GOP favorability: Lowest ever

On Jun 29, 12:51*am, Governor Swill wrote:
This is Eat the rich's brain on drugs:

Unfortunately, the neocons have amongst their members most of the
wealthiest people in America. *These wealthy people have over the
years learned how to manipulate the masses into voting against their
own best interest. *Remember how union members voted for Reagan?
Remember how many of the poor vote for Republicans? *The wealthy will
gain control of the masses one way or another.

Obama's money doesn't come from the rich and powerful.

Swill
--
Gobama! *Gobama! *Gobama! *Gobama!

So you're saying Hussein does'nt receive money from MOVEON.org and
George Soros or the Arabs?

This is MuttonJeff's brain on drugs:
Governor Swill wrote:
This is Eat the rich's brain on drugs:

Unfortunately, the neocons have amongst their members most of the
wealthiest people in America. *These wealthy people have over the
years learned how to manipulate the masses into voting against their
own best interest. *Remember how union members voted for Reagan?
Remember how many of the poor vote for Republicans? *The wealthy will
gain control of the masses one way or another.

Obama's money doesn't come from the rich and powerful.

So you're saying Hussein does'nt receive money from MOVEON.org and
George Soros or the Arabs?

I'm saying that he rejects money from special interests, lobbyists and
corporations. Not that he doesn't have a few larger donors, but the
great majority of his money comes in small, regular donations from
regular folks. I'm sure that if you try real hard you can come up
with all sorts of stories about his contributors, who they are and how
much they gave him but it won't change reality. In fact, I'm sure you
will.

Swill
--
Gobama! Gobama! Gobama! Gobama!

This is MuttonJeff's brain on drugs:
Eat the rich wrote:

Unfortunately, the neocons have amongst their members most of the
wealthiest people in America. *These wealthy people have over the
years learned how to manipulate the masses into voting against their
own best interest. *Remember how union members voted for Reagan?
Remember how many of the poor vote for Republicans? *The wealthy will
gain control of the masses one way or another.

Remember how the kool-aid drinkers voted for Gore, Kerry and all the
other wealthy hypocrites?

No, but I do remember all the kool aid drinkers who voted for "wealthy
hypocrite" Bush and the money grubbing GOP. Please note the current
make up of Congress and the further losses sustained there by the
party in special elections since 2006. Note how many Republicans,
including the party's presumptive nominee, are struggling to distance
themselves from George Bush. Even more telling, Republicans are
linking themselves to Obama in their re-election bids or refusing to
endorse the Republican nominee. It's starting to look like your kool
aid pitcher has run dry and your party is in eclipse.

Swill
--
Gobama! Gobama! Gobama! Gobama!

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 18:17:25 -0700, "Mike Laight"
wrote:


"nobody" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 21:52:26 -0700, "Mike Laight"
wrote:

(Snip)

Senator Obama has repeatedly called for spending those tax breaks and
subsidies on the next generations of energy sources and not on dumping
more
money down the oil wells.

So, in other words, he has no plans whatsoever to help people who are
losing ground financially *right now* due to the high cost of energy.
All he seems to talk about are things that will happen some day yet we
can't drill in Anwar because it would supposedly take ten yers to get
the oil.


president Bush this last week said that there is no way to lower prices in
gthe short term. Senator McCain said the same in May, 2008. What is
Senator McCainsJune, 2008 plan for what he said couldnot happen one month
ago?

Both Bush and McCain have been pushing for increased domestic oil
production. That is the place to start. You can then move forth into
developing alternatives. To do as the Dems (and Obama) have been
doing --- talk, talk, talk with no specific proposals guarantees no
improvement in cost or real alternatives.

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 19:24:16 -0700 (PDT), Eat the rich
wrote:

On Jun 26, 3:15 pm, Jerry Kraus wrote:
On Jun 26, 4:31 pm, DeserTBoB wrote:

Just 28% of Americans now have a "favorable" view of the Republican
Party, while 43% view the Democratic Party favorably. Also telling is
the "unfavorable" rating...fully 47% of Americans now view the GOP in
an unfavorable view, while only 32% say the same about the Democrats.
Source: NBC/Wall Street Journal.

America's long national nightmare is over.

The neocon is on the verge of inevitable extinction. Next year,
you'll only be able to find them in Paraguay.

Unfortunately, the neocons have amongst their members most of the
wealthiest people in America.

Ted Kennedy, George Soros and countless other Dems are "neocons"? Do
tell...

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 01:50:26 -0400, Governor Swill
wrote:

This is nobody's brain on drugs:

This from the guy who's newsreader has a bit of a problem quoting
correctly...

Mike Laight wrote:
nobody wrote
There is little to nothing there that will lower energy costs. In
fact, things like "cap and trade" will likely increase the costs. The
whole link you cited has little in the way of specifics (other than
they plan to spend a lot of money). I'll ask again: where's the Dem
plan to solve high energy prices again? Talking won't improve things.
One must actually put something specific forth.

Heck, the republicant plan was to jawbone OPEC and the Saudis. How well did
that work?

Apparently it did work although it's far too early to measure any
results.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/22/news...n=money_latest

Compare the price of oil and gasoline today to it's price January 20,
2001.

Try to follow the conversation. The poster I responded to said the
Republican plan was to "jawbone" the Saudis. I pointed out that it
did indeed result in increased output although it is far too soon to
judge the results.


Senator Obama's plan was to stop throwing good money after bad.
Giving oil companies tax breaks and subsidies while they were enjoying
record profits did not do what republicants told us it would do either.

What did Republicans "tell" us that tax breaks and subsides would do?

Make oil cheaper by making exploration and development less expensive
for them.

And if the Dems don't allow that exploration or development? I also
note that you didn't bother to back up your statement with a cite.


While you're at it, tell us what percent of a gallon of gas goes to
oil company profits. How does this compare to other products.

I don't have any problems with their profits or margins, but I do have
a problem with tax breaks and subsidies for a healthy, vibrant and
thriving industry.

I'm not arguing about for breaks for healthy industries. In fact, I
agree with you. They should be eliminated just as the farm subsides
the Dems just pushed through. I bring up the point to address the
loons who keep claiming the oil companies are gouging the public with
excessive profit.


Invading Iraq also opened up a lot of cheap oil to us, did it not?

Gotta love libs. Did we "invade" Iraq for "cheap oil prices" or
"higher prices"?

Iraq's oil production should be returning to 2002 levels this year.
That should help negate the shortfall in global production caused by
the invasion.

Perhaps, but that wasn't the point of what I said.


Senator Obama has repeatedly called for spending those tax breaks and
subsidies on the next generations of energy sources and not on dumping more
money down the oil wells.

So, in other words, he has no plans whatsoever to help people who are
losing ground financially *right now* due to the high cost of energy.
All he seems to talk about are things that will happen some day yet we
can't drill in Anwar because it would supposedly take ten yers to get
the oil.

The Republicans had their chance to do something about our energy
dependence when Reagan was President. Too bad he de funded Carter's
alternate energy support.

And the Dems have offered *zero* in the way of meaningful
alternatives. You forgot to cite how Reagan defunded Carter's
alternative energy support. In fact, if that was so important, did
Clinton restore the funding?

Screw off, you can't even get a few illegals out from in front of a hardware
store.


"MuttonJeff" wrote in message
...
On Jun 28, 8:17 pm, "Mike Laight" wrote:
"nobody" wrote in message

... On Fri, 27 Jun 2008
21:52:26 -0700, "Mike Laight"
wrote:

(Snip)

Senator Obama has repeatedly called for spending those tax breaks and
subsidies on the next generations of energy sources and not on dumping
more
money down the oil wells.

So, in other words, he has no plans whatsoever to help people who are
losing ground financially *right now* due to the high cost of energy.
All he seems to talk about are things that will happen some day yet we
can't drill in Anwar because it would supposedly take ten yers to get
the oil.

president Bush this last week said that there is no way to lower prices in
gthe short term. Senator McCain said the same in May, 2008. What is
Senator McCainsJune, 2008 plan for what he said couldnot happen one month
ago?

Mike

If Bush announced that the U.S was starting a "Manhattan Project" to
drill for domestic oil, build refineries, build nuclear power plants
and develop clean coal technology the price of oil would drop like a
rock overnight. The world knows we have done it and can do anything if
the american people put their minds to it.

This is nobody's brain on drugs:
Both Bush and McCain have been pushing for increased domestic oil
production.

And that's all they've done which entirely misses the point.

That is the place to start. You can then move forth into
developing alternatives. To do as the Dems (and Obama) have been
doing --- talk, talk, talk with no specific proposals guarantees no
improvement in cost or real alternatives.

You must not have read Obama's page. He has many proposals there.

Swill
--
Gobama! Gobama! Gobama! Gobama!

This is nobody's brain on drugs:
While you're at it, tell us what percent of a gallon of gas goes to
oil company profits. How does this compare to other products.

I don't have any problems with their profits or margins, but I do have
a problem with tax breaks and subsidies for a healthy, vibrant and
thriving industry.

I'm not arguing about for breaks for healthy industries. In fact, I
agree with you. They should be eliminated just as the farm subsides
the Dems just pushed through. I bring up the point to address the
loons who keep claiming the oil companies are gouging the public with
excessive profit.

I'm not one of them.

Swill
--
Gobama! Gobama! Gobama! Gobama!

"nobody" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 18:17:25 -0700, "Mike Laight"
wrote:


"nobody" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 21:52:26 -0700, "Mike Laight"
wrote:

(Snip)

Senator Obama has repeatedly called for spending those tax breaks and
subsidies on the next generations of energy sources and not on dumping
more
money down the oil wells.

So, in other words, he has no plans whatsoever to help people who are
losing ground financially *right now* due to the high cost of energy.
All he seems to talk about are things that will happen some day yet we
can't drill in Anwar because it would supposedly take ten yers to get
the oil.


president Bush this last week said that there is no way to lower prices in
gthe short term. Senator McCain said the same in May, 2008. What is
Senator McCainsJune, 2008 plan for what he said couldnot happen one month
ago?

Both Bush and McCain have been pushing for increased domestic oil
production.


Yes, this week Senator McCain flip-flopped on domestic drilling, while
president Bush is now pushing it harder than he had been. Does it seem
reasonable to you that Senator McCain has voted against every type of
renewable energy and that he and President Bush agree that what we should do
right now to get us off our oil addiction is to drill for more oil?


That is the place to start. You can then move forth into
developing alternatives. To do as the Dems (and Obama) have been
doing --- talk, talk, talk with no specific proposals guarantees no
improvement in cost or real alternatives.


You may not like or agree with Senator Obama's proposals but I am not an
expert and I have seen several reports from reputable and somewhat
objective "experts" that are in complete agreement with Senator Obama's
energy proposals and other equally reputable and somewhat objective
"experts" that are in complete agreement with the Bush/McCain proposals.
There are two things that seem axiomatic to me: 1 - At some point in time we
will not have an option of using oil as an energy source. 2 - At some point
in time we have to decide that it is in the best interest of this country to
stop spending public funds and public resources to scrape along further
using oil as an energy source. The disagreement is about when and what to
do now.

The Japanese seem to be putting a lot more resources into solving this
problem than we are. The Chinese, Indians, and South and Central America's
desire for oil is growing at a faster pace than is ours. In fact,our use
has pretty much plateaued at a level that is below our peak usage. (This
could be out of date data and I am too lazy to look up more recent data but
at the very least this was true a couple years ago.) My point is that I
want the US to spend a huge amount of money to at least catch up with the
Japanese and then spend another huge amount to move ahead of them. I want
to let oil companies stop getting subsidies and tax breaks for at least the
next ten years. I want the US to spend huge amounts of money developing
safe nuclear power systems and waste handling and perhaps settle our deficit
by selling, building, and installing renewable power systems and safe
nuclear power systems to every country in the world.

This is the future, eventually, and Senator Obama talks about a very similar
vision. When I listen to Senator McCain I think about something written by
Robert Heinlein. He wrote about what it must have been like in the buggy
whip business as cars started to become common and affordable. Heinlein
wrote that it is likely that only the best buggy whip manufacturers were
likely to survive as the market for buggy whips was shrinking. The last
buggy whip companies probably took a great deal of pride in making the best
buggy whips they could make. It used to be taught that one of the worst
places for a business to be is in gaining market share in a shrinking
market. I believe that Senator McCain is treating the energy problem in the
same way as the buggy whip manufacturers. He is looking for the very best
way he can find to address the problem of oil prices while not addressing
that oil is going to be replaced as a source of energy. I only hope that we
have the time to solve this problem before we have to start burning down the
house for warmth.

Mike