Shryke Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Also fossil fuels are still worse then all those alternatives for basically every one of those things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suttree Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 We must get away from a petroleum based culture or it will be the end of all humanity!!!!! But hydro is bad because... fish..... Solar is bad because... turtles..... Nuclear is bad because.. Japan/Chernobyl Wind is bad because.. birds and noise..... Tidal is bad because.. [insert reason] And so on and so forth, ad nauseum..... I mean it's clear from your first sentence that you don't care about science overly much, but just to be clear you're advocating what exactly? The good old ostrich approach. Sounds sensible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MerenthaClone Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 You know, if they did some nice landscaping, I'd much rather live next to a nuclear power plant than a sewage treatment plant myself. I'd rather deal with the very small chance of a radiation leak at the power plant versus the almost certain regular unpleasant smells from the sewage plant. Coal plants put out far more radioactive waste than nuclear plants do. Barring a catastrophic failure which is highly, highly unlikely at this point, nuclear plants are pretty damn safe. edit: Right now, nuclear is so far ahead of the competition it isn't funny. Lets get nuclear going, and going well, until we can spend more money to transition to even better sources. Coal ain't it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 edit: Right now, nuclear is so far ahead of the competition it isn't funny. Lets get nuclear going, and going well, until we can spend more money to transition to even better sources. Coal ain't it Far, far easier said than done. Thing is, our entire civilization is geared to fossil fuels of one sort or another. The top people in the fossil fuels racket are among the most influential in the government, and they have a sort of short sighted bureaucratic approach - the assumption is, the Oil/Coal will ALWAYS be available next quarter/next fiscal year. People claiming things to the contrary are either cranks (therefor ignorable) or alarmists (who need to be firmly told to shut up). This mindset contributes a great deal to the half hearted at best alternative energy schemes from 'up top.' (I used to hang out on a couple of peak oil sites. Some of the people in these sites - former engineers and finance types, usually having some sort of 'long term planning' position within the oil majors would regal the boards with just how completely close minded the executive class was at these places.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awesome possum Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 So you guys might have heard about the new "Republicans are People Too" ad campaign that is meant to make people believe Republicans are less WASPy than they are. Turns out, oops, Republicans are really just stock photo models. Conservatives wanted to remind people that "Republicans Are People Too" with an ad campaigninsisting that Republicans recycle and have tattoos. But as The Daily Banter pointed out, the woman the ad used to prove that "Republicans are black" is actually a very popular stock photo. Her image is featured on the Georgia Association of Black Women Attorneys' website and a promotion for a discount on glasses. And unsurprisingly, TPM found that the other every-man Republicans featured in the ads were also stock photos. Not surprising, really. It's understandable, though, especially since Koch Industries refused to allow their logo to star in the ad. They had to come up with something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 So you guys might have heard about the new "Republicans are People Too" ad campaign that is meant to make people believe Republicans are less WASPy than they are. Turns out, oops, Republicans are really just stock photo models. Not surprising, really. It's understandable, though, especially since Koch Industries refused to allow their logo to star in the ad. They had to come up with something. That's just the tip of the iceberg of terrible Republican ads. Here's one comparing voting to dating. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/22/obama-women_n_5862004.html And another comparing voting to picking out a wedding dress http://thinkprogress.org/election/2014/10/01/3574672/say-yes-to-the-candidate/ Because if you can't get women to vote for you, it's probably because they don't understand what they are doing, so talk about it at their level of shopping and dating to really send that message home that you 'get' them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigima Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 You know, I enjoy poking fun at Republicans on stuff like that as much as the next guy, but I always thought their work in that area was a calculated political strategy. After seeing those I'm starting to wonder if Republicans are genuinely unable to grasp the idea of women as more than adjuncts to men suited only for shopping and cooking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Dunham started that trend. Another annoying trend that has become ubiquitous is the guilt trip fundraising emails I get the same things from Ted Cruz/Rand Paul people in my inbox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Kilmore Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Dunham started that trend. Another annoying trend that has become ubiquitous is the guilt trip fundraising emails I get the same things from Ted Cruz/Rand Paul people in my inbox. It really makes me think about that this American Life broadcast about how much time our Representatives are forced to call for donations. It is bonkers. The supreme court was hopelessly naive when it overturned McCain-Feingold Act. That law was a step in the right direction in getting this money push out of politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 It really makes me think about that this American Life broadcast about how much time our Representatives are forced to call for donations. It is bonkers. The supreme court was hopelessly naive when it overturned McCain-Feingold Act. That law was a step in the right direction in getting this money push out of politics. A public broadcasting program lamenting the need to solicit donations is amusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 It really makes me think about that this American Life broadcast about how much time our Representatives are forced to call for donations. It is bonkers. The supreme court was hopelessly naive when it overturned McCain-Feingold Act. That law was a step in the right direction in getting this money push out of politics. I disagree that the court was naive; it knew exactly what it was doing. Like most conservatives, the five justices who opened the floodgates on election money favor privilege, and striking down McCain-Feingold helped only those who have it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Kilmore Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 A public broadcasting program lamenting the need to solicit donations is amusing. I don't think attempting to solicit donations, in of itself, is a bad thing. It is an exchange of money from one party to another in which a service is continued to be provided. I think though when "hustling" takes over the bulk of one's job duties then it becomes a very bad thing. While you may disagree with public broadcasting, what does that have to do with the issue at hand? Are you doing a 180 on your previous posted stance, you are ok with the blast of emails you are getting from Ted Cruz and Rand Paul? Why else bring it up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Kilmore Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 I disagree that the court was naive; it knew exactly what it was doing. Like most conservatives, the five justices who opened the floodgates on election money favor privilege, and striking down McCain-Feingold helped only those who have it. I suppose my statement would be the best cast scenario. I feel you are most likely correct. I think it would be more accurate to say that Kennedy was naive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 I suppose my statement would be the best cast scenario. I feel you are most likely correct. I think it would be more accurate to say that Kennedy was naive. Maybe, although considering the way Kennedy voted on the ACA, I've become aware that Kennedy is quite capable of being radical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 While you may disagree with public broadcasting, what does that have to do with the issue at hand? Are you doing a 180 on your previous posted stance, you are ok with the blast of emails you are getting from Ted Cruz and Rand Paul? Why else bring it up? I'm lamenting the substance of those appeals for money, not the raising of money itself. Political expression requires resources, and there should be no limits on political expression. It says more about the electorate than the candidates. The content and subject lines of those emails are focus tested and statistically analyzed. They know exactly what words attract the most donations. Most of them involve appeals to tribal solidarity ("will you have candidate X's back?") or creepy big brother style guilt trips ("we've noticed you haven't donated for over a year"), or chicken little predictions about the consequences of not donating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Most of them involve appeals to tribal solidarity ("will you have candidate X's back?") or creepy big brother style guilt trips ("we've noticed you haven't donated for over a year"), or chicken little predictions about the consequences of not donating. My favorite is when they say things like "this election is THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION of your lifetime". Obviously some elections are more important than others, I think you could make the case that 2010 and 2012 were extremely important elections. But 2014 is not that year - no matter what the Republicans will hold the House and the Democrats will hold the WH, so it's a split government either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 You know, I enjoy poking fun at Republicans on stuff like that as much as the next guy, but I always thought their work in that area was a calculated political strategy. After seeing those I'm starting to wonder if Republicans are genuinely unable to grasp the idea of women as more than adjuncts to men suited only for shopping and cooking. I see those ads, and I think, "Are the Republicans being pranked? Did the Democrats set up a front advertising agency selling cut-rate but top-nothced TV commercials for attracting female voters to prank the GOP?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Kilmore Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 I'm lamenting the substance of those appeals for money, not the raising of money itself. Political expression requires resources, and there should be no limits on political expression. It says more about the electorate than the candidates. The content and subject lines of those emails are focus tested and statistically analyzed. They know exactly what words attract the most donations. Most of them involve appeals to tribal solidarity ("will you have candidate X's back?") or creepy big brother style guilt trips ("we've noticed you haven't donated for over a year"), or chicken little predictions about the consequences of not donating. This is a much better post than your previous, thank you for illuminating your thoughts on this issue. I think that as you continue to involve the vast amounts of money in politics then you are going to have an ever increasing trend towards this type of marketing. You can see it in other avenues of advertising as well. Fear, unfortunately, sells. And yes, those emails are obnoxious, I have them filtered towards my spam folder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 I'm lamenting the substance of those appeals for money, not the raising of money itself. Political expression requires resources, and there should be no limits on political expression. It says more about the electorate than the candidates. The content and subject lines of those emails are focus tested and statistically analyzed. They know exactly what words attract the most donations. Most of them involve appeals to tribal solidarity ("will you have candidate X's back?") or creepy big brother style guilt trips ("we've noticed you haven't donated for over a year"), or chicken little predictions about the consequences of not donating. Political expression does not 'require' resources. That's a false premise to tie money to political expression. Money is NOT political expression, it is a transaction between two parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 My favorite is when they say things like "this election is THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION of your lifetime". Obviously some elections are more important than others, I think you could make the case that 2010 and 2012 were extremely important elections. But 2014 is not that year - no matter what the Republicans will hold the House and the Democrats will hold the WH, so it's a split government either way. Whether the Democrats hold the Senate or not makes a HUGE difference. Especially with appointments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.