U.S. Presidential race - Democrat Discussion

[Felya]

I was wrong, my bad...

---------- Post added 2012-10-06 at 05:08 AM ----------

Mitt claims the actual numbers are 11 percent.

Job Report says 7.8

Why can't I claim they are lower if Mitt can?

Because you know better and become an example of the very thing you know Romney is doing wrong.

[Bobdoletoo]

You're saying "why can't I lie if he can". That makes you as bad as he is. Look, the article claims that the numbers should 6.8%, not 7.8%, given what Obama was trying to do. However, because he was stifled and his initiatives weren't allowed to be implemented fully, they aren't at 6.8%. So not only are you lying about the numbers, you're saying that this author is also making these claims. You are being disingenuous to an absurd degree.

So it's a regular Friday for Fused and his unbelievably slanted views?

Infracted

[FusedMass]

So it's a regular Friday for Fused and his unbelievably slanted views?

You know I dislike you and your pointless right wing agenda. Don't you bob.

[Felya]

You know I dislike you and your pointless right wing agenda. Don't you bob.

Yet, you see no reason why you shouldn't be doing the same thing, but for the other side, that makes you hate him? Congrats, you proved bob right for the first time I have seen in all his posts. It is so much worse when you perpetuate the very thing you hate.

Edit:

An off topic edit about something to lighten the mood:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...ary-roughness/

In a rare instance of the NFL cracking down on an illegal hit from a kicker, Arizona’s Jay Feely has been fined for a personal foul.

----

For our none American posters... A goalie drew a red card...

[Bobdoletoo]

Yet, you see no reason why you shouldn't be doing the same thing, but for the other side, that makes you hate him? Congrats, you proved bob right for the first time I have seen in all his posts. It is so much worse when you perpetuate the very thing you hate.

Edit:

An off topic edit about something to lighten the mood:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...ary-roughness/

In a rare instance of the NFL cracking down on an illegal hit from a kicker, Arizona’s Jay Feely has been fined for a personal foul.

----

For our none American posters... A goalie drew a red card...

I saw the fine, was pretty funny. Fused is so biased he thinks I have a right wing agenda, because he views everything through the democratic/obama lens. I am an independent conservative, something he could not fathom to understand. I do not see anyone combating me in the same way everyone combats fused. Even wells, the defender of all things democratic will not stick up for fused...because fused is that delusional.

[Wells]

Even wells, the defender of all things democratic will not stick up for fused...because fused is that delusional.

If we're dragging my opinion into this I don't think you're any better.

Also:

Fused is so biased he thinks I have a right wing agenda, because he views everything through the democratic/obama lens. I am an independent conservative, something he could not fathom to understand.

Irony?

[Shadowmelded]

Even wells, the defender of all things democratic

Can we request Sunshine to make this Wells' new title? Defender of Democracy has a nice ring to it.

[Deleted]

No they aren't. The costs of pollution and their effects are frequently not included at all. That was one of the major bases behind something like a carbon tax: to help put the true cost of burning fossil fuels into the actual price.

Dude, we just went through this. Some environmental costs are paid by society, as I said.

But smrund was saying that things like transporatation and mining aren't included in the cost of coal energy because it happens so far away from the actual process of producing this electricity.

Please don't stick your nose in without reading what we're saying. I always said that coal is more harmful to the environment than most alternatives, it's just that coal happens to be a very cheap source of energy. And it was to this that smrund said that coal really isn't cheap because the cost of mining etc aren't included. Which is bullshit because they are baked in the price of coal.

[Deleted]

Guys, quit jabbing at each other. Take your private problems to PM's and discuss politics here, not how much you dislike one another.

[ptwonline]

Dude, we just went through this. Some environmental costs are paid by society, as I said.

But smrund was saying that things like transporatation and mining aren't included in the cost of coal energy because it happens so far away from the actual process of producing this electricity.

Please don't stick your nose in without reading what we're saying. I always said that coal is more harmful to the environment than most alternatives, it's just that coal happens to be a very cheap source of energy. And it was to this that smrund said that coal really isn't cheap because the cost of mining etc aren't included. Which is bullshit because they are baked in the price of coal.

He was wrong about things like transport costs, but he also mentioned environmental costs. You said that much of the environmental costs were paid by the supply chain and included in the price. The exact quote:

"He mentioned environmental impacts, and much of it is paid by the supply chain and thus included in the price"

That isn't even remotely true. Most of the pollution is not cleaned up at all (polluted land, air, and water), most of the effects are on people's health which they do not pay for, and the most expensive effects are the change in climate, increase in extreme weather, and the adverse effects these have on people's businesses and properties. Those aren't included in the price either.

[Deleted]

He was wrong about things like transport costs, but he also mentioned environmental costs. You said that much of the environmental costs were paid by the supply chain and included in the price. The exact quote:

"He mentioned environmental impacts, and much of it is paid by the supply chain and thus included in the price"

That isn't even remotely true. Most of the pollution is not cleaned up at all (polluted land, air, and water), most of the effects are on people's health which they do not pay for, and the most expensive effects are the change in climate, increase in extreme weather, and the adverse effects these have on people's businesses and properties. Those aren't included in the price either.

Alright, because you didn't read all the posts but you seem to have a desire to poke your nose in, let me recap:

1. Smrund says we don't need more coal because it's bad for the environment.
2. I say, that's true, but it's also a very cheap source of energy and losing it means our standards of living will suffer as energy becomes more expensive.
3. Smrund says that coal isn't a cheap source of because the costs are much more spread among so many different phases (mining, transport), while other energy sources involve only the building of a powerplant to produce it.
4. I respond that it isn't true, that all these spread out costs will be baked in the cost of producing energy from coal as each part of the supply chain adds their own premium in the mix. I also say that the only costs that aren't fully baked in are possible externalities like pollution that isn't covered by the government imposing sanctions. (see this post).
5. Smrund links to a wiki article that supposedly says that coal is expensive, yet it actually says that coal is the cheapest source of energy in most researches.

Lastly, the whole discussion about the price of coal was never about the environmental cost. We both agreed that moving away from coal to alternative energies means less pollution. What I raised was the point that the alternative energies are more expensive to produce, which means that we're trading better environment for a slightly lower standard of living (due to higher energy prices).

[ptwonline]

Alright, because you didn't read all the posts but you seem to have a desire to poke your nose in, let me recap:

1. Smrund says we don't need more coal because it's bad for the environment.
2. I say, that's true, but it's also a very cheap source of energy and losing it means our standards of living will suffer as energy becomes more expensive.
3. Smrund says that coal isn't a cheap source of because the costs are much more spread among so many different phases (mining, transport), while other energy sources involve only the building of a powerplant to produce it.
4. I respond that it isn't true, that all these spread out costs will be baked in the cost of producing energy from coal as each part of the supply chain adds their own premium in the mix. I also say that the only costs that aren't fully baked in are possible externalities like pollution that isn't covered by the government imposing sanctions. (see this post.

Lastly, the whole discussion about the price of coal was never about the environmental cost. We both agreed that moving away from coal to alternative energies means less pollution. What I raised was the point that the alternative energies are more expensive to produce, which means that we're trading better environment for a slightly lower standard of living (due to higher energy prices).

If you don't like people "poking their nose in" because you're embarrassed about being pointed out for inaccuracies, then I suggest not posting things publicly and discussing them privately instead.

[Deleted]

If you don't like people "poking their nose in" because you're embarrassed about being pointed out for inaccuracies, then I suggest not posting things publicly and discussing them privately instead.

The only reason I don't like that is when you don't read the whole discussion chain and thus do not understand what the argument is about, or what has already been covered.

You didn't point out any inaccuracies that hadn't already been covered.

[ptwonline]

The only reason I don't like that is when you don't read the whole discussion chain and thus do not understand what the argument is about, or what has already been covered.

You didn't point out any inaccuracies that hadn't already been covered.

I quoted your inaccuracy that was made near the END of the chain of discussion. It was not something mentioned, called out, and then clarified. It was itself an attempt to clarify, and it was wrong.

Anyway not worth discussing ay further since you've obviously dug your heels in.

[Deleted]

Anyway not worth discussing ay further since you've obviously dug your heels in.

Umm, except in most areas the coal energy supply chain is forced to pay for much of the environmental damage, as I mentioned, like cleaning-up operations when a mine is shut down or taxes to the government. Of course they don't pay for all potential pollution, but I never said that anyway.

[ptwonline]

Good news: 2012 federal deficit dropped by about 15%
Bad news: Federal deficit was still $1.1 trillion

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8941F720121006

Just like the job numbers, things are improving but it's taking longer than people would like. If Obama wins then next year's deficit should clock in at somewhere around $750B but since some of the Bush tax cuts will likely have to be renewed in order to avoid the fiscal cliff, so I'm guessing next year it will be closer to $900B.

[Felya]

Umm, except in most areas the coal energy supply chain is forced to pay for much of the environmental damage, as I mentioned, like cleaning-up operations when a mine is shut down or taxes to the government. Of course they don't pay for all potential pollution, but I never said that anyway.

Much like with BP, it rarely justifies the damage. It also never includes the price tax payer covers for the cancer agents the plant releases in it's natural production circles. The price is justified only in short term benefits to the plant owner, but not the lasting damage to the land and the people.

But, that's the crux of any environmental issue. What price do we set on damage to our land and air, to justify the short term economic benefit?

[Deleted]

Much like with BP, it rarely justifies the damage. It also never includes the price tax payer covers for the cancer agents the plant releases in it's natural production circles. The price is justified only in short term benefits to the plant owner, but not the lasting damage to the land and the people.

But, that's the crux of any environmental issue. What price do we set on damage to our land and air, to justify the short term economic benefit?

This is another debate anyway. We weren't talking about that, but rather the actual cost that translates into energy prices.

[Felya]

Good news: 2012 federal deficit dropped by about 15%
Bad news: Federal deficit was still $1.1 trillion

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8941F720121006

Just like the job numbers, things are improving but it's taking longer than people would like. If Obama wins then next year's deficit should clock in at somewhere around $750B but since some of the Bush tax cuts will likely have to be renewed in order to avoid the fiscal cliff, so I'm guessing next year it will be closer to $900B.

It sorta confirms what the administration has been saying about a small stimulus resulting in slow growth. It highlights Obama's almost passive attitude, when it comes to standing up to congress. He knew this would happen, but was too passive and compromising to get done what needed to be done. Republicans undoudebly share the blame here, but Obama simply needed to do what a previous president as done, by carrying a big stick...

[ptwonline]

It sorta confirms what the administration has been saying about a small stimulus resulting in slow growth. It highlights Obama's almost passive attitude, when it comes to standing up to congress. He knew this would happen, but was too passive and compromising to get done what needed to be done. Republicans undoudebly share the blame here, but Obama simply needed to do what a previous president as done, by carrying a big stick...

Carrying a big stick only works if the targets fear the consequences. With the Tea Partiers they don't care if the country crashes and burns. They might even want that since it could mean building from the ground up with a new social order...one more of their own liking. Just look at the Debt Ceiling fight. They were all gung ho to let the default happen and the disastrous consequences for the USA and the world.