The Lexington Project

[Dreadsox]

Originally Posted by deep

You got 'tar'

I got "kneepads for Bill Clinton"



maybe we can do a gift exchange?

Hehe!!!!!!

[Bluer White]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

could you unpack this? it strikes me as quite contradictory at the moment.

Yes, on the point about fuel mileage. Sales of gas guzzlers are "tanking," if you will. Google the Ford or GM results from the last few quarters. I've heard the horror stories about people trying to trade in SUVs for more efficient vehicles. Dealers aren't giving anything for SUVs, because they aren't selling well.

In the long run this is healthy for this country. Higher gas prices are the reality. And change is being driven by market oil prices. The same market that has determined the price of commodities for decades, in good times and bad. Not by Washington. And not by the congresspeople elected in '06, who promised lower energy prices in their stump speeches. Neither party can manipulate the world oil market, certainly not in the short run.

As an aside, I think the corporate tax system is rigged. The oil companies shouldn't be getting a better deal than any other industry that has Congress in their pocket. But I still cringe at the idea of a "windfall" profits tax. It's window dressing.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar

And why is that? I don't believe it's THE alternative energy source, but it is A good alternative.

I don't agree that it's a particularly good alternative. The process of converting corn to ethanol is wasteful - more energy goes in than you get out of it. That's not a very good starting point, especially considering we should be moving towards alternatives that conserve energy and resources as much as possible.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Diemen

I don't agree that it's a particularly good alternative. The process of converting corn to ethanol is wasteful - more energy goes in than you get out of it. That's not a very good starting point, especially considering we should be moving towards alternatives that conserve energy and resources as much as possible.

You are right, as of now, it's not. That's why I keep bringing up the latest findings where a group of scientist have now said they can use the stalk and keep the corn, it's a completely different process. We'll see if it can be implemented.

[ntalwar]

Corn ethanol isn't a reliable alternative - droughts, floods, etc. can wipe out a crop and render it useless for that season.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Dreadsox

Given the Kennedy family, at least the Massachusetts Kennedys, have made Obama since the endorsement, I think it fair to point out that Teddy and family have worked hard to prevent windmill farms from being planted. If the powerful family behind Obama is against it, I would hesitate to believe he will be effective at making it happen.

Why would I tar Obama, with Mary Jo. I do not even know how to respond to your implication. I guess I can crawl back into retirement.

i don't see how it's fair to say that Obama would be against windmills because Ted Kennedy doesn't want his view of the Vineyard from Hyannis obstructed.



it just strikes me that the attacks in here against Obama are really, really unsubstansive, and quite desperate, and i'm honestly baffled as to where this resentment is coming from. i brought up Mary Jo since it seems as absurd a comparison as the windmills.

it seems to me that this election is about one major thing: do you want a permanent, endless American occupation of Mesopotamia, or do you want an orderly withdrawal and a focus on energy markets beyond Persian Gulf oil? also, there are two SCOTUS seats coming up. who do you want seating justices?

as two opponents of the Iraq War (even if one of you was a bit of a Johnny-come-lately ), the fact that you both seem to be twisting your thoughts into pretzels over this very basic issue strikes me as very, very odd. i'd point to anitram's post to deep in the election thread as one that expresses, quite well, the sheer irrationality of deep's anti-Obama fears. deep used to present it as "all people are going to start thinking what i'm thinking if he gets the nomination," and now that he has the nomination, and his lead expands and deepens and solidifies amongst important groups, your attacks aren't broad at all, they are specific to you, and you alone, and your memory of the 1990s is like a former football player talking about his college heyday.

what gives? you're both usually so reasonable. what is it about this man that drives you crazy?

honestly, your Obama-hate, deep, is 100% the same as the anti-Hillary insanity. and i think both are, ultimately, rooted in different, yet similar, places.

[Strongbow]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

it seems to me that this election is about one major thing: do you want a permanent, endless American occupation of Mesopotamia, or do you want an orderly withdrawal and a focus on energy markets beyond Persian Gulf oil?

No one wants a permanent, endless American occupation of Mesopotamia any more than one wants a permanent, endless American occupation of Afghanistan!

The issue is how do you protect vital US security interest in both regions. Until, the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq can take full responsibility for handling security within their borders, US and coalition troops will be needed.

The question should be, do you want any furture US withdrawal from either Iraq or Afghanistan to be based on conditions and the security situation on the ground there, or do you want it to be simply based on domestically popular reasons, ideological reasons, or campaign promises rather than US security needs in both countries? Regardless of what energy plan the next President of the United States has, the Persian Gulf region is going to be vital to global energy needs for at least the next couple of decades.

[Irvine511]

[q]
The question should be, do you want any furture US withdrawal from either Iraq or Afghanistan to be based on conditions and the security situation on the ground there, or do you want it to be simply based on domestically popular reasons, ideological reasons, or campaign promises rather than US security needs in both countries?[/q]


what's amazing, is that the answer to this question, even when self-servingly framed by you, is Obama. by far.

[Strongbow]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

[q]
The question should be, do you want any furture US withdrawal from either Iraq or Afghanistan to be based on conditions and the security situation on the ground there, or do you want it to be simply based on domestically popular reasons, ideological reasons, or campaign promises rather than US security needs in both countries?[/q]


what's amazing, is that the answer to this question, even when self-servingly framed by you, is Obama. by far.

Obama wanted to remove ALL US combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008 regardless of the security situation in Iraq. Thats Obama's plan, and it has NOTHING to do with the security situation on the ground, and everything to do with domestic politics, ideology and campaign promises. Obama's goal is to withdraw period, it is not to insure US security needs there. The US military and State Department all base their future plans in Iraq on increasing the security and development of the country and not abandoning the country on some set arbitrary timetable.

Bringing security and development to both Iraq and Afghanistan are vitally important to the United States, but Obama currently has opposite plans for both countries despite the fact that both countries have fundamentally similar needs.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Strongbow

Obama wanted to remove ALL US combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008 regardless of the security situation in Iraq. Thats Obama's plan, and it has NOTHING to do with the security situation on the ground, and everything to do with domestic politics, ideology and campaign promises. Obama's goal is to withdraw period, it is not to insure US security needs there. The US military and State Department all base their future plans in Iraq on increasing the security and development of the country and not abandoning the country on some set arbitrary timetable.

Bringing security and development to both Iraq and Afghanistan are vitally important to the United States, but Obama currently has opposite plans for both countries despite the fact that both countries have fundamentally similar needs.

you can continue to believe whatever you want, and you can continue to believe you're in some kind of competition with me, but i am not going to get bogged down in your half-truths, distortion, and spin in a thread that's about energy policy.

[Strongbow]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

you can continue to believe whatever you want, and you can continue to believe you're in some kind of competition with me, but i am not going to get bogged down in your half-truths, distortion, and spin in a thread that's about energy policy.

The situation in the Persian Gulf will heavily impact any energy policy the next President decides to follow. Once again, we could all do without the little characterizations of forum members posts.

[Irvine511]

[q]little characteriations of forum members posts[/q]


i see, so if a post is inherently racist, or sexist, or homophobic, we are not to call it as such?

likewise, if a post makes a deliberate mischaracterization of a specific policy position, and we call that a "distortion," we are not to do so?

please, why don't you spend some time enumerating the rules for us. i'm sure we'd all benefit.

[Strongbow]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

[q]little characteriations of forum members posts[/q]


i see, so if a post is inherently racist, or sexist, or homophobic, we are not to call it as such?

likewise, if a post makes a deliberate mischaracterization of a specific policy position, and we call that a "distortion," we are not to do so?

please, why don't you spend some time enumerating the rules for us. i'm sure we'd all benefit.

Once again, were here to discuss the issues, not members alleged posting habbits.

[Diemen]

In a debate, you never acknowledge any flaws in the tactics of others. Never.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Diemen

In a debate, you never acknowledge any flaws in the tactics of others. Never.

i'm glad the logical contradiction in the previous post wasn't lost.

really, it's much better to cut-and-paste a series of statistics than to engage in any sort of critical analysis of issues and arguments.

so much more productive to cut-and-paste.

[yolland]

I think many members in here would appreciate it if both of you passed on responding to each other a lot more often. Ever noticed how hardly anyone else participates in these exchanges? They know they'll just go in circles.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by yolland

I think many members in here would appreciate it if both of you passed on responding to each other a lot more often. Ever noticed how hardly anyone else participates in these exchanges? They know they'll just go in circles.

i suppose i'm the only one foolish enough to think that, maybe, just maybe, something productive might come of actually engaging someone with a somewhat extreme minority viewpoint.

[yolland]

No one thinks you're foolish, and in general I'm all for constructively engaging a minority view rather than laughing or sneering it off and then wondering why there seems to be a stunting lack of ideological diversity around here. But when it becomes personal and starts to look more like one-upmanship than dialogue, there's not really much point anymore.

[Dreadsox]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

i don't see how it's fair to say that Obama would be against windmills because Ted Kennedy doesn't want his view of the Vineyard from Hyannis obstructed.



it just strikes me that the attacks in here against Obama are really, really unsubstansive, and quite desperate, and i'm honestly baffled as to where this resentment is coming from. i brought up Mary Jo since it seems as absurd a comparison as the windmills.

it seems to me that this election is about one major thing: do you want a permanent, endless American occupation of Mesopotamia, or do you want an orderly withdrawal and a focus on energy markets beyond Persian Gulf oil? also, there are two SCOTUS seats coming up. who do you want seating justices?

What I do find wrong, is your implying that I would even think of tagging Obama with Mary Jo. If it was meant to be funny, I missed it.

As for Obama, I do not know why you think I dislike him. I have the match up I hoped for. Both of the candidates that I could live with, are getting their party nomination.

Honestly, I am leaning McCain. I think he will handle Iraq better. I think he will handle working with the congress better, and I think he will nominate good judges. What amazes me is that the Supreme Court continues to handle the issues put before it fairly.

I find Obama's church membership as disturbing as the religious right. They are too extremes and I do not support them either way.

As for the windmills, my point is that there is a why can't we explore this attitude, yet when push comes to shove, even the most liberal democrat in the history of the country does not want them in site of his property. And yes, Ted Kennedy carries more clout than Obama in the congress, and yes, he is more influential.

[Dreadsox]

I for one would rather see a discussion of the lexington project continue.