[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

McCain is not a Republican. He is running as the Geriatric American Party candidate.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It looks like that Larry Sinclair guy that accused Obama of snorting coke with him that was making some Republicans in here go ga ga was arrested:

� Larry Sinclair Press Conference: Sinclair Arrested, Led Away in Handcuffs - Blogger News Network

Yup, apparently via a warrant from Delaware, where Joe Biden's kid is Attorney General.

SInclair stated in the press conference that he's not telling anyone to believe him. He just wanted to get all his information out there, and let the press do its job with it (phone numbers, names, text messages from Trinity murdered gay choir director, etc.).

I don't know who was going ga ga in here over this. A simple check of the information would easily prove whether or not Sinclair is lying. That's what I want to see. If this was a true con job, it should be easy enough to prove.

I thought the Whitehouse .com press conference was just as interesting. The founder answered only one question, the projector broke, and the founder walked out of the press conference after 3 minutes. None of the evidence promised was provided.

[besson3c]

What kind of evidence would there be about having sex or snorting coke? It's somebody's word against somebody else's? If that is all Sinclair had to go by, why did he agree to take a lie detection test, which he failed?

[Dork.]

Perhaps there's a stained blue burka hiding in Obama's closet?

[besson3c]

Yeah, maybe they should look inside the Koran he used when he was sworn into office?

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What kind of evidence would there be about having sex or snorting coke? It's somebody's word against somebody else's? If that is all Sinclair had to go by, why did he agree to take a lie detection test, which he failed?

There was a limo driver present during all of this as well, according to Sinclair. Why don't you just look into the information yourself?

LarrySinclair.org

That's it. That's all the guy wanted to say on record.

Run the phone numbers, track down the limo driver. That should provide enough to at least say one way or another whether Sinclair was with Obama on or about that time. Wouldn't you agree? And the records of murdered, gay Trinity choir director Donald Young's text messages to SInclair regarding Obama over a series of months.. those should be accessible as well. If Sinclair is pulling a con here as well, it should be easy enough to prove him wrong.

The Whitehouse.com press conference right after Sinclair's was supposed to provide the lie detector information, but the guy bailed after 3 minutes, right as someone wanted to know if he received money indirectly from Axelrod's media group. For the "failed" lie detector echo chamber, this is definitely nowhere near as conclusive as the WH PC's press release advertised. The dude literally packed up his stuff and bolted out of the room. I'm sure he didn't want to have to explain why he ditched his lucrative porn business for a cookie-cutter blog with not even a single AdSense ad or affiliate link.

If Sinclair failed the lie detector test so miserably, having the raw data and video out there as final, absolute proof of this failing should be a no-brainer.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

There was a limo driver present during all of this as well, according to Sinclair. Why don't you just look into the information yourself?

LarrySinclair.org

That's it. That's all the guy wanted to say on record.

Run the phone numbers, track down the limo driver. That should provide enough to at least say one way or another whether Sinclair was with Obama on or about that time. Wouldn't you agree?

No, because then it would be this limo driver's word against Obama's - what's the difference? This is not evidence.

And the records of murdered, gay Trinity choir director Donald Young's text messages to SInclair regarding Obama over a series of months.. those should be accessible as well. If Sinclair is pulling a con here as well, it should be easy enough to prove him wrong.

I guess I support digging up those text messages, but it seems like an awful lot of effort for very little in return. Does it really matter whether Obama used to do coke or had gay sex? This is more political weaponry than something with an actual, relevant use, and I would definitely say the same thing whether the "victim" was John McCain as well...

The Whitehouse.com press conference right after Sinclair's was supposed to provide the lie detector information, but the guy bailed after 3 minutes, right as someone wanted to know if he received money indirectly from Axelrod's media group. For the "failed" lie detector echo chamber, this is definitely nowhere near as conclusive as the WH PC's press release advertised. The dude literally packed up his stuff and bolted out of the room. I'm sure he didn't want to have to explain why he ditched his lucrative porn business for a cookie-cutter blog with not even a single AdSense ad or affiliate link.

If Sinclair failed the lie detector test so miserably, having the raw data and video out there as final, absolute proof of this failing should be a no-brainer.

I guess, but like I said, this is so utterly irrelevant and tabloidy that it hardly seems worth the effort. There is no shortage of distractions and dumb things for us to obsess over, such as Obama smoking cigarettes, being a secret Muslim, etc. I suppose that this Sinclair guy deserves a chance for fair representation and for his case to be heard so long as he has a case to make, but allegations can be very harmful no matter whether they are true or not which can be unfair to any candidate, so my support would come with some qualifications of not being transformed into a giant media circus, and under the pretense that this guy does have a case to make and is not just making random **** up like any of us could do.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

No, because then it would be this limo driver's word against Obama's - what's the difference? This is not evidence.

It is in a courtroom. They call them "witnesses". Definitely not conviction worthy, but it sure wouldn't look good for Obama if Sinclair's accounting of events was spot-on, and that he indeed was with Obama.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I guess I support digging up those text messages, but it seems like an awful lot of effort for very little in return. Does it really matter whether Obama used to do coke or had gay sex?

I think it does matter when assessing one's character. He'd be proven a liar (I stopped using drugs at 21). Intially, that is why SInclair first contacted the Obama campaign... he wanted Obama to revise his drug use statements. Sinclair only went to YouTube when that Donald Young guy who'd been in contact with him was executed.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I guess, but like I said, this is so utterly irrelevant and tabloidy that it hardly seems worth the effort.

Yet so many were all over the Foley texts messages. Now texts are irrelevant? And don't worry about the effort. Nobody is asking you to look into it. Maybe those for whom the lookups aren't much effort will look into them.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

There is no shortage of distractions and dumb things for us to obsess over, such as Obama smoking cigarettes, being a secret Muslim, etc.

Obama himself is a mess. He's the one who goes on record saying things that others claim is wrong or incorrect. From his so-called legislative accomplishments (none, really) to his success in improving his Chicago district (none, really), there is not a hint of great achievement. He hasn't even won an election without tons of controversy.

If I was forced to pick a fraud in this election, Obama wins hands down. But the man sure can work a teleprompter and a crowd, can't he?

[spacefreak]

I thought you'd get a kick out of this

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

It is in a courtroom. They call them "witnesses". Definitely not conviction worthy, but it sure wouldn't look good for Obama if Sinclair's accounting of events was spot-on, and that he indeed was with Obama.

And what court would even accept this case? Having gay sex is not against the law, and alleged coke usage is not something that usually gets tried in the courts, no?

I think it does matter when assessing one's character. He'd be proven a liar (I stopped using drugs at 21). Intially, that is why SInclair first contacted the Obama campaign... he wanted Obama to revise his drug use statements. Sinclair only went to YouTube when that Donald Young guy who'd been in contact with him was executed.

This is a very slippery slope. Bush lied about us not waterboarding, but he lied not because he is a liar, but because he felt there was good reason to. Couldn't you make the case that lying about drug use (or getting a blowjob, for that matter) is good reason to avoid the media circus and distractions that surround the highly unimportant issue at a time of need in our country? Moreover, what about the precedent this sets? Are we supposed to comb over the records of each and every politician in office to look for any sort of drug usage, sexual allegations, whatever, and then put this in their face and get them to admit that this happened? If this became our litmus test, there would be hardly any politicians that would be in the free and clear. It is unreasonable that the public expect that their politicians don't make any mistakes (assuming that most would be fine with an admission to trying coke, which in and of itself is not a guarantee), and unreasonable to force such an incredibly high stakes gamble for them to either fess up and prepare for the damage and political weapon, or lie and possibly not get caught, or else get caught and have to deal with the same sort of political backlash.

Is honesty *really* something that is valued? It seems to me that our political environment is not setup to reward honesty. So, I'm empathetic to being compelled to lie about issues that at the end of the day don't really matter anyway. A past coke experience and/or gay sex in no way puts any of us at risk or affects a politician's ability to do their job. Bringing this to the light just exposes all sorts of religious zealotry and fuels many fires.

Yet so many were all over the Foley texts messages. Now texts are irrelevant? And don't worry about the effort. Nobody is asking you to look into it. Maybe those for whom the lookups aren't much effort will look into them.

Was Foley the gay sex guy, or the pedophilia? I didn't care about that case either, to be honest...

Obama himself is a mess. He's the one who goes on record saying things that others claim is wrong or incorrect. From his so-called legislative accomplishments (none, really) to his success in improving his Chicago district (none, really), there is not a hint of great achievement. He hasn't even won an election without tons of controversy.

If I was forced to pick a fraud in this election, Obama wins hands down. But the man sure can work a teleprompter and a crowd, can't he?

Okay, this is completely tangential to your main argument. How about at least laying out a case for us?

[spacefreak]

I don't know if Larry Sinclair is being truthful or not. Obviously, his credentials as a check-forging felon in the 1980s are extremely less-than-stellar. Also, I understand why no media organization was willing to touch it.

However, I did support SInclair's right to express himself. The 11,000 Obama supporters who signed petitions to have him barred from giving a press conference were 100% wrong, as were the thousands of other Obama supporters who were way out of line in trashing this guy. If anything, their actions have actually elevated the exposure of the situation.

So Sinclair attends despite a vicious barrage of verbal attacks and threats, and gives us what little information he has. At this point, I was happy because a man was able to speak his case. If I had something to present, or if any of you had something to present, it is absolutely imperative that we maintain that right. Nobody has to believe a word we say, but our right to speak must be protected and upheld.

On to Sinclair's case content... this is another matter entirely. Why should we believe him? We shouldn't. But I hope someone will look into the Sinclair dossier and do some follow-up.

I don't think that our President should be a man who was running around 8 years ago hooking guys up with 8-balls of blow and smoking crack. A DUI 30-years ago by a guy who hasn't had a drink in 20 years.... not so troubling.

If Obama comes out squeaky clean, then so be it. But somebody should at least give it a decent sniff (no pun intended). The Presidency is a much more important position than Mark Foley or Larry Craig ever aspired for, and we know what resources went into investigating them.

[besson3c]

I agree with what you are saying Spacefreak, he should be allowed to make his case without being stifled and suppressed. However, anybody can fabricate some sort of allegation, so we shouldn't necessarily pay attention to somebody just because they are speaking, nor should we devote resources to investigating these allegations if there is no logical reason to do so. The same can be said of the sort of things that tabloids try to claim - political or otherwise.

I would add that if this amounted to Obama trying (i.e. not dealing) coke and giving it up, I wouldn't be troubled by that either. As a user my only concern would be addiction and brain damage/health effects, and it seems pretty clear that none of this applies to now or any time in his public life.

Spacefreak: what sort of lies and shady past dealing would be of concern to you if you were to find out that McCain was involved in this sort of stuff? To be sure, his background is far from squeaky clean too... Are you giving him a little more slack just because you like Republicans? Be honest.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I agree with what you are saying Spacefreak, he should be allowed to make his case without being stifled and suppressed. However, anybody can fabricate some sort of allegation, so we shouldn't necessarily pay attention to somebody just because they are speaking, nor should we devote resources to investigating these allegations if there is no logical reason to do so. The same can be said of the sort of things that tabloids try to claim - political or otherwise.

Yeah, I don't want any public investigations or resources. If a private whomever wants to look into it, the guy put the information up. It could all be BS for all I know. And it seems anyone with decent resources isn't willing to invest a dime into looking into it based on Sinclair's dubious past. That's fine too. But it's out there, and that's the important thing.

I would add that if this amounted to Obama trying (i.e. not dealing) coke and giving it up, I wouldn't be troubled by that either. As a user my only concern would be addiction and brain damage/health effects, and it seems pretty clear that none of this applies to now or any time in his public life.

I've seen addicts cover up very well, and some even achieve big things. I just hope the Presidency isn't one of them, and that's why I was saying I'd like someone to at least sniff the allegations. But again, I'm not demanding it.

Spacefreak: what sort of lies and shady past dealing would be of concern to you if you were to find out that McCain was involved in this sort of stuff? To be sure, his background is far from squeaky clean too... Are you giving him a little more slack just because you like Republicans? Be honest.

If SInclair is proven right, but it was actually John McCain instead of Obama... I'd be done with him and I'd support whatever measure there was to remove him from the Republican contest. In general, however, I'll treat each allegation differently. McCain has the added benefit of having been in the public eye for a long time, and he's worked at a high level for a long time. You know... he's John McCain, dammit, and if he says "get off my yard", you'd better get moving.

Anyways, check out the latest in this Sinclair adventure... sounds like another Sinclair story that might make for a good twist. Is it a sham charge on the guy? Obama cover-up? What's Larry's story?

These people are ridiculously rabid, but they seem to want to make a name for themselves in this story, and they are working hard to achieve a key protagonist position...

BREAKING….BREAKING….BREAKING � THE MITCH AND NAN SHOW!!!

What a crazy story. Odds in Vegas on Sinclair being truthful just shot up... they were at 50-1, now 1000-1. Low money gets big winnings if Sinclair's info shows he was indeed with Obama in November, 1999.

Instead of electing Obama, how about we just have him run for President forever? His policy ideas, lack of experience, and lack of accomplishments aren't enough to get my vote, yet the sideshows surrounding him are better than any reality TV show. It's practically designed for consumption. I don't think the greatest fiction writers could come up with this. Sinclair may be the closest.

[besson3c]

I respect your disagreeing with his policy ideas and accomplishments, although I haven't really heard a sound argument from you that I can sink my teeth into as to why, but perhaps you are just holding out...

What I'm already quite tired of is the hyper focus on all of the gaffes committed by any candidate. It just feels like we are turning politics into some idiotic version of Fear Factor or some other idiot show.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I respect your disagreeing with his policy ideas and accomplishments, although I haven't really heard a sound argument from you that I can sink my teeth into as to why, but perhaps you are just holding out...

I don't want taxes increased. I'd rather see pork cut. I want to maintain strong national defense. I want constructionist judges who know their role. I want to get the energy ball rolling... tired of being held hostage by the anti-drilling and anti-nuclear lobbies. I want to keep the pressure on Iran, for like most of Europe, the Middle East, and the rest of the world, I think Iran with nukes is a bad thing.
[QUOTE=besson3c;3677428What I'm already quite tired of is the hyper focus on all of the gaffes committed by any candidate. It just feels like we are turning politics into some idiotic version of Fear Factor or some other idiot show.[/QUOTE]It's always been this way. We all know of Dan Qualye's spelling bee performance. We like to examine these people because we elect them king.

Like I stated before, I look at each issue differently. Some of these aren't merely gaffes. The lifted D. Patrick lines in speeches were no gaffe. Selma was a downright lie, on par with Hillary's sniper fire. Auschwitz - OK. McCain mixing up Sunni and Shiite in a conversation- OK, unless it becomes a pattern. NAFTA cover-up: not cool. Fallen soldiers - OK.

He's overstated his legislative accomplishments on multiple occasions, and the results from the one area he represented for more than a year - his Chicago district - are horrendous.

Obama now seems to want to hide. He's ducking McCain, he's restricting the press, even sending them up in a plane while he sneaks away on the ground. He's sketchy on disclosure and transparency, and his gripe about the politics of the past somehow excludes him. Yet when one objectively examines his political history and his campaign staff, there is nothing different. It's the same old, same old. Even the "change" platitude is old. Clinton, 1992. Reporters were known to complain back then about Bill's overuse of the word "change" in the campaign.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

I don't want taxes increased. I'd rather see pork cut.

Do you make more than $200,000/year? Obama has only talked about tax increases for this income bracket.

I want to maintain strong national defense.

What about Obama's policies has indicated that he doesn't?

I want constructionist judges who know their role.

How are the current crop of judges not adhering to the constitution?

I want to get the energy ball rolling... tired of being held hostage by the anti-drilling and anti-nuclear lobbies.

How does drilling provide us with a sound energy plan when it will be many many years before we see any benefit there, at great cost?

I want to keep the pressure on Iran, for like most of Europe, the Middle East, and the rest of the world, I think Iran with nukes is a bad thing.

What aspect of Obama's policies makes you think that he doesn't?

McCain mixing up Sunni and Shiite in a conversation- OK, unless it becomes a pattern.

He has done it a number of times, and misspoken about Al Queda in Iran, and been ill-prepared in speaking about abortion, etc. If you *really* want to learn about his gaffes, there are plenty of them. I only skim read liberal blog headlines and I can make these out.

He's overstated his legislative accomplishments on multiple occasions, and the results from the one area he represented for more than a year - his Chicago district - are horrendous.

How so? Please give us something we can sink our teeth into.

Obama now seems to want to hide. He's ducking McCain, he's restricting the press, even sending them up in a plane while he sneaks away on the ground. He's sketchy on disclosure and transparency, and his gripe about the politics of the past somehow excludes him. Yet when one objectively examines his political history and his campaign staff, there is nothing different. It's the same old, same old. Even the "change" platitude is old. Clinton, 1992. Reporters were known to complain back then about Bill's overuse of the word "change" in the campaign.

You are sketchy on actual substantive justifications for your arguments that we can actually talk about, no offense...

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Do you make more than $200,000/year? Obama has only talked about tax increases for this income bracket.

I've never heard him preface his capital gains tax increase with that. And social security? There are a ton of other taxes that can be raised, and Obama has clearly stated that he is seeking increases in some of these.

What about Obama's policies has indicated that he doesn't?

He has clearly stated that he wants "major" cuts in defense spending and development of combat systems. There's a video on YouTube... it's an Obama ad... he states this and more.

How does drilling provide us with a sound energy plan when it will be many many years before we see any benefit there, at great cost?

Cost to who? The oil companies will more than likely be happy to invest. The government will rake in cash via leases. Seems like a no brainer to me.

As for the "sound energy plan", where the hell is it? Getting a fuel that we absolutely need is a crucial part sound energy policy. So it takes 5-10 years to flow... better late than never. Coincidentally, "never" is the left's "sound" plan. Great minds there, huh?

You are sketchy on actual substantive justifications for your arguments that we can actually talk about, no offense...

I don't need to justify any of my stances, because I'm secure enough in my beliefs and opinions.

The liberal echo chamber, on the other hand, bothers me. Never have I seen such a large pack of rabid, mean, intolerant people who all have the exact same positions, who all use the same canned replies to issues, and who will throw their own completely overboard if a person strays from the company line on even a single issue. It's sad to see such a lack of independent thought.

[besson3c]

The same can be said of the deteriorating Republican attack machine now, but especially in years past. This is called being partisan.

However, I take offense at the notion that what I've written are not my own ideas and I'm just echoing talking points. You, on the other hand, have not provided the sources for what very much appear to be your gut feelings, so what evidence do I have that your ideas are your own, and go beyond the shared gut feelings that many of you guys have been impressing upon us for so many years?

Sorry to say, but if you haven't heard Obama say that he wants to increase taxes on the wealthy, you haven't been paying attention. The oil thing we've been through - no benefit until 2026, 75 cents/gallon.. it's a gimmick, open your eyes. If you haven't heard Obama's energy plan, you also haven't been paying attention.

I accuse you of not paying attention because Obama has said these things countless number of times. Because you are avoiding hearing him say this stuff suggests that perhaps you are too heavily invested in the whole partisan team sports thing, and desperately *want* to believe what you have said. You are welcome to believe what you want, but my primary objective here is to point out that gut feelings are insufficient justification of your views.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

I don't need to justify any of my stances, because I'm secure enough in my beliefs and opinions.

Then why do you feel the need to repeat them more often than the average person drinks water? If you're secure in your opinions and you don't feel the need to discuss them, then don't. Constantly starting to discuss them and then getting cagey when people ask you to substantiate them doesn't accomplish anything except getting people annoyed at you.

It's like you were saying about the "liberal echo chamber," it just makes it look like you're just giving canned responses and have no interest in evaluating what you're saying.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

He has clearly stated that he wants "major" cuts in defense spending and development of combat systems. There's a video on YouTube... it's an Obama ad... he states this and more.

The US military budget is about 10x that of any other country, and almost half that of the world. That's an awful lot of pork. I think we could easily drive efficiency in that organization, cut the spend in half if not more, and be stronger for it. We're not getting stronger by adding increasing bloat to our military. That's what any CEO would do....

As for the "sound energy plan", where the hell is it? Getting a fuel that we absolutely need is a crucial part sound energy policy. So it takes 5-10 years to flow... better late than never. Coincidentally, "never" is the left's "sound" plan. Great minds there, huh?

This is a short-term approach to a long-term problem. That is FAR from a 'sound energy plan'. No one really even knows what the economic effects of this would be 5-10 years from now. This is basically a choice of 'pay now' or 'pay later' - and the conservative stance seems to be to continue to ring up the credit card and worry about finding an alternative later. I think it would be much more healthy to have the incentives in place NOW to invest in alternatives.

A 'sound energy plan' includes a mix of all these things. If it turns out that we need to extend our petroleum consumption as we're building alternatives, fine. Maybe we'll get to that point. But it is not the answer.

I don't need to justify any of my stances, because I'm secure enough in my beliefs and opinions.

Cast your vote based on who smokes and/or who may or may not have done coke or gotten a blowjob 8 years ago, and you get the government you deserve.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

If you're secure in your opinions and you don't feel the need to discuss them, then don't.

I never stated that I don't feel the need to discuss my opinions. I'd love to see your evidence of my having said this.

Constantly starting to discuss them and then getting cagey when people ask you to substantiate them doesn't accomplish anything except getting people annoyed at you.

If I say that I am against tax increases, I don't see why I have to substantiate that. If I say I like the color blue, I shouldn't need to substantiate that either.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

It's like you were saying about the "liberal echo chamber," it just makes it look like you're just giving canned responses and have no interest in evaluating what you're saying.

I've expanded on many of my posts, and I've clarified my positions, opinions, and observations plenty of times. Claiming otherwise just isn't accurate.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

The US military budget is about 10x that of any other country, and almost half that of the world. That's an awful lot of pork. I think we could easily drive efficiency in that organization, cut the spend in half if not more, and be stronger for it. We're not getting stronger by adding increasing bloat to our military. That's what any CEO would do....

If that's the case, let's slash education as well. By your analysis, we'll be better off in that category, too.

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

This is a short-term approach to a long-term problem. That is FAR from a 'sound energy plan'.

Nobody says it's the whole plan, and this sound energy plan... I've been waiting 20 years for it. When the hell are we going to see it?

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

No one really even knows what the economic effects of this would be 5-10 years from now.

We'll have more domestic supply than we do today. How is this bad?

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

This is basically a choice of 'pay now' or 'pay later' - and the conservative stance seems to be to continue to ring up the credit card and worry about finding an alternative later. I think it would be much more healthy to have the incentives in place NOW to invest in alternatives.

But it's not on the public dime. Oil companies will provide all the investment, and the government will earn revenue in the selling of leases. And it's not an all-or-nothing proposisiton of drilling vs. alternative investment. We can do both, and we will.

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

If it turns out that we need to extend our petroleum consumption as we're building alternatives, fine. Maybe we'll get to that point. But it is not the answer.

We need oil. We should go get our own oil. It's really a simple answer.

We need alternatives. We should continue researching and developing alternatives. Another simple answer.

I've seen nothing that makes me think we can't do both at once. And since cheap oil tends to fuel growth, and since growth tends to fuel investment, I think doing both at once is absolutely the way to go.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

If that's the case, let's slash education as well. By your analysis, we'll be better off in that category, too.

That may be true. I haven't looked at how our investment in education compares to other parts of the world. Have you? I know our performance isn't bad but also isn't top-notch, so we certainly have room to improve performance.

In all cases, this comes down to a 'bang for the buck' equation. I'm saying we can have a stronger military with more efficiency. If we can be more competitive in education with less investment and better efficiency, I'm all for it.

Nobody says it's the whole plan, and this sound energy plan... I've been waiting 20 years for it. When the hell are we going to see it?

Well, from what I've seen, not from John McCain or the Republican party any time soon. Might as well try something different.

We'll have more domestic supply than we do today. How is this bad?

It's bad if it's still not enough to meet demand and we still have no alternatives.

But it's not on the public dime. Oil companies will provide all the investment, and the government will earn revenue in the selling of leases. And it's not an all-or-nothing proposisiton of drilling vs. alternative investment. We can do both, and we will.

History hasn't borne that out. Cheap oil = no investment in alternatives.

And this is a public issue. What makes you think oil companies will invest if they see little or no ROI? Or if the ROI comes from extraordinarily high prices? That would benefit them but not the public or Americans overall.

We need oil. We should go get our own oil. It's really a simple answer.

We need alternatives. We should continue researching and developing alternatives. Another simple answer.

What hasn't happened to date is both of these at the same time. We need to find a policy that will create incentives to do both. Sorry - I just don't believe that will come from Republicans. May not come from Democrats either - but we as voters need to EXPECT that it does and make it an issue (rather than making who did or didn't do coke and get a blowjob an issue). That's the only way it will come from our government.

I've seen nothing that makes me think we can't do both at once. And since cheap oil tends to fuel growth, and since growth tends to fuel investment, I think doing both at once is absolutely the way to go.

As stated, history hasn't borne this out. And I disagree with your statement - cheap oil doesn't fuel growth - cheap ENERGY does. The days of cheap oil are over and quite frankly, I don't think there's anything policy-wise our government, Republican or Democrat or whatever, can do about it. Every day, the US is becoming a smaller and smaller percentage of the worldwide demand.

So I also disagree with your other statement - we don't need oil - we need ENERGY. There's a lot of assumption today that oil is our only viable source for energy. If we keep believing that, it will continue to be so. Admittedly, a lot our our infrastructure is built in that way, but we need to start changing that YESTERDAY. A smart and growth-oriented policy would be to search for cheap energy, not cheap oil. It opens more possibilities and could potentially fuel a whole new growth industry for the US if we focus in the right way. A President isn't actually a huge part of that, but can provide some leadership and incentives to help make it happen.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

I thought you'd get a kick out of this

The new Marlboro Man