JuanGuzman
-
Posts
497 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by JuanGuzman
-
-
JuanGuzman:
How did you feel about the levels of social spending, funding for public schools and public works, and advancement of minority issues during the Bush administration?
I am assuming you are talking about George W. History will be the judge but I think the bush presidency may go down as one of the worst on record, high level he what we have left is 2 expensive quagmire wars + use of torture, tax cuts for some of the wealthiest among us, economic growth that was artificially inflated by a massive housing bubble that grew under Bush's watch and nearly destroyed the global economy.
Specifically to your question, social spending, I'm happy he didn't cut social security or whatever that stupid individual savings account plan the republican base was pushing. Medicare part D is a really dumb policy for controlling costs and poorly designed, I think there were a lot of better options to increase access to prescription drugs.
Schools: I think no-child-left behind was a failure from a policy standpoint. I like spending on education but the design of the policy policy created perverses incentives as result outcomes for students were't all that great.
Can't really comment on public works spending because Im not that familiar with his record, on the minority rights questions....? nothing stands out.
What about TASKER, I'd be interested to hear
what you think of about the levels of social spending, funding for public schools and public works, and advancement of minority issues during the Bush administration? -
You aren't even a good troll. You laud Obama for failing to curtail domestic oil and gas production while at the same time praise him for falsely taking money from the environmentalists? At the same time you are able to get a plug in for Obamacare? I don't blame you for not posting this schit under your real screen name.
Honestly, it's almost all there in your summary. You fail to connect the dots, but you have the arguments right....It might take some abstract thought to take it all in so I'll just go ahead and connect the dots for you:
1) Yes I have been happy with Obama on domestic energy policy, we are at record production highs
2) I'd have liked to see Keystone XL approved in 2010 but I understand that politics and winning takes strategy, hence the need to pander to the environmental pipeline movement *on Keystone to shore up support for the 2012 election..
3) Support from enviromentalists along with other groups including minorities and women helped propel Obama.That means broadly we get another four years of Obama's policy agenda as well as his leadership which is better than the alternatives. I'll gladly take that over Keystone XL getting approved a few years earlier. It's a game of tradeoffs.
But really, you have had three chances to say something substantive in this thread. Not once have you articulated anything informative or worth my time, your argument that
is hairbrained, it ignores any statistical evidence showing just the contrary, that under Obama the U.S. has become closer and closer to becoming energy independent since imports first started exceeding exports. You say he refuses to do this but you provide zero evidence, the article you linked to was done by hack using statistics to lie, when I challenge the "statistics" you roll over and play dead. No longer do you want to talk about this "important article that is worth reading", my god man you were bumping your own thread to get people to talk about it, than when your challenged on it you can't run fast enough if the opposite direction, with your ears covered screaming "bill nye the science guy, and some crap about not posting under a real screen name" its comical really to see someone get so flustered by an actual argument and logic. take a seat 3rdning.Obama We could permanently get rid of our dependence on middle eastern oil. He refuses. He has failed this country in just about every aspect, this being one of if not the biggest. -
It's very simple. Obama has obstructed as much drilling/leasing/pipeline building as possible and is taking credit for something he has little or no control over. He has a wonderful opportunity to help this country to get back on its feet economically and allow us to become energy independent and a net exporter of energy. We could permanently get rid of our dependence on middle eastern oil. He refuses. He has failed this country in just about every aspect, this being one of if not the biggest.
BTW, I guess I can understand your snarky little comments because you always get your ass handed to you here, Mr Bill Nye your science guy. Also, learn to spell my screen name right.
Yawn. This is your reply, "the president who presided over the biggest expansion of domestic gas and oil production could have done better". Oh no the horrors. You posting that article tells me one of two things: either 1) you don't understand when a journalist is lying with statistics or 2) you don't care about having a reputation as a poster who brings thoughtful threads to the board, instead you throw up crap and see if any of it sticks. In fact you go so far as to bump your own crappy threads which no one replied to because the reasoning in your original link was so weak.
I wanted to see keystone xl approved in 2010 but I get the reasoning to delay it until after the election. BARACK needed the support from environmental movement to help win the election. And Im thankful he did win, Obama is a thoughtful and pragmatic president. U.S.A. is lucky to have him. If waiting a couple years to see keystone xl approved meant winning the election and keeping good things like OBAMACARE than so be it. Some politics have to played and im happy Obama knows how to play a winning hand cause he is just such a superior president compared to Romney.
-
I don't get your point? Please make one and I'll respond.
Ultimately the high level story on oil and natural gas is new horizontal drilling technology has opened up a whack of new plays, pariicularily tigh oil and shale natural gas deposits. It's also caused producers to look at old plays that were previously thought to be tapped out. The price environment has been accomodative enough (despite NG struggles) to induce investment Should Obama get credit for this no he shouldn't. But the reality is domestic production is at all time high. I'm fine with President Obama saying that "domestic oil and gas production has grown each year he has been president" It's simply stating a fact. Yes it's a fact that paints him a positive light, but given that he operates in a political arena this what happens.
I'm not familiar the federal. private share statistics so I can't comment to much on it. But some of the statistics used by the author seem deliberately misleading, for example the author focuses a lot of attention on the difference between natural gas production in 2011 vs 2012... well we know the the 2012 ($4) average price for Henry hub gas was 45 per cent lower than the price in 2011($2.75). It's not mentioned in the article, we saw a lot of producers shut-in natural gas production due to low prices in 2012, when an journalist can't even be bothered to mention a key fact like that I question his objectivity. Finally all the focus on avg. leases issued by presidency makes no sense in the end all we care about is production and it's at record highs. I notice the "journalist" doesn't compare domestic production against past presidencies or even federal production against past presidents. for emaple the author writes "
- Average number of new leases that BLM issued during each Presidency: Clinton (3764), Bush (2879), Obama (1824). Obama Administration issued less than half the number of new leases as did the Clinton administration on average.
not only should we care more about production as opposed "leases" (lease statistics assist in projecting future production - but those numbers depend on whether horizontal or vertical wells are being drilled) but its unclear if the journalist is actually comparing annual data, or cherry picking 8 years of clintion and bush against 4 years of Obama.
honestly, 3rdning when i read your posts, you never come across as a very informed poster. Now that i know what news your consider to be new thread worthy, I understand why.. Biased, relatively thoughtless article - thanks for sharing. Make some real points on energy please.
.
- Average number of new leases that BLM issued during each Presidency: Clinton (3764), Bush (2879), Obama (1824). Obama Administration issued less than half the number of new leases as did the Clinton administration on average.
-
I notice that your attacking me, not attacking the theory that the planet will warm as a result of increased carbon dioxide concentration. I'm not quite sure what your oppinion on climate change is cause i havent seen you state it in this thread. Why not take a moment and state it succintly for a new visitor to PPP, use your words, elaborate, form concrete thoughts.You have been a member here for over 6 years. This subject has been beaten to death, resurrected, and then beaten to death again here on PPP. From your post count most anyone would deduce that you don't come here often. If you are seriously going to quote Bill Nye, then you should probably come here even less often. There is a reason you aren't getting a serious response and if you can't figure that out then maybe I will suggest starting at the kiddie table, otherwise known as the Shoutbox.
Damn, I love 2 fers. -
Just to clarify though, do we all believe that man made climate change is real? more specifically that increases in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will lead to warmer temperatures on the planet?
Despite the many replies, no one actually answered the question I asked. I am interested if hearing what you guys believe...? Specifically, I want to know if you think that increases in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause the planet to warm?
-
I don't believe anything until I'm told to believe it by no less than the foremost authority on all things climate change: Bill Nye the Science Guy.
Well here you go:
http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2013/03/15/bill-nye-urges-action-on-climate-change/Nye wanted his audience in Ottawa last night to come together and be inspired, much like participants of the sundial projects.“My friends, we are living in extraordinary times and you will see things nobody else has seen,” he said, before dedicating the rest of his lecture to climate change. He said that rapid growth in population and technology has messed with the atmosphere, and added “we have to do more.” He said it isn’t enough to lead a minimalist lifestyle; we must to produce less emissions too.
-
Just to clarify though, do we all believe that man made climate change is real? more specifically that increases in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will lead to warmer temperatures on the planet?
-
"Sometimes I think the best argument is raw data. This is one of those times"
,,,and then goes on to provide data he stomped all over to make his point.
Here's the thing I was getting at: you give me the actual raw data on gun ownership, assaults, and deaths and injuries (didn't notice that was missing, did you?), and I can slice-and-dice it a half-dozen ways to draw almost any conclusion I want from it, easily. For example: that chart displays "Average firearms per 100 people," and shows the US as a very high outlier at some 80+ guns per 100 people...but does that actually mean anything? Do 80 out of every 100 people in America really own guns? Would the ratio of gun owners per 100 people be more meaningful (in which case, I'd bet the US would be lower than Switzerland and Finland, at least - I'd bet that most US gun owners own more than one gun, and there's hence only 20-40 gun owners per 100 people). Or is gun ownership understated in that chart - does it include unregistered and illegally owned firearms? If it doesn't, is it making a false comparison - deaths by illegally owned firearms compared to legal ownership of firearms? And is it truly accurate to treat the US as a single homogeneous entity like Switzerland or Estonia? I highly doubt that lumping together Montana's gun homicide rates (low population density, lax gun laws) with California's (high population density, restrictive gun laws, drug/gang/border problems) is truly honest - there's a lot of variance in a large, populous, diverse country.
So maybe "pulled out of your ass" was overly harsh. But "ambiguous and vague statistical correlation?" Yeah, I pretty much nailed that.
So your reply is that it's possible to to lie with statistics? Thanks for enlightening me you really nailed it. This just in data has imperfections but statistical evidence is generally preferred to narratives. As i acknowledged earlier, your welcome to construct all types of narratives you want as to why the USA has by far the highest rate of homicides by firearms of any developed country. My narrative is this, the USA has too many guns and the country would be a safer to place to live if there were less guns.
-
So, should we outlaw all firearms for everyone, knowing that the bad/sick guys don't give a schit about laws and will do their thing anyways knowing that "gun free zones" are "fun free zones" in their minds or mandate that everyone carry a gun for self protection? When you say "something has to be done", would you actually consider mandating arming everyone, or are you just proposing eliminating all private ownership of firearms?
Slippery slope fallacy for you.
I thought he was recommending banning guns based on an ambiguous and vague statistical correlation he pulled out of his ass...
here have a look see at the numbers for yourself: http://www.nytimes.c...stands-out.html
Maybe the USA is an outlier and relatively easy access is in fact making the country safer. Maybe the counterfactual is that there would, more deaths of innocents, more crime, lawless if gun control is put the place. i just don't think it's very plausible argument looking at the data. But feel free to make that argument, I just ask that consider the otherside.
-
You're drones next weapons debate thread title is clearly a bad mask to cover you're desire to disarm Americans. It's the old, tired rant of should bazookas be legal. All emotion.
Looks like you care not to respond to you're dream world of gun control in South Africa. Surprise.
Just quickly on the debate on Gun control, your comparison of South Africa is risible, it's a red herring fallacy.... The place to start would be comparing a similar sub-group of developed countries, in this case the OECD would be a good group. Slice it anyway you like it, the U.S., has a way higher percentage deaths from guns than any other countries. Something needs to be done to reduce the number of gun deaths, too many lost lives.
-
This is my favorite threat since the Mario Williams Thread. Gilmore has something to tell us O RLY?????? What could it be.....I MUST KNOW
-
Crucially though, the donated Dodge Chargers will not be able to catch his Lambo
http://deadspin.com/253249/mario-williams-fast-not-that-furious
-
I have only watched a bit of Jarvis Jones but came away thinking he has great instincts, he diagnosis and reacts to plays in the backfield faster than any other player I saw this year. Based on film he really did look like a top 5 pick to me. That being said the injury coupled with measurables both size and speed makes me think the Bills like most teams picking in top half of the draft will pass. The pick is high risk, high reward IMO.
-
I'd like to see us make a play for Danny Amendola. I think he could be a Wes Welker type addition if he can stay healthy. He's my favorite WR on the market. I like how DHB has improved since his disastrous rookie season, but right now he is more of a depth piece with some upside.
-
It doesn't always work out that incoming college coach overdrafts a guy he is familiar with:
Jim Harbaugh drafts CB Chris Culliver in 3rd round well ahead of Richard Sherman a guy he coached at Stanford goes in the 5th round.
-
I comtinue to think its terrible that we didn't sign 1 of Byrd or Levitre in-season. The franchise tag offers a lot of leverage, i would of offered both Byrd and Levitre slightly below market deals and said look one person will accept this and the other will see the deal get taken off the tabke and be franchised. Basically a prisoners dilemma game.
Maybe that leverage still exists but as we come closer and closer to free agency i think it starts to evaporate.
-
I mean there are enough examples of it: off the top of my head i can think of Bellichick, Wade Phillips, Norv Turner, Chan Gailey, Mike Mularkey, Dick Jauron,
There are also lots of ex nfl HC working as coordinatorsvor assistants so its not improbable. Also i don't buy the narrative that just cause Lovie was spurned as a HC he wouldnt want to be a coordinator for them. Thats whats is so great about narratives you can create a story without facts. I can just as easily say lovie wanted to be HC for the bills because he saw a D-line that he felt would fit his scheme and was playing below their potential. If he has to accept a coordinator because thete are no hc opportunties it would be natural to gravitate to the opening that he thinks has the pieces in place for a turn around.
No saying that Lovie as DC will happen, just saying that its no impossible
-
OC - Tom Cable
DC - Lovie Smith
-
Is that so?
This thread has many a fail in it....
Whats the fail? Assuming J. BYRD might give a little hometown discount to play for his dad?
-
Lovie's ties with Gil Byrd might help us in a negotiation with Jarius Byrd. I say spend the extra $$ it takes to hire Lovie and his defensive coaches, you'll save that money back in the discount Jarius gives the bills so he can play under his dad.
-
I really wanted lovie cause his track record and i think we have the D-line in place to implement his scheme. Don't know enough about Marrone, hopefully the bills hit the jackpot.
-
It be a promotion for tom cable in Seattle to take the OC job here. But he may view that as a lateral move.
-
I like the idea of hiring Lovie. Would love it if we could pair him with Tom Cable as the OC. It would be a promotion for Cable as he is currently O-Line coach in Seattle, than again Cable may very well interview for a few HC positions or be happier to stay in Seattle as O-line coach. There are also may be some more glamorous OC jobs available to him.
Obama's Energy Claims Are Nothing But Gas
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted · Edited by JuanGuzman
There is no logic to what your saying, your making a faulty comparison, keep in mind that its your comparison and definition not mine... please try and be more precise. On Oil and Gas production we have a clear metric to define successful outcomes e.g., the amount barrels of oil we produce a day or cubic feet of natural gas.production -- and it's at record highs under Barry O. What your saying is that spending levels by Bush on programs should be my metric for success, I object to anyone who thinks this way because its moronic, I hope you don't think this way. My metric for success on government social policies is cost benefit analysis, I want to compare the outcomes of all that social spending against the cost to taxpayers. In Bush's case poorly designed policies, led to expensive ineffective actions by government. I listed that in my examples of No-Child-Left-Behind and Part D, but you clearly ignored that or have zero reading comprehension skills.