[EasyEJL]

Originally Posted by Reaper329

agreede, kinda crazy ticket, but it will get the missing evangelical vote. I still think they lose regardless. A possible Obama/Biden ticket would be interesting (just a rumor I hear)

I kind of think the reverse. the only possible ticket that the dems have that could beat it is the obama/hillary combo either way. it would take the 2 together. Mccain's only weakness is the potential that he doesn't get huge core republican turnout. With huckabee, he would. The problem is that with an obama/hillary ticket, so would the dems. Either of them alone with just about any other vp candidate would loose a lot of the independents.

[Kruger]

I honesty think if Obama wins the the Dem ticket, nobody will stop him (and he won't have Hillary on the ticket).

This is very similar to 1992 where as much baggage as Clinton had, he represented change and people voted on that more than any other issue.

Obama is getting a LOT of independent white vote, is picking up Latino vote, dominates African American voters, and attracts a ton of moderates EVEN though he is liberal. Looking at voter turnout even in red states he won, I think he will basically crush anyone on the right.


And I'm a Republican....

[Mo250]

Btw, does anyone know if Mike Gravel is still running

[CryingEmo]

I think 'someone' secretly likes Obama.

[Reaper329]

Originally Posted by Jerry

I honesty think if Obama wins the the Dem ticket, nobody will stop him (and he won't have Hillary on the ticket).

This is very similar to 1992 where as much baggage as Clinton had, he represented change and people voted on that more than any other issue.

Obama is getting a LOT of independent white vote, is picking up Latino vote, dominates African American voters, and attracts a ton of moderates EVEN though he is liberal. Looking at voter turnout even in red states he won, I think he will basically crush anyone on the right.


And I'm a Republican....

I agree, I think he is the dems only chance, Hillary on her own will lose

[Mo250]

Well in reality Hillary and Obama are essentially the same! They both care about party loyalties and lobbyist. The only difference between the two is that one voted not to go to war and the other supports universal health care.

[kwyckemynd00]

Originally Posted by CNorris

Wow, I couldnt get past the ridiculous part about Romney not being a flip flopper.

Wow, honestly I feel bad for anyone that doesnt have the ability to see right through Romney for being what he is: The most pathetic lying flip flopping political hack I have ever seen. This guy has no integrity, no belief system and will say anything to get a vote. Romney is a joke and if you think he has one ounce of integrity well the joke is on you. HAHAH Romney not a flip flopper. Oh yeah he just changed his position.

I'll get back to you on this and you McCain comments. And boy it will be fun to compile all of his gutless flip flops and pathetic and arrogant, dishonest statements he has made.

You sound like idol John McCain... many words used, little said.

[kwyckemynd00]

Originally Posted by EasyEJL

The environment is a tough one for sure. But you and mrs gimpy want to have kids, how bad do you want it to get in their lifetime?

The effects of increased CO2 on global climate change are so ridiculously speculative, its not even funny. We don't even know if the effects will be positive, negative, or detrimental--to date we only have positive effects to note: 1) increased crop yields directly related to increasing CO2 around the world. The most publicized "negative" effects were polar glacial melting. Much of that region has been re-freezing rapidly! (Arctic Sea Ice Refreezes at Record Pace After Record Melt - Arctic Sea Ice - thedailygreen.com).

To top it off, there is still extensive debate as to the extent of human effect on (their portion of) global "warming". We know we're increasing CO2, sure. But, the effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas on global temperatures is a logarithmic function. I.E. In the "dinosaur" era global CO2 approached 10,000ppm (vs about 380 now) and the world was nothing close to a giant desert--on the contrary, it was extremely green. There are many skeptic climatologists who believe we are probably responsible for no more than 5% or so of overall global warming and the rest is a function of natural trends associated with solar output activity--that would be why many of the other planets in our solar system are also experiencing global warming. The only argument here is that they haven't solve which comes first, increased CO2 or increased solar output--that's the point of debate at the moment.

My point is this: my main concern is not whether or not my kids will be living. CO2 is projected to be 700ppm in 100 years, 10x lower than it was while the dinosaurs roamed a big beautiful green earth. We'll live.

I'm much more concerned with some idiot, like McCain (or Hillabama for that matter), who is willing to stunt our economic growth and put us in a horrible position in order to satisfy a liberal/moderate voting block, or "reach across the aisle" as he puts it. I want my children to live in a safe, strong, and prosperous country. (A country which, contrary to its communist Chinese competition, has a long history of putting the good of the world first, and propelling the advancement of freedom, technology and prosperity across the world.)

Mccain only wanted repeal the bush tax cuts because they weren't offset by lowered spending. He has pledged to make them permanent but also to reduce federal spending to make them breakeven.

So, he flip-flopped? In all honesty, if he flip flopped and will honestly take that position, I can give a rats ass what his position was prior. All I want is that the good of the country, not the good of politicians seeking power for their "party", is put first. If that has to come in the form of a flip-flopping jelly-spined idiot, I'm fine with it as long as the end result is there.

[kwyckemynd00]

Originally Posted by Jerry

I honesty think if Obama wins the the Dem ticket, nobody will stop him (and he won't have Hillary on the ticket).

This is very similar to 1992 where as much baggage as Clinton had, he represented change and people voted on that more than any other issue.

Obama is getting a LOT of independent white vote, is picking up Latino vote, dominates African American voters, and attracts a ton of moderates EVEN though he is liberal. Looking at voter turnout even in red states he won, I think he will basically crush anyone on the right.


And I'm a Republican....

You're probably right. And, Obama scares me personally. But, he does have what the ignorant masses love to see/hear: charisma, and a promise of "change" for the better. People don't see through BS, and people don't ask questions, hell, people don't even require substance--they're stupid!

Listen to Obama for 5 minutes. He sounds like on of the kids from the Captain Planet squad. "I'm the candidate who can bring change! I'm the candidate who can make healthcare affordable to each and every person in this country, by bringing democrats and republicans together!" He talks as if the republocrats have these little magical rings that, once combined, can make bunnies fall out of the sky and all of the worlds problems will simultaneously be solved--all he had to do was "bring republicans and democrats together" . Its so ridiculous that the ignorant masses are allowed to vote when they aren't current with the issues concerning our country, and its even more ridiculous that dirt-bag politicians can provide entirely substance-less rhetoric and receive thunderous applause and droves of support.

[Reaper329]

I cant understand theissue with "flip flopping". We have all done it several times and will do it thousands more in our lifetimes. Changing ones mind is not necessarily a bad thing.

[EasyEJL]

Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00

So, he flip-flopped? In all honesty, if he flip flopped and will honestly take that position, I can give a rats ass what his position was prior. All I want is that the good of the country, not the good of politicians seeking power for their "party", is put first. If that has to come in the form of a flip-flopping jelly-spined idiot, I'm fine with it as long as the end result is there.

He didn't flip flop, his opinion is exactly the same its just that as president, he will be able to via vetos if necessary make up the cost savings. Whereas his objection the entire time was that we lowered income without lowering expenses.

If the environmental issues were soley around the global warming, then i as well am unconvinced as to how real and how pressing it is. However using that as the rallying cry to get people together and remove our dependence on middle eastern oil is worthwhile. Electric or hydrogen powered cars would be quite well worthwhile if we reduced the cost of electricity by putting new nuclear plants in place. The reason I added hydrogen is that with an abundant cheap supply of electricity from nukes it becomes feasible to set up local hydrogen stations that do their own electrolysis splitting of hydrogen from water, and then there is no additional or new distribution network needed. Hydrogen fuel cell cars could be running on the road in under 5 years if that was feasible.

[kwyckemynd00]

Originally Posted by EasyEJL

He didn't flip flop, his opinion is exactly the same its just that as president, he will be able to via vetos if necessary make up the cost savings. Whereas his objection the entire time was that we lowered income without lowering expenses.

But the point behind tax cuts, and this is what's scary about McCain to me, is that tax cuts are used as an incentive to increase production and jobs. E.G. if we were getting 20% of $100, that's still less than getting 15% of $200. Lowering taxes = lower production costs = lower product costs = increased production = more workers = higher tax revenues. At least, that's the idea I.E. Ronald reagan was able to increase spending on cold war issues because he increased tax revenues via tax cuts. Yes, he spent lots of money in his effort to win the Cold War, but he was able to do that, and boost the economy at the same time, because of the tax cuts. Tax cuts and increased tax revenues can go hand in hand, they're not mutually exclusive.

If the environmental issues were soley around the global warming, then i as well am unconvinced as to how real and how pressing it is. However using that as the rallying cry to get people together and remove our dependence on middle eastern oil is worthwhile. Electric or hydrogen powered cars would be quite well worthwhile if we reduced the cost of electricity by putting new nuclear plants in place. The reason I added hydrogen is that with an abundant cheap supply of electricity from nukes it becomes feasible to set up local hydrogen stations that do their own electrolysis splitting of hydrogen from water, and then there is no additional or new distribution network needed. Hydrogen fuel cell cars could be running on the road in under 5 years if that was feasible.

The progression toward alternative forms of energy is already underway. I don't think we need put our economy in danger by ramming change down our throats and limiting our access to valuable energy resources, making them more available for competitive economies. Let nature take its course: by nature, humans want cheaper, cleaner, more efficient, and more abundant forms of energy. We're heading that direction already as is indicated by the huge increase in available hybrid vehicles by manufacturers across the board and in all categories of automobile.

[EasyEJL]

Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00

But the point behind tax cuts, and this is what's scary about McCain to me, is that tax cuts are used as an incentive to increase production and jobs. E.G. if we were getting 20% of $100, that's still less than getting 15% of $200. Lowering taxes = lower production costs = lower product costs = increased production = more workers = higher tax revenues. At least, that's the idea

Right, but in the short term, when you make the change from $20 as 20% of $100 to $15 as 15% of it before it grows towards $200, you need to make up for the $5 somehow. No different than in your household income. Mccain doesn't believe that spending more than you earn works in the long run, and believes the cost cuts should come with it or even before it - shrinking the size of the federal govt.