U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-17-2008, 10:59 AM
 
Location: Raleigh, NC
9,043 posts, read 11,597,606 times
Reputation: 1392

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by LNTT_Vacationer View Post
And the reality is that Obama wants to see higher priced gas for just the reasons you stated. . . one of the reasons he hasn't gone for the "gas holiday" stuff.
Gas holiday is a gimmick. The price will merely rise to accomodate additional demand and we'll be in the precarious situation of having crumbling highways and additional debt. Just another pathway towards destroying our currency.

Gas is cheap, sorry you don't agree. Unfortunately, it's also the dollar that's cheap.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-17-2008, 12:22 PM
 
Location: New Jersey
2,665 posts, read 3,414,302 times
Reputation: 579
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
I think Gore's loss in Tennesse may have had less to do with Gore and more to do with the state in general moving to the right (as in fact the entire country in did in 2000). In 2004 the state also went Republican in regards to it's Presidential choice and McCain currently holds a substantial lead over Obama (as he did against Clinton) in polls today.

Ken
True to a degree although I don't think the country has moved to the right as much as the democratic primary process has produced some far leftist libs. . . such as this year's choice. But Gore's rise and fall from favor in Tennessee is spectacular.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2008, 12:23 PM
 
Location: New Jersey
2,665 posts, read 3,414,302 times
Reputation: 579
Quote:
Originally Posted by ViewFromThePeak View Post
Gas holiday is a gimmick. The price will merely rise to accomodate additional demand and we'll be in the precarious situation of having crumbling highways and additional debt. Just another pathway towards destroying our currency.

Gas is cheap, sorry you don't agree. Unfortunately, it's also the dollar that's cheap.
Obama's position that gas prices should be higher is a valid party platform. Tweak the details about how fast and how high the prices should go and run with it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2008, 12:40 PM
 
2,765 posts, read 6,510,186 times
Reputation: 1448
Easy for him to say, he probably hasn't even purchased a tank of gas with his own money in ages.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2008, 12:44 PM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
19,872 posts, read 22,783,088 times
Reputation: 7186
Quote:
Originally Posted by LNTT_Vacationer View Post
True to a degree although I don't think the country has moved to the right as much as the democratic primary process has produced some far leftist libs. . . such as this year's choice.
That's because NOW the tides have shifted. 2004 was probably the crest. The country is generally shifting back to the Left (as the 2006 elections have demostrated).

Ken
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2008, 02:18 PM
 
3,568 posts, read 3,278,507 times
Reputation: 1364
Quote:
Originally Posted by LNTT_Vacationer View Post
Obama's position that gas prices should be higher is a valid party platform. Tweak the details about how fast and how high the prices should go and run with it.
I like that idea. Let Obama defend the indefensible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2008, 02:21 PM
 
Location: Raleigh, NC
9,043 posts, read 11,597,606 times
Reputation: 1392
Quote:
Originally Posted by LNTT_Vacationer View Post
Obama's position that gas prices should be higher is a valid party platform. Tweak the details about how fast and how high the prices should go and run with it.
Dont' care about Obama's platform. I don't support him.

McCain is trying to play Santa Claus every bit as much with gimmicks that come close to the realization of hyperinflation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2008, 02:23 PM
 
3,568 posts, read 3,278,507 times
Reputation: 1364
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
Actually you have hit the very crux of the issue.
Folks who argue against Global Warming usually use the argument that it's a natural occurance and part of a system of normal cycles. While it's probably true that what we are going through is part of a normal natural cycle, the fact is that even if that is true (which it probably is) that does not mean that man-made Global Warming is not occuring as well. It's NOT an either-or situation.

Evidence that our industially created greenhouse gasses are warming the earth is overwhelming and the vast majority of the scientific community has accepted that as fact. The only REAL questions remaining revolve around HOW MUCH of an impact we are having and HOW FAST the changes will take place. There is MUCH debate over these questions.

Clouding the issue are those various natural climatic changes that the earth undergoes from time to time. It's like the husband and wife who both work and both put their money into the same checking account. Once the money is all mixed up and various sums are spent out of it to cover bills and other expenses, there is no way to determine what the original source was for any particular dollar. Some of the climate change that going on probably comes from natural cycles and some probably comes from man-made sources.

What I find incredulous is the contention that because a natural cycle is involved in raising the temperatures, that somehow we don't need to be concerned. That's totally illogical. If your computer models indicate that a CO2 increase of X percent will increase the global temps by Y degrees then how is it better that this comes ON TOP of the natural increases occuring anyway? To me, it would be MORE of a concern that we are potentially piling one (man-made) wave crest ON TOP of another (naturally occuring) wave crest which means the impacts will be EVEN GREATER than they would be otherwise and therefor may require even faster more drastic action.

In addition, A LOT of the criticisms of the Global Warming theory that I see here on this board and elsewhere on the web reflect a SERIOUS lack of intellect and education.

One poster on this board posted repeatedly that the earth is warming simply because we are spiraling into the sun!!!!! This fact is DEAD wrong and shows incredible ignorance. First of all we are moving AWAY from the sun and secondly the amount of our movement is TINY (something like a centimeter a year).

Another poster claimed that planting more trees added to Global Warming because trees give off CO2 so we should stop planting trees. This is a classic case of "a LITTLE knowledge is a dangerous thing" as this poster knew JUST ENOUGH to reach a completely wrong conclusion. Yes trees give off CO2, but they also take in CO2 and convert it to oxygen and on balance they take in far more CO2 than they give off.

And then there's my personal favorite - where one poster contended that although the glaciers along Greenlands' coastal areas may be melting, those at the higher elevations would remain intact because it's colder at the higher altitudes - completely ignoring the fact that glaciers FLOW DOWNHILL and the faster the ice melts at the lower elevations, the faster the ice at the higher elevations will flow down to replace it (DUH!!!!!!!). If the ice melts at the bottom faster than it's replaced at the top the glacier gets smaller and smaller until it is gone completely.

In any event, yes there questions about the accuracy of some of the claims of Al Gore's film - mainly because of the issue I mentioned of being unable to effectively distinquish between what is natural and what is man-made. What is pretty certain however, is the BIG PICTURE - and in that regard Al Gore most certainly has it right - and he deserves credit for drawing such attention to the problem.

Ken
Here's an inconvenient truth for you. There has been no appreciable global warming since 1998. That's why the environMENTALS have again moved the goal posts and are now talking about "climate change." Indeed, even global warming hawks are now conceding that we are probably in a cooling period which may last until 2020. In other words the earth's feeeever is on hiatus.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2008, 02:30 PM
 
Location: Old Forge, NY
585 posts, read 1,996,163 times
Reputation: 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by LNTT_Vacationer View Post
And the reality is that Obama wants to see higher priced gas for just the reasons you stated. . . one of the reasons he hasn't gone for the "gas holiday" stuff.
Obama didn't buy into the "gas holiday" bull because he's smarter than that. McCain and Hillary only supported it because they thought they'd get more votes. It was nothing more than a stunt. It backfired because most people (thankfully) knew the gas holiday would only temporarily help. The demand for gas would bump up during the holiday, then would the prices increase as well.

If the Bush administration would have been a little more proactive with developing other forms of energy, we'd be further ahead in the game. Unfortunately, it's taken high gas prices to cause the market to demand alternative energy.

Last edited by Rumblebelly; 06-17-2008 at 03:10 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2008, 02:53 PM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
19,872 posts, read 22,783,088 times
Reputation: 7186
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimMe View Post
Here's an inconvenient truth for you. There has been no appreciable global warming since 1998. That's why the environMENTALS have again moved the goal posts and are now talking about "climate change." Indeed, even global warming hawks are now conceding that we are probably in a cooling period which may last until 2020. In other words the earth's feeeever is on hiatus.
That's not what NASA says. You've been reading too many unsubstantiated blogs.

Climate Progress » Blog Archive » No warming since 1998? Get real, deniers!

Here's the original nasa report:
Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2007 Summation

From the NASA report: "The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the "El Niño of the century". The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle."

The key here is the final statements, that this temp (which tied 1998) occured when the temps SHOULD have been lower - indicating increasing warming even during what should have been a "dip" year.

It's a classic case of natural cycles sometimes countering global warming and sometimes adding to it. In this case the natural cycles lowered the temps and global warming raised it anyway up to match the second highest previous reading. The next time the natural cycle brings the temps up, it will be compounded by global warming, likely leading to a more extreme spike.

Ken

Last edited by LordBalfor; 06-17-2008 at 03:49 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top