Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Half Price Tapas with Scotland on Sunday

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Obama issues rallying cry for 'change'



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 30 August 2008
BARACK Obama put meat on the bones of his promise of "change" with a tub-thumping speech at Denver's Invesco Field football stadium on Thursday – but only the polls will show if voters believe that he can deliver.
Mr Obama's key weakness in the United States presidential election campaign has been the perception that he is all rhetoric and no substance.

So amid the fireworks, pounding music and roars of an electrified 84,000 crowd, the Democrat candidate
attacked the criticism head on: "Let me spell out exactly what change would mean if I am president." Top of his list was tax cuts for the middle-class, to be paid for by the rich, plus protectionist trade measures to stop the flow of jobs overseas.

There were traditional liberal promises of more money for education and health, plus a $150 billion (£82 billion) investment in renewable energy. And on foreign policy he repeated pledges to withdraw from Iraq and a new engagement with allies.

These promises fit into a narrative that sees America as having been driven into the ditch by eight years of failures and cronyism by the Bush administration, supported by John McCain, his Republican rival.

"For over two decades (Mr McCain has] subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy: give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else," Mr Obama said.

"What it really means is that you're on your own. Out of work? Tough luck. You're on your own. No healthcare? The market will fix it. You're on your own."

Instead, Mr Obama sought to cast himself as following the legacy of John F Kennedy, the last presidential candidate to give an election speech in a stadium, and Martin Luther King, whose "I have a dream" speech came 45 years ago to the day. "What has been lost these past eight years can't just be measured by lost wages or bigger trade deficits," Mr Obama said. "What has also been lost is our sense of common purpose."

He insisted this common purpose included not just compassion, but also Republican values of self-reliance and a level playing field: "Individual responsibility and mutual responsibility – that's the essence of America's promise," he said.

All of this was coupled with his most robust attack on his rival: "The record's clear: John McCain has voted with George Bush 90 per cent of the time," he said. "I don't know about you, but I'm not ready to take a 10 per cent chance on change."

There was a nod also to foreign policy, with a pledge to hunt down Osama Bin Laden coupled with a call to end the go-it-alone stance of the Bush administration that Mr Obama says has crippled foreign policy: "You can't truly stand up for Georgia when you've strained our oldest alliances."

But for many voters, the doubts about whether this fresh-faced senator can deliver are likely to remain. His promise to raise spending and cut taxes in a country heading into recession will have economists scratching their heads.

Anxious lest he be portrayed as a tax-and-spend liberal, Mr Obama insists that he will "pay for every dime" through ending tax breaks and wasteful spending. Not everyone will agree that the numbers add up.

Supporters in the stadium were, however, enthused: "It was the best speech I've heard him make," said Bob Levine, a party official from Missouri. This will be a big help to Mr Obama in the weeks ahead.

Election success in November will depend on his ability to convince the famously lethargic younger voters to make it to the ballot box – traditionally many don't bother.

But the true test of the speech will have to wait. Not for the rush of opinion polls this weekend, which give him a post-convention "bounce", but for the end of next week's Republican convention, when Mr McCain can expect his own surge in support.

Only when the dust settles on both conventions do the polls mean anything. Going into his convention, Mr Obama was neck and neck with Mr McCain, having been in front earlier.

Some supporters worry that Mr Obama has raised expectations to the point where, should he become president, disappointment is inevitable.

"If he makes it to the White House, he'll have an enormous mess to clean up. If it doesn't go as smoothly as we'd like to see, then critics will say 'I told you so'," said Eric Hardin, a Denver resident.





The full article contains 759 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 29 August 2008 9:28 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: US elections
 
1

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 30/08/2008 00:16:52

And "Crying" it will end up!
2

Resolutions,

30/08/2008 00:24:47
With the combination on both sides, this may prove to be more interesting than for a long while.
3

2dogs in D.C.,

30/08/2008 01:49:27
#2-Res-Your damn skippy, this IS going to be interesting. And close.
4

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 30/08/2008 01:53:31

2dogs in D.C. ~4,

If one is no longer, how will this be "close",?
5

2dogs in D.C.,

30/08/2008 02:06:21
Hi,Charles. Please, don't bury him,'cause he ain't dead yet. Although, I fear you may be on to something. There's more than enough loonies here that might just give it a try.
6

Lynne,

Palm Beach Gardens 30/08/2008 02:08:56
Take apart his speech. He still has said NOTHING. He elaborated on NOTHING.
He was over the top on almost everything.
Yet as soon as Palin was announced he was crude and rude, showing his true colors. Later in the day, he called her to congratulate her; I guess after the women in his party said he was wrong, and he has admitted that.
7

celtic4,

USA 30/08/2008 02:34:46
Obama is just words, empty words. And Palin is a good move for McCain, because he's going to win many female voters for her. Obama has never backed up anything he has claimed as "change". He's empty.
8

Let's have the truth,

Queensland 30/08/2008 02:48:45
#7 Lynne

"I guess after the women in his party said he was wrong, and he has admitted that"

An admission of being "Wrong" is one quality that has eluded the whitehouse over the last eight years. Good on him.
9

Lynne,

Palm Beach Gardens 30/08/2008 03:38:49
#9

He was still rude and crude, and now he's throwing in the scare tactic of Rowe v. Wade. It will be years before that can be overturned..if ever.
Everybody but the press sees thru him.
The BDS will be over Jan., what will you do then?
10

mike - across the pond,

lynne.... 30/08/2008 04:31:20
BO described himself VERY well

"If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from."

sorry barak.... you have no record ro run on... and what you are doing is fearmongering.....

guess maybe we should REALLY LOOK at what he says... and take his advice.... this once anyway....
11

CombatVet68,

New Babylon 30/08/2008 04:52:51
All the pretty words, all the cameo shots and empty promises, none of it changes one thing. Obama is a man with a "deceiving spirit" and he is deceiving many. The "democraps" have been serving their father Lucifer since the late 70's with their left wing liberal views and platforms. They promote moral decline within this nation. As for Obama, he is a "counterfeit" christian. All lip service.

I can't say that Bush is my "man" in the white house, but I do like McCains choice for VP! That lady has a head on her shoulders and she uses it.
12

Boy Wonder,

30/08/2008 07:06:58
I'd rather have Homer Simpson in the White House than McCain or any other Republican.

Hillary has stepped away, so it has to be Obama. Although, personally, #14 ... I prefer an American who ISN'T a Christian, since no religion is supposed to have power in your country!
13

Boy Wonder,

30/08/2008 07:07:34
*not #14 (onviously) ... #12. Finger slipped!
14

jarmon,

30/08/2008 07:14:42
A radio station sent a guy to the democratic convention posing as someone who wanted people to sign a petition. The petition was for the terrorists in gitmo to get cinemax,hbo,a jihad olympics,etc. Amazing how many people signed it without question.Hey morons,those guys in gitmo would cut off your heads in a heartbeat,no matter how liberal you are.
15

Scotindy,

Los Angeles 30/08/2008 07:41:00
Do you know that this paper MAKES ME SICK, with the lack of positive recording of the FACTS. Obama is the new boy on the block, no experience, they say. I was an elected member for my city, and guess what, I never had any experience either prior to that date!!!!!! We were never born with the qualifications, WE EAREND THEM!!!!!!!!!!NOW GROW UP. SCOTLAND is going to become INDEPENDENT AGAIN AND YOU HAD BETTER REPORT ACCORDINGLY or YOU WILL BE HISTORY!!!!!!!!
16

ghost chaser,

the other side of the pond and burning up !!! 30/08/2008 08:32:06
# 16 Scotindy, well said I truly couldn't say it any better. his speech gave me hope and and I was once again grateful for our ability to vote. I applaud you for standing up and saying what I wanted to say.
17

Lynne,

Palm Beach Gardens 30/08/2008 08:37:46
#16 Take into consideration that he has been in the Senate for almost 3 years. Two those years he has been campaigning. No one seems to be able to name anything he has done in the Senate including his VP Candidate, who by the way said the Pesidency is no place to learn on the job training.
Mrs. Palin still has more experience than Obama.
18

Active Sassenach,

Luton, England 30/08/2008 09:27:59
It was difficult to concentrate on Barack Obama's manifesto for Presidency of the USA, which campaign nomination he has now accepted on behalf of the Democrats. The film kept cutting to Michelle Obama, who is clearly living vicariously through her husband's current acclaim. Her ruthless and continued use of the Obama Children in her husband's campaign shames her husband as much as it shames her. Remember that Obama did promise to stop doing this.

In essence, Michelle Obama is a racist, with few skills, who has unrealistic aspirations for the role of First Lady of the USA. She has mistaken the job for Commander in Chief, which she will not be.

As a resident of the informal 51st State of the US Union, I am sycophantically digging out Sousa's Semper Fidelis ready for the eventual American President's triumphal conquering march through our streets with his Marines in the hope that I don't get deported to the camps.
19

It's life but not as we know it,

The Oort Clouds 30/08/2008 10:04:19
I could never vote for a glitzy chancer like Obama who offers nothing but a vacuous mantra "yes we can".

It's a good solid man of action we need - McCain.
20

blackley,

Edinburgh 30/08/2008 10:12:18
Just get out of Iraq and the Middle east and start being nice to other nations for a change please America!
21

Lanna,

30/08/2008 10:17:33
#15
here's a petition for you, sent round at some environmentalist's rally. Sort of backs up what you said. It goes to show that some people will sign anything.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw
22

Itchy,

30/08/2008 10:28:15
"Obama issues rallying cry for 'change'"

Name the last presidential candidate who said 'Vote for me! It won't make a blind bit of difference!' Not even George W Bush did that.

"There were traditional liberal promises of more money for education and health, plus a $150 billion (£82 billion) investment in renewable energy."

Investment? This is an assault on the English language. How exactly do governments invest? With cash from the investment fairy?
23

Itchy,

30/08/2008 10:32:13
""For over two decades (Mr McCain has] subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy: give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else," Mr Obama said.

"What it really means is that you're on your own. Out of work? Tough luck. You're on your own. No healthcare? The market will fix it. You're on your own.""

I'm not aware of John McCain being a keen free marketeer but never mind. Tax cuts do not give money to anyone. They mean that you can keep your own money. The rest of the quote is just a restatement of the fallacy that a free lunch is possible.
24

Active Sassenach,

Luton, England 30/08/2008 10:55:03
DNC 2008, Breaking News, Madeleine Albright says:

"Senator Obama speaks to our hopes, to our belief in ourselves, to the future and to the better angels of our nature.

"With his superb choice for vice president, Senator Joe Biden, he will keep our country secure while returning it to its rightful place as the world's most respected champion of law, prosperity and peace."

Champion of LAW. Is that International Law? Obama ought to know. He studied law. Was he President of the Harvard Law Review in 1990? So what do we want? Guantanamo shut. When do we want it? NOW! NOW! NOW!

What do we want? Jurisdiction over the USA for War Crimes at the Hague. When do we want it? NOW! NOW! NOW!

Can I hold you to your word on that? Which word is that? That America is not guilty on all charges. We shall see Mr Bush. It depends on whether Ms Albright, Joe Biden and Barack Obama understand the phrase "respected champion of law".

25

Media 1,

cape town 30/08/2008 12:26:15
The Americans either vote for Obama the man of integrity and peace who wants to help his fellow man. Or they go for the war mongering evil of bomb bomb McCain.
I know who I support, cmon Obama!
26

Media 1,

cape town 30/08/2008 12:45:19
Speaking of crimes against humanity and being put on trial for them. Bush and his cronies should be prosecuted!
Bush is evil to the core and his father is the core of evil. The neo cons are savage bullies who will stop at nothing in the name of power. They appear to hate the American people, why else would they treat them with such disdain and lie to them so profusely?

Remember Osama? Remember Bush standing on the 9/11 rubble with his bull horn singing "HUGH ES A" "HUGH ES A" USA indeed! He told the world and the people of America that they were going to get the people who did it. He lied and knew he was lying when he said it! Osama knows things about 9/11 and Bush that would SHOCK the world, but as long as he gets what he wants, nothing gets said! Both sides keep their distance!

So do we really want another murderous Bush type hooligan in the white house? I THINK NOT
27

Lynne,

Palm Beach Gardens 30/08/2008 13:57:02
The man of the people wore a $1500 tailor made suit on the stage in front of 75,000 people, and then fooled them into thinking he is only going to tax the rich.
Someone listen to Steve Forbes please, I think he knows more about economics then Obama.
This is too sad to be funny.

28

Sandi,

San Diego 30/08/2008 17:44:30
OMG, Barack Obama wouldn't know integrity if it got up and slapped him in the face. He's a corrupt, Chicago pol. Period.
29

cambeuluk,

Cheshire 30/08/2008 18:16:49
Belief in the simple equation of "female appointed = female votes" underestimates women's intelligence. Many will not vote simply on the basis of gender. Some may act on the following information:

"Sarah Palin, whose husband works for BP (formerly British Petroleum), has repeatedly put special interests first when it comes to the environment. In her scant two years as governor, she has lobbied aggressively to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, pushed for more drilling off of Alaska’s coasts, and put special interests above science. Ms. Palin has made it clear through her actions that she is unwilling to do even as much as the Bush administration to address the impacts of global warming. Her most recent effort has been to sue the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to remove the polar bear from the endangered species list, putting Big Oil before sound science".

Rodger Schlickeisen, President of Defenders of Wildlife Action.
30

cambeuluk,

Cheshire 30/08/2008 18:18:18
Belief in the simple equation of "female appointed = female votes" underestimates women's intelligence. Many will not vote simply on the basis of gender. Some may act on the following information:

"Sarah Palin, whose husband works for BP (formerly British Petroleum), has repeatedly put special interests first when it comes to the environment. In her scant two years as governor, she has lobbied aggressively to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, pushed for more drilling off of Alaska’s coasts, and put special interests above science. Ms. Palin has made it clear through her actions that she is unwilling to do even as much as the Bush administration to address the impacts of global warming. Her most recent effort has been to sue the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to remove the polar bear from the endangered species list, putting Big Oil before sound science".

Rodger Schlickeisen, President of Defenders of Wildlife Action.
31

Quiet John,

Tinley Park 30/08/2008 18:29:34
The Democratic Convention has made McCain the President.

People understand we can show weakness with the Russians resurging, and the Terrorists still active.

All this European whining about GW Bush and international law sounds like when they whined about Regan and the Pershing missles. They were behind in their thinking then, and they are behind now.

Let us get on with it before this new Cold War gets ugly.

32

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 30/08/2008 19:01:58
Media 1 in 27:

I don't disagree with anything you said in 27. I agree that Bush is evil and his father as well. But here's my feedback.

Before we had the war-monger Bush in office we had the war-monger Clinton. Clinton attacked 5 countries with absolutely no justification or provocation. Those were Somalia, Sudan, Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan. I am familiar in detail with all 5 of those if anyone doubts, I can explain.

Obama supports War on Terror. Here is link.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9995

I'm only giving you this feedback so that you can understand the difficulty of the American situation. You think voting for Barack is a solution. We all hope so.

John Kennedy was relatively pro-war or what they called hawkish in those days when he was elected. He supported US foreign policy by default. But as president he changed. He realized that evil people were in charge. He fired Dulles, a key person. Shortly before his death he was making decisions to withdraw from Vietnam. He said he would 'smash the CIA' in a speech. He said there was an evil clique in charge that he opposed. He said they used secret societies. We're hoping that Obama will end up like Kennedy. But that is a slim hope.
33

mike - across the pond,

wally..... 30/08/2008 19:35:48
define evil....

if your definition is based purely on your perspective then EVERYONE IS EVIL... even you...

I'm no WJC defender... but on your allegations about Somalia, Sudan, Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan.... hmmmm ALL of those with the possible exception of Serbia... were LIMP WRISTED BS actions... had he gone in with a FIST instead of a slap.... (not to mention taken binladen when offered)... the world is an entirely different place today....

BO only supports "the war on terror" as political lipservice... nothing more... READ his rhetoric...

BO's "energy" policies are in lockstep with NANCY PELOSI... the ONLY movement you will see towards energy independence will be over the next 2 months as the election approaches for POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY... for fear of the repercussions at the ballot box....
34

mike - across the pond,

cambeuluk 30/08/2008 19:55:47
laughable... and pathetic....

our cars dont run on rhetoric....

so... what IS BO'splan?

ever listen to T.Boone Pickens?

hes not affiliated with ANYONE...

hes not some breathless leftwing eco-nazi...

hes 100% behind renewable energy resources...

and hes 100% behind punching holes everywhere... get the oil out of the ground... read carefully, this oil will ONLY get us across the bridge to energy independence...
35

Wally,

By THe Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 30/08/2008 20:54:44
Mike in 34:

When you tell me ‘define evil’, and I respond then the conversation digresses. We should collectively be able to agree on a broad way that evil is evil. We as a society are deteriorating when we can’t. People steeped in the 2-party rivalry tend to define the other party as evil and forget that evil is evil. I used that term ‘evil’ in 33 just before I said JFK fired Dulles. Dulles worked as a corporate lawyer for a big bank in London during the first half of WW2. The UK government shut the bank down as a bank that served the NAZIs. Can we agree that Dulles was participating in evil at that time? Then he came back to America (he was American) and was brought into the administration of Franklin Roosevelt. Then he was the first director of the CIA (1948). He remained at high levels of US government until Kennedy fired him in 1963, I think he was Secretary of State at that time.

Somalia – under Bill Clinton the US Army attacked a peaceful meeting of national leaders from all factions in downtown Mogadishu. The attack started from the air with Apache helicopters spraying the place with steel. Eighty people died. Some were national leaders. We were not at war with them. The US Army wanted to arrest 1 man. They thought that if they sprayed the crowded meeting with steel from the air they’d create a lot of confusion and then be able to land troops quickly and apprehend the 1 man they wanted. They failed to find that 1 man at the meeting when they did land and charge in. That is exactly the same tactic used by the US government on Feb. 28, 1993 against civilians in Waco, TX. At Waco 4 people were killed by gunfire from the helicopter. But it was an attempt to create confusion to facilitate a dynamic entry so that 1 man could be arrested on weapons charges. One of the 4 dead was a British teenager. This incident under Bill Clinton started the fighting against the US by the Somalis. Mike, if we can’t agree that this is evil?????? … I
36

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylo (USA) 30/08/2008 20:56:08
I can hear the apologists say that Bush put the troops in Somalia in late 1992. That’s true. This incident occurred under Clinton summer of 93. Clinton did not fire any generals over it. The mass media in America failed to communicate to the Americans what happened. Why was it not a huge scandal? Why did heads not roll? John Kennedy would’ve fired people.

Sudan – under Bill Clinton the US said that there was a factory in Sudan that was producing biological or chemical WMD. The US bombed it in the middle of the night. One or two people were killed. Later in a French court the US ‘evidence’ that this aspirin factory was really a weapons producer was examined. There was no evidence. The owner of the factory won a settlement from the US. Some will excuse and say that only 1 person was killed. Why was it done?

Serbia – under Bill Clinton the US attacked Serbia from the air, bombarded them for 78 days, killed 2,500 people, destroyed infrastructure and factories. Their river was polluted as a result. They lost a 500 year old bridge. Clinton said the Serbians were committing genocide. But a US intelligence officer testified that in Kosovo there were 2,000 people murdered per year in ethnic killings, that 1,200 were Albanians and 800 were Serbians. It is unknown who was doing these murders. This is in a population of 2,000,000. The 2,500 the US killed in Serbia did not commit these murders because they were not in Kosovo, they were in the rest of Serbia. After Serbia agreed to give up Kosovo the ethnic murders continued, but this time overwhelmingly the victims were almost all non-Albanians. The rate of killing slowly declined, but for several years they still had 1,500 or so killings each year. Finally the non-Albanians generally left Kosovo to save their lives. This was made necessary by the fact that the Serb military would no longer protect them as the US forced them not to. If you can’t see that its wrong to bomb a nation like this, then
37

adsullata,

pdx 30/08/2008 20:56:51
It really amazes me how people react to both Obama and McCain.

The thing people seem to forget is both of them can talk all they want until the cows come home. NONE of their “promised” policies can be enacted on his say alone.

Neither can say raise taxes without a vote. Neither can say abolish abortion without going to the Supreme Court. They BOTH are making empty promises.

I am looking to the possibilities.

Can McCain survive 4 years as president with his health issues? Do I want Palin, whom has views aligned with Pat Roberts, to be president if McCain dies in office.

Can Obama really bring both parties to the table? Will someone assassinate him before his 4 years are up and if someone does do I want Biden as president?

Out of all of them I think Biden really knows foreign relations. He has dealt with the world leaders. I think Obama made a good choice selecting someone who has strength in an area he does not. That tells me he is thoughtful and may surround himself with others of strength and not so much personal purpose. It shows me he is willing to say, without saying it, that this is an area I am not strong in and I am not willing to compromise America with my pride.

McCain’s choice to me is only to get the woman vote. He has only met her once and that was 1 or 2 days prior to the announcement. Prior to that he had only talked to her, what, twice?! Palin has no experience on the national level and I really feel that McCain chose her because she would be easy to stuff in a closet when this was all done. Right now I can see nothing that Mrs. Palin can offer to McCain or the VP position other than the evangelical vote and what good does that do our country in the long run. Look how much they have done for our country having unlimited access to the white house the past 8 years.

My big problem with McCain and Palin is that they carry the “Mother knows best” attitude. Now my mother does know best and she is a republi
38

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 30/08/2008 20:57:40
If you can’t see that its wrong to bomb a nation like this, then I think you’ve got problems.

Iraq – under Bill Clinton the US bombed Iraq though there was no provocation whatsoever to justify it. I remember Clinton on tv threatening in a very angry tone what seemed like all-out war to obliterate them. I couldn’t understand why. We’ve never received a good explanation as to why Clinton did this. From news reports I think that it is because they made a technical violation of the treaty that we forced them to sign. Whatever the violation was, it was of no consequence.

Afghanistan – under Bill Clinton the US bombed some buildings in Afghanistan that the US said were terrorist. But the US announced this attack before it occurred and people have remarked that if Osama Bin Laden was present, then he left prior to the attack because of the announcement. Some people were left in the buildings even though it was announced that this group would be bombed. Whoever these people were, they did not attack the US. We had no business attacking them.

Mike’s criticism of Clinton is that he was too soft in these attacks. While Obama accuses McCain of not being willing to fight the ‘war on terror’ effectively as presumably Obama will do. Obama says send troops into Pakistan and criticizes McCain for not being willing. McCain says ‘bomb bomb bomb Iran’. Obama says he supports efforts against Iran. Nobody even mentions Somalia. The US paid Ethiopia to overthrow Somalia’s government, the war still rages. Nobody mentions Haiti. US troops forced the elected leader of Haiti to leave at threat of death.

The Republicans are convinced that all evil comes from the Democrats. The Democrats are convinced that all evil comes from the Republicans. Both of them walk down the same path and argue over the details. Can someone say Hegelian Dialect?
39

Wally,

By THe Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 30/08/2008 20:59:37
Mike, let’s talk about energy policies. Why doesn’t the US have more significant numbers of nuclear power plants. We only get about 30% of our electricity from nuclear sources. France, UK, Japan, Germany, China, S. Korea all get something like 85-90% or more from nuclear. Why do they use it? Because when you build a nuclear power plant properly it is the least expensive source (other than hydro or dams) and it has no pollution if operated properly. Why did the US impose regulations to cause nuclear power plant construction costs to spiral upwards far far far higher than is reasonable? Bechtel held a press conference back in 1980/81 and said that to build a nuclear power plant in the US compared to the identical plant in France cost 3 times as much in the US. The French are so much more effective than us? No, our government sabotaged that business. This was done by both republicans & democrats. It happened almost 30 years ago. Nobody has bothered to do anything about it. We import some oil simply to produce electricity. It is expensive and it causes air pollution and people die (thousands) every year from it.

Both parties have allowed the oil companies to get a stranglehold over the supply. There’s been too much concentration of ownership. Most oil especially from the big Arabic oil providers costs under $20/barrel to produce. Some like the Canadian oil costs $35/barrel to produce. A very small portion of the oil produced costs up to $65/barrel to produce. Why why why is it selling at $120-140/barrel????? Both parties have allowed this criminal concentration of power in that industry where there simply is no real competition, no market functioning at all. Mike, there is a large amount of evidence that the oil companies are purposely keeping production down. It does no good to legalize the drilling in this place or that if the oil companies refuse to do it.

Why did our leaders allow the huge concentration of ownership that has occurred in
40

adsullata,

pdx 30/08/2008 21:08:42
(silly computers!!)

Now my mother does know best and she is a republican, however, she and I do not always agree and even though her beliefs differ from mine she does not try to legislate my morals or my personal choices. The republicans seem to think that we Americans NEED them to lord over us and regulate us as anyone outside the “establishment” has no ability what so ever to think on a personal level. And of course THEIR morals are beyond reproach.

My problem with Obama is the same as everyone’s, can I trust that beyond his lack of experience he will have the fortitude and humbleness needed to surround himself with top advisers and really listen to them? Not bow down to the cronyism that haunts us now and fill his cabinet with favors?

Did McCain choose Palin because he feels he really doesn’t need anyone else? Can Obama hold on to his concern for the country and not fall into the Washington trap?
I wish I knew, I really do.
41

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 30/08/2008 21:11:28
Why did our leaders allow the huge concentration of ownership that has occurred in the last 35 years? We have laws (anti-trust) to prevent it, they were not enforced by either party in power. Why don’t we enforce them now? We did it in the 1930’s. Why not today?

So, you go cheer for you Republicans Mike and we’ll just be happy that our country is headed for a cliff.

People might ask, 'why don't the Americans go for someone other than the Republicans & Democrats' if both are no good. They've been fed sophistocated propaganda to blind them for one. The clique that rules is very powerful, powerful enough to control 'players' on all sides, powerful enough to control the media and the universities and the schools for children. and many big businesses as well.

Pride has a big part to do with it. The '2-party' system is a traditional American thing. The Americans are stupid enough to think that the mass media owned by only 6 corporations (including the newspapers even in many small towns) is somehow an 'american' institution as well. And with pride they embrace these things as they think it is American. I counsel my fellow Americans 'pride goeth before the fall and a haughty spirit before destruction' in Proverbs.

A presidential candidate who wanted to bring all the troops home from all 70 countries they're in was Ron Paul. After campaigning for 6 months and after 7-8 debates broadcast on tv by last December one opinion poll showed Paul at 15% of republican voters and McCain at 17%. At that time the mass media got serious about 'educating' the public about the candidates. and Paul was presented as a candidate that could not win. He was marginalized and presented in an unfavorable light. He wasn't allowed to speak freely in the public eye. The journalists in debates after December were hostile and insulting to him during the debates. And then McCain won.

What American demonstrates for the whole world to see is that people are flawed.
42

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 30/08/2008 21:14:25
What American demonstrates for the whole world to see is that people are flawed. People cannot rule themselves. Evil people will dominate if the people try to rule themselves. The people must put god first and then things will fall into place properly. The Americans did not do that. The greatest of the nations is being used to show you some important principals. You should take heed. The time will come when you will have to make choices. Be prepared. Don't blame the Americans. Consider that evil has invaded the country in an overwhelming manner. Our people are unprepared. Do not be deceived. The same is coming your way.

43

whitegold,

Shire 30/08/2008 21:55:42
Wally - interesting comment about Ron Paul.

Looking in at the American scene with no axe to grind or particular biases IMO the real candidate of change was Ron Paul. Obama's mantra of change is simply political posturing with no reality, and McCain has failed to recognise where the US has got it wrong.

Ron Paul represented real radical change and recognised the real problem with America - an economy based on devaluation.

The Iraq war has caused severe financial damage to both the US and the UK which will take many years to sort out. Labour has wasted billions here (gold reserves fiasco), billions there (failed education initiatives and wastefulness in the NHS), and billions over there (Iraq war). As a result, despite years of boom, we have zilch laid aside and will be hit very hard for many years to come. I only hope unemployment doesn't start exploding - which is a real possibility given how much has been wasted (thanks Labour).
44

Wally,

By THe Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 30/08/2008 22:20:40
Mike, your hero T. Boone Pickens takes lots of subsidies from the government. Why does a great capitalist like him take subsidies? Why does our government give them? Here’s an article for Mike on T. Boone Pickens.

http://www.dcexaminer.com/opinion/columns/TimothyCarney/T_Boone_Pickens_wants_your_water.html

here’s an article about Joe Biden in bed with a big oil company.

http://www.dcexaminer.com/opinion/columns/TimothyCarney/Joe_Bidens_Big_Oil_connections_to_Burma.html

There’s a mercantile clique of big corporations, big banks and their owners that are basically dominating not just the United States, but the governments of many nations around the world in order to corner the market on all natural resources that we need including water and food, then they’re driving these prices up through manipulation and just reaping in the profits even while they receive subsidies, no-bid contracts and tax-breaks to do it. Both the political parties in the US supports this clique.

Look at the ethanol subsidies of the US & the EU. A World Bank economist said that 75% of the run-up in basic food prices since 2001 are due to the ethanol subsidies of the US & EU. That means a policy is selected by these ‘civilized’ countries that will cause millions of people to starve to death. The Haitians eat dirt cookies because of these subsidies. They not only subsidize the ethanol production, but they require the gas (petrol) station owners to use gas that is 10% ethanol, soon it will be 20%. Government interference in the marketplace, yet they say it will save us. Why do they need subsidies if it is so good? For most of the grain that goes through this process in the US costs more oil in terms of calories to both produce the grain and turn it into ethanol than the ethanol provides oil-substitution in terms of calories. The whole process wastes energy. It obviously wastes food. It drives up the prices of both. That spells profits profits profits, all made possible
45

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 30/08/2008 22:22:36
That spells profits profits profits, all made possible by subsidies, taxes, government debt. Government debt means profits for the Federal Reserve. Taxes mean the people are burdened and put into debt. That means profits for the federal reserve.

Many Americans realize the ethanol subsidies are bad because it harms poor people around the world, even in rural areas where farmers live, the people understand this. But it doesn’t matter. The politicians of both parties compete to put money into the pockets of private interests. And the people are too blind and stupid to even care, because they must vote either democrat or republican to defeat the other party. Do you think that Dr. No (Ron Paul) would approve a budget with ethanol subsidies in it? Oh, I forgot, he’s not a real candidate. We have to be realistic and reasonable and choose a major candidate that the tv shows us.
46

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 30/08/2008 22:48:52
Whitegold in 44:

you said the US economy is based on devaluation. The big key to understanding the US economy is related to that. The big key is the Federal Reserve. It is the private bank hired by the US government to produce US dollars and manage the money supply. It is a private bank that operates strictly for profit.

When the American revolution occurred (which Americans love to boast of) one of the key issues was money creation. In 1763 the King of England took back money-creation authorities from the various colonies. Prior to that the colonies had become very prosperous by creating their own dollars and thus realizing the profits from that process. They would create money from thin air (each 13 of them) and then lend the money out to locals for the purposes of building businesses, farms or houses. Then the money would be paid back to the colony by the private entities over time as in a loan, but usually interest would not be charged. Even without interest, this created a huge cash flow for the colony's government. This process created great prosperity in the colonies. This is why some English soldiers hated the Americans in the 1770's when they saw how prosperous they were. This is why the Americans were able to win the war.

http://www.freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=58055

After the king took this power back in 1763 Benjamin Fanklin said that this was the reason to rebel. American school children are fed propaganda that the extremely small taxes of the king were the reason for the rebellion. Ben Franklin said it was the money-creation authority.

So, the ability to create money as a sovereign government was a key reason for the revolution. But in 1913 advocates of the New World Order took this money creation authority from the US government. A small minority of congressmen & senators were present to vote ‘yes’ to give this authority to the Federal Reserve which was at that time a newly created private company. Pre
47

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 30/08/2008 22:50:35
So, the ability to create money as a sovereign government was a key reason for the revolution. But in 1913 advocates of the New World Order took this money creation authority from the US government. A small minority of congressmen & senators were present to vote ‘yes’ to give this authority to the Federal Reserve which was at that time a newly created private company. President Wilson who signed the law later said that he had committed treason when he did that. As a result of that law all new US dollars are created by the Federal Reserve bank and the 12 ‘member banks’ affiliated with the FR. The money is created by the act of lending. Allof the money lent out by the FR and a portion of the money lent by the member banks does not exist until it is lent. Then it is paid back principal & interest. Thus, huge massive profits are realized by this bank and its 12 member banks.

They have every incentive to inflate the money supply and they do. Today the supply of US dollars is thought to be increasing by 25% of US gdp. That would cause price inflation naturally and thus the devaluation of the dollar that you speak of. Except for one thing. The government engages in many schemes to artificially prop up the value of the dollar. And so they increase the supply of dollars for profit and devaluation of the dollar occurs as a side-effect.

The Americans won their revolution in 1781. They gave it back in 1913. and their history books as well as their economics professors keep it a secret from them. And they are happy about this. The Federal Reserve is believed to be owned by about 100 individuals, about half of them American, of the rest many are English, some are Italian, French or German. The amount of profits sent from the Federal Reserve just to the FR owners in England alone each year exceeds as a percentage of our gdp all the taxes that the King of England ever took. The king only took 1%. The Federal Reserve takes 8-10% of our entire economy ever
48

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 30/08/2008 22:51:46
The Federal Reserve takes 8-10% of our entire economy every year.

Ron Paul was the only candidate who said he wanted to delete the Federal Reserve. John Kennedy was creating money in 1963 without the Federal Reserve, he created about $5 billion by simply printing $5 bills and having them deposited at a bank account and then paid government’s bills from it. He circumvented the federal reserve and facilitated tax cuts by this method.

49

mike - across the pond,

wally nuclear energy 31/08/2008 05:18:36
you want to know why nuclear energy is not considered a VIABLE solution within the USofA?

easy... the breathless DUMBA$$ liberal democrats endless protests in the late 70's... I SAW IT... I witnessed cases of the utter dis-ingenuousness of these vermin.... it is the single most prominent issue that made ME evaluate why I was a liberal... I came to the conclusion that ignorant shortsighted BS is their "guiding light"... the gutlessness of the DNC and their continued inability to kick their idiot fringe to the curb just solidifies my utter revulsion of their mantra...

while there are MANY issues that I dont agree with in GOP land, but terminal shortsighted stupidity is what makes me not able to join forces with the DNC swill drinkers.
50

Destroy the Planet,

31/08/2008 08:46:39
Hope ! Change ! Hope !, i think his battery or his string puller needs changed
51

Harry "Dingy" Reid,

Las Vegas 31/08/2008 16:44:35
Wally,

I saw this link on another thread about Ron Paul being a racist! Since you beleive all links this must be true.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca
52

mike - across the pond,

wally..... on Tboone pickens and heroes....... 31/08/2008 22:39:30
my mother, father and grandparents are my heroes... and no, they were not perfect... the most memorable event of my youth happened in the summer of 73... watergate hearings were televised on ALL networks, over that summer my grandmother had stated several times that she thought nixon was a crook and that she didnt like him... the day Nixon resigned, I "celebrated"... I noticed she was crying, I asked why... she sat me down and explained to me that on that day the presidency of the united states had become something less, and that this event was NOT anything for ANYONE to celebrate. the continuing discussions of that day were my first steps on the path of critical thinking.... the ghoulish celebrations of the left was the FIRST time I began really looking at what kinds of people and ideologies populated the left... within 6 years the transformation was complete... I have been a conservative from 1979 on...

Tboone pickens is NOT my hero... as a matter of fact I railed at his initial Pickensplan ideas because they were goals without a path... IMHO, he was missing the bridge to get to the hallowed land of energy independence.... he has since ammended his plan to include the path... that being "PUNCH HOLES"....

BTW, I rail at everyone... my heroes included... lol I guess I'm just a generally disagreeable guy.... lol

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.