2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Roy Karrde]

Yes, you point out missed potential for incremental expansion of production. I haven't denied the merits of this.

You need more than this to be energy independent, and even more production on top of that in order to be able to exercise control over price spikes. This would take more than one term to accomplish, and has been a failure of American policy for decades.

It no doubt has been, but even starting us on the journey to be energy independent would help the markets combat fears from the Middle East holding a sword to our neck. Yet however as I have noted not only with Obama scaling back domestic energy production, but also refusing the Keystone Pipeline and making Canada turn to China ( Where the oil more than likely wont end up on the market ) Obama has done little to make us energy independent, in fact he has made us more dependent on what goes through the Strate of Hormuz.

[kurai]

The obvious problem is that Obama has not "scaled back domestic energy production", since domestic oil production has been on the rise. He has only denied the greater opportunity for expansion.

Of course, given that such expansion did not take place when "all offshore lands were available for leasing except for a small area near Florida’s coast", it does not make much sense to criticize such things. We are talking about locking a door that no one opens. This is not the first time that gasoline prices have risen, and yet these places were not exploited in the past. Perhaps the door should be unlocked, but this is a complaint over what was a non-issue - even if the previous state were to return, there is no indication of a consequent surge in production. It is only rhetoric.

[Roy Karrde]

The obvious problem is that Obama has not "scaled back domestic energy production", since domestic oil production has been on the rise. He has only denied the greater opportunity for expansion.

"When President Obama was elected, all offshore lands were available for leasing except for a small area near Florida’s coast

The Obama administration’s new five-year plan doesn’t allow oil and natural gas exploration or production on the vast majority of taxpayer-owned offshore areas"

I would consider that scaling back as he has taken lands that were previously available off the table.

Of course, given that such expansion did not take place when "all offshore lands were available for leasing except for a small area near Florida’s coast", it does not make much sense to criticize such things. We are talking about locking a door that no one opens. This is not the first time that gasoline prices have risen, and yet these places were not exploited in the past. Perhaps the door should be unlocked, but this is a complaint over what was a non-issue - even if the previous state were to return, there is no indication of a consequent surge in production. It is only rhetoric.

That is a rather ignorant assertion, offshore drilling costs alot of money, especially in exploration where the likelihood of striking oil is low and cost is high. However that doesn't mean that new findings can open up previously unknown opportunities. For example the area that Cuba is now exploring near the Florida Strait is a area that supposedly holds more oil than Alaska.

And of course lets not forget that Obama's EPA has withheld permits to force Shell oil to stop drilling near Alaska.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/04/25...illing-denial/

[kurai]

Yes, redefining terms allows you to consider "scaling back" to mean something that it does not mean.

I fail to see how an examination of the real process of exploration as it actually happened embodies ignorance. Your claim about its expense and profitability only serves to undermine the point that a wider field for production would be an immediate solution. It was not a solution in the past - it already failed to provide energy independence.

There is no reason to insist on partisan scapegoating on this issue. The sitting president is always blamed, and yet the same problems keep arising. Consider that current American oil production is simply not conducted in the interests of domestic consumer price advantage. It is unreasonable to blame Obama for a corporate failure to expand coastal production during the decades before he came to office - the profitability of the status quo had been perfectly fine without such expansion, and thus they never did so when the option was available. This appears as a crisis in a periodic fashion, as production simply can't fall into place immediately, but the time to scapegoat is always at hand.

The fundamental problem is the focus of American energy policy. Energy independence means a surplus of available production, which is not going to be immediately profitable, and thus has never been undertaken in advance. The material opportunity was wide open, but intentionally avoided, and now consumers pay the price.

It's not a partisan issue, and not one specific to any particular moment in time.

[Roy Karrde]

Yes, redefining terms allows you to consider "scaling back" to mean something that it does not mean.

"to reduce or make a reduction in the level of activity, extent, numbers, etc."

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scale+back

By not allowing exploration he is reducing the level of activity. By using the EPA to deny permits off of Alaska, he is reducing activity. By denying the exploration of public land he is reducing the number of sites available. As a result of the 2010 moratorium and uncertainty about future permitting, 11 drilling rigs representing 14 projects have left the Gulf of Mexico since April 2010. Should I continue? All of these provide a reduction of domestic oil production through his policies. If you do not see that as representing scaling back, then it seems as if your view on what scaling back means, needs to be redefined.

I fail to see how an examination of the real process of exploration as it actually happened embodies ignorance. Your claim about its expense and profitability only serves to undermine the point that a wider field for production would be an immediate solution. It was not a solution in the past - it already failed to provide energy independence.

You forget that there are already areas such as in Alaska's ANWR that we know contains oil that the Government forbids access to. The same goes with various "NO" zones off our coasts that have continued to be forbidden.

There is no reason to insist on partisan scapegoating on this issue. The sitting president is always blamed, and yet the same problems keep arising. Consider that current American oil production is simply not conducted in the interests of domestic consumer price advantage. It is unreasonable to blame Obama for a corporate failure to expand coastal production during the decades before he came to office - the profitability of the status quo had been perfectly fine without such expansion, and thus they never did so when the option was available. This appears as a crisis in a periodic fashion, as production simply can't fall into place immediately, but the time to scapegoat is always at hand.

I have said that it was a problem before, however Obama also came into office on the tail end of extremely high gas prices, that in and of itself should be the imputes to work on making sure that we do not reach that level again. Not only has he refused to do that, but he has made it harder for oil companies, and he has hired a energy secretary that is decidedly against oil and wants higher prices. You can call it partisan scapegoating but the fact is that 2008 should have been a wake up call to progress on both our own energy and North American energy, instead we have regressed.

It's not a partisan issue, and not one specific to any particular moment in time.

Yes actually it is, as not only Obama but the Democrats have held up energy exploration and the building of refineries for decades on end. Which has only driven us deeper into importing our oil.

http://rpc.senate.gov/public/index.c...d-7eec7d1fe167

If you wish to believe that Obama's policies have not hurt our progress to energy independents then feel free. However history nor facts are not on your side with this.





Edit: And Dark Sage, a interesting article on 15 questions the Mainstream Media would ask Obama if he were a Republican, care to elaborate?

1) Numerous Mexican citizens and an American citizen have been murdered with weapons knowingly provided to criminals by our own government during Operation Fast and Furious. If Eric Holder was aware that was going on, do you think he should step down as Attorney General? Were you aware of Fast and Furious and if so, shouldn’t you resign?

2) In 2010 you said Solyndra, a company that donated heavily to your political campaign, was “leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future.” Today, Solyndra is bankrupt and the taxpayers lost over $500 million on loans that your administration knew might never be paid off when you made them. How do you respond to citizens who say this is evidence of corruption in your administration?

3) Unions invested a lot of time and money in helping to get you elected. In return, unions gained majority control of Chrysler, the taxpayers lost $14 billion dollars on General Motors, and General Motors received a special $45 billion dollar tax break. What do you say to people who view this as corruption on a scale never before seen in American history?

4) Through dubious means you and your Democrat allies in Congress managed to force through an incredibly unpopular health care bill that helped lead to the worst election night for the Democrat Party in 50 years. Since the bill has passed, many of your claims about the bill have proven to be untrue. For example, we now know the bill won’t lower health care costs and despite your assurances to the contrary, big companies like McDonald’s say they may drop health care because of the health care reform. Congress has exempted themselves from the health care reform and instead has their own taxpayer-funded premium health care plan. Many large companies (that donate to Democrat political campaigns) have received special exemptions from the health care plan. Since the majority of the American people have rejected your health care reform and it doesn’t do what you said it would, shouldn’t you work with the Republicans to repeal it?

5) When you took office, the national average for one gallon of gas was $1.89 per gallon. Since then, you’ve demonized the oil industry, dramatically slowed offshore drilling, blocked ANWAR, and rejected the Keystone Pipeline. Now, gas is $3.54 per gallon and rising and is expected to reach $5 per gallon by May of this year. How much higher do you anticipate driving gas prices?

6) Occupy Wall Street has been protesting against Wall Street and the richest 1 percent in America. You are in the top 1 percent of income earners in America and you have collected more cash from Wall Street than any other President in history. So, aren’t you exactly the sort of politician that Occupy Wall Street wants to get rid of?

7) How do you decide which foreign leaders to submissively bow towards and why do you think that’s appropriate for an American President?

8) If they could, don’t you think the Nobel Committee would take back the Nobel Peace Prize that you were awarded after serving just one month in office?

9) You made bipartisanship one of the central themes of your campaign in 2008. Yet, you’ve worked to push bills through Congress with almost no Republican support, spent much less time negotiating with Congress than George Bush did, and you’ve said things like, “But, I don’t want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. I don’t mind cleaning up after them, but don’t do a lot of talking.” Why did you decide to break your campaign promise to pursue bipartisanship?

10) America lost its AAA credit rating for the first time under your watch. What do you think you should have done differently to have prevented that historic failure?

11) You cut more than 500 billion dollars out of Medicare to fund your wildly unpopular health care reform bill. Given that Medicare is running in the red already, don’t you think it’s irresponsible to cut money out of one entitlement program, that millions of seniors depend on — to put it into a risky new entitlement program?

12) Back in July, you said, “Nobody’s looking to raise taxes right now. We’re talking about potentially 2013 and the out years.” Since you plan to raise taxes if you’re elected and you’ve had kind words for a value added tax, shouldn’t every American expect a tax increase if you’re reelected?

13) Why should the American people reelect you when your 10 year budget saddles America with more debt than all previous Presidents combined?

14) Your stimulus bill cost more in real dollars than the moon landing and the interstate highway system combined. Many prominent economists have concluded the stimulus plan was a total failure. What do we have to show for all of that money spent?

15) Members of your administration promised that the trillion dollar stimulus would keep unemployment under 8 percent. Instead, we’ve had 35+ months of 8% and above unemployment. Doesn’t that mean we wasted a trillion dollars on nothing?

http://pointsandfigures.com/2012/02/...-a-republican/

[kurai]

how could i have been so blind to obvious historical fact



it's all coming together

obama

[Dark Sage]

I tend to think that if Mr. Obama were a Republican, the whole "Birther" crap and the rumors that he was a Muslim and a socialist would have been dead issues before his first year in office, if they had even been brought up at all. He would have gotten the respect that someone holding his office deserves.

And by the way, that link you posted was written by a Republican and published in a Republican periodical.

[Roy Karrde]

I tend to think that if Mr. Obama were a Republican, the whole "Birther" crap and the rumors that he was a Muslim and a socialist would have been dead issues before his first year in office, if they had even been brought up at all. He would have gotten the respect that someone holding his office deserves.

Yep I bet you are absolutely right, because if anything the past decade has shown that the Democratic party above all else has not engaged in idiotic theories about a President.

Hell I remember the minute the truther stuff came out, saying that Bush was responsible for 9/11 or that Bush knew about 9/11 it immediately became a dead issue, because dammit the Democratic party gives the respect to the office that it deserves.

Oh wait...

And by the way, that link you posted was written by a Republican and published in a Republican periodical.

I have said it before, I used to pull this crap with Heald and I am now embarrassed by it, to attack the source as partisan and not dealing with the issue on hand, you succumb to the lowest standard of debating, you make yourself look like a fool.

By the way here are some more information about Obama's oil policy.

“We’re focused on production.”

Fact: While production is up under Obama, this has nothing to do with his policies, but is the result of permits and private industry efforts that began long before Obama occupied the White House.

Obama has chosen almost always to limit production. He canceled leases on federal lands in Utah, suspended them in Montana, delayed them in Colorado and Utah, and canceled lease sales off the Virginia coast.

His administration also has been slow-walking permits in the Gulf of Mexico, approving far fewer while stretching out review times, according to the Greater New Orleans Gulf Permit Index. The Energy Dept. says Gulf oil output will be down 17% by the end of 2013, compared with the start of 2011. Swift Energy President Bruce Vincent is right to say Obama has "done nothing but restrict access and delay permitting."

http://news.investors.com/article/60...rice-myths.htm

The increase in domestic drilling was almost entirely in areas for which the Obama administration exercised no authority, as oil production on federal land declined by 11 percent in fiscal year 2011, according to a study by the Institute on Energy Research (IER), a free-market energy think tank. But oil production on state lands increased that year by 14 percent and increased by 12 percent on private lands.

“A lot of the wells that were supposed to be drilled weren’t because of the moratorium,” Dan Kish, senior vice president for policy at the IER, told CNSNews.com. “Drilling is up in the U.S. on lands he has no say over. On lands he has all the say over, drilling is down.” …

Obama’s insistence that he supports an “all of the above” strategy for energy production is not evident by his actions, said Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute.

“Today, 85 percent of the outer-continental shelf has been placed off limits once again. When he took office, there were proposals on the table to open up opportunities in those areas,” Gerard told CNSNews.com. “Today, in the Rocky Mountains, the leasing has gone down 70 percent since taking office. We now have 10 federal agencies, departments, looking at the technology of hydraulic fracturing, which has really opened up this vast game-changer both in natural gas and oil in the United States.”

He added, “The rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline, the proposed increase in taxes, those are all inconsistent with the verbal message of an all-the-above bring along domestic supply.”

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obam...nergy-analysts

[Dark Sage]

Hell I remember the minute the truther stuff came out, saying that Bush was responsible for 9/11 or that Bush knew about 9/11 it immediately became a dead issue, because dammit the Democratic party gives the respect to the office that it deserves.

Roy, I never liked Bush, I didn't like his policies, and I would never in million years have voted for him. Having said that, I think the theories that say he was behind the 9/11 attacks or that he knew about them were even more ridiculous than the Birther stuff.

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, I never liked Bush, I didn't like his policies, and I would never in million years have voted for him. Having said that, I think the theories that say he was behind the 9/11 attacks or that he knew about them were even more ridiculous than the Birther stuff.

And that we agree, I believe the Birther stuff is absolute lunacy and does a disservice to anyone that wishes to expose on it. Besides those Republicans and Independents that are for it need to step back and thing "Do you really want Joe Biden as President instead?"

[Heald]

Santorum, once again, shows why he is not suitable for the highest office, nor the role of Commander-in-Chief. This is either breath-taking ignorance of the US mission in Afghanistan, or he is just trying to make everything Obama does look bad.

[Roy Karrde]

You know, I hate to say it but I am with Santorum on this, should we have handled it better? Yeah, ( although the books needed to be destroyed ) but right now those animals are responding by killing coalition troops including throwing a hand grenade and injuring several U.S. soldiers today alone. Will the Afghanistani's apologize for that?

If the apology was going to defuse the situation, then really it is a cost free thing to do, but it didn't and in many ways it made it worse, and at that point the apology disgraces the troops that are dying because of this.

And this isn't to say Obama did the right thing or not, he tried to diffuse the situation, just looking back, now that the deaths are mounting up. And the legitimacy the apology gave to the situation, it is looking like the wrong thing to say.

Good God I will be glad when we get out of there and allow these prehistoric bastard to get to slaughtering each other.

[Heald]

You're right, he should have said 'Fuck you and your book of spells', that would've been much better

Which, although you weren't implying he SHOULD say that instead of apologising, the Afghan people would have taken the absence of an apology as such. The USA has alienated nearly every nation on the planet in the last 10 years with its rather careless attitude to the sentiments and feelings of other cultures, any President would do well to at least pretend they care about it and to start repairing the wounds.

[firepokemon]

Roy how many pokemon sites are you currently debating the US Presidential Election?

[Roy Karrde]

Roy how many pokemon sites are you currently debating the US Presidential Election?

Two, there is no real debate going on at Nico's Campaign Bus on Bulbagarden.

[Roy Karrde]

I see that the Obama Administration just gave Republicans ad material all the way to November.

“But is the overall goal to get our price” of gasoline down, asked [Mississippi Republican Congressman Alan] Nunnelee.

“No, the overall goal is to decrease our dependency on oil, to build and strengthen our economy,” [Energy Secretary Steven] Chu replied. “We think that if you consider all these energy policies, including energy efficiency, we think that we can go a long way to becoming less dependent on oil and [diversifying] our supply and we’ll help the American economy and the American consumers.”

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.c...8-9F75F373643F

The ad writes itself.

[Dark Sage]

I see that the Obama Administration just gave Republicans ad material all the way to November.



http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.c...8-9F75F373643F

The ad writes itself.

I, Brian Corvello, do solemnly swear, in front of all witnesses on this board, that if the GOP nominee, whoever it may be, can present a foolproof method of bringing the price of gasoline down to below three dollars a gallon and keep it there, rather than simply blame the Democrats for the high price, I will forever revoke my affiliation with the Democratic Party and register as a Republican this year.

I never break my word, by the way.

However, I truly doubt I'll have to deliver on this promise.

[Roy Karrde]

I, Brian Corvello, do solemnly swear, in front of all witnesses on this board, that if the GOP nominee, whoever it may be, can present a foolproof method of bringing the price of gasoline down to below three dollars a gallon and keep it there, rather than simply blame the Democrats for the high price, I will forever revoke my affiliation with the Democratic Party and register as a Republican this year.

I never break my word, by the way.

However, I truly doubt I'll have to deliver on this promise.

You may, but anything can be better than what we have now, as we have both a President and Energy Secretary who have gone on record and said they want higher gas prices. This in the end turns around and hurts both the middle and lower classes, but our economy as well.

[Dark Sage]

Roy, according to this ad, Secretary Chu made this controversial statement in 2008, and... Call me crazy, but Obama wasn't President yet then.

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, according to this ad, Secretary Chu made this controversial statement in 2008, and... Call me crazy, but Obama wasn't President yet then.

He still brought him into his administration, that is a endorsement of his views.

[firepokemon]

Santorum is too nutty for the Catholics. The republican party should be ashamed about the quality of its Presidential wannabes. They are going to lose to Obama too. 2016 really needs a decent sort out because you can't keep running these crappy nominees that don't have a chance.

[Dark Sage]

IMHO, Santorum is nutty, period. Obama is the one adult in a room of squabling children.

And btw, it's official now. Romney has won Michigan.

[DarkestLight]

o.O Wait what? Then why does it say Ron Paul did?

[Dark Sage]

Ron Paul? He came in third.

[Roy Karrde]

Hey Dark Sage, the Liberal Commentator Bill Maher last night said this about Rich Santorum.

"If Rick Santorum is your youth minister, you’d ask your parents to switch you to the one who just molests."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...#ixzz1o56v5jzY

Making light of the suffering many children have gone through being raped and molested by adults.

I ask, should the Democratic party speak out against this? Obviously by your logic he is not trying to be a entertainer, or a provoketer, he believes that it is alright to make light of child molestation.

[DarkestLight]

Sure. I'll dive in. Im forced to listen to Rush at work -.-

No. seriously. I'm forced, its on every effing radio. Pisses me off cause I hate talk radio, let alone political talk radio. Dennis Miller, Rush, Glenn Beck, all day vomit.

Now, I'm not aligned with any party, cause parties are stupid. But most ....common people in Montana are Republicans. Whether they say it or not. So its funny for me to sit there and hear Rush talk, and they laugh, and then he says something that I actually thunk is funny-and they go "Well, that's not exactly what I think?"

My point? I laugh at the moments when he's being a complete ignorant ranter on something or someone. I don't care for the political inclinatiion. Its merely made to make you either go Oh! or HA!

Some people have thicker skin than others. I happen to have really thick skin. Political enviornment skin?Mica-thick:/

Though saying Cunswaggler is a little much, society hasn't come far enough to encourage that word as much as even the N-word.

[Dark Sage]

Roy, unlike you, I am not blindly loyal to my political party.

I think Bill Maher is an abomination who has no right to call himself a Democrat.

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, unlike you, I am not blindly loyal to my political party.

xD I hope you are joking. Because your posts say otherwise.

I think Bill Maher is an abomination who has no right to call himself a Democrat.

In that we both agree, however Bill Maher has given $1 million dollars to a White House endorsed Super Pac that has members of the White House actively campaigning for money in it. Will Barack Obama repudiate what he has said and discontinue the relationship with his Super Pac until they give back the money?

[Dark Sage]

He's returned money from controversial donors before.

And if the GOP refutes the Super Pacs, then I think the President should. But not a minute before. After all, they started the whole thing.

[Roy Karrde]

He's returned money from controversial donors before.

And if the GOP refutes the Super Pacs, then I think the President should. But not a minute before. After all, they started the whole thing.

Difference here is that Obama is directly organizing with his Super PACs by having Government Members under the White House actively coordinating with it, thus bringing a whole new level of coordination that the GOP hasn't done yet. Also I thought Obama was the "Bigger man" and the "Adult" shouldn't he do it first if that is true?

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, you just admitted that Obama, is more organized than the GOP, somehthing that I've been saying for months!

If the bar for organization is set, as to which side is engaging in more illegal activities that could constitute fundraising fraud, I freely admit that Obama beats the GOP in organization. Because the GOP hasn't gone anywhere close to the potential illegal activities Obama has engaged in.

As for Bill Maher contributing to Democrat Super Pacs, I'm sure Glenn Beck (another "entertainer", you may claim, and I must admit, the folks on Fox do nothing but make me laugh) has donated a lot to Republican ones, never mind what Limbaugh and other controversial Republicans like Donald Trump have donated to. You don't see Santorum or Romney telling them to take their money and shove it.

A: Santorum and Romney are not connected to their Super PAC in the way Obama is.

B: Got any proof?

[Dark Sage]

Where's your proof that Obama has done something illegal, Roy? I don't see any Ken Starr wannabes doing any investigations, or the GOP controlled House making good on their threat to subpoena information for them.

As for the names I mentioned, let's just say they've been caught in some embarrassing situations. Trump claimed that a CNN poll put him even with Obama back in October, only for CNN itself to say that no such poll existed. He also presented his birth certificate online and challenged Obama to do so, only for someone to look at what he posted and prove that THIS was a fake one.

[Roy Karrde]

Where's your proof that Obama has done something illegal, Roy? I don't see any Ken Starr wannabes doing any investigations, or the GOP controlled House making good on their threat to subpoena information for them.

Well first it wouldn't be up to the House but the FEC to investigate Obama. Second my proof is in the press release.

Aides said the president had signed off on a plan to dispatch cabinet officials, senior advisers at the White House and top campaign staff members to make clear to donors that they should support Priorities USA Action, the leading Democratic “super PAC,” whose fund-raising has been dwarfed by Republican groups. The new policy was presented to the campaign’s National Finance Committee in a call Monday evening and was set to be announced Tuesday.

Lets look at what lawyers say about this?

"The law says candidates cannot “coordinate” with super PACs. That means they cannot request, assent to, or suggest any super PAC activities."

Making conference calls to coordinate the Super PAC and your own reelection committee? Umm that is a major no-no. However since it takes two years for a investigation to take place, no charges would be fired if so before Obama is out of office.

As for the names I mentioned, let's just say they've been caught in some embarrassing situations. Trump claimed that a CNN poll put him even with Obama back in October, only for CNN itself to say that no such poll existed. He also presented his birth certificate online and challenged Obama to do so, only for someone to look at what he posted and prove that THIS was a fake one.

I asked for proof of donations not for proof of them doing anything stupid. Those people are national figures who usually are on TV or on the Radio several times a week, they are going to say something stupid, its human nature.

[Dark Sage]

Fine, Roy, I have no proof that they made donations.

I guess no one has any proof that OJ Simpson is a murderer either, even though it's rather obvious.

[Roy Karrde]

Fine, Roy, I have no proof that they made donations.

I guess no one has any proof that OJ Simpson is a murderer either, even though it's rather obvious.

That has to be one of if not the most disgusting posts you have made yet. To compare your lack of proof of someone donating to a candidate or candidates to actual murder. That is beyond despicable.

[firepokemon]

This thread cracks me up. Winning poke debates is cool. ^_^

[Blademaster]

'Jump in?' OK!

But firepokemon has made a good point, so I think I'll debate not with walls of text, but humorous pictures, since the latter can't be ignored as easily as the former. That being said...

Roy, unlike you, I am not blindly loyal to my political party.

Roy, I won't be convinced that Obama has been disrespected less than Bush until that lunatic Orly Taitz is held in contempt of court and locked up.

It's no secret that everyone in the Middle East hates Americans, even the ones we're helping.

[Dark Sage]

I don't go on talk shows. The purpose of a talk show is to embarrass people for entertainment.

They're just descreet about it, unlike other mediums that do the same thing, like reality shows.

Edit: I gotta admit, this is getting a little ridiculous. You know things have gotten out of control when Blade starts insulting you. Maybe it's true what Linus said: There are three things you never discuss with people, religion, politics, and the Great Pumpkin.

[Heald]

There are three things you never discuss with people, religion, politics, and the Great Pumpkin.

So the Great Pumpkin is an allegory for sex in Peanuts? Huh.

[DarkestLight]

With fp on this one. I wanna get these two a talk show. I could listen to them all day.