[QUOTE="MarineJcksn"]http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Obama_on_oil_drilling_Not_a_long_term_solution Based on his comments to "Not lift the moratorium on coastal drilling" and "That drilling for more oil will not affect gas prices in any way", it really seems like Obama might've blown his shot at becoming the next president. Currently, he's about 15 points ahead in the National Polls but I feel that number will dwindle and die by November. Think about it; the Massive crowds he currently draws, large groups of college age individuals and students, will they REALLY go vote in November? Some will, and I feel it'll be a larger number of young voters then anytime in recent memory. But realistically, if you look at the historical evidence on who REALLY comes out to vote, the numbers generally increase in accordance with the age of the person voting. Sounds crazy, but look it up. And I think we all know that an older crowd will draw a much more diverse lineup of voters, who place a lot of importance on the STAGGERING current price of energy. Make no mistake, I'm not saying that drilling more Oil is the only thing we need. We need to research and develop multiple sources of energy, such as Coal, Nuclear, Wind, Solar, Hydrogen, Ethanol (FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, GET RID OF CORN BASED ETHANOL ALREADY) , hydroelectric, etc. etc. etc. But to merely say we wont drill, when the REST of the world is drilling is not only incredibly stupid, it's a policy that will guarantee failure. Barry really isn't a very bright guy. Face facts, you know it's true. What do you think?mrbojangles25

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like you think he doomed himself by saying he thinks we should not be drilling for oil.

THen you go on to list a bunch of alternatives.

Personally, I think alternatives should be our main focus. The rest of the world is going to look to the US for a solution, and quite honestly I think it is our duty to pave the way for alternate fuels while those that truly need the last bit of gas get it.

Let China get the rest of the gas. When it runs out, our tech will be 20+ years ahead of them. It will be like the Cold War all over again, with the US in the lead and the Chinese decades behind us in tech.

No, I dont think Obama messed up. I just think a lot of people are going to misinterpret or twist his words around. I find his comments almost prophetic in a way.

That highlighted last line scares the CRAP outta me Bo. Obama isn't the messiah, he's another empty product of washington. Look past the fluffy speaches and it just jumps out how dirty this guy is. Unless you're into socialism, then he's your messiah and he'll lead you to the land of Government mandated Milk and Honey.;)

His chances aren't going to be over over something as insignificant as that. Especially when so many people agree with him. Offshore drilling is not an adequate solution for the short term, or down the road. Neither is something like drilling in ANWR.bman784

Then give me a realistic solution. Present a plan that can elliminate our use of foreign oil other then drilling while continuing to research and produce alternative fuel sources.

Obama doesn't have a plan. Alternatives are the wave of the future, but they wont replace oil in a few years. Barry is without a doubt IMO one of the most lacking in common sense people I've ever encountered. I just can't see how anyone can listen to him and fail to look into who he really is and what he's really done. It doesn't matter to ANYONE his connections to known criminals, not to mention the business deals he did with them? He got his house funding from a guy who's facing life in prison for gods'sake.

Bman, I know you're a socialist and that's why you want Barry. I applaude the fact that at least you admit you're in favor of socialism rather then just follow Obama based on his personality appeal like the rest of the lemmings out there:)

[QUOTE="MarineJcksn"]creepy_mike

I haven't been stationed at Gitmo as a duty station but have been there temporarily. I'll admit, it was brief only several weeks. But the conditions there were the following, and you can believe me or choose not too you have the right to do so:

-Prisoners were given ample food, 3 times a day and water when desired.
-Meals were in accordance with religious preference and with Muslim detainees was approved for consumption in keeping with strict religious standards.
-Prisoners were always given access to practice their religion. Accurate signs were posted several places showing the direction of Mecca.
-They were allowed staggered recreation time to include television, books, etc.
-They were allowed to receive and send mail.

Only when detainees broke rules were they stripped of small CI which stands for Comfort Items, such as not allowing them to take part in recreational time or taking away their letter writing equipment. As long as the detainee adhered to rules, CI wasn't taken from them.

From what I witnessed, they didn't have conditions as relaxed as say, some of our lower security US prisons. But the Hanoi Hilton, Gitmo isn't. At least from what I saw, like I said I wasn't there long but the treatment prisoners got was in direct accordance with the Geneva Convention.

As for the A, B or C choice I wont pick one but rather explain what I believe based on what I saw and what I've heard from the friends I have who were stationed there longer:

Intel gathering techniques being used in Gitmo don't fall under the definition of what you would call "conventional torture", IMO. Sensory techniques, such as repeatedly playing music over and over on a continued loop, extended periods of time exposed to light or dark, those aren't torture IMO. Nor is waterboarding for that matter. Waterboarding was against rules when I was there except for circumstances where proof existed that the detainee knew of an attack that was already in motion and even then it took very high ranking approval to authorize. Waterboarding feels like you're going to drown, and that's it. Sure, it scares the heck out of you but it's administered under strict supervision and you aren't in that much real danger.

I personally feel the incidences of what some might call "torture" are relatively incidents of command failure, from the serviceman who broke rules all the way up to his or her Commanding Officer and in those cases they should be relieved of duty and punished.

I think what people who only read stories like the one wrote by Erik Saar don't understand is this is all aimed at only giving you one side of the true story. Please don't bother with the illusion of Habeas Corpus in this issue. It's a dead horse that people can't stop loving to beat. It's been historically denied MANY times in the past in the US, even by the "Great" Bill Clinton(although it imposed a Statute of Limitations).

"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it."

Research the German invasion of spies into florida and New York city during WW2, and what we did to them when they were caught. They received a fair trial and when they were found guilty they were put to death. Funny how students of the New Deal seem to forget all that happened under FDR.

[QUOTE="MarineJcksn"]BlackAlpha666

You compare Iraq and Afghanistan to Nazi Germany? I didn't see Iraq or Afghanistan try to take over the world. Nor did I see Iraq or Afghanistan interfering with western matters all the time, nor invading western countries.

Why did you make that comparison?

First off, did I ever once say that "Iraq and Afghanistan are like Nazi Germany"? No, I did not. Nice try though, putting the spin on what I said and trying to make it seem like I said something I didn't.

Second, I made the point that continuously Liberal ideals toward matters of security have been fundamentally wrong in the past. I used the example of how the world seemed to look the other way during the rise of the Nazi party as an example of just how wrong it is to placate and do nothing when an obvious force of evil and hatred is at work.

Third, I think your assumption that Islamic radicals like those who exist throughout the world (not just Iraq and Afghanistan either, they're everywhere) don't wish to overthrow the West shows a lack of true understanding to their cause. Have you ever talked to a detainee? Have you really listened to the words of the Clerics who constantly speak of the destruction of the West?

I can't comprehend the idea of people in this country who DONT want a complete military victory and the destruction of our enemy. We're perfectly willing to work on a peaceful solution here, but the line needs to be drawn in the sand and the message made very clear to those who wish to do us harm: Don't even try it.

[QUOTE="MarineJcksn"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]Luminouslight

Ir isn't easy it switch our primary energy source. The US has so many things built arround gas that it would take about a decade to implement a new primary energy source (and it will still be a very rough transition).

I also can't disagree with you on the oil companies. To put it in perspective: Which is the largest company based upon revenue? Exxon
The world? Exxon
The past 10 years? Exxon

Just an oil company.

You see that the transition will be a rough one like I do. But eventually, it will happen and that's what so many people seem unable to understand, that while we need cleaner, more efficient energy we also need oil to allow us to power our lives while we research and develop better energy sources.

ExxonMobile is a huge oil company, no doubt about it. What always makes me laugh though is just how little people really understand about Exxon. While their profits are large, in the billions every quarter, they control less then 6% of the world's total oil. Barely a drop in the bucket.

Side note, if anyone reading this has a gas station near them called CITGO, never do business with them. You're supporting Hugo Chavez, and I think anyone with common sense who reads knows what a monster that lunatic is. Even if windbags like Sean Penn and Danny Glover love the guy. :roll:

I'm not gonna just flame each other going back and forth, we both have our opinions and don't seem like our minds will change.

Bringing change by force is obviously something I advocate as a last resort, but it's necessary at times. I don't think anyone could possibly argue that the world should've acted much more swiftly to the Nazis the minute they invaded Poland, I don't see how people can continue to not learn from history and take such a liberal stance on things like taking the fight to the enemy. Liberals are consistantly wrong over and over when it comes to matters like this, why continue to follow the same course of action? Repeatedly doing something the same way expecting a DIFFERENT outcome then all the other times is insanity.

[QUOTE="MarineJcksn"]

God**** I hate idiots like this. You think that's bad? There's an actual high school with an on-site daycare center that allows strollers in the hallways and stuff because so many girls were getting knocked up, and it's all paid for with our TAXPAYER MONEY.

Why don't we go back to how it used to be, when these little tramps were made the subject of incredible shame and ridicule when their stupid little *** got pregnant? I'm so sick of people holding the hands of these disgusting little wastes of oxygen. Great idea girls; go get knocked up, leech off the government throughout the whole pregnancy, pop out a little idiot crumbsnatcher and get on Welfare.

God I'm so ****** off after reading this.

II_Seraphim_II

:lol: oh man...you went all out there lol...while i wouldnt be so melodramatic, i agree with u :D

lol, thanks Seraphim. Yeah, I went off the deep end there a little. These idiot kids just really bring my **** to a boil. Had an AVGN moment there:P

[QUOTE="MarineJcksn"][QUOTE="Colbert_Nation"]Colbert_Nation

I support Obama because I feel we need an outsider in Washington. I think Obama is intelligent enough to qualify for President. He has an impressive academic record. As much as I have nothing but respect for McCain, I just can't trust him. Before he was against the Bush tax cuts, and now he supports them. Before McCain called the lunies both on the left and right "Agents of intolerance", now he has united with them. On top of that, I think we should get out of Iraq

I really appreciate your response on this. I've got a few rebuttals for the reasons you stated, take them how you will they're just my personal opinions:

Obama isn't an outsider in Washington. Repeatedly, he's proven to me that he is a typical politician we've come to expect as corrupt. His extremely suspicious personal relationships with Tony Rezko showed me how dirty he really is. It's only one example from which I could name a lot more.

Academic wise, I haven't looked into his school record but I'll be willing to bet he did great in school, he speaks like a man who has had a good education. However, I think he's extremely lacking in common sense and out of touch with the common man.

John McCain, he's not what I want in a president either. He's a war hero and I respect him tremendously for this and would proudly salute him. But you're right about him changing sides WAY too often.

Getting out of Iraq, I'm all for it. I'm a US Marine, I go back to Iraq this weekend. I'm excited to be back with my unit getting things done out there, but I also know we need to get out. However, I'll never advocate a strict firm pullout that risks all the progress we've made, it would tarnish the memory of all the friends I've had die over there, and I can say without a doubt that we in the Military (at least the Marines I'm close to) WILL NOT tolerate another Vietnam.

In the beginning, I liked hearing Obama. He finally sounded like a REAL politician I could take pride in and get behind. But the more I looked into his backround and who he really was, the more I saw just what kind of person he really was.

Obama's a great candidate IMO if you want Socialism in America. McCain's a great choice if you want a guy who doesn't seem to know where he really stands. It's like that South Park season 8 episode where they have to choose between a Giant ***** and a turd sandwich.:?

But... it isn't a long-term solution. :| I don't see the problem with what he said. We absolutely have to get off of oil at some point or another; drilling for more oil just serves to put it off to the next generation.GabuEx

No offense but this way of thinking is incredibly irresponsible IMO. What IS the solution? Alternative fuels? Yes, of course we need alternative fuel sources. But face it, we have an OIL based economy, and that isn't going to change in the next 10-20 years at a minium. Why can't guys like Obama actually be adult and LISTEN to those who advocate drilling in our own country everywhere we can, as long as it's done extremely clean and efficient, while at the same time pushing full speed towards alternative sources as well? Eventually, SOMETHING will replace oil. But until we get there (and we're not close, BTW. Not yet) we NEED more oil and it makes so much more sense to use our own supply then buy it from a part of the world who hates us.

In the 1970s, when Jimmy Carter advocated the creation of the Synthetic Fuels Corporation to create our own synthetic oil and not rely on OPEC the price was over 34 bucks a barrel. After SFC was created, in less then 6 MONTHS OPEC cut the cost of oil down to 16 bucks. You think that was just a coincidence?

God**** I hate idiots like this. You think that's bad? There's an actual high school with an on-site daycare center that allows strollers in the hallways and stuff because so many girls were getting knocked up, and it's all paid for with our TAXPAYER MONEY.

Why don't we go back to how it used to be, when these little tramps were made the subject of incredible shame and ridicule when their stupid little *** got pregnant? I'm so sick of people holding the hands of these disgusting little wastes of oxygen. Great idea girls; go get knocked up, leech off the government throughout the whole pregnancy, pop out a little idiot crumbsnatcher and get on Welfare.

God I'm so ****** off after reading this.