US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread - Part III - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-01-2007, 10:46 AM   #46
Anu
Editor
 
Anu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: There ain't no place I'd rather be, baby won't you carry me back to Tennessee
Posts: 1,695
Local Time: 02:58 AM
Compromise is great, but the ball-less, soul-less, mean-spirited opportunism that the Democratic Party has used to get its grassroots activists to support centrist pro-NAFTA globalist warmakers like the Clintons is frankly despicable.

Glad we have Dennis the menace to call them out from our side.
__________________

__________________
Stand up to rock stars!
Anu is offline  
Old 12-01-2007, 12:18 PM   #47
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,255
Local Time: 09:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


But like always, you are missing context.


How am I missing context? BonosSaint is absolutely right. Unless my math is failing me, 1993 comes before 1994. The Republicans had nothing to do with it.
__________________

__________________
2861U2 is offline  
Old 12-01-2007, 01:32 PM   #48
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 06:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2
The Republicans had nothing to do with it.
Except now the Republican candidates all think it's the greatest policy since sliced bread.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 12-01-2007, 02:05 PM   #49
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 08:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2




How am I missing context? BonosSaint is absolutely right. Unless my math is failing me, 1993 comes before 1994. The Republicans had nothing to do with it.
I never said the Republicans had anything to do with it, did I?

What was the climate in the military before this? This was a baby step that had to be made. The fact that it's been policy for 14 years now is discusting, but that isn't Clinton's fault. Context.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 12-01-2007, 02:16 PM   #50
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 09:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2
How am I missing context? BonosSaint is absolutely right. Unless my math is failing me, 1993 comes before 1994. The Republicans had nothing to do with it.
The context that for the last seven years our President hasn't even attempted to do anything towards correcting it.

Instead of talking about Bill Clinton, discuss our current president.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 12-02-2007, 01:59 PM   #51
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 02:58 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2
Why is it that when the topic of gays in the military comes up, I never hear any of you attack Bill Clinton for signing DADT, only the "bigoted, heartless Republicans?"
Good point. Generally, I liked Clinton, and still do. But he shouldn't have signed DADT.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 12-02-2007, 02:03 PM   #52
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 02:58 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26


The context that for the last seven years our President hasn't even attempted to do anything towards correcting it.

Instead of talking about Bill Clinton, discuss our current president.
Yeah, we're discussing next year's Presidential campaign, not Bill Clinton's presidency.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 12-02-2007, 03:15 PM   #53
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 07:58 PM
You know that a neo-con feels defeated in an argument about George W. Bush when he or she brings up the faults of Bill Clinton's presidency in the argument.



It always happens, every thread and every argument i've seen.

__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 12-02-2007, 03:18 PM   #54
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 07:58 PM
Let me give you an example:

Me: GWB Lied about Iraq and attacked it with false claims of WMD's.

Neo-con: In 1993, Al Gore said we should get rid of Iraq's WMD program.



So lame!
__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 12-02-2007, 03:33 PM   #55
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 03:58 AM
Quote:
The candidates on energy: hot topic, diverse views

By Mark Clayton
Christian Science Monitor, December 3


With gasoline at more than $3 a gallon, energy has emerged as a top issue in the presidential campaign for the first time since the 1970s, with all major presidential candidates including it in their stump speeches. Not just gasoline prices, but global warming, the Iraq war, and Hurricane Katrina have combined to put secure and renewable energy--along with healthcare and the economy--near the top of voter and candidate priorities this election season.

While all candidates speak of the urgency of unhooking America from imported oil, of developing new energy technologies, and of feeling voters' pain at the pump, their plans for dealing with the problem vary from the detailed to little detail at all. That leaves energy-security hawks like Dr. Gal Luft, executive director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security in Washington, wanting more from both parties. Democrats' plans don't mandate the flex-fuel vehicles he deems necessary, and he says Republicans' plans need more detail. "Democrats have some very specific agendas that you can argue about whether they are good enough," Mr. Luft says. "But with key exceptions, Republicans have not offered very many details at all about their energy security plans. There's not much meat on the bones."

Some environmentalists, however, are encouraged that energy plans are finally emerging from both parties' candidates. "The good news is that all of the leading Democrats now have put forward comprehensive aggressive plans to deal with the twin challenges of energy security and global warming," says Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters, a nonpartisan environmental group. "On the Republican side, the most aggressive energy candidate by far is Sen. [John] McCain--and [former Gov. Mike] Huckabee has expressed support for solving these related problems, too."

Broadly speaking, Democrats' energy security plans focus on curbing oil imports through tougher auto mileage requirements--achieving fleet averages of 35 to 50 miles per gallon over the next 10 to 15 years. Those goals are far tougher than the ones now being considered in Congress. Front-runners Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama have each unveiled detailed energy policies focused largely on slowing global warming, cutting fossil-fuel use, and promoting renewables. All favor developing cellulosic ethanol technology and plug-in hybrid cars that get more than 100 m.p.g. All their plans are more aggressive than those in the energy bill expected to see a vote this week in Congress. Overall, the Democrats' plans are focused on cap-and-trade programs aimed at slashing carbon emissions and on efforts to stop global warming.

Republican candidates, by contrast, have generally opposed government mandates for higher mileage for autos. Exceptions include Mr. Huckabee, who supports a 35-m.p.g. fleet standard by 2020, and Senator McCain, who supports plug-in hybrids and a higher mileage standard but has not specified targets. Republican candidates' energy security focuses on boosting energy production and developing new technology, such as cellulosic ethanol. Some, including former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, support expanding oil reserves by drilling for oil in sensitive areas like the continental shelf and Alaska's wilderness. Converting the nation's coal reserves to liquid motor fuel is another key departure from Democrats' positions. Mr. Romney, Mr. Giuliani, and Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado all support coal-to-liquid, or CTL, development. Other GOP candidates have no articulated position on CTL, the League of Conservation Voters reports.

Most Democrats don't support liquefied coal, although Senators Clinton and Obama have left the door open, saying they might support the technology if it can be made to produce fewer carbon emissions than does gasoline. Republicans (except McCain) and Democrats, facing tough caucuses in the corn-growing state of Iowa, favor ethanol subsidies.

Most Republicans support expansion of nuclear power. Most Democrats do not. But Clinton and Obama have indicated that they are open to more nuclear power to help the global-warming problem if waste disposal and proliferation problems can be solved.

With rising public concern over global warming and fossil-fuel burning, many candidates' energy plans zero in on this issue. Mr. Edwards, who favors cutting US carbon emissions by 80% by 2050, this spring was the first to unveil an energy plan. Clinton weighed in this fall with a detailed plan for similar carbon cuts. But New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson is even more aggressive in his timelines and goals, pushing for 90% carbon reductions by 2050, Mr. Karpinski says.

While several Republican candidates have said in speeches that global warming is real, most oppose any mandatory emissions cuts or have no stated position. Notable exceptions are Huckabee, who supports in principle a mandatory emissions cap, and McCain, who strongly supports a mandatory cap and was the first to cosponsor emissions-cap legislation. "While there are meaningful differences among Democrats' plans, all acknowledge climate change as a major challenge and say quick action is needed," says Julia Bovey, who analyzes candidate positions for the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund, the political arm of the NRDC. "The Republican field is a far more mixed bag."

Shifting electric utilities away from coal and toward renewable fuels like wind and biomass so it is increasing efficiency of electricity use instead of building more power plants is a major goal of most Democratic candidates. Most Republicans oppose such a requirement for renewable sources on the grid, though some have not stated a position. While most Democrats favor a federal mandate to require that 20-25% of US electricity come from renewable sources by 2025, Governor Richardson has set a 30% target by 2020 and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio wants that much or more.

Finally, there's the question of the depth of commitment to a new national energy policy. At the first major forum on it earlier last month in Los Angeles, only three candidates showed up--all Democrats. "We invited all the candidates to come. [We] really wanted them all there," the NRDC's Ms. Bovey says. "But only Clinton, Kucinich, and Edwards came."

Even so, candidates are focusing more on energy this time than ever before, say many. "Energy has become a symbol of lack of US competitiveness, innovation, and even our geopolitical standing," says Paul Bledsoe, strategy director at the National Commission on Energy Policy. "So that's why candidates are talking about it. It's not just about energy; it's about American standing in the world."
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 12-02-2007, 03:57 PM   #56
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,255
Local Time: 09:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Infinitum98
You know that a neo-con feels defeated in an argument about George W. Bush when he or she brings up the faults of Bill Clinton's presidency in the argument.

Excuse me?

Assuming you're referring to me, I do not feel defeated in the slightest. And about me bringing up Clinton? It's a fact, sir. If you guys disagree with the Republican candidates here, I don't care. I'm just trying to remind you that it was one of your own who started the policy. Same principle applies for your WMD example. Bringing up Democrats who voted for this war is absolutely a legitimate point in an argument, and anyone who says otherwise is, as far as I can see, ashamed and trying to run from the fact.
__________________
2861U2 is offline  
Old 12-02-2007, 04:04 PM   #57
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 08:58 PM
Infinitum, is a republican.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 12-02-2007, 04:07 PM   #58
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,255
Local Time: 09:58 PM
Yeah, I know that. How does that make a difference?
__________________
2861U2 is offline  
Old 12-02-2007, 04:14 PM   #59
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 08:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2
Yeah, I know that. How does that make a difference?
If you knew that, then this doesn't make sense:

Quote:
I'm just trying to remind you that it was one of your own who started the policy
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 12-02-2007, 04:17 PM   #60
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,255
Local Time: 09:58 PM
With the "you", I was referring to the majority of people reading this thread, who are mostly Democrats and/or Clinton-lovers, not Infinitum specifically.
__________________

__________________
2861U2 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com