My OperaHillary Clinton to sue OPEC
Tuesday, May 6, 2008 11:02:26 AM
(...)Clinton again criticized her opponent for not accepting her gas tax relief proposal saying, “Sen. Obama wants you to pay the gas tax this summer – instead of trying to get it so the oil companies pay it out of their record profit. I believe that we should start standing up for the vast majority of Americans who are paying these outrageous prices.”
Clinton also said that as president, she would try to sue OPEC -- the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which controls the price of two-thirds of the world's oil supply.
“We’re going to go after OPEC which remember is a monopoly cartel," Clinton said. "There’s nothing free-market about it. They sit in some conference room a couple of times a year and decide how much oil they are going to produce and how much they are going to charge for it. So lets change our laws so we can sue them on anti-trust reasons.”
...um, yeah. Because we all know that Big Oil in the US, and several of the members in OPEC already have a relationship close enough to be called "an Organisation". So, I guess what Clinton is doing is to hit the Oil- companies abroad, so they don't have to hit them at home, eh?
Maybe they could just get Bush to give Abdullah bin Abdul a wedgie instead? You know: "ya'll better not be messing with the oil- prices, or else!".
But seriously, though. What is Clinton Doing? I've no idea, but I think it's part of a secret plan to fuck up John McCain's narratives. Every time he's opening his mouth, people can just say - but Hillary is even more republican than you on every single of those issues - what's your comment on that!? And then Saint McCain will have to start stapling the flag- pin to his forehead, while giving the go- ahead to Jack Bauer so he can torture an innocent woman (with awesome breasts), to be patriotic enough to stay in the race.
Stay tuned! One trainwreck coming up, /this/ November!
edit: The hits just keep on coming.
"Ramengate Comes To A Boil"
http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/9391.html
Has it really come to this?(...)$30 from a gas tax holiday buys one person food for a month, but do “Creative class” [cough] Obama Fan Boys care? Guess…
As alert reader gqmartinez points out, $30 is a month’s worth of food, if you need to live on ramen noodles. And as alert reader BDBlue points out, it’s 15 weeks worth of school lunches for one of your kids.
Yes, it has. It's an emotional thing. People, in my experience, usually tend to have fits like these for a while, and then just shut up and go and hide when they realise they've just bought the entire "man of the people, who cares about your innermost thoughts and battles with the exact same hidden fears as you, though he tries to put a valiant face on it, in the face of oblivion, which we will go through together!" stick. But if it's a virtue to believe in fantasies and "possibilities". And your opinion is worth more than the laws of physics, and reality in general - because believing in the fairy forest and the pixie Queen is the only way to envision any change happening - then this is what you get. Forever.
Yveszhouye.ah # Wednesday, May 7, 2008 3:48:31 PM
fleinn # Thursday, May 8, 2008 6:09:36 PM
But the campaigns work officially to tell their story about the candidates - which in this case means pulling up Hillary as a stalwarth defender of the working class. And the "Gas holiday", or short term tax- rebate for gas- prices, the rants against price- shifting, etc., are all part of that.
The question no one in either campaign seems to want to ask is: what can we do at home in the long run (apart from changing the light- bulbs, which both candidates have reported as one of their serious practical initiatives they'll put their weight behind). Such as looking seriously at the consumption required and wished for by the entirety of the west, and the US in particular - how public transportation is a joke - how industry gets a free pass - how the corporate giants control energy policy - how energy policy and economical policy- initiatives are inextricably linked to foreign policy, etc, etc.
None of that is looked at, because to do so - or so they believe - will make them utterly and completely unelectable. Which, sadly, might actually be true.
But you're right - the emotional outbursts like this. The kind that launches us into a war against Iran because the President is going to be tough and rid the middle east of the scourge of the always imminently constructed Islamic bomb - or manages to derail every possible initiative that tries to examine the real sizes involved in domestic issues - that is scary. Not just because they do this type of trickery and story- telling as parts of their "appeal to everyone" campaigns, but also because the policies their beneficiaries craft for them are controlled actively by the same narratives.
Yveszhouye.ah # Monday, May 12, 2008 3:12:05 PM
Still, I'm do think Obama would win, Hillary would get failed in my point of view, and Obama will be the new master of the White House, apparently.
When she tried to use tears, the girl who has such a good willing or ambiton to lead America to a new age died, all the left is just a woman who needs to win by fair means or foul.
And she then tried to use emotional words to attract the poor white or the other Bush-hating people, which exposed a helpless woman in the open air, take the China bash as an example (I'm quite familiar about this, you can understand):
"We do have to get tough on China," she said on Sunday while campaigning in North Carolina, which has seen a loss of more than 200,000 factory jobs since 2001. "It is long past time for us to blow the whistle."
"This country manipulates its currency to our disadvantage, they engage in broad-based intellectual property theft, industrial espionage, they do not follow the rules they agreed to follow when they joined the WTO. What do we get in return from them? Well, we get tainted pet food, we get lead-laced toys, we get polluted pharmaceuticals."
She tells the story, but saddly she was roaring, it's not a speech, but stirring up the common people to hate another country, or other 1.3 billion people on this planet without any skill. I thought China deserves some really good criticism or at least some useful suggestion, but I found little in her voice. American people need a reasonable leader, not a fear-losing guy.
Still, I'm really appreciate American, where people can talk about the leaders so freely, people can criticise anything, whether he can express something reasonable or not, it's what we lack. Not only the government but also the common people still have a long way to go, we are too young in many aspects.
Every man must eat a peck of dirt before he dies, we have to get used to the criticism from the world, it's not important whether it is right or wrong.
fleinn # Monday, May 12, 2008 7:38:25 PM
..It may not be too clear when I make fun of a lot of the news from the US all the time - but the underlying problem is in a sense very much like the problems you have in China. Obviously, it's a difficult comparison - but what shocked me really badly around '99- 2000, when I got involved with some american "liberal" think tanks through the university - was the level of self- censorship going on. Really, it was baffling. And I'm not exaggerating when I'm saying that it's probably stronger than anything the CCCPC could force over the heads of anyone in China.
As some less kind critics than me say - this is possible because the fundamental part of the american cultural soul is vicious. It's every man for himself, and screw the other guy - and that appeal to strenght, and success by any means possible, is something that has a fairly obvious tendency to blow up once in a while. And at that point, there's no dialogue going on. Neither will there be, because there's no culture for standing up and saying: "what are we doing as a country right now". Take the torture for example - the american president can make torture legal, and pull this through Congress with extralegal means - and there's not a damn comment. I can count on my fingers how many people have come up with a substantial criticism of the concept.
And indeed, for a long time, the debate in the US has been between those who wish to legalise torture, and those who want to allow torture, but not legalise it openly. Of course - America is a fantastic idea. But if that idea was a sundae, then the US would be made of butter and have something inedible put on display on the top.
So whether you like it or not - actually opposing the censorship, and questioning the purpose of it.. well, I'm not saying it's not horribly wrong. But in a sense you could be worse off. You could just not give a damn about it. Or even, as you say, roar in support of that fundamental national viciousness.