John McCain's FALSE attack on Obama.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by stevento, Jul 21, 2008.

  1. stevento macrumors 6502

    stevento

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #1
    I usually do not put John McCain in the same boat with other noe-cons. He is not like George Bush. Until now.
    Look at this false ad from John McCain. It says Obama says no to energy independence!
    It says the reason gas is $4 + is because of lack of offshore drilling due to Obama and others.
    Even McCain admits if we drilled offshore tomorrow it'd take 5 years to hit the pump and have about a nickle's effect on the price of gas!
    so instead of $4 gas, we'd have $3.95 gas, 5 years from now! John McCain "solution" to gas prices is a band-aid on a bullet hole and he's attacking Obama's plan?!
    What Crap!!
     
  2. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #2
    John McCain supports a "gas-tax holiday", so therefore loses all credibility on this issue.

    Also, in regards to the offshore drilling ********, it's not going to help anything any time soon. It would take a few years for us to start getting oil from that, and it would just hurt the environment.


    Here's a better idea: instead of trying to get more oil to lower the price (which would just be a quick fix, not a long term solution), we need to start using less oil and work towards more alternative energy sources.
     
  3. és: macrumors 6502a

    és:

    #3
    In relation to your first sentence; I think he could be much worse than the current crop.
     
  4. harcosparky macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2008
    #4
    Five years from now you'll be wishing it was $3.95 a gallon

    Given the way things are currently, it'll probably be on par with other worldwide prices .... $8 - $10 per gallon.

    Honestly for us as Americans to say .....

    " No we cannot drill new oil wells here in the USA because it MAY harm the environment " but to encourage buying foreign oil is hypocritical.

    Of course now that he is the 'presumptive' candidate, I look forward to Obama saying ANYTHING that he believes will get him elected. I will then go back and look at his record of actions to decide if he is worthy of my vote.
     
  5. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #5
    This is not the time in the election cycle to expect honesty from Republicans. (Not that any time really is.)

    I'm bracing myself for all kinds of GOP crap that is either (a) twisted out of context, or (b) simply made up.
     
  6. MacDawg macrumors P6

    MacDawg

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Location:
    "Between the Hedges"
    #6
    This is not the time in the election cycle to expect honesty from Republicans politicians. (Not that any time really is.)

    I'm bracing myself for all kinds of GOP political crap that is either (a) twisted out of context, or (b) simply made up.

    Woof, Woof – Dawg [​IMG]
     
  7. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #7
    Closer ... :p

    Politicians, the only people on the planet loved less than a used car salesmen.

    Oops, wait, how bout Roger Penske for VP. :eek:
     
  8. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #8
    Come on Dawg, you know only the evil Republicans are capable of that.:rolleyes: Democrats are all the source of all that is good in the world, never lie, twist things out of context, etc.

    Sheesh, man, get with the program!;)
     
  9. Prof. macrumors 601

    Prof.

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Chicago
    #9
    The GOP is losing and they're afraid. They are gonna pull every card they can to try and squash Obama and they are going to FAIL!

    They're a bunch of Nancies.
     
  10. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #10
    The Republican Party through the Emperor Palpatine of Lee Atwater, the Darth Vader of Karl Rove and the minions of talk radio have easily outstripped the Dems in sheer snake-oil and low blows, twisting the state of political discourse far beyond reason. Even I know that; to deny it is blindness.
     
  11. GfPQqmcRKUvP macrumors 68040

    GfPQqmcRKUvP

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Location:
    Terminus
    #11
    And they said that five years ago...

    So you can do two things. Support drilling domestically for greater energy independence (whether or not price is dramatically affected), or stop complaining about the price of gas, Republicans, and stop being a hypocrite. You can't have it both ways. Gas can't be super cheap and spur massive investment for alternative energy.

    How about we go NUCLEAR? No one seems to be saying that. GO NUCLEAR. We have so much uranium and plutonium it's ridiculous.



    Paraphrasing your oft-used asterisks, no ****.
     
  12. és: macrumors 6502a

    és:

    #12
    That's because it's nowhere near as good as it first seems.
     
  13. GfPQqmcRKUvP macrumors 68040

    GfPQqmcRKUvP

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Location:
    Terminus
    #13
    It very much is. The "waste" that people complain that will last 100k years is not waste at all. Breeder reactors, even if they aren't a viable solution right now, will be soon. This would take the "waste" produced by current reactors and use that for energy production (k, transformation, but you get the point). The ore is pretty plentiful in the U.S., and they aren't nearly as dangerous as other types of power plants...
     
  14. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #14
    Detected oil will run out in 2039. Do you really believe explore that tiny bit coast line of US of the A can change the situation and control gas price?

    You might have the problem right, but you don't have the right answer. offshore drilling....see if a cup of water can put off California wildfire.
     
  15. Cleverboy macrumors 65816

    Cleverboy

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Location:
    Pocket Universe, nth Dimensional Complex Manifold
    #15
    You know its all political. NO ONE wants it in their backyard. I heard recently on the news an amusingly candid comment from Obama.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92690120

    So, that's a big "duh". We need to figure out how to generate the level of safety that the public demands and then inform people about the benefits. I remember Obama working on legislation to make nuclear power plants safer, but being criticized for letting the bill get watered-down too much by compromise. We live in a world of conflicting forces vying for the same goal. Crazy.

    ~ CB
     
  16. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #16
    McCain = wants to find alternative sources of oil (bad idea imo) along with testing out a few alternative energies

    Obama = wants to focus more (than mccain ne way) on alternatives which i really think is the way to go. If this country could get off oil (not just foreign) then i think America will be back on top again in the future

    on this issue, id have to go with the guy that wants a real shift, not a shift in where our resources are coming from;)
     
  17. Cleverboy macrumors 65816

    Cleverboy

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Location:
    Pocket Universe, nth Dimensional Complex Manifold
    #17
    Obama tends to do a good job REPEATING himself ad nauseum, although when we modifies his language, even slightly, it tends to create all sorts of wild speculation... kind of like Apple. I've heard him say a million times, "There is no silver bullet. We've got to look at every possible option."

    Tim Russert interviews Obama on nuclear power:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeHO0U_H3V0

    ~ CB
     
  18. GfPQqmcRKUvP macrumors 68040

    GfPQqmcRKUvP

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Location:
    Terminus
    #18
    It's not amusing, and it's not candid. It's that kind of rhetoric, even if it is in jest, that takes the idea of nuclear power and makes it a less desirable alternative to the public who only knows of nuclear power through incidents like Chernobyl. The view that nuclear power is dangerous is very widespread, and no jokes about its lethality need to be made.


    Safer? It's already safe! How many people have died from nuclear power plant incidents vs. coal plants? It's the informing we need to do, and even then, all you need to do is inform the people who make decisions. Nuclear power has to be a significant source of energy if people are serious about combating climate change right now.

    Yes, we do.



    He is pro-nuclear as an energy source. That's not just an alternative source of oil; It would significantly reduce our dependence upon foreign energy, and it's being help back by emotional citizens and sensationalistic news stories that portray it in a bad light. In fact, the deception committed by the environmentalists on the impressionable population with regards to nuclear power is almost unforgivable, and they have, in effect, worked towards ruining what they profess to love.

    EDIT: This reminds me of a post on Digg that I saved:


    Ah, yes, change. I almost forgot. :rolleyes:
     
  19. és: macrumors 6502a

    és:

    #19
    Well, I disagree. I had a chat with the former British Secretary of State for Energy and he educated me more than any reading will ever do and he has many years of expertise and personal experience.

    It's got it's up side, that's for certain. It's got many downsides, too. The future is with the sun, not with nuclear power, in my opinion.
     
  20. GfPQqmcRKUvP macrumors 68040

    GfPQqmcRKUvP

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Location:
    Terminus
    #20
    Please enlighten me, because solar and wind power is not yet viable on the scale needed to make a huge part of the US's power consumption. It will be someday, even soon, but I see very few downsides. If you could make us privy to the nuclear power conversation you had with the former secretary, it might be useful to the discussion.
     
  21. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #21
    One of the solar wind powered thermal towers would be a good chunk of a square mile at the base and have a concrete tower as big as the world trade center.

    Big ideas, but no way to really implement some of them in the private sector, or even with a municipalities budget.

    ---

    If we want energy independence soon, we got coal ... or nuclear. Both with huge opposition.
     
  22. Cleverboy macrumors 65816

    Cleverboy

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Location:
    Pocket Universe, nth Dimensional Complex Manifold
    #22
    #1. It was NOT a joke.
    #2. The comment was amusing because it was unapologetically FRANK, not because it was an exaggeration.
    #3. Whether it is amusing is a personal matter. I honestly find it amusing ANY time someone shoots "straight" where people expect them to beat around the bush and hedge. Your mileage may vary.
    I'm sorry, but its NOT SAFE. We intentionally protect ourselves from how hazardous it is, and we get to determine how much MORE safe we wish to be. It is NOT a binary matter.

    Also, don't mistake hesitance to allow further usage as proof of "safeness". The main problem is, you only need ONE meltdown to cause a SERIOUS and devastating accident. How many years did we clean up Exxon-Valdez? How many years have gone by as we realized the longterm affects of Chernobyl? Right now, our nations infrastructure needs serious attention, but often times regulation and monitoring is scrapped in finding room in the budget for other things... like wars. Terrorism is at an all-time high, so pretending we aren't in a different world than 30 years ago doesn't wash.
    It's not a silver bullet. It won't make everything alright. It's one possibility of many, and we need to solve its handful of issues.

    ~ CB
     
  23. GfPQqmcRKUvP macrumors 68040

    GfPQqmcRKUvP

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Location:
    Terminus
    #23
    A meltdown is so extremely unlikely that it barely needs to be considered. Please read up on current reactor designs and safety measures.

    http://planetsave.com/blog/2008/01/15/devils-advocate-10-green-arguments-for-nuclear-power/


    That's the current talking point for doing nothing except wait. The fact is that nuclear power IS ready for the prime-time and it could dramatically decrease our use of imported energy.
     
  24. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #24
    The reality is almost nothing we do today, save serious conservation efforts, will drop the cost of petroleum in the next five years. Although, the price of oil may momentarily drop if there were sudden announcements that the US was about to embark on a 'Manhattan' project to solve it's energy needs, this would be a temporary salve.
    So, thus, any serious policy shouldn't be considered for today, but for tomorrow and the day after. This said, nuclear is a good investment. Although there are problems with nuclear, including the energy used in attaining the fuel, construction costs, and safety concerns, a full-scale investment in modern reactors will help. At the same time, more investment needs to be made in alternative energy sources that are geographically targeted. Couple this with new conservation efforts, including better CAFE numbers, LEED buildings, and the refurbishment of old buildings and housing and we might have something worth doing.

    Nuclear is but one arrow in our quiver, but I think it's a valuable one, even if there are some associated risks. I'd like to note that coal puts out more problematic particles than any of the American nuclear disasters, the French have managed several nuclear reactors and have yet to have their own Chernobyl (really that event was a combination of factors that shouldn't be repeated), and the waste issue is just something we might have to accept.

    It's my tendency towards idealism, but I think we can innovate our way out. Screaming NIMBY and fighting ideological battles isn't going to do it.
     
  25. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #25
    If you are willing to bury nuclear waste in your backyard, we have a solution.
     

Share This Page