The Lexington Project - Page 5 - 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 07-02-2008, 09:36 PM   #81
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
[q]Obama really does not offer anything[/q]


this would be a good example of a poor argument. you've offered nothing but an article that highlights differences in the two candidates, yet you dismiss the content of the article for an judgment that has nothing to back it up.

how does doubling auto efficiency standards and requiring power companies to vastly increase alternative sources of energy amount to "not offer[ing] anything" especially in comparison to the science fair-like offer of $300m for an electric car?

how else am i to take your dismissal?
How much is that going to cost the American consumer? Is tougher regulation of an industry that is already adapting due to market forces the right way to go? Are there better ways of reducing emissions for less cost? How can America position itself to make money off carbon trading? Are state based initiatives a better way to go? How much federal level projects are required?

I would vote for a candidate that has a bright-green agenda, I do not find self-flagellation in pursuit of carbon neutrality a turn-on.

Discuss people, is government getting involved in what people drive actually going to impact carbon emissions in a serious way.
__________________

A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-02-2008, 09:39 PM   #82
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,856
Local Time: 04:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
Dismissing deep as Sting2-lite is partisan thinking.


it is only on this single issue -- Obama -- that i find deep's posts less than compelling.
__________________

Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-02-2008, 10:11 PM   #83
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,856
Local Time: 04:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluer White View Post
I'd like to explore this issue a little more as well. South America, particularly Brazil, produces a sugercane-based ethanol. Corn makes about two units of energy for every unit used to produce it. Sugarcane-based ethanol makes eight units.

Obama supports a large tariff on sugarcane-based ethanol, a tariff which may be illegal under WTO rules, depending on where you look. He also supports big subsidies for the much less efficient corn-based producers...the multinational corporations from his neck of the woods. At the same time, our prices for staple foods and corn-fed beef continue to spike.

McCain is in favor of dropping the tariff on sugarcane-based ethanol, and dropping the subsidies that go to wasteful corn-based ethanol.

Obama's energy policy linked to ethanol interests - International Herald Tribune


this is one of my biggest problems with Obama, in that he's quite friendly with what should be known as Big Corn. while ethanol -- sugar or corn -- is a worthy field of endeavor, the bigger picture, as i see it, is moving the economy off of oil itself. gas tax "holidays" or more offshore oil digging certainly don't address the big picture here. the high price of oil will drive up consumer demand for greener technologies among consumers, as well as demand -- and funding, i hope -- for better public transportation alternatives for citizens. McCain wants to fund roads, not rail, and i see this as a big mistake. he has no proposals to reduce the use of cars nor the increase of energy efficiency, and he also opposes federal subsidies to the wind and solar power that Obama favors, which is interesting considering that McCain favors nuclear subsidies, which makes him sound more like a shill for Big Nuke Power than someone who's serious about reducing emissions. and, in fact, McCain receives more from Big Oil than any member of the Senate other than Kay Bailey Hutchinson. this is not to oppose nuclear power, but it is to oppose subsidizing nuclear power at the expense of other industries.

what's most noteworthy, though, is that this is an issue where both candidates present a huge step away and forward from the horrible, horrible energy "policies" of the Bush administration who once said that conservation was simply a matter of personal choice, or that the American "way of life" -- i.e., SUVs -- was "sacred" and needed to be defended after 9-11.

this is an issue where both candidates are an improvement from the present, but if you truly believe that the only answer to the climate crisis is a total overhaul in lifestyle, then it's clear who you should vote for.
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-02-2008, 10:18 PM   #84
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,885
Local Time: 03:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
it pains me to see formerly thoughtful posters resorting to whining because they haven't taken the time to think through their posts and feeling put upon because people are going to call them out on their poorly constructed arguments.

dissent is always tolerated, bad thinking is not.
If I am the formerly thoughtful poster, have enough balls to say its me. If for one second I felt a thoughtful post might be welcome, I may be more inclined to make one. As for whining...the truth hurts. Deep looks more like he is on the right because the right, is disappearing.....and not because of thoughtful posts...and clearly you must not be living in a glass house.

I have not felt welcome in this forum for some time, and maybe it is time for the door to be closing on my presense here.
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-02-2008, 10:45 PM   #85
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ntalwar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 4,903
Local Time: 04:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluer White View Post
McCain is in favor of dropping the tariff on sugarcane-based ethanol, and dropping the subsidies that go to wasteful corn-based ethanol.
But McCain doesn't support higher fuel efficiency standards (according to his website). Obama does. That will have a much larger impact than tarriffs.
ntalwar is offline  
Old 07-02-2008, 11:31 PM   #86
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,856
Local Time: 04:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadsox View Post
If I am the formerly thoughtful poster, have enough balls to say its me. If for one second I felt a thoughtful post might be welcome, I may be more inclined to make one. As for whining...the truth hurts. Deep looks more like he is on the right because the right, is disappearing.....and not because of thoughtful posts...and clearly you must not be living in a glass house.

I have not felt welcome in this forum for some time, and maybe it is time for the door to be closing on my presense here.


no, you're not the formerly thoughtful poster i was thinking of, but i did find that post very whiney. i find it more productive to speak in generalities than to single people out in a semi-anonymous forum like this. likewise, you'll notice that mods go to great lengths not to single individuals out and instead suggest broader correctives to behaviors rather than individual smack-downs. that strikes me as more productive, and so i sought to do the same thing.

i do not think deep is on the right. when it comes to the single issue of Obama, i think deep more often than not is trying to get a rise out of certain, younger posters on here, and i think there's a weirdness that's creeped into many of his posts that could have been pulled from, say, the Michelle Malkin website. deep maintains my respect in all other subjects, which is why i (and many others, i'm far from alone on this) find him so puzzling when it comes to one BHO.

"as for whining ... the truth hurts?" eh? i'm sorry, but not even close, and that's not a particularly mature line of thought. the quality of conservative thought on here has rapidly declined since the departure of NBC. it's as if he was singlehandedly holding up a house of cards that's now collapsed. i'm sorry if liberal posters outnumber conservatives. i'm not sorry that the liberals in here tend to frequently outargue the conservatives. i'm also not sorry that, at the end of 8 years, and quite possibly through the natural evolution of things, that conservative ideas about national security, energy, the environment, race, class, sexuality, etc., all have come up bankrupt. it is not a good time to be a conservative, not compared to 15 years ago at the height of the "Gingrich revolution." the climate is hostile to conservatives right now, and i think you're seeing that mirrored here in FYM. after 8 years of Bush, do you not expect the liberals to look at you (the collective "you") and say, "look, obviously NOTHING has worked. we are fundamentally WORSE now than we were in 1999. your ideas have been implemented by a party that has had total control of all branches of government up until 2006, and the ideas have FAILED."

the truth hurts? i'd ask the same of the conservative.

as for your own sense of persecution, i don't know what to tell you. you're someone i've always sought to engage and who i've always sought to try to engage on the merits of an argument, or not. you're obviously not STING. you're not the college-aged reactionaries who spout soundbytes and then get mad when people get irritated. you're not all that conservative, even if you'd like to think you might come off that way. you're someone who i think looks at the issues and thinks about them, and as such, and as one of the louder voices in here, i have always tried to engage you on a civil, intellectual level.

it's the ideas, i think. the conservative ones are worn out. defending them is hard work, and i don't envy anyone that task. but the worst thing a conservative could do is to make himself some sort of martyr for a cause that ever actually existed to begin with.
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-02-2008, 11:48 PM   #87
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:43 AM
Self-pity or smugness, a dichotomy of despair.
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-02-2008, 11:50 PM   #88
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,856
Local Time: 04:43 PM
i have nothing to hide.

in fact, i think people are often too easy on me. i don't know why. if i piss you off, let me know.
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-03-2008, 01:05 AM   #89
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,900
Local Time: 04:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadsox View Post
If I am the formerly thoughtful poster, have enough balls to say its me. If for one second I felt a thoughtful post might be welcome, I may be more inclined to make one. As for whining...the truth hurts. Deep looks more like he is on the right because the right, is disappearing.....and not because of thoughtful posts...and clearly you must not be living in a glass house.

I have not felt welcome in this forum for some time, and maybe it is time for the door to be closing on my presense here.
Dread,

I'd prefer this was a PM but I can't figure out how to send them on the revamped forum (or maybe you've opted not to receive them.

I just wanted to say I, for one, appreciate your perspective and contributions in FYM. I don't know who it is that has been making you feel unwelcome here, but I sure hope it isn't me. I've always admired your posts--not least, because you're often hard to pin down or pigeonhole. I like that--it's the sign of a thinking person in my book. So I hope you'll consider sticking around. As Irvine said, it is a difficult time to be a conservative, but what's funny is--don't ask me why--I've never thought of you as conservative! Go figure, huh.

In truth, if all the conservatives left FYM I'm not sure how often I'd visit. A mutual congratulation society isn't that exciting a place for me.
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-03-2008, 01:08 AM   #90
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,900
Local Time: 04:43 PM
[QUOTE=A_Wanderer;5262794]My observation seems to be that left-people get much more partisan over Obama and the right is lukewarm towards McCain. It isn't so much that "dissent" or what is really just criticism isn't tolerated, it is that it gets dismissed rather than discussed. [QUOTE]

Really? Because I just don't see that at all. Unless you mean that anything other than agreeing wholeheartedly with any criticism of Obama amounts to dismissal.

In this very thread, you have Obama supporters critiquing his support of ethanol and Big Corn. So where is all this dismissal happening?
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-03-2008, 02:28 AM   #91
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 09:43 PM
I feel like I should split this thread because there are obviously two separate tracks going, but I'm really loath to create a thread on the theme 'Air Your Grievances With Other FYMers Here!!!' and I can't think of a more constructive way to package it.

I don't want to get into pointing out destructive things particular posters may have been doing at the moment, but I do think it'd be very helpful if everyone made an effort (not just in here, but with the campaign threads in general) to minimize throwing-down-the-gauntlet type statements, whether on the thread topic or (even worse) about other posters. Stuff to the effect of 'More brainless pandering from [candidate's name] ' or 'This election is about _______, and if you can't accept that you're deluded' or 'You ________ supporters need to wake up and admit your candidate doesn't have a clue'.

I know that probably all sounds like so much rinky-dink nicety, and in theory we probably all ought to be able to shrug off that sort of hyperbole, but The Horse Race seems to have our collective nerves worn down and I think many of us often come in here looking for an excuse to go, 'Aha! See, you're so fixated on who you (don't) want to win that you can't even debate an issue clearly anymore,' then mentally write that poster off. And when you make those throw-down-the-gauntlet posts in a climate like that, not only do you wind up inviting that verdict, but you also give the impression that the feeling is mutual. Which might be true at that moment!--but I know most people in here are capable of much more this kind of brinksmanship, so long as they don't feel backed into a corner.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 07-03-2008, 02:58 AM   #92
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 09:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty Bottoms View Post
Since melon has convinced me that nuclear power is the way to go when it comes to energy
If you (or melon, or anyone really) are still following this, I'd love to hear a little more about why. How much of our total energy supply should we aim to have it meet; how realistic is funding, building and fueling that many new nuclear plants on McCain's proposed timeframe going to be; what about the waste and the NIMBY problem; etc.

I'm also skeptical about how much time more offshore drilling will buy us, and about how realistic the timeframe is--
Energy Information Administration (eia.doe.gov), 2007:
[q]The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030.[/q]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Vega View Post
Clean Coal technologies so far are pretty bad. They lower the efficiency rate to around 30 percent. Not that they shouldn't be developed and researched further, but I think priority should be to develop other means of energy production and energy saving more.

But like with the oil one thing is for sure: Instead of exploiting more and more deposits focus should lie on how to reduce energy consumption altogether, in the US, the greatest energy consumer on earth, in Europe and in all other parts of the world.
'Clean' coal is really more about acid rain reduction anyway. And yes, any energy strategy that doesn't put reducing energy consumption front and center (with specifics) isn't long-term viable.


Agreed with the general assessment that ethanol production, at least as we now know it, is a dead-end and Obama's beholdenness to it is definitely one of his weak points.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 07-03-2008, 06:22 AM   #93
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 04:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
If you (or melon, or anyone really) are still following this, I'd love to hear a little more about why. How much of our total energy supply should we aim to have it meet; how realistic is funding, building and fueling that many new nuclear plants on McCain's proposed timeframe going to be; what about the waste and the NIMBY problem; etc.
For me, it's the timeframe that's most troubling.

We have never been completely successful with providing clean nuclear energy. It is but for the grace of God that we have not had more disasters or calamities. I am not simply referring to developing countries where safety standards are questionable. Japan had 2 or 3 severe problems even as recently as a decade ago, and we have seen similar scale ones in western Europe as well (France comes to mind, sometime in the mid-90s, I remember I was just starting high school). The existing Canadian ones desperately need upgrading and nobody is spending the $ because the costs are extreme and the public is already hostile to having these in their neighbourhoods. There was a report commissioned a couple of years ago detailing the very many, many likely bad case scenarios that may arise as a result.

So to pump out dozens of these massive plants (I also think the McCain people terribly underestimate the cost of building them, nevermind the astronomical costs of litigation that will arise in each and every instance by communities that are hostile) in a few short decades when, if we're being honest, we have not cared to properly maintain the existing ones, seems very shortsighted.
anitram is offline  
Old 07-03-2008, 10:47 AM   #94
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ntalwar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 4,903
Local Time: 04:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
Agreed with the general assessment that ethanol production, at least as we now know it, is a dead-end and Obama's beholdenness to it is definitely one of his weak points.
Obama supports expanding research and deployment of cellulosic (not corn) ethanol on his website. As the table below indicates, this type of ethanol (e.g. switchgrass) has a greener profile, but the technology is still being worked on.

ntalwar is offline  
Old 07-03-2008, 11:40 AM   #95
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 64,498
Local Time: 01:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
'Air Your Grievances With Other FYMers Here!!!'
Oh, is Festivus coming early this year?

(sorry, couldn't resist. Carry on.)
__________________

corianderstem 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 03:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×