The Problem With Democrats

His regrets are good news...thanks for the info.
I think his choice of words just brings a lot of discredit to his past and present professions. Heated debates normally lead to decent minds not taking the time to think before they speak. I know I'm guilty of that and as I said, it's good to hear that he regrets how his choice of words came out. Hopefully his mistake leads to improvement of that law and protects the kids even more from any further harm.

Massachusetts Rep. Bill Delahunt (D) questioning David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, during a House subcommittee hearing on interrogation policies.

Addington said he couldn't discuss certain interrogation techniques because "Al Qaeda may watch C-SPAN," which was televising the hearing.

Delahunt responded: "Right, well, I'm sure they are watching, and I'm glad they finally have a chance to see you Mr. Addington."

Congressman Meant 'No Ill' With Al Qaeda Comment:
Delahunt said he was just trying to express that he was glad to see Addington. Delahunt said he recalls saying "I," not "they," during the testimony – though the video, broadcast on C-SPAN, shows he was talking about Al Qaeda.



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,372496,00.html

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (d)

“Coal makes us sick."

"House Democrats are in a bind on the focal point of their energy plan.
Worried that a floor vote on any energy-related measure would trigger a Republican-forced vote on domestic drilling, the leadership has scrubbed the floor schedule of the energy legislation that it vowed to tackle after the Fourth of July recess."
“Right now, our strategy on gas prices is ‘Drive small cars and wait for the wind,’ ” said a Democratic aide.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/ene ... 07-07.html

This is one reason why the democrat controlled congress approval rating fell to single digits for 1st time ever.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_cont ... erformance

Code Pink in action.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index ... n-berkeley

http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html ... =undefined

spc wrote:This is one reason why the democrat controlled congress approval rating fell to single digits for 1st time ever.

Simply because they haven't impeached your hero. Trust me....I want Pelosi & Reid thrown out on their asses

spc wrote:“Right now, our strategy on gas prices is ‘Drive small cars and wait for the wind,’ ” said a Democratic aide.

As opposed to the Republican energy plan: Collect big payoffs from Exxon-Mobil & hope the Republicans keep ownership of the Justice Dept.to avoid the "unpleasantness" of long jail terms!

Why won't House Democrats let Congressmen use technology?

http://www.thenextright.com/soren-dayto ... technology



Free speech

Devil5052 wrote:As opposed to the Republican energy plan: Collect big payoffs from Exxon-Mobil & hope the Republicans keep ownership of the Justice Dept.to avoid the "unpleasantness" of long jail terms!

Again presumptive opinion based not on fact with absolutely no merit. You should try giving a convincing argument with some substance to it instead of posting BS. Lets be realistic, McCain's energy plan is the only thing that will put this country back on track.

Richard S. wrote:Again presumptive opinion based not on fact with absolutely no merit. You should try giving a convincing argument with some substance to it instead of posting BS. Lets be realistic, McCain's energy plan is the only thing that will put this country back on track.

McCain's energy plan will be to follow the Bush Admin. plan, written by & for the oil company's.......& we've seen how great that is! (Cheney's Energy Task Force of 2001- Still Secret, even kept from Republican Senators with clearance) We all know the truth here & know who that plan benefits.
As far as substance is concerned,let me try to be convincing: the fact that this admin held secret meetings with all the major oil companys, in Jan/2001 who wrote the energy policy for our country & no one is allowed to read the transcripts, the Fact that Bush is from a rich oil family (conflict of interest) & the fact that gas/oil prices are ruining our economy, while Exxon-Mobil is reporting the highest profits of any private company....in the history of the world, is enough factual material that I would easily be able to get a federal grand jury to proceed with further criminal investigation.....It's called "Probable Cause".....& there's plenty of it!
While you probably won't find these arguments convincing, I'm sure some other members will, & after spending a lifetime presenting arguments to federal grand jury's, I have no doubt that a sufficient number of them would find "Enough Smoke" to look further for the fire.

LOL, you're still ranting about Exxon yet the only the thing you have presented is opinion. Do you think that maybe if you're going to make a policy towards energy it might be reasonable to expect that you'd want input from the industry? Don't you think that maybe this information would propietary or even even a national security concern? The answer to those two questions is a simple yes.


------------------------------------

Does Obama's energy plan call for investment in coal? No

Does Obama's energy plan call for investment in nuclear reactors? No

Does Obama's energy plan call for investment in more drilling for oil in U.S.? No

What does it call for? Expensive technology that will drive energy prices through the roof even if it is successful and a tax on $4 a gallon oil. Costs aside the success of his plan is questionable as it's going into the unknown.

Just to add it was Obama who voted for the Bush-Energy plan that was very beneficial to big oil, McCain opposed it. If anything it should be Obama you're ranting and raving about.

Richard S. wrote:Do you think that maybe if you're going to make a policy towards energy it might be reasonable to expect that you'd want input from the industry?

Not if you goto court all the time to try to hide what was said in these meetings from our Congress, who has legitimate "Oversight" duties.

Richard S. wrote:Don't you think that maybe this information would propietary or even even a national security concern? The answer to those two questions is a simple yes.

When these meeting at least provide the appearance of "Conflict of Interest", you would at least want to release the transcripts to Republican Senators to vouch for the national interests of these discussion. Why won't Bush let Republican Semators (say Orin Hatch & Arlen Spectre) take a look at those transcripts to vouch for their "national interest" content? (they don't have to give away any secrets, just say they were legitimate) To this day they are top secret, just like Nixon's Watergate tapes that eventually proved he was a common criminal)

While allot of the evidence I rely on is circumstantial, there is nothing wrong with such evidence.

Example: Say I have to prove to a jury that it snowed last night, but I don't have any witness who was awake & can testify that he/she actually saw it snow. (Direct Evidence)
What I have is just the circumstantial evidence that the local meteorologists predicted snow last night, I went to bed with bare ground & woke up with a 6" coating of snow. I have nothing but "Circumstantial Evidence" to prove it snowed, but it is pretty compelling evidence.





We've been over this a million times Richard & if I haven't convinced you with what I think are very compelling arguments to at least investigate this matter further, I have nothing further to add.


The rest of your points I will just lump into things many politicians may say when running for election. (Confuse the voters with minutia while you are picking their pockets) Just as Bush said he was against Clinton's "Nation Building" & then jumps into Iraq...,...Political BS.
I think what life-long friend & adviser to McCain, Senator Graham, said yesterday really gives away what these rich men believe: "American are just whiners! " (while their chauffeur drives them to the country club)

You'd make a good politician Devil, rule #1 avoid the real issues.

Arctic May Hold 90 Billion Barrels of Oil, U.S. Says:

"The Arctic may hold 90 billion barrels of oil, more than all the known reserves of Nigeria, Kazakhstan and Mexico combined, and enough to supply U.S. demand for 12 years, the U.S. Geological Survey said."

"U.S. oil executives such as Exxon Mobil Corp.'s Rex Tillerson and Chevron Corp.'s David O'Reilly have urged lawmakers to relax prohibitions against offshore drilling, including much of Alaska. Democratic leaders in both houses of Congress rejected President George W. Bush's July 14 effort to end a 25-year moratorium on drilling in most coastal waters."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... EDMhrCvp28

Never thought I'd be agreeing with the likes of T. Boone, but more oil is simply not the way out of this. Strategically, making it cheaper is the worst thing that could happen.

Look, we've had the oil-men in power for 8 years now, we've even taken over a Middle East country, and what have we got to show for it? $5 diesel. Great.

I understand the green arguments and agree that we're going to have to address them pretty soon but I've been an energy independence hawk for 30 years. I've always said we shouldn't be wasting "portable fuel" (petroleum and nat gas) on land-based power generation. In the short term, electricity should be generated by coal and nukes. But there are lead-time problems in every one of the "solutions" being bandied about, so even that concept needs to be thought through carefully because they're all on the starting line at the same time now.

And, whatever we do to get control of the oil situation, it sure as hell shouldn't be so everybody can just go back to driving their pig SUV's around again. Whatever money we're able to save should be plowed into renewable technologies and, one way or another, people should be moving themselves around in the absolute cheapest vehicles it's possible to propel for that purpose. I haven't seen the macro numbers recently but, if everybody in the US who's needlessly driving a 12 mpg pig around suddenly switched to a 30 mpg machine -- hardly a far-fetched concept -- the savings would be so massive that the bottom would fall out of the oil market. And, in fact, even Barack's point about tire inflation is absolutely right: that's immediate, completely free conservation that can save measurable amounts of oil and thereby affect the market.

But these things don't get the press because, to adapt the old saw mis-attributed to Alfred P. Sloan, if it ain't good for Exxon/Mobil, it ain't good for America.