This could be our next president

[ActionActionFan]

This happened a while ago but since it hasn't yet been pointed out to the site I felt I should make a thread about it. It is Barack Obama saying that Americans cannot drive their SUVs and keep their houses air conditioned and expect other countries to be okay with it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsEDFZx4fjQ

All I can say is prepare yourselves if this guy becomes President because it is going to be a long four years.

[awakenarogue]

I would be interested to see the actual statement this report came from, but from what was said, Obama never commented that he would like to outlaw any of those things. The comment that we can't expect other countries to be ok with it is merely a statement of reality, because some of those "American lifestyles" may be detrimental to the world as a whole, and are in general wasteful of resources. He wasn't saying it because we need to answer to other countries to try to be liked. However, if we should hold ourselves to a higher standard and make an effort not to waste the worlds limited resources with our own wasteful consumption, then there should be nothing wrong with stating that fact.

Americans are wasteful, and it may make people uncomfortable to be told that, and it may be labeled "un-American" and a resignation to the wills of other nations; but i think the simple fact is: Americans should hold themselves to a higher standard than they do now, and I think the true leader is the one who can say that to the American populace.

[Dan Hollister]

1) American wastefulness will be a tiny blip on the radar in comparison to what countries like India and China will be doing to the environment in upcoming years. Not that this makes us immune, but anyone who says that we are the primary culprit of the world's pollution ought to expand where they get their news and statistics.

2) Clips like this are BS anyway. You can go dig up stupid things being said by anybody. This is 2008, where if you have ever made a mistake in your entire life, it will end up on YouTube. Nothing new there. Whenever one of these stupid clips comes out with a politician saying something taken out of context, or slipping up a speech like somehow that matters, or something else like this, I am amazed by how many people think these things actually paint a picture of a whole person.

[Jesse00]

Why did you post the vid if you yourself admit it's bs?

[ActionActionFan]

Why did you post the vid if you yourself admit it's bs?

Um. What?

[Jesse00]

nvr mind, i thought you posted the vid.

[saysmydoctor]

:yawn:

[Nevuk]

While the SUVs are true, there are people who die from heat stroke with the ACs on. Its not a luxury in the strictest sense, the elderly pretty much need AC not to die. Um... I guess that was kind of harsh.

[Mitch]

Are we really supposed to take this clip seriously?

[boykosaurus]

I just hope America will get better public transportation systems. When I get out of college I can't afford a car and gas, come the fuck on candidates, do something.

[boykosaurus]

Oh wow, I just watched that clip. I don't even know how to respond.

[open mind]

1) American wastefulness will be a tiny blip on the radar in comparison to what countries like India and China will be doing to the environment in upcoming years. Not that this makes us immune, but anyone who says that we are the primary culprit of the world's pollution ought to expand where they get their news and statistics.

2) Clips like this are BS anyway. You can go dig up stupid things being said by anybody. This is 2008, where if you have ever made a mistake in your entire life, it will end up on YouTube. Nothing new there. Whenever one of these stupid clips comes out with a politician saying something taken out of context, or slipping up a speech like somehow that matters, or something else like this, I am amazed by how many people think these things actually paint a picture of a whole person.

i agree with the second point but americans are far and away the biggest culprits in enviormental damage on a per capita level.........india and china may pollute more overall........but they have billions of people and we have a somewhere around 500 hundred million.

[sdbrown]

i agree with the second point but americans are far and away the biggest culprits in enviormental damage on a per capita level.........india and china may pollute more overall........but they have billions of people and we have a somewhere around 500 hundred million.
I thought our numbers were more around 380-400 million (I'm going to guess you meant 500 million and not 500 hundred million). Anywho, I agree with ya.

Can I ask why this is shocking? or why this is 'bad'? Oh no! he's trying to make us give up our unnecessarily big cars! and WHAT?! He wants us to try and be responsible and not wasteful? What a terrorist :-/

Get me out of this country already...

[open mind]

I thought our numbers were more around 380-400 million (I'm going to guess you meant 500 million and not 500 hundred million). Anywho, I agree with ya.

Can I ask why this is shocking? or why this is 'bad'? Oh no! he's trying to make us give up our unnecessarily big cars! and WHAT?! He wants us to try and be responsible and not wasteful? What a terrorist :-/

Get me out of this country already...

i purposely overshot my estimate to avoid giving someone the chance to say that i underestimated the numbers so i have to be wrong about what i'm saying about americas effect on the enviorment.

[mattybobviously]

I don't have any problem with this, it's true...

[mattybobviously]

Furthermore it's pretty obvious that he's not suggesting outlawing these things, that would be absurd. I've heard him give a response similar to this; it's just stating the facts that the American way of life has been harmful to the environment, and we need to realize that. Fixing global warming cannot involve a politician just saying "Well now we care" -- it will take an effort from the entire country, and so Americans must re-evaluate the things we do so as to clear up our record on these issues with the world.

[se1046]

I thought our numbers were more around 380-400 million (I'm going to guess you meant 500 million and not 500 hundred million). Anywho, I agree with ya.

Can I ask why this is shocking? or why this is 'bad'? Oh no! he's trying to make us give up our unnecessarily big cars! and WHAT?! He wants us to try and be responsible and not wasteful? What a terrorist :-/

Get me out of this country already...

What gives him the right to make us give up the things we want? I have an SUV. I want to drive it. I don't want to give it up. I don't feel like I'm being wasteful. I'm enjoying the freedom of choice that I have the right to in America. I don't want to be told where my kids go to school, how to spend my money, pay for everyones health care, pay for everyones welfare, pay for illegal's hospital bills, etc... I want to spend my hard earned money the way I want to.

[Mitch]

Did I simply not watch the whole video is if everyone missing the real meaning of what he said?

I get the impression that he is saying we can't expect other countries to truly listen to us about reducing emissions and whatnot while we aren't really doing all we could ourselves. He is not suggesting the outlawing of SUVs or AC, you people are just idiots.

This is just Fox News trying to cause a stir. Liberals try to take away from the "American way of life"? Mk...

[driftsandpulls]

Numero Uno: It's Fox News. Everything on there is Fair and Balanced.
Numero Dos: What about what he said was so crazy? We are going to have to cut back on shit in order to make a difference and that is that reality O'riley and people like you can't handle. How is this neo-conservative bullshit protecting Americans from idealism and liberalism? The GOP has some soul searching to do; thankfully for us, they won't establish a good image by November. I think you know he's going to be the next president and you also know why. Because McCain won't be able to separate himself from Bush and all of the Neo-Con ideals they share.
Numero Tres: Regardless of whether he becomes President or not, you'll still be watching Fox News and you'll still find all of the cons about an Obama presidency. I can assure you, when he becomes president, all of your socialist dreams will be fulfilled.

:rolleyes:
You're a silly goose.

[driftsandpulls]

This happened a while ago but since it hasn't yet been pointed out to the site I felt I should make a thread about it. It is Barack Obama saying that Americans cannot drive their SUVs and keep their houses air conditioned and expect other countries to be okay with it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsEDFZx4fjQ

All I can say is prepare yourselves if this guy becomes President because it is going to be a long four years.
Another thing is...

Are you retarded? GLOBAL fucking WARMING.
How in the world are we going to come together as people to fight this if America doesn't sacrifice something. What does that say to the rest of the world if we sit back on our asses while saying we're going to do something about it? The issue was not us checking in with the world, the issue was with the world checking in with us.

Answer this question for me:
How can America be the frontrunner on fighting Climate Change and NOT sacrifice some sort of aspect of our daily lives? The truth is, we have to do something different than what we did in the years before, otherwise we'll be drifting backwards, which is exactly what The GOP party is offering this election.

[ActionActionFan]

Since Obama has this obsession with getting countries to like us we may see these policies implemeted.

[ActionActionFan]

Another thing is...

Are you retarded? GLOBAL fucking WARMING.
How in the world are we going to come together as people to fight this if America doesn't sacrifice something. What does that say to the rest of the world if we sit back on our asses while saying we're going to do something about it? The issue was not us checking in with the world, the issue was with the world checking in with us.

Answer this question for me:
How can America be the frontrunner on fighting Climate Change and NOT sacrifice some sort of aspect of our daily lives? The truth is, we have to do something different than what we did in the years before, otherwise we'll be drifting backwards, which is exactly what The GOP party is offering this election.

Well what do you say to people who don't believe in gobal warming.

[loveisdead]

Well what do you say to people who don't believe in gobal warming.
That they must be legally retarded.

[Machu505]

That they must be legally retarded.

Bob Barr is legally retarded.

[shit stroll]

What gives him the right to make us give up the things we want? I have an SUV. I want to drive it. I don't want to give it up. I don't feel like I'm being wasteful. I'm enjoying the freedom of choice that I have the right to in America. I don't want to be told where my kids go to school, how to spend my money, pay for everyones health care, pay for everyones welfare, pay for illegal's hospital bills, etc... I want to spend my hard earned money the way I want to.
greed is not a family value.

[Machu505]

What gives him the right to make us give up the things we want? I have an SUV. I want to drive it. I don't want to give it up. I don't feel like I'm being wasteful. I'm enjoying the freedom of choice that I have the right to in America. I don't want to be told where my kids go to school, how to spend my money, pay for everyones health care, pay for everyones welfare, pay for illegal's hospital bills, etc... I want to spend my hard earned money the way I want to.

Your profile says you are Christian, but you don't want to help those less fortunate than you survive? I like SUVS just as much as the next guy, but it is wasteful. I could get to the same place in the same amount of time in a compact car or hybrid.

[awakenarogue]

greed is not a family value.

apparently it's an american value though

[Machu505]

apparently it's an american value though

Just like obesity and semi-automatic weapons!

[driftsandpulls]

Well what do you say to people who don't believe in gobal warming.
I say that no matter what, the truth is we have to conserve energy. We have to conserve our supplies. Not everything lasts forever. Even if global warming doesn't exist, we still have to have an effective handling of energy.

[driftsandpulls]

Since Obama has this obsession with getting countries to like us we may see these policies implemeted. It's no obsession. How is it? By wanting to cooperate with our neighbors?
Bush has done a fabulous job of being uncooperative, it's time for someone to clean up his mess.

[Siren Silently]

What gives him the right to make us give up the things we want? I have an SUV. I want to drive it. I don't want to give it up.

Yes the great Obama-proposed ban of SUVs.

[DeathCabForCoon]

I wouldn't mind giving up my SUV and AC. They are definitely unnecessary given the alternatives.

[se1046]

Your profile says you are Christian, but you don't want to help those less fortunate than you survive? I like SUVS just as much as the next guy, but it is wasteful. I could get to the same place in the same amount of time in a compact car or hybrid.

I knew someone would say that to me. I actually do contribute money to several charities to those less fortunate than me. I also make lunches for homeless shelters to distribute. I also adopt a family at christmas time. I don't think it's the governments place to make me pay money for government programs that I could use to do with what I please. Before you judge me you could at least take teh time to get to know me before throwing meaningless accusations at me or my religious beliefs. What are you doing to contribute outside of what the government takes from your pay check?

[WarpSpeedChewy]

That lady on the O'Reily factor is simply fucking nuts. I seriously can't even imagine people that close minded.

As for Obama, he is completely right. We need to reorganize our way of life so that it's less wasteful, makes less of an impact on the enviroment and helps out americans who are paying $80 for a tank of gas. People were already coming to that conclusion before Obama even said that.

[se1046]

That they must be legally retarded.

Please prove the existence of global warming. If you do the same thing Al Gore did, you'll fly a corporate jet out to las vegas in the middle of summer and tell everyone the earth is getting warmer because it's 110 degrees out. Not that that is common or anything....

[saysmydoctor]

Well, that's easy global warming is only contested concerning the human contribution. However, in the grand scheme of things: it's an active portion of climate change. Next question dipshit.

[se1046]

Well, that's easy global warming is only contested concerning the human contribution. However, in the grand scheme of things: it's an active portion of climate change. Next question dipshit.

Prove it's existence.

[saysmydoctor]

I don't need to: dendrochronologists and paleoclimatologist have done it for me.

[ActionActionFan]

Well, that's easy global warming is only contested concerning the human contribution. However, in the grand scheme of things: it's an active portion of climate change. Next question dipshit.

Actually global warming is not happening. In fact the world is cooling.

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widesca le+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

[se1046]

Actually global warming is not happening. In fact the world is cooling.

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widesca le+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm


lol... that's what i've been reading as well. funny that saysmydoctor is so strongly backing falsities and things that have not even been truly proven to exist.

[driftsandpulls]

Climate change.

[se1046]

Climate change.

Glad al gore got a nobel prize for climate change... that has never occurred before.:-/

[captainhampton]

wait, climate changes?

[DeathCabForCoon]

Prove it's existence.

If you honestly believe humans aren't contributing negatively to global climate change your fucking retarded.

[se1046]

If you honestly believe humans aren't contributing negatively to global climate change your fucking retarded.

I just think it's much ado over nothing. It's a real shame the earth is cooling.

[se1046]

If you honestly believe humans aren't contributing negatively to global climate change your fucking retarded.

If you are going to insult me you could at least be grammatically correct. It's not your... it's you're.

[DeathCabForCoon]

If you are going to insult me you could at least be grammatically correct. It's not your... it's you're.

Nice, the "I have nothing intelligent to say so instead I'll attack your grammar skills in an attempt to detract from actually having to explain myself."

I find it funny and ironic that people here are fighting for their right to use as much air conditioning as they want in order to combat something they refuse to believe exists.

[anamericangod]

Guess I should vote for John McCain now! Thanks for the clip!

[ambulance]

oh....my....god. people like you are one of the reasons i hate going into politics as a career.

first of all, are you seriously going to look at a graph that has a 20 year span, and because they show the global temperature going down .5 degrees in one year, that global warming is false??? do you not realize that ever since the industrial era, the global temperature has been steadily increasing? Not to mention during this upward trend there has been large fluctuation's just like what that article describes? You guys are acting like all global warming means is that 'its getting hotter outside' which isn't true. It also effects the global climate as well.

secondly, if you are trying to knock on Obama for saying 'We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times' why don't you get a proper transcript of his speech instead of relying on a cable news show that relies on fear to motivate their viewers into political activity.

thirdly, where did he say that this was a POLICY and that he wanted to ban SUV's and AC? That's not the point he was making....

[DeathCabForCoon]

oh....my....god. people like you are one of the reasons i hate going into politics as a career.

first of all, are you seriously going to look at a graph that has a 20 year span, and because they show the global temperature going down .5 degrees in one year, that global warming is false??? do you not realize that ever since the industrial era, the global temperature has been steadily increasing? Not to mention during this upward trend there has been large fluctuation's just like what that article describes? You guys are acting like all global warming means is that 'its getting hotter outside' which isn't true. It also effects the global climate as well.

secondly, if you are trying to knock on Obama for saying 'We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times' why don't you get a proper transcript of his speech instead of relying on a cable news show that relies on fear to motivate their viewers into political activity.

thirdly, where did he say that this was a POLICY and that he wanted to ban SUV's and AC? That's not the point he was making....


Well said.

[MaxMarginal]

God I hate Laura Ingraham and would like to do to her what she and the rest of Fox News is doing to America.

Juvenile A-sex jokes aside, there is not an alternative scientific (as in derived by the scientific method) theory for climate change other than global warming - just that the changes are random. That can be applied to ANY scientific theory.

Just as there is no alternative scientific theory to the origin of species other than evolution (there are plenty of theories, just do scientific ones), there isn't one for global warming, or cigarettes causing cancer for that matter.

In response to the dailytech article - one year of cooling after years and years of warming, unless the cooled temperatures hold, is not enough evidence to say that it's more than just random, though sure we can and should all be happy about it. Nonetheless, when a last place baseball team with a W-L percentage of .170 wins a game, do you say that they're in fact the best team in the league or do you just accept that a blind squirrel gets an acorn now and then?

[Dan Hollister]

Whiny liberals who want us to give up our freedoms in the fight for environmentalism should take a lesson from Al Gore and Silicon Valley progressives, and learn that the way to fight this is by creating new and awesome products like the Tesla. Not with mindless hippie crap about taking public transportation and about sacrifice.

Ben Franklin said, "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." A lot of democrats like to bring this quote up when talking about airline security and such, but it applies just as much to this. The point isn't that SUV's are good, the point is that we should be moving forward with building innovative alternatives to the SUV and other polluting products rather than just telling people to just give them up.

[x togepi x]

Whiny liberals who want us to give up our freedoms in the fight for environmentalism should take a lesson from Al Gore and Silicon Valley progressives, and learn that the way to fight this is by creating new and awesome products like the Tesla. Not with mindless hippie crap about taking public transportation and about sacrifice.

Ben Franklin said, "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." A lot of democrats like to bring this quote up when talking about airline security and such, but it applies just as much to this. The point isn't that SUV's are good, the point is that we should be moving forward with building innovative alternatives to the SUV and other polluting products rather than just telling people to just give them up.


It's actually funny that you blame "liberals" for this problem when it's been liberals who have been pushing the car companies to make SUVs/cars more energy efficient for years, you know, doing that whole "creating new and awesome products" thing that you're saying we should do?

but it fucking makes me sick to see people whining about maybe possibly having to give up their big wasteful car s (which no politician is actually going to seriously push) when there are billions of people in the third world struggling to live on less than a dollar a day. OH GOD WE HAVE IT SO HARD BECAUSE WE OUR GAS GUZZLING MONSTROSITIES ARE BEING CRITICIZED.

[MaxMarginal]

Dan Hollister -

I don't think that making a personal choice to put on a sweatshirt instead of turning up the heat, or choosing to not drive an SUV equates to "sacrificing liberty for security." By that logic, anyone who practices any sort of self-sacrifice for the greater good is a sucker. Are you really that guy?

[MaxMarginal]

Sorry for splitting this in two - I do agree that it is up to corporations to realize that what's good for the earth is good for business too. I read Gary Hirshberg's book (the guy who turned Stonyfield Yogurt into a $300 million corporation by being obsessively more eco-friendly than its competitors) and it's full of things like how UPS changed their routes to not have any left turns, and now they save 10 million a year in gas because they don't have to idle in left turn lanes.

That said, I don't see a downside to encouraging consumers to consume less while encouraging companies that are making consumables to creating low-impact products. Given the choice between buying a used couch off Craigslist or buying one from some low-emissions company, Craigslist is still the way to go.

[Machu505]

It's actually funny that you blame "liberals" for this problem when it's been liberals who have been pushing the car companies to make SUVs/cars more energy efficient for years, you know, doing that whole "creating new and awesome products" thing that you're saying we should do?

but it fucking makes me sick to see people whining about maybe possibly having to give up their big wasteful car s (which no politician is actually going to seriously push) when there are billions of people in the third world struggling to live on less than a dollar a day. OH GOD WE HAVE IT SO HARD BECAUSE WE OUR GAS GUZZLING MONSTROSITIES ARE BEING CRITICIZED.

qft

[Killadelphia]

The only people that need large SUVs are large families so they do not waste more energy by having to use multiple cars to travel somewhere. As for transportation, the system in America is not as good because the country is one of the larger countries in the world and the population is insanely spread out across it. It's hard to run a rail system or an effective bus system without wasting energy.

There are efficient air conditions available that cool the house cheaper than running a shit load of fans.

People should also go back to hunting for food and eating leaves, that why their refrigerators and their freezers do not waste energy as well.

[shit stroll]

there is an effective rail system throughtout europe; there is no reason why we can't have one here in the states.

[Killadelphia]

there is an effective rail system throughtout europe; there is no reason why we can't have one here in the states.

There is a somewhat effective rail system through parts of America as well that goto large cities. The thing is there are a lot more "suburbs" in America where a rail system would not be able to get to.

I do know trains are currently one of the biggest users of oil.

[destroying you]

If you are going to insult me you could at least be grammatically correct. It's not your... it's you're.

Earlier in the thread...

Prove it's existence.

If we're getting particular about spelling and grammar that should be "Prove its existence". Unlucky.

[open mind]

I knew someone would say that to me. I actually do contribute money to several charities to those less fortunate than me. I also make lunches for homeless shelters to distribute. I also adopt a family at christmas time. I don't think it's the governments place to make me pay money for government programs that I could use to do with what I please. Before you judge me you could at least take teh time to get to know me before throwing meaningless accusations at me or my religious beliefs. What are you doing to contribute outside of what the government takes from your pay check?

doing something to help is not the same as doing all you can to help (if you truly want to follow me sell all you have, give it to the poor, and take up your cross)......it does lead to a false sense of pride though.
i'm pretty sure jesus spoke on the subject of taxes......something about rendering unto caeser.

[driftsandpulls]

Earlier in the thread...



If we're getting particular about spelling and grammar that should be "Prove its existence". Unlucky.

:clap:

[Killadelphia]

doing something to help is not the same as doing all you can to help (if you truly want to follow me sell all you have, give it to the poor, and take up your cross)......it does lead to a false sense of pride though.

People also need to try and help themselves as well for the assistance from others to actually improve any situation.

I think we all know the old saying, and it does more or less go along with what you're saying.

[GiggsOho]

I knew someone would say that to me. I actually do contribute money to several charities to those less fortunate than me. I also make lunches for homeless shelters to distribute. I also adopt a family at christmas time. I don't think it's the governments place to make me pay money for government programs that I could use to do with what I please. Before you judge me you could at least take teh time to get to know me before throwing meaningless accusations at me or my religious beliefs. What are you doing to contribute outside of what the government takes from your pay check?

I love people like you, dude. Earlier you were bitching about the government and its ineptitude, but then also bitch that you don't want the gov't to take anymore money from you to fix it. That's not the way it works. People like you shouldn't be able to vote. Call that harsh, callous, whatever, I stand by it. Freedom isn't free, whether it's paid in dollars or blood. You want the government to clean up the mess Americans are making environmentally without taking money from people who are actually making the mess. You know who behaves like that? Toddlers. And they aren't allowed to vote, either.


Ben Franklin said, "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." A lot of democrats like to bring this quote up when talking about airline security and such, but it applies just as much to this. The point isn't that SUV's are good, the point is that we should be moving forward with building innovative alternatives to the SUV and other polluting products rather than just telling people to just give them up.

Great point, absolutely awful quote to back up your argument.

[saysmydoctor]

Actually global warming is not happening. In fact the world is cooling.

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widesca le+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
Dumb response, you stupid stupid fucking dumb sonofabitch. Wow, I'm so tired of the "OMG BUT ITZ COOLING" response. You take true facts, good on ya, and believe--"Yup that's all there is to it. This fact is singular in its being." Wrong, and this is why you the dumbest person in this thread right now. At least this se1046 maintains a level vagueness to not expose his blatant stupidity we all know is just under the surface.

Now that I've addressed where your logic fails, I'm going to address the facts you presented. The climate, globally, has cooled, I'll grant you that. However, Global Warming is not global WARMING. See, minus the controversial human contribution (which may or may not be there) global warming still happens. It's a natural cycle that cannot be stopped, has been occurring for eras, and has been recorded in the dendrochronological records. Paleoclimatologists have cut into the ice cores, studied tree rings and have found evidence of global warming periods followed by a sudden shift, cooling, and then dramatically an ice age. That is the cycle. These are the facts. Also, globally while it may have cooled, it's actually warmer at the poles. Ozone Hole (undeniable fact) has allowed more heat into the atmosphere. There is more CO2 in the atmosphere, the only controversy is who/what brought here: us (which doesn't just include humans, factories, but also mass cattle raising, etc) or could it also be natural (volcanoes, etc)? That is where the controversy is. So stop with your uneducated "I found a link saying you are wrong and I only read the headline" posting.

there is an effective rail system throughtout europe; there is no reason why we can't have one here in the states.
Our rail system is in total disrepair.

[open mind]

Prove it's existence.

the mendenhall glacier in juneau has receded about a half mile since i was 10, permafrost on the tundra is begining to melt, and polar bears are now drowning because the gaps in the polar ice are becoming to big for them to cross........that doesn't happen without climate change.

[Machu505]

I don't see what is wrong with healthcare. It's a human right in my opinion.

[Machu505]

lol at global warming denial.

[saysmydoctor]

I don't see what is wrong with healthcare. It's a human right in my opinion.No it's not if you get sick it's your own fault, silly. :rolleyes:

Oh and bad grammar. You forgot a comma and I'm only pointing this out because otherwise my retort would be weaker. God, I really hate posting in here sometimes.

[GiggsOho]

Our rail system is in total disrepair.


I wouldn't say "total" disrepair, but it would help to have the jobs have a decent salary, so educated people were running the trains. I swear, half the reason the trains suck so much is because of the idiots actually running them.

[Killadelphia]

I wouldn't say "total" disrepair, but it would help to have the jobs have a decent salary, so educated people were running the trains. I swear, half the reason the trains suck so much is because of the idiots actually running them.

That's not why the rail system has problems. It's because there isn't enough rails.

[GiggsOho]

That's not why the rail system has problems. It's because there isn't enough rails.


I said "half the reason..."

[Dan Hollister]

It's actually funny that you blame "liberals" for this problem when it's been liberals who have been pushing the car companies to make SUVs/cars more energy efficient for years, you know, doing that whole "creating new and awesome products" thing that you're saying we should do?

I didn't blame liberals, I specifically blamed whiny ones who (wrongfully) think idealism matters to the general population more than their desire to live life how they want. If you read my post, you see that I very specifically praise Al Gore and progressive liberals.

Not all liberals are created equally. I come from Santa Cruz, where everyone is a "liberal" but where technology and progress are still often viewed as too coporate, and where living in the woods smoking weed all day is the de facto way to live an eco-friendly lifestyle. It is viewpoints like this that I am blaming, not liberalism as a whole. Progressive democrats are my heroes.

but it fucking makes me sick to see people whining about maybe possibly having to give up their big wasteful car s (which no politician is actually going to seriously push) when there are billions of people in the third world struggling to live on less than a dollar a day.

Irrelevant. It's easy to bust out the "Africa/China/India has it worse than we do" argument. If that's the case, then the next time you propose something like universal healthcare, how about I bust out the same statement? Why are you complaining that you have to spend a whopping $75/month for insurance when most people in Kenya have nothing? Something tells me you won't let that argument fly...

[open mind]

lol at global warming denial.

global warming is a bad label......climate change is much more fitting.
man made pollutants stay in the atmosphere about a century longer then naturally occuring ones do. the man made pollutants being so long lasting end up concentrating themselves at the poles , which makes them warmer, causes melting, and a shift in global weather patterns.......that doesn't automattically make the entire globe warmer though.

[Machu505]

global warming is a bad label......climate change is much more fitting.
man made pollutants stay in the atmosphere about a century longer then naturally occuring ones do. the man made pollutants being so long lasting end up concentrating themselves at the poles , which makes them warmer, causes melting, and a shift in global weather patterns.......that doesn't automattically make the entire globe warmer though.

Sorry, I'm more used to the label global warming, though climate change is more accurate.

[x togepi x]

I didn't blame liberals, I specifically blamed whiny ones who (wrongfully) think idealism matters to the general population more than their desire to live life how they want. If you read my post, you see that I very specifically praise Al Gore and progressive liberals.

Your "i'll live my life how i want without thinking of anyone else" mentality is part of the reason we have $4 a gallon gas and are talking about if we need SUVs in the first place. Merely saying people ought to sacrifice big ass cars and turn their air conditioner on less is asking them to make a sacrifice, which, is not treading on their freedom since sacrifice involves a willing actor.

i mean, if you really want to get into this realism v. idealism argument with me it'll be awesome because realism is a good reason why thinks are so fucked, nevermind the fact that your standard of "the deserve to live life how we want" is just another form of idealism anyway. one could make the argument that true realism would be acknowledging that while i might want a kick ass truck, i probably can't have one because it's bad for the environment.

Irrelevant. It's easy to bust out the "Africa/China/India has it worse than we do" argument.

I wasn't making an argument, i was saying of all the things to whine about in politics, whining about someone suggesting you drive a more energy efficient car shouldn't even be close to the top of the list.

If that's the case, then the next time you propose something like universal healthcare, how about I bust out the same statement? Why are you complaining that you have to spend a whopping $75/month for insurance when most people in Kenya have nothing? Something tells me you won't let that argument fly...

The argument wouldn't fly at all since these are two completely different situations. Driving an SUV is a luxury, one that is only possible because of the exploitation of the third world, whereas universal healthcare could be seen as a right. If you turn around and say people in Kenya have worse healthcare, i'm going to say "yeah we should see about helping them out too", but it has nothing to do with if we should have it or not. Likewise, $75 for the "best doctors in the world" is still $75 too much when you're poor and have no extra cash, which is the point of healthcare advocates in the first place.

In contrast, bringing up the third world in this case is not irrelevant as one can point out the effects that high energy prices are going to have on developing nations, making it harder for them to reach a sustainable standard of living simply because we in the first world use way too much energy. If we're not setting a standard of conservation now, when nations like China and India reach our standard, we're going to be in for a huge energy crisis which is going to hurt everyone, but most definitely the third world

[Dan Hollister]

What are we even arguing about? I completely agree we need to set a precedent for other nations and pave the way towards eco-friendly living. It is for that reason exactly that we must set a precedent of innovation rather than purely conservation.

In the long run, solving problems via technology and progress is better and more efficient than sacrifice. Opposing viewpoints (in this case people who want their SUV's) make this goal harder at first, but in the long run, it is better for us to solve problems by inventing new stuff and making it appeal to people than to force them to get rid of their old stuff.

It's simple logic. From a psychological point of view, which task is easier: For me to offer you a shiny, new electric car that you really want to buy? Or for me to tell you your old car sucks and you should simply stop driving it because you are wasteful and you don't need it?

That first option sells itself without you even having to open your mouth. The second one will simply piss them off. Innovation is a guaranteed all-win situation.

[x togepi x]

What are we even arguing about? I completely agree we need to set a precedent for other nations and pave the way towards eco-friendly living. It is for that reason exactly that we must set a precedent of innovation rather than purely conservation.

we're arguing about two different mindsets. technology isn't going to solve every problem, it's new technology plus a more eco-friendly mindset that's going to be more successful. Especially in the short term, since technology doesn't just develop out of nowhere, pushing a new eco-friendly mindset minimizes the damage done to the environment while new technology is developing. It's not as if the car companies are going to be able to just roll out a new line of vehicles next year that are going to solve the energy problems as well as be marketable to consumers, let alone the fact that even if this happened, most people wouldn't be able to buy these new cars.

this is why obama's statement, that americans will have to give up their SUVs is speaking more to the symbol behind what an SUV is than the actual car itself. It's not about specific products but ways of thinking.

In the long run, solving problems via technology and progress is better and more efficient than sacrifice. Opposing viewpoints (in this case people who want their SUV's) make this goal harder at first, but in the long run, it is better for us to solve problems by inventing new stuff and making it appeal to people than to force them to get rid of their old stuff.

It's simple logic. From a psychological point of view, which task is easier: For me to offer you a shiny, new electric car that you really want to buy? Or for me to tell you your old car sucks and you should simply stop driving it because you are wasteful and you don't need it?

That first option sells itself without you even having to open your mouth. The second one will simply piss them off. Innovation is a guaranteed all-win situation.

The problem with your logic here is that innovation doesn't just happen in a vacuum. There needs to be some sort of demand that the industries must innovate to fulfill. in the case of the auto industry, we need to have people shifting away from SUVs so that the car companies feel the need to develop new products to capture these consumers, otherwise we're just going to see innovation being more tvs and cupholders. All you're saying here is "innovation is good", and nobody's arguing against that, but there needs to be something to force innovation, which is the point of Obama's statements.

the logic being sacrifice forces the industries to develop new technology to sell to consumers, who will want to buy them so that they no longer have to sacrifice.

[Dan Hollister]

No, you need to separate intent from result. People always try to make the argument that someone's actions were negative because their intent was selfish, even if the result was good. This is BS. The best way to make people eco-friendly isn't to try to change their views on what they should and shouldn't like, it's to give them products that they already want and that meet their expectations, but also happen to be eco-friendly.

Why are wealthy people prepaying months in advance to get a Tesla when just a few years ago, there were other electric cars available? Because the Tesla is an awesome car with the bonus of being the most eco-friendly car ever manufactured. It's fast, it's sexy, it's silent. And that is why they can't keep up with the orders. As a result, many of these people who otherwise might've been driving Ferraris or other cars that are among the most polluting vehicles in existence, they're going to be driving a car that makes Grandma in her Honda Civic look like a wasteful person.

Separate intent from result. It is historically more likely to encourage people to be eco-friendly by giving them what they want, but modified to be eco-friendly, rather than to change their minds.

[yutsmcgee]

I'm no conservative, nor am I a McCain fan, but the truth is, Obama is nothing but a face with a few cheap mantras. Once you pull back the facade of his empty hype and commerciality, there are some real scary realities. I'm frightened as to what this man could do to America.

[anamericangod]

I'm no conservative, nor am I a McCain fan, but the truth is, Obama is nothing but a face with a few cheap mantras. Once you pull back the facade of his empty hype and commerciality, there are some real scary realities. I'm frightened as to what this man could do to America.

Such as?

[x togepi x]

No, you need to separate intent from result. People always try to make the argument that someone's actions were negative because their intent was selfish, even if the result was good. This is BS. The best way to make people eco-friendly isn't to try to change their views on what they should and shouldn't like, it's to give them products that they already want and that meet their expectations, but also happen to be eco-friendly.

Once again, you're assuming that innovation happens in a vacuum, when it clearly doesn't. we're just now getting to the point where there's a demand for more energy efficient vehicles, which is because people changed their viewpoint. I know that sounds like circular logic but Obama's speech isn't merely about SUVs, the overall point is what the SUV stands for, which would involve more energy efficient products in all areas of life. People are only caring about energy efficient cars because they see the damage done at the gas pump where in other areas the damage isn't as readily apparent.

But, I must point out, that you once again ignored my position that these innovations are not going to happen all at once. Getting people to change their minds about how they treat the environment is the best policy, as it allows for less environmental degradation in the period when we see a switch between the old and the new products.

example: even if every car that came out in 2009 was super energy efficient, most people would not be able to afford to buy a new car, even if the cars were at normal, or even discounted prices. by suggesting people conserve until they can afford the new products, we are lowering the impact to the environment.

Your viewpoint is insanely elitist because it assumes that people can afford to just buy new technology whenever it comes out, which simply isn't the case. This is why I've stated that new technology is not the answer. It's part of the solution, but it's not going to be enough, solely because there's always going to be a difference in time between when the products come out and when everyone has them. Your position provides no of dealing with this time period, you're having us ignore it.

Why are wealthy people prepaying months in advance to get a Tesla when just a few years ago, there were other electric cars available? Because the Tesla is an awesome car with the bonus of being the most eco-friendly car ever manufactured. It's fast, it's sexy, it's silent. And that is why they can't keep up with the orders. As a result, many of these people who otherwise might've been driving Ferraris or other cars that are among the most polluting vehicles in existence, they're going to be driving a car that makes Grandma in her Honda Civic look like a wasteful person.

This further underscores my point. The Tesla is a boutique product. It isn't for everyone, just the rich. Until we see some pressure on the major car companies to create a car that is energy efficient and affordable, we're not going to see this innovation doing any real good. it will just be a drop in the bucket. Sure, it might be hyper efficient, but what good we get from it is more than offset from all the people who are driving their old cars and getting horrible gas mileage, this is why we should be pushing a conservation agenda so that we have less environmental degradation, as well as public support for vehicles like this to be afforded by the common person.

You've given no reason that people shouldn't be conserving energy until they can afford new technology. You just say "we need new technology" which is a no brainer, but are you seriously claiming that it's a bad idea to say people should consume less until we get that technology? that's idiotic. yes, i'm well aware that we're going to have some sweet products coming out in the future in all walks of life, but that doesn't mean we should be driving gas guzzling monstrosities while we wait for them.

[shit stroll]

Such as?
he is an al quaida operative, duh.

[sdbrown]

What gives him the right to make us give up the things we want? I have an SUV. I want to drive it. I don't want to give it up. I don't feel like I'm being wasteful. I'm enjoying the freedom of choice that I have the right to in America. I don't want to be told where my kids go to school, how to spend my money, pay for everyones health care, pay for everyones welfare, pay for illegal's hospital bills, etc... I want to spend my hard earned money the way I want to.

While understandable that no one wants to take on the burden of someone else to their own detriment, it's unnecessary pollution. It's a difficult issue to discuss because there's no real way to say that you shouldn't be allowed to drive your SUV while some dude with a hybrid gets to drive unlimited, just because he has a more efficient car.

The statement, in my eyes at least, was more of a blanket statement; it wasn't only directed at SUV owners. SUVs in the recent years- Hummers and F150s especially- have sort of become a symbol of excess. It's a hard message to hear, but the world is changing. We can't keep consuming food, fuel and resources like we're used to. Efficiency is looking to become the new status quo.

[Dan Hollister]

This further underscores my point. The Tesla is a boutique product. It isn't for everyone, just the rich.

False. Every single piece of American technology that has ever made its way into the mainstream began as a bleeding-edge product that nobody cared about or could afford. Technology has always been fuled by early-adopters, and once this happens, prices go down for everyone else. The Tesla is no different... in fact, Tesla Motors has already announced plans to create a 60k vehicle and then a 30k vehicle.

You've given no reason that people shouldn't be conserving energy until they can afford new technology. You just say "we need new technology" which is a no brainer, but are you seriously claiming that it's a bad idea to say people should consume less until we get that technology?

No, I'm not. I would love for Americans to wake up one day and decide to be eco-friendly. What I am saying is that you can't do it. You're not going to convince 300 million people to change their lifestyles. It cannot be done. It is not in your control. Even out here in California, one of the most liberal places around, they're finding horrible opposition to our changes in environmental policy. Good luck convincing people in states like Utah or Louisiana.

How exactly to you propose we go about injecting environmental morality into a massive population of people who don't want any of it?

[x togepi x]

False. Every single piece of American technology that has ever made its way into the mainstream began as a bleeding-edge product that nobody cared about or could afford. Technology has always been fuled by early-adopters, and once this happens, prices go down for everyone else. The Tesla is no different... in fact, Tesla Motors has already announced plans to create a 60k vehicle and then a 30k vehicle.

Try some reading comprehension. It is not "false" that the Tesla is a boutique product meant only for the rich, since right now, it is meant for the rich. (since it's meant to replace things like ferraris) I never claimed they weren't going to try and come out with cheaper vehicles (even though 30k is still way too expensive for most people), only that right now that its innovation is not enough to even cause a dent in the problems we're talking about, which was my point.

it's great that there's a company out there trying to come out with energy efficient vehicles, but it's not really enough. A change in mindset, which can effect people of all economic classes is going to be much better than a car that only rich people can currently buy, which is my point.

No, I'm not. I would love for Americans to wake up one day and decide to be eco-friendly. What I am saying is that you can't do it. You're not going to convince 300 million people to change their lifestyles. It cannot be done. It is not in your control. Even out here in California, one of the most liberal places around, they're finding horrible opposition to our changes in environmental policy. Good luck convincing people in states like Utah or Louisiana.

this claim is so fucking empirically denied it's not even funny. We've changed mainstream conceptions of racism being okay, we've changed mainstream conceptions regarding sexism. We're currently seeing the mainstream conception of homosexuality altering. Are you seriously saying that people are just too entrenched in their ideas that they just won't ever change ever? That's fucking stupid.

Especially since anyone living during world war two is going to tell you that our society's lifestyles can change pretty dramatically in a short amount of time if the proper motivation is found. an energy crisis might be enough.

How exactly to you propose we go about injecting environmental morality into a massive population of people who don't want any of it?

I don't know. I don't know anything about public relations, though i would think if we can change our massive population's conception on things like smoking being okay or convince them that they really need that ipod, that we could probably find a way to get people to be more green. In fact, i think such pr campaigns are already working, we're just far enough along to see the benefits.

I know it's possible though. Let's watch gas rise to insanely high prices and see how people think about conservation then. it's still a lot better than your policy of waiting around for companies to just randomly decide "hey we should make energy efficient products".

[thespearkid]

Funny hearing Conservatives talk about the importance of liberties.

[MaxMarginal]

False. Every single piece of American technology that has ever made its way into the mainstream began as a bleeding-edge product that nobody cared about or could afford. Technology has always been fuled by early-adopters, and once this happens, prices go down for everyone else. The Tesla is no different... in fact, Tesla Motors has already announced plans to create a 60k vehicle and then a 30k vehicle.



No, I'm not. I would love for Americans to wake up one day and decide to be eco-friendly. What I am saying is that you can't do it. You're not going to convince 300 million people to change their lifestyles. It cannot be done. It is not in your control. Even out here in California, one of the most liberal places around, they're finding horrible opposition to our changes in environmental policy. Good luck convincing people in states like Utah or Louisiana.

How exactly to you propose we go about injecting environmental morality into a massive population of people who don't want any of it?

But what's so wrong with Obama nonetheless saying that the world is not going to be okay with our continuing emissions? Where do you get in his statement the idea that he's somehow against your solution??

[Nevuk]

there is an effective rail system throughtout europe; there is no reason why we can't have one here in the states.
Railway tycoons kind of fucked up this option for us. Freight is definitely cheaper than trucking, but there hasn't been a movement towards freight well... ever. Since the 1890s

[se1046]

Funny hearing Conservatives talk about the importance of liberties.

Funny hearing any politician these days talk about liberties... especially liberals. Conservatives these days are just diet liberals.

[xmadeofstonex]

Barack Obama saying that the rest of the world will take issue with American excess(sp?) is one of his strong points. There's a lot of reasons to dislike him but that isn't one.

I'm voting Bob Barr in November, I'd rather Obama win over McCain but ultimately my life won't really change that much no matter who is president.

[Machu505]

Barack Obama saying that the rest of the world will take issue with American excess(sp?) is one of his strong points. There's a lot of reasons to dislike him but that isn't one.

I'm voting Bob Barr in November, I'd rather Obama win over McCain but ultimately my life won't really change that much no matter who is president.

My biggest problem with Mr. Barr is he says that climate change is a myth.

[x togepi x]

Funny hearing any politician these days talk about liberties... especially liberals. Conservatives these days are just diet liberals.

seriously?

Do you know what a liberal is? haha.

[Killadelphia]

Funny hearing any politician these days talk about liberties... especially liberals. Conservatives these days are just diet liberals.

I think you're confusing Democrats and Republicans with Liberals and Conservatives. They're really not that interchangeable.

[xmadeofstonex]

My biggest problem with Mr. Barr is he says that climate change is a myth.


Shit, I didn't know that about him.

I really just wish there were libertarians that weren't shitheads running or a progressive Republican running.

[Machu505]

Shit, I didn't know that about him.

I really just wish there were libertarians that weren't shitheads running or a progressive Republican running.

He was on Glenn Beck about a week or 2 ago.

[xmadeofstonex]

I like that libertarians are in favor of protecting individual rights, in general I like their stance on foreign policy, and for the most part I agree with them on economics, like I think going to a consumption tax makes so much more sense than income tax, and I'm a very "vote with your dollar" sort of person. But most of the time libertarians tend to be buttheads about certain things, like immigration, global warming, or entitlements (which definitely need to be revamped and scaled back but still need to exist to ensure greater freedom and liberty in my opinion).

[EasySkankin]

hahaha it's funny that it's obvious most people here are liberal and (most of the time) open-minded, yet everyone watches fox news quite a bit, judging from all the news clip threads.

Obama isn't talking about policy specifically, he's simply trying to get it into americans' minds that they are not the only people on the planet, and because we live among neighbors we have to act responsibly. If the rest of the world is trying to push for an international effort to lower harmful gas emissions (whether or not they are harmful), we should appreciate their concern and not be the dick who "just don't care I wanna do what I want" and may potentially ruin life for the rest of the world.