U.S. Presidential Election 2008

That is total fucking rubbish. Too bad it bothers you anyway.

Yeah, they're practically fell all over each other to help out in Darfour when Colin Powell declared it a genocide </ sarcasm>.

But they seem to have no problem proposing to clog up the ICC with US "war criminals" instead.

Sanwald, this is the truth : 'Europe don't really care about Iraq or the Iraqi people, they enjoy seeing America fail'

If the Europeans truly cared about the Iraqis, they would have acted years ago to protect the Kurds. Europeans are all talk an no action.

Never heard of King Brad and Queen Angelina, I guess.

yanksavage, many people around the world (including Americans) enjoy seeing the United States look bad, but serious people don't wish for America to fail. It would be too damaging for everyone else.

Hi Cinzia, I actually agree. I just get very frustrated with the badgering we yanks get. I understand the Europeans can be frustrated with US policy as well, but it's just that I don't oftern see Europe take any leadership in resolving difficult issues. They seem to expect the US (or Britian) to do the dirty work. I feel the EU shood step up to th plate.

But they will write you a letter telling you how angry they are (not safe for work ... or just about anything else )

Expactus, you have me in stitches. I nearly fell off my chair reading your post. Thank you fore making my day more pleasant!

actually the protests were mostly against the then British government for allowing nuclear weapons, even encouraging them, to be stationed on scottish soil. It wouldn't have mattered whether they were american, russian or Mongolian TBH. Just that they were there.

Er the UK patrolled the no-fly zone in Iraq just as much as the Americans did and played a strong part in both Iraq conflicts. Or didn't you notice? Were we airbrushed out of your censored news blasts or do we not count as 'European' enough for you?

Britain is IN the EU FFS!!!

Perhaps ending imperialist power games over Afghanistan, democratising and empowering the UN and de militarisation are in the interests of the CEOs of Lockheed and Boeing & Co, but that doesn't mean they are for "America's" benefit, let alone that of the rest of the world.

It is interesting to watch American conservatives bluster that they "don't care" what the rest of the world thinks and then have a great big complex and moan when a large part of the rest of the world holds their policies and actions in contempt.

Point taken. But "empowering the UN" means that other nations need to step up and pull their weight (and not use the German "dog ate my homework" excuse in Afghanistan).

While most of Europe whined about being disenfranchised from things, the republican US free marketeers let Marine One and the tanker program go to (ahem) Old Europe.

It wa only when the democrats realized that the shit was hitting the fan that the great reversal began.

Don't get us wrong Exp. "Old Europe" has plenty of crooks who are just different on tactics to reach similar goals. Chriac for a start.
And blood on his hands Oskar Fischer wasn't adverse to dropping a few bombs as a "cuddly" Green politician either.

When mainstream politicians start claiming the moral high ground it is worth asking yourself what they are trying to hide.

Agreed.

When an anglo-american politician does something politically expedient, then he's labeled a "demagogue".

When a eurocrat does exactly the same thing, then he's a "pragmatist" or a "populist".

Little things speak volumes: French prime minister dies and his wife and mistress show up for the funeral. Joschka Fischer harrangues against capitalism, and the minute he's out of power he takes an endowded professorial seat at Princeton ... because no german university has two nickles to rub together to pay him a six-figure salary. Schroeder is out of power for five minutes and immediately goes on the Russian Gazprom payroll as payback for his ensuring the polack-averting pipeline went through. Sabine Christiansen spends years as germany's commie agony aunt every sunday night, but then blows the clambake for a gig at CNBC(!) in London. Every german icon of music/F1 racing/fashion/publishing/whatever high-tails it out of the country and then writes from afar how they can't understand how foreigners' only impressions of germans are a) they steal all the beach recliners, they have no sense of humor and c) they let their few-and-far-inbetween high earners change their tax domiciles and still let them back into the country without putting them face down in an orange jumpsuit.

Meanwhile, back in the US, the Iraq war was supposedly "all about oil and Halibururton?" FFS ... if that'd been the case, oil'd be back down to $10/bbl ... not $140! JHTDC!

I'm slowly losing the plot living over here

..

Best laid plans and all that...

Surely you mean centre-right darling of the political establishment?

Maybe if it hadn't have been for Dubya and Rummy, oil would be € 140 a barrel, measured in litres...

So, with no Iraq invasion, where would the price of oil have been on 31 July 2008 versus where it is today? "No blood for oil" and all that.

Seriously, just curious. I'm a US expat registered democrat (FFS) who should be reflexively anti-just-about-everything-american filing up my gas tank for EUR70 per over here.

The Commander in Chief Test

Good point! and demonstrated that perfectly in my last post didn't I. I'll have to work on that.

Anyway, I'm not really a true consertative, just in some areas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHXYsw_ZDXg...1&msg=10764

alimess, If Obama looses the election, your post will explain how it happens. My bet is that Obama flip flops on the drilling issue so that he can win.

The drilling issue is a non-starter except to the moronic masses. Expanding offshore drilling is a band-aid solution to a real problem. It wouldn't even begin to put new supplies on the market for 5 or 6 years and the amount it would contribute is miniscule compared to our daily consumption. We need to reduce the amount of oil we use, not feed our addiction.

If the masses are morons, are they going to be intelligent enough to vote for Obama?

eurovol, I actually agree with part of your argument, yes the US needs to reduce it's thirst for oil, but I disagree about the drilling part of your argument. The US economy and world economy in general are expanding (if only slightly at the moment for the US) I would argue, what does the US do in 5 to 6 years? If drilling strated now, I imagine it would help in 5 to 6 years time at least and possibly sooner. So my question to you eurovol, is: What about the future oil needs of not only the US, but the world demand for oil?

Good point Lorelei. It would seem that when are in favor of the left, people have made a wise decision and are quite intelligent, when they go against the left, we are all foolish... Go figure.

er, no it isn't

Ah, actually, yes it is. Albiet at 0.2% but that is still growth.

Did I say anything about voting for Obama? No, I didn't. I said very plainly that there are idiots out there that will and do base their vote on the exploitation of their moronic selves with sound-bite unsound policies that make no sense.


No it wouldn't. It would simply prolong the problem. If we had stayed on the alternative energy policy path coming out of the 70's, we would be in a hell of a lot better shape. Oil is a dead end. We need to start now with alternatives and in 5 to 6 years we might start to have real solutions.

eurovol, my worry is that 5 to 6 years isd not enough time to implement alternative energy. My company sells to the wind turbine industry. The lead time to build turbines is now about two year!!! Even if orders for wind turbines were made today, it would take many years to implement. I think we need a more measured withdrawal from oil. Your thoughts?

My own opinion is that allowing drilling in the ANWR should be postponed until we really have an emergency. Gasoline prices are actually dropping now, and are around $3.76 or so in my area. This is not an emergency. It is what it takes to get people to reconsider what and how they are driving and otherwise using gas, which I think is a good thing. If we start drilling now, what are we going to do when there really is an emergency?

As for the world demand for oil and how it might be affected by new US drilling, I don't think that Joe Schmo would be in favor of destroying wildlife refuges in order to sell oil to China, even if he is in favor of drilling to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil.

Cinzia: Exporting to China would help with the trade deficit. This would help increase the value of the Dollar as well.

I heart Luda!

Temporarily, at best. I don't think your average voter has much interest in increasing the value of the dollar or reducing the trade deficit with China, unless it's being reduced through the export of manufactured goods.

I suspect the average voter wants lower gas prices. Increased value of the Dollar might not excite anyone, till they find out that the products they buy are less expensive.

At these prices, we are getting a measured withdrawal. Cheap gas isn't going to motivate anyone, but expensive will.


You do know how much US oil producers are exporting now don't you? ANALYSIS-US oil firms seek drilling access, but exports soar.

The low dollar is in fact helping exports of all kinds of products.

Quote from the link: John Felmy, the chief economist at the American Petroleum Institute, said a portion of the oil products exported, especially diesel, was fuel that did not meet U.S. clean air requirements and therefore could not be sold in America. "You may have some that you're not able to use," he said.

I have no problem exporting what van't be used in the US. In fact, I have no problem exporting product that can be used in the US. Think of the Canadian Dollar. It is at a 30 year high because they are exporting lots of resources, including oil. The Canadian economy is running quite well. Don't you wan the US economy to run better eurovol?

Not on the back of Mother Nature I don't. Also, the trillion dollars wasted on Iraq could have been much better spent to give us clean energy and a strong economy. If you don't think clean renewable energy isn't the main future security interest of the US, then you are thinking way too short term.

I think energy independence is one of the greatst need for America. It will take time to develop alternative energy supplies. Energy independence helps keep the us secure. It may be unrealistic to withdraw from oil addiction in a matter of years. This could take decades. By drilling for oil now and developing alternative energy supplies we keep the country economcally sound and secure.

You are falling for the trap that offshore drilling promises, but cannot live up to. It is the same mindset that kept us from pursuing alternative energies with the urgency we needed to since the early 80's when Reagan cut all those programs and funding for them. Offshore drilling simply will not make a dent in the problem. We need to start now, not more excuses to start later. We can do it, but we have to want to do it or be forced to do it. It is that simple.

got to get home to make dinner now, will pick this up tomorrow.

PS. I enjoyed the banter eurovol

When a wiley old oil tycoon like T. Boone Pickens starts investing heavily in wind power, it's gonna happen, with or without the government's leadership.


The question is whether the ANWR can be saved from drilling for purposes of crass political expediency. Influential people are out there financing the development of alternative forms of energy, and I for one am heartened that the push is coming from the private sector and not the government. (Though I do expect that the government is going to have to step in with regulation eventually.)

What a rational thought. Short term and long term thinking? No way!


For once, I agree with eurovol. We should not drill offshore. We should continue to use up the resources of other countries, saving our oil for later.

Why even use oil? We can gasify coal. Thankfully, the US has 200-400 years of coal reserves. I have heard MeOH can be made for 35 cents/ gallon.

On topic, both BHO and Crazy McCain will say anything to get elected. They will both be for "lower gas prices" "renewable fuels" "bringing our troops home". Americans will pick based on personality and divisive issues like abortion and gay marriage.

BHO keeps pointing out the fact that he is black (or doesn't look like the other presidents on the dollar bill). Pretty obvious to most, why point it out?

Maybe McCain should start pointing out that he is old. Nearly 30 years of experience in DC should be worth something.

Maybe the VP choices will sort this out a bit more?

Yes, it is a rational thought gatzke, and my bet is that Obama will loose the election due to the oil issue.

If he loses the election for the single issue of oil, then the electorate are dumber than I thought. Fortunately, I don't think they are that dumb and pretty much saw through the stupid gas holiday tax idea. Gives me hope that they are not going to succumb to idiocy this time around. As already stated, if T Boone sees the future is now, then the rational beings will reject the oil über alles wedge the Reps are hoping for. In fact, they are stirring an issue pot that includes Iraq, Middle East, filling and releasing of strategic reserves and oil companies that are making record profits and exporting record amounts of US oil and all this the Republicans are very much tied too. If you ask me, they are taking aim at their collective feet right now.

Never mis-underestimate the ability of the electorate to elect someone unfit for the job. So maybe BHO will win, even without any experience or proven ability.

Pubs never like McCain, he is too maverick and middle of the road. He scares me in that he might actually accomplish something if elected, he knows how to get consensus and work across party lines, even if it screws his own party. Usually gridlock in DC is a good thing.

BTW, record profits and making money are a good thing in a capitalist society. It scares me a lot when people want to impose windfall profit taxes on a single industry for making money. That is just a step on a slippery slope to communism/socialism. Let the market decide, and they are making that decision by moving from trucks and SUVs. Personally, maybe I will get a hummer when I return to the states next year, as $4/gallon gas would be a luxury compared to here.

Again, a balanced approach would help. Release some strategic reserve. Build some refining capacity. Open up some drilling. Build some nuke plants. Pump a few billion in tax incentives into renewables. Force automakers to make more flex-fuel (not just EtOH, LNG and LPG) cars, fund basic energy research. Do it all, do it all well, and do it now.

BTW, the new jibjab is out, hilarious and balanced (IMHO). http://sendables.jibjab.com/

Your opinion. I think he is proven and he most definitely has experience.

The oil companies are subsidized by taxpayer money. We are funding their record profits! People should understand this, do you?

Too late for basic research, we need applied research and we need to start applying it now.

You want the easy way out and that is one of the biggest causes of the problems we are now facing and will only get bigger and badder in the near future. You don't need an SUV, you need a kick in the pants.

True, BHO has plenty of experience. You mean legislative experience? Or maybe you mean chairing committees?


Most industries get some sort of incentives in the forms of tax subsidies. I can see turning down future subsidies, but revoking promised subsidies is unfair. Why not tax Microsoft? They make billons and produce nothing but electrons, and they have been declared an abusive monopoly. I fail to see the logic in windfall profit taxes for oil companies.


As I said, we need a balanced plan with both near-term and long-term approaches. Basic research may be 20-50 years out, but we must do it. And applied research. And fund startups to make products. And encourage big companies to roll out new products and tech. All of it. Now.


I want the easy way out. And the hard way out.


You are wrong, I need two SUVs. One for me and one for the missus. And two more when the kids can reach the pedals.

And to stay on topic, check out the new red state update. About BHO in Germany!

My but aren't you continuing the stereotype of politically confused Americans.

The Difference Between Socialism and Communism




As I have always said, Republicans are nothing more than pseudo-capitalistic communists.

Usually, conservatives believe in small government and a free market. Republican party ideals may vary from time to time. Case in point, W was a big government, big spender.

That is the first time I have seen communism in a conservative light. I was always taught as communism was the extreme of government control and distribution of wealth, while socialism was communism-light. I guess you can always trust the writings of a man who loves to go to scifi cons and plays with tribbles. He must be a political expert.

These links pretty much agree with my view
http://www.ballot.com/hotwire/6454-communi...-socialism.html
http://graphcomp.com/home/bfree/opinions/economy.html

And the wiki sez

"Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of a classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production and property in general.[1][2][3] It is usually considered to be a branch of socialism, a broad group of social and political ideologies, which draws on the various political and intellectual movements with origins in the work of theorists of the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution[4], although socialist historians say they are older."

Who can argue with the wiki?

Back on topic, McCain has always been seen as just right of center. That is why the pubs don't like him. He may have been our sitting president if it that interacial love child story had not hit in SC 8 years back. However, BHO has the most liberal voting record in the senate. That won't play so well in middle America come election time I bet.