>> ^aaronfr:
I'm with you on most of what you said, imstellar. In fact, taking the time to find these differences highlighted for me how minute and often insubstantial they often are. At the same time, you chose issues on that list which there are not great differences on.
Obama has clearly and definitely backed away from any support of the Bush Doctrine (which you'll find in the link provided above) and has a much more progressive income and corporate tax policy. Also, there is a difference between their Iraq policies, although McCain is slowly moving towards Obama's position. Furthermore, Obama's health care policies are actually a step forward (albeit a small one) whereas McCain's health care plan is a regressive tax on the middle-class. SO... I believe there are fundamental differences between the two parties and the two candidates.


I tried to choose issues which are of the greatest importance to economics, foreign policy, personal liberties, and national security. It just so happens that the candidates are practically identical on most of these issues.

Obama's healthcare plan is actually a very large step in the very wrong direction. Compare it to the socialized healthcare system that already exists in Britain: the NHS. It is a complete nightmare for everyone involved--except the bureaucrats and government officials who are profiting wildly. The number of hospitals and paitients have declined--despite waiting lists up to 18 weeks and the denial of many treatments--while the number of supervisors and budget surpluses increased!

Obama and McCain's foreign policy is likewise very bad for our economy and for our national sovereignty. We have been at war, hot or cold, almost non-stop for the last 100 years, and are currently fighting two wars, with the addition of a third (iran), fourth (pakistan), and even fifth (russia) maybe coming soon!

It is hard to really fathom just how much government regulation affects your life--because the consequences are often subtle, far-reaching, and depended on several factors. However, keep this in mind:

Before the creation of the ICC, shipping costs were up to 75% cheaper than the years immediately after it, and our railroad system was the best in the entire world. Now, whens the last time you took the train?

Before the creation of the FDA, the average cost to bring a drug to market was $500,000 and average time to market was 25 months. In the years immediately after it, this rose to $54 million and 8 years!

The first nuclear power plant was constructed in 18 months. After the inception of government regulation, current construction takes over 12 years! Talk about progress.

There was not a single energy crisis or shortage of supply before the department of energy came into effect. The result of government intervention were long-lines as gas shortages in the 50s and 60s. Governmental regulation over 30 years ago killed the private market for research in alternative fuels--leading us to precisely the problem we face today.

Prior to minimum wage laws, the average unemployment rate for teenagers was 10%--high, but not much higher than that of the general population (5%). In addition--the percentage for both white and black teenagers was roughly equal. After the inception of the minimum wage laws, unemployment rose to 20% for the white teenagers, and up to 35-40% for black teenagers! How is an unemployed teenager better off than a teenager working for slightly less? Obama wants to raise minimum wage to almost $10 an hour, do you realize how many jobs that is going to eliminate? It also means that the untrained, unskilled, uneducated 15 year old who is unable to deliver you a cheeseburger without pickles is making up to 1/2 to 1/3 as much as college graduates with 4 year degrees! That single policy alone could send our economy into a recession.

The great depression has been shown to have been directly caused by the restrictions the Federal Reserve placed on open market trading of gold--the result of which shrank our money supply by over 66% in one year--causing what would have been a minor contraction to explode into a full-blown depression.

It's actually a bit astonishing to take a product or service, and trace back its history of legislation, lobbying, regulations and see how it has changed over the past 100 years. As a warning: most of what you find, will make you want to puke.

Marijuana should be decriminalized, and subsequently legalized for several reasons. 1. If marijuana were made legal, then that lifts the restrictions on hemp, of which the benefits are enormous. Alternate fuel, cloth, manufacturing, the list goes on and on. 2. Marijuana is not a "gateway" drug; if anything, alcohol contributes to more people moving on to harder drugs than anything. Using marijuana as the scapegoat for the progression to other drugs is downright ludicrous. 3. I have yet to see aggression linked to marijuana in any way, shape or form. Want a bar fight? Add alcohol. Want to see everyone relaxed? Add marijuana. 4. Artists, philosophers and the like have used marijuana for centuries to aid in introspection and critical thinking. Yeah, I went there. Why would anyone want to stop you from examining yourself and your own reality? Either those who can't, those who are unwilling or those who want control.
I could go on and on regarding the benefits. With all that said, I do agree that operating machinery of any kind should not be tolerated as accidents can occur due to slower reaction times, less focus and inattention directly attributed to marijuana when under its influence. A "breathalyzer" or instant test would be imperative in order to determine if a user were under the influence simply due to marijuana's different morphology. I also believe that 100 grams is excessive. There is absolutely no reason why anyone should have almost 1/4 pound of marijuana. Even those who would use to medically. One ounce (28g) is plenty enough.

I'm all for it. It certainly would be a boost to our sagging economy.

I'm not sure ethanol is the answer. I don't see a way of processing it without requisite CO2 byproduct. There WILL be a successor to petroleum and the sooner we get to it, the better. It should be another 10 year challenge like the moon program.
"We choose to go to alternative fuels. We choose to do this in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

Thanks *lets it go to his head*! Now if only my freshly inflated ego could be harvested as a source of alternative fuel.

this really helps to emphasize the need for alternative fuels. oil is temporary, right now we're just scrambling to stay afloat. we need to move past it if we're going to strive.

Those "billions in oil profits" B. Hussein Obama and Billswife are slavering over must be reinvested for more oil exploration and technology. The federal mafia takes 20 cents in taxes per gallon of gas sold; they're already getting their share of the action.

It's government regulations that make building new refineries next to impossible, not the free market.

While it's true that reducing demand would reduce gas prices, he's stated at the beginning that won't happen due to China's and India's increased oil demands.

There's another way prices would lower: by increasing the available supply of oil, but the "hippies" in Congress (including McSame) won't let us tap our own supply (ANWR) because it might damage caribou self-esteem.

Alternative fuels? They're going to have to fight it out. Just like BluRay and HD-DVD...let the free market decide which technology wins between hydrogen and electricity and whatever. All government can do is prop up a loser like ethanol to delay whatever was destined to win.

Do you really favor a would-be President who tells you what you're allowed drive, be it scooter or limo? I don't. It's none of his damned business.

Arrogance without substance.

>> ^lertad:
Hmm...maybe someone with better expertise can help me, but will alternative fuel ever be really sufficient?>

As aaronfr said, it just part of the puzzle. According to Amory Lovins we can stop using oil, today if we simply use all the reduction/substitution technologies we already have, see:
www.videosift.com/video/TED-Talks-Amory-Lovins

And while we're discussing "alternative fuel", there needs to be more public inquiry about Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles. Because, in all honesty, they will not help our energy crisis, in the end they will hinder it. Why? Mostly because it takes far more energy to produce, store, and transport Hydrogen, than you will ever get out of using that Hydrogen. Just as an example a Hydrogen Tank stacked up against a Honda Accord:

A Hydrogen tank with 55kg @ 3000psi will weigh approximately 400kg and offer approximately 165 miles of driving range while costing $2000.

A gasoline tank, at 17 gallons, weighing 73kg, will offer 493 miles at a cost of $100.

The reasons for the increased tank weight with Hydrogen is due to the high pressure the Hydrogen must be stored at. The tank must be built heavy, and incredibly strong and durable in order to contain that pressure.

A more viable solution which we can easily invest in and promote would be purely electric cars, running on battery power. I recommend everyone who hasn't seen Who Killed The Electric Car? to run out and rent it as soon as possible.

>> ^lertad:
second question first
As far as I can tell they are certainly viable and great alternatives, but can they be mass produced and will people around the world really adopt it?

yes, it is possible. after all, people would have been asking the same questions at the beginning of the 20th century about the viability of automobiles when they first appeared.

Hmm...maybe someone with better expertise can help me, but will alternative fuel ever be really sufficient?

No, it will never be sufficient. Compare Detroit, a typical American city, and Copenhagen, a typical West European city. Both have roughly the same population at about 1 million. However, Copenhagen is about twice as densely populated as Detroit meaning the same amount of people live on smaller area of land. While only being twice as dense, they consume only 1/9th of the energy of their American counterpart. And of course that has to do with better mass transportation as well as higher rates of walking and bicycling. Alternative fuels and hybrid/electric cars are only a small part of the solution.

Hmm...maybe someone with better expertise can help me, but will alternative fuel ever be really sufficient? As far as I can tell they are certainly viable and great alternatives, but can they be *mass produced* and will people around the world really adopt it?

However, investing in reducing bottlenecks and fuel-efficient machines certainly makes sense.

In reply to this comment by GreatBird:
Ok, thats not the worst looking alternative fuel car. Isn't the problem with hydrogen powered cars that we don't have access to reserves of pure hydrogen on Earth. We have to extract it from forms of hydrocarbons like natural gas which uses energy and has byproducts carbon monoxide, so the efficiency and cleanliness isn't really that good.

Yes, Hydrogen cars are not the best option because of the reasons you stated. Electric cars would be my primary choice so long as it had a secondary method as a backup in case it would be impossible to recharge the vehicle. I just posted this because it seems that many of the vehicle manufacturers are pushing for Hydrogen vehicles as a potential solution. Just about every major manufacturer has come up with similar Hydrogen cars for the year 2008.

There is a car manufacturer in Canada that is making some nice Electric cars and the EV1 was an outstanding electric vehicle. They were put under pressure by the petro and parts sales divisions to eliminate their electric vehicle line which is unfortunate and just goes to show how much power the petrolium industry has over us.

GM just came out with an electric hybrid that seems very interesting and it will still allow them to charge us for fuel and replacement parts which seems to be their main concern.

http://www.videosift.com/video/GM-Electric-Concept-Car-Unveiled-at-2007-Detroit-Auto-Show
http://www.videosift.com/video/Electric-Car-The-Chevy-Volt

Ok, thats not the worst looking alternative fuel car. Isn't the problem with hydrogen powered cars that we don't have access to reserves of pure hydrogen on Earth. We have to extract it from forms of hydrocarbons like natural gas which uses energy and has byproducts carbon monoxide, so the efficiency and cleanliness isn't really that good.

you continue to confuse, belwilder and confound me. While I couldn't agree more with you when you state "knowledge being the ultimate power for freedom, or a weapon of control."

But if that is the case, then why do you persistently berate me for trying to provide "knowledge" to those of faith ? A recent study indicated that 80% of people don't know the details about their faith (what they believe) in regards to the bible.

I mainly spout for those who are on the fence and aren't aware of the "details". People sell religion as the "truth", but when one looks behind the curtain they realize it is smoke and mirrors. Don't get pissed at me for wanting to help bpeople see behind the curtain.

you say

"some simply avoid issues like these, conflict at any cost being foreign or uncomfortable.....the folks that dive head-first into issues with gusto are seekers of truth and meaning......"

I would put myself in the seekers of truth category. so again, why the constant need to harass me ?

you also say

"the tone may seem scolding, but sometimes effective"

scolding ? your immature name calling does not fall under "scolding". I appreciate your comments much more when you leave out the ad hom attacks. you have enough knowledge in your head about the issues to contribute really quality comments without reverting to nasty and uncalled for comments about my character.

Qruel


In reply to this comment by choggie:
Great example, using that Tesla article, to use to explain my conviction, that most likely, technologies exist, and have existed for some time now, that would render the use of petroleum for power, ancient history the day after tomorrow.

Tesla would not play the money game, so they kept him around, under virtual lock and key, until he was gone-why would they want to give the world free energy? That would fuck up the contrived economic monster they feed......this is why when folks talk about solar power and wind power and alternative fuels, recycling, etc., it isa goddamn diversion from the real issue, which is, knowledge is power, and we are being controlled and herded.

Free energy from the ether, is available, real, and present. We simply are kept in the dark, black, pool of oily control.

Fuck solar power and hybrid cars....I want real energy!!! The energy they keep from us-the knowledge that would kill their game, has always been the stuff of lock and key.....same mechanism that kept slaves form learning to read in America......knowledge being the ultimate power for freedom, or a weapon of control.

That may be the case Chog, but for the short term it's by far the cleanest and efficient. New technologies are at least 10 years away and alternate fuels such as wind/hydroelectric/solar power do not produce enough to be the sole providers. In Australia, we're still relying largely on coal power which is under-producing power compared to our needs, yet outputting huge amounts of CO₂. I don't know if that's a technology we want to go back to.

God, that lady was being bias. Was this fox news?

Tell me again why we went to war there?

Weapons of mass Destruction was it?

I vote we just stop driving gas cars and start driving alternative fuel. Then wow, no need to fight over oil.