John Sidney McCain III ... What is his real agenda?

[MisterE-NYC]

I figured since there is one thread talking about Obama, we needed one to discuss Sidney McCain. I only use his middle name, because it seems like nowdays, that is all everyone cares about.

He could be President of the United States and I have some real concerns about what has formed him, what he believes now and his agenda for America.

What concerns me is his inability to differentiate between Al-Queda and extremist, his own admittance that he doesn't understand the economy, and his positions on many key subjects. (e.g. Bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran)

Here are 2 websites that may help

http://www.dailypundit.com/?p=29500

http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,164859_1,00.html

Of course there are many more sites out there, and some that are a lot more legitimate, but i felt these are pretty fun.

They are not Pro McCain, but antihttp://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:vgZKn3qvdzD4BM:http://bp2.blogger.com/_4gpA-7ep5tI/R9S-k2n5nRI/AAAAAAAAAGk/1KW3XoKNke0/s320/mcsame-720789.jpg

For now, this information along with a lot of other information, and well the general direction of the country give me great concern for the continued direction of the country if he is elected.

[AggieSpice]

McSAME...i like it!!!

[T. J.]

First, I've gotta say that I am very proud of my country. A mere 50 years ago, it would have been impossible for a man who happens to be really old to be one step away from winning a presidential election. We've come a long way, baby. The AARP, Wilford Brimley and Andy Rooney have got to be doing some serious wondering about their level of job security right now!

Secondly, there's no way in hell I'm voting for the guy. Robert Byrd? Hell yes, the guy gets my vote. John McCain? Hell no. Waaaay too right-wing.

[bleedorange]

Secondly, there's no way in hell I'm voting for the guy. Robert Byrd? Hell yes, the guy gets my vote. John McCain? Hell no. Waaaay too right-wing.

Yeah, your better bet is with the Grand Wizard. :rollseyes:

[bleedorange]

For now, this information along with a lot of other information, and well the general direction of the country give me great concern for the continued direction of the country if he is elected.

I'm concerned also. I'm pretty sure he's just another liberal nutjob.

[MisterE-NYC]

Robert Byrd for US Senate? Yes.
For President? I'm not sure who I would really like to see as President other then Obama right now.

I don't think we have seen a really good man run in a long time. Maybe we expect too much from one person. But if it is anything like the democratic primary, then we are sure in for a good race this year!

[Verb]

Wilford Brimley




DIABETUS!

[legelegel]

Mr.E-NYC, seems like I have seen some of the above wording before. :)

[MisterE-NYC]

Thought you might recognize it:food-smiley-004:

[legelegel]

Thought you might recognize it:food-smiley-004:

Whatever is mine is yours, :pete:.

[WyomingOSUAlum]

I've always wondered what it would be like to carry on a conversation in the Grand Canyon. Well, here we have it! Lots of echoes!!!!



:)

[GoPokes83]

As much as I can't stand Hillary, she was right about Obama and his lack of experience. Of course she had the same lack of experience. (If I need surgery would I trust my Dr.'s spouse to do it just because they'd hung around the hospital while it were going on?) So I'm going to vote for Mc Cain and hope no one shows him the Queen of Diamonds.

McCain's a tool, but name a president in the last 20 years who wasn't

[MisterE-NYC]

See, i dont know for sure how much experience matters. here is a fun and interesting website
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Info/experience.html

If we filled in the Information of elected experience for Obama, we would be 10 years. That also has the highest concentration of good presidents (11 years and less). Obama has the same amount of experience (and almost the exact same way) that Lincoln had.

Experience is not always a good thing. I would choose the doctors wife that watched surgeries, and maybe helped, over an experienced doctor that killed all of his patients.

[WyomingOSUAlum]

Experience is not always a good thing. I would choose the doctors wife that watched surgeries, and maybe helped, over an experienced doctor that killed all of his patients


I'm not sure exactly how that applies in this situation.

[MisterE-NYC]

Um, i consider certain economic policies killing the economy, thus damaging the US. Continuing these policies would continue to hurt the US. One candidate wants to continue them, and the other wants to change them.

The one that wants to change them worked on the economic policies in his state, and helped people control the damage that had been done before he was elected. He saw how the economic policies during the 90's worked, and also saw the failures in the 80's and 00's.

From that i am saying i would rather have the person that has observed good economic policy try to fix the current bad policies, then someone who has seen bad economic policy and wants to continue it.

Using the statement from the person that posted right above my previous post (GoPokes83), i tried to draw a parallel. Granted, i could have made it more gender neutral, but that would have change the original intent of the post i made my comment in response to.
Hope that helps!

[Inky29]

Actually he was against the tax cuts without reducing spending, look like he was dead on with that one. He was against the way we went in to Iraq, once again looks like he was right on that one. Now I disagree with him on immigration but I'd say he's not just continuing on what the past administration had done. From the sounds of it Obama's ideas on the economy fall in line with Carter's view and I think we all know how successful those ideas were. No candidate is perfect and I doubt I'm ever going to find one that I agree 100% with but no one can say that Mccain hasn't spoken out against the policies of Bush and on at least two occasions he's been correct in doing so.

[MisterE-NYC]

Very true, partially. I very much initially liked McCain's ideas, that is, until he became the Republican Nominee. I did not change my mind on what he formerly said, but instead he change his viewpoints. He backed away from what her originally spoke against, and started instead to fall in line with the bush tax cuts. So, initially, he was smart, but then in order to get republican support, he change his rhetoric to match the republican rhetoric. He use to definitely speak out against bushes ideas, but recently has started to support them. I personally am not a fan of that.

And in your opinion, how does Obamas ideas seem like Carters? I mean, i know McCain tried to draw a comparison. I honestly wasnt alive during Carters years, but from what i remember hearing, people were mad about high gas prices (hum, i think 4 bucks a gallon is pretty high), Unemployment problems (i think we just went up.5), problems with Iran (self explanatory), and inflation (how much is the dollar worth now?).

And well, here is an interesting article http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-carterreagan.htm
Well, i find it interesting, but i guess since i have an econ degree (and poli-sci minor), i find normally boring things neat.
{though that being said, i really do not want a job in economics... odd i know (the odd part is me getting a degree i do not want to work with, i just liked learning it[but that leaves me kind of screwed trying to get gainful employment])}

[OrangeCat]

Very true, partially. I very much initially liked McCain's ideas, that is, until he became the Republican Nominee.

hmmmmm, sort of like OSU recruits that have 4 stars until they commit to us then they drop to 2 stars???? I can understand that... :rollseyes:

[Pokes4Life]

This is very troubling!

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/10/mccain-i-will-veto-every-single-beer/

"McCain: 'I will veto every single beer'
Posted: 11:32 AM ET

(CNN) – John McCain issued a promise Tuesday that may cause a bit of unrest with a broad swath of voters:

He'll veto every single beer?

In a slip of the tongue while railing against excessive earmarks at the National Small Business Summit in Washington, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee inadvertently pledged to veto the popular alcoholic beverage.

"I will use the veto as needed. I will veto every single beer — bill with earmarks," he said, as rumblings from the crowd could be heard. "And every single bill that we have come across my desk I will make them famous. I will veto them, you will know their names."

It's not entirely surprising McCain has beer on the brain: his wife, Cindy, is heiress to her father's Arizona beer distribution company, Hensley and Company, one of the largest distributors in the U.S., for which she now serves as chairman.""



I may have to rethink my vote here. This is very very disturbing.

[Inky29]

I'd heard that one, he really is trying to get the religious right's vote :)

[FloridaPoke]

And in your opinion, how does Obamas ideas seem like Carters? I mean, i know McCain tried to draw a comparison. I honestly wasnt alive during Carters years, but from what i remember hearing, people were mad about high gas prices (hum, i think 4 bucks a gallon is pretty high), Unemployment problems (i think we just went up.5), problems with Iran (self explanatory), and inflation (how much is the dollar worth now?).



Since you weren't alive, let me give you a history lesson. Top marginal Tax rate of 70% (yes, 70%) completely disincentivised investment. Inflation hit 15% (versus 3.5-4.0% today), unemployment hit 12% (versus 5% today), short term interest rates hit 16% (versus 5% today). Taxes on capital gains were the same as ordinary income. Worse, windfall profits taxes on energy completely stifled new exploration, artificial price controls wiped out entrepreneurship.

Reagan lowered capital gains, lowered taxes, cut spending and deregulated virtually every over-regulated industry.

Result----->25 years of the greatest economic prosperity in the history of mankind.

Obama firmly quoted as wanting to raise capital gains taxes back up to 28% inspite of a) 100% (not 99%) experience that increases in capital gains taxes lowers gov't revenues and lowers business investment creating a double whammy b) lowering capital gains taxes frees up taxable capital, increases government revenues and increases business investment.

And the current democratic congress is openly discussing price controls, windfall profits taxes and new government oversight that are IDENTICAL to the Carter issues that created a near meltdown.

I could care less about Obama's skin color or years of experience. I really don't care what his religeous beliefs are. I don't care whether he was a star Harvard law grad. I really don't care what either party says about the Iraq war, as neither is going to exit abruptly....that will takes its own course regardless of this election.

What we should all care about is larger government, more regulation, more oversight, higher taxes, price controls and ANY policy that is counter to entrepreneurial and small business expansion, which is the TRUE lifeblood of this country. By nature, we are a nation of entrepreneurs. It is in our genes and virtually every country in the world is jelous of our genetic makeup of 300million risk takers, as risk is a precursor to reward. Every single time we have raised top marginal ordinary income rates above 35% or capital gains rates above 20%, we have proven that it becomes a disincentive to risk.

If we elect Obama and if he follows through on his promises of higher taxes, I will bet anybody any amount of money that the following 4 years the level of angel capital, venture capital and private equity invested in entrepreneurial ventures (tracked monthly and quarterly by the way) will decline by at least 25%. The cascading effect of this is also clear.

[Erick]

This thread belongs over at OP.com. Have you ever heard the term "Don't Scheiße where you eat"? This was suppose to be my place of piece.

[bleedorange]

I honestly wasnt alive during Carters years, but from what i remember hearing, people were mad about high gas prices (hum, i think 4 bucks a gallon is pretty high), Unemployment problems (i think we just went up.5), problems with Iran (self explanatory), and inflation (how much is the dollar worth now?).

FP said it well enough but it bears repeating. This country's recent and current well-being bears ABSOLUTELY ZERO resemblance to the Carter years. You can't put enough lipstick on that pig to make it resemble present day, thank God.

[JimBob]

FP said it well enough but it bears repeating. This country's recent and current well-being bears ABSOLUTELY ZERO resemblance to the Carter years. You can't put enough lipstick on that pig to make it resemble present day, thank God.

I'm glad FP and you took care of this; i'ts too early in the day for me to get started on that sorry POS. It makes me want to puke everytime I see that anti-Semitic old fool, and hear the crap that he spews.

[GoPokes83]

For what it's worth, (or worthless)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0xE7vSME-0

[WyomingOSUAlum]

This was suppose to be my place of piece.


You bust off a piece while you're visiting this website? YOU ARE MY HERO !!!!

[JimBob]

You bust off a piece while you're visiting this website? YOU ARE MY HERO !!!!

Next thing, you'll be wantin' pics!:cool-smiley-027:

[MisterE-NYC]

Well it definitely sounds like there is some Carter hate.
One of the big things to remember, that while the president has power, a lot of it is left in the hands of congress. Actually, in theory, the most powerful person in Washington is the Speaker of the House. So Blaming for Carter for everything doesn't make much sense. I don't entirely blame Bush for everything.

But I am not a fan of a high capital gains tax. Like i have said many times, I dont follow everything Obama says blindly, and I dont like some of his ideas. But in all, I have many more problems with McCain and his lack of economic ideas and his failing foreign policy ideas.

Just recently
LAUER: If it's working, senator, do you now have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq?

McCAIN: No, but that's not too important. What's important is the casualties in Iraq. Americans are in South Korea. Americans are in Japan. American troops are in Germany. That's all fine.

At least to my knowledge there are no troops stationed in Vietnam or North Korea. Please let me know if there are. But it would seem like if they are not, then his argument is pretty null. Also, if these people over there have been at war for, you know, several thousand years. I dont think there is much of a chance of making sure there are no American causalities. I mean, i hope thats the case, but for some reason, it doesnt seem likely.

[FloridaPoke]

Well it definitely sounds like there is some Carter hate.
One of the big things to remember, that while the president has power, a lot of it is left in the hands of congress. Actually, in theory, the most powerful person in Washington is the Speaker of the House. So Blaming for Carter for everything doesn't make much sense. I don't entirely blame Bush for everything.

But I am not a fan of a high capital gains tax. Like i have said many times, I dont follow everything Obama says blindly, and I dont like some of his ideas. But in all, I have many more problems with McCain and his lack of economic ideas and his failing foreign policy ideas.

Just recently
LAUER: If it's working, senator, do you now have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq?

McCAIN: No, but that's not too important. What's important is the casualties in Iraq. Americans are in South Korea. Americans are in Japan. American troops are in Germany. That's all fine.

At least to my knowledge there are no troops stationed in Vietnam or North Korea. Please let me know if there are. But it would seem like if they are not, then his argument is pretty null. Also, if these people over there have been at war for, you know, several thousand years. I dont think there is much of a chance of making sure there are no American causalities. I mean, i hope thats the case, but for some reason, it doesnt seem likely.

I am sorry, but you have been brain washed here. Obama WILL NOT AND CAN NOT bring US troops out of Iraq any sooner than McCain. The difference between the two is McCain is being transparent about that.

And please do tell. What McCain foreign policy ideas are failing? I am confused.

And as to his economic policies, McCain wants smaller government and lower taxes. Obama wants a bigger government, more regulation and higher taxes. I say that is loud and clear economic policy ideology. Maybe you don't agree, but his ideas are out there loud and clear......and history says his ideas will work and Obamas will fail miserably.

And Carter used executive privelege to put in place the artificial price controls that economists believed caused the meltdown. No congressional envolvement He also bully pulpited the most liberal congress ever. Together, they worked their magic right into oblivion.

Some of us who lived through that (I enjoyed a 15% home mortgage thank you), see eerie parallels between that time and what is about to happen.

I am amazed about how blinded so many people are by turning their hatred for GWB into Obama love.

A friend of mine described it best. Obama is a post turtle. A turtle placed on top of a fence post. He doesn't know how he got up there. Has no clue what to do while up there and is really amazed at what idiot was dumb enough to put him up there.

[MisterE-NYC]

Well, Obama can pull the troops home as fast as congress allows. If he wants it done, and so does congress, then it will happen. I am pretty sure the president is the commander and chief of the military.

McCains failing foreign policies and ideas, could have been worded better. I would expect someone to know how many troops we have over there, someone that knows the difference between Al-queda and extremist, someone that wouldn't mind talking to foreign leaders like Reagan did, supporting Bush's Appeasement statements, Bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran... things like that.

And yes, i see you talking of McCains vs. Obamas tax and Government size dealings. While these are typical republican battle cries, how much research have you done into their tax ideas and compared them side to side? What about government control? Would you rather have a bigger government that protects your civil liberities and the bill of rights, or a smaller government that acts as big brother and smashes the bill of rights and your civil liberties? Thats the question that needs to be asked.

And the post turtle thing, thats kind of funny. But you could interject McCains name and the story could be just as true.

Guessing form the past about what will happen in the future. Well, that is something that can be done. But If i would have done that, I would have been really surprised between Reagan and W. Besides looking at the past, you also have to look and see what is happening in the world, and how the times are changing. 20 years ago there want the internet as we know it, the Devil Rays were not even conceived, a laptop was only imaginary, the atari was the hot item, and Devo was rocking the stage. Times have definitely changed, and so has the way the world worked.

While i do not like "W" it is not what i like Obama. If I liked McCains policies, i would like him. If he was as he use to be (very moderate) i would have a tough choice between him and Obama. He has changed to garner republicans support.

[osupsycho]

Well, Obama can pull the troops home as fast as congress allows. If he wants it done, and so does congress, then it will happen. I am pretty sure the president is the commander and chief of the military.

McCains failing foreign policies and ideas, could have been worded better. I would expect someone to know how many troops we have over there, someone that knows the difference between Al-queda and extremist, someone that wouldn't mind talking to foreign leaders like Reagan did, supporting Bush's Appeasement statements, Bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran... things like that.

And yes, i see you talking of McCains vs. Obamas tax and Government size dealings. While these are typical republican battle cries, how much research have you done into their tax ideas and compared them side to side? What about government control? Would you rather have a bigger government that protects your civil liberities and the bill of rights, or a smaller government that acts as big brother and smashes the bill of rights and your civil liberties? Thats the question that needs to be asked.

And the post turtle thing, thats kind of funny. But you could interject McCains name and the story could be just as true.

Guessing form the past about what will happen in the future. Well, that is something that can be done. But If i would have done that, I would have been really surprised between Reagan and W. Besides looking at the past, you also have to look and see what is happening in the world, and how the times are changing. 20 years ago there want the internet as we know it, the Devil Rays were not even conceived, a laptop was only imaginary, the atari was the hot item, and Devo was rocking the stage. Times have definitely changed, and so has the way the world worked.

While i do not like "W" it is not what i like Obama. If I liked McCains policies, i would like him. If he was as he use to be (very moderate) i would have a tough choice between him and Obama. He has changed to garner republicans support.

I guess I can understand your position somewhat and I just wished more Obama supporters were the same. Unfortunately, the majority of Obama supporters that I see only are looking skin deep at him (pun intended). For me I have looked at both of the two remaining options and their policies and McCain will be getting my vote.

What scares me more than anything is that if Obama gets his way and jerks us out of Iraq prematurely we are going to end up paying for it dearly in the future (actually our children will likely do the paying). I am not happy about the manipulation that got us into Iraq but the point now is we are there and we are close to winning a monumental victory that could have major ramifications. Think about it... If we clean things up and help setup a democratic Iraq then we will have a huge ally in a very tumoltuous area. On the other hand if we turn tail and run like we did in Vietnam we will likely see Iraq collapse into the worst anti American cesspool that has ever been. And unlike Vietnam they will likely have the means and then the motive to strike out at anything and everyone American all over the globe. Heck they would be sitting in an area that has the one thing that is causing more issues than anything for Americans right now...OIL. I truly believe that if we pull out of Iraq and leave them to fail we will soon be seeing gas prices in the double digit range...

You do make a good point in that the president is only part of the power and congress is a major part. That is why my belief is that I prefer that each party control one of them and one party not have overwhelming power in both.

[Inky29]

How quickly is he planning on bringing the troops home? I've seen some reports that he says he'll have them home in 19 months.

[MisterE-NYC]

From the Obama website
"Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."

[osupsycho]

From the Obama website
"Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."

I have no reason to not believe that this came from Obamas website but the part that I highlighted scares me more than anything. Obama obviously does not understand Al Qaeda simply by this one statement. Al Qaeda is not a military organization in the sense that they build bases. They are more of a group of thugs for comparison purposes. Do thugs go around building bases? No they move in and destroy. Once Al Qaeda starts building bases then the battle for that area is lost....

As far as permanent bases I say that should be something that we allow Iraq to decide to some extent. If they want and allow us to have one there then it could be a huge advantage to the US. Some of our best overseas bases are in former warzones.

[MisterE-NYC]

I do not speak for the campaign, but maybe thats the point. Since the possibility of al-queada building a base is pretty much non existent, then we have no reason to stay. But Al quaeda does have some military bases all over the region, and there are former ones spread around too.

And surveys show that most Iraqi people want the US out. From the Washington Post "BAGHDAD, Sept. 26 -- A strong majority of Iraqis want U.S.-led military forces to immediately withdraw from the country, saying their swift departure would make Iraq more secure and decrease sectarian violence, according to new polls by the State Department and independent researchers.
In Baghdad, for example, nearly three-quarters of residents polled said they would feel safer if U.S. and other foreign forces left Iraq, with 65 percent of those asked favoring an immediate pullout, according to State Department polling results obtained by The Washington Post."
and another about Iraqi lawmakers wanting US troops out. http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/05/9430/

So, we are over there even though many of them do not want us to be. We want to be there until we feel we should leave. We are the foreign invaders in a sovereign nation. It is not about what they way, it is sadly about what we want.

But i do agree if Iraq is safe and need our assistance, and our troops do not get killed, then we should help them out. Our bases over seas are definitely sometimes good. Sometimes they are a bit too controversial, like the Saudi Arabia happenings.

[legelegel]

We are in Iraq because what was created there, a creature that was a threat to everyone near him.

No one wants to be occupied by foreigners with guns, but the men and women of the United States Armed Forces are the best occupier any country could have and the people of Iraq know it.

[MustangPokeFan]

You people scare the sh!t outa me. I cannot believe how clueless the general population is about economics and how close we are to eliminating the "pursuit of happiness" from our vocabulary. I don't know how old any of you are but most of you sound like you are part of the intoxicated Pied Piper Obamatons that are about to elect the closest thing to a pure socialist we've ever had in the White House. He'll have an unbridled two years of a democratic congress to assist him in his socialist "redistribution of income" agenda. He will destroy our economy. Do you have any clue that you cannot make things better by soaking the people that make the economy work?

Please take time to read this article (http://newsok.com/article/3257213) and try to understand it. It is absolutely true and electing Obama will bring more of this clueless policy making that has brought us to $4.00+ a gallon gasoline.

[JimBob]

You people scare the sh!t outa me. I cannot believe how clueless the general population is about economics and how close we are to eliminating the "pursuit of happiness" from our vocabulary. I don't know how old any of you are but most of you sound like you are part of the intoxicated Pied Piper Obamatons that are about to elect the closest thing to a pure socialist we've ever had in the White House. He'll have an unbridled two years of a democratic congress to assist him in his socialist "redistribution of income" agenda. He will destroy our economy. Do you have any clue that you cannot make things better by soaking the people that make the economy work?

Please take time to read this article (http://newsok.com/article/3257213) and try to understand it. It is absolutely true and electing Obama will bring more of this clueless policy making that has brought us to $4.00+ a gallon gasoline.

If your excited now, just wait 'til they re-enact the "Fairness Doctrine" so free speech is "protected"!:rollseyes:

[Deepfork]

See, i dont know for sure how much experience matters. here is a fun and interesting websitehttp://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Info/experience.htmlIf we filled in the Information of elected experience for Obama, we would be 10 years. That also has the highest concentration of good presidents (11 years and less). Obama has the same amount of experience (and almost the exact same way) that Lincoln had. Experience is not always a good thing. I would choose the doctors wife that watched surgeries, and maybe helped, over an experienced doctor that killed all of his patients.Holy crap.* You* can't seriously compare two candidates who are 148 years apart!* You can't be serious and compare Obama and Abraham Lincoln.* And your doctor analogy is simply stupid.* You are no smarter on this board than on guru's board.* In fact, your points are even more ignorant.

[jakeman]

In fact, your points are even more ignorant.

You're gonna get a 4 or 5 paragraph lecture on not adding to the conversation. You just wait.

See, here's the thing. I don't argue with twits or fools. It's pointless. I'd rather just observe they are idiots and ignorant, and move on. Their "points" have no basis in fact and are the result of political leanings, however misguided. I've learned that you just can't change their position with facts.

They have never stepped foot on the floor of a rotary drilling platform, yet they are convinced it is such a filthy operation that the Alaska Wilderness would be hopelessly ruined. Yet there are thousands of bushels of wheat harvested out of fields that are dotted with producing oil & gas wells. Cattle graze in pastures mere yards away from those same wells. The wheat makes bread that they eat, and the cattle make hamburgers they feed their kids. With the exception of a few places, Western Oklahoma has more producing wells than just about anywhere else. I don't notice a shortage of deer, turkey, quail, dove, snakes, turtles, raccoons, skunks or any other wildlife. In fact the indigenous species seem to be thriving. Yet if drilling were to take place elsewhere the local wildlife would be hopelessly doomed. As if one ecosystem is more "fragile" than another. Every ecosystem is fragile, in it's own way. If you spill salt water or oil on fertile farm ground it won't recover any faster than the permafrost, at least not without help. It boggles the mind. They are ignorant of the process, and they want to stay that way. And I don't care.

I'll keep believing they are idiots, and they will keep believing I'm a war-mongering, hate filled, world destroying, hydrocarbon using freak. And I don't care about that either. I have a full size SUV and a big 'ole boat, and they both run on gasoline, but only because the dealership was out of the ones that run on Spotted Owls.

[frankeaton]

You're gonna get a 4 or 5 paragraph lecture on not adding to the conversation. You just wait.

See, here's the thing. I don't argue with twits or fools. It's pointless. I'd rather just observe they are idiots and ignorant, and move on. Their "points" have no basis in fact and are the result of political leanings, however misguided. I've learned that you just can't change their position with facts.

They have never stepped foot on the floor of a rotary drilling platform, yet they are convinced it is such a filthy operation that the Alaska Wilderness would be hopelessly ruined. Yet there are thousands of bushels of wheat harvested out of fields that are dotted with producing oil & gas wells. Cattle graze in pastures mere yards away from those same wells. The wheat makes bread that they eat, and the cattle make hamburgers they feed their kids. With the exception of a few places, Western Oklahoma has more producing wells than just about anywhere else. I don't notice a shortage of deer, turkey, quail, dove, snakes, turtles, raccoons, skunks or any other wildlife. In fact the indigenous species seem to be thriving. Yet if drilling were to take place elsewhere the local wildlife would be hopelessly doomed. As if one ecosystem is more "fragile" than another. Every ecosystem is fragile, in it's own way. If you spill salt water or oil on fertile farm ground it won't recover any faster than the permafrost, at least not without help. It boggles the mind. They are ignorant of the process, and they want to stay that way. And I don't care.

I'll keep believing they are idiots, and they will keep believing I'm a war-mongering, hate filled, world destroying, hydrocarbon using freak. And I don't care about that either. I have a full size SUV and a big 'ole boat, and they both run on gasoline, but only because the dealership was out of the ones that run on Spotted Owls.


:action-smiley-033::action-smiley-033::action-smiley-033:

[JimBob]

You're gonna get a 4 or 5 paragraph lecture on not adding to the conversation. You just wait.

See, here's the thing. I don't argue with twits or fools. It's pointless. I'd rather just observe they are idiots and ignorant, and move on. Their "points" have no basis in fact and are the result of political leanings, however misguided. I've learned that you just can't change their position with facts.

They have never stepped foot on the floor of a rotary drilling platform, yet they are convinced it is such a filthy operation that the Alaska Wilderness would be hopelessly ruined. Yet there are thousands of bushels of wheat harvested out of fields that are dotted with producing oil & gas wells. Cattle graze in pastures mere yards away from those same wells. The wheat makes bread that they eat, and the cattle make hamburgers they feed their kids. With the exception of a few places, Western Oklahoma has more producing wells than just about anywhere else. I don't notice a shortage of deer, turkey, quail, dove, snakes, turtles, raccoons, skunks or any other wildlife. In fact the indigenous species seem to be thriving. Yet if drilling were to take place elsewhere the local wildlife would be hopelessly doomed. As if one ecosystem is more "fragile" than another. Every ecosystem is fragile, in it's own way. If you spill salt water or oil on fertile farm ground it won't recover any faster than the permafrost, at least not without help. It boggles the mind. They are ignorant of the process, and they want to stay that way. And I don't care.

I'll keep believing they are idiots, and they will keep believing I'm a war-mongering, hate filled, world destroying, hydrocarbon using freak. And I don't care about that either. I have a full size SUV and a big 'ole boat, and they both run on gasoline, but only because the dealership was out of the ones that run on Spotted Owls.


You sir, are my hero!!

[WyomingOSUAlum]

You're gonna get a 4 or 5 paragraph lecture on not adding to the conversation. You just wait.

See, here's the thing. I don't argue with twits or fools. It's pointless. I'd rather just observe they are idiots and ignorant, and move on. Their "points" have no basis in fact and are the result of political leanings, however misguided. I've learned that you just can't change their position with facts.

They have never stepped foot on the floor of a rotary drilling platform, yet they are convinced it is such a filthy operation that the Alaska Wilderness would be hopelessly ruined. Yet there are thousands of bushels of wheat harvested out of fields that are dotted with producing oil & gas wells. Cattle graze in pastures mere yards away from those same wells. The wheat makes bread that they eat, and the cattle make hamburgers they feed their kids. With the exception of a few places, Western Oklahoma has more producing wells than just about anywhere else. I don't notice a shortage of deer, turkey, quail, dove, snakes, turtles, raccoons, skunks or any other wildlife. In fact the indigenous species seem to be thriving. Yet if drilling were to take place elsewhere the local wildlife would be hopelessly doomed. As if one ecosystem is more "fragile" than another. Every ecosystem is fragile, in it's own way. If you spill salt water or oil on fertile farm ground it won't recover any faster than the permafrost, at least not without help. It boggles the mind. They are ignorant of the process, and they want to stay that way. And I don't care.

I'll keep believing they are idiots, and they will keep believing I'm a war-mongering, hate filled, world destroying, hydrocarbon using freak. And I don't care about that either. I have a full size SUV and a big 'ole boat, and they both run on gasoline, but only because the dealership was out of the ones that run on Spotted Owls.




You forgot the part about oil being "natural"! Natural = nature= good !!!