Obama '08?

engineer wrote:

H2O_MAN wrote:

engineer wrote:

I'm saying it's fine for a politician to tell the American public that they consume too much and that it puts our country at risk.

Only if the politician and American government practices what they preach by first doing what they want the masses to do.

In a perfect world, sure. But if a hypocritical politician can convince 300 million Americans to reduce their consumption by 5-10%, it's a win rather or not they contribute to the reduction. The idea that "Gore drives an SUV so he's full of it and we can ignore him" isn't quite correct. He may be full of it, but he's also right.

I drive a non-hybrid SUV that is a great car, cost thousands less, and gets better gas mileage than most hybrids on the market. Okie and others have previously provided excellent examples of how somebody driving a Hummer or other 'bad' vehicle under certain circumstances can be more environmentally friendly (by Gore's critera) than somebody driving a Prius under other circumstances.

But if the likes of Gore and Obama prevail in their proposals, none of us will have the option to buy a Hummer or many other vehicles that are now on the market.

And also, why should we think those that are 'full of it' based on their unwillingness to pare back their own lifestyles, perks, and/or benefits are any more 'right' than somebody else? Or that their motives are somehow more noble than somebody else? Why are so many willing to hand over their freedoms to people who are unwilling to give up any of theirs?

I haven't seen any credible evidence that the environmental gurus (the obvious hypocrites and possibly a few who actually are walking the talk--if there are any of those out there other than George W. Bush,

Carbon offsets are one of the biggest boondoggles I've seen .

Well gee. Was it the Nazis or Germany who started WWII?

Foxfyre wrote:

Well gee. Was it the Nazis or Germany who started WWII?

You're making my point for me.

T
K
O

Foxfyre wrote:

Then again Russia never once launched one of those missiles nor took any other overt aggressive action against us because we had the fire power to obliterate them if they did and they knew that. Strength indeed can be an inducement for peace.

On the other hand, it was a group of misfits based in the tiny impoverished nation of Afghanistan that successfully bombed our World Trade center, twice--the second time killing thousands and bringing down the towers--who successfully bombed the Pentagon and, if the passengers had not intervened, would have bombed the U.S. Capital.

What 'threat' that exists is subject to analysis I think.

If that's your answer to nimh's question - does it now mean "Yes, this guy is a threat to the United States"?

Diest TKO wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Well gee. Was it the Nazis or Germany who started WWII?

You're making my point for me.

T
K
O

And what point would that be?

nimh wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

What an idiotic observation. There is absolutely no sense that Obama has Kansas ties. He won Kansas because the people of that State have the good sense to not want the Hildabeast elected.

Tico,

Obama won 74% of the vote in Kansas.

Now compare the neighbouring states:

31% in Oklahoma
49% in Missouri
68% in Nebraska
67% in Colorado

Why do you think Obama did better in Kansas than in any nearby state?

Kansans have historically shown themselves to be more intelligent than their neighbors. Final answer.

Foxfyre wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Well gee. Was it the Nazis or Germany who started WWII?

You're making my point for me.

T
K
O

And what point would that be?

That the degree of political involvement a particular idea in a government is relavant. With WWII we fought Germany, because it was the direct threat. With Afganistan, we are fighting Al Queda, but what we do effects the people of Afganistan.

Now think of Iraq.
Now think of Iran.

You and I will agree that we must engage groups like Alqueda and Hamas, but we do so much better when we have a international cooperation.

If you dropped a bomb in Iran, would it kill Iranians or Terrorists?

T
K
O

Diest TKO wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Well gee. Was it the Nazis or Germany who started WWII?

You're making my point for me.

T
K
O

And what point would that be?

That the degree of political involvement a particular idea in a government is relavant. With WWII we fought Germany, because it was the direct threat. With Afganistan, we are fighting Al Queda, but what we do effects the people of Afganistan.

Now think of Iraq.
Now think of Iran.

You and I will agree that we must engage groups like Alqueda and Hamas, but we do so much better when we have a international cooperation.

If you dropped a bomb in Iran, would it kill Iranians or Terrorists?

T
K
O

I'm sorry TKO, but I'm not following your train of thought here. I was responding to Nimh as to whether the USSR with all its ICBMs was a greater threat to us than little countries headed by terrorist minded leaders. And I thought that issue was not quite as cut and dried as it might appear at first blush and provided an example to illustrate that.

I don't see how where you are going with this is relevant to that. I wasn't dealing with 'engaging' anybody other than in the context of whether Obama's proposed policy or McCain's (or Hillary's) is the way to go when dealing with terrorist types and thought the 'size of a presumed threat' should not necessarily be the determining factor.

okie wrote:

There are very real reasons that terrorist groups, Iran, and a whole host of other bad apples want to see Obama elected.

What's this based on? I've read about the Hamas 'endorsement', but otherwise, is this just conjecture?

I'd say Iran's been very happy with how things have worked out for them the past eight years; thanks to Bush's actions they are now more powerful than in many, many years. So maybe they'd want to stick with a Republican...

The policies of the Bush Administration may or may not have resulted in a strengthening of Iran,

Foxfyre wrote:

Carbon offsets are one of the biggest boondoggles I've seen .

[sic]

Setting aside the the confusing syntax, precisely how are carbon offsets "boondoggles?" Maybe if we could just borrow that magic twanger of yours, we could just wave and do away with CO2.

Are you questioning the fact that CO2 emissions are harmful?

I posted the most amazing set of county-level electoral maps, made by a Kos poster, on the Polls etc thread. One snippet that stood out on the maps was how clearly state borders stand out. Even when neighbouring states voted at or around the same time in the primaries.

Kansas is one of the most striking examples. Here - more blue is more votes for Obama, more red is more Hillary, and more green is Edwards:

Not particularly remarkable. In fact, rather easily explicable. It's a figment, along the lines of an optical illusion.

In the first place, it's easy, upon seeing a map of the United States, to imagine the outlines of the state boundaries superimposed on the map. Furthermore, the fact that you have a map of the US with the outlines of counties superimposed, along with the fact that no county crosses state boundaries, and it becomes extremely easy to guess at the state boundaries, especially when there are contrasting colors. On the colored map, then, it is fairly simple to see where the boundary lies between Kansas (which Obama won by a large margin) and Oklahoma (which Clinton won by a large margin), but the boundary between Kansas and Missouri is not so easy to distinguish. Likewise, the southern boundaries of Michigan and New York are completely indistinct, as is the entire state of Nevada. Anyone who "sees" those boundaries is merely imposing one's preconceptions of what a map should look like, in the same way that one's brain attempts to create order in a disordered image.

The policies of the Bush Administration may or may not have resulted in a strengthening of Iran, but we can be absolutely certain that Iran is not more worried about a Democratic adminstration than a Republican one.

What do they have to wrry about? Getting talked to death?

real life wrote:

Please give us your suggestions for carrying four bags of groceries on a bicycle.

No, the point you tried to make is not that people should reduce 'when they can'.

What you said is they were 'lazy'. Your superior attitude reeks.

Why don't you tell us exactly what your mandatory energy plan would be if YOU were president, Cyclo?

How many miles would individuals be allowed to drive?

How many kilowatts of electricity would they be allowed per person?

What temperature would they be required to keep their thermostat set to?

What would be the penalty for throwing newspaper in the trash instead of driving ( or biking) bundles of it down to the recycling center?

How many gallons of water would each household be restricted to?

What would be the age limit on appliances like refrigerators before being required to purchase new 'energy efficient' ones? (or should we just also switch over to granola and dried fruit, thus eliminating the need for refrigeration?)

You're a moron.



Here's what I use to go to the grocery store, etc. 150 lb. carrying capacity, folds down flat, super light, inexpensive. I can carry 8 bags of groceries in one of these things, and have done so many times.

The vast majority of people aren't restricted by the same sort of situation you posited earlier. You are taking an extreme and trying to use it to say that nobody should attempt to conserve energy. And yes, I do believe that the majority of Americans are rather lazy. A ten-mile commute to work on a bicycle takes about 30 minutes and keeps one in great health. But people would rather sit on their asses in a car then use their bodies' muscles to get around.

Every now and then I forget that you are nothing more then a troll and not really worth talking to. But you always remind me. Good day, sir

Cycloptichorn