News Why both presidential candidates are no good

[t-money]

I truly believe in this title. Both candidates promise a solution to a problem they have little control over. What I am talking about is the market, they think their policy changes will make a serious change. In reality it would do very little, I won't get into the specifics here but an example is with oil. This is a limited resource no matter what they do they can't change that until physicists and Engineers are able to find a new source of energy (fusion?) there is not much to be said. Sure alternatives are out there, but let's be honest if they were as effective as oil they would have been accepted. The reality of the situation is one candidate wants to improve trade relations while limiting individual rights (abortion) the other wants to limit free trade while upholding a welfare state (taxes, welfare, etc). What is the alternative in this bipartisan party nation, where are the options? This is a serious question, why don't we have more options? We have exponentially more options in a supermarket, surely something as important as a presidential election should have more than two candidates.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

McCain, and the Republicans in general, have consistently opposed efforts to end our reliance on oil. Obama is dedicated to ending that dependence. Obama can't solve the problem through policy, but he can enact policy that will help scientists, engineers, and entrepreurs to solve the problem. Of course this will be much more difficult now that the Republicans have destroyed the economy.

McCain wants to "drill right here, right now" [apparently wherever he happens to be standing].

Even the oil tycoon, T. Boone Pickens, says "drill drill drill", but "we can't drill our way out of this problem". So don't be fooled by more Republican lies.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

For the price of the Iraq war, and esp now if we include this bailout, we likely could have ended our dependence on foreign oil. And for that matter, we might have ended our addiction to oil altogether.

Think about it. Think about the significance of that statement. Imagine where we could be today if we had listened to Obama in 2002. Don't let this abomination and betrayal of the country by Bush and his Republicans go unpunished.

I 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 is 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.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. 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. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

- Barack Obama, October, 2002
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16903253/page/2/

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

This is a serious question, why don't we have more options? We have exponentially more options in a supermarket, surely something as important as a presidential election should have more than two candidates.

Ralph Nader is running. So is Bob Barr. Here are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_third_party_presidential_candidates" . The problem is not that there aren't other choices. The problem is that people like you won't vote for them. A supermarket won't continue to shelve items that you won't buy either.

Prove me wrong. Vote for the candidate that you like, not against the candidate you don't like. You are not voting for the one you think will win, you are voting for the one you want to win.

 

[Benzoate]

For the price of the Iraq war, and esp now if we include this bailout, we likely could have ended our dependence on foreign oil. And for that matter, we might have ended our addiction to oil altogether.

Think about it. Think about the significance of that statement. Imagine where we could be today if we had listened to Obama in 2002. Don't let this abomination and betrayal of the country by Bush and his Republicans go unpunished.

- Barack Obama, October, 2002
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16903253/page/2/

Obama might want to pull our troops from IRaq, but he still wants to sustained the American empire across the world. Meaning he wants to stick his nose in the political affairs of other countries, just like mccain instead of proposing a foreign policy based only on Free trade. He has already stated that he wants to aid Georgia and "talk with Iran". He has also flipped flopped on how much of a threat Iran is to the national security of the United states: check out this clip.

Until both candidates realized that its was primarily our foreign policy of the past 50 years that evoke the terrorists attacks on 9/11 and hatred for United in Middle eastern countries, my vote will go to Ron Paul, whether he is running for president or not.

Oh and stop with this silly game of "Democrats good, republicans bad" and vice versa. Bottomline : Democrats aren't really anti-war and republicans aren't really economically conservatives so stopped given them your vote and start voting for an politician who general cares for the welfare of the people. The vietnam war and the Iran hostage crisis occurred during the Johnson and Carter adminstrations, both men who were democrat ; During the Clinton adminstrations, we bombed Serbia. And of course , you all know that Bush really isn't a really conservative since spending has increase greatly during his adminstration , but what you might not know is that the government has grown exponentially during the past 50 years and spending hasn't really stopped. Even during the Reagan adminstration , spending double and the deficit went from 200 billion dollars in 1980 to 1 trillion dollars in 1989.

 

[Benzoate]

McCain, and the Republicans in general, have consistently opposed efforts to end our reliance on oil. Obama is dedicated to ending that dependence. Obama can't solve the problem through policy, but he can enact policy that will help scientists, engineers, and entrepreurs to solve the problem. Of course this will be much more difficult now that the Republicans have destroyed the economy.

McCain wants to "drill right here, right now" [apparently wherever he happens to be standing].

Even the oil tycoon, T. Boone Pickens, says "drill drill drill", but "we can't drill our way out of this problem". So don't be fooled by more Republican lies.

Oh and we are not really running out of oil; Geologists claimed that we really haven't tapped all of the Earth's natural resources and we have at least 100 years worth supply of oil. There is a big oil reserve in Canada, but the reason why oil drillers won't go there is because it would be more expensive to manufaucture than crude oil found in the Middle East.

I don't like Obama's energy policy on Ethanol , because he wants taxpayers to subsidize the production and distribution of ethanol; He doesn't realized that ethanol isn't environmentally friendly, would cost a lot more than gasoline, and only would provide 12 percent of our energy needs.

 

[Astronuc]

Obama's Evolving Ethanol Rhetoric
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/23/obamas_evolving_ethanol_rhetor.html
By Alec MacGillis

Given that energy appears likely to be a dominant issue in this election season, Barack Obama's campaign may want to settle on a more consistent message when it comes to subsidies for ethanol, the corn-based alternative fuel that is hailed by some as a key resource in weaning America off foreign oil and forestalling global warming but lambasted by others as a wasteful boondoggle that is driving up food prices.

Since entering the Senate in 2005, Obama has been a staunch supporter of ethanol -- he justified his vote for for the Bush Administration's 2005 energy bill, which was favorable to the oil industry, on the grounds that it also contained subsidies for ethanol and other forms of alternative energy, and he has sought earmarks for research projects on ethanol and other biofuels in his home state of Illinois, the second-highest corn-producing state after Iowa. Obama's support for ethanol is shared by many farm state senators (even Hillary Clinton came around after an ethanol industry took root in upstate New York) but it contrasts sharply with John McCain, who has for years been so critical of the subsidies that he decided not to compete in the 2000 Iowa caucuses.

. . . .

Obama Camp Closely Linked With Ethanol
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/us/politics/23ethanol.html

Obama's position may be changing since the use of corn for ethanol competes with food needs. In some cases, the cost of corn has made ethanol uneconomical.


McCain has been a proponent as well as opponent of ethanol, or rather government subsidies of ethanol and corn for ethanol.

McCain's farm flip
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/11/13/8393132/index.htm

McCain, GOP senators call for easing of ethanol rules
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/05/gop.ethanol/index.html

 

[Gokul43201]

Here's the full version of the Obama-Biden energy plan: http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech_080308.pdf

While it mentions "biofuels" 7 times, it mentions "ethanol" exactly once, and that one time it says:

"Advances in biofuels including cellulosic ethanol, biobutanol and other technologies that produce synthetic petroleum from sustainable feedstocks offer tremendous potential to break our addiction to oil. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will work to ensure that these clean alternative fuels are developed and incorporated into our national supply as soon as possible."

From my rather poor understanding of the field of biofuels, "cellulosic" ethanol does offer the best promise among ethanol-based ideas.

 

[Astronuc]

I believe cellulose needs to be 'digested' or somehow converted to sugar, in order for the sugar to be 'fermented' into alcohol.

Use of cellulose would be ideal since it is not food stuff, but biomass/agricultural waste.

Cellulosic ethanol can be produced from a wide variety of cellulosic biomass feedstocks including agricultural plant wastes (corn stover, cereal straws, sugarcane bagasse), plant wastes from industrial processes (sawdust, paper pulp) and energy crops grown specifically for fuel production, such as switchgrass. Cellulosic biomass is composed of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin, with smaller amounts of proteins, lipids (fats, waxes and oils) and ash. Roughly, two-thirds of the dry mass of cellulosic materials are present as cellulose and hemicellulose. Lignin makes up the bulk of the remaining dry mass.

http://www.harvestcleanenergy.org/enews/enews_0505/enews_0505_Cellulosic_Ethanol.htm

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Oh and stop with this silly game of "Democrats good, republicans bad" and vice versa.

Democrats better, Republicans worse.

As for foreign policy, Obama made a very brave statement at a time when dissent was seen as unpatriotic. If we had listened to Obama, we would be 4000 US lives and a trillion dollars richer.

After eight years of Bush, don't even try to tell me there is no difference between the two parties. That is complete and utter nonsense. I was once a staunch Republican, but the Republicans have betrayed every core principle that caused me to once value the party. And they have betrayed the country with their assault on the Constituion and their frivolous and reckless foreign policy.

Also, over the years it has become apparent that the Democrats are usually right about the key issues, and the Republicans are usually wrong.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I find it amazing that people accuse Obama of not taking a stand on issues. When the chips were down, when it counted the most, he not only proved that he is a man of substance, but he did so in clear and explicit terms. He boldly announced as fact what everyone in Washington was too fearful to consider - they were afraid of looking unpatriotic.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Oh and we are not really running out of oil; Geologists claimed that we really haven't tapped all of the Earth's natural resources and we have at least 100 years worth supply of oil. There is a big oil reserve in Canada, but the reason why oil drillers won't go there is because it would be more expensive to manufaucture than crude oil found in the Middle East.

Sorry, you're right: Gas is cheap and always will be; even with China and India coming online, and even though we have probably already seen peak production. And I see no problem with our reliance on oil from countries that hate us. No problems at all.

Russia's attack on Georgia was probably the first shot fired in the new energy wars, [psssst, they wanted the gas pipeline] but no problem.

 

[Benzoate]

Democrats better, Republicans worse.


Also, over the years it has become apparent that the Democrats are usually right about the key issues, and the Republicans are usually wrong.

What issues do you think Democrats are right on? I think that democrats are more consistent on their policies than republicans, but that alone doesn't make democrats better than republicans. Republicans are liberals , masquerading as conservatives in sheeps clothing. Neither candidates really have said that overspending will devalued the dollar greatly and we should probably switch back to the gold currency before the dollar becomes worthless.

Democrats , better, Republicans worse.

Also, over the years it has become apparent that the Democrats are usually right about the key issues, and the Republicans are usually wrong.

The republican party is not that bad. Remember , this is the party that historically fought to end slavery in the US, advocated for Women's suffrage in the 1930's , took a strong stance against spreading the US military into other countries around the world,most members of congress who passed the Civil rights act of 1964 were mostly republicans.

You see, that's why don't affiliate myself with any political party. political parties don't follow their original political ideology that the party was created on. So in forty years, the democrat party my reflect the democrat party of the 1920's and 1930's, when some members of the KKK were members of the Democratic party.

 

[Benzoate]

Democrats better, Republicans worse.

As for foreign policy, Obama made a very brave statement at a time when dissent was seen as unpatriotic. If we had listened to Obama, we would be 4000 US lives and a trillion dollars richer.

Why do you think we will be safe under a Democratic administration rather than a republican adminstration? Even though 9/11 occurred in a republican administration, the democratic administration fail to catch Osama Bin laden the first time he attacked the world trade center.
Must I remained you that the most failed US wars occurred during the time when the presidents were democrats? IT was a republican president that pulled us out of Vietnam.

Obama is just going to removed all the troops that are now in Iraq and placed them in Afghanistan. He wants to deployed 7000 troops in Afghanistan. we already invaded one country; why in the world would we need to invade another? Concerning Iran, Obama hasn't ruled out a military strike as an option for dealing with IRan.

He supports the Global policy act, which is an act where the US government attempts to reduced global poverty. We already owe loans to other countries, we might have a 2 trillion dollar deficit rather 1 trillion dollar deficit; how in the world our we going to reduced global poverty around the world when we cannot even resolved our own financial crisis at home?

 

[Gokul43201]

we already invaded one country; why in the world would we need to invade another?

Umm...we invaded two countries - only one of them for good reason. Which of the two have you forgotten about?

 

[LowlyPion]

Why do you think we will be safe under a Democratic administration rather than a republican adminstration? Even though 9/11 occurred in a republican administration, the democratic administration fail to catch Osama Bin laden the first time he attacked the world trade center.
Must I remained you that the most failed US wars occurred during the time when the presidents were democrats? IT was a republican president that pulled us out of Vietnam.

Obama is just going to removed all the troops that are now in Iraq and placed them in Afghanistan. He wants to deployed 7000 troops in Afghanistan. we already invaded one country; why in the world would we need to invade another? Concerning Iran, Obama hasn't ruled out a military strike as an option for dealing with IRan.

He supports the Global policy act, which is an act where the US government attempts to reduced global poverty. We already owe loans to other countries, we might have a 2 trillion dollar deficit rather 1 trillion dollar deficit; how in the world our we going to reduced global poverty around the world when we cannot even resolved our own financial crisis at home?

What are you talking about? Wars don't belong to political parties. FDR fought World War II. Wilson for WWI, Truman in the Korean War throttled McArthur from instigating war directly with China.

The Viet Nam War came out of the Cold War's Manichean view of communism and Eisenhower's strategic belief in the domino theory.

If your concern is war with Iran, then finally seeing the tail-lights of the machivellian Cheney-Rove-Bush war machine rumble into retirement in January, replaced by Obama might actually give you some hope.

And if deficits are your concern - don't look now but those Clinton years surpluses and national debt reductions were slaughtered by the excesses of the past 8 years.

 

[Benzoate]

What are you talking about? Wars don't belong to political parties. FDR fought World War II. Wilson for WWI, Truman in the Korean War throttled McArthur from instigating war directly with China.

The Viet Nam War came out of the Cold War's Manichean view of communism and Eisenhower's strategic belief in the domino theory.

If your concern is war with Iran, then finally seeing the tail-lights of the machivellian Cheney-Rove-Bush war machine rumble into retirement in January, replaced by Obama might actually give you some hope

And if deficits are your concern - don't look now but those Clinton years surpluses and national debt reductions were slaughtered by the excesses of the past 8 years.

I never said wars belong to poIlitical parties. I've only said in the past , conservatives have been more anti-war than liberals have. I am only arguing that just because we might have a president who is a democrat does not mean there will be less war.

I read somewhere that we involved ourselves in the Vietnam War because we owed a favored to France. In Kennedy's inargural address, he stated that he will devote all of our resources to ensure that liberty was alive no matter what costs, even it that meant we had to risked the lives of our troops to ensure that democracy was spread to different parts of the planet. Woodrow wilson also wanted to spread democracy to other countries at the expense of taxpayer money .

 

[LowlyPion]

I never said wars belong to poIlitical parties. I've only said in the past , conservatives have been more anti-war than liberals have. I am only arguing that just because we might have a president who is a democrat does not mean there will be less war.

I read somewhere that we involved ourselves in the Vietnam War because we owed a favored to France. In Kennedy's inargural address, he stated that he will devote all of our resources to ensure that liberty was alive no matter what costs, even it that meant we had to risked the lives of our troops to ensure that democracy was spread to different parts of the planet. Woodrow wilson also wanted to spread democracy to other countries at the expense of taxpayer money .

You need to study history a bit more. Wilson was an Isolationist. That's a word you may want to look up before you go painting him as a activist war-monger.

And how much more conservative do you have to be to be to the Right of the Bush-Cheney-Rove oligarchy and their "adventures" against those WMD's that just weren't there?

And as to Viet Nam, that wasn't Kennedy bailing out the colonialist French. That was a holding action against the spread of Communism, a strategy promulgated by Eisenhower as a part of the early Cold War. I rather think that strategy has been proven by history to have been misguided, but I think you also have to view it in terms of a Nation that had so recently emerged from the WWII and the Korean Conflict.

 

[Benzoate]

You need to study history a bit more. Wilson was an Isolationist. That's a word you may want to look up before you go painting him as a activist war-monger.

And how much more conservative do you have to be to be to the Right of the Bush-Cheney-Rove oligarchy and their "adventures" against those WMD's that just weren't there?

And as to Viet Nam, that wasn't Kennedy bailing out the colonialist French. That was a holding action against the spread of Communism, a strategy promulgated by Eisenhower as a part of the early Cold War.

Cheney-Rove- and Bush are NOT real conservatives. They are Republicans! Real conservatives want limited government, to based a foreign policy on free trade and not intervene in the affairs of other countries, and reduced spending drastically.

Woodrow Wilson was far from an isolationist. An isolationist would not be a proponent of the League of nations, created during his adminstration. He believed that its was America's duty to spread christianity and democracy into the Latin American countries. He wanted to helped the leaders of these latin american countries to preserved their republics. When there was a revolution taken place in Mexico, Wilson declared that the US should not recognized violent dictators.

Woodrow Wilson, "We as americans will make the world safe for democracy!" http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/4943/

 

[LowlyPion]

Cheney-Rove- and Bush are NOT real conservatives. They are Republicans! Real conservatives want limited government, to based a foreign policy on free trade and not intervene in the affairs of other countries, and reduced spending drastically.

Those about to be retired snowbirds are conservative enough for me.

Woodrow Wilson was far from an isolationist. ...

Woodrow Wilson, "We as americans will make the world safe for democracy!" http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/4943/

He was reelected as an Isolationist to keep the country out of the War in Europe. Your quote is from 1917 when the Nation was at war. McCain's flip-flopped on bigger things than that.

 

[mheslep]

Here's the full version of the Obama-Biden energy plan: http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech_080308.pdf

Promote the Supply of Domestic Energy
...
• Promote the Responsible Domestic Production of Oil and Natural Gas.

Is that anything like "Drill Here, Drill Now"?

 

[mheslep]

Obama Energy plan on nuclear:

Safe and Secure Nuclear Energy. Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our noncarbon generated electricity. It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option. However, before an expansion of nuclear power is considered, key issues must be addressed including: security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation. ... In terms of waste storage, Barack Obama and Joe Biden do not believe that Yucca Mountain is a suitable site. They will lead federal efforts to look for safe, long‐term disposal solutions based on objective, scientific analysis. In the meantime, they will develop requirements to ensure that the waste stored at current reactor sites is contained using the most advanced dry‐cask storage technology available.

Alright Obama recognizes the need to do include some nuclear, but he doesn't want to use Yucca? Spent fuel accumulation is already close to the 70kton limit set by law. Not much of a plan.

 

[wildman]

Oh and we are not really running out of oil; Geologists claimed that we really haven't tapped all of the Earth's natural resources and we have at least 100 years worth supply of oil. There is a big oil reserve in Canada, but the reason why oil drillers won't go there is because it would be more expensive to manufaucture than crude oil found in the Middle East.

give sources. The US Geologic Survey estimates about 100 billion barrels left in the US. That is 13 years at our present rate of consumption. Do you mean in the Middle East? In that case you are probably right, but so what? Do we want to rely on countries that our opposed to our system?

 

[Benzoate]

give sources. The US Geologic Survey estimates about 100 billion barrels left in the US. That is 13 years at our present rate of consumption. Do you mean in the Middle East? In that case you are probably right, but so what? Do we want to rely on countries that our opposed to our system?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15715744/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_XMzh2rg_s; John stossel investigates oil prices in his "Give me a Break' segment of 20/20.

The second largest oil reserve is in Canada. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/20/60minutes/main1225184.shtml

 

[asdfggfdsa]

Woodrow Wilson was far from an isolationist. An isolationist would not be a proponent of the League of nations, created during his adminstration. He believed that its was America's duty to spread christianity and democracy into the Latin American countries. He wanted to helped the leaders of these latin american countries to preserved their republics. When there was a revolution taken place in Mexico, Wilson declared that the US should not recognized violent dictators.

Woodrow Wilson, "We as americans will make the world safe for democracy!" http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/4943/

Agreed; there's a reason why he spawned the term 'Wilsonian'.

http://web.mit.edu/cis/pdf/Audit_04_08_smith.pdf
http://davisiaj.com/content/view/112/86/

 

[OrbitalPower]

And that's ridiculous because Wilson favored collective security in the international arena and Bush favors unilateralism - so Wilson would have opposed the Iraq war by that standard.

Of course, he did wrong as well. But, I think his views on international relations are where a majority of Americans are (supposedly most Americans didn't support an invasion without UN approval).

Anyway, I do agree that Obama kind of flipped on Iran, first he says it's no threat, then he talks of the "grave danger" of the situation when he has the national stage. This kind of rhetoric feeds into imperialism, in much the same way Clinton's condemnations of Iraq did as well.

 

[asdfggfdsa]

Probably correct, but Wilson and Bush have a common belief in democratic peace theory, the proposition that democracies rarely fight each other (hence they see spreading democracy as desireable, though they reach different conclusions about how to do so). Neoconservatism has often been referred to as "muscular Wilsonianism"; both stand in opposition to the realist theories of international relations. The point is that while they would likely have disagreed on methods, they would have been in agreement about the normative aspects.

re Iran: given Bush's invasion, it's no surprise that the Iranians want nuclear technology.

 

[russ_watters]

So don't be fooled by more Republican lies.

A lie is something deliberately said and known to be untrue. You'll find precious few on this issue - it is not clear-cut as liberals like to obfuscate it to be. Indeed, by the law of supply and demand, mathematically, more drilling must equal lower prices. Lower, perhaps in terms of a projected increase, but either way, more supply is good for the market and more oil is something we need - especially if we're to take anyone's proposal to get off Middle Eastern oil seriously.

No doubt, many Republicans exaggerate the positives and play down the negatives, misleading and misdirecting to get their point across. But so do you. These days, it seem that just about everything you say in here fits into those categories:

McCain, and the Republicans in general, have consistently opposed efforts to end our reliance on oil.

Wow, that's a broad statement. Two, actually - it also implies that Democrats have put forth real "efforts". But what real "efforts" have ever been put on the table? Is there any alternate form of energy besides nuclear power that could realistically displace a meaningful fraction of fossil fuels? Is there any technology to replace oil that today (much less for the last 10 or 20 years) isn't still at least a decade away from prime time? You cannot justify the claim that Democrats have put forth anything meaningful for Republicans to block.

Obama is dedicated to ending that dependence. Obama can't solve the problem through policy, but he can enact policy that will help scientists, engineers, and entrepreurs to solve the problem.

Ahh, the promise of research. Research is needed, but it is not a solution, it is a bet a lottery ticket. If you spend a billion dollars to build a nuclear power plant, at the end of the project, you'll have a nuclear power plant and another 2 GW of electric generating capacity. If you spend a billion dollars on research, at the end of that project, you might, if you get lucky, find a solution (and then spend another billion building it).

Research is something people who are not serious/dedicated to making a change advocate. It sounds great in a sound byte, but it has no practical value as a matter of policy because the outcome is completely unpredictable. It is a side bet only.

Just so we're clearly, though, McCain is a politician too, so most of what he proposes is also research. Here are their energy proposals:http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy
Both say they want to increase clean electric generation. But only one of those proposals contains an actual plan to actually build another 100+ gigawatts of clean, safe, abundant energy. The other doesn't say what kind of plants and how they would be built (if they are unconventional). Anyone want to guess which one is which?

Of course this will be much more difficult now that the Republicans have destroyed the economy.

See my new thread and justify that hyperbole (the first one - the second is impossible to prove, even in theory).

McCain wants to "drill right here, right now" [apparently wherever he happens to be standing].

Even the oil tycoon, T. Boone Pickens, says "drill drill drill", but "we can't drill our way out of this problem".

That's intentionally misleading, Ivan. McCain has never said that drilling alone would get us out of the problem.

For the price of the Iraq war, and esp now if we include this bailout, we likely could have ended our dependence on foreign oil. And for that matter, we might have ended our addiction to oil altogether.

That's a doozie, Ivan. An exaggeration of a hyperbole.

Think about it. Think about the significance of that statement. Imagine where we could be today if we had listened to Obama in 2002.

You tell us. What would be different today if we hadn't gone to Iraq? Are you saying that attacking Iraq caused the housing/credit crisis? Or is this just more rhetorical hyperbole?

Sorry, you're right: Gas is cheap and always will be.

That is quite obviously an intentional misreading of the quote. You are putting words in someone's mouth they did not say.

You're the pot and the kettle, Ivan - accusing others of things only you are guilty of here.

 

[russ_watters]

I find it amazing that people accuse Obama of not taking a stand on issues. When the chips were down, when it counted the most, he not only proved that he is a man of substance, but he did so in clear and explicit terms. He boldly announced as fact what everyone in Washington was too fearful to consider - they were afraid of looking unpatriotic.

Obama got one right, and good for him. But I find it amazing that some people don't realize how often Obama does not take a stand on issues. One of the things he's famous for is voting "Present": http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html