PDA

View Full Version : Interesting times


svxistentialist
11-05-2008, 04:22 AM
I'd like to congratulate you guys on your new president elect. This will make for interesting times.

As well as congratulations to you, I am in sheer awe and respect at the commitment of the American people to democracy. The number of people who turned up to vote was true testament to your solid belief in the system. It is totally admirable and I wish we Irish were a lot less politically apathetic here in my own country.

It would be good to think Obama got the majority vote because he was the better candidate, not because of the colour of his skin, because there is no doubt he is an exceptional individual. However, there will have been a percentage racist vote in his favour, but on its own it could not have carried him to Washington.

I suppose to balance this off there will have been a white middle class vote pushing McCain, so there is some level of balance to the voting mix on the race ticket.

These were the two best candidates I have seen in my lifetime. I know I have a few friends on here who would be strong Republicans and will be feeling the hurt today. John McCain is a workhorse dynamo, but in this race he was carrying too much baggage in the shape of dissatisfaction with the current Bush regime. In retrospect Sarah Palin was a mistake too. She distracted too much media attention from the main candidate.

For all our sakes I hope that Obama's rhetoric is matched by actions and policies with a bit of vision and muscle.

Can the United States of America revitalise an ailing economy in the coming months?

In my humble opinion, yes, you can.

Joe.

RSVX
11-05-2008, 06:43 AM
meh.........

svxistentialist
11-05-2008, 06:57 AM
meh.........

And this bleat means???

:rolleyes: :D

RSVX
11-05-2008, 07:02 AM
it isnt obvious?

dcarrb
11-05-2008, 07:52 AM
Can the United States of America revitalise an ailing economy in the coming months?

In my humble opinion, yes, you can.

Joe.
I think a few citizens of the United States of America could use a touch of your optimism.

Millions of people voted for John McCain, a fine, patriotic man certainly worthy of the office of president, but his party has had a long run and the American voters decided to give the opposition a go. Years down the road it'll play out another way. My wish is that those who supported Sen. McCain would actually take to heart the words he spoke last night.

dcb

svxistentialist
11-05-2008, 10:00 AM
I think a few citizens of the United States of America could use a touch of your optimism.

Millions of people voted for John McCain, a fine, patriotic man certainly worthy of the office of president, but his party has had a long run and the American voters decided to give the opposition a go. Years down the road it'll play out another way. My wish is that those who supported Sen. McCain would actually take to heart the words he spoke last night.

dcb

Amen to that. On the numbers breakdown nearly 50% of your voters did not get their choice elected.

It is a tribute to the fine and magnanimous man that he is that he immediately pushed disappointment aside and took the patriotic stance of standing behind the new President. Sign of a true statesman.

It's partly this all-for-one attitude that feeds my hope and optimism that these current economic doldrums will be defeated.

Joe

siceclipse
11-05-2008, 10:19 AM
meh.........

republican

lol

lhopp77
11-05-2008, 10:50 AM
.

It would be good to think Obama got the majority vote because he was the better candidate, not because of the colour of his skin, because there is no doubt he is an exceptional individual. However, there will have been a percentage racist vote in his favour, but on its own it could not have carried him to Washington.



You have a strange concept or perspective of qualifications for this job. He was obviously the least qualified of all candidates on the ticket. He was great at selling himself and his ideas and the "hate Bush" syndrome was his biggest booster.

He will NEVER be able to fulfill his promises. He would not have been able to even prior to the financial crisis and that has made it even less possible. He WILL be able to hurt the economy further, though, if he fulfills his promises of increasing taxes on investments, corporations and businesses.

Lee

dcarrb
11-05-2008, 11:19 AM
He will NEVER be able to fulfill his promises.
No doubt that your and your fellow travelers intend to see to that.

dcb

svxistentialist
11-05-2008, 02:19 PM
You have a strange concept or perspective of qualifications for this job. He was obviously the least qualified of all candidates on the ticket. He was great at selling himself and his ideas and the "hate Bush" syndrome was his biggest booster.


Strange you should say that Lee. About 52% of Americans who voted agree he is the man for the job. :p

Plus I mentioned McCain's uphill struggle was shaking off the Bush legacy.
Plus Darren says the same thing, the electorate wanted change.


He will NEVER be able to fulfill his promises. He would not have been able to even prior to the financial crisis and that has made it even less possible. He WILL be able to hurt the economy further, though, if he fulfills his promises of increasing taxes on investments, corporations and businesses.

Lee

You are correct here, it is a very difficult environment for him to be successful in all things. McCain would have struggled also, it's a bad financial playground these days. Whatever he does he will need the support of the people to deliver any positive change, and I hope he gets it.

From an outside perspective it appears to me you may have some fundamental changes coming as he will probably be limiting overseas military spending, which is costly, and he will not be in the pocket of the oil industry like the recent administration. That should keep some dollars at home where they are needed.

Joe

lhopp77
11-05-2008, 07:05 PM
Strange you should say that Lee. About 52% of Americans who voted agree he is the man for the job. :p

........, and he will not be in the pocket of the oil industry like the recent administration. That should keep some dollars at home where they are needed.

Joe

First, I was responding to your qualification statement. Secondly, I agree that he obtained a majority, but all the time I was thinking of the 30s and Germany. :(

Now your last statement doesn't make sense. The way to keep American oil dollars at home is to drill more of our vast reserves. Support of drilling is a Republican position not supported by the Democrats, so we will continue to bleed dollars for overseas oil.

Lee

lhopp77
11-05-2008, 07:10 PM
No doubt that your and your fellow travelers intend to see to that.

dcb

Don't you think it is time for a little bit of "turn about is fair play" and turn the same type of vitrolic hatred on Obama that has been unleased on Bush for his entire term of office????

Lee

Noir
11-05-2008, 07:19 PM
Interesting indeed Joe.

I raise my glass up to my friends as we progress into 'the final hour'. :D

RojoRocket
11-05-2008, 07:33 PM
Don't you think it is time for a little bit of "turn about is fair play" and turn the same type of vitrolic hatred on Obama that has been unleased on Bush for his entire term of office????

Lee

And what is it exactly that Obama has done at this point to earn the vitriol, other than beat out your candidate? Seems to me in '00 and '04 there were Major questions about election "irregularities", and GOP tactics that generated a lot of concern. You sir, appear to be a poor loser. :p

Glenn

svxistentialist
11-05-2008, 07:58 PM
Now your last statement doesn't make sense. The way to keep American oil dollars at home is to drill more of our vast reserves. Support of drilling is a Republican position not supported by the Democrats, so we will continue to bleed dollars for overseas oil.

Lee

Yes, I agree with that Lee. I rolled two statements into one sentence and I meant overseas military spending was the bleed that is about to be staunched.

Being in the pocket of the oil industry is one of the reasons your gas is not taxed as heavily as the rest of the world.

Perversely, as the cost of crude rises on world markets, it will bring the day closer that you will have to drill for and use your own resources. Meantime it does actually make economic sense to use external oil resources as long as they are cheap. That will conserve your own reserves.

The part that I dislike the most of the administration being too close to the oil industry would be there are no government incentives or drives to reduce consumption, because this impacts on gas sales. The USA is out of step with the rest of the world here, big time. Every other country on the planet is making moves to reduce consumption, reduce carbon emissions.

As reserves dwindle I expect we will all head down the same expensive road. Meantime, enjoy your cheap gasoline, in the not too distance future we may have to take out a mortgage to fill the tank of the SVX.

;) :D

NikFu S.
11-05-2008, 08:30 PM
Support of drilling is a capitalist position ...

*cough* ..

BRADY
11-05-2008, 08:38 PM
Please check out www.infowars.com

Cheers,

Mike

Landshark
11-05-2008, 10:44 PM
Strange you should say that Lee. About 52% of Americans who voted agree he is the man for the job. :p




unfortunately, many Americans also eat at McDonald's multiple times per week, watch NASCAR, and forward chain e-mails about urban legends.

svxistentialist
11-06-2008, 02:39 AM
unfortunately, many Americans also eat at McDonald's multiple times per week, watch NASCAR, and forward chain e-mails about urban legends.

Well, sure, and many Americans think "racing" is launching their cars from traffic lights, but nobody's perfect Alan.

I detect sarcasm. What have you got against NASCAR anyway? Is Ricky Bobby not a real person?

:)

SomethingElse
11-06-2008, 02:52 AM
I agree, interesting times are ahead of us. Sarcasm or bitter republicans won't change that fact.:D I hope he gets a chance to do some good before some pissed off nazi skinhead gets his way.

After The white house has been repainted, and a few months of him being in office roll by...around march or april, nobody will give a rats a$$ anymore.

svxistentialist
11-06-2008, 03:30 AM
After The white house has been repainted, and a few months of him being in office roll by...around march or april, nobody will give a rats a$$ anymore.

Wow! Repainting the White House! That IS news, I had not heard that. :eek:

Are they repainting it black, or chocolate color?


:rolleyes: :D :lol:

dcarrb
11-06-2008, 05:48 AM
Secondly, I agree that he obtained a majority, but all the time I was thinking of the 30s and Germany. :(
Parallels between the election of a black man in the United States with the rise of the Nazis in Germany? Holy cow, that's more troubling than the "liberal media conspiracy" to keep Cindy McCain's enthusiasm for motorsports under wraps. (Did the network have "technical difficulties" when she drove the NASCAR pace car at Pocono?):D

I think Republicans would do well to consider the likelihood that no small number voted for Mr. Obama largely because the vitriolic, "I'm right and you're an idiot" (as expressed repeatedly hereabouts) arch-Right dynamic is getting very tiresome, and certainly garners few votes form folks who generally don't appreciate having either their intelligence nor patriotism questioned.

dcb

shotgunslade
11-06-2008, 06:22 AM
I supported Obama against McCain for the same reason I supported him against Hillary. Both McCain and Hillary were managed by old-line political hack consultants, who spend their off election years as lobbyist and influence mongers. Hillary's guy, Mark Penn, was among the worst of these. These guys have no principles, no beliefs, they are all self-serving ego-maniacs who use the candidates as vehicles for their own person welath and power grabbing. If I never see James Carville or Mary Matalan again it will be too soon.

The potential and actual success of a president is determined by the people around him. Jimmy Carter was a crappy president, not because he was a bad guy, but becuase he had a bunch of yahoos from Georgia running his shop.

If you look at the mess that was McCain's campaign you can see that it was just more of the same.

The fact that Obama was already preparing for his transition 3 months ago is not an indication of his hubris, it is an indication that he is a good manager and a smart businesman. If you think there is a 60-40 chance that something is going to happen, you would be well advised to begin to prepare for that as early in advance as possible.

All of the whining from the republicans about Obama's winning: he had so much money; he had so many people working for him; he turned down public funding; he only agreed to do 3 debates. All of these were pragmatic, and ultimately successful and correct decisions and achievements made by Obama and his staff.

What we desperately need out of a president is decision-making that is correct and effective for the long-term, not that seems right for right now, but may come back to bite us next month. We need smart guys. We need the kind of guys that sat around the table during the Cuban missle crisis and backed down Kruschev while avoiding a nuclear holocasut. The common chaacteristics of these guys were that they were smart, well-educated, , achievers, directed, tough, pragmatic, and, did I mention, that they were really smart. We desperately need that again. Obama impresses me as being the most together politician I have seen in a long time. Getting himself elected was a colossal achievement, and he didn't even have a daddy to buy Illinois for him (look it up).

svxistentialist
11-06-2008, 08:09 AM
Obama impresses me as being the most together politician I have seen in a long time. Getting himself elected was a colossal achievement, and he didn't even have a daddy to buy Illinois for him (look it up).

This is something I find impressive also, and being from outside I don't carry the baggage of allegiance to any party.

He actually had to win two presidential elections; he had a major job to push Ms Clinton aside, then he had to go on and beat McCain.

I still see McCain as a good candidate, and the campaign mistakes that were made were by the party, not the candidate. They relied too much on core support, not recognising in time this was a whole new demographic ballgame. Selecting Palin was a mistake. Joe the Plumber might have been a better running mate. At least he would have diverted less attention from the Candidate and the core issues, onces his taxes were brought up to date. :rolleyes:

Sorting the economic issues will require a lot of smart people, no matter who attained the White House. Obama may not have long experience on his side, but at least he has shown he has the balls to buck the status quo and he has strategic vision. That's why I think it will be interesting to see what happens next.

Joe

LarryIII
11-06-2008, 08:21 AM
[QUOTE=shotgunslade;571476] If I never see James Carville or Mary Matalan again it will be too soon.
QUOTE]


I whole heartedly second that.

lhopp77
11-06-2008, 01:05 PM
Parallels between the election of a black man in the United States with the rise of the Nazis in Germany? Holy cow, that's more troubling than the "liberal media conspiracy" to keep Cindy McCain's enthusiasm for motorsports under wraps. (Did the network have "technical difficulties" when she drove the NASCAR pace car at Pocono?):D

I think Republicans would do well to consider the likelihood that no small number voted for Mr. Obama largely because the vitriolic, "I'm right and you're an idiot" (as expressed repeatedly hereabouts) arch-Right dynamic is getting very tiresome, and certainly garners few votes form folks who generally don't appreciate having either their intelligence nor patriotism questioned.

dcb

First, let me clarify the comparison a bit as you are trying to put words in my mouth. I did not compare Obama with the Nazis, but simply a large segment of the populace (particularyly young ones) was swayed by captivating rhetoric with promises that can not be fulfilled. How can so many be fooled by such oratory???

Secondly, it is actually the far left that best fits the "I'm right and you are an idiot" label when they refer to the conservative right. All you have to do to prove that is go back and review the words at that infamous far left liberal fund raiser in San Francisco. :p

Lee

dcarrb
11-06-2008, 01:18 PM
First, let me clarify the comparison a bit as you are trying to put words in my mouth. I did not compare Obama with the Nazis, but simply a large segment of the populace (particularyly young ones) was swayed by captivating rhetoric with promises that can not be fulfilled. How can so many be fooled by such oratory???

Secondly, it is actually the far left that best fits the "I'm right and you are an idiot" label when they refer to the conservative right. All you have to do to prove that is go back and review the words at that infamous far left liberal fund raiser in San Francisco. :p

Lee
Did not intend to skew your comments, but still, such a reference to 30s Germany is out there. I believe most who voted for Mr. Obama made an informed, carefully reasoned choice (if only to vote out the Republicans), rather than blindly jumping onto a cult-of-personality bandwagon, as you seem to believe.

And speaking of out there, you're right (well, maybe half-right): The rhetoric from BOTH extremes gets pretty tiresome.

dcb

lhopp77
11-06-2008, 02:22 PM
Yes, I agree with that Lee. I rolled two statements into one sentence and I meant overseas military spending was the bleed that is about to be staunched.

Being in the pocket of the oil industry is one of the reasons your gas is not taxed as heavily as the rest of the world.


The part that I dislike the most of the administration being too close to the oil industry would be there are no government incentives or drives to reduce consumption, because this impacts on gas sales. The USA is out of step with the rest of the world here, big time. Every other country on the planet is making moves to reduce consumption, reduce carbon emissions.

;) :D

You are comparing oranges with apples. Taxing the oil companies only passes the cost on to the consumer and has nothing to do with anyone being in anyone's pocket. Now IF our transportation problem ONLY covered an area the size of the state of Oregon (the size of UK)--it might be practical to overtax people as you seem to want. Our transportation requirements are far more massive than the tiny EU countries. AND, I think if you really do some research you will find that our emissions standards have been more restrictive historically than those of Europe AND Asia. As I seem to recall one of favorite preowned vehicles (Austin Healey III) was stopped from importing into the US because the company did not want to modify it to meet US emissions standards.

And to the expense of our military overseas, I seem to remember MANY times in the past where several countries were VERY happy to see us spend the money. As the attached AUSTRALIAN political cartoon indicates--there were and are some reasons for it. Seems the Aussies have a pretty good grasp of our political/econ situation. More than I can say for most Europeans. :p

Lee

oab_au
11-06-2008, 03:40 PM
And to the expense of our military overseas, I seem to remember MANY times in the past where several countries were VERY happy to see us spend the money. As the attached AUSTRALIAN political cartoon indicates--there were and are some reasons for it. Seems the Aussies have a pretty good grasp of our political/econ situation. More than I can say for most Europeans. :p

Lee


Can't see any thing Australian in that Lee, but I can assure you that the majority of Australians are relived that the Democrats are in control.:)
Now is the time for the tools of war to be set aside, replaced with the tools of work, to rebuild the life and lands of the many people that have suffered due to the war machine.

Harvey.

lhopp77
11-06-2008, 05:12 PM
Can't see any thing Australian in that Lee, but I can assure you that the majority of Australians are relived that the Democrats are in control.:)
Now is the time for the tools of war to be set aside, replaced with the tools of work, to rebuild the life and lands of the many people that have suffered due to the war machine.

Harvey.

Those were from Aussie newspapers.

I take it you were a Saddam supporter and supported Taliban control of Afghanistan?? And don't really believe there is a war on terror?? :eek:

Lee

oab_au
11-06-2008, 06:08 PM
Those were from Aussie newspapers.

I take it you were a Saddam supporter and supported Taliban control of Afghanistan?? And don't really believe there is a war on terror?? :eek:

Lee

No mate I wasn't a supporter of Saddam, and I wasn't a supporter of the way George organized his demise.
Surly it did not need the death of over 1 thousand young American men and women, and the death of 20 thousand Iraqs to remove one man from power. :(

Fortunately democracy removed George 'painlessly' :)

The trouble with 'George's war on terror', was that he never defined what 'terror' was. It seemed to encompass anyone or anything, that he could aim a gun at.

Harvey.

svxistentialist
11-06-2008, 07:14 PM
You are comparing oranges with apples. Taxing the oil companies only passes the cost on to the consumer and has nothing to do with anyone being in anyone's pocket. Now IF our transportation problem ONLY covered an area the size of the state of Oregon (the size of UK)--it might be practical to overtax people as you seem to want. Our transportation requirements are far more massive than the tiny EU countries. AND, I think if you really do some research you will find that our emissions standards have been more restrictive historically than those of Europe AND Asia. As I seem to recall one of favorite preowned vehicles (Austin Healey III) was stopped from importing into the US because the company did not want to modify it to meet US emissions standards.

Not quite oranges with apples Lee, but I agree the point that the average US worker travels by car much larger distances to work, and this is a mitigating factor.

My point was about the total amount of fuel consumed per mile traveled, not about the emissions standards of the vehicles burning this fuel. Fundamental difference.

Currently most of Europe has turned or is turning to using turbo diesels for commuting. This change is being driven by the high cost of fuel, so owners would not consider buying a car that uses high amounts of petrol. For low consumption, turbo-diesels are King. While US gasoline prices remain low enough, there will be no economic driver to cause US drivers to leave high consumption larger and heavier vehicles, and change over to the more modern efficient ones.

I suspect that US auto companies and engine manufacturers do not currently have any of these fuel efficient engines to fit in their vehicles. For that reason your government will not mount any serious campaign to have commuters drive these more efficient cars, because that will drive up imports and adversely affect balance of payments and damage the sales of American autos.

In other words higher consumption over longer distances is being tolerated because the US auto industry has not caught up with Europe in producing fuel efficient cars, and your government needs to support your local car manufacturing industry. Catch 22.


And to the expense of our military overseas, I seem to remember MANY times in the past where several countries were VERY happy to see us spend the money. As the attached AUSTRALIAN political cartoon indicates--there were and are some reasons for it. Seems the Aussies have a pretty good grasp of our political/econ situation. More than I can say for most Europeans. :p

Lee

Well, none of this is forgotten Lee, you know that. I also don't think for a minute you are suggesting that the way to boost the economy is to use up a lot of ordinance in foreign lands. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: I'm inclined to agree with Harvey though. With world economies in free-fall, it's time to mend bridges and do some de-escalation. Use the money for building up rather than blowing up.

Joe ;)

Mensaf
11-06-2008, 07:22 PM
Obama won. Pop that in the microwave, heat for 4 years, and enjoy it.

NikFu S.
11-06-2008, 08:22 PM
He hasn't won yet. There is still a lot of work to do before he proves he was the right mang for the jerb.

Stilor
11-07-2008, 10:46 AM
For low consumption, turbo-diesels are King.

I'd say that's not exactly accurate. Yes, turbo-diesels have higher MPG values. But, a) diesel is more expensive (though the price difference is not that large) and b) the same amount of oil yields less diesel than gas - that is, in terms of raw oil consumption, diesels may be on par or even worse than gas consumers.

Quite detailed description here: http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/non-renewable/oil.html

As you may see, one barrel of oil produces 19 gallons of gas and 9 gallons of diesel. That is, once about 30% of the cars run on diesel, the price of diesel will adjust to meet the increased demand and the price advantage of diesel will go away. I admit we're still very far from running 30% of the cars on diesel, though :)

svxistentialist
11-08-2008, 06:43 AM
I'd say that's not exactly accurate. Yes, turbo-diesels have higher MPG values. But, a) diesel is more expensive (though the price difference is not that large) and b) the same amount of oil yields less diesel than gas - that is, in terms of raw oil consumption, diesels may be on par or even worse than gas consumers.

Quite detailed description here: http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/non-renewable/oil.html

As you may see, one barrel of oil produces 19 gallons of gas and 9 gallons of diesel. That is, once about 30% of the cars run on diesel, the price of diesel will adjust to meet the increased demand and the price advantage of diesel will go away. I admit we're still very far from running 30% of the cars on diesel, though :)

Yes, it's more like 4%. :eek:

In US refineries the ratio of Petrol [gasoline] produced compared to diesel is in the ratio you suggest above. That's because the fractionating in the refineries was designed to produce more gasoline because you are using more gasoline.

The refineries can deliver different percentages depending on design parameters, and in Europe they deliver larger amounts of diesel.

So what you are saying is only correct for the US, and you produce more gasoline because you have traditionally sold it cheaper, therefore there is a bigger appetite for it. But it is less fuel efficient for the average car compared to the latest turbo-diesels.

Read what they say here: http://science.howstuffworks.com/us-gas-addiction.htm

You will see a different perspective. Your government is taxing diesel much more heavily than gasoline. There are a couple of main reasons for this; with your lower percentage reduction of diesel they want to retain the diesel for trucks and heavy transport is one; they don't want people to change over to the more efficient European diesel cars because that will leave a lot of Detroit metal unsold is the other. So they are taxing the diesel to make it appear uneconomical to change US family cars to diesel.

A possible good way around this problem might be for the likes of Chrysler to buy in European diesel engines and fit them to American cars. That would increase the efficiency of US autos by a big percentage and keep the auto workers jobs safe. The main difficulty with this approach is high demand in Europe for the efficient diesels leaves no spare capacity in the engine factories to supply American companies, even if they wanted to go this road.

It will be a while before there is a reasonable remedy.

Joe