OT: 2008 Elections/Politics thread, Part 2

[XXXIV]

I thought we all wanted to be european? Your wish is granted!

More Nuke plants and $10 a gallon gas...we are on the way...

hooray!!!

[Slumberland]

Does that mean boobies on broadcast TV, too?

[Jackdog]

China is not drilling in the Gulf or offshore near Cuba. That was a false rumor started by the Vice President's office that Cheney has since recanted. China has a contract for onshore drilling in Cuba, but hasn't started doing any drilling work.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/09/washi ... ref=slogin
I didn't write they were drilling I wrote:China and Brazil are ready to begin drilling off the coast of Florida. China's demand for oil is growing so fast,they will begin drilling soon. Why not? It's there and they could careless about global warming.

Saying that we're going to solve our energy problems by drilling for oil is like saying you can kick heroin by doing more heroin. We are getting closer to finding alternative energy sources that could greatly reduce and maybe even eventually replace oil. We have to get rid of the restrictions on sugar cane ethanol and also get over our aversion to nuclear power. The environmental impact of nuclear power is manageable and ultimately much cleaner than fossil fuel use.

How close? How many years? Our economy is getting ass raped right now and we will not be able to get off fossil fuel anytime soon. There is no alternative energy that will even come close to replacing fossil fuels at this point.
You can add up all the solar, wind geo-thermal, ocean wave and any other alternative energy source you can think of and it would not equal 1% of what fossil fuels do.
The only real answer is to increase oil production in the USA right now and work on developing a new energy source for the future, because it could talke 20 years to come up with something. Drilling for our own crude oil can stabilize the production and give us some time so we can make the transition out of fossil fuels.

That being said I couldn't agree with you more about lifting restrictions on sugar cane ethanol and nuclear power.

This also brings up a point about McCain: could he be more of a flip-flopper? He has reversed practically every single major stance he's taken in the last eight years with the exception of his support for Iraq. He's reversed on offshore drilling, courting the Evangelical vote, the legality of abortion, the Bush tax cuts, and has even waffled on the immigration reform bill he co-sponsored. I understand that it's prudent to change your positions when presented with new information or new circumstances, but McCain appears so desperate to be president, it wouldn't surprise me if he was tapping out campaign slogans under bathroom stalls to court the men's restroom humper vote.

McCain isn't alone.

Obama's top 5 flip flops.

Top 5 Obama Flip-Flops:

1. Special interests In January, the Obama campaign described union contributions to the campaigns of Clinton and John Edwards as "special interest" money. Obama changed his tune as he began gathering his own union endorsements. He now refers respectfully to unions as the representatives of "working people" and says he is "thrilled" by their support.

2. Public financing Obama replied "yes" in September 2007 when asked if he would agree to public financing of the presidential election if his GOP opponent did the same. Obama has now attached several conditions to such an agreement, including regulating spending by outside groups. His spokesman says the candidate never committed himself on the matter.

3. The Cuba embargo In January 2004, Obama said it was time "to end the embargo with Cuba" because it had "utterly failed in the effort to overthrow Castro." Speaking to a Cuban American audience in Miami in August 2007, he said he would not "take off the embargo" as president because it is "an important inducement for change."

4. Illegal immigration In a March 2004 questionnaire, Obama was asked if the government should "crack down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants." He replied "Oppose." In a Jan. 31, 2008, televised debate, he said that "we do have to crack down on those employers that are taking advantage of the situation."

5. Decriminalization of marijuana While running for the U.S. Senate in January 2004, Obama told Illinois college students that he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use. In the Oct. 30, 2007, presidential debate, he joined other Democratic candidates in opposing the decriminalization of marijuana.



This is why I bought a pair of McCain's energy flip flops.
I really like what he had to say.

The great issue of energy security is the sum total of so many problems that confront our nation. And it demands of us that we shake off old ways, negotiate new hazards, and make hard choices long deferred.

This is a matter that has confounded nearly twenty Congresses and seven presidents. Yet even now our energy debates carry the echoes of ten, twenty, or even thirty years ago. We hear the same calls for new energy taxes, instead of new energy production. We are offered the same agenda of inaction - that long recitation of things we cannot do, energy we cannot produce, refineries we cannot build, plants we cannot approve, coal we cannot use, technologies we cannot master. The timid litany of limitations goes on and on. And it says more about the culture of Washington than it does about the character of America.


In the same way, energy bills are debated, passed, and signed into law with little serious thought to energy reform - but never without the familiar corporate handouts and fighting over scraps of pork. Even now, some in Washington still seem to think the best plan is a direct, heartfelt appeal for Saudi sympathy, as if that conveyed anything other than weakness. In the way of new ideas, a majority of the House of Representatives actually voted in favor of suing OPEC, as if we can litigate our way to energy security.

Perhaps no achievement would do more to secure our energy future than the mastery of clean-coal technology. From Wyoming to West Virginia, America's coal resources are greater than the oil riches of any kingdom of the Middle East. Burning coal cleanly is a challenge of practical problem-solving and human ingenuity - and we have no shortage of those in America either. So, as president, I will commit two billion dollars each year, until 2024, to clean-coal research, development, and deployment.

In place of the current patchwork of incentives and credits for hybrids and other carbon-cutting vehicles, we will issue a Clean Car Challenge to the automakers of America, in the form of a single and substantial tax credit to buyers based on the reduction of carbon emissions. For every automaker who can sell a zero-emissions car, we will commit a 5,000 dollar tax credit to each and every customer who buys that car. For other vehicles, whatever type they may be, the lower the carbon emissions, the higher the tax credit.


Instead of playing favorites among the lobbyists, our government must also level the playing field for all alcohol fuels that break the monopoly of gasoline, to lower both gasoline prices and carbon emissions. This can be done with a simple federal standard to hasten the conversion of all new vehicles in America to flex-fuel technology - allowing drivers to use alcohol fuels instead of gas in their cars. Whether it takes a meeting with automakers during my first month in office, or my signature on an act of Congress, we will meet the goal of a swift conversion of American vehicles away from oil.


At the same time, we must not overlook the possibility that one day our cars can run without burning liquid fuels at all. Instead, cars can run on battery power alone, or as plug-in hybrids using both liquids and electricity. Some talented engineers are on the case, but this is a national priority and we must give it national focus. To add urgency to the mission, we will offer a prize of 300 million dollars - a dollar for every citizen - to the creator of a battery package of a size, capacity, cost, and power far surpassing existing technology. In the quest for alternatives to oil, our government has thrown around enough money subsidizing special interests and excusing failure. From now on, we will encourage heroic efforts in engineering, and we will reward the greatest success.

At this moment, some of the best minds in our country are also at work discovering or perfecting alternative technologies. They are not tilting at windmills - they're building them. They are capturing the boundless powers of the sun, the tides, the mighty rivers, and the warmth of the earth itself. Yet for all the good work of entrepreneurs and inventors in finding cleaner and better technologies, the fundamental incentives of the market are still on the side of carbon-based energy.


Even with oil running at about 140 dollars per barrel, these new alternatives have yet to take the place of oil in our economy for two basic reasons: our infrastructure is outdated and our production capacity has been constrained. And this has to change as we can make the great turn away from fossil fuels. To lead in this effort, our government must strike at the source of the problem - with reforms that only Congress can enact and the president can sign.

[XXXIV]

Does that mean boobies on broadcast TV, too?

I sure hope so...

[pk500]

McCain isn't alone in his rampant pandering, either. Obama yesterday said he wants to EXPAND Bush's faith-based initiatives. So we have a Democrat advocating greater links between church and state.



Let's face it: Both of these f*ckers will do ANYTHING to get elected. There is zero principle left in American politics, although that's no news flash to anyone!

Take care,
PK

[Jackdog]

McCain isn't alone in his rampant pandering, either. Obama yesterday said he wants to EXPAND Bush's faith-based initiatives. So we have a Democrat advocating greater links between church and state.



Let's face it: Both of these f*ckers will do ANYTHING to get elected. There is zero principle left in American politics, although that's no news flash to anyone!

Take care,
PK

Didn't see that one. Makes you wonder how this election would have been if our party had a serious campaign. Maybe in 4 years.

[Brando70]

The problem with getting people to care about energy issues is that they only pay attention when prices are high. We've already been through this cycle a couple times in the 70s and 80s. Oil goes up, people freak out, we run around like chickens for a few years, then we get more oil and we're right back to pissing out energy like its light beer.

It sucks that prices are high. I don't use a lot of gas these days, but my heating bills will probably be incredible this winter. However, we never make any progress on getting away from oil when prices are low. We've managed to get our wake up call while prices are high but the supply is still good -- we're not staring at a near end for oil. I would rather see us focus on researching alternative fuels than get sidetracked by the temporary relief drilling might bring. I think it's better to keep that ace in the hole until we really need it, if we can't make enough progress on fuel alternatives and we think we may run into supply problems.

I'm also not about to forgo environmentalism because the Chinese could give a f*** about the environment. Living in the UP and now having a child has committed me even more to it. I am consistently amazed at how clean and green it is here. I also want my daughter to be able to breathe clean air and drink clean water and not experience 500-year floods every decade. I'm not about to throw that away for some short-term economic gains.

[XXXIV]

The problem with getting people to care about energy issues is that they only pay attention when prices are high. We've already been through this cycle a couple times in the 70s and 80s. Oil goes up, people freak out, we run around like chickens for a few years, then we get more oil and we're right back to pissing out energy like its light beer.

.

Yep...

[JackB1]

Iran missile testing today:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/09/iran

This is getting a bit scary. If Iran strikes Israel, the US would HAVE to get involved and I am 100& sure we will. I just learned that 40% of the world's oil passes thru the Straits of Hormuz, which would probably be blocked should a war break out. Could you imagine what that would do to gas prices if the supply was nearly cut in half?

If we did have to get involved in an Iran/Israel conflict, would we be forced to pull out of Iraq and head over to Iran?

[XXXIV]

If we did have to get involved in an Iran/Israel conflict, would we be forced to pull out of Iraq and head over to Iran?

That would be the ONE plus side of being in Iraq.

Its the natural choice of base for a war vs Iran.

[TheHiddenTrack]

McCain isn't alone in his rampant pandering, either. Obama yesterday said he wants to EXPAND Bush's faith-based initiatives. So we have a Democrat advocating greater links between church and state.



Let's face it: Both of these f*ckers will do ANYTHING to get elected. There is zero principle left in American politics, although that's no news flash to anyone!

Take care,
PK

I agree that both of these guys want to be elected and are going to do what it takes politically. However, Obama is moving towards the center while McCain is moving as right as he possibly can. And while they both are doing this, McCain has been doing it on practically every single issue.

And on this particular issue, from what I recall Obama has always backed faith-based initiatives, so he isn't pandering on this one at all. And I feel like it may be a good policy. While I agree with you, this will mean government has greater links to religion, it's common sense that their are people who could be doing more good if they had more money.

This is a response I wrote to some people who are voting for Obama and were upset by this:

I am an atheist and feel uncomfortable about this to an extent but I'm going allow Obama to make his case, and I think what he says has merits. I don't think Obama's position on this as crazy as it seems on the face of it. Lets just be honest and say that their are tons of faith based organizations that are doing tons of good in the world because they believe they should help the poor and unfortunate. While, I don't like that many of these people also want to convert these people to their faith that doesn't mean that their efforts don't have any value.

Secondly, Obama isn't going to give money to these organizations JUST because they are faith based. In fact, the parameters that he lays out are secular in nature. As they should be. For example, if an organization wants money so they can promote abstinence in Africa, they will not receive funding. Why? Because they have to use evidence in order to receive funding. And because abstinence only education doesn't work, they will fail. This is the reason why this isn't a bad plan. Bush gives money to organizations that fit his religious agenda, while Obama will only help organizations that have evidence and proof that what they are doing helps.

So as long as Obama's Faith-based Programs are rooted in logic and reason then this isn't a bad thing. We've all become used to dealing with that vile scum, governor Bush, that we think Obama's program will be the same.

My only real complaint is that if this works and he expands the programs, what happens when the next Evangelical is elected? They might ignore the secular standards that Obama put in place and start handing money to any Charlatan with a Jesus agenda.

[RobVarak]

I can't figure out why everyone is getting all hot and bothered about Obama triangulating on Iraq. As you wise readers of this thread know, I called this at least 4 months ago. He's right. If people were actually paying attention to what he was saying they wouldn't be surprised. But they were too busy oohing and ahhing over his dreamy speachifying rather than paying attention to the giant loophole he was spinning into his policy. Eh, won't be the first time or the last. He's already mastered the JFK two-step of image v. reality.

Doesn't matter, it's still fun to see Kos et al lose their lunch over their messiah turning up with dirt on his hands and realpolitik on his mind. I suppose that the far Left is really nevery going to be satisfied inasmuch as their distaste for America and its politics means they will always be disappointed by candidates that can look attractive at first blush but will always be fundamentally American LOL

[TheHiddenTrack]

I suppose that the far Left is really nevery going to be satisfied inasmuch as their distaste for America and its politics means they will always be disappointed by candidates that can look attractive at first blush but will always be fundamentally American LOL

What exactly are you saying? So the people are the "far Left" (whatever that means, Dailykos is sooo far left) will always be disappointed because they hate America and canidates who are Americans? What exactly is your definition of America and Americans? Reading that is like listening to 5 minutes of Hannity's radio program, all you need is to throw in a few references to God and the flag.

[RobVarak]

What exactly are you saying? So the people are the "far Left" (whatever that means, Dailykos is sooo far left) will always be disappointed because they hate America and canidates who are Americans? What exactly is your definition of America and Americans? Reading that is like listening to 5 minutes of Hannity's radio program, all you need is to throw in a few references to God and the flag.

Basically, the left is as much wrapped up in self-loathing and anti-Americanism as the Right is enthralled with American Exceptionalism. I was being flippant, but I am indeed suggesting that their fundamental internal conflict about America is such that they would really welcome a European candidate LOL

Edit:

PS Don't listen to Hannity. That guy will rot your brain beyond any capacity for critical thought.

[XXXIV]

Who the hell is hanity?

[Feanor]

Who the hell is hanity?

A more ridiculous man than you could have possibly imagined:

http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertrep ... oId=174546

[pk500]

My only real complaint is that if this works and he expands the programs, what happens when the next Evangelical is elected? They might ignore the secular standards that Obama put in place and start handing money to any Charlatan with a Jesus agenda.

Exactly. Which is why church and state always should be separate.

Take care,
PK

[pk500]

At times, Hannity makes Limbaugh and Savage appear sane.

Take care,
PK

[matthewk]

PS Don't listen to Hannity. That guy will rot your brain beyond any capacity for critical thought.

I think Olberman and CNN are worse. I only listen to Hannity from time to time, and while he is far on the right and very rah-rah US, I don't think he's THAT bad.

In today's world, pretty much any so-called "news" outlet tends to try and remove your capacity for critical thought. It's really become up to us to sift through what comes to us as news and determine what is really going on. For most this is a bad thing, given our ADD culture. People don't want to figure things out, they want it handed to them, which is why a lot of this politcal BS (on both sides) sticks.

I wish I could get real news and not have to always have work so hard so determine the truth. It's to the point where even those of us who are willing to evaluate what we read are forced to constantly question everything that's presented. Just look at this thread. It's gotten my head spinning to many times I don't know which way is north sometimes. The truth is out there, but sometimes you're not sure when you're looking at it.

[matthewk]

Speaking of self-loathing and anti-Americanism, Obama went off on us again yesterday (or maybe the day before. I just heard of it this morning).

I don't have a link handy, but he went on a rant about Americans needing to be bilingual. I agree that we should all further our education by learning new things, including other language. in today's global economy it can only help.

That said, the way he made his point came off as very insulting to Americans. He used words like "embarrased" that we go to Europe and can only say "Merci Boku" (Yes, that could be spelled wrong. I don't know French). He also made a point that we should be more accomodating to immigrants by learning Spanish. This part angers me a little, as they are coming into America. Why put the onus on us to learn their foreign language? I don't have a problem with learning some Spanish when I go to Mexico. If I were moving there I would definitely learn the language of the country I was going to be living in.

Anyways, this is just another example of what Rob was pointing out. The left love to blame Americans for everything. Unless of course, it involves potential government handouts or restrictions, then we are helpless victims that need their assistance.

[RobVarak]

PS Don't listen to Hannity. That guy will rot your brain beyond any capacity for critical thought.

I think Olberman and CNN are worse.

That's what we bilinguists call a non sequitor It's like I'm warning people about the hazards of smoking and your response is that placing loaded shotguns in our mouths may be more dangerous. It may or may not be true, but it's not relevant to the veracity of my original statement.

That said, Olbermann is almost a perfect mirror image of his bete noir Bill O'Reilly(Incidentally: Look Barry, French!That's 3 languages in one post. Can I have some pudding now?). They're both egomaniacal sophists who make people like Limbaugh or Stephen Colbert look like Aristotle by comparison.

[JackB1]

At times, Hannity makes Limbaugh and Savage appear sane.

Take care,
PK

Sean Hannity is pretty bad, but I don't think he approaches Limbaugh's level of smug, arrogant crap. Savage I can at least listen to, but he is also a "know it all" of the worst order, but at least he criticizes Bush openly, which Hannity and Limbaugh never will.

[matthewk]

Hannity has criticized Bush before. Maybe you just need to listen to him more often

[RobVarak]

Jack,

I'm no fan of Limbaugh and listen only rarely, but to be fair he has absolutely crushed President Bush on a number of issues.

[TheHiddenTrack]

The three of them (savage, hannity, rush, don't forget beck, o'reilly, coulter, malkin) are 10 times worse than Olbermann (I don't watch him too often, I tune in occasionally to all the ideologues just so I know what some people are being told to think) and his audience is tiny. The extreme-left has fewer people (Olbermann is far-left, not extreme, moore, it's not like sheehan has her own radio show) that really have a national voice. While the extreme-right is very healthily represented. The left tries to make up for it with blogs and websites but the right isn't underrepresented there either.

These two clips are an example of how far down these clowns push the political discourse: (and I could find worse from Coulter, Beck, etc)

Savage: (he's insane, but he would be funny as a comedian)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=CtY-JWahHQs

O'Reilly:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=edCG7AtVloA