US News
McCain scolds oil nations, touts US reserves; Obama cries flip-flop
By Chris Cermak Jun 18, 2008, 2:18 GMT
On the Web
Similar articles
- Obama edges out McCain in scramble for the green vote (Feature)
- Energy independence: The great challenge for Obama, McCain (Feature)
- Obama calls for end to foreign oil dependence in 10 years (Roundup)
- Obama calls for end to foreign oil dependence in 10 years
- Obama willing to compromise on offshore drilling
Latest Headlines in US
- 1. Romney lags behind a surging Santorum in US polls
- 2. Whitney Houston to be buried Saturday in small family funeral
- 3. Obama, Democrats get Republican raspberries for Valentine's Day
- 4. Obama calls for quick passage of payroll tax holiday extension
- 5. Report: Director Oliver Stone's son converts to Islam
Older Talkback
page: 1
The following is the prepared text of Senator John McCain’s speech about energy and climate change in Houston, as provided by his presidential campaign.
[My comments, observations, questions, criticisms and snide remarks will be enclosed in square [] brackets.]
Thank you all very much. Governor Perry, Lieutenant Governor Dewhurst, and other distinguished guests, I appreciate your joining us today. And thank you all for the warm welcome to Houston.
Among its other distinctions, this great city is known as the oil capital of America. But people in Houston and all of Texas understand as well as anyone that the high price of oil and gas today is causing great harm all across our economy. People are hurting, small farmers, truckers, and taxi drivers unable to cover their costs, small business owners struggling to meet payroll, the cost of living rising and the value of paychecks falling. All of this, in large part, because the price of oil is too high, and the supply of oil too uncertain. These citizens believe their government has a duty to finally assure the energy security of this country, and they are right.
[On the day this speech was made, 17-Jun-08, the Rohm and Haas Company, a maker of plastics (Perspex if you are British, Plexiglass if you are an American) as well as a wide variety of paints, agricultural products and other plastics, announced that it was cutting some 925 jobs in North America. The last time that this happened was back during the Carter Administration. Rohm and Haas has always laid off contractors first. You can bet that other petrochemical companies will follow suit. Unlike refiners, it is almost impossible for petrochemical companies to recover rises in feedstock costs. This is a very dangerous sign and Senator McCain makes no mention of it in his speech. It is entirely possible that he knows what it means and did not want to clutter his speech with lengthy explanations to the dim bulb base, the news media. On the other hand, he may not understand just how bad this is.]
[Continued in the next post]
I first addressed this issue at the outset of my primary campaign. And in just that time -- a little more than a year -- the price of a barrel of oil has more than doubled. And the price of a gallon of gas in America stands at more than four dollars. Yesterday, a barrel of oil cost about 134 dollars. [That's $3.19 a gallon. There are 42 US gallons in a barrel of oil). And various oil ministers and investment firms have confidently informed us that soon we can expect to pay 200 dollars for every barrel, and as much as seven dollars for every gallon of gas. [Rest assured that if we are paying over $3.00/ gallon for crude, it is not unreasonable to expect us to be paying between $6.00 to $10.00 per gallon for gasoline.] That may come as good news in Moscow, Riyadh, or Caracas, where economic growth and rising oil prices are more or less the same thing. But their oil prosperity is our energy vulnerability. And the jobs, family budgets, and futures of the American people should not depend on the whims of foreign powers. Oil and gasoline are the most vital of all commodities in a modern economy. Their price affects the cost of things even more basic and essential. America's dependence on foreign oil is a matter of large and far-reaching consequences -- none of them good.
Whoever controls oil controls much more than oil. And in our time, much of the world's oil supply is controlled by states, regimes, and a cartel for which America's well being is not exactly a priority. Many occupy a violent part of the world -- a region all the more violent for the influence of oil wealth. Their opinion of America runs the full spectrum from indifference to hatred. And yet these regimes are today the masters of the oil market.
Somehow the United States -- in so many ways the most self-reliant of nations -- has allowed and at times even encouraged this state of affairs. This was a troubling situation 35 years ago. It was an alarming situation twenty years ago. It is a dangerous situation today. And starting in the term of the next president, we must take control over our own energy future, and become once again the master of our fate. [And you have been painfully slow to recognize the danger, Senator and I am not yet convinced that you fully realize it to this late date. I suspect if you did you would not still be hiding behind your 'federalism'. This is NOT a situation that should be left for the states to argue. It is about NATIONAL SECURITY].
[Continued in the next post]
The next president must be willing to break with the energy policies not just of the current Administration, but the administrations that preceded it, and lead a great national campaign to achieve energy security for America. So in the days ahead I plan to return to the subject in a series of discussions to explain my reform agenda. And I will set forth a strategy to free America once and for all from our strategic dependence on foreign oil.
Energy policy has enormous implications for America's economic security, our environmental security, and, above all, our national security. Each one of these challenges demands our concentrated consideration. And each one requires that we look beyond the special interests that too often dominate energy policy. We need to draw on the best ideas of both parties, and work together for the common good. [The only good idea the Democrats have had on this subject is the argument FOR conservation. Beyond that, they are still little boys and girls living in Never-Never Land.]
As in other challenges that confront our nation, we must shape events, and not simply manage crises. We must steer far clear of the errors and false assumptions that have marked the energy policies of nearly twenty Congresses and seven presidents. There are dangers in the long term and dangers in the short term. Some tasks will be the work of decades, and some the work of years. And they all will begin in the term of the next president. [GOOD! Now, convince me that this next President should be you, Senator.]
Among these is a challenge we hardly even understood back when America first learned to associate the word 'energy' with 'crisis.' We now know that fossil fuel emissions, by retaining heat within the atmosphere, threaten disastrous changes in climate. [WE KNOW NO SUCH THING, Senator! This is a lie perpetrated by you leftist buddies in the Democrat Party and the bureaucrats at the United Nations.] No challenge of energy is to be taken lightly, and least of all the need to avoid the consequences of global warming. [There is NO such thing as anthropogenic global warming. Again, this is a lie told by leftists in hopes of using it as an excuse to cease power over us and our economy, Senator.]
In the face of climate change and other serious challenges, energy conservation is no longer just a moral luxury or a personal virtue. Conservation serves a critical national goal. Over time, we must shift our entire energy economy toward a sustainable mix of new and cleaner power sources. This will include some we use already, such as wind, solar, biofuels, and other sources yet to be invented. It will include a variety of new automotive and fuel technologies, clean-burning coal and nuclear energy, and a new system of incentives, under a cap-and-trade policy, to put the power of the market on the side of environmental protection.
But to make the great turn away from carbon-emitting fuels, we will need all the inventive genius of which America is capable. We will need as well an economy strong enough to support our nation's great shift toward clean energy. And this gives us only further incentive to protect ourselves from the sudden shocks and ever-rising prices that come with our dependence on foreign oil.
Up to a point, these sudden rises in the price of oil are explainable in the terms of basic economics. When demand exceeds supply, prices always rise, and this has happened very dramatically in the demand for oil. Two powerful forces in the oil market today are China and India, nations in which a third of humanity is suddenly entering the industrial era -- with all the cars, construction, and consumption of oil that involves.
There is the further problem of speculation on the oil futures market, which in many cases has nothing to do with the actual sale, purchase, or delivery of oil. [More leftist horsehockey.] When crude oil became a futures-traded commodity in the 1980's, the idea was to afford a measure of protection against the historic volatility of oil pricing. It takes several weeks to ship oil from the Arabian Peninsula to the offshore port of Louisiana. And for the buyers, it helps to know that the price will not suddenly fall while the oil is in transit. A futures contract assures importers that they can sell the oil at a profit.
That's the theory, anyway. But we all know that some people on Wall Street are not above gaming the system. When you have enough speculators betting on the rising price of oil, that itself can cause oil prices to keep on rising. And while a few reckless speculators are counting their paper profits, most Americans are coming up on the short end -- using more and more of their hard-earned paychecks to buy gas for the truck, tractor, or family car. [And who are you, Senator, to play God? What do you know about futures markets? Nada. Zip. Zero, You are repeating the mindless drivel uttered by leftists.]
[Continued in the next post]
Investigation is underway to root out this kind of reckless wagering, unrelated to any kind of productive commerce, because it can distort the market, drive prices beyond rational limits, and put the investments and pensions of millions of Americans at risk. Where we find such abuses, they need to be swiftly punished. And to make sure it never happens again, we must reform the laws and regulations governing the oil futures market, so that they are just as clear and effective as the rules applied to stocks, bonds, and other financial instruments. In all of these markets, reform must assure transparency, prevent abuse, and protect the public interest. [Horsehockey! The Senate goes through these gyrations every time there is a spike in oil prices. You have done it a dozen times at least, during my adulthood. You have yet to find any wrongdoing on any of those occasions. You will not find any this time, either.]
Of course, with the formation of the OPEC cartel, and the oil embargo of the early 70's, we already left behind pure economics in the oil market, and we entered a new era of power politics. No longer was crude oil simply a commodity. Now, suddenly, it was a strategic weapon. [Oh, so you finally got that through you head, did you?]
At the time of OPEC's oil embargo, we imported roughly a third of our oil. Now we import two thirds. At that time, every day, we produced more than nine million barrels of oil domestically. Now America produces five million barrels a day. Five million barrels sounds like a lot until we compare the number with the oil we use, which comes to 20 million barrels, or a quarter of all the oil used every day across the earth.
Of that total, a little more than half comes from Canada, from Mexico, and from our own domestic production. That's a heavy reliance on these two nations. But there is a world of difference between relying on two democratic neighbors and partners in NAFTA, and relying on often hostile and undemocratic regimes in the Middle East and elsewhere. When critics of trade talk about unilaterally renegotiating NAFTA, as my opponent has done, that's one more concern they might want to keep in mind. [This is true. You are right on target with this one, Senator.]
It takes a very short leap in logic to wonder why we produce less and less crude oil, while we use more and more of it, or why politicians talk so much about promoting alternative energy sources, but often do so little to promote these alternatives. A reasonable observer, presented only with these numbers of consumption and production, might draw the conclusion that America has accepted this fate because we have no choice in the matter, or because we have no resources of our own. But just the opposite is true: We do have resources, and we do have a choice.
In oil, gas, and coal deposits, we have enormous energy reserves of our own. And we are gaining the means to use these resources in cleaner, more responsible ways. As for offshore drilling, it's safe enough these days that not even Hurricanes Katrina and Rita could cause significant spillage from the battered rigs off the coasts of New Orleans and Houston. Yet for reasons that become less convincing with every rise in the price of foreign oil, the federal government discourages offshore production.
At the very least, one might assume, America had surely been building new refineries to achieve a more efficient delivery of gasoline to market, and thereby to lower the prices paid by the American people -- especially in the summer season. But the policymakers in Washington haven't got around to that, either. There's so much regulation of the industry that the last American refinery was built when Jerry Ford was president. [All but one of the refineries we have running today is a dangerous, worn out, cantankerous piece of junk made up of rust held together by paint, bailing wire, bubble gum, wishful thinking and the occasional patch of duct tape. You think you were brave walking around on the streets of Baghdad, Senator? Insist that some one take you on a tour of a running HF Alkylation Unit. Bring spare pair of shoes. You'll need 'em.]
As for nuclear energy -- a proven energy source that requires zero emissions -- we haven't built a new reactor in 31 years. In Europe and elsewhere, they have been expanding their use of nuclear energy. But we've waited so long that we've lost our domestic capability to even build these power plants. Nuclear power is among the surest ways to gain a clean, abundant, and stable energy supply, as other nations understand. One nation today has plans to build almost 50 new reactors by 2020. Another country plans to build 26 major nuclear stations. A third nation plans to build enough nuclear plants to meet one quarter of all the electricity needs of its people -- a population of more than a billion people. Those three countries are China, Russia, and India. And if they have the vision to set and carry out great goals in energy policy, then why don't we?
So, taking stock of our energy situation, it is time we draw a few sensible conclusions of our own. In their sum effect on the American economy, the policies of our government could hardly have left us more dependent had they been designed to do precisely that. This vulnerability is clear in many ways, and never more than when American leaders are reduced to supplicating for lower prices before the sheiks and princes of OPEC. Of course, they are unmoved by our troubles. They regard even the need to ask as a sign of weakness. And in the end, they take their cues not from our entreaties for relief, but from our failure to diversify and to produce. [And they were working toward our subjugation while you were making this speech, Senator. They are still working toward our subjugation as I write this.]
Quite rightly, I believe, we confer a special status on some areas of our country that are best left undisturbed. When America set aside the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, we called it a 'refuge' for a reason. [Give it a rest, Senator. It's dark for four months of the year, frozen over with snow for eight months of the year and plagued by black flies and mosquitoes the remaining four months. There is nothing charming about the place, especially if the growing population of polar bears happens to be feeling peckish while you are not paying attention. Oh, and since we started drilling on the north slope, the caribou population has gone up.]
But the stakes are high for our citizens and for our economy. And with gasoline running at more than four bucks a gallon, many do not have the luxury of waiting on the far-off plans of futurists and politicians. We have proven oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States. But a broad federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and production. And I believe it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use.
We can do this in ways that are consistent with sensible standards of environmental protection. And in states that choose to permit exploration, there must be an appropriate sharing of benefits between federal and state governments. But as a matter of fairness to the American people, and a matter of duty for our government, we must deal with the here and now, and assure affordable fuel for America by increasing domestic production.
We should set the highest goals for ourselves for the years and decades to come, and I am a believer in the technologies that one day will free us from oil entirely. But to get there at all, a more pragmatic approach will serve us better. In the short term, we must take the world as it is and our resources where they are -- even as we press on with new and cleaner sources of energy. We must be bold in our plans to break our strategic dependence on oil, and over the next two weeks, I'll be offering a vision that will be bold. But we must also address the concerns of Americans, who are struggling right now to pay for gasoline, groceries, and other necessities of life. [Well, we'll see, Senator. You had better be working up a whopper.]
What is certain in energy policy is that we have learned a few clear lessons along the way. Somehow all of them seem to have escaped my opponent. He says that high oil prices are not the problem, but only that they rose too quickly. He's doesn't support new domestic production. He doesn't support new nuclear plants. He doesn't support more traditional use of coal, either. [To his great credit, he DOES support biodiesel instead of ethanol.]
So what does Senator Obama support in energy policy? Well, for starters he supported the energy bill of 2005 -- a grab-bag of corporate favors that I opposed. And now he supports new taxes on energy producers. He wants a windfall profits tax on oil, to go along with the new taxes he also plans for coal and natural gas. If the plan sounds familiar, it's because that was President Jimmy Carter's big idea too -- and a lot of good it did us. Now as then, all a windfall profits tax will accomplish is to increase our dependence on foreign oil, and hinder exactly the kind of domestic exploration and production we need. I'm all for recycling -- but it's better applied to paper and plastic than to the failed policies of the 1970's.
Oddly enough, though, Senator Obama doesn't want to lower the gas taxes paid by consumers, which would be the most direct and obvious way to give Americans a break at the gas station. Even in tough times for our economy, when folks are struggling to pay for gas and groceries, tax relief just isn't change he can believe in.
Along with the harm that America's dependence on foreign oil has inflicted on our economy, there remain other costs that are even greater and harder to count. The massive wealth we have spent over the years on foreign oil is not flowing to the most upstanding citizens of the world. When trillions of dollars are transferred to other nations in exchange for oil, the consequences are serious and pervasive. But they can be understood in three simple ways.
The first takes the form of a current accounts deficit that has drained vast sums out of the American economy. We are borrowing from foreign lenders to buy oil from foreign producers. In the world's capital markets, often we are even borrowing Saudi money for Saudi oil. For them, the happy result is that they are both supplier and creditor to the most productive economy on earth. For us, the result is both dependency and debt. Over time, in interest payments, we lose trillions of dollars that could have been better invested in American enterprises. And we lose value in the dollar itself, as our debt portfolio undermines confidence in the American economy.
As bad as all that is, the second consequence is worse by far. Oil revenues are enriching the enemies of the United States, and potentially limiting our own options in containing the threat they present. Iran alone receives more than 66 billion dollars a year from oil sales, even as that regime finances terrorists, threatens Israel, and endangers the peace of the world with its designs on nuclear weapons. Moreover, by relying upon oil from the Middle East, we not only provide wealth to the sponsors of terror -- we provide high-value targets to the terrorists themselves. Across the world are pipelines, refineries, transit routes, and terminals for the oil we rely on -- and Al Qaeda terrorists know where they are. Osama bin Laden has been quite explicit in directing terrorists to attack the oil facilities on which so much of America's economy depends. They have come close more than once. And we are one successful at tack away from an economic crisis of monumental proportions.
Even if our economy were somehow immune to this threat, the vast wealth we shift to the Middle East, Venezuela, Angola, and elsewhere would still have a third harmful and perverse effect. It would continue to enrich undemocratic, unjust, and often corrupt regimes. Some of the most oil-rich nations are also the most stagnant societies on earth. And among the many luxuries their oil wealth affords them is the luxury of ignoring their own people. In effect, our petrodollars are underwriting tyranny, anti-Semitism, the brutal repression of women in the Middle East, and dictators and criminal syndicates in our own hemisphere.
We cannot allow the world's greatest democracy to be complicit in such corruption and injustice. America's most vital interests call us to the mission of energy security, and so does our sense of honor. And the straightest, swiftest path to energy security is to produce more, use less, and find new sources of power -- so that no commodity can determine our security, and no crisis can undermine our economy. [I suggest the, Senator, that you put someone to work finding sources of copper and lithium. The Chinese are buying it out from under us as I write this snide remark. Yes, I am being snide, but I am also being accurate.]
This will require great ingenuity and resolve of the American people, and these are not in short supply. Americans like to say that there is no problem we can't solve, however complicated, and no obstacle we cannot overcome if we meet it together. I believe this about our country. I know this about our country. And now it is time to show those qualities once again. [Now if we can just find leaders who are a wee bit quicker on the uptake, we'll right well.]
Thank you.
I want to admit that the US is the biggest reason for higher oil prices.
We Americans have a voracious appetite for oil. In the US we like to drive gas guzzling SUVs and in the driveway of each house there are three or more cars.
Add to that the greedy and corrupt executives from US oil companies who give themselves large salaries and obscene severance packages.
On top of that our incompetent government looks for trouble with the world's largest oil exporting countries.
And you still wonder why gas prices are so high???
America uses 25% of the World oil consumption. America has 3% of World oil reserves
Suppose you discover enough new oil to double your reserves - so what ?
Look at the timescale - even if this amount was discovered tomorrow, how long before it had any significant impact on prices in the US ?
The US uses 25% of the World oil consumption. The US has 3% of World oil reserves
Suppose you discover enough new oil to double your reserves - so what ?
Look at the timescale - even if this amount was discovered tomorrow, how long before it had any significant impact on prices in the US ?
Last week you were seething and whining that McCain was not serious about domestic oil production so he gives a speech which states that he wants to end the idiotic ban on oil exploration and production off shore and within the continental US. I believe it was a good speech. It has essentially stated that we should drill domestically and develop technologies that will end our dependence on foreign oil. This is the approach, minus drilling in ANWR that you were advocating. This is almost identical to Romney's approach, which you advocated. Yet when he gives it you just pour scorn all over it. You picked out every little detail that was a nod to the center, and he has to run as a centrist and waved it around as some kind of evidence of a conspiracy against you when he basically just endorsed everything you were demanding 2 days ago.
This tells me that your opposition is not inherently rational, you are opposing him for emotional reasons which have superseded your best internists and stated objectives. What can be done to placate someone who is throwing a temper tantrum?
'Now if we can just find leaders who are a wee bit quicker on the uptake, we'll right well'
He isn't our leader yet which makes him ahead of the curve.
Where are you getting this 'vote for obama to purify the gop' idea? I am trying to trace it back to it's source. Where is it that you first heard this? Please answer that.
I already read McCain's speech already before it was copy pasted by noharness,found it quite amusing but have not yet completely digested all of it ,it took weeks to write,it will take as long for me to understand it as it is built up in different levels of addressing the american electorate.McCain obviously is trying to rake as widely as possible tying every concern of the american people to the oil economy .And as it is obvious enough that most americans are fed up with the greed of the oil tycoons he wants to capitalize on that (election time,remember) by sneering at the speculations happening since a few years on the future trade market ,influencing the average oil price .And immediately h is rebuked as a leftist by noharness,as well as probably all the economists in the world ,as well as all the speculators on the oil market.They must all be leftist extremists according to noharness ,probably.Noharness,get an education,your simplistic understanding of somewhat complex mechanisms is evolving into a surrealistic picture of the world .factualy in the present context,there should only be oil tycoons defending the oil based economy as they are the only ones profiting from it .The search for alternative (to me non fossile) sources of energy are easily computable to be generating profits for everybody in the near future ,in the very near future even considering the climb rate ofo il prices .Yet nothing much happens in the USA except a rising interest in nuclear power .Does anybody know how long the reserves of uranium will last if we all switch to it for energy ?I think not,the most optimistic previsions give us a few decades at the current rising rate of consumption.So not much relief to be found there.Especially if you add to it the rising price of uranium on the world market.Tha would evolve just like oil,the more you use it the more expensive it gets .you might of course reduce some of the costs if you are willing to bury the waste in your back yard .Oh wait a minute,I did not even include these costs at all,sorry for that .How much does it cost to bury radioactive waste for a few tenthousands of years in complete security ?
Another problem with McCain's speech is the hint at anti-Semitism linked to oil ?I guess that is a misquote or a misunderstanding .Nobody can claim with any degree of seriousness that opposing the military occupation of palestine country by Israel is the equivalent of anti-Semitism.I know Israel is jewish but if every time I condemn an act of aggression against anybody committed by the state of Israel I am accused of anti-Semitism ,well then it doesn't show any sign of decency.Is McCain doing this ?I don't know ,I 'll have to read again,and more,but he'd better clarify it.
What happened to journalism in the USA after the takeover of your media by the likes of Murdoch and Maxwell,a few decades ago journalists used to ask pertinent questions to your political leaders ,helping to clarify the understanding and tenure of hat these people used to say in their speechs .Now the interpretation of political issues is left to the fertile imagination of a few idiots like Limbaugh ?Is that your future ?
'SP4'
No you are not.
'I want to admit that the US is the biggest reason for higher oil prices.'
Nothing to do with demand from China and India, eh?
'We Americans have a voracious appetite for oil.'
What's this 'We' s*it? Our oil consumption is about what it was in 1970.
'In the US we like to drive gas guzzling SUVs and in the driveway of each house there are three or more cars.'
I have more then 3, It's good to be an American.
'Add to that the greedy and corrupt executives from US oil companies who give themselves large salaries and obscene severance packages.'
Whelp, again, sucks to be you.
'On top of that our incompetent government looks for trouble with the world's largest oil exporting countries.'
We are getting along pretty well with Canada and Saudi Arabia.
'And you still wonder why gas prices are so high???'
Nope, I understand supply and demand...
Isn't there ever anything happening in Belgium?
You must be from the most dreary place on earth..
ARLINGTON, VA. – As John McCain rolls out his energy policy this week, he called for a lifting of the federal moratorium preventing states from exploring for oil off of their coasts. “They have to be lifted so that states can make those decisions,” McCain said. “I’m not dictating to the states that they drill or they engage in oil exploration, I am saying that the moratoria should be lifted so that they have the opportunity to do so. By the way, I would also like to see perhaps additional incentives…in the form of tangible financial rewards if the states decide to lift those moratoria.”
Searching for offshore oil and gas deposits was banned in 1981 by the Outer Continental Shelf moratorium, which prevents the leasing of coastal waters for fossil fuel development. Roughly 85 percent of U.S. coastal areas are currently protected by the moratorium. McCain’s Democratic rival, Barack Obama, voted against a Senate measure last March that would have lifted the ban, and has spoken out against offshore drilling, calling it a “short-term solution.”
McCain admitted offshore drilling would only be helpful in the short term, but would provide a good start in helping the U.S. develop other sources of energy. “We must embark on a national mission to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil and reduce greenhouse gases through the development of alternate energy sources,” McCain said. “Exploration is a step toward the longer term goal.”
NO! IT MOST CERTAINLY IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
re:'Last week you were seething and whining that McCain was not serious about domestic oil production so he gives a speech which states that he wants to end the idiotic ban on oil exploration and production off shore and within the continental US.'
You are the one who has ASSUMED that this is my only problem with John McCain. True, it has bee a thorn in everyone's foot, but it is by no means the only problem I have with him.
RE:'I believe it was a good speech. It has essentially stated that we should drill domestically and develop technologies that will end our dependence on foreign oil.'
I don't know what his intentions are. We may find out over the next two weeks. What I am reasonably sure of is that this man is by no means a champion of free markets. He is well left of center.
RE:'This is the approach, minus drilling in ANWR that you were advocating. This is almost identical to Romney's approach, which you advocated. Yet when he gives it you just pour scorn all over it.'
No, it ain't.
RE:'You picked out every little detail that was a nod to the center, and he has to run as a centrist and waved it around as some kind of evidence of a conspiracy against you when he basically just endorsed everything you were demanding 2 days ago.'
His 'nods' are to the left, Bubba, and you are indulging yourself in silly aspersions again. A conspiracy against me? Give it a rest! He runs his head as though he were Nancy Pelosi or Maxine Waters and you want to accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist? Right!
RE:'This tells me that your opposition is not inherently rational, you are opposing him for emotional reasons which have superseded your best internists and stated objectives.'
He is another 'Yes, but...' Republican when we are in desperate need of 'No, because...' Republicans. When a Republican candidate for the Presidency makes the same stupid noises as Nancy Pelosi, I'm going to call him on it, get used to it, Bubba.
RE:'He isn't our leader yet which makes him ahead of the curve.'
Horsefeathers! First, Senator McCain is the presumptive leader of the GOP. Second, he is going along with the idiotic greens on the left. He echoes the sentiments expressed by Maxine Waters. If we look to the left, look at who we have, Senator Obama. NEITHER ONE OF THEM HAS A GORRAMNED CLUE. Both of them are behind the curve.
RE:'Where are you getting this 'vote for obama to purify the gop' idea? I am trying to trace it back to it's source. Where is it that you first heard this? Please answer that.'
John McCain.
...here's your chance...$10.00 per gallon or open up the reserves...
For 30 years the republicans have warned the public and have been honest about it. For 30 years, the same folks who have brought you global warming science have been promising technologies to run you car on everything from the sun to chicken manure.
manure.
These alchemists have failed to deliver and now you will pay.
time to decide, and remember, it is the republicans giving you the choice.
And of course SP4 you Republicant's were in total control for 6 of those 10 years, what happened?
and the collapse of america very soon comming..
The last 7 years
Bush told you so, for the last 7 years.
while he bought into the libnazi envirowhackathon..for the last 7 years
You didn't listen, for the last 7 years
The world changed in the last 7 years
The world wants a better standard of living for the next 7 years
More fun to insult the republicans for the last 7 years
Than listen to the facts for the last 7 years
and fantisize over oil alternatives for the last 7 years
and drive your SUV for the last 7 years
while listening to Al Gore for the last 7 years
while Al burned zillions of gallons of jet fuel for the last 7 years.
So now Bush will be laughing in your faces for the next 25 years
because he told you so for the last 7 years.
And you have f--ked up for the last 7 years.
your choice kids...
sp4 needs to stick his nose back into bush's bunghole where it belongs.
i hear sp4 is up for the c--ksucker of the year award
Speculation is driving the price of oil. Due to increasing demand by actual consumers in developing countries, there is certainly pressure to increase prices, but not to double or triple over the course of a few years.
The question is, what to do? Could financial investment instruments be outlawed when it comes to strategic commodities like crude oil? It would have to be agreeed upon by the majority of major oil consumers and uniform legislation put in place to sanction violators.
Hedge funds and others could certainly invest in companies directly involved in petroleum industry, but they could not speculate on paper.
When we do that, or even take concrete steps in that direction, the price bubble will burst and stabilize in the 60-80 range.
Oh, and the dollar will rise significantly as well.
And of course all of this is mute:
RCP Average 06/12 - 06/17 -- 47.0 42.8 Obama +4.2
Gallup Tracking 06/15 - 06/17 2645 RV 47 42 Obama +5.0
Rasmussen Tracking 06/15 - 06/17 3000 LV 48 45 Obama +3.0
Reuters/Zogby 06/12 - 06/14 1113 LV 47 42 Obama +5.0
ABC News/Wash Post 06/12 - 06/15 -- 49 45 Obama +4.0
Cook/RT Strategies 06/12 - 06/15 880 RV 44 40 Obama +4.0
'And of course all of this is mute:'
No, as Joey from 'Friends' would say - its 'Moo.'
Its a 'moo' point.
Just kidding. For sure its Obamas race to lose. A helluvalotta people are gonna vote for him just out of the guilt/curiosity factor.
Of course it was Hillary's race to lose not to long ago.
McCain will have to kick ass in debates - and while expectations of his oratory skills are not so high (similar to Bush), he will have to impress us. Obama has to meet higher expectations, and while he is amazing at set piece speeches, ad hoc debates are harder for him. He loses his shine.
Gas prices will be short term pocketbook issue.
Healthcare medium term domestic issue.
Iraq medium/long term foreign issue.
Who can present a more realistic plan, and credibly attack the opponent?
in 1968 the nation elected Richard Nixon
'NO! IT MOST CERTAINLY IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH.'
LOL, OK, considering it is the absolutely best you are going to get better to cut off your nose to spite your face. Go ahead, Bubba, turn a fighting chance into a prolonged hissy fit; you are just putting yourself out of business.
'He is well left of center.'
Firstly, that is not true, bubba. If you had ever bothered to leave your wood paneled John Burch society tree house you would realize that he is very centrist. Secondly, complaining about 'well left of center' when you are advocating for what is a hard core socialist by your own admission is crazy. Lastly, it is the best choice you are going to get.
'No, it ain't. '
Oh go hold your breath until you get everything you want, baby.
'His 'nods' are to the left, Bubba, and you are indulging yourself in silly aspersions again. '
No, bubba, they are to the center. Again, you need to get out more.
'He runs his head as though he were Nancy Pelosi or Maxine Waters and you want to accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist?'
That is just crazy. I had never accused you of being a 'conspiracy theorist' but your approach to this question is entirely irrational. You are in the grips of McCain derangement syndrome.
'When a Republican candidate for the Presidency makes the same stupid noises as Nancy Pelosi,'
He is certainly not doing that, obviously. He has vowed to lift the moratorium on domestic drilling. Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama oppose that. They do not want any domestic exploration or drilling. By 1 estimate we could be back down to $1 a gallon gas if we could tap the oil shale in Colorado and Wyoming... That is what the democrats are opposing. They want high oil prices, by their own admission. Why do they want this? It will wreck the economy so they can blame it on Bush and it will force us to use 'alternative fuels' which they will have more control over the means of distribution.
'Horsefeathers! First, Senator McCain is the presumptive leader of the GOP.'
He is not the nominee yet and he is certainly not the president yet.
'Second, he is going along with the idiotic greens on the left. He echoes the sentiments expressed by Maxine Waters.'
That is a lie. Where has he advocated nationalizing the oil companies?
'If we look to the left, look at who we have, Senator Obama. NEITHER ONE OF THEM HAS A GORRAMNED CLUE'
The differences are obvious to anyone who will allow themselves to see them. You are obviously going to see what you wish to see without letting the whole pesky reality interfere.
'Where is it that you first heard this? Please answer that.'
John McCain.'
Nope, it is looking like either Hill & Knowlton or Jasculca-Terman... Hill and Knowlton have been hired by the DNC to do this kind of thing before and Jasculca-Terman has been hired by the Obama campaign to defend Reverend Wrights lunacy.
Thanks for not answering my question by the way. I would like for you to think back to where you first got this idea, was it a website or off of the radio?
'And of course SP4 you Republicant's were in total control for 6 of those 10 years, what happened?'
The democrats blocked and vetoed every attempt to open up our territory to oil exploration. They have bragged about it. Tom Daschle called blocking domestic oil exploration a Christmas present to the American people. Not to mention blocking new refinerys in the USA as well. That is EXACTLY why we are in the mess we are in with gas prices. Rank stupidity.
'And of course all of this is mute:'
Well done, you just might get your own way and destroy the USA because you value the democratic party over the country itself. You and yours are condemning the country that you love to sneer at to ruin. You couldn't manage your way out of a wet paper bag yet you want like minded imbeciles to drive the USA into the dirt.
If it were up to me I would find some way of forcing you to live under the system that you advocate that everyone else live under. No more of daddys money, that would be/will be confiscated by the state to pay for other 'priorities' like Tony Rezko's summer home. You would actually have to work and turn your rewards over to someone else rather then being on the receiving end of other peoples efforts.
Wow, you have outdone yourself. Probably the worst response in your entire M&C Career. I love how you judge everyone by your own perverted value system. What a joke you have proven yourself to be.
By the way, I will not be broke as the lack of drilling in our waters has been proven not to be the problem---typical half-truths---liar.
'Wow, you have outdone yourself. Probably the worst response in your entire M&C Career.'
Once again, that wasn't a rebuttal. Seeing as you didn't understand what I wrote you probably didn't even read it.
'. I love how you judge everyone by your own perverted value system. '
So your 'values' are not somehow completely perverted? Because you are a trust fund baby who is advocating that your inheritance be taken away because it is not fair for you to benefit from an 'inherently racist system' as you have done? Or is daddys money hidden offshore? If that is the case you are even more of a hypocrite. Advocating that other people live by rules that you are not willing to live by is the quintessence of leftist ideology.
' What a joke you have proven yourself to be.'
Why, because I know what it is like to sacrifice and don't want someone else telling me whether or not I am entitled to the fruits of my labor? Better to hand it over to Tony Rezko because that is more 'fair'... Right?
That is EXACTLY the system Obama presided over in Chicago. That is what you want because you have been indoctrinated in to the group think that you have espoused here. Indeed, I think the best punishment for people like you is to live in the Orwellian, un-free, unproductive nanny-state that you seem willing to embrace as long as it is just you running your mouth on the internet. Everywhere else your STUPID socialist ideas have been tried they have failed miserably.
'By the way, I will not be broke as the lack of drilling in our waters has been proven not to be the problem-'
Well it is part of the problem, but once again, you are missing the point: The unworkable, unfair and anti freedom rules that you want us all to live by will ruin people like YOU first. Either you have no intention of living by them yourself or you are truly an imbecile. Which one is it champagne socialist? Hypocrite or rube?
My bet: Rube. You simply haven't thought it through. You hopped on the bandwagon and you did so because you are a fundamentally insecure person. You think it is 'cool' to put your party before your country. Obama a disaster? Who cares? You are going to ride the bandwagon wherever it takes you.
RE:'Firstly, that is not true, bubba. If you had ever bothered to leave your wood paneled John Burch society tree house you would realize that he is very centrist. Secondly, complaining about 'well left of center' when you are advocating for what is a hard core socialist by your own admission is crazy. Lastly, it is the best choice you are going to get.'
Let's see, he is just like the the Democrats in that he wants wage controls, only his focus is at the top of corporate structures instead of the bottom. He doesn't quite want to nationalize the oil companies, but he wants tor reserve the right to decide how much money they can make. Oh, and then there are those pesky futures markets. We have to control them, too. He's Maxine Waters Lite.
RE:'Oh go hold your breath until you get everything you want, baby.'
You're just griping because you can't hold a pillow over my face, Bubba. Too bad.
Re:'No, bubba, they are to the center. Again, you need to get out more.'
And today's center way, way to the left of JFK, so he's nodding left. Well, no that's not true, he goes along with the leftists every chance he can get.
RE:'That is just crazy. I had never accused you of being a 'conspiracy theorist' but your approach to this question is entirely irrational. You are in the grips of McCain derangement syndrome.'
Pardon me while I quote your ass, Bubba. ['You picked out every little detail that was a nod to the center, and he has to run as a centrist and waved it around as some kind of evidence of a conspiracy against you when he basically just endorsed everything you were demanding 2 days ago.']
He has NOT endorsed everything I was demanding. I do NOT believe he is conspiring against me personally. I think the man is a leftist at heart. He's the one who claims that 'all lives are a struggle against selfishness.' He is the one who stood staunchly with the Democrats on drilling in the US until he made this speech. It took the threat of a insurrection in the GOP to get him to move, and he has moved very damned little.
RE:'He is certainly not doing that, obviously. He has vowed to lift the moratorium on domestic drilling. Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama oppose that. They do not want any domestic exploration or drilling. By 1 estimate we could be back down to $1 a gallon gas if we could tap the oil shale in Colorado and Wyoming... That is what the democrats are opposing. They want high oil prices, by their own admission. Why do they want this? It will wreck the economy so they can blame it on Bush and it will force us to use 'alternative fuels' which they will have more control over the means of distribution.'
Wrong on two counts. John McCain undercuts his own case by complaining about oil company profits and wrongdoing in the commodities markets. He has done a lot of that kind of griping in public. Here is what Nancy Pelosi had to say (on one occasion), about lifting the ban on tapping US resources: ''Americans are suffering under the Bush-Cheney-McCain policies that were written by Big Oil: $4 a gallon gasoline; $134 per barrel oil; increased reliance on foreign sources of energy and on hydrocarbons that contribute to climate change.''
She can now complain that McCain flip-flopped, and if he was serious about the oil companies 'making too much money', she is right. Worse, he goes along with her and her watermelon colleagues on their phony greenhouse gas theory. I'll remind everyone, refrigerants are refrigerants. They cannot and do not behave as insulators. They never could, never have and never will. Anthropogenic Global Warming stopped being a theory and started being a lie perpetrated for political purposes a long time ago.
Building an energy policy on such a weak foundation will prove horribly disastrous. And I'll remind everyone, watermelons, real environmentalists and conservatives alike, that the transportation system that uses the least amount of fuel is the transportation system that will 'pollute' the least. There is no real need for John McCain to take this political position about 'climate change'. Worse, he hardened this position when he made this speech. Previously he has been saying, 'What if '. He has changed that stance to, 'We Are'.
Re:The differences are obvious to anyone who will allow themselves to see them. You are obviously going to see what you wish to see without letting the whole pesky reality interfere.'
I am pointing out that you and a great many Republicans are very carefully ignoring the similarities between him and all the rest of the leftists bogging this country down with web after web after web of regulation, taxation and stupidity.
Re: 'Thanks for not answering my question by the way. I would like for you to think back to where you first got this idea, was it a website or off of the radio?'
I did answer your question. You didn't like the answer so you are now going to make up an answer you do like. John McCain sought out and received the help of George Soros and John Kerry just so he could have a better shot at winning the nomination. His ploy worked. Now both he and every other Republican candidate for federal office is dangling from John McCain's petard. More than one can play that game.
Remember, I'm the guy who cautioned his fellow Republicans about electing our sitting President. I would like to advise the to vote for Bob Barr, but as a practical matter that would be no different from voting for Barack Obama. That being the case, we may as well vote for Barack Obama. John McCain is going to give the Democrats nearly everything they want anyway.
The truth is, from a Republican perspective it matters very little who gets elected to the presidency this time around. What DOES matter is hanging on to at least 41 seats or more in the Senate. Oh, and that means we need 41 conservative senators, not 41 'Yes, but...' Republicans. We do not need another 'Republican' like John McCain. John McCain is more of a sixties era Democrat than he is a Republican. He is emblematic of our ongoing problem. He and politicians like him are why we fell into this long slide into socialism.
'Once again, that wasn't a rebuttal. Seeing as you didn't understand what I wrote you probably didn't even read it.'
Rebuttal to what. All you said was typical neo-con clap trap fear mongering. Nothing to answer.
'So your 'values' are not somehow completely perverted? Because you are a trust fund baby who is advocating that your inheritance be taken away because it is not fair for you to benefit from an 'inherently racist system' as you have done? Or is daddys money hidden offshore? If that is the case you are even more of a hypocrite. Advocating that other people live by rules that you are not willing to live by is the quintessence of leftist ideology.'
Your insecurity is showing again. You only think I am a trust fund baby, my 'daddy' happens to still be alive and doing well. Most everything I have I have in fact earned---that you very much. I earned it in a country where I can question what is going on and I am proud of taking stances when other cave to the right wing idiots who try and push their fake patriotism on others. My 'daddy' money is in all the right places and I am going to get a big hunk of it but not now. If he wants he can spend it all I am fine. If you are not stupid you can protect your money and have it in all the right places. I probably pay more taxes than you do, but I don't sit around and bitch about it, just make more! The 'rules' you live by are completely contrary to what you spout on this site---project your fears on everyone else, but it does not help that sick mind at all.
'Why, because I know what it is like to sacrifice and don't want someone else telling me whether or not I am entitled to the fruits of my labor? Better to hand it over to Tony Rezko because that is more 'fair'... Right? '
Here we go again, you have not done one more thing than thousands of others and are not owed anything more than they are. Again with the Tony Rezko lies, come back to me when Mr. Obama is charged with anything, got what a joke.
'That is EXACTLY the system Obama presided over in Chicago. That is what you want because you have been indoctrinated in to the group think that you have espoused here. Indeed, I think the best punishment for people like you is to live in the Orwellian, un-free, unproductive nanny-state that you seem willing to embrace as long as it is just you running your mouth on the internet. Everywhere else your STUPID socialist ideas have been tried they have failed miserably.'
Oh my god, the meds are going again. Boo-the commies are coming, again with the fear mongering. It is impossible to follow your sick mind round and round. You really need help.
Well it is part of the problem, but once again, you are missing the point: The unworkable, unfair and anti freedom rules that you want us all to live by will ruin people like YOU first. Either you have no intention of living by them yourself or you are truly an imbecile. Which one is it champagne socialist? Hypocrite or rube?
So you are admitting to telling only half the truth? That of course is what you do all the time and only proves that you are the liar I accuse you of being. 'Anti freedom', why do you have to say things that show hoe truly ignorant you are?
My bet: Rube. You simply haven't thought it through. You hopped on the bandwagon and you did so because you are a fundamentally insecure person. You think it is 'cool' to put your party before your country. Obama a disaster? Who cares? You are going to ride the bandwagon wherever it takes you.'
And you consider yourself secure. You are the most insecure person on the board. Even SP4 is more secure than you are, all you do is hide behind your 'service to this country', your supposed patriotism even though you may preach freedom, but have no intention of letting anyone that disagrees with you the freedom of opinion, and for god sake if you are so successful, why are you wasting your time on this board? As stated above you are only making yourself look stupid. In regards to your other stupid comment, I am the most secure person I know. Hey stupid, my party is my country!
And by the way what do you have against Rubes?
I am a crossdressing homosexual with a three incher. Big huh?!?
'Let's see, he is just like the the Democrats in that he wants wage controls,'
Are you crazy? (rhetorical) Where did he propose wage controls??? He DOES NOT WANT WAGE CONTROLS. You truly are a born obamatard, you see only what you want to see.
'He doesn't quite want to nationalize the oil companies, but he wants tor reserve the right to decide how much money they can make.'
Back that up with...anything...
'Oh, and then there are those pesky futures markets. We have to control them, too'
Gee, guess you can't read your own posts. He never advocated 'controlling' futures markets, Good grief you are hysterical.
'You're just griping because you can't hold a pillow over my face, Bubba. Too bad. '
I don't want you dead, I want you to sit down, take a deep breath and look at what you are writing and think about why you are writing it. Is this fair? Is this factual?
'Well, no that's not true, he goes along with the leftists every chance he can get'
I can't get over this, this prolonged tantrum. It doesn't have any basis in fact. McCain is obviously not a leftist. Sorry if he is not a reactionary. Come to think of it, no I am not.
'Pardon me while I quote your ass, Bubba.'
Fine Bubba, you are a conspiricist. Seriously, when do we get the paranoid 'fire doesn't melt steel' rant? It was McCain that imploded building 7, wasn't it?
'He has NOT endorsed everything I was demanding.'
LOL... OK... You need to draw up a new list of 'demands' then..
' I do NOT believe he is conspiring against me personally. '
Wonderful.
'I think the man is a leftist at heart.'
He isn't voting for Obama, you are. Who is the leftist? He has an 85% approval rating from the national conservative thingie-ma bob that I am not going to bother looking up at the moment and a 95% Republican voting record. But whatever, your baseless opinion; built on stubbornness, anger and a remarkably effective, throw away hook from Hill & Knowlton designed to keep people who are not nearly as smart as you are on their tractors on 4 November isn't going to be shaken by me trying to talk you off the ledge. I can see that.
'He's the one who claims that 'all lives are a struggle against selfishness.'
COMMUNIST! J'Accuse! He came out against 'selfishness', thereby alienating the powerful pro-selfishness lobby of 1 delusional Texan...
'He is the one who stood staunchly with the Democrats on drilling in the US until he made this speech.'
Wrong... 'federalism', remember? You were whining about it last week.
'It took the threat of a insurrection in the GOP to get him to move,'
You actually think he has been hanging on your every word, don't you?
'John McCain undercuts his own case by complaining about oil company profits and wrongdoing in the commodities markets.'
He is in an election. What the hell is he supposed to say? 'Hurray for obscene oil company profits!' 'Up with wrongdoing in the commodities markets!' For someone who fancies himself to be so smart bubba, you sure can't see the obvious.
'Here is what Nancy Pelosi had to say (on one occasion), about lifting the ban on tapping US resources: ''Americans are suffering under the Bush-Cheney-McCain policies that were written by Big Oil:'
Well Bubba, good thing you want to give her more influence in the 'gumment.
'She can now complain that McCain flip-flopped,'
Why not? No one has stopped her from lying yet.
'and if he was serious about the oil companies 'making too much money', she is right.'
He was against the windfall profit tax, but I don't expect that will assuage your MDS.
'Worse, he goes along with her and her watermelon colleagues on their phony greenhouse gas theory.'
Is that a crack on Obama? If so, not funny. Yes, the greenhouse gas thing. I don't agree with it but I would rather have someone in there who is lukewarm on the greenhouse gas nonsense and red hot on the war against the scumbags who want to murder us. Yeah, I would rather have someone who is misguided on the greenhouse gas thing and who still wants to guard American sovereignty from the UN and other internationalists who would dilute it. I would rather have a bit of the greenhouse BS then someone who wants to run up a huge defect and debt, bankrupting the country with entitlement programs that you are going to need dynamite to take away. What else? A little of that versus a nanny state. Some of that versus more uncontrolled immigration. A bit of the green versus an assault on the second amendment.
Take all that in to consideration and add on that Obama is MORE serious about the greenhouse gas nonsense and WILL get us involved in international treaties which will regulate emissions.. and unlike the other countries involved we WILL attempt to live up to those treaty obligations... Well AGAIN, it is a no brainer. But whatever. Your anger is at the wheel.
'I'll remind everyone'
You need a pulpit.
'I'll remind everyone, refrigerants are refrigerants. They cannot and do not behave as insulators. '
Carbon monoxide is not a refrigerant and can trap heat... in completely insignificant amounts compared to something like water vapor, but whatever. You know everything.
'Building an energy policy on such a weak foundation will prove horribly disastrous.'
Yet you want Obama.
'I am pointing out that you and a great many Republicans are very carefully ignoring the similarities between him and all the rest of the leftists bogging this country down'
You are seeing similarities where there are none, the ones that are there are not as significant as you are portraying them to be and the ones that are significant we will have to work to mitigate when the time comes. You have lent your support to the biggest leftist in the senate, yet you have the audacity to tell me that I am ignoring something? I am going in to this with both eyes open and happy with my choice. Your vision is clowded and you do not sound very happy to me.
'I did answer your question. You didn't like the answer so you are now going to make up an answer you do like.'
There was a big PR push with this idea of 'purifying' the party around the primaries, mostly red states were targeted and since there were some of you hooked you will probably be seeing more of it. I have been trying to track it down for about a week now. It is a standard tactic to divide and conquer.
'John McCain sought out and received the help of George Soros'
That is not true.
'His ploy worked.'
Crazy.
'Remember, I'm the guy who cautioned his fellow Republicans about electing our sitting President. '
Have you ever seen a republican that you wanted to win?
'I would like to advise the to vote for Bob Barr, but as a practical matter that would be no different from voting for Barack Obama.'
Indeed.
'That being the case, we may as well vote for Barack Obama'
Makes perfect sense, you hate socialists who believe in man made global warming, so you are going to vote for the biggest socialist who believes in man made global warming there is... Well done. You are doing this because you are of the opinion that losing elections is the surest way of getting political power and good for the party that is losing them... Fantastic.
'John McCain is going to give the Democrats nearly everything they want anyway.'
It isn't true. Sorry, It just isn't. I can see that no amount of hand holding or pointing out the glaringly obvious is going to prevent you from tossing your toys out of the pram though. You are going to be guided by your emotions. You are going to 'feel' your way in to a decision. Yup, that is Obamas constituency.
'The truth is, from a Republican perspective it matters very little who gets elected to the presidency this time around. '
From an American perspective... Remember that? Your country? Remember that little detail, you are an American? From an American perspective it is absolutely vital that we do not elect Obama. Capitulation to the islamist terrorists in Iraq thereby emboldening them to attack again. (not that you care if a bunch of Yankees get murdered) Running the national debt up over the GDP thereby effectively bankrupting the country and wrecking the worth of the dollar. Giving away American sovereignty to international institutions who resent the hell out of us because Americans success underlines their failure so that we will be 'LIKED'. From an AMERICAN PERSPECTIVE IT IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL THAT WE KEEP OBAMA OUT OF OFFICE.
'What DOES matter is hanging on to at least 41 seats or more in the Senate.'
Well guess what, the Republicans are going to lose seats. The ones who stay are going to be the scapegoats for the democrats and the press will be right along for the ride.
'Oh, and that means we need 41 conservative senators, not 41 'Yes, but...' Republicans.'
Well guess what, some of them will go along for the ride. Face it, the democrats will have complete control of the process if you get your way. If it was closer to 50-50 in the senate, well...maybe. It isn't and wont be.
'We do not need another 'Republican' like John McCain'
Ill take him over you. At least he is going to vote for a republican.
'John McCain is more of a sixties era Democrat than he is a Republican.'
You are in no position to judge.
'he is emblematic of our ongoing problem.'
No actually you are. The problem being people who put their party ahead of their country. You don't care if the whole thing is reduced to rubble as long as you can lord it over the losers. I happen to love the USA and I do not like people who want it trashed. Excise me, I have to go deal with the obverse of the same coin now with Pperfect...
'Rebuttal to what. All you said was typical neo-con clap trap fear mongering. Nothing to answer.'
Which was 'clap trap' and which was 'fear mongering'? Just for my edification. Not that you will have an intelligent rebuttal for that either.
'Your insecurity is showing again.'
How exactly?
'You only think I am a trust fund baby, my 'daddy' happens to still be alive and doing well. '
That doesn't mean that you don't have a trust fund but perhaps I should have used the phrase 'spoiled brat' because I am not familiar with the financial mechanisms where by you get overindulged. What does daddy intend to do about Obamas 50% inheritance tax?
'Most everything I have I have in fact earned'
Not according to the people you wish to empower.
'I earned it in a country where I can question what is going on '
As you should. I sincerely do not believe that you do that.
'I am proud of taking stances when other cave to the right wing idiots who try and push their fake patriotism on others.'
Can't have any patriotism now can we. What's 'fake' about it? (Yet another unanswered question... sigh..) Funny being called 'right wing' by a leftist idiot and basically a leftist by a right wing idiot. I am proud of the fact that I can antagonize so many reflexive, dogmatic, my 'tribe' before my country idiots...
'My 'daddy' money is in all the right places and I am going to get a big hunk of it but not now.'
No, The Tony Rezko de jour is going to get a big hunk of it. Unless daddy hides it. You see? the missed point of the past 3 posts is that you are either a hypocrite or a rube.
'If you are not stupid you can protect your money and have it in all the right places.'
You are, eer, he is going to have to protect it from the government who believes that they are entitled to take half of what he intends to leave to his children away. The justification, according to several of Obamas spiritual mentors and his wife is that your pop had an unfair advantage in accumulating whatever it was that he accumulated. Therefore, in order to be 'fair' his income is going to be redistributed. The way that works is someone like Tony Rezko is given your fathers money by the government to do something like 'rehabilitate housing projects' and he takes it and gives some of it back to the government in order to keep them happy with him and then doesn't 'rehabilitate the housing projects'. See, everybody wins!
You want to elect a thoroughly corrupt nanny state to rule, not govern. Where do you think all the money for these social programs are going to come from?
'If you are not stupid you can protect your money and have it in all the right places.'
So it is stupid for you to turn your money over to the government yet you want other people to have to do that. Well, you are a leftist alright. You want other people to live by rules that you are above. Sort o like Rosie O'Donnell wanting the guns to be confiscated... Except for the ones protecting her.
'I probably pay more taxes than you do, but I don't sit around and bitch about it, just make more! '
'Just make more'... Why didn't I think of that.... Doah! Look, some of us don't like turning over half of what we make to government. Were I to 'just make more' they would just take a higher percentage. To them, mu success is evidence of something terribly unjust in society.
'The 'rules' you live by are completely contrary to what you spout on this site---project your fears on everyone else, but it does not help that sick mind at all.'
Nope, that didn't make the slightest bit of sense.
'Here we go again, you have not done one more thing than thousands of others and are not owed anything more than they are.'
Well, yes, yes I have. You see, I went to school. I didn't drop out. I got degrees, I have the pieces of paper to prove that. I went to work, I got up early and went home late. I worked at jobs that I did not enjoy doing. I have a right to capitalize on the skills and experience acquired without someone else deciding that I am not 'owed anything more' then someone who hasn't put the effort in to their lives. See where I am coming from? Your dad might.
'Again with the Tony Rezko lies, come back to me when Mr. Obama is charged with anything, got what a joke.'
Again, no one is denying that tony Rezko took millions of tax payer money and that Obama helped him to do so. Now he is in jail vowing not to 'rat'. However, that is ancillary to the point I am trying to make here which is that if you are going to live by the rules that you wish others to live by you are going to get screwed by the government. If you do not intend to live by those rules you are a hypocrite.
'Oh my god, the meds are going again. '
Well, what did I say that was incorrect? You see, that is not a rebuttal or an indication hat you understand what is being written.
'It is impossible to follow your sick mind round and round.'
Perhaps if you were to read it again.. I really do not know what else I could because I can't post pictures here. Supposedly you are a 'professor' yet you can't seem to latch on to a simple concept.
'So you are admitting to telling only half the truth?'
What? How could you have gotten that from what I wrote? You don't seem to understand a word. You Amaze me in that you only seem to understand what you want to understand. I would really like to know how that is working for you. Are You happy?
'That of course is what you do all the time and only proves that you are the liar I accuse you of being.'
Incredible.
'Anti freedom', why do you have to say things that show hoe[sic] truly ignorant you are?'
The system that you advocate is inherently oppressive. Further, it is inherently inefficient. It will drag the country down, which of course is not something you particularly care about. And don't call me a hoe.
'And you consider yourself secure. You are the most insecure person on the board.'
And the evidence of that is what?
'all you do is hide behind your 'service to this country','
And I brought that up where?
'your supposed patriotism even though you may preach freedom, but have no intention of letting anyone that disagrees with you the freedom of opinion'
Your 'freedom' doesn't mean that I have to agree with Whatever opinion you are putting forth. You have the right to have your opinion, I have the right to tell you that it is not congruent with reality. If you are so proud of your opinions why don't you rationally defend them with an intelligent counterargument instead of saying that anything contrary to your opinion is a lie? Why don't you give 'conclusions' a try instead of 'opinions'?
'and for god sake if you are so successful, why are you wasting your time on this board? '
Where have I bragged about my success? (although that is actually a good question, even though I have previously answered it as well.)
'As stated above you are only making yourself look stupid.'
How am I doing that? By making assertions that you can't rebut with an intelligent counterargument?
' In regards to your other stupid comment, I am the most secure person I know. '
Me thinks I hit a nerve. :-D
'my party is my country!'
Mine too, however, that statement isn't in line with your previous.
'And by the way what do you have against Rubes?'
It depends on the rube. You have no idea what that word means do you? I even posted the definition once after you thought it was an anti-Semitic slur. LOL.
...to see that McCain is just like G.W.Bush.
He's just another megalomaniac WARMONGER.
en.sevenload.com/videos/9E3kdWR-Cavuto-nat
'You don't need to be a genius
...to see that McCain is just like G.W.Bush.
He's just another megalomaniac WARMONGER.'
Indeed, it pretty much is a requirement to 'not be a genius' in order to regurgitate that statement.
'Republican presidential hopeful John McCain blasted US dependence on foreign oil for effectively bankrolling undemocratic regimes'
why is the USA in $9Tril in DEBT.????????????????????
www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html
RE:'You were saying noharness?'
Oh, I absolutely LOVE this. By all means, let's give in to this crowd of innumerate boobs. Let's let them have their way. I think that is a great idea. Let it be done and let's get it over with. Better to die in a hurry than to die slowly.
Ask yourself a question, Bubba. How is it that John McCain can stand to make kissy-face with these kinds of bastards?
put a spoke in your wheel.
is the reason you don't need to be a genius
...to see that McCain is just like G.W.Bush.
He's just another megalomaniac WARMONGER.
'Oh, I absolutely LOVE this. By all means, let's give in to this crowd of innumerate boobs. '
The country is in the grip of some kind of insanity, It is truly alarming.
Then again, look at who I am saying that to.
'Let's let them have their way. I think that is a great idea. Let it be done and let's get it over with. Better to die in a hurry than to die slowly. '
My family has been here since the mid 1600s. I am going to try not to let it die on my watch. You might get your wish though. At the very least you are making it more difficult to stop.
'Ask yourself a question, Bubba. How is it that John McCain can stand to make kissy-face with these kinds of bastards?'
He doesn't.
'Republican presidential hopeful John McCain blasted US dependence on foreign oil for effectively bankrolling undemocratic regimes'
why is the USA in $9Tril in DEBT.????????????????????'
Because congress wastes an incredible amount of money.
'9 Tril .....USA DEBT
is the reason you don't need to be a genius
...to see that McCain is just like G.W.Bush.'
A non sequitur.
mccain is just like bush
a blind man could see that with his cain.
one prick is just like the other..
throwing your rattles out wont helpJun 19th, 2008 - 23:10:36
' Quoting John McCain:'The Arizona senator, who has wrapped up his party's presidential nomination, also would propose a simpler, alternative tax system and insist that chief executives' pay and severance packages have shareholder approval.''
Firstly, that is not 'quoting John McCain' it is quoting a reuters article. Secondly, Since the shareholders of publicly traded companies are technically the owners of the company what is the problem with giving them a say in how the company is run? Most companies already do this, if you own stock you get a proxy vote.
That is not governmental wage controls and to claim otherwise is an obvious falsehood.
'This is not a matter in which the government should be involved at all.'
They wouldn't be. It would be between the company owners, the shareholders and the board. Much like it is already in well run companies. (I actually have some shareholder proxy ballots to fill out, but instead I am being your online therapist.) Again, this is not the government imposing wage controls. That is not true.
'RE:'Back that up with...anything... 'Quoting John McCain:''I am very angry, frankly, at the oil companies...'
So where in that statement does he 'reserve the right to decide how much money [oil companies] can make.' Gee, he doesn't, does he? Another falsehood on your part. Meanwhile your allies on the obamanation are gleefully talking about 'nationalizing' them... sigh...
' Quoting John McCain:'Investigation is underway to root out this kind of reckless wagering, unrelated to any kind of productive commerce, because it can distort the market, drive prices beyond rational limits, and put the investments and pensions of millions of Americans at risk. Where we find such abuses, they need to be swiftly punished. And to make sure it never happens again, we must reform the laws and regulations governing the oil futures market, so that they are just as clear and effective as the rules applied to stocks, bonds, and other financial instruments. In all of these markets, reform must assure transparency, prevent abuse, and protect the public interest.''
Once again... You are reading into his comments what you want to read. Calling for an 'investigation' is not taking control of the futures markets. Indeed, there are usually many investigations going on at any given moment on the stock market or currency trading, etc..It is not the same as the government seizing control of the futures market. Obviously. Laws adding transparency to the process? Why not? I don't think it is all that opaque at the moment but what the hell, this bit of election year rhetoric is not a call to 'control futures markets'. Nice try. Actually, no... Lame.
'This is the kind of mindless drivel I have heard from more leftists than I can name,'
What? Not saying what you somehow believe he said? When he had the audacity to not be guilty of what you want to paint him guilty of that is the same as the drivel from the leftists? Again, I have posted 2 video clips of leftists threatening to 'nationalize' (steal) segments of our oil industry. And you want to equate these non statements with a legitimate threat to not only any notion of 'capitalism' (which you already define as 'dead') but to private property itself. It is incredibly unfair of you and it is, at it's essence, untrue.
'Given his behavior, I have no reason to think that his intentions are any different from those now championing the nationalization of our oil companies.'
What behavior? What has he DONE to demonstrate that his intentions are such? (you are just not basing your arguments in reality)
'What do you suppose the leftists will do with this down the road?'
Since you are voting for them to have unfettered control I guess you are for it, whatever it is.
'You do want to shut me up.'
I want you to do what I suggested that you do. You see, I believe in 'words' as a way of conveying meaning. Since we are on the internet there are no non verbal cues for you to read something in to my statement that isn't there, same with McCain. So when you jump over the literal to the ironic, as you have been doing I have to wonder what is going on in order to make you -want- to do that.
' I can tell you what he is, he is an appeaser, a 'yeah, but' Republican. Ronald Reagen he ain't!'
-----------------------------------------------------
The fact of the matter is that Gov. Reagan gave Gov. Jerry Brown a run for his money – or should I say our money? – when it came to raising taxes here in California. But, in spite of the additional revenue, he was responsible in large part for the streets of our cities being turned into public latrines by the unwashed, the unwanted and the insane when, to save a few bucks, he oversaw the closing of California's mental hospitals. He also signed the nation's most liberal abortion bill. Although he had a change of heart a scant six months later, one never hears him condemned for flip-flopping on the issue.
And, lest we forget, as president, he opened the floodgates to illegal aliens by signing an amnesty bill in the mid-'80s and, for good measure, appointed Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court, neither of whom was the answer to a conservative's prayer. Frankly, as admirable as Reagan was in so many ways, I suspect that if he were seeking the GOP nomination this year, he'd be dismissed as a RINO by many of the party's zealots.
None of this is intended to tarnish the man's image, but simply to point out that the common perception of his conservative purity sometimes owed more to his charm and his ability as an actor to read a script and deliver a funny line than to his politics.
www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58058
'Conservatives' sanctify Reagan but ignore the fact that he was a practical problem-solver who didn't let ideological perfection get in the way of real but incremental progress. He often responded to critics who believed he 'compromised' too much to democrats by saying that half a loaf was better than none.
In terms of 'socialism' being on the rise it is something that needs and will need to be perpetually combated. What you propose is capitulation. They will not surrender the 'gains' that they make.
'ow can he stand behind a podium and offer succor and support to the very people who seriously intend to nationalize our industrial base?'
He has not, ever, done any such thing.
' You DO realize that if the Democrats get their way with the oil companies, that they will NOT be satisfied with taking over JUST the oil companies, right?'
One of the reasons I do not intend to vote for them. (Ice cream headache at this point...)
'It is not what will happen during John McCain's presidency that worries me the most. It is what will come after he's gone because of the precedents he will set. '
Bubba, you are going to have to fight the good fight until they put the dirt on your box. OK? You have to raise your children to fight the good fight as well. That is really why I am so disgusted with what you have been saying. Never mind that you have been taken in, that's somewhat forgivable. (I once bought a car that smelled like a dead body and caught on fire a week later because the girl selling it was gorgeous, we all get had...) But what you are advocating is capitulation rationalized as strategy. It isn't right, it is deliberately going to hurt the country which is never OK and most importantly, it wont work.
'The very fact that you imply that I am a 'reactionary' says it has a sound basis in fact. You, my friend, are refusing to see what I am pointing at. We are half-stepping our way into the same perdition the Obama-tards would impose upon instead of jumping in'
At this point the choice is a binary one. A body in motion needs to be slowed before it can be reversed. The country simply is not going to elect someone who is in lockstep agreement with you.My suggested strategy to you is to make the choice that is closest to your principals and continue the fight from there on in.
' He wants to make kissy-face with the bastards. Why would anyone in their right minds do such a thing?'
Not fair or particularly rational.
'When you weight that five percent for the damage it has done, Bubba, he may as well have been in the Democrat Party on the day he returned from Vietnam. '
I disagree.
'Who in the bleeding blue blazes is Hill & Knowlton? Never mind, I don't care.'
The PR firm that came up with the 'purify the party' concept. They are working for the DNC. I am working on connecting the dots.
' lifting the federal ban on drilling in the US will go no where fast. '
Maybe we need to be rattling their cages instead of complaining on the internet? Maybe just pulling a lever isn't enough? Kind of what I have been saying.
' Others are picking up the beat. '
Mostly in Texas I see. I really wish you would tell me where it is you first heard this idea. Who has been pumping the McCain derangement.
'You want 'obscene' profits, take a look at Microsoft or Apple. '
Apple has been the reason I haven't abandoned the market completely. Microsoft's profits are obscene because their product is so lousy.
'he very notion of 'obscene' profits is Marxist drivel.'
I think it is obscene that a gangster rapper makes more money then a pediatric nurse or qualified school teacher. OK comrade?
' They haven't put up a real fight since Ronald Reagen was president. '
LOL, see above. Reagan WAS a compromiser.
'
Because it is a huge mistake to lend credence to her lies'
Good thing I am not giving them legitimacy by voting for a single solitary soul in her party. (I a registered in a different state other then NY. so I actually have the option of not voting democrat)
'Not enough. '
So you are voting for someone who wants a windfall profit tax.
'Do you remember?'
Again, not voting for it.
' Green on the outside, pink on the inside, the sad state of most environmentalists.'
Check.
'I remain unconvinced that he is lukewarm on the subject of anthropogenic warming'
Do you think Obama is anything less then red hot?
'Secondly, there is no need for us to tolerate any of this crap, no matter who is elected President.'
So fight it.
' It should be criticized every time it comes up, no matter who champions it.'
Be my guest.
'I will reiterate for you and anyone else following this disagreement between you and me,'
God help them.
' that it is a very dangerous thing to lend credence to such stupidity.'
Yet you are lending credence to it by voting for someone who believes in it wholeheartedly...
'He will not be president for long enough to win the war on terror nor will he be president long enough to settle matters with Iran.'
Perhaps not, but is that any reason for capitulating preemptively?
'Carbon monoxide is indeed a refrigerant'
Does the molecule have any capacity to insulate, no matter how infinitesimal?
Look, I do not put much credence in man made global warming because it too came out of a PR campaign in the UK in the '70s and was revived in another PR campaign to push the EU in the '90s. I imagine that most of the people you see advocating for take it with a grain of salt.
'At least that way the left is not granted a stamp of approval. When they do something stupid they cannot escape responsibility for it'
I would rather the stupid thiong was fought every step of the way.
' How do you propose to take back the creditability he will hand to these leftists on a platter?'
He wont do that. I propose you be vocal about what you want when he is elected. If obama is elected, your voice wont matter to them because you are an uneducated, bitter racist for disagreeing.
' I'm por-choice, but I vote Republican. Why? Because they have always championed the other issues I held dear. '
The causes I am championing are winning the war on islamist terrorism, stopping the growth of entitlement programs and getting our debt down. Everything else I will have to get my shoulder to the wheel... See, no compromises in my approach. Just a recognition that the battle is never ending and this time, we can not afford to allow them to win. They pose an existential threat to the country. I truly, passionately believe that. It doesn't mean all will be won with McCain, it means that the battle will continue.
'If indeed there is such a campaign afoot, you will likely find that it began with Harry Reid.'
It is too elegant for Harry Reid. I think it was something that was tossed out there to see what sticks and it took on a life of it's own. Working on it.
'Show me the money, Bubba.'
Honestly, what on earth could I say to assuage your wrath? You seem to have locked yourself in to this.
RE:'Firstly, that is not 'quoting John McCain' it is quoting a reuters article. Secondly, Since the shareholders of publicly traded companies are technically the owners of the company what is the problem with giving them a say in how the company is run? Most companies already do this, if you own stock you get a proxy vote.'
Absolutely nothing if that is part of the company's charter. It is, however, a big mistake to let the government interfere in private contracts, short of one party or the other complains of fraud, in which case the burden of proof is rightly laid on the plaintiff.
Re:'That is not governmental wage controls and to claim otherwise is an obvious falsehood.'
Even though the government steps in and mandates it? How do you figure?
RE:'They wouldn't be. It would be between the company owners, the shareholders and the board. Much like it is already in well run companies. (I actually have some shareholder proxy ballots to fill out, but instead I am being your online therapist.) Again, this is not the government imposing wage controls. That is not true.'
Now wait a minute! The obvious intent here is that John McCain wants to step into private matters and dictate how they may or may not be carried out. Said matters are about executive pay. It is an instance of the government making an attempt to limit wages of company executives. Again, this is none of the government's business.
RE:'So where in that statement does he 'reserve the right to decide how much money [oil companies] can make.' Gee, he doesn't, does he? Another falsehood on your part.'
Hah! How many politicians ever said this kind of thing without intending to do something about it? The Socialists (Democrats) make this kind of noise all the time and they mean it. Did John McCain mean what was implied by this statement or did he not? Given that he is inclined to make love not war with the Socialists (Democrats), I have good reason to be alarmed.
RE:'Meanwhile your allies on the obamanation are gleefully talking about 'nationalizing' them... sigh...'
Yes, they are! Isn't it wonderful? They may actually self-destruct before November. Wouldn't that be a hoot?
' Quoting John McCain:'Investigation is underway to root out this kind of reckless wagering, unrelated to any kind of productive commerce, because it can distort the market, drive prices beyond rational limits, and put the investments and pensions of millions of Americans at risk. Where we find such abuses, they need to be swiftly punished. And to make sure it never happens again, we must reform the laws and regulations governing the oil futures market, so that they are just as clear and effective as the rules applied to stocks, bonds, and other financial instruments. In all of these markets, reform must assure transparency, prevent abuse, and protect the public interest.''
RE:'Once again... You are reading into his comments what you want to read. Calling for an 'investigation' is not taking control of the futures markets. Indeed, there are usually many investigations going on at any given moment on the stock market or currency trading, etc..It is not the same as the government seizing control of the futures market. Obviously. Laws adding transparency to the process? Why not? I don't think it is all that opaque at the moment but what the hell, this bit of election year rhetoric is not a call to 'control futures markets'. Nice try. Actually, no... Lame.'
Oh, it is so obvious yet you fail to recognize it for what it is. Define for us all what these 'abuses' might be. Are they not rather like the 'obscene' profits? Byron Dorgan has been spouting this ooglia on the floor of the Senate for weeks. How do we tell if this is just grandstanding or if Senator McCain is siding with Senator Dorgan? Are you getting a glimmer yet? I don't want any of this. I hate it, but it does not matter what I want or what I hate. It's here. It's real. It's in our faces, Bubba.
RE:'What? Not saying what you somehow believe he said? When he had the audacity to not be guilty of what you want to paint him guilty of that is the same as the drivel from the leftists? Again, I have posted 2 video clips of leftists threatening to 'nationalize' (steal) segments of our oil industry. And you want to equate these non statements with a legitimate threat to not only any notion of 'capitalism' (which you already define as 'dead') but to private property itself. It is incredibly unfair of you and it is, at it's essence, untrue.'
Just another little half-step to the left, Bubba. We are not losing this struggle in quantum leaps, save the time we elected Nixon, but in little half-steps. We are being nibbled to death by itty-bitty crabs. Bubba, Capitalism is as dead as Elvis. Take it from the man who wrote the definition:
www.gutenberg.org/etext/3300
RE:'What behavior? What has he DONE to demonstrate that his intentions are such? (you are just not basing your arguments in reality)'
McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, 'obscene' profits, 'abuses' in the futures markets, Hillary is a good ol' gal (yes, he should have dosed her with a tazer), ....the list goes on.
RE:'Since you are voting for them to have unfettered control I guess you are for it, whatever it is.'
Nice evasion.
RE:'I want you to do what I suggested that you do. You see, I believe in 'words' as a way of conveying meaning. Since we are on the internet there are no non verbal cues for you to read something in to my statement that isn't there, same with McCain. So when you jump over the literal to the ironic, as you have been doing I have to wonder what is going on in order to make you -want- to do that. '
And I have all but begged you to make a case for John McCain. All you want to do is badmouth me, not that I can blame you all that much under the circumstances, but you ain't takin' very good care of your client if you don't make a case for the guy you think ought to lead 'em. What do you think will happen once we elect John McCain under the conditions we are both expecting to develop in the legislative branch? Please explain and describe what you believe will happen.
RE:'The fact of the matter is that Gov. Reagan ... party's zealots.'
Well, looky here, everbody! Ol' Bubba can make a decent argument after you flog him for a little while. You're right. Reagen came up short in several key respects. His flip-flop on abortion bothered a lot of people on both sides of the issue. Some were so put off that they refused to vote for him. Imagine that if you can, voting for Carter instead of Reagen. I am an atheist who holds what most consider a pro-choice position. He didn't do so well on immigration, either. Everybody makes mistakes, even the great ones like Reagen can make those kinds of mistakes. So what possessed John McCain, knowing full well how badly Reagen screwed that one up, to go and make the same mistake? He says he got the message, but then I've run across stuff that says if he had McCain-Kennedy in front of him as President right now that he would sign it. See my problem? John McCain gives me little reason to feel warm and fuzzy about him. It magnifies the least little thing said about him and it makes me cringe whenever he spouts leftist drivel. I think I'd rather deal with a demon who is a known quantity.
Will the Democrats make a serious attempt to nationalize the oil companies come January 2009? Gee, I sure hope so. I think that they are actually stupid enough to try that shit. They've got the big head so bad right now that Newt Gingrinch just hung a burning tire around their necks without them being able to do anything about. Notice, however, that they have not given up on the strategy of staying on message. Their response to the Republicans insisting on lifting that federal ban? Why, we should nationalize the oil companies!
Let's say that they do nationalize 'Big Oil'. How well will that work out? How would they escape the blame for what they did? Hell, by the time it was all over we might find ourselves shedding some leftist professors. Do you really believe that the American public is ready to see this country turned into another banana republic? I don't think so.
BTW, that Malia Lazu character is a barkeeper by profession. She is also a prominent member of a long list of leftist political organizations, all of with names that sound little different from the stuff the old Weathermen Underground Organization used. Given that so many of the old WUO became professors who teach teachers to teach, we shouldn't be all that surprised, should we? Then there's Marcie Hinchey. Oh, what a prize he is. You do realize that he is from a primarily Republican part of New York, right? He is hanging onto his seat by shoveling pork. He went to school at SUNY New Paltz, a liberal arts school. I wonder what I would find out about the faculty there if I got serious and dug. Do ya think there might be some connections to the old WUO?
RE:'Conservatives' sanctify Reagan but ignore the fact that he was a practical problem-solver who didn't let ideological perfection get in the way of real but incremental progress. He often responded to critics who believed he 'compromised' too much to democrats by saying that half a loaf was better than none.'
Yes, he did. And look at the deficit that resulted.
RE:'In terms of 'socialism' being on the rise it is something that needs and will need to be perpetually combated. What you propose is capitulation. They will not surrender the 'gains' that they make.'
We are losing, Bubba. It's one thing to accept 'half-a-loaf' if you gain ground by doing so, but that ain't exactly what's been happening. We keep accepting these 'half-loaves' only lose ground. 'Splain to me how it is that John McCain will gain ground against the Demmies. I'd like to know. And, yes, I know you will try to respond by bitching about my intentions. But chances are real good that I am not the only one who reads your posts. It's time for you to make a case, Bubba. You are wasting time beating on me. I'll just keep right on beating up on John McCain while you do that.
RE:'Bubba, you are going to have to fight the good fight until they put the dirt on your box.'
What do you think I'm doing?
RE:'You have to raise your children to fight the good fight as well.'
Managed to do that, too. Both of them are Objectivists.
RE:'That is really why I am so disgusted with what you have been saying. Never mind that you have been taken in, that's somewhat forgivable. (I once bought a car that smelled like a dead body and caught on fire a week later because the girl selling it was gorgeous, we all get had...) But what you are advocating is capitulation rationalized as strategy. It isn't right, it is deliberately going to hurt the country which is never OK and most importantly, it wont work.'
Do you know why William the Conquerer always retreated in front of the French when they attacked Normandy? You're bound to know, being of good military stock.
RE:'At this point the choice is a binary one. A body in motion needs to be slowed before it can be reversed. The country simply is not going to elect someone who is in lockstep agreement with you. '
No, I don't think we could find anyone who would be in lock step with you, either. Nor could we find anyone who was in lock step all the time with anyone else. That's just not possible.
RE:'My suggested strategy to you is to make the choice that is closest to your principals and continue the fight from there on in.'
Been doing this for years. It ain't working because we keep nominating and electing 'Yes, but' Republicans or scoundrels like Denny Hastert. Am I frustrated? Oh, you betcha!
RE:'Not fair or particularly rational.'
Fair or not, it's so.
RE:'The PR firm that came up with the 'purify the party' concept. They are working for the DNC. I am working on connecting the dots.'
Uh-huh. Well, it would not surprise me if such a thing is being tried, particularly if Harry Reid is behind it. He is just about that thick. He really does eat his own dog food and he really does believe he is serving the Lord by doing what he does.
Re:'Maybe we need to be rattling their cages instead of complaining on the internet? Maybe just pulling a lever isn't enough? Kind of what I have been saying. '
Oh, I think you and I are already rattling some cages. It is amazing how fast stuff gets spread around on the Internet, not that it would hurt anything to make phone calls, write letters and do volunteer work for a favorite candidate. I got mad at the whole bunch one time. I spent something like $300 mailing each and every member of the Senate, The House, the White House and the Supreme Court a long letter explaining what I thought they were doing wrong. The replies I got back from Eleanor Holmes-Norton and Maxine Waters were a little stiff. The real surprise was how mad I made Newt Gingrich.
RE:'Mostly in Texas I see. I really wish you would tell me where it is you first heard this idea. Who has been pumping the McCain derangement.'
Bubba, this was MY idea. I did NOT get it from anyone else. It has been inspired by my own desperation. It has never had anything to do with anyone or anything else. I am doing this for completely different purposes than you believe. I would swear to God for you, but that would be silly.
I really do believe that the Democrats will self-destruct. The power will go to their heads and shortly after that they'll be flopping around like headless chickens. I really am worried that John McCain will make a terrible president, just as Richard Nixon did. This ain't no joke—well it's a joke on the Democrats. The trouble is, I think the stupid bastards are going to blow it before November rolls around. Barack Obama is just a thin piece of carnival glass. He cannot stand on his own. They are already trumpeting some of the worst crap that I have ever seen. They have very badly misjudged the American public.
RE:'I think it is obscene that a gangster rapper makes more money then a pediatric nurse or qualified school teacher. OK comrade?'
You could say the same thing about any other actor or performer. You gonna place limits on what they can make?
RE:'Does the molecule have any capacity to insulate, no matter how infinitesimal?'
Theory says that hydrogen molecules, separated from any and all other heavier elements way out in space away from all sources of heat, will only cool down to, I forget a hundred and something degrees Kelvin. Beyond that, nothing is a true insulator. Everything transmits heat or conducts heat away from its source. Some things are way better at it than others. Gases free to convect will often remove more heat from its source faster than a good conductor like copper. That's what makes this GHG nonsense nonsensical.
RE:'Look, I do not put much credence in man made global warming because it too came out of a PR campaign in the UK in the '70s and was revived in another PR campaign to push the EU in the '90s. I imagine that most of the people you see advocating for take it with a grain of salt.'
I suspect you're right about a lot of GHG activists. Some folks, however, treat as though it were a religious tenant. They have faith in it and react the way religious people do when you tell them that you do not believe in God, or their Gods or Whatever.
RE:'The causes I am championing are winning the war on islamist terrorism, stopping the growth of entitlement programs and getting our debt down. Everything else I will have to get my shoulder to the wheel... See, no compromises in my approach. Just a recognition that the battle is never ending and this time, we can not afford to allow them to win. They pose an existential threat to the country. I truly, passionately believe that. It doesn't mean all will be won with McCain, it means that the battle will continue.'
Then you and I sure enough have an honest disagreement. I don't think we can end the battle in one outing. Plain old human greed will keep enough leftists alive that they will forever be a problem. What I am worried about is John McCain handing us another major defeat the way Richard Nixon did. I don't think we could recover from that. I think it would tip us right off the edge. Either way, we both can agree the situation is very bad.
Re:'It is too elegant for Harry Reid. I think it was something that was tossed out there to see what sticks and it took on a life of it's own. Working on it.'
You might be right, but remember that Old Harry is smart enough to find someone with the talent to do something elegant. He has better resources than you or I can tap.
the last three posts,
nor I expect did anyone else either?.
'No long Quotes'
..no just a 500 word essay that would have made Sir Walter Scott proud. Sir Walter Scott was an author who was paid by the word.
What he could write in a sentence
was stretched into a chapter and went on,and on,and oooooon... forever...
Aw, poor baby! It's got AADS. What a shame.
'I couldn't be bothered to read'
Who cares? Don't then. Idiot.
'It is, however, a big mistake to let the government interfere in private contracts,'
The point is that it isn't 'WAGE CONTROLS' (All caps were yours.) Indeed, it doesn't signify anything.
'Even though the government steps in and mandates it? How do you figure?'
Because, going on 4 times now, there is no place where he has called for government controlling wages and you know it.
'The obvious intent here is that John McCain wants to step into private matters and dictate how they may or may not be carried out.'
So we should get rid of things like the SEC the Justice department, federal courts and even the treasury because, by your logic, they step in to private matters and influence how they may or may not be carried out. Right, that's 'pure Capitalism'.. with out the redress of the court system. It is going to get rather cumbersome trading pelts for gold dust so you can go buy a Ford.
'It is an instance of the government making an attempt to limit wages of company executives. '
No, it is simply not. it was a not to shareholders having more of a say in the governance of the company that they own. Whether or not it is a good idea (Personally I do not invest in a company like Fleet bank or Bank of America whose CEO's are like pigs at a trough and who do not allow the shareholders to have a say in what truly ARE obscene benefits for truly lousy performance. Take a look at how much BofA lost last year and take a look at the pay packages of their executives and those of countrywide. YES, Disgusting, but no one is proposing that the government limit it. Just that the shareholders can exercise some kind of control over a runaway board of executives other then dumping the stock.)
'
Hah! How many politicians ever said this kind of thing without intending to do something about it? '
Well, firstly, he didn't say what you want to believe that he said. Secondly, politicians and other humans say things all the time with varying degrees of voracity. In this case though, again, he did not say what you are saying that he said.
'I have good reason to be alarmed.'
You are alarmed because you want to be alarmed.
'They may actually self-destruct before November. Wouldn't that be a hoot?'
So may the republicans. Right?
' Define for us all what these 'abuses' might be. '
Deliberate manipulation of prices. Again, good luck proving it.
'Are you getting a glimmer yet? I don't want any of this. '
What you are doing is exaggerating non-statements in to a policy that isn't about to ever happen. Something that he would not allow to happen. You have focused exclusively on what is a bit of innocuous posturing and mentally blown it up into the October revolution. Indeed, you have done this with not a shred of genuine substance while the other side is using the word 'nationalizing' and applying it to private property. Did McCain run over your dog or something?
'Just another little half-step to the left,'
No, but regardless, you need to chose your battles smarter bubba. And that is the fact as I see it.
'McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy,'
So those were about wage controls...
', 'obscene' profits, 'abuses' in the futures markets,'
'Done', remember?
'Hillary is a good ol' gal (yes, he should have dosed her with a tazer)'
Heh.. Well, I am not so sure how that would have looked on MSNBC. But there is a huge gulf between complementing Hillarys fat ass and setting up a Stalinist kleptocracy in the oval office.
'Nice evasion. '
I see it as the heart of the argument. The very core of what we are talking about and everything else here as evasion.
'And I have all but begged you to make a case for John McCain. '
:-D
What would it take to persuade you. (Don't you get it yet, THAT IS WHY I AM HERE.)
'All you want to do is badmouth me, not that I can blame you all that much under the circumstances,'
I find the idea of injuring the country to get your own way really rotten. It is exactly what the other side has been doing and it will not work for the many reasons I have outlined. Mostly, we are supposed to be better hen that. YOU are supposed to be better then that.
'So what possessed John McCain, knowing full well how badly Reagen screwed that one up, to go and make the same mistake? '
He has admitted it was a mistake, had he not I wouldn't be bothering. That is the fact Bubba.
'Will the Democrats make a serious attempt to nationalize the oil companies come January 2009? Gee, I sure hope so.'
Your strategy seems to be to let the body be infected with metastasizing cancer in order to get it to be able to run a marathon. It is just incredibly wrong headed. All the energy that would will need to be spent undoing what has been done could have be spent pushing them back from where they are now.
'They've got the big head so bad right now that Newt Gingrinch just hung a burning tire around their necks without them being able to do anything about'
Yes, they have a big head, losing the election ought to deflate it a bit.
'
Let's say that they do nationalize 'Big Oil'. How well will that work out?'
Nancy Pelosi will have to learn how to learn to use the chain tongs without breaking a nail. Or they could send in the national guard... It will never get to that point because rather then letting ourselves get raped people will fight it as they push and push. (They will be the scapegoats by the way)
'Yes, he did. And look at the deficit that resulted. '
Look at the one we have now.
Ill finish up later.
I'll answer under another article, Bubba. This one is disappearing into the great Never-never.
So?
Why don't you just E-Mail each other instead of filling up endless pages of verbal diarrhea.
M&C are stupid enough to provide you with service,free of charge and you freeload at their expense.
Idiots!!!!
Acronym Definition
AADS Advanced Air Defense System
AADS Advanced Anaerobic Digestion System
AADS Affordable Apache Drive System (attack helicopter system redesign)
AADS Alaskan Air Defense Sector
AADS American Association of Dental Schools
AADS Amphibious Assault Direction System
AADS Amphibious Assault Direction System (AN/KSQ-1)
AADS Anti-Aircraft Defense System
AADS Area Air Defense System
AADS Army Air Defense Site
why you worry about the rich mcain.palin talks about the poor a nd middle class the rich dont give a shit about you-suck up to the poor-if not you will lose big time.give us money not crap.
i feel sorry for palin she gave money to her fellow alaskans but mcain just wants to suck up to joe the rich plumber,i would love to see her resign-let mcain wipe the egg off his face all by himself in november-hes pathetic.
page: 1
Your Talkback on this Story