McCain picks Alaska's Govenor for VP

[newsvx]

Originally Posted by Royal Tiger

Palin got more votes for Mayor, the last time she ran then Biden got for President in Delaware in February 2008. She is also the only one of the four to actual serve in the Executive Branch at any level. I think she'll be fine. She isn't the normal nod with the masses politician, and that's a good thing.

Royal,
She gave a tremendous (if not terribly sarcastic) speech. And I think I would like her as a person, however, saying she is qualified to be VP and perhaps president is just plain crazy. Let's see: mayor of a town of 7,000 to 10,000 people, governor of a state of 670,000 people - that makes the county commissioner of Fairfax County in N. Virginia qualified for VP / president. Not even. And commander of the Alaska National Guard equating to being ready to be Commander in Chief? Scary thought. Doesn't anyone know that a governor has little or no control over their national guard once it is called up by the feds?
Additionally, she has never had a national security clearance and therefore knows nothing about the intelligence on all of these hot spots a VP / president will need to be keenly aware of. If they gave her a clearance today (she probably already had one two or three days ago, provisionally), there is no way she will understand the ins and outs of foreign policy in a few years let alone months - I know, cause I was in that business for over 20 years in the military.
I know you didn't raise the last two issues, but many others have, as if she held Russia at bay for the last year and a half while she was governor.

BTW, with McCain not meeting the executive experience criteria along with the other two, does this say SHE should be running for president and McCain for VP? Such a false argument ...

Harry

[newsvx]

Originally Posted by Royal Tiger

She hasn't said God is a Republican like dirtbag DNC idiots, or laugh at the prospect of 1,000's of Americans dying in another flood to stop the RNC Convention:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrBus8ORR78

There are idiots in both parties. The difference is the Republicans don't bow before their messiah. obama is getting a free ride in the media, while Palin is not. Somehow obama doing cocaine and marijuana is no big deal, however according to that POS NY Times, Palin's husband's DUI 22 years ago is important.

Hate to tell you this, but the Republicans' closing prayer last night managed to "work in" the convention's slogan, "COUNTRY FIRST". Separation of country and State should be the norm, but it is not! Even the Dems have gone after the religious vote more than ever before.

[newsvx]

Originally Posted by dromano

Bush/Cheney/McCain didn't put off limits on 80% of the prime drilling area the environmentalist left did that for all of us. So, lets go for $20 a gallon.


Please take a close look at this map. Then print it out and place it on your fridge where you will see it every day.

Gas at $4.10 a gallon. Who's to blame

Thanks to the environmentalist lobby and its influence on legislators in Congress, the U.S. has, for decades, been prohibited from drilling for oil in places that we know contain billions of barrels of proven reserves.

Check out this map: (Sorry, I couldn't get the map to transfer, this was in an email. It shows the areas we can't drill vs the areas we can 80/20). If you would like to see the map it belongs to Senator Larry Craig, go to his site and look under energy.



All of the 'NO' zones are places where the U.S. , thanks to Congress, is prohibited from drilling for oil.



But wait . it gets better.

* China, Cuba, Canada and others continue to drill off our shores where US companies are not allowed to drill because of Congress policies!





Yes, that's right . China and Cuba are actively exploring oil fields 50 miles from Key West, Florida while U.S. companies are barred from working in this area because of U.S. policy . So, instead of allowing the most environmentally responsible companies to operate there and increase our domestic supply, China, who has a dismal environmental record, is preparing to suck our close, lucrative oil reserves dry.

Unbelievable.

Investor's Business Daily recently explained how irresponsible Congress have been on the energy crisis. They lay into what they consider to be the worst Congress ever for .

~ Failing to allow drilling in ANWR. We have, as President Bush noted, estimated capacity of a million barrels of oil a day from this source alone -- enough for 27 million gallons of gas and diesel. But Congress won't touch it, fearful of the clout of the environmental lobby. As a result, you pay through the nose at the pump so your representative can raise campaign cash.

~ Refusing to build new refineries. The U.S. hasn't built one since 1976, yet the EPA requires at least 15 unique 'boutique' fuel blends that can be sold in different areas around the nation. This means that U.S. refinery capacity is stretched so tight that even the slightest problem at a refinery causes enormous supply problems and price spikes. Congress has done nothing about this.

~ Turning its back on nuclear power. It's safe and, with advances in nuclear reprocessing technology, waste problems have been minimized. Still, we have just 104 nuclear plants -- the same as a decade ago -- producing just 19% of our total energy. (Many European nations produce 40% or more of their power with nuclear.) Granted, nuclear power plants are expensive -- about $3 billion each. But they produce energy at $1.72/kilowatt-hour vs. $2.37 for coal and $6.35 for natural gas.

~ Raising taxes on energy producers. This is where a basic understanding of economics would help: Higher taxes and needless regulation lead to less production of a commodity. So by proposing 'windfall' and other taxes on energy companies plus tough new rules, Congress only makes our energy situation worse.

These are just a few of Congress' sins of omission - - all while India, China, Eastern Europe and the Middle East are adding more than a million barrels of new demand each and every year. New Energy Department forecasts see world oil demand growing 40% by 2030, including a 28% incre ase in the U.S.

Americans who are worried about the direction of their country, including runaway energy and food prices, should keep in mind the upcoming election isn't just about choosing a new president. We'll also pick a new Congress.

Dromano,

Like Bebebob, I detest what our two party system has become. The personal attacks are beyond belief. McCain has picked up all of the bad habits that Bush / Rove used against him in 2000. Obama, out of self-defense, has now started. And no one hardly is speaking to the horrible issues / problems this country now has as a result of 8 years of the Republicans. But that said, as much as I dislike the current system, it is the best in the world I have seen, and I been to a lot of places in my life .... I want to stay and make it better, and I don't need Bust and/or Cheney to tell me I am unAmerican for fighting to make it better - BTW, I had 20 years in the military doing what the politicians demanded of me ....
But I feel the need to mention a couple of other things re your post;
- The "environmentalist" did not cause the rise in oil prices, not even. A contributing factor, however minor, perhaps. The lack of drilling off shore didn't either (BTW, Bush ONE was the one that initiated the ban). The low value of the dollar greatly contributed for all the reasons mentioned earlier. The increased consumption of China and other third world countries contributed. Probably a greater contributor is the agreements made in a "secret" meeting Cheney had a few years ago with probably big oil to establish an energy policy (he still won't tell us who attended - I wonder why?).
- I think 50 miles off our coast is international waters. Any reason the oil companies can't do the same off another country's coast? Bad argument about China, IMO.
- Yes, Congress is just as much to blame for a lack of a national energy policy as any of the above. Let's see, who controlled Congress for most of the last eight years - yep, Republicans - with a Republican president.
- Nuc energy is a must, IMO. It MUST be considered. Both McCain AND Obama support Nuc power plants. Don't be mislead by the McCain camp that Obama does not. He does! Personally, I want all of the safeguards on nuc power as we can get - there's nothing like a nuc bomb in ones backyard. And nuc waste? Better ideas are needed.
- Yep, deregulation of our energy resource, oil, is a big factor after Standard Oil. Sure has helped the price, hasn't it! Just like the deregulation of cable TV. Normal inflation of these is one thing, but have you figured the percentages?
- And yes, a new look in Congress is certain to be in Nov. There will be many more Dems in office. The Dems can't get past the veto in the Senate now, but that will change. The Republicans have had six + years and you see what it has brought us. And it is clear that the American public seeing that clear as a bell.
- And a big issue on taxes with McCain saying Obama will raise taxes for all Americans. If someone can turn off FOX and/or Limbaugh to check out http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news...index.htm.they will get the accurate picture.

Sorry to go on, but I do like these discussions as long as they are sane and not nasty.
Harry

[NikFu S.]

Originally Posted by newsvx

- And a big issue on taxes with McCain saying Obama will raise taxes for all Americans. If someone can turn off FOX and/or Limbaugh to check out http://s222.photobucket.com/albums/d...g%2031%202008/, they will get the accurate picture.

Harry

Nice pics, but I don't quite get how autocross ties in to Obama and taxes.

[Manarius]

Sigh. If only the Republicans would report facts. If they reported facts, they'd know that the OBAMA tax plan lowers taxes for most US citizens. Alas, they ignore these facts in favor of spreading lies and expecting them to stick.

Small government/low taxes my ass.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news...proposals_tpc/

[newsvx]

Originally Posted by NikFu S.

Nice pics, but I don't quite get how autocross ties in to Obama and taxes.

Nik,
Thanks for the catch!! Sorry about that.
This is the link .. http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news..._tpc/index.htm. And Jason beat me to it ..... Thanks, Jason

Harry

[NikFu S.]

That settles it for me. Obama for President.

[Royal Tiger]

Originally Posted by newsvx

Royal,
She gave a tremendous (if not terribly sarcastic) speech. And I think I would like her as a person, however, saying she is qualified to be VP and perhaps president is just plain crazy. Let's see: mayor of a town of 7,000 to 10,000 people, governor of a state of 670,000 people - that makes the county commissioner of Fairfax County in N. Virginia qualified for VP / president. Not even. And commander of the Alaska National Guard equating to being ready to be Commander in Chief? Scary thought. Doesn't anyone know that a governor has little or no control over their national guard once it is called up by the feds?
Additionally, she has never had a national security clearance and therefore knows nothing about the intelligence on all of these hot spots a VP / president will need to be keenly aware of. If they gave her a clearance today (she probably already had one two or three days ago, provisionally), there is no way she will understand the ins and outs of foreign policy in a few years let alone months - I know, cause I was in that business for over 20 years in the military.
I know you didn't raise the last two issues, but many others have, as if she held Russia at bay for the last year and a half while she was governor.

BTW, with McCain not meeting the executive experience criteria along with the other two, does this say SHE should be running for president and McCain for VP? Such a false argument ...

Harry

Wow, you just summed up why Obama has no right to be President as well. And Palin is runing for VP. Somehow Obama can lean on Biden for foreign policy, even though HE is the President, but Palin as VP is a liability to the most experienced foreign policy canidate. You dems got it all figured out.

[newsvx]

Originally Posted by Royal Tiger

Wow, you just summed up why Obama has no right to be President as well. And Palin is runing for VP. Somehow Obama can lean on Biden for foreign policy, even though HE is the President, but Palin as VP is a liability to the most experienced foreign policy canidate. You dems got it all figured out.

Royal Not correct regarding McCain's experience. What he has shown is poor judgement across the board. Even on the surge - have you seen Woodward's new book about the divide between the White House and the military leaders and what really made a difference in Iraq? And since Palin has so much "executive" experience (compared to the "other three), shouldn't SHE be the presidential candidate and not McCain. She certainly seems to have the abuse of power potential, doesn't she ..

Harry

[Royal Tiger]

Does she get to keep the knee high boots? Then absolutely!

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by Manarius

Sigh. If only the Republicans would report facts. If they reported facts, they'd know that the OBAMA tax plan lowers taxes for most US citizens. Alas, they ignore these facts in favor of spreading lies and expecting them to stick.

Small government/low taxes my ass.

I think you must have flunked math at all levels. Just how is Obama going to finance all the things he is promising and still cut taxes? Get real.

Lee

[Manarius]

Originally Posted by lhopp77

I think you must have flunked math at all levels. Just how is Obama going to finance all the things he is promising and still cut taxes? Get real.

Lee

Actually, it's John McCain who flunked math at all levels. 10 billion a month in Iraq and tax cuts?

That's why we have a 490bil deficit next year + Iraq spending bills.

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by Manarius

Actually, it's John McCain who flunked math at all levels. 10 billion a month in Iraq and tax cuts?

That's why we have a 490bil deficit next year + Iraq spending bills.

Let's put this in historical perspective. The VN War cost 12 percent of GDP and this war is only costing 2 percent of GDP. As I recall it was started by a Democrat and expanded by a democrat. Don't get me wrong I supported our efforts in VN AND we had far less to lose OR gain from that war than this one.

Lee

[Manarius]

Originally Posted by lhopp77

Let's put this in historical perspective. The VN War cost 12 percent of GDP and this war is only costing 2 percent of GDP. As I recall it was started by a Democrat and expanded by a democrat. Don't get me wrong I supported our efforts in VN AND we had far less to lose OR gain from that war than this one.

Lee

Let's put this in historical perspective: The Vietnam War was a failure. Why? We struck first.

The Iraq war is useless. Why? We struck first for no good reason.

[Royal Tiger]

Originally Posted by Manarius

Let's put this in historical perspective: The Vietnam War was a failure. Why? We struck first.

The Iraq war is useless. Why? We struck first for no good reason.

I wouldn't call it useless, but the timetable should have been better managed from the start. Our overwhelming early success in Afghanistan sure pissed of the Russians.