Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

We wouldn't be in the bloody mess we're in today had the BFEE respected Jimmy Carter.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 12:06 AM
Original message
We wouldn't be in the bloody mess we're in today had the BFEE respected Jimmy Carter.
Edited on Mon Jan-11-10 12:10 AM by Octafish
President Carter started weaning the U.S.A. off oil and developing alternative energy resources.
But, no. The greedy oil perverts had to have it all -- squeeze every damn dime out of every damn drop of black gold.


Photo: A Bryan Photo Blog

What's even worse than the current wars for controlling ownership of the Prize is that in the years since 1981 they've managed to burn enough carbohydrons to jeopardize the earth's ability to sustain civilization and possibly humanity. They've squandered the intervening years to do something about protecting the environment and also done all they could to avoid any responsibility in the process. And they call themselves conservatives.

Those who want to see a true conservative should look in the man's eyes in the photo above. In them, one can see a person who worked as President of the United States to conserve the nation's natural resources, create a sustainable economy and build peace based on human rights. In so doing, he conserved the idea of the United States as the leader of the free world.

Things certainly have changed under neo-conservative leadership. Not for the better. We can still do something about it following the ideas expressed by President Carter for energy self-sufficiency, pro-active environmental policy, and a foreign policy based on human rights. Hopefully, we have the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Motown_Johnny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 12:10 AM
Response to Original message
1. Carter put solar panels on the Whitehouse, Reagan took them off
Edited on Mon Jan-11-10 12:11 AM by Motown_Johnny
'nuff said




Edit to add link and snip


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/27/white-house-solar-panels_n_160575.html

In 1979, Jimmy Carter, in a forward-looking move, installed solar panels in the roof of the White House. This symbolic installation was taken down in 1986 during the Reagan presidency
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wuvuj Donating Member (874 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 06:09 AM
Response to Reply #1
13. It's OK...as long as it supports the American Dream?

The U.S. population makes up only 5% of the population of the world.

The U.S. population uses 25% of the world's energy.

The U.S. population produces 25% of the world's pollution.

If the other 95% of the world's population wants to live like the U.S. has, we'll need about five planets to support us.

The American Dream...soon to become THE WORLD'S NIGHTMARE.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
intheflow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #13
45. Soon to become?
I think we already are the World's nightmare.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cetacea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 07:01 AM
Response to Reply #1
15. He killed the tax breaks for solar too, didn't he?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #1
34. Are you kidding me?? Son of a bitch! That reagan was a
piece of work. I always loved President Carter and the freep congress cut him off at the knees just like they're trying to do to President Obama. Only THIS time they've infiltrated the dem camp.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #34
46. Carter was at best a very mixed bag . . .
Edited on Mon Jan-11-10 10:55 PM by defendandprotect
First -- I don't think that you can argue that we have freely rising leadership --

We are being given the candidates TPB approve of -- including Carter.

Granted I think he tried to do quite a few good things but he was ably Swiftboated

by the right wing. For instance the hostage rescues and those three or four cancelled

missions in the desert. For one, the helicopters weren't provided with necessary

equipment to be used in the desert, intended to keep sand out of the engines!

Second, guess who was running the mission -- OLLIE NORTH!

And second in command -- SECORD!

And third, there was the "October Surprise" which Gates played a primary role in!

Among others, including Poppy --


Meanwhile take a look at US/CIA creating the Taliban/Al Qaeda during the Carter administration.

Did Carter not know about it? Don't think that's likely. What his National Security

Advisor has been telling us for the last 3-4 years -- including on the Bill O'Reilly Show

a few years back -- is that US went into Afghanistan six months before the Russians came

in . . . and we did so "in order to bait the Russians into Afghanistan . . . in hopes of giving

them a Vietnam type experience"--!!!

Do you recall Carter taking us out of the Olympics ... so innocently?

Here's the story requoted from my journal --


FIRST PART OF THIS DEALS WITH HOW US/CIA CREATED TALIBAN AND AL QAEDA . . .
TO BAIT RUSSIANS INTO AFGHANISTAN . . .!!!


SECOND PART DEALS WITH THE VIOLENT ISLAMIC TEXTBOOKS also created by US --
printed by us, shipped by us to introduce VIOLENT Islam into the Middle East




The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser

Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs <"From the Shadows">, that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

Q: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Q: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

http://www.takeoverworld.info/brzezinski_i... ...



---------------------------------------------------

SECOND PART --


The US spent $100's of millions shooting down Soviet helicopters yet didn't spend a penny helping Afghanis rebuild their infrastructure and institutions.

They also spent millions producing jihad preaching, fundamentalist textbooks and shipping them off to Afghanistan. These were the same text books the Western media discussed in shocked tones and told their audiences were used by fundamentalist teachers to brainwash their charges and to inculcate in young Afghanis a jihad mindset, hatred of foreigners and non-Muslims etc.


Have you heard about the Afghan Jihad schoolbook scandal?

Or perhaps I should say, "Have you heard about the Afghan Jihad schoolbook scandal that's waiting to happen?"

Because it has been almost unreported in the Western media that the US government shipped, and continues to ship, millions of Islamist textbooks into Afghanistan.

Only one English-speaking newspaper we could find has investigated this issue: the Washington Post. The story appeared March 23rd.

Washington Post investigators report that during the past twenty years the US has spent millions of dollars producing fanatical schoolbooks, which were then distributed in Afghanistan.

"The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books..." -- Washington Post, 23 March 2002 (1)

According to the Post the U.S. is now "...wrestling with the unintended consequences of its successful strategy of stirring Islamic fervor to fight communism."

So the books made up the core curriculum in Afghan schools. And what were the unintended consequences? The Post reports that according to unnamed officials the schoolbooks "steeped a generation in violence."

How could this result have been unintended? Did they expect that giving fundamentalist schoolbooks to schoolchildren would make them moderate Muslims?

Nobody with normal intelligence could expect to distribute millions of violent Islamist schoolbooks without influencing school children towards violent Islamism. Therefore one would assume that the unnamed US officials who, we are told, are distressed at these "unintended consequences" must previously have been unaware of the Islamist content of the schoolbooks.

But surely someone was aware. The US government can't write, edit, print and ship millions of violent, Muslim fundamentalist primers into Afghanistan without high officials in the US government approving those primers.

http://www.tenc.net/articles/jared/jihad.h...



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 12:15 AM
Response to Original message
2. Still one of my favorite votes. Washington chewed him up in many ways, but a great guy.
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 01:29 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. The second time I voted for JImmy Carter, they already called it for that old felon.
Edited on Mon Jan-11-10 01:29 AM by EFerrari
My husband and I commuted and we had to speed to the polls in our mountain town to make it in time.

I'm STILL pissed about the way President Carter was treated. He was a sane, decent president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #2
25. +1
too young to vote for him, but by far my favorite president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 01:26 AM
Response to Original message
3. Carter also signed off on Operation Cyclone to wage a proxy war in Afghanistan against the Soviets
So, eh, oil independence or not, that shit didn't pan out so hot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 01:32 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. And he also tried to prop up Somoza for a while.
But with him it wasn't a career but a strategy. He also tried to reach out to the rebels in Nicaragua. I don't know about Afghanistan.

Compared to every single president since his tenure, he was by far the most sane when it came to foreign affairs and reining in the empire. Not perfect but better by a mile, imho.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #3
48. See my post on Afghanistan ... #46 above yours ... but . . .
didn't know that was the name of it --

Operation Cyclone?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 01:33 AM
Response to Original message
6. or if the no nukes campaign hadn't been so successful
everybody played the NIMBY card with nukes.

with the historical perspective we have now, we should have pushed nuclear power when we could
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raineyb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #6
22. That's ridiculous! And people were right not to want a nuclear power plant
anywhere near their homes. If you think it's so great you live in one, but I live way too close to one my damn self and there's no way should something happen a city of 8 million people could possibly be evacuated.

Why are you excusing Regan's hostility to solar?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pundaint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #22
40. I'd much prefer nuclear to coal or oil in my neighborhood, or upwind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #40
50. Until when . . . when terrorists fly a plane over it?
Edited on Mon Jan-11-10 11:01 PM by defendandprotect
Or until it's old and poorly maintained and license still being renewed?

Or the next Chernobyl?

and these plants still need petroleum --


Needless to say, we can no longer burn fossil fuels . . .

Amazing how we keep hearing about "moving on!" except in regard to fossil fuels --

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #50
52. ah. the chernobyl card
that was the USSR. the soviet union had an abysmal record compared to us in all sorts of stuff, to include workplace safety, security, pollution (take a swim in the river volga for me), etc.

the no nukes people had good cause to believe in their cause back in the day.

knowing what we know NOW, it was a mistaken position.

france, fwiw, does pretty darn well with their nuclear power.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #52
53. paulsby, one reason our record looks so good is that there's a whole lot of coverup
going on of radiation leaks, pollution getting into rivers, and major security screwups. Plus, no one wants to insure them. That should tell you something about how safe they are. If we have to get the government to insure them because private insurance won't do it, there's a reason for that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #53
55. do we want to talk about relative deaths
in nuclear vs. oil, coal, etc?

do you REALLY want to go there?

and let's look at france. if we can look at france favorably for their healthcare system (which is superior, by most metrics), then why not consider that a nuclear energy system like theirs would also be groovy?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 12:41 AM
Response to Reply #55
57. How would we know about relative deaths when our government is so influenced by the
nuclear energy lobby that we very likely have highly inaccurate records of deaths, cancer rates, etc. around some of our major nuclear facilities. Try Hanford, for instance. There's coverup going on all the time in the nuclear industry. It's not like oil where you see the slime if there's a spill, or coal, where there's visible evidence of pollution.

I attended an interesting presentation at the National Green Building Conference in '08 that discussed the various new types of nuke plants, some of which were small and designed for communities or small cities, also some that are attempting to reuse spent, lower-grade fuels from the older nuke plants--I think this is a Japanese prototype. The argument that was presented was that they do not give off carbon pollution, so they would be able to replace our coal-fired facilities. Which seemed like a fairly reasonable argument to me. But the record of the Nuclear Regulatory Agency here has been tainted by some serious coverups and misinformation campaigns, which makes me skeptical of giving them free rein to build a bunch of new plants. One of the arguments that was made at the conference by an opponent of nuclear energy was that the only reason there had been no Chernobyl-level disasters here is because there are so few plants and the public perception of their dangers kept the industry more focused on safety than if there were lots of new plants being built; therefore, diluting oversight and safety awareness.

Certainly there are some "up" sides to using nuclear energy here in the U.S., but the "down" side is that the catastrophic effects of even a single meltdown are so much greater and longer-lasting that it would be a very hard sell. Then there's the waste disposal issue. And the cost issue.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #55
62. Yes . .. of course, we do -- nuclear is too huge a risk . . .
Every reason to think that atomic weapons used and tested over decades have

something to do with Global Warming, among other capitalistic solutions!

No reason to burn fossil fuels --

And no reason for nuclear reactors --

We have to move to more intelligent systems --

and that isn't nuclear!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #52
61. WE have an "abysmal record" of maintenance and security . . .
CHERNOBYL happened --

It can happen anywhere -- and it's too huge a risk to take -- anytime, anywhere.

It takes 6 months to properly shut down a reactor --

No one has time for that in an emergency.

We already have two reactors in every US state -- that's 103/106 too many --

All regularly changing hands -- all improperly financed as to upkeep/maintenance.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #61
64. our record is metric assloads better than the USSR
that's why it's not surprising that such an industrial accident happened there.

you can make specious comparisons all you want, but the fact that the USSR had a crumbling infrastructure with scant worker protections is hardly a unique proposition

so, let's look at france. a country we are much more similar to.

lots of nuclear power.

safely
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #64
65. Human error isn't something only Russians suffer from . . .
Edited on Tue Jan-12-10 02:40 PM by defendandprotect
Nor is this a contest between US and Russia --

It's about the reality of the potential harm --

The risk isn't worth it when we can have clean reusable energy --

just NOT monopoly energy --

WAKE UP -- WE HAVE A CRUMBLING INFRASTRUCTURE ... WITH SCANT WORKER PROTECTIONS . . .

That's the GOP "third world America" they've given us.

Keep looking at France -- and hopefully there will be no problems there --

But nuclear is a sad and desperate attempt for energy --

US can do better -- much better --

PLUS, we have all kinds of maintenance, structural problems with the reactors we

already have!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #65
66. if you can't address facts, then why bother
the same people that claim that the USSR collapsed under its own weight of incompetence, bureaucracy etc (and not due primarily to st. raygun et al), will now claim that we are comparable to the USSR prior to its fall

lol

seriously, the intellectual cowardice and dishonesty is amazing.

so, again...

let's compare the USa to FRANCE. we are both democracies, with FAR more competency, FAR better technology, FAR better worker safety, FAR better RECORD than the USSR.

yes, chernobyl happened. but for the anti-nuke ignorati, it's a card they play when you bring up nuke power. even IF one concedes that a chernobyl COULD happen here (or in france), there are still FAR more people killed, maimed, injured, etc. by coal/oil exploration and production.

again, compare the USA to france.

but you won't do that, because then you have to admit an excellent safety record for nuclear power.

when history/empirical evidence offers facts that run contrary to one's viewpoint, the honest person - reassesses.

but for those who are stuck in the "no nukes" nukular energy is evil 70's mantra, facts don't matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-13-10 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #66
67. Nuclear Plants are uninsurable . . . guess why . .. ??
Edited on Wed Jan-13-10 12:53 AM by defendandprotect
You're deluding yourself . . . nuclear is one of the least popular choices . . .

No one wants nuclear --

and for all the obvious reasons -- including Chernobyl -- 3 mile island --

and the sad condition of the nuclear plants we have today --

Poorly maintained and insufficiently protected --

No safety record is secure from human error --

Additionally, nuclear is also uninsurable . . .

Guess why?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 01:35 AM
Response to Original message
7. I remember a school trip in '77 to a solar powered house.
*sigh*

Where would we be now......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 01:39 AM
Response to Original message
8. Funny how conservatives think Carter was so incompetent.
Yet, to your point, had we followed his lead, we'd be in a hell of a lot better shape today. We're more reliant on foreign oil than we've ever been and the the cost is being subsidized directly by our $600BB+/year military and navy budgets. But Big Oil, Saudi Arabia, and the Bush family aren't complaining....

And lets not forget that one of Reagan's first executive acts was to demote the Department of Energy from a cabinet level position. I wonder who's bright idea that was?

Damn shame we have so many people who think Democrats are destroying this country with socialism, when the real destruction is being done by the people who promote unregulated capitalism. How many decades do you have to live with the results of Republicanism before you figure it out?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #8
63. They didn't think he was "incompetent" ... they thought he was a risk to capitalism . . .
and it's insane and suicidal worship of profit at the expense of humanity, nature,

planet!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
csziggy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 01:51 AM
Response to Original message
9. President Carter laid it all out in this speech - too bad few really paid attention
Primary Sources: The President's Proposed Energy Policy

Jimmy Carter delivered this televised speech on April 18, 1977.

Tonight I want to have an unpleasant talk with you about a problem unprecedented in our history. With the exception of preventing war, this is the greatest challenge our country will face during our lifetimes. The energy crisis has not yet overwhelmed us, but it will if we do not act quickly.

It is a problem we will not solve in the next few years, and it is likely to get progressively worse through the rest of this century.

We must not be selfish or timid if we hope to have a decent world for our children and grandchildren.

We simply must balance our demand for energy with our rapidly shrinking resources. By acting now, we can control our future instead of letting the future control us.

Two days from now, I will present my energy proposals to the Congress. Its members will be my partners and they have already given me a great deal of valuable advice. Many of these proposals will be unpopular. Some will cause you to put up with inconveniences and to make sacrifices.

The most important thing about these proposals is that the alternative may be a national catastrophe. Further delay can affect our strength and our power as a nation.

Our decision about energy will test the character of the American people and the ability of the President and the Congress to govern. This difficult effort will be the "moral equivalent of war" -- except that we will be uniting our efforts to build and not destroy.

I know that some of you may doubt that we face real energy shortages. The 1973 gasoline lines are gone, and our homes are warm again. But our energy problem is worse tonight than it was in 1973 or a few weeks ago in the dead of winter. It is worse because more waste has occurred, and more time has passed by without our planning for the future. And it will get worse every day until we act.

The oil and natural gas we rely on for 75 percent of our energy are running out. In spite of increased effort, domestic production has been dropping steadily at about six percent a year. Imports have doubled in the last five years. Our nation's independence of economic and political action is becoming increasingly constrained. Unless profound changes are made to lower oil consumption, we now believe that early in the 1980s the world will be demanding more oil that it can produce.

The world now uses about 60 million barrels of oil a day and demand increases each year about 5 percent. This means that just to stay even we need the production of a new Texas every year, an Alaskan North Slope every nine months, or a new Saudi Arabia every three years. Obviously, this cannot continue.

We must look back in history to understand our energy problem. Twice in the last several hundred years there has been a transition in the way people use energy.

The first was about 200 years ago, away from wood -- which had provided about 90 percent of all fuel -- to coal, which was more efficient. This change became the basis of the Industrial Revolution.

The second change took place in this century, with the growing use of oil and natural gas. They were more convenient and cheaper than coal, and the supply seemed to be almost without limit. They made possible the age of automobile and airplane travel. Nearly everyone who is alive today grew up during this age and we have never known anything different.

Because we are now running out of gas and oil, we must prepare quickly for a third change, to strict conservation and to the use of coal and permanent renewable energy sources, like solar power.

The world has not prepared for the future. During the 1950s, people used twice as much oil as during the 1940s. During the 1960s, we used twice as much as during the 1950s. And in each of those decades, more oil was consumed than in all of mankind's previous history.

World consumption of oil is still going up. If it were possible to keep it rising during the 1970s and 1980s by 5 percent a year as it has in the past, we could use up all the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade.

I know that many of you have suspected that some supplies of oil and gas are being withheld. You may be right, but suspicions about oil companies cannot change the fact that we are running out of petroleum.

All of us have heard about the large oil fields on Alaska's North Slope. In a few years when the North Slope is producing fully, its total output will be just about equal to two years' increase in our nation's energy demand.

Each new inventory of world oil reserves has been more disturbing than the last. World oil production can probably keep going up for another six or eight years. But some time in the 1980s it can't go up much more. Demand will overtake production. We have no choice about that.

But we do have a choice about how we will spend the next few years. Each American uses the energy equivalent of 60 barrels of oil per person each year. Ours is the most wasteful nation on earth. We waste more energy than we import. With about the same standard of living, we use twice as much energy per person as do other countries like Germany, Japan and Sweden.

One choice is to continue doing what we have been doing before. We can drift along for a few more years.

Our consumption of oil would keep going up every year. Our cars would continue to be too large and inefficient. Three-quarters of them would continue to carry only one person -- the driver -- while our public transportation system continues to decline. We can delay insulating our houses, and they will continue to lose about 50 percent of their heat in waste.

We can continue using scarce oil and natural to generate electricity, and continue wasting two-thirds of their fuel value in the process.

If we do not act, then by 1985 we will be using 33 percent more energy than we do today.

We can't substantially increase our domestic production, so we would need to import twice as much oil as we do now. Supplies will be uncertain. The cost will keep going up. Six years ago, we paid $3.7 billion for imported oil. Last year we spent $37 billion -- nearly ten times as much -- and this year we may spend over $45 billion.

Unless we act, we will spend more than $550 billion for imported oil by 1985 -- more than $2,500 a year for every man, woman, and child in America. Along with that money we will continue losing American jobs and becoming increasingly vulnerable to supply interruptions.

Now we have a choice. But if we wait, we will live in fear of embargoes. We could endanger our freedom as a sovereign nation to act in foreign affairs. Within ten years we would not be able to import enough oil -- from any country, at any acceptable price.

If we wait, and do not act, then our factories will not be able to keep our people on the job with reduced supplies of fuel. Too few of our utilities will have switched to coal, our most abundant energy source.

We will not be ready to keep our transportation system running with smaller, more efficient cars and a better network of buses, trains and public transportation.

We will feel mounting pressure to plunder the environment. We will have a crash program to build more nuclear plants, strip-mine and burn more coal, and drill more offshore wells than we will need if we begin to conserve now. Inflation will soar, production will go down, people will lose their jobs. Intense competition will build up among nations and among the different regions within our own country.

If we fail to act soon, we will face an economic, social and political crisis that will threaten our free institutions.


But we still have another choice. We can begin to prepare right now. We can decide to act while there is time.

That is the concept of the energy policy we will present on Wednesday. Our national energy plan is based on ten fundamental principles.

The first principle is that we can have an effective and comprehensive energy policy only if the government takes responsibility for it and if the people understand the seriousness of the challenge and are willing to make sacrifices.

The second principle is that healthy economic growth must continue. Only by saving energy can we maintain our standard of living and keep our people at work. An effective conservation program will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs.

The third principle is that we must protect the environment. Our energy problems have the same cause as our environmental problems -- wasteful use of resources. Conservation helps us solve both at once.

The fourth principle is that we must reduce our vulnerability to potentially devastating embargoes. We can protect ourselves from uncertain supplies by reducing our demand for oil, making the most of our abundant resources such as coal, and developing a strategic petroleum reserve.

The fifth principle is that we must be fair. Our solutions must ask equal sacrifices from every region, every class of people, every interest group. Industry will have to do its part to conserve, just as the consumers will. The energy producers deserve fair treatment, but we will not let the oil companies profiteer.

The sixth principle, and the cornerstone of our policy, is to reduce the demand through conservation. Our emphasis on conservation is a clear difference between this plan and others which merely encouraged crash production efforts. Conservation is the quickest, cheapest, most practical source of energy. Conservation is the only way we can buy a barrel of oil for a few dollars. It costs about $13 to waste it.

The seventh principle is that prices should generally reflect the true replacement costs of energy. We are only cheating ourselves if we make energy artificially cheap and use more than we can really afford.

The eighth principle is that government policies must be predictable and certain. Both consumers and producers need policies they can count on so they can plan ahead. This is one reason I am working with the Congress to create a new Department of Energy, to replace more than 50 different agencies that now have some control over energy.

The ninth principle is that we must conserve the fuels that are scarcest and make the most of those that are more plentiful. We can't continue to use oil and gas for 75 percent of our consumption when they make up seven percent of our domestic reserves. We need to shift to plentiful coal while taking care to protect the environment, and to apply stricter safety standards to nuclear energy.

The tenth principle is that we must start now to develop the new, unconventional sources of energy we will rely on in the next century.

These ten principles have guided the development of the policy I would describe to you and the Congress on Wednesday.

Our energy plan will also include a number of specific goals, to measure our progress toward a stable energy system.

These are the goals we set for 1985:

--Reduce the annual growth rate in our energy demand to less than two percent.

--Reduce gasoline consumption by ten percent below its current level.

--Cut in half the portion of United States oil which is imported, from a potential level of 16 million barrels to six million barrels a day.

--Establish a strategic petroleum reserve of one billion barrels, more than six months' supply.

--Increase our coal production by about two thirds to more than 1 billion tons a year.

--Insulate 90 percent of American homes and all new buildings.

--Use solar energy in more than two and one-half million houses.


We will monitor our progress toward these goals year by year. Our plan will call for stricter conservation measures if we fall behind.

I cant tell you that these measures will be easy, nor will they be popular. But I think most of you realize that a policy which does not ask for changes or sacrifices would not be an effective policy.

This plan is essential to protect our jobs, our environment, our standard of living, and our future.

Whether this plan truly makes a difference will be decided not here in Washington, but in every town and every factory, in every home an don every highway and every farm.

I believe this can be a positive challenge. There is something especially American in the kinds of changes we have to make. We have been proud, through our history of being efficient people.

We have been proud of our leadership in the world. Now we have a chance again to give the world a positive example.

And we have been proud of our vision of the future. We have always wanted to give our children and grandchildren a world richer in possibilities than we've had. They are the ones we must provide for now. They are the ones who will suffer most if we don't act.

I've given you some of the principles of the plan.

I am sure each of you will find something you don't like about the specifics of our proposal. It will demand that we make sacrifices and changes in our lives. To some degree, the sacrifices will be painful -- but so is any meaningful sacrifice. It will lead to some higher costs, and to some greater inconveniences for everyone.

But the sacrifices will be gradual, realistic and necessary. Above all, they will be fair. No one will gain an unfair advantage through this plan. No one will be asked to bear an unfair burden. We will monitor the accuracy of data from the oil and natural gas companies, so that we will know their true production, supplies, reserves, and profits.

The citizens who insist on driving large, unnecessarily powerful cars must expect to pay more for that luxury.

We can be sure that all the special interest groups in the country will attack the part of this plan that affects them directly. They will say that sacrifice is fine, as long as other people do it, but that their sacrifice is unreasonable, or unfair, or harmful to the country. If they succeed, then the burden on the ordinary citizen, who is not organized into an interest group, would be crushing.

There should be only one test for this program: whether it will help our country.

Other generation of Americans have faced and mastered great challenges. I have faith that meeting this challenge will make our own lives even richer. If you will join me so that we can work together with patriotism and courage, we will again prove that our great nation can lead the world into an age of peace, independence and freedom.


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/filmmore/ps_energy.html

Jimmy Carter, "The President's Proposed Energy Policy." 18 April 1977. Vital Speeches of the Day, Vol. XXXXIII, No. 14, May 1, 1977, pp. 418-420.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #9
17. That speech should be required reading.
The powers-that-be read it and did all they could to protect their precious petroleum.

Thank you, csziggy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #9
26. thanks for this
:patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
swilton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #9
35. Thank you for posting that speach csziggy
The genesis of that speach was that the oil crisis of the early 1970s - the Arab oil embargo and rationing gas - think of it....

But Carter was blamed for that speach by Ronnie Reagan who rode into Washington DC like some cowboy wearing a big white hat - according to Reagan, Carter was foolish - from then on there would be no energy forecasts because 'the market' would take care of everything. Big oil was granted big subsidies for so-called exploration but what they in fact did was squander the nation's resources......it was might makes right for them....

I can't blame it all on Republicans though, Clinton essentially had no energy plan either.....it was all about militarizing the Middle East and taking our oil out from under their sand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #9
51. Pretty much, Carter was being undermined by the corporate press . ..
Edited on Mon Jan-11-10 11:07 PM by defendandprotect
and once "bomb Iran" and ABC -- "Anyone but Carter" got going, it was all lost!

I'm not saying those ideas were original to the public -- I'm saying it was a major

right wing Swiftboating--!!

As far as I can see, at that point you could not have gotten anyone distracted by

a little thing like alternative energy, nor Global Warming --!!!

People in the streets whom I knew -- around our schools -- had bumper stickers

"Bomb IRAN!" .... it was mind-blowing!


And, then there was the failed hostage rescues -- with OLLIE NORTH in command!!

And SECORD second in command!!!

And, finally, "The October Surprise" ---

Let's face it, they "recalled" Carter --



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EmeraldCityGrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 02:31 AM
Response to Original message
10. Life was good back then.
People always talk about the Carter Recession. I don't remember struggling back then
any where near to how I do now. I bought my first house at 19 for $25,000. We had
a choice of jobs and business opportunities. I never understood all the complaints
about his administration. And yes, most importantly, Carter tried to make us all
conscience of the future toll for our energy consumption. No one paid any real
attention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 12:03 AM
Response to Reply #10
54. I remember 20-plus percent mortgages. YIKES. Other than that, I thought he was a
very good President. Not that he could have affected the interest rates with the big-money guys trying to get rid of him so Reagan could come in and do their bidding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rhiannon12866 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 02:51 AM
Response to Original message
11. An enthusiastic K&R from me!!!
Jimmy Carter has always been my president, a man ahead of his time... :patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cetacea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 07:14 AM
Response to Reply #11
16. +1000
Edited on Mon Jan-11-10 07:19 AM by Cetacea
And as per emeraldcitygirl's post, the quality of life was so much better during his years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rhiannon12866 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. I certainly agree... :-)
For one thing, we weren't at war. Jimmy Carter worked hard to broker peace in the Middle East, not start preemptive endless wars. x(

And I remember that he led by example to conserve energy. My Dad, manager of the regional power company, also dressed in layers (vests, etc.) to set a good example. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #11
27. Me too
Another Carter person checking in
:patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rhiannon12866 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 12:54 AM
Response to Reply #27
58. Thanks! It's always great to meet another kindred spirit!
Despite our long acquaintance... ;) :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 08:35 AM
Response to Reply #58
60. I think we've chatted here for a couple years, yes?
But I will have you know that I have been collecting Jimmy Carter books for at least 10 years now.
I've lost "Always a Reckoning" (his book of poetry). I actually had the editor sign my copy.

I think I have 7 Carter books, and I must admit, with the exception of "The Hornets Nest" I have loved reading each one. The Hornets Nest I have tried to read twice, but never got far into it.

Peace and :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rhiannon12866 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-13-10 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #60
68. It's been more than a couple of years, my friend...
I'm thinking that it was 2005, at least since the time you were running for office. :D

And I've admired Jimmy Carter since he first ran for president in 1976. I knew nothing about politics back then; I just know that I liked him and something about him spoke to me. My brother used to pick on me about it, treating him as if he was a joke... But then my brother worked on the Ford campaign. ;) And, as I've learned more, my admiration for Jimmy Carter has only increased. :patriot:

I envy your collection of Carter books. Wow! He is amazingly prolific... I have a couple of his books, but want to read the more recent and serious ones... He seems to truly understand the Middle East like few Americans (Bill Clinton excepted) and it's made me crazy that recent administrations haven't taken advantage of his expertise. :-(

Did you know that he is the only US president to have written a novel? Jimmy Carter trivia, LOL. And he's one hero who's never let me down... And, except for brief appearances by John Conyers and Dennis Kucinich, Jimmy Carter's been my avatar since we've had them on DU... :-)

Rhiannon :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 05:29 AM
Response to Original message
12. If he had fired Schlesinger and invoked emergency powers to force the oil industry to distribute gas
Edited on Mon Jan-11-10 05:50 AM by leveymg
he would have won a second term. JFK took on the Steel Industry and came out a hero. Truman did the same thing with JC Penny and some other retailers. FDR virtually nationalized entire sectors of the economy and is today considered the savior of America.

Jimmy was far too nice. Barack needs to learn from that mistake.



James Schesinger is the guy on the right, CIA Director under Ford who Carter brought into his Cabinet as Energy Secretary. Crude oil supplies inside the U.S. were actually plentiful during the '79-80 Iran oil "crisis." Higher than the same period before and the one that followed. What actually happened was that Schlesinger made the decision to allow the oil companies to shut down a bunch of U.S. refineries for "maintenance" and to produce reduced supplies of motor fuel in favor of heating oil. He resisted calls to invoke national powers to force the oil companies to import refined gasoline stocks held in Mexico and the Caribbean. He was eventually fired, in mid-1980, but by then it was too late.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NecklyTyler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 06:50 AM
Response to Original message
14. It just presents one more recounting about what happens to people who fail to support big oil
The masters of this country are the ones how have the deepest pockets
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 02:33 PM
Response to Original message
19. So true. He knew the fallout, but damn if we Americans didn't buck up
and live with it.

My first vote--and I was invited to the Inauguration. Still my proudest moment.

Not to mention, Middle East peace talks. Where might we be now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 02:41 PM
Response to Original message
20. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_In_AK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
21. K&R
Jimmy Carter became a villain to a lot of Alaskans because of ANILCA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_National_Interest_Lands_Conservation_Act , one of the last bills that Carter signed, but I'm so glad that step was taken to preserve our wilderness. I'm one of those dreaded "tree huggers." :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jasi2006 Donating Member (544 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 03:51 PM
Response to Original message
23. And John Anderson's 50 Cent tax on gasoline.....wow!
Just think what that money could lhave done since then. We are paying much more than 50 additional cents since John made this proposal. Course, we were told by good ole Ronnie that American should not be asked to sacrifice. Remember?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 06:06 PM
Response to Original message
24. A President ahead of his time. Tried to educate US about Peak Oil.
Unfortunately, rather than prepare for the reality ahead, most Americans voted for the temporary bullshit that Ray-gun provided in 1980. Carter may not have accurately predicted the exact date of the peak of global oil production, but we would have had a 30 year headstart of preparation if we had heeded his warnings.

http://www.peakoil.tv/videos.php?id=32

The choice voters had in 1980 can best be summed up by The Onion here:

Campaign '80
Which message will resonate with voters?

"Let's talk better mileage"
- Jimmy Carter

"Kill the Bastards"
- Ronald Reagan

http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-climate_change_debate/article_900.jsp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DisgustedInMN Donating Member (956 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 06:36 PM
Response to Original message
28. President Carter was far too decent of a man...
.. to be anything like the usual shitballs occupying the White House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveOurDemocracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #28
32. Too decent and too honest to be bought ...so, he had to go.

Brilliant, ethical, and had the courage of his convictions.


Too bad our current President didn't find as much to admire in him as he did in Bonzo's sidekick.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissDeeds Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #32
38. +1
Edited on Mon Jan-11-10 08:57 PM by MissDeeds
Agree on all points. A truly good and decent man.

:patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 07:09 PM
Response to Original message
29. What a terrible shame
And in order to gain the presidency they had to commit the traitorous act of dealing with Iran to prolong the release of the hostages.

Has our corporate media ever commented upon the amazing coincidence that the hostages were released five minutes after Reagan took office?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. Sure
They thought it was amazing what he was able to accomplish in such a short time.

Politicians saw what happened to Carter and decided that telling the truth was not a winning strategy. And here we are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 07:14 PM
Response to Original message
30. I Need to Read More about Carter
from what little I have read about the man, he certainly was a straight shooter... the real thing, not the shitty Hollywood -Has-Been Con Man like Reagan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Douglas Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 08:22 PM
Response to Original message
33. for sure, for sure
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 08:44 PM
Response to Original message
36. My Governor. My President.
Ronald who?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 08:50 PM
Response to Original message
37. I love the man
Loved him as President too. He got a lot done in spite of the pukes trying to tear him down at every turn. The thing with President Carter is he led with an honest and open heart and with out stretched arms welcoming all. Damn fine gentleman still to this day.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 08:58 PM
Response to Original message
39. My own view is that once he was free of the Presidency he became truly great
that experience allowed him to really make a difference in the world.
He used his experiences as a wise and compassionate man would.
The presidency is far too beholding to the dark side.
Jimmy has been a light since he left that office.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissDeeds Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 09:04 PM
Response to Original message
41. A lot of love for Pres. Carter on this thread
It breaks my heart to see that he's in advanced age. We should let him know how much he's appreciated and the respect we have for him.

:loveya: :patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulka38 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 09:21 PM
Response to Original message
42. This is absolutely true. TY
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
varelse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 10:03 PM
Response to Original message
43. Wish America had listened
I know our family did - but it wasn't enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wackywaggin Donating Member (243 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 10:31 PM
Response to Original message
44. Uriah Heep did him in!!

Look it up for clarification who in ther senate was known as the "Uriah Heep"!

Heretic Wack :0)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 10:56 PM
Response to Original message
47. KNR Carter was ahead of his time
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
veganlush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 10:59 PM
Response to Original message
49. in 1975, Carter set a goal of 25 years, the year 2000...
..to be off of foreign oil. Had we followed his lead of conservation, developing solar and wind, etc. we would have achieved that goal. Instead, we continued to pump money into the middle east. In a round-a-bout way, we made Bin Laden rich. His family made their fortune in construction but the only reason Saudi Arabia and other Mideast countries could afford to build palaces and infrastructure is mainly because of the huge influx of oil export revenues. So, what I'm getting at is, Osama Bin Laden is Reagan's love child.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 12:07 AM
Response to Original message
56. Recommend highly. Our world and nation would be a different place if we had heeded
President Carter's call to conserve our natural resources and become energy independent.

Excellent post, Octafish.

I would like to point out that not only will our carbon production endanger humanity, but all creatures who require the type of environment that we now have--that's a huge chunk of the animal kingdom, including fishes.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 12:58 AM
Response to Original message
59. Kick nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Initech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-14-10 12:02 AM
Response to Original message
69. The BFEE doesn't respect anybody but the almighty dollar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 10:15 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC