Is there any reason to vote for John McCain?

[Trajan12]

John McCain in 2000 was pretty cool. And there were likely very many reasons to vote for him. Barack Obama in February was also way cooler as well. I suppose being nominee of your party and the inevitable sucking up that comes after results in an automatic deduction of cool points.

 

[Patroklos]

Patroklos can you please explain this?

Obama has stated many times that he intends to interfere in Pakistan to a far greater degree than we do currently (and we all know you don't even like the current odd air strike).

 

[RedRalph]

Obama has stated many times that he intends to interfere in Pakistan to a far greater degree than we do currently (and we all know you don't even like the current odd air strike).

so do you think a US-Pakistani war is all but guaranteed (given that Obama looks highly likey to win)? Do you think interfere means military action in that context?

 

[Patroklos]

Military action, to include ground action? Yes. General war with Pakistan? No. They will . .. .. .. .. . and moan but the Pakistani military would revolt before actively prosecuting a war against US forces.

 

[RedRalph]

Military action, to include ground action? Yes. General war with Pakistan? No. They will . .. .. .. .. . and moan but the Pakistani military would revolt before actively prosecuting a war against US forces.

well, so you think, I wouldnt be so confident.... what extent of ground action would be likely?

 

[Patroklos]

I am thinking air assault raids (helo born infantry) on villages and compounds.

 

[Evil Bunny]

That's a pretty moronic list, all told. Sure some of them are perfectly valid, but many are taken completely out of context (of course he wasn't aware of MLK at the time, he was in a Hanoi prison), some of them are only negative if you're a partisan Democrat ("voted to convict Bill Clinton on impeachment charges"), some of them are splitting hairs ("doubling" vs "no more than doubling" capital gains taxes), and many of them are either cool or funny (at a Smith & Wesson plant, “I will follow Osama Bin Laden to the gates of hell and I will shoot him with your products”; “I wouldn’t call you an rear end in a top hat unless you were really an rear end in a top hat.”).

Agreed. I'm an Obama intern and I think that list is very deceptive and misleading.

 

[RedRalph]

I am thinking air assault raids (helo born infantry) on villages and compounds.

Heres the thing, the Pakistai govt in that situation would be obliged to either give the US permission to do that, giving credibility to Talebs who claim to be the only ones who can defend the predominantly anti-american Pakistani public creedence or specifically forbid it, in which case you would have a chaotic situation where it would be up to the morale and impulses of a local commander whether to attack US troops or not. do you really think any president, of either America or Pakistan would want that situation? Would you really want a black hawk down scenario where you dont know at all how the local govt and army officials are going to react to your presence? Isnt that about the worst thing you could do? It seems to me it would be, and I'd be astonished by the stupidity of Obama if he did that, but by saying that I'm not putting it beyond him.

 

[Narz]

But they are results, which will help. Simple math wins again. And your time frame arguement is absurd, as every single alternative as a similar or far greater lead time.

You don't know the lead time of stuff not even considered yet. And no one since Carter has ever cared to invest in alternative technologies so what do you expect?

Few years?

It is all experimental. Assuming that they had a breakthrough right now, it would be decades before anything other than a token portion of our transport fleet would be utilizing the tech. But there isn't a breakthrough right now, no matter how much you and Obama wish for it. Life style change? Sure, but in conjuction with domestic oil discover and nuclear power. If we increase domestic oil prodution to cover 5% of our demand that would be awesome. If we reduce our our usave by 5% by lifestyle changes that would be awesome. Put both of those together and do the math and that is AWESOME!

What happens when the offshore supply goes into decline?

We can start drilling and nuke power plant constuction right now.

Sure, a large energy & money expenditure for small but guarenteed results later. Versus uncertain results but potentially breakthru results (or potentially nothing). I can see why one might prefer the first choice.

Again, your timeline fallacy is bordering on ********. Alternative fuels don't exist, nuke power and drilling tech do. Are you really oblivious to the implication of those facts?

Alternative fuels exist. Uranium & fossil fuels won't last forever. We only have so much money to put into either basket. If alternative fuels cannot & never will be viable, we're screwed. But the sooner we do our damndest to find out the better.

Yes, we have already established that you and Obama plan on praying for a solution to fall from the sky instead of pursuing every avenue available.

Fall from the sky? Research & development are hard work. Seems to me like those who think business as usual will save the day think that if we just manage to go along long enough on oil a new fuel source will magically appear.

 

[GenMarshall]

There is no reason to vote for John McBush, unless you don't mind him taxing you just because you have health insurance through your employer and a man who is a cheerleader for an unpopular war.

 

[Neomega]

His opposition to ethanol subsidies is one issue that is going to be very important, and that he is right about.

cant think of much else, at the moment.

 

[Cutlass]

What about Obama's plan even remotely hints at increasing the size of the pie. His gutting of investment incentives alone refutes this.

So your version of "gutting incentives" is what anyone else would consider to be increasing them?

 

[Atlas14]

1.) Don't be ridiculous, Iran with nuclear weapons is unacceptable on multiple levels and would indeed be a casus belli. Amongst other things that actually already give us a casus belli.

The US remains the only nation on earth to have killed people with nuclear weapons, most people in our nation didn't lose an ounce of sleep over the fact that we unleashed 2 WMDs on Japan in the name of ending a war. Your accusation of unacceptability will be taken seriously when the US gets rid of its own nuclear weapons.

2,) And it has nothing to do with a "license," but rather having someone who fully understands the implications of what he is ordering. McCain knows exactly what I am going through every time I pull away from the pier, Obama has no clue.

If PTSD was diagnosed like it is today, im sure McCain would have it. Theres been a screw loose in his noggin for years now. And way to endorse war, killing other people. Be proud. Love thy neighbor, but don't let love get in the way of killing.

At least they pay lip service, the Dems don't even pretend. McCain's record is clear as far as cutting wasteful spending.

Like spending millions on an ad comparing Obama to Paris Hilton?

Which is exactly the point, a well rounded plan utilizing all the options available. Obama's plan amounts to nothing other than "lets all wait around for a super awesome breakthrough in alternative fuels!" McCain's plan includes alternative development as well, but also lists expansion of domestic oil output and nuclear energy NOW in the meantime.

Your pathetic "maverick" will destroy already rapidly declining fish populations, which will in turn hurt the economy. Has your maverick addressed the impact of drilling in ANWR on salmon spawning sites and popluations? No. He knows sh** about it. The guy doesn't give a crap about the environment. He claims to be a patriot, but a true patriot wouldn't rape his own nation's natural resources for the sake of a few extra barrels of oil and cash in his pocket.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

This thread is a semi-flame...

Perhaps if you had titled it "Reasons to vote for McCain."

 

[Mowque]

3 WMDs? i thought we only dropped two in WW2?

 

[Atlas14]

3 WMDs? i thought we only dropped two in WW2?

Ah my bad. Should read as 2. Thanks.

 

[Cutlass]

3 WMDs? i thought we only dropped two in WW2?

Only 2 atomic bombs have been used in war. Though poison gas has been used in a number of cases.

 

[mrt144]

Ethanol Period.

 

[Mowque]

I just thought i missed something!

Doesn't whole Iran thing (sadly) boil down to "We have WMD's first, so we make the rules?"

 

[Berzerker]

The Economist as well as the plurality of leading economists have endorsed Obama

I didn't say The Economist prefers McCain's economics

I dont believe in subsidies and protective tariffs