kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 9, 2008 14:12:21 GMT -5
Well, that and their energy plan, which would actually help with energy prices and energy independence thus helping the economy, but you can keep ignoring that if you want. McCain's energy plan from my understanding: Drill, drill, drill and continue to give the oil companies tax breaks. That sounds like a real long term solution to our energy problem, doesn't it? Either you're trying to be a dick, or you've had your head in the sand for the past 3 months. From his acceptance speech: "We will produce more energy at home. We will drill new wells offshore, and we’ll drill them now. We will build more nuclear power plants. We will develop clean coal technology. We will increase the use of wind, tide, solar and natural gas. We will encourage the development and use of flex fuel, hybrid and electric automobiles."
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,603
|
Post by hoyatables on Sept 9, 2008 14:17:23 GMT -5
To be honest, I haven't looked at that enough to know what was actually going on there. If I recall correctly, I believe I remember an argument that he voted as he did b/c of something to do w/ not having any provisions concerning the health/safety of the mother. Also, last time I heard this debated, there was some dispute over the fact that there were two statutes involved and which one said what. Do you have any links to non-right wing, non-ideological, somewhat neutral article on it? Regardless of that vote, Obama's public position on abortion has been exactly what this country has needed for a long time: someone to acknowledge the massive common ground in which many people support abortions in SOME circumstances but want the numbers reduced and want incentives, services, etc. in order to reduce the numbers. Strummer,if you spent half the time looking for the story of Obama and his votes to uphold the right of a woman to allow her baby to die after a failed abortion as you have on subjects such as the billing of constituents and the selling of the jet, you might learn something and you might find out what Obama voted for was infanticide. Elvado/Ed -- do you have a link, etc? Not familiar at all with this.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Sept 9, 2008 14:18:53 GMT -5
McCain's energy plan from my understanding: Drill, drill, drill and continue to give the oil companies tax breaks. That sounds like a real long term solution to our energy problem, doesn't it? Your understanding is wanting. Those tax breaks that Obama voted for and McCain voted against? Are those the tax breaks to which you refer? We need to drill. That is not all we need to do, but to say that it won't help us is just as myopic and ridiculous as someone saying that's all we need to do. But I'm fine if the any Democratic politicians want to continue to object to drilling. You can object all the way to looking for a new job come November. I'm sorry if I have contributed to this thread going off track. I think Bando's original purpose -- to share and discuss polling information (as much as I distrust polling information) -- was a good one.
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Sept 9, 2008 14:19:58 GMT -5
McCain's energy plan from my understanding: Drill, drill, drill and continue to give the oil companies tax breaks. That sounds like a real long term solution to our energy problem, doesn't it? Either you're trying to be a dick, or you've had your head in the sand for the past 3 months. From his acceptance speech: "We will produce more energy at home. We will drill new wells offshore, and we’ll drill them now. We will build more nuclear power plants. We will develop clean coal technology. We will increase the use of wind, tide, solar and natural gas. We will encourage the development and use of flex fuel, hybrid and electric automobiles." If McCain is going to cut taxes for everybody, how does he plan to pay for this? "We will develop", "We will increase", and "we will encourage" just means that the oil and energy companies get incentives (read: tax cuts) to do this. However, we need a comprehensive plan that does this but also puts government money into R & D and the eventual manufacturing of the technology. This needs to be approached the same urgency we had when we putt a man on the moon- which obviously involved the creation of NASA and government resources.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 9, 2008 14:22:04 GMT -5
Way to be on top of things. I hadn't heard that. Thanks for updating us on the news (and totally misrepresenting the story). Can you guys tell me one thing Sarah Palin has ever had to decide that is related to either (a) an urban community or (b) a major agricultural community? I'm not sure what this really has to do with anything, but I'd say Anchorage is a pretty urban community. I'm guessing she's had to deal with that in her time in government. What's a major agricultural community? Most farming and ranching I know of doesn't take place in the middle of a city or town. At the same time, name one thing Obama has ever had to decide in his time as a community organizer, the Illinois legislature or the US Senate? The guy has never been in charge of anything. He's never been the leader of anything. He's never had to say the buck stops with him. Palin, on the other hand, had to make executive decisions, come up with budgets, hire and fire government employees and make unilateral decisions on how to lead a city and a state. I don't care if its Cicely, Alaska or New York City - that's more than Obama has ever done. And by the way, way to keep up the debate between Obama and the GOP VP candidate.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 9, 2008 14:26:05 GMT -5
Either you're trying to be a dick, or you've had your head in the sand for the past 3 months. From his acceptance speech: "We will produce more energy at home. We will drill new wells offshore, and we’ll drill them now. We will build more nuclear power plants. We will develop clean coal technology. We will increase the use of wind, tide, solar and natural gas. We will encourage the development and use of flex fuel, hybrid and electric automobiles." If McCain is going to cut taxes for everybody, how does he plan to pay for this? "We will develop", "We will increase", and "we will encourage" just means that the oil and energy companies get incentives (read: tax cuts) to do this. However, we need a comprehensive plan that does this but also puts government money into R & D and the eventual manufacturing of the technology. This needs to be approached the same urgency we had when we putt a man on the moon- which obviously involved the creation of NASA and government resources. Most of this won't need to be "paid" for. It's a matter of opening up ANWR, streamlining the approval process for nuclear plants, mandates for efficiency, and tax incentives/breaks for other development. Yes, that has costs. But most of the costs will be borne by private companies doing the R&D, drilling, expansion, etc. I agree with a lot of your paragraph, but I think the climate has changed a lot to where a lot of energy companies see great profits in alternative energies and it's a matter of freeing restrictions on them (to an extent).
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on Sept 9, 2008 15:08:53 GMT -5
"We will produce more energy at home. We will drill new wells offshore, and we’ll drill them now. We will build more nuclear power plants. We will develop clean coal technology. We will increase the use of wind, tide, solar and natural gas. We will encourage the development and use of flex fuel, hybrid and electric automobiles." That's a lot of nice words, but if I read what's on his website there's no commitment or goal to how much wind, tide, or solar funding there will be or whether the renewable energy credits that are still not passed would even pass under his administration. Obama and McCain are the same from what I've seen on coal and nuclear, so there's no difference there. Obama's name is all over flex-fuel legislation. And I'd love someone to present to me any factual argument that drilling will actually help with oil prices. Ghawar, Cantarell, the North Sea - all are in decline and the depletion rates there dwarf anything coming off shore or from Alaska. It's time for the Republicans to get real about that. I'm not against drilling, but I wish the Republicans would start getting realistic about peak oil rather than mocking tire gauges.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 9, 2008 15:20:42 GMT -5
"We will produce more energy at home. We will drill new wells offshore, and we’ll drill them now. We will build more nuclear power plants. We will develop clean coal technology. We will increase the use of wind, tide, solar and natural gas. We will encourage the development and use of flex fuel, hybrid and electric automobiles." That's a lot of nice words, but if I read what's on his website there's no commitment or goal to how much wind, tide, or solar funding there will be or whether the renewable energy credits that are still not passed would even pass under his administration. Obama and McCain are the same from what I've seen on coal and nuclear, so there's no difference there. Obama's name is all over flex-fuel legislation. And I'd love someone to present to me any factual argument that drilling will actually help with oil prices. Ghawar, Cantarell, the North Sea - all are in decline and the depletion rates there dwarf anything coming off shore or from Alaska. It's time for the Republicans to get real about that. I'm not against drilling, but I wish the Republicans would start getting realistic about peak oil rather than mocking tire gauges. I don't know how much more drilling will help, but it can't hurt. And it's simply a matter of the government allowing the oil companies access. It's not a panacea, but it's part of the solution, even if only a small part. More than anything, I think the move for more domestic oil production would send a signal to the rest of the world we've finally pulled out heads out of our asses and are moving toward fixing the problem. What's the negative to more drilling?
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Sept 9, 2008 15:31:30 GMT -5
Strummer,if you spent half the time looking for the story of Obama and his votes to uphold the right of a woman to allow her baby to die after a failed abortion as you have on subjects such as the billing of constituents and the selling of the jet, you might learn something and you might find out what Obama voted for was infanticide. Elvado/Ed -- do you have a link, etc? Not familiar at all with this. Ever hear of Google? Here's one www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/404kfgky.asp
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Sept 9, 2008 15:40:11 GMT -5
I keep hearing a belief that, like the Manhattan project or the Man on the Moon project, we need to set up a similar energy-independence project with goals. The difference is that scientists knew how they were going to go about creating the atom bomb and other scientists also knew how they were going to do the Apollo moon program. They did not need technological breakthroughs, only proof of approaches. On energy, however, we do not know how to bring about many of the things we hope for, such breakthrough new batteries, new discoveries in solar panels, 100 mpg automobiles and the infrastructure to support it, etc. These require discoveries not now known so we are betting on the unknown.
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,603
|
Post by hoyatables on Sept 9, 2008 15:43:40 GMT -5
Sure I have -- but I was hoping you would be able to point me to something that was relatively fair and balanced. That article was just about perfect, thanks. I still don't think that any candidate should be judged solely by one policy stance or political decision (there are almost always shades of grey), but this is actually one of those decisions that does make me pause. Thanks, Ed.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Sept 9, 2008 16:00:22 GMT -5
Reading the article you posted ed here is my gut reaction as a Pro-Life democrat. What the nurse says they were doing at that hospital is terrible. Leaving children to die like that is horrible.
It appears that a 1975 law already protected viable infants that were born alive in such cases and that this new legislation would protect non-vaible infants ie. one's that had no chance to survive. It seems like an unnecessary bill that would force hospitals to waste medical dollars on infants who aren't going to make it anyway.
It's a very difficult moral situation about what to do with non-viable infants like that. I wish it didn't come up becuase abortion except in rare circumstances was eliminated, but it is a reality with the current legislation. I believe such infants shouldn't be left for dead but not much more can be done but to treat them humanely and make their reamining time comfortable. But the hospital shouldn't be forced to do more than that.
From what I can tell form the bill it seems to have been purely political on both sides. The republicans wanted this purely to be able to claim a victory even thow it would be a hollow one that would not change much if anything. But i agree that the democrats including Obama most likely voted it down for purely politcal purposes mainly to defeat this tiny victory for the pro life legislators. but perhaps i'm misreading somethings or don't fully understand all the intricacies.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Sept 9, 2008 16:02:59 GMT -5
I didn't want to get into this because I'm not interested in arguing about abortion every day, but your and Elvado's take on this issue is unsurprisingly lacking in context and marred by your ideological predispositions. The act in question, the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) was simply another attempt to rebrand and ban partial birth abortions, a procedure that is performed as often as it is discussed rationally; that is, almost never. In fact, it's most often used to terminate wanted pregnancies that have endangered the mother's life. To say that these fetuses are "born alive" is wholly a creation of the religious right, and as Boz says, saying something does not make it so. If you can cite the Weekly Standard, I'm going to cite RH Reality Check:
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Sept 9, 2008 16:05:29 GMT -5
good point bando.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Sept 9, 2008 18:27:27 GMT -5
I didn't want to get into this because I'm not interested in arguing about abortion every day, but your and Elvado's take on this issue is unsurprisingly lacking in context and marred by your ideological predispositions. The act in question, the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) was simply another attempt to rebrand and ban partial birth abortions, a procedure that is performed as often as it is discussed rationally; that is, almost never. In fact, it's most often used to terminate wanted pregnancies that have endangered the mother's life. To say that these fetuses are "born alive" is wholly a creation of the religious right, and as Boz says, saying something does not make it so. If you can cite the Weekly Standard, I'm going to cite RH Reality Check: Bando, a question: if a baby is born alive after a failed abortion, should that baby be cared for and treated like any other baby? Or do you favor killing the baby or "allowing it to die" by not caring for it? Obama chose to favor at least "allowing it to die". Please note this is a baby that is alive outside the womb and I'm not talking about partial-birth abortion where the baby is destroyed while still not fully born.
|
|
FewFAC
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,032
|
Post by FewFAC on Sept 9, 2008 18:35:42 GMT -5
McCain really is the candidate of change--change the topic from the needs of America back to tired cultural and social divisions that don't improve the lives of Americans.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Sept 9, 2008 19:48:00 GMT -5
I didn't want to get into this because I'm not interested in arguing about abortion every day, but your and Elvado's take on this issue is unsurprisingly lacking in context and marred by your ideological predispositions. The act in question, the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) was simply another attempt to rebrand and ban partial birth abortions, a procedure that is performed as often as it is discussed rationally; that is, almost never. In fact, it's most often used to terminate wanted pregnancies that have endangered the mother's life. To say that these fetuses are "born alive" is wholly a creation of the religious right, and as Boz says, saying something does not make it so. If you can cite the Weekly Standard, I'm going to cite RH Reality Check: Bando, a question: if a baby is born alive after a failed abortion, should that baby be cared for and treated like any other baby? Or do you favor killing the baby or "allowing it to die" by not caring for it? Obama chose to favor at least "allowing it to die". Please note this is a baby that is alive outside the womb and I'm not talking about partial-birth abortion where the baby is destroyed while still not fully born. But this never happens, ed! And it is partial birth abortion, that's where these supposedly "born-alive" infants come from. The entire bill was a sloppy attempt to restart the culture wars through the time honored tradition of making Edited up. I'd be disappointed in Obama if he had voted for it.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on Sept 10, 2008 3:58:19 GMT -5
I don't know how much more drilling will help, but it can't hurt. And it's simply a matter of the government allowing the oil companies access. It's not a panacea, but it's part of the solution, even if only a small part. More than anything, I think the move for more domestic oil production would send a signal to the rest of the world we've finally pulled out heads out of our asses and are moving toward fixing the problem. What's the negative to more drilling? Shifting argument. The original post here was that the McCain Energy "Plan" would decrease energy costs and help the economy. That's wholly untrue, energy costs are going to rise across the board no matter how much drilling occurs, and drilling's effects would be - in John McCain's words - "psychological". The rest of the world sees our oil use very differently than we do, and the only thing that'll show them that we finally pulled our heads out of our asses is using less oil (CAFE standards, increased use of public transportation, 3rd generation ethanol, conservation, etc) - which would and has had an effect on prices over the past few months. In any case, the negative to drilling is that it is "psychological" and takes mindshare away from real solutions.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Sept 10, 2008 7:12:13 GMT -5
Actually, the original post here was about polling data......
....but what the hell.
This argument assumes that all we are going to do is drill. If that was, in fact, John McCain's energy plan, I would oppose it.
But if you think drilling is not an important component of ANY energy plan we may move forward on then you are about as realistic as Al Gore.
I realize some may take that as a compliment. You can rest assured, it is not meant as one.
|
|
|
Post by JohnJacquesLayup on Sept 10, 2008 8:08:43 GMT -5
I have the spontaneous "Drill, baby, Drill!" chant from the RNC saved on my DVR. I think it's one of the funniest things I've ever seen.
|
|