Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
U-Know! Forum »
barack's nuts
Log In to post a reply

155 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
2148 posts

Re: barack's nuts
Jul 13, 2008, 21:51
I'm unsure what you have against learning Spanish. Please could you explain.

I don't see that your idea that McCain will be too old in four years cuts much ice. Firstly, he could well be healthy and ready to run again. But that's a side issue. The real point is that characterising it as just him (or just Obama) miscasts them as some kind of monarch. They are, at best, the head of a team.

See how the Bush team have a lot of the same prominent figures as Bush senior, Reagan and further back (Rumsfeld and Kissinger were there with Nixon!). So even if it were four years of McCain then four years of another Republican, we'd be likely to see a similar administration for eight years. What really changed from Reagan to Bush Snr? You're not voting for McCain, you're voting for a Republican administration.

To blame gas rationing on Carter alone is also disingenuous. There was a global oil crisis. There's likely to be another soon. Indeed, around the world people are protesting to their governments about the price of oil. It amazes me that people think that a finite resource dwindling as you use it is some kind of surprise, and/or that the governments can do anything about it.

Which brings me on to your defence of the American overconsuming lifestyle. That great excess of comforts that you're defending is predicated on utterly unsustainable consumption. Worse, it's predicated on vast supplies of cheap oil, which is why US troops are in Iraq and why I don't think that the next president, whatever they might say before the election, is going to pull out of there any time soon.

Worse than that, the oil and much of that other consumption is responsible for colossal emissions of greenhouse gases. As climate change is already killing people in their thousands every week and it is set to get far far worse, yes I think the age of cheap oil should end, yes many of the overconsuming luxuries should be reined in. Not to do so in the knowledge that it will lead to the suffering and deaths of others is unforgivable.

Do you really think we should live in a way that gives more to the bloated minority at the expense of the majority? It's long past time to live a more fair life.

Would Obama's administration do that? Bring in solutions that, say, cut carbon emissions by the amount that the science demands? As he's a man who talks of ethanol-powered cars and who says 'clean coal' without laughing, the answer is surely no.

But giving your mandate to McCain, a man who thought the Surge wasn't big enough and wants a greater military commitment to Iraq, is surely even worse.

You can euphemise it as maintaining your place 'at the top of the ladder', but what it actually means is killing people in vast numbers because they happen to live near resources that you don't need but would like. You shouldn't vote to kill people so you can have even more of what you don't need.
Topic Outline:

U-Know! Forum Index