Trial Balloon Thread

Ok, for anyone who has read this thread: <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href=" 285bound.com/Forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=14348 " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=6&t=14348<!-- l --> and would like to be the first to play, here's your chance. I'm starting with a very light and shallow topic....if you don't have a very strong opinion one way or another, just let someone else start and wait for an opponent. If nobody wants to take the other side, then we just call it dead and try another one later. The person who starts the debate gets the first word and the opponent gets the last. Lets see who can convince the rest of us that they are right while at the same time refraining from broad brush insults and personal attacks.

Here's the topic: Attackwatch.com

Is this something that is good, bad, helpful, harmful and should it be used for future presidents? There is no right answer, this is just purely opinion but do your best to convince the rest. Remember, once started, only the two participants should post and the current judge (me) will point out any BS that's only designed to insult and not add to the conversation. To make this short and sweet, lets just say the debate is over when each participant has made a maximum of 5 comments or if both agree they are done, whichever comes first.

Remember, you can give your opinions when it's all over, including about me and my bias or lack of as a judge. Hopefully I will just not be involved.


**Please Note** I'm stuck at home for the next month while I go through a heavy round of chemo....so I'm a little bored (obviously)

And I thought I could kill a thread. Maybe make the topic a link to the site.

I don't know who came up with the idea of AttackWatch but it clearly backfired on the campaign, as a PR move.

Tommy Christopher of Mediaite noted sarcastically of the site, “Great. Sounds like a terrific content-generating resource for right-wing bloggers, too. Everybody wins!”

I don't know why it was needed, as there are other similar sites already in place.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blo ... _blog.html

I think this whole topic sucks!

Odd, I'm sure I posted a response in this thread, but I don't see it. Must be Anheiser's disease...

Ok the topic sucks, lets try again....who wants to be the first to defend the push for green jobs? Should taxpayers be subsidizing companies who produce "green energy" products now, in the future, or ever? Why and why not.

PLEASE DON"T POST UNLESS YOU PLAN ON BEING ONE OF THE TWO IN THE DEBATE!

Okay CB, I'll take the bait. Even though I'm not a lib I do respect the environment and think God gave his beautiful world into our keepingsoit is our responsibility to walkas softly and respectfully on it as we can. Additionally whether or not humans contribute to climate change with our activities the simple fact is that the end of cheap and easily obtained fossil fuels is in sight and more and more nations are seeking green technologies. Our nation is missing the boat on these. Right now most of these technologies are developed in other nations. It is always to our advantage to be in the forefront of new technologies. As taxpayers are already subsidizing the older, dying technologies it makes sense to move the subsidies into a new economy that will generate new jobs.

You guys gonna make me take the other side? I will if nobody else does.

Ok, nobody wants to take a swing, I will. Here's the question for those of you confused.

Should taxpayers be subsidizing companies who produce "green energy" products now, in the future, or ever? Why and why not.

First of all, I agree that we MUST pursue new technologies whenever there is a viable alternative. It really does just come down to viability does it not? If we have a technology that is realistically only a supplement source of energy that's more expensive and less efficient (currently), how long should we pump money into a sinking hole?

In order to feel good about letting our government pick which companies they want to succeed, you have to also believe that those who are making these decisions know more than private investors. If Companies like Solyndra were so worthy of such a huge investment, why aren't all the greedy investors clamoring invest their money? Does the government have a good track record when it comes to investing tax dollars? I don't think so.

So before the government is able to force a technology into popularity, they should first understand the marketplace and the competition (China) so they can actually have some substantial reason to believe a company can survive in the current economy. If we can't compete (like in our current situation), you have to find a way to change that problem first, then take chances on investments.

I don't think the government can force technology to catch up to it's grand vision anymore than it can force a cure for cancer (I wish). It's good to have goals, but you have to be able to do the math first.

So no retort chick?