Who are you voting for, for President?

[quiktaco]

FYI Unions are wholeheartedly supported by the Liberal cause and generally the Conservatives attempt to do away with them, again those are generalizations so any liberal tooting his horn for merit based pay is shooting himself in the foot when he supports an organized labor group which has been very successful in quashing those attempts.

Good point bettingpython.  It seems that liberals fight for something so hard, but the also fight for another thing that is putting a stop to the other thing.  Not just in this instance with teachers, but in everything.  Another example is self reliance on oil.  We could be self reliant if we started drilling offshore and in Alaska, but they are fighting against it.  They don't even know what they are really fighting against, but it sounds bad, so they fight.

[trumpetguy]

Another example is self reliance on oil.  We could be self reliant if we started drilling offshore and in Alaska, but they are fighting against it.  They don't even know what they are really fighting against, but it sounds bad, so they fight.

Another example of you believing in fantasy.  How much oil is known to be there?  How long if we started drilling tomorrow until it reaches markets?  What do we do when it runs out?  Self-reliance?  Hardly.  Pandering to big oil -- precisely.

Answers -- 2.5 years at our current rate of use is known to be there, it wouldn't be online for at least ten years, and we don't know.

[quiktaco]

But putting a stop to it is causing us to not have it sooner, which would help America out until the other forms of energy could be developed further.  And offshore is a ton of oil.

Also, please site where you found that there is only 2 years worth of oil there.

You are trying to put a stop to something that can help.  Why not use what we already own instead of paying dangerous countries for it, and borrowing the money from China to pay for it.  If we used what we owned, then prices could drop, production would be up, we'd be out of recession, and it would hold us over until we develop other means.  What's wrong with that?

[trumpetguy]

But putting a stop to it is causing us to not have it sooner, which would help America out until the other forms of energy could be developed further.  And offshore is a ton of oil.

Also, please site where you found that there is only 2 years worth of oil there.

You are trying to put a stop to something that can help.  Why not use what we already own instead of paying dangerous countries for it, and borrowing the money from China to pay for it.  If we used what we owned, then prices could drop, production would be up, we'd be out of recession, and it would hold us over until we develop other means.  What's wrong with that?

You'd have to nationalize the oil companies to do what you say.  Otherwise, they'll sell (as they do now) to whoever wants to pay.

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

http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html

Actually, those statistics point to 1.5 years worth TOTAL.   had previously read 2.5 years.  And we're still reliant on oil at the end of that cycle, with all the non-recoverable damage to a fragile ecosystem already done.

Contrast that with actually investing in research into efficiency of solar recovery, wind power, and geothermal.  Despite lip service and advertising that would make you think he supports it, McCain has voted against or missed the vote for renewable energy bills eight times.  Obama has voted for the research eight times.  Research that would actually make us less reliant on oil and less likely to be held hostage by oil companies.

I'm proud to be a member of the reality-based community.

[quiktaco]

You don't nationalize it, you just put restrictions on it, so they couldn't sell to other countries, unless we have sufficient supply.  The competition of it between companies is what makes prices lower, if we nationalized it, we couldn't afford it.

Doing whatever we can, from every avenue we have available to us is what should be done.  We shouldn't not do something, because it won't be in everlasting supply.  It will help us now.  And that is even the reason that Alaska became a state.  Because it told the US that it would pay it's way in the reserves that it has.  ANWR is a very desolate area where there's not a single tree for something like 800 miles.  This area is not going to affect on this oh so delicate ecosystem, that seems to have done just fine for the Millions of Billions of years that you Evolutionists believe in.

30 years ago, environmentalists suggested to put ash on the Polar Ice Caps to make them melt faster, because the world temperature was getting too cold.
It's also proven that more CO2 in the air causes less sun to penetrate, which actually causes a reduction in temperature.

I'm proud to be a member of the reality-based community, trumping illogical liberals since 1776.

[Juan1]

Not every liberal thinks the exact same thing.  Same with the conservatives.  The parties are somewhat dynamic.  

Where are you getting this energy self-reliance by offshore drilling info?  That wiki page mirrors what I have read.  

I've read that getting new oil would take 5 years.  The most optimistic estimates, provide by an oil industry group, predicts that 1 million barrels per day can be produced using offshore drilling.  A federal agency, the Energy Information Administration (EIA), in 2007 said the number would be 200,000 barrels per day.  That's 1-5% of America's daily consumption depending on which estimate you believe.  If the optimistic energy group estimate is correct, offshore drilling would lower prices by 3% globally, 5 years down the line.

[quiktaco]

Not every liberal thinks the exact same thing.  Same with the conservatives.  The parties are somewhat dynamic. 

Where are you getting this energy self-reliance by offshore drilling info?  That wiki page mirrors what I have read. 

I've read that getting oil would take 5 years.  The most optimistic estimates, provide by an oil industry group, estimates of 1 million barrels per day can be produced using offshore drilling.  A federal agency, the Energy Information Administration (EIA), in 2007 said the number would be 200,000 barrels per day.  That's between 1-5% of America's daily consumption.  If the optimistic energy group estimate is correct, offshore drilling would lower prices by 3% globally, 5 years down the line.

I'm not saying that offshore drilling is going to be the thing that makes us self reliant.  Everyone knows that the Earth is going to dry up of oil eventually.  I'm saying that it would help the US right now, so that we can have lower prices, so that it's easier on the economy while we find the other sources.

[quiktaco]

I want to change topic, and stir things up a bit...

IMMIGRATION

and.......GO!!!!!

[jserio]

easy...shot em as they cross. 

[quiktaco]

Now hold on...that's not gunna work.  We need to be diplomatic about it.  We need to find out if they are crossing legally first...if not, then shoot em. 

[Juan1]

Thanks Juan1.  I'm glad you contribute to this thread, because you bring substance instead of attack.

I'm going to reply, but this isn't attacking, but just my views, and are all in my opinion

 1.  His pet projects, should be privatised, because I don't want to be paying for others to succeed.  If the poor are poor and stay poor, it was their choice. 


 2.  Increasing taxes on the wealthy has shown detrimental effects in the past, because when the rich get taxed, the amount they pay their employees goes down, and they reduce the amount of people they employ.  When they get tax cuts, they hire more people and pay them more. 

 3.   I want to move away from socialized medicine.  Drugs will be outrageously priced, because the government will be paying for it, and the service will be crap because there won't be any strive for greatness amongst the doctors. 

4.  You know that diplomacy is attempted first.  That's why we aren't attacking people every day.  When it doesn't work (like with terrorists), then that is when attacking is a good thing.  We didn't go attacking Russia after the Georgia attack did we?  We did go attack that bastards that attacked us, after 9/11.

5.  The thing that he said he will do first and foremost when he gets into office, is sign the bill to allow partial birth abortions. 

1.  The question isn't whether someone can become wealthy if they are born poor and absolutely work their tail off all of their life.  The question is whether a poor person who works harder will be better off than someone born rich that works less hard.  This is the real question: how much of a meritocracy do we have.  Are the poor stuck in a cycle that keeps them poor?  Compared to Europe, we don't have much social mobility.  That indicates to me that we don't have as much of a meritocracy as our partners across the pond.

2.  Supply side economics is a subject of controversy in economic circles, and most economists don't believe it to work, so be careful of what you accept as settled fact.  Check this document:  http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/reports/treasurydynamicanalysisreporjjuly252006.pdf
The treasury department concluded that in the best case scenario, Bush's tax cuts only increase GDP by .7% in the long run.  That's not much.  The bigger effect is that the rich got richer, the poor got poorer and the middle class is stuck in limbo.  Yes, you can slightly spur economic growth by taxing the rich less, but the non-rich suffer negative consequences.

3.  We pay more for drugs and medical service per capita than any 1st world country on earth.  We also have one of the highest mortality rates of any 1st world country on earth.  All of the other 1st world countries have socialized medicine.  If you want to look at the country that has the most free market of the socialized medicine countries, look for the country that pays the second most per person for medical care.  That's Switzerland by the way.

4.  Diplomacy wasn't really used in Iraq.  Once all of our troops were tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan and we were powerless, diplomacy was used.  Then we used weakened diplomocy, not backed with any military might.

5.  Please give me the partial birth abortion quote.  You may be right, but it seems unlikely that a presidential candidate would make a divisive declaration regarding his first policy.

[Juan1]

I'm not saying that offshore drilling is going to be the thing that makes us self reliant.  Everyone knows that the Earth is going to dry up of oil eventually.  I'm saying that it would help the US right now, so that we can have lower prices, so that it's easier on the economy while we find the other sources.

What about the 5 year lag before new rigs are established and ready to bring oil to market?  It could help slightly 5 years down the line, but it isn't going to help now.

[jserio]

Now hold on...that's not gunna work.  We need to be diplomatic about it.  We need to find out if they are crossing legally first...if not, then shoot em. 

if they're crossing late at night through the river, my guess is that it's not legal. 

[quiktaco]

1.  The question isn't whether someone can become wealthy if they are born poor and absolutely work their tail off all of their life.  The question is whether a poor person who works harder will be better off than someone born rich that works less hard.  This is the real question: how much of a meritocracy do we have.  Are the poor stuck in a cycle that keeps them poor?  Compared to Europe, we don't have much social mobility.  That indicates to me that we don't have as much of a meritocracy as our partners across the pond.

2.  Supply side economics is a subject of controversy in economic circles, and most economists don't believe it to work, so be careful of what you accept as settled fact.  Check this document:  http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/reports/treasurydynamicanalysisreporjjuly252006.pdf
The treasury department concluded that in the best case scenario, Bush's tax cuts only increase GDP by .7% in the long run.  That's not much.  The bigger effect is that the rich got richer, the poor got poorer and the middle class is stuck in limbo.  Yes, you can slightly spur economic growth by taxing the rich less, but the non-rich suffer negative consequences.

3.  We pay more for drugs and medical service per capita than any 1st world country on earth.  We also have one of the highest mortality rates of any 1st world country on earth.  All of the other 1st world countries have socialized medicine.  If you want to look at the country that has the most free market of the socialized medicine countries, look for the country that pays the second most per person for medical care.  That's Switzerland by the way.

4.  Diplomacy wasn't really used in Iraq.  Once all of our troops were tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan and we were powerless, diplomacy was used.  Then we used weakened diplomocy, not backed with any military might.

5.  Please give me the partial birth abortion quote.  You may be right, but it seems unlikely that a presidential candidate would make a divisive declaration regarding his first policy.

1.  If someone was born poor, then those are the cards they were delt.  I wasn't born well off.  My parents barely made enough to get into a small crappy house.  Not really a great neighborhood either.  Drug dealers across the street.  Robberies were common place.  If someone is born into being rich, then their family did good for them, and they deserve it.  If someones dad left them, and the mom smoked crack, then they didn't really try too hard to help out their future generations.

2. Like you said, it is controversial, so we won't discuss this, because it can go both ways.

3.  I see no problem on my end.  I worked hard, and work hard.  Got an education and a good job, and I get pretty good health insurance.  If other people feel like dropping out of high school and working for minimum wage, then that was their prerogative.  They deserve worse health care.

4.  That's what I said.  They attacked us, so we attacked back.  No diplomacy needed.  They're lucky we didn't nuke them.  Once over there, many of the terrorist organizations dissolved so that we couldn't fight anyone.  Then when we leave, they'll pop right back up.

5.  I'll try to find this.  I've got a bunch of meetings this afternoon so it might take me a while.

[quiktaco]

What about the 5 year lag before new rigs are established and ready to bring oil to market?  It could help slightly 5 years down the line, but it isn't going to help now.

You are correct.  It will help, however.  And 5 years till use is better than never.  We need petroleum for lots of other products more than just power, so it will get used.  However, Alaska has not been allowed to tap into this for a long time.  If they were allowed to tap it when they were going to a long time ago, then they'd already be able to help.

[quiktaco]

Now hold on...that's not gunna work.  We need to be diplomatic about it.  We need to find out if they are crossing legally first...if not, then shoot em. 

if they're crossing late at night through the river, my guess is that it's not legal. 

You make a good point there.  Hehe.

It sounds like no one else wanted to join in on the Immigration topic.

My views.  Come here legally, and you are welcome to stay.  Come here illegally, forced to leave.  Build a wall...something in the sorts of the Great Wall, but with electricity, and pit bulls.  I think that would do.

I know it was said earlier that the Constitution protects and gives rights to immigrants.  I'm all good and fine with that, but it only gives rights to the ones that came legally, not ones that broke the law in doing so.  Those people have no rights.  No not even a drivers license (that was the most ridiculous thing...someone that can't even prove residency could get a driver's license.  That's horrible, and you know they don't have insurance.)

[quiktaco]

Here it is, where Obama said that the first thing he'd do is to sign the Freedom of Choice Act.

He gave this speech on July 17, 2007, in front of a Planned Parenthood Action Fund audience.

From transcript of his speech (you can find it at    http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/browse_thread/thread/e6204f3fdad05006   )

Barack Obama: "Well, the first thing I'd do as president is, is sign
the Freedom of Choice Act. [Applause.] That's the first thing that I'd
do. Um, but the, okay, but, but your question about the federal courts
is absolutely on target. I taught Constitutional Law for...."

Sorry it took so long to find.  Was in meetings and had to hunt it down.

[bettingpython]

Now hold on...that's not gunna work.  We need to be diplomatic about it.  We need to find out if they are crossing legally first...if not, then shoot em. 

if they're crossing late at night through the river, my guess is that it's not legal. 

Kill em all let God sort them out.

How about we throw all the money up in the air and what god want's he keeps

[trumpetguy]

4.  That's what I said.  They attacked us, so we attacked back.  No diplomacy needed.  They're lucky we didn't nuke them.  Once over there, many of the terrorist organizations dissolved so that we couldn't fight anyone.  Then when we leave, they'll pop right back up.

Do you have a logical cell in your brain?

1.  Iraq never attacked us.  Never.  Even the liar-in-chief Bush admitted as much (after he lied us there in the first place).

2.  If you admit that when we leave they pop back up, what is the point of our being there?

"They're lucky we didn't nuke them, indeed."  What a maroon.

[trumpetguy]

AP Story on McCain Campaign Fibs this week:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/09/analysis_mccains_claims_skirt.php

Even though this is hosted on a liberal blog, the story is straight from AP.  Not pretty if you're a McCain supporter.