PREVIEW: Obama takes hits from all sides as Clinton seeks resurgence

Re: Yeah, the futureMar 3rd, 2008 - 00:01:47

More obamaesqe straight talk about 'the future':

www.youtube.com/watch?v=xes0F36eTJA

Report this comment

NoharnessMar 3rd, 2008 - 00:56:34

RE:'I do not think they could get in in the first place.'

This explains a lot of difference on this issue. I don't think John McCain can win against the Clintons. He is too much like them and will find himself in the same situation that the Clintons are in against Senator Obama. We can help McCain against Senator Obama. I am not at all sure that persuasion will get anywhere against the Clintons.

RE:'I get the analogy but the whole idea is to avoid getting poisoned.'

Herein lies the rub. We are already being poisoned by just the right amount.

RE:'Never underestimate the potential of the average person to be had and had again.'

I have read Senator Obama's positions. My estimation of him is that the learning curve will kill him.

RE:'Less likely perhaps, but again he has a core of support that is very motivated. Hillary does not.'

Only because she is up against the super-salesmanship of Senator Obama and there is insufficient contrast between hers and Senator Obama's positions. With Senator Oabama up against Senator McCain the contrast is clear enough to be seen.

Re:'At this point, yes. A pity because it didn't need to come to that. Can you imagine adding more?'

The truth is, we should never have installed these programs in the first place. Yes, I CAN imagine more of them. That is entirely too easily envisioned for comfort.

RE:'Do they?'

Right now, if polls are to be believed, they have more faith in the corporations than they have in our Peerless Leaders.

RE:'This is where I diverge from the 'free trade is always good' line of thinking. I don't think we should be giving completely equal access to companies that ship their industries overseas and assemble their products under inhumane conditions and taking advantage of currencies that are deliberately kept undervalued. To me those are unfair subsidies that should be addressed.'

Here we are in full agreement.

RE:'I disagree. That is not a war that we want nor one hat we could win without engaging the enemy in a way that makes Genghis Kahn look like Mr.Rogers.'

We can, but only by refusing them any more largess. If we keep engaging them on the ground the way we are now, we are going to bleed ourselves to death.

RE:'The 'philosophical battle' is one that we can win hands down.'

You don't know how hard I wish this were true, but there is too much evidence to the contrary to be ignored.

Re:'Time and time again people have chosen western, secularist, modernism over backward, abusive, dogmatic, totalitarian, soul crushing theocracy. That is basically why the islamists have pushed back so hard. They see their control, their absolute control being washed away on a wave of western pop culture and consumerism that their message of blind 'submission' to them couldn't begin to compete with.'

True, but the fanaticism is spreading rapidly. We are funding that spread and inciting it at one and the same time.

Re:'I do not agree. (unless Iran nukes Israel or the Israelis launch a preemptive strike) Indeed, the situation in Sunni Iraq has provided insight in to how to deal with these thugs. After getting to know al Qaeda close up and personal the Sunnis were more then happy to switch over to the American alternative.'

I suppose someone finally read up on Lawrence and decided to adopt the tactics he used during WWI. We are paying them AND giving them military support. How do we do this and continuing to blow money on crude oil?

Re:'What will be the lesson to the rest of the region if we just pack up and leave the Sunnis who have sided with us against aL Qaeda to be slaughtered by them? Anyone with a brain in their heads will see that Americans are fickle and can't be trusted. Al Qaeda will have demonstrated that they can out last us and that the only other alternative to them is a bullet in the head.'

I quite agree, but now freedom in our own country is at severe risk. Which problem to we give priority?

RE:'It wouldn't be necessary (or even proper) if there were a viable alternative provided. Iran and Iraq were once relatively cosmopolitan countries, even when they were populated by 'Muslims'. When political islam came in and took over (via the Muslim brotherhood and the Iranian revolution and the Saudi Salafis/Wahabists.) the very first thing they do is to consolidate their control by perusing the old totalitarian methods of punishing individualism and independence of thought. Do that for a few generations and it becomes ingrained in their psyche.'

Indeed, and by keeping the price of oil high, we make it easy for them to keep right on doing what they are doing right now. Saudi Arabia, the Emirates and numerous other countries are not and never have been 'cosmopolitan'. Turkey, now still fairly cosmopolitan is slipping backwards as you and I have this discussion.

RE:'Their politics are predicated on taking on us.'

Yet we foolishly keep on trading with them while maintaining the charade that China and Russia are our 'friends' and unlikely to cause us any trouble.

RE:'It is a matter of degrees. As you have pointed out he is further to the end of the spectrum in most of his ideas. His policies are going to cost more. He wants to get them done faster. It is the difference between shooting yourself in one foot and figuring out that it hurts and shooting yourself in both feet at once before the reaction can set in.'

And the contrast between his ideas and those of Senator McCain is much greater than the contrast between Senator McCain and the Clintons.

RE:'I actually see democracy as a battle of ideas.'

As do I. Unfortunately, the Republicans are about to field a candidate who has some very bad ideas.

RE:I would not like to see an overreaction towards the right any more then I want to see an over reaction to the left.'

I might well agree with you, it would likely depend on the particular issues in question. How do you define 'right' versus 'left?'

RE:'In my perfect little world people would examine a problem and the consequences of their decisions and reason it out to the best of their ability then take action. I do not want people doing something because the 'right' tribe wants to beat the 'left' tribe or vice versa. I do not want to see the pendulum swinging toward the extreme on either side.'

True of most Americans, I think, but then most Americans do not have a coherent philosophy by which they can make such decisions. They go more on their feelings, their 'sense of life' if you would, then they do on rational thought.

RE:'So no; capitulation to islamists and a collapsed economy for stifled creativity and a bunch of morality pests wagging their fingers, not to mention having to dig our way out of a much deeper mess is not the way I would like to put an end to the infantile streak in our society that seeks to replace individual responsibility with a nanny state. Ideally I could just mock them all to death on the internet. ;-)'

Would that we could.

RE:'Remember your cyanide analogy?'

And that is my point. The dose we are getting right now is to weak to make us throw up.

In my ideal world, none of this would be necessary. It ain't ideal, though. The world is what it is and we must find a way to cope with it. The only thing we can try to build now with available materials is Senator McCain as President, Mitt Romney in charge of the DoE and Mike Huckabee at treasury.

Report this comment

On sinking the ship to kill the bilge rats.Mar 3rd, 2008 - 03:01:14

' I don't think John McCain can win against the Clintons. '

If Hillary can turn things around in Texas and Ohio the nomination process will drag on to the convention which will positively turn off the suporters of whomever is declared the loser on the next election. To have it declared by a bunch of undemocratic, back room political bosses send them over to McCain or demoralize them in to staying home. I think the impact would be greater on the Obama campaign because his base historically is the lowest turn out. That scenario would be lovely.

Either way, Clinton has waaay too much core opposition and not a whole lot of money left. She is the weakest link.

' He is too much like them and will find himself in the same situation that the Clintons are in against Senator Obama.'

I do not think that is fair to senator McCain. John McCain has an authentic love for this country and a genuine sense of obligation and duty to it. The Clinton's have a genuine love for themselves and power and have a genuine sense of cannibalizing anyone who gets in their way.

'We can help McCain against Senator Obama.'

We shall see.

'We are already being poisoned by just the right amount.'

It isn't as bad as all that and there really is no other choice but to stay in the fight. There is no lifeboat, even if there were I am an American. Making it worse in order to make it better might just make it irrecoverable.

'My estimation of him is that the learning curve will kill him. '

Neither he or senator Clinton will have anything to slow them down. Both the House and the Senate are going to be under democratic control.

' With Senator Oabama up against Senator McCain the contrast is clear enough to be seen.'

Yes, but there is that 'Super salesmanship' thing going, not to mention rafts of money.

'The truth is, we should never have installed these programs in the first place.'

There are things a society should do in order to protect people who can not protect themselves. The issue is, as usual, where to draw the line and how to implement them.

' If we keep engaging them on the ground the way we are now, we are going to bleed ourselves to death. '

We have lost less people in Iraq and Afghanistan then we lost during the campaign to take Iwo Jima. Less then a third of the number killed taking Okinawa. That is not to say that this is acceptable in the long term but the thing is we have had war declared on us. If we were willing to go that distance to capture 2 little islands after Pearl Harbor we should be willing to stick with what we have started in the aftermath of 9/11. Most people in this country could not be more oblivious to what is being given up in order to answer the monsters that attacked us.'Bleeding ourselves to death' isn't happening. It has fallen on the shoulders of a disproportionately tiny segment of our population who have amazed and humbled me to my core. The rest just go about getting glazed over at what Paris wore or how snotty that bitchy fellow on American Idol is.

'but there is too much evidence to the contrary to be ignored.'

Well you best get fitted for a prayer rug then.

'True, but the fanaticism is spreading rapidly.'

Well, no. It has suffered setbacks. The main one is the one that we are talking about abandoning.

'We are funding that spread'

Well we can't drill in Anwar because of the Porcupine caribou, we can't drill of shore because of NIMBY, we can't get it out of the shale in Wyoming and Colorado because we can't et up a project as environmentally destructive as the Alberta tar sands, we can't build nuclear power plants because they are scary....

'and inciting it at one and the same time.'

The fact that we are infidels and can build skyscrapers is all the incitement they need to knock them down.

'I suppose someone finally read up on Lawrence and decided to adopt the tactics he used during WWI.'

Eeer, I don't think that is giving him nearly enough credit.

'I quite agree, but now freedom in our own country is at severe risk. Which problem to we give priority?'

Giving up one in order to get the other is not a realistic scenario. Indeed, BOTH battles have to be one in order to secure a victory in what will always be a struggle.

'and by keeping the price of oil high, we make it easy for them to keep right on doing what they are doing right now. '

See the 'Porcupine Caribou' portion of the diatribe. I wish I knew something about chemistry because whomever can make a workable gasoline alternative is going to be richer then Oprah.

'Saudi Arabia, the Emirates and numerous other countries are not and never have been 'cosmopolitan'.'

Saudi Arabia is a god forsaken sh*thole. The UAE IS actually pretty cosmopolitan by Persian Gulf standards. Indeed, Dubai is a fairly tolerant city, again by middle eastern standards.

'As do I. Unfortunately, the Republicans are about to field a candidate who has some very bad ideas.'

I honestly have faith in his character and judgment. I do not agree with everything he advocates but I believe he will not dogmatically peruse something if it is proving to be impractical. Compare that to Bush.

'How do you define 'right' versus 'left?''

2 directions on a horizontal axis away from a central point. :-) It originally had to do with the left bank and the right bank of the seine river in Paris where the 'intellectuals' and the 'reactionaries' lived.

'Would that we could.'

Working on it.

'The dose we are getting right now is to weak to make us throw up.'

A high enough dose will kill you outright.

Report this comment

M&CMar 3rd, 2008 - 09:10:12

Just lost another reader.
This site has become the Noharness/SP4 show.
These two suck worse than american politics.
Goodby, M&C.

Report this comment

sp4:Mar 3rd, 2008 - 15:26:07

seeeeee ya!

Report this comment

Don't let the door hit you in the ass.Mar 3rd, 2008 - 15:38:21

Because we don't want ass prints on our door.

Report this comment

NoharnessMar 3rd, 2008 - 17:15:14

RE:'If Hillary can turn things around in Texas and Ohio the nomination process will drag on to the convention which will positively turn off the supporters of whomever is declared the loser on the next election. To have it declared by a bunch of undemocratic, back room political bosses send them over to McCain or demoralize them in to staying home. I think the impact would be greater on the Obama campaign because his base historically is the lowest turn out. That scenario would be lovely.'

That may or may not happen. It may or may not disappoint and demoralize he difference that will put Senator McCain in office. As good as Senator Obama is, I don't think he can keep up the act throughout the general election. The Clintons, on the other hand, have a proven track record. They have been elected twice to the Presidency. They are running for an unconstitutional third term. Remember, Senator Clinton is a big drinking buddy of Senator McCain's. I think it far wiser to have someone running against him whomo he will learn to despise, even he heeds the need to maintain his decorum.

RE:'We shall see.'

I truly believe that we can.

RE:'It isn't as bad as all that and there really is no other choice but to stay in the fight. There is no lifeboat, even if there were I am an American. Making it worse in order to make it better might just make it irrecoverable.'

I have watched for years. The rise of statism in this country has bee slow but steady. It has risen because it has never been obnoxious enough to a large enough segment of our population for a majority to reject it for the poison that it is. If we do not bring it to a cold dead stop, the change is CERTAIN to become irrevocable.

RE:'Neither he or senator Clinton will have anything to slow them down. Both the House and the Senate are going to be under democratic control.'

For two years at the most. It may well turn out that we will have a parity or even a small majority of Republicans after the general election.

RE:'Yes, but there is that 'Super salesmanship' thing going, not to mention rafts of money.'

The money will not help him once people start seeing him for what he is.

RE:'There are things a society should do in order to protect people who can not protect themselves. The issue is, as usual, where to draw the line and how to implement them.'

Charity enforced by the muzzle of a gun cannot be said to be charity at all. The means by which such problems are handled are every bit as important as dealing with the problem.

RE:'We have lost less people in Iraq and Afghanistan then we lost during the campaign to take Iwo Jima. Less then a third of the number killed taking Okinawa. That is not to say that this is acceptable in the long term but the thing is we have had war declared on us. If we were willing to go that distance to capture 2 little islands after Pearl Harbor we should be willing to stick with what we have started in the aftermath of 9/11. Most people in this country could not be more oblivious to what is being given up in order to answer the monsters that attacked us.'Bleeding ourselves to death' isn't happening. It has fallen on the shoulders of a disproportionately tiny segment of our population who have amazed and humbled me to my core. The rest just go about getting glazed over at what Paris wore or how snotty that bitchy fellow on American Idol is.'

Actually, we have taken fewer physical casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan than we have taken in automobile accidents for the same time period. However, this is only if you count physical casualties and ignore what duty in Iraq and Afghanistan is doing to the mental well-being of our troops. I would say that Iwo Jima might have actually been easier to cope with psychologically. The rules of engagement on Iwo were quite simple. If you see someone carrying a gun who is not wearing an American uniform, shoot his ass. Coping with what we are asking of our people in Iraq and Afghanistan right now is a truly sore trial.

RE: 'Well you best get fitted for a prayer rug then.'

You assume that I think we will surrender, but I have not. Why do you suppose you and I are having this correspondence? Habituating forums like this are not much fun for me. I am driven to participate by what I see as the necessity of it. I make no bones about it. We are at war with Islam. Not 'radical' Islam or 'Islamic Fanatics' or 'Islamo-fascists', WE ARE AT WAR WITH ISLAM. All religions are bad, but this one is positively atrocious.

RE:'Well, no. It has suffered setbacks. The main one is the one that we are talking about abandoning.'

About what Senators Obama and Clinton pretend to be willing to abandon. The Democrats play by incredibly cynical rules. Try as either of them may, both of them know that we will not be leaving Iraq any time soon. I am guessing that they are both thinking about instituting a draft because we are stretched way too thin. We are just now consolidating our hold on Iraq, but the TAliban are threatening to cause us serious trouble. Pakistan is about to crumble like a stale cookie and now we have trouble in both Palestine and in South America. I don't believe in consequences. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is coordinating this shit-storm and behind him are Russia and China.

RE:'Well we can't drill in Anwar because of the Porcupine caribou, we can't drill off shore because of NIMBY, we can't get it out of the shale in Wyoming and Colorado because we can't set up a project as environmentally destructive as the Alberta tar sands, we can't build nuclear power plants because they are scary....'

Oh, yes we can, but we will have to defeat the Democrats so soundly that they are unable to do anything more than stamp their feet and pout. We will also find ourselves struggling with John McCain over some of these things. He is very reluctant to upset the likes of Senator Clinton or Babs Boxer.

RE:'The fact that we are infidels and can build skyscrapers is all the incitement they need to knock them down.'

Exactly.

RE:'Eeer, I don't think that is giving him nearly enough credit.'

I readily concede your point. Touche.

RE:'Giving up one in order to get the other is not a realistic scenario. Indeed, BOTH battles have to be one in order to secure a victory in what will always be a struggle.'

Okay, where do we start our rear-guard action? At home, or elsewhere?

RE:'See the 'Porcupine Caribou' portion of the diatribe. I wish I knew something about chemistry because whomever can make a workable gasoline alternative is going to be richer then Oprah.'

Sadly, that will not happen no matter how great a chemist there is in this world. The problem lies in the field of physics. Gasoline as a gift given to us by the sun and the ancient life it sustained. The ONLY thing we can reliably replace it with is nuclear power.

RE:'Saudi Arabia is a god forsaken sh*thole. The UAE IS actually pretty cosmopolitan by Persian Gulf standards. Indeed, Dubai is a fairly tolerant city, again by middle eastern standards.'

Take a hard look at them, as I have, and you will discover that there are no 'moderates' among them. Islam makes no allowances for the beliefs of others. Anyone who does not accept the tenets of Islam are second class citizens at best. Most 'infidels' are nothing more than targets or objects of sadistic pleasure. Oh, and if you happen to be a woman who believes in Islam, you are a second class citizen or less anyway. There is no such thing as a 'moderate' Muslim. They cannot be both 'moderate' and Islamic. It is a logical impossibility. This is why I say that we are at war with Islam. The religion itself is an unpardonable sin and a crime against humanity.

RE:'I honestly have faith in his character and judgment. I do not agree with everything he advocates but I believe he will not dogmatically peruse something if it is proving to be impractical. Compare that to Bush.'

My opinion of him has improved, but only marginally. I do believe his heart is in the right place, but I remain dubious about his judgment. In fairness, that would probably be my opinion of any Republican candidate.

RE:'2 directions on a horizontal axis away from a central point. :-) It originally had to do with the left bank and the right bank of the seine river in Paris where the 'intellectuals' and the 'reactionaries' lived.'

I can buy that. We would need to become involved in prolonged discussion to figure out the limits of our differences.

Re'Working on it.'

Agreed. I'm with you on this.

RE:'A high enough dose will kill you outright.'

If you are bad enough shape, yes. I think we are in good enough shape that we would drop to our knees, throw up everything, right down to our socks and shoes, then come up fighting mad.

We do not agree because our assessments differ on key issues, not because either of us has failed to think things through. I love this kind of discussion and it has been a real pleasure.

Noharness.

Report this comment

JoeMar 3rd, 2008 - 17:39:38

Obama wants to raise social security taxes and income taxes on us and we can't afford that. I'd much rather raise the revenue by taking away the oil company subsidies. Hillary is the best chance we have of having an economy that works again. The Clintons gave us 10% annual returns in the stock market. Shrub gave us 1% annual returns on average. Hillary for sure is the one to turn it around.

Report this comment

SP4: That's silly JoeMar 3rd, 2008 - 20:14:11

What, Praytell, were the Clintons credited for in the stock market of the 1990's?

I was around in the tech bubble of the 1990's but show me one iota of proof that President Clinton, let alone Hillary, had one scintila of influence over what was really just a protean technical leap forward.

I would agree that he ramrodded NAFTA through, although I don't think you'll see him/her taking credit for THAT anytime soon, right? Nonetheless, give credit where it's due...

Now, if you want to discuss all the greasy LBO's and influence the Clintons peddled to the oil companies, Boeing, etc., perahps you could credit them for that, but I hardly doubt THAT drove the economy of the 1990's. Don't worry though, if Hillary gets in, they'll stand at the door to see her and their cashier, Sandy Berglar.

Wake up Joe. Bill Clinton was the monkeyboy of his generation. The guy could have been bigger than Kennedy, and squandered it for a blow job. Stocks??? Not a chance!

Report this comment

:-DMar 4th, 2008 - 01:49:33

'As good as Senator Obama is, I don't think he can keep up the act throughout the general election.'

Lets hope not.

'The Clintons, on the other hand, have a proven track record. '

Much higher core negatives, much less buzz, much less money, people just do not like her. Likability/popularity is a big part of the decision making of a lot of their constituents.

'Remember, Senator Clinton is a big drinking buddy of Senator McCain's'

One 'vodka-drinking contest' doesn't make them drinking buddies. He called her daughter the ugly product of an affair between her and Janet Reno, not quite the 'ol drinking buddy banter. (I guess that depends on the drinking buddy.)

'If we do not bring it to a cold dead stop, the change is CERTAIN to become irrevocable.'

Again, I do not think electing an incompetent to provide a disastrous example of how to screw up a country is a good way of tackling the issue.

There is one more thing that you and I have not touched on in the personal responsibility/government responsibility issue and that is the role of the individual to effect change without relying on the government to do it. Electing McCain who is soft on border control for instance doesn't mean that there is no other way of pushing for border control through political action comities or even direct action. If you wish to fight creeping governmental control you are probably going to have to do it in a way that isn't relying on the government to do it. In other words, te rise of 'statism' is precisely because people defer responsibility to the government to solve problems like...statism.

'For two years at the most.'

1) Not necessarily, indeed, probably not. 2) Even if it were just the first 100 days think of the mess.

'The money will not help him once people start seeing him for what he is.'

The money will help him not to show people what he is. Seriously.

'Charity enforced by the muzzle of a gun cannot be said to be charity at all.'

Charity got killed off ages ago. I believe that government can have a role in preventing unnecessary suffering among people who can not fend for themselves. That isn't even 'charity' per se it's enlightened self internist.

'this is only if you count physical casualties and ignore what duty in Iraq and Afghanistan is doing to the mental well-being of our troops.'

The ones I know are more well adjusted then your average New Yorker.

'Habituating forums like this are not much fun for me.'

It is getting old here as well.

'WE ARE AT WAR WITH ISLAM.'

No, and if you frame it as such it is one that we are not willing to do what it takes to win. I can certainly see how you could have come to that conclusion having seen what they are capable of and having read the hate literature that is the Koran but: To be at war with islam is to be at war with Muslims... all of them. There is a war going on within islam between the 'sane's' and the 'crazy's'. Our best bet is to fight one and encourage the other. At the end of the day, most people just want to get by.

'All religions are bad,'

When is the last time you saw a Presbyterian fly an aircraft full of people in to a building full of people?

'Try as either of them may, both of them know that we will not be leaving Iraq any time soon.'

I can only take them at what they are saying that they are going to do.

'I am guessing that they are both thinking about instituting a draft because we are stretched way too thin.'

No, that would be counterproductive. We have 2 and a half million people in uniform, the fact that this is being loaded on to the back of about 300,000 of them has a whole lot less to do with numbers as it does with mismanagement. True, you can't take someone out of a sub and give them a rifle but you can rotate people in and out of areas that were set up to fight the Warsaw Pact or Red Chinese, at least until it is manageable. You could also enlarge the size of the Army and Marines which McCain intends to do.

'Okay, where do we start our rear-guard action? At home, or elsewhere? '

I suppose individually you need to identify something that you wish to change or re-affirm. I volunteer for the Navy/Marine relief as a way of reaffirming something and I am going to become more involved in the political campaign after the middle of April as a way of preventing 'hope and change'. That is as much of a 2 front war as my knee can take. ;-)

'Sadly, that will not happen no matter how great a chemist there is in this world.'

Well, there ought to be ways of maximizing the efficiency of what we are using now (Diesel, oil-less 2 stroke, carbon fiber and composites to reduce weight, ceramics to reduce rotating mass, etc.) There really isn't any reason why we couldn't have a clean diesel commuter car that gets 125 mpg tomorrow. The Germans have a little VW diesel that gets almost 200mpg.
I suspect people are not willing to accept the trade offs.

'The ONLY thing we can reliably replace it with is nuclear power.'

I am for nuclear power but we do not have the infrastructure for it and won't for 15/20 years even if we start tomorrow. Something has to give before that and the smart money is on an economic contraction lessoning demand.

'Take a hard look at them, as I have, and you will discover that there are no 'moderates' among them.'

Again, I can see how you would have come to that conclusion. I have been though the region though and I have met 'moderates'. Really, there are a lot of people who are sick of having it crammed down their throats.

' I think we are in good enough shape that we would drop to our knees, throw up everything, right down to our socks and shoes, then come up fighting mad.'

I don't want it to come to that and I don't know whether or not we would 'get up'. Look at the UK, they are just getting out.

'I love this kind of discussion and it has been a real pleasure.'

Me too, cheers Noharness.

Report this comment

SP4: Play to winMar 4th, 2008 - 02:59:02

..there's no going back kids. There's no economic contraction, that'll solve the energy issue, walking away from the terror problem, even if you walk away from Iraq, or Afghanistan.

This is a bottom-up enemy. This is mothers who have decided death is better for their child than life. Indeed, several Al Qaeda notables have said exactly that. They can't be placated, they cannot be bargained with. They're coming and we need a plan. Think 25 to 50 years.

Imagine WWII with these guys instead of Germans and Japanese. Imagine that the lowest guy on the totem pole was so motivated, you had to chain his ass up at night. Imagine every one of them as a self motivated killing machine. How do you think it'd have turned out? Our problem is not enough people are dying at once to focus us on the threat. This is it's real danger: were asleep.

There's no going backwards. Everyone gets nostalgic for the old days, but they are O-V-E-R. If we do not grab life by the horns, we'll get the horns in our asses.

We are dependent on coal. This won't change for 15 or 20 years, even if we stat tomorrow, but we can use it wisely while we start a solution. Curiously, I find the real solution is a mix, for now. Fusion is the end game. We need to put a foot up it's ass and get there.

Same with oil. We need electricity for cars, and it's coming. the average trip in America is about 40 miles. A hybrid that can do this on batteries would only gas up about 8 to 12 times a year. The best part is all this touted 'green' power i.e. wind, solar, etc. It's drawback is it's intermittent supply. With a ready market and storage i.e. car batts, the Eco-nuts will pay more for it. With this, we can use hydrogen as the portable fuel. It's lack of energy vs. hydrocarbons is mitigated by a hybrid design. Most of all, we need to do this now and I'm encouraged by the rapid growth of the power sources. All we need now is the vehicles.

Solutions exist right now. What we lack is will. This president doesn't lack will, he lacks follow-through. A guy with this will be the one to help us move forward. While I like Bush, he just wanted to pass some laws and leave. He never bargained for the heavy lifting. Think about THAT when you go to vote.

But, we're never going to do it, if we cannot see clearly, invent false enemies like global warming, or NAFTA, or the endless investigations of folks who clearly break no laws. A senator or congressman can, year after year, get elected and screw off, while presidents have about 28 to 40 real months to get stuff done. These jerks just stonewall and wait it out, year after year, servicing everyone but their constituents.

It's the high road or no road at all. We are living in an new era. Ahe old hatreds are now exported via air travel and the Internet to all points on the globe. We need to be first in everything, faster, smarter and more motivated than they are and they are really f--king motivated. If this sounds threatening, that is because it is. We need to play to win.

Most of all, we're up to it. We have a military that is totally volunteer, and it wins all the battles. We have Universities that foreigners are dying to get into. We have the most productive, creative workforce in the world, I don't give a crap who thinks otheriwise. If we lose, it's because we did not want to win, and losing is unthinkable.

Rock on.

Report this comment

Darletteknox@aol.comMar 4th, 2008 - 08:22:45

obama in is lack of respect and arrogance has now made sexist claws comments..He is showing his true colors..lack of experience on the day his buddy and campaign manager gets hauled into court for money laundering..his pal Resko..chicago..

Please send money to the Hillary Clinton campaign and help her gain votes .help bring back the american spirit and put our nation back on track..Dont allow your children and friend to be drafted by obama and sent to southern sudan to fight and die for OIL...check it..
Send the cash now..go to Hillaryclinton.com

Report this comment

tonny from belgiumMar 4th, 2008 - 08:31:33

I love it how some of you discuss the dangers of islam radicalism completely forgetting to address your domestic fanatics.I saw a documentary from the the BBC on american fundamentalist,you probably know some evangelists in your own surrounding on a religious pree in Israel,comforting the Israeli's in their fight against the palestinians .These tourists are more fanatic than any Al Quaida terorists in their thinking.pering over the fence and barbed wire that is supposed to keep the palestinions out of the land that was stolen from them in 1967 and given to colonists from Europe,Russia and the USA they had the nerve to declare that 'those living on the other side of the fence were god's ennemies 'As if the palestinians were 'untermenschen' of some sort,a sub species of humanity ,to be eradicated .Even the Israeli soldiers looked embarassed by these supporters of 'God's cause .Small wonder as they consider themselves sometimes to be God's choosen people too .How nice and cosy to discuss the dangers of islam fundamentalists and at the same time defend your own fanatics in the name of your constitution .
Dare I say it would be a lot easier to combat your own fantics,conveniently available in your own country ,first of all?At least you don't have to go far....

Report this comment

NoharnessMar 4th, 2008 - 12:23:56

RE:'I love it how some of you discuss the dangers of islam radicalism completely forgetting to address your domestic fanatics.'

Oh, I haven't forgotten them, they are simply the least of my worries at the moment.

RE:'I saw a documentary from the the BBC on american fundamentalist,you probably know some evangelists in your own surrounding on a religious pree in Israel,comforting the Israeli's in their fight against the palestinians .'

And why shouldn't they? If you are expecting sympathy from me for the 'Palestinians', forget it. They deserve no such sympathy.

RE:'These tourists are more fanatic than any Al Quaida terorists in their thinking.'

Says you and that proves to all and sundry about the clarity of your thinking.

RE:'pering over the fence and barbed wire that is supposed to keep the palestinions out of the land that was stolen from them in 1967 and given to colonists from Europe,Russia and the USA they had the nerve to declare that 'those living on the other side of the fence were god's ennemies 'As if the palestinians were 'untermenschen' of some sort,a sub species of humanity ,to be eradicated .'

And you very conveniently overlook the cause behind the 1967 war. I remain unimpressed with your assertion here, Tonny. You'll have to do better if you want to have a reasonable discourses over this.

Re:'Even the Israeli soldiers looked embarassed by these supporters of 'God's cause .Small wonder as they consider themselves sometimes to be God's choosen people too .How nice and cosy to discuss the dangers of islam fundamentalists and at the same time defend your own fanatics in the name of your constitution .'

Up yours. Show me where any such defense has been made on this forum.

Re:'Dare I say it would be a lot easier to combat your own fantics,conveniently available in your own country ,first of all?At least you don't have to go far....'

Oddly enough, Tonny, defeating religious ideas here is likely key to defeating Islam. That's why I know we are in for a long and terrible war. Most of it, however, will not be fought on battlefields. It is a battle in which you are not much of an asset.

Report this comment

NoharnessMar 4th, 2008 - 13:37:25

Re:'We are dependent on coal. This won't change for 15 or 20 years, even if we stat tomorrow, but we can use it wisely while we start a solution.'

That ten to twenty years could be greatly reduced. I think we could do it in less than ten if we decided that this is what we wanted to do. It would not be cheap, but it could be done.

RE:'Fusion is the end game. We need to put a foot up it's ass and get there.'

Fusion ain't happenin' in our lifetimes, at least not with the the current approaches. We have been struggling with them now since 1953. So far, not one of those designs have produced so much as a milliwatt of power more than they consume. Worse, I don't think that they ever will. There is only one approach that I have looked at that seems to offer any real promise and research on it remains unfunded by any government entity.

www.fusor.net/

The guy that invented television cameras and receivers, Philo T. Farnsworth, had a better approach to nuclear fusion than any of his better educated peers. This approach might, mind you I say MIGHT work. There are no guarantees.

The problem with fusion is that unlike all the other reactions we use to produce usable energy, it is NOT a chain reaction. All the other reactions we use, chemical and nuclear, ARE chain reactions. Fusion reactions are in no way self-sustaining. While this means that it is nearly impossible to have a runaway fusion accident, it also means that it is nearly impossible to extract useful energy from the reactions involved.

The money we are now spending on ITER is a complete waste of time, money and talented manpower.

RE:'Same with oil. We need electricity for cars, and it's coming. the average trip in America is about 40 miles. A hybrid that can do this on batteries would only gas up about 8 to 12 times a year. The best part is all this touted 'green' power i.e. wind, solar, etc. It's drawback is it's intermittent supply. With a ready market and storage i.e. car batts, the Eco-nuts will pay more for it. With this, we can use hydrogen as the portable fuel. It's lack of energy vs. hydrocarbons is mitigated by a hybrid design. Most of all, we need to do this now and I'm encouraged by the rapid growth of the power sources. All we need now is the vehicles.'

All of the so-called 'renewable' forms of energy are actually different forms of solar energy. They depend on sunlight and the rate at which we can receive and use them is wholly dependent on how much energy the sun delivers and how much of that energy we can efficiently extract. Understand this, because it means that none of the so-called 'renewables' will meet current demand no matter how hard we try. The only thing that can fill this gap is coal and nuclear power. We should NOT be burning any more coal than we absolutely must. Not because of CO2 as the majority of green weenies claim, but because of the mercury in the coal.

RE:'Solutions exist right now. What we lack is will.'

Actually, there are a number of interests pulling our Peerless Leaders in different directions, most of which make absolutely no sense whatsoever. Insofar as I can tell, none of our Peerless Leaders have sat down and done their homework on the energy issue. Nancy Pelosi is a shining example of this foolishness.

Re:'We need to be first in everything, faster, smarter and more motivated than they are and they are really f--king motivated. If this sounds threatening, that is because it is. We need to play to win.'

I wholeheartedly agree.

Report this comment

CharlesMar 4th, 2008 - 15:20:57

'These tourists are more fanatic than any Al Quaida terorists in their thinking.'

A perfect example of how truly stupid this person is.

This isn't just a case of ignorance. Tonny must apply serious mental energy to concoct in his mind a reality in which evangelical christians (as a monolithic entity notwithstanding the dopey (albeit non-dangerous)extremes), are somehow more radical and dangerous and depraved than al qaeda.

Tonny, could you please provide one example of an evangelical christians committing an act of religiously motivated violence that compares to al qaeda's?

We will be here waiting.

Report this comment

Re the euro-pestMar 4th, 2008 - 18:56:18

'These tourists are more fanatic than any Al Quaida terorists in their thinking.'

A perfect example of how truly stupid this person is.'

Oh don't worry, it will provide more examples.

'Tonny, could you please provide one example of an evangelical christians committing an act of religiously motivated violence that compares to al qaeda's?'

I used to ask it that a lot. 'Please cite where Baptists have flown aircraft full of people in to buildings full of people.'

No response yet from the euro-parasite.

Report this comment