The only question now is when will Hillary concede? A POW who gave up his favorite son status and is more centrist than Con vs. Chicagoland’s finest young black challenger is what it is…

(DD)

The question is, will BHO have enough delegates going into the convention to win on the first ballot. Two here, three there is meaningless. Who is going to get Edwards delegates? Richardson’s? Who are the Supers going to go for? Who’s going to switch camps? Who CAN switch camps? What about MI/FL?

This thing is going to the convention and the primaries are going to be thrown out the window. Won’t we have a rip-roaring time then. I love it!!

(DD)

PS Hey TD, you’d better reset your clock. I just posted and it’s NOT 5 pm EST. Daylight Savings time, remember? Jeez!!

Did you just TrickRoll me?

Can someone explain to me why Tim Dickinson hates Hillary Clinton?

Can someone explain to me why Tim Dickinson hates Hillary Clinton?

Can someone explain to me why Tim Dickinson hates Hillary Clinton?

Emily:

For the same reasons any thinking person does.

TD,

Do we also have Marc to thank for the website finally ‘working?’ If so, thanks to him. And to you.

Pukey’s back: “A POW who gave up his favorite son status and is more centrist than Con vs. Chicagoland’s finest young black challenger is what it is… ”

Wow, I’m almost at a loss for words. How about this? One of America’s finest and most liberal senators versus Arizona’s finest old white dudes?

Nice marginalization Ralph…..

(Jed Clampett)

Did anyone catch the Colbert Report last nite, colbert was throwing up some interesting gang signs and exposing hillary’s dirty tactics for what they are. You can catch it again today at 7 central.

Here’s an undeniable truth: if the minorities turn out in representative numbers, The Cons can’t win. That’s assuming, of course, they vote for BHO. I’d like to think they would.

If he DOES sweep in with a mandate, I will not be satisfied unless his first move is to nationalize the oil industry. THEN we’ll see what kind of cojones he has. HRC couldn’t/wouldn’t be able to do it but perhaps young Obama could.

I mean, hey, everyone keeps talking about change. How much change is that?

If he’s elected, we’ll probably see CWII (or will it be III, reconstruction/Jim Crow being II) so he may as well shoot for the moon.

Jed,

So, you wouldn’t even try? No wonder the Cons get away with it if everyone rolls over for them.

The naysayers said the same thing about Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Clean Air and Slavery, to name but a few.

You a naysayer Jed?

more of a realist actually. do you not realize how much power they have with the money they are making?
Do you think a monster that has enslavened the populace and demonstrated it’s disdain of the democratic process and ideals with it’s purchasing of congressmembers and presidents, installing employees as cabinet officials, sending the country into a senseless war, and bribed officials in foreign countries to make sweethart deals that leave their populace in squallor will give up it’s claims to it’s power?

So you went from suggesting something that would destroy this candidate that you say you ‘love’ to suggesting something that would likely send the planet and nation into greater chaos?

I’m affraid I mischaracterized you by calling you dense, I applogize, suicidely deluded is more apt.

Let’s see, clean air, the law was passed and quickly languished since the enforcers in chief were unwilling to enforce it and some even gave polluters exceptions so they could keep destroying the environment. Social Security, hmmm, a system that allows the rich to only pay to a certain ammount for something they will never really need but will collect gladly, even as they avoid paying other forms of taxes. Slavery, hmmm abolished by a civil war in 1800s and still not accepted or implemented by the 1960s and was forced into implementation by peaceful protest that was turned into chaos by the authorities, Even today some people have not accepted the black man, even to the extent that a well qualified candidate for president is rejected merely because of the circumstances of his birth. Yea, man great progress. God must be proud that you have put so much trust in him.

DD, I think I can read what you’re saying, and I also can see what Jed’s saying.
If oil’s such a ‘threat to national security’, as our dumbass in chief would tell us, then shouldn’t it fall somewhere in Homeland Security regulation? Every single other threat is managed by homeland, except this one.

But, getting it nationalized is a near-impossibility. A better solution would be to FINALLY subsidize alternative energies. THAT would be a huge move on his part and a huge move for the liberal/green voice. I’d have to look this up, but I think Bush II has subsidized a total of around 20 billion toward alternative energy research. But, we spend 10 billion a month in Iraq.

A major move by Obama would be to pass an alternative energy subsidization bill in the neighborhood of 150-200 billion a year. Yes, I also know he’ll need a super majority of dems in congress, because as we all know, Repukelickans DO NOT COMPROMISE and those whores will not let their pimps (oil industry) down.

10 billion a month in Iraq. 20+ billion over 8 years on alternative energy. Does anybody else see the sinister irony there??

I have a better idea, transfer all tax breaks and incentives given to the oil industry over to new energy research. These grants should be limited to small businesses and individuals, corporations with multimillion dollar budgets need not apply for anything other than reduced interest rate loans or stock puchases. They don’t need any more than that.
The best, and probably only way to bring the oil industry down a few pegs is to invent a renewable energy source that makes oil a ridiculous choice and anyone can make or b uy, off the grid stuff. Something along the lines of Tesla’s means of using radiant energy and Schauberger’s separation of charges in a conductive fluid principles.

For sen obama(presumably prez by that time) to be able to do what you suggest would take more than a supermajority of congress, it would take massive movilization by the populace… petrodollars b_uy’s congressmembers of both parties.

There’s alot of talk of INFLATION in the news lately… ever heard of DEFLATION? That is the reduction of prices due to a glut in supply. While this is almost impossible with the oil industry, it can work wonders to reduce prices of other stuff to more manageable levels. Unfortunately, it would also take major coordination of the population, something that we are not well known for. It is something to consider though, don’t purchase anything that isn’t absolutely necessary for existance during a whole year.

Your solutions overlook one important consideration: time. All you say is well and good but would probably take decades to have an impact on the Average Joe. For sure I won’t be around and the chances are neither of you will be before any meaningful impact is felt.

That doesn’t mean can the idea, but it does mean that we should be doing something for ‘immediate relief.’ The situation is going to get worse, as we all know, before it gets better. If there’s a better way to ease the burden over the next fifty years while alternative sources of energy are developed, better than nationalizing the oil industry, I’m all ears. Tomdispatch dot com is beginning a series of articles on the matter by Michael Klare. Hopefully they’ll propose a solution. Right now, however, he’s painting a pretty gloomy picture. What, for example, will the elderly poor do while they wait for the alternative energy solutions? Heat their home, eat or take medicine?

If we remove the subsidizes to the industry, they will simply raise their prices. Who benefits?

Jed seems to think we’re powerless to do anything about it. He doesn’t know that once upon a time in this country, many rivers ran with raw sewage and the air was unfit to breathe in many places. He looks around and sees that all is not perfect and concludes we are feckless. Apparently, if the ‘solution’ isn’t easy and immediate, it’s not worth the bother.

Maybe he’s right. Maybe there isn’t anything we can do. Except carp and grouse on the internet. If that’s so, then we’re only getting what we deserve.

hmm!?!?! the nation that sent a man to the moon within a few years of setting the mission statement can’t create new energy sources even though several gifted inventors have given it to them? Talk about having little faith in YOUR own people.
The main problem with energy generation is that everyone is looking for industrial scale systems instead of home sized systems.
What you fail to realize is that new energy systems have been developed. New ways of improving efficiency have been designed and implemented. Unfortunately, they have us addicted to oil and the pushers love the profits and the misery they cause with their product. There isn’t A solution, there are lots of different ideas that all work and could be implemented, all that is required is that the current paradigm be recognized as flawed.
We already have a huge furnace in the sun, yet it isn’t being properly used.
You pose alot of questions there, shouldn’t you be asking those of yourself and why you haven’t demanded them from your government? All developed nations have a viable, universal healthcare system to take care of their citizens, why doesn’t the richest nation on earh? Exxon alone made $40 billion while the nation went deeper into the red, yet they still get tax breaks, incentives and royalty free oil, doesn’t that seem wrong to you? maybe not nationalize the oil industry, but get into the oil and refinement, why is it the government isn’t allowed to go into business for profit so we can reduce the tax burden, the national debt, and the deficit?

You seem to think things have been resolved since the times when jimmi carter warned about the dangers of destroying the environment, science has since backed him up. Yet we still have to fight in court to get industry and a colluding government to stop doing the wrong thing, and it’s merely because of greed. Apparently you don’t realize when an easy and immediate solution is being suppressed due to greed induced myopia and an inability to accept that improved efficiency is paramount to a resolution.
Why is it you guys are conditioned to go to extremes? Is it the media that has you all jumpy and violent or is it merely in your nature becaues of the way you treated the least among you… or at least those that were considered the lowest of the low.
Look, it’s not that america is screwed up, it is that humanity has gotten screwed up. They’ve accepted being lied to for so long and being told they are powerless that they refuse to become part of the solution.

This week the people of TIBET have said enough!!! enough of the discrimination, the exploitation, the abuse and oppression. They were invaded after the chinese revolution when they were taking countries left and right. TIBET had always enjoyed it’s freedom and had developed a philosophy of life unmatched on earth. They dedicated themselves to making a simple life and understanding the secrets of the body and mind. Apparently this ran counter to china’s needs, they invaded a nation without an army or weapons with extreme force, why? To destroy that culture, to do away with that part of human history as has been done in europe, africa, the americas, etc. etc. To punish those people for believing in spirit and trying to learn it’s secrets, because that knowledge can protect us.

My props and hopes of peaceful resolution go out to them. May they gain some semblance of dignity from this sacrifice.

Let’s pray we are never faced with the same situation, from watching any episode of cops, it seems clear the necessary structure for oppression is already there.

It’s too bad humanity can’t seem to recognize when they are being used to destroy their home.

You don’t need to nationalize the oil industry; that would not be good for anyone.

What can work is to end oil subsidies IN ORDER TO increase oil prices. I also recommend a gas tax to further dissuade consumers from purchasing gas.

This is because the only way to end oil addiction in America is to make oil a bad economic decision by giving Americans a cheaper choice. Jed Clampett is correct when he says the technology to end oil addiction and slow pollution exists, the problem is the political will to change the situation doesn’t.

If it did we would see huge tax incentives for the development, implementation and use of renewable pollution-neutral fuels. It would go something like this: If you purchase an energy efficient car the government will allow you to forgo paying income tax. There would similarly be tax reductions on companies that research, invest in, build, and transport renewable pollution-neutral fuels.

We would also see federal legislation mandating the increase in fuel efficiency for the portion of the auto fleet that still runs on gasoline. We also need to tax polluting companies in order to subsidize technology that will offset that pollution; at the same time we can provide tax breaks to those companies for using cleaner processes.

The government itself can-and does-sponser clean energy development but we need to increase the amount of funding in this area. We can pay for it (an the tax breaks) by ending our wasteful wars and repealing the tax cuts on capital gains the Bush administration put in place.

Switching to clean energy would actually be a pretty easy thing to do if it weren’t for people with interests in fuel, war and international development that stand in the way. Again, though that is a political obstacle, not a technological one.

Dboy,

Okay, and what of the poor elderly who have to choose between food, medicine or warmth? Releasing the artificial price restrictions currently in place will be no different than a regressive tax on the poor.

Please understand, I’m all for what you and Jed are proposing, for the long run, but what of the in between?

Well, if a republican wins or someone like HRC wins, then the credo will be… “they should have worked and prepared themselves for retirement like the rest of us have.” Come to think of it, perhaps a few of those on these boards suscribe to the same ideology.
How about we determine SS payments dependant on current income or savings levels. All these years those CEOs have enjoyed a ceiling on taxable income in terms of SS, yet they collect it all back when they retire, even though they don’t need it. SS should be based on need, you did great in our society and now you can take care of yourself in your retirement, your social security money can go to those folks in actual need. It’s too bad that their practices and abuses have left so many in need, huh?

C’mon Jed, do you REALLY hate HRC SO much? After she fell (or was pushed) on the healthcare grenade years back, do you think she wouldn’t have any sympathy for the elderly? I hope she gets the nomination and wins the election, just to prove to you you’re wrong.

Anyway, I’m all for an ‘equitable’ SS system, especially since I’m one of those on the ‘need’ end of the scale. But I don’t see how that segues with my ‘nationalize oil’ position. Getting some $$$ to the elderly would be nice, but would be treating the symptom, not the cause.

Hell works, what about b u y? Nope!!

Isn’t treating the symptom how americans deal with any illness?

Do we ever get a cure, or merely treatments? Indian medical gurus can cure diabetes and cancer without having to poison the body, they look for the cause of an illness rather than merely treating the symptoms and give the body the tools to heal itself.

Since Jimmi Carter was hit with thh oil embargo by the oil cartels both foreign and domestic, every solution to the energy crisis has been a patch to hide the symptoms. It segues in that there will be more money to help those in need, and if the market crash that I see in the works here materializes, there will be much more strife than you can imagine.

I was listening to an interesting story on NPR about HRC and her healthcare policy at that time. The consensus was that it failed because of her intransigence. Her inability to compromise and listen to other views and opinions, that revelation came from a democratic congressman. That and her behaviour in the campaign is all I need to understand she’s merely another iteration of the same entity that resides in Bushney.
I don’t hate anyone, an old teacher of mine used to say ‘forgive them, they know not what they do’, you have no idea just how true those words are, too many people disgust me with their hypocresy and lack of empathy and compassion, but that is something I must deal with myself, they’ve made their choice and nothing I can do will change them, the others are the ones that interest me, for them there is still hope.
I used to admire HRC and like I mentioned before, I’ve had a vision she is the first female president, whether that will be this cycle or not remains to be seen.
If she does win, however, it is now clear it will have to be done by following the letter of the law, but not the spirit of legality and transparency. Her campaign has gone to the darkside of the bushney campaign tactics play book and that is what is destroying her. First and foremost, she should have fired that campaign manager of her’s that retorts in hyperbole everytime he is faced with a dificult question, he has set a tone for her campaign that will destroy her against a candidate like sen obama and she’s too distracted by the culture personality of the game to realize it. Not a quality I want in the president that will help steer the ship away from the huge iceberg it is heading towards.

If she does make it in this cycle, I will cash in my 401K, if there’s anything left of it in the next few weeks, s_ell my home and get myself back home, because you will become a huge target, especially this town with it’s new library and proximity to crawford.
It will be much more difficult to paint americans as intolerant and closed minded if they elect Sen Obama.

What if she proves me right???

Jed,

I thought I’d answered you but I don’t see it. When I try to resend, I get ’sorry.’

Dirty Dennis,

What does an elderly person who has to choose between heating their home, eating and medicine have to do with clean energy? They’re two completely separate problems.

There are millions of ways to get these people more money but one of them would be included in tax credits for the use of clean fuels. The entire point is to make clean fuel CHEAPER than even artificially priced oil.

Again, the technology exists for cheap, clean fuel and the money exists for shoring up all major social programs to relieve the elderly of having to choose between food, medicine and fuel. The political will simply doesn’t.

The coming recession will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that supply side economics and unregulated markets do not work. Simply tax capital gains heavily and divert money away from defense and the false “war on terror” and you’ve got great lives for the elderly.

This isn’t rocket science.

Dboy,

It sure ain’t. I’m merely responding to questions about nationalizing oil companies. I didn’t mean to imply it was that or nothing else.

It’s my belief that anything ‘traditional’ that the gov’t does will simply be passed to the consumer. Nothing in the current structure says they can’t raise the prices simply because it ‘pleases them.’ It’s their gas. In an Adam Smith world, other suppliers would step in and offer an alternative, but that’s just not going to happen.

There are MANY solutions/answers to the problem. I like making it a misdemeanor to have an un-tuned car or setting your thermostat above 65, but I doubt I’ll get much support on those. In the mean, I’m all for nationalizing the companies and kicking the bastards out.

Dirty Dennis,

Ethanol is already an alternative to traditional oil. Electricity can become another. Further down the road solar and wind can become other alternatives. These are competitors to traditional oil companies and the speed at which they replace traditional oil depends on government incentives to adopt them as replacements.

And you don’t have to criminalize wasteful use of electricity (although we do criminalize dumping, putting certain substances in one’s own body, and accidentally killing an endangered species among other strange things so I don’t see why criminalizing wasteful use of electricity is so radical.)

You simply have to make it a bad economic choice to choose polluting fossil fuels. The only reason this is hard is because of people who make money off the current oil business model. If you nationalize the oil industry these people will simply go to work for the government and nothing of any importance will have changed except that they’ll have access to even more money by looting public funds.

what is it with today’s society wanting to criminalize everything??

just a few days ago John Stossel was talking about kids getting arrested for having sex with kids close the their own age. I’m glad it wasn’t like that when I was growing up, we’da been in alot of trouble. And I realize sometimes these stupid cases are due to overzealous prosecutors trying to make a name for themselves, but c’mon!! 16 yo boy is labled a sex offender for consensual sex with his 15 yo girlfriend? Seems more like oppression or political grandstanding more than anything else.

What happens with all that money from the fines? how will it be spent? if i’m going to be fined,i’d want my money to go for finding a solution, not keeping the cash cow producing for some beaurocrats. is it spent in implementing ways of subsidizing renewable energy technologies or improving efficiency? Why not both, right?

I like Sen Obama’s Ideas of putting the country’s expenditures on the web for us to see just how much of our money goes into propping up bad business practices. Let’s find out what our money is really spent on.