August 6, 2008
The Earth Is Losing to the Oil (Brent Budowsky)
John McCain says drill, drill, drill, nuke, nuke, nuke, which is a policy of fraud, fraud, fraud, pollute, pollute, pollute. The man who used to be John McCain as a champion of fighting global warming has become the J.R. Ewing of the campaign as a shill for oil companies raking in their dough and offering bromides to expand their profits.
The party that used to be the Democratic Party now calculates political maneuvers about how much drilling they will accept, and goes on another of its famous, ridiculous, lengthy recesses without doing anything to stimulate the economy or stand up for the people or the earth on energy.
The man who used to be Al Gore goes darkly silent, has virtually nothing to say, giving one speech that has a half-hour shelf life and then a meaningless speech to bloggers that changes nothing.
Meanwhile, public opinion, from a gasoline-hungry nation, during a campaign that wins the Olympic gold medal for vapid and stupid political punditry and reporting, that public opinion shifts to support more drilling after a one-sided debate that is not really a debate.
Ladies and gentlemen, the earth is losing to the oil. Global warming has disappeared from our so-called debate, which has shifted to a contest for who supports the drilling that drives the pollution that could destroy the planet.
The earth is losing to the oil.
Every expert agrees that drilling will not bring new oil that matters for 10 to 20 years. The price impact of all the drilling that would make McCain's heart beat faster, and expand the gigantic, historic, bloated oil company profits, would do virtually zero to affect oil prices and would only prolong the addiction and continue the pollution, indefinitely.
Yet where is the debate? The politicians are too busy reading polls. The pundits are too busy with their moronic discussion of Paris Hilton, what Hillary wants, who's up in the polls, and whether Barack Obama is an uppity black.
The earth is losing to the oil, and nobody in power seems to care. Nobody in the media is capable of reporting it. The polls go on. The oil money flows, the pollution worsens while athletes wear gas masks during the smog-ridden Chinese Olympics.
America continues to cheat our veterans of the support they deserve, while the Iraqi government for which they give their lives and limbs amasses a $79 billion surplus, which, mark my words, will largely be stolen by corrupt officials in the government they give so much for.
The earth is losing to the oil. It is time for those of us who care to mobilize, organize, champion and fight.
It is time for those of us who care to elect Barack Obama against the candidate of oil and Iraq, and then, make no mistake, to mobilize and organize to push the next Democratic president and Congress to honor its mandate better than they have since 2006.
Permalink TrackBack
Email This Post
Share this post
What's This 53 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Unlike Reagan and Kennedy, and perhaps McCain, Obama has no Teflon. And the reason for that is very simple. Obama cannot stop being what he is, a pious elitist.
On the other hand, John McCain appears to be hovering in a politically pleasing zone, defined by a few simple moves and pronouncements about helping the public with potential sources of energy, and by doing so, he has broken out of a mold where the media was attempting to hold him, thereby energizing his campaign.
Contrast that to Obama’s plan simply to help the government, or please the environmentalists, and you have the nexus of what makes Obama tick, and explains why he is failing, and flailing.
"They're lying about what my energy plan is," Barack says. And "they're making fun of a step that every expert says would reduce our oil consumption by 3 to 4 percent. It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant."
First, nobody has to lie about the Barack alleged energy plan which itself is a lie or a deception. It’s actually a conservation plan, and that statement is Barack in a nutshell. While he whines about being different, his first step of political maneuvering is quite common and comes at the expense of civility, i.e., he insults whole groups of Americans who don’t believe in or understand his plan, and his own political party is marching along down the primrose path to political suicide, doing nothing while Rome burns.
The statement continues to define him as he really is, an elitist, while further defining, but not enhancing, his political style.
It’s reminiscent of an earlier statement from Barack.
"And," he concluded, "it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
If anyone is becoming bitter, it’s Barack Obama, yet he has nothing to cling to, having turned away from his church, and as a liberal, he can’t be seen anywhere near a gun. The one upside of that is his devotees won’t have to be concerned about any tank photo opportunities vis a vis, Mike Dukakis.
The Obama energy policy produces no new energy, it simply produces energy by forcing cut backs or maintaining autos with the proper tire pressure. The Obama energy program isn’t very energetic, but is similar to what some non-motivated high school students would produce as a science project.
Let’s look at the facts.
Maintaining proper air pressure saves about 2%. On a gallon of gas at $4 that’s about 8 cents.
On a 20 gallon tank 8 cents x 20 gallons = $1.60.
A person who drives 12,000 miles a year, at 20 miles to the gallon, would use 600 gallons of gas. 12,000 miles divided by 20 gallons = 600 gallons of gas
In rough figures:
600 gallons of gas x $4.00 = $2,400 per year
2% of $2,400 = $48.00
The Barack plan is the mathematical equivalent of “let them eat cake.”
With genius like that, the next big part of the Obama energy plan would be to cut the Olympic flame to save energy. If all those Chinese check the air in their bicycle tires imagine the savings in rice.
There is no challenge in the Barack energy plan; there is no exhilaration to attempt anything new, or even the tried and true. No, it’s simply a deception that somehow it really is an energy plan, even though it produces nothing or next to nothing.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — August 6, 2008 @ 8:38 am
Robert, you are totally wrong. Why is it
that Republicans are so reluctant to ask
Americans to help solve the problem? There
is more to life, to America, and to solving
the energy problem than making money for oil
companies. Brent
Comment by Brent — August 6, 2008 @ 9:11 am
Brent, Brent Brent. You continue to throw out data without support or sources. Concerning oil production you state "Every expert agrees that drilling will not bring new oil that matters for 10 to 20 years."
Well citing the EIA (pretty much the experts, oil production would be seen in as little as five years. Read for yourself:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html
Their analysis is based on ban expiration of 2012 hence why you and every other sit-on-your-hands liberal is quoting 10 to 20 years. The EIS states "Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017." Five years Brent. And that's from the start of leasing. I've heard oil VPs on the news state they could PHYSICALLY be pumping oil within six months if given the go ahead, so the only real impediment is Congress. Oh wait, they went on vacation AND are blocking votes on drilling…
Comment by ObamaNOT — August 6, 2008 @ 9:18 am
Brent: If I'm totally wrong, name me on part of the Obama program that is not conservation.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — August 6, 2008 @ 9:43 am
Robert, it is not conservation for Obama
to propose a massive program of support,
with large dollars and business incentives,
for solar, wind, geothermal energy etc. Now
that I have proven the point, I will accept
your concession in good spirit. Brent
Comment by Brent — August 6, 2008 @ 10:53 am
You speak in generalities. As far as the incentives, they are all about alternatives which will not help us now. Where is he proposing immediate relief or proposing increasing our current energy prospects? When you tell me that you'll get a concession.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — August 6, 2008 @ 11:20 am
For those of you pontificating about Obama's energy plan, you can go read it here:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/#support-next-generation-biofuels
You can all stop hyperventilating about the Drill here! Drill now! mantra. Obama has signalled that he is willing to compromise on SOME drilling if it were part of a broader comprehensive renewable energy plan.
Wanna drill? you can start here with the below:
Require Oil Companies to Use Existing Drilling Leases: The 68 million acres of stockpiled leases have the potential to produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil each day. This would nearly double total U.S. oil production. The Obama plan would force oil and gas companies to either produce or pay a fee on unused federal onshore and offshore leases they are stockpiling.
Of course this has nothing to do with drilling and oil production, obtaining new leases are a boon to the oil industry, the leases are assets that can be leveraged, borrowed against and traded– exactly what the 68 millions acres sitting around gathering dust are used for now…and they want more..lol!!
Unless you are a paid GOP operative and/or have a financial interest in the oil industry, you have no basis to support more drilling. Oil speculation is one of the few places where an investors can make money in this market and no one wants it to end.
As for nuke energy, I am all for it as long it is nowhere near where I live. I propose nuke plants near GOP strongholds..WV, KY, and Texas!! All the waste can be dumped in the AZ desert!!
I kid, I kid.lol
Comment by Theard — August 6, 2008 @ 11:21 am
So Brent, don't like what I have to say?
Comment by ObamaNOT — August 6, 2008 @ 11:39 am
Brent,
Hello Sunshine !
Well your piece is a bit negative and depressing today.
I believe with advent of the internet, and blogs like The Hill and many others, the information access to the public is becomming a more thruthful conduit of information based on facts, and unfortunately spiced with some emotion and personal agena. MSM is under pressure to produce better representation of the facts rather than what the corporations want to sell. The public are sticklers for the truth, apparently. Let's face it the corps are running the world, not so much governments. Take some time to think about that. Politics plays a role, public pressure plays a role, but the more factual info that submerges the better off we all are in pushing against big corps.
You are predicting corruption regarding the financial support for our vets. Can you please educate America on this assertion? Who are the corruptors — let's get them — and put them in jail!!! Don't just say someting like that and not call the FBI! Be responsible - if you know something tell the cops. You can help in a real way, if you really care, instead of gossiping.
On the oil drilling:
Sen McCain has moved his position to drilling off American shores, but not at the exclusion of all the other forms of energy sources we have to slelect from. I think that is a great move at this very time. It also reflects a progressive attitude from a man of great wisdom.
Somehow the chips (thanks to the internet)are falling in line, the Al Gores have legitimized the problems of the environment by exposing them and offered ways to control. The McCains see the value of a variety of resources including drilling on the buffet table, to help control, but also maintain a good economy.
What your piece is censures is the incredible economic crash this country would face if we were to just stop using oil cold turkey. Think about how many industries within the U.S. are dependent on oil.
All the suggestions to balance the energy requirements need to be utilized. None of the solutions proposed are going to make a big dent tomorrow. It will take a couple of decades, and forward thinkers like McCain who are planning for our children and grand children's and great, great, great grand childres' future. Sorry, there are no quick fixes.
Sen. Obama will now support drilling, but he needs to adopt a forward thinking attitude about drilling, as NOT a negative measure - but- as a positive. Obama reluctently will go along with the idea, but it is early in the week, he may change his mind again by Friday.
On your comment regarging the candidate for oil and Iraq. Do you proposed we walk away from Iraq? Have you thought past that implication?
Comment by JFK-HRC — August 6, 2008 @ 11:59 am
There is no global warming. Nobody wants to go on some artificial austerity plans just to please crazy left-wing nut jobs. That's why energy is a losing issue for the fantical radicals.
Comment by Igor R. — August 6, 2008 @ 12:33 pm
Brent's post articulates a very simply concept and really gets to the reason why we must elect Obama. If we keep on doing what we've been doing, we'll keep on getting what we've been getting. Lord knows, we've had enough.
Comment by andy42302 — August 6, 2008 @ 1:18 pm
andy, the solution to having a C student as President, who at least knows not to run from the field of battle because of polls, is not a terrorist enabler in the White House.
Comment by Igor R. — August 6, 2008 @ 1:36 pm
An article that illustrates how the global warming "scientists" are fudging the data to fit their agenda:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008094636_climate06m.html
Comment by Igor R. — August 6, 2008 @ 1:45 pm
Igor, if your claim that Sen Obama is in fact a terrorist had merit, your argument might have credibility. That's simply your opinion of a person you obviously despise. Accordingly, your argument has no teeth.
Now, if you really want to dissect the definition of a terrorist or discuss the results of terrorist in the White House, the Bush/Cheney regime would come closer to anything we've seen in history. McCain is certainly marching lockstep with them, uh, well, unless he's changed his mind again in the last hour or so. If we keep doing what we've been doing, we'll keep getting what we've been getting.
Comment by andy42302 — August 6, 2008 @ 2:16 pm
I support your call to fight the good oil war! I am with you, Brent. Let's get organized!! America needs a strong and rational voice. This is a war to save our planet. Maybe it takes a revolution, but we won't go down quietly. Maybe it will take the form of a worldwide union of concerned activists. It's a global war we are fighting against Big Oil and other self-serving elites.
Comment by CFarer43 — August 6, 2008 @ 2:59 pm
Amazing …. simply amazing. Why are right wingers defending oil and it use so much. What do you care what we use for fuel. Niether one of these clowns own an oil company or a nuclear power plant. These people have been completely brainwashed by these companies and their surrogates ( Hannity, Limbaugh and so on).
Comment by Aftermath — August 6, 2008 @ 3:20 pm
andy, he is a terrorist enabler in the sense that terrorists will have a field day with a guy who is very sympathetic to various Muslim sob stories, who has Hamas phone bankers in Gaza, and whose motley crew of foreign policy advisers are all virulently anti-Israel. Let's not forget his close terrorist friends. Let's also not forget that Obama personally asked for a contiguous Palestinian state which means a land bridge between Gaza and the West Bank. Let's not forget that in Iran he is known as "one of us". This guy advocating leaving Iraq while the US was losing, leaving without paying any attention to the conditions on the ground. Today Al Qaeda in Iraq has lost. Had Obama's legislation been passed it would have it's own state.
Obama's election would be a victory for all radical forces around the world. The US, instead of being a force for freedom would become a force for mullifying various obscure Third World claims and ideologies, reparations, huge national and international income redistribution schemes, restrains placed on commerce, intentional weaking of western defenses, etc, etc. Obama is a danger to the US unlike any other since the Civil War. He is an existential threat.
Comment by Igor R. — August 6, 2008 @ 4:34 pm
Yes, terrorists "heart" Obama:
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Election2008/Default.aspx?id=204974
Comment by Igor R. — August 6, 2008 @ 5:05 pm
Obama: someone not to vote for, just count the reasons.
http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=19895335&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8
Comment by Igor R. — August 6, 2008 @ 5:10 pm
Nice to see you going on the offensive for a change, Brent.
Also, Mr. Rosencrans should at least provide a link when he cuts and pastes his reply. I can only assume he's so used to regurgitating talking points he gets lazy sometimes.
Mr. Rosencrans let me clue you in. Nonsensical and unsubstantiated talking points fall flat before freethinking progressives and independents. They may work like a charm on "Ditto-heads" but are laughable to a more intelligent audience. Don't you realize this? Are you so blinded by your own biases that you don't recognize Brent's readers LAUGH AT YOU when you reproduce that trash here?
Comment by wewillnotbeneoconned — August 6, 2008 @ 6:06 pm
Eating Meat Is Worse Than Driving a Truck … for the Climate.
http://www.alternet.org/environment/94052/eating_meat_is_worse_than_driving_a_truck_…_for_the_climate/
** A legitimate criticism of Al Gore is why he doesn't propose Americans cut their beef consumption. If the goal is to reduce carbon pollution and save the planet then ALL the FACTS should be on the table.
Comment by wewillnotbeneoconned — August 6, 2008 @ 6:15 pm
Igor, get a grip man. You're off the deep end dude. Seriously. We all know you hate Obama. We all know that you'd vote for a reincarnated Hitler if he ran on a Republican ticket. Party choice has always dominated any realistic argument you've presented here. That's the only basis you have for your terrorist accusations. As I've insinuated, the real terrorist are dwelling in the White House as we speak. You didn't dispute that did you? Yet, you seem to be somewhat ok with Plamegate, the Libby pardon, the Abramoff affair, doctoring scientific reports, the end of habeas corpus, detainee torture, the politically-motivated firings of U.S. attorneys, illegal domestic surveillance, the theory of the unitary executive and the unprecedented assertion of executive privilege that all show a President committed to doing neither what is legal nor right. And then, of course, there’s Iraq. Igor, America needs a new direction from the abject failures, gross incompetence, despicable cronyism, deceitful secrecy, and absolute corporate loyalty that the Republican party has rubber stamped for your C average hero. McCain has promised nothing but the same. As for your links, well, yawn!
Comment by andy42302 — August 6, 2008 @ 6:16 pm
Igor if Obama was a terrorist "enabler" he'd be locked-up and in jail.
Israel talks to Hamas. In fact they just recently met again. Obama is correct. I realize you prefer using military might rather than talking, but that will not solve the problems that exist. Moreover it fuels violence and retaliation whereby the cycle continues. Either do something different or keep doing the same thing until everyone is dead.
Terrorism is simply a means to an end. So the idea of not talking makes no sense — it keeps everyone locked in a never-ending loop.
Hezbollah and Hamas are not terrorists, they are militants and part of the civilian and political structures. They use terrorist tactics, but that does not make them terrorists.
Attacking the infrastructure of people's lives ultimately leaves a vacuum which has a destabilizing effect.
Furthermore it is a breeding ground for hatred, intolerance and violence to grow. And consider, too, that the longer it continues more children are affected. Generation after generation learning hate and violence is not in anyone's best interests.
These are some of the consequences that generally do not get addressed. This is not a black or white issue; it is bad policy any way you look at it. To end the cycle of violence change is needed.
Doing the same thing over and over expecting different result is insanity. Obama gets it.
Comment by serena1313 — August 6, 2008 @ 6:28 pm
From the great Robert Parry, who broke many of the Iran-Contra stories…
"…evidence from al-Qaeda’s private communications always was that it considered its Pakistan base the key strategic necessity, not Iraq.
For instance, as the Iraq War was heating up in 2005, a letter attributed to al-Qaeda’s second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri asked if the embattled al-Qaeda operatives in Iraq might be able to spare $100,000 to relieve a cash squeeze facing the group’s top leaders in hiding, presumably back in Pakistan.
Instead of money going from Pakistan to Iraq, the cash was flowing the opposite way. U.S. intelligence analysts recognized that this was not the way one would normally treat a “central front.”
Indeed, many analysts now believe the Iraq War was a huge gift from the Bush administration to al-Qaeda. Not only did it take the pressure off bin Laden and other leaders when they were reeling in 2002, but it helped the terrorist organization portray itself as the defender of Muslim lands, instead of mass murderers of the innocent.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/15/10374/
Comment by wewillnotbeneoconned — August 6, 2008 @ 6:30 pm
For those who prefer real information and insight instead of hysterical rantings from the third rate neo-con parrots who infest this board:
"…On the military side, the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq shifted crucial U.S. resources — such as Predator drones and Arabic-speaking intelligence operatives — away from the hunt for bin Laden and other leaders while simultaneously attracting thousands of young Muslims to the cause of violent jihad.
In other words, Iraq became al-Qaeda’s “grand diversion,” not a “central front.”
The group’s real goal in Iraq appears to have been keeping U.S. forces bogged down in Iraq while the organization rebuilt its strength inside Pakistan.
In another captured letter, sent to Jordanian terrorist Musab al-Zarqawi before his death in June 2006, a top aide to bin Laden known as “Atiyah” upbraided Zarqawi for his reckless, hasty actions inside Iraq.
The message from Atiyah, who is believed to be a Libyan named Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, emphasized the need for Zarqawi to operate more deliberately in order to build political strength and drag out the U.S. occupation.
“Prolonging the war is in our interest,” Atiyah told Zarqawi.
So, instead of seeking a quick ouster of U.S. forces from Iraq and using it as a base for launching a global jihad — as Bush and his supporters claimed — al-Qaeda actually saw its strategic goals advanced by keeping the United States tied down in Iraq.
To some U.S. analysts, al-Qaeda’s logic was obvious: “prolonging” the Iraq War bought the group time to rebuild its infrastructure in Pakistan, where the Islamic fundamentalist extremists have long had sympathizers inside the Pakistani intelligence services dating back to the CIA’s war in Afghanistan in the 1980s.
Robert Parry:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/15/10374/
Comment by wewillnotbeneoconned — August 6, 2008 @ 6:34 pm
There is no honor among terrorists:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4319
Comment by Igor R. — August 6, 2008 @ 6:43 pm
andy, I do hate Obama, but the accusation that I would vote for someone simply because he or she is a Republican, especially Hitler is blood libel.
All the things that you accuse the current White House crew of do not rise to the level of existential threat to the United States. Those who accuse Bush & Co of terrorism, accuse them of terrorism AGAINST some (in their view innocent) foreign enemies. I accuse Obama of being FOR the real enemies of the United States, and thus he is the enemy. This fox cannot be allowed to be in charge of the henhouse.
McCain, who I dislike greatly, will not simply surrender the US to foreign enemies with a gleeful smile. Saying that we need to change direction is one thing, but to claim that that direction is Obama because he is the only realistic choice is quite a different matter. I respectfully disagree that he is the better choice.
Comment by Igor R. — August 6, 2008 @ 6:49 pm
Thank you for the critique Wewillnotbeconned, when a leftist attacks me like that I know I've hit a home run.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — August 6, 2008 @ 6:51 pm
serena, it is correct that terrorism is a tactic. The goal of Hamas and Hizbullah is the destruction of Israel. There is also no realistic way to satisfy basic goals of Hamas and Hizbullah on the one hand and Israel on the other even if they renounced the destruction of Israel. At the very least, those who support Hamas and HIzbullah should admit that Israel, in their view, has no future and should be sacrificed for peace with these two organizations, who have just celebrated a recently released terrorist who had smashed the skull of a little Israeli girl just because he could, as a great hero. I contend that even sacrificing Israel will not be enough to satisfy these organizations, thus I prefer their total destruction. I think that Gaza (yes, collectively) should be given an ultimatum: one more rocket or one more cross-border attack and you all disappear. Southern Lebanon should disappear if there is a cross-border attack there. Hiding behind civilians hasn't been good for those who respect humane conventions. It's just to destroy the whole area from which one is attacked if there is no other way to eliminate the threat.
Comment by Igor R. — August 6, 2008 @ 6:59 pm
The lies behind global warming:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4306
Comment by Igor R. — August 6, 2008 @ 7:01 pm
While it's not clear if Obama is a terrorist, he certainly looks like one.
Comment by Gorilla — August 6, 2008 @ 8:56 pm
Those terrorist ties are too numerous to hide. This guy attracts those with terrorist connections like honey attracts bees. Why do you think that is???
From ap (can't post the link):
By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer Wed Aug 6, 3:16 PM ET
WASHINGTON - An attorney who volunteered to help Barack Obama improve his relationship with Muslim and Arab-Americans has resigned from the campaign amid questions about his connection to a fundamentalist imam.
ADVERTISEMENT
Mazen Asbahi started as the campaign's outreach coordinator on July 26, and he resigned in a letter to the campaign Monday. He said he was stepping down "to avoid distracting from Barack Obama's message of change."
Asbahi, an associate at the Chicago law firm Schiff Hardin, said in his letter that he served on the board of the Dow Jones Islamic Index Fund for a few weeks, but resigned "as I became aware of public allegations against another member of the board."
The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that the other board member during Asbahi's tenure in 2000 was Jamal Said, imam at a fundamentalist-controlled mosque in Illinois. The Justice Department named Said as an unindicted co-conspirator in the racketeering trial last year of several alleged Hamas fundraisers. The case ended in a mistrial. The newspaper said the connections were first exposed by an Internet newsletter.
Comment by Igor R. — August 6, 2008 @ 10:21 pm
Poster # 1 is a complete idiot. Wrong on every point. That dude is a shining example of why America and possibly all of humanity is doomed.
How sad.
Comment by Brian — August 7, 2008 @ 12:58 am
I take that back…
Just about every poster here is an idiot. We are in more trouble than thought.
Comment by Brian — August 7, 2008 @ 1:02 am
That was one hell of a post. Global warming, Earth is loosing to the oil, Paris Hilton, Obama's blackness (or lack of it), Hillary Clinton, Chinese Olympics, you name it. With one masterful stroke Brent summarized the State of the Union and it's not pretty. The bottom line is we all need to mobilize and help elect Barack Hussein Obama (also known as Abu Said) to the White House to wave his magic ears and solve these problems once and for all.
Comment by Misha — August 7, 2008 @ 3:01 am
Igor, you're right. My comment of who you would vote for was a bit over the top. Accordingly, I apologize.
Now, one of your terrorist accusation towards Obama attacked his position on Iraq saying; "This guy advocating leaving Iraq while the US was losing, leaving without paying any attention to the conditions on the ground". Igor, I advocated the same thing as did many Americans as did many throughout the world. Am I too a terrorist? This falls back to the same tactics this administration has used all along. Unless you bob your head yes in a lapdog fashion to every White House whim on Iraq, you either hate the troops or you're one of them. It's old, non productive, and displays fear mongering nonsense. You've scraped every minute issue you could in order to build a case that Sen Obama is a terrorist but you still have nothing but fear and hate.
Your statement "Obama's election would be a victory for all radical forces around the world" is parroting US Rep. Steve King's infamous "dancing in the streets" statement. Statements such as these are generally viewed as ignorant or as fear mongering-with good reason. Obama is not a terrorist. The true terrorist now occupy the White House.
Don't forget to apologize for calling me a terrorist too. I don't appreciate it. Andy
Comment by andy42302 — August 7, 2008 @ 9:04 am
#28, You still don't get it. You and Igor are LAUGHINGSTOCKS here.
The progressives and independents on this board are highly educated with a wealth of facts at their disposal. And when they're unsure of something they look it up twice or three times to make sure they're right.
Only an audience that falls for Nigerian chain letters proclaiming great lottery winnings would believe the propagandistic dribble you regurgitate here (i.e. the Rush/Sean/O'Reilly audience).
You actually hurt your cause by posting such nonsense.
I'm trying to help you, g-d knows why.
If you want to successfully propagandize on this board you're going to have to take it up at least five levels.
Comment by wewillnotbeneoconned — August 7, 2008 @ 9:10 am
This is rich.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008094636_climate06m.html
-this article, being cited by a global warming denier? It's clear that guy didn't actually read the article. So it goes.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4306
- so, if CO2 has always lagged behind warming, that doesn't mean the warming theory is out, just the greenhouse gas theory - so, even if the input charactersitics of the models are wrong, we're still screwed, no? There have been at least 5 major extinction events in the past, so this is just the next one, it would seem…? Look at all the wilderness & wildlife data, and this seems clear enough.
The central question/point remains: even if the greenhouse gas theory is no good, is that reason enough to continue being so solipsistic?
In other words, just because your horse isn't quite dead yet, is that a free license to continue beating him? We know for a fact that man-made pollution is bad, for us and for other living things as well as essential elements of life, so we're cool to just continue poisoning everything just because it might not be a factor in atmospheric temperatures? That's just dumb. Yes, immorally so - because this stupidity affects other people too.
(BTW - I've noticed that most people who are uncomfortable with any threat to their Conspicuous-Consumption way of life, such as 'global warming', aren't divers or fishers. This is in fact a big deal, because if you don't spend a great deal of time in or around the water you frankly will not full comprehend just how much damage we're doing. Yes, WE. Humankind. I'm confident there will still be seaside resorts long after there is no more life in the oceans, because it looks the same to the casual observer, day in, day out. Let me assure you all - it is DYING. Ask any diver/fisher/marine biologist. If the oceans die, WE die. But anyway. You don't seem to care, so go frolic in your blindness.)
Comment by terry — August 7, 2008 @ 10:40 am
Two posts attacking me by someone claiming to be educated? This is funny. I really hit a zinger.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — August 7, 2008 @ 10:42 am
#38. If you feel that strongly then why do you use the internet and a computer? If that isn't conspicuous consumption, what is? Get off your computer and save the world or you're a two bit phony like all global warming advocates.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — August 7, 2008 @ 11:12 am
I wonder if Rosencrans collected his reward yet from the McCain campaign for regurgitating all those right-wing talking points.
Comment by Pete — August 7, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
andy, those who advocated leaving Iraq immediately are generally not terrorists, you are not a terrorist, and I did not call you one. I also did not call Obama a terrorist in the context of this column, he is a terrorist enabler. The entirety of his positions on policies related to terrorists, Muslims, Israel, and the Middle East in general make him a dream for terrorists worldwide. His advisers are dangerous. The terrorists will find they can breath easily under him.
Comment by Igor R. — August 7, 2008 @ 2:31 pm
#41: If what I wrote become right wing talking points it will make my day.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — August 7, 2008 @ 3:34 pm
In response to your comments on terrorist breathing easier Igor, OLB surely thanks his maker daily for George W. Bush.
Comment by andy42302 — August 7, 2008 @ 3:57 pm
You know, I would have to say that the Republicans are controlling the conversation again. The media makes it easy for any Republican talking point to be broadcasted, but malign anything that a Democrat has to say. The Republicans scream we need to drill more, and every major media outlet in the country is polling on the question within a day in simple terms. The Democrats call for impeachment hearings and the major media outlets ignore it and when they do finally pay attention to it, they malign the polling question to introduce as much confusion as possible. Not only that, but they parrot the "It's a political witch hunt" arguement, which is an affront to our Constitution. Fellow citizens, if you haven't realized that the 2 large men in the room, hiding in the corner, eating all the shrimp on the buffet, are the big oil interest and the defense industry. Since when did the United States declare war against the world. Who made the oil companies the rightfull heir to all of your money? The solution is not drill more, issue more leases, the solution is invoking the sherman anti-trust act. If the oil companies control the oil from pipe to pipe, then what are the speculators speculating on. How high can we push the profits for big oil? As for creating more supply available for the individual consumers of the world, shut down the useless war machine we have created. It doesn't defend us, it defends big oil's interest abroad. They have a nerve to complain about a windfall tax, when they are receiving all the benefits of our 500 billion dollar a year defense bill. They suck as much fuel flying 1 plane at mach 2 in one day than a family consumes in 3 months. Insane!
Comment by E Thomas — August 7, 2008 @ 4:16 pm
andy, the captured documents of Al Qaeda in Iraq indicated great despair even several months ago. Iraq is a terrible loss for them, so they are trying to make Afghanistan their stand. OBL is not likely alive, but if he is what does he have to show for his efforts?
Comment by Igor R. — August 7, 2008 @ 4:37 pm
His efforts, thanks to GWB and the profiteering terrorist White House, gained him everything he could possibly hope for. That would be the USA in the dire situation that it's in today. How can you say that 4000+ dead, 30,000+ dead, a very much divided country, and a nation looking at a possible $3 trillion in war cost a terrible loss for Al Qaeda? How much have we weakened them Igor? How have we prevented another attack from occurring? We haven't. If we keep doing what we've been doing, we'll keep getting what we've been getting. McCain will be another 4 years of Bush's abject failures.
Comment by andy42302 — August 7, 2008 @ 6:14 pm
andy, OBL and the Al Qaeda leadership want/wanted a Caliphate. If you think they care about the weakened American economy or 4000 dead Americans one way or another, I think in my opinion you're sadly mistaken. Al Qaeda is weakened in the sense that their recruitment is seemingly way down and some aimless country boys from Saudi Arabia and Marocco no long want to blow themselves up in Iraq for a lost cause. To the extent that they can make hay in Afghanistan, that strengthens them. There is indeed a problem with the tribal territories in Pakistan that doesn't have a clear solution, but to say that Iraq had no significant negative effect on Al Qaeda which only survives by attracting new recruits is to deny reality. Remember, the Caliphate would have its capital in Iraq, and today it would take a particularly deluded "suicider" to die for THAT cause. Osama used to teach that the US was a paper tiger based on the Black Hawk down incident and Bill Clinton's swift retreat in that case. They learned that American soldiers are lethal and don't always run when a few are killed. Andy, if you think that lesson means nothing, you don't understand the psychology of thugs.
Comment by Igor R. — August 7, 2008 @ 7:30 pm
My point Igor, is that America was attacked by AQ and then attacked by the Bush White House. It's also my belief that Bush intentionally let OBL go in Tora Bora in order for the boogieman to be relevant and keep his war on fear alive and well in Iraq. While Bush was busy slaughtering the village milk producing cow, OBL and/or AQ has only become stronger and richer thanks to oil profiteering, which as Alan Greenspan conceded, was a huge driver for our attack on Iraq. Bush continued to sell his fear mongering on terrorist while maintaining a welcome mat at the Mexican boarder. The concept that we somehow won something or have decreased our chances of another attack is absolutely asinine.
Comment by andy42302 — August 8, 2008 @ 10:28 am
Linking to right wing christian websites to prove a point about anything???!!! really??
Comment by Aftermath — August 8, 2008 @ 10:40 am
Anyone who thinks the President of this country let OBL go on purpose is a nut.
Comment by Gowiththeflow — August 8, 2008 @ 5:02 pm
andy, while I fully agree that Bush for whatever reason is a complete sell-out to the pro-illegal interests, just like McCain, Obama, and Hillary, to claim that Bush let Osama go simply based on your view of his self-interest as opposed to any real evidence is, in my view, just an expression of the hatred for Bush that so many on the left feel. To me its like claiming that any married female murder victim could only have one suspect: the husband, because as we all know all men are good -for-nothing cheaters. You gotta have SOME evidence before accusing someone of a serious crime. There is substantial evidence that Roosevelt was warned about Pearl Harbor, and yet even that is unsettled. To accuse Bush of the OBL shenanigans without proof or of causing/letting 9/11 happen is unseemly in my opinion.
Comment by Igor R. — August 8, 2008 @ 8:29 pm
How much jet fuel did Edwards waste having an affair, and how many Democrats including Brent will condemn him for it?
Comment by wewillallbeconned — August 11, 2008 @ 7:43 am