| QUOTE (Zepher Tensho @ Nov 7 2012, 12:02 AM) |
| QUOTE (kirant @ Nov 7 2012, 02:56 AM) | | QUOTE (Ryokutheman @ Nov 6 2012, 11:39 PM) | | Mittens needs to tell the truth and stick to one issue. Oh, and then there's the fact that he doesn't have a personality, and makes up all his facts. Obama isn't perfect, but he's sure a hell of a lot better than Mittens. Also, most of the reasons why many Americans hate Obama, are based on things that he doesn't control/ biased news like Fox (MSNBC isn't unbiased, but liberals don't have all these crazy ideas about Romney, like the conservatives do about Obama). I'm glad he pulled the victory (unofficially). |
There are some legitimate criticisms of Obama. His plan with ethanol is pretty bad. I could go into the details of the poor optics of that if you want (CO2/J produced, the fact that it's openly encouraging solving energy over solving starvation), but I think the point is that there are some things he's done wrong.
That being said, there are just as many, if not more, problems with Romney in my mind. |
Well energy is an issue here. Starvation isn't. Its an issue in 3rd world countries. We're broke as hell, its not our responsibility to feed the entire world. I'm not saying I don't care, but honestly, we're not the worlds babysitter, and its time to stop acting like it. |
The concern, of course, is the concept that there are better things to spend the food source on. Alberta recently had a tainted beef scare and a similar optics problem occurred. An opposition leader suggested we heat the beef to well done (killing the existent strains, of there) and serve it to down on their luck Albertans as food. A perfectly sane thing to do logically, as there's no harm in the beef if it's fully cooked, but political suicide due to the juxtaposition of poorer people and possibly tainted food. Similarly, the ingredients used to make ethanol are pretty healthy, so sale of that as food may be a better alternative. Shelters could use it instead. Simple concept and semi-poor optics here.
A big one from both oil patch supporters and green parties is that ethanol is not a real "green" fuel. It's dirty (one of the lowest energy/CO2 emissions), detracts money from real programs, and has only been chosen because it's psuedo-renewable and can fit our current systems. Real support for cleaner fuels should be either real natural gasses as a stepping stone (cleanest burning for energy/CO2 and readily available to tap into), nuclear power (which I ultimately see as the next major energy source0, or cleaner systems (such as electric cars, which have better well to wheels fuel efficiency than our gasoline, or even further refinement).
