republicans are putting democrats to shame in so many ways lately

9/10/2008 11:50:30 PM

Surely good looks is a high priority on my list of qualities of a good candidate.

9/10/2008 11:56:56 PM

How I decide my vote:

Candidate with the higher number of new nuclear power plants to be built + candidate who offers most new domestic drilling + whoever offers me the biggest tax break

and that's the way the cookie crumbles.

so far the winners are:

Most new nuclear energy: McCain
Most domestic drilling: McCain
Who offers me the biggest tax break: Push (slight McCain advantage, actual figures are pretty close together though)


Winner: McCain



_

[Edited on September 11, 2008 at 12:06 AM. Reason : .]

9/11/2008 12:05:17 AM

The chick looks busted in all 3 of those pictures...

9/11/2008 12:07:00 AM

9/11/2008 2:39:21 AM

^^^If people are voting by biggest tax cut, then a lot of college students and people who are relatively new to the work force will definitely be in the Obama camp. Which bracket are you falling into? I think beyond just tax cuts, people will be looking for effective spending of their money on issues they care about.

9/11/2008 6:47:36 AM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/10/flashback-steve-carrell-n_n_125354.html

Here's a hilarious Daily Show clip from 2000.

9/11/2008 10:06:41 AM

somebody posted earlier
") She's a strong budget hawk, much like McCain. She killed the "Bridge to Nowhere" and cut spending across the board in Alaska.
5) Impeccable ethics record"

I hate to break it to you, but she didn't exactly say "Thanks but no thanks" to the Bridge to Nowhere.. she supported it until Congress basically killed it and they made a deal so she got the money anyway and used it on something else... very impressive. And the bit about the impeccable ethics record... she's being investigated to determine whether she abused her power by firing someone for not firing her sister's ex-husband. I'm not saying she did it, but it's not exactly the impeccable ethics record you were talking about. Try factcheck.org to get things straight

9/11/2008 10:29:47 AM

^ Discussed in several other areas earlier, your news isn't groundbreaking.

Speaking of the bridge to nowhere, what about the "road to nowhere"? I'd like to see her veto that before another half a billion dollars go to Alaska for a road that makes no economic sense.

9/11/2008 10:44:04 AM

Her support for the Bridge to Nowhere is news as long as the campaign continues to lie about it.

9/11/2008 11:05:08 AM

Alaska had highest amount of earmarks per captia than any other state

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/09/11/kaye.palin.honest.cnn

9/11/2008 11:18:18 AM

^ But would that not make sense? I assume Alaska has the lowest population density of any state, but there still needs to be infrastructure over vast expanses of territory, so they would end up spending much more per person to achieve the same things.

9/11/2008 11:25:15 AM

"And suddenly they say aaoooh, you must be talking about the governor of Alaska"

9/11/2008 11:29:33 AM

The Young Turks- Here's what Obama needs to do to win the election:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqTRDDJ6h8o

Summary:

Obama needs to make ads containing these points, as well as repeat them on the campaign trail:

McCain is a danger because of his hawkish views about Russia, Iran, and his lack of concern for "loose nukes."

If you elect McCain, you are electing the entire rublican party again. His cabinet, and advisors, and lobbyists will largely serve republican interests.




[Edited on September 11, 2008 at 1:03 PM. Reason : .]

9/11/2008 12:53:10 PM

McCain's Nuclear Energy Revival May Cost $315 billion

Quote :

"Sept. 11 (Bloomberg) -- John McCain's plan to revive the U.S. nuclear power industry with 45 new reactors may cost $315 billion, with taxpayers bearing much of the financial risk. .... Arizona Senator McCain called for the 45 reactors by 2030 during a June campaign appearance, citing ``the ultimate goal of 100 new plants.'' The 104 U.S. reactors now operating produce 20 percent of the country's electricity. "

so in reality, it would be $700billion for McCain's nuclear energy program. How is McCain going to pay for this?

9/11/2008 2:03:21 PM

Given that the national debt has increased by trillions of dollars under GWB, it seems like virtually nothing to tack another $700 billion onto the end of that. And unlike most of what Bush has done, nuclear power is actually beneficial to society and will serve a great long-term use.

So long as those nuclear plants operate without too much government regulation, anyway... the same company constantly being assured funding so long as they remain operational is destined to increase operational costs and decrease efficiency. This is an especially big risk in the nuclear power market... all the difficulties in creating new nuclear power plants will deter competition from other energy companies that may want to enter the business.

[Edited on September 11, 2008 at 2:23 PM. Reason : .]

9/11/2008 2:10:35 PM

bingo^ (and the war money is lost, not entirely, but most of it ain't coming back to our pockets, it just buys us short term security)

but, once those domestic nuclear plants are up and running at the cost of 315 billion dollars, that they'll easily start turning a huge profit.

Turn those bitches on and we'll instantly start making money. BUT, if we continue to buy oil by the gallon from saudi arabia, we simply burn it and have to buy a new gallon of oil to replace it, for probably a higher price.

Pick your poison fool. Produce energy here and make a profit? Or continue supporting the next nazi regime of planet earth.


The choice is yours.

(btw i advocate wind and solar, but not until we make quantum advances in research there and effectiveness of it. b/c i don't want to see the price of steel skyrocket from building huge wind farms)

[Edited on September 11, 2008 at 2:15 PM. Reason : .]

9/11/2008 2:13:22 PM

I believe we are around 500B overbudget for last year.

Most of which is from increasing unemployment benefits, GI Bill, and stimulus giveaway.

People are kidding themselves if they think ending the war will solve our financial problems, ps neither will fixing earmarks, we have to drastically reduce spending.

We are taking in 20% more than we did under clinton. We dont have an income problem, we have a massive spending problem. To suggest to add ANY new spending is wreckless, imo.

9/11/2008 2:25:42 PM

^ is that why McCain picked Romney as his running mate? so that we can get some intelligent fiscal conservatism...

NO WAIT

9/11/2008 2:28:44 PM

^^The power plants wouldn't slam the US with a $700-billion bill within a single year, though.

Assuming that he is able to reduce the absurd spending in other areas (something that no candidate has reliably shown me they would do), it wouldn't be unreasonable to phase in a nuclear power plant construction and development program. But the key is that assumption.

[Edited on September 11, 2008 at 2:33 PM. Reason : .]

9/11/2008 2:32:54 PM

why does everyone overlook solar?

9/11/2008 2:34:12 PM

^Because it's a lot of expense for a lower return on that investment, combined with the fact that you'd have to store or even transfer power like crazy based on weather conditions within certain areas.

9/11/2008 2:37:24 PM

^^ i don't. in fact i plan on buying a pair of 250Watt photovoltaic panels sometime b4 christmas.

i'll probably drop a grand on them, but it'll be sweet.



but for a major source of power, yes i frown on it now. it costs 17 cents per watt compared to 5 cents per watt when you go nuclear. or even 2 cents per watt for oil and coal. but let the price of oil and coal drift for a few more years. nuclear isn't gonna sound so bad for your wallets soon. especially when you consider that you can build a nuclear plant for 3 billion dollars and use 1/10 the steel and resources in its production compared to a massive wind farm for the same power output.

nuclear is gonna sound really yummy to a lot of us soon.

[Edited on September 11, 2008 at 2:41 PM. Reason : .]

9/11/2008 2:38:34 PM

During the day there are spikes in power usage. Everyone comes home and turns on their microwave or something. So you need more power - what are you gonna do, make the sun shine brighter? Make the wind blow faster? To meet demands you'd need enormous batteries that are pretty toxic, so it's not like you're doing the environment a favor. At least hydro doesn't have this problem, when power use spikes they simply release more water through the turbines.

9/11/2008 2:42:57 PM

The fib that keeps on fibbing

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/putting_plane_on_ebay_not_even.php

Turns out, the Palin line about putting the plane on Ebay wasn't even her idea. It had been standard operating procedure in Alaska since 2003; before Palin was even governor.

She needs to quit fibbing her way through the election.

9/11/2008 2:45:24 PM

The problem is that the Republican's idea of a rational energy policy is to only focus on the supply side while also continuing to do nothing about, or actively taking steps to increase, demand. In other words, selling national security in the name of profit. Their response to the national security issue was the strategic petroleum reserve - buy more oil, and save it 'til later.

Since 1975, we've known that we have to do something about our dependence on imported oil, for the sake of national security. Overall fuel economy went down for about 10 years, but for the last 20 years the overall national MPG has been increasing. With fuel economy exemptions for trucks (i.e. business), the SUV culture took over - it was just a loop-hole, they were "trucks" in name only, sacrificing nation security for status.

It's time for a comprehensive, rational, energy policy that does more than blame lack of drilling in Alaska (read supply side again). Those are the kind of tough decisions that need to be made, but I can't see McCain making them.

9/11/2008 2:45:30 PM

Personally I don't understand why people are anti-nuclear... it's essentially the cleanest and most efficient power source available to modern society...

The only reasons I can see are that some people are still clinging to the archaic myth that nuclear power creates landfills full of radioactive waste, or the myth that a nuclear meltdown is still likely despite modern technology and industry standards.... The world would be so much better if people wouldn't buy so heavily into absolute bullshit.

9/11/2008 2:45:31 PM

Quote :

"Those are the kind of tough decisions that need to be made, but I can't see McCain making them."

Of the energy policies currently on the table, I personally prefer McCain's. It's one of the few things I still like about the Republican party. More nuclear power, use offshore drilling to subsist until more plants can be built. Granted, it's got its flaws, and I just phrased it in the happiest possible way, but it's the best thing out there within the (failing) two-party system.

9/11/2008 2:50:45 PM

^hit the nail on the head again. you are on fire today

^^^ if you really think we just need to lower the demand, and not do anything about the supply than you are out of your mind.

john mccain supports nuclear power, and obama doesn't. he said it clear as day on oreilly. nuclear would be sold domestically so i don't have an issue, the money would just circulate within our borders. france realizes this, so should we.

obama has to take the retarded ideas from france only.

and ppl like nutsmckr will keep drinking it until his power goes off and he can't broadcast it all over the internet. oh, and the plane still went on ebay sucker. did she say she invented ebay or something? or that she invented the internet to sell it on? no. so stfu you 2nd rate propagandist

[Edited on September 11, 2008 at 2:55 PM. Reason : ^^^]

9/11/2008 2:55:08 PM

Quote :

"obama has to take the retarded ideas from france only. "

I hope you realize that France has the most secure and stable energy policy in the World.

Quote :

"and ppl like nutsmckr will keep drinking it until his power goes off and he can't broadcast it all over the internet. oh, and the plane still went on ebay sucker. did she say she invented ebay or something? or that she invented the internet to sell it on? no. so stfu you 2nd rate propagandist "

See, the problem here, is she stands there and says she came up with the idea, which is not true. the McCain campaign then claims it was sold on eBay, which is not true, it was sold by an outside broker. The McCain campaign follows up that lie with the one about selling it for a profit, which is not true, they sold it as a loss.

Lies start adding up

[Edited on September 11, 2008 at 3:00 PM. Reason : .]

9/11/2008 2:58:50 PM

exactly. and that's the one idea he ISNT copying from france.

9/11/2008 3:03:28 PM

France isn't just nuclear as you seem to think.

9/11/2008 3:06:17 PM

I didn't say anything about not doing anything about the supply. I said work both sides of the equation for a change.

Can you imagine, the national average MPG has been going up for the last 20 years - to the tune of billions of barrels of oil. We are willing to fight wars to keep our supply up, but if you mention anything about reducing demand, you'll get called a communist ....

I have nothing against nuclear power, it just seems that the Republicans have forgoten it's an equilibrium, with two sides to the equation. I don't consider that a "rational energy policy".

9/11/2008 3:10:53 PM

Quote :

" We are willing to fight wars to keep our supply up"

oh you're one of those. i'll just walk away and let you have your fantasy ideas. bye!

9/11/2008 3:13:23 PM

^ I love people that can't argue facts ... so they resort to namecalling. Argue the facts for a change.

9/11/2008 3:17:06 PM

Quote :

"it just seems that the Republicans have forgoten it's an equilibrium, with two sides to the equation."

To be fair, Bush and others have addressed the American "addiction to oil" and how people should try to conserve... but this has resulted in virtually nothing policy-wise and has amounted to just talk... but again, to be fair, it would be irrational to think that the government should start regulating the fuel consumption of its citizens.

I agree with you that Republican policy doesn't do enough to address energy demand, but besides empty talk and encouragement, there's little that could really be done with regards to demand coming from individual citizens. I'd LOVE to see the government start to conserve energy itself, but frankly it's always been a haven for irresponsibility and wasteful spending, and I don't expect that to change any time soon from ether party.

9/11/2008 3:19:11 PM

McCain Celebrates Birthday with Con Man

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080929/berman_ames

Quote :

"John McCain has been hammering rival Barack Obama for being little more than a vapid "celebrity" and "elitist." But The Nation has obtained a photo revealing just how star-struck a straight-talking maverick can become when offered the chance to celebrate his birthday aboard a yacht filled with celebrities--even if one of those celebrity types turns out to be an A-list con man. .... Montenegro's leading daily newspaper, Vijesti, earlier reported that during McCain's visit in 2006 he celebrated with birthday cocktails and sweets aboard the Celine Ashley yacht. In the photograph, taken in Montenegro at the end of August, McCain is shown boarding the yacht ramp towards the smiling Follieri and Hathaway. Just ahead of McCain and shaking hands with Follieri appears to be Rick Davis--McCain's top aide and now co-manager of his campaign, who accompanied him on the trip and advised the government of Montenegro. A few months after McCain's yacht party, Follieri strengthened his ties to McCain's orbit by retaining Rick Davis's well-connected Washington lobbying firm, Davis Manafort, and offering Davis both an investment deal and help in securing the Catholic vote for McCain's presidential bid. .... What, exactly, was McCain doing aboard Follieri's yacht? Or put another way, was this McCain's 70th birthday wish--to spend an evening floating on the Adriatic with one of Hollywood's top actresses and her smooth-talking Italian beau? An even bigger mystery is how Follieri's boat came to be docked in Montenegro on McCain's birthday. According to a journalist in Montenegro, the yacht had been anchored there for several days before McCain's arrival, and only sailed away after McCain boarded. According to Vijesti, locals were told that McCain was meeting "friends from Florida" on the yacht. McCain aides later confirmed the encounter with Follieri, but said it was "entirely social and nothing came of it." Follieri, they told the New York Daily News, was just a "passing acquaintance." (Though the McCain campaign promise to comment on the encounter, it did not respond to The Nation's request by the time this article was published.) "

Hanging out with conmen, what a way to go through life.

9/11/2008 3:24:52 PM

Quote :

"But would that not make sense? I assume Alaska has the lowest population density of any state, but there still needs to be infrastructure over vast expanses of territory, so they would end up spending much more per person to achieve the same things."

This is the Soap Box, logic doesn't belong here.

9/11/2008 3:25:14 PM

^^^^ listen bobo the clown, i stated exactly how i see it in the previous posts and more than answer your claims. feel free to read over it again. get back to me when you have something of your own to contribute.


i agree we need to lower the demand. but what are you saying with that? the market is developing more hybrids this year alone than any other year in history. whats the problem? we've lowered our demand for oil for the past 3 months straight now.

we are doing this.

[Edited on September 11, 2008 at 3:26 PM. Reason : .]

9/11/2008 3:26:38 PM

Alaska doesn't have roads crisscrossing its state. They are one of the least paved states in the country. Why then do they need more money?

Also, what about Wasilla Alaska? when Palin was Mayor that small town got about $1,000 per person in earmarks.

9/11/2008 3:27:53 PM

Quote :

"They are one of the least paved states in the country. Why then do they need more money?"

I'm not going to argue that Palin hasn't been involved in wasteful spending (in fact I'm sure she has), but your argument that less roads leads to more cost efficiency just sounds silly.

They don't have roads to many towns. This means that to get to said town you can either go off-roading or you can fly a bush-plane. These options do not cost less than driving on a paved road. Also, given that they have such a low amount of paved road infrastructure, they'd need money to create roads, unlike basically all other states, which would simply be spending to maintain the existing roads. Even many of the roads up there that are currently "paved" are terribly shitty and need a lot of improvements.

Again, I'm not saying that Palin has needed all the money she's been given or that she's spent it well, but arguing against the more-cost-per-person idea is just wrong.

[Edited on September 11, 2008 at 3:38 PM. Reason : .]

9/11/2008 3:37:53 PM

Yes, you're right, Alaska has no roads, or any other sort of infrastructure. Nor is the climate harsh on infrastructure which requires more maintenance, nope. Nor are there only about 650k people in Alaska, so every dollar spent will have a much larger effect on per capita spending. There are no natural resources in Alaska either, so it's a pointless waste of money to send any federal money there.

9/11/2008 3:38:04 PM

By your logic, the State of Wyoming should have more Earmarks per capita than any other state, since it is after all the least populated state.

Don't claim you are against earmarks when you bring in over $1,000 per resident in your small town. Don't claim you are against earmarks when you bring in more than any other state. don't claim that if Alaska wants to build its infrastructure alaska will pay for it, when that is clearly not happening. Don't claim you are against earmarks then ask and receive $3.2 million dollars to study Seal DNA. Don't claim you are against earmarks then ask for and receive $2 million to study crab mating. Don't claim you are against earmarks then ask for and receive $500,000 for recreational fishing.

As for its infrastructure needs, it would be impossible to run roads all those places. Look at the Canadian arctic. They don't run roads every where, because building all those roads makes no sense.

9/11/2008 3:45:19 PM

Quote :

"more hybrids this year alone than any other year in history. whats the problem? we've lowered our demand for oil for the past 3 months straight now."

That is my point exactly. It's crisis/response, rather than leadership and vision. What have we been doing for the last 20 years?

9/11/2008 3:57:22 PM

I was not at all surprised to learn people under Bush's appointed Dept. of the Interior were sleeping w/ Big OIL. ZOMG

bTW i 100% expanding nuclear power.

[Edited on September 11, 2008 at 4:23 PM. Reason : a]

9/11/2008 4:22:35 PM

i 100% expanding nuclear power too

9/11/2008 4:34:41 PM

9/11/2008 5:31:03 PM

Quote :

"GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, “Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.” Are we fighting a holy war? PALIN: You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote. GIBSON: Exact words. PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln’s words when he said — first, he suggested never presume to know what God’s will is, and I would never presume to know God’s will or to speak God’s words. But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that’s a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God’s side. That’s what that comment was all about, Charlie. GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln’s words, but you went on and said, “There is a plan and it is God’s plan.” PALIN: I believe that there is a plan for this world and that plan for this world is for good. I believe that there is great hope and great potential for every country to be able to live and be protected with inalienable rights that I believe are God-given, Charlie, and I believe that those are the rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That, in my world view, is a grand — the grand plan. GIBSON: But then are you sending your son on a task that is from God? PALIN: I don’t know if the task is from God, Charlie. What I know is that my son has made a decision. I am so proud of his independent and strong decision he has made, what he decided to do and serving for the right reasons and serving something greater than himself and not choosing a real easy path where he could be more comfortable and certainly safer. "

This is exactly how I interpreted her remarks. I'm glad she was given a chance to set the record straight.

9/11/2008 5:45:17 PM

http://www.michiganmessenger.com/4076/lose-your-house-lose-your-vote
don't know if this has been posted, but it's pretty fucked up

9/11/2008 6:02:44 PM

Quote :

"PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln’s words when he said — first, he suggested never presume to know what God’s will is, and I would never presume to know God’s will or to speak God’s words. But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that’s a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God’s side. That’s what that comment was all about, Charlie."

I've never seen so much misdirection in my life. This is simply a lie. Her quote was clear as day and there's video of it. She's a crazy christian zealot and she can't squirm out of that. I'm dreadfully afraid of her views.

I mean it's clear as day here about the Iraq war. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H-btXPfhGs



[Edited on September 11, 2008 at 6:09 PM. Reason : - ]

9/11/2008 6:07:02 PM