Jump to content


Photo

Is it me or...


  • Please log in to reply
94 replies to this topic

#21 Perrin 187

Perrin 187
  • Members
  • 278 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 04 September 2008 - 12:46 PM

Might I add that I think McCain dump the experience argument agianst Obama because he realized it hadn't worked for Clinton in the primaries, why should it work for him?

EDIT: Also its not smart for democrats to compare thier presidental nominees experince to the republican's VP pick!

#22 Hokus Grey

Hokus Grey
  • Members
  • 39 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 04 September 2008 - 02:25 PM

Hmmm....Politricks, huh...... after watching both conventions I have formulated this idea.


Democrats = Left Hand

Republicans = Right Hand

Convention Speeches = Strings

Voters = Puppets



Now we dance!!

#23 The Goblin Queen

The Goblin Queen
  • Members
  • 4,366 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:MN

Posted 04 September 2008 - 03:14 PM

Here is the full quote. Gee, you always claim I misquote...

Palin was answering a question from the moderator near the conclusion of Wednesday night's televised debate on KAKM Channel 7 when she said, "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both." ...and later... In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms:
"I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."


Yep. The full quote.  Where she said 'teach both' TWICE'.  Yeah, some 'misquote'.  Sarah Palin should learn a bit about science.  If she is such a great mom, she should be helping at least one of her children with homework that concerns scientific theory and have access to at least one grade school science book.  Maybe she should read it instead of trying to force her religious views into a secular school system?  The Science classroom is for Science.  If she wants to teach the creationism bullshit, she should campaign for funding for schools to be able to afford philosophy classes.

How does what the Dept of Health and Human Services equate to Sarah Palin's personal views? Can't you just admit to your lie?


LOL.  Truth and Lie are not synonyms.  Sex ed is about teaching birth control.  Sarah Palin opposes Sex Ed.  The Republican Party is pushing forth legislation to make many forms of birth control illegal.  Sarah Palin is a Republican that has NOT condemned this action. 

Are you switching topics rather than admit you were wrong? We were discussing Palin's experience vs. Obama's experience. You just tried to switch it to McCain's experience vs. Obama's. If you want to talk about that fine, but don't switch in mid discussion.


LOL.  Are you pretending that experience wasn't a major talking point in the Republican campaign?  Seriously, McCain is running on experience, and picks a running mate with virtually none.  Nice little bit of hypocrisy there, don't you think?


I notice you neglected to respond to the rest of my points.  I guess they stand fully then.

#24 Perrin 187

Perrin 187
  • Members
  • 278 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 04 September 2008 - 05:35 PM


Here is the full quote. Gee, you always claim I misquote...

Palin was answering a question from the moderator near the conclusion of Wednesday night's televised debate on KAKM Channel 7 when she said, "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both." ...and later... In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms:
"I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."


Yep. The full quote.  Where she said 'teach both' TWICE'.  Yeah, some 'misquote'.  Sarah Palin should learn a bit about science.  If she is such a great mom, she should be helping at least one of her children with homework that concerns scientific theory and have access to at least one grade school science book.  Maybe she should read it instead of trying to force her religious views into a secular school system?  The Science classroom is for Science.  If she wants to teach the creationism bullshit, she should campaign for funding for schools to be able to afford philosophy classes.

How does what the Dept of Health and Human Services equate to Sarah Palin's personal views? Can't you just admit to your lie?


LOL.  Truth and Lie are not synonyms.  Sex ed is about teaching birth control.  Sarah Palin opposes Sex Ed.  The Republican Party is pushing forth legislation to make many forms of birth control illegal.  Sarah Palin is a Republican that has NOT condemned this action. 

Are you switching topics rather than admit you were wrong? We were discussing Palin's experience vs. Obama's experience. You just tried to switch it to McCain's experience vs. Obama's. If you want to talk about that fine, but don't switch in mid discussion.


LOL.  Are you pretending that experience wasn't a major talking point in the Republican campaign?  Seriously, McCain is running on experience, and picks a running mate with virtually none.  Nice little bit of hypocrisy there, don't you think?


I notice you neglected to respond to the rest of my points.  I guess they stand fully then.

You didn't respond to my post on why McCain dumped the experience startegy, because it doesn't work for a candidate like Obama in this political season.

#25 The Goblin Queen

The Goblin Queen
  • Members
  • 4,366 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:MN

Posted 04 September 2008 - 05:59 PM

You didn't respond to my post on why McCain dumped the experience startegy, because it doesn't work for a candidate like Obama in this political season.


Because he hasn't.

The last political ad I saw for McCain, just today, was the 'experience matters' one.  So, I didn't see the need to respond to something that hasn't happened.

#26 SamVimes

SamVimes
  • Members
  • 8,859 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nashville, TN

Posted 05 September 2008 - 02:46 AM

Yep. The full quote.  Where she said 'teach both' TWICE'.


Why do you ignore the full comment where she clarifies her statement by saying that she would not fight for it to be in the curriculum? She just did not want it to be banned from the classroom so it can be discussed if the topic arose during discussion.

The Republican Party is pushing forth legislation to make many forms of birth control illegal.



Lie.

Sarah Palin is a Republican that has NOT condemned this action. 



A) She has only been in the national spotlight for 6 days, during which she has been having to defend herself from nasty and mean spirited attacks from liberals. When would this topic have come up?

B) Why would she condemn something which is a fabrication in your mind?

Seriously, McCain is running on experience, and picks a running mate with virtually none.  Nice little bit of hypocrisy there, don't you think?


Maybe perhaps in this strange little world, McCain figures that:

A) He is the one running for President, not Palin.
B) His experience is what counts most.
C) Palin (the GOP VP canidate) has more experience than the Democrat Presidental canidate.

I notice you neglected to respond to the rest of my points.  I guess they stand fully then.


If you feel I missed correcting you on something, let me know. I will be sure to rectify that.

I think all this violent hatred that Democrats feel for Palin is a manifestation of the fear that they feel. A week ago, the GOP was in shambles and without life. Now that Palin was masterfully added to the ticket, the GOP is fired up and ready for a fight. The Democrats, who thought they had an easy fight this fall, just realized that they have a tiger by the tail and they are scared. Therefore, they have to attack her personally in the most grievous of ways because deep inside, they are quivering in fear.

The Democrats tout that Obama is a great Leader. But how much leadership can a guy have when he explicitly says, "Family is off-limits." and his supporters continued to pour on the personal family attacks against his wishes. What kind of leadership can a guy have when his "supporters" ignore his explicit commands? How can he lead a nation when he cannot even lead his campaign?


#27 SamVimes

SamVimes
  • Members
  • 8,859 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nashville, TN

Posted 05 September 2008 - 10:42 AM

If you want an idea of the kind of reforms and standing up for the People that Gov. Sarah Palin has done in Alaska, then read this article from the Wall Street Journal. It details how she stood up to the Oil Companies like Exxon, Connoco, and BP. ALso, it talks about how she helped to route out corrupt politicians in the Executive Office and the State House.

http://online.wsj.co...emEditorialPage

Uhm, exactly what kind of reforms has Obama done again? How much corruption has Obama fought in his years in Washington?


#28 Hokus Grey

Hokus Grey
  • Members
  • 39 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 06 September 2008 - 09:22 AM

If you want an idea of the kind of reforms and standing up for the People that Gov. Sarah Palin has done in Alaska, then read this article from the Wall Street Journal. It details how she stood up to the Oil Companies like Exxon, Connoco, and BP. ALso, it talks about how she helped to route out corrupt politicians in the Executive Office and the State House.

http://online.wsj.co...emEditorialPage

Uhm, exactly what kind of reforms has Obama done again? How much corruption has Obama fought in his years in Washington?


Just a sidenote, I'm from Alberta Canada, where oil is BIG business. Alaska has used the same model as we have for dealing with oil companies which is first and formost appeasement. The "standing up" to big oil you refer to is a slight increase in taxes that is only a token of what it should be. An increase of 1 billion dollars a year in taxes in an industry that makes hundreds of billions a year, destroys the landscape permanently and takes resources that will never come back. Before you get on me I'll let you know that I am a Christian conservative who works in the oil industry, so this ish is my bread and butter, but there is mo sustainability in drilling in nature reserves and making the ultra-rich richer. These big oil companies do not reinvest here, they invest in Dubai. They invest in China. We get mild trickle down dollars from the fat wads of cash the multinationals are pulling out of OUR (yours and mine)soil. To say that Alaska is making strident moves in curtailing the activities and huge profits of large multinational oil companies is believing the propaganda that I know all to well. Read the reports, then go look at what a 4000 mile long pipeline does to the landscape, wildlife and groundwater (there is no such thing as a pipeline that doesn't leak). Just liars and theives lying and stealing. Business as usual.

#29 Majsju

Majsju
  • Members
  • 9,963 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lund, Skåne

Posted 06 September 2008 - 10:20 AM

Hokus, the typical Republican does not believe that the environment can be damaged my human intervention. They probably views pipelines as mans victory over the pesky Mother Earth.



#30 Perrin 187

Perrin 187
  • Members
  • 278 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 06 September 2008 - 11:02 AM

Hokus, the typical Republican does not believe that the environment can be damaged my human intervention. They probably views pipelines as mans victory over the pesky Mother Earth.


Anwar is 19 million acres big. Why can't we drill in 2,000 acres of it, like most republicans are suggesting, why? I doubt those 2,000 acres would have any dramatic effect on the wildlife.

EDIT: Also I'm a republican who actually will consider Global Warming as fact. But the thing that pisses me off about most Democrats, is that there willing to but a scenitfic theory above the nation's national security and our stuggling economy. We need to get our energy from somewhere leakage or no leakage. Although, we need to do what we can to stop leakage.

#31 Majsju

Majsju
  • Members
  • 9,963 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lund, Skåne

Posted 06 September 2008 - 12:21 PM

Anwar is 19 million acres big. Why can't we drill in 2,000 acres of it, like most republicans are suggesting, why? I doubt those 2,000 acres would have any dramatic effect on the wildlife.

EDIT: Also I'm a republican who actually will consider Global Warming as fact. But the thing that pisses me off about most Democrats, is that there willing to but a scenitfic theory above the nation's national security and our stuggling economy. We need to get our energy from somewhere leakage or no leakage. Although, we need to do what we can to stop leakage.


Drill Drill Drill, the typical republican mantra...

If you actually are concerned about global warming, here is a suggestion: Instead of spending billions of dollars on waging war against islam, put all those money into research for finding a sustainable source of energy. It would help the fight against global warming, as well as not only reduce, but eventually eliminate the US dependance on foreign oil. Which means that you could stop kissing the Saudis butt, and remove the #1 sponsor of terrorism against the US from the list of your closest allies.
All it takes is the guts to move the perspective from the next 20 months to the next 20 years. But then, that is something all politicians regardless of ideology seems incapable of doing.

#32 Perrin 187

Perrin 187
  • Members
  • 278 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 06 September 2008 - 03:35 PM


Anwar is 19 million acres big. Why can't we drill in 2,000 acres of it, like most republicans are suggesting, why? I doubt those 2,000 acres would have any dramatic effect on the wildlife.

EDIT: Also I'm a republican who actually will consider Global Warming as fact. But the thing that pisses me off about most Democrats, is that there willing to but a scenitfic theory above the nation's national security and our stuggling economy. We need to get our energy from somewhere leakage or no leakage. Although, we need to do what we can to stop leakage.


Drill Drill Drill, the typical republican mantra...

If you actually are concerned about global warming, here is a suggestion: Instead of spending billions of dollars on waging war against islam, put all those money into research for finding a sustainable source of energy. It would help the fight against global warming, as well as not only reduce, but eventually eliminate the US dependance on foreign oil. Which means that you could stop kissing the Saudis butt, and remove the #1 sponsor of terrorism against the US from the list of your closest allies.
All it takes is the guts to move the perspective from the next 20 months to the next 20 years. But then, that is something all politicians regardless of ideology seems incapable of doing.

You just assume I want to just drill, I'm guessing. Listen I'm an all of the above guy on energy, we should drill, do clean coal, natural gas, wind, solar, nuclear,etc... But NO! Democrats are putting the country's national security and the economy on the line hoping people we will come up with some magical fuel. We will  most likely find such a fuel with today's technology but in the meantime we need to do everything. Once again why shouldn't we do all that?


Edit: Also we aren't waging a war on Islam, were waging a war on Al Queda and other major terroist orginzations. I don't want to hijack this thread onto another topic but its also debatable if the Iraq war is a battle in the war on terror or a individual war in its own right. I just wanted to point out that the US is not fighting a holy war or Crusade like you make it sound. If you want to debate this point please start another thread this one has gone off track quite abit already.

A better phrase would be, "The US is waging a war,(or wars) in the Islamic world."

Oh yes Majsju what do you think of the MSM treatment of Palin?



#33 The Goblin Queen

The Goblin Queen
  • Members
  • 4,366 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:MN

Posted 06 September 2008 - 07:46 PM

Why do you ignore the full comment where she clarifies her statement by saying that she would not fight for it to be in the curriculum? She just did not want it to be banned from the classroom so it can be discussed if the topic arose during discussion.


It is not science.  Time in the science classroom should not be wasted 'discussing it', and the topic should never arise.

A) She has only been in the national spotlight for 6 days, during which she has been having to defend herself from nasty and mean spirited attacks from liberals. When would this topic have come up?


HHS has been in the news since July.  Her anti-woman views are well known.  She's had plenty of time to speak out on it.

B) Why would she condemn something which is a fabrication in your mind?


Google Sarah Palin and birth control.  It's a major issue.

C) Palin (the GOP VP canidate) has more experience than the Democrat Presidental canidate.


Yeah, except for the whole 'that's complete bullshit' thing.  I mean, seriously, Palin flat out said she doesn't know what the VP does.  High school textbook stuff.

I think all this violent hatred that Democrats feel for Palin is a manifestation of the fear that they feel.


Oh yes, the fear that the GOP wants to codify their Christian beliefs into law and are misogynistic to their core.  It's not paranoia when it's true dear.  You are living proof.  You think it is 'hateful' to suggest a man stay home with the kid instead of making his wife take a child in the most attention needing year of their life to a job that requires her full attention.  Frankly, I don't want a person in the VP chair who is going to have a kid in a carseat sitting next to her desk distracting her from important work because she is too misogynistic to even consider the possibility of her husband taking some parental responsibility.

Palin is an insult.  McCain paraded her around to the Hillary supporters thinking women were too stupid to look beyond her boobs and actually research her views.  Frankly, there was a chance I'd have voted for him until he pulled this stunt.

The Democrats tout that Obama is a great Leader. But how much leadership can a guy have when he explicitly says, "Family is off-limits." and his supporters continued to pour on the personal family attacks against his wishes. What kind of leadership can a guy have when his "supporters" ignore his explicit commands? How can he lead a nation when he cannot even lead his campaign?


Could ask a lot of the same questions about McCain.  You know, like his 'it's not about race' thing while his supporters are making racist remarks.  Huh, there goes that GOP hypocrisy again.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122057381593001741.html?mod=djemEditorialPage


Nice little work of sensationalism from the opinion page.  Wonder how the actual facts hold up?

#34 Hokus Grey

Hokus Grey
  • Members
  • 39 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 07 September 2008 - 07:57 AM


Hokus, the typical Republican does not believe that the environment can be damaged my human intervention. They probably views pipelines as mans victory over the pesky Mother Earth.


Anwar is 19 million acres big. Why can't we drill in 2,000 acres of it, like most republicans are suggesting, why? I doubt those 2,000 acres would have any dramatic effect on the wildlife.

EDIT: Also I'm a republican who actually will consider Global Warming as fact. But the thing that pisses me off about most Democrats, is that there willing to but a scenitfic theory above the nation's national security and our stuggling economy. We need to get our energy from somewhere leakage or no leakage. Although, we need to do what we can to stop leakage.


It's a fact that our dependence on fossil fuels isn't going to end with the end of the election. If we've been using oil for 100 years, it's gonna take a few decades to get into new tech. and make it viable. Obama seems to be saying that it will take sacrifices to move from a US dependence on foreign oil and move to more sustainable fuels and tech. This is funamentally true and McCain seems to think that he can say that giving tax breaks to the ultra-wealthy will do the same thing. It's simply not true. If 8 years of tax breaks haven't done it, why will 4 more? On the VP note, Palin seems to be in this so that if the Republicans lose the election, they have a scapegoat. They love a good scapegoat. I'm sorry, but I feel this election may do more to weaken the US by driving individual citizens apart through the "Culture War", so the media has called it. Divide and conquer, who's really gonna benefit?

#35 Perrin 187

Perrin 187
  • Members
  • 278 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 07 September 2008 - 11:39 AM



Hokus, the typical Republican does not believe that the environment can be damaged my human intervention. They probably views pipelines as mans victory over the pesky Mother Earth.


Anwar is 19 million acres big. Why can't we drill in 2,000 acres of it, like most republicans are suggesting, why? I doubt those 2,000 acres would have any dramatic effect on the wildlife.

EDIT: Also I'm a republican who actually will consider Global Warming as fact. But the thing that pisses me off about most Democrats, is that there willing to but a scenitfic theory above the nation's national security and our stuggling economy. We need to get our energy from somewhere leakage or no leakage. Although, we need to do what we can to stop leakage.


It's a fact that our dependence on fossil fuels isn't going to end with the end of the election. If we've been using oil for 100 years, it's gonna take a few decades to get into new tech. and make it viable. Obama seems to be saying that it will take sacrifices to move from a US dependence on foreign oil and move to more sustainable fuels and tech. This is funamentally true and McCain seems to think that he can say that giving tax breaks to the ultra-wealthy will do the same thing. It's simply not true. If 8 years of tax breaks haven't done it, why will 4 more? On the VP note, Palin seems to be in this so that if the Republicans lose the election, they have a scapegoat. They love a good scapegoat. I'm sorry, but I feel this election may do more to weaken the US by driving individual citizens apart through the "Culture War", so the media has called it. Divide and conquer, who's really gonna benefit?

Obama hasn't done anything on the issue except vote present and blame Bush. He still doesn't want to drill or consider nuclear energy or anything like that.

McCain stated at the Saddleback forum and the RNC that we need to drill, go nuclear, go wind, go solar, etc... He supports drilling off shore and his running mate Palin wants to drill on those 2,000 acres in Anwar,(even though McCain disagrees with her on that issue).

Pelosi blocked a vote in Congress for oil and energy production that even moderate democrats supported. The Republicans even staged a protest to allow such a vote while the democrats went on vacation.

After hearing all this who do you think has a better grasp on the energy issue, McCain or Obama?

Also raising taxes on them would just give Big Oil another excuse to raise the prices since they have to keep up with taxes. If it weren't for the Tax Cuts we'd be in a depression.

Yes, Obama wants to cut the middle class citzens taxes but raise them on the upper class who would then be forced to cut jobs and production do to the taxes. Thus he would still harm the middle class who would lose a lot of their jobs and increase cost of common day goods.

Republicans don't want to tax the middle class and give low taxes to the upper class,(like dems want you to believe) they just want relatively low taxes for everybody and no class warfare. You can't find a economist who would advise raising taxes on anybody, rich or poor.

There is one main thing that is making this economy sh!t. Energy. And I think as I have stated above McCain is right, on the issue. 

Also how would Palin be a scapegoat?    

#36 Perrin 187

Perrin 187
  • Members
  • 278 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 07 September 2008 - 01:39 PM

Why do you ignore the full comment where she clarifies her statement by saying that she would not fight for it to be in the curriculum? She just did not want it to be banned from the classroom so it can be discussed if the topic arose during discussion.


It is not science.  Time in the science classroom should not be wasted 'discussing it', and the topic should never arise.

A) She has only been in the national spotlight for 6 days, during which she has been having to defend herself from nasty and mean spirited attacks from liberals. When would this topic have come up?


HHS has been in the news since July.  Her anti-woman views are well known.  She's had plenty of time to speak out on it.

B) Why would she condemn something which is a fabrication in your mind?


Google Sarah Palin and birth control.  It's a major issue.

C) Palin (the GOP VP canidate) has more experience than the Democrat Presidental canidate.


Yeah, except for the whole 'that's complete bullshit' thing.  I mean, seriously, Palin flat out said she doesn't know what the VP does.  High school textbook stuff.

I think all this violent hatred that Democrats feel for Palin is a manifestation of the fear that they feel.


Oh yes, the fear that the GOP wants to codify their Christian beliefs into law and are misogynistic to their core.  It's not paranoia when it's true dear.  You are living proof.  You think it is 'hateful' to suggest a man stay home with the kid instead of making his wife take a child in the most attention needing year of their life to a job that requires her full attention.  Frankly, I don't want a person in the VP chair who is going to have a kid in a carseat sitting next to her desk distracting her from important work because she is too misogynistic to even consider the possibility of her husband taking some parental responsibility.

Palin is an insult.  McCain paraded her around to the Hillary supporters thinking women were too stupid to look beyond her boobs and actually research her views.  Frankly, there was a chance I'd have voted for him until he pulled this stunt.

The Democrats tout that Obama is a great Leader. But how much leadership can a guy have when he explicitly says, "Family is off-limits." and his supporters continued to pour on the personal family attacks against his wishes. What kind of leadership can a guy have when his "supporters" ignore his explicit commands? How can he lead a nation when he cannot even lead his campaign?


Could ask a lot of the same questions about McCain.  You know, like his 'it's not about race' thing while his supporters are making racist remarks.  Huh, there goes that GOP hypocrisy again.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122057381593001741.html?mod=djemEditorialPage


Nice little work of sensationalism from the opinion page.  Wonder how the actual facts hold up?

I really doubt McCain picked her just to get Clinton supporters. He picked her because she's a reformer and bipartiasn and conservative,(like himself).

Also about conservative racist remarks on other websites, why do you use that to justify the ridiclous sexist remarks against the woman. Two wrongs don't make a right. Why not put your partianship aside and just condem both actions and say both are appaling. I hate the racist remarks agianst Obama and things like "he's a muslim" and tell conservatives I meet who say that, to shut up. My point is don't use the others side's wrondoing to justify your wrongdoing when both are equally bad. Just call evil what it is, regardless of its partianship. 

#37 SamVimes

SamVimes
  • Members
  • 8,859 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nashville, TN

Posted 07 September 2008 - 09:16 PM

Palin is an insult.


Yes, she is an insult to the Feminist Establishment since she has been able to accomplish more by her own strength and skill than they have been able to accomplish in 100 years. The Feminist hate her because she did not need their backing to achieve what she has been able to achieve. So yes, she is an insult and I love it.

McCain is actually almost inline with the Democrats when it comes to Global Warming and Immigration. He believes in Man-made Global Warming and would give Illegals a path to citizenship. The only difference when it comes to energy policy is that McCain would have us drill for more oil while increasing research and development in alternative energy while Obama would have use only R&D without any more oil sources.



#38 Hokus Grey

Hokus Grey
  • Members
  • 39 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 08 September 2008 - 11:22 AM




Hokus, the typical Republican does not believe that the environment can be damaged my human intervention. They probably views pipelines as mans victory over the pesky Mother Earth.


Anwar is 19 million acres big. Why can't we drill in 2,000 acres of it, like most republicans are suggesting, why? I doubt those 2,000 acres would have any dramatic effect on the wildlife.

EDIT: Also I'm a republican who actually will consider Global Warming as fact. But the thing that pisses me off about most Democrats, is that there willing to but a scenitfic theory above the nation's national security and our stuggling economy. We need to get our energy from somewhere leakage or no leakage. Although, we need to do what we can to stop leakage.


It's a fact that our dependence on fossil fuels isn't going to end with the end of the election. If we've been using oil for 100 years, it's gonna take a few decades to get into new tech. and make it viable. Obama seems to be saying that it will take sacrifices to move from a US dependence on foreign oil and move to more sustainable fuels and tech. This is funamentally true and McCain seems to think that he can say that giving tax breaks to the ultra-wealthy will do the same thing. It's simply not true. If 8 years of tax breaks haven't done it, why will 4 more? On the VP note, Palin seems to be in this so that if the Republicans lose the election, they have a scapegoat. They love a good scapegoat. I'm sorry, but I feel this election may do more to weaken the US by driving individual citizens apart through the "Culture War", so the media has called it. Divide and conquer, who's really gonna benefit?

Obama hasn't done anything on the issue except vote present and blame Bush. He still doesn't want to drill or consider nuclear energy or anything like that.

McCain stated at the Saddleback forum and the RNC that we need to drill, go nuclear, go wind, go solar, etc... He supports drilling off shore and his running mate Palin wants to drill on those 2,000 acres in Anwar,(even though McCain disagrees with her on that issue).

Pelosi blocked a vote in Congress for oil and energy production that even moderate democrats supported. The Republicans even staged a protest to allow such a vote while the democrats went on vacation.

After hearing all this who do you think has a better grasp on the energy issue, McCain or Obama?

Also raising taxes on them would just give Big Oil another excuse to raise the prices since they have to keep up with taxes. If it weren't for the Tax Cuts we'd be in a depression.

Yes, Obama wants to cut the middle class citzens taxes but raise them on the upper class who would then be forced to cut jobs and production do to the taxes. Thus he would still harm the middle class who would lose a lot of their jobs and increase cost of common day goods.

Republicans don't want to tax the middle class and give low taxes to the upper class,(like dems want you to believe) they just want relatively low taxes for everybody and no class warfare. You can't find a economist who would advise raising taxes on anybody, rich or poor.

There is one main thing that is making this economy sh!t. Energy. And I think as I have stated above McCain is right, on the issue. 

Also how would Palin be a scapegoat?    


If the Republicans don't win the White House, who else would they blame?

#39 Perrin 187

Perrin 187
  • Members
  • 278 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 08 September 2008 - 01:39 PM





Hokus, the typical Republican does not believe that the environment can be damaged my human intervention. They probably views pipelines as mans victory over the pesky Mother Earth.


Anwar is 19 million acres big. Why can't we drill in 2,000 acres of it, like most republicans are suggesting, why? I doubt those 2,000 acres would have any dramatic effect on the wildlife.

EDIT: Also I'm a republican who actually will consider Global Warming as fact. But the thing that pisses me off about most Democrats, is that there willing to but a scenitfic theory above the nation's national security and our stuggling economy. We need to get our energy from somewhere leakage or no leakage. Although, we need to do what we can to stop leakage.


It's a fact that our dependence on fossil fuels isn't going to end with the end of the election. If we've been using oil for 100 years, it's gonna take a few decades to get into new tech. and make it viable. Obama seems to be saying that it will take sacrifices to move from a US dependence on foreign oil and move to more sustainable fuels and tech. This is funamentally true and McCain seems to think that he can say that giving tax breaks to the ultra-wealthy will do the same thing. It's simply not true. If 8 years of tax breaks haven't done it, why will 4 more? On the VP note, Palin seems to be in this so that if the Republicans lose the election, they have a scapegoat. They love a good scapegoat. I'm sorry, but I feel this election may do more to weaken the US by driving individual citizens apart through the "Culture War", so the media has called it. Divide and conquer, who's really gonna benefit?

Obama hasn't done anything on the issue except vote present and blame Bush. He still doesn't want to drill or consider nuclear energy or anything like that.

McCain stated at the Saddleback forum and the RNC that we need to drill, go nuclear, go wind, go solar, etc... He supports drilling off shore and his running mate Palin wants to drill on those 2,000 acres in Anwar,(even though McCain disagrees with her on that issue).

Pelosi blocked a vote in Congress for oil and energy production that even moderate democrats supported. The Republicans even staged a protest to allow such a vote while the democrats went on vacation.

After hearing all this who do you think has a better grasp on the energy issue, McCain or Obama?

Also raising taxes on them would just give Big Oil another excuse to raise the prices since they have to keep up with taxes. If it weren't for the Tax Cuts we'd be in a depression.

Yes, Obama wants to cut the middle class citzens taxes but raise them on the upper class who would then be forced to cut jobs and production do to the taxes. Thus he would still harm the middle class who would lose a lot of their jobs and increase cost of common day goods.

Republicans don't want to tax the middle class and give low taxes to the upper class,(like dems want you to believe) they just want relatively low taxes for everybody and no class warfare. You can't find a economist who would advise raising taxes on anybody, rich or poor.

There is one main thing that is making this economy sh!t. Energy. And I think as I have stated above McCain is right, on the issue. 

Also how would Palin be a scapegoat?    


If the Republicans don't win the White House, who else would they blame?

I would blame Bush. Even to republicans he's had a bad presidency. He handled the Iraq War wrong early on, didn't get Bin Laden, turned into a liberal on spending which sent the dollar and nationa debt to hell. Sent out a stupid "stimulous package to help the economy", didn't allow even the smallest increase in energy production till just recently,(he didn't do it when gas was over $4:00)...etc

There have been only two major success for the Bush adminstartion from the republican point of view, education,(Laura mentioned it at RNC) and defense.

And because of all his stupid mistakes, McCain is going to get pinned as Bush three. When he disagrees with Bush on plenty of major issues. I know your going to say he voted with Bush 90% of the time. Remeber most republicans voted with Bush unamiously and most of those issues are small and commensense stuff. Hell if I'm not mistaken Obama has voted with Bush 70% of the time because the congress spends most of the time talking about trivial and basic stuff.

#40 Hokus Grey

Hokus Grey
  • Members
  • 39 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 08 September 2008 - 03:10 PM






Hokus, the typical Republican does not believe that the environment can be damaged my human intervention. They probably views pipelines as mans victory over the pesky Mother Earth.


Anwar is 19 million acres big. Why can't we drill in 2,000 acres of it, like most republicans are suggesting, why? I doubt those 2,000 acres would have any dramatic effect on the wildlife.

EDIT: Also I'm a republican who actually will consider Global Warming as fact. But the thing that pisses me off about most Democrats, is that there willing to but a scenitfic theory above the nation's national security and our stuggling economy. We need to get our energy from somewhere leakage or no leakage. Although, we need to do what we can to stop leakage.


It's a fact that our dependence on fossil fuels isn't going to end with the end of the election. If we've been using oil for 100 years, it's gonna take a few decades to get into new tech. and make it viable. Obama seems to be saying that it will take sacrifices to move from a US dependence on foreign oil and move to more sustainable fuels and tech. This is funamentally true and McCain seems to think that he can say that giving tax breaks to the ultra-wealthy will do the same thing. It's simply not true. If 8 years of tax breaks haven't done it, why will 4 more? On the VP note, Palin seems to be in this so that if the Republicans lose the election, they have a scapegoat. They love a good scapegoat. I'm sorry, but I feel this election may do more to weaken the US by driving individual citizens apart through the "Culture War", so the media has called it. Divide and conquer, who's really gonna benefit?

Obama hasn't done anything on the issue except vote present and blame Bush. He still doesn't want to drill or consider nuclear energy or anything like that.

McCain stated at the Saddleback forum and the RNC that we need to drill, go nuclear, go wind, go solar, etc... He supports drilling off shore and his running mate Palin wants to drill on those 2,000 acres in Anwar,(even though McCain disagrees with her on that issue).

Pelosi blocked a vote in Congress for oil and energy production that even moderate democrats supported. The Republicans even staged a protest to allow such a vote while the democrats went on vacation.

After hearing all this who do you think has a better grasp on the energy issue, McCain or Obama?

Also raising taxes on them would just give Big Oil another excuse to raise the prices since they have to keep up with taxes. If it weren't for the Tax Cuts we'd be in a depression.

Yes, Obama wants to cut the middle class citzens taxes but raise them on the upper class who would then be forced to cut jobs and production do to the taxes. Thus he would still harm the middle class who would lose a lot of their jobs and increase cost of common day goods.

Republicans don't want to tax the middle class and give low taxes to the upper class,(like dems want you to believe) they just want relatively low taxes for everybody and no class warfare. You can't find a economist who would advise raising taxes on anybody, rich or poor.

There is one main thing that is making this economy sh!t. Energy. And I think as I have stated above McCain is right, on the issue. 

Also how would Palin be a scapegoat?    


If the Republicans don't win the White House, who else would they blame?

I would blame Bush. Even to republicans he's had a bad presidency. He handled the Iraq War wrong early on, didn't get Bin Laden, turned into a liberal on spending which sent the dollar and nationa debt to hell. Sent out a stupid "stimulous package to help the economy", didn't allow even the smallest increase in energy production till just recently,(he didn't do it when gas was over $4:00)...etc

There have been only two major success for the Bush adminstartion from the republican point of view, education,(Laura mentioned it at RNC) and defense.

And because of all his stupid mistakes, McCain is going to get pinned as Bush three. When he disagrees with Bush on plenty of major issues. I know your going to say he voted with Bush 90% of the time. Remeber most republicans voted with Bush unamiously and most of those issues are small and commensense stuff. Hell if I'm not mistaken Obama has voted with Bush 70% of the time because the congress spends most of the time talking about trivial and basic stuff.


Makes sense, I just can't help feeling that Palin is a sheep in wolf's clothing.