1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

Alan Spector, Republican US Senator for Pennsylvania, Switches to the Democrats

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by bogart, Apr 28, 2009.

  1. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #121
    Now you see, I see your words as an almost direct attack on the presidents fiscal agenda. I don't think there is a person out there, conservative or liberal who would argue that the president's strategy is to use "stimulative" spending, much of which will go to entitlements, to restore confidence in the economy and cut the deficit in half by 2012, only 200billion higher than Bush levels! To refer to the idea of spending our way out of debt as a malapropism would be to imply that our President is abusing the English language and treating us like we are idiots. Being a liberal, I support our president even if he gets caught poozling the presidential poodle (Sorry for reusing a phrase from another thread), but I find it interesting you have drawn that conclusion. Thank god other people out there don't take the president's words and policies that way, or he would be tanking in the polls.



    Being a supporter of big debt and big spending, It seems I would have to be a fan of Reagan and Bush. The problem I have with those two is what they spent the money on. Reagan in particular spent money on war and weapons he claimed put Russia in the poor house and ended the cold war while at the same time cutting taxes on the wealthy and big business. Bush also spent oodles of money on a war although he did support loads of Democratic spending and earmarks in order to get his war budget through, so I guess he wasn't as bad as Reagan. Obama, on the other hand realizes that spending money to cover all the people in the U.S. who do not currently have health care coverage is the only way to cut the federal health care entitlement budget. You will probably call that a malapropism as well, but it makes perfect sense to the president and his supporters(like me).


    I never thought you did.

    For the record, I don't see anyone here calling Zibblu a closet conservative, yet you have to admit that, at times, he puts out posts written almost word for word with what I would say. Some have even called me his second account! I think Zibblu just tends to more directly reflect the president's opinions and comments, specifically where it comes to throwing out the need for bipartisanship, or to listen to the 47% of folks who didnt vote for my beloved. He realizes, just as the president and I do, that the 53% who voted Barack into power were all hard core leftists who have no need for fiscal conservatism, or any other type of conservatism for that matter. We realize there those who claim Obama won because McLame was a candidate disliked by much of his own party. They claim the man was so hated he had to use a cheap political stunt in chosing his running mate to try and pick up hillary votes while consolidating his base. They claim that no Republican could have won 2008 because Bush had been so successfully demonized by us. They claim a more sensible and traditional Republican candidate like Gingrich will do well in 2012, after the Bush angst has faded with time. They can claim whatever they want. Zibblu and I recognize that this is all nonsense. The Republican party is dead. If Zibblu isn't a conservative, how could I be?
     
    Obamanation, May 14, 2009 IP
  2. jumpboy11jaop

    jumpboy11jaop Peon

    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    5
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #122
    I know what you mean, I guess, although I suppose I personally lean more towards liberalism. Actually, my viewpoint is pretty much up in the air at the moment. This comes not from any major event in my life, or any of the actions of any political figure. It comes more from an ethical thought process, which is very turbulent (perhaps not the best description), but hopefully is over.

    I guess I would just say that my political position is that we need to remove contradictions and hypocrisy, and at the same time we need to do what is necessary. Not a strong political position, but then when people become impassioned about politics it is certainly not because of a rational political position, but because of an irrational, and intellectually biased hate of the other side.

    I think that abortion is OK, generally. However, neutral is certainly an acceptable position, politically, and to say otherwise is to fall victim to the irrational hate previously referred to.

    Actually, these are questions of precisely the caliber we need to be asking. I say, and I think any libertarians here would agree with me, that if there is no need for the state to be there, keep them out. Marriage need not be recognized by the state (meaning the government) at all. We need not recognize marriage of any sort, and if you want to keep the tax credit, make other consumer credits larger. If not, we have over 11 trillion dollars of debt to get rid of. While I would support big social spending, our deficits are just too large to ignore.

    For the environment thing, I disagree. States are too small to deal effectively with the issue of the damage we are doing to this biosphere (I am NOT a treehugger, if we didn't need our biosphere, I would regard it only as an object for scientific study, and otherwise disposable). Anyway, even individual nation-states are too small: we need an international entity, there really is no other way to effectively deal with it.

    But yes, AGW seems to be supported very much by scientific consensus.
     
    jumpboy11jaop, May 14, 2009 IP
  3. ncz_nate

    ncz_nate Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,106
    Likes Received:
    153
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    153
    #123
    An international entity that does what, override our sovereignty and law?
     
    ncz_nate, May 14, 2009 IP
  4. jumpboy11jaop

    jumpboy11jaop Peon

    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    5
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #124
    Within its scope of action, yes.

    I am an internationalist of the strongest order.
     
    jumpboy11jaop, May 15, 2009 IP
  5. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #125
    I had no idea you were such a strong Obama supporter! I'll look for your posts to give you positive rep!
     
    Obamanation, May 15, 2009 IP
  6. ncz_nate

    ncz_nate Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,106
    Likes Received:
    153
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    153
    #126
    So you're absolutely fine then having all of your Constitutionally-protected rights being stripped away?
     
    ncz_nate, May 16, 2009 IP
  7. Zibblu

    Zibblu Guest

    Messages:
    3,770
    Likes Received:
    98
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #127
    ncz-nate: Our own government seems to do a fine job of stripping our constitutionally protected rights all by itself, does it really need any help from a "world government" ?
     
    Zibblu, May 16, 2009 IP
  8. bogart

    bogart Notable Member

    Messages:
    10,911
    Likes Received:
    509
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    235
    #128
    By right I mean the “silent majority” of center-right Americans as in Dick Morris and Newt Gingrich.

    One recent Supreme decision that I found distressing was the eminent domain decision allowing local politicians like Blago to take privitate property and sell it to the highest bidder. O'Connor was joined in her dissent by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.


    Abortion as a form of birth control is immoral and should be banned. 51% of Americans oppose arbotion. There's other methods of birth control. I agree with you that the Republicans will need to bring a compromise to the table.

    The Republican party lost direction in the 1980's when the moral majority took over the party and carried it to the South.
     
    bogart, May 16, 2009 IP
  9. jumpboy11jaop

    jumpboy11jaop Peon

    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    5
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #129
    Absolutely not. This organization would not do that. Its scope would be climate issues only, and setting standards to reduce environmental damage.

    Do you really think that we can claim that the system of protecting ourselves from the damage that would be caused if we really ****ed up the environment by doing nothing is working, while we still pump out billions of tonnes of CO2 every year?
     
    jumpboy11jaop, May 16, 2009 IP
  10. ncz_nate

    ncz_nate Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,106
    Likes Received:
    153
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    153
    #130
    Jumpboy, do you realize how many things emit CO2? Manufacturing, farming, farm animals, humans.. all regulated by an entity that could override our law in the name of climate change.

    What happens when they say, "ya know what, no more farm animals, they produce too much CO2." Well, tough luck for omnivores, we need to save the environment.

    What happens when they realize humans exhale carbon dioxide and there are too many humans being produced, regulate the population?

    And are we going to regulate volcanic activity?

    There is not even any proof that reducing emissions would save the planet anyway, last I heard from Al Gore is that we're fucked regardless.
     
    ncz_nate, May 16, 2009 IP
  11. bogart

    bogart Notable Member

    Messages:
    10,911
    Likes Received:
    509
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    235
    #131
    bogart, May 16, 2009 IP
  12. jumpboy11jaop

    jumpboy11jaop Peon

    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    5
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #132
    Yes, ncz, I do realize it. I may be a sophomore in high school, but still I realize that almost every single thing we do releases CO2 in some way. However, some things release much more than others.

    For example, over 3/4 of our CO2 emissions (In the USA, at least) come from transportation and energy generation, at 35% and 41% respectively. You know what I say? Go nuclear for energy generation, and either A) have cars that connect to powerlines in developed areas, much as a trolley etc would, or use the nuclear energy to create a fuel that combusts to solid products, which can then be re-split, and burned again.

    For example, Gas has an energy density of about 35 Megajoules/liter. Aluminum metal has an energy density of 84 MJ/L. The catch is that it doesn't tend to be very reactive, but certain metals can make it much more so.

    I'm not saying design will be easy, but it can work, and, at tthis point, it needs to work.

    Before anyone goes crazy about nuclear energy on me, I will say that there have only been three accidents of any caliber in the entire history of nuclear reactors.

    The first was the windscale fire, which resulted when a reactor in the early 50's (before they had any idea how to work reactors, really), overheated, and certain graphite components caught on fire. This reactor had its core open to the world, and its cooling system was a fan. That's it. No containment building, nothing.

    The second was three mile island. Literally everything that could possibly go wrong went wrong, yet a simple containment building lead to no significant release of radioactivity.

    Finally, Chernobyl. There was no containment building, they did everything wrong, and the reactor vessel melted. There was a significant release of radiation, which could have been prevented by something as simple as a brick wall. Or by training your operators for a couple days. Or by fixing any one of 20 broken instruments. Or by designing your reactor slightly better. Or by not removing every single one of the neutron absorbers, etc etc etc.

    A Molten Salt Reactor would be inherently efficient, inherently cheap, and inherently safe.

    You may be asking- did he just say that we could reduce our CO2 emissions by 75% just like that? Yes, I did.

    This organization would be an organization run by its member states, so any draconian measures can be vetoed.

    Sources:

    CO2 emissions
    Energy densities
     
    jumpboy11jaop, May 16, 2009 IP
  13. ncz_nate

    ncz_nate Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,106
    Likes Received:
    153
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    153
    #133
    You're pretty smart for a sophomore. I'm not disputing the importance of energy, I'm arguing the body of the camel follows his nose through the tent.
     
    ncz_nate, May 16, 2009 IP
  14. bogart

    bogart Notable Member

    Messages:
    10,911
    Likes Received:
    509
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    235
    #134
    Nuclear power is also critical to America's energy security. Nuclear power is a proven, zero-emission energy source that is being used in countries across Europe and Asia, yet the United States hasn't begun construction on a new nuclear power plant in over 30 years. While nuclear counts for 20 percent of our overall energy portfolio, it's critical we increase its use.

    - US Senator Arlen Specter

    http://specter.senate.gov/public/in...f-8309-8eb4-36679edbd435&Region_id=&Issue_id=
     
    bogart, May 17, 2009 IP
  15. jumpboy11jaop

    jumpboy11jaop Peon

    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    5
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #135
    Bogart- I agree with that 100%. Nuclear is the future. It's safe, and (despite what people say), it's clean, its nearly unlimited (if we use U-233.)

    ncz- I don't think that people get any smarter as they get older, only that they learn new facts. The internet combined with personal interest gave me a huge head start.

    I suppose I kind of missed the point with that post, although I think it shows that this organization wouldn't have to do so much.

    I think an important thing to keep in mind is that this body would ultimately be made up of representatives of its member states. I realize that it is a huge difficulty to have an empowered supranational entity in a world of national powers, but the thing is it must be done. By this point we are terraforming earth, and, although it is possible that it would lead to more prosperity (See Dubia), that s not an excuse to do nothing. If we're going to terraform earth, there needs to be a plan. Otherwise, we won't get it right.
     
    jumpboy11jaop, May 17, 2009 IP
  16. bogart

    bogart Notable Member

    Messages:
    10,911
    Likes Received:
    509
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    235
    #136
    bogart, May 19, 2009 IP
  17. Mia

    Mia R.I.P. STEVE JOBS

    Messages:
    23,694
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    440
    #137
    Oh come on Bogart, that's Rasmussen. And as we all know, they are completely flawed.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
     
    Mia, May 20, 2009 IP
  18. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #138
    Actually, any poll that does not agree with my positions is completely flawed, I don't care if it was done by Rasmussen, Gallup, Fox news, or the Daily KOS.
     
    Obamanation, May 20, 2009 IP
  19. bogart

    bogart Notable Member

    Messages:
    10,911
    Likes Received:
    509
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    235
    #139
    Republicans have a chance at taking the following seats in the Senate. As well they have a shot a retaking the seat held by Arlen Spector.

    Byron Dorgan (ND)
    Harry Reid (NV)
    Ken Salazar (CO)
    Blanche Lincoln (AR)
    Chris Dodd (CT)
    Evan Bayh (IN)

    During the Reagan Presidency, the Democrats controlled the House all 8 years and the Senate for 2 years. Reagan fought a losing battle to cut welfare spending. Democrats modified deficit-reduction legislation that would force a balanced budget by fiscal 1991 to exempt most major antipoverty programs. Welfare Reform was not enacted until the 1994 Republican Revolution.

    Reagan did increase the deficit with increased defense spending. However, many people forget that the US was in a cold war. The "Reagan Buildup" caused the collapse of the Soviet Union and resulted in a "Peace Dividend". This allowed the United States to cut the army from 18 active divisions to 10 divisons, reduce forces in Europe as well as reduce naval, airforce and national guard forces.


    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,960421-2,00.html
     
    bogart, May 21, 2009 IP
  20. earlpearl

    earlpearl Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,584
    Likes Received:
    150
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    155
    #140
    Bogart:

    Interesting comments. I'm sure in upcoming elections there are a bunch of vulnerable existing members of congress. I can't speak for all the Dem senators you referenced as vulnerable. Personnally I don't think much of Reid as Senate majority leader...and I think Dodd showed himself to be tremendously influenced by big money contributors in a very unattractive way. I don't like him based on that...but I'm sure if the spotlight were thrown on endless members of congress..you could find similar unattractive relationships with the majority of them. But still I don't like Dodd after the many recent relevations.

    I liked the way Obama addressed abortion. I personnally don't like it. I think in certain conditions it is the woman's choice. Its not a screaming issue to me...and I don't like either side that makes it one.

    I agree, I think the GOP was hijacked by the moral right. Look they are still out there and have a huge influence within the party. I don't think they are going away any time soon.

    On the other hand...the "never raise taxes perspective" is nuts in my book. It is driving people from the party. Its not enough to scream never raise taxes. If you are going to do that...you better look to balancing the budget by bringing up valid cuts that you want to make. Don't just play one side of the screaming fence. I find it ultimately unresponsable and unaccountable. The stand by some...who won't offer cuts...is driving people out of the GOP.

    As to the analyses you presented vis a vis Reagan's tax cutting then efforts to balance the budget..with cuts and demo resistance. I just dunno enough about it to make comments.

    I do think the commentary and analysis on the defense side is a little bit of Monday morning quaterbacking. It seems to me, every time there is defense cutting the Right goes nuts on it.
     
    earlpearl, May 21, 2009 IP