IN OBAMA'S OWN WORDS ON ISSUE # 1

[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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

[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...128.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

[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.