Democrats angry without a reason?
- Thread starter Legion
- Start date
It's another opinion voiced by someone on the right with a bent against the left; more of the same political rhetoric thrown from the right to left and vice versa. Pathetic, really. This one in particular kindly ignores the whole Iraqi war, the tax cuts, the budget deficit, Bush's attitude to the environment and buisness, etc., and that's just what I can remember from the top of my head. Whether or not you are a Democrat or Republican, you can easily see the reasons for "Angry Democrats," even if you disagree with them.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
nonamer said:
yes, because they're not in power.
I can see there are some reasons for people to disagree with the policies of the current administration, even upon occasion be angry with choices made that do not match their own.
However, the litany of things that the bush-haters bandy about is astounding in both the volume and tenacity. But, as shown, do lack a little bit of veracity.
This article definately has some blinders of its own, but shows what the bush-haters can't see and don't want you to see. The real picture is taking the two and merging the visions into something coherent: it ain't all roses, but it ain't all stink, either.
Tax cuts: so what? Its an attempt to get the economy rolling. You can disagree with them, but its no reason to be angry as there are well reasoned people on both sides of the fence saying they're the right thing to stimulate the economy and saying that its the wrong thing. Given that its not a cut and dried issue, you can't fault a man for choosing one way or another to such a degree that you're angry with him.
Budget deficit: you're being purposefully blind if you think Bush or his policies alone caused this. The tax cuts make up a small portion of the deficit projections. Its something else that caused it--like an economy going to pot. Why? Internet bubble, business cycle, and 9/11/2001.
Just like the Clinton haters, I think the Bush haters are vocal idiots who can't wash the hate from their eyes to actually see what's going on.
However, the litany of things that the bush-haters bandy about is astounding in both the volume and tenacity. But, as shown, do lack a little bit of veracity.
This article definately has some blinders of its own, but shows what the bush-haters can't see and don't want you to see. The real picture is taking the two and merging the visions into something coherent: it ain't all roses, but it ain't all stink, either.
Tax cuts: so what? Its an attempt to get the economy rolling. You can disagree with them, but its no reason to be angry as there are well reasoned people on both sides of the fence saying they're the right thing to stimulate the economy and saying that its the wrong thing. Given that its not a cut and dried issue, you can't fault a man for choosing one way or another to such a degree that you're angry with him.
Budget deficit: you're being purposefully blind if you think Bush or his policies alone caused this. The tax cuts make up a small portion of the deficit projections. Its something else that caused it--like an economy going to pot. Why? Internet bubble, business cycle, and 9/11/2001.
Just like the Clinton haters, I think the Bush haters are vocal idiots who can't wash the hate from their eyes to actually see what's going on.
There's plenty of reason to be upset with the Bush Administration that have no gray areas, i.e. Foreign Policy and Environmental Policy in context with Conservatory Policy. The tax cuts are something that can be argued as a good thing, even though I disagree with them in large part because I believe they cause far too much of a deficit hole ($200 Billion revenue loss a year, possibly more if spring '04 tax cuts are implemented, over 10 years is nothing to sneeze at Russ) and not enough fiscal stimulus to dig us out of that hole and make up the difference. So can the Patriot Act/Homeland Security/et al, despite their flaws.
However, our treatment of our allies since 9/11, nay foreign policy in general (ignoring North Korea for at least a year, not to mention the Israeli/Palestinian conflict which was ignored virtually the first half of the Bush presidency) has been completely reprehensible, and came back to haunt us today as we've gone groveling back to the UN for help in Iraq, seen the Israeli/Palestinian conflict spiral completely out of control, and seen North Korea grow more and more dangerous in their use of rhetoric and threats to show their force and strength with nuclear weapons.
Fyi, I'm not saying we could have stopped the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, but the administration should not have waited as long as it did, 18 months to be precise, before engaging them. Even then, the only reason they did engage the situation is because the other arab nations (Saudi Arabia in particular) stated that in order to garner support for a war against Iraq, the conflict between Israel and the palestinians needed to be addressed immediately.
On top of that, you have the fact that 150 Saudi Royal Family members, their extended family, and associates/relatives of Bin Laden were allowed to leave the country by the Administration, days after 9/11, before they had been questioned by the FBI or the CIA. You also have 28 pages blacked out of the congressional report, by order of the president, which apparently would implicate the Saudis with financing the 19 hijackers.
And the environmental policy of the administration has been equally abysmal. Decimating more forest as the answer to forest fires is not smart. Trying to raise production by drilling in places like ANWR, but not doing anything to curb consumption through higher efficiency standards for cars is another. The efficiency standards debacle was also a congressional failure, especially in light of the impending war in Iraq at the time. The administration didn't help matters when it stated before the vote that they didn't think it was necessary to raise the standards at this time, but higher production was most certainly required.
Then there is the little matter of the "order" to "clean" up the EPAs documents regarding 9/11 air quality at ground zero, allowing polluting factories to continue without any upgrades to their cleansing systems, reversing clintonian instructions to the EPA to lower the acceptable amount of arsenic in the water from 50 parts per billion to 10 parts per billion, etc etc etc. The 10 parts per billion number is the standard set by the World Health Organization to what is required for healthy drinking water, and we're 5x higher than that.
Anyway, I'm content to exercise my opinion come November 2004. Frankly there isn't much more the administration can do to piss me off.
However, our treatment of our allies since 9/11, nay foreign policy in general (ignoring North Korea for at least a year, not to mention the Israeli/Palestinian conflict which was ignored virtually the first half of the Bush presidency) has been completely reprehensible, and came back to haunt us today as we've gone groveling back to the UN for help in Iraq, seen the Israeli/Palestinian conflict spiral completely out of control, and seen North Korea grow more and more dangerous in their use of rhetoric and threats to show their force and strength with nuclear weapons.
Fyi, I'm not saying we could have stopped the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, but the administration should not have waited as long as it did, 18 months to be precise, before engaging them. Even then, the only reason they did engage the situation is because the other arab nations (Saudi Arabia in particular) stated that in order to garner support for a war against Iraq, the conflict between Israel and the palestinians needed to be addressed immediately.
On top of that, you have the fact that 150 Saudi Royal Family members, their extended family, and associates/relatives of Bin Laden were allowed to leave the country by the Administration, days after 9/11, before they had been questioned by the FBI or the CIA. You also have 28 pages blacked out of the congressional report, by order of the president, which apparently would implicate the Saudis with financing the 19 hijackers.
And the environmental policy of the administration has been equally abysmal. Decimating more forest as the answer to forest fires is not smart. Trying to raise production by drilling in places like ANWR, but not doing anything to curb consumption through higher efficiency standards for cars is another. The efficiency standards debacle was also a congressional failure, especially in light of the impending war in Iraq at the time. The administration didn't help matters when it stated before the vote that they didn't think it was necessary to raise the standards at this time, but higher production was most certainly required.
Then there is the little matter of the "order" to "clean" up the EPAs documents regarding 9/11 air quality at ground zero, allowing polluting factories to continue without any upgrades to their cleansing systems, reversing clintonian instructions to the EPA to lower the acceptable amount of arsenic in the water from 50 parts per billion to 10 parts per billion, etc etc etc. The 10 parts per billion number is the standard set by the World Health Organization to what is required for healthy drinking water, and we're 5x higher than that.
Anyway, I'm content to exercise my opinion come November 2004. Frankly there isn't much more the administration can do to piss me off.
I can't wait till the Democrats ARE back in Power! Im gonna be all over the web with comments like "Get Over It",, "Whinners",, "Loosers" and anything else I can think of to agitate and anger any and all republicans I can. After 50 years in this country,, I cant stand Republican Ideology and Practice.
______________________________________
Pladeaux
______________________________________
We Dont Need a Movie Star in Sacramento
We Dont Need that Texas JackAss and his friends in the White House Either!
______________________________________
Pladeaux
______________________________________
We Dont Need a Movie Star in Sacramento
We Dont Need that Texas JackAss and his friends in the White House Either!
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Pladeaux said:
Republican Ideology and Practice being, of course, "starving the children, kicking the homeless in the groin, and stealing money from the 'working class' and handing it over to 'the rich', correct?
EDIT: Oh, and don't forget that pushing wheel-chair bound senior citizens down a flight of stairs is our favorite pastime...that is, when we're not forcing them to choose between medicine and food...
Forest Fires: They do not want to decimate any forests, come on natoma. They want to take areas that are in danger of going up in flames and thining them out. Wow what a concept. But I guess the Bush adminastration just wants to appease(sp?) some lobbiest.Natoma said:
ANWR: People against this cant see any reason. Unfortunatly the people who actually live there and would have to deal with any problems, and who actually appreciate the beauty of alaska think its a good idea to go forward. Before you even say it, yes they get a share of the profits from oil sales, but its still their backyards that this would be happening in.
Car fuel efficiency: Bush has said that he wants cars that use alternative fuels. Proposing grants worth over a billion dollars to further R&D. I guess its just another lobbying payoff right?
People on the left are just as bad as those on the right when it comes to being blinded by certain issues. Take:
Nuclear Power: We now have the technolodgy to build EXTREMELY SAFE AND ENVIRONMENTLY FRIENDLY nuclear power plants. ZERO pollution. All we need is sensable debates on where to build them and where to store the waste. IF you dont like where they want to store the waste, how about suggesting an alternative.
Im hopping that space elevators can become a reality within 20-50 years so it will be easier/safer to launch them into outer space, when higher up.later,
epic
zidane1strife
Banned
Nuke plants are wrong, their cr@p lasts too long, they're no good, and never will be.
Fusion is more expensive(if it works in theory it will likely work in the real world.), but it seems to be better... we shall wait and see, if it is we should adopt it.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
zidane1strife said:
Out of curiosity...what is your "energy generator of choice", and why?
zidane1strife said:
"Seems to be better"? That's the understatement of the year. Once we manage a stable (as in, predictable and reproduceable, and not in a nuke) fusion chain-reaction all the world's energy problems are essentially solved, with no real negative by-products (other than some neutron radiation). Water is a wee-bit more common and cheaper than oil.
zidane1strife
Banned
Currently, there are many I like: solar panels are going to become far far more efficient as they integrate new nano-tech advances...
Also windmills(is that the word for those?), Geothermal, hydroplants(is that the name for that?), anything that gives us energy with minimal pollution....
... and Fusion, as was said in a previous thread should work and give energy, at least in theory, if it's carried in a large scale device, such a device is being built(ITER will be the first fusion device to produce a burning plasma and to operate at a high power level for such long duration experiments. The fusion power produced in the ITER plasma will be 10 times greater than the external power added to the plasma.)... let's see what happens, if it does work, we should adopt it, price is not a prob(cut military budget heheh.)
epicstruggle said:Forest Fires: They do not want to decimate any forests, come on natoma. They want to take areas that are in danger of going up in flames and thining them out. Wow what a concept. But I guess the Bush adminastration just wants to appease(sp?) some lobbiest.
The way to thin out a forest to prevent forest fires is to use controlled burns to clear away underbrush, NOT clear away the trees themselves. Bush proposed opening up more forest land to logging companies as the way to prevent forest fires. Again, not smart.
That's like curing a patient suffering from chronic pain by killing him.
epicstruggle said:
It's not about the people living there. It's the animals living in that protected area that everyone is worried about.
epicstruggle said:Car fuel efficiency: Bush has said that he wants cars that use alternative fuels. Proposing grants worth over a billion dollars to further R&D. I guess its just another lobbying payoff right?
Hydrogen Fuel Cells are a decade away at least in the consumer space. Realistically 20 years. Raising fuel efficiency standards through the use of hybrid engines? It could happen within a couple of years and it would raise the cost of each vehicle roughly $2,000, which no doubt could easily be passed along to a consumer who is already spending tens of thousands on a car.
The savings in gas would over the life of the car pay for itself. And as the technology improves, the costs of the hybrid technology would decrease and be passed along to the consumer.
By the time Hydrogen Fuel Cells are truly ready for consumer usage, our fleet of cars would be in the 80-100mpg range, given the rate of improvement in hybrid technology thus far. That saves millions of bbl of oil imports per day.
epicstruggle said:Take:
Nuclear Power: We now have the technolodgy to build EXTREMELY SAFE AND ENVIRONMENTLY FRIENDLY nuclear power plants. ZERO pollution. All we need is sensable debates on where to build them and where to store the waste. IF you dont like where they want to store the waste, how about suggesting an alternative.
Nuclear power plants are not zero pollution epic. You said so yourself. The waste byproducts are themselves pollution.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
zidane1strife said:
Well, I'm talking of currently available tech....
So, "pollution" is the only measure of environmental impact to you? (And is that the only thing that is of concern to you? Nothing about cost, dependabilty, or space?)
How much "obstruction free" space do you suppose a wind farm needs to meet the power demands of your average city?
Should we be re-routing water-ways and and displacing oodles of local ecosystems to make way for mass hydroelectric power?
zidane1strife
Banned
Look you know what I mean, that is to obtain elctrcty with as little dmg to the env as possible.
No massively env disrupting plants. Solar panels, and wind thingies, can be placed throught the city, on top of buildings, etc(think creatively.).
Hydro could be integrated and is (integrated) to many of the already existing artificial water diverting structures for delivering water to the masses.
I do not suggest using just one of these techs alone, but all of'em to some extent.
Nuke pwr creates lng lasting hazardous substances, which are unnaceptable.
Fusion could arrive far sooner if more were invested, again cut the military budget.
As always reducing consumption and population, should be our goal. Currently we're prdcing to much garbage, pollution and disrupting/destroying the earth's env/ecosystems.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
zidane1strife said:
Look, that's what everyone wants.
Everyone also wants plentiful and reliable electricity at reasonable costs.
It's doing both at the same time that's the trick.
And I would argue that wind farms and hydroelectric power are more massivle disruptive to the environment than fission is, for the same amount of electricity generated.
Do you have one on your roof? Why not?
And I don't think anyone here is suggesting nuclear fission alone either. But it certainly has a part to play in energy generation.
Zidanes and Natomas environmental arguments drive me crazy, b/c they are both so completely devoid of scientific reasoning, its like listening to the crazy Christians argue against Evolution. It irrates me too b/c im a strong supporter of the environment.
Take a straw poll of Physics proffessors in Universities around the world, I guarentee you 95% of them will be in favor of Nuclear Power as the most no brainer environmentally friendly solution to Energy problems. Waste is not a problem, it never has been, contrary to popular leftist rhetoric.
Thinning the forest is another no brainer, controlled burns only perpetuate the problem over the long term, and they don't address the density problem over the entire Forest area, just certain problem areas. See for instance Scientific America article about 5 months ago on this subject.
GM crops, another no brainer that has already succesfully won Nobel peace prize for various scientists. Now, its miraculously morphed into some type of bad word.
Alternative medicine like acupuncture and homeopathy.. A downright stupid idea (contrary to popular leftist rhetoric)
The list goes on and on of Science going up against environmental policy solutions pushed by a few radicals. And frankly, thats stupid. The fundamental reason for good environmental policy in the first place is a Physical problem.
Take a straw poll of Physics proffessors in Universities around the world, I guarentee you 95% of them will be in favor of Nuclear Power as the most no brainer environmentally friendly solution to Energy problems. Waste is not a problem, it never has been, contrary to popular leftist rhetoric.
Thinning the forest is another no brainer, controlled burns only perpetuate the problem over the long term, and they don't address the density problem over the entire Forest area, just certain problem areas. See for instance Scientific America article about 5 months ago on this subject.
GM crops, another no brainer that has already succesfully won Nobel peace prize for various scientists. Now, its miraculously morphed into some type of bad word.
Alternative medicine like acupuncture and homeopathy.. A downright stupid idea (contrary to popular leftist rhetoric)
The list goes on and on of Science going up against environmental policy solutions pushed by a few radicals. And frankly, thats stupid. The fundamental reason for good environmental policy in the first place is a Physical problem.
Nuclear Waste is not a problem? Never has been? Ok....
First off I never said I was against Nuclear Power. I stated that there are issues with waste storage, which there are. Leaking into the surrounding environment is still a very present danger. Second is the fact that finding suitable sites to store hundreds of tons of nuclear waste is not easy at all. There are problems with it, which is all I stated. Epic stated that Nuclear Power was zero pollution, which is not true.
Second, controlled burns don't perpetuate the problem over the long term at all. Why? Forest fires spread rapidly because of dead and dry underbrush. You clear away the underbrush and that reduces much of the fuel the great fires you see in the midwest use to proliferate. Much of the fires that have taken place in the last couple of years have been in areas where forest density is not that high.
Clearing away underbrush is not the end-all-be-all answer, but it heavily reduces the risks and slows the spread of forest fires.
Who mentioned GM crops? Frankly I'm for GM crops.
Who mentioned Alternative Medicine? Some people say it works for them, and in some cases it actually does. You want to poo poo on it simply because it doesn't fit western science standards? Get an open mind maybe?
You want to make broad statements and assumptions, fine. Don't attribute them to me or anyone else without asking first.
First off I never said I was against Nuclear Power. I stated that there are issues with waste storage, which there are. Leaking into the surrounding environment is still a very present danger. Second is the fact that finding suitable sites to store hundreds of tons of nuclear waste is not easy at all. There are problems with it, which is all I stated. Epic stated that Nuclear Power was zero pollution, which is not true.
Second, controlled burns don't perpetuate the problem over the long term at all. Why? Forest fires spread rapidly because of dead and dry underbrush. You clear away the underbrush and that reduces much of the fuel the great fires you see in the midwest use to proliferate. Much of the fires that have taken place in the last couple of years have been in areas where forest density is not that high.
Clearing away underbrush is not the end-all-be-all answer, but it heavily reduces the risks and slows the spread of forest fires.
Who mentioned GM crops? Frankly I'm for GM crops.
Who mentioned Alternative Medicine? Some people say it works for them, and in some cases it actually does. You want to poo poo on it simply because it doesn't fit western science standards? Get an open mind maybe?
You want to make broad statements and assumptions, fine. Don't attribute them to me or anyone else without asking first.
Those were typical leftist ideas that I listed, that are typically unreasonable. I know you support the first three only, but the other two serve a point.
Having an open mind has nothing to do with whether or not something is scientifically valid or not. Alternative medicines like Homeopathy for instance has been shown to be erroneous and nothing more than a placebo. That this evidence is consistently ignored is appaling.
But to get back to your points. Nuclear waste in terms of area is not that large, maybe a few meters down covering roughly a football field in terms of what the US has outputed. Consider the immense quantities of 'stuff' already under us, is naturally radioactive. There are plenty of places (say a certain spot in Alaska) that naturally pops out fissile elements from time to time, but no one screams bloody murder when its natural and has to be cleaned up. Consider that thats the absolute worse case scenario that we are talking about here, (eg a tiny fraction of radiation that might escape into a water vent that will eventually lead to the surface). The recent storage facilities are amply suited for the task, and are nearly unanimously considered to be less probable to escape than any random natural event.
As far as controlled burns, as any farmer will tell you. They actually promote more growth density over time, the soil reacts very well to such conditions. I urge you to read the scientific literature on the subject (not the popular press, the actual academic literature), as well as the other ones.
Having an open mind has nothing to do with whether or not something is scientifically valid or not. Alternative medicines like Homeopathy for instance has been shown to be erroneous and nothing more than a placebo. That this evidence is consistently ignored is appaling.
But to get back to your points. Nuclear waste in terms of area is not that large, maybe a few meters down covering roughly a football field in terms of what the US has outputed. Consider the immense quantities of 'stuff' already under us, is naturally radioactive. There are plenty of places (say a certain spot in Alaska) that naturally pops out fissile elements from time to time, but no one screams bloody murder when its natural and has to be cleaned up. Consider that thats the absolute worse case scenario that we are talking about here, (eg a tiny fraction of radiation that might escape into a water vent that will eventually lead to the surface). The recent storage facilities are amply suited for the task, and are nearly unanimously considered to be less probable to escape than any random natural event.
As far as controlled burns, as any farmer will tell you. They actually promote more growth density over time, the soil reacts very well to such conditions. I urge you to read the scientific literature on the subject (not the popular press, the actual academic literature), as well as the other ones.
Similar threads
