Recommendations to the Democrats from a Republican..

[Don Vito Corleone]

JESUS! How many of these damned patronizing Republican-gently-educating-Democrats-on-the-errors-of-their-ways threads is this board going to see? This is, at an absolute minimum, the fifth one in the last two days.

CUT THIS CRAP OUT. Please. You won. You have my sincere congratulations. Be as happy as you want, but keep your advice to yourselves. The senior leadership of the Democratic party isn't here to take your unsolicited, condescending advice anyway (at least I hope they're not).

 

[Zebo]

http://www.wheresthepaper.org/links.html

 

[ciba]

Originally posted by: DonVito
JESUS! How many of these damned patronizing Republican-gently-educating-Democrats-on-the-errors-of-their-ways threads is this board going to see? This is, at an absolute minimum, the fifth one in the last two days.

I'm getting sick of them too, but my estimations are we will see about the same number as "evil bush stole the election through diebold so he can go on killing kittens" threads.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: DonVito
JESUS! How many of these damned patronizing Republican-gently-educating-Democrats-on-the-errors-of-their-ways threads is this board going to see? This is, at an absolute minimum, the fifth one in the last two days.

CUT THIS CRAP OUT. Please. You won. You have my sincere congratulations. Be as happy as you want, but keep your advice to yourselves. The senior leadership of the Democratic party isn't here to take your unsolicited, condescending advice anyway (at least I hope they're not).

I'm starting to understand where you're coming from about suggestions for the DNC positions, but I reserve the right to mention that Bush won in responses to future threads😉

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: ciba

I'm getting sick of them too, but my estimations are we will see about the same number as "evil bush stole the election through diebold so he can go on killing kittens" threads.

Those are equally stupid, but they lack the distinctively condescending tone of all of these kinds of threads.

I have repeatedly, and sincerely, congratulated President Bush and his supporters on their win, although I am not a fan and voted for Kerry. I don't need to hear, nor do I particularly care about, the self-serving opinions of a bunch of anonymous laypeople on the Internet about how my party has lost its way.

Regardless of their intentions, these threads are ultimately trolling, because all they do is attract :thumbsup: from conservatives, and when a liberal tries to respond in a serious way, he is rebutted with an immediate "That's the exactly what I was talking about - thanks for proving my point about how heedless and arrogant liberals are!," and, in turn, yet more :thumbsup:s.

Let's stop the madness. Now.

I am not, BTW, picking on the OP - I don't doubt he means well. These kinds of threads are sheer stupidity, however, and we already have about 6 too many.

 

[Steeplerot]

He's not an idiot -he's not serving hard time yet

 

[brxndxn]

Originally posted by: DonVito
JESUS! How many of these damned patronizing Republican-gently-educating-Democrats-on-the-errors-of-their-ways threads is this board going to see? This is, at an absolute minimum, the fifth one in the last two days.

CUT THIS CRAP OUT. Please. You won. You have my sincere congratulations. Be as happy as you want, but keep your advice to yourselves. The senior leadership of the Democratic party isn't here to take your unsolicited, condescending advice anyway (at least I hope they're not).

Dude, I am not patronizing in any way. Yea, we won - and the Democrats are generalizing all the reasons for it in all the wrong ways. My advice is merely for what I believe would take for politically-minded people like me to vote for a Democrat candidate.

Read the last three paragraphs I wrote and you'll maybe see that I've already covered you. I'm not being condescending, though since we won and you lost, I can see how you would look at it that way if you ignore what I wrote.

In case you need it in easier words, because you obviously don't understand what I'm trying to say, the Democrats will NEED to be viable to Americans in general sometime soon or we'll have continued Republican dominance - which is not good for America either.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: brxndxn

Read the last three paragraphs I wrote and you'll maybe see that I've already covered you. I'm not being condescending, though since we won and you lost, I can see how you would look at it that way if you ignore what I wrote.

In case you need it in easier words, because you obviously don't understand what I'm trying to say, the Democrats will NEED to be viable to Americans in general sometime soon or we'll have continued Republican dominance - which is not good for America either.

Ahem - I don't need it in "easier words." I have a doctorate. With all due respect, your advice is neither solicited nor helpful to the Democratic party at large. If you felt it was important to post it, you could just as easily have done it in any one of the innumerable other threads on this topic.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: brxndxn

Read the last three paragraphs I wrote and you'll maybe see that I've already covered you. I'm not being condescending, though since we won and you lost, I can see how you would look at it that way if you ignore what I wrote.

In case you need it in easier words, because you obviously don't understand what I'm trying to say, the Democrats will NEED to be viable to Americans in general sometime soon or we'll have continued Republican dominance - which is not good for America either.

Ahem - I don't need it in "easier words." I have a doctorate. With all due respect, your advice is neither solicited nor helpful to the Democratic party at large. If you felt it was important to post it, you could just as easily have done it in any one of the innumerable other threads on this topic.

So what would be helpful? Await talking points from the DNC? Or would rather tell the DNC how they need to better represent the country?

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: brxndxn

Originally posted by: DonVito
JESUS! How many of these damned patronizing Republican-gently-educating-Democrats-on-the-errors-of-their-ways threads is this board going to see? This is, at an absolute minimum, the fifth one in the last two days.

CUT THIS CRAP OUT. Please. You won. You have my sincere congratulations. Be as happy as you want, but keep your advice to yourselves. The senior leadership of the Democratic party isn't here to take your unsolicited, condescending advice anyway (at least I hope they're not).

Dude, I am not patronizing in any way. Yea, we won - and the Democrats are generalizing all the reasons for it in all the wrong ways. My advice is merely for what I believe would take for politically-minded people like me to vote for a Democrat candidate.

Read the last three paragraphs I wrote and you'll maybe see that I've already covered you. I'm not being condescending, though since we won and you lost, I can see how you would look at it that way if you ignore what I wrote.

In case you need it in easier words, because you obviously don't understand what I'm trying to say, the Democrats will NEED to be viable to Americans in general sometime soon or we'll have continued Republican dominance - which is not good for America either.

You're deranged. This is not a football game, its not a matter of team colors, or who got the most sacks. But whether or not you admit, this election was more a game to you than it wasn't and it's sole purpose is to spite the other %48 that you hold in such contempt.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: charrison

So what would be helpful? Await talking points from the DNC? Or would rather tell the DNC how they need to better represent the country?

What would be helpful is less condescension and less unsolicited advice like this, coming from anonymous people, with no political experience, on the Internet.

If, say, a Bill Clinton (a Democrat with demonstrable success at attracting southern and rural voters, and kicking Republican butt) wants to provide this advice, I'll listen. With all due respect to the OP (who, again, I don't mean to pick on), I don't care what an anonymous Republican calling himself brxndxn thinks of the course of the Democratic party.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: charrison

So what would be helpful? Await talking points from the DNC? Or would rather tell the DNC how they need to better represent the country?

What would be helpful is less condescension and less unsolicited advice like this, coming from anonymous people, with no political experience, on the Internet.

If, say, a Bill Clinton (a Democrat with demonstrable success at attracting southern and rural voters, and kicking Republican butt) wants to provide this advice, I'll listen. With all due respect to the OP (who, again, I don't mean to pick on), I don't care what an anonymous Republican calling himself brxndxn thinks of the course of the Democratic party.

So you will wait for the talking points from up top. Lets not listen to the people who would actually have to switch parties to get more democrats elected.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dahunan
I am curious to know if his 3% margin was the lowest ever for an incument war president?

Depends on how you look at it. While still at war and actually re-elected? Then yes, it was by far the lowest margin ever for a wartime incumbent president, both popular and electoral (especially electoral), according to my research.

In 1968 during the Vietnam War, LBJ did not seek re-election, partly because of his controversial decision to try to seek an early end to the war, and his VP, Hubert Humphrey, ran instead and lost to Nixon by only 510,000 votes. It is widely believed that if LBJ had sought the re-election, he would have won easily. Because George Wallace also ran on a 3rd party ticket and garnered 46 electorals and almost 10 million votes, Nixon entered office having received only 43% of the popular. However, 4 years later in 1972 when Nixon was an incumbent war president, he beat George McGovern in one of the largest landslides in US history.

In 1952, Eisenhower won the election during Korea because Truman did not seek re-election. While Truman supported Democratic candidate Stevenson, Eisenhower was a popular WWII general.

FDR won re-election during WWII to his 4th term in 1944 by the closest margin of all his races with only 54% of the popular, but still a virtual landslide in the electoral (432-99). His 3 previous races had all been landslides. His re-election in 1936 is the largest landslide in American history (523-8 electoral and 62.3% of the popular).

In 1916, Wilson won a race as incumbent that was closer even than this one (50.02% of the popular and 277-254 electoral), but that was because "he kept us out of the war". He then promptly entered us right into the war following his inauguration. Even though the world was at war at the time of the election, we had not yet entered the war at the time of the election, and that Wilson was also the anti-war candidate in the election makes me think that that close election was not similar to this one.

Source


To the OP: good post. Some good advice. In regards to your sig, while I was not pro-Bush this election, I do not consider myself a liberal. I am economically/fiscally conserative and socially moderate while a pro-civil liberties constitutional literalist... some say Libertarian. While frequently involved in and interested in politics, I have a pretty strong dislike for both parties. Militant liberals who want to outlaw guns and steal my hard-earned money really piss me off, while I think that arrogant new conservatives who drown out intelligent conversation simply by being the loudest most obnoxious voice in the room are assholes. I'm also not a big fan of the new "conservative" ideology of big government, big deficit, big war, and thinking they can tell me how to live -- to me they seem like just a liberal with a loud mouth who votes Republican. But yeah, there is at least one AT Forum elite member who is not a liberal.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: charrison

So you will wait for the talking points from up top. Lets not listen to the people who would actually have to switch parties to get more democrats elected.

:roll:

This is madness. If the exit polls had been right, and Kerry had won, I don't expect you'd be reading patiently and attentively through 20 different threads by every Democratic shlub on this board about how your party had lost its way.

I said it before, and I'll say it again: I don't care what anonymous Republicans on the Internet think about the progress of my party, and I regard their advice in this context as self-serving and condescending.

 

[glugglug]

Originally posted by: brxndxn
Don't call the President of the United States an idiot. Bush, while horrible with speeches, is not an idiot. He managed to get re-elected twice - and not everyone that voted for him is an idiot. If your argument for voting for Kerry is that 'Bush is an idiot', you will only just offend those that voted for him while convincing us of nothing.

Don't call Republicans and everyone else that voted for Bush idiots. We don't believe we're idiots - and you are not going to convince us that we are idiots.

Making sense up to this point.

Don't generalize us into 'religious zealots' or 'rich white people'. Generalizing is for the bigots - and bigots don't belong in the Democratic party. Also, take into consideration that 'religious zealots' pushing religious agendas does NOT represent most Republicans. If the US had a majority of 'religious zealots', Clinton never would have won his second term.

Actually this is wrong. It does not represent most of the AMERICANS but it DOES represent most of the REPUBLICANS according to this article, one third of Americans are "Evangelical White Christians". That 1/3 is 33% of the total, but that means probably over 60% of the people who voted for Bush, maybe more since they are more likely to register. That scares me A LOT that 1/3 of the country now considers themselves "evangelical".

Don't take generalized groups for granted. I went to a Bush rally and there were people of every race, religion, and I even saw a man holding a sign with 'Homosexuals for Bush!' written on it. Granted, most black people voted for Kerry. But, don't belittle them by treating them as one big block of votes. Kerry got nowhere near the percentage of black votes that Gore had in 2000.

Don't say that the President of the United States is a liar who started a war so that Dick Cheney can make some more money. That, while maybe convincing if one could actually believe it, would be impossible to make us believe.

It needs to be said, because the liar who started a war part is at least true. Whether the reason was so that Dick Cheney could make some more money, well, while I'm sure they see that as an added bonus, I don't honestly believe it to be the primary reason. The primary reason I believe is to prevent oil being traded in Euros because that would have done almost as much damage to our economy as having a Bush in office. The fact you guys refuse to accept this point is the problem. You need to take the blinders off. The real Axis of Evil? is running this country now, and you don't understand the incredible frustrating irony we see in the most common reason given for voting Bush: "moral values".

That argument is ignorant of the intelligence agencies of multiple countries - and even the UN opinion of Iraq.

No, it doesn't. Our own CIA tells us they had no evidence of WMD in Iraq or any connection to US terrorism and that the Bush administration ordered them to "find some", and that their findings of basically nothing were twisted and intentionally misrepresented to the American public.

It is ignorant of the strong reputation of honesty and integrity of George W Bush.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA ROFLMAO PLEASE STOP THE LAUGHING IS HURTING MY SIDES!!!!!! If this is not a joke, you may be beyond hope.

Don't let the militant liberals dominate the Democratic party.

More incredible irony. If anyone is militant it is the neocons. The center of this country seriously seems to have moved off the right edge.

There are a lot of independents and Republicans that would gladly vote for a moderate Democrat over George W Bush. But, unlike the militant liberals, they do not hate Bush.

You are wrong there. I have not met a single independent who does not hate Bush. Some of the Republicans don't (I can't comprehend this), but I've yet to see any independents not hate him. The Republicans claim to hate Kerry more than Bush though (Most of the Republicans I've met hate Bush as well). Some enlightenment on the reasons that they hate Kerry more would be good.

When the Democratic party lets itself be dominated by those normally fitting in the Green Party (notice, Nader got much fewer votes this time), the party alienates long-time members.

I really don't think this alienated any Democrats in this case, although it probably did the moderate Republicans and the independents. By that I mean the hatred of Bush is now very strong, and pretty much universal among the dems and independents. While I haven't met anyone who really loves Kerry, he would have to be a complete disaster to push most non-Republicans towards Bush.

When you see a militant homosexual, the very few that try to influence others by offending them, saying that everyone that is against gay marriage deserves to die and is a worthless human being, let the Republicans know that person does NOT represent most Democrats.

I have never seen such a thing, and I work in about the most homosexual neighborhood of the city. I think it is something that you just made up. And why do you care what they do with their own lives anyway?

When you see a militant filmmaker calling his films 'documentaries' and saying that Bush organized 9/11 so that Dick Cheney would make money with no regard for American lives, don't pretend to support him. Arguments like those only gain support for those against them.

You obviously didn't watch the film. He never makes such accusations, just presents the evidence. I highly recommend you go download it. Hopefully it will be enlightening for you. Many other enlightening videos at that site as well.

Don't argue that the rest of the world would vote for your candidate. No Sh!t. Kerry wanted to give the UN power over the US, or at least moreso than Bush. No wonder they would rather Kerry gain power.

So you are saying that Bush being a stubborn, bullheaded, callous warmonger who refuses any criticism an d advice from both 3rd party nations and his own countries intelligence agencies is a good thing?

The rest of the world seems to have more problems than in the US, why should the rest of the world try to tell us how to govern ourselves?

The Euro has gained almost 30% vs. the dollar since the start of the Iraq war. Practically the only currency which hasn't gained more than 20% vs. the dollar in that time is the British Pound (our war allies). Those other countries are doing better than us....

Pick a candidate who is more representative of the American people - one who doesn't try to represent the entire world. Pick a candidate who doesn't relish in the past, but DETAILS plans for the future.

You didn't watch the debates did you? A lot of those details were discussed.

Pick a candidate who doesn't shower us in guilt, but fills us with optimism.

This country DESERVES the guilt. Again I remind you, it's time to take the blinders off. Sometimes "optimism" and reality don't jive, and when you ignore reality for too long, it's gonna kick you in the ass.

Pick a candidate with a spine - one who is honest, doesn't change positions, one who doesn't try to make us feel guilty for voting originally for the incumbent.

If you had been paying attention the last 4 years, you would have noticed that Bush changes positions a lot more than Kerry (because he has to when he's wrong all the time, he just never admits it). Some Examples - they get better farther down the page, and honest -- as pointed out above BUSH LIES CONSTANTLY. Can you point out where Kerry wasn't honest?

I read a speech by Kerry made while on the campaign. The entire speech was negative up until the end where he said, "God Bless America." Well, I'm not exactly religious, though I try to respect those that are, and I understand what he means. As far as I'm concerned, that was the only sign of optimism in his entire speech. I just could not feel the way he wanted me to feel.

Bush hasn't given us much to go on as far as the positivity goes. I honestly can't think of one good thing that has come out of this presidency.

In other words, DO NOT PICK HILARY. She cannot win in the US. There are way too many people that feel bitter towards her - both Republican and Democrat. She will lose by a margin worse than Dukakis. She is NOT representative of the American people. She is left of Bill Clinton and her statements as first lady showed that.

No argument there. I think that most people suggesting Hillary are being fecicious. But Titor (the time traveler 😉😉 )did strongly hint that we would have a female president who was even more pigheaded and self-centered than Bush in 2008 and I have no idea who else that would be. 😉

To sum this up, don't try to convince a Republican to vote for your candidate by totally offending him or her. Stick to being optimistic and set more realistic goals.

You don't understand how tough (impossible) it is for us to be "optimistic" with a Bush in office. See, the thing is, we see this as unbelievably bad. Even when we ARE BEING OPTIMISTIC you will take it as extreme pessimissm. The true outlooks really are that diammetrically opposed.

Socialized medicine could never happen in a Democratic presidential term while Republicans dominate Congress, Kerry should never have even mentioned it.

I agree here. Really I don't think socialized medicine is a good thing, but probably a better idea than the scam that is our current network-based insurance system which artificially inflates all medical prices. The fact you have to stay in-network to have decent coverage levels eliminates competition, plus the prices already take the insurance into account (and then some), with effectively little to no competition this basically means they bilk you for all your worth. It would probably be cheaper if insurance were just eliminated entirely. But I don't think socialization is the correct solution to this either, it was blatantly obvious it would never fly, and you are right Kerry was crazy to mention it.

I am a somewhat conservative Republican. But, I care much more about the long-term stability of the US than who the current President is. It scares me when I see no hope for the Democratic party in the near future. The constant struggle between the Democrats and Republicans is what keeps the US so stable. And, a stable US in the long run is better for the economy and for the world than ANY short-term decision.

This is absolutely true. Either party controlling all 3 branches of the federal government is BAD.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: charrison

So you will wait for the talking points from up top. Lets not listen to the people who would actually have to switch parties to get more democrats elected.

:roll:

This is madness. If the exit polls had been right, and Kerry had won, I don't expect you'd be reading patiently and attentively through 20 different threads by every Democratic shlub on this board about how your party had lost its way.

I said it before, and I'll say it again: I don't care what anonymous Republicans on the Internet think about the progress of my party, and I regard their advice in this context as self-serving and condescending.

Actually I would want to know where our party failed. And I would want to know why people are not voting for the platform. And I would not be waiting for RNC to tell me how they are going to fix it.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: charrison
Actually I would want to know where our party failed. And I would want to know why people are not voting for the platform. And I would be waiting for RNC to tell me how they are going to fix it.

Pardon me, but BS. If Kerry had won, if the Pubs didn't immediately try to start a violent civil war, at the very least they would rally the troops and pound the airwaves with the hate-filled rhetoric.
I already went through this in '92 and '96.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: charrison

So what would be helpful? Await talking points from the DNC? Or would rather tell the DNC how they need to better represent the country?

What would be helpful is less condescension and less unsolicited advice like this, coming from anonymous people, with no political experience, on the Internet.

If, say, a Bill Clinton (a Democrat with demonstrable success at attracting southern and rural voters, and kicking Republican butt) wants to provide this advice, I'll listen. With all due respect to the OP (who, again, I don't mean to pick on), I don't care what an anonymous Republican calling himself brxndxn thinks of the course of the Democratic party.

That's the problem with the DNC they are just trying to get their folks to vote for them, instead of trying to get votes from the moderate to slightly right category. If you alienate them they will be turned off. Negativity also doesn't help the cause, people respond better to upbeat outlooks. Do you not care what it would take for someone that is on the fence would need to go vote democratic? Your attitude of elitism is a turn off. I could care less about your doctorate degree, why'd you even have to bring that up. To show that you are better than the OP? That attitude surely will win some votes, huh.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: KK
That's the problem with the DNC they are just trying to get their folks to vote for them, instead of trying to get votes from the moderate to slightly right category. If you alienate them they will be turned off. Negativity also doesn't help the cause, people respond better to upbeat outlooks. Do you not care what it would take for someone that is on the fence would need to go vote democratic? Your attitude of elitism is a turn off. I could care less about your doctorate degree, why'd you even have to bring that up. To show that you are better than the OP? That attitude surely will win some votes, huh.

This is exactly the kind of exchange I was hoping to avoid, and that I specifically mentioned above, when I said:

I have repeatedly, and sincerely, congratulated President Bush and his supporters on their win, although I am not a fan and voted for Kerry. I don't need to hear, nor do I particularly care about, the self-serving opinions of a bunch of anonymous laypeople on the Internet about how my party has lost its way.

Regardless of their intentions, these threads are ultimately trolling, because all they do is attract :thumbsup: from conservatives, and when a liberal tries to respond in a serious way, he is rebutted with an immediate "That's the exactly what I was talking about - thanks for proving my point about how heedless and arrogant liberals are!," and, in turn, yet more :thumbsup:s.

Let's stop the madness. Now.

I only mentioned my education because he indicated a need to regurgitate his points in "easier words" for my benefit.

I've had it with all these threads - they are driving me to distraction. Hopefully the next 27 Republicans who want to advise Democrats how to reshape their party will know to use the search function first.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: KK
That's the problem with the DNC they are just trying to get their folks to vote for them, instead of trying to get votes from the moderate to slightly right category. If you alienate them they will be turned off. Negativity also doesn't help the cause, people respond better to upbeat outlooks. Do you not care what it would take for someone that is on the fence would need to go vote democratic? Your attitude of elitism is a turn off. I could care less about your doctorate degree, why'd you even have to bring that up. To show that you are better than the OP? That attitude surely will win some votes, huh.

This is exactly the kind of exchange I was hoping to avoid, and that I specifically mentioned above.

I only mentioned my education because he indicated a need to regurgitate his points in "easier words" for my benefit.

I've had it with all these threads - they are driving me to distraction. Hopefully the next 27 Republicans who want to advise Democrats how to reshape their party know how to use the search function first.

Have you asked a republican lately what'd it take for him to vote for your party, in real life? What did they say?

 

[0marTheZealot]

I am sick of hearing we went to Iraq for no reason.

We went to war with Iraq to ensure that Americans can continue living the way they are right now, guzzling oil like it was ambrosia, consuming, wasting without a care in the world. This lifestyle is untenable, but we are too entrenched in our blinders of consumerism, we can not see what the consequences will be. A major part of the industrial "civilization" is oil. It accounts for fully 40+% of our total energy, a major part of food production, and involved in every aspect of modern life. The water you drink is purified from chemicals derived largely from petrol, chemicals that were found by cheap petrol. The food you eat is grown with petrol derived fertilizers and yield obtained from petrols. The car you drive was made by machinery powered, researched, made and maintained by petrol and petrol derived products. The car itself is running on petrol derived fuels. The plastics you use are simply solidified polymers of petrol. Modern medicine is merely a way of extending our lifespan at the expense of barrels of petrol. You name it and petrol is involved in every aspect of it. Even renewables are only made possible by an inital subsidy by petrol and most are untenable until petrol hits 200+ dollars. Even the US status as a superpower is derived from petrol; prior to the 70s, the US was the #1 producer and exporter of petrol. During WWII we provided 6 of the 7 billion barrels of petrol used to fuel planes, tanks, weaponry.

And now, at this critical period of history, petrol supplies seem to finally be running low. We had 2-4 million barrels of spare capacity in 2000. We now have <1 million barrels. Major OPEC and FSU producers are heading into terminal decline, perhaps even Saudi Arabia. In the next year, we need to provide ~4.5 million barrels to account for growth/demand, which amounts to .5 Saudi Arabias, or a little less than a whole Iran.

For those of you thinking that we have plenty of oil left, ponder this. During the 80s, OPEC decided to delegate quotas based on reserves. Almost overnight, nearly every producer significantly increased their reserves. SA raised theirs from 170 billion barrels to 260 billion barrels, despite no exploration taking place during the time. And SA has also decreed since that day that state reserves will not decline, no matter how much they have pumped out. Thus, while they produced ~30 billion barrels during the 90s, their stated reserves have increased slightly. Many analysts, including M. Simmons, have caculated that SA has produced ~80 billion barrels, nearing the middle point of their original reserve size, and thus may be heading into terminal decline any year now. Indonesia went into terminal decline when their production to reserve ration was 20:1. Normally, 8:1 is the mark for permanent decline, indicating that Indonesia overstated their reserves (OPEC's president is Indonesian).

How does Iraq come into all of this? Iraq has ~117 billion barrels of oil (a 4 year supply at current consumption rates). Her fields are fairly virgin. Iraq has the potential to produce 4-6 million barrels in 10 years. This will be our reed for when the world goes under the curve of depletion and resource demands. We can keep driving, consuming, not giving a fvck about anything until this reed gets cut off. Then reality will hit hard. This is about physically supplying oil, not the cost.

If you think renewables are the answer, take a look at this graph. Admittedly it is from the UK, but it comparable in stature (maybe even more than in the US) for the US. http://www.schoolscience.co.uk...irex/wastecharts1.html click on the one for energy consumption by method. See the lines at the absolute bottom? Those are your renewables.

We are going to see an economic contraction worldwide that will make the great depression look like a walk in the park in the coming decades. We have based 30+ years of foreign policy based on the presumption that oil supplies will be limiting.

This is why we went to war with Iraq. To keep people like me, you, your mother, your father, friends running business as usual. Placate the masses and they will do whatever you need them to do.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Originally posted by: DonVito
If, say, a Bill Clinton (a Democrat with demonstrable success at attracting southern and rural voters, and kicking Republican butt) wants to provide this advice, I'll listen. With all due respect to the OP (who, again, I don't mean to pick on), I don't care what an anonymous Republican calling himself brxndxn thinks of the course of the Democratic party.

Okay, here's a book for you to read then:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obi...1?v=glance&amp;s=books

A Democrat with demonstrable success at attracting southern and rural voters . . . kicking Republican butt . . . yeah, that sums up Zell Miller pretty damn well. If you don't like brxndxn, give ol' Zell a try! Zell was even nice enough to publish this well before the election. You'd think Kerry would have noticed . . .

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: dahunan
I just wish he would eat more pretzels

Why is that?

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Don't call the President of the United States an idiot.

The President is NOT an idiot. He's an intelligent man who has worked for the interests of big business for the last four years at the expense of the American people. There is NO WAY an idiot could have fooled this country to go into war pre-emptively using motives that have all been disproven.

Don't call Republicans and everyone else that voted for Bush idiots.

That one is up for debate. However, I believe that the average person was very easily convinced to vote for the President because of his constant fear tactics concerning the war on terror, Iraq, gay marriage, abortion, etc.

Don't say that the President of the United States is a liar who started a war so that Dick Cheney can make some more money.

Okay, scratch my last comment. You are an idiot afterall.

It is ignorant of the strong reputation of honesty and integrity of George W Bush.

Your own credibility is going to hell in a handbasket with comments like that.

The rest of your argument basically says that the Democrats need to massage the egos of the Republican electorate in order to win the next election. I'd rather not brown nose the people who put the most unpopular re-elected incumbent President back in office.

I know another way the Republicans will change their tune about electing neo-con administrations: a draft.

C'mon George, invade Iran. Please?!? Pretty please?!? It will be worth it, seeing all those College Republicans standing in line reporting for duty.

Way to go... I agree with everything you state....


🙂

 

[bigj3347]

Originally posted by: jtusa4
You make excellent points and I agree with pretty much everything you wrote. Well done. :thumbsup:

^^^

What I don't understand is why all you Democrats can do nothing but constantly throw out Michael Moorish rhetoric as your only slight against President Bush. That is really a weak argument. Categorizing everyone who voted for President Bush as idiots is bad as if a Republican were to categorize everyone who voted for Kerry as tree hugging hippies. I'll be the first to admit that one of the primary reasons I voted for Bush was because Kerry was vague to say the least on every significant issue to me. Hell, at least Dean had strong beliefs and stuck by them. You might question Bush's intention in going to war, sometimes even I do. However, when I step back and think about it, I'd rather have Sadam out of power and in a prison cell then out there potentially creating weapons that can be used against all of us. President Bush may not possess Reagan's eloquence, but he sure as hell stands by what he believes in.