Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
I'll give that ad campaign credit for being quirky and a change of pace from regular political ads... Even though I think it also shows the Republicans are a little behind the times. Didn't those Chuck Norris facts start three years ago or so?
I love how those Republicans try painting Democrats as the party who's too close to Hollywood champagne liberals, when I don't see any Democratic actors joining the presidential/gubernatorial races.
Al Franken is running for the Minnesota Senate seat, though. That race is going to be fun to watch.
It's only 11 questions, and it helps you select which candidate you agree with the most. It ranks all candidates from both parties in order of who you agree with the most to who you disagree with the most. It might help some of you out who are trying to decide between candidates.
My results were what I expected: Ron Paul with a score of 45.
and Kucinich was the closest Democrat. No surprise there either.
My score was Kucinich 51 and Gravel 50. No real surprise. I like both these men a lot.
The real surprise is that it ranks Edwards last among Dems and that's who I support (mostly). Of course there was no questions regarding my most important issues, corporate control of government and the media and the erosion of the middle class.
Of course Ron Paul was the highest Rep.
Last Edit: Dec 20, 2007 18:57:56 GMT -5 by troo - Back to Top
Dennis Kucinich - 50 I agreed with him on everything but Iraq. I voted for him in the 04 primaries, but these days I'm not as idealistic with my votes as I once was...
This deal about having to register as a member of a party is bullshit.
I don't have to do that here in Wisconsin. We have open primaries. I just show up at the polling place, and they ask which party's ballot I like. At no point do I have to register any party affiliation to vote on a partisan ballot. I like it that way.
Dennis Kucinich - 50 I agreed with him on everything but Iraq. I voted for him in the 04 primaries, but these days I'm not as idealistic with my votes as I once was...
By "not as idealistic" with your vote, I take it to mean that you are willing to support a candidate who is more likely to win, but less likely to represent you ?!!
I can't believe that ALL of the democratic candidates are shilling for biofuels and/or ethanol. Really shows ya that they DO need lobby $ from somewhere. Most of that $ and misinformation is coming from ADM(Archer Daniels Midland). Agribusiness loves the prices going up on farmland and corn, but cares little about the sustainability of our most precious natural resources-land and water.
Snooch, you are right. Bio-fuels are the corporate farm's wet dream. In reality they do nothing about global warming (in fact they are less efficient) and restrict the food supply causing food prices to rise, predominantly hurting the poor. (Notice the spike in food prices, especially dairy and eggs, since the bio-fuel rage began.)
Using food stocks for bio-fuel is unjustified. We should be concentrating on and subsidizing new technologies especially more efficient storage batteries for solar/electric vehicles.
But you can't say that in Iowa.
Last Edit: Dec 21, 2007 9:47:52 GMT -5 by troo - Back to Top
Post by chicojuarz on Dec 21, 2007 10:19:35 GMT -5
While using corn is having a very detrimental effect on global economies and even on the environment should we write off the entirety of biofuels? I dont think that we should be writing off biodiesel so quickly. Its an efficient fuel that can be made from recycled waste products and used with small adaptations to existing technologies.
Mercedes is releasing a diesel hybrid very shortly, if those technologies can be mainstreamed we could see a true change in economic and environmental impact in the very short term.
Snooch, you are right. Bio-fuels are the corporate farm's wet dream. In reality they do nothing about global warming (in fact they are less efficient) and restrict the food supply causing food prices to rise, predominantly hurting the poor. (Notice the spike in food prices, especially dairy and eggs, since the bio-fuel rage began.)
Using food stocks for bio-fuel is unjustified. We should be concentrating on and subsidizing new technologies especially more efficient storage batteries for solar/electric vehicles.
But you can't say that in Iowa.
I completely agree as well, I would much rather see more efficient electric vehicles than food stores being used. I also want my flying DeLorean.
^^^^^^In a fairly recent debate amongst democratic candidates, Edwards took the anti-gay position by stating that he believed marriage was intended by God to be between a man and a woman.
Too much dogma and discrimination for me.
At the same debate when asked the same question, Kucinich pointed up at an equal sign on a banner, and said that he didn't believe that sign had any conditions....
Not only does Dennis tell it like it is, his voting record proves it.
Edwards also voted to give Bush a blank check in Iraq originally. An advisor of his says that he urged Edwards to do so for the sake of his political future. Edwards denies this, saying the vote was simply "a mistake".
So yeah, the anti corporate crud sells when you are on the campaign trail. But it doesn't matter if you are stuffing yer coffers with corporate $$$$!
Just saw this now.
Nice, but I know what kind of candidate Edwards is, thanks. It's a heck of a lot easier to "tell it like it is," like Dennis and Ron, when nobody is even paying attention to you. I'm not saying it's a good thing, but when the microscope of the media (and message board posters like yourself) isn't even recognizing you, you can pretty much get away with saying whatever you want, whenever you want. Seeing as how neither of those two candidates have, or ever will, really make into the political spotlight, it's impossible to really anticipate how they could potentially put their foot in their mouth or trip over their own past statements when under the intense scrutiny that a true contender is subject to.
For the record, I like Dennis a heck of lot, but find more in common with Edwards. Ron Paul -- I'm not a big fan.
A friend of mine on another message board kinda shocked me yesterday - I knew she is Democrat and all but never realized that she was pretty close-minded
In the end, I will vote for what ever Dem wins the ticket. IMO, not voting for the Dem is the same as voting for the Repub (and that thought makes me ill)
Like I said shocked me - I guess because I am used to the openess over here when we have politically discussions
I'll vote for the candidate I like(or against one I really don't like) from either party.. I've always sided with the dems but that doesn't mean it'll always be that way.
well - I took the test and it did not help me at all because almost every single candidate is split rigt down the middle for me on things that I am seriously concerned about
It shows Mitt Romney as the top for my choid because he agrees with me on the following:
Taxes Stem-Cell Research Health Care Line-Item Veto Energy Marriage Death Penalty
BUT - he does not agree with me on these issues (and I think they are just as important) Iraq Immigration Abortion Social Security
I think tho - in the end - the things he does not agree with are the things that are most important to me - so I will keep reading and researching and hopefully - one of the candidates who wins the primaries will be someone I can support
Chico--By no means should we throw the baby out with the bathwater. Biodiesel is/would be a great interim and transitional alternative. I was generically referring to biofuels as something that we could eat, that rather we burn for electricity instead. Although emissions from biodiesel are of great concern when it comes to greenhouse gasses.
What we really have to watch out for is the misinformation diseminated by interests who have LARGE sums of money to gain or lose by certain products and their promotion. That's where the notion of biofuels as a green option stinks more like a brown option ! Agribusiness, the same folks who have brought the world famine thru distribution control, mad cow disease, and made it illegal for indigenous tribes to collect seed or rainwater--now want to have their hands in the fuel cookie jar. And they are using the American farmer(thru market dominance and control) and their land, as well as a "green" campaign to do it.
Basically, the decision should come down to the amount of energy produced per acre over time(which accounts for sustainability). And the hands down winner is concentrated solar power. The premise is based on concentrating solar power to boil water to produce steam pressure, which is converted to electricity. Approximately 9% of the deserts of the southwest of the US could produce our current consumption levels of electricity indefinitely with virtually NO emissions according to an article in the Jan2008 issue of Mother Earth News.
In the same article, ethanal is quoted as producing 3 to 4 Kilowatts per acre. Wind turbines are 12 to 16 kw per acre. Photovoltaics(solar panels) are 240 to 730 kw per acre depending on the technology. And concentrated solar power chimes in at a whopping 1600 kilowatts per acre.
We could have built All of these plants with the $ we have already spent on the Iraq war. Talk about energy independence. But those who run the country and make our energy policy don't want that. Where would the lobbying $ come from to get re-elected.
AND ALL OF THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES ARE COMPLICIT IN THIS.
Disheartening to say the absolute least ...
Last Edit: Dec 21, 2007 10:49:00 GMT -5 by snoochie2 - Back to Top
Many will disagree with me but here is how I see it with stem cell research..
Yes, embryos are destroyed in certain processes of stem cell research. But, if the mother donating said embryos has chosen not to have anymore children... where is the problem? Those embryos wouldn't be doing anything anyway, they would never become anything. They'd just... sit there.
There is quite a bit of hype about being able to change certain cells into stem cells from.. hmm was it fruit flies? and the anti-embryonic research folks are really hyping that.. but I've heard that those cells tend not to remain as stable.. I think other methods should be pursued, but lets keep the embryonic way going until we find something else.
^^^^^^In a fairly recent debate amongst democratic candidates, Edwards took the anti-gay position by stating that he believed marriage was intended by God to be between a man and a woman.
Too much dogma and discrimination for me.
At the same debate when asked the same question, Kucinich pointed up at an equal sign on a banner, and said that he didn't believe that sign had any conditions....
Not only does Dennis tell it like it is, his voting record proves it.
Edwards also voted to give Bush a blank check in Iraq originally. An advisor of his says that he urged Edwards to do so for the sake of his political future. Edwards denies this, saying the vote was simply "a mistake".
So yeah, the anti corporate crud sells when you are on the campaign trail. But it doesn't matter if you are stuffing yer coffers with corporate $$$$!
Just saw this now.
Nice, but I know what kind of candidate Edwards is, thanks. It's a heck of a lot easier to "tell it like it is," like Dennis and Ron, when nobody is even paying attention to you. I'm not saying it's a good thing, but when the microscope of the media (and message board posters like yourself) isn't even recognizing you, you can pretty much get away with saying whatever you want, whenever you want. Seeing as how neither of those two candidates have, or ever will, really make into the political spotlight, it's impossible to really anticipate how they could potentially put their foot in their mouth or trip over their own past statements when under the intense scrutiny that a true contender is subject to.
For the record, I like Dennis a heck of lot, but find more in common with Edwards. Ron Paul -- I'm not a big fan.
Not tryin' to crap on anyone's candidate or point out what you may already know/embrace-
Guess I like the integrity of Kucinich , that's all. He says what he means and votes it. Be it Mayor of Cleveland, or Democratic House Rep from North central Ohio, his constituents know where he stands on his principles and he will not change them for the sake of being re-elected. Edwards, Clinton, Richardson, Biden, Gore, --none of them can say that. They took the prominence they had, voted for unbridled war powers for GWB, and now recant . All they really have stood for is their own self interest.
Last Edit: Dec 21, 2007 11:18:31 GMT -5 by snoochie2 - Back to Top
Post by chicojuarz on Dec 21, 2007 11:01:52 GMT -5
Snooch, I have to agree that there is a great amount of propaganda that is keeping real solutions from people's ears and eyes. Most people dont read or listen to alternative news so all they ever get is that ethanol is a great solution for us going forward.
All of these candidates should be supporting zero impact technology but with the nauseating mix of money at play in this kind of situation each one of them is afraid of crossing the wrong person and not being elected this or next time. Absolutely, disheartening.
In terms of biodiesel in this case I was thinking primarily of transporation but you are right if photovotaic cells are even remotely feasible (which they are) we should be putting as much effort as possible to develop and implement them.
Also do you have a link for Mother Earth News? I'd like to read more. Also if you have a news letter I'd subscribe.
Mother Earth News is a publication I have subscribed to (in a number of ways) for years now and I absolutely LOVE it. You get 6 issues a year for like 12 bucks and they are full of sustainable ideas, plans, and solutions. Even the letters to the editor are useful. The current issue has complete plans to build a shed of solar collectors(different than photovoltaics) that will heat water to heat radiant floor heating year round for off the grid heating. Along with various tips on green building, there are thousands of resources on doing just about everything for yourself from gardening and canning, to converting fuel sources, etc. Blueprints have been included for building your own boat, silo, and cold frames,etc. This magazine's got it all. Salt of the earth resource. Tinkerer's dream, I tells ya. They also offer 30 years of archived magazines with a keen search function on disc for like 30 bucks. Couldn't support a magazine more than I do this one. Has already saved me thousands....
I love Mother earth News! Subscribed for years and find its resources inexhaustible.
Also Chico: I'm not totally against bio-fuels. I just think the use of food stocks is detrimental. I agree that wastes streams are a great source for bio-fuels. Also such non-food sources as switch grass and willows are good to aid in energy independence. But overall it is a much hyped non-solution to most problems.
As for stem cell research; thousands and thousands of blastocysts (fertilized eggs of the size up to several hundred or thousand cells) are disposed of by feriltization clinics every years. These are readily available. The so called stem cells produced from adult sources have very limited lifespans and potentials and if you actually read the research, they all say these cells have"some characteristics of stem cells." Also government grants are essential for primary research.
If you're truly wooried about "fertilized eggs farms" just say the clinic blastocysts can only be donated and not sold. this solves that problem.
Post by spookymonster on Dec 21, 2007 12:05:09 GMT -5
wooz said:
Many will disagree with me but here is how I see it with stem cell research..
Yes, embryos are destroyed in certain processes of stem cell research. But, if the mother donating said embryos has chosen not to have anymore children... where is the problem? Those embryos wouldn't be doing anything anyway, they would never become anything. They'd just... sit there.
There is quite a bit of hype about being able to change certain cells into stem cells from.. hmm was it fruit flies? and the anti-embryonic research folks are really hyping that.. but I've heard that those cells tend not to remain as stable.. I think other methods should be pursued, but lets keep the embryonic way going until we find something else.
First, let me say I'm all for stem-cell research. Now, as the Devil's Advocate , the biggest problem I see with embryonic research is that once you commoditize human life, you create an economic market for it as well. And if we've learned anything from capitalism, it's that there will always be unscrupulous people in the world willing to slit someone else's throat to make a buck.
That being said, fear of the potential misuse of a technology should never hinder proper research, just as it's achievements should never blind us from our own humanity.
If we're gonna live forever, someone best start cloning resources or babies who don't eat and $hit. Cuz we're already to the point of having to pay dearly for drinking water.
I say we start rapidly cloning our predators and call THAT progress.
But I'm all for eliminating suffering. I call it morphine and virtual reality. Anyone wanna BUY a retirement program !?!?!?
I can think of at least 10 women off of the top of my head who I know personally and would want to be paid for them. I'd have no problem with them being "donation only" but a lot of women would.
Post by spookymonster on Dec 21, 2007 12:29:15 GMT -5
snoochie2 said:
I say we start rapidly cloning our predators and call THAT progress.
Or maybe we just eliminate that silly 'you must be 21 years old to buy cigarettes' mandate. Imagine how many more people would've avoided retirement age if they'd just started smoking at 5!!!