when liberals tax you they spend the money on arugula and give it to welfare queens

8/4/2008 5:08:35 PM

Quote :

"Socks used to be a liberal? What happened socks? Did you graduate and enter the real world? "

hey douchebag I've done both and am in the tax bracket well within the ranges where supposed tax plans would behoove me to support McCain. Oh and also I hate arugula (lol) and a good bit of our welfare programs. You can't whitewash everyone.

8/4/2008 5:16:36 PM

Kindly behoove me no ill behooves.

8/4/2008 5:22:23 PM

WHY DOES LINDSEY GRAHAM LAUNCH THESE BASELESS ATTACKS AGAINST JOHN MCCAIN?

8/4/2008 5:27:26 PM

eyedrb,

I am and always have been an independent centrist.

This election cycle, the Democrats have went off the progressive deep end. They just don't seem to care about using markets and incentive-based programs for helping people like they did under Clinton. Obama talks a good game about being "pro-growth" and "free-market", but his policies tell another story. So I am voting for the candidate who's policies fit most closely with my views--John McCain.

Kainen thinks that is a "180 degree shift", i guess because he associates party lines with ideology (notice how he associates McCain with "right-wing", when that is clearly not the case if you look at his policies). I don't think he sees how you can vote based on candidate and not party.

[Edited on August 4, 2008 at 5:35 PM. Reason : ``]

8/4/2008 5:33:08 PM

john mccain is a maverick and has never been in the same state as a republican

8/4/2008 5:40:24 PM

john mccain gives me psychological relief about the oil crisis and the state of the economy

8/4/2008 5:50:29 PM

Spookyjon,

Wow. George Steph and Sen Graham think that McCain's health care policy is an extension of George W Bush's policies? That's a new one on me. If anything progressives should give GW good marks on health care, since he supported the largest expansion of our entitlement system since LBJ by adding the Medicare Drug Benefit.

McCain's plan is nothing like that. Here is a good description of McCain's plan from Fortune. And I can tell you that it is nothing like what GW Bush has offered in the past 7 years.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/10/news/economy/tully_healthcare.fortune/

I have actually made similar arguments for why McCain's health care plan is better. I even invited spookyjon to discuss those arguments. But we can see what he would rather discuss.

hehehe

[Edited on August 4, 2008 at 5:55 PM. Reason : ``]

8/4/2008 5:52:19 PM

Quote :

"when liberals tax you they spend the money on arugula and give it to welfare queens"

We are in the middle of a war and all you are worried about is your taxes.

8/4/2008 5:55:37 PM

^ tell me about it. Action Pants really doesn't have his priorities straight. And he keeps posting that stuff one line at a time. Sometimes it seems like he's losing his mind.

8/4/2008 5:57:33 PM

if you arent white you dont deserve health care. thats why i like john mccain, because i'm white.

8/4/2008 5:58:17 PM

yep, he's lost it. He's gone full WolfPack2k

8/4/2008 5:58:55 PM

"I know in my heart that man is good. That what is right will always eventually triumph. And there's purpose and worth to each and every life."

8/4/2008 6:03:31 PM

"Don't all Americans have a right to health care?"



[Edited on August 4, 2008 at 6:06 PM. Reason : .]

8/4/2008 6:06:23 PM

"But you're a movie star, Ron! Why would anybody vote for a celebrity like you?"

8/4/2008 6:10:52 PM

muh-muh-muh-melt down

8/4/2008 7:56:23 PM

Can someone explain to me how this is even a legitimate campaign advertisement?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDTJDv4hevU

McCain better watch out or all of this drivel may backfire. If you pull this type of sneering, cynical stuff out of the conmfort of your campaign ad team it definitely doesn't make you look like a mature president like figure ready to lead the country. I'm being fairly serious...for once I agree with socks, I want him to debate the policies right now. There's a serious public opinion for drilling and stuff that warrants further examination even though I think it's bullocks, I have to admit it seems relie is what the people want...even if they wont see the benefit for another decade. But anyway, meanwhile he wastes his resources on ads like this?

8/4/2008 8:56:07 PM

It's an attempt at humor while pointing out what the McCain camp feels are presumptous and arrogant gestures on Obama and his campeigns part. Wether or not it's legitimate advertising is a matter of opinion.

I'm in total agreement that this strategy is foolish on McCain's part. Perhaps one or two of these ads at the propper time could be effective. But if they keep at it the way they are, it starts to look like they're just trying to win a pissing contest.

8/5/2008 2:56:09 AM

Slate's John Dickerson makes a compelling case for why voters may not punish McCain for running negative ads, even though many of them have said they believed McCain was being unfair.

Quote :

"[McCain's aides] can also take comfort in another fact: Barack Obama didn't pay a hypocrisy penalty for his attacks on Hillary Clinton. Pundits have compared McCain's tactics to Karl Rove's, but there are more recent parallels in Obama's record during the Democratic primaries.Obama founded his campaign on the promise of a new high-minded brand of politics. But last fall, Obama supporters were worried that despite his big rallies, Obama wasn't closing the gap with Clinton. So Obama telegraphed in an interview with the New York Times that he was going to go after Clinton more aggressively. His target? Her veracity. He didn't make a policy argument. In fact, Obama often pointed out that the two were pretty close to agreement on most policy issues [Socks``: close in broad strokes, not specifics]. The issue with Clinton was whether voters could trust her. It was the same kind of values-based argument McCain is making about Obama now as he tries to stoke fears about his opponent's underlying character."

http://www.slate.com/id/2196648/

I had almost forgotten those days. When Obama-supporters preached about the importance of character issues (she was mean, cold, calculating, and other "substantive" things). Now apparently character issues are just a distraction from the "real policy issues" that Obama supporters wanted to discuss all along...like how old McCain is or the fact that he has a rich heiress wife.

hehehe well worth the read.

[Edited on August 5, 2008 at 1:29 PM. Reason : ``]

8/5/2008 1:24:55 PM

That does nothing to justify what McCain's been up to...I never said Obama was squeeky clean but honestly Hillary co. was a snake in the primaries and she ran a dirty campaign too. He just deflected and redirected the BS but he didnt stoop to any of the levels aforementioned here. And Obama doesn't want to discuss that he's old, he wants to discuss how he's basically Bush part 2.

8/5/2008 2:40:57 PM

^ Ha! Dirty politics (GASP)?!!!1 Isn't this an oxymoron?

You should read The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate by David Freddoso as it relates to Obama's politics--he sure as hell ain't "squeeky [sic] clean." And remember, Obama came out of Chicago--a city long known for some of the dirtiest politics in the nation.

8/5/2008 2:50:58 PM

I'd rather not read a hit piece. Got better things to do like umm, anything.

I don't even read the crap about McCain either. All of that stuff is dreadfully boring, I just have no interested to the inner and past lives of politicians myself.

8/5/2008 3:10:03 PM

Hey Obama supporters - question... (and please McCain crowd, don't troll me):

Anyone know why he's apparently backed off Nuclear power? I remember distinctly reading that he supported nuclear power and even saw charts about how that policy was different from Clinton's. It was one of the things I liked about his policies...

I'm a big proponent of nuclear power myself....so, why is John McCain (who is touring a power plant today in Michigan) hitting Obama for not supporting it?

8/5/2008 3:19:42 PM

Not trolling, but my guess is: because polls show it's not a winner among swing voters.

8/5/2008 3:32:09 PM

Kainen,

Quote :

"I never said Obama was squeeky clean but honestly Hillary co. was a snake in the primaries and she ran a dirty campaign too. He just deflected and redirected the BS but he didnt stoop to any of the levels aforementioned here. And Obama doesn't want to discuss that he's old, he wants to discuss how he's basically Bush part 2."

Do you mean like how the Obama campaign relished in attacking her about the Bosnia thing (which Obama lied about in the debates, saying his campaign never brought it up unless asked)? But I guess that's a "real issue", and Obama not visiting the troops is just a "distraction". haha

Personally, I love when people try to make arguments for why their opponent's negative campaigning is worse than their favored candidate's negative campaigning "Obama may have made similar attacks in the past, but they are nothing like what McCain does, which is much much worse because he's attacking the guy I like"

I still dislike this type of campaigning, though. I wasn't posting the article to justify McCain's tactics (just because Obama is hypocritical schmuck doesn't mean McCain should be). I just thought it was a good argument for McCain going negative may not hurt him with voters like many pundits currently think.

[Edited on August 5, 2008 at 3:35 PM. Reason : ``]

8/5/2008 3:33:58 PM

Obama's energy speech yesterday talked about finding containment and storage methods for nuclear and making it a part of a bigger plan with renewables. As far as I know, his biggest problem with it is storage of the waste since Yucca Mountain is on a fault like and the public perception that nuclear plants will blow up and give them all 12 toes

Of course these fears are overblown and he's said that he wouldn't consider taking nuclear off the table but that's about as far as a Democrat can go on that subject I think.

8/5/2008 3:45:17 PM

Re: McCain's negative barrage: It may not hurt him...hell, it sure as shit isn't hurting him right now. Quite the contrary. So perhaps it was a smart move (if not distasteful for me). Who is to say?

Prawn, I'm not so sure about that. It's not that simple. I know that before and at the beginning of the race he was a supporter of nuclear technologies and has said so. However I'm going to assume that he has toned down that support while working on getting the Dem nomination. It seems that he has continued to reduce the volume on his support knob to the point that he's now 'against it'....which if so, kinda pisses me off.

I'm not such a blind mouse zealot (despite as you all here would like to label me as) that I can't vehemently disagree on this issue with a candidate I support. We can't power this country on fucking windmills alone...

[Edited on August 5, 2008 at 3:49 PM. Reason : -]

8/5/2008 3:49:10 PM

Yeah here is his energy policy:

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech_080308.pdf

All it talks about is containment of fuel as a prerequisite for future nuclear energy usage. It's certainly not the centerpiece of his energy policy.

8/5/2008 3:50:04 PM

Quote :

"Anyone know why he's apparently backed off Nuclear power?"

Obama's never really been for nuclear power. Hell, he gave a speech to one group of people talking about how we should effectively ban nuclear power all over the world. There's a thread about it on here somewhere. Not surprisingly, though, the press hasn't bought this fact up, and don't hold your breath waiting for them to do so.

8/5/2008 5:49:27 PM

I believe you are mistaken. Nuclear power is not the same thing as nuclear weapons, which he wants to get rid of completely.

8/5/2008 5:50:56 PM

find the thread. in it, the things Obama said he wanted to do would effectively put an end to nuclear power, even though they were framed in the context of nuclear weapons.

8/5/2008 5:51:57 PM

I must see this

8/5/2008 5:52:42 PM

Here's the aforementioned thread. Not necessarily seeing where Obama plans to rid the world of nuclear energy, even his official positions have come off as somewhat anti-nuclear power.

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=533979

8/5/2008 5:54:14 PM

that's not the thread. it was before that, mang

8/5/2008 6:00:19 PM

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/64ad536a6d

Paris Hilton makes a video responding to the McCain ad. I don't really find it funny, interesting, or clever, but McCain is the one that brought Paris Hilton in to this election.

8/5/2008 7:27:00 PM

Pretty useless. Like her entire existence.

Except of course that video of her giving the BJ. That was ok.

[Edited on August 5, 2008 at 7:42 PM. Reason : -]

8/5/2008 7:41:41 PM

once again i'm reminded how presidential primaries are a race to the edges, then when the campaign proper starts, it's a race back to the center.

:-/





[Edited on August 5, 2008 at 8:22 PM. Reason : ]

8/5/2008 8:18:29 PM

^ only sucks if you're on the edge.
if you're at the center, the general election is a relief after the primary.

8/5/2008 8:21:55 PM

i dont think im at the edge, but i'm concerned by his changing positions on offshore drilling. the amounts are too small to put any significant downward pressure on fuel prices, and theres just no tangible benefit for prolonging our reliance on fossil fuels especially at the expense of the environment.

but what is really disturbing me is that Obama appears to be unflinchingly anti-nuclear power. nuclear power is by far the most significant and practical alternate energy source that is immediately available and can scale to our current and future demands. and it's clean, and does not contribute to greenhouse carbon emissions.

this whole anti-nuke stance gives me pause. i need to research it more before commenting further.






[Edited on August 5, 2008 at 8:31 PM. Reason : ]

8/5/2008 8:23:02 PM

Solar power can also scale to our current and future demands. Our star is a nuclear reactor far superior anything we'll ever build.

8/5/2008 8:30:17 PM

someday, perhaps. i would never say that we should ignore solar power, but the current technology is too cost prohibitive for it to have more than a marginal effect.

sure, you can use it to partially heat your home and heat some water, and on a nice day maybe you can putter around in an oversized golf cart, but you're not going to have solar panels putting any real power on the grid.

but Nuclear power is right now. as soon as you build one PWR and throw the switch, you're powering major parts of the city. youre driving industrial motors, compressors, heaters and lights. 24/7/365. something solar can not even begin to do at this time.










[Edited on August 5, 2008 at 8:40 PM. Reason : ]

8/5/2008 8:33:25 PM

Quote :

"sure, you can use it to partially heat your home and heat some water, and on a nice day maybe you can putter around in an oversized golf cart, but you're not going to have solar panels putting any real power on the grid. "

Solar is not about putting power on the grid. It's about removing people from the grid, so less non-clean/renewable resources are wasted on power.

For most people, a good set of solar panels would meet all their daily needs and more, and residential power usage i'd guess is AT LEAST half of all power used.

The day we figure out how to make cheap, efficient solar panels will be a landmark day for humanity. Think of how much sun light hits your house, and how much energy you have to use to prevent all that sunlight from making things too hot.

Nuclear is our best option now though for the applications that can't rely on this "microplant" system. Then the next big thing would be tabletop fusion. Power plants would then become a thing of the past, since each building will have its own power supply.

Now that I think about it, this could be the reason we're pushing for grid power cars. Let's say in 10 years time we develop an efficient material for solar panels, that would eliminate most peoples' need for the power company... unless they have a grid power electric car. Otherwise it would be like what cell phones are doing to landlines.

[Edited on August 5, 2008 at 8:48 PM. Reason : ]

8/5/2008 8:46:35 PM

that paris hilton video is currently the top story on drudge

slow day?

8/5/2008 8:57:14 PM

The thing people often forget when discussing solar power is that we aren't limited to Earth's surface. There's an absurd amount of energy out there. Beaming power back from satellites or the moon could give us plenty of juice.

8/5/2008 9:03:07 PM

Quote :

"Beaming power back from satellites or the moon could give us plenty of juice."

"beaming" power in the quantities you're talking about is not yet possible. I haven't even read promising research in to this type of technique. You're talking about something decades away, at best, i'd imagine.

8/5/2008 9:10:08 PM

Quote :

"Beaming power back from satellites or the moon could give us plenty of juice would be one helluva weapon"

8/5/2008 9:12:53 PM

Quote :

"Solar is not about putting power on the grid. It's about removing people from the grid, so less non-clean/renewable resources are wasted on power."

yeah, as long as it's a good day. sucks for you if its cloudy, like here in seattle. or at Night.

Quote :

"For most people, a good set of solar panels would meet all their daily needs and more, and residential power usage i'd guess is AT LEAST half of all power used."

you'd be wrong. the real demand is heavy commercial and industrial -- and then we start talking about HIGHLY inductive loads.

8/5/2008 9:15:28 PM

^ Have you ever been to the solar house at NCSU?

You keep the energy in batteries, that could likely get you through a good couple days of cloudiness.

8/5/2008 9:17:18 PM

batteries are expensive, bulky, and decidedly environmentally unfriendly.

it also isnt going to help you much in the winter in northern latitudes. we have about 100 days of overcast/clouds espeically in the winter months. not to mention the sun rises about 8am and sets at 4pm at the peak of winter.

okay, fine, though... i agree that for "residential use only"... solar power can make nice contribution to a LEED certified house.

but you can't rely on it, and you still rely on Dino Power to drive industry. solar is just an amusing toy compared to Nuclear power.

8/5/2008 9:24:00 PM

Quote :

"For most people, a good set of solar panels would meet all their daily needs and more, and residential power usage i'd guess is AT LEAST half of all power used."

-moron

This seems too good to be true to me. If one could easily replace their current power source with personal solar panels, why not do it? Solar panels have been available for residential use for years, yet a very small portion of the population actually uses them.

My guess is that there are very large costs involved. Solar panels aren't exactly cheap to start out with. We're talking up to thousands of dollars for just the panels themselves not including instillation or the batteries needed to store power.
http://www.solarhome.org/solarpanelbrand_bpsolarpanels.html

That isn't even considering the fact that you would have to find a place to put them (not all homes were designed with roofs to provide the maximum amount of flat surface area) and removing trees and other things that may obstruct the sun. That's more upfront costs. And we haven't even gotten to operation and maintenance costs.

Now, a set of sun panels may well fulfill most of one's power needs, but we need to realize it is an incredibly expensive alternative. "Possible" must be contrasted with "Affordable". Though I'd be willing to be that once we started some sort of carbon tax or cap-and-trade system people would start to move toward solar power as its relative price goes down.

[Edited on August 6, 2008 at 9:20 AM. Reason : ``]

8/6/2008 9:19:37 AM