or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › How Will They Slime Obama? COMPETITION!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How Will They Slime Obama? COMPETITION! - Page 3

post #81 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Blueprint for Change (pdf)

You asked.

I'm definitely not voting for someone who can't properly hyperlink their TOC.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #82 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

I'm serious guys, what could anyone do to stop the the weak dollar, the rise in oil, and the mortgage fiasco? (I admit the weak dollar is due in part to the Fed's monetary policy.) Then there's the Enron/Price Waterhouse Coopers thing, and 9/11, etc.

I believe that there's a very good chance that none of those things would have happened if our government hadn't been run by a man-child surrounded by conservative advisors. Let me pick one, the mortgage fiasco. Bush could have allowed governors to crack down on sleazy loans like they wanted to, rather than preventing them in the name of his "ownership society." See here.
Quote:
Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.

Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.

I don't think there's any chance that Gore would have used an obscure agency to prevent states from setting lending regulations. The housing market would still be down, but there wouldn't be nearly the extent of these foreclosures which are rippling through the economy right now.
post #83 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

I believe that there's a very good chance that none of those things would have happened if Gore had been in office. Let me pick one, the mortgage fiasco. Bush could have allowed governors to crack down on sleazy loans like they wanted to, rather than preventing them in the name of his "ownership society." See here.


I don't think there's any chance that Gore would have used an obscure agency to prevent states from setting lending regulations. The housing market would still be down, but there wouldn't be nearly the extent of these foreclosures which are rippling through the economy right now.

BRussel, the mortgage fiasco violated every sane business practice, except the demands of avarice. Even if Bush told them it was alright, who would knowingly build that house of cards? Who would miss the chance to cash in on the failure, where were the Cassandras?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #84 of 283
Did you read what I posted? The Cassandras were the people like all those governors who knew exactly what was happening and were trying to stop it 5 years ago. The Bush administration didn't listen and instead went out of their way to invalidate any attempt to stop it by using an obscure agency that had never been used for that purpose before.
post #85 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Did you read what I posted? The Cassandras were the people like all those governors who knew exactly what was happening and were trying to stop it 5 years ago. The Bush administration didn't listen and instead went out of their way to invalidate any attempt to stop it by using an obscure agency that had never been used for that purpose before.

BRussell, if what you're saying is true, we haven't heard from them since.

We are talking about a financial screwup that nearly took down liquidity en masse, if not our brokerage houses and banking system -- if anyone, anyone, in any banking house, anywhere on this planet had gotten wind of this, they would have been screaming their heads off. But like 9/11, virtually no one saw this coming -- and when they did more than a year ago, they had no idea of the scope.

Events are in the saddle and we are ridden -- no one can escape their age.

Have you seen this:

Subprime Primer

or, in a nutshell:

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #86 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Clinton was in the same fog as BushCo, I don't blame either of them, except to say that they are guilty of being sandbagged. Not to harp, but I think I'm the only one who remembers the unusual number of "security alerts" at the nation's airports in the Summer of 2001 -- and thinking "what do they know that I don't?"

This is goalpost moving. You asked; I answered. But Clinton was most decidedly NOT in the same fog as BushCo. While everyone was embroiled in the Lewinski affair, Clinton bombed al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistanwhich Limbaugh lampooned as blowing up an aspirin factory to distract from the impeachment craziness. To claim that Clinton was in the same fog as BushCo is uninformed at best and deliberately dishonest at worst.

Quote:
Afghanistan, maybe -- that's not winnable, though; if W had ever tried to push Nukes he would, fact be nuked, (and then blamed for being in bed with Big Energy); trains? I guess; NOLA, I don't think anyone can counter that level of incompetence and corruption -- on the national level that goes into the "oh, let's get more bureaucracy to solve our problems" file.

Goalpost moving, again. You asked; I answered. These are things he could have done and didn't do. And I'm particularly fond of the last bit there: Bush couldn't have done anything because everyone he hired was incompetent?

Quote:
At any rate, what could any of these things have done? We know that nukes and electric cars are probably "the" answer to the high cost of energy, but who is doing anything about it?

I'm pretty sure I said something up there about renewable sources of energy. I didn't mention this one: battery technology. I, for one, would like to see a few billions dumped into that. We can make all the energy we need; we just can't store it.

But again, this is all goalpost moving. Bush could have done something and didn't.

Quote:
Pelosi -- who was "going to clean up the house" and promised us out of Iraq? Nothing has been done.

You asked about Bush, not Pelosi or Obama.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #87 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

At any rate, what could any of these things have done? We know that nukes and electric cars are probably "the" answer to the high cost of energy, but who is doing anything about it? Pelosi -- who was "going to clean up the house" and promised us out of Iraq? Nothing has been done. We can't even stop the ethanol madness. We want the oil company executives in front of the Senate to ask them "why they keep the price of oil so high" but wont build new refineries, when we really don't want people using more gas, but then whine when the market gives us just that -- It's insane..

Funny thing is, it was Bush the candidate who promised not to engage in nation building, but did the exact opposite when he invaded Iraq under false pretenses. Read all about it in What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception by Scott McClellan.

Funny thing is, it was Bush the candidate who promised to reduce CO2 emissions;

[CENTER]
Quote:
Sept. 29, 2000, Bush said: “We will require all power plants to meet clean-air standards in order to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, mercury and carbon dioxide within a reasonable period of time.”

Quote:
Mar. 13, 2001, Bush wrote: “I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a ‘pollutant’ under the Clean Air Act.”

[/CENTER]

Funny thing is, it was Bush the candidate who promised to reduce tax rates on the wealthy, and he did keep that promise, meanwhile running up the national debt via deficit spending by a total percentage of revenues, only exceeded by another Republican, Ronald Reagan.

Funny thing is, it was Bush who had an approval rating of 90% immediately after 9-11, and nearly seven years later has an approval rating of just 28%, a drop of 62%, an all time record.

Funny thin is, it is not refining capacity that's the root cause of high gas prices, seeing as the EIA shows the U.S. currently at only ~90% of current total domestic refining capacity. Oh, and how does refining capacity affect the global price of a barrel of crude oil? Help us all understand that one, will you?

And speaking about the world market price of a barrel of crude oil, that just hit $138+/barrel on Friday, how does this world price affect the price of domestic production? A domestic production that accounts for ~25% of our total oil utilization (e. g. we are currently importing ~ 75% of our oil from overseas sources (that number may seem high but it accounts for the percentage of domestic production exported)). Wherein even if we drill for new oil in 6000+ ft of water in the Gulf of Mexico, the costs of that exploration and production are recouped in a 1-2 year timeframe maximum (it's usually less than 12 months).

So maybe now you see where the oil companies make all their profits from, charging the world price for domestic oil production, that costs nowhere near the going price of global crude oil.

Oil companies domestic oil production profits = Cha-Ching!

Funny thing is, if Bush leaves office the U.S. will likely be in the middle of a serious recession, very high fuel and food prices, massive unemployment (by the most recent modern metrics), a housing meltdown, and who knows what else.

All due to the uncompromising Bush administration, so much for "compassionate conservatism."
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #88 of 283
Dishonest arguments? Check

Moving goalposts? Check

Once called on it resorting to arguing that we're all fucked anyways because we're valueless heathens? Check

Now all he needs are couple obscure and/or insane metaphors designed to make himself feel smart, and we'll have the full cycle!
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #89 of 283
Or just start labeling him a tuhrrist. I posted this in the "History made" thread but as usual the shit "fair and balanced" Fox News puts out is so surreal it begs "sharing".

terrorist fist jab

post #90 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilsch View Post

Or just start labeling him a tuhrrist. I posted this in the "History made" thread but as usual the shit "fair and balanced" Fox News puts out is so surreal it begs "sharing".

terrorist fist jab


This...Don't Mess with Moyers

Quote:
A few hours ago a producer from Fox's Comedy show, The O'Reilly Factor, started peppering Bill Moyers with asinine questions. Moyers, as you probably could have predicted, made a fool of the guy. Thanks and appreciation go to The Uptake for the video.

Cheers to Bill Moyers on standing up to Fox's Porter Barry, Moyers is one of the only real journalists left.
post #91 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilsch View Post

Or just start labeling him a tuhrrist. I posted this in the "History made" thread but as usual the shit "fair and balanced" Fox News puts out is so surreal it begs "sharing".

terrorist fist jab


Bud Light Fist Bump Is Out, Slapping In
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #92 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

This...Don't Mess with Moyers



Cheers to Bill Moyers on standing up to Fox's Porter Barry, Moyers is one of the only real journalists left.


I heard that " think how cheap oil will be " alot during the begining of the war. God! What idiots! Also nice to see one of those clowns from FOX dressed down.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #93 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

This is goalpost moving. You asked; I answered. But Clinton was most decidedly NOT in the same fog as BushCo. While everyone was embroiled in the Lewinski affair, Clinton bombed al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan—which Limbaugh lampooned as blowing up an aspirin factory to distract from the impeachment craziness. To claim that Clinton was in the same fog as BushCo is uninformed at best and deliberately dishonest at worst.



Goalpost moving, again. You asked; I answered. These are things he could have done and didn't do. And I'm particularly fond of the last bit there: Bush couldn't have done anything because everyone he hired was incompetent?



I'm pretty sure I said something up there about renewable sources of energy. I didn't mention this one: battery technology. I, for one, would like to see a few billions dumped into that. We can make all the energy we need; we just can't store it.

But again, this is all goalpost moving. Bush could have done something and didn't.



You asked about Bush, not Pelosi or Obama.

Goalpost moving, my royal American ass, Clinton had no idea that AQ was anywhere near as dangerous as it was, and had -- what -- three years to figure it out? Bush had eight months -- and still had no ideas either, except maybe to bomb Afghanistan more often. 9/11 was the quintessential failure of groupthink; it isn't arguable any other way -- institutionally speaking, no one saw it coming.

Worldwide, no one saw it coming.

But in any case, it isn't going to bring down the price of oil, or give Americans a positive savings rate.

On Afghanistan, it's not winnable -- by anyone. NATO isn't having any luck either. Unless you mean it as "going after Bin Laden." I've already said that, unless BushCo is silently working miracles in befriending India, or Iraq suddenly blossoms into some sort of cultural touchstone, that he and his people are completely incompetent. That said, the world's biggest debtor nation is going through exactly the same [analogous] thing Britain went through a century ago -- and no president can stop China, or Russia, or India -- or Venezuela for that matter -- from bringing their natural/labor resources to bear. We are losing our influence; it would have been nice to have a foreign policy that at least softens that blow.

But his policy in Afghanistan isn't going to keep us from comic levels of bad debt, or force us to educate to the same standards as India.

The thing with "what is Bush doing for renewable energy" is a canard. I read in BHO's mission statement that ShawnJ linked to, that he is going to 'mandate a 50% increase in fuel efficiency by 2030.' Really? All that's stopping us from rewriting the laws of thermodynamics and the fact the internal combustion engine is the most efficient thing we know of, is some government mandate? Even under Bush, and before we spend millions in research a year. You make it sound the the combined interests of worldwide R&D have no interest in a holy grail of that magnitude. What do you think the world's scientists are looking for, how harness butterfly hormones to improve tractor pull attendance?

And, no you can't leave out Pelosi, or the bueracracy, or the groupthink -- we were just fine making everybody happy with the ethanol placebo. Everybody was patting themselves on the back for being so green, when in reality it was just a convenient way of making the farmers and oil companies happy. Pelosi promised you lovely lefties the world -- and didn't deliver anything -- they preached "Change" till they were blue in the face, and knew good and well that it was empty rhetoric to support a power grab. When people like her or BHO can descend into chronic anti-intellectualism, that will flunk any freshman out of Econ 10 -- grill oil executives over 'why they keep the price of gas so high' -- it actually becomes impossible to deal with the realities of the situation.

Point being, no one is doing anything, and no one is going to anything until we get to a crisis -- which they will be more than happy to "save" us from by adding more layers of bureaucracy, and lengthening the Federal tentacles. That isn't going to change, either.

To sum, Bush or Clinton or BHO can do very little to change anything, and have no incentive to do so. They have every incentive to increase Federal power by allowing things to become perversely distorted before acting. They can't make us eat right, lose weight, save money, educate better, and they can't intervene in worldwide fungible commodity markets, or control the price of other commodities, or mandate scientific innovation -- the market is always going to be years ahead of them.

It's all a sham to make people feel like they are incontrol -- when the dirty little secret is that we are our own problems.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #94 of 283
And so, as the sun sets on Republican hegemony, DMZ moves fully into his "nothing can be done, they are all thieves and knaves, the end times can't come soon enough" phase, which will last until Republicans are back in charge, at which point his full attention will turn, again, to the grotesque misdeeds of a marginalized and relatively powerless left.

Extra points for regarding "winning elections" as a "power grab", though.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #95 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

BRussell, if what you're saying is true, we haven't heard from them since.

For the second time, did you read my post? It links to an editorial written by a governor that was specifically citing how the Bush administration stopped states from enacting regulations that could have prevented much of this crisis. We know exactly why this happened: scam loans combined with a downturn in the housing market. We couldn't have done much about the downturn, but we could have stopped the scam loans. And we knew those scam loans were out there, people wanted to do something about it, people said they wanted to do something about it, Bush didn't let them do anything about it, and they told us so. So don't give me this "we haven't heard from them since."
post #96 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Goalpost moving, my royal American ass, Clinton had no idea that AQ was anywhere near as dangerous as it was, and had -- what -- three years to figure it out? Bush had eight months -- and still had no ideas either, except maybe to bomb Afghanistan more often. 9/11 was the quintessential failure of groupthink; it isn't arguable any other way -- institutionally speaking, no one saw it coming.

Worldwide, no one saw it coming.

I don't know how you can say that with a straight face. Clinton took steps to investigate terrorism (after the first WTC bombing, he created an anti-terrorism task force), though the intelligence was faulted by the wrangling between the CIA and the FBI. Neither would cooperate with each other, or with foreign intelligence either. Faulty intelligence will delay or impair any investigation or operation.

But they did have enough intelligence to give to the Bush administration to continue. They didn't.

As far as the world not knowing there were countless intelligence agencies sending intel warning to us that an attack (via hijackings and crashing them into buildings) from Britain, Germany, Italy, France and others. All ignored or never followed through. Not even a memo given to Bush in August of 2001 made any difference.

But this is off topic anyway. Look it up on your own time and get a clue.
post #97 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

The thing with "what is Bush doing for renewable energy" is a canard. I read in BHO's mission statement that ShawnJ linked to, that he is going to 'mandate a 50% increase in fuel efficiency by 2030.' Really? All that's stopping us from rewriting the laws of thermodynamics and the fact the internal combustion engine is the most efficient thing we know of, is some government mandate? Even under Bush, and before we spend millions in research a year. You make it sound the the combined interests of worldwide R&D have no interest in a holy grail of that magnitude. What do you think the world's scientists are looking for, how harness butterfly hormones to improve tractor pull attendance?

CAFE standards

No laws of thermodynamics or aerodynamics are broken as you suggest, in fact these laws are a requirement in our understanding of how to improve fleet average fuel economy in the long term. Real CAFE standards with teeth, not the Bush administration's non-existent, U.S. automaker pleasing toothless standards.

In fact, government inaction has placed us in our current predicament, as the manufacturers and consumers were allowed to flatline the CAFE requirements, by making, marketing, and buying less efficient personal transportation that wasn't covered by any CAFE requirements (e. g. the light truck category).

[CENTER]
Quote:
The CAFE rules for trucks were officially amended at the end of March 2006. However, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned the rules, returning them to NHTSA, stating that the rules must be made stricter.
.
.
.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found these new Light Truck rules to be arbitrary and capricious; contrary to the Environmental Pollution Control Act; incorrectly set a value of zero dollars to the global warming damage caused by truck emissions; failed to set a "backstop" to prevent trucks from emitting more CO2 than in previous years; failed to set standards for vehicles in the 8,500 to 10,000 lb range; that the environmental impact assessment was inadequate, and that the rules may have had significant negative impact on the environment. The court directed NHTSA to prepare a new standard as quickly as possible and to fully evaluate that new standard's impact on the environment.
.
.
.
There are a large number of technologies that manufacturers can apply to improve fuel efficiency short of implementing hybrid or plug-in hybrid technologies. Applied aggressively, at a cost of several thousand dollars per vehicle, the National Transportation Board of the National Academy of Sciences estimates that these technologies can almost double MPG.

[/CENTER]

Again, we can thank the Bush administration and "compassionate conservatism" for completely ignoring the basic principles of aerodynamics and thermodynamics and implementing toothless fuel economy standards, a the behest of the U.S. automobile makers.

Oh, and did you see where both Ford and GM will be cutting back on SUV and light truck manufacturing due to high fuel costs? GM wants to sell off it Hummer line.

Criticism of sport utility vehicles

[CENTER]
Quote:
Criticism of sport utility vehicles is the expression of disapproval of sport utility vehicles (SUVs) made by various groups, organizations, and individuals. The criticism is largely concerned with the risks posed by the vehicles to other road users and to the environment, and also suggests that some of the perceived benefits to the vehicle owner are illusory or exaggerated.
.
.
.
One reason for the SUV's popularity is the perception that they have significant safety advantages over smaller vehicles, but SUVs are more likely to roll over, more likely to be in a single-car accident and more likely to cause harm to other road users.
.
.
.
The recent popularity of SUVs is generally thought of as one reason the U.S. population has begun to consume more gasoline than in previous years. SUVs are as a class much less fuel efficient than comparable passenger vehicles. The main reason is that SUVs are classified by the U.S. government as light trucks, and thus are subject to the less strict light truck standard under the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations. The CAFE requirement for light trucks is an average of 20.7 mpg (US), versus 27.5 mpg (US) for passenger cars (11.4L/100km and 8.6L/100km, respectively).

By design SUVs have numerous fuel-inefficient features. Their high profile increases wind resistance and their mass requires heavier suspensions and larger engines, which both contribute to increased vehicle weight. Many SUVs come with tires designed for off-road traction rather than low rolling resistance.


This is the free market for you, always a day late and a dollar short.
[/CENTER]
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #98 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

For the second time, did you read my post? It links to an editorial written by a governor that was specifically citing how the Bush administration stopped states from enacting regulations that could have prevented much of this crisis.

BRussell, did Bush tell S&P to rate the loans as well? This is not that simple.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #99 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

...which will last until Republicans are back in charge...

Sorry, Charlie, I didn't do that four years ago, I'm about to start now. Four years ago I thought Rice's "genius" had an ace up her sleeve -- that faded after we trade a NIE report for Iran cutting back on their terror campaign in Iraq.

You should answer the question, too -- what, of the serious problems that we face, can any president cause or solve? (And you can't get around the fact that the DNC played you guys for fools in the 2006 elections.)

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #100 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Sorry, Charlie, I didn't do that four years ago, I'm about to start now. Four years ago I thought Rice's "genius" had an ace up her sleeve -- that faded after we trade a NIE report for Iran cutting back on their terror campaign in Iraq.

You should answer the question, too -- what, of the serious problems that we face, can any president cause or solve? (And you can't get around the fact that the DNC played you guys for fools in the 2006 elections.)

.. bitter? I'd rather play the fool than be governed by the current Republican administration of fools.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #101 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

CAFE standards

No laws of thermodynamics or aerodynamics are broken as you suggest, in fact these laws are a requirement in our understanding of how to improve fleet average fuel economy long term.

You can't put the emissions gunk on those engines and have your MPGs -- if you want internal combustion engines and clean air, you'll have to choose. People like to show charts of CAFE standards, but omit that fact that emmision controls (EGR valves, etc.) are nowhere near what they were in 1980. You also can't build infrastructure with no thought of the future and walk away from it when it's convenient. Those 50 mile commutes are going to have consequences.

And if a car company anywhere in the world could even begin to approach those standards, we'd be hearing about it -- but even those flimsy death traps coming out of India, or even in places that don't put emissions controls on their cars can't get these mythical efficiency numbers. You're writing as if America is the world and if it isn't being tried here, it isn't being tried everywhere. Even a Vespa scooter tops out a 80 MPG. No politician is going to change that.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #102 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

You can't put the emissions gunk on those engines and have your MPGs -- if you want internal combustion engines and clean air, you'll have to choose. People like to show charts of CAFE standards, but omit that fact that emmision controls (EGR valves, etc.) are nowhere near what they were in 1980. You also can't build infrastructure with no thought of the future and walk away from it when it's convenient. Those 50 mile commutes are going to have consequences.

And if a car company anywhere in the world could even begin to approach those standards, we'd be hearing about it -- but even those flimsy death traps coming out of India, or even in places that don't put emissions controls on their cars can't get these mythical efficiency numbers. You're writing as if America is the world and if it isn't being tried here, it isn't being tried everywhere. Even a Vespa scooter tops out a 80 MPG. No politician is going to change that.

Otherwise, you'd know what is, and is not, possible. Suffice it to say that I do and you don't.

What percentage of the U.S. population makes 50 mile daily commutes? Just saying something doesn't make it so.

What percentage of fuel efficient automobiles are flimsy? Just saying something doesn't make it so.

I guess my next vehicle will be an Abrams M1A2 main battle tank, because you can never be too safe, right?

And address the argument that I put forward, i. e. the end around the U.S. automobile industry made with respect to no CAFE standard for the light truck category, TYVM.

Class effin' dismissed!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #103 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Sorry, Charlie, I didn't do that four years ago, I'm about to start now. Four years ago I thought Rice's "genius" had an ace up her sleeve -- that faded after we trade a NIE report for Iran cutting back on their terror campaign in Iraq.

It's not a matter of what you claim to think, it's a matter of what inspires you to post. There's a whole coterie of people here very proud of their independent thinking, but somehow the only thing they get truly indignant about is the horribleness of liberals. Then their proof of even handedness comes up exactly as here-- as a sort of flat "I disagreed" limply proffered in the fact of being challenged on what is clearly a profoundly partisan way of thinking.

Mind you, I have no problem with partisan thinking, being an enthusiast myself. What I have a problem with is a specious effort to add "integrity" into the mix by pretending to be a stern critic of all comers.

Quote:
You should answer the question, too -- what, of the serious problems that we face, can any president cause or solve?

That is not the question, though, since it summarily precludes even the possibility of action, and the only reason you want to do that is that the problems we now face-- the disaster in Iraq, global warming, energy policy, income disparity, out of control credit markets, etc.-- all look like they might call for suspiciously "liberal" approaches-- disengagement and negotiation with "bad guys", economic planning and direct intervention in markets by governments, social policy, regulation, etc. Faced with such a dreadful prospect, you simply declare the problems unsolvable.

Oddly, you didn't seem to feel so constrained when the question was "how do we bring the glories of our way of life to the middle east?", since the proposed solutions to that problem merely involved getting a lot of (mostly anonymous dark) people killed, as opposed to something really catastrophic, like increasing your taxes.

At any rate, there's something peculiar in demanding that we must "solve" problems or simply admit our fecklessness, and there is something entirely cynical in having discovered this principal after eight years of Bush admin lassitude-- apparently out of concern that some kind of concerted effort might break out and disturb your serene contemplation of man's fallen nature. I'm sure you'll get your reward in heaven, but personally I wouldn't mind giving it the old college try.

Quote:
(And you can't get around the fact that the DNC played you guys for fools in the 2006 elections.)

I guess I'll try getting around it once I know what it means.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #104 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

And so, as the sun sets on Republican hegemony, DMZ moves fully into his "nothing can be done, they are all thieves and knaves, the end times can't come soon enough" phase, which will last until Republicans are back in charge, at which point his full attention will turn, again, to the grotesque misdeeds of a marginalized and relatively powerless left.

Extra points for regarding "winning elections" as a "power grab", though.

Pretty much.

It's more of the old " It's all the same nothing will make a difference so why even try " ploy.

Like I've said the wind has changed and the herd ( of elephants ) is restless.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #105 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

I don't know how you can say that with a straight face. Clinton took steps to investigate terrorism (after the first WTC bombing, he created an anti-terrorism task force), though the intelligence was faulted by the wrangling between the CIA and the FBI. Neither would cooperate with each other, or with foreign intelligence either. Faulty intelligence will delay or impair any investigation or operation.

But they did have enough intelligence to give to the Bush administration to continue. They didn't.

As far as the world not knowing there were countless intelligence agencies sending intel warning to us that an attack (via hijackings and crashing them into buildings) from Britain, Germany, Italy, France and others. All ignored or never followed through. Not even a memo given to Bush in August of 2001 made any difference.

But this is off topic anyway. Look it up on your own time and get a clue.

They had those guys a couple of times, and the FBI either couldn't get the warrant, or ignored the tips. Other than that, yes, Clinton took the crime approach to the WTC, Kenya, Tanzania, Riyadh, and Cole bombings, for all the good it did them.

What they did or did not get passed on to the Bush administration couldn't have prevented 9/11, even if they kept exactly the same policy. I call into question the numerous reports of warnings of highjackings and flying them into buildings. In any case, the summer of 2001 was full of security alerts at the airports, so they knew something was up. But like I said, they had those guys dead to rights a couple of times and -- but were stopped by technicalities, to the point of even flagging several of them in Boston. But the existing directives were not enough to stop them. Even if Bush has said, "we're going to change security at the airports on Jan. 20th, it would have taken months to hash out the protocols and filter things through the bureaucracy. And certain people would, of course called him a Nazi for "taking away their freedom;" not to point fingers, but that is just one very real disincentive.

Plato makes the point that, in a way, we already know all things, otherwise we wouldn't be able to recognize something we haven't seen before. The business with the highjackers bears that out, in that, without some sort of foreknowledge, without it even being a believable possibility -- not just an option on paper -- that the large numbers of people needed to look for it just weren't there. Again, not something one man can do much about. Kuhn makes this point in terms of scientific discovery.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #106 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

They had those guys a couple of times, and the FBI either couldn't get the warrant, or ignored the tips. Other than that, yes, Clinton took the crime approach to the WTC, Kenya, Tanzania, Riyadh, and Cole bombings, for all the good it did them.

What they did or did not get passed on to the Bush administration couldn't have prevented 9/11, even if they kept exactly the same policy. I call into question the numerous reports of warnings of highjackings and flying them into buildings. In any case, the summer of 2001 was full of security alerts at the airports, so they knew something was up. But like I said, they had those guys dead to rights a couple of times and -- but were stopped by technicalities, to the point of even flagging several of them in Boston. But the existing directives were not enough to stop them. Even if Bush has said, "we're going to change security at the airports on Jan. 20th, it would have taken months to hash out the protocols and filter things through the bureaucracy. And certain people would, of course called him a Nazi for "taking away their freedom;" not to point fingers, but that is just one very real disincentive.

Plato makes the point that, in a way, we already know all things, otherwise we wouldn't be able to recognize something we haven't seen before. The business with the highjackers bears that out, in that, without some sort of foreknowledge, without it even being a believable possibility -- not just an option on paper -- that the large numbers of people needed to look for it just weren't there. Again, not something one man can do much about. Kuhn makes this point in terms of scientific discovery.

Look reports of OSBL traing people with airplanes as weapons sat on Bush's desk while 911 was going on.


" I call into question the numerous reports of warnings of highjackings and flying them into buildings. "

Based on what?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #107 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Clinton took the crime approach to the WTC, Kenya, Tanzania, Riyadh, and Cole bombings, for all the good it did them.

You do not know what you are talking about.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #108 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

They had those guys a couple of times, and the FBI either couldn't get the warrant, or ignored the tips. Other than that, yes, Clinton took the crime approach to the WTC, Kenya, Tanzania, Riyadh, and Cole bombings, for all the good it did them.

What they did or did not get passed on to the Bush administration couldn't have prevented 9/11, even if they kept exactly the same policy. I call into question the numerous reports of warnings of highjackings and flying them into buildings. In any case, the summer of 2001 was full of security alerts at the airports, so they knew something was up. But like I said, they had those guys dead to rights a couple of times and -- but were stopped by technicalities, to the point of even flagging several of them in Boston. But the existing directives were not enough to stop them. Even if Bush has said, "we're going to change security at the airports on Jan. 20th, it would have taken months to hash out the protocols and filter things through the bureaucracy. And certain people would, of course called him a Nazi for "taking away their freedom;" not to point fingers, but that is just one very real disincentive.

Plato makes the point that, in a way, we already know all things, otherwise we wouldn't be able to recognize something we haven't seen before. The business with the highjackers bears that out, in that, without some sort of foreknowledge, without it even being a believable possibility -- not just an option on paper -- that the large numbers of people needed to look for it just weren't there. Again, not something one man can do much about. Kuhn makes this point in terms of scientific discovery.

... you start making obtuse references to many philosophers, ad infinitum?

And what exactly does that have to do with the price of gas in China?
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #109 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Otherwise, you'd know what is, and is not, possible. Suffice it to say that I do and you don't.

What percentage of the U.S. population makes 50 mile daily commutes? Just saying something doesn't make it so.

What percentage of fuel efficient automobiles are flimsy? Just saying something doesn't make it so.

I guess my next vehicle will be an Abrams M1A2 main battle tank, because you can never be too safe, right?

And address the argument that I put forward, i. e. the end around the U.S. automobile industry made with respect to no CAFE standard for the light truck category, TYVM.

Class effin' dismissed!

I guess you could put every commuter in America on a Vespa, short of that, what can you expect of fuel economy in the future? But even then you'd still have to run the infrastructure.

I guess Bush could force us to ride scooters. I guess this were more than a distraction for political purposes, that's what would be done?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #110 of 283
Quote:
To sum, Bush or Clinton or BHO...

Of all the people to try and stir up anti-Muslim anger, I find it fascinating that it's dmz...

HUSSEIN! HUSSEIN! HUSSEIN! HUSSEIN!
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #111 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

I guess you could put every commuter in America on a Vespa, short of that, what can you expect of fuel economy in the future? But even then you'd still have to run the infrastructure.

I guess Bush could force us to ride scooters. I guess this were more than a distraction for political purposes, that's what would be done?

You are purposefully ignorant on the subject material. Why is that so?

I posted the CAFE link, fuel economy standards are already on the books, read the link!

[CENTER]
Quote:
This standard requires ratable increases in fuel efficiency during the model years 2011 to 2020 reaching 35 mpg in 2020 for the total fleet of passenger and non-passenger automobiles. In the years 2021 to 2030 the standards requires MPG to be the "maximum feasible" fuel economy. The law allows NHTSA to issue additional requirements for cars and trucks based on the "Footprint" model or other mathematical standard. Additionally each manufacturer must meet a minimum standard of the higher of either 27.5 mpg for passenger automobiles or 92% of the projected average for all manufacturers.

[/CENTER]

Your argument, in essence that "I think all passenger vehicles will have to be made out of cardboard" is lame and weak from the get go. You consistently are a defeatocrat. for whatever dour despotic reasoning you put forward. Why is that so?
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #112 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

You do not know what you are talking about.

Oh, stop it, you know what I mean. They were going to capture Bin Laden and put him on trial, and then in prison; the same for the rest of the bad guys. Certainly not an investigatory hellfire missile.

Of course they cruise missiled his training camps a couple [?] of times. But the broad approach was to catch terrorists, not to stop a decapitation attempt of the Federal Government, and Western financial markets.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #113 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

Of all the people to try and stir up anti-Muslim anger, I find it fascinating that it's dmz...

HUSSEIN! HUSSEIN! HUSSEIN! HUSSEIN!

actually, I thought it was more of a play on BTO, but what with all my evil intentions and all....

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #114 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

You are purposefully ignorant on the subject material. Why is that so?

I posted the CAFE link, fuel economy standards are already on the books, read the link!

franksargent, are we talking about solving the problem or just putting everybody in an Accord?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #115 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

I guess you could put every commuter in America on a Vespa, short of that, what can you expect of fuel economy in the future? But even then you'd still have to run the infrastructure.

Well, you tell us since you seem to be the fuel economy standards expert

If not then you should at least acknowledge your naysaying as uninformed.
post #116 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

franksargent, are we talking about solving the problem or just putting everybody in an Accord?

No, we're talking about addressing the problem, instead of ignoring it.

You're demanding some kind of bullet point list that would conclusively "solve" the problem, and there is no such animal.

Why should that preclude even trying? And "trying" means "trying", as in "make an effort, evaluate the results, modify as necessary." In this case, it means "make many efforts, throw resources behind those that seem most promising, and commit to the long haul."
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #117 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

It's not a matter of what you claim to think, it's a matter of what inspires you to post. There's a whole coterie of people here very proud of their independent thinking, but somehow the only thing they get truly indignant about is the horribleness of liberals. Then their proof of even handedness comes up exactly as here-- as a sort of flat "I disagreed" limply proffered in the fact of being challenged on what is clearly a profoundly partisan way of thinking.

Mind you, I have no problem with partisan thinking, being an enthusiast myself. What I have a problem with is a specious effort to add "integrity" into the mix by pretending to be a stern critic of all comers.



That is not the question, though, since it summarily precludes even the possibility of action, and the only reason you want to do that is that the problems we now face-- the disaster in Iraq, global warming, energy policy, income disparity, out of control credit markets, etc.-- all look like they might call for suspiciously "liberal" approaches-- disengagement and negotiation with "bad guys", economic planning and direct intervention in markets by governments, social policy, regulation, etc. Faced with such a dreadful prospect, you simply declare the problems unsolvable.

Oddly, you didn't seem to feel so constrained when the question was "how do we bring the glories of our way of life to the middle east?", since the proposed solutions to that problem merely involved getting a lot of (mostly anonymous dark) people killed, as opposed to something really catastrophic, like increasing your taxes.

At any rate, there's something peculiar in demanding that we must "solve" problems or simply admit our fecklessness, and there is something entirely cynical in having discovered this principal after eight years of Bush admin lassitude-- apparently out of concern that some kind of concerted effort might break out and disturb your serene contemplation of man's fallen nature. I'm sure you'll get your reward in heaven, but personally I wouldn't mind giving it the old college try.



I guess I'll try getting around it once I know what it means.

addabox, we have several major problems, education is below world standards, we have an undersupply of skilled labor, the cost of commodities is going way, way up, and we are losing our leadership role in the world due to two major developing countries coming into their own, as well as the EU coming online. Add to this the mortgage fiasco that just about blew our heads off, or Enron, or whatever stunt gen-X executives can dream up.

What liberal policy, or "direct market intervention" or president can change these things?

And don't take my silence on the RNC as any sort tacit agreement.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #118 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

franksargent, are we talking about solving the problem or just putting everybody in an Accord?

No... we're talking about the government further restricting the free market. That's what this usually comes down to, because it's the goal they start out with long before they find the vehicle to accomplish it.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #119 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

No, we're talking about addressing the problem, instead of ignoring it.

You're demanding some kind of bullet point list that would conclusively "solve" the problem, and there is no such animal.

Why should that preclude even trying? And "trying" means "trying", as in "make an effort, evaluate the results, modify as necessary." In this case, it means "make many efforts, throw resources behind those that seem most promising, and commit to the long haul."

Well I have news for you, putting everyone in a 35 mpg car is not addressing the problem.

And even if we did, then what? Why doesn't Pelosi and her fellow miracle workers simply "address" the problem by fazing out anything under 30 mpg? Bush could veto it, and they could act like they're doing something. Meanwhile we can keep building unsustainable cities and feel good about our commuting in our ethanol-powered Priuses.

That's therapeutic, not addressing the problem.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #120 of 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

franksargent, are we talking about solving the problem or just putting everybody in an Accord?

... a Yugo to "solve" our personal energy transportation needs. Actually, I'd impose tough gas guzzler tax penalties at the pump, for those that choose to drive energy inefficient vehicles.

Burt then again I'll never be POTUS either.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › How Will They Slime Obama? COMPETITION!