john5746

Amy Winehouse They’re tryin to make me go to rehab I said no, no <cough wheeze, croak>

first line from your link is below: Answer: Although prenuptial agreements are not mentioned in the Bible,

1) ku strikes again. I doubt you are talking about yourself or anyone else for that matter. 2) Christians get prenups and get divorced all the time. 3) A preacher is probably not a good financial advisor, although they probably spend a great deal of time worrying about how to spend other people's money.

I would not be surprised if they talked it over with Bush. He would welcome more urgency with talks, etc.

Yes, very old fashioned. It was a joke, a bad joke I guess. I'm a southerner, where we corner the market on making fun of ourselves.

Is your primary problem with oil the Co2 emissions? that's the only thing I see that fits your analogy.

I thought this one was interesting: Seriously though, I do like Dixie. I liked the Czech one as well. And UK then Russia.

Yep, both McCain and Obama are very similar in that they are presenting themselve as holier than thou, yet become crafty politicians when needed. I think McCain would probably do the same as Obama if he were in the same situation, however, I would give McCain the greater probability of keeping his word, since he has really pushed for this and given his history of being stubborn when faced with difficulty. McCain has true grit, no doubt about that.

Just that there are technical and economical constraints as well as uncertainty of the amount of oil that can be extracted. Well, the economic constraints will shift big time and I say that will also shift the technical curve as well, since economics drives innovation - after all that is what we want with alternative fuels. Looks like neither candidate wants to consider ANWR, so we can drop that one.

His nose is getting longer. http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/the_obama_pledge.html This is the argument Obama used, four months later. He wanted to keep the high road while battling Clinton. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_02/013164.php From http://donedems.com/2008/06/19/obama-breaks-public-financing-pledge-accuses-mccain/

It took me to a website when I clicked on it a few days ago.

The Obama kool-aide is very strong.

I am glad at least one country is looking out for itself and not waiting for the US to do something - so it can then complain about the job done.

No one speaks hindi google does.

yes, I have seen the scientology ad alot in this thread, but not others. It's nice and shiny. Me likes shiny things....

I suggest the beer and bj approach.

well, I can afford the beer...

Yes, I see the box when I do my &^%$#@*! taxes. What I am saying is that if Obama was a billionaire or getting huge sums of money from business or interests, it would look worse than getting small donations from individuals. I think the whole point of this public funding is to stop a few wealthy entities from controlling an election. If Obama had known that he would have the money machine, he would never have agreed to public financing.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1828132020080619 I guess this could be damaging to Obama, but I think it is a wash, as long as it remains true that Obama gets most of his money in small donations. That is public funding in my opinion.

No one is arguing against pursuing alternative energy sources and conservation! The idea is to do many solutions - shotgun vs silver bullet approach. We have several concerns, 1) The cost of energy 2) Foreign dependance 3) Emissions. Let's say the US does lower its consumption of oil drastically somehow. That enlarges the effect of the oil reserves in your graph and it is domestic - no need to worry how the middle east is doing. In any business or pursuit, you have the cash cow and the rising star. Obviously, oil is the big fat cow and we need to look for several stars. While you are trying to find, invent or develop the stars, you need to utilize the cow as long as possible to pay for the research and risk of star finding. The issue is being used as a political football by some, but that does not make it a bad idea. The emphasis should be on alternative energy sources, but these alternatives do not come on the cheap. If anything, they make the problem worse in the short term, because investment is required at greater risk than getting oil. I just say let the government get out of the way in terms of drilling - the market will drill and make profits. As Saryctos mentioned, maybe some of the profits can be used to fund alternative energy. I doubt it will happen, but at the very least, we may shave a few cents off the price and have a little more secure energy for emergencies. On the flip side, I saw two congressmen saying that there are many proven oil locations that are not being drilled currently. Obviously, percieved environmental risk needs to be weighed with costs to drill. Maybe ANWR is the last place to consider in the equation.

That's so old school. If you do it, remember to save two of everything, because even the creator apparently didn't feel up to the task of making new life again. I guess getting past the genetic diversity was his miracle If I ruled the world, I would pick a really smart and nice person as a successor, then complain and whine about his performance.

Man warms the earth In pleasure she writhes Death is silent

Maybe you have a brain that is good with metaphorical thinking. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050526092321.htm

Obama seems to like making political hay out of solutions. It seems to me that we need to work on both sides of the equation, not just the demand side. We will be using oil for a long time into the future. As the price increases, it opens up domestic avenues that may not have been considered previously. http://www.sibelle.info/oped15.htm The issue is more complex than he suggests. Of course it would be stupid to think it will solve the problem - just as it is stupid to think any one idea will solve the problem.

My son was up there with Moses??