'08 Presidential Candidates

[Back]

Ok, we are a couple of years from a presidential election. Anything can happen, but wtf? Its fun to talk about.

I had a chance to sit down in an informal setting with a couple of DC players. We had a great discussion on this. They are in this mix. I’m just an outside observer (I’m a graphic designer, not a campaign manager FCS). But they were kind enough to entertain my views.

Republicans

McCain came up, of course. Someone said he made a “deal with the devil” on many points of contention with this presidency which makes him a weak candidate.

Gulliani came up. While respect was paid to the man, no one believed him viable.

One guy mentioned Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. Apparently he had some inside news because I have never heard of the guy.

I just don’t see any Republican threat to the '08 presidency unless they are really REALLY moderate at this point.

In my view, if Shay keeps going as he is, he might make a decent Republican president to counter what will be a Democratic majority after this years Congressional election. Shay is far more moderate than McCain.

Other than that, we did not have much else to talk about than...

Democrats

Gore is looking good. He’s over the outrage. Back to trying to do the right thing. He’s also supported. No one who has followed politics has forgotten what happened. No idea on a running mate.

Hilary of course came up. No one was ecstatic about the idea. Someone said she would never win because she would remind men of their first wives. I kind of got this, but not entirely because I’ve never been married. But on the whole I just don’t think she has the experience. She was a first lady only 6 years ago, and a Senator (surprisingly) for less. Someone said Obama could be her running mate to “up” the uniqueness of the race... but I just don’t see it as they are both still just in up to their ankles at this point.

Of course, there was talk about Obama as a candidate. Still the consensus was inexperience. A POSSIBLE running mate. The idea of him running with a more seasoned Democrat OR very moderate Republican was entertained.

Kerry came up. No one agreed.

Same with Edwards.

Someone mention Murtha, Mr. Military. He does have Winston Churchill airs about him. The military does talk to him on a regular basis because he is heavily invested in the military. At first I argued that America wants fresh faces. I was told that he would be a fresh face and that a young fresh face may not get the support and may not have the experience.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<One guy mentioned Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. Apparently he had some inside news because I have never heard of the guy.>>

There's been some talk of Governor Romney running for President around these parts.

[Jorddyn]

There's been talk of our current governor, Tom Vilsack, running.

Of course, as of right now, he has neither the funding nor the recognition to make it at this point. It'll be an interesting couple of years.

~T

[Wezas]

I always heard Mark Warner (VA) was in the mix on the Dem side. Usually see him listed with Hillary.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10401164/site/newsweek/

[Artha]

I'd vote for someone from Virginia no matter what side of the spectrum they're on. Bring back the Dynasty.

[Back]

I'd vote for someone from Virginia no matter what side of the spectrum they're on. Bring back the Dynasty.

See, now, you VA boys are why our FF’s invented the electoral college!

Anyway, I’m just not seeing any governors being promoted. Except maybe Schwarzanegger. I might vote for him because he is defiant and signed a Kyoto-like agreement. He is very moderate for a Republican.

[Jorddyn]

Except maybe Schwarzanegger. I might vote for him because he is defiant and signed a Kyoto-like agreement. He is very moderate for a Republican.

One small problem with his canidacy. He wasn't born a citizen.

(I'm not arguing whether or not it should be law - it just is)

~T

[Back]

One small problem with his canidacy. He wasn't born a citizen.

(I'm not arguing whether or not it should be law - it just is)

~T

There are a couple of Republicans and a Democrat working on that as we type. Measures to repeal the citizen restriction.

[TheEschaton]

Make way for President Alok, 2016!

No, seriously, people have been talking Mitt Romney here in Boston as well, and the seasoned Boston Dems around here are actually pretty scared. He masks his conservatism well under a modicum of moderate gimmes. Sort of like Jeb, but without the spotlight being thrown on the ugly underbelly thing.

-TheE-

[Artha]

I was going to make a reference to my eventual run for president, but I'm too lazy to figure out what year I'd be elligible.

I'd make a bad (lazy) president.

[Back]

I was going to make a reference to my eventual run for president, but I'm too lazy to figure out what year I'd be elligible.

I'd make a bad (lazy) president.

Do you have a criminal record or have you ever posted anything controversial on these boards?

I know I can’t run. (damn foolish childhood shenanigans)

[Artha]

Do you have a criminal record or have you ever posted anything controversial on these boards?
Speeding tickets and nothing that can't be explained away.

[Back]

What if someone spread lies around DC about you? What would you do then?

[Wezas]

Arnold's already working on the scenario from Demolition Man.

Govenor of California? check
Pushing legislation to change Presidential requirements? check
President? TBD

[Artha]

What if someone spread lies around DC about you? What would you do then?
Win anyway.

Then have them killed.

[Back]

Win anyway.

Then have them killed.

You have not learned one single thing. I can't back you dude.

In other words, watch your back.

[TheEschaton]

The obvious answer is come out with a factual, strongly assertive rebuttal of everything they said, if it's actually untrue.

Then find some dirt on them that IS true, and watch them wallow in trying to explain it away.

-TheE-

[Artha]

My answer's better. I'd probably also have their names removed from any sort of public record, but I think I'd stop short of having three generations of their family put into prison camps.

[Gan]

Ok, we are a couple of years from a presidential election. Anything can happen, but wtf? Its fun to talk about.

I had a chance to sit down in an informal setting with a couple of DC players.

I wanted to say that I stopped reading after this, but in a trainwreck mentality I decided to read on just to see what else you said.

I just have but one question.

Define players...

[Back]

I wanted to say that I stopped reading after this, but in a trainwreck mentality I decided to read on just to see what else you said.

I just have but one question.

Define players...

Whats does it matter?? Expound!

Who do you think should run?

[Gan]

When I discusss the Republican strategies with people who think they are political experts, they all say that Guilllani wont do, the closest they can come with someone whom the American people can identify is McCain but then are hesitant about whats already known.

When I speak with people who are generically interested in who's going to run for the Republicans, they wish and hope it will be Guillani. They think he's the type of leader they would follow.

Personally, I'd like to see Guillani run. I think he can connect with the people. He's got horsepower. I've never trusted McCain, he's a great Senator, but I just dont want him in the executive branch. I dont know who would run with Guillani as VP. There are a number of govenors who are attractive and relatively 'clean/unknown'. And no I will not support or encourage Jeb to make a run for anything. He's perfect right where he's at.

As for the democrats. Hillary will either run or destroy the Democrat party if she's not allowed to. She's hungry, and it will take more than a village to convince her otherwise. I doubt she'd even consider taking second seat to Gore at this point. And yet somehow I dont see Gore agreeing to be VP again to another Clinton.

Before the democrats agree on a candidate, they need to agree on a real message for 2008. Most everyone agrees they have no identity at this point except for the anthesis of the Republican party. Which makes them more part of the problem than part of the solution.

[Sean of the Thread]

Personally, I'd like to see Guillani run.


NOOOOEEEEEZZZZZZLERCOASTER.
http://www.internetweekly.org/images/jeb_bush_burger.jpg

[Warriorbird]

Democrats? Easley, Warner, Bayh, Murtha. No Gore or Hillary. Please guys. Please.

Republicans? Certainly not Allen any more. :snickers: Romney'd be a great choice. Giuliani too.

[Back]

Democrats? Easley, Warner, Bayh, Murtha. No Gore or Hillary. Please guys. Please.

Republicans? Certainly not Allen any more. :snickers: Romney'd be a great choice. Giuliani too.

Murtha? I stood back on that one. Not that I did not think he would make one fuck of a president. Old dude? Think he can pull it out?

Romney? Never heard of the guy.

[DeV]

Make way for President Alok, 2016!
He masks his conservatism well under a modicum of moderate gimmes. Sort of like Jeb, but without the spotlight being thrown on the ugly underbelly thing.

-TheE-True. I watched an interview a couple months back and the way this man was able to avoid and dodge a question made it seem like he was blessed with a gift. Not to mention it'd be interesting as hell to have a Mormon running and having an actual shot at President.

[Tromp]

Katherine Harris if she loses the Senate race.... that would be awesome!
Oh or the new and improved Foley after he gets out of rehab.

Is Gore actually considering the presidancy again?

[Gan]

Gore's interview with Chris Matthews in March 2005 stated he would not run for any political office but instead focus on his environmental issues and building a national liberal television network.

[TheEschaton]

Guiliani v. Hillary, rematch of 2000? It would be the same thing - Guiliani would drop out cause he can't handle the fire!

On a serious note, I'd say Guiliani has a bit too much dirt on him to run for national office. The whole cheating-on-my-cancer-ridden-wife-with-a-mistress thing while claiming to be a responsible, Catholic Republican reeked of hypocrisy. And while some might argue Hillary has just as much dirt on her, none of it has ever been even remotely substantiated (and she never would admit it if there was a whiff of truth to it), whereas Rudy has not only admitted to it, but dropped out of a Senate race because of it before.

There doesn't seem to be attractive options on either side of the table. I'd vote for Gore again (and feel better about it then when I voted for him in 2000), but I'd seriously doubt Hillary's chance to win (but I would probably vote for her, unless McCain was running against her). I say give Barak 4-8 years.

Oh, and god help the GOP if they pass that immigrant bill thing - that can only help Dems.

-TheE-

[Warriorbird]

I think it'd be healthy to have a Republican WITH some known scandals. They can play the redemption card.

[Back]

I think it'd be healthy to have a Republican WITH some known scandals. They can play the redemption card.

GWB beat you to that idea.

[Atlanteax]

I still think it'll be McCain vs H Clinton resulting in a victory of 55-65% for McCain

... due to the adverse reaction to H Clinton by some Democrats and a "heck no" by Republicans.

[Parkbandit]

Originally Posted by Backlash
Ok, we are a couple of years from a presidential election. Anything can happen, but wtf? Its fun to talk about.

I had a chance to sit down in an informal setting with a couple of DC players.


Originally Posted by Ganalon

Define players...

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/potheads.jpg

[Back]

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/potheads.jpg

Why are people seizing up on this little statement that has nothing to do with their own opinions?

Unless its just ingrained to smear your opposition no matter how badly you fuck shit up with your party in the majority.

I’m flattered. Really. You make me feel like what I say here means something.

That, or you have no candidates.

[Parkbandit]

I’m flattered. Really. You make me feel like what I say here means something.


Actually quite the opposite. I'm offended that you really think I take anything you post here seriously.

[Gan]

Why are people seizing up on this little statement that has nothing to do with their own opinions?

Unless its just ingrained to smear your opposition no matter how badly you fuck shit up with your party in the majority.

I’m flattered. Really. You make me feel like what I say here means something.

That, or you have no candidates.

Actually I brought it up, included with my candidate suggestions, as a means to highlight your attempt to posture as something you really are not, while posting on the PC.

And ROFUCKINGL at PB's picture, its definately worth a thousand words. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Back]

Actually quite the opposite. I'm offended that you really think I take anything you post here seriously.

You could always forget all that and post who you thought was a good candidate on either side.

[Back]

Actually I brought it up, included with my candidate suggestions, as a means to highlight your attempt to posture as something you really are not, while posting on the PC.

And ROFUCKINGL at PB's picture, its definately worth a thousand words. :lol: :lol: :lol:

At least you posted your views. It was a contribution. A stupid one, but a contribution none-the-less.

[Landrion]

Jeb, we're going with Jeb. 16 and then 20 years of BUSH (Yeah I know George and W werent sequential). By the end of it, I rather expect the blue states will secede on their own.

[Gan]

At least you posted your views. It was a contribution. A stupid one, but a contribution none-the-less.

I try to match the level of response to whom its [post] directed to. I'm glad you feel it was stupid, that means I was right on target.

[Back]

Jeb, we're going with Jeb. 16 and then 20 years of BUSH (Yeah I know George and W werent sequential). By the end of it, I rather expect the blue states will secede on their own.

This is much of the reason I expect the Clinton ticket won’t work. Name recognition. We don’t approve of dynasties here in America. At least, thats how I see it.

Hilary is not a sure win. No one can dispute that. Thus, she should not run.

[Skirmisher]

I would be willing to bet that Gulliani is more popular in the rest of the country than in NYC.

He was not extremely popular here before 9/11.

He did a wonderful job of handling the emergency and ensuing chaos and I have said before i'd like to see him as an emergency team leader inside Fema or the like but not as the leader of a state or presidential candidate.

And everyone that mocks Gore for his aggresive stance on protecting the environment should take a look at the stories comeing out of India about how some areas are having to ship water in by train as they have exhausted the aquifers.

Oil is important but its easier to live without that than water.

[Landrion]

This is much of the reason I expect the Clinton ticket won’t work. Name recognition. We don’t approve of dynasties here in America. At least, thats how I see it.

Hilary is not a sure win. No one can dispute that. Thus, she should not run.

Well, I dont think name recognition would hurt Hillary. I think its sexism . Indeed, I think if Bill's brother were a politician with a (bear with me) good record hed have an excellent if not incredible shot.

Im probably going to roast in hell for this analogy: But its sort of like Kennedy. People loved Bobby. He was probably a shoe-in. People loved Jackie even more but they werent going to run her after JFK's death.

Now Jeb, well that depends on how tarnished you think GW is going out. Obviously GW is not anywhere near the level of love that people heaped on JFK. It also depends on how clean Jeb himself is. But as I think more about it I doubt hes going to run right after GW's term.

[Parkbandit]

I would be willing to bet that Gulliani is more popular in the rest of the country than in NYC.

He was not extremely popular here before 9/11.

He did a wonderful job of handling the emergency and ensuing chaos and I have said before i'd like to see him as an emergency team leader inside Fema or the like but not as the leader of a state or presidential candidate.

And everyone that mocks Gore for his aggresive stance on protecting the environment should take a look at the stories comeing out of India about how some areas are having to ship water in by train as they have exhausted the aquifers.

Oil is important but its easier to live without that than water.

OMG! NOW WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF WATER!!!!!!

Oh wait.. 75% of the earth is covered in water. Whew.

[Warriorbird]

Curiously enough...it isn't all fresh, pure, or drinkable. There's these mysterious things called aquifers that provide fresh water for certain areas of the world. If an aquifer is exhausted...your region is pretty much fucked. Then again, your children could probably tell you that... but I doubt you paid too much attention in the science portion of school.

[Back]

You know what? They cant get their strategy straight. That really must suck for them.

[Back]

Yes, if you want same old same old, corruption in our government, if you like being lied to, then by all means vote Republican.

[Landrion]

Yes, if you want same old same old, corruption in our government, if you like being lied to, then by all means vote Republican.

Uhm, Backlash, its kind of confusing me when you dont quote what youre replying to.

[Parkbandit]

Yes, if you want same old same old, corruption in our government, if you like being lied to, then by all means vote Democratic.

Corrected for accuracy for TheE

[Parkbandit]

Curiously enough...it isn't all fresh, pure, or drinkable. There's these mysterious things called aquifers that provide fresh water for certain areas of the world. If an aquifer is exhausted...your region is pretty much fucked. Then again, your children could probably tell you that... but I doubt you paid too much attention in the science portion of school.

Curiously enough, the technology available today can get fresh, drinkable water from salt water. The technology is also available today that can get fresh, drinkable water from unpure water.

I'm pretty sure this will not change in the near future ala Mad Max.

As far as science goes, I'm willing to bet you that my grades were well above yours. I still have my Regents Exam results as well as my report cards. Let's compare if you are willing.

[Back]

Uhm, Backlash, its kind of confusing me when you dont quote what youre replying to.

My bad. I should quote.

[ElanthianSiren]

I wish Obama could win. I don't think many others are worth the distance I could throw them (I have very limited upper body strength). You forgot Powell, Backlash, for shame. Gore would never run after losing the first time, though the rest of you can debate if he really lost. I also like Feingold -- wayyyyyyyy too liberal I realize to pull it off and not southern.

For repubs, I think you're going with Powell, Guilianii, or McCain, unless you think Condi's a frontrunner.

McCain has the most chance of pulling votes from dems to be honest IMO; he has now taken their opinion to the republican side (Anti-torture, spying, and so on). He has shown himself to be a uniter on a few issues, whereas most of your other candidates have shown themselves to be, or work directly with (Condi/Powell) a "divider" administration. Their association to that administration makes them attractive to the roughly 40% that support, but you still have 60% that don't, and you have to reach 11% of them. If you don't think that's going to be important in 2008, you're fooling yourself.

Unfortunately, the political climate right now is so polarized, it's going to be tough finding any candidate you can legitimately bill as a uniter, on either side.

2008 -- let the squabbling begin!
(Mortal Kombat music)


-M

[Some Rogue]

I don't understand all the hoopla around Obama. He's a first term congressmen who hasn't really done anything. Hell, I live in the state he represents and I don't even hear that much about him.

Are the democrats so desperate that they'll take anyone who can speak well and looks good in front of a camera? Someone please explain to me why he'd be such a great choice to run?

[DeV]

I don't understand all the hoopla around Obama. He's a first term congressmen who hasn't really done anything. Hell, I live in the state he represents and I don't even hear that much about him.

I completely agree.

Too much hype, not enough action, but I do believe he has plenty of time to show the country what he is capable of. He has yet to make any real notable changes in the Illinois legislature. His ability to make a run for the oval office remains to be seen, but certainly not in '08. Even he knows he's not ready which is why he isn't entertaining the idea.

[Tsa`ah]

To be fair, Kennedy didn't have much political experience either.

He gained a vacant congressional seat, then defeated an incumbent senator in 52, by 56 he gained the party nomination for VP, and by 1960 he had won the highest office.

Don't take that as a comparison between the two. Obama doesn't have a Pulitzer or heroic war record, but he does have comparable legislative experience (more when you consider most of Kennedy's Senate experience was in the OR, recovery, or receiving his last rights on more than a few occasions).

Obama has many things going for him. He's not controversial, he's not inflammatory, no one really knows about (or even if he has) bones stored away in his closet. He's composed and smooth, and by smooth I don't mean slick. Like McCain, he has the potential to be a unifier on the Dem side of the fence. Talk to anyone staunch republican in IL that has heard the man talk and I'm willing to bet they will admit to nodding their head in agreement during his orations.

He hasn't done much because he's affiliated with a party that can't really do much.

However, Obama isn't the shiny star he once was in my eyes. He played the "party's" man by backing Alexi Giannoulias for our treasurer. Despite how shady Broadway Bank is in it's practices, the guy passed every piss poor looking buck up to his father or over to his brother to say "wasn't me".

Obama could be a contender, in fact is probably one of THE best contenders the Dems have at this point in the game ... which really isn't saying much.

The next best thing the Dems have going for them is Clinton. Like her husband, she's slick. Unlike her husband, she comes of as wholly self serving and would get my vote as the politician most likely to service a naval battle ship for the military vote.

The Dems just don't have much to offer and should probably be happy that they'll gain the majority in the legislation.

The GOP has a bit of a deeper well, their problem will be the stigma left by the current administration; though I really don't see them pulling a hat trick depending on the match up.

If the Dems offer up another Kerry ... Well Condi, Rudi .... pretty much anyone in the party could make it another polarized race. The GOP's best asset right now isn't in the candidates, it's in how badly the Dems can fuck the race up again.

Now all that aside, McCain is the Yin to the Dem's Yang in Obama. McCain not getting the GOP nod will likely result in the GOP taking a machete to his back. McCain has the experience, McCain has the military back ground, McCain can pull nods from either party, and McCain has back bone ... although diminished since his oration at the RNC. While not the most popular guy in the GOP, he is widely popular outside of the political line ... he can get the undecided and unaffiliated votes.

I hear Powell every four years and 4 years ago I may have said why not, 8 years ago I would have said sure, 12 years ago I would have said hell ya. This year I'm saying not a chance in hell. Fist is that he won't run and has always maintained he will not run. Despite how badly he has been dragged through the mud by doing what he was called in to do, like a true soldier, he is still a very honorable man in my eyes. I'm willing to bet there isn't more than a handfull of people that would answer a presidential call knowing full well they're going to get it in the ass when things go bad. He took North's role and made it a full time job.

All of that aside, I don't think he wants that power, nor do I think he'd be willing to take that power knowing that it would probably send his wife's mental health beyond potential recovery.

Unlike the world of sports, we really don't know who the players are until they open their mouths and say there going to make a run for it. From there it's divert, dance, and spin.

I will say this, the Dems don't have anyone that would get my vote outside of Obama (that I'm aware of). Obama would only get my vote if another Bush like candidate were running ... as Kerry got my vote last election.

The GOP HAS my vote with McCain. I would forgo my usual sacrificial third party vote for McCain as he's one of the few stand up politicians in my eye.

The real battle is this November and I think it'll be more pivotal than anything we'll see in 08.

[Skirmisher]

OMG! NOW WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF WATER!!!!!!
Hey you figured it out.



Oh wait.. 75% of the earth is covered in water. Whew.
Oh, well you had it for a moment at least.

Wars or at least armed conflict WILL take place over water rights within 20 years if there is not some magical discovery of ways to make desalination plants less costly and less waste producing.

That you laugh at even the idea that the global water supply is dwindling away shows that for all your wondrous regents exams scores you are woefully ignorant of the realities of today.

[Landrion]

Hey you figured it out.


Oh, well you had it for a moment at least.

Wars or at least armed conflict WILL take place over water rights within 20 years if there is not some magical discovery of ways to make desalination plants less costly and less waste producing.

That you laugh at even the idea that the global water supply is dwindling away shows that for all your wondrous regents exams scores you are woefully ignorant of the realities of today.

I must admit, this is hard to accept at face value. When a commodity becomes scarce its cost rises. It costs me for 3 months of water (and sewer) less than it costs to fill my gas tank once.

Granted I realize there are places in the world where water is more scarce and used less wastefully. That we use the same water on our gardens, cars and toilets that we drink is far from a conservationalist model.

But anyway, the idea of an imminent war causing water shortage does give me pause. Im not "laughing" per se, but am skeptical.

[Hulkein]

Will they be fighting these water wars with Super Soakers?

[Skirmisher]

Will they be fighting these water wars with Super Soakers?

No.

[TheEschaton]

That you laugh at even the idea that the global water supply is dwindling away shows that for all your wondrous regents exams scores you are woefully ignorant of the realities of today.

Well, to be fair to PB, his regents exam scores were like, 50 years ago. His science is teh outdated.

-TheE-

[Daniel]

I'd suggest that anyone who thinks Water isn't a major issue to look into the southwestern United States, where the available water supplies are rapidly depleting as we speak.

75% of the world may be water, but a small fraction of that is usable for human consumption.

As things stand now, water is not an issue. However, there has already been protracted conflicts over water rights (Israel\Jordan) and this is only likely to increase as water becomes more scare and demand for it raises.

[Gan]

Wars or at least armed conflict WILL take place over water rights within 20 years if there is not some magical discovery of ways to make desalination plants less costly and less waste producing.

Where will these wars/armed conflicts take place? And will they be between nation states or will they be between neighboring communities?

And what information do you base this hypothesis on, especially the 'within 20 years' part?

[Daniel]

The Golan Heights.

[Wezas]

Have you all not seen Water World?

It's all about recycling.

[Hulkein]

Costner is the key to avoiding these wars.

Along with global warming. We need to melt the caps so all that fresh water is put back in our water cycle. What good is it doing sitting up there frozen? NONE!

Switch back to coal!

[Wezas]

"Necessary? Is it necessary to drink my own urine? No but I do anyway, coz it's sterile and I like the taste"

- Patches O'Houlihan

[Daniel]

Paper I wrote on water this summer:

Daniel Rogers
Commodity Background
SIS-519: Professor Hoon.

Water: The Emerging Crisis

In 2005, the UN committee tasked with the issue of water, UN Water, released a 61 page report detailing the current water crisis in the world. There are currently 1.3 billion people in the world that lack access to clean safe drinking water and over 2.6 billion that lack basic sanitation. At the same time, world demand for water is skyrocketing while environmental degradation, and the exhaustion of existing sources of water are depleting the supply. This means that without a significant change in our consumption habits the situation will get even more dire as time goes on (United Nations 2005).
The Millenium Development Goals stipulates the reduction by half of the amount of people without adequate access to water (United Nations 2006). However, the solution to this problem has been left in the hands of the countries and organizations that committed to achieving these goals. Unfortunately, there is anything but a consensus regarding the best way to go about this; In recent years there have been an emergence of two differing schools of thought regarding the direction that global relations should take in regards to water. At the heart of this debate is the issue of globalization and who has the authority to regulate, if anyone at all. This theoretical debate is contrasted by the stark difference between the world they envision and the world that exists today. Therefore, The purpose of this paper will be to outline the historical and current transnational relations governing water, and the different approaches to the mitigation of the rising water crisis.

The History of Water

Water is perhaps one of the most important substances on the entire planet. It comprises over 70% of the earth's surface and is the basic building block of all life on earth. Historically, water has been an integral component of the worlds political economy. It's no coincidence that the world's most powerful ancient empires had the most access to fresh water; the Egyptians had the Nile, the Persians had the Tigris and Euphrates and the Romans engineered an aqueduct system well advanced for its time. Although water is no longer a pre-eminent factor in power, it is still an important political issue around the world.
Today, the issue of water revolves around the issues of environmental degradation and inadequate access of suitable water supplies for billions of people worldwide. As mentioned in the introduction, the amount of people that lack this access is in the billions, and this number is rapidly growing. To help understand the underlying issues contributing to this “crisis” I will attempt to describe the current water situation through the framework of a global commodity chain. Unfortunately, this framework is fundamentally ill suited to describe the current water situation as water is still treated as a transnational resource, instead of a commodity. However, an analysis of how water is consumed and the issues surrounding its production and manufacturing is essential to understanding the underlying make up of this burgeoning crisis.
In global commodity chains, it is necessary to analyze every facet of a given commodity along its input-output cycle to understand the intricate set of processes that go into bringing that commodity from its point of origin to its point of consumption. The commodity chain analysis is a way of explaining the intricate processes revolving around the consumption, production and distribution of a commodity in an effort to understand the nature of the commodity chain itself. My intent is to use the same processes of analysis to describe the nature of the current water crisis. (Gereffi ?)

Water Today

The consumers of water have within its ranks every living organism on the face of the planet. Therefore, the consumption of water is a very complex issue that has far reaching implications for the entire planet. On the most basic level every person as well as every plant and animal need to consume a certain amount of fresh water to survive. In additional, access to clean and safe water is essential for basic sanitation and to maintain an individuals health and well being. However, this does not account for the vast majority of water consumption throughout the world. Agricultural and to a lesser extent industrial uses are the major consumers of water worldwide. In some of the most water tight regions of the world agriculture accounts for over 90% of the water consumption (Brooks 1997).
The concept of consumption is further muddled by the reality that our habits have a significant impact on the availability of water worldwide. The most well known example of this is that of environmental degradation. Industrial factories, nitrogen rich farming techniques and sanitary waste all contribution to the contamination of local water sources around the world. This in turn make these water sources unfit for consumption and this more often than not, has an even more pervasive and long lasting effect on the global water supply because while some sources of water may have an inherent system to replenish itself, they may lack the means to clean itself after tons of toxic chemicals have been dumped into it. The entire Mississippi river is a poignant example of this. Once one of the most fertile regions in the world, it is an environmental catastrophe today. Another example of the ways global water supplies are depleted would be the utilization of non sustainable consumption practices that forever destroy a natural source of water. For instance, there exists several underground aquifers that are linked to salt water systems and have been contaminated with non potable salt water through a complex ecological process created by unsustainable practices. As these aquifers are depleted, the excess space this creates allows adjoining salt water basins to flow into these fresh water reservoirs causing the entire system to become unfit for consumption (Brooks 1997).
In the past, obtaining water may have been as simple as digging a hole or building an irrigation canal, but because of the stresses on the world's water system, it is rarely as simple today. In response, actors have had to resort to extraordinary and oftentimes creative means to fulfill their water requirements. Oftentimes these endeavors are undertaken by the state to ensure that its citizenry, industrial producers and manufacturers have sufficient access to the water resources it needs.
Water, while not a major source of income is still an integral part of all industrial, agricultural and manufacturing development. Therefore, without adequate amounts of water these sectors will undoubtedly stagnant or even fail. The issue over water isn't just about providing safe drinking water to people around the world. The issue is a complex relationship between the well being of people, environmental sustainability and international development (United Nations 2006). There are no simple answers to these problems as the resolution of one issue may make another, equally important one worse. This leads to different actors opposing each other in an ideological battle while they may both have the best interests of everyone in mind. An example of this, pointed out by Ken Conca (2003) is that of India at the world water forum. The Indian government sent a large delegate to frame the water issue as one involving infrastructure development as a way to combat poverty. However, they were met by a host of people concerned about the ecological, cultural and yes, even economical impact of their methods of water management, that among other things centered around the construction of dams.
The approaches that individual countries have adopted to address their internal water needs have varied widely. Places like Chile have almost exclusively privatized their water resources, relying on market pressures to regulate their water industry (Budds 2004). By establishing rights of ownership over existing water sources, this allows water to be treated as any other commodity on the market. This approach has been adopted by the World Bank and has been implemented in many other places around the world, especially Latin America (Budds 2004).
Other have taken a much more pro-active role in mitigating their water shortages by undertaking ambitious industrial projects such as the construction of dams, desalination and underground pumping facilities. As previously eluded to, water has also become a highly charged political topic as countries literally fight for control of key water resources, or bicker over each others usage of shared assets. This can be seen in the 1994 cease fire between Israel and Jordan that included political concession for both sides concerning water rights and usage, and the continued debate over the usage of the Hudson bay between the United States and Canada (Conca (2003) )
The nature of these conflicts has led many theorists to speculate, that in the future wars will be fought over water, as countries struggle to meet their national needs (Allen 2002). Although, detractors of this point of view are quick to point out that for purely economical reasons water will hardly be seen as a reasonable grounds for war, but an analysis of the conflicts generated over water are highly illuminating the nature of the issue. Take the ongoing conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors; The Golan Heights have been one of the many disputed areas between Israel and Jordan, and its key strategic significance lies in the vast amount of fresh water it contains. The control of this water is considered essential to the Israeli's to meet their current and future needs for water. Although, the conflict between Israel and Jordan have more pertinent issues at the fore front, it would be ridiculous to rule out the role of water in a region that is one of the most arid in the world. (Golan 2006).
Perhaps one of the most intriguing concept concerning states' efforts to mitigate their water issues is that of “virtual water”. Developed by J.A Allen (2002) this concept relies on the premise that instead of using their own water resources, individual countries outsource to accommodate their most voracious water consumers. For instance, in the Middle East, countries have resorted to importing vast amount of agricultural and manufactured goods to mitigate the substantial demand for water producing these locally would create. This means that a country does not have to resort to draining scare supplies of water to fulfill its sustenance and material needs. The drawback to this particular system is that some countries lack the material needs to import this “virtual water” and is ultimately another example of the convoluted relationship between poverty and ecological sustainability.

The World Water Forum and The Efforts to Confront the Water Crisis

Historically, Transnational dealings concerning water have almost exclusively been the concern of states individually. As a result of this, any shifts in the makeup of water issues has been at the behest, or at least with the permission, of national governments. To date no one has been successful in implementing any sort of global consensus regarding the global water usage and governmental and non governmental institutions alike have only had superficial impacts on water consumption. These “victories” if you can call them that, have only came when it is related to other specific causes such as environmental pollution and are constantly subject to the personal prerogatives of the states effected (Conca (2003) ).
The problem with these efforts is that water is still treated as a transnational resource, instead of the global resource that it is. The issue of water is global because sources of water rarely coincide with national boundaries and the degradation of small localities around the world have a negative aggregate impact on the entire world. This means that it is impossible for a state to concern itself with its own water issues without concerning its neighbors. A global solution to the issue is not only desirable, but necessary. However, to date all efforts to create this global solution has been stymied by countries nationalist approach to water management and the international communities inability to formulate a definitive consensus concerning the right way to manage water. The rest of this paper will deal with explaining the major schools of thought concerning the best method to address the issue of water.
The World Water forum is a world wide conference that brings together representatives from around the world to discuss the issue of water and to formulate solutions to the burgeoning water crisis. This event is organized by the World Water Council that according to it's website attempts to “ to promote awareness, build political commitment and trigger action on critical water issues at all levels, including the highest decision-making level, to facilitate the efficient conservation, protection, development, planning, management and use of water in all its dimensions on an environmentally sustainable basis for the benefit of all life on earth.”
To facilitate these ends, the WWC has put together a series of forums to discuss and implement policies conducive to its goals. These conferences bring together representatives from governments, International governmental organizations, non governmental organizations and corporate entities associated with the issue of water around the world to discuss the nature of the water problem and to formulate solutions. However, the uptake on its initiatives have been slow at best. Countries are hesitant to implement these policies or endorse international agreements that may infringe on their national sovereignty or personal interests.
Additionally, there is hardly any sort of consensus concerning the nature of the water problem let alone the solutions to these problems. The Second forum held at the Hague, Switzerland, outlined a framework that would have established an international regime to administer the regulation and governance of the world's water supply. Aside from the general criticisms that any global regime has to endure in this globalizing world, there were those that felt that this framework was inadequately prepared and woefully ill suited to actually address the issue of water. This is because the issue of water transcends any global governance framework, and encompasses the thousands of specific localities, that combined represent a threat to the world as a whole (Conca (2003) )
This argument is set forth by Ken Conca (2003) , when he argues the past efforts of the WWF were doomed to failure because of their inability to address the local issues that contribute to this global problem. He personally believes that a network of interconnected movements that combine the goal of mitigating the global water crisis while address specific local problems is key to any efforts to address this issue. He believes that the framework to accomplish this already exists, but is not being utilized.
In defense of the forum and its participants, they have been very adaptive to the nature of the issues and its criticisms. For instance, to the criticisms of Ken Conca (2003) et. al. leveled against it, the fourth world water forum held this year in Mexico City, set forth a declaration entitled the “Local Government Declaration on Water.” In this declaration, the WWF recognizes the importance of local governance in the fight against water deprivation. However, this declaration falls sort of being any sort of def initiative document that sets any sort of standards or criteria for future action. An issue that can hardly be pinned on the WWF alone and only time will tell how well it manages to accomplish this or if it is even serious in this regard.
The agility and flexibility of the WWF aside, there exists a substantial amount of criticism towards the WWF's efforts, that do not involve the effectiveness of its policies or solutions, but rather are targeted at fundamental composition of the forum itself. These
groups believe that the WWF is merely a front for global corporations pushing for the privatization of water. Of course, these critics deny these allegations, the secretary general of the Mexico Forum, Jose Gurria, was quoted as saying “It's funny that in the alternative meeting, these groups are speaking out against privatization, when none of the 12,000 to 13,000 delegates here are talking about that”. (Cevallos 2006)
However, these critics have some well founded concerns. The first three forums emphasized privatization of water as one of the only sure fire ways to address the water criss (Conca 2003 , Conant 2006). In addition, The World Bank, one of the major sponsors of forums, is also one of the major driving forces of globalization and is a strong proponent of the privatization of water. ( Budds 2004, World Water Council List of members 2006). The fundamental question is what the privatization of water actually entails. Is it the solution to the water crisis? Or is it a means to exploit the poor and exacerbate the problem?

Water as the next global commodity: Arguments for and against.

The onslaught of globalization in the last decade and a half has not somehow miraculously overlooked water. During this time, the predominate approach to water management has been to rely on market mechanisms to regulate water consumption and help alleviate the current water crisis (Budds 2004). The World Bank maintains a web page dedicated to disseminated papers and reports on the issue of water and its official position on the privatization of water, found on the opening page is that:

“public sector utilities in developing countries have often not been efficient in providing access to reliable water and sanitation services. But demand for affordable water and sanitation services is high and continues to grow. The millennium development goals aim to reduce the number of people without access to water and sanitation in half by 2015. Unless the efficiency of service provision is radically improved, achieving this goal will be costly and virtually impossible. Thus, improving service efficiency must be an overarching goal for the reform of water and sanitation services. Evidence shows that the private sector, under contract with the public sector, has often yielded better results than public sector utilities alone. The ability of the private sector to deliver improved results depends heavily on the design of tis contract with the public sector. “ (Privatization Water and Sanitation services 2006)

In short, the world bank doesn't believe that the public sector is capable of effectively managing water resources and feels that private investment is the only way to ensure the availability of sufficient water resources for the planets inhabitants. As perhaps one of the largest contributers of monetary development assistance, it goes without saying that the World Bank exerts a lot of pressure.
Needless to say, not everyone agrees with this approach. The opponents of the World Bank and the World Water forum believe that water should be a basic human right and that the move to privatization puts this right in jeopardy. They feel that access to clean safe drinking water should be put at the forefront of all considerations, most especially the bottom line of global corporations. They argue that privatization reinforces the continued exploitation of the poor people of the world and do nothing to address the global water problem.
These opponents have some convincing arguments in the form of examples in their repertoire. For example, in Bolivia the state was forced to cancel its long standing contract with Suez, a global player in private water management, because of their inability to provide water to 200,000 people in El Alto despite being guaranteed 13% profits. This was because the connection fee for water services was equivalent to nearly a years worth of wages for the average citizen (Contant 2006). This is not the only place where privatization has failed; Suez has had to discontinue its operation in such varied places as Buenas Ares, Argentina and Atlanta, Ga, because of wide spread dissatisfaction with their services.
Chile was perhaps on of the first countries to privatize its water resources and today is used for a framework model from which to countries are to emulate its own privatization. However, an in depth analysis by Jessica Budds (2004) on the ecological effects of these efforts shows that this system hardly begins to address the issue of water access. She shows that access to water rights has been consolidated in the hands of the large landowners while the poor still struggle to provide for themselves. This has caused a conflict between those for and those against the governments system of granting water rights, with the subsequent effect being a “free for all” for access to water as people have resorted to illegal measures to satisfy their needs. So, instead of promoting a system that rewards “efficiency”, a system was created that forces people to go through extra-judicial lengths to obtain the water they need.
All of this is not to say that privatization is such an evil thing. There is something to be said for the fact that there are 2.6 billion people without access to adequate supplies of water in a world that still largely treats water as a transnational resource. Any long term solution will have to overcome the shortfalls of both public and private sector participation in the water sector. The hard part is getting both sides to agree on the best way to accomplish this. Unfortunately, we are no where near that sort of consensus.




References
Allen, J A. "Hydro-Peace in the Middle Why No Water Wars?" SAIS Review (2002): 255-272. 4 Aug. 2006.


Brooks, David B. "Between the Great Rivers: Water in the Heart of the Middle East." Water Resources Development, 13.3 (1997): 291-301. 4 Aug. 2006.

Budds, Jessica. "Power, Nature and Neoliberalism: The Political Ecology of Water in Chile." Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, (2004). 4 Aug. 2006.

Cevallas, Diego. “Water: Activists, Global Forum Do Not See Eye to Eye” Global Information Network. 20 Mar 2006.

Conant, Jeff. “ For Money or For life” Earth Island Journal San Francisco Jun 2006.

Garry Gerreffi and Miguel Korzeniewicz, Commodity Chains and Global Capitalism, ?

Peace with the Golan “Water issues of the Golan Heights” http://www.golan.org.il/water.html

United Nations. UN Millenium Development Project “What will it take” 2006. 4 June 2006 http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/documents/What_Will_It_Take.pdf

United Nations. UN Water. Water for Life Booklet. 2005. 4 Aug. 2006 <http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/waterforlifebklt-e.pdf>.

World bank “ Privatization water and Sanitation services “ Sector Specific Issues. Http://rru.worldbank.org/paperslinks/privatizing-water-sanitation-services/

World Water Council “About us” http://www.worldwatercouncil.org/index.php?id=92&L=0

World Water Council “List of Members” http://www.uneterre.net/wwc/visu_membre_w.php

[Skirmisher]

Where will these wars/armed conflicts take place? And will they be between nation states or will they be between neighboring communities?

And what information do you base this hypothesis on, especially the 'within 20 years' part?

Gan, as ussual you choose to ignore the aspect you cannot, with any credibility dispute, and focus on the minutiae to try to find some triffle to distract from the main thrust.

Read about water rights being traded/sold in the southwest US if you want some examples close to home.

Read about the current issues in India if you want immediate examples of greater urgency.

Read some of the UN reports if you want more global examples.

Most of all....read.

[Gan]

Gan, as ussual you choose to ignore the aspect you cannot, with any credibility dispute, and focus on the minutiae to try to find some triffle to distract from the main thrust.

Read about water rights being traded/sold in the southwest US if you want some examples close to home.

Read about the current issues in India if you want immediate examples of greater urgency.

Read some of the UN reports if you want more global examples.

Most of all....read.


It was a simple question asshole. If you feel the need to be a snob about providing an answer, do me a favor and send it privately. You're truly a fuckstain, you know?

On a side note, thanks for the paper posted Daniel. Its a very interesting read, especially the arguments for and against privatization of water resourcing.

[Skirmisher]

It was a simple question asshole. If you feel the need to be a snob about providing an answer, do me a favor and send it privately. You're truly a fuckstain, you know?


I was unaware it was my job to spoonfeed you.

And your cries of the wounded innocent sound a little hypocritical coming from the same person who has routinely been insulting people in posts recently, so please save it.

[Gan]

I was unaware it was my job to spoonfeed you.

And your cries of the wounded innocent sound a little hypocritical coming from the same person who has routinely been insulting people in posts recently, so please save it.

Go look at my past posts you idiot. The only person I've insulted lately has been you. Today.

Fuck you.

Edited to add:

Well, I've traded barbs with Backlash, but we do that so regularly that its a common practice now.

[Drew2]

^^^

Politics are dumb.

[Landrion]

I was unaware it was my job to spoonfeed you.

And your cries of the wounded innocent sound a little hypocritical coming from the same person who has routinely been insulting people in posts recently, so please save it.

You made a claim, he asked you to back it up. Not uncommon here actually. You dont want to be bothered spoonfeeding him. Dont expect him to pay much mind to your claim.

Fortunately Daniel stepped forward with info. Good on him.

[Skirmisher]

You made a claim, he asked you to back it up. Not uncommon here actually. You dont want to be bothered spoonfeeding him. Dont expect him to pay much mind to your claim.

Fortunately Daniel stepped forward with info. Good on him.

It's not a claim. It's the way it is.

Whether he or you believe it is irrelevant.

[Parkbandit]

Wars or at least armed conflict WILL take place over water rights within 20 years if there is not some magical discovery of ways to make desalination plants less costly and less waste producing.

That you laugh at even the idea that the global water supply is dwindling away shows that for all your wondrous regents exams scores you are woefully ignorant of the realities of today.


20 years? HOLY SHIT YOU CAN TELL THE FUTURE LIKE BACKLASH CAN NOW!!!??? Hell.. I might change political parties if this is a Democratic skill you can train in.

Seriously... put the Mad Max tape down and step away from the moveon.org playbook. Yes.. I REALIZE that ALL Republicans only want to ruin the environment and one of their main platforms is to artificially heat up the entire earth while also destroying all drinkable water.. but really, it's based upon hype and very little fact.

I'm curious though.. did Al Gore put out another book about how the Republicans are destroying water and the earth only has 20 years until it's a lost cause? Where did you get this 20 year figure from?

[Parkbandit]

It's not a claim. It's the way it is.

Whether he or you believe it is irrelevant.


Oh.. so this is a fact that within 20 years there will be wars waged over water.

I'll be calling bullshit on this if you don't mind.

[Skirmisher]

Oh.. so this is a fact that within 20 years there will be wars waged over water.

I'll be calling bullshit on this if you don't mind.

PB, please don't pull a GAN and stoop to trying to argue the minutiae about exactly when the fighting over water rights will begin.

The far more important portion of my post was that the situation is a fact and its only accellerating.

The exact dates or terminology can be argued over ad infinitum but that won't give you more watrer to drink.

[Gan]

PB, please don't pull a GAN and stoop to trying to argue the minutiae about exactly when the fighting over water rights will begin.

The far more important portion of my post was that the situation is a fact and its only accellerating.

The exact dates or terminology can be argued over ad infinitum but that won't give you more watrer to drink.

Actually, he's just continuing the line of thought I had with regards to calling bullshit to your superfluous claims of running out of water in 20 years with no credible source to back it up.

I was just being polite about it in my original post.

But since you're obviously too retarded to get the fact that OTHERS NEED TO SEE PROOF OF YOUR OUTLANDISH CLAIMS... well, we'll just have to deal with it.

Thanks for comfirming my opinion of you being a complete idiot.

Edited to add: and quit trying to hide from backing up your stupid remarks with diversions of claiming we're straying too far from the topic at hand. Its very FOLEY of you.

[Parkbandit]

PB, please don't pull a GAN and stoop to trying to argue the minutiae about exactly when the fighting over water rights will begin.

The far more important portion of my post was that the situation is a fact and its only accellerating.

The exact dates or terminology can be argued over ad infinitum but that won't give you more watrer to drink.


I'm sorry.. who was it that posted the bullshit in the first place. Let me see if I remember correctly:



Wars or at least armed conflict WILL take place over water rights within 20 years if there is not some magical discovery of ways to make desalination plants less costly and less waste producing.


It's not a claim. It's the way it is.

Whether he or you believe it is irrelevant.

Oh, that's right.. it was you.

How about next time you post.. you actually post some facts instead of bullshit.. then you won't be called out like you were and made to look like a fool.

[Parkbandit]

^^^

Politics are dumb.

I couldn't agree more.

[Skirmisher]

Actually, he's just continuing the line of thought I had with regards to calling bullshit to your superfluous claims of running out of water in 20 years with no credible source to back it up.

I was just being polite about it in my original post.

But since you're obviously too retarded to get the fact that OTHERS NEED TO SEE PROOF OF YOUR OUTLANDISH CLAIMS... well, we'll just have to deal with it.

Thanks for comfirming my opinion of you being a complete idiot.

Edited to add: and quit trying to hide from backing up your stupid remarks with diversions of claiming we're straying too far from the topic at hand. Its very FOLEY of you.


Go look at my past posts you idiot. The only person I've insulted lately has been you. Today.

Fuck you.
.
Well thank goodness you threw in the caveat about exactly WHEN it was you were being polite.

And please do not paraphrase me in such an incorrect manner.

I never said we would be out of water in 20 years.

I said there would be conflicts.

[HarmNone]

More bits and pieces:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/water/story/0,,1851712,00.html

http://www.progress.org/water16.htm

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/natres/waterindex.htm

That last URL will give you enough links to read until your eyes bleed.

[Gan]

Well thank goodness you threw in the caveat about exactly WHEN it was you were being polite.

And please do not paraphrase me in such an incorrect manner.

I never said we would be out of water in 20 years.

I said there would be conflicts.


Actually, it appears that water seems to be one of the many issues with the Israeli-Palestenian conflict and was one of the major causes for the 1967 Six Day War.

And to think you went out on a limb and said it might be a cause for conflict within the next 20 years. :lol: Without even giving details for locations other than AFTER your initial post where you mentioned the Southwest US and India.

In a nutshell we deviated off topic in your own moderated thread because you're being an asswipe when someone you dont like happens to question your own posts. Thanks to Daniel we at least had some direction with which to follow up on your claims of 20 years of possible violence when its already happened. Thats like claiming there will be sex scandals in the Government in the next 20 years.

I'm just waiting for more abrupt rude Instant Messages and or pulled posts.

[Warriorbird]

Curiously enough, the technology available today can get fresh, drinkable water from salt water. The technology is also available today that can get fresh, drinkable water from unpure water.

I'm pretty sure this will not change in the near future ala Mad Max.

As far as science goes, I'm willing to bet you that my grades were well above yours. I still have my Regents Exam results as well as my report cards. Let's compare if you are willing.

:coughs: Do you know the relative difficulty of using said technology for y'know, the countries on the planet that are relatively far from water? Sure, those of us in the "civilized countries" will do fine. The rest of the planet? Not so much. Roughly half of Romania is currently reliant on bottled water, for example. Their runoff rendered parts of Hungary having to do the same for the year I spent there.

My high school GPA in science was nigh perfect, with my only grade below an A having been a B- in chemistry. In college, much the same was true, cept there was nothing below an A-. If I'd only done that well in English Lit (ironic, no? my verbal SATs were way above my math) and Communications (the professor said I looked like her ex husband) I might've had a higher college GPA. As it is, I had a 3.5 cumulative in college, which was decently respectable.

[Gan]

More bits and pieces:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/water/story/0,,1851712,00.html

http://www.progress.org/water16.htm

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/natres/waterindex.htm

That last URL will give you enough links to read until your eyes bleed.

Thanks for the info HN. I also found some interesting things in the politics of water section in Wikipedia.org under the lookup: water.

[Gan]

I do find it ironic that there seems to be a proportional inverse to those who have oil versus those who have water.

Interesting indeed.

[HarmNone]

There's really a lot of information out there. I was just able to scratch the surface over the last few hours. :shocked:

[Parkbandit]

I view global warming and this water issue as the same as I viewed the Y2K global catastrophy of 2000.

[Parkbandit]

I do find it ironic that there seems to be a proportional inverse to those who have oil versus those who have water.

Interesting indeed.


I can only hope that those fucking oil countries that have been holding us hostage have water issues and have to import it in big ass 55 gallon drums from the US.

[Warriorbird]

I view global warming and this water issue as the same as I viewed the Y2K global catastrophy of 2000.

Right...because all you care about is America...then doubling back to your own area of America. There was actually a tremendous effort that was put forth, globally, towards making Y2K a non issue, because people thought ahead about it. Sure, your part of the country isn't going to have much in the way of water problems. The same can not be said of parts of the Southwest as well as the areas drawing off the Midwestern aquifers.

Y2K might have been pretty serious if people had made the habit of sticking their heads in the sand that you do. Thank goodness everybody doesn't do that.

Being pragmatic about global warming I don't think the sky is going to "immediately fall" either...but I think there are reasonable things that we can do to alleviate the affects, rather than going out and building a shrine to conspicuous, wasteful, consumption.

[Daniel]

I view global warming and this water issue as the same as I viewed the Y2K global catastrophy of 2000.

You'd be wrong.

Reference my previous post as to why.

Or not.

Whatever you prefer.

[Gan]

There's really a lot of information out there. I was just able to scratch the surface over the last few hours. :shocked:

I'm glad we wont have to worry about armed conflict over water in the Southwestern USA.

Potable water has never been something that followed areas of population. I think thats why migration of civilizations were more prominent in the earlier years. Now it seems civilization has become more or less fixed to a specific loci due to space/population as well as development of mega-cities.

Perhaps resources from the sale of oil exportations could be used to build the latest in technology efficient water treatement plants in the more arid regions that have that resource to trade off.

As for people living in the desert.... well, what did you expect, you're living in a desert?!? See the migration suggestion.

[Gan]

I can only hope that those fucking oil countries that have been holding us hostage have water issues and have to import it in big ass 55 gallon drums from the US.


Hmmm...

I see a new organization starting up in the future...
Organization of the Water Exporting Countries (OWEC)

[DeV]

There is literally tons of information and research available that shines light on this very important topic. All that's required to become more informed is a mouse, keyboard, and an internet connection.

Water is an issue. Just because it isn't an issue in our neck of the woods doesn't mean there are people on this planet not deprived of one of the most basic necessities known to man and are negatively affected by it daily.

[Lassiter 506]

As far as science goes, I'm willing to bet you that my grades were well above yours. I still have my Regents Exam results as well as my report cards. Let's compare if you are willing.

ROFL. you're making an argument based upon regent's scores and report cards ? This is some of the dumbest shit I have ever read. A general understanding of science, does not relegate you as the purveyor of all that is scientific. If however you possessed a doctoral degree (and not your heralded report cards and regent's exam scores) in the area you seem to profess proficiency in, then that would be different. By your logic then, I suppose that my MCAT scores and grades from Upenn PWN the shit out of your scores ? Of course not. Relevant field information is specific to certain learning sectors, and is why Ilvane's learned opinion holds more weight than yours.

[Atlanteax]

The following attachment is an editoral cartoon that acutely demonstrate why Democrats will struggle to have a clear platform/message for the Nov 2006 (and 2008) elections...

[Wezas]

That cartoon was mostly lame until the fetus comment. Then it became only mildly lame.

[Sean]

I'd say it more acutely displays the Conservative fear mongering. The Dems don't want us to be safe they hate national security and murder babies!

[Wezas]

Now now, Sean. I'm sure he found it on an unbias website.

[Hulkein]

I thought the cartoon was good.

[ElanthianSiren]

I thought the cartoon was funny once I got to Habeus Corpus; the reason I found that funny was because that protest was led by Arlen Specter (R-PA). Perhaps a new one needs to be made, noting the tendency of republicans to mock their own when they don't agree, thus terrorizing the rank and file to fall in line (even when that line is certain to result in a rebuff by the Supreme Court and a notice of irresponsible legislation that falls on said party's shoulders).

-M
ps. kill babies in '08

[Warriorbird]

Yeah... not everybody finds the idea of locking people up indefinitely and torturing them palatable.

[Gan]

Yeah... not everybody finds the idea of locking people up indefinitely and torturing them palatable.

I think thats a great solution for those who have blown up innocent people in the name of religion.

[ElanthianSiren]

What about in the name of imaginary WMDs?

-M

[Gan]

Or not so imaginary facist dictators.

[Warriorbird]

I think thats a great solution for those who have blown up innocent people in the name of religion.

Because, of course, every single one of them is guilty. We never torture them for four years and let them go, no, no...that's never happened. Sadly enough there usually seems to be not much left of the people who blow up innocents. Except that one fellow who's going to die a natural death in the caves of Pakistan while we screw around with Iraq and his lieutenats. What a great strategy.

[Lassiter 506]

I think thats a great solution for those who have blown up innocent people in the name of religion. - Ganalon


I think thats a great solution for those who have blown up innocent people in the name of patriotism.

hmm...

[Gan]

Yes, because we all know they act alone.

[Warriorbird]

If, y'know, you bothered to read the rest of my post you might have seen the area where I addressed that. Then again, you're the master of paragraph quibbling.

[Gan]

You got me on the post-post edit. Sorry, I responded too fast.

[Warriorbird]

Yeah. Neocon babble at under a minute! Woo hoo!

[Drew2]

To be completely off topic, Lassiter 506 is hot, if that's him in his avatar.

[HarmNone]

Tayre, dear? :club:

[Gan]

:rofl:

Now thats a derailer.

[Skirmisher]

You got me on the post-post edit. Sorry, I responded too fast.

Poor Gan is having a bad day.

[Drew2]

Tayre, dear? :club:

You know it's true tho!

I'd vote for Lassiter if he ran for President. And took his shirt off.

(My attempt to stay on topic and not get a post pulled)

[ElanthianSiren]

hmm...

Your quote was improper and spun, or I was unclear. My point was that within Gan's line of reasoning, any side anywhere could lodge a case against the other as terrorists; that's indeed the problem with that line of thinking. It breeds nothing but more hatred/fear/intolerance and lowers us to the standards of our enemy. (IMO) -Besides it being illegal and unethical, which is a given.

-M

[Gan]

Poor Gan is having a bad day.

Not really.

[Lassiter 506]

You understood what I was thinking - dead on. Ganalon's post to justify treatment of such prisoners can be used against our troops should they be captured. It's a truly malformed justification derived from the divergent values assigned to Arab and American lives.


It breeds nothing but more hatred/fear/intolerance and lowers us to the standards of our enemy.

This right here, however, is the problem. In the eyes of the world and of many Americans, we already have lowered our standards to those of the "enemy"
. As Colin Powel said last month, the US is losing it's ground on moral integrity, and it should not redefine previously established acceptable interrogation practices.

[Wezas]

To be completely off topic, Lassiter 506 is hot, if that's him in his avatar.

Shari already hit on him and Lassiter basically WTFPWNED her. So maybe you have a shot, Drew.

[Warriorbird]

With a smile like that? Tayre ain't in his league.

[HarmNone]

Heh. Lassiter, you're a handsome young man. With the vibes being emanated by some on these boards, I'd suggest you tuck your tail very tightly between your legs and run like the devil! :D

[TheEschaton]

Or, yanno, stick your tail out, and shake it a bit, if that's your thing...

-TheE-

[Lassiter 506]

What's said here has been pretty innocuous compared to some of the stuff old hags spew out in the game.

If I get a wierd PM, that's probably when I'll change my avatar - maybe to that ghastly picture of Dessedemona, for adequate deterrence.

[HarmNone]

If I might beg your indulgence ... please, don't! :scared:

Perhaps, a rabbit with a pancake on its head?

[Gan]

Here's an interesting site with candidates (possible and declared) from all parties known thus far all on one page for convienence purposes.

http://www.politics1.com/p2008.htm

[Sean of the Thread]

Yay the thread is back on topic!

Condi? I don't think there is a chance in hell she'll try for a ticket.

[Back]

Here's an interesting site with candidates (possible and declared) from all parties known thus far all on one page for convienence purposes.

http://www.politics1.com/p2008.htm

Saint Michael Jesus Archangel (R-Michigan)? Ok.

[Gan]

He's in bold so he's on record for filing an exploratory comittee or announcing his bid.

Here's another one thats kooky:
Cris Ericson (Marijuana-Vermont) (http://www.crisericson.com/)

[Lassiter 506]

Would like to have seen Christine Todd Whitman's name on there somewhere. She's been a good voice for Republican moderates.

[Atlanteax]

Here's one that does a nice job of potraying the Republican Party under siege...

[Atlanteax]

Saint Michael Jesus Archangel (R-Michigan)? Ok.

I'd say that the odds are high that he is a member of the Christian Coalition.

[Sean]

Would like to have seen Christine Todd Whitman's name on there somewhere. She's been a good voice for Republican moderates.

As a resident of New Jersey I would not like to see this happen.

[Hulkein]

Here's one that does a nice job of potraying the Republican Party under siege...

I like how W's isn't a shoe, but a Cowboy boot, haha.

[Lassiter 506]

As a resident of New Jersey I would not like to see this happen.

It's quite interesting - the economic policies and tax cuts she endorsed while in office are in stark contrast to those that she supports now. Fiscally conservative and liberal in social policies - she's evolved quite a bit since she left governorship in NJ.

[Drew2]

You should really change your avatar.

It makes it impossible to read what you write, because I'm sure not looking at the text.

[Parkbandit]

http://i.euniverse.com/funpages/cms_content/13180/HillaryCondi_HoDown.swf

[Parkbandit]

You should really change your avatar.

It makes it impossible to read what you write, because I'm sure not looking at the text.

You know that's him in the avatar or you are just hoping?

I remember someone on these boards claiming to be something she wasn't. Maybe Artha can look into this claim as well.

[Artha]

Maybe Artha can look into this claim as well.
My powers only work for straight porn.

[Lassiter 506]

You know that's him in the avatar or you are just hoping?

I remember someone on these boards claiming to be something she wasn't. Maybe Artha can look into this claim as well.


Sad sir, truly sad.

[Warriorbird]

He's like a modern day Bob Dobbs.

http://www.geocities.com/walrus95482/bob.jpg

Bob Dobbs is dead...but he'd still be a great 2008 candidate.

[Sean of the Thread]

He's like a modern day Bob Dobbs.

http://www.geocities.com/walrus95482/bob.jpg

Bob Dobbs is dead...but he'd still be a great 2008 candidate.

Rofl I thought the same thing about his appearance.. Lass looks very gooberish but nobody ever accused Tayre of having good taste in men. He MIGHT however have a good taste OF men seeing how many he date rapes.


Seriously CONDI FUCKING RICE? I've heard this a lot lately????

[Sean]

Of everyone whose heard Condi's name mentioned has anyone heard of someone saying "I'd vote for Condi?"

I mean I didn't even like it when people were mentioning her as a possible NFL Commish and now people are mentioning her as a candidate for president? No thanks.

The only way I really see the Republicans running Condi is if they are conceeding the 2008 race but want to appear progressive by running a minority (both as an african american and a woman).

[Parkbandit]

Of everyone whose heard Condi's name mentioned has anyone heard of someone saying "I'd vote for Condi?"

I mean I didn't even like it when people were mentioning her as a possible NFL Commish and now people are mentioning her as a candidate for president? No thanks.

The only way I really see the Republicans running Condi is if they are conceeding the 2008 race but want to appear progressive by running a minority (both as an african american and a woman).

She's got about as much chance as Hillary... I just posted the link because someone sent it to me today.

[Parkbandit]

Sad sir, truly sad.


My thoughts exactly. You should be a politician.. as I notice you do not confirm or deny.

[Gan]

I bet Tayre would be his congressional paige.

[Gan]

She's got about as much chance as Hillary... I just posted the link because someone sent it to me today.

Most of my Republican friends here all agree that its way too soon in Condi's political career to consider running for the VP/P spot. She's suffering from the same pundit hopefuls who tried to shove Powell into the ring in 2000.

[Lassiter 506]

You are quite the confrontational one. So, let's feed the fire.

I put up a new avatar. In it, there are two more people added, who I consider friends. You however, may consider them suspect. Feel free to internally deliberate their actual existence, as well as mine.

[Parkbandit]

You are quite the confrontational one. So, let's feed the fire.

I put up a new avatar. In it, there are two more people added, who I consider friends. You however, may consider them suspect. Feel free to internally deliberate their actual existence, as well as mine.

Hey... I know exactly what it's like man.

I also put up a new avatar.

[Parkbandit]

Most of my Republican friends here all agree that its way too soon in Condi's political career to consider running for the VP/P spot. She's suffering from the same pundit hopefuls who tried to shove Powell into the ring in 2000.


I was actually talking to some DC players and they agree with your contention Ganalon.

[Parkbandit]

You are quite the confrontational one. So, let's feed the fire.

I put up a new avatar. In it, there are two more people added, who I consider friends. You however, may consider them suspect. Feel free to internally deliberate their actual existence, as well as mine.

I put up this picture. In it, there are two more people added, who I consider people I would like to get to know in a naked sort of way. You can't see their faces in this picture... but trust me, they are hot. Feel free to internally deliberate their actual existence, as well as mine.

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/george_clooney_10.jpg

[Gan]

ROFhahahahahahahaL

Thanks for the laugh this morning PB.

Also note:
Notice who's hugging/leaning on who in Lassiter's avatar. Looks like his friend is getting a reacharound either from Lassitar or the girl in front. Either way she's not getting near as much play as she should be in that pic.

[Landrion]

PB you have gone WAY over the line with that avatar.

[Back]

Condi? No freaking way. I worry about the poor woman actually. One day she will look back on all of this and realize shes been had by this administration just like everyone else in the world. Its too bad, really. Imagine if she had used her powers for good?

Something no one has talked about is Slimy Dick Cheney. Although I think I have heard him quoted in the past as having no intention or desire to run for the presidency.

No one has mentioned Jeb Bush.

Its very relieving to see people going with the more moderate candidates without ties to this administration on the Republican side. Very relieving.

And how does Cynthia McKinney think she can possibly run? I suspect who ever made that list you posted, Ganalon, was smoking some crack.

[CrystalTears]

Cheney = No!
Jeb Bush = Holy hell NO! No more Bushes!
Condi = WTF No!

I weep for the future.

[Landrion]

Something no one has talked about is Slimy Dick Cheney. Although I think I have heard him quoted in the past as having no intention or desire to run for the presidency.

No one has mentioned Jeb Bush.


Pish, I mentioned Jeb. Though I think they'll wait through another candidate before running him (like they did between W and Bush Sr.).

Cheney, well, what can you say? He does come across as too slimey. He probably has too many skeletons from Haliburton to stand the light of day anyway. Man, I just shot Marvin in the face!.

[Parkbandit]

PB you have gone WAY over the line with that avatar.

Lines were meant to be broken.

[HarmNone]

As jealousy was meant to be spoken?

[Sean]

She's got about as much chance as Hillary... I just posted the link because someone sent it to me today.

Eh I think Hillary has a much better chance than Condi does. You or I may not particularly like Hillary but she does have a fairly big support base especially amongst women from what I can tell. Then again maybe Condi does too I just havn't heard a single person throw up Condi as someone they would vote for.

[Gan]

Condi? No freaking way. I worry about the poor woman actually. One day she will look back on all of this and realize shes been had by this administration just like everyone else in the world. Its too bad, really. Imagine if she had used her powers for good?

Something no one has talked about is Slimy Dick Cheney. Although I think I have heard him quoted in the past as having no intention or desire to run for the presidency.

No one has mentioned Jeb Bush.

Its very relieving to see people going with the more moderate candidates without ties to this administration on the Republican side. Very relieving.

And how does Cynthia McKinney think she can possibly run? I suspect who ever made that list you posted, Ganalon, was smoking some crack.

Yea, I mentioned Condi like 10 posts ago. As far as her being had??? :rofl:
The woman's extremely intelligent and a very capable stateswoman. She doe not need propping up by anyone, least of all Bush. And no not EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD has been had by Bush. Please keep the liberalist rhetoric to a minimum?

I recall mentioning Jeb way back in the first few pages, and dont think the public would even consider another Bush in the whitehouse. Not because of the current dislike for W, but for the fact that Americans by nature shy away from family's in power. We dont need the republican version of the Kennedy's in the white house, thank you very much.

Cheney run? Not on your life. He's had enough I would imagine. He's ready for retirement so he can write his memiors and sell a few books while searching for people to go quail hunting with. I'm guess he'll have greater sucess with the former than the latter.

And although it does not suprise me to see McKinney's name thrown in the hat, (she's one thats not playing with a full deck) I'm curioius as to why it was included on the list. The website author never mentioned methodology of how names were placed.

I wonder if any other websites showing overall candidacy possibilities also have such a vast selection listed.

[Back]

And no not EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD has been had by Bush. Please keep the liberalist rhetoric to a minimum?

The way the Republican party has collapsed in on itself over the past 6 years without getting much of anything done in Congress except rubber-stamp our “unitary executive theory” president, mind you the party in power, it surprises me you don’t feel screwed, used, and abused.

With the Republican party looking at many moderate candidates like McCain, and eschewing candidates like Allen and Santorum, I get the impression there are some out there who have had enough abuse.

[Gan]

And there are those of us, moderates, who have always encouraged moderate candidates. While I'm a moderate Republican by nature, I'm not a fan of McCain. So I'll definately entertain other possibilities.

Havent you figured out that its a race to the middle once a candidate declares his/her official intent for running? In most cases, being a moderate for either party is just a hyperbole until the elections are over.

[Back]

And there are those of us, moderates, who have always encouraged moderate candidates. While I'm a moderate Republican by nature, I'm not a fan of McCain. So I'll definately entertain other possibilities.

Havent you figured out that its a race to the middle once a candidate declares his/her official intent for running? In most cases, being a moderate for either party is just a hyperbole until the elections are over.

Nothing as near as the Bush bait-and-switch. What we view as moderate for our own parties is different anyway.

Gingrich has been making a lot of noise, some pretty loud noise, recently on the talking head shows. Makes me wonder if he isn’t setting himself up for a run.

[Gan]

Gingrich is old news. He lost the faith of the Republican leadership and had to step down because of his previous exploits. He hasnt done anything to regain that faith as a leader, and in my book is just a lecture circut/celebrity golfer.

If anything he's just a diversion like Gore.

[Parkbandit]

Gingrich is old news. He lost the faith of the Republican leadership and had to step down because of his previous exploits. He hasnt done anything to regain that faith as a leader, and in my book is just a lecture circut/celebrity golfer.

If anything he's just a diversion like Gore.

I think they are both testing the waters for '08.

[Gan]

If they both turnout for seeking their party's nomination, then it will definately mean plenty of mud for the slinging.

It would also mean being stuck in late night television rerun land having to go through all their past discretions and antics again. Back in the day it might have been easier to let bygones be bygones. But with the today's political polarization and the internet, nothing on these two particular candidates would be sacred.

I think I'll start stocking up on popcorn, its liable to be one hell of a show.

:popcorn:

[Back]

If they both turnout for seeking their party's nomination, then it will definately mean plenty of mud for the slinging.

It would also mean being stuck in late night television rerun land having to go through all their past discretions and antics again. Back in the day it might have been easier to let bygones be bygones. But with the today's political polarization and the internet, nothing on these two particular candidates would be sacred.

I think I'll start stocking up on popcorn, its liable to be one hell of a show.

:popcorn:

I was content not to see Gore run when it was first suggested... but now? I am warming up to the idea very fast. He went through all the paces in 2000 and succeeded in winning the popular vote. In many people’s minds he should have been president. I can see people voting for him just to vindicate him and themselves. Who would he run with though?

Lieberman maybe? Are people willing to sit through the late night TV re-runs as Gan suggests? Maybe not. Now, with Lieberman an independent, and favored by some conservatives, it might help centralize the vote to enhance their win. Then again Lieberman is another one who made a deal with the devil once this administration started backing him. Bush gave him the kiss of death in my opinion. So no on that one.

A moderate republican would be a great running mate for the reason I described above. Maybe Shay? Not McCain because a) I don’t see McCain as a second to anyone and b) he also made a deal with the devil. Not as familiar with the republican party to suggest a good moderate.

As for democrats, Gore/Clinton, while entertaining, just does not cut it with me, nor would it with the public. Dynasty syndrome kills this one.

Possibly Obama. It would be a great lead in to the presidency for him, give him some time to cut his teeth on the higher ranks. I like this in theory.

Murtha might do well also. Give Gore a heavily hawkish counterpart to balance out the diplomacy and you might get moderates on board. As a team they might compliment each other.

[Warriorbird]

Gore and Hillary are both in the "hell no" category for me.

[CrystalTears]

Vindicate Gore?

Scuse me a second...

http://img116.exs.cx/img116/1231/z7shysterical.gif

[Parkbandit]

I was content not to see Gore run when it was first suggested... but now? I am warming up to the idea very fast. He went through all the paces in 2000 and succeeded in winning the popular vote. In many people’s minds he should have been president. I can see people voting for him just to vindicate him and themselves. Who would he run with though?




HAHAHAHAHAHA

Thanks for the laugh man. I used to have to do searches for past posts from you, but now they come almost daily. Sure, it's not new material.. but it never gets old. I would really feel vindicated if Gore won? Classic stuff man.

Shouldn't this be in the humor section though? We're trying to talk about politics here.

[Parkbandit]

I was content not to see Gore run when it was first suggested... but now? I am warming up to the idea very fast. He went through all the paces in 2000 and succeeded in winning the popular vote. In many people’s minds he should have been president. I can see people voting for him just to vindicate him and themselves. Who would he run with though?


LOL!

Damn Backlash.. you crack me up. I used to just do searches for your past posts to get this kind of laugh.. but now you post everyday with it. Sure, it's not new material.. but it still is funny shit. I will feel vindicated if Gore wins? that shit is classic!!

Thanks man.

PS - Maybe we should make a humor section of the forums for this kind of post though. We're trying to talk politics and Backlash pops in here and derails it with his funny posts.

[Sean]

Did PB just respond twice to the same quote saying the same thing 2 different ways? Alzheimer's has officially kicked in.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

My whole family voted for Gore when he ran for President. He did a huge favor, personally, to a close friend of our family and ultimately to everybody at the newspaper my father worked at. Long story short, this insurance company told the family friend to let their premie son die because they didn't want to pay for his live-in nurse, and among our own families problems they were refusing to pay for a lot of the medical attention both my mother and myself needed at that time.

Was it for his public image? Sure, it probably was. But did he have to do it? Nah, he didn't. He didn't have to personally intervene in a damn thing in our tiny little town in Washington state.

I'd vote for Gore again if he ran. Not because I'd want to see him vindicated, but because I've seen with my own eyes that he's used his power for good and that if it wasn't for him I'd have been forced to wait an extra two years to get onto a wait list for a new liver. If Bush had done the same thing, republican or not, he'd be getting my vote instead.

All that aside, I can't say that I think Gore is the best qualified Dem for the position. I'd actually prefer a Moderate, even though I'm rather Progressive. I dislike a lot of the stuff the Dems are saying but I really want to get away from this "moral" and religous bullshit spewing from the Republicans. Really, that's all I hope for. A good moderate.

[CrystalTears]

I don't think anyone has ever said that Gore is an asshole. Just not president material.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I don't think anyone has ever said that Gore is an asshole. Just not president material.

No but I'm saying that people may not vote for Gore just because they'd want him vindicated.. and that people who may vote for him, may not actually prefer that he run.

[Parkbandit]

Did PB just respond twice to the same quote saying the same thing 2 different ways? Alzheimer's has officially kicked in.

Fucking stupid mouse with a BACK button + bad ISP issue + PC being on a crappy server = fuckup.

[Skirmisher]

Fucking stupid mouse with a BACK button + bad ISP issue + PC being on a crappy server = fuckup.

Sure sure....hahaha

http://www.tiptopvitamins.com/images/items/memory.jpg

[Atlanteax]

Alright... another Political Cartoon...

This one represents Democrats' inability to take advantage of the Republican party's vulnerabilities...

.

Btw, this website is a great collection of political cartoonists...

http://www.cagle.com/main.asp

Over time, you can tell which ones are liberal-slanted, and conservative-slanted, or geniunely moderate... however, it's nice when they all "agree" on a current issue...

Don't forgot to select "Daily Editoral Cartoons" (http://www.cagle.com/politicalcartoons/) for the most recent ones for each cartoonist.

[Sean]

Alright... another Political Cartoon...

This one represents Democrats' inability to take advantage of the Republican party's vulnerabilities...



What can I say, we aren't gun nuts.

[Parkbandit]

Sure sure....hahaha

http://www.tiptopvitamins.com/images/items/memory.jpg


I can't even argue with that...

My memory has always been shitty... so I'm hoping it's not a sign of old age.

[Jorddyn]

There's been talk of our current governor, Tom Vilsack, running.

Of course, as of right now, he has neither the funding nor the recognition to make it at this point. It'll be an interesting couple of years.

~T

Quoting myself.

http://www.tomvilsack08.com/

First Democrat to officially file for the race. WOO! I can't wait.

[Sean of the Thread]

Quoting myself.

http://www.tomvilsack08.com/

First Democrat to officially file for the race. WOO! I can't wait.

Sorry.. one of the requirements is to not look that guy. He's a vagapussooeryrtarded looking.

[Gan]

Nov. 10, 2006 — His party may have taken "a thumpin'," in the words of President Bush, but ABC News has learned that Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and his political team have decided it's full steam ahead for his 2008 presidential campaign though he has yet to make the final, official decision.
Sources close to McCain say on Wednesday in Phoenix, he and a half dozen of his top aides huddled and decided to proceed more formally with his quest for the White House.

continued...
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2644481&page=1

[Latrinsorm]

My first reaction is: hopefully people learned their lesson and won't vote for someone else in the Rep primaries.

But my second reaction is: well, the guy they voted for did win 2 Presidential elections.

But my third reaction is: Yeah, but McCain ftw still.

[Hulkein]

Hail the next Commander in Chief, imo

[Skirmisher]

Should talk to Rush the pill popper then.

He seems to have quite a case of the hates for McCain

[Back]

As Republican candidates go McCain is attractive.

[Sean of the Thread]

I've said it plenty of times but McCain has my vote.

[Gan]

As Republican candidates go McCain is attractive.

Agreed for the sole reason of lacking a better alternative for the RNC. Lots of grass roots folks are still upset with his stunt with the 'gang of 14' not to mention his public disagreement with Bush over the torture issue.

Allen was a name frequently talked about, until his defeat this past Friday. Now he's not an issue.

I still see Newt mentioned, but I think he's damaged goods and needs to stick with his book writing and new wife.

Jeb is not an option. And since Rudy is pro-choice and does not support anti-gay legislation, and has the wife/mistress issue, he's also out of favor with the grass roots folks.

Personally, of all the candidates, Rudy and then McCain are who I'm looking at for now.

I had an interesting conversation with the election precinct char today (who is also on the local Republican comittee), and gave him the message that as it stands now, the RNC, if it keeps on its current path, will be out of touch with most of the moderates who normally vote Republican. And furthermore their sense of entitlement that they will continue to have my vote was in error if they continue to favor the extreme religious right. I"m voting for the leadership of our government, not for the leader of our church. I hope he passes along that message...

[Sean of the Thread]

he RNC, if it keeps on its current path, will be out of touch with most of the moderates who normally vote Republican. And furthermore their sense of entitlement that they will continue to have my vote was in error if they continue to favor the extreme religious right


The religious right disgusts me and another moderate republican bit the dust because of it.

[Back]

Quoting myself.

http://www.tomvilsack08.com/

First Democrat to officially file for the race. WOO! I can't wait.

V for Vilsack? He has a video blog on the internets!

All kidding aside... Never heard of the guy. Will have to see and hear him speak, as will the rest of us in the other 50 (counting DC) states. His internet presence is pretty hip though. I like the V.

[Back]

Haha, I just re-read my first post. I guess it did come off a bit pretentious. Hey, the key to a good story is a little embellishment.

Jorddyn quoted herself so I will too. Specifically for PB. Apparently I AM precognostic. Wait... I’m getting a vision now... I see... more flaming posts.


In my view, if Shay keeps going as he is, he might make a decent Republican president to counter what will be a Democratic majority after this years Congressional election. Shay is far more moderate than McCain.

[Parkbandit]

Hey, the key to a good story is a little embellishment.


And you wonder why no one takes you seriously on any political threads. Here's an idea.. instead of telling stories here.. how about we stick with facts. There's other topics where you can express your fictional talents.

[xtc]

20 years? HOLY SHIT YOU CAN TELL THE FUTURE LIKE BACKLASH CAN NOW!!!??? Hell.. I might change political parties if this is a Democratic skill you can train in.

Seriously... put the Mad Max tape down and step away from the moveon.org playbook. Yes.. I REALIZE that ALL Republicans only want to ruin the environment and one of their main platforms is to artificially heat up the entire earth while also destroying all drinkable water.. but really, it's based upon hype and very little fact.

I'm curious though.. did Al Gore put out another book about how the Republicans are destroying water and the earth only has 20 years until it's a lost cause? Where did you get this 20 year figure from?

Macleans Magazine wrote an interesting article on water rights. I haven't heard the 20 year figure but I think the fight for clean drinking water will be a major issue in the world in the coming decades.


http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/politics/article.jsp?content=20051128_116618_116618

[Parkbandit]

In 10 years.. according to Gore.. fresh water will be the least of our worries.

[Sean]

It'll be interesting to see if the Republicans fraction off into a bunch of subcultures that fight with themselves ala the Democrats. It'd be the only real chance for a 3+ party system that I can think of.

[Sean of the Thread]

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b236/Japgross/gore.jpg

[xtc]

In 10 years.. according to Gore.. fresh water will be the least of our worries.

I think Gore is joined by almost every scientist on the planet in his fear of the devasting effects of Global Climate Change.

[Gan]

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, known for his apt city leadership after the September 11, 2001, attacks, took the first step toward a possible 2008 White House bid by forming a presidential exploratory committee.

Giuliani has not officially decided whether to run, said committee Treasurer John Gross in a statement.

"We have taken the necessary legal steps so an organization can be put in place and money can be raised," Gross said.

A document from the New York Department of State says Giuliani made the initial filing Friday.

Paperwork filed with the department states the committee's purpose is "to conduct federal 'testing-the-waters' activities under the Federal Election Campaign Act."

Giuliani, 62, joins Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, chairman of the powerful Armed Services Committee, as the only Republican to officially form an exploratory committee.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/13/giuliani.president/index.html

[Parkbandit]

I think Gore is joined by almost every scientist on the planet in his fear of the devasting effects of Global Climate Change.

If by almost every scientist, you mean some.. you are correct.

[Back]

If by almost every scientist, you mean some.. you are correct.

You are ignorant and live in a little fantasy box of your own.

Also... your sig should say...

Annoy Everyone... Use a big stupid pic in your sig.

[Gan]

There are several threads that discuss this very topic, and yes, not ALL the scientific community recognize Gore's claims, inspite of what he'd have you believe.

[Parkbandit]

You are ignorant and live in a little fantasy box of your own.

Also... your sig should say...

Annoy Everyone... Use a big stupid pic in your sig.

There are at least two words you should never utter on these message boards Backlash, when referring to someone other than yourself.

Ignorant
Hypocrite

It would make you look less of both.

[xtc]

If by almost every scientist, you mean some.. you are correct.


No, I mean the vast majority by far, not some, not a few, the vast majority. If there was an plebiscite on the issue taken by scientists studying the issue, it would be a landslide.