John McCain vs Barack Obama Mega-Politic-Thread of super fun awesomeness.

[kthx]

Are you referring to Obama and McCain?

And why does anyone have a problem with a company that:

finds oil under the ground
digs until they hit the oil
builds an oil derrick on top of the oil reservoir
sucks up the oil
transports the oil to a refinery
refines the oil
transports the oil to gas stations

pays a shit load of taxes to our government, provides us with a service that we can't live without, and only makes 8.7% on the profit margin.....

If you owned a company that did all of that work to make a useful substance, I am sure that after you poured all that money into exploration and technology, that you would want to see money from it. Not to mention just like ANY OTHER BUSINESS oil companies have stock holders that they have to report positive growth to. I think you should all see that.. over the last two months in America, gas prices have dropped a dollar.. and oil companies are still making record profits.. the only thing that changed is Bush removing the executive ban on oil, causing the speculators to have reasonable suspicion that there would be more oil flooding into the market eventually, which caused prices to drop dramatically. And after all this.. you blame the companies that provide the United States with hundreds of thousands of good paying jobs, with health insurance. Give me a break, it is a joke to think that anyone is so simple minded as to not see through this OBVIOUSLY black and white issue.

oh but, thanks for reading Genocidal, your one line posts really drive a great point across.

[404 Not Found]

Edit: I finished watching the HBO miniseries 'John Adams', I don't know how historically accurate it is but it seems to cast Hamilton as more of a "scheming" nefarious character. It does also highlight Adams success in remaining neutral in the war between Britain and France but also his own character and political failings.

I read as well as saw the TV series on John Adams. In all, he looks to be a great man, and in reading the Federalist papers as well as the Bigraphy on Hamilton, they hated one another. Adams was Washingtons VP & hated that he was more or less a lame duck in office. policies created and formed under Washington had been the ideas from Hamilton. Washington never confided in Adam's and worked with Hamilton as well as used Hamilton as a VP more than he consulted with Adams.

Adams despised hamilton and his views on trade, the military, currency...

Adams wanted to destroy the foundations of which had been created under Washington. It's actually a really good read when you can see the political bickering back then compared to today. Nothing much has changed.

[kthx]

+ Rev. Rod Parsley, "spiritual guide" for the GOP presidential nominee. (AKA, One more reason to love Ohio!)
- Planned Parenthood is the equivalent of the KKK and the Nazis rolled into one!
- Excerpt from his 2005 book, Silent No More: "The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore."
- Direct quote from a sermon: "The secular media never likes it when I say this, so let me say it twice. Man your battle stations! Ready your weapons! They say this rhetoric is so inciting. I came to incite a riot. ... Man your battle stations. Ready your weapons. Lock and load — for the thirty, forty liberal pastors who filed against our ministry with the Internal Revenue Service. ... Let the struggle begin. Let it begin in your heart today with a shout unto him who has called us to war — not only that, he has empowered you and I to win."

+ Rev. John Hagee, proudly introduced as an ally in early March 2008
- "God will unleash terrorists on the US for its Israel/Palestine policy of land sharing!"
- One of my personal "batshit insane" favorites, John Hagee on "the gays":
"All hurricanes are acts of God, because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they are — were recipients of the judgment of God for that. The newspaper carried the story in our local area that was not carried nationally that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades. So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing. I know that there are people who demur from that, but I believe that the Bible teaches that when you violate the law of God, that God brings punishment sometimes before the day of judgment. And I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans." (Hahahaha, "a level of sexuality never demonstrated before"... NOW YOU WILL WITNESS THE POWER OF THIS FULLY OPERATIONAL BATTLESTATION!)

The list can keep going, if you'd like. These are just a couple of the most vocal ones.

EDIT: Haha, more about Rod Parsley's "gay agenda"! I can personally feel my marriage being destroyed! Damn you, Ted Allen! Damn yoooooouuuuuuu!

http://caraellison.wordpress.com/200...-proof-of-god/

Yeah.....

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

So your saying that.. If we arrested Osama Bin Laden, and he somehow won his case against being a terrorist, yet went on to confess everything that he did, or tried to do that you wouldn't find it to be a problem if McCain had gone to him before he sought the office of President of the United States, and had served on a board with him?

You're comparing apples to oranges. Let's take a look at the Terrorist-O-Meter for this one, shall we?



We'll start with a clean slate, and tally as we go.

On one hand, we have Bill Ayers, a mostly harmless academic who protested the Vietnam War nearly forty years ago. He killed a handful of people, mainly members of his own group. Has since spoken out on the error of his ways, and now teaches social justice, urban educational reform, narrative and interpretive research, and related issues. Rod Roddy, light up that board for us!



Ohhh! Looks like he's taken a hit, ladies and gentlemen! Looks like repentance can only get you so far, it seems. Better luck next time, Bill! If only you had knife-raped a nun or two, things may have turned out differently.

Alright, now let's take a look at Osama Bin Laden. He's taken responsibility for the September 11th attacks (killing thousands in a single instance), orchestrated a worldwide effort to kill and maim innocent civilians, and doesn't flinch at all about what he's been a part of since 1988. Vanna, turn those letters!



Yikes! Look what happens when you've actually killed lots of people!

Kidding aside, Ayers isn't running with Obama for anything. They were basically just in the same room for a few minutes. They didn't agree on anything or plan anything together, other than the purpose for which they were there (ie, Board issues). In answer to your question, yes, I'd probably have a problem with the situation you've presented, but the comparison is laughably terrible (at best).

What about if Osama Bin Laden was a highly respected professor at a college in Chicago, and had since given up his ways of trying to destroy the infidels? The guy was trying to blow shit up, and kill people, to get what he wanted. And it honestly sounds like you don't have a problem with, whether it was 30 or 40 years ago or not.

If nothing more, it's a matter of scale and context. As I said, Ayers did little more than kill a tiny group of people (again, mostly his own group members). It was during a time when the government wasn't particularly open to hearing about social and politican injustice, and he felt the unnecessary need to use violence to be heard. It's not like he was going around blowing up children's hospitals or retirement homes, there was a specific target (however stupid it was).

It's two completely different situations, but you're obviously too riled up to notice the difference.

[HateTheFake]

a life is a life, whos to say ones worth more then the other?

[Jerome Scuggs]

I went ahead and put yours in a separate post. I tried to be as brief as possible, but my assertions have very complicated explanations.

I'm not saying energy independence can or cannot be accomplished, I don't know enough about it. But it seems like both politics and business have no concern for the reality of peak oil and the need for new technology. I never said either side deserves more blame. You are right to accomplish even some kind of change in energy policy and innovation in the entire sector it will require a lot of support.

But given the profitability of the oil sector in recent years I would propose it is not worth their time and money to invest in revolutionary technologies, that while they hold the key to modern day transportation in the form of fossil fuels and continue to reap huge profits from that preferred setup, little change will happen until we hit a real gas crunch. There has to be some kind of short term incentive to avert that scenario and a long term goal based on current and near future technology.

I definitely think it's possible to become oil-independent. The technology is here, it's just a matter of letting market forces and consumer demand speak out - just like the Wright's first airplane. The physics behind creating lift, the materials for a frame and the engine to power it were all around, it just took an entrepreneur with a different view of these materials and an idea to put it all together.

Though it might seem one way or the either, in reality many businesses have begun the switch. The problem is alot of people are looking at Big Oil for the answer. Don't! The problem with government labels is, in a free market entities aren't static. The "energy industry", including oil, will be only one of many industries that will help spearhead the alternative fuels movement. For instance, look at the auto industry - Tesla and GM have both released significant new technology in the forms of the Tesla Roadster and the GM Volt. Does it make GM an "energy industry"? Nope, but regardless, they're doing it.

Another thing to look at is the fact that over time, our technology has more or less been constantly refined to use less oil and more alternative fuels. Electricity has replaced oil in many, many areas where oil was once used - as a very basic example here, look at flashlights. Old lights and lamps used to burn oil and now they use batteries - imagine, in the long run, how much actual oil we've saved.

Besides new tech, refinement of processes is also a big area to explore. For instance - McDonald's is currently looking at the cost-benefit analysis of their supply infrastructure. They are calculating how much it costs to ship food to their franchises, and weighing it against letting franchises buy a part of their supplies locally - which would save gas as well as support local business. Wal-mart is also doing the same sort of calculations - which means in some areas you might be able to buy local foods from wal-mart (which, tbh, sounds horrible).

I don't think the shift will be something you can just go outside and see. It's a slow, often not seen process - but it's definitely happening. Sadly, one of the processes that will never be seen is the process of survival. For an example, look at the Solar industry. Solar power has been around for years, but it's never been too efficient or practical or affordable. Because of that, thankfully, the government left solar for dead.

Here's the thing about the recent government ethanol fiasco. It's not about the ethanol - it's about the market distortion. Companies raced to win money and subsidies from the government, and we will never know exactly how much that damaged other emerging alt fuel solutions. How much solar research was NOT done because of the focus on ethanol? Wind? Nuclear? We will never know. All we know now is is, that now we've got to pick up the race for oil independence after being sidetracked for awhile.

But, look at how quickly Solar has recently gained attention. New techniques and materials have made solar cells increasingly more efficient, less difficult to mass-produce, and cheaper. Hell, now they're even flexible. But almost none of this has come from "big energy" - it's actually the computer industry behind it. And hell - the oil crisis played very little part in the decision to pursue this new technology, can you imagine what would happen if laptops could generate their own power?

This shows another thing I'm trying to say: that just because the market has no "energy goal" doesn't mean noone is trying to solve energy problems. And even when people aren't trying to solve energy problems - they might happen to create a promising solution unintentionally.

But, yeah - a Google-backed startup company found a way to produce solar energy for the same price it takes to produce coal energy, meaning coal companies could begin building solar plants - and, in the long run, think of the money they will save because they don't have to purchase coal/fuel.

And in the long run of things - these examples are very small and, as of now, are obviously not noticed. But once the tech is invented, it always gets refined. Since solar panels can now be constructed economically, scientists are now researching new solar applications that previously were impossible, unthinkable or not worth the cost. Like this story of scientists developing a glass window for your house that also doubled as a solar panel - while still being transparent. In time, we might even one day see a majority of houses outfitted with these. But hey - if something else comes along that is even better, it will eventually overtake the market - which is why I think government mandating technology is counterproductive. If the "energy plan" mandated that everyone use the new solar windows, a new/better product would have no chance to compete in that market.

But that is what a spontaneous order is. Change doesn't from from above, it comes from within, and you can never predict how or where. Government policy only interrupts, distorts, and even stifles these forces. Altering those forces lead them to begin acting differently, which will always cause changes and ripples that alter yet even more variables - which then leads to the many usual problems that result from legislation. Take the oil market. "Big Oil" - the private oil corporations in America - now only control 13% of the world's oil. And the top 10 biggest oil producers? State-owned and nationalized, all of them. Yet when it comes to new technology and the task of oil independence, who do we all bitch at? The process of nationalization led to R&D being all but abandoned in most cases, because governments always try to avoid wasting money on risky things, they could never hope to achieve the rapid trial-and-error process that occurs every day in the market.

And so even in a world where they actually only control a minor share of the entire market, they are the ones people demand to produce answers - while also trying to take away the money that would fund such things. This is why I'm not looking at Exxon or Chevron anymore, I'm looking at these small stories about random new innovations because these are more likely going to become the next major energy businesses. I just don't think that government plans and heavily-regulated, massive industries are where to be looking to for the answers - because, when it comes down to it, we're both right. You say Big Oil doesn't see a reason to change. I say the government doesn't. Both are correct statements.

But you do. I do. McDonald's does. Google does, Intel does. None of us can be "the change", but we all can play our part, no matter how big or small or important or insignificant. Me, I just drive less... Google had to go and fund the creation of an entirely new way to manufacture cheap solar cells. Though neither of us have as of yet changed society, maybe! Car companies are taking in our preferences and shifting away from SUV's. The new solar technology is being studied and people are thinking up ways to use it - ways that perhaps noone else has thought of. And one day, it might be used to create something that does change the world in a massive way... but who knows?

In politics I suppose you see "change" as being possible every 4 years or so. In economics I see more change in every given second than I can even comprehend. In politics the change is often swift and massive and all-encompassing, which means everyone is along for the ride good or bad. In economics, change comes in small waves first, as investors take risks, and the good ideas go on to change society.

Keep in mind, there are hundreds if not thousands of other people and businesses researching new methods and tech for a plethora of different applications. No one could possibly conceive how they all work to influence eachother, the consumers, and the entire market.

So... yeah. I guess the tl;dr version goes something like "do not worry, forces beyond our control are conspiring to solve our problems".

[Jerome Scuggs]

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2174rank.html

guess what, the US is on top by a long shot. the stats are a bit outdated, but there haven't been huge changes in the last year.

Like the fact that U.S. drivers cut back by almost 3 billion miles? Are you really trying to say that the oil market hasn't gone through huge changes?

I'm looking long term here, China will in fact be the largest oil consumer within the decade. Just because they aren't right now, doesn't mean anything. It also is irrelevant to the original point kthx made: China subsidizes their oil prices, and because of it their oil consumption is increasing 7.5% a year - seven times faster than the U.S.

And what do you mean "by the time it becomes an issue?" For me and quite a few other people, energy is my #1 issue for this election, followed by the economy and Iraq.

I don't know when it will become a serious issue, but rest assured that the market forces are busy working on that. Businesses that can't afford today's oil prices are beginning to shift, and as they rise others might have to begin making the shift as well. Yet even more businesses are beginning to expand their research into alt fuels and a hot pick for venture capitalists are alt fuel startups.

You might consider it an issue, and others might, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's actually an issue - just election talk. The same logic applies to my arguments as well, because I think a hot election topic is, well, the fact that we're trillions in debt and we can't pay for anything and our fiscal policy is gutting our dollar and economy... but neither candidate seems too worried about that. When would be a good time to be concerned about this?

[kthx]

How is there a difference, a terrorist is a terrorist, it doesn't matter if he killed 10 people or 5000 people, I have the same loathing for either of them. Besides Bill could have just as easily been someone who did kill quite a few more people, he had plans too. If Osama's plans hadn't of succeeded on 9/11, would it have made his crime any less really?

One of the largest problems with the Iraq isn't just that the adults are brain washed it is that the kids are taught that America is evil and needs to be destroyed by any means, and that by killing yourself you are given a instant ticket to heaven...

I have just as much of a problem with Bill forming an underground terrorist network, however unsuccessful they were, and trying to brainwash innocent and ignorant kids into thinking the same way. Poisoning of the mind could almost be said to be worse.

Besides, Obama not only served on a board with him, but also went to his house before he ran for his presidency, asking him how to run a successful campaign. How do we know that Ayres didn't taint the mind of Obama as he tainted the minds of so many youths "back" when he hated America. This wouldn't be quite so much of a deal if this was his only bad association. Unfortunately for Obama he also has to explain anti-semitic, anti-whites, anti-americans, and people who built low income houses for the constituents of Obama's whom he was trying to save being a community organizer, that turned out to be a blight on the city through their terrible construction by Rezco. You said "we all know about Tony Rezco" like it wasn't a huge deal. Obama should be in jail or should have gone to trial along with his buddy for pushing his friends in the city to let rezco have the contract in return for financial favors.

[kthx]

good read Jerome, I see that we have the same views energy wise at least.

[Izor]

loooool jerome is more like us by the post

[Saturn V]

Heh, no. Sorry. Please don't do it again.

[Epinephrine]

I'm looking long term here, China will in fact be the largest oil consumer within the decade. Just because they aren't right now, doesn't mean anything. It also is irrelevant to the original point kthx made: China subsidizes their oil prices, and because of it their oil consumption is increasing 7.5% a year - seven times faster than the U.S.

According to the CIA world factbook for oil consumption:

USA 20.8 million bbl/day (2005)
China 6.534 Million bbl/day (2005)

Assuming the USA hasn't used any more oil and stays at 2005 levels for the forseeable future (in reality oil consumption is increasing), even if China increases at 10%/year it will take 13 years (or the year 2018) for China to equal the USA's oil consumption using 2005 figures. At 7.5% year, it will take 17 years (or the year 2022) for China to equal the USA's numbers in 2005.



As for the private sector achieving oil-independence don't count on it. The less oil the USA uses, the cheaper it will be. Considering the USA uses 1/4 of the world's oil there is a pretty direct and large impact. This means oil will continue to be an economically good option for some time to come.

The problem with depending only on private enterprise is that while I have no doubt, the LOWEST COST option will eventually be dominant, the lowest cost option in terms of a dollar value is absolutely useless when you discuss in terms of the environmental cost which is externalized, and the geo-political cost, which means directly giving oil profits to the worst and most undemocratic regimes on the Earth. It is for these reasons alone that a government push to switching to alternative energy becomes more and more important because government can push industry to do things that may not be the most money-profitable, but better in terms of geopolitical/ethical reasons and for saving the environment.

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

How is there a difference, a terrorist is a terrorist, it doesn't matter if he killed 10 people or 5000 people, I have the same loathing for either of them.

Really? It's really that black and white to you? So how do you rectify what John Hancock did at the Boston Tea Party, then? That's terrorism, by your definition. "John Hancock, Senior Terrorist" is what you're saying? The burning of the Peggy Stewart? Terrorism. By golly, our nation's country is so gosh-dern full of terrorism, I can hardly stand it!

Besides Bill could have just as easily been someone who did kill quite a few more people, he had plans too.

Jesus Christ, you're one of those guys who thinks that POSSIBLE intent dictates future action. You also think that we should jail grade school students who draw guns on their Trapper Keeper?

One of the largest problems with the Iraq isn't just that the adults are brain washed it is that the kids are taught that America is evil and needs to be destroyed by any means, and that by killing yourself you are given a instant ticket to heaven...

..and one of the biggest problems in America isn't just the adults who are brainwashed, it's the kids who are taught by those adults that everyone else in the world is out to get them, there's a terrorist around every corner, and killing them before they kill you gets you into heaven. Sounds vaguely familiar, doesn't it?

Oh shit, am I ANTI-AMERICAN now? Can't be... I'm covered in these here flag pins.

Besides, Obama not only served on a board with him, but also went to his house before he ran for his presidency, asking him how to run a successful campaign. How do we know that Ayres didn't taint the mind of Obama as he tainted the minds of so many youths "back" when he hated America.

Regarding a "link" between Ayers and Obama:
'A partial examination of the documents did not reveal anything startling about the link between Obama, the Democratic presidential contender, and Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground, a Vietnam-era anti-war group that claimed responsibility for several bombings. Ayers, who spent years in hiding, is now a UIC education professor.'
Regarding their relationship:
'At a Democratic debate this year when the association between Obama and Ayers was raised, Obama said: "This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood. . . . He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis." Obama called Ayers' past radical acts detestable.'

Call the press! This shit just got... uhhhh... incredibly boring.

This wouldn't be quite so much of a deal if this was his only bad association. Unfortunately for Obama he also has to explain anti-semitic, anti-whites, anti-americans, and people who built low income houses for the constituents of Obama's whom he was trying to save being a community organizer, that turned out to be a blight on the city through their terrible construction by Rezco.

Please show concrete examples of these. You've already pulled out Ayers, whom as far as I can tell, isn't as bad as you'd like to make him out to be. (Apparently navigating around run-on sentences isn't stressed in school as much as it should be anymore.)

You said "we all know about Tony Rezco" like it wasn't a huge deal. Obama should be in jail or should have gone to trial along with his buddy for pushing his friends in the city to let rezco have the contract in return for financial favors.

It is a big deal, I won't say that it's not, but if this is the worst thing Obama is guilty of, I'll be okay with that.

[Fit of Rage]

I don't know when it will become a serious issue, but rest assured that the market forces are busy working on that. Businesses that can't afford today's oil prices are beginning to shift, and as they rise others might have to begin making the shift as well. Yet even more businesses are beginning to expand their research into alt fuels and a hot pick for venture capitalists are alt fuel startups.

You might consider it an issue, and others might, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's actually an issue - just election talk. The same logic applies to my arguments as well, because I think a hot election topic is, well, the fact that we're trillions in debt and we can't pay for anything and our fiscal policy is gutting our dollar and economy... but neither candidate seems too worried about that. When would be a good time to be concerned about this?

By considering an issue, I mean for starters one of the first projects I'd like to work on as an aerospace engineer is improving jet engine efficiency through aerodynamic redesign and CFD. Beyond that, I could also see myself as one of those venture capitalists. My roommate (who's an ME) and I have talked about starting a solar company.

If China and India are superindustrializing and upping their oil consumption, there really is no reason we shouldn't be supporting a new energy industry. Oil and gasoline suck because of carbon emissions, everybody knows that. I encourage anyone who doesn't think it's a problem to walk through any major US city center and breathe in the progress. Obviously we still need oil to produce petroleum byproducts like plastics and the like, but oil isn't going to last forever. We will need petroleum to make these plastics in the future, so why not save the oil for that instead of conversion to gasoline? Thinking about what's best for the environment (at least here in the US), solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal are the best bets. Nuclear isn't even that bad of an option, but there's always the meltdown and "terrorism" factors.

Solar energy’s potential is off the chart. The energy in sunlight striking the earth for 40 minutes is equivalent to global energy consumption for a year. The U.S. is lucky to be endowed with a vast resource; at least 250,000 square miles of land in the Southwest alone are suitable for constructing solar power plants, and that land receives more than 4,500 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) of solar radiation a year. Converting only 2.5 percent of that radiation into electricity would match the nation’s total energy consumption in 2006.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan

Using a novel technology that adds multiple innovations to a very high-performance crystalline silicon solar cell platform, a consortium led by the University of Delaware (UD) has achieved a record-breaking combined solar cell efficiency of 42.8 percent. The current record of 40.7 percent was attained in December 2006 by Boeing's Spectrolab, Inc.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/...story?id=49483

For the record, the Scientific American article above is a little dated. It cites solar cells with efficiency in the range of 10-16%. In a few years when DuPont figures out how to mass produce the high efficiency solar cells referred to above, we're going to see serious energy breakthroughs without a significant sacrifice in land. All that besides, there's a lot of desert in the southwest that isn't suitable for much else besides solar harvesting anyway.

[Summa]

wark your posts are laughable, under your definitions i'm a terrorist because i scared the shit out of little suzy when we were in 3rd grade by putting a tarantula down her shirt. next i would like to point out that my post seems to be quite accurate seeing how your reasoning for voting for mccain seems to be out of the fact that you wont vote for obama for whatever reason rather than you support mccain and want him in office. also still waiting on my answers to "how are you going to pay for the drilling, nuclear power, and 50 yr base in iraq, while simultaneously giving out those tax cuts you promise?" and "how do you expect us to be able to use nuclear power and tell the rest of the world they cant?"

For the record, the Scientific American article above is a little dated. It cites solar cells with efficiency in the range of 10-16%. In a few years when DuPont figures out how to mass produce the high efficiency solar cells referred to above, we're going to see serious energy breakthroughs without a significant sacrifice in land. All that besides, there's a lot of desert in the southwest that isn't suitable for much else besides solar harvesting anyway.

^^^^SPACE POWER SATELLITE FOR FUCKS SAKE - for those who dont want to look it up, a satellite is put into geostationary orbit with solar panels, it beams down the energy that it is gathering w/ 0 atmospheric interference down to some form of storage/harvesting plant in the form of microwaves. whereas ground based solar cells are dependent on atmospheric interference and the time of day, the SPS is independent of such variables (still under development)