Democratic debate

I yawned. I could not care one bit; seems it's too early for this. I saw Brian Williams on Letterman earlier this week, and he was mocking it.
Wake me when it's '08.

 

When Hillary stated she would pull out of Iraq.I think she won a lot of support right there.
When she talked about healthcare she exuded confidence of her subject. She has the experience and knowledge to fix the system.I cant imagine any other contender being taken as seriously on healthcare.
Obama didnt move me.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Apr 27 2007, 01:21 AM) [snapback]431048[/snapback]</div>

What he said. . .

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Apr 27 2007, 01:52 AM) [snapback]431054[/snapback]</div>

I don't understand her slip in the polls lately. No shots have been fired and no attacks have been launched and yet she took a rather healthy dip, whats up with that?

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Apr 27 2007, 05:50 AM) [snapback]431061[/snapback]</div>

Whats up with that?

1 White water
2 Cattle futures
3 FBI files
4 Travel office
5 Vince Foster
6 Missing Rose Firm records
7 The pardon of the FLAN TERRORISTS to get Latino support
8 I don't recall etc.

 

i honestly think - hope - the democratic candidate for president for '08 was not on that stage.

 

All dem defeato-crats talkin up there oughta be hunged for treason for disahgreen wit Gdub and supportin dem islamowhackos.

...Oh.... sorry. I thought I was back in the talk like a repub thread.

I didn't watch it. It's too early. I'm waiting for the gas price to go up to 4$ (as many in MSM are predicting). The reaction to that will have more effect on peoples voting in 08 than this debate and it'll depend on how MSM portrays it (Peak Oil or political/refinery problems/etc.)
It's very possible that MSM starts pushing peak oil fear (fear does sell well).
In doing so, staying in Iraq might actually become popular again.
Or more people will start listening to the boy mayor or Gore.

Again, it's too early to know.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Apr 27 2007, 01:52 AM) [snapback]431054[/snapback]</div>

In January 2009? :huh:
Wow, that Hillary has some seriously keen foresight! :blink:

Who knows . . . in January 2009, the troops could be moping up the last bits of resistance . . . yet there would be Hillary - fulfilling a 20 month old campaign promise and removing the troops, and thereby snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. How very Democrat of her.

I love it when politicians make wild statements like that. It just goes to show that they are strictly playing politics. Any potential voter who would vote for Hillary because of that statement is just blindly drinking from the cup labeled "cool-aid."
Even greater leadership abilities (yes, that's sarcasm) are shown when politicians demonstrate their 20/20 hindsight. "I would have never voted for that war if I would have known then what I know now."

No s**t, Sherlock!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Apr 27 2007, 01:06 PM) [snapback]431228[/snapback]</div>

u r 2 funny my friend - cant wait to crack that bottle of liberty school open tonight as i put the finishing touches on my ark. if this continues i will be kayaking into work monday.

have a nice weekend

david

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Apr 27 2007, 03:21 AM) [snapback]431048[/snapback]</div>

I mostly agree with you, but given how ridiculously early the primaries are this time around, it's almost appropriate that the debates begin now. The candidates will be basically decided by February 5.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Apr 27 2007, 02:07 PM) [snapback]431257[/snapback]</div>

jeez - perhaps we should invade another country for their oil - oops - seems like when we do that the price of oil goes up and up instead of down and down.

i thought the dems would be sensitive to the plight of the average american who has to fill up their gas tank - did not they touch on making gas prices go down or something like that last election.

funny how all 8 dems who "debated" last night flew in each on their private jet - so much for their concerns about agw :lol: i hear algore is still on his way there in his prius :blink:

 

And when repubs have their debate, I'm sure they'll ride their bicycles.
Do people still fall for the red herring of "Gee why did gas go up if we went in for the oil"?

We went there for future oil production, not present production. And higher oil and gas prices are desireable to oil companies worldwide, and hence desireble for bushco. And the disruption to pre war production helped this along. Also how many wars do you know of EVER that have caused an immediate reduction in the price of gas?

You're too smart to not to understand this, which is why I've always maintained that you are paid to post here.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Apr 27 2007, 10:02 AM) [snapback]431223[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Apr 27 2007, 10:06 AM) [snapback]431228[/snapback]</div>

Nah. He's afraid the Repubs will lose unless the Dems find an even worse candidate than the worst of the present crop. So he's hoping none of these gets the nod.

Personally, unless it's Obama on the Dem ticket, I don't think it matters which party wins. Capitalism guarantees a downward slide.

 

I've often wondered if what Saddam was threatening with releasing was oil rather than WMD. A release of non-US corporate cheap oil would have hurt Bush's oil buddies by lowering their recent record profits. Could Bush and CO be so callous?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Apr 27 2007, 03:16 PM) [snapback]431309[/snapback]</div>

you make my brain hurt - we went there for future oil production? perhaps we could have found easier targets for future oil production like anwr or perhaps the gulf of mexico or even off the coastlines of the US? or even shale oil technology?

why would we go into iraq for future oil production knowing it would be near impossible to get more out of the ground and into the refining process given the decades of neglect saddam perpetrated on his oil assets? not to mention how easy it is for terrorists to disrupt production/refining?

your last question is the basis for brain hurt i get when i hear ding dongs say this was a war for oil - he we could have invaded canada easier - you live in a world of flase constructs that makes my betz cells beeping.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Apr 27 2007, 02:32 PM) [snapback]431320[/snapback]</div>

Actually it was more the manner in which Saddam wished to sell his oil.
All oil is currently bought and sold with US dollars. That's a lot of currency we're talking about.
Saddam was proposing to start selling in alternate currencies, which would cause a glut of dollar liquidity, leading to a crash in the value of the US Dollar. These transactions were set to start just months after we invaded. Guess what, Iran has made the same threats. Every time they do, the Iran drum beat starts beating louder and they back off.

If the world oil market starts trading in Euros or Yen, an untold amount of US currency currently used to trade oil will get sold off, and the value will plummet, causing massive inflation.

 

Invading Canada would be easier? Who sounds like a dingbat now?
Mexico? They already send us all the oil they can and their fields are CRASHING at a 15% decline per year.
North shore oil is crashing, Saudi Arabia, until this year was the ONLY producer who had not peaked, and it appears they might have now, despite their attempts to hide that fact. Shale oil? Get a clue! the energy return on investment for Shale is terrible and won't hardly make a dent in our demand. Neither will Anwar, or deep oil drilling (also high EROI).

Saddams "neglected" production? That's why Iraq has the ONLY easily recoverable oil left (in major quantities) in the world! But it takes years to get a well and the transport and holding infrastructure up and running. Esp. when people are shooting at you!
You can deny it all you want, but 80% of the WORLD's easily recoverable oil is in Iraq or due east or west of Iraq. I have never even said we should get out myself, since peak oil is only going to increase the importance of the region and the importance of US military presence. I've only said we should have never went, and instead invested all that money into new non oil infrastructure here instead.

 

What amazes me is that even Bush supporters have no clear agreement why we invaded Iraq.They also have no idea what will constitute a victory enabling a withdrawal.
I think there are many reasons for the invasion ,underlying all is oil .
But there were ulterior motives which instigated the war.
IMO The original motive of the instigating neocons, Perle ,Krystal,Wolfowitz etc, was and is to protect the security of Israel.
Cheney the greedy bastard ,saw an opportunity to reap oil money for his buddies.Bush was guided by God to bring about an "Operation Crusade" leading to the end times, for his religious right constituency.
Israel felt threatened by WMDs from Iraq and Iran.Being the only US asset in a sea of oil I agree we should support them to a point.IMO we went way beyond that point.
But its funny that Israel is the only country in the world whose citizens poll in favor of the invasion.Yet the US will not allow them to participate.
I think as Dr Berman has suggested in the past, Israel should be allowed to take care of their own security in the region.Or at least could play the bad cop in order to motivate the Iraqis to police themselves.
"Get your act together in 6 months , because the US is going to withdraw ,and the Israeli military will commence providing security."