USA President Thread

[Roamy]

so I think this could be a good thread for people to vent their concerns and
acceptance to the candidates.

So I am for McCain
I think we have far more issues in the world to trust our future to a president without the skillsets.

Number one - while we move to get of the oil standard we need the world to get together and deal with the price of oil.. You don't want my opinion but I suspect that if our oil cost will result in 10 dollar a gallon gas. something is going to happen

first note why are we busting our ass in Iraq only to be hosed by oil prices.
the countries who came the take care of the problem should be receiving preferential pricing.

[ioan]

so I think this could be a good thread for people to vent their concerns and
acceptance to the candidates.

So I am for McCain
I think we have far more issues in the world to trust our future to a president without the skillsets.

Number one - while we move to get of the oil standard we need the world to get together and deal with the price of oil.. You don't want my opinion but I suspect that if our oil cost will result in 10 dollar a gallon gas. something is going to happen

first note why are we busting our ass in Iraq only to be hosed by oil prices.
the countries who came the take care of the problem should be receiving preferential pricing.

I believe it will be McCain to win the presidency.

As for the oil price, you should understand that the oil resources are limited and is nearing depletion, thus the price will only go up, even if at times will maybe step back a few $.
The best thing to do is to invest in the research for alternative energy resources, otherwise we are all done for good.

[SOD]

"first note why are we busting our ass in Iraq only to be hosed by oil prices."

Thanks for playing, fousto. Also, you shouldn't have let your president say that you're addicted to oil, cha-ching $$$$$$$ You will buy it at any price.

If you're being charged $10/gallon, you'll pay that much for it. I only see other countries doing something about it. Ditch your SUVs and trucks and you'll dramatically reduce your oil consumption. BTW, USA oil consumption is DOWN, so what does that tell you?

[BDunnell]

As for the oil price, you should understand that the oil resources are limited and is nearing depletion, thus the price will only go up, even if at times will maybe step back a few $.
The best thing to do is to invest in the research for alternative energy resources, otherwise we are all done for good.

Absolutely right.

[anthonyvop]

As for the oil price, you should understand that the oil resources are limited and is nearing depletion, thus the price will only go up, even if at times will maybe step back a few $.
The best thing to do is to invest in the research for alternative energy resources, otherwise we are all done for good.
There is plenty of oil. The only problem is getting at it. In the US the problem is the Treehugger/NIMBY coalition. Between ANWAR, the Gulf of Mexico and Western oil Shale we have enough oil to meet our needs for the next 200 years at least.

[SOD]

There is plenty of oil. The only problem is getting at it. In the US the problem is the Treehugger/NIMBY coalition. Between ANWAR, the Gulf of Mexico and Western oil Shale we have enough oil to meet our needs for the next 200 years at least.

ABSOLUTE BULL**** to blame Liberals or tree huggers for any of this, they're the one who UNDERSTOOD what is happening long before you ever will. Big oil likes it that way, and will do everything in their power to keep it that way.

[Roamy]

we should be drilling for our own oil.

[BDunnell]

There is plenty of oil. The only problem is getting at it. In the US the problem is the Treehugger/NIMBY coalition. Between ANWAR, the Gulf of Mexico and Western oil Shale we have enough oil to meet our needs for the next 200 years at least.

And why should any of this prevent research into and use of alternative energy sources?

[Roamy]

"first note why are we busting our ass in Iraq only to be hosed by oil prices."

Thanks for playing, fousto. Also, you shouldn't have let your president say that you're addicted to oil, cha-ching $$$$$$$ You will buy it at any price.

If you're being charged $10/gallon, you'll pay that much for it. I only see other countries doing something about it. Ditch your SUVs and trucks and you'll dramatically reduce your oil consumption. BTW, USA oil consumption is DOWN, so what does that tell you?

I am doing my part by not driving. But we need to drill and develop alternative sources and I don't see Obama as the best one to lead this charge.
Actually no one here will lead the charge unless the Gov forces oil companies to bring other sources.

[ioan]

I am doing my part by not driving.

Kudos to you for that! :up:

[Canada Cornrow]

"first note why are we busting our ass in Iraq only to be hosed by oil prices."

Thanks for playing, fousto. Also, you shouldn't have let your president say that you're addicted to oil, cha-ching $$$$$$$ You will buy it at any price.?[I]

Please take a moment and revel in the sheer lunacy of this statement. Apparently Fousto is to blame for letting GW say that we're addicted to oil. Damn you Fousto! How do you sleep at night? And of course we are now obliged to pay "any" price. Cha-Ching indeed.



[I]If you're being charged $10/gallon, you'll pay that much for it.

Duh.


I only see other countries doing something about it. Ditch your SUVs and trucks and you'll dramatically reduce your oil consumption. BTW, USA oil consumption is DOWN, so what does that tell you?

Apparently you "see" more than just "other countries doing something about it". What I see is a country that needs to improve and expand it's refining capacity in the short-term and invest in state of the art nuclear and coal technology for the future, for starters.

Both candidates are proposing a cap and trade system as part of their energy platforms. Both of them are cynical and unserious. At least McCain has made noise about letting local governments allow drilling and refining if they muster up enough votes.

[ShiftingGears]

As for the oil price, you should understand that the oil resources are limited and is nearing depletion, thus the price will only go up, even if at times will maybe step back a few $.
The best thing to do is to invest in the research for alternative energy resources, otherwise we are all done for good.

Damn right. Inaction is not an option.

[Canada Cornrow]

And why should any of this prevent research into and use of alternative energy sources?

There's plenty of investment in alternative energy sources going on right now. Unfortunately a lot of it involves growing corn, or to be more precise, buying votes in the heartland so we can then dilute our gasoline. Most of the current alternative sources of energy have fundamental problems that need to be resolved before they can be utilized en masse. In the here and now it makes more sense to take advantage of the technology and infrastructure we currently have in place.

[Canada Cornrow]

ABSOLUTE BULL**** to blame Liberals or tree huggers for any of this, they're the one who UNDERSTOOD what is happening long before you ever will. Big oil likes it that way, and will do everything in their power to keep it that way.

Big Oil is watching you. :eek:

[Canada Cornrow]

As for the oil price, you should understand that the oil resources are limited and is nearing depletion, thus the price will only go up, even if at times will maybe step back a few $.
The best thing to do is to invest in the research for alternative energy resources, otherwise we are all done for good.

This meme has been around for decades now and refuses to go away. In a purely theoretical way you are right but I think you're way overstating your case.

[Garry Walker]

I am doing my part by not driving.
I drive a SUV :up:


What alternative energy sources are you guys proposing?

I hope none here supports wind-energy, which is quite frankly the worst possible "solution", whereas the solar energy at the moment is still a bit too expensive with the current technology we have as far as I know.
But it is more viable than wind-energy for sure.



Nuclear energy is the Key to the future

[SOD]

Please take a moment and revel in the sheer lunacy of this statement. Apparently Fousto is to blame for letting GW say that we're addicted to oil. Damn you Fousto! How do you sleep at night? And of course we are now obliged to pay "any" price. Cha-Ching indeed.




Duh.



Apparently you "see" more than just "other countries doing something about it". What I see is a country that needs to improve and expand it's refining capacity in the short-term and invest in state of the art nuclear and coal technology for the future, for starters.

Both candidates are proposing a cap and trade system as part of their energy platforms. Both of them are cynical and unserious. At least McCain has made noise about letting local governments allow drilling and refining if they muster up enough votes.


All I detect is lots of noise and no action.


Some countries wont be allowed develop energy independence through nuclear, so scratch that as a saviour. I can see the UN playing a role in developing nuclear fuel for any country that wants to consume it.

[rah]

I drive a SUV :up:


What alternative energy sources are you guys proposing?

I hope none here supports wind-energy, which is quite frankly the worst possible "solution", whereas the solar energy at the moment is still a bit too expensive with the current technology we have as far as I know.
But it is more viable than wind-energy for sure.



Nuclear energy is the Key to the future

Wind energy is ok. Just not reliable enough for base load. Solar is a great energy souce and can be used as base load or load following. Solar only slightly more expensive than nuclear. There are many more developments happening in solar that will bring the price down and efficiency up. Nuclear is just too expensive and too slow to set up. But it could be part of the solution.

But neither candidate is great on energy. If it makes you feel any better Obama is in the nuclear camp.

[anthonyvop]

ABSOLUTE BULL**** to blame Liberals or tree huggers for any of this, they're the one who UNDERSTOOD what is happening long before you ever will. Big oil likes it that way, and will do everything in their power to keep it that way.

So there is no more Oil anywhere? Come on SOD. Back it up!
Show me how the Oil Companies wanting to drill in ANWAR or the Gulf is all part of their diabolical plan to cut the supplies to Oil.

Show us how the Oil companies don't want to build more refineries in the US. Oh wait...they do. Thanks NIMBY's!

SOD,
What color is the sky on your world?

[SOD]

^ I think you're on the wrong side of the supply-side , who likes it when demand > supply?. Keep moaning.

and have you hugged a tree today?

[anthonyvop]

and have you hugged a tree today?

Nope.
But I cut down 3 yesterday. They were casting too much shade on my pool.

[SOD]

Nope.
But I cut down 3 yesterday. They were casting too much shade on my pool.

Good for you.

[BDunnell]

So there is no more Oil anywhere? Come on SOD. Back it up!
Show me how the Oil Companies wanting to drill in ANWAR or the Gulf is all part of their diabolical plan to cut the supplies to Oil.

Show us how the Oil companies don't want to build more refineries in the US. Oh wait...they do. Thanks NIMBY's!

SOD,
What color is the sky on your world?

Tell me, do you believe in the progress of technological development through innovation? I'm sure that, as such a passionate free marketeer, you do. So, in that case, what's wrong with making technological developments that reduce dependence on fossil fuels? Or, do you think for some reason that technological developments should only involve the harnessing of fossil fuels in different ways?

I doubt any of us who are opposed to your views on this subject are that concerned about what measures aimed at increasing environmental restraint will mean for you, as I find the prospect rather amusing, but I'd be interested to hear your views.

[anthonyvop]

Tell me, do you believe in the progress of technological development through innovation? I'm sure that, as such a passionate free marketeer, you do. So, in that case, what's wrong with making technological developments that reduce dependence on fossil fuels? Or, do you think for some reason that technological developments should only involve the harnessing of fossil fuels in different ways?

I doubt any of us who are opposed to your views on this subject are that concerned about what measures aimed at increasing environmental restraint will mean for you, as I find the prospect rather amusing, but I'd be interested to hear your views.
I am not against any technological developments for alternative fuels.
In fact I am actively involved in a project to develope an alternative fuel race car.

I am also a realist.
Any practical and economical alternative fuel or power sources is years, if not decades down the road.

[BDunnell]

I am not against any technological developments for alternative fuels.
In fact I am actively involved in a project to develope an alternative fuel race car.

I am also a realist.
Any practical and economical alternative fuel or power sources is years, if not decades down the road.

Fair enough. I do agree with you there in terms of genuine viability. But this is no reason not to make large-scale efforts in order to hasten that time.

[SOD]

You know its election year in the USA, "gas" prices skyrocket. They did so in the year 2000 (GWB said this friendship with the sheiks would be a good deal), energy prices shot up in 2004, and now in 2008, oil prices just skyrocket.

[anthonyvop]

Fair enough. I do agree with you there in terms of genuine viability. But this is no reason not to make large-scale efforts in order to hasten that time.
Again,

I am not against any large scale effort in the search for alternative power. Just like I am not against and large scale effort for the search for more oil.

[Canada Cornrow]

All I detect is lots of noise and no action. .

That's what I detect in almost every one of your conspiricy riddled posts.



Some countries wont be allowed develop energy independence through nuclear, so scratch that as a saviour.

Who is exactly looking for a saviour? Are we looking for energy independence or the rapture? :D I'm concerned with US energy policy. What other countries choose to do is there own business.


I can see the UN playing a role in developing nuclear fuel for any country that wants to consume it.

I can see the UN being moved from NYC to the Gaza Strip but I'm kinda funny that way.

[Garry Walker]

Wind energy is ok. Just not reliable enough for base load. Solar is a great energy souce and can be used as base load or load following. Solar only slightly more expensive than nuclear. There are many more developments happening in solar that will bring the price down and efficiency up. Nuclear is just too expensive and too slow to set up. But it could be part of the solution.

But neither candidate is great on energy. If it makes you feel any better Obama is in the nuclear camp.

Wind energy is awful. It absolutey destroys the landscape, it is shocking EU is so much behind this.

Are you sure of Nuclear energy being expensive? Sure, the starting costs are huge, but operating costs shouldn`t be higher than those of some other sources.


Nope.
But I cut down 3 yesterday. They were casting too much shade on my pool.

:rotflmao:

[rah]

Wind energy is awful. It absolutey destroys the landscape, it is shocking EU is so much behind this.

Are you sure of Nuclear energy being expensive? Sure, the starting costs are huge, but operating costs shouldn`t be higher than those of some other sources.



:rotflmao:

Yeah but think about it, the worst thing about wind power is that some people think it looks bad. Look at other forms of power and there are far worse negatives. One great benefit of wind power is that it can be used to stimulate growth in struggling regional communities.

Yeah Nuke is just cheaper than solar. But the growth in solar is phenomenal. It doubles every two years world wide. Nuke is also a lot slower and harder to set up. IIRC there has never been a nuke reactor that was constructed on budget or on time, anywhere in the world.

[ioan]

Yeah but think about it, the worst thing about wind power is that some people think it looks bad. Look at other forms of power and there are far worse negatives. One great benefit of wind power is that it can be used to stimulate growth in struggling regional communities.

Yeah Nuke is just cheaper than solar. But the growth in solar is phenomenal. It doubles every two years world wide. Nuke is also a lot slower and harder to set up. IIRC there has never been a nuke reactor that was constructed on budget or on time, anywhere in the world.

Exactly! :up:

[Roamy]

I can see the UN being moved from NYC to the Gaza Strip but I'm kinda funny that way.[/QUOTE]

Now this is one I can really get behind !!

[Garry Walker]

Yeah but think about it, the worst thing about wind power is that some people think it looks bad. Look at other forms of power and there are far worse negatives. One great benefit of wind power is that it can be used to stimulate growth in struggling regional communities.

Would you want to live near such places with where there are those so-called wind-farms? I wouldn`t.
It is also nowhere near reliable enough, and has many other faults.

What is then negative of solar power, besides the fact the technology is not quite there yet?



Yeah Nuke is just cheaper than solar. But the growth in solar is phenomenal. It doubles every two years world wide. Nuke is also a lot slower and harder to set up. IIRC there has never been a nuke reactor that was constructed on budget or on time, anywhere in the world

Nuke is the way to go forward. It is better for nature than wind-farms

[anthonyvop]

Would you want to live near such places with where there are those so-called wind-farms? I wouldn`t.
It is also nowhere near reliable enough, and has many other faults.

What is then negative of solar power, besides the fact the technology is not quite there yet?


Nuke is the way to go forward. It is better for nature than wind-farms
You arguement is illogical.
I wouldn't want to live near a windfarm. So? I wouldn't want to live next to a Power plant or a solar power field.
That doesn't mean I find them aesthetically unappealing. I wouldn't want to live next to an art museum either.

[rah]

Would you want to live near such places with where there are those so-called wind-farms? I wouldn`t.
It is also nowhere near reliable enough, and has many other faults.

What is then negative of solar power, besides the fact the technology is not quite there yet?


Nuke is the way to go forward. It is better for nature than wind-farms

Actually realestate prices are shown to increase around wind farms in some countries. I guess if you live next to one you know it is not going to be replaced by a big bunch of apartments.
Depending on the location, wind can be quite reliable, but it will never produce base load power. It can compliment other types of power though.

I head on the weekend that solar themal power is cheaper than nuke. In 5 years it will be cheaper than coal fired power plants. It can provide base load and load following power. Given the option, solar is a far better and quicker solution than nuke.

Its a shame that both candidates are in bed with nuclear. But solar is growing without their help and will increase quicker than nuke anyway.

[Rollo]

first note why are we busting our ass in Iraq only to be hosed by oil prices.

Yes why indeed? The Congressional Budget Office put the estimates of the costs of war in Iraq at about $1,000,000,000,000.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/84xx/doc8497/07-30-WarCosts_Testimony.pdf


The best thing to do is to invest in the research for alternative energy resources, otherwise we are all done for good.

If the US Government had invested $1tn in alternative energy resources, there wouldn't be the problem. Since presidential policy dictated that blowing up "terrorists" was economically more important, that's where the money went.


As for the actual question of who the better president should be? Well in all fairness, there hasn't actually been one who was forward thinking at all and actually made America better since JFK who proposed what would become the Civil Rights act of 1964.

The question is whether Obama if elected will do something to help heal the remaining racial rifts in society, or whether McCain can distance himself from the sheer idiocy of the past 8 years.

[Hawkmoon]

As for the actual question of who the better president should be? Well in all fairness, there hasn't actually been one who was forward thinking at all and actually made America better since JFK who proposed what would become the Civil Rights act of 1964.

The question is whether Obama if elected will do something to help heal the remaining racial rifts in society, or whether McCain can distance himself from the sheer idiocy of the past 8 years.

I think Reagan steered the US down a prosperous path and JFK is overrated. The Kennedy's are no different to the Bush's or the Clinton's when it comes to dodgy backroom politics.

Obama will do absolutely nothing to help these "racial rifts" you speak of. Nor will McCain, for the simple reason that they can't change people's minds for them. They can only change laws and I'm pretty sure that the US has no more laws that discriminate against people based on race.

It doesn't matter what McCain or Obama do or say, they won't be able to change the views of somebdy who is inherently racist at heart, whether they be black or white.

Do you think Obama becoming President will change the views of his erstwhile Preacher, Jeremiah Wright? I doubt it.

Obama is a lot like Kevin Rudd in that a lot of people see him as a vote for change, something shiny and new. Something different to what is on the table now. That's why Rudd got elected. Although it's still early days here, Australia hasn't changed since Rudd was elected and more importantly, there don't appear to be many changes on the horizon either.

Obama may pull the troops out of Iraq but I doubt he'll do much different domestically. As for McCain, aside from less fodder for the comedians, I don't think his presidency will be much different from Bush's.

[Daniel]

Yeah but think about it, the worst thing about wind power is that some people think it looks bad.

Idiots....

Some people just want things to stay the same forever.

These clots for instance have made a lot of stuff up about how a proposed windfarm is going to spoil the scenery of the rather bland coast in North Wales, how it's going to create noise when it's operating (load of bollocks) and they also falsified the pictures of what it will look like and even though they were exposed in the local media they've not removed these misleading pictures from their site.
http://www.saveourscenery.com/

We already have 2 offshore windfarms near us and another one under construction as well as a couple of onshore ones as well. I think they're very attractive things. As Garry pointed out windfarms can be a bit unreliable. We have the North Hoyle Windfarm off the coast here and there are always 1 or 2 of the 25 turbines not spinning. But this was the first large scale offshore windfarm in the UK so things will have improved since it was finished in 2003. But all sorts of power plants have bits closed down for maintenance all the time. It's just not as visible as a turbine not turning.

One cool thing about the windfarms is that on a clear enough day you can see evidence of the curvature in the earth's surface. On a good day if you're in the right place the blades on some of the turbines look like they're dipping into the sea.

[Eki]

I am not against any technological developments for alternative fuels.
In fact I am actively involved in a project to develope an alternative fuel race car.

I am also a realist.
Any practical and economical alternative fuel or power sources is years, if not decades down the road.
And they always will be, unless someone does something about it. They won't come by themselves while we wait. New technology must be developed, taxes for fossil fuel must be increased in order to make alternative methods like solar and wind energy more competitive, etc.

[Roamy]

Well IMO the world now is a huge toilet and I expect it will get flushed before it gets better.

Good for Honda - they are starting production of their Hydrogen car. Can't fill it up but it will be a center piece in the driveway.

[OWFan19]

There is plenty of oil. The only problem is getting at it. In the US the problem is the Treehugger/NIMBY coalition. Between ANWAR, the Gulf of Mexico and Western oil Shale we have enough oil to meet our needs for the next 200 years at least.


Bull. The Saudi's are already pumping up the salt water that they inject into the earth in order to get the max oil. Oil is not like the sun, it will be gone soon. The treehuggers are thinking outside of Oil, which is a good thing. People like yourself assume oil will always be there for us.

[anthonyvop]

Bull. The Saudi's are already pumping up the salt water that they inject into the earth in order to get the max oil. Oil is not like the sun, it will be gone soon. The treehuggers are thinking outside of Oil, which is a good thing. People like yourself assume oil will always be there for us.

With all due respect.....Bull.

Just because some wells are going dry doen't mean there isn't plenty of oil out there.

Recently Brazil has discovered 2 Major offshore oil fields. The Bering Sea has shown to be a possible huge deposit. The Gulf of Mexico has huge expanses that haven't even been touched. I can go on and on.

Sorry but a few dry wells is Saudi Arabia may scream "the Sky is falling" to you but to me it just means time to dig another well.

[OWFan19]

With all due respect.....Bull.

Just because some wells are going dry doen't mean there isn't plenty of oil out there.

Recently Brazil has discovered 2 Major offshore oil fields. The Bering Sea has shown to be a possible huge deposit. The Gulf of Mexico has huge expanses that haven't even been touched. I can go on and on.

Sorry but a few dry wells is Saudi Arabia may scream "the Sky is falling" to you but to me it just means time to dig another well.

"The Sky is falling", you have mistaken this place with Trackforum where they use that phrase way too much. At some point we will run out of oil, thats a fact.

Like I said before, the oil companies here have leases to some 40 million acres of land, yet havent drilled on it. Wonder why? You cant blame the Dems for that.

[rah]

With all due respect.....Bull.

Just because some wells are going dry doen't mean there isn't plenty of oil out there.

Recently Brazil has discovered 2 Major offshore oil fields. The Bering Sea has shown to be a possible huge deposit. The Gulf of Mexico has huge expanses that haven't even been touched. I can go on and on.

Sorry but a few dry wells is Saudi Arabia may scream "the Sky is falling" to you but to me it just means time to dig another well.

You are right, there is plenty of oil out there. However that does not mean that peak oil has not happened or is not about to happen. If this is not peak oil now then I would hate to see what it is like in the future.

[ShiftingGears]

Obama is a lot like Kevin Rudd in that a lot of people see him as a vote for change, something shiny and new. Something different to what is on the table now. That's why Rudd got elected. Although it's still early days here, Australia hasn't changed since Rudd was elected and more importantly, there don't appear to be many changes on the horizon either.

One thing I have noticed with Rudd is that the terrorist "threat" seems to have just magically disappeared. I think that is a major difference between Howard's and Rudd's politics.

[leopard]

Because Rudd magically donated $ 1 billion for post tsunami recovery program to the neighbor recently. :)

Considering US is an important barometer, countries all over the world believe more Obama for the general better condition. Expectation for a better life comes not only from country he is reigning at but expectation from the whole world.