A REAL Presidential Candidates Speech

[tryan]

WOULDN'T IT BE GREAT TO TURN ON THE TV AND HEAR ANY U.S. PRESIDENTAL CANDIDATE, DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN GIVE THE FOLLOWING SPEECH? "My Fellow Americans: As you all know, the defeat of the Iraq regime has been completed. Since congress does not want to spend any more money on this war, our mission in Iraqis complete. This morning I gave the order for a complete removal of all American forces from Iraq This action will be complete within 30 days. It is now time to begin the reckoning. Before me, I have two lists. One list contains the names of countries which have stood by our side during the Iraq conflict. This list is short . The United Kingdom , Spain , Bulgaria, Australia , and Poland are some of the countries listed there. The other list contains every one not on the first list. Most of the world's nations are on that list. My press secretary will be distributing copies of both lists later this evening. Let me start by saying that effective immediately, foreign aid to those nations on List 2 ceases immediately and indefinitely. The money saved during the first year alone will pretty much pay for the costs of the Iraqi war. THEN EVERY YEAR THERE AFTER IT'll GO TO OUR SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM SO IT WONT GO BROKE IN 20 YEARS. The American people are no longer going to pour money into third world Hellholes and watch those government leaders grow fat on corruption. Need help with a famine ? Wrestling with an epidemic? Call France . In the future, together with Congress, I will work to redirect this money t oward solving the vexing social problems we still have at home . On that note, a word to terrorist organizations. Screw with us and we will hunt you down and eliminate you and all your friends from the face of the earth. Thirsting for a gutsy country to terrorize? Try France or maybe China . I am ordering the immediate severing of diplomatic relations with France, Germany , and Russia . Thanks for all your help, comrades. We are retiring from NATO as well. Bonne chance, mezamies. I have instructed the Mayor of New York Cityto begin towing the many UN diplomatic vehicles located in Manhattan with more than two unpaid parking tickets to sites where those vehicles will be stripped, shredded and crushed. I don't care about whatever treaty pertains to this. You creeps have tens of thousands of unpaid tickets. Pay those tickets tomorrow or watch your precious Benzes, Beamers and limos be turned over to some of the finest chop shops in the world. I love New York A special note to our neighbors. Canada is on List 2. Since we are likely to be seeing a lot more of each other, you folks might want to try not pissing us off for a change. Mexico is also on List 2 its president and his entire corrupt government really need an attitude adjustment. I will have a couple extra thousandtanks and infantry divisions sitting around. Guess where I am going to put 'em? Yep, border security. Oh, by the way, the United States is abrogating the NAFTA treaty - starting now. We are tired of the one-way highway. Immediately, we'll be drilling for oil in Alaska- which will take care of this country's oil needs for decades to come. If you're an environmentalist who opposes this decision, I refer you to List 2 above: pick a country and move there. It is time for America to focus on its own welfare and its own citizens. Some will accuse us of isolationism. I answer them by saying, "darn tootin." Nearly a century of trying to help folks live a decent life around the world has only earned us the undying enmity of just about everyone on the planet. It is time to eliminate hunger in America It is time to eliminate homelessness in America . To the nations on List 1, a final thought. Thank you guys. We owe you and we won't forget. To the nations on List 2, a final thought: You might want to learn to speak Arabic. God bless America . Thank you and good night. " If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading it in English, thank a soldier.

 

[Khan]

Immediately, we'll be drilling for oil in Alaska- which will take care of this country's oil needs for decades to come.

Anyone who believes this is simply too ignorant to talk to.

 

[kaudrey]

Anyone who believes this is simply too ignorant to talk to.

I'm with Khan.

 

[ziggy29]

Anyone who believes this is simply too ignorant to talk to.

I think it's unfortunate that one party seems to think we can drill our way out of the problem while the other ignores the fact that we need more supply, at least in the near term, to "buy time" to develop sufficient alternatives and to give less money to governments that hate us and use our oil money against us.

There IS a third way, but partisan politics won't allow us to see it.

 

[devo]

NO!

You are so egocentric that you fail to consider that "list 2" is so long because this war is the greatest American blunder of our time. Those on list 2 have known it all along, and now most Americans do to. It appears, by your cut and run strategy, that you know it yourself. So now you want to hold their foresight and restraint against them?​

Although the "if you don’t like it, MOVE!" gimmick is childish (and entirely un-American), based upon popular opinion, you just might consider it yourself. Oh, and on principal alone, I’m opposed to any American President, incumbent included, who might use the phrase "Darn Tootin’" in any context.​

I do appreciate your posts on RE though.​

O0
devo​

 

[tryan]

hmmm, don't know much about Alaska and oil reserves (the post was sent via EMAIL).

While I agree more than disagree with the content - it's a bit too isolationist for me ... but thought it might generate some interesting responses (and has).

 

[A854321]

I don't appreciate the overly dramatic use of a massive font and multiple colors for what is a poorly-drawn political post.

This is a very useful and congenial board. Tryan, please stop abusing it.

 

[tryan]

yeah, the font is offensive (yelling) ... but that's the way it was sent. Editing seemed too painful.

 

[ziggy29]

yeah, the font is offensive (yelling) ... but that's the way it was sent. Editing seemed too painful.

You could have put it tagged text as is in the posting window, preview the text, then just copy the previewed text and then paste it back into a new posting, where the tags won't be present.

 

[aworkingrachel]

I am mildly impressed that even the people who write right-wing chain e-mails are apparently now aware that the war in Iraq should be OVER.

 

[ladelfina]

The war has been over for a long time. We should all be referring to it what it currently is: occupation. Iraq is not at war with us, nor we with Iraq, since the downfall and capture of Saddam.

Want a funny fantasy speech? Jimmy Carter:
I Got What America Needs Right Here | The Onion - America's Finest News Source
(warning: very bad language)

 

[aworkingrachel]

Point taken.

 

[tryan]

Thanx for the belly laugh! Gota love The Onion.

 

[Texas Proud]

I didn't read the whole stupid post because of the size....

BUT, anyone who thinks that stopping ALL aid to other countries would pay even a small percent of the war is crazy...

And I bet most of the other rants are just as off base with reality... and it is so disappointing that people actually BELIEVE these things could be realized...

 

[HFWR]

The war has been over for a long time. We should all be referring to it what it currently is: occupation. Iraq is not at war with us, nor we with Iraq, since the downfall and capture of Saddam.

Want a funny fantasy speech? Jimmy Carter:
I Got What America Needs Right Here | The Onion - America's Finest News Source
(warning: very bad language)

What bad language?

 

[eridanus]

I think it's unfortunate that one party seems to think we can drill our way out of the problem while the other ignores the fact that we need more supply, at least in the near term, to "buy time" to develop sufficient alternatives and to give less money to governments that hate us and use our oil money against us.

There IS a third way, but partisan politics won't allow us to see it.

Drilling in ANWR isn't near-term, unless your near-term is 10 years out. Even a superfield in ANWR wouldn't last long.

"According to the Department of Interior's 1987 resource evaluation of ANWR's Coastal Plain, there is a 95% chance that a 'super field' with 500 million barrels would be discovered. DOI also estimates that there exists a mean of 3.5 billion barrels, and a 5% chance that a large Prudhoe Bay type discovery would be made."

anwr.org - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

500MM/20MM = almost an entire month of oil. Wooo!

 

[Marquette]

I put a couple minutes into this a few months ago for a friend that was "pissed at the d*** liberals for not letting us drill on the north shore"

Thought you might be interested.

Estimates put oil in Alaska between 5.7 and 16 billion barrels of oil
with industry experts predicting that we should be able to get 8
billion and we have a 50% chance of getting 10 billion and a 5% chance
of 16 billion.

the US Geological Survey estimates there's another 11 billion barrels
of oil off of the west coast (California, Oregon) Sounds like a lot, I know.

Contrast that with the fact that we consume 20 million barrels a day.
That means that, most likely case, Alaska holds just over one year's worth of
oil for the US. Offshore of the west coast is another year and a half
worth of oil.

So, maybe we can exploit another 2.7 years worth of oil with new
domestic resources. Of course, that's at current consumption levels...
it's been going up pretty steadily though.

 

[W2R]

Thought you all might be interested (or not?) in this U.S. map of undiscovered technically recoverable oil and gas resources:

http://www.mms.gov/ooc/Assets/PowerPoint/FINAL5YearPlanTestimonyAttachments6-27-07.ppt#264,3,Slide 3

It shows graphically where a lot of the country's remaining oil and gas resources are located.

 

[ziggy29]

Contrast that with the fact that we consume 20 million barrels a day.
That means that, most likely case, Alaska holds just over one year's worth of
oil for the US. Offshore of the west coast is another year and a half
worth of oil.

So, maybe we can exploit another 2.7 years worth of oil with new
domestic resources. Of course, that's at current consumption levels...
it's been going up pretty steadily though.

Look at it this way. What if it supplied 10% of our need for 27 years? Or 20% of our need for 13.5 years?

That '2.7 years' is roughly 20 billion barrels, representing $2 trillion of American wealth at $100 per barrel, being handed to foreign countries. That's $2 trillion we are sending to nations that hate us and often use our money against us.

Like I said -- we can't drill our way out of this mess. And I would not want to see expanded drilling in these areas without some corresponding development of alternatives. This could buy us a little more time, as a stopgap between now and when we could become far less dependent on oil. Yeah, it takes time to ramp up, which unfortunately has been blocked by intransigence on the part of both parties.

 

[Marquette]

Look at it this way. What if it supplied 10% of our need for 27 years? Or 20% of our need for 13.5 years?

That '2.7 years' is roughly 20 billion barrels, representing $2 trillion of American wealth at $100 per barrel, being handed to foreign countries. That's $2 trillion we are sending to nations that hate us and often use our money against us.

Like I said -- we can't drill our way out of this mess. And I would not want to see expanded drilling in these areas without some corresponding development of alternatives. This could buy us a little more time, as a stopgap between now and when we could become far less dependent on oil. Yeah, it takes time to ramp up, which unfortunately has been blocked by intransigence on the part of both parties.

That's a good way to look at it. I'm not optimistic about the interested parties coming to an acceptable compromise like that, though.

edit: this has got me thinking about what impact, positive and negative, petrodollar recycling might have at this point and what a dwindling energy need would do...

Also, I think the key to your statement is that drilling domestic sources needs to be accompanied by corresponding alternatives (and conservation in general). Even with that $2 trillion number, drilling Alaska doesn't seem worth it if all it does is help us meet increasing domestic oil needs.

 

[HFWR]

I'm reasonably supportive of drilling in ANWR, and other ideas to increase domestic supply, though it seems that Bush and Co. have very few other ideas except supporting the status quo; i.e. Big Oil, Archie Bunker Midland, etc...

 

[ziggy29]

I'm reasonably supportive of drilling in ANWR, and other ideas to increase domestic supply, though it seems that Bush and Co. have very few other ideas except supporting the status quo; i.e. Big Oil, Archie Bunker Midland, etc...

I'm opposed to a lot more drilling unless it came with comprehensive strategies for the development of alternative sources AND alternative energy infrastructure. Even just 3% of $2 trillion worth of oil as an excise tax would raise $60 billion for it. Just drilling isn't going to solve anything other than a short-term blip in oil production. Something needs to be in place when that short-term blip is finished.

I really believe this nation needs alternative energy and eliminating the dependence on foreign oil as this generation's Manhattan Project or Apollo Program. I think it is that important, and I consider it to be a very real national security and sovereignty issue. This oil could not only reduce the amount of money we send to nations that hate us, it could raise money for R&D and production of an alternative energy infrastructure.

The Republicans seem to want to drill everything with no long-term cohesive energy policy. The Democrats just say NO, period, and seem to think we can wave a magic wand and suddenly be awash in alternative energy sources overnight.

No, we need more oil NOW and we need a comprehensive, focused strategy over a decade or two to sharply reduce our dependence on it. Neither side's status quo will accomplish both of those things. Let's go ahead and get a few years of increased supply...but aggressively use the extra time that buys us to develop a new energy infrastructure in the future.

 

[chinaco]

I am having problems reading the small text. Would you increase the size a little more?

 

[Midpack]

I'm opposed to a lot more drilling unless it came with comprehensive strategies for the development of alternative sources AND alternative energy infrastructure. Even just 3% of $2 trillion worth of oil as an excise tax would raise $60 billion for it. Just drilling isn't going to solve anything other than a short-term blip in oil production. Something needs to be in place when that short-term blip is finished.

I really believe this nation needs alternative energy and eliminating the dependence on foreign oil as this generation's Manhattan Project or Apollo Program. I think it is that important, and I consider it to be a very real national security and sovereignty issue. This oil could not only reduce the amount of money we send to nations that hate us, it could raise money for R&D and production of an alternative energy infrastructure.

The Republicans seem to want to drill everything with no long-term cohesive energy policy. The Democrats just say NO, period, and seem to think we can wave a magic wand and suddenly be awash in alternative energy sources overnight.

No, we need more oil NOW and we need a comprehensive, focused strategy over a decade or two to sharply reduce our dependence on it. Neither side's status quo will accomplish both of those things. Let's go ahead and get a few years of increased supply...but aggressively use the extra time that buys us to develop a new energy infrastructure in the future.

What alternative energy source do you have in mind? If you take away some of the shamefully false economies --- solar, wind, hydro, biodiesel, ethanol, etc are all more expensive - some of them by huge margins. If there was a viable alternative, I am sure some enterprising folks would be all over it. I'd invest in and use alternatives if they were even nearly breakeven, who wouldn't? I own a hybrid car, but I know the economics don't justify it, there's a limit to how far most people will go without the economics to induce them. There are several countries exploiting alternative energy sources more than the US, but is there any country doing so for any reason other than political mandates and/or substantial subsidies/offsets to encourage development?

It all sounds great until someone has to pay for it, then the populace, politicians and everyone else loses interest - not a big surprise. When alternatives become economically viable, they'll be developed - but I'd be surprised if anything significant happens until then.

I wouldn't be so quick to lay this on the politicians either. Tell me we couldn't significantly reduce our demand on an individual basis with very little effort. Drive fuel efficient cars (we walk right by them to buy SUV's), use less HVAC energy - a few degrees can help, add more insulation to yor house, carpool once in a while, drive less, buy florescent bulbs (they pay for themselves pretty quickly now) and I could go on an on...what are WE waiting for?

 

[clifp]

Thought you all might be interested (or not?) in this U.S. map of undiscovered technically recoverable oil and gas resources:

http://www.mms.gov/ooc/Assets/PowerPoint/FINAL5YearPlanTestimonyAttachments6-27-07.ppt#264,3,Slide 3

It shows graphically where a lot of the country's remaining oil and gas resources are located.

Want2retire am I reading this slide correctly?

Roughly speaking 40 billion barrels by the gulf states.
11 billion of the Pacific coast.
24 billion off Alaska.

Even at 20 million barrels a day that is 10 years worth of oil, that seems pretty significant to me.