Barack Obama Honeymoon period: How long before you start?

Discussion of music production, audio, equipment and any related topics, either with or without Ableton Live
Post Reply

How long will the honeymoon last?

 
Total votes: 0

db91977
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 6:55 pm
Location: San Diego, California, USA

Re: Barack Obama Honeymoon period: How long before you start?

Post by db91977 » Sat Mar 21, 2009 11:09 pm

knotkranky wrote:
Dude, you're a righty in a lefty forum who post quotes from fox news. You're the most misinformed poster here.

your facts are not.
I see. If what you say is true, and this is a "lefty forum", then wouldn't you say that political opinion is skewed to the left, and this thread would benefit from some input from the right side of the aisle?

Okay, then. If I am the most misinformed poster here, how about posting some facts to counter my points? And to counter the points expressed in the articles linked by Geesus? I'm always open to learning new facts. Not just facts that support my current body of knowledge and opinions.

john doe by choice
Posts: 1085
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 4:21 am

Re: Barack Obama Honeymoon period: How long before you start?

Post by john doe by choice » Sat Mar 21, 2009 11:33 pm

db91977 wrote:
Yes, it is change. I ask again, is this the kind of change you guys were looking for?

These three articles make my points pretty well. Counterpoints, anyone? Minus the beating of chests and emotionally-charged phraseology?
I'll ask you for the third time, what did the republicans do to try to prevent this, and what would McCain have done to save us all, since you think Obama is just some jerk waving his cowboy hat whilst riding the missile known as America into oblivion? Geithner fucked up, and Obama may not be making perfect choices, but what else can you do when left with the mess that the republicans left? America is sinking like Mexico City, with any useful resource still being pumped out from underneath by pillaging republicans...When cleaning up a crime scene, one is inevitably going to get their hands dirty, and no one is saying Obama is perfect, but he is, hands down, better than the people who left us in this mess, and the majority of Americans also believe that he was a better choice than McCain, or McCain would be in office right now (it is also an indisputable fact that there are more republicans in this country than there were votes for McCain at the polls - if he was the better choice, why is he not in office?)

The fact is that it is too soon to tell whether or not Obama's attempts at fixing this mess (LEFT BY REPUBLICANS) are going to work. Yes, he has the upper class/lobbyists to deal with; yes, he's got to make decisions regarding civil rights that there is no chance in hell that everyone is going to agree with; yes, he is inevitably going to piss off someone and do the wrong thing, and even make a mistake. What you need to understand is that many of us ARE SO SICK AND TIRED OF THE WAY THINGS WERE THAT WE ARE WILLING TO TAKE THAT CHANCE.

Do you think the citizens of America really want their president wasting time fixing a problem that Bush kew about and did nothing to fix?

The only counterpoint that needs to be made is this:

The problems we are facing took years to come to a head, which are years that Obama hasn't been in office. If McCain were in the white house right now, he'd be trying to fix the same problem, and who knows if his approach would be different than Obama's, but the likelihood that he would be looking out for anyone but the upper class is far less than with Obama. McCain would, however, have done something that would piss as many people off (probably more) as Obama is right now.

You have no definitive answer or solution; neither do I, and neither does anyone in this forum. But I will sleep easier at night knowing that an oilman isn't running my country, and a whole shitload of republicans agree with me, or McCain would be in office right now and this thread would be asking the same questions, but with McCain's name inserted instead.

Tone Deft
Posts: 24154
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:19 pm

Re: Barack Obama Honeymoon period: How long before you start?

Post by Tone Deft » Sat Mar 21, 2009 11:42 pm

Image
(working on a Saturday, drank waaaay too much Red Bull, time on my hands, can't sit still.)
In my life
Why do I smile
At people who I'd much rather kick in the eye?
-Moz

smutek
Posts: 4489
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:30 pm
Location: Baltimore,United States

Re: Barack Obama Honeymoon period: How long before you start?

Post by smutek » Sun Mar 22, 2009 1:15 am

Regarding the economy, I'd be more encouraged if he fired Geithner and Summers and brought on advisers who weren't already neck deep in helping to create this mess. Fire Liddy as well, why not? We own 80% of AIG, right?

I also wonder if these "too big to fail" institutions really need to fail.

Regarding everything else, I'd be more encouraged if he had the balls to tell AIPAC (and Israel) to go screw themselves when they try to shoot down one of his appointments (ie. Charles Freeman), and if he actually showed any willingness whatsoever to go after the criminals that started 2 wars, pissed all over the constitution and killed or otherwise ruined the lives of millions of people, but none of that is going to happen.

I fail to see how a 50,000 strong deployment in Iraq constitutes ending the war - or how doubling our presence in the quagmire of Afghanistan is hope and change. How is an expansion of attacks inside Pakistan hope and change? How is placing more effective control and over site on the use of torture not still torture? You can release a nice video tape, but how is extending sanctions against Iran diplomacy? How is shoveling billions of our tax dollars in the front door of a decrepit insurance agency so they can shovel it out the back door to their friends any kind of change? Correct me if I am wrong, but hasn't Obama completely backed away from single payer health care?

I'm sorry, but all I see so far are attempts to preserve the same institutions by a guy who has surrounded himself with a lot of hold overs from previous administrations.

Really, I hope I'm just being cynical and that I am flat out wrong.

Can someone please tell me where the hope and change is? I know it's only been 2 months, but the ground work should be started at this point, right - because I do not see hope and change, or even the foundation for hope and change anywhere on the horizon at this point.

Tell me, I am totally willing to listen with an open mind.

I have as much distaste for the Bush "legacy" and hateful "right wingers" as anyone else here, but at the same time I am not afraid to criticize any leader, be they Obama, Bush, Hitler or Ghandi - who I think is doing the wrong thing, I wont keep my mouth shut, and I will not follow blindly.

(*edit - the following blindly bit is not an insinuation against any individual here, so please apply the old adage, if it doesn't apply let it fly.

db91977
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 6:55 pm
Location: San Diego, California, USA

Re: Barack Obama Honeymoon period: How long before you start?

Post by db91977 » Sun Mar 22, 2009 6:34 am

John Doe & smutek, you bring up some interesting points... lots to consider, but I'll just jot down a few thoughts and come back to this some other time.

Regarding Geithner, how did he stay on board as Treasury Secretary, being an admitted tax cheat, when all these other would-be appointees got axed for their respective tax problems? That one puzzles me. You mean they could not find any other qualified person for the job? Well, it's a possibility. Let's see, we have somebody overseeing the IRS who is either dishonest, or has no clue about how to do his taxes. Nice. The Peter Principle at work...

smutek, that's a good idea about bringing on-board some advisers who weren't deeply involved vith creating the economic mess... good luck finding them!

Btw I'm getting the impression that politicians who pay all their taxes, and on time, are as hard to find as Al Gore when there's a cold snap in the U.S..

Speaking of making yellow water on the Constitution, the House passed a bill this past Thursday to tax the AIG bonus money at 90%. Retroactively. From what I've read, the U.S. Constitution specifically prohibits these "bills of attainder", targeting specific groups of taxpayers. As well as the Ex Post-Facto clause for the retroactive taxation.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/ ... 46610.aspx
There is some question whether the bill is constitutional, but the fact that they passed it sets a pretty scary precedent. Our government can now trash contract law and tax any group at any rate, for any reason? Of course, Congress couldn't be so bothered to read the stimulus package before they voted on it; why should we be surprised that they didn't perform due diligence on this piece of legislation? Or that they know Constitutional law? But, the Senate still has to vote on this, so it might not pass there (one hopes).

But, isn't this whole AIG bonus issue just a drop in the bucket; an obvious ploy by the government to divert the public's attention away from the much bigger issues going on? After all, the $160 million in bonus money at AIG is 1/1000, one one-thousandth, of the $160 BILLION given to AIG since last fall. Again, without due diligence on the part of our elected officials.

John Doe - the Republicans did nothing to prevent this mess, that I can see, anyway, and I don't think that McCain would have done much better as Pres (if at all). The Bush administration started the bailout fiasco, and it has continued with the current administration. In fact, as I mentioned before, Obama's spending spree makes Bush look like he's Amish. I don't think there's much difference between the Republicans and the Democrats nowadays; they both seem to consist of politicians who don't care a whit about the country- they are only concerned with getting a seat at the table of power. Most of them would sell their grandmothers into sexual bondage if they thought it would get them more votes. It sickens me. But, what can we do about it? Yes, yes, we can vote. But when your choice of candidates are all criminal, incompetent, power-hungry, and/or greedy, what good does it do to vote one in over the other? They ALL appear to be jerks waving their cowboy hats whilst riding the missile known as America into oblivion.

john doe by choice
Posts: 1085
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 4:21 am

Re: Barack Obama Honeymoon period: How long before you start?

Post by john doe by choice » Sun Mar 22, 2009 6:59 am

db91977 wrote:John Doe & smutek, you bring up some interesting points... lots to consider, but I'll just jot down a few thoughts and come back to this some other time.

Regarding Geithner, how did he stay on board as Treasury Secretary, being an admitted tax cheat, when all these other would-be appointees got axed for their respective tax problems? That one puzzles me. You mean they could not find any other qualified person for the job? Well, it's a possibility. Let's see, we have somebody overseeing the IRS who is either dishonest, or has no clue about how to do his taxes. Nice. The Peter Principle at work...

smutek, that's a good idea about bringing on-board some advisers who weren't deeply involved vith creating the economic mess... good luck finding them!

Btw I'm getting the impression that politicians who pay all their taxes, and on time, are as hard to find as Al Gore when there's a cold snap in the U.S..

Speaking of making yellow water on the Constitution, the House passed a bill this past Thursday to tax the AIG bonus money at 90%. Retroactively. From what I've read, the U.S. Constitution specifically prohibits these "bills of attainder", targeting specific groups of taxpayers. As well as the Ex Post-Facto clause for the retroactive taxation.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/ ... 46610.aspx
There is some question whether the bill is constitutional, but the fact that they passed it sets a pretty scary precedent. Our government can now trash contract law and tax any group at any rate, for any reason? Of course, Congress couldn't be so bothered to read the stimulus package before they voted on it; why should we be surprised that they didn't perform due diligence on this piece of legislation? Or that they know Constitutional law? But, the Senate still has to vote on this, so it might not pass there (one hopes).

But, isn't this whole AIG bonus issue just a drop in the bucket; an obvious ploy by the government to divert the public's attention away from the much bigger issues going on? After all, the $160 million in bonus money at AIG is 1/1000, one one-thousandth, of the $160 BILLION given to AIG since last fall. Again, without due diligence on the part of our elected officials.

John Doe - the Republicans did nothing to prevent this mess, that I can see, anyway, and I don't think that McCain would have done much better as Pres (if at all). The Bush administration started the bailout fiasco, and it has continued with the current administration. In fact, as I mentioned before, Obama's spending spree makes Bush look like he's Amish. I don't think there's much difference between the Republicans and the Democrats nowadays; they both seem to consist of politicians who don't care a whit about the country- they are only concerned with getting a seat at the table of power. Most of them would sell their grandmothers into sexual bondage if they thought it would get them more votes. It sickens me. But, what can we do about it? Yes, yes, we can vote. But when your choice of candidates are all criminal, incompetent, power-hungry, and/or greedy, what good does it do to vote one in over the other? They ALL appear to be jerks waving their cowboy hats whilst riding the missile known as America into oblivion.
The solution for you is obvious, then:

Move to the North Pole.

Machinesworking
Posts: 11141
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Barack Obama Honeymoon period: How long before you start?

Post by Machinesworking » Sun Mar 22, 2009 7:23 am

john doe by choice wrote:
db91977 wrote:John Doe & smutek, you bring up some interesting points... lots to consider, but I'll just jot down a few thoughts and come back to this some other time.

Regarding Geithner, how did he stay on board as Treasury Secretary, being an admitted tax cheat, when all these other would-be appointees got axed for their respective tax problems? That one puzzles me. You mean they could not find any other qualified person for the job? Well, it's a possibility. Let's see, we have somebody overseeing the IRS who is either dishonest, or has no clue about how to do his taxes. Nice. The Peter Principle at work...

smutek, that's a good idea about bringing on-board some advisers who weren't deeply involved vith creating the economic mess... good luck finding them!

Btw I'm getting the impression that politicians who pay all their taxes, and on time, are as hard to find as Al Gore when there's a cold snap in the U.S..

Speaking of making yellow water on the Constitution, the House passed a bill this past Thursday to tax the AIG bonus money at 90%. Retroactively. From what I've read, the U.S. Constitution specifically prohibits these "bills of attainder", targeting specific groups of taxpayers. As well as the Ex Post-Facto clause for the retroactive taxation.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/ ... 46610.aspx
There is some question whether the bill is constitutional, but the fact that they passed it sets a pretty scary precedent. Our government can now trash contract law and tax any group at any rate, for any reason? Of course, Congress couldn't be so bothered to read the stimulus package before they voted on it; why should we be surprised that they didn't perform due diligence on this piece of legislation? Or that they know Constitutional law? But, the Senate still has to vote on this, so it might not pass there (one hopes).

But, isn't this whole AIG bonus issue just a drop in the bucket; an obvious ploy by the government to divert the public's attention away from the much bigger issues going on? After all, the $160 million in bonus money at AIG is 1/1000, one one-thousandth, of the $160 BILLION given to AIG since last fall. Again, without due diligence on the part of our elected officials.

John Doe - the Republicans did nothing to prevent this mess, that I can see, anyway, and I don't think that McCain would have done much better as Pres (if at all). The Bush administration started the bailout fiasco, and it has continued with the current administration. In fact, as I mentioned before, Obama's spending spree makes Bush look like he's Amish. I don't think there's much difference between the Republicans and the Democrats nowadays; they both seem to consist of politicians who don't care a whit about the country- they are only concerned with getting a seat at the table of power. Most of them would sell their grandmothers into sexual bondage if they thought it would get them more votes. It sickens me. But, what can we do about it? Yes, yes, we can vote. But when your choice of candidates are all criminal, incompetent, power-hungry, and/or greedy, what good does it do to vote one in over the other? They ALL appear to be jerks waving their cowboy hats whilst riding the missile known as America into oblivion.
The solution for you is obvious, then:

Move to the North Pole.
How about voting for people who actually seem to stand by their beliefs and are capable of realizing when they're wrong? Like Nader on the left or Ron Paul on the right? At least you have the knowledge that you tried then.


Also, again, I think it's not really logical to call anything Obama's doing right or wrong until we see the results. He's going to do it anyway, might as well see how it plays out. I can as we all seem to be abel to, say that I think it's a band aid on a shotgun hole, but it's not going to change the fact that they're going to buy a lot of band aids.
^^^^^^
We need a shrug emoticon for political threads.

Again, with the Al gore quote up there, I realize it's a joke, but if it at all seems like logic to you, then realize that Global Warming was/is a misleading term, it's more like "global raise the temperature a few degrees over all which sends the whole earths climate into crazy weather patterns and eventually destroys the coast lines". Doesn't fit into a sound bite though.

Tone Deft
Posts: 24154
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:19 pm

Re: Barack Obama Honeymoon period: How long before you start?

Post by Tone Deft » Sun Mar 22, 2009 8:01 am

watching last night's Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann says
"at least with this administration we know were half the money is going."

things that make you go hmmm...
In my life
Why do I smile
At people who I'd much rather kick in the eye?
-Moz

db91977
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 6:55 pm
Location: San Diego, California, USA

Re: Barack Obama Honeymoon period: How long before you start?

Post by db91977 » Sun Mar 22, 2009 5:07 pm

Machinesworking wrote: How about voting for people who actually seem to stand by their beliefs and are capable of realizing when they're wrong? Like Nader on the left or Ron Paul on the right? At least you have the knowledge that you tried then.
That's about all you can do, unless you want to try an end-run around the system by revolution or by manipulating the masses through the media.
Machinesworking wrote: Also, again, I think it's not really logical to call anything Obama's doing right or wrong until we see the results. He's going to do it anyway, might as well see how it plays out. I can as we all seem to be abel to, say that I think it's a band aid on a shotgun hole, but it's not going to change the fact that they're going to buy a lot of band aids.
^^^^^^
We need a shrug emoticon for political threads.
Well, I have to disagree with that philosophy. You can use past results of a course action to determine whether to go ahead with the same course of action in the present. I learned not to stick my fingers in an electrical outlet. The question is whether or not our government is smart enough to avoid sticking our fingers into the electrical outlet again. Have they learned from the past? Has any stimulus package passed thus far actually stimulated the economy? Rhetorical questions...

But I agree that a shrug emoticon would be useful for those times when you want to indicate "yeah, well, what can you do? The system is broken and we're all screwed."
Machinesworking wrote:Again, with the Al gore quote up there, I realize it's a joke, but if it at all seems like logic to you, then realize that Global Warming was/is a misleading term, it's more like "global raise the temperature a few degrees over all which sends the whole earths climate into crazy weather patterns and eventually destroys the coast lines". Doesn't fit into a sound bite though.
The question is not whether global warming (and cooling) exists. The phenomenon of global temperature variations throughout the Earth's history has pretty much been accepted by all scientists in climatology. The question is whether global warming is anthropogenic. There is by no means a consensus that this is fact.

To the contrary, there is significant evidence that we're currently in a global cooling period:

"Global warming (i.e, the warming since 1977) is over. The minute increase of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (0.008%) was not the cause of the warming—it was a continuation of natural cycles that occurred over the past 500 years.

The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling, perhaps much deeper than the global cooling from about 1945 to 1977. Just how much cooler the global climate will be during this cool cycle is uncertain. Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977 cool cycle. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely."

That's from the article found here:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... &aid=10783

The section of the article titled "PREDICTIONS BASED ON PAST CLIMATE PATTERNS" is interesting, and it puts things into perspective. The graph in that section shows huge variations in Earth's temperature from 15,000 to 10,000 years ago. The recent global warming is a tiny blip at the end of the time scale.

The point I'm making here is that there is nowhere close to a scientific consensus that global warming is anthropogenic in nature. We're being conned.

Call me cynical, but I think that whenever there is a push by governments to tax their citizenry based on "scientific evidence", it behooves us to look carefully at the source of funding for the scientific studies cited. A lot of these scientific groups get their funding from the government. As you say, Tone Deft, things that make you go hmmmmmm...

From the page at http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.htm, a site which debunks junk science, the Kyoto Protocol has cost the world about $615.5 Billion so far, for a theoretical temperature decrease by 2050 of 0.0063 degrees C. This is laughable. But the joke is on us and our wallets.

Data can be manipulated to support one's point of view. As I believe Al Gore has done with his movie "An Inconvenient Truth". The movie does turn out to be inconvenient to global warming alarmists:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

From the article:
"Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

My take on all this? Hold on to your wallets; we're getting screwed by our governments.

knotkranky
Posts: 4336
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:08 pm
Location: la

Re: Barack Obama Honeymoon period: How long before you start?

Post by knotkranky » Sun Mar 22, 2009 8:22 pm

db91977 wrote:
Data can be manipulated to support one's point of view.
love it

GWB, Fox news, Rush and AIG would concur.

So whats the point then?

ethios4
Posts: 5377
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 6:28 am

Re: Barack Obama Honeymoon period: How long before you start?

Post by ethios4 » Sun Mar 22, 2009 8:51 pm

BongoBennie wrote:RON PAUL 2012

Hey watch it buddy, according to the MIAC Ron Paul supporters are in the same league as Tim McVeigh and the Branch Davidians - domestic terrorists!

ethios4
Posts: 5377
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 6:28 am

Re: Barack Obama Honeymoon period: How long before you start?

Post by ethios4 » Sun Mar 22, 2009 9:03 pm

I've been reading The Creature from Jekyll Island, trying to learn more about the Fed. I was disappointed that the book is so one-sided. I don't trust an argument unless it is arguing against the opposing side's strongest argument, so it's hard for me to necessarily trust what he's saying - plus he's not a trained economist, although the Austrian school agrees with the negative assessment of the Fed as well. The creepy thing to me is that the book was written in 1994 and yet the current crisis looks very very much like the scenario described in the book as a prediction for what would happen if we continue with the Federal Reserve.

As far as Obama, I figure time will tell. I've become more interested in local politics. We got approval to put a bike lane in along the highway to the lake, but the dept of transportation wants to just make a wide shoulder on the side of the highway - they claim cyclists wouldn't want to share a true bike path with pedestrians....so we'd rather share it with 65 mph semis?! Gotta get that bike lane off the road!

db91977
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 6:55 pm
Location: San Diego, California, USA

Re: Barack Obama Honeymoon period: How long before you start?

Post by db91977 » Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:02 am

knotkranky wrote:
db91977 wrote:
Data can be manipulated to support one's point of view.
love it

GWB, Fox news, Rush and AIG would concur.

So whats the point then?
The point is to be skeptical, look at the raw data yourself (if possible), get your news from as many sources as possible, employ critical thinking, and make up your own mind. Or, if you can't be so bothered with that, just read the NY Times, watch CNN and MSNBC, and listen to NPR.
:wink:

Machinesworking
Posts: 11141
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Barack Obama Honeymoon period: How long before you start?

Post by Machinesworking » Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:23 am

db91977 wrote: The question is not whether global warming (and cooling) exists. The phenomenon of global temperature variations throughout the Earth's history has pretty much been accepted by all scientists in climatology. The question is whether global warming is anthropogenic. There is by no means a consensus that this is fact.

To the contrary, there is significant evidence that we're currently in a global cooling period:
Let's see? The great lakes were polluted in about 100 years, mostly pre-industrial age. Take a look at a map and notice how freaking big these lakes are. Take a look at the LA skyline in mid summer, think about the fact that LA has smog alerts. Look at Chernobyl, Three Mile Island etc. the fact that there are 23+ toxic zones in the water in the Bay Area... this list is endless.
Climate change is natural, nobodies arguing that, but arguing the simple fact that 6 1/2 + billion people with modern technological machinery heating huge chunks of land at night and changing the chemical make up of the atmosphere will not have an anthropogenic effect is silly IMO. Again, trying to argue against Global Warming by citing evidence of a cooling period is pedantic at best; anybody who has read enough on the subject knows that the outcome of raising the temperature of the planet will not logically lead to a warming period, but rather a melting of permafrost etc. Our affect on the planet is not arguable IMO, so people argue about the way we are affecting the planet as a diversion.
The point I'm making here is that there is nowhere close to a scientific consensus that global warming is anthropogenic in nature. We're being conned.

Call me cynical, but I think that whenever there is a push by governments to tax their citizenry based on "scientific evidence", it behooves us to look carefully at the source of funding for the scientific studies cited. A lot of these scientific groups get their funding from the government. As you say, Tone Deft, things that make you go hmmmmmm...
So the main things that happen because of this seem to be cleaner air acts and tighter regulation on polluting industries. I'm failing to see how this government conspiracy is hurting me?
a site which debunks junk science, the Kyoto Protocol has cost the world about $615.5 Billion so far, for a theoretical temperature decrease by 2050 of 0.0063 degrees C. This is laughable. But the joke is on us and our wallets.
As I do not mind paying more for a car that pollutes less, and don't currently own a factory, I'm not buying your alarmist routine here. Any person aware of any global indicator knows that this sort of thing is like driving an aircraft carrier, turning right can take a bit of time.
From the article:
"Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

My take on all this? Hold on to your wallets; we're getting screwed by our governments.

So, again, all scientists pretty much either work for the government or big business, not a lot of areas out there where that's not true. let's be rational here, which do you personally see as more inherently corrupt? I'm inclined towards big business, the mobility in the CEO level is far less than the governments, and the financial rewards for practicing junk science are huge. They've (scientists hired by private industry), been caught numerous times in out right lies, and even studying ways to confuse evidence. The governments scientists are guilty of some of this too, but mainly in preventing a study from ending, not falsifying evidence.
What exactly is the benefit of making false accusations of global climate change? Spending billions on implementing programs is some revenue, but the possible lowering of growth in taxable businesses based on old industrial standards is far more of a threat than any taxable growth from 'green' businesses, and government offices that are gained from starting this. I'm really failing to see how asking mankind to try to lower it's impact on the planet is a bad thing? or a government conspiracy to drain my wallet?

All this is interesting but it's also subterfuge. It's an argument that for some reason the right, especially in the USA are holding as worthy, that the rest of the world doesn't even bother with. The entire planet for the most part, and honestly here, more than a democratically needed percentage of scientists in the field of climatology, (not other fields, the argument is clouded with scientists from unrelated fields claiming their 'knowledge' on this) are behind implementing some sort of plan to lesson our impact. We are talking about issues that aren't even an issue to most people.

Also, again, agree or disagree with Obama's methods on the banks, but at least offer up a solution you would like to see? I haven't heard that yet.

Mine would have been simple, buy them outright, get rid of the CEOs etc. prop them up for a while, and start selling them to companies that are healthy. This would require a change in certain laws, or a sort of 'martial law' on them in order to allow the government to 'compete', and this is why it's not being done that way, the right would crap it's collective pants if the government did this.
As it stands we simply are pretty much handing them money, it's lame.

doc holiday
Posts: 1683
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 1:49 am
Location: NOW

Re: Barack Obama Honeymoon period: How long before you start?

Post by doc holiday » Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:46 am

db91977 wrote:
knotkranky wrote:
db91977 wrote:
Data can be manipulated to support one's point of view.
love it

GWB, Fox news, Rush and AIG would concur.

So whats the point then?
The point is to be skeptical, look at the raw data yourself (if possible), get your news from as many sources as possible, employ critical thinking, and make up your own mind. Or, if you can't be so bothered with that, just read the NY Times, watch CNN and MSNBC, and listen to NPR.
:wink:
if the point is to be skeptical how come you buy the mcdonalds sales pitch hook line and sinker?

Post Reply