IN OBAMA'S OWN WORDS ON ISSUE # 1

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The word "sweater" was NEVER used in my post. Find it, and i'll never post again. Man, up bitch.

Just wanted to address how petty and lame you are with this one. You used the stupid Hat example, and I referred to the Jimma Carter talk about turning the thermostat down and wearing a sweater. The fact that you can't make the connection speaks volumes about you. I wasn't 'calling you out' on anything. And please, keep posting. I need the amusement.

Your direct quote said, "No, you talked about sweaters"

Please be accurate about what you say i said.

Stupid hat example. Exactly. Defeated, so you label it stupid. The last refuge of the incompetent.

The fact that you try and correlate JFK's hat influence and Carter's one time wearing a sweater and influencing fashion...speaks volumes about your duplicity. Not to mention you failing to address or admit when you are wrong.

More to the point..if i fail to make a correlation..that is because you are a poor communicator.

Keep embarrasing yourself. You can't address the car mpg rollbacks, the cuts in alternative energy, the cuts in conservation, the destruction of ethanol, the lack of a coherent energy policy..other than..use more oil.

[mraynrand]

2. Aids...are you kidding me. RR didn't even acknowledge AIDS. He underfunded it. He left appointments open. Give you enough rope and you hang yourself everytime. Aids...i can't stop laughing.
LOL

Keep laughing. I wasn't addressing energy policy. I was addressing your faith in government to solve problems through research. You specifically mentioned that Reagan cut funding for solar and ethanol. My point is simply that the government can't mandate discoveries. Reagan's views on AIDS had nothing to do with my point, which was that billions have been spent on HIV research, with no vaccine (But 'underfunding' as you suggest is a matter of opinion). You implied that with more money spent on ethanol research , similar in form to when Obama suggested with his "Iraq war money for magic engine speech" that the investment of money itself is some sort of guarantee. Government policy does influence what is studied/explored or not, of course, but my point was specifically that government funded research is no guarantee of results.

[bobblehead]

And you can prove that the current administration has prevented terrorist attacks how?

You can't prove that I'm not an alien who is controlling your thoughts either. As a matter of fact, I am, and the fact that you can't prove different supports my arguement.

[mraynrand]

You can't address the car mpg rollbacks, the cuts in alternative energy, the cuts in conservation, the destruction of ethanol, the lack of a coherent energy policy..other than..use more oil.

I wasn't addressing these issues. I was addressing the hope of government spending leading to breakthroughs. Again, your referred to cuts in ethanol and solar research as though they are reason why there have not been breakthroughs. As though the research has been crippled and breakthroughs are impossible. As far as I can tell, research has continued.

BTW, what do you mean by the 'destruction of ethanol?' Sounds like a weekend of heavy drinking to me.

[The Leaper]

You are making my point. The people, the parties, etc...dont' want drilling in florida.

I agree that has been very true in the past...Florida's tourism industry is very strong, and has always been opposed to offshore drilling.

However, current polling suggests that the opinion of many Americans is changing. I understand your point that Florida likely won't be as quick to change as other areas in the nation...and I agree. That doesn't mean there aren't other states that are ready to start drilling right now. Florida might not immediately decide to drill...that doesn't mean we should prevent every other state from having the right to allow drilling if they want.

[mraynrand]

More to the point..if i fail to make a correlation..that is because you are a poor communicator..

There's personal accountability for you.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

2. Aids...are you kidding me. RR didn't even acknowledge AIDS. He underfunded it. He left appointments open. Give you enough rope and you hang yourself everytime. Aids...i can't stop laughing.
LOL

Keep laughing. I wasn't addressing energy policy. I was addressing your faith in government to solve problems through research. You specifically mentioned that Reagan cut funding for solar and ethanol. My point is simply that the government can't mandate discoveries. Reagan's views on AIDS had nothing to do with my point, which was that billions have been spent on HIV research, with no vaccine (But 'underfunding' as you suggest is a matter of opinion). You implied that with more money spent on ethanol research , similar in form to when Obama suggested with his "Iraq war money for magic engine speech" that the investment of money itself is some sort of guarantee. Government policy does influence what is studied/explored or not, of course, but my point was specifically that government funded research is no guarantee of results.

No, my faith was in giving money or tax breaks..like they do for numerous industries will lead to advancements. Pretty common.

There are no guarantees, but there are certainly strong bets. Ethanol..wow, you just keep making it easy. Guess those countries running on it or biodiesel..prove your point.

As for Aids..you might wanna choose a better example..as it doesn't work at all. Poor funding and all..hardly classifies as one of the examples. BTW, people are living with AIDS for a long time now...do you think that is by accident. Is your proof of gov't working..only in a vaccine..do you not think the drugs we have today are not a result of those efforts. Yikes.

Might wanna think a bit more about your examples. Take your time.

[mraynrand]

As for Aids..you might wanna choose a better example..as it doesn't work at all. Poor funding and all..hardly classifies as one of the examples. BTW, people are living with AIDS for a long time now...do you think that is by accident. Is your proof of gov't working..only in a vaccine..do you not think the drugs we have today are not a result of those efforts. Yikes.

Might wanna think a bit more about your examples. Take your time.

I see. So you say that even with poor funding for AIDS, great advancement has been made. I'll certainly keep that in mind. Also, you say that great advances have been made in ethanol, particularly in Brazil where they use sugar - but you say that ethanol research was underfunded as well. Sounds like perhaps the correct research got done in the correct place. I'll remember that too. At last I agree with you that the government can get out of the way of companies that are doing research by decreasing business taxes. I like that ideas - but across the board.

[bobblehead]

2. Aids...are you kidding me. RR didn't even acknowledge AIDS. He underfunded it. He left appointments open. Give you enough rope and you hang yourself everytime. Aids...i can't stop laughing.
LOL

Keep laughing. I wasn't addressing energy policy. I was addressing your faith in government to solve problems through research. You specifically mentioned that Reagan cut funding for solar and ethanol. My point is simply that the government can't mandate discoveries. Reagan's views on AIDS had nothing to do with my point, which was that billions have been spent on HIV research, with no vaccine (But 'underfunding' as you suggest is a matter of opinion). You implied that with more money spent on ethanol research , similar in form to when Obama suggested with his "Iraq war money for magic engine speech" that the investment of money itself is some sort of guarantee. Government policy does influence what is studied/explored or not, of course, but my point was specifically that government funded research is no guarantee of results.

No, my faith was in giving money or tax breaks..like they do for numerous industries will lead to advancements. Pretty common.

There are no guarantees, but there are certainly strong bets. Ethanol..wow, you just keep making it easy. Guess those countries running on it or biodiesel..prove your point.

As for Aids..you might wanna choose a better example..as it doesn't work at all. Poor funding and all..hardly classifies as one of the examples. BTW, people are living with AIDS for a long time now...do you think that is by accident. Is your proof of gov't working..only in a vaccine..do you not think the drugs we have today are not a result of those efforts. Yikes.

Might wanna think a bit more about your examples. Take your time.

World Health Organization is against you tyrone:
============================================

The head of the World Health Organization’s HIV/AIDS department has officially admitted for the first time that there will be no global epidemic of the disease among the heterosexual population outside Africa, The Independent reported.

Kevin de Cock said global prevention strategies to address AIDS as a risk to all populations, among the WHO and major AIDS organizations, may have been misdirected. It is now recognized that, with the exception of sub-Saharan African, it is confined to high-risk groups.

These groups include men who have sex with other men, drug users who inject with needles, and sex workers and their clients, The Independent reported.

“It is very unlikely there will be a heterosexual epidemic in other countries,” de Cock is quoted in The Independent. “Ten years ago a lot of people were saying there would be a generalized epidemic in Asia — China was the big worry with its huge population. That doesn't look likely. But we have to be careful. As an epidemiologist it is better to describe what we can measure. There could be small outbreaks in some areas.”

However, AIDS still kills more adults than all wars, and is winning against current efforts to address it, The Independent reported. A WHO/U.N. AIDS report published in June shows less than a third of people in developing countries who need anti-retroviral drugs are receiving them. There were 33 million people living with HIV in 2007.

Some AIDS organizations, including the WHO, U.N. AIDS and the Global Fund have been blasted for inflating estimates of the number of people infected, taking much-needed funds from other diseases like malaria, spending it on the wrong efforts such as abstinence programs rather than condoms.

One result of the WHO’s admission may be that the vast sums of money spent on AIDS education for people who are not at risk may now be concentrated on high-risk groups.

=============================================

[mraynrand]

Some points I recall about AIDS and HIV off the top of my head. It was a 1992 Nature letter that described the first drug cocktail that essentially 'cured' AIDS.

HIVAN - (HIV associated nephropathy - as do many kidney diseases) strikes the african american community particularly hard - and I don't think anyone really knows why.

Gays and lesbians were infuriated that Magic Johnson got so much coverage, but it did raise awareness - not a bad thing, IMO.

If you read "And the Band Played on," a description of the early days of the AIDS epidemic, you will note that even the press was saying "give us something else," when they were told how the AIDS virus was hitting the gay community in San Fran in particular. They didn't want to write the story of a gay virus (and I don't blame them - the mix of promiscuity and gay behaviour made for a pretty unsavory combination, and there were terrible statements by religious 'leaders' as to the implications. I always thought that the promiscuity - described in really almost horrifying detail in the book I mention, was in many ways the most troubling part of the whole AIDS epidemic - many men were getting sick and needlessly dying).

[texaspackerbacker]

There seems to be a great desire in here to discuss a bunch of different kinds of silly shit other than issue #1--the life and death matter of preventing mass murder of huge numbers of Americans by acts of terror on American soil.

That's the way the sinister leftist mainstream media has directed things on a national scale too. WHY? Because this issue is an all out loser for Obama and the Dem/libs in general.

It's ironic that the 100% success the current administration has had has contributed to people having short memories, complacency, and a lack of fear--and thus, downgrading this as an issue.

[bobblehead]

you guys "debated" with tyrone for 4 pages without him ever stating what he stood for....I have learned my lesson and quickly try to get away from such nonsense.

RR did have an energy policy, its why we stopped waiting in lines for gas. His policy was "use what we have that is cheap and effective and wait for the other sources to catch up"

Bush has the same policy...but we are much closer to those other sources catching up and thanx to extremists we are having trouble using what we have atm. Nuclear has been far better than any source of energy we can come up with for over 30 years, but we refuse to expand and use it.

RR brought down the solar panels cuz in 1980 the cost effectiveness was a not very funny joke.

Now tyrone...without pointing out the abject failure of the republicans what would you do as an energy policy right now?

One more thing, did you know that all the nuclear waste we have created in this country...ever...can fit into a high school gymnasium? I heard that on CNN, can't say its absolute fact, but I tend to believe it based on what I know (I know that the tip of your pinky in fissile material is more powerful than a full truckload of coal.)

[MJZiggy]

What was the reason they stopped using nuclear? (caveat: it's a real question, not rhetoric)

[sheepshead]

What exactly has the Bush administration done to make oil prices so high?

What have they done to make them come down? Everything the administration has done has pushed them higher.

Like what?

[bobblehead]

What was the reason they stopped using nuclear? (caveat: it's a real question, not rhetoric)

Nuclear...ohhh...scary word....think atomic bomb....be scared. Chernobyl, three mile island...20 people died, never mind that the numbers of coal workers dying compared to nuclear is....well...not comparable.

The radical left has a tizzy about us living in the dark ages. It just came out today that several HUGE solar projects in the deserts of nevada will be delayed 23 months while we study environmental impact. Gimme a frickin break...the french are kicking our ass on nuclear energy, we should be ashamed.

Basically the radical left (not mainstream) has cockblocked any new licensing of nuclear plants for over 30 years. They cite waste, and fear monger as if those were issues...yea, storing a byproduct after it has been recycled and broken down in a facility is somehow dangerous when they claim the byproduct of fossil fuels is gonna cause NY to fall into the ocean.

Seriously, I'm not trying to crack on the left here, cuz again, its the radical moveon.org silly branch that is standing in the way of improving our energy situation on every stinking front...I really don't fully understand their agenda other than to make us live in the dark ages.