2008 General Election Discussion Thread

[HuskyCaucasian]

Would you be in favor of oil rigs set up around Michigan City?

Rahm Emanuel wants to know the same thing...

 

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmart...reat_Lakes.html

 

Dear Senator McCain,

 

I read with great interest your recent decision to change your position and support plans to lift the long-standing ban on offshore oil drilling. Your new stance on this important issue raises critical questions about your position on drilling for oil and natural gas in the Great Lakes....

[southsider2k5]

How about the $500 million dollars the unions will spend trying to b*** Obama? That doesn't count right? In addition to the estimated $500 million the Tribune says he could raise by Nov.

 

The AFL-CIO has already pledged $50 million alone.

[HuskyCaucasian]

The AFL-CIO has already pledged $50 million alone.

I think the shutting down of these outside groups by Obama has just started.

[Balta1701]

Not sure whether to keep this discussion going here or to move it to one of the energy threads, but why not here, someone else can move this if it keeps going on.

 

The argument of the Bush/McCain team is that opening up the areas offshore to additional drilling by providing more oil leases will produce more domestic oil production and will hence decrease oil imports, the trade deficit, and will push fuel prices downwards.

 

There's another big problem with that logic that hasn't been hit yet...it assumes that the oil companies will actually drill the areas that they receive the leases for. The logic is fairly simple. If I'm an oil company, and I expect oil prices will keep going up, then the longer I hold on to each lease without producing oil from it, the higher the value of the oil in that site. Especially if I think that oil demand is going to keep forcing prices up due to contracting supply, and if my lobbyists can keep the U.S. from developing any sort of alternative energy system, then the more leases I can stockpile now without drilling them, the more money I'm going to make.

 

While this seems all anti-capitalist and conspiracy theory-ish, the numbers on oil leases and drilling bear it out. The Administration has been dumping out oil leases for the last 7 years, at a rate well above what oil companies either can drill or have interest in drilling. It's a partisan report, but I'd love to see someone who can show me that their numbers are wrong here.

In the last four years, the Bureau of Land Management has issued 28,776 permits to drill on public land; yet, in that same time, 18,954 wells were actually drilled. That means that companies have stockpiled nearly 10,000 extra permits to drill that they are not using to increase domestic production.

 

Further, despite the federal government’s willingness to make public lands and waters available to energy developers, of the 47.5 million acres of on-shore federal lands that are currently being leased by oil and gas companies, only about 13 million acres are actually Ain production@, or producing oil and gas (Figure 2). Similar trends are evident offshore as well (Figure 3), where only 10.5 million of the 44 million leased acres are currently producing oil or gas.

 

Combined, oil and gas companies hold leases to nearly 68 million acres of federal land and waters that they are not producing oil and gas (Figure 4). Oil and gas companies would not buy leases to this land without believing oil and gas can be produced there, yet these same companies are not producing oil or gas from these areas already under their control.

 

If we extrapolate from today’s production rates on federal land and waters, we can estimate that the 68 million acres of leased but currently inactive federal land and waters could produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas each day.

[Balta1701]

I think the shutting down of these outside groups by Obama has just started.

Holy crap, I'm impressed. From an email I just got:

Dear Brian,

For almost ten years, we've worked together to change American politics. Millions of us have collaborated to build a new progressive moment, catalyzed by the Internet and motivated by our belief that the country we love deserves better.

 

Now, in Barack Obama, we have a Presidential candidate who has based his campaign on precisely that kind of new politics—a people-driven politics focused on the outside-of-the-beltway consensus around Iraq, climate change, and health care, not the gridlock in Washington.

 

Using a lot of the tools and techniques developed by the progressive movement—as well as a visionary approach to leadership—Obama's brought millions of new people into the process. And, following in the footsteps of Howard Dean, ActBlue, and other innovators, he's adopted a new way of funding a campaign—relying on a donor base of millions rather than contributions by lobbyists and special interests.

 

It's a very exciting moment. And so the time has come to answer an important question: should we make an all-in commitment, together, to this new politics?

 

While MoveOn Political Action has always been funded exclusively by small donors like you, we've held open the MoveOn.org Voter Fund—a separate "527" organization—which can raise money from big donors. We haven't actually taken any big-money checks since 2004, when MoveOn members matched big contributors to educate voters about George Bush's policies. But in light of the new politics offered by Barack Obama, I've come to believe it's time to close the 527 forever—and to challenge organizations on the right to do the same thing.

 

That means that we won't raise any money for our election work from foundations, or even individuals who want to give over $5,000. It's an all-in commitment to the small-donor way of doing things. But the time is right to take the leap.

 

Not relying on big donors means that all of us, together, have to take responsibility. So before we sign the final paperwork, we need to know that you're in. Are you? Just click below to take the pledge and let us know:

[mr_genius]

But not after getting its baby killer ad out there... And if you really think this means it is going away, you are sadly mistaken. They will find another form. They always do.

 

i hope they do continue, they damage the Democrats way more than they help them with their crazy advertisements.

 

 

 

don't let the fascist corporate fatcats intimidate you moveon.org! I demand action! MORE TV ADS!

 

[Balta1701]

Newsweek: 51-36 Obama.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Ok, i took a look at the poll data from the primaries and I came up with a list of polls I will trust, polls I wont trust, and polls that you should use with caution. The list is of the pollsters that did a significant amount of states. less than 10 polls just isnt a good enough sample size.

 

Trust

SurveyUSA (my #1)

Quinnipiac (my #2)

Suffolk (border line caution)

 

Caution

Zogby (almost trust worthy)

Public Policy Polling (PPP)

Rasmussen (this one is border line not trust worthy)

 

Don't Trust

Insider Advantage

Masion-Dixon

ARG

Edited June 24, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[BigSqwert]

Ok, i took a look at the poll data from the primaries and I came up with a list of polls I will trust, polls I wont trust, and polls that you should use with caution. The list is of the pollsters that did a significant amount of states. less than 10 polls just isnt a good enough sample size.

 

Trust

SurveyUSA (my #1)

Quinnipiac (my #2)

Suffolk (border line caution)

 

Caution

Zogby (almost trust worthy)

Public Policy Polling (PPP)

Rasmussen (this one is border line not trust worthy)

 

Don't Trust

Insider Advantage

Masion-Dixon

ARG

Does your scale go from most Obama friendly to least?

 

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

Does your scale go from most Obama friendly to least?

 

It's pure numbers for me. I actually dont know which ones would be "Obama friendly". I am just looking at who was accurate during the primaries and who wasn't. I have Rasmussen so low because they just were not very reliable and Quinnipiac is #2 because they were probably the second most reliable. Suffolk was good, but they only had 10 polls in the primaries. That is compared to 25+ for all the others.

[Balta1701]

It's pure numbers for me. I actually dont know which ones would be "Obama friendly". I am just looking at who was accurate during the primaries and who wasn't. I have Rasmussen so low because they just were not very reliable and Quinnipiac is #2 because they were probably the second most reliable. Suffolk was good, but they only had 10 polls in the primaries. That is compared to 25+ for all the others.

There's a potential issue though...polling for primaries and polling for the general are not exactly the same thing. You have different pools of voters, different responses to questions, and perhaps most importantly, different likely voter screens.

[Cknolls]

Ok, i took a look at the poll data from the primaries and I came up with a list of polls I will trust, polls I wont trust, and polls that you should use with caution. The list is of the pollsters that did a significant amount of states. less than 10 polls just isnt a good enough sample size.

 

Trust

SurveyUSA (my #1)

Quinnipiac (my #2)

Suffolk (border line caution)

 

Caution

Zogby (almost trust worthy)

Public Policy Polling (PPP)

Rasmussen (this one is border line not trust worthy)

 

Don't Trust

Insider Advantage

Masion-Dixon

ARG

 

Only problem is that Zogby was the worst pollster in 2004, and Rasmussen was one of the best.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

Only problem is that Zogby was the worst pollster in 2004, and Rasmussen was one of the best.

and oddly this year they were 2 of the worst in the primaries. I dunno. I'm sticking with my list.

[HuskyCaucasian]

From the "Use With Caution" Category...

Michigan (PPP)- Obama 48%; McCain 39%

New Mexico (Rasmussen)- Obama 47%; McCain 39%

 

From the "Trust Worthy" Category...

New Mexico (SurveyUSA)- Obama 49%; McCain 46%

Indiana (SurveyUSA)- Obama 48%; McCain 47%

 

In response to this, RCP updated their electoral map...

 

Edited June 24, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[HuskyCaucasian]

Does anyone have an idea when the VPs might be announced? I imagine it'll be before the conventions.

 

In 2004, Kerry named Edwards his VP on July 6th.

In 2000, Bush named Cheney his VP on July 25th.

In 2000, Gore named Lieberman his VP on August 7

In 1992, Clinton named Gore his VP on July 9.

 

So, could we see the VPs in the next 3 weeks?

[southsider2k5]

Quite frankly, whether we drill everything under the sun or not, we're basically in the same boat. The fact is the U.S. is trying to use 25% of the world's oil and it has only 4% or less of the world's supplies if you count up everything regardless of how much it costs to drill it. That's the simplest level at which the math fails for us. Drill all you want, and it maybe buys you another year once Saudi Arabia's decline sets in come a few years from now.

 

If you drilled everything, you might be pulling in 2-3 million additional barrels of oil per day 20 years from now. The odds are, frankly, that the total U.S. and world production from other wells will have declined by more than that. Drilling everything is a play for time, and it's not a play for very much time at that.

 

http://kudlow.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N...TU4NTFmYzU4OGY=

 

Drill, Drill, Drill: My Interview with Anadarko Petroleum CEO James Hackett [Larry Kudlow]

 

What follows below is an unofficial transcript of my interview last night with James Hackett. Mr. Hackett is the president & CEO of Anadarko Petroleum. He also happens to be an incredibly bright man whose thoughts and ideas on energy are right on the money.

 

Kudlow: Alright, drill, drill, drill. So here to talk about the whole energy situation is James Hackett, president and CEO of Anadarko Petroleum. Mr. Hackett, welcome. Let me just ask you, drilling, this big debate, you know all about it. Ending the moratorium. Decontrolling. Allowing us to produce more supply. First of all, let me get your quick take. How long would it take to bring some oil online if we go to the Outer Continental Shelf?

 

Hackett: Generally five to seven years from the initial leasing until you actually have production. And we’ve proven that in 8100 feet of water, in a platform that we operate in the eastern Gulf of Mexico right now.

 

Kudlow: So why are these senators — and I’m not even gonna even say which political party they’re from, because I would never politicize an issue — why are these senators saying it would take five to ten years and the price impact wouldn’t be felt until 2030? In fact, listen for one second, it’s a non-senator, I’ve got some sound from former Energy Secretary Bill Richardson. Hang on a second. Here he comes.

 

[bill Richardson video clip courtesy of CBS/Face the Nation: “I was Energy Secretary, and I can tell you that every bipartisan administration has opposed offshore drilling for pristine reasons, the ecosystem. But also, the fact that you’re not going to get any of this oil out offshore for the next ten years, and prices won’t go down till the year 2030 according to the Energy Information Agency which is part of the Department of Energy."]

 

Kudlow: Mr. Hackett, you heard him. Ten years to get it out and then nothing until 2030 on prices. What’s he talking about?

 

Hackett: Well, I think that it’s one man’s view. We happen to be operators in the Gulf of Mexico. I don’t think Secretary Richardson actually did operate a well in the deep offshore areas. As I mentioned, we’ve got a world class project that is the deepest producing well in the history of the world. It’s providing clean, natural gas to America, about 1.5 percent of all of our gas supply. Everyday it’s being provided from a football field and a half sized environmental footprint, a two-hour flight away from the shoreline. So it’s not in any visual contact with any human being. These platforms have gone through 200-year hurricanes, back in 2005, without any environmental consequences. It’s a bit of a fiction hoisted on us by people who don’t know better.

 

Kudlow: Alright, I hear you. People who don’t know better. What’s the price impact and how much is out there? I mean, there’s a lot of estimates. What is it, 86 billion barrels in theory, maybe 20 billion barrels are going to be available and provable. What’s your take on the volume that you could put on the market? And when would the price adjust?

 

Hackett: Well I think that the price would adjust actually as soon as you started drilling it. There’s a psychology with regard to speculative elements in any commodity market, whether it’s grains, or metals, or oil and gas. If the world really felt that there were plenty of places to go look for oil and gas, the markets would start trading as if that were a reality. Today it’s quite the opposite reality, especially with the geopolitical elements overlaying that. So, every time we say to the world, ‘We want energy security, but we want you to produce it, and we’re not going to do anything,’ the elements in the trading community say, ‘well that means that access is getting tougher.’

 

If you want the things that everybody says we want, we should go and open up our own shores to drill. We can do it environmentally well. We’ve got the proven technology. And we don’t know how much is left out there. Every time we go and find new resources, we find there are more than we thought there were. You could have gone back fifty years, and said that there were less resources, now there are more because we actually went and did good science, produced it responsibly, and have found new horizons in deeper and deeper areas of the horizon to be able to test and bring out.

 

Kudlow: What about this other argument that is sort of the political talking points of one of the two major parties, although nobody is really totally clean on analyzing this. The leases. I heard a U.S. senator on one of the talk shows yesterday say well, ‘there’s 41 million acres worth of leases out there, but they’re only using 10 million.’ What’s that all about? What is your response to that argument?

 

Hackett: Well one, it shows a very poor understanding of how the oil and gas business actually works. It’s a bit like the real estate development arena. If you were developing a real estate development, you wouldn’t just do it on one acre, you wouldn’t just build one house. To make it economic you’d actually buy, let’s call it fifty acres and you’d build a housing development. In our case, we don’t just take just one lease to get a well drilled. We actually take several leases if we’re lucky enough to get them. It’s all competitively bid. The federal government collects billions of dollars from this stuff. It’s as if they don’t get anything if you listen to the soundbites. We also pay annual rentals.

 

So we’re putting together an economically developable area, because remember, we’re drilling miles into the ocean sometimes, miles into the ground, without knowing there’s anything there. So to assume it’s on that one acre that you actually bought is crazy. And so what we’ll do is we’ll actually get ten or fifteen leases, and then we’ll drill, and then we’ll figure out if it’s there or if it’s on the next lease next door. And these things take time. You have to permit them. You have to shoot seismic to be able to do the right science, image it below salt. And then you go and drill it, if you’re lucky enough to get a permit, after you’ve done all your environmental studies.

 

But they’re talking about offshore. You go onshore, there’s places where we wait on permits for two months to two years. And even though it’s leased, it can’t actually physically be drilled. And that’s what people don’t really understand. With the environmental restrictions and environmental lawsuits, there are lots of places where we hold leases, [but] we’re not allowed to drill because the federal government that leased it to us actually won’t give us the permits.

 

Kudlow: Yup. Alright before we break, let me just ask you a couple others. What would cap-and-trade do to drilling?

 

Hackett: Cap-and-trade would probably hurt drilling. Because there’s a lot of risk that it would not actually be implemented properly. And the unintended consequences of a very complex system, that’s administered by governmental agencies, would have to be one that I would predict would actually make supply harder to get to consumers which I think is a mistake.

 

Kudlow: What about those who are saying now the energy business in general is much too profitable, it’s time to charge a windfall profits tax and use the proceeds of that tax for consumers so they can buy more gasoline at the pump? What’s your response to that one?

 

Hackett: Well first of all, I hope any American that is as old as I am, and was around in the ‘70s, realized that failed once. We actually started importing about 13 percent more oil, after we slapped a windfall profits tax on it. That money is much better spent within the private enterprise sector that’s good at finding new supplies. You’re actually discouraging supplies from being developed. A much healthier tax is actually opening up access, where you actually generate tax revenues for the government from the additional drilling. You get supplies, plus you get additional taxes. And that’s where we ought to be headed. It’s good for consumers.

 

Kudlow: Do you have a problem giving some of those royalties to the states if they let you drill off their shores?

 

Hackett: We’ve been huge supporters of that because it provides them an incentive to provide education, coastal restoration or any kind of fish and wildlife type of activity. We’ve been very active as part of our association, we’re trying to get that done.

 

Kudlow: What about the shale story? President Bush talked about shale in his speech the other day. Green River Formation, they’re talking about maybe 800 billion in recoverable barrels equivalent. Some people like the Rand Corporation have said close to 2 trillion. And also the Bakken Shale formation, which is to the north of that. Are you doing any shale? It’s not drilling, I guess it’s extraction. Are you in that business? Is that a promising business?

 

Hackett: Well we have huge amounts of shale exposure if you will, because of our old land grant with the Union Pacific Railroad. But I think it is a long-dated technology. We tried it in the 70s. We will try it again ultimately if oil stays high. I think there are other answers we should be searching for as well. But I think everything is up for consideration in an environment where we ought to be looking for more supplies and more alternative fuels. Just remembering that we’ve got a bridge we’ve got to make until we get to that ideal future of alternative energy. And recognizing that gasoline doesn’t come from wind power. Gasoline doesn’t come from solar firms. Gasoline comes from sometimes, really bad alternatives like corn-based ethanol. And we’ve got to be real careful not to prescribe political solutions, as opposed to funding research and letting science lead us to the right answers.

 

Kudlow: …What do you say to the peak oil crowd? You don’t sound like you believe in peak oil.

 

Hackett: I think that the peak oil is determined by price. And I think that it is also determined by what you allow to be alternative forms of energy. I think there are places in the world where peak oil has not occurred. I do think that oil will not be able to grow to the sky in terms of supply, forever and ever. I think it’s harder to get. It’s getting more expensive to get. I think that we need to continue to develop a broad based fuel sourcing, including nuclear energy. But prices are having some effect. It’s both impacting demand, which we all need to conserve a lot more than we do. We’ve become a very lazy country since the late 70s. Nobody talks about conservation. They’re talking about taxing the oil industry, instead of talking about turning off your air-conditioners, or driving smaller cars, which is what we really need to do. It has that immediate impact.

 

Kudlow: Well isn’t the high price a blessing? Doesn’t the high price cause conservation? And doesn’t the high price cause production, if it were deregulated?

 

Hackett: Absolutely. It’s Economics 101. We don’t have to have the government necessarily solve this for us. But it’s not to say that anybody likes [higher] prices. Because it’s not necessarily good for companies like us. It’s not good for demand. But it is having the intended effect. People are riding in buses. They’re taking mass transit. And they’re [creating a smaller] environmental footprint by virtue of doing that. We are finding new supplies in more and more remote parts of the world where you can’t do that at $30 oil.

 

Kudlow: Alright, I got to take a commercial break Mr. Hackett. You’re gonna stay with us. I really appreciate your time very much, sir. Our distinguished panel is going to join us to drill down — pardon the phrase — on many of these issues we’ve discussed. By the way, Mr. Hackett is chairman of the board of directors of the Dallas Federal Reserve. So we might even go in that direction too. We’re for keeping America on the right track. You heard Mr. Hackett, we have a lot of drilling, profitably, to do. We can get it done. This is America. America first. Let us stay away from Saudi Arabia. We can do it right here. Kudlow and Company straight ahead.

[BigSqwert]

Suddenly that Newsweek poll doesn't look like an outlier. LA Times/Bloomberg poll shows Obama with a 12 point lead nationally.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Suddenly that Newsweek poll doesn't look like an outlier. LA Times/Bloomberg poll shows Obama with a 12 point lead nationally.

you beat me too it. Yea, makes Newsweek a little more legit. Those STILL seem a little high to me. Maybe 10 max. but hey, it says what it says.

[Cknolls]

you beat me too it. Yea, makes Newsweek a little more legit. Those STILL seem a little high to me. Maybe 10 max. but hey, it says what it says.

 

In this national poll's random sample of voters, 39% identified themselves as Democrats, 22% as Republicans and 27% as independents. In a similar poll a year ago, 33% identified themselves as Democrats, 28% as Republicans and 30% as independents.

 

 

The lead is not as big as it appears.

 

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

Missouri (SurveyUSA): McCain 50%; Obama 43%

[HuskyCaucasian]

From My Trust Worthy Category...

Minnesota (Quinnipiac/WSJ/WP.com): Obama 54%; McCain 37%

Wisconsin (Quinnipiac/WSJ/WP.com): Obama 52%; McCain 39%

Michigan (Quinnipiac/WSJ/WP.com): Obama 48%; McCain 42%

Colorado (Quinnipiac/WSJ/WP.com): Obama 49%; McCain 42%

 

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x4141.xml?ReleaseID=1188

 

From the "Polls cant be trusted" category:

Survey USA has Obama +1 in MN and Quinnipiac has Obama +17

[HuskyCaucasian]

This Falls Debate Plan?

 

Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama would sit around a table at two of three presidential debates this fall, according to a formal proposal unveiled Thursday that would have the unintended effect of neutralizing Obama's height advantage.

 

The Commission on Presidential Debates proposed the less formal, more conversational talk show format for two of three 90-minute debates in the fall. The third debate would be a town hall style session at which the two candidates would be free to get up from high stools and walk around the stage.

 

The two presumptive nominees have not yet responded to the proposed debates and formats from the commission.

 

Obama is at least 6 feet tall. McCain is 5 foot 9 inches tall.

 

Candidates often try to use their height to gain some sort of advantage in the face to face debates, but it doesn't always work.

 

Al Gore in 2000 wandered close to the shorter George W. Bush, who dismissed him with a shrug as if to say, "What are you doing over here."

 

The proposed debates also would feature a more open format to encourage the candidates to talk more to one another. The debates would be broken into eight 10-minute segments, each devoted to one issue. The moderator would pose an opening question, then prompt the candidates to discuss it themselves.

 

The moderator would try to keep the candidates roughly equal in time, but there would be no 30 second time limits for answers, and no time buzzers.

 

I actually really like the "round table" format. The stand from a podium and preach thing just doesn't sit right with me.

[HuskyCaucasian]

FYI:

To try and keep the "new polling data" posts down, I am going to do one post a week on every Wednesday for the previous 7 days polls. This will also include a quick analysis on that weeks data and a RealClearPolitics map of the Electoral college.

 

As a teaser for this Wednesday, the polls show a VERY interesting shift in support... but it MIGHT not be what you think it is.

Edited June 30, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[HuskyCaucasian]

Week in Review (June 26th-July 1st)

Missouri (SurveyUSA) – McCain 50%; Obama 43%

Tennessee (Rasmussen) – McCain 51%; Obama 36%

New Jersey (Fairleigh Dickinson) – Obama 49%; McCain 33%

Ohio (SurveyUSA) – Obama 48%; McCain 46%

Mississippi (Rasmussen) – McCain 50%; Obama 44%

Texas (Rasmussen) – McCain 48%; Obama 39%

Arizona (Rasmussen) – McCain 49%; Obama 40%

Virginia (SurveyUSA) – Obama 49%; McCain 47%

Massachusetts (SurveyUSA) – Obama 53%; McCain 40%

Georgia (Rasmussen) – McCain 53%; Obama 43%

New York (SurveyUSA) – Obama 57%; McCain 37%

Alabama (Rasmussen) – McCain 51%; Obama 36%

North Carolina (PPP) – McCain 45%; Obama 41%

Florida (Rasmussen) – McCain 48%; Obama 41%

Florida (PPP) – Obama 46%; McCain 44%

 

As I said earlier, I have been wholly impressed by SurveyUSA's primary results so I have been following them closest. In May, SurveyUSA did a round of polls and towards the end of June did another round of many of the same states. From what I have seen, McCain has closed on Obama on many of the swing states, but what's of note is that Obama hasnt moved, and in a few cases actually gained a few percentage points. But, McCain picked up the “undecided” votes in large quantities. In many of the polls it was 10+% undecided in May, but in June it is 5% or less and McCain gained most of those.

 

what does this say? I am not sure. Obama's base seems strong, but he NEEDS those undecideds. If he can even pull 3 or 4% f those undecideds back away from McCain, Obama could be in for a landslide victory in November.

 

Based on the polls I have seen, McCain has made little or nor ground on “blue states”, but Obama is making it VERY close or ahead in many “red states” (Virginia, North Carolina, Nevada, Colorado). McCain is kind of close in Michigan, but it's tenuous at best.

 

States to keep a close watch on:

Virgina is very close and would “change the map”, as is North Carolina

Also keep an eye on Ohio. It's close, but Obama doesnt need it to win. A win in Ohio, makes it almost impossible for McCain.

[WISOX]

I voted for the first time in 1960 election.

I'm 69 and have never been this old before.

I've seen so much in my lifetime, including Nam, etc that, I am totally disgusted with each and every one of these lying thieves.

 

There is not one of them who is actually for us, the REAL American people.

There is not one of these sleazeballs who tells the truth about anything.

 

In the last couple of years I've gotten to the point where I work a few hours a week and golf at least every other day.

 

As an illustration about how I see these azzclowns and their lies, when it comes to sports, I watch the games.

Everything else is like listening to gay fairyotti lisp about the Sox.

There is no substance, no reality and no original genuineness.

 

I have a pretty damn good life which was built by myself in spite of the govt interference, etc.

At this point I realize that I might have about 10 years left in which time I might still be able to kick someone else's azz without falling out of my walker so, I'm bringin' it and not buying into the BS.

 

For those of you who are still pretty damn young, I feel bad for you because you will never know what true freedom was.

 

A good analogy of how the U.S. has become is being in a moderated forum which controls and censors everything you attempt to post.

And, I am NOT alluding to this place, rather I am merely using that as an example.