Seeing Through John McCain--Even From Afar

posted by John Nichols on 08/13/2008 @ 1:25pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (105)

Subscribe Now

Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili is on to John McCain's games.

Despite the fact that Saakashvili has quite a bit on his mind this week, the leader of the former Soviet state that has been invaded by Russian forces was able to cut through the Republican presidential candidate's rhetoric and get to the heart of the matter: While McCain will say just about anything to get a headline, the Arizona senator is not exactly known for following through -- or even for remembering what he has said.

It is no secret in Washington that McCain has throughout his career in the House and Senate been willing to pontificate -- often at great length -- on topics with which he is entirely unfamiliar. Aides recount stories of times when the senator has agreed to do interviews without even asking what they were about.

McCain's accessibility and charm get him passes from reporters and fellow senators, who rarely hold him to account.

But Saakashvili is taking McCain's statements rather more seriously than Americans do.

McCain told a crowd in Pennsylvania Tuesday that he had spoken with the embattled Georgian, telling the president: "Today, we are all Georgians."

Saakashvili's response: "Yesterday, I heard Sen. McCain say, ‘We are all Georgians now.' Well, very nice, you know, very cheering for us to hear that, but OK, it's time to pass from this. From words to deeds."

The deed Saakashvili would prefer is a move by the United States to take the lead in installing an international peacekeeping force.

"We should realize what is at stake here for Americans," Saakashvili told CNN. "America is losing the whole region."

Of course, if McCain were to propose such a move, he would open a whole new debate about reopening the Cold War -- or perhaps something a bit hotter -- and it is unlikely that American voters, already wary about our foreign entanglements, would be very enthused about a perilous mission in The Caucasus.

So Saakashvili should probably be satisfied with the words he has gotten from John McCain.

That may by unsettling. But Saakashvili can comfort himself with the recognition that, of late, this is all McCain has been giving Americans.

Comments (105)

Geez, John, what is this? A Seinfeldian column about nothing? If McCain was to translate his support into military action, nobody would be crying worse than you lefties. So what, exactly, is your problem?

As for the rest of the column - offering words instead of deeds - what about Obama? That guy has the thinnest resume on the planet. He's nothing BUT hot air. Are you projecting?

Give us another column on impeachment or Valerie Plame or something, it may be a waste of everyone's time, but at least it's ABOUT something.

Posted by pontificus at 08/13/2008 @ 1:48pm
Geez, John, what is this? A Seinfeldian column about nothing? If McCain was to translate his support into military action, nobody would be crying worse than you lefties. So what, exactly, is your problem?

As for the rest of the column - offering words instead of deeds - what about Obama? That guy has the thinnest resume on the planet. He's nothing BUT hot air. Are you projecting?

Give us another column on impeachment or Valerie Plame or something, it may be a waste of everyone's time, but at least it's ABOUT something.

Posted by pontificus at 08/13/2008 @ 1:48pm
McCain has left himself wide open on this.

Although the British, American, and Norwegian oil companies benefit from the Georgian oil pipeline, Russia is supplying gas and oil to Germany, Denmark, Italy, and Greece, and these European countries are not going to cut off this supply to satisfy Georgia's desire to join NATO.

McCain is clearly being myopic on this, and would start a new cold war with Russia, even if it meant bankrupting the US economy and thumbing his nose at other European countries energy security needs.

The guy is an idiot!

Who cares what BP wants or Chevron oil when it comes to Georgia?

There is a much bigger picture here that needs to be acknowledged by McCain or exploited by Obama.

Posted by Metteyya at 08/13/2008 @ 2:11pm
Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/13/2008 @ 2:12pm

When is the last time The Nation did an interview with a candidate? I think he is taking about MSM sources who actually get interviews not places like the Nation.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/13/2008 @ 3:04pm
If Obama had only these wingnuts responding to this post to worry about, he'd be home free. Not one substantive argument in the bunch.

Posted by stefinmc at 08/13/2008 @ 3:18pm
Little actual refutation of the point from our friends on the Right, eh?

That's because, in their hearts they know Nichols is right (to paraphrase Goldwater's campaign slogan)...

and they don't care.

Few if anybody is actually SUPPORTING John McCain or even like or TRUST him. He's simply the "anti-Obama" "default".

Remember these are guys McCain has screwed over on numerous occasions, from calling LVLIB's friends "agents of intolerance" to cutting a deal with Feingold on campaign finance reform that HAPPY's mentor Rush loathed to coming up with a comprehensive immigration plan with Ted Kennedy that RIO BRAVO/RED RIVER would go apoplectic about.

But he's promised "strict Constructionalist judges"..."no new taxes"..."stay in Iraq until 'victory' (or atleast until he wins and learns that "the situation on the ground has changed...we can pull out in 16 months like Obama and al-Maliki wanted!")...

and he's NOT ...Barack Obama.

So they are happy to let him bluster and act tough and "Reaganesque" on Georgia/Russia...and if it's called out as so much rhetorical cotton candy...they have to change the subject back to their one and ONLY focus....Obama.

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/13/2008 @ 3:22pm
with socialistic beliefs cultivated in a racist church..... and this is just the surface... Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/13/2008 @ 3:27pm

I'm calling BS. Stop believe this Republican lie.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/13/2008 @ 3:32pm
I still can't believe people buy into this stuff. Like every time the other candidate is painted to be at the extremes of party which they rarely are. McCain is not a fascist. Obama is not a socialist. They are both pretty center. No body dares run a candidate who is even close to the extremes. If Obama was the socialist you believe him to be JOM he would not be appealing to the center in the least. Yet independents and center left Republicans are voting for him. I know you like to either believe or just perpetuate this ridiculously gross overstatement but I think your are smarter than that.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/13/2008 @ 3:36pm
A new cold war? Nah, it's still the the old one... McCain grew up and served at a time when the Ruskies were the ENEMY. Those pathways in his brain must be pretty well-worn.

Posted by mikecope at 08/13/2008 @ 3:43pm
" I helped you, Bushie, in Afghanistan,"

said Putin with a big grin on his face,

"and now on me you empty your bedpan?

Well, kiss it, yankeedoodle, at your pace."

Posted by chinpoko at 08/13/2008 @ 3:45pm
Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/13/2008 @ 3:27pm

MAASCH, let's be honest for one minute.

Obama's "inexperience" wouldn't matter a DAMN to you, if he was a libertarian-conservative Republican.

And throw race out (your lack of "Magic" indictative of no sign of that)...

if he was former MD Lt. Governor Michael Steele (just as lean a resume), you'd whole-heartedly support him, wouldn't you? And damn the "lack of experience".

As far as "socialist from a racist church"...that's hype on the order of "Bush is a Nazi". Obama hasn't called for ONE industry to be nationalized, his health care plan was LESS intrusive than Hillary's, and the charge of racism is as lean as the one against Trent Lott for saying something nice about Strom Thurmond.

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/13/2008 @ 3:56pm
>>>Shouldn't Europe worry about Europes energy security needs?

Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/13/2008 @ 3:19pm<<<

Yes...but to suggest that Russia can NOT be a supplier of Europe's energy because some birdbrain neocon wants to continue living in the past is ridiculous.

We are NOT going back to the cold war, and if John McCain does not understand the importance of moving forward, he should not be running for president.

Posted by Metteyya at 08/13/2008 @ 4:01pm
Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/13/2008 @ 3:59pm

Okay, MAASCH, just to show where you set your qualifiers.......

name five "centrists" (in your view)?

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/13/2008 @ 4:05pm
Bush once said he that upon looking into Putin's eyes he saw "his soul" while McCain said he saw "three letters: K-- G-- B."

"Yes, I saw that," McCain said Tuesday.

Posted by Metteyya at 08/13/2008 @ 4:31pm
Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/13/2008 @ 3:59pm

We will go point by point I guess.

Notice I didn't point out the experience. I have spoken to Frank about experience so your point in bringing this up is useless. Google my review of experience.

"I believe anyone who does want the economy to grow, and a growing economy needs energy(not windmills),but his policy results in not tapping the KNOWN drilling areas here for oil when at the same time laments sending more dollars over to the ME is in the center..."

This is particularly funny. Why is the only acceptable source of energy for you oil? Renewable energy is the future. I know you and Happy have a problem accepting change but you should recognize that oil is not the future. First we will use wind farms, tidal farms, solar and any other alternative means. The we will use nuclear fusion. Then sustained fusion. That is the future of energy consumption. Why is it you believe the only center is drill for more oil? Drilling won't solve or problems for another 15 years. Tidal farms can provide a good chunk of New Yorks energy needs in that time.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/13/2008 @ 4:50pm
do believe the DEMOCRATIC Party wants the AMericvan People to beleive Obama is the center, for other wise,... if they really knew what he wanted to do and he runs as a liberal progressive, he would lose in a land slide.. Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/13/2008 @ 3:59pm

The Democratic Party is not liberal. So why would they run someone as liberal? The Democratic party has some liberal people in it but overall the Democratic party just like the Republican party are very center.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/13/2008 @ 4:51pm
?I do not believe anyone who wants to rob the Strategic Resrves(the piggy bank) for a few barrles and believes it will lower oil prices is in the center..."

It's owned by the public for this very use. It's not robbery. Why would drilling for oil that won't be useable for 10-15 years drop the oil price more than using oil that is available NOW. Be logical about this.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/13/2008 @ 4:53pm
"I do not think anyone who advocates more govt control over the economy is center...."

I guess not. They are just a student of history who has seen what happens when you let companies run rampant.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/13/2008 @ 4:54pm
"and I do not believe anyone who believes Obama is center ..is in the center themself..they are self delusional..."

I am not delusional. I think you are so far right that anyone even slightly to the left of the Anti-Abortion, Pro-Big oil, Pro-war crowd is considered to be socialist. Socialist people tend to say they are socialist.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/13/2008 @ 4:56pm
"I believe anyone who does want the economy to grow, and a growing economy needs energy(not windmills),but his policy results in not tapping the KNOWN drilling areas here for oil when at the same time laments sending more dollars over to the ME is in the center..."

Also he JUST said he would be willing to compromise on drilling in order to push renewable initiatives also. If you believe that "windmills" aren't useable you should do some research on the wind farms in the North Sea. Which will soon provide entire cities energy needs. Combine that with the new tidal turbines being used in New York and you would have quite a bit of energy to help the market grow. If you dropped those tidal turbines in the Gulf Stream you could provide enough energy for the entire East Coast. You need to start thinking creatively instead of being so tied down to tradition that you believe that the ONLY way to power a country is with oil or coal. Do some research.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/13/2008 @ 5:04pm
Obama should be using McCain's KGB reference to box McCain into outdated thinking concerning our relationship with Russia and the rest of the world.

I would run this ad:

"McCain yearns for the good ole days, when the prospect of nuclear holocaust was everyone's mind (show mushroom cloud) and fear was in the air in each passing day.(show bomb shelters and emergency drills)"

"McCain seems prefers these days when the enemy lines were clear, and the the threat could be predicted and deterred by mutually assured destruction (show the red button)."

"But the Berlin wall has fallen (show people tearing down wall), and former communist nations have embraced free-market capitalism (show Russian trade ships and Chinese in stock market trading pit)."

"The new threat lurks in in caves and mountains (show bin laden and 9-11 towers falling), and strikes indiscriminately at any time (show embassy bombing and London subway attack) and in any manner."

"Though the threat has changed, John McCain is still living in the past. He sees K-G-B when he looks into the eyes of Russian leaders and seems to want to go backward with them to another cold war."

"Living in the past is no way to lead a great nation. It is time to turn the page on the politics of the past (show Obama speech stating this) and chart a new future for America and new leadership for the world. (show crowd from Berlin speech)"

"The cold war is over, John McCain, and if that makes you uncomfortable in these new and uncertain times, then it is time to step aside and allow new leadership to lead America."

"Barack Obama for president"

I am Barack Obama and I approve this message.

Posted by Metteyya at 08/13/2008 @ 5:05pm
I want to highlight this debate between Jom and I by the way. I don't consider myself extreme left but this is the difference between the left and the right. The left want to move creatively in different directions. The right want to move back or stay still along traditional lines. Those are the rolls of the parties in our country. The right preserves tradition, the left moves us forward in the areas we NEED to be moved forward. Doesn't always work that way but those are supposed to be the roles.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/13/2008 @ 5:23pm
Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/13/2008 @ 5:25pm

Yeah like your party doesn't have corruption. How about McCain's commitment to the nation during the Keating 5? Or his commitment to his first wife when he left her for a younger richer one.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/13/2008 @ 5:29pm
"If what you called "commitments" are like what ?you? got from BHusseinO during headier days, they aren't worth all that much, heh?"

Rarr! His middle name is like Saddam's last name! Rarr! Fear the "exotic" one!

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/13/2008 @ 5:49pm
Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/13/2008 @ 5:55pm It is for emergencys and for use if we are cut off from supplies...we have no emergency today... --- This isn't an emergency?

"On January 16, 1991, President George H.W. Bush announced the release of 34 million barrels of oil to stabilize prices during Operation Desert Storm. That day, oil sold for $32.25 a barrel. The day after the announcement, prices dropped 33.4 percent, one of the largest one-day drops in the history of recorded oil prices, to $21.48/barrel. Prices stayed low in conjunction with the release of oil reserves in nations across the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, averaging $19.46/barrel in February and $15.50/barrel in March.

The effect on gasoline prices was similar. While day-by-day data is unavailable, weekly averages show that regular gasoline prices across the country were approximately $1.27/gallon on the day of the announcement, but dropped to an average $1.11 in February, and $1.04 in March. These lower prices brought considerable savings to U.S. households. Over the 100 days post sale announcement, American families saved an average of $60 compared with what they would have spent had gasoline prices stayed at $1.27/gallon." --- Or let's just drill...

In May 2006, the U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS) published their offshore damage assessment: "113 platforms totally destroyed, and 457 pipelines damaged, 101 of those major lines with 10″ or larger diameter."

The 9 million gallons reported spilled were comparable with the Exxon Valdez's 10.8 million gallons, but unlike the Exxon Valdez, were distributed throughout Louisiana, Mississippi, and other Gulf Coast states, many in residential areas.

Posted by FLaim at 08/13/2008 @ 6:34pm
Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/13/2008 @ 5:55pm

"Oil will be around for another 100-200 years...if the left loons get their way, we will pay more for oil and have less avaialble here...and that WILL hurt our standard of living.."

Not in the US. Fusion is expected to be perfected in the next 50 years which means faster than that. Things change quickly. You point that there is more Oil than we have today is a guess. Just that. They don't know. They are speaking more hopefully.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/13/2008 @ 6:34pm
Adding a few gallons to a swiming pool does nothing to the pool...nor will a few barrels of oil affect the price which is determined by the demand and supply...your reserves could be drained in 1 year and not affect the price... Be logical about this.. Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/13/2008 @ 6:01pm

Problem is by all accounts from the prospectors they have said that there is not enough oil to get us more than 2-3 million barrels a day. We consume 20 million a day. That is not oil independence.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/13/2008 @ 6:35pm
There are groups who say there are tons of oil supplies. There are groups that say we are currently running out of oil. Neither knows. It is essentially just what you CHOOSE to believe. What I know is that oil can be gotten rid of in the next 100 years easily if we commit to actual change on this front instead of constantly dragging our feet because we don't want to give up our oil addiction.

If we kick our addiction to oil we will be truly independent and in the process can create millions of jobs in research and development as well as building the new technologies. On top of that we can export our materials and research to other countries. If you ask me THAT is economic growth. Create energy exports ourselves.

The US is the world's sole superpower and we have proven that we can be a vessel for positive change in this world because of our status. If we set our scientists to work on alternative fuels in the private industry we could easily achieve it in no time. The problem is right now renewable energy research is handicapped by the fact that we are beholden to oil and refuse to accept anything else. If the government gave the same subsidies to renewable as they did to oil things would move quicker.

Essentially THAT is all I want. I don't want the government to force renewable. I just want it to be treated fairly with oil. I don't want the government depriving renewable of the same opportunities as oil.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/13/2008 @ 6:44pm
Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/13/2008 @ 6:01pm

The offshore drilling link to lower prices was debunked this year with the "extraordinarily large" oil fields discovered off the coast of Brazil in November of 2007 and April 2008, the largest in history!

Despite the record size of these discoveries, oil prices marched higher every month since the discoveries to NEW RECORD HIGHS!

It is out-of-control futures trading that is controlling oil prices, NOT supply and demand.

This was made possible with the so-called Enron exemption that allowed commercial banks to play in the oil futures market and reduced trading margin requirements to less than 10% of the value of the security traded.

You have a much better chance of predicting oil prices by looking at the balance of long to short interest in oil futures contracts than supply and demand for the underlying oil.

If I were Obama, I would be hammering McCain everyday with this fraud he is pushing concerning reducing oil prices through off-shore drilling.

You can only reduce the prices if we go back to the pre-2000 trading rules before the Enron exemption.

Posted by Metteyya at 08/13/2008 @ 6:51pm
There is a much bigger picture here that needs to be acknowledged by McCain or exploited by Obama.

Posted by Metteyya at 08/13/2008 @ 2:11pm

If I were Obama, I would be hammering McCain everyday with this fraud he is pushing concerning reducing oil prices through off-shore drilling.

You can only reduce the prices if we go back to the pre-2000 trading rules before the Enron exemption.

Posted by Metteyya at 08/13/2008 @ 6:51pm

It is becoming obvious that you know absolutely nothing about either oil or about global trading including speculation.

You and CCC along with most of the left keep buying the spin from your anti-oil sources.

The intent to drill will drop prices $20-30 per barrell.

Drilling will bring in new supplies within 5 years after they start.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/13/2008 @ 7:09pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/13/2008 @ 7:09pm

LVL,

Don;t take my word for it - Google: "Tupi Field" and pay attention to the date this record-breaking offshore drilling discovery was made, and then go read your WSJ or IBD to track oil prices since this discovery.

Inverse correlation, right? Largest offshore drilling discovery in history = record INCREASES in the price of oil in the following 6 months!

Obviously, it is you and McCain's advisers that know absolutely nothing concerning the determination of oil prices.

It ain't how it used to be, in that supply and demand fundamentals only account for about $60 of the current $111 per barrel price of oil.

Gasoline prices are even more far removed from supply and demand, and are driven up in large measure by the intentional efforts of oil companies to not build more refineries.

Big oil and their bankers are the CHIEF cause of the ridiculously high price of oil and gas!

Posted by Metteyya at 08/13/2008 @ 7:19pm
"And I do not give a shit what the color is...

I would have voted, and still would, vote for Colin Powell.

Proven leadership, experience in war and peace, diplomatic....."

Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/13/2008 @ 4:08pm

Hey man...I've got black friends. So no matter how many covertly racist institutions I support, or how influenced I am by those institutions, you can't call me on my ignorance...uhm, cuz you know, I have black friends and all. Check this out (this is gonna blow your socialist minds) I would even vote for one of THEM! Shit!!!

Posted by ADHD at 08/13/2008 @ 7:32pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/13/2008 @ 7:09pm

Have you ever thought maybe you are just buying the spin from your pro oil people? You are telling me you are more likely to believe the people who stand to make Billions rather than the people who stand to make nothing either way? Hmm odd. I would usually go the other way.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/13/2008 @ 7:55pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/13/2008 @ 7:09pm

Also I quoted the best estimate from OIL companies. Not from some anti-oil people when I debunked this myth before.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/13/2008 @ 7:56pm
TAXES. Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/13/2008 @ 7:37pm

Weird considering oil companies are reporting record profits.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/13/2008 @ 7:59pm
Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/13/2008 @ 7:37pm

You are talking to a former futures trader, although I admit I stayed away from oil and focused on financial futures like bond futures.

The principal is the same.

No trader is expected to actually take physical delivery of the underlying commodity and you essentially have to roll over your positions to the next contract if you are playing short-term.

The current contract (the contract that is next to expire) is DIRECTLY related to the spot price of the commodity, and if you charted the spot price and the current contract, there is no difference between them at all.

So if the current contract expires in 15 days, am I really projecting out in the future what the price will be 15 days from now when I trade this contract today, or am I betting on current conditions?

The current contract is ALWAYS based on current conditions, and is almost like trading the spot of the underlying commodity.

Demand for oil futures, in particular, is not driven by speculation concerning future demand and supply of oil, as many of these hedge and equity funds, and banks are simply speculating that oil will continue to go up, regardless of supply and demand. This creates more demand for these buy contracts than supply, which has the effect of actually pushing up the price of the contract. Since the current contract is directly linked to the spot price, the spot price increases as well.

I know for someone who has never traded, this seems complicated, but what has actually occurred is demand to buy the contract has outstripped supply of these contracts, and THAT is what is causing oil prices to go up, not demand for the underlying oil.

Posted by Metteyya at 08/13/2008 @ 8:10pm
Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/13/2008 @ 4:13pm

MAASCH, you mentioned Colin Powell twice.

Given the new thread under "Campaign '08"....do you trust Powell's judgement?

What if he asks you (and the rest of us) to vote for Obama?

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/13/2008 @ 8:39pm
Sure, hardly anybody is gung-ho about McCain and he would LOSE to just about anybody....except Obama!----Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/13/2008 @ 4:19pm

Exactly. So if he wins, you've given the Presidency....to the WORST Republican (for you and Rush).

Yet (if he wins) he WILL be the winner and the President ...and Republicans will seek to imitate him...as the "way of the future".

Which means you and Rush get left in the dust.

Just mentioning the ONE upside to a McCain victory in November...hope you don't mind.

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/13/2008 @ 8:43pm
Here's a more or less disinterested foreigner's view of Obama and McCain's response to the conflict between Russia and Georgia.

Andrew Bolt

August 13, 2008 12:00am

"WE have just had a lesson in how the next president of the US would react to a real menace to the world's peace.

Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain were set a test with Russia's invasion of Georgia.

The results? Be terrified that Obama leads in the polls........"

more at http://tinyurl.com/6m6ksk

Posted by lrjones4 at 08/13/2008 @ 10:24pm
The results? Be terrified that Obama leads in the polls........"

more at http://tinyurl.com/6m6ksk----Posted by lrjones4 at 08/13/2008 @ 10:24pm

What was "superior" about McCain's position on Georgia over Obama's?...specifically?

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/13/2008 @ 10:46pm
Yeah right... the Georgia prez, like the heads of the France, Germany, Italy, etc, back in 2002, is LIBERAL WRONG DUMB FOOLISH

Then there's the neocon scorched earth other come back ---(Geez, John, what is this? A Seinfeldian column... blahhhhh) -- blame the messenger.

Ponty/Happy/Jommy--Dittoheads keeeeeeep ditto'n!

Posted by winyahn at 08/13/2008 @ 11:16pm
For now words is all John McCain has but if he gets power and he continue with this bellicosing approach to foreign policy his words may actually be powerful enough to ignite a war. While that may sound like a complement its NOT. Its a NIGHTMARE that could be just around the corner if McCain takes office. The guy needs to be MUZZLED I can see why he doesnt speak for his own campaign there is nothing attractive about a leader that shoots his mouth off straight talk be damned you and I can have straight talk but a leader should THINK before they speak. McCain has nasty habit of not only speaking off the cuff he also doesnt remember the next day that he says something.

Today he said that countries shouldnt invade other countries in the 21 century. Did Lieberman or someone whispered in his ear Johnnny Boy thats EXACTLY what we did in Iraq and we FAKED documents to justify it that made what we did even WORSE. BUt here is Johnny Mac shooting his mouth off. Tomorrow when they question him about that he wont remember saying it and it just gets swept under the rug and he continues on.

Carol

Posted by harriscrl3 at 08/14/2008 @ 01:46am
Seems it's not just the wrinkly one that is stuck in the Cold War years. Some here are having almost McCarthy-like fantasies of a vast and desperately well-concealed Socialist Conspiracy!

Right-wingers, here's some advice:

Assertions mean nothing. Just saying something doesn't make it true without solid evidence. Abusive style alienates but does not win others over.

Posted by mikecope at 08/14/2008 @ 02:24am
Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/13/2008 @ 8:10pm

No I understand perfectly. Bush has lowered taxes like you have asked yet there is no economic growth. He has helped oil companies left and right yet oil prices rise. Oil prices rise yet oil companies make record profits. As I understand if the price of making our product continues to rise and you continue to raise your prices exactly in accordance then it should mean your profits do not rise. That you stay at an equal profit because your are only raising your prices in order to pay for the increase in cost. Something else is OBVIOUSLY happening here beyond supply and demand, increased taxes and increased cost per barrel. It has yet to be adequately explained why the oil companies are showing record profits even during a time when their cost to produce is at the highest ever. Me thinks price fixing.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/14/2008 @ 06:00am
Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 08/14/2008 @ 09:58am

1. If Obama's church is blatently racist...why do some white people attend it? Masochism?

2. Given your opinion on "collectivist"...was Franklin Roosevelt a "collectivist"?

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/14/2008 @ 10:28am
5) John McCain (which is why I dislike him)----Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 08/14/2008 @ 10:00am

Which McCain? Pre-2007 "Maverick John" or the one running for President?

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/14/2008 @ 10:29am
Check out enviromental , EPA and various "studies" required to even start to build a refinery...10 year permit hassles with endless hearings and impact studies.

Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/13/2008 @ 8:03pm

let's skip all that.

let's build the refinery right next door to chez maasch.

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 11:30am
the biggest take on gas and oil prices is...

TAXES.

Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/13/2008 @ 7:37pm

not at all.....

here in "socialist" ontario, 28¢ per litre is tax.

22%, currently.

nope monetary devaluation is the real problem.

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 11:33am
The results? Be terrified that Obama leads in the polls........"

Posted by lrjones4 at 08/13/2008 @ 10:24pm

isn't it great how they timed this for mr. obama's vacation?

democracy in action!

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 11:35am
The results? Be terrified that Obama leads in the polls........"

Posted by lrjones4 at 08/13/2008 @ 10:24pm

isn't it great how they timed this for mr. obama's vacation?

democracy in action!

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 11:36am
the biggest take on gas and oil prices is...

TAXES.

Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/13/2008 @ 7:37pm

JM got it exactly right and the lefties as usual are completely wrong.

Here is a 2008 1st half financial picture of Exxon

"Capital and exploration project spending increased to $7.0 billion in the second quarter, up 38% from last year. For the first half of 2008, spending on capital and exploration projects was $12.5 billion."

If the trend continues, Exxon will spend about $25 billion this year on capital and exploration, the highest amount in history (see top chart above). Where are the media reports on Exxon's "record capital and exploration spending?"

The bottom chart above shows some of Exxon's financial results for the first half of 2008, comparing profits, income taxes paid, and capital and exploration expenditures. Note that Exxon has spent more so far this year on income taxes ($20b) and capital expenditures ($12.5b) combined ($32.50) than it made in profits ($22.5b) this year.

Further, note that Exxon's tax rate so far this year is 47%, based on earnings before tax (EBT) of $42.4b and income tax payments of $19.8b, up from last year's rate through the first half of 42.5%."

http://tinyurl.com/Exxontaxes

BTW, the blogger got the tax rate wrong. Exxon's fin'l report showed a tax rate of 49% for the 1st half of 2008.

"The effective income tax rate increased to 49% versus 44%."

And who pays those taxes?-we do at the pump. As I constantly harp on, corporate taxes are paid by consumers, not corporations. That's why Europe is reducing their corp tax rates.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/14/2008 @ 11:49am
let's skip all that.

let's build the refinery right next door to chez maasch.

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 11:30am

Tell me how many people are living in ANWR?

Answer-Zero

Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/14/2008 @ 12:05pm
Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/14/2008 @ 11:01am

Hey, HAPP, how's this for an Occam's Razor theory...

Obama's church isn't racist, and therefore white attendees don't feel disparaged by attending it?

No...wait....that would reject both a complex and inane theory of "white guilt liberals wanting to flagellate themselves in a near-Farrakhan-style black church"....and that Rush and Sean and your other mentors are wrong.

Sorry...my bad.

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/14/2008 @ 12:10pm
Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/14/2008 @ 11:04am

So McCain is just "stretching himself to the Right"?

I thought you were the one saying that McCain would become even MORE conservative if elected? Back off from belief in doing something about global warming...campaign finance...."amnesty for illegals", etc.?

If he wins on appearing as a centrist/moderate....why will he move further to the Right as President?!?!?!???

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/14/2008 @ 12:12pm
Tell me how many people are living in ANWR?

Answer-Zero

Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/14/2008 @ 12:05pm

so, now you want to build a refinery in anwr?!?!??

"hey, god. your work sucks. we's gonna fix it with some oil rigs and spill oil all over your tundra. and fuck your caribou!"

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 12:59pm
Explain how the drop in oil prices, from ~$145 to $115 (just shy of 20%), correlate to the sub-5% in the US Dollar over the past month or so?

Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/14/2008 @ 11:47am

well, that's the speculators.

the other problem.

sure demand is up. but not that up.

compare oil to the euro since 2003.

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 1:01pm
"hey, god. your work sucks. we's gonna fix it with some oil rigs and spill oil all over your tundra. and fuck your caribou!"

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 12:59pm

Sometimes you really are loonie.

We have never had a spill in the Prudhoe oil fields.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/14/2008 @ 1:02pm
and then there's the global economic "slowdown":

"The U.S. index of industrial production peaked at 116.4 in June 2000 and then fell to 109.1 by December 2001; the price of West Texas crude simultaneously fell from $32 to $19. U.S. industrial demand for petrochemicals declined, and so did the related need for fuel used to transport industrial supplies and products.

Similar effects were magnified worldwide. Falling industrial production in any region has the same effect on oil prices, so crude fell from $25 to $12 in the wake of the Asian currency crisis of 1997-98."

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 1:08pm
and then there's the bushies saying "well, iran isn't so bad, after all".

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 1:09pm
jm,

we'll call those the "tar sands" for a reason.

the whole scam is a crime against humanity.

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 1:10pm
1998 - 1999: BP and Contractors Pay $25 Million in Penalties for Illegal Reinjection ofHazardous Wastes – The re-injection rules are clear: nothing is to be re-injected beneath the frozen substrate of the North Slope that did not originate there, and nothing toxic is to be re-injected. Nevertheless, for years barrels of hazardous foreign substances, such as glycol and paint thinners, were brought to the Endicott production facility, on a man-made island 18 miles northeast of Prudhoe Bay, for re-injection. When an intrepid worker questioned this practice in 1995, BP characterized the re-injection as two isolated incidents. But in reality, the illegal disposal was ongoing and took place only at night. After an extended investigation BP, its drilling contractor Doyon Drilling and three workers paid $1.55 million in criminal fines and were placed on criminal probation for five years. BP paid an additional $6.5 million in civil penalties, while BP and Doyon Drilling agreed to spend anadditional $17 million to improve their environmental compliance programs

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 1:15pm
March 2006: Oil Spill at Prudhoe Bay – Oil had been leaking for five days from a corroded pipeline between facilities at Prudhoe Bay when a worker driving a deserted stretch of road in the Prudhoe Bay oil field noticed a strong petroleum odor and stopped to investigate. Between 1996 and 2004, exploration and production operations in the sprawling Prudhoe Bay complex resulted in an average of more than 500 reported oil spills annually, but this one – estimated at approximately 200,000gallons – was by far the biggest oil spill in nearly three decades of North Slope petroleum production. Failures of BP's field pipeline corrosion monitoring and leak detection systems resulted in a thick layer of black crude oil that spread over the cold mantle of ice and snow, covering an area slightly larger than a football field. In the wake of the spill, previously quiescent government monitors are now requiring better maintenance to prevent future spills. An EPA criminal investigation is ongoing and a state oil pollution fine may be levied

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 1:16pm
oil, oil.

talk oil to me.

it makes me hot!

THE SUN! IT'S HOT!

remember, oil IS solar energy.

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 1:17pm
There is about a spill a day at Prudhoe Bay. The Prudhoe Bay oil fields and Trans-Alaska Pipeline have caused an average of 409 spills annually on the North Slope since 1996 (Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation spill database 1996-1999). Roughly 40 different substances from acid to waste oil are spilled during routine operations. Over 1.3 million gallons spilled between 1996 and 1999, most commonly diesel and crude oil. Diesel fuel is acutely toxic to plant life.

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 1:20pm
A study of diesel spills in Alaska's arctic found that 28 years later there were still substantial hydrocarbons in the soil and little vegetation recovery. The Exxon Valdez studies show petroleum hydrocarbons pose higher risks to fish and wildlife than previously known and that there is long-lasting ecological damage. Prudhoe Bay is a major source of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. The oil industry on Alaska's North Slope annual emits approximately 56,427 tons of oxides of nitrogen, which contributes to smog and acid rain. This is more than twice the amount emitted by Washington, DC (EPA National Air Pollutant Emissions Trends1900-1998, 2000). North Slope oil facilities release roughly 24,000-114,000 tons of methane, a greenhouse gas. Substances associated with Prudhoe Bay drilling operations, natural gas facilities, and incinerators were detected in accumulated snow in the area. Despite improvements in drilling waste disposal techniques over the years, problems remain: During horizontal drilling of the Colville River pipeline crossing for Arco's Alpine field, 2.3 million gallons of drilling muds disappeared under the river in 1998. It is unknown where they ended up and if they will ultimately pollute Alaska's largest arctic river. At Endicott, contractors for British Petroleum illegally disposed of hazardous drilling wastes containing benzene and other toxics for at least three years until a whistleblower came forward. Some of the waste reached the surface and workers were exposed to hazardous fumes.

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 1:21pm
In February 2000, BP was ordered to pay $15.5 million in criminal fines and to implement a new environmental management program, and to serve 5-years probation for its failure in reporting the dumping. BP also paid $6.5 million in civil penalties. Its contractor pled guilty to 15 counts of violating the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and paid a $3 million fine. A huge cleanup job remains across the North Slope.

For example: Hundreds of old exploratory and production drilling waste pits have yet to be closed out and the sites restored. More than 55 contaminated sites associated with the oil industry exist on the North Slope (Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation). Many gravel pads are contaminated by chronic spills. Oil companies will not re-use gravel from many abandoned sites due to concerns about contamination. Although there have been some pilot studies of rehabilitation techniques for gravel pads in the arctic oil fields, the technical or economic feasibility of restoring the tens of thousands of acres of roads and drilling sites has yet to be proven.

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 1:21pm
Sometimes you really are loonie.

We have never had a spill in the Prudhoe oil fields.---Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/14/2008 @ 1:02pm

"March 2006: Oil Spill at Prudhoe Bay – Oil had been leaking for five days from a corroded pipeline between facilities at Prudhoe Bay when a worker driving a deserted stretch of road in the Prudhoe Bay oil field noticed a strong petroleum odor and stopped to investigate. Between 1996 and 2004, exploration and production operations in the sprawling Prudhoe Bay complex resulted in an average of more than 500 reported oil spills annually, but this one – estimated at approximately 200,000gallons – was by far the biggest oil spill in nearly three decades of North Slope petroleum production."----Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 1:16pm

So, LVLIB, your apology to FZ will be forthcoming?

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/14/2008 @ 1:22pm
Proponents of drilling in the Arctic Refuge point to the Prudhoe Bay oil fields as an example that development would not harm the environment. Consider these facts:

Since the Prudhoe Bay oil discovery in 1968, the oil industry has dramatically transformed a vast arctic wilderness. Prudhoe Bay and 18 other producing oil fields sprawl over more than 1,000 square miles of America's Arctic-- an area the size of Rhode Island. Today the North Slope oil fields include 3,893 exploratory and producing wells, 170 production and exploratory drill pads, 500 miles of roads, 1,100 miles of trunk and feeder pipelines, 2 refineries, many airports, many camps with living quarters for hundreds of workers, 5 docks and gravel causeways, and a total of 25 production plants, gas processing facilities, seawater treatment plants, and power plants. Many impacts exceed the Interior Department's predictions in a 1972 Trans-Alaska Pipeline EIS. Gravel mines extracted 400% more gravel. Oil companies drilled five times more wells. Road mileage was double. Gravel pads for drilling and oil facilities were predicted to cover 2,155 acres, but such infrastructure fills three times the area. Drilling proponents say that impacts will be small due to technological improvements. Despite advancements, there are unavoidable impacts from the latest North Slope oil development.

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 1:22pm
The industrial network continues to expand across the landscape each year with new drilling pads, roads, pipelines, processing plants, and other facilities and operations that add to the cumulative impact. Technological advances have reduced the size of individual drilling pads and some roads, but oil development unavoidably involves construction of many permanent industrial facilities and noisy operations spread across vast expanses of the landscape. No matter how well done, oil development would industrialize a unique, wild area that is the biological heart of the Arctic Refuge. Industry focuses attention on the direct "footprint" where facilities will be built but ignores the secondary and cumulative impacts of the industrial network on wildlife habitats.

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 1:22pm
or example: Roughly 22,000 acres of tundra wetlands, floodplains, and other habitats have been directly lost due to the oil fields and Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. But the impacts to wildlife and their tundra habitats extend well beyond the sites of constructed facilities. A study of major landscape impacts due to the Prudhoe Bay oil fields in Science found that secondary effects such as hydrological changes to wetlands lagged behind construction and the total area eventually disturbed greatly exceeded direct impacts. "The extent of disturbance greatly exceeds the physical "footprint" of an oil-field complex," according to caribou biologists Nellemann and Cameron (1998). Many studies recorded decreased caribou densities within 4-km of pipelines and roads and regional changes in calving distribution for the Central Arctic Herd at Prudhoe Bay. Prudhoe Bay air emissions have been detected nearly 200 miles away in Barrow, Alaska.

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 1:22pm
hey god,

lvliberty thinks you're a sucker!

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 1:23pm
So, LVLIB, your apology to FZ will be forthcoming?

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/14/2008 @ 1:22pm

Sure, I'll apologize, but the amounts are insignificant and worth the cost.

and the caribou information is bogus. the caribou herds have increased, not decreased.

"Photocensus results indicate net growth of the Central Arctic herd from 1978 through 2000 (Fig. 4.2). Within that long-term trend, however, there was an abrupt decrease from 1992 to 1995. This decrease coincided with calf production estimates at or below approximately 70%. Steady growth thereafter was associated with productivity estimates consistently exceeding 70%"

http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/section4part1.htm

From the Alaska State Senate Committee hearing on Prudhoe Bay leak

"MR. DIETRICK said the last topic began on page 15 of the DEC handout. It discovers the status of the two cleanups of the two events from last summer, the GC2 (Gathering Center 2) spill and FS2 (Flow Station 2) spill. He said the cleanup and restoration of both sites are complete and additional monitoring and restoration, if needed, will be conducted next summer.

He reported that the impacts at both sites are deminimis and there were no wildlife impacts. They were very manageable cleanup events because of the flat terrain on the North Slope and because the second-largest oil spill co-op (Alaska Clean Seas)in the state is there. He described the trimmer and brushing cleanup activities techniques on the tundra and the revegetation efforts on GC2."

http://tinyurl.com/69pgyt

Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/14/2008 @ 2:41pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/14/2008 @ 2:41pm

you hate god's creation.

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 3:30pm
you want to destroy yellowstone's brother

for 5%!!!!!!!!!

pathetic.

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 3:31pm
you hate god's creation.

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 3:30pm

Absolutely not. That's why I'm happy that the caribou herds have increased (as long as there is enough vegetation to support them).

Like most extremists, you constantly mouth off that conservatives want to breath dirty air, drink contaminated water and live with increased pollution. It just shows the bankrupt thinking that permeates your attitude.

Conservatives care as much as anyone about the environment. We are just more responsible in balancing mankind's needs with overt and often unneccessary extremist legal action driven by environmental wackos like yourself.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/14/2008 @ 3:41pm
Sure, I'll apologize, but the amounts are insignificant and worth the cost.----Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/14/2008 @ 2:41pm

So, it's up from "Never" to "insignificant and worth the cost"?

Where was your "never" estimate from, LVLIB? Institute for Creation Research?

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/14/2008 @ 3:41pm
environmental wacko?

here, see what my fellow wackos are doing:

SHANGHAI, China -- China is raising its sales tax on big cars to as high as 40 percent, and drastically cutting taxes on small cars, in its latest attempt to combat emissions that contribute to heavy blankets of smog over most of its cities.

<<<<<<>>>>>>>

TORONTO (Reuters) - Smog-related deaths are set to soar to more than 700,000 in Canada over the next two decades, the Canadian Medical Association said on Wednesday.

Long- and short-term exposure to air pollution will kill at least 21,000 Canadians this year, the CMA said in landmark study into health costs of poor air quality. That is much higher than a government estimate of 5,900 premature deaths linked to pollution.

"This report shows that things don't seem to be getting better," Dr. Brian Day, the CMA's president, said in an interview.

"And in fact, in terms of the actual numbers, they seem to be getting worse," Day said.

The CMA estimates the costs of health care and lost productivity from air pollution will top C$8 billion ($7.5 billion) in 2008 and climb to C$250 billion by 2031.

<<<<<<>>>>>>>

A new world record has been set by a solar cell that converts 40.8 percent of light into electricity. The proud parents are scientists at the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Lab.

<<<<<<>>>>>>>

"A person's 'carbon footprint' is the amount of greenhouse gases put out as a result of his or her energy use. That includes energy used directly, like electricity and fuel, as well as the energy it takes to make all the products you use. Are you personally doing anything to reduce your carbon footprint, or not?"

Yes 71 No 28 Unsure 1

ABC News poll. July 23-28, 2008. N=1,000.

<<<<<<>>>>>>>

wackos unite!

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 3:59pm
Conservatives care as much as anyone about the environment.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/14/2008 @ 3:41p

and you have negro friends, too!

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 4:00pm
the caribou are just one small piece in a vibrant ecosystem.

just took a google-earth tour of prudhoe bay.

it looks like sarnia!

http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/image/vbig/173.jpg

<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>

Thank God men cannot fly, and lay waste the sky as well as the earth.

~Henry David Thoreau

There is a sufficiency in the world for man's need but not for man's greed.

~Mohandas K. Gandhi

Because we don't think about future generations, they will never forget us.

~Henrik Tikkanen

We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.

~Native American Proverb

Economic advance is not the same thing as human progress.

~John Clapham, A Concise Economic History of Britain, 1957

The insufferable arrogance of human beings to think that Nature was made solely for their benefit, as if it was conceivable that the sun had been set afire merely to ripen men's apples and head their cabbages.

~Savinien de Cyrano de Bergerac, États et empires de la lune, 1656

Oh Beautiful for smoggy skies, insecticided grain, For strip-mined mountain's majesty above the asphalt plain. America, America, man sheds his waste on thee, And hides the pines with billboard signs, from sea to oily sea.

~George Carlin

When you defile the pleasant streams And the wild bird's abiding place, You massacre a million dreams And cast your spittle in God's face.

~John Drinkwater

We could have saved the Earth but we were too damned cheap.

~Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

It is horrifying that we have to fight our own government to save the environment.

~Ansel Adams

For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.

~Richard P. Feynman

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 4:30pm
Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together. All things connect.

~Chief Seattle, 1855

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 4:31pm
God forbid that India should ever take to industrialism after the manner of the west... keeping the world in chains. If [our nation] took to similar economic exploitation, it would strip the world bare like locusts.

~Mahatma Gandhi

egad!

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 4:31pm
The word "wilderness" occurs approximately three hundred times in the Bible, and all its meanings are derogatory.

~René Dubos, The Wooing of Earth, 1980

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 4:32pm
We must rape ANWR to keep the pentagon war machine running!

~Pastor Larry.

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 4:33pm
ABSTRACT. Bioassay experiments were conducted to determine the relative susceptibilities of three arctic zooplankton species to oil pollution, and the results were compared with the effects of an actual oil spill on a pond near Barrow. In both the bioassays and the pond, the addition of Prudhoe Bay crude oil was toxic to fairy shrimp (Branchionecta paladosa O. F. Müller), which seemed most sensitive, Daphnia middendofiana Fischer, which was next most susceptible and Heterocope septentrionalis Juday and Muttkowski, which appeared somewhat resistant to the effects of oil. Cyclopoid copepods were the only common zooplankters able to survive the pond oil spill, and these were still present two and one half weeks after the spill. The rapid deaths of the other species, especially the branchiopods, suggest that zooplankton may be the most susceptible of all arctic freshwater organisms to oil pollution.

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 4:35pm
Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/14/2008 @ 4:11pm

Do you want to have to fight China and India for oil in the near future. Why is it a justification that because China and India use a lot of oil that means the US should? We aren't China. We aren't India. I don't give a damn what they use. They could be using fluffy white kittens to power their cars I don't take that to mean we should too.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/14/2008 @ 6:49pm
Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/14/2008 @ 5:59pm

MAASCH, aside from right-wing "information" sources, who are given talking points from Big Oil...

do you have anything to back up that contention that we're "stuck with oil" for the foreseeable future?

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/14/2008 @ 8:25pm
after all, it is part of nature and is as natural to use as wood.

Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/14/2008 @ 5:59pm

and arsenic as well!

mmmmm, all natural botulism.

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 10:18pm
oh, yeah.

wood is solar energy, too.

THE SUN! IT'S HOT!

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 10:18pm
They could be using fluffy white kittens to power their cars I don't take that to mean we should too.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/14/2008 @ 6:49pm

actually, the kittens would be grey.

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 10:19pm
do you have anything to back up that contention that we're "stuck with oil" for the foreseeable future?

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/14/2008 @ 8:25pm

MCCAIN/EXXON '08

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 10:20pm
NEOCONS lovers of dominion over fish, sea, brown people, CELEBRATE!

<i>Many coastal areas of the world's oceans are being starved of oxygen at an alarming rate, with vast stretches along the seafloor depleted of it to the point that they can barely sustain marine life, researchers are reporting.

Posted by winyahn at 08/14/2008 @ 11:21pm
NEOCONS --- regulation bad, dominion good!

Free market dominion good!

Believers in the good news rejoice!

More than 4,000 scientists from 100 countries... WHINERS! SOCIALISTS! Some species could be wiped out 100 times faster .. Wildlife extinction rates 'seriously underestimated' ... A Unique Species Goes Extinct Every 20 min ...

Posted by winyahn at 08/14/2008 @ 11:34pm
yo Frosty ---

MCCAIN/EXXON '08

likely, given:

MCCAIN/NBC '08/FOX '08/CLEAR CHANNEL '08/ABC '08

Posted by winyahn at 08/14/2008 @ 11:40pm
Posted by winyahn at 08/14/2008 @ 11:21pm

AL GAE '08

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/15/2008 @ 12:41am
"Do you want to have to fight China and India for oil in the near future. Why is it a justification that because China and India use a lot of oil that means the US should? We aren't China. We aren't India. I don't give a damn what they use. They could be using fluffy white kittens to power their cars I don't take that to mean we should too."

Cccomfo1 at 08/14/2008 @ 6:49pm

Of course you Americans can say that only because you think you are number 1 at everything, including GHG emissions. Coupled with that is your implication that China's and India's GHG emissions do the right thing and hover forever above those two countries.

You may not be aware of this but China with "good old coal fired" power stations is at present building two of these electricity generators that have the GHG emissions of about 2 million cars, every week. Coal produces more GHG for the same unit of power produced than the "hated" oil.

If you do a bit of research you will find that China has absolutely no intention of halting its drive to equal the wealth and prosperity of the West. That prosperity is based on industrialisation.

India in its latest government report makes industrialisation the priority for dragging its people (about one billion) up to the level of the West and is not convinced that AGW is occurring and even if it is, all its supposed disadvantages can be negated only by a technologically advanced industrialised India.

Thus if they can't keep their GHG over their own places it will matter little what you Americans, by way of heading back to the stone age do, India and China will have more than enough excess GHG to share with you and hence stuff up your dream of a pristine homeland paradise.

India reports:

http://tinyurl.com/64alyc

http://tinyurl.com/583rud

Posted by lrjones4 at 08/15/2008 @ 02:32am
Hi Fg,

Noticed your thing on dioxin somewhere and meant to respond. Our main social problem over here is teenagers (and their mums and dads) on the grog but if you Canadians are into the big D who am I to be judgmental?

In the distant past, when I was a hobby farmer, I remember one of the reps from Monsanto drank a glass of 2-4D to prove it was OK. Not sure if he got high on it though.

Posted by lrjones4 at 08/15/2008 @ 02:43am
What was "superior" about McCain's position on Georgia over Obama's?...specifically?

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/13/2008 @ 10:46pm

I guess you are the original Mask but if so you have left the devil's advocate posture to become a true believer.

Just posted it to show that one doesn't have to be a right wing American nut to question Obama's "reflexive response" if you please. And that seemed to me to be the point of the article.

The writer did add that Obama changed his position on contemplation but for those of us who deal with people, a person's "mental" reflex is a pretty good indicator of where that person is coming from, rather than a later rationalisation made in order to appear to be saying the "right" thing.

The writer obviously though McCain's heart, if not his head, was in the right place. So it was not the position on the issue but the integrity of the person that the writer had in view.

Posted by lrjones4 at 08/15/2008 @ 03:06am
Posted by lrjones4 at 08/15/2008 @ 02:32am

Uhh. You should try reading the rest of my posts and understanding them. My point is that I don't care what China does I don't use that as an excuse for America to not switch to renewable energy like wind, water and solar.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/15/2008 @ 04:16am
".. You should try reading the rest of my posts and understanding them. My point is that I don't care what China does I don't use that as an excuse for America to not switch to renewable energy like wind, water and solar."

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/15/2008 @ 04:16am

Yes I see the point you are making but the futility of fiddling around with boutique energy sources like solar and wind is thrown into sharp relief when one realises that the US, even at its present rate of GHG emissions, will soon become a relatively minor GHG emitter in comparison with the rising Asian giants, China and India.

As most countries have large supplies of coal, including China and India the future global GHG emissions are likely to be only upward. Though both countries and others are investing in solar and wind and work is being done on CO2 sequestration and steam production from "hot" underground rock formations (got a lot of those in outback Australia) etc, nuclear is at present about the only viable alternative to oil and coal fired power generation.

Unfortunately solar doesn't work when the sun doesn't shine and wind doesn't work when there is no wind or too much wind. Thus both are not only inefficient but also practically useless for base load power generation.

Add to that the UN demographers prediction that the world population will increase by about 2.5 billion over the next few decades and it is a no brainer to see that the relatively cheap fossil fuels will be the prime source of world power generation for many decades if not centuries to come. Particularly because the under developed world sees the enormous social advantages that industrialisation brings to a nation.

Posted by lrjones4 at 08/15/2008 @ 08:59am
and you have negro friends, too!

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 4:00pm

Frosty,

Unless I get an apology (which I don't expect) this is our last dialogue.

FU- I have a black/hispanic wife and 3 wonderful black/hispanic step-sons and an incredible extended family of African Americans.

You indeed are an ignorant idiot.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/15/2008 @ 11:53am
Posted by lrjones4 at 08/15/2008 @ 08:59am

Multiple points to make here. I know what China is doing. We can't stop them. We can't MAKE China and India do what we want. So you can complain to them all you want, they won't listen. They aren't going to be told what to do by a bunch of westerners.

The point about solar and wind. The sun shines enough everyday. Even with cloud cover solar will still work. The problem right now is the inefficiency of solar panels. They capture about less than 20% of the suns frequencies. They are close to creating a solar panel that will be 80% more efficient than coal for power purposes. Combine this with wind energy and tidal turbines and you can easily power cities. You may consider these "boutique" but they are already being implemented around the world and they places they are being expected to power keep growing and growing. The more you can complement oil use with the use of other power sources the less oil you have to use. On top of that you create more efficient electric cars and all of a sudden your oil use drop by half to 3/4.

Also this solution only has to last us 50-60 years. By that time Fusion will have become efficient enough to take over our grids. Then at that point fusion will only become more and more efficient using less and less water until we achieve sustained fusion. Oil won't be in or lives for centuries. Oil has maybe another 100-150 years before it's entirely phased out by much more efficient and much less damaging forms of fuel. Cars will be running off of many different types of power soon enough. The electric car is going to make a come back as battery power and engines become more efficient.

(Continued)

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/15/2008 @ 11:59am
The problem with many people who argue the inefficiency of solar or wind is that they argue it as if the technology will never grow. They have made leaps and bounds in the last 30 years. Imagine where they will be in another 100 as our technology grows. If the theories of electronics hold in the next 100 years the efficiency of energy devices like wind, water, fusion, solar will more than quadruple. Engines in electric cars will more than quadruple. You are speaking only to CURRENT technology without thinking about the future and where this technology will go.

Most futurists theorize that no sufficiently advanced culture can survive without finding an efficient and renewable method to power their society. That is where the theory of the dyson sphere or dyson ring came from. We are taking the first baby steps toward finding other ways to power our lives. I think by the end of my lifetime, I'm 21, we will start to see mid-sized cities taken off of oil completely and we will see a huge leap in changes of fuel use, whether it be hydrogen, they just released 200 hydrogen powered cars, electric or air.

The one thing you that is guranteed is that technology will never stagnate. We will continue to find more efficient and powerful devices to meet our needs.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/15/2008 @ 12:04pm
two years, ten months, and twelve days.

Posted by frosty zoom at 08/17/2008 @ 12:27am
Already said:

"What was "superior" about McCain's position on Georgia over Obama's?...specifically?

Posted by Maskdelta at 08/13/2008 @ 10:46pm

I guess you are the original Mask but if so you have left the devil's advocate posture to become a true believer.

Just posted it to show that one doesn't have to be a right wing American nut to question Obama's "reflexive response" if you please. And that seemed to me to be the point of the article.

The writer did add that Obama changed his position on contemplation but for those of us who deal with people, a person's "mental" reflex is a pretty good indicator of where that person is coming from, rather than a later rationalisation made in order to appear to be saying the "right" thing.

The writer obviously though McCain's heart, if not his head, was in the right place. So it was not the position on the issue but the integrity of the person that the writer had in view.

Posted by lrjones4 at 08/15/2008 @ 03:06am "

What delusion are you living in??? It's John McCain/insane who is exaggerated the situation, possibly involved in instigating the situation by having Georgia's paid lobbyist on his campaign staff and "speaking to President Saakashvili every day!" McCain wants to start another cold war, offers U. S. support presumptuously to Georgia, and then Georgia invades its neighbor!! Then when no U.S. aid or support arrives, Georgia gets whomped by Russia and is now pissed at us!

And exactly how does all this show the "leadership skills" or "experience" of John McCain???

Obama gave a measured thoughtful and PRESIDENTIAL response while on vacation.

McCain behaved presumptuously and reactionary and meddled in international affairs and postured like he was already the President !! Georgia's president seemed to catch on to McSenile's baiting him into a foolish act of aggression and called him out when he stated, " fine words, but now it's time to make words into deeds."

McCain = BULLSH*T candidate of HOT AIR.

Obama = Thoughtful, measured visionary president.

If you don't see this then you are not living in the real world.

Posted by Fireshadow at 08/17/2008 @ 10:45am
As for the one correct way to interpret the constitution, let's all remember interpretation. Check out The Federalist Papers and the conflit between Jefferson and Hamilton.

How arrogant of McCain or anyone else to claim the be THE ONE with the right interpretaion.

Posted by spikey11 at 08/17/2008 @ 2:31pm