- Joined
- May 28, 2011
- Messages
- 13,813
- Reaction score
- 2,233
- Location
- Huntsville, AL
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Is your argument that big government is the cause of innovation?But I worry deeply that we have lost that focus. I worry that innovation nowadays is tarred and feathered under the guises of "big government."
I seriously question the truth value of these statements. You ever seen "Who Killed the Electric Car"? Do you not realize that Big Coal and Big Oil have a vested interest AGAINST cleaner energy? I am aware, however, of the unfortunate dilemma that dirty power tends to be cheap. That's a big part of the problem here. It's an even bigger problem when Big Oil companies spend only a tiny portion of their research and development on clean energy, relying instead on old, dirty technology.
You are in absolutely no position to lecture me on this matter. The silent majority--get this--actually WANTS clean energy. They WANT society to press harder for developing clean, cost-effective sources of power. Do you? Or are you perfectly okay with Big Coal and Big Oil continuing to trash our seas and our skies? That's the status quo, Les. That's what we have right now. And you would fight to defend that? You think it's patriotic to continue polluting with no end in sight? Puh-lease! A fundamental part of the American Spirit is innovation. Innovation is what got us steam power in the first place, and weeded our dependence off of slavery. Innovation is what sent us to outer space. Innovation is what has given us cures to diseases that would have been an automatic death sentence just decades ago. Innovation is what will plummet the cost of clean energy far enough to put Big Coal and Big Oil out of business. Innovation is what will sharply decrease the grossly underrated health care costs due to dirty energy. THAT, sir, is what I think of when I think of patriotism. I could not be prouder of a nation that has come so far, primarily due to its innovation.
But I worry deeply that we have lost that focus. I worry that innovation nowadays is tarred and feathered under the guises of "big government." Had the Tea Party the influence back in the 1960s that it does now, I seriously wonder whether our spaceships would have even gotten off the ground. The USSR would have kicked our tails and made us look silly. And guess what? Quietly, that exact same thing is going on. Several other nations are leading the charge in clean energy--Denmark, Germany, Spain, China, and even India. Meanwhile, we sit on our butts and whine about some freakin' lightbulb and how it's about to become too freakin' efficient. Jesus, what have we come to? It is a BAD thing that public policy dictates that an appliance be efficient?? What the hell??
I really want to understand conservatives' position on the matter. I hear you when you say that the cost per megawatt-hour really should be the primary determining factor in terms of what energy sources we use. Disagree partially I may, but I do hear you. All I'm asking for is the same in return.
NASA grieves over canceled program - Technology & science - Space - Space.com - msnbc.comUm, no he didn't. He allowed the space shuttle to cease operations, but NASA is still rolling on.
Perry slams Obama for closing down NASA's space shuttle programThat's the kind of crap I'm talking about. Do you libertarian/conservatives have the slightest interest in trying to get things done,
Anyone who thinks the government should be choosing what we can have, what we can buy, what we can use, how we shall live, who we must buy health care from...is a government man and may be unsuited to live free.
May your chains rest lightly upon you.
Well the Middle East isn't exactly the moon or Mars, but yeah, O.K.
Obama’s new mission for NASA: Reach out to Muslim world
Read more at the Washington Examiner: Obama
You've certainly got ranting down to a science.
I did not put words in your mouth. I said "...people from your side of the argument...""...have said that the masses are stupid..." I don't see your name in that statement. You might want to reread it and then apologize to me for doing something I did not do. If you do not believe that people from your side have made such statements, please let me know and I will repost the quotes for you.
You think I have lied to you? The only difference between us is that is how we achieve things. This is the thrust of the entire discussion. You want to use coercion to bring about research and development. Conservatives do not want such tyranny.
LOL! I would be very pleased to have what you consider clean energy. I am also very pleased to have coal and oil and wish we had a great deal more. As for patriotic, cut the BS. Oppressive, authoritarian tyranny is not patriotic. You believe Chicken Little and I don't. The sky is not falling. We can move towards any energy you prefer and I would be pleased so long as the transition is within free enterprise and without the oppressive laws that you favor.
I have heard you and very clearly. You want dictated policies. I don't.
There were two other goals that Obama made here. What are you thoughts on them?
lol, that's all you can come up with? You're gonna let me get off that easy?
My god...you just don't get it. Why will Republicans not back down from farm subsidies? Why will Democrats not back down from CAFE standards? Because this is how stuff works, dude. See, this is one of the things I don't get about conservatives: They think that choice is the greatest thing that a human can have--subject, of course, to quite a few conditions.
They are typical Obama plans. "Sometime in the future (when I'm not around) I have these grand plans that I'll let you know about later as we are working on ideas right now"
I guess you can't blame the guy. If I had been handed a 97-0 no vote on the one plan I actually did turn in, I'd be reluctant to try again.
I should waste more time than that?
No to derail this wonderful topic but.
The Dems support farm subsidies every bit as much as the GOP and in most cases they both are wrong. It was Carl Levin (D) Michigan that fought for years to keep CAFE standards from rising.
Dude that's politics. Watch them being interviewed--most of them will intentionally not give a straight answer. Sometimes this is a shrewd move, other times they need to just come out and say it.
Beh, this joke of a debate is typical of what the political discussion has degraded to here in America. It's very difficult to debate people who claim laughably absurd positions, such as the idea that restricting low-efficiency light blubs = an attack on freedom, AND, on top of that, who resort to childish tactics when their bluff is called.
Good--I was hoping someone would catch that point about farm subsidies. And you're right.
FWIW, a lot of Democrats in Congress are in bed with Big Oil and Big Coal. It isn't just Republicans.
He gave a straight answer. The part where he says that NASA should become Goodwill agents to Muslims.
I believe my latest jump in was to point out where you were resorting to the same tactics.
Then why create a boogeyman to argue against? Why slam one side when you know both are guilty?
Yeah, that SO was a straight answer. Here, lemme talk about how good basil spice is when mixed in with pasta. Yeah, that's relevant to this discussion.
If you actually believe that he and I are on the opposite side of the same coin, then I cannot help you.
Because it's not that simple. It never is. Hint: Many liberals have some serious complaints about Obama and the Democrats in Congress. Contrary to what libertarian/conservatives want to think, we do NOT blindly support them simply because they wear a "D". It just doesn't work that way on this side of the fence.
Hey, I agree that thinking that it was a good fit for NASA is crazy talk. Indeed, making them cooks for Olive Garden would make as much sense, but that's his plan.
No, I noted that you were the same side of the coin you weren't crazy about.
Well you certainly fooled me.
Can you please actually make some points that are worth addressing instead of this childish trolling? What the hell does the Olive Garden even have to do with this discussion?
To my libertarian and small government conservative friends: Calling energy standards on light bulbs tyranny and oppression is overstating your case a bit. If you're are concerned about the size and scope of government, there are far more pressing concerns than one minor additional energy standard.
However in this circumstance, I don't believe there was a market failure. Many people, myself included, have already converted to the higher efficiency bulbs. And as companies compete and innovate to find new ways to lower the price, more and more people will make the switch. Decreasing the demand for the old less efficient bulbs until we reach the point where demand is so low, its no longer worth it to companies to manufacture them. We were already on this path. The market was working as intended. New, better technology was being introduced and it was slowly replacing the older, less efficient technology. Many supporters of this regulation have said the same thing. So why do we need the regulation in the first place? Why not let the market take its natural course? There is no market failure here, and therefore I see no need for government intervention.
You are putting words in my mouth by assuming what is on our minds, not to mention that that is a massive strawman. I could just as easily argue that your side believes that Average Joe knows exactly as much about a particular subject as someone who has given his or her life to studying it.
Oh you want to lecture me about coercion? What the hell do you think the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were? See, this is one of the many things I don't get about conservatives: It's absolutely fine to start preemptive wars, deny women's choice, and treat children like soldiers in training. But when it comes to policies that *gasp* actually make our planet a little cleaner, you guys throw a fit! What the hell, man?
Dude, if you think that conservatism doesn't espouse any kind of authoritarianism, then you are severely misguided in what your views are. See above.
And I couldn't see coal, oil, and gas disappear fast enough. There are all sorts of hidden costs to fossil fuels, in addition to all the known dangers. Again, I actually believe that a clean environment is a GOOD thing. For you, it's all about the money.
Let me ask you a question I asked on another thread: If I want to burn my garbage in a city park, shouldn't I have the freedom to do so?
My god...you just don't get it. Why will Republicans not back down from farm subsidies? Why will Democrats not back down from CAFE standards? Because this is how stuff works, dude. See, this is one of the things I don't get about conservatives: They think that choice is the greatest thing that a human can have--subject, of course, to quite a few conditions.
To my libertarian and small government conservative friends: Calling energy standards on light bulbs tyranny and oppression is overstating your case a bit.
If you're are concerned about the size and scope of government, there are far more pressing concerns than one minor additional energy standard.
To hear some folks here, you'd think we're on the verge of becoming a police state. Yes, you can argue that its not an appropriate use of federal authority. You can argue the government has overstepped its bounds as envisioned by the founding fathers. But shouting "Tyranny!" and saying anyone who disagrees with you hates freedom is a sure fire formula for most people to dismiss you as shrill, bombastic, and out of touch with reality.
I disagree. Early in this discussion, I provided definitions for oppressive, authoritarian, and tyranny. They are perfect words to demonstrate what the left is doing with this law.
That might be true; however, as the liberals turn up the heat on the water [minor instances of oppressive, authoritarian tyranny], one might not even realize that the next higher level of heat is just one more step closer to your demise.
Then why bother debating?
However in this circumstance, I don't believe there was a market failure. Many people, myself included, have already converted to the higher efficiency bulbs. And as companies compete and innovate to find new ways to lower the price, more and more people will make the switch. Decreasing the demand for the old less efficient bulbs until we reach the point where demand is so low, its no longer worth it to companies to manufacture them. We were already on this path. The market was working as intended. New, better technology was being introduced and it was slowly replacing the older, less efficient technology. Many supporters of this regulation have said the same thing. So why do we need the regulation in the first place? Why not let the market take its natural course? There is no market failure here, and therefore I see no need for government intervention.
Plus, without this regulation, companies had a strong incentive to keep innovating to reduce the cost of these new bulbs, to attract new customers who had not yet made the switch due to the relatively higher price of the new bulbs. Now, with the entire nation forced to buy the current technology, there is less of an incentive to lower costs. Sure competition is still in place, so there is an incentive, but its probably less pressing without the possible reward of new customers. And that's the problem with many regulations. By picking a winner, even a product who was already more or less destined to win, the government removes part of the market forces that give incentive to innovate and lower costs.
This is the only part of what you said that I have a problem with because it wasn't the American people as a whole who cared about the efficiency of light bulbs, it was the companies who make the light bulbs in the first place. They wanted this bill so that they all would be forced to innovate their light bulbs to a lower efficiency at once, most likely so that it wasn't just one or a couple of them taking an initial drop in their profits due to their having to do the research and charge more for their incandescent bulbs. If every company is doing it at once, then the profit loss due to the innovation is distributed amongst all of them.
This is the only part of what you said that I have a problem with because it wasn't the American people as a whole who cared about the efficiency of light bulbs, it was the companies who make the light bulbs in the first place. They wanted this bill so that they all would be forced to innovate their light bulbs to a lower efficiency at once, most likely so that it wasn't just one or a couple of them taking an initial drop in their profits due to their having to do the research and charge more for their incandescent bulbs. If every company is doing it at once, then the profit loss due to the innovation is distributed amongst all of them.
Now, I'm sure that most of those who are on the bill side of this argument could care one way or another about the bill itself. I, for one, don't care if the bill got repealed but I consider it a waste of time to do so, since it really has very little affect on any person's actual freedom. The bill isn't making the decision to move jobs to China nor is it forcing those companies to fire any Americans. Those companies were already losing money due to the more energy efficient light bulbs, which were completely free choice to buy. There are much more important things to be concerned with than the repeal of this energy efficiency bill or parts of it.
No, thanks to our state vehicle inspection program.
Try reading the Preamble to the Constitution sometime, and I am not your boy, sonny!
Then why bother debating?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?