"The private sector is doing fine."

[RandFan]

Why aren't you arguing with RF who thinks that a few polluted wells is a huge deal. Has anyone died as a result of those polluted wells? Do they threaten the survival of humanity?

A.) there is no danger of losing electricity if we don't use fracking. B.) The environmental impact could be quite severe for quite some time. We ought not do that if we don't have to.

Could we have some reason in this debate? People don't need to die in order to question the prudence of using this technology. So, to frame this in a dichotomy of either we have fracking or we die is fallacious, and that's being generous.

 

[RandFan]

Talking cavalierly about the death of millions (just the ones who depend on medical equipment for life support) is no big deal if you consider the 100's of millions slaughtered by far left ideologies. No big deal to you but I take issue with it since I would be one of the first to die. I have a real understanding and appreciation of the worth of my life.

You made it clear that the EPA (who now conduct armed raids and use drones for surveillance) need more teeth. Teeth to make sure a couple wells don't get polluted. Your sense of perspective is stunning.

The dichotomy of fracking or no electricity is a false one. It's a red herring. A scare tactic. It's fallacious. And BTW: I NEVER called for prohibitions on fracking.

 

[YoPopa]

A.) there is no danger of losing electricity if we don't use fracking. B.) The environmental impact could be quite severe for quite some time. We ought not do that if we don't have to.

Could we have some reason in this debate? People don't need to die in order to question the prudence of using this technology. So, to frame this in a dichotomy of either we have fracking or we die is fallacious, and that's being generous.

I never thought there was a danger of losing electricity if we don't use fracking. Never said it, never thought it. I just found it incredibly ludicrous that someone was arguing that the loss of electricity wouldn't be such a big deal and that same person failed to call you out on your worries about a few wells which may or may not have been polluted as a result of fracking.

No method of energy production is without risks. I find the hysteria most evident in the anti-frakers who point to a few wells with alarm.

Has anyone died yet from fraking? I don't know the answer to that question and I ask it honestly. I suspect that if the answer is yes it would be the fairly high paid well drillers who recognize they work in a high risk profession.

 

[YoPopa]

Talking cavalierly about the death of millions (just the ones who depend on medical equipment for life support) is no big deal if you consider the 100's of millions slaughtered by far left ideologies. No big deal to you but I take issue with it since I would be one of the first to die. I have a real understanding and appreciation of the worth of my life.

You made it clear that the EPA (who now conduct armed raids and use drones for surveillance) need more teeth. Teeth to make sure a couple wells don't get polluted. Your sense of perspective is stunning.

The dichotomy of fracking or no electricity is a false one. It's a red herring. A scare tactic. It's fallacious. And BTW: I NEVER called for prohibitions on fracking.

You do realize that my comment there was directed at elbe?

 

[elbe]

Talking cavalierly about the death of millions (just the ones who depend on medical equipment for life support) is no big deal if you consider the 100's of millions slaughtered by far left ideologies. No big deal to you but I take issue with it since I would be one of the first to die. I have a real understanding and appreciation of the worth of my life.

Talking cavalierly? I believe you're making an appeal to emotion. I'm no green or "off the grid" loon, I have no interest in losing electricity and we aren't really at risk of losing it. However, I firmly believe humans are capable surviving without a significant lose in population if it were to occur. Remember, just because I believe something can happen doesn't mean I want it to. I'll also be honest, "millions slaughtered by far left ideologies" makes me seriously question your rationality if your political bias is that insane.

You made it clear that the EPA (who now conduct armed raids and use drones for surveillance) need more teeth. Teeth to make sure a couple wells don't get polluted. Your sense of perspective is stunning.

Wow, way to put words in to your opponents mouths. The EPA needs to be able to do it's job in protecting our natural resources - resources we require to survive from unrestrained industry. The challenge is balancing the needs of industry with the needs of the environment. It's pretty clear that it's your perspective that is out of whack. Do remember, it's not an either-or situation, you can be in favor of industry while still trying to protect the natural resources we need.

You do realize that my comment there was directed at elbe?

Considering the line of conversation involved you asking why I didn't go after Randfan for something he never claimed, his response was perfectly acceptable.

 

[RandFan]

I never thought there was a danger of losing electricity if we don't use fracking.

Then stop mentioning electricity as if fracking is key to it. It's a silly red herring.

Has anyone died yet from fraking?

It's a straw man.

You do realize that my comment there was directed at elbe?

You do realize you mentioned me in your discussion with him?

Why aren't you arguing with RF who thinks that a few polluted wells is a huge deal. Has anyone died as a result of those polluted wells? Do they threaten the survival of humanity?

I don't know to what extend fracking threatens the environment. Fracking isn't some great panacea so the notion that it's not a threat to the survival of humanity is unfounded. I'm saying that we ought to know what the threat is.

 

[elbe]

The dichotomy of fracking or no electricity is a false one. It's a red herring. A scare tactic. It's fallacious. And BTW: I NEVER called for prohibitions on fracking.

Personally I never believed you did, just that you have serious concerns. I'm not personally informed enough to address those concerns and was hoping Zig would help provide a balance on the issue. I do agree, though, that he probably should have provided a link to his source; I'm not sure why he got so defensive when asked - it's not something I expected from him.

 

[RandFan]

Personally I never believed you did, just that you have serious concerns. I'm not personally informed enough to address those concerns and was hoping Zig would help provide a balance on the issue. I do agree, though, that he probably should have provided a link to his source; I'm not sure why he got so defensive when asked - it's not something I expected from him.

He and I are trying to work out some past history. We were long time conservative friends. When I moved to the left I was very critical (if not also angry) of the Republicans and he and I had some strong disagreements about that. Sorry to personalize with this post but I actually do have respect for Zig and I think he sincerely is trying to be reasonable with me. I accept some degree of responsibility. It's a two way street. I'm trying also.

 

[Ziggurat]

I do agree, though, that he probably should have provided a link to his source; I'm not sure why he got so defensive when asked - it's not something I expected from him.

Because I wasn't asked. I was simply accused of only looking at propaganda.

If I have time later tonight, I may dig up some links.

 

[shuize]

I still don't understand the disconnect in Obama's two statements.

If, as Obama seems to believe, "the private sector is doing fine" but it is "absolutely clear the economy is not doing fine," then that suggests either the private sector is not really part of the economy or not big enough a part of the economy to matter.

 

[RandFan]

Because I wasn't asked. I was simply accused of only looking at propaganda.

I'm sorry Zig but that's really not fair. I pointed out to you that your claims were unsubstantiated. It's not my job to ask you formally to support your claims.

ETA: In the future I will try to find adopt a less confrontational style with you. I'm sorry for the way the discussion progressed.

 

[RandFan]

I still don't understand the disconnect in Obama's two statements.

If, as Obama seems to believe, "the private sector is doing fine" but it is "absolutely clear the economy is not doing fine," then that suggests either the private sector is not really part of the economy or not big enough a part of the economy to matter.

It's pretty simple actually. Given that when Obama took office the private sector was tanking and tanking fast, the recovery for the private sector is doing fine. It was an impolitic thing to say, kinda like "I'm not worried about the poor", but it was reasonable absent politics.

 

[shuize]

It's pretty simple actually. Given that when Obama took office the private sector was tanking and tanking fast, the recovery for the private sector is doing fine. It was an impolitic thing to say, kinda like "I'm not worried about the poor", but it was reasonable absent politics.

It's not his silly "the private sector is doing fine" statement, its the two statements taken together.

Logically, I don't understand how one can believe "the private sector is doing fine" and at the same time believe it "absolutely clear the economy is not doing fine" unless one somehow thinks the private sector is not really part of the "economy" or not a big enough part of the "economy" to matter.

 

[RandFan]

It's not his silly "the private sector is doing fine" statement, its the two statements taken together.

Logically, I don't understand how one can believe "the private sector is doing fine" and at the same time believe it "absolutely clear the economy is not doing fine" unless one somehow thinks the private sector is not really part of the "economy" or not a big enough part of the "economy" to matter.

I've already explained it to you. When he said that the private sector was fine he meant that the recovery for the private sector was going well. Now, that works either alone or with the other statement. I'm really not sure why that is so difficult to understand. But let me see if I can outline it for you. Okay, there are three issues here here, ¹the overall state of the economy vs the recovery. ²The public recovery vs the overall economy. ³The private sector recovery vs the overall economy.

1. The RECOVERY is far from over so even if the recovery was going well overall, it's entirely possible that the economy could not be fine. Kind of like when you break your leg and the recovery is well but you still can't work your job. Find is relative. Fine that you are feeling okay but not fine in that you are worried about keeping your job and if your sick days will run out.
2. The RECOVERY for the public sector is not going well.
3. The RECOVERY for the private sector is going well.

Summary:
So, A.) even if the recovery for both private and public were going well (moving in the right direction, etc.) it would not mean that the overall economy was fine. B.) The recovery for the public sector is NOT going well.

Hope that helps (but then I think you and I both know that this is just a political game of "gotcha").

 

[MattusMaximus]

Oh for crying in the ******* dark what more do they want? Record low tax rates, loop holes galore and record profits.... but let's cry a god damn river. Give me a break. What more do you want? Many businesses are guaranteed that uncle sam will bail out their idiotic investment and still they cry. Competition is fine and all if risk is negated by the American tax payer. **** you and the useful idiots (aka Republicans) who cry for you!

They want Obama to lose in November, no matter what the cost (almost).

Of course, the Republicans really need to watch their rhetoric, because if they talk too negatively about the economy in an effort to win the White House then it will reinforce negative consumer sentiments and thus actually lead to more economic turmoil. Just look how badly the markets and the overall economy reacted to last fall's debt ceiling debacle, for example. If the Republicans go too far with their rhetoric, the ensuing result of all this negativity could actually hurt the markets and economy to the point that we have another recession (or at least near-zero job growth).

Honestly, I suspect the Republicans and Romney know all of this, and they're worried that if they go too far then they might be the ones having to clean up the mess post-November. And they'd rather not be in that position... hell, who would?

Bottom Line: The GOP might just end up winning in November, but then they're on the hook. Be careful what you wish for, folks.

 

[RandFan]

They want Obama to lose in November, no matter what the cost (almost).

Of course, the Republicans really need to watch their rhetoric, because if they talk too negatively about the economy in an effort to win the White House then it will reinforce negative consumer sentiments and thus actually lead to more economic turmoil. Just look how badly the markets and the overall economy reacted to last fall's debt ceiling debacle, for example. If the Republicans go too far with their rhetoric, the ensuing result of all this negativity could actually hurt the markets and economy to the point that we have another recession (or at least near-zero job growth).

Honestly, I suspect the Republicans and Romney know all of this, and they're worried that if they go too far then they might be the ones having to clean up the mess post-November. And they'd rather not be in that position... hell, who would?

Bottom Line: The GOP might just end up winning in November, but then they're on the hook. Be careful what you wish for, folks.

I think you hit the nail on the head. Efficiency is up across the board and businesses are sitting on a mountain of cash. We are poised for a come back if things look good. Should Romney win and adopt austerity you can be sure there will be even less money moving through the economy and lots more heart ache. I'm not even sure why Romney would want to face that. Does he really think that businesses will start hiring more people if demand is even softer?

 

[MattusMaximus]

I think you hit the nail on the head. Efficiency is up across the board and businesses are sitting on a mountain of cash. We are poised for a come back if things look good. Should Romney win and adopt austerity you can be sure there will be even less money moving through the economy and lots more heart ache. I'm not even sure why Romney would want to face that. Does he really think that businesses will start hiring more people if demand is even softer?

The thing I wonder about is if the Republicans win the White House, what role will the Tea Party play post-November? Because if Romney wins, you can be pretty sure that there will be more Tea Partiers in Congress as well. And they will be emboldened to cut spending and impose austerity... and that could lead to some real fun...

 

[YoPopa]

I never thought there was a danger of losing electricity if we don't use fracking.

Then stop mentioning electricity as if fracking is key to it. It's a silly red herring.

It's a straw man.
....

I only joined the discussion AFTER electricity was mentioned and after elbe made the statement :

...That is... odd. I'm pretty sure humans lived and thrived before the invention of AC or electric heating. We've even successfully survived many diseases without it killing off "nearly all". I guess you could try to argue that we've "lost" those skills through lack of practice, but people in africa seem to be doing it still and that's a much harsher climate than the US.

Red herring it may be but you've got your fish flingers confabulated RF.

 

[RandFan]

Red herring it may be but you've got your fish flingers confabulated RF.

Just leave me out of it. I never painted a doomsday scenario.

Why aren't you arguing with RF who thinks that a few polluted wells is a huge deal. Has anyone died as a result of those polluted wells? Do they threaten the survival of humanity?

 

[Caper]

.... I very much fear a Romney presidency. And I've little to be impressed about when it comes to Christie.

I don't think it makes a huge difference. It can..... you know the whole Bush going to war thing.... But I really can't see what Romney would do that will make any kind of difference. I love watching Christie's youtube videos.