| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
coboardhead
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 4303
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 1:03 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| windoggie wrote: | | jpbassking wrote: | | windoggie wrote: | | You're nuts beagle |
From one dog to another? |
How many times do I have to tell you people I'm not really a dog! |
You're just saying that to get people food! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
beaglebuddy
Joined: 10 Feb 2012
Posts: 1120
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 3:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Insulation is a good idea, never said it wasn't, as long as you are paying for it yourself. And... conservation and especially insulation will not solve our energy problem as you propose. And in fact much of the fuel saved on paper won't come to pass because of human nature, people will crank up the heat and AC because it's cheaper to run and they want to be comfortable.
There is a government program to help pay for instantaneous gas water heaters in homes, the heater is a bit more efficient but... because it never runs out of hot water people take longer showers and use more hot water especially if there are teenagers, in the end the savings are minimal but the simplest most reliable made in USA appliance was swapped out at taxpayers expense for an appliance usually made in Japan or China that now contains electronics which of course are much more likely to fail at a significant expense.
Your little chart actually demonstrates what I'm saying, where energy is cheap people use more (like coal Kentucky) and where it's expensive (like California) people use less, in the end people pay an amount that fits into their overall budget and if it suddenly gets cheaper (like with insulation) they can spend the same and be more comfortable.
Trying to make homes airtight is another issue that opens up many unintended problems.
Car safety regulations are great, never said they weren't but car crash tests are against a brick wall making it appear that a small car is just as safe as a large car. In the real world a lighter vehicle crashes into a heavier vehicle and safety features and ratings being equal the lighter vehicle and it's occupants will be crushed. That's just common sense.
Mac and Pueno, why the personal insults? Does it make you feel important or smart when you try to belittle someone on the internet? Are you making up for inadequacies and disappointments in your own lives? I'll assume you are the type that would never confront someone this way face to face and are making up for it in this impolite fashion, this is what a personality profiler would say about you.
Is it your goal to chase away the opposition with insults so you can sit around and agree with each other? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pueno
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2807
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 4:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| coboardhead wrote: | | You're just saying that to get people food! |
Are you sure it's not because he wants his belly scratched?
| beaglebuddy wrote: | | My solution is to bomb them if they look at us sideways. |
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
| beaglebuddy wrote: | | Mac and Pueno, why the personal insults? |
Insults? Personal insults? HAH!!
You're the guy who says, "Give me some data," but then when data is offered, you say, "No, that's not data, because listening to her makes me sick."
You're a joke. You are the reason so many liberals laugh at the rabid righties "in the bubble."
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
pueno said: | Quote: | | You watch that video and pull from it something -- one claimed fact -- that you think is fallacious. And then find some CREDIBLE opposing factual data (NOT OPINION), which you quote and cite. |
Most of the information (facts) were opinions (questionable or otherwise) and much was after the fact "hindsight". After 911, the intelligence surfacing about Iraq should have been a legitimate concern for the US. I doubt that anyone believes that we went to war just for the fun of it. There were serious concerns about what could happen if Iraq was left alone with only UN inspections to keep tabs.
So if you were President at the time after 911 and there was concern that Iraq could be a continuing threat to the US, what would you have done? If Bush had chosen to do nothing but work through the UN, and Saddam had moved on to other bad things, the liberals would have been all over him for doing nothing.
Bad choice going to war? Maybe, maybe not. Everyone is an expert 10-15 years later, but many forget how concerned we all were at the time regarding more terrorist attacks, and clearly, Saddam was a very bad guy.
Was the sales job overdone with dubious facts/information? Clearly, but that is easy to say 10-15 years later. At the time, it seems that there were only a few that questioned the intel, and from the video, I am not sure that any spoke up until later. I believe that Bush and his gang were seriously concerned about Iraq and what Saddam was up to and felt compelled to take him out even if the "facts" had to be oversold to get buy in for the war.
Now we are witnessing the other side of hawk/dove leadership style by what is happening in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Russia, etc. Personally, I don't want to see boots on the ground anywhere outside the US, but at times, there just may be justification. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 9120
Location: at a computer
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 10:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Techno...Iraq was not a threat to the US. Study Saddam from the date he took over power of the country. Read the exerpts of Lynn Woolsey or other liberals in the run up to war in 2002-2003....its not hindsight for many liberals in Congress who were against intervention from day1. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pueno
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2807
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| techno900 wrote: | pueno said: | Quote: | | You watch that video and pull from it something -- one claimed fact -- that you think is fallacious. And then find some CREDIBLE opposing factual data (NOT OPINION), which you quote and cite. |
Most of the information (facts) were opinions (questionable or otherwise) and much was after the fact "hindsight". After 911, the intelligence surfacing about Iraq should have been a legitimate concern for the US. I doubt that anyone believes that we went to war just for the fun of it. There were serious concerns about what could happen if Iraq was left alone with only UN inspections to keep tabs.
So if you were President at the time after 911 and there was concern that Iraq could be a continuing threat to the US, what would you have done? If Bush had chosen to do nothing but work through the UN, and Saddam had moved on to other bad things, the liberals would have been all over him for doing nothing.
Bad choice going to war? Maybe, maybe not. Everyone is an expert 10-15 years later, but many forget how concerned we all were at the time regarding more terrorist attacks, and clearly, Saddam was a very bad guy.
Was the sales job overdone with dubious facts/information? Clearly, but that is easy to say 10-15 years later. At the time, it seems that there were only a few that questioned the intel, and from the video, I am not sure that any spoke up until later. I believe that Bush and his gang were seriously concerned about Iraq and what Saddam was up to and felt compelled to take him out even if the "facts" had to be oversold to get buy in for the war.
Now we are witnessing the other side of hawk/dove leadership style by what is happening in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Russia, etc. Personally, I don't want to see boots on the ground anywhere outside the US, but at times, there just may be justification. |
"...President at the time after 911 and there was concern that Iraq could be a continuing threat to the US..."
Except that Bush's Wolf (Paul Wolfowitz), Rumsfeld, and Feith had Saddam in their crosshairs well before 9/11. They came to a conclusion that Saddam orchestrated 9/11 and then went seeking the justification.
When they couldn't hang 9/11 on him, they tried WMDs.
When they couldn't hang WMDs on him, they tried democracy.
Meanwhile, Halliburton and KBR were making gazillions in no-bid contracts.
And Americans (and Iraqis) were dying by the thousands for a war that was pointless, except for the ungodly profits to the war machine and oil industry.
(Gee, who in the Bush Admin would benefit from that??)
But........ just as I expected, you have not one single "fact" where you can cite a contrary fact. You have just generalizations that are opinions.
Of course, opinions from the right are ALWAYS better than opinions from the left.
Right?
You guys are so funny......... 
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 11:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Techno--you ask a fair question--but you seem to have not been paying attention to the course of events. You said:
| Quote: | Most of the information (facts) were opinions (questionable or otherwise) and much was after the fact "hindsight". After 911, the intelligence surfacing about Iraq should have been a legitimate concern for the US. I doubt that anyone believes that we went to war just for the fun of it. There were serious concerns about what could happen if Iraq was left alone with only UN inspections to keep tabs.
So if you were President at the time after 911 and there was concern that Iraq could be a continuing threat to the US, what would you have done? |
I get it that the potential for WMD in Iraq was a very scary thing for the sitting president, and that it could have justified an unprovoked attack. But the judgement thing is paramount--in that circumstance, what should the President have done? In retrospect, we know that Saddam destroyed his WMD capabilities, but tried to keep that secret from Iran, with which they had fought a war. The answer is, in such circumstances it is critical to collect good information and get it right before you act. The Bush administration, and particularly Cheney, did the opposite.
As Pueno points out, many of the neo-cons came into the Bush administration ready to go to war with Iraq at the slightest provocation--or excuse. Long time experts in the Middle East considered Iran far more of a potential existential threat to Israel and Middle East instability. But what did the Bush war cabinet do? Lie cheat and steal. Cheney had Scooter Libby out Valerie Plume because her husband determined, with only a modest effort, that they were lying about yellow cake uranium. He outed a respected CIA field agent, putting her life at risk, for ideology, Cheney should have been indicted and convicted, by the House during the Bush administration, and by the Obama administration after he was gone. A clear crime.
In any event, everyone outside of the Bush administration that had any level of impartiality said let the UN inspection team continue their work. Within the administration, at the military and diplomatic level, the best minds said we need more time to plan and more resources. The Bush attack on Iraq was an incompetent rush to judgement, when ample time was available to do it right. and Mitt was going to bring the whole team back. Bellicosity is deeply ingrained in Republican thinking.
Bush finally figured out that Cheney was so deeply gone in belligerence and paranoia when he campaigned to launch a nuclear attack on Iran near the end of Bush's term. To Bush's credit, he learned about the poor quality of Cheney's judgement--and integrity--but too late.
Beagle boy. You guys on the right don't get to decide that your insults and slurs are ok, and as long as you throw them at Obama or liberals in general, you have been polite and shouldn't be insulted in turn. As long as you make a coherent argument, I'll respond in kind. But when you start throwing around slurs like "tiny obama cars", and putting words in my mouth to argue that I'm opposed to democracy, you've abandoned the arena of reasoned argument. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 11:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
You all make good points, but was the war just for Halliburton and KBR's benefit? Plenty of folks were solid in their beliefs that we had to take Saddam out. Were they wrong? Maybe, but we didn't have the opportunity to see how it would have played out by allowing Saddam to stay in power.
Plenty of hind sight here, but go back to the beginning and put yourself in Bush's shoes. It just isn't all that simple.
Just look at the dove approach to Syria. How's that working? Maybe fine for us, maybe not. Time will tell. As long as our troops aren't dying, I guess it's fine for the Syrians to live and die in chaos. I am not saying this is the wrong approach, it's just reality as long as Syria doesn't seem to be a threat to the US. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pueno
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2807
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 11:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nitwit30 wrote: | As predicted my moi, "mission creep" seem to be the order of the day.
BHO is sending in 200 more of our troops.
No surprise here. |
So, let's see if we can understand your thoughtful analysis.
Obama was a bum because he wouldn't send in troops.
Now, Obama is a bum because he's sending in troops.
Did I get that right?
| techno900 wrote: | | ...but go back to the beginning and put yourself in Bush's shoes... |
It's far more accurate to say "...put yourself on Bush's puppet strings..."
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
