USA - Obama's Newest Burden

[Woodman]

In another example of American media bias...
( http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...3/215106.shtml )
liberal media pundits are working hard to hash out details of what THEY suspect may-have-been an ongoing affair between Republican Presidential Candidate, John McCaine and lobbyist, Vicky Iseman, despite any evidence to support the story, and amid vehement denials from both McCaine and Iseman that any such relationship ever took place.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RfWuV_aKvo

Meanwhile, front-running Democratic Candidate, Barack Obama, has been publicly challenged to defend himself against allegations of illegal drug use while engaging in gay sex. Moreover, both Obama and the Democratic Party have been named in a lawsuit that claims harrassment and intimidation tactics were used against the man who witnessed this because he threatened to make the information public.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVeFV...%2F179725.html

While it remains a "hushed" issue in the news for now, this story about Obama will eventually sprout legs and start running, and the liberal American news media (proving to be as predictable as they are gullible), will continue to hound any front-running republican candidate.

It is interesting that these two stories should come out at around the same time.
Could it be deliberate?
If so, who could possibly benefit from this???

Reputation Comments on this post:

this is a fine summary , very wise.

[beentheredonethatagain]

I am not worried about Hillary Rob'em Clinton or Oh,bomba bin laden.

This is a win for John McCain

[Woodman]

Originally Posted by beentheredonethatagain

I am not worried about Hillary Rob'em Clinton or Oh,bomba bin laden.

This is a win for John McCain

How so?

McCaine is a liberal among a party with a conservative base.

He's already busy fielding similar allegations that have been MUCH more widely publicized, and which have no tangible foundation.

If you're trying to say "The Republican dirty-tricks committee is behind this," then I'll ask you to provide tangible evidence.

I'm sick of the mindset that justifies liberal political BULLSHIT on the simple-minded basis that "Republicans are evil/Democrats are good", largely because it comes from people who are too intellectually inept to consider that they might actually be useful idiots (to the DNC) as described by Lenin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

Republicans have their own idiots, too; many of them in the military, or police.

It is upsetting to know that this country's government is dominated by two opposing, but equally destructive, political ideologies.

[Purest]

Originally Posted by Woodman

It is upsetting to know that this country's government is dominated by two opposing, but equally destructive, political ideologies.

Agreed, however the UK doesn't have it much better, the main political parties are now so similar in their ideologies that its pretty much the case of vote for whichever politician is the more friendly.

Back on topic, Obama gay and using illegal drugs, thats pretty much ruining his reputation with a huge chunk of america, not saying it to be harsh or anything, but its pretty true that not everyone is accepting to alternative lifestyle choices over there.

I know this is probably in bad taste, but I've got to say it. If it is true, and he still won the election, and then he got fat when he was in office, America would have a fat, black, and gay president that uses drugs, thats pretty much all the stigmas people discriminate against rolled into one.

[beentheredonethatagain]

Originally Posted by Woodman

How so?

McCaine is a liberal among a party with a conservative base.

He's already busy fielding similar allegations that have been MUCH more widely publicized, and which have no tangible foundation.

If you're trying to say "The Republican dirty-tricks committee is behind this," then I'll ask you to provide tangible evidence.

I'm sick of the mindset that justifies liberal political BULLSHIT on the simple-minded basis that "Republicans are evil/Democrats are good", largely because it comes from people who are too intellectually inept to consider that they might actually be useful idiots (to the DNC) as described by Lenin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

Republicans have their own idiots, too; many of them in the military, or police.

It is upsetting to know that this country's government is dominated by two opposing, but equally destructive, political ideologies.

I am a Ronald Reagan conserative Republican. I am disapointed that there is not a canidate running who has the values like the late president.

[theinvisible]

Originally Posted by beentheredonethatagain

I am a Ronald Reagan conserative Republican. I am disapointed that there is not a canidate running who has the values like the late president.

There is and his name is Ron Paul.

[Woodman]

Originally Posted by Alfa

It looks to me like the US is heading for both financial and political disaster. It seems a pretty good reason for a good candidate to pass on this run and take the next train. It may even be a valid idea to give this job to the competition and watch the crash and burn.

It makes perfect sense, but I doubt that such insatiably power-hungry people would be capable of exercising such restraint when such a high office is at stake; much the same way that a junkie needs a fix.

Originally Posted by theinvisible

There is and his name is Ron Paul.

Oh man, I wish!

[RaverHippie]

The only discussion I've heard on the topic is "Hey McCain does have some life left in him, he isn't just a walking corpse!" And everyone I associate with pretty much doesn't care at all about these "personal issues" with the person running for candidacy. Everyone cares more about the issues involved.

[Bajeda]

Originally Posted by Woodman

In another example of American media bias... liberal media pundits are working hard to hash out details ...

Originally Posted by Woodman

While it remains a "hushed" issue in the news for now, this story about Obama will eventually sprout legs and start running, and the liberal American news media (proving to be as predictable as they are gullible), will continue to hound any front-running republican candidate.

There is little evidence to support the theory that there is a tendency towards liberal bias in the American media. Effective campaigning by interested parties has engendered the popular misconception that news media is somehow inherently liberal. While studies have shown that journalists tend to locate themselves slightly to the left of their audience, content-analysis has been unable to detect significant ideological bias. The informational and institutional biases arising from the increasingly consumerist approach to news media have much more impact than personal views of journalists.

Accusations of media bias are helped by the 'hostile media phenomenon', where people with opposing views will both see a piece of media as being biased in favour of the other side. The more strongly one feels about an issue, the most likely one is to see bias in a media treatment of the issue. Having a cynical perspective of the media is associated with increased perception of bias also.


I doubt there is any conspiracy behind the two articles. Journalists need an audience, and the same old campaign issues don't sell. Something new and sensational better meets the commercial definition of news, irregardless of how useless it actually is for informed democratic participation.

[Woodman]

beentheredonethatagain,

Indeed!
The selection is as shitty as I've EVER seen it.

Originally Posted by Bajeda

There is little evidence to support the theory that there is a tendency towards liberal bias in the American media.

Actually, there's a considerable amount of evidence, and it's a FACT, not theory!

Bernard Goldberg best explains the entrenched liberal mindset in his book, "Bias",.

"Goldberg, who spent his last years at CBS in the doghouse for his 1996 Wall Street Journal piece, says that if these correspondents were to take a lie detector test as to whether they slanted the news leftward, they would deny it and pass with flying colors.

Many of them don’t consider that they’re leaning in any political direction. They really think they are simply mainstream. There is no other side of the argument except what you hear from a few right-wing nut cases. In their world, mainstream conservatism doesn’t exist"

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...3/215106.shtml

Ann Coulter makes documented accounts of how the liberals in the media have been PROVEN WRONG on many conservative issues such as middle-class tax cuts to the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) started by Ronald Regan in her book, "Treason".

http://www.conservativebookservice.c...prod_cd=c6174p

The fact is that tax cuts DO work to stimulate the economy, and Ronald Regan's SDI program was instrumental in causing the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Before that, the liberal solution to the cold war was that America should just dismantle all of her weapons to show the rest of the world that "we're nice people."

....and yes, they really are THAT stupid!

Reagan's solution was to develop a system that could defend the US from incoming missiles which eventually became known as SDI.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strateg...nse_Initiative

I can remember the soviets walked out on the SALT II missile treaty discussions because Regan refused to put SDI on the table as a bartering chip.

The liberal media went NUTS! They became fanatic and labeled SDI as "The 'Star Wars' Program", claiming that the space-based system would provoke the Russians into launching the first strike in a nuclear war. Hence, the name "Star Wars".

Unlike many younger people today, who can only now read about it, I was there and I clearly remember it.

Here is CNN's Bullshit write-up to explain the term; apparently a Mickey-Mouse attempt to cover their ass for the fact that it was THEIR REPORTERS who were instrumental in popularizing the term.

"The system he proposed became known as "Star Wars," after the popular movie, because it was meant to destroy missiles from space." [BULLSHIT!] "The Soviets feared the system would increase the risk of the United States launching a first attack because U.S. officials would not fear retaliation" [more BULLSHIT!]

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war...arwars.speech/

This is just ONE example of the liberal media bullshit that took place at that time, and how they attempt to revise history by putting out more liberal media bullshit, now.

I could always invoke the spector of Dan Rather, ...AGAIN, or expound on the history of political correctness, but if you're not convinced by now then you're probably just another dyed-in-the-wool liberal plagued by denial to where no amount of evidence that I or anyone else could provide (no matter how valid or reasonable) will ever be enough to change your opinion.

[enquirewithin]

The liberal media went NUTS! They became fanatic and labeled SDI as "The 'Star Wars' Program", claiming that the space-based system would provoke the Russians into launching the first strike in a nuclear war. Hence, the name "Star Wars".

What liberal media is that? Are you joking? You surely can't mean the New York Times-- or CNN? The NYT and CNN support every war of illegal war of aggression going (as long as its US led), until it goes wrong (i.e., Iraq) and even then keep parroting government lies (like those about the so-called 'surge', which is mainly buying off enemies).

[beentheredonethatagain]

Originally Posted by enquirewithin

What liberal media is that? Are you joking? You surely can't mean the New York Times-- or CNN? The NYT and CNN support every war of illegal war of aggression going (as long as its US led), until it goes wrong (i.e., Iraq) and even then keep parroting government lies (like those about the so-called 'surge', which is mainly buying off enemies).

I think you must be joking. The newspapers and television news are all left wing liberal democrats. they love the clintons , jimmy carter, and ted kennedy. the only right conservetive media outlet is Fox News.

Rememeber Dan Rather? at CBS news making up stories about Pres. George W. Bush's Nat. Guard record, Rather got fired.

that is just one example, the press is made up of a majority of lefty.

I will add some links later.

[Matt The Funk]

Originally Posted by beentheredonethatagain

I think you must be joking. The newspapers and television news are all left wing liberal democrats. they love the clintons , jimmy carter, and ted kennedy. the only right conservetive media outlet is Fox News.

Rememeber Dan Rather? at CBS news making up stories about Pres. George W. Bush's Nat. Guard record, Rather got fired.

that is just one example, the press is made up of a majority of lefty.

I will add some links later.

SWIM thinks you're crazy. Media outlets are definitely right winged. More or less they all just center around propaganda and push the agenda of whoever is running them. I don't even want to really get into the state of the news, or politics in general. SWIM doesn't even think this should be about right or left....just vote, and educate YOURSELF about your choice. Don't listen to the news as your only source. But really, get out there and vote. Vote for who you think would do well, vote with who's views you agree with. Don't make this a whole LEFT and RIGHT thing. I think it was george washington who said something along the lines of political parties destroying everything America and the constitution stood for.

[Woodman]

Originally Posted by Matt The Funk

...I don't even want to really get into the state of the news, or politics in general. SWIM doesn't even think this should be about right or left....just vote, and educate YOURSELF about your choice.

I don't give a shit for any of the candidates, but I'm certain that Clinton is the worst among them.

Scandal or not, I really don't see much difference between Obama and McCaine.

If Obama wins the party nomination, I'ld just as soon not vote at all.

If Clinton gets it, I'll reluctantly vote for McCaine in the general election, just because the Clintons are so ruthlessly ambitious and thoroughly heartless.

[enquirewithin]

Originally Posted by beentheredonethatagain

I think you must be joking. The newspapers and television news are all left wing liberal democrats. they love the clintons , jimmy carter, and ted kennedy. the only right conservetive media outlet is Fox News.

Rememeber Dan Rather? at CBS news making up stories about Pres. George W. Bush's Nat. Guard record, Rather got fired.

that is just one example, the press is made up of a majority of lefty.

I will add some links later.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I notice you are a Regan supporter. Regan started the so-called war on drugs, so are you a supporter of the war on drugs too?

"Lefty'' is a silly word. There is no left wing press in the US, unless you count very marginal publications like "The Nation." Fox news is the extreme right, laughable to any one outside the US.

The large papers are owned by rich elites and act as propaganda organs for those elites. If you really think that the Kennedy's and Clinton are 'lefties' I would suggest that you are naive. Clinton's policies favoured business and the rich, not the people.

As for Bush, the entire world knows him for bare-faced liar (not to mention severely lacking intelligence.). Where are Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, for example? What about the connections between Al-Qeada and Saddam? More lies. If a CBS reporter got sacked for for writing about Bush, it shows how much the US media lacks freedom.

Reputation Comments on this post:

	Well said, a nice turn in countering insanity with sanity and reason
	Thank you! Great post. Best I've seen all year

[beentheredonethatagain]

I will be honest , as I always have . The war on drugs has it ups and downs.
I hate drugs abuse. I think drugs have caused a many of good people turn to shit. Including myself, hows that for honesty? Just say no is a bad way to just let the government off the hook , I agree .

Ronald Reagan is a hero without him , our country would have stayed in the crisis that Jimmy Carter got us into. Long lines at the gas station, triple digit inflation, intrest rates out a fuckin controll.

Correct me if I am wrong.

also ask any Russian who lived in the USSR during the cold war and under communism,
who rescued them. Reagan defeated the pinkos with firing a shot.

[Lunar Loops]

Originally Posted by beentheredonethatagain

I will be honest , as I always have . The war on drugs has it ups and downs.
I hate drugs abuse. I think drugs have caused a many of good people turn to shit. Including myself, hows that for honesty? Just say no is a bad way to just let the government off the hook , I agree .

That doesn't really answer enquirewithin's question of whether or not you support the war on drugs. Not having a go, just curious what your real answer is as the above is a politician's answer to a simple "yes" or "no" question.

Originally Posted by beentheredonethatagain

Ronald Reagan is a hero without him , our country would have stayed in the crisis that Jimmy Carter got us into. Long lines at the gas station, triple digit inflation, intrest rates out a fuckin controll.

Hmm can't say as I ever saw him as that, but then I would have to freely admit to only really receiving my information from the European media. The fact that he and Thatcher had a real mutual admiration society going on is enough for me.

This is a really genuine question, but wasn't Reagan merely a puppet who was basically used as a frontman by individuals with grander plans? Maybe he just came across poorly whenever a camera was placed in front of him, but he often came across as someone of very limited intellect in advanced stages of dementia. He almost made Bush look intelligent. Maybe my view is all down to European media bias and you can set me straight?

[WrtngCocaineTutorial]

Originally Posted by beentheredonethatagain

I will be honest, as I always have . The war on drugs has it ups and downs.
I hate drugs abuse. I think drugs have caused a many of good people turn to shit. Including myself, hows that for honesty? Just say no is a bad way to just let the government off the hook , I agree .

No one is pro drugs abuse. What government needs to do is find out how to deal with the problem. And being here, you should know that "the drug war" is a failed policy. It does no good at all.

In GB for example cannabis use his not risen as a consequence of downgrading it from B to C. I've actually seen some reports which say that it has declined.

Putting users in jail doesn't solve anything. It's just as meaningful as putting alcoholics in jail. Which everybody agrees would be idiotic. In my eyes there's no difference.

Reputation Comments on this post:

I agree

[umbra1010]

I don't believe in the barrack obama gay issue. Anyone can say they had gay sex and drugs and post a video of themselves on youtube. I believe it is false and is a hilary fan angry becuase of her losses against obama.

[silentghost]

Haven't you played that game "telephone" in preschool? Somewhere along the line, someone changed the message from "Milk and cookies in one hour" to "Joey is gay".

Hell, even then the message is "Jason spooned with his dog" by the time it reaches the end.

[RaverHippie]

Then again Carter was the last president with a responsible energy package...what a nut-job...

[beentheredonethatagain]

Originally Posted by RaverHippie

Then again Carter was the last president with a responsible energy package...what a nut-job...

what? does this mean? can you clairify who is a nut job?

[RaverHippie]

Originally Posted by beentheredonethatagain

what? does this mean? can you clairify who is a nut job?

It was a sarcastic remark saying that Jimmy Carter must have been crazy for instituting programs that STARTED the alternative energy industries and pushed for other energy conservation measures. Most of which, your buddy, Reagan demolished instantly saying they gave unfair competitive advantages to certain businesses.

Here's an article explaining what is meant. It's kind of uncanny how well his predictions in his what-if speech came to be...

Published on Tuesday, May 3, 2005 by CommonDreams.org

Carter Tried To Stop Bush's Energy Disasters - 28 Years Ago

by Thom Hartmann

In his recent news conference, George Bush Jr. suggested that our nation's "problem" with high gasoline prices was caused by the lack of a national energy policy, and tried to blame it all on Bill Clinton. First, Junior said, "This is a problem that's been a long time in coming. We haven't had an energy policy in this country." This was followed by, "That's exactly what I've been saying to the American people -- 10 years ago if we'd had an energy strategy, we would be able to diversify away from foreign dependence. And -- but we haven't done that. And now we find ourselves in the fix we're in." As is so often the case, Bush was lying.
Consider President Jimmy Carter's April 18, 1977 speech. Since it was given nearly three decades ago, when many of the reporters in Bush's White House were children, it's understandable that they don't remember it. But it's inexcusable that Bush and the mainstream media (which, after all, has the ability to do research) would completely ignore it. It was the speech that established the strategic petroleum reserve, birthed the modern solar power industry, led to the insulation of millions of American homes, and established America's first national energy policy. "With the exception of preventing war," said Jimmy Carter, a man of peace, "this is the greatest challenge our country will face during our lifetimes."
He added: "It is a problem we will not solve in the next few years, and it is likely to get progressively worse through the rest of this century. "We must not be selfish or timid if we hope to have a decent world for our children and grandchildren.
"We simply must balance our demand for energy with our rapidly shrinking resources. By acting now, we can control our future instead of letting the future control us." Carter bluntly pointed out that: "The most important thing about these proposals is that the alternative may be a national catastrophe. Further delay can affect our strength and our power as a nation." He called the new energy policy he was proposing, "[T]he 'moral equivalent of war' -- except that we will be uniting our efforts to build and not destroy."
When Carter had become president three months earlier, the nation was still recovering from the "oil shock" of the 1973 Arab oil embargo, and scientists were realizing our nation was just then hitting the point of domestic peak oil production predicted more than a decade earlier by scientist M. King Hubbert. (The rest of the world is hitting the Hubbert Peak right now.) As Carter noted in his speech, "The oil and natural gas we rely on for 75 percent of our energy are running out. In spite of increased effort, domestic production has been dropping steadily at about six percent a year. Imports have doubled in the last five years. Our nation's independence of economic and political action is becoming increasingly constrained." Hubbert had predicted that the peak of oil production for the USA would come in the 1970s, and it did, hitting us with a shock.
"The world has not prepared for the future," said Jimmy Carter. "During the 1950s, people used twice as much oil as during the 1940s. During the 1960s, we used twice as much as during the 1950s. And in each of those decades, more oil was consumed than in all of mankind's previous history." Hubbert said we must begin to conserve. Carter agreed.
"Ours is the most wasteful nation on earth," he said, a point that is still true. "We waste more energy than we import. With about the same standard of living, we use twice as much energy per person as do other countries like Germany, Japan and Sweden." Carter directly challenged the fossil fuel and automobile industries. "One choice," he said, "is to continue doing what we have been doing before. We can drift along for a few more years. "Our consumption of oil would keep going up every year. Our cars would continue to be too large and inefficient. Three-quarters of them would continue to carry only one person -- the driver -- while our public transportation system continues to decline. We can delay insulating our houses, and they will continue to lose about 50 percent of their heat in waste. "We can continue using scarce oil and natural gas to generate electricity, and continue wasting two-thirds of their fuel value in the process."
But that would be unpatriotic, anti-American, and essentially wrong. Who but a traitor sold out to special interests, or an idiot, would countenance such insanity?
The year 1977 was a turning point for America. If we didn't make clear and rapid progress, we would face painful times ahead. The Saudis would have their fingers around our necks. We'd face war in the Middle East to secure future oil supplies. "Now we have a choice," Carter said. "But if we wait, we will live in fear of embargoes. We could endanger our freedom as a sovereign nation to act in foreign affairs."
Failure to act in the 1970s and 1980s would inevitably lead to a time when the only way to maintain our lifestyle would be to rape our planet and seize control of oil-rich nations in the Middle East. If we didn't begin to develop alternatives like solar power, and dramatically reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, then, Carter said, even our cherished personal freedoms would be at risk. If we continued to simply follow past policies that enriched the oil industry and the Saudis, instead of becoming energy independent, Carter said, "We will feel mounting pressure to plunder the environment."
If we failed to develop alternative sources of renewable energy and conserve what we have, the alternative could be nasty. As Carter pointed out: "We will have a crash program to build more nuclear plants, strip-mine and burn more coal, and drill more offshore wells than we will need if we begin to conserve now. Inflation will soar, production will go down, people will lose their jobs. Intense competition will build up among nations and among the different regions within our own country. "If we fail to act soon, we will face an economic, social and political crisis that will threaten our free institutions."
Carter's speech drew a strong reaction from the Saudis and the oil industry. Think tanks soon emerged - many whose names are today familiar - to suggest there was really no energy problem, and they led the charge to establish a permanent right-wing media in the US. Within two years, Saudi citizen and oil baron Salem bin Laden's sole US representative, James Bath, would funnel cash into the failing business of the son of the CIA's former director, political up-and-comer George H. W. Bush. With that money from the representative of Osama Bin Laden's half-brother, George Bush Jr. was able to keep afloat his Arbusto ("shrub" in Spanish) Oil Company. And he would be in the pocket of the bin Laden and Saudi interests for the rest of his life. But Carter was incorruptible.

"We can be sure that all the special interest groups in the country will attack the part of this plan that affects them directly," he said. "They will say that sacrifice is fine, as long as other people do it, but that their sacrifice is unreasonable, or unfair, or harmful to the country. If they succeed, then the burden on the ordinary citizen, who is not organized into an interest group, would be crushing." But that would be wrong. It would be un-American. It would lead to future oil shocks, and the probable death of American soldiers in Middle Eastern oil wars. Instead of caving in to the Saudis and the oil industry, Carter said: "There should be only one test for this program: whether it will help our country."
Two years later, as the bin Laden family's sole US representative was bailing out George Bush Junior's failing oil business, Jimmy Carter gave another speech on energy, further refining his national energy policy. He had already started the national strategic petroleum reserve, birthed the gasohol and solar power industries, and helped insulate millions of homes and offices. But he wanted to go a step further. "I am tonight setting a clear goal for the energy policy of the United States," Carter said on July 15, 1979. "Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977 -- never. From now on, every new addition to our demand for energy will be met from our own production and our own conservation. The generation-long growth in our dependence on foreign oil will be stopped dead in its tracks right now and then reversed as we move through the 1980s..." In addition, we needed to immediately begin to develop a long-range strategy to move beyond fossil fuel.
Therefore, Carter said, "I will soon submit legislation to Congress calling for the creation of this nation's first solar bank, which will help us achieve the crucial goal of 20 percent of our energy coming from solar power by the year 2000." But then came the Iran/Contra October Surprise, when the Reagan/Bush campaign allegedly promised the oil-rich mullahs of Iran that they'd sell them missiles and other weapons if only they'd keep our hostages until after the 1980 Carter/Reagan presidential election campaign was over. The result was that Carter, who had been leading in the polls over Reagan/Bush, steadily dropped in popularity as the hostage crisis dragged out, and lost the election. The hostages were released the very minute that Reagan put his hand on the Bible to take his oath of office. The hostages freed, the Reagan/Bush administration quickly began illegally delivering missiles to Iran.
And Ronald Reagan's first official acts of office included removing Jimmy Carter's solar panels from the roof of the White House, and reversing most of Carter's conservation and alternative energy policies.
Today, despite the best efforts of the Bushies, the bin Ladens, and the rest of the oil industry, Carter's few surviving initiatives have borne fruit.
It is now more economical to build power generating stations using wind than using coal, oil, gas, or nuclear. When amortized over the life of a typical mortgage, installing solar power in a house in most parts of the US is cheaper than drawing power from the grid. (Shell and British Petroleum are among the world's largest manufacturers of solar photovoltaic panels, which can now even be used as roofing shingles.) And hybrid cars that get 50-70 miles to the gallon are increasingly commonplace on our nation's highways. Instead of taking a strong stand to make America energy independent, Bush kisses a Saudi crown prince, then holds hands with him as they walk into Bush's hobby ranch in Texas. Our young men and women are daily dying in Iraq - a country with the world's second largest store of underground oil. And we live in fear that another 15 Saudis may hijack more planes to fly into our nation's capitol or into nuclear power plants.
Meanwhile, Bush brings us an energy bill that includes eight billion dollars in welfare payments to the oil business, just as the nation's oil companies report the highest profits in the entire history of the industry. Americans struggle to pay for gasoline, while the Bush administration refuses to increase fleet efficiency standards, stop the $100,000 tax break for buying Hummers, or maintain and build Amtrak. George Bush Jr. is arguably right that gas prices are spiking because we don't have an energy policy. But instead of blaming Clinton, he should be pointing to the Reagan/Bush administration, and to his own abysmal failures over the past four years.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0503-22.htm

[beentheredonethatagain]

raver hippie, you are too young to remember gas shortages, no gasoline available at the pumps,, can only buy gas on certain days of the week , depending on the number on your car licence. good idea ?

[El Calico Loco]

Originally Posted by RaverHippie

It was a sarcastic remark saying that Jimmy Carter must have been crazy for instituting programs that STARTED the alternative energy industries and pushed for other energy conservation measures. Most of which, your buddy, Reagan demolished instantly saying they gave unfair competitive advantages to certain businesses.

Which, to be fair, they did - all government subsidies favor one group at the expense of another. In the case of alternative energy, however, I'm all for it (despite the fact that the US Constitution gives the Federal gubmint no right to do anything of the kind - it would be no different than 99% of the other things they do that they're not supposed to). We'd come out far ahead from less pollution and fewer horrific wars halfway around the world.

Of course, few Greens will support the best option for alternative energy because it sounds like a bomb. Greenpeace and their ilk abandoned science long ago. Bunch of Gaia-worshipping luddites...

beenthere: OPEC started the gas shortage with their embargo, but you can thank Mr. Nixon's price controls for making it far worse than it should have been. He thought he could repeal the laws of supply and demand. He was wrong.

Woodman: Nader's not bad on drugs, but he's pretty damn scary on many other issues.


ECL