The Candidates
By Mike DeVine, an original contributor at Race42008.com
Then was Jesus led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. Jesus said unto him, it is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. [The Gospel of Matthew 4:1, 6-7 KJV ]
We are told that the presumptive Democratic Party nominee, Barack Obama, threatens to peel off a significant portion of the Evangelical Christian vote that has been the largest and most reliable voting block critical to Republican Party victories in five of the last seven presidential elections. It is said that so many of these voters are alienated from the GOP’s champion in 2008, John McCain, that a large percentage will not only stay home, but that millions will actually cast a vote for the more “overtly Christian” candidate.
Yes, McCain was caught on tape in 2000 telling California republicans that America was not ready for the reversal of the 1973 court decision making abortion legal nationwide, and, when caught, lashed out at two prominent evangelical televangelists. Since then, Senator McCain has voted to confirm two pro-life justices of the Supreme Court. Senator Obama not only opposed Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, but also bemoaned a court ruling upholding a federal law prohibiting the killing of babies whose legs dangle towards Earth outside the womb while their skulls remain inside the scissor-accessible vaginas. Moreover, Obama opposes laws that require that born alive infants who survive botched abortions not be drowned or otherwise snuffed out while still attached to their moms via umbilical chord.
Obama, the sweet, compassionate, Jesus loving Christian formerly a member of the “Minister” Louis Farrakhan honoring, Trinity United against God damned America, whose words below were heard in 2006 above the din of his 20-year pew-parked butt in Rev. Wrights’ church, saying:
Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America’s population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.
And even if we did have only Christians within our borders, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? James Dobson’s, or Al Sharpton’s? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount – a passage so radical that it’s doubtful that our Defense Department would survive its application?
Funny how a “once” (but no longer, according to Obama) Christian nation got so diverse, isn’t it? Of course, we never were “just” a Christian nation. What we were, and still are, is a nation founded by mostly Christian believers, many of whom came here to escape religious persecution, and whose founders, while not all orthodox believers, nevertheless embraced the Judeo-Christian values of the Bible as superior to all values on Earth.
Now why, pray tell, would we want to ditch the values that allowed Obama’s precious value of “diversity” to flourish. Have the Islamic values overseas fostered diversity over there or do most of those nations make it a capital offense to say the name of the Apostle Paul?
Whose Christianity would we teach in schools?
Well, how about whatever version each local school prefers, rather than have Obama’s superhero oligarch lawyers on the Supreme Court impose a supposed valueless secular religion on children that alienates them from their parents by equating the utterance of their God’s name in science class with the F-word? And in Chicago, why y’all could still teach your brand of a black Christ whose Pop damns America and blames all the world’s problems on greedy white people in audaciously hopeful sermons.
Obama, you mock Holy Scripture that Christ came to fulfill when you conflate old Jewish laws meant for a people under siege much like an army in which strict discipline is essential to survival.
And while you must understand that the Sermon on the Mount delivered by Jesus “render unto Caesar” Christ was not meant for government, let’s explore what an application of same to American armed forces would reveal, shall we deacon?
Will our blessed forces serving today in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world and those that served from 1776-yesterday:
That mourn, be comforted?
That are merciful, obtain mercy?
That make peace, be called the children of God?
That are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, inherit the kingdom of heaven?
That are reviled and persecuted have all manner of evil falsely said against them, be rewarded with eternal life?
Christ laid down his life for you Obama. Hundreds of thousands of DOD employees have as well. Their families mourn for the fallen among them, as well as the fallen on 911 and their fallen comrades in arms in Iraq and the fallen innocent Iraqis before and after the liberators of the red, white and blue arrived without any tricked up light blue comic seals.
Has the United States and its military been merciful in the Argonne, Paris, The Philippines, Korea, Berlin, Vietnam, Bosnia, Baghdad and Kabul? Surely, and in spades.
Did protestors “make” peace in Vietnam or Cambodia? Communists in Dallas or Poland? Jihadists in RFK’s Los Angeles or US embassies in Africa? Community organizers anywhere on Earth?
No!
Can any of the above survive the application of Mountain sermons better than the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force or Marines?
NO!
Yet, who made peace in Europe twice, freed the slaves of the now Reagan-killed Soviet Union, and mostly now in ancient Babylon?
Who actually “makes” peace but those that vanquish the mass slaughterers, whether they be anti-Christian Kaisers, Nazis, Communists or Taliban?
The armed forces, mostly Christian soldiers of the United States of America have made more peace than all the prize winners of the Nobel variety combined and multiplied by a trillion!
Shall DeVine gamecock dignify the mocking of scripture any longer? Not much longer, but just long enough to tackle Satan’s favorite modern day liberal mock of the past 40+ years, i.e.
38: Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40: And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
41: And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42: Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43: Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44: But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45: That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46: For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? Do not even the publicans the same?
Nowhere above does Christ speak of refusing to defend others. He speaks of “thee” and so on. But let’s look at the case anyway.
How many times did the United States turn the other cheek to German u-boats; the Viet Cong; radical hippies; Ted Kennedy Borkers; Iran and its proxies since 1979; Iraq from 1992-2003 as they fired on our planes, tried to kill President Bush 41, and publicly sponsored suicide bombers; and al Qaeda from 1993-2001?
How much money have we paid to the UN that regularly steals our clothes?
How many miles have we sailed to rescue the injured in natural disasters in nations that hate us?
Who else in the history of the world so loved their enemies like we have loved Germany and Japan?
I can’t even hear the din of your 20-year pew-parked butt just now.
Why have you such contempt for the nation you want to lead and for the scripture that is at the basis of the religion you claim to follow?
No man, much less any collection of men in any nation or government department can pass the test of the Beatitudes, but in all of world history who comes closest since Eden died? And why did that nation come closest but for the application of the very values you would banish from the public square lest they offend an atheist or a Muslim?
In that regard, you say:
This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
Does Al Sharpton’s Christianity remain silent on abortion, partial birth abortion or the killing of newborns that survive abortionist’s knives? What of Buddhists or Muslims? Jews? Are atheists glad or not that they survived the womb?
You, sir, need to read your Bible, and while you are at it, the inspiring history of a great land you seem to have never heard of:
The God bless version of America.
The one that John McCain, while employed by its Department of Defense, turned his other cheek for seven years of torture for. The McCain that evangelicals will embrace over you in droves come Election Day 2008, the only poll that matters.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
The Minority Report and The HinzSight Report
Race 4 2008
“One man with courage makes a majority.” - Andrew Jackson
June 27th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Gamecock, I’m not sure what you’re saying here.
June 27th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
call me
June 27th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
As much as I despise his Biblical views, here is something that will hit close to home for al of us that McCain can use and wrap tight around Obama. What I am about to say is a huge issue McCain should use in the election. He can either use it or be like Fred Thompson and be comotose the whole time. In the Obama healthcare plan, 15 million illegal immigrants will go ahead of the rest of us to the front of the line to get the care they need while our parents have to wait for the heart transplant to save them. This is normallly a domstic issue that is always in the Democrats corner. But McCain can make this a Republican issue if he will seize it. If Mccain will hit Obama on energy, not wanting to see gas prices lower but a gradual increase, healthcare for illegal immigrants, Iran, and Iraq (once it gets closer to November 4 and once the Iraqis have gone to the polls in October for what will be their successful provincial elections), McCain can whip his butt! He can use this, and he needs to!!!!!!!!
June 27th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
brilliant
June 27th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
As much as I don’t like Obama’s views of religion, as evidenced by his poor judgement in who he associates with and the church where he spent the last 20 years, there is something that McCain can and MUST use in the fall and can win it for him. This is a huge issue that will strike at the hearst of tens of millions,I believe and will galvinize them. McCain can either use it or be like Fred Thompson and be comotose the whole time.
Here it is:
In the Obama healthcare plan, 15 million illegal immigrants will go ahead of the rest of us to the front of the line to get the care they need while our parents have to wait for the heart transplant to save them. This is normallly a domestic issue that is always in the Democrats’ corner. But McCain can make this a Republican issue if he will seize it. If McCain will hit Obama on energy, not wanting to see gas prices lower but a gradual increase, healthcare for illegal immigrants, Iran, and Iraq (once it gets closer to November 4 and once the Iraqis have gone to the polls in October for what will be their successful provincial elections), McCain can whip his butt! He can use this, and he needs to!!!!!!!!
June 27th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Stephen,
I wouldn’t hold my breath…
On Monday, McCain, while at a townhall meeting in Fresno, reiterated his position:
In California, ”there is a need for temporary workers.” But he added that ”Americans demand, and they should receive, the border secured first. ..and we can do that. We have the technology, we have the ability.”
But the country also needs ”a temporary worker program that works..and we have to address the issue of the 12 million people who are here illegally,” he said.
While they should not get a cut in line to secure legal residency, ”they are also God’s children. And we need to address the issue in a humane and compassionate fashion,” said McCain.
Here’s another quote I found from McCain while addressing a Cinco de Mayo conference last month:
“I believe that the majority of Hispanics share our view that the border must be secured, and the border must be secured first. But they also want us to have an attitude, which I think most Americans do, that these are God’s children and they must be taken care of, or the issue must be addressed, in a humane and compassionate fashion. And I will continue to carry that message with the priority that we must secure our borders first.”
Bottom line. McCain isn’t going to risk alienating Hispanic voters by going Tancredo on illegal aliens.
June 27th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
This post is as comprehensible as Charlie Brown’s teacher talking.
I keep forgetting that there is a religious test that shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. Thanks for reminding me about Article 6. I had forgotten.
June 27th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
A religious test would prevent someone from getting on the ballot or taking the oath. Where did I endorse either?
Charlie Brown’s teacher told CB to do his homework. Realist, wah wahwah wah wahwahwah!
June 27th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Any illegals should have to return to their home country, apply for citizenship there, and wait until they are allowed in.
God’s children or not, they broke the law, and are both an economic and public safety threat.
June 27th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
7 — Yeah, what the hell are you talking about?
June 28th, 2008 at 12:02 am
7. That article test is not for the people making individual decisions, it’s for the government.
June 28th, 2008 at 1:49 am
obama just may be the anticrist nostradamus said it would happen this way all of storms and rerally bad weather and the anticrist will be elected into office then someone from the midel east will launch bombs at the new city {new york} and that will be the start of the end … obama dose not know what he is doing anyone the countrys from the midel east want him as pres even if he treats them like shit during the election bec we all know he was born a muslim and this just could be a cover they start brain washing in the early years and he was prob trained from the first day he was in that muslem schhol to get in good with our gov but they didnt expect that he would be this good they are takeing over what do you think the older people think the wise people the same as i do .. kind\a lol dont vote for the anticrist we will lose our country hes not patreotic at all and he mocks the bible talks bad about crist come on PEOPLE CAN THERE BE ANY MORE SIGHNS!!!!!!!!!!! PEOPLE ARE BLINDED BY HIS SPEECHES PEOPLE PRAISE HIM . something is def wrong here dont vote obama!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
June 28th, 2008 at 3:23 am
lol wut
June 28th, 2008 at 3:42 am
anticrist as in Charlie Crist? What an illiterate a-hole.
June 28th, 2008 at 7:48 am
People like Gamecock are proposing a religious litmus test for people to get elected - they must be a “good Christian” (whatever that means). W certainly isn’t a “good Christian” in my eyes, but many people were/are fooled by him, although I have read intelligent posts here by those are able to see through him. joe’s post is perfect for this thread:
“we all know he was born a muslim”
“prob trained from the first day he was in that muslem schhol ”
“dont vote for the anticrist we will lose our country hes not patreotic at all”
People like “joe” are exactly who the GOP has and is depending on - those uninformed, pathetically ignorant, and easily manipulated by fear. The message is: “Beware the scary black man who hates Christians and hates the USA”. They just conveniently leave out the word “black.” You better believe the GOP is going to be trying to flame the deep-held racism of people like “joe” - they’ll just couch it language that is just a titch less sloppy that “joe’s” and more readable that Gamecock’s blog diarrhea. Just a bit, though - like Grover Norquist saying Obama is just “Kerry with a tan.” Like Fox calling Michelle Obama “Obama’s Baby Momma”. Like Fox’s ED Hill saying the fist bump is a “terrorist jab.”
Have to agree with telamonian; however all the a-holes aren’t illiterate like joe and (in a practical sense, since he is presumably actually able to read, although not write) Gamecock.
June 28th, 2008 at 7:59 am
And of course I didn’t mean that people like Gamecock seek to change the constitution (although I’m sure they would love to) to require the “Christian” test; however, required a religious test for candidates is precisely what they do. Acceptable candidates must behave and interpret laws and the Constitution through the lens of their accepted form of Christianity. And any person who doesn’t agree with them is hostile towards or “hates” Christianity, which is, of course, preposterous.
People like joe seek to paint all Muslims as extremists and terrorists. What pitiful ignorance.
June 28th, 2008 at 8:13 am
Realist,
people like Gamecock seek to change the constitution (although I’m sure they would love to)
I would love to see people on this board actually argue against a Christian without making up ideas in their minds. It’s really pathetic.
It’s funny you call yourself “realist” but than make up positions about Gamecock in your mind.
June 28th, 2008 at 8:15 am
Hey people, individuals can have any test they want for a candidate. It’s called freedom of thought. It’s the liberals that want to control that. Remember? We’re not liberals here.
June 28th, 2008 at 9:06 am
#16 There are at least 3 Muslims who come to mind that I would vote for over Christian Obama.
June 28th, 2008 at 9:07 am
Then why have you criticized Huckabee and those true christians who oppose Romney?
June 28th, 2008 at 9:22 am
20. I never said voting for Huckabee because he was a Mormon was violation of Article 6.
Again anther straw man, misrepresentation.
June 28th, 2008 at 9:27 am
Is Huckabee a Mormon? lol
June 28th, 2008 at 9:37 am
22. Whoops, lol.
June 28th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Its interesting how often this site gets bogged down in religion, homosexuality, race and gender. In contrast, there is little talk of the economy or healthcare.
June 28th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Telamonian Aias writes: “Its interesting how often this site gets bogged down in religion”
What’s interesting is reading this critique from the very same individual who earlier this morning wrote:
Lieberman reminds people why they often distrust jews.
June 28th, 2008 at 10:09 am
The problem is not that the site gets bogged down on those issues, although I think we need to stay clear of religous fights, but as Aron’s point in #25 shows, it’s the contempt of religions or certain religions that is problematic, that a few people bring to this board. When it comes to peoples eliefs, people need to refrain from the position that it is necessary to totally wipe out a certain belief system.
June 28th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Nos. 25-26 Bravo!
June 28th, 2008 at 10:35 am
There is a difference between an incoherent negro rant like what began this thread and a political and historical critique of a religion or group.
June 28th, 2008 at 11:06 am
#28 Could you specifically identify the “incoherant negro rant” to which you refer and explain what is the significance of the word “negro”?
June 28th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Republicans could use this one line alone from Obama to cream him here in the south:
“Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation”
June 28th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Also if the Evangelical vote is becoming more and more the swing vote.. that is all the more reason to add Huckabee to the ticket..
June 28th, 2008 at 11:50 am
I have heard from many of my Evangelical friends that they are disappointed in Sen. McCain’s outreach to Values Voters. I think that if McCain were to publicly label Obama blasphemous heretic and go at him toe to toe over scriptural interpretation and show that he could hold his own, that it could excite the Evangelical base. Dobson can’t carry all of the water, the candidate needs to make an effort.
June 28th, 2008 at 11:52 am
C.B. - only if you’re intent on losing this election. We’ll lose the West. They do not tolerate religious bigots like Huckabee.
June 28th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
28. Correct but I don’t think you and you like minded colleagues know the difference.
June 28th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
#34,
I think I need to apologize, I misread #28 from my phone. That is an out of line comment. Personally I think you should be banned. We don’t race bate here.
June 28th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
#35 amen
June 28th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Jason/Mike,
I concur. Bill O’Reilly regularly highlights hate speech that is accepted in the comments over at Daily Kos and Huffington Post. The last thing we need at Race 4 2008 is for Markos Moulitsas Zuniga or Media Matters to smear our respectful site by drawing attention to the racist and anti-semitic language of one bigoted, ignorant commenter.
June 28th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Ha ha right on! Love to hear a little religious conviction. I don’t see McCain as too religiously stable (didn’t he change religions just a few years ago? I mean, as a grandpa that’s a little unstable to me, usually you have religious convictions squared away by age 60 or 70. You would think.), but Obama is certainly off the charts the wrong way when it comes to sharing religious values with most of America.
June 28th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Let’s all write Kavon
who is out of the loop this weekend btw
June 28th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
#32, may I offer an opposing point from an Evangelical. As an evangelical I am so tired of the endless pandering to my group from politicians in this country. Purposely wearing their Christianity on their sleeve, endless quoting of scripture and hymns in policy pronouncements. I am sorry to say all of that was brought about by Rove Strategies, Inc. In fact, your suggestion would completely turn me off to McCain because it would be pandering at its highest as McCain has never been a Bush with regards to his public display of his “religiousity.” Quite frankly, I couldn’t care less what each candidates interpretation of scripture is. I care about national security, economic, foreign policy, and energy policy. Period. The only person I care about with scriptual interpretation is my worship and small group leaders. I wish for once in the 21st century in this country we could have a real race on issues. It makes me sick that many of my fellow congregates couldn’t care less about what a candidate would do in office, just as long as they are “Christian enough”. How stupid.
June 28th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Will Boumediene and Heller bring conservatives closer to McCain?
June 28th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
McCain’s Challenge on Security
by Jennifer Rubin
June 28th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
#40 except for the incorrect shot at Rove
Great points. McCain needs to be McCain and we need to call out Obama when he misuses Scripture. Gc is better than Dobson at this!
June 28th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
#41-2 Yes, I think so and great links Aron.
June 28th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
McCain doesn’t want to be president. He is enjoying the attention and he is highlighting his issues, but he just doesn’t have the fire. There was an article this week that he has taken nearly every weekend off since February. And next week he is going to Colombia and Mexico, supposedly for business but its really an opportunity to leave the stage and get some down time. That tells me he simply doesn’t have the energy. His aides are also afraid too much work will make him sick. As Ed Rollins said this week, its Bob Dole redux.
June 28th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
I think McCain wants very much to be President.
Whether or not he wants to deal with the economy, etc., I don’t know.
Though apparently McCain said that one of his goals in the first 100 days would be illegal immigration, which all conservatives need to be worried about. I think that is one issue where the status quo is better than McCain’s idea of a fix.
June 28th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
#45 you have some racist language to explain and answer for NOW for comment #28
NOW
June 28th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
#45 see my questions in #29
answer them now
June 28th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
ACT,
I think in highlighting the gasoline issue, drilling on the continental shelf, the gas tax holiday, McCain actually IS addressing the economy.
June 28th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
No one seems to know what the problem is. Is it oil, housing, the weak dollar, or inflation? High energy prices is certainly making matters worse. Its killing jobs and the airline industry and causing inflation (a loaf of white bread costs $5 in Hawaii). But the housing crisis, which is both foreclosures and declining home values, is causing credit and liquidity problems.
Passing a bill to allow drilling won’t turn things around or lower oil prices in the near future. The reason I say this is Brazil made a huge oil discovery and because they are energy independent that oil will mostly go on the market. Yes oil prices have only continued to rise. Getting the additional 2 million barrels a day that Iraq was pumping before the war back online would help a lot more than offshore drilling.
June 28th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
I think the answer to that is all of the above, but not in the way you might expect.
What is driving up the cost of oil itself is speculation. There has been testimony on Capitol Hill that, if Congress acted to limit speculation, gas prices could drop to $2 or less within a month.
As to what is driving the speculation, well, pretty much everything else you mentioned. Oil supply can become tight and unreliable, refining capacity isn’t growing, and oil seems like the only reliable investment. The dollar is weak, the stock market is officially a bear market, and the housing bubble popped.
June 28th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
50. I know what the problem is. It’s you come here talking like a rascist and then ignore it when someone calls you on it.
June 28th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Telamonian Aias,
Who did you vote for in the primary? Clinton or Obama?
June 28th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
#51, It is against American values to limit oil speculation. If we just stopped importing oil from outside of North America, all will be fine.
June 28th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
“It is against American values to limit oil speculation.”
I would argue it is also against American values to allow a bubble that defies all market conditions destroy our economy.
—
“If we just stopped importing oil from outside of North America, all will be fine.”
The biggest source of U.S. oil is…the U.S., followed by Canada, Mexico, and THEN Saudi Arabia - which is tied with Nigeria. almost 3/4 of our oil comes from this continent.
…and the source of oil doesn’t exactly make it cheaper with the speculation market. West Texas Crude (N. America), Brent Sea Crude (Europe), and Light Sweet Crude (Middle East) are all comparable in price right now. None is significantly cheaper than the other.
June 28th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
http://www.act-blog.co.nr,
Government involvement in oil speculating (trading) is no different than the Government involving itself in general investment trading. That is socialist.
Having 100% US oil domestically produced, or imported from Canada and the Mexico would bring down the cost of oil. Example; a crisis in the middle east or Nigeria would not impact supply in the USA, thus not causing a large increase in the cost of oil.
AND….it give us a larger bargaining chip. We would not longer have any reason to listen, involve ourself or rely on OPEC. We could expand energy agreements within NAFTA and have it act as our OPEC.
June 28th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
“is no different than the Government involving itself in general investment trading.”
…which it currently is, at a much higher level than in commodities trading. Even raising the margin required to buy oil to the level of stocks could significantly decrease the attractiveness of oil as an investment.
…and you talk about crisis in the mideast driving up the cost of oil, but the United States is as prone to Hurricanes and other probablems as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait (the two nations where we get measurable oil from) are to political turmoil.
…as for the Dependence argument, do you really think that oil producing nations are any less dependent on their consumers than the other way around?
June 28th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
http://www.act-blog.co.nr,
“do you really thnk that oil producing nations are any less dependent on their consumers than the other way around?” No, but there is currently no oil crisis in the United States, and there is enough oil in NA to meet long term demand. Our demand can continue to grow, and we can meet those demands with further development.
“…which it currently is”, Again you are correct. Regulation, spending, taxes, corporate welfare, etc….has been slowing our rate of growth and caused us to enter a recession.
“United States is as prone to Hurricanes”, yes, but political instability/wars have a much greater impact on the price of oil. In fact, the platforms in the gulf have a successful rate of operations after hurricanes. They are well regarded for this. It is an amazing compliment to American engineering.
Drill, drill, drill.
June 28th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
I agree with the need to drill, but I really do not see that it - alone - would put prices back where they belong (between 40%-60% of where they are now).
Again, North American oil right now is essentially the same price as all other crude oil.
—
“Again you are correct. Regulation, spending, taxes, corporate welfare, etc….has been slowing our rate of growth and caused us to enter a recession.”
There are two main causes of this recession - the collapse of the housing bubble, and high energy prices. If gas prices were half of what they are, the average American household would have a few thousand extra dollars to spend every year, airlines wouldn’t be cutting jobs, etc.
—-
Yes, drill, but also put a stop to the run away speculation markets.
June 28th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
At this point, is our concern to lower prices or stop them from continuing to go up?
“There are two main causes of this recession”, that is a Liberal position. We had a softening market before the housing crisis. We have been moving away from reducing regulation, spending, taxes, corporate welfare, etc….
June 28th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
There’s something called the business cycle. Recessions are natural parts of an economy.
No matter what our government does we will have recessions.
June 28th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
#59 All prices will always include speculation factors. Close the legal market in same and you create supply problems. (and a black market in same) Once the world understands the US is serious about increasing supply, speculation will be our friend.
June 28th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
52 i wrote kavon
June 28th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
#59, Thanks Gamecock, you explained it better then me.
June 28th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
63. Yo tambien.
June 28th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
#65 huh?
June 29th, 2008 at 4:31 am
Sorry, but I didn’t understand this post at all…
June 29th, 2008 at 4:36 am
To be perfectly frank and candid with you, Gamecock, your posts always kind of remind me of this…
June 29th, 2008 at 6:34 am
#61 This is not just a normal downturn. We have low growth and inflation (which itself is abnormal), and a housing and credit crisis (which are not normal characteristics of a recession), and a bubble in commodities especially oil. This month has been described as the worst June since the depression so its fair to say this is no normal recession.
The normal measures to get us out of it are also unavailable. Usually governments can provid fiscal or monetary stimulus and the feds did give out rebates that have helped. But given our large deficits/debts there is no room for larger stimulus (spending or tax cuts). The fed is also out of ammunition having cut rates too much already and afraid to raise rates before the election. So on the remedy side we are also facing abnormal circumstances.
(Next: oil)
June 29th, 2008 at 6:59 am
#56 “Having 100% US oil domestically produced, or imported from Canada and the Mexico would bring down the cost of oil. Example; a crisis in the middle east or Nigeria would not impact supply in the USA, thus not causing a large increase in the cost of oil.”
That is pure economic ignorance. The price of oil is set on a world market. The best way to explain is to assume you are correct and the price of oil in the US were lower than the rest of the world. Would not every US producer of oil sell to the world and get that higher price? Even in Saudi Arabia oil is the same price as the rest of the world, but gas is cheaper because the gov’t subsidizes it.
Energy independence is different because it would include the production of energy for which the price would be set here in the states. When we get to the point where we rely more on oil alternatives then we will not be governed by the price of oil because its impact will be substantially less (which is also why drilling is not the answer).
People are confusing and conflating the environmental arguments against drilling (which I reject) and the economic arguments against it. One of the reasons we have avoided adddressing our energy problem is because when oil gets to a price where alternatives are beneficial the price miraculously falls or more production is brought online. That is what happened in the 80’s and 90’s. Drilling kicks the can down the road again. Only at these high prices is there enough pressure to actually come up with a long-term energy policy.
June 29th, 2008 at 9:04 am
#68 As you receive more education you will be taught how to complete sentences and read more comprehensively.
#69 Still not able to explain your racist comment?
June 29th, 2008 at 9:05 am
#67 Biblical illiteracy is rampant in the US. Seek help at a local church so that you can be considered at educated man.
June 29th, 2008 at 9:21 am
If the answer to high oil prices was a 100% domestic supply, U.S.-drilled oil would be significantly cheaper than the oil we get from the middle east - but it isn’t. Oil prices are not high because of some supply shortage - they are high because market speculation has pushed oil to about double the price that market conditions justify.
Drilling is great, and it will lower the price somewhat, but the real problem is that oil has become a runaway bubble - and one that is causing significant economic damage.
I agree with the generally hands-off approach to the economy, but, sometimes, intervention is justified. I think this is one of those situations.
June 29th, 2008 at 9:29 am
“Only at these high prices is there enough pressure to actually come up with a long-term energy policy.”
…if an alternative isn’t economically compatible with a justifyable price of oil, its not something we should be using yet. The measure of how good an alternative is shouldn’t be measured by how it does slightly less damage to the economy.
If an alternative isn’t practicle at $2-$2.50 a gallon, then it isn’t ready to be used.
June 29th, 2008 at 10:33 am
#74 That might be true if we knew what the true market price of oil was. But since the price is influenced by a cartel (OPEC) and by geopolitical events, its just better policy to ween overselves off a source of energy we do not control.
Also, we know oil is in finite supply, yet demand will increase even more as nations develop. India and China alone will eventually consume as much if not more oil than the US and Europe does now. We should not wait until that happens to respond. That is what leadership is about (leading, not waiting).
June 29th, 2008 at 10:44 am
I think that McCain needs to initiate a little spiritual warfare and this post would be an excellent road map for where he could start.
June 29th, 2008 at 10:53 am
“#74 That might be true if we knew what the true market price of oil was”
Most people, congress, oil companies, OPEC - all agree that the price of oil should be at or below $70.
—
“Also, we know oil is in finite supply, yet demand will increase even more as nations develop. India and China alone will eventually consume as much if not more oil than the US and Europe does now. We should not wait until that happens to respond. That is what leadership is about (leading, not waiting).”
Fine, work on alternatives, but they should be economical before we use them - and that means they should be less than $2.50 gallon (or equivilent).
Until then, why not have cheap oil?
June 29th, 2008 at 11:21 am
#70, Telamonian Aias, the only ignorance on this site is from your posts, with your anti-semetic, anti-African American, misoginyst diatribes.
act-blog.co.nr,
You are dead wrong, oil prices are set in US markets, not world markets. Essentially, all the speculation occurs within US markets, and therefore, by perceived US supply and demand. China and Europe have an oil shortage, not the United States.
Again, if we are able to move towards a 100% North American solution, then we will not care if the Saudi’s increase or lower production. If prices increase, we can increase production to reduce them….and if we decide that we have enough with OPEC, we can opt out.
June 29th, 2008 at 11:24 am
sp…Semitic.
June 29th, 2008 at 11:59 am
I hope Palin never says “You are dead wrong, oil prices are set in US markets, not world markets.” She would be laughed out of Alaska.
June 29th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
#76 thanks man
June 29th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
#74 good points
June 29th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Telamonian Aias,
“A report the U.S. Congress released Monday (this past Monday) showed that, in January 2000, 37 percent of the NYMEX crude futures contracts were held by speculative traders; but in April 2008, the number has soared to 71 percent.”
Open up the business section of a newspaper once in a while, or read the Economist.
June 29th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
And what do you propose that means? Everyone knows speculation has increased, but part of it is a hedge against the value of the dollar. Many institutional investors have also put money in oil contracts. But that does not mean the price of oil is set here. For example, last Thursday the price of oil hit $140/bl in overnight/overseas markets and only then did US markets follow suit.
As for reading the business section, I have indeed stopped. Ever since I retired about six years ago in my 30’s I have been living off my investments (investments I made in my 20’s). I need to update my portfolio.
June 29th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
#78 - You are so right….even though there is no way to absolutely prove it at this point, there is no doubt in my mind that if we move forward boldly with drilling, and at the same time produce much more energy by other means, we will be able to, in fact, control the price of crude. Its through our own stupidity that we are not in that position this very minute.
People who believe we can not bring down the price are either ignorant, or deliberately misleading the American People.