Name that quote:
"The United States has become whipping post for the rest of the world -- the world is treating us without respect. The United States is becoming the laughing stock of the world. Whether we like it or don't like it, that's what's happening. I deal with people from China, I deal with people from Mexico. They cannot believe what they're getting away with."
Now, without Googling to find out who said that, tell me whether you would vote for this person in the 2012 presidential election.
I'm pretty sure that I would, even though this person would probably run on the ticket for a party I've never voted for before.
Depends on when they said it.....sounds like BHO criticzing GWB. Not that I would vote for anyone on the basis of one sound bite. It does ring true.
To be perfectly honest.....I do not give a rat's behind what the rest of the world thinks of us. We Americans have a flaw. We want everyone to like us.
Now that I've looked up who said that......ummm. I'll wait until other people chime in. I do have some strong opinions about that particular person.
no, won't be voting for Mr. X based on that sound bite. I want someone saying that they want to restore honor to the US and make the rest of the world take America seriously. I don't want a presidential candidate denigrating the US as it is now. I want them saying what they're going to do to make it better.
When you actually talk to somebody from outside the US, what they say is, "George W Bush has made your country the most hated country on earth" and so on. So basically, they're still stuck in a time warp and/or we haven't lived that one down yet.
Now, this guy who might be running for president is essentially a failed businessman who's spent more than his share of time in bankruptcy, and basically continues to work at the pleasure of his lenders' forgiveness, if I'm not mistaken
Sat Feb 12 2011 09:17:05 AM EST from LoanShark @ Uncensored
"Now, this guy who might be running for president is essentially a failed businessman who's spent more than his share of time in bankruptcy, and basically continues to work at the pleasure of his lenders' forgiveness, if I'm not mistaken"I'll be happy to be his kind of failure......He came out of bankruptcy awhile ago. Though I wouldn't really say he filed bankruptcy. A couple of his companies did and rebounded. People are still more than willing to loan him money.
so... it seems as if wikileaks is at least serving as hub for information about the ghadafies and how they waste their peoples money. Now the people of lybia know, and for the outcome you just need to watch the news.
Oil prices are rising in germany, since while worldwide lybia serves a total of 2% oil, its a lot more in germany.
I'll notice when the bakery prices go up (like I noticed the fires in russia by increases of 10% recently...) we'll see.
On our side of the pond we've really gotta work on energy independence. Renewables are great and we should keep working on them, but we should also explore and exploit our own oil and gas to the fullest extent possible, and we should go balls-to-the-wall on building out new nuclear energy. Skyrocketing energy costs will hurt the economy really badly.
In short ... do everything!
Reduce energy useage in first place.
make gas/individual traffic by car more expensive; offer bike infrastructure.
And, over here in germany... we've got the "pendlerpauschale' which is a subvention for people living far away from their jobs to compensate commute. thats gotta go away or decrease by distance
Do Feb 24 2011 11:40:59 EST von IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored Betreff: Re:Simply reducing energy consumption isn't the solution. It isn't inherently a bad thing, but it isn't the solution. It's pretty much just the result of having expensive energy.
I realy don't think 'cheap' energy leads to any kind of responsible usage. If its cheap in short term, it will be wasted.
Even if you have a way to make for example atomic power cheap and safe (which I doubt will happen) You still end up with the problem that you're not able to transport it, and we're running out of copper which you need for the engines. For that reason I think cars are the future.
while the cities might offer cheap ways to switch to public transportation (with bigger engines which don't loose as much energy) ; rural regions are probably more in trouble.
True, the rural/mountainous regions always have more consumption for liquid auto fuels, electric supply in the US. Most folks here have 20 mpg 4x4's, REA electrification, bad roads and not much business/industrial support for state government improvements. Until the Cherokee-Qualla bunch got a casino, that area ranked among the poorest in the Southern US.
I should have added there is much emotional resistance to driving an efficient vehicle. Some folks love the gas hog and refuse to make meaningful changes like drive a hybrid, or a diesel car. Motorcycles can work better, some 500 cc and below displacements get better than 40 mpg. Why the vehicle digression? There's lots of rednecks in the US, call them Joe Sixpack if you will, who are not into efficiency as a intellectual choice. They only do it when it's a matter of money, especially when the other choice is walking. This can also apply to other people as well, soccer moms, for instance.
The EPA, much like the FCC, has been given way too much unconstitutional authority and needs to get pulled back in a big way.
while they're willing to pay for the fuel they waste, I, or the one carying the Goods i'd like to consume arenn't.
They waste a limited resource my life also depends on, which has a drastic influence on price and indirectly the price of other goods I'd like to consume. So I've got the fucking right to complain.
We pay $7.50 a gallon. People with 3 kids drive the Honda Civic or the Toyota Corolla, not the Accord or the Camry... There are a number of non-suv/non-minivans (Compact MPV's) sold here that accomodate 7 passengers. (see Toyota Verso, for example, which isn't sold in the US). People with fewer than 5 kids rarely drive minivans unless they have 4 and the next one is already in the plans.
I did a little reading about Denmark.
They were stung very hard when oil sharply rose in the 70s, since they depended on foreign oil for 99% of their energy needs at the time.
The Danes decided they didn't want to experience that ever again, so they started instituting policies and technologies to rid themselves of that dependance.
Today, they generate more energy than they use, and export some of that to others (to include oil, which they drill).
Honestly, the United States should do the same. We have more resources at our disposal than the Danes, although we also have greater energy needs than they. And I say this not because I'm concerned deeply about the environment, or because of the whole global warming scare, but because it's sound economical thinking. The less dependance we have on foreign countries for our energy needs (or any other need, for that matter), the more stable our economy can be.