Democratic Convention

[Back]

Talk about it here.

Heard they had a street fair at the place they are holding the convention there in NC. Sounds like a nice way to get people active/involved. Bribe them with churros, turkey legs, and waffle fries!

[Parkbandit]

What a complete joke.

[Back]

What channels are people watching? I watched the Repub convention on PBS.

I'll probably be switching back and forth between FOX and PBS.

[Gelston]

Cartoon Network

[WRoss]

I heard that a Nobel Peace Prize winner was going to be speaking, followed by someone who assigned an assassination Czar.

[WRoss]

In all seriousness, I'm watching it on PBS and they are killing the women's issues. It's one of the few things I can agree with.

[Back]

In all seriousness, I'm watching it on PBS and they are killing the women's issues. It's one of the few things I can agree with.

Jessie Jackson was on a panel earlier and I thought I was going to have to settle with another channel. It was only for that segment thankfully. I could not have stood listening to him all night.

[Back]

Sorry I can't watch FoxBus coverage. Whoever the dipshit is interviewing people by cutting them off mid sentence to refute their points is a scumbag who does not deserve ratings.

Its Neil Cavuto. How can anyone take this guy seriously?

[ClydeR]

You can see Michelle Obama in her brother's face. But Obama's sister doesn't look anything like him. It makes you want to see his birth certificate.

[ClydeR]

Republicans are mad (http://www.twitter.com/Reince/status/243135234298753024) about that Ted Kennedy video. Republicans know that it's entirely inappropriate to use a deceased politician for today's political purposes.

[ClydeR]

What channels are people watching?

C-Span. Every other channel is for political amateurs. People who already know a lot about politics are capable of watching and understanding without a filter.

[ClydeR]

I saw John Leguizamo in the audience on C-Span while Jared Polis was speaking. Leguizamo is the only star I've seen so far.

[Parkbandit]

Unlucky coincidence: Debt clock just struck 16 TRILLION.

[Warriorbird]

Unlucky coincidence: Debt clock just struck 16 TRILLION.

I heard that Republicans cut spending.

[ClydeR]

Well that was a good speech.

[Tgo01]

Democrats don't believe in God! (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/04/democratic-platform-god_n_1856218.html?1346807788&icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk1%26pLid%3D201071)


In an interview broadcast tonight, CNN asked Obama adviser Robert Gibbs about the DNC platform dropping the word "God," which has been included in previous platforms.

The question, which asked if it was a deliberate decision to drop the word, was somewhat dodged by Gibbs. He said the platform mentions "faith and religion" and cited the "thousands of God-fearing Democrats in this building here tonight."

Since the platform was released, the lack of the word "God" has become a rallying cry among some conservatives, especially those who believe that the Obama administration is unfriendly to religion. The Republican platform, released last week, made at least a dozen references to God and included a section on religious liberty.

Why is it the cool thing all of a sudden in the Democratic party to ignore religion?

[Warriorbird]

Why is it the cool thing all of a sudden in the Democratic party to ignore religion?

It's awful interesting how much Paul Ryan loves Ayn Rand for a Catholic.

[Kembal]

Republicans are mad (http://www.twitter.com/Reince/status/243135234298753024) about that Ted Kennedy video. Republicans know that it's entirely inappropriate to use a deceased politician for today's political purposes.

I see what you did there. Ok, one point to the ClydeR persona.

[Parkbandit]

I heard that Republicans cut spending.


It's awful interesting how much Paul Ryan loves Ayn Rand for a Catholic.

lulz

[Keller]

Unlucky coincidence: Debt clock just struck 16 TRILLION.

Lot of good electing this GOP house did the US.

Time to kick those bums to the curb.

[Keller]

Democrats don't believe in God! (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/04/democratic-platform-god_n_1856218.html?1346807788&icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk1%26pLid%3D201071)



Why is it the cool thing all of a sudden in the Democratic party to ignore religion?

Same reason the progressives stopped believing in a heliocentric universe.

[Keller]

Was reading some articles about the convention.

Fire the reindeer and outsource the elves quote slayed me.

With the sleezy approach the GOP has taken to this campaign, I'm glad to see the Dems be a little more aggressive.

[Back]

Was reading some articles about the convention.

Fire the reindeer and outsource the elves quote slayed me.

With the sleezy approach the GOP has taken to this campaign, I'm glad to see the Dems be a little more aggressive.

In some ways the Republicans going first was an easy act to follow. Way too easy.

[WRoss]

Unlucky coincidence: Debt clock just struck 16 TRILLION.

So, in all seriousness, how do you feel about Glass-Steagall? I mean, that is why we are fucked currently.

[Androidpk]

So, in all seriousness, how do you feel about Glass-Steagall? I mean, that is why we are fucked currently.

That's one of Steven's lesser known relatives right? His movies aren't nearly as good.

[Parkbandit]

So, in all seriousness, how do you feel about Glass-Steagall? I mean, that is why we are fucked currently.

That's not why we're currently fucked. We're currently fucked because we don't have a balanced budget and we spend 1 trillion dollars a year more than what we have.

If you think Glass-Steagall is bad... add to it Dodd-Frank and it's a fucking mess.

[Parkbandit]

He's talking about the fact that Glass-Steagall was repealed by the Republican congress in the 90's, the regulation that prevented consumer banks from gambling with their customer's money, which they proceeded to do until Lehman brothers exploded. Even Alan Greenspan changed his mind about regulation after what happened. Are you retarded? Yes, but we already knew that.

Lulz.. look what popped back out of the closet. I missed your posts, It.

Re-read what I posted. I stated pretty clearly that the Glass-Steagall Act isn't the reason we are currently fucked... we're fucked because we have a debt that is 16 trillion dollars and we add 1+ trillion to it every year.

[Androidpk]

The repeal of that bill may have een introduced by a republican but the Clinton administration supported it as well.

[Parkbandit]

Lot of good electing this GOP house did the US.

Time to kick those bums to the curb.

So, it's the 2010 House's fault?

Usually political spin has some intellectual honesty to it. This doesn't pass that test.

[Bobmuhthol]

The repeal of that bill may have een introduced by a republican but the Clinton administration supported it as well.

The Senate Banking Committee approved in a straight party line 11-9 vote a bill (S. 900) sponsored by Senator Gramm that would have repealed Glass-Steagall Sections 20 and 32 and that did not contain the CRA provisions in the Committee’s 1998 bill. The nine dissenting Democratic Senators, along with Senate Minority LeaderThomas Daschle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Daschle)(D-SD), proposed as an alternative (S. 753) the text of the 1998 Committee bill with its CRA provisions and the repeal of Sections 20 and 32, modified to provide greater permission for “operating subsidiaries” as requested by the Treasury Department.[345] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act#cite_note-344) Through a partisan 54-44 vote on May 6, 1999 (with Senator Fritz Hollings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Hollings) (D-SC) providing the only Democratic Senator vote in support), the Senate passed S. 900. The day before, Senate Republicans defeated (in a 54-43 vote) a Democratic sponsored amendment to S. 900 that would have substituted the text of S. 753 (also providing for the repeal of Glass-Steagall Sections 20 and 32).[346] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act#cite_note-345)​http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act#1999_Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act

[ClydeR]

The Democrats are spending too much time on the contraception and abortion issue. It was okay to devote a lot of time to it on one day, but they're planning more of the same in tonight's early hours before the main event.

[Parkbandit]

Circular. Why are adding so much to the deficit every year? It's not because of insane amounts of money the Obama administration chose to spend--they're continued obligations left to the nation by a decade of GOP control. The Bush tax cuts, the two wars, bailouts, reduced tax revenue because of the effects of the financial crash that deregulation caused, etc. But you don't want to hear about that. Things were just fine and dandy in 2008 when Obama took office, in your revisionist history.

IT'S BUSH'S FAULT!

Lulz.

You can do two things: you can take responsibility for what you are dealt and find solutions to get the economy moving again.. or you can spend your entire term blaming blaming others and lamenting about it.

We have examples of each. Reagan did the first, Obama did the second. One was successful in stimulating the economy and driving down unemployment... one presided over the worst economic "recovery" in our history.

Obama has given himself a grade of "incomplete". I agree. He hasn't done the necessary homework, taken any tests and instead laid in his bed at home hoping things would be different.

[WRoss]

That's not why we're currently fucked. We're currently fucked because we don't have a balanced budget and we spend 1 trillion dollars a year more than what we have.

If you think Glass-Steagall is bad... add to it Dodd-Frank and it's a fucking mess.

That's just another example of politicians pulling a one over on the electorate. As much as you are anti-Obama, the real issue is the banks. Who is talking about it? No one...

[Bobmuhthol]

We have examples of each. Reagan did the first, Obama did the second. One was successful in stimulating the economy and driving down unemployment... one presided over the worst economic "recovery" in our history.
Bro, Reagan (Volcker anyway, but fine, presidents control economies I guess?) put the country into a recession during his term that did not previously exist (Obama inherited a recession), and he brought the unemployment rate up to 11% in the process. The benefits of Reagan's (Volcker's) moves did not come until his second term. Ergo, suck it.

[WRoss]

Bro, Reagan (Volcker anyway, but fine, presidents control economies I guess?) put the country into a recession during his term that did not previously exist (Obama inherited a recession), and he brought the unemployment rate up to 11% in the process. The benefits of Reagan's (Volcker's) moves did not come until his second term. Ergo, suck it.

I'd rep you, but I can't.

[Keller]

So, it's the 2010 House's fault?

Usually political spin has some intellectual honesty to it. This doesn't pass that test.

They were elected to fix the economy and reduce the federal debt.

They failed at their goals and should be summarily shown the door.

/partisanbullshitjustliketherestofit

[Wrathbringer]

That's just another example of politicians pulling a one over on the electorate. As much as you are anti-Obama, the real issue is the banks. Who is talking about it? No one...

This. When you make the loans, control the interest rates as well as the supply of the currency in question, the end result to your customer will always be the same: debt. That's just good business. Abolish the Fed.

[Androidpk]

Don't really see anyone talking about the $16 TRILLION the Fed "loaned" out either. Must not be a big deal.

[Latrinsorm]

IT'S BUSH'S FAULT!

Lulz.

You can do two things: you can take responsibility for what you are dealt and find solutions to get the economy moving again.. or you can spend your entire term blaming blaming others and lamenting about it.

We have examples of each. Reagan did the first, Obama did the second. One was successful in stimulating the economy and driving down unemployment... one presided over the worst economic "recovery" in our history.

Obama has given himself a grade of "incomplete". I agree. He hasn't done the necessary homework, taken any tests and instead laid in his bed at home hoping things would be different.Regarding the bolded fragment: by what metric? Also, does your use of quotes imply that you honestly believe we are in as bad a shape now as we were in 2008 or 2009?

[Androidpk]

Because McCain and Palin totally would have had us out of this slump by now. Totally

[Wrathbringer]

Regarding the bolded fragment: by what metric? Also, does your use of quotes imply that you honestly believe we are in as bad a shape now as we were in 2008 or 2009?

Are you implying that you honestly believe we're better off now than in 2008 or 2009? Gas prices: Up. National Debt: Up Unemployment Rate: Up... Better off how?

[Keller]

Are you implying that you honestly believe we're better off now than in 2008 or 2009? Gas prices: Up. National Debt: Up Unemployment Rate: Up... Better off how?

If only there were a single metric people used to measure our country's economic productivity . . . . .

[Androidpk]

Are you implying that you honestly believe we're better off now than in 2008 or 2009? Gas prices: Up. National Debt: Up Unemployment Rate: Up... Better off how?

I don't think that is what he is saying. This isn't exactly an easy fix. These things don't just turn around overnight and they do take some time. How much is a reasonable amount of time is beyond my saying though.

[Bobmuhthol]

This. When you make the loans, control the interest rates as well as the supply of the currency in question, the end result to your customer will always be the same: debt. That's just good business. Abolish the Fed.
The problem isn't the Fed.

If only there were a single metric people used to measure our country's economic productivity . . . . .
I love this post. Wrathbringer is out of his mind.

[Wrathbringer]

The problem isn't the Fed.

I love this post. Wrathbringer is out of his mind.

Oh good. We can all relax. Bobmuhthththol says the problem isn't the Fed. That's a load off. Thanks, Bob. Which problem is next for you? World hunger? Peace?

[Buckwheet]

Are you implying that you honestly believe we're better off now than in 2008 or 2009? Gas prices: Up. National Debt: Up Unemployment Rate: Up... Better off how?

I have more money coming in, more savings, more investment, and little to no debt compared to 2008. My spending is down, and I can buy most things that I want with cash.

In a republican's world is that not just about perfect? I don't care about anyone else, my world is better.

[Bobmuhthol]

Oh good. We can all relax. Bobmuhthththol says the problem isn't the Fed. That's a load off. Thanks, Bob. Which problem is next for you? World hunger? Peace?
Let's take a look at your critique of the Fed:

This. When you make the loans, control the interest rates as well as the supply of the currency in question, the end result to your customer will always be the same: debt. That's just good business. Abolish the Fed.
Commercial banks, retail banks, and investment banks "make the loans," so toss this out immediately. It is true that the Fed influences interest rates, but it does not influence credit spreads, leverage of investment bank positions, or the irrational demand for subprime mortgages, so toss this out immediately. It is true that the Fed controls the money supply, but any hack economist knows the difference between nominal and real values, so toss this out immediately. Your conclusion that debt will always exist, which now has no supporting statements after I've tossed them out, is trivial: debt has always existed, and debt will always exist, and it is independent of the state of the economy.

Feel free to try again, but you really should get to know your audience a little better. You're talking to someone who understands economics, which must be new to you.

[Latrinsorm]

Are you implying that you honestly believe we're better off now than in 2008 or 2009? Gas prices: Up. National Debt: Up Unemployment Rate: Up... Better off how?We're way, way, better off than we were in 2008-2009.

-I don't think gas prices are a terribly useful metric, but according to this graph (http://www.GasBuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx?city1=USA Average&city2=&city3=&crude=n&tme=60&units=us) they're lower even in nominal terms than the peak in 2008. Correct for inflation and they're surely even lower.
-Let us consider whether national debt going up is a reliable economic indicator. It has gone up every single year since 1957. Have we seen unrelenting economic hardship since 1957? No. So national debt is not a reliable economic indicator. (The % increase was remarkably high, but we had 7 straight years of double digit % increases in the 80s and that worked out okay, just ask Comrade Gorbacev.)
-Unemployment reached 10 in 2009, it's in the low 8s now.

[Latrinsorm]

I don't think that is what he is saying. This isn't exactly an easy fix. These things don't just turn around overnight and they do take some time. How much is a reasonable amount of time is beyond my saying though.This is also a good point, but not one I feel needs to be made in this case because things have turned around.

[WRoss]

This thread has gone full retard. You never go full retard.

[Bobmuhthol]

The largest single-period increase in the history of the national debt occurred under Bush (and it was 50% larger than anything Obama's been able to ruin for us), but don't let the Republicans find out.

[Wrathbringer]

Let's take a look at your critique of the Fed:

Commercial banks, retail banks, and investment banks "make the loans," so toss this out immediately. It is true that the Fed influences interest rates, but it does not influence credit spreads, leverage of investment bank positions, or the irrational demand for subprime mortgages, so toss this out immediately. It is true that the Fed controls the money supply, but any hack economist knows the difference between nominal and real values, so toss this out immediately. Your conclusion that debt will always exist, which now has no supporting statements after I've tossed them out, is trivial: debt has always existed, and debt will always exist, and it is independent of the state of the economy.

Feel free to try again, but you really should get to know your audience a little better. You're talking to someone who understands economics, which must be new to you.

You obviously have no understanding of the Fed. I realized that you didn't the moment you made the comment about the government attempting to audit itself by auditing the fed. The Fed isn't a government entity. The Fed doesn't make home loans, it loans to governments. Sometimes it helps to understand before commenting.

[Wrathbringer]

We're way, way, better off than we were in 2008-2009.

-I don't think gas prices are a terribly useful metric, but according to this graph (http://www.GasBuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx?city1=USA Average&city2=&city3=&crude=n&tme=60&units=us) they're lower even in nominal terms than the peak in 2008. Correct for inflation and they're surely even lower.
-Let us consider whether national debt going up is a reliable economic indicator. It has gone up every single year since 1957. Have we seen unrelenting economic hardship since 1957? No. So national debt is not a reliable economic indicator. (The % increase was remarkably high, but we had 7 straight years of double digit % increases in the 80s and that worked out okay, just ask Comrade Gorbacev.)
-Unemployment reached 10 in 2009, it's in the low 8s now.

I never said any of these were economic indicators. I merely stated some easily verifiable facts.
-Gas was $1.95 when Obama took office according to CNN.
-You don't dispute that the deficit has increased, yet apparently dismiss the fact that it has increased more in 3.5 years under Obama than in 8 years under the previous President.
-Unemployment was 7.8% when Obama took office. It is now 8.3%.

Edit: Ergo, we are not better off, at least in these areas where the rubber meets the road for the average middle class citizen Obama talks so much about.

[Bobmuhthol]

You obviously have no understanding of the Fed. I realized that you didn't the moment you made the comment about the government attempting to audit itself by auditing the fed. The Fed isn't a government entity. The Fed doesn't make home loans, it loans to governments. Sometimes it helps to understand before commenting.
Oh my God, you actually believe this, don't you?

-Gas was $1.95 when Obama took office according to CNN.
The price of gas exceeded $4.00 per gallon in July 2008, six months before Obama took office. I don't give a fuck what retarded world you live in, Bush did not save America between July 2008 and January 2009, he did not do us any favors, and he certainly did not reduce the price of gas. Subsequently, Obama did not raise the price of gas. If you cannot grasp that oil is a global commodity, you need to leave.

You know how I know you don't actually understand a fucking thing? Your source of economic data is CNN and not an economic database.

-You don't dispute that the deficit has increased, yet apparently dismiss the fact that it has increased more in 3.5 years under Obama than in 8 years under the previous President.
The deficit is a flow. It resets to 0 on January 1 every year. The debt is something entirely different, and if you knew fucking anything, you would see the huge increase in debt accumulation that started under Bush.

-Unemployment was 7.8% when Obama took office. It is now 8.3%.
The unemployment rate was increasing when Obama took office, and has since decreased, and if you knew fucking anything, you would see the huge increase in unemployment that started under Bush.

[Wrathbringer]

Oh my God, you actually believe this, don't you?

The price of gas exceeded $4.00 per gallon in July 2008, six months before Obama took office. I don't give a fuck what retarded world you live in, Bush did not save America between July 2008 and January 2009, he did not do us any favors, and he certainly did not reduce the price of gas. Subsequently, Obama did not raise the price of gas. If you cannot grasp that oil is a global commodity, you need to leave.

You know how I know you don't actually understand a fucking thing? Your source of economic data is CNN and not an economic database.

ooo somebody's upset. Truth hurts, I know.

Edit: As for your response to my statement about the deficit, you're right, I misspoke there. Typed deficit instead of debt. My bad. I chose CNN because I figured liberals would respect their data.

[Parkbandit]

Because McCain and Palin totally would have had us out of this slump by now. Totally

How do you know they wouldn't have?

You don't.

[Keller]

If you cannot grasp that oil is a global commodity, you need to leave.

We always run the idiots off the board (with the exception of Back). Let's not run Wrathbringer off, too.

[Wrathbringer]

We always run the idiots off the board (with the exception of Back). Let's not run Wrathbringer off, too.

Thank you, Keller.

[Bobmuhthol]

One of us took a PhD economics class at MIT today, and the other did not. All I'm saying.

[Keller]

How do you know they wouldn't have?

You don't.

You don't have to take this, pk. Don't let your posting content be dictated by fact checkers.

If McCain would have won in 2008, we'd all be dead now.

[Keller]

Thank you, Keller.

My gesture is ultimately self-serving, but I accept your gratitude.

[Parkbandit]

I have more money coming in, more savings, more investment, and little to no debt compared to 2008. My spending is down, and I can buy most things that I want with cash.

In a republican's world is that not just about perfect? I don't care about anyone else, my world is better.

I'm in the same boat. Obama in the White House has been an economic bonanza to me and my businesses. Of course, most of that is due to taking advantage of people who made some really, really stupid real estate decisions.

[Wrathbringer]

One of us took a PhD economics class at MIT today, and the other did not. All I'm saying.

I attended Berklee, right down the road. Nice area. One of us understands that apparently a degree doesn't make one immune to misunderstandings about the Fed, and the other does. All I'm saying.

[Parkbandit]

We're way, way, better off than we were in 2008-2009.

-I don't think gas prices are a terribly useful metric, but according to this graph (http://www.GasBuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx?city1=USA Average&city2=&city3=&crude=n&tme=60&units=us) they're lower even in nominal terms than the peak in 2008. Correct for inflation and they're surely even lower.
-Let us consider whether national debt going up is a reliable economic indicator. It has gone up every single year since 1957. Have we seen unrelenting economic hardship since 1957? No. So national debt is not a reliable economic indicator. (The % increase was remarkably high, but we had 7 straight years of double digit % increases in the 80s and that worked out okay, just ask Comrade Gorbacev.)
-Unemployment reached 10 in 2009, it's in the low 8s now.

Don't bring up 10% unemployment.. say it's only up .5% for 3.5 years.. it far better spin.

[Parkbandit]

One of us took a PhD economics class at MIT today, and the other did not. All I'm saying.

lulz x 50

[Bobmuhthol]

I attended Berklee, right down the road. Nice area. One of us understands that apparently a degree doesn't make one immune to misunderstandings about the Fed, and the other does. All I'm saying.
I'm sure you wrote wonderful songs about the Fed, but I promise you that any misunderstanding you think I displayed is either because you're wrong or you didn't pick up on my satire, depending on what you've been harping on.

I looked back and you seem to take issue with me at least implying that the Fed is part of the government. I have news for you: it is. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve is a government agency, and all of the profits from the Federal Reserve banks belong to the government.

[Back]

Are you implying that you honestly believe we're better off now than in 2008 or 2009? Gas prices: Up. National Debt: Up Unemployment Rate: Up... Better off how?


I have more money coming in, more savings, more investment, and little to no debt compared to 2008. My spending is down, and I can buy most things that I want with cash.

In a republican's world is that not just about perfect? I don't care about anyone else, my world is better.


I'm in the same boat. Obama in the White House has been an economic bonanza to me and my businesses. Of course, most of that is due to taking advantage of people who made some really, really stupid real estate decisions.

Same for myself, my staff, and the business that we run. Our costs are down and our profits are up. Certainly there are many factors that play into it but we run a restaurant. This is remarkable when you think in terms of consumers and how they spend money. Yes we are running a tight ship but we are able to profit in this so-called tight economy.

If I were to bet my money on either candidate I would go with the safe bet. And I am by voting for Obama.

[Bobmuhthol]

Corporate profits when Bush took office: $486.8 billion
Corporate profits when Bush left office: $643.7 billion
Leaving as a percent of entering: 132%
Average annual growth rate: 8.0%
Compound annual growth rate: 7.2%

Corporate profits when Obama took office: $643.7 billion
Corporate profits most recently measured (Q2 2012): $1,648.3 billion
Now as a percent of then: 256%
Average annual growth rate: 44.6%
Compound annual growth rate: 30.8%

So if we're going to use analysis consisting only of "this is what it was like on the day Obama took office, and this is what it's like today," Obama absolutely crushes Bush, so fuck off with the arguments of what a quoted number was at arbitrary points in time.

[Buckwheet]

I'm in the same boat. Obama in the White House has been an economic bonanza to me and my businesses. Of course, most of that is due to taking advantage of people who made some really, really stupid real estate decisions.

I am in the IT sector where supposedly we are stalled or whatever. During the period of time that Obama has been in office, regardless if him being there has anything to do with it or not, I have not been able to get enough cash flow to continue to grow. I started a project on $10,000 and I had $20,000 in the bank before selling any of the $10,000 in infrastructure off. I can't self fund all the projects I have wanted to do because by the time you get money from a bank the opportunity has likely passed. I am turning customers away at the rate of about 2 per day on jobs that are in thousands of dollar range. The thing is that consumer confidence is weak so people are not walking in a buying several 60 inch plasma TVs. But they are spending money where they see it as a investment in the future.

I have self financed something like $45,000 in the past 8 months alone and pretty soon the credit cards are going to be to small to even keep going at the pace I am. My $25,000 AMEX business line of credit is maxed every month. Its stupidly crazy right now if you find the right markets.

[Parkbandit]

Corporate profits when Bush took office: $486.8 billion
Corporate profits when Bush left office: $643.7 billion
Leaving as a percent of entering: 132%
Average annual growth rate: 8.0%
Compound annual growth rate: 7.2%

Corporate profits when Obama took office: $643.7 billion
Corporate profits most recently measured (Q2 2012): $1,648.3 billion
Now as a percent of then: 256%
Average annual growth rate: 44.6%
Compound annual growth rate: 30.8%

So if we're going to use analysis consisting only of "this is what it was like on the day Obama took office, and this is what it's like today," Obama absolutely crushes Bush, so fuck off with the arguments of what a quoted number was at arbitrary points in time.

Sounds like Obama is a friend of the One Percenters!!!

[Parkbandit]

I have more money coming in, more savings, more investment, and little to no debt compared to 2008. My spending is down, and I can buy most things that I want with cash.

In a republican's world is that not just about perfect? I don't care about anyone else, my world is better.


I am in the IT sector where supposedly we are stalled or whatever. During the period of time that Obama has been in office, regardless if him being there has anything to do with it or not, I have not been able to get enough cash flow to continue to grow. I started a project on $10,000 and I had $20,000 in the bank before selling any of the $10,000 in infrastructure off. I can't self fund all the projects I have wanted to do because by the time you get money from a bank the opportunity has likely passed. I am turning customers away at the rate of about 2 per day on jobs that are in thousands of dollar range. The thing is that consumer confidence is weak so people are not walking in a buying several 60 inch plasma TVs. But they are spending money where they see it as a investment in the future.

I have self financed something like $45,000 in the past 8 months alone and pretty soon the credit cards are going to be to small to even keep going at the pace I am. My $25,000 AMEX business line of credit is maxed every month. Its stupidly crazy right now if you find the right markets.

How are these two statements from the same person? If you are saying you are pulling so much money out of your business that you "more money coming in, more savings, more investment, and little to no debt compared to 2008", yet you are turning away customers because you don't have enough cash flow and you are maxing out your business credit.. you might want to think about not pulling so much money out of your business.

[Buckwheet]

Did you miss the part that said I made $20k off of a $10k equipment investment, which was pure profit? So the thing is I buy the equipment, and customers pay me for it plus services. Also, I have my business and I have my 9-5. So yes my household income from the 9-5's went up by ~15%. The income from the business has been about ~85k on top of the regular salary. I did not have this extra money last year at this time. The problem is that because of the business model, I have to pre-purchase the inventory and then get paid for it. So yeah, I don't have enough credit to float the $100k that I would need on a monthly basis for all the customer calls I get.

Edit: Also, sometimes I just find good deals. One example would be these leather work gloves that mechanics use. They sell for like $10-$15 a pair. I found a shipment that went unclaimed and I bought 20,000 pairs for $1.35 each. Then I sold them for $5-7 each. So unless you just have gobs of cash laying around in a suitcase when this shit happens to fall in your lap, you have to whip out the credit to pay for it.

[Latrinsorm]

I never said any of these were economic indicators. I merely stated some easily verifiable facts.
-Gas was $1.95 when Obama took office according to CNN.And it was $1.61 in December 2008... but it was also $4.12 in July 2008. (And again, these are in nominal dollars rather than inflation adjusted. Especially with the deflation we had, I think it would be even more meaningful to look at the values controlled to a specific year.)

-You don't dispute that the deficit has increased, yet apparently dismiss the fact that it has increased more in 3.5 years under Obama than in 8 years under the previous President.I thought the 1957 point was pretty good, you weren't convinced? The debt went up when we were in a boom, the debt went up when we were in a recession, the debt went up when we were just chillin'. The debt always goes up, that's just the way it goes. It apparently has never had an effect on our economy before, I see no reason to believe it does now.
-Unemployment was 7.8% when Obama took office. It is now 8.3%.I didn't say "when Obama took office", though, I said 2008-2009.
Don't bring up 10% unemployment.. say it's only up .5% for 3.5 years.. it far better spin.I'm not looking to spin for or against anyone here. I'm just trying to establish whether we are or are not as bad off as we were in 2008-2009. I honestly didn't think it would be this contentious.

[4a6c1]

I thought Michelle was great. She really brings it back down to earth. A working mom of two daughters on the right side of the birth control issues. Respect! And finally a more realistic perspective from a politicians wife as opposed to Ann Romney, who apparently has no aspirations in life except to reproduce and "support her husband". Ugh...what is this 1952?

[Tgo01]

And finally a more realistic perspective from a politicians wife as opposed to Ann Romney, who apparently has no aspirations in life except to reproduce and "support her husband". Ugh...what is this 1952?

Why is it a bad thing if a woman chooses to be a house wife (sorry don't know the PC phrase these days)?

[Merala]

The term you're looking for is homemaker. And there isn't anything wrong with that, unless that's ALL she wants to do with herself. But that isn't all she wants to do with herself. She works for a cure for MS, and she works with her horses. The problem is that's not what it sounded like during her speech. It sounded EXACTLY like Rojo said.

If you're a homemaker, and that's ALL you're doing, what are you doing for yourself? Women have rights now, and we have the ability to do things we've never done before. I have no issue with a mother who wants to go back to work, I applaud that. I also have no issue with women who choose to stay home, if you can afford it, do it. But with all the opportunities women have to expand themselves, I just feel really sorry for a woman who chooses to be nothing but a maid and a caregiver. What about when the kids are grown?

I know this girl, went to elementary school with her. We've been friends for 17 years now, and she's a "homemaker" or a stay-at-home mom, or whatever you'd like to call it. But she's also in classes (in her spare time, and not trying to do anything specific), she's involved in art, she makes her own jewelry. She's using her brain, and she's very happy. I would hope, for the sake of that mass of grey matter you have upstairs, you're doing SOMETHING to better yourself while you're raising those kids.

I also think if Ann Romney hadn't been so afraid to admit they have money, she could have talked about her hobbies so we didn't feel like we were listening to a speech in "1952."

[Jarvan]

They were elected to fix the economy and reduce the federal debt.

They failed at their goals and should be summarily shown the door.

/partisanbullshitjustliketherestofit


Well then, it would be the Dems fault for not allowing the republicans elected in 2010 to do their job. Since you said they were elected to reduce the federal debt.. oh wait.. 1 half of one part of the Government can't do shit.

Keep on trolling.

[Jarvan]

We always run the idiots off the board (with the exception of Back). Let's not run Wrathbringer off, too.

So.. when are you running off the board then?

[thefarmer]

The term you're looking for is homemaker. And there isn't anything wrong with that, unless that's ALL she wants to do with herself.

I don't see anything wrong with a woman, or man for that matter, choosing to only be a homemaker. If that's all they wanted to do, that's fine. I think it'd be more an issue if either person thought they could ONLY be a homemaker/stay-at-home spouse.

edit: Also, Dirty politics: Charlotte's underworld hungrily awaits the DNC (http://clclt.com/charlotte/dirty-politics-charlottes-underworld-hungrily-awaits-the-dnc/Content?oid=2780784)

[Jarvan]

I thought Michelle was great. She really brings it back down to earth. A working mom of two daughters on the right side of the birth control issues. Respect! And finally a more realistic perspective from a politicians wife as opposed to Ann Romney, who apparently has no aspirations in life except to reproduce and "support her husband". Ugh...what is this 1952?

A working mom? Does she make clothes in a factory? Sling burgers? Or wait, maybe she is a garbage collector.

No.. wait.. she is a Politicians wife, and a Lawyer. Not exactly a working mom as far as I am concerned.

[Jarvan]

I don't see anything wrong with a woman, or man for that matter, choosing to only be a homemaker. If that's all they wanted to do, that's fine. I think it'd be more an issue if either person thought they could ONLY be a homemaker/stay-at-home spouse.

edit: Also, Dirty politics: Charlotte's underworld hungrily awaits the DNC (http://clclt.com/charlotte/dirty-politics-charlottes-underworld-hungrily-awaits-the-dnc/Content?oid=2780784)

I think the problem is that some people hear stay at home mom, and think 1950's women's slavery or something. Like when no one is home, and nothing to do the woman just sits there with a blank stare or mindless trance. My best friend is a stay at home dad. His wife is an RSN, they have no real bills due to his family having had some money and setting them up when they got married, so he stays home, does all the chores, takes care of their kid, etc etc. last i checked, he wasn't a mindless zombie. Guy plays more video games then I do. So what if he doesn't want to write a novel, or discover a new element. Or run for political office or whatever. Is that suddenly wrong? to just want to stay home and take care of the house and family? How many people would stay home if they could, if their spouse, male or female, made enough that they didn't NEED to work. That's the big difference nowadays really, not the I want a carrier people.. they would have had one in either case. It's the, I need a carrier to pay for xyz..

Just look at our monthly bills now compared to the 1950's..

1950.. Mortgage, Electric, Telephone, Taxes, Car Insurance..

now -- Mortgage, Electric, Cable, Internet, Cell phones, Car, Car insurance, Credit Cards, Monthly Game, Netflix... and I am sure there are more for some people.

The problem isn't how much money we make, it's how many things we want. It's all about "things" now for us. if you don't have a cell phone, people think you are odd, generally need a smartphone as well. No internet at home, that's insane. Same with cable. Got to get a new Car every 3-5 years. It's just what people do. Same with most of our electronics. How many people here on these forums Bought the Iphone, and every new version that came out, same with Ipad. We feel we have to, so we do. Because that's how our country and economy works now. We buy shit.

[Jarvan]

I take it someone took one of my posts.. likely Obama not being a working mom as being racist..


Thread: Democratic Convention

http://www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/121205/Black/


yeah.. whomever that was, since of course you don't have the balls to post a name. Keep reaching. I don't give a fuck what skin color you have, if your a lawyer and the wife of a Politician, and have kids, I don't consider that a working mom. if that's the case, Ann Romney is one as well, since I am sure she does fundraisers, and that's hard work too.

[WRoss]

Let's take a look at your critique of the Fed:

Commercial banks, retail banks, and investment banks "make the loans," so toss this out immediately. It is true that the Fed influences interest rates, but it does not influence credit spreads, leverage of investment bank positions, or the irrational demand for subprime mortgages, so toss this out immediately. It is true that the Fed controls the money supply, but any hack economist knows the difference between nominal and real values, so toss this out immediately. Your conclusion that debt will always exist, which now has no supporting statements after I've tossed them out, is trivial: debt has always existed, and debt will always exist, and it is independent of the state of the economy.

Feel free to try again, but you really should get to know your audience a little better. You're talking to someone who understands economics, which must be new to you.

You are politician

[Parkbandit]

I thought Michelle was great. She really brings it back down to earth. A working mom of two daughters on the right side of the birth control issues. Respect! And finally a more realistic perspective from a politicians wife as opposed to Ann Romney, who apparently has no aspirations in life except to reproduce and "support her husband". Ugh...what is this 1952?

lulz

[Parkbandit]

2008 - Obama probably had the best political organization ever created.

2012 - It's like they let Biden run the re-election campaign.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/3872849

[Bobmuhthol]

A working mom? Does she make clothes in a factory? Sling burgers? Or wait, maybe she is a garbage collector.

No.. wait.. she is a Politicians wife, and a Lawyer. Not exactly a working mom as far as I am concerned.
Man, apparently you just can't win with conservatives. If I may apply a generalization to you, I'm pretty sure you'd come uncontrollably at the thought of someone making a lot of money (preferably with no taxes) because that person "earned" it. But when the person making a lot of money is a Democrat and a lawyer, and not the "common man" (by the way, you really need to check the income distribution of Republicans...), she's somehow less employed.

[Atlanteax]

2008 - Obama probably had the best political organization ever created.

2012 - It's like they let Biden run the re-election campaign.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/3872849

There's no "Hope and Change" charade, or anti-Bush rage to sustain the campaign anymore in 2012, as it once did in 2008.

[AnticorRifling]

I thought Michelle was great. She really brings it back down to earth. A working mom of two daughters on the right side of the birth control issues. Respect! And finally a more realistic perspective from a politicians wife as opposed to Ann Romney, who apparently has no aspirations in life except to reproduce and "support her husband". Ugh...what is this 1952?

Both of them are still with the guys that they had their children with, shouldn't you hate them?

[Atlanteax]

Both of them are still with the guys that they had their children with, shouldn't you hate them?

Either something is wrong with them or with Rojo, amrite?

[Liagala]

Both of them are still with the guys that they had their children with, shouldn't you hate them?
What's that got to do with anything?

[ClydeR]

I see Bill Clinton is still long-winded. That was way too many facts. People vote on feelings, not facts. Feelings are more reliable.

[Jarvan]

Man, apparently you just can't win with conservatives. If I may apply a generalization to you, I'm pretty sure you'd come uncontrollably at the thought of someone making a lot of money (preferably with no taxes) because that person "earned" it. But when the person making a lot of money is a Democrat and a lawyer, and not the "common man" (by the way, you really need to check the income distribution of Republicans...), she's somehow less employed.

Yeah.. I don't think you know how to read. I could give two shits if the person is democratic or republican or socialist. Ask most people if they think lawyers or other people that make more money in a month or two then generally most families do in a year if those people "work" for their money, and I bet the answer is no. Just having a job does not equate to work in my book. Maybe I am falling into the same trap as the dems love to use with Class warfare. But I just can't equate spending a few hours a day going over legal documents for example, or following your husband on a campaign trail, to my mom who worked 12 hour days in a factor making t-shirts, then 27 years on her feet cooking for for people in a hospital. Not even close.

[Showal]

Yeah.. I don't think you know how to read. I could give two shits if the person is democratic or republican or socialist. Ask most people if they think lawyers or other people that make more money in a month or two then generally most families do in a year if those people "work" for their money, and I bet the answer is no. Just having a job does not equate to work in my book. Maybe I am falling into the same trap as the dems love to use with Class warfare. But I just can't equate spending a few hours a day going over legal documents for example, or following your husband on a campaign trail, to my mom who worked 12 hour days in a factor making t-shirts, then 27 years on her feet cooking for for people in a hospital. Not even close.

Had to quote this brilliant post.

[msconstrew]

Man, apparently you just can't win with conservatives. If I may apply a generalization to you, I'm pretty sure you'd come uncontrollably at the thought of someone making a lot of money (preferably with no taxes) because that person "earned" it. But when the person making a lot of money is a Democrat and a lawyer, and not the "common man" (by the way, you really need to check the income distribution of Republicans...), she's somehow less employed.

1) It is a well-known fact that lawyers do not do any "real" work.
2) It is also a well-known fact that if you did not "bootstrap" your way up - like Mitt Romney, who had absolutely no help in making himself what he is today, oh except for the facts that his father was governor of MI and also the chairman of AMC, but those things don't really "count" - then any success you have is not attributable to you.

[Tgo01]

To be fair I'm sure Jarvan meant female lawyers don't really work. Which is true.

[msconstrew]

To be fair I'm sure Jarvan meant female lawyers don't really work. Which is true.

They let women be lawyers now?

[TheEschaton]

I'm pretty sure all the corporate lawyers I know who are making 150k+ a year work about 100 hours a week to do so. I make a fraction of that because I work in the public sector, and I still work 60 hours a week.

Oh wait, I guess intellectual endeavors aren't work. I guess, then, you don't need to be a worker to be President. Last I checked the job didn't require any manual labor.

[TheEschaton]

As an aside, the majority of corporate lawyers I know (I'd say by about a 60-40 margin) are Republicans. Even in NYC.

[WRoss]

As an aside, the majority of corporate lawyers I know (I'd say by about a 60-40 margin) are Republicans. Even in NYC.

But look at the DA office. 95% are Democrats.

[Parkbandit]

I'm pretty sure all the corporate lawyers I know who are making 150k+ a year work about 100 hours a week to do so. I make a fraction of that because I work in the public sector, and I still work 60 hours a week.

Oh wait, I guess intellectual endeavors aren't work. I guess, then, you don't need to be a worker to be President. Last I checked the job didn't require any manual labor.

Who has stated that they don't believe Obama is qualified to be President because he hasn't done "manual labor"?

[Bobmuhthol]

Jarvan, rather explicitly.

[Jarvan]

Who has stated that they don't believe Obama is qualified to be President because he hasn't done "manual labor"?

He is probably talking about me cause I laugh at the fact that people claim Michelle should get respect for being a working mother of 2 daughters. I never used the term manual labor. I just said I, nor I bet most people, would not think of a lawyer/political spouse as a working mother.

Btw.. are you people sexist or something? Why wouldn't Obama get respect for being the fing President and the Father of 2 daughters? Or does the man have nothing to do with raising kids now?

[Jarvan]

They let women be lawyers now?

Well.. first you probably have to even consider Lawyers People, instead of life sucking parasites better off shot.


I'm pretty sure all the corporate lawyers I know who are making 150k+ a year work about 100 hours a week to do so. I make a fraction of that because I work in the public sector, and I still work 60 hours a week.

Do me a favor, go ask the Janitor there if they think a person making 150K+ a year should get respect for being a parent and a lawyer.

[Bobmuhthol]

I just said I, nor I bet most people, would not think of a lawyer/political spouse as a working mother.
Absolutely insane.

Do me a favor, go ask the Janitor there if they think a person making 150K+ a year should get respect for being a parent and a lawyer.
There's no "respect" in having a worse job and a lower quality of life.

[Tgo01]

Again to be fair I'm sure Jarvan is just saying a lawyer/political spouse who happens to be a Democrat is not considered a working mother. Which again is true.

[WRoss]

Since it's on topic, I'm applying to American and Georgetown this week. I'd love a reference.

[4a6c1]

Foo Fighters played My Hero.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87bcPisyTHs

[Back]

Foo Fighters played My Hero.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87bcPisyTHs

Awesome.

[Wrathbringer]

Foo Fighters played My Hero.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87bcPisyTHs

Hopefully these lyrics are prophetic: "...There goes my hero! Watch him as he goes!..."

[WRoss]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqFdlicOQj4

[4a6c1]

The Democratic Convention on Youtube if anyone's interested. We like the comments.

http://www.youtube.com/politics?feature=inp-lt-ype-43

[WRoss]

I thought we were posting nonsense?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gn09Xn9JF5s

[ClydeR]

I'm not sure about Gov. Jennifer Granholm. Is she always that excited? I was about to do my Howard Dean yeeeeeaaaaahhhh impression.

[4a6c1]

I thought we were posting nonsense?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gn09Xn9JF5s

Nope. Try to keep up! I'm posting what's happening on teevee as it happens.

[ClydeR]

Kerry just called Romney a flip flopper! :)

Bill Clinton says flip flopper attacks are not very effective.


At the time, the Obama team was alternating between two arguments about Romney. One presented him as an inveterate flip-flopper, the other as a right-wing ideologue who would return the country to a pre-New Deal dystopia. Clinton advised them to stick with the second argument. It would help with fund-raising, he said; liberal donors would be more motivated to fight a fierce conservative. If they defined Romney as a flip-flopper, undecided voters might think that he could return to his moderate roots once he was in office. “They tried to do this to me, the flip-flopper thing,” Clinton said, according to someone in the room. “It just doesn’t work.” He told the Obama aides that voters never held the flip-flopper attacks against him because they felt that he would simply do what was right.

More... (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/09/10/120910fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all)

Is Clinton right? Wasn't it effective against Kerry?

[4a6c1]

Good one Clyde.

[Back]

Joe Biden kinda sounds like George Carlin if you aren't looking at him.

[Some Rogue]

Joe Biden kinda sounds like George Carlin only retarded if you aren't looking at him.

Fixed

[4a6c1]

He was channeling Reagan tonight. It was uncomfortable really.

[Merala]

If I had to be labeled, I would probably fall into the category of Liberal Democrat. I was raised in a union family, and know people who have worked really hard to just provide their family with a modest life. These people worked 18 hour days sometimes without complaint, not to be rich, but just to take care of their families.

In spite of what my father would like, I do no vote blue every election just because I'm a democrat. Before I'm a democrat, I'm a person, and a reasonably intelligent one at that. At least I'd like to think so. I vote for the person who I think will do the best job, and do the things that I feel will move this country forward according to my views of right and wrong. Most of the time that tends to be Democrats, but sometimes I feel like the Republican is a better candidate.

All that aside, I don't think Romney is a bad person, nor do I think he would be a bad President necessarily. What really scares me are the people who pull his strings. No one can deny (at least not with any amount of sincerity) that the man changes opinions quite a bit. To me, that tells me he's listening to who is whispering in his ear, not to what he believes in the core of his person. I could be wrong about that, but that's my interpretation of the data.

The people who are pulling strings in the Republican party right now scare me as a woman, as a student, and as a person who's seeking an opportunity to make a meaningful contribution to society and to the people closest to me. That's why I'm voting for Obama.

Yes, Obama has screwed up, he's not perfect. But he's not getting my vote because I'm over the top thrilled with him, he's getting my vote because the alternative scares the hell out of me.

[ClydeR]

I watched Jennifer Granholm's speech (http://www.c-span.org/DNC/Events/Jennifer-Granholm-at-the-2012-Democratic-National-Convention/C3811701/) again. It was the most entertaining thing of the whole convention. I'm going to have to start watching her. She has the funniest mannerisms. Her face even turned bright red when she got really wound up.

I'm a little mad that the people in Michigan have been hiding her from the rest of the country.

Obama needs to get her to make more speeches for him. I'll watch every one of them.

The entertaining part starts around 2:00 when she says the cavalry arrived.

[Some Rogue]

http://youtu.be/07fTsF5BiSM

Hehe

[Some Rogue]

http://youtu.be/xwejQBIyjow

:lol:

[Atlanteax]

I watched Jennifer Granholm's speech (http://www.c-span.org/DNC/Events/Jennifer-Granholm-at-the-2012-Democratic-National-Convention/C3811701/) again. It was the most entertaining thing of the whole convention. I'm going to have to start watching her. She has the funniest mannerisms. Her face even turned bright red when she got really wound up.

I'm a little mad that the people in Michigan have been hiding her from the rest of the country.

Obama needs to get her to make more speeches for him. I'll watch every one of them.

The entertaining part starts around 2:00 when she says the cavalry arrived.

I'm disappointed that Michigan had to endure 8 years of her. She was a travesty as a governor.

[Tgo01]

http://youtu.be/xwejQBIyjow

At 3:33 did that lady say "The person should have the right to choose. But they should be an informed choice, and the government has a role in that"?

Isn't that like...the Republican motto when it comes to abortions?

[WRoss]

http://youtu.be/xwejQBIyjow

:lol:

That shit's so biased it's not funny. Comparing healthcare to labor? Apples and oranges.

ETA: We can all pick out retards in any group. It doesn't mean that they are right.

[Merala]

The only thing that I have to wonder about that video is did they interview only those three or four people? Or did they choose those three or four people because they make Democrats look like hypocritical idiots?

[Tgo01]

The only thing that I have to wonder about that video is did they interview only those three or four people? Or did they choose those three or four people because they make Democrats look like hypocritical idiots?

The latter. It's still funny.

[Merala]

It kind of made me sad that from now on, when people find out I'm a democrat, this is what they'll think about when I say I'm pro-choice.

[Tgo01]

It kind of made me sad that from now on, when people find out I'm a democrat, this is what they'll think about when I say I'm pro-choice.

It's not easy when people stereotype others. For example as a Republican people often think I'm a racist, xenophobic, bible thumping man who thinks women should stay in the kitchen and bear as many children as possible while I'm busy destroying jobs so the 1% can have a better life. It's total bullshit, I can't remember the last time I thumped a bible.

[Allereli]

It's not easy when people stereotype others. For example as a Republican people often think I'm a racist, xenophobic, bible thumping man who thinks women should stay in the kitchen and bear as many children as possible while I'm busy destroying jobs so the 1% can have a better life. It's total bullshit, I can't remember the last time I thumped a bible.

then the not crazy republicans need to split off from the crazy ones, because the crazy ones are dominating the party.

[Liagala]

then the not crazy republicans need to split off from the crazy ones, because the crazy ones are dominating the party.

http://youtu.be/xwejQBIyjow


:thinking:

[Atlanteax]

then the not crazy republicans need to split off from the crazy ones, because the crazy ones are dominating the party.

Could easily say the same about the Democratic Party as well.

[Tgo01]

then the not crazy republicans need to split off from the crazy ones, because the crazy ones are dominating the party.

So the crazy Democratic party can control the entire government? I think not.

[Allereli]

:thinking:

obviously you're not. They're nitpicking over the use of the word "choice" in contexts that don't even closely compare to forcing a woman to be a mother.

The fact that the crazies have dominated the Republican party is shown in this chart:

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/2011-restrictions.gif

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/07/13/267880/162-number-of-new-anti-abortion-provisions-in-the-states/

do a google search for "how many antiabortion laws in 2011" and you'll see that the Republican party is not focused on economic issues

[Tgo01]

They're nitpicking over the use of the word "choice" in contexts that don't even closely compare to forcing a woman to be a mother.

That's all they're doing? Nitpicking over the word "choice"? They're not showing Democrats who have no problem with the government interfering with our lives and justifying those decisions in much the same way Republicans want to interfere with women's lives and justifying those decisions?

[Merala]

It's not easy when people stereotype others. For example as a Republican people often think I'm a racist, xenophobic, bible thumping man who thinks women should stay in the kitchen and bear as many children as possible while I'm busy destroying jobs so the 1% can have a better life. It's total bullshit, I can't remember the last time I thumped a bible.

We need to stop being identified strictly by our parties. I'm sure, even though we come from different parties, and different points of views, there are issues upon which we can agree. As I said, before I am a democrat, I'm a human being. I don't always agree with other democrats, and I don't always disagree with republicans.

The problem is with the people who do not make choices as human beings, but make choices as republicans and democrats. There are people on both sides that have never voted red, or blue, depending on which side you're talking about, even though their party-supported candidate was a total dipshit.

We as a people need to start talking about the real issues, and start forcing those who represent us to do the same.

[Allereli]

That's all they're doing? Nitpicking over the word "choice"? They're not showing Democrats who have no problem with the government interfering with our lives and justifying those decisions in much the same way Republicans want to interfere with women's lives and justifying those decisions?

IT'S NOT THE SAME THING. How fucking loud do women have to scream it. Things like outsized soda bans and trans fat bans (both New York City laws, not sure if they extend to state level) are for preventative health so that we have fewer fat people to strain our healthcare system. An abortion frees a women from being responsible for a potential human being, and the current laws recently passed are invading the privacy between a woman and her doctor for an existing medical condition.

[Merala]

Not only that, but those are marketing gimmicks designed to increase revenue and call attention to a product to increase profits. I've never seen abortion used as a tool to get people to make unhealthy choices just to turn a profit.

[Tgo01]

IT'S NOT THE SAME THING. How fucking loud do women have to scream it. Things like outsized soda bans and trans fat bans (both New York City laws, not sure if they extend to state level) are for preventative health so that we have fewer fat people to strain our healthcare system.

So you want the government to interfere with our lives to an extent, just not to the extent of abortion?

[Merala]

I think I should clarify, I'm not for or against those laws in New York. I think if that's something the city of New York is in line with on the whole, that's fine. I think people need to really start making smarter choices about what they put in their bodies, but I don't feel like it has to be the government's place to force them. At least it shouldn't have to be.

[Wrathbringer]

We need to stop being identified strictly by our parties. I'm sure, even though we come from different parties, and different points of views, there are issues upon which we can agree. As I said, before I am a democrat, I'm a human being. I don't always agree with other democrats, and I don't always disagree with republicans.

The problem is with the people who do not make choices as human beings, but make choices as republicans and democrats. There are people on both sides that have never voted red, or blue, depending on which side you're talking about, even though their party-supported candidate was a total dipshit.

We as a people need to start talking about the real issues, and start forcing those who represent us to do the same.

Real issues? You mean things like increasing crushing debt, the skydiving value of the dollar, warmongering and disappearing liberties? But... but...that's what Republicans and Democrats do... Why would they talk about it?

[Merala]

They wouldn't, because it actually makes sense to.

[Allereli]

So you want the government to interfere with our lives to an extent, just not to the extent of abortion?

government "interferes" with lives all the time in ways both positive and negative. I'm in support of rational thinking and I believe that a fetus is not a person, nor does it have any rights. When there is an epidemic like obesity that is a strain on our country's medical system and our people's general health, the government should step in. In the case of abortion, general public health is not at risk, it is a simple outpatient procedure when performed by a trained doctor, and is not directly covered by any federal funding.

If your party manages to ban abortion, we already know what happens when abortion is illegal, and the at-home risky surgeries will commence immediately.

[Latrinsorm]

So you want the government to interfere with our lives to an extent, just not to the extent of abortion?You're the guy who's always saying apples and oranges. BOOM.

[Tgo01]

You're the guy who's always saying apples and oranges. BOOM.

Apples and oranges. I just wanted her to admit she wanted government intervention for some things but not for others, which she did. I hate when people refuse to call a duck a duck.

[Allereli]

Apples and oranges. I just wanted her to admit she wanted government intervention for some things but not for others, which she did. I hate when people refuse to call a duck a duck.

so there should be no laws about anything?

[EasternBrand]

Apples and oranges. I just wanted her to admit she wanted government intervention for some things but not for others, which she did. I hate when people refuse to call a duck a duck.

There is a substantial overlap between people who consider themselves "pro-life" and people who advocate for the continued use of the death penalty, but even someone who disagrees with both of those positions should be able to rationally distinguish them. Is your point only about nomenclature?

[Tgo01]

so there should be no laws about anything?

Anarchy? That would make me a dirty liberal then.

[msconstrew]

Anarchy? That would make me a dirty liberal then.

I thought liberals were all about big government. If so, then the concept of "no laws" certainly doesn't comport with the fallacy of democrats/liberals wanting the government to run everyone's lives and steal all their money.

[Allereli]

Anarchy? That would make me a dirty liberal then.

this proves you have never studied political systems.

[Bobmuhthol]

I can't even believe that people are taking that video seriously instead of screaming about how fucking stupid the interviewer and tactics are. You want me to believe that I am a hypocrite for thinking a woman should be explicitly granted the right to an abortion and also that the government should restrict activity that produces massive negative externalities (pollution, etc.)? Suck my dick.

[Tgo01]

I thought liberals were all about big government. If so, then the concept of "no laws" certainly doesn't comport with the fallacy of democrats/liberals wanting the government to run everyone's lives and steal all their money.

I thought liberals were all about personal freedoms and no social caste of any sort? Sounds like anarchy to me.

[msconstrew]

I can't even believe that people are taking that video seriously instead of screaming about how fucking stupid the interviewer and tactics are.

Why in the world would anyone want to actually draw attention to something that matters when they can misdirect the flow of the conversation onto irrelevant bullshit?

[droit]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E48QqcTOXeY

:lol:

[Bobmuhthol]

I thought liberals were all about personal freedoms and no social caste of any sort? Sounds like anarchy to me.
Allereli was spot on in saying that you don't actually have a clue about the labels you're using.

[Tgo01]

I meant to say that would make me left leaning, I call everyone on the left a liberal. You all are going to have to get over this.

[4a6c1]

I thought liberals were all about personal freedoms and no social caste of any sort? Sounds like anarchy to me.

So you're confirming here that you failed social studies in high school and probably do not understand the basic structure of your own government? Got it.

[4a6c1]

I came here to say Obamas speech disappointed me at first but then I woke up with Bruce Springsteen in my head.

"We take care of our own...."

[Back]

If you were going to build an army who would you want on your side? All the common men or the tiny wealthy minority?

[Bobmuhthol]

I meant to say that would make me left leaning, I call everyone on the left a liberal. You all are going to have to get over this.
If the left is "all about personal freedoms," and you think that's what anarchy is, why is anarchism a right-wing school?

[4a6c1]

If you were going to build an army who would you want on your side? All the common men or the tiny wealthy minority?

I don't know if this was directed at me but if I were going to build an army it would be a hugging army. They would hug everyone all the time and especially anytime they wanted to hurt anyone. This was my daughters answer to that question. She's a genius.

[Tgo01]

I meant to say that would make me left leaning, I call everyone on the left a liberal. You all are going to have to get over this.

Red Thread: Democratic Convention

still wrong


So you're confirming here that you failed social studies in high school and probably do not understand the basic structure of your own government? Got it.


If the left is "all about personal freedoms," and you think that's what anarchy is, why is anarchism a right-wing school?

Left–right politics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_politics)


There is general consensus that the Left includes progressives, social-liberals, greens, social-democrats, socialists, democratic-socialists, civil-libertarians (as in "social-libertarians"; not to be confused with the right's "economic-libertarians"), secularists, communists, and anarchists,and that the Right includes conservatives, reactionaries, neoconservatives, capitalists, neoliberals, economic-libertarians (not to be confused with the left's "civil-libertarians"), social-authoritarians, monarchists, theocrats, nationalists, nazis (including neo-nazis) and fascists.

History of anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_anarchism)


Late 20th century

A surge of popular interest in anarchism occurred in western nations during the 1960s and 1970s. Anarchism was influential in the Counterculture of the 1960s and anarchists actively participated in the late sixties students and workers revolts. In 1968 in Carrara, Italy the International of Anarchist Federations was founded during an international anarchist conference held there in 1968 by the three existing European federations of France, the Italian and the Iberian Anarchist Federation as well as the Bulgarian federation in French exile.

In the United Kingdom in the 1970s this was associated with the punk rock movement, as exemplified by bands such as Crass and the Sex Pistols. The housing and employment crisis in most of Western Europe led to the formation of communes and squatter movements like that of Barcelona, Spain. In Denmark, squatters occupied a disused military base and declared the Freetown Christiania, an autonomous haven in central Copenhagen.

Since the revival of anarchism in the mid 20th century, a number of new movements and schools of thought emerged. Although feminist tendencies have always been a part of the anarchist movement in the form of anarcha-feminism, they returned with vigour during the second wave of feminism in the 1960s. The American Civil Rights Movement and the movement against the war in Vietnam also contributed to the revival of North American anarchism. European anarchism of the late 20th century drew much of its strength from the labour movement, and both have incorporated animal rights activism.


21st century

Anarchist anthropologist David Graeber and anarchist historian Andrej Grubacic have posited a rupture between generations of anarchism, with those "who often still have not shaken the sectarian habits" of the 19th century contrasted with the younger activists who are "much more informed, among other elements, by indigenous, feminist, ecological and cultural-critical ideas", and who by the turn of the 21st century formed "by far the majority" of anarchists.

Around the turn of the 21st century, anarchism grew in popularity and influence as part of the anti-war, anti-capitalist, and anti-globalisation movements. Anarchists became known for their involvement in protests against the meetings of the World Trade Organization (WTO), Group of Eight, and the World Economic Forum. Some anarchist factions at these protests engaged in rioting, property destruction, and violent confrontations with police. These actions were precipitated by ad hoc, leaderless, anonymous cadres known as black blocs; other organisational tactics pioneered in this time include security culture, affinity groups and the use of decentralised technologies such as the internet. A significant event of this period was the confrontations at WTO conference in Seattle in 1999.

International anarchist federations in existence include the International of Anarchist Federations, the International Workers' Association, and International Libertarian Solidarity. The largest organised anarchist movement today is in Spain, in the form of the Confederación General del Trabajo (CGT) and the CNT. CGT membership was estimated to be around 100,000 for 2003. Other active syndicalist movements include in Sweden the Central Organisation of the Workers of Sweden and the Swedish Anarcho-syndicalist Youth Federation; the CNT-AIT in France; the Union Sindicale Italiana in Italy; in the US Workers Solidarity Alliance and the UK Solidarity Federation. The revolutionary industrial unionist Industrial Workers of the World, claiming 2,000 paying members, and the International Workers Association, an anarcho-syndicalist successor to the First International, also remain active.

International of Anarchist Federations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_of_Anarchist_Federations)


The principles of work within IFA are that of Federalism, free arrangement and Mutual Aid, and as states in their preamble of their principles, the IAF fights for:

1) the abolition of all forms of authority whether economic, political, social, religious, cultural or sexual.
2) the construction of a free society, without classes or States or frontiers, founded on anarchist federalism and mutual aid.

International Workers' Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Workers%27_Association)


The International Workers' Association (IWA) (Spanish: AIT - Asociación Internacional de los Trabajadores, German: IAA-Internationale ArbeiterInnen Assoziation) is an international federation of anarcho-syndicalist labour unions and initiatives located primarily in Europe and Latin America.

Based on the principles of revolutionary unionism, the international aims to create industrial unions capable of fighting for the economic and political interests of the working class and eventually, to directly abolish capitalism through "the establishment of economic communities and administrative organs run by the workers."

Far-left politics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-left_politics)


The far-left (also known as the extreme left and radical left) refers to the highest degree of leftism in left-wing politics. The far left seeks the creation of strong or complete social equality in society and the dismantlement of all forms of social stratification. It seeks to abolish all forms of hierarchy, particularly to end unequal distribution of wealth and power. The far left seeks the complete equalization of the distribution of wealth, and a society where in theory everyone is to be provided with equal economic and social opportunities in life and where no one will have excessive power or wealth over others.

Examples of far-left ideologies include anarchism, communism, and revolutionary socialism.

Anarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy)


Anarchism is generally defined as the political philosophy which holds the state to be immoral, or alternatively as opposing authority in the conduct of human relations. Proponents of anarchism (known as "anarchists") advocate stateless societies based on non-hierarchical voluntary associations.

Anarchism is often considered to be a radical left-wing ideology, and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-statist interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism or participatory economics.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/European-political-spectrum.png/372px-European-political-spectrum.png

[Bobmuhthol]

That's some fabulous research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

[Tgo01]

That's some fabulous research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism


In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by privately funded competitors rather than through taxation, and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. Therefore, personal and economic activities under anarcho-capitalism would be regulated by privately run law rather than through politics.

Hmm. I must admit my definition of anarchy (the left kind) seems to match a society devoid of laws better than this one.

[WRoss]

I've said it before, but I'll say it again.

Glass-Steagall and Citizen's United. How can each party own those issues?

[Bobmuhthol]

I think we all need to step back and remind ourselves of the original issue: you called liberals, the most government-hungry motherfuckers on the planet, anarchists.

[Tgo01]

I think we all need to step back and remind ourselves of the original issue: you called liberals, the most government-hungry motherfuckers on the planet, anarchists.

Left = Liberals in Tgo land. Making the joke of "that would make me a dirty left leaning hippie" doesn't sound as good as "that would make me a dirty liberal."

[Bobmuhthol]

Let this be a reminder that political ideologies exist in many more than two dimensions.

[Fallen]

I don't know if this was directed at me but if I were going to build an army it would be a hugging army. They would hug everyone all the time and especially anytime they wanted to hurt anyone. This was my daughters answer to that question. She's a genius.

She knows what she's talking about. You don't want to fucking mess with a hug wolf.

4036

[Parkbandit]

If you were going to build an army who would you want on your side? All the common men or the tiny wealthy minority?

If you were going to build an army, who would you want on your side? All the pussy liberals who are afraid of what people will think if they own a gun or people who are proud to be gun owners.

[Back]

If you were going to build an army, who would you want on your side? All the pussy liberals who are afraid of what people will think if they own a gun or people who are proud to be gun owners.

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. Your hatred towards me is nothing new.

Would you want ignorant people with no training or thought about responsibility owning guns or properly trained people who know the weight of the consequences?

[Parkbandit]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-september-5-2012/hope-and-change-2---the-party-of-inclusion

[Latrinsorm]

I meant to say that would make me left leaning, I call everyone on the left a liberal. You all are going to have to get over this.Like that song... Here It Goes Again.
I came here to say Obamas speech disappointed me at first but then I woke up with Bruce Springsteen in my head.

"We take care of our own...."That song is one of two I deleted immediately after getting the album. Just... just really bad.

[Parkbandit]

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. Your hatred towards me is nothing new.

I don't hate you.. I simply have zero respect for you.

I don't actually hate anyone.



Would you want ignorant people with no training or thought about responsibility owning guns or properly trained people who know the weight of the consequences?

With your rampant ignorance on almost every subject we've ever discussed.. I have very little faith that you are properly trained in anything.

[Tgo01]

Like that song... Here It Goes Again.

What exactly are you getting at? Huh huh huh?

[4a6c1]

That song is one of two I deleted immediately after getting the album. Just... just really bad.

Hessian! We are no longer speaking([!)]

[Latrinsorm]

What exactly are you getting at? Huh huh huh?I was making a reference to OK Go having a song called "Get Over It", but I said "Here it Goes Again" instead!!! HAR HA-HA!!!!!

I assume you are making a reference that I am not catching, because I know the trifold huh only as a Wiccan mating ritual that seems unlikely here.
Hessian! We are no longer speaking([!)]I still think that's upside down. Also my name is super Germanic but I am in fact POLSKI! SPRECHEN SIE DEUTSCHE wait.

[4a6c1]

sprechen sie springsteen


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkEU3JjNARs

[Latrinsorm]

I'm not even clicking on that video, it looks exactly as bad as I would expect it to given how crappy that song is.

eta: One of us is out of control.

[4a6c1]

Hee.

[Back]

I don't hate you.. I simply have zero respect for you.

I don't actually hate anyone.

With your rampant ignorance on almost every subject we've ever discussed.. I have very little faith that you are properly trained in anything.

I'm glad that there are enough smart, tolerant, and gracious people on this planet keeping us moving forward despite people like yourself that keep trying to drag us back into the muck.

[4a6c1]

Back is pretty far left but perceptive enough to understand the value of the second amendment and obviously amiable enough to internalize an opinion the complete opposite of his own. It takes all types.

I'm curious Back but have you ever voted for the Green Party? You really remind me of a few people I know and I would be remiss for not asking.

[Parkbandit]

I'm glad that there are enough smart, tolerant, and gracious people on this planet keeping us moving forward despite people like yourself that keep trying to drag us back into the muck.

You're an idiot.

[Bryft]

That's just another example of politicians pulling a one over on the electorate. As much as you are anti-Obama, the real issue is the banks. Who is talking about it? No one...

You know what else no one is talking about? Gas prices? When gas was two dollars a gallon every major media was covering it.... its damn near 4 dollars an no one gives a shit.

[Bryft]

Sorry, I'm late to the party :(.

[Warriorbird]

If you were going to build an army, who would you want on your side? All the pussy liberals who are afraid of what people will think if they own a gun or people who are proud to be gun owners.

Neglecting the Southern and rural Midwestern portions of the Democratic Party would be a silly idea.

[Warriorbird]

I've said it before, but I'll say it again.

Glass-Steagall and Citizen's United. How can each party own those issues?

They're not, that's how. Citizens United was pushed by the Republican Party but the Democrats won't attack it and Glass-Steagall would've never happened without shared Democratic culpability.

[Drisco]

Someone needs to start a Republican or Democrat poll because I can't keep it straight whose what. (if there is one link it to me :) )

[Allereli]

You know what else no one is talking about? Gas prices? When gas was two dollars a gallon every major media was covering it.... its damn near 4 dollars an no one gives a shit.

you do know gas was up over $4 per gallon under Bush, right? The President cannot control gas prices.

[Back]

Back is pretty far left but perceptive enough to understand the value of the second amendment and obviously amiable enough to internalize an opinion the complete opposite of his own. It takes all types.

I'm curious Back but have you ever voted for the Green Party? You really remind me of a few people I know and I would be remiss for not asking.

I don't believe that any religion should be held above a constitution or affect any part of it. I believe people have the right to life and that means healthcare, food, and shelter. I believe a government is needed to keep order to protect the people. I believe in teamwork to get things accomplished. I believe that greed is the biggest problem we face.

[~Rocktar~]

you do know gas was up over $4 per gallon under Bush, right? The President cannot control gas prices.

But but but but, he is going to pay for our gas and our mortgages, right? This woman said so! It's on the internet so it must be true, right?

http://youtu.be/P36x8rTb3jI

[Tgo01]

you do know gas was up over $4 per gallon under Bush, right? The President cannot control gas prices.

Didn't stop Pelosi and other Democrats (http://blog.heritage.org/2012/04/12/can-you-find-nancy-pelosi-in-this-picture/) from blaming Bush for high gas prices. Guess it's time to vote these liars out huh?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFl6bxxDW3c

[Allereli]

yeah I thought it was stupid back then. there are things that both parties need to stop being stupid about. Gas and religion are two of them.

[Jarvan]

you do know gas was up over $4 per gallon under Bush, right? The President cannot control gas prices.

No the President can't control gas prices... which is funny cause no Dem would admit that under Bush. But the Policies a President puts in place can help influence gas prices. Also a strong economy can help influence them as well. Claiming there is nothing a President can do to influence gas prices is about as bad as saying the high price of gas is all his fault.

[Bobmuhthol]

I don't think any politician understands what "energy independence" means, but both of them think they're accomplishing it -- somehow, Republicans are going to get us there by drilling for more oil (???), and Democrats are going to do it by making oil cheaper without actually doing anything (???). Pelosi almost didn't sound like a total retard for like 1/3 of that video when she stated that high oil (energy) prices are the fault of a history of using oil all day every day, but then her argument collapsed when she didn't finish with, "And that's why we're building nuclear power plants."


But the Policies a President puts in place can help influence gas prices.
You're right: the president can tax (or subsidize) gas. That's about it. And really he can't do that -- the president can politely ask Congress to tax or subsidize gas.

[Parkbandit]

You're right: the president can tax (or subsidize) gas. That's about it. And really he can't do that -- the president can politely ask Congress to tax or subsidize gas.

The President can put in place a very aggressive policy of drilling for more oil where we know it is (Alaska, Gulf, offshore, etc..), pushing for more alternatives (solar, wind, nuclear, etc..), remove burdensome regulations around natural gas and coal, etc...

[Allereli]

The President can put in place a very aggressive policy of drilling for more oil where we know it is (Alaska, Gulf, offshore, etc..), pushing for more alternatives (solar, wind, nuclear, etc..), remove burdensome regulations around natural gas and coal, etc...

yeah, FUCK THE ENVIRONMENT!

[Latrinsorm]

No the President can't control gas prices... which is funny cause no Dem would admit that under Bush. But the Policies a President puts in place can help influence gas prices. Also a strong economy can help influence them as well. Claiming there is nothing a President can do to influence gas prices is about as bad as saying the high price of gas is all his fault.To be fair, the last time the PC had a discussion about gas prices we got a little sidetracked.

[Jarvan]

To be fair, the last time the PC had a discussion about gas prices we got a little sidetracked.

Did we start discussing 15th century French poetry or something? And does it really matter?

[Warriorbird]

To be fair, the last time the PC had a discussion about gas prices we got a little sidetracked.

Ha ha ha.

[Jarvan]

yeah, FUCK THE ENVIRONMENT!

let me guess, you want energy independence don't want higher gas prices, or higher energy bills, don't want any drilling anywhere, no fracking or pretty much anything.

You also live in a adobe house you built yourself and your computer uses electricity you generate by riding a bike. You walk to work, and nothing you own was made outside of a 10 mile radius of where you live...

[Parkbandit]

yeah, FUCK THE ENVIRONMENT!

Yes, because that has to be the end result.

[Warriorbird]

Yes, because that has to be the end result.

Profit uber alles.

You and I both know that there's money to be made all over the place in the "green economy."

[Jarvan]

Profit uber alles.

You and I both know that there's money to be made all over the place in the "green economy."

Most of it by being a friend or contributor to Obama, getting huge loans for no reason, then declaring bankruptcy after making a huge profit.

Honestly, I WANT green energy, but the tech just isn't there yet. Period. Instead of sinking billions into companies using current tech, we should be doing grants to people researching new tech. Today's solar cells are not going to solve our energy problems. Not until someone figures a way for those cells to store energy overnight, or get power when the sun isn't there.

Does that mean we shouldn't have some solar plants? If they can be run at a profit, sure. If not, then no.

[Allereli]

Profit uber alles.

You and I both know that there's money to be made all over the place in the "green economy."

at some point, you have to stop thinking that money is the most important thing in the world.

[Liagala]

Not until someone figures a way for those cells to store energy overnight, or get power when the sun isn't there.
Batteries and wind/geothermal. Next?

[Warriorbird]

Most of it by being a friend or contributor to Obama, getting huge loans for no reason, then declaring bankruptcy after making a huge profit.

Honestly, I WANT green energy, but the tech just isn't there yet. Period. Instead of sinking billions into companies using current tech, we should be doing grants to people researching new tech. Today's solar cells are not going to solve our energy problems. Not until someone figures a way for those cells to store energy overnight, or get power when the sun isn't there.

Does that mean we shouldn't have some solar plants? If they can be run at a profit, sure. If not, then no.

Funny, here I thought Republicans loved energy subsidies.

And PB is hardly some sort of Democrat and he's making bank.

[Jarvan]

Batteries and wind/geothermal. Next?

Ok, so you have a battery that can store enough power overnight to power an entire city? We all know wind blows ALL the time everywhere in the country, so of course we can power everything with wind.

As for Geothermal, that would be great, if we could generate 4+ Terawatts of power from it. We can't.

I am sure your more advanced mind can comprehend loss of power over vast differences, so where there is no sun/wind/geo they get to do what, suck it up and do without?

Take a moment and look up some information on how much energy we use as a country and a world, and how much we currently gain from the sources you want. Then accept the fact that it would cost you a few hundred dollars a month to run your computer if we only used them.

and sorry.. but Batteries.. LOL.

We can't even make batteries that drive electric cars more then 300 miles on a charge and you think entire cities will be able to run off some. Good Luck with that.

[Jarvan]

Funny, here I thought Republicans loved energy subsidies.

And PB is hardly some sort of Democrat and he's making bank.

Honestly, I hate all subsides, grants for research I have no problem with. They are two different things really. At the same time though, a company that sees a profit in something wouldn't really need a grant to do the research for it. That would be considered an investment, though they would likely still take the money. Honestly, who wouldn't?

If the Government said to you, "hey, we looked at our files, and you qualify for $10,000. Here you go." Would you say, nah, I am good. I don't need it.

[Liagala]

Blah blah, it's not perfect therefore it's useless.
You implied there was no way to store power overnight or to generate power when the sun is not out. I mentioned ways to do just that. If you want something capable of handling our entire power demand, why did you bring up solar in the first place? It's no more capable of handling our current needs than batteries and wind/geothermal are. All of them however, are options that could be further developed.

[Jarvan]

You implied there was no way to store power overnight or to generate power when the sun is not out. I mentioned ways to do just that. If you want something capable of handling our entire power demand, why did you bring up solar in the first place? It's no more capable of handling our current needs than batteries and wind/geothermal are. All of them however, are options that could be further developed.

You implied there were current methods to do so. There are not. Hence, there is no way to store power overnight. Bringing up something that could maybe someday do it is like saying we could always use cold fusion. If it isn't an option now, it doesn't matter. Since people are claiming, Drilling is bad, down with oil.

As to solar filling our entire needs, it is possible, just not practical. Last I heard it would take about 1/4th the state of New Mexico covered in solar panels to generate enough for us to not need any other form of electricity. This is not feasible for a number of reasons, but it is doable technically. Power transfer to the East coast would suck. The cost would make our national debt look like leftover change from buying a candy bar.

[Warriorbird]

at some point, you have to stop thinking that money is the most important thing in the world.

They'll never stop. It helps to communicate in their language.

[Liagala]

So solar is not feasible but it's perfectly okay to talk about as a legitimate course. The others are also not feasible, but they're not ok to talk about. Got it. Thanks for clearing that up.

[4a6c1]

Honestly, I WANT green energy, but the tech just isn't there yet.

Wrong. Hydroelectric and Bioelectric energy sources could be real possibilities with funding but the TRUTH is that American energy conglomerates will not spend money on industries that would take money away from their other thriving energy monopolies. The rest of the world has been converting to hydroelectrics and bioelectrics while we were focusing on war; we are about a decade behind the trend on these two technologies. Think like an executive. Why would American conglomerates build whole new infrastructures for cheaper energy sources that would make them LESS money when they are doing just fine charging us too much fucking money per gallon of gas? It's pure politics and you are just a pawn that can't see whos moving you. Or maybe you do see the bigger game and money is your religion but if that's the case how is that trickle down workin for ya?

[4a6c1]

http://edoardopapini.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/sihwa1.jpg

Here's an example of cutting edge technology in hydroelectrics. This is in South Korea. It supplies power to several cities. China has about 15 like it. If our industry leaders gave two shits about anything other than making a buck we would have something similar. We dont hold a candle to what some of these asian countries are doing in alternative energy sources.

[crb]

Pretty picture, no idea what it is though.

Aren't hydroelectric operations limited by geography? and hasn't all that been pretty much taken up? Nevermind the NIMBYs, even Ted Kennedy was a NIMBY with wind power.

But I was under the impression that in the US all suitable hydroelectric locations had been exploited, am I wrong?

I think wave energy has a lot of potential. Nuclear is good too.

But of course, none of that moves automobiles.

As for making money, you should always assume human beings respond to incentives and will do what is in their best interest. Because that is how humans beings actually do work and believing otherwise results in bad policy decisions or experience in inferior systems of government. Once you understand that humans respond to incentives and do what is in their best interest you can simply solve the problem of how to make your desired action to be in their best interest. Don't disabuse the power of the profit motive and the vast progress it has wrought.

[crb]

You implied there were current methods to do so. There are not. Hence, there is no way to store power overnight. Bringing up something that could maybe someday do it is like saying we could always use cold fusion. If it isn't an option now, it doesn't matter. Since people are claiming, Drilling is bad, down with oil.

As to solar filling our entire needs, it is possible, just not practical. Last I heard it would take about 1/4th the state of New Mexico covered in solar panels to generate enough for us to not need any other form of electricity. This is not feasible for a number of reasons, but it is doable technically. Power transfer to the East coast would suck. The cost would make our national debt look like leftover change from buying a candy bar.

Not that I want to get into this silly conversation, its hard arguing with impractical religious environmentalists, even if you're sorta into alternative energy.

But.... actually.... you're wrong. Storing energy is actually doable, and has been done, decades ago.

http://www.tva.gov/sites/raccoonmt.htm

To be fair, I only really know this because I bought property right next to it. Also, if you ever visit it, this place screams for a Bond movie to be filmed here, but, ya, think they built it in the 70s. Big fucking battery. But it shows the basic technology of energy storage that has existed forever. Push something up a hill to store energy, roll it back down a hill to release energy.

[Parkbandit]

Profit uber alles.

You and I both know that there's money to be made all over the place in the "green economy."

I already know that the temperature on the dark side of the moon is -280 F.

[Latrinsorm]

Most of it by being a friend or contributor to Obama, getting huge loans for no reason, then declaring bankruptcy after making a huge profit.

Honestly, I WANT green energy, but the tech just isn't there yet. Period. Instead of sinking billions into companies using current tech, we should be doing grants to people researching new tech. Today's solar cells are not going to solve our energy problems. Not until someone figures a way for those cells to store energy overnight, or get power when the sun isn't there.

Does that mean we shouldn't have some solar plants? If they can be run at a profit, sure. If not, then no.Why do you stress profitability? American utilities aren't really free market in nature. Shouldn't we factor in things like environmental damage?
You implied there were current methods to do so. There are not. Hence, there is no way to store power overnight. Bringing up something that could maybe someday do it is like saying we could always use cold fusion. If it isn't an option now, it doesn't matter. Since people are claiming, Drilling is bad, down with oil.

As to solar filling our entire needs, it is possible, just not practical. Last I heard it would take about 1/4th the state of New Mexico covered in solar panels to generate enough for us to not need any other form of electricity. This is not feasible for a number of reasons, but it is doable technically. Power transfer to the East coast would suck. The cost would make our national debt look like leftover change from buying a candy bar.No single source can fill our entire needs. Holding that against solar (or any other alternate source) is just silly. Similar for power transfer: coal power isn't geographically uniform (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/US_electricity_prod_by_coal.PNG), but we manage that okay.

[Parkbandit]

Funny, here I thought Republicans loved energy subsidies.

And PB is hardly some sort of Democrat and he's making bank.

To be honest, most of my wealth is attained by Obama not stimulating the economy, forcing middle income families from their homes via short sales and into apartments. My "green" income would be there regardless who was in the White House... since saving money on your electric bill never goes out of fashion.

[Parkbandit]

at some point, you have to stop thinking that money is the most important thing in the world.

Who said money is the most important thing in the world?

Save the hyperbole.

[Latrinsorm]

As for making money, you should always assume human beings respond to incentives and will do what is in their best interest.How do you explain drug use? Suicide? Random acts of violence? Obesity? The WNBA? Blood feuds and other vendettas?

[Tgo01]

The rest of the world has been converting to hydroelectrics and bioelectrics while we were focusing on war; we are about a decade behind the trend on these two technologies.

What countries exactly are you referring to?

China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China# Energy_use_and_carbon_emissions_by_sector) gets about 17% of its energy from hydropower while around 60% comes from coal.

Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany) gets almost 35% of its energy from oil and less than 2% from hydro and wind power.

The UK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_Kingdom) gets almost 75% of its energy from gas and coal, 19% from nuclear.

Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_Australia#Hydro_electric_power) gets over 75% of its energy from coal.

The US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States) gets 45% from coal, almost 20% from nuclear, 6% from hydro and 4% from renewable energy sources.


Here's an example of cutting edge technology in hydroelectrics. This is in South Korea.

South Korea gets almost all of its energy from renewable sources, the US is also about 100 times larger than South Korea and has 6 times as many people. Let's also not forget that the Earth peace loving hippies have been slowing down/stopping altogether the development of more nuclear plants in the US for decades now.

[crb]

How do you explain drug use? Suicide? Random acts of violence? Obesity? The WNBA? Blood feuds and other vendettas?

Just because humans respond to incentives and do what they believe is in their best interest doesn't mean they're always right. People do make mistakes. See people who voted for Obama for instance. They may have thought it was in their best interest, they were incorrect. :)

[Stanley Burrell]

...people who voted for Obama for instance. They may have thought it was in their best interest, they were incorrect. :)

True. I voted for him because I thought he was at least half black.

[4a6c1]

What countries exactly are you referring to?

China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China# Energy_use_and_carbon_emissions_by_sector) gets about 17% of its energy from hydropower while around 60% comes from coal.

Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany) gets almost 35% of its energy from oil and less than 2% from hydro and wind power.

The UK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_Kingdom) gets almost 75% of its energy from gas and coal, 19% from nuclear.

Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_Australia#Hydro_electric_power) gets over 75% of its energy from coal.

The US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States) gets 45% from coal, almost 20% from nuclear, 6% from hydro and 4% from renewable energy sources.



South Korea gets almost all of its energy from renewable sources, the US is also about 100 times larger than South Korea and has 6 times as many people. Let's also not forget that the Earth peace loving hippies have been slowing down/stopping altogether the development of more nuclear plants in the US for decades now.


Coal is a fossil fuel.....I'm not sure why you are using it to support your point. What is your point exactly?

And nice attempt cherry picking the wikipedia articles and then supporting my point entirely with South Korea. Did you miss it when I mentioned their one plant supplies several large cities? What does the size of their nation have to do with anything? They have successful technology that we havent even started to try yet. Additionally I see you failed to mention that Austrailia has advanced in the last 10 years to the point that 60 percent of their alternative electricity is fueled by hydroelectrics. We could build off their models as we are similarly surrounded by warm water oceans. Can you give me a logical reason why our industry leaders have failed to take advantage of this technology? And I guess I'm not suprised you failed to mention India who projects 1500 mw covered by hydroelectrics by 2020 with conversions to their current excellent systems.

@ CRB wave power IS hydro power. What sources are you using to support the notion that we have exhausted all possible hydroelectric sources? That sounds like a Rush Limbaugh fact. Sihwa is a perfect example of unconventional technology being used to clean the environment while it also provides power. Let me spell it out for you: The USA is surrounded by water and it could possibly be used to feed our needs if industry leaders would fund the research.

[Tgo01]

Coal is a fossil fuel.....I'm not sure why you are using it to support your point. What is your point exactly?

I thought we were talking about alternative sources of energy that were renewable and produced less pollution. I think pointing out how some of the larger countries/economies still rely on burning coal and oil proves much actually.


And nice attempt cherry picking the wikipedia articles and then supporting my point entirely with South Korea.

Who's cherry picking? You said "the rest of the world" was a decade ahead of us in terms of hydroelectric and bioelectric power, I wasn't aware that South Korea was the rest of the world.


Did you miss it when I mentioned their one plant supplies several large cities? What does the size of their nation have to do with anything?

Over half the population of South Korea lives in their 20 most populous cities, about 10% of the US' entire population lives in its 20 most populous cities. The US uses over 50 times as much electricity as South Korea does. You don't think this has anything to do with anything?


They have successful technology that we havent even started to try yet.

What technology would that be? The US has both thermal and nuclear energy production, the two largest sources of South Korean energy production.


Additionally I see you failed to mention that Austrailia has advanced in the last 10 years to the point that 60 percent of their alternative electricity is fueled by hydroelectrics.

60% of US' alternative energy is fueled by hydoeletrics too (not counting nuclear.)


And I guess I'm not suprised you failed to mention India who projects 1500 mw covered by hydroelectrics by 2020 with conversions to their current excellent systems.

India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_India) gets almost 70% of its electricity from burning coal and gas, not to mention almost 36% of its citizens don't have access to electricity. By 2015 the US is expected to add 2.4 gigawatts of nuclear energy, .38 from hydro, .43 from geothermal, 12.54 from wind and 2.53 from solar.

I'm really not understanding your hate for the US in regards to this.

[Parkbandit]

I'm really not understanding your hate for the US in regards to this.

Clearly the US has a penis.

[4a6c1]

Hate for the US? And so the conversation devolves.....

Jarvan stated that the tech is not there. He was wrong and various countries are ahead of us on that front. Try referencing some of the bigger tidal plants out there, including the one I mentioned, for a taste of what the US still has not accomplished in terms of hydroelectric technology. New technology that utilizes no fossil fuels is the common sense answer. Does the US have that? No. Do other countries? Yes. Arguing semantics is obviously counterproductive and juvenile so I won't participate.

Nice job toeing the party line though. ;)

[4a6c1]

Clearly the US has a penis.

Hahahaha. God. There's no rational debating with you guys, is there?

[Androidpk]

Hahahaha. God. There's no rational debating with you guys, is there?

Dear Rojo, I hope you aren't just discovering that now.

[4a6c1]

I know but I try! It feels like a massive failure in communication. I'm a good talker. I guess it only works in person. :( :( :(

[Androidpk]

I wonder if PB says lulz in person. Non stop.

[Tgo01]

Hate for the US? And so the conversation devolves.....

Pretty sure I qualified that with "Hate for the US IN REGARDS TO THIS."


Jarvan stated that the tech is not there. He was wrong and various countries are ahead of us on that front.

Again you say this but again you only mention one country. By the way you keep asking "What does the size of their country have to do with anything?" For reference the amount of electricity the US produces from hydro is more than half the electricity the entire country of South Korea produces. Up until about 4 years ago the US spent the most on green energy, it is now second behind China.


Nice job toeing the party line though. ;)

I actually want the US to produce more green energy but at the same time I realize it's not exactly easy/cheap for the US to start converting major portions of its electricity to greener energy so in the meantime we'll have to keep burning that coal.

[Jarvan]

So solar is not feasible but it's perfectly okay to talk about as a legitimate course. The others are also not feasible, but they're not ok to talk about. Got it. Thanks for clearing that up.

wow.. you are obtuse. I was using solar as an example. Wind from what I have read could also produce all our energy needs, but it would take up even more space, and take our a good portion of our prime food growing space.

Geo tho, last I heard, with current technology would never be able to meet our power needs.

I never said people should stop researching and trying to improve these technologies, I just said people that think we should stop drilling, and stop using oil/gas cause we have alternatives are nuts. There currently IS no alternative to coal/oil/gas, sad but true.

And I'd love to own a Tesla, along with a solar panel at my house for personal charging so I didn't have to use any from the main grid. The only reason we have been fixated on Gas for so long is because it's cheap. Well, it won't be for much longer. but while it's cheaper then any other option, guess what people will use?

[Jarvan]

http://edoardopapini.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/sihwa1.jpg

Here's an example of cutting edge technology in hydroelectrics. This is in South Korea. It supplies power to several cities. China has about 15 like it. If our industry leaders gave two shits about anything other than making a buck we would have something similar. We dont hold a candle to what some of these asian countries are doing in alternative energy sources.

So your saying we should build a bigger Damn then Three gorges and tilt the access of the planet even more? Maybe wipe out 2 or 3 states to do so?

As for that Artists rendition up there, real nice. Show a real picture tho.

Haven't seen nor heard of anyone yet producing useable energy on a large scale via bioelectric. No the Matrix doesn't count Rojo.

[Jarvan]

Not that I want to get into this silly conversation, its hard arguing with impractical religious environmentalists, even if you're sorta into alternative energy.

But.... actually.... you're wrong. Storing energy is actually doable, and has been done, decades ago.

http://www.tva.gov/sites/raccoonmt.htm

To be fair, I only really know this because I bought property right next to it. Also, if you ever visit it, this place screams for a Bond movie to be filmed here, but, ya, think they built it in the 70s. Big fucking battery. But it shows the basic technology of energy storage that has existed forever. Push something up a hill to store energy, roll it back down a hill to release energy.

Yes, you can push water up a hill to store limited amounts of energy. To do so on a country wide scale though, not possible. Just like there is a Firm working on New Lithium batteries as backups for buildings. Their size and cost make them impractical for countrywide use but it is possible.

[Jarvan]

Hate for the US? And so the conversation devolves.....

Jarvan stated that the tech is not there. He was wrong and various countries are ahead of us on that front. Try referencing some of the bigger tidal plants out there, including the one I mentioned, for a taste of what the US still has not accomplished in terms of hydroelectric technology. New technology that utilizes no fossil fuels is the common sense answer. Does the US have that? No. Do other countries? Yes. Arguing semantics is obviously counterproductive and juvenile so I won't participate.

Nice job toeing the party line though. ;)

Yes, the tech is not there. You can point out all these little pet projects some countries have, but I am still standing by my statement that the tech just isn't there to supply our 4+ terawatts of energy, nor the worlds 16+ needs.

Wave energy is all fine and dandy, Now get one of those warm water states to allow them to be put around their shores, I am SURE Florida will be all for that, it's not like they use their shoreline for anything. Hell, Good old Teddy wouldn't allow wind power in his field of view from his Mansion. What would the people of Malibu say if they were told they could have cheaper Electricity for the masses.. or a view of the shore. Well, I am sure they would pick cheap electricity, because they are good people, right?

[Warriorbird]

Yes, the tech is not there. You can point out all these little pet projects some countries have, but I am still standing by my statement that the tech just isn't there to supply our 4+ terawatts of energy, nor the worlds 16+ needs.

I heard the best way to be America is to quit and not try and stagnate with the same finite natural resources we had before or better yet, go out and use our emergency reserves. That's the ticket.

[4a6c1]

As for that Artists rendition up there, real nice. Show a real picture tho.

Haven't seen nor heard of anyone yet producing useable energy on a large scale via bioelectric. No the Matrix doesn't count Rojo.

Haha! Matrix. You hadn't "heard" of hydro energy either until I started posting scary facts. As for showing you a picture....you goddamn lazy bum, I've only posted the word 3 times now. S-I-H-W-A. Do a simple google search and learn for yourself. The tech is there. 300 mw is not a pet project. That's inconvenient for a Republican party being led around by their noses with corporate carrots, isnt it?

[4a6c1]

I heard the best way to be America is to quit and not try and stagnate with the same finite natural resources we had before or better yet, go out and use our emergency reserves. That's the ticket.

Because hydroelectric "pet projects" all over the place wouldn't provide millions of jobs or anything. Ooops, I think I smell conflicted Republican hypocrisy brewing.

[Allereli]

Let's also not forget that the Earth peace loving hippies have been slowing down/stopping altogether the development of more nuclear plants in the US for decades now.

you are aware of the nuclear power plant disaster in Japan due to the tsunami, right? and the 5.0 earthquake in Virginia that closed at least one plant? The renewable technology is there, both parties need to grow some balls.

[~Rocktar~]

Not that I want to get into this silly conversation, its hard arguing with impractical religious environmentalists, even if you're sorta into alternative energy.

But.... actually.... you're wrong. Storing energy is actually doable, and has been done, decades ago.

http://www.tva.gov/sites/raccoonmt.htm

To be fair, I only really know this because I bought property right next to it. Also, if you ever visit it, this place screams for a Bond movie to be filmed here, but, ya, think they built it in the 70s. Big fucking battery. But it shows the basic technology of energy storage that has existed forever. Push something up a hill to store energy, roll it back down a hill to release energy.


GAH! I live not far from there, pretty cool place and has a large concentration of Bald Eagles in the winter. They also have one of the fastest elevators in North America. Used to make a decent science field trip.

[Tgo01]

300 mw is not a pet project.

300 MW is hardly much at all. The Shihwa Lake Tidal Power Plant generates 552 million kWh per year, the US uses 4151 billion kWh per year which means the US would only need to build 7,519 of these things to meet our energy demands. Assuming the US could build these for the same price that South Korea did (which I doubt) it would cost the US over 2 trillion dollars.

The Grand Coulee Dam produces over 21 billion kWh, The Hoover Dam produces over 4 billion kWh.


you are aware of the nuclear power plant disaster in Japan due to the tsunami, right? and the 5.0 earthquake in Virginia that closed at least one plant?

More than 13,000 people die in the US each year due to coal power plants. Nuclear power has the lowest mortality rate per watt of energy produced, it's even safer than hydro. Of course people dying from air pollution is hardly big news, a nuclear power plant being slammed by a tsunami makes headlines for weeks and causes everyone to overreact, which is exactly why we haven't been building many nuclear power plants for decades now.

[Jarvan]

Haha! Matrix. You hadn't "heard" of hydro energy either until I started posting scary facts. As for showing you a picture....you goddamn lazy bum, I've only posted the word 3 times now. S-I-H-W-A. Do a simple google search and learn for yourself. The tech is there. 300 mw is not a pet project. That's inconvenient for a Republican party being led around by their noses with corporate carrots, isnt it?

No, Sorry to say you fail again. I had heard about hydro power. Kinda hard to miss three gorges damn, And had not heard of any significant power generation via tidal forces, and I would contest that 300 MW( which it's actually 254, but lets not point that out) is no where near what I would call practical. Useful on a small scale, yes. Btw.. your rest of the world.. is bullshit. Since only S Korea and France have any real function Tidal Plants according to my research. Though, maybe in your eyes, they are the rest of the world.

As for the Tidal program, it does show promise, although I think some of the proposed plants will never come to fruition, nor reach the capacity they claim. More power to them if they do tho. -pun intended-

Lets look at the New South Korean plant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incheon_Tidal_Power_Station

Cost 3.4 Billion, power supplied, 1,320 MW. Aprox equal to 1 single Nuclear reactor. The cost of 1 Nuclear reactor is about 2-3 times this amount though. Everything I could locate shows Regular home power usage around 2-5kw. Using an average of 3.5 Kw's per home, the current plant supplies aprox 72,572 standard homes the projected plant would supply 377k . Just as an example.. Miami-Dade county in 2011 had approx 167k condos, and 208k single family homes, total 375k. Not including businesses and other major power users. This would require 5-6 on South Korea's current plant or about 1 new one. Of course my figure of 2-5kw would not easily translate in Miami due to the vast increase in power usage for cooling. Same for heating. But we will stick with it, since it's a coastal town and could have a power plant nearby. This would mean Miami would have to pay 3.5 billion, roughly, for it's green energy. I don't know Miami's finances, but I doubt they have that sitting around.

Not to mention, first you would have to get it approved. Like I previously stated, even the Left doesn't want wind turbines off their coast. What makes you think they will want coast front used up by these?

I notice how you deflected on showing any proof that anyone anywhere is using Bioelectric to power homes/factories/buildings.

And yes, 300 MW would be considered a pet project. There have been other projects on similar power scales as well.


Also, if you reread my posts, did I ever say stop all research of alternative energy development? I don't think so. I said we need to continue, though throwing money at proven failures is stupid. Same stupid as NOT drilling for more oil/gas untill we have something else in place.


Because hydroelectric "pet projects" all over the place wouldn't provide millions of jobs or anything. Ooops, I think I smell conflicted Republican hypocrisy brewing.

Sorry, I can't find any data as to how many people these projects employ after being built. I doubt they need to maintain a huge staff though. As for the construction portion, yes that would certainly employ allot of people. Almost all of which would be people with construction experience. Which would certainly help those people, but I doubt an out of work banker, or teacher would be able to get a job building a new plant. Train new workers, sure why not. But would the companies even do that? This isn't the 30's anymore. They don't just hire people and give them on the job training.

on a side note..

Tidal power issues
Ecological

Tidal power can have effects on marine life. The turbines can accidentally kill swimming sea life with the rotating blades. Some fishes may no longer utilize the area if they were threatened with a constant rotating object.
Corrosion

Salt water causes corrosion in metal parts. It can be difficult to maintain tidal stream generators due to their size and depth in the water. Mechanical fluids, such as lubricants, can leak out, which may be harmful to the marine life nearby. Proper maintenance can minimize the amount of harmful chemicals that may enter the environment.

...

Also it seems tidal plants require tides, go figure. And the size of the tide and type directly relates to how much power is generated, not to mention size.

Now, if you can honestly claim that our government, nor our energy companies, have not looked into the building of said plants in optimal locations, you are out of your mind. The companies for sure, after all, if it can make them a profit, they would do it.

[Jarvan]

300 MW is hardly much at all. The Shihwa Lake Tidal Power Plant generates 552 million kWh per year, the US uses 4151 billion kWh per year which means the US would only need to build 7,519 of these things to meet our energy demands. Assuming the US could build these for the same price that South Korea did (which I doubt) it would cost the US over 2 trillion dollars.

The Grand Coulee Dam produces over 21 billion kWh, The Hoover Dam produces over 4 billion kWh.

More than 13,000 people die in the US each year due to coal power plants. Nuclear power has the lowest mortality rate per watt of energy produced, it's even safer than hydro. Of course people dying from air pollution is hardly big news, a nuclear power plant being slammed by a tsunami makes headlines for weeks and causes everyone to overreact, which is exactly why we haven't been building many nuclear power plants for decades now.


The new one is 5 times as effective and will cost 3.4 billion. 1320 MW would take 3145 roughly. Which is about 10.693 Trillion to cover our current energy needs.

[4a6c1]

300 MW is hardly much at all. The Shihwa Lake Tidal Power Plant generates 552 million kWh per year, the US uses 4151 billion kWh per year which means the US would only need to build 7,519 of these things to meet our energy demands. Assuming the US could build these for the same price that South Korea did (which I doubt) it would cost the US over 2 trillion dollars.


First let me savor the feel of sweet victory over the fact that you even attempted to learn about an alternative energy source on your own because of me. Victory, one far right brainwashed corporate pawn at a time!!

.......

Here's a good video of Sihwa. I'm too tired to think about it anymore especially since I've tasted a bit of victory.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuthdJxNFfc

[Parkbandit]

I heard the best way to be America is to quit and not try and stagnate with the same finite natural resources we had before or better yet, go out and use our emergency reserves. That's the ticket.

I heard the best way to get out of the energy crisis is to make coal and oil harder and more expensive to get, while betting tax payer money on "green" jobs is the best way to force Americans off fossil fuel. That's the ticket.

[Parkbandit]

Hahahaha. God. There's no rational debating with you guys, is there?

Woosh?