over for obama?

[RoSquirts]

Will, I should have mentioned what I thought of her speech since that's what you really posted about,lol. I thought she did a really good job. She introduced herself to the American public and came across as a personable, strong, dedicated individual. If there was anything wrong with the speech, I felt it was the speechwriters' fault ,not hers. I really came away liking her personally and impressed although the speechwriters in some ways let her down. Some of the Obama attacks were a little too vitriolic and they could have left parts of the foreign policy section out entirely. She delivered 5hose parts well in spite of the fact you could see she wasn't all that comfortable with them. And in my mind anyway, I excused it as something the speechwriters foisted on her and she had to do the best with it she could.
Overall, I think she made a great 'first impression' though and will enjoy watching her progress on the national stage.

 

[Milf-Dating]

Check her out here.

You gotta admit McCain is looking like a genius today. Picking a hot looking gun toting former beauty queen for his VP. Good move! I think it's the beginning of the end for Obama.

You have to see some of these hot photos of her and the fakes that are popping up. Heres a few as a sample, but check the link below for a low more.

http://www.darkcavern.com/forums/fucking-fakes/33500-sarah-palin.html

 

[handigrl]

The Republican party has themselves to blame for being labeled as the racist party. During the so called Republican Revolution when the GOP let the evangelical and conservative base take over the party, they put the label of Liberal on anyone who disagreed with their agenda. Also, via talk radio (the propaganda service of the Republican Party), if you did not agree with the Republican/Conservative stands, you were labeled everything under the sun on the far left fringe and further associated with the Liberal Democrat title.
Having accomplished this indirectly the Republican/conservatives have been labeled as racists since they are on the right, and while the groups such as the KKK, Nazi, White Supremisists may be extreme they vote and align themselves with the Republican Party whether the GOP likes it or not.
Fact is there is good and bad in all things, and Political Parties.
No Political Party has a monopoly on being right or being the best.
However, I was hoping that we would see the first National Presidential election in many years that was going to be about issues, and not with the Republicans being controlled, and driven with the sole goal of promoting the evangelical conservative agendas.
McCain seems to have given up his independent streak with Palin. She may be a women, albeit good looking women, but her positions and inclinations are with the evangelical conservative movement.
People need to look beyond skin color, and sex. People need to take into account the fact that the next President will appoint the members of the Supreme Court who will determine how we Americans will live our lives for decades to come. Abortion rights, the many violatons of the US Constitution that have been inacted by Conservatives and expanding them, and many other returns to 1950 and 1960' application of thinking and living being ****** upon us is what this is all about. Who knows if the Supreme Court goes conservative enought (2 more selections) we may see the putting out of business of the Dark Cavern type websites as the evangelical/conservative slant is put on porn laws?
The coming up with new alternative fuels and making the US energy independent is at stake.
Counter to Palin and McCain, drilling in Alaska and off shore is only a temp band aid. Also, big oil will sell the oil into the same market with all the other oil. The difference is they won't have to pay a foreign country, so they can keep much more profit.
I could go on and on, but will point out one more fact.

Someone has said that Obama hid all the blacks. Well his goal is to get elected in order to do what he wants to do.
The difference is the at the Republican Convention where are all those minorities at?
When the audience was shown at the DNC Convention along with the day to day speakers it looked like any urban community.
When the audience is shown at the GOP Convention along with the day to day speakers it looks like a all white prayer meeting.

 

[vtjames742]

The Republican party has themselves to blame for being labeled as the racist party. During the so called Republican Revolution when the GOP let the evangelical and conservative base take over the party, they put the label of Liberal on anyone who disagreed with their agenda. Also, via talk radio (the propaganda service of the Republican Party), if you did not agree with the Republican/Conservative stands, you were labeled everything under the sun on the far left fringe and further associated with the Liberal Democrat title.
Having accomplished this indirectly the Republican/conservatives have been labeled as racists since they are on the right, and while the groups such as the KKK, Nazi, White Supremisists may be extreme they vote and align themselves with the Republican Party whether the GOP likes it or not.
Fact is there is good and bad in all things, and Political Parties.
No Political Party has a monopoly on being right or being the best.
However, I was hoping that we would see the first National Presidential election in many years that was going to be about issues, and not with the Republicans being controlled, and driven with the sole goal of promoting the evangelical conservative agendas.
McCain seems to have given up his independent streak with Palin. She may be a women, albeit good looking women, but her positions and inclinations are with the evangelical conservative movement.
People need to look beyond skin color, and sex. People need to take into account the fact that the next President will appoint the members of the Supreme Court who will determine how we Americans will live our lives for decades to come. Abortion rights, the many violatons of the US Constitution that have been inacted by Conservatives and expanding them, and many other returns to 1950 and 1960' application of thinking and living being ****** upon us is what this is all about. Who knows if the Supreme Court goes conservative enought (2 more selections) we may see the putting out of business of the Dark Cavern type websites as the evangelical/conservative slant is put on porn laws?
The coming up with new alternative fuels and making the US energy independent is at stake.
Counter to Palin and McCain, drilling in Alaska and off shore is only a temp band aid. Also, big oil will sell the oil into the same market with all the other oil. The difference is they won't have to pay a foreign country, so they can keep much more profit.
I could go on and on, but will point out one more fact.

Someone has said that Obama hid all the blacks. Well his goal is to get elected in order to do what he wants to do.
The difference is the at the Republican Convention where are all those minorities at?
When the audience was shown at the DNC Convention along with the day to day speakers it looked like any urban community.
When the audience is shown at the GOP Convention along with the day to day speakers it looks like a all white prayer meeting.

They say perception is reality but I have to say that your perception is one fostered by the lies of the die hard left that has hijacked the democratic party rather than a factual accounting of the republican party.
I remind you that two of the biggest pro censorship politicians in modern times were both democrats- Lieberman and Gore (along with Tipper). That isnt to say many right leaners aren't on that bandwagon too but just as many are not, we just believe that there is a time and a place whereas many on the fringe left think it is ok to plaster it all over in view of all.
As for drilling for oil, the republicans always state that drilling is not the whole answer, that it is part of the answer, a way to buy time while we continue the work on TRUE alternatives.
The majority of your statements are off from reality in terms of the republican party but you are not able to see that because you have bought into the propaganda of the die hard left. BTW, the activists and politicians currently using the term liberal are mostly not liberals, they are leftists, some socialists, some communist and some other but they are NOT true classical liberals, they hide behind the term.

 

[zibzob]

well spoken vtjames742

 

[RoSquirts]

Republicans may say that drilliing is not the whole answer but when push comes to shove, that's all they put on the table. They've fought tooth and nail to not reduce tax breaks to the oil and gas industry to continue funding for development of alternative sources of fuel while fighting for no other solution but drilling. McCain is even running an ad with huge national ******** that states it in pretty clear terms - "One man knows we must now drill more in America and rescue our family budgets: …McCain." Of course, some would argue that that doen't mean he doesn't support a more broadbased energy plan but to the rest of us that aren't into playing semantics, it's pretty clear what he's saying.

Thankfully, a handful of Republicans and Democrats are actually attempting a bipartisan deal in the Senate to achieve more drilling while cutting the tax breaks to renew funding for alternative fuel source development. Some republicans, like Sununu of New Hampshire have even recently 'flip-flopped' to support the bill recognizing that their own election may be at stake in November. Rush Limbaugh and his formidable following amongst so called conservatives is dead set against the compromise because in his words it would ""cut the knees off of Senator McCain."

Of course, Bush is threatening to veto the bill because it contains a 'tax increase'.

 

[RoSquirts]

As for drilling for oil, the republicans always state that drilling is not the whole answer, that it is part of the answer, a way to buy time while we continue the work on TRUE alternatives.

Help me understand something. If new offshore drilling will take at least 5 yeas to start showing results, ANWAR would take 10 and the DOE estimates that even if all available drilliing was being exploited it would only supply 3-5% of our oil needs - just how will drilling buy us any time at all or any relief in prices?

 

[blkoralslaveboy]

blinding loyalty

Ok, then even the most pro-Bush conservative polls have Bush's approval at just under 40% with disapproval over 55%! The average is 30.8% approval and 62.4% against him. Defend your party's honor from BUSH not from the liberals! He's the one giving you guys the bad wrap! Bush: Job Ratings

again vt, the republican party philosophy isn't racist, but it does aid people that are. i saw some black republicans in the audience and they all one thing in common they looked like they just awoke from a coma.

anyways, my socially liberal economically conservative friends i'm sure you guys aren't so bad-- just stop being so damned blindly loyal to that party...OR I'LL UNLEASH EVIL EYE...

They say perception is reality but I have to say that your perception is one fostered by the lies of the die hard left that has hijacked the democratic party rather than a factual accounting of the republican party.
I remind you that two of the biggest pro censorship politicians in modern times were both democrats- Lieberman and Gore (along with Tipper). That isnt to say many right leaners aren't on that bandwagon too but just as many are not, we just believe that there is a time and a place whereas many on the fringe left think it is ok to plaster it all over in view of all.
As for drilling for oil, the republicans always state that drilling is not the whole answer, that it is part of the answer, a way to buy time while we continue the work on TRUE alternatives.
The majority of your statements are off from reality in terms of the republican party but you are not able to see that because you have bought into the propaganda of the die hard left. BTW, the activists and politicians currently using the term liberal are mostly not liberals, they are leftists, some socialists, some communist and some other but they are NOT true classical liberals, they hide behind the term.

 

[blkoralslaveboy]

It doesn't help much. Certainty is the greatest disease of the mind you see. Drilling will help very little much the same way a graham cracker might help a little when you're famished. but in the end it will be very, very difficult to replace fossil fuels! The greatest problem that will arise will come from the fact that the majority of people will negatively react whenever the fuel shortage begins affecting their life style. And I don't mean not being able to take trips to Honolulu, I mean not being able to get their frosty at the gas station or not being able to refrigerate their Coke or Pepsi.

Don't forget the fact that 95% of consumer products are fossil fuel based. Which means this new alternate source for fuel will not only drive our cars and planes but also have to substitute for fossil fuels' uses here.

At best you can pretty much say that our country, indeed the industrialized world, is about to face an economic heart attack. It will take one hell of a doctor to save it!

Gasoline based on corn or sugar will only drive those market values to sky rocket at the store, not to mention the potential agricultural ware and tare on the heartland. Nuclear will be something we need to stop debating and agree to if we want to have actual results! Solar, wind, and other geo-thermal sources will aide us. But none of these can connect all the dots like fossil fuels... Remember, given there may be a solution we have to be ready to face the possibility that there MAY NOT be one either!! after all this isn't a sitcom this is real life... this might be final judgment on advanced civilization!

Help me understand something. If new offshore drilling will take at least 5 yeas to start showing results, ANWAR would take 10 and the DOE estimates that even if all available drilliing was being exploited it would only supply 3-5% of our oil needs - just how will drilling buy us any time at all or any relief in prices?

 

[IndyHubby]

To The Point

You do realize, though, that that is an amalgamation of folks who are dissatisfied with Bush for all reasons. A great deal of the dissatisfaction with Bush comes from his right. People who don't like his actions on Iimmigration, or education, or Medicare, or whatever. I don't like bush on at least a dozen different issues but i'm NOT to his left.

It's a mistake to assume that because only 40% approve of him that 60% are ready to vote Democrat.

Your posts, regardless of the subject, are always succinct, thought provoking, and well written. My usual thought, after each one I read it, "I wish I'd written that". This one reflects one of my ongoing frustrations with the slanted opinions and half-truths the media cite as fact.

Your reasons for your dissatisfaction with the Bush presidency are some of the ones that I and many of my friends complain of. My disapproval of the war in Iraq is not because we went there but because WMDs were used to sell the idea when that was not the real purpose (it was not Iraq's oil either). I also disapprove of how careful we were to prevent collateral damage. Collateral damage provides the civilians incentive to end war.

My biggest issue however, is because his social policies were very leftist. The dems complaints are power not position based. I see no real differences between Bush and Clinton's positions.

There is, in application, little difference in the two major parties. They debate and posture about how to enact unnecessary legislation. None of them respect our intelligence.

It's all about power. Money is power. If the money is in Wasington, the power is in Washington. If the money is in the people's hands, the people have the power. Politicians buy votes through promises of income redistribution. Then they control citizens' behavior through the distribution process.

The irony is that many are willing to sacrifice freedom of choice in exchange for a lifestyle change that has never and will never happen. It's sort of like slavery. The difference is these people choose to be slaves owned by a government, now corrupted, that was originally formed to make them free.

......not succinct.

 

[RoSquirts]

You do realize, though, that that is an amalgamation of folks who are dissatisfied with Bush for all reasons. A great deal of the dissatisfaction with Bush comes from his right. People who don't like his actions on Iimmigration, or education, or Medicare, or whatever. I don't like bush on at least a dozen different issues but i'm NOT to his left.

It's a mistake to assume that because only 40% approve of him that 60% are ready to vote Democrat.

Although your personal disapproval of Bush is for different reasons than many, the polls indicate that most on the right are overwhelmingly in support of Bush.

From Gallup's website - "In the current poll, 71% of Republicans approve of Bush, compared with an average of 64% in April through June. Twenty-five percent of independents now give Bush a positive review (compared with 23% between April and June) as do just 7% of Democrats (compared with 6% in the April-June period)."

Since 7 out of 10 republicans support Bush, I think it's fair to say that most conservatives are overwhelmingly in support of him, your personal opinions notwithstanding. For the most part it's the middle and left that don't support him.

 

[handigrl]

Just goes to show how screwed up and conflicted the Republican Party or their supporters really are!

 

[vtjames742]

Help me understand something. If new offshore drilling will take at least 5 yeas to start showing results, ANWAR would take 10 and the DOE estimates that even if all available drilliing was being exploited it would only supply 3-5% of our oil needs - just how will drilling buy us any time at all or any relief in prices?

A lessen in international commodities and economics could be in order- the mere movement to drill WILL force prices down. Second, there is more than 3-5% of our needs in oil. Third, it isnt all about oil but natural gas which we have tons of and oil from coal which is relatively inexpensive and clean.

I am not wasting anymore time on these topics because it is a waste of time. Lets talk about sex instead- isnt that why we are here?

 

[vtjames742]

Just goes to show how screwed up and conflicted the Republican Party or their supporters really are!

Interestingly we feel the same way about the supporters of the modern democratic party

 

[RoSquirts]

A lessen in international commodities and economics could be in order- the mere movement to drill WILL force prices down. Second, there is more than 3-5% of our needs in oil. Third, it isnt all about oil but natural gas which we have tons of and oil from coal which is relatively inexpensive and clean.

I am not wasting anymore time on these topics because it is a waste of time. Lets talk about sex instead- isnt that why we are here?

The one who needs a lesson in commodities apparently is you. I won't bother looking for the link again (I've already posted it elsewhere in these forums) but the Department of Energy studies have made it real clear that exploiting all our potential drilling sites, land-based and offshore, would give us 3-5% of our needs and literally have an impact on oil prices of about a dollar a barrel. Your choosing to make up your own 'facts' won't change that.

You're the one that stated that drilliing would 'bide us time' and now you're saying it's about natural gas and extraction of oil from shale??

You obviously can't handle the truth and have to resort to snide remarks and changing the subject when your arguments are shown to not hold water.

I agree though, sex is more fun. I hope you're more knowledgeable at that.

 

[handigrl]

A lessen in international commodities and economics could be in order- the mere movement to drill WILL force prices down. Second, there is more than 3-5% of our needs in oil. Third, it isnt all about oil but natural gas which we have tons of and oil from coal which is relatively inexpensive and clean.

I am not wasting anymore time on these topics because it is a waste of time. Lets talk about sex instead- isnt that why we are here?

I thought we were. The Republicans are screwing the hell out of the middle class! lol

 

[blkoralslaveboy]

RoSquirts,
donno if you got my message but just wanted to compliment your website...between your sophistication and beauty are two pillars of perfection....not to sound too corny lol. hope u vote obama.

The one who needs a lesson in commodities apparently is you. I won't bother looking for the link again (I've already posted it elsewhere in these forums) but the Department of Energy studies have made it real clear that exploiting all our potential drilling sites, land-based and offshore, would give us 3-5% of our needs and literally have an impact on oil prices of about a dollar a barrel. Your choosing to make up your own 'facts' won't change that.

You're the one that stated that drilliing would 'bide us time' and now you're saying it's about natural gas and extraction of oil from shale??

You obviously can't handle the truth and have to resort to snide remarks and changing the subject when your arguments are shown to not hold water.

I agree though, sex is more fun. I hope you're more knowledgeable at that.

 

[RoSquirts]

Although the breakdown is not quite that, I agree totally his rating would be significantly higher, of course. The only other factor that might skew that though is that people that identify themselves as democrats have increased around 8% over the past 4 years while republicans have dropped that. Of course, that doesn't mean that the republicans became democrats, they could have gone independent and left leaning independents gone to democrats. Poll numbers are funny and open to interpretation in so many ways, it gets confusing.

Did any of that make sense?? lol

 

[blkoralslaveboy]

and the ever growing libertarian movement? what are your views on that..

Although the breakdown is not quite that, I agree totally his rating would be significantly higher, of course. The only other factor that might skew that though is that people that identify themselves as democrats have increased around 8% over the past 4 years while republicans have dropped that. Of course, that doesn't mean that the republicans became democrats, they could have gone independent and left leaning independents gone to democrats. Poll numbers are funny and open to interpretation in so many ways, it gets confusing.

Did any of that make sense?? lol

 

[blkoralslaveboy]

0.71x40 + 0.25x20 + 0.07x40 = 36.2 or 36.2% approval according to your basis of 40:40:20,
if all reps join yes it comes to 47.8% approval however, in order for 100% of the republicans to favor bush, he'll have to do something that will potentially lose some of the favoring independents and democrats. this would effectively alter the percentages of the other two groups. can't make everybody happy all the time.

Oh I absolutely agree.

But that 30% of Republicans is enough to drive the overall number down.

As a rough example - if 40% of us are Rep and 40% are Dem and 20% are indy, and we use your numbers as a guide, then 35.8% would approve of Bush overall.

But if all Republican's approved of him, then 47.8% would be his approval rating.

See what I'm driving at?

 

[blkoralslaveboy]

anyways, i have made the case that fossil fuels are virtually irreplaceable in terms of how we stand now. he who controls fossil fuels virtually controls the world. the middle east still retains 56% of the world's remaining fuel reserves. in order to control that we have give ourselves any reason we can to stay there "if it means 100 more years" just as mccain said. Image:World Oil Reserves by Region.PNG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

there's no point in my repeating what i said earlier. however, everyone here seems very intelligent but no one agrees with me regarding why we're there. for me like i said earlier it's because it's lucrative both for the oil industries as well as the defense industry. i don't buy into "we're there for democracy". There is a theory that Eisenhower's speech regarding the "military industrial complex" as he was exiting the white house in '61 is in heavier application today than at any time in our recent history. i want to know why you think we're wasting thousands of our soldiers' lives there... surely no wmd's and so far no binladen.

 

[vtjames742]

The one who needs a lesson in commodities apparently is you. I won't bother looking for the link again (I've already posted it elsewhere in these forums) but the Department of Energy studies have made it real clear that exploiting all our potential drilling sites, land-based and offshore, would give us 3-5% of our needs and literally have an impact on oil prices of about a dollar a barrel. Your choosing to make up your own 'facts' won't change that.

You're the one that stated that drilliing would 'bide us time' and now you're saying it's about natural gas and extraction of oil from shale??

You obviously can't handle the truth and have to resort to snide remarks and changing the subject when your arguments are shown to not hold water.

I agree though, sex is more fun. I hope you're more knowledgeable at that.

I am probably one of the few people in here with a degree in business with a focus on economics and experience in commodities. Just because you cannot follow along does not undermine that experience or education.
I did NOT say it was all about natural gas. What I said was it isnt all about oil- in other words oil is PART of the equation NOT the whole thing. How you twist that into a statement about it being all about natural gas is beyond me. The level of reading comprehension is low to say the least. Amazingly I have a degree in secondary education as well and in that field of study, reading comprehension is pushed hard so if you want, maybe I can tutor you. The fact is that the act of approving and beginning the process of drilling will in and of itself force world crude prices down- estimates for this decrease also vary. I'd urge you to learn how commodity speculators work.
What you fail to realize with your statistics is that there are varying statistics as to how much oil is at the north slop and outer continental shelf. They are all basically estimates and vary widely.
Having said that, I am a big proponent of wind and solar in locations that they are efficient as well as other forms of sustainable alternatives. Ethanol is at this juncture a total bust. Using food sources for fuel is blamed for roughly 75% of the increase in price of the worlds food supply according to the world bank. Ethanol is also highly subsidized and cannot sustain itself without these subsidies because the market price would be so high that no one would buy it. We also use corn instead of sugar cane- sugar cane is a much more efficient source.
In closing, your inability to comprehend does not change what I have said. Please work harder to follow along rather than taking half of what I said and trying to piece it together to say what you want me to have said.

 

[vtjames742]

anyways, i have made the case that fossil fuels are virtually irreplaceable in terms of how we stand now. he who controls fossil fuels virtually controls the world. the middle east still retains 56% of the world's remaining fuel reserves. in order to control that we have give ourselves any reason we can to stay there "if it means 100 more years" just as mccain said. Image:World Oil Reserves by Region.PNG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

there's no point in my repeating what i said earlier. however, everyone here seems very intelligent but no one agrees with me regarding why we're there. for me like i said earlier it's because it's lucrative both for the oil industries as well as the defense industry. i don't buy into "we're there for democracy". There is a theory that Eisenhower's speech regarding the "military industrial complex" as he was exiting the white house in '61 is in heavier application today than at any time in our recent history. i want to know why you think we're wasting thousands of our soldiers' lives there... surely no wmd's and so far no binladen.

I dont want to get into the WMDs issue as it seems to be above the level of comprehension of many in this forum. However, McCains comments about 100 yrs was clear, he was saying we should stay until we have finished the job. We as a nation have a horrible habit of getting into things then quiting when we are bored of it- leaving hundreds of thousands- even millions- behind to get slaughtered.
Not that it means we dont want to control their oil- though there is little evidence- but we get very little of our oil from the middle east. Of course an understanding of international commodities tells us that regardless of where one gets their oil, the price they pay still depends on the overall world supply and usage so we do have a vested interested in the free flow. I do believe part of our motive was the free flow of oil but certainly do not agree that we went to steal it.

 

[zibzob]

All this gibber jabber has gotten away from my main point! Sarah Palin is HOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!