marks2065
-
Content
2,903 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Feedback
0%
Posts posted by marks2065
-
-
QuoteQuoteAnything would have or could have helped,...
OK, name something....
As wendy stated, not turning down help containing and cleaning the spill. The navy has many deep water capabilities along with knowlege. maybe it would not have helped but a try is better than not trying. The navy could at least assist in the cleanup of the spill. We have all the ships and personal that don't actually do much exept train while here in the US. What would it actually cost to move them to the gulf and aid in cleanup? The miliyary is costing money even when dormant, the cost would be the fuel to move them to the area. -
QuoteI'm not so sure about that; the navy doesn't specialize in deep well capping technology (which is reasonably specialized), while oil companies do.
The navy would definitely have been able to bomb it very quickly, but I'm not sure that the residents of the gulf coast would have been in favor of that particular option.
We should have taken offers of help from other countries; we turned away help that was offered, and I think that was a mistake.
Wendy P.
Anything would have or could have helped, but the severity and duration of the leak made it simpler to achieve the goal of the left. this is the issue with politics, politicians will shoot themselves in the foot to further their agenda while completely ignoring the needs of the people that elected them. -
QuoteWhat do you think the government could have done to combat the spill and its effects, that wouldn't have been seen as encroaching on the rights of the businesses involved?
Nuking it from space ("it's the only way") isn't really a good option
Wendy P.
the capping of the well could have been speeded up with the recourses and knowlege of the navy. they could have helped in the containment and cleanup and sent the bill to BP. -
Quote
Somehow I think that if Obama had gone to the Gulf and licked the spill up himself you'd've said that he should be focusing on something else.QuoteIf another president sat back and watched like this one did he would have been front and center in a congressional hearing.
The Exxon Valdez spill (second largest) cleanup was handled in large part by Exxon, I believe.
Wendy P.
the government has many tools to combat stuff like this and it should have been used to stop the spill sooner. I have been critical of many things all of the presidents have or have not done, unfortunately dropzone.com was not available for me to express myself on until recently. The last president I truly liked was Reagan, but even he did some dumbshit stuff. Everyone thinks I liked Bush, but the last 4 years he was president was pretty dissapointing, but he was much better than what we have now. -
QuoteI whole heartedly agree when we lament a candidate changing stances to fit the stage of the campaign. At the same time, the current did it before and is doing it again. So, that really isn't a discriminator between the two.
Romney has taken a state budget out of deficit. Obama has taken the country in the other direction.
Romney can do the job and then walk away. I rather like that.
Romney has the independence to make the hard decisions that we truly need made. Let's face it, there is not a way to get this country back on track without a bunch of pain. And NOBODY is going to agree on how that pain should be distributed. Most everyone is going to be unhappy with it. We need someone who can do it anyhow.
I don't like everything about the guy. Heck, I don't like everything about me. But this guy is very impressive and has the potential to be what we need. We know what we've had.
I think I'll be sending in my vote from Belgium. I had not planned to vote until today.
Romney's job at Bain was taking companies on the verge of bankrupcy and making them viable, seems to be what this country needs. -
QuoteAnd maybe that is also partly because the issue is being handled in a 'reasonable' way in the opinion of the general public.
BP paid for the coastal cleanup and they paid restitution to businesses that were affected. They will probably pay $20B in fines, and criminal charges against at least some people are likely coming down to pipe as well.
Environmental groups are suing to stop future oil wells in the gulf, and pretty much every oceanic-related industry/business/university/etc in Florida and along the Gulf cost is monitoring the ongoing situation with new data arriving daily.
They are also suing BP, and the EPA.
Natural gas is being explored all over the continent, wind farms are being built, solar in getting investment.....what's the problem? Sounds to me like it is being 'handled'
The gulf oil spill was handled poorly and everyone knows it. If another president sat back and watched like this one did he would have been front and center in a congressional hearing. Obama did nothing to help and used the spill to increase our dependancy on foriegn oil. Van jones and the the enviromental groups knew that Obama was going to use the spill to cut reduce oil drilling in the gulf so they sat back and watched with him. They did not want to hurt Obama's image so he would be able to stop approving permits to drill. -
QuoteQuoteYou really like to spin everything don't you. If the state has events (Like high school football, baseball and soccer) they should be paying for that. Many things that the state would sponser would be held there. the team is binging in millions of dollars in tax revenue that will help the state. the states have the right to do things the fed should never get involved in, that is how this country was formed. The state would be seriously hurt if the team moved away, they are investing in the future of the state.
The old stadium is perfectly adequate for every single one of those events.
but once the team leaves they loose tax revenue, jobs, and money for stadium upkeep now making it a large cost to the state -
QuoteQuoteQuote>this is not socialism, this is the state paying . . . .
Love that line. "It's not socialism, it's just the state paying to develop stuff that someone wants!" I'll remember that.
You really like to spin everything don't you. If the state has events (Like high school football, baseball and soccer) they should be paying for that. Many things that the state would sponser would be held there. the team is binging in millions of dollars in tax revenue that will help the state. the states have the right to do things the fed should never get involved in, that is how this country was formed. The state would be seriously hurt if the team moved away, they are investing in the future of the state.
The federal government isn't the only ones in huge debt from bad deals, many states and localities are too.
the fed would not have bad deal debt if they would stop doing things that they are not supposed to be doing. protecting our country and following the constitution does not give them the right to waste our money on companies like solyndra. -
Quote>this is not socialism, this is the state paying . . . .
Love that line. "It's not socialism, it's just the state paying to develop stuff that someone wants!" I'll remember that.
You really like to spin everything don't you. If the state has events (Like high school football, baseball and soccer) they should be paying for that. Many things that the state would sponser would be held there. the team is binging in millions of dollars in tax revenue that will help the state. the states have the right to do things the fed should never get involved in, that is how this country was formed. The state would be seriously hurt if the team moved away, they are investing in the future of the state. -
Quote>the state is getting a billion dollar investment into itself fo only 1/3 of the
>total. this is a win for the state and the people of Minnesota.
It might well be. Socialism is often a win/win proposition.
this is not socialism, this is the state paying for a small part in the venture that is used by the state for state purposes. socialism would be the state paying for the entire stadium and running the team. big difference. the state and city have things they will use this facility for that are government related. -
Quote>fuel injection did not become profitable and reliable until computers
>advanced to be able to handle it.
Fuel injection has been around since the 1950's and does not require computers. In the 1970's computers (specifically microcontrollers like the 8008) became cheap enough to incorporate into things like toys and cars.
They remained fairly separate until the EPA mandated emissions cuts. If they hadn't, we'd still be driving cars with carburetors; no reason to "bankrupt the company" developing fuel injectors with computer control. Once the technology was refined, though, it became fairly cheap.
>You can mandate all you want, but until the product can be used cheap,
>efficient and reliable we will not see it in mass produced and mass
>purchased cars and trucks.
Interesting story there. When the EPA mandate came out, several people claimed exactly what you did - "it's impossible! the technology isn't there!" But the mandate remained. So most companies tried the full closed-loop control system (oxygen sensor, adjustable mixture via injector control, catalytic converter.) After a decade or so costs came down, and indeed fuel injection became the norm.
One company tried something different. They designed a car that used a "compound vortex controlled combustion" (CVCC) engine, a fairly new concept that significantly reduced emissions WITHOUT closed loop mixture control. It allowed them to use carburetors into the late 80's. This car was so successful that they named the car after the engine; you know of it today as the Civic.
That's an example of a mandate that created new technology.
>pushing beyond our currant capabilities is only producing large stresses
>on our economy.
Pushing well beyond - I agree. If we mandated that all cars get 70mpg it would have a lot of pretty negative effects. BACT (best available commercial technology) is a term used to describe what's reasonable to mandate when it comes to things like emissions reduction.
I know they had fuel injection a long time before it became the norm, but it had lots of problems, that is why it wasn't mass produced in the 60's. it wasn't until the 80's that computer control solved the problems keeping it from being a reliable product. the new technologies will probably become reliable and cheap also, lets just get it figured out before we make everyone have to buy it and take government money out of it. -
Quote>Fuel injection is the norm because the technology hit a point where it
>worked very well and it was priced well.
No, fuel injection is the norm because it was required for closed-loop mixture control; that in turn was required to support catalytic converters, which were necessary to meet clean air standards. Several automakers claimed that meeting the EPA requirements would bankrupt their companies - so it certainly wasn't "priced well" when it became the standard.
However, over time costs came down.
So to use your reasoning, the reason we have cheap and reliable fuel injection today is that "socialist environmentalists" required it. The market minded person" (i.e. Lee Iacocca and company) fought it as hard as they could.
fuel injection did not become profitable and reliable until computers advanced to be able to handle it. variable cam timing and GDI have been under developement for 40 years but it has only been recently that the computer capabilities have been able to reliably put these into cars. You can mandate all you want, but until the product can be used cheap, efficient and reliable we will not see it in mass produced and mass purchased cars and trucks. pushing beyond our currant capabilities is only producing large stresses on our economy. -
QuoteQuote
Don't know what the deal calls for. Plus the municipality isn't paying half a billion.
The state puts in 348, the city 150. 498M.Quote
Uhm no. Only if the venues for alternate activities are already running at max capacity. If not, it would be a net loss in employment.
As I wrote, the battle for discretionary income is a zero sum game.Quote
You are also discounting the employment generated by $1 billion investment in "infrastructure". Lots of construction jobs for that area.
A billion spent in road construction (fix bridges, potholes, traffic) would deliver the same jobs but much more benefit. Just consider the spending on car repairs due to poor roads, or the economic losses due to traffic.
If these benefits exist as you say, they would be measurable and proveable and thus far the opposite has been established.
the state is getting a billion dollar investment into itself fo only 1/3 of the total. this is a win for the state and the people of Minnesota. -
QuoteQuite a stark contrast to the image the left-wingers try to portray. Of course, they mostly just read left-wing websites for their daily programming.
there was something else about Romney donating his dads money to charity, have not found the link but I would like to know if it was true. -
QuoteQuote
I said that the state and local governments have the right to invest in the communities future and do what the people want to have done to benifit the state, that is how the country was designed to operate. the fed gov is retricted from these types of ventures for good reason.
Sounds like they are doing that to "promote the general Welfare".
the country was set up for the states to have the power to do what the citizens of that state wanted, and the fed gove was to have very limited power so we wopuld not end up like we were whne england ruled us. this is something that the state and it's people have to choose. Romny care is something I don't like but it was what the people wanted and since it was on a state level it was ok for the people to pass. since I don't like it I could leave the state andgo to where they don't have a program like that. The issue with the feds doing stuff is that we cannot just leave to another state to avoid what we don't like. the very situation we fought the war to gain our independence. -
Quote>the feds don't own the green tech stuff nor should they.
Correct, they don't. They just help out companies (or sports teams) they like.
>the feds job is not to run business it is to defend us and build
>national infrastructure.
You think that it IS the government's role to give private businesses money; you have said so in this very thread. You can quibble over which businesses you like and which governments you want to do that. But to paraphrase the big man "you've stated you are a socialist, now we're just haggling over the details."
No it is not what I said, keep spinning all you want. I said that the state and local governments have the right to invest in the communities future and do what the people want to have done to benifit the state, that is how the country was designed to operate. the fed gov is retricted from these types of ventures for good reason. -
QuoteQuote
when the roof colapsed at the met they had to cancel hundreds of events, the actual use for the stadium would be greater than 50% in things other than viking games. they also play baseball there(not the twins)
No, as identified before, those other functions don't need a luxury stadium, with corporate suites and elegant fountains. They just need 50,000 seats and a usable field, an adequate parking lot and suitable bathrooms and concessions space. This can be done for a lot less than 800M-1B.
Minnesota is a slightly different situation with the Met falling apart. And you may be able to argue that a northern state needs a domed stadium. Harder to argue this for Texas, CA, or Florida.
As I said, the Giants managed to pay their way with only minor city considerations. Candlestick Park remains available and is perfectly useful except by NFL standards. The 49ers will abandon it in a few years to a new park that the people of Santa Clara foolishly are paying for, since San Franciscans refused.
the state is only paying about 33% of the bill, any closed stadium that holds 50000 people will cost more than that so it is in the states best interests to aid in this project. -
QuoteQuotethis is not corporate welfare, this is the state paying very little to have a place to hold many functions santioned by and for the state . . .
As far as I know, the only activities that fit that definition are amatuer sporting events - none of which need a place anywhere near that size or cost.
I just realized my sig line accurately summarizes the relationship between pro sports teams and their fans.
You are correct that they may not need a facility of that size, but that is up to the people of minnesota to decide not us. that is why the people need to have a vote on this. the city is already backing it and so are the vikings, the state is only in for about 33% but that is alot of money so the people should decide. -
Quote>This is not giving money to the vikings, this is 3 parties joining in
>a venture that will benifit all 3.
Sorta like the government loaning money to green energy companies so they can build manufacturing facilities so that three groups - the company, the US and the workers - will all benefit.
I'll remember that you support such schemes in the future.
the feds don't own the green tech stuff nor should they. the feds job is not to run business it is to defend us and build national infrastructure. there is a difference from what the fed gov and state govs are responsible for. the states are supposed to have more flexibility for what the people want. that is how this country was set up. the feds have greatly overstepped their boundries. -
QuoteQuote
this is not corporate welfare, this is the state paying very little to have a place to hold many functions santioned by and for the state that is shared by a football team. if the stadium was for only the vikings use and profit, it would be wrong. this is a multi use facility that is owned by the state and will funtion for the state. big difference than giving a handout to a business to bail them out of bad investments.
let's stop the bullshit. The stadium is 80-90% for the Vikings. The others just get some use out of it for major events. But that doesn't require the people to pay for half of it. No matter how much you dance, this is socialism.
The SF Giants built their new stadium a decade ago and did not require public funding*. They do plan a lot of non baseball events there to pay the bonds.
* they did receive a 10M tax abatement, and there was 80M in infrastructure investments made in the area that benefits the stadium project. Note that these were mostly projects that were on the docket anyway, but then designed with consideration for the ballpark. (Muni trains, in particular).
when the roof colapsed at the met they had to cancel hundreds of events, the actual use for the stadium would be greater than 50% in things other than viking games. they also play baseball there(not the twins) -
Quote>this is on the state level and is something the state will use and
>make money on, this is not socialism.
Government funding of business ventures? My friend, you are now solidly in the "socialist" category. Don't worry; everyone is a capitalist, socialist, libertarian, authoritarian, liberal, conservative etc etc to some degree or another.
You want the government to take tax money and spend it on a stadium. Fine. You just lost the high moral ground when you tell someone else that they are evil for doing that, though.
This is not giving money to the vikings, this is 3 parties joining in a venture that will benifit all 3. not like the feds giving banks money because of bad deals. if all 3 had to build there own venues it would cost much more. this is a business deal on a local level that all will benifit from. that is the difference between state and fed governments. states are different than the federal. -
QuoteQuoteno it is socialism when the fed gov takes your money and hands it out to those that don't produce for the sake of what they call fairness. this is at a state level
so, in your world, it's not ok for the Feds to take my money and give to people that don't need it and demand more (after the Feds take their cut). But it's just fine for the State to do the exact same same thing.
I guess if a city council decides to take a big chunk of money for city employee team building trips to Hawaii - then that's fine too
nuts - criminal abuse of the social contract is wrong regardless of what level it happens
this is not corporate welfare, this is the state paying very little to have a place to hold many functions santioned by and for the state that is shared by a football team. if the stadium was for only the vikings use and profit, it would be wrong. this is a multi use facility that is owned by the state and will funtion for the state. big difference than giving a handout to a business to bail them out of bad investments. -
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuotethe state would loose millions if the vikings left,
so true - and they only have to put up hundreds of millions to make sure those millions stay
true government in action
http://www.treehugger.com/culture/by-the-numbers-super-bowl-facts-and-figures.html
this one day is huge for the state and local business, kinda make the $350 million investment seem worth it.
Pro sports don't create wealth, they just move it around.
This is just welfare for the team owners.
If this was going to just be used by the vikings and the state never used it I would say you are correct, but since the state will use the stadium for its own purposes the I feel they will need to pony up a little themselves. -
QuoteQuoteQuote>It is better than loosing the team and its revenue.
Never thought I'd see the day where marks started advocating for socialism.
this is on the state level and is something the state will use and make money on, this is not socialism.
no it is socialism when the fed gov takes your money and hands it out to those that don't produce for the sake of what they call fairness. this is at a state level and this country was designed to let the state and local governments have the freedom to take care of their people and land as they see fit. this is not money for the vikings, it is an investment into the state and will be used by the state and city for many things that will contribute to the state and community other than a NFL game. The metrodome has been used by the state and city for many things like the high schools, trade fairs, and superbowl just to name a few. If this was just for the vikings I would say no but the vikings games are only a small percentage of the future use of this stadium.
I guess it is only socialism when poor people get the handout.
The intellectual honesty of the environmental movement
in Speakers Corner
I agree that niether side wants us to fail, just that they both have different Ideas of what is good for the country, and both are different to what the founders and the people believe. And both will at times let dissasters become exagerated to push forward their idea of what a good country is. David Axlerods comments about never lettinga crisses....