Scratch

mythbusteranimator wrote:

Uggh.

Sorry, but I find stuff like that boring. :b

Why even come in here and declare that when it contributes nothing to the conversation? If you find it boring, that's good for you, but what do you expect to gain by posting about it here?

Two hours until the debate.

werdna123 wrote:

I don't really support either of the main candidates, but I probably lean a fair bit more towards Obama. I sort of think that how much money you earn is luck. It's almost all about influence. If you're parents aren't really bothered by your education then you won't be either. (and a usually good education > good job > more money) For example, my dad really wants me to do well in school, and I am doing fairly well. This isn't because I happened to be smart or anything, it's because my dad and sister help me and support me with it. Or another example, very rarely is there a really intelligent kid with a really intelligent sister.

So naturally I'm against private schools and for free healthcare. Private schools I dislike because it means:  rich parents > private school > smart kids > kids get good job > become rich > repeat. Free hc I support since the idea that someone who was unfortunate and didn't get a good job and money shouldn't have to get worse healthcare.

And while I've honestly done very little research into the US PE, I'm pretty sure Obama is more similar to that.

The problem is higher education IMO. It's based on whether you have the money to get in, and you need degrees for most careers. Unless you are already brilliant and get a full ride, you have to have money to pursue a career that gives you more money that you already used to get into college. (I have no problems with scholarships for the incredibly intelligent, athletic ones somewhat though). I'm not entirely informed on the issue, but I believe our higher education could use some work.

@Overpowered: thank you for keeping everything reasonable. thaaaank yooou

Last edited by soupoftomato (2012-10-03 19:21:54)

16Skittles wrote:

CN12 wrote:

The media NEVER covers any mistake that the Democrats make, and yet, every stinking slip up that the Republicans make, the media makes it sound like the worlds going to end tomorrow or something.

Name three cases of mistakes made by the dems that were ignored by the media?

Come on, I wasn't prepared for that, I was just pointing it out.

CN12 wrote:

16Skittles wrote:

CN12 wrote:

The media NEVER covers any mistake that the Democrats make, and yet, every stinking slip up that the Republicans make, the media makes it sound like the worlds going to end tomorrow or something.

Name three cases of mistakes made by the dems that were ignored by the media?

Come on, I wasn't prepared for that, I was just pointing it out.

"Cite sources and provide good arguments" has pretty much been the consensus on what rules we need in this thread.

This is a HIGHLY experimental topic to be allowed to continue, we're seeing if the Scratch community has matured/developed it's rules and moderation enough to handle such a heated topic.

Starting RIGHT NOW!!!

I have some homework to do, but whenever I find something I feel I should make a point about I'll take a break and post.

Notice how Romney only mentions fossil fuels, no renewable energy.

Mitt is saying how he will not cut taxes, but on his website it's says that he will lower taxes across the bill by 20%.
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/tax

The problem with "renewable energy" is that the government pays for it, where the free market would not.

Anything the free market wants, it gets, but there is no real demand for "green" energy, because if there was there would be no need for government subsidies.

That is the real problem with green energy.

Government stay out!

Last edited by illusionist (2012-10-03 22:14:57)

illusionist wrote:

The problem with "renewable energy" is that the government pays for it, where the free market would not.

Anything the free market wants, it gets, but there is no real demand for "green" energy, because if there was there would be no need for government subsidies.

That is the real problem with green energy.

Government stay out!

No, no, no. The problem is not that there is no demand for green energy. People don't buy energy based on the type, I bet most people don't know 100% what their source of energy is (actually that's unfair, in nearly everywhere the answer to that is coal). Consumers aren't given an option to buy solar, wind, coal, or nuclear. Consumers buy power. Energy companies make the electricity in the cheapest way possible.
The problem is that companies want to make money, and they do that by using old technologies to get harmful oil that will eventually run out. At this point, we're completely screwed when the oil runs out, and that's a fact regardless of wether or not you believe in global warming.
We NEED to get away from fossil fuels, but its just not something corporations want.

Wind energy only produces energy when it's windy.
Solar panels are expensive, and only produce energy when it's sunny.
Nuclear power is frowned upon because of failures that occur in reactors built in the 50s.

We need a smarter grid. The current system needs a constant source of power. If the supply exceeds demand, all of the extra energy is wasted. We need retention - flywheels being far more efficient than batteries, I think I remember it in PopSci about vaccum flywheels to store energy.

Last edited by 16Skittles (2012-10-03 22:44:50)

i didn't really like how mitt kept interrupting both obama and the mediator -_____-

Yaaay. Homework kept me ocupied juuust long enough that I missed everything except the moderator cloaing the debate. >_> Didn't even follow me own orders... Anyways, gotta love recordings. 

@16Skittles You are very, very correct.    Another method, employed by the Frenchmen, is to use excess power to pump water upstream, so that the next day it is used when demand is high... 

@illusionist I never quite understoo this one. People talk about the "power of the free market" and how "government [should] stay out" (illusionist), but they never seem to link those arguments with, say the Great Depression (unregulated stock market destroys itself), or the banking crash, and how all of these stem directly from a lack of regulation. Why should government stay out, when the market can't seem to hold itself together?