Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

[Rimbaud]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

****ing geologists.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

ethanol... increasing cereal 50 cents to decrease gas prices by a cent... at our expense.

Even assuming this were the math, how may more gallons of gas vs. boxes of cereal are sold per year? (yes, I know it's not that simple... )

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

If you aren't in the top 1% then you're a low income nobody.

First off, selecting a residential site for nuclear waste dumping makes no sense given the availability of sparsely populated ones. Secondly, even if residential dumping was the only option available, the government would almost certainly pick sites where the residents would be least able to mount a legal fight against their decision (read: near low income housing). A prime example of how this urban process works is in the construction of highways - I'd venture a guess that the bulk of the people who were forced to move were very poor and/or minorities simply because they wouldn't have the resources to fight the process (I mention minorities here due to the time in which the system was constructed). At the other extreme, you have the construction of highways like 35E where the well-heeled residents had a lot of say in the decision-making - to the point where there's a lengthy stretch of the highway that is capped at a 45 mph speed limit and is classified as a parkway.

 

[Patman]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

6 percent of scientists identify as "Republican" and 9% as "conservative."

I'm surprised it's that high.

I'm surprised its that low... but it usually depends on "scientist"... like "full time professor" maybe... science and engineering tend to skew conservative (something about needing facts and evidence and things of that nature) though that is relative. Of course, scientists tend to need validation from others so its not surprising that while they investigate the edges of our human existence they would glom onto the righteous political opinions they've been taught since they were very young.

edit: its always been amazing to me to see the party of the dreamers, artists, and the poor man claim the mantle of high science. Fundamentally these people tie into dreams sold by others of a world that they believe can be without regard for the truths of our world. Yet, they claim the mantle of science and objectivity while maintaining the dream... such a ridiculous dissonance that it seems to be something from a Douglas Adams novel.

 

[Patman]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

You think it's going to be easy to convince people to switch to nuclear when the same robber baron who just bilked them for oil tells them to?

You mean the same ones that are trying to bilk us on Green Technology (TM)?

Actually, what should occur is that people like you should be telling the truth about nuclear... and as one who seems to be tapped into this set of people you should be using your abilities to calm their concerns. Oddly enough, the "nuclear issue" is about as settled science as you're going to get in the real world. We're prepared to go head first with our economy on a set of statistical half-truths (AGW, climate change, Kyoto, etc.) but not go into using a reliable and safe energy source because of the nightmares constructed of our own fears. Isn't that just a little nuts?

 

[Foxton]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I'm surprised its that low... but it usually depends on "scientist"... like "full time professor" maybe... science and engineering tend to skew conservative (something about needing facts and evidence and things of that nature) though that is relative. Of course, scientists tend to need validation from others so its not surprising that while they investigate the edges of our human existence they would glom onto the righteous political opinions they've been taught since they were very young.

Hello opposite world. Being skeptical does not mean being conservative. Especially not a social conservative. Just has it's been shown time and again that being social conservative does not make you fiscally conservative.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I'm surprised its that low...

I'm not. They need grants to fund their research, and often those come from tax dollars.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

So romney is....against the tax compromise. Why? I'm not really sure...but its probably either its not far enough reaching or he feels that Obama is getting a lifeline. I'm not too sure...

Romney slams tax cut deal
By: CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser


(CNN) – Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is not a fan of the tax cut compromise between President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans.

In an op-ed Tuesday in USA Today, the 2008 Republican presidential candidate calls the plan a "bad deal" - making Romney the first possible 2012 GOP White House contender to come out against the proposal other than former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

While Romney points out what he calls the good parts of the deal, such as the reduction of payroll taxes, the keeping intact of the income current tax rates, and the extension of jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed, he takes issue with much of the proposal, saying the tax cut extension is only temporary and that the deal adds to the nation's deficit.

"President Obama has reason to celebrate. The deal delivers short-term economic stimulus, and it does so at the very time he wants it most, before the 2012 elections. But the long term health of our great engine of prosperity will remain very much in doubt."

 

[gregg729]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Good post.

Its important to keep things in context. The country was in horrible shape when Obama came in. To date, he hasn't brought the change many of us would have wanted...to date, he has delivered a stable platform for economic recovery. Just as with W in 2003...there is far more time where O will cement his legacy.

Has he brought any of the changes we would have wanted? Except for the minority - minority! - who wished Obamacare upon us? I'm trying to play devil's advocate and think what the progressives might say.... hmmm, it's tough....

Actually, no, it's easy. The only changes we have seen under Obama are changes that the majority of Americans disapprove of.

And this is exactly why anyone clamoring for Republican leadership needs to realize how boned we are no matter which way Congress swings.

Oh, and the ethanol thing? I think of it long term. Name a country better suited to start growing its own fuel on an annual basis once we start to realize that we can't rely on fossil fuels forever. Granted, wind and solar energy should (hopefully) be more viable options by then, but ethanol is a nice way to hedge our bets without having to rely on nuclear energy.

Brazil is much better, I think. From what I understand, 40% of its cars are flexfuel powered in part by sugarcane-powered ethanol. I'd be surprised that America has the climate to match that, though. As much as solar can be milked, that's great. Wind power is a false prophet for the greens, we'll never be able to power even 10% of our grid with wind.

There's nothing nice about delaying our inevitable conversion to nuclear power.

pr
Indeed! I love it when a staunch conservative like me and an alum of a very progressive liberal Ivy school can agree. Educated guess here, a commercial nuclear plant produces 500 pounds of waste every 20 years? And it's solid waste, easily transportable. If it weren't for blind devotion to putting political ideology over the environment, the liberals would whole-heartedly embrace nuclear power. That's not an educated guess.

Whenever this or any other administration has tried to do this, its opponents get on the hobby horse and yell about "egg-heads" or "elitists" or "intellectuals." God help us if we ever approach a policy discussion based on something other than homespun wisdom and barber shop bromides.

Anyone who challenges the conventional wisdom from either side is hooted down as "ivory tower." If math were run according to political rules, we'd never have progressed beyond addition. "Calculus?! Well, la-tee-da -- we don't need that in Real Amurrka."

Democracy is a fine system, but it has the disadvantage of being the last refuge of the incompetent, because every idiot's opinion is treated as if it was of equal weight and worth. In a world where all the important things depend on intelligence and training, politics and political commentary (and sports journalism) are the only places left where people with no ability or education are still taken seriously.

Hmm, Kepler whines about people castigating "intellectualism" and then in the next sentence cuts down "homespun wisdom" and "barber shop bromides." This is another great example from Kepler of people who think, "You're not smart enough to debate this topic. I am, but you aren't." Why they mostly come from left is beyond me, but that's not important.

My only point is to point out the flaw in Kepler's intellectual vanity. Kepler's self-love of his intellect is inherently authoritarian, because it's anti-democratic. America is about including every opinion, no matter how moronic - thus, the rise of internet forums and blogs. The self-styled "intellectual" liberal progressives seem to despise free speech and arguments that disagree with them, no matter how intelligent or how moronic. So small-time liberal progressives like Kepler make comments like "barber shop bromides" and Obama uses the Presidential bully pulpit to suggest that "all dissenters shut up and get out of the way," and here we are.

It is class warefare, in their minds - them elite intellectuals who want to make everything right through trillions - and quadrillions, before too long - of dollars of spending. And if they don't see you in their little mirror of vanity to be "intellectual" enough or "progressive" enough, then your opinions are not welcome. Line up and take your marching orders or just "shut up" as that incompetant man in the Oval Office said. Basically, if you're not in their club, line up and take marching orders or shut up and get out of the way. That is the self-styled "intellectualist" progressive liberal's view of you and me. Totally non-inclusive - how democratic and egalitarian progressive liberals are... not...

EDIT: And if a self-styled intellectual that thinks they might be smarter than anyone can't deflate/disprove the arguments of idiots, then how intelligent can they possibly be?


As you have seen with Obama's plummetting ratings and the disastrous 2010 elections for the progressives, us normal people are waking up in droves. So many of us have just been concentrating on enjoying ourselves and making our lives better, but now we are refocusing on what Congress - and the liberal progressives who dominate it - are doing. Intellectual elitism doesn't work for American politics, nor does it work for the American economy. Common sense. It can't be found in Republicans in Congress, much less Democrats. We are awake now. Intellectual dishonesty isn't a crime per se, but the damage it does is criminal. We MUST watch these people who think they can rob and disenfranchise us from our rights simply because they when to a school that told them they are better than us.

They are they elite, they say. Sure, I won't argue that. We, however - we are the heart and soul of America. America is OUR country - these intellectual wannabe liberal progressives didn't build America - we did! You already know this - when we clash ideologically with liberal progressives, our argument is true and right! Of course it is, this is America - we Americans reject far left progressive philosophies...

Despite what you hear from the so-called "intellectuals" on the left, America has a shining future, and still remains to be the City on the Hill. Our ideals are the hope and the light. We are fighting for the future though, it does hang in the balance.... We need to hear from every American and hear your voice for freedom!

 

[Tundra]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Even assuming this were the math, how may more gallons of gas vs. boxes of cereal are sold per year? (yes, I know it's not that simple... )

1000:1

http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/agricultural/grain-and-oilseed/corn.html

I'm not sure why we have a subsidy for ethanol $5.85/bushel corn. Ok it's dang expensive so we need the $7billion/yr subsidy? But isn't that the argument against solar/wind/ etc... too expensive

Didn't we used to pay farmers to NOT grow (oversupply) and had grain silos filled to the rim with wheat and corn.

It's one thing to help farmers from going bankrupt and turning the overproduction into ethanol and nutty crazy to raise all food prices to save few million farmers? and make farming corporations rich with higher prices (demand) AND subsidy. It's worst than subsidy for oil since the government is jacking up food prices for everyone.

http://www.card.iastate.edu/iowa_ag_review/fall_06/article2.aspx

By the end of September 2006, there were 105 ethanol plants in the United States.

USDA Chief Economist Keith Collins outlined a scenario for the year 2010 in which 90 million acres of corn are needed to fulfill ethanol, livestock, and export demands. Dr. Collins indicated that corn prices would need to be in the $3.10�$3.20 range to attract that many acres to corn.

The last time this country planted over 90 million acres of corn was in 1944. In 1932, over 113 million corn acres were planted.

//1932 hmm... wasn't that the Great Depression//

 

[gounhwildcats]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

When America and Canada were at their strongest as nations and as democracies was when people voted for the party that best represented their ideals, and then supported the government post election, no matter who won. This whole idea that one can only support the winner if they voted for them, and spend all their time tearing them down if they didn't is nothing but destructive. Although I never would have voted for Obama, I have no desire that he fail. Although I don't agree with many if not most of us his policies I support him in his efforts to do his job. As long as my leader doesn't ask me to do something that is contrary to moral law, I feel duty bound as a citizen of the nation in which I live to support that person in their job. Elections are my opportunity to have my say. There's nothing wrong with holding our leaders to account for what they do. However, holding someone accountable doesn't mean slandering, mud slinging and being generally contrarian just because we didn't vote for them.

I have found that the so called political pundits on both sides of the political spectrum have done nothing but divide and weaken our once great nations. It's sad how we've bought into this line of bull that democracy means taking a side and then doing everything we can to malign and destroy those on the other side. I'm not sure we can ever get back to where we were, but unless we do this is never going to get better.

 

[Tundra]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I have found that the so called political pundits on both sides of the political spectrum have done nothing but divide and weaken our once great nations. It's sad how we've bought into this line of bull that democracy means taking a side and then doing everything we can to malign and destroy those on the other side. I'm not sure we can ever get back to where we were, but unless we do this is never going to get better.

2nd that. but that's how you get elected. The pundits are doing polls on the Obama (Bush) tax cut extension and it's 75% favor/20% oppose or around there.

I wonder what the polls would look like if you broke it down. 1. estate(death) tax. 2. capital gains tax 3. income tax 4. payroll tax (SSI)

1. estate tax benefits rich and super rich. 2. capital gains benefits the rich with bone (4%) thrown in for the other 10million middle class making under $250k/yr
3. income tax and payroll tax should

Since 1 and 2 benefits only (95% +) the rich, Obama should have kept his promise and guns loaded. And let the republicans kill this massive deficit on the grounds of saving $100's billions for the rich.

 

[walrus]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Indeed! I love it when a staunch conservative like me and an alum of a very progressive liberal Ivy school can agree. Educated guess here, a commercial nuclear plant produces 500 pounds of waste every 20 years? And it's solid waste, easily transportable. If it weren't for blind devotion to putting political ideology over the environment, the liberals would whole-heartedly embrace nuclear power. That's not an educated guess.

Last I knew all the waste from Maine Yankee in Wiscasset is still sitting in concrete tombs in a parking lot at the site. The amount of electricity that place produced in its 20 something years of operation is unbeleiveable and to have all the waste sitting there in a pretty small footprint makes its more unbelieveable. The waste includes what came from the destruction of the containment building

 

[walrus]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Indeed! I love it when a staunch conservative like me and an alum of a very progressive liberal Ivy school can agree. Educated guess here, a commercial nuclear plant produces 500 pounds of waste every 20 years? And it's solid waste, easily transportable. If it weren't for blind devotion to putting political ideology over the environment, the liberals would whole-heartedly embrace nuclear power. That's not an educated guess.

Last I knew all the waste from Maine Yankee in Wiscasset is still sitting in concrete tombs in a parking lot at the site. The amount of electricity that place produced in its 20 something years of operation is unbeleiveable and to have all the waste sitting there in a pretty small footprint makes its more unbelieveable. The waste includes what came from the destruction of the containment building

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Indeed! I love it when a staunch conservative like me and an alum of a very progressive liberal Ivy school can agree. Educated guess here, a commercial nuclear plant produces 500 pounds of waste every 20 years? And it's solid waste, easily transportable. If it weren't for blind devotion to putting political ideology over the environment, the liberals would whole-heartedly embrace nuclear power. That's not an educated guess.

Well, don't get too misty-eyed. I did grow up in East Tennessee, in a district whose last Democratic congressman was elected in 1879. And I think the rest of the Ivies (not to mention Cornell's other colleges) would scoff at the idea of Cornell's Engineering and Ag Colleges being progressive or liberal...

Your point about political ideology and the environment is spot-on, though. Anyone banging his left fist on the table about climate change who is not ALSO banging his right fist in favor of nuclear power really cannot be taken seriously.

 

[geezer]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

It seems odd that Obamacare is being challenged by conservatives on grounds of freedom of choice, and defended by liberals in defense of enforcing their false ethic that everyone must uphold the doctor bill pyramid scheme.
I guess freedom of choice should only apply if it's the "correct" choice to kill small people?

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

these intellectual wannabe liberal progressives didn't build America - we did!

Not to burst your bubble, but the founding fathers were the intellectual elite (i.e., rich white landowners) of their day.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Anyone banging his left fist on the table about climate change who is not ALSO banging his right fist in favor of nuclear power really cannot be taken seriously.

Their argument basically boils down to "nuclear waste is bad, and so are meltdowns."

UNOfan - the founders couldn't have been liberals since they were racist slave owners - i.e. they were the abusive multinationals employing low wage illegals in their day.

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

It seems odd that Obamacare is being challenged by conservatives on grounds of freedom of choice, and defended by liberals in defense of enforcing their false ethic that everyone must uphold the doctor bill pyramid scheme.
I guess freedom of choice should only apply if it's the "correct" choice to kill small people?

Freedom of choice only applies when society will let die those who gamble by choosing not having health insurance. We as a society do not let that happen - if you lose your gamble, you'll still be treated at an E.R.

It's not a pyramid scheme for doctors; it's simply the act of spreading the risk. You cannot force insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions without forcing healthy people to have insurance; that is akin to letting people insure their home after it has already burned to the ground.

 

[geezer]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

You cannot force insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions without forcing healthy people to have insurance; that is akin to letting people insure their home after it has already burned to the ground.

This is exactly why Obamacare is untenable; to make it work you have to force people by law to buy in, which is clearly illegal and unethical. I personally know someone who refuses any and all medical treatment, and will soon die that way. Why should he pay your doctor bills?