• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What past presidents do you see in the current candidates

So the 18 or so UN resolutions against saddam were all orchestrated by Bush because he wanted to blow up Iraq? you cannot be that ignorant.

Its a combination of lies and mistakes, the world is not so simple.
 
Your understanding of climate science is bewildering. Yes the climate has been changing since the inception of the earth. Do you really think the climate scientists are not aware of this and haven't factored that into the equation? Really? You seriously believe they have mistaken natural climate change for man-made climate change? This is ridiculously silly. The climate change that is happening now is not natural is the whole point... that's the argument, that's man-made climate change.

We can do most anything we put our mind to. No we can not replace fossil fuels entirely with a snap of the fingers, no we can not solve every problem right this instant. However we can transition away from fossil fuels and lower our dependency on it. Electric vehicles could be much further along than they are now if we made it a priority. Petroleum is used in many, many things. Many industries could transition away from it, such as agriculture.

If we supported alternative energy 100% the industry would be much further along and it would have a significant impact on lessening our need for oil. Cutting our dependence from 90% to 75% would be a great thing and very much achievable. If we continued down this route its not impossible to get to 50% and so on and so forth.

The world is running out of oil and carbon emissions are exacerbating climate change every day, there is no good reason not to do what we can to move away from this. It can be done efficiently but not all at once, the sooner we get started the easier this will be.

two points

1. there is no proven connection between the actions of human beings and climate change, that alleged connection has been debunked many times

2. you mentioned electric cars. where does the power come from to recharge the batteries? Duh, oh I know, you just plug em in. Don't be foolish. the energy loss of converting from fossil fuels to electricity to battery back to electricity and then to a motor is tremendous. Then how do we dispose of the highly toxic batteries? electric cars are not the answer.
 
Its a combination of lies and mistakes, the world is not so simple.

true, but you on the left want to simplify it as "its all bush's fault" why not practice what you preach?
 
two points

1. there is no proven connection between the actions of human beings and climate change, that alleged connection has been debunked many times

2. you mentioned electric cars. where does the power come from to recharge the batteries? Duh, oh I know, you just plug em in. Don't be foolish. the energy loss of converting from fossil fuels to electricity to battery back to electricity and then to a motor is tremendous. Then how do we dispose of the highly toxic batteries? electric cars are not the answer.

1. There is an extremely strong connection between carbon emission and climate change. It has not been debunked. If you don't believe in scientific reason then you have no business debating this, this is an issue of science.

2. LoL, no, that's not how it works. The idea is not to turn fossil fuels into electricity then send that out to vehicles... good god man, that would be even worse. Alternative energy sources from solar, wind, geothermal, etc. We improve battery technology to use a sustainable model. Its called working on and solving problems, we can't do this unless the nation is on board.
 
Its a combination of lies and mistakes, the world is not so simple.

yes...and why dont you enlighten us with your understanding of "oil for food" and how that played into Iraq..


I cant wait...
 
true, but you on the left want to simplify it as "its all bush's fault" why not practice what you preach?

Because liberals are knowitalls, who actually are proven to be out fo touch on the subject they claim to know about..
 
Associate 3 presidents with each candidate

Obama - I see a bit of Lincoln (a social progressive while be rooted and focusing on solving problems at hand), a lot of FDR (a lesser version, but government working on projects with the people theme), and Kenedy (uplifting speeches and they seem to share the most in personality)

Romney - I don't know him as well yet but I'll go with (Jackson on "pet banks"), a bit of Reagan (only Reagan is pro business growth while Romney, at least the implementation of his policies, seems more "pro rich"), and Bush (tax cuts for wealthy)

Noticed I kinda did it in the order of belief, policy, and speech style/personality. Completely unintentional.
Obama is one of a kind. I see no resemblence to any other president. I do see a restrained type of Lenin or Stalin, though.

In Romney, I see Bush Sr / Bush Jr, Clinton, or any other recent president.
 
1. There is an extremely strong connection between carbon emission and climate change. It has not been debunked. If you don't believe in scientific reason then you have no business debating this, this is an issue of science.

2. LoL, no, that's not how it works. The idea is not to turn fossil fuels into electricity then send that out to vehicles... good god man, that would be even worse. Alternative energy sources from solar, wind, geothermal, etc. We improve battery technology to use a sustainable model. Its called working on and solving problems, we can't do this unless the nation is on board.

the data that Gore used was proven to be "cooked" it was fabricated to help the great algore sell his book and movie. Yes, its science, and AGW is junk science

we could not possibly get enough electricity from solar, wind etc to recharge the half billion or so cars on the roads today. not to mention trucks, trains, buses, and planes.

Do not book me on the first night flight on a solar powered plane, btw.

Yes, we need to work on alternative energy, everyone agrees with that, but we cannot shut down the world's economy waiting for some wizard to come up with something that will actually work.
 
the data that Gore used was proven to be "cooked" it was fabricated to help the great algore sell his book and movie. Yes, its science, and AGW is junk science

we could not possibly get enough electricity from solar, wind etc to recharge the half billion or so cars on the roads today. not to mention trucks, trains, buses, and planes.

Do not book me on the first night flight on a solar powered plane, btw.

Yes, we need to work on alternative energy, everyone agrees with that, but we cannot shut down the world's economy waiting for some wizard to come up with something that will actually work.

There is more to climate change than just Al Gore, he is insignificant in the grand scheme of things. There were allegations the data was cooked, upon further research it didn't add up to much. Making the leap from "the data and experiments are not perfect in every way" to "the whole thing is a cooked hoax" is ridiculous. We still have much to learn but from what we've already gathered and are quite sure of climate change is real and a big problem that needs intervention or we will suffer tremendous consequences.

Pointing out things like a solar powered plane flying at night is mostly meaningless. This idea that if alternative energy systems cannot replace fossil fuels 100% then we should just do nothing is silly. Once again I will repeat myself. We do not have to stop using fossil fuels 100% or even 75%, to just knock it down as a first step would be extremely useful and a springboard towards completely getting off fossil fuels. It will take decades.

This isn't about shutting down the world economies. We can do these things with minimal disruption. The world is running out of oil, we have no choice in the end. If we ramp up our efforts to do these things now it will save us untold suffering in the long run. We're already at the very edge of our window for how much carbon we can release into the atmosphere before it becomes impossible to fix. If we don't change our ways by 2015 we will reach a tipping point in which the math no longer works. No amount of reduction will stop what happens next at that point.
 
Back
Top Bottom