Obama Presidency

Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General discussions
Forum Description: Discuss any topic at all that is not music-related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=54955
Printed Date: February 04 2025 at 03:54
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com

Topic: Obama Presidency

Posted By: manofmystery
Subject: Obama Presidency
Date Posted: January 22 2009 at 13:18

Check your emotional attachments at the door this thread is for frank discussion of his policies, work with congress, and how it is presented in the media. The media component is in there because they drive most of the public's view of all public figures. Please avoid empty words, like "hope" (with apologies to his campaign slogans), and try to explain logically why you support/disapprove his policies, executive orders, etc. Let's also keep it civil: avoid name calling and wild accusations that you can not back up.

-------------

Time always wins.

Replies:

Posted By: manofmystery
Date Posted: January 22 2009 at 13:29

having trouble findning his executive order press conference to post but I was discouraged by the fact that he had to ask for help from Greg Craig while explaining his own executive orders. Will get into my issues with Craig and the orders themselves later on, have to run.

-------------

Time always wins.

Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: January 22 2009 at 13:43

Right now I'm trying to avoid all the fawning media coverage and giving him some space to get his administration moving.

Here's one great step forward:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/21/AR2009012102009.html?hpid=topnews - WP: "Obama Starts Reversing Bush Policies." Can't be Fast Enough.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/21/AR2009012102009.html?hpid=topnews - And unlike the right wing with Bush you can pretty much count on the left to be critical of Obama to a fault.

Here's to a civilized discussion!

Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: January 22 2009 at 14:09

I have high hopes for more transparency, accountability, credibility and integrity in his administration. With his election, the US has gained much international support. I think we will see improved diplomatic relations and much more commitment to treaties and the rule of law (international and national). I'm pleased that he's addressed Guantanamo Bay as well as the overseas black site CIA detention centres (off course there is much work to be done before closure), and has banned coercion, threats, physical abuse and waterboarding. If the US is to expect others to follow the rule of law, and international conventions, they should set an example (follow it themselves). It's early days, difficult times, and he's ambitious, we'll have to see how things work out, but I'm optimistic (I know you didn't want to bring hope into it, but I am very hopeful). I'm a sceptical person by nature, but feeling much less cynical. I'm hoping (there's that word again) for a more humanistic, socially conscious, rational and open administration.

Posted By: TheCaptain
Date Posted: January 22 2009 at 14:58

He just said that The US won't torture. That's always good to comply to the Geneva conventions I think.

-------------
Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal.

Posted By: crimhead
Date Posted: January 22 2009 at 15:57

Slartibartfast wrote:

Right now I'm trying to avoid all the fawning media coverage and giving him some space to get his administration moving.

Here's one great step forward:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/21/AR2009012102009.html?hpid=topnews - WP: "Obama Starts Reversing Bush Policies." Can't be Fast Enough.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/21/AR2009012102009.html?hpid=topnews - And unlike the right wing with Bush you can pretty much count on the left to be critical of Obama to a fault.

Here's to a civilized discussion!

How soon you forget how O'Reilly *snickers* held Bush accountable for what happened. (tongue in cheek)

Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: January 22 2009 at 17:03

Logan wrote:

I have high hopes for more transparency, accountability, credibility and integrity in his administration.

We'll see as much of transparency, accountability, credibility and integrity as any government can afford to show. On the other hand, "more" may mean anything. Even a tad more is already more. So you're probably right.

Logan wrote:

I'm pleased that he's addressed Guantanamo Bay as well as the overseas black site CIA detention centres (off course there is much work to be done before closure), and has banned coercion, threats, physical abuse and waterboarding. If the US is to expect others to follow the rule of law, and international conventions, they should set an example (follow it themselves).

Can anybody explain to me the need for such a rush? The very first act of the presidency. Nothing more urgent? Is it only to demonstrate to the world we respect international conventions? And who do we have to expect to follow the rule of law? Al Qaeda? I've heard that "rough" interrogation techniques Kahlid Mohammed was subjected to resulted in the uncovering of the plot to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge. How many people could have died if it we did adhere to the rule of law in this case? Or you really think the terrorists would stick to international conventions and close traffic in both direction before blowing it up?

OT: thanks for introducing me to Et Cetera. Great band.

Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: January 22 2009 at 17:16

IVNORD wrote:

Logan wrote:

I have high hopes for more transparency, accountability, credibility and integrity in his administration.

Logan wrote:

OT: thanks for introducing me to Et Cetera. Great band.

I'm sorry, a big prank has been played on you, Kahlid Sheikh Mohammed is actually Ron Jeremy. Tongue

I suppose you haven't heard about the various terrorist groups the Bush administration caught which were just a bunch of clowns with no capability to do anything. But then you can always believe that the real bad guys were actually caught and they had to keep it quiet, like Osama. But then if you consider the big hoopla made about the capturing of Saddam, they wouldn't have been the types to keep something like that quiet. The important thing to remember is that the Bush administration kept us safe as long as you don't consider the 9/11 attacks or the anthrax thingy.

It doesn't matter what conventions terrorists stick to, torture only works on TV or in the movies. Dare I say torture is terrorism? We have to act smarter than they do, not more evil.

-------------
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: January 22 2009 at 17:29

Slartibartfast wrote:

IVNORD wrote:

Logan wrote:

I have high hopes for more transparency, accountability, credibility and integrity in his administration.

Logan wrote:

OT: thanks for introducing me to Et Cetera. Great band.

I'm sorry, a big prank has been played on you Kahlid Sheikh Mohammed is actually Ron Jeremy. Tongue

Gee!

Slartibartfast wrote:

It doesn't matter what conventions terrorists stick to, torture only works on TV or in the movies. Dare I say torture is terrorism? We have to act smarter than they do, not more evil.

Not that I totally disagree with you, but if at least one innocent life is saved I don't give a flying f**k whether torture is terrorism or not.

Posted By: crimhead
Date Posted: January 22 2009 at 17:50

Slartibartfast wrote:

I'm sorry, a big prank has been played on you, Kahlid Sheikh Mohammed is actually Ron Jeremy.

I thought the big prank was the last 8 years of the Presidency?

Posted By: TheCaptain
Date Posted: January 22 2009 at 19:19

IVNORD wrote:

Logan wrote:

Is it only to demonstrate to the world we respect international conventions?

For the most part, yes. The reason that was one of the first things accomplished was that it was rather easy to do. Were he able to push a magic button to "fix" in his mind any single issue, it would have been the poor economy. The Gitmo decision along with most of his other first few directives were a combination of statements to the public and simplicity.

-------------
Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal.

Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: January 22 2009 at 21:23

IVNORD wrote:

We'll see as much of transparency, accountability, credibility and integrity as any government can afford to show. On the other hand, "more" may mean anything. Even a tad more is already more. So you're probably right.

There are obvious limits, and Obama is bound by an official secrets act.

IVNORD wrote:

Can anybody explain to me the need for such a rush? The very first act of the presidency. Nothing more urgent? Is it only to demonstrate to the world we respect international conventions? And who do we have to expect to follow the rule of law? Al Qaeda? I've heard that "rough" interrogation techniques Kahlid Mohammed was subjected to resulted in the uncovering of the plot to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge. How many people could have died if it we did adhere to the rule of law in this case? Or you really think the terrorists would stick to international conventions and close traffic in both direction before blowing it up?

Closing and investigating Guantanamo Bay is to demonstrate to the world the US respects international conventions. It was a platform and promise that Obama made. I also would like to think that it's because Obama genuinely believes in justice and the rule of law (and that he respects due and fair process). It was important for him to start investigations into the welfare of the prisoners and any allegations of abuse as they are under the US' care. I don't think it helps the US' case to be seen as a rogue state that is above the law and international conventions, and of course I would expect of my government too to not be in violation of human rights.

Of course one would not expect Al Qaeda to stick to international conventions, nor has the Al Qaeda organisation signed on to them, but I think it's important to send the message to the world's peoples and nation-states that the US upholds certain standards. I don't believe, as a matter of principle, in having double-standards/ being hypocritical. In terms of future expectations, I was thinking more of the dealings with states (expectations of what is appropriate and rightful behaviour).

Torture and coercion was not only used against him. I wonder when Bush linked its old ally Iraq to Al Qaeda in his struggle for the minds of Americans if he worried desperately about how many innocent Iraqis could be hurt? Let's face it, there's a lot of hostility towards the US because of its aggressive foreign policies throughout the years -- that has included supporting groups that have engaged in terrorism over the years, and of course the first strike policy has not sat well. There has been a feeling of hubris coming from the US, that they would support their interests no matter what, and to hell with you if you don't agree. "You're either with us or against us." One could be against the policies without being against the people. I think that Bush was too inclined towards thinking and expressing himself in black and white: good vs. evil, with or against..... Perhaps this "black and white" president will look to the grey areas more. At least he comes across as smarter and less dogmatic. I'm sure he'll be a more stately and respected statesman -- course he lacks that rather endearing swagger.

Of course the primary responsibility of the head of government should be to protect its citizens, but I don't believe that the ends justify the means. And when one starts flaunting or discarding conventions, even if it is expedient and effective in the short-term, that can cause long-term problems. It's a slippery slope.

Obama wants to improve the US' reputation, and in part, this is a struggle for the hearts and minds of people.

Anyway, that's pretty much how I feel. Given more time without distraction, I'm sure I could express myself better and more cogently.

OT: thanks for introducing me to Et Cetera. Great band.

Glad you like it. :)

Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: January 22 2009 at 21:30

He's tech-savvy, so even if he turns out to be as corrupt as Bush (I am confident in saying this is impossible), at least he'll be ahead of the curve.

Also, respect for science is better than fundamentalist bumbling from the Bush admin. I don't see and veiled statue's boobies for the Obama admin. Tongue

Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: January 22 2009 at 21:45

Very important to have a President who respects science more than superstition, imo. I do rather wish that a non-Christian had become Pres, however. But in the US' very religious climate, that would be highly unlikely.

I just thought of a joke, sorry it's poor, but some of the conservatives might like it. I don't agree with it myself. I'm sure I'm not the first to think of it. What's black and white and RED all over?

Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: January 22 2009 at 21:50

Logan wrote:

There are obvious limits, and Obama is bound by an official secrets act.

I didn't mean that. With all the dealing behind the closed doors endemic to any power group I don't expect transparency, etc. to improve significantly. The pure nature of power.

Logan wrote:

I don't wanna go there. And Bush is off topic.

Logan wrote:

Of course the primary responsibility of the head of government should be to protect its citizens, but I don't believe that the ends justify the means. And when one starts flaunting or discarding conventions, even if it is expedient and effective in the short-term, that can cause long-term problems. It's a slippery slope.

Disagree. Anything it takes to be safe. I don't care if they strip me completely naked at the airport if it ensures my safe flight. I don't care if they torture a terrorist to death if it saves an innocent life. You can't play by the rules with people who don't play by the rules; rather, if you want to win, play the way they play.

Posted By: horsewithteeth11
Date Posted: January 22 2009 at 22:01

IVNORD wrote:

Logan wrote:

There are obvious limits, and Obama is bound by an official secrets act.

I didn't mean that. With all the dealing behind the closed doors endemic to any power group I don't expect transparency, etc. to improve significantly. The pure nature of power.

Logan wrote:

I don't wanna go there. And Bush is off topic.

-------------

Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: January 22 2009 at 22:04

^ You're right, Bush is off-topic, but I did try to respond to your query, and so I think at least it would be nice of you to acknowledge the time I spent rather than brushing most of my post with "I don't want to go there." Nor did I, but you asked, and I took the time to try to respond.

Hypothetically, how would feel about torturing a "suspected" terrorist to death in the hopes that it might save an innocent life? Or what about torturing to death an American suspected of murder (or involved with plotting a murder/ murders) in the hope that it may save an innocent life? Where do you draw the line? When it's been proven in a fair manner?

Posted By: horsewithteeth11
Date Posted: January 22 2009 at 22:09

Logan wrote:

^ You're right, Bush is off-topic, but I did try to respond to your query, and so I think at least it would be nice of you to acknowledge the time I spent rather than brushing most of my post with "I don't want to go there." Nor did I, but you asked, and I took the time to try to respond.

Hypothetically, how would feel about torturing a "suspected" terrorist to death in the hopes that it might save an innocent life? Or what about torturing to death an American suspected of murder?

There's a huge difference there in my opinion. An American who commits murder has no need to be tortured. If on the other hand, said American was planning terrorist activities then I would have no problem with it. You did say that protecting the people is the main role of government. In some cases you really can't afford to play it on the safe side. This is going to sound really ultra-nationalistic (probably because it is LOL

), but to me, saving one innocent American life is more important than saving the life of someone who either is a terrorist or involved with terrorists. These people want to commit jihad and go to heaven to be with their seventy-two virgins? I don't mind helping them along the way, so long as it means less Americans die.

-------------

Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: January 22 2009 at 22:21

I was distracted and edited my post too late to clarify. What I meant was an American suspected of murder, or involved with a murderer, who they feel that if they don't extract a confession may strike again. It also relates to ones who are set free, or must release, because they could not prove guilt/ convict. The key word, though, is suspected. Has not been proven guilty in a fair legal process. The right to a fair trial is a tenet of law.

Posted By: manofmystery
Date Posted: January 22 2009 at 22:24

Only a short time left for Gitmo Island Retreat for Wayward Terrorists, hope they have more fun right back out on the battlefield. Allowing the terrorists and Taliban members stored at Gitmo the rights afforded to US citizens not only offensive its simplistic. What's the point of this anyway? It doesn't show compassion it shows weakness. The reason that the world supports Obama is because he is a light weight, they see him as a push over, someone who will cave in rather than take a stand and he just gave them their first evidence. Seems that a lot of you want the court of world opinion to decide every move America makes.

A lot of good it will do us to join dying Europe in showing the world that we play nice. I know Putin, for one, looks forward to batting Obama around like a rag doll for the next 4 years and I don't doubt he'll be able to.

As for the "right wing" supposedly never being critical of Bush, come on. Who kept Harriet Miers out of the Supreme Court and killed the amnesty bill? I'm not the only one who has been consistently disappointed in Bush's second term weakness, from the pork spending and not standing up for free market principals to his support of amnesty. That being said he cannot be blaimed for the financial system collapse, that lands squarely at the feet of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and other Democrats who were in deep with Fanny and Freddy and supported the whole sub prime morgage idea. And be serious, Slartibartfast, Bush was 7 months into his Presidency when the 9/11 attacks occured how about giving some blame to the man who preceded him and had countless opportunities to capture Osama and act on terrorism. It isn't as though we weren't attacked several times during the Clinton administration.

-------------

Time always wins.

Posted By: horsewithteeth11
Date Posted: January 22 2009 at 22:29

manofmystery wrote:

Only a short time left for Gitmo Island Retreat for Wayward Terrorists, hope they have more fun right back out on the battlefield. Allowing the terrorists and Taliban members stored at Gitmo the rights afforded to US citizens not only offensive its simplistic. What's the point of this anyway? It doesn't show compassion it shows weakness. The reason that the world supports Obama is because he is a light weight, they see him as a push over, someone who will cave in rather than take a stand and he just gave them their first evidence. Seems that a lot of you want the court of world opinion to decide every move America makes.

I agree. If these people aren't Americans, they don't have the same rights in our Constitution as we do. And quite honestly, sometimes Putin scares me more than what some of these terrorists do. I mean, the man has himself set up as dictator-for-life right now, and unlike these terrorists in the Middle East, he would have access to nukes...

Quite a frightening thought indeed.

-------------

Posted By: BroSpence
Date Posted: January 22 2009 at 23:24

Damn I had a big reply all set and then it got messed up and didn't get posted!

So basically what I said is (paraphrased and made brief):

Closing Gitmo is good, hopefully there is a good follow up in reference to the detained.

People of USA > accused terrorists.

O-man should have done something for us first, instead (Patriot Act, Economic stuggle, Real ID, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc etc). Waited on closing Gitmo.

ACLU has been more focused on Gitmo than other domestic issues. They should switch emphasis.

Originally posted by birdwithteeth11

I agree. If these people aren't Americans, they don't have the same rights in our Constitution as we do.

So I guess people with green cards should be allowed to speak freely or have a right to a lawyer or knowledge of their crime either? And those with dual citizenship only get half the rights?

Just a thought.

Posted By: Jim Garten
Date Posted: January 23 2009 at 02:46

People:

manofmystery wrote:

Check your emotional attachments at the door this thread is for discussion of Obama's policies, work with congress, and how it is presented in the media.

Many thanks.

-------------

Jon Lord 1941 - 2012

Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: January 23 2009 at 06:06

Post deleted.

Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: January 23 2009 at 06:39

I didn't mean to be disrespectful. All I meant was I don't want to talk about Bush as i will go back to Clinton and firther on to Reagan and it will turn into a brawl. As for the first two paragraphs, I think the last part of my post did address it.

Logan wrote:

Hypothetically, how would feel about torturing a "suspected" terrorist to death in the hopes that it might save an innocent life? Or what about torturing to death an American suspected of murder (or involved with plotting a murder/ murders) in the hope that it may save an innocent life? Where do you draw the line? When it's been proven in a fair manner?

Oh please! It's below the belt! Don't compare a common criminal with a terrorist. At the very least they have different ideology for crime, not to mention different means to perpetrate it.

Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: January 23 2009 at 06:45

Logan wrote:

I was distracted and edited my post too late to clarify. What I meant was an American suspected of murder, or involved with a murderer, who they feel that if they don't extract a confession may strike again. It also relates to ones who are set free, or must release, because they could not prove guilt/ convict. The key word, though, is suspected. Has not been proven guilty in a fair legal process. The right to a fair trial is a tenet of law.

Do you mean Kahlid Mohamed is just suspected? And please note - he wasn't tortured to extract a confession but to extract information.

I am absolutely FOR the notion of presumption of innocence in criminal law, but on the other hand I am totally against the release of a suspect on a legal technicality.

Posted By: Jim Garten
Date Posted: January 23 2009 at 06:47

Originally posted by Jim Garten, not that it appears to have been noted <img src=smileys/smiley22.gif border=0 align=middle />

Jim Garten, not that it appears to have been noted wrote:

People:

manofmystery wrote:

Check your emotional attachments at the door this thread is for discussion of Obama's policies, work with congress, and how it is presented in the media

Many thanks.

-------------

Jon Lord 1941 - 2012

Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: January 23 2009 at 06:50

And now for a moment of humor, sorry I can't resisit:

Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: January 23 2009 at 06:58

IVNORD wrote:

I am absolutely FOR the notion of presumption of innocence in criminal law, but on the other hand I am totally against the release of a suspect on a legal technicality.

Here's the thing that bugs me, if they had stuff on these guys, why haven't they prosecuted them already? If you don't by now you never will. Innocent people who are locked up tend to resent that. Doubly so if they are tortured. These people may go to the "battlefield" if they are now released, but it won't be "back to the battlefield", it will be out of desire for revenge. Wouldn't you? By not following the rule of law, even if there really aren't rules for these kind of prisoners, then you must go to the next best thing, the Geneva Convention. As I recall, treating our enemies humanely worked out pretty well with WW II. The last administration has set us up with something for which there are no good solutions. Worse still, our policies have become recruitment tools for Al-Quieda. If we continue to go down this road, Gitmo won't be big enough to house all the enemy combatants that will be coming our way. Sure you have to be strong against those who would seek to attack you, but making new enemies is inherently stupid.

-------------
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: January 23 2009 at 07:11

I guess i could not escape a Clinton debate after all...

manofmystery wrote:

Allowing the terrorists and Taliban members stored at Gitmo the rights afforded to US citizens not only offensive its simplistic.

Not only that. I think the Geneva convention does not address the terrorist issue at all, but it states that combatants in the adversary's uniform or civilian clothes should be treated as spies, tried by military courts and executed.

manofmystery wrote:

What's the point of this anyway? It doesn't show compassion it shows weakness. The reason that the world supports Obama is because he is a light weight, they see him as a push over, someone who will cave in rather than take a stand and he just gave them their first evidence. Seems that a lot of you want the court of world opinion to decide every move America makes.

I've refrained from such harsh words only not to offend our liberal friends. Coincidently, I said the same thing about Putin to a Russian friend while discussing the elections back in October, 2008.

manofmystery wrote:

That being said he cannot be blaimed for the financial system collapse, that lands squarely at the feet of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and other Democrats who were in deep with Fanny and Freddy and supported the whole sub prime morgage idea.

Enter Clinton. The whole business had been started during his reign. The most disgusting thing is the fact that he did that mostly to boost his popularity to win the second term.

manofmystery wrote:

And be serious, Slartibartfast, Bush was 7 months into his Presidency when the 9/11 attacks occured how about giving some blame to the man who preceded him and had countless opportunities to capture Osama and act on terrorism. It isn't as though we weren't attacked several times during the Clinton administration.

Slartibartfast plays dirty too often to respond to it every time. Get used to it

Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: January 23 2009 at 07:17

IVNORD wrote:

Slartibartfast plays dirty too often to respond to it every time. Get used to it

Sir, if by playing dirty you actually mean I run rings around you logically, I accept your insult as a badge or honor. LOL

The Clinton administration did their best to pass on the ball regarding the terrorism that was happening. The Bush administration did their best to ignore it and focus on attacking Iraq. The 9/11 attack just made them have to postpone their plans for a while, but they still managed to get around to it using the 9/11attacks and false reports of WMD's to justify it. And you might recall that the perpetrators of the first WTC attack were apprehended and prosecuted during the Clinton administration.

-------------
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: January 23 2009 at 07:18

BroSpence wrote:

So I guess people with green cards should be allowed to speak freely or have a right to a lawyer or knowledge of their crime either? And those with dual citizenship only get half the rights?

Just a thought.

Why branch out unnecessarily? You understand perfectly that he spoke about the terrorists.

Posted By: Chicapah
Date Posted: January 23 2009 at 07:48

I pray Obama does well but keep in mind that my generation thought Jimmy Carter, who shared much of Barack's ideology, was the answer to the world's ills. He wasn't.

-------------
"Literature is well enough, as a time-passer, and for the improvement and general elevation and purification of mankind, but it has no practical value" - Mark Twain

Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: January 23 2009 at 08:02

Slartibartfast wrote:

Sir, if by playing dirty you actually mean I run rings around you logically, I accept your insult as a badge or honor. LOL

Those "logical rings" are pretty much imaginary. I had no intent to insult you in any way, sorry you view it this way. It would pass as an innocent remark in a casual conversation.

Slartibartfast wrote:

The Clinton administration did their best to pass on the ball regarding the terrorism that was happening. The Bush administration did their best to ignore it and focus on attacking Iraq. The 9/11 attack just made them have to postpone their plans for a while, but they still managed to get around to it using the 9/11attacks and false reports of WMD's to justify it. And you might recall that the perpetrators of the first WTC attack were apprehended and prosecuted during the Clinton administration.

That's not what you said before

Slartibartfast wrote:

The important thing to remember is that the Bush administration kept us safe as long as you don't consider the 9/11 attacks or the anthrax thingy.

If it's not blaming Bush fof those attacks, what is? Wasn't it Clinton's fault? How he handled the first WTC? The two embassies in Africa? The Cole? Refusing taking Osama into US custody? As a believer in the majority rule, would you agree that the mid-term elections of 2002 were a clear vote of non-confidence for the Democrats largely because of 9/11? (with all the damage brought upon us by the unrestrained Bush administration as a result). God forbid, if something happens in the next 4 years, the Democrats would be barred from office for the next 10-15 years, and Bush abuses would look like a picnic in comparison with the unopposed reaction that might ensue.

You are pretty biased, just look at the cartoons you post. And if I remember correctly, you're "predominantly democratic" by your own admission. But no matter what your convictions are, you have to be fair.

Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: January 23 2009 at 08:54

Slartibartfast wrote:

IVNORD wrote:

I am absolutely FOR the notion of presumption of innocence in criminal law, but on the other hand I am totally against the release of a suspect on a legal technicality.

Soryy I misse d this one...

Presumption of innocence in CRIMINAL LAW. Not in terrorist lawlessness.

Treating POW's humanely during WWII was mutual. Why should you treat humanely somebody who decapitates you in the most inhumane manner?

Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: January 23 2009 at 09:53

Obama to reverse abortion policy

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama plans to sign an executive order ending the ban on federal funds for international groups that promote or perform abortions, officials told The Associated Press on Friday.

The policy bans U.S. taxpayer money, usually in the form of U.S. Agency for International Development funds, from going to international family planning groups that either offer abortions or provide information, counseling or referrals about abortion.

It's all very nice but is it the most important thing on Earth?!?!?

Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: January 23 2009 at 10:04

-------------
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: January 23 2009 at 12:05

IVNORD wrote:

Treating POW's humanely during WWII was mutual. Why should you treat humanely somebody who decapitates you in the most inhumane manner?

If you are decapitated, it's kind of hard to retaliate, unless one comes back as a ghost -- which is what I plan to do if my head gets lopped off (well, depending on which head).

IVNORD wrote:

Obama to reverse abortion policy

It's all very nice but is it the most important thing on Earth?!?!?

Defintely not; I am. ;) For me, the most important thing on Earth is my family -- it's relative. He hasn't had a lot of time to tackle the bigger problems yet, such as climate change etc.

Incidentally, sorry for the poor analogy before when it came to a suspected murderer and a suspected terrorist. I should have elaborated on it and definitely should have mentioned extracting information, and coercing confessions, in the hopes of preventing more crimes.
I was thinking of the various allegations of torture, not a specific case (I did say suspected). In Canada, the case of Omar Khada has been much in the news since he was captured at the age of 15 in Afghanistan, and there have been allegations of abuse of many prisoners, including him. It's not an isolated incident, and of course it has been contested what the rights of enemy combatants, and suspected enemeny combatants who are civilians. I don't think that all who were captured and sent to Gitmo worked for Al Qaeda or were terrorists. In fact, many were released (including ones they didn't have sufficient evidence against and are working for Al Qaeda). Some were defending their country and gov't, rightly or wrongly, even if not professional soldiers. I am no fan of the Taliban, that's for sure.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/01/13/f-omar-khadr.html - http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/01/13/f-omar-khadr.html

More on Gitmo: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/08/07/f-guantanamo-legalbg.html - http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/08/07/f-guantanamo-legalbg.html

But I am digressing, and I'm too bored to write much about it, and we have been asked to stay on topic, and on a topic which is better discussed amongst lawyers due to all of the legal implications/ factors.

back on topic:

Quoted from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7847236.stm - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7847236.stm

Obama says stimulus deal on track

President Barack Obama has said that Congress is on target to approve his planned $825bn (£608bn) economic stimulus package by 16 February.

His comments came after he meet with Democrat and Republican leaders.

While the legislation is expected to face a relatively easy passage - due to the Democrats' majority in both houses - Mr Obama wants bipartisan support.

Various parts of the $825bn (£608bn) package have already been passed by House of Representatives committees.

President Obama said the US was facing an "unprecedented economic crisis" that had to be dealt with quickly.

'Working hard'

"Yes we wrote the bill, yes we won the election," said Democrats leader and House Speak Nancy Pelosi.

I recognize that there are still some difference around the table and between the administration and members of Congress about particular details on the plan

President Barack Obama

"But that doesn't mean we don't want it to have sustainability and bipartisan support, and the president is working hard to get that done."

Ms Pelosi reiterated the president's position that the bill would get to him by 16 February.

Despite Ms Pelosi's comments, some Republicans have accused the Democrats of "barrelling ahead without any bipartisan support".

Republicans claim the president's package is too expensive and doesn't create enough jobs.

Mr Obama said that while he was confident the bill would be delivered, he recognised that some opposition remained.

"I recognize that there are still some difference around the table and between the administration and members of Congress about particular details on the plan," he said.

The bill is currently being scrutinised by Congressional committees.

On Thursday, the ways and means committee approved the $275bn in planned tax cuts, with the 24 Democrats on the committee voting for the proposal, while the 13 Republicans voted against.

Another part of the bill, the call for spending $2.8bn on increased broadband services has passed through the energy and commerce committee.

I'm not at all confident in his approach, I wonder if he is?

Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: January 23 2009 at 12:23

Here's an interesting article from the World Socialist Web Site: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jan2009/guan-j23.shtml - http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jan2009/guan-j23.shtml

I won't reprint the whole thing:

On Thursday, President Barack Obama issued executive orders mandating the closure of the Guantánamo Bay prison camp in a year’s time, requiring that Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and military personnel follow the Army Field Manual’s prohibitions on torture, and closing secret CIA prisons overseas.

While the media is portraying these orders as a repudiation of the detention and interrogation policies of the Bush administration, they actually change little. They essentially represent a public relations effort to refurbish the image of the United States abroad after years of torture and extralegal detentions and shield high-ranking American officials from potential criminal prosecution.

In cowardly fashion, Obama staged his signing of the orders in a manner aimed at placating the political right and defenders of Guantánamo and torture and underscoring his intention to continue the Bush administration’s “war on terror.”....

The more that things change, the more they stay the same?

Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: January 23 2009 at 12:56

Logan wrote:

Republicans claim the president's package is too expensive and doesn't create enough jobs.

So, it would create more jobs if it were cheaper? LOL

I think what they really meant is it doesn't throw enough money towards the wealthy. Wink

Makes you wonder sometimes if Republicans are suffering from brain atrophy.

By the way a lot of people misunderstood, it was a war on terra http://terraserver-usa.com/ - http://terraserver-usa.com/ not a war on terror. Tongue

-------------
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: January 23 2009 at 12:59

Psh, like I'm going to believe a bunch of socialists!

I thought http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123266988914308217.html - this was an interesting editorial regarding the stimulus package , but I don't know how true it is.

-------------
if you own a sodastream i hate you

Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: January 23 2009 at 15:19

Slartibartfast wrote:

Logan wrote:

Republicans claim the president's package is too expensive and doesn't create enough jobs.

So, it would create more jobs if it were cheaper? LOL

I think what they really meant is it doesn't throw enough money towards the wealthy. Wink

OT: Is it really that you don't understand what it says or just playing your favorite game again?

The plan is BOTH too expensive and doesn't create enough jobs. So have it changed to either be cheaper, or create enough jobs, or be cheaper AND create enough jobs. Any better? Now will you accuse me of insulting you with playing dirty?

Back to the subject: All this partisan crap is business as usual.

Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: January 23 2009 at 15:21

Logan wrote:

Here's an interesting article from the World Socialist Web Site: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jan2009/guan-j23.shtml - http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jan2009/guan-j23.shtml

I won't reprint the whole thing:

The more that things change, the more they stay the same?

It certainly was a PR move and not the best one

Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: January 23 2009 at 15:46

Henry Plainview wrote:

Psh, like I'm going to believe a bunch of socialists!

I thought http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123266988914308217.html - this was an interesting editorial regarding the stimulus package , but I don't know how true it is.

Who do you call socialists? WSJ or Peter Schiff?

It's a plausible scenario, but there is another path to riches. If we can't sell our debt, we can simply print dollars for our internal consumption. Ultimately it would delute the existing money pool to such a degree that the dollar holdings of our creditors would be reduced to a virtual zero. It would harm us too but if the common wisdom says we have to stimulate spending thru deficits, new money should be created. i don't think the chinese would opt for destabilizing the entire world by refusing to finance our lifestyle.

Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: January 23 2009 at 17:44

Well if it doesn't create enough jobs, how can making it cheaper improve the amount of jobs it will create? Now if you get into the details, of course you could argue that it isn't structured properly.

I have to say that I am still amused that you haven't gotten over or understood my mock indignation. And I must say, I am not bothered by that in the least. LOL

Posted By: crimhead
Date Posted: January 23 2009 at 18:37

We need to get back to our roots of being a nation that produces instead of a nation that consumes. Borrowing money to give tax breaks is not going to help the USA if we are buying foreign made products.

Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: January 23 2009 at 20:11

Slartibartfast wrote:

I have to say that I am still amused that you haven't gotten over or understood my mock indignation. And I must say, I am not bothered by that in the least. LOL

Sorry for being a jackass. Though it is really hard to figure out when you're serious. Peace

Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: January 23 2009 at 20:16

IVNORD wrote:

Though it is really hard to figure out when you're serious. Peace

I think the answer is never. Wink

Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: January 23 2009 at 23:25

IVNORD wrote:

Henry Plainview wrote:

Psh, like I'm going to believe a bunch of socialists!

I thought http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123266988914308217.html - this was an interesting editorial regarding the stimulus package , but I don't know how true it is.

Who do you call socialists? WSJ or Peter Schiff?

Logan's link, since they are actual socialists. :P

-------------
if you own a sodastream i hate you

Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: January 24 2009 at 06:58

IVNORD wrote:

Slartibartfast wrote:

I have to say that I am still amused that you haven't gotten over or understood my mock indignation. And I must say, I am not bothered by that in the least. LOL

Sorry for being a jackass. Though it is really hard to figure out when you're serious. Peace

That's cool. When it comes to political discussions, it might help to know that I'm a big fan of the Daily Show and the Colbert Report, also Keith Olbermann, who I was doing a little imitation of. He does these special commentaries that are usually oozing with contempt and he does address those the redresses with "sir".

I know there isn't much we'll agree on but I can tell you have the same passion for political issues that I do.

See there, NaturalScience, I actually can be serious, or was I, sir? Tongue

Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: January 24 2009 at 09:35

Henry Plainview wrote:

Logan's link, since they are actual socialists. :P

Got you, thanks

Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: January 24 2009 at 09:43

Slartibartfast wrote:

I know there isn't much we'll agree on but I can tell you have the same passion for political issues that I do.

I wouldn't call mine a "passion for political issues." It's rather a disgust with the state of political affairs of the last 15 years. See, we differ here too

Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: January 26 2009 at 08:19

Executive Order -- Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and sections 3301 and 7301 of title 5, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Ethics Pledge. Every appointee in every executive agency appointed on or after January 20, 2009, shall sign, and upon signing shall be contractually committed to, the following pledge upon becoming an appointee:

"As a condition, and in consideration, of my employment in the United States Government in a position invested with the public trust, I commit myself to the following obligations, which I understand are binding on me and are enforceable under law:

"1. Lobbyist Gift Ban. I will not accept gifts from registered lobbyists or lobbying organizations for the duration of my service as an appointee.

"2. Revolving Door Ban All Appointees Entering Government. I will not for a period of 2 years from the date of my appointment participate in any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to my former employer or former clients, including regulations and contracts.

"3. Revolving Door Ban Lobbyists Entering Government. If I was a registered lobbyist within the 2 years before the date of my appointment, in addition to abiding by the limitations of paragraph 2, I will not for a period of 2 years after the date of my appointment:

(a) participate in any particular matter on which I lobbied within the 2 years before the date of my appointment;

All this Ethics Commitments crap is fine and dandy but why only for 2 years? I guess they've made enough money to last for 2 years, thereafter all bets are off. Wonder if they lobbied Obama to make it 2 years instead of, say, 3 or 2.5. Note that the ban on gifts should last for "the duration of my service as an appointee." Who needs these paltry handouts? The real money will be made when we pass the damn 2-year term.

Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: January 26 2009 at 12:34

IVNORD wrote:

Slartibartfast wrote:

I know there isn't much we'll agree on but I can tell you have the same passion for political issues that I do.

I wouldn't call mine a "passion for political issues." It's rather a disgust with the state of political affairs of the last 15 years. See, we differ here too

Well then, sir, I do actually share your disgust. Big smile

Wait a second, 15 years only takes us back to, '94, mine goes back much further...

Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: January 28 2009 at 17:16

Why hasn't Obama fixed everything yet!
He's had like a week now!

I say we impeach him

Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: January 28 2009 at 17:33

http://www.gocomics.com/mikeluckovich/2009/01/17/#"> Crmlu090117

-------------
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: February 04 2009 at 13:17

Another superficial PR

http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/topstories/*http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090204/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bailout_executive_pay - Obama caps executive pay tied to bailout money (AP)

AP - President Barack Obama on Wednesday imposed $500,000 caps on senior executive pay for the most distressed financial institutions receiving federal bailout money, saying Americans are upset with "executives being rewarded for failure."

I surely agree that no one should be rewarded for failure. Furthermore, I believe they should be thrown out because of their failure. That would effectively put a $0 cap on their pay. Now if you leave those executives where they are and pay them 20 to 40 times less (on average) how do you expect them to perform? And if you try to find a replacement, a real sharp guy to run a Citibank-type operation, he must be a real enthusiast to take a pay which may be potentially less than that of some of his employees.

Nice try.

Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: February 04 2009 at 14:23

Great big freaking mistake letting those terrorists go in one year. Not many military people happy about that one. And six of the insects want asylum in Canada. As far as I`m concerned as a former Canadian military man they are not welcome in my country.

-------------

Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: February 04 2009 at 14:43

IVNORD wrote:

Another superficial PR

http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/topstories/*http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090204/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bailout_executive_pay - AP - President Barack Obama on Wednesday imposed $500,000 caps on senior executive pay for the most distressed financial institutions receiving federal bailout money, saying Americans are upset with "executives being rewarded for failure."

Nice try.

Here's the thing, all the lavish pay and bonuses are being justified saying that they need to attract and retain the best. Where the hell else are these guys going to go? Executives overseas get paid much less. Time to consider offering them those jobs. And why aren't these guys getting tossed out for their failures? I expect them to perform as well as everyone else lower down on the economic ladder who are seeing their wages and benefits slashed.

-------------
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: February 04 2009 at 15:59

Harsher penalties for white collar crime. Conrad Black six years? I would have locked him up for life thrown away the key and fed him bread and water. Except on Christmas I`d be a nice compassionate guy and put butter on the bread and flavour crytals in the water. Seriously though, I agree with you there Mr. Slartibartfast.

-------------

Posted By: horsewithteeth11
Date Posted: February 04 2009 at 16:12

Slartibartfast wrote:

IVNORD wrote:

Another superficial PR

Nice try.

I agree that these guys shouldn't be awarded for failure as has already been mentioned, but come on, you might have just said one of the most ridiculous things I've seen in this thread. If you want the American economy to improve, you need to keep jobs in this country, not send them overseas.

Otherwise, I agree with the rest of what you said.

-------------

Posted By: toroddfuglesteg
Date Posted: February 04 2009 at 16:24

"I screwed up". When did an American president utter those words last time ? President Nixon after Watergate ? I am frankly impressed by Barack Obama. OK, he did screw up, but he is owning up to that. I do trust people who owns up to their mistakes. These are called H U M A N B E I N G S.

Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: February 04 2009 at 16:39

Nixon never said he screwed up..on the contrary, he blamed everyone but himself-- got I hate that oily, miserable, psychotic, twisted, unethical, unprincipled, deranged, narcissistic, desperate, bizarre, creepy, vapid, egregious, horrible little man. How did anyone not see through him, especially by '73 ?

Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: February 04 2009 at 16:40

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Slartibartfast wrote:

IVNORD wrote:

Another superficial PR

Nice try.

Kind of missed my point there, as long as we are sending working people's jobs overseas, why not give the executives the same treatment and see how much they like it? Of course the more sensible thing to have done would have to have a tax policy that made it financially impractical for companies to ship jobs overseas in place many years ago. Unfortunately, the barn door's been open for way too long and we are now paying the price across the board, not just in the working class sectors.

-------------
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: February 04 2009 at 20:14

Slartibartfast wrote:

IVNORD wrote:

Another superficial PR

http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/topstories/*http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090204/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bailout_executive_pay - Obama caps executive pay tied to bailout money (AP)

Nice try.

You could not mandate all business to cap their executives' pay by presidential decree. Talent will seek better, more rewarding employment.

Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: February 04 2009 at 20:21

Atavachron wrote:

Nixon never said he screwed up..on the contrary, he blamed everyone but himself-- got I hate that oily, miserable, psychotic, twisted, unethical, unprincipled, deranged, narcissistic, desperate, bizarre, creepy, vapid, egregious, horrible little man. How did anyone not see through him, especially by '73 ?

Too many epithets... His vanity that's what killed him. If not for that he would have been remembered as a great strategist

Posted By: horsewithteeth11
Date Posted: February 04 2009 at 20:24

Slartibartfast wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Slartibartfast wrote:

IVNORD wrote:

Another superficial PR

Nice try.

Oh, I see what you mean. My bad.

Although as for the tax policy thing, the reason companies ship jobs overseas is because, ironically enough, labor costs have become so expensive in this country. Besides restructuring companies themselves, we'd have to restructure the unions in this country, but so many people would be in an outrage over that, and it's not really an issue I want to touch with a 100-foot pole because of how sensitive it would become for some people.

-------------

Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: February 04 2009 at 20:32

IVNORD wrote:

Too many epithets... His vanity that's what killed him. If not for that he would have been remembered as a great strategist

sure, a great strategist of deceit and selfishness

Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: February 04 2009 at 20:33

only a master of evil, Darth

Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: February 04 2009 at 20:39

^ he wasn't even as appealing, at least Vader was cool

Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: February 04 2009 at 20:47

evil and lame, what a combo

Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: February 04 2009 at 21:18

Slartibartfast wrote:

Kind of missed my point there, as long as we are sending working people's jobs overseas, why not give the executives the same treatment and see how much they like it? Of course the more sensible thing to have done would have to have a tax policy that made it financially impractical for companies to ship jobs overseas in place many years ago.

Can't do that. Protectionism never worked and never will. Capitalism is constantly looking for bigger profits thru lower costs. A tax policy to make the unions more competitive would do

Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: February 04 2009 at 21:20

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Oh, I see what you mean. My bad.

Although as for the tax policy thing, the reason companies ship jobs overseas is because, ironically enough, labor costs have become so expensive in this country. Besides restructuring companies themselves, we'd have to restructure the unions in this country, but so many people would be in an outrage over that, and it's not really an issue I want to touch with a 100-foot pole because of how sensitive it would become for some people.

You said it whileI forgot to post my reply.

Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: February 04 2009 at 21:22

Atavachron wrote:

IVNORD wrote:

Too many epithets... His vanity that's what killed him. If not for that he would have been remembered as a great strategist

sure, a great strategist of deceit and selfishness

Those were a part of his vanity thing. The man opened China and Russia, and got the country out of Vietnam.

Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: February 04 2009 at 21:35

Well so far Obama has been very unorthodox . . . . which is a very good thing.

Posted By: TheCaptain
Date Posted: February 04 2009 at 22:21

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/??

There's a neat little site to keep track of Obama''s promises.

-------------
Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal.

Posted By: 1800iareyay
Date Posted: February 04 2009 at 22:30

toroddfuglesteg wrote:

Even better is the fact that it's really not his fault Daschle didn't pay his taxes. He's just doing what a responsible leader does and taking responsibility for something that happened under his umbrella. The fact that people are making this out to be some sort of proof when Bush spent 5 years lying about a war and blaming every intelligence agency for sh*t he and his cronies just made up is laughable.

Posted By: jimmy_row
Date Posted: February 05 2009 at 11:46

Here's what I've heard from my friends on the right: Obama can do no right because it is impossible to meet his lofty promises. He is doomed to failure.

Friends on the left: Obama can do no wrong, he is the saviour. And if he makes a boo-boo...well, Bush was terrible so we'll just compare the two.

-------------
Signature Writers Guild on strike

Posted By: Padraic
Date Posted: February 05 2009 at 11:57

1800iareyay wrote:

toroddfuglesteg wrote:

after Daschle removed his name from consideration because the stink was getting so bad - and the outcry was coming from the left. When the NYT Editorial Board said he needed to withdraw, his goose was cooked.

Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: February 06 2009 at 06:58

NaturalScience wrote:

1800iareyay wrote:

toroddfuglesteg wrote:

After Geithner's tax problems, Daschle's one too many

Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: February 06 2009 at 07:25

Obama urges higher efficiency standards for household appliances

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/05/barack-obama-energy-efficiency-environment - http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/05/barack-obama-energy-efficiency-environment

Does anybody know what he proposed exactly ? Is the proposal realistic enough to be implemented or it will be another flurry of useless activity paid for by tax dollars?

Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: February 06 2009 at 08:13

I don't think the contents of the proposal have been made public - I have little doubt they will be realistic, but they won't be enough to make a significant difference - household appliances are the tip of a very large iceberg.

-------------
What?

Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: February 06 2009 at 08:26

Dean wrote:

I don't think the contents of the proposal have been made public - I have little doubt they will be realistic, but they won't be enough to make a significant difference - household appliances are the tip of a very large iceberg.

That iceberg wouldn't be in danger of melting, would it be?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

-------------
https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays

Posted By: crimhead
Date Posted: February 06 2009 at 13:55

Epignosis wrote:

That iceberg wouldn't be in danger of melting, would it be?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

With any luck it would melt and flood Washington,DC. Tongue

Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: February 06 2009 at 15:36

crimhead wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

That iceberg wouldn't be in danger of melting, would it be?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

With any luck it would melt and flood Washington,DC. Tongue

If I'm not mistaken WDC is in a low lying area. LOL

Which kind of makes me wonder at what rate is old George spinning in his grave for being named after the place. Tongue

-------------
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: February 06 2009 at 16:05

We have to start somewhere... if technology allows it why not lower the usage at the consumer level. After all an average electric bill runs $100 a month, we have about 60 mln households in this country, and business, big and small, would use less energy eventually too. Though I am pretty sceptical the proposal is viable

Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: February 06 2009 at 16:07

Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: February 06 2009 at 16:25

Slartibartfast wrote:

Most likely Obama himself should have left the room too...

Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: February 06 2009 at 17:38

http://www.aprilwinchell.com/2009/02/05/barack-obama-is-tired-of-your-motherf**king-sh*t - www.aprilwinchell.com/2009/02/05/barack-obama-is-tired-of-your-motherf**king-sh*t

Guess what the link is supposed to say, and remember this is just for your amusement. ;-)

-------------
if you own a sodastream i hate you

Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: February 06 2009 at 17:50

^ The auto-censor censors your link too ... Error 404 - page not found

IVNORD wrote:

I'm not knocking it - any energy reduction is a plus and increasing the efficiency of household appliances is an easy win since the rest of the world is already doing this.

The average annual household consumption in the USA is over 2.5 times that of an average European household - you could cut consumption by 60% without the need for legislation, so whether it is viable or not is somewhat irrelevant.

-------------
What?

Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: February 06 2009 at 18:45

IVNORD wrote:

Slartibartfast wrote:

Most likely Obama himself should have left the room too...

I knew you'd like that one. You probably won't believe it but it came from the liberal http://www.bartcop.com - http://www.bartcop.com site.

-------------
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Posted By: crimhead
Date Posted: February 06 2009 at 19:02

Interesting that they dig someone up as timely as Casey Stengel to make a point. It's very timely of them.

Posted By: horsewithteeth11
Date Posted: February 06 2009 at 19:42

Dean wrote:

^ The auto-censor censors your link too ... Error 404 - page not found

IVNORD wrote:

I'm not knocking it - any energy reduction is a plus and increasing the efficiency of household appliances is an easy win since the rest of the world is already doing this.

If it were to prove as not being viable, then why would we do it (I don't actually know if it would be viable or not. I'm just playing devil's advocate Evil Smile

)?

-------------

Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: February 06 2009 at 22:33

Dean wrote:

^ The auto-censor censors your link too ... Error 404 - page not found

IVNORD wrote:

I'm not knocking it - any energy reduction is a plus and increasing the efficiency of household appliances is an easy win since the rest of the world is already doing this.

By 60%! We'd rather die!

The $100 is my guesstimate. It depends on the size of one's house, of course. For a 2,000-2,500 sq ft. house it may be an accurate number and there are lots of houses of this size.

The consumption will go down because of the recession, but in good times it's a feast, people just don't care. So having energy efficient appliances is imperative.

Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: February 06 2009 at 22:40

Slartibartfast wrote:

IVNORD wrote:

Slartibartfast wrote:

Most likely Obama himself should have left the room too...

I knew you'd like that one.

How did you guess?

Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: February 06 2009 at 22:49

Dean wrote:

^ The auto-censor censors your link too ... Error 404 - page not found

I know, that's why I said to guess what it should be. Hopefully without incurring your wrath. ;-)

-------------
if you own a sodastream i hate you

Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: February 06 2009 at 22:50

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

If it were to prove as not being viable, then why would we do it (I don't actually know if it would be viable or not. I'm just playing devil's advocate Evil Smile

I don't know that either. That's why I asked if anyone knows the details. It may be reduced to nothing as it happens quite often with good ideas. The standard set too high; government's research grants wasted; lobbying to kill it - you name it.

Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: February 07 2009 at 04:03

IVNORD wrote:

By 60%! We'd rather die!

The $100 is my guesstimate. It depends on the size of one's house, of course. For a 2,000-2,500 sq ft. house it may be an accurate number and there are lots of houses of this size.

The consumption will go down because of the recession, but in good times it's a feast, people just don't care. So having energy efficient appliances is imperative.

You may jest but unfortunately that's probably how many people will react in reality. When 25% of the world's electricity is used by 4% of the world's population then a few percent saving is going to have a global effect - people have to be taught to care.

At an average cost of 9¢/KWh and an average annual consumption of 11,000KWh it's $80/month - but that's an average - with prices varying so dramatically across the country the variance is large, if you live in a state where the charges are 11¢/KWh...

Appliance efficiency on its own is not enough (a microwave oven is already 64% efficient and that's a pretty good number), but once the low-energy mind-set is established it won't be the efficiency of the appliance that makes the difference, but the efficiency of how you use it.

-------------
What?

Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: February 07 2009 at 04:20

IVNORD wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

If it were to prove as not being viable, then why would we do it (I don't actually know if it would be viable or not. I'm just playing devil's advocate Evil Smile

There's no need to play devil's advocate David, since the details are not known and every one is guessing and speculating. However, if Obama sets a random figure of 30% and all that can be achieved is 15% it is still a win - but if it is killed-off before it has a chance to do anything it is a net loss. Making appliances more efficient makes them more competitive on the global market where the Japanese and European manufacturers dominate, this not only benefits the home market, it increases exports and reduces imports.

-------------
What?

Posted By: Atkingani
Date Posted: February 07 2009 at 05:01

In April, our government will start a program to replace all refrigerators built before 2002 in order to increase safety and save energy. They believe the number may reach 10,000,000 units.

These apparatus are owned primarily by poor families that bought them secondhand in many cases and consequently they'll get the money for the replacement with low interests. The aim to save energy will have the side effect of keeping manufacturers and dealers busy during these tempestuous days, saving many jobs too.

-------------
Guigo

~~~~~~