What is Howard Dean afraid of?
- Thread starter vraiblonde
- Start date
How naive can a person be? The terrorists received flight training in the USA under whose watch? They entered the USA under the passport express program with Saudi Arabia under whose watch? Who was given intelligence data on the where abouts of Osama bin Laden well before the attacks and did nothing? Who established Yemen as a refueling port for our Navy and then did nothing to protect them while they were in that port?
Someone was too busy worrying about their legacy and not the American people and their safety, any guess on who that was? The corruption on the economic side came about because no one was paying attention to what they were doing. Who was in charge when it all started (not when it peaked and something was finally done about it)?
The tax breaks did not worsen our deficit. After the tax plan went into affect we had some major expenditures in an effort to regain the security of our Nation and to recoup the damage caused by nearly a decade of foolish narcissism. The dotcom's were failing by the dozens and revenue dropped drastically resulting in it's immediate growth. People were fat, dumb, happy, and thought they were safe. 9/11 woke many of us up, but alas many it seems still have their heads buried somewhere and I don't think it's in the sand.
And that's your right, Dams4ming.
For example?
Under whose watch?
If you mean to say that Bush and the other Republicans brought us out of what could have been a bad recession, I agree with you.
"I disagree V-rail. I think if Bill Clinton had stayed in office, 9-11 would have been prevented."
Based on what? The stellar job of preventing a few dozen other terrorist attacks that occurred in the 90's? The terrorists who struck on 9-11, a mere eight months after Bush took office, had been in THIS country for *many* years, and Clinton didn't stop them. I just don't follow the logic. A train wreck that took eight years to happen, and he would have *stopped* it?
"Bush gave alot of people high ranking jobs that they had no experience in"
Funny, up until now the biggest complaint was that he re-hired all of his dad's associates, who had plenty of experience. Place that in stark contrast to the MESS the Clinton White House had for its first few months, because the staff was completely inexperienced.
" - only as a result of helping him fund his campaign"
Ever hear of FOB (Friends of Bill)?
"Enron and other corporate corruption, market manipulation, etc... had a detrimental impact on the stock market."
Inconsequential. It's amazing. I read somewhere that the biggest problem liberals have is they have no concept of economics. We have an economy measured in tens of trillions. Enron's effect is miniscule, and the scandals there were largely internal. They're insignificant.
"As for the new economic growth we have had in the past few months, I think Bush and the other Republicans are the ones that put us in that hole."
Wrong. The economy began to tank about halfway into 2000, well before Bush took office and WAY before anything he did could have had any effect on it. Recessions are part of the business cycle - they ALWAYS happen. And Enron, Arthur Andersen? Getting away with that under *Clinton's* administration. They got CAUGHT under Bush. You know this, but it bears repeating.
" I think a 4 year old could have created a solution to improve the debt that was caused"
Then there goes your "too inexperienced" argument mentioned previously, huh?
" - the tax breaks only worsenend our deficit and not many people hired people as a result of their breaks. "
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to learn that you can't RAISE taxes during a recession to make up the shortfall. One guy actually TRIED that. Herbert Hoover. Ring any bells? Bad idea to raise taxes during a recession.
"There are other dictators in other countries"
You know, I *hate* this argument. It says, what you did isn't any good because of all the other things you DIDN'T do. You know, a fireman saves a child from a burning building, and the bystanders who did nothing tell him about all the burning buildings he DIDN'T rescue people from. So the hell what? We saved Iraq from one of this century's most brutal dictators. Doing NOTHING is how Hitler rose to power.
" but we are not getting involved over there and completely taking over their country -- why? because they are not oil producing countries. It was a War for Oil."
And that is *bad* because? Fidel would also love to blow the hell out of the US. But he can't. Cuba isn't sitting on a big pile of oil. So he has no ability whatsoever of building big weapons. He's no threat to anyone. When Saddam invaded Kuwait, he placed his troops along the Saudi border (who has NO military to speak of) as a prelude to invasion, and he had fought Iran for ten years. He was a threat to the world, *because* of the oil.
Tell you what, though. If you can think of a way you yourself use NO oil whatsoever, I'll think it over. But it's massively hypocritical to consume more oil than most people on this planet, and complain that we intervened because our national interests - oil - were placed in jeopardy.
By the way - during WW2, the SAME kind of complaint was made - that the purpose of the war was to make money for the automobile industry. They said it was a war for General Motors. Just to let you know there's always someone out there who'll try to frame it in those terms, however stupid it really is to claim.
Has it occurred to you that if the US really was this big bad monster - who could stop us from simply TAKING the oil? No other nation that has held the military power the US has, has ever even paused to THINK it might be wrong to just take it. And we CAN, but we don't. It's their oil.
Based on what? The stellar job of preventing a few dozen other terrorist attacks that occurred in the 90's? The terrorists who struck on 9-11, a mere eight months after Bush took office, had been in THIS country for *many* years, and Clinton didn't stop them. I just don't follow the logic. A train wreck that took eight years to happen, and he would have *stopped* it?
"Bush gave alot of people high ranking jobs that they had no experience in"
Funny, up until now the biggest complaint was that he re-hired all of his dad's associates, who had plenty of experience. Place that in stark contrast to the MESS the Clinton White House had for its first few months, because the staff was completely inexperienced.
" - only as a result of helping him fund his campaign"
Ever hear of FOB (Friends of Bill)?
"Enron and other corporate corruption, market manipulation, etc... had a detrimental impact on the stock market."
Inconsequential. It's amazing. I read somewhere that the biggest problem liberals have is they have no concept of economics. We have an economy measured in tens of trillions. Enron's effect is miniscule, and the scandals there were largely internal. They're insignificant.
"As for the new economic growth we have had in the past few months, I think Bush and the other Republicans are the ones that put us in that hole."
Wrong. The economy began to tank about halfway into 2000, well before Bush took office and WAY before anything he did could have had any effect on it. Recessions are part of the business cycle - they ALWAYS happen. And Enron, Arthur Andersen? Getting away with that under *Clinton's* administration. They got CAUGHT under Bush. You know this, but it bears repeating.
" I think a 4 year old could have created a solution to improve the debt that was caused"
Then there goes your "too inexperienced" argument mentioned previously, huh?
" - the tax breaks only worsenend our deficit and not many people hired people as a result of their breaks. "
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to learn that you can't RAISE taxes during a recession to make up the shortfall. One guy actually TRIED that. Herbert Hoover. Ring any bells? Bad idea to raise taxes during a recession.
"There are other dictators in other countries"
You know, I *hate* this argument. It says, what you did isn't any good because of all the other things you DIDN'T do. You know, a fireman saves a child from a burning building, and the bystanders who did nothing tell him about all the burning buildings he DIDN'T rescue people from. So the hell what? We saved Iraq from one of this century's most brutal dictators. Doing NOTHING is how Hitler rose to power.
" but we are not getting involved over there and completely taking over their country -- why? because they are not oil producing countries. It was a War for Oil."
And that is *bad* because? Fidel would also love to blow the hell out of the US. But he can't. Cuba isn't sitting on a big pile of oil. So he has no ability whatsoever of building big weapons. He's no threat to anyone. When Saddam invaded Kuwait, he placed his troops along the Saudi border (who has NO military to speak of) as a prelude to invasion, and he had fought Iran for ten years. He was a threat to the world, *because* of the oil.
Tell you what, though. If you can think of a way you yourself use NO oil whatsoever, I'll think it over. But it's massively hypocritical to consume more oil than most people on this planet, and complain that we intervened because our national interests - oil - were placed in jeopardy.
By the way - during WW2, the SAME kind of complaint was made - that the purpose of the war was to make money for the automobile industry. They said it was a war for General Motors. Just to let you know there's always someone out there who'll try to frame it in those terms, however stupid it really is to claim.
Has it occurred to you that if the US really was this big bad monster - who could stop us from simply TAKING the oil? No other nation that has held the military power the US has, has ever even paused to THINK it might be wrong to just take it. And we CAN, but we don't. It's their oil.
D
dems4me
Guest
your quite amusing samspade -- friends of Bill stand for members in AA.
If you don't bone up on your politics and current events, I'm not going to post with you anymore.
FOB (or Friends of Bill) is a common term for all the Clinton cronies that helped him politically or financially.
D
dems4me
Guest
There are plenty of places to get the oil here in the united states that have stopped producing -- why? because its cheaper to get it over seas as with alot of other imports.
Because liberal environmentalists protest like crazy when it's even suggested that we drill in the US. Ever heard of ANWAR?
(I thought it was Al-Anon, which isn't the same thing).
It also stands for "Fresh Off the Boat" - for immigrants.
I'm referring to the mass of Bill Clinton cronies, who were called FOB's back in the early Clinton years. His early years consisted of tons of people who wangled their way into the White House because they helped him out during his campaign.
So you're saying we should expend a fortune squeezing out the last few drops out of our own land, rather than buy it cheaply abroad? I take it you never shop for bargains, yourself. This is the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard for not purchasing foreign oil ---
And as someone else has pointed out, there's ANWR. There's plenty of data to suggest that the environmental impact would be marginal, and none to suggest it would even be detrimental. The native Inuit of that area *want* it. Why aren't we doing it?
D
dems4me
Guest
Yes there is the ANWR -- but that would be destroying wildlife, animals,etc... there are other places here in the United States. We are not on our last leg in terms of producing oil, its just inflated that way to make the energy and oil industries more justified to reap higher oil costs. I suppose you really thought the California Energy Crisis was really a crisis and we didn't have enough electricity to supply California. Get real, its all politics, and rich politics and politicians are glued to the energy industry. It is one of the most lucrative industries.
Ken, you may want to study energy law instead of labor law, its boring at first, but there will always be a job, recession or no recession, people need oil and electricity always. Thats my area (no I'm not an attorney) but that's what my attorneys practice, oil, global projects (oil/LNG projects) and envionrmental law. It's not soo bad and not too stressful either.
Ken, you may want to study energy law instead of labor law, its boring at first, but there will always be a job, recession or no recession, people need oil and electricity always. Thats my area (no I'm not an attorney) but that's what my attorneys practice, oil, global projects (oil/LNG projects) and envionrmental law. It's not soo bad and not too stressful either.
What, like labor disputes will ever go away? Besides I'm not much for those that have problems with the oil glut types anyway. I think it would bore me to tears.Originally posted by dems4me
Yes there is the ANWR -- but that would be destroying wildlife, animals,etc... there are other places here in the United States. We are not on our last leg in terms of producing oil, its just inflated that way to make the energy and oil industries more justified to reap higher oil costs. I suppose you really thought the California Energy Crisis was really a crisis and we didn't have enough electricity to supply California. Get real, its all politics, and rich politics and politicians are glued to the energy industry. It is one of the most lucrative industries.
Ken, you may want to study energy law instead of labor law, its boring at first, but there will always be a job, recession or no recession, people need oil and electricity always. Thats my area (no I'm not an attorney) but that's what my attorneys practice, oil, global projects (oil/LNG projects) and envionrmental law. It's not soo bad and not too stressful either.
I think we should look at alcohol as a primary fuel. Give the farmers another market and shut off the money flow to the nations that use the wealth to acquire weapons. But that's another story.
As to ANWR, how much land do those caribou need? Alaska is a vast expanse of nothingness and the technology these days does a better job of being friendly to the environment. I don't see much problem with that.
California's problems were brought about by Californians. They don't want power production plants but they consume mass quantities of it. One of the worst cases of NIMBY that I have ever seen.
"Yes there is the ANWR -- but that would be destroying wildlife, animals,etc... "
It absolutely will NOT. In fact, the caribou population near the exisitng nearby Alaskan pipeline has actually *increased*, because they nest near the warmth of the pipeline itself. The technology has advanced so much in the years since building that pipeline, we could leave a marginal footprint on the landscape there, small enough to barely be noticed. As you like to say, it's politics. You're right. It sure ain't environmentalism.
"there are other places here in the United States. We are not on our last leg in terms of producing oil, its just inflated that way to make the energy and oil industries more justified to reap higher oil costs."
You don't get it, do you? Why on earth should I spend billions to flush out the remaining drops of oil here in the US, when I can buy it abroad for a tiny fraction of the cost? Would YOU do that? Do you buy all your groceries at the 7-11? You don't make any sense. You'd think the whole purpose of industry is to give you stuff.
"I suppose you really thought the California Energy Crisis was really a crisis and we didn't have enough electricity to supply California."
Depends on how you define it. It was caused reckless deregulation and by groups refusing to allow new power plants being built locally, so they were, among other things, buying it elsewhere. That's insane. You can't run a state the size of California on the energy from several other states, and subsidize it as well. They were paying about half what the rest of the country was paying.
It absolutely will NOT. In fact, the caribou population near the exisitng nearby Alaskan pipeline has actually *increased*, because they nest near the warmth of the pipeline itself. The technology has advanced so much in the years since building that pipeline, we could leave a marginal footprint on the landscape there, small enough to barely be noticed. As you like to say, it's politics. You're right. It sure ain't environmentalism.
"there are other places here in the United States. We are not on our last leg in terms of producing oil, its just inflated that way to make the energy and oil industries more justified to reap higher oil costs."
You don't get it, do you? Why on earth should I spend billions to flush out the remaining drops of oil here in the US, when I can buy it abroad for a tiny fraction of the cost? Would YOU do that? Do you buy all your groceries at the 7-11? You don't make any sense. You'd think the whole purpose of industry is to give you stuff.
"I suppose you really thought the California Energy Crisis was really a crisis and we didn't have enough electricity to supply California."
Depends on how you define it. It was caused reckless deregulation and by groups refusing to allow new power plants being built locally, so they were, among other things, buying it elsewhere. That's insane. You can't run a state the size of California on the energy from several other states, and subsidize it as well. They were paying about half what the rest of the country was paying.
D
dems4me
Guest
No, no, no guys. You don't get it. Look at FERC.gov where even Pat Wood (a noted Republican and the head of FERC, appointed by Bush himself) sides against the oil companies as causing the Energy Crisis in California. One docket in particular is EL00-95 or EL00-98. if you care to do the research, it found the oil companies guilty of market manipulation and rapid fire stock trading. Then, it was appealed and is no Docket PA02-2. It was not the Californians being NIMBY type. However that is the case in the most recent blackouts in the Northeast grid.
There we need to restructure the pipelines, it's like running a 2003 indy car on a 1920 track -- you just can't do it. That is a legitimate NIMBY stance. I can only say soo much about the energy/republican/Cheney/Bush whitehouse, without losing my job. If people knew, I'd get fired at work, let alone supporting Dean for President I'm really put on a spot - go with my heart, knowledge and beliefs and divulge information to this forum, or my job. I don't know how much I can trust a forum like this.
Nonetheless, politics are very important to me and my beliefs and I'm a Democrat and as your Republican guy and my most favorite Republican and tremendous human being, James Baker, says "politics are %100 philosophy" you pick your party by philosopy and I've chosen the Democratic philosophy. I'm not into the rich getting richer schemes.
The California Energy Crisis was all about the greed of about 5 big oil mongers.
No there is not a few last few drops left in our wells, there is plenty. As for the ANWR, originally, Bush Sr. was planning to open the Artic wildlife but did not get it through the Senate and Congress in time, he was assuming a victory for a second election, it did not happen and Clinton took office, and as a democrat he is for the environment and the reservervation of it -- can you imagine not having any trees -- are you SoMd folk really fond of living in a city instead of country?
Eitherway, it was suspended by Clinton and all those oil companies had to file a "blanket of certificate for abandonment" for their endeavors.
I don't mind paying the high prices for our own oil consumption, but you need to take the corporate greed out of the picture first and then see what the true price would be. We are very well organized in terms of FERC regulation or deregulation. Unfortunately in terms of the California energy crisis, it was legal, just (as quoted by Pat Wood, unethical).
Look at how much oil costs overseas. If we are going to waste energy as we do here, we should pay for it. Remember Gore was for alternatives to gasoline and funded cars like the hybrid that doesn't run off of gas... and get this -- in Virginia (a Republican state, if you drive a Hybrid, you can use the HOV lane). We need to reopen the full wells here that have been capped for financial reasons. It's not the American's fault that greed has set in the corporate energy world.
In regards to the the ANWR, the oil mongers don't even know how much the ANWR has in terms of mass oil production, other than a few biased and unofficial tests done in the late 1980s. You can believe everything you read in the media or newspapers, but sometimes you need to do the research and homework for yourself. Try FERC.gov for starters.
God Bless, I hope everyone has a Happy and more importantly Safe New Years Eve. I need to run for a party that starts at 10:00. Take care all of the forum.
There we need to restructure the pipelines, it's like running a 2003 indy car on a 1920 track -- you just can't do it. That is a legitimate NIMBY stance. I can only say soo much about the energy/republican/Cheney/Bush whitehouse, without losing my job. If people knew, I'd get fired at work, let alone supporting Dean for President I'm really put on a spot - go with my heart, knowledge and beliefs and divulge information to this forum, or my job. I don't know how much I can trust a forum like this.
Nonetheless, politics are very important to me and my beliefs and I'm a Democrat and as your Republican guy and my most favorite Republican and tremendous human being, James Baker, says "politics are %100 philosophy" you pick your party by philosopy and I've chosen the Democratic philosophy. I'm not into the rich getting richer schemes.
The California Energy Crisis was all about the greed of about 5 big oil mongers.
No there is not a few last few drops left in our wells, there is plenty. As for the ANWR, originally, Bush Sr. was planning to open the Artic wildlife but did not get it through the Senate and Congress in time, he was assuming a victory for a second election, it did not happen and Clinton took office, and as a democrat he is for the environment and the reservervation of it -- can you imagine not having any trees -- are you SoMd folk really fond of living in a city instead of country?
Eitherway, it was suspended by Clinton and all those oil companies had to file a "blanket of certificate for abandonment" for their endeavors.
I don't mind paying the high prices for our own oil consumption, but you need to take the corporate greed out of the picture first and then see what the true price would be. We are very well organized in terms of FERC regulation or deregulation. Unfortunately in terms of the California energy crisis, it was legal, just (as quoted by Pat Wood, unethical).
Look at how much oil costs overseas. If we are going to waste energy as we do here, we should pay for it. Remember Gore was for alternatives to gasoline and funded cars like the hybrid that doesn't run off of gas... and get this -- in Virginia (a Republican state, if you drive a Hybrid, you can use the HOV lane). We need to reopen the full wells here that have been capped for financial reasons. It's not the American's fault that greed has set in the corporate energy world.
In regards to the the ANWR, the oil mongers don't even know how much the ANWR has in terms of mass oil production, other than a few biased and unofficial tests done in the late 1980s. You can believe everything you read in the media or newspapers, but sometimes you need to do the research and homework for yourself. Try FERC.gov for starters.
God Bless, I hope everyone has a Happy and more importantly Safe New Years Eve. I need to run for a party that starts at 10:00. Take care all of the forum.
Well maybe we are reading differing documents (the FERC.gov website is anything but user friendly for a novice and doing a search resulted in 322 hits for orders/opinions related to EL00-95) in the order issued on 15 December 2000 the FERC staff says that the problems were;
1. The market forces in the form of significantly increased power production costs combined with increased demand due to unusually high temperatures and a scarcity of available generation resources throughout the West and California in particular played a major role.
2. The existing market rules exacerbated the situation by exposing the three investor-owned utilities (IOUs) to the volatility of the spot market without affording them the ability to mitigate the price volatility and by promoting underscheduling in the PX, thereby increasing the amount of demand and supply that appeared in the ISO's real-time market.
3. The Staff Report noted evidence suggesting that sellers had the potential to exercise market power, although there were insufficient data to make determinations about the exercise of market power by individual sellers.
Now I'm no expert but when the FERC staff states that the “scarcity of available generation resources” played a major role I take that to mean that the Californians desire not to build new production facilities is the same as how I used the term NIMBY.
Also, I have seen nothing that states that “oil” companies were found guilty of anything. If you could I ask that you give the complete docket cite for additional research on my part.
I thought the same thing for a while but in this case I think we have found a hard head, not one that is solid concrete.Originally posted by penncam
I'm sensing the same type of commentary, or am I imagining the parallel here?
Penn
Dancing Up A Storm
Ken, in truest and most telling of Democratic traditions, I am fairly sure dems4me "feels Howard Deans' pain".To be honest, when the news media such as MSNBC and Fox News put his mug up on the screen, I cringe, waiting to see/hear what new form of stupidity he will eschew for us today.
It seems there's not a day that goes by, that the man will attempt to zero in on some non-issue, and try to "spin" it to his advantage for political gain.
"We as a nation have to do better on this mmmfffmmffmt........."
Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, Howard, go get a "stars and bars" license plate, stick it on your bubba pickup truck, and take a drive in the deep south. Please don't stop until you get to Cuba.
"James Carville this week summed up the Dean problem: "He seems not to appreciate the glory of the unspoken thought"
Last edited:
D
dems4me
Guest
Ken -- FERC.gov is very user friendly. You should have tried it years ago. go to FERC's "elibrary" and do a search for Docket No. PA02-2 (the latest spinoff of El00-95 and EL00-98) FERC finds the utilities guilty and has now been appealed by the utilities in the 9th Circuit and the CPUC (California Public Utilities Commission). In PA02-2, you will see a Show Cause Order from FERC's ALJ (Administrative Law Judge) finding the utilitites guilty of market manipulation and demanding the utilities to proove otherwise which they had to file sometime in late February (show cause for doing so). December 2000 that is irrelevant...it's now 2004 and alot of discovery prooved otherwise in the past few years because of Bush's appointee Pat Wood backfired on the utilities and found them guilty -- his hands were tied, there was an overwhelming amount of evidence prooving that the California Energy Crisis was a farce and that various utilitites drove it to that circumstance. Don't just search for something you want to see but look at this case openly. This case has been going on for several years.
Paragraph Break for you Larry -- No I'm not Miss Berry, nor hard headed. Big Energy Corporations fund the Republicans and vice versa. What other industry is larger than Energy??? Do the reserach -- search on elibrary from FERC.gov. I can't talk much more about this and feel extremly uncomfortable about this - keep researching and don't stop in the year 2000
If anyone else has another topic, let me know. But for arguments sake, I may just agree to disagree. Energy is my forte'. Go Dean!!!!!
Paragraph Break for you Larry -- No I'm not Miss Berry, nor hard headed. Big Energy Corporations fund the Republicans and vice versa. What other industry is larger than Energy???
Do the reserach -- search on elibrary from FERC.gov. I can't talk much more about this and feel extremly uncomfortable about this - keep researching and don't stop in the year 2000If anyone else has another topic, let me know. But for arguments sake, I may just agree to disagree. Energy is my forte'. Go Dean!!!!!
Yeah, I did the search for PA02-2 again (1459 hits) – give me a submission or issuance number associated (a date of the document would be helpful also) with the show cause order you mention so I can find it or do you expect me to read all 1459 items? Adding Pat Wood to the search criteria still gives me 42 documents. A search using “show cause order” produced 0 results. And as it is a show cause order, how does that make anyone guilty? Isn't a “show cause order” an order issued by the court (or in this case the ALJ) requiring a person to appear and show why some action should not be taken. It proves nothing.
Your insinuation that the Bush appointee (Pat Wood) would try to sweep this under the carpet indicates true bias on your part. What proof do you have that this person would do such a thing? Based on your claim that he has found someone guilty of manipulating the market and demand certainly doesn't support that allegation. To me it sounds as if Bush got people in place that know what they are doing, like he did with State, Defense, and Justice.
The relevance of 2000 is that is when this all started and is important as it indicates which administration's FERC allowed an environment for this to occur. When the FERC conceded their authority in 1996 to California they made a big mistake. They allowed California to set the system up and left many loopholes in the process, now FERC is making punitive rules after the fact and I am certain that is one of the reasons for the appeal, though until I locate the specific documents I am unsure. I intend to continue the research.