are truckers supporting john mccain or obama?

[str.whl.hldr]

Oil production in Iraq hit it's peak in the late 80's at just shy of 3 mbpd. It's peak production since that time came in 2001 at just under 2.6 mbpd. Iraq has not had the development that other countries have had so there is room for production growth. So those that want to talk about the benefits of Iraq and it's oil production seem to intentionally fudge the numbers to help justify our presence and to show how much more work we have to do and why we have to stay. I think if you look at the data most of their capacity is already back online.

What is the current production rate in Iraq? Roughly 2 mbpd, current post-war capacity is 2.2 mbpd, pre-war capacity was roughly 3 mbpd.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Iraq/Oil.html

I saw some data someplace recently that showed the production rates from their fields which showed most of their production is also in decline. Since they haven't had the investment in their infrastructure they may be able to boost production levels back above that 2.6 mbpd, but I doubt they will ever approach the 3 mbpd. A more plausible scenario will be they sustain existing rates for a while longer.


Longsnowsm

Its funny, we both read the same report but have two different perspectives. True most of their pre-war nationalized Arab engineering capacity is back on line. But look at the list of undeveloped fields or near production fields. Not to mention Iraq has cheap, cheap, cheap to recover oil- less than $3 per barrel.

Estimates of 45-100 billion barrels of recoverable oil and you don't think they'll reach 3mbd?? Is it because you think current production will decline before we tap 45-100 BILLION barrels??? I'll conceded that anyway.

The US (we) are all about stabilizing the market and world. I'm not listening to the media about that it just is the way it is. Even Jimster Carter told the world "you mess with oil flow you mess with me" or something like that.

We'll be in Iraq for a very long time regardless of how much the world, Iraq (if they dare) and media moans and whines. Lots of fields are going down soon. The US production is slated for a huge loss in 2010. Oil companies have done all that they can, given current tech, to keep the oil flowing in the US. We are headed for a sharp decline, so is Mexico, so is the world except for a handful of country's.

Look at Saudi, where is there increased production? For over a decade they have been saying they will be able to do 15-20mbd if needed. So... where is it. Is it not needed. Will they not make even more money. They have been putting more and more wells in Ghawar. Why not getting oil from other fields? Once Ghawar goes terminal,call it in, we're done. Oil will become like food, sure the world as "enough" for all but politics and power will dictate starvation. Cynical people make fun of the late night info-mercials that say for pennies a day we can save a life. Its true. Oil is next.

I hesitated to get on this thread because I truly hope I'm wrong.

[GMAN]

Actually Gman, Libertarian's are an excellent example of socially liberal, fiscal conservatives. They mind their own business unless your doing harm to others. This includes the activities in your bedroom and on many other social issues. The word liberal has been mutilated to mean socialist and big government. Democrats have the same issues as republicans. What the party used to stand for is mostly represented by radicals today.

Those that are in power today in the Republican party know just how to get everybody foaming at the mouth and marching to their orders. All they have to do is hit on the buzz words: Flag burning, school prayer, abortion, Pelosi, or Radical Islam and people are off to the races... It is shameful.


Longsnowsm

When I think of social liberal, I think of all the social programs the liberals have put into place. Although, some of them may have been started with honorable intentions, they have essentially enslaved people for more than 40 years. Any time you are dependent on the government for your livelihood and shelter, you are a slave to that government. That is part of what I think of when I think of social liberal. I understand what you are saying though. I recall having many spirited discussions with one of my professors in college about Libertarians and comparing it to the Republicans and Democrats. Much of his idea seemed to involve drugs and sex. I think the guy was a hippie before joining academia.

[GMAN]

Actually, most references to Socialism I've seen made on this forum would imply that it's labor-movement Socialism (defined by Marx as the transitory period between Capitalism and Communism), where wealth is not distributed equally, but is distributed unequally dependent on the specific task and skill level of the task being performed by the worker.

To be perfectly honest, the liberals of today are more socialists than anything. Their idea of helping America is to enslave the citizens with their big government programs. The problem with socialism is that someone has to pay for all those expensive programs and the big government spending programs. As government grows so does spending and more programs and on and on. Socialism takes the incentive out of working for our bread. We no longer need to be productive because the government will take care of us under socialism. Socialism starts out fine, but quickly drifts into inefficiency, corruption, and waste. Social Security was the big start of socialism in this country. It got a big push in the 1960's with Lyndon Johnson's big expansion of welfare and government subsidized housing. What was previously considered shameful is now considered an entitlement by those living off the government tit. Socialism does not allow for failure long after the program is dead and buried. Success and achievement is discouraged and public private partnerships are the norm. Success is penalized. Inefficiency and failure are rewarded. Sound familiar?

Starting with John F. Kennedy and subsequent presidents, a program which forced employers to fire current employees and hire minorities who often were not as qualified in order to meet government mandated quota's. No longer could companies hire those most qualified, but were forced to hire people based upon them being given preferential treatment based upon their race rather than their abilities. During the late 1960's and early 1970's the government decided that children needed to be forcibly bused to schools away from their neighborhoods to again meet their idea of a racially mixed environment. This made it more difficult for parents to be involved in their children's schools. The net result is that children graduating from public schools today are not as well educated as they were just 40 years ago. They call it a dumbing down of America. The U.S. used to have an educational system envied by the world. That is no longer the case. All this is what socialism is all about. Politicians exploit the uneducated and disenfranchised with their rhetoric about inequalities such as wealth vs poverty, age vs youth, black vs white. Jesse Jackson and others have been doing this for many years. They tell people that they are being discriminated against and they deserve this and that when they should be telling people that they need to stay in school, get an education and get a job to EARN what they want. Instead of encouraging people they pit one group against another. A lot of people have bought into their rhetoric. It is all about control. It is ultimately all about socialism. Bill Cosby has gotten a lot of flack from the black community for talking about individual responsibility, about parenting, getting an education and stop blaming others for their failures. It really isn't a black and white issue. It is about divide and conquer. If people are concerned about discrimination or other issues, they don't see what is really happening around them. Socialism takes responsibility away from the individual and puts it on the government. The government is responsible for providing for the individuals rather than the individual providing for themselves.

Socialism attempts to sell the people that we are all equal. That is not true. We are only equal in this country in our freedom. We have a right to succeed or fail based upon our drive, ambition and talent. We are NOT equal in our abilities or drive. Socialism takes away from the producers and gives to the takers. They want to think of everyone as being equal. In reality, that is also a lie that is told to the people to pacify them. If you look at what is happening in this country and has happened in the major socialist countries, such as Russia, China, etc., the hierarchy and party officials get the cream jobs in government and the rest of the populace suffer. They try to sell the people that they they are sacrificing the same as the average people, when in reality they are moved around in their limousines to their mansions, courtesy of the people. It isn't that there aren't wealthy individuals under socialism, but that it is hidden. I remember seeing people waiting in line for hours to get a loaf of bread in Russia during the 1960's and 1970's. Without incentive, people cease to be productive. Not to worry, the government will take care of you.

[GTR SILVER]

Actually, most references to Socialism I've seen made on this forum would imply that it's labor-movement Socialism (defined by Marx as the transitory period between Capitalism and Communism), where wealth is not distributed equally, but is distributed unequally dependent on the specific task and skill level of the task being performed by the worker.

To be perfectly honest, the liberals of today are more socialists than anything. Their idea of helping America is to enslave the citizens with their big government programs. The problem with socialism is that someone has to pay for all those expensive programs and the big government spending programs. As government grows so does spending and more programs and on and on. Socialism takes the incentive out of working for our bread. We no longer need to be productive because the government will take care of us under socialism. Socialism starts out fine, but quickly drifts into inefficiency, corruption, and waste. Social Security was the big start of socialism in this country. It got a big push in the 1960's with Lyndon Johnson's big expansion of welfare and government subsidized housing. What was previously considered shameful is now considered an entitlement by those living off the government tit. Socialism does not allow for failure long after the program is dead and buried. Success and achievement is discouraged and public private partnerships are the norm. Success is penalized. Inefficiency and failure are rewarded. Sound familiar?

Starting with John F. Kennedy and subsequent presidents, a program which forced employers to fire current employees and hire minorities who often were not as qualified in order to meet government mandated quota's. No longer could companies hire those most qualified, but were forced to hire people based upon them being given preferential treatment based upon their race rather than their abilities. During the late 1960's and early 1970's the government decided that children needed to be forcibly bused to schools away from their neighborhoods to again meet their idea of a racially mixed environment. This made it more difficult for parents to be involved in their children's schools. The net result is that children graduating from public schools today are not as well educated as they were just 40 years ago. They call it a dumbing down of America. The U.S. used to have an educational system envied by the world. That is no longer the case. All this is what socialism is all about. Politicians exploit the uneducated and disenfranchised with their rhetoric about inequalities such as wealth vs poverty, age vs youth, black vs white. Jesse Jackson and others have been doing this for many years. They tell people that they are being discriminated against and they deserve this and that when they should be telling people that they need to stay in school, get an education and get a job to EARN what they want. Instead of encouraging people they pit one group against another. A lot of people have bought into their rhetoric. It is all about control. It is ultimately all about socialism. Bill Cosby has gotten a lot of flack from the black community for talking about individual responsibility, about parenting, getting an education and stop blaming others for their failures. It really isn't a black and white issue. It is about divide and conquer. If people are concerned about discrimination or other issues, they don't see what is really happening around them. Socialism takes responsibility away from the individual and puts it on the government. The government is responsible for providing for the individuals rather than the individual providing for themselves.

Socialism attempts to sell the people that we are all equal. That is not true. We are only equal in this country in our freedom. We have a right to succeed or fail based upon our drive, ambition and talent. We are NOT equal in our abilities or drive. Socialism takes away from the producers and gives to the takers. They want to think of everyone as being equal. In reality, that is also a lie that is told to the people to pacify them. If you look at what is happening in this country and has happened in the major socialist countries, such as Russia, China, etc., the hierarchy and party officials get the cream jobs in government and the rest of the populace suffer. They try to sell the people that they they are sacrificing the same as the average people, when in reality they are moved around in their limousines to their mansions, courtesy of the people. It isn't that there aren't wealthy individuals under socialism, but that it is hidden. I remember seeing people waiting in line for hours to get a loaf of bread in Russia during the 1960's and 1970's. Without incentive, people cease to be productive. Not to worry, the government will take care of you.

AGAIN jeff............this is for you.........................

The practice of a sophist; fallacious reasoning; reasoning sound in appearance only.


The juggle of sophistry consists, for the most part, in using a word in one sense in the premise, and in another sense in the conclusion... :shock: :shock:

GMAN...thumbs up....... :wink: :wink: 8)

[JeffTheTerrible]

The "liberals" don't really strike me as Socialists, per se... they strike me more as a failed attempt at replication of Social Democracy.
The ills of Socialism, and, in particular, Marxist theory is that is dismisses human nature completely. The ideal Communist system would be a worldwide Proletarian system - i.e., the "one world order". Without such a system in place, Communism is ultimately doomed to failure, because it is not designed in a way which it can be integrated into a world market inclusive of mixed economy systems. The Soviets realized this would never happen, as have most Communist parties around the world, which is why, rather than pushing for Communism, they push instead for Socialism, with the form of Socialism based on the principles put forth by Rosa Luxemborg being more prevalent in the West.
Again, Socialism was ideally to be the transitory period of a Marxist government from a Capitalist system to a Communist system. However, as with other systems of government, it began to take different forms, ultimately making integration between Socialist countries impossible. Albania, Yugoslavia, China, and North Korea each adopted an indigenous form of Socialism, rather than following the Soviet doctrine. Thus, the systems became incompatible, and differing lines of thought began to form a rift within the Soviet Bloc, as well, a classic case of this being the Prague Spring and the Hungarian Revolution, where the governments of each respective country tried to implement their own system of Proletarian government. However, the Soviets could not allow this, for fear that it would cause instability across the Bloc (as well as allowing a greater degree of independence from Moscow of the satellite states). Thus, the Brezhnev Doctrine was implemented, which was, essentially, to crush any resistance by any means necessary.
And therein lies the major detractor of Bloc-style Socialism.. it must be wholly accepted, as it cannot withstand a widespread movement for social change. The utter collapse of the Soviet Bloc with the implementation of the Sinatra Doctrine is a shining testament to this.
Thus, a police state had to be formed, to crush any opposition. And crush the opposition they did. Did they kill of 10 million? 20 million? Even more? The world will never know, but it's pretty much accepted that the Soviet regime proved to be even more murderous than the Third Reich.
Thus, the Marxist principle failed completely. Instead of creating a transitional phase in which government would be abolished completely, and "power to the people" would become a reality, with no class distinction, the exact opposite happened, where the system essentially became an Oligarchy in a manner of speaking, leaving a ruling class holding absolute power over the lower classes.
Altruistic Communism, as envisioned by Marx, could never become a reality, for one simple reason - human nature, and the tendency of power systems to ensure their own survival systems at any expense.
As for the ideology stating that everyone is equal, it's actually much worse than that.. what such systems teach is egalitarianism, which tells us, in essence, that we are all the same, with no distinctive qualities about us. If I went through the same experiences as Jimi Hendrix, I would do the exact same things he did, because I have no distinctive personality traits, and what may be considered such is actually based solely on one's surroundings and experiences, and a bunch of other horse****. Therefore, it places criminals at the same level as the common citizen, because it draws the conclusion that nobody would come to a different conclusion than the person who decided to murder or rape somebody.

[freebird]

hussain supporter tells of Nobama(08) accomplishments.
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=Kyk0fjtdHdI
Great choice for a candidate!
I'd welcome a third party candidate, Ron Paul was even one I was looking at, then he goes and backs out!
Like it or not we have only two choices.
A write in or no vote is going to be a vote for Nobama.
The real interesting thing will be when both announce their choice for V.P.
Strong possibility that will be our president to be!
Sorta looks like Edwards blew his.......chance!

[GMAN]

The "liberals" don't really strike me as Socialists, per se... they strike me more as a failed attempt at replication of Social Democracy.
The ills of Socialism, and, in particular, Marxist theory is that is dismisses human nature completely. The ideal Communist system would be a worldwide Proletarian system - i.e., the "one world order". Without such a system in place, Communism is ultimately doomed to failure, because it is not designed in a way which it can be integrated into a world market inclusive of mixed economy systems.

Socialism is destined for failure. Even if you have the same system worldwide it will ultimately fail. You can put any label on it you wish, but socialism or any of it's variables will NEVER quash the human spirit to be free and excel. There will ALWAYS be those who strive to achieve and better themselves. I think human nature strives for freedom. There are those who may attempt to suppress human nature under the guise of socialism, communism, etc., but it won't be accomplished. Just look what has happened worldwide. Every form of socialism has failed. Russia, China and others ultimately come back to capitalism and freedom. Things are not completely free in either of these countries, but they are much better. It is in the interest of both societies to have a free, capitalist society. A country withers under socialism, but prospers under capitalism. The greater the government controls the less productive a society becomes. The more freedoms a society has the greater their productivity.

[Longsnowsm]

Freebird, Actually Ron Paul stayed in the race for the nomination until McCain won it. He received very little press because the party treated him like some outsider who was a nut. The party is controlled by the nuts, so everything that would seem normal to most people seem nutty to them.

And if a vote for both Lemmings "Dumb" and "Dumber" equates to a vote for the guy you don't like... Well you better rally some friends to make up for the vote I won't cast for either of them. I am sure I won't be alone.

The parties are so far removed from people and the real issues that it doesn't matter which one you vote for. Your gonna get pretty much the same garbage. Out of control spending, the US playing the worlds police force, more attacks on the Constitution and the sanctity of your home, your property, your rights. And a bigger assult on your wallet. So keep voting for them and wonder why you keep getting the same results... It is the definition of insanity.

Oh, And let me add that if your voting out of "fear" that the other guy(regardless of dumb or dumber) will win because you didn't vote, or you think it was a wasted vote because that is what they said... The guy that convinced you of that idea actually stole your vote! If you let them use fear and intimidation to get your vote even though you wouldn't otherwise vote for them what does it say about their message? Their ideas or platform if they can scare you into thinking the other guy is the boogie man. Sorry I am tired of the politics of fear, lies, and distortion. It is time to start voting for real people trying to find real solutions to the problems that we all face. If there isn't anyone that you think represents that kind of thinking then don't vote. Don't let them scare you into voting for them, don't let them manipulate you.

I would love everyone to write in some fictitious character and actually have it win... Sorta like the None of the Above vote in Brewsters Millions. I think it would be a riot!

Longsnowsm

[GMAN]

I like some of the things Ron Paul has to say. Unfortunately, he sometimes comes across as being a little nutty.

[MommaKay]

On another topic, I'm not sure Sidney is much different than any other candidate. It's difficult to appeal to moms and moderates who may not agree with any war.
Sidney will try and try to appear young (did anyone see the Fox News piece that ran tape of him from 2000 and portrayed it as current?) and vibrant. Sorry bub. You have to respect his service to our country 40 years ago. But Sidney as President? No way.

See how dumb that looks? Using Sen. Obama's middle name apparently because it reminds people of someone who is easy to hate. Good one. Is that why James Gillespie Blaine lost? Oof.

Those who don't have anything real to use in attacking Barack Obama resort to using his middle name, Hussein, because every ignorant redneck peckerwood in America knows that only Muslim A-Rabs have a name like that.

Unfortunately, the fact is that both Obama and McCain are corporate puppets who do NOT have the interests of the average American Citizen in mind. Their one and only job, once elected, will be to further this interests of "The Global Economy." Sure, Obama might be slightly more liberal on social issues than McCain; sure, McCain might be slightly more willing to cater to the demands of the so-called Religious Right than Obama. In both cases, "slightly" is the key word.

Obama wants to shift the focus of American Warmongering to Afghanistan, while McCain wants to keep it in Iraq, at least until he can restore the Cold War with a modern Russia. Make no mistake about it, however -- BOTH of these potential Presidents want to maintain the United States on a permanent war footing, because there's just plain too much money and power to be derived from being perpetually at war.

The FBI is currently instituting new "guidance" to its functionaries which allows them to investigate EVERY American -- everything they do, no matter where they do it; everything they have ever done; every financial transaction; every communication; every association -- all in the name of "Keeping America Safe." And most of the so-called Citizens of this formerly free nation will say, "That's okay. They won't investigate ME." The point? Neither Obama nor McCain have voiced any opposition to this.

We used to have a Constitution. We used to be a free people. Once upon a time. Okay, now it's time for people to reply with the typical inane, "If you don't like America, leave it you commie pinko..." yada yada yada.

[MommaKay]

I'm just a bit curious.. I see the word "socialist" being thrown around a lot. Now, I don't support it in any way, although I'm sure I'll be accused of such for asking this question... but do any of you even understand the basics of it? Because most people I've asked this question of don't, and, judging by some of the applications I've seen of it in some of the threads posted on this forum recently, I'd feel inclined to believe it's more the same here.

No. They know that "socialist," and "Marxist" are bad words because Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have told them so. It doesn't matter whether or not they actually fit the person or situation being discussed.

"You like rocky road ice cream!? You frickin Marxist!" :evil:

[MommaKay]

Socialism is destined for failure. Even if you have the same system worldwide it will ultimately fail. You can put any label on it you wish, but socialism or any of it's variables will NEVER quash the human spirit to be free and excel. There will ALWAYS be those who strive to achieve and better themselves. I think human nature strives for freedom. There are those who may attempt to suppress human nature under the guise of socialism, communism, etc., but it won't be accomplished. Just look what has happened worldwide. Every form of socialism has failed. Russia, China and others ultimately come back to capitalism and freedom. Things are not completely free in either of these countries, but they are much better. It is in the interest of both societies to have a free, capitalist society. A country withers under socialism, but prospers under capitalism. The greater the government controls the less productive a society becomes. The more freedoms a society has the greater their productivity.

The Scandinavian countries are all highly "socialistic," and are all doing very well. Don't confuse socialism with totalitarianism -- they are not the same thing, nor does the former necessarily lead to the latter. The United States of America is rapidly approaching totalitarianism -- but that totalitarianism will be dictated by massive capitalist monopolies operating in "Public/Private Partnerships" with the government.

Socialism is not anathema to freedom; neither does Capitalism guarantee it. Monopolistic Capitalism, in which massive corporations control all aspects of human interaction, is no better than a completely Socialist system with equal control. In both cases, the PEOPLE have only that freedom granted them by those in power. In other words, not much.

[rigidsporty]

Anybody BUT Obama!

[Rawlco]

Obama seems to favor the conserve and tax our way out of the fuel price problem, and that means the 55mph nationwide speed limit again. I hate the 55 mph states enough without having them all be 55. Ick.