Political Report

OGKnickfan · Sep 10, 2008

Paul, unless you voted for Kerry, I don't want to hear that argument, about his military experience being valuable, from you. George Bush was a draft dodger, while Kerry fought in Vietnam, bravely and honorably. I bet you didn't support Kerry, despite his service.

Being against the surge does not exclude the possibility of someone having foreign policy experience. He's also not likely to ever be president, because of his age, kind of like Dick Cheney. Now, the reason why I would be against the surge is that the whole thing was wrong, from the start. As such, I would not support it at any point. In fact, I'd push to end the war from its start, if I was in national political office.

When it comes to supporting Bush's Iraq policy, it shows that McCain's foreign policy experience works against the country. Like I said in an earlier post, experience can be detrimental. If a person is experienced at having panic attacks, abusing his power, cheating on his wife, warmongering, and cutting taxes for the rich, I don't want his experience being used in the White House.

Paul1355 · Sep 10, 2008

OGKnickfan said:
Paul, unless you voted for Kerry, I don't want to hear that argument, about his military experience being valuable, from you. George Bush was a draft dodger, while Kerry fought in Vietnam, bravely and honorably. I bet you didn't support Kerry, despite his service.

Being against the surge does not exclude the possibility of someone having foreign policy experience. He's also not likely to ever be president, because of his age, kind of like Dick Cheney. Now, the reason why I would be against the surge is that the whole thing was wrong, from the start. As such, I would not support it at any point. In fact, I'd push to end the war from its start, if I was in national political office.

When it comes to supporting Bush's Iraq policy, it shows that McCain's foreign policy experience works against the country. Like I said in an earlier post, experience can be detrimental. If a person is experienced at having panic attacks, abusing his power, cheating on his wife, warmongering, and cutting taxes for the rich, I don't want his experience being used in the White House.

You have your views and I have mine but John Kerry and John McCain have very different stories in the war, you can cannot compare those two, McCain has more honor than Kerry will ever have.

Let's just keep this thread to recent political news, I'm tired of going off topic half the time.

By the way, did you happen to watch part 1 of the O'Reilly vs Obama interview?

OGKnickfan · Sep 11, 2008

Kerry was the previous nominee of the democratic party, that is political news. As for Kerry's service, he rescued people. How much more service can anyone offer? After Vietnam, he spoke out against American atrocities, during the war, without fear of consequences.

I did see the interview, and Obama never admitted that he was "wrong about the surge," which is what you claimed he said. What he did say was that there were many factors involved and that the soldiers deserve all the credit for what happened. I should add that McCain takes credit for it regularly.

Let's look at the GOP: Guiliani, once again invoked 9/11 and showed the destruction, to make people think that, if McCain is not elected, it will happen again. McCain-Palin accuse Obama of calling Palin a pig, when he never even mentioned her name, her comment, the VP GOP nominee. Did anyone else threaten Obama with death, from amongst the republicans, this week?

Paul1355 · Sep 11, 2008

OGKnickfan said:
Kerry was the previous nominee of the democratic party, that is political news. As for Kerry's service, he rescued people. How much more service can anyone offer? After Vietnam, he spoke out against American atrocities, during the war, without fear of consequences.

I did see the interview, and Obama never admitted that he was "wrong about the surge," which is what you claimed he said. What he did say was that there were many factors involved and that the soldiers deserve all the credit for what happened. I should add that McCain takes credit for it regularly.

Let's look at the GOP: Guiliani, once again invoked 9/11 and showed the destruction, to make people think that, if McCain is not elected, it will happen again. McCain-Palin accuse Obama of calling Palin a pig, when he never even mentioned her name, her comment, the VP GOP nominee. Did anyone else threaten Obama with death, from amongst the republicans, this week?

Your twisting words OG, realize this now, please. My claim was that Barack Obama admitted that the Surge was a success. Go back and read the posts. And then I said that he never admitted that he was wrong. I said HE SHOULD have admitted that he was wrong because it is evident that everyone that voted against the Surge, underestimated this victory, like Obama said. And being that this Surge worked, he and everyone else that voted against it, was wrong. Bottom line, no if,ands, or buts, he was wrong, period, and he knows it. Stop backing him up, HE SAID IT WAS A SUCCESS AND HE PREVIOUSLY VOTED AGAINST IT! Watch it again if you don't believe me. Just admit it already.

And stop going off topic, answer this topic first, and then we can talk about the "pig" comment.

TunerAddict · Sep 11, 2008

Paul1355 said:
You have your views and I have mine but John Kerry and John McCain have very different stories in the war, you can cannot compare those two, McCain has more honor than Kerry will ever have.

Let's just keep this thread to recent political news, I'm tired of going off topic half the time.

By the way, did you happen to watch part 1 of the O'Reilly vs Obama interview?

Bullshit. Kerry was a war hero just like McCain. That swift boat bullshit is the one of the most disgusting thing I've ever seen.

Paul1355 · Sep 11, 2008

TunerAddict said:
Bullshit. Kerry was a war hero just like McCain. That swift boat bullshit is the one of the most disgusting thing I've ever seen.

I said that because Kerry was hated by many Marines after the war were John McCain was praised. If you can tell me what Kerry did during the war that made him great, tell me, i'd like to know. I know McCain's story, knowing kerry's wouldn't hurt.

OGKnickfan · Sep 11, 2008

Paul, you reinforce my belief that some of us should have our right to vote revoked, until one can prove oneself able to think critically.

Paul1355 · Sep 12, 2008

OGKnickfan said:
Paul, you reinforce my belief that some of us should have our right to vote revoked, until one can prove oneself able to think critically.

And what does that mean? You can vote for whoever you want. I just wanted to prove to you that Barack Obama did say that the Surge was a success, which he did and the interview proved it. And your accusation that I lied, was once again...false.

pat · Sep 14, 2008

Paul let me ask you one thing: How old are you? Rumour has it that people get more conservative the older they get. If you are below 50 I am really worried how much further right of the centre you'll go.

Paul1355 · Sep 14, 2008

pat said:
Paul let me ask you one thing: How old are you? Rumour has it that people get more conservative the older they get. If you are below 50 I am really worried how much further right of the centre you'll go.

I'm below 50. So far you know im to the right, if i feel that the left side has a better solution to an issue, i will sway left. It's all about what I believe will work. And why do you think as people get older, they become more conservative?

pat · Sep 15, 2008

Paul1355 said:
I'm below 50. So far you know im to the right, if i feel that the left side has a better solution to an issue, i will sway left. It's all about what I believe will work. And why do you think as people get older, they become more conservative?

Just a general observation. Conservatism as an idea is very much based on keeping a certain status quo (to conserve something). As people get older they become less adaptable to changing circumstances. Thus keeping things as they are seems to be an attractive option (e.g. going for McCain rather than Obama because of WYSIWYG and Obama's threat of change).

There is just one thing that very much disturbs me as far as conservatism is concerned: why are creationists and conservatives not in the least concerned about changing the environmental status quo and destroying the Creation by drilling for oil in Alaska? Maybe you can explain this to me.

Paul1355 · Sep 15, 2008

pat said:
Just a general observation. Conservatism as an idea is very much based on keeping a certain status quo (to conserve something). As people get older they become less adaptable to changing circumstances. Thus keeping things as they are seems to be an attractive option (e.g. going for McCain rather than Obama because of WYSIWYG and Obama's threat of change).

There is just one thing that very much disturbs me as far as conservatism is concerned: why are creationists and conservatives not in the least concerned about changing the environmental status quo and destroying the Creation by drilling for oil in Alaska? Maybe you can explain this to me.

Your talking about Creation as the Environment is concerned? I'm not an Environmentalists and desperate times call for desperate measures. I can care less about our land being drilled if it can help our country in the long run. Especially since we are in a financial decline with our currency being at an all time low. Off Shore drilling has to be done. Of course everyday I look out the window and I am amazed at what has been created, but times change and man has destroyed enough of God's work and made his own. Your question about respecting God's creation can be used for anything man has built on this Earth. This certain topic, I feel, will help this country in the long run. And I'm thinking about the future.

pat · Sep 16, 2008

Paul1355 said:
Your talking about Creation as the Environment is concerned? I'm not an Environmentalists and desperate times call for desperate measures. I can care less about our land being drilled if it can help our country in the long run. Especially since we are in a financial decline with our currency being at an all time low. Off Shore drilling has to be done. Of course everyday I look out the window and I am amazed at what has been created, but times change and man has destroyed enough of God's work and made his own. Your question about respecting God's creation can be used for anything man has built on this Earth. This certain topic, I feel, will help this country in the long run. And I'm thinking about the future.

Drilling only helps in the short run. In the long run looking for alternatives to fossil fuels is the obvious solution. So what you're basically saying is: we have destroyed so much already, lets just go on now. We can't make it undone anyway? That is hypocritical.

Paul1355 · Sep 16, 2008

pat said:
Drilling only helps in the short run. In the long run looking for alternatives to fossil fuels is the obvious solution. So what you're basically saying is: we have destroyed so much already, lets just go on now. We can't make it undone anyway? That is hypocritical.

I said that desperate times call for desperate measures. And I am not an Environmentalists so hurting the environment for the good of this country doesn't affect me. That's not hypocritical, that's what I feel and off shore drilling is something that I see is a solution to most of our energy/oil problems. I support everything like John McCain, fossil fuels, wind power, drilling, everything.
Would you rather fund oil companies when sometimes that money winds up in the hands of terrorist, or would you drill the resources we have in our own country and become more independent?

I don't see the argument unless you are an Environmentalists when talking about off shore drilling. And the state of Montana alone can supply years of oil for the entire country, so I don't see how it is a "short run."

TunerAddict · Sep 16, 2008

Paul1355 said:
I said that desperate times call for desperate measures. And I am not an Environmentalists so hurting the environment for the good of this country doesn't affect me. That's not hypocritical, that's what I feel and off shore drilling is something that I see is a solution to most of our energy/oil problems. I support everything like John McCain, fossil fuels, wind power, drilling, everything.
Would you rather fund oil companies when sometimes that money winds up in the hands of terrorist, or would you drill the resources we have in our own country and become more independent?

I don't see the argument unless you are an Environmentalists when talking about off shore drilling. And the state of Montana alone can supply years of oil for the entire country, so I don't see how it is a "short run."

I heard contrasting reports. I heard we'd only be filling like 5% of our usage by doing these things.

pat · Sep 17, 2008

Paul1355 said:
I am not an Environmentalists so hurting the environment for the good of this country doesn't affect me.

Environmentalist or not, drilling or no drilling. If the next US government doesn't focus on alternative energies and hydrogen engines for cars you should prepare for paying 10-15 bucks per gallon. The peak will be reached very soon and drilling off-shore can hardly affect that. We should really stop burning fossil fuels and start using oil where it is really necessary: plastic for example.

This is what I mean by saying in the long run.

Paul1355 · Sep 17, 2008

pat said:
Environmentalist or not, drilling or no drilling. If the next US government doesn't focus on alternative energies and hydrogen engines for cars you should prepare for paying 10-15 bucks per gallon. The peak will be reached very soon and drilling off-shore can hardly affect that. We should really stop burning fossil fuels and start using oil where it is really necessary: plastic for example.

This is what I mean by saying in the long run.

I support every alternative, Pat. That includes off shore drilling, and whatever else you feel we should do. BUT not give enormous amounts of money to Mid Eastern Oil companies because as I said, some of them are people that hate us, and some of that money does wind up in the hands of terrorist.
So can you say that we agree on this issue?

Paul1355 · Sep 17, 2008

TunerAddict said:
I heard contrasting reports. I heard we'd only be filling like 5% of our usage by doing these things.

that doesn't sound right, progress to research different ways for energy and oil can't all add up to only 5%. I mean take Nuclear power for example. I think it supports over 75% of France's electricity. Nuclear power alone does that. We have enough money for more Nuclear power and other ways,etc.
It's clear that being independent and finding other ways and alternatives can help most of this country. And the 5% sounds like an understatement.

TunerAddict · Sep 17, 2008

Paul1355 said:
that doesn't sound right, progress to research different ways for energy and oil can't all add up to only 5%. I mean take Nuclear power for example. I think it supports over 75% of France's electricity. Nuclear power alone does that. We have enough money for more Nuclear power and other ways,etc.
It's clear that being independent and finding other ways and alternatives can help most of this country. And the 5% sounds like an understatement.

I was talking about offshore drilling.

pat · Sep 17, 2008

Paul1355 said:
as I said, some of them are people that hate us, and some of that money does wind up in the hands of terrorist.
So can you say that we agree on this issue?

Hardly, because off shore drilling and transferring money into middle eastern accounts are by no means the only two options possible. As long as there are nuclear power (where to put the nuclear waste? maybe the middle east?) and using fossil fuels every economy based on the principles of the market will invest into developing sustainable alternatives.

Political Report

Enlightened

All Star

Enlightened

All Star

Starter

All Star

Enlightened

All Star

Starter

All Star

Starter

All Star

Starter

All Star

Starter

Starter

All Star

All Star

Starter

Starter