that for you.
Issue: Law enforcement
Liberals: rehabilitating the criminal (oh, poor criminal)
Conservatives: punishing the criminal (oh, poor victim)
Liberal politicians such as Joe Biden have actually encouraged pursuit of the Drug War. How does this square with the idea that liberals are soft on crime. Again, the issue here is one of nuance versus McJustice. Conservatives seem to think that rehabilitation and punishment can't go hand in hand, nor are they particularly savvy regarding the lack of effect of "punishment" such as the death penalty, although they typically tout fictitious deterrent powers to it.
I'll post more in another comment...
Issue: Environment
Liberals: reservation conservation
Conservatives: conservation exploitation
There, fixed that one for you, as well.
Issue: Business
Liberals: greedy rich people screwing over the little guy opposes socialization of business risk
Conservatives: jobs opposes socialization of profit
This is getting to be a habit.
Issue: Welfare
Liberals: womb to the tomb, baby! should be available for those who need it
Conservatives: there's too much already, trim it! Should be available for corporations, only
And again.
There's too much spin already. You should look into reducing it, not increasing it. Try objectivity. Works for me.
This Gallup poll notes support for Obama at about 10% in the Republican party, although it doesn't look as though Gallup is specifically polling that segment of the population.
Hmmm...14% defection rate versus 10%. At a time when 28% of voters identify themselves as Republican, and 37% as Democrats. So you have 14% of the 37% jumping the fence in one direction, and 10% of the 28% jumping the other way. Advantage: McCain. Combine that with McCain's post-convention bump from 40% to 52% of the 34% in the middle, and the advantage grows.
Regarding nuclear power, the salient difference between McCain and Obama is that Obama recognizes and admits that there is more to consider on the issue than simply building the plants. McCain is completely silent on the safety and waste disposal issues regarding nuclear power. Claiming that Obama's recognition of the problem means he's opposed to nuclear power essentially says that we can have nuclear power or safety, but not both.
Well-written! My point, of course, is that we can absolutely have both. The French generate most of their electricity from nuclear power plants without sacrificing public safety. The United States is already the world's number one producer of nuclear power. It seems to me that it is Obama who is giving us the false choice between clean power and public safety. You have a point about McCain not talking about waste disposal, I think that's a mistake. It's an issue that has some good solutions that need to be talked about. What it's not is an issue that needs an indefinite period of continued "stall for time under the guise of pretending to study the issue". As for safety, I point again to the French. For that matter, I point to three mile island. That was a success story. Things began to go wrong, and the safety measures in place prevented a disaster. I point to the 104 commercial nuclear reactors currently in operation in the United States that haven't gone Chernobyl since they were first fired up. Let me guess, you'll now challenge me to prove a negative?
Issue: Environment
Liberals: reservation conservation Conservatives: conservation exploitation There, fixed that one for you, as well.Issue: Business
Liberals: greedy rich people screwing over the little guy opposes socialization of business risk Conservatives: jobs opposes socialization of profit This is getting to be a habit.Issue: Welfare
Liberals: womb to the tomb, baby! should be available for those who need it Conservatives: there's too much already, trim it! Should be available for corporations, only And again.There's too much spin already. You should look into reducing it, not increasing it. Try objectivity. Works for me.
Obviously, it doesn't. ~eyeroll~
Combine that with McCain's post-convention bump from 40% to 52% of the 34% in the middle, and the advantage grows.
Spin it however you like. I'm not the one who pretended there aren't Republicans voting for Obama. I'm also not the one who pretended that 28% of Clinton supporters still plan on voting for McCain.
Current polling shows that McCain's post-convention bounce has faded, and that the race has returned to about a 2% lead for Obama overall.
It seems to me that it is Obama who is giving us the false choice between clean power and public safety.
I fail to see how saying nuclear power should be considered as long as we can address the issue of waste disposal equates to giving us a false choice. The truth is that we can have clean nuclear power, as long as we address the issue of waste disposal. Three doesn't seem to be much room between what Obama is saying and the reality, but I'm supposed to believe that John "Drill, baby, drill" McCain (maybe we can call him John "fission, baby, fission" McCain for the time being) is the one who is offering a more realistic assessment?
Pull the other leg, please.
What it's not is an issue that needs an indefinite period of continued "stall for time under the guise of pretending to study the issue"
I agree. But so far, the only indication that this is Obama's position is your flat assertion.
Let me guess, you'll now challenge me to prove a negative?
Prove a negative? In what way? I think the United States can safely develop nuclear power. Why would I disagree with you on this. Reactor design has made tremendous strides since the 70s. We should take advantage of that in future construction, to further ensure that we don't have any accidents.
Obviously, it doesn't. ~eyeroll~
What? You don't like it when I play your game better than you? ~eyeroll~
[grin]
Off-topic: iarnucon, what xhtml tag do you use to make the read-crossed word?
To bad there aren't magical tags that delete bull@!$%#. Then some of us wouldn't have to waste so much time cleaning it up here. Fortunately we have people like iarnuocon who work seemingly tirelessly at exposing falsehoods or fallacious arguments, who do so even though such efforts often seem futile.
What works for me is the ignore button located where the ! is. That way I do not even have to read people like space guy who is a troll and likes to divert anything that is against his really goofie take on matters. Its called hijacking a thread. If you do not have him in you ignore list ga back and read what he posted and I bet 90% of it is not on topic.
Ouch 60 mins just came on and they asked mcCain could he see Palin as President. He said absolutely! Man is demented.
The he said one of the problems with Washington is special interest groups. Wow wonder how the 83 lobbyists on his staff feel about that.
Issue: 2nd Ammendment
Me - don't take my guns. When the criminals or fascist come, I want to be able to defend myself.
Issue: Abortion
Me - Anti abortion. Also anti government telling me what to take out of or put into my body.
Issue: Separation of church and state
Practice religion wherever you want. Yes, even school. But I am a strict Constitutionalist on this issue: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." That means NO LAW, for or against.
Issue: Law enforcement
Rehabilitation or Punishment? Who cares? I want the best, safest, and most economically efficient way of handling criminals, whatever that means. I don't care if they are punished or rehabbed, I just want to do whatever is most likely to prevent crime.
Issue: Environment
Don't @!$%# where you live.
Issue: Business
Who isn't pro business? But you don't make money off of America and not give something back.
Issue: Welfare
People need to work to survive, nothing is free. But I also need to go to the gas station without being accosted by five homeless people. And let's face it, some people aren't too smart. They know how to have babies but not much else.
#16 - Sat Sep 20, 2008 11:26 AM EDTWho isn't pro business? But you don't make money off of America and not give something back.
Like jobs? Taxes?
Don't @!$%# where you live.
That's clear as mud. Conservation or Reservation?
So you're conservative on guns, religion, and babies, liberal on drugs and business, and either in the middle or don't want to say on the rest. You're actually more moderate than I thought.
Like jobs? Taxes?
Yeah, if taxes are actually paid at an appropriate level, and workers aren't being taken advantage of. No loopholes.
Conservation or Reservation?
Both.
You're actually more moderate than I thought.
Rational Progressive.
Well...I guess that depends on your definition of "appropriate level," and "taken advantage of." My definition of "appropriate level" would be that if company X represents Y% of the total U.S. Economy, then company X pays Y% of all corporate taxes. Obviously, that is not going on in our country. The solution, IMHO, is to go back to a flat corporate tax. No tax breaks for favored industries or specific companies. If you need to collect X number of dollars through corporate taxes, figure out what percentage that is, and charge every company accordingly. Of course, that would put 90% of lobbyists out of business...since it's their job to convince congress that the world will end if their client doesn't get a sweeter deal than the company or industry across the street.
Conservation or Reservation?
Those two are mostly mutually exclusive...to the very limited extent that they're the same, it's the concept of conservation being included in the concept of reservation, so I guess that makes you a reservationist. 'Nother tick in the left side of the ledger...
No tax breaks for corporations? Interesting. Have you checked out the two candidates views on that?
No tax breaks targeted at specific corporations. That's a far cry from not lowering the corporate tax rate, eh?
And don't give me any bull@!$%# about one party wanting to sock it to corporate America and the other one being in their pocket. Both of them take zillions in donations frm big business, and both of them look to repay the favor. They differ in which businesses they want to target the cheese towards.
Let me put in my 2 cents worth
1-The Nuclear power will be build by Americans on American soil?
2-But it will take up to 5-10 Years to get it done! -OK
3-The Drill now is also made in USA, but it will take 10 Years to get it.-OK
The Obama's plan shows that we will have the ROI (Return on Investment) in about Year 2025, and it is questionable how:
Here is an example for Obama's plan: "Eliminate Our Need for Middle Eastern and Venezuelan Oil within 10 Years" Sounds great?
Here are the numbers: We import >1/3 of our oil from them?
Where should we get it to replace it?
Obama:
Increase Fuel Economy Standards.- (great, we need someone to invent it first than build it = 2025).
.
• Get 1 Million Plug-In Hybrid Cars on the Road by 2015. – (Toyota).
.
• Create a New $7,000 Tax Credit for Purchasing Advanced Vehicles. -(Toyota?) , but you will have to pay the remaining $40,000 to get it.
.
• Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard. – (What does this has to do with the energy supply)?.
.
• A "Use it or Lose It" Approach to Existing Oil and Gas Leases. = (Drill Now) .
.
• Promote the Responsible Domestic Production of Oil and Natural Gas. =(Drill Now + Alaska)
End of Comment
#18 - Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:01 PM EDTIncrease Fuel Economy Standards.- (great, we need someone to invent it first than build it = 2025)
Conversion to clean diesel vehicles reduces automotive fuel consumption by 1/3 to 1/2, without any need for invention (or changes to infrastructure). Make your next car a diesel.
Get 1 Million Plug-In Hybrid Cars on the Road by 2015. – (Toyota)
Toyota builds in America, and other car manufacturers are getting on board with this, including Chevy and Ford. Not to mention American startups like Venture Vehicles.
Create a New $7,000 Tax Credit for Purchasing Advanced Vehicles. -(Toyota?) , but you will have to pay the remaining $40,000 to get it.
I think we can amend that "(Toyota?)" to "any manufacturers," don't you? To use just a couple of examples on the "$40,000 to get it" front-- the Prius costs about $25k. Venture Vehicles' hybrid is projected to cost $20k. I'd think your estimate is off.
Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard. – (What does this has to do with the energy supply)?
Establishing a single standard could simplify refining, reducing the crazy patchwork of fuel types that are currently produced, and increasing America's overall supply of fuel.
You were saying?
I think the bottom line is that neither candidate has a plan that will fix the problem in the near term. So why is that the main objection to the various ideas?
If a wail of "it takes so long" isn't accompanied by an alternative that's at least equally effective in a shorter time period (preferably at similar or lower cost), then it sounds like the idea that the wailing party is objecting to is a winner!
Obama's complaint that McCain's ideas will take 5-10 years to show results is laughable when his own ideas take just as long.
SepticSkeptic
well said,
But see also this point
1- We know how to build Nuclear power plants--FACT
2-we know how to drill-FACT
Both of those will mean thousands of jobs immediately, jobs that will not be exported to China.
What is questionable are the hypothetical ideas in Obama plans.
1-switch to diesel –ok, I need a new car (no new jobs)
2-switch to hybrid, -ok I need a new car (no new jobs)
Both of which do not compensate for 1/3 of our imports.
Obama complains that McCain isn't acknowledging that his ideas take 5-10 years. Obama has never had a problem with foresight and wisdom. His biggest problems come from people like you misinterpreting what he says.
The problem is that McCain the candidate is touting his ideas as quick fix strategies. And idiot with Google can see that's not true. Obama isn't marketing his ideas as quick fix. McCain is making some people think these problems can be quickly solved. He's setting up the next administration, whoever runs it, to have low approval ratings because situations aren't immediately improving.
Long-term solutions means that the current President may not get credit for the plans he starts. It may be the next President. Obama understands that. McCain doesn't.
Quick Fix.
Yes we can do that
Start building the Nuclear power plants now
Start drilling now
On the other hand, There is nothing in Obama's plan, just hypothesis,
I can not drive my car on hypothesis, nor heat my home.
I can not drive my car on hypothesis, nor heat my home.
That is a great line.
Is this Robert O?
The problem is that McCain the candidate is touting his ideas as quick fix strategies. And idiot with Google can see that's not true. Obama isn't marketing his ideas as quick fix. McCain is making some people think these problems can be quickly solved. He's setting up the next administration, whoever runs it, to have low approval ratings because situations aren't immediately improving.
Actually, I haven't seen McCain promise that his solutions will fix things by next week, except in the sense that even just knowing that more oil is in the works will curb speculation, dropping the price.
My problem is that the ONLY counter-argument that Obama seems to have to McCain's plans is "it'll take 5-10 years, so lets do something else." Except that the something else in question takes at least as long to be effective...so what kind of argument is that???
You are right that the something else in question would probably take as long, the difference is that the something else in question would hopefully be a lasting solution.
Producing American oil for the world market does not necessarily drop the price. American oil would be placed on the world market for the U.S. to bid on like anyone else and if the mid east oil barons are smart they would realize that the U.S. cannot compete in the long term, they would cut their own production to keep the supply on the market steady, or lower, holding the price as it is now and simply play a waiting game with the U.S. until it can no longer maintain its output (maybe 20 years) at which time things can go back to exactly the way they are now.
Why not find a safe, reliable long term solution? wind, solar, hydro, nuclear? The key word is safely. someone mentioned France as an example of Nuclear power and I think that they can be a role model for the U.S. unfortunately this is not the kind of thing that can be copy and pasted, the U.S. must figure out its own way to organize and regulate this kind of thing. this is not like many other things where if it goes wrong the first time you can just have a do over.
I found out why Obama's plan doesn't add up.
It is the division by zero= Zero.
That plan wont work.
Not all liberals are for gun control. I'm a liberal, and I own a crapload of guns, and oppose gun control. You should be seeking to find common ground with us, rather than ridiculing us. Thanks
Ok, so you're conservative on an issue. I believe that I mentioned that it's possible to be conservative on some issues and still be a liberal in the aggregate.
On the environment, I guess you don't get the difference between liberals and conservatives. I wonder if you might be conservative on the environment, as well. Liberals are all about eliminating human impact on the environment to the greatest extent possible, if they're environmentally-minded. I wonder if the next step is "people for the ethical treatment of plants." Conservatives, on the other hand, as you point out, believe in exploiting the environment....in a sustainable way, if they're environmentally-minded. Where's the sense in killing the golden goose? A perfect example is ducks unlimited...an organization dedicated to purchasing and preserving wetlands...so that you have a place to hunt ducks. Of course there are conservatives and liberals with absolutely no regard for the environment.
Conservatives seem to think that rehabilitation and punishment can't go hand in hand, nor are they particularly savvy regarding the lack of effect of "punishment" such as the death penalty, although they typically tout fictitious deterrent powers to it.
Of course they can go hand in hand. I just object when one is substituted for the other. In some places, I get the feeling that there's some incentive to rush out and commit a crime so you can reap the benefits. As for the death penalty, I'm against it. About the only argument in favor is job security for lawyers, oops, scratch that, that's not a benefit.
On business, where's the incentive for a capitalist to put that capital at risk, if he won't reap the lion's share of the rewards? If he doesn't put up the money to start a business, who will employ the workers? If the business fails, as so many do, hasn't he lost a lot more than his workers have? Liberals want the business owner to take all the risk while getting no more reward than his employees. This ain't day care, this is the real world. If I'm going to lay my nest egg on the line, I expect a certain return on my investment. Of course, under the liberals' ideal system, the failed businessman can just go on the dole, like everyone else.
On welfare, I'm actually looking to the social democrats in Europe for a model that works. They spend their welfare dollars on getting people back into the work force, mostly through job training programs, rather than on income replacement, the way we do. Their average time between jobs is something ridiculously low, like two weeks.
On church and state, it seems to me, and it's probably a warped view, that non-christians' (with the exception of jews, incidentally) right to splatter their religious symbols all over every public space is not just protected, those religios symbols are actively pushed on the population under the guise of multiculturalism. On the other hand, there seems to be a witch hunt against any public reference to anything vaguely judaeo-christian, apparently since christians are in the majority?
#19 - Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:05 PM EDTOk, so you're conservative on an issue.
On several, probably. That's why I see limited utility to the traditional "liberal/conservative" metric. How many issues to you have to be liberal on to be "liberal"? On how many conservative to be "conservative"? As a label goes, neither is tremendously useful.
Sorry, football Saturday and my team is playing. I'll try to get back to this later today.
;)
I'm not the one who pretended there aren't Republicans voting for Obama.
Neither am I. The person I was responding to was saying that conservative publicans vote Obama. I was merely asking him to show evidence that roman tax men or british owners of drinking establishments who happen to lean to the right plan to vote for Obama. I was mocking him. I acutally would have expected you to catch the "barkeeper" reference.
I fail to see how saying nuclear power should be considered as long as we can address the issue of waste disposal equates to giving us a false choice. The truth is that we can have clean nuclear power, as long as we address the issue of waste disposal.
Actually, his position isn't "as long as we address", it's "after we find a solution," which falsely suggests that there isn't one and that the issue needs decades of "study" before a decision is made. You know, if there were not currently 104 active commercial reactors in operation in the United States, I might buy the line.
But so far, the only indication that this is Obama's position is your flat assertion.
Okay, here are some Obama quotes:
if we could figure out a way to provide a cost-efficient, safe way to produce nuclear energy, and we knew how to store it effectively, then we should pursue it
Figure out a safe way to produce nuclear energy, then pursue it. Hmmm. You've already granted that we've cracked the safety nut. So it's a stalling tactic.
I don't think coal or nuclear are the best energy strategies over the long term, but let's be realistic. If we took all our nuclear plants off that table, nobody would have any energy. So we're going to have to transition.
Sounds like he'd like to be rid of nuclear (and coal) power plants today, but sees the need to make an orderly transition away from them. Pro-(safe)nuke? I think not!
I am not a nuclear energy proponent.
That's about as clear as it gets, no?
So, my general view is is that until we can make certain that nuclear power plants are safe, that they have solved the storage problem...
Again with the "they're not safe" claim. I guess some people don't realize that there's no such thing as zero risk. And for Obama, there doesn't appear to be an acceptable level of risk, either. "until they're safe" means never, as far as anyone can tell.
Overall, I see him guardedly allowing that nuclear energy can be an intermediate step between carbon-based power generation and fully green technologies, after a further period of research and development to improve our handling of security and waste management. Of course, this would most likely result in nuclear power meeting whatever standards he's reluctant to specify just in time for it to be made obsolete by the future technologies that he pretends to intend that it bridge us to.
septic do you consider yourself a christian?
Yes. Not the bible-thumping, rapturist, young-earth creationist sort, though, so please don't paint me with the broadest brush in your kit, ok?
Ok, so you're conservative on an issue. On several, probably. That's why I see limited utility to the traditional "liberal/conservative" metric. How many issues to you have to be liberal on to be "liberal"? On how many conservative to be "conservative"? As a label goes, neither is tremendously useful.
I was talking to James. I have yet to see a scrap of evidence that you take even one conservative position. As for the traditional division, you'd have to take an aggregate of your veiws, weighted according to their importance to you. I'm no fan of the death penalty, a liberal position. I think we need to follow the Western European Social Democrats' example on unemployment benefits, a very liberal position. I still consider myself a conservative, and I suggest that anyone who refuses to identify which end of the spectrum, left or right, he leans towards has an underhanded motive for his refusal. I'm certainly closer to the center than to the outer reaches of the right, but I have no problem saying loudly and clearly that I'm to the right of center.
What? You don't like it when I play your game better than you?
Are you kidding? I think my "separation of church and state" contrast, in particular, was completely on the level. Yours, not so much. There's a difference between a public space and a government space. The liberal approach would prevent private citizens from obtaining permission for a display of a religious symbol in a city park, as well as obviously disallowing them on the courthouse steps. The conservative approach would ensure equal access for all in the city park, while of course disallowing such displays in places like the courthouse steps, where the display could be construed as government promotion of religion. Surely, you don't paint all conservatives with the bible-thumper brush? There's a difference between conservatives and religious zealots.
Of course, being mostly conservative myself, there's probably a tendency to slant some of my statements towards my own views...but I made an effort to keep an even keel in my comparisons. You went way off the deep end, and have the gall to call your coloring of the issues equivalent to mine? It hardly makes it worthwhile to debate you when you take the "take what you can, give nothing back" approach. So I'm done (well, it's also 8:15PM here, another factor in my decision to log off). Enjoy your football game. Good night!
#20 - Sat Sep 20, 2008 1:19 PM EDTI was merely asking him to show evidence that roman tax men or british owners of drinking establishments who happen to lean to the right plan to vote for Obama. I was mocking him. I acutally would have expected you to catch the "barkeeper" reference.
Intentionally being obtuse lost its luster for me back around sixth grade. You knew what he meant, you posted some responses indicating that you knew what he meant, you asked for evidence that conservative "barkeepers" were voting for McCain, and having got the evidence you now want to play word games? That's nice, but a bit transparent, don't you think? A reasonable person would assume you were asking for evidence of conservative defection to the Obama camp. I merely provided the evidence. Get over it.
Actually, his position isn't "as long as we address", it's "after we find a solution," which falsely suggests that there isn't one and that the issue needs decades of "study" before a decision is made.
Again, I see you substituting your own interpretation of Obama's words for Obama's words. Please refer me to where he said the issue needs decades of study before a decision is made.
Sounds like he'd like to be rid of nuclear (and coal) power plants today, but sees the need to make an orderly transition away from them. Pro-(safe)nuke? I think not!
Again, sounds like your opinion. But let me ask this-- if the US could produce all the energy for its needs from renewable sources which did NOT leave radioactive waste with a half-life in the thousands of years, which solution would you prefer? The safe and renewable source or nuclear power?
How likely is it that nuclear energy will become the main source of energy production in the foreseeable future?
"until they're safe" means never, as far as anyone can tell.
Again, this seems like your opinion of Obama's thoughts substituted for Obama's thoughts.
Yes, we get it. You don't like Barack Obama.
I was talking to James. I have yet to see a scrap of evidence that you take even one conservative position.
Quite obviously you weren't. You quoted me. That would have been an odd thing to do if you were "talking to James."
As for the traditional division, you'd have to take an aggregate of your veiws, weighted according to their importance to you.
Or we could recognize that there are a variety of axes upon which people differ that render the "left/right" measurement outdated and useless. See, for instance, the Nolan chart.
I suggest that anyone who refuses to identify which end of the spectrum, left or right, he leans towards has an underhanded motive for his refusal.
I suggest that anyone who demands adherence to a strictly "left/right" measurement has an underhanded motive for his insistence. While I have no problem identifying that on this truncated and ridiculous one-dimensional measurement I fall to the left of center, I think such a measurement fails to allow for possible congruence the members of the "left" and "right" may have in common.
Are you kidding? I think my "separation of church and state" contrast, in particular, was completely on the level. Yours, not so much.
No, I'm not kidding. While I recognize that you Believe your contrast on "separation of church and state" is "on the level," it quite obviously is ridiculously overblown. Aside from the fact that it apparently completely dismisses the significant number of religious liberals, and despite your clear identification of the difference between public space and government space, you go on to conflate the two spaces (and, not coincidentally, assign a much more egalitarian view of conservatives regarding religious tolerance than is currently exhibited by religious conservatives).
As a for instance, the "liberal" ACLU has on a number of occasions defended free exercise, especially in regards to the practice of religion by students in school. On the other hand, religious conservatives daily engage in attempts to inject religion into the science classroom, enshrine religious symbolism in the nation's courthouses, and reserve preferential treatment for mainstream theism. Denying that this is the case is simply foolish.
Surely, you don't paint all conservatives with the bible-thumper brush? There's a difference between conservatives and religious zealots.
Surely you don't paint all liberals with the strident-atheist brush? There's a difference between liberals and anti-theists.
Of course, being mostly conservative myself, there's probably a tendency to slant some of my statements towards my own views..
You think?
You went way off the deep end, and have the gall to call your coloring of the issues equivalent to mine?
Absolutely. And find it interesting that you so clearly miss the depth to which your "coloring of the issues" approaches the extremely disingenuous.
It hardly makes it worthwhile to debate you when you take the "take what you can, give nothing back" approach.
Right, because that's so obviously what I've done here. Please stow away your feigned outrage. Newsvine is all stocked up on this. We don't need any more.
On the environment, I guess you don't get the difference between liberals and conservatives. I wonder if you might be conservative on the environment, as well. Liberals are all about eliminating human impact on the environment to the greatest extent possible, if they're environmentally-minded.
I think this is merely your own definition, and not anything that liberals (as though we're a monolithic group-- part of the problem your one-axis measurement lends itself to) ascribe to themselves. For you, they're attempting to limit impacts "to the greatest extent possible." From what I can see, we're for the limitation to the extent that is prudent.
most liberals recognize that there is no way to eliminate human impacts on the environment, but that there are ways to manage those impacts. Painting liberals as a conglomeration of luddites attempting to return humanity to the stone age may play well to conservative audiences, but it really is a short-sighted caricature of the position of many, if not most, liberals.
I just object when one is substituted for the other. In some places, I get the feeling that there's some incentive to rush out and commit a crime so you can reap the benefits. As for the death penalty, I'm against it.
Glad to hear it. (You may want to visit these articles). I don't think there's evidence for a widespread rush to commit crimes in order to "reap the benefits," but I guess I'd have to hear you lay out exactly what you mean by that phrase before I could really offer any thoughts on the matter.
On business, where's the incentive for a capitalist to put that capital at risk, if he won't reap the lion's share of the rewards?
Who said he can't reap the lion's share of the rewards?
Liberals want the business owner to take all the risk while getting no more reward than his employees.
As a liberal who has started more than one business, I object to your characterization of liberals. Cartoons such as this-- Of course, under the liberals' ideal system, the failed businessman can just go on the dole, like everyone else.
deserve disdain. I could as easily say that under the conservative's ideal system we would return to the days of slavery. Of course, all conservatives would see themselves fulfilling the role of owner, not slave, wouldn't they?
But such caricatures really don't leave us anything to talk about reasonably, then, do they?
there seems to be a witch hunt against any public reference to anything vaguely judaeo-christian, apparently since christians are in the majority?
The War on Christians ™ meme? That's so 1990s. Not to mention patently false.
My questions are:
How is nuclear energy going to reduce the dependency on oil? What percentage of US electricity is generated from Oil?
Why isn't McCain talking about reprocessing of spent fuel rods anymore? Did somebody inform him that he didn't know what he was talking about and that reprocessing is a terrible idea?
#21 - Sat Sep 20, 2008 2:32 PM EDTPretty much.
He probably wouldn't be supporting drilling so staunchly either if it weren't for having to appear more Conservative to rally his base. We all remember how anti-drilling he has been in the past. Now that he is getting a lot of his campaign cash from big oil, he's kind of locked into that mind frame. I wish he'd extend his energy plans though, I don't support him but if he ends up in the White House - I fear his lack of focus.
Did somebody inform him that he didn't know what he was talking about and that reprocessing is a terrible idea?
Reprocessing is a great idea. France has been doing it for decades and is the largest net power exporter in Europe.
Reprocessing Is Not the "Solution" to the Nuclear Waste Problem
Nuclear Waste : The Unsolvable Problem
Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing: The Mythical Silver Bullet
Points against:
plutonium issues, expense, uranium exhaustian
Nuclear waste repository case studies
I do recall Obama being against drilling as well as the whole democratic establishiment. that have changed there tune on this over the last several monhts. To buy votes of course. But again this is not a change election. Both parties are not change parts. the only time we will get change is we have new parties.
#22 - Sun Sep 21, 2008 10:25 AM EDTNot to buy votes, but because it's something the American people seem to want.
Wouldn't you prefer a President who listens to the people who put him in office? The Democrats have compromised on drilling. They're now supporting it in some areas where it won't harm the local economy or wildlife.
America is like a diabetic patient that has allowed the diabetes to get out of control. And that as a consequence of the neglect of her over all health she must now cut off a leg that she loves in order to save her own life. Now she really doesn't want to cut that leg off but her refusal to eat right and exercise moderately has placed her in the position of choosing between her leg or her life. This is a everyday scenario for diabetic patients yet it really is the most appropriate analogy regarding the upcoming election concerning the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. You see for the last 8 years the American People have kept giving the Republican Party the benefit of the doubt over and over from scandal to scandal as well as over the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan. But with the " WALL ST. MELTDOWN "which is the latest episode which not only defines but clearly demonstrates that the Republican Party and its policy's are killing America, in much the very same way that lack of blood flow in the leg of a diabetic poisons a diabetic. Now we all know that Americans love low taxes but and less regulation and minimal interference from Washington but when a diabetics health has been diagnosed by the doctor their failure to follow his/her prescriptions often lead to amputation of that arm or leg. Well the doctors have prescribed solutions to and for the Republican Party and they just like to many diabetic patients have failed to heed the doctors advice and just like with a diabetic it is time now for the next step which is amputation of the bad part to try and protect the rest of the body. The Republican Party is the diseased part of America. This election is the surgery and its time to cut the disease ( the Republican Party) off from power before it totally kills America.
#23 - Sun Sep 21, 2008 6:07 PM EDTI hear ya renard----but there are some others who are not Republicans who are accomplices of the Republican party that need a good "wood shed" experience as well.
Anyone who does not understand that the current economic problems are the fault of a single political party simply is not paying attention.
Then stop beating yourself up Space guy, and pay attention!
In 1999, McCain joined with other Republicans to push through the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. This act removed barriers between banking, investment and insurance companies. That bill paved the way for companies such as AIG and Lehman Brothers to become behemoths laden with bad loans and investments.
Now, faced with the unintended consequences of his ill-considered love of deregulation, McCain (and his water carriers-- I'm looking at you, space guy) seeks any scapegoat with which to deflect criticism of his former position. Flip flop number 70-something? You bet.
If John McCain wants to see who is responsible for this mess, he need look no farther than the nearest mirror.
John Mccain has to make up lies about Obama because he cant make up any new lies to make himself look good. McCain has one story and thats POW and when that loses its shine or ceases to be important to the voters he is left with lying on the Black Guy. Which every one knows is one of the favorite things that old white men have done for generations " when all else fails blame it on the Black guy"
#24 - Mon Sep 22, 2008 10:02 AM EDTJohn Mccain has to make up lies about Obama because he cant make up any new lies to make himself look good. McCain has one story and thats POW and when that loses its shine or ceases to be important to the voters he is left with lying on the Black Guy. Which every one knows is one of the favorite things that old white men have done for generations " when all else fails blame it on the Black guy
Yes and when you run out of argument, and or when that argument is shown to be fallacious, you retreat to playing the race card.
If Barack Obama loses it will be because his change is shown to be nothing more than 60's liberalism repackaged into a fresh face.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Log In | Register
