Barack Obama Sweeps "Ballot Bowl" Saturday

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by Azure

Still sticking to the 'blood for oil' argument, eh?

Tell me, why would the US have to 'invade' Iraq to secure their oil? Not only did it disrupt the flow, but it set Iraq back 5 years, and they're 'still' not back to their original barrels per day production.

Only lately have they been able to bump up production 200,000 barrels per month, IIRC in November and December of last year.

Hardly pillaging the 125 billion barrels of oil.

Plus, Iraq gets that money, not the US.

Sorry, but I fail to understand how it was in the US' best interest to raise the price of oil by invading Iraq in order to 'secure' their oilfields. As it has been shown in Saudi Arabia...the US is willing to let Islam extremism go untouched as long as the oil keeps flowing. So your 'conspiracy' of invading Iraq for the 'oil'....is ridiculous.

The US has massive reserves under their own control....they're just not tapping them. Not to mention that ever-expanding Alberta oil sands....perhaps a better idea, if the US was concerned about oil, would be to invest that trillion they spent in Iraq into the Alberta oil sands.

But hey, you can stick to your old and ridiculous argument all you want.



That is your 'opinion.'



I think increasing the production of oil, fixing the infrastructure and improving the quality of living is in the best interest of the Iraqi people. Sadly, your ridiculous plan of pulling out tomorrow would allow none of that to happen.

Its no secret that the US buys a lot of oil from Iraq, considering the #1 consumer in the world does use a lot of oil(hint, they buy lots from Canada too, I wonder what kind of interests they have vested in our oilfields...ready to invade to secure them perhaps?)....so yes, it WOULD be in the best interest of the United States to have Iraq pumping out a lot of oil.

Not only that, it would be in the best interest of the whole world. A stable Iraq, and a stable oil supply would lower the price. Plus, we won't see 3 dollar jumps just because Iran 'might' be building a nuclear bomb.

A few things.

1. The oil in Iraq was recently bumped to 200, 000 barrels a day. Did it used to be at that level? Yes. Was it under control of US oil companies? No. Is it now? Yes. Your comment about Iraqi's benefiting from the Oil flowing out of Iraq right now is completely uninformed.
2. Did you even read the news story I linked you to? It's been proved that oil companies are benefiting from the US invasion. Your ability to spit out lies is impressive.
3. Saudi Arabia's royal family is in bed with the US. That's the reason they haven't invaded Saudi Arabia.
4. Don't compare Alberta to Iraq, it's got nothing to do with this.

Do you really think the US would care about a 5 year setback in oil production? This is a long term plan, the present needs of the country were not of concern.

Anyways, you can continue to believe the best course of action is to stay in the country long term to 'increase the production of oil, fix the infrastructure and improve the quality of living is in the best interest of the Iraqi people'. Fortunately, the administration about to enter into office is not as naive as the people who share your opinion, and a full scale pull out is on the way.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

Spending is not always a bad thing. A government that fails to invest in its infrastructure will see negative effects in short order. Social programs are excellent in my mind in promoting the standard of living and the safety of a country's citizens. Obviously if disagreed with those last two points and/or your biggest issue is government overspending, don't vote for Clinton or Obama.

I agree...spending is not 'always' a bad thing, but when the budget is running on a 300 billion dollar deficit year after year, spending DOES become a bad thing.

So something has to be cut. Thats why I like Ron Paul.

You simply can't spend year after year and hope the consequences will never happen.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

A few things.

1. The oil in Iraq was recently bumped to 200, 000 barrels a day. Did it used to be at that level? Yes. Was it under control of US oil companies? No. Is it now? Yes. Your comment about Iraqi's benefiting from the Oil flowing out of Iraq right now is completely uninformed.

Ummm, they're producing a lot more than 200,000 barrels per day. I said they increased their production by 'that much' in November and December of last year.

Iraq gets that money...and with it they pay off the loans that the World Bank, the IMF and other agencies have loaned them.

They do benefit....in fact I cannot possibly understand how you can make an ignorant comment like that. The US does not make 100 bucks for every barrel that Iraq pumps out. The Iraqi Government does...and with that money they are funding their budget.

2. Did you even read the news story I linked you to? It's been proved that oil companies are benefiting from the US invasion. Your ability to spit out lies is impressive.

What lies?

3. Saudi Arabia's royal family is in bed with the US. That's the reason they haven't invaded Saudi Arabia.

Again, that is one of your conspiracy theories.

4. Don't compare Alberta to Iraq, it's got nothing to do with this.

The second largest oil reserve(not Iraq, BTW)....does not have anything to do with this?

Do you really think the US would care about a 5 year setback in oil production? This is a long term plan, the present needs of the country were not of concern.

So what changed? Saddam was still going to sell his oil....the US was still going to buy it....only thing, they're now buying it at twice the price compared to how it was before they went into Iraq.

Meaning it costs the US twice as much to refine it.

Anyways, you can continue to believe the best course of action is to stay in the country long term to 'increase the production of oil, fix the infrastructure and improve the quality of living is in the best interest of the Iraqi people'. Fortunately, the administration about to enter into office is not as naive as the people who share your opinion, and a full scale pull out is on the way.

The people who share my opinion are the people who are in Iraq doing that exact thing.

I would think General Petreaus knows a bit more about what is going on over there than you do. And last time I checked....he didn't support pulling out all the troops tomorrow.

If there is ONE thing that history should have taught us....its that not finishing the job in the first place(Afghanistan instantly comes to mind)....results in greater repercussions later on.

You don't remember Afghanistan, after the Russians were defeated? IIRC, Senator Wilson lobbied Congress to provide money to build schools and restore the infrastructure. Instead the US turned a blind eye, and 15 years later they were attacked by people who operated out of there.

Yeah, right....we should just abandon Iraq....cut and run, and leave them to solve their own problems.

Perhaps you should quit being so idealistic....and look at things in reality. Not in your skewed 'conspiracy' laden world.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

Since Bush authorized the US "surge" (something McCain supported), the US has been making significant progress.

Significant progress? In what way? They've changed the criteria for clasifying casaulties to drive the stats way down. They've limited the ability of reporters to cover stories which has restricted the flow of information. The majority of the military has been shifted to select pockets of the country, allowing militias to take control of complete regions. The military gave up most of the country to secure Baghdad. I guess that's a step in the right direction, but we have no idea what the result is to the rest of country because the information flow has been resticted and the numbers changed so they are no longer comparable to previous months.

Originally Posted by Azure

Some, yes, are simply looking at the message of 'change' and jumping on his bandwagon without REALLY knowing what he stands for.

I'm very surprised by the 'blind support'.....considering CP argued for years upon end that THAT support was a very big problem with the Bush administration.

Where is this blind support?

Is that not disturbing to you? It is to me, especially considering that Obama has yet to campaign based on his actual platform. Very scary....after the past 8 years, that people will still blindy follow someone because he is a great public speaker.

Please name a candidate that has mentioned their platform or campaigned on it. Ron Paul. That's it. The rest have been doing nothing but appealing to their base and relying on their personality. The Republican race was a complete joke because they didn't touch on a single important issue in teir debates. It was all cheesy TV. The Democrats weren't much better, but at least they stayed away from the religious bullcrap.

Frankly, platforms are hard to nail down right now, as the candiates don't have the authority to define policy or establish programs. The real campaigning will being once the primaries are over, and that's when platforms will be cast in stone with support of the parties. At that point we'll know what these candidates can or cannot do.

I would think that it is Obama's responsibility to bring that information to the public....and not force the public to go search for it.

Bull. We live in a world of sound bites, so the candidates don't get a chance to outline their platform, it just doesn't sell to the media. Its up to the electorate to get educated. Each of the candidates has a web site published with their respective positions outlined. Get off your lazy ass and look up the information.

Whats your point? I've looked at every candidate's platform....

The how the hell can you be talking about candidates not having platforms? If you've looked at them all, then you know Obama has a solid platform, just like the other candiates.

Look at it this way....with the recent surge, we have reason to be optimistic....and face it, a stable and democratic Iraq would go a LONG ways to solve the problems in the ME. Especially if they can function by themselves.

Yeah, in a country the size of California, the surge has secured an area the size of Los Angeles County.

I keep hearing about Obama's supposed lack of foreign policy experience, but the guy has more grounded world view than any other candidate. The guy has actually grew up in other countries, has been exposed to multiple cultures, including the Islamic culture which should be extremely advantageous in dealing with the Middle Eastern issues. I think he's a guy who brings great potential to improving foreign relations immediately (he would be viewed as a change in American attitudes), something the other candidates would likely have to work through that much harder (McCain would be perceived as much of the same, and Clinton would likely not be accepted at all in the Islamic world).

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

A few things.

1. The oil in Iraq was recently bumped to 200, 000 barrels a day. Did it used to be at that level? Yes. Was it under control of US oil companies? No. Is it now? Yes. Your comment about Iraqi's benefiting from the Oil flowing out of Iraq right now is completely uninformed.
2. Did you even read the news story I linked you to? It's been proved that oil companies are benefiting from the US invasion. Your ability to spit out lies is impressive.
3. Saudi Arabia's royal family is in bed with the US. That's the reason they haven't invaded Saudi Arabia.
4. Don't compare Alberta to Iraq, it's got nothing to do with this.

Do you really think the US would care about a 5 year setback in oil production? This is a long term plan, the present needs of the country were not of concern.

Anyways, you can continue to believe the best course of action is to stay in the country long term to 'increase the production of oil, fix the infrastructure and improve the quality of living is in the best interest of the Iraqi people'. Fortunately, the administration about to enter into office is not as naive as the people who share your opinion, and a full scale pull out is on the way.

Do you truly believe that pulling out immediately and completely is really the best course of action? If your assertion that the US is in Iraq strictly for oil, do you believe that the US would then pull out, losing access to that oil and allowing a country to spiral out of control into worse civil unrest?

I know youre an avid conspiracy theorist and that you cant stand the Bush administration. It's understandable. Right now we dont know what Obama's platform is on Iraq. He's trying to win the Democrat nomination. He needs to appeal to the left. If he wins the nomination, we'll all get to see where he stands and what his plan is as he'll have to appeal not only to the left, but also to moderates.

I think Obama is intriguing - certainly a better option than Hilary. However, Im taking a wait and see approach with regard to the full scope of his electability because frankly - we dont know what that is yet. All we know right now is he's promising a change from Bush and Democrats are eating it up because that's what they want to hear.

Are you simply against McCain because he is Republican and his stance on Iraq isnt "withdrawal immediately"? What exactly do you not like about McCain without using the phrase "same old same old"? And what exactly to you like about Obama other than his apparent plan to withdraw immediately and without using the word "change" or phrase "different than Bush"? Simply because he's a Democrat isnt an option either. Im not being a smart a**, Im just curious to see what else is driving your (and others) like for Obama.

[HotHotHeat]

nvm.

[Clever_Iggy]

nvm

[Azure]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

nvm.

I agree.

I'm done here too. No need to go in circles.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

A few things.

1. The oil in Iraq was recently bumped to 200, 000 barrels a day. Did it used to be at that level? Yes. Was it under control of US oil companies? No. Is it now? Yes. Your comment about Iraqi's benefiting from the Oil flowing out of Iraq right now is completely uninformed.
2. Did you even read the news story I linked you to? It's been proved that oil companies are benefiting from the US invasion. Your ability to spit out lies is impressive.
3. Saudi Arabia's royal family is in bed with the US. That's the reason they haven't invaded Saudi Arabia.
4. Don't compare Alberta to Iraq, it's got nothing to do with this.

Do you really think the US would care about a 5 year setback in oil production? This is a long term plan, the present needs of the country were not of concern.

Anyways, you can continue to believe the best course of action is to stay in the country long term to 'increase the production of oil, fix the infrastructure and improve the quality of living is in the best interest of the Iraqi people'. Fortunately, the administration about to enter into office is not as naive as the people who share your opinion, and a full scale pull out is on the way.

Actually from an oil and gas prospective it makes no sense to spend the money America spent to invade Iraq in order to secure their oil fields for American companies to control. Yes some American companies have benefited from participation in Iraq, but Iraq is hardly a strong profit centre for any of them. The notion that Iraq is or will tremendously boast the fortunes of companies such as Halliburton is rediculous. Even if Iraq oil was developed to it's full extent entirely by American Oil companies it would be but a small line item on the worldwide operations of any large American oil or services company. Either, take it from me (someone who knows about capital investment in the Oil and Gas industry) or take it from non-experts spouting theories on the internet.

Or maybe this is just what I want you to think considering all I do all day at my 'Big Oil' corporation is plot human misery ranging from Global Warming to environmental destruction, to wars in far off countries. Better put on the tin foil hat, we're tracking where you're posting from, and we're coming soon . . .

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

Are you simply against McCain because he is Republican and his stance on Iraq isnt "withdrawal immediately"? What exactly do you not like about McCain without using the phrase "same old same old"? And what exactly to you like about Obama other than his apparent plan to withdraw immediately and without using the word "change" or phrase "different than Bush"? Simply because he's a Democrat isnt an option either. Im not being a smart a**, Im just curious to see what else is driving your (and others) like for Obama.

I've only focused on Iraq because that's where the discussion went. It's also going to be what this election is about. Despite what people's opinions here are, the overwhelming majority of the US population wants their troops pulled out of Iraq. It will be impossible to convince the American people otherwise. I actually don't mind McCain as leader and potential president, I just don't think he's got a chance of winning.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Something I found today, not sure if it 'should' be humorous or not

I want Ron Paul back....without the isolationist stance though.

So... which is it? He HAS no platform, or his platform is too expensive?

If you really think about it, both can't be true. And as a matter of fact, this whole idea that Barack Obama hasn't been specific about what he'll do as President is just more media-manufactured nonsense that fits into their preferred narrative of "innocence vs. experience." Obama has, as just one example, released an extremely detailed health care reform plan. As someone who lives in the U.S. I can tell you that health care reform should be this country's TOP priority moving forward. I don't agree with Obama's plan--it's less radical than the "blow it up and start over" method that I favour--but at least he's participating in the conversation about what is America's most important issue right now.

McCain? Bupkis. That tells you all you need to know, IMO. The reason his proposals are so cheap is that he hasn't made any. In fact, he's guilty of the very thing you accuse Obama of.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

I've only focused on Iraq because that's where the discussion went. It's also going to be what this election is about. Despite what people's opinions here are, the overwhelming majority of the US population wants their troops pulled out of Iraq. It will be impossible to convince the American people otherwise. I actually don't mind McCain as leader and potential president, I just don't think he's got a chance of winning.

See and I dont mind Obama winning because I think he has the potential to be good. Im just waiting until the general to make up my mind - which is a credit to Obama because Im a moderate and McCain is about as moderate as you can find in DC.

I think Americans want the war in Iraq to end, but a large percentage understand the the consequences of a quick, complete withdrawal.

Anyways, we've made our points and until the nominations are a bit more defined (maybe after mini-Super Tuesday) we'll can start viewing the pros/cons of the candidates with a little more clarity.

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Actually from an oil and gas prospective it makes no sense to spend the money America spent to invade Iraq in order to secure their oil fields for American companies to control. Yes some American companies have benefited from participation in Iraq, but Iraq is hardly a strong profit centre for any of them. The notion that Iraq is or will tremendously boast the fortunes of companies such as Halliburton is rediculous. Even if Iraq oil was developed to it's full extent entirely by American Oil companies it would be but a small line item on the worldwide operations of any large American oil or services company. Either, take it from me (someone who knows about capital investment in the Oil and Gas industry) or take it from non-experts spouting theories on the internet.

Or maybe this is just what I want you to think considering all I do all day at my 'Big Oil' corporation is plot human misery ranging from Global Warming to environmental destruction, to wars in far off countries. Better put on the tin foil hat, we're tracking where you're posting from, and we're coming soon . . .

Haha, I'll keep my own opinions thanks. I'm guessing your education to get that 'big oil' job was fairly narrow focused, not to discredit your degree...Just saying it's not as informed or well rounded as other perspectives.

Do you not think I'm aware of what I'm doing? This is a posting board based out of Calgary for heavens sake...Talk about walking into the lions den.

I don't have a goal of changing anybody's mind, I know that's impossible. Just one thing though, calling people conspiracy theorists time after time eventually starts to make an argument look insecure.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

I think Americans want the war in Iraq to end, but a large percentage understand the the consequences of a quick, complete withdrawal.

Agreed. And I do think this could be a problem for Obama. In fact, even he advocates a staged withdrawal, not a precipitous one--but perception=reality in the world of politics, and he has become the candidate of "cut and run," which could hurt him as election day gets closer. As I've said many times, it's just too early to tell.

As for McCain, he's packaged his message on Iraq very poorly so far. The whole "we could be there 100 years" comment was a huge, huge mistake. It's a remark that the Democrats can take out of context and blow way out of proportion--and they're already doing it. What McCain actually meant was something along the lines of "we'll stay as long as it takes to get the job done right." Which would have been a much better thing to say. Politics is all about how you package your message. The Bushies were great at it--but McCain hasn't shown that facility with language yet--and he needs to if he's going to bridge the "charisma gap" that he has with Obama.

You know who McCain reminds me of? Walter Mondale. Mondale, when he was running against Reagan, made the unpleasant but very true argument that Reagan's policies would have to be paid for with a tax increase--just to bring the fiscal house back in order. He was telling the truth--a "straight talk express" avant-la-lettre, if you like. But the American people rewarded him by sending him to the worst loss in the history of presidential politics. He won ONLY his home state of Minnesota. That's right--he won ONE state.

Reagan? He continued to run up huge deficits. He even raised taxes--a little. But he did it with a smile, and charmed America's socks off.

The moral of the story is that it's not enough to be right. Especially if your message isn't one America wants to hear. McCain needs to figure this out--and repackage his message fast. In fact, he should hire Karl Rove--you heard it here first.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by Azure

Lets be realistic here....if you're running for POTUS you don't make ridiculous comments about sending troops into Pakistan without them condoning it, no matter HOW right it is....plus, any operation into Pakistan is probably covert, so Obama needs to shut up about it.

Especially if Pakistan is supposed to be considered an 'ally'.....even if they aren't exactly abiding by 'all' the rules.

I thought we didn't like it when the US attacks sovereign nations?

It's not the attack of a sovereign nation or its government. It's an elimination of a threat...that was the context of the question and answer. It wasn't an invasion of a country but rather special forces/covert operation going in to eliminate the threat. It's not like Obama saying a covert operation suddenly opens the worlds eyes and shocks them to the core that a country actually has such covert teams.

Again same answer any of the people up for nomination would give. And the same answer any current and past president would give and have done. Like, say Bill Clinton bombing an aspirin factory....which was done on shaky intelligence not the superb intelligence of the question at hand.

It was a perfectly acceptable answer to the question and honestly, a presidential type decision in that answer.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

Haha, I'll keep my own opinions thanks. I'm guessing your education to get that 'big oil' job was fairly narrow focused, not to discredit your degree...Just saying it's not as informed or well rounded as other perspectives.

Do you not think I'm aware of what I'm doing? This is a posting board based out of Calgary for heavens sake...Talk about walking into the lions den.

I don't have a goal of changing anybody's mind, I know that's impossible. Just one thing though, calling people conspiracy theorists time after time eventually starts to make an argument look insecure.

There wasn't an economic incentive oil and gaswise to invade Iraq for the US and that's all I was speaking to. If you want to argue the oil economics in Iraq then take that on straight up.

You also make the mistake of holding up a 'degree' as a sum of one's knowledge. My formal education taught me only a drop in the bucket of what I know now about Oil and Gas. A degree only means that you were bright enough to get through the many exams, projects, and papers thrown at you. It tells employers and others in the world that you have the capacity to learn even more and apply your learnings in a constructive way, but speaks nothing to what you really actually know. Believing otherwise would indicate a lack of experience in life beyond graduation where CEO's, Prime Minister's, Presidents and other high flyers all have similar levels of formal education compared to a large number of people, but yet are more accomplished and have the propensity to accomplish more in the future than their peers.

[arsenal]

Former Clinton Superdelegate Switches to Support Barack Obama for President
WEST ORANGE, NJ –Christine “Roz” Samuels, a superdelegate from Montclair, New Jersey, who was supporting Hillary Clinton announced she was now supporting Senator Barack Obama for President today, citing his ability to unite the country

And the link:
http://thepage.time.com/obama-release-on-superdelegate/

[Nehkara]

Obama has had two major union endorsements.

The 1.9 million member Service Employees International Union and the 1.3 million member United Food and Commercial Workers Union both endorsed Obama on Thursday.


Major service workers union backs Obama

(CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama received the backing of a major service workers union Friday, a significant boost to the Illinois Democrat's campaign that comes amid signs that his rival's support among superdelegates may be slipping.

A union's endorsement can give a candidate much needed support because union members often act as "ground troops" that can canvas neighborhoods and man phone banks for a campaign.

The two union endorsements could also help Obama in his increasingly heated struggle with Sen. Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, especially among blue-collar voters in the delegate-rich states of Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania.

[Azure]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmi...s_Clinton.html

The former KGB lieutenant colonel appeared to lash out at U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton — a leading Democratic candidate for president — when one reporter quoted her as saying that former KGB officers have no soul:
"At a minimum, a head of state should have a head," Putin said.