PMEL Forum

General => Polls => Topic started by: cobychuck on 08-27-2008 -- 22:59:00

Title: The Presidential Race
Post by: cobychuck on 08-27-2008 -- 22:59:00
    Granted, we may not have the best choice of candidates in the upcoming election, but in the end it is in our interest to vote.  After all, if you didn't vote you don't get to complain.   :-)
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: Hoopty on 08-28-2008 -- 01:48:10
Just curious... why use Obama's middle name and not McCain's?
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: flew-da-coup on 08-28-2008 -- 10:07:50
We are in the middle of a war. I want a president that has exp. not one that has read the book. Just my thoughts.
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: K-Rock on 08-28-2008 -- 18:34:49
Hopefully, Obama can get us out of the war!
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: RedBones on 08-28-2008 -- 18:42:27
Hopefully, Obama can get us out of the war!


The Iraq situation will resolve.  It's already getting there.  The locals are sick of the turmoil and are beginning to seriously police their own.

Afghanistan is where they'll be sending most of the kids soon.  The terrorists in A-stan are home grown, and they are getting fired up again. 

Obama, IMO, will get into the White House, see what the heck we're dealing with and be completely out of his league.  McCain has a much better chance of not screwing the pooch.


Stand by.
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: ck454ss on 08-28-2008 -- 19:46:07
Obama=Marxism all over again.  This isnt Canada its the good old USA!!

I already live in a place with a Canadian running things...Care to Guess...Michigan.  Granholm has done such a wonderful job..NOT.

"Last person to leave the state turn out the lights"
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: flew-da-coup on 08-28-2008 -- 20:22:08
Hopefully, Obama can get us out of the war!


Which war and how considering he has absolutely no experience? It is kind of like asking a pre-med major in college to perform open heart surgery. Not too smart. So he is useless there. I hope there would be a better reason than that for some of you to vote for him.
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: step30044 on 08-28-2008 -- 21:54:08
"Obama, IMO, will get into the White House, see what the heck we're dealing with and be completely out of his league.  McCain has a much better chance of not screwing the pooch."


Thats easy to do when you dont change anything! Has McCain commited to anything besides satus quo?????
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: flew-da-coup on 08-29-2008 -- 01:53:31
"Obama, IMO, will get into the White House, see what the heck we're dealing with and be completely out of his league.  McCain has a much better chance of not screwing the pooch."


Thats easy to do when you dont change anything! Has McCain commited to anything besides satus quo?????


 Actually, you need to read McCain's agenda. When did he say that he was committing to the Status Quo? Or is that just an assumption? I don't agree with everything with the man, but he sure beats a person with no exp. . What exactly needs to be changed other than stricter enforcement on Illegal aliens ( which Obama wants to give amnesty ) ? I think the strategy of the war needs to be changed, but not pull out and be defeated as Obama wants us to do. I think we should allow our guys to fight a war instead of making them do it with both hands behind their backs. 
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: K-Rock on 08-29-2008 -- 05:25:43
Bush's experience has really paid off! :roll:
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: flew-da-coup on 08-29-2008 -- 09:45:16
John McCain has more than Bush. I don't agree with all of Bush's policies anyway. He is soft on the Illegal Alien problem. He also has allowed the public to dictate the policies on the war, just as Obama would do if in office.

 Also, Obama is an arrogant bastard or he is so stupid that he doesn't even know what he says. In his speach last night he railed people like myself that think that people should have personal responsiblity. He said that people like myself think that "poor people should pull themselves up by their bootstraps , if they have any, and work to succeed". he goes on to say that people need help and can't do it by themselves. However, earlier in the speach he brags about growing up poor and working hard to be successful. He talked about how he and his wife were in debt with student loans when they got married, but worked hard to pay them off. Gee, he can do it but everyone else is too stupid? He is full of hot air. I bet no one in that crowd last night even caught that because they were so starry eyed. And they called Bush stupid?
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: ck454ss on 08-29-2008 -- 11:09:51
Like I said..Obama is a Marxist.  Its old FDR Liberal polcies all over again.  The government will tell you how to do it attitude instead of being responsible for your own life. 

Be ready with Obama if he gets elected.  If you think you are poor now, what till he raisie taxes to pay for all the "Grand" new benefits he wants to give out.

Personally I wish Ross Perot was running for President now.  He was 15yrs ahead of his time though.  We really need a good Independant to shake things up a bit.
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: RichieRich on 08-29-2008 -- 15:12:30
Obama wants more of our money to take care of the "Less Fortunate".  Of course the millionare Obama hasn't sent one red cent to help out his half brother who is living in a hut in Africa making $1 / month.  Compassionate with my money but not with his.

Not getting my vote.

Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: flew-da-coup on 08-29-2008 -- 15:39:53
Obama wants more of our money to take care of the "Less Fortunate".  Of course the millionare Obama hasn't sent one red cent to help out his half brother who is living in a hut in Africa making $1 / month.  Compassionate with my money but not with his.

Not getting my vote.



 Have you seen McCain's running mate. What a MILF!!! Here she is:

(http://askpang.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/sabine5.jpg)
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: K-Rock on 08-29-2008 -- 20:58:57
Palin's experience has made one of McCain's arguments about Obama's null. She is a bold choice for the Republicans and may sway some of the disgruntled Hillary followers. Whoever gets into office, this will be a historic election.
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: flew-da-coup on 08-30-2008 -- 00:39:40
Palin's experience has made one of McCain's arguments about Obama's null. She is a bold choice for the Republicans and may sway some of the disgruntled Hillary followers. Whoever gets into office, this will be a historic election.

Well, she has more exp. than Obama. In two years as a Chief Executive (the Pres is a Chief Executive) she has done alot for her state. She has an 80% approval rate in Alaska. Obama has done nothing in the last four years in the senate and he has no Chief Executive exp. so she is more qualified than Obama to be President. Besides she is one of us normal people that has lived most of her life as a normal everyday american. Personally, I would rather see her running for the top spot and not McCain. I think he has made a great choice for a running mate. Plus she is hot. :-D
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: Bryan on 08-30-2008 -- 01:57:00
NRA Life Member, that'll do it for me.
I'll be voting for her, McCain is just riding her skirt tails.
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: mdbuike on 08-30-2008 -- 14:51:04
Some tidbits on Palin:

Palin was born in Sandpoint, Idaho, the daughter of Charles Heath and Saly Sheeran (Heath).[3] Her family moved to Alaska when she was an infant. Charles Heath was a science teacher and track coach. The Heaths were avid outdoors enthusiasts; Sarah and her father would sometimes wake at 3 a.m. to hunt moose before school, and the family regularly ran 5k and 10k races.

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

Palin was the point guard and captain for the Wasilla High School Warriors, in Wasilla, Alaska, when they won the Alaska small-school basketball championship in 1982; she earned the nickname "Sarah Barracuda" because of her intense play.[4] She played the championship game despite a stress fracture in her ankle, hitting a critical free throw in the last seconds.[4] Palin, who was also the head of the school Fellowship of Christian Athletes, would lead the team in prayer before games.

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

In 1984, after winning the Miss Wasilla contest earlier that year, Palin finished second in the Miss Alaska beauty pageant[5] which won her a scholarship to help pay her way through college.[4] In the Wasilla pageant, she played the flute and also won Miss Congeniality.


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

Palin holds a bachelor's degree in journalism from the University of Idaho where she also minored in politics. She married her high school sweetheart, Todd Palin, on August 29th, 1988, and briefly worked as a sports reporter for local Anchorage television stations while also working as a commercial fisherman with her husband.[

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

Palin served two terms on the Wasilla City Council from 1992 to 1996. In 1996, she challenged and defeated the incumbent mayor, criticizing wasteful spending and high taxes.[4] The ex-mayor and sheriff tried to organize a recall campaign, but failed.Palin kept her campaign promises by reducing her own salary, as well as reducing property taxes by 60%.[4] She ran for reelection against the former mayor in 1999, winning by an even larger margin. Palin was also elected president of the Alaska Conference of Mayors.

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

Governor Murkowski appointed Palin Ethics Commissioner of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission,where she served from 2003 to 2004 until resigning in protest over what she called the "lack of ethics" of fellow Alaskan Republican leaders, who ignored her whistleblowing complaints of legal violations and conflicts of interest. After she resigned, she exposed the state Republican Party's chairman, Randy Ruedrich, one of her fellow Oil & Gas commissioners, who was accused of doing work for the party on public time, and supplying a lobbyist with a sensitive e-mail. Palin filed formal complaints against both Ruedrich and former Alaska Attorney General Gregg Renkes, who both resigned; Ruedrich paid a record $12,000 fine

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

In 2006, Palin, running on a clean-government campaign, executed an upset victory over then-Gov. Murkowski in the Republican gubernatorial primary.[4] Despite the lack of support from party leaders and being outspent by her Democratic opponent, she went on to win the general election in November 2006, defeating former Governor Tony Knowles. Palin said in 2006 that education, public safety, and transportation would be three cornerstones of her administration.

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

Highlights of Governor Palin's tenure include a successful push for an ethics bill, and also shelving pork-barrel projects supported by fellow Republicans.

"Alaska needs to be self-sufficient, she says, instead of relying heavily on 'federal dollars,' as the state does today."

She has challenged the state's Republican leaders, helping to launch a campaign by Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell to unseat U.S. Congressman Don Young[14] and publicly challenging Senator Ted Stevens to come clean about the federal investigation into his financial dealings.

In 2007, Palin had an approval rating often in the 90s. A poll published by Hays Research on July 28, 2008 showed Palin's approval rating at 80%.[

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

Palin's tenure is noted for her independence from big oil companies, while still promoting resource development. Palin has announced plans to create a new sub-cabinet group of advisors, to address climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions within Alaska.

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

Shortly after taking office, Palin rescinded thirty-five appointments made by Murkowski in the last hours of his administration, including the appointment by Murkowski of his former chief of staff Jim Clark to the Alaska Natural Gas Development Authority. Clark later pled guilty to conspiring with a defunct oil-field-services company to channel money into Frank Murkowski's re-election campaign.

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

She opposes same-sex marriage, but she has stated that she has gay friends and is receptive to gay and lesbian concerns about discrimination. 

While the previous administration did not implement same-sex benefits, Palin complied with an Alaskan state Supreme Court order and signed them into law.

Palin's first veto was used to block legislation that would have barred the state from granting benefits to the partners of gay state employees. In effect, her veto granted State of Alaska benefits to same-sex couples.

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

In the first days of her administration, Palin followed through on a campaign promise to sell the Westwind II jet purchased (on a state government credit account) by the Murkowski administration. The state placed the jet for sale on eBay three times. In August 2007, the jet was sold for $2.1 million.

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

On September 11, 2007, the Palins' eighteen-year-old son Track, eldest of five, joined the Army. He now serves in an infantry brigade and will be deployed to Iraq in September 2008.She also has three daughters: Bristol, 17; Willow, 13; and Piper, 7.


On April 18, 2008, Palin gave birth to her second son, Trig Paxson Van Palin, who has Down syndrome.She returned to the office three days after giving birth. Palin refused to let the results of prenatal genetic testing change her decision to have the baby. "I'm looking at him right now, and I see perfection," Palin said. "Yeah, he has an extra chromosome. I keep thinking, in our world, what is normal and what is perfect?

Mike
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: mdbuike on 08-30-2008 -- 14:55:38
And for those who like the pic's

Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: pmel68 on 09-03-2008 -- 14:44:05
Quote from: K-Rock link=topic=1104. msg11521#msg11521 date=1220043537
Palin's experience has made one of McCain's arguments about Obama's null.  She is a bold choice for the Republicans and may sway some of the disgruntled Hillary followers.  Whoever gets into office, this will be a historic election.

You're a PMEL troop, engage it and do the math.  Obama, the inexperienced, wins and he's the President.  McCain wins and she, the more experienced, is a heartbeat away from being the President.

Get it?
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: USMCPMEL on 09-03-2008 -- 20:59:11
You do the math obama gets elected and almost immiedietly thereafter gets assasinated then we get Biden? I will take my chances with Mccain she (as you put it ) seems to be very down to earth and unlike most candidates has actually had to work in her lifetime.
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: USMCPMEL on 09-03-2008 -- 21:00:20
Just curious... why use Obama's middle name and not McCain's?

Mccain does not have a middle name but if he did it would be "patriot"
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: K-Rock on 09-03-2008 -- 22:34:09
The Story of Nicki Gullett and Bridget McCain
September 02, 2008 9:25 PM

Sen. John McCain's former aide Wes Gullett just spoke at the Republican convention, telling the story about how Cindy McCain, visiting one of Mother Theresa's orphanages on a trip abroad, brought home two Bangladeshi orphans.

John and Cindy McCain adopted one of them, Wes Gullett and his wife Deborah adopted the other.

It's a remarkable story, one that probably doesn't get told enough.

Cindy was standing in amazement visiting 160 abandoned newborn baby girls at Mother Teresa's orphanage in Dhaka, Bangladesh when nuns handed her one with a cleft palate so severe she couldn't even be fed. As Newsweek reported, Cindy became worried that the baby, and another one with a heart defect, would die without medical attention so she applied for medical visas to take them back to the U.S., though the country's minister of health refused to sign the papers.

Reported Newsweek's Holly Bailey: "'We can do surgery on this child,' an official told her.

"Cindy, frustrated, slammed her fist on the table. 'Then do it! What are you waiting for?' The official, stunned, simply signed the papers.

"'I don't know where I got the nerve,' Cindy said.

"When she arrived in Phoenix, she carried the baby with the cleft palate off the plane.

"Her husband met her at the airport. He looked at the baby. 'Where is she going,' he asked her.

"'To our house,' she replied."

The McCains adopted the baby with the cleft palate, Bridget, and the Gulletts adopted the other one, Nicki. Both children required a lot of medical attention, but the Gulletts never saw a hospital bill.

There's a lot of really nasty stuff out there about both the Obamas and the McCains. The good stuff is rarely discussed.
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: flew-da-coup on 09-04-2008 -- 18:57:38
Just curious... why use Obama's middle name and not McCain's?

Mccain does not have a middle name but if he did it would be "patriot"

 Yeah, I agree. McCain is up there with Chuck Norris and Bruce Lee.
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: K-Rock on 09-05-2008 -- 15:13:18
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/05/opinion/05fri1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/05/opinion/05fri1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin)
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: cobychuck on 09-05-2008 -- 15:28:44
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/05/opinion/05fri1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/05/opinion/05fri1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin)

    Just goes to show that the Dems can't take a spotlight being turned on their campaign.  Pieces like this one are written by people who are more afraid of losing power over this country than actually being part of a fix for this country.  From what I have observed from Mr. Obama, it would be a tragedy for this country if he was elected and able to enact some of the changes he has in mind for America.
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: Hawaii596 on 09-05-2008 -- 15:46:07
As a staunch conservative who currently strongly supports our current president, I was a little concerned about McCain (mainly his earlier hesitancy to drill in ANWAR).  However, as we know, he is apparently a pragmatist, and I completely respect his DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW plan (along with other parts of the energy plan).

And I'm pretty excited about Sarah Palin.

So, in a spirit of good humor, I want to share a stupid remark my 19 year old son recently said (he's going into the military soon and wants to go to Iraq or Afghanistan).

We were talking about the presidential race a couple of days ago, and out of the blue, he referred to Sarah Palin as "A Trophy Wife."  I couldn't help laugh.  Again, I strongly support her and John McCain, and have a lot of respect for her.  But that was funny.  I thnk my son respects her too.  I am very excited to have such a great, intelligent, conservative woman be the first VP of the US (opposite of my feelings about Hillary).

Hope I didn't offend anyone.  And by the way, my family is known for their strange sense of humor.

On a slightly more serious note, I almost had a tear as John McCain - great gentleman that he is - made the congratulatory comments to Barack Obama that he did (not to mention what McCain said during the DNC on MLK day - very classy thing to say).  This is a very historic election in many ways.

GO DALLAS COWBOYS, too.

P.S. - we're in the process of moving back to Texas soon (Yay!)
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: USMCPMEL on 09-05-2008 -- 18:31:54
When you move to Texas are you going to change your name to Texas596 intead of Hawaii596?? Or will it be Texas 597 and whats the 596 for anyways?
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: Hoopty on 09-05-2008 -- 18:39:35
Just curious... why use Obama's middle name and not McCain's?

Mccain does not have a middle name but if he did it would be "patriot"
Actually, he does have a middle name.  It's Sidney, as in John Sidney McCain III.
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: Hawaii596 on 09-05-2008 -- 22:10:33
I will still be Hawaii596, in celebration of three years at Naval Station Pearl Harbor in the early 80s.  The 596 is a significant number I can remember.  But I WILL change being more happy in Texas.  Born and raised in New England, but I lived in TX for 7 years, and consider it home.
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: made-in-japan on 09-07-2008 -- 13:16:46
Cutting taxes up in this election, right? Oh well, I guess the rich just need to be richer!

IAVA or Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America also has a rating for every single Representative and Senator who has served since 9/11.  They do these every year based on votes in their respective house of Congress.  Looks like the two non military service Democrats have voted for more benefits than the war veteran.  I'll be voting for the guy who supports us more.  But you don't have to take my word for it.  Here's the link: http://www.iava.org/documents/Congressional_Ratings_white_paper_IAVA.doc

Senator Joseph Biden D DE 88% 31 B+
Senator Barack Obama D IL 89% 20 B+
Senator John McCain R AZ 58% 80 D
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: flew-da-coup on 09-07-2008 -- 16:24:45
Cutting taxes up in this election, right? Oh well, I guess the rich just need to be richer!

IAVA or Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America also has a rating for every single Representative and Senator who has served since 9/11.  They do these every year based on votes in their respective house of Congress.  Looks like the two non military service Democrats have voted for more benefits than the war veteran.  I'll be voting for the guy who supports us more.  But you don't have to take my word for it.  Here's the link: http://www.iava.org/documents/Congressional_Ratings_white_paper_IAVA.doc

Senator Joseph Biden D DE 88% 31 B+
Senator Barack Obama D IL 89% 20 B+
Senator John McCain R AZ 58% 80 D

 Are you saying that the Obama and Biden support the military more? Both of them voted down more funding for the Military. I am confused.
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: made-in-japan on 09-07-2008 -- 22:16:19
Quote from: flew-da-coup link=topic=1104. msg11556#msg11556 date=1220804685
Are you saying that the Obama and Biden support the military more? Both of them voted down more funding for the Military.  I am confused.

Yes, I am exactly saying this.  And if you're using Senator Joseph Lieberman's speech at the Republican National Convention as proof that they voted down funding for the military than I could argue that Lieberman also voted down funding and Senator McCain didn't even bother to vote because he was too busy campaigning or knew that the bill would pass/not pass even with or without his vote. 

The reason both parties in this presidential election voted down funding is primarily because of their stances on the war in Iraq.  McCain does not want to apply timetables to a withdrawal in Iraq and Obama wants timetables.  One bill had a timetable with the funding and was voted yea by Obama and not voted on by McCain and the other was a bill that had no timetable with the funding and voted against by Obama and voted yea by McCain.

It's just a difference in the future of our mission in Iraq.  Both campaigns are even different on the recently passed G. I.  Bill for the 21st Century.  McCain felt that there wasn't enough incentive for retention rates so he was adamant about not supporting the bill without that language in it.  Obama felt that retention would still stay on the upside so he voted for the original language of the bill.

Neither supports us, the military, any more or any less.
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: flew-da-coup on 09-08-2008 -- 09:48:04
Quote from: flew-da-coup link=topic=1104. msg11556#msg11556 date=1220804685
Are you saying that the Obama and Biden support the military more? Both of them voted down more funding for the Military.  I am confused.

Yes, I am exactly saying this.  And if you're using Senator Joseph Lieberman's speech at the Republican National Convention as proof that they voted down funding for the military than I could argue that Lieberman also voted down funding and Senator McCain didn't even bother to vote because he was too busy campaigning or knew that the bill would pass/not pass even with or without his vote. 

The reason both parties in this presidential election voted down funding is primarily because of their stances on the war in Iraq.  McCain does not want to apply timetables to a withdrawal in Iraq and Obama wants timetables.  One bill had a timetable with the funding and was voted yea by Obama and not voted on by McCain and the other was a bill that had no timetable with the funding and voted against by Obama and voted yea by McCain.

It's just a difference in the future of our mission in Iraq.  Both campaigns are even different on the recently passed G. I.  Bill for the 21st Century.  McCain felt that there wasn't enough incentive for retention rates so he was adamant about not supporting the bill without that language in it.  Obama felt that retention would still stay on the upside so he voted for the original language of the bill.

Neither supports us, the military, any more or any less.

 Obama voted against the troop surge and now admits that it did work. So it looks to me that he does not have the ability to make smart military decisions. Does our military really need that kind of leadership? Also, to say that John McCain does not support the military is a pretty bold statement. I am going to research your claims.
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: flew-da-coup on 09-08-2008 -- 10:22:43
So far, I have found that the votes that he made against the bills that concerned Vets healthcare were made because those bills would have destroyed the VA hospitals. He wanted the money to go to the VA and the bill was more like medicade and he didn't want our Vets being treated like that. Congress is notorious for putting garbage into bills that are inrelated or un-needed which makes some vote them down and wnating it re-written. This is known and common practice in congress. I will keep looking this up, but it sounds to me that you are getting your info from a biased source that does not give the whole story. Maybe it would be fair to read why he voted down a bill before you say that he is against Vets. 
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: made-in-japan on 09-08-2008 -- 11:07:29
I never said that he was against veterans or the active duty military.  His voting record, however, shows that he does not seem to vote favorably on Veterans Affairs all that much.

As for my sources, I would assume that former veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars would be a pretty unbiased source in regards to Veterans Affairs.  What do they have to gain by telling the truth except better healthcare? They were also a major supporter and contributor to ensuring that we received the new G. I.  Bill as well so I can't really say they are biased at all to the benefit of veterans.

And since you brought up the discussion of pork barrel spending, why is it that he nominated Sarah Palin for Vice President when she earmarked over $27 million for tiny Wasilla, Alaska? She even hired a Washington lobbyist to secure these funds for the tiny town 40 miles north of Anchorage.  Now some of these earmarks were for beneficial things for the city like a youth center and sewer repairs.  But things like a $15 million rail project for a town of 6000 is a bit outrageous. 

Or how about the fact that she requested $197 million in earmarks this year for Alaska itself as governor.  That is more per person than any other state.  Or what about that "Bridge to Nowhere"? McCain felt that the $223 million that was being requested should be diverted to Hurricane Katrina recovery but Palin still fought for it with the help of Sen.  Ted Stevens.  Here is a direct quote from the local newspaper of Ketchikan; the town that the bridge was going to be built in.

"We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge, and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that's so negative," Palin said in August 2006, according to the Ketchikan Daily News.

I got that from USAToday itself.  I wouldn't call that a very biased source either.  Here's the link: www. usatoday. com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-31-palin-bridge_N. htm
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: flew-da-coup on 09-08-2008 -- 11:27:29
I never said that he was against veterans or the active duty military.  His voting record, however, shows that he does not seem to vote favorably on Veterans Affairs all that much.

As for my sources, I would assume that former veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars would be a pretty unbiased source in regards to Veterans Affairs.  What do they have to gain by telling the truth except better healthcare? They were also a major supporter and contributor to ensuring that we received the new G. I.  Bill as well so I can't really say they are biased at all to the benefit of veterans.

And since you brought up the discussion of pork barrel spending, why is it that he nominated Sarah Palin for Vice President when she earmarked over $27 million for tiny Wasilla, Alaska? She even hired a Washington lobbyist to secure these funds for the tiny town 40 miles north of Anchorage.  Now some of these earmarks were for beneficial things for the city like a youth center and sewer repairs.  But things like a $15 million rail project for a town of 6000 is a bit outrageous. 

Or how about the fact that she requested $197 million in earmarks this year for Alaska itself as governor.  That is more per person than any other state.  Or what about that "Bridge to Nowhere"? McCain felt that the $223 million that was being requested should be diverted to Hurricane Katrina recovery but Palin still fought for it with the help of Sen.  Ted Stevens.  Here is a direct quote from the local newspaper of Ketchikan; the town that the bridge was going to be built in.

"We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge, and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that's so negative," Palin said in August 2006, according to the Ketchikan Daily News.

I got that from USAToday itself.  I wouldn't call that a very biased source either.  Here's the link: www. usatoday. com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-31-palin-bridge_N. htm

 Well, no since in debating it with you. You went off on a bent on Sarah Palin instead. I never said that Repubs never do pork, I had stated that it was common practice in congress. I mentioned it because those are the reasons that both sides sometimes vote "no" on bills that they normally agree with.

 Here, instead off listening to people that want to spin McCain's stance on the Vets, let's see what he says directly. http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/9cb5d2aa-f237-464e-9cdf-a5ad32771b9f.htm (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/9cb5d2aa-f237-464e-9cdf-a5ad32771b9f.htm)
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: dallanta on 09-08-2008 -- 11:46:12
First off, USA today is a biased paper, definitely.
Maybe all this is true and maybe it is a stretch.   However, it comes down to a choice.
 Even if he does part the seas and heal the planet, obama will never be my choice.  Pondscum
  How do I really feel?  lol
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: flew-da-coup on 09-08-2008 -- 11:57:14
First off, USA today is a biased paper, definitely.
Maybe all this is true and maybe it is a stretch.   However, it comes down to a choice.
 Even if he does part the seas and heal the planet, obama will never be my choice.  Pondscum
  How do I really feel?  lol

Plus he lacks any executive exp.. I think voting against the troop surge proves that he doesn't understand what to do with Iraq.
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: cobychuck on 09-08-2008 -- 18:12:56
    The biggest factor for me not voting for Obama is that he uses the same rederick that is used by the out-of-touch members of the Democratic party.  Recent issues, like offshore drilling for example, prove to me that when an issue of great importance to the American people comes up, they have no real desire to meet the issue head on.  Instead they have dodged this issue, relying on smokescreens, flip-flops, and convoluted answers to straigh forward questions.
    Also, with the recent fall of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two problems that had been up before to be fixed.  There was a fix put on the table, one that required an overhaul of the two fanancial giants to fix problems that required a sincere effort.  Instead, the democrats decided that it would be better to widen the base of people that could qualify for loans and mortgages, thereby ensuring their eventual collapse.  Both organizations were also rife with corruption, from book-cooking to embezzelment, and a few other ilegal activities.  All of these actions came to light during the Enron scandal, and so no coverage was given to these liberal brainchildren during their concurent scandal.
    With that paragraph on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, it may appear that I have strayed from my point, but I believe that it helps to illustrate the kind of metallity we are dealing with.  Now, I still have research to do regarding the candidates support of the military, but when it comes right down to it I still believe that Obama would be a catastophe if elected to office.  I have no use for the social programs that have been forth by his party.  Socialism didn't work when tried in the New World at the beginning of our history, it didn't work for Russia, and it will not work now.  Nor do I appreciate his repeated put-downs on America.  We do not need to appologize for every action throughout history that the Democrats perceive as wrong.  We are not weak, and we cannot afford to try and appease every nation on the face of this planet.  We must be ourselves.  Trying to bend to the wishes of the world will destroy us.
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: made-in-japan on 09-08-2008 -- 20:42:41
Quote from: flew-da-coup link=topic=1104. msg11561#msg11561 date=1220873249
Well, no since in debating it with you.  You went off on a bent on Sarah Palin instead.  I never said that Repubs never do pork, I had stated that it was common practice in congress.  I mentioned it because those are the reasons that both sides sometimes vote "no" on bills that they normally agree with. 

 Here, instead off listening to people that want to spin McCain's stance on the Vets, let's see what he says directly.  hxxp: www. johnmccain. com/Informing/Issues/9cb5d2aa-f237-464e-9cdf-a5ad32771b9f. htm

I didn't go off on a "bent" instead.  I went off on her record of pork because you brought the topic of pork up.

And it's not listening to people who want to spin his record.  It's reading his vote and seeing that what he says and what he does are two different things.  That's not bias, spin, distortion, whatever else you want to say.

This is the biggest case of cognitive dissonance I have ever seen in my life.  The facts are right there but instead of everyone chooses to ignore it.  You say it is bias and call the Democrats "out of touch elitists" but yet you are voting for a man who owns SEVEN houses and didn't even know that.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan said it best "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts. "
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: flew-da-coup on 09-08-2008 -- 22:20:58
Quote from: flew-da-coup link=topic=1104. msg11561#msg11561 date=1220873249
Well, no since in debating it with you.  You went off on a bent on Sarah Palin instead.  I never said that Repubs never do pork, I had stated that it was common practice in congress.  I mentioned it because those are the reasons that both sides sometimes vote "no" on bills that they normally agree with. 

 Here, instead off listening to people that want to spin McCain's stance on the Vets, let's see what he says directly.  hxxp: www. johnmccain. com/Informing/Issues/9cb5d2aa-f237-464e-9cdf-a5ad32771b9f. htm

I didn't go off on a "bent" instead.  I went off on her record of pork because you brought the topic of pork up.

And it's not listening to people who want to spin his record.  It's reading his vote and seeing that what he says and what he does are two different things.  That's not bias, spin, distortion, whatever else you want to say.

This is the biggest case of cognitive dissonance I have ever seen in my life.  The facts are right there but instead of everyone chooses to ignore it.  You say it is bias and call the Democrats "out of touch elitists" but yet you are voting for a man who owns SEVEN houses and didn't even know that.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan said it best "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts. "

 Uhm, Okay? You obviously still don't get my point. I thought it would have been clear after 2 post. Anyway, my whole reference to pork was to explain why some congress members from both sides vote "no" on some bills and want them re-written to exclude the pork. I mention this because that is why McCain turned down the increase for Vets health care ( As I mentioned before ). What I also said is that the spin doctors just mention that he voted  "No", but conveniently leave out why he voted  "No". So when you mention "FACTS", maybe you need to heed your own advice and learn them. You can quote me on this " only half the truth is not the truth". 

 I also didn't say anything about the Democrats being elitist. Why are you putting words into my mouth? How do you know what I know about McCain having 7 houses? Also, who really cares how many houses McCain owns? Obama and Biden have more money than Sarah Palin. Matter of fact Biden and Obama are worth more than Palin and her husband, so what does that make them in your eyes? Either they are just as bad or you are a hypocrite my friend.

Let's hear your cognitive dissonance. :-D

Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: flew-da-coup on 09-09-2008 -- 02:13:53
made-in-japan, I see that you read my post 2 hours after I posted it. I would really love to hear a response to my post. You must be busy Googeling to find out if I am correct about Biden and Obama's net worth. You will only find that I am right. I usually don't post things before checking them out myself. I guess you are trying to figure out how to back pedal now.

By the way, are you even PMEL? If so when and where did you go to school?
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: dallanta on 09-09-2008 -- 14:38:43
When I was a kid "made in japan" meant it was the cheapest crap on the market and a copy of something better.
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: fwisdo on 09-09-2008 -- 16:04:46
I am not voting for either.    I am voting for Bob Barr.    Don't forget there are more than two candidates.    The best candidate is not always the one with the most money.

www.lp.org

Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: made-in-japan on 09-09-2008 -- 20:52:07
Quote from: dallanta link=topic=1104. msg11572#msg11572 date=1220971123
When I was a kid "made in japan" meant it was the cheapest crap on the market and a copy of something better.

Nice strawman.

flew-da-coup: As for me being in PMEL, I'm on this site, am I not? I'll prefer the rest to be anonymous.  I wish I had all the time to post but some people have lives outside of PMEL, you know?

And I'm not going to backpedal out of anything.  I know how much Biden, Obama, Palin and McCain are worth.  But I was comparing Obama to McCain and you red herring'd it into Sarah Palin.  Palin is not running for President herself except by proxy through McCain.  I brought it up because McCain's wife has an estimated net worth of around $100 million.  That's about 100 times what Obama's net worth is.  And we don't even know how much she really is worth because she will not release her tax records publicly. 

Anyway, I feel that a President who will tax himself even more is a pretty solid choice however.  Giving back to the system that allowed them to develop that amount of money is what is fair.  The characteristic of self sacrifice is always a redeeming quality and Obama is giving up more of his money so that all Americans are able to have the same basic living amenities such as decent housing, health care and a good education.

But I bet I will be labeled as a socialist now for that.  Whatever, I've got what I've needed out of this site so have fun grunting and arguing amongst yourselves.
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: flew-da-coup on 09-09-2008 -- 21:53:00
Why are you running away right when the dialog was just getting started.

Gee, I know people run away from my political arguements because they are founded in fact, but I never had someone run so quickly. :|
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: cobychuck on 09-09-2008 -- 22:29:02
Quote from: dallanta link=topic=1104. msg11572#msg11572 date=1220971123
When I was a kid "made in japan" meant it was the cheapest crap on the market and a copy of something better.

Nice strawman.

flew-da-coup: As for me being in PMEL, I'm on this site, am I not? I'll prefer the rest to be anonymous.  I wish I had all the time to post but some people have lives outside of PMEL, you know?

And I'm not going to backpedal out of anything.  I know how much Biden, Obama, Palin and McCain are worth.  But I was comparing Obama to McCain and you red herring'd it into Sarah Palin.  Palin is not running for President herself except by proxy through McCain.  I brought it up because McCain's wife has an estimated net worth of around $100 million.  That's about 100 times what Obama's net worth is.  And we don't even know how much she really is worth because she will not release her tax records publicly. 

Anyway, I feel that a President who will tax himself even more is a pretty solid choice however.  Giving back to the system that allowed them to develop that amount of money is what is fair.  The characteristic of self sacrifice is always a redeeming quality and Obama is giving up more of his money so that all Americans are able to have the same basic living amenities such as decent housing, health care and a good education.

But I bet I will be labeled as a socialist now for that.  Whatever, I've got what I've needed out of this site so have fun grunting and arguing amongst yourselves.

    Why are you leaving this discussion?  I may not have a whole lot of input myself, but it certainly is interesting to see different political views come out under discussion.  So far, other than the cheap shot on your name from Dallanta, I thought you were having quite a good discussion with Coup.  Come back and play...
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: Hawaii596 on 09-10-2008 -- 12:56:10
In the interest of levity, I would like to say that if you put lipstick on a pig, it is no longer a pig.

Seriously (I'm not in a very serious mood this morning; but I'll try), I think (although I'm a McCain/Palin supporter) that a little too much has been made of Obama's remark.
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: flew-da-coup on 09-10-2008 -- 15:57:46
In the interest of levity, I would like to say that if you put lipstick on a pig, it is no longer a pig.

Seriously (I'm not in a very serious mood this morning; but I'll try), I think (although I'm a McCain/Palin supporter) that a little too much has been made of Obama's remark.

 I agree with you.
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: cobychuck on 09-10-2008 -- 16:12:14
    I must have missed something along the way.  What remark are we talking about here?
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: made-in-japan on 09-10-2008 -- 16:22:26
Quote from: flew-da-coup link=topic=1104. msg11578#msg11578 date=1220997180
Why are you running away right when the dialog was just getting started. 

Gee, I know people run away from my political arguements because they are founded in fact, but I never had someone run so quickly.  :|

Because it's retarded dick waving when I've presented factual information and you completely disregard it.  You call it biased and you expect me to continue? You are attacking me rather than the arguments presented so it's all seems rather childish at this point.  Even from the beginning of this thread, it was biased towards McCain.  And yes, I do enjoy "googling" because it's useful resource.  I guess looking up things rather than pulling the party line is just wrong.

But this is my last argument and then I'm done.  I noticed cobychuck supports McCain because he agrees with this whole "DRILL, DRILL, DRILL!" sentiment going around America nowadays.  But let me tell you something, domestic drilling will not cause our gas prices to go down now or within the next 10 years.  Those supporting drilling in Alaska will want to pay attention. 

America consumes over 20 million barrels of oil a day.  The United States Department of Energy estimates that there is between about 5. 7 billion to 16 billion barrels of crude oil in ANWR.  This is equivalent to 0. 4% or 1. 2% of the world's total daily consumption by 2030.  The EIA or Energy Information Administration, which is the independent statistical agency for the DoE, feels that drilling will not affect global oil prices.  Here's a direct quote:

"The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0. 41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0. 75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1. 44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case. "

Now if you consider that oil prices PER BARREL are sitting at $105 right now.  That's less than the peak of $147. 27 on July 11 of this year.  But the real kicker is even if we develop that oil production, OPEC still has America by the balls.  Right now, OPEC just decided that they are going to CUT BACK on their production because the price of oil is falling again.  Saudi Arabia says they won't decrease production but they are only our number 2 supplier; Canada being the first.  Here's the link: www. bloomberg. com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=aph4v20TXX6E&refer=europe

They will decrease their production just to stay competitive and further our reliance on foreign oil.  If we really want to be energy independent, it's not going to come in an increase in domestic drilling but rather using that money through innovation in the development of alternative energies like wind, solar, thermal power or best yet, nuclear.  Resources are going to slowly run out in the next 100 years and we're not doing sh!t for our future generations.

If the natural resources of the world continue to be exploited at such a staggering rate, there will be nothing left to exploit.  Conservation strategies have been implemented, especially at times when an energy shortage has occurred, but these strategies are all but forgotten when the shortage passes.   Unfortunately, conserving resources at this point will only temporarily postpone the inevitable, which is total energy resource exhaustion.  Unless the lifestyles, and transportation habits, of the ever-increasing population that demand more, and more resources are dramatically changed, or new energy sources are discovered, conserving won't save us.

But hey, DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW!!!
Title: Re: The Presidential Race - The Meaning of the lipstick and the pig
Post by: Hawaii596 on 09-10-2008 -- 16:25:42
Recently Sarah Palin in one of her speeches asked the rhetorical question, "what's the difference between a pitbull and a hockey mom?" to which she replied, "lipstick."

In the last couple of days, Obama in one of his speeches made the comment, "if you put lipstick on a pig, it is still a pig."  

There is been a lot of media attention, speculating as to whether Obama was referring to Sarah Palin's comment.  So the media has been all over it the last couple of days.

The big question is whether he was making an offhanded remark about Sarah Palin or the Republican Party; and whether his use of the word "lipstick" is or is not a slam against Sarah Palin and/or women.
Title: Re: The Presidential Race - Drill Here, Drill Now
Post by: Hawaii596 on 09-10-2008 -- 16:49:32
Okay, I guess I'll weigh in on the drill here drill now debate.  One of my early apprehensions about McCain was that at first he was not willing to consider it.   But after hearing some of the inputs, gradually changed his mind.  Last I heard, one place where he and Sarah Palin still disagree is that she, as governor of Alaska (and formerly on some sort of energy board - don't remember the name of it), favors drilling in ANWAR.

It is strongly debatable how much oil prices will drop and how fast by drilling our own oil reserves; so I won't even make that case here (haven't done adequate research).

However, there are many arguments in favor of drilling our own oil, and very few against...

LOSS OF MONEY SUPPLY- One of the significant eroders of the dollar value has been the ever increasing percentage of our oil that we buy from foreign suppliers.  The dollar value will continue to face downward pressure (which will continue to drive oil prices up).

BUYING FROM OUR ENEMIES- We will continue to be dependent and therefore subservient to countries we don't have very good relations with.  This is a national security issue.

ONLY MAJOR INDUSTRIAL NATION THAT IS A NET IMPORTER- The United States is the only major industrialized nation that depends significantly on other countries for its oil supply.

PROVIDE MANY MORE JOBS- As we shift from importing the majority of our oil from other countries, many more jobs will be added in the coming decades in the energy sector.

AS PART OF A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN- All sides agree that just drilling for domestic oil will not solve our energy needs for the long term future.  Many other avenues also need to be explored and developed (solar, wind, NUCLEAR, geothermal, etc.).

WE HAVE THE LARGEST OIL SHALE RESERVES IN THE WORLD- The last figure I heard was somewhere between 700 and 800 billion barrels (more than twice what Saudi Arabia has.  This is a huge untapped resource, and may make us one of the worlds leading oil exporters long after Saudi Arabia has run out and reverts to a third world nation.

OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF- It's amazing to me that there has been a restriction on even exploring those areas since the 1960s.  So inspite of what anyone says, we don't even know what we have out there, as we are not allowed to even test for the presence of petroleum.

FOREIGNERS DRILLING JUST OFF OUR SHORES- I believe it is China that is currently drilling off the coast of Florida, and we can't.  That makes no sense at all.

OIL SPECULATORS- The oil speculators account for perhaps 30%+ of the price per barrel.  Immediately after any legislation is passed to allow domestic drilling, the price per barrel will drop considerably.

SHORT TERM OIL PRODUCTION- It is estimated that a significant part of the places where we would drill off the continental shelf could significantly supplement domestic oil production in as little as 1 to 2 years (and thus bring down oil prices some).

ANWAR OIL PRODUCTION- I heard an interesting point recently that we bought Alaska originally because of the rich mineral and other natural resources it probably contained.  And now, when we need them, people who don't even live in Alaska are trying to tell them that they can not drill in their own area.  Alaskans, by the way, strongly support drilling in ANWAR.  Additionally, there is no compelling case that drilling in ANWAR will significantly damage the environment.  Those who oppose drilling in ANWAR, in my opinon, do so on purely political grounds.

CHINA AND INDIA- Both of these countries are drastically increasing their oil consumption; which is expected to continue to grow dramatically for many decades; driving the international cost of oil higher and higher.  Relying primarily on our domestic supply will be a strong hedge against this great cost increase.

Bottom line, we need to drill here, drill now for reasons of the nations economy and national security.  If we don't we will continue to be at the mercy of countries who would like to destroy our economy.  I also believe we need to strongly invest in other energy directions (including different fuels for our cars).  Then, once we no longer need the oil ourselves, we will continue to sell it to other countries around the world for a net gain.

Okay, that's my two cents.
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: made-in-japan on 09-10-2008 -- 17:33:00
I'm not sure I understand how our national security is at risk when it comes to domestic oil production.  Are terrorists going to come into our country and blow up our oil wells because we're drilling?

LOSS OF MONEY SUPPLY- I'm not an economic major but I'm sure that oil isn't a significant factor at all.  What's more of a factor is the amount of debt that our country has accumulated as well as the subprime loan crisis.  Not to mention the amount of banks being taken over by the government has risen to 11 this year alone.

BUYING FROM OUR ENEMIES- Canada isn't really an enemy and we just gave $40 billion in military aid to Saudi Arabia.  The only top 5 supplier I can think of that could be considered an enemy is Venezuela and that's only because Hugo Chavez is very anti-America.

ONLY MAJOR INDUSTRIAL NATION THAT IS A NET IMPORTER- Mainly because we don't have large proved areas that could be considered productive to drilling.

PROVIDE MANY MORE JOBS- This is true but only if we search for alternatives now.  If we continue to rely on domestic drilling to get us through, we will continue to do so rather than

AS PART OF A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN- I agree with this wholeheartedly.

WE HAVE THE LARGEST OIL SHALE RESERVES IN THE WORLD- It's actually 1. 5-2. 6 trillion barrels in America.  However, there are numerous environmental concerns to consider when we discuss oil shale mining/drilling.  The first is that there is an even larger increase in carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions than with conventional fossil fuels.  Groundwater can also be contaminated if proper safety precautions are not followed.  Sulfates, heavy metals, and numerous different hydrocarbons, some of which are toxic and carcinogenic, can be released into the groundwater and cause not only erosion but a plethora of diseases and cancers.

Basically, oil shale mining/drilling will need to be regulated heavily just so the environmental impact will not caused irreparable damage.

OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF- The problem still comes down to the environmental impact for me.  Hurricane Katrina really destroyed some oil platforms out in the Gulf of Mexico and created a huge oil slick that was rarely talked about.  Here's a picture of that oil slick from a Radarsat-1 satellite: http://i38.tinypic.com/21cwn9.jpg

FOREIGNERS DRILLING JUST OFF OUR SHORES- That is completely false and even Dick Cheney said so the next day after he said it.  "China is not drilling in Cuba's Gulf of Mexico waters, period," said Jorge Pinon, an energy fellow with the Center for Hemispheric Policy at the University of Miami and an expert in oil exploration in the Gulf of Mexico.  Martinez cited Pinon's research when he took to the Senate floor Wednesday to set the record straight. "

OIL SPECULATORS- Speculation will not stop simply because the United States opens itself up to domestic drilling.

SHORT TERM OIL PRODUCTION- My quoted study suggests otherwise when it comes to short term.  The Department of Energy doesn't seem to lie when it comes to stuff like this.

ANWAR OIL PRODUCTION- Of course Alaskans would support drilling in ANWR.  They get an annual check from the government based on the oil lease revenues.  It's a political position but it is also chiefly an environmental position as stated a few lines above.

CHINA AND INDIA- Both of these countries depend on African and Middle East nations for their supply of oil.  We don't do business with these countries like Sudan or Iran.  It's even a bigger incentive for us to concentrate our efforts on creating alternative energy sources so that our current domestic production can be exported to other nations.

I'm open to the idea of drilling but it's not a short term or long term solution.  We can not solely depend on it and decide to just throw a few bucks to research into alternative energies.  We should focus on these alternatives with domestic drilling being a secondary decision.  And as I stated previously, we need to change our lifestyles and our modes of transportation to further battle this energy crisis.  Developing our infrastructure to sustain growth but also to further relinquish our hold on oil dependence is what we need to do.  Domestic drilling is really just a blinder for the real problems happening.
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: flew-da-coup on 09-10-2008 -- 17:52:04
Quote from: flew-da-coup link=topic=1104. msg11578#msg11578 date=1220997180
Why are you running away right when the dialog was just getting started. 

Gee, I know people run away from my political arguements because they are founded in fact, but I never had someone run so quickly.  :|

Because it's retarded dick waving when I've presented factual information and you completely disregard it.  You call it biased and you expect me to continue? You are attacking me rather than the arguments presented so it's all seems rather childish at this point.  Even from the beginning of this thread, it was biased towards McCain.  And yes, I do enjoy "googling" because it's useful resource.  I guess looking up things rather than pulling the party line is just wrong.

But this is my last argument and then I'm done.  I noticed cobychuck supports McCain because he agrees with this whole "DRILL, DRILL, DRILL!" sentiment going around America nowadays.  But let me tell you something, domestic drilling will not cause our gas prices to go down now or within the next 10 years.  Those supporting drilling in Alaska will want to pay attention. 

America consumes over 20 million barrels of oil a day.  The United States Department of Energy estimates that there is between about 5. 7 billion to 16 billion barrels of crude oil in ANWR.  This is equivalent to 0. 4% or 1. 2% of the world's total daily consumption by 2030.  The EIA or Energy Information Administration, which is the independent statistical agency for the DoE, feels that drilling will not affect global oil prices.  Here's a direct quote:

"The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0. 41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0. 75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1. 44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case. "

Now if you consider that oil prices PER BARREL are sitting at $105 right now.  That's less than the peak of $147. 27 on July 11 of this year.  But the real kicker is even if we develop that oil production, OPEC still has America by the balls.  Right now, OPEC just decided that they are going to CUT BACK on their production because the price of oil is falling again.  Saudi Arabia says they won't decrease production but they are only our number 2 supplier; Canada being the first.  Here's the link: www. bloomberg. com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=aph4v20TXX6E&refer=europe

They will decrease their production just to stay competitive and further our reliance on foreign oil.  If we really want to be energy independent, it's not going to come in an increase in domestic drilling but rather using that money through innovation in the development of alternative energies like wind, solar, thermal power or best yet, nuclear.  Resources are going to slowly run out in the next 100 years and we're not doing sh!t for our future generations.

If the natural resources of the world continue to be exploited at such a staggering rate, there will be nothing left to exploit.  Conservation strategies have been implemented, especially at times when an energy shortage has occurred, but these strategies are all but forgotten when the shortage passes.   Unfortunately, conserving resources at this point will only temporarily postpone the inevitable, which is total energy resource exhaustion.  Unless the lifestyles, and transportation habits, of the ever-increasing population that demand more, and more resources are dramatically changed, or new energy sources are discovered, conserving won't save us.

But hey, DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW!!!

Pot calling the kettle black? You have disregarded everything I have said and have yet to address my counter arguements. You present what you call facts, but they are not the complete story, ie..McCain voting against Vets Healthcare. It is obvious you drink the left wing Democrat Kool-Aid. You come here and present talking points you read somewhere being unable to address my response.  I am not the one "dick waving" here, it's you. Every post that you have made I have addressed your opinion, so I am not the guilty one.  Maybe it would help you to go back to the start of our dialog and read it again.
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: Hawaii596 on 09-10-2008 -- 18:07:05
You make some good debate points.  Let me continue the next chapter...

NATIONAL SECURITY- The security issue is that countries unfriendly to the U.S. could manipulate oil supplies to us based on their philosophies or interests (such as Russia (former/future USSR).

LOSS OF MONEY SUPPLY- I can't debate as to other factors.  However, loss of money supply (I forget the figure - something like $70 billion per year) does have a long term impact on dollar values.  It is not the only factor, but is nevertheless a factor.

ONLY MAJOR NATION THAT IS NET IMPORTER- We have not been allowed to explore for thirty years.  We know of some resources, and there may or may not be many more.  But with the restriction disallowing exploration on the outer continental shelf, we have no way of knowing.

PROVIDE MANY MORE JOBS- As I stated in my previous post, what the two sides keep arguing about even though they agree on it is that we absolutely need to work strongly to develop other energy alternatives.

OIL SHALE RESERVES- I look at this as a long term piece of the solution.  I would postulate that no matter what view anyone has about them, they will eventually, unquestionably be harvested.  The question is, how soon.  The other piece of that question is, how to do it responsibly.  It may be a ways down the road (oil prices high enough to pay for it including restoration of land areas after harvesting).

OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF DRILLING- Believe it or not, I am strongly in favor of doing the utmost in assuring the environment is protected.  I think there is the assumption by many that drilling there (or ANWAR) automatically presumes a significant probability of irreparable environmental damage.  I think the debate should not be about whether or not to drill, but how to provide adequate environmental safeguards.  My opinion is this is where the debate may head next.

FOREIGNERS DRILLING OFF OUR COAST- I'll have to look into that one.

OIL SPECULATORS-  Agreed that speculation will continue.  However, speculators drive price based on what they guess will be future supplies.  If it is believed by them that supplies will increase in the future (i.e. increased domestic production), their speculated price per barrel will adjust based on which direction they believe that supply will go.

SHORT TERM OIL PRODUCTION- I can't remember which oil company this person was president of.  But I have listened to numerous people in the industry over the last few months, and there is definitely differing opinions on this.  Some believe it may take 10 - 15 years, others believe it will take differing amounts of time (some increase short term, greater increases long term).

DRILLING IN ANWAR- The environmental position is a political position.  My understanding is that it will take about 2000 acres.  I believe the entire environmental argument is completely political.  This is why, the debate should significantly include discussion about what safeguards can, should or will be there that make the environmentalists happy.

CHINA AND INDIA OIL CONSUMPTION- It makes no difference whether we trade with them.  Their dramatic and continuing increases in oil consumption are gradually creating a global oil shortage which impacts what is available to us, including price.

BOTTOM LINE REPLY- The oil is going to one day run out.  We would be fools not to appropriately develop alternatives.  Brazil I think is the "poster child".  They use (I believe) sugar cane to produce fuels, and have recently discovered what may be a very large oil find off their coast; making them a net exporter.  This will have a big positive impact on their economy in years to come.  I have difficulty understanding why, as part of a comprehensive plan to bring us into the next century, this would not also make sense for us (with the obvious alterations in details to match our own resources).

-We need to domesticate our oil supply in a way that minimizes environmental impact.  
-We need to develop a lot more nuclear power.  
-We need to look at T. Boone Pickens plan for increased use of Natural Gas.  
-We need to develop off shore wind mill farms (and in other places).  We need to develop hydrogen fuel cell vehicles by 2015 (prototype already near completion).  
-We need to improve the cost efficiency of photo-voltaic cell technology.  
-We need to increase and improve hybrid automobiles.  
-We need to continue finding more and more ways to make homes and industries more energy efficient.  
-We need to kick this issues butt before it kicks ours.
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: made-in-japan on 09-10-2008 -- 18:19:51
Quote from: Hawaii596 link=topic=1104. msg11591#msg11591 date=1221070025

-We need to domesticate our oil supply in a way that minimizes environmental impact.   
-We need to develop a lot more nuclear power.   
-We need to look at T.  Boone Pickens plan for increased use of Natural Gas.   
-We need to develop off shore wind mill farms (and in other places).   We need to develop hydrogen fuel cell vehicles by 2015 (prototype already near completion).   
-We need to improve the cost efficiency of photo-voltaic cell technology.   
-We need to increase and improve hybrid automobiles.   
-We need to continue finding more and more ways to make homes and industries more energy efficient.   
-We need to kick this issues butt before it kicks ours.


I can agree with all of these things.  I'm just really sketchy on domestic drilling and especially the Republicans plan because over the past eight years we've seen the energy policy dictated by the oil industry with this administration. 

Let me provide a graph from the EIA or Energy Information Administration in regards to domestic drilling and production.  I posted above about them and they come up with a lot of good speculative statistics.

As for flew-da-coup, you need to chill out.  You're still attacking me and I'm done bothering with you.
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: Hawaii596 on 09-10-2008 -- 18:31:03
I'll have to do some research.  Let's call it "round over" for today.  I have a bunch of work to do.  I'm enjoying the debate.  I'll just leave a few closing comments, and maybe do some more later, but likely tomorrow...

I am familiar with the eia website and have spent a couple of hours perusing it.  I noticed that your chart was consumption, as opposed to production.

One piece of info I have not found yet (and even the eia stuff was pretty out of date - last time I looked there - a few weeks ago), is good, believable, up-to-date estimates by country of reserves.  Every list I've found was either so cryptically set up or so out of date that I had trouble making sense of it.  I want to find the most accurate, up-to-date figures on estimated total reserves of every oil producing country in the world. 

With the concession that I totally agree that it is reasonable to be concerned (very concerned) about legitimately protecting the environment; the debate, I believe should not focus so much on IF, but on WHERE, HOW MUCH, HOW, and WHEN. 

Anyway, more later.

I enjoy a good, friendly debate.
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: flew-da-coup on 09-11-2008 -- 09:55:33
Quote from: Hawaii596 link=topic=1104. msg11591#msg11591 date=1221070025

-We need to domesticate our oil supply in a way that minimizes environmental impact.   
-We need to develop a lot more nuclear power.   
-We need to look at T.  Boone Pickens plan for increased use of Natural Gas.   
-We need to develop off shore wind mill farms (and in other places).   We need to develop hydrogen fuel cell vehicles by 2015 (prototype already near completion).   
-We need to improve the cost efficiency of photo-voltaic cell technology.   
-We need to increase and improve hybrid automobiles.   
-We need to continue finding more and more ways to make homes and industries more energy efficient.   
-We need to kick this issues butt before it kicks ours.


I can agree with all of these things.  I'm just really sketchy on domestic drilling and especially the Republicans plan because over the past eight years we've seen the energy policy dictated by the oil industry with this administration. 

Let me provide a graph from the EIA or Energy Information Administration in regards to domestic drilling and production.  I posted above about them and they come up with a lot of good speculative statistics.

As for flew-da-coup, you need to chill out.  You're still attacking me and I'm done bothering with you.

 You are done bothering with me because I bring common sense and logic to the table and you will not address it. That is okay, I understand why you will not address my responses. You simpley can't.

By the way, The Democrats think that off shore drilling is worth it. They just put out a plan to stop the ban on off shore drilling after they found out how out of touch they are. So what other Republican agendas are they going to adopt after finding out they are wrong on also?
Title: Re: The Presidential Race - OFF TOPIC
Post by: Hawaii596 on 09-11-2008 -- 13:53:32
Sorry!  I just uploaded my picture.  I'm such a handsome devil.  Had to feature it.  It's about ten years old, but still me.  Taken in the hangar of JAARS Inc (Jungle Avation and Radio Services Inc. in Waxhaw NC).

Just to stick to topic... (a sorry attempt)...  So Barack Obama was on Letterman last night, and said that IF he was referring to McCain/Palin in his lipstick and pig comment (which I take him at his word that he was not), he would have been referring to Palin as the lipstick and not the pig.  And the pig (in his opinion) was McCain's political machine (or something like that - my short term memory is going).
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: made-in-japan on 09-11-2008 -- 22:14:14
Quote from: flew-da-coup link=topic=1104.   msg11595#msg11595 date=1221126933
You are done bothering with me because I bring common sense and logic to the table and you will not address it.    That is okay, I understand why you will not address my responses.    You simpley can't.  

By the way, The Democrats think that off shore drilling is worth it.    They just put out a plan to stop the ban on off shore drilling after they found out how out of touch they are.    So what other Republican agendas are they going to adopt after finding out they are wrong on also?

No, I'm done bothering with you because of how gullible you are.    You are taking a politician for his full word instead of reading between the lines.    You tell me I'm drinking the "kool-aid" yet you think McCain is actually telling you the truth in anything he says.    Maybe you should apply some of the critical sense and logic you want to tout above me and understand more how politicians work.  

In fact, here's a liberal youtube to show how "Straight Talk" McCain really is! www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVIw7oZEyk

He's obviously telling the truth all the time and you can trust him. 
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: flew-da-coup on 09-12-2008 -- 09:55:29
Quote from: flew-da-coup link=topic=1104.   msg11595#msg11595 date=1221126933
You are done bothering with me because I bring common sense and logic to the table and you will not address it.    That is okay, I understand why you will not address my responses.    You simpley can't.  

By the way, The Democrats think that off shore drilling is worth it.    They just put out a plan to stop the ban on off shore drilling after they found out how out of touch they are.    So what other Republican agendas are they going to adopt after finding out they are wrong on also?

No, I'm done bothering with you because of how gullible you are.    You are taking a politician for his full word instead of reading between the lines.    You tell me I'm drinking the "kool-aid" yet you think McCain is actually telling you the truth in anything he says.    Maybe you should apply some of the critical sense and logic you want to tout above me and understand more how politicians work.  

In fact, here's a liberal youtube to show how "Straight Talk" McCain really is! www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVVIw7oZEyk

He's obviously telling the truth all the time and you can trust him. 

 I knew you wouldn't responed to my last post with an answer. You have not responeded to any of my arguements, other than changing the subject matter. And no, I am not a big McCain fan either. I am a Palin fan and I believe than she can keep McCain in check. McCain is aften too liberal for me and I was not thrilled that he won the Republican Nomination.  So , maybe you need to try to stop thinking that you know how I feel about McCain. I do believe he is a better choice than Obama, but he is not my top choice.

As for the video, well what about this on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY5CQnOn75c (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY5CQnOn75c). Or this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H64yKJhB528 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H64yKJhB528) I could go on if you wish.
Maybe you should apply some of the critical sense and logic before you question my understanding of politics. As for you responeding to this retort, well..... I don't expect one, because you have already shown all of us that you don't know how too.

Obama is obviously telling the truth all the time and you can trust him. Advice for you, don't bring knives to gun fights.
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: made-in-japan on 09-12-2008 -- 10:58:40
Quote from: flew-da-coup link=topic=1104. msg11600#msg11600 date=1221213329
Obama is obviously telling the truth all the time and you can trust him.  Advice for you, don't bring knives to gun fights.

See, there you go again.  You have no idea how I feel towards Obama and you just chose to assume how I did.  And even then, we were not even talking about him.  We were discussing McCain and why he does not tell us the truth.  There are plenty of things wrong with Obama but he's going to show better judgment than some 72 year old Alzheimer's patient waiting to die.

As for responding to this retort, I don't care if you do because this is just getting more fun by the day.  I got two days left of annoying you!
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: dallanta on 09-12-2008 -- 11:57:28
  It never ceases to amaze me how dumb people can be.   In light of everything about obama and his "buddies", there are people that are so liberal that they will vote for him!   When I hear someone say, " I have not decided yet, I am weighing the issues."
I want to either laugh or cry.  By now, using this excuse to hide their liberal mindset does not work.  If they have not decided by now, with all we know and what we do not know, then they are obamanites.  Pure and Simple.  Kool aide drinking idiots that are clueless as to what this country needs or stands for.
 I am no McCain fan, but I have great hopes for Palin.   She is the only one of the whole lot that is worth a damn.
So, Mr Made in Japan,  as a newby in this group it is suprising that you attack with your simple minded opinions.
If you cannot post anything worth reading, then try to refrain from posting.
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: Crayonman on 09-12-2008 -- 12:46:36
I've been following this string for a couple of days now and there are some pretty strong views on the presidential nominees out there.   I cant say that i can include myself as a strong supporter of either canidate, but I'm going to throw this question out there.   With so many sources of information on the canidates out there, none of which are unbiased in my opinion, how can anyone back any of these nominees?  I have done my homework on the McCain ticket and the Obama ticket, and most of the time i feel overwhelmed.  I don't think that any news source is unbiased.   Tune into any news network, and they have one "expert" after another giving opposite opinions.  You can't rely on any newspaper to give you straight facts, some papers even come right out and endorse a canidate straight out.   So in the end I tried to change tactics.   I would just research each canidates voting record and the material published by the canidates themselves.   Has anyone actually looked at these canidates voting records?  First you have to sift through all the "NO VOTES" to get to the ones that they actually voted on, and even then, you would have to read the entire bill with all the earmarks to grasp what the bill is really about and why your potential canindate voted yes or no.   I don't know many people who are fluent in Leagaleese, but i can comprehend probably 60percent of what is written in these bills.   I have looked at what kind of committees they  have been in, what types of lobyist they align themselves with and who they are taking money from, and in the end i just feel frustrated with the entire system.   As for trying to make a decision based on just what the canidates say. . .  right from the horses mouth. . .  I'm kind of screwed there too.   Every time I find them standing on one platform. . . say. . . how to fix the economy or the Iraq war, It seems to me that both canindates will say different things depending on what audience they are speaking to.   (In more cases Obama is guilty of this one).   So what i am basically trying to say, is that if anyone out there can give me a fresh avenue or something to tip me off this fence i'm on, then I'm all ears.
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: Hoopty on 09-12-2008 -- 13:43:12
It is obvious you drink the left wing Democrat Kool-Aid.
  It never ceases to amaze me how dumb people can be.   In light of everything about obama and his "buddies", there are people that are so liberal that they will vote for him!   ...  By now, using this excuse to hide their liberal mindset does not work.  If they have not decided by now, with all we know and what we do not know, then they are obamanites.  Pure and Simple.  Kool aide drinking idiots that are clueless as to what this country needs or stands for.
It just amazes me that so many people's beliefs are to one extreme or the other.  You are either a lefty pinko commie idiot or a rightwing neocon zealot nutjob.  The quotes I'm using show one side, because that's what I can find in this thread.  Obviously, it goes both ways.  I've read enough comments on multiple new sources to see both sides.  And it ain't pretty.

Is there no middle ground?  I guess there's just no place in this for a common sense middle-of-the-road moderate...  I just don't get it.
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: K-Rock on 09-12-2008 -- 14:15:42
I've been following this string for a couple of days now and there are some pretty strong views on the presidential nominees out there.   I cant say that i can include myself as a strong supporter of either canidate, but I'm going to throw this question out there.   With so many sources of information on the canidates out there, none of which are unbiased in my opinion, how can anyone back any of these nominees?  I have done my homework on the McCain ticket and the Obama ticket, and most of the time i feel overwhelmed.  I don't think that any news source is unbiased.   Tune into any news network, and they have one "expert" after another giving opposite opinions.  You can't rely on any newspaper to give you straight facts, some papers even come right out and endorse a canidate straight out.   So in the end I tried to change tactics.   I would just research each canidates voting record and the material published by the canidates themselves.   Has anyone actually looked at these canidates voting records?  First you have to sift through all the "NO VOTES" to get to the ones that they actually voted on, and even then, you would have to read the entire bill with all the earmarks to grasp what the bill is really about and why your potential canindate voted yes or no.   I don't know many people who are fluent in Leagaleese, but i can comprehend probably 60percent of what is written in these bills.   I have looked at what kind of committees they  have been in, what types of lobyist they align themselves with and who they are taking money from, and in the end i just feel frustrated with the entire system.   As for trying to make a decision based on just what the canidates say. . .  right from the horses mouth. . .  I'm kind of screwed there too.   Every time I find them standing on one platform. . . say. . . how to fix the economy or the Iraq war, It seems to me that both canindates will say different things depending on what audience they are speaking to.   (In more cases Obama is guilty of this one).   So what i am basically trying to say, is that if anyone out there can give me a fresh avenue or something to tip me off this fence i'm on, then I'm all ears.
I support Obama for my own reasons but I have found information on the following website which attempts to strip away the bias and rheoteric for all candidates. I agree with Hoopty that there are extreme opinions on both sides in this race.
http://www.votesmart.org/election_president.php (http://www.votesmart.org/election_president.php)
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: USMCPMEL on 09-12-2008 -- 14:40:51
Crayonman... The thing I found that in my opinion trumps all the information out there. John Mccain's son is in Iraq or at least he was a little while back here. I could not find any mention any where of John Mccain talking about it he does not want to use his son as a tool to get into the white house. Now Sarah's son is going to Iraq also, she is not talking about it very much. They both understand honor and duty and love our country enough to send thier kids in harms way to defend it. Enough said they have my vote.
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: flew-da-coup on 09-12-2008 -- 15:06:33
Okay, I will just boil it down to Character.

John McCain: Refused to leave a POW camp and spent 5 more years after he refused. He stood by his fellow men that he hardley knew.

Barrak Obama: Distanced himself from someone ( Rev. Wright ) that he called in the past a friend, spiritial mentor and his pastor for political gain. He has known Wright for over 20 years.


 Now, political issues aside, who would you really trust? Someone who will stand by you or someone who would leave you behind to save his own butt in a heart beat?
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: jimmyc on 09-12-2008 -- 15:29:26
Now Sarah's son is going to Iraq also, she is not talking about it very much.

really because i have heard it from her about 10 times already including her interview with ABC yesterday.

as for john's POW record, he did what is expected from all service members not because of people he barely know
Article III:  If I am captured, I will continue to resist by all means available.  I will make every effort to escape and aid others to escape.  I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.
as for news agency bias, listen to what they have to say, because most of it is wrapped around a little truth or it would be totally unbelievable, then research those issues you find important.  luckily both candidates are current senators so you can find how they voted on issues you find important.  some candidates will say they support troops and vote against every troop spending bill that comes along, but i will leave that for you to figure out which.
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: flew-da-coup on 09-12-2008 -- 15:49:25
Now Sarah's son is going to Iraq also, she is not talking about it very much.

really because i have heard it from her about 10 times already including her interview with ABC yesterday.

as for john's POW record, he did what is expected from all service members not because of people he barely know
Article III:  If I am captured, I will continue to resist by all means available.  I will make every effort to escape and aid others to escape.  I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.
as for news agency bias, listen to what they have to say, because most of it is wrapped around a little truth or it would be totally unbelievable, then research those issues you find important.  luckily both candidates are current senators so you can find how they voted on issues you find important.  some candidates will say they support troops and vote against every troop spending bill that comes along, but i will leave that for you to figure out which.

 Good, you have good character too. Obama has already shown that he would have left the POW camp, just like Rev. Wright.
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: made-in-japan on 09-12-2008 -- 17:37:44
Joe Biden's son is going to Iraq as well but I've hardly heard it talked about at all either.

And to Hoopty, there is a middle ground but attacking one another is not the way. Calling out someone's character does nothing to move the dialog forward and I'm the first to say I get a little short tempered when someone is too stubborn. I get really into this stuff because it does decide our country's future and any kind of distortion of facts annoys me. But the real concern this election should not be "he said, she said" crap but the real issues and I brought that to the table with my first post of this thread. It was disputed even though it came from credible sources who have no bias whatsoever to make up falsehoods. Rather than that, I was criticized above as a "liberal", "drinking the kool-aid", or a "newby in this group" with "simple minded opinions" that "If you cannot post anything worth reading, then try to refrain from posting."

Sorry but that infuriates me. Just because my worldview does not conform to your own gives you no right to attack my character or hurl insults. That isn't talking about the issues at all. I've tried to discuss the issues but I was told I was "going on a bent" when pork spending was brought up and I stated Gov. Palin's past on pork spending. It was nice though to see Hawaii596 and I debate, politely, domestic drilling without the bitter name calling and insults. I enjoyed it because we weren't in each others' faces but were able to provide accurate information and opinions that didn't boil down to "you're dumb and I'm right".

As for the middle ground you talked about, I find it hard to agree with Obama on a few issues like gun control, faith based initiatives and definitely this next one I'm about to describe. Now Obama once said that if he had actionable intelligence, that there were terrorists in Pakistan, and U.S. forces could get to them then he would send them across the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. I disagreed with this vehemently when he said that and I still do. And it was a shock to see that President Bush had signed off on similar type raids in July of this year with the September 3rd raid being one of them. It basically boils down to the fact that we can not provoke another country into war with us, especially Pakistan. The Pakistani Army Chief of Staff has stated that he is authorizing them to use force against any American units that operate inside Pakistan. And this isn't a small insurgency we would have to deal with but the 7th largest military IN THE WORLD. They have close ties to China and also have a nuclear arsenal. We're playing with fire by doing these things and we could get seriously burned by it.
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: ck454ss on 09-12-2008 -- 18:13:21
I personally like tha fact that Bush authorized the attacks into Pakistan.  Its about time the US start flexing some muscles against these countries who are directly giving refuge to the terrorist scum of the WORLD.  I find it ironic what the terrorists are doing in Afganistan and Iraq.  Has an eery similarity to Vietnam and Laos.  Couldnt cross into Laos either but the VC could.  And the war was eventually lost.  Im not worried about countries like China.  The smack will fly between the US and China but wether people like it or not we need each other.  China needs our cash and we need there cheap labor and goods.  Its a global economy and the US is the #1 spender.  Kind of why China was so quick to react to the Lead issues in toys.  Im all for countries sovernties but they need to understand that IF they are doing something that could effect the US National Security then the US will do what it needs to to ensure its existance.  Personally why I like Isreal....you attack them they will retaliate 10 fold.  The US is a superpower and if you want to spew this anti-american jihad crap then be prepared to feel the brunt of the US military.

jmo
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: jimmyc on 09-12-2008 -- 18:20:49
Good, you have good character too. Obama has already shown that he would have left the POW camp, just like Rev. Wright

just like john did rev hagee
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/22/mccain.hagee/index.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HS9F7O2lhWg&feature=related

politicians are politicians first above all. 
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: flew-da-coup on 09-15-2008 -- 00:57:12
Good, you have good character too. Obama has already shown that he would have left the POW camp, just like Rev. Wright

just like john did rev hagee
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/22/mccain.hagee/index.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HS9F7O2lhWg&feature=related

politicians are politicians first above all. 

 Hagee is not his pastor. He did not go to Hagee's church. he did not call Hagee his long time spiritual advisor. So there is no comparison here. You are right though, politicians are politicians. That's why I like Sarah Palin so much, she is not like the rest in washington.
Title: Re: The Presidential Race
Post by: pmel68 on 10-14-2008 -- 20:01:02
Quote from: USMCPMEL link=topic=1104. msg11538#msg11538 date=1220475551
You do the math obama gets elected and almost immiedietly thereafter gets assasinated then we get Biden? I will take my chances with Mccain she (as you put it ) seems to be very down to earth and unlike most candidates has actually had to work in her lifetime.

Since I think we're on the same side of the argument and you're a Marine, I'll type this slooooooooowly  :-D

Comparing O'Bambi's experience to Palin's is apples  to oranges, she's running for VP while he's running for Pres.  For her to become Pres.  something drastic would have to occur.

Oh, wait a sec. . . . . . . . . . .  for O'Bambi to become Pres.  something drastic will have to occur too  :oops:

(For those that might get their pantaloons twisted, I didn't come up with the Bambi thing, some left wing washington post gal did.  I just happen to think it fits. )