I'm not picking on nuclear. I'm picking on the idea of passing the bill for our current power production on to our grandkids.
You are correct and a reasonable amount of nuclear production (say 10% of the power mix) makes a good balance between risk/reward. But going heavily nuclear and producing a lot of waste seems foolhardy to me.
The US will change *A LOT* in 200 years. Who knows that YUCCA mountain won't turn out to have been the perfect spot for an interdimensional gateway or zero point energy production facility except it's polluted all to hell with nuclear waste that leaked from containers that turned out to only last 170 years.
Our Grankids are going to have TONS of debt to pay REGARDLESS of what we do. I'm afraid that is the nature of life.
There seems to be a new fad now days of looking planning SO FAR into the future THAT WE DON'T DO ANYTHING TODAY.
This type of attitude would have prevented great projects like the Hoover Damn or the Panama Canal from even being ATTEMPTED.
It makes me sad that progress is slowly being stymied because people are so afraid of making a mistake THAT THEY MAKE NO SOLUTIONS.
OPEC supplies 53.8% of our oil imports (a little over 5.25 million barrels per day out of a little over 20 million barrels per day used).
The rest of our imports (the other 5 or so million barrels per day) come from countries like Mexico and Canada.
If people bothered to look up the numbers instead of just ASSUMING every damn thing, they would see that it isn't that difficult to fathom that in 10 years, if we cared to try, we could replace a QUARTER (not the 100% naysayers seem to want to believe) of our Oil with alternatives.
Such as T. Boone Pickens plan which ould eventually replace 38% of current oil consumption with Natural Gas.
That would be more than enough to NEVER have to buy another barrel of Oil from OPEC.
OPEC being the countries that, generally, may not have our best interests at heart.
Obama's plan is a hell of a lot better than McCain's that basically wants to drill off shore to MAKE YOU FEEL BETTER, but won't actually help things at all (at most, 200,000 barrels a day, versus replacing 5 MILLION BARRELS a day with Obama.)
I see. So you're comfortable with voting for a thinly-veiled Socialist radical. Good for you, douche-bag. Yes, the Republicans have an atrocious spending record, but you're a fool if you think they're no better than your beloved Spendocrats who think they are divinely entitled to the money taken from citizens. The two worst presidents of all time were LBJ and FDR - FDR for starting the American social welfare state and LBJ for greatly expanding it.
ignoring the fact Russia got what they wanted and killed lots of people
WTF ? Russia killed near 100 soldiers Georgia killed 2000 civilians and destroyed houses of another 30,000 and you still claim that the bad guy is Russia?
No the fucking bastards here are USA who allowed and support Georgia in this genocide! An you know what? It's because Georgia is important location for US on the way of the "OIL".
USA care only about OIL - it does not even care about it's own people moron.
And the rest of the World likes things JUST THE WAY THEY ARE.
If they were forced to choose, I think the World would EAGERLY join an American Empire BEFORE a Russian one.
Why don't you ask somebody from Poland, the Baltic States, Finland or Ukraine what they think of recent Russian actions?
Why don't you ask someone from Balkans what they think about US actions in regards of bombing sovereign nation, taking part of their country and allowing it to declare independence?
Because the Serbs treated the people of Kosovo like shit and they finally caught it in the ass.
so you don't even know what Georgia did to provoke the response do you? Do you even know the bush assholes have been hostile and engaging in encircling Russia since the day they took office as if the cold war never ended? We provoked this idiot maneuver out of Georgia but they get to pay the price.
It'll teach the Georgians, or anyone else for that matter, to pay closer attention before poking hornet's nests, won't it?
Not to mention that we helped Saddam Hussien solidify his power against Soviet backed Iran way back in the 1980s and he remains one of our Staunchest allies to this day.
Saddam Hussein isn't anyone's ally anymore, he's six feet under.
BTW, the Soviets DID NOT back the Iranians.
The Soviets didn't trust the Iranians because of all their God talk. We didn't have any use for the Iranians because of their behavior in regard to our embassy being taken over.
Saddam Hussein, sensing that the Iranians were pretty much blacklisted (sensing quite correctly, I might add) and that no one would come to their aid, invaded with the intention of capturing their Oil Fields.
Make no mistake, the Iran-Iraq War was nothing but a bank robbery. Saddam intended to capture the Iranian Oil Fields and pool them with his own (which if he had been successful, BTW, he would have overtaken Saudi Arabia as the World's leading Oil Producer).
The fact that he didn't win shows his incompetence.
These problems occur, when a country prouding itself to be the greatest, democratic nation on earth, breaks its own rules(like : not intruding on other nations Sovereignty),
This is a very good point. Recent actions of the US have given other nations like Russia and China plenty of excuses to do what they like, and to push their own interests.
Whenever the US criticised China for its human rights record, China can criticise the US right back for its human rights record.
And because the US invaded a souvereign nation with a flimsy excuse (when it was really about oil), now Russia can use the same flimsy excuse to invade a foreign nation (which is really about oil). And they make claims of genocide too, because that worked so well in Bosnia and Kosovo.
I'm so sick of this "war for oil" bullshit.
Our invasion didn't net us one OUNCE (or LITER for you metric Nazis) of FREE oil.
The Iraqis have BILLIONS upon BILLIONS upon BILLIONS in unspent oil revenue BECAUSE WE FIX WHAT WE BROKE.
They have been asked to pay for nothing that wasn't their responsibility to pay for.
There are a lot of points we would probably agree on about the Iraq War, BUT LETS DISPOSE OF THIS UNTRUTH RIGHT HERE.
WTF? Why would the jews make sure nothing but WASP men got elected? Why would the jewish media favor the Republicans when they're traditionally more likely as a demographic to be Democrats? I think you really need to look at what you're saying, because your conspiracy theories really don't make sense.
Most conspiracy theories only make sense if you let someone else do your thinking for you.
The minute you DARE to think for yourself, the theory usually collapses.
College piracy really is getting out of hand these days. I just graduate college recently, and it's ridiculous how easy and casual it is.
Copyright infringement is illegal and costs companies money. As a legitimate consumer, I feel duped when others are trading around something I paid good money far.
I'm all in favor of trying to prevent and deter this unlawful activity.
By chance, it wouldn't have been Law School you just graduated from would it?
You are a troll because your response wasn't that "I disagree with something" or "I don't agree". Your response was an inflammatory accusation of whining then go on to inflate them without ever maintaining anything about anything in either posts.
If you would have addressed something specific instead of resorting to name calling and jokes about your dad, it might be different. But you didn't and you acted like a damn troll attacking the messenger without any context of the message.
And to the point of the whining accusations, if you would have read the post, you would have noticed is wasn't a whine. I didn't complain that anything was unfair or claim that anyone has an advantage. In fact, far from it, I simply stated the situation surrounding politics and explained why it isn't that easy as the post I replied to suggested. Stating facts and observations isn't whining at all. But ignoring the content of a post and jumping straight to name calling is definitely a troll. We will have differences in opinions, if you would have addressed any of those differences, it would have put an entirely different outlook on your post. But you chose ridicule and insults over substance and after reading a few of your other posts, I can see why with your lack of informed opinions.
So by definition, you consider you're opinions "informed"?
Whatever. I post under my name, not under some candyass AC and I stand by what I write.
YOU didn't say anything in your response to rebut it, btw.
Ohh.. It look like we have a troll in the house too.
And no, that wasn't whining. It was responding to an AC who was wondering why something wasn't be used to the republican's advantage. I was pointing out the problems with politics and showing how they surface all the time because of people's ignorance and deceptive usages by the politicians.
Of course your smart enough that you knew all that already and just wanted to troll right?
Why am I a troll?
Because I don't agree with you or the original poster?
Doesn't change the fact that you're whining and I'm not, that's all I'm saying.
I like the country just the way it is. I like the fact that NO ONE party is in a position to rubber stamp every dumb ass idea that comes into their head.
That is PRECISELY why things were better in the 90s. The Republicans and the Democrats WERE FORCED TO WORK TOGETHER.
This idea that one or the other can solve all our problems is ludicrous.
You should be angry with George Bush who basically says "my way or the highway".
He is a PRESIDENT. Not a KING.
If he had learned that lesson in 2006, we would be in the mess we are now with EVERYONE grandstanding.
Exxon Mobil: Record profits ($1,500/second) for the last quarter. But hey, high gas prices aren't a tax. Nor are higher prices for food and goods a tax. But hey, if it's good for Exxon, BP, and the rest, it's good for America, right? RIGHT?!!!
Exxon Mobil is an American Corporation, so yes, in the grand scheme of things, what is good for Exxon Mobil IS good for the United States as a whole.
Does that mean I like paying higher gas prices, hell no. However, I'm not going to go whining "Oh it's so unfair, oh it's so unfair, they should give me gas for the price I'M WILLING TO PAY, not WHAT IT IS WORTH."
As an American (and a Capitalist) I would much rather someone come up with something better than gasoline. Then, I could simply tell Exxon Mobil that in a Capitalist Society I have the right to buy my energy from whom ever I choose and this new company is able to provide it cheaper, so, don't call us we'll call you.
But don't bitch just because they are filling the need for mobile energy and no one else is stepping up to the plate.
The facts are there, you just need to look for them. However, the idea that revenues are up can easily be counters with "and if taxes were X we would have X more" or "you don't know that the tax cuts caused that increase" when it is obvious from every other tax cut in a weak economy that it brings motion that increases revenues. The vast majority of people wouldn't know the difference and we wouldn't be any worse off.
The bottom line is that the republicans are in a tight situation. There is so much fud going around that they couldn't win if they wanted to. The Major pains if the gas prices started after the dems took control of congress in 2006, we didn't even have $3 gas back then. But they seem to be the "popular ones who can fix? it somehow. The federal budget has increased after they took office too yet the republicans are getting the blame for the deficit spending because of the two wars. It isn't like the democrats don't know what will be spent or what is being spent on the wars and that they don't have the opportunity to cut spending so a surplus budget could cover the costs of the war. But as the great GP just said, tax and spend now instead of taxing their kids.
I mean hell, you will even hear about how the dems ballances the budget in the 90's even though republicans controlled congress, set spending, and made the budget that was passed and sent to Clinton. Forget about the funding wars where Clinton vetoed budgets because there wasn't enough for a certain program or because there was too much in another. Forget about the dot come buble that increased revenue which was completely unique to the times and tied closely to the Capitol gains tax cuts. Forget about all the Roth IRA conversions where someone who has saved 2 million dollars for retirement was able to pay taxes on the 2 million then and not when they withdrew it at retirement. Forget about being able to spread that out over four years time, which had the effect of encouraging people to convert thereby giving the government a surplus tax income that should have been paid out 10 or more years in the future. But all that doesn't matter as long as the democrats take credit for it. It doesn't matter at all that there was 3 maybe 4 specific and non-repeatable situations that happened that increased the federal revenue quite a bit for a real short time.
As another person in this thread mentioned, the problems are both parties. Both of them know how much the war is costing and neither of them are cutting spending to ease the deficit. The numbers are there, the sources are scattered all around and it won't be hard for you to find what the parent said about the tax cuts raising revenues, but it isn't exactly black and white and neither party can take advantage of it.
BTW, McCain has already pledged to not remove the tax cuts. Obama, after finding out how many lower income-non-rich people would be effected by it has changed his stand from removing the Evil Bush Tax Cuts to removing part of them if you make more then $250,000 a year. He now wants to decrease or lower taxes on those same non-rich people who benefited from the Bush Tax cut for the Rich. This is probably why he almost all but gave up on pushing his health care initiatives. He can't cut taxes and pay for that at the same time if we were to believe what he originally said about both. None of these issues is cut and dry because of all the FUD surrounding all of them.
Sounds to me like we have a WHINER in the house.
There are two types of people in the World, winners and losers. THAT is the ONLY thing the American people care about (myself included).
Just like my granddaddy used to say (and it looks like the Republicans are proving him right), "Winners laugh and tell jokes, losers say 'Let's deal".
A person can say that "CO2 does not cause global warming" and be both right AND wrong--depending on the context.
If we are discussing what begins a global warming trend then there is nothing in the ice core record that suggests that CO2 can cause global warming. If we are talking about what happens once the planet begins the warm then the situation gets extraordinarily complicated. In fact, in the latter scenario it is only possible to predict what will happen if one can model the entire solar system. IOW, this stuff is hard.
If you think that scientists know what is going to happen as the planet warms--you're wrong. If you think you know what the anthropogenic addition of CO2 is going to ultimately result in--you're wrong. If we're being completely honest we all need to admit we have no freakin idea what is going to happen. We're running the experiment from inside the beaker.
Having said that, I'm all for renewable energies. I'm all for higher CAFE standards. I'm all for lots of things that would reduce the use of fossil fuel. I'm for these things because I already KNOW that using oil is feeding a LOT of money to VERY bad places. I already know with reasonable certainty that fossil fuel is making asthma and heart disease worse in high-smog areas. These are reason enough. I don't need a model of the solar-system to try to predict the temperature in 1000 years to tell me fossil fuels are bad.
It is sad that people like you gave polluters all the ammunition they need to delay action indefinitely. I understand the gamble--I really do. Try to convince people that the world is about to end and maybe they'll change. Personally I have always favored just pointing out the already observable negative effects of burning fossil fuels. In fact, were I a cynic, I'd suggest that the global warming focus has been fomented and supported by the oil companies (with the help of a LOT of "useful idiots").
But that doesn't change the fact that I would still fire your ass.
Yes, of course, past actions do not guarantee future performance, we've' all seen the stock scams.
BUT, we have to base our decision on ESTIMATED GUESSES. At the end of the day, guessing (no matter how well planted, it is still a guess) is all we can do about the future.
So if all the evidence in the past points toward CO2 increases lagging behind temperature increases, the only reasonable course of action in planning for the future is that CO2 IS NOT the driving force behind Global Warming.
NOW, I haven't checked what he said for myself, SO I AM NOT SAYING IT IS TRUE. I am only defending his train of thought.
This is a silly as planing an Interstellar Space Flight.
It is POINTLESS to plan for ANYTHING that extends beyond our lifetime because we simply aren't developed enough to think on those timescales.
We've done pretty well for ourselves planning for the foreseeable so far. Why change courses now.
This whole thing about 'Warnings for future generations' crap is nothing but the Anti-Nuclear nuts attempt to make a mountain out of a mole hill. THEY are the ones talking about shit 10,000 years into the future to try and scare people NOW into siding with them.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not picking on nuclear. I'm picking on the idea of passing the bill for our current power production on to our grandkids.
You are correct and a reasonable amount of nuclear production (say 10% of the power mix) makes a good balance between risk/reward. But going heavily nuclear and producing a lot of waste seems foolhardy to me.
The US will change *A LOT* in 200 years. Who knows that YUCCA mountain won't turn out to have been the perfect spot for an interdimensional gateway or zero point energy production facility except it's polluted all to hell with nuclear waste that leaked from containers that turned out to only last 170 years.
Our Grankids are going to have TONS of debt to pay REGARDLESS of what we do. I'm afraid that is the nature of life.
There seems to be a new fad now days of looking planning SO FAR into the future THAT WE DON'T DO ANYTHING TODAY.
This type of attitude would have prevented great projects like the Hoover Damn or the Panama Canal from even being ATTEMPTED.
It makes me sad that progress is slowly being stymied because people are so afraid of making a mistake THAT THEY MAKE NO SOLUTIONS.
Oh, how cute I was labeled a "Troll" because I pointed out that the poster didn't have the courage of his convictions.
Getting to Social Security, you tell me ONE THING wrong with making sure people have something when they retire.
I'm so sick of these 20 YEAR OLDS bitching because they are asked to contribute a fingernail slice of their income to help those who came before them.
That is as selfish an snobbish as those (not that I'm accusing you of this, BTW) who scream they'd go to Canada before being Drafted.
NO ONE has any sense of DUTY or RESPONSIBILITY now days.
200 years ago most of the US was thinly settled wilderness.
Care to accurately project what the US will be like in 200 years?
We make all kinds of nasty stuff, some that lasts a lot longer than 200 years.
Why pick on Nuclear, something that AT LEAST you get something good out of?
Yes, quite a champion.
Obama just finished paying off his school loans a couple of years ago, WHILE MCCAIN OWNS HOUSES ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.
Champion of the moocher indeed.
OPEC supplies 53.8% of our oil imports (a little over 5.25 million barrels per day out of a little over 20 million barrels per day used).
The rest of our imports (the other 5 or so million barrels per day) come from countries like Mexico and Canada.
If people bothered to look up the numbers instead of just ASSUMING every damn thing, they would see that it isn't that difficult to fathom that in 10 years, if we cared to try, we could replace a QUARTER (not the 100% naysayers seem to want to believe) of our Oil with alternatives.
Such as T. Boone Pickens plan which ould eventually replace 38% of current oil consumption with Natural Gas.
That would be more than enough to NEVER have to buy another barrel of Oil from OPEC.
OPEC being the countries that, generally, may not have our best interests at heart.
Obama's plan is a hell of a lot better than McCain's that basically wants to drill off shore to MAKE YOU FEEL BETTER, but won't actually help things at all (at most, 200,000 barrels a day, versus replacing 5 MILLION BARRELS a day with Obama.)
People, it's simple math.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/04/us-imports-of-o.html
I see. So you're comfortable with voting for a thinly-veiled Socialist radical. Good for you, douche-bag. Yes, the Republicans have an atrocious spending record, but you're a fool if you think they're no better than your beloved Spendocrats who think they are divinely entitled to the money taken from citizens. The two worst presidents of all time were LBJ and FDR - FDR for starting the American social welfare state and LBJ for greatly expanding it.
So says the "Anonymous Coward".
Well, that I will not argue with. In fact, you have probably stated it pretty fairly (truth be known).
HOWEVER, I have heard others phrase it in such ways as to make it seem as though someone is being robbed, and that makes me angry.
ignoring the fact Russia got what they wanted and killed lots of people
WTF ? Russia killed near 100 soldiers
Georgia killed 2000 civilians and destroyed houses of another 30,000 and you still claim that the bad guy is Russia?
No the fucking bastards here are USA who allowed and support Georgia in this genocide!
An you know what? It's because Georgia is important location for US on the way of the "OIL".
USA care only about OIL - it does not even care about it's own people moron.
And the rest of the World likes things JUST THE WAY THEY ARE.
If they were forced to choose, I think the World would EAGERLY join an American Empire BEFORE a Russian one.
Why don't you ask somebody from Poland, the Baltic States, Finland or Ukraine what they think of recent Russian actions?
Why don't you ask someone from Balkans what they think about US actions in regards of bombing sovereign nation, taking part of their country and allowing it to declare independence?
Because the Serbs treated the people of Kosovo like shit and they finally caught it in the ass.
so you don't even know what Georgia did to provoke the response do you? Do you even know the bush assholes have been hostile and engaging in encircling Russia since the day they took office as if the cold war never ended? We provoked this idiot maneuver out of Georgia but they get to pay the price.
It'll teach the Georgians, or anyone else for that matter, to pay closer attention before poking hornet's nests, won't it?
Not to mention that we helped Saddam Hussien solidify his power against Soviet backed Iran way back in the 1980s and he remains one of our Staunchest allies to this day.
Saddam Hussein isn't anyone's ally anymore, he's six feet under.
BTW, the Soviets DID NOT back the Iranians.
The Soviets didn't trust the Iranians because of all their God talk. We didn't have any use for the Iranians because of their behavior in regard to our embassy being taken over.
Saddam Hussein, sensing that the Iranians were pretty much blacklisted (sensing quite correctly, I might add) and that no one would come to their aid, invaded with the intention of capturing their Oil Fields.
Make no mistake, the Iran-Iraq War was nothing but a bank robbery. Saddam intended to capture the Iranian Oil Fields and pool them with his own (which if he had been successful, BTW, he would have overtaken Saudi Arabia as the World's leading Oil Producer).
The fact that he didn't win shows his incompetence.
These problems occur, when a country prouding itself to be the greatest, democratic nation on earth, breaks its own rules(like : not intruding on other nations Sovereignty),
This is a very good point. Recent actions of the US have given other nations like Russia and China plenty of excuses to do what they like, and to push their own interests.
Whenever the US criticised China for its human rights record, China can criticise the US right back for its human rights record.
And because the US invaded a souvereign nation with a flimsy excuse (when it was really about oil), now Russia can use the same flimsy excuse to invade a foreign nation (which is really about oil). And they make claims of genocide too, because that worked so well in Bosnia and Kosovo.
I'm so sick of this "war for oil" bullshit.
Our invasion didn't net us one OUNCE (or LITER for you metric Nazis) of FREE oil.
The Iraqis have BILLIONS upon BILLIONS upon BILLIONS in unspent oil revenue BECAUSE WE FIX WHAT WE BROKE.
They have been asked to pay for nothing that wasn't their responsibility to pay for.
There are a lot of points we would probably agree on about the Iraq War, BUT LETS DISPOSE OF THIS UNTRUTH RIGHT HERE.
WTF? Why would the jews make sure nothing but WASP men got elected? Why would the jewish media favor the Republicans when they're traditionally more likely as a demographic to be Democrats? I think you really need to look at what you're saying, because your conspiracy theories really don't make sense.
Most conspiracy theories only make sense if you let someone else do your thinking for you.
The minute you DARE to think for yourself, the theory usually collapses.
College piracy really is getting out of hand these days. I just graduate college recently, and it's ridiculous how easy and casual it is.
Copyright infringement is illegal and costs companies money. As a legitimate consumer, I feel duped when others are trading around something I paid good money far.
I'm all in favor of trying to prevent and deter this unlawful activity.
By chance, it wouldn't have been Law School you just graduated from would it?
Yes, but with it hidden, and using demogaugory, they can make the US the cause of all their problem.
We do not make the US the cause of all of our problems.
We invite the US Government, and all hard working citizens to relax and enjoy our $5 Shrimp Cocktail deal in the Lobby of our fine Casinos.
While you are there, feel free to try our $1 Slots and 2-for-1 Bingo Bonanzas!
And thank you for Gambling on Tribal Lands!
You are a troll because your response wasn't that "I disagree with something" or "I don't agree". Your response was an inflammatory accusation of whining then go on to inflate them without ever maintaining anything about anything in either posts.
If you would have addressed something specific instead of resorting to name calling and jokes about your dad, it might be different. But you didn't and you acted like a damn troll attacking the messenger without any context of the message.
And to the point of the whining accusations, if you would have read the post, you would have noticed is wasn't a whine. I didn't complain that anything was unfair or claim that anyone has an advantage. In fact, far from it, I simply stated the situation surrounding politics and explained why it isn't that easy as the post I replied to suggested. Stating facts and observations isn't whining at all. But ignoring the content of a post and jumping straight to name calling is definitely a troll. We will have differences in opinions, if you would have addressed any of those differences, it would have put an entirely different outlook on your post. But you chose ridicule and insults over substance and after reading a few of your other posts, I can see why with your lack of informed opinions.
So by definition, you consider you're opinions "informed"?
Whatever. I post under my name, not under some candyass AC and I stand by what I write.
YOU didn't say anything in your response to rebut it, btw.
Ohh.. It look like we have a troll in the house too.
And no, that wasn't whining. It was responding to an AC who was wondering why something wasn't be used to the republican's advantage. I was pointing out the problems with politics and showing how they surface all the time because of people's ignorance and deceptive usages by the politicians.
Of course your smart enough that you knew all that already and just wanted to troll right?
Why am I a troll?
Because I don't agree with you or the original poster?
I work 40 hours a week, just like yourself.
Doesn't change the fact that you're whining and I'm not, that's all I'm saying.
I like the country just the way it is. I like the fact that NO ONE party is in a position to rubber stamp every dumb ass idea that comes into their head.
That is PRECISELY why things were better in the 90s. The Republicans and the Democrats WERE FORCED TO WORK TOGETHER.
This idea that one or the other can solve all our problems is ludicrous.
You should be angry with George Bush who basically says "my way or the highway".
He is a PRESIDENT. Not a KING.
If he had learned that lesson in 2006, we would be in the mess we are now with EVERYONE grandstanding.
Exxon Mobil: Record profits ($1,500/second) for the last quarter. But hey, high gas prices aren't a tax. Nor are higher prices for food and goods a tax. But hey, if it's good for Exxon, BP, and the rest, it's good for America, right? RIGHT?!!!
Exxon Mobil is an American Corporation, so yes, in the grand scheme of things, what is good for Exxon Mobil IS good for the United States as a whole.
Does that mean I like paying higher gas prices, hell no. However, I'm not going to go whining "Oh it's so unfair, oh it's so unfair, they should give me gas for the price I'M WILLING TO PAY, not WHAT IT IS WORTH."
As an American (and a Capitalist) I would much rather someone come up with something better than gasoline. Then, I could simply tell Exxon Mobil that in a Capitalist Society I have the right to buy my energy from whom ever I choose and this new company is able to provide it cheaper, so, don't call us we'll call you.
But don't bitch just because they are filling the need for mobile energy and no one else is stepping up to the plate.
That's not their fault, that's the American Way.
The facts are there, you just need to look for them. However, the idea that revenues are up can easily be counters with "and if taxes were X we would have X more" or "you don't know that the tax cuts caused that increase" when it is obvious from every other tax cut in a weak economy that it brings motion that increases revenues. The vast majority of people wouldn't know the difference and we wouldn't be any worse off.
The bottom line is that the republicans are in a tight situation. There is so much fud going around that they couldn't win if they wanted to. The Major pains if the gas prices started after the dems took control of congress in 2006, we didn't even have $3 gas back then. But they seem to be the "popular ones who can fix? it somehow. The federal budget has increased after they took office too yet the republicans are getting the blame for the deficit spending because of the two wars. It isn't like the democrats don't know what will be spent or what is being spent on the wars and that they don't have the opportunity to cut spending so a surplus budget could cover the costs of the war. But as the great GP just said, tax and spend now instead of taxing their kids.
I mean hell, you will even hear about how the dems ballances the budget in the 90's even though republicans controlled congress, set spending, and made the budget that was passed and sent to Clinton. Forget about the funding wars where Clinton vetoed budgets because there wasn't enough for a certain program or because there was too much in another. Forget about the dot come buble that increased revenue which was completely unique to the times and tied closely to the Capitol gains tax cuts. Forget about all the Roth IRA conversions where someone who has saved 2 million dollars for retirement was able to pay taxes on the 2 million then and not when they withdrew it at retirement. Forget about being able to spread that out over four years time, which had the effect of encouraging people to convert thereby giving the government a surplus tax income that should have been paid out 10 or more years in the future. But all that doesn't matter as long as the democrats take credit for it. It doesn't matter at all that there was 3 maybe 4 specific and non-repeatable situations that happened that increased the federal revenue quite a bit for a real short time.
As another person in this thread mentioned, the problems are both parties. Both of them know how much the war is costing and neither of them are cutting spending to ease the deficit. The numbers are there, the sources are scattered all around and it won't be hard for you to find what the parent said about the tax cuts raising revenues, but it isn't exactly black and white and neither party can take advantage of it.
BTW, McCain has already pledged to not remove the tax cuts. Obama, after finding out how many lower income-non-rich people would be effected by it has changed his stand from removing the Evil Bush Tax Cuts to removing part of them if you make more then $250,000 a year. He now wants to decrease or lower taxes on those same non-rich people who benefited from the Bush Tax cut for the Rich. This is probably why he almost all but gave up on pushing his health care initiatives. He can't cut taxes and pay for that at the same time if we were to believe what he originally said about both. None of these issues is cut and dry because of all the FUD surrounding all of them.
Sounds to me like we have a WHINER in the house.
There are two types of people in the World, winners and losers. THAT is the ONLY thing the American people care about (myself included).
Just like my granddaddy used to say (and it looks like the Republicans are proving him right), "Winners laugh and tell jokes, losers say 'Let's deal".
You need to start building those cars with the spikes on the wheels and the metal sculpture on he front.
Maybe install a rudimentary police force to patrol the highways.
Anyway, I seem to recall that working in the movie :)
A person can say that "CO2 does not cause global warming" and be both right AND wrong--depending on the context.
If we are discussing what begins a global warming trend then there is nothing in the ice core record that suggests that CO2 can cause global warming. If we are talking about what happens once the planet begins the warm then the situation gets extraordinarily complicated. In fact, in the latter scenario it is only possible to predict what will happen if one can model the entire solar system. IOW, this stuff is hard.
If you think that scientists know what is going to happen as the planet warms--you're wrong. If you think you know what the anthropogenic addition of CO2 is going to ultimately result in--you're wrong. If we're being completely honest we all need to admit we have no freakin idea what is going to happen. We're running the experiment from inside the beaker.
Having said that, I'm all for renewable energies. I'm all for higher CAFE standards. I'm all for lots of things that would reduce the use of fossil fuel. I'm for these things because I already KNOW that using oil is feeding a LOT of money to VERY bad places. I already know with reasonable certainty that fossil fuel is making asthma and heart disease worse in high-smog areas. These are reason enough. I don't need a model of the solar-system to try to predict the temperature in 1000 years to tell me fossil fuels are bad.
It is sad that people like you gave polluters all the ammunition they need to delay action indefinitely. I understand the gamble--I really do. Try to convince people that the world is about to end and maybe they'll change. Personally I have always favored just pointing out the already observable negative effects of burning fossil fuels. In fact, were I a cynic, I'd suggest that the global warming focus has been fomented and supported by the oil companies (with the help of a LOT of "useful idiots").
I HAVE BEEN THINKING THE SAME THING!!!
No, really, I have.
But that doesn't change the fact that I would still fire your ass.
Yes, of course, past actions do not guarantee future performance, we've' all seen the stock scams.
BUT, we have to base our decision on ESTIMATED GUESSES. At the end of the day, guessing (no matter how well planted, it is still a guess) is all we can do about the future.
So if all the evidence in the past points toward CO2 increases lagging behind temperature increases, the only reasonable course of action in planning for the future is that CO2 IS NOT the driving force behind Global Warming.
NOW, I haven't checked what he said for myself, SO I AM NOT SAYING IT IS TRUE. I am only defending his train of thought.
Yeah, well...
If one of MY limbs freeze, I'm just in extreme agony.
If one of YOUR limbs freeze, IT SHATTERS ON IMPACT!
So who's the sucker now!
This is a silly as planing an Interstellar Space Flight.
It is POINTLESS to plan for ANYTHING that extends beyond our lifetime because we simply aren't developed enough to think on those timescales.
We've done pretty well for ourselves planning for the foreseeable so far. Why change courses now.
This whole thing about 'Warnings for future generations' crap is nothing but the Anti-Nuclear nuts attempt to make a mountain out of a mole hill. THEY are the ones talking about shit 10,000 years into the future to try and scare people NOW into siding with them.