I like your idea, Superman. Now what alternatve fuel is there to use (cooking oil, biomass, solar)? That also seems like a political mountain to climb considering the influence and political clout that oil/energy companies have. The raising of taxes has its use as does lowering taxes. No matter how much we lower taxes business will still leave, though. Globalization is inevitable. Places like Dubai and other "free trade" zones are competitive on more than just the tariff/tax issue; Labor and regulations being a few of the issues that they have the comparative advantage.

J F,

The solution is simple, first we need to get our oil elsewhere, this is short term but must happen until we can use an alternative fuel/. The problem is supply and demand. We demand it and the Middle east supplies it. The middle east produces so much and charges whatever they want. There nothing wrong with that, you can sell whatever you have for how ever much someone will buy it for. Our problem is there is only one major source and we are at there mercy. We need to drill our own and make more refineries. We pay at the pump because we don't produce out own oil. and didn't invest and produce new technologies through the years, leaving us dependent on black gold., Texas tea. The coast of CA, Florida are good spots to look. I really don't buy the whole lets drill in anwar because I don't think there is enough there to really matter.

We also do need to keep developing other energies, wind, solar etc...most important is that nuclear idea. lol its not really an idea its real and great. It is safe, the technology is here to do this effectively, hell France has done it for years now

The thing is we need to stop pumping our enemies economy with oil money, the problem is they have us by the balls because the same liberal faction of our country blaming Bush for rising oil cost are the same people that won't let us drill our own. If we don't get a neither source we will never get off M.E. oil.

The RF and democratic way, raise taxes is the wrong idea. most economic problems are because of this and why business goes to other countries, taxes and tariffs are so high, The republican view of lower taxes that grow the economy is the best approach

McCain Backer Hagee Said Hitler Was Fulfilling God's Will (AUDIO)

John Hagee, the controversial evangelical leader and endorser of Sen. John McCain, argued in a late 1990s sermon that the Nazis had operated on God's behalf to chase the Jews from Europe and shepherd them to Palestine. According to the Reverend, Adolph Hitler was a "hunter," sent by God, who was tasked with expediting God's will of having the Jews re-establish a state of Israel.

Going in and out of biblical verse, Hagee preached: "'And they the hunters should hunt them,' that will be the Jews. 'From every mountain and from every hill and from out of the holes of the rocks.' If that doesn't describe what Hitler did in the holocaust you can't see that."

He goes on: "Theodore Hertzel is the father of Zionism. He was a Jew who at the turn of the 19th century said, this land is our land, God wants us to live there. So he went to the Jews of Europe and said 'I want you to come and join me in the land of Israel.' So few went that Hertzel went into depression. Those who came founded Israel; those who did not went through the hell of the holocaust.

http://www.huffingtonpost.c...

Raise CAFE standards.

Raise the federal gas tax and put the increase into alternative energy (not fuel).  Particularly target plug-in hybrid technology.

Money for fusion research, possibly, including the Bussard Fusor.  No hike in fission power.

Change in zoning to discourage suburban growth, encourage renovation of city areas.

It's gonna be a long, hard fight.  We shoulda started when Carter told us what the problem was.

I really don't know. Maybe improve short term relations with South American and African petroleum producing countries in the short term and eventually go to a different energy source. Something domestic and renewable. The old formula of extracting cheap resources from other countries is biting us in the butt. My father in law is researching biofuels and I see how innefficient that is but I don't have a real answer (who does?). I also have a buddy (fellow Army LT) whose an engineer who was telling me about the idea of nuclear energy and he makes it sound pretty logical (and relatively safe). What is the cure, Superman? 

Spam code: miwik (Man, I wish I knew)

J F you are right about havign this level of dependance...so letme ask you what is the cure? I know what it is, wha do you think?

We can't continue to have this level of dependence on oil and think that it's great policy. The game done changed...

Is that worse than Bush asking the oil companies how high they'd like the price of gas to go, Chico?

If they raise the standard for mpgs (and it is possible to be met) I think that is great policy. Do you have a fundamental quarrel with that or do you see it as "government telling us what to do"?

I don't believe that'll happen, however, the proverbial "free market", that those of the Republicn faction so espouse, will eventually price food out of affordable ranges  for the rest world (luckilly we subsidize food here) and determine who does and doesn't get to drive.

Obama will also (if you believe what he said in Oregon) ask the rest of the world what our house temperatures should be set at, How we should eat, and how much driving we should do and what our mpg for our auto's should be.......

The bottom line is that when Obama becomes president, he'll sit down with Cuba, Lebanon, Iran, Venezuela (if you even consider them an enemy) and use that "we don't talk with terrorist" policy that George W. tried to ascribe to without having a basic understanding of international relations and U.S.'s apparent interdependence.

Actually noone, Obama stated that he never said there were no preconditions.  He lied.  His website says no preconditions, he said no preconditions in the debate, and just the other day he denied he ever said no preconditions.  Not only do we have a lack of any substance, but we also have a liar.  Once again: Obama Shmobama.

Google's cached version shows it was as it is as of last Friday. Jacoby's column ran Sunday. If you've got something older than that--let's see it.

Well, BS, it's the same web page that Jeff Jacoby of the Boston paper as of May 18 criticized and said he should change. Really? Obama's own website describes him as "the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions." When Obama was asked during a televised debate last year whether he would agree "to meet separately, without precondition . . . with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea," he promptly answered: "I would." If Obama has had a change of heart, he should say so. (He should update his website, too.)"

So...unless you've got some cached page that shows something different, I stand by my comment that his website and his policy have not changed. You may be referring to the comment he made at the televised debate, which he later amended. His web page notes no preconditions in diplomacy with Iran.

You did not address what preconditions you would consider acceptable. I presume you don't even want to talk with them? That's how we got into this mess, frankly.

Biden's sharper than the current crop in the White House, yes.  I expect him to be advising the Obama camp.

NO one, You have to understand despite Biden being a Dem he does know a little about war and diplomacy. Him saying wrong answer is saying that Obama was wrong.

As usual, lol, I'm not going to be mean, but Obama website has been changed I'm assuming that what you wrote is current, and that stuff is different than what it used to say.

The reason he changed it? It was challenged and Obama was wrong.

NO one, You have to understand despite Biden being a Dem he does know a little about war and diplomacy. Him saying wrong answer is saying that Obama was wrong.

As usual, lol, I'm not going to be mean, but Obama website has been changed I'm assuming that what you wrote is current, and that stuff is different than what it used to say.

The reason he changed it? It was challenged and Obama was wrong.

BS, as usual, you are wrong about  this: "Barracks website proudly stated his position until a few days ago...why did he take it down?"

Barack Obama's website still notes he has no preconditions for negotiating with Iran. "Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress."

And your post title doesn't really agree with the pertinent comment from Biden:

Mr. Biden, who is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and sought the Democratic presidential nod this year, said Mr. Obama gave the "wrong answer" in the debate, but added that the senator from Illinois has "learned a hell of a lot."

I have to ask you this: what would be your preconditions for diplomacy? And what the hell are preconditions, anyway?

I cain't hep it

When I see the word  "barracks" I don't think of Obama

Instead I envision white glove inspections by idiots in the middle of the muck & mire, bruthuhs tokin the gonja listening to "I Heard It Through the Grapevine" whilst the rest of us drank Carling Black Label and dreamed of Coors, and dreaming of Flying Tiger back to the world and round eyed wermens..............  dreams...... the stuff war campaigns are made of.......

... political campaigns as well it would seem......

Obama Shmobama.

There's a reason we don't talk to certain rogue nations and terroist groups. They can't be trusted, they lie, promise the moon to stall for time and can be extremly belligerant (NK & Iran come to mind). There are terror groups, whole countries and various heads of state that would (and have) gleefully dance(d) in the streets and on our graves in the event of our demise (or large numbers of us...9/11 comes to mind) Simply because we are not like them, we choose a different God than they do or any other number of twisted reasons.

You can't bribe somebody who hates your very existance....they'll just kill you anyway. The only incentive "they" understand is brutal force. Quick, brutal, excessive, surgical retaliation. Don't f***  with us or our friends and we'll leave you alone. We CAN all get along...really, we can. But there's always somebody or group of somebodies who just can't, no matter what the reason.