• SeanRenaud said on Mar 24, 2009....

  Gas is unlikely to hit 4 during his (probably eight year) reign. Judging by current prises and what growth rates usually are there is no reason to expect that.  The spike that we hit (that helped but wasn't the source) of this recession was a speculative bubble and was well above what things were supposed to be.  Things are supposed to be probably about twenty cents above where they are right now.

• stopmediabias said on Mar 25, 2009....

  Gas may hover where it is but there is a strong chance that when demand goes up then the prices are going up.  Either way President Obama's cure for our addiction to foreign oil is alternative resources, good idea but this is not going to solve our energy problems in 4 years.  There is also that hidden factor that will make prices immediatly go up, like a terrorist attack or a political upheaval.

• ALIENated said on Mar 25, 2009....

  
  Ha ha ha ha ha ... eight year reign ... ha ha ha ha ha. Just could not let that one
  get by. Has any president been beaten out by another candidate from his own
  party? If the Republicans do not come up with someone in four years, another
  Democrat might easily beat OhBummer. I would vote for anyone other that Borax,
  and I figure the majority will feel the same way after this inexperienced clown's
  policies start causing the pain and problems that are going to occur over the
  next four years. OhBummer is like another greate leader (Nero) who fiddled while
  their country burned to the ground.
  
  

• BEWELL said on Mar 25, 2009....

  drilling and building refineries takes up to ten years to get the gas into your car!!  If was pushed by Bush on his day one,  we would just now see the first of that oil and gas!

• stopmediabias said on Mar 25, 2009....

  Alien-Ya I let that one pass b/c I think Sean's buyers remorse hasn't fully set in yet so I'm giving him a break. :>

  Bewell-Nice try, you guys have been pitching that bullshit since Carter and we are still buying our oil from bad places at stupid prices because of you folks and because of crazy enviromentalists.  If that same stale argument was was true are we going to replace petroleum in 10 years with something else?  We need to be drilling here and drilling now. 

• SeanRenaud said on Mar 26, 2009....

  Are you guys still living in that fantasy world where the polls are only in Obama's favor because whites won't admit they are voting against him?

  No buyers remorse yet.  The drilling and refineries numbers are an unfounded statement btw.  But I've got no complains on how Obama is handling business.  So far he's living up to his word and doing what seems to be a good job, though we won't know for sure for another few months at the earliest. 

  Same with us figuring out how his approach to the War is going.  Course I guess it's Obama's fault that we are seeing a basic revisiting of the 1920's gangsters on the Mexican border with largely harmless drugs you refuse to  legalize.

  And yeah eight year reign.  Obama would have to be catastrophic not to win again in 2012.  Most incumbants win.  It's a fact.  He would have to be percieved worse than Bush was in 04 (by the media, not that I think that you all are abnormally intelligent I'll admit Obama shouldn't have gotten past Hillary.  But the fact is that popular opnion goes a long way)  Not much chance of that .

• stopmediabias said on Mar 26, 2009....

  Sean-You guys have been quoting that 10 year number for 30 years and you watch it will probably be 10 years before we actually start drilling again, makes a lot of sense.

  "But I've got no complains on how Obama is handling business.  So far he's living up to his word and doing what seems to be a good job,."

  Hold on second....sorry just had to LOL.

  Living up to his word?  Do you mean on earmarks?  Before election no earmarks, after the election 9,000.  Lobbyists?  Before no way, after hire a bunch to work right in the white house.  Gitmo, Iraq, taxes, fiscal responsibility, he has said one thing and done just the exact opposite.

   

   

• SeanRenaud said on Mar 26, 2009....

  The 10 year quote is imaginary.  We know from other countries that it can be accomplished in as few as three to five, and more than that that the global price of oil is at least in part based on futures so investors knowing there will be x amount more oil in a few years will drop the price today.  The ten year number is bullshit.

  Gitmo he's on top of, he's still on track for taxes, he's on track for Iraq.  The only things anybody can legitamitely complain about are the earmarks, and honestly so far it's been one bill that he himself criticized but didn't believe there was time to fix.  So one out of all of them, there is (and I'll try to link it) a promises chart and he's doing extraordinarily well. 

  I swear the right really needs to get on board if you want to EXIST in 2012.  On the current path your on you have only two futures.  In 2012 Obama is the worse president EVER, you get eight years in office and then maybe an election afer that.  The other is Obama has been anything remotely resembling competent and Republicans are ranked just slightly above Libertarians and the Green party.  You're quickly burnig what respect you hav left.

• ALIENated said on Mar 26, 2009....

  Most incumbants win.  It's a fact.  
  
  Tell that to Jimmy Carter, George Bush Sr., or Gerald Ford. You could include
  LBJ, but he took the hight road (the low road?). I figure BO is going to make
  so many stupid mistakes and get this country (and maybe the world) in such
  a mess, that even Alec Baldwin will turn his back on him. I know blacks think
  he can do no wrong because he is somewhat black, but nothing could be
  farther from the truth. The hypnosis will wear off about the time everyone's
  pocketbook begins to really get light. BO has a lot of karma due to him. He
  has had a free ride so far built on the back of aborted babies and the likes.
  The tide will soon turn on him and drown him and his cronies in the process.
  The mainstream liberal media can fool all the people some of the time (long
  enough to get BO elected) and some of the people all of the time (liberals),
  but it cannot fool all the people all the time.
  
  

• stopmediabias said on Mar 28, 2009....

  Sean-On the oil thing:  Do you think we should increase our drilling and building of refineries or should we continue what we've been doing?  No-one expects oil or gas prices to plummet once we start drilling but come on, Chavez down there pays what? .50 cents a gallon of gas.  Couldn't we be getting oil today from ANWAR if Slick Willy didn't veto the lifting of the ban? 

  And here is a scary little fact:  Every everything our President does to curb or affect climate change is NOT GOING TO CHANGE ONE SINGLE THING.  There is no getting rid of the oil before we've replaced it with a viable affordable alternative, there's no amount of research or money or Al Gore logic that is going to heat up or cool down this planet or stop it from heating and cooling it up.

  He campaigned on closing Gitmo the first 100 days and all he did was continue  Bush policies and it will supposedly get closed in 365 days.  Pulling the troops out of Iraq and end the war, neither has happened nor will happen because the war was all ready won. 

  Taxes:  Is it right for him to say 95% of Americans are going to get a tax cut, then propose a cap trade system that will raise costs on 100% of Americans?  This is a George HW "read my lips move" but watch and see if it gets the same attention.

  Disclaimer:  I am not agreeing with Republicans on a lot of these issues and now I think the Republican party is full of a bunch of weak-kneed wimps who are afraid to speak out in public or call for a resignation or two.  Where the fuck is the investigations into the financial crisis?

• SeanRenaud said on Mar 28, 2009....

   

  Again you're lying.

  1.  Yes we should lift the ban on ANWAR.  It is a stupid ban and it should give us some temporary relief.  Who cares what Chavez pays btw?

  2.  Everything our president does to curb climate change WILL effect things.  Once again even if it was only moving to fully biodegradable plastics we wouldn't have a floating trash island the size of Texas!  If you are claiming it won't effect global warming we don't know that one way or another.  We simply don't.  You can spout out all you want about how volcanos put X amount of poluttants into the air and we only produce a tiny fraction of that.  The sad truth however is that we don't understand how the system works well enough to know if the planet can handle X+1.  Think about your toilet, it can handle X, get to X+1 and it backs up into your house.  So you're basically lying here.

  It is true that we aren't going to get off oil until another viable alternative has been found.  Something about necessity being the mother of invention comes to mind here.

  3.  He campaigned to have STARTED closing Gitmo in the first 100 days and he's done just that and the Iraq war thing.

  4.  It's not the same thing, not even remotely.  And he did lower taxes on 95% just like he claimed he would.  IT's practically Republican rhetoric, americans have more money to spend funding the machine.

  5.  If you want to bash him on someting bash him for being too stubborn to legalize and tax Marijuana.  That would have been a major positive change but for some reason he's not down with the get down.

   

• bloc said on Mar 28, 2009....

  "It is true that we aren't going to get off oil until another viable alternative has been found.  Something about necessity being the mother of invention comes to mind here."
  
  I think we should implement a carbon tax and let the market get us off oil before we are very painfully forced to get off. It will be beneficial in many other ways as well.
  
  "If you want to bash him on someting bash him for being too stubborn to legalize and tax Marijuana.  That would have been a major positive change but for some reason he's not down with the get down."
  
  I couldn't agree with this more!!!
  
  

• ALIENated said on Mar 28, 2009....

  
  Hold up boyz. If the government takes over marijuana, who would be able
  to afford it? Plus, it would not have PCP or anything in it that makes it as
  good as it is now. I do agree that we need more people sitting around,
  contemplating Area 51 and who shot JFK instead of getting a job and
  paying taxes, which could actually help with the economy. (How glad am
  I that I do not live in California?) Besides, it is way easier to grow a plant
  in your yard than to set up a still. It might work after all the Big Brother
  cameras are set up so they can make sure you are not growing your own.
  
  

• stopmediabias said on Mar 29, 2009....

  Sean :> I might be going out on a limb here but I think you are full of shit.  You don't believe any of this.  You want this guy to succeed so badly you are becoming illogical.  Our President is a decent incredible guy who has all ready succeeded beyond all expectations.  But people make mistakes and you know adding $2 trillion dollars to all ready hurting companies as a way to battle climate change is a mistake.  Especially since there is zero consensus on climate change. 

  When politicians campaign they are persuading just like salespeople.  Our President persuaded his base of people that if he became President he could deliver something that he knew he couldn't.  This is the case with Gitmo.  As far as Iraq he played up the pulling the troops out but nothing has actually changed from Bush policy.

  His 95% of people will get a tax cut.  You actually believe that statement was reasonable with all the things he is doing with cap & trade and repealing the Bush tax cuts?  I see it as giving me $13 then taking $50 in six months.

  Alien sorry but I agree with them on the Marjuana issue.  I think a lot of decent hardworking Americans who use the stuff live in fear and they shouldn't.  Bill O'reilly's take is use in your own home should be legal but if you are caught using it in public you get fined.  I agree with him on this. 

• SeanRenaud said on Mar 29, 2009....

  He never said the things you're claiming.  That's the problem is that the right is so far past illogical in their hatred of Obama that is leave no room for any real debate.

  1.  ALIEN.  The US government could not, and would not put so high a tax on weed that nobody could afford it.  What we are witnessing right now is the end result of a black market.  If the price the US set was higher than the current black market cost nobody would switch.  Weed is no more dangerous than liquor and people seem to handle drinking and working just fine as it is so the rest of  your claim is utter complete bullshit.  (also 3 more states just legalized weed.  We're moving forward.)  And Obama has already relaxed on chasing down potheads.  Bush was a complete idiot on the regards of recreational drugs, porn and immigration (though I highly doubt Obama is goign to be any better on Immigration. . . .well slightly at least he's talking about paying a fine, it's not just amnesty)

  2.  Obama has done what he claimed on Gitmo and Iraq. 

  3.  Because you falsely believe that a tax on the rich is a tax on all of us which while logical has been proven false time and time again.  We've proven that higher fuel costs aren't by nessessity passed on, sometimes you become more efficeint.  Higher taxes are the same, sometimes that ust meas you lower pay, or less coffee breaks or whatever else you can do to offset the price.  You're logic only holds in a world where all companies are ran perfectly.

  4.  I would treat weed the same as we treat alcohol.  It wouldn't be a fine for public use we don't fine cigarette users (actually okay in CA we kinda fuck with them over much) but DUI's would apply, if you were obnoxious you could get in trouble, I mean you don't get in trouble for being drunk in public, you get in trouble for being a nuisance.  I've never seen anybody who was quietly walking it off get in trouble at any rate, cops might ask is he okay but if you tell them he's had a few beers but you've got him they've always shrugged at me, at least if he was being quiet and not puking or anything.

• bloc said on Mar 29, 2009....

  sean, i've given up talking to alien long ago. I think he's glen beck in disguise.
  
  @smb
  
  "Especially since there is zero consensus on climate change."
  
  There is a large consensus on climate change. One of the only credible critics of it says it all the time. It doesn't mean it's true though.
  

• stopmediabias said on Mar 29, 2009....

  Sean-Holy moly not only am I a liar but I'm also burning with so much hatred for President Obama that I am illogical.  I think you have slipped off the deep end.

  Bloc-We need and independant look on climate change.  A realistic look at how we should approach it.  The Oregon project has 31,000 scientists who reject the whole notion of catastrophic manmade global warming.  To this date not a single peer reviewed scientific paper rules out natural climate variations as the cause for our warming.  Add this to the people on your side and I would say NO consensus.

  This is why we should get twenty leading scientists and intellectuals from both sides of the debate and let them present their points to an independant panel.  We should do this before we throw all this money away.

• bloc said on Mar 29, 2009....

  There is no debating that there is a consensus on this issue.
  
  "To this date not a single peer reviewed scientific paper rules out natural climate variations as the cause for our warming."
  
  this is a disingenuous statement. Using this faulty logic we can imply anything. Not a single peer reviewed scientific paper rules out my farts as a cause of our warming. Of course, there are many scientific peer reviewed papers that have supplied a lot of evidence that it's man made. They are not absolutely conclusive, nothing in life is, but it is a consensus.
  
  "This is why we should get twenty leading scientists and intellectuals from both sides of the debate and let them present their points to an independant panel."
  
  The scientific method already handles this fine via the peer review process. The problem is that we will never know anything conclusively. It's sort of like the economy. We think x leads to y, but there are so many variables that no one is sure. Unfortunately we have to make some hard decisions.
  

• ALIENated said on Mar 29, 2009....

  
  @smb: I gave up talking to bloc long ago. I think he is Alec Baldwin in disguise.
  That may not be true. bloc makes Alec seem logical.
  
  @sean: pot will never be legalized until the government can figure out how to
  keep people from growing their own stash in the back yard, among the okra
  and asparagas plants. Stills are a little harder to conceal unless you live in the
  mountains. Any goof can grow marijuana. Plus, we have to draw the line 
  somewhere. Just because a bunch of potheads want to legalize their drug of
  choice, does not mean we should do it. Underage kids do everything adults
  do, if it is legal, because they can get their older friends to buy it. Plus, if the
  kids can do marijuana, they will move on to other stuff just to one up on their
  parents. We should be trying to figure out how to get rid of killers like 
  cigarettes and alcohol instead of introducing more killers. Of course, that is 
  not the liberal way. According to liberals, we should all be able to do  anything
  we want even if a few innocents do wind up dead every year (how many from
  drunk drivers, how many from cancer later in life, yadda      yadda        yadda.
  
  If it was up to me, we would supply liberals with all the dope they want.
  Maybe it would keep them away from the voting booths.
  
  I figure there will be a backlash to those states legalizing pot the first time
  some teen gets run over by a trucker smoking dope or when the Republicans
  take over again, which they will soon. The decent people who were duped
  into voting for OhBummer will wake up soon as all the Democrat crapola 
  hits the fan.
  
  Glen Beck is trying to sell advertising just like every other reporter goof on
  TV including the dicks at MSNBC. I figure he cares a little more about what
  happens to this country than say Keith Olbermann or Chris Mathews. (I think
  I just barfed a little.)
  
  

• bloc said on Mar 29, 2009....

  This comment, amongst many others, shows that alien is no conservative. He wants government in your bedroom, living room, backyard, and at the doctor's office. He wants a theocracy that legislates his view of morality. 

• SeanRenaud said on Mar 29, 2009....

  I don' think he's ever lied about that.

• husbandhater said on Mar 30, 2009....

  Sad to say but Carter didn't do 2terms and I don't see O doing 2 either. People want Miracles and magic while we have just a man with ideas trying to play the game but his way. Ultimely you can't serve two masters. His IRS guy is proof of that. See:A.I.G mess if you don't beleive me.

• ALIENated said on Mar 30, 2009....

  
  Wow HH, welcome back to earth.
  
  

• stopmediabias said on Mar 31, 2009....

  bloc-We are getting ready to dump trillions of dollars into the Global warming threat, I think we better be a little more conclusive.

  Al Gore and his minions are stating that man is causing this climate change while scientists from all sides of spectrum are stating on top of this is could be just natural climate variations.  Find one respectable scientist who can claim that it is just us causing this "problem."  We have some political hacks with a degree claiming CO2 is a pollutant and I have 31K claiming it is not.  Before we spend this money we should know what we are spending it on.  Is it to stop climate change or garner more votes? 

  My call for an independent panel would weed out the politics and get rid of the idiots who are getting paid to stick to one opinion to their grave even after this opinion is being widdled down everyday.  Good God the state of Maine his 50 below zero recently, the coldest in history its ever been.

  Alien-Now you know I agree with you on nearly everything but I have to ask do you see your comment as the same as comments way back when, when prohibition was in full swing?

  HH-Holy cow I agree with you.  I think a hole has been torn into the universe :>

• PieterOpie said on Apr 11, 2009....

  Ultimately it does not matter what or who causes global warming.  I think that most reasonable people have accepted that it does exist and that the effects are already having profound effects on the environment; the Arctic ice cap being the most dramatic example among the major ice-melt-offs.  Some will argue that this is all just another one of many earlier cycles that have occurred before and that the world has been this hot - and hotter before.  Again it doesn't matter whether that is true or not. 
  
  Never before has the human species been this widespread and so heavily dependant on the environment to sustain itself.  We need lots of fresh water and lots of arable land to feed our ever increasing population.  Global warming brings with it climate changes that affect that environment and is threatening many of the ecosystems which support us and many other species.
  
  CO2 is just one of the causes of the warming process.  Simple water vapour is another, as is methane gas as well as a number of natural and man-made chemicals.  However we can measure these things and we can try to slow down the process .  Obviously doing nothing will help to speed up the process and the results will be quite devastating to us.  
  
  So despite who or what has got us here, or whether it is a natural cycle or not, to do nothing in favour of economics is complete madness.  Basically we cannot do enough to attempt to lessen this disaster's impact.  I believe we have passed the tipping point - the point in time of no return after which all efforts are a waste of time.  So do we give up?  No.  We have to try something or face a gloomy future in which many of us face certain death by famine. 
  
  The longer we wait.... the more it will cost us.  
  

• stopmediabias said on Apr 13, 2009....

  The main question(s) is: does man cause the planet to heat up to levels it can be a threat to the world?

  Does CO2 cause the planet to consistantly heat up?  And will reducing CO2 stop the heating?

  There are a lot of very smart people who are not the John Kerry's payroll that would say NO, NO NO. To all three questions.  We should be good stewards of this planet, but we also have to logical.

• SeanRenaud said on Apr 13, 2009....

  OK. I can get behind that.  Start a conservative push towards being responsible and pushing to improve the planet.  Smog should be a self evident problem.

• ALIENated said on Apr 13, 2009....

  
  I think I am being misunderstood (again). I could care less whether weed is
  legalized. My point was, it will be easy to grow a years supply of weed in 
  your backyard or a patio pot for your own use. Much easier than making
  your own booze, which some do. Until the government figures out how to
  tax or control that, legalized pot has no chance. I am also saying that 
  most people feel that weed, unlike booze, is a stepping stone to worse 
  (and addictive) drugs. I think I agree with that. However, if marijuana is
  legalized the government might actually try to control who sells it and 
  to whom. Like illegal alcohol, there is a lot of money swirling around 
  weed (maybe not as much as there once was), and dirty cops and 
  politicians can be paid to look the other way. And I bet the day will 
  come when bloc, and other liberals as of today, will regret that they 
  helped to make their children's addictions possible. Johnny Carson once
  said that two wrongs do not make a right. Comparing weed to booze
  means nothing. That arguement could be used to legalize damn near
  anything. If so and so remains illegal, then more people will be criminals.
  Yeah, so what. It is the same deal as homosexuality. Where do we
  stop allowing perversions? If we legalize weed, why not legalize cocaine,
  and speed, and heroin? Young people are already taking note of their
  parent's laxness on this subject and experimenting with stronger and
  stronger drugs. Rent the old movie "A Clockwork Orange" and view the 
  kind of world you want your children to grow up in.
  
  

• ALIENated said on Apr 13, 2009....

  
  A drug-crazed public would help to explain how things can go so 
  terribly wrong in the end time, which we are almost certainly 
  nearing.
  
  

• PieterOpie said on Apr 13, 2009....

  I am, along with the majority of sane responsible scientists, firmly convinced that the climate is changing.  The recent fires and climate conditions in Australia back that up without doubt.  We are experiencing many record-breaking temperatures and other changes not seen to this degree before.  This was predicted. 
  
  Whatever the cause, the result is real.  If we do nothing it will worsen and reach levels that will threaten our well-being.  Our food supply and our water are under threat.  That is enough to wipe out huge numbers of people.  What more do we need to understand.  We might be able to help slow the problem and with a lot of effort and luck perhaps reverse it. Although I seriously doubt it.  Personally I think we are stuffed.
  
  In any case, to argue against the fucking obvious is in my view extremely irresponsible - if not criminally so.
  
  I believe it is a crime to harm the environment and it has potential consequences which can lead to a great loss of human life, not to mention the loss of other species - all necessary for our survival.
  
  I cannot understand why anyone would want to ignore a possible threat to our very existence unless they were insane. 
  

• ALIENated said on Apr 14, 2009....

  
  I am not sure which is more stupid, thinking Man can affect the planet to
  the point of destruction or thinking Man can do anything to stop it. When
  God is ready to burn the planet to the ground, He will do it, with or without
  our help. If the actions of Man are causing problems, we are screwed. People
  are not going to walk to work or stop working altogether.
  
  People worry too much about looking politically correct in the eyes of other 
  people when they should be worrying about looking acceptable to God.
  
  

• PieterOpie said on Apr 14, 2009....

  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
  
  You're kidding..... right?  LOL....  Hilarious!!! 
  

• SeanRenaud said on Apr 14, 2009....

  Man doesn't need to destroy the planet, he just needs to get it to a point where WE can't survive on it and we've proven our capability to do just that.  Ever hear of this place called Chernobyl?

  We've proven that we can make places that are incapable of supporting life do it.  Ever here of Los Angeles of Las Vegas?

   

• PieterOpie said on Apr 14, 2009....

  Touché.........  

• ALIENated said on Apr 15, 2009....

  
  Apples and oranges. Sure we can nuke the planet, cause the China Syndrome,
  but that is not what has Al Gwhore's panties wadded in his crack. He thinks
  us driving our cars, and whatever, is going to do us in. I do not think we should
  shit in our drinking water, but I do not think politicians are as concerned about
  that as they are about the political mileage they get out of the whole global
  warming balogna. Liberals / Democrats are mainly interested in growing 
  government (who knows why) and global warming is just another excuse for
  doing that.
  
  

• PieterOpie said on Apr 16, 2009....

  Alien:  Your ignorance is astonishing.  Clearly you have no education at all.  Your understanding of simple basic cause and effect are non-existent.  In short, you should not even be allowed to debate this since you are effectively stupid.  Add to all that overwhelming lack of intellect you are also biased in favour of all the things that harm the environment, but are for some idiotic reason automatically opposed to anything or anyone who is trying to save our collective ass.  Sadly you are one of the people who Gore and others are  fighting so hard to save.  Pity really.  
  
  I wish we could divide those who care, from those like you, who don't give a fuck about anything, including the welfare of their descendants and seal them up in separate ecosystems.  We, the one we shall try to clean up, and you together with all your filth and toxic crap.  But we have to live with your inconsiderate arse and putrid waste.  Personally I think your attitude is criminally irresponsible.   Hopefully one day in the future your kind will be rendered harmless and won't be allowed to spread your disgusting shit everywhere.  It's bad enough having to read your mental garbage - that is polluting enough you totally selfish piece of snot.   
  
  If only stupidity were poisonous we'd all be better off.  You'd have died soon after birth.  
  
  You have got to be one of the most despicable, loathsome, selfish pricks I have ever encountered in my entire life..... seriously.  You disgust me.  It's all "me me me" for your kind isn't it?  How dare you make fun of Gore.  He is trying to save your unworthy hide.  I'd have you shot - but that's just me.  It's the planet or people like you.  I know who I would rather save.    SELFISH  PRICK!!!!!
  
  

• ALIENated said on Apr 16, 2009....

  
  Ever notice how brainless liberals always resort to personal attack and assume
  everyone who disagrees with them are uneducated. Pethetic, is it not.
  
  

• PieterOpie said on Apr 16, 2009....

  ALIENasshole said:    "Pethetic, is it not."
  
  HAHAHAHAHAHAHA   No.... but you are PATHETIC (moron)  
  
  At least spell properly if you are going to use big words.....  LOL....
  

• SeanRenaud said on Apr 16, 2009....

  Pieter is on my top ten list of stupidest soulcasters.  Might take a while to drive him out.

  We can do more than just nuke things though ALIEN.  We know that acid rain is a fact.  We know what happens down stream from plants that don't regulate their waste.  I can go on and on enviromental problems caused.

  Al Gore is a liar.  I do think he's grossly exaggerating.  But I don't understand why you're not behind improving gas mileage if for no other reason than to stop sending money to those dirty muslims who have all the oil.  That in and off itself should be a good reason.  Or how bout smog? 

  So why don't Republicans/Conservatives have a path on the enviroment?  Why not offer an alternative plan because half the reason why guys like me side with the liberals on this is because we accept that there is a problem and it seems like we have the choice between do too much or do nothing at all.

• bloc said on Apr 16, 2009....

  I don't think the democrats are doing too much, do you sean?

• PieterOpie said on Apr 16, 2009....

  SeanRevolting:  That's funny, because you are in my top three for most repulsive, disgustingly selfish and seriously demented.  You can't drive me out but luckily I bore easily and you are helping that enormously. 
  
  Did Alien actually suggest nuking something?  Poor guy.  That's so retro.  Honestly Sean, anyone who uses a term like "dirty muslim" is not in any way credible in my view.  It shows only ignorance and an imbalanced opinion which taints their entire outllook on everything.  People like you are the problem and perpetuate it blindly.  You havn't got a clue.  You are a useless tool.
  
  This global warming does not belong to Al Gore.  It is happening regardless of what he says or even if he does lie, it is inevitable and it has begun.  I imagine in another decade or so there will be no Arctic Icecap in summer at all.  That kind of evidence cannot be denied.
  
  I have noticed that you moronic assholes rarely think of the global ramifications of climate change.  Only the odd effect on your personal lives.  It won't work that way.  This will affect everyone pretty much the same way in the long term. The greatest threat from this urgent crisis is the actual temperature.  If it gets beyond a certain point the ability for the global environment to sustain life becomes seriously strained.  If you took an interest you would know this, Instead you ignore it and treat it like some liberal conspiricy.  It's mind-boggling in it's stupidity.   Not only do you resist help but you actively work against it while ridiculing those who are trying to prevent it. 
  
  If there were a natural justice you lot would all die first..... I can only pray for such an outcome.  Your desire to remain ignorant amazes me.  At least you could stop fighting those trying to do the right thing.  
  

• ALIENated said on Apr 16, 2009....

  
  @Sean: I am all for drilling our own oil. If they could make a convenient
  non-gasoline engine, I would be all for it. But the gasoline engine is still 
  the most convenient engine for an automobile. I just get upset when
  leftists like Gwhore want to impose the government in business, carbon
  credits, or whatever the fuck he is touting. Government needs to be
  reduced to building roads and bridges, and defending our country. They
  need to stop telling our businesses what to do, which helped to create
  the current financial problems, and they need to stop trying to impose
  social changes on the majority that only a minority of people want. We
  also need to be building nuclear power plants. We are not the Russians.
  Or we should launch a kind of Manhattan Project to figure out how to
  use fusion.
  
  

• bloc said on Apr 16, 2009....

  I think we need to government to prevent factories from dumping toxic wastes into rivers and to prevent mines from using practices that seep toxic metals into the water supply, and etc etc etc
  
  We need the government to makes rules that mortgage companies can't give out loans then repackage them and sell them to banks who use accounting tricks to sell them to other banks in ways that clearly isn't sustainable. You know, the stuff that caused this crisis we're in.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Apr 16, 2009....

  Yes I do think that Dems/Liberals do too much.  C'mon as I recall you're a fellow Californian.  You have to remember people losing their homes because they weren't allowed to cut the grass because of some mouse.  That is insanity.  Honestly anything that is so exceedingly rare that a few guys clearing out their yards could cause it to go extinct is already functionally extinct anyway and there is little point in trying to save them.

  ALIEN wouldn't haveing cars that get better gas mileage just off the top lower the need for oil?  We should be building nukes all over the place.  The French manage it just fine.

• ALIENated said on Apr 16, 2009....

  
  The current crisis has its roots in the Carter and Clinton administrations. 
  It started with Democrats wanting anyone to have a house, whether or 
  not they could afford it, and forcing lenders to stop demanding down 
  payments and that people be able to afford what they were buying. And,
  yes, it ran amok from there, but the root of the problem was government
  interference in the marketplace. It is as simple as the old deal about 
  something being done by a committee, just like where you work. How 
  many things have you seen done right by a committee? It is strange that
  people think government is bad when their party in not in power and they
  think it can do no wrong when their party is in power. That is part of the 
  problem with the Republican party. They basically want government and 
  government involvement to be reduced. The Democrats want it to be a 
  big as possible and as many people to depend on it (and work for it) as 
  possible because those people are usually Democrat voters (postal 
  workers, teachers, etc.). Now the Democrats are trying to take of our 
  financial institutions and nationalize our auto making companies, but in 
  the second case that is no big deal because the unions vote Democrat 
  anyway. What I cannot understand is why any intelligent person would 
  be a Democrat and want the kind of big government the Democrat party
  offers. To be a Democrat tells me that a person is not really interested 
  in personal freedom and free markets. The deal with big government is 
  that everyone eventually becomes an enemy of the state because it 
  becomes an all consuming entity that grows like a cancer, out of control,
  destroying its host. We are now in that process as of last January.
  
  

• SeanRenaud said on Apr 17, 2009....

  the problem was clearly deregulation ALIEN.  No amount of saying otherwise changes it.  The government was leaning on the banks during the Carter and Clinton admins and the banks turned around and said 1-2= -1.  I won't do it and you can't make me do it.  Then several regulations were pulled away and suddenly it was 1-.1=.9 which was acceptable and they suddenly did it.

• bloc said on Apr 17, 2009....

  the problem is that terms like "liberals" doesn't really mean anything. I'm certain taht if you asked most liberals or democrats if they supported that mouse thing they'd say no. This is also a weird thing because this is an example of doing a lot in such a way that it doesn't really help the environment.
  
  @alien
  "To be a Democrat tells me that a person is not really interested in personal freedom".
  
  this is so hypocritcal coming from a person taht defends Bush's assertion that he can snatch any american off the street and hold them without a trial. Anyone that defends Bush is someone that doesn't believe in personal freedom.
  

• ALIENated said on Apr 17, 2009....

  
  I think you are giving credit to Bush that should go to Democrats in congress
  as well. I just heard tonight (on PBS) how Bush went to congress several 
  times and told them what was going on. Of course they all have amnesia now.
  I am surprised anyone wants to be president anymore. We just use them for
  scapegoats. I do not think law abiding citizens were being rushed off to prison
  by the Bush administration. I will admit people like Padilla got bad treatment,
  but it turned out he was held for good reason. Wikipedia says ...
  
  On January 3, 2006, he was transferred to a Miami, Florida, jail [from a 
  military prison] to face criminal conspiracy charges. On August 16, 2007, 
  José Padilla was found guilty, by a federal jury, of charges against him 
  that he conspired to kill people in an overseas jihad and to fund and 
  support overseas terrorism.
  
  I can conclude from this that he was picked up for good reason in the first
  place. And I did not support Bush on everything, espeically where he agreed
  with liberals on things like illegal immigration. I have said many times that I
  do not consider Bush a model Republican or conservative. He did well with 
  the war on terrorists, but not so much on everything else.
  
  Liberal socialists are much more likely to enslave us and do away with our
  freedoms than conservatives who want to limit the power that government
  has over us.
  
  And no matter what you say, from what I have read, the Democrat's (like
  Barney Frank and Chris Dodd) something-for-nothing attitude is what lead
  us to our current financial situation. Bush tried to up the regualation on 
  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac several years ago and Democrats poopooed 
  that effort. Believe what you want. The facts are the facts.
  
  However, as I have also said, Republicans are too quick to "play ball" with
  the Democrats (and the opposite is rarely true). Just as the elder Bush was
  goaded by Democrats to raise taxes in the early 90s, the younger Bush and
  the Republicans in congress should have stood up to the Democrat minority
  and done more things the right way instead of the Democrat way. Democrats,
  as they are currently demonstrating, certainly have no problem with doing 
  that. Republicans are like bad parents that would rather just go along with
  children out of control instead of disciplining them. Democrats are like 
  children out of control. They just want to run around naked, do whatever
  they want with whoever they want, and murder the consequences or
  whine until the government finds an antedote to combat the consequences
  of their sin (such as AIDS).
  
  

• SeanRenaud said on Apr 18, 2009....

  Bush tried to up the regs and the Republicans turned him down?  That must be what you're saying since they had control of Congress for 6 years (longer than that since they were in control under Clinton but I'm only counting Bush years.

• ALIENated said on Apr 18, 2009....

  
  Just looking at articles like this one ...
  
  

  http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3541

  
  Everything on the internest is true, right? That article says ...
  
  Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT) is head of the powerful banking committee 
  in the Senate. He and Barney Frank consistently resisted attempts by the 
  Bush Administration to closely regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. 
  
  and ...
  
  As long ago as 2003, President Bush was trying to get the House and Senate 
  to carefully monitor the actions of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. His efforts 
  were rejected by Democrats.
  
  Here is an article from September 2004, about the Republican majority ...
  
  

  http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0407d.asp I think it is totally plausible that Frank and Dodd protected Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac even during a "Republican majority". You tell me. Republicans do not like to regulate so maybe Bush's efforts were just for show. Either way, Democrat / liberal thinking got us into this financial mess and liberal thinking will continue to cause problems. Since the plan has not changed that much (as far as the financial bailouts, etc.) from Bush to BO, it kind of makes me think that there is some higher authority pulling the strings. Our government may already be under the control of China or Saudi Arabia for all we know. We are just a bunch of consumers who think they are still free and control their own destiny when that could probably not be farther from the truth. Our enemies are using capitalism and our lust for goods and services to bury us.

• SeanRenaud said on Apr 19, 2009....

  There hasn't been any time for significant change yet.  I'll be honest.  IF the banks aren't regulated almost EXACTLY as I've mentioned within the first year (baring something else going majorly wrong to distract him) I'll be pissed.  The same goes for Amnesty without serious enforcement.  The only thing I'll say about that was hey Bush tried it too.  Which doesn't make it right it makes it inevitable.

Comment on "President Obama's Achilles Heel"

Currently tagged	politics President Obama gas prices 10 years No 2nd term president Climate (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment