Quote :

"The private sector will develop the next step forward, just as it always has. "

It always has, thanks to gov. support.

It's only recently that we've undercut this process.

And we see the asians start taking bigger steps forward.

2/24/2012 8:57:19 PM

Quote :

"Could it be that on this issue, the Chinese gov. is doing the right thing by looking at where technology is headed, and promoting growth and development in that direction?"

Classic mornonic liberal thinking that will bankrupt us all eventually.

If the technology is already headed in a direction, why is a government involved at all? The government doesn't need to promote growth or development as it seems the market is already doing it.

Quote :

"It always has, thanks to gov. support."

You can't support this statement. You didn't the last time I challenged you, you never will. Stop making the fucking statement if you aren't going to back it up.

[Edited on February 24, 2012 at 9:02 PM. Reason : .]

2/24/2012 9:01:51 PM

^ you generally just ignore reality.


from http://mediasite.online.ncsu.edu/online/Viewer/?peid=38d970d3f0724ee188c274afaf299a1d

2/24/2012 9:09:34 PM

weapons of mass destruction in syria ey?

2/24/2012 9:17:55 PM

you've posted that graphic so many times now in starting to wonder if you have an agenda you're hiding behind

2/24/2012 9:19:23 PM

You've dismissed it so many times, i wonder if you're more delusional than I realize.

2/24/2012 9:22:41 PM

Moron if you were president how much would you tax each tax bracket?

2/24/2012 9:28:34 PM

20% and expand the role of GSEs to generate income directly for the country.

[Edited on February 24, 2012 at 9:31 PM. Reason : ]

2/24/2012 9:31:19 PM

Quote :

"^ you generally just ignore reality."

No, you've yet to explain how none of those things wouldn't exist if it weren't for the government. You can't any more than I can say they would. But I at least admit it. Hell, you haven't even bothered to define how much funding came from the Government that made all those things possible.

2/24/2012 9:33:55 PM

20% flat tax? Come on now. The poor also?


Also what type of Gse's? Post office 2.0? Lol jk. GM? Stuff like that?

2/24/2012 9:43:32 PM

^^That's a cop-out answer, because you refuse to think about it too deeply.

Luckily for us people who choose to think deeper, these developments happened far in the past, and we can do a comparative analysis against at least a dozen other contemporary environments to analyze why those developments weren't more rampant, and based on the information from this analysis, we could even compare it to analogous situations throughout history.

Considering this, it's not too hard to see that the US was fairly unique in the technological leap forward due to the gov. responses during the cold war, and social pressures on gov. throughout the civil rights era.

Our success over this period wasn't replicated until recently, when you start to see countries like China shake off their subsistence agrarian cultures to embrace focused development, not dissimilar from the US at the era that spurned these great advances.

In other words, there's a direct correlation between how much research the public paid to pump out in this era and our citizens building innovative products around this research.



This explains why the US kicked so much ass over this time period.

And just plain common sense should tell you that the public is able to take chances on fundamental research with unknown outcomes that individual private entities can't, but that has results that could reap significant benefits for people to develop innovative products around.

You can look at any society throughout history and see who advances technologically the most. It's not the ones where the gov. sits back and does nothing. It was the greeks who built aqueducts and lyceums and coliseums with public money, not the Amazon tribes who lived simple lives that have no strong government that have been stagnant for centuries.

[Edited on February 24, 2012 at 9:56 PM. Reason : ]

2/24/2012 9:54:53 PM

speaking of copouts...

would you do away with representation and the legislative branch? I mean why have all these crazy "the people rule" ideas getting in the way of a genius dictator at the helm

were ready to hear a non direct answer

2/24/2012 10:19:14 PM

Quote :

"^^That's a cop-out answer, because you refuse to think about it too deeply."

Hahahah. If it appears I'm not thinking deeply about this, it's because you've given me no reason to.

I'll address the rest of that drivel later.

2/24/2012 10:22:14 PM

^^ those are good questions that plato spent a grea deal of time elaborating on thousands of years ago. You can even just read the wiki article in this ( platos republic) and see that the Founding Fathers followed many of his ideals in an effort to minimize the tyranny of the majority (measures that have actually been eroded over time). Platos Republic actually has had a FAR stronger influence on the constitution that the Bible actually.

If I could rebuild the system from scratch I would definitely strengthen these protections that Plato envisioned.

2/25/2012 12:51:58 AM

^^ teehee

It's more because your beliefs are based more in conjecture than reality or any real evidence, which means the depth of any thinking you can do is limited by your apparently shallow imagination.

[Edited on February 25, 2012 at 12:54 AM. Reason : H]

2/25/2012 12:54:17 AM

for some reason your answer to my question sounds more like what a modern day clueless priest would say to me

2/25/2012 8:33:35 AM

Quote :

"It's more because your beliefs are based more in conjecture than reality or any real evidence"

Says the guy that posts a pretty picture over and over but can't once be bothered to dig up actual real numbers to support his claims.

Quote :

"which means the depth of any thinking you can do is limited by your apparently shallow imagination."

Oooooooooooh. Now it really does make sense. It's no so much about actually digging up facts and data to support our assertions, it's about imagining things. So, let me see if I understand how this works. We know that the government gave support via tax dollars to the development of technologies. We don't actually know how much support because you aren't actually concerned with actual numbers and those type of facts. It's sufficient to know that the government did something, so therefore it is a must. So, I guess we just kind of imagine by thinking deeply that without this government support, no matter how minute it might be (hey, it probably isn't, but fuck if we'll be bothered to actually find out, right?) that these technologies would either be delayed or wouldn't have happened at all, right?

This is as of 2004, but I think it gives us a pretty clear picture that government isn't playing the role you think it is:

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind04/c4/c4s4.htm#c4s4l2


This is before we even consider the possibility (note, for your little pea brain, I'm not saying the certainty) that government actually slowed or prevented technology from being discovered through their market distorting mechanisms.

[Edited on February 25, 2012 at 5:33 PM. Reason : .]

2/25/2012 5:33:30 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/02/19/sunday-review/an-intricate-web-of-pipelines.html?ref=sunday-review

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/02/27/michelle-governors-gorge-2000-calories/

[Edited on February 27, 2012 at 5:15 PM. Reason : -]

2/27/2012 4:57:23 PM

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/02/wrong-omalley-115671.html

2/27/2012 5:33:30 PM

At first, I was ready to vote Obama out of office. If it comes down to Obama and Santorum, I don't see how there is much a choice.

Sure, one is big government, spends too much and has a mountain of unfulfilled promises, but the other is basically the American Taliban and wants to plunge us back into the dark ages with his own version of sharia law.

2/27/2012 6:32:15 PM

^ i agree with you on that.

paul/romney could get shit done. obama has proven his pandering. santorum is a fucking king douche cunt taliban just like you say, and newt is the epitome of corruption and lies.

2/27/2012 8:31:32 PM

^yeah, I think a Romeny/Paul ticket would be key.

2/27/2012 9:03:03 PM

Quote :

"expand the role of GSEs to generate income directly for the country."

George Bush managed to lose nearly all the money he got from his parents, do you seriously think he'd do a better job investing tax dollars?

2/28/2012 12:35:24 AM

^^^ Romney IS Obama in Republican clothes. We all know he won't do shit. He changes his position depending on who is talking to, tells you what you want to hear, and will continue to same ole same ole. Instead of slashing the budget, he'll save us 10 billion dollars over the next 50 years...

2/28/2012 12:54:21 AM

Quote :

"We all know he won't do shit."

um he actually succeeded at obamacare. fucking 15 years before obama even knew about a fucking sane form of govt assisted health care.

but yeh... he def won't get shit done. lol

2/28/2012 9:58:52 AM

Obama ‘Withdrawal’ Plan Would Leave More Troops In Afghanistan Than When He Began His Presidency

Quote :

"Today, President Obama is expected to announce the withdrawal of as many as 33,000 troops from the war in Afghanistan by the end of 2012. While this announcement is largely being portrayed as a serious reduction of troops, it is important to look at the numbers in context. ThinkProgress has assembled the following graph showing that if the reductions are carried out as planned, the United States would still have far more troops in Afghanistan than it did when Obama came into office and more than at any point during former president George W. Bush’s administration:"

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/06/22/250807/obamas-troop-reduction-afghanistan/?mobile=nc

2/28/2012 3:03:58 PM

get out of here with those "facts," damnit!

2/28/2012 3:18:06 PM

^^that's not really fair.

Yes, we would have more troops, but its because Afghanistan was an afterthought to Bush. We saw a huge surge once Obama took office to get Bin Laden (who got got).

Now that we've got him, yes, of course, we should be leaving. But the reduction of troops shouldn't be ignored, as the initial surge was due to shifting of priorities once Obama assumed office.

There are few people on this board who are more critical of Obama's war-mongering than I am, but this just seems petty. Getting Bin Laden should have been priority #1 on Sept 12, 2001. The fact that it took a surge of troops in 2009 to finish the fucking job is damning critique of the previous administration.

Now, if he just shuffles those troops to Iran, then I'll be right back in here adding to the bitchfest. And if (when) he contracts more Blackwater, Xe, Academi troops to hold down Afghanistan, I'll be just as upset.



[Edited on February 28, 2012 at 3:31 PM. Reason : ]

2/28/2012 3:30:46 PM

of course it's not fair to actually attack Obama with facts.

2/28/2012 3:32:36 PM

^^So your claim is that the surge (over 60,000 men) was necessary to "get Osama"? Was it worth it?

2/28/2012 3:40:26 PM

so bush gets about 300 al qaeda leaders with 20k troops

and obama strikes gold and gets lucky and nails bin laden with 100k troops 10 years later

oooohhhh wooww...

2/28/2012 4:01:40 PM

uh, academi has had a base in afghanistan for awhile now.

2/28/2012 4:03:37 PM

wat jerbbzzz???

2/28/2012 4:22:46 PM

Just admit it, you have nothing. At least the teleprompter jabs were funny, this is just sad. It's going to take a video of Obama having sex with a white woman for him to lose this election.

2/28/2012 4:26:39 PM

how were the teleprompter jabs funny?

2/28/2012 4:28:35 PM

http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/28/lightsquared-ceo-resigns-amid-revelations-of-companys-proximity-to-obama-white-house/

Quote :

"LightSquared CEO Sanjiv Ahuja abruptly announced his resignation Tuesday amid revelations of his company’s political proximity — and his own closeness — to the White House and Obama administration officials. The Daily Caller first reported one week ago on emails and documents that indicate political ties and numerous meetings between LightSquared and Obama administration officials as the was undergoing regulatory review. Ahuja’s resignation comes after Obama’s FCC suspended conditional approval of a waiver LightSquared needed to complete its high-speed broadband network. Until two weeks ago, the company’s final approval appeared imminent. Ahuja, who had never donated to Democrats before and has not since, gave the maximum allowable $30,400 contribution to the Democratic National Committee on the same day his lawyers were trying to arrange a meeting for him at the White House with top Obama technology adviser Aneesh Chopra and other officials. In emails between Ahuja’s lawyers and White House officials Ahuja wanted to meet with, his lawyers pointed out that he would attend an Obama fundraiser on or about the same day he wanted the meeting. In a statement accompanying the company’s announcement of Ahuja’s resignation, he made no mention of those revelations. “During my tenure at LightSquared, we all worked tirelessly to create the nation’s first open wireless broadband network and provide consumers with a new wireless broadband experience,” Ahuja said. “That work continues and I wish the company and its fine management team well as they work to achieve this important goal.” LightSquared spokesman Terry Neal did not immediately respond to TheDC’s request for comment on the possible connections between Ahuja’s resignation and revelations published exclusively by TheDC. According to the release, Ahuja will remain LightSquared’s chairman. Philip Falcone, the CEO of Harbinger Capital Partners — which created LightSquared from its predecessor, SkyTerra — was appointed to the LightSquared board on Tuesday as well. The Obama administration FCC approved Harbinger’s purchase of SkyTerra after what appeared to be a series of favorable regulatory decisions amid White House visits. In the press release, Falcone said he remains confident in LightSquared’s future despite these new revelations and the company’s reported challenges related to GPS interference issues. “LightSquared’s objective, through its wholesale business model, is to provide increased competition and lower prices in the telecommunications industry, and to bring broadband cellular phone service to rural areas that currently don’t have such service and that has not and will not change,” Falcone said. “We are, furthermore, committed to working with the appropriate entities to find a solution to the recent regulatory issues. We, of course, agree that it is critical to ensure that national security, aviation and the GPS communities are protected.” "

2/28/2012 4:31:52 PM

^^^good point. fucking a white woman is off the table at this point....


like his dead african dad amirite????
i mean i'll be honest. i wouldn't have settled for that fucking ugly piece of horse shit he married either. uggghh.. you know he regrets it every day of his life. esp with his influence he could get any woman he wanted. yet he goes for that.

his dad at least did one thing he couldnt do. LOLOL


[Edited on February 28, 2012 at 4:35 PM. Reason : -]

2/28/2012 4:33:09 PM

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/white-house-blames-bush-afghanistan-turmoil/397186

Quote :

"White House Press secretary Jay Carney today reminded reporters that prior to President Obama's term in office, the Bush administration was responsible for the tumultuous lengthy engagement in Afghanistan. "The president made clear when he was a candidate for this office and when he took this office, that unfortunately prior to his taking office, because of the focus on Iraq, and the U.S. efforts there, that the original war, if you will, in Afghanistan had been neglected, the strategy there was unclear, and that it was not properly resourced," said Carney, adding that the U.S. goals in Afghanistan would be met with President Obama's "clear eyed" policy. 2 U.S. Officers were shot and killed last week inside the Interior Ministry building in Kabul, and 9 people were killed today as a suicide bomber targeted a military airport. When asked any military response to the attacks, Carney said that the incidents were being investigated by the Afghan government and the International Security Assistance Force."

Do they realize that their boss has been President for three years?

Because we do.

2/28/2012 4:37:06 PM

Quote :

"So your claim is that the surge (over 60,000 men) was necessary to "get Osama"? Was it worth it?"

No, I'm just saying that he delivered on his campaign promise. Whether or not you agree with that strategy is an entirely separate argument.

2/28/2012 10:53:17 PM

I don't think Obama has even started campaigning yet, but once he does I have a feeling it will be like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8M2NgjvicA&t=2m30s

2/28/2012 11:12:51 PM

Quote :

"good point. fucking a white woman is off the table at this point.... like his dead african dad amirite???? i mean i'll be honest. i wouldn't have settled for that fucking ugly piece of horse shit he married either. uggghh.. you know he regrets it every day of his life. esp with his influence he could get any woman he wanted. yet he goes for that. his dad at least did one thing he couldnt do. LOLOL"

This is one of the most overtly racist things I have ever read in TSB.

2/29/2012 7:16:32 AM

Quote :

"The U.S. exported more gasoline, diesel and other fuels than it imported in 2011 for the first time since 1949, the Energy Department said. Shipments abroad of petroleum products exceeded imports by 439,000 barrels a day, the department said today in the Petroleum Supply Monthly report . In 2010, daily net imports averaged 269,000 barrels. "

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-29/u-s-was-net-oil-product-exporter-in-2011.html

3/1/2012 11:16:41 PM

Are you giving Obama credit for fracking?

3/1/2012 11:44:38 PM

lol, I'm confused as well

3/1/2012 11:48:18 PM

cow farts.

3/2/2012 12:12:39 AM

This graph is a bit more descriptive.

3/2/2012 12:12:51 AM

Quote :

"Are you giving Obama credit for fracking?"

He may as well. It isn't like the president is doing anything meaningful to regulate it such as pushing for the removal of its exemption from the Clean Water Act...

3/2/2012 12:22:13 AM

3/2/2012 1:03:47 AM

^ Those numbers don't amount to much.

Even if we increased our production, it wouldn't matter, because it wouldn't belong to the country. It would belong to oil companies, who have no allegiance to the US. Gas prices are global, so increased domestic production wouldn't even lower prices.

Quote :

""We are coupled to a global oil market,” said Koonin, who resigned as the Energy Department’s undersecretary for science last year. “Oil is a fungible commodity. There is no such thing as ‘foreign oil.’ There’s just ‘oil.’”"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73210_Page2.html




By the way, republicans keep voting down an amendment to keep Keystone pipeline oil in the US. Now why would they do that? Could it be because they're all backed by oil companies?

Quote :

"Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) offered an amendment to the bill during the Feb. 15 vote, giving the House a chance to “ensure that if the Keystone XL pipeline is built, the oil that it transports to the Gulf of Mexico and the fuels made from that oil remain in this country to benefit Americans.” But the amendment failed 173-254."

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/02/22/430234/bought-by-big-oil-house-gop-vote-against-keeping-keystone-xl-oil-in-america/?mobile=nc




and Keystone would actually RAISE gas prices in the US

Quote :

"As the Congressional Research Service pointed out in late January, when there’s trouble in places like the Straits of Hormuz, the price of oil goes up for everyone and Keystone will make no difference, since the oil market is “globally integrated’; it’s not like Exxon offers a home-country discount to American motorists. But in the case of the Keystone pipeline, it turns out there’s a special twist. At the moment, there’s an oversupply of tarsands crude in the Midwest, which has depressed gas prices there. If the pipeline gets built so that crude can easily be sent overseas, that excess will immediately disappear and gas prices for 15 states across the middle of the country will suddenly rise. Says who? Says the companies trying to build the thing. Transcanada Pipeline’s rationale for investors, and their testimony to Canadian officials, included precisely this point: removing the “oversupply’ and the resulting “price discount” would raise their returns by $2 to $4 billion a year."

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-a-environment/211733-bill-mckibben-founder-350org




[Edited on March 2, 2012 at 2:56 AM. Reason : ]

3/2/2012 2:53:53 AM

Quote :

"http://i.imgur.com/YIO6R.jpg"

remember: 50 billion to GM. sold 600 volts. 60000 ford F450's

0 to tesla(go ahead and argue about that 'several' million dollar LOAN lol). tesla has 500 pre-orders for model x in first week after announcement. has sold over 6000 full electric cars.

there's your 'green' president for you.

3/2/2012 7:48:17 AM