This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Barack Obama

16791112105

Comments

  • Barack is coming to my town I will go to do some volunteering.
  • I thought he already had the nomination.
  • Looks like Clinton is going to drop out.
    Best birthday present ever!
  • edited June 2008
    Looks like Clinton is going to drop out.
    Sen. Hillary Clinton will hold an event with supporters by Friday, likely ending her historic bid for the White House and ceding the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama, ABC News has learned.
    From what I remember from English class we can parse this sentence by ignoring everything between the commas as speculation on behalf of the writer. Clinton has not announced any desire to drop out. I see this as the media trying to force Clinton to drop out, something they have been trying to do since Iowa. Clearly she should "stay in it to win it".

    It aint over until Hillary says it is over

    What's the deal with Dean, Pelosi and Reid setting a Friday deadline for superdelegates' choices in a move to force an end to Clinton bid? If Obama has enough delegates to win the nomination at the convention what does it matter if Hillary concedes now or later? What are they worried about? What would they do if those remaining supers decide to go for Hillary? Maybe those supers think something might happen to Obama and want to keep Hillary around just in case?
    Post edited by HMTKSteve on
  • edited June 2008
    Or it ain't over until she's, you know, mathematically eliminated.
    If Obama is the nominee, they don't want Hilary dragging him through the mud for another month.
    Post edited by Starfox on
  • Or it ain't over until she's, you know, mathematically eliminated.
    According to the rules, it's not over until the convention has a nominee. Once the first ballot is cast, all bets are off. Theoretically Al Gore could walk away with the nomination...
  • Another point would be that alternative energy sources will become competitive eventually, and rather soon. When this transition happens you basically ended up spending money on accessing oil you don't need anymore and will never use again. The question is just when it will happen, at it would be a whole lot cheaper if it happened sooner than later and of course you would save a lot of money if you didn't more or less waste the money on the domestic drilling plan in the first place.
    What energy sources are coming down the line that are cost competitive to oil that can serve the same purposes? Now, I may be mis-informed on this subject as I haven't had to look into it for about 2 or so years. But to my understanding major consumers of fuel are automotive in America. So lets talk about cars. From what I remember, fuel cells are a joke due to the fact that the hydrogen economy doesn't do what was claimed a few years ago. (it takes more energy to produce the hydrogen then it releases...common sense cant create or destroy energy just change forms, so you still need a power plant to supply energy to get hydrogen) and traditional batteries face the same problem. So lets say the fuel cell/traditional electric cars become cost competitive with normal vehicles on an energy basis for production (possible) where does the energy come from? You now have shifted your energy demand to power plants that are still carbon based (natural gas, coal). In addition the transportation cost of that energy from power plants. Now, do we shift all our energy production to nuclear? How is that public policy wise? What do you do with the waste? Nuclear is just as expensive as carbon base sources are so cost for driving does not go down. Perhaps we invent fusion energy? Unlikely soon. Reduce energy costs in other areas non automotive to reduce total burden on energy plants? With what? Windmills and solar panels? Tidal energy? Now, Im not saying Im right here but to MY understanding the energy issue was a fucker with no good solution barring a major, unforeseen, break through. And the way you guys are talking im horribly wrong here so I want to know whats up.
  • Well, nuclear needs to be pushed harder; costs are pretty much equal to carbon-based sources at the moment, which is better than any other energy source.
    Given the impact of carbon, and the fact that carbon costs will continue to increase, nuclear is certainly a good option.

    In the area of motor vehicles, there is nothing anywhere near as competitive with teh carbon though.
  • Those pesky hydrocarbons. Why must they be so full of energy?
  • Why can't we run our cars on love?

    Or, failing that, hate?
  • Or, failing that, hate?
    Ding.
    image
  • Y'know, there's enough geothermal energy sources in this country to completely power everything in the US for centuries, and it's relatively cheap (look at the Scandanavian implementations). Combined with electric cars, it would be a viable energy source. Why do hydrogen and ethanol get all the love? There have already been working, and incredibly popular, fully electric cars, and the Earth's core has all the energy we'll ever need many, many, times over.
  • Y'know, there's enough geothermal energy sources in this country to completely power everything in the US for centuries, and it's relatively cheap (look at the Scandanavian implementations). Combined with electric cars, it would be a viable energy source. Why do hydrogen and ethanol get all the love? There have already been working, and incredibly popular, fully electric cars, and the Earth's core has all the energy we'll ever need many,many, times over.
    I know thee are crazies out there who think oil drilling removes the Earth's "lubrication" and leads to earthquakes. Are there similar geothermal kooks who think using that will somehow destroy the Earth too?
  • edited June 2008
    Or it ain't over until she's, you know, mathematically eliminated.
    I'm not sure about this (since, of course, I'm a crazy alarmist bigot), but it seems to me that it's already mathematically impossible for H to win.
    Remember when I wrote that Lawrence O'Donnelle said that H would drop out by June 15?
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • Or it ain't over until she's, you know, mathematically eliminated.
    I'm not sure about this (since, of course, I'm a crazy alarmist bigot), but it seems to me thatit's already mathematically impossible for H to win.
    Remember whenI wrote that Lawrence O'Donnelle said that H would drop out by June 15?
    Don't forget, pledged delegates don't have to vote for the person they are pledged to according to Democratic party rules. Something could happen between now and the convention that makes it very hard for Obama to win in November. By putting her campaign on hold, rather than conceding, she leavers herself open as an obvious savior in that situation.
  • edited June 2008
    Do you ever wonder why the Republicans are wishing so hard that H is the one nominated? Do you ever wonder why Republicans want H to continue her campaign and keep people away from Obama?

    Do you ever wonder why Republicans keep bringing up the ominous sounding "something might happen to Obama" ploy?
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • According to the rules, it's not over until the convention has a nominee. Once the first ballot is cast, all bets are off. Theoretically Al Gore could walk away with the nomination...
    You're right. 200 superdelegates could just change their minds between now and the convention.
  • edited June 2008
    Obama: The DNC will no longer accept lobbyist contributions.

    It's like . . . some kind of dream world. I keep thinking I'm going to wake up and it'll still be 2003. I'm gonna have to listen to a sad song or something, otherwise I'll die of happiness.

    The rest of the world loves him too.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • Obama: The DNC will no longer accept lobbyist contributions.

    It's like . . . some kind of dream world. I keep thinking I'm going to wake up and it'll still be 2003. I'm gonna have to listen to a sad song or something, otherwise I'll die of happiness.

    The rest of the world loves him too.
    He doesn't need any more PAC or lobbyist money! This is like stuffing your face full of cookies and then declaring you wont eat any more cookies.

    Will he give back all of the money he has gotten thus far from Special Interests? If he is serious about this he should give back all money that was not donated by an individual to his campaign.
  • Ninety-one percent of his money comes from individual contributions. He gets very little special interest or PAC money. Most of his money comes from people who are fed up with your type of government.
  • Ninety-one percentof his money comes from individual contributions. He gets very little special interest or PAC money. Most of his money comes from people who are fed up with your type of government.
    So you are with me in believing that he should give the $1,301,378 he raised via PACs back? Should the DNC as an entity also give back all the PAC money it raised?

    McCain has only raised $960,990 via PACs.

    PACs and lobbyists are not just corporations. The Sierra Club is a just as much a lobbyist as Ford or GM. Should all these entities be silenced in American politics?
  • Should all these entities be silenced in American politics?
    I think that's the point we are getting at. And the answer is yes.
  • Should all these entities be silenced in American politics?
    I think that's the point we are getting at. And the answer is yes.
    Have you thought through the ramifications of this?
  • You mean how private companies will no longer have any ground to be able influence politics in their favor? How there will no longer be any conflict of interest? How political decision will no more be made based on money but rather by best interest?
  • edited June 2008
    Should all these entities be silenced in American politics?
    I think that's the point we are getting at. And the answer is yes.
    Have you thought through the ramifications of this?
    Yes, and I'm so sad for the PACS, corporations, and lobbyists. My heart cries out for them and I shed this little tear: :_(
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • Didn't he vote for the Patriot Act?
  • edited June 2008
    Yes, it's sad but true. You can't expect EVERY thing to be great about him, though. He IS human, after all.

    Wait . . . he IS human, isn't he?
    McCain has only raised $960,990 via PACs.
    I don't know if I believe that completely. I do know that McSame has taken $765K from Telecomm lobbyists. That should be at least mildly interesting to people who use the interwebs.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • Am I mistaken or are you guys getting either the oldest or the youngest U.S. president ever?
  • Yes, it's sad but true.You can't expect EVERY thing to be great about him, though. He IS human, after all.

    Wait . . . he IS human, isn't he?

    McCain has only raised $960,990 via PACs.
    I don't know if I believe that completely. I do know that McSame has taken$765K from Telecomm lobbyists.That should be at least mildly interesting to people who use the interwebs.I got that number from the same site you posted a link to.

    Are you forgetting that Unions are also lobbyists?
Sign In or Register to comment.