Canndo will answer any question that is stated as such in this thread

[cannabineer]

I agree with you, there has to be regulations. But, when regulations are cutting business's throats, its becoming too much.
The EPA in particular have gone way overboard with requirements and regulations. I am all for green. Sucks we destroy and consume so much. Quit healing sick people or something so the world population is more on line with our available resources. Apparently we arent going to find any type of green energy. I am sure it exists, but seems like there is no real progress for whatever reasons.

I feel otherwise about the EPA. Sure, it engages in excesses, meaning I can't buy effective household products any more. But the EPA is responsible for things like mandating the catalytic converter, which makes a tremendous difference in air quality.
I am guessing the lesson on which we can both agree is that there is no magic formula. Nonregulation and overregulation are both demonstrably bad, but the regulatory optimum is a moving target in a ghillkie suit at night. cn

 

[althor]

I admit that my "side" has flaws because it has flaws, not because "no one doesn't have flaws". That is something that I avoid as it would tend to indicate that I believe in symetry between the two sides. If there were symetry then either side would be interchangeable and they are not. That "both sides lie" or that "both sides cheat" is used to avoid inspecting either side and weighing the merits of either side independently.

I presume Althor that even though you believe that Romney is the worst possible candidate, you will still vote for him.

He is the worst possible candidate against Obama, yes. Yes, I will be voting for Romney, as I stated in another thread.

Obama has created a rift (and yes he created it) between the two parties that is almost insurmountable. I dont see anything getting done because the asshead republicans will screw the country just so they can screw Obama.

Obama has no clue how to fix the economy and time after time I see where people say Obama refuses to listen to his advisors. I am not going to go find links, but they are out there. Bowles pretty much summed it up. Obama also had a budget plan voted down 97-0, that is very enlightening on how even his fellow democrats see him handling the economy.

During his 2008 campaign he made too many promises that were not possible to keep. A perfect example in Gitmo. I told people around me when he said it, "either he is lying, or he has no clue what he is talking about". Closing Gitmo was not an option as he soon came to admit.

I personally think he has failed. Some of you may be better off than you were 4 years ago, I am not. I still keep work going but its been awhile since I have had multiple jobs in progress and even been awhile since I have been able to provide full 40 hour weeks for my employees. We have been averaging around 30 hours a week for about 6 months. My guys dont complain, they look around and say "better than what everyone else is doing".

 

[canndo]

I agree with you, there has to be regulations. But, when regulations are cutting business's throats, its becoming too much.
The EPA in particular have gone way overboard with requirements and regulations. I am all for green. Sucks we destroy and consume so much. Quit healing sick people or something so the world population is more on line with our available resources. Apparently we arent going to find any type of green energy. I am sure it exists, but seems like there is no real progress for whatever reasons.

I like this - we aren't going to find any green energy that you are sure exists and you can't for the life of you think of why. But you are unwilling to blame the not-green energy, the ones with trillions invested in the status quo, the ones that spend billions to convince us that green solutions don't work or are bad for the economy.

If we destroy and consume less, there is less profit, in our current economy, less profit is bad.

 

[althor]

I like this - we aren't going to find any green energy that you are sure exists and you can't for the life of you think of why. But you are unwilling to blame the not-green energy, the ones with trillions invested in the status quo, the ones that spend billions to convince us that green solutions don't work or are bad for the economy.

If we destroy and consume less, there is less profit, in our current economy, less profit is bad.

Well that opens up an entirely new subject that I didnt really want to get into, but yes, what you are saying is definitely in the right direction.
For whatever reasons, big money suppressed, government suppressed, greed, whatever. Until that new technology becomes available (and it doesnt seem to be) what are we supposed to do? We have to live, and unfortunately its a lifestyle that is not best for the planet we live on. Its certainly a catch 22 situation isnt it?

 

[ChesusRice]

During his 2008 campaign he made too many promises that were not possible to keep. A perfect example in Gitmo. I told people around me when he said it, "either he is lying, or he has no clue what he is talking about". Closing Gitmo was not an option as he soon came to admit.

.

[SIZE=+1]Illinois Republicans block Gitmo prisoner transfers [/SIZE]
SunTimes ^ | 12-18-10 | Lynn Sweet
Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2010 1:03:43 AM by STARWISE

Illinois Republicans were successful Friday in stripping a provision from a House defense bill that would have given permission for the transfer to the U.S. of detainees in the Guantanamo Bay military prison.
The issue is of special importance to Illinois GOP lawmakers because earlier this year the Obama administration moved to buy an underutilized state prison in Thomson, Ill., in part to house Guantanamo detainees.
Closing Guantanamo was a central Obama pledge that the president has not been able to keep — a promise made during his campaign and on his first day in office. Congress needs to give permission for any transfer of a Guantanamo prisoner to the U.S.
On Friday morning, Sen. Mark Kirk, who on Nov. 29 moved to the Senate from the House, had threatened to block the Senate from taking up the defense bill if it came to the Senate from the House with language in it allowing the prisoner transfer. In the Senate, one senator has the power to stop a bill. On the Senate floor on Friday night, Kirk noted that this was an “important week” for him in part because “we stopped a House effort this morning to permit . . . Guantanamo Bay terrorists from being transferred to the Heartland, likely Thomson, Ill. The revised bill prohibits such a transfer.”

 

[canndo]

He is the worst possible candidate against Obama, yes. Yes, I will be voting for Romney, as I stated in another thread.

Obama has created a rift (and yes he created it) between the two parties that is almost insurmountable. I dont see anything getting done because the asshead republicans will screw the country just so they can screw Obama.

Obama has no clue how to fix the economy and time after time I see where people say Obama refuses to listen to his advisors. I am not going to go find links, but they are out there. Bowles pretty much summed it up. Obama also had a budget plan voted down 97-0, that is very enlightening on how even his fellow democrats see him handling the economy.

During his 2008 campaign he made too many promises that were not possible to keep. A perfect example in Gitmo. I told people around me when he said it, "either he is lying, or he has no clue what he is talking about". Closing Gitmo was not an option as he soon came to admit.

I personally think he has failed. Some of you may be better off than you were 4 years ago, I am not. I still keep work going but its been awhile since I have had multiple jobs in progress and even been awhile since I have been able to provide full 40 hour weeks for my employees. We have been averaging around 30 hours a week for about 6 months. My guys dont complain, they look around and say "better than what everyone else is doing".

When a president is given a grand total of 6 days of honeymoon rather than the traditional 100. When certain powerful leaders meet in order to declare that their top priority is for Obama to fail, when, republicans vote against bills they WROTE just because they discover that Obama is for the bill, you can not in any seriousness claim that Obama created that rift (no he didn't create it and he even attempted at some length to bridge it). You even agree that republicans will screw the country so they can screw Obama and yet you blame Obama for the division?

Obama has no clue as to how to fix the economy but you presume that Romney does? He has not even given us a hint as to what he will do, he says only that we should trust him and that we will, after he is elected, have open debate about the subject.

I cannot speak to the budget because it is so complex.

Now yes, Obama made lots of promises, some he could not keep, others he has and still more he is still working on. Now what are Romney's promises and do you suppose he will keep any of them?

finally, are you really blaming your work situation on Obama? Really? what happened to personal responability? I saw you claim that you were not hiring because of Obama and then you recanted claiming that it was because of uncertainty. Now which is it and how has Obama kept you from going out and getting more buisness?

Or do you expect Romney to go out and get more for you once he is elected? I really can't figure out why you would would vote for Romney in the face of the posts you have made.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

I feel otherwise about the EPA. Sure, it engages in excesses, meaning I can't buy effective household products any more. But the EPA is responsible for things like mandating the catalytic converter, which makes a tremendous difference in air quality.
I am guessing the lesson on which we can both agree is that there is no magic formula. Nonregulation and overregulation are both demonstrably bad, but the regulatory optimum is a moving target in a ghillkie suit at night. cn

The libertarian position isn't that there is no regulation. It's that it comes from civil suits and the courts (in other words, the people + as little government as possible).

Whereas others prefer authoritarian centralized power structures (government>people). It should be noted that the FDA and EPA are owned and run by major corporations these days.

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

green energy . . .l;mfao . .we have had all the green energy since chemistry of gases started . . . .. . .. hydrogen is the most abundant gas int eh universe . . . . .

we made a pill that gives you a four hour boner like 10 years after we unlocked the genetic code . . . .. .i blame consumers and capitalism . .. . fuckign tickle me elmo , furby, cabbage patch kids . . . we dont want independence from unsustainable resources, they just wnat to make a new one . . . .e.i dupot patented a few lubricants and oils right before hemp became illegal

ita all a farce to get us to buy there shit

 

[canndo]

Well that opens up an entirely new subject that I didnt really want to get into, but yes, what you are saying is definitely in the right direction.
For whatever reasons, big money suppressed, government suppressed, greed, whatever. Until that new technology becomes available (and it doesnt seem to be) what are we supposed to do? We have to live, and unfortunately its a lifestyle that is not best for the planet we live on. Its certainly a catch 22 situation isnt it?

You miss the crux of the problem althor. There is no magic solution. So long as the market dictates our sources of energy we are screwed. We will be destroyed by the same market that we laud because of the nature of the fuel industry. We can't just wait until something comes along because nothing will "come along" until our economy is destroyed - I am amazed at how many people can't see that obvious point. You and the others will never allow government to jumpstart alternative energy and it will never start on its own. You will complian when oil bumps up against 400 bucks a brl and food prices and everything else skyrockets but you will never agree that your unwillingness to insist that government set a course was the source of all of our problems.

 

[canndo]

The libertarian position isn't that there is no regulation. It's that it comes from civil suits and the courts (in other words, the people + as little government as possible).

Whereas others prefer authoritarian centralized power structures (government>people). It should be noted that the FDA and EPA are owned and run by major corporations these days.

The libertarian position on regulation is that corporations regulate themselves out of fear of loss of their market and law suits are only secondary to that. The problem is that all libertarian positions on such things depend upon reaction rather than preemption. In otherwords, people have to die before things change and the things that change are usually only local and rarely national or industry wide.

 

[althor]

You miss the crux of the problem althor. There is no magic solution. So long as the market dictates our sources of energy we are screwed. We will be destroyed by the same market that we laud because of the nature of the fuel industry. We can't just wait until something comes along because nothing will "come along" until our economy is destroyed - I am amazed at how many people can't see that obvious point. You and the others will never allow government to jumpstart alternative energy and it will never start on its own. You will complian when oil bumps up against 400 bucks a brl and food prices and everything else skyrockets but you will never agree that your unwillingness to insist that government set a course was the source of all of our problems.

No, I never said government shouldnt set a course. Putting regulations on what we need isnt the answer. I am all for the government investing in projects to come up with some type of green energy. That should be one of the TOP PRIORITIES. While they are making that a top priority we have to use what we have. Thats pretty much how I feel about it. FIND the new technologies, in the meantime do what we have to do.

As far as my business, you seem to be missing quite abit of the point. People arent spending money like they have in the past, even those who have it. When people arent spending money everyone else is affected. Thats one of the things we can all agree on, I think. You guys point to the rich saying they need to spend it, yes they do, if they arent spending, we arent working. If middle-class isnt spending, we arent working, etc. People have to be willing to spend and if they are concerned about what the economy is doing, generally they dont.

 

[UncleBuck]

Yes, I will be voting for Romney, as I stated in another thread.

Obama has created a rift (and yes he created it) between the two parties that is almost insurmountable.

do you live in a world that completely is free of facts? or did you hit your head and get backwarditis syndrome or something?

 

[canndo]

No, I never said government shouldnt set a course. Putting regulations on what we need isnt the answer. I am all for the government investing in projects to come up with some type of green energy. That should be one of the TOP PRIORITIES. While they are making that a top priority we have to use what we have. Thats pretty much how I feel about it. FIND the new technologies, in the meantime do what we have to do.

As far as my business, you seem to be missing quite abit of the point. People arent spending money like they have in the past, even those who have it. When people arent spending money everyone else is affected. Thats one of the things we can all agree on, I think. You guys point to the rich saying they need to spend it, yes they do, if they arent spending, we arent working. If middle-class isnt spending, we arent working, etc. People have to be willing to spend and if they are concerned about what the economy is doing, generally they dont.

Then you had no problem with Solyndra? Why do I doubt that Althor? However, that isn't what I am talking about. we have the alternatives we need for the next 50 years until we can expand our other solutions but they cannot come online because they cost too much. The only way to adjust is to impose large taxes on energy so that the alternatives are profitable. Are you good with a dollar a gallon tax on gasoline?

I am not missing the point on your business althor. You seem to be blaming Obama for your business shortfalls, be they a lack of customers or a lack of credit, you don't get to claim you all "built it yourselves" and then blame Obama when what you built isn't working very well.

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

so hydrogen is off the table as readily available green energy . . . . .

 

[canndo]

so hydrogen is off the table as readily available green energy . . . . .

Hydrogen is not really a source of energy, it is a carrier. The energy density of hydrogen is such that it will have to be stored in either very dense matrix or as a liquid or as a highly compressed gas. We would either have to get it from out of the ground or crack it from water at a very high cost in energy.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

The libertarian position on regulation is that corporations regulate themselves out of fear of loss of their market and law suits are only secondary to that. The problem is that all libertarian positions on such things depend upon reaction rather than preemption. In otherwords, people have to die before things change and the things that change are usually only local and rarely national or industry wide.

Meanwhile the FDA allows toxic shit into the food supply constantly and the government writes up protections for the companies providing the toxin.

 

[cannabineer]

Meanwhile the FDA allows toxic shit into the food supply constantly and the government writes up protections for the companies providing the toxin.

Example, please? cn

 

[OGEvilgenius]

Example, please? cn

All GMO food to start.

They ignored studies indicating it's damaging effects completely and totally (while admitting they had no clue what the other random proteins created by these monstrosities do exactly). Not a surprise since most of the leadership of the FDA came over from Monsanto.

GMO foods (all sorts) have been proven toxic in animals. Typically they're supposed stop new products there. GMO food? Nah. There's a political agenda at play. They said there were no notable differences despite the animals being fed GMO corn (one example) having serious kidney and liver problems after prolonged exposure.

One example of the revolving door at the is the FDA and corporations:

Michael R. Taylor is the Deputy Commissioner for Foods at the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

He received a B.A. degree in political science from Davidson College and a law degree from the University of Virginia. In 1976, after passing the bar examination, Taylor became a staff attorney for the FDA, where he was executive assistant to the Commissioner.[SUP][1][/SUP]


In 1981 he went into private practice at King & Spalding, a law firm representing the biotechnology company Monsanto,[SUP][2][/SUP] where he established and led the firm's "food and drug law" practice.[SUP][3][/SUP] On July 17, 1991, Michael Taylor left King & Spalding, returning to the FDA to fill the newly created post of Deputy Commissioner for Policy. Between 1994 and 1996 he moved to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), where he was Administrator of the Food Safety & Inspection Service.

After briefly returning to King & Spalding, he then returned to Monsanto to become Vice President for Public Policy.[SUP][4][/SUP]


Taylor has been a professor at the University of Maryland’s School of Medicine[SUP][5][/SUP] and in 2007 he became a Research Professor of Health Policy at the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services.[SUP][6][/SUP]


On July 7, 2009, Taylor once again returned to government as "senior advisor" to the FDA Commissioner.[SUP][7][/SUP] Taylor’s re-appointment to the FDA came just after President Obama and the other G-8 leaders pledged $20 billion to fight hunger in Africa over the next three years. Before joining Obama’s transition team, Taylor was a Senior Fellow at the think tank Resources for the Future, where he published two documents on U.S. aid for African agriculture, both of which were funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. And on January 13, 2010, he was appointed to another newly created post at the FDA, this time as Deputy Commissioner for Foods.[SUP][8][/SUP]


Taylor is featured in the documentaries The Future of Food and The World According to Monsanto[SUP][9][/SUP] as a pertinent example of revolving door since he is a lawyer who has spent the last few decades moving between Monsanto and the FDA and USDA.

 

[cannabineer]

All GMO food to start.

They ignored studies indicating it's damaging effects completely and totally (while admitting they had no clue what the other random proteins created by these monstrosities do exactly). Not a surprise since most of the leadership of the FDA came over from Monsanto.

GMO foods (all sorts) have been proven toxic in animals. Typically they're supposed stop new products there. GMO food? Nah. There's a political agenda at play. They said there were no notable differences despite the animals being fed GMO corn (one example) having serious kidney and liver problems after prolonged exposure.

One example of the revolving door at the is the FDA and corporations:

I have not heard of this. Please provide links. My info was that GMO foods are non-toxic to humans. I understand that there is a lot of antipathy to GMOs right now, but I've always dismissed it as a religious-type response, "unnatural = bad".

I googled and found this:
http://news.discovery.com/earth/is-genetically-modified-corn-toxic.html

However I would like to propose that the problem here isn't GMO, but high carbs. If you're interested, i recommend the book "Good Calories, Bad calories" by Gary Taubes ... it's essentially a meta-analysis of nutritional scientific publications about the effects of high-carb diets, and the scientific bias those effects must overcome to be acknowledged, which they are not by a majority. cn

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

so hydrogen is off the table as readily available green energy . . . . .

http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/technology/hydrogen-fuel/

the absence of efficient process to extreact that energy is not any indication of it not being valid as a renewable green energy source

resistors used to be the size of a car