Kasz216 said:
Tispower1 said:
Kasz216 said:
superchunk said:
rocketpig said:
The difference being that Obama wanted a timeline no matter what shape the country was in.
Bush and McCain are now seeing the surge worked and that a pullout in 2010 or so is feasible.
One is reacting to a situation intelligently and with regard to Iraqi longevity, the other is selfish politicking.
Like I said, Obama wanted to pull out before the surge and fought against the surge. Now he wants to take credit for the idea of a 2010 pullout? Bullshit.
|
I never said I like 100% of Obama's ideas/stances. However, I like a hugely larger percentage than McCain's.
Things I dislike about Obama:
1. His stance against the surge and its now obvious successful period.
2. His stance on being pro-Israel. But, in reality every politician feels they have to thanks to AIPAC.
3. His stance on Ethenol and other fuels that would promote continued combustion engines. Electric FTW!, both are the same here.
Where as with McCain and his religious zealot VP I detest a lot of their stances.
|
McCain wants to get rid of the Ethanol Subsidies.
|
Frankly, that's a good thing. Ethanol is so short-sighted it's unbelievable. It requires so much land, land that is either used for forest (combat global warming), or food, so with ethanol it's either fuel, the earth, or food. There are other alternatives the US should be pushing for.
|
I agree getting rid of Ethanol is a good thing.
Just stating the point that he's against it. Also there seems to be some proof that it isn't even helping the enviroment due to all the oil it takes to make the stuff... and it's lower efficency. Now Sugarcane Ethanol.. at least has enviromental benefits.
The UN also thinks it's part of the global food crisis and call biofuels "Criminal."
McCain is also for less combustion energy as it is... promoting Nuclear electricity over Obama's plan for Coal Electricity. (like bush!)
Obama's energy policy is basically the biproduct of the lobbyists he picked up in Illnois. Big coal and ethanol companies are going to gain a lot from Obama's incresed importance placed on those fuels.
One of the countries biggest Ethanol and Coal producers. Though i'm not sure how that relates to car engines.
|
Nuclear power is a good choice for the time being, while other technologies are so far behind.
Yeah, I think I'd agree with the UN there, I think it's incredibly selfish for rich countries to use valuble food land just so they can have a bigger engined SUV, when people in poorer countries starve.
I would help the enviroment if it was planted on land that wasn't absorbing Co2, but it's likely that it will be planted where forest or farmland used to be.
