Parties disappoint
Steven Page, Lakewood
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
- Email this
- Print this
- Comments
- Change text size
- Subscribe to print edition
- iPod friendly
Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats really understand that independents aren't happy with the performance of either party.
Both parties are disconnected. It wouldn't matter if one party or the other came up with the best solution to any of our numerous problems, the other party would take the opposite position. What these two parties no longer recognize is that most Americans expect them to represent Main Street America - not their party, not special-interest groups and not to line their own pockets.
What we are coming to realize is that they hold the electorate in disdain, their integrity is in question and they have lost sight of their responsibilities to the American citizen!
March 11, 2008
6:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Old_Grouch writes:
So? What's your proposal to change things? Ralph Nader has thrown his hat into the ring, again. Isn't that good enough for you?
He certainly fancies himself as the "Independent" spokes-person. Do you have a better choice?
March 11, 2008
6:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Yankee writes:
Steven,
It's always going to be a mistake to look to the political class to be the engine of social justice or economic prosperity. Progress comes up from the ordinary people - you know the bunch the politicians spend millions polling every year to try and learn what they're thinking so the can get ahead of the curve.
We do need a bit of regualtion but, for the most part, the best thing the politico's can do is stay out of the way of American inventiveness, prductivity and basic sense of decency. Leadership in the US bubbles up from the people, it does not trickle down from the government.
Having said that, there is more difference between Republicans and Democrats then arbitrarily choosing sides. The Democrats tend to higher taxes, more regulation and big government. The Republicans tend to lower taxes, greater freedom and smaller government.
Individuals matter in any race but the over-all view is also important.
March 11, 2008
6:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Yankee writes:
I see Grouch is up already proving that there are exceptions to every rule.
March 11, 2008
8:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
This letter is childish.
"Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats really understand that independents aren't happy with the performance of either party."
Let me get this straight: you choose not to belong to any party yet you are worried that the parties are not concerned with you? Grow up. Pick a side. I suspect you have not chosen a side because you lack an understanding of the issues and you simply vote for the candidate with the best personality.
"It wouldn't matter if one party or the other came up with the best solution to any of our numerous problems, the other party would take the opposite position."
That is the point of being in a party. One party opposes the "best solution" because it does not believe it is the best solution. It both sides could agree on what the best solution is, we wouldn't need parties.
"What these two parties no longer recognize is that most Americans expect them to represent Main Street America"
That sounds great. I wonder what that means. Are you referring to the Main Street America that wants less taxes, victory in Iraq, less government, and adherence to our Constitution? Or, are you referring to the Main Street America that wants a nanny state, defeat in Iraq, higher taxes, and the abandonment of our Constitution?
Pick a side or shut up.
March 11, 2008
9:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
I am a lifelong independent, I have voted for independent candidates in several presidential elections. In state and local elections I have voted for republicans and democrats. I vote for the best candidate for a position and, sometimes, for the "least worst" candidate.
I always marvel at people who say they are lifelong party members. The parties, especially the republican party, have changed through the years. Does this mean that you have changed with them?
As a businessman, I used to appreciate the republicans for their fiscal conservatism and smaller government. They apparently aren't for either concept any more. I also liked their businesslike approach to issues at one time. Now I have to balance that with compassionate conservatism and the party's pandering to the religious right. I like my government to be free from religion, either yours or mine. I like the way the Democrats watch out for the little guy, but with limitations. I don't like excessive entitlements or excessive government regulation. I can be neutral or incensed depending upon the tax being proposed. As a botanist, I like the democrats stand on the environment. Republicans are often mean spirited in the tactics they employ and democrats often seem pretty wimpy to me.
So, in my 57 years, I have found something to love and hate about each party and it changes with time. The only party I wouldn't be embarrassed to claim as my own might be a third party formed in the middle. My views are mostly moderate and both parties are currently playing to their more extreme conservative or liberal constituencies.
I won't make the mistake of voting for Nader in this election. I've been there, done that and it was a mistake. Currently, I am far more disappointed in the republicans than the democrats. After the last 7 years of this administration, it may be a while before I can vote republican again.
March 11, 2008
9:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
"The parties, especially the republican party, have changed through the years. Does this mean that you have changed with them?" - greenleaf
Maybe. Maybe not. I have become more conservative in the past seven years, not less. The more my party drifts from the right, the more involved I get in order to pull them back.
One of things that frustrates me about independents is that I do not know where they stand on many issues. Even after reading greenleaf's thoughtful post, I still have no idea where he stands on the issues. He says he is a moderate. What does that mean? Is he pro-choice but favors low taxes? Or is he pro-life but favors higher taxes?
March 11, 2008
10:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ted_in_Vegas writes:
Or, is greenleaf merely moderately pro-life, as in I want all babies to be born unless the effort is more than me just saying so. Or moderately low-taxes, as in I want everyone's taxes to be lower, unless it takes effort.
March 11, 2008
10:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
john the republicans have drifted FURTHER right over the last 7 years...not the opposite. don't be fulled by their lack of fiscal restraint. in all other matters...they've swung decidely to the extreme right of the political spectrum
March 11, 2008
10:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
John_ll,
I understand your confusion, especially as the definition of "moderate" also changes with the years. I use the term moderate pretty loosely too. The only area where a democrat might consider me to be very liberal is in my environmental stance. My fiscal conservatism and suspicion of too much government regulation used to make me sound like a mainstream republican but now it's "moderate" at best.
More specifically to your examples: Republicans are fond of saying that democrats never met a tax they didn't like, well, I don't care for estate taxes or taxes on food as two examples. I am in favor of taxes for social security and income ; the elderly need the safety net and we need to pay for government somehow. The question always is as too how much government we actually need and that's too complex for this posting.
I am neither absolutely pro choice or pro life. I recognize a need for abortion for the mother's health, but reject it totally as a form of birth control. Abortions need to be used very rarely in my opinion. I also believe in ready access to birth control, family planning and adoption counselling.
The problem I run into in discussing these issues with loyal members of either party is the absolutes of the party platform. If you vote a straight ticket, you are voting for every aspect of that party ticket, including a few you might disagree with. So you have the either ors, I don't. My position is often that I want something conservative here, something liberal there and something moderate here. I am forced to examine candidates and issues and average out who is best on those items that matter to me. I haven't found everything in one candidate yet. Have you John?
March 11, 2008
10:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Yankee writes:
greenleaf,
I know of no group (always execepting the fanatics that reject any sort of medical treatment) that does not recognize the right of a woman to have an abortion when health is the issue. In fact, not only health but rape and incest exceptions were the law in Colorado prior to Roe.
So, based on your statements you are not a fence-sitter on this one: Your position is pro-life.
I am a Republican to the extent I am a Conservative. Republicans not following conservative thought is rampant. Conservatives almost alwasy pick the lesser of the evils. We haven't had a Presidential candidate to vote for affirmatively since 1984.
We do need to talk about what a bad idea it is to tax capital formation but, I'll leave that for now - pressures of business.
March 11, 2008
11:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Yankee,
I didn't add the fact that I am also in favor of the rape and incest reasons for abortion. I am confused though, I always thought that the pro-life stand was that under those circumstances, the baby should be carried to term, not aborted, and be put up for adoption instead. Am I wrong about this? Also, when I have had these conversations with those in the pro-life community, they have always been against free access to birth control and family planning information for young, unmarried people. Those I spoke to felt that it encouraged sex outside of marriage, which I am convinced would go on anyway. So...if I am wrong about any of this please feel free to correct me!
March 11, 2008
11:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
greenleaf,
Your political wishy-washy-ness might have worked better in a purely democratic (small d) government; you could vote on each issue as it comes.
But, we have a representative government; you have to choose a representative, not a position.
Therefore, it does not matter if all of your positions line up with a particular party. You have to choose the party that not only lines up with the majority of your positions but also the party that lines up with the most of important of your positions.
For example, you may be disappointed with the Republicans stance on the environment. But, what is more important, more jobs for our citizens or the caribou in a small patch of land in Alaska?
The problem with your type of independence is that you do not influence either party. For example, if you have a concern about the environment that the Republicans are not addressing, but most of your other concerns are addressed by the Republicans, you would be much more effective by joining the Republican Party and working to change it from within rather than sit on the sidelines and randomly, or seemingly randomly, cast your vote for both parties.
March 11, 2008
11:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
greenleaf,
Your comment on 11:20 is a good one because it shows that conservatives are not in lock-step on many of these issues.
As for free access to birth control and family planning, I do not oppose that as long as free means not paid for by me.
March 11, 2008
12:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Hello again John-ll,
I have a good friend who was a lifelong independent like myself until recently. Again, like me he has had a harder time with the republican party of late. He decided that he would join the republican party so that, as he put it, he could support: "The biggest yahoo running in the republican primaries." Obviously, he didn't get his way and was disappointed. Now he has to be content with sapping their resources as he throws the dozens of requests for money into the circular file and sends back the postage paid envelopes with nothing in them. In short, he has become a small time saboteur.
That isn't my style. Putting aside the obvious ethical questions associated with that approach, I have a different viewpoint. I feel I would have a difficult time deciding where best to put my time and effort. Frankly, I am looking for political balance and I'm not interested in saving either party. Although after 7 years of George Bush, I think the republican party is the one most in need of serious reform.
I believe that the best way I can influence the republican party in this election is by speaking to people such as yourself. You need to be aware of how disenfranchised the republicans currently make so many of us in the great wilderness of the middle feel. Many of us are very angry about this. I talk politics with my friends all the time. My republican and democrat friends always try to woo me to their respective causes while my many friends that are independents just fume about the republican party. You can win at least some of us back ( Mc Cain stands a chance of doing that). I know that this isn't what you want to hear John, but I think the republican party needs to swing back more to where it was under Reagan, or maybe even Eisenhower.
Independents have nearly as many voters in this state as republicans, and we have more than the democrats. The parties ignore us at their peril. Most of us are unhappy with republicans at the moment but in the next election....?
March 11, 2008
12:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
Again, greeleaf, independents are ignored because they have placed themselves on the sidelines. You have taken yourselves out of the game and then complain about the way the game is played. That is not how politics works. You keep talking about how the Republican Party is making you mad but you have not outlined the specific reasons why.
To me, when I look at the different stances on the issues between Democrats and Republicans, it is obvious the Democrats are an economically and constitutionally destructive party. Examine all of the Democrats major positions and proposals, then crosscheck them with the Constitution. Next, examine the destructive nature of their good economic intentions. All politics aside, I do not see how anyone can be on the fence using such criteria.
March 11, 2008
1:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Ted_in_Vegas writes:
Greenleaf, if I may add, it is unrealistic to think that either party "needs saving"; the political pendulumn is swinging left right now, but only after it swung right and it will swing right again. The Republican Party doesn't need saving now just as the Democrat Party didn't need saving a few years ago.
It is also unrealistic to require the parties to approach you and change for you. Parties are responsible to their members, not to you, any other independent or to each other. In an ideal world, political parties are joined by people who agree with the majority of the party's positions and then works to change the other positions. (BTW - I say "ideal world" because I am also convinced that a significant minority of either party are in their respective parties without even knowing why and end up supporting a party that is antithecial to their own beliefs.)
Political Infighting - fighting amongst democrats for control of the democrat party and amongst republicans for control of the republican party - goes on continually. The reason you see the Republican Party, of late, getting more conservative on social issues while more liberal on spending is that the social conservatives are exercising a lot of power so establishment (blue-blood) republicans are caving into them so that they can continue their spend-thrift policies unimpeded. It's not a perfect world.
March 11, 2008
2:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
John,
I know that you are a die-hard republican, your party right or wrong. I still say that the party doesn't exist currently that is a good match for my beliefs. That includes the 2 major parties, the libertarians, the greens, the socialists, the communists, or the "canned soup for everybody but especially me party"! We are probably going to have to agree to disagree on this issue.
As to my problems with the republican party of late? It's a VERY long list, but let me share some of it with you.
1. On the economy: You aren't fiscal conservatives any more, the government has grown larger on your watch and there is something about balanced budgets that seem beyond your party's grasp. Then there is the matter of tax breaks for the wealthy and the abandonment of the middle class (me).
2. On immigration: This is a mixed bag for me, I believe in enforcing the law, but the administration apparently doesn't. The laws are on the books, but it appears as though your party lacks conviction in enforcing them ( obviously the dems do too).
3. The war(s): Afghanistan made sense to nearly everybody. But Iraq????? The mistakes go on and on. WMD? Ties to terrorists? "You're either with us or against us"? Mission accomplished? "There is no insurgency"? "The insurgency is on it's last legs"? " we don't do nation building"? Well George broke it and now he is trying to fix it with my taxes that I would rather see spent on infrastructure, schools, the environment or to bail out social security and 42 other things in THIS country. It would also have been nice to have finished in Afghanistan before attacking others almost unilaterally (George the first had it right and "W" totally wrong).
4. Human rights : Abu Ghraib, water boarding and warrantless wire taps.
5. The environment: Bush is an environmental disaster area. The republicans just don't seem to care at all about the environment. Yours is the party of Richard Pombo (California) - gone but not forgotten. Ted Stevens of Alaska - never voted in favor of the environment and Ted Domenici of New Mexico with one of the worst environmental voting records in congress!
6 Scandal: Far too much to even go into.
I'm not pleased about this. If I can't have my third party formed in the middle, I want both parties to move away from the extremes and back toward each other.
I'm sorry everybody, but I'm NOT going to join one party now to try to bring them to the center and the other party next time. I can deliver my message best as an independent and more honestly as well.
March 11, 2008
2:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
"If I can't have my third party formed in the middle, I want both parties to move away from the extremes and back toward each other."
You are still not understanding your own situation. Saying "middle" is meaningless to me. What am I supposed to glean from that label? If one guy wants limited government but is pro-choice and the other guy wants big government but is pro-life, are they both in the middle even though they are political opposites? Terms like "the middle" or "moderate" are completely useless unless someone documents exactly which positions are included in those labels.
What is extreme to you?
"I'm sorry everybody, but I'm NOT going to join one party now to try to bring them to the center and the other party next time."
You are verging on being nonsensical now. No one is asking you to pull both parties to the center. I am simply saying you should find the one party that meets most (most, most, most, not all) of your concerns and work to bring other issues to the forefront from within that party.
As for your list of grievances with the Republican Party, some are valid, some are specific to one man, and others have nothing to do with the Party. For example, what does Abu Graib have to do with Republicans? Some of the issues you mentioned concerns many conservatives as well. But, in the end, the Republican Party matches with more of our stances than the Democrat Party.
I am not trying to pull you into my party. I am simply trying to get some clarification on your thought process.
"Then there is the matter of tax breaks for the wealthy and the abandonment of the middle class (me)."
I am not really sure what that means. Taxes were cut across the board, middle class included. So, why did you say "tax breaks for the wealthy" instead of tax breaks for everyone? Did you not know that your taxes were cut too?
March 11, 2008
2:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
Yankee said with a straight face:
"The Democrats tend to higher taxes, more regulation and big government. The Republicans tend to lower taxes, greater freedom and smaller government."
!!
Get with the times, sister.
March 11, 2008
3:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
John_ll,
You are an obviously well educated and effective spokesman for your conservative beliefs. I applaud you for that! Really I do! As I said before, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree.
I have to admit that it is a little draining sometimes to explain my position in detail to a conservative and then have to turn around and do the same for a liberal. I wish sometimes that you guys would spend more time talking to each other than in talking to me. In these forums, I see both sides talking at and past one another. Sometimes I speak up and find both sides shooting barbs at me when their disagreement is really with each other.
John, there simply exist some things I can't ethically do. One of these is to represent myself as belonging to one party or the other when both do things I consider to be just plain wrong. I guess my perfect world would have to be one where candidates ran totally on their own merits and opinions, without party allegiance. We both know that will never happen. Barring that, I think we need a third party to keep the other 2 honest. I want balance, compromise and coalitions. I am convinced that more people would feel enfranchised and would participate in the election process if they had more choices. I would devote time energy and money to that third party. Then maybe we could move beyond the limits of our vocabularies in defining what is left, right and center, extreme and moderate.
Thanks for the civil postings John. I may drop back later but I have meetings now.
March 11, 2008
3:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yankee writes:
greenleaf,
There probably is disagreement within the pro-life movement (I think John 2 and me for instance)on authorizing abortion for rape and incest. I pointed to the pre-Roe law in Colorado to make the point that 35-years ago there was public consensus that rape and incest were just reasons for abortion.
Having said that, I think the question is largely a diversion. Once we agree that health is a valid basis then we are talking about a tiny faction of abortions for rape and incest. The real question of regulating abortion centers not around health, rape and incest but birth control. Since you are opposed to abortion as a birth control method then you are on the pro-life side of the issue. Once Roe is overturned then the question will be settled in the different states in the voting booth and that's as it should be. Then the community will determine the limits.
I think J2 answered your question on birth control but let me just add that I, and the conservatives I know like me, are in favor of education and opposed to ignorance. I think the young should learn how babies are made. That should take about 15 minutes - it is not a particularly well-kept secret. I also think they should be educated in ethics. The problme is that our schools spend weeks and months probably boring the pants off everybody on the former and ignore the latter.
Conservatives are not going to favor, for instance, paying for comdomns to be handed out in the schools for two reasons.
First, distributing condomns at least implies, if not encourages, their use which is a mistake of huge proportions. We reject the notion that young are esentially animals whose lust must be satisified and argue instead for appealing to their humanity which does require discipline. Second, we don't think we should have to pay for anybody else's condomns.
But that is different from saying we think condomns should be illegal. If the grocery stores want to jam their shelves to over-flowing, and they do, then so be it. But don't ask us to approve.
The key insight here is that conservatives are by nature more tolerant of human foible than liberals.
March 11, 2008
3:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
BO writes:
I always enjoy the Republicon slogans-
Lower Taxes- Unless you're middle of lower class. I have never noticed a difference, except for my tax returns, which were larger under Clinton. The party of "spend and spend"- what's our national debt?
Greater Freedom- Unless you're a pregnant woman seeking an abortion, a gay person wanting to marry your partner of 20 years, having your phone tapped w/o a warrant, or of a non-Christian faith.
Smaller Govt- I have never bought this argument.
March 11, 2008
3:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Shaupeen writes:
I disagree John II. A person does not have to "pick a side or shut up." (And by the way, wow, what a harsh statement for someone to make--you certainly live in absolutes.) Most independents that I know are independent not because they don't know where they stand on the issues, but for quite the opposite reason--they know all too well where they stand on the issues and neither party represents their views. Why can't someone think for themselves? Why can't a person review an issue (or many of them) and come to their own conclusions? Too often the fighting and blind-hatred for the opposing party makes any intelligent discussion all but impossible. After such viciousness by both parties in the last few elections, I will not be surprised to see more people washing their hands of either party and choose to not be pigeon-holed or stereo-typed, but instead to be their own individual, who can think for themselves.
March 11, 2008
3:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Ted_in_Vegas writes:
I think, gentleman and ladies, the concept here is that those who get involved get heard; those who remain in the middle don't.
Besides, a lot of greenleaf's points indicate that his reasoning, as is everyone's - mine included, is subjective. For example, greenleaf, you question Ted Steven's environmental record; I presume from that you are against Mr. Steven's desire to drill in ANWR. What would rather do? Keep buying from the Saudis? Build more Solar Power Fiascos? (We just built a solar power plant for $100 MILLION that will provide $1 MILLON of electricity per year for 30 years and then be worn out and shut down, wasting $70 MILLION - which is normal for alternative forms of power.)
I say all of that, greenleaf, to point out to you that without a say in a party, you cannot affect either party. To stay in the middle, on purpose, is to choose to be voiceless.
March 11, 2008
4:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
John: "I suspect you have not chosen a side because you lack an understanding of the issues and you simply vote for the candidate with the best personality."
Then I suspect you lack an understanding about Independent voters, and instead of trying to really reach one, you're taking the easy way out and opting for a shallow quip, instead.
On the contrary, the Independents I know tend to be well aware of a great deal of the issues, and that's how they come to the realization that one party platform can't possibly represent their true viewpoints. And what about Independent legislators? Surely they possess a better understanding of the political issues of the day than the average citizen, as they craft and vote legislation about those issues.
And by the way, based on the months I've participated in these forums, I wouldn't say Republicans are the party that reflect your own beliefs. For example, you believe in zero government regulation and oversight, believe in the privatization of every process and resource in this country, believe in raising the voting age to 30, and believe any law not written directly in the Constitution is unlawful. So perhaps the Constitutional Party would be the best fit for you. However, your beliefs might be too extreme even for that party.
I suspect you call yourself a Republican because you're afraid to leave the security of one of this country's two main parties, and also, because many of its representatives in recent years reflect your own extremist beliefs. You think you're betting on the winning horse, so to speak.
March 11, 2008
4:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
fairness writes:
Yankee,
"The key insight here is that conservatives are by nature more tolerant of human foible than liberals."
Wow! That is totally opposite of what has been happening over the last 7 years, if not more! The conservatives have been pushing for banning gay marriage. How is that being tolerant?
As a liberal tells me, "Who cares if Bill and Bob down the street get married. If I don't know them, how does that affect me?" Where the conservative says that "we have to protect the sanctity of marriage, and only one woman and one man are allowed to marry."
So, which stance is more "tolerant"?
I could point out other discrepancies, but this is one of the more recent ones. The conservatives want to keep government out of our lives as far as it concerns business and their money. But they DO want to interfere on our personal lives.
Look at the Terri Schiavo case as another example. That SHOULD have been a family decision. But the conservatives had to stick their noses into it. Why? Because it was against their OWN beliefs. Again, who is more tolerant?????
March 11, 2008
4:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Ted_in_Vegas: "I presume from that you are against Mr. Steven's desire to drill in ANWR. What would rather do? Keep buying from the Saudis? Build more Solar Power Fiascos? (We just built a solar power plant for $100 MILLION that will provide $1 MILLON of electricity per year for 30 years and then be worn out and shut down, wasting $70 MILLION - which is normal for alternative forms of power.)"
Now here is a perfect example of someone who doesn't fully understand the issues. (And I have my reasons for being pretty sure "Ted" isn't an Independent.) If one was to take this quote at face value, one would be under the impression we get the bulk of our oil from Saudi Arabia, that we don't already domestically drill in this country, that we're soon going to run out of oil, and that solar technology has turned out to be an unmitigated failure.
March 11, 2008
4:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
"Why can't someone think for themselves? Why can't a person review an issue (or many of them) and come to their own conclusions?" -- shaupeen
Go ahead, think for yourself. I think for myself. Joining a party does not mean you do not think for yourself. You join a party to advance your positions. I believe X, Y, Z; my party believes X, Y; another party believes A, B, C: I align myself with the party that believes X, Y in order to advance those causes and hopefully get the party to address Z as well.
"After such viciousness by both parties in the last few elections, I will not be surprised to see more people washing their hands of either party..."
Politics has always been nasty. You should read some of the campaigns from early US history; brutal stuff.
March 11, 2008
4:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
"Then I suspect you lack an understanding about Independent voters, and instead of trying to really reach one, you're taking the easy way out and opting for a shallow quip, instead." -- MTS
I think I already explained numerous times that I do lack an understanding of independents. That is why I spent time with greenleaf to try and understand his position.
March 11, 2008
4:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
"As a liberal tells me, "Who cares if Bill and Bob down the street get married. If I don't know them, how does that affect me?" Where the conservative says that "we have to protect the sanctity of marriage, and only one woman and one man are allowed to marry." - fairness
Which liberal tells you that? Hillary? Obama? Do you know their stance on gay marriage. They both oppose it. So did John Edwards.
March 11, 2008
4:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yankee writes:
fairness,
You seem to have missed the word "foible" in the sentence. What I mean by that is that conservatives do not expect human perfection and do not promise perfect solutions. Liberals do.
So you see my statement has nothing to do with gay marriage (I am in favor of gays marrying but not to each other) or the Schiavo case.
I would be happy to discuss either of those topics but we need to get the context straight first. Your assumption that liberals are tolerant and conservatives are not could use exmination.
March 11, 2008
4:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
fairness writes:
Yankee,
I am not mistaken. The conservatives that I know are MUCH less tolerant than liberals on any subject. They believe that everyone should act and do as they do. Period. THAT is what I call intolerance.
March 11, 2008
4:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yankee writes:
fairness,
Do you think that your response to me evidences tolerance?
March 11, 2008
5:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Wow, I disappear for a while and what happens? A dialog is taking place. It's a pretty decent one at that!
Isn't it interesting how so many of these political discussions turn to outright insult and acrimony, yet this one hasn't. I wonder why? Is it the mix of posters drawn by the heading ( I know that I was)? What else could it be.
One possibility is that some independents are posting and maybe some others are reading. I once read that for every risk taking writer who blogs there are at least 20 who read but don't post. I think that we are having a damping effect on you Democrats and Republicans! Maybe you are beginning to get the point and are realizing that we are worth influencing. I have noticed some of this in party conversations, so why not in this forum too?
I hope that this is the case, because it makes my point that I can influence more of you through this medium than I could easily reach any other way.
What do the rest of you think? I'm certain that some of you think I've been sitting with the bird droppings on the fence for far too long. I also bet that at least a few of you may agree.
March 11, 2008
7:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
"If one was to take this quote at face value, one would be under the impression we get the bulk of our oil from Saudi Arabia, that we don't already domestically drill in this country, that we're soon going to run out of oil, and that solar technology has turned out to be an unmitigated failure."
Obviously, Ted was making a point by using a few examples. His point was that we are driven to buy oil from foreign sources instead of simply using our own land for oil. The Democrats have placed us in a very difficult situation: they restrict us from drilling in way too many domestic places. This is foolishness beyond belief. And then they cry about "blood for oil". Check out this website to see how the Democrats have zoned us off of our own oil (ignore the statistics below that show global temperatures dropping - I don't want to overload you).
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008...
March 11, 2008
8:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
John_ll,
The quality of your postings just took a decidedly downward slant. The link you have posted is blatantly partisan and has nothing but suspect hand-picked data to support it. Quote peer reviewed scientific research as reported in a scientific journal or don't bother posting this propaganda! This is worse than here say and, frankly, well beneath the quality of your earlier posts. No wonder you want us to ignore the global warming part. I am a professional scientist and know the difference between actual science and canned, biased junk! I'm insulted that you expect us to take this at face value!
As to the areas that indicate areas off limits to drilling. some of those areas aren't even viable due to water depth and other factors. Talk about expensive oil! You don't bother to mention delicate marine environments that are valuable to fishermen and to sensitive wildlife!
Why is it that you don't even consider other alternatives to extraction? Conservation alone could save more oil than could ever be recovered from these sensitive areas. This is one area that just drives me up the walls with the republican party. Where is your imagination? There can be 50 ways to approach the energy problem and all you seem to be able to come up with is oil and coal, oil and coal without end and nothing else.
You blame the democrats , but this independent will vote for the democrats on this issue and you can bet I'll bring as many others with me as I possibly can.
I gave you more credit John. Your arguments were very good until you resorted to throwing out links! Anyone can hand pick a hundred questionable links to support a weak argument. You can do better!
March 11, 2008
9:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:
Fiscally speaking the middle is moving left every year. For the past 90 years total Government spending in relation to G.D.P. has increased .5%. 30% Federal, 15% State and 5% local.
March 11, 2008
10 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
John,
Your link is even worse than I thought. Everybody should thoroughly explore this link to see just how tasteless, unscientific and disgusting it really is ***LOOK AT THE LINKS MIDWAY ON THE PAGE WHERE IT SAYS: " I'M DOUG ROSS AND I APPROVED THIS MESSAGE" LABEL OBAMA ***
You honestly couldn't find a better link than THIS John? What a bunch of unmitigated crap!!!! I'm offended to the core. You have lost all credibility with me!
March 11, 2008
10:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
Wow, greenleaf. What a dramatic turn from your "can't we all just get along" post on 5:13. Look at all the exclamation marks you used!
Of course the link was partisan. So what? The facts were real. There is no need to feel so indignant just because you are a "professional scientist".
"Conservation alone could save more oil than could ever be recovered from these sensitive areas."
Do you honestly think that is a reasonable solution? Earlier today you mentioned something about pre-marital sex and that there is no use not teaching about it because people will do it anyway. Well, people are not going to conserve energy use. We are too big of a nation to count on enough people to "conserve". I am not against alternate sources of energy. But, they have to be viable first. Why not take advantage of the oil available to us and also research alternate sources? Why does it have to be one or the other?
And as far as temperatures go, global temperatures have fallen significantly recently. That is fact. We can draw different conclusions from that fact. For example, a Russian scientist predicted this cooling would happen because he believed global warming was caused by sun spots.
"I'm offended to the core. " - greenleaf
Well, no wonder you are an independent. How can you be offended by a partisan website that references facts? Are you a woman? What kind of man gets "offended to the core"? Does the fact that you are offended absolve you from making cogent counterpoints? Look at your comments. They are very telling. A bit sensitive, aren't we? Perhaps a problem with controlling your emotions? Are you an emotional guy, greenleaf? Have you ever heard of bipolar disorder? No wonder you can't choose a side; you are mentally unstable. Look at all those exclamation marks and all capital words and the anger: all because of one little website.
Here's another link for you: http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2006...
Don't have a seizure!
March 11, 2008
10:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
greenleaf, you must be a CNN-style independent voter: http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2007...
March 11, 2008
11:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
"There can be 50 ways to approach the energy problem and all you seem to be able to come up with is oil and coal, oil and coal without end and nothing else." - greenleaf
And nuclear. By the way, it is not my job nor should it be any politicians job to come up with new sources of energy unless it is from conquering or buying more land.
We grant politicians way too much power. Why on earth are Hillary and Obama designing national health care plans? What qualifies them to design health care plans? They are lawyers. So, why look to them to design energy plans or retirement plans or home loan plans? The entire point of capitalism is to let the experts in the free market design these solutions.
The market will bring us new energy solutions, not the Republican or Democrat parties. But, I'll tell you this, Democrats are going to have a tougher time explaining their opposition to drilling for domestic oil as oil prices rise to $110 a barrel this summer. At some point people are going to get tired of hearing the Democrats pin all their hopes on some new yet to be invented wind/solar/hydro/God/magic/sweetness powered zero emission, cancer curing, breast enhancing, baldness curing, teeth whitening energy source. It is time to grow up and use our own oil.
March 12, 2008
7:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
John,
I stand by what I said last night. I am disappointed in you! Your debating ability is quite sufficient without having to resort to websites that regurgitate propaganda for a limited, partisan and obviously not very scientific audience.
I also make no apologies for being passionate for what I strongly believe. By insulting me, you have lost an opportunity to positively influence me toward republicans . The environment is the defining issue for me and I am increasingly convinced that you in the republican party think it is yours to trash as you please with no regard to consequences. Accusing me of being bi-polar and a woman ( as if that would be a bad thing anyway ) doesn't score points with me either.
You set yourself up as a representative of your party. You have the writing ability to win a few hearts and minds for the republicans. That is, if you don't squander opportunities as you did last night. I could go on but I don't think you are listening anyway.
March 12, 2008
7:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
John II: "I think I already explained numerous times that I do lack an understanding of independents. That is why I spent time with greenleaf to try and understand his position."
Good point. My apologies.
John II: "The market will bring us new energy solutions, not the Republican or Democrat parties. But, I'll tell you this, Democrats are going to have a tougher time explaining their opposition to drilling for domestic oil as oil prices rise to $110 a barrel this summer."
I mostly agree with the first part of your paragraph here, but tax incentives and credits do influence our energy strategies, and so will tax money allocated to fund advancements in green technologies and training to work in those fields.
I also disagree with what you seem to be inferring - that as people get more and more agitated about the prices of oil, they will pressure for even more domestic drilling. I think the opposite is happening, people are going to pressure industry to come up with much higher fuel standards, and also start considering solar energy for their own homes. Both are no brainers, in fact, with the former, my understanding is that vehicles are increasingly declining in fuel efficiency compared with the 1970s. As for the latter, a solar photovoltaic system can pay for itself within two years, often sooner, because you can sell energy back to the utility companies while drastically, drastically reducing your own utility bills. And this isn't just some pie in the sky technology being used by some crank out in the wilderness. There are companies all over the place who build these systems, and as oil prices increase, more people will implement a solar energy system.
That's just in our homes. Commercial solar energy plants are increasingly appearing, too. The new solar plant being built for DIA is just one example. I'm telling you, John II, the cry for increased domestic drilling is going to become more and more faint. It's simply not going to become the main energy strategy in the years to come.
I also echo greenleaf's disappointment with your choice in data sources. They are always from extremely rightwing sites. I doubt very much you would take seriously data sourced from the opposite end of the spectrum, so is it too much to ask for you to seek more objective sources? It might even support your points better, unless you have no interest in adding credibility to them.
March 12, 2008
8:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
mytwosense,
The last time we were in the same forum, you were the one who was passionate! You were an impressive scrapper! Now I am seeing the calmer diplomatic side of you and that is equally impressive. I do believe that it's all about hearts and minds and using gentle persuasion to move the other person on the issues that matter.
This was my message to you last time but you obviously understand anyway, without my having to point that out.
This is why John disappointed me. Why would an obviously talented writer and debater destroy his credibility with such a strategy? I actually believed that he was trying to reach across the divide to understand an independent until he posted his link.
In the end he had to resort to insult, and you know that doesn't work with me.
Excellent post mytwosense.
March 12, 2008
8:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
greenleaf,
There is nothing inherently wrong with a partisan source. Actually, I consider most sources biased anyway. Would you have felt better if the story was written by the AP or Reuters? I consider those highly partisan sources.
But, you cannot throw a written temper-tantrum just because someone uses a partisan website as a source. I deal with partisan sources all the time on this forum. Folks like jay post partisan stories all the time. I check out his links, find the faults in the data, and cogently refute the data.
You should not become apoplectic just because the same website that cites facts also disparages Obama. The reason I posted that particular link was because I was discussing domestic oil drilling with MTS and I remembered that I had just recently bookmarked a story about the blocking of domestic oil drilling.
Partisan does not necessarily equal lies. The data on the website is real. The website provided links to its sources. The domestic oil chart was linked to Senator Craig's website. He used the chart on the Senate floor during a speech. http://craig.senate.gov/i_energy.cfm
The global cooling data is also real. And, again, the website cited its sources. If you follow the links, you will get here: http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/...
That link cites the actual government sources for its data.
March 12, 2008
9:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
greenleaf,
Does "hearts and minds and using gentle persuasion" involve scolding, ranting, typing in ALL-CAPS, and the dreaded multi exclamation points?
If you are going to resort to the harsh ranting of a harridan, you should expect to be harshly rebuked.
March 12, 2008
9:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
John II, just out of idle curiousity, I went to the link you provided. I guess its position is that Dems are thwarting increased domestic drilling? I don't deny that, although there are some Dems that support it just as there are some Repubs who oppose it. And as you know, I too disagree with increased domestic drilling. So it's not like you're revealing a hidden secret of some sort.
But even if you were, the link you provided was basically just a collection of snarky comments with hyperlinks to supposedly prove them. And on top of that, most of the hyperlinks didn't work, and the couple that did just led back to another blog making essentially the same snarky comments.
It was a sloppy source to support your points, frankly.
greenleaf: Thanks for the kudos. I hate to tell you, though, that you'll never win John II's heart and mind through gentle persuasion. The former is just a little smaller than a raisin, and the latter is already made up and is going to stay that way until Reagan comes down from the sky and gives him the thumbs up on green technology. Either that or once the technologies are widely adopted - at which point John II will jump on the bandwagon and blame liberals for it taking so long for green technology to get here.
But, it's fun to debate him anyway once you get used to a few of his quirks. Plus, I really view John II as a figurehead for opposition to all sorts of progressive ideas, which is helpful considering the many uninformed people who might be reading our exchanges.
March 12, 2008
9:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
MTS,
I agree with your assessment with an increase demand for "green" technologies. I have always said that high oil prices is the best thing that could happen to green technologies.
Of course more people will consider solar panels and wind power sources. I know I will. But, that will not satisfy the majority of people's concerns.
I think there is a greater sense of immediacy with drilling for oil as opposed to new "green" technologies. Millions of Americans already own SUV's. They will not suddenly be able to give them up this summer. The auto industry will not suddenly be able to adjust from trucks and SUV's to smaller cars. When gas hits $4 a gallon this summer, and folks start racking up $100+ receipts to fill their tanks, it will finally start to hit them that the Democrats are hurting this country by blocking so much domestic oil drilling.
The situation will become even more urgent when we realize how much our military relies on oil. China is drilling right near our coast and their military is growing fast. There may come a time when we have no choice but to use our own oil.
March 12, 2008
9:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
"It was a sloppy source to support your points, frankly." - MTS
I just posted because I had it. It was just a discussion starter. No big deal.
March 12, 2008
10:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
mytwosense,
I'm afraid that you are right about John. Obviously you have had more experience with him. I still think it's a shame. He just doesn't seem to understand. I suppose that's good in it's way since I disagree with most of his positions. If he doesn't learn from this , as he apparently hasn't, he will continue to sabotage his arguments.
John, your last posting (9:29) was what you should have made last night instead of the one you did. Too late for this independent!
March 12, 2008
10:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
Too late for what, greenleaf? I am not nor have I ever tried to recruit you. I simply tried to get you to think about your positions. I am not here on behalf of the Republican Party in an attempt to win people over. I simply enjoy testing other people's thinking and enjoy having my own thoughts tested. To suggest that somehow I blew a chance to recruit an "independent" to my party is just silly. If you are that sensitive that you would base your political affiliation on my behavior then I think you probably do not belong in any party.
I am a Republican because I am a conservative and the Republican Party aligns much, much more with my positions than the Democrat Party. I am still baffled as to why you would not do the same. In terms of the issues, you should use me to help you clarify your own position on the issues. I am good for that. My arguments are almost always clear, cogent, and well stated. That is not to say that by running issues past me, you will be pulled to my way of thinking. Actually, you may find after debating me that you better understand your own opposition to me. Fair enough. But, do not think that I am here to recruit anyone.
So, let us bury the hatchet in regards to link you found offensive. I would much rather debate real issues than go back and forth over this contretemps. So, I apologize for posting a link that offended you and I apologize for the insults I tossed your way afterward.
But, back to the real issue at hand: you know you want to join the Republican Party. I know you really want to. Come on, join us. Come to the dark side, greenleaf. Be a Republican. All the cool kids are doing it. Let us trash this earth together, you and me. We can do it. We are the ones we've been waiting for.
March 12, 2008
10:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Yankee writes:
greenleaf,
You asked me about abortion and I took the time to respond. I'm curious why you ignored my response to your question. I'm curious about a few ohter things as well.
You have said that you are an independant who is discouraged by the Republicans who you see moving away from the center toward extremist positions. You also point out that the Republicans are not sufficiently conservative on the economy. Those two statements seem contradictory.
You also told us about a friend of yours who has problems with the modern Republican party. So do I. Thing is - I have even greater problems with the modern Democrat party. For instance, is your friend troubled by the fact that there is no room in the part for Joe Liebreman? Do you think JFK would be a Republican or Demorat today based on his positions? How about Truman or Scoop Jackson?
I also noticed that you put Abu Ghraib in the same context as waterboarding and wire taps. Are you aware of the fact that the crimes committed at AG had nothing whatsover to do with interrogation or intelligence gathering? You know a lot of people on the left have a habit of lumping all those criminal acts together with activities that are legal to taint the latter with the former.
I'm curous haw you , as an independant, see these things.
March 12, 2008
10:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
John,
I accept your apology. I usually try to be the calm voice in debates. I rarely lose it, but you caught me by surprise. You don't seem to have learned much about me, but I have learned more about you. I'm in it to learn and to influence and you're in it for the debate! That's okay, we'll have more conversations. I'm sure of that!
P.S.: Join the Republican party? To quote Adlai Stevenson: "...not until hell freezes over!".
March 12, 2008
11:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
John II, gas prices have been rising considerably and steadily for a long time now. Yet opposition to domestic drilling seems to not only be holding fast, but increasing.
Speaking for myself, I don't believe that opening up more supply in the US will either give us relief at the gas pump or hold prices steady. Industry will sell to the highest bidder, period. We do export oil, believe it or not. But even on a domestic level, those who are the lowest bidders will pay the most. It's the same with natural gas. Even though we have opened up more drilling for that here in the US, prices continue to rise.
I think that people are, rightfully, afraid of continuing this dependence on finite and polluting fossil fuels. We have put way, way too many eggs in this basket. Rather than tear up a great deal more of our land - very grand, beautiful land, at that - to eke out more of these resources, people are opting for another direction. Actually, not just one direction, as no one solution can "fix" everything. It will take lifestyle changes, too, and no I don't mean getting everywhere on a bike.
One very positive lifestyle change - on many different levels - would be to see more workers telecommute. And I do think business will lead the way here, as it will significantly reduce their office leasing costs. Also, think how that would benefit society better - people would be spending more time at home which might prevent more kids from getting in trouble.
And if there was such a massive shift in telecommuting, business would take advantage of it in other ways. Owners of massive office parks could either sell them to construction companies specializing in re-development into mixed use, or take that on themselves.
That's just one lifestyle change. But many others could take place along those lines, too. Right now, our way of living is heavily based on driving relatively far to where we need to go every day. Some changes there could help to conserve our existing oil resources, while green tech and industry continues to evolve.
Just some of my pot-of-coffee-consumed-already thoughts for the day...
March 12, 2008
11:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Yankee,
I apologize my friend, I didn't mean to blow you off. You were considerate in helping with the abortion issue and where I fit with that. I agree totally that condoms should not be handed out in schools. I do believe, however, that kids should,as part of the "birds and bees" lectures be told how to acquire those and other means of birth control. Of course abstinence and the ethics of sex and child rearing should be a part of the mix. I would want religious doctrine on the subject to be left to the church and parents.
One more fuzzy area does arise however: What of the morning after pill? I am in favor of it's ready availability. My impression is that that has been a problem for some pro-lifers. What do you think?
As for the economy question, I think it's a matter of semantics. I think I see your point. You, as a republican, see fiscal conservatism and smaller government to be traditional core republican values, as do I. The difference is you see the abandonment of that position as a move to the liberal democratic way of handling the economy. I see it as an anomaly, reflecting the current administration's expensive agendas which are extremely conservative in nature. Maybe that will sort itself out, I am hearing many republicans saying they want to return to the traditional values of the party, including economic values.
As to my friend: he and I both thought there existed some potential for Lieberman and McCain to be logical players in a new third party movement. Both are rebels and centrists. So, actually neither of us were surprised by his departure . We were delighted and hoped McCain would follow suit.
I think JFK would still be a "Demorat" as you put it ( was that a freudian slip?). He laid the groundwork for what became LBJ's great society a few years later. He would by today's standards probably be a conservative "Demorat". I would have to think about Truman ( it's been a while since I've thought about Truman). As for "Scoop", his authorship of NEPA seems very much a democratic party concept with many regulations intended to protect the environment. On the other hand, he was very strong on defence and believed in strong involvement in international affairs, which sounds more republican. I think he would be a good third party candidate!
Finally, as to Abu Ghraib: It wouldn't matter to me which party is in charge in matters such as this, the blame should stick with the current administration. I would be more forgiving on that matter if it weren't for the torture and water boarding controversies which I don't believe the administration has handled well at all.
So Yankee, does that help to clarify a little bit?
Again I'm sorry for seeming to ignore your contribution.
March 12, 2008
11:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
And one more thing...for the time remaining while we are dependent on oil, must we keep antagonizing Venezuela? And can we stop having our presidents being photographed draped in gaudy jewelry from Saudi princes?
People may not like Chavez, but last I checked, the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, not Venezuelans. And we import almost the exact same amount of oil from both countries.
March 12, 2008
12:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
"must we keep antagonizing Venezuela?" - MTS
Antagonizing Venezuela? What on earth are you talking about?
"I don't believe that opening up more supply in the US will either give us relief at the gas pump or hold prices steady. Industry will sell to the highest bidder, period."
That comment baffles me. Do you not believe in the basic law of supply and demand?
"I think that people are, rightfully, afraid of continuing this dependence on finite and polluting fossil fuels. We have put way, way too many eggs in this basket. Rather than tear up a great deal more of our land - very grand, beautiful land, at that - to eke out more of these resources, people are opting for another direction."
The biggest concern is the dependence on foreign oil, not just oil. As for the rest of your comment, I'm sure it felt great to say but it does not amount to a whole lot. People can opt for another direction but reality will prevent them from arriving at their Utopian destination. We will be heavily reliant on oil for a long time. It is so foolish to talk as if we can simply invest in green technologies, change the behavior of hundreds of millions of people, and create new industries by creating a few tax incentives (which already exist). I want clean, renewable sources of energy just as much as you do. But, wanting it and having it are two different things.
We need to drill for more domestic oil and start building more nuclear plants. When "green" technology becomes viable, I would love to switch over. Until then, we cannot base our energy plan on wishful thinking and feel good statements.
March 12, 2008
12:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
"I'm in it to learn and to influence and you're in it for the debate!" - greenleaf
How do you expect to influence and learn if not by debate?
March 12, 2008
1:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
John,
I can learn by reading and not participating, letting others do the work.
I probably am most influenced and influencing in conversations on blogs rather than in competitive debates where points are being scored and tallied.
Either way John, It's semantics and we can drive ourselves to distraction defining all of our terms: what's the difference between a debate and a conversation?, what do you mean by learning? or how do you define middle and independent in this debate or that discussion?
Suffice it to say, there are more substantive things to discuss.
March 12, 2008
1:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yankee writes:
greenleaf,
I agree about mixing religion and instruction in the schools or, fot that matter, in any of the affairs of state. That is actually Christian dogma that was taught by a Jew (The Parable of the Coin).
I don't profess to know much about the "morning after pill" but if it kills the life in the womb I am opposed to it. The issue of regulating control should also be left to the community (assuming FDA requirements are met) - not the judges. But that is a distraction from the reality that we abort, we think, about a million lives a year and the vast majority are for birth contol. That is a moral scar and the question that should be front and center.
I do not understand your comment about the current administration's expensive agenda in to extremely conservative areas. Perhaps some example would help?
I also do not understand your thought that JFK and Jackson would be Democrats today in view of what has happened with Joe. You point to the liberal social agenda of past Democrats (not Freudian just deplorable typing kills) as evidenc that they would be Democrats today. You describe JL as a maverick but I don't think that is accurate. JL is if anything more liberal than either JFK or Jackson. He is out of the party not because he support the invasion of Iraq (a lot of Democrats did the same thing) but because he refused to call for retreat when the occupation wasn't going well. I see no basis for your position that JFK or jackson would be welcome as Democrats today since they were just as strong and defence and, if anything, even less liberal on social policy.
As to the crimes committed at AG. They are clearly Bush's responsibility because they occured in the military and he is the Commander-in-Chief. That not the point. The point is that the treatment of prisoners was a crime, it was exposed and prosecuted by the military and the culprits were punished. In addition, the crimes that were committed there were not realited to information gathering, they were quite simply crimes committed by rouge elements.
Waterboarding and wire tapping are entirely differnt matters. And yet you included them all in your series as though there is a common thread. How come?
In my opion the political shift in the country over the last half-decade has been not to the right but to the left and that is on the part of both major parties. You seem to see the Republicans moving right and the Democrats holding their ground.
I find that curious.
March 12, 2008
1:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
John II: "That comment baffles me. Do you not believe in the basic law of supply and demand?"
I believe there is a "theory" of supply and demand that sometimes plays out the way it's expected to, and sometimes doesn't, depending on the variables thrown into the mix. For example, increasing the supply of domestic oil here would very likely not meet our demand for long at the rate we consume, most especially at the price we would want, and without depressingly bleak ecological consequences, because of the following variables: a very competitive domestic and international demand market, the finite nature of fossil fuels as compared with how much we consume it, and the polluting and invasive processes to extract and then use those resources.
John II: "It is so foolish to talk as if we can simply invest in green technologies, change the behavior of hundreds of millions of people, and create new industries by creating a few tax incentives (which already exist)."
You just don't get it. No one is saying a few simple strokes of the wand and voila! green is here, just like one simple policy to ramp up domestic drilling will never solve our dependence on oil, foreign or not. Talk about a Utopian answer! My own is far more varied and grounded in reality.
It's a perfect storm of a highly receptive and increasingly informed public, very brilliant and determined people who are researching, developing, and then improving these technologies, a political administration who will, going forward, include other people besides oil execs in their "energy task forces," training put in place in the education industry, a shift in a very inefficient lifestyle that requires hours a day spent in our cars, and the fact that a lot of that technology is here, now.
You are either deliberately ignoring the latter, or so wrapped up reading snarky blogs you're not aware that all around us major advances in solar materials and storage are happening at a rapid rate, more and more people are telecommuting, the trend of mixed use zoning is becoming more prevalent in the form of "new urbanism" developments which will decrease driving, and...I could actually go on and on. The biggest is that the public is more receptive than ever, and smart businesses and industries are going to take advantage of that. The ones who continue to go against the tide of what the public wants is fighting a futile battle. (And I can tell you that if the majority of the public was open to increased domestic drilling, ANWR, for one, would be history by now.)
The main thing preventing widespread green energy is an obstructionist stance from the politicians who have been in the oil industry's pockets for decades now and the oil industry itself. But even with such powerful opposition as that, it hasn't been enough. They cannot beat what the public truly wants and what technology is actually, tangibly doing today.
March 12, 2008
2:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
"Either way John, It's semantics and we can drive ourselves to distraction defining all of our terms: what's the difference between a debate and a conversation?, what do you mean by learning? or how do you define middle and independent in this debate or that discussion?" -- greenleaf
You just asked yourself the questions I was going to ask you. You may call it semantics, but words are all we have on this forum. If we are not clear on their meaning then we are just typing random jibberish. Terms like "middle", "centrist", and "independent" have to mean more than just not Republican or Democrat.
I never said I am out to "score points" by debating. Debating is just a way to get different sides to back up their assertions with reasonable arguments. Conversation is such a generic term I am surprised you actually threw that into the mix. Do we really need to determine the difference between conversation and debate? Is there really a problem with semantics or are you just refusing to answer difficult questions?
March 12, 2008
2:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
"You just don't get it. No one is saying a few simple strokes of the wand and voila! green is here, just like one simple policy to ramp up domestic drilling will never solve our dependence on oil, foreign or not. Talk about a Utopian answer! My own is far more varied and grounded in reality." - mts
Mine is grounded in actual, viable, tangible technologies. Yours is based on the hope that someday technologies will improve to meet our needs. But, those green technologies are not ready yet. I am not even sure what we are arguing about. When gas prices spike even higher, we cannot simply say, "OK, great, I'll just buy me a windmill, some solar panels, a hybrid, and start conserving more energy." There are hundreds of millions of people who own SUV's, trucks, and gas heated homes. They commute to work. Our trucking industry, our airlines, our shipping, our military all need oil. I am not even sure what you are suggesting we do about that.
Actually, that is a good question. What are you suggesting we do? You oppose drilling for our own oil. You oppose nuclear energy. You oppose more coal. What is it you are suggesting we do?
March 12, 2008
2:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Yankee,
This has become a very intellectual conversation on our little forum and that's a welcome relief to what is so frequently encountered. The only problem from my point of view is that intellectual discussions require more time and thought than I have available today and probably this evening. However I'll do what I can to answer your questions.
The morning after pill is essentially a concentrated dose of estrogen that prevents any newly fertilized egg from developing. I imagine that fits your criteria for killing life in the womb. The tricky part is that one doesn't even know with any certainty that the egg has been fertilized, so is it life or isn't it. Obviously the intent is there but nobody knows if it actually happened ( fertilization).
As for expensive conservative agendas, for the sake of brevity, I'll go with the biggest: The Iraq war. I'm not including the war in Afghanistan or most aspects of the war on terror. We broke a country and now we are rebuilding at American taxpayer expense.
I admit that I was amused by "Demorat", but it probably is just as well it was accidental. I could see that catching on like wildfire!
As for the discussion regarding what would they be today, I just don't have time to pursue it with more thought and writing today, fun as it is. It does remind me of something some of my friends and I do some evenings. We discuss alternative history scenarios. What would the world be like if the south had won the civil war, or Hitler hadn't invaded Poland or if JFK had blinked instead of Kruschev during the Cuban missle crisis? A similar intellectual game to this one don't you think?
As for my linking water-boarding and wire-tapping, it isn't my attempt at the false duality we often see in these forums. I link them in my own mind as being abusive of human rights. I consider water-boarding to be a cruel and unusual way to treat a prisoner. I consider warrantless wire taps to be an invasion of privacy with an assumption of guilt over innocence. I consider both to be a violation of human rights.
I hate to do this Yankee but I have no time for your last question. I'm going to be late for a meeting with some of my employees. I'll try to repost tonight but not guaranteed.
Thanks!
March 12, 2008
2:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
What do I propose we do? I've already described to you in detail, but actually, what I've described is already happening. It's not a matter of what we "should" do anymore.
Did you know that Congress just passed a 40% increase in fuel efficiency standards in new vehicles? That's a pretty huge deal, and just one strategy alone that will greatly reduce our oil usage within the next ten years. Most people trade in their cars in less time than that. And we will probably see the return of electric cars - they were up to 80 miles an hour when GM chickened out under pressure from the oil companies and killed their line of electric cars.
The next frontier will be to figure out how to power air and semi-trucks more efficiently - and if we can put someone on the moon, hell, if we can put a plane up in the air, I have no doubt we can solve this problem, too. With trucks, I imagine biodiesels is one likely alternative.
As for gas-heated homes, people are already replacing those with solar systems, and many commercial businesses are doing this too. I just read today about a large Pepsi bottling plant in the Northwest that is doing so.
Sure, we'll be using oil at least throughout our life time, but not so much that we have to tear up the remaining wilderness and open spaces in this country, and certainly not so much that we have to keep exporting from the volatile Middle East.
March 12, 2008
3:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
"Did you know that Congress just passed a 40% increase in fuel efficiency standards in new vehicles? That's a pretty huge deal, and just one strategy alone that will greatly reduce our oil usage within the next ten years." - mts
So your solution to our dependence on foreign oil is to tell people to stop using it?
"And we will probably see the return of electric cars - they were up to 80 miles an hour when GM chickened out under pressure from the oil companies and killed their line of electric cars."
What are you talking about? If people wanted electric cars and the cars exist, why will see the "return" of them? Where did they go? Do you have any evidence at all to back your claim that GM "chickened out" from oil company pressures?
"The next frontier will be to figure out how to power air and semi-trucks more efficiently - and if we can put someone on the moon, hell, if we can put a plane up in the air, I have no doubt we can solve this problem, too. With trucks, I imagine biodiesels is one likely alternative."
This is what I'm talking about. "Figure out"? Putting a man on the moon? I guess you could apply that "man on the moon" argument to anything and say we could do anything. I never said we could not solve these problems. What I am saying is that your solutions have not been invented yet. There is nothing there. That is my point. Oil is there and waiting for us.
"but not so much that we have to tear up the remaining wilderness and open spaces in this country," - mts
Now, do you really believe that? We are going to tear up our remaining wilderness? A bit of an exaggeration, isn't it?
March 12, 2008
4:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
why so many apologists for big oil and our dependence on them?
March 12, 2008
4:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Electric cars, higher fuel efficiency cars, and biodiesel fuels haven't been invented yet???
My friend, you need to get out more.
March 12, 2008
4:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
John II: "What are you talking about? If people wanted electric cars and the cars exist, why will see the "return" of them? Where did they go? Do you have any evidence at all to back your claim that GM "chickened out" from oil company pressures?"
Nothing I could ever say would be enough evidence for you, I'm sure. But if you're interested in the subject, check out the movie "Who Killed The Electric Car." Even if after watching it you still think the oil company claim is BS, I think you'll agree that GM's marketing plan was horrible. There actually was quite a demand and a waiting list for the cars.
You can see some snippets of the film at:
http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilled...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsJAlr...
I recommend getting a hold an actual copy of the movie, if possible though. The library might have one.
By the way, why do you think Texaco now owns the patents on electric and hybrid car battery technology?
http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?st...
March 12, 2008
6:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
MTS,
I watched the video snippet. It was nothing but paranoid liberal innuendo. There was not a single fact linking the oil companies to the GM electric car. It did show a clip of someone saying "In my opinion it had something to do with the oil companies."
GM's marketing plan may or may not have been horrible. But, who cares? GM is not the only car company. If they screwed up the marketing of the electric car, that is GM's problem. Unless you own stock in GM or work for GM I don't see what the big deal is. Lots of car lines are canceled each year.
There was a waiting list because GM only made about 1000 of the cars. And, it seems there was some problems with the battery. Here's a link about the GM's electric car: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_...
All of this confused me even more. Why would you automatically assume oil companies pressured GM to cancel the electric car? How could oil companies apply that pressure? A