President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion.
Hi guys, long time no see. Just a couple things to say....
brink, I liked your alphabet post above. Well put. I agree with you and beta and Emilio on this issue. Does anyone else think it's ironic that John McCain's most energized constituency are embittered Hillary anarchists who obviously want this country to fail out of spite? "You screwed me so I'm going to screw you back?" I say let them have him. We have to work extra hard to make up for them, sure, but I'm tired of compromise. Emilio put it best, I think.
Also, Hillary's speech was electrifying. Good show, Hil. I'm almost sorry that she's not the VP. I think Obama was scared of her, frankly. I don't blame him, but after several months of not trusting her, I do wish her the best. Maybe she'll usurp Reid as majority leader in the Senate? Somebody should....
Obama really kissed Biden's wife on the lips last night - I thought it was rather prolonged and sloppy. Then Michelle had a jealous look on her face......
The whole issue of arrogance has pissed me off this morning. Can you imagine how they would be acting if Obama was not acting confident? "This young black guy is not ready to lead, look at him, he is scared", etc...
He has to show that he is proud of who he is and his ideas, if not he would be eaten alive.
Wait, they are going at him from every possible direction:
I can see it now. Air Force One decked out with "22s" and spinners. Maybe even a set of hydraulics. Watching the hip-hop president in the Oval Office with his baseball cap on backward coping a gansta lean in the big chair. Should be really pimp, don't you think? Cool man, real cool. Instead of giving away presidential cuff links to guests, as is the custom, he will offer "bling bling."
And Obama cannot even defend himself, as McCain will say that HE is playing the race card.
All this stupidity is fine and well in a campaign, but next year when we are bomb bomb bombing Iran, have a cold war with russia, and have given the little bit we have of an economy to China, we will be regretting having elected Senile Sidney McCain.
I think it's amusing and ironic that the anti-commie red-baiters are now labeled the "red" party. . .
I wish it weren't too late to have Barry (I call him Barry) say "Let's get back America -- and take it forward !" instead of the unnecessarily threatening "Take back America. . ."
Let's get a 'Barry Obama' thing going. Maybe it'll catch on, and grandma whitey will be more comfortable. We don't want any fraidy grannies out there at election time, do we ?
Anybody hear NPR radio right after the Big Speech ? They were taking calls from all over, complete with 'I'd vote for him but not after he said he "supports abortion". . .' -- and they had a pro-MxCain guy talking. They try so hard to be "fair and balanced. . .'
good but dry speech from obama. one comment i heard from a pundit hit home: this was more of a kitchen table conversation. nothing in it that's going to be carved in granite in the future but, if it gets him elected, the inaugural address can give us that.
very true Steven, but you can't carve anything in granite when you don't have the job yet! (lest ye be labeled an arrogant, ambitious elitist!) and plus, how many speeches like these, or inaugural addresses for that matter that deal with policy get whittled down when it comes time to really execute them via the standard political processes? i think he outlined the direction he wants to go in the right amount of specificity for now, and i agree, if he is elected, his inaugural will take it to the next level.
I watched. Barak certinaly is good at giving speeches. Very good "rally the base" speech. There was one line that I particularly liked where, forget how he said it, but mentioned that mother's & father's need to step up. The irony was that the rest of the speech was about all the things gov't is going to do. How big brother is going to take care of you, but I expect that from democrat speeches. A lot of it sounded ok, but where's the details? How you gonna do that Barak? but you can't carve anything in granite when you don't have the job yet! No, but I'm supposed to just take him on his word then? Saying things about keeping jobs at home and getting everyone healthcare is just platitudes w/out some real hardcore details. You're going to eliminate budget items that aren't needed to pay for programs, ok, examples? See, I'm not a democrat. Barak should be using every speech, especially something this visible, to talk to people like me. It's obvious from Archinect that his base is militant in their support for him. But people like me watch and just leave with more questions than answers. I'm sure McCain will do the same, and I'm no supporter of his, but as an independant who's been disgusted with both parties I wasn't convinced. I'm certinaly center-right on fiscal issues but very center-left of social issues, so I could go either way. When I've voted for a major party canidate it's been a close 50/50 between parties, but in recent years its decidedly been 3rd party. So, Obama people, where's the frank discussion for people like me?
Aquapura, so let me get this straight. Under the current administration, the size of government has increased more than in any other period since the 1930s. We now have the Patriot Act, which allows the government unprecedented ability to spy on average Americans. The Bush administration has waged a huge propaganda campaign in favor of its two wars (wight as well be Oceania.) The Bush administration spends money like it's water, and destroyed all of the fiscal gains of the Clinton years. All of which McCain has voted for and supported.
And yet you still, still insist on that old right-wing canard that the Democrats are the Big Brother party? Have you lost your mind? Not been paying attention? Not read a real newspaper for eight years? The Democrats are a part of personal and political responsibility, a party of personal freedoms and rights.
Barack Obama was as specific as any presidential candidate can be in a nomination speech. If he'd gone any deeper into the details, the right-wing smear machine would have denigrated him as a "pointy-headed liberal" like they did Gore eight years ago.
I'm so tired of wishy-washy undecideds. I've come to the conclusion that these are people who have difficulty making any decision at all in life. You see them interviewed on tv: "I just feel I don't know enough about the candidates." Have you fucking read a newspaper or magazine in a year? Do you want to be spoon-fed information? There are six books out on Barack Obama! Read one! Do have the capacity to actually go to a website (I'd recommend barackobama.com for you, Aquapura, if you want more detailed proposals) or are you confined to a la-z-boy with only one channel on the television?
Jeezus. I'd take a right-wing bloviator any day over one of these milquetoast undecideds.
Typical response from an Obama supporter. Rather than respond with an honest discussion it's a litany about the Bush administration. I didn't vote for that guy, and last I checked he's not on the ballot.
Both parties sell "big brother" policies. That I'm not denying, but if you don't think Obama was going over a laundry list of social agenda items you must've been watching a different speech. That's nothing different any any other democrat acceptance speech I've seen, which I'm not complaining about. Hell, a lot of it sounds good in his speech. My question is how you gonna do it?
You say Barak had to keep his speech vauge because details would be used against him. Well, if he can be defeated on the details wouldn't you say something's wrong with the agenda then? That's what bothers me about the "popular" canidates. You don't know what you're getting. I've seen Obama's website and it's equally as vauge. Same goes for McCain.
Don't call me wishy-washy and uninformed. I keep myself very well informed. Point is, I have every right to be very cynical of politicians. I think we can all agree that Bush hasn't lived up to his campaign promises. So because of that I'm supposed to have "faith" in the democrats? What have they done with congress in the past year? Please.
At work when I redline a set of drawings I'm always thinking about how the building will get built. The details must work or else the design will not hold up. I'm a realist that would like to see politicans think the same way. We've been electing politicians for a long time on a vauge set of schematics, but the CD's they make haven't matched the design we were sold on.
Which specifics are you looking for Aquapura? Please take 1 single item/issue and let us know what you would like to know about it and let us see if someone on here can politely find the answer via the above links or other sources.
Aquapura, once again, there are pages and pages of specifics on Obama's website that you clearly haven't bothered to read. You call them "equally as vague" (sic). Equally as vague as what? Your political beliefs?
You're trying to paint yourself as some sort of above-the-fray independent. I'd call you a mere cynic. Try believing in something. It actually feels good and even inspiring.
I'm tired of cynicism. The country is tired of cynicism. It's as corrosive to our nation as acid. I'm tired of your perpetually negative, all-the-same shtick. I'm ready to talk to people who believe in something and not nothing.
Again, please don't comment until you've gone to Obama's website and read his proposals. If you come back with specifics, as you're asking everyone in the world to do, then (applause!) But if you don't, I think a lot of people here will stop listening to you.
Eliminate Our Need for Middle Eastern and Venezuelan Oil within 10 Years
Increase Fuel Economy Standards.
Obama will increase fuel economy standards 4 percent per year while providing $4 billion for domestic automakers to retool their manufacturing facilities in America to produce these vehicles.
Corporate Avg Fuel Economy standards were already raised and will take full effect in 2020. How is corporate welfare for GM & Ford going to force people to buy fuel efficient cars?
Get 1 Million Plug-In Hybrid Cars on the Road by 2015.
These vehicles can get up to 150 miles per gallon. Barack Obama believes we should work to ensure these cars are built here in America, instead of factories overseas.
Toyota is already developing a plug-in prius to be sold next year. Last I checked Toyota, Honda, Nissan, etc all have manufacturing in the US. So what is Obama really doing here?
Create a New $7,000 Tax Credit for Purchasing Advanced Vehicles.
This has been done before, just renewing something that has been ongoing. Ok, I'm not against it.
Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard.
Obama will establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) to reduce the carbon in our fuels 10 percent by 2020. Obama will also require 60 billion gallons of advanced biofuels to be phased into our fuel supply by 2030.
Another thing that has already been done by the ethanol blending mandates. And what is "low carbon" fuel. We already adopted low sulfur diesel standards. This is straight up talking points that don't tell us anything.
A “Use it or Lose It” Approach to Existing Oil and Gas Leases.
Obama will require oil companies to develop the 68 million acres of land (over 40 million of which are offshore) which they have already leased and are not drilling on.
A typical response from someone who knows nothing about oil & gas exploration. There isn't economically recoverable resources everywhere. If a company can make money off land that is open to lease you bet your ass they'd be there. Why waste billions drilling if you already know it's not profitable? They lease the land to do seismic exploration surveys. The land that looks good gets drilled, the rest is ignored. Total misinformation.
Promote the Responsible Domestic Production of Oil and Natural Gas.
By what? New EPA regulations? This could mean literally anything
An Obama administration will establish a process for early identification of any infrastructure obstacles/shortages or possible federal permitting process delays to drilling in the Bakken Shale formation, the Barnett shale formation, and the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska.
Ok, the Bakken Shale is very expensive to drill. There's already oil field infastructure in western ND, but this area is only feasible with high oil prices. It'll come to market but the obsticle is the cost of extraction. The Barnett shale is being drilled and fractured as we speak. Fly into DFW and you can see natural gas rigs in operation. That gas is already going to market as we speak. And the National Petroleum Reserve has already been well explored. The North Slope has been a big oil field, but is in decline. To find more reserves would require moving into new land, i.e. ANWR. So how do you clear up delays on things that are already flowing?
This is what gets me about political canidates. Empty pledges that get all the cheers but have no depth. Saudi Arabia (middle east) is our second biggest supplier behind Canada. Tell me where in the above agenda we are going to either conserve or replace just the 1.5 million barrels per day from the KSA??? Plug-in hybrids and a more efficient vehicle fleet helps but don't forget that every year we use more liquid fuels by organic growth in population. And how do you force conservation to accomplish this? Noble goal, but in the end it's just a campaign slogan until we have hard details. If Obama came out and called for a fuel rationing system to rid ourselves of middle eastern oil, ok, now we're talking. Otherwise, it'll never happen.
I think you are being a little irrational in your requests here, you have taken a position that no matter how much information is provided, you will simply keep asking "and how do they do that?" "and how do they do THAT?" all the way down to minute details, digging deeper until it is clearly an unreasonable request at this stage in the process. The website is not going to have thousand page documents of policy for departments and staffs who do not yet even exist.
It is like the evolution debate where no matter how many missing links are found, the creationists continually ask for the next smaller missing link.
I think these are pretty specific goals, they contain numeric goals and dates:
Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard.
Obama will establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) to reduce the carbon in our fuels 10 percent by 2020. Obama will also require 60 billion gallons of advanced biofuels to be phased into our fuel supply by 2030.
Get 1 Million Plug-In Hybrid Cars on the Road by 2015.
These vehicles can get up to 150 miles per gallon. Barack Obama believes we should work to ensure these cars are built here in America, instead of factories overseas.
As for the fuel economy standards, yes standards already exist, but a lot people are not especially impressed with the 35mpg target set for 2020, Hence the 4% per year increase in the target. If my math is correct, Obama's goal is closer to 44mpg [current standard of 27.5*(1.04^12)].
I think you'll have better luck debating the philosophy behind the overall policies than critiquing the minutia that can’t reasonably be presented at this time or in this format.
great speech, unapologetically progressive, and the stadium was actually a plus as it became a backyard for so many people from so many walks of like. He was, simply himself, further detailing the ideas he has floated since he ran for Senator, a true leader. Too bad that McCain's shenanigans today have drowned out this speech, it is one for the history books.
Aqua, we're now very familiar with your "all politicians are corrupt and liars" stance and that only "common people" should serve in Washington...yea, and in the next couple of weeks, monkeys will fly out of your butt.
It WAS a political speech at a convention, not a friggin' white paper...do you want to put people to sleep? Obama used the speech to point out how his approach will differ from McCain's. And yea, most stuff you hear in these speeches gets watered down by compromise or just never inacted (but let's also do take a look at just who puts the spanner in the works to not make it happen). But I don't need to hear the EXACT details right now of how he'll get health care to more people, but I do want to hear that he's going to give it his best shot.
But let me ask you this: what's harder; to be a party that says that government is the problem, and proposes pretty much nothing but maybe fighting wars and giving corporations more money; or to be a party that thinks government should at least TRY to put these ideas through, because they make life better for citizens, even if some of them don't pan out?
aquapura, it seems as though you are in support of McCain. you're so focused on oil supply, but the problem ultimately is about both demand and supply, even if that doesn't poll well...
McCain has neither a short term or long term solution. The bottom line is, he is the one who is all talk, all political pandering, with his VP choice, with his energy policy (which focuses on useless gimicks that offer no long term solutions, only politics), etc.
Simply put, I don't trust that McCain has his intentions or priorities in the right place, and don't believe McCain will do anything different than what Bush has done, he will continue to have energy interests in oil rather than weening our country off of our addiction and dependence on oil, and he most definitely not do anything to address issues of global warming. Focusing on oil drilling is not a real solution. It's a gimick, none of that oil will be seen in 10 years, and it is traded in a global market in which demand increasingly outstrips supply (which by the way, America contributes proportionately very little to, and consumes proportionately too much of). The Republican party's *promotion* of consumption is a self destructive policy. Our oil dependence is the reason that we are held hostage to foreign powers, and why we went to war in Iraq, unjustly and unwisely sending our troops into a crisis that did no exist, and sending us billions and billions of dollars per week further and further into catastrophic debt and have made us less safe and less respected in the world... And contributed to our economic woes... The goal should be to aggressively mobilize to conserve and develop a wide range of energy alternatives, not to protect interests in oil that don't have the welfare of our people first.
While the bounce for Obama is undoubtedly good, the polls are pretty meaningless. The electoral college is what matters here and Obama has been in the lead in most credible electoral college scenarios from the day he clinched the nomination. We're not hearing about that because the media like making this more of a horse race than it is.
aquapura, it seems as though you are in support of McCain.
Actually no. I was a Ron Paul supporter in the primaries but am now weighing my 3rd party options. My political leanings are of classical liberalism. Look it up, you might be enlightened. Please don't equate me with a republican or neo-con or whatever the latest terminology for the "conservatives" are.
you're so focused on oil supply, but the problem ultimately is about both demand and supply, even if that doesn't poll well...
I think the biggest energy "find" is conservation, bar none. Rather than the Obama supported bailout for Detroit automakers I'd propose tax credits for dismantling the SUV fleet and give tax rebates for fuel efficient vehicles.
McCain has neither a short term or long term solution. The bottom line is, he is the one who is all talk, all political pandering, with his VP choice, with his energy policy (which focuses on useless gimicks that offer no long term solutions, only politics), etc.
Agreed, but would argue Obama's energy policy is pandering to his base as well.
...I don't trust that McCain has his intentions or priorities in the right place... he will continue to have energy interests in oil rather than weening our country off of our addiction and dependence on oil, and he most definitely not do anything to address issues of global warming.
I've stated before that I think energy supply must be addressed first and foremost over "global warming" while we still have access to stable supply and gov't oversight is in place. In a world with energy supply disruptions I fear for what will happen to the environment.
Focusing on oil drilling is not a real solution. It's a gimick, none of that oil will be seen in 10 years
Better to have that supply in 10 years than wishing we had it 10 years from now. I don't think the OCS or ANWR are the treasures of oil supply we are lead to believe. Part of me says drill now because it'll finally put that debate to an end. But if we don't drill now I assure you that we'll drill in the future when supply disruptions do occur and at that time it won't be pretty.
...and it is traded in a global market in which demand increasingly outstrips supply (which by the way, America contributes proportionately very little to, and consumes proportionately too much of).
This latest argument is just asinie. Theoretically yes, American oil is sold in a global market. But it isn't cheap to transport oil around the globe. Why do you think Canadian crude all flows to the US, ditto Mexico. Hugo Chavez has an axe to grind so he exports to China but typically oil is exported to the nearest market. Also, contrary to what most people belive, the USA is the 3rd largest producer of oil in the world behind Saudi Arabia & Russia. We consume a heck of a lot, but we are by no means a minor player in production.
The Republican party's *promotion* of consumption is a self destructive policy. Our oil dependence is the reason that we are held hostage to foreign powers, and why we went to war in Iraq, unjustly and unwisely sending our troops into a crisis that did no exist, and sending us billions and billions of dollars per week further and further into catastrophic debt and have made us less safe and less respected in the world... And contributed to our economic woes... The goal should be to aggressively mobilize to conserve and develop a wide range of energy alternatives, not to protect interests in oil that don't have the welfare of our people first.
I agree that Iraq was about oil, but not the basis of current economic woes. That I blame the federal reserve and their easy money policy on, but that's a different discussion.
I support alternatives but #1, the existing alternatives cannot come on-line fast enough to replace decline in traditional sources, and #2, we don't have time to research the next alternative without finding new traditional energy sources at the same time to tide us over.
Does anyone know why I cant find my name on any of the donation finder sites? I contributed twice and I see donors with less money listed - arent all contributions public record? Just curious if anyone else found their name.
VOTE OBAMA
farwest - you just noticed!?!
what the fuck's wrong with you?
oe - once again we agree!
President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion.
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/
This wasn't that long ago!
Hi guys, long time no see. Just a couple things to say....
brink, I liked your alphabet post above. Well put. I agree with you and beta and Emilio on this issue. Does anyone else think it's ironic that John McCain's most energized constituency are embittered Hillary anarchists who obviously want this country to fail out of spite? "You screwed me so I'm going to screw you back?" I say let them have him. We have to work extra hard to make up for them, sure, but I'm tired of compromise. Emilio put it best, I think.
Also, Hillary's speech was electrifying. Good show, Hil. I'm almost sorry that she's not the VP. I think Obama was scared of her, frankly. I don't blame him, but after several months of not trusting her, I do wish her the best. Maybe she'll usurp Reid as majority leader in the Senate? Somebody should....
Maureen Dowd forever! Neo-classical stage sets, never!
"People the world over," Clinton said, "have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of power."
Obama really kissed Biden's wife on the lips last night - I thought it was rather prolonged and sloppy. Then Michelle had a jealous look on her face......
pomo in politics is only ok when white politicians do it:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0808/Bushs_2004_temple.html
The whole issue of arrogance has pissed me off this morning. Can you imagine how they would be acting if Obama was not acting confident? "This young black guy is not ready to lead, look at him, he is scared", etc...
He has to show that he is proud of who he is and his ideas, if not he would be eaten alive.
Wait, they are going at him from every possible direction:
I can see it now. Air Force One decked out with "22s" and spinners. Maybe even a set of hydraulics. Watching the hip-hop president in the Oval Office with his baseball cap on backward coping a gansta lean in the big chair. Should be really pimp, don't you think? Cool man, real cool. Instead of giving away presidential cuff links to guests, as is the custom, he will offer "bling bling."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73276
And Obama cannot even defend himself, as McCain will say that HE is playing the race card.
All this stupidity is fine and well in a campaign, but next year when we are bomb bomb bombing Iran, have a cold war with russia, and have given the little bit we have of an economy to China, we will be regretting having elected Senile Sidney McCain.
Sorry, but what the hell country music song are they playing at the end of this speech?
In the words of a great American - Emeril Legasse - BAM!
the country song was written for Obama's campaign.
i'm wrong, it's a Brooks and Dunne song??
amazing speech. RED MEAT!!! i can't wait to see what the hell they have to say for themselves next week, it should be hilarious.
...assuming the GOP convention doesn't get pre-empted by Gustav, which appears to be taking aim for New Orleans. Could be an interesting week.
I think it's amusing and ironic that the anti-commie red-baiters are now labeled the "red" party. . .
I wish it weren't too late to have Barry (I call him Barry) say "Let's get back America -- and take it forward !" instead of the unnecessarily threatening "Take back America. . ."
hey i call him barry, too!
barry wants to invest in clean coal
CLEAN COAL HELLS YEAH!!!
Let's get a 'Barry Obama' thing going. Maybe it'll catch on, and grandma whitey will be more comfortable. We don't want any fraidy grannies out there at election time, do we ?
Anybody hear NPR radio right after the Big Speech ? They were taking calls from all over, complete with 'I'd vote for him but not after he said he "supports abortion". . .' -- and they had a pro-MxCain guy talking. They try so hard to be "fair and balanced. . .'
anyone else find FRaC's cynicism pathetic?
good but dry speech from obama. one comment i heard from a pundit hit home: this was more of a kitchen table conversation. nothing in it that's going to be carved in granite in the future but, if it gets him elected, the inaugural address can give us that.
very true Steven, but you can't carve anything in granite when you don't have the job yet! (lest ye be labeled an arrogant, ambitious elitist!) and plus, how many speeches like these, or inaugural addresses for that matter that deal with policy get whittled down when it comes time to really execute them via the standard political processes? i think he outlined the direction he wants to go in the right amount of specificity for now, and i agree, if he is elected, his inaugural will take it to the next level.
I watched. Barak certinaly is good at giving speeches. Very good "rally the base" speech. There was one line that I particularly liked where, forget how he said it, but mentioned that mother's & father's need to step up. The irony was that the rest of the speech was about all the things gov't is going to do. How big brother is going to take care of you, but I expect that from democrat speeches. A lot of it sounded ok, but where's the details? How you gonna do that Barak? but you can't carve anything in granite when you don't have the job yet! No, but I'm supposed to just take him on his word then? Saying things about keeping jobs at home and getting everyone healthcare is just platitudes w/out some real hardcore details. You're going to eliminate budget items that aren't needed to pay for programs, ok, examples? See, I'm not a democrat. Barak should be using every speech, especially something this visible, to talk to people like me. It's obvious from Archinect that his base is militant in their support for him. But people like me watch and just leave with more questions than answers. I'm sure McCain will do the same, and I'm no supporter of his, but as an independant who's been disgusted with both parties I wasn't convinced. I'm certinaly center-right on fiscal issues but very center-left of social issues, so I could go either way. When I've voted for a major party canidate it's been a close 50/50 between parties, but in recent years its decidedly been 3rd party. So, Obama people, where's the frank discussion for people like me?
"I'm certinaly center-right on fiscal issues"
So, you are for uncontrolled spending?
Aquapura, so let me get this straight. Under the current administration, the size of government has increased more than in any other period since the 1930s. We now have the Patriot Act, which allows the government unprecedented ability to spy on average Americans. The Bush administration has waged a huge propaganda campaign in favor of its two wars (wight as well be Oceania.) The Bush administration spends money like it's water, and destroyed all of the fiscal gains of the Clinton years. All of which McCain has voted for and supported.
And yet you still, still insist on that old right-wing canard that the Democrats are the Big Brother party? Have you lost your mind? Not been paying attention? Not read a real newspaper for eight years? The Democrats are a part of personal and political responsibility, a party of personal freedoms and rights.
Barack Obama was as specific as any presidential candidate can be in a nomination speech. If he'd gone any deeper into the details, the right-wing smear machine would have denigrated him as a "pointy-headed liberal" like they did Gore eight years ago.
I'm so tired of wishy-washy undecideds. I've come to the conclusion that these are people who have difficulty making any decision at all in life. You see them interviewed on tv: "I just feel I don't know enough about the candidates." Have you fucking read a newspaper or magazine in a year? Do you want to be spoon-fed information? There are six books out on Barack Obama! Read one! Do have the capacity to actually go to a website (I'd recommend barackobama.com for you, Aquapura, if you want more detailed proposals) or are you confined to a la-z-boy with only one channel on the television?
Jeezus. I'd take a right-wing bloviator any day over one of these milquetoast undecideds.
farewest1, do you feel better now that you got that off your chest? I certainly do. Well said!
i think farewest1's comment is going to be my gchat status now until november!
Everything you need to know about Obama's proposals:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/seniors/
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/poverty/
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/urbanpolicy/
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/
and more where that came from!
[bows to farwest]
Well said, sir.
Green Collar jobs.
I have to laugh.
Worshipping GAIA is the new religion, with the men in white coats the 'High Priests'.
Typical response from an Obama supporter. Rather than respond with an honest discussion it's a litany about the Bush administration. I didn't vote for that guy, and last I checked he's not on the ballot.
Both parties sell "big brother" policies. That I'm not denying, but if you don't think Obama was going over a laundry list of social agenda items you must've been watching a different speech. That's nothing different any any other democrat acceptance speech I've seen, which I'm not complaining about. Hell, a lot of it sounds good in his speech. My question is how you gonna do it?
You say Barak had to keep his speech vauge because details would be used against him. Well, if he can be defeated on the details wouldn't you say something's wrong with the agenda then? That's what bothers me about the "popular" canidates. You don't know what you're getting. I've seen Obama's website and it's equally as vauge. Same goes for McCain.
Don't call me wishy-washy and uninformed. I keep myself very well informed. Point is, I have every right to be very cynical of politicians. I think we can all agree that Bush hasn't lived up to his campaign promises. So because of that I'm supposed to have "faith" in the democrats? What have they done with congress in the past year? Please.
At work when I redline a set of drawings I'm always thinking about how the building will get built. The details must work or else the design will not hold up. I'm a realist that would like to see politicans think the same way. We've been electing politicians for a long time on a vauge set of schematics, but the CD's they make haven't matched the design we were sold on.
Which specifics are you looking for Aquapura? Please take 1 single item/issue and let us know what you would like to know about it and let us see if someone on here can politely find the answer via the above links or other sources.
Aquapura, once again, there are pages and pages of specifics on Obama's website that you clearly haven't bothered to read. You call them "equally as vague" (sic). Equally as vague as what? Your political beliefs?
You're trying to paint yourself as some sort of above-the-fray independent. I'd call you a mere cynic. Try believing in something. It actually feels good and even inspiring.
I'm tired of cynicism. The country is tired of cynicism. It's as corrosive to our nation as acid. I'm tired of your perpetually negative, all-the-same shtick. I'm ready to talk to people who believe in something and not nothing.
Again, please don't comment until you've gone to Obama's website and read his proposals. If you come back with specifics, as you're asking everyone in the world to do, then (applause!) But if you don't, I think a lot of people here will stop listening to you.
Taken directly from Obama's website:
Eliminate Our Need for Middle Eastern and Venezuelan Oil within 10 Years
Increase Fuel Economy Standards.
Obama will increase fuel economy standards 4 percent per year while providing $4 billion for domestic automakers to retool their manufacturing facilities in America to produce these vehicles.
Corporate Avg Fuel Economy standards were already raised and will take full effect in 2020. How is corporate welfare for GM & Ford going to force people to buy fuel efficient cars?
Get 1 Million Plug-In Hybrid Cars on the Road by 2015.
These vehicles can get up to 150 miles per gallon. Barack Obama believes we should work to ensure these cars are built here in America, instead of factories overseas.
Toyota is already developing a plug-in prius to be sold next year. Last I checked Toyota, Honda, Nissan, etc all have manufacturing in the US. So what is Obama really doing here?
Create a New $7,000 Tax Credit for Purchasing Advanced Vehicles.
This has been done before, just renewing something that has been ongoing. Ok, I'm not against it.
Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard.
Obama will establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) to reduce the carbon in our fuels 10 percent by 2020. Obama will also require 60 billion gallons of advanced biofuels to be phased into our fuel supply by 2030.
Another thing that has already been done by the ethanol blending mandates. And what is "low carbon" fuel. We already adopted low sulfur diesel standards. This is straight up talking points that don't tell us anything.
A “Use it or Lose It” Approach to Existing Oil and Gas Leases.
Obama will require oil companies to develop the 68 million acres of land (over 40 million of which are offshore) which they have already leased and are not drilling on.
A typical response from someone who knows nothing about oil & gas exploration. There isn't economically recoverable resources everywhere. If a company can make money off land that is open to lease you bet your ass they'd be there. Why waste billions drilling if you already know it's not profitable? They lease the land to do seismic exploration surveys. The land that looks good gets drilled, the rest is ignored. Total misinformation.
Promote the Responsible Domestic Production of Oil and Natural Gas.
By what? New EPA regulations? This could mean literally anything
An Obama administration will establish a process for early identification of any infrastructure obstacles/shortages or possible federal permitting process delays to drilling in the Bakken Shale formation, the Barnett shale formation, and the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska.
Ok, the Bakken Shale is very expensive to drill. There's already oil field infastructure in western ND, but this area is only feasible with high oil prices. It'll come to market but the obsticle is the cost of extraction. The Barnett shale is being drilled and fractured as we speak. Fly into DFW and you can see natural gas rigs in operation. That gas is already going to market as we speak. And the National Petroleum Reserve has already been well explored. The North Slope has been a big oil field, but is in decline. To find more reserves would require moving into new land, i.e. ANWR. So how do you clear up delays on things that are already flowing?
This is what gets me about political canidates. Empty pledges that get all the cheers but have no depth. Saudi Arabia (middle east) is our second biggest supplier behind Canada. Tell me where in the above agenda we are going to either conserve or replace just the 1.5 million barrels per day from the KSA??? Plug-in hybrids and a more efficient vehicle fleet helps but don't forget that every year we use more liquid fuels by organic growth in population. And how do you force conservation to accomplish this? Noble goal, but in the end it's just a campaign slogan until we have hard details. If Obama came out and called for a fuel rationing system to rid ourselves of middle eastern oil, ok, now we're talking. Otherwise, it'll never happen.
I think you are being a little irrational in your requests here, you have taken a position that no matter how much information is provided, you will simply keep asking "and how do they do that?" "and how do they do THAT?" all the way down to minute details, digging deeper until it is clearly an unreasonable request at this stage in the process. The website is not going to have thousand page documents of policy for departments and staffs who do not yet even exist.
It is like the evolution debate where no matter how many missing links are found, the creationists continually ask for the next smaller missing link.
I think these are pretty specific goals, they contain numeric goals and dates:
Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard.
Obama will establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) to reduce the carbon in our fuels 10 percent by 2020. Obama will also require 60 billion gallons of advanced biofuels to be phased into our fuel supply by 2030.
Get 1 Million Plug-In Hybrid Cars on the Road by 2015.
These vehicles can get up to 150 miles per gallon. Barack Obama believes we should work to ensure these cars are built here in America, instead of factories overseas.
As for the fuel economy standards, yes standards already exist, but a lot people are not especially impressed with the 35mpg target set for 2020, Hence the 4% per year increase in the target. If my math is correct, Obama's goal is closer to 44mpg [current standard of 27.5*(1.04^12)].
I think you'll have better luck debating the philosophy behind the overall policies than critiquing the minutia that can’t reasonably be presented at this time or in this format.
great speech last night and i cant wait to see him ideologically defeat mccain in debate
biden still creeps me out as too easy to manipulate...
great speech, unapologetically progressive, and the stadium was actually a plus as it became a backyard for so many people from so many walks of like. He was, simply himself, further detailing the ideas he has floated since he ran for Senator, a true leader. Too bad that McCain's shenanigans today have drowned out this speech, it is one for the history books.
I hope no one misses this.
hilarious.
Aqua, we're now very familiar with your "all politicians are corrupt and liars" stance and that only "common people" should serve in Washington...yea, and in the next couple of weeks, monkeys will fly out of your butt.
It WAS a political speech at a convention, not a friggin' white paper...do you want to put people to sleep? Obama used the speech to point out how his approach will differ from McCain's. And yea, most stuff you hear in these speeches gets watered down by compromise or just never inacted (but let's also do take a look at just who puts the spanner in the works to not make it happen). But I don't need to hear the EXACT details right now of how he'll get health care to more people, but I do want to hear that he's going to give it his best shot.
But let me ask you this: what's harder; to be a party that says that government is the problem, and proposes pretty much nothing but maybe fighting wars and giving corporations more money; or to be a party that thinks government should at least TRY to put these ideas through, because they make life better for citizens, even if some of them don't pan out?
aquapura, it seems as though you are in support of McCain. you're so focused on oil supply, but the problem ultimately is about both demand and supply, even if that doesn't poll well...
McCain has neither a short term or long term solution. The bottom line is, he is the one who is all talk, all political pandering, with his VP choice, with his energy policy (which focuses on useless gimicks that offer no long term solutions, only politics), etc.
Simply put, I don't trust that McCain has his intentions or priorities in the right place, and don't believe McCain will do anything different than what Bush has done, he will continue to have energy interests in oil rather than weening our country off of our addiction and dependence on oil, and he most definitely not do anything to address issues of global warming. Focusing on oil drilling is not a real solution. It's a gimick, none of that oil will be seen in 10 years, and it is traded in a global market in which demand increasingly outstrips supply (which by the way, America contributes proportionately very little to, and consumes proportionately too much of). The Republican party's *promotion* of consumption is a self destructive policy. Our oil dependence is the reason that we are held hostage to foreign powers, and why we went to war in Iraq, unjustly and unwisely sending our troops into a crisis that did no exist, and sending us billions and billions of dollars per week further and further into catastrophic debt and have made us less safe and less respected in the world... And contributed to our economic woes... The goal should be to aggressively mobilize to conserve and develop a wide range of energy alternatives, not to protect interests in oil that don't have the welfare of our people first.
While everyone is too busy with Palin, Obama has the highest percentage of the electorate to date, and a nice bounce:
RCP Average O-49.0 McC-43.0 Obama +6.0
Rasmussen Tracking Obama +6
Hotline/FD Obama +9
CNN Obama +1
CBS News Obama +8
Gallup Tracking Obama +6
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html
While the bounce for Obama is undoubtedly good, the polls are pretty meaningless. The electoral college is what matters here and Obama has been in the lead in most credible electoral college scenarios from the day he clinched the nomination. We're not hearing about that because the media like making this more of a horse race than it is.
Actually no. I was a Ron Paul supporter in the primaries but am now weighing my 3rd party options. My political leanings are of classical liberalism. Look it up, you might be enlightened. Please don't equate me with a republican or neo-con or whatever the latest terminology for the "conservatives" are.
you're so focused on oil supply, but the problem ultimately is about both demand and supply, even if that doesn't poll well...
I think the biggest energy "find" is conservation, bar none. Rather than the Obama supported bailout for Detroit automakers I'd propose tax credits for dismantling the SUV fleet and give tax rebates for fuel efficient vehicles.
McCain has neither a short term or long term solution. The bottom line is, he is the one who is all talk, all political pandering, with his VP choice, with his energy policy (which focuses on useless gimicks that offer no long term solutions, only politics), etc.
Agreed, but would argue Obama's energy policy is pandering to his base as well.
...I don't trust that McCain has his intentions or priorities in the right place... he will continue to have energy interests in oil rather than weening our country off of our addiction and dependence on oil, and he most definitely not do anything to address issues of global warming.
I've stated before that I think energy supply must be addressed first and foremost over "global warming" while we still have access to stable supply and gov't oversight is in place. In a world with energy supply disruptions I fear for what will happen to the environment.
Focusing on oil drilling is not a real solution. It's a gimick, none of that oil will be seen in 10 years
Better to have that supply in 10 years than wishing we had it 10 years from now. I don't think the OCS or ANWR are the treasures of oil supply we are lead to believe. Part of me says drill now because it'll finally put that debate to an end. But if we don't drill now I assure you that we'll drill in the future when supply disruptions do occur and at that time it won't be pretty.
...and it is traded in a global market in which demand increasingly outstrips supply (which by the way, America contributes proportionately very little to, and consumes proportionately too much of).
This latest argument is just asinie. Theoretically yes, American oil is sold in a global market. But it isn't cheap to transport oil around the globe. Why do you think Canadian crude all flows to the US, ditto Mexico. Hugo Chavez has an axe to grind so he exports to China but typically oil is exported to the nearest market. Also, contrary to what most people belive, the USA is the 3rd largest producer of oil in the world behind Saudi Arabia & Russia. We consume a heck of a lot, but we are by no means a minor player in production.
The Republican party's *promotion* of consumption is a self destructive policy. Our oil dependence is the reason that we are held hostage to foreign powers, and why we went to war in Iraq, unjustly and unwisely sending our troops into a crisis that did no exist, and sending us billions and billions of dollars per week further and further into catastrophic debt and have made us less safe and less respected in the world... And contributed to our economic woes... The goal should be to aggressively mobilize to conserve and develop a wide range of energy alternatives, not to protect interests in oil that don't have the welfare of our people first.
I agree that Iraq was about oil, but not the basis of current economic woes. That I blame the federal reserve and their easy money policy on, but that's a different discussion.
I support alternatives but #1, the existing alternatives cannot come on-line fast enough to replace decline in traditional sources, and #2, we don't have time to research the next alternative without finding new traditional energy sources at the same time to tide us over.
Does anyone know why I cant find my name on any of the donation finder sites? I contributed twice and I see donors with less money listed - arent all contributions public record? Just curious if anyone else found their name.
i tried it as well, donated twice and couldn't find it. it seemed that the data in my area was rather sparse...
Could it be simply a matter of the data not updating or did you donate a long time ago?
mañana
don't worry, it will be before john mccain's speech so you won't miss a thing!
i'm going to the opening of the norcal obama hq in berkeley tonight.*
any other archinectors expected?
* - insert obligatory berkeley comment here:
What's the address ?
SDR - it was 3225 Adeline, south of Ashby BART.
it was pretty cool, maybe two hundred people there when i got there...this was late though, around 7:30, and it was expected only from 6-8.
lots of signups going on for the different volunteer opportunities there...it was, truth be told, a little chaotic.
some typical berkeley crazies, but mostly the crowd simply looked like oakland/berkeley, not including the upper shattuck crowd.
i stayed for 30 min - watched some of the commotion, listened to some of a re-broadcast of the DNC nomination speech...
Thanks, mightylittle™
I was on the couch under a pillow with a hanky, peeking out at McAbel and whimpering. . .
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.