By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - McCain VP Discussion

Kasz216 on 29 August 2008
Pristine20 said:
rocketpig said:
Pristine20 said:
rocketpig said:
Pristine20 said:

A) I think you overestimate the threat of other countries to the US. I don't think any country in their rightful mind would launch an attack on the USA...only terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. Maybe you're worried about Russia. Take note that WE are the ones provoking them by building missile detection facilities next to their borders (Poland) and providing advanced weapons tech to their neighbors (Georgia)...who's provoking who?

B) The US needs to stop wasting money trying to act as world police. If we don't stop borrowing money from China, no other type of change whatsoever would save us from economic catastrophe. We need to stop trying to ensure that we are the only superpower and make sure we help our own citizens first. We can't stop the Chinese. We're only helping them.

I couldn't even get a loan for my senior year at school but thanks to a partial scholarship and my six-month internship, I can still pay my tuition. I hate to think of the mess I'd be in if I wasn't on this internship.

 

After stating how you're against oil drilling in the US, I'm going to take this moment to point out how completely contradictory paragraphs A & B really are.

You don't want the US to be world police but you want us to keep buying oil from other countries. You don't want to drill within our borders but you don't seem to mind if other countries ruin their own environments while watching American jobs disappear that could be invested in our own oil industry. You want to make sure our citizens are secure, but you're willing to keep watching over 70% of our oil money leave the country to go to whatever tyrant has control of the well that day.

You can't have your cake and eat it, too. Sacrifices must be made in one area or another.

Actually with regards to energy, I don't mind seeing the oil prices stay high while we invest in alternative sources of energy and actually build half decent subways and public transit systems. In the meantime we can buy from the old oilfields instead of drilling new ones. Besides why is Exxon and the rest of the oil industry making so much profit while the rest of the US is falling apart?

I certainly donit like the idea of another oil industry insider (Palin) holding an executive position. Bush and Cheney were enough. Besides, America is govered along party lines. Bush has shown us what the GOP is all about. I don't know about you, but I certainly didn't enjoy it one bit. He lasted 8 years for that matter because of the same old gimmick issues. looks like we're going for another round.

Its funny how Putin accused the US of orchestrating the Georgia-Russia war to benefit one of their political parties ( a 3 a.m call to scare Americans right?). I'm wondering which party that was.

Okay, so you're perfectly fine with money possibly going to rogue states whose motives are, at best, uncertain. You don't mind if the environment is ruined so long as it's not yours. Check. You also don't seem to mind that oil prices are high and are going to go even higher due to China's overwhelming growth, even if it means an ever bigger burden for the average American. We won't see the results of alternative energy for at least a decade. It's good to know that you're willing to "take one for the team" and possibly push the country into serious problems for the forseeable future while we adjust to the energy crunch.

Palin is hardly an "oil insider". Isn't her husband just a contractor for BP? From what I've read of her, she's aggressively pushing new methods of oil extraction that are less damaging to the environment, albeit at a higher cost. That doesn't sound like an oil stooge to me.

And your continual comparison of John McCain to George Bush is tiresome. McCain is nothing like Bush and he's known for seeking out powerful Democrats to get something done, something that little Texan tyrant would never dream of doing. Let's give that line a rest, shall we?

Yeah...he was known...back then when he was somewhat of a centrist but now in he's desperate attempt to secure the conservative base, he has totally lost the qualities that made him a maverick. He actually voted against Bush's tax cuts for the rich saying he couldn't support them with a clear conscience. Whats he saying now?

As for the oil wells in other countries, they've already been dug. We cannot change that. But we can resist the idea of drilling new ones.

If we reduced our dependence on oil by actually taking steps in that direction and stopped exporting our jobs to them, China's growth would be less of a threat to us.

 

When he was against the Bush Tax cuts the economy was doing good.  Now the economy is doing poorly.

There is a widely accepted economic theory that suggests that when the economy is good, you tax the crap out of the rich and buisnesses because they can afford it... and when the economy is doing bad you cut that taxes of the rich and buisnesses so they can afford to create jobs.

As for Oil independence.... John McCain is for that... his economic energy plan is actually more feasable and doesn't rely on Corn based ethanol which is considered to be one of the big causes of the global food crisis.

 



Around the Network
rocketpig on 29 August 2008
ManusJustus said:
rocketpig said:
ManusJustus said: 

 Cuban Missile Crisis ring a bell?

Oh yeah, that time the Russian dude pounded his shoe on the table. Hilarious.

...

Again, seriously?

 

Just shows your lack of understanding.  The Cuban Missile Crisis was the closest America came to nuclear war with the Soviet Union.  Our military leaders were demanding action as they were preparing a naval blockade and airstrikes into Cuba all the while both sides had our nuclear missiles on standby.

Somehow, John F Kennedy saved us.

 

Yes, it shows my lack of understanding. JFK saved the world by ending a pissing contest that no one would have started because of assured mutual destruction.

That ranks way higher than the Great Depression, WWII, or the myriad of other problems this country has faced. Or, you know, the guys who actually formed this country. Washington, John Adams (who kept us out of a war with your country, I might add), and Thomas Jefferson ain't got shit on ol' Bullet Brain.

 




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

Kasz216 on 29 August 2008
Pristine20 said:
senseinobaka said:
Pristine20 said:
senseinobaka said:
Sarah Palin is younger and more experienced than Barrack. She compliments Mccain well. The only problem she suffers from is obscurity.

But the electoral votes Barrack was vying for in Alaska are gone, shes has like 90% approval there.

She also has a history of intolerance of corruption, including being a whistleblower against fellow party members. So she's a female candidate that doesnt suffer from the inability to tell the truth.

And best of all... MILF. :-p

I'm not singing her, praises, just pointing out how well the Mccain campaign tought this one thru. They really have made the general election an interesting fray.

Running a State of 680, 000 people doesn't qualify one to be president especially if old McCain suffers from any more cancers. The complexities of that state don't even hold a candle to a regular US city. Add the drill, drill, drill mentality with absolutely no regard for wildlife and a husband who works for bp (surprised?) and you have a recipe for disaster. God help the USA

 

blah blah freaking blah.

I never said she was extensivley experienced, I just said shes MORE experienced than Barrack Obama, which is 100% true. All you really did was show the glaring flaws in the Democratic Ticket. See, the one at the top is woefully inexperienced from your very own standards, at least Pailin is the VP pick, not the Presidential pick.

Also her policy on drilling is to use enivromentally safe albiet more expensive technologies.

And her husband is a fisherman by trade that contracts with BP in the off seasons to maintain some income. Contracters are not employees, I know, I am one.

 

 

 I was only trying to counter your attack on the democrats. Personally, I don't care for party or experience after how much prosperity the experience of the Bush/Cheney administration brought us. I just care for trying to improve this economy from the current mess its in and the democrats just seem like the way to go. I thought McCain would at least pick Romney but he chose to pander to Hillary's voters instead.

I have taken a couple of courses in environmental science. I've never heard of a way to drill thats enviromentally safe. Perhaps you could point out this miracle technology? Besides, drilling more oil doesn't really move us away from our extreme oil dependence.

Seriously you don't know about enivormentally safe drilling?

We sell that technology to all sorts of other countries.

First though probably not the best source.

http://www.napsnet.com/pdf_archive/99/63848.pdf

other sources

http://drillnow.net/index.php/environmentally-safe-drilling

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5710107.html

There are tons of them.  Enviromentally safe drilling is here.  Some minor accidents could happen, it's not like it's a gun that doesn't ever accidently shoot someone, but the actual scope of a drilling accident wouldn't be on a large scale like the old oil drilling ways.

No Santa Barbra oil spills will happen.  The most dangerous thing that could happen in oil drilling isn't anything related to the drilling.  It's national disasters like hurricanes causeing oil to spill... all the more reason we should be drilling in Alaska and not the gulf of mexico.



ManusJustus on 29 August 2008
rocketpig said:

Yes, it shows my lack of understanding. JFK saved the world by ending a pissing contest that no one would have started because of assured mutual destruction.

That ranks way higher than the Great Depression, WWII, or the myriad of other problems this country has faced.

 

 

I agree that it shows your lack of understanding.  All the top American leaders, except JFK, wanted a naval blockade and airstrikes into Cuba, which would have most likely caused the Soviets to answer back.  Read more about the politics of the Cuban Missile Crisis, specifically the stances of Americas decision makers at that time, to further your understanding of the topic.



rocketpig on 29 August 2008

I've read plenty about the CMC, thanks.

But I heartily appreciate your attempts to "educate" me on the history of my own country.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

Around the Network
ManusJustus on 29 August 2008
rocketpig said:
I've read plenty about the CMC, thanks.

But I heartily appreciate your attempts to "educate" me on the history of my own country.

 

Its been a while since I took geopolitics in college, so I have trouble remembering all the names.  I'll just copy something from wikipeida to express my point:

Unanimously, the Joint Chiefs of Staff agreed that a full-scale attack and invasion was the only solution. They agreed that the Soviets would not act to stop the U.S. from conquering Cuba; Kennedy was skeptical, saying:

They, no more than we, can let these things go by without doing something. They can't, after all their statements, permit us to take out their missiles, kill a lot of Russians, and then do nothing. If they don't take action in Cuba, they certainly will in Berlin.[20]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba_Missile_Crisis



mrstickball on 29 August 2008
Pristine20 said:

 I was only trying to counter your attack on the democrats. Personally, I don't care for party or experience after how much prosperity the experience of the Bush/Cheney administration brought us. I just care for trying to improve this economy from the current mess its in and the democrats just seem like the way to go. I thought McCain would at least pick Romney but he chose to pander to Hillary's voters instead.

I have taken a couple of courses in environmental science. I've never heard of a way to drill thats enviromentally safe. Perhaps you could point out this miracle technology? Besides, drilling more oil doesn't really move us away from our extreme oil dependence.

How do the democrats seem like the way to go on improving the economy? They won't even stay in the house of congress to vote on offshore drilling, because their vacations are far too important to fix the economy!

McCain isn't pandering to Hillary voters, he's pandering to end government corruption and go with a hardline ticket on smaller government.

Lets see what Palin has done:

  • Kicked out cabinet members that were corrupt 
  • Attacked other Republicans (Ted Stevens), who was involved in corrupt, and unethical activities
  • Cut $237 million in state spending from their budget
  • Is the highest-rated governor in the United States, reaching 90%

And maybe it's just me, but what's Obama's track record with getting stuff done in the Senate, again? Run on hope and change, that's fine. But actions speak louder than words. And I think Palin and McCain have done a great job of putting their money where their mouth is.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

rocketpig on 29 August 2008

I'm not arguing that Kennedy did a great job with the CMC. I'm arguing whether he was, as you put it, tied for the Greatest President Evah award.

In short, he's not. There are several Presidents that were far more influential and did far more for this country than JFK. The first three, for example. Washington somehow held this country together when they were little more than 13 rebellious colonies. Adams prevented a war with Britain. Jefferson, well, he's just a bad-ass.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

Kasz216 on 29 August 2008
ManusJustus said:
rocketpig said:
I've read plenty about the CMC, thanks.

But I heartily appreciate your attempts to "educate" me on the history of my own country.

 

Its been a while since I took geopolitics in college, so I have trouble remembering all the names.  I'll just copy something from wikipeida to express my point:

Unanimously, the Joint Chiefs of Staff agreed that a full-scale attack and invasion was the only solution. They agreed that the Soviets would not act to stop the U.S. from conquering Cuba; Kennedy was skeptical, saying:

They, no more than we, can let these things go by without doing something. They can't, after all their statements, permit us to take out their missiles, kill a lot of Russians, and then do nothing. If they don't take action in Cuba, they certainly will in Berlin.[20]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba_Missile_Crisis

You do know the Joint Chiefs of Staff are the heads of the US military... and not the important political leaders of the US right?

The Joint Cheifs of Staff's solution to everything is to invade it.

They'll suggest invading Pizza Hut if their pizza hasn't been delivered withing 30 minutes or less.

 



ManusJustus on 29 August 2008
mrstickball said:

McCain isn't pandering to Hillary voters, he's pandering to end government corruption and go with a hardline ticket on smaller government.

 

I hope you dont believe that.  Reminds me of any other fanboy statement on this forum, only this time its politics.  we all get riled up on politics though, and when emotion comes in lthe door logic goes out the window.

Its blantantly obvious that Obama chose Biden to counter McCain, making his ticket look more experienced by having a traditional white person on board.  McCain chose Palin to make his ticket look more youthful and inexperienced to counter Obama.