McCain-Palin 08 victory?

[nbachris2788]

<p>

Obama wants to inflate tires

</p>

<p>This automatically disqualifies pugfug90 as a serious analyst. He’s just processing Bill O’Reilly’s programming chip.</p>

[OrangeGlove]

<p>So increasing government funding for a high-demand issue is considered excess? </p>

<p>I’m not asking that the government spout out cash for alternative energy, but maybe to reallocate the grant funds we already have from petroleum-based research to more alternative energy. Or an increase of both? Again, highly doubt that Palin would be in favor of govt. patronage in regards to research (perhaps for big oil… but I digress…). </p>

<p>Fact is, on energy, domestic drilling is the only difference between the candidates. Some like putting on that type of show… some of us are sick of it. </p>

<p>–let’s the partisan people battle out their differences while eating a delicious bucket of popcorn–</p>

[Cervantes]

<p>

There’s a difference between changing your positions to accomodate the realities of the situation and changing your positions to pander to a demographic. Obama ran partly as a netsroot leftist favorite that would’ve risen above partisan politics, yet he’s now a slight left of center Dem that will seek to destroy the Republican party by way of domination of the Senate, the House, and the presidency. scary.

</p>

<p>Wait, like Bush sought to destroy the Democrats until 2006 by dominating the Senate, House, and Presidency? Look, Republicans have been clamoring for employing their “ideology” for 25 years. Finally they got control of everything and look what happened! Almost no one thinks this country is on the right track! I want you to answer whether the Iraq war is worth it and if we should get out of the war since we’re wasting so much money. You still haven’t answered it. And this election is about Obama not Kerry.</p>

[pugfug90]

<p>Well, Orange, what don’t you like about McCain’s plan compared to Obama’s?
[John</a> McCain 2008 - John McCain for President](<a href=“http://www.johnmccain.com//Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm]John”>http://www.johnmccain.com//Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm)</p>

<p>Chris, what part of my argument do you disagree? Obama did not want to drill offshore. He proposed inflating tires as “having the same effect”. I disagree with Obama. McCain mocked Obama, but didn’t dismiss tire inflation. He dimissed Obama’s naivety in not even considering drilling as part of the solution, so that we’ll have our own stuff to use, not behing held hostage to other nation’s resources.</p>

[swish14]

<p>I think McCain thought he was picking Sarah Palin to be his third wife, not VP. Its about time for him to trade in for a newer model. Thats the only logical way he could have made this decision.</p>

[Cervantes]

<p>Actually drilling offshore will have the same effect. Do you know how long it will take to find the oil assuming there is any? Most experts don’t think it will have an appreciable effect on oil prices. Indeed inflating our tires well will have the same effect (relatively small) as offshore drilling. At least inflating your tires doesn’t harm nature. Obama wants to develop alternative energy sources by investing in the industries and universities. Again, there is no easy answer to this problem to be perfectly honest. Neither Obama nor McCain can say with certainty what is a good plan and to be honest, if you seriously expect significant progress towards our oil crisis in either President’s tenure you’re woefully mistaken. I was listening to NPR and a scientist who is an expert on this issue said even with the most optimistic estimates to reduce our foreign dependency on oil to 40% of what it is originally we’ll have to reduce our oil consumption to that of 1965! Not happening. No easy answers-off shore drilling is a very short term answer. Watch Dr. Bartlett’s lecture on youtube on exponential growth for understanding why “finding new resources” is quickly becoming a virtually impossible answer for satisfying our energy needs. It sounds apocalyptic but if you understand the law of exponential growth you’d understand. We have to develop new energy technologies and fast.</p>

<p>Watch this video (not just pugfug90 everyone), it’s long but you’ll get into it very soon (it is very interesting) and if you understand middle school math you’ll be able to understand it:</p>

<p>[YouTube</a> - The Most IMPORTANT Video You’ll Ever See (part 1 of 8)](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY)</p>

[pugfug90]

<p>I remember that Bush guy
[Salon</a> News | “I’m a uniter, not a divider”](<a href=“http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/05/06/bush/]Salon”>http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/05/06/bush/)
Scary, the parallels are astonishing. Both want the other party dead. Both claimed to be uniters but have no resume to show for it. Both are also dumb. [YouTube</a> - Obama gaffe](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxBX8sz3tO8]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxBX8sz3tO8) </p>

<p>Okay, since you’ve stopped rambling and actually directly asked, NOW that we have intelligence suggesting Iraq wasn’t such a threat, I wouldn’t have. But being practical, at the time, we just faced terrorist attacks. This crazy man won’t let us go in and inspect his weapons. Screw him, we’re invading. I don’t feel America has to be apologetic at all.</p>

<p>If you have a history as a tyrant and we just want to make sure you aren’t doing funny stuff, and you won’t let us check your stuff, we will bomb you.</p>

<p>Even Obama realizes this, which is why he said he wasn’t sure, because he wasn’t privy to intelligence reports.</p>

<p>YOUR Democratic party also fell in step with Bush and realized the potential grave threat and pushed the resolution over the edge to enable to let Bush do what he wants.</p>

<p>So, no one really knew. We were threatened. Would you be like an atheist and maybe be right and be food for worms, or would you be like a religious person, and try to avoid hell :D</p>

<p>Oh yeah, you want to know if we should get out. We should get out when it’s appropriate. It’s stupid to say we should get out NOW. stupid.</p>

<p>On the Iraq war, McCain has shown wisdom, criticizing the direction of the war, Rumsfield, supporting the surge when many wanted to withdraw.</p>

<p>:)</p>

[Cervantes]

<p>

So, no one really knew. We were threatened. Would you be like an atheist and maybe be right and be food for worms, or would you be like a religious person, and try to avoid hell

Although I’m a Christian, Flying spaghetti monster anyone? This theory basically states that Pascal’s Wager (which is what you’re proposing) is not logically sound.</p>

<p>

Oh yeah, you want to know if we should get out. We should get out when it’s appropriate. It’s stupid to say we should get out NOW. stupid.

</p>

<p>Obviously we can’t leave today. But we should start today. And cut our losses. Not only Obama agrees on a timetable, Iraq does, even Bush does, and soon McCain will (or maybe he already does). However Obama and the Dems was the first to suggest it.</p>

<p>

This crazy man won’t let us go in and inspect his weapons. Screw him, we’re invading. I don’t feel America has to be apologetic at all.

</p>

<p>Please apply this advice to North Korea or to China or to Iran. You can’t do it. Why can’t Iraq ask to inspect our weapons? Who are we to say we can inspect their weapons? Anyway there are some people who think that Bush already knew about the sparse evidence and regardless of he did-it is Bush’s job to know-he’s President.</p>

<p>

On the Iraq war, McCain has shown wisdom, criticizing the direction of the war, Rumsfield, supporting the surge when many wanted to withdraw.

</p>

<p>By voting for it?</p>

[OrangeGlove]

<p>pugfug</p>

<p>I happen to be one of those tree-hugging hippies that actually cares about global warming and disagrees with Governor Palin when it comes to lax environmental regulation. Oh, not to mention, I happen to believe that this couple-hundred period of rapid human industrialization and deforestation just MIGHT have had an impact on our environment… just maybe…</p>

<p>And I never said I supported Obama either. However, I believe he would take greater measures when it comes to federally funding alternative energy research (because that falls within his party’s doctrines). He also doesn’t affiliate himself with big oil (which I feel McCain’s pick of Palin kind of does, not because she’s in bed with the oil companies necessarily, but because she is head of a state where they are the answer). </p>

<p>–goes to get some Skittles–</p>

[Cervantes]

<p>

Palin kind of does, not because she’s in bed with the oil companies necessarily

</p>

<p>She is though, quite literally!
[Todd</a> Palin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Palin]Todd”>Todd Palin - Wikipedia)</p>

[OrangeGlove]

<p>Well, I didn’t wanna sound that harsh, lol…</p>

[pugfug90]

<p>Well Orange, I enjoy the pristineness of the natural landscape too. If there was energy cheaper than oil, of course I wouldn’t be in favor of oil. But I believe that we should place priorities on people over animals.</p>

<p>[anwr.org</a> - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge](<a href=“http://www.anwr.org/topten.htm]anwr.org”>http://www.anwr.org/topten.htm)
0.5% ANWR. I’m just saying.</p>

<h1>I too believe that Obama would supports lots of “green spending” but that’s not the kind of policy I believe in.</h1>

<p>How is it not rational to try to prevent something from possibly happening rather than hoping it won’t happen?</p>

<p>“(or maybe he already does)”</p>

<p>That’s your problem, you don’t care for the facts, you just know the Republicans are scum scum scum and they need a hurricane to destroy them. </p>

<p>Yes, they’ve suggested and wanted to pull out for a long time. It’s a good thing they didn’t because the surge has worked [McCain</a> insists Iraq surge is working - John McCain News - MSNBC.com](<a href=“http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23991476/]McCain”>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23991476/) Imagine what would’ve happened if they withdrew earlier.</p>

<p>[Obama</a> says he would withdraw from Iraq by end-2008 | Politics | Reuters](<a href=“http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1222671620070912]Obama”>Obama says he would withdraw from Iraq by end-2008 | Reuters)
[US</a> election: Barack Obama wobbles on withdrawing Iraq troops - Telegraph](<a href=“http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2243536/US-election-Barack-Obama-wobbles-on-withdrawing-Iraq-troops.html]US”>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2243536/US-election-Barack-Obama-wobbles-on-withdrawing-Iraq-troops.html)</p>

<p>Phew! You’re right, it’s a good thing that as you said, we shouldn’t leave today, though Obama was clamoring for out by the end of 2008.</p>

<p>McCain is not against getting out of Iraq, he’s against getting out at the wrong time.</p>

<p>N. Korea, Iran, were trying to get bad stuff. Iraq had a history of using them and possibly in possession of graver weapons. In contrast, China, though suspicious, acts defensively, unlike these other countries. We will kick anybody’s asses though if don’t fall in line… I’m fine with that :D</p>

<p>… I thought we already went over this. I don’t see how you refuted what I said. I already acknowledged that McCain voted for it, but Obama might’ve also, the Dems did too, and they had reason to. Get over it!! The party of affirmative action ain’t that great.</p>

<p>[Sarah</a> Palin backs drilling but has tangled with Big Oil. - Aug. 29, 2008](<a href=“http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/29/news/newsmakers/palin_oil.fortune/index.htm]Sarah”>Sarah Palin backs drilling but has tangled with Big Oil. - Aug. 29, 2008)
[Energy</a> Wire: PostGlobal at washingtonpost.com](<a href=“http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/energywire/2008/08/sarah_palin_and_big_oil.html]Energy”>http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/energywire/2008/08/sarah_palin_and_big_oil.html)
Wouldn’t give into big oil, taxed them, yeah big oil proponent..;)</p>

[screwitlah]

<p>

N. Korea, Iran, were trying to get bad stuff. Iraq had a history of using them and possibly in possession of graver weapons. In contrast, China, though suspicious, acts defensively, unlike these other countries. We will kick anybody’s asses though if don’t fall in line… I’m fine with that

</p>

<p>define “bad stuff” and explain how what USA’s doing ain’t “bad stuff”. USA ain’t “bad” just because it’s your country? USA has a history of using them too… and duh USA does possess graver weapons. it’s probably ahead of everyone else in that regard. so let’s send weapon inspectors to your country even though you’ve never used those weapons and only POSSESS them.</p>

<p>

We will kick anybody’s asses though if don’t fall in line… I’m fine with that

</p>

<p>your whole reasoning is wrong, and now you just sound immature. before you try to get everyone to focus on your reasoning, could you PROVIDE some?</p>

[Cervantes]

<p>

… I thought we already went over this. I don’t see how you refuted what I said. I already acknowledged that McCain voted for it, but Obama might’ve also, the Dems did too, and they had reason to. Get over it!! The party of affirmative action ain’t that great.

</p>

<p>The Dems are known for much more than the party of AA. I’m sorry you didn’t get into a good college! Now for the important part. We can’t be 100% sure if Obama would have voted for the war in Iraq had he been in Senate-however his first judgment on the Iraq War was correct to a T. Just listen to his anti-war speech made in October of 2002.</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama’s_Iraq_Speech"&gt;http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama’s_Iraq_Speech&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.</p>

<p>I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

</p>

<p>and </p>

<p>

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.</p>

<p>You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.</p>

<p>You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.</p>

<p>You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.</p>

<p>Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance, corruption and greed, poverty and despair.

</p>

<p>You have to admit, he predicted the future with lock-on judgment. You can’t argue that. He didn’t make this up or go to a Psychic I can tell you that! Why don’t you want a President with such wisdom? I know I would!</p>

[Cervantes]

<p>

How is it not rational to try to prevent something from possibly happening rather than hoping it won’t happen?

</p>

<p>So if someone says that aliens are coming in 10 years would you implore the government to mass an army of enormous strength to combat them? I don’t think so because it isn’t probable in the extreme. pugfug90, it is the Presidents responsibility to know. Its not mine, Obama’s, Kerry’s or even Cheney’s. It’s his! I know that seems like a very hard task and at times impossible, but being the President is a very hard task and at times impossible. It’s not for the faint at heart or the people who won’t find out the facts. You know you are responsible for the US when you took the oath. It isn’t a matter of fair or not, it’s a matter of results!</p>

[Dbate]

<p>

"You’re being extremely disingenuous because when it was just Obama and McCain, there was no bunk from you about “executive experience” and mere “senatorial experience”. McCain had gotten shot and had served a lifetime in the senate, and thus, it was your opinion that he was extremely qualified. Now that Palin is in the picture, you’re pretending that you were of the position beforehand that McCain’s long years in the senate were actually not that substantiative because now, you desperately need to prop up the hapless Sarah Palin. If McCain’s experience argument suffers a bit, then so be it, lest Palin becomes the Republican equivalent of Tom Eagleton.</p>

<p>Either you were lying and overstating McCain’s experience (the only thing he has, really) before, or you’re just trying to make the Palin pick better than it really is."

</p>

<p>Because when it was only McCain and Obama there was only one type of experience and that was senatorial, which McCain had more of. Now that Palin is the VP it adds another type of experience, experience that is more relatable to being the president and therefore she is mroe qualified then both, that is not being diseginious that is just a fact.</p>

<p>Again name 4 executive action Obama has done that had a real beneficial impact on ppl. If you can not offer four things, then do not respond.</p>

[Dbate]

<p>

"Palin doesn’t know what the Vice President does… </p>

<hr>

<p>dbate,
do you think one should know what the duties of the VP position consist of in order to be qualified for it? im sure one does. </p>

<p>you cannot possibly believe palin is a good choice if she herself admits that she does not know what a vice president does…</p>

<p>and please dont go into the rhetoric of finding a couple of exceptions that show how one doesnt need to know the certain responsibilities of a position to be qualified for it…</p>

<p>to become a qualified VP candidate of the United States of America, you need to know what that position does. period.
YouTube - Sarah Palin Interview: What does the VP do?"

</p>

<p>Read the whole quote:</p>

<p>“But as for that VP talk all the time, I’ll tell you, I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day? I’m used to being very productive and working real hard in an administration. We want to make sure that that VP slot would be a fruitful type of position, especially for Alaskans and for the things that we’re trying to accomplish up here for the rest of the U.S., before I can even start addressing that question.”</p>

<p>She said she was not sure what the VP did on a daily basis, and would like to be more fruitful and active in leading.</p>

[Cervantes]

<p>Dbate, tell me which law school McCain or Palin went to! If you cannot tell me which schools, then do not respond.</p>

<p>The point is, you aren’t willing to accept stuff as executive experience. And seriously, at this point, I and the majority of the American People DON’T CARE. So just stop asking that stupid question. It’s semi-relevant but it’s as relevant as a President going to Law school. Most go to law school, but it isn’t a prerequisite for experience or becoming a good President. So sheesh! Get some new points!</p>

[Dbate]

<p>You do not have to go to law school to be president. I am not sure what you are talking about there? George washington did not go to law school.</p>

<p>You want me to stop asking the question bc you do not have a response. It is a cope out admit it. I will stop asking when you admit that Obama has not made executive decisions.</p>

<p>But then in your earlier posts you were and others were attacking Palin bc she did not have experience, so I guess since experience does not matter, ppl should stop critizing her.</p>

[Cervantes]

<p>

You do not have to go to law school to be president. I am not sure what you are talking about there? George washington did not go to law school.</p>

<p>You want me to stop asking the question bc you do not have a response. It is a cope out admit it. I will stop asking when you admit that Obama has not made executive decisions.</p>

<p>But then in your earlier posts you were and others were attacking Palin bc she did not have experience, so I guess since experience does not matter, ppl should stop critizing her.

</p>

<p>You do not have to be governor to be president. I am not sure what you are talking about there? George Washington was never a governor (nor was Abe Lincoln). Yet both happened to be good Presidents.</p>

<p>I want you to stop asking the question bc it is barely relevant to the total experience someone has for being President. It’s about as relevant as going to law school. Most Presidents were governors and most Presidents in the modern age went to law school. Both helped but not that much in their leadership. I have said Obama made executive decisions however you don’t consider them as such. I think it counts as an executive decision yet you don’t. So I’m not admitting anything.</p>

<p>In my earlier posts we were criticizing her not just because of the nature of her experience but primarily the time she’s spent in public office. We don’t think 20 months of ANY experience (short of being President of course) is enough to become President. We won’t stop criticizing her because her time is way too small. I don’t care if she managed a small state for 20 months or managed the New York Giants for 20 months. It’s not enough time. Accomplishments count but so does time. That’s not sufficient experience. That’s why admissions officers care more about GPA than SAT. While a high SAT score is no doubt impressive a GPA was earned over 4 years while a SAT over 4 hours. </p>

<p>Do you finally get it now?</p>