PDA

View Full Version : How Do You Vote?


Ron
03-12-2008, 12:01 PM
A question for you.
In an election, how do you vote?

1. A Party

2. A Candidate

3. An Issue


What determines your vote?:hmmm

Esther
03-12-2008, 12:02 PM
A question for you.
In an election, how do you vote?

1. A Party

2. A Candidate

3. An Issue


What determines your vote?:hmmm

Sometimes all three. :)

Ron
03-12-2008, 12:07 PM
Sometimes all three. :)

Sometimes????:hmmm

Pastor G
03-12-2008, 12:08 PM
A question for you.
In an election, how do you vote?

1. A Party

2. A Candidate

3. An Issue


What determines your vote?:hmmm

Candidate
Issue
Party

in that order...

If two candidates are comperable with their integrity, morals and God then I would move to the issue. If both were on the same side of the issue, then I would go to party... If both were of the same party then I would look at the wife... jk on the last one...

DividedThigh
03-12-2008, 12:10 PM
very carefully, always on the issues that matter the most to me, security, freedom and taxes, dt

A_PoMo
03-12-2008, 12:13 PM
Issues, and even then I have be selective because no candidate cares about everything that I feel is important.

Digging4Truth
03-12-2008, 12:18 PM
Issues

TRFrance
03-12-2008, 12:29 PM
early and often.

Ferd
03-12-2008, 12:47 PM
I start with eliminating idiots, communists, socialists and other neer do wells.

if any democrats are left standing, I generally eliminate them too. (generally there arent any left standing.)

then I vote for the republican that best fits my moral, political, practical views.

Rev Dooley
03-12-2008, 12:54 PM
A question for you.
In an election, how do you vote?

1. A Party

2. A Candidate

3. An Issue


What determines your vote?:hmmmIt depends on who has the issue at that very moment, me or them.:gaga

DividedThigh
03-12-2008, 12:55 PM
I start with eliminating idiots, communists, socialists and other neer do wells.

if any democrats are left standing, I generally eliminate them too. (generally there arent any left standing.)

then I vote for the republican that best fits my moral, political, practical views.

well stated ferd, nice picture of the kid, is that the famous levi, lol,dt

Ferd
03-12-2008, 01:00 PM
well stated ferd, nice picture of the kid, is that the famous levi, lol,dt

Yes Sir. that is my boy Levi. he is a ham.

DividedThigh
03-12-2008, 01:01 PM
Yes Sir. that is my boy Levi. he is a ham.

that is a cute kid, doesnt look a thing like his dad i am sure, lol,dt

Pressing-On
03-12-2008, 01:02 PM
I start with eliminating idiots, communists, socialists and other neer do wells.

if any democrats are left standing, I generally eliminate them too. (generally there arent any left standing.)

then I vote for the republican that best fits my moral, political, practical views.

Very succinct words. I couldn't have said it better!

Ferd
03-12-2008, 01:14 PM
Very succinct words. I couldn't have said it better!
Practicality often gets short shrift.

All too often we sacrifice who stands the best chance of getting elected on the alter of standing by our political principles. As if loosing on principle actually scores some kind of point.

It is odd to me that this time around, Republicans decided on the practical candidate over the political/moral candidate.

We shall see if that strategy pays off.

Pressing-On
03-12-2008, 01:34 PM
Practicality often gets short shrift.

All too often we sacrifice who stands the best chance of getting elected on the alter of standing by our political principles. As if loosing on principle actually scores some kind of point.

It is odd to me that this time around, Republicans decided on the practical candidate over the political/moral candidate.

We shall see if that strategy pays off.

Right. Did you read the last post I made today on the McCain being old thread? I read an article quoting Fred Barnes on how effective it would be for Mitt to run as VP.

What do you think about that? I thought the article was very interesting, well written and I was in favor of it.

Ferd
03-12-2008, 01:57 PM
Right. Did you read the last post I made today on the McCain being old thread? I read an article quoting Fred Barnes on how effective it would be for Mitt to run as VP.

What do you think about that? I thought the article was very interesting, well written and I was in favor of it.

you post too much! You already have over a hundred posts today!

ChristopherHall
03-12-2008, 02:11 PM
Candidate and Issues.

In a candidate I look for genuine intentions, transparency, and family stability... regardless of political party.

My primary issues are health care, civil rights of citizens over rights of "corporate personhood", corporate oversight, war, separation of church & state, and tax burden.

Pressing-On
03-12-2008, 02:14 PM
you post too much! You already have over a hundred posts today!
Oh my gosh, you're so nosy and how did you know that? I didn't even know that!!! I post, get up and do some cleaning, play with my puppy and post some more.

:ursofunny

I just checked my profile. It's says I average 19.38 posts per day. That's not too bad. :D

Timmy
03-12-2008, 02:25 PM
I post two posts before I post two posts, and then I post two more.

(Extra points for the first to identify the song that's paraphrasing! :lol)

Jack Shephard
03-12-2008, 02:33 PM
I start usually with my convictions. I do agree with PoMo that no one has all I want. Usually my choice falls on the conservative side. I am a registered Conservative, I believe, but I am also not affraid of voting contray to a certain party. This upcoming election, if I vote it will be for McCain. Though I would not pass out if Obama won.

Pressing-On
03-12-2008, 02:33 PM
I post two posts before I post two posts, and then I post two more.

(Extra points for the first to identify the song that's paraphrasing! :lol)
Is it the Hokey Pokey?

Ferd
03-12-2008, 02:40 PM
Oh my gosh, you're so nosy and how did you know that? I didn't even know that!!! I post, get up and do some cleaning, play with my puppy and post some more.

:ursofunny

I just checked my profile. It's says I average 19.38 posts per day. That's not too bad. :D

well, I couldnt find the McCain is old thread so I looked at your posts to find it. had to wade thru 4 pages from today! i get 25 posts per page....

LOL!

Timmy
03-12-2008, 02:43 PM
Is it the Hokey Pokey?

Not even close! :lol

StillStanding
03-12-2008, 02:47 PM
I vote for the person whom I dislike the least!

Esther
03-12-2008, 03:36 PM
I vote for the person whom I dislike the least!

I do know what you are saying here!

Esther
03-12-2008, 03:37 PM
Candidate
Issue
Party

in that order...

If two candidates are comperable with their integrity, morals and God then I would move to the issue. If both were on the same side of the issue, then I would go to party... If both were of the same party then I would look at the wife... jk on the last one...

I would say my order would be

Issue
Candidate, I agree if two are tied then I like your list, and I think looking at the wife is a consideration. Look at Hilary!
Party

DanielR
03-12-2008, 03:59 PM
A question for you.
In an election, how do you vote?

1. A Party

2. A Candidate

3. An Issue


What determines your vote?:hmmm

1.Party- Eliminate both major parties (too much power struggling between them)

2. Issue-Does the remaining parties speak to the issues that I concider important. (small gov, low taxes, protecting personal liberties.)

3. Candidate-Do I think the candidate can accomplish the job.


Daniel

RandyWayne
03-12-2008, 04:02 PM
I vote strictly on name recognition and what the candidate says they can do for me!

Pressing-On
03-12-2008, 04:06 PM
well, I couldnt find the McCain is old thread so I looked at your posts to find it. had to wade thru 4 pages from today! i get 25 posts per page....

LOL!

:ursofunny

Well, fortunately I have company coming in on Friday for Spring Break and will be too busy to post. Will that help? :ursofunny

AmazingGrace
03-12-2008, 04:13 PM
:ursofunny

Well, fortunately I have company coming in on Friday for Spring Break and will be too busy to post. Will that help? :ursofunny

No cuz you were gone for a long time and you are caught up with those of us who never left!! :ursofunny

Pressing-On
03-12-2008, 04:15 PM
No cuz you were gone for a long time and you are caught up with those of us who never left!! :ursofunny

I think I passed some without realizing it!!! I better take another long break.

:ursofunny

Jermyn Davidson
03-12-2008, 06:17 PM
I believe I was "suckered" by the well-intentioned people around me to vote Republican last election, just because he "matches my morals". I will never do that again! Suckered because his administration is NOT morally upright!!! Crooked and perverse as the day is long!

I will look at the candidate and the issues, with SOME regard to the party. But this time, I will not vote for the current Republican Pres. nominee, REGARDLESS of who he picks for his VP. I respect his service, but once he attempted to paint himself as a Conservative, he lost my vote-- not because I dislike Conservatives, but because I know his voting history spells Moderate. Democrats make better Moderates. Let them compromise.

BrotherEastman
03-12-2008, 06:46 PM
Give me someone to vote for please! I'm so disgusted I wanna puke! Maybe I'll vote for the NY Govornor.

Ronzo
03-12-2008, 06:47 PM
nunya



;)

BrotherEastman
03-12-2008, 06:48 PM
I believe I was "suckered" by the well-intentioned people around me to vote Republican last election, just because he "matches my morals". I will never do that again! Suckered because his administration is NOT morally upright!!! Crooked and perverse as the day is long!

I will look at the candidate and the issues, with SOME regard to the party. But this time, I will not vote for the current Republican Pres. nominee, REGARDLESS of who he picks for his VP. I respect his service, but once he attempted to paint himself as a Conservative, he lost my vote-- not because I dislike Conservatives, but because I know his voting history spells Moderate. Democrats make better Moderates. Let them compromise.
The only problem with your logic; unless you're gonna vote for Clinton, Obama is a liberal not a moderate.

BrotherEastman
03-12-2008, 06:51 PM
nunya



;)
Yer gonna hafta be more specific than that.

Ronzo
03-12-2008, 07:10 PM
Yer gonna hafta be more specific than that.

NUNYABIDNESS

Hoovie
03-12-2008, 07:13 PM
Sometimes all three. :)

Yes I consider ALL of the above.

BrotherEastman
03-12-2008, 07:19 PM
NUNYABIDNESS
I aint never herd of him.:laffatu

Arphaxad
03-12-2008, 07:38 PM
I post two posts before I post two posts, and then I post two more.

(Extra points for the first to identify the song that's paraphrasing! :lol)

I dont remember the title, but I know it's about MaryJane. (I been saved less than 6 years, just in case you want to know how I know.)


ARPH :doggyrun

Jermyn Davidson
03-12-2008, 08:49 PM
The only problem with your logic; unless you're gonna vote for Clinton, Obama is a liberal not a moderate.


Yeah, well I believe he will be forced to become a bit more Moderate than his past voting record and ideas (which, to his credit, he makes no attempt to hide). He's not a Socialist, but I agree that he is quite liberal. If he wants to accomplish ANYTHING at all, he'll have to compromise-- unless everyone votes their Republican congressmen and Senators out of office. Then, we will be in a true bind. But even so, God will only allow so much to happen. I am more concerned for Obama's life than I am for the effects of his Presidency.

Jermyn Davidson
03-12-2008, 08:52 PM
By the way, Hillary Clinton's name rhymes with the name of my septic tank-- Hillary Clinton. I would consider not re-enlisting if she becomes my Commander-In-Chief.

BrotherEastman
03-13-2008, 07:42 AM
Yeah, well I believe he will be forced to become a bit more Moderate than his past voting record and ideas (which, to his credit, he makes no attempt to hide). He's not a Socialist, but I agree that he is quite liberal. If he wants to accomplish ANYTHING at all, he'll have to compromise-- unless everyone votes their Republican congressmen and Senators out of office. Then, we will be in a true bind. But even so, God will only allow so much to happen. I am more concerned for Obama's life than I am for the effects of his Presidency.
If Obama is going to be consistent, then I doubt that he'll allow himself to be more moderate, especially with a democratic majority.

Ferd
03-13-2008, 07:53 AM
Yeah, well I believe he will be forced to become a bit more Moderate than his past voting record and ideas (which, to his credit, he makes no attempt to hide). He's not a Socialist, but I agree that he is quite liberal. If he wants to accomplish ANYTHING at all, he'll have to compromise-- unless everyone votes their Republican congressmen and Senators out of office. Then, we will be in a true bind. But even so, God will only allow so much to happen. I am more concerned for Obama's life than I am for the effects of his Presidency.

well, it appears that the dems will pick up 25 seats in the house and as many as 6 or 7 seats in the senate.

that will give them a working majority.

And Obama is most assuredly a socialist.

DividedThigh
03-13-2008, 08:37 AM
1399,. i love that pic, you are the man, i salute you brother, god bless you, if the dems win, be afraid, lol,dt

Timmy
03-13-2008, 09:46 AM
I dont remember the title, but I know it's about MaryJane. (I been saved less than 6 years, just in case you want to know how I know.)


ARPH :doggyrun

We have a winner! (Close enough!)

It's "Smoke Two Joints", and if you're wondering how I know, I've heard it on the radio, many times.

Reminds me of a funny story. I was at an outdoor Ozz Fest, sitting on a recently cut lawn. Some cuttings flew into my water, and I said to my son, "Well, I may not smoke any grass today, but I'll be drinking some!" Not to be outdone, my boy said, "Maaay not smoke any?"

Well, I thought it was funny. ;)

commonsense
03-13-2008, 10:58 AM
I start with eliminating idiots, communists, socialists and other neer do wells.

if any democrats are left standing, I generally eliminate them too. (generally there arent any left standing.)

then I vote for the republican that best fits my moral, political, practical views.


That sums it up pretty well.
This years' candidates are a rather pitiful group but the truly sharp folks have enough sense not to run.

Ferd
03-13-2008, 11:18 AM
That sums it up pretty well.
This years' candidates are a rather pitiful group but the truly sharp folks have enough sense not to run.

this year I am voting for John McCain out of pacticality.

that is the only criteria he fits. but none of the other options even fit that one.

BrotherEastman
03-13-2008, 01:25 PM
this year I am voting for John McCain out of pacticality.

that is the only criteria he fits. but none of the other options even fit that one.
Ferd, I have a lot of admiration and respect for you, but don't you think that this is a pretty desperate reason to vote for someone? Practicality? I think that it is a shame we can't get someone who is better than what is being offered. What does this say for the USA when all we get is a bunch of flops for a choice?

Jermyn Davidson
03-17-2008, 09:18 AM
It says that the policies and decisions of this current administration has done more damage to this country than good-- in the eyes of most Americans. Why on earth is everyone so "hungry for change"?

Ferd
03-17-2008, 09:40 AM
Ferd, I have a lot of admiration and respect for you, but don't you think that this is a pretty desperate reason to vote for someone? Practicality? I think that it is a shame we can't get someone who is better than what is being offered. What does this say for the USA when all we get is a bunch of flops for a choice?

My first preference? no. Desperate? also no.


Easty, we live in a world that has certain rules.

Gravity for instance, if you toss a baseball up in the air, you had better watch its trajectory least you end up with a knot on your noggin.

the same is true in politics. The simple fact is, we have exactly 3 choices on who the next president will be. if I go with the moral choice, I honestly dont have much of a leg to stand on. Obama seems to be the most "church going" fellow of the bunch but honestly one cannot make the claim that he will be a strong "moral" voice in America, he has just had to repudiate his pastor for goodness sake!

McCain' morality is a mixed bag. if you listen to Chris Hall, McCain eats babies.

Hillary...well vince foster should be enough to prevent anyone from naming her "Miss. Morality"

so that option is out.

Political position? I am well to the right of all 3. but McCain is closer to me than the other two. so, practically while McCain isnt what I am, he is much closer thus my vote is one of practicality.

Life is what it is. these are the options. I cant vote for the Queen of England or Ronald Reagan. One is dead and the other is constituationally excluded.

DividedThigh
03-17-2008, 09:45 AM
vote for the one i can live with the easiest, it wont ever be a lib, lol, dt

Ferd
03-17-2008, 09:46 AM
It says that the policies and decisions of this current administration has done more damage to this country than good-- in the eyes of most Americans. Why on earth is everyone so "hungry for change"?

hmmm.....

you know, i have my dissapointments with this administration. spending is much higher than I would like to see but quite a bit.

the Surge in Iraq didnt happen fast enough. (personally I would have let Rummy go about 3 years into the first term).

we are looking at a pretty nasty economic cycle but it is more about preditory banking than about Presidential policy.

Juxtipose that with
the tax cuts worked to get us out of the Clinton resession.

We have not had another terrorist attack on the USA since 9/11 while stopping nearly a dozen plots.

GWB has appointed 2 extremely solid justices to the supreme court.

sorry. on balance, I just dont understand your disaffection.

Jermyn Davidson
03-17-2008, 11:24 AM
What Clinton Recession? There was the dot.com bust, but most folks when they mention and think of Clinton, including me, do not remember a recession. I do remember the recession that ended the Presidency of Bush Sr. "READ MY LIPS-- NO NEW TAXES!" I was in 8th grade for that.

Kudos for GWB's appointing of Conservative judges to the Supreme Court.

Kudos for GWB's financial support of AIDS research and medical assistance to third world countries grappling with the disease.

Kudos for GWB's support of religious non-profit organizations.

Maybe there is something else positive-- oh yeah my pay is much better under him than it ever was under Clinton. Kudos for that for sure!

However, my disaffection is rooted in the idea that when I voted for GWB, I was voting for a Christian, a solid Christian that would carry out his terms in an ethical way. He used a line from that song, "Power in the Blood of the Lamb!" I know I wasn't the only one who saw the poster of GWB, Gen CP, and that other guy praying, suggesting that this is what they would do and indeed always did before their meetings-- suggesting that their decisions would be led and inspired by God more so than any other person who could have been elected.

For my civilian job, I work at the DOJ in DC. The U.S. Attorney firings that happened across the country was so uncalled for and so blatantly political. I wonder did they pray before making that decision! I have even been warned that if "the wrong person" was to overhear a couple of my remarks discussing my disdain over that and other issues I have had with this administration, I could even lose my job! They were serious and they were trying to instill into me a certain fear, of which I soundly rejected.

Jermyn Davidson
03-17-2008, 11:25 AM
We agree on our sentiments for "Rummy". In fact, OIF has been based on deception from the beginning! We never had to lie to go into Iraq! When they shot at American aircraft patrolling the no fly zone, that was an act of war and reason enough to invade.

I am glad we are in Iraq. it is in America's best interest to have a strong presence in the Middle East and Iraq was the doorway that we bust through to accomplish that. It was the way we did it I find very dishonest. It is my hunch that there is a bigger reason, a bigger man-oriented plan in affect over there and we will not see it to fruition for another 20 years.

When things go well, we give GWB the kudos-- but they haven't gone as well as they could have gone, so we are willing to look the other way. You will be hard pressed to find any Republican willing to hold GWB accountable for the mistakes of OIF and OEF-- but the buck stops with him.


We do not focus enough energy, resources, manpower on Afghanistan-- the clearer American enemy and threat! Iraq has become more of an enemy-- but only since our invasion.

If good financial times were happening right now, we'd find a way to connect it to the Republicans and GWB, but since that is not the case, we try to look the other way.

By the way, do you honestly think that the money being spent on OIF and OEF would be spent on education, healthcare, crumbling infrastructure, or research for alternative fuels if those two wars were not happening? I can assure you, "NO" those dollars would have never been INVESTED on those issues because these issues are not important to GWB or to many of his coffers.

When it comes to accountability, mayor of New Orleans, Gov of LA, FEMA and ultimately, GWB, let down AMERICANS with their inadequate response to hurricane Katrina. Thousands of AMERICANS are still suffering because of that. Of course, the insurance companies did not have to pay out thousands of dollars to the AMERICANS who had paid faithfully on their policies for years!

The fact that there hasn't been another attack on the U.S is a good thing to bring up. Kudos for GWB for that-- but if Gore had been elected when 911 happened and if nothing else happened after that, would we be willing to think the Democrat Gore really had something to do with it?

GWB happened to be Pres when it happened and I am grateful to God that there hasn't been another attack. However, attaching GWB to the lack of a terrorist attack is similar to that former NY mayor trying to find national credibility for his "role" in responding to and "preventing" another attack on NY. That former mayor is a loser of the worst sorts! I won't type his name, I won't defile my computer keyboard!!!

Truth is, our society is too open to really thwart another attack of great magnitude if the attackers are determined.

If I have to choose between freedom and legislation to protect security, I choose freedom. I am not sure that is the idea of this administration.

If I think long enough, I can come up with more stuff to complain about this admin, and that is vain. The truth is, I am going to do what I got to do, whether or whoever is elected.

It's just the Repubs. will be hard pressed to get my vote so blindly, ever again. I mean, I really bought in to the "Christian Right's" portrayal of GWB. He could do no wrong, but indeed he has and his bad decisions have cost lives and fortunes while oil companies are more profitable now than ever before!

The economy and the dollar were on the downward slide before the foreclosure crisis. The predatory lending practices of many banks only exacerbated a bad situation. Thanks GWB!!!

DividedThigh
03-17-2008, 11:41 AM
gwb is more powerful than even i thought, not only is he responsible for the coming recession it seems, but now he controlled the mortgage lenders, too, by the way economically by definition, the country was in recession 6 monts before and after gwb took office, and came out of it in the summer of 2001, technically speaking, but that is gwbs fault too, i guess, come on, dt

ChristopherHall
03-17-2008, 11:45 AM
Ferd, I have a lot of admiration and respect for you, but don't you think that this is a pretty desperate reason to vote for someone? Practicality? I think that it is a shame we can't get someone who is better than what is being offered. What does this say for the USA when all we get is a bunch of flops for a choice?

I think we Christians are looking for too perfect of a candidate. I think when it comes to politics the following prayer is very important:

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
Taking, as He did, this sinful world
as it is, not as I would have it;
Trusting that He will make all things right
if I surrender to His Will;
That I may be reasonably happy in this life
and supremely happy with Him
Forever in the next.
Amen.

--Reinhold Niebuhr

Sometimes we spend all our time, money, emotional energies, prayers, and efforts focused on things we really cannot change and in the process we fail to support and/or address the things we can.

Our perspective has to mature into the 21st century and we have to take this world as it is and quit demanding that it be the way we want it. It never will be the way we want it. One day it will be the way Christ wants it...but until then we must realize things are what they are.

The Republicans have us so misfocused in their feverish efforts to lock us up as a voting block. And ultimately, the Repblicans have no intention on addressin gthe issues we're focused upon. Let's not forget that there are very important issues that the Democrats and others are willing to address...

DividedThigh
03-17-2008, 11:49 AM
you talkin again, whatever, lol,dt

Ferd
03-17-2008, 11:49 AM
What Clinton Recession? There was the dot.com bust, but most folks when they mention and think of Clinton, including me, do not remember a recession. I do remember the recession that ended the Presidency of Bush Sr. "READ MY LIPS-- NO NEW TAXES!" I was in 8th grade for that.

Kudos for GWB's appointing of Conservative judges to the Supreme Court.

Kudos for GWB's financial support of AIDS research and medical assistance to third world countries grappling with the disease.

Kudos for GWB's support of religious non-profit organizations.

Maybe there is something else positive-- oh yeah my pay is much better under him than it ever was under Clinton. Kudos for that for sure!

However, my disaffection is rooted in the idea that when I voted for GWB, I was voting for a Christian, a solid Christian that would carry out his terms in an ethical way. He used a line from that song, "Power in the Blood of the Lamb!" I know I wasn't the only one who saw the poster of GWB, Gen CP, and that other guy praying, suggesting that this is what they would do and indeed always did before their meetings-- suggesting that their decisions would be led and inspired by God more so than any other person who could have been elected.

For my civilian job, I work at the DOJ in DC. The U.S. Attorney firings that happened across the country was so uncalled for and so blatantly political. I wonder did they pray before making that decision! I have even been warned that if "the wrong person" was to overhear a couple of my remarks discussing my disdain over that and other issues I have had with this administration, I could even lose my job! They were serious and they were trying to instill into me a certain fear, of which I soundly rejected.

First of all, in 2000 the last year of Clintons presidency was a resession year.

secondly suggesting that the ATTg. Fireings was somehow unethical because they were polictial is a misnomer at best!

ALL Attorney's General serve at the pleasure of the sitting president. He can walk in a fire a guy because he doesnt like his shoes. Clinton asked for and recieved resignation letters from ALL AoGs did anyone call that unethical?

what an insanly silly idea.

GWB has not been ethical if you are a wild eyed liberal and you hate republicans. good grief.

Ferd
03-17-2008, 11:51 AM
gwb is more powerful than even i thought, not only is he responsible for the coming recession it seems, but now he controlled the mortgage lenders, too, by the way economically by definition, the country was in recession 6 monts before and after gwb took office, and came out of it in the summer of 2001, technically speaking, but that is gwbs fault too, i guess, come on, dt

do you mind telling me what an OIF and and OEF are? i dont know what that talk means.

Ferd
03-17-2008, 11:52 AM
I think we Christians are looking for too perfect of a candidate. I think when it comes to politics the following prayer is very important:

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
Taking, as He did, this sinful world
as it is, not as I would have it;
Trusting that He will make all things right
if I surrender to His Will;
That I may be reasonably happy in this life
and supremely happy with Him
Forever in the next.
Amen.

--Reinhold Niebuhr

Sometimes we spend all our time, money, emotional energies, prayers, and efforts focused on things we really cannot change and in the process we fail to support and/or address the things we can.

Our perspective has to mature into the 21st century and we have to take this world as it is and quit demanding that it be the way we want it. It never will be the way we want it. One day it will be the way Christ wants it...but until then we must realize things are what they are.

The Republicans have us so misfocused in their feverish efforts to lock us up as a voting block. And ultimately, the Repblicans have no intention on addressin gthe issues we're focused upon. Let's not forget that there are very important issues that the Democrats and others are willing to address...

at least "we" arent looking for a liberal democrat. that is what "you" are looking for!

DividedThigh
03-17-2008, 11:53 AM
the politicizing of the firings of the 8 us attorneys was just a game by the democrats, no one can say it was anything else based on history unless you ignore it, clinton basically got rid of all of them when he took office and no one even said a word, good grief, we need to get some education if we want to be open and honest about this stuff, dt

DividedThigh
03-17-2008, 11:55 AM
do you mind telling me what an OIF and and OEF are? i dont know what that talk means.

ferd i think those are references to the operation names of the iraq and afghan theatres of operation, in the war on terror, i think, lol,dt

DividedThigh
03-17-2008, 12:01 PM
operation iraqi freedom, operation enduring freedom, got it, dt

ChristopherHall
03-17-2008, 12:10 PM
gwb is more powerful than even i thought, not only is he responsible for the coming recession it seems, but now he controlled the mortgage lenders, too, by the way economically by definition, the country was in recession 6 monts before and after gwb took office, and came out of it in the summer of 2001, technically speaking, but that is gwbs fault too, i guess, come on, dt

DT,

I don’t think it’s GWB’s fault that the economy was in recession prior to his election. That was on the Clinton Administration.

However, the policies of the Bush Administration have been rather passive at heading off this recession. Leading economists state that targeted tax cuts and refunds would stimulate growth…but the current administration hasn’t really acted on it until just recently in spite of foreboding projections and economic indicators. One economist wrote, that the Bush Administration’s actions are, “too little, too late”.

The lending crisis is really exacerbating economic problems seeing that so many investments were secured on the back end with real estate. It’s really hurt the market. We’re watching JP Morgan buy out a company that was a leading player in the market. When their stock began dropping there was another virtual “run on the bank”. Bro, that’s bad news. How did this happen? There were laws on the books regulating lending practices. Ah….but the Republican congress fought tooth and nail, funded by the banking and mortgage lending lobbyists, to deregulate the lending industry. Guess what…President Bush signed those measures into law. While President Bush didn’t personally prey on borrowers, he and the Republican Congress passed measures exposing lenders to predatory lending practices. Odds are if you have a decent sized mortgage right now, you are in what they call negative equity. Meaning you owe more on your loan than your property is currently worth. You are being directly affected by the blatant disregard for the borrower’s wellbeing and the mad dash for profit at all costs. Also consider churches, many churches are in the same boat. What Congress passed these bills? The Republican Congress did. Who signed these bills into law? President George Bush. Now, are they to “blame”, is it their “fault”? That’s debatable. They cannot be held entirely to blame for the unscrupulous actions of various lenders. But, they passed and signed the bills. They are not to blame…but they are “responsible”. When I was in the military I learned how an acting squad leader may not at fault for the actions of his men….but he is responsible.

It sounds more and more like Republicans want all the power but no responsibility. They scream like little girls when they are held responsible for their foolish legislative actions. And let me beat someone to their whiny punch…yes a number of Democrats may have voted along with the bills to benefit their lending lobbies. But…if the Republicans (who held the majority) would have sided with the American people instead of the lobbyists from the lending industry hundreds of thousands of Americans wouldn’t be feeling the economic hurt they’re feeling right now in regards to their property and investments.

Jermyn Davidson
03-17-2008, 12:13 PM
OEF= Operation Enduring Freedom, Afghanistan
OIF= Operation Iraqi Freedom, Iraq

Reno fired all of the prior admin's AG's, but did so at the outset of her term and did not offer a reason why.

When Gonzales, pawn of GWB, did so, he attempted to give bogus reasons based on performance evaluations. That why congress was investigating all of that stuff-- not because they were fired, but because they tried to justify it, then they tried to hide the fact that they gave bogus justifications from the beginning.

LIARS!!!!

Reno, didn't lie-- but you are right, ALL OF THEM were virtually fired, and that for no reason given.

I did not know that technically our country was in a recession 6 months before and and 6 months after GWB took office. I remember very well the dot.com boom and bust, but it didn't really affect me, my neighbors, my fellow servicemen, their families, and etc. Now I do know. Thanks.

But honestly, that recession could not have been a steep recession or it would have marred Clinton's domestic economic legacy (or ignorantly, the positive impression) that he has left with people all over this country.

However, the recession that ended Bush Sr. Presidency is memorable. I believe this one will be too.

BTW, when Clinton ran for re-election, I did not vote for him and I think that he was beyond morally corrupt, despite the alleged Bible studies he was supposedly getting from one of our Ministers.

DividedThigh
03-17-2008, 12:14 PM
i think i hear a voice out there in the wind, at least the friends that i have that are democrats arent ashamed to call themselves that, lol,dt

ChristopherHall
03-17-2008, 12:15 PM
Many are blind ideologues who's answer would be to pat the Republicans on the back for all this. I think they're wimps who don't have the guts to give the Republicans a much needed spanking.

DividedThigh
03-17-2008, 12:16 PM
OEF= Operation Enduring Freedom, Afghanistan
OIF= Operation Iraqi Freedom, Iraq

Reno fired all of the prior admin's AG's, but did so at the outset of her term and did not offer a reason why.

When Gonzales, pawn of GWB, did so, he attempted to give bogus reasons based on performance evaluations. That why congress was investigating all of that stuff-- not because they were fired, but because they tried to justify it, then they tried to hide the fact that they gave bogus justifications from the beginning.

LIARS!!!!

Reno, didn't lie-- but you are right, ALL OF THEM were virtually fired, and that for no reason given.

I did not know that technically our country was in a recession 6 months before and and 6 months after GWB took office. I remember very well the dot.com boom and bust, but it didn't really affect me, my neighbors, my fellow servicemen, their families, and etc. Now I do know. Thanks.

But honestly, that recession could not have been a steep recession or it would have marred Clinton's domestic economic legacy (or ignorantly, the positive impression) that he has left with people all over this country.

However, the recession that ended Bush Sr. Presidency is memorable. I believe this one will be too.

BTW, when he ran for re-election, I did not vote for him and I think that he was beyond morally corrupt, despite the alleged Bible studies he was supposedly getting from one of our Ministers.

cool bro we may cross swords occasionally on semantics but i am with you in the trenches all the way, dt

ChristopherHall
03-17-2008, 12:17 PM
i think i hear a voice out there in the wind, at least the friends that i have that are democrats arent ashamed to call themselves that, lol,dt

Who's ashamed to call themselves a Democrat? Up until the Primaries in Ohio I was a registered Republican. I had to declare to vote in the Democratic primary, so now I can proudly say I'm a Democrat at the moment. But unlike you...I don't put much stock in my political affiliation. I'll shift back when I feel it's necessary. I'm an independent, a free bird willing to call each side on their blunders and vote the bums out. If you want to label me, don't label me so much a Democrat or a Republican...label me a Christian. No party owns me...I'm not even of this world.

DividedThigh
03-17-2008, 12:20 PM
wow theres that wind again, and i am not used to it being that predictable, lol,dt

ChristopherHall
03-17-2008, 12:21 PM
wow theres that wind again, and i am not used to it being that predictable, lol,dt

Having ears, they cannot hear. Having eyes...they cannot see.

John 3:8
The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

DividedThigh
03-17-2008, 12:24 PM
well at least the wind is funny, and pompous, lol,dt

Ferd
03-17-2008, 12:27 PM
operation iraqi freedom, operation enduring freedom, got it, dt

thanks. I did DS and OPF

Desert Storm and Operaiton Provide Freedom.

got the ribons and everything.

ChristopherHall
03-17-2008, 12:27 PM
well at least the wind is funny, and pompous, lol,dt

LOL

I'm just having a good time with ya. LOL

Ferd
03-17-2008, 12:28 PM
Having ears, they cannot hear. Having eyes...they cannot see.
John 3:8
The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Dude, I thought you were a democrat, now you are pointing out their strong points? what gives?

DividedThigh
03-17-2008, 12:33 PM
the wind is still pompous even in fun, lol,dt

DividedThigh
03-17-2008, 12:34 PM
thanks. I did DS and OPF

Desert Storm and Operaiton Provide Freedom.

got the ribons and everything.

thank you for earning those ribbons buddy, dt

Ferd
03-17-2008, 12:35 PM
We agree on our sentiments for "Rummy". In fact, OIF has been based on deception from the beginning! We never had to lie to go into Iraq! When they shot at American aircraft patrolling the no fly zone, that was an act of war and reason enough to invade.

I am glad we are in Iraq. it is in America's best interest to have a strong presence in the Middle East and Iraq was the doorway that we bust through to accomplish that. It was the way we did it I find very dishonest. It is my hunch that there is a bigger reason, a bigger man-oriented plan in affect over there and we will not see it to fruition for another 20 years.

When things go well, we give GWB the kudos-- but they haven't gone as well as they could have gone, so we are willing to look the other way. You will be hard pressed to find any Republican willing to hold GWB accountable for the mistakes of OIF and OEF-- but the buck stops with him.


We do not focus enough energy, resources, manpower on Afghanistan-- the clearer American enemy and threat! Iraq has become more of an enemy-- but only since our invasion.

If good financial times were happening right now, we'd find a way to connect it to the Republicans and GWB, but since that is not the case, we try to look the other way.

By the way, do you honestly think that the money being spent on OIF and OEF would be spent on education, healthcare, crumbling infrastructure, or research for alternative fuels if those two wars were not happening? I can assure you, "NO" those dollars would have never been INVESTED on those issues because these issues are not important to GWB or to many of his coffers.

When it comes to accountability, mayor of New Orleans, Gov of LA, FEMA and ultimately, GWB, let down AMERICANS with their inadequate response to hurricane Katrina. Thousands of AMERICANS are still suffering because of that. Of course, the insurance companies did not have to pay out thousands of dollars to the AMERICANS who had paid faithfully on their policies for years!

The fact that there hasn't been another attack on the U.S is a good thing to bring up. Kudos for GWB for that-- but if Gore had been elected when 911 happened and if nothing else happened after that, would we be willing to think the Democrat Gore really had something to do with it?

GWB happened to be Pres when it happened and I am grateful to God that there hasn't been another attack. However, attaching GWB to the lack of a terrorist attack is similar to that former NY mayor trying to find national credibility for his "role" in responding to and "preventing" another attack on NY. That former mayor is a loser of the worst sorts! I won't type his name, I won't defile my computer keyboard!!!

Truth is, our society is too open to really thwart another attack of great magnitude if the attackers are determined.

If I have to choose between freedom and legislation to protect security, I choose freedom. I am not sure that is the idea of this administration.

If I think long enough, I can come up with more stuff to complain about this admin, and that is vain. The truth is, I am going to do what I got to do, whether or whoever is elected.

It's just the Repubs. will be hard pressed to get my vote so blindly, ever again. I mean, I really bought in to the "Christian Right's" portrayal of GWB. He could do no wrong, but indeed he has and his bad decisions have cost lives and fortunes while oil companies are more profitable now than ever before!

The economy and the dollar were on the downward slide before the foreclosure crisis. The predatory lending practices of many banks only exacerbated a bad situation. Thanks GWB!!!

this is a very long post. I dont have the energy to respond point by point.

I dont even have the energy to read the whole thing.

suffice it to say, I disagree.

PS, dont listen to Moveon.org. according to them GWB eats babies too.

Jermyn Davidson
03-17-2008, 12:38 PM
lol

I will try to shorten my posts in the future.

Jermyn Davidson
03-17-2008, 12:42 PM
never been to moveon.org not that much of an idealogue; just really let down by this admin, for a variety of reasons.

Ferd
03-17-2008, 12:49 PM
never been to moveon.org not that much of an idealogue; just really let down by this admin, for a variety of reasons.

there are reasons to be let down by this adminstration. I agree. but as a conservitive, that is no reason to sell out to the looney left.

be strong my brother!

Remember that the real reasons to be disappointed in GWB have to do with his not living up to conservitive principles NOT for being too conservitve.

PS, that whole AoG fireing thing was done and over for months until the Dems in congress decided they could make political hay. The issue wasnt the excuse made but the fact they were fired.

I agree that GWB should have issued a statement saying "I fired them because I wanted to. They serve at my pleasure, and my pleasure came to an end. have a nice day"

However, to be upset by the "honesty" surrounding the event is misplaced anger.

ChristopherHall
03-17-2008, 01:31 PM
there are reasons to be let down by this adminstration. I agree. but as a conservitive, that is no reason to sell out to the looney left.

I believe the Republican Party has indeed let the American people down. This administration and this congress have failed to deliver accept to their very narrow big business interest groups.

I look at it like this. They’ve failed to deliver the goods. If you hire someone to do a job right and they fail to do that job as agreed upon you fire them. It’s nothing personal, just business. The Republicans need to be fired. Why? If we continue to hire them we give them the illusion that what they’ve been doing is perfectly acceptable and we’ll continue to see more of the same failing policies. Right now Republican policies and strategies aren’t working and they are not advancing any of our other causes with any seriousness. The Democrats may not agree with many of our other causes but they promise to fix the failed policies of Republicans. I say fire the Republicans and hire the Democrats. Then hold the Democrat’s feet to the fire. If the Democrats fail to deliver we can fire them and undo whatever they have done wrong next election. You’re guaranteed to get nothing but the same failed policies from the Republicans. You might see some positive changes if the Democrats are elected. They want to stay in power, so at the very least the first 4 years will be focused on delivering what they promise.

Spank the Republicans. Give them a good whippin’ and maybe they’ll try harder to behave like real conservatives next time.

Remember that the real reasons to be disappointed in GWB have to do with his not living up to conservitive principles NOT for being too conservitve.

And if we re-elect the Republicans doesn’t this reward their departure from Conservatism? Are you trying to sabotage conservatism? Certainly loosing in 08 would allow the Conservatives to regroup and stack the deck with REAL Conservatives to challenge the Democrats in 2012. If you vote to give the Republicans in office you’re essentially saying, “Yes! We love how you’re not living up to conservative principles! Please, don’t be too conservative!” But if you flush them…they will realize they’ve drifted too far and scramble back to the conservative message that will win. If I were a die hard conservative, I’d vote Democratic just to save the Republican Party.

PS, that whole AoG fireing thing was done and over for months until the Dems in congress decided they could make political hay. The issue wasnt the excuse made but the fact they were fired.

It often takes months to see what the fallout is of such a change.

I agree that GWB should have issued a statement saying "I fired them because I wanted to. They serve at my pleasure, and my pleasure came to an end. have a nice day"

I think the President, being elected by the people, should explain why he would fire these folks. Their performance should be called into question before the American people. I see more going on here. The Bush Administration serves as a perfect example of cronyism.

Ferd
03-17-2008, 01:37 PM
I believe the Republican Party has indeed let the American people down. This administration and this congress have failed to deliver accept to their very narrow big business interest groups.

I look at it like this. They’ve failed to deliver the goods. If you hire someone to do a job right and they fail to do that job as agreed upon you fire them. It’s nothing personal, just business. The Republicans need to be fired. Why? If we continue to hire them we give them the illusion that what they’ve been doing is perfectly acceptable and we’ll continue to see more of the same failing policies. Right now Republican policies and strategies aren’t working and they are not advancing any of our other causes with any seriousness. The Democrats may not agree with many of our other causes but they promise to fix the failed policies of Republicans. I say fire the Republicans and hire the Democrats. Then hold the Democrat’s feet to the fire. If the Democrats fail to deliver we can fire them and undo whatever they have done wrong next election. You’re guaranteed to get nothing but the same failed policies from the Republicans. You might see some positive changes if the Democrats are elected. They want to stay in power, so at the very least the first 4 years will be focused on delivering what they promise.

Spank the Republicans. Give them a good whippin’ and maybe they’ll try harder to behave like real conservatives next time.



And if we re-elect the Republicans doesn’t this reward their departure from Conservatism? Are you trying to sabotage conservatism? Certainly loosing in 08 would allow the Conservatives to regroup and stack the deck with REAL Conservatives to challenge the Democrats in 2012. If you vote to give the Republicans in office you’re essentially saying, “Yes! We love how you’re not living up to conservative principles! Please, don’t be too conservative!” But if you flush them…they will realize they’ve drifted too far and scramble back to the conservative message that will win. If I were a die hard conservative, I’d vote Democratic just to save the Republican Party.



It often takes months to see what the fallout is of such a change.



I think the President, being elected by the people, should explain why he would fire these folks. Their performance should be called into question before the American people. I see more going on here. The Bush Administration serves as a perfect example of cronyism.

well, there you have it. my post used as a launching pad for another anti-conservitive tirade.

Yea I get it, you want the gubberment to take care of you cradle to grave.

the rest of us would rather keep our money thank you very much.

DividedThigh
03-17-2008, 01:40 PM
i would like the government to leave me alone and my pocketbook too, good grief, i dont need the nanny state, dt

Ferd
03-17-2008, 01:53 PM
i would like the government to leave me alone and my pocketbook too, good grief, i dont need the nanny state, dt

Your lips to Nacy Pelosi's ears!

aint gonna happen. all 535 of them think they know better than you do, what to do with your money!

and there are too many voters yelling "whats the gubbermint gonna do for MEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!"

ES TEA YOU PEE EYE DEE!

DividedThigh
03-17-2008, 01:56 PM
that is just plain funny ferd, lol,dt

ChristopherHall
03-17-2008, 02:03 PM
well, there you have it. my post used as a launching pad for another anti-conservitive tirade.

Yea I get it, you want the gubberment to take care of you cradle to grave.

the rest of us would rather keep our money thank you very much.

But you're not keeping your money. First the oil industry is causing a shortage and thereby driving up prices. The cost in fuel is driving the cost of living higher as it becomes more expensive to ship goods. The health care industry is passing more and more loss down to us via higher premiums.

Considering the cost of health insurance premiums alone, the average American would keep nearly $200 more of their own money each month even with a $100 tax increase.

Count in stronger government oversight and production standards in the oil industry and you’d see production levels increased significantly to keep prices somewhat lower. It’s not a clean fix because market forces to come to bare.

Count in the current problems in the real estate market and everything we’ve lost there and you see a substantial increase in the over all cost.

More thorough oversight, stronger regulations, and common sense initiatives serving all Americans would allow you to keep more of your money.

I guarantee you that if you considered the over all cost of fuel’s increase, rising health insurance premiums, and the effect of the lending crisis you’ll find you’re over all losses are greater than any tax increase that would have been applied to you. Also consider the deficit and how the Democrats are going to increase taxes to pay it off…the Republicans even handed that down to you. Dude…the idea that the Republicans will help you keep your money is a joke. lol

ChristopherHall
03-17-2008, 02:04 PM
i would like the government to leave me alone and my pocketbook too, good grief, i dont need the nanny state, dt

*Divided Thigh speaks as increasing costs in fuel and commodities, increasing health insurance premiums, the fall of the dollar, and the negative equity he has in his home costs him far more with each passing month than any Democratic initiative would have cost him in taxes.*

Dude…you’ve been conned. They promise less taxes so they could expose you to the exploitation of private interests. Your dollar isn’t worth as much, you still have increasing premiums, fuel and commodity costs are still on the rise, not to mention your negative equity. Bro…they let you keep your money so their wealthy corporate buddies could gouge it, and more, out of you.

How much a month do you pay for health insurance?

Ferd
03-17-2008, 02:22 PM
But you're not keeping your money. First the oil industry is causing a shortage and thereby driving up prices.

you know full well, I dont read those long and obnoxus posts so stop!

secondly where you are concerned, I read till I get to the first anti-fact.

well, I didnt make it past the second sentance!!!!!!

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?????

Chris, please, vote for Obama. Beg the gubbermint to take care of you. if you want, tell the gubbermint they need to supply you with the food you feed your dog. i dont care.

But STOP WITH THE CRAZY LIES!

Fact: There has not been a single refinery built in the USA in 30 years because the environmental restrictions are too expensive.

Fact: there is a limited amount of crude that is being brought out of the ground by OPEC not because of the "oil companies"

Fact: Both China and India have increased their demand for oil by very large factors in the last decade and those numbers increase daily.

THE "oil companies" are not causing a shortage.

Es Tea You Pea Eye Dee!

Ferd
03-17-2008, 02:30 PM
Count in stronger government oversight and production standards in the oil industry and you’d see production levels increased significantly to keep prices somewhat lower. It’s not a clean fix because market forces to come to bare.


no need to answer more than two of your innane points.

this one is either based on willful ignorance and a complete need to rely on government (you need a passie dude)

or a flat out, balled faced lie.

I will leave the readers to decide.

government oversite of production????? You must be typing with your toes because your fingers surely know better???/

What? you are not advocating the US. Government take oversite of drilling for oil in THE MIDDLE EAST???? I thought you were against invading other countries??????

YOUR team has decided we cant dril in ANWR. YOUR team has decided we cant drill off the coast of Florida. YOUR team has blocked drilling for oil in America dude!

YOUR TEAM LEADER ALGORE wrote the book advocating $3.00 gas so we would quit driving.

so dont tell me about government oversite.


this is worse than Es Tea You Pea Eye Dee

ChristopherHall
03-17-2008, 02:39 PM
you know full well, I dont read those long and obnoxus posts so stop!

I know...if it doesn't fit on a bumper sticker most right wingers' eyes cross. LOL

secondly where you are concerned, I read till I get to the first anti-fact.

well, I didnt make it past the second sentance!!!!!!

All alright. LOL

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?????

Chris, please, vote for Obama. Beg the gubbermint to take care of you. if you want, tell the gubbermint they need to supply you with the food you feed your dog. i dont care.

My dog? LOL Dude...I'm just wanting to keep more of my own money.

But STOP WITH THE CRAZY LIES!

Fact: There has not been a single refinery built in the USA in 30 years because the environmental restrictions are too expensive.

Partially true, but it's not too expensive when the industry made 11 BILLION dollars in RECORD profits last year (or was it just the quarter?) alone. They can afford the updated refineries that would be more environmentally friendly…they’re just too cheep to invest in making sure we have a clean environment. I work for a Wastewater Treatment plant. Our Industrial Pretreatment team is always in legal hassles trying to prevent companies from putting some of the most poisonous stuff into the storm drains and dumping on our plant. You’d be amazed at what these companies would dump if we allowed them. Big Oil is not different. They’d destroy whatever environment they had to in order to secure greater profits. So I don’t buy the too expensive ************. Sure, if they broke even last year or struggled somewhat I’d hear the little violin music your playing…but dude…these guys have the dough…they just don’t care and are playing politics.

Those companies have more money than you and I could ever dream about. And they’re whining over the fact that we want them to build clean refineries with modern technologies. I guess you either love America or you don’t…and these cats don’t.

Fact: there is a limited amount of crude that is being brought out of the ground by OPEC not because of the "oil companies"

I agree that OPEC’s a big (if not the biggest) problem right now.

Fact: Both China and India have increased their demand for oil by very large factors in the last decade and those numbers increase daily.

I know Beijing alone is adding something like 2000 vehicles to its streets nearly every day, not to even mention the industrial growth. But their pollution is out of this world. It’s really not cool. Of course some folks would have America the same way.

THE "oil companies" are not causing a shortage.

Are US oil companies currently producing at 100% capacity with that they have at present?

ChristopherHall
03-17-2008, 02:50 PM
government oversite of production????? You must be typing with your toes because your fingers surely know better???

Bro. Fuel is a national security issue. If refineries are not putting out as much as they can to exacerbate a shortage guess what….the government needs to motivate them to produce with a few hefty fines.

What? you are not advocating the US. Government take oversite of drilling for oil in THE MIDDLE EAST???? I thought you were against invading other countries??????

I’m not talking about the Middle East.

YOUR team has decided we cant dril in ANWR. YOUR team has decided we cant drill off the coast of Florida. YOUR team has blocked drilling for oil in America dude!

The current refineries aren’t even producing what they could be producing. It would be a different story if they were at 100%. Part of the problem is that they are unwilling to build cleaner refineries to meet regulations. We’re not going to allow them to build using outdated technologies that aren’t as clean. Get real. First, we want them to update their current refineries…but they’re fighting it (in spite of record profits). If they were investing in building newer clean plants that met regulations we’d be more than willing to allow them to build refineries in various areas we currently are protecting. They wanna build…let them build clean refineries with the latest technologies.

YOUR TEAM LEADER ALGORE wrote the book advocating $3.00 gas so we would quit driving.

Not everyone agrees with Gore. But I will admit. I do far less driving now than I used to.