NationStates Jolt Archive

As opposed to McCain, who'll steal every last cent from you, but not from the rich people.

Or rather, who'll steal every cent from you and give it all to the rich people. CoughCoughKeepBush'sTaxCutsPermanentCoughCough...

And apparently now Chicago = Corrupt. It's impossible to not be corrupt if you're from Chicago.

And Massachusetts = Teh Librulz. Karl Rove pioneered the Republican tactic of reducing Democratic opponents to catchphrases and labels in order to bypass actual issues remember?

(Actually, I think that all politicians are "corrupt" in manner of speaking. Maybe I'm just cynical, but I have yet to see a single politician who still fairly idealistic. But whatever)

Jimmy Carter was the one genuinely idealistic politician and he ends up being labelled as the worst President ever. Some NSGers even try to insinuate he's worse than Dubya still.

Take this for what its worth:

According to electoral-vote.com Obama has 317 EV to McCain 194 with FL up for grabs.

Realistically, a lot of states are 'up for grabs'...they're being kind of generous by assigning some of those states. It's an open map, that's really all you can take away from that. He's a proven campaigner and he's going to hit all fifty states (cited earlier, but no one took it up), so it should be an interesting cycle.

Here's the contradiction -- I thought it was more obvious, but here we go...

Futures traders are indeed raising the price on oil. They do that because they see a reduced supply in the ... FUTURE. Opening up more favorable areas to exploration should produce more supply in the ... FUTURE. There will indeed be an immediate price reduction because the futures traders will lower their bids on FUTURE supplies of oil.

So, how can Our Saviour Obama state that there will be NO effect from opening up more favorable areas to exploration and drilling AND say that the futures traders are largely responsible for causing the high price of oil?

The answer is that he can't. Most demagogues can't resolve the contradictions that they raise. McCain has the best solution between the two -- open up additional areas and watch the prices fall on their own.
Yeah, champ, I got it. But you are not only over simplifying the case, but not even the oil companies are buying it. The cost/return on these FUTURES are not enough to have much if any immediate effect on current prices. Not to mention that something like 80% of resources are already open to exploration and that should be focused on if anyone is serious about increasing domestic supply. The protected reserves are in places like deep water that will take a great deal of time and money that puts their future too far out to effect current prices in any meaningful way. You can keep capitalizing the word 'FUTURE' but it doesn't bring it any closer. Just because you can use the same word doesn't always mean that it's a contradiction. In fact it shows a more sophisticated understanding than you are demonstrating.

Take this for what its worth:

According to electoral-vote.com Obama has 317 EV to McCain 194 with FL up for grabs.

538's (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/) methodology is way more awesome than e-v's

current results by their analysis:

http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/9776/0622bigmapil1.png
http://img356.imageshack.us/img356/8149/0622evdistiz7.png

Yeah, champ, I got it. But you are not only over simplifying the case, but not even the oil companies are buying it. The cost/return on these FUTURES are not enough to have much if any immediate effect on current prices. Not to mention that something like 80% of resources are already open to exploration and that should be focused on if anyone is serious about increasing domestic supply. The protected reserves are in places like deep water that will take a great deal of time and money that puts their future too far out to effect current prices in any meaningful way. You can keep capitalizing the word 'FUTURE' but it doesn't bring it any closer. Just because you can use the same word doesn't always mean that it's a contradiction. In fact it shows a more sophisticated understanding than you are demonstrating.
You're still missing the point, pal. How does Our Saviour Obama reconcile the two? Either futures traders have little effect on oil prices and they don't need to be regulated, or they have a great deal of effect on oil prices and the increase of a future source of oil will bring down prices.

As you point out, he can't have it both ways. He's either ignorant, or he's a demagogue. Neither of which belong in the Oval Office.

...

exactly how far out are oil futures sold?

exactly how far out are oil futures sold?

As far out as 7 years. That's right in the heart of the 5-10 years everyone quotes as the time to produce.

You're still missing the point, pal. How does Our Saviour Obama reconcile the two? Either futures traders have little effect on oil prices and they don't need to be regulated, or they have a great deal of effect on oil prices and the increase of a future source of oil will bring down prices.

As you point out, he can't have it both ways. He's either ignorant, or he's a demagogue. Neither of which belong in the Oval Office.

No, slugger, you're missing the point. You're conflating it into a one-to-one comparison in an attempt to over-simplify the situation and then ironically accuse him of being naive. It's not a contradiction to say that one act will not provide the gains enough to effect the market, including futures market, and to say that unregulated futures markets are having an adverse effect. He is not saying that the futures market has no effect, you are. He's saying that the proposal will not have an effect. There's a difference and you're willfully blind to it so you can stretch your point.

As far out as 7 years. That's right in the heart of the 5-10 years everyone quotes as the time to produce.
Bah, I fucked this up...dammit...

The '5-10' years is 'at the soonest' that some, that's some of these reserves could be realized, and those are only a fraction of them. They then merit only a small increase in supply that would not by that time reflect the investment in reaching them much less the more involved and complicated process of getting the more difficult reserves. Thus, the potential increase would have little if any effect on the futures market-not like changing the way that the futures market operates by including oversight, including closing the 'Enron loophole' that protects trades from oversight.

So what kind of "change" can Obama bring to the table?

Economy: McCain would continue with Bushenomics. And what was Bush's plan for the economy at the 2004 G0P convention? ... Handing the mic to Arnie to say "Don't be economic gurly mahn!" What-ev-er Obama comes up with will be better than this!

The war: Obama will find Osama

Energy: He didn't used to be in the oil business!!! *crowd cheers*

Substitute "as far out as" for "at the soonest" and you're closer to the actual case.

Then the 5-10 year time frame is even more relevant.
Quoting the article again, it looks very much like Our Saviour Obama blames futures trading for the high prices. For this audience, anyway. Because in the prior paragraph, he insinuated that futures trading had no effect...

On Sunday, Obama told a Washington audience he would strengthen government oversight of energy traders whose futures speculation he blames in large part for the skyrocketing price of oil.

Then the 5-10 year time frame is even more relevant.
I have corrected my statement so that it accurately reflects the reserves and not the trading.

Quoting the article again, it looks very much like Our Saviour Obama blames futures trading for the high prices. For this audience, anyway. Because in the prior paragraph, he insinuated that futures trading had no effect...

No, you did.

Economics admittedly isn't my strong suit, but - especially given the emphasis on government oversight - couldn't the problem here be that traders are possibly artificially bumping up oil prices?

I have corrected my statement so that it accurately reflects the reserves and not the trading.


No, you did.
Well, we've both made a lot of claims and I'm going to go with mine.

Economics admittedly isn't my strong suit, but - especially given the emphasis on government oversight - couldn't the problem here be that traders are possibly artificially bumping up oil prices?
Absolutely. But artificially doesn't necessarily mean intentionally or maliciously. Futures traders do a part in controlling demand on a product thought to be in short supply by raising those prices.

So what kind of "change" can Obama bring to the table?

Economy: McCain would continue with Bushenomics. And what was Bush's plan for the economy at the 2004 G0P convention? ... Handing the mic to Arnie to say "Don't be economic gurly mahn!" What-ev-er Obama comes up with will be better than this!

The war: Obama will find Osama

Energy: He didn't used to be in the oil business!!! *crowd cheers*


The economy is not bushes fault...it is the overspeculaiton on the housing market and the oil prices which we can't control cuz we aren't in OPEC.

How can you find him if you go with clinton policies...in which we could have had osama numerous times but never acted.

Why does everyone hate the oil companies...they have to raise their prices because the arabs are raising them and because the liberal congress won't let them build new reineries or drill in the USA

Please people, if your going to be a looney troll, at least be amussing.

At this point you have to start providing sources because frankly that's not what I was able to find and I don't want to do all your work for you.

Sure. What do you need a source on?

For background, Project Constellation is the actual working project that came out of Pres. Bush's Vision for Space Exploration, which itself was in response to an internal NASA study. VSE is a multiphase plan for NASA for the next few decades. VSE includes

-Completion of the Space Station

-Retirement of the shuttle by 2010

-Development of the Ares series of boosters, with first test launches by 2009

-Development of the Orion spacecraft, with first manned flight by 2014

-More robotic moon missions, with a manned landing by 2020

-Eventual Mars mission (no timeline)

Project Constellation is the actual effort behind the policy. The first phase is the development and construction of the Orion Spacecraft and the Ares I booster. This is the stage we are at right now. Ares expects to fly in 2009, and Orion is in the construction stage. By delaying the program at this point, Mr. Obama pushes back the Orion spacecraft's maiden flight to probably 2020. Since the shuttle will be retired, Obama or no Obama, by 2010, this would leave us with no manned spacecraft for over 10 years, assuming Orion doesn't run into additional delays because of the pushback. The only way for Americans to get into space would be with the Russians and their Soyuz capsule.

Sure. What do you need a source on?


Not background, dude, sources. You know, those things I can click on to check your claims and research them in more detail rather than just your 'say so'? Those things.

Not background, dude, sources. You know, those things I can click on to check your claims and research them in more detail rather than just your 'say so'? Those things.

That was just for your benefit. Just tell me what you would like sources on, and I shall provide them to the best of my abilities.

That was just for your benefit. Just tell me what you would like sources on, and I shall provide them to the best of my abilities.

I give up. You're clearly unfamiliar with how this works, which is befuddling at best. I seriously don't want to have to lead you by the damn nose through your own damn argument.

And hey, thanks for the 'benefit' of something that's been all over the news for the last few years.

I give up. You're clearly unfamiliar with how this works, which is befuddling at best. I seriously don't want to have to lead you by the damn nose through your own damn argument.

And hey, thanks for the 'benefit' of something that's been all over the news for the last few years.

Everything I've said you can find on Wikipedia. It's not rocket science (lulz pun). I shouldn't have to source common knowledge.

Nobody's perfect.

I am nobody. Therefore I am perfect.

Of course, if we allowed for drilling in easier locations, the need for ethanol would be sharply reduced. Maybe that's why he's against more exploration in more convenient places...

Yeah yeah yeah, politicians are the great evil, all out to screw the average hard working man, etc, etc.
Nah, politicians are out to screw EVERYBODY :D.
Please people, if your going to be a looney troll, at least be amussing.
Just because he disagrees with your... Mainstream view of Obama does not make him a troll.

Just because he disagrees with your... Mainstream view of Obama does not make him a troll.

Because, of course, you're way too smart to fall for that mainstream view and would totally vote for McCain if you were, well, you know...old enough.

Because, of course, you're way too smart to fall for that mainstream view and would totally vote for McCain if you were, well, you know...old enough.

Erm... Not really. I wouldn't vote for McCain, heck, I wouldn't vote for this years Libertarian candidate if I was old enough! *Sob* Why did Harry Browne have to go so soon?

Wait a minute. . . are you fucking shitting me? Are you telling me that Obama, a Senator, is a politician? And that, this person who is running for President as one of the two major parties, is typical at that?

Jesus Christ, you just rocked my world! I would have never known, guessed, or even imagined! I mean, what are you going to do to further shake my world view, tell me that the sky is blue, the world is round, or that gravity pulls things towards the Earth?

Frankly, if the worse the Radical Right can do to discredit Obama is suggest that he is *Gasp, OMG* a POLITICIAN! then I can't help but feel that they are fucked. I mean, I'm not voting for him imagining that he is going to make the US into some sort of Scandinavian liberal paradise or shoot rainbows out of his ass. I'll vote for him because a)he's far less of a tool that McCain (as a side note, while I don't dread the thought of a McCain presidency, a 2000 McCain would have had my respect as he ran against Obama, this 2008 model has my disdain), and b)he does represent one radical change to the the Presidency; he's not white. I hold no delusions that he is going to seriously change things, he merely is the lesser of two evils candidate that has become the status quo of American politics.

Oh, and Bedouin Raiders,
The economy is not bushes fault...it is the overspeculaiton on the housing market and the oil prices which we can't control cuz we aren't in OPEC.

I would advise reading the news sometime. Oil prices are not set by Opec, they are set by the market. Speculation in the market is responsible for the high price of oil, and Bush is partly to blame for this.
Why?
Because, get this, one of the things that has the market worried is the threat of military action against Iran! You know, the thing that Bush kept making threats about.

Erm... Not really. I wouldn't vote for McCain, heck, I wouldn't vote for this years Libertarian candidate if I was old enough! *Sob* Why did Harry Browne have to go so soon?

teenage libertarians amuse me. What, you don't like the idea of paying taxes on the income you don't have?

teenage libertarians amuse me. What, you don't like the idea of paying taxes on the income you don't have?

Ah, yes, I shouldn't have any opinion on this, because the way this government is heading really doesn't concern me until I hit 18. THAT'S when I should start having my own opinions and actually paying attention to how the Constitution is being ignored. Before that I should just shut up and do what the kind man tells me too, right?:rolleyes:

Ah, yes, I shouldn't have any opinion on this, because the way this government is heading really doesn't concern me until I hit 18. THAT'S when I should start having my own opinions and actually paying attention to how the Constitution is being ignored. Before that I should just shut up and do what the kind man tells me too, right?:rolleyes:

Most "Libertarians" seem to ignore the Constitution just as much as anyone else- if not more. They just pick different parts to ignore.

Most "Libertarians" seem to ignore the Constitution just as much as anyone else- if not more. They just pick different parts to ignore.

Really? Like what? What parts do "Most Libertarians" ignore? And how do you know it's "Most Libertarians" instead of a select few that get plenty of attention?

Expect much more populism before the election campaign is over.

Wait so are we conservatives who will vote McCain here? Cause if you all are then... COUNT ME IN!!! McCain RULES. I mean sure, he's too liberal but he's more conservative than Adolf Obama Hussein Hitler (or just "fascist slime" if you wanna shorten that) I'm dissapointed that the US has gone from a great land for the free into an idiotic stronghold of losers who complain about politicians lying, but vote them back into office time after time.:upyours: American idiots! :headbang: God this country is screwed:mp5::sniper::gundge: We are gonna have a last stand against China in idk maybe 10 years so let's LIVE IT UP PEOPLE!!!

Really? Like what?

The 9th Amendment. The 14th. Occasionally the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Sometimes the 1st Amendment, especially if we're talking about state level politics.

All in all, it seems that Libertarians tend to be rabidly "states' rights", which pretty much always involves ignoring individual rights.

What parts do "Most Libertarians" ignore? And how do you know it's "Most Libertarians" instead of a select few that get plenty of attention?

(a) Note I said "seem to". It opens up the possibility that there's a very quiet majority somewhere out there who just rarely speak up.

(b) Now, when the party is pretty consistantly putting up people who are extreme right on economic issues but ignore individual liberty on social issues, it does make sense to think that the majority of those in the party must do the same - outside of any evidence to the contrary, of course. Add to it the fact that most of the self-proclaimed Libertarians I've interacted with all seem to toe the same party line....

Note: I tend to use Libertarian, with the capital L, to refer to the established political party. I have met those who are self-described as libertarian - as an ideology rather than a specific party - who differ from this.

The 9th Amendment. The 14th. Occasionally the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Sometimes the 1st Amendment, especially if we're talking about state level politics.

All in all, it seems that Libertarians tend to be rabidly states' rights, which pretty much always involves ignoring individual rights.


Wow. What Libertarians have you been talking to/seeing?

(a) Note I said "seem to". It opens up the possibility that there's a very quiet majority somewhere out there who just rarely speak up.

(b) Now, when the party is pretty consistantly putting up people who are extreme right on economic issues but ignore individual liberty on social issues, it does make sense to think that the majority of those in the party must do the same - outside of any evidence to the contrary, of course. Add to it the fact that most of the self-proclaimed Libertarians I've interacted with all seem to toe the same party line....

A. Sorry, missed that

B. Congratulations, you've just a Libertarian that does NOT follow that pattern :D. Yes, I relieze this years candidate (Bob Barr) does ignore individual liberty to a great extent, I wouldn't say that consistantly happens. Michael Badnarik was a good candidate, and Harry Browne was also very pro-personal liberty.

Ah, yes, I shouldn't have any opinion on this, because the way this government is heading really doesn't concern me until I hit 18. THAT'S when I should start having my own opinions and actually paying attention to how the Constitution is being ignored. Before that I should just shut up and do what the kind man tells me too, right?:rolleyes:

generally before one begins talking about how the constitution is being ignored, one should have a fairly sufficient education to know what the constitution actually says.

And here's a hint, 9th grade US history ain't it.

generally before one begins talking about how the constitution is being ignored, one should have a fairly sufficient education to know what the constitution actually says.

And here's a hint, 9th grade US history ain't it.

O please do come up with a few more age jokes, they're not getting old at all, because you actually have an argument as opposed to attacking CM about his age.

generally before one begins talking about how the constitution is being ignored, one should have a fairly sufficient education to know what the constitution actually says.

And here's a hint, 9th grade US history ain't it.

You know, making quips about my age doesn't make you seem mature. You know, maybe you should actually try to refute my points instead of making cheap shots about my age. Unless of course you're content to continue to ignore the points I'm making and assume I don't know anything because of my age. :rolleyes:

O please do come up with a few more age jokes, they're not getting old at all, because you actually have an argument as opposed to attacking CM about his age.

sure, my argument is thus: People shouldn't discuss topics they don't understand.

You know, maybe you should actually try to refute my points

When you make some, let me know. Because, despite what you want to believe "OMG OBAMA IZ A PARASITE !!!!1!!!oneoneone" doesn't qualify as a "point". It doesn't qualify as an "argument". It doesn't qualify as "intelligent discourse". It doesn't really qualify as anything at all. And it certainly doesn't cause people around you to believe that you're capable of any discussion on politics that's worth listening to at all.

sure, my argument is thus: People shouldn't discuss topics they don't understand.

You seem to be basing this assertion off of who he is rather than what he is saying.

You know, making quips about my age doesn't make you seem mature. You know, maybe you should actually try to refute my points instead of making cheap shots about my age. Unless of course you're content to continue to ignore the points I'm making and assume I don't know anything because of my age. :rolleyes:

Given your posting, I'd say that's a perfectly valid assumption. Would you rather him assume that you don't know anything because you haven't learned it yet or because you're an idiotic buffoon?

When you make some, let me know. Because, despite what you want to believe "OMG OBAMA IZ A PARASITE !!!!1!!!oneoneone" doesn't qualify as a "point". It doesn't qualify as an "argument". It doesn't qualify as "intelligent discourse". It doesn't really qualify as anything at all. And it certainly doesn't cause people around you to believe that you're capable of any discussion on politics that's worth listening to at all.

Neo Art, I've had it it with you. You look at who made the post, and THEN you reply. I'm suprised you skimmed far enough to see the bold print. I'm not replying to any more of your posts, nor am I reading them. I tried to have a debate, and all you did was talk about my age, and how I don't know anything because of it. From now onwards, you're on my ignore list.

Given your posting, I'd say that's a perfectly valid assumption. Would you rather him assume that you don't know anything because you haven't learned it yet or because you're an idiotic buffoon?

let it never be said I'm not at least willing to give the benefit of the doubt.

let it never be said I'm not at least willing to give the benefit of the doubt.
I'm pretty sure assuming ignorance, instead of some amount of knowledge isn't giving someone the benefit of the doubt.

actually he did make an argument/point/whatever

the post you originally responded to was him saying someone else isn't a troll just because they don't subscribe to the mainstream view of Obama.

All you've done since is prove to everyone here that you're an ageist, and childish yourself.


On Topic:

The point of this thread was only to try and reveal to some who may think that Obama isn't like other politicians, that he is. If you already know that, then thats good, perhaps you should also consider that he might be worse than you thought. What I mean is that most politicians tacitly acknowledge the importance of lobbyists to their campaign. However, Obama seems to deny that hes mixed up in any of this, and it seems to me that Obama might end up being like the gay evangelical minister- worse than those hes preaching against (not that I think theres anything wrong with gays, just suing it as a point of reference). In my opinion, he is worse based off of this, because he plans to continue pandering to farmers and allowing the price of food to be increased while encouraging global warming (if you believe in it, as Obama seems to) by promoting a bad alternative fuel, since there are far more environmentally friendly, and less economically damaging alternatives out there.

generally before one begins talking about how the constitution is being ignored, one should have a fairly sufficient education to know what the constitution actually says.

And here's a hint, 9th grade US history ain't it.

What 'bout 12th grade PoliGov?

Neo Art, I've had it it with you. You look at who made the post, and THEN you reply. I'm suprised you skimmed far enough to see the bold print. I'm not replying to any more of your posts, nor am I reading them. I tried to have a debate, and all you did was talk about my age, and how I don't know anything because of it. From now onwards, you're on my ignore list.

B-but you didn't actually make an argument! You didn't give supporting facts to support your statement!

All you've done since is prove to everyone here that your an ageist.

I'm not ageist, I'm elitist. There's a significant difference. It just so happens that most young'uns lack the sufficient education and critical thinking to be sufficiently valuable to the political process.

What 'bout 12th grade PoliGov?

closer, but not quite :p

Neo Art, I've had it it with you. You look at who made the post, and THEN you reply. I'm suprised you skimmed far enough to see the bold print. I'm not replying to any more of your posts, nor am I reading them. I tried to have a debate, and all you did was talk about my age, and how I don't know anything because of it. From now onwards, you're on my ignore list.

Bawww, somebody call the waaaaaaaambulance.

It just so happens that most young'uns lack the sufficient education and critical thinking to be sufficiently valuable to the political process.

Then prove it. Attack his arguments, not his age.

B. Congratulations, you've just a Libertarian that does NOT follow that pattern :D. Yes, I relieze this years candidate (Bob Barr) does ignore individual liberty to a great extent, I wouldn't say that consistantly happens. Michael Badnarik was a good candidate, and Harry Browne was also very pro-personal liberty.

Badnarik believes that states should be allowed to declare women to be subhuman. Browne opposed the freaking Civil Rights Act of 1964. Individual liberty my ass.

Then prove it. Attack his arguments, not his age.

as I said, when he makes one, I'll address it, but as I said again, "OMG OBAMA IS A PARASITE!!!!!" isn't an argument.

Badnarik believes that states should be allowed to declare women to be subhuman. Browne opposed the freaking Civil Rights Act of 1964. Individual liberty my ass.

Woah, woah, woah, wait a minute!!! He did?!? I don't remember that one! Link please? *Sits down, takes deep breath*

closer, but not quite :p

Dammit, this is a college thing, isn't it?

Seriously, I suppose PoliGov would be enough of a cursory glance for the average Joe, but anyone sufficiently interested in politics should (and any politician should most definitely be required to) take appropriate college courses, right?

Woah, woah, woah, wait a minute!!! He did?!? I don't remember that one! Link please? *Sits down, takes deep breath*

Second quote under "unsourced". (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Harry_Browne) Also, his complaint is about something that doesn't exist. You can check for yourself by reading the Act.

as I said, when he makes one, I'll address it, but as I said again, "OMG OBAMA IS A PARASITE!!!!!" isn't an argument.

Then point that out, without making an ad hominem argument.

If Conservative Morality wants to argue on a political message board oriented toward adults (well, sort of), treat him like one. Don't make excuses because he's young, and don't attack him for it either. There are plenty of ways to prove the wrongness or absurdity of his positions beyond insulting him for something he can't control... and there are plenty of far older people here with equally wrong and absurd positions.

Then point that out, without making an ad hominem argument.

If Conservative Morality wants to argue on a political message board oriented toward adults (well, sort of), treat him like one.

I treat people like adults when they have demonstrated that they are capable of discussing things like adults.

Don't make excuses because he's young, and don't attack him for it either. There are plenty of ways to prove the wrongness or absurdity of his positions beyond insulting him for something he can't control... and there are plenty of far older people here with equally wrong and absurd positions.

the "far older people" have no excuse. I'm at least willing to extend to him the benefit of the doubt that his positions are merely a result of age and inexperience.

The point of this thread was only to try and reveal to some who may think that Obama isn't like other politicians, that he is. If you already know that, then thats good, perhaps you should also consider that he might be worse than you thought. What I mean is that most politicians tacitly acknowledge the importance of lobbyists to their campaign. However, Obama seems to deny that hes mixed up in any of this, and it seems to me that Obama might end up being like the gay evangelical minister- worse than those hes preaching against (not that I think theres anything wrong with gays, just suing it as a point of reference). In my opinion, he is worse based off of this, because he plans to continue pandering to farmers and allowing the price of food to be increased while encouraging global warming (if you believe in it, as Obama seems to) by promoting a bad alternative fuel, since there are far more environmentally friendly, and less economically damaging alternatives out there.

Problem is, you haven't shown that this has anything at all to do with lobbyists. In fact, the article cited makes a point of saying that the industry has not given large amounts of money to either candidate. In other words, neither candidate has been unduly affected by lobbyists in this area.

All you've shown is that Obama pushes a policy that may not be the best one. You haven't shown anything to back up the assumption that he does so because of lobbyist influence.

Second quote under "unsourced". (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Harry_Browne) Also, his complaint is about something that doesn't exist. You can check for yourself by reading the Act.

I think he was referring to Affirmative action. I could be wrong there though. Either way it wasn't in the way I thought you meant. But you still haven't given me a source to the part where Badnarik wanted to allow states to declare women subhuman.

Obama is (Like the title says) just another politician. He's not for 'change', not any more then any other candidate. He's not going make some radical improvements, and he's not going to be America's #1 president. He's just very charismatic, a faker, a liar, and a horrible parasite.*Waits for "Obama iz teh savior and this iz all liez!!!!!1!11!11" people*

In the same way that every politician is a parasite. If you don't already know that..

Then point that out, without making an ad hominem argument.

If Conservative Morality wants to argue on a political message board oriented toward adults (well, sort of), treat him like one. Don't make excuses because he's young, and don't attack him for it either. There are plenty of ways to prove the wrongness or absurdity of his positions beyond insulting him for something he can't control... and there are plenty of far older people here with equally wrong and absurd positions.

as neo pointed out, CM hasnt made an adult argument. so why would he be treated as if he had?

yeah, its offensive for neo to put it down to age when we have plenty of smart teen posters but CM deserves the dis.

yeah, its offensive for neo to put it down to age when we have plenty of smart teen posters but CM deserves the dis.

Well, I'll leave it up to an issue of opinion how many "smart teen posters" we have, although I will state that if there are teenagers here capable of making informed, educated, rational and intelligent comments, I probably don't know they're teenagers.

And as I said, you might think it offensive that I make it a matter of age, but I actually think it's fairly complimentary. As I said, at least I'm willing to extend to him the benefit of the doubt that it's something he will eventually grow out of.

Well, I'll leave it up to an issue of opinion how many "smart teen posters" we have, although I will state that if there are teenagers here capable of making informed, educated, rational and intelligent comments, I probably don't know they're teenagers.

And as I said, you might think it offensive that I make it a matter of age, but I actually think it's fairly complimentary. As I said, at least I'm willing to extend to him the benefit of the doubt that it's something he will eventually grow out of.

I'm a teenager FWIW. 'Course I've sort of deliberately avoided getting too deep in the debates. I enjoy reading the posts more than I enjoy being a part of them.

Problem is, you haven't shown that this has anything at all to do with lobbyists. In fact, the article cited makes a point of saying that the industry has not given large amounts of money to either candidate. In other words, neither candidate has been unduly affected by lobbyists in this area.

All you've shown is that Obama pushes a policy that may not be the best one. You haven't shown anything to back up the assumption that he does so because of lobbyist influence.

I never said anything about money, but having posts filled by a guy who is on the board of 3 ethanol companies looks sort of suspiscious, from the article:

Nowadays, when Mr. Obama travels in farm country, he is sometimes accompanied by his friend Tom Daschle , the former Senate majority leader from South Dakota. Mr. Daschle now serves on the boards of three ethanol companies and works at a Washington law firm where, according to his online job description, “he spends a substantial amount of time providing strategic and policy advice to clients in renewable energy.”

what do you think "spends a substantial amount of time providing strategic and policy advise to clients" means? thats lobbying. He has a lobbyist on his staff. Besides the reduced fare plane tickets, which is basically them taking him out to lunch or giving him a free vacation.

I'm a teenager FWIW.

you are forgiven because of the portal reference.

I'm a teenager FWIW. 'Course I've sort of deliberately avoided getting too deep in the debates. I enjoy reading the posts more than I enjoy being a part of them.

The trick is to say things you know are stupid so other posters don't give you a nasty shock. That's my debating strategy, anyway.

you are forgiven because of the portal reference.

Yeah, I can work with that.

Wait so are we conservatives who will vote McCain here? Cause if you all are then... COUNT ME IN!!! McCain RULES. I mean sure, he's too liberal but he's more conservative than Adolf Obama Hussein Hitler (or just "fascist slime" if you wanna shorten that) I'm dissapointed that the US has gone from a great land for the free into an idiotic stronghold of losers who complain about politicians lying, but vote them back into office time after time.:upyours: American idiots! :headbang: God this country is screwed:mp5::sniper::gundge: We are gonna have a last stand against China in idk maybe 10 years so let's LIVE IT UP PEOPLE!!!

Erm... yeah.

I treat people like adults when they have demonstrated that they are capable of discussing things like adults.

Well, that's a start, but it doesn't go far enough, I think.

It shouldn't be something anyone should have to "demonstrate" to you, first, because that places the burden of proof in the wrong place, and second, because if we all refuse to treat people as adults until they demonstrate their maturity to us, they will never grow up.

If you encourage people to think that their views will be disregarded, they have no reason to improve them. Instead, you just reinforce their vanity: "I'm right, but those close-minded people refuse to listen to me." That's one reason so many young people are so blind to the fact that they could be wrong: the people with all that knowledge and experience haven't bothered to challenge them seriously.

the "far older people" have no excuse. I'm at least willing to extend to him the benefit of the doubt that his positions are merely a result of age and inexperience.

If he comes here and debates with us, he should be subject to the same standards as anyone else, regardless of who he is.

Take him at his implicit word: assume that he does have the capacity to be intelligent and reasonable. Don't make excuses for him if he fails. If he doesn't have that capacity, then enough time looking like an idiot will probably get him to leave--and he might learn something in the process.

(All of this, of course, applies to everyone here, of any age.)

closer, but not quite :p

How about actually reading a little document we call the Constitution?

Neo Art, my philosophy is to treat people as adults until they prove that their mental stature is... otherwise. Following that, go away, child.

I never said anything about money, but having posts filled by a guy who is on the board of 3 ethanol companies looks sort of suspiscious, from the article:

What posts filled? It says he often travels with him, not that Daschle has any kind of official power or post within his organization.

what do you think "spends a substantial amount of time providing strategic and policy advise to clients" means? thats lobbying. He has a lobbyist on his staff. Besides the reduced fare plane tickets, which is basically them taking him out to lunch or giving him a free vacation.

(a) Again, it doesn't say that Daschle is on his staff.

(b) It says that Daschle provides policy advice to clients in the renewable energy industry, not that he lobbies politicians to change their policies. Lobbying refers to the latter, not the former. The former is doing his job as a lawyer - informing his clients of the existing policies.

(c) I'm not familiar with the reduced fare plane tickets, but the article did seem to suggest that he is no longer taking them.

Well, I'll leave it up to an issue of opinion how many "smart teen posters" we have, although I will state that if there are teenagers here capable of making informed, educated, rational and intelligent comments, I probably don't know they're teenagers.

And as I said, you might think it offensive that I make it a matter of age, but I actually think it's fairly complimentary. As I said, at least I'm willing to extend to him the benefit of the doubt that it's something he will eventually grow out of.

I'm a teen, albeit a voting one. And I don't debate, because no one wins. Ever. Especially on the internet. I'm too cynical for debate.

That could be a cover for poor debate skills. Although my view follows President Coolidge: "If you don't say anything, you won't be called on to repeat it."

How about actually reading a little document we call the Constitution?

Amazingly I missed the class on the constitution when I went to law school :rolleyes:

Neo Art, my philosophy is to treat people as adults until they prove that their mental stature is... otherwise.

I'm far too cynical for that, although I'm willing to give anyone the chance to demonstrate their capacity, something that the particular poster in question has rather failed to do. Pretty consistantly actually.

I think he was referring to Affirmative action. I could be wrong there though. Either way it wasn't in the way I thought you meant. But you still haven't given me a source to the part where Badnarik wanted to allow states to declare women subhuman.

I believe that was a reference to Badnarik's position that a woman's body should be used as an incubator against her will. (In other words, his abortion stance).

Well, that's a start, but it doesn't go far enough, I think.

It shouldn't be something anyone should have to "demonstrate" to you, first, because that places the burden of proof in the wrong place, and second, because if we all refuse to treat people as adults until they demonstrate their maturity to us, they will never grow up.

I disagree. I think if we continue with this false and nonsensical position that everyone's opinion is just as valid as every other opinion, it creates a very false impression that they don't need to refine their positions, or put intellectual energy into their thoughts. Fortunatly for them I'm neither their employee nor their teacher, so my harsh words are just harsh words.

Better to hear it from me, first.

If you encourage people to think that their views will be disregarded, they have no reason to improve them. Instead, you just reinforce their vanity: "I'm right, but those close-minded people refuse to listen to me." That's one reason so many young people are so blind to the fact that they could be wrong: the people with all that knowledge and experience haven't bothered to challenge them seriously.

There are two types of people. Those who will see that anyone who is worth listening to disregards them out of hand, and begins to wonder if it's their fault, and those who do not.

The first group has potential. The second does not.

If he comes here and debates with us, he should be subject to the same standards as anyone else, regardless of who he is.

Actually I treat him with a significantly higher standard. I don't assume he's beyond all hope. Something I can't say for several here.

Take him at his implicit word: assume that he does have the capacity to be intelligent and reasonable.

As I said, I'm far too cynical for that. Frankly I think most people don't have the capacity, especially most highschool teenagers, so I don't see why I should give him the benefit of the doubt, against all odds. However it's not a hard presumption to beat, all you need to do is actually...show you're capable

I think he was referring to Affirmative action. I could be wrong there though.
Considering that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has absolutely nothing to do with affirmative action, you're wrong there.

But you still haven't given me a source to the part where Badnarik wanted to allow states to declare women subhuman.
He thinks that states should be allowed to outlaw abortion. Outlawing abortion would deny women the right to bodily integrity, a fundamental human right, and is therefore equivalent to declaring them subhuman.

Edit: Dem beat me. Stupid slow page loading.

What posts filled? It says he often travels with him, not that Daschle has any kind of official power or post within his organization.


(a) Again, it doesn't say that Daschle is on his staff.

Mr. Daschle, a national co-chairman of the Obama campaign,


that post


(b) It says that Daschle provides policy advice to clients in the renewable energy industry, not that he lobbies politicians to change their policies. Lobbying refers to the latter, not the former. The former is doing his job as a lawyer - informing his clients of the existing policies.


I'm sure some of his policy advise could runa long the lines of who they should approach to get things done, perhaps Senator Obama, for example. I admit it might be a bit of a stretch, but i find it hard to believe that all he does is tell them what the new laws say when an intern or something could probably look it up.


(c) I'm not familiar with the reduced fare plane tickets, but the article did seem to suggest that he is no longer taking them.

Yea, just like every politician who gets caught doing something he (or she) shouldn't he stops and if hes lucky everyone drops it.

Vote third party. I'm tired of politics as usual, and that's all I see from the Dems and Pubbies. The only change either of them will bring is change for the worse. Yes, they both have their individual good points, but they are both far too severely handicapped by horrifyingly bad judgement as well. I deeply oppose both parties on major philosophical points. I will never try to choose the lesser of two evils - I'd still be choosing evil. Change will only come when we the people demand a complete shakeup of the status quo.

I have voted for Dems and Pubbies because of the individual candidate's integrity and honesty. I will never vote on party. If your vote is determined by the party to which the candidate belongs and on no other attribute, you are a brain-dead traitor to the Republic. I know that sounds like a flame to some, but give it some serious consideration and you will see otherwise.

Considering that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has absolutely nothing to do with affirmative action, you're wrong there.

Mix up of words. Happens to everyone. Either that or he was mixing up his acts :p.
He thinks that states should be allowed to outlaw abortion. Outlawing abortion would deny women the right to bodily integrity, a fundamental human right, and is therefore equivalent to declaring them subhuman.
Yeah, you REALLY exaggerated that one.

Yeah, you REALLY exaggerated that one.
I fail to see how. If the law denies someone a fundamental human right, then the law is declaring them subhuman. Otherwise, they'd have said fundamental human right.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25324195

Apparently Obama is in the pocket of big agriculture, and supports tariffs on ethanol from brazil, while keeping in place the corn ethanol subsidy . Well, I'm not too surpsised. It seems that between this and gas taxes, Obama plans on making life harder for the average person if hes elected. So, whats the big change Obama keeps talking about? Delivering us from one group of lobbyists to another?

(I would do more but i have to get to work)

To get back to the main point, it might have helped this thread avoid digressions into ageism if you'd explained how subsidizing corn ethanol hurts the average person. Now I know why it hurts people, but if you'd included it in the main post, it would have helped.

To whit, corn ethanol is made by turning certain kinds of corn into biofuel using chemical refining processes. The problem with corn ethanol is threefold. First, corn is a lot less efficiently made into ethanol than sugar cane is, but sugar cane is made largely in other countries, so currently we put tariffs on sugar cane ethanol in order to protect the emerging corn ethanol market. Aside from market distortions, this pisses off other nations and it prevents access by foreign farmers to American markets, denying them a better chance at a decent livelihood. Second, while the kind of corn used to make ethanol isn't directly edible for us, it is often used for animal feed, so the added competition for limited corn supplies drives up prices of foods like beef, pork, and chicken; additionally, the land used to farm corn can only support one or the other at a time, so more ethanol means less land for human corn, which again leads to higher prices. Third, and this is something not mentioned in the article but relevant nonetheless, is that the refining process for ethanol is highly expensive, and as such, the idea that increased ethanol production will drive fuel prices down (because of more overall supply of ethanol and petroleum) is a false one: if an oil barrel's price fell to $70 tomorrow, corn ethanol sellers would not be able to sell a drop because they can't match that production price and still make money. Ethanol, then, is a terrible way to reduce gas prices.

Now having said that, I also think that if Obama looked at the data, he'd come to the same conclusion that I have, and apparently, that McCain has as well, namely that ethanol subsidies are really giveaways to Big Agriculture, and as I grew up on a farm and I watched most of my friends's fathers hang on for dear life because they were hung out to dry by politicians while Big Ag got huge subsidies during profitable years, I have a rabid hatred for anything that helps companies like Con Agra or Tyson Foods. My fantasy that Obama would do what I think really needs to be done to help family farmers-- break industrial agricultural companies-- seems misplaced. But I use the term fantasy deliberately, and for two reasons. First, I already recognize that for better or worse, you cannot win states like Iowa without a tenacious fight if you don't win at a minimum the indifference of big agricultural companies. You most certainly will do nothing to help your downticket partymates. So, another way of putting it is that as much as I'd like to see someone promise to gut Monsanto and jail its CEO for screwing over farmers, I'm realist enough to know one doesn't advertise that wish and expect to get elected.

Secondly, it's about time you all understood that the United States, by virtue of its political structure, is a two-party system. If there ever became a successful third party, it would quickly replace an increasingly defunct prior party, like the Republicans did with Northern Democrats and Whigs. Each party, then, is a political coalition government, and as much as I'd like to see an America run much more along the lines of Paul Krugman than Bill Kristol, I realize that other factions in the party need their concerns addressed or the party will collapse and the Republicans will win again, deservedly (not in the sense that their ideas are better, but in the sense that they legitimately will win more votes). Here is a case of Obama pandering, yes, but its also a case of him doing something that legitimately needs to be done for the sake of the political coalition, and it's up to each of us as voters to determine, not that the man is a saint (revelation: he isn't), but whether or not the political coalition he represents, broadly speaking, represents me better than his opponents do. Some of you may find your line in the sand on this issue, and that is perfectly respectable. I myself, despite my past and fervency of support on the issue, am still inclined to say that Obama on balance is the better candidate for me.

that post

Ah, missed that. Sorry.

I can't find a list off-hand, but there do seem to be a number of national co-chairs on the campaign. And, given Daschle's political experience, I could see why he would make a good asset.

I'd be more worried if Daschle were, say, the head of Obama's energy policy committee.

I'm sure some of his policy advise could runa long the lines of who they should approach to get things done, perhaps Senator Obama, for example. I admit it might be a bit of a stretch, but i find it hard to believe that all he does is tell them what the new laws say when an intern or something could probably look it up.

You never know. There are plenty of people going from undergrad degrees like environmental or biomedical engineering into law school. Why? Because companies in those areas need lawyers with an in-depth understanding of the policies they need to follow. You can make a lot of money as a lawyer in such areas.

An intern may be able to simply look up a law, but they don't necessarily have the training to make sure that a company is within the law - or that a company is taking advantage of any and all incentives there might be.

One way or another, actually lobbying for the industry would be another job altogether.

Yea, just like every politician who gets caught doing something he (or she) shouldn't he stops and if hes lucky everyone drops it.

*shrug* Not always. Sometimes they just try to act like it means nothing and they continue right on. And it's always possible that he wasn't even really aware of it. I don't think Obama (or any politician, for that matter) generally books his own plane tickets.

I do like it that Obama is refusing lobbyist money. I don't expect him to have 0 ties to any lobbyist. I'm not sure that's even possible in political circles. But a politician can limit the type of control lobbyists have.

It could be that Obama is just as corrupt as the rest of them. But it isn't the impression I've gotten. (Not that I think he isn't corrupt at all, just less so).

I fail to see how. If the law denies someone a fundamental human right, then the law is declaring them subhuman. Otherwise, they'd have said fundamental human right.

If it is a fundamental human right, than yes. Hence the "science" of eugenics, which allowed people to believe in both natural rights and still be racists. However, if someone does not believe bodily integrity is a fundamental human right, he at least does not believe those it is denied to are subhuman.

I fail to see how. If the law denies someone a fundamental human right, then the law is declaring them subhuman. Otherwise, they'd have said fundamental human right.

But of course, saying that abortion is a right is debatable at best, and saying that it's a fundamental human right? Well, that's flat-out absurd.

If it is a fundamental human right, than yes. Hence the "science" of eugenics, which allowed people to believe in both natural rights and still be racists. However, if someone does not believe bodily integrity is a fundamental human right, he at least does not believe those it is denied to are subhuman.

Well, considering that ownership over one's self is the primary tenet of libertarianism, from which every other aspect of the philosophy is derived, and considering that we're talking about libertarians...

But of course, saying that abortion is a right is debatable at best, and saying that it's a fundamental human right? Well, that's flat-out absurd.

The right to bodily integrity. The right to own oneself. That's what is being discussed. That's what abortion is. No one can use your body against your will. To claim otherwise contradicts the very principle upon which libertarianism is founded.

If it is a fundamental human right, than yes. Hence the "science" of eugenics, which allowed people to believe in both natural rights and still be racists. However, if someone does not believe bodily integrity is a fundamental human right, he at least does not believe those it is denied to are subhuman.

The problem here is that Badnarik's entire abortion argument is grounded in the idea that bodily integrity is a fundamental human right. So he's not denying that there is such a right - just that women actually have it.

Or, at least, women who happen to be pregnant.

Well, considering that ownership over one's self is the primary tenet of libertarianism, from which every other aspect of the philosophy is derived, and considering that we're talking about libertarians...

That would make him a bad libertarian, yes. But I can see how someone would have more libertarian than non-libertarian beliefs, and thus classify themselves as such.

The right to bodily integrity. The right to own oneself. That's what is being discussed. That's what abortion is. No one can use your body against your will. To claim otherwise contradicts the very principle upon which libertarianism is founded.

Ah, but what about those who believe a baby is a human at conception? Then THEY would have the right to not have their body used against their will, and I'm fairly sure they don't want to be killed.

The problem here is that Badnarik's entire abortion argument is grounded in the idea that bodily integrity is a fundamental human right. So he's not denying that there is such a right - just that women actually have it.

Or, at least, women who happen to be pregnant.

Oh. In that case, yes, he is classifying women as subhuman.
I suppose someone could make the argument men and women have different sets of rights, and then at least there would be no contradiction. But if he calls it a fundamental human right...

I disagree. I think if we continue with this false and nonsensical position that everyone's opinion is just as valid as every other opinion,

Straw man! Attack their opinions. Be as harsh as you love to be. Stop making excuses for them. If they're on this forum, they're fair game: if they want to argue at a lower standard, they can go argue with other people.

I'm not saying you should be nice. I'm saying you should be mean in a better way. :)

it creates a very false impression that they don't need to refine their positions, or put intellectual energy into their thoughts.

But this is precisely what you are doing. "Your opinion is invalid because you are a teenager" is not a judgment anyone can escape by "put[ting] intellectual energy into their thoughts." They can only escape it by denying your premise, and therefore thinking "I'm right and you're just closeminded", which is hardly productive. Alternatively, they can accept it, but that just gives them an excuse to never grow up: "I'm a teenager, so I don't need to think." On that reasoning, they will never learn to think.

There are two types of people. Those who will see that anyone who is worth listening to disregards them out of hand, and begins to wonder if it's their fault, and those who do not.

If their arguments are disregarded out of hand, they have no reason to regard it as their fault: whatever they argue, it will be disregarded.

Even if it was at one point their fault, if you perpetually deny them consideration, their culpability will fade, because you refuse to leave open the possibility of improvement.

Actually I treat him with a significantly higher standard. I don't assume he's beyond all hope.

But if that hope is just for "sometime in the future", it means nothing to him right now, at the moment, in his present incarnation. How will he ever fulfill that hope, under such treatment?

As I said, I'm far too cynical for that.

Cynicism is a self-fulfilling prophecy--always has been. If we fail to respect ideals, we fail to critically contest the status quo with something better: we reject progress, make improvement impossible.

Worse, it is epistemologically unsound: how can we ever know "capacity"? What is need not be synonymous with what can be. Cynicism is just dogma, and fundamentally conservative dogma at that: all it does is protect all the bad things it declares to be inevitable.

Assume that only a select few can be rational and intelligent, and if your view is popular enough (and it certainly is), you will see it reflected in reality. But your unwillingness to try only further shows that we cannot know any such thing: we clearly are not trying our hardest to create a society where that is not true.

However it's not a hard presumption to beat, all you need to do is actually...show you're capable

Do you imagine that intelligence and rationality when it comes to political matters are things that just come to be in us, like skin and blood? In the vast majority of cases they require nurturing, encouragement, social context, especially in a culture that discourages thinking for ourselves in so many ways. How stupid is homophobia? Yet how many intelligent people accepted it even fifty years ago?

Because intelligence and rationality are things that need to be built, that need to be progressed to, waiting for others to "prove themselves" accomplishes little. Respect people's potential, an optimistic assessment of their capacity. Don't bind them to the present state of their views, however far they might be able to progress beyond them.

Ah, but what about those who believe a baby is a human at conception? Then THEY would have the right to not have their body used against their will, and I'm fairly sure they don't want to be killed.

That's not how it works, unless you want to argue that because Person A doesn't want to die from not having working kidneys, not allowing him to force you to give him one of your kidneys would be using his body against his will. No one, period, has the right to use another person's body against their will, even if not using it would result in their death.

Ah, but what about those who believe a baby is a human at conception?

Unless they think some humans have the right to use other humans against their will, they still have to allow abortion. If a woman doesn't want the embryo/fetus using her body, it doesn't get to.

That's not how it works, unless you want to argue that because Person A doesn't want to die from not having working kidneys, not allowing him to force you to give him one of your kidneys would be using his body against his will. No one, period, has the right to use another person's body against their will, even if not using it would result in their death.

:confused: Could you rephrase that a little? I'm not quite sure what you meant with that. I got:

Person A doesn't want to die. If i don't give him one of my kidneys, it'll be using his body against his will.

I'm pretty sure I got that messed up. So, uh, rephrasing please?

Unless they think some humans have the right to use other humans against their will, they still have to allow abortion. If a woman doesn't want the embryo/fetus using her body, it doesn't get to.

Which we don't, because that would be a contradiction. Think about it, if I have the right to use other humans against their will, and I believe that it's a basic human right to not have their body used against their will...

Which we don't, because that would be a contradiction. Think about it, if I have the right to use other humans against their will, and I believe that it's a basic human right to not have their body used against their will...

Then you have to recognize a woman's right to refuse anyone - unborn or not - the use of her body.

*shrug*

That would make him a bad libertarian, yes. But I can see how someone would have more libertarian than non-libertarian beliefs, and thus classify themselves as such.

I don't think it's possible to have "more libertarian belief than not libertarian beliefs". Libertarianism at its core is a very simple and very basic set of principles. If you believe them, you're a libertarian. If you don't, you're not. Libertarianism is a political philosophy, either you subscribe to it, or you do not.

And if you don't believe in paramount importance of individual liberty and bodily autonomy, you're not a libertarian. Simple as that. The same as someone who believes that workers should not control the means of production is not a Marxist.

:confused: Could you rephrase that a little? I'm not quite sure what you meant with that. I got:

Person A doesn't want to die. If i don't give him one of my kidneys, it'll be using his body against his will.

I'm pretty sure I got that messed up. So, uh, rephrasing please?

No, that's what I said. And that's the line of reasoning you'd need to outlaw abortion under libertarian principles.

Except that even the oil companies don't think that opening up protected land will have an immediate effect on prices and say at best it would take 5-10 years. Plus states would be making risk assessments yet other states would actually be taking the risks-ocean currents mean that a spill or accident off one states shore would land on another states shore. Not to mention the shared ocean resource that would be lost by all state's concerns.

Point taken. The development of offshore resources should be views as a medium range project. It should be handled federally, because an explosion on an oil rig doesn't confine itself to state boundaries.

Here's the problem with the whole "drilling an ANWAR (choose your area)" thing...Currently there are federal leases that oil companies are not using. If oil companies would have developed these fields there would not be the problem there is now. Treating the oil development business as if they have not been intentionally limiting supply is silly. If they would use what they already have supply would be far higher than demand. This would drop prices dramatically, and that is not good for their bottom line. We then get to the point that there's far more oil being pumped than can be refined. Intentionally limited development and supply are great ways to make you money. But don't think it's going to curry favor with consumers.

We need a smart energy plan that is comprehensive. There needs to be a short term fix, but going too far at first is going to make matters worse. We don't need gimmicks. We need to mitigate current market concerns while developing our current leases. Pumping from what we already have and increasing refinery capacity could make an impact in 5 years or so. Couple that with development of offshore (and the Dakotas) prospects within guidelines will secure energy for the next 10-15 years. That takes care of the "short term" because thinking you can make a huge change within a year or so is blindly hopeful. Development of alternative sources of energy during this time is crucial. Oil companies must adapt or get lost in the evolutionary abyss. It's time they work for people as much as they work for profit.

Then you have to recognize a woman's right to refuse anyone - unborn or not - the use of her body.

*shrug*

Ah, but therein lies the contradiction. It's cause and effect, so in a way, she ACCEPTED the unborn child the use of her body through having sex with whoever she did.

No, that's what I said. And that's the line of reasoning you'd need to outlaw abortion under libertarian principles.

I got it? I got it! yay!

But that would be assuming all Libertarians believe that a baby is a human at conception, which many do not believe, but others witin the party do believe.

Ah, but therein lies the contradiction. It's cause and effect, so in a way, she ACCEPTED the unborn child the use of her body through having sex with whoever she did.

What if she used a condom? Or the pill? Or any other of the myriad forms of birth control.
Also, consent to sex =/= consent to pregnancy.

Ah, but therein lies the contradiction. It's cause and effect, so in a way, she ACCEPTED the unborn child the use of her body through having sex with whoever she did.

Ah, so it's having sex that strips a woman of her fundamental human rights.

Gotcha.

What if she used a condom? Or the pill? Or any other of the myriad forms of birth control.
Also, consent to sex =/= consent to pregnancy.
She accepted the chance, just like my Russian Roulette example below.

Ah, so it's having sex that strips a woman of her fundamental human rights.

Gotcha.

Yeah, way to twist words. So, are you telling me that if a man agrees to play Russian Roulette with his friend, and is shot because of it, his fundamental right to not have his body interfered with by another has been abused?

Plus, that's assuming I believe a baby is a human at conception (Which I don't)

Yeah, way to twist words. So, are you telling me that if a man agrees to play Russian Roulette with his friend, and is shot because of it, his fundamental right to not have his body interfered with by another has been abused?

That's not a comparable situation at all. No one is interfering with his body. If someone else pulled the trigger, then it would be, but that's not how Russian Roulette works.

Ah, but therein lies the contradiction. It's cause and effect, so in a way, she ACCEPTED the unborn child the use of her body through having sex with whoever she did.

What if she was raped? Where did she agree to the unborn child?

So, are you telling me that if a man agrees to play Russian Roulette with his friend, and is shot because of it, his fundamental right to not have his body interfered with by another has been abused?

No, because getting shot is a natural and necessary risk of playing Russian Roulette.

When the technological capacity for abortions exists, carrying a pregnancy to term is not a natural and necessary risk of having sex. It only becomes an unavoidable consequence when the government prohibits abortion, and that's an artificial imposition.

Edit: A little more clearly: it's impossible to play Russian Roulette without having the risk of getting shot. The player can think to herself, "I wish I could play this game without the risk", but who is she going to complain to, the laws of physics? No person has violated her freedom.

It's perfectly possible to have sex and then terminate any resulting pregnancy. If the government acts to prevent this possibility, then there is fault: the law is not natural and necessary, but can be changed.

Yeah, way to twist words.

Not at all. According to your above logic, the act of having sex means that a woman is henceforth denied the right to bodily integrity - she is forced to allow another to use her body, even if it is against her will.

So, are you telling me that if a man agrees to play Russian Roulette with his friend, and is shot because of it, his fundamental right to not have his body interfered with by another has been abused?

That's not even a somewhat applicable analogy.

In the case of pregnancy, a woman takes a chance on getting pregnant and, according to you, that means she no longer has the right to deny others the use of her body.

Unless the man is somehow getting shot with an embryo/fetus that will use his body for a period of time after getting shot - whether he wants it or not, Russian Roulette has nothing to do with it.

That's not a comparable situation at all. No one is interfering with his body. If someone else pulled the trigger, then it would be, but that's not how Russian Roulette works.
Someone else pulled the trigger, just like in sex :p.
What if she was raped? Where did she agree to the unborn child?
No, because getting shot is a natural and necessary risk of playing Russian Roulette.

When the technological capacity for abortions exists, carrying a pregnancy to term is not a natural and necessary risk of having sex. It only becomes an unavoidable consequence when the government prohibits abortion, and that's an artificial imposition.
To answer both of you, this isn't my stance on abortion. Every once in a blue moon I like to argue the other side. *looks outside* Dang! Wrong day.

Anyway, I don't even remember how this turned into a debate over abortion, but that's NSG for you! :D

Someone else pulled the trigger, just like in sex :p.


...that... That's not how Russian Roulette works. The whole point of Russian Roulette is that you pull the trigger.

Doesn't this belong in the election thread? Awaiting locking in 3, 2, 1...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25324195

Apparently Obama is in the pocket of big agriculture, and supports tariffs on ethanol from brazil, while keeping in place the corn ethanol subsidy . Well, I'm not too surpsised. It seems that between this and gas taxes, Obama plans on making life harder for the average person if hes elected. So, whats the big change Obama keeps talking about? Delivering us from one group of lobbyists to another?

(I would do more but i have to get to work)
As I see it, Obama has good sales people, speech writers, and promoters working for him, and the message of "change" is selling like hot cakes. Right now Obama is perceived as the messiah that can make it all happen. However, I think most people will figure that out before they plunk an X beside his name in November.

As I see it, Obama has good sales people, speech writers, and promoters working for him, and the message of "change" is selling like hot cakes. Right now Obama is perceived as the messiah that can make it all happen. However, I think most people will figure that out before they plunk an X beside his name in November.

Bitter, are we?

Bitter, are we?
Not bitter in the least, just wary of false prohets.

Not bitter in the least, just wary of false prohets.

Well, since you prophesied the same thing in the primaries...

What kind of dirty politician would say something about how they intend to help the country as they campaign for votes? The nerve of this Obama fellow. To top it off, he actually had the audacity to hire people who were good at their jobs to get his message out.

If he had any scruples he would be telling us that he is terrible for the job as POTUS, has no good ideas and will likely screw over the country (despite his personal beliefs to the contrary). Now THAT'S how you win an election.

Though I haven't heard any prophecies from Obama, I bet if he did have some they would be false! I bet you 1 million dollars that Obama can't really see the future. Not that he claimed that he could or anything. Just sayin'.

Not bitter in the least, just wary of false prohets.

oh i dont know...

bush has dragged the bar down so low that if obama manages to not get us into another useless war, brings the troops home before the end of his second term, and keeps gas under $10/gallon he will probably be seen as one of the greats.

Woah, woah, woah!

Future president of the United States may be 'typical politician'. Bloody hell, what a surprise!

Well, since you prophesied the same thing in the primaries...
Well, I certainly don't consider myself a prohet, but as one can see, the divide was great and the result was close. I firmly believe that IF there hadn't been the Florida/Michigan divide, the results would have been entirely different than they ultimately were.

Clinton was somewhat restricted in her ability to demonstrate Obama's transparency, but the Republicans will be unfettered in their ability to complete the task.

The more I see of Obama's politics, the less I like the guy.

Clinton was somewhat restricted in her ability to demonstrate Obama's transparency.
Aye, I know, almost every time she went to a podium, sniper fire was pinging around and such, so she could hardly talk. Sad times for her, really.

Unless the man is somehow getting shot with an embryo/fetus that will use his body for a period of time after getting shot - whether he wants it or not, Russian Roulette has nothing to do with it.

That would be the most interesting game of Russian Roulette ever. We should get some scientists working on that.

In my opinion, Obama is simply a Carter who wants to be a Kennedy.

In my opinion, Obama is simply a Carter who wants to be a Kennedy.

Talk radio much?

In my opinion, Obama is simply a Carter who wants to be a Kennedy.
Not really. He's more like a normal politician with an exceptionally high capacity for bullshitting about change.

Talk radio much?

No, I hate talk radio.

Not really. He's more like a normal politician with an exceptionally high capacity for bullshitting about change.

:( My nation is ruined.

:( My nation is ruined.

Eh, just go start a new one.

That would be the most interesting game of Russian Roulette ever. We should get some scientists working on that.

We'd have to have a new name...

How about Roe Roulette?

Ah, but what about those who believe a baby is a human at conception? Then THEY would have the right to not have their body used against their will, and I'm fairly sure they don't want to be killed.

QFT. Genetically human from conception, genetically seperate from the mother, therefore a unique human with the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

I thought the Dems were all about protecting the helpless, the downtrodden, and the victims of discrimination. Isn't abortion the ultimate form of discrimination in that it determines the youngest, weakest, and most helpless to be subhuman?

If the worst thing Obama happens to be is a typical politician, he'll be a damn lot better than McCain, who has sold out far more consistently and blatantly on his possisions. Obama would have to be a lot worse than "typical" to fall below the level of Bush + flip-flops and senility.

This thread is pathetic. Its OP is a bad smear job using two policies out of context with no supporting evidence to dismiss a politician's entire campaign and record. Yeh, Obama's not perfect. You could make the argument that he's "politics as usual". But your going to have to do a hell of a lot better than that. And what's the point, that we should oppose Obama because he might be in the pocket of lobbyists? What's the alternative(see above).

Besides, not all lobbyists are equally bad. If anything, Obama's in the pocket of the Nuclear lobby, and I'd sure as hell rather have them than either the ethanol or the oil lobby(though of course no lobbyists would be preferable).

Regardless, though, this is an ellection thread, and should be in the sticky. Unless that policy has been changed, you're in blatent violation of the rules. I can't imagine why this hasn't been locked.:mad:

Isn't abortion the ultimate form of discrimination in that it determines the youngest, weakest, and most helpless to be subhuman?

No, because, first, the distinction isn't arbitrary, and second, abortion need not be founded on any denial of fetal personhood (though such a denial is perfectly reasonable.) It can just as easily be founded in the position that no one has the right to use another's body against that person's will.

Of course, if we allowed for drilling in easier locations, the need for ethanol would be sharply reduced. Maybe that's why he's against more exploration in more convenient places...

Here's the problem with the whole "drilling an ANWAR (choose your area)" thing...Currently there are federal leases that oil companies are not using. If oil companies would have developed these fields there would not be the problem there is now. Treating the oil development business as if they have not been intentionally limiting supply is silly. If they would use what they already have supply would be far higher than demand. This would drop prices dramatically, and that is not good for their bottom line. We then get to the point that there's far more oil being pumped than can be refined. Intentionally limited development and supply are great ways to make you money. But don't think it's going to curry favor with consumers.

We need a smart energy plan that is comprehensive. There needs to be a short term fix, but going too far at first is going to make matters worse. We don't need gimmicks. We need to mitigate current market concerns while developing our current leases. Pumping from what we already have and increasing refinery capacity could make an impact in 5 years or so. Couple that with development of offshore (and the Dakotas) prospects within guidelines will secure energy for the next 10-15 years. That takes care of the "short term" because thinking you can make a huge change within a year or so is blindly hopeful. Development of alternative sources of energy during this time is crucial. Oil companies must adapt or get lost in the evolutionary abyss. It's time they work for people as much as they work for profit.

I know it's easier just to blame OPEC, and they are not innocent by any means. This is the problem when you have multinationals that are not really subject to our laws. I'm not against Oil companies turning a profit. I'm for economic development and growth in emerging markets and industries. We need these companies to help continue our economic success. I just don't like false manipulation to make profits. Make all the money you want, but do it ethically.

Okay, CH claimed that other poll didn't mean anything or might not "hold" or whatever... So...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/agctbsdj83rc

I guess I could say...

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e309/ZOMGBleach/donkanonji.jpg

Has anyone mentioned the price of oil with respect to inflation of the US dollar? (I only bring this up because I finally found the pertinent graph. :p)
http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2008/6/7/oilp_oc.png

Note that while yes, oil prices have been rising, the price in dollars is shooting higher at a rate unmatched by the Euro. (SDR is in Special Drawing Rights, a concept someone could fully explain to me BTW). To me, to deal with the immediate price problem of gas in the USA, one must look towards fighting the inflation that is, well, inflating the price of gas. I would think (and make no claims to have complete knowledge on) that a deficit reduction, i.e. spending money that doesn't exist, would help this problem.

Anyone with a real grasp of economics is welcome to point out my flaws.:)

Okay, CH claimed that other poll didn't mean anything or might not "hold" or whatever... So...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/agctbsdj83rc



Some of the more pertinent parts-
Democrats appear lukewarm about the prospect of Hillary Clinton as Obama's running mate, with 36 percent saying that would be a good idea, though her overall positive rating is 49 percent. Surprisingly, former President Bill Clinton, whose approval ratings dropped after he was criticized for his comments during the primary, does slightly better, with 52 percent of voters saying they have a positive feeling toward him.
...
Obama is unifying the traditional Democratic base after the divisive Democratic nomination battle with New York Senator Hillary Clinton. Women, who were Clinton's most loyal backers, now favor Obama by a 54-to-29 percent margin and Democrats give him more than 80 percent support. Obama also has a slight lead over McCain among male voters. White voters, who in the past have tended to favor Republicans, are split between the two candidates in the four-way race.
I would say, however, that four months out is still way to fucking soon to start celebrating, and definitely too soon to coast. Still good sign though.

If the worst thing Obama happens to be is a typical politician, he'll be a damn lot better than McCain, who has sold out far more consistently and blatantly on his possisions. Obama would have to be a lot worse than "typical" to fall below the level of Bush + flip-flops and senility.

This thread is pathetic. Its OP is a bad smear job using two policies out of context with no supporting evidence to dismiss a politician's entire campaign and record. Yeh, Obama's not perfect. You could make the argument that he's "politics as usual". But your going to have to do a hell of a lot better than that. And what's the point, that we should oppose Obama because he might be in the pocket of lobbyists? What's the alternative(see above).

Besides, not all lobbyists are equally bad. If anything, Obama's in the pocket of the Nuclear lobby, and I'd sure as hell rather have them than either the ethanol or the oil lobby(though of course no lobbyists would be preferable).

Regardless, though, this is an ellection thread, and should be in the sticky. Unless that policy has been changed, you're in blatent violation of the rules. I can't imagine why this hasn't been locked.:mad:
Contrary to your claim, there was supporting evidence for the OP. How about some more?

Why Flip-Flopping Matters (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,370283,00.html)

What helps keep companies honest is the threat that if they cheat customers, people won’t buy from them again. But that won’t work for politicians. Politicians don’t always have the incentive of re-election because eventually they all face a last term in office. Politicians retire at some point. They can’t live forever.

So, if it isn't the threat of facing the voters, what could ensure that politicians keep their promises?

There has been a lot of academic work studying this question, and the way to solve the problem is to elect politicians who inherently value the policy positions that they take.......

-- NAFTA. During the primaries, an Obama campaign slogan was “Only Barack Obama Consistently Opposed NAFTA” and that he would use the threat to “opt-out” as a “hammer” to force the Canadians and Mexicans to "renegotiate" NAFTA. But last week in an interview with Fortune magazine, Obama reversed course saying that he was “not a big believer in doing things unilaterally’ and that he wasn’t going to force a renegotiation of NAFTA. Obama’s explanation for the switch now that the primaries were over was that "Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified."

The flip-flop was all the more difficult to explain because Obama’s senior economics adviser, Austin Goolsbee, was caught right before the Ohio primary telling Canadians that Obama didn’t really mean his promise to renegotiate the treaty. Whether Obama really believed what he was saying during the campaign became an important question, and Obama went to great length on multiple occasions to assure voters that he would stand by his promise. Both Obama and Goolsbee completely denied the Canadian story, with Goolsbee claiming that the reporting by Canadian TV was “a totally inaccurate story.”

-- Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). For Democrats during the primary, FISA was something for which no compromise was allowed. Back in September, Obama’s campaign vowed he would "support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." But this last week Obama reversed course and supported the FISA compromise granting the companies amnesty. Democrat party activists such as the Daily Kos are describing Obama’s switch as a “disaster.” Politico reports that “Obama's allies at MoveOn are asking supporters to 'call Sen. Obama today and tell him you're counting on him to keep his word.' ”

-- Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns. A year ago Obama gathered favorable headlines and media coverage for his dedication to saving public financing of presidential campaigns. Editorials chided Obama’s opponents for not making the promise that he had made. To Obama, the decision likely came down to how much money he can raise for the general election. If Obama can raise as much for the general election as he has for the primaries, he could easily exceed what McCain will be allowed to spend by 4-to-1. Even that might be an underestimate, because he will now have the resources of a united Democratic party.

Obama’s explanation for breaking this promise is that “The public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who have become masters at gaming this broken system.” Yet, he hasn’t explained why the system is any more broken now than it was late last fall.

With the primaries over, both candidates may want to be in the political center. But that is a much more natural place for John McCain with his maverick voting record than it is for Barack Obama.

If Obama’s awkward movements to the center continue, even his massive money advantages during the general election might be unable to undo the damage to his credibility.
I imagine the NAFTA flip flop is going to impact Obama in States such as Ohio and Pennsylvania where he was selling his I've got a "hammer (http://www.thestar.com/article/446488)" policy.

"I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labour and environmental standards that are enforced," he said.

But every time Obama alters his statements on NAFTA, he lends credence to a Feb. 8 memo describing a meeting between his economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, and George Rioux, Ottawa's consul-general in Chicago.

The Canadian memo, which was leaked to The Associated Press, said Goolsbee told Rioux that Obama's campaign remarks about NAFTA should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy.
Change you can believe in. :p

Well, I certainly don't consider myself a prohet, but as one can see, the divide was great and the result was close. I firmly believe that IF there hadn't been the Florida/Michigan divide, the results would have been entirely different than they ultimately were.

CH, this is the horse. I've been dead for some time now so you can stop with the beatings. I am not going to come back to life (unless I am Hindu).

Clinton was somewhat restricted in her ability to demonstrate Obama's transparency, but the Republicans will be unfettered in their ability to complete the task.

Hillary Clinton was not as politically savvy as the Republicans will be. She was too new to national politics to be able to take shots at Obama. After all, she was so restricted that she was unable to hit him with anything negative.

The more I see of Obama's politics, the less I like the guy.

Hmm, this would presume you liked him in the first place. I do not recall all that many pro-Obama posts from you in the past. Forgive me if I think thos last statement is redundant.

Contrary to your claim, there was supporting evidence for the OP. How about some more?

Why Flip-Flopping Matters (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,370283,00.html)


I imagine the NAFTA flip flop is going to impact Obama in States such as Ohio and Pennsylvania where he was selling his I've got a "hammer (http://www.thestar.com/article/446488)" policy.


Change you can believe in. :p

Well, when you account for McCain flip flops I think the overall effect will be mitigated.

Just to follow-up briefly on Michael’s guest-post from yesterday, Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) new-found opposition to Roe v. Wade is rather remarkable, even for him.

In 1999, McCain was in New Hampshire, campaigning for the GOP nomination as a moderate. He proclaimed himself a pro-life candidate, but told reporters that “in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade.” He explained that overturning Roe would force “women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.” Yesterday, campaigning for the GOP nomination as a conservative, McCain said the opposite.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me ask one question about abortion. Then I want to turn to Iraq. You’re for a constitutional amendment banning abortion, with some exceptions for life and rape and incest.

MCCAIN: Rape, incest and the life of the mother. Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So is President Bush, yet that hasn’t advanced in the six years he’s been in office. What are you going to do to advance a constitutional amendment that President Bush hasn’t done?

MCCAIN: I don’t think a constitutional amendment is probably going to take place, but I do believe that it’s very likely or possible that the Supreme Court should — could overturn Roe v. Wade, which would then return these decisions to the states, which I support…. Just as I believe that the issue of gay marriage should be decided by the states, so do I believe that we would be better off by having Roe v. Wade return to the states.

The old McCain didn’t want an amendment and didn’t want Roe overturned. The new McCain completely disagrees with the old McCain.

It’s worth noting that politicians’ opinions on abortion can, and often do, “evolve” over time. Dick Gephardt and Al Gore, for example, both opposed abortion rights before eventually becoming pro-choice. With this in mind, McCain’s unexpected shift may simply reflect yet another pol whose thinking has changed over time.

Or, far more likely, McCain is once again abandoning any pretense of consistency and integrity, and is now willing to say literally anything to win.

Let’s return, once again, to McCain’s flourishing flip-flop list, which is now a Top 11 list.

* McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but has since decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks. (Indeed, McCain has now hired Falwell’s debate coach.)

* McCain used to oppose Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.

* In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money” to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.

* McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June, he abandoned his own legislation.

* McCain used to think that Grover Norquist was a crook and a corrupt shill for dictators. Then McCain got serious about running for president and began to reconcile with Norquist.

* McCain took a firm line in opposition to torture, and then caved to White House demands.

* McCain gave up on his signature policy issue, campaign-finance reform, and won’t back the same provision he sponsored just a couple of years ago.

* McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.

* McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.

* McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.

* And now he’s both for and against overturning Roe v. Wade.

It’s not exactly a newsflash that McCain is veering ridiculously to the right in a rather shameless attempt to reinvent himself, but Dems should take advantage of the situation and help establish the narrative now. Despite his rather embarrassing record of late, we still have major media figures telling the public that “no one would accuse McCain of equivocating on anything.”

Now is the time to begin characterizing McCain — accurately — as a man with no principle beliefs. Dems should not only criticize McCain’s constantly evolving opinions on nearly everything, they should openly mock him for it now, so that the storyline becomes second nature (like the GOP did with “serial exaggerator” Al Gore).

The nation is seeing McCain 2.0, and we like the old one better.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/16/mccain-sets-a-new-record-10-flip-flops-in-two-weeks/

The preceding url is not to the quoted text above. That can be found at carpetbaggers. The crooksandliars link has some other interesting information. I think these flip flops are big enough to cause issues for playing the "flip-flop" card.

Well, when you account for McCain flip flops I think the overall effect will be mitigated.



http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/16/mccain-sets-a-new-record-10-flip-flops-in-two-weeks/

The preceding url is not to the quoted text above. That can be found at carpetbaggers. The crooksandliars link has some other interesting information. I think these flip flops are big enough to cause issues for playing the "flip-flop" card.

Oh lord, this entire election is going to be who flip-flopped when, isn't it?:(

Apparently Obama is in the pocket of big agriculture…

Is that an Obama in your pocket, etc.

Oh lord, this entire election is going to be who flip-flopped when, isn't it?:(

And who do you think we have to thank for that starting that particular tactic 4 years ago hmm?

Well, when you account for McCain flip flops I think the overall effect will be mitigated.
This thread isn't about McCain....it is about Obama.

Will Obama change American politics (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4383/)?

This guy's article hits a lot of nails on the head in regards to my view of Obama's chant about "change".

And who do you think we have to thank for that starting that particular tactic 4 years ago hmm?

Not me, that's all I know :D.

I've just done some pruning. The pruned posts can be found here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=558767).

Once McCain said that he didn't understand economics as well as he would like. Well, he certainly has a better handle on it than Our Saviour Obama.

Lolwut? (http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080624/pl_bloomberg/ajxbcbplynwy)

Also...

Our Saviour Obama

Gonna roll that one out until November, are we? :rolleyes:

Gonna roll that one out until November, are we? :rolleyes:

Oh, let him. People must do something to quell their boredom...

Hmm, this would presume you liked him in the first place.
Perhaps you were not paying attention? Many times I mentioned a "dream ticket" of Clinton/Obama.

I do not recall all that many pro-Obama posts from you in the past.
The more I see of this guy's politics, the less I like him. He thinks he is better than he is. His speech on the "war we need to win", really struck a nerve with me.

His slight of Bill Clinton's two term Presidency, and praising Republicans and their ability to seize the day was especially irksome.

His flip flopping does not help him to be perceived as the "man of change".

Now I am waiting to see what he does to Hillary and he is already minus a few there.

I'm voting for Obama and am actively campaigning for him.

He inspired me to get off my ass and do something with my life, so i owe it to him.

All the women in my family were Hillary supporters and i stopped them from going to McCain once i told them he was pro life

I was surprised they didn't know. talk about blind devotion

Oh, let him. People must do something to quell their boredom...

As we can see from your obsession with presuming you have debating skills, when in fact you're little more than a hateful little asshole.

Here's the problem with the whole "drilling an ANWAR (choose your area)" thing...Currently there are federal leases that oil companies are not using. If oil companies would have developed these fields there would not be the problem there is now. Treating the oil development business as if they have not been intentionally limiting supply is silly. If they would use what they already have supply would be far higher than demand. This would drop prices dramatically, and that is not good for their bottom line. We then get to the point that there's far more oil being pumped than can be refined. Intentionally limited development and supply are great ways to make you money. But don't think it's going to curry favor with consumers.

Here's the problem with that whole "not using" thing. A lease can only be productive when oil is found. That takes exploration. Exploration takes time. The entire time that exploration is being conducted in a leased area, the lease is tagged as non-producing, exactly as if it were being ignored. Somewhere the demagogues have relabeled non-producing leases as "idle". That's not anywhere near true.

The key to increased production is to open up areas where there is little exploration required because oil companies know there is oil present in sufficient quantities to make it worth drilling, or where exploration is more easily accomplished. The second part of the answer is to not to threaten nationalization or heavy taxation when an oil company spends the hundreds of millions of dollars that is currently needed for exploring the deep ocean areas where leases are currently available.

As we can see from your obsession with presuming you have debating skills, when in fact you're little more than a hateful little asshole.

I'm sorry, were you under the impression I was even talking to you, let alone flaming you to elicit this response?

Also, I don't know what is your problem with me, but the sigged post? I was being sarcastic and pointing out the contradictions within the conservative narrative.

I'm sorry, were you under the impression I was even talking to you, let alone flaming you to elicit this response?

Also, I don't know what is your problem with me, but the sigged post? I was being sarcastic and pointing out the contradictions within the conservative narrative.

Are you under the impression that only the people you respond to can answer your posts?

I imagine the NAFTA flip flop is going to impact Obama in States such as Ohio and Pennsylvania where he was selling his I've got a "hammer (http://www.thestar.com/article/446488)" policy.
Aye, something which no VP can sort out. Ah well.
Change you can believe in. :p
Uhu. So you would have preferred 24+ years of dynastic rule then, eh?

Are you under the impression that only the people you respond to can answer your posts?

The "let alone flaming" was my point. I mean, he WAS out of line.

An interesting article (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/21/obama/index.html) (apologies if it's already been discussed) on Obama's 'compromise' support for the FISA.

In the past 24 hours, specifically beginning with the moment Barack Obama announced that he now supports the Cheney/Rockefeller/Hoyer House bill, there have magically arisen -- in places where one would never have expected to find them -- all sorts of claims about why this FISA "compromise" isn't really so bad after all. People who spent the week railing against Steny Hoyer as an evil, craven enabler of the Bush administration -- or who spent the last several months identically railing against Jay Rockefeller -- suddenly changed their minds completely when Barack Obama announced that he would do the same thing as they did. What had been a vicious assault on our Constitution, and corrupt complicity to conceal Bush lawbreaking, magically and instantaneously transformed into a perfectly understandable position, even a shrewd and commendable decision, that we should not only accept, but be grateful for as undertaken by Obama for our Own Good.
It's this, and I do mean to avoid hyperbole here, hint of blinkered support for Obama and his policies that does worry me somewhat about the man. Not that he's worse than most others on the field, but I still feel he's been trumped up as something he's not.

I'm sorry, were you under the impression I was even talking to you, let alone flaming you to elicit this response?
Not at all. I was simply taking the opportunity to let you in on a little fact that's been bothering me for awhile. That is, your continued insistance that you're some sort of super-debater who can crush anyone, when really you're just hateful and mean. I realize how I said it was flaming, but that doesn't change the reality of it.

Also, I don't know what is your problem with me, but the sigged post? I was being sarcastic and pointing out the contradictions within the conservative narrative.
Hence why I quoted it, and hence why I had quoted a previous, rather similar post from Gravlen, which went along the lines of "The Muslim Barack HUSSEIN Obama is going to self-destruct America in a wave of socialistic civil liberties, causing the slaves to strike against their former masters and turn everybody into gay taxpayers."

...

Come to think of it, that one was a lot funnier than yours.

Not at all. I was simply taking the opportunity to let you in on a little fact that's been bothering me for awhile. That is, your continued insistance that you're some sort of super-debater who can crush anyone, when really you're just hateful and mean. I realize how I said it was flaming, but that doesn't change the reality of it.

Never said I could crush "anyone". In fact I outright SAID I'd have problems debating against some people here. That YOU call me hateful and mean after what YOU said speaks volumes about your own issues. And if a fact is "bothering" you about me, talk to me in private and in a politer tone, bring it up when it's pertinent in a politer tone or keep it to yourself.

Finally, if something "bothers" you, unless it's against the rules here, it is NOT of my concern, and I will NOT care if it does. Just for future reference.

Has anyone mentioned the price of oil with respect to inflation of the US dollar? (I only bring this up because I finally found the pertinent graph. :p)
http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2008/6/7/oilp_oc.png

Note that while yes, oil prices have been rising, the price in dollars is shooting higher at a rate unmatched by the Euro. (SDR is in Special Drawing Rights, a concept someone could fully explain to me BTW). To me, to deal with the immediate price problem of gas in the USA, one must look towards fighting the inflation that is, well, inflating the price of gas. I would think (and make no claims to have complete knowledge on) that a deficit reduction, i.e. spending money that doesn't exist, would help this problem.

Anyone with a real grasp of economics is welcome to point out my flaws.:)
The gap between the Euro price of oil and the Dollar price of oil is explained by the fact that oil is sold in Dollars and the Dollar has been on a steady decline against the Euro, meaning it costs a lot less Euros than dollars to buy the same amount of oil. Inflation of the Dollar is largely because of the high oil price.

take it outside kids! :p

An interesting article (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/21/obama/index.html) (apologies if it's already been discussed) on Obama's 'compromise' support for the FISA.


It's this, and I do mean to avoid hyperbole here, hint of blinkered support for Obama and his policies that does worry me somewhat about the man. Not that he's worse than most others on the field, but I still feel he's been trumped up as something he's not.

Things like this are why I've been rather hesitant on my support for Obama. I didn't want to get wrapped up in the apparent sweep of people proclaiming him as some sort of savior who will change everything. Admittedly, that's overstating things a wee bit, but it's the way people have been following him.

But he is STILL better than McCain, and certainly is CAPABLE of inspiring as a leader. I'm just still not so sure about whether he'll be capable of performing the tasks of a leader as well as he talks about them.

Never said I could crush "anyone". In fact I outright SAID I'd have problems debating against some people here. That YOU call me hateful and mean after what YOU said speaks volumes about your own issues. And if a fact is "bothering" you about me, talk to me in private and in a politer tone, bring it up when it's pertinent in a politer tone or keep it to yourself.

Finally, if something "bothers" you, unless it's against the rules here, it is NOT of my concern, and I will NOT care if it does. Just for future reference.
Perhaps we should let this lie then. I'll not say anything more on the subject.

Things like this are why I've been rather hesitant on my support for Obama. I didn't want to get wrapped up in the apparent sweep of people proclaiming him as some sort of savior who will change everything. Admittedly, that's overstating things a wee bit, but it's the way people have been following him... I'm just still not so sure about whether he'll be capable of performing the tasks of a leader as well as he talks about them.
Take this from a person who, just when I was becoming truly politically concious, witnessed the very same sort of 'Change' speech coming from the mouth of Tony 'Things Can Only Get Better' Blair in 1997: you can never be too cynical.

The sense of New Labour and Blair as A Good Thing after domination by the Tories for 20-odd years was palpable on Election night ten years back. Folks were all gunning for change, all ready for 'new' government.

Turns out it's the same old shit wrapped up in a different ribbon.

Here's the problem with that whole "not using" thing. A lease can only be productive when oil is found. That takes exploration. Exploration takes time. The entire time that exploration is being conducted in a leased area, the lease is tagged as non-producing, exactly as if it were being ignored. Somewhere the demagogues have relabeled non-producing leases as "idle". That's not anywhere near true.

The key to increased production is to open up areas where there is little exploration required because oil companies know there is oil present in sufficient quantities to make it worth drilling, or where exploration is more easily accomplished. The second part of the answer is to not to threaten nationalization or heavy taxation when an oil company spends the hundreds of millions of dollars that is currently needed for exploring the deep ocean areas where leases are currently available.

So let me see if I am following you...They cannot develop their current leases because they don't know if there is oil there due to the need for exploration. However, they can go after oil in areas they do not currently have leases because they know the oil is there. How do they not know that oil is in the area they actually are legally capable of using, and they do know it's in areas they are not even capable of exploring. If this were twenty years ago I'd agree. The current technology allows for them to find oil without drilling.

I'd also like to point out that your premise also falters when you talk about 100's of millions it costs to find this oceanic oil. Oil companies get subsidies from our government to do just that. I see no reason to subsidize and industry where 1 company alone makes over 40 billion in a year. Hundreds of millions doesn't impress me against billions. Finally, if they drill the leases they have and work to increase refinery capacity (yes, there have been cases of oil companies limiting refinery capacity) of their current platforms, as well as developing new ones, there will be no problem with supply. There's plenty of money available to them. Acting as if spending money to progress their business is somehow our fault is just asinine on their part.

This thread isn't about McCain....it is about Obama.

Will Obama change American politics (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4383/)?

This guy's article hits a lot of nails on the head in regards to my view of Obama's chant about "change".

So we're going to look at the issue in a vacuum? This whole flip flop crap should just die with the 2004 election. What's good for one politician is fair play for another.

Perhaps you were not paying attention? Many times I mentioned a "dream ticket" of Clinton/Obama.

How does mentioning a "dream ticket" mean you like Obama when you've spent the better part of 4 months writing posts that are negative towards him. Maybe Hillary should try to offer him the VP slot now like she did during the campaign. "What, you mean I didn't win?"


The more I see of this guy's politics, the less I like him. He thinks he is better than he is. His speech on the "war we need to win", really struck a nerve with me.

Are you going to go back and initiate the invasion of Pakistan argument again?

His slight of Bill Clinton's two term Presidency, and praising Republicans and their ability to seize the day was especially irksome.

Bill Clinton is not the Messiah and neither is Obama. Bill Clinton has some good and bad qualities to his presidency. Pointing out that there are things you didn't like (Nafta for example) is not a slight. Pointing out that Ronald Reagan was extremely influential in changing America is not praising all Republicans. Ron changed the way American politics worked. He was incredibly powerful in this sense. The 1994 contract with America was extremely influential in changing America. It led to Republican dominance for years to come. Failing to recognize the opposing party as having great impact is just stupid.

His flip flopping does not help him to be perceived as the "man of change".

You find me a politician who has never done it and then I'll agree it's a problem for Obama


Now I am waiting to see what he does to Hillary and he is already minus a few there. "Sqwak, I'm a victim I'm a victim."

Both Bill and Hillary are working for Obama and have endorsed him. Clearly they are not doing this out of the goodness in their hearts alone. I'm sure there have been concessions made. He's also asked his supporters to help pay of Hillary's debts. I think that is pretty good treatment. Are you going to say he's mistreating her as long as she is not the VP nom? He's being extremely good to her by paying off her debt.

So let me see if I am following you...They cannot develop their current leases because they don't know if there is oil there due to the need for exploration. However, they can go after oil in areas they do not currently have leases because they know the oil is there. How do they not know that oil is in the area they actually are legally capable of using, and they do know it's in areas they are not even capable of exploring. If this were twenty years ago I'd agree. The current technology allows for them to find oil without drilling.

I'd also like to point out that your premise also falters when you talk about 100's of millions it costs to find this oceanic oil. Oil companies get subsidies from our government to do just that. I see no reason to subsidize and industry where 1 company alone makes over 40 billion in a year. Hundreds of millions doesn't impress me against billions. Finally, if they drill the leases they have and work to increase refinery capacity (yes, there have been cases of oil companies limiting refinery capacity) of their current platforms, as well as developing new ones, there will be no problem with supply. There's plenty of money available to them. Acting as if spending money to progress their business is somehow our fault is just asinine on their part.
I think my premise only fails due to your misunderstanding... No oil company wants to leave recoverable oil in the ground -- They paid over $3.5 Billion to the U.S. for these leases. Exploration, evaluation, and activation all take time. Years worth of time. All this time, the lease is labeled as non-producing. Or demagogued as "idle" or "unused".

Many of these "closed" areas that would be opened up were fertile areas for oil production before they were placed off limits. They are mapped and don't required the kind of exploration that the currently available areas require.

I'm not sure where you learned math, but 300 million is a third of a billion, more or less. That's about what it costs to explore, evaluate, and activate a deep water well. That has to come from profit, not revenue. So diminishing the value of several hundred million dollars only illustrates your ignorance...Not my faulty premise.

Sure, refinery capacity needs to be increased, there's no doubt about that. But let's fix it so we refine oil we produce. We've got the short term reserves to do that -- in easier areas to explore, evaluate, and activate.

Our Saviour Obama


Gonna roll that one out until November, are we? :rolleyes:

Myrmi will still be rolling that one out until January 2017.

Myrmi will still be rolling that one out until January 2017.

How the hell did that get attributed to me? I never use the eyeroll smilie...

your continued insistance that you're some sort of super-debater...
As opposed to you, the master baiter?

How the hell did that get attributed to me? I never use the eyeroll smilie...

I don't know. It was Delator that did that post, wasn't it? Some sort of weird glich in Jolt, I guess.

As opposed to you, the master baiter?

Oh you are so dirty :D

As opposed to you, the master baiter?

Oh, well done. Well done. :D

Myrmi will still be rolling that one out until January 2017.
Hey, "Our Saviour" has a good ring to it. His Royal Highness also sounds good. But Obama is more of a faith-based religion than royalty. We certainly need a lot of faith that he can provide "Change We Can Believe In".

I think my premise only fails due to your misunderstanding... No oil company wants to leave recoverable oil in the ground -- They paid over $3.5 Billion to the U.S. for these leases. Exploration, evaluation, and activation all take time. Years worth of time. All this time, the lease is labeled as non-producing. Or demagogued as "idle" or "unused".

....and they seem to admit they aren't doing it.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/23/news/economy/oil_drilling/index.htm?cnn=yes

With prices at $135 dollars a barrel, everyone is trying to pump as much as they can, he said. But fearing oil prices will eventually fall, the industry is leery about making too many investments in the fields it has - many of which are in deepwater areas that can be pricey to develop.

In other words, they aren't investing in that exploration, evaluation, and activation on land they already have, because they're hoping the government will make it cheaper for them.

We talked about this during the primary and I linked something about it earlier that got pruned, but again-we're seeing the down ballot, 50 state strategy starting to shape up- (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11320.html)
Barack Obama will focus his resources largely in 14 states George W. Bush won in 2004, his chief field operative said Tuesday, hoping to score upsets in places such as Virginia, Indiana and Georgia.

But winning the White House won’t be his only goal, deputy campaign manager Steve Hildebrand told Politico: In an unusual move, Obama’s campaign will also devote some resources to states it’s unlikely to win, with the goal of influencing specific local contests in places such as Texas and Wyoming.

“Texas is a great example where we might not be able to win the state, but we want to pay a lot of attention to it,” Hildebrand said. “It’s one of the most important redistricting opportunities in the country.”
...
Hildebrand’s plans underscore the unusual scope and ambition of Obama’s campaign, which can relatively cheaply extend its massive volunteer and technological resources into states which won’t necessarily produce electoral votes.

In Texas, for instance, Obama’s three dozen offices were overrun with volunteers during the primary; the campaign’s challenge is, in part, to find something useful to do with all that free labor. But, while Hildebrand said Obama is unlikely to pay for television advertising outside a core of about 15 states the candidate thinks he can win, he will spend some money on staff. Obama’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, reportedly told donors in Houston that he would send 15 staffers to Texas, and the campaign has committed to having some staff on the ground in all 50 states.
...
In an interview, Hildebrand listed states in order of the margin by which Bush carried them: The closest four — Iowa, New Mexico, Ohio, Nevada — he said, would see “a ton of attention.”

But he said Obama would campaign hard in 10 more states, with the candidate and his top surrogates spending time on the ground and his campaign spending money in the air. Those states are Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Virginia, North Carolina, Montana, North Dakota, Indiana, Georgia and Alaska.

McCain's camp, of course, downplays this-

"It’s revealing that Barack Obama has now been forced to expand the states on his map because he’s so weak in traditional Democratic targets such as West Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and Florida, not to mention his ongoing problems in Pennsylvania and Ohio,” said McCain spokesman Brian Rogers.

And there are naysayers-
Some have suggested his broader playing field is a kind of “head-fake,” a maneuver designed to force McCain to spend money and time on states Obama doesn’t really think he can win.

Of course, this is what was said about Obama's strategy in the primaries. And what was said of Dean's 50 state push in 2006. Maybe they're relying on the 'broken clock' theory...

So we're going to look at the issue in a vacuum?
I believe the purpose of the thread is to determine if Obama is just another "typical politician" or not. From the evidence presented so far, it is surely shaping up that Obama is indeed a "typical politician".

This whole flip flop crap should just die with the 2004 election.
Not if it persists, and it seems to be true, in the 2008 election.

What's good for one politician is fair play for another.
So it is okay if Obama raises the bar but proceeds to bang his head on that same bar as he slides underneath it?

Where is the change?

<snip>I realize how I said it was flaming ...


Yes, it was. Take a 24-hour break.

<snip> ... but that doesn't change the reality of it.


The reality of it is that you may not make offensive personal remarks to other posters. As you very well know.

I believe the purpose of the thread is to determine if Obama is just another "typical politician" or not. From the evidence presented so far, it is surely shaping up that Obama is indeed a "typical politician".
May I ask (and believe me when I say I am not trying to draw you into silly arguments of Obama vs. Clinton) if you think Clinton, or indeed any other of the possible Presidential candidates, are anything more than 'typical politicians'?

So it is okay if Obama raises the bar but proceeds to bang his head on that same bar as he slides underneath it?

Where is the change?

Pointing out hypocrisy, even yours, is never going "under the bar".

May I ask (and believe me when I say I am not trying to draw you into silly arguments of Obama vs. Clinton) if you think Clinton, or indeed any other of the possible Presidential candidates, are anything more than 'typical politicians'?
There are various shades of "typical politicians", such as good, bad, or middle of the road. I guess it all depends on the degree of sincerity that each of them possesses.

Obama has tried to set himself above the "typical politician" and in so doing, he leaves himself wide open for criticism when he fails to achieve his own benchmarks. I personally believe that his weaknesses will be exploited.

How does mentioning a "dream ticket" mean you like Obama when you've spent the better part of 4 months writing posts that are negative towards him.
They haven't all been negative, and some may have been perceived as negative when in fact they were presented in a fashion to draw back the over exuberant masses to some reasonable sense of reality.

I did a search and the first time I talked about an Obama/Clinton ticket (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12144671&postcount=36) was way back on Dec. 29, 2006.

You were a Hillary hater way back then too.

Maybe Hillary should try to offer him the VP slot now like she did during the campaign. "What, you mean I didn't win?"
Still taking cheap shots at her? You expect Clinton to be a gracious loser but there seems to be very little support coming back the other way. This kind of attitude will not be beneficial to Obama come November.

Are you going to go back and initiate the invasion of Pakistan argument again?
It is not really my intention to do so, but one must be aware that such policy is on the table and it truly affected my view of Obama.

Bill Clinton is not the Messiah and neither is Obama. Bill Clinton has some good and bad qualities to his presidency. Pointing out that there are things you didn't like (Nafta for example) is not a slight. Pointing out that Ronald Reagan was extremely influential in changing America is not praising all Republicans. Ron changed the way American politics worked. He was incredibly powerful in this sense. The 1994 contract with America was extremely influential in changing America. It led to Republican dominance for years to come. Failing to recognize the opposing party as having great impact is just stupid.
You have tried to simplify a much larger argument and in so doing, you are missing some of the root problems. By reaching out to Republicans and Independents, one must be careful not to piss on the little people that need the change the most.

You find me a politician who has never done it and then I'll agree it's a problem for Obama
It is a bigger problem for Obama because he insists on not being that type of politician.

"Sqwak, I'm a victim I'm a victim."
More anti Hillary ammunition for those that will end up supporting a Nader or a McCain or just staying home.

Both Bill and Hillary are working for Obama and have endorsed him. Clearly they are not doing this out of the goodness in their hearts alone. I'm sure there have been concessions made. He's also asked his supporters to help pay of Hillary's debts. I think that is pretty good treatment. Are you going to say he's mistreating her as long as she is not the VP nom? He's being extremely good to her by paying off her debt.
And he is doing this all out of the goodness of his heart.....and they all lived happily ever after. The end.

And he is doing this all out of the goodness of his heart.....and they all lived happily ever after. The end.

All you need. Can't be satisfied, isn't worth the effort.

And no, CH, this isn't a slight against "Clinton" or "Clinton supporters," it's against you.

This thread isn't about McCain....it is about Obama.



It is now...

All you need. Can't be satisfied, isn't worth the effort.

And no, CH, this isn't a slight against "Clinton" or "Clinton supporters," it's against you.
Parry, thrust, jab, jab.....whatever. :p

Here is an Obama slight against Hillary:

Obama Hires Solis Doyle: A Bad Omen For VP Hillary (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/16/obama-hires-solis-doyle-a_n_107395.html)

I am getting a better sense of this Bush like "you're either with us, or against us" type attitude coming from the Obama camp.

Parry, thrust, jab, jab.....whatever. :p

Here is an Obama slight against Hillary:

Obama Hires Solis Doyle: A Bad Omen For VP Hillary (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/16/obama-hires-solis-doyle-a_n_107395.html)

I am getting a better sense of this Bush like "you're either with us, or against us" type attitude coming from the Obama camp.

So, let me get this straight.

Hillary campaigns dirty against Obama, and she's not being divisive.

Obama hires Hillary's former aide, and he is.

It must be frightening living in a world in which any action by Clinton is justifiable. Because if she ever sexually molests a kid, you'll be forced to say the kid had it coming.

Parry, thrust, jab, jab.....whatever. :p

Here is an Obama slight against Hillary:

Obama Hires Solis Doyle: A Bad Omen For VP Hillary (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/16/obama-hires-solis-doyle-a_n_107395.html)

I am getting a better sense of this Bush like "you're either with us, or against us" type attitude coming from the Obama camp.
Took ya that long?:p

But with all seriousness, Clinton would've done something similar, and taken a similar attitude.

It is now...
Damn shame that....I wish that she would stop moving things around so much. Too hard to keep track.

Parry, thrust, jab, jab.....whatever. :p

Here is an Obama slight against Hillary:

Obama Hires Solis Doyle: A Bad Omen For VP Hillary (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/16/obama-hires-solis-doyle-a_n_107395.html)

I am getting a better sense of this Bush like "you're either with us, or against us" type attitude coming from the Obama camp.

It's interesting that you put that slight in the terms of Clinton as VP. Well, telling more than interesting.

I already, and you know this, don't think her appointment was a good idea, but it has fuck all to do with Clinton being VP. I don't think Obama is required to keep people Clinton is on the outs with out of the mix just because they had a tiff.

I'm interested to see how this is a 'Bush-like "You're either with us, or against us.' I love a good gymnastic routine.

Damn shame that....I wish that she would stop moving things around so much. Too hard to keep track.

Not if you follow her very simple and straight forward rule. But then, if you're trying to duck actual debate, I guess it can get hard, can't it?

I believe the purpose of the thread is to determine if Obama is just another "typical politician" or not. From the evidence presented so far, it is surely shaping up that Obama is indeed a "typical politician".


Not if it persists, and it seems to be true, in the 2008 election.


So it is okay if Obama raises the bar but proceeds to bang his head on that same bar as he slides underneath it?

Where is the change?

I'll accept better than most. Anyone who thinks a man can person can reach the presidency without doing some favors is naive. I'm pragmatic when I look at the candidates. I realize that none of them are perfect and that they will make mistakes. GWB went over the limit for me though.

Calling Obama a politician just makes very little sense. I look at the way he has used his office in the past and see some great things. I do not agree with him completely, but I can respectfully disagree and see his point of view. Even with John McCain I say, see how he votes and if you trust him. Speeches, commercials, etc. is just how they sell the candidates. Your voting record and trustworthiness are things that define you in politics. It's the best indication of how you feel America should be. This is why people like Barack. They see his vision for America and they want to get on board. When he praised Ronald Reagan he did so by calling him a transformative leader with a clear vision for America.

All you need. Can't be satisfied, isn't worth the effort.

And no, CH, this isn't a slight against "Clinton" or "Clinton supporters," it's against you.

Right, it's how you have argued this point over and over. Even now you come off with a post of how things would have been different (could' a should ' a would' a) and such. I'm annoyed at you more so than anyone else.
We can now deal with the reality of the situation and cease the passive aggressive ruminations over old arguments. You want to bring those things up? It's like taking Creationism and calling it Intelligent Design. Obama is better than most, and the public has voted as such. If people want to shoot themselves in the foot to vote out of spite, then they deserve what they get. Now cease the throwback shit and we can discuss peacefully.

Here is an Obama slight against Hillary:

Obama Hires Solis Doyle: A Bad Omen For VP Hillary (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/16/obama-hires-solis-doyle-a_n_107395.html)

Hmmm... I'm sure I posted that about a week ago. Calling it "biggest fuck you I have ever seen in politics" (http://www.observer.com/2008/clinton-bundler-obamas-doyle-pick-biggest-fuck-you-ever) reflects poorly on her camp...

you leaving out they already have to have a college degree. and that McCain had risen to the rank LT CMDR by the time he was captured in Vietnam.
He wasn't a fresh pilot he was a seasoned pilot who had duties to take care of younger pilots.

Taken from the sucker born every minute thread which has been closed.

That is exactly my point he had to have more skills than just be able to fly a plance as he was a LT CMDR. I always thought that he was in the Air force not the Navy.

Right, it's how you have argued this point over and over. Even now you come off with a post of how things would have been different (could' a should ' a would' a) and such. I'm annoyed at you more so than anyone else.
We can now deal with the reality of the situation and cease the passive aggressive ruminations over old arguments. You want to bring those things up? It's like taking Creationism and calling it Intelligent Design. Obama is better than most, and the public has voted as such. If people want to shoot themselves in the foot to vote out of spite, then they deserve what they get. Now cease the throwback shit and we can discuss peacefully.

Wait, I'm lost...what did I do?

Here's a Catch 22 (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11349.html) for Obama where it looks like he's set to make what I feel is the wrong decision.

I don't feel like quoting right now, essentially it's that the netroots are upset with him because he looks like he's backing out on a pledge to block any legislation that gives retroactive immunity to the telecom companies that participated in the wiretapping program.

I absolutely disagree with retroactive immunity, and frankly don't care if that makes him look 'weak' on security. But that's the danger he faces, and it looks like the way he's going to go.

It's not a deal breaker, I've said before he's a candidate I can disagree with which is a change from what we have now. I definately disagree with him on this. I guess the question is whether the loss of the netroots is greater than the loss of those who think he's 'weak' on security. Honestly, I don't think that the people who think he's 'weak' on the security are suddenly going to vote for him because he granted immunity to the telecoms. This is a bad move.

Here's a Catch 22 (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11349.html) for Obama where it looks like he's set to make what I feel is the wrong decision.

I don't feel like quoting right now, essentially it's that the netroots are upset with him because he looks like he's backing out on a pledge to block any legislation that gives retroactive immunity to the telecom companies that participated in the wiretapping program.

I absolutely disagree with retroactive immunity, and frankly don't care if that makes him look 'weak' on security. But that's the danger he faces, and it looks like the way he's going to go.


"Perhaps most controversially, the bill effectively pardons the telecom giants that assisted the Bush administration in the warrantless wiretapping program. They will now be shielded from dozens of civil lawsuits brought against them after their involvement was exposed. House Democrats insist that the telecoms are not automatically getting off the hook. Instead, the companies must go before a federal judge. But here's the catch: For the suits against them to be "promptly dismissed," they must demonstrate to the judge not that what they did was legal but only that the White House told them to do it.
This is another bit of face-saving window dressing, and its essence is best captured in a breathtaking remark from Sen. Bond: "I'm not here to say that the government is always right. But when the government tells you to do something, I'm sure you would all agree … that is something you need to do." That more or less sums it up—one part Nuremberg defense, the other part Nixon."

Ah, the bullshit 'compromise'. Last seen in the UK's 42 days detention and a hallmark of shitty terror-related legislation the world over.

....and they seem to admit they aren't doing it.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/23/news/economy/oil_drilling/index.htm?cnn=yes

With prices at $135 dollars a barrel, everyone is trying to pump as much as they can, he said. But fearing oil prices will eventually fall, the industry is leery about making too many investments in the fields it has - many of which are in deepwater areas that can be pricey to develop.

In other words, they aren't investing in that exploration, evaluation, and activation on land they already have, because they're hoping the government will make it cheaper for them.
Now there's a real good example of how cherry picking can make an article look exactly the way you want... The rest of the article basically repeats what I've been saying. You rival Maureen Dowd in your ability to alter meanings. You just don't do it with an ellipsis.

But let's look at your carefully chosen quote a little closer, okay? All they are saying is that they want to avoid risking billions of dollars in exploring high risk areas.

Let's look at real life.
http://www.smartmoney.com/stock-screen/index.cfm?story=20060905intro

On Tuesday, Chevron and partners Devon Energy (DVN: 115.10, -2.33, -1.98%) and Statoil (STO: 36.28, -0.49, -1.33%) announced they had drilled through 7,000 feet of water and more than 22,000 feet below the sea floor to test a well in their Jack field, discovered in September 2004 about 270 miles southwest of New Orleans. The well, Jack 2, produced the maximum flow of oil the test allowed, 6,000 barrels a day, for more than a month. Experts say the region that holds the Jack field could be the largest American oil find since the late 1960s discoveries under Alaska's North Slope.

... It remains unclear, though, how lucrative the find will prove for any of the three. The location of the deposits makes exploiting them the equivalent of drilling from the top of Mount Everest to the bottom, only from a floating platform rather than a land-based rig. That's expensive work. The Jack 2 well is thought to have cost about $100 million, The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday. Exploiting the entire deposit could cost billions. Such an investment might prove warranted at current $70 a barrel oil prices, but less attractive should oil revert to the $40 a barrel it traded at two years ago.

$100,000,000 to explore, evaluate, and it isn't yet activated. The total cost could be billions. Why isn't a company praised for holding back from exploring such risky areas, when areas that are easier and cheaper to develop may be available soon? These companies aren't a government agency, much to Maxine Walters dismay, so they aren't encouraged to lose money at every step.

And don't forget, the oil well described above is still listed as non-producing -- that's "idle" to all you demagogues out there.

Now there's a real good example of how cherry picking can make an article look exactly the way you want... The rest of the article basically repeats what I've been saying. You rival Maureen Dowd in your ability to alter meanings. You just don't do it with an ellipsis.

But let's look at your carefully chosen quote a little closer, okay? All they are saying is that they want to avoid risking billions of dollars in exploring high risk areas.

Let's look at real life.
http://www.smartmoney.com/stock-screen/index.cfm?story=20060905intro

On Tuesday, Chevron and partners Devon Energy (DVN: 115.10, -2.33, -1.98%) and Statoil (STO: 36.28, -0.49, -1.33%) announced they had drilled through 7,000 feet of water and more than 22,000 feet below the sea floor to test a well in their Jack field, discovered in September 2004 about 270 miles southwest of New Orleans. The well, Jack 2, produced the maximum flow of oil the test allowed, 6,000 barrels a day, for more than a month. Experts say the region that holds the Jack field could be the largest American oil find since the late 1960s discoveries under Alaska's North Slope.

... It remains unclear, though, how lucrative the find will prove for any of the three. The location of the deposits makes exploiting them the equivalent of drilling from the top of Mount Everest to the bottom, only from a floating platform rather than a land-based rig. That's expensive work. The Jack 2 well is thought to have cost about $100 million, The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday. Exploiting the entire deposit could cost billions. Such an investment might prove warranted at current $70 a barrel oil prices, but less attractive should oil revert to the $40 a barrel it traded at two years ago.

$100,000,000 to explore, evaluate, and it isn't yet activated. The total cost could be billions. Why isn't a company praised for holding back from exploring such risky areas, when areas that are easier and cheaper to develop may be available soon? These companies aren't a government agency, much to Maxine Walters dismay, so they aren't encouraged to lose money at every step.

And don't forget, the oil well described above is still listed as non-producing -- that's "idle" to all you demagogues out there.

In real life oil is trading at $70 a barrel? God damn I gotta tell my broker.

Belly intelestink: The Dobson stink playing into Obama's hand...

I said before that Hagel may make a good VP to make a play for the SoCons....


But the new generation of evangelicals is sick of being labeled as backward rednecks because of their association with fossils like Dobson. There are many evangelicals like Cizik too who are not all about homophobia, nationalism, war-without-end and American exceptionalism or the Republican Party. Like Cizik they believe that the America has a responsibility to do something about global warming, poverty, AIDS, human trafficking and other issues. They see through Dobson and the other so-called pro-life leaders, who have actually done nothing to reduce abortion. In fact Dobson has increased abortions because of his "abstinence only" crusade.

As a result of his power grabs and bullying of other evangelicals, not to mention his telling people how to vote and pointing them to the failed W, Dobson & Co. have zero credibility with a growing number of otherwise conservative evangelicals who happen--this year--to be looking favorably at Senator Obama's holistic Christian-based world view. Unlike Dobson they like Obama's theology just fine.

All that was missing to put the frosting on the Obama cake was for Dobson to attack him. For Obama to win all he needs to do is peel off a chunk of heretofore solid evangelical Republican votes. Dobson just handed Obama those votes.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/dr-dobson-has-just-handed_b_108989.html

Wicked cool. The SoCons don't like McCain because he's too "moderate" and they don't trust him. The LibCons and PaleoCons don't like him because of his ties to the neocons and because of his attempts to kiss and make up with the Christo-fascists he himself demonized as agents of intolerance.

And as for HRH, TUO, HRC, the realignment that's increasingly evident in this cycle throws the support of her partisans to the four winds.

The DC gun ruling was possibly the best news for Obama. After this, gun rights shouldn't be a topic in the campaign, and McCain can't use it as a rallying cry. Or?

The DC gun ruling was possibly the best news for Obama. After this, gun rights shouldn't be a topic in the campaign, and McCain can't use it as a rallying cry. Or?
Guns have been a non-issue for many years. The Dems found out in '94, I think, that campaigning for gun control led to more Republicans being elected.

There are just too many other issues to beat up Our Saviour Obama on. Social Security, Immigration, Defense, Tax Reform... The problem is that McCain isn't the one to do it.

I heard that hiring Solis Doyle as chief of staff for the VP nomination was Obama's way of giving Hillary the great satisfaction of being able to fire that bitch twice!

Now there's a real good example of how cherry picking can make an article look exactly the way you want... The rest of the article basically repeats what I've been saying. You rival Maureen Dowd in your ability to alter meanings. You just don't do it with an ellipsis.

You do realize that you first claim I changed meaning, and then you go on to agree that it means exactly what I said it does and to try and justify that, right?

But let's look at your carefully chosen quote a little closer, okay? All they are saying is that they want to avoid risking billions of dollars in exploring high risk areas.

...because they're hoping that lower risk (for them, anyways - higher risk to coastal ecosystems) areas will come open.

In other words, they're sitting around waiting for the law to change so that they don't have to spend as much money. That's their prerogative, of course, but they can't simultaneously whine it's all someone else's fault that they aren't producing more oil. They are making the choice to wait until someone else makes it easier for them.

You do realize that you first claim I changed meaning, and then you go on to agree that it means exactly what I said it does and to try and justify that, right?



...because they're hoping that lower risk (for them, anyways - higher risk to coastal ecosystems) areas will come open.

In other words, they're sitting around waiting for the law to change so that they don't have to spend as much money. That's their prerogative, of course, but they can't simultaneously whine it's all someone else's fault that they aren't producing more oil. They are making the choice to wait until someone else makes it easier for them.
Agreed? Hardly -- You provide an unattributed quote, or maybe one that's attributable to the oil company antagonist in the article and expect that to carry the day? Ever hear of "what if"? Even if they are not exploring the most risky areas, that's a good thing. Production ought to come from the least risky (less costly) areas first.

You still haven't convinced me that many deep water leases aren't being explored, nor that it's a bad idea to open up more shallow water to production. Remember, the point is that we want oil prices to come down while we are developing other forms of energy. So find another way to prove that many of the leases that the antagonists claim are "idle" are not just in the non-producing stage because they are still unactivated.

I'll review... Opening up areas that are easier to develop will cut the time to market, but it will also drop the futures prices -- With the expectations of cheaper oil in the future, the tendency will be to sell the high priced futures and that will lower their prices. The main advantage of all this is not to the oil companies, who are still at about an 8% profit margin, but to all the other industries that depend on petroleum products. We don't want to cause economic woes across the board just because you think the oil industry has it easy.

I am having fun watching Obama squirm over the recent gun ruling. He's trying to straddle so he pleases his gun-banning Democrat base, and not piss off the same voters who voted for Hillary (the white rural folk he insulted on purpose).

I am having fun watching Obama squirm over the recent gun ruling. He's trying to straddle so he pleases his gun-banning Democrat base, and not piss off the same voters who voted for Hillary (the white rural folk he insulted on purpose).

Source?

(the white rural folk he insulted on purpose).
You mean the speech segment clipped to and played as an insult by neocon conservapundits whose only job is to slander and libel liberals.

You mean the speech segment clipped to and played as an insult by Hillary whose only job is to slander and libel Obama.

Fixed.

It's pretty clear by his statements and his support of the Chicago gun ban, and his dismay over the SCOTUS ruling that Obama is very, very anti-gun.

So is the Democratic Party, despite their continual denials. See Pelosi for details on how anti-gun they really are.

Fixed.

I said what I meant and meant what I said.

Guns have been a non-issue for many years. The Dems found out in '94, I think, that campaigning for gun control led to more Republicans being elected.
Indeed, which is why it would have been extremely beneficial for McCain if the ruling had turned out differently. He could have made it an issue.

It's pretty clear by his statements and his support of the Chicago gun ban, and his dismay over the SCOTUS ruling that Obama is very, very anti-gun.

So is the Democratic Party, despite their continual denials. See Pelosi for details on how anti-gun they really are.

Source or it didn't happen.

But I figure you must be wishing so hard that Clinton were the nominee right now. I mean, against Obama all you have is lies.

Indeed, which is why it would have been extremely beneficial for McCain if the ruling had turned out differently. He could have made it an issue.

See the gay marriage issue in 2004 which was used by the GOP to sentence the world to four more years of darkness.

See the gay marriage issue in 2004 which was used by the GOP to sentence the world to four more years of darkness.

Wonder if the "conservatives" who favor a gay marriage ban have noticed that they're being used.

Source or it didn't happen.
That is worth sigging. :D

Wonder if the "conservatives" who favor a gay marriage ban have noticed that they're being used.

Don't count on it.

Source or it didn't happen.

But I figure you must be wishing so hard that Clinton were the nominee right now. I mean, against Obama all you have is lies.

Kimchi wants 4 More Years of Bushevism. And in other news, the sky is still blue, the Pope is still Catholic, and bears still shit in the woods.

That is worth sigging. :D

Feel free, but I don't think I was the first to write that here.

Source or it didn't happen.
That's a pretty incredible take on reality.

That's a pretty incredible take on reality.

No, that's a pretty decent take on Hotwife.

It's pretty clear by his statements and his support of the Chicago gun ban, and his dismay over the SCOTUS ruling that Obama is very, very anti-gun.

So is the Democratic Party, despite their continual denials. See Pelosi for details on how anti-gun they really are.
Well, Pelosi isn't running for President. The real question is whether or not we believe Our Savior Obama when he states,
"I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through commonsense, effective safety measures."
Or do we believe the anti-gun ownership voting record? The voting record that earned him an F with the NRA?

When do we believe that the Obama that refused to sign the pro-gun “friend-of-the-court” brief filed by 55 other senators and 250 House members in the District of Columbia v. Heller gun ban case is really for individual rights to gun ownership?

When Hell freezes over, that's when.

I said what I meant and meant what I said.
An elephant's faithful, one hundred percent.

Thanks, Horton.

An elephant's faithful, one hundred percent.

Thanks, Horton.

So, are you trying to flame the guy, showcase your knowledge of Dr. Seuss, tell the guy he's right despite you not believing him, or what? :confused:

Or do we believe the anti-gun ownership voting record? The voting record that earned him an F with the NRA?
I would like to point out that the NRA didn't think the USSC ruling that banned required trigger locks and dismissed a sole handgun ban didn't go far enough. The NRA is the poor man's PETA, so to say.

So, are you trying to flame the guy, showcase your knowledge of Dr. Seuss, tell the guy he's right despite you not believing him, or what? :confused:
Damn! The Myrmi bot is malfunctioning again!

So, are you trying to flame the guy, showcase your knowledge of Dr. Seuss, tell the guy he's right despite you not believing him, or what? :confused:
I just couldn't resist. I had no control over my fingers. The stanza had to be completed. Call it OCD.

I have no doubt the pantsman has seen the humor in it, though it escapes you.

I just couldn't resist. I had no control over my fingers. The stanza had to be completed. Call it OCD.

I have no doubt the pantsman has seen the humor in it, though it escapes you.

Nope, didn't escape me. I wonder if the humor in MY post escaped YOU, though.

I would like to point out that the NRA didn't think the USSC ruling that banned required trigger locks and dismissed a sole handgun ban didn't go far enough. The NRA is the poor man's PETA, so to say.
And I agree with them in that conclusion, but we have what we have... As far as the ratings go, I'm sure not going to rely on the Brady Bunch to rate lawmakers relative to the Second Amendment.

And I agree with them in that conclusion, but we have what we have... As far as the ratings go, I'm sure not going to rely on the Brady Bunch to rate lawmakers relative to the Second Amendment.
I'm not going to rely on PETA to rank how well people treat animals. Neither am I going to rely on People For Eating More $%&*ing Meat. To blame one extreme group as the reason you rely on another is crap.

I'm not going to rely on PETA to rank how well people treat animals. Neither am I going to rely on People For Eating More $%&*ing Meat. To blame one extreme group as the reason you rely on another is crap.
Tell me what group fairly rates legislators on gun policy?

In the age of special interest groups, you have to go with one that represents your interests best. In this case, it's the NRA -- and I don't find a thing wrong with an organization that represents over 4 million Americans. As George Stephanopoulos said, "Let me make one small vote for the NRA. They're good citizens. They call their Congressmen. They write. They vote. They contribute. And they get what they want over time."

Let's add one more thing -- we obey the law.

Tell me what group fairly rates legislators on gun policy?
If you are throwing your hat in with "GIVE EVERYONE ALL THE GUNS THEY WANT" NRA, then "none but the NRA." If you want to be rational, I can probably go look up some.

and I don't find a thing wrong with an organization that represents over 4 million Americans.
Ah, the bandwagon plea. That's a classic.

we obey the law.
[...] Too easy.

If you are throwing your hat in with "GIVE EVERYONE ALL THE GUNS THEY WANT" NRA, then "none but the NRA." If you want to be rational, I can probably go look up some.

My thoughts are that this is a lot like abortion - there are no organizations in the middle.

Agreed? Hardly -- You provide an unattributed quote, or maybe one that's attributable to the oil company antagonist in the article and expect that to carry the day? Ever hear of "what if"? Even if they are not exploring the most risky areas, that's a good thing. Production ought to come from the least risky (less costly) areas first.

Presumably, they've already explored their least costly lease areas. All that's left is the more risky ones.

You still haven't convinced me that many deep water leases aren't being explored, nor that it's a bad idea to open up more shallow water to production. Remember, the point is that we want oil prices to come down while we are developing other forms of energy.

Maybe you aren't convinced that it isn't happening, but you are apparently convinced that it shouldn't be happening.

Meanwhile, the goal is to do these things in a manner that doesn't further endanger the environment. We've seen what oil in the water in coastal areas does to the ecosystems there. Even with our best efforts to clean up, we see effects that linger on long after such an event. And even without actual spills, industrial activity in general in such an area causes problems.

I'm not convinced that the environmental risk doesn't outweigh the cost analysis on this one.

If you take economics and only economics into account, it might sound like a good idea, but I don't think that economics are the only important consideration here. Cheaper oil is a good goal, but not to the exclusion of all others..

Well, Pelosi isn't running for President. The real question is whether or not we believe Our Savior Obama when he states,
"I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through commonsense, effective safety measures."
Or do we believe the anti-gun ownership voting record? The voting record that earned him an F with the NRA?

I don't see why we can't believe both. The NRA generally won't accept any gun control. I'm fairly certain that I'd be considered "anti-gun" by the NRA, despite the fact that I agree with the quote there.

When do we believe that the Obama that refused to sign the pro-gun “friend-of-the-court” brief filed by 55 other senators and 250 House members in the District of Columbia v. Heller gun ban case is really for individual rights to gun ownership?

When Hell freezes over, that's when.

Why do you have to be "pro-gun" or "anti-gun"? Is there really no middle ground? I haven't read the brief in question, but could it possibly be that it didn't adequately express his particular viewpoint?

I've yet to see an organization put forth my particular viewpoint on gun control. They all seem to err on one side or the other. Does that make me "anti-gun"?

Does that make me "anti-gun"?

Yes.

It makes you pro-gun, it makes you anti-gun and it makes people's heads explode.

Yes.

It makes you pro-gun, it makes you anti-gun and it makes people's heads explode.

Woo! I've always wanted to be a walking paradox.

=)

Woo! I've always wanted to be a walking paradox.

=)

Now you are.

However, you aren't.

That's a pretty incredible take on reality.

It's called scepticism, and it's quite common.

I just couldn't resist. I had no control over my fingers. The stanza had to be completed. Call it OCD.

Took me a moment to get it. (I don't see TPH...)

My thoughts are that this is a lot like abortion - there are no organizations in the middle.
False comparison. There is no real middle in the abortion debate because you either want no abortion or you are ok with abortion in some way.

Gun control is different. NRA wants no gun control at all. Criminal wants a gun? Here, have this extra one I have. Mentally unstable? Here's a Mac-10.
There are reasonable areas between complete and total gun bans and NRA crackpot levels of giving everyone who can hold one a gun.

My thoughts are that this is a lot like abortion - there are no organizations in the middle.

Unrestricted abortions.
Abortions, but only up until 24 / 18 / 16 / 12 weeks.
Abortions only where it's medically or socially necessary.
Abortions due to fetal defects.
No abortions, except in the cases of rape and / or incest and / or where there's a threat to the life of the mother /danger to physical / mental health.
No abortions at all.



Good thing there's no middle ground between allowing abortion or not...

Just as people couldn't stand Nixson then Ford so we got Jimmy Carter. Now they can't stand George Bush. So Obama looks good to many. Come on people. He doesn't really have a clue. He's a good speaker. What does he stand for really? Change? Well, what change? Think about it. Lord help us.

Just as people couldn't stand Nixson then Ford so we got Jimmy Carter. Now they can't stand George Bush. So Obama looks good to many. Come on people. He doesn't really have a clue. He's a good speaker. What does he stand for really? Change? Well, what change? Think about it. Lord help us.

Given that the alternative is a decrepit old piece of turd that wants to emulate what Bush, the enemy of the world, is doing, and keep promoting wanton death in random countries, I'd take certain low-level demons over McCain, and Obama is quite better than any demon.

False comparison. There is no real middle in the abortion debate because you either want no abortion or you are ok with abortion in some way.

Gun control is different. NRA wants no gun control at all. Criminal wants a gun? Here, have this extra one I have. Mentally unstable? Here's a Mac-10.
There are reasonable areas between complete and total gun bans and NRA crackpot levels of giving everyone who can hold one a gun.
I don't think you quite understand the NRA... But that's okay, there are several million more that do. And that's enough to influence elections.

I don't think you quite understand the NRA... But that's okay, there are several million more that do. And that's enough to influence elections.
No, I'm pretty sure I do understand it and that's the problem.
And your support of tyranny of the majority is unsurprising.

Just as people couldn't stand Nixson then Ford so we got Jimmy Carter. Now they can't stand George Bush. So Obama looks good to many. Come on people. He doesn't really have a clue. He's a good speaker. What does he stand for really? Change? Well, what change? Think about it. Lord help us.
One day John McCain is going to wake up and realize that the McCain that ran in 2000 is the one folks want to elect. This "new" McCain is just too plain and too much like the Republicans of recent years. He's already committed to removing the AMT. He likes a strong national defense. If he can bring himself to control illegal immigration and just make himself a little more likeable, he'll be a much more appealing candidate to those that don't like Our Saviour Obama.

One day John McCain is going to wake up and realize that the McCain that ran in 2000 is the one folks want to elect.

Yup. That day will be 11/5/2008. And by "folks" I'll assume you mean "moderate conservatives that stayed home".

One day John McCain is going to wake up and realize that the McCain that ran in 2000 is the one folks want to elect. This "new" McCain is just too plain and too much like the Republicans of recent years. He's already committed to removing the AMT. He likes a strong national defense. If he can bring himself to control illegal immigration and just make himself a little more likeable, he'll be a much more appealing candidate to those that don't like Our Saviour Obama.
Are you saying the old McCain or new McCain is better able to beat Obama.

One day John McCain is going to wake up and realize that the McCain that ran in 2000 is the one folks want to elect. This "new" McCain is just too plain and too much like the Republicans of recent years. He's already committed to removing the AMT. He likes a strong national defense. If he can bring himself to control illegal immigration and just make himself a little more likeable, he'll be a much more appealing candidate to those that don't like Our Saviour Obama.

He'd have to answer to the likes of me (I'd have voted for him easily in 2000) regarding 1) his sell out to the Christo-Facsists, and 2) his buying into the NeoCon FP. He condemned the Falwellite as "agents of intolerance", then turned around and embraced heartily. One doesn't flip-flop on such things and escape easily....

And his agreement w/ GW's Iraq policy is either going to kill him or he'll repudiate it, opening him up to more flip-flop charges...

Just as people couldn't stand Nixson then Ford so we got Jimmy Carter. Now they can't stand George Bush. So Obama looks good to many. Come on people. He doesn't really have a clue. He's a good speaker. What does he stand for really? Change? Well, what change? Think about it. Lord help us.

yeah but the alternative is to vote for john i-love-george-bush-so-much-id-blow-him-every-day mccain who will keep the much hated policies of the current administration.

so why wouldnt i vote for mr obama?

yeah but the alternative is to vote for john i-love-george-bush-so-much-id-blow-him-every-day mccain who will keep the much hated policies of the current administration.

so why wouldnt i vote for mr obama?

John McCain performing fellatio on Bush! :eek:

THE IMAGE IS RAPING MY MIND!!! :eek: