|
|
On September 07 2012 12:44 Jumbled 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. 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.
Normally, you're right. However, the one key problem with your analysis is that the democrats crapped on Israel, thereby pissing off all of the Jewish voters in Florida. I think Florida's a lock for Romney now.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
would be so hilarious if a bunch of zionist geezers decide florida. being proud of having those guys voting for you, now that's a far more serious problem.
|
On September 07 2012 12:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 12:44 Jumbled 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. 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. Normally, you're right. However, the one key problem with your analysis is that the democrats crapped on Israel, thereby pissing off all of the Jewish voters in Florida. I think Florida's a lock for Romney now.
xDaunt, if you really think Romney has Florida locked just because of one incredibly inconsequential thing like this, then you really are as delusional as most of us already believe you are.
|
I wonder if we're going to actually hear how honest the DNC was compared to the RNC, or if it's just going to be swept under the rug.
|
On September 07 2012 13:04 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 12:59 xDaunt wrote:On September 07 2012 12:44 Jumbled 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. 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. Normally, you're right. However, the one key problem with your analysis is that the democrats crapped on Israel, thereby pissing off all of the Jewish voters in Florida. I think Florida's a lock for Romney now. xDaunt, if you really think Romney has Florida locked just because of one incredibly inconsequential thing like this, then you really are as delusional as most of us already believe you are. Why do you think Obama and the democrats tripped over themselves to get that shit fixed yesterday? Do you think that they enjoyed looking like a bunch of retards when Villaraigosa had to violate parliamentary procedure to ram the platform amendment through?
You're clearly the one who is delusional about the significance of what happened.
|
On September 07 2012 13:06 aksfjh wrote: I wonder if we're going to actually hear how honest the DNC was compared to the RNC, or if it's just going to be swept under the rug.
http://factcheck.org/2012/09/our-clinton-nightmare/
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c81e3/c81e334f952fa6a3b77a0f55297a8c05972c04b5" alt=""
Tonight's speeches will probably be covered on there tommorrow. Overall, pretty legit so far.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i hope romney wins so middle class americans get punished hard for it. LOL. to think the galls of this guy with that tax policy in this particular juncture in time can have a chance is really mindblowing.
|
On September 07 2012 13:10 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 13:06 aksfjh wrote: I wonder if we're going to actually hear how honest the DNC was compared to the RNC, or if it's just going to be swept under the rug. http://factcheck.org/2012/09/our-clinton-nightmare/data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c81e3/c81e334f952fa6a3b77a0f55297a8c05972c04b5" alt="" Tonight's speeches will probably be covered on there tommorrow. Overall, pretty legit so far. Yea, that's fairly evident. What I'm really wondering is if the "media" will nail Republicans for being so far behind Democrats when it comes to campaign integrity. At this point, being balanced would mean exactly pointing out that difference for Americans instead of attempting (as usual) to paint both parties in equally negative light.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
le media will adhere to their expected roles in appearance only. it's a kind of self reference paradox really, in that without fair media coverage the audience will never learn the situation accurately enough to judge whether the media coverage is fair.
|
On September 07 2012 13:17 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 13:10 screamingpalm wrote:On September 07 2012 13:06 aksfjh wrote: I wonder if we're going to actually hear how honest the DNC was compared to the RNC, or if it's just going to be swept under the rug. http://factcheck.org/2012/09/our-clinton-nightmare/data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c81e3/c81e334f952fa6a3b77a0f55297a8c05972c04b5" alt="" Tonight's speeches will probably be covered on there tommorrow. Overall, pretty legit so far. Yea, that's fairly evident. What I'm really wondering is if the "media" will nail Republicans for being so far behind Democrats when it comes to campaign integrity. At this point, being balanced would mean exactly pointing out that difference for Americans instead of attempting (as usual) to paint both parties in equally negative light.
And add more fuel to the "liberal media" cries. NBC implied that to an extent, but the MSM has to be careful to pull punches about such things if they want to keep their access inside the beltway's exclusive club. Chris Hedges sometimes talks about that as one of the reasons he left the NY Times, for example.
|
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
Canada's economy benefits greatly from the natural gas industry, to the tune of $100 billion a year. It's estimated the industry employs 189,000 people directly and and estimated 600,000 people both directly and indirectly.
CALGARY, AB, Aug. 24, 2011/ Troy Media/ – Natural gas often flies under the radar compared to its more glamorous and headline-catching partner, oil. But the numbers show it plays a considerable role in the Canadian economy.
Putting an exact dollar value on the size of the Canadian natural gas industry is nearly impossible because it is intertwined with so many other industries and because there are so many indirect effects to account for. However, an analysis of available numbers shows three things: natural gas accounts for a significant proportion of Canada’s exports, it is responsible for much of the exploratory drilling in western Canada, and is responsible for a sizeable per centage of Canadian economic activity.
Canada is the world’s third largest producer of natural gas (behind the United States and Russia) and exports approximately 60 per cent of its production to the U.S. During the mid-decade energy boom, a common perception was that it was primarily an oil boom. While the oil sands played a prominent role, Canadian gas exports were larger than oil exports from 2000 until 2006, and there were more than twice as many gas wells drilled as oil wells.
One guess: $100 billion
A special report prepared by IHS Global Insight for the American Natural Gas Alliance estimated the value of Canada’s gas industry at just more than $100 billion in 2008. Of the $100 billion total, $70 billion is directly generated by the industry and the other $30 billion comes from indirect (industries that supply the gas sector) and induced (income spent by those employed in the gas sector) economic activity.
To put $100 billion in perspective, Canada’s nominal gross domestic product (GDP) was $1.6 trillion in 2008. This would make natural gas ultimately responsible for 6.7 per cent of Canadian economic activity. In Alberta, by far the largest participant in the gas sector, that proportion surges to 28 per cent and in British Columbia and Saskatchewan, gas accounts for roughly five per cent of the economy. While natural gas and its offshoots do directly accrue economic benefits to every province, more than 85 per cent of the value added is in western Canada.
Natural gas is also a large employer. However, because the industry is so capital intensive and has a concentration of higher wage positions, the total number of jobs generated by natural gas is much larger than just those working directly in the industry. The IHS survey estimates 189,000 people were directly employed in the gas sector in 2008 and the industry is ultimately responsible for 599,000 positions, when all the indirect and induced jobs are accounted for.
That is roughly twice the number of Canadians employed in the entire agriculture sector.
Gas helps harvest oil
The majority of Canada’s gas is produced in Alberta but, despite having less than four million people, the prairie province is also the largest user of gas at 39 per cent of the national total. This is largely because vast swaths of the fuel in the oil sands extraction process and to produce electricity.
Ontario is the second largest user at 33 per cent. In terms of uses, Canadian industrial and commercial users account for 60 per cent of national consumption, while residential and electrical generation account for 26 per cent and 14 per cent respectively.
Gas in power generation is growing in popularity as natural gas power plants have become more cost-effective and the environmental concerns associated with carbon emissions (i.e. coal) have moved to the forefront. Around 6.5 per cent of Canada’s electricity comes from gas (although this proportion is much higher in some provinces €“ in Alberta, for example, it’s 40 per cent of total electricity capacity) and it is growing at the expense of coal.
Because production often occurs in remote areas, the industry can give rise to towns that rely almost exclusively on the resource for their livelihood. In western Canada, and particularly in Alberta and B.C., there are numerous towns where, without gas extraction, the restaurants, bars, auto dealerships and various other businesses in these rural regions would wither.
Even in some larger and more diversified economies, such as Calgary, Fort St. John, Medicine Hat and Grande Prairie, many of the finance, retail and transportation industries would diminish in size significantly without the economic activity associated with gas.
|
Natural gas is really good and really cheap (trading still at near record lows), and best of all, it's a domestic source of energy. The only issue is adaption of natural gas is very low due to it being a relatively new type of energy compared to coal or oil.
|
On September 07 2012 12:25 MinusPlus wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 12:22 dvorakftw wrote: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. You posted this already. They seemed like fairly mild offenses (for the most part) then, too. Also, do you have like a compendium of these links or something? You post a link to something relevant (barely, usually) in almost every post, usually about 2 minutes apart. It's as if you had a direct line to every talking point that's already been brought up, discussed, and debunked here since before the thread started. \ I read a lot and I remember most of what I read. That makes it easy to search and find.
And can you explain how correctly noting the problems London had with its Olympics is worse than dissing the Queen and the Prime Minister and Winston?
|
Am I the only one getting sick and tired of listening to Dems harp on the wage gap myth?
I know they need the woman vote and the support of feminist groups to win the election and all, but do they really think women are gonna run to the GOP if the Dems stop buying into failboat statistics on a single issue?
|
The new non-farm payroll number coming out in 8 hours is going to have a bigger impact on the election/undecideds than any of the speeches.
8:30 Friday morning : http://www.bls.gov/ces/
|
On September 07 2012 13:37 sunprince wrote: Am I the only one getting sick and tired of listening to Dems harp on the wage gap myth?
I know they need the woman vote and the support of feminist groups to win the election and all, but do they really think women are gonna run to the GOP if the Dems stop buying into failboat statistics on a single issue? Anyone with a good forum memory knows that you really don't enjoy discussions of the wage gap lol. You think it is a myth, and many others do as well, but, believe it or not, large numbers of people do not agree with your judgement, and I really don't think many swing voters are going to be too swayed either way in regards to the issue.
|
On September 07 2012 13:41 RCMDVA wrote:The new non-farm payroll number coming out in 8 hours is going to have a bigger impact on the election/undecideds than any of the speeches. 8:30 Friday morning : http://www.bls.gov/ces/ I think you are vastly over-estimating the economic suavity of the swing voter base, many will not even acknowledge the numbers release.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On September 07 2012 13:37 sunprince wrote: Am I the only one getting sick and tired of listening to Dems harp on the wage gap myth?
I know they need the woman vote and the support of feminist groups to win the election and all, but do they really think women are gonna run to the GOP if the Dems stop buying into failboat statistics on a single issue? do you have compelling research suggesting that it is indeed a myth?
|
Best report of the Obama Speech by far.
Obama: 'Help Us Destroy Jesus And Start A New Age Of Liberal Darkness'
CHARLOTTE, NC—With the savage roar of the heathen Democratic horde rising all around him, President Barack Obama delivered an incendiary speech to close his party’s national convention Thursday night, commanding the ultraprogressive minions in attendance to help him “destroy Jesus and usher in a new age of liberal darkness that shall reign o’er the earth for a thousand years.”
The thunderous 45-minute address—during which the president argued for a second term so that he could “finally kill Jesus once and for all, as well as all those who worship him”—was well received by the frenzied, wild-eyed audience, whose piercing chants of “Four more years!” and “Slaughter the believers!” echoed throughout the Time Warner Cable Arena.
“My fellow Americans and godless infidels, I command you to join me as we cast an endless pall of far-left evil across the hills and valleys of our nation!” Obama bellowed from the stage, as thousands in attendance moaned in compliance and gyrated their hips and groins in a lascivious dance. “Together, as a barbarian people forged by the wicked flames of irreligiosity and united by visions of a liberal dystopia, we will rise up as one to scorch the earth with boundless amorality.”
“The streets shall run red with the blood of forced sodomy, performed daily upon every American man, woman, and child!” the commander-in-chief shouted, froth forming around his mouth as the crowd threw hundreds of aborted fetuses onto the stage. “Die, Christians, die!”
Slamming his fists on the lectern until his hands began to bleed, Obama proceeded to lay out a “three-point plan of sin and lechery” for his second term. If reelected, the president said, he would begin by banning organized religion entirely—starting with Christianity—and burning all churches to the ground, preferably “with their wretched, Jesus-loving congregants still huddled inside like rats.”
As members of the audience violently tugged at their genitals and howled like sex-starved, atheist wolves, Obama stated that his administration would then seek to make free, taxpayer-funded abortions legal at any stage of pregnancy, even up to one full year after birth, in order to supply his newly created “federal stem-cell harvesting plants” with raw materials.
In addition, the cackling president vowed to “end traditional marriage as we know it” by passing legislation that would allow only homosexuals to raise children, a longtime Democratic policy goal.
“A glorious new age of sinister, unconstrained liberalism is dawning! Oh, dear Satan, I can feel it coursing through my veins at this very moment!” shrieked Obama, ripping off his shirt to reveal an ornate tattoo of a pentagram, with a different homosexual act positioned at each of the star’s five points. “Agnosticism, contempt for human life, and radical sexual experimentation shall rule the day! Any good, virtuous, family-values-oriented Christian Americans who seek to topple our magnificent liberal kingdom of eternal darkness will be powerless to stop us! We will crush them!”
Added Obama, “Thank you, may Satan reward you all, and may God tremble in fear at the United States of America!”
The president was then handed an unbaptized, orphaned newborn baby drenched in the blood of 666 slaughtered Christians, which he handed over to its new, gleefully squealing homosexual parents.
|
On September 07 2012 13:37 sunprince wrote: Am I the only one getting sick and tired of listening to Dems harp on the wage gap myth?
I know they need the woman vote and the support of feminist groups to win the election and all, but do they really think women are gonna run to the GOP if the Dems stop buying into failboat statistics on a single issue? No you're no alone, this bogus statistic doesn't help the conversation and probably isn't helpful in achieving the goal of reducing income disparity. The statistic makes it sound like employers are paying women less for doing the same job. In reality, women often do not go into the same jobs as men, there is evidence that women don't work as many hours as men, and women more often than men choose to sacrifice their careers for their family.
Especially on the former point (choice of career field), there is probably some improvement that can and should be made... things like how girls are treated and what interests are encouraged for them early in life probably have an impact here. It's both an issue of fairness but also of maximizing efficiency in a global capitalist system... we don't want to have talented young women who we are steering into careers where they won't tap their full potential, because that reduces our national productivity/competitiveness.
(edit: links http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/re/articles/?id=2160 http://www.city-journal.org/2011/21_3_gender-gap.html )
|
|
|
|