Obama wants to limit how much Americans cat eat and use air conditioning?
-
"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said. "That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added. http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-wpxs1Re-8vx2Zk5xnYygW1W67w[^]
I'm a Christian: I *know* that I'm perverted. - Ilion
-
"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said. "That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added. http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-wpxs1Re-8vx2Zk5xnYygW1W67w[^]
I'm a Christian: I *know* that I'm perverted. - Ilion
So? He's right. We can't, and we shouldn't. Marc
-
"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said. "That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added. http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-wpxs1Re-8vx2Zk5xnYygW1W67w[^]
I'm a Christian: I *know* that I'm perverted. - Ilion
Short answer: No, he doesn't. You started your quote in the middle of his pitch which was describe in the story like this: "Pitching his message to Oregon's environmentally-conscious voters, Obama called on the United States to "lead by example" on global warming, and develop new technologies at home which could be exported to developing countries." Then he went on to say that we couldn't drive SUVs, keep our homes nice and cool and claim to be exercising global leadership in this area. You can accept or reject what he says - I think that he's full of shit, myself. We need nuclear power providing electricty to the same degree that France presently has it if we're evver going to cut down our dependence on oil - but there's no need to create bugaboos that don't exist.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said. "That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added. http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-wpxs1Re-8vx2Zk5xnYygW1W67w[^]
I'm a Christian: I *know* that I'm perverted. - Ilion
He's right.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:
At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
-
Short answer: No, he doesn't. You started your quote in the middle of his pitch which was describe in the story like this: "Pitching his message to Oregon's environmentally-conscious voters, Obama called on the United States to "lead by example" on global warming, and develop new technologies at home which could be exported to developing countries." Then he went on to say that we couldn't drive SUVs, keep our homes nice and cool and claim to be exercising global leadership in this area. You can accept or reject what he says - I think that he's full of shit, myself. We need nuclear power providing electricty to the same degree that France presently has it if we're evver going to cut down our dependence on oil - but there's no need to create bugaboos that don't exist.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Good points, but adding "That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," makes it sound to me like he wants to regulate those things, because in his sentence, the antecedent of "that" does not change between "that's not leadership" and "that's not going to happen".
I'm a Christian: I *know* that I'm perverted. - Ilion
modified on Sunday, May 18, 2008 1:38 PM
-
Good points, but adding "That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," makes it sound to me like he wants to regulate those things, because in his sentence, the antecedent of "that" does not change between "that's not leadership" and "that's not going to happen".
I'm a Christian: I *know* that I'm perverted. - Ilion
modified on Sunday, May 18, 2008 1:38 PM
I'd like to think "folks, we need to cut back a bit on consumption" doesn't need regulation to get through to people. Would you stop driving your SUV if he asked nicely and had facts and good reason backing up what he asked?
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:
At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
-
Good points, but adding "That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," makes it sound to me like he wants to regulate those things, because in his sentence, the antecedent of "that" does not change between "that's not leadership" and "that's not going to happen".
I'm a Christian: I *know* that I'm perverted. - Ilion
modified on Sunday, May 18, 2008 1:38 PM
-
I'd like to think "folks, we need to cut back a bit on consumption" doesn't need regulation to get through to people. Would you stop driving your SUV if he asked nicely and had facts and good reason backing up what he asked?
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:
At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
Paul Watson wrote:
'd like to think "folks, we need to cut back a bit on consumption" doesn't need regulation to get through to people.
"That's not going to happen" seems to imply more than just asking nicely.
I'm a Christian: I *know* that I'm perverted. - Ilion
-
I'd like to think "folks, we need to cut back a bit on consumption" doesn't need regulation to get through to people. Would you stop driving your SUV if he asked nicely and had facts and good reason backing up what he asked?
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:
At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
Paul Watson wrote:
Would you stop driving your SUV if he asked nicely and had facts and good reason backing up what he asked?
Once upon a time I drove a Ford 350 Dually (9.9 MPG), now I drive a Ranger (24 MPG). Nobody had to ask, tell, beg, explain, or tutor me, I just did the math. ;)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Exactly. "That" refers to America pulling off a "do as I say, not as I do." Actually I'd settle for telling India and China to do as we do now. Where we have warts, they have tumors.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Where we have warts, they have tumors.
In industry yes, in personal life-style, hell no. We individual Westerners have a lot of cutting back to do. If we don't then those 3 billion Chinese and Indians currently at a fraction of our consumption levels are going to see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to aspire to our levels.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:
At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
-
Exactly. "That" refers to America pulling off a "do as I say, not as I do." Actually I'd settle for telling India and China to do as we do now. Where we have warts, they have tumors.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Exactly. "That" refers to America pulling off a "do as I say, not as I do."
I interpreted "that" to mean the act of driving SUVs, keeping the air conditioner set to 72 degrees and eating as much as you want. That seems to be the general consensus on the other forum that I saw this on also. But you may be right.
I'm a Christian: I *know* that I'm perverted. - Ilion
-
Paul Watson wrote:
Would you stop driving your SUV if he asked nicely and had facts and good reason backing up what he asked?
Once upon a time I drove a Ford 350 Dually (9.9 MPG), now I drive a Ranger (24 MPG). Nobody had to ask, tell, beg, explain, or tutor me, I just did the math. ;)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Glad to hear it.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:
At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
-
Oakman wrote:
Where we have warts, they have tumors.
In industry yes, in personal life-style, hell no. We individual Westerners have a lot of cutting back to do. If we don't then those 3 billion Chinese and Indians currently at a fraction of our consumption levels are going to see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to aspire to our levels.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:
At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
Paul Watson wrote:
If we don't then those 3 billion Chinese and Indians currently at a fraction of our consumption levels are going to see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to aspire to our levels.
Will you personally guarantee that if we do cut back, they will give up those aspirations? Or simply figure that their piece of the pie got bigger?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said. "That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added. http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-wpxs1Re-8vx2Zk5xnYygW1W67w[^]
I'm a Christian: I *know* that I'm perverted. - Ilion
The amazing thing is that Obama and McCain both seem to be running to see which one of them can lose the election the fastest.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
modified on Sunday, May 18, 2008 2:47 PM
-
Paul Watson wrote:
If we don't then those 3 billion Chinese and Indians currently at a fraction of our consumption levels are going to see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to aspire to our levels.
Will you personally guarantee that if we do cut back, they will give up those aspirations? Or simply figure that their piece of the pie got bigger?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Of course I cannot guarantee that, nobody can. We can only try and hope. I don't for a moment think this is going to be easy. It is going to be monumentally difficult. I'd rather try though than just be a defeatist and go out in a blaze of glory.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:
At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
-
Oakman wrote:
Where we have warts, they have tumors.
In industry yes, in personal life-style, hell no. We individual Westerners have a lot of cutting back to do. If we don't then those 3 billion Chinese and Indians currently at a fraction of our consumption levels are going to see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to aspire to our levels.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:
At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
Paul Watson wrote:
In industry yes, in personal life-style, hell no. We individual Westerners have a lot of cutting back to do.
ANd who precisely gets empowered to define when the cutting back stops? I mean, are we talking 19th century here? How about 12th? Hell, why not 10,000 BC. Cutting back is not the answer. What we need to do is allow for massive tax breaks for all parties who invest in new forms of energy, especially nuclear fusion. Who ever comes up first with a fusion power plant that works gets to hold the patent for the next several centuries. If that fails, then we won't need to worry about cutting back because nature will take care of that for us. We need to respect the free markets and encourage investment not Obama's communist effort to confiscate 'excess profits'. Who the hell is he to say someone has excess profits?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Paul Watson wrote:
In industry yes, in personal life-style, hell no. We individual Westerners have a lot of cutting back to do.
ANd who precisely gets empowered to define when the cutting back stops? I mean, are we talking 19th century here? How about 12th? Hell, why not 10,000 BC. Cutting back is not the answer. What we need to do is allow for massive tax breaks for all parties who invest in new forms of energy, especially nuclear fusion. Who ever comes up first with a fusion power plant that works gets to hold the patent for the next several centuries. If that fails, then we won't need to worry about cutting back because nature will take care of that for us. We need to respect the free markets and encourage investment not Obama's communist effort to confiscate 'excess profits'. Who the hell is he to say someone has excess profits?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Who ever comes up first with a fusion power plant that works gets to hold the patent for the next several centuries.
It isn't just an energy problem, Stan. It is also a resource problem and nuclear fusion doesn't solve that. You'll have to start strip mining the rest of the solar system and last time I checked we can barely get guys into orbit. As much as I dislike "excess profits" I do agree that regulation/taxation etc. is not the way. Some cut-backs now will help us survive long enough to solve these problems.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:
At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
-
Paul Watson wrote:
In industry yes, in personal life-style, hell no. We individual Westerners have a lot of cutting back to do.
ANd who precisely gets empowered to define when the cutting back stops? I mean, are we talking 19th century here? How about 12th? Hell, why not 10,000 BC. Cutting back is not the answer. What we need to do is allow for massive tax breaks for all parties who invest in new forms of energy, especially nuclear fusion. Who ever comes up first with a fusion power plant that works gets to hold the patent for the next several centuries. If that fails, then we won't need to worry about cutting back because nature will take care of that for us. We need to respect the free markets and encourage investment not Obama's communist effort to confiscate 'excess profits'. Who the hell is he to say someone has excess profits?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Who the hell is he to say someone has excess profits
How you decide what to define as excessive or even obscene profits will no doubt be interesting with differing pressure groups having their respective say. The same is equally true in the definition of excessive or oscene salaries and bonuses. There will always be fat cats but general taxation should be they key to level to some extent an uneven playing field. If giving company's tax breaks you encourage investments then that would be fine, but, if this only goes into the deeper pockets of already fat cats then that may be considered as unfair by the populus. And that could be a cause for future troublemakers hell-bent on forcing a level playing field through non-peaceful means.
Stan Shannon wrote:
cutting back
This planet we call home has finite resources. And they have to be managed properly as failure to do so will cause unnecessary misery to many.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Who the hell is he to say someone has excess profits
How you decide what to define as excessive or even obscene profits will no doubt be interesting with differing pressure groups having their respective say. The same is equally true in the definition of excessive or oscene salaries and bonuses. There will always be fat cats but general taxation should be they key to level to some extent an uneven playing field. If giving company's tax breaks you encourage investments then that would be fine, but, if this only goes into the deeper pockets of already fat cats then that may be considered as unfair by the populus. And that could be a cause for future troublemakers hell-bent on forcing a level playing field through non-peaceful means.
Stan Shannon wrote:
cutting back
This planet we call home has finite resources. And they have to be managed properly as failure to do so will cause unnecessary misery to many.
I disagree entirely. Wealth does the most good for the most people when allowed to circulate freely in the economy. 'Fat Cats' don't put that money in their pockets. They spend it. They invest it. All of which provides jobs and liberty to an entire society.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
This planet we call home has finite resources. And they have to be managed properly as failure to do so will cause unnecessary misery to many.
Granted, but if we cannot create scaleable energy supplies, and expand into space, than there is a 100% chance of ultimate collapse of human civilization in any case.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Who ever comes up first with a fusion power plant that works gets to hold the patent for the next several centuries.
It isn't just an energy problem, Stan. It is also a resource problem and nuclear fusion doesn't solve that. You'll have to start strip mining the rest of the solar system and last time I checked we can barely get guys into orbit. As much as I dislike "excess profits" I do agree that regulation/taxation etc. is not the way. Some cut-backs now will help us survive long enough to solve these problems.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:
At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
Paul Watson wrote:
It is also a resource problem and nuclear fusion doesn't solve that. You'll have to start strip mining the rest of the solar system and last time I checked we can barely get guys into orbit.
Yes, but energy is the primary reason we cannot do that. We need to solve the energy problem and than solve the space problem. Or we are toast in any case.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.