Presidential Candidates-2008--Who Supports Us?

[weetee]

I am curious why everybody thinks that stricter emissions/pollution laws will cripple the country? What are the reasons/examples for this point of view?

Because these laws will inhibit our ability compete globally. Your statement shows the problem I'm talking about. You seem to think that "emissions/pollutants" are the same. They are not. Greenhouse gasses are emitted but it is desputable as to whether they do any harm. The more we can encourage bussinesses to stay in our country, or move to our country, the better off we will be, and you don't do this by passing a bunch of BS global warming laws that raise business operating costs. Now pollution, that's a different matter, and needs to be restricted, globally. Everyone I know wants a clean planet.

 

[Bagger]

Good point WeeTee, it's important to keep in mind the differances that you point out.

Perception is everything. People aren't illegal anymore, they are guest workers. And your right it's not pollution, it's emissions. Good luck with making a machine of anytype that doesn't emit something.......
We need better deliniation on what emissions cause harm and which ones don't. People don't usually think for themselves I'm afraid and just hear what people say until they believe it as fact. B

 

[ruffryder]

Because these laws will inhibit our ability compete globally. Your statement shows the problem I'm talking about. You seem to think that "emissions/pollutants" are the same. They are not. Greenhouse gasses are emitted but it is desputable as to whether they do any harm. The more we can encourage bussinesses to stay in our country, or move to our country, the better off we will be, and you don't do this by passing a bunch of BS global warming laws that raise business operating costs. Now pollution, that's a different matter, and needs to be restricted, globally. Everyone I know wants a clean planet.

um, I don't consider greenhouse gases emissions/pollutants. Never heard of a pollutants test for vehicles only an emissions test and they don't look at greenhouse gases. That is what I meant. All pollutants are emissions and some emissions are not pollutants. A square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square.

Anyways, So limiting greenhouse gases will kill our economy but restricting pollutants needs to be done? Sounds contradictory.

So if the end result is the same, reducing emissions and reducing pollution, does it really matter. So what if the majority of the public thinks global warming is happening, as long as the end result is reduced pollution, isn't it the only thing that important?

I guess I look at strict emissions requirements as a new market that will open up and allow Americans to dominate on the global market. We could create/design/engineer products and sell them globally along with our expertise. We should be dominating the clean energy, efficient everything market. We have the expertise, knowledge and workforce, but we aren't doing anything about.

Also, I doubt many companies will move because of the increased cost of operating due to emissions requirements. Many companies that can move, already have for cheaper labor costs. I would think the additional cost would be high to begin with, but after some time costs would be reduced to a much smaller amount. This happens with any new technology when first brought into the market.

Out

 

[weetee]

The end result is NOT the same. What do you think the politicians are talking about when they say "cap greenhouse pollutants? It will be illegal to burn carbon fuels, no matter how clean they are. The new coal fired power plants are quite clean, but emit greenhouse gasses. We have more coal than Saudi Arabia has oil, and you dont want to use this because of bad science? Natural gas power plants burn realy clean, and we should shut them down also? I'm sorry, but that will have adverse effects on our economy. We need to lead the world in CLEAN energy, not bad science.

 

[ruffryder]

The end result is NOT the same. What do you think the politicians are talking about when they say "cap greenhouse pollutants? It will be illegal to burn carbon fuels, no matter how clean they are. The new coal fired power plants are quite clean, but emit greenhouse gasses. We have more coal than Saudi Arabia has oil, and you dont want to use this because of bad science? Natural gas power plants burn realy clean, and we should shut them down also? I'm sorry, but that will have adverse effects on our economy. We need to lead the world in CLEAN energy, not bad science.

I guess I am thinking about how politics work. Normally they promise the world and deliver half or less of what the promise, so if they promise to do a lot to reduce emissions (your word definition), but don't do enough, the end result would be that they would reduce pollutants.

How is that? I guess that is how I am thinking on the subject. Illegal to burn carbon fuels? I haven't heard that. I do know there is no way in the world that generation will be retired without new generation put into place to make up for it (whether it be importing more or new infrastructure). The electricity will always meet demand, that is national security right there.

I guess the point I am making is that I want politicians to promise more than want is realistic to deliver what is realistic rather than promise what is realistic and deliver something substandard.

Maybe this is a jaded view of looking at things.

Question though, won't clean energy come from mandates due to bad science (ie global warming). I think that it would.

 

[weetee]

At what cost? That is the question!

 

[Bagger]

Scary Stuff

I guess the point I am making is that I want politicians to promise more than want is realistic to deliver what is realistic rather than promise what is realistic and deliver something substandard.
Question though, won't clean energy come from mandates due to bad science (ie global warming). I think that it would.

This train of thought is just what scares me. Talking heads that MIS-quote BAD science, voters that listen to the talking heads and take it as gospel, officials elected by those voters that know even less than anyone else in this sorry mess making LAWS that shape the future of the world.

Boy, nothing to go wrong there.

I think we'd be much better off to develop clean energy based on the merits of having clean energy, not because of the unsubstanciated threats of the Global Warmers. B

 

[Wade]

We need to develop energy sources that rid us of Middle East Oil (as well as Africa and South American Oil). That by itself would save a lot of unnecessary energy usage.

But, there's no such thing as clean energy. Maybe Geothermal, Hydropower, and wind power, and solar thermic, are fairly clean. But, they have there environmental costs.

Carbon Dioxide being classified as a pollutant will limit the United States greatest energy asset. Coal.

 

[XC700116]

Sounds like the rednecks I am talking about.



Um, they are not rednecks, they are farmers. Haven't met any redneck farmers in my neck of the woods. I was a farmer, tree farmer actually. Maybe I haven't met to many of farmers kids?QUOTE]


I'm sorry to put it so bluntly but KNOW WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT BEFORE YOU OPEN YOUR MOUTH.

Do this: Research the origin of the term REDNECK. (strongly tied to the farmer) And stop using it to describe azzholes. If it's azzholes you are talking about call them that.

Once you've educated yourself on the origin or the term you will see why I'm irritated as a true redneck.

Also I'm from a rural area in MN and our biggest group of the AZZHOLES you call rednecks are from metro areas that come to my home town in the lakes area and think they own the place. Litter, trespass, loud and obnoxious and say we're the backwards rednecks that are destroying the environment. I'm not saying all or trying to make a blanket majority statement of the urban population. but more of a statement of the majority of the azzholes in the area and where they come from. It's normally a very rich elitest area of the twin cities and i'll leave it at that.

They are the same ones that come to my home town and tell me that I can't have a friggen boat on my property unless it's inside the Garage. Want me to help pay to pave a road that doesn't need it because their builder payed off the local zoning commision for a variance to build their "cabin" on too small of a lake lot leaving it right next to the road. Say that we are destoying the environment but when you fly over their "cabin" with the Golf course lawn and you can see the excessive weed bed in front of it due to fertilizer run-off and the weedroller by their dock so their beech is nice and clean dispite what they've done to the rest of the friggen lake.

 

[XC700116]

In all honesty, I work at one of the premier medical facilities in America and the world, I won't say where though. But the truth is, Drs and residents order a ton of chit that they don't need right away when less will due. Also just plain order alot of chit they don't need. Which is why I will be one of the worst patients ever if I land in the hospital.

OK, being from MN I'm pretty sure I know where you work in which you should very well agree with my next point.

The reasons our medical costs are so high are many but to top the list are the following.

RED TAPE: Governmental regulations that make developments and research more expensive.

LAWYERS: Frivilous lawsuits against doctors driving malpractice insurance rates higher and higher. This also prompts doctors to request unneeded tests to rule out the rare possibilities to avoid lawsuit or to provide a documentation trail to defend themselves if it happens.

Socialized Medicine in other countries: Socialized medicine has driven the best minds to come to the USA to persue their profession. It limits the income of doctors in other countries which brings them here (this is a good thing) but is also means that we incur all the costs of medical advances. Development of new drugs and techniques happen here and costs must be recouperated here since profits are limited elsewhere. Socialized medicine in this country would severely limit the advances due to a lack of incentive for great minds to go into medicine and the educational costs it entails versus going into say engineering or other fields.

The medical and pharmacutical fields need to be managed effectively. Making a socialized medical system in the USA will eventually damage medicine worldwide. It will make our tax burden skyrocket and it will not solve our problems in health care.

 

[XC700116]

I agree with Wade on the alternative energy situation.

You can't get something for nothing. Look into the laws of thermodynamics. I wrote a thesis paper on the subject in college.

Wind, Hydro, Solar, Geothermal all have their drawbacks and impact. Are they better alternatives maybe, it's too early to tell.

One thing is for certain as long as we are dependant on Oil from foreign markets we will be at their mercy.

As long as the big oil companies have the influence in government and industry we will not see the efficiency that is needed from our automakers. The technology is there but has been bought up and burried by the oil companies. Good business for them but bad concience.

Ruffy: I know I hit you pretty hard in my post earlier but you really need to rethink your redneck statements.

As for the electrical demand will always be met statement. Tell that to the people in southern CA that had to endure the rolling brownouts this last summer. More sources are needed as well as better cleaner options.

Not too far from where you live there is a VERY large Nuclear plant nearly completed and then never fueled that was mothballed due to Greenies going bonkers and spouting half truths and lies about the "dangers" of nuclear power. Millions of dollars thrown out the window due to the misguided agenda of environmentalists.

 

[xrated]

Wade I agree that we need more energy sources. First of I recommend The Bottomless Well. Havent' read all of it or understood most of it....but a great read on energy in the US and where it will go.

We can burn coal cleaner and more efficent, ie cheaper, if the government let up on regulations of new plants. Same with oil refineries. Nuclear, it is a very cheap and very safe way to produce mass amounts of power...but most people are scared of it. As for solar, the cost to build infastructre is beyond reason, the price woudl take years to equal out. Same with wind power. Plus everyoen wants it, just NIMBY. Look at the Kennedys and other power familys who have homes on the east coast. That area out at sea is perfect for wind turbines, but THEY don't want the view wrecked. Also turbines are best placed in windy areas, areas birds migrate through. You don't have to think real hard to see what will happen.

Basically what I have taken from The Bottomless Well, whcih I haven't even gotten half way through, is that the best bet for us is to improve our current system of coal, etc. They say we will continue to find cheaper adn cheaper ways to acces the raw materials and ways to convert it until we find an even cheaper better way.

XC, I totally agree with you on the Eden Praire, Minnetonka, western burbs, opps, I mean elite city folks! It's amazing how they all want to control weed growth on the lakes and promote natural shorline...just as soon as their landscaping and personal dock mounted weed trimmer are installed. I'm guessing you are from the Brainered area since it's the only are with lakes and absolutly no gravel roads.

 

[xrated]

One more thing Xc, I agree almost with all of what you say about the medical field. I will add that yes many of the best Drs do come here...but it can be very difficult to understand what the fug they are saying at times, especially high stress situations. Very frustrating.

One more thing that I'm sure most wouldn't like to hear, that is along the lines of ordering extra stuff to cover their azz. It is ridiculous the exams that are ordered because that is the way it has been for years. IE, my training Dr did this and his training doc did it, so I better do it as well.

 

[Bagger]

Hummmmm

Seems to me the common thread in this, um, thread is people, ALL people need to smarten up before they speak up.
I think it's great that someone believe's in something. I just think it's a shame when they don't look at the whole picture.
I can't think of too many instances in my life when I knew everything I needed too. I may have thought I did, may have spouted off crap with the arrogance of complete knowledge, but almost always I found out later I was missing something......
The origional point of this thread was looking at the Candidates for which one best suited the needs of sledders.
Maybe we should have made it, "what is important to sledders" instead?
I know I'm enjoying it!

B

 

[XC700116]

XC, I totally agree with you on the Eden Praire, Minnetonka, western burbs, opps, I mean elite city folks! It's amazing how they all want to control weed growth on the lakes and promote natural shorline...just as soon as their landscaping and personal dock mounted weed trimmer are installed. I'm guessing you are from the Brainered area since it's the only are with lakes and absolutly no gravel roads.

Yep from just north of Brainerd. Oh and you for got Wyzeta (sp?), and Edina but you pretty much nailed the others. Tonka being first on the list. I used to bounce at a Bar in Crosslake and had to deal with these clowns when they're full of liquid courage and start purse swinging matches (they call that fighting?).

 

[XC700116]

I can't think of too many instances in my life when I knew everything I needed too.

Well, said and I agree with you (for myself, not trying to jab you) it's just too bad that especially when it comes to political debate and discussion 99.99% of people will never admit that and many won't even consider another opinion as valid.

 

[xrated]

Yep from just north of Brainerd. Oh and you for got Wyzeta (sp?), and Edina but you pretty much nailed the others. Tonka being first on the list. I used to bounce at a Bar in Crosslake and had to deal with these clowns when they're full of liquid courage and start purse swinging matches (they call that fighting?).

yep makes me glad that McGregor lakes never got Brainered big. Although I do enjoy a trip to Emily or even Cross Lake once in a while.

 

[XC700116]

Wow what a coikydink I grew up in Emily. That's where some A-hole Nazi from Elk river was hired as a "planner" and has somehow brainwashed the city council into paving everything and trying to tell people what color they can paint their houses and every other aspect of what they can and can't do. It's not a development with an HOA its a town.

Magregor and every other town like it is just a matter of time unfortunately.

 

[xrated]

Wow what a coikydink I grew up in Emily. That's where some A-hole Nazi from Elk river was hired as a "planner" and has somehow brainwashed the city council into paving everything and trying to tell people what color they can paint their houses and every other aspect of what they can and can't do. It's not a development with an HOA its a town.

Magregor and every other town like it is just a matter of time unfortunately.

Naw, McGregor is too swampy!!!

Bagger I'm with ya, I'm lovign the dialouges on this thread!

 

[ruffryder]

I'm sorry to put it so bluntly but KNOW WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT BEFORE YOU OPEN YOUR MOUTH.

Do this: Research the origin of the term REDNECK. (strongly tied to the farmer) And stop using it to describe azzholes. If it's azzholes you are talking about call them that.

Once you've educated yourself on the origin or the term you will see why I'm irritated as a true redneck.

I know where the origin came from, but its meaning in popular culture has changed. I guess you take offense to all those "you might be a redneck jokes...." too?

Many words in the US language have changed meaning, when people use these words they are speaking using the new meaning, not the old meaning.