Moe_Syzlak Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 See, it will be a cinch for Obama and McCain to find common ground! The sad thing is I think we are BOTH Obama supporters. Link to post Share on other sites
JUDE 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. Point One: I will concede that Mr. President is correct on the matter of foreign energy dependence being a major problem. Point Two: One could argue that is in a nations best interest to use others natural resources before tapping into ones own. Spare me the morality of this line of thinking. Point Three: Alternative energies are a great and lofty goal, however coal use is as frowned upon as is the use of petroleum. Point Four: Once again the Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 For those interested, here's some recent pollings of the two candidates as paired with different possible veep choices in a few important states: http://www.surveyusa.com/ 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! I try my best to be civil, but it's really hard for me when people have strong opinions based on little information and with little effort to fill in those information gaps. I can acknowledge that this is a shortcoming of mine, but at the same time I think that's a really big part of how we got into this mess that we're currently in. Link to post Share on other sites
Moe_Syzlak Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Once again, my friend, I don't think you understood or understand my original point. Perhaps an information gap on your part which you seem reluctant to fill. But let's not derail this any further,. you can continue to think of me as a war-monger that gets all of his information from Limbaugh if it makes you feel better. For a point of agreement, I do agree that uneducated voters are a huge problem. One of my favorite quotes: "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." Winston Churchill Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cousin Tupelo Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Once again, my friend, I don't think you understood or understand my original point. Perhaps an information gap on your part which you seem reluctant to fill. But let's not derail this any further,. you can continue to think of me as a war-monger that gets all of his information from Limbaugh if it makes you feel better. Would someone, who by their very nature, "attempts to stir up or spread something that is usually petty or discreditable" be known as a "monger-monger"? Link to post Share on other sites
fatheadfred Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 He is now trying to shore up support from the GOP base, but I believe he can't change his stripes. Or, rather, find a teet to suck. The GOP is far too powerful to let the Maverick determine their philosophy. Link to post Share on other sites
Dreamin' Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 If your point is that we have to occupy Iraq so that we can continue to buy oil from Iraq and/or prevent China from invading, well, I guess I just don't buy it. Allies trade with their allies. That's the way the world has operated for eternity. China can get plenty of oil from its own allies (eg, Russia) without invading the Middle East with the sole purpose of colonizing it for its own oil demands. If it does, yes, there will be a world war. But now we are occupying Iraq because we are worried about China? How about we work to make Iraq and China our trading partners? Maybe Iraq will want to sell us oil if we leave their country in better shape than we found it?Exactly. Canada has more oil reserves than Iraq and we are the largest supplier of oil to the US. Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 Point One: I will concede that Mr. President is correct on the matter of foreign energy dependence being a major problem. Point Two: One could argue that is in a nations best interest to use others natural resources before tapping into ones own. Spare me the morality of this line of thinking. Point Three: Alternative energies are a great and lofty goal, however coal use is as frowned upon as is the use of petroleum. Point Four: Once again the Link to post Share on other sites
JUDE Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 With Three Mile Island having happened four months before this speech was given (July 1979), nuclear was a non-starter. A lot of nuke plants that were planned in the early 1970s after the OPEC embargo were being canceled, due to falling oil prices. And there was that China Syndrome movie, which people pretty much took as gospel back then. I personally think nukes are a better alternative than coal, but it's kinda hard to get them built these days. I of course have the benefit of historical perspective being able to look back 30 years, but trying to build a coal fire power plant these days is equivalent to trying to market an SUV powered by burning puppies. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cousin Tupelo Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 I of course have the benefit of historical perspective being able to look back 30 years, but trying to build a coal fire power plant these days is equivalent to trying to market an SUV powered by burning puppies. What's the mpp? (miles per puppy?) Link to post Share on other sites
JUDE Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 What's the mpp? (miles per puppy?) 16City/24Hwy est. The puppy-kitten hybrid will be much more efficient I'm told. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cousin Tupelo Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 16City/24Hwy est. The puppy-kitten hybrid will be much more efficient I'm told. But you have to take it in every 3,000 miles to have the hairballs removed. Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 But you have to take it in every 3,000 miles to have the hairballs removed. That's why they've started moving towards solely using hairless breeds. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cousin Tupelo Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 That's why they've started moving towards solely using hairless breeds. But it brings a whole new meaning to "new car smell." Link to post Share on other sites
Analogman Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 With Three Mile Island having happened four months before this speech was given (July 1979), nuclear was a non-starter. A lot of nuke plants that were planned in the early 1970s after the OPEC embargo were being canceled, due to falling oil prices. And there was that China Syndrome movie, which people pretty much took as gospel back then. I personally think nukes are a better alternative than coal, but it's kinda hard to get them built these days. Nuclear waste Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 That's why they've started moving towards solely using hairless breeds. you'd think i'd be mature enough to pass up the opportunity to type 'shaved pussy' in an election thread...but i'm obviously not. Link to post Share on other sites
fatheadfred 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. Which is what we do any other countries, but we need to reduce the troop and spending level. Many believe the Iraqis will continue to default to US security as long as we are there. Many believe the conflict is also there due to the number of troops. Being in N. America, we really don't know anything about what is going on. Maybe the Maverick should head back over in his flak jacket, buy some rugs, talked to some Generals and feed us some more bull. Link to post Share on other sites
fatheadfred Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 The central question is do we let market forces do their thing on energy (Heed that lesson well, Barack Obama.) I despise the claim that we are in free market. As long as we subsidize businesses, we are not free market and the gov't is manipulating who can win at the market. Like agriculture, energy technology is stalled due to subsidies. Small, innovative farmers continue to fight to stay in business because industrial farms are granted subsidies. Small farmers simply want the subsidies to go away to level the field. While I have no data, I have heard companies like BP saying they are investing in solar, wind, etc. However, I wonder what the discrepency between the old boys (coal, oil, nat. gas) is versus the greenies (solar and wind). Nuclear waste and cost of construction Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cousin Tupelo Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 I despise the claim that we are in free market. As long as we subsidize businesses, we are not free market and the gov't is manipulating who can win at the market. Like agriculture, energy technology is stalled due to subsidies. Small, innovative farmers continue to fight to stay in business because industrial farms are granted subsidies. Small farmers simply want the subsidies to go away to level the field. While I have no data, I have heard companies like BP saying they are investing in solar, wind, etc. However, I wonder what the discrepency between the old boys (coal, oil, nat. gas) is versus the greenies (solar and wind). and cost of construction My brother X-rayed pipe as they built the nuclear plant in Wedron, IL. Most of the guys that worked on that one moved as far away as they could when they fired it up. I remember the local paper ran a story about a kid finding a 13-legged frog a few miles from the plant. Link to post Share on other sites
fatheadfred Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 My brother X-rayed pipe as they built the nuclear plant in Wedron, IL. Most of the guys that worked on that one moved as far away as they could when they fired it up. I remember the local paper ran a story about a kid finding a 13-legged frog a few miles from the plant. What is 'x raying pipe'? Is that to check for impurities or something. Yeah, I saw the documentary dealio on the residents near Chernobyl. Truly sad and gross, just plain evil what continues to effect these people. Link to post Share on other sites
fatheadfred Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 What I'm sorry Obama never picked up on it, but I hope he does now is Clinton's suggestion to have debates ala Lincoln-Douglas where they take one another on and hash out their positions without a moderator. Of course none of the networks would go for it, because they couldn't put their spin on it. But if, as McCain has said, they're going to end the partisanism of Washington, this is a good way to do it -- reach consensus, or at least define concrete differences and positions -- in front of the world. You may get your wish cuz. McCain has proposed 10 of them and Obama appears receptive...http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080604/ap_on_...cain_town_halls Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 I am not sure what your point is. If your point is that we have to occupy Iraq so that we can continue to buy oil from Iraq and/or prevent China from invading, well, I guess I just don't buy it. Allies trade with their allies. That's the way the world has operated for eternity. China can get plenty of oil from its own allies (eg, Russia) without invading the Middle East with the sole purpose of colonizing it for its own oil demands. If it does, yes, there will be a world war. But now we are occupying Iraq because we are worried about China? How about we work to make Iraq and China our trading partners? Maybe Iraq will want to sell us oil if we leave their country in better shape than we found it? As for the complaints about Obama's lofty goals about pulling out of Iraq (and others), I don't have much to say. I agree with those concerns. If I have to hear one more politician (republican or democrat) tell a crowd that we need to reduce our dependance on foreign oil while doing nothing concrete in furtherance of this goal, it will be one time too many. But again, even with my doubts about whether Obama can achieve the goals he has set out to achieve (universal health care, etc.), he still has the right goals in my book. They are the goals that I want this country working towards and shooting for. Even if we come up short. Let's aim high ferchrissakes. My point, well, part of my point - and I was not targeting you specifically - is what does Obama mean when he says we should or will leave Iraq? I am not overly concerned with China stepping in to take our place, by force or otherwise. My point, is that this war was, is, and has always been about oil and our continued long term access to it. Some scientists suggest we will reach peak oil as early as 2015, the point at which known, easily accessible deposits will begin to decline Link to post Share on other sites
Panther Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 why is Hillary still in this and Im not gonna use the word conceed cuz she shouldnt even have that option its called you lost simple.Im afraid she knows what shes doing yet again, aparently theyre have been rumors of some Michelle Obama tape that has some contraversial racial remarksbut the sources have all been conservative blogs , so Im sure its a hoax. dont hold your breath therye gonna try to destroy him. dont belive the hype, seriously this time Link to post Share on other sites
JUDE Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 why is Hillary still in this Well she did get 18 million of the 35 million votes cast in the Democratic primaries. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts