If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
GOP favorability: Lowest ever
"nobody" wrote in message ... On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 23:18:48 -0700, "Mike Laight" wrote: "nobody" wrote in message . .. On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 18:17:25 -0700, "Mike Laight" wrote: "nobody" wrote in message m... On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 21:52:26 -0700, "Mike Laight" wrote: (Snip) Senator Obama has repeatedly called for spending those tax breaks and subsidies on the next generations of energy sources and not on dumping more money down the oil wells. So, in other words, he has no plans whatsoever to help people who are losing ground financially *right now* due to the high cost of energy. All he seems to talk about are things that will happen some day yet we can't drill in Anwar because it would supposedly take ten yers to get the oil. president Bush this last week said that there is no way to lower prices in gthe short term. Senator McCain said the same in May, 2008. What is Senator McCainsJune, 2008 plan for what he said couldnot happen one month ago? Both Bush and McCain have been pushing for increased domestic oil production. Yes, this week Senator McCain flip-flopped on domestic drilling, while president Bush is now pushing it harder than he had been. Does it seem reasonable to you that Senator McCain has voted against every type of renewable energy and that he and President Bush agree that what we should do right now to get us off our oil addiction is to drill for more oil? While I have no enthusiasm for McCain. at least he appears to be open now to the option. Yes and no. Senator McCain says that he now, this month, is in favor of drilling on the coastal shelf but he has said repeatedly that domestic drilling will not change oil availability or pricing for many years and that it will never bring oil prices down substantially. I think he said a dollar amount that he believed it would affect our gasoline prices but I cannot say for sure. He has voted against every recent bill, upon which he has voted, not to fund any renewable energy programs or research. That is the place to start. You can then move forth into developing alternatives. To do as the Dems (and Obama) have been doing --- talk, talk, talk with no specific proposals guarantees no improvement in cost or real alternatives. You may not like or agree with Senator Obama's proposals but I am not an expert and I have seen several reports from reputable and somewhat objective "experts" that are in complete agreement with Senator Obama's energy proposals and other equally reputable and somewhat objective "experts" that are in complete agreement with the Bush/McCain proposals. Which experts agree with Obama and what specific alternatives are they agreeing with? I am not going down this street. It may be unfair of me to think this but in the past, on Usenet, when I would post cites like this then people would want to get into arguments over the relative value, reliability, and scientific accuracy of the respective experts. There are two things that seem axiomatic to me: 1 - At some point in time we will not have an option of using oil as an energy source. 2 - At some point in time we have to decide that it is in the best interest of this country to stop spending public funds and public resources to scrape along further using oil as an energy source. The disagreement is about when and what to do now. No argument there. I don't think of oil as the long term option. But to provide no relief for a suffering public while we talk about alterntives that are not even on the horizon borders on criminal. Well, in the last two weeks President Bush, Senator McCain, and Senator Obama have all said that there are no quick or easy solutions available. There are few things that each of these men have agreed on at nearly the same time. The Japanese seem to be putting a lot more resources into solving this problem than we are. The Chinese, Indians, and South and Central America's desire for oil is growing at a faster pace than is ours. In fact,our use has pretty much plateaued at a level that is below our peak usage. (This could be out of date data and I am too lazy to look up more recent data but at the very least this was true a couple years ago.) My point is that I want the US to spend a huge amount of money to at least catch up with the Japanese and then spend another huge amount to move ahead of them. I want to let oil companies stop getting subsidies and tax breaks for at least the next ten years. I want the US to spend huge amounts of money developing safe nuclear power systems and waste handling and perhaps settle our deficit by selling, building, and installing renewable power systems and safe nuclear power systems to every country in the world. Which Democrat has introduced a bill with proposals for new nuclear plants? I was not talking about any politicians in this paragraph. That is why so many of the sentences begin with "I want." This is the future, eventually, and Senator Obama talks about a very similar vision. I don't see anything about nuclear power on his web site. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/ I have not recently looked at Senator Obama's site to read his nuclear energy position. I thought he had made his position quite clear. Here is a youtube of a debate question about nuclear power, Senator Obama starts his answer at about 1:12 into the tape. He is preceded by Senator Edwards and followed by Senator Clinton. If you still want to talk about his position then let me know after you have had a chance to hear his words yourself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjDmyToTYBE *BTW* visiting his web site prevents you from using the "back" arrow to exit his site. You must close your browser. Poor design - although I suspect done on purpose. Oh, that crap absolutely drives me crazy. I tell companies, when their web site does that, they have lost my business for now. I always assume that if that happens to me the company wants it to happen. I do not remember that happening to me on Obam's website but I use a lot of windows and tabs when browsing so I probably just close his tab when I am done. When I listen to Senator McCain I think about something written by Robert Heinlein. He wrote about what it must have been like in the buggy whip business as cars started to become common and affordable. Heinlein wrote that it is likely that only the best buggy whip manufacturers were likely to survive as the market for buggy whips was shrinking. The last buggy whip companies probably took a great deal of pride in making the best buggy whips they could make. It used to be taught that one of the worst places for a business to be is in gaining market share in a shrinking market. I believe that Senator McCain is treating the energy problem in the same way as the buggy whip manufacturers. He is looking for the very best way he can find to address the problem of oil prices while not addressing that oil is going to be replaced as a source of energy. I only hope that we have the time to solve this problem before we have to start burning down the house for warmth. I don't think that's a fair analysis of McCain's position. He appears to be for oil to transition to alternatives -- the only realistic approach. http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/...f1468e96f4.htm You may be correct that it is an unfair analysis of Senator McCain's positions but it isn't really an analysis. Also, I have read the positions covered by Senator McCain's The Lexington Project energy policies and positions. No elected president is able to accomplish everything that they want to accomplish and frankly, I do not think any president could achieve all of the items listed on John McCain's position sheet concerning energy. Strangely, I was unable to find an energy position which Senator McCain is against. We have to evaluate which items our president really pushes and which fall by the wayside. When I listen to Senator McCain on the subject of energy he seems to become more excited when he talks about not sending money, through purchasing oil, to nations and regimes we dislike and on any other discussion of energy he seems to be somewhat out of energy. Senator Obama seems to be much more energized when talking about renewable energy sources and emergent technologies. Just my best guess and only time will tell if we elected a good choice. Mike |
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
GOP favorability: Lowest ever
"charley" wrote in message
... On Jun 30, 11:22 am, Governor Swill wrote: This is charley's brain on drugs: You really are an idiot. Conservatives have one TV outlet which is Fox.....libs have everything else including most print media.....libs are just stupid and depend on minorities for power....what's funny is the hierarchy of the democratic party is run by Whites. You really must be on drugs if you have failed to notice that almost all media has been bought by, and for the interests of, large corporations. Large corporations who are run by, and the largest stock owners are usually, republicants. No one can seriously call most television, newspaper, and magazines part of some liberal bias or conspiracy. Why do you think that democrat administrations and legislators have always fought against letting media companies be owned by fewer and fewer companies while republican administrations, specifically Presidents Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43, have enacted changes in law so that huge corporations could purchase more and more media. Mike |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
GOP favorability: Lowest ever
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:51:22 -0700 (PDT), MuttonJeff
wrote: Because he's a ****ing neocon you ****ing drooling imbecile. If you bedwetters would run somebody for president that was'nt a ****ing lunatic maybe Bush would'nt have won two terms. The american people held their noses and voted for the lesser of two evils both times. snip Psych majors, take note: what we have here is a VERY good illustration of a paranoid delusion expressed in text. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
GOP favorability: Lowest ever
This is charley's brain on drugs:
Then why has this Republican administration imprisoned border guards for doing their job? *Why has the flood of illegal immigration increased so much since Clinton left office? *Why hasn't the Bush administration fined companies that hire illegals as the previous administration did? *How is it that with the GOP firmly in charge of the Executive and legislative branches for six years, nothing was done about illegal immigration? *Are Republicans all leftists? Swill If anyone is on drugs it is you wacko! Evasion noted. Swill -- Gobama! Gobama! Gobama! Gobama! |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
GOP favorability: Lowest ever
This is MuttonJeff's brain on drugs:
Because he's a ****ing neocon you ****ing drooling imbecile. If you bedwetters would run somebody for president that was'nt a ****ing lunatic maybe Bush would'nt have won two terms. The american people held their noses and voted for the lesser of two evils both times. Here we go again. You goddamned idiots put all your chips on a ****ing half-breed marxist/muslim/america hating racist who's totally dedicated to Mother Africa. You kool-aid drinking imbeciles never learn. We'll have to listen to 4 more years of you handwringing bedwetters crying about how McCain "stole the election from the messiah". Maybe if you cocksmokers on the right could manage to nominate somebody who wasn't a simpleton, Bush would never have been elected in the first place and the GOP would likely still be in power. Swill -- Gobama! Gobama! Gobama! Gobama! |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
GOP favorability: Lowest ever
This is nobody's brain on drugs:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:01:26 -0400, Governor Swill wrote: His proposals shown here seem specific enough. As for increasing the cost of energy, doing nothing will increase it even faster. If you don't think so, consider the increase in gas prices since Bush came to office. Perhaps the best news here is the job creation that will result from shifting to domestic energy production. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/ Feel free to quote anything specific that will make a significant difference in the next 10 years. Oh yeah, I missed something. He's for Cap and Trade. This will equal a tax increase on anyone using energy. That'll help... Yes, it will help because it will motivate people to use less energy. McCain otoh, offers crap like this: "John McCain's Clean Car Challenge. John McCain will issue a Clean Car Challenge to the automakers of America, in the form of a single and substantial tax credit for the consumer based on the reduction of carbon emissions. He will commit a $5,000 tax credit for each and every customer who buys a zero carbon emission t car, encouraging automakers to be first on the market with these cars in order to capitalize on the consumer incentives. For other vehicles, a graduated tax credit will apply so that the lower the carbon emissions, the higher the tax credit. " In other words, he intends to do nothing until the markets have already accomplished the goal of zero emissions, then he's going to cut a tax. What about investing in the research and technology that's going to be needed to arrive at that zero emissions car? I must have missed your quote from Obama's site that spelled out the incentives offered to those who would buy clean air / zero emission cars. None needed. Energy prices will see to that. Oh, and you missed his rather specific ideas also (but what else can one expect from a lib). These are topics only. Refer to his web site http://www.johnmccain.com//Informing...f1468e96f4.htm for details (since oddly you cited only Obama's web page". Um, where do you think I got the McCain issue quote, stupid. I got it from his site. I read that entire page and guess what? It's all about energy based on combustion technology. We need new technologies going forward into a new century. Trying to keep 20 century technology alive with tax breaks and prizes is futile. The whole page reads like the same old Republican claptrap we've been hearing for nearly thirty years and look where it's got us. You must be truly insane to think putting more Republicans back in office is going to do us any good. Eisenhower was the last Republican President who didn't **** the country. And you'd have to go back to TDR and Lincoln to find the other two. Fiscal conservatism: Since 1970, only two Presidents gave us reduced deficits. They were both Democrats; Clinton and Carter. Since WWII, only two Presidents have given us budgetary surpluses. In 1969, Johnson's last budget ran a tiny surplus and from 1997-2000 Bill Clinton booked hundreds of billions in surpluses which the Republicans fought desperately to spend. Democrats are the party of government responsibility and accountability. Republicans are the party of spending like there's on tomorrow and secrecy. "John McCain Will Commit Our Country To Expanding Domestic Oil Exploration......" "John McCain Believes In Promoting And Expanding The Use Of Our Domestic Supplies Of Natural Gas...." John McCain Will Propose A $300 Million Prize To Improve Battery Technology For Full Commercial Development Of Plug-In Hybrid And Fully Electric Automobiles...." (That's called Free Enterprise by the way) Already covered that above. $300M. Big deal. That's a drop in the bucket compared to the profits to be made from such an energy storage device. Better to grant research money to several R&D departments than to sit on his hands and wait for a high tech bail out to deliver such a chump change prize to. "John McCain Supports Flex-Fuel Vehicles (FFVs) And Believes They Should Play A Greater Role In Our Transportation Sector..." You saying Obama *doesn't* believe in flex fuel and alternate fuel vehicles? You expecting some politician to condemn flex fuels? A politician saying he supports flex fuel these days is about as surprising as a politician saying he wants to win his election. Republicans can keep on uttering these useless homilies as they like, but the rest of us have long learned it's all lies, or election pandering, choose your term for it. They're older than dirt and so is McSame. Time for a change. Swill -- Gobama! Gobama! Gobama! Gobama! |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
GOP favorability: Lowest ever
This is charley's brain on drugs:
You really are an idiot. Conservatives have one TV outlet which is Fox.....libs have everything else including most print media.....libs are just stupid and depend on minorities for power....what's funny is the hierarchy of the democratic party is run by Whites. I'm not the idiot. Perhaps you hadn't noticed that Reagan and Bush I changed the law to allow ownership of multiple media outlets in any given market by large corporations that didn't even need to be media corporations. General Electric (you can't get more Republican than a major defense contractor) owns NBC for example. Until the eighties, large corporate entities were denied the ability to own more than one outlet of any type in any one market. Republicans changed all that. Of course the real reason these Republicans allow their "liberal bias" outlets in the first place is to keep the conservative base whipped up. You'll notice that none of those so called liberal outlets seriously questioned the lead up of the war in Iraq. It wasn't until independent media began to get noticed by the public that the traditionally "liberal" papers began to take up the gauntlet against George Bush. With rare exceptions like Dan Rather's attack on Bush's war record during the 2004 campaign, any liberal rag criticism was largely tepid and predictable. Even their criticism of his domestic and spending policies were mild until after his 2004 re-election. In 2005 they began promoting serious, well thought out and well documented dissension. Within a year the GOP was out of power and the truth was everywhere. As it turns out, every campaign promise George Bush made in 2000 and 2004 was a lie. And everything he says or does is wrong. Swill -- Gobama! Gobama! Gobama! Gobama! |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
GOP favorability: Lowest ever
This is nobody's brain on drugs:
Governor Swill wrote: This is nobody's brain on drugs: No argument there. I don't think of oil as the long term option. But to provide no relief for a suffering public while we talk about alterntives that are not even on the horizon borders on criminal. The People get what they deserve. We were warned in 1973 and again in 1979 but still the People did not demand long term programs to get us off imported oil. Now we're stuck. We can't drill our way out of our energy problems, we have to seek other means of dealing with the issue. Too bad the only energy vision the GOP can come up with expired in the eighties. A more rational thought would be to drill while pouring resources into alternate sources. It appears right now, there are many who think it's great that people can't afford to drive to work, heat their homes, or eat. How else would you explain their complete inaction? Thank you, sir! Thank you very much indeed! *applause* I've been waiting weeks for somebody else in this place to think of that too. Swill -- Gobama! Gobama! Gobama! Gobama! |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
GOP favorability: Lowest ever
This is Mike Laight's brain on drugs:
|Please go into detail what your liberal run congress has accomplished |since taking power almost 2 years ago and why their approval rating |stays around 12%. | First, genie, a quibble. The Democratic Majority does not run congress and it has been in the majority between a year and a year and a half. Second thing, why do you persist in stating that it is the Democratic congress that has the awful approval rating? The whole congress has the awful rating but interestingly enough each poll that has asked about the approval of the Democrats in congress and that also asks about the approval of the Republicants in congress has rated the Democrats with a much higher approval rating than the republicants. Significantly, when voters are asked about their particular representatives in Congress, the members score much higher marks than does the body as a whole. Swill -- Gobama! Gobama! Gobama! Gobama! |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
GOP favorability: Lowest ever
This is MuttonJeff's brain on drugs:
Picking nits again. What has your dream team accomplished since taking power almost 2 years ago? Can't you discuss *anything* without spin? There was no "dream team". There was simply a power shift in Congress. They did not take power "almost two years ago". They were sworn in eighteen months ago and have accomplished much. This week they forced the President to double VA medical benefits in order to get his (still off budget) spending request for Iraq. Their sharp reins on Bush's spending habits by means of withholding and reducing appropriations reduced the 2007 deficit by a third from 2006. They crowed for 3 months after getting the majority that it was a "mandate by the american people to undo all the damage done by the neocons". Remember the complaints the GOP had about the Dems using filibusters to obstruct legislation and appointments? The GOP set a record last year by threatening 89 filibusters. Piglosi just gave Bush funding for the war in Iraq. Does'nt that just rip your knickers? And they included legislation that doubles VA medical benefits. Doesn't that just rip yours? The supreme court just blew the **** out of your kooks confiscating of guns owned by private citizens. Let's hear it for the Second Amendment. I don't know about you, but to me, those first ten are more important than even the main body of the Constitution. The description of how the government should be constructed makes for some boring reading, but the Bill of Rights! Now there's something sacred that worthy of surviving for as long as their are humans. Been a bad week for the moonbat party. I don't think so at all. McCain's had a pretty slow week. All the focus has been on Barack and Hillary's first date. Barack and Hillary, kissin' in a tree k-i-s-s-i-n-g First comes love, Then comes marriage, Then little Billy in a baby carriage! Hussein's minion just shot both feet off at the knees by saying McCain's miltary service does'nt make him qualified to be President It's his temper that disqualifies him from having control of the military. It's his age that makes him not qualified to be President. (no more old white guys!). but Hussein has all the right qualifications (without going into detail just what those qualifications might be). Especially if you don't bother to read or refuse to believe anything that disagrees with the decision you've already made. You ****ing idiots never learn. You arrogant assholes think the american people are so brain dead and desperate for change they'd vote for Sasquatch if he was'nt a republican. Lots of us like that. You're not bright enough to figure out why? I voted Republican for twenty years. We've been betrayed. The Party has accomplished almost exactly the opposite of everything they got elected on. Reagan campaigned on slashing the welfare rolls and abolishing social security. He "saved" SS for another forty years and expanded the welfare rolls. Welfare reform didn't come until Clinton and the Dems started figuring it out in 1992. Reagan gave illegal aliens amnesty. Clinton fined 3000 companies in 2000 for knowingly hiring illegal workers. In 2003 Bush fined 4 and illegal immigration has exploded. Reagan doubled the national debt, but GHW Bush was even worse and his deficit spending was a campaign issue in 1992. Clinton reduced the national debt by 100B. By the time George Bush's last budget is done, it'll be nearly doubled again. Reagan caved to Iran over the hostage crisis and again in Beirut with the result that Iran was able to buy weapons and parts from us. Then he made up a war in the Caribbean somewhere to take our mind off the fact that he pulled us out of Lebanon and ran like a yellow rabbit when our marines were attacked there. I don't suppose we have to rehash Iraq casualty lists and contractor payola. Clinton is often excoriated by the right for getting involved in the Balkans, but to date, not one American soldier has been killed there by the enemy. Republicans have long stood against abortion and conservatives have complained bitterly about the liberal SCOTUS since the early part of the last century. Yet when Bush Mk II was sworn in, six of the Justices were Republican appointees including such stalwart rightists as Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony M. Kennedy who joined her plurality in 1992 in support of Roe v Wade (Planned Parenthood v. Casey). It was Reagan who made Rehnquist Chief Justice for god's sake! And let's not forget Nixon who took us off gold, then shamed the country by conducting a cover up of criminal activity and ended up leaving us with our first and hopefully last appointed President. Who unfortunately was unprepared to deal with the aftermath of Vietnam and Nixon's fiscal and foreign policy. Not that Carter fared any better at swimming in that pool but at least he wasn't a criminal. Naw, man. I'm not voting for any more Republicans for a while. The party has lied it's last lie at me and got on my last nerve. **** the whole lot of them. Same old ****, different day. That's Mc**** alright. Same old ****, different century. Swill -- Gobama! Gobama! Gobama! Gobama! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Your Lowest Mintage US Coin? | Sibirskmoneta | Coins | 17 | October 27th 06 04:03 AM |
Lowest grade, ever? | note.boy | Coins | 1 | January 12th 06 05:04 AM |
What's your lowest mintage coin? | LM5403 | Coins | 18 | September 13th 05 06:32 AM |
Your lowest mintage? | Alan & Erin Williams | Coins | 57 | April 8th 04 08:50 AM |