|
|
On September 07 2012 12:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 12:25 Sadist wrote:On September 07 2012 12:09 xDaunt wrote:On September 07 2012 12:06 Sadist wrote:On September 07 2012 12:05 xDaunt wrote:
What a useless speech. To sum it up, we have seen all of this shit before. That was definitely not the speech that Obama needed to give. His speech was great. Clinton pounded the policy last night. He did what he needed to do, explain the clear difference in ideologies between himself and mitt romney. This isn't just an election based on a person, its an ideological election (it has sad that politics has come to that, but IMO blame the republicans/tea party) It was an empty rhetorical appeal. It was 2008 all over again. He needed to really make a case for himself with some very specific solutions. It just wasn't there. He was never going to convince you anyway. I swear you and savio are the same person. It was like he when he was elected Savio was going around saying what he needed to do, like he was a republican and had the same ideas/ideology. You and him disagree on some very basic things so anything he suggests will never be good enough for you because you will disagree with it from an ideological standpoint. Of course he doesn't need to convince me because he never will, just as he doesn't need to convince you because you are already in the bag. He needed to convince all of the swing voters out there who are looking around at their diminished circumstances and wondering why they want to give the current leadership another four years. He didn't do it.
The opinion of one guy on the internet determining if every swing voter in the land watching the speech was moved or wasn't moved. They must not have been moved because I read it on the internet.
PS: Any links to it yet? I missed parts of it.
|
On September 07 2012 12:16 Mysticesper wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 12:13 aksfjh wrote:On September 07 2012 12:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 07 2012 11:51 TheSwedishFan wrote:On September 07 2012 11:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
There is no such thing as Clean Coal Mr. President. there is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_coal Why not just replace coal plants with nat gas? Its cheaper and cleaner (though not perfectly clean ofc). If my SimCity experience has taught me anything, natural gas burning is a much lower energy output process. Otherwise, storage and transportation is a lot more hazardous and costly. Natural gas is great for home heating systems (furnaces, boilers). Outside of that, it's not great.
Disagree:
The International Energy Agency has just released some data that green-minded fans of shale gas should appreciate. The organisation's latest figures show that America's carbon-dioxide emissions from generating energy have fallen by 450m tonnes, more than in any other country over the past five years. The turnaround has been welcomed by many, and Fatih Birol, the IEA's chief economist, ascribes much of the credit to a shift away from dirty coal towards cleaner gas, according to an article in the Financial Times.
The importance of coal in America's energy mix has indeed tumbled since 1997, from almost half of electricity generation to just 36.7% in February, according to America's Energy Information Administration (see chart). This has come about mostly because of an increase in the use of natural gas (from 21.6% to 29.4% over the same period) rather than renewable energy (from 8.3% to 12.1%).
Source
|
On September 07 2012 12:29 Supert0fu wrote:
Democrats just tore the republicans a new one with this convention. Told the American public how it was regarding their proposals. That's what you get for not explaining how your policies work.
Honestly, the enduring legacy of this convention is likely going to be the faux pas with the party platform.
|
On September 07 2012 12:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 12:29 Supert0fu wrote:
Democrats just tore the republicans a new one with this convention. Told the American public how it was regarding their proposals. That's what you get for not explaining how your policies work. Honestly, the enduring legacy of this convention is likely going to be the faux pas with the party platform.
Shoot. I was just about to ask which party's convention you believed had gone better. =(
|
United States13896 Posts
On September 07 2012 12:22 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 11:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
“You might not be ready for diplomacy with Beijing if you can’t visit the Olympics w/o insulting our closest ally.”
Amazing. It's like he knows no one has any clue about all the things he's done to England over the last three and a half years. Then again, I'm certain he considers an iPod with his speeches the greatest gift of all.
dvorakftw I just want to say reading your posts and trying understand your positions would be much easier and this thread would be improved a lot if you would explain and incorporate the articles you are linking to in your posts. Throwing links out there left and right without commenting much about them or prefacing what is in them does not provide any of the other people in this thread with the drive to actually go out and read this material you are putting on the table. You aren't doing yourself a service, and more importantly you aren't helping the conversation in this thread.
Please go the extra step and expand a little bit when you are posting these links, and give us a frame of reference. The goal of this thread should be to debate and ultimately come to a point where we are all better informed and prepared to make a decision in November, not to slap down articles with every post as if to say "This proves it! This is why I'm right!"
The post xDaunt made a few pages ago about "The Price of Politics" had its flaws, but he went out of his way to explain and try to persuade. Please make that extra effort, because reading your posts is becoming tiring.
edit: Point being, I didn't necessarily agree with xDaunt's interpretation of the article, but he put forth a standpoint that warranted looking into, and as a result I'm planning on picking up that book to better inform myself. That's a positive result and the sign of a quality post.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 07 2012 12:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 12:29 Supert0fu wrote:
Democrats just tore the republicans a new one with this convention. Told the American public how it was regarding their proposals. That's what you get for not explaining how your policies work. Honestly, the enduring legacy of this convention is likely going to be the faux pas with the party platform.
Not any worse than that Ron Paul debacle.
|
On September 07 2012 12:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 12:16 Mysticesper wrote:On September 07 2012 12:13 aksfjh wrote:On September 07 2012 12:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 07 2012 11:51 TheSwedishFan wrote:On September 07 2012 11:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
There is no such thing as Clean Coal Mr. President. there is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_coal Why not just replace coal plants with nat gas? Its cheaper and cleaner (though not perfectly clean ofc). If my SimCity experience has taught me anything, natural gas burning is a much lower energy output process. Otherwise, storage and transportation is a lot more hazardous and costly. Natural gas is great for home heating systems (furnaces, boilers). Outside of that, it's not great. Disagree: Show nested quote +The International Energy Agency has just released some data that green-minded fans of shale gas should appreciate. The organisation's latest figures show that America's carbon-dioxide emissions from generating energy have fallen by 450m tonnes, more than in any other country over the past five years. The turnaround has been welcomed by many, and Fatih Birol, the IEA's chief economist, ascribes much of the credit to a shift away from dirty coal towards cleaner gas, according to an article in the Financial Times.
The importance of coal in America's energy mix has indeed tumbled since 1997, from almost half of electricity generation to just 36.7% in February, according to America's Energy Information Administration (see chart). This has come about mostly because of an increase in the use of natural gas (from 21.6% to 29.4% over the same period) rather than renewable energy (from 8.3% to 12.1%). Source
As long as there's no fracking in my neighborhood and flammable tap water, nat gas is pretty decent. You can definately tell the difference just looking at how much cleaner the busses are that use nat gas when our public transportation system switched over.
|
On September 07 2012 12:36 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 12:31 xDaunt wrote:On September 07 2012 12:29 Supert0fu wrote:
Democrats just tore the republicans a new one with this convention. Told the American public how it was regarding their proposals. That's what you get for not explaining how your policies work. Honestly, the enduring legacy of this convention is likely going to be the faux pas with the party platform. Not any worse than that Ron Paul debacle.
The Ron Paul thing isn't going to result in major swing states going for Obama.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 07 2012 12:39 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 12:36 Souma wrote:On September 07 2012 12:31 xDaunt wrote:On September 07 2012 12:29 Supert0fu wrote:
Democrats just tore the republicans a new one with this convention. Told the American public how it was regarding their proposals. That's what you get for not explaining how your policies work. Honestly, the enduring legacy of this convention is likely going to be the faux pas with the party platform. Not any worse than that Ron Paul debacle. The Ron Paul thing isn't going to result in major swing states going for Obama.
Bill Clinton might swing 'em his way though.  I'd argue that was quite the legacy this convention.
|
On September 07 2012 11:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:I have a messy room I clean it up by shoving everything into the closet and shutting the door. Is the room clean? What do I do when it becomes messy again?
Of course to put things in perspective, the EPA says your breath is pollution.
|
On September 07 2012 12:39 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 12:36 Souma wrote:On September 07 2012 12:31 xDaunt wrote:On September 07 2012 12:29 Supert0fu wrote:
Democrats just tore the republicans a new one with this convention. Told the American public how it was regarding their proposals. That's what you get for not explaining how your policies work. Honestly, the enduring legacy of this convention is likely going to be the faux pas with the party platform. Not any worse than that Ron Paul debacle. The Ron Paul thing isn't going to result in major swing states going for Obama.
So, from where we are right now, what do you believe would have to happen to swing these states toward Obama?
|
On September 07 2012 12:05 xDaunt wrote:
What a useless speech. To sum it up, we have seen all of this shit before. That was definitely not the speech that Obama needed to give.
It was a great speech. Did it move the needle, so to speak? Probably not. But neither did Romney's.
It wasn't my favorite speech of the convention -- Bill killed it -- but it was the best written speech.
I really liked how he called out people that blame the government -- or women, or gays, or immigrants -- for ALL their problems. It's an appeal to independents and a subtle implication that the other parties positions on issues across the board.
And I like how he took the 'You didn't build that' attacks and turned into a compelling arc of genuinely inspiring, personal, and compelling stories concluding that 'You did that' and 'You are the change'. I thought I was watching Dead Poet's Society or something.
So strictly on an aesthetic, literary level, it was a riveting speech. I don't know if politically it made a difference, but it reminded me that Obama is the man to beat.
And I think there is more pressure on Romney and Ryan to address some of the big questions hanging around their policies, and simply step up their game overall.
|
What's funny is how everyone thinks presidents (or even the government for that matter) control and dictate the economy. News flash - no president can control the econony, it's just the unintelligence of the American voting public that keeps the whole debate alive. The economy is much larger and much more complex than government, let alone the president, can control with any degree of certainty with the tools they have available.
Which is just one of the many reasons that US elections are just one giant failure of stupidity, misinformation, and lazy voters. Any time I pay attention to the mass media, whether on TV or in print, I honestly just kind of laugh at it all. To think human beings buy into that misinformation just makes the mind boggle at how unintelligent the majority of humans are. There truly is no hope for America - the writing is on the wall.
|
On September 07 2012 12:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 12:29 Supert0fu wrote:
Democrats just tore the republicans a new one with this convention. Told the American public how it was regarding their proposals. That's what you get for not explaining how your policies work. Honestly, the enduring legacy of this convention is likely going to be the faux pas with the party platform.
I imagine it will be pretty minor within America, simply because there just isn't as much focus on foreign policy, which is what the dispute centred on. On the other hand, if you're looking for one thing to point to that went poorly in the convention, it's probably your best pick.
|
On September 07 2012 12:40 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 12:39 xDaunt wrote:On September 07 2012 12:36 Souma wrote:On September 07 2012 12:31 xDaunt wrote:On September 07 2012 12:29 Supert0fu wrote:
Democrats just tore the republicans a new one with this convention. Told the American public how it was regarding their proposals. That's what you get for not explaining how your policies work. Honestly, the enduring legacy of this convention is likely going to be the faux pas with the party platform. Not any worse than that Ron Paul debacle. The Ron Paul thing isn't going to result in major swing states going for Obama. Bill Clinton might swing 'em his way though. I'd argue that was quite the legacy this convention.
Clinton's speech was awesome and easily the best of either convention. The critical problem is that basically no one saw it. Everyone was watching football.
|
On September 07 2012 12:06 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 12:05 xDaunt wrote:
What a useless speech. To sum it up, we have seen all of this shit before. That was definitely not the speech that Obama needed to give. His speech was great. Clinton pounded the policy last night. He did what he needed to do, explain the clear difference in ideologies between himself and mitt romney. This isn't just an election based on a person, its an ideological election (it has sad that politics has come to that, but IMO blame the republicans/tea party)
The Republicans and Tea Party are to blame for this election being about ideas instead of personality? I guess I have to agree.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On September 07 2012 12:22 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 11:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
“You might not be ready for diplomacy with Beijing if you can’t visit the Olympics w/o insulting our closest ally.”
Amazing. It's like he knows no one has any clue about all the things he's done to England over the last three and a half years. Then again, I'm certain he considers an iPod with his speeches the greatest gift of all.
LOL that article is hilarious
churchill isn't that great of a guy, letting millions of indians starve and everything. having a bust of him in the oval office would be vulgar. obama at least knows his history enough to not be vulgar, that's rather principled.
In response to an urgent request by the Secretary of State for India, Leo Amery, and Viceroy of India, Wavell, to release food stocks for India, Churchill responded with a telegram to Wavell asking, if food was so scarce, "why Gandhi hadn't died yet."
In July 1940, newly in office, he welcomed reports of the emerging conflict between the Muslim League and the Indian Congress, hoping "it would be bitter and bloody".
the bit about brits getting offended by americna movies is just fantastic. obama wants to bring the state visit down to a personal level, perhaps inspired by a critical sensitivity towards political formalities. this shows that he thinks the government is not above the people at all. rather fine gesture i should say, and obviously so to anyone mildly informed in the last 40 years of social theory.
but really, you do realize the sun, the daily telegraph, etc etc are tabloids, just like the ny daily news, right? do you go off quoting scandalous reports of esquire to prove a point?
|
On September 07 2012 12:39 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 12:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 07 2012 12:16 Mysticesper wrote:On September 07 2012 12:13 aksfjh wrote:On September 07 2012 12:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 07 2012 11:51 TheSwedishFan wrote:On September 07 2012 11:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
There is no such thing as Clean Coal Mr. President. there is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_coal Why not just replace coal plants with nat gas? Its cheaper and cleaner (though not perfectly clean ofc). If my SimCity experience has taught me anything, natural gas burning is a much lower energy output process. Otherwise, storage and transportation is a lot more hazardous and costly. Natural gas is great for home heating systems (furnaces, boilers). Outside of that, it's not great. Disagree: The International Energy Agency has just released some data that green-minded fans of shale gas should appreciate. The organisation's latest figures show that America's carbon-dioxide emissions from generating energy have fallen by 450m tonnes, more than in any other country over the past five years. The turnaround has been welcomed by many, and Fatih Birol, the IEA's chief economist, ascribes much of the credit to a shift away from dirty coal towards cleaner gas, according to an article in the Financial Times.
The importance of coal in America's energy mix has indeed tumbled since 1997, from almost half of electricity generation to just 36.7% in February, according to America's Energy Information Administration (see chart). This has come about mostly because of an increase in the use of natural gas (from 21.6% to 29.4% over the same period) rather than renewable energy (from 8.3% to 12.1%). Source As long as there's no fracking in my neighborhood and flammable tap water, nat gas is pretty decent. You can definately tell the difference just looking at how much cleaner the busses are that use nat gas when our public transportation system switched over.
Lol, agreed. Long live NIMBY-ism!!
|
On September 07 2012 12:13 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 12:08 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On September 07 2012 12:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 07 2012 10:56 sevencck wrote:On September 07 2012 09:43 screamingpalm wrote:On September 07 2012 09:35 sevencck wrote:On September 07 2012 09:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 07 2012 09:22 sevencck wrote:On September 07 2012 09:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 07 2012 09:02 sevencck wrote:
[quote]
Except that those arent demonstrably false as facts. Blaming everything bad as Bush's fault is a point of contention, it isn't a fact, but democrats aren't categorically wrong for contending it, since the problems Obama is trying to fix are those that were created when Bush was in office, and since it is more subjective anyway. Nor are they wrong to mock a scenario where the rich pay lower taxes than their secretaries. With what Paul Ryan has in mind, there will simply be more tax money available for programs that benefit the rich, and less for programs that benefit the poor. The democrats aren't lying about what they're trying to do, nor do they deny deficit spending. By contrast, the Republicans have made claims about very specific items that are factual in nature that aren't even contextually true, some of which Clinton pointed to in his speech. So yeah, there's a big difference. Everything bad isn't Bush's fault. That's a fact. If you want to argue that everything bad that happens while he's in office is his responsibility then the same standard must apply to Obama as well. Bush took a country with a 300 billion surplus and turned it into a country with the largest national deficit on planet Earth, and racked up virtually unpayable debts in 8 years. It was advised at one point not to purchase U.S. debt since people thought it was unlikely the U.S. was goign to recover. Add to this an economic meltdown due to laissez-faire economic deregulation, and a very unpopular series of military invasions, and you have the Bush presidency in a nutshell. I don't blame Bush for everything that happened, in fact I always defend him against people who claim he's a war criminal. Obama has to take responsibility for his policies, but the mess he was left isn't his responsibility, that's fully on the prior 8 years of Republican government. So again, there's a difference. Obama's policies are a reflection of the mess he's trying to clean up. It's ignorant to claim his policies engender inadvisable deficit spending when he has no alternative if he wants to get the ball rolling. He was in the red when he took office. The economic meltdown had little to do with "laissez-faire economic deregulation" - that's a fact. I have no idea what you are talking about with "racked up virtually unplayable debts in 8 years." Yes, it was. The subprime mortgage fiasco and the failure of the banks was due to massive deregulation. Same as the situation in Iceland where the banks failed. The dismantling of Glass-Steagall which Clinton signed. Those mostly responsible getting rewarded with positions in Obama's administration. Apples and Oranges. It wasn't dismantled. Part of it was repealed, and it was because Clinton wanted to promote more loans for lower and middle income families, not because he wanted banks to do anything they pleased. The fact that he may have opened up a loophole that was later exploited by a lack of consistent oversight just proves my point. So the housing bubble bursts in 2007, and all the crazy things banks were doing that noone was paying any attention to gets attributed to Clinton back in 1999? Interesting. Also, it's worth noting that, in "..2003 the House Financial Services Committee held a hearing at the urging of the administration to assess safety and soundness issues and to review a recent report by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) that had uncovered accounting discrepancies within the two entities. The hearings never resulted in new legislation or formal investigation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as many of the committee members refused to accept the report and instead rebuked OFHEO for their attempt at regulation." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_financial_crisis_of_2008Here are some additional worthwhile reads: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_housing_bubblehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisisPretty hard to argue that the massive deregulation of financial institutions wasn't a major reason for the severity of the collapse. Deregulation certainly played a role. The financial crisis inquiry commission cited 30 years of deregulation as playing a role. The truth is that deregulation was one factor of many in the financial meltdown, which was one factor of many in the recession. That fact has since morphed into Bush deregulated the banks and caused the recession. But if we can agree then that deregulation was one of the factors that led to the collapse why would you want to vote for Republicans who want to deregulate them further? Is that not just setting ourselves up for another repeat performance? Ironically, it was McCain that wanted to reinstate Glass-Steagall instead of the weaker restrictions Obama settled on.
Which is quite a shame since I thought McCain would have made a terrific president as well. You really had 2 good candidates in 2008, but you got the best political machine of the last quarter of a century in Obama.
As for bank regulations, ever think of just copying Canada bank policies source from 2008 and The World Economic Forum has ranked Canada’s banking system as the most sound in the world, five years in a row article with that phrase as point 3 source.
Seriously just copy other systems that work. I understand it's a bit hard for american due to your libertarian values, which can clash with those of other countries, but it's a position that would need to be discussed by people in finances (most definitely not me) about regulating your banking system. Anyone know why the canadian system wouldn't work?
|
United States13896 Posts
On September 07 2012 12:44 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 12:40 Souma wrote:On September 07 2012 12:39 xDaunt wrote:On September 07 2012 12:36 Souma wrote:On September 07 2012 12:31 xDaunt wrote:On September 07 2012 12:29 Supert0fu wrote:
Democrats just tore the republicans a new one with this convention. Told the American public how it was regarding their proposals. That's what you get for not explaining how your policies work. Honestly, the enduring legacy of this convention is likely going to be the faux pas with the party platform. Not any worse than that Ron Paul debacle. The Ron Paul thing isn't going to result in major swing states going for Obama. Bill Clinton might swing 'em his way though. I'd argue that was quite the legacy this convention. Clinton's speech was awesome and easily the best of either convention. The critical problem is that basically no one saw it. Everyone was watching football.
Actually the ratings only dropped like 3% from 4 years ago for Day 2 of the DNC, which is a surprisingly small drop considering Clinton was going against the NFL kickoff.
Source: http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/09/06/against-cowboysgiants-democratic-national-convention-night-2-draws-25-1-million-viewers-down-800000-from-2008/147709/
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
