For what it's worth- The President fully explains his plans and the rationale behind them

[NJmaverick]

it takes some time and effort to read his long explanation but one is rewarded by a better understanding of exactly where he is coming from. So if you prefer your information unfiltered and undistorted, here it is:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-energy-security-andrews-air-force-base-3312010

[Oregone]

1. If McCain won and did the same exact thing, his explanation and rational would of sucked

Obama has cool marketing, so, ya gotta trust him

[NJmaverick]

2. You read, evaluated and posted on that entire speech in 2 minutes?

:wow:

[tekisui]

3. You weren't the first person to find this online, genius.

[NJmaverick]

4. Posting with out facts again

tsk

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NJmaverick]

9. Yet you had no clue what the poster I was replying to read or didn't read

but it didn't stop you from commenting with out a shred of evidence or fact

[tekisui]

12. Do you think before you write?

Did you not see the shred of evidence I just posted?

God, this place is for the bird. So long.

[NJmaverick]

14. Post number 6 says that I do and clearly you don't

:rofl:

I guess you will run away instead of manning up and admitting you were wrong.

[ShortnFiery]

38. Have you ever considered being polite?

I love watching "House" too but I find his character devoid of a soul. :shrug:

[NJmaverick]

50. Let me get this straight. A poster attempted to make fun of me and show me up

and somehow I should pretend the facts that show he was completely and utterly wrong didn't exist? You know it would be nice if said poster had taken a more polite and reasoned approach as I would certainly have responded differently.

[ShortnFiery]

53. You're consistently IMO employing caustic dialog. It's a negative for the character in the

series as he only has one true friend and doesn't become a man of noted intellect such as yourself. :shrug:

[NJmaverick]

58. You know there is an old Chinese proverb about pointing a finger

and how the other four point back at one's self. If you review your own posts you will find them chock full of inflammatory language and rhetoric. Perhaps you might consider practicing what you are suddenly preaching.

[ShortnFiery]

61. I am angry at "the politicians" not the fellow posters. Your snark is more hard edged.

It's bordering on what some would denote as authoritarian as it implies that there is a "bandwagon effect."

Consider that before your next thoughtful post?

[NJmaverick]

72. Has it ever occurred to you that many DUers come here to get away

from the never ending, hyperbole filled and less than accurate attacks on President Obama and the Democratic party? We are bombarded with that nonsense from the right wing owned MSM and right wingers who are never shy about spouting their nonsense. This forum has always been our refuge from that nonsense. A place to stock up on the facts that dispute the right wing talking points and gives us the information the MSM and right wingers neglect to give out on the Dems. When you attack our party and politicians with the same vengeance as those on the right, you are going to piss off a lot of people.

[ShortnFiery]

74. It's MY party too. When my elected "leaders" do not represent my values ...

I have a right to say I'm disappointed and demand change. That change can ONLY seemingly come from our Progressive Politicians standing as strong as the Blue Dogs.

I now understand that.

DU supports DEMOCRATS but that does not mean we are OBLIGATED to bless everything about "The Democratic Party" and present leadership's BEHAVIOR?

I shouldn't piss off a lot of people here lest our "big tent" party is straining at inclusion.

It comes down to one simple question: Does our party stand FIRST for the best interests of Individual Americans who go to work FOR corporations OR does it stand for the Power and Interest of those Corporations themselves?

Yes, we have to decide, as a Party, if Blue Dogs and Progressives can co-exist? IMO, some of the corporate right leaning positions are so seemingly GOP, I wonder if we, as a party, can stand the strain?

[freddie mertz]

76. You just HATE debate and discussion, don't you?

And don't bother to deny it, I can read the other forums too.

We all can.

[freddie mertz]

77. Dupe.

[Robb]

85. Help help I'm being oppressed.

...Is he using his magical powers to keep you from posting? :D

[freddie mertz]

87. Not magical.

I know his intentions regarding any and all critics, however, thanks to them being posted repeatedly "below."

[NJmaverick]

86. No, your problem is you think posting baseless opinion pieces

is debate. As for we you the mouse in your pocket really don't impress me.

[freddie mertz]

88. Baseless opinion pieces?

As opposed to ones you agree with.

:rofl: :nopity:

[NJmaverick]

89. Nope as opposed that actually provide facts and reasoning to support their opininons

but go right ahead with your intellectually dishonest tactics, they seem to be on the only tool in your toolbox

[freddie mertz]

90. Tactics?

Well, you should know.

[goclark]

84. +1000

I have a button that I push, it helps me a lot.

[dave29]

57. is this an example of the GOP stlye tag-teaming you slammed folks for earlier?

How do you like becoming what you hate the most?

:hi:

[ShortnFiery]

59. You never give up. I make an honest comment without the snark, but you continue to attack.

Bravo! You want another point since you and your cohorts are so fond of "keeping score?"

[dave29]

62. rawr!

Just pointing the facts, shortnfiery

[ShortnFiery]

65. No, you're pointing out your perspectives and mostly OPINION not much different than the rest of us.

There's a difference between attacking an Politician's position and attacking an individual poster. That's where the line is drarwn.

[dave29]

67. roger that. Lets hold each other to the same standard then

moving forward

:hug:

[ShortnFiery]

68. Thank you.

I will do my best to adhere to your suggestion.

This place would be much nicer if we ALL try harder to meet minimum standards for civility.

Very well done. :toast:

[Oregone]

10. But I really didn't read it. I prefer baseless snark today

I mean, really. Its just a marketing campaign delivered to his 50+% to sell the policies of TPTB. :)

What is real entertaining is just watching the soldiers line up on either side.

[NJmaverick]

16. !

:spray:

again kudos on the honesty:hi:

[DevonRex]

5. Must be some kinda new fangled Speed Reader Superhero!!!!

:wow:

[tekisui]

8. Or NJMaverick is not the first source.

:think:

[NJmaverick]

11. Looks like NJMAVERICK- 1 tekisui- 0 check out the poster's reply

:toast:

[ShortnFiery]

41. Yes, because we know it's all about "the score" not SERVING interest of the people.

Welcome to Junior High edition of this thread. :(

[DevonRex]

49. Except that he says he did NOT read it. Right here in this thread.

:rofl:

[ShortnFiery]

56. It was a freakin' speech. Right? We all know the gyrations that go into manufacturing consent. eom

[DevonRex]

66. Teki said the poster read it but HE says he did not. That is what this particular

conversation is about. If the poster didn't want to read it, that's his business and his right.

[dionysus]

91. with pretyped tantrums ready to paste at a moments notice!

[DevonRex]

92. Faster than a speeding bullet!

:rofl:

[dionysus]

93. faster than a CRUISE MISSLE!!

LATTE IN MY FACE!
:hi:

[Oregone]

6. I didn't bother. I'm not super interested

I'm pretty ambivalent about the whole thing lately. What is more entertaining to me is watching the spin on both sides, and people conforming their beliefs to either suit the president or oppose him. What a mess this country is in. And for a lot more reason than this one policy.

Honestly, if they ever did get down to drilling, beats the hell outta paying for and burning up tar sand oil. Since the option for a nationalized green energy sector of any real magnitude doesn't exists (because the magic votes wouldn't be there)...well...oh well.

[NJmaverick]

13. I appreciate your honesty although I would prefer to hear from posters

making informed comments

[Oregone]

17. Reading a piece of marketing propaganda doesn't make one informed

:)

Im also not a big fan of the cap-and-trade bill they are trying to get passed either (though I prefer a cap to a tax, this mechanism is open to loopholes and fraud)

[NJmaverick]

19. Nice try but the words from the source is superior to the opinion pieces

that spin what the President said. I suspect many of those doing the spinning have read or heard as much of the speech as you did. They simple pick what they want to fit into their preconceived notions.

[Oregone]

21. But thats what it is. Its marketing from the horse's mouth

Yes, it may not be counter-spin, but it is most-assuredly marketing to support a chosen course of action. Love the policy or hate it, that much is obvious and beyond refutation.

[NJmaverick]

23. What you call "marketing" most would consider explaining a decision

[Oregone]

25. When a politician does that, its called marketing

After all, their career depends on the public perception of that decision.

[NJmaverick]

28. You are commenting on something you have not even taken the time or effort

to read. It reminds me of people that want to ban books they never read because they heard they are bad.

[Oregone]

33. I'm commenting on politics

Its not "bad". Just something I don't want to waste my time on today. Id rather bitch at anonymous people online to edify myself.

[HughMoran]

15. Amazing, ain't it?

It's easy once you've made up your mind in advance...

:eyes:

[Oregone]

20. Who said I made up my mind about anything?

But with that said, its perfectly acceptable for people to have preferred policies based on sound and developed ideologies. Changing whenever the wind shifts has no inherent value (though, being steadfast in the face of contradictory evidence doesn't either)

[NJmaverick]

22. I couldn't disagree more

George Bush is the perfect example of what happens when one refuses to budge from developed ideologies even in the face of new information or changing conditions.

[Oregone]

24. Did you read what I posted?

"Changing whenever the wind shifts has no inherent value (though, being steadfast in the face of contradictory evidence doesn't either)"


Maybe you had a preconceived notion that whatever I post is disagreeable.

[NJmaverick]

27. One should ALWAYS look at the facts with an open mind

and develop a conclusion from those facts. To suggest that one should bring in any sort of preconceived notions is a terrible path to take.

[Oregone]

35. To suggest one should stand for nothing, from nothing, is asinine

There is nothing wrong with developing a world view and paradigms by which you view the world. Otherwise you are just some piece of grass in an endless ocean, getting pushed and pulled in every direction at once

You can do this and leave plenty of room to learn and grow

[NJmaverick]

46. The difference is some people wait, gather the fact, weigh them and THEN take a stand

while others take a stand prematurely and in absence of the facts. Everyone takes a stand it's a matter of when and for what.

[Oregone]

60. And some just wait to see what their chosen leaders thinks, then back em up

[ShortnFiery]

32. There's less to do with pragmatic logic and more to do with pleasing multi-national corporations ...

IMO from escalating the Afghan war (hello profits and "thanks billions" from the MIC)

to Health Care Fiasco Bill - HMOs send the democratic party wet kisses for MANDATES while they scheme to work around regulations.

to Nuclear Power Plants - the wholly unregulated corporations who will build these reactors are salivating over the fact that their track records include numerous delays and cost over-runs.

and finally Off Shore Drilling that will divert needed funds for lowering carbon emissions through Green Technology. But guess what the pay off is? The OIL prices will continue to markedly INCREASE and are projected to do so through 2020. There's a hell of a lot of MONEY to be made by the Oil Cartels, and they will not be denied.

ARE YOU SEEING A PATTERN ABOVE?

Yes, it's all to benefit crony capitalism. If you study all of Obama's legislative initiatives, it comes down to serving those who are known as the Dirty Rotten Filthy Stinking Rich (multi-national corporate interests) FIRST and foremost.



The American Worker? We get to slave in their plants and offices and get "the scraps" that our corporate owners choose to give us. :grr:

[NJmaverick]

48. I pick one of your points to show the flaws

you talk about how supporting nuclear energy supports the nuclear industry. Yet even green energy sources support big business. If you think solar panels and wind turbines are made at some mythical mom and pop company in home town USA thing again. They are built by mega corporations like GE.

[ShortnFiery]

51. But you can make the money hand over fist = super fast = going the easy yet EXPENSIVE

routes of Oil Exploration and Nuclear Power. There's a bigger pay-off for our corporate owners - to hell with the climate.

[NJmaverick]

54. If nuclear plants were making money hand over fist as you suggest

there wouldn't be the need for government assistance to get the building process started

[ShortnFiery]

63. It's a money pit. Not unlike our endless war-mongering. The reactors are consistently delayed

and run over budget. But the contractors always make their money. :(

[HughMoran]

26. Not sure if you said anything there

...but I haven't seen much in the way of inconsistency here from Obama the pragmatist, so I'm shrugging my shoulders.

:shrug:

[Oregone]

29. You mention pragmatism

What is pragmatic about this policy? Are other more progressive alternative energy policies not politically feasible?

[NJmaverick]

30. If you had read the speech you would know that the majority of the speech

was devoted to items you would consider a "progressive alternative energy policy". Although I consider alternative energy to be more than just a progressive idea. I consider it critical to our economic well being and a national security, which cuts across almost every ideology.

[HughMoran]

31. Oh, you bet they are...

And, as this thread points out, he's calling their bluff.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=255669&mesg_id=255669

I don't see how you can say he hasn't promoted alternative energy however - he has.

[Oregone]

37. Has he promoted them enough? Is there a political roadblock which suggests this move is "pragmatic"?

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ShortnFiery]

40. Yes, John Kerry, the man who voted for the IWR? He always makes the right calls in a pinch.

:eyes:

[karynnj]

81. He is the best Senator on the envirornment - Plumlines title overstates the case

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=255629&mesg_id=256616

[Oregone]

44. Oh yes, 60 votes for the already "pragmatic" cap-and-trade bill

Heh. Well, there's "pragmatism" for you. Now they are watering down energy policy to get another water-down climate/energy bill passed. :)

As I said, I'm not even a big fan of that legislation. I do believe in a cap over a tax, but there are more loopholes in it than Swiss cheese. Thats why that system in some European economies are rampant with fraud.

So, in the context of getting that other bill passed the Senate, I don't think its worth the compromise

[ShortnFiery]

47. Yes, it's sort of an open joke to hear that people still believe a Public Option

has any chance of passing. Not unlike this fiasco, I have no doubt that we will spend exorbitant amounts of $$$ down the nuclear power "money pit" and have little to nothing to invest on true GREEN technologies.

Mission Accomplished! For our corporate owners. :(

[mkultra]

73. or maybe McCain is just stupid so his explanations suck accordingly

Stop sucking up to McCain

[Bobbie Jo]

83. LOL

:rofl: That pretty much sums it up.

[FarrenH]

18. So which rational was behind the plans?

Wait, I see it was several rationals: Steven Chu, Nancy Sutley and Carol Browner. And he does briefly explain them. His rationale for his plans was also reasonable.

teeheehee

[progressoid]

34. Well, that's just chock full of contradictions - For what it's worth.

But what I want to emphasize is that this announcement is part of a broader strategy that will move us from an economy that runs on fossil fuels and foreign oil to one that relies more on homegrown fuels and clean energy.
So lets drill for more fossil fuels?


And for the sake of our planet and our energy independence, we need to begin the transition to cleaner fuels now.
So lets drill for more fossil fuels?


For decades we’ve talked about the threat to future generations posed by our current system of energy –- even as we can see the mounting evidence of climate change from the Arctic Circle to the Gulf Coast.
So lets drill for more fossil fuels?


So moving towards clean energy is about our security. It’s also about our economy.
So lets drill for more fossil fuels?



For what it's worth it doesn't take that much time and effort. Reading it shows that his word contradict his very actions. Offshore exploration will do nothing to further cleaner energy or lower gas prices.

Oh, and his "long" explanation isn't unfiltered and undistorted. He's a politician so it HAS to be filtered and distorted.

[NJmaverick]

52. I don't see a contradiction but rather a complex idea involving long term and short term solutions

[progressoid]

64. Really?

I guess it's a case of "you say tomato, and I say steaming pile of doublespeak donkey shit".

[TheKentuckian]

36. Its the same bullshit he gave in his speech.

There is no actual and measurable benefit to the policy and more than a little risk if platforms go up. Plus, it just feeds into bullshit Reichwing frames.

I call it a fail but I'm sure you think it is genius policy.

[boppers]

69. What do you normally call a transcript?

It's the same thing as his speech because, well, it's his speech?

[TheKentuckian]

94. I wasn't the one pitching it as an deeper explanation of the policy

Whats the deal, he talks and all reason and rational concern evaporates? He said absolutely nothing of substance to give any logical rationale for stupid policy proposals.

[boppers]

95. It's a deeper explanation than "stupid policy proposals".

Some folks like to read more than others, regardless of their opinions.

[vaberella]

42. I mean during the campaign he said something similar. I'm ambivalent about nuclear.

But seriously, off sure drilling, I don't care the rational...I'm against it.

[Cha]

43. I do prefer that way and thank you, Maverick for

providing this link.

Right away I see this I like..

"Today, we’re also going to go one step further. In order to save energy and taxpayer dollars, my administration -- led by Secretary Chu at Energy, as well as Administrator Johnson at GSA -- is doubling the number of hybrid vehicles in the federal fleet, even as we seek to reduce the number of cars and trucks used by our government overall. So we’re going to lead by example and practice what we preach: cutting waste, saving energy, and reducing our reliance on foreign oil."

"And just a few months after taking office, I also gathered the leaders of the world’s largest automakers, the heads of labor unions, environmental advocates, and public officials from California and across the country to reach a historic agreement to raise fuel economy standards in cars and trucks. And tomorrow, after decades in which we have done little to increase auto efficiency, those new standards will be finalized, which will reduce our dependence on oil while helping folks spend a little less at the pump."

And..

"So today we’re announcing the expansion of offshore oil and gas exploration, but in ways that balance the need to harness domestic energy resources and the need to protect America’s natural resources. Under the leadership of Secretary Salazar, we’ll employ new technologies that reduce the impact of oil exploration. We’ll protect areas that are vital to tourism, the environment, and our national security. And we’ll be guided not by political ideology, but by scientific evidence."

"So I’m open to proposals from my Democratic friends and my Republican friends. I think that we can break out of the broken politics of the past when it comes to our energy policy. I know that we can come together to pass comprehensive energy and climate legislation that’s going to foster new energy -- new industries, create millions of new jobs, protect our planet, and help us become more energy independent. That’s what we can do. That is what we must do. And I’m confident that is what we will do."

"The proposals will be open for public comment for several months, then will be finalized by the administration."

[zipplewrath]

45. Okay, I read it

It ain't all that deep. And I knew most of this already.

It isn't really all that different from his predecessors. A shift in emphasis here and there, probably the lone exception is the CAFE standards. That's big, and should be the focus of similar efforts. But most of this isn't substantially different from our policies since after Carter.

The disappointing part is that he avoids the strongest arguments of his critics and goes after either pure strawmen, or the weakest and most extreme points, often those to the right.

First, he completely ignores that some of these positions are at odds with his campaign. He hammered McCain for suggesting some of these things. This is a pattern of his, hammer someone in the campaign for something, then include it in his "solution".

Second, he ignores that there is no such thing as "clean coal". It is at best a vague idea, and at worst a technology that is nothing more than "delayed release". This is especially bad without any form of cap and trade at all. And he doesn't address at all the argument HE made during the campaign that if you just keep drilling your way out of the problem, you'll never get to the solution. You open a few areas now, when they either don't pan out, or they run out, the pattern repeats. The next president will make a very similar speech, and then open the next set of areas. Bush I made the exact same speeches about cutting down trees. He used the whole "as long as there's one logger who needs a job, and one tree left to cut" defense. That's no different than this explanation that somehow our dependence on oil is justified and part of our national security. It always will be if all we do is keep drilling and keep fighting wars to ensure our access to oil.

But his speech won't address these points. He won't address points from the left. He'll merely brag about "rejecting" them, and then argue the silly ones from the right. That's easy to do, and not so deep. Not very audacious either. And not much of a change. I'm losing hope.


"For decades we’ve talked about the threat to future generations posed by our current system of energy –- even as we can see the mounting evidence of climate change from the Arctic Circle to the Gulf Coast. And this is particularly relevant to all of you who are serving in uniform: For decades, we’ve talked about the risks to our security created by dependence on foreign oil, but that dependence has actually grown year after year after year after year."

And this policy wont' change this reality a bit. Drilling will only sustain and prolong it. But he'll never address that reality. His policy is the same explanation every president from Reagan to Bush II has given for more drilling, more coal, and more gas. But he won't address that because he can't. So he'll "reject it" and triangulate his way out.

[quiet.american]

55. K&R - thanks for posting, NJ. nt

[CakeGrrl]

70. k/r - and I hope

you're wearing your flamesuit today.

:evilgrin:

[Clio the Leo]

71. you're asking people to READ????!

:rofl:

[freddie mertz]

75. As long they don't dare to THINK anything contrary to WH talking points.

It is not really about "reading."

It is about silencing dissent and shutting down discussion.

Some things never change.

[Robb]

82. You're asking people to THINK?

:rofl:

[freddie mertz]

78. The Pres' statement is triangulation in its purest form,

Pure DLC.

[craigmatic]

79. He still believes in clean coal but there's no such thing. n/t

[Fruittree]

80. Thank you for posting this link...

It's really helpful to read his exact words.