PDA

View Full Version : I'm Struggling With My Choices.



Tanhalen21
14th January 08, 01:43 AM
Ok, guys. Here is my dilemma. I'm sick of the bullshit the government pulls without the American people noticing. I'm sick of the war on drugs, I'm sick of the war in Iraq, and I'm sick of people not realizing how imperialistic our government really is. I want a revolution.

I like a lot of things about Ron Paul, but there are also a lot of things I don't like about him. I know you guys are sick of hearing about fucking Ron Paul, but just hear me out. I believe that Ron Paul can deliver the revolution I and many Americans (well, maybe not THAT many) desperately desire, but my biggest beef with him is this: his stance on the environment. Now, I hope none of you are stupid enough to believe that global warming is not real, so let's not turn this into a thread about whether or not it is true. Because it is a fucking fact. I'm sure most of you are intelligent enough to understand that.

Here is Ron Paul's voting record:
Voted NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007)
Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy. (Jun 2004)
Voted NO on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy. (Nov 2003)
Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on increasing AMTRAK funding by adding $214M to $900M. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on barring website promoting Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump. (May 2006)
Voted NO on speeding up approval of forest thinning projects. (Nov 2003)He just doesn't give a fuck.

So this is my question to you: is the revolution we so desperately need worth the cost of the environment continuing to be absolutely ravaged to the point where species will start going extinct and all sorts of bullshit starts happening? Or will irreparable damage be done during his presidency that is not worth our freedom being preserved?

Or will no other candidate do anything about the environment anyway so we might as well vote for the one who will be a force of change for other issues?

Will Paul hear the people on this issue despite his horrible, horrible voting record? and will the people even fucking speak up for him to hear?

Please state your opinions on the matter.

Domite
14th January 08, 01:51 AM
Voted NO on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy. (Jun 2004)
Voted NO on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy. (Nov 2003)
Voted NO on increasing AMTRAK funding by adding $214M to $900M. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on barring website promoting Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump. (May 2006)
Voted NO on speeding up approval of forest thinning projects. (Nov 2003)I dont really see how the above points are "anti-enviroment" can you explain how each one is harmful to the enviroment?

Tanhalen21
14th January 08, 02:09 AM
Oh, well I just found his voting record on Oil & Energy and the Environment and just copy-pasted.

Tanhalen21
14th January 08, 02:24 AM
Or perhaps someone could better explain to me what Ron Paul intends to do about the environment, if anything? I've heard about his "property rights" approach but still don't really get it.

ICY
14th January 08, 02:26 AM
Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)

WTF? He supports a subsidy of ANYTHING?


Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)

Alternative fuels are about making more fuel in the USA, NOT about reducing emissions. AT ALL.


Voted YES on barring website promoting Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump. (May 2006)
Voted NO on speeding up approval of forest thinning projects. (Nov 2003)


I don't see how these are anti-environment stances, and that Yucca mountain sentence doesn't make sense, I can't understand what it's saying.


So this is my question to you: is the revolution we so desperately need worth the cost of the environment continuing to be absolutely ravaged to the point where species will start going extinct and all sorts of bullshit starts happening? Or will irreparable damage be done during his presidency that is not worth our freedom being preserved?

The irreparable damage is already done. Bullshit already IS happening. Species ARE going extinct. His presidency wouldn't put a significant dent in anything, good or bad, environment or economy or foreign policy or anything else.

jubei33
14th January 08, 03:13 AM
Oh, well I just found his voting record on Oil & Energy and the Environment and just copy-pasted.
ah the copy paste revolution, sounds catchy, like a song I heard at disney land once.

I'm guessing the greens are kind of pissed about him not voting for the Kyoto protocol. I doubt a lot of other Libertarians would go for that one either.

Arhetton
14th January 08, 07:40 AM
how much oil does a war burn?

Tanhalen21
14th January 08, 01:52 PM
ah the copy paste revolution, sounds catchy, like a song I heard at disney land once.

I'm guessing the greens are kind of pissed about him not voting for the Kyoto protocol. I doubt a lot of other Libertarians would go for that one either.

Apparently his reason for not voting for the Kyoto Protocol is because of this:

One hundred and thirty-seven (137) developing countries have ratified the protocol, including Brazil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil), China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_China) and India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India), but have no obligation beyond monitoring and reporting emissions. Among various experts, scientists and critics there is some debate about the usefulness of the protocol, and there have been cost-benefit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost-benefit) studies performed on its usefulness.

In other words, China, India, and other developing countries were not included in any numerical limitation of the Kyoto Protocol because they were not the main contributors to the greenhouse gas emissions during the pre-treaty industrialization period. However, even without the commitment to reduce according to the Kyoto target, developing countries do share the common responsibility that all countries have in reducing emissions.

I agree with Ron Paul that this is bullshit seeing as how both China and India's industry is growing hence more greenhouse gas emissions and they shouldn't be exempt... that's why he voted no on the Kyoto Treaty

spoxjox
14th January 08, 02:17 PM
Now, I hope none of you are stupid enough to believe that global warming is not real, so let's not turn this into a thread about whether or not it is true. Because it is a fucking fact. I'm sure most of you are intelligent enough to understand that.
I do not accept as "fact" that global warming is real. In fact, even if we suppose that global warming is real, I don't accept that it's manmade, or even that it is a bad thing. None of these points has ever been convincingly demonstrated.

If this makes me "stupid" in your eyes, so be it. But I'm willing to put my GRE, SAT, and IQ test scores up against yours at any time, so if you're going to shoot off your mouth, be prepared to back it up.

Ron Paul seems like a decent man. Unfortunately, he's a libertarian in Republican clothing, and I would no sooner vote for a libertarian than I would vote for Hillary Clinton.

GuiltySpark
14th January 08, 02:25 PM
I

I'm willing to put my GRE, SAT, and IQ test scores up against yours at any time

LOL.

Are you going to just type what you got or actually take a picture of your scores, scan it then post it?

Tanhalen21
14th January 08, 03:36 PM
LOL.

Are you going to just type what you got or actually take a picture of your scores, scan it then post it?

It wouldn't matter, since you can have a high IQ / SAT score and still be an idiot.

Anyways, perhaps it was a bit harsh of me to say you're stupid if you don't believe it... maybe just ill-informed.

GuiltySpark
14th January 08, 04:29 PM
It wouldn't matter, since you can have a high IQ / SAT score and still be an idiot.

Anyways, perhaps it was a bit harsh of me to say you're stupid if you don't believe it... maybe just ill-informed.

Coins have 3 sides ;)

Zendetta
14th January 08, 04:38 PM
I've been (semi-jokingly) calling myself a "Green Libertarian" for the last several years. For a while it was a mean joke at the expense of both left and right, but then I gradually realized that its actually the way of the future.

If you can figure out a way to send me marijuana via PayPal, then you too can get in on the ground floor of this exciting new paradigm.

Cullion
14th January 08, 05:08 PM
Yes, I'm stupid enough to believe that global warming isn't significantly anthropogenic. We have a thread on it.

GuiltySpark
14th January 08, 05:45 PM
Can global warming make it actually snow more and get colder??

Cullion
14th January 08, 05:47 PM
Can global warming make it actually snow more and get colder??

Global warming can be anything you want it to be if you're a looking for a reason to allow the UN to levy taxes.

WarPhalange
14th January 08, 05:48 PM
Can global warming make it actually snow more and get colder??

Global Warming means it will get warmer on average. What happens is that the climate changes and some places will get colder, that's why the proper term for something like that is Climate Change.

Ignore Cullion. He doesn't know what an average is.

GuiltySpark
14th January 08, 05:59 PM
I'm rather partial to Mr Cullion heh

I only ask because this time last year (mid jan) snow was just beginnign to fall here.
THIS year it snowed like a motherfucker at the end of october and the snow stayed. Bitter cold too.

Cullion
14th January 08, 06:44 PM
Global Warming means it will get warmer on average. What happens is that the climate changes and some places will get colder, that's why the proper term for something like that is Climate Change.

Ignore Cullion. He doesn't know what an average is.

Oh yes he does.

Ignore Poop Loops, he selectively ignores peer-reviewed papers which challenge his enviro-creed, defers to nebulous authority when he can't see a flaw in an argument and, all said and done, would be much happier in life if he just stopped struggling and did what I told him.

SFGOON
14th January 08, 06:47 PM
I only ask because this time last year (mid jan) snow was just beginnign to fall here.
THIS year it snowed like a motherfucker at the end of october and the snow stayed. Bitter cold too.

Not climate change at all. A WAY more likely cause would be the ENSO (or LNSO.)


Blame it on El Nino....

Cullion
14th January 08, 06:51 PM
I'm rather partial to Mr Cullion heh

I only ask because this time last year (mid jan) snow was just beginnign to fall here.
THIS year it snowed like a motherfucker at the end of october and the snow stayed. Bitter cold too.

The hottest year in the Northern hemisphere this century was in the 1930s.

The southern hemisphere shows a steady cooling trend.

Anthropogenic warming is a far from proven case.

GuiltySpark
14th January 08, 07:21 PM
My wife asked me what the green house effect was.

I said that in the 60's americans feard communisim SO much that houses were all designed the same. No one wanted to stand out and be different. Those houses were THEN painted a lame green colour. Come to find out the paint was lead base and people got sick from it and the paint also gave off harmful fumes which slowly started effecting the enviroment.

Cullion
14th January 08, 07:25 PM
The greenhouse effect is one where you show how increasing carbon dioxide concentration in a test tube make the contents absorb more infrared. And then you try to scale this up in an implausible way to a vastly more complex biosphere with multiple energy inputs in order to find an excuse for raising an international tax.

Cullion
14th January 08, 07:26 PM
It's all about hot air, you see.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
14th January 08, 07:31 PM
My wife asked me what the green house effect was.

I said that in the 60's americans feard communisim SO much that houses were all designed the same. No one wanted to stand out and be different. Those houses were THEN painted a lame green colour. Come to find out the paint was lead base and people got sick from it and the paint also gave off harmful fumes which slowly started effecting the enviroment.

if you weren't dating 4-year-olds you wouldn't have this problem

Thinkchair
14th January 08, 07:34 PM
It's all about hot air, you see.

The green house effect does not equal global warming. The green house effect is generally regarded as a good thing, while global warming is regarded as bad.

Either way, the more complicated arguments about the issue are well beyond my understanding. But the consensus of most reputable scientists right now is that global warming is real and caused by man. They could be wrong, we could have a Kuhnian paradigm shift in the next ten years, and be laughing about all this global warming sillyness. I just think the stakes are so high, we might as well go with what the majority of scientists are saying.

ICY
14th January 08, 10:00 PM
If this makes me "stupid" in your eyes, so be it. But I'm willing to put my GRE, SAT, and IQ test scores up against yours at any time, so if you're going to shoot off your mouth, be prepared to back it up.


Mine is certainly higher than yours and I'm an admitted fool

Intelligence=/=Wisdom


Yes, I'm stupid enough to believe that global warming isn't significantly anthropogenic. We have a thread on it.

You piss me off.


Can global warming make it actually snow more and get colder??

Yes.


Global warming can be anything you want it to be if you're a looking for a reason to allow the UN to levy taxes.

You can acknowledge it exists and not want to do anything about it. That's at least a scientifically sound position.


Ignore Poop Loops, he selectively ignores peer-reviewed papers which challenge his enviro-creed

Ignoring the 1 in a 1000 studies that don't agree with him is forgiveable.


My wife asked me what the green house effect was.

I know a guy who, when it was a harvest moon, told his wife that the Soviets had shot a bunch of rockets filled with red dye at it...

Riddeck
15th January 08, 01:40 AM
Mine is certainly higher than yours and I'm an admitted fool

Intelligence=/=Wisdom

Yeah.






You can acknowledge it exists and not want to do anything about it. That's at least a scientifically sound position.

Oh, Global Warming exists, but believing it is man-made is the question. And Cullion (much to your dismay) is correct. It is not man made and the UN is using it as a reason to tax the world even further into submission.





Ignoring the 1 in a 1000 studies that don't agree with him is forgiveable.

So if I show you a study that disagrees with 1000 other studies, you would take it into consideration? I think I have a few here on Fluoride and it's effects on lab rats, and a few on how Mercury effects the brain.

Which, btw, it is still being put in vaccines, even though they told you it was not.

ICY
15th January 08, 02:00 AM
Oh, Global Warming exists, but believing it is man-made is the question. And Cullion (much to your dismay) is correct. It is not man made and the UN is using it as a reason to tax the world even further into submission.


Thank you, you taking Cullion's side destroys his credibility.


So if I show you a study that disagrees with 1000 other studies, you would take it into consideration?

NO.

Arhetton
15th January 08, 09:19 AM
of course mankind has an effect on the atmosphere and biosphere. Have you ever looked up the tonnage that is released into the atmosphere? Its phenomenal.

Like I mentioned in the other thread, the two great carbon sinks of the earth are the ocean and vegetation, so to look for the effects of carbon dioxide on the world you really have to look in the oceans and at forests. Of course cutting down forests releases carbon dioxide and prevents it from being absorbed by thicker foilage.

And methane gas is three times worse than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

I find it hilarious that for some reason cars have become the pop culture focus of global warming. It is deforestation, cattle raising and industry (coal burning) that is the problem.

The conventional wisdom about sustainable energy is changing. There is a huge shift which most people haven't really picked up on in industry. Fortunes will be made and broken in the next half century.

The general approach being applied now is to tax (discourage) old energy technologies and subsidize (encourage) the uptake of technology like solar power.

Seriously though, plastic solar cells are right around the fucking corner. I've seen multiple projects in different universities, M.I.T, Berkley, NIJ etc. Whats driving the need for cheap solar power - is it concern for the environment, or the fact that huge profits could be made off this technology? Both of course, but your standard capitalistic greed plays a part too. Low cost and remote power will be the thing that overthrows conventional power generation. Its a period of opportunity, and its the entrepeneurs that will save us all, not the doom sayers.

sQ6_yP6L-1w

http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/MSD-Alivisatos-solarcells.html

Berkley

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2002/03/28_solar.html

Berkley

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0114_050114_solarplastic.html

Toronto

http://www.physorg.com/news96200990.html

Wake Forest nanotechnology centre

Slindsay
15th January 08, 10:10 AM
The hottest year in the Northern hemisphere this century was in the 1930s.

The southern hemisphere shows a steady cooling trend.

Anthropogenic warming is a far from proven case.

Please, please, please tell me you aren't referring to the US satellite surveys that tracked a slight decrease in the overall atmospheric temperature? Because if you where then I honestly thought more of you....

Slindsay
15th January 08, 10:16 AM
Oh, Global Warming exists, but believing it is man-made is the question. And Cullion (much to your dismay) is correct. It is not man made and the UN is using it as a reason to tax the world even further into submission.



Please show me the study that conclusively demonstrates this and point out it's merits over the other 1000 articles that disagree.

Seriously, climate change is happening and that's failry normal although not necessarily a good thing, whether we are the primary cause of it or not is indeed another matter BUT I think you'd struggle to find a half decent scientist who would disagree that we aren't contributing to some extent.

And regardless, the more the climte changes and the more the Northern Ice Caps melt, the worse it's going to be for us, even if we can't stop it we would do fairly well to reduce it.

bitparity
15th January 08, 10:39 AM
Gary Coleman for president

WarPhalange
15th January 08, 01:27 PM
If this makes me "stupid" in your eyes, so be it. But I'm willing to put my GRE, SAT, and IQ test scores up against yours at any time, so if you're going to shoot off your mouth, be prepared to back it up.

If you think that standardized, multiple-choice tests reflect your intelligence, then yes, you are a moron.