Fear Sells Better Than Sex - Just Ask GWB

Everyone loves a healthy debate. Post an idea or comment about a current event or issue. Let others post their ideas also. This area is for those who love to explore other points of view.

Moderator: Nicole Marie

Postby BigJon@Work » Thu Aug 17, 2006 5:26 pm

OperaTenor wrote: As for taking it seriously, we're talking about my child's future on this planet, and I happen to take that VERY seriously.

I'm teaching my kids that man is the smartest, most adaptable animal on the planet. If they see a problem, get in there and be part of the solution.

I don't spend even a second worrying about the warming climate's effects on my kids. We already know how to adapt to it, it is just a matter of how much adaption will be required. To be honest, the next ice age should be a much graver concern for Earth because it could destroy much civilization. Go, go, go, CO2 and methane and water vapor, raise that greenhouse high overhead, protect us from an ice-covered England and glaciers in my back yard. Amen.
"I am a 12 foot lizard." GCR Jan 31, 2006
BigJon@Work
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 2252
Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 12:01 am
Location: work. Duh!

Postby Shapley » Thu Aug 17, 2006 7:39 pm

OT,

How many lives could be lost, you ask? Thousands. Millions. Oil-rich nations could be thrown into turmoil. Death and destruction everywhere as their oil-based economies go bankrupt.

Or, maybe not. I don't pretend to be a fortune teller, but then, neither is Al Gore. The point is you mandate massive change over unproven data. Remember all the fuss because President Bush wanted to make some minor changes to the Social Security program because of pending shortfalls. The dire predictions that appeared right here on this bulletin board if 10% of the monies were diverted to private investment accounts. Think of that on a much, much bigger scale.

The point is, you don't mind overturning the economy to solve the problems you perceive as important, but are unwilling to sacrifice for those that you don't. Right now, because you've seen Al Gore's movie, you're convinced that that is what is important. You've been propogandized. I hope that answers the question you asked earlier.

V/R
Shapley
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Postby OperaTenor » Thu Aug 17, 2006 11:34 pm

Minor changes to Social Security?!! Dude, you didn't read the report. I did, I know what it said, and I gave a blow-by-blow of it here as I read it.

I haven't seen the movie yet.

Death and destruction everywhere?! GWB's already caused that throughout the Middle East due to his failed, crooked policies. Yup I blame him at least in part for EVERYTHING that's going wrong in the region right now.

Al Gore's spent most of his life working on the issue - it's his flagship issue. He's not dumb by any stretch of the imagination.

What happened to "we need to get off our addiction to oil"? Just more empty words by our emperor-in-chief?

Didn't we go to the moon on unproven data?

What's the difference in overturning the economy by trying to undo the damage we're doing to the Earth and overturning the economy by running up obscene debts and deficits?
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

Postby Shapley » Fri Aug 18, 2006 6:38 am

There's no way to argue these things with you, since they are all matters of opinion. You are going to blame the President for everything that goes wrong in the Middle East, by your own words, despite the fact that they having been going on for at least all of my adult life.

The changes to social security were minor compared to the changes Al Gore is seeking to impose on the environment. Even if the changes were extreme, the Democrats position was 'hands off', leaving us with an all or nothing approach to the problem.

Al Gore has spent his whole life getting elected. This is the issue he thinks will keep his career alive. He is unwilling to allow the fact that most of his data is unproven or even disproven to stand in his way. Al Gore is a politician, not a scientist.

I'm not opposed to ending our addition to foreign oil or domestic oil or all oil for that matter, but it needs to be done by market changes, not by government fiat. It needs to be done when viable, cost effective alternatives are found, tested, and implemented. That will not be done by government decree.

We went to the moon on proven science. What unproven data do you think was used to get us there?

Obscene debts and deficits do not ruin the economy, as I've already argued ad nauseum. We have had debt in this country for nearly all of my lifetime, and yet the economy rolls on. In case you haven't noticed, the economy is fairly well kicking butt right now.

V/R
Shapley
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Postby barfle » Fri Aug 18, 2006 7:32 am

OperaTenor wrote:What's the downside? How many innocent people will die for doing it, as opposed to the Iraq invasion, which is a national security clusterf#@%?

Besides money, because that's such a wacked out variable there's no telling if it will be a net savings or cost in the long run.

At least you're asking the question, which indicates you accept the idea that there is one.

I don't know the details of whatever you're proposing so I can't tell you what the downside would be, but just to take an extreme example, if we were to cease burning of fossil fuels because of their contribution to carbon dioxide (a laudable goal, albeit far-fetched), I would probably freeze to death sometime in February, if I didn't die of uncooked food in the meantime. Of course, I couldn't get to work unless I bought a bicycle or a horse, but even then, the electricity that powers my computer (and the lights in my office) comes mostly from coal-fired generating stations. So I just might starve before I caught a gastric infection.

As has been noted, there isn't enough corn/soybean/other chaff to power the vehicles and grid with biofuels. Maybe nukes? You have more experience in that field than I do, but the mines pollute and we still don't know what to do with spent fuel rods, which seem to be a bit hazardous to life as we know it.
--I know what I like--
barfle
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6144
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Springfield, Vahjinyah, USA

Postby barfle » Fri Aug 18, 2006 7:45 am

OperaTenor wrote:Death and destruction everywhere?! GWB's already caused that throughout the Middle East due to his failed, crooked policies. Yup I blame him at least in part for EVERYTHING that's going wrong in the region right now.

Apples and oranges. You know I'm no fan of Dubya and I'm pretty sure you know why, but assigning the wrong blame doesn't lead to a solution.


OperaTenor wrote:Al Gore's spent most of his life working on the issue - it's his flagship issue. He's not dumb by any stretch of the imagination.

He's a politician, which means he is highly skilled at telling people what they want to hear.

OperaTenor wrote:What happened to "we need to get off our addiction to oil"? Just more empty words by our emperor-in-chief?

Perhaps. After all, he's a politician. Take everything you hear with a healthy dose of skepticism. Make up your own mind.

OperaTenor wrote:Didn't we go to the moon on unproven data?

Apples and oranges again. The trip to the moon was really a military based stunt, in spite of the civilians working on it, and much more of an engineering project than "unproven data." It was a demonstration project put on to impress the Soviets, and very little else. As I've noted, teflon and velcro could have been developed much more cheaply.

OperaTenor wrote:What's the difference in overturning the economy by trying to undo the damage we're doing to the Earth and overturning the economy by running up obscene debts and deficits?

A very big reason for the deficits is the liberal entitlement programs that congress doesn't have the fortitude to cancel, because it will get them early retirement. Iraq is certainly a boondoggle - I will not make excuses for that, but it's not a case of "should we buy a war or a glacier?"
--I know what I like--
barfle
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6144
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Springfield, Vahjinyah, USA

Postby piqaboo » Fri Aug 18, 2006 10:29 am

Shapley wrote:you don't mind overturning the economy to solve the problems you perceive as important, but are unwilling to sacrifice for those that you don't.


Hello, yes, and you too. That pretty much describes all life.

barfle, where do you get the concept of suddenly stopping all burning of all fossil fuels? Did I miss something?

All or nothing is nearly always unnecessary, but also human nature. I see posters advocating for "all" hands off the the status quo (otherwise known as 'nothing').

I live in a city where the skyline was visible 20 years ago, and isnt now. It took 10 years for it to fade into the smog. At the rate things were going before emission standards for factories and cars, it would have disappeared long before I moved here. Implementing those controls cost money and upset a few economies. Long term it also reduced livelyhoods for a lot of doctors. But probably increased livelyhoods for those in the tourism industry.

Where the data we started discussion re global warming is still being gathered and assessed, and is the subject of much thought, it must be understood that scientists are human, have biases, etc. The point of science is to try to work in such away as to neutralize bias, hence the ongoing generation of different models etc.

However, I find it naive to assume that man is having no macro effect on the environment. We know StoneAge man affected England's environment by deforesting it. We know that we have smogged out entire valleys (LA basin) and that the Grand Canyon no longer looks red because of the industrial haze in the air, that we've had rivers so nasty the fish went belly up en masse, and some where the water appeared to burn.

So, we have a track record, and we know we make a difference, and that rarely is it benign.

Market forces had nothing to do with making the changes that instituted emissions controls. Politics did. Emotion did. Emotion drove people to do the science. Emotion drove people to push the politicians.

Are all the changes we try going to work? No, for many reasons. Among them:
the science may not be complete
the compromises between the wants and want-nots may render the action ineffective while still causing economic damage (see very recent limits on fishery areas for coastal CA)
some changes will based more on emotion than a complete understanding of solid science

Does that mean that anyone who proposes discussion of man-made effects on global warming should be automatically discounted and considered a kook? No.

Does that mean we know right this minute the best thing to do? No.
That's why we need discussion.

Do we know that we affect the environment? Yes.

BigJon, Im still pulling together quotes to address your .. I'd say ideas,but they have a feeling more of attacks... :(
Altoid - curiously strong.
piqaboo
1st Chair
 
Posts: 7135
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:01 am
Location: Paradise (So. Cal.)

Postby Serenity » Fri Aug 18, 2006 10:53 am

Shapley wrote:
Al Gore has spent his whole life getting elected. This is the issue he thinks will keep his career alive. He is unwilling to allow the fact that most of his data is unproven or even disproven to stand in his way. Al Gore is a politician, not a scientist.

V/R
Shapley


Aren't they all!
Serenity
1st Chair
 
Posts: 4666
Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 12:01 am

Postby Shapley » Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:08 am

Serenity,

Yes, indeed, they are. That is why the best solution (and the Constitutionally defined one) is to give them as little control over your life as possible.

V/R
Shapley
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Postby OperaTenor » Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:32 am

Shapley wrote:There's no way to argue these things with you,...


Fine, I'll take that as a concession...

Re SS: More backpedaling. Your original remark was intended to cast the "reform" in a minimal light. What GWB propsed was psoitively ghastly on an astronomical scale.

I don't know why you won't read the report and see for yourself. It's your own emporer's propaganda.
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

Postby Shapley » Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:58 am

I have read it, and I didn't see at as that drastic. Your view of what is drastic does not coincide with my own. The key point is that it was offered to the House and Senate for consideration, where a compromise platform could have been worked out, but it was rejected with a 'hands off our social security' approach. The truth is that the Democrats don't want Social Security fixed, at least not by this President, even though they know it will run into problems in the future. Their solution, now as always, is to raise taxes. Right now, the popular tome for fixing Social Security is to eliminate the wage ceiling, making 'the rich' pay SS taxes on the full amount of their income, rather than only on the part that will realistically see a return at retirement. Part of the traditional Democrat 'soak the rich' approach that has thus far cost them the Presidency, the House, and the Senate.

V/R
Shapley
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Postby Shapley » Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:01 pm

Fine, I'll take that as a concession..


There you've just shown the type of thinking that allows Hezbollah, Saddam, and al Queda to claim victory in the face of defeat, and you've shown why we can't leave Iraq with anything less than full victory.

Thanks, you've made the point my anonymous letter writer was saying over in the other thread, which is the same thing Haggis has said, and Bush has said, and John Kerry said (half the time), and Lieberman was saying, and...

V/R
Shapley
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Postby barfle » Fri Aug 18, 2006 2:10 pm

piqaboo wrote:barfle, where do you get the concept of suddenly stopping all burning of all fossil fuels? Did I miss something?

As I noted, given the lack of a definition, I made up an absurd one, and admitted as much.
--I know what I like--
barfle
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6144
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Springfield, Vahjinyah, USA

Postby Shapley » Sun Aug 20, 2006 5:00 pm

More on unintended consequences:

CFC Substitutes May Accelerate Global Warming
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Postby OperaTenor » Mon Aug 21, 2006 4:54 pm

Keith Olberman - The Nexus of Politics and Terror.

http://websrvr20.audiovideoweb.com/avwebdswebsrvr2143/news_video/CountdownTerrorNexus512K.mov

QuickTime video.

Teehee...
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

Postby OperaTenor » Mon Aug 21, 2006 4:57 pm

And here's another log on that fire:

U.S., U.K. at odds over timing of arrests
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14320452/

As I've contended from the start of the debate, we quit fighting the war on terror when we took the left turn into Iraq.

What a travesty...
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

Postby Shapley » Mon Aug 21, 2006 4:58 pm

I get a blank screen. :?:
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Postby Shapley » Mon Aug 21, 2006 5:02 pm

OT,

RE: Arrests.

So you are automatically assuming that the British Authorities were correct in their timing and that the United States was wrong. Assuming, of course, that the report is accurate.

V/R
Shapley
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Postby Haggis@wk » Mon Aug 21, 2006 5:11 pm

People actually watch MSNBC??? I thought you had to have a doctor's excuse or something
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6055
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Postby OperaTenor » Mon Aug 21, 2006 5:18 pm

Shapley wrote:OT,

RE: Arrests.

So you are automatically assuming that the British Authorities were correct in their timing and that the United States was wrong. Assuming, of course, that the report is accurate.

V/R
Shapley


Oh come on! Whose investigation was it?

Or am I forgetting GWB is as infallible as the Pope?
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

PreviousNext

Return to The Debate Team

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron