Again, please, no personal attacks. This is just to be viewed, for your enjoyment.
WARNING:
If you are in favor of Obama for President, you may want to be seated. This is only play acting, no one was hurt in the making of this video. All the characters are fictional. This is a dramatization, and the opinions are not necessarily the opinions of this poster. Any issues presented, real or implied are for entertainment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIRaFfMG ... re=related
What about the issues?
Moderator: Super Moderators
-
Psychicwolf
- Pirate
- Posts: 5999
- Joined: 12-31-2006 12:47 AM
Re: OBAMATOPIA
My comment was in no way directed at you MAD.MAD wrote: Again, please, no personal attacks. This is just to be viewed, for your enjoyment.
WARNING:
If you are in favor of Obama for President, you may want to be seated. This is only play acting, no one was hurt in the making of this video. All the characters are fictional. This is a dramatization, and the opinions are not necessarily the opinions of this poster. Any issues presented, real or implied are for entertainment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIRaFfMG ... re=related
It was directed at the content of that website and the poor deluded sots who commented on there.
Dance to heal the earth. Not just when you're dancing, but always. Live the dance, whenever you move, in all you do, dance to heal the earth.
Re: Re: OBAMATOPIA
Psychicwolf wrote: My comment was in no way directed at you MAD.
It was directed at the content of that website and the poor deluded sots who commented on there.
I appreciate the clearification. It is so easy to missinterpret, intent, by written word. Remember, what our parents said about discussing religion and politics? These topics can be volitile.
Us Pirates are a fiesty lot, but we love a good laugh. Aargh
Re: OBAMATOPIA
MAD wrote: Again, please, no personal attacks. This is just to be viewed, for your enjoyment.
WARNING:
If you are in favor of Obama for President, you may want to be seated. This is only play acting, no one was hurt in the making of this video. All the characters are fictional. This is a dramatization, and the opinions are not necessarily the opinions of this poster. Any issues presented, real or implied are for entertainment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIRaFfMG ... re=related
Hi Mad, this thread is for people who want to post about the issues not attack the candidates. Although I found the video to be quite entertaining, it is an obvious hit piece. Why not start a thread where people can post videos and political cartoons spoofing the candidates. I would love to hear your views on the issues. I'm still trying to digest much of what has been posted here, it's certainly a lot to digest. Peace world traveler.
Well, better late than never, I suppose... Joe Quinn. 
Re: Re: OBAMATOPIA
vigo wrote: Hi Mad, this thread is for people who want to post about the issues not attack the candidates. Although I found the video to be quite entertaining, it is an obvious hit piece. Why not start a thread where people can post videos and political cartoons spoofing the candidates.
No, thanks.
I'll just back out of this thread.
Re: Re: OBAMATOPIA
Thank you Vigovigo wrote: Hi Mad, this thread is for people who want to post about the issues not attack the candidates. Although I found the video to be quite entertaining, it is an obvious hit piece. Why not start a thread where people can post videos and political cartoons spoofing the candidates. I would love to hear your views on the issues. I'm still trying to digest much of what has been posted here, it's certainly a lot to digest. Peace world traveler.
It isn't personal. Other threads have turned into slamming of posters and tit for tat. I was asked to start this one so that we could focus on the issues. Like I said I found the video funny, someone else might find it inflammatory and then this thread unwinds into what other p & G threads have become, attack on others posters and not the issues. I like you. I like your opinions, they are intelligent and thought provoking. I know this seems personal, but it not. It is just to keep this thread on topic. I didn't like it when I was suggested to do the same, but for the good of the ship and she is a grand one, I have chosen less stormy seas with this one. If I have offended you. Mea culpa. Mods if I am out of line by all means, paper to the nose. 
Didn't see your post SETIslady.
Didn't see your post SETIslady.
Last edited by vigo on 05-25-2008 09:44 PM, edited 1 time in total.
Well, better late than never, I suppose... Joe Quinn.
-
Psychicwolf
- Pirate
- Posts: 5999
- Joined: 12-31-2006 12:47 AM
Beside's the war, one of the other big issues for me is the economy. It's a big issue and there are so many parts to it that I thought I would break my posts down into segments.
The segment of the economy that has all of our attention right now everytime we fill up or drive by a gas station or get our power bill is energy.
The long-term trend in gasoline prices, in inflation-adjusted real terms, is downward. U.S. consumers spend a smaller percentage of their income on gasoline today than they did in 1970. That’s why it’s been so damned hard to dampen our car culture. With the money gushing into Exxon’s coffers, many people assume that Exxon is ramping up development of new oil sources as fast as they can. They’re wrong. Exxon is using its windfall profits to increase dividends and buy back shares — in other words, distributing it to shareholders — not investing in developing new oil sources. Exxon’s capital investments as a percentage of revenues are at an all-time low. The story is the same with other private oil companies. And you don’t see the governments that own 90% of the world’s in situ oil reserves spending big bucks on developing new supplies, either. Why would they? Why spend money to flood the market with supply and drive down the price of your product?
You will hear Republicans say that there is plenty of oil out there, but the environmentals won't let us capture it. That's horse pucky in most cases. The fact is there is alot of oil out there, but what has peaked is easy to get to oil and it will seriously eat into oil company profits to extract what's still out there. ANWR? ANWR is no Saudi Arabia. ANWR is only a measly, piddling 7 to 10 billion bbls. which is nothing — the U.S. alone goes through that much in a little over a year, not counting the rest of the world. There’s three month’s global supply worth of oil at ANWR which would take years and billions to get to, not to mention the environmental damage and which the oil companies have already said they’d sell to Japan.
Today’s high crude prices are an artificial construct of the financial derivatives markets, not a product of supply-demand fundamentals. The hedge funds are playing in the commodities market and even more frighteningly by playing derivative markets they are buy "hedging" (gambling) that the prices will continue to go up, but hedge funds do so with borrowed money. There isn’t a supply shortfall. Only a superabundance of speculators — and a financial system that allows them to drive crude prices ever higher. It’s the futures market, not the supply chain, that needs fixing.
How do the current crop of candidates plan to fix our energy problems?
Obama and Clinton's policies are nearly identical.
Obama's policy proposals:
Reduce Carbon Emissions 80 Percent by 2050
Invest in a Clean Energy Future
Support Next Generation Biofuels
Set America on Path to Oil Independence
Improve Energy Efficiency 50 Percent by 2030
Restore U.S. Leadership on Climate Change
He has a little more emphasis on developing alternative fuels and strategies to work more globally to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/
Clintons proposals:
A new cap-and-trade program that auctions 100 percent of permits alongside investments to move us on the path towards energy independence;
An aggressive comprehensive energy efficiency agenda to reduce electricity consumption 20 percent from projected levels by 2020 by changing the way utilities do business, catalyzing a green building industry, enacting strict appliance efficiency standards, and phasing out incandescent light bulbs;
A $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund, paid for in part by oil companies, to fund investments in alternative energy. The SEF will finance one-third of the $150 billon ten-year investment in a new energy future contained in this plan;
Doubling of federal investment in basic energy research, including funding for an ARPA-E, a new research agency modeled on the successful Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
Aggressive action to transition our economy toward renewable energy sources, with renewables generating 25 percent of electricity by 2025 and with 60 billion gallons of home-grown biofuels available for cars and trucks by 2030;
10 "Smart Grid City" partnerships to prove the advanced capabilities of smart grid and other advanced demand-reduction technologies, as well as new investment in plug-in hybrid vehicle technologies;
An increase in fuel efficiency standards to 55 miles per gallon by 2030, and $20 billion of "Green Vehicle Bonds" to help U.S. automakers retool their plants to meet the standards;
A plan to catalyze a thriving green building industry by investing in green collar jobs and helping to modernize and retrofit 20 million low-income homes to make them more energy efficient;
A new "Connie Mae" program to make it easier for low and middle-income Americans to buy green homes and invest in green home improvements;
A requirement that all publicly traded companies report financial risks due to climate change in annual reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission; and
Creation of a "National Energy Council" within the White House to ensure implementation of the plan across the Executive Branch.
A requirement that all federal buildings designed after January 20, 2009 will be zero emissions buildings
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/energy/
McCain really has no energy plan. The only part of his "economic plan" (and I use the term loosely) is the Summer Gas Tax Holiday. He is calling on Congress to suspend the 18.4 cent federal gas tax and 24.4 cent diesel tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day.
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Iss ... fecc78.htm
Obama opposes this, Hillary support it. There is some sentiment that this could actually work to increase demand and could drain the coffers of the Federal Highway Fund from much needed infrastructure repair. It's a gimmick, IMO.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/29/news/ec ... 2008042911
http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/29/news/ec ... 2008042911
The segment of the economy that has all of our attention right now everytime we fill up or drive by a gas station or get our power bill is energy.
The long-term trend in gasoline prices, in inflation-adjusted real terms, is downward. U.S. consumers spend a smaller percentage of their income on gasoline today than they did in 1970. That’s why it’s been so damned hard to dampen our car culture. With the money gushing into Exxon’s coffers, many people assume that Exxon is ramping up development of new oil sources as fast as they can. They’re wrong. Exxon is using its windfall profits to increase dividends and buy back shares — in other words, distributing it to shareholders — not investing in developing new oil sources. Exxon’s capital investments as a percentage of revenues are at an all-time low. The story is the same with other private oil companies. And you don’t see the governments that own 90% of the world’s in situ oil reserves spending big bucks on developing new supplies, either. Why would they? Why spend money to flood the market with supply and drive down the price of your product?
You will hear Republicans say that there is plenty of oil out there, but the environmentals won't let us capture it. That's horse pucky in most cases. The fact is there is alot of oil out there, but what has peaked is easy to get to oil and it will seriously eat into oil company profits to extract what's still out there. ANWR? ANWR is no Saudi Arabia. ANWR is only a measly, piddling 7 to 10 billion bbls. which is nothing — the U.S. alone goes through that much in a little over a year, not counting the rest of the world. There’s three month’s global supply worth of oil at ANWR which would take years and billions to get to, not to mention the environmental damage and which the oil companies have already said they’d sell to Japan.
Today’s high crude prices are an artificial construct of the financial derivatives markets, not a product of supply-demand fundamentals. The hedge funds are playing in the commodities market and even more frighteningly by playing derivative markets they are buy "hedging" (gambling) that the prices will continue to go up, but hedge funds do so with borrowed money. There isn’t a supply shortfall. Only a superabundance of speculators — and a financial system that allows them to drive crude prices ever higher. It’s the futures market, not the supply chain, that needs fixing.
How do the current crop of candidates plan to fix our energy problems?
Obama and Clinton's policies are nearly identical.
Obama's policy proposals:
Reduce Carbon Emissions 80 Percent by 2050
Invest in a Clean Energy Future
Support Next Generation Biofuels
Set America on Path to Oil Independence
Improve Energy Efficiency 50 Percent by 2030
Restore U.S. Leadership on Climate Change
He has a little more emphasis on developing alternative fuels and strategies to work more globally to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/
Clintons proposals:
A new cap-and-trade program that auctions 100 percent of permits alongside investments to move us on the path towards energy independence;
An aggressive comprehensive energy efficiency agenda to reduce electricity consumption 20 percent from projected levels by 2020 by changing the way utilities do business, catalyzing a green building industry, enacting strict appliance efficiency standards, and phasing out incandescent light bulbs;
A $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund, paid for in part by oil companies, to fund investments in alternative energy. The SEF will finance one-third of the $150 billon ten-year investment in a new energy future contained in this plan;
Doubling of federal investment in basic energy research, including funding for an ARPA-E, a new research agency modeled on the successful Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
Aggressive action to transition our economy toward renewable energy sources, with renewables generating 25 percent of electricity by 2025 and with 60 billion gallons of home-grown biofuels available for cars and trucks by 2030;
10 "Smart Grid City" partnerships to prove the advanced capabilities of smart grid and other advanced demand-reduction technologies, as well as new investment in plug-in hybrid vehicle technologies;
An increase in fuel efficiency standards to 55 miles per gallon by 2030, and $20 billion of "Green Vehicle Bonds" to help U.S. automakers retool their plants to meet the standards;
A plan to catalyze a thriving green building industry by investing in green collar jobs and helping to modernize and retrofit 20 million low-income homes to make them more energy efficient;
A new "Connie Mae" program to make it easier for low and middle-income Americans to buy green homes and invest in green home improvements;
A requirement that all publicly traded companies report financial risks due to climate change in annual reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission; and
Creation of a "National Energy Council" within the White House to ensure implementation of the plan across the Executive Branch.
A requirement that all federal buildings designed after January 20, 2009 will be zero emissions buildings
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/energy/
McCain really has no energy plan. The only part of his "economic plan" (and I use the term loosely) is the Summer Gas Tax Holiday. He is calling on Congress to suspend the 18.4 cent federal gas tax and 24.4 cent diesel tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day.
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Iss ... fecc78.htm
Obama opposes this, Hillary support it. There is some sentiment that this could actually work to increase demand and could drain the coffers of the Federal Highway Fund from much needed infrastructure repair. It's a gimmick, IMO.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/29/news/ec ... 2008042911
http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/29/news/ec ... 2008042911
Dance to heal the earth. Not just when you're dancing, but always. Live the dance, whenever you move, in all you do, dance to heal the earth.
Hey Vigo,
Great thread, I have been contemplating how to best jump in to this thread and provide you with the information you seek on these truly important issues as regards Hillary Clinton.
Initially, I was simply going to post where Hillary Clinton stands on the issues being discussed and leave it at that. On most of them, her viewpoints most closely reflect my own, as does her track record - which made selecting her as my candidate an easy choice in the end. More importantly though, I believe that she is the most likely candidate to be truly effective with passing the legislation necessary to bring about the results described.
Reading through the thread however, I realized that we are each trying to sell you ultimately on why our candidate is the better choice. Thus, the information you are receiving is selective.
So, I thought to myself, let me put up a post comparing and contrasting the candidates on the issues, but again, ultimately that is also selective information, no matter our intent. It is also what leads to the bickering that takes place on so many other threads. The reality is that each of these candidates has at times been radically inconsistent on key issues, and their campaigns have often contradicted their candidates stances on them. The examples are numerous.
That said, the only advice I can give you is this, hear what is said in this thread, but ultimately do your own research on where the candidates stand on these issues, how consistent they have been on their stances, and how realistic those stances are. If you truly want to avoid B.S., then you've got to go find it for yourself, and weigh where they stand based upon your values, and also based upon your reasonable expectations of success given their plans.
**************************************************
For me, my choice was ultimately based upon the success Hillary Clinton has had in Congress passing legislation, working with the Republican party, and her consistency throughout her career on healthcare, as well as advocating for Children and those in poverty. The single biggest factor behind my decision is a belief that of all the candidates, Hillary Clinton is likely to be the most effective in leading the nation, and Congress in/through the challenges that lie ahead.
John McCain will be facing a likely strong Democratic majority in Congress and while he has proven to be excellent at working in a bi-partisan fashion, it will prove challenging.
Barack Obama will have the benefit of that Democratic majority, but there is very little track record to make a decision on, and like the others, many of his promises are just that, promises. All three candidates will ultimately prove to have made promises they do not, or cannot keep to get elected.
When it comes to Iraq, I am certain that none of these candidates will have withdrawn more than 2/3 of the troops by the end of their first term. John McCain is likely the most honest about this, followed by Hillary Clinton.
Regarding Iran, the idea of talks without pre-condition directly flies in the face of UN efforts to bring Iran in line through sanctions/incentives. I have no interest in seeing the United States buck the UN on Iran as it did on Iraq. Also, if we are to have these "talks", it will diminish the role of the UN on this issue. There is growing pressure in Iran due to the UN sanctions, and diplomacy in line with the rest of the world is how I would like to proceed this time, not to run off on our own, apart from the stances of the rest of the security council yet again.
Those are some of the issues that are guiding me in this election season, to give you an idea of what is forming my viewpoints.
**************************************************
Ultimately, you need to do the research yourself, or you just end up picking the best sales person.
Great thread, I have been contemplating how to best jump in to this thread and provide you with the information you seek on these truly important issues as regards Hillary Clinton.
Initially, I was simply going to post where Hillary Clinton stands on the issues being discussed and leave it at that. On most of them, her viewpoints most closely reflect my own, as does her track record - which made selecting her as my candidate an easy choice in the end. More importantly though, I believe that she is the most likely candidate to be truly effective with passing the legislation necessary to bring about the results described.
Reading through the thread however, I realized that we are each trying to sell you ultimately on why our candidate is the better choice. Thus, the information you are receiving is selective.
So, I thought to myself, let me put up a post comparing and contrasting the candidates on the issues, but again, ultimately that is also selective information, no matter our intent. It is also what leads to the bickering that takes place on so many other threads. The reality is that each of these candidates has at times been radically inconsistent on key issues, and their campaigns have often contradicted their candidates stances on them. The examples are numerous.
That said, the only advice I can give you is this, hear what is said in this thread, but ultimately do your own research on where the candidates stand on these issues, how consistent they have been on their stances, and how realistic those stances are. If you truly want to avoid B.S., then you've got to go find it for yourself, and weigh where they stand based upon your values, and also based upon your reasonable expectations of success given their plans.
**************************************************
For me, my choice was ultimately based upon the success Hillary Clinton has had in Congress passing legislation, working with the Republican party, and her consistency throughout her career on healthcare, as well as advocating for Children and those in poverty. The single biggest factor behind my decision is a belief that of all the candidates, Hillary Clinton is likely to be the most effective in leading the nation, and Congress in/through the challenges that lie ahead.
John McCain will be facing a likely strong Democratic majority in Congress and while he has proven to be excellent at working in a bi-partisan fashion, it will prove challenging.
Barack Obama will have the benefit of that Democratic majority, but there is very little track record to make a decision on, and like the others, many of his promises are just that, promises. All three candidates will ultimately prove to have made promises they do not, or cannot keep to get elected.
When it comes to Iraq, I am certain that none of these candidates will have withdrawn more than 2/3 of the troops by the end of their first term. John McCain is likely the most honest about this, followed by Hillary Clinton.
Regarding Iran, the idea of talks without pre-condition directly flies in the face of UN efforts to bring Iran in line through sanctions/incentives. I have no interest in seeing the United States buck the UN on Iran as it did on Iraq. Also, if we are to have these "talks", it will diminish the role of the UN on this issue. There is growing pressure in Iran due to the UN sanctions, and diplomacy in line with the rest of the world is how I would like to proceed this time, not to run off on our own, apart from the stances of the rest of the security council yet again.
Those are some of the issues that are guiding me in this election season, to give you an idea of what is forming my viewpoints.
**************************************************
Ultimately, you need to do the research yourself, or you just end up picking the best sales person.
"You'll get used to my babbling, all the others have." - Anna Madrigal from "Tales Of The City" by Armistead MaupinThanks Kaz for your opinion and wise words. Believe me they do help me in this process. All these posts do.
Actually, I have been out there looking and formulating my own opinion. There is just too much to look at all by myself. I figured with so many eyes looking we could contribute and bring our resources together to help each other formulate opinions for the next round in the election process. I agree this race is all about selling the candidate. I respect the opinions of people here and through their past posts have kind of understood certain slants toward certain beliefs and ideas. I have seen changes in some people also, including myself and so I am hopeful.
Issues or rather solutions to our monumental problems should be the driving force behind this election, but sadly it is not. The reality is the tearing down of these candidates will cause the last person who remains with an ounce of blood to the victor. This may work well in WOW:D, but we need healing and a common vision in our country that none of these candidates are willing to embrace. They are fearful of the consequences of their political moves and therefore seek the smoother politically correct path.
I am a spiritual person who is not locked into my religious convictions when looking at the bigger picture. This forum is more than a P & G forum and it has helped me to grow and accept people for who they are and are becoming. The biggest issue for me is the one facing humankind, becoming a number one civilization. To take our place in the cosmos as explorers not as conquerers. Where do these candidates look beyond their localized agendas? 2012. Is it just a number or does it hold special meaning to all of us. Space exploration and future technologies. Solar power and other means of power.
These issue are some of the issues near and dear to me. I haven't had a chance to really research each candidates approach to each of these, but I do intend on having a more complete post on these issues later on.
I do believe that we will have to have a revolution of thinking and frankly, this is dangerous, corporate redirection from obvious drains that are killing us to one that thinks globally. I know this is not popular, but looking beyond our own feet keeps us from running into trees. 
Thanks to all. Lots to read and very insightful.
Actually, I have been out there looking and formulating my own opinion. There is just too much to look at all by myself. I figured with so many eyes looking we could contribute and bring our resources together to help each other formulate opinions for the next round in the election process. I agree this race is all about selling the candidate. I respect the opinions of people here and through their past posts have kind of understood certain slants toward certain beliefs and ideas. I have seen changes in some people also, including myself and so I am hopeful.
Issues or rather solutions to our monumental problems should be the driving force behind this election, but sadly it is not. The reality is the tearing down of these candidates will cause the last person who remains with an ounce of blood to the victor. This may work well in WOW:D, but we need healing and a common vision in our country that none of these candidates are willing to embrace. They are fearful of the consequences of their political moves and therefore seek the smoother politically correct path.
I am a spiritual person who is not locked into my religious convictions when looking at the bigger picture. This forum is more than a P & G forum and it has helped me to grow and accept people for who they are and are becoming. The biggest issue for me is the one facing humankind, becoming a number one civilization. To take our place in the cosmos as explorers not as conquerers. Where do these candidates look beyond their localized agendas? 2012. Is it just a number or does it hold special meaning to all of us. Space exploration and future technologies. Solar power and other means of power.
These issue are some of the issues near and dear to me. I haven't had a chance to really research each candidates approach to each of these, but I do intend on having a more complete post on these issues later on.
I do believe that we will have to have a revolution of thinking and frankly, this is dangerous, corporate redirection from obvious drains that are killing us to one that thinks globally. I know this is not popular, but looking beyond our own feet keeps us from running into trees.
Thanks to all. Lots to read and very insightful.
Last edited by vigo on 05-26-2008 12:42 AM, edited 1 time in total.
Well, better late than never, I suppose... Joe Quinn.
Originally posted by Psychicwolf
'I, for one, would not want to see this happen. There is often more corruption in state governments than there is in the federal government.'
'Right now in Washington state the only state health plans are Medicaid, which many doctors are choosing not to participate in because they are only reimbursed 13-31 cents on the dollar and the SCHIP plan which are only drawing a few insurers participation'
Without sounding too naive here, I find the idea of simply accepting that state government, or federal government is 'corrupt' as a given and to accept that is very defeatist and kills any thought of 'possible solutions' to anything. If such a large move were made, there would be plenty of public scrutiny of how this was handled by the states. The feds are much more secretive and remote and indulge in many obfucations and shell games with the SSA Trust funds.
As for health care in the State of Washington, are you not familiar with the Washington Basic Health plan?
http://www.access.wa.gov
Click on the link for Health Care Authority.
-
Shimmering Auro
- Pirate
- Posts: 1600
- Joined: 12-25-2005 05:59 AM
Psychicwolf wrote: Beside's the war, one of the other big issues for me is the economy. It's a big issue and there are so many parts to it that I thought I would break my posts down into segments.
The segment of the economy that has all of our attention right now everytime we fill up or drive by a gas station or get our power bill is energy.
The long-term trend in gasoline prices, in inflation-adjusted real terms, is downward. U.S. consumers spend a smaller percentage of their income on gasoline today than they did in 1970. That’s why it’s been so damned hard to dampen our car culture. With the money gushing into Exxon’s coffers, many people assume that Exxon is ramping up development of new oil sources as fast as they can. They’re wrong. Exxon is using its windfall profits to increase dividends and buy back shares — in other words, distributing it to shareholders — not investing in developing new oil sources. Exxon’s capital investments as a percentage of revenues are at an all-time low. The story is the same with other private oil companies. And you don’t see the governments that own 90% of the world’s in situ oil reserves spending big bucks on developing new supplies, either. Why would they? Why spend money to flood the market with supply and drive down the price of your product?
You will hear Republicans say that there is plenty of oil out there, but the environmentals won't let us capture it. That's horse pucky in most cases. The fact is there is alot of oil out there, but what has peaked is easy to get to oil and it will seriously eat into oil company profits to extract what's still out there. ANWR? ANWR is no Saudi Arabia. ANWR is only a measly, piddling 7 to 10 billion bbls. which is nothing — the U.S. alone goes through that much in a little over a year, not counting the rest of the world. There’s three month’s global supply worth of oil at ANWR which would take years and billions to get to, not to mention the environmental damage and which the oil companies have already said they’d sell to Japan.
Good heavens, PW, your figures regarding ANWAR (and also NPRA) are incredibly off the mark.
Not sure where you are getting your information from. My family and most of our friends work in the Alaskan oil fields. We *know* what's taking place in the North Slope Oil Fields, and know for an absolute *fact* that what the public is being told, opposed to *reality* are two very different stories.
I'm not at liberty to discuss what is taking place up there in the oil fields. But, one thing is for certain, I would not make these claims were they untrue.
It's quite unsettling to know the truth is not being released to the public. The most I will say is, the arctic oil fields are booming like never before. Many, many additional (sparkling) new rigs are in the process of being shipped to the Arctic so they will be up and operational before the end of this year.
As far as the environmental impact of *drilling* for oil and natural gas in the arctic... there is no disputing the *fact* that the presence of rigs and humans has not impacted wildlife. Statistic after statistic proves just the oppisite. This has everything to do with the incredible, and sometimes ridiculous measures taken to protect the tundra.
The unfortunate *truth* is, the people are being extremely mislead about ANWAR and NPRA.
Amazingly (sarcasm) the people are not getting the real story about the absolutely incredible oil fields - right here on American Soil. *Gasp*, imagine that.
vigo wrote: 2. No bombing of Iran
Both Obama & Clinton have said that they would talk to Iran and think that is wise. Its great to be a Superpower, but we need to start leading by example too, and not just be the bullies of the world.
Here is a great video of Obama on Iran
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyHJZxNm-Cg
Another great video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN1h24ivVW4
I also believe that anything that has been submitted to the UN from the Bush administration should be reviewed. We are the ones that have been pushing the sanctions and we all know what happened with the Iraq Intellegence better safe than sorry. (but this is what I would do if I were elected President
) McCain IMO, has the same policies as Bush on Iran, and frankly he and Lieberman scare the hell out of me. Their jokes on this serious topic shows that they have no intention of doing anything other than following Bush on this issue.