Democratic Convention Watch: Open Thread

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

Open Thread

WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com

What is McCain's latest "senior moment", what does Obama need to do to win in November or whatever else is on your mind.

And please be excellent to one another. We do not accept name calling or any attacks on our commenters. Any objectionable comments will be deleted. Try to be civil.

Thanks!

New Open Thread here
This one is now closed for comments.

4188 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 1 – 200 of 4188 Newer› Newest»

Leah Texas4Obama said...: OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA '08; June 09, 2008 4:04 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: This is AWFUL !!!

A shop in Germany is selling an Obama doll - but it looks like a short McCain! LOL

http://www.deutsche-klassiker.de/beruehmtheiten/042f0b9ab30b8d901.php

.; June 09, 2008 4:04 PM
apissedant said...: Why do they keep making us do new threads?; June 09, 2008 4:05 PM
apissedant said...: More people work and volunteer in the Barack Obama office than attend John McCain rally.; June 09, 2008 4:11 PM
apissedant said...: *rallies; June 09, 2008 4:11 PM
Meg said...: Apissed:
Really, I just lost a beautifully worded response.

With cellphone video, youtube and the internet, there IS proof. The question is, are people listening?

Many people think that the candidate's stand on the issues is the most important thing, but I have to say that personality and the ability to handle stress are also paramount.

If the guy can't handle the ptress attacking him, how's he going to handle the stress of being president?

If he can't use appropriate language under stress, what will he say to someone from another country who insults him?

I'm ready for a president who understands the power of words and thinks before he launches crap out of his mouth.; June 09, 2008 4:11 PM
apissedant said...: emma,
Completely agreed. Policies are also only useful if the person in question has a track record of actually following through on the policies that they champion. If you have a Senator who spends twenty minutes giving a speech about how terrible a bill is, and then walks back to his seat and votes for said bill *cough*McCain*cough*, how much of the policies and ideas that he says can you take seriously?; June 09, 2008 4:23 PM
Bear said...: One thing that I have not seen mentioned very much is how well does experience predicts how well a president someone would be. The answer, none.

Four of the top 6 presidents had less experience than Obama does.

There is a nice summary at
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Info/experience.html

Obama 12 years: 8 years as a state legislator and 4 years as a senator.

But the short version Abe Lincoln rated as best president by most historians had 10 years: 8 years as a state legislature and 2 years in the house

Number 2 FDR had 6 years: 4 years as a govenor and 2 years as a state legislator.

Number 5 Teddy Rosevelt had 4.5 years: 2 years govenor, 2 years state legislator and half yeaf as VP.

Number 6 Woodrow Wilson 2 years as a govenor and that is it.

On the other hand the president that started with the most experience is rated 41 out of 42.

James Buchanan with 30.25 years of experience: 10.25 senator, 10 house, 8 state legislator, 4 years as Secretary of State, and 4 years as Ambassador to England.

McCain's arguement about experience is moot.; June 09, 2008 5:31 PM
apissedant said...: bear,
Agreed. Although I'm not in love with the ranking system. Van Buren had the same exact policies as Jackson, yet is ranked about 30 slots below Jackson.; June 09, 2008 5:54 PM
Bear said...: Oops see I made a mistake with Buchanan, only 6 years as a state legislator and the site I was at did not count being an ambassador.; June 09, 2008 5:57 PM
greywolf said...: Hey gang... what happened to the rest of the thread..?; June 09, 2008 6:02 PM
apissedant said...: Oreo kicked us out again.; June 09, 2008 6:03 PM
apissedant said...: He said your attitude was unacceptable and killed the thread while you were gone. He was hoping you wouldn't be able to find the new one. Didn't work.; June 09, 2008 6:04 PM
greywolf said...: what happened someone tick him off?; June 09, 2008 6:05 PM
greywolf said...: My attitude...? what do you mean?; June 09, 2008 6:06 PM
greywolf said...: Please explain Apissedent..?; June 09, 2008 6:08 PM
apissedant said...: I'm screwing with you grey! Calm down. He just closed the thread like he does ever few thousand posts.; June 09, 2008 6:10 PM
apissedant said...: Ok, he is only just under 15 spots below Jackson, but still...; June 09, 2008 6:13 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Everytime the thread gets too big DCW starts a new one so that the website will load faster. Greywolf - there is a little link at the top of this thread that will take you back to the last thread.

Obama/Kathleen Sebelius '08

Just say NO to McCain!; June 09, 2008 6:14 PM
apissedant said...: Leah,
What was wrong with my explanation?; June 09, 2008 6:21 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: apissedant -

Who said there was anything wrong with your thread?

I just added too more pieces of information when I posted.

OBAMA/Sebelius '08; June 09, 2008 6:29 PM
apissedant said...: You win this one, Trebek.; June 09, 2008 6:31 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: apissedant said...
Van Buren had the same exact policies as Jackson, yet is ranked about 30 slots below Jackson.

and

Ok, [Van Buren] is only just under 15 spots below Jackson, but still...

It's how the policies were implemented, and relations with the rest of the country and the world.

Van Buren had a poor record in carrying on with Jackson's policies. Soon after he was elected, the US went through the Panic of 1837, which he was ill-prepared to handle. He reversed a lot of Jackson's trade policies in an attempt to placate Southern states. He mismanaged foreign relations, especially with Britain. When several states defaulted on loans (mostly from British sources), he said the US government was not responsible.

Wiki has a write-up on him that you might want to peruse.

Mike; June 09, 2008 6:42 PM
apissedant said...: Mike,
I know about the Panic of 1837, and it is one of MANY reasons that I think Andrew Jackson was one of the worst presidents that ever sat in that office. The panic occurred 2 months after he left office, and several years after he decided against renewing the National Bank. With no control on money or banking in this country, speculation went wild, and led to a panic.; June 09, 2008 6:47 PM
apissedant said...: (Stolen from Wikipedia)
Purported causes include the economic policies of President Andrew Jackson who created the Specie Circular by executive order and also refused to renew the charter of Second Bank of the United States, resulting in the withdrawal of government funds from that bank. Martin Van Buren, who became president in March 1837, five weeks before the Panic engulfed the young republic's economy, was blamed for the Panic. His refusal to involve the Government in the economy was said by some to have contributed to the damages and duration of the Panic.
(More)
A central banking cushion of any sort might have prevented some local failures, but most failures were caused by money. A few large local banks, like the Suffolk Bank of Boston, acted like central banks, lending reserves to other banks, and alleviated the effects of the Panic of 1837 in New England. Although Van Buren did not engender the Panic of 1837, he was harshly judged (and failed to be re-elected) because he was ideologically committed to keeping the government out of banking regulation, a resolve that many economic historians feel extended the effects of the Panic (while others consider his approach to have minimised potentially destructive interference), which was not over until 1843. Van Buren even kept Jackson's Secretary of the Treasury, Levi Woodbury. Economist Milton Friedman explains (1960 p 10); June 09, 2008 6:54 PM
Independent Voter said...: Um, Oreo/Matt/SOMEBODY?

What's up with the "paid for by John McCain" ad on your website?; June 09, 2008 7:38 PM
Matt said...: Where do you see the ad? Right or left sidebar. Image or text? The ads rotate, so we don't always see them.; June 09, 2008 7:48 PM
Independent Voter said...: In the left sidebar, if you click on open thread........before coming over to the area to leave a comment, the ad is right there on the left sidebar.; June 09, 2008 7:50 PM
Independent Voter said...: sorry, its an image....it reads....
"Is it ok to unconditionally meet with anti-American foreign leaders?

Yes or No

Paid for by John McCain 2008.

And then it sends you over to John McCain's website if you click on it.; June 09, 2008 7:52 PM
Matt said...: Is it just below the blog archives?; June 09, 2008 7:57 PM
Independent Voter said...: It's the last ad on the left in the Open Thread - Right under the "2008 Republican National Convention" information - it is a REALLY BIG ad. LOL; June 09, 2008 7:59 PM
Independent Voter said...: Do you want me to do a screen grab and e-mail it to you?; June 09, 2008 8:02 PM
Matt said...: OK, just saw it and captured it. We don't have direct control of the Google ads, but we do have some ability to block them. We'll look into it. thanks for letting us know.; June 09, 2008 8:05 PM
Independent Voter said...: No problem! And Thanks Matt.; June 09, 2008 8:07 PM
Hippolytus said...: A tardy congrats to November Politics for having the winning entry in the contest regarding the total number of delegates that Obama would amass through the end of last week. Thanks to all that participated.
*********
Personal note,
My computer is in the shop being fixed. I look forward to rejoining you as soon as I get it back.
~ Hippolytus; June 09, 2008 8:21 PM
Joshua said...: Matt,

please do not censure any ads. Any click brings more revenue to you.; June 09, 2008 8:28 PM
Joshua said...: Beryl et al,

It is obvious you feel camaraderie with Aunt Jean. Unfortunately, I suffer fools badly. She posts baseless insults at Obama. I will brook none of that.

Someone posted that Yamaka is gone. Wrong. He merely is posting with another moniker. It should be obvious to you.; June 09, 2008 8:28 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Wow! That IS a huge McCain ad. Matt - be sure to send McCain a huge bill ;); June 09, 2008 8:29 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Hippolytus-

I hope your computer gets well soon ;); June 09, 2008 8:32 PM
ed iglehart said...: I don't see the Mcsurge ad. is it because I is on firefox and ubuntu?

xx
ed; June 09, 2008 8:45 PM
Joshua said...: If I find any BushMcCain ads on this site, I will happily click it. I implore all posters here to do the same. Actually, if you like to help this site, click liberally at the ads. It will not hurt you to see what the advertiser has to say.; June 09, 2008 8:49 PM
Karen Anne said...: Mike,

I didn't click on your link, because it was obvious that it was going to be really insulting to Aunt Jean.

I'm an Obama supporter Do you suppose he'd think that was okay to do? Do you suppose that will win him any converts?; June 09, 2008 8:54 PM
Independent Voter said...: ed,

It's actually before you go to the screen where you "leave your comment".

go back to the main "Open Thread" screen and before you click on the link at the bottom to "post a comment", it's the last ad on the left sidebar.; June 09, 2008 8:56 PM
Bear said...: Mike,

LOL, here is a funny one. By your logic we should all be clicking on the McCain add. I assume his campaign pays google per hit. I have no idea if that is the case or not. But it would be fun thinking about draining McCain's funds some.; June 09, 2008 8:59 PM
apissedant said...: bear,
What funds? He'll just accumulate 30 million dollars in debt and ask Barack to help him pay it off after bashing Barack for 14 months.; June 09, 2008 9:01 PM
Joshua said...: Bear,

I advertise my software company on the web. And yes, I advertise via Google. You betcha you could bankrupt BushMcCain by clicking on his ad. It costs about him 5 cents each time you click it.; June 09, 2008 9:04 PM
Joshua said...: Karen,

I do not come to the web to proselytize. I treat posters like intelligent people. I will provide facts about candidates. But I will not try to convert you to my preferred candidate.; June 09, 2008 9:07 PM
ed iglehart said...: I.V. Dave,

No sign of it the way my browser renders the pages. Below thr RNC links, I get a few text ads, but no images.; June 09, 2008 9:26 PM
ed iglehart said...: I've probably got it blocked through adblock (firefox 3 beta 5).

I thoroughly commend banishing Micro$oft windoze and associated slaveware from all y'all's computers.

easily done, and if you just download an iso-cd
, you can try it out without injuring your present setup. It's also easy to have both windoze and ubuntu on your computer and choose either when you boot up. Ubuntu can access your M$ files fine, and the open source applications match or exceed most of the proprietary stuff.

I still have windoze xp on this laptop, but haven't used it in at least six months.

Nelson Mandela explains ubuntu

Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
ed

Bill Gates doesn't need (nor will he get) any more of my money!; June 09, 2008 9:43 PM
suzihussein22 said...: I will preface this link with this-

Mobutu-Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer still.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/09/public-financing-advocacy-group-files-fec-complaint-against-mccain/

...not that I think Rep. are actual enemies. ;); June 09, 2008 9:46 PM
Roadkill Books said...: Who the the delegate contest and what was the winning number?

roadkill; June 09, 2008 9:54 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Since the ad is there, I feel a compunction to click it, for two reasons:

Every time it is clicked, it costs the McSame campaign a small piece of change (but if enough small pieces are added up, it can become a large amount [evidence the delegates from 'small states that Senator Obama won in February!]);

Every time it is clicked, it is encouraging Google to keep placing ads on these pages, which allows Matt, Oreo, et al to provide us information at no charge to themselves or to the others who participate here.

Mike; June 09, 2008 9:55 PM
Joshua said...: Ed,

I agree about Mister Softie. I hate it. But I am forced to use it. I use MS Visual Studio for software development. Because of their overwhelming market penetration, I am unwilling to use a different development system. I’ve been using them since they replaced IBM as the gold standard, back in the 80’s.

Microsoft is an insufferable monopoly. Back in the IBM days, IBM publishes the codes of their Operating System so you could easily code with it. Microsoft hides theirs as “proprietary.” The European Union just fined them, I think, $2 billion (which now only means 100 Euros).; June 09, 2008 9:56 PM
ed iglehart said...: Mike,

Unwilling is the keyword, not unable. Keep an eye on GNU/linux penetration.

;-)
ed; June 09, 2008 10:01 PM
ed iglehart said...: Mike,

Are sure that ain't a pyrites standard (or a pirates standard)? If so, that'll only be 10 euros.

;-)
ed; June 09, 2008 10:21 PM
Uncle John said...: ed,

I see the McCain ad.

Ubuntu Hardy, Firefox 2.0.0.14 (no 3.0 beta for me; it can't run Firebug).; June 09, 2008 10:33 PM
ed iglehart said...: Uncle John,

I must be blocking it. I do see the obama magnetic bumper strip and a few other image ads, but no McShrub.
What's the URL it leads to?; June 09, 2008 10:48 PM
Uncle John said...: OK, ed, take a look on the left (the Obama magnetic bumper strip is on the right). Look for the last item, just below the links for the Republican National Convention.

You'll see Sen. Obama and President Ahmedinijad. Click on the image; you'll go to URL (which I have split into two lines):

http://www.johnmccain.com/landing/b3.htm
?&sid=google&t=Iran&r=iraqwar; June 09, 2008 11:03 PM
Uncle John said...: ed, oops, forgot to tellya ...

this is all on the Open Thread page, where we're posting.; June 09, 2008 11:06 PM
apissedant said...: I don't see the ad either, and I've been looking for awhile.; June 09, 2008 11:12 PM
suzihussein22 said...: I haven't been seeing this either. We've got an adware blocker.; June 09, 2008 11:14 PM
Independent Voter said...: Well, I came back and I don't see it anymore either (the ad that is), but it is a google ad so it might come back. I'll keep checking every now and then.

Maybe they were able to get rid of it.; June 09, 2008 11:28 PM
Uncle John said...: Yup, still there.

I unblocked pop-ups just for DCW.; June 09, 2008 11:31 PM
apissedant said...: ok, I killed my popup blocker and finally saw the ad. I clicked it, and I clicked yes too.; June 09, 2008 11:37 PM
Uncle John said...: OK, it's changed...

It's the plain John McCain for President, Join Our Team.; June 09, 2008 11:37 PM
apissedant said...: apparently they ignore the yes part, it isn't really a poll at all. They should have let me know it was a rhetorical question.; June 09, 2008 11:38 PM
ed iglehart said...: Uncle John,

I don't have popups blocked, and I don't have any image of any sort under the RNC links. All I've got there is several text ads.

I know it's on the "open thread" front page.

When you mouseover, do you get the url you gave me above?

Of course, it's critically unimportant.
xx
ed; June 09, 2008 11:42 PM
Uncle John said...: ed,

I re-enabled pop-up blocking.

On mousing over the image, nothing appears in the status bar. On clicking the image, FireFox asks about my pop-up preferences. I say, "Yes, allow for DCW only". Then I get a tab with URL:

http://www.johnmccain.com/landing/a2.htm
?s=google&t=creative1a

Notice this URL is a bit different than the one I reported earlier; the CGI parameters are different.

Are you blocking images?; June 09, 2008 11:49 PM
Matt said...: All - The Google ads rotate, so you'll see different ads each time you refresh. There also based on the words in the post, so stop writing "Obama" in your comments, and the ad will go away! (we're looking into it, but note there's a debate over at OpenLeft as to whether progressive blogs should take McCain's money. Our policy here at DCW is we prefer not to have this nonsense clutter up our pages).; June 09, 2008 11:53 PM
apissedant said...: Speaking of inappropriate political advertising... my favorite ever was one that Jerry Kilgore placed on www.washingtonpost.com 2 1/2 years ago. It came up near the top of the article about a debate he had just had with now Governor Tim Kaine. It stated in large bold font, "KILGORE WINS DEBATE"; June 09, 2008 11:55 PM
Uncle John said...: Yo, Matt!

Thanks for the info.

It looks like Sen. McCain's site is using a Windows server. Just surf to

http://www.johnmccain.com/bogus

... and you'll see the default 404 error page for that server.

I'm off to beddy-bye now.; June 09, 2008 11:56 PM
apissedant said...: Matt, wouldn't you rather him waste his money here then spend it somewhere where he might actually get some stooge to vote for him? It isn't dirty money, it isn't doing any harm, it just is from someone you oppose.; June 09, 2008 11:56 PM
apissedant said...: Oh, the Washington Post also had an actual poll immediately next to this advertisement asking who won the debate. I complained about allowing this poorly placed ad.; June 09, 2008 11:59 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: roadkill-

November Politics won the contest his guess was 2265.

The last number of SDs that we came up with was 2262, so he won.

.; June 10, 2008 12:15 AM
Independent Voter said...: Leah "roadkill-

November Politics won the contest his guess was 2265.

The last number of SDs that we came up with was 2262, so he won."

---

Are you sure the rules weren't like the price is right? LOL!

Meaning you couldn't go over?

Just kidding, I didn't play....as you were...LOL; June 10, 2008 1:07 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Dave if they go by the rules of the price is right I do believe I had the highest number without going over.If they don't go by that rule I will pout! LOL LOL Jean; June 10, 2008 1:24 AM
Roadkill Books said...: Leah from Texas,

I think I have a crush on you. Im happy everytime I read one of your posts. Im telling you now because I dont know if ill keep coming back here anymore.

saludos,

roadkill; June 10, 2008 1:47 AM
Aunt Jean said...: To all the Obama supporters that have made comments about me in the last 24 hours [good ones that is] I appreciate it. Now for Jayw and Mike this is for you two. I never wanted to get in that arguement with anyone about Hillary and Obama because I knew that it would cause trouble. Some of the things that I said I was talking about what was in the minds of most of Hillary supporters.

You two are the worst kind of people that is why this world is so screwed up. Instead of letting bygones be bygones you feed into the hate. I'm sorry that your life is so bad that you have to treat other people so badly.

Will I vote for McCain no I cannot see myself voting for him. Why because he stands for to many things that I don't believe in. Is there people out there that will YES! They would rather cut off their nose to spite their face. Will I vote for Obama I really don't know. The distrust is still there. Will it go away I don't know but if I told you right now that I would vote for him it would be a lie. I will say this I will listen to him to see what he is about with an open mind. That is the best I can do Will it be good enough for you two I doubt it.

Jayw and Mike you need to really sit down and think about why you hate so much. I learnt a long time ago that hate shouldn't be in anyones mind. It eats at you like a cancer. Can anyone say cancer is good for you I doubt it. Will it teach you things sure. It will teach you that life is very short and can be filled with love and tolerance for fellow man. That hate just brings bitterness which brings unhappiness.

What you said or posted shows the unkind people that you are. I hope one day that you can learn to forgive.

As far as my english or typing skills you are right that I should have more pride in the things that I do. It's not lack of knownledge for the english language but mostly because I've never had to do it. Yes I quit school when I was 15 years old. I went back and got my Ged at 24 made 96 on it. After that I went and took some courses at a TTC out of 250 students I was next to the top in my class.Then I went to nursing school and was one the top of my class. I made 92 on the paper grade part and my clinicals I made 100. I have done different things in my life and everything that I have done I have done well in. Not with anyones help but with my own hard work.

So keep insulting I will ignore you. I have already made my mind up to do that. I will listen and to the other people that make valet points on this post..SORRY THIS IS SO LONG EVERYONE. Jean; June 10, 2008 2:14 AM
Aunt Jean said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; June 10, 2008 2:23 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Sorry everyone I meant valid not valet. Yes I know what a valet is.Just a mind and typo slip. Jean; June 10, 2008 2:24 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: aunt Jean said...
Jayw and Mike you need to really sit down and think about why you hate so much. I learnt a long time ago that hate shouldn't be in anyones mind. It eats at you like a cancer. Can anyone say cancer is good for you I doubt it. Will it teach you things sure. It will teach you that life is very short and can be filled with love and tolerance for fellow man. That hate just brings bitterness which brings unhappiness.

Cancer.

I've had experience with it. Two of my aunts died from it - one from breast cancer, one from colo-rectal cancer. My brother died from kidney cancer. My life partner of more than 21 years died of lung cancer. My mother has had many lumps found in her breasts - so far none have proven malignant, but there's always the possibility. Several years ago, I was diagnosed with suspected cancer - on further examination, it turned out that it was not cancer.

Deaths in the family (other than above)

My father died of a heart attack when he was 30. My brother was 3-1/2 years old, I was 2-1/2 years old when he died. My mother remarried 8 years later. My step-father died of a heart attack 5 months later, then my sister was born 6 months after her father died.

One of my aunts was blind from birth.

There were other events in my life that made me realize how quickly life could turn around or end. One of my cousins died from a heart stoppage because she didn't have enough potassium in her body. My sister had a non-malignant tumor form in the skull when she was less than one year old - fortunately it was treated and she fully recovered.

Because of these and other things, I've learned that being exact in what you say can be extremely important. I studied history in high school and college, and continue to study it. Imprecision is the bane of history, as you come to false conclusions if you don't try to include all the facts, and don't have precise definitions. Taking things out of context, or not considering what else is happening at the time of, or happened before the historical event, or ignoring societal mores of the time will lead to incorrect or false historical conclusions.

I've been doing a lot of research on my family genealogy. I have to make sure that when I identify the name of an ancestor, I have the correct person, not someone who has the same name, but is a different person. Otherwise, I am tracing the lineage of someone else's ancestry, not mine.

That is why I take umbrage when someone says imprecise and nebulous things like "One more thing do you know how he was the only person on the ticket for senator?"

Which senate race? In 2004 for US Senate? A previous campaign for the Illinois Senate?

Further, no answer was given for the "how he was the only person on the ticket" part of that question. The answer had to be implied from a later post. And the reason given for Senator Obama's campaign without competition was 'explained' as 'cheating' by Senator Obama, when it could have been making sure the state was strictly following the rules of petition gathering, not to eliminate a competitor for elimination's sake.

Continual posting of allegations without proof is another reason I will challenge another's words, whether spoken or written. If you post an allegation without any semblance of being able to back it up, you WILL be challenged when I suspect or know the allegation is male bovine droppings.

And that, Ms. Aunt Jean, are some of the reasons why I have lately zeroed in on your posts - to make sure that misinformation is rebutted before it can spread further.

If you are going to post things as fact, be prepared to defend your assertion. Otherwise, don't post it if you don't want it rebutted or debated.

Mike; June 10, 2008 3:22 AM
Emit R Detsaw said...: Aunt Jean - Good post at 2:14.

Yes there are some that will never change. Just ignore them.

Glad you are seeing that McCain would be bad for America at this point. Maybe at a different time in history McCain might have been an ok President, but not when America is in such dire straights economically.; June 10, 2008 7:04 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Mike like you I have had some bad things happen in my family but I also know there are people that go about things differently than you. So is that reason to say and do hateful things. My grandmother always told the words that come out your mouth reflex who you are. If unkind, people think you are unkind. I understand why you would want someone to be more percise but there are other ways to ask without hateful words. Have a nice day. Jean; June 10, 2008 8:07 AM
Mug said...: Obama is getting alot of campaign help from the press these days. Every day for the last week there has been something in the news about increased food cost, increased gas prices and increased unemployment. McCain's "stay the course" ripoff of Bush Sr. is gonna be his undoing.; June 10, 2008 8:23 AM
Emit R Detsaw said...: Uh, Mug, that's not getting help from the press. That's being on the right side of the Current issues and having plans to address them.

The current state of America's economy is precisely why America can not afford McCain to be anywhere close to the White House.; June 10, 2008 9:33 AM
billyjay66 said...: Aunt Jean

Happy to see your sign-off last night was not a permanent good-by. Even though I don't have the time to get into the fray, I do follow this post and value your contribution, especialy after the end of the primaries. I consider you a freind not because I share your views but because you have the courage to share your views with us.....even with a lot of s**t thrown your way.; June 10, 2008 9:37 AM
billyjay66 said...: emit and mug

"The media" is standing by while two big republican talking points are being spewed forth.

1) Not drilling in ANWAR and offshore is to blame for high oil prices (Can you say peak oil and war?)

2) Not renewing the tax cuts i.e. "raising taxes" like Obama will do will hurt the economy and new spending will increase the debt.

Fact: Pre-war oil prices were $25/barrel.....now touching $140/barrel
Fact: Jan. 2001 total debt was $5.4 trillion with a yearly surplus.
Jan 2009 total debt approaching $10 trillion

Tax cuts (and spending) seven years ago did not cut our taxes. It was a generational tax increase.

When your taxes go to intrest on the debt (almost the size of the defense budget) remember that 80% of that is Regan-Bush I-Bush ($8 trillion). George Washington thru Bill Clinton only account for $2 trillion. Who are the "liberal" spenders?; June 10, 2008 10:05 AM
Mug said...: Emit,

I know, but reporting on current affairs with regards to the economy, gas prices, food prices and unemployment helps Obama's campaign none the less. I think it's great that the press is constantly reminding us that we can't afford to elect "walking dead guy" to the White House.; June 10, 2008 10:14 AM
JayW said...: Aunt Jean,

I never said I hated you and there is nothing that I could "forgive" you for.

I was simply making the observation that we are lucky to only have to read your posts and not actually have to listen to your ranting and raving every day in person. I stand by that statement.

As for the cancer thing... booo hoo. Everyone in my family, including me, has either had cancer or died of cancer. I am pretty sure there isn't a person that has posted on here that hasn’t had a few family members and friends with cancer... so I really don’t find your correlation relevant.; June 10, 2008 10:15 AM
Mug said...: billyjay,

You're way off on this one. High oil prices are due to three things.

1) Record profits by big oil

2) Weakness of the U.S. dollar

3) Poor view of the U.S. by the Middle East.

Not renewing tax cuts for companies that outsource jobs means companies will have to pay more taxes. That means increased taxes for them, not me. Also, since it will no longer be cost effective for them to outsource jobs to India and China, more jobs will be created in America, increasing the tax base and lowering unemployment.; June 10, 2008 10:20 AM
ed iglehart said...: Mug,

You forgot

4. Peak Oil

Squeezing the lemon won't get more juice, just what's there a wee bit quicker.

The first law of thermodynamics. Check it out.

Salaam, etc.
ed; June 10, 2008 10:29 AM
Mug said...: My wife is an immigrant from eastern Europe and I know that the value of the U.S. Dollar is less than half of what it was 8 years ago. Since we buy oil from other countries, the value of the dollar effects what we pay per barrel. If the dollar were as strong today as it was 8 years ago, we would be paying about 60 dollars per barrel rather than 140 dollars. The key to the strength of the dollar is the middle class. As the middle class goes, so goes the dollar and the economy. Republican polices weaken and shrink the middle class in favor of the upper 20 percent of the income bracket. Obama will put an end to republican policies and strengthen the middle class again.; June 10, 2008 10:33 AM
apissedant said...: Mug,
You are forgetting Chinese and Indian increased oil consumption.

Billy and Ed,
The main Republican claim is that we have not hit peak oil yet. That if we drill in ANWR, convince OPEC to produce more, and finally get Iraq at prewar production, then supply and demand will level off more in our favor.
Of course this is silly, because studies have been done on ANWR and found that the actual production would be minimal considering how much we are already drilling, and the supplies are still finite. If we drill it faster, we just run out faster. This is of course what Ed was eluding too with the lemon analogy. The Republican idea is just to get more lemon out now, and reduce current prices. Screw the future, same as always.; June 10, 2008 10:41 AM
Oreo said...: So much for that!

We're hoping to find a better commenting platform and as of right now Haloscan is not it.

Thanks for your feedback; June 10, 2008 12:00 PM
Joshua said...: Oreo,

Happy to help. While you are thinking of improvements, it would be good if it were possible to post a reply to a comment and have it linked to the message to which you are replying. I suggest looking into the format used by raggingbull as an example.; June 10, 2008 12:08 PM
Beryl said...: Aunt Jean,
Why did you not recognize that many Obama supporters here denounced the negative comments about you and came to your defense? You chose to ignore the positive and focus only on the negative. You might want to do some reflection because I feel that this is indicative of why you've made other decisions.

To Everyone Else:
Did you catch McSnooze this AM addressing the economy? I was going to turn from it but it was hilarious. He was a parody of himself. There were a couple of people in the crowd who shouted out and he didn't know how to handle it. He then said how important Town Halls were so that REAL PEOPLE could ask questions. How ironic was that?

He was so bad that I almost felt sorry for him. I said ALMOST because I still think about his first wife who became handicapped and gained weight and he dumped like an old shoe. I don't feel sorry for him at all -- he is getting what he deserves. KARMA!

I'm expecting someone to press one of his buttons any day now causing him to figuratively explode.; June 10, 2008 12:16 PM
Mug said...: Berl wrote:
"I'm expecting someone to press one of his buttons any day now causing him to figuratively explode."

I think watching him litterally explode would much more fun!; June 10, 2008 12:20 PM
Oreo said...: McCain now wants to veto beer.

That's where I draw the line... this is war!

Checking into another comment platform now that looks better.
We'll test it out before we roll it out. This one only adds the new format to new posts and keeps all the old posts as they were with their existing comments included.; June 10, 2008 12:35 PM
billyjay66 said...: mug
If you doubt peak oil, watch world oil production stuck for 5 years at 83-85ml/bpd. The Saudis have refused to up production since last fall because they are so close to peak themselves.....they don't want to shove themselves over their own peak. World oil production will never reach 100ml-bpd.

If we try to solve the problem with more war, we may turn a peaceful rise to $175-200bl into a panic spike of $10 plus for gasoline.

If I'm "way off" I'd rather be on the side of Hubert's proven peak oil production theory of 10ml-bpd of US production in 1972. We are now at 50% of peak levels. Google it and check it out.

We have 40 years to figure out how to live on 1/2 the oil we are able to produce today.Or.....just try to tell T Boone Pickens.... the old Texas oil man he is wrong. He knows we are peaking.; June 10, 2008 12:39 PM
Keryl said...: So, the funniest thing about the McCain ad is this. They keep hammering this issue, but it turns out the majority of Americans do think this issue is a non-starter and that McCain is wrong. Even folks who don't support Obama.

So I wonder why they keep it up? Playing to the right? I say keep it up. And keep clicking on that ad, and answer "no". Why not cause a little "chaos" of our own.; June 10, 2008 12:44 PM
Keryl said...: I just tried to sign up for McCain email (keep your enemies closer, right?), and this is the message I got.

"We're sorry. There appears to have been an error with your request. Please try again or if the problem continues, please contact us."

Guess they're still working on that technology thing.; June 10, 2008 12:48 PM
Joshua said...: Here’s what I don’t understand: why is anyone even thinking of making gasoline cheaper to buy? That makes no sense at all. It should cost $40 per gallon! Even if the market price is $4, the government should levy an additional $36 tax per gallon. We must stop depending on Middle-East and Russian oil.

Solving the energy problem is easy:

1. Move closer to your job so that you can walk to work or use a plug in car.

2. Make sure that when you plug your car in, the grid is based on solar/wind or nuclear (if we solve the waste disposal issues).

Why does it make sense to have the economy be fossil fuel based? Anyone ever hear of the greenhouse effect of CO2 and hydrocarbons?; June 10, 2008 12:56 PM
Joshua said...: Good idea Keryl. I will also sign up for BushMcCain email. I really used to like the guy, till I discovered that he had no soul. When he hugged bush and kissed the ring of Falwell I understood that he had sold his soul to the devil for power.; June 10, 2008 1:02 PM
JayW said...: Mike,

Step away from the bong.

Your idea is just not practical or based on reality.

Even Al Gore would call you crazy for that one.; June 10, 2008 1:02 PM
apissedant said...: mike,
The disposal problem with nuclear is not a real problem. I worked with nuclear power, it is the cleanest fossil fuel we have by far. It creates less radioactive waste than burning coal.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste
Yes, nuclear power does create radioactive waste that sits there forever, but it creates very little, and we have tons of deserts to bury it in. It won't leak into the water table, or into the air, or into the soil like the coal radioactive waste does.; June 10, 2008 1:04 PM
apissedant said...: jay,
36 dollars might be excessive, but 4 dollars has proved very effective in Japan and Europe. The money goes into creating better technology, building better roads, and creating more mass transportation. At the end, we end up consuming less and living better. That sounds like an eventual win.

Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia has already talked about the negative affects of sprawling, and attempted to stop it. Didn't work too well, but the more it is brought up, the more people that think about it, the more possible the solution will eventually be.

It is also well known that people in cities consume less energy than those in suburbs or the country. There is some merit to the idea of forcing people to live closer to their workplace, and preventing sprawling.; June 10, 2008 1:07 PM
Joshua said...: Jawy

It is absolutely absurd to subsidize gasoline. The current price does not even include the money spent on the Persian Gulf fleet, Iraq war, etc. All of this is to maintain the flow of oil, and the cost is hidden in the defense budget. It should all be passed on directly at the gasoline pump.

You want to drive a fossil fuel car, then pay the entire cost of the fuel, along with extra to allow for the harm you are doing to the environment.; June 10, 2008 1:09 PM
Joshua said...: Apis,

I really don’t include nuclear as part of fossil fuel. By fossil fuel, I am talking about hydrocarbons left by organism ions ago (putting on my Chem major hat).

Of course I said $36 tax as a hyperbole for effect. But it should be enough tax to pay for the harm it is doing.

You don’t have to force people to move closer to their job. It is called free market. When you have to pay your entire paycheck in transportation no one will have to tell you to get a job closer to where you live or move closer to where your job is. It is simple economics and market forces (I am a capitalist, not socialist).; June 10, 2008 1:17 PM
apissedant said...: mike,
I use force, and fossil fuel liberally. I realize uranium would not be considered a fossil, but I use this word to indicate that it too, is not a limitless supply. It varies from solar, wind, and water power in that we will eventually have a panic due to it disappearing as well. As for "force," it is a twisted arm move. A free market does not have taxes on certain items like cigarettes and liquor to limit use. The idea of these taxes, as well as the gasoline tax imposed in other nations, is to entice people against using the items. It is to financially force them to find other means of living or having fun.; June 10, 2008 1:22 PM
apissedant said...: I honestly couldn't think of the proper terminology for nonrenewable resources from the earth, so I fell back on fossil fuel which everyone understands is a nonrenewable resource from the earth.; June 10, 2008 1:23 PM
Joshua said...: Apis,

Very well, but I distinguish between force (that acts to alter momentum) and energy/fuel (capacity to do work).

Your point of being finite is good. That is why my preferred is solar energy. This of course includes wind and hydro – different manifestations of solar energy). Solar energy is infinite as far as we are concerned. Any humans alive in 5 billion years can worry about end of solar energy.; June 10, 2008 1:30 PM
apissedant said...: mike,
agreed.; June 10, 2008 1:37 PM
billyjay66 said...: By far the biggest benefit we can achieve is improving efficiency. One race car mechanic got and award for one of the top ten innovative ideas by building a prototype combustion engine.

What did he do different? He alternated every other combustion stroke with injection of water to steam producing a power stroke of about 40% the power of ignition stroke. He was simply using the heat that would be exhausted into an expansion of steam producing power.

How much did he spend to get the prototype working? .......$1000

You could immediately hear the auto industry screaming......."we can't spend all that money retooling our production." Guess what? During WWII when we had to retool auto Mfg into making tanks and they did it in a matter of months.; June 10, 2008 1:43 PM
ed iglehart said...: A very clear explanation of why government policy is unlikely to affect oil prices.

Here

Nuke power will last at most a century AT TODAY'S LEVEL OF USE. Any increase will shorten the lifetime, but not the lifetime of the toxic waste and the time for which the de-commissioned power stations will be unable to welcome tourists.

;-)
ed

USING LESS is the answer.; June 10, 2008 1:47 PM
apissedant said...: ed and Billy,
Agreed in the finite supply and the need for efficiency.
Disagreed on the amount of waste created by nuclear power.
Agreed that nuclear power is not the solution due to finite supply though.

P.S.
WAAAY BETTER VIDEO ON PEAK OIL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAPf9V3_li0&feature=related; June 10, 2008 1:55 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Mug said...
If the dollar were as strong today as it was 8 years ago, we would be paying about 60 dollars per barrel rather than 140 dollars.

OPEC oil is priced in US dollars, so the change in value vs. other currencies isn't what's affecting the price of oil in the US. The change in value vs. other currencies is actually dropping the price for those who use Euros, British Pounds, etc.

What is driving up the price of oil right now is most likely the financial speculators on the futures markets. I saw a graph on the news last night that showed the price spikes of the tech bubble, the housing bubble, and the price of oil on the futures markets. The graph was remarkably similar for all three in their price run-up. The number of months was almost exactly the same, and the rate of increase was almost exactly the same.

It is scary to think that the people in the futures markets are some of the people who back McSame, so expect the price of oil to start dropping late this summer into fall, just in time for the elections. That will give McSame a big 'talking point' and help ease the economic problems, in the hope that people will then vote for McSame.

Mike; June 10, 2008 2:22 PM
apissedant said...: Mike,
They could always play with the terror alert level again. It worked pretty well last election.

It doesn't matter what currency the oil is tied to, the fact is supply and demand still applies. If people in Europe, India, and China are willing to pay 80 euros a barrel, then we will have to pay 130 dollars a barrel. If 1 euro=1 dollar, we would only be paying 80 dollars a euro.

The futures market is definitely boosting up the price beyond where it should be, but increased consumption and a weak dollar is also a factor. I don't think any of the three could be discounted.; June 10, 2008 2:32 PM
Joshua said...: billyjay66

Efficiency only slightly delays the inevitable. There is an irreducible force that cannot be overcome by efficiency – friction. You will always get less out of a gallon of gas than the total energy content.

We have to completely replace fossil fuels altogether. Besides being finite (which means that we WILL have to get off oil) they also make the planet hostile to our existence.

The only solution is solar energy.; June 10, 2008 3:07 PM
Mug said...: billyjay,

I don't doubt what you or anyone else has said about peak oil. I said you were way off because you said

1) "Not drilling in ANWAR and offshore is to blame for high oil prices" (Can you say peak oil and war?)

If the dollar were as strong as it was 8 years ago, the cost would be about 60 dollars per barrel. Thats still alot higher than 25 dollars per barrel but alot less than 140. Peak oil contributes to the high cost but the failing dollar is a bigger contributor.

2) Not renewing the tax cuts i.e. "raising taxes" like Obama will do will hurt the economy and new spending will increase the debt.

This sounds like republican scare tactics. Sorry, we're not going to keep republican policies because the GOP is trying to scare us into believing that Democratic policies will be worse. They never have been before.

Fact: Pre-war oil prices were $25/barrel.....now touching $140/barrel

Like I said, peak oil may be the difference between 25 and 60 but the remainder is due to our dollar and the economy being in the crapper.; June 10, 2008 3:20 PM
Vicki in Seattle said...: I too used to work in/around a Dept of Energy site.

(a) a long time ago, there was a thing called a breeder reactor, which wound up producing more fuel.

(b) NIMBY problem with all disposal sites to date - we haven't yet figured out a permanent home for the wastes that were previously produced. Suggest that we figure this out first. Sure there's lots of desert, but the people who live there also don't want it as a disposal site.

(c) breeder reactors also produce waste streams.

(d) half lives for radionuclides vary from extremely short (nanoseconds) to extremely long (10 to the 9th years or greater). Also, different radionuclides evolve different types of radiation (alpha vs beta vs gamma).

(e) as chemicals, these radionuclides also vary quite a bit in environmental mobility. You can minimize, but they will always eventually escape. Need to recognize that this issue also must be managed.

JMHO

don't get me started on bioconcentration.; June 10, 2008 3:42 PM
billyjay66 said...: mike said

"billyjay,

I don't doubt what you or anyone else has said about peak oil. I said you were way off because you said
1) "Not drilling in ANWAR and offshore is to blame for high oil prices" (Can you say peak oil and war?)"

You missed a very important bit context.
I said "two big republican talking points are being spewed forth." .......1) and 2)

I was attacking republican talking points.

MY opinion is that ANWAR DOES NOT solve our supply problems.; June 10, 2008 3:58 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Article regarding Gov. Kathleen Sebelius

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/10/kathleen-sebelius-complet_n_106219.html; June 10, 2008 4:05 PM
apissedant said...: vicki,
As to people not wanting it in their backyard. Well no duh. No one wants the state prison in their backyard, the power company, the trash dump, the chemical factory, or anything else in their backyard. They also realize taxes need to be collected to pay for services, but they don't want to pay them either.

I don't honestly care what individuals want, because no plan makes every individual happy. Whatever works best for the country and the planet is what is best. There are acres and acres of desert land with no one living on it that is federally owned. There is little to no rain fall, it is not on a fault line, and a huge container is created to contain the waste. The chance of any incident is as close to zero as physically possible.

Also, I linked earlier to a report talking about how much radioactivity comes out of a coal plant, which was found to be much higher than a nuclear plant.

Lastly, anything with a half-life of 10^9 years is not dangerous. Radioactive energy is the energy released when these items break down. If 1 of 2 molecules only breaks down once every billion years, well then you could eat it, digest it, and crap it back out the other end without a negative effect.
Actually, we do this everyday without even noticing it.; June 10, 2008 4:13 PM
jpsedona said...: If you're interested in a lucid discussion on world uranium supplies and projections that even at significantly higher costs, there's several hunderd years worth of uranium. Without a doubt, storage & safety concerns reduce its viability, but the cost has less to do with the cost of uranium and more to do with 'people' / operational costs.

The article is on the American Energy Independence website.

World Uranium Reserves; June 10, 2008 4:18 PM
billyjay66 said...: mike

Sorry it was mug who thought I was supporting republican talking points. Thanks for the discussion.

Mike - yes efficiency is not the solution. But the more efficiency the better because it will buy us more time. Once peak is reached production will drop at the same rate it rose. US production will soon drop down below our 1950 production rate. The less we conserve the more rapid the drop-off will ultimately be.; June 10, 2008 4:19 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Loyalty Oaths for Clinton Supporters Pledging their Votes to McCain

http://www.236.com/blog/w/katie_halper/loyalty_oaths_for_hillary_supp_7062.php

.; June 10, 2008 4:23 PM
apissedant said...: Radioactive complexes with very small half-lives are not dangerous, because within a few hours of shutting down the reactor, they are gone. Radioactive complexes with very long half-lives, measured in hundreds of years or more are not dangerous because they break down so infrequently that there is never a critical mass of them breaking down in unison to ever give off enough radiation to cause any harm.

The only dangerous ones are those with half-lives that range from days to a few decades. These remain in large enough quantities to do harm, and break down often enough to do harm. Those are the bad ones. They also have to give off enough energy to actually cause new and negative formations.; June 10, 2008 4:25 PM
apissedant said...: jpsedona,
I agree for the most part. It still is not an infinite solution. I would not like to just put off disaster for another 40 years, and let my children have to deal with it after my death. There is most definitely more uranium that could be found and used more easily, more cheaply, and more environmentally friendly than our oil, coal, and natural gas ventures.; June 10, 2008 4:38 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Ted Stricklan is off the shortlist for VP...

From CNN:

Strickland, who backed Hillary Clinton during the primary season, told NPR’s Michele Norris that he was taking himself out of the running. “Absolutely not. If drafted I will not run, nominated I will not accept and if elected I will not serve,” he said, in an interview on NPR's All Things Considered. “So, I don’t know how more crystal clear I can be.”

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/10/top-obama-vp-candidate-takes-himself-out-of-the-running/

.; June 10, 2008 4:42 PM
jpsedona said...: Apiss,

I think that nuclear over the short term is viable. Three mile island was almost 30 years ago; control system & computer technology advancements make the potential much safer (about the same time as the Apple 1... 1Mhz computer).

One of the issues with storage is that the majority of depleted uranium is in the form of uranium hexafluoride. The risk is more than just radioactive. UF6 is chemically unstable. When exposed to humid air, it produces uranyl fluoride and hydrogen fluoride... both compounds are extremely toxic. The current disposal techniques are to converted depleted sources to solid uranium oxides.; June 10, 2008 4:54 PM
apissedant said...: jpsedona,
Did not know about UF6, but thanks for the info. I read earlier about a reactor made in Canada that doesn't require enrichment and can operate on U238. They also apparently have several methods of turning UF6 into less dangerous compounds, as you mentioned.

So, short term, I think nuclear power is an environmentally clean and safe alternative to coal and oil. Long term, we still have to find ways to become more efficient and use more renewable sources like water, wind, and solar power.

Anything but biodiesel and ethanol. They are the worst, and for some reason most popular options.; June 10, 2008 5:32 PM
apissedant said...: jpsedona,
It has been about 6 years since I studied nuclear power, is Fluorine a product of fission?; June 10, 2008 5:35 PM
Meg said...: Apissed:

I saw a piece on CNN about this guy in Arizona who was growing algae in rows of hanging plastic bags to be used for biodiesel. Viable?; June 10, 2008 5:42 PM
apissedant said...: jpsedona,
Never mind, I looked it up. Apparently they use it in the enriching process, but if they use the Canadian reactor version, or at least sell the waste to the Canadian reactors, it reduces the problem. Obviously for sea based small reactors, the enriching process is necessary, but land based could convert over to larger reactors.; June 10, 2008 5:45 PM
apissedant said...: emma,
To power his personal car, sure, to power the hundreds of millions of cars in the world.... not so much. Same thing with using used cooking oil. Sounds great for a few hundred cars, but we have millions of cars.; June 10, 2008 5:46 PM
JayW said...: OK all you "power hungry" people...

Check out the new Newsweek that just hit the stands (mine got delivered today). The future of energy is in bacteria/microbes.

Genetically engineering bacteria to consume CO2 and water to produce fuel. Solving both the fuel supply problem and CO2 emission problem at the same time.

And it isnt far off... maybe a couple of years, not decades.

Its a good article and the science behind it is sound (I graduated with a degree in ecology).; June 10, 2008 5:59 PM
Richard said...: Folks, I'm trying to keep an updated delegate and superdelegate count at my site. If anyone is interested in helping me out, I would much appreciate it. The forum where I'm keeping track of changes is here, and the page with the count is at democraticelections.org.; June 10, 2008 6:04 PM
Independent Voter said...: Leah, that pledge to McCain is classic!; June 10, 2008 6:22 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: "I will veto every beer..." John McCain

That has to the be the best line of the day! Poor guy must just want this campaign to be over so he can go home and kick back with a six pack ;); June 10, 2008 7:01 PM
Independent Voter said...: Leah, "That has to the be the best line of the day! Poor guy must just want this campaign to be over so he can go home and kick back with a six pack ;)

----

Of course it would be from his "C" of a wife's brewery, I'm sure.

I'm using HIS word, NOT mine!; June 10, 2008 7:23 PM
apissedant said...: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/10/1128752.aspx; June 10, 2008 7:24 PM
Mug said...: This article just in on roadrunner home page.

Saved by Senate Republicans, big oil companies dodged an attempt Tuesday to slap them with a windfall profits tax and take away billions of dollars in tax breaks in response to the record gasoline prices that have the nation fuming.

GOP senators shoved aside the Democratic proposal, arguing that punishing Big Oil won't do a thing to lower the $4-a-gallon-price of gasoline that is sending economic waves across the country. High prices at the pump are threatening everything from summer vacations to Meals on Wheels deliveries to the elderly.

The Democratic energy package would have imposed a 25 percent tax on any "unreasonable" profits of the five largest U.S. oil companies, which together made $36 billion during the first three months of the year. It also would have given the government more power to address oil market speculation, opened the way for antitrust actions against countries belonging to the OPEC oil cartel, and made energy price gouging a federal crime.; June 10, 2008 7:27 PM
Mug said...: Independent Voter,

Unfortunately, anything positive that the democrats are able to push through the senate will be vetoed by G.W. and there are not enough democrats in the senate to get the votes necessary to overturn a veto. GOP republicans as well as wealthy Corporate CEOs could do well to look at history and see what happened in other countries where a rich aristocracy abused the poor and middle class. I think that's why the gillotine was invented.; June 10, 2008 7:47 PM
apissedant said...: mug,
History could teach the rich CEOs more than that. The average company did better under Bill Clinton and the Democrats than they have ever done under Republicans. Considering CEO paychecks are closely tied to their stock performance, they can actually make more money by paying a little more in taxes.

Also, the King of France was actually trying to help the commoners that ended up killing him. He had attempted to expand their influence and power within the country. Unfortunately angry mobs are not very good at discerning good from bad, and everybody ends up screwed.; June 10, 2008 7:57 PM
ed iglehart said...: JP and all,

There is more uranium available at a slightly higher cost, and yet more at a still slightly higher price, etc., etc., ad infinitum, but there soon comes a point at which more energy is used to recover it than its use releases. Then it becomes STUPID and a sink. There is also probably a very big heap of mining waste or other devastation.

The problem we are facing isn't an energy problem; it's an addiction problem.

Read and learn

xx
ed; June 10, 2008 8:01 PM
Hippolytus said...: I'm glad to report that I have my computer back. Burned out a video card.
Leah, Strickland sounds like LBJ. Was he trying to say that he's not interested in VP? Guess he made his point. And what was the context for the McCain beer line? I missed that story.
At any rate, I'm happy to be back to this thread. I was in withdrawal for a couple of days.; June 10, 2008 8:34 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Hippolytus-

Glad to have you back.

For the McCain beer flub -- look on the front page of CNN.com in the 'latest news' middle column. The video is there with McCain's remarks.

.; June 10, 2008 8:52 PM
Independent Voter said...: hipp - McCain was trying to say "I will veto any beer......bill with earmarks."; June 10, 2008 9:14 PM
Hippolytus said...: Got it. Should be fun to see what Jon Stewart does with the flub.; June 10, 2008 9:17 PM
Independent Voter said...: hipp - LOL, I always forget about Jon Stewart, well until the following day when I'm checking out on DVR what I missed from the night before.; June 10, 2008 9:20 PM
Independent Voter said...: HUH? I'm watching Dan Abrams on msnbc, and he just said that some "conservative" group is looking to get a hold of his birth certificate? They "think" (as if they were capable of that action) that he changed his name? HUH????????????????

WTF are they fishing for?; June 10, 2008 9:24 PM
Beryl said...: This is so messed up. I'm really sick of people questioning Obama on stuff that they don't question others on like his religion and patriotism. Now they want to question his nationality.

It really isn't fair.

They are now targeting Michelle but they are not saying anything about Cindy.

It isn't fair at all.; June 10, 2008 10:08 PM
Mug said...: You're right Beryl. It's almost like gangster tactics.; June 10, 2008 10:16 PM
apissedant said...: It is just politics as usual. Republicans can't win on the issues, so they win on negative campaign ads and fear tactics. As a Democrat, you should be used to it.; June 10, 2008 10:40 PM
apissedant said...: http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/ChuckNorris/2008/06/10/congress,_get_off_your_gas,_and_drill?page=1

Chuck Norris can fix our energy problems. Bad actors and martial arts stars are always the guys I want to create my energy policy.; June 10, 2008 11:22 PM
Keryl said...: Matt/Oreo: Is it possible to add the General Election Tracker on the left rail under the Welcome header? It seems like the main live content at the moment...; June 11, 2008 12:52 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Beryl I did say that I appreciated the Obama supporters that said nice things and took up for me and I do thank you. Sorry you missed that post! Aunt Jean,
Why did you not recognize that many Obama supporters here denounced the negative comments about you and came to your defense? You chose to ignore the positive and focus only on the negative. You might want to do some reflection because I feel that this is indicative of why you've made other decisions; June 11, 2008 12:56 AM
Keryl said...: Dan Abrams is unbearable. Supposedly the right is looking for evidence suggesting Obama was not born in the US.

Interesting, since McCain was not born in the US. You'd think they'd want to avoid bringing that stuff up.; June 11, 2008 1:01 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Keryl-

I used to really like Dan Abrams but he is getting unbearable ever since Hillary bowed out. I think he has not come to grips with it yet - he seems like a boy with the school-yard crush!; June 11, 2008 1:11 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Obama was born on August 4, 1961, at the Kapiolani Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii.

So what's the big fuss about his birth certificate?

Obama/Sebelius '08; June 11, 2008 1:15 AM
Unknown said...: Superdelegates Congratulations you did this!!!!

I just want you to know that I will NOT vote for a Man who has not the experience as Clinton has, your vote was based on what and how the media has pulled Obama and Shirley not by HIS own political experience. Seated ahead of him with no experience will not make him able to win against McCain.

*As a nation with your help we have allowed ourselves to become led by the media.
*As a nation with your help we were left with little choice for true and honesty
*As a nation we are set behind a man that though seems a good man is not putting the
best interest of his country before personal gain.
*because of your help; Speeches and posturing aside the actual know-how is not present.
*Because of your help; you placed Obama with, not enough knowledge or
understanding for the economy, war, foreign trade and relations, taxes, health
insurance, education, and the myriad of other issues

I have nine children...they will inherit what the next four years bring. I would not put them in harms way in any other aspect of my life...I certainly won't do it in the voting booth.

Because of Pride and Negligence in not thinking this through as your own choice and with not being prompted by others, you have helped make this election very disappointing
You give up on the chance that could have made a difference because of Pride and the want to be in the crowd of glory. (led by the media)

Take a stand and express your support for Hillary Clinton, swallow your pride and change your vote and I will give mine. Obama does not have my vote in this election.

Yes I am one voice and my voice counts as much as yours.; June 11, 2008 1:26 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Michelle -

You are on a democratic website. If you cannot vote for our Democratic nominee then I guess you can either not vote at all or vote for McCain. Here is his website: JohnMcCain.com they will welcome you with open arms over there.

Also, if McCain does win I hope that all nine of your children immediately go and join the military because McCain will need all the people he can get to keep the war going for years to come.

Ciao!; June 11, 2008 1:30 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: On second thought...

The Hillary folks that won't vote for Obama should vote for Ralph Nader

http://www.votenader.org/

That way McCain won't be racking up any extra votes ;); June 11, 2008 1:40 AM
Independent Voter said...: michelle - "I have nine children...they will inherit what the next four years bring. I would not put them in harms way in any other aspect of my life...I certainly won't do it in the voting booth."

-----

Wow, another one of them BITTER women who cannot handle a black man running our country.

I echo Leah's sentiments. I hope you can live with yourself knowing that YOU and others like you will have the blood of thousands on your hands.

Second, as Leah said, you vote or help get McCain elected - you will be responsible for the loss of a woman's right to choose, you will be responsible for NOTHING being done to change the health care system in the US, you will be responsible for the overturning of the Roe decision - being how the next president will be appointing at least 2 SC Justices. And forbid ANY of your kids turn out to be gay - chances are at least TWO of them will be - with your help you will ultimately be responsible for DENYING them the right to marry the person they fall in love with.

Congratulation michelle - you are such a good irrational FemiNAZI. Goodbye michelle, Leah left you the web address for John McCain - you need to cross over - do you see the light? Ya that one.....the one you are about to walk AWAY from.; June 11, 2008 1:50 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: I'm still rooting for Kansas Governor Kathleen (Gilligan) Sebelius for Vice-President.

Sebelius is the daughter of former Ohio governor John J. Gilligan

For more info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Sebelius

http://www.governor.ks.gov/

Obama/Sebelius '08; June 11, 2008 1:54 AM
Independent Voter said...: keep up the good work leah - fight the femiNazi's. I have to go to bed. Early morning......AGAIN!

Ugh, I can't wait until July 9th! I will officially be OUT for the summer :); June 11, 2008 1:55 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Hehehehe... this looks like it is going to get nasty.

Sebelius is on some folks and probably also on the Clinton $hit list!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/us/politics/11clinton.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1213164513-JPul8ZaGmGofdkgedXCZeg

.; June 11, 2008 2:14 AM
ed iglehart said...: No point telling Michelle about the threat to Roe Vs Wade. She's got nine kids, already!

Probably got one of those sex-maniac black fellahs as a husband!

;-)
ed; June 11, 2008 6:39 AM
JayW said...: Michelle,

Your comment that you won’t vote for Obama because he won the nomination over Hillary is asinine.

You say he doesn’t have the "experience" that Hillary has... what experience is that?

Being first lady doesn’t count as experience... unless lying on your back with your legs spread is experience to you... and it may be since you have nine kids.

Hillary "worked" on health care plans for 16 years right? Did any get passed? NOPE! Sounds like she isn’t very good to me.

What about her NY senator experience? Let’s see, she has TRASHED the economy of upstate NY.

So yeah, don’t vote for her if you don’t want to. There is nothing any of us will be able to say to someone that is as delusional and irrational as you.

Take your mind off it, relax, go make a baby... it isn’t like the world is overpopulated.; June 11, 2008 8:37 AM
Peter said...: New MI poll from Rasmussen. Obama ahead with 3 points. First time he has been ahead since february. Still his support from democrats is "unrealisticly" low. I think he would win MI with a good margin, perhapes between 5 and 10 points. Remember that he hasn`t campaigned there much yet.

Still, I`m waiting for new polls from states like North Carolina, Alaska, Indiana and Montana. He has a high favorable in these states and I think he will get a boost after Clintons speech. I think he has a fair chance in all of them. McCain can`t afford to lose any of these since Obama probably will win all of the Kerry states + some of NV, OH, NM, IA and CO.; June 11, 2008 10:11 AM
Independent Voter said...: Leah - Hehehehe... this looks like it is going to get nasty.

Sebelius is on some folks and probably also on the Clinton $hit list!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/us/politics/11clinton.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1213164513-JPul8ZaGmGofdkgedXCZeg

-----

LOL - I just heard about that on msnbc.

It kind of reminds me of her "Screw 'em, they haven't done anything for you, you don't owe them a thing". However in this case, MANY MANY MANY of these people defended him during his impeachment hearings.; June 11, 2008 10:23 AM
ed iglehart said...: Some Blind Spots and Hypocrisies of European Obamamania

" Despite the swooning praises of Obama from the western European chattering classes, the reality is that someone in their own countries with Obama's political style would actually turn them off. A European candidate with Obama's message of hope and idealism would make a lot of European journalists, intellectuals, and politicians roll their eyes. And in western European countries with established party systems, it would be almost impossible for a political outsider like Obama to vault over a party hierarchy so dramatically.
...
But the most fundamental reasons run deeper. A number of European countries have elected women to high political office, even the highest. (Score that one for the Europeans, at least some of them.) But as Jerry Karabel and I pointed out, none of them has ever elected a non-white person of any extraction to its highest political office -- that is, head of state or head of government. (Actually, no predominantly-white country in the world has ever elected a black person to its highest political office.)"

But, but, but.... Obama's just as White as he is Black! Duh!

Salaam, etc.
edea; June 11, 2008 11:12 AM
apissedant said...: Leah,
According to that report, every woman who had the audacity to choose a candidate that wasn't a woman is evil and a traitor against the sex? Isn't that kind of sexist?; June 11, 2008 11:13 AM
ed iglehart said...: Ant,

It's wise to check facts

Ethnic groups: (Netherlands)
Dutch 83%, other 17% (of which 9% are non-Western origin mainly Turks, Moroccans, Antilleans, Surinamese, and Indonesians) (1999 est.)

EU provides no ethnicity data

A useful source, the CIA.

;-)
ed; June 11, 2008 11:55 AM
ed iglehart said...: Here it comes!

Assalaam 'alaikum wa rahmatullaahi wa barakaatuhu
Peace, God's mercy and blessings be upon you

xx
ed; June 11, 2008 12:12 PM
Karen Anne said...: Michelle,

nine kids? Really environmentally concerned, aren't you? I hope seven were adopted?

stopOBAMAnow,

Obama's tax plan is the same as Clinton's. He would roll back the Bush capital gains tax cuts for the wealthy to what the rates were in the Bill Clinton years. And not go along with McCain's plan to give an estate tax break to people with estates over $2 million, those poor souls.

Hmm, a trillion? That would about pay for the annual cost of your Republican guy's war. I have to say I prefer tax and judiciously spent to spend like a maniac and not tax, since the latter Republican strategy hands the U.S. off to the Chinese, who own most of our foreign debt. Maybe you like the Chinese having the U.S. by the nuts, though?; June 11, 2008 12:14 PM
Joshua said...: Interesting. A poster wandered over at 1:26 a.m. and left an irrational diatribe about her political decisions and she was immediately told where to go. Why did you not gently take her hand and explain all the wonderful things about your candidate for the 5000th time?

However a certain poster sits here every night and posts similarly irrational things, and you defend her. Why is that?; June 11, 2008 12:15 PM
apissedant said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; June 11, 2008 1:07 PM
apissedant said...: edit:

Most of European nations' non-white population are only about second generation. They had a large influx of middle-easterners not very long ago. The black population here has been here for what, 400 years?; June 11, 2008 1:10 PM
Joshua said...: America is a meritocracy, more so than Europe. In Europe, you are born into a class and you die in that class. Witness the British royal family and their House of Lords. In Italy, the easiest way to become a physician is to first have a physician parent. Actually, we got the Hippocratic Oath from Europe. As I graduated from medical school I took that oath. And it includes teaching my skills to only children of other physicians. Needless to say, here in America, we ignore that part of the oath.

In America, you rise to your level of competence. In Europe, unless you are born in the ruling class, you cannot attain it.; June 11, 2008 1:12 PM
apissedant said...: They are much better with the English:
white (of which English 83.6%, Scottish 8.6%, Welsh 4.9%, Northern Irish 2.9%) 92.1%, black 2%, Indian 1.8%, Pakistani 1.3%, mixed 1.2%, other 1.6% (2001 census)

That looks like a better and more accurate breakdown.; June 11, 2008 1:14 PM
Beryl said...: Mike, I totally agree with this with a qualifier:

"In America, you [have more opportunity to] rise to your level of competence. In Europe, unless you are born in the ruling class, you cannot attain it."; June 11, 2008 1:23 PM
apissedant said...: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher
Margaret Thatcher, born to a man who owned two small grocery stores, and spent her early life living above one of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Major
John Major, son of an artist and a failed businessman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Blair
Tony Blair's father was the illegitimate child of two actors. He was adopted by a wealthy family however.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Brown
Gordon Brown was the son of a minister.

None of these positions seem too extremely high up for eventually being elevated to ruling the United Kingdom. Compare that to the two Bushes, and several others. The queen cannot be counted because she has no actual power, it is only tradition that keeps them around.; June 11, 2008 1:25 PM
apissedant said...: In America, the easiest way to get into an Ivy League school is by having a parent that went to an Ivy League school. We are not this wonderful merit based country, and the rest of the world does not completely ignore merit. Bill Clinton made it into Oxford with a Rhodes Scholarship despite his lack of an aristocratic background. They have massive amounts of merit based scholarships in Europe, and they also have more affordable education for all of their students. Graduate school in the Netherlands costs 2500 euros without a scholarship assuming you're from the European Union. If you're not, they have several scholarships available, such as the HSP Huygens.; June 11, 2008 1:40 PM
apissedant said...: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption
Oil consumption by country. The numbers are a year or two old, but they are still about right.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_pro-energy-oil-production
Oil production by country. Numbers are again a few years old, but still pretty accurate.

I think it is pretty obvious that the problem is not the supply of oil, but the use of oil.; June 11, 2008 2:57 PM
Independent Voter said...: Dammit I have changed my mind.

You can see why I am now voting Republican

LOL! enjoy the video!; June 11, 2008 3:20 PM
Independent Voter said...: Mike "Interesting. A poster wandered over at 1:26 a.m. and left an irrational diatribe about her political decisions and she was immediately told where to go. Why did you not gently take her hand and explain all the wonderful things about your candidate for the 5000th time?

However a certain poster sits here every night and posts similarly irrational things, and you defend her. Why is that?"

------

Mike the reason is because the person that you refer to in your second paragraph (Aunt Jean) is actually coming around.

The random poster as you call her (Michelle) is simply a bitter individual who would never vote for the "black" man as long as she lived. As far as I'm concerned, since the positions of Obama and Clinton are/were so close that anyone who goes against their own best interest to elect John McCain over someone with the SAME policy is one or all of the following: a) bitter feminazi. b) racist. c) man-hater. d) stupid!

I'm guess a, b, d; June 11, 2008 3:29 PM
apissedant said...: I think she's a Republican.
Aunt Jean has pretty much said she's voting Obama. She had reservations about it, and some hurt feelings about the campaign, but she is a Democrat. Michelle has probably never voted Democrat, and probably isn't even a woman. She/he/it is probably a paid McCain staffer wasting time trying to start trouble. There is a big difference.; June 11, 2008 3:47 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Good article...

Obama's best veep choice

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/06/11/hillary/index.html

.; June 11, 2008 3:49 PM
apissedant said...: Also, I would like to point out that everyone is properly ignoring Stop. Those that continue repeating themselves and their, "facts" eventually get ignored too. Aunt Jean has discussed, and brought up new points, and listened to reason. I see nothing wrong with her.; June 11, 2008 3:49 PM
Joshua said...: Independent voter
Are (a), (b), (c) and (d) not the same thing? Only different manifestations of the same neuropathology?; June 11, 2008 3:57 PM
Independent Voter said...: 100% agreed p'd ant.; June 11, 2008 3:57 PM
Independent Voter said...: mike. LOL

A and C are pretty close but not quite the same. I threw in b and d as to be all inclusive...hehehehe

I don't think all of them are interchangeable, but with michelle perhaps they are.; June 11, 2008 4:02 PM
jean said...: RE Independant Voter
I am voting for Obama.
Yes I put that in writing.
I am not happy about it but it is the only choice.
Great "I am voting Republican" video.
The husband works on me bit by bit.
After 19 years he knows how to get what he wants;)
He has always been registered as an independant.
Is the weather perfect or what.
jean; June 11, 2008 4:04 PM
Uncle John said...: Alert:

Jim Johnson resigned from Sen. Obama's VP search committee.

Reuters story:

http://www.reuters.com/article/
politicsNews/idUSWBT00916720080611; June 11, 2008 4:28 PM
apissedant said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; June 11, 2008 4:38 PM
apissedant said...: At least one of Jim Johnson's interest rates is higher than my home loan, and mine is fixed. What a joke.; June 11, 2008 4:39 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Leah I went to that link that you sent and I liked the last part the best because I totally agreed with her:

There ought to be a special place in hell for companies like drug giant Merck, whose painkiller Vioxx may have killed 55,000 people.
By Arianna Huffington Nov 25, 2004

I was taking vioxx but it upset my stomach and I started taking celbrex which if I'm not mistaken by the same company well to make a long story short in almost put me in complete liver failure. I had 5% function. Boy was I sick and very very orange this was about 6 years ago.The more I look the more I see that Obama and Clinton were very close to the same things. Jean; June 11, 2008 4:45 PM
jean said...: Hello Aunt Jean
Hope all is well.
My neighbor across the street took Celbrex one day and later the ambulance was called. He had total delusions and scared the heck out of us. The doctor said that was the cause. Have you seen the 3 minute comercials for this crap. Saying it is worth the risk.
Just a question. Do you still find it difficult to come to a decision about November?
jean; June 11, 2008 4:58 PM
Emit R Detsaw said...: Hi Aunt Jean,

I was one of those folks that was on Vioxx for awhile. I also got switched to Celebrex. As soon as my regular doctor saw that the "specialist" had given me Vioxx he got me off of it. Luckly we made it off of Vioxx in time. ;o)

No heartattack here, but my wife noticed a mental change in me and gained like 30 lbs when I was on it and some of the other pain meds.; June 11, 2008 5:02 PM

«Oldest ‹Older 1 – 200 of 4188 Newer› Newest»

Welcome to Democratic Convention Watch

Blog Archive

Democratic Convention 2008

Democratic National Convention History

Denver & Colorado Democrats

DCW in the News

Friends of DCW

2008 Republican National Convention

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

Open Thread

4188 comments:

Tags