Re: WOT: McCain Political Ads

Charlie E. <edmondson@xxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:74uga49uh7dkvvcaasm1olfpgq30d2coa1@xxxxxxx:

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 13:49:21 -0500, Kris Krieger <me@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

MooseFET <kensmith@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in news:20098707-2bbb-4ec5-8327-
659365d43e64@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

On Aug 17, 5:28 am, Jim Thompson
[....]
Please post any link that supports your claim. Here it is in case
you've forgotten:

*** begin quote

Also, the original claim was that it would save Millions (plural!)
of barrels A DAY!

And it was then repeated for several days... by both the
worshipful press, the Obama campaign, and BY OBAMA HIMSELF!

*** end quote
[....]
Liberals are never deterred by their ignorance. After all, they
have their faith in the Obama-nation.


Do you have any links that prove Charlie's case? I have noticed that
he seems to edit the quotes back out each time. By now, he will
have done a bunch of looking.


Ah, but M'sieur Moose, proof is irrelevent to *belief*. He BELIEVES
that Obama is the scourge of mankind, and he therefore also BELIEVES
that anyone who independently reads/listens to what the candidates
themselves say (as opposed to what talking heads and "pundits" say),
and comes to a conclusion that differes in any way with his belief, is
a stupid and reprehensible sub-human. Proof and evidence mean nothing
against that belief, because any evidence that runs counter to it is
"obviously" just part of some conspiracy among other "slime".

Ah, Kris, no, I am afraid not...

I don't think of Obama and those who believe and support him are
slime.

I was going by the tenor of JT's statments, replying to those. I'm tired
of statements like JT's "his worshipful press" and "Obamanation" stuff,
also the whole "leftist wussies" nonsense, that are merely intended to
express his opinion that those who don't agree with him on this are
stupid mindless lackeys. I am alwasy suspect of that sort of overwhelming
need to denegrate others.

I think they are poor, innocent follks who have allowed their
wish for a better world to be taken by yet another con artist, ie.
politician. I personally feel that Obama will say anything that he
thinks will make people like him more, will change to match the winds
that blow even if they don't make sense, and is surrounded by many
that will believe in him, no matter what he says.

One of the big problems with the electoral process is that it leads, IMO
inevitably, to far too much pandering, regardless of who the candidate
is, only because a minority of people become polarized on the basis of a
a couple of issues and then make a whole bleeping huge amount of noise
insisting that they and they alone "own" the party.

Which is why I'm not a member of any political party.


BTW, I am not that much a supporter of McCain, although he appears to
be the lesser of two evils.

Charlie

Both have said things I agree with, and both have said things I disagree
with.

PS: Ok, back to the original debate.

I didn't even recall what that was, to be honest - I'm just fed up with
*both* the "leftist loonies" and "republinazi" type of vapid, fatuous
inanities. It's no better than two kindergartners yelling "You're a
booger!" "Yeah, well you're a poopypants!" back and forth at each other.
The words are fancier but the quality of content is the same.

What I hear from Obama,
originally, was that he was proposing that inflating tires properly
would save as much gas as drilling would provide. What is implied is
that this will be over the SAME TIMEFRAME and in the SAME AMOUNTS.
Those here have chosen to take a very, very broad view that he
'really' meant over the life of the universe or some other suitably
large time frame, compared to the very immediate future (3 to 10
years) of drilling only in specific locations previously mentioned by
McCain. Comparing Apples to Apples (inflating tires over the next
3-10 years) drilling (all additional drilling) will supply more oil.


I listen to rather a lot of the pre-election programming, and from
various sources (CNN, FOx, MSNBC, local stations, etc. and so on and so
forth). To be honest, I don't recall word-for-word what Obama said, but
my *sense* of it all is that it was mean in a more immediate context.

What bugged me was when McCain essentially agreed with the general
poistion in a low-key venue, but in a very public venue, twisted it
around and derisively mocked it - I found it disingenious. (I'd posted a
link to a Fox News story describing that, but I've closed Googel already
and would have to look it back up, tho' it ought to be in another post.)


I know that Obama is philosophically opposed to offshore drilling (other
than the Gulf of Mexico, I assume, with already has, what, IIRC something
like 1400 or 1500 drilling platforms) **but** has also said that, given
world circumstances, it would have to be part of a cpomprehensive plan,
and with adequate environmental controls. At least a few oil companies
have indeed shown that they *can*, when they try, drill "cleanly" so to
speak, and my sense (again, can't recall exact quotes and references for
them, I listen to and read too many differnt sources) is that this info
plays into why he's backed away from the "absolutley no" position.


Actually, from everything I've read, both Obama and McCain are on pretty
much the same page, at least in terms of speeches and interviews, re:
energy independence as a national security issue, R&D into alternative
sources of energy, and conservation. WHere they differ most in on
emphasis (McCain hammers on drilling, Obama mostly goes on about
alternative energy). The one difference that is major is that Obama is
against Nuclear, becasue he doens't think that the isues concerning waste
storage have been adequately solved - he also hasn't said, that I've yet
heard or seen, whether he'd work on dissuading the NIMBYs who re blockign
storage in, IIRC?, the Yucca Flats area (which, again IIRC?, is a salt
dome or some such thing).

So, the argument frustrates me becasue it's superficial, given all the
areas where the two candidates are actually in agreement, but also,
becasue it distracts from the things that really would be wise to do.

- Kris







.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: nbc Is this a flip? or a flop? nbc
    ... Was it a flip or a flop when McCain changed his position, ... McCain flip-flops on offshore drilling moratorium.Filed Under: ... Obama said Friday he would be willing to support limited additional ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)
  • Re: WOT: McCain Political Ads
    ... market effects of an extra million barrels of oil a day. ... Charlie asserted that Obama claimed it ... better tire inflation and drilling would yield equivalent amounts ... The "they" he is referring to is the McCain campaign. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: nbc Is this a flip? or a flop? nbc
    ... Please note, Joe, that Senator Obama has not changed any of his ideas ... way to lower fuel prices and lead the US toward a sustainable energy ... pressure from the right to allow off-shore drilling is becoming so ... offshore oil drilling if that's what it takes to enact a comprehensive ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)
  • nbc Is this a flip? or a flop? nbc
    ... says he may back offshore drilling ... Obama said Friday he would be willing to support limited additional ... offshore oil drilling if that's what it takes to enact a comprehensive ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)
  • Re: nbc Is this a flip? or a flop? nbc
    ... says he may back offshore drilling ... Obama said Friday he would be willing to support limited additional ... offshore oil drilling if that's what it takes to enact a comprehensive ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)