So, basically you are saying that we should go back to the system the Framers of the Constitution envisioned. That is not a "new economic structure". Rather it is a return to one which was dismantled.

Define this new economic structure and we can discuss its possible merits as well as its possible flaws. So far, every one of the "new economic structures" I have seen proposed are actually recycled versions of old economic structures which failed. Your ideas may be different, but until you tell us what they are, we cannot know.

My experience is that most of the problems with our current system are a result of things implemented in the name of "a new economic structure". Things which just made the problems they claimed to be designed to fix worse.

Well, yes, things COULD change, but, so far, they haven't.

What I find interesting is that they say this right after the year ends...you know the year where there were reports from many parts of the world about how it was unseasonably cold, all year long? Yet I am supposed to believe it was the warmest year on record?

I am saying, that except for John Kerry saying so, we have little evidence that it happened...and we know that the only basis John Kerry had for claiming it was hearsay from unreliable sources. John Kerry's sources were men who either never served in Vietnam, or served in a capacity where they would not have witnessed such behaviors, let alone been in a position to commit them.

Well, yes, work is starting on building the capacity to pipe the oil to Vancouver because the Obama Administration has made it clear that they are not going to approve the Keystone XL pipeline. The opponents of the Keystone XL pipeline want the tar sands oil to stay in the ground. That is not going to happen. The only question is where does the oil go and how does it get there. Currently it is going to the Gulf Coast by rail. This is an economically and environmentally inefficient method of moving the oil. It would be better to transport the oil, both economically and environmentally, by pipe. The first choice would be to pipe the oil to the refineries it is currently being shipped to by rail, but if the US will not allow that, they are going to pipe it to Vancouver. Of course the thing many people overlook is that the Keystone XL would also be able to transport the oil being removed from the ground in the Dakotas (mostly North Dakota). It is probably not efficient to build a pipeline just for the North Dakota oil (I may be mistaken on that). If I am correct that means that that oil will continue to be shipped by rail, with the increased risks that come with shipping oil by rail as opposed to by pipeline.

John Kerry testified in front of the Senate that his fellow soldiers had "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war,..." That sounds like vilification to me.

What "established facts" are you talking about? Oh that's right, Democratic Party talking points are "established facts".

He was NOT in Vietnam for two and a half years. He was in Vietnam for four months. An typical tour of duty in Vietnam was 1 year.

I never said that opposition to war was anti-military and vilifying soldiers, I said that John Kerry vilified soldiers and was anti-military. You may want to look at some of the things he said when he returned from Vietnam.

Well, Democrats thought that his war service and purple hearts were a selling point, but that was because they thought nobody would notice that his tour of duty in Vietnam was ridiculously short and that as soon as he returned he began vilifying the people he served with. The only people who thought Kerry's war service was a strength were people who were as anti-military as John Kerry.

That is interesting, since all of his crew mates I have heard say they are true.

Well, considering that the word "swiftboating" is derived from accusations against John Kerry that were true. when someone says they are being "swiftboated" they are admitting that the attacks against them are based in truth.

Actually, while Canada does not need Keystone XL to ship oil to the USA, that is not because enough pipelines exist, but because they can, and do, ship it by rail. As a matter of fact, it appears that one of the reasons that the Obama Administration will not make a decision one way or the other on Keystone XL is because several major contributors to his campaigns (and their successor organization, OFA) own large chunks of the railroads which are currently shipping that oil. If the Obama Administration flat out said that they would reject the pipeline, Canada would begin work on a pipeline to Vancouver to ship the oil directly to China.

As to the reason they want to build the pipeline, it is not particularly to export the oil. There is no reason to ship the oil to the Gulf of Mexico just to export it. They could (and will if the pipeline is rejected) ship the oil to Vancouver for export. The reason for shipping it to the Gulf is because the refineries along the Gulf are among the few already built which can process the oil.

Well, that is one viewpoint. Good luck convincing most people that it would have been a good idea to allow Saddam to conquer any neighboring country whose military was too weak to stop him.