EL the Famous Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 the 'specifics' are all out there...for both candidates. take accountability for yourself and look for them. it ain't that hard. Link to post Share on other sites
JUDE Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 the 'specifics' are all out there...for both candidates. take accountability for yourself and look for them. it ain't that hard. You should change your username to El Olberman cause you're the worst-est. Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 'obama girl' and scarlett...isn't that enough to get you on board my liberal soul train of change? vote or die, diddy!!! Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cousin Tupelo Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 fair enough... i guess i've heard plenty enough specifics from him, but i've also been following him more closely than the average voter probably would and watched dozens and dozens of his speeches, etc. I really *want* to like him ... give me time ... Link to post Share on other sites
dannygutters Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 My concern is, about many of his promises, he's not giving specifics about much of anything -- but particularly about Iraq. "I was against it from the start," got him the nomination. NOW what is he going to do?!? In every one of his primary speches (plus his michigan speech on the day of the va primary) he addressed several region specific plans. For example in the michican speech he addressed how to stimulate the auto economy and the region with a plan of tax breaks for green industries and alternative fuels and local manufacturing, and touched on ways of fostering job growth. If you have a point, it's that the media doesn't regurgitate specifics well enough for you. When you expect to get a fully detaled platform from the 4 min of election coverage on the local news this can seem to be the case. Although in their defence, trying to scale the local nature of the primary system to a national level on the content of region specific speeches is going to seem vague, a candidate is going to be building their support base with generalities on ideas and direction and local specifics rather than national level policy minutia. It's kind of a catch 22 because if you're not convinced on obama you're not going to be reading the speeches or the website unless you're intellectually curious and if you are intellectually curious you already know the claim of no specifics is a spurious one. My only suggestion is to either read up on him, or give him time to make his point in the national campaign. Also I think when those HD debates pop up the Handsome candidate will have an advantage. Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 I share your concern about the reality of the situation, but they couldn't be more different about the way they are approaching Iraq. If we don't get out within a reasonable timeframe under an Obama administration, it will be a failure of his administration. If we dont get out within a reasonable timeframe under a McCain administration, it will be a success. Here Link to post Share on other sites
Moe_Syzlak Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Iraq is the single most important issue of our time though. Seems sort of disingenuous to me to say, "Well, they're really rather similar other than on the most important, biggest issue." Aside from the fact that they aren't really alike on any of the other major issues anyway.Well again, if you've made up your mind on which approach is the right approach, than you have your differentiator. Just because it is the biggest issue doesn't mean I am going to willy nilly pick sides before I feel confident one approach is better than the other. All I stated was that, FOR ME, i wouldn't be upset with either one winning (although I am currently an Obama supporter) based ion the fact that I feel both could unite more than any candidate of recent memory. If the election were held today and McCain won, I wouldn't downright depressed as I was with both W elections. Your mileage may vary. Link to post Share on other sites
dannygutters Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 So I ask, how is Obama going to square this reality, with his plan to up and leave Iraq? Especially in light of escalating gas prices and it Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 I don't think we are ever leaving Iraq, and I think that was the plan all along, to have a permanent U.S. military presence where all the oil is, and to act as a counterbalance to Iran. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cousin Tupelo Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 If you have a point, it's that the media doesn't regurgitate specifics well enough for you. With all due respect, I don't need the media to feed me my pablum. I have not seen how his many promises fit together financially, pragmatically and in a real-world, bipartisan environment. His ideas, fortunately or unfortunate, are about to face much tougher critics than Obama's own party. I eagerly await his ability to handle it. Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted June 4, 2008 Author Share Posted June 4, 2008 So I ask, how is Obama going to square this reality, with his plan to up and leave Iraq? Especially in light of escalating gas prices and it Link to post Share on other sites
Edie Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Economics will solve the oil issue. Reduced demand = increased supply = lower prices From auto news: - Sales of basic compact cars from Jan to Apr (before the REALLY high gas prices) rose 37%, compared to full SUVs dropping 27%- Last month 4 cyl vehicles were 46% of all US retail sales -- up from 36% in Feb 08 and 28% in May 04- One of 10 dealers isn't accepting big SUVs and pickups as trade-ins (get rid of yours while you can)- Yesterday GM began to contemplate what would have pretty unthinkable even a year ago -- killing HUMMER, while calling high oil prices the new reality Also I read about a week ago that vehicles like the Geo Metro and Ford Fiesta that aren't even made for this market anymore are selling for 3-4x more $$ than what they did 6 months ago at wholesale auctions. This is just astounding. The biggest thorn in the "supply" side (at least from the US's standpoint) -- India and China's increasing demand. They are already used to paying a lot for oil/gas, so these latest increases are less of a shock -- so demand isn't going down like ours is/will. The other kicker is the fed monetary policy and reduced value of the dollar making us feel like we are paying more. Link to post Share on other sites
Moe_Syzlak Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Economics will solve the oil issue. Reduced demand = increased supply = lower prices From auto news: - Sales of basic compact cars from Jan to Apr (before the REALLY high gas prices) rose 37%, compared to full SUVs dropping 27%- Last month 4 cyl vehicles were 46% of all US retail sales -- up from 36% in Feb 08 and 28% in May 04- One of 10 dealers isn't accepting big SUVs and pickups as trade-ins (get rid of yours while you can)- Yesterday GM began to contemplate what would have pretty unthinkable even a year ago -- killing HUMMER, while calling high oil prices the new reality Also I read about a week ago that vehicles like the Geo Metro and Ford Fiesta that aren't even made for this market anymore are selling for 3-4x more $$ than what they did 6 months ago at wholesale auctions. This is just astounding. The biggest thorn in the "supply" side (at least from the US's standpoint) -- India and China's increasing demand. They are already used to paying a lot for oil/gas, so these latest increases are less of a shock -- so demand isn't going down like ours is/will. The other kicker is the fed monetary policy and reduced value of the dollar making us feel like we are paying more.Do you have any figures on what % of oil consumption is due to private (read: non-commercial) vehicles? I see the above as good news, but also see that shipping and commercial fuel consumption as being a much bigger issue. Also, we still subsidize the oil industry (despite record profits). Who is going to change that? If we strip the subsidies, do you think the oil companies will just accept less profit? No, they have an OBLIGATION to maximize shareholder value. That means increased prices, not just at the pumps, but for almost everything we buy. No politician wants to be responsible for that, despite the lip service. Link to post Share on other sites
aricandover Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 'obama girl' and scarlett...isn't that enough to get you on board my liberal soul train of change? vote or die, diddy!!!Obama is a long leg mack daddy! Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted June 4, 2008 Author Share Posted June 4, 2008 Before we all go crazy about rising oil prices and scarcity, someone should mention that there are plenty of smart folks out there who think that the oil markets are in the midst of the very same bubble that hit housing and tech, etc. I don't say it to suggest that we should be callous about oil consumption. Just that there are a lot of people who think that oil has a much better chance of hitting $85/barrel again than it does to hit $300/barrel. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...mk&refer=us Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Just think how much better things would be if we had listened to Jimmy Carter. THIRTY FUCKING YEARS AGO he saw all of this coming, but that shithead Reagan appealed to the inner lazy shitheads in all of us and said our problems were no problems. What I have to say to you now about energy is simple and vitally important. Point one: I am tonight setting a clear goal for the energy policy of the United States. Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977 -- never. From now on, every new addition to our demand for energy will be met from our own production and our own conservation. The generation-long growth in our dependence on foreign oil will be stopped dead in its tracks right now and then reversed as we move through the 1980s, for I am tonight setting the further goal of cutting our dependence on foreign oil by one-half by the end of the next decade -- a saving of over 4-1/2 million barrels of imported oil per day. Point two: To ensure that we meet these targets, I will use my presidential authority to set import quotas. I'm announcing tonight that for 1979 and 1980, I will forbid the entry into this country of one drop of foreign oil more than these goals allow. These quotas will ensure a reduction in imports even below the ambitious levels we set at the recent Tokyo summit. Point three: To give us energy security, I am asking for the most massive peacetime commitment of funds and resources in our nation's history to develop America's own alternative sources of fuel -- from coal, from oil shale, from plant products for gasohol, from unconventional gas, from the sun. I propose the creation of an energy security corporation to lead this effort to replace 2-1/2 million barrels of imported oil per day by 1990. The corporation I will issue up to $5 billion in energy bonds, and I especially want them to be in small denominations so that average Americans can invest directly in America's energy security. Just as a similar synthetic rubber corporation helped us win World War II, so will we mobilize American determination and ability to win the energy war. Moreover, I will soon submit legislation to Congress calling for the creation of this nation's first solar bank, which will help us achieve the crucial goal of 20 percent of our energy coming from solar power by the year 2000. These efforts will cost money, a lot of money, and that is why Congress must enact the windfall profits tax without delay. It will be money well spent. Unlike the billions of dollars that we ship to foreign countries to pay for foreign oil, these funds will be paid by Americans to Americans. These funds will go to fight, not to increase, inflation and unemployment. Point four: I'm asking Congress to mandate, to require as a matter of law, that our nation's utility companies cut their massive use of oil by 50 percent within the next decade and switch to other fuels, especially coal, our most abundant energy source. Point five: To make absolutely certain that nothing stands in the way of achieving these goals, I will urge Congress to create an energy mobilization board which, like the War Production Board in World War II, will have the responsibility and authority to cut through the red tape, the delays, and the endless roadblocks to completing key energy projects. We will protect our environment. But when this nation critically needs a refinery or a pipeline, we will build it. Point six: I'm proposing a bold conservation program to involve every state, county, and city and every average American in our energy battle. This effort will permit you to build conservation into your homes and your lives at a cost you can afford. I ask Congress to give me authority for mandatory conservation and for standby gasoline rationing. To further conserve energy, I'm proposing tonight an extra $10 billion over the next decade to strengthen our public transportation systems. And I'm asking you for your good and for your nation's security to take no unnecessary trips, to use carpools or public transportation whenever you can, to park your car one extra day per week, to obey the speed limit, and to set your thermostats to save fuel. Every act of energy conservation like this is more than just common sense -- I tell you it is an act of patriotism. Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Well again, if you've made up your mind on which approach is the right approach, than you have your differentiator. Just because it is the biggest issue doesn't mean I am going to willy nilly pick sides before I feel confident one approach is better than the other. All I stated was that, FOR ME, i wouldn't be upset with either one winning (although I am currently an Obama supporter) based ion the fact that I feel both could unite more than any candidate of recent memory. If the election were held today and McCain won, I wouldn't downright depressed as I was with both W elections. Your mileage may vary. Er, no, I didn't make a statement either way regarding which approach was "right". I was just arguing that they were in fact different approaches, in response to you saying that their platforms were the same. Feel free to take your time in determining which approach makes the most sense to you, just don't confuse that with there being no difference between the two. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cousin Tupelo Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Just think how much better things would be if we had listened to Jimmy Carter. THIRTY FUCKING YEARS AGO he saw all of this coming, but that shithead Reagan appealed to the inner lazy shitheads in all of us and said our problems were no problems. Wow, thanks for sharing that. Link to post Share on other sites
Moe_Syzlak Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Er, no, I didn't make a statement either way regarding which approach was "right". I was just arguing that they were in fact different approaches, in response to you saying that their platforms were the same. Feel free to take your time in determining which approach makes the most sense to you, just don't confuse that with there being no difference between the two.Alright man, clearly we are not communicating. In the post you disagreed with, I clearly said OUTSIDE of that issue they are more similar than any match-up of recent memory. OBVIOUSLY Iraq is an issue. OBVIOUSLY, they have different takes. But OUTSIDE of that issue (which i have yet to draw a concrete conclusion on), they are not so far apart that I see a radically different America if one is elected over the other. This is MY opinion and NEVER did I try to dismiss Iraq as a non-issue. Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Calm down. Anyway, I think if you take the time to read their platforms, you'd see that they're actually different on just about everything else too, but if you're the type of voter who thinks that endless war could possibly be a reasonable policy then it probably won't matter to you anyway. Link to post Share on other sites
Moe_Syzlak Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Calm down.I'm calm. You? Anyway, I think if you take the time to read their platforms, you'd see that they're actually different on just about everything else too, but if you're the type of voter who thinks that endless war could possibly be a reasonable policy then it probably won't matter to you anyway.Yes, this is what I said. Thanks. You're EXACTLY what I was talking about when I said I was pessimistic about supporters keeping the campaign civil. Nice work! Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Perfectly, thanks. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cousin Tupelo Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Perfectly, thanks. See, it will be a cinch for Obama and McCain to find common ground! Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts