IN OBAMA'S OWN WORDS ON ISSUE # 1

[texaspackerbacker]

Today, Barak Obama actually had the gall to articulate the John Kerry approach to preventing terrorism--the police or law enforcement approach.

This, more than anything else, IMO, is what got Kerry beat. This also is, IMO, the A number one, most important issue in America today--Preventing acts of terror--repeats of 9/11 or worse.

Kerry said--and incredibly, Obama echoed today the concept that the way to deal with acts of terror is basically to wait for them to happen, then treat the events like crimes rather than acts of war, merely hunting down the perps like cops.

THAT IS ABSOLUTELY IRRESPONSIBLY DANGEROUS. It is a formula for disaster--which, as I have been saying repeatedly, would be infinitely more likely with Obama or some other proponent of that foolhardy attitude as president.

We--the Bush Administration--has been 100% successful at preventing repeats of 9/11--so much so that people nowadays actually are not really even worried about terrorist mass murder of Americans. That, ironically, has played into the hands of Obama and those who almost certainly would let it happen--let mass murder of Americans happen. What if it is nuclear next time? How can people NOT pay more attention to this obvious most important issue--and the dangerously stupid approach pushed by Obama?

Why am I so convinced an Obama presidency would be so likely to result in acts of terror that put millions of Americans and our whole way of life in jeopardy? Because Obama is diametrically opposed to all of the factors that have been successful in preventing terrorism in this country. He steadfastly opposes the interventionist foreign policy--treating this as a war--the WAR on Terror. And he opposes--as evidenced by his VOTES as well as his words--every aspect of the enhanced security measures put in place after 9/11. Obama also opposes the treatment of terrorist prisoners and harsh interrogation procedures that have successfully--and directly--prevented acts of terror several times. As recently as yesterday, Obama endorsed the idea of allowing those terrorist prisoners access to OUR rights of due process--something never before given to enemies--not in World War II, not in Korea, not in Vietnam.

[the_idle_threat]

Do you think the wording of this poll is more slanted then an NRA member poll?

YES X

NO


But I still voted "Yes."

[mraynrand]

I vote yes too, despite the slanted question. It's important to note that the Democrats routinely say we were lied to about Saddam by the Bush administration, and that they would never have voted in favor of the Iraq war, knowing what we know today. Obama has a much different, far more dangerous view: He would not have gone to war with Saddam, EVEN IF everything the administration claimed were true. Think about it: Obama was against the war in Iraq, at the time when we were less than 2 years from 9/11, and we thought that Saddam had biological weapons and was working on acquiring and developing nukes. Not to mention that most of the other items that he was clearly doing were true (paying terrorists to slaughter Israelis, firing on U.S. planes, allowing terrorists like Zarqawi to live and get treatment in his country, slaughtering his own people, etc. etc.). The truth is that the interventionist bar for Obama is even higher than it was for Kerry. Meanwhile, Kerry's advisors called the war on terror (arguably a bad name) essentially a 'metaphor.' Obama's advisors make analogies between policy changes and Winnie the Pooh (I kid you not). They view terrorism not as an expression of ideology but of desire - like the and the rush from soccer violence - equating it to 'living in the moment' like having sex. In other words, terrorists are just normal guys kinda letting their hair down once in a while - or normal Joes who just get a little bored with the mundane and want a little more excitement. In America, such people go base jumping or skydiving - in Pakistan, they blow the shit out of infidels. These guys are not serious at all.

FROM THE TELEGRAPH:
"Richard Danzig, who served as Navy Secretary under President Clinton and is tipped to become National Security Adviser in an Obama White House, told a major foreign policy conference in Washington that the future of US strategy in the war on terrorism should follow a lesson from the pages of Winnie the Pooh, which can be shortened to: if it is causing you too much pain, try something else.

Mr Danzig told the Centre for New American Security: “Winnie the Pooh seems to me to be a fundamental text on national security.”

He spelt out how American troops, spies and anti-terrorist officials could learn key lessons by understanding the desire of terrorists to emulate superheroes like Luke Skywalker, and the lust for violence of violent football fans."

MORE FROM DANZIG:
In a briefing which will inform Mr Obama’s understanding of terrorists, Mr Danzig said he learnt much from recent interviews with jailed Aum Shinrikyo terrorists who released sarin nerve gas on the Tokyo underground in 1995.

He said that even people who are relatively well off and successful can feel like failures and become alientated from their societies. He said one terrorist told him: “We have been raised on a theory of superheroes. We all want to be like Luke Skywalker.

"When we’re doing mundane things, we lose track of our ambition but when someone comes along, like Asahara, the head of the cult, and presents himself as a messiah and gives us a picture of progress that is ordained by heaven and that we are carrying out a saintly mission on earth that is for us extraordinarily evocative.”

Mr Danzig added: “The parallels with al Qaeda are obvious.”


“Here is Edward Bear, coming downstairs now, bump, bump, bump on the back of his head behind Christopher Robin. It is, as far as he knows, the only way of coming down stairs. But sometimes he thinks there really is another way if only he could stop bumping a minute and think about it.”

He said that another lesson about terrorists can be learnt from studying violent football fans. “One of the best books I’ve read on terrorism in recent years was not about terrorism at all,” he said. “It’s Bill Buford’s book Among the Thugs, which is a description of soccer violence in Britain.

“Buford became absorbed by soccer violence. He describes the most appalling examples of soccer violence by fans against fans. But he describes with relentless honesty how he finds sickening things attractive. He says violence lets the adrenaline flow; it’s like sex, you live in the moment.”

[sheepshead]

anyone that votes no on this has his/her head so far in the sand it's scary. To me it's another measurement on the superb job the Bush administration has done in keep us safe. No one would have voted no on 9-12-01.

[Zool]

Or they're voting no to poke fun at you.

[Gunakor]

anyone that votes no on this has his/her head so far in the sand it's scary. To me it's another measurement on the superb job the Bush administration has done in keep us safe. No one would have voted no on 9-12-01.


It is not september of 2001 anymore. And, to be perfectly honest, I would have been just as heavily against a war in Iraq in 2001 as I am now. But Iraq wasn't even on the table in September of 2001 - Afghanistan and Pakistan were. So I hadn't even considered a war in Iraq right after 9/11. Iraq didn't play any part in that.

Never once has anyone on these or any other forums heard me complain about the Patriot Act, or many of the other things Bush has done to improve our own security. I even applaud him for most of those measures. But right now I am just as concerned with our economy, and how today's decisions will affect future generations of Americans. Such as the national deficit that has been increasing at an average rate of 1.5 BILLION dollars per day for the last year and a half - you know, the one Tex loves to say doesn't matter and won't ever have to be paid back anyway. I'm concerned with the fact that the average cost of living is increasing while the average income is decreasing. I'm concerned with the fact that the oil industry recorded a 2.7 billion dollar profit in 2007, while independent truckers and other small businesses have and continue to be forced out of business due to high fuel costs. And most of all, I'm concerned with this current administrations doing very little if anything about it.

[Freak Out]

Where the fuck did he say "lets wait for them to attack and then we'll throw the cops and lawyers at them"? Has he said he will disband the TSA and Homeland Security?

[SkinBasket]

Usually I don't care much one way or the other who wins the White House. Sure, I've got my preference, but I'm not going to get all upset if they don't make it. But for first time the possibility a nominated candidate might actually become president (and his wife the first lady) is creeping me out a little bit.

[The Leaper]

If Obama gets in, there is no doubt that I will feel far less safe going forward. There is little doubt that Obama is far less knowledgable and polished in terms of foreign policy and the current global situation...and that is kind of scary. What is even more scary are some of the complete nitwits he is putting around himself in that regard.

I'm not sure which is worse...guys who do whatever it takes to do what they want (Bush administration) or guys who don't have the foggiest notion of what the hell to do (a likely Obama administration). Obama would be very similar to Jimmy Carter...an inexperienced guy the nation turned to hoping for "change" after a GOP administration filled with scandal. We all know where that ended up the first time around...and I'm afraid that is where we are going again.

[Freak Out]

Usually I don't care much one way or the other who wins the White House. Sure, I've got my preference, but I'm not going to get all upset if they don't make it. But for first time the possibility a nominated candidate might actually become president (and his wife the first lady) is creeping me out a little bit.

You talking about Mac or Hussein? :lol:

[The Leaper]

And most of all, I'm concerned with this current administrations doing very little if anything about it.

Were you concerned when all of the previous administrations also ignored the impending Social Security disaster and thought better of making a balanced budget a Constitutional mandate?

[Gunakor]

And most of all, I'm concerned with this current administrations doing very little if anything about it.

Were you concerned when all of the previous administrations also ignored the impending Social Security disaster and thought better of making a balanced budget a Constitutional mandate?


Were previous administrations responsible for a 9+ trillion dollar debt? Were they responsible for prices at the pump soaring over $4 per gallon while the oil companies were turning a 35% profit? No, those problems didn't exist then. They exist now, and the duty falls upon the current and future administrations to clean it up. Stop implying that because there were economic problems before that somehow those problems make today's bigger problems more acceptable.

I am just as concerned with the SS problems, but those have to wait because there are bigger problems that I have to deal with before I even reach such age to collect the SS benifits that won't be there anymore. I have to worry about getting to my next paycheck. I realize that there have always been people with that to worry about, but the number of people is going to increase substantially because for those of us who do not have our retirements and/or pensions secure, saving money has become substantially more difficult. The average cost of living is rising faster than the average income. Is that the fault of previous administrations?

[SkinBasket]

And most of all, I'm concerned with this current administrations doing very little if anything about it.

Were you concerned when all of the previous administrations also ignored the impending Social Security disaster and thought better of making a balanced budget a Constitutional mandate?


Were previous administrations responsible for a 9+ trillion dollar debt? Were they responsible for prices at the pump soaring over $4 per gallon while the oil companies were turning a 35% profit? No, those problems didn't exist then. They exist now, and the duty falls upon the current and future administrations to clean it up. Stop implying that because there were economic problems before that somehow those problems make today's bigger problems more acceptable.

I am just as concerned with the SS problems, but those have to wait because there are bigger problems that I have to deal with before I even reach such age to collect the SS benifits that won't be there anymore. I have to worry about getting to my next paycheck. I realize that there have always been people with that to worry about, but the number of people is going to increase substantially because for those of us who do not have our retirements and/or pensions secure, saving money has become substantially more difficult. The average cost of living is rising faster than the average cost of income. Is that the fault of previous administrations?

Don't forget Katrina. The current administration is accountable for not reigning in natural disasters as part of it's domestic policy agenda.

[Gunakor]

And most of all, I'm concerned with this current administrations doing very little if anything about it.

Were you concerned when all of the previous administrations also ignored the impending Social Security disaster and thought better of making a balanced budget a Constitutional mandate?


Were previous administrations responsible for a 9+ trillion dollar debt? Were they responsible for prices at the pump soaring over $4 per gallon while the oil companies were turning a 35% profit? No, those problems didn't exist then. They exist now, and the duty falls upon the current and future administrations to clean it up. Stop implying that because there were economic problems before that somehow those problems make today's bigger problems more acceptable.

I am just as concerned with the SS problems, but those have to wait because there are bigger problems that I have to deal with before I even reach such age to collect the SS benifits that won't be there anymore. I have to worry about getting to my next paycheck. I realize that there have always been people with that to worry about, but the number of people is going to increase substantially because for those of us who do not have our retirements and/or pensions secure, saving money has become substantially more difficult. The average cost of living is rising faster than the average cost of income. Is that the fault of previous administrations?

Don't forget Katrina. The current administration is accountable for not reigning in natural disasters as part of it's domestic policy agenda.


So now Katrina is responsible for $4 gas while oil companies turn 35% profit? Katrina is responsible for 1.5 billion dollars in deficit spending per day on average? I guess I don't understand. Please explain.

[The Leaper]

Were previous administrations responsible for a 9+ trillion dollar debt?

Part of it. I don't see either side of the aisle in Washington jumping at the bit to reign in spending.


Were they responsible for prices at the pump soaring over $4 per gallon while the oil companies were turning a 35% profit?

The rise in the price in oil is directly attributable to the lack of a cohesive energy plan to reduce our dependance on oil after the last shitstorm in the late 1970s...so again, part of it. What exactly has the Bush administration done to make oil prices so high? How will taking money away from the oil companies make prices any lower?


No, those problems didn't exist then.

Just because the problems currently presenting themself did not exist does not mean that previous administrations were not lax or ignorant of issues that lead to the problems we have now.

To claim the Bush administration alone is responsible for all of this is ignorant, and is precisely the kind of thinking that puts an inexperienced guy like Obama into office.

Washington has been broken for a long time, and some have talked about it at length long before now...but most have gleefully ignored the warning signs of a political system where power and special interests now rule instead of the will of the people. Hell, one of the biggest problems with our economy is our lack of savings, which has greatly helped reduce the value of the dollar. This is something that has been pointed to for decades, but you are going to sit here and tell me that all the blame belongs on Bush alone?

[bobblehead]

reading gunakor's take on this thread makes me think all my time typing on the other threads were a waste of time.

Someone on TV the other day said Coke made more than any oil company last year so he was advocating a windfall profit tax for alternate forms of soft drink. I don't know if it was true or not, but it was damn funny.

Look, Clinton vetoed drilling in anwar during his tenure and if I recall, Al Gore cast the tie breaker on the balanced budget amendment so, yes, a lot of the shit going on now is partly the responsibility of past politicians. SS was raided by LBJ, and every congress since goes right along with it. We have big problems gun, and voting status quo and thinking they are recent manifestations tells me you haven't really thought it all through.

Bush, by recent history standards has been a very so so president. I dont' like a few things he did, but much of his agenda both passed and not was good for the country, Some of what was passed was very bad for the country. I forget who's sig is small gov't, low taxes, ect. is the real change, or something like that, but it is oh so true.

[bobblehead]

One last point, the debt as I recall was 4.5 trillion when bush took office 7 years ago. Net Present Value of said debt at 6% would be 6.75 trillion, so bush in reality is only responsible for just under 3 trillion. Now figure out the built in spending increases when he took office, the lessening impact of SS as a surplus and Medicare Part D which dems were crying for and he really hasn't done too bad.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Were previous administrations responsible for a 9+ trillion dollar debt?

Part of it. I don't see either side of the aisle in Washington jumping at the bit to reign in spending.


Were they responsible for prices at the pump soaring over $4 per gallon while the oil companies were turning a 35% profit?

The rise in the price in oil is directly attributable to the lack of a cohesive energy plan to reduce our dependance on oil after the last shitstorm in the late 1970s...so again, part of it. What exactly has the Bush administration done to make oil prices so high? How will taking money away from the oil companies make prices any lower?



I seem to recall a republican led gov't in the 80s that destroyed whatever cohesive enery plan that was trying to be implemented by a fairly ineffective democrat president. A president who really fell down in terms of picking staff and working with congress to implement those ideas

Carter, who was a major proponent of taking the oil industry out of U.S. foreign policy, solar energy, and controversially nuclear energy.

Carter was a major proponent of coal and nuke power. He created the Dep't of Energy.

Oil imports plummeted during the Carter administration. Renewable energy research skyrocketed. Cars got more miles per gallon of gas. Thermostats were lowered to 55 degrees at night. On Feb. 2, 1977, Carter donned a wool cardigan and asked a national TV audience to conserve energy. Two months later, he likened America's struggle to reduce Middle Eastern oil imports to the "moral equivalent of war."

Conserving...something that a current VP dismissed...may be a personal virtue.

This, of course, became fodder for the repub party...ie, the "malaise" speech. But, to be fair...term first coined by Teddy Kennedy.

Ethanol, biodiesel, solar and other alternative fuels supply no more energy than they did in 1980.

Reagan in 1986 took out the solar panels off the white house. That, my friend, is a major symbol..or repudiation of a previous admin...of how we are looking progressively forward.

Reagan halved the Energy Department's conservation and alternative fuels budget. Spending on photovoltaic research dropped by two-thirds. Energy tax credits for homeowners disappeared. Reagan rolled back fuel-efficiency standards for cars.

You can praise RR for things he did well..restore pride, defeat the USSR (even if i and others dont' agree), etc...but, a fair and accurate assesment demands that he and the repub party be held accountable for his destructive policies as well.

This current admin has yet to ask anything from US. Remember, self sacrifice...it helped us win a WW2. Has this gov't asked us to do one thing that would drastically reduce our oil consumption. Nope.

What should Bush do? Abandon Exxon and Halliburton and do what's good for this country and good for the American people.

It is in our own best interest to lessen our demand on oil. Take away power from those crazy, unstable countries...and return us to self sufficiency, and foreign policy that isn't dependent on oil.

[Freak Out]

And most of all, I'm concerned with this current administrations doing very little if anything about it.

Were you concerned when all of the previous administrations also ignored the impending Social Security disaster and thought better of making a balanced budget a Constitutional mandate?


Were previous administrations responsible for a 9+ trillion dollar debt? Were they responsible for prices at the pump soaring over $4 per gallon while the oil companies were turning a 35% profit? No, those problems didn't exist then. They exist now, and the duty falls upon the current and future administrations to clean it up. Stop implying that because there were economic problems before that somehow those problems make today's bigger problems more acceptable.

I am just as concerned with the SS problems, but those have to wait because there are bigger problems that I have to deal with before I even reach such age to collect the SS benifits that won't be there anymore. I have to worry about getting to my next paycheck. I realize that there have always been people with that to worry about, but the number of people is going to increase substantially because for those of us who do not have our retirements and/or pensions secure, saving money has become substantially more difficult. The average cost of living is rising faster than the average cost of income. Is that the fault of previous administrations?

Don't forget Katrina. The current administration is accountable for not reigning in natural disasters as part of it's domestic policy agenda.

The missile defense shield should have taken care of this.

[Freak Out]

What exactly has the Bush administration done to make oil prices so high?


What have they done to make them come down? Everything the administration has done has pushed them higher.

[MJZiggy]

One last point, the debt as I recall was 4.5 trillion when bush took office 7 years ago. Net Present Value of said debt at 6% would be 6.75 trillion, so bush in reality is only responsible for just under 3 trillion. Now figure out the built in spending increases when he took office, the lessening impact of SS as a surplus and Medicare Part D which dems were crying for and he really hasn't done too bad.

When Bush took over, there was a budget SURPLUS. Gore wanted to put it to Social Security and Bush wanted to "give it back to the taxpayer." Bush won. End of surplus.

[mraynrand]

Nice job, Tyrone.

It's all up to the government. Reagan taking the solar panels off prevented anyone from breakthrough research in solar energy. Without government, there can be no advancement in research and discovery. Jimma was all for Nuke plants. That's why he pushed for the construction of hundreds of new plants despite the thousands of dead lying in the streets following three mile island - and the lefty obstruction due to fears of a China Syndrome. Your cute little tag line about religions could easily apply to your religious faith in government - if only the liberal were in charge, all problems would be magically solved. I imagine that you really believe the same thing that Obama believes - that IF ONLY the Iraq war money had gone to engine research, we'd have an emission-free, non-oil burning engine powering all our cars, running on fuel that is obtained with zero environmental impact. Perhaps that's another throw back to the 70s - you'd fit in well on Fantasy Island. Still, I'm certain with enough tax money, the government will come up with the zero-point electrical energy engine based on the wish to have something like it, and Jimma Carter, sitting in his 54 degree living room in his sweater will be smiling.

[sheepshead]

What exactly has the Bush administration done to make oil prices so high?


What have they done to make them come down? Everything the administration has done has pushed them higher.

Dont you mean congress?

[sheepshead]

And most of all, I'm concerned with this current administrations doing very little if anything about it.

Were you concerned when all of the previous administrations also ignored the impending Social Security disaster and thought better of making a balanced budget a Constitutional mandate?


Were previous administrations responsible for a 9+ trillion dollar debt? Were they responsible for prices at the pump soaring over $4 per gallon while the oil companies were turning a 35% profit? No, those problems didn't exist then. They exist now, and the duty falls upon the current and future administrations to clean it up. Stop implying that because there were economic problems before that somehow those problems make today's bigger problems more acceptable.

I am just as concerned with the SS problems, but those have to wait because there are bigger problems that I have to deal with before I even reach such age to collect the SS benifits that won't be there anymore. I have to worry about getting to my next paycheck. I realize that there have always been people with that to worry about, but the number of people is going to increase substantially because for those of us who do not have our retirements and/or pensions secure, saving money has become substantially more difficult. The average cost of living is rising faster than the average cost of income. Is that the fault of previous administrations?

Don't forget Katrina. The current administration is accountable for not reigning in natural disasters as part of it's domestic policy agenda.

OK, out of all the lame brain things about the fact that somehow the president of the united states is supposed to clean up after hurricanes-this takes the fucking cake. Do you see the people of Florida, Mississippi, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois fucking bitching that George Bush isnt there when they crawl out of their shelter and start to put their lives back together-Fuck No.
How you people buy this crap hook line a sinker is remarkable to me.

Fema is not a responsive organization, do you REALLY want to depend on the federal government bailing you out of something?? WTF?

IT IS NOT HIS FUCKING JOB!

[MJZiggy]

Methinks that was sarcasm, sheep.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Do you see the people of Florida, Mississippi, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois fucking bitching that George Bush isnt there when they crawl out of their shelter and start to put their lives back together-Fuck No.

I heard Rush Limbaugh making this same argument on his show. It's quite a ridiculous comparison. In New Orleans you had a high concentration of poor people. New Orleans was struck by a friggin huricane that put a trapped, urban population under 8 feet of water in one day, people were left extremely vulnerable and the gov dropped the ball. the midwest flood victims generally had more time and resources to deal with their calamity.

[Freak Out]

What exactly has the Bush administration done to make oil prices so high?


What have they done to make them come down? Everything the administration has done has pushed them higher.

Dont you mean congress?

Congress is always part of the equation. Well........... :lol: :lol:

[swede]

I voted no because Tank isn't here to vote for himself.

President-elect Obama should feel free to use whatever means necessary to screw up the country.

[texaspackerbacker]

I thought the evidence indicated Tank = PackerFan#1.

I disagree that the question is biased. It's indisputable that current policies have been 100% effective at preventing repeats of 9/11. Obama just stated yesterday that he supported the Law Enforcement approach. And beyond that, it's a simple Yes or No--do you think the CHANGE is dangerously irresponsible--or was it irresponsibly dangerous? That seems pretty even handed to me.

My whole point is that THIS--preventing the mass murder of Americans and potentially the destruction of our whole way of life if it's multiple nuclear acts of terror--is far and away THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE. And Obama is clearly and dangerously on the WRONG side of that issue.

High oil and gasoline prices, the economy in general--which really isn't that bad anyway, the national debt, social issues like gay marriage, really anything else you can name PALE INTO NOTHINGNESS in comparison to death of tens of thousands, maybe millions of Americans, not to mention the destructions of our rights and freedoms and our prosperity and enjoyment of life, ALL of which would be in serious jeopardy from significant acts of terror at home.

Could anybody possibly disagree with that?

[bobblehead]

One last point, the debt as I recall was 4.5 trillion when bush took office 7 years ago. Net Present Value of said debt at 6% would be 6.75 trillion, so bush in reality is only responsible for just under 3 trillion. Now figure out the built in spending increases when he took office, the lessening impact of SS as a surplus and Medicare Part D which dems were crying for and he really hasn't done too bad.

When Bush took over, there was a budget SURPLUS. Gore wanted to put it to Social Security and Bush wanted to "give it back to the taxpayer." Bush won. End of surplus.
First off, that is falacy, we NEVER had a surplus. Go look at the records and show me ONE year where the national debt went down, or didn't increase for that matter. Not ONE on record dating back like 30 years.

Second, Gore "campaigned" on putting it towards SS, I don't buy it, Clinton campaigned on middle class tax cuts....uh-huh.

Third, Gingrich resigned due to a bunch of BS that amounted to his lawyer making a typo while responding to the 300+ ethics charges that he was aquitted of, and with him all fiscal restraint in gov't went out the window. In the '99 budget where we had a "suplus" with gingrich gone and mealy mouthed pussy republicans deciding it would be neat to spend more on their pet projects the revolution was over. You can split that blame between any and all parties involved at that time.

Gingrich fought a war and shut down gov't to get spending under control before finally negotiating much smaller increases in future budgets and getting us a surplus, and the minute he left EVERY politician in both parties got giddy over all the "extra money" they could spend now that the budget was balanced...and they did and we never had a year where the debt went down.

You wanna blame bush for deficits, stick to the war, or criticize medicare part D, or criticize spending, because tax cuts are not the problem. Revenues went up under his tenure, but spending went way up. Gov't has a nasty habit of putting built in future spending increases of around 10% per area then whining when they don't have enough to meet that number and demand tax increases. Anyone who suggests that 10% is too high of an increase and says we should maybe put it at 3% is accused of draconian cuts, starving old people, wanting kids to die and be uneducated ect. Remember dick gephardt and that bullshit about his mom (or grandma?) having ot eat canned dog food because newt gingrich was cutting too many programs and wanted to take her SS away, now if that prick died, I would be guilty of starting a thread like tex did.

We have a growing problem that gets worse every year. The INTEREST on 9 trillion dollars is 540 000 000 000. Let that one sink in a bit. 540Billion. When bush took office the interest on the debt was a mere 270 billion a year....what were his deficits again?? Yea, its his fault we are in trouble.

Wanna talk unfunded liabilities..you know, promises the gov't has made for the future to SS, medicare, gov't employee pensions ect. let me get a new line.

59 000 000 000 000. Translation 59 TRILLION dollars.

He tried one itty bitty attempt to do something about that with SS reform and he got demagogued to high hell. Is the 59 trill his fault too? Our gov't has been run like a rich boys trust fund for the past 40 years and no party is without blame. People are so busy with their bush bashing, or their obama boner that they will let the next president run us even further into debt. Obama, McCain, it doesn't really matter, it is just a matter of hitting a brick wall at 100 mph or 200 mph, your fucked either way.

[sheepshead]

Do you see the people of Florida, Mississippi, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois fucking bitching that George Bush isnt there when they crawl out of their shelter and start to put their lives back together-Fuck No.

I heard Rush Limbaugh making this same argument on his show. It's quite a ridiculous comparison. In New Orleans you had a high concentration of poor people. New Orleans was struck by a friggin huricane that put a trapped, urban population under 8 feet of water in one day, people were left extremely vulnerable and the gov dropped the ball. the midwest flood victims generally had more time and resources to deal with their calamity.

ok, take then out, what about Florida, Andrew etc?

Gov dropped the ball, you're right the local government and state government. Do you know how much money NO gets as a port city as part of homeland security for just this very thing? It's shameful how it was handled down there and it has NOTHING to do with the president. I dont want the president cleaning up after hurricanes any more than I want him putting out a fire in my neighborhood.

[Partial]

And most of all, I'm concerned with this current administrations doing very little if anything about it.

Were you concerned when all of the previous administrations also ignored the impending Social Security disaster and thought better of making a balanced budget a Constitutional mandate?


Were previous administrations responsible for a 9+ trillion dollar debt? Were they responsible for prices at the pump soaring over $4 per gallon while the oil companies were turning a 35% profit? No, those problems didn't exist then. They exist now, and the duty falls upon the current and future administrations to clean it up. Stop implying that because there were economic problems before that somehow those problems make today's bigger problems more acceptable.

I am just as concerned with the SS problems, but those have to wait because there are bigger problems that I have to deal with before I even reach such age to collect the SS benifits that won't be there anymore. I have to worry about getting to my next paycheck. I realize that there have always been people with that to worry about, but the number of people is going to increase substantially because for those of us who do not have our retirements and/or pensions secure, saving money has become substantially more difficult. The average cost of living is rising faster than the average cost of income. Is that the fault of previous administrations?

Don't forget Katrina. The current administration is accountable for not reigning in natural disasters as part of it's domestic policy agenda.

And to follow up on Skin's point, this is a load of BS. You want the number 1 reason cost of living is going up? Well, look no further than 300,000,000 chinese entering the middle class. Take a good long look at India as well. Cost of natural resources is going up.

That is the kind of shit that Dems are far too short-sighted and ignorant to see. They'd rather blame Bush then get to the core of the issue. Personally, I'd rather control middle eastern oil by any means necessary than have us paying 400 USD/gallon to the China men in ten years.

[Deputy Nutz]

I thought the evidence indicated Tank = PackerFan#1.

I disagree that the question is biased. It's indisputable that current policies have been 100% effective at preventing repeats of 9/11. Obama just stated yesterday that he supported the Law Enforcement approach. And beyond that, it's a simple Yes or No--do you think the CHANGE is dangerously irresponsible--or was it irresponsibly dangerous? That seems pretty even handed to me.

My whole point is that THIS--preventing the mass murder of Americans and potentially the destruction of our whole way of life if it's multiple nuclear acts of terror--is far and away THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE. And Obama is clearly and dangerously on the WRONG side of that issue.

High oil and gasoline prices, the economy in general--which really isn't that bad anyway, the national debt, social issues like gay marriage, really anything else you can name PALE INTO NOTHINGNESS in comparison to death of tens of thousands, maybe millions of Americans, not to mention the destructions of our rights and freedoms and our prosperity and enjoyment of life, ALL of which would be in serious jeopardy from significant acts of terror at home.

Could anybody possibly disagree with that?

I don't know if anyone else has brought this up, but the reason Obama and all the other Dems like Clinton can make these statements and plans to deal with the Terrorist is because they think they won't have to deal with them at all. They will cater to the terrorist by pulling out of Iraq, and the Middle East completely. Obama will not put pressure on terrorist, he won't hunt them down. He will lean on the poor policy of NATO in dealing with those that want to destroy our way of life. Simply, he is banking on the fact that the terrorist will have nothing to fear from his presidency, so in turn they will just leave us alone. It was the same with Bill Clinton. Al Quada grew leaps and bounds under his presidency, and the only thing he did was cut our military budget.

One thing that is currently bothering me right now is the insurgence of the Taliban in Afganistan. They are building up the size of their militia. You can't quite call it an army, but again. NATO is running some if not most of the operations in Afganistan and already the Taliban is growing in strength.

[Deputy Nutz]

Do you see the people of Florida, Mississippi, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois fucking bitching that George Bush isnt there when they crawl out of their shelter and start to put their lives back together-Fuck No.

I heard Rush Limbaugh making this same argument on his show. It's quite a ridiculous comparison. In New Orleans you had a high concentration of poor people. New Orleans was struck by a friggin huricane that put a trapped, urban population under 8 feet of water in one day, people were left extremely vulnerable and the gov dropped the ball. the midwest flood victims generally had more time and resources to deal with their calamity.

I am going to call "minor" bullshit on Harlan here. Have you seen pictures of Cedar Rapids Iowa? The whole city is under water, and no, these people didn't have significant notice since no one could really predict when the dams were going to give. Sure most got out and found safety. The difference is wealth, but also the fact that people did get out of dodge at moments notice instead of sitting back waiting to loot.

The other issue is that there are voters iand supporters n Iowa, Wisconsin, and Michigan. You really can't say the same about New Orleans. White Bread Americans are little bit more important to the government.

[The Leaper]

You can praise RR for things he did well..restore pride, defeat the USSR (even if i and others dont' agree), etc...but, a fair and accurate assesment demands that he and the repub party be held accountable for his destructive policies as well.

This isn't any specific person's fault...it is everyone's fault, especially every member of the executive and legislative branch that has been in power since the late 1970s. Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2...not one of them has made any real progress toward energy independence. Neither has a Congress that has largely been run by the Democrats for most of the last three decades. The notion that we shouldn't be allowed to drill for oil offshore given the current state we find ourselves in is STUPID...yet Pelosi and her crowd refuses to make meaningful strides toward achieving our independence from Middle East oil.

The American people need to toss career politicians out of office and return the power to the people, not special interests. That is the only way this nation will achieve any meaningful results going forward...in energy policy or anything else for that matter.

[The Leaper]

I heard Rush Limbaugh making this same argument on his show. It's quite a ridiculous comparison. In New Orleans you had a high concentration of poor people. New Orleans was struck by a friggin huricane that put a trapped, urban population under 8 feet of water in one day, people were left extremely vulnerable and the gov dropped the ball. the midwest flood victims generally had more time and resources to deal with their calamity.

This is one of the most idiotic statements I've seen made. The two situations are almost entirely comparable...and to be honest, the devastation in Iowa is far worse than anything New Orleans saw.

New Orleans saw Katrina coming days in advance Harlan. They did absolutely nothing to prepare for it. Your ignorance is alarming.

[The Leaper]

The difference is wealth, but also the fact that people did get out of dodge at moments notice instead of sitting back waiting to loot.

It is called preparation.

Iowa had this happen to them before, and put together a plan of action to combat it. They didn't sit around and wait for the federal government to bail them out.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Nice job, Tyrone.

It's all up to the government. Reagan taking the solar panels off prevented anyone from breakthrough research in solar energy. Without government, there can be no advancement in research and discovery. Jimma was all for Nuke plants. That's why he pushed for the construction of hundreds of new plants despite the thousands of dead lying in the streets following three mile island - and the lefty obstruction due to fears of a China Syndrome. Your cute little tag line about religions could easily apply to your religious faith in government - if only the liberal were in charge, all problems would be magically solved. I imagine that you really believe the same thing that Obama believes - that IF ONLY the Iraq war money had gone to engine research, we'd have an emission-free, non-oil burning engine powering all our cars, running on fuel that is obtained with zero environmental impact. Perhaps that's another throw back to the 70s - you'd fit in well on Fantasy Island. Still, I'm certain with enough tax money, the government will come up with the zero-point electrical energy engine based on the wish to have something like it, and Jimma Carter, sitting in his 54 degree living room in his sweater will be smiling.

1. No it isn't up only up to the gov't. HOwever my post was in response to Leaper's point about a cohesive energy policy.Hmm, who should determine the energy policy.

What? The gov't!! Shocking. You mean the Dep't of Energy would actually perform this..and lead us? Wow.

2. Soar panels. The point is that it makes a statement to the people. Let me dumb it down for you since it is obvious that is what it takes. When, a previously hat wearing country, saw JFK without a hat..voila..hat sales plummeted. Or, do you suppose the nation's interest in cowboy wear and brown suits was by accident when RR was prez.

What? You think that the country takes it's cues from the president? Shocking. that the man or woman we elect to lead us might have some cultural/social/etc. impact on the way we do things. I, for one, can't believe that.

3. Initiatives were started in the late 70s. They were abandoned or destroyed by RR. That can't be dismissed, no matter how you try. For example, ethanol research was started under Carter, but was killed by RR and cheap oil prices. Is ethanol the solution now..most likely not. But, who knows where we would be with 25 years of solid research.

Let me repeat..since it is fun to watch you ignore this part..since you have no answer.

Reagan halved the Energy Department's conservation and alternative fuels budget. Spending on photovoltaic research dropped by two-thirds. Energy tax credits for homeowners disappeared. Reagan rolled back fuel-efficiency standards for cars.

I always know when a conservative has lost an argument. They resort to sarcasm, cliches, and labeling people as living on fantasy island.

I fair and balanced post is what i gave..noting Carter's problems. You gave back...well,..not exactly sure. But, it wasn't even on the same playing field.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You can praise RR for things he did well..restore pride, defeat the USSR (even if i and others dont' agree), etc...but, a fair and accurate assesment demands that he and the repub party be held accountable for his destructive policies as well.

This isn't any specific person's fault...it is everyone's fault, especially every member of the executive and legislative branch that has been in power since the late 1970s. Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2...not one of them has made any real progress toward energy independence. Neither has a Congress that has largely been run by the Democrats for most of the last three decades. The notion that we shouldn't be allowed to drill for oil offshore given the current state we find ourselves in is STUPID...yet Pelosi and her crowd refuses to make meaningful strides toward achieving our independence from Middle East oil.

The American people need to toss career politicians out of office and return the power to the people, not special interests. That is the only way this nation will achieve any meaningful results going forward...in energy policy or anything else for that matter.

Well, if it is everyone's fault..then it is definitely RR's..as he is part of everyone..he doesn't exist outside the subset.

But, pretty much what i would expect when someone actually calls game on the republican savior.

You can spin all you want...but, he led the cuts and rollbacks. The man at the top gets the credit..and the blame.

And, if it is everyone's fault..therefore, it is everyone's succes...funny, i never hear you, conservs, or repubs ever say the dems defeated communism...it is credited to RR.

Interesting how it works. :roll:

[BallHawk]

And you can prove that the current administration has prevented terrorist attacks how? :roll:

[Gunakor]

Were previous administrations responsible for a 9+ trillion dollar debt?

Part of it. I don't see either side of the aisle in Washington jumping at the bit to reign in spending.


Were they responsible for prices at the pump soaring over $4 per gallon while the oil companies were turning a 35% profit?

The rise in the price in oil is directly attributable to the lack of a cohesive energy plan to reduce our dependance on oil after the last shitstorm in the late 1970s...so again, part of it. What exactly has the Bush administration done to make oil prices so high? How will taking money away from the oil companies make prices any lower?


No, those problems didn't exist then.

Just because the problems currently presenting themself did not exist does not mean that previous administrations were not lax or ignorant of issues that lead to the problems we have now.

To claim the Bush administration alone is responsible for all of this is ignorant, and is precisely the kind of thinking that puts an inexperienced guy like Obama into office.

Washington has been broken for a long time, and some have talked about it at length long before now...but most have gleefully ignored the warning signs of a political system where power and special interests now rule instead of the will of the people. Hell, one of the biggest problems with our economy is our lack of savings, which has greatly helped reduce the value of the dollar. This is something that has been pointed to for decades, but you are going to sit here and tell me that all the blame belongs on Bush alone?


The point is, Leaper, that if nothing changes then, well, nothing changes. McCain strikes me as the guy who is unwilling to change what isn't working today, whereas Obama is trying to make changes. If we make the wrong changes now, then in 4 years we will have a chance to change again. But what is going on today isn't working, so change is necessary.

If the oil companies were to shave thier profits from 35% down to, say 10%, that money could be passed from the oil tycoon's pockets to the consumers at the pump. Tell ya what, Leaper. Check out how much gas costs at the pump in Mexico. I have a buddy who lives in southern California who makes the weekly trip down across the border to fill up on gas. Why? Because it is less than $3 per gallon in Mexico. Why such a disparity between thier prices and ours? They get thier gas from the same refineries that we do... So perhaps if the American oil tycoons that are currently controlling our nations economy would stop raping the consumer with a pitchfork at the gas pump, our economy would heal itself.

Now try to convince me that 10% of what BIG OIL makes isn't enough to live comfortably on...

[BallHawk]

And you can prove that the current administration has prevented terrorist attacks how? :roll:

[Freak Out]

This is Hussein in 2007.

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/remarks_of_senator_obama_the_w_1.php

[mraynrand]

Nice job, Tyrone.

It's all up to the government. Reagan taking the solar panels off prevented anyone from breakthrough research in solar energy. Without government, there can be no advancement in research and discovery. Jimma was all for Nuke plants. That's why he pushed for the construction of hundreds of new plants despite the thousands of dead lying in the streets following three mile island - and the lefty obstruction due to fears of a China Syndrome. Your cute little tag line about religions could easily apply to your religious faith in government - if only the liberal were in charge, all problems would be magically solved. I imagine that you really believe the same thing that Obama believes - that IF ONLY the Iraq war money had gone to engine research, we'd have an emission-free, non-oil burning engine powering all our cars, running on fuel that is obtained with zero environmental impact. Perhaps that's another throw back to the 70s - you'd fit in well on Fantasy Island. Still, I'm certain with enough tax money, the government will come up with the zero-point electrical energy engine based on the wish to have something like it, and Jimma Carter, sitting in his 54 degree living room in his sweater will be smiling.

1. No it isn't up only up to the gov't. HOwever my post was in response to Leaper's point about a cohesive energy policy.Hmm, who should determine the energy policy.

What? The gov't!! Shocking. You mean the Dep't of Energy would actually perform this..and lead us? Wow.

2. Soar panels. The point is that it makes a statement to the people. Let me dumb it down for you since it is obvious that is what it takes. When, a previously hat wearing country, saw JFK without a hat..voila..hat sales plummeted. Or, do you suppose the nation's interest in cowboy wear and brown suits was by accident when RR was prez.

What? You think that the country takes it's cues from the president? Shocking. that the man or woman we elect to lead us might have some cultural/social/etc. impact on the way we do things. I, for one, can't believe that.

3. Initiatives were started in the late 70s. They were abandoned or destroyed by RR. That can't be dismissed, no matter how you try. For example, ethanol research was started under Carter, but was killed by RR and cheap oil prices. Is ethanol the solution now..most likely not. But, who knows where we would be with 25 years of solid research.

Let me repeat..since it is fun to watch you ignore this part..since you have no answer.

Reagan halved the Energy Department's conservation and alternative fuels budget. Spending on photovoltaic research dropped by two-thirds. Energy tax credits for homeowners disappeared. Reagan rolled back fuel-efficiency standards for cars.

I always know when a conservative has lost an argument. They resort to sarcasm, cliches, and labeling people as living on fantasy island.

I fair and balanced post is what i gave..noting Carter's problems. You gave back...well,..not exactly sure. But, it wasn't even on the same playing field.

No, you talked about sweaters and that Carter had a solar panel on his roof. Now you parallel a president wear a hat to Carter having a solar panel. Tell me, did sweater sales go up after Jimma appeared in one? Again, the point is that you led with the government - with the implication that the reduction of government research necessarily doomed solar and ethanol research, ignoring the fact that there innumerable research paths the feds fund that lead to nothing (AIDS vaccine anyone?). Throwing money at a problem, specifically through the government is no guarantee of success - in most cases it leads to massive amounts of money spent for less gain than the private sector. Money in the private sector is no guarantee either. That's the point. Who knows though, Barak might ride around in his magical fuel cell car and that may result in the technology appearing out of thin air, because we wish it. But it's clear that your view is the government leading is the solution. As if there isn't enough 'solid research' going on with ethanol and solar.

[sheepshead]

And you can prove that the current administration has prevented terrorist attacks how? :roll:

There's some left wing non-sense for ya. How about the fact that your ass hasnt been blown to bits already? Hmmm?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Nice job, Tyrone.

It's all up to the government. Reagan taking the solar panels off prevented anyone from breakthrough research in solar energy. Without government, there can be no advancement in research and discovery. Jimma was all for Nuke plants. That's why he pushed for the construction of hundreds of new plants despite the thousands of dead lying in the streets following three mile island - and the lefty obstruction due to fears of a China Syndrome. Your cute little tag line about religions could easily apply to your religious faith in government - if only the liberal were in charge, all problems would be magically solved. I imagine that you really believe the same thing that Obama believes - that IF ONLY the Iraq war money had gone to engine research, we'd have an emission-free, non-oil burning engine powering all our cars, running on fuel that is obtained with zero environmental impact. Perhaps that's another throw back to the 70s - you'd fit in well on Fantasy Island. Still, I'm certain with enough tax money, the government will come up with the zero-point electrical energy engine based on the wish to have something like it, and Jimma Carter, sitting in his 54 degree living room in his sweater will be smiling.

1. No it isn't up only up to the gov't. HOwever my post was in response to Leaper's point about a cohesive energy policy.Hmm, who should determine the energy policy.

What? The gov't!! Shocking. You mean the Dep't of Energy would actually perform this..and lead us? Wow.

2. Soar panels. The point is that it makes a statement to the people. Let me dumb it down for you since it is obvious that is what it takes. When, a previously hat wearing country, saw JFK without a hat..voila..hat sales plummeted. Or, do you suppose the nation's interest in cowboy wear and brown suits was by accident when RR was prez.

What? You think that the country takes it's cues from the president? Shocking. that the man or woman we elect to lead us might have some cultural/social/etc. impact on the way we do things. I, for one, can't believe that.

3. Initiatives were started in the late 70s. They were abandoned or destroyed by RR. That can't be dismissed, no matter how you try. For example, ethanol research was started under Carter, but was killed by RR and cheap oil prices. Is ethanol the solution now..most likely not. But, who knows where we would be with 25 years of solid research.

Let me repeat..since it is fun to watch you ignore this part..since you have no answer.

Reagan halved the Energy Department's conservation and alternative fuels budget. Spending on photovoltaic research dropped by two-thirds. Energy tax credits for homeowners disappeared. Reagan rolled back fuel-efficiency standards for cars.

I always know when a conservative has lost an argument. They resort to sarcasm, cliches, and labeling people as living on fantasy island.

I fair and balanced post is what i gave..noting Carter's problems. You gave back...well,..not exactly sure. But, it wasn't even on the same playing field.

No, you talked about sweaters and that Carter had a solar panel on his roof. Now you parallel a president wear a hat to Carter having a solar panel. Tell me, did sweater sales go up after Jimma appeared in one? Again, the point is that you led with the government - with the implication that the reduction of government research necessarily doomed solar and ethanol research, ignoring the fact that there innumerable research paths the feds fund that lead to nothing (AIDS vaccine anyone?). Throwing money at a problem, specifically through the government is no guarantee of success - in most cases it leads to massive amounts of money spent for less gain than the private sector. Money in the private sector is no guarantee either. That's the point. Who knows though, Barak might ride around in his magical fuel cell car and that may result in the technology appearing out of thin air, because we wish it. But it's clear that your view is the government leading is the solution. As if there isn't enough 'solid research' going on with ethanol and solar.

As always, spin away.

The word "sweater" was NEVER used in my post. Find it, and i'll never post again. Man, up bitch.

As for sales...i don't recall. And, to make your point he would have had to wear them REGULARLY. But, he didn't...you dope. He donned a cardigan to emphasize a point. My god, you just can't get out of your own way. Yep, i distinctly remember carter wearing cardigans at state dinners, meeting foreign dignataries, etc. :roll:

But, would it influence fashion..most likely. What the prez does/wears certainly does. My god, you just wanna argue and make yourself look in more stupid. Brown suits became in style under reagan. Clinton's look was adopted as well. What the president wears or does is quite influential and that is the point.

And, by taking down a solar panel..it tells the country that no need to think about "stupid" solar, we got oil, and that the future is bright without it.

Add in all the other cuts/reductions...my god, stop denying the truth.

1. Again, the post was directed towards Leaper's post of ENERGY POLICY.

Did the gov't have one..yes. Can't deny it. And, who should lead on energy policy...um, the word policy is one of GOV'T.

2. Aids...are you kidding me. RR didn't even acknowledge AIDS. He underfunded it. He left appointments open. Give you enough rope and you hang yourself everytime. Aids...i can't stop laughing.

3. It has nothing to do with throwing money around..funny, just before that you tout throwing money at AIDS..which is it?

It is about a cohesive energy policy. YOu just can't seem to grasp that. We had higher mandates for fuel mileage that were rolled back under RR. We had research that was rolled back, we had cuts.

It doesn't matter if it is 50 billion or 50 thousand..the policy was there..and it was dismantled.

Run along now...you have to find the non-existent sweater reference. LOL

[Tyrone Bigguns]

And you can prove that the current administration has prevented terrorist attacks how? :roll:

There's some left wing non-sense for ya. How about the fact that your ass hasnt been blown to bits already? Hmmm?

Since i switched to Decaf there have been no attacks. Guess i'm responsible.

Your logic is infallible.

[Freak Out]

And you can prove that the current administration has prevented terrorist attacks how? :roll:

There's some left wing non-sense for ya. How about the fact that your ass hasnt been blown to bits already? Hmmm?

So I guess the Commie led Congress has done a great job at protecting us even though they have totally dropped the ball on energy.

[BallHawk]

And you can prove that the current administration has prevented terrorist attacks how? :roll:

There's some left wing non-sense for ya. How about the fact that your ass hasnt been blown to bits already? Hmmm?

Our ass wasn't blown to bits until 2001. Our you saying that from 1776 onwards we were just one bad president from being blown to bits? Jimmy Carter must of been damn good then. :roll:

[The Leaper]

The point is, Leaper, that if nothing changes then, well, nothing changes. McCain strikes me as the guy who is unwilling to change what isn't working today, whereas Obama is trying to make changes.

Huh?

It seems to me that the liberals in Congress are the ones opposing offshore drilling and maintaining the status quo. McCain has changed his opinion on offshore drilling because he now sees the need for America to tap its own resources instead of relying on other nations.


If we make the wrong changes now, then in 4 years we will have a chance to change again. But what is going on today isn't working, so change is necessary.

Making change for the sake of change is dumbass. That's what the NY Mets do.


If the oil companies were to shave thier profits from 35% down to, say 10%, that money could be passed from the oil tycoon's pockets to the consumers at the pump.

I've worked as an accountant in the gas industry. Convenience stores make pennies on the dollar from gasoline sales. You also are absolutely incorrect about oil companies pocketing 35% profits. Sure, the oil companies do pocket massive profits in terms of dollars...but that is because they produce massive revenues in terms of dollars.

Oil companies on average make 9 cents of profit for every dollar of revenue. That is on par with most manufacturing industry levels, and falls well below the higher profit margins of industries such as drug companies and computer makers.

Trying to tax the profits of big oil is useless. The Carter Administration tried that and failed. No corporation is going to pay excess taxes for the sake of paying excess taxes...and no savings will be passed on to the consumer. Like it or not, big oil possesses the resources and knowledge to help America reduce their dependence on foreign oil by producing more of our own and investing in other forms of energy.


Tell ya what, Leaper. Check out how much gas costs at the pump in Mexico. I have a buddy who lives in southern California who makes the weekly trip down across the border to fill up on gas. Why? Because it is less than $3 per gallon in Mexico. Why such a disparity between thier prices and ours?

Umm...perhaps the fact that our gas contains huge amount of federal taxes that Mexico doesn't have? Do you even have an idea of what goes into the price of our gas? You look like a fool debating something you clearly have no knowledge about. Try reading up on the issue.

[Zool]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TRmcETKbSI

[The Leaper]

Reagan halved the Energy Department's conservation and alternative fuels budget. Spending on photovoltaic research dropped by two-thirds. Energy tax credits for homeowners disappeared. Reagan rolled back fuel-efficiency standards for cars.

Fine, Ty. Reagan caused $4 gas. I get your point.

However, what you fail to point out is that Carter...despite all his great ideology in terms of weaning us off oil dependence...created an energy crisis. Sure, Carter was trying to get to the right place...but he went about it all wrong and our economy paid a price for it.

I don't see either Carter or Reagan having the right approach. There needs to be a common ground in the middle...but as I've pointed out, as long as we support a two party system in Washington that allows special interests to rule there will be no common ground in the middle to find solutions to our issues. Instead, when gas goes to $4 a gallon, Pelosi and Reid still sit here and tell us that we shouldn't drill offshore. WTF?

Common sense tells us that we need to start doing that...and even a majority of liberals now support offshore dilling in polling, and about 2/3 of the nation as a whole supports it. But the two party system has removed common sense from Washington.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Reagan halved the Energy Department's conservation and alternative fuels budget. Spending on photovoltaic research dropped by two-thirds. Energy tax credits for homeowners disappeared. Reagan rolled back fuel-efficiency standards for cars.

Fine, Ty. Reagan caused $4 gas. I get your point.

However, what you fail to point out is that Carter...despite all his great ideology in terms of weaning us off oil dependence...created an energy crisis. Sure, Carter was trying to get to the right place...but he went about it all wrong and our economy paid a price for it.

I don't see either Carter or Reagan having the right approach. There needs to be a common ground in the middle...but as I've pointed out, as long as we support a two party system in Washington that allows special interests to rule there will be no common ground in the middle to find solutions to our issues. Instead, when gas goes to $4 a gallon, Pelosi and Reid still sit here and tell us that we shouldn't drill offshore. WTF?

Common sense tells us that we need to start doing that...and even a majority of liberals now support offshore dilling in polling, and about 2/3 of the nation as a whole supports it. But the two party system has removed common sense from Washington.

I never said RR caused 4 dollar gas..we may very well have been in the same boat with Carter's policy. My point was that we had a policy...not one of neglect like under RR, Bush...and prolly Clinton.

Carter: I didn't deny any of that..as i noted, ineffective, bad posts, bad working with congress. Bad management doesn't deny good ideas though.

But, i always like how you end with blaming liberals..pelosi and reid.

As i pointed out to Bobble...offshore drilling in florida is opposed by repubs as well. Businesses don't want it.

Common sense: Oh, now we should employ that. Not when Jimmah said to conserve and use alternative fuels?

Common sense tells me to get off oil asap. Fuck drilling...full steam ahead on everything but oil. I hear your point..we differ on what is common sense.

And, to not be beholden to a special interest that dominates..OIL.

[The Leaper]

But, i always like how you end with blaming liberals..pelosi and reid.

Well, 67% of the country is in direct opposition to them on this issue. I'm not blaming them in general, just on this particular issue.


Common sense: Oh, now we should employ that. Not when Jimmah said to conserve and use alternative fuels?

Common sense tells me to get off oil asap. Fuck drilling...full steam ahead on everything but oil. I hear your point..we differ on what is common sense.

And, to not be beholden to a special interest that dominates..OIL.

We can't "get off oil" so easily...but high prices will automatically stir up plenty of interest in alternative fuels and energy. It is a process that as you pointed out should've started a long time ago. Carter's idea was sound, but his implementation was poor and it wound up creating a debacle that actually was a set back for what he tried to achieve.

That is why changing for the sake of change makes no sense. You have to make the right change the first time...not just throw darts at a board hoping to eventually find something that works.

Common sense also tells me that if we are sitting on a shitload of oil that we haven't drilled for...now is a great time to do it when prices are going up. Even if we ween ourselves off oil, the rest of the developing world will likely need it...so they will become more dependent on us.

A hard line on offshore drilling right now is stupid. We have resources that are in high demand worldwide, and we sit on our hands.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

But, i always like how you end with blaming liberals..pelosi and reid.

Well, 67% of the country is in direct opposition to them on this issue. I'm not blaming them in general, just on this particular issue.


Common sense: Oh, now we should employ that. Not when Jimmah said to conserve and use alternative fuels?

Common sense tells me to get off oil asap. Fuck drilling...full steam ahead on everything but oil. I hear your point..we differ on what is common sense.

And, to not be beholden to a special interest that dominates..OIL.

We can't "get off oil" so easily...and high prices will automatically stir up plenty of interest in alternative fuels and energy.

Common sense also tells me that if we are sitting on a shitload of oil that we haven't drilled for...now is a great time to do it when prices are going up. Even if we ween ourselves off oil, the rest of the developing world will likely need it...so they will become more dependent on us.

A hard line on offshore drilling right now is stupid. We have resources that are in high demand worldwide, and we sit on our hands.

Not in the states where the drilling happens. As noted...you have no answer for Florida. Jeb didn't want it, repubs there didn't want it...etc. It really isn't relevant what people in ND want when Florida makes the decision. Unless, you are now against States rights...ah, the conundrum.

Easily: Maybe...but, the time and energy better suited for other things. Way to easy for the Tex's of the world to notice short term improvements and then get complacent. It takes a "crisis" for you and others to notice that things are bad..otherwise nobody woulda stopped Carter's iniatives. Remove crisis...right back to...things are great.

Developing world: This i can agree on..though, environmentally i think it is a bad move, but econ...can't disagree.

[The Leaper]

Not in the states where the drilling happens. As noted...you have no answer for Florida. Jeb didn't want it, repubs there didn't want it...etc. It really isn't relevant what people in ND want when Florida makes the decision. Unless, you are now against States rights.

C'mon Ty. The debate is over opening up the rights so that a state can drill if they want to...this isn't about forcing Florida to accept drilling when they don't want it. As of right now, it doesn't matter if every single person in Florida supports drilling offshore...legally, it can't happen regardless.

That is stupid.

Eliminate the ban on drilling...and let each state decide what it wants to do. I'm guessing with $4 gas and the current economic woes, the vast majority of states with oil off the coast will prefer drilling...and the economic bounty it will bring to their state in terms of jobs and revenue.

Personally, I disagree with Bush and McCain on one item...we don't need to start drilling in the Alaskan reserve at this point. It is a reserve for a reason.

[The Leaper]

Back to the topic at hand...

OBAMA VS. OSAMA
PROMISES AREN'T PLANS, BARACK
by Ralph Peters, NY Post

June 19, 2008 -- NAME-BRAND journalists have let Barack Obama make any claim he chooses about Iraq, Afghanistan or coping with terrorism without pinning him down for details.

Yet many of his comments and positions seem stunningly naive about national security. Given that this man may become our next president, shouldn't he explain how he'd do the many impressive things he's promised?

This week, Obama claimed, again, that he'd promptly capture Osama bin Laden. OK, tell me how: Specifically, which concrete measures would he take that haven't been taken? How would he force our intelligence agencies to locate bin Laden? And he can't just respond, "That's classified."

full article here... http://www.nypost.com/seven/06192008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_vs__osama_116128.htm?page=0

[Partial]

Were previous administrations responsible for a 9+ trillion dollar debt?

Part of it. I don't see either side of the aisle in Washington jumping at the bit to reign in spending.


Were they responsible for prices at the pump soaring over $4 per gallon while the oil companies were turning a 35% profit?

The rise in the price in oil is directly attributable to the lack of a cohesive energy plan to reduce our dependance on oil after the last shitstorm in the late 1970s...so again, part of it. What exactly has the Bush administration done to make oil prices so high? How will taking money away from the oil companies make prices any lower?


No, those problems didn't exist then.

Just because the problems currently presenting themself did not exist does not mean that previous administrations were not lax or ignorant of issues that lead to the problems we have now.

To claim the Bush administration alone is responsible for all of this is ignorant, and is precisely the kind of thinking that puts an inexperienced guy like Obama into office.

Washington has been broken for a long time, and some have talked about it at length long before now...but most have gleefully ignored the warning signs of a political system where power and special interests now rule instead of the will of the people. Hell, one of the biggest problems with our economy is our lack of savings, which has greatly helped reduce the value of the dollar. This is something that has been pointed to for decades, but you are going to sit here and tell me that all the blame belongs on Bush alone?


The point is, Leaper, that if nothing changes then, well, nothing changes. McCain strikes me as the guy who is unwilling to change what isn't working today, whereas Obama is trying to make changes. If we make the wrong changes now, then in 4 years we will have a chance to change again. But what is going on today isn't working, so change is necessary.

If the oil companies were to shave thier profits from 35% down to, say 10%, that money could be passed from the oil tycoon's pockets to the consumers at the pump. Tell ya what, Leaper. Check out how much gas costs at the pump in Mexico. I have a buddy who lives in southern California who makes the weekly trip down across the border to fill up on gas. Why? Because it is less than $3 per gallon in Mexico. Why such a disparity between thier prices and ours? They get thier gas from the same refineries that we do... So perhaps if the American oil tycoons that are currently controlling our nations economy would stop raping the consumer with a pitchfork at the gas pump, our economy would heal itself.

Now try to convince me that 10% of what BIG OIL makes isn't enough to live comfortably on...

our the ~35% tax on gasoline that the government takes.

Hmmm... 35% of 3.00 is about 4 dollars. Shocking how that works :D

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Not in the states where the drilling happens. As noted...you have no answer for Florida. Jeb didn't want it, repubs there didn't want it...etc. It really isn't relevant what people in ND want when Florida makes the decision. Unless, you are now against States rights.

C'mon Ty. The debate is over opening up the rights so that a state can drill if they want to...this isn't about forcing Florida to accept drilling when they don't want it. As of right now, it doesn't matter if every single person in Florida supports drilling offshore...legally, it can't happen regardless.

That is stupid.

Eliminate the ban on drilling...and let each state decide what it wants to do. I'm guessing with $4 gas and the current economic woes, the vast majority of states with oil off the coast will prefer drilling...and the economic bounty it will bring to their state in terms of jobs and revenue.

Personally, I disagree with Bush and McCain on one item...we don't need to start drilling in the Alaskan reserve at this point. It is a reserve for a reason.

You are making my point. The people, the parties, etc...dont' want drilling in florida.

I think you need to do some research. The state of florida always opposes, bipartisanly, any sort of drilling...gas or oil. this is a 30 year policy. Anything to keep the state's beaches and habitat pristine.

They (the state legislature), city councils, etc...have won every time anyone has tried to drill.

Go back and read what i posted to bobble.

[mraynrand]

The word "sweater" was NEVER used in my post. Find it, and i'll never post again. Man, up bitch.

Just wanted to address how petty and lame you are with this one. You used the stupid Hat example, and I referred to the Jimma Carter talk about turning the thermostat down and wearing a sweater. The fact that you can't make the connection speaks volumes about you. I wasn't 'calling you out' on anything. And please, keep posting. I need the amusement.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The word "sweater" was NEVER used in my post. Find it, and i'll never post again. Man, up bitch.

Just wanted to address how petty and lame you are with this one. You used the stupid Hat example, and I referred to the Jimma Carter talk about turning the thermostat down and wearing a sweater. The fact that you can't make the connection speaks volumes about you. I wasn't 'calling you out' on anything. And please, keep posting. I need the amusement.

Your direct quote said, "No, you talked about sweaters"

Please be accurate about what you say i said.

Stupid hat example. Exactly. Defeated, so you label it stupid. The last refuge of the incompetent.

The fact that you try and correlate JFK's hat influence and Carter's one time wearing a sweater and influencing fashion...speaks volumes about your duplicity. Not to mention you failing to address or admit when you are wrong.

More to the point..if i fail to make a correlation..that is because you are a poor communicator.

Keep embarrasing yourself. You can't address the car mpg rollbacks, the cuts in alternative energy, the cuts in conservation, the destruction of ethanol, the lack of a coherent energy policy..other than..use more oil.

[mraynrand]

2. Aids...are you kidding me. RR didn't even acknowledge AIDS. He underfunded it. He left appointments open. Give you enough rope and you hang yourself everytime. Aids...i can't stop laughing.
LOL

Keep laughing. I wasn't addressing energy policy. I was addressing your faith in government to solve problems through research. You specifically mentioned that Reagan cut funding for solar and ethanol. My point is simply that the government can't mandate discoveries. Reagan's views on AIDS had nothing to do with my point, which was that billions have been spent on HIV research, with no vaccine (But 'underfunding' as you suggest is a matter of opinion). You implied that with more money spent on ethanol research , similar in form to when Obama suggested with his "Iraq war money for magic engine speech" that the investment of money itself is some sort of guarantee. Government policy does influence what is studied/explored or not, of course, but my point was specifically that government funded research is no guarantee of results.

[bobblehead]

And you can prove that the current administration has prevented terrorist attacks how? :roll:

You can't prove that I'm not an alien who is controlling your thoughts either. As a matter of fact, I am, and the fact that you can't prove different supports my arguement.

[mraynrand]

You can't address the car mpg rollbacks, the cuts in alternative energy, the cuts in conservation, the destruction of ethanol, the lack of a coherent energy policy..other than..use more oil.

I wasn't addressing these issues. I was addressing the hope of government spending leading to breakthroughs. Again, your referred to cuts in ethanol and solar research as though they are reason why there have not been breakthroughs. As though the research has been crippled and breakthroughs are impossible. As far as I can tell, research has continued.

BTW, what do you mean by the 'destruction of ethanol?' Sounds like a weekend of heavy drinking to me.

[The Leaper]

You are making my point. The people, the parties, etc...dont' want drilling in florida.

I agree that has been very true in the past...Florida's tourism industry is very strong, and has always been opposed to offshore drilling.

However, current polling suggests that the opinion of many Americans is changing. I understand your point that Florida likely won't be as quick to change as other areas in the nation...and I agree. That doesn't mean there aren't other states that are ready to start drilling right now. Florida might not immediately decide to drill...that doesn't mean we should prevent every other state from having the right to allow drilling if they want.

[mraynrand]

More to the point..if i fail to make a correlation..that is because you are a poor communicator..

There's personal accountability for you.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

2. Aids...are you kidding me. RR didn't even acknowledge AIDS. He underfunded it. He left appointments open. Give you enough rope and you hang yourself everytime. Aids...i can't stop laughing.
LOL

Keep laughing. I wasn't addressing energy policy. I was addressing your faith in government to solve problems through research. You specifically mentioned that Reagan cut funding for solar and ethanol. My point is simply that the government can't mandate discoveries. Reagan's views on AIDS had nothing to do with my point, which was that billions have been spent on HIV research, with no vaccine (But 'underfunding' as you suggest is a matter of opinion). You implied that with more money spent on ethanol research , similar in form to when Obama suggested with his "Iraq war money for magic engine speech" that the investment of money itself is some sort of guarantee. Government policy does influence what is studied/explored or not, of course, but my point was specifically that government funded research is no guarantee of results.

No, my faith was in giving money or tax breaks..like they do for numerous industries will lead to advancements. Pretty common.

There are no guarantees, but there are certainly strong bets. Ethanol..wow, you just keep making it easy. Guess those countries running on it or biodiesel..prove your point. :roll:

As for Aids..you might wanna choose a better example..as it doesn't work at all. Poor funding and all..hardly classifies as one of the examples. BTW, people are living with AIDS for a long time now...do you think that is by accident. Is your proof of gov't working..only in a vaccine..do you not think the drugs we have today are not a result of those efforts. Yikes.

Might wanna think a bit more about your examples. Take your time.

[mraynrand]

As for Aids..you might wanna choose a better example..as it doesn't work at all. Poor funding and all..hardly classifies as one of the examples. BTW, people are living with AIDS for a long time now...do you think that is by accident. Is your proof of gov't working..only in a vaccine..do you not think the drugs we have today are not a result of those efforts. Yikes.

Might wanna think a bit more about your examples. Take your time.

I see. So you say that even with poor funding for AIDS, great advancement has been made. I'll certainly keep that in mind. Also, you say that great advances have been made in ethanol, particularly in Brazil where they use sugar - but you say that ethanol research was underfunded as well. Sounds like perhaps the correct research got done in the correct place. I'll remember that too. At last I agree with you that the government can get out of the way of companies that are doing research by decreasing business taxes. I like that ideas - but across the board.

[bobblehead]

2. Aids...are you kidding me. RR didn't even acknowledge AIDS. He underfunded it. He left appointments open. Give you enough rope and you hang yourself everytime. Aids...i can't stop laughing.
LOL

Keep laughing. I wasn't addressing energy policy. I was addressing your faith in government to solve problems through research. You specifically mentioned that Reagan cut funding for solar and ethanol. My point is simply that the government can't mandate discoveries. Reagan's views on AIDS had nothing to do with my point, which was that billions have been spent on HIV research, with no vaccine (But 'underfunding' as you suggest is a matter of opinion). You implied that with more money spent on ethanol research , similar in form to when Obama suggested with his "Iraq war money for magic engine speech" that the investment of money itself is some sort of guarantee. Government policy does influence what is studied/explored or not, of course, but my point was specifically that government funded research is no guarantee of results.

No, my faith was in giving money or tax breaks..like they do for numerous industries will lead to advancements. Pretty common.

There are no guarantees, but there are certainly strong bets. Ethanol..wow, you just keep making it easy. Guess those countries running on it or biodiesel..prove your point. :roll:

As for Aids..you might wanna choose a better example..as it doesn't work at all. Poor funding and all..hardly classifies as one of the examples. BTW, people are living with AIDS for a long time now...do you think that is by accident. Is your proof of gov't working..only in a vaccine..do you not think the drugs we have today are not a result of those efforts. Yikes.

Might wanna think a bit more about your examples. Take your time.

World Health Organization is against you tyrone:
============================================

The head of the World Health Organization’s HIV/AIDS department has officially admitted for the first time that there will be no global epidemic of the disease among the heterosexual population outside Africa, The Independent reported.

Kevin de Cock said global prevention strategies to address AIDS as a risk to all populations, among the WHO and major AIDS organizations, may have been misdirected. It is now recognized that, with the exception of sub-Saharan African, it is confined to high-risk groups.

These groups include men who have sex with other men, drug users who inject with needles, and sex workers and their clients, The Independent reported.

“It is very unlikely there will be a heterosexual epidemic in other countries,” de Cock is quoted in The Independent. “Ten years ago a lot of people were saying there would be a generalized epidemic in Asia — China was the big worry with its huge population. That doesn't look likely. But we have to be careful. As an epidemiologist it is better to describe what we can measure. There could be small outbreaks in some areas.”

However, AIDS still kills more adults than all wars, and is winning against current efforts to address it, The Independent reported. A WHO/U.N. AIDS report published in June shows less than a third of people in developing countries who need anti-retroviral drugs are receiving them. There were 33 million people living with HIV in 2007.

Some AIDS organizations, including the WHO, U.N. AIDS and the Global Fund have been blasted for inflating estimates of the number of people infected, taking much-needed funds from other diseases like malaria, spending it on the wrong efforts such as abstinence programs rather than condoms.

One result of the WHO’s admission may be that the vast sums of money spent on AIDS education for people who are not at risk may now be concentrated on high-risk groups.

=============================================

[mraynrand]

Some points I recall about AIDS and HIV off the top of my head. It was a 1992 Nature letter that described the first drug cocktail that essentially 'cured' AIDS.

HIVAN - (HIV associated nephropathy - as do many kidney diseases) strikes the african american community particularly hard - and I don't think anyone really knows why.

Gays and lesbians were infuriated that Magic Johnson got so much coverage, but it did raise awareness - not a bad thing, IMO.

If you read "And the Band Played on," a description of the early days of the AIDS epidemic, you will note that even the press was saying "give us something else," when they were told how the AIDS virus was hitting the gay community in San Fran in particular. They didn't want to write the story of a gay virus (and I don't blame them - the mix of promiscuity and gay behaviour made for a pretty unsavory combination, and there were terrible statements by religious 'leaders' as to the implications. I always thought that the promiscuity - described in really almost horrifying detail in the book I mention, was in many ways the most troubling part of the whole AIDS epidemic - many men were getting sick and needlessly dying).

[texaspackerbacker]

There seems to be a great desire in here to discuss a bunch of different kinds of silly shit other than issue #1--the life and death matter of preventing mass murder of huge numbers of Americans by acts of terror on American soil.

That's the way the sinister leftist mainstream media has directed things on a national scale too. WHY? Because this issue is an all out loser for Obama and the Dem/libs in general.

It's ironic that the 100% success the current administration has had has contributed to people having short memories, complacency, and a lack of fear--and thus, downgrading this as an issue.

[bobblehead]

you guys "debated" with tyrone for 4 pages without him ever stating what he stood for....I have learned my lesson and quickly try to get away from such nonsense.

RR did have an energy policy, its why we stopped waiting in lines for gas. His policy was "use what we have that is cheap and effective and wait for the other sources to catch up"

Bush has the same policy...but we are much closer to those other sources catching up and thanx to extremists we are having trouble using what we have atm. Nuclear has been far better than any source of energy we can come up with for over 30 years, but we refuse to expand and use it.

RR brought down the solar panels cuz in 1980 the cost effectiveness was a not very funny joke.

Now tyrone...without pointing out the abject failure of the republicans what would you do as an energy policy right now?

One more thing, did you know that all the nuclear waste we have created in this country...ever...can fit into a high school gymnasium? I heard that on CNN, can't say its absolute fact, but I tend to believe it based on what I know (I know that the tip of your pinky in fissile material is more powerful than a full truckload of coal.)

[MJZiggy]

What was the reason they stopped using nuclear? (caveat: it's a real question, not rhetoric)

[sheepshead]

What exactly has the Bush administration done to make oil prices so high?


What have they done to make them come down? Everything the administration has done has pushed them higher.

Like what?

[bobblehead]

What was the reason they stopped using nuclear? (caveat: it's a real question, not rhetoric)

Nuclear...ohhh...scary word....think atomic bomb....be scared. Chernobyl, three mile island...20 people died, never mind that the numbers of coal workers dying compared to nuclear is....well...not comparable.

The radical left has a tizzy about us living in the dark ages. It just came out today that several HUGE solar projects in the deserts of nevada will be delayed 23 months while we study environmental impact. Gimme a frickin break...the french are kicking our ass on nuclear energy, we should be ashamed.

Basically the radical left (not mainstream) has cockblocked any new licensing of nuclear plants for over 30 years. They cite waste, and fear monger as if those were issues...yea, storing a byproduct after it has been recycled and broken down in a facility is somehow dangerous when they claim the byproduct of fossil fuels is gonna cause NY to fall into the ocean.

Seriously, I'm not trying to crack on the left here, cuz again, its the radical moveon.org silly branch that is standing in the way of improving our energy situation on every stinking front...I really don't fully understand their agenda other than to make us live in the dark ages.

[Harlan Huckleby]

What was the reason they stopped using nuclear? (caveat: it's a real question, not rhetoric)

I think nuclear power plants stopped getting licensed after the 3 Mile Island incident. That happened back when you were in diapers (sorry to remind you of those painful Junior High School years.)

There was a political reaction or overreaction, hard to say which. I think power plants are a lot safer today.

The hard problem is dealing with the nuclear waste. My sense is that putting the stuff in lead containers and stashing it within the Yucca Mountains does not present a HUGE environmental risk. Of course I don't live in the area. But compared to releasing massive pollutants into the atmosphere, its got to be less harmful to the earth. I think disposing of the waste is a tough political issue. A lot of nuclear plants around the world are just wharehousing the radio active waste.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

2. Aids...are you kidding me. RR didn't even acknowledge AIDS. He underfunded it. He left appointments open. Give you enough rope and you hang yourself everytime. Aids...i can't stop laughing.
LOL

Keep laughing. I wasn't addressing energy policy. I was addressing your faith in government to solve problems through research. You specifically mentioned that Reagan cut funding for solar and ethanol. My point is simply that the government can't mandate discoveries. Reagan's views on AIDS had nothing to do with my point, which was that billions have been spent on HIV research, with no vaccine (But 'underfunding' as you suggest is a matter of opinion). You implied that with more money spent on ethanol research , similar in form to when Obama suggested with his "Iraq war money for magic engine speech" that the investment of money itself is some sort of guarantee. Government policy does influence what is studied/explored or not, of course, but my point was specifically that government funded research is no guarantee of results.

No, my faith was in giving money or tax breaks..like they do for numerous industries will lead to advancements. Pretty common.

There are no guarantees, but there are certainly strong bets. Ethanol..wow, you just keep making it easy. Guess those countries running on it or biodiesel..prove your point. :roll:

As for Aids..you might wanna choose a better example..as it doesn't work at all. Poor funding and all..hardly classifies as one of the examples. BTW, people are living with AIDS for a long time now...do you think that is by accident. Is your proof of gov't working..only in a vaccine..do you not think the drugs we have today are not a result of those efforts. Yikes.

Might wanna think a bit more about your examples. Take your time.

World Health Organization is against you tyrone:
============================================

The head of the World Health Organization’s HIV/AIDS department has officially admitted for the first time that there will be no global epidemic of the disease among the heterosexual population outside Africa, The Independent reported.

Kevin de Cock said global prevention strategies to address AIDS as a risk to all populations, among the WHO and major AIDS organizations, may have been misdirected. It is now recognized that, with the exception of sub-Saharan African, it is confined to high-risk groups.

These groups include men who have sex with other men, drug users who inject with needles, and sex workers and their clients, The Independent reported.

“It is very unlikely there will be a heterosexual epidemic in other countries,” de Cock is quoted in The Independent. “Ten years ago a lot of people were saying there would be a generalized epidemic in Asia — China was the big worry with its huge population. That doesn't look likely. But we have to be careful. As an epidemiologist it is better to describe what we can measure. There could be small outbreaks in some areas.”

However, AIDS still kills more adults than all wars, and is winning against current efforts to address it, The Independent reported. A WHO/U.N. AIDS report published in June shows less than a third of people in developing countries who need anti-retroviral drugs are receiving them. There were 33 million people living with HIV in 2007.

Some AIDS organizations, including the WHO, U.N. AIDS and the Global Fund have been blasted for inflating estimates of the number of people infected, taking much-needed funds from other diseases like malaria, spending it on the wrong efforts such as abstinence programs rather than condoms.

One result of the WHO’s admission may be that the vast sums of money spent on AIDS education for people who are not at risk may now be concentrated on high-risk groups.

=============================================

HOw is that against me?

I've never been one that thought it would be worldwide epidemic. In fact, Tyrone is very hip to the facts of Aids..especially in this country.

1. It is primarily a disease that affects specific pops...IV drug users, gay, etc.
2. Female to male transmission is..well...not really even worth worrying about.
3. It was created by conservative's to wipe out liberals.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

As for Aids..you might wanna choose a better example..as it doesn't work at all. Poor funding and all..hardly classifies as one of the examples. BTW, people are living with AIDS for a long time now...do you think that is by accident. Is your proof of gov't working..only in a vaccine..do you not think the drugs we have today are not a result of those efforts. Yikes.

Might wanna think a bit more about your examples. Take your time.

I see. So you say that even with poor funding for AIDS, great advancement has been made. I'll certainly keep that in mind. Also, you say that great advances have been made in ethanol, particularly in Brazil where they use sugar - but you say that ethanol research was underfunded as well. Sounds like perhaps the correct research got done in the correct place. I'll remember that too. At last I agree with you that the government can get out of the way of companies that are doing research by decreasing business taxes. I like that ideas - but across the board.

Poor funding..um, nice try...subsequent presidents werent' the same.

Ethanol: Right. Far be it from us to dominate and control an emerging technlogy. Yikes. Guess we should get out of the pharm, tech, etc.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

you guys "debated" with tyrone for 4 pages without him ever stating what he stood for....I have learned my lesson and quickly try to get away from such nonsense.

RR did have an energy policy, its why we stopped waiting in lines for gas. His policy was "use what we have that is cheap and effective and wait for the other sources to catch up"

Bush has the same policy...but we are much closer to those other sources catching up and thanx to extremists we are having trouble using what we have atm. Nuclear has been far better than any source of energy we can come up with for over 30 years, but we refuse to expand and use it.

RR brought down the solar panels cuz in 1980 the cost effectiveness was a not very funny joke.

Now tyrone...without pointing out the abject failure of the republicans what would you do as an energy policy right now?

One more thing, did you know that all the nuclear waste we have created in this country...ever...can fit into a high school gymnasium? I heard that on CNN, can't say its absolute fact, but I tend to believe it based on what I know (I know that the tip of your pinky in fissile material is more powerful than a full truckload of coal.)

I actually addressed this in an earlier post, on a differerent thread. I'll try and find it.

Edit: Couldn't find it, but here goes..off the cuff.

1. Make a national electric grid...similar to what we did with internet. This should be priority #1 as it effects everything i propose.

2. Solar

a. How about solar powered thermal energy.

Ausra has a peer reviewed paper that says they can power 90% of the grid on solar-thermal and have energy left over for electric cars. Eliminates 40% of greenhouse gases. Footprint of around 10K sq. miles. About the size of Vermont. Basically throw it up in NM.

b. Solar in homes. Ridiculous that new homes in NM, AZ, Nev, etc. aren't being built with it.

3. Wind Power. More than enough wind in the midwest. Or other areas. P.S. this isn't an open invitation to go after a certain senator...let's try to keep this just about the policy...not about stupid idiots.

4. Look up: Cradle to Cradle, William McDonough or Lewis center. More energy efficient buildings and better usage.

5. Fuel efficiency. Better MPG mandated. Ties in with better built buildings, etc.

6. Mass Transit. More needed.

7. Prizes. Similar to X prize.

8. Nuclear.

[mraynrand]

Ethanol: Right. Far be it from us to dominate and control an emerging technlogy. Yikes. Guess we should get out of the pharm, tech, etc.

That's all government run too, right?

are you saying there's not enough ethanol research or, not? Or could it be that ethanol worked in Brazil because they have more sugar cane. Are their ethanol technologies really more sophisticated than ours?

And, the major AIDS treatment breakthrough was in 1992 or 1993 - BEFORE Clinton was elected or at least before his first budget. So effectively, the drug cocktail treatment was discovered on 'the cheap.' or under a 'anti-research' Republicans.

And about 'controlling' emerging technologies - that isn't the liberal thing to do is it? Shouldn't we be sharing all our technology with the world? You're not suggesting we have some sort of proprietary rights to invention and discovery are you?

[texaspackerbacker]

What was the reason they stopped using nuclear? (caveat: it's a real question, not rhetoric)

I think nuclear power plants stopped getting licensed after the 3 Mile Island incident. That happened back when you were in diapers (sorry to remind you of those painful Junior High School years.)

There was a political reaction or overreaction, hard to say which. I think power plants are a lot safer today.

The hard problem is dealing with the nuclear waste. My sense is that putting the stuff in lead containers and stashing it within the Yucca Mountains does not present a HUGE environmental risk. Of course I don't live in the area. But compared to releasing massive pollutants into the atmosphere, its got to be less harmful to the earth. I think disposing of the waste is a tough political issue. A lot of nuclear plants around the world are just wharehousing the radio active waste.

To some extent, Ziggy, Harlan beat me to the answer. I will add that in the infamous 3 Mile Island incident, nobody whatsoever was killed or even injured.

Another major factor was the movie, China Syndrome--a totally fictitious bogus representation of nuclear power.

You obviously are NOT receptive to the intentional harming of America by the leftist slanted media and entertainment community, but THIS--the several decade long irrational disparaging of nuclear power would seem to be just another golden example of the anti-American agenda of these forces. Could you possibly disagree with that?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Ethanol: Right. Far be it from us to dominate and control an emerging technlogy. Yikes. Guess we should get out of the pharm, tech, etc.

That's all government run too, right?

are you saying there's not enough ethanol research or, not? Or could it be that ethanol worked in Brazil because they have more sugar cane. Are their ethanol technologies really more sophisticated than ours?

And, the major AIDS treatment breakthrough was in 1992 or 1993 - BEFORE Clinton was elected or at least before his first budget. So effectively, the drug cocktail treatment was discovered on 'the cheap.' or under a 'anti-research' Republicans.

And about 'controlling' emerging technologies - that isn't the liberal thing to do is it? Shouldn't we be sharing all our technology with the world? You're not suggesting we have some sort of proprietary rights to invention and discovery are you?

As usual you spin. When did i say anti research repubs. I said RR. Let's try to stick with the facts, please.

Ethanol: once again you change what i said. I never said gov't run. I noted that cuts were made. I noted that by promoting cheap oil, it devastated a market.

Controling: Who is talking about liberal. I'm making your argument. C'mon, you aren't that slow.

[mraynrand]

Ethanol: once again you change what i said. I never said gov't run. I noted that cuts were made. I noted that by promoting cheap oil, it devastated a market.


But not in Brazil, where the source is cheaper. Plus, who kept Oil prices low - OPEC, that's who - at least through two plus decades.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Ethanol: once again you change what i said. I never said gov't run. I noted that cuts were made. I noted that by promoting cheap oil, it devastated a market.


But not in Brazil, where the source is cheaper. Plus, who kept Oil prices low - OPEC, that's who - at least through two plus decades.

Cheaper...you'd have to have some proof...that in the 80s sugar, corn or some other source wasn't as cheap. THe point was that as a country we needed R&D money into alternative energy. Now, you focus strictly on gov'ts role..as if it was strictly and econ issue. But, that was never the point of carter and his policies.

THe point, which you have conveniently dropped in regards to alternative energy was the relation of oil to national security.

You have conveniently focused one one thing..the ethanol part..of course dropping coal, nuclear, natural gas, etc.

As part of making us more secure...i'm sure you can tolerate a little gov't intervention.

You can argue all day long...but, let's look at some words from Mr. Carter..and, ask yourself..who was smarter or prescient...and prescribing something good for this country..April 18, 1977.

"We can't substantially increase our domestic production, so we would need to import twice as much oil as we do now. Supplies will be uncertain. The cost will keep going up. Six years ago, we paid $3.7 billion for imported oil. Last year we spent $37 billion -- nearly ten times as much -- and this year we may spend over $45 billion.

Unless we act, we will spend more than $550 billion for imported oil by 1985 -- more than $2,500 a year for every man, woman, and child in America. Along with that money we will continue losing American jobs and becoming increasingly vulnerable to supply interruptions.

Now we have a choice. But if we wait, we will live in fear of embargoes. We could endanger our freedom as a sovereign nation to act in foreign affairs. Within ten years we would not be able to import enough oil -- from any country, at any acceptable price."

"We will not be ready to keep our transportation system running with smaller, more efficient cars and a better network of buses, trains and public transportation.

We will feel mounting pressure to plunder the environment. We will have a crash program to build more nuclear plants, strip-mine and burn more coal, and drill more offshore wells than we will need if we begin to conserve now. Inflation will soar, production will go down, people will lose their jobs. Intense competition will build up among nations and among the different regions within our own country.

If we fail to act soon, we will face an economic, social and political crisis that will threaten our free institutions.

But we still have another choice. We can begin to prepare right now. We can decide to act while there is time."


P.S. Must really gall you that McCain, while kowtowing to the u.s. oilman, is now basically extolling Carter's points. McCain emphasizes how our economic and national security are undermined by an overreliance on imported oil, especially from autocratic regimes hostile to the US.

[Freak Out]

Charlie Black, McCain aide, stirs a flap with a frank comment

Charlie Black has had his moment of straight talk ... and chances are he's not going to let it happen again.

Longtime Republican strategist and operative Charlie Black reflected on how a terrorist attack would help the candidacy of presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain A recent Washington Post piece on Black aptly described him as "John McCain's man in Washington," a "longtime uber-lobbyist" and "political maestro" who hopes "to guide his friend, the senator from Arizona, to the presidency this November."

Now comes a Fortune magazine article that, even more aptly, notes the "startling candor" with which Black discussed how a spotlight on national security would serve McCain's political purposes.

First, he provided some background.

The assassination of Pakistani political leader Benazir Bhutto in late December was an "unfortunate event," Black told Fortune, but it boosted McCain's stock in the fast-approaching New Hampshire Republican primary that he absolutely, positively had to win. The candidate's "knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is the guy who's ready to be commander in chief. And it helped us," Black said.

Then, the longtime political pro got a bit too honest. Asked about the political impact of another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, Black replied: "Certainly it would be a big advantage to him."

Black may be correct, but he's not supposed to be quite so blunt in coldly calculating the upside for McCain of harm coming to Americans. Others -- unconnected with the campaign -- could offer such an assessment, but he should have dodged the question.

He knows it, and The Times' Maeve Reston reports that outside a McCain fundraiser today in Fresno, Black said: “I deeply regret the comments — they were inappropriate. I recognize that John McCain has devoted his entire adult life to protecting his country and placing its security before every other consideration."

McCain, for his part, did what he's supposed to do -- stressing his lifelong commitment to protecting America and flat out disputing Black's premise. "It's not true," he said when asked in Fresno about his aide's remark.

Barack Obama's campaign played its role, taking great umbrage to Black's comment while using it to stress one of its talking points.

Spokesman Bill Burton said, "The fact that John McCain's top advisor says that a terrorist attack on American soil would be a 'big advantage' for their political campaign is a complete disgrace, and is exactly the kind of politics that needs to change."

But Burton also said Obama "welcomes a debate about terrorism with John McCain, who has fully supported the Bush policies that have taken our eye off of Al Qaeda, failed to bring Osama bin Laden to justice, and made us less safe."

[bobblehead]

you guys "debated" with tyrone for 4 pages without him ever stating what he stood for....I have learned my lesson and quickly try to get away from such nonsense.

RR did have an energy policy, its why we stopped waiting in lines for gas. His policy was "use what we have that is cheap and effective and wait for the other sources to catch up"

Bush has the same policy...but we are much closer to those other sources catching up and thanx to extremists we are having trouble using what we have atm. Nuclear has been far better than any source of energy we can come up with for over 30 years, but we refuse to expand and use it.

RR brought down the solar panels cuz in 1980 the cost effectiveness was a not very funny joke.

Now tyrone...without pointing out the abject failure of the republicans what would you do as an energy policy right now?

One more thing, did you know that all the nuclear waste we have created in this country...ever...can fit into a high school gymnasium? I heard that on CNN, can't say its absolute fact, but I tend to believe it based on what I know (I know that the tip of your pinky in fissile material is more powerful than a full truckload of coal.)

I actually addressed this in an earlier post, on a differerent thread. I'll try and find it.

Edit: Couldn't find it, but here goes..off the cuff.

1. Make a national electric grid...similar to what we did with internet. This should be priority #1 as it effects everything i propose.

2. Solar

a. How about solar powered thermal energy.

Ausra has a peer reviewed paper that says they can power 90% of the grid on solar-thermal and have energy left over for electric cars. Eliminates 40% of greenhouse gases. Footprint of around 10K sq. miles. About the size of Vermont. Basically throw it up in NM.

b. Solar in homes. Ridiculous that new homes in NM, AZ, Nev, etc. aren't being built with it.

3. Wind Power. More than enough wind in the midwest. Or other areas. P.S. this isn't an open invitation to go after a certain senator...let's try to keep this just about the policy...not about stupid idiots.

4. Look up: Cradle to Cradle, William McDonough or Lewis center. More energy efficient buildings and better usage.

5. Fuel efficiency. Better MPG mandated. Ties in with better built buildings, etc.

6. Mass Transit. More needed.

7. Prizes. Similar to X prize.

8. Nuclear.

See tyrone, you are with me....except I realize that solar isn't viable yet. A national power grid...sounds a lot like infrastructure spending, you know, the actual role of gov't. If we just stopped pissing away our resources on transfer of wealth programs and socialist promises we might be able to afford such a project.

At this point solar is still I believe, 15 times more expensive than coal/petroleaum ect, and like 50 times more expensive than nuclear. You should have stuck with power grid and nuclear while we continue to blaze forward with benchmark prizes for solar advancement. (wind is still more expensive than solar)

As far as energy efficient buildings that is being done very aggresively in everything new.

Instead of MANDATING better MGP, how about benchmark awards for creating higher MPG engines.

Incidentally did you, or anyone here mccain come out with a proposed 300 million dollar reward for an auto battery to leap past current technology in life and storage? Sounds like some of our voices are being heard.

You sound an awful lot like a lot of consevatives/republicans in your ideas here, wonder what the hell we are all arguing about?

[bobblehead]

Black is supposed to be smarter than that...how about "that would be bad for EVERY american, I don't want to speculate on the political impact."

Christ, I'm nobody and I'm smarter than to answer that loaded question.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

you guys "debated" with tyrone for 4 pages without him ever stating what he stood for....I have learned my lesson and quickly try to get away from such nonsense.

RR did have an energy policy, its why we stopped waiting in lines for gas. His policy was "use what we have that is cheap and effective and wait for the other sources to catch up"

Bush has the same policy...but we are much closer to those other sources catching up and thanx to extremists we are having trouble using what we have atm. Nuclear has been far better than any source of energy we can come up with for over 30 years, but we refuse to expand and use it.

RR brought down the solar panels cuz in 1980 the cost effectiveness was a not very funny joke.

Now tyrone...without pointing out the abject failure of the republicans what would you do as an energy policy right now?

One more thing, did you know that all the nuclear waste we have created in this country...ever...can fit into a high school gymnasium? I heard that on CNN, can't say its absolute fact, but I tend to believe it based on what I know (I know that the tip of your pinky in fissile material is more powerful than a full truckload of coal.)

I actually addressed this in an earlier post, on a differerent thread. I'll try and find it.

Edit: Couldn't find it, but here goes..off the cuff.

1. Make a national electric grid...similar to what we did with internet. This should be priority #1 as it effects everything i propose.

2. Solar

a. How about solar powered thermal energy.

Ausra has a peer reviewed paper that says they can power 90% of the grid on solar-thermal and have energy left over for electric cars. Eliminates 40% of greenhouse gases. Footprint of around 10K sq. miles. About the size of Vermont. Basically throw it up in NM.

b. Solar in homes. Ridiculous that new homes in NM, AZ, Nev, etc. aren't being built with it.

3. Wind Power. More than enough wind in the midwest. Or other areas. P.S. this isn't an open invitation to go after a certain senator...let's try to keep this just about the policy...not about stupid idiots.

4. Look up: Cradle to Cradle, William McDonough or Lewis center. More energy efficient buildings and better usage.

5. Fuel efficiency. Better MPG mandated. Ties in with better built buildings, etc.

6. Mass Transit. More needed.

7. Prizes. Similar to X prize.

8. Nuclear.

See tyrone, you are with me....except I realize that solar isn't viable yet. A national power grid...sounds a lot like infrastructure spending, you know, the actual role of gov't. If we just stopped pissing away our resources on transfer of wealth programs and socialist promises we might be able to afford such a project.

At this point solar is still I believe, 15 times more expensive than coal/petroleaum ect, and like 50 times more expensive than nuclear. You should have stuck with power grid and nuclear while we continue to blaze forward with benchmark prizes for solar advancement. (wind is still more expensive than solar)

As far as energy efficient buildings that is being done very aggresively in everything new.

Instead of MANDATING better MGP, how about benchmark awards for creating higher MPG engines.

Incidentally did you, or anyone here mccain come out with a proposed 300 million dollar reward for an auto battery to leap past current technology in life and storage? Sounds like some of our voices are being heard.

You sound an awful lot like a lot of consevatives/republicans in your ideas here, wonder what the hell we are all arguing about?

why do you think solar isn't viable. Ausra disagrees. And, why are they buidling those plants in CA?

Solar figures: I would need to see evidence. I highly doubt solar thermal is more expensive. Geothermal runs Iceland...doubt that we can't do the same here.

social programs: Just can't leave out your little digs can you. Or, maybe we should layoff giving tax breaks to business, make businesses pay their taxes..not letting them set up outta country, and stop with foolish drilling,etc.

MGP: Because..where are you getting the money? Surely, you aren't suggesting the gov't give some of MY MONEY to corps. But, realistically, prizes etc. don't do it for corps...they won't do it unless there are significant reasons..and a prize isn't significant. What is wrong with mandating...we already do it. Is it hurting anyone?

Buildings: Leeds, etc. isn't what i'm referring to. But, it is a start.

Try: www.mcdonough.com

Sound like: I would say you sound like a liberal. Welcome aboard. We've been waiting for you. Don't worry, i'll only introduce to white folks..we'll keep the scary minorities and eco freaks away from you. :oops:

[MJZiggy]

This one's viable, they just need the funding. http://bluehgroup.com

[bobblehead]

I'll do a little research after work to back it up, but to the best of my knowledge solar is still very expensive compared to dirty fuels and is only used due to huge tax credits (read subsidy). If I'm wrong on that and it is cost efficient there is no reason we shouldn't be making it a national innitiative to quickly turn the power grid and the country into a solar power nirvana.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I'll do a little research after work to back it up, but to the best of my knowledge solar is still very expensive compared to dirty fuels and is only used due to huge tax credits (read subsidy). If I'm wrong on that and it is cost efficient there is no reason we shouldn't be making it a national innitiative to quickly turn the power grid and the country into a solar power nirvana.

I think you are referring/thinking of solar..and solar collectors. I'm talking solar thermal...heating and cooling..which then moves the turbines.

[MJZiggy]

Hell, the desert southwest is capable of so much passive heating and cooling, if they would just design things to work within the environment, they wouldn't have to worry about hardly at all.

[bobblehead]

I'll do a little research after work to back it up, but to the best of my knowledge solar is still very expensive compared to dirty fuels and is only used due to huge tax credits (read subsidy). If I'm wrong on that and it is cost efficient there is no reason we shouldn't be making it a national innitiative to quickly turn the power grid and the country into a solar power nirvana.

I think you are referring/thinking of solar..and solar collectors. I'm talking solar thermal...heating and cooling..which then moves the turbines.

I follow, I actually did a levelized cost analysis for this once, but I forget the details. It is all capital cost with minimal/no ongoing cost if I remember correctly. Its hard to compare that kind of thing to fossil fuels as you have to be able to accurately figure the lifetime of the infrastructure. IF I remember right I was calculating indefinately and with that unreasonable parameter it wasn't a bad investment...which if you can reasonably expect a 35 year life it is probably still worth it...not dollar for dollar, but on the big picture.

Again, nano technologies in solar collectors are in the pipeline that will blow away photovoltaic though, and I believe that is the near future so it makes this capital expenditure tough to swallow. Work calls, more later.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Hell, the desert southwest is capable of so much passive heating and cooling, if they would just design things to work within the environment, they wouldn't have to worry about hardly at all.

Let me know about the cooling. Not seeing it right now..triple digits.

[bobblehead]

This one's viable, they just need the funding. http://bluehgroup.com

I didn't read it in depth, but I would say we need some deregulation of the power industry, but its tricky as you don't want another situation that california went through around 2000.

If this company is viable they should have no problem generating capital. People would die to invest in something like that if they could break into the energy market, but getting licensed and putting up the infrastructure would have to work.

Personally I have analyzed a TON of these new energy companies and I haven't found one really good investment yet. If I do, I'll put 100K of my own money into the company immediately. I admit, I have gotten fat and lazy and I'm not motivated to find the home runs like I was 5 years ago, now I'm comfy looking to rake 15% net on my money and slowly get their.

[sooner6600]

BHO is nothing more than John Kerry with a burr cut.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

BHO is nothing more than John Kerry with a burr cut.

And, that is a bad thing?

have you actually looked around lately. Things ain't going so great with the current leadership.

P.S. McCain knows pretty much nothing about economics.

[texaspackerbacker]

BHO is nothing more than John Kerry with a burr cut.

Belief-wise, that's certainly true.

The dangerous thing about Obama is that he combines the evil of Kerry's beliefs and positions with the political slickness of Clinton--and without the scandals, as least as far as we know up to now.

[Harlan Huckleby]

least as far as we know

i like your style.

[The Leaper]

have you actually looked around lately. Things ain't going so great with the current leadership.

Kerry is still part of that leadership the last time I checked. Washington as a whole is a pile of shit. Regardless of who wins in November, nothing meaningful will change. Nothing will be done about Social Security. Nothing will be done about solving our energy situation. Nothing will be done about any of the critical issues facing this nation...just like nothing has been done in the last 25 years regarding these same issues.

[Deputy Nutz]

have you actually looked around lately. Things ain't going so great with the current leadership.

Kerry is still part of that leadership the last time I checked. Washington as a whole is a pile of shit. Regardless of who wins in November, nothing meaningful will change. Nothing will be done about Social Security. Nothing will be done about solving our energy situation. Nothing will be done about any of the critical issues facing this nation...just like nothing has been done in the last 25 years regarding these same issues.

Bingo :thank:

[Joemailman]

have you actually looked around lately. Things ain't going so great with the current leadership.

Kerry is still part of that leadership the last time I checked. Washington as a whole is a pile of shit. Regardless of who wins in November, nothing meaningful will change. Nothing will be done about Social Security. Nothing will be done about solving our energy situation. Nothing will be done about any of the critical issues facing this nation...just like nothing has been done in the last 25 years regarding these same issues.

Let's hear it for good old American optimism! I think we've reached a tipping point on energy policy thanks to the price of gas/oil. The election could well swing on which candidate can convince the public that they have the right plan to deal with the energy situation. The next President will have to address the situation in a big way. If either party is seen as being obstructionist in this area, they will pay a price.

[bobblehead]

have you actually looked around lately. Things ain't going so great with the current leadership.

Kerry is still part of that leadership the last time I checked. Washington as a whole is a pile of shit. Regardless of who wins in November, nothing meaningful will change. Nothing will be done about Social Security. Nothing will be done about solving our energy situation. Nothing will be done about any of the critical issues facing this nation...just like nothing has been done in the last 25 years regarding these same issues.

Bingo :thank:

I third that. These pricks aren't interested in solving things, this is why I take the time to get on a site like this and preach about our waste of a gov't. They have gotten so far away from their role it sickens me and I am of the opinion that serious political chemo is in order. Problem is, in order for that to happen people have to care and take action.

My small footprint on all this...I pretty much vote against incumbents constantly except for the very few who are doing what they are supposed to.

[bobblehead]

Sound like: I would say you sound like a liberal. Welcome aboard. We've been waiting for you. Don't worry, i'll only introduce to white folks..we'll keep the scary minorities and eco freaks away from you. :oops:

Ya know what ty, I was at work and didn't read this real close, but this is the second time you have painted me a rascist. Your nothing more than a worthless hate spreading prick. I no longer have any use for you or anything you say....you are the only bigot between us.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Sound like: I would say you sound like a liberal. Welcome aboard. We've been waiting for you. Don't worry, i'll only introduce to white folks..we'll keep the scary minorities and eco freaks away from you. :oops:

Ya know what ty, I was at work and didn't read this real close, but this is the second time you have painted me a rascist. Your nothing more than a worthless hate spreading prick. I no longer have any use for you or anything you say....you are the only bigot between us.

Dude, you need to relax...no one is painting you as a racist...it is merely humor.

[bobblehead]

forgive me if I'm not amused at your idea of "humor". If I made snide little comments calling you a child molester would you find it funny?

We had a whole thread on rascism and I really tried to make the point that we can never come together as a nation if flakes like you make comments like that. You fail to compete on an intellectual level so you resort to this absolute crap and try to make that the debate. I choose to no longer address you. If I could I'd program the site to not even show me your posts, but from here on out when I see your name I'll just skip it because I will assume you are race baiting or being a condescending JO in some other manner...goodbye.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

forgive me if I'm not amused at your idea of "humor". If I made snide little comments calling you a child molester would you find it funny?

We had a whole thread on rascism and I really tried to make the point that we can never come together as a nation if flakes like you make comments like that. You fail to compete on an intellectual level so you resort to this absolute crap and try to make that the debate. I choose to no longer address you. If I could I'd program the site to not even show me your posts, but from here on out when I see your name I'll just skip it because I will assume you are race baiting or being a condescending JO in some other manner...goodbye.

child molester...of course not. But, as pointed out...please find where i've painted you as racist. You can't.

If you made a joke about...conservatives...and you would hide the religious right, pro biz drilling advocates and tex...i'd have no problem.

Debate...dude, you need to serious chill. Because if you get this worked up..then it appears. true.

[Scott Campbell]

If I made snide little comments calling you a child molester would you find it funny?



I'd probably find it funny. You should give it a try.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

If I made snide little comments calling you a child molester would you find it funny?



I'd probably find it funny. You should give it a try.

Yeah, i recant. Go ahead, call me a child molester. I'm pretty secure in my self that i'm not going to freak out...nor are most of posters here going to think i'm molesting children.

Sides, 15 is legal in Tennessee. If it is good enough for Jerry lee..it is good enough for Ty.