KaskadskyjKozak Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 You have to admit, a car battery contest IS a gimmick, right KK? Or are you for real, suggesting that such a bright idea is the basis for proclaiming that McCain has a better handle on energy issues? I've already stated my point. I favor increased funding for research into more efficient energy technologies - first and foremost for our automobiles. Secondly, I favor economic incentives for innovation. Hardly a "gimmick". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 This also appeared in the news, Matt: In his speech in Fresno, Mr. McCain called for automakers to act more quickly to build so-called flex-fuel vehicles than can run on alternative fuel. He approvingly cited the example of Brazil, which he said had moved to building 70 percent of all new vehicles that way in just three years, and he issued a not-so-veiled threat to automakers. “Whether it takes a meeting with automakers during my first month in office, or my signature on an act of Congress,” he said, “we will meet the goal of a swift conversion of American vehicles away from oil.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akhalteke Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 You have to admit, a car battery contest IS a gimmick, right KK? Or are you for real, suggesting that such a bright idea is the basis for proclaiming that McCain has a better handle on energy issues? I've already stated my point. I favor increased funding for research into more efficient energy technologies - first and foremost for our automobiles. Secondly, I favor economic incentives for innovation. Hardly a "gimmick". Who the fuck is gonna spend the R&D time and $$$ to build something if they are getting nothing in return? The government couldn't get anything done if they tried. The only way to make things happen is to involve the private sector. The only way to guarantee any expediency at all is to ensure a financial incentive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 I'm with you as far as encouraging research and development, KK, but I'd venture a guess that Obama is much more likely to do this than McCain. And don't forget: if the government funds it or adopts regulations promoting it we're talking about tax and spend socialism. As to the gimmick? Clearly your contest is an easy proposal to make and sounds good, but it is not in any way indicative of a commitment to actually pursuing any significant changes in our energy consumption. I call that a gimmick. To suggest that this is going to help us "turn the corner" may not be quite a misleading as suggesting that the gas tax holiday is going to help Americans suffering from high gas prices, but it is not far behind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 I'm with you as far as finding the research, KK, but I'd venture a guess that Obama is much more likely to do this than McCain. And don't forget: if the government funds it we're talking about tax and spend socialism. Obama more likely? Not necessarily. Tax and spend socialism? This is not a social program. As for taxes, who says they have to be increased? You can simply alter the line items in your budget, changing priorities and cutting waste. Nice try at a tangent and back-handed attack. Didn't work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 OK so what you are saying is that it is not socialism if we are not talking about social policies? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 OK so what you are saying is that it is not socialism if we are not talking about social policies? Let's not change the subject. We're not discussing socialism versus pure capitalism, or whether energy policy is in the role of government or is socialism. We are discussing energy policy itself and possible proposals to reduce our current problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 And talk about waste: our entire economy and morale has suffered the results of Bush's wasting our human resources and treasury on unproductive (to say the least) enterprises. If Armitage is to be the next Secretary of the Defense, wouldn't we be likely to see MORE OF THE SAME? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 meandering obfuscation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 I'm not changing the subject, KK. I agree with you that we should be seeking a switch toward an energy economy not so dependent on oil and coal (maybe you don't agree about the coal). I believe that the government can and should use our tax dollars to help fund it as well I think we should hope for regulations and both foreign and domestic policy initiatives that will encourage this as well. For a minute there I thought you were saying that government could help with this, and it might not just be left up to the free market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 And talk about waste: our entire economy and morale has suffered the results of Bush's wasting our human resources and treasury on unproductive (to say the least) enterprises. Bush is not running for president. What are Obama and McCain actually proposing? What will they actually do? In this case w/r/t energy policy. As for the war (your obvious reference), well neither candidate will have us out of Iraq any time soon, so forget that pipe dream. That "waste" will be a part of the budget either way. We're talking about energy policy in general, not the war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 I'm not changing the subject, KK. I agree with you that we should be seeking a switch toward an energy economy not so dependent on oil and coal (maybe you don't agree about the coal). I believe that the government can and should use our tax dollars to help fund it as well I think we should hope for regulations and both foreign and domestic policy initiatives that will encourage this as well. For a minute there I thought you were saying that government could help with this, and it might not just be left up to the free market. we should seriously consider nuclear power. it's good enough for Europe. yes, the byproducts are horribly toxic, but if that gets us cleaner emissions it should be on the table. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 NO, Bush is not running. But McCain has certainly indicated that he plans on continuing a foreign policy and energy policy MUCH more like Bush than our good friend Obama is promising. And what of Armitage? Clearly it is too early to say how cabinet appointments may come out, but doesn't it concern you AT ALL that one of the guys behind the Iraq war debacle is one of McCain's close advisors on these matters? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 I agree that Obama is not going to be able to magically get us out of Iraq right away. I agree that we should be looking at nuclear power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glassgowkiss Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 I'm with you as far as finding the research, KK, but I'd venture a guess that Obama is much more likely to do this than McCain. And don't forget: if the government funds it we're talking about tax and spend socialism. Obama more likely? Not necessarily. Tax and spend socialism? This is not a social program. As for taxes, who says they have to be increased? You can simply alter the line items in your budget, changing priorities and cutting waste. Nice try at a tangent and back-handed attack. Didn't work. yeah. let's cut several things. like education and health care are the first one to go. then infrastructure and public works, so we can have more bridge collapses. let's leave war on the same level. of course let's cut any veteran benefits, after all these people are an easy target too. 33 senators- all republicans- voted against new GI Bill last month. with only 30% of approval rating mcsame's attempt to seek even acknowledgment from the current president is simple political suicide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 NO, Bush is not running. But McCain has certainly indicated that he plans on continuing a foreign policy and energy policy MUCH more like Bush than our good friend Obama is promising. And what of Armitage? Clearly it is too early to say how cabinet appointments may come out, but doesn't it concern you AT ALL that one of the guys behind the Iraq war debacle is one of McCain's close advisors on these matters? VP candidates have not even been picked yet. I find it hard to comment on trial-balloon ideas about cabinet positions - or even take them seriously for that matter. McCain disagreed with the way the war and occupation was executed from the beginning. He would have done it differently, and he will change the way its done now. BUt that is NOT the topic we are discussing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 I don't see why you feel compelled to respond to every one of my posts, GGK. I'm not interested in talking with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted June 25, 2008 Author Share Posted June 25, 2008 It is funny to see die hard Republican's complain that Obama has no plan for energy when McCain's big announcements thus far have been the gas tax holiday and his support for drilling in ANWAR. As usual, your facts are wrong. McCain is opposed to drilling in ANWR. He supports more offshore/shelf drilling. The point of this post was not Republican=good, Democrat=bad. The point was to demonstrate that expanding a bad program like ethanol subsidies is a knee-jerk reaction from the left that is at least as bad as any accusations of the same directed at the right. I can think of several times where "do-gooders" (typically, the left) got it dead wrong: Margarine. Requiring toxic flame retardants in children's clothing. Requiring the additive MTBE in gasoline. Etc. Etc. Sometimes they're just simple meddlers: Bicycle helmets, cell phone restrictions, seatbelt laws for adults. That's not to say they don't get it right sometimes: Airbags/seatbelts as standard equipment, certain labor and wage laws, certain enviro regs that are not exclusively social in nature, etc. That's all this thread was about--but lefties in particular seem hell-bent on preserving their orthodoxy and tagging the simplest dissent as blasphemy. Amazing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glassgowkiss Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 I don't see why you feel compelled to respond to every one of my posts, GGK. I'm not interested in talking with you. every post? get a hold of yourself you sheepshag. you and your close to 8000 posts track record in 4 years is hard to compete with (even by Dru's standards). that's like 2000 posts per year! so i would say responding to every of your posts is rather an overstatement. and i am not trying to even talk with you, since you are not capable of using a logical argument. but sure it's easy to rattle your pansy ass- just like your mom! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 I'm not sure I follow all that, Fairweather, but I agree that the point is not that republicans vs democrats is good vs bad. Lets actually look at the candidates, for once, and talk about what we do or don't like about their policy proposals or how we think they might run the country. If I have mistakenly said McCain favors drilling ANWAR when he wants to drill our coasts, my point remains the same: a gas tax holiday and "let's tap our domestic supply" are both poor solutions to anything for the reasons I already described. Oh: and if it is not useful to talk about democrats good and republicans bad, or vice versa, why do you keep talking about "the left supports this..." and "lefties' quash dissent." Not only do you continue to do what you condemn, but you are wrong. It is not "the left" who supports a big industry of corn-based ethanol production. Yes, some greenies have urged more ethanol and the cappacinno crowd you oh so abhor seem to like to run biodiesel in their Volvo's, but the greens care about the price of food on the world market and impacts on the poor WAY more than those of "your ilk" and more than anything else the whole thing is benefiting business interests and is pushed by farm lobbies. Second of all, the Republican party in particular and the right in general has been a lot more effective at quashing dissent over the years. To the extent that "political correctness" has become a joke, it should be. But dissent? It is those on the right who said that we couldn't afford to have treasonous Americans undermining our President's march toward war when he was obviously lying about it. And even now, it is the right who lines up behind an obvious failure of a president, lashing out at those who would dare to criticize him even while admitting in private that he is indeed a failure. Looking at our situation in the Middle East and saying that whatever we do we can't talk about leaving Iraq or even moving in that direction because this would dishonor those who we sent to die is just plain stupid. Arguing that there is no clear agreement on global warming when it is clear to all but an ostrich with their head in the sand is well, I don't want to be offensive but it's just dumb. Just who is "hell-bent on preserving their orthodoxy?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted June 25, 2008 Author Share Posted June 25, 2008 Oh: and if it is not useful to talk about democrats good and republicans bad, or vice versa, why do you keep talking about "the left supports this..." and "lefties' quash dissent." Not only do you continue to do what you condemn, but you are wrong. I didn't say it wasn't useful or appropriate, I just said that in this case it was not my intent. Yes, some greenies have urged more ethanol and the cappacinno crowd you oh so abhor seem to like to run biodiesel in their Volvo's, but the greens care about the price of food on the world market and impacts on the poor WAY more than those of "your ilk" ... I'm glad you believe greenies actually "care" for the poor more, but, unfortunately, the practices and policies they promote don't always translate into net positive effect. Feelings. Nothing more than feelings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Conway Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 Fairweather & Mattp = bickering old gay couple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 (edited) It is funny to see die hard Republican's complain that Obama has no plan for energy when McCain's big announcements thus far have been the gas tax holiday and his support for drilling in ANWAR. As usual, your facts are wrong. McCain is opposed to drilling in ANWR. He supports more offshore/shelf drilling. The point of this post was not Republican=good, Democrat=bad. The point was to demonstrate that expanding a bad program like ethanol subsidies is a knee-jerk reaction from the left that is at least as bad as any accusations of the same directed at the right. I can think of several times where "do-gooders" (typically, the left) got it dead wrong: Margarine. Requiring toxic flame retardants in children's clothing. Requiring the additive MTBE in gasoline. Etc. Etc. Sometimes they're just simple meddlers: Bicycle helmets, cell phone restrictions, seatbelt laws for adults. That's not to say they don't get it right sometimes: Airbags/seatbelts as standard equipment, certain labor and wage laws, certain enviro regs that are not exclusively social in nature, etc. That's all this thread was about--but lefties in particular seem hell-bent on preserving their orthodoxy and tagging the simplest dissent as blasphemy. Amazing. Margarine: Lifeblood of the Workers! Edited June 25, 2008 by prole Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted June 25, 2008 Author Share Posted June 25, 2008 Damn that bitch! The wheat she is using as a bookmark belongs to all of the people! Reeducation for this enemy of the people! And her whole fucking family too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted June 25, 2008 Share Posted June 25, 2008 would hit it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.