fayfreethinkers.com

Darrel wrote:No biggie during the silly season.

DOUG
Isn't all politics permanently in the silly season?

DAR
Good point. But that makes this the extra silly season on steroids. Pomp, bluster, bullshit, spin, pandering and when that isn't enough just outrageous blatant lies. Look at the crap they are throwing at Obama now. Sometimes this country should be ashamed of itself.

D.

Darrel wrote:Sometimes this country should be ashamed of itself.

DOUG
Yes, it should. But then why are you constantly saying that bullshit during the silly season is OK?

DAR
I'm "constantly saying that bullshit during the silly season is OK?" I think I am a realist about it and resigned to it. Any candidate has to swim in a sea of it and they are going to get some on them.

For instance, the flag pin nonsense they threw at Obama. What's he supposed to do? Don't respond? Can't do that. Say he isn't going to wear one because it's shallow symbolism? Can't do that. People are nuts about patriotism and symbols. I forget the details of that flap actually... somehow he got through it.

But realise, this country has so many conservative nuts. As I was reading this morning: "...nearly one-quarter of conservatives (24%) rate Bush moderate to very liberal." Rasmussen

I still like Obama and Hillary about the same. I was always 50/50 but leaned a little toward Hillary because I thought maybe she had a little better chance of winning. Now I think that was wrong. I would be perfectly happy with either one of them. I will be perfectly unhappy with a third term of a republican and it will be an absolute tragedy for the US in many ways. That said, if any of these candidates, including McCain, switched from "blanket opposition" to "willing to consider proposals" on almost any topic, it wouldn't rate as a flip flop worth mentioning for me.

D.
--------------------------
"Forty-one percent (41%) of Americans say George W. Bush will go down in history as the worst U.S. President ever, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey."

Darrel wrote:DAR
I'm "constantly saying that bullshit during the silly season is OK?" I think I am a realist about it and resigned to it. Any candidate has to swim in a sea of it and they are going to get some on them.

Well, I think the candidates ought to be honest and state what they really believe would be the best policy. Otherwise, we get idiots running the country.

Darrel wrote: For instance, the flag pin nonsense they threw at Obama. What's he supposed to do? Don't respond? Can't do that. Say he isn't going to wear one because it's shallow symbolism? Can't do that. People are nuts about patriotism and symbols. I forget the details of that flap actually... somehow he got through it.

He should have gone on the offensive and given the shallow conservatives a bunch of flak over wearing the flag pins to "support the troops" while at the same time NOT supporting the troops in so many other ways--like sending them to be killed in a gratuitous war. The best defense is a good offense.

Darrel wrote: I still like Obama and Hillary about the same. I was always 50/50 but leaned a little toward Hillary because I thought maybe she had a little better chance of winning. Now I think that was wrong. I would be perfectly happy with either one of them...

Whether Hillary would have had a better chance is not clear because she is no longer running, but Obama is currently woefully underperforming the brand. I heard on NPR how the race is pretty much dead even when you look at the various demographic groups. Part of the reason is that McCain has been slowly gaining ground among his base, that used to hate him for being moderate, while Obama is still having trouble within his own base. And his snubbing the Clintons against the advice of his advisors--who told him to meet Bill and Hillary and "win them over" after locking up the nomination, use them to his advantage, and instead he sat around and didn't call for a month--didn't help any. Obama and his people have not been very good at trying to heal the party, and here Obama claims to be the "new kind of politician" who is going to heal the country. I don't see that happening at all. G.W. Bush said the same thing and look what happened. Instead, his past actions were a good indication of his actions in the future. Let's hope Obama is different. Is this the audacity of hope?

Darrel wrote: That said, if any of these candidates, including McCain, switched from "blanket opposition" to "willing to consider proposals" on almost any topic, it wouldn't rate as a flip flop worth mentioning for me.

Drilling in sensitive areas for a 2-cents-per-gallon drop in price ten years from now is a waste of time. Being open to wasting time and money (after slamming Hillary for a supposedly short-term fix, which would at least affect people currently driving) is not a sign of being driven by what is best for the country.

Doug wrote: Drilling in sensitive areas for a 2-cents-per-gallon drop in price ten years from now is a waste of time.

DAR
As he has stated, as he continues to teach people about this, he is not interested in the insignificant price drop in ten years. He's interested in bargaining and passing a good broad based (and very expensive) green energy policy to get us off of the junk. Doing that will require compromise. He's also interested in taking away a major talking point of McCain's. This is because he is also interested in winning. For democrats of late that does represent a new type of politician and an important change.

Being open to wasting time and money (after slamming Hillary for a supposedly short-term fix, which would at least affect people currently driving) is not a sign of being driven by what is best for the country.

DAR
I was just thinking of how dumb the Hillary/McCain gas tax holiday was. Stats are in and driving is down considerably. That's good. Higher prices are affecting people's choices. Higher fuel costs will spur the alternatives and new tech we need. We need the taxes to fix our roads and bridges. Artificially subsidizing, fiddling with and lowering the gas price encourages waste and more SUV stupidity. That's dumb. Time to get off the junk. Hillary and McCain went for the short term pander instead of standing strong and doing the right thing on this issue like Obama did. Good for him.

Looking at the big picture for a moment, I'll quote Bob Park who is a master at being concise. Regarding hydrocarbons and the future he says:

"We will use them up and then they will be gone."

So much truth in such a little space. If you don't believe him then you don't understand human behavior and human history.

Whether Hillary would have had a better chance is not clear because she is no longer running, but Obama is currently woefully underperforming the brand.

DAR
Compared to who? Gore? Kerry? Not really. It is breathtaking and concerning that after a Bush presidency he is not ten points ahead in a blowout but that could just be another confirmation that this country is filled with right-wing nut-jobs who can't think straight. I listened to "America's Anchorman" Limbaugh today for about two minutes. Unbelievable.
I take some comfort in agreeing with something George Will said. Obama's voters are more energized and these polls don't necessarily reflect who will show up.

And his snubbing the Clintons against the advice of his advisors... he sat around and didn't call for a month...

DAR
I don't know where you are getting that information from. I don't think it's accurate. I've seen Obama fund raising for Hillary to help with the debts she racked up while going after him, and I have seen her politicking for him. The notion of "snubbing" may be in the fertile minds of her followers. Maybe nothing would be enough.

Really cool Obama dance clip.

D.

Darrel wrote: As he has stated, as he continues to teach people about this, he is not interested in the insignificant price drop in ten years. He's interested in bargaining and passing a good broad based (and very expensive) green energy policy to get us off of the junk. Doing that will require compromise. He's also interested in taking away a major talking point of McCain's. This is because he is also interested in winning. For democrats of late that does represent a new type of politician and an important change.

DOUG
Hmm. When Hillary was interested in "bargaining and passing a good broad based (and very expensive) green energy policy to get us off of the junk" Obama ridiculed her for having a short-sighted policy. Now all of a sudden short-term fixes look pretty good to the Obama supporters.

Doug wrote: Being open to wasting time and money (after slamming Hillary for a supposedly short-term fix, which would at least affect people currently driving) is not a sign of being driven by what is best for the country.

Darrel wrote:DAR
I was just thinking of how dumb the Hillary/McCain gas tax holiday was. Stats are in and driving is down considerably. That's good. Higher prices are affecting people's choices. Higher fuel costs will spur the alternatives and new tech we need. We need the taxes to fix our roads and bridges. Artificially subsidizing, fiddling with and lowering the gas price encourages waste and more SUV stupidity. That's dumb. Time to get off the junk. Hillary and McCain went for the short term pander instead of standing strong and doing the right thing on this issue like Obama did. Good for him.

DOUG
So pandering in the short term is worse than pandering in the long term. OK, got it. Hillary did the former and Obama the latter. At least Hillary's short-term fix would have saved people more than a couple of cents, and she would have cut tax breaks for oil companies to make THEM pay the difference. That sounds a lot better than what Obama is currently doing with his pandering.

Darrel wrote:Looking at the big picture for a moment, I'll quote Bob Park who is a master at being concise. Regarding hydrocarbons and the future he says:

"We will use them up and then they will be gone."

So much truth in such a little space. If you don't believe him then you don't understand human behavior and human history.

DOUG
OK. And so we should waste time and tax dollars finding more of this stuff to use up? That's Obama's compromise. I don't think we should do that.

Whether Hillary would have had a better chance is not clear because she is no longer running, but Obama is currently woefully underperforming the brand.

Darrel wrote:DAR
Compared to who?

DOUG
Compared to current polls that have generic Democrat 19 points ahead of generic Republican. People WANT to vote for a Democrat in a big way, but Obama is just barely holding his own against McSame.

============
Pew Research: Presidential Race Draws Even
According to a new Pew Research poll, Sen. Barack Obama's national lead over Sen. John McCain has disappeared. The race is now a statistical tie, with Obama barely edging McCain, 46% to 43%. In late June, Obama held an eight point lead.

Two reasons for the shift:

McCain "is garnering more support from his base -- including Republicans and white evangelical Protestants -- than he was in June, and he also has steadily gained backing from white working class voters over this period."

McCain "has made gains on his leadership image. An even greater percentage of voters than in June now see McCain as the candidate who would use the best judgment in a crisis, and an increasing percentage see him as the candidate who can get things done."

See here.
===========

And his snubbing the Clintons against the advice of his advisors... he sat around and didn't call for a month...

Darrel wrote:I don't know where you are getting that information from.

DOUG
Just yesterday from an online news article. Don't recall which one.

Doug wrote: DOUG
Hmm. When Hillary was interested in "bargaining and passing a good broad based (and very expensive) green energy policy to get us off of the junk" Obama ridiculed her for having a short-sighted policy. Now all of a sudden short-term fixes look pretty good to the Obama supporters.

DAR
Can you really not see what you are doing here? This is silly season spin worthy of Fox news jabbering.

a) You provide not a drop of evidence for this claim that he ridiculed her for wanting to "bargain and pass a good broad based (and very expensive) green energy policy" or that he said such a plan was short-sighted.

b) You are assuming Hillary's "good broad based (and very expensive) green energy policy" was the same as Obama's. That's unlikely. I didn't even know she had one of those, so I don't know if a politician running against her would be able to find something to disagree with and perhaps criticize in a heated political campaign. I am going to go out on a limb and guess yes. A politician would be able to find something to disagree with. Was lowering the gas tax part of her longterm green energy policy? Maybe Barack was pointing out how shortsighted and counter productive that proposal was.

c) Obama's proposal is not a short term fix, it's for a longterm fix. So, that's just false. The short term band-aid pandering proposals like making gas cheaper so people can keep their old habits are what he is against and has repeatedly said he is against. Being open to giving some concessions on drilling in order to get a substantial longterm green energy policy does not mean you are for drilling, or for a short term fix. That's ridiculous. Stop it.

Doug wrote: Being open to wasting time and money (after slamming Hillary for a supposedly short-term fix, which would at least affect people currently driving) is not a sign of being driven by what is best for the country.

DAR
Lowering gas prices so people will drive more and be less concerned about vehicle choices is what's best for the country? I don't think so. For people interested in green solutions, that's just dumb. It may have given her a little pander bump with some people. You should know better.

DOUG
So pandering in the short term is worse than pandering in the long term. OK, got it. Hillary did the former and Obama the latter.

DAR
So we agree Hillary pandered, along with McCain, in the short term. That's pretty obvious. You haven't shown, and can't show, that Obama did the latter. He may, and I would say very likely believes that in order to "bargain and pass a good broad based (and very expensive) green energy policy" he has to compromise on blanket opposition to drilling. You've tried to spin this every which way to make it look like he is for more drilling but it's not true. That he is open compromise in order pass a substantial long term fix does not mean he likes more drilling, wants more drilling, thinks it's smart to increase drilling or a long term fix to drill more. He has said he doesn't believe that, repeatedly. Saying he is for drilling is silly spin unworthy of serious discussion.

At least Hillary's short-term fix would have saved people more than a couple of cents,...

DAR
And more encouraged more wasteful behavior. A band-aid subsidy for stupidity. I am 100% opposed to that really bad idea. Talk about wimpy. I was pleasantly surprised Obama stood against it when it would have been easier to fold.

and she would have cut tax breaks for oil companies to make THEM pay the difference.

DAR
That was the claim and hope but I am not at all confident that that part would have happened. Fortunately not enough people fell for this "go ahead and use more gas, everything is fine" incentive.

That sounds a lot better than what Obama is currently doing with his pandering.

DAR
You mean, a band-aid short-term pander which provides an incentive for more gas usage is better than passing a good broad based long term green energy policy geared toward getting our usage down and getting us off of foreign oil? I don't think so. If you were thinking more clearly you wouldn't think so either.

Update:

Democrats to offer bill with offshore oil drilling

In the Democrats' weekly radio address, Pelosi of California said expanding drilling areas would be part of a broader bill which addresses other energy issues.

"It will consider opening portions of the (offshore) Outer Continental Shelf for drilling, with appropriate safeguards, and without taxpayer subsidies to Big Oil," she said.

Pelosi said the legislation would require oil companies to pay billions of dollars in drilling royalties, which would be invested in clean energy resources....

"This comprehensive Democratic approach will ensure energy independence which is essential to our national security, will create millions of good paying jobs here at home in a new green economy, and will take major steps forward in addressing the global climate crisis," Pelosi said. LINK

DAR
So Demo's are getting on board to get something done on this. Maybe when Hillary comes out for this you will see things differently? When she votes for this, and she probably will, will you say she is for more drilling as the short term fix for our energy problems?

D.

Darrel wrote:a) You provide not a drop of evidence for this claim that he ridiculed her for wanting to "bargain and pass a good broad based (and very expensive) green energy policy" or that he said such a plan was short-sighted.

DOUG
I'm very busy now, but just a quick note:

======
A growing chorus -- including a top congressional Democrat -- labeled Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's proposal for suspending the federal gasoline tax ineffective and shortsighted yesterday, even as she continued to paint Sen. Barack Obama as insensitive to drivers' woes for not endorsing the plan.

...Obama, who as a state senator supported temporarily suspending the Illinois gas tax in 2000, cast Clinton's proposal as a ploy that would, according to an estimate by the Congressional Budget Office, save the average family about $30 for the summer -- or, he said yesterday, "30 cents a day, which is less than you can buy a cup of coffee for at 7-Eleven." He began running a 60-second ad showing a clip of him responding to what he calls the "Clinton-McCain proposal" at a rally.

"That's typical of how Washington works. There's a problem, everybody's upset about gas prices -- let's find some short-term quick fix, that we can say we did something even though we're not really doing anything," he says in the ad. "We cannot deliver on a better energy policy unless we change how business is done in Washington. . . . That's what you need from a president -- someone who's going to tell you the truth."
See here.
============================

DAR
Well there you go. You had said: "When Hillary was interested in "bargaining and passing a good broad based (and very expensive) green energy policy to get us off of the junk" Obama ridiculed her for having a short-sighted policy."

But now your very own citation shows that he wasn't ridiculing something broad based but instead the silly short-sighted "burn more gas this summer tax incentive." Thought so.

Regarding his endorsement of a state measure in 2000, there may have been other things going on in the state. Gas was cheap and oil was a little over $20 a barrel. Nationally the fix is going to have to be much bigger and long term. So he has learned and proposed a better way of helping people with the increased costs (which refutes Hillary's claim that he was "insensitive to drivers' woes for not endorsing the plan"). It was a $1,000 tax rebate which would have been more substantive than the $30 and wouldn't have encouraged more gas use via a direct lowering of the gas price at the pump. It also wouldn't have given a larger reward to those with the largest most inefficient vehicles as Hillary's plan would. It could have been (and probably was) to be paid for by the oil profit windfall tax. So similar to Hillary's plan in that way except without the direct incentive to burn more gas. Better.

D.

Darrel wrote:DAR
Well there you go. You had said: "When Hillary was interested in "bargaining and passing a good broad based (and very expensive) green energy policy to get us off of the junk" Obama ridiculed her for having a short-sighted policy."

But now your very own citation shows that he wasn't ridiculing something broad based but instead the silly short-sighted "burn more gas this summer tax incentive." Thought so.

Here are some of the things Obama said about the gas tax holiday:

INDIANAPOLIS, - Broadening his attack, Barack Obama said Saturday that Hillary Rodham Clinton's support for a summertime break from the federal gasoline tax symbolizes a candidacy consisting of "phony ideas, calculated to win elections instead of actually solving problems."

..."This is what passes for leadership in Washington — phony ideas, calculated to win elections instead of actually solving problems," he said.

Mocking other Clinton campaign themes, he added, "I wish I could stand up here and tell you that we could fix our energy problems with a holiday. I wish I could tell you that we can take a time-out from trade and bring back the jobs that have gone overseas. I wish I could promise that on day one of my presidency, I could pass every plan and proposal I've outlined in this campaign.

'But my guess is that you've heard those promises before. You hear them every year, in every election."

See here.

=======================================

‘‘Now the two Washington candidates in the race have decided to do something different,’’ said Obama. ‘‘John McCain started it, he made the proposal, and then Hillary Clinton said ’me too.’’’
Both Clinton and McCain have criticized Obama, arguing he is insensitive to the needs of working families. Obama pushed back against both, arguing they are simply following the tradition of finding a gimmick to take to voters.

...He said drying up gas tax collections would batter highway construction, costing North Carolina up to 7,000 jobs, while saving consumers little. v‘‘We’re arguing over a gimmick that would save you half a tank of gas over the course of the entire summer so that everyone in Washington can pat themselves on the back and say they did something,’’ said Obama.

‘‘Well, let me tell you, this isn’t an idea designed to get you through the summer, it’s designed to get them through an election,’’ said Obama.

See here.

DOUG
Get you through an election. Like offshore drilling?

Doug wrote:

Darrel wrote:DAR
Well there you go. You had said: "When Hillary was interested in "bargaining and passing a good broad based (and very expensive) green energy policy to get us off of the junk" Obama ridiculed her for having a short-sighted policy."

But now your very own citation shows that he wasn't ridiculing something broad based but instead the silly short-sighted "burn more gas this summer tax incentive." Thought so.

Here are some of the things Obama said about the gas tax holiday:

INDIANAPOLIS, - Broadening his attack, Barack Obama said Saturday that Hillary Rodham Clinton's support for a summertime break from the federal gasoline tax symbolizes a candidacy consisting of "phony ideas, calculated to win elections instead of actually solving problems."

..."This is what passes for leadership in Washington — phony ideas, calculated to win elections instead of actually solving problems," he said.

Mocking other Clinton campaign themes, he added, "I wish I could stand up here and tell you that we could fix our energy problems with a holiday. I wish I could tell you that we can take a time-out from trade and bring back the jobs that have gone overseas. I wish I could promise that on day one of my presidency, I could pass every plan and proposal I've outlined in this campaign.

'But my guess is that you've heard those promises before. You hear them every year, in every election."

See here.

=======================================

‘‘Now the two Washington candidates in the race have decided to do something different,’’ said Obama. ‘‘John McCain started it, he made the proposal, and then Hillary Clinton said ’me too.’’’
Both Clinton and McCain have criticized Obama, arguing he is insensitive to the needs of working families. Obama pushed back against both, arguing they are simply following the tradition of finding a gimmick to take to voters.

...He said drying up gas tax collections would batter highway construction, costing North Carolina up to 7,000 jobs, while saving consumers little. v‘‘We’re arguing over a gimmick that would save you half a tank of gas over the course of the entire summer so that everyone in Washington can pat themselves on the back and say they did something,’’ said Obama.

‘‘Well, let me tell you, this isn’t an idea designed to get you through the summer, it’s designed to get them through an election,’’ said Obama.

See here.

DOUG
Get you through an election. Like offshore drilling?

And Obama WAS ridiculing something broad-based. Like McCain's camp calling Obama's energy plan nothing more than inflating tires, Obama was focusing on Hillary's proposed gas tax holiday and ridiculing that as a proxy for her whole energy plan. Same thing.

Doug wrote:

Well, I think the candidates ought to be honest and state what they really believe would be the best policy. Otherwise, we get idiots running the country.

Hehe. That is the belief that gets me soo angry, and into a lot of arguments earliear in the year with you folks. Honest politicians, what a concept. And you know why we don't get them? Because the public doesn't want honesty, they want bullshit. They demand only what they want to hear, in 30 second cliched soundbites. It's in high demand. Plato had a lot to say about this fatal flaw in democracy a long time ago. If you have ignorant selfish people, you're going to get shit from your politicians. Like my favorite historian Eric Hobsbawm pointed out, when universal suffrage came to the world in a big way at the turn of the 20'th Century, serious discussion, honest dealing with important issues retreated from public behind closed doors. We are to blame for that.
On this gas thing: I'm not spedifically replying to you guys and your debate, but one thing that drives me crazy about the left (and everyone else really) is that they tend to assume there is a quick fix on gas prices. There are some, but they will be negligable. And the persistent belief that there is some easy grand conspiracy behind it that can be easily fixed, like It's all Bush's fault (Or Clinton etc.) Or it's all big oil speculation (Some of it is that, but not most of it) etc. Cheap gas is over. We always knew it would come. It has. Drilling everywhere might give us a few cents break for a short time, clamping down on speculation and Big Oil might give us 15-20 cents or so, The weak dollar plays a part too. But the biggest thing is: Demand has exploded worldwide. When China and India yearly produce millions of new consumers of gasoline, trying to live the comfortable mobile life Americans have always enjoyed, eventually it will outsrip production. We're there. Gas will never go back to even the $1.50 a gallon we used to complain about not so long ago. There is no quick fix for this. Dar is right, the only option is to ease our dependence on oil. All this talk by the candidates, and all this demand by folks, for some quick fixes, will not change the fact that those efforts will only produce mild and temporary results. Cheap gas is gone, and we have to adjust. Better to put our energy into that.
Now, what politician is ever going to say, "Sorry folks, cheap gas is done, get used to it. Buy smaller, efficient cars, and start investing in public transportation." None, because the public wants quick fixes, and lies to reassure them. Anyone who actually tells the truth, or discusses these things honestly, will pay dearly. And that is the glory and wonder of democracy for you.
Yippie.
Well there's my rant for the day.
Cheers.

Doug wrote:

Doug wrote:

Darrel wrote:DAR
Well there you go. You had said: "When Hillary was interested in "bargaining and passing a good broad based (and very expensive) green energy policy to get us off of the junk" Obama ridiculed her for having a short-sighted policy."

But now your very own citation shows that he wasn't ridiculing something broad based but instead the silly short-sighted "burn more gas this summer tax incentive." Thought so.

Here are some of the things Obama said about the gas tax holiday:

DAR
I agree with everything he said, every single thing you quoted here. One hundred percent. It's on the dot, exactly right and very well said in my opinion.

DOUG
Get you through an election. Like offshore drilling?

DAR
As he has repeatedly stated, and I have repeatedly quoted, his support for increased offshore drilling is for the purpose of reaching out and getting support in order to pass a substantial, long term, green energy policy that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. If it helps him with the election too, that's a bonus. And a necessary one in my opinion, since if he does not win, we are in a very bad place regarding any hope for a "substantial, long term, green energy policy that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil." The "buy more gas this summer tax incentive" would only encourage more gas use. Dumb. Gas is still too cheap. We're still drunk on the cheap stuff and not appreciating the true value of the energy it contains.

And Obama WAS ridiculing something broad-based.

DAR
Where? I didn't see it. Looked like it was all directed at the summer gas purchasing incentive to me.

Like McCain's camp calling Obama's energy plan nothing more than inflating tires, Obama was focusing on Hillary's proposed gas tax holiday and ridiculing that as a proxy for her whole energy plan. Same thing.

DAR
I realize this is what you are claiming, and this is what you believe but I see nothing, nothing whatsoever, in what you have quoted above that shows this.

I just read it again to make sure. You're shooting blanks and/or you're powder ain't dry. Everything you cite, in reference to energy policy, refers to her silly gas tax holiday band-aid.

Pause.

You admit he was "focusing" on the gas tax holiday and you provide no examples of him doing otherwise, I am guessing because you can't, so then you make the leap, by mere assertion, that his comments on the gas tax holiday somehow equal "a proxy for her whole energy plan."

Did you think I wouldn't notice this?

D.

Tony wrote: And the persistent belief that there is some easy grand conspiracy behind it that can be easily fixed, like It's all Bush's fault (Or Clinton etc.) Or it's all big oil speculation (Some of it is that, but not most of it) etc. Cheap gas is over. We always knew it would come. It has.

DAR
I know what you are saying and I am not disagreeing but... we still have really, really cheap gas. When you go in a convenience store and buy a gallon of water, I am suggesting it should cost considerably more than a gallon of gas at the pump. Right now it doesn't. Five bucks a gallon would probably be cheap but certainly not in comparison to what we are used to.

But the biggest thing is: Demand has exploded worldwide. When China and India yearly produce millions of new consumers of gasoline,...

DAR
You are right, and the big thing is, we are just at the beginning of it. The other night one of the Daily Show comedians was over in China trying to have a little fun with a cable producer over there. He was pretending like he wanted to work for him. He mentioned his experience and the viewer ship he was able to garner in the US. I forget the number but it was a million or two perhaps. Probably less. The China guy dropped a bomb shell and kind of knocked the comedian off of his game. It was sobering. He said a hit show in china will draw a viewer ship of 300 to 400 million.
We have almost no concept of the populations in India and China. As they come online as energy users it is going to completely obliterate the way things have been.

Gas will never go back to even the $1.50 a gallon we used to complain about not so long ago.

DAR
It may go down some more. Oil may even slide under $100 a barrel for awhile. But in the long term, the trend is going to be upward. Probably way upward. Big bumps are coming and this is not the time for band-aids and placebos. We need real medicine.

D.

Yeah I agree Darrel. We got used to astoundingly cheap gas. So it is still really cheap considering. Think, Europe has always paid more than what we do now for gas due to taxes. That was a concerted and intentional effort to limit auto sprawl and invest in a sound and extensive public transporation system. It's funny. That is our future whether we like it or not. And we get there through necessity, instead of in the public interest through social engineering like in Europe.
If you have money to invest long term, since I know you are a good Capitalist, as a historian, I suggest trains. It was only cheap gas that killed trains in the first place. As it goes, we go back to trains because they can move a ton of freight more efficiently at a magnitude of like 3:1. In fact, railroads have done well in the past five years, are reinvesting in track for the first time in decades, and I believe I read that Amtrack posted its first profits ever or something like that.

Tred

Darrel wrote:You admit he was "focusing" on the gas tax holiday and you provide no examples of him doing otherwise, I am guessing because you can't, so then you make the leap, by mere assertion, that his comments on the gas tax holiday somehow equal "a proxy for her whole energy plan."

Did you think I wouldn't notice this?

D.

DOUG
Again, I think you just agreed with me!

DAR
Again, I think you just said something ridiculous!

Darrel wrote:DAR
Again, I think you just said something ridiculous!

Doug wrote:Obama was focusing on Hillary's proposed gas tax holiday and ridiculing that as a proxy for her whole energy plan. Same thing.

Darrel wrote:DAR
I realize this is what you are claiming, and this is what you believe but I see nothing, nothing whatsoever, in what you have quoted above that shows this.
... Everything you cite, in reference to energy policy, refers to her silly gas tax holiday band-aid.[\quote]

(As opposed to the silly offshore drilling band-aid that you support--and which you admit is a band-aid, and which you think Obama should support because it is OK, according to you, to lie when running for president.)

Doug wrote: (As opposed to the silly offshore drilling band-aid that you support--

DAR
Again you completely mis-characterize it. I don't support offshore drilling and neither does Obama as has been shown many many many times in this thread. He has taken the position of being open to compromise on this for the purpose of passing a broad based green energy policy. My position is that his position is a good idea and a reasonable approach. I think Nancy Pelosi's (quoted below) is too. Neither of our positions can be fairly characterized as being in support of offshore drilling. Only unfairly. Usually by bone headed knee-jerk republicans and the odd stray Hillary sycophant who thinks the primaries were some kind of a ball game and they can't stop supporting the team that lost. Unfortunately, they are doing this by hurling rotten veggies at the one that won.

...and which you admit is a band-aid, and which you think Obama should support because it is OK, according to you, to lie when running for president.)

DAR
No, I have never said that of course, or anything resembling it. Being open to compromise means you have the option of accepting or declining any future deal. Being open to compromise does not in any way mean you are lying now or that you cannot change you opinion in the future. But why am I even bothering? If you haven't gotten this with as many times as I have carefully explained this to you above, then you aren't going to get it.

Oh look what our lunatic house leader said today. Doesn't she know that the smart political position to take on this is to be completely and adamantly against the majority of the population and against even considering any increase in offshore drilling?

She [Pelosi] criticized President George W. Bush and other Republicans for presenting offshore drilling as an answer to the recent rise in U.S. gasoline prices, saying expanded drilling would not affect prices for a decade and then only by a small degree.

"I don't think that's a good alternative. But if they can prove that it is, and they want to pay royalties to the taxpayer ... then we have something to talk about," the top congressional Democrat told NBC's "Meet the Press" program.

"I'm prepared to preside over legislation that will take a comprehensive approach," she said. "Include that (drilling). Let it compete and see where we come down on it, and if that in fact is a good alternative, then that is something that we should do."

Link

DAR
OMG. Now she's open to reason and compromise too! She's actually going to consider letting them present their case? That's ridiculous. Surely the American people would want their house leader to stand strong against that sort of thing. How could she be so stupid? How can she not see the wisdom of your position which is to be completely and adamantly opposed to this so the republicans can continue to beat the democrats over the head with this twenty-four hours a day?

During an election season...

with near record fuel prices.

D.