rmn
Sleepy Member
Posts: 75
|
Post by rmn on Apr 30, 2008 14:48:11 GMT -5
… On the Repub side of the house, we’re looking at the weakest candidate in recent memory. … r I remember Bob Dole. True enough, Joe. The good man never stood a chance. Though, Dole stuck to his guns throughout. For that, he’s deserving of respect. McCain, more pliable than most, flows with the wind. Still, I think he’ll win in November. It will be close, because McCain won’t benefit from the full support of his party. His weakness within the party generates, in my view, from his leftist leanings. Maverick persona my butt. Too, he dances across the political spectrum like a ballerina. A year ago, he was an oak in his favorable lean toward the ridiculous immigration reform sought by those who considered our current immigration laws unmanageable, awkward, inhumane, costly, etc. Since Iowa, he’s changed his footing 180 degrees, not unlike any weak, ineffective, pliable politician would. Same goes for existing tax cuts. Now he’s in favor of a continuance. It wasn’t long ago when he opposed them. Like I say, I think McCain will win, but it’ll be a struggle. It’ll also be frustrating when immigration reform comes around again, either before November or during his presidency. Where will he stand then? r
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Apr 30, 2008 14:51:43 GMT -5
… On the Repub side of the house, we’re looking at the weakest candidate in recent memory. … r I remember Bob Dole. joe, you didn't like Bob Dole? I thought he was very witty, and I liked that he could work bipartisan. Plus he was a war hero and had good ideas for healthcare to boot! Of course it's the retrospectoscope now, knowing what we do about the second Clinton term with all the scandals.
|
|
|
Post by Trusty on Apr 30, 2008 16:16:04 GMT -5
I'm glad this isn't the Chatterbox Cafe. I never knew Viking Dave. He was a rabble rouser in the finest form. Opinionated to the Nth degree, verbose, often offensive, never pulled any punches when stating opinions. Caused more than one ruckus. My kinda guy, in lots of ways. He'd tackle Hell with a pitcher of ice water and make the Devil look twice! It was, honestly, time for him to go, however. ~B~ For the remaining interested, I FOUND VIKING DAVE! HERE! (But that was after I stumbled across Danno posing as Tammy in a place called Mark of the Beast...)
|
|
|
Post by SeattleDan on Apr 30, 2008 18:48:20 GMT -5
Hee hee, you found the Viking! I haven't heard from him in years. He's looking well, isn't he?
Nah, that actually is Tammy...she never lets me pose as her since the last unfortunate incident. But at least she posted bail.
Mark of the Beast is a blog not for the faint of heart, btw. The woman who runs it could have Viking Dave for supper!
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on May 2, 2008 0:20:21 GMT -5
Ya all know that I don't really like the way that politics is played as a sneaky game of public subversion in this country. This election though, is taking the shape of a serious three party race...and the third party is winning. If George Bush doesn't bomb Iraq before he leaves office, and Obama lives through his Presidency it may just restore my flagging trust in the two party clique oriented democratic system.
The back room meetings of both parties must be all abuzz with talk about the unpatriotic manner in which the people are turning out to vote for the unindoctrinated democratic candidate. It must be unsettling for the power players to watch the "people" actually controlling the election.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on May 2, 2008 9:16:48 GMT -5
That's a hopeful thought, roges, but I'm worried about the racist underbelly of the "people." The Indiana and N.Carolina primaries could be triumphs for Clinton. It's so sad to see her subtly playing on race, or letting others do it for her.
I lived in Indiana for 2 years and was surprised by the barely submerged bigotry. Kokomo was once a center for the KKK, although there have been strong movements against any public resurgence. Still, the church burnings of 10-12 years ago reminded us of how easily hate can be kindled, especially among young and economically stressed people. (True the world over.)
And, of course, the Wright "spectacle" as Obama put it, just won't go away. Seeing him on Bill Moyers' show and then at the Press club, I'm getting a picture of how parishioners might have seen two pastors. Since we all prefer not to confront someone we care about, they might have told themselves that the real Wright was the penetrating thinker, not the ranting demagogue.
|
|
rmn
Sleepy Member
Posts: 75
|
Post by rmn on May 2, 2008 19:28:56 GMT -5
Ya all know that I don't really like the way that politics is played as a sneaky game of public subversion in this country. This election though, is taking the shape of a serious three party race...and the third party is winning. If George Bush doesn't bomb Iraq before he leaves office, and Obama lives through his Presidency it may just restore my flagging trust in the two party clique oriented democratic system. The back room meetings of both parties must be all abuzz with talk about the unpatriotic manner in which the people are turning out to vote for the unindoctrinated democratic candidate. It must be unsettling for the power players to watch the "people" actually controlling the election. Credit my physically demanding day (or the onset of dementia), Roges, but I don't understand your point(s) here. At your leisure, good man, clarify what you've written. rmn
|
|
|
Post by Gracie on May 3, 2008 10:21:59 GMT -5
Gail, maybe it will do your heart good to know then that not all of Indiana is as racist as you remember. I was born here, and lived in various Indiana towns until I was 20. My mom says she can remember when the town where I was born had one of the signs at the city limits that reminded black people they couldn't be there after sundown. By the time I was born in 1960, that sign was gone, and that was well before the really big Civil Rights movements got started.
I came back to Indiana in 1983 and lived here two more years, and then two years ago moved back again. This town has a very large Hispanic population and a decent sized Indian/Pakistani population, and I know first hand that there have been all sorts of discussions and plans for how to bridge cultural gaps and language difficulties--we personally got involved in these at our church and at Betsy's school.
I do think the current economic issues are going to make the difference in this election--can't help but remember 'It's the Economy, Stupid!' and I think they SHOULD make a difference. In my own family we are once again back to the issues that we faced in the 80s, as in do we pay the rent or do we pay the utilities, do we buy food or do we buy medicine, and so on. And that STINKS. Those are choices no one should ever have to make, especially when everyone in the household who CAN work IS working.
But I WISH I weren't working today, though, because former President Clinton is in town and speaking at the high school here at 2:00! And I would give just anything to see him.....
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on May 4, 2008 1:15:13 GMT -5
Ya all know that I don't really like the way that politics is played as a sneaky game of public subversion in this country. (Subvert - To undermine the morals, character or faith of; corrupt. In my opinion this is a good analogy of the techniques both parties are using and have used for years to control our elections. In my opinion Watergate was minor compared to what really goes on.)This election though, is taking the shape of a serious three party race...and the third party is winning. ( Barrak Obama is like a third party candidate For eight years the Democratic party has groomed Hillary for this position. The party has backed her elections, guided her senatorial positions, now they find themselves in the position of having to back a wild card one term un-indoctrinated candidate. It's almost as bad a situation as democratizing a resource rich country and then having them nationalize their economy.) If George Bush doesn't bomb Iraq before he leaves office (I don't watch much TV but I watched the presidential press conference earlier in the week. I saw a desperation in his eyes when he spoke of Iran—a madness of sorts, at the unraveling of his plans. Anyone else notice this? ), and Obama lives through his Presidency (If the Iraq war has not convinced you, rmn, that the corporate ideologues will stop at nothing to promote their agenda then you are comfortable in your unquestioning loyalty, and I might as well not suggest that Obama could be in danger if his policies are not in line with the policies of those powers ) it may just restore my flagging trust in the two party clique oriented democratic system. (not likely)The back room meetings of both parties must be all abuzz with talk about the unpatriotic manner in which the people are turning out to vote for the unindoctrinated democratic candidate. (The parties have always been in the pocket of Dr. Ks corporatocracy. Look at the economic and political history of the early 20th century. The only difference is that we have a 500 billion dollar a year black hole of black budgets where boodle and corruption can be conducted without detection) It must be unsettling for the power players to watch the "people" actually controlling the election. (The people aren't supposed to control elections — the parties control elections through subtle tag team politics designed to make the people think that they elect the leaders. In my opinion only seldom do the media fed Sheep stampede.)Credit my physically demanding day (or the onset of dementia), Roges, but I don't understand your point(s) here. At your leisure, good man, clarify what you've written. rmn
|
|
rmn
Sleepy Member
Posts: 75
|
Post by rmn on May 4, 2008 9:38:55 GMT -5
Good copy, Roges. Thanks for clarifying.
Agreed that the electoral processes are suspect in this country. They always have been. I’ll go a step further and suggest that this is the way of the world. Find me a pristine process, anywhere. There simply aren’t any. We don’t normally give it much thought, accepting all too often the inevitable candidates from both parties. The Barack situation has opened our eyes.
I don’t believe Bush is mad. 60+ years have taught me that insanity requires intellect, awareness, mental acuity. How many stupid people have you known who were crazy, Roges? No, Bush isn’t mad, but he listens to his advisors who council him on the ramifications of a nuclear Iran. Let’s talk about madness in one’s eyes and point to Achmadinijad. Now, here’s a crazy, hateful, destructive bastard. I wouldn’t feel comfortable with nukes in his back pocket, and Israel certainly would not. Do we wait until he has this capability and address the dilemma with diplomacy? Would that have worked with the Syrians and their now-destroyed, partially-built nuclear reactor?
Many moons ago, I wrote here that I thought the war was ill-conceived. While that discussion is exhausted, I’ll restate that we are knee deep in shit and cannot throw our collective arms up and vacate the sandbox. The fact that corporate ideologues benefit through lost lives shouldn’t detract from Petraeus’ position that the war is winnable, at least to a degree where the Iraqis can ultimately maintain on their own in the absence of Coalition troops. I’ve done a spectacularly poor job in illustrating my points these past couple years if you think I am unquestionably loyal. Pol Pot’s lieutenants were unquestionably loyal, Roges.
As far as Obama’s safety is concerned, he’s got nothing to worry about. McCain will defeat him convincingly in November. Obama won’t be around to irritate any corporate ideologues.
rmn
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on May 4, 2008 18:39:05 GMT -5
I'm glad you think Indiana is improving, Gracie. Having moved to the land of open arms, I think Minnesota is now getting worse.
I'm not at all sure McCain will beat Obama, as he's been getting a free pass during the Democrats' long drama. Once both candidates are fixed, the focus will return to exactly what Gracie says - a reverberating echo of "it's the economy, stupid." GHW Bush was unable to keep the Reagonomics scam afloat, and McCain won't be able to sell this decade's version of trickle-down either.
I think the war will be secondary, whether or not it should be. We certainly have made a mess of it, but I'm afraid there can be no satisfactory end. Whether we leave in '09 or '20, there will be carnage. I think Petraeus chose his words very carefully - and besides, why believe him? We've been running through generals at an alarming pace (ha - Pace, get it?) so I don't know why we think we suddenly have a star and all the others were washouts. He's a decent man, articulate, a nice balance between confident and diffident. But no one can make chicken soup out of chicken sh.....
|
|
|
Post by joew on May 4, 2008 21:42:58 GMT -5
joe, you didn't like Bob Dole? I thought he was very witty, and I liked that he could work bipartisan. Plus he was a war hero and had good ideas for healthcare to boot! Of course it's the retrospectoscope now, knowing what we do about the second Clinton term with all the scandals. I'm not saying I didn't like Bob Dole. I'm just saying he wasn't a strong candidate.
|
|
rmn
Sleepy Member
Posts: 75
|
Post by rmn on May 9, 2008 14:49:12 GMT -5
Interesting interview with McCain on O'Reilly last night. I wonder if anyone saw it. He's working hard for the Hispanic, Reagan Dem, and Independent vote. He wouldn't commit to a sturdy stance against sanctuary cities. He'll not consider drilling in ANWR, and he didn't touch on nuclear energy. Really, there are more similarities than differences between McCain and Hillary. I'd like to have the nuclear energy question put to Obama. I'd be interested in the response.
rmn
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on May 10, 2008 9:43:33 GMT -5
So what is your take on nuclear energy, rmn? I don't think I've seen this as a major issue (but then, no surprise, I don't watch O'Reilly ) McCain's harping on Hamas is utterly beneath him. Obama has not said anything about carelessly romping over on Air Force One to have a chinwag with terrorists. I think it's ironic that the Petraeus Strategy is lauded while anyone else saying that you have to talk to enemies is portrayed as weak. As for ANWR, everything I've read says that woud take a long time for very little return. There isn't enough oil to justify all the negatives. Isn't it true that one loud faction for drilling there is the Alaskans who would get a nice bonus in their annual dividend checks? www.csmonitor.com/2006/0510/p02s01-ussc.htmluk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKN2934033020080429I admit to being a tree-hugger, but I'm not automatically opposed to drilling for oil. Still the planet is already in precarious health, so messing with it should be taken very slowly. In MN it's practically treason to question biofuels, but we know that the impact on food prices has been a huge downside to what everyone painted as a miracle cure for dependance on oil.
|
|
|
Post by joew on May 10, 2008 10:45:36 GMT -5
McCain probably needs the Hispanic, Reagan Dem, and Independent votes to win. He needs the Evangelicals too.
|
|
rmn
Sleepy Member
Posts: 75
|
Post by rmn on May 10, 2008 12:05:59 GMT -5
So what is your take on nuclear energy, rmn? I don't think I've seen this as a major issue (but then, no surprise, I don't watch O'Reilly ) McCain's harping on Hamas is utterly beneath him. Obama has not said anything about carelessly romping over on Air Force One to have a chinwag with terrorists. I think it's ironic that the Petraeus Strategy is lauded while anyone else saying that you have to talk to enemies is portrayed as weak. As for ANWR, everything I've read says that woud take a long time for very little return. There isn't enough oil to justify all the negatives. Isn't it true that one loud faction for drilling there is the Alaskans who would get a nice bonus in their annual dividend checks? www.csmonitor.com/2006/0510/p02s01-ussc.htmluk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKN2934033020080429I admit to being a tree-hugger, but I'm not automatically opposed to drilling for oil. Still the planet is already in precarious health, so messing with it should be taken very slowly. In MN it's practically treason to question biofuels, but we know that the impact on food prices has been a huge downside to what everyone painted as a miracle cure for dependance on oil. Well, Gail, we really have very little choice but to opt for nuclear reactors as a major source of energy in this country. It's ironic that the liberal mandate to relegate nuclear power to the distant back burner has resulted in a reliance on filthy, polluting coal. We’re relying far too much on coal-burning power plants, at least in my estimation. My God, the Americans developed the blueprints for nuclear power reactors in the 60s, didn’t we? The French can attest to the technology's efficacy. Eighty some odd percent (I believe) of their electricity derives from nuclear power. I don’t know if anyone on this site listens to Bob Brinker’s Moneytalk on Sunday afternoons, AM radio. Very bright guy. He speaks of the need for a Manhattan Project directed toward the erection of nuclear power plants. Personally, I’d go a step further and look off the coasts of California and Florida. Move the hell out of the way, Arnold. You, too, Jeb Bush. This is an American dilemma.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on May 10, 2008 14:49:54 GMT -5
I'm not totally opposed, rmn, but I don't think people's fear is a liberal plot. (Yikes, you're sounding awfully Limbovian these days.) Three Mile Island and Chernobel scared the bejabbers out of a lot of people. And then there's the waste problem. what are the French doing about that? I have no confidence in "clean coal" and am disgusted with Hillary pandering to the mining vote down in W.VA. Still, people's desperate need to make a living is going to drive the market. That's a perfect example of why free market forces can't be left alone and why government has to regulate for the good of all - if only it weren't so subject to corruption itself. We need serious restraints on polluting energy sources and serious incentives for developing clean sources. Wind can do some and I've read there's more potential in solar, but there are other chemical reactions that might be exploited. I don't know a lot about hydrogen power, but its proponents sure think they're onto something. www.hydrogenpowerinc.com/overview.html
|
|
rmn
Sleepy Member
Posts: 75
|
Post by rmn on May 10, 2008 16:25:41 GMT -5
I'm not totally opposed, rmn, but I don't think people's fear is a liberal plot. (Yikes, you're sounding awfully Limbovian these days.) Three Mile Island and Chernobel scared the bejabbers out of a lot of people. And then there's the waste problem. what are the French doing about that? I have no confidence in "clean coal" and am disgusted with Hillary pandering to the mining vote down in W.VA. Still, people's desperate need to make a living is going to drive the market. That's a perfect example of why free market forces can't be left alone and why government has to regulate for the good of all - if only it weren't so subject to corruption itself. We need serious restraints on polluting energy sources and serious incentives for developing clean sources. Wind can do some and I've read there's more potential in solar, but there are other chemical reactions that might be exploited. I don't know a lot about hydrogen power, but its proponents sure think they're onto something. www.hydrogenpowerinc.com/overview.htmlLimbaugh? With my schedule, I haven't had the opportunity to hear this guy with any regularity in years. But I'll take it as a compliment, GK . Jeez, you could have compared me with the arrogant, goofy Olbermann, so I should count my blessings. You have some great thoughts here. Really, you touched on a major issue regarding governmental intervention. This deserves a thread of its own. Of course, we'd have to throw in alternative energy sources. By the way, PTC was versed in these matters, if you recall. Enjoy the show tonight.
|
|
|
Post by michael on May 11, 2008 18:02:10 GMT -5
The media is painting a picture of Obama and McCain sizing each other up for a street fight… and poor Hillary is being treated like 3 day old fish that someone forgot to throw out. Will it be the media coverage, or lack of it, that convinces her to drop out? Will she stick it out and lose money and become a pathetic figure in the process? Or, will she be the come back kid!
This is better than a soap opera.
Mike
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on May 11, 2008 19:07:56 GMT -5
I don't think she can possibly pull it out now. Maybe if she'd won both IN and NC, but there's no way now that she can persuade the party she's the only one who can beat McCain. I think she's still planning to bargain for the Mich and Fla votes, but even that is very iffy. If the party suddenly handed her the nomination based on all sorts of back-room party honchos making a deal it would be disaster.
So what's her strategy? I don't know, but I bet there's at least one - maybe a whole set of contingency plans. I sure hope someone is already planning a book on this, because it's a fascinating story.
|
|
rmn
Sleepy Member
Posts: 75
|
Post by rmn on May 11, 2008 20:18:05 GMT -5
The media is painting a picture of Obama and McCain sizing each other up for a street fight… and poor Hillary is being treated like 3 day old fish that someone forgot to throw out. Will it be the media coverage, or lack of it, that convinces her to drop out? Will she stick it out and lose money and become a pathetic figure in the process? Or, will she be the come back kid! This is better than a soap opera. Mike Well, the girl’s got fight in her. I don’t believe there’s a weak bone in her body. That said, her activities in the last couple months couldn’t have been choreographed any better. I agree with Dick Morris who has said that Hillary has known for some time that she has no chance at the nomination. NOTE: Shows how broken the Dems are. She’s won California, Ohio, Texas, NY, and Pennsylvania. She most likely would have taken Florida and Michigan, too, had that process not been botched by the Dem hierarchy (nationally and in MI and FL). Under this process, the Dem nominee is the one who cannot possibly win in November. Morris states that Obama most certainly will lose to McCain in November. I'd bet my bottom dollar that he's spot on. That leaves 2012 wide open for her. She’s already proven that she can do quite well in the politically-rich states. Like you say, Mike, this is better than a soap opera.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on May 12, 2008 10:08:20 GMT -5
I think Morris has always been a cynic and a manipulator - in Bill's administration, he was sort of a Rove-in-training.
I'm hopeful about Obama because I think he's genuine. Everyone's saying no one can beat McCain (including many Dems) just as they said McCain was dead in the water last summer. A lot can happen for good and ill on both sides. But I'm not ready to say working-class whites are all rednecks who wouldn't vote for a black man. I just don't believe it.
|
|
rmn
Sleepy Member
Posts: 75
|
Post by rmn on May 12, 2008 20:48:36 GMT -5
I think Morris has always been a cynic and a manipulator - in Bill's administration, he was sort of a Rove-in-training. I'm hopeful about Obama because I think he's genuine. Everyone's saying no one can beat McCain (including many Dems) just as they said McCain was dead in the water last summer. A lot can happen for good and ill on both sides. But I'm not ready to say working-class whites are all rednecks who wouldn't vote for a black man. I just don't believe it. That may be true about Morris, but it would be tough finding many commentators as politically astute. Since we can't escape the subjective element, I'd rather listen to him and filter the unceasing Clinton bashing than listen to any number of left-leaning talking heads on NBC, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, PBS (Could Moyers have been any softer with Wright? Really, I thought he was going to ask the man out for a drink.), and CBS. I. too, wouldn't say that working-class whites are all rednecks who wouldn't vote for a black man. We (humans everywhere) aren't yet past the race issue, quite obviously, but this likely isn't the reason many whites will turn away from Obama. Am I incorrect in suggesting that the race issue was introduced into this process by the hateful words of Obama's pastor of 20 years? No, I believe many traditional white Dems will turn to McCain in November because they'll believe McCain's agenda more suitable to the problems at hand. Just a thought and I could be wholly mistaken. Don’t think so, though.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on May 12, 2008 23:43:25 GMT -5
But what agenda, rmn? Our economy is disintegrating and he says we need more of the same. Did anyone here read Tom Friedman last Sunday? www.nytimes.com/2008/05/04/opinion/04friedman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin I cannot understand how people have convinced themselves we'll go on being the greatest country in the world when we're teetering on the precipice. The war is breaking the bank, and McCain wants to continue indefinitely while maintaining tax cuts for the very rich. I probably won't live to see the cataclysm, but Obama's right: the time is now; we change or we fail. (Believe me, liberals think the MSM all lean right. Think about how Gibson and Stephanopoulos beat up on Obama in the last "debate.") One more point about Obama's pastor. I don't usually express opinions about religion, because I'm not nearly so involved in a particular denomination as are many people here. But I know people whose church is their world - and that world is not the pastor. It's the people and the mission. Jerry's family literally helped build their church. They had pastors they loved (one was his grandfather) and pastors they were torn about. Short of setting the church on fire, it's hard for a pastor to get bounced. (It doesn't feel very Christian to love your enemies but not your pastor.) Wright's sermons were no more fiery than those of many white evangelical ministers I've seen on TV. ( Take a look at this to remind yourself of Falwell's thetoric. www.actupny.org/YELL/falwell.html McCain cozied up to him despite that bilge.) Probably there were days when people went home shaking their heads and wishing Wright would retire, but then the next week he'd be all right and they'd tell themselves things weren't so bad. Obama was drawn to a congregation committed to important work on Chicago's South Side. He says he didn't hear some of Wright's most inflammatory sermons, and apparently some of his calendar schedules prove he wasn't there. But even if he was, I can understand his thinking he wanted to work within the church, not thumb his nose and leave.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on May 13, 2008 15:24:05 GMT -5
A new wrinkle?
Fox commentator: Ron Paul revolt could be 'disaster' for Republicans David Edwards and Muriel Kane Published: Tuesday May 13, 2008
Rep. Ron Paul is still in the GOP race and even drew 16% of the vote in the recent Pennsylvania Republican primary. Now his supporters are planning to stage a "revolt" at the Republican National Convention in September, possibly with the aim of securing Paul a prime time speaking slot.
Conservative radio talk show host Mike Gallagher told the hosts of Fox and Friends on Tuesday, "There is no question that this could be a major headache for John McCain."
"John McCain would be well-served to kind of reach out and give him an olive branch at the convention," Gallagher continued. "Let him speak, give him a role, because if these people are disrespected -- you know, this, combined with Bob Barr's announcement that Barr now is running as a Libertarian, is going to just take votes away from John McCain and could be a disaster for the Republican Party."
Bob Barr recently cited Paul's success as having helped inspire his own candidacy, pointing to "what Ron Paul has tapped into in terms of reaching an awful lot of young people in particular and illustrating very clearly that in this day and age it is possible to reach a lot of young people through the Internet."
Democratic political consultant and commentator Bob Beckel then joined into the Fox discussion, saying of Paul, "I think he ought to get a prime time speech at the convention. This is the only guy that has a bobble doll made for him that his head doesn't move."
"They're nuts," Beckel said of Paul's supporters, hastening to add, "I don't mean nuts in a bad way. They're nuts about their guy."
"I think they ought to do it, Mike," Beckel concluded, laughing. "I think it would be great for you guys to have Ron Paul at your convention."
"It'll show some diversity at the convention," Gallagher acknowledged.
"That's the kind of diversity you need, brother," Beckel affirmed.
|
|
rmn
Sleepy Member
Posts: 75
|
Post by rmn on May 14, 2008 23:16:46 GMT -5
Oh, I don't know, Gail. Paul's no more of a wrinkle now than he's been all along. His supporters are passionate, but they're few in number. They can protest till the cows come home, but their numbers render them inconsequential in the larger scheme. Unless McCain fumbles in a major way, he'll grab this thing in November. You asked about his agenda. He's a video tape of Bush, but he’s going to be viewed as a fresh face with the potentiality of change, particularly as the change relates to Iraq. My guess is that he'll convince our European allies to bolster their collective numbers, thus lessening the burden on war-weary US troops. McCain has strong ties with Europe after so many years in Washington. Everything else? He's GWB. He won't secure our borders. He’ll support wrong-minded immigration reform legislation. He won't admonish leaders who’ve established sanctuary cities. He’s fallen for the manmade global warming spiel hook, line, and sinker. He’ll continue to thwart oil exploration/exploitation, opting instead for goofy quick fixes. He’ll sidestep nuclear energy. He’ll likely favor dismissing existing tax cuts. Guantanamo will likely close its doors under his administration. It’s bleak, regardless of who ascends to the presidency, Gail. Less bleak with McCain. I’ll feel better if he selects Romney as a running mate. Okay, enough for tonight.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on May 15, 2008 9:34:27 GMT -5
We see through very different lenses. Yes, he's Bush warmed-over, but then we part ways.
I thought he favored making the tax cuts permanent, though the economy is failing for most of our people. Trickle-down didn't work when Reagan tried it and doesn't work now. (David Stockman admitted it was "smoke and mirrors.") If McCain would promise to let the cuts expire I'd be overjoyed. For years we've been told our economy is thriving, but the measures don't reflect the beneficiaries. New jobs have been service sector, low-paying jobs. The debt is terrifying, but the rich get richer and their safety nets are impenetrable, so we sail along on false forecasts. I heard George Soros say the other night that this oil inflation will be a "bubble" - easy for him to say, but filling our tank has gone from about $20 to nearly $50 in the last 7 years. I keep coming back to Bin Laden's promise to bankrupt us.
[added later - heard an interview with a man whose story on the economy will appear in the next issue of TIME. He said that 75% of the growth from 2002 to 2007 went to less than 1% - the richest - of the population.]
As for the borders and Guantanamo, I'm not privy to your information. I worry a lot more about the ease of getting to our water and dirty bombs than I do about the border. If we need prisons for terrorists, why can't they be on the mainland and subject to oversight? Why discard habeus corpus?
McCain's stubborn free-market creed and his determination that we can win in Iraq make him anything but fresh to me. Old, old, models that don't reflect reality.
And you reject man's effect on global warming? Why?
|
|
rmn
Sleepy Member
Posts: 75
|
Post by rmn on May 16, 2008 14:12:15 GMT -5
And you reject man's effect on global warming? Why? “Two simple graphs provide needed context, and exemplify the dynamic, fluctuating nature of climate change. The first is a temperature curve for the last six million years, which shows a three-million year period when it was several degrees warmer than today, followed by a three-million year cooling trend which was accompanied by an increase in the magnitude of the pervasive, higher frequency, cold and warm climate cycles. During the last three such warm (interglacial) periods, temperatures at high latitudes were as much as 5 degrees warmer than today's. The second graph shows the average global temperature over the last eight years, which has proved to be a period of stasis. “The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. We are fortunate that our modern societies have developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate. But for more than 90 per cent of the last two million years, the climate has been colder, and generally much colder, than today. The reality of the climate record is that a sudden natural cooling is far more to be feared, and will do infinitely more social and economic damage, than the late 20th century phase of gentle warming.” The above from Professor Bob Carter, geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, engaged in paleoclimate research. Lots and lots of stuff out there. I’ve read a little from this man. Bottom line, Gail, advocates leaning either way can collect the stats to support their argument. For every Al Gore tirade against the American polluting machine, there’s a scientist somewhere indicating that the totality of today’s global warming is cyclical and certainly not manmade.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on May 17, 2008 9:41:18 GMT -5
I did some googling on the global warming issue and found a number of sites that harangue Al Gore and talk about a "Hoax." I hope you're not one of that crew. They seem to find conspiracy everywhere and imply that Gore is the one who foisted this upon us.
Other sites recognize the differing theories, but it seems there's a large international body of scientists who see a trend beyond the cycles of the past. It's hard to control for variables. Even if we could control for the sun and El Nino/Nina patterns, how can we guess what climate would have looked like if the Industrial Revolution had occurred, say, in the time of Jesus or of Ancient Greece? Man has had numerous impacts - I especially like the mundane but enormous effect of methane from raising millions of animals for food - but why should we not follow up on all of them? I mean, suppose the "carbon imprint" thing isn't as serious as many believe, what harm does it do to treat it as serious? I don't have kids, but I would think all parents would be open to pursuing any theory that could protect the planet.
|
|
rmn
Sleepy Member
Posts: 75
|
Post by rmn on May 17, 2008 18:47:20 GMT -5
I did some googling on the global warming issue and found a number of sites that harangue Al Gore and talk about a "Hoax." I hope you're not one of that crew. They seem to find conspiracy everywhere and imply that Gore is the one who foisted this upon us. Other sites recognize the differing theories, but it seems there's a large international body of scientists who see a trend beyond the cycles of the past. It's hard to control for variables. Even if we could control for the sun and El Nino/Nina patterns, how can we guess what climate would have looked like if the Industrial Revolution had occurred, say, in the time of Jesus or of Ancient Greece? Man has had numerous impacts - I especially like the mundane but enormous effect of methane from raising millions of animals for food - but why should we not follow up on all of them? I mean, suppose the "carbon imprint" thing isn't as serious as many believe, what harm does it do to treat it as serious? I don't have kids, but I would think all parents would be open to pursuing any theory that could protect the planet. I don’t think I’m part of any crew, Gail. I don’t like Gore, but only because I think the man is a self-absorbed, self-righteous blowhard. If others share this sentiment, then I suspect I’m part of that crew. Anyone who’d label the global warming phenomenon a hoax is simply ignorant, particularly given the available empirical data. One would be equally ignorant, or at the very least unreasonable, to suggest that man’s patent involvement in the phenomenon is a hoax, or an invention of America’s liberals. After all, too many climatologist’s of note have indicated otherwise. Let’s not forget, however, that we are far from consensus insofar as concerns man’s fingerprints on the mild, gradual elevation of earthly temps over the last 100 years. I think you’d be interested in the following link, Gail: jerrypournelle.com/view/global.html#climateDon’t let Jerry Pournelle’s name taint you on the site. Forget for a moment that he’s a marvelous SF writer. Like many SF writers, he has immersed himself in matters of hard science. Indeed, many of the articles associated with the site are extraordinarily well-sourced and authored by serious men and women. I picked out a tidbit (below italics) from Ted Bezat, a design engineer from Minneapolis, MN.: 1. What gas is responsible for approximately 95% of the "greenhouse effect" on planet Earth?
2. Are the United States a net A) Emitter, or B) Absorber of carbon dioxide?
3. Is the global climate now A) Warmer, or B) Cooler than it was approximately 1,000 to 1,100 years ago?
Answers:
1. Water vapor is responsible for about 95% of the Earth's greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide is less than 2% of the total effect, with methane taking up most of the balance, and other gasses responsible for the remainder. But all we EVER hear about is CO2.
2. The U.S., with it's vast forests (more now than in pre-Columbian times) and farmlands is a net ABSORBER of CO2...as opposed to Europe and Japan, which are net emitters.
3. Let's see...they were raising crops of oats in Greenland, and the Icelandic/Viking explorers were calling what is now the chilly area of Newfoundland "Vinland" because of the grapes which grew there. It's an era referred to as the "Medieval Climate Optimum" in old climate textbooks, and was followed by the spread of Black Plague (the fleas of the rats taking advantage of the warmer climate to spread to northern Europe). That period was followed by what used to be referred to as the "Little Ice Age", in which England saw snow in areas never before seen, and the River Thames froze quite solidly on a regular basis. That period ended in the early/middle 1700's, and we've been in a warming trend ever since. By no means is this fellow a climatologist. This is one man's educated opinion. There are other contibutors whose credentials are comparatively noteworthy. I just found Mr Bezat's quiz entertaining. I look forward to your thoughts on the site, Gail. Anyone else, too. Fun, intriguing stuff from the dark side . r Edited for grammar. Mistakes likely remain. Too tired today to catch 'em all.
|
|