NationStates Jolt Archive

Since I have the attention span of a squirrel, a quarter of my time at work is spent reading the news and it has come to my attention that the entirety of the GOP's attacks on Obama has devolved into this: he is as famous as a celebrity and he thinks silly things like inflating your tires is an energy policy.

I would say the fact that they are spending money on this shit is an insult to the intelligence of the American people except for the fact that these ads are working, and by no small means. Though how surprised can one be when we have a non-dismissible percentage of people who still think Obama is a Muslim?

I'm not sure who I want to strangle more, the McCain, the GOP, or the fucking American public. The American public too fucking stupid to listen to more than a sound bite. The American public too fucking stupid to watch McCain agree that inflating your tires will save you energy. The conservative American public too god damn fucking stupid to realize that their fucking Messiah was a literal celebrity - Ronald Reagan was an actor for fuck's sake.

Maybe if the American public would listen to more than idiots babbling on neocon- I mean talk radio or Fox (10% News-90% Talk), they would know that the projected max output from giving the oil companies access to offshore drilling sites that they don't already have access to would equate to 10% of the amount we use today in 10 years. Even if our oil use didn't go up a single iota, we would still be beholden to foreign powers for 50-60% of our oil requirements. Properly inflating tires would reduce gas use by 3% and we don't even have to wait!

Since all this inane shit is working, Obama is going to have to start hitting back hard and publicly. But since he isn't, I can only conclude he is trying to lose. When calling Obama a celebrity pulls McCain even in several states, in a country where the great political messiah was an actor, Obama is going to have to call in every big gun he can and put them on the air and fucking hose McCain. Fuck Pelosi, Kerry, etc. Apologize to Wesley Clark and sic him on McCain. Get Bill Clinton on the air. Do fucking something. Letting the GOP grasp at straws and pull out golden thread is going to cost him the election.

So you have the attention span of a squirrel, and no pants..

Are you quite certain that you are indeed NOT a squirrel?

McCain has less money than Obama. The people start to pay attention in September/October. My guess is, Obama plans to toss all of his money and flood Lt. Senile then and there.

msnbc showed a bunch of clips of mccain appearing on various shows and in movies as a celebrity. saturday night live and the wedding singer are the ones i remember. he was a hoot on SNL.

so where does he get off dissing obama is too much of a celebrity?

I think Paris Hilton's response to his using her image in his "celebrity" attack ad was hilarious.

I think Paris Hilton's response to his using her image in his "celebrity" attack ad was hilarious.
Agreed.

Hopefully, Obama will use his quite frankly vast reserves of campaign money to create, say, 200,000 jobs (paying, ooh, $500 for a week's work, seeing as his campaign has umpteen million dollars or something) in the month before the election. That would just completely scupper McCain.

"In the news today - McCain hits back at Obama's claim that he isn't very cool. And Obama creates 200,000 jobs for the American people in retaliation."

Obama has almost twice as much money to spend on the campaign as McCain and he will be spending that money in the last 30 days before the election and after the McCain/Feingold anti first amendment provisions kick in so he is immune to criticism from anyone except McCain who won't have the money to do much to counter Obama's media blitz at that time.

Although the McCain campaign itself has less money, most of the difference is made up by the RNC. Combined with their party committees, the two are near equal. The distribution is different.

I dont like the add, I think is silly, stupid, counter productive, tasteless and should be pulled off the air by the McCain campaing. That said dont portray Barack Obama as Mr Perfect.

Implying that McCain used the race card, by Obama talking about it. Next day McCain is not a racist, McCain is a good guy, is synical, ect, ect. As many of you know all that was coverd on CNN of all sources. Obama not above making political adds just to get votes, not above saying things on energy and making charges against McCain's energy policys just to get votes.

As many of you know CNN of all sources has been critical of both candidates. For accepting, receiving oil industry money. And thier oil policys. McCain saying that he would support using all energy sources, wind, solar, power ect, ect. And Obama once said McCain has no energy policy. While I dont provide a link to the statements. It was shown on CNN of all sources some of you must have seen it.

So I guess according to Obama he is the only candidate with an energy policy.

If anythig it proves that Obama is just other politician willing to do and say anything just to get votes just like McCain.

I can grant you this point on McCain. Can you grant me the same on Obama? Or is Obama Mr Perfect, above saying and doing things just to get votes?

Any pro McCain, Obama or undecideds agree?

I don't get the campaign ads here, obviously, but everything McCain says that the media reports upon regarding Obama merely appears to reinforce that while Obama is by no means perfect, he is still far better than McCain.

I dont like the add, I think is silly, stupid, counter productive, tasteless and should be pulled off the air by the McCain campaing. That said dont portray Barack Obama as Mr Perfect.

Implying that McCain used the race card, by Obama talking about it. Next day McCain is not a racist, McCain is a good guy, is synical, ect, ect. As many of you know all that was coverd on CNN of all sources. Obama not above making political adds just to get votes, not above saying things on energy and making charges against McCain's energy policys just to get votes.

As many of you know CNN of all sources has been critical of both candidates. For accepting, receiving oil industry money. And thier oil policys. McCain saying that he would support using all energy sources, wind, solar, power ect, ect. And Obama once said McCain has no energy policy. While I dont provide a link to the statements. It was shown on CNN of all sources some of you must have seen it.

So I guess according to Obama he is the only candidate with an energy policy.

If anythig it proves that Obama is just other politician willing to do and say anything just to get votes just like McCain.

I can grant you this point on McCain. Can you grant me the same on Obama? Or is Obama Mr Perfect, above saying and doing things just to get votes?

Any pro McCain, Obama or undecideds agree?

Obama is not perfect. Whew, there I said it. Hell, I've been saying it on these forums for almost a year now. When it comes down to issues that last beyond a sound byte the media is hopeless. Why are they hopeless? My answer is to agree with the OP and say that the American Public pays more attention to American Idol than they do the presidential race. They can tell you what David Cook did for his Mom's birthday when he was 11, but cannot give you a holistic view of either candidate's economic or energy policies. Hell, we here are much better informed than most. Why? Because we actually pay attention to politics on a regular basis.

That being said, who do you think has reversed their positions more to gain their party's nomination? If you can say Obama with a straight face then good for you. If you want to talk about how far a candidate has strayed from their positions in the past two years you have to say McCain. A man who called Jerry Falwell, et al. as the agents of intolerence then embraced them to get his nomination. This McCain is not the man I respected so much back in 2000. This McCain is fundamentally different. This McCain has voted with George W Bush 95% of the time. That's the same George W Bush that smeared the hell out of him to win the nomination in 2000. Can you admit that? Who is more willing to sell out to win? I vote for McCain on that account.

I dont like the add, I think is silly, stupid, counter productive, tasteless and should be pulled off the air by the McCain campaing. That said dont portray Barack Obama as Mr Perfect.

While I do think Barack Obama campaigns as if he is Mr Perfect compared to McCain who cant say or do no right, have no answers on energy or the economy in Obama's view.

Thank You for agreeing that if one is just a politician both are just politicians.

Being honorable only works if the other guy has a sense of honor too. Come on Barry, the time of political pacifism is dead. Draw the katana, draw the Peacemaker, draw something and drill that decrepit Bushevik husk down NOW before we end up with 4 More Years and an eternity pissing off the Middle Easteners in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Being honorable only works if the other guy has a sense of honor too. Come on Barry, the time of political pacifism is dead. Draw the katana, draw the Peacemaker, draw something and drill that decrepit Bushevik husk down NOW before we end up with 4 More Years and an eternity pissing off the Middle Easteners in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As compared to Obama, who'll lie his teeth out just to get that extra approval rating percentage, and then screw everyone over by allowing States to take away the second amendment?

As compared to Obama, who'll lie his teeth out just to get that extra approval rating percentage, and then screw everyone over by allowing States to take away the second amendment?
did you miss the recent supreme court ruling that makes obama's opinion of the 2nd ammendment irrelevant?

i prefer to vote based on issues that the president can affect.

did you miss the recent supreme court ruling that makes obama's opinion of the 2nd ammendment irrelevant?

i prefer to vote based on issues that the president can affect.
Did you miss that part where the president can nominate Justices? And that the decision was 5-4, only a slight majority?

Did you miss that part where the president can nominate Justices? And that the decision was 5-4, only a slight majority?

Do any of the Justices that Dubya appointed look like they're in seriously ill health or looking forward to retirement?

Do any of the Justices that Dubya appointed look like they're in seriously ill health or looking forward to retirement?

While we're answering questions with questions,

Do any of the justices that are in favor of upholding Roe v. Wade look like they are in ill health or looking forward to retirement? That's much more likely to be affected.

As compared to Obama, who'll lie his teeth out just to get that extra approval rating percentage, and then screw everyone over by allowing States to take away the second amendment?

How is he 'trying to screw everyone over by taking away the second amendment'

All I've seen him say is that we wants to close loopholes in the laws that allow people to buy Assault guns (YTF do you need one of those) and require background checks at gun shows (like no shit, of course you should have it)

As compared to Obama, who'll lie his teeth out just to get that extra approval rating percentage, and then screw everyone over by allowing States to take away the second amendment?

You do realize that in order to "take away the second amendment", a President would have to get a new amendment passed that rescinds it.

You also realize that the President may not initiate legislation.

So why is this even an issue in your mind? Are you so worried that the majority of the nation disagrees with your 2nd Amendment stance that you seriously believe that a new amedment which rescinds it will be passed?

I used to get into debates about this kind of stuff, but gave up for two reasons:

1) Obama's gonna win this anyway, barring some enormous scandal, so I just don't see the point. And even if McCain wins, he'll die within days of attaining presidency anyway, and then the presidency will be in the hands of his VP. Which means I'd have to find out what both McCain and his running mate thought about the issues before I could cast a vote. Who the hell wants to do that? Too many opinions!

2) I'm afraid of voting. What if the candidate I vote for wins? People always say: "If you don't vote, you can't complain," but I'll complain no matter what the outcome, because both these guys disagree with me on enough issues to piss me off thoroughly. So assume I vote for Obama and he wins. Then I definitely can't complain, cuz I put the sonofabitch in office!
Which means to avoid responsibility for the fate of election, I have to guess which candidate will lose and vote for them. That, or pencil in a candidate that has no chance. And it's just a game I'm not willing to play. Too risky, too much work for basically the same effect as saying "Screw it, I'm not voting." By betting on the loser, I'm casting a worthless ballot and then not really voting anyway. I'm just voting in a way that gives me the "right" to be pissed at whatever administration gains power. And I should have the right to be vocally pissed no matter what.
My ignorant ass should not be deciding the fate of the free world anyway. Everyone and their newly-bought, completely-untrained, five-day-old dog knows more about the issues than I do.


I adopt the same tired, cliche assumption about politicians that usually doesn't set in until the bitter cynicism of adulthood: they're all assholes. Every election is between two assholes, and I feel like an idiot trying to find qualities in one asshole or defects in the other. Honestly, who wants to compare two brown-eyes to decide which is better?
"Ooh, I hate this bastard slightly less than the other bastard, I'll put him in charge of everything!"
No. No thanks. Give me some Canada. Then I'll be too busy playing hockey and pouring syrup on my enormous piles of flapjacks to give a shit about any election anywhere in the world.
I love pancakes. I can't play hockey, but I'd learn.
I can't even ice-skate, actually.


My mind wanders.

I think Paris Hilton's response to his using her image in his "celebrity" attack ad was hilarious.

I thought it was really weak. She really can't act.

…So why is this even an issue in your mind?…

The watchword of the Libertarian is "paranoia".
Well, one of them, anyway.

No. No thanks. Give me some Canada.

Seriously? I don't think you want that.

Seriously? I don't think you want that.

Oh crap. You're just gonna point out some flaw in my plan and I'm gonna have to think of a new one, aren't I?
Whatever. Do it. Why don't I want some Canada?

McCain is attacking in the right places. If anything is going to cause Obama to lose the election its a lack of support from poor, less educated people. The sort of voters who dislike his apparent lack of patriotism, his criticism of people who 'cling to guns and religion', the people who didn't vote for him in West Virginia. He needs to win these voters over or he risks losing a big state like Pennsylvania to McCain. A good place to start would be with a running mate that these voters can identify with.

Since I have the attention span of a squirrel, a quarter of my time at work is spent reading the news and it has come to my attention that the entirety of the GOP's attacks on Obama has devolved into this: he is as famous as a celebrity and he thinks silly things like inflating your tires is an energy policy.

I would say the fact that they are spending money on this shit is an insult to the intelligence of the American people except for the fact that these ads are working, and by no small means. Though how surprised can one be when we have a non-dismissible percentage of people who still think Obama is a Muslim?

I'm not sure who I want to strangle more, the McCain, the GOP, or the fucking American public. The American public too fucking stupid to listen to more than a sound bite. The American public too fucking stupid to watch McCain agree that inflating your tires will save you energy. The conservative American public too god damn fucking stupid to realize that their fucking Messiah was a literal celebrity - Ronald Reagan was an actor for fuck's sake.

Maybe if the American public would listen to more than idiots babbling on neocon- I mean talk radio or Fox (10% News-90% Talk), they would know that the projected max output from giving the oil companies access to offshore drilling sites that they don't already have access to would equate to 10% of the amount we use today in 10 years. Even if our oil use didn't go up a single iota, we would still be beholden to foreign powers for 50-60% of our oil requirements. Properly inflating tires would reduce gas use by 3% and we don't even have to wait!

Since all this inane shit is working, Obama is going to have to start hitting back hard and publicly. But since he isn't, I can only conclude he is trying to lose. When calling Obama a celebrity pulls McCain even in several states, in a country where the great political messiah was an actor, Obama is going to have to call in every big gun he can and put them on the air and fucking hose McCain. Fuck Pelosi, Kerry, etc. Apologize to Wesley Clark and sic him on McCain. Get Bill Clinton on the air. Do fucking something. Letting the GOP grasp at straws and pull out golden thread is going to cost him the election.

What an entertaining rant. I agree with a lot of it, though I dispute that America as a whole is really that dumb. Just enough of them to swing an election.:(

As for Obama, he needs to strike back, stop flip-flopping and pissing off a tenuous base, and stop running the God damn John Kerry campaign. When I think of Jessy Jackson saying "I want to cut his nuts off", my response is "What nuts?"

McCain is attacking in the right places. If anything is going to cause Obama to lose the election its a lack of support from poor, less educated people. The sort of voters who dislike his apparent lack of patriotism, his criticism of people who 'cling to guns and religion', the people who didn't vote for him in West Virginia. He needs to win these voters over or he risks losing a big state like Pennsylvania to McCain. A good place to start would be with a running mate that these voters can identify with.

He needs a rich white guy with foreign policy experience. Accordingly, I'm inclined to support Jo Biden for VP.

Did you miss that part where the president can nominate Justices? And that the decision was 5-4, only a slight majority?
yeah you really need to think that one through.

the judges who are most likely to retire are all liberal. that means that guns are not threatened by a new supreme court justice but abortion IS.

yeah you really need to think that one through.

the judges who are most likely to retire are all liberal. that means that guns are not threatened by a new supreme court justice but abortion IS.

Stop letting facts get in the way of a good paranoid rant! :mad:

He needs a rich white guy with foreign policy experience. Accordingly, I'm inclined to support Jo Biden for VP.

I'd say that Tim Kaine is more appropriate for winning the votes that Barack Obama needs. He could bring in the anti-abortion, pro-gun democrats and give the Democrats a chance at winning in Virginia.

It is funny to hear Obama claim in his video that merely by properly inflating tires, we could save all the oil that we could obtain by drilling.

If he weren't off by an order of magnitude or more, you would have a point, Pantless.

As for the other commercials, yes, those are silly. But Obama's are equally asinine - where he merely accuses "McCain's statements on Obama" (which ones?) of being one-word badness ("Lies" "Baseless", etc).

Really, he could have a better comeback.

And it is true that Obama has effectively no executive experience. So it's a valid point to raise (just a bad way of raising it).

I'm not sure who I want to strangle more, the McCain, the GOP, or the fucking American public.

Start with the leadership, eliminate the organising structures and then instill your order through the decimation of the general population... mhe, worked for Uncle Joe

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_overstatement.html
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccains_small-business_bunk.html

Fair bit of straws being reached for.

And it is true that Obama has effectively no executive experience.

It's also true that McCain has none.

Since I have the attention span of a squirrel, a quarter of my time at work is spent reading the news and it has come to my attention that the entirety of the GOP's attacks on Obama has devolved into this: he is as famous as a celebrity and he thinks silly things like inflating your tires is an energy policy.

Way to put your lack of knowledge of the issues on display. It is fortunate that you represent most Obama supporters.

I would say the fact that they are spending money on this shit is an insult to the intelligence of the American people except for the fact that these ads are working, and by no small means. Though how surprised can one be when we have a non-dismissible percentage of people who still think Obama is a Muslim?

I can see you are one of the many Obama supporters, like the media, who believe that Obama should have had a huge jump after yet another historic speech in Germany. I have seen that people are beginning to wonder exactly what Obama is for besides hope and change.

By the way, what percentage believe Obama is a Muslim?

I'm not sure who I want to strangle more, the McCain, the GOP, or the fucking American public. The American public too fucking stupid to listen to more than a sound bite.

Gee, I wonder why the American public is not falling in love with Obama considering this is the type of language being used by his supporters. You are definitely not the first liberal to stomp all over Americans because we won't follow you blindly to the place where money is free and no one ever cries.

The American public is waking up to the fact tha Obama is smoke and mirrors hiding a leftist ideology.

Or you can just continue to believe that tire pressure and Paris Hilton are to blame.

The American public too fucking stupid to watch McCain agree that inflating your tires will save you energy.

But it will not replace the oil gains to be made by drilling our own resources. It was stupid to say and Obama got the slam he deserved.

The conservative American public too god damn fucking stupid to realize that their fucking Messiah was a literal celebrity - Ronald Reagan was an actor for fuck's sake.

Yep, Reagan made movies. Reagan made movies with monkeys. But Reagan was also a succesful in the private sector. Reagan was the govenor of California for two terms. While President he brought about the collapse of the Soviet Union. He stood in Germany and demanded that the walls come down. Obama says this was because the world was more unified back then. False. The world was divided and Ronald Reagan understood that one does not fight tyranny with mere rhetoric. He called the Soviet Union an "evil empire" because that is what it was. He earned the right to speak in Berlin.

Obama is nothing compared to Reagan.

Maybe if the American public would listen to more than idiots babbling on neocon- I mean talk radio or Fox (10% News-90% Talk), they would know that the projected max output from giving the oil companies access to offshore drilling sites that they don't already have access to would equate to 10% of the amount we use today in 10 years. Even if our oil use didn't go up a single iota, we would still be beholden to foreign powers for 50-60% of our oil requirements. Properly inflating tires would reduce gas use by 3% and we don't even have to wait!

No need for actual scientific backing of this statement. We trust you.

Since all this inane shit is working, Obama is going to have to start hitting back hard and publicly. But since he isn't, I can only conclude he is trying to lose. When calling Obama a celebrity pulls McCain even in several states, in a country where the great political messiah was an actor, Obama is going to have to call in every big gun he can and put them on the air and fucking hose McCain. Fuck Pelosi, Kerry, etc. Apologize to Wesley Clark and sic him on McCain. Get Bill Clinton on the air. Do fucking something. Letting the GOP grasp at straws and pull out golden thread is going to cost him the election.

Nice rant. Basically you are saying that Obama has just sat back and not campaigned yet. Really, where do you live that you have not had Obama rammed down your throat? What news source are you watching? Consider this:

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=301702713742569

When the media is in love, one can assume all their warts and gaffs can be hidden. Obama says alot of stupid things, like tire pressure, but most are not reported.

As for Bill Clinton, wait until the DNC convention. I think you will see some very interesting maneuvering done by Clinton Inc. If Obama continues as the nominee they will surely lose and Clinton will push that idea at the convention.

I think the DNC convention will be more exciting than the Olympics even though both are run by Marxists.

By the way, what percentage believe Obama is a Muslim? Too fucking many.



Yep, Reagan made movies. Reagan made movies with monkeys. But Reagan was also a succesful in the private sector. Reagan was the govenor of California for two terms. While President he brought about the collapse of the Soviet Union. He stood in Germany and demanded that the walls come down. Obama says this was because the world was more unified back then. False. The world was divided and Ronald Reagan understood that one does not fight tyranny with mere rhetoric. He called the Soviet Union an "evil empire" because that is what it was. He earned the right to speak in Berlin.

Obama is nothing compared to Reagan.I know revisionist history is the stock and trade of the GOP, but do you really believe that? Reagan spent the USSR into collapse. It's that simple. The Star Wars shit, just a way to make the commies go belly up.


I think the DNC convention will be more exciting than the Olympics even though both are run by Marxists.

1) The Chinese are not Marxists.
2) The Democratic party is as far removed from communism as you are from reality and history.

But hey, that comment proves you can be safely put on the old ignore list, because you're repeating talking points and not actually thinking.

It's also true that McCain has none.

True. It's arguable that McCain has more experience in legislative matters (which is important to being President), and more cross-aisle experience (McCain-Feingold is a good example).

Obama has little of either, and his claims recently to have been on a committee to "reduce nuclear weapons" (actually a Senate Banking Comittee move) were outright lies - he was never on the committee or its subcommittees.

He's having to make up what experience he does claim, and a trip around Afghanistan and Iraq and Europe is a poor substitute for foreign experience. If that's experience, then I have 1000 times more experience than Obama has - does that make me qualified to be President?

He's having to make up what experience he does claim, and a trip around Afghanistan and Iraq and Europe is a poor substitute for foreign experience. If that's experience, then I have 1000 times more experience than Obama has - does that make me qualified to be President?

No, but that's because of your views, not because of "experience" or lack thereof.

True. It's arguable that McCain has more experience in legislative matters (which is important to being President), and more cross-aisle experience (McCain-Feingold is a good example).

Obama has little of either, and his claims recently to have been on a committee to "reduce nuclear weapons" (actually a Senate Banking Comittee move) were outright lies - he was never on the committee or its subcommittees.

He's having to make up what experience he does claim, and a trip around Afghanistan and Iraq and Europe is a poor substitute for foreign experience. If that's experience, then I have 1000 times more experience than Obama has - does that make me qualified to be President?

Barack Obama, lie, attack his opponents on any issues, votes or political positions. Shocked, no it cant be not Obama.

Who according to himself everyone knows McCain has no plans (answers) for energy, the economy, ect, ect, ect. Mr Perfect.

Too fucking many.

So, this is not really a problem if you can't put a number on it.

I know revisionist history is the stock and trade of the GOP, but do you really believe that? Reagan spent the USSR into collapse. It's that simple. The Star Wars shit, just a way to make the commies go belly up.

It is revisionist to say that the GOP engages in revisionist history. The Left is the home of revisionist history and post-modern thought. Your Obama for example.

Anyway, Reagan DID spent the USSR into collapse and it was that simple. Yet it took Reagan to do so and he never caved to the American left which had told us for decades that the Soviet Union was a fact of life and that we should cuddle up with them.

As for the "Star Wars shit": missile defense is a reality thanks to Reagan.

1) The Chinese are not Marxists.

One then wonders why the Communist party rules China. A Marxist attempts to implement Marx's ideology. China has attempted to do so.

2) The Democratic party is as far removed from communism as you are from reality and history.

This barb fails considering your lack of understanding of Reagan and his accomplishments. Reality is not your to comment on it seems.

But hey, that comment proves you can be safely put on the old ignore list, because you're repeating talking points and not actually thinking.

Whose talking points are these? What facts are wrong? Being ignored by you is not a punishment by any means. Many people ignore the facts don't validate their preconceptions. I reckon you are one of them.

But hey, have a nice weekend.

How is he 'trying to screw everyone over by taking away the second amendment'

All I've seen him say is that we wants to close loopholes in the laws that allow people to buy Assault guns (YTF do you need one of those) and require background checks at gun shows (like no shit, of course you should have it)
FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban.
Q: You said recently, "I have no intention of taking away folks' guns." But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you've said that it's constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?

A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets.
# Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
# Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
# Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.
Do any of the Justices that Dubya appointed look like they're in seriously ill health or looking forward to retirement?
Well, in my opinion...:D
You do realize that in order to "take away the second amendment", a President would have to get a new amendment passed that rescinds it.

You also realize that the President may not initiate legislation.

So why is this even an issue in your mind? Are you so worried that the majority of the nation disagrees with your 2nd Amendment stance that you seriously believe that a new amedment which rescinds it will be passed?
Because Heller did not involve a state, uncertainty remains concerning whether the Second Amendment applies to state and local jurisdictions by way of incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment
So Obama would allow states to take away the second amendment. And with the massive amount of support he has...

Well, in my opinion...:D


# Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
# Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
# Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.
So, in your opinion, You desperately need semi-automatic weapons, which can be freely purchased by every nutjob and manic, while making sure they can also be used by children?

And you wonder why other nations see you as a loose cannon...

So, in your opinion, You desperately need semi-automatic weapons, which can be freely purchased by every nutjob and manic, while making sure they can also be used by children?

And you wonder why other nations see you as a loose cannon...
1. I'm not against closing the loopholes. I'm only against the banning of Semi automatic weapons.

2.I actually, you know, believe that the constitution should be respected and NOT trampled, okay?

So, in your opinion, You desperately need semi-automatic weapons, which can be freely purchased by every nutjob and manic, while making sure they can also be used by children?

And you wonder why other nations see you as a loose cannon...

Don't you know? Wild game wear Kevlar now. The rapid rate of fire and armor-piercing munition is needed just to actually wound a deer! And gosh if kids these days demand realism when they play guns.

Don't you know? Wild game wear Kevlar now. The rapid rate of fire and armor-piercing munition is needed just to actually wound a deer! And gosh if kids these days demand realism when they play guns.

Forgive me for interpreting the second amendment the same way Thomas Jefferson did.:rolleyes:

Forgive me for interpreting the second amendment the same way Thomas Jefferson did.:rolleyes:

I do not think that Thomas Jefferson knew about assault rifles, RPGs, or similar weaponry.

Just sayin'.

I do not think that Thomas Jefferson knew about assault rifles, RPGs, or similar weaponry.

Just sayin'.
*Ahem*
Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.
No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands].
When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
He would've agreed with me were he alive today.

*Ahem*

He would've agreed with me were he alive today.

Which of course completly ignores that firearms back in Jefferson's days were muzzleloading flintlocks that took a minute or so to reload, and you needed an entire company of men toting them just for a chance at hitting a target. And it's good to see you're developing a Corny-like precognition of how Jefferson would have reacted to modern firearms that could completely outdo a militia in his days.

Which of course completly ignores that firearms back in Jefferson's days were muzzleloading flintlocks that took a minute or so to reload, and you needed an entire company of men toting them just for a chance at hitting a target. And it's good to see you're developing a Corny-like precognition of how Jefferson would have reacted to modern firearms that could completely outdo a militia in his days.

You didn't even read the quotes, did you?

You didn't even read the quotes, did you?

I did. And it's disingenuous how you're turning this into a debate over generic gun control. You have a right to a firearm, sure. Do you really need a high-caliber rapid-fire automatic rifle whereas a shotgun or handgun would suffice? Unless of course every potential attacker suddenly stocked up on cheap Kevlar suits.

I did. And it's disingenuous how you're turning this into a debate over generic gun control. You have a right to a firearm, sure. Do you really need a high-caliber rapid-fire automatic rifle whereas a shotgun or handgun would suffice? Unless of course every potential attacker suddenly stocked up on cheap Kevlar suits.

You just changed this from semi-auto to automatic weapons. Big difference but one that has eluded your grasp. When you are looking up the difference between the two, also look up the difference between being shot dead with a rifle, a shotgun, or a handgun. Some handguns have more stopping power than some rifles.

How can one have a debate when you don't understand the terminology? This is how gun control laws are conceived: in an atmosphere of ignorance.

*Ahem*



He would've agreed with me were he alive today.

In his time, one man, even with a military-grade weapon, couldn't run into a room and shoot everybody in it before they could react. If you let just anybody own AK 47s and RPGs, that becomes trivial.

You just changed this from semi-auto to automatic weapons. Big difference but one that has eluded your grasp. When you are looking up the difference between the two, also look up the difference between being shot dead with a rifle, a shotgun, or a handgun. Some handguns have more stopping power than some rifles.

How can one have a debate when you don't understand the terminology? This is how gun control laws are conceived: in an atmosphere of ignorance.

And have you read what CM has posted about gun control? As I recall, he has said he's in favor of letting people own any gun they want, for any reason, no restrictions.

And have you read what CM has posted about gun control? As I recall, he has said he's in favor of letting people own any gun they want, for any reason, no restrictions.

Here is what CM clarified:

1. I'm not against closing the loopholes. I'm only against the banning of Semi automatic weapons.

That is not any gun, for any reason, no restrictions.

That is not any gun, for any reason, no restrictions.

Not really, he's saying he wants to close loopholes that allow weapons to be bought at gun shows without background checks, but he's saying you should be allowed to have any gun you want, for whatever reason, rather then say restricting guns to say, only hunting, but rather have them lying around the house, to be used for whatever reason, you know, like hunting, killing squirrels, people, shooting cans off fences, etc.

Forgive me for interpreting the second amendment the same way Thomas Jefferson did.:rolleyes:

You're pretty stupid if you really believe Thomas Jefferson was thinking of Machine Guns and Rocket launchers.

Do some research on period weapons; that's what he was thinking of, not of modern weapons, of which he couldn't possibly imagine.

He's having to make up what experience he does claim, and a trip around Afghanistan and Iraq and Europe is a poor substitute for foreign experience. If that's experience, then I have 1000 times more experience than Obama has - does that make me qualified to be President?
Uhu... as opposed to McCain's foreign policy credentials which seem to be based largely on him being tortured in Vietnam for a bit, to my eyes.

Uhu... as opposed to McCain's foreign policy credentials which seem to be based largely on him being tortured in Vietnam for a bit, to my eyes.

He was on the Senate Armed Services Committee, which has a large foreign policy role.

Well, in my opinion...:D


So Obama would allow states to take away the second amendment. And with the massive amount of support he has...

Sweet zombie Jesus! Right now Obama is pulling about 48% on the presidential polls. You need 2/3rds of the states to ratify a constitutional amendment.

I'd say that Tim Kaine is more appropriate for winning the votes that Barack Obama needs. He could bring in the anti-abortion, pro-gun democrats and give the Democrats a chance at winning in Virginia.

I didn't know about him. But I think Biden's foreign policy experience helps close what people perceive as a major hole in Obama's resume.

Since I have the attention span of a squirrel, a quarter of my time at work is spent reading the news and it has come to my attention that the entirety of the GOP's attacks on Obama has devolved into this: he is as famous as a celebrity and he thinks silly things like inflating your tires is an energy policy. Missed the point. the Point of the GOP's attack is not that he's famous as a celebrity. but does he have the experience to lead?

you know, the same question people asked of Bush Jr.

and we all know how Bush Jr did... is doing.

I didn't know about him. But I think Biden's foreign policy experience helps close what people perceive as a major hole in Obama's resume.

In all honesty, I don't think that many people care about his apparent lack of experience. I think the primaries have shown that its not his policies that are the issue its who he is. A lot of people have this perception that he is a 'champagne liberal', which is somewhat ironic - I doubt Hillary Clinton ever needed food stamps. Its an issue unlikely to deter educated, left leaning voters but it does put off the 'guns and religion' crowd that he so unwisely criticised.

Better candidates would be Ted Strickland or Ed Rendell but they've distanced themselves from the VP role.

Lol... EPIC FAILURE...

John McCain calls Barack Obama a celebrity, but Ronald Reagan was a movie star... lol

Thx for reminding me... There are so many idiots who listen to Rush Limbaugh and the 700 Club.

Maybe if the American public would listen to more than idiots babbling on neocon- I mean talk radio or Fox (10% News-90% Talk), they would know that the projected max output from giving the oil companies access to offshore drilling sites that they don't already have access to would equate to 10% of the amount we use today in 10 years. Even if our oil use didn't go up a single iota, we would still be beholden to foreign powers for 50-60% of our oil requirements. Properly inflating tires would reduce gas use by 3% and we don't even have to wait!

Yeah thats great and all, assuming they made the right assumptions on the 3% number, I've never seen what assumptions they used or even a source for this, although I've heard it quite a few places. It also not at all what Obama said, which was "inflating tires will save more gas than drilling" (close enough...) Which isn't true by about 400,000 barrels per day. Also, there's no way in hell of getting every single person in the country to properly inflate their tires, so 3% is already an overestimate of what actual savings could be made. Certainly people know that they should inflate their tires etc. but its not exactly a good reason not to drill, which is all the more reason to mock Obama on it.

And have you read what CM has posted about gun control? As I recall, he has said he's in favor of letting people own any gun they want, for any reason, no restrictions.

Yep. The Federal government doesn't have the power to restrict that, nor does any local government/

I do not think that Thomas Jefferson knew about assault rifles, RPGs, or similar weaponry.

Just sayin'.

But I think he would agree that if the people were to protect themselves from the gov't, they should at least have a similar arsenal. The gov't has machine guns and bombs, why not let the people have semi-autos?

But I think he would agree that if the people were to protect themselves from the gov't, they should at least have a similar arsenal. The gov't has machine guns and bombs, why not let the people have semi-autos?

The government also has jets, copters and tanks. I guess that means we have to give the people the right to own and use SAMs and Anti-Armor rounds.

The government also has jets, copters and tanks. I guess that means we have to give the people the right to own and use SAMs and Anti-Armor rounds.

That's nonsensical. I said that people should have the ability to have weapons similar to what the military has. Not the same or better. There is a clear difference in having a semi-auto rifle and a SAM site. Surely you can tell the difference and make a logical connection and argument here.

The government also has jets, copters and tanks. I guess that means we have to give the people the right to own and use SAMs and Anti-Armor rounds.

Actually, kinda, at least according to Jefferson, yeah. He was against standing armies such as the one we have today, and believed we should only have an army as such in a time of war. That would leave the militia (read: the People) to defend the country with the latest technology, including jets/copters/tank/Anti-Armor rounds/etc.

The People are supposed to be able to revolt against their government, and that requires access to certain weaponry (weaponry that exceeds the needs of hunting and home defense). Based on the 3rd quote following this sentence, I would assume that governors would control the heavier armaments in peacetime, and the President in wartime. (meaning tanks, jets, AA-guns, etc.)

"Standing armies [are] inconsistent with [a people's] freedom and subversive of their quiet."

"A well-disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war till regulars may relieve them, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our Government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration."

"[The] governor [is] constitutionally the commander of the militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms."

Yeah thats great and all, assuming they made the right assumptions on the 3% number, I've never seen what assumptions they used or even a source for this, although I've heard it quite a few places. It also not at all what Obama said, which was "inflating tires will save more gas than drilling" (close enough...) Which isn't true by about 400,000 barrels per day. Also, there's no way in hell of getting every single person in the country to properly inflate their tires, so 3% is already an overestimate of what actual savings could be made. Certainly people know that they should inflate their tires etc. but its not exactly a good reason not to drill, which is all the more reason to mock Obama on it.

No, the reason not to drill is it will create the false impression that we can support ourselves with gasoline and will kill development of renewable energies which only need more interest and more investment. We are using 20 million barrels a day. Today. Assuming the oil companies get access to every offshore site they want (which they won't), and immediately find oil (which they won't), and had the infrastructure to immediate take advantage of it (they admit they don't), we still wouldn't see output this decade. And the output would still be at best 200k barrels a day. So I was off - it would be 1% of our daily needs, today. Which it would never meet even in 10 years. Go inflate your fucking tires.

No, the reason not to drill is it will create the false impression that we can support ourselves with gasoline and will kill development of renewable energies which only need more interest and more investment. We are using 20 million barrels a day. Today. Assuming the oil companies get access to every offshore site they want (which they won't), and immediately find oil (which they won't), and had the infrastructure to immediate take advantage of it (they admit they don't), we still wouldn't see output this decade. And the output would still be at best 200k barrels a day. So I was off - it would be 1% of our daily needs, today. Which it would never meet even in 10 years. Go inflate your fucking tires.

here I was hoping you'd actually use sources instead of coming up with numbers off the top of your head...

how about this: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/maintain.shtml

apparently all the tires of every American car would have to be under inflated by 8.25 psi (around 25%) for the 3.3% savings on gasoline. I somehow doubt that's the case... Not to mention that GASOLINE used by DRIVERS =/= all our barrels of oil we use, most of a barrel of oil isn't even gasoline after distillation so that 3.3% is complete bullshit, even assuming every person in America eyeballs the inflation on their tires when they go inflate them.

or:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/05/30/news/economy/oil_drilling/index.htm?postversion=2008053011

"But using estimates based on the limited information available from the Minerals Management Service, the Bureau of Land Management and the Energy Information Administration, lifting the bans might boost the nation's oil production by 1 or 2 million barrels a day by sometime next decade."

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html#Econ

"Oil - consumption: 20.8 million bbl/day (2005 est.) "

based on that even the low estimate of 1 million barrels per day is about 4.808%, 2 million a day obviously being nearly 10%. Even 10 years from now the rate of increase of oil demand is around 2.3% per year (for the world, which probably grows much faster than US oil demand increases, seeing how china would affect it):

20.8*(1.023)^10 = 26.11 million barrels per day

still 3.8% at that time using 1 million barrels per day and 7.7% if we use the 2 million estimate.

I don't see the argument of "we won't see any oil today" being of any merit... we'll never see the day everyone's tires are properly inflated, nor is everyone's tires improperly inflated now. We'll get the oil eventually and that's better than the time line for tire inflation: never.

My tires are fucking inflated, drill for oil.

apparently all the tires of every American car would have to be under inflated by 8.25 psi (around 25%) for the 3.3% savings on gasoline.
What?
You can improve your gas mileage by around 3.3 percent by keeping your tires inflated to the proper pressure.
Verbatim.

I somehow doubt that's the case... Not to mention that GASOLINE used by DRIVERS =/= all our barrels of oil we use, most of a barrel of oil isn't even gasoline after distillation
Oh yes, because everyone is totally factoring that into their bitching. Since you like technical facts, let's look at how Saudi Arabia increases its production by 10 million barrels a day did shit to the price of gas, why would 2 million a day in 10 years drop it?


I don't see the argument of "we won't see any oil today" being of any merit... we'll never see the day everyone's tires are properly inflated, nor is everyone's tires improperly inflated now. We'll get the oil eventually and thats better than the timeline for tire inflation: never.
So your argument is what? You, and everyone else, is a fucking lazy bastard and thus we should pointlessly drill for oil in the fraction of off-shore sites that the oil companies don't already have access to in order to get barely a fraction of our current total of barrels per day use in 10 years? Load of shit.

What?

Verbatim.


Oh yes, because everyone is totally factoring that into their bitching. Since you like technical facts, let's look at how Saudi Arabia increases its production by 10 million barrels a day did shit to the price of gas, why would 2 million a day in 10 years drop it?

source? I also never said it'd drop the price just that criticisms of Obama on this point were accurate.

So your argument is what? You, and everyone else, is a fucking lazy bastard and thus we should pointlessly drill for oil in the fraction of off-shore sites that the oil companies don't already have access to in order to get barely a fraction of our current total of barrels per day use in 10 years? Load of shit.

if you're going to go ahead and ignore all the evidence I presented theres really no point in debating with someone who is as people like to put it "willfully ignorant", or possibly lacks the mathematical and analytical abilities to understand my previous post. Also don't call me a "fucking lazy bastard", as I pointed out my tires are properly inflated, and thems theres fighting words, and its not fair to use 'em if I can't punch you in the face for it.

source? I also never said it'd drop the price just that criticisms of Obama on this point were accurate.
Except that they wern't.

if you're going to go ahead and ignore all the evidence I presented theres really no point in debating with someone who is as people like to put it "willfully ignorant", or possibly lacks the mathematical and analytical abilities to understand my previous post. Also don't call me a "fucking lazy bastard", as I pointed out my tires are properly inflated, and thems theres fighting words, and its not fair to use 'em if I can't punch you in the face for it.
Your evidence was dismissible, when you were quoting the source right.

Except that they wern't.

yes they were :rolleyes:


Your evidence was dismissible, when you were quoting the source right.

how so? I quoted it accurately and even explained what it meant. the 3.3% GAS savings is only if all your tires are deflated by 25%, like I said before, since not everyone's tires are deflated that much its clear that there would not be a 3.3% reduction in use of GASOLINE by drivers. Even then, saving on gasoline =/= savings on oil, there's some proportional relationship, but I honestly don't know exactly what it is, however considering that there are a myriad of uses for oil, I'd say not nearly all (plastics, oil, gaseous hydrocarbons (natural gas), etc... I'm sure I don't even know half of them). If you're going to say its dismissible and when not that I wasn't quoting properly, you'd have to come up with some reason why. I saw what you posted before, this has nothing to do with how much one person could save, that would be about as useful as examining how much oil I could drill for in my backyard.

It is funny to hear Obama claim in his video that merely by properly inflating tires, we could save all the oil that we could obtain by drilling.

Actually what he said was that we could save more oil in the short term than what we could get from off shore drilling. This much is true. Damn liberal, Obama-loving Forbes magazine says the same thing too. (http://www.forbes.com/2008/04/22/cars-mpg-gas-forbeslife-cx_jm_0422cars.html) He said that it could save us 3-4 percent (http://www.mahalo.com/How_to_Get_Better_Gas_Mileage), which is the same that AAA says. In a (flip-flop) McCain later said he agreed that inflating your tires helps. We cannot get a lot of savings from either drilling or a gas tax holiday in the short term. That said, i support off shore drilling for the next 3-15 years while we make alternative fuels a reality. Obama supports tapping the nation's oil reserves now to lower prices for the short term. Think, tapping oil reserves helps to lower gas prices for a few years, then the off shore and continental drilling, and finally alternative fuels. This is a comprehensive plan that doesn't just think about today.

If he weren't off by an order of magnitude or more, you would have a point, Pantless.

Or if you looked at the entirety of the speech instead of just the sound bytes that the media and the campaigns put out.

As for the other commercials, yes, those are silly. But Obama's are equally asinine - where he merely accuses "McCain's statements on Obama" (which ones?) of being one-word badness ("Lies" "Baseless", etc).

Really, he could have a better comeback.

And it is true that Obama has effectively no executive experience. So it's a valid point to raise (just a bad way of raising it).

Right, and what is McCain's executive experience?

So, this is not really a problem if you can't put a number on it.

It's really not a problem if you are just to ignorant to do a google search and learn the number. It's %12 mind you. (http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/257549) I must agree and quote "too fucking many."


It is revisionist to say that the GOP engages in revisionist history. The Left is the home of revisionist history and post-modern thought. Your Obama for example.

Anyway, Reagan DID spent the USSR into collapse and it was that simple. Yet it took Reagan to do so and he never caved to the American left which had told us for decades that the Soviet Union was a fact of life and that we should cuddle up with them.

As for the "Star Wars shit": missile defense is a reality thanks to Reagan.



One then wonders why the Communist party rules China. A Marxist attempts to implement Marx's ideology. China has attempted to do so.

Your simplistic view of their form of government is all too common amongst the majority of Americans. Communism and Marxism are not synonymous. http://www.travelblog.org/World/ch-gov.html
What form of government exists in china?

unitary form of govt exists in china..Unitary govt is a govt in which the judiciary,executive and legislative powers are vested in single authority.

Perhaps you'd like a better understanding of the economic structures that exist in China. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China) While it's easy to just yell, "they're communist man!" this is not a full explanation of their form of economic system.

This barb fails considering your lack of understanding of Reagan and his accomplishments. Reality is not your to comment on it seems.



Whose talking points are these? What facts are wrong? Being ignored by you is not a punishment by any means. Many people ignore the facts don't validate their preconceptions. I reckon you are one of them.

They are pretty much the talking points the media have been shoving out there. If you were as informed as you'd say you would know this.

But hey, have a nice weekend.

I hope you have found this informative. You always remind me of a Charlie Daniels song: Johnny said "Devil come on back if you ever want to try again. I done told you once you son of a bitch I'm the best that's ever been." I may not be the best, but I damn sure know better than to start questioning others' positions without doing the due diligence on research.

Even then, saving on gasoline =/= savings on oil, there's some proportional relationship, but I honestly don't know exactly what it is, however considering that there are a myriad of uses for oil, I'd say not nearly all (plastics, oil,
There are but gasoline is a major use of oil, reducing gasoline usage would drop the prices of a barrel of oil and everything else made from oil, as well as make oil last longer.

gaseous hydrocarbons (natural gas),
Natural gas is so called because it is. Natural gas is a separate product found in oil wells as it naturally builds up in the ground in the same place.

If you're going to say its dismissible and when not that I wasn't quoting properly, you'd have to come up with some reason why.
I said it was dismissible because you are ignoring the point - assuming we got all possible oil out of all these spots tomorrow with maximum barrels/day output, it would only be 1-10% of our daily usage. We rely on foreign oil some 60-70% right now. But there oil in those spots won't come out tomorrow, it won't be for at least 5 years by the government's most optimistic estimate. 10 years average. Do you not suppose our oil use will increase in 10 years? "Drill moar!" is not an answer or a solution and will most certainly not decrease the price of gas which is what the GOP is trying to sell.

There are but gasoline is a major use of oil, reducing gasoline usage would drop the prices of a barrel of oil and everything else made from oil, as well as make oil last longer.

no shit... oi. All I'm saying is that 3.3% is a gross overestimate.


I said it was dismissible because you are ignoring the point - assuming we got all possible oil out of all these spots tomorrow with maximum barrels/day output, it would only be 1-10% of our daily usage. We rely on foreign oil some 60-70% right now. But there oil in those spots won't come out tomorrow, it won't be for at least 5 years by the government's most optimistic estimate. 10 years average. Do you not suppose our oil use will increase in 10 years? "Drill moar!" is not an answer or a solution and will most certainly not decrease the price of gas which is what the GOP is trying to sell.

not ignoring anything, Obama was wrong. and there's no reason it'd be as low as 1% as my calcs have shown its between 3-8%, including an increase in oil use at the global rate applied ot the US consumption, over the course of ten years. If you're going ot act like I'm ignoring things I explicitly take into account, maybe you need to reread my original post. There's no way to prove that an addition to the supply wouldn't decrease prices, its a better bet than "do nothing", certainly prices increase for a reason, and many times, if a supply is threatened prices jump, therefore there would be a response in the other direction if supplies are seen to increase. McCain knows its not a final solution, that's why he proposes using alternatives in conjunction with more oil, like nuclear power plants (which Obama also opposes), and other alternatives.

There's no way to prove that an addition to the supply wouldn't decrease prices,
Unless you were paying attention in the news and noticed that Saudi Arabia increased output 10 million barrels a day and didn't affect the prices when they were up. Amount and output don't cause changes in prices - stability in output does.

McCain knows its not a final solution, that's why he proposes using alternatives in conjunction with more oil, like nuclear power plants (which Obama also opposes), and other alternatives.
Except his only alternatives are coal and nuclear. McCain opposes renewable energy sources such as solar and wind whose prices are comparable with or better than nuclear per kilowatt hour (http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Cents_Per_Kilowatt-Hour). Coal is cheaper but a heavy pollutant; however, McCain proposes carbon scrubbing additions which would up the costs significantly.

Unless you were paying attention in the news and noticed that Saudi Arabia increased output 10 million barrels a day and didn't affect the prices when they were up. Amount and output don't cause changes in prices - stability in output does.

I know they said something to that effect, but I haven't heard that they actually did it, I also asked you for a source on this claim before, for both no change in price and the actual increase of production. Wouldn't increasing oil wells help to increase the stable amount of oil output? Certainly a better idea than opening up the strategic oil reserve like Obama wants to.

Except his only alternatives are coal and nuclear. McCain opposes renewable energy sources such as solar and wind whose prices are comparable with or better than nuclear per kilowatt hour (http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Cents_Per_Kilowatt-Hour). Coal is cheaper but a heavy pollutant; however, McCain proposes carbon scrubbing additions which would up the costs significantly.

Your own source shows solar as being pretty expensive, up to twice as costly as nuclear. And wind is only 30% reliable. When has McCain come out against wind and solar? or has he said that's not the only thing we need to do? Frankly, unless the government goes around stopping people from building windmills, theres no reason for them not to be built, as they could apparently compete.

McCain said he would do an all of the above approach, wind, solar, offshore drilling, ect, ect. Obama said everyone knows McCain has no energy plans, no answers for the economy.

While I do not provide a link to these statements. As ia not that easy to find. They were coverd on CNN of all sources. Some you must have seen it.

I know they said something to that effect, but I haven't heard that they actually did it,
"Hey, we released 10 million barrels of oil extra a day, haha, no, just kidding."

I also asked you for a source on this claim before, for both no change in price and the actual increase of production.
I don't have the hours to spend to hunt through news to do that.

Wouldn't increasing oil wells help to increase the stable amount of oil output? Certainly a better idea than opening up the strategic oil reserve like Obama wants to.
No, it wouldn't. Oil wells mean nothing, it's the pipelines that control the throughput.



Your own source shows solar as being pretty expensive, up to twice as costly as nuclear.
Up to, starting at the same average cost as nuclear. And that is without the currently in development advances to solar energy gathering which would increase solar panel efficiency 30-50% (http://cleantechnica.com/2008/07/14/dying-to-boost-solar-efficiency-by-50/).

And wind is only 30% reliable.
And is slightly less to slightly more per kilowatt hour than coal.


And is When has McCain come out against wind and solar?
http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/05/12/mccain-wind-hypocrite/

Frankly, unless the government goes around stopping people from building windmills, theres no reason for them not to be built, as they could apparently compete.
Except for the fact there needs to be money for upfront costs.

McCain said he would do an all of the above approach, wind, solar, offshore drilling, ect, ect. Obama said everyone knows McCain has no energy plans, no answers for the economy.
"All of the above" is not a policy when he refuses to support renewable energy and only supports coal and oil and touts nuclear knowing that won't go anywhere.

"All of the above" is not a policy when he refuses to support renewable energy and only supports coal and oil and touts nuclear knowing that won't go anywhere.

Oh crap. Why won't nuclear go anywhere?

Oh crap. Why won't nuclear go anywhere?

It is both comparatively expensive and dangerous.

it seems to be on the republican agenda.

i dont think that anti-nuclear sentiment and activism has died down enough to get any new plants built though.

did you see on the daily show that mccain recommended the fermi2 nuclear plant in michigan as a great example of good nuclear energy? ignoring the fermi1 was the subject of the book "we almost lost detroit"?