So no matter what happens in Massachusetts tomorrow..

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I fail to see what invading Iraq had to do with our "freedom." I tire very quickly of this jingoistic "defending freedom" trump-card. Had we not invaded Iraq, we would have not lost almost 5,000 brave young American men and women and wounded tens of thousands more, spent trillions of dollars, fostered anarchy that cost nearly 100,000 innocent Iraqi lives, and in the process incited Arabs to hate us all the more. If this is "defending freedom," I'll pass.

How do you say so well in five or six lines what it takes me five or six paragraphs to say?

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I fail to see what invading Iraq had to do with our "freedom." I tire very quickly of this jingoistic "defending freedom" trump-card. Had we not invaded Iraq, we would have not lost almost 5,000 brave young American men and women and wounded tens of thousands more, spent trillions of dollars, fostered anarchy that cost nearly 100,000 innocent Iraqi lives, and in the process incited Arabs to hate us all the more. If this is "defending freedom," I'll pass.

Why do you hate America? Why do you hate freedom?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

First, with respect to cap and trade, I have a fundamental issue with the idea that an appropriate resolution for issues of environmental degradation is to buy, sell and trade licenses to pollute.

As unsavory as it may be at face value, cap and trade was wildly successful in reducing sulfur dioxide emissions under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. The Economist called it "probably the greatest green success story of the past decade." (July 6, 2002)

That said, I think a fairly compelling argument can be made that the cost of achieving meaningful CO2 emissions reductions could be better spent directly on reducing illness/death in the developing world through inoculations, AIDS prevention, clean water, and agricultural technology support. The cost per life saved pursuing these initiatives would be orders of magnitude less than those saved by reducing global warming (if it were even possible given geopolitical considerations).

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by finnbow

As unsavory as it may be at face value, cap and trade was wildly successful in reducing sulfur dioxide emissions under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. The Economist called it "probably the greatest green success story of the past decade." (July 6, 2002)

And hence the reason that I don't reject the idea of cap and trade out of hand. Undoubtedly, this method is necessary kow-towing to capitalism, which is of course chock-full of unsavory characteristics. It might be the castor-oil that some of us lefties will have to swallow, but I would hope that a better solution might evolve.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Grumpy]

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

This is where these discussions get pointless. On the previous page you asked a question:



I tried to answer as best I could. Given that Gore worked with Clinton for a good while it seemed a logical place to look for a reasonably probably answer. So I answered your question. Never does anyone ever post "that's a good point, you're probably right". Just change the subject.

So, again, the answer to your question is almost certainly "yes". I think things would very probably be different.

I am sorry but I do not see your point. Gore, in my opinion, would have been just as brainless and listened to those around him, screaming, go to war.

Guess I don't give any politician as much credit as you, to free think.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by Writewing

The view is nice from the cheapseats and hindsight is 20/20, but the office of President isnt anyones to "give" it is earned by the Electoral College.

Ah the dear old electoral college - one of the dumbest fucking ideas I have ever seen.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by HatchetJack

Freedom for us comes at a high price. Lots of good men went down so we can do
what we do. We should be more thankful to our leaders and our fallen
brothers for allowing us to live without oppresion. We must continue to fight
the spread of camelism. I Wonder what our fallen soldiers would say to anti
war types that have no clue why their lives are as good as they are. It would
not be a pretty sight.

Jack it was a stupid choice and good people died. I have a T-shirt that DAV sent me that says "Freedom is not Free" because I send them money. But Iraq has sweet fuck all to do with my freedom or yours. So when the rest of you start supporting the Disabled American Veterans come back and natter at me about patriotism, until then please don't bother me.

If y'all want to raise Al Quaeda to the level of a nation by declaring war on them sobeit. They are nowt but a gang of murderers and should be eliminated much like you step on a cockroach. By declaring war you are tying our troops hands by the "rules of war". This is not a war it is simple pest control and should be handled as such. Six bunker busters and three Trident missiles ought to do it.

[piece-itpete]

Originally Posted by noonereal

I have to agree. I think we would be significantly healthier fiscally if the supremes did not appoint Bush king.

Kings rarely step down willingly.

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

YES!

I think the financial industry would have been regulated more effectively, we probably wouldn't have Bush's tax cuts, we probably wouldn't be in two wars right now. Who knows what other trials we would have faced in their stead, but on the whole, looking at the circumstances of the last decade, I'd say we'd be a world better off had we actually given the election to Gore as the voters wanted.

BTW, The whistle was blown on the financial shenanigans that caused this during Clintons watch.

Originally Posted by noonereal

Isn't the reluctance to step into the future a hallmark of the right?

Good god man, do you ever speak with consistence?

NO. The move into Iraq was all about the future, as we will see in coming years.

It's hard to help societies to become stable in unstable regions. The big problem wasn't little backward Afghanistan, it was Saddams Iraq.

He would certainly be doing all he could in helping our enemies in Afghanistan and Al Qaeda would be making hay over the foriegn troops in the holy land (S.A.).

Originally Posted by Boreas

We don't know, of course, but we do know that Bush's negligence made al Qaeda's job a lot easier.

A lot easier - to get to their virgins.

Originally Posted by finnbow

That said, I think a fairly compelling argument can be made that the cost of achieving meaningful CO2 emissions reductions could be better spent directly on reducing illness/death in the developing world through inoculations, AIDS prevention, clean water, and agricultural technology support. The cost per life saved pursuing these initiatives would be orders of magnitude less than those saved by reducing global warming (if it were even possible given geopolitical considerations).

What do you know Finn - we agree on something!

Pete

[doucanoe]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Now that I have a few minutes to digest this, I will engage in what could be a very enlightening discussion.

First, with respect to cap and trade, I have a fundamental issue with the idea that an appropriate resolution for issues of environmental degradation is to buy, sell and trade licenses to pollute. (Assuming that the best available science is accurate in projecting environmental effects of various enterprises.)

I agree that "green" has been overused and abused. When public awareness of environmental issues increased, even if on a very superficial level, the green paintbrush became a very useful tool for those in the marketing business. I do believe, however, that the increasing level of energy consumption, and the increasing level of dependence on foreign oil are very real environmental and economic issues. Support for the development of commercially viable products that decrease energy consumption is the type of investment that will pay long term dividends. There will always be those who want to collect those dividends without the investment, but that shouldn't result in wholesale rejection of technologies that reduce energy consumption.

To provide some purely anecdotal evidence, we have taken two significant steps in reducing energy consumption (besides shipping the boys away to school). We replaced almost every light bulb in the house with the CFDs. Within a few months, we noticed about a $10 per month decrease in the electric bills. By necessity we replaced our old furnace and air conditioner with a heat pump and much more efficient gas furnace. Because we had our bills on average pay, the decrease in the bills was gradual. Now, after two years, even with increased energy rates, our gas and electric bills are about 60% of what they were. Multiply that experience by thousands of homes, and we would see a substantial reduction in energy consumption.

Next, I agree that we need to again invest brain power in making the best products possible, and to make that a priority over making the most money possible. Those of us who are fans of vintage audio see what happens to products when the bean counters prevail over the product designers. Obviously, a big part of the shift was in response to consumer demand and to price competition. Consumers seem either satisfied with or addicted to cheap, throw-away products. They don't think about spending more to buy five different generations of a crappy product manufactured overseas, when the life of one well-made product could be extended by paying a local repairman. Who else here is old enough to remember when the TV repairman made house calls?

I don't mean to take too much pleasure in seeing one, who often takes a conservative point of view, use the phrase "tax the hell out of . . . " I really couldn't agree with you more that corporations should not profit from taking productive capacity out of the United States. How many corporate bosses received obscene bonuses as a result of ripping the livelihood from hundreds or thousands of American workers under the guise of cost-cutting?

I hope you don't mind my coloring your completely pragmatic ideas with a little lefty rhetoric. (And, yes, I realize that it is unfair and inaccurate to label you as a conservative, liberal or any other limiting term) Although it was necessary for me to maintain proper decorum, when I read your kwityerbitchen suggestion, my mind, at least was yelling yes, yes.

Regards,

D-Ray

As far as the "green" thing goes. I'm not anti-green, I just know how the system and people work. What starts of to be a good and responsible idea, quickly turns in to a convoluted bureaucratic mess. Rebuilding American industry on the notion of and revolving around "green" efforts is dangerous IMO. What do we when the wheels finally come off the global warming train In an unsubsidized marketplace, those businesses would just disappear. In a subsidized market place, failed ideas just march on with greater funding.

I guess saying "tax the hell out of..." might make some on the right cringe I really don't have an issue with taxes as such. I do have a problem with who is being taxed and why.

Labels... Might just be that the best thing we could do, would be to do away with them. Ah, what fun would that be

RC

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by doucanoe

Rebuilding American industry on the notion of and revolving around "green" efforts is dangerous IMO. What do we when the wheels finally come off the global warming train

Not sure what you mean. Bering environmentally friendly has no down side under any circumstance that I can think of.