Promote your business or product on 700level.com. For
more information about advertising with us CLICK HERE!

I caught the former CEO from Exxon/Mobile at the end of Glenn Beck a few nights ago and just went to dig up the transcript. Beck was trying to say the Dems are lying about how long it will take to get the oil out and contends we can "help ourselves today" by drilling off-shore. Here's the brief exchange at the end, which I thought was pretty enlightening given who was answering the question:

BECK: Lee, let me -- I feel the same way about rendition. Let me ask you this question.

My mother said that when there`s a will, there`s a way, that we can do anything. I believe in this country, I believe in the entrepreneur. I believe in the spirit of America like no other place in the world.

Gosh, we are the people that have changed the world forever, and here we are being left in the dust. And the American people are pretty pissed about it.

Everybody says, oh, it will take 10, 15 years. If you got all the of the governmental bull crap out of the way, and we really dedicated ourselves, could we, A, be energy independent, and B, how long would it take us to make a serious dent in that? If the American people said, enough, let`s just do it?

RAYMOND: Well, I hate to tell you, Glenn, it`s going to take a long time. It took us 30 years to get into this mess that we`re in now, and it`s going to take a long time to get out of it.

The point I would make is we have to get going, and we have -- we can`t just keep standing around and talking. You know, one of the things that I think is most frustrating for somebody who spent a long time in the energy business and did -- was involved in the study on the hard truths about energy is people keep debating like they have the option of deciding, well, is it going to be nuclear? Is it going to be coal? Is it going to be conventional oil and gas? Is it going to be wind?

And the answer is...

BECK: All of them.

RAYMOND: ... it has to be all of them. And people should stop arguing about it and just get on with it. And that`s what the American people expect, and they have every right to expect that.

BECK: Lee, thank you very much.

Right, the country is run by soccer moms. Corporations, special interest groups, lobbyists, and the military-industrial complex are all fighting for more say with the soccer moms.

Unbelievable.
-------------------------------------

You think the special interest groups, lobbyists, etc. would get away with everything they have if there weren't so many apathetic individuals in this country with regards to politics?

No one cares. No one cares about illegals until one of them takes their job or commits a crime against them. No one cares about the 30+ years of failed energy policy by both parties until it hits their wallet.

Instead, they trot out the dog and pony show issues such as abortion and gay marriage to get people frothing at the mouth.

Instead, they trot out the dog and pony show issues such as abortion and gay marriage to get people frothing at the mouth.

This is precisely why the nonsense people have been crying about with Obama pisses me off.

Tell me (specifically) why you think he sucks and I don't care...I might even agree. I just would rather we attempt to have real discussions than drown in the fabricated and overblown minutiae.

Instead, they trot out the dog and pony show issues such as abortion and gay marriage to get people frothing at the mouth.

which party trots out those issues, BMA? only one i can think of.

This doesn't really matter, but maybe someone can help me out. What does Hillary Clinton's campaign debt really mean? Is this money she still owes to just random vendors and stuff like that?

Here's an article about Obama suggesting campaign contributers help her repay the debt if they are so inclined. It really got me wondering what kind of President should would have been when she ran a $22 million deficit just trying to win the democratic nomination...much of that money spent after it was a lost cause.


link

I don't know what you cats are even talking about, actually, I myself and voting Mugabe.


Mugabe in '08!
linc

Africa is hands down the funniest continent in the world...maybe in world history.

Surrounded by civilized nations, they are still content walk around in a "Charlotte Hornets" jersey, pair of Jams, and gang rape a local in public, at machete point.

Racist.

Surrounded by civilized nations, they are still content walk around in a "Charlotte Hornets" jersey, pair of Jams, and gang rape a local in public, at machete point.

most of the kids are actually wearing "2008 world champion patriots" t-shirts these days. everything else is accurate.

Lends creedence to Glenn's ascertation that slavery was the best thing to happen to African Americans

well, clearly it is FAR better to be an african american than an african.

and i don't think south africa has fared too well since the end of apartied.

That's an interesting issue. Obviously slavery was awful, but it did work out pretty well for modern Afrian-Americans.

I mean, there isn't a mass exodus back to Africa coming any time soon.

Click on Team/Trade/Offer Trade.


Offered to: Africa:


West Philly

Southeast Washington

West Side Baltimore

East Wilmington


Asked in Return:


South Africa

Kenya

Morocco




Offered, Pending Acceptance.

I love it, 2 years later and Glenn's original intent of his post is somehow vindicated.

Talk about pushy
Yo, click it

They just need to send in The Zohan and be done with it.

Click on Team/Trade/Offer Trade.

Glenn, you need some serious help and I am not going to give it to you.

That was the funniest thing I read all week.

I tried to put "CTRL" in between the selections but I put in between the <> marks and I guess that does not show in HTML.

Good job by the Supreme Court earlier this morning.T his is an issue that Barry isn't going to be able to teleprompt his way out of:

McCain: Chicago Gun Ban Infringes On Rights
Republican Presidential Candidate Singles Out Chicago In Statement Praising Supreme Court Ruling
Gun Rights Ruling May Change Chicago Law
ARLINGTON, Va. (CBS) ? U.S. Sen. John McCain said Thursday that the Supreme Court ruling in favor of gun ownership showed that the Chicago handgun ban has "infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans."

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee called the ruling a "landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States."

Tell us what you think of the ruling and gun control.

"For the first time in the history of our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right as intended by our Founding Fathers," McCain said in a statement.

He criticized Sen. Barack Obama for not signing a bipartisan amicus brief supporting the ruling later issued by the Supreme Court, and singled out the Chicago ban in describing what the ruling should change.

"Today's ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans," McCain said in the statement.

He also targeted a campaign comment by Obama that said residents of struggling small towns "get bitter, they cling to their guns or religion."


"Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today's ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right -- sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly," McCain said.

Obama has supported gun control in both the Illinois State Senate and the U.S. Senate. He had not issued a statement about the ruling as of 10 a.m. Thursday.

The court's 5-4 ruling strikes down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

The Supreme Court ruling does not automatically invalidate the Chicago handgun ban, but opens up the possibility of an court challenge that could get it declared unconstitutional.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

In Chicago, a ban on the sale and registration of handguns has been in place since 1982. Only police officers, aldermen and a handful of others are exempt from the ban.

While other firearms can be registered, under current law, handguns cannot be registered and are considered illegal. Several suburbs have similar restrictions.

Good job by the Supreme Court earlier this morning

Agreed. And I thought Scalia stated it very well:

"Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security and where gun violence is a serious problem," Scalia wrote. "That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."

Here's a summary of Barry's view on guns:

Read Obama's views (see below) and recall that if he is elected president he has the potential to realign the SCOTUS in such a way that this ruling may be narrowed in future cases. Obama constantly tries to use legislative legerdemain to accomplish his political goals in a very tricky and less than transparent way. For example, some think that the 5 mile radius restriction would very narrowly restrict the number of stores where a gun could be purchased.

He would have made it a felony for a gun owner whose firearm was stolen from his residence and used to harm another person if that weapon was not securely stored in the home. That brings up a range of evidentiary problems -- as well as the problems of what legal standards constitute a gun being "securely stored". He also voted against a bill affirming a homeowner's right to use a firearm in self-defense against an intruder.

He was a friend of "gun control" -- from The New York Sun:

He said on the campaign trail that he never favored a handgun ban, even though a 1996 questionaire in his name indicated he did : It asked candidates if they "support state legislation to ... ban the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns." Mr. Obama's typed response was "Yes." His campaign later said a staffer filled out the form and unintentionally misrepresented Mr. Obama's position.

"I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns," Mr. Obama said when confronted with the questionnaire at the debate. He also denied that his handwriting was on the document, even though a copy of the form posted by Politico.com suggests otherwise.

Mr. Mannard said Mr. Obama received "A" ratings from gun control organizations, and he cited his support for a ban on assault weapons and for measures strengthening background check systems.

The executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, Richard Pearson, similarly described Mr. Obama as "a strong gun control person."

"I have not known him to ever vote for a pro-gun bill," Mr. Pearson said.

He also said he no recollection of Mr. Obama stating his view on a handgun ban, although Mr. Pearson said the senator drew the ire of gun owners when he voted with a minority of lawmakers in 2004 against a bill affirming a homeowner's right to use a firearm in self-defense against an intruder. Despite Mr. Obama's opposition, the Illinois Legislature overrode a veto by the governor to approve the bill.

Hot Air catches Obama backpedalling furiously:

Barack Obama has been spinning like a top, and watching his positions on, well, just about everything is like watching table-tennis matches on TiVo triple fast forward. FISA, public financing, and NAFTA have all been reversed in the last couple of weeks, and Obama’s not through yet. With the Heller decision on deck at the Supreme Court, his earlier comments on gun control have gone under the bus, too:

With the Supreme Court poised to rule on Washington, D.C.’s, gun ban, the Obama campaign is disavowing what it calls an “inartful” statement to the Chicago Tribune last year in which an unnamed aide characterized Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., as believing that the DC ban was constitutional.


“That statement was obviously an inartful attempt to explain the Senator’s consistent position,” Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells ABC News.


The statement which Burton describes as an inaccurate representation of the senator’s views was made to the Chicago Tribune on Nov. 20, 2007.


In a story entitled, “Court to Hear Gun Case,” the Chicago Tribune’s James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins wrote “. . . the campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he ‘…believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.’”

Yeah, and his statements on NAFTA were “overheated” in typical politician fashion, according to Obama himself eight days ago. Now he wants to cast his campaign’s position statement as “inartful” and not accurate — more than seven months after making the statement. Team Obama declared the DC gun ban as “constitutional” on November 20, 2007, during a period of time when he was busy sucking up to the hard Left and their confiscatory inclinations on the Second Amendment.


Suddenly, with the general election looming, Obama discovers that his campaign’s statement was inartful. This seems rather puzzling, because before he ran for public office, Barack Obama was supposed to be a Constitutional law expert. One might expect the “inartful” excuse on wetlands reclamation or some other esoteric matter of public policy, but the Constitution is what he supposedly studied at Columbia and Harvard. One has to wonder whether Obama has any competence even in his own chosen field to have seven months go by before realizing that he got the Constitutional question wrong.

Here's a summary of you calling that a summary:



BA-ROOH-TULL.

OK, here's a summary... the socialist wants to take your guns from you.

Chicago's murder rates are their lowest since the 60's becaue of the handgun ban.

If you like being murdered, you should love the "right to bear handguns".

I don't have a problem with guns by any stretch of the imagination, but statistical data shows handguns and cities don't mix...just the way it is. The idea that un-armed citizens lead to crime going wild has been proven a farce, IMO.

Wait, im already afraid of bears, now they have GUNS?

F.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 26 27 28 29 30 
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 
181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207