McCain's trend

[Drew Dowdell]

I think you are dead wrong on this one, my friend.

In fact, to paint McCain with the same brush as Bush does the man a gross disservice- no matter what you might think of his policies.

The only thing that will change with a McCain administration is the stationary.

[Oracle of Delphi]

:rotflmao:

[Camino LS6]

The only thing that will change with a McCain administration is the stationary.

On that, I am certain that you are mistaken.

[loki]

Exactly like that.

Although I'm probably more in favor of trade restrictions than most here. I don't believe in massive globalization.

so you don't like the subsidies to the "rich", ie companies like (corn) ethanol, maybe some others too, but you want to give subsidies,-tax breaks, lump sums, something-, to "other companies" that would ...jump start us into nuclear, wind,solar energy era.... I don't understand how one company is helped is not fine to you, but you want these other companies helped and that would be good...?

trade restrictions... something like the sugar qouta?

that restriction has one company's fingerprints all over it....and thus corn syrup took over the vast sweetener business adding more and more washed away fertilizer into the water... and can't help the dead zone that has formed at the end of the Mississippi.

trade restrictions don't help us. yes some jobs may move "off shore", but that also should allow the goods to be made more cheaply with minimal decrease in quality... or actually increase. it's sad the USA has no TV manufacturers here, but i'm betting pollution and material costs made them move, and an upstart company could not compete now.

to 68...nothing personal at all, but can you even quickly proof read your responses before posting?. hehe some other people should too, in quite a few threads.

[Drew Dowdell]

so you don't like the subsidies to the "rich", ie companies like (corn) ethanol, maybe some others too, but you want to give subsidies,-tax breaks, lump sums, something-, to "other companies" that would ...jump start us into nuclear, wind,solar energy era.... I don't understand how one company is helped is not fine to you, but you want these other companies helped and that would be good...?

There is a difference between long term, permanent subsidies and start up funding for a new technology/business.

[loki]

There is a difference between long term, permanent subsidies and start up funding for a new technology/business.

it's still socialism.

if it's such a great idea, why not ask every citizen in their respective state to donate to the state "energy startup fund" so the people that push it can put their money where their mouth is. states, because states know how to do things so much better than federal for their own people. :Local control

Edited September 7, 2008 by loki

[Croc]

it's still socialism.

if it's such a great idea, why not ask every citizen in their respective state to donate to the state "energy startup fund" so the people that push it can put their money where their mouth is. states, because states know how to do things so much better than federal for their own people. :Local control

When there is a national interest, the federal government has an obligation to act...especially in matters of health, safety, and national security. Energy policy meets every single one of those criteria.

By your logic, NASA should be funded by donations and private companies. Guess what, we never would have gotten to the moon, launched exploratory missions, or even satellites if the federal government didn't make it a priority...and so many NASA advances are used by us in our daily lives so much that we take them for granted. And I'm not referring to much more than Tang.

The federal government must make energy a priority because it is a key piece of infrastructure. Even subsidizing companies to develop green technologies is an infrastructure investment because those advances will allow implementation on a national level. The companies need subsidies to stay afloat while the technology is new and expensive. Also, when you privatize things, they are (generally) the property of the private individual/organization who developed/created them. They can control distribution. Federally-funded investments allow public access. On the most basic level, the results of studies and analyses are public documents that would at the very least provide knowledge and information to inspire entrepreneurs and citizens to develop improvements to existing technologies. Everyone knows that universities and research institutions benefit from these as advances are often developed at that level. Everyone benefits from increased knowledge.

[ocnblu]

I will always defend myself if I feel I am wrongly accused of something, Croc. You wrongly accused me so I called you out on it, BFD, it's over. I have been participating in this thread because I feel strongly about certain things, but I still think politics is a subject that can get too hot to handle, whether it be face-to-face, or on a forum such as this. As far as I'm concerned, this thread is ugly. I wanted to keep it off of here, but I am far from an authority figure at C&G, so when it went ahead, I had a right to speak up with my opinions on this election. I don't think I've been "whining" about anything, either. As far as "gay" threads, I don't care if there is never another "gay" thread on this forum. I am not a strident "gay rights" activist, I like to think I have a good sense of humor about that whole thing. Now let's move on.

[Sixty8panther]

Oldsmoboi:

I do not wish to anger people or lose friends on here... and I know there's

a lot of "Bush is the devil" & "liberals for Obama" sentiment here, but let

me just say this:

Bush sucks, but most of my anger w/ him is his lack of respect for individual

rights, & stubbornness about Iraq...

Now let me tell you the four things I HATE about (most, or maybe , at least some) Liberals:

1. bleeding heart mentality, turning scum of society into victims

2. anyone with a conservative point of view is a redneck or bible thumper

3. why NOT negotiate with terrorists? war is not the answer!

4. you should be only allowed to own a firearm if you're a criminal and DO NOT register it.

[Sixty8panther]

Sly, we've always had this "mind meld" thing going on. You always seem to "get" me.

Agreed.

I think perhaps we operate on the same brain-wave length...

The thing is, I'm sure you've got some liberal views, just like i do,

neither one of us is a prude or a bible-toting nutcase, I have no

alegiance to ubber-conservatives, I'm agnostic and there's days

I'd almost call myself an aetheist just to distance myself from the

peope who try to shove the whole "the bibe (and by extension

the people who wrote it 2000-4000 yrs ago) says your personal

life choice is EVIL" crowd... except for abortion past the 1st

trimester, modern science shows us when the "fetus" has a heart

beat and at that point it's murder, the only two exceptions I

wouldn't agrue with is if the pregnancy is threatining the mother's

life and/or if a rape caused the pregnancy.

[Sixty8panther]

P.S. Croc:

If you piss & moan for a half dozen threads about how someone

else is holding a grudge or being a hypocrite, and even state

specific threads from the not-so-recent past where said poster

rubbed you the wrong way you run the risk of appearing like you

have your panties in a bunch and have a vendetta.

[Sixty8panther]

to 68...nothing personal at all, but can you even quickly proof read your responses before posting?. hehe some other people should too, in quite a few threads.

Yeah.... sorry what stupid thing did I word awkwardly now?

Between my pregnant wife and the cat trying to sleep on my

keyboard as well as the constant distraction of Food TV...

Mmmmmm.... red meat & seafood, *drool*

huh? what...? oh, right, so yeah I sometimes post

redundant sentances or non-sensical pargraphs.

That being said, can you be more specific as to this thread?

[loki]

When there is a national interest, the federal government has an obligation to act...especially in matters of health, safety, and national security. Energy policy meets every single one of those criteria.

By your logic, NASA should be funded by donations and private companies. Guess what, we never would have gotten to the moon, launched exploratory missions, or even satellites if the federal government didn't make it a priority...and so many NASA advances are used by us in our daily lives so much that we take them for granted. And I'm not referring to much more than Tang.

The federal government must make energy a priority because it is a key piece of infrastructure. Even subsidizing companies to develop green technologies is an infrastructure investment because those advances will allow implementation on a national level. The companies need subsidies to stay afloat while the technology is new and expensive. Also, when you privatize things, they are (generally) the property of the private individual/organization who developed/created them. They can control distribution. Federally-funded investments allow public access. On the most basic level, the results of studies and analyses are public documents that would at the very least provide knowledge and information to inspire entrepreneurs and citizens to develop improvements to existing technologies. Everyone knows that universities and research institutions benefit from these as advances are often developed at that level. Everyone benefits from increased knowledge.

and perhaps by your logic, "green" technologies, or others, wouldn't happen without gov't intervention/aid.

i can concede that there are times when gov't programs make sense... Manhattan project, Nasa, railroad,telegraph, to get off the ground... but by the same token, solar energy, space travel is nothing new, why do we need to "make it happen now", same with nuke power, fuel cells, wind. by now it's all proven technology, the private sector can easily do this if they are just allowed to do it, and shown the need is there.

i've never heard of a federal university, so why do they fund things at the state level? why can't states compete each other and private universities too? sometimes federal investments can be hidden as well. just as an example, look at all the "ruckus" that came from bush's "editing" of a climate change report from the past several years. the people in power can just as easily destroy as create, it matters not how official the people are.

all i meant with my original comment is i believe I can use my money much more efficiently than the gov't can, i think you can do it as well. The more bureaucracy is created, the more is needed... thus creating more waste.

68... either the time or my lax nature doesn't care to search for your grammatical butchering.

[Sixty8panther]

68... either the time or my lax nature doesn't care to search for your grammatical butchering.

It's true... I'm like a blind guy with a dull knife

[Robert Hall]

It's true... I'm like a blind guy with a dull knife

A spell checker wood help with the speeling, also.

[Sixty8panther]

yup... noted.

I'll try my best in the future.

[loki]

olds....

an idea came to me... obviously B.O. has pushed the inflate your tires thing...if he's so progressive, why not subsidize Goodyear's Tweel to get it in the market before 2010, like planned? push it forward by even 1/2 a year somehow. the only # i'm recalling is something like 20 million barrels wasted from underinflated tires /year....

sorry, it's Michelin and some estimates are around 100million lost from underinflation or HERE 3.3 million gallons / day, so that's alot more. if even 1/2 of that could be not lost that's alot.

so, would you be for this or not?

[loki]

A spell checker wood help with the speeling, also.

nice synonym and misspelling yourself.

[79VetteZ06]

To all those Liberals and Conservatives on this forum, the one thing I am going to make clear regarding Bush and Iraq once and for all is that the REAL reason why Bush attacked Iraq was not for WMD, not for Oil, not for revenge on Saddam because he attacked Bush Sr., not as a preemptive strike (which although may be partially true) to prevent a direct attack on our soil and certainly not for democracy but one and only one purpose, supremacy through the pawn of MONEY. That is right.

Iraq is world's #2 oil producer while #1 in estimated oil reserves. Starting late 2003 Saddam wanted to use Euro as a chief currency for trading oil (does it make sense why Germany and France were so much unenthusiastic about war?). A strong Euro would have benefitted stronger European nations which start from G and F. A weaker Euro would have made case for England to cry for failure of the currency,(explains why Mr. Blair was our sacred ally). This would have not only made US lose revenue but would have also triggered in the sale of US currency. The result? A further degradation of US wealth, that is right the mortgage crisis and economic downturn you are seeing now would have been seen 5 years ago, may be in some other forms. Which means our economy would have had crashed. Crashed economy means loss of purchasing power and hence loss of the Unipolar Superpower status.

Bush changed the perspective by making our problems in some ways seem global and thus lessened the brunt faced directly by the US economy. The preemptive strike of not making a chain reaction for sale of Dollar worked. The Iraq attack not only cause other economies to buy Dollar but it borrowed time for the economy against slowing and in fact in some ways may have prevented a crash landing of the economy. It was estimated that on an average the crash in Dollar would have cost 7-8 Trillion (that is right) annually to the United States. Suddenly the total cost of war till now (4-5 Trillion seems to be fruit cake in comparison). What this current administration failed is in giving honest answers and it also failed in making people gear up for the truth about the economy's landfall and also being near sighted regarding Social Security and Medicare. The decelerators of slowing economy started in the Clinton era, 911 only accelerated them. Part of the major impetus for the economy during Clinton era was compliance with Y2K. That spur forced a lot of money getting exchanged, but the slowing started late in 1999 when most of the companies started becoming compliant. According to some thinkers from east Bush's strategy was brilliant (yeah Bush and brilliant cannot be uttered in the same breath). But his whacko persona helped in shielding the real cause. He did alienate a few countries, but in long run, his foreign policies have not been bad. Take an example his policy of handling nukes with India, another good path. His handling of China has been good if not spectacular.

Clinton did have surplus, but he did smart book keeping too, by advancing the cash deficit of Social Security and Medicare into a future returnable investment he just made the deficit look like surplus. I am not an accountant, but folks like ZL-1 can help me in that respect.

US people in general like to live in a Matrix, with none of them wanting to be Neo or Morpheus. How many common people turn on CSpan or BBC to see what is happening around the world, instead of watching local News on 13? They would rather care for Natalie Hallaway and Scott Peterson than comprehend how the global dynamics change which are crucial in understanding how the global economy, politics and social life works. Most of the bigger news channels take around the world in 80 seconds, mostly showing floods and famines, or some one with longest hair in South Africa. I mean come on, Really? Is the world that insignificant? This very negligence has lead politicians take advantage of "sentiments" not thoughts thus making us feel excited for a cause, when in general they are offering nothing but smoke screens. Do you think top echelon of both parties are that ignorant about the real causes of the war? Based on Obama's recent ambivalence about ending war (listen to his interview with Bill O'reilly) I think none of the candidates will end war soon. In some ways at least McCain comes out straight in that respect. And if I was them chances are I will not end the war soon too, considering that the economy is still in fragile state. The recent need of change Democrats are cashing on is just an opportunity to gain power. The status quo shall stay the same with some fine prints.

This is coming from a person who is neither Liberal nor Conservative, hell not even a US citizen. I can talk about both the teams without getting emotional and thus making an attempt to present unbiased facts. Thus, I would like to tell you, Bush is not as bad as he himself or the the Democrats portray him to be. As much simple minded he comes out to be to me he has been one complex figure to analyze. So much as I wanted to stay out of this discussion, that I thought credit should be given where it is due and taken away from where it is not.

[Sixty8panther]

The Tweel thing both excites me and scares me..

[Robert Hall]

nice synonym and misspelling yourself.

Purely intentional, of course.

[loki]

Purely intentional, of course.

i did figure so. just had to point it out to everyone else i guess. hehe

[Robert Hall]

i did figure so. just had to point it out to everyone else i guess. hehe

I saw 'speeling' years ago in school... I had a teacher write that I needed 'check my speeling'... thought it was funny, kind of stuck w/ me.. I've used it on a few occasions..

[Intrepidation]

FWIW Firefox 3 has a much better spell checker

[Oracle of Delphi]

68's problem isn't that he can't spell, his problem is that he from Boston, you know the people that call Cuba, Cuber!

[Robert Hall]

68's problem isn't that he can't spell, his problem is that he from Boston, you know the people that call Cuba, Cuber!

Ah, yeah..and they try to 'pawk the cah in Hahvad Yahd'... When I lived in Michigan (in A-squared), I knew some locals that pronounced car as if it were 'care', and they weren't youpers, but from the DEEtroit area... (being from Ohio, I pronounced it 'Duhtroit' but the locals I knew pronounced it with a long E).

Edited September 7, 2008 by moltar

[ocnblu]

"DEEtroit leanin'...". What song is that phrase from?

[Sixty8panther]

1979-LS&-powered-Corvette:

You make some excellent points.....

Speaking of the economy the dot-com & Y2K boom shielded and put off temporarily

the $hitstorm that was headed our way, predicted by Perot and other peope in the

know, and made much worse by Sept.11.

[Drew Dowdell]

it's still socialism.

if it's such a great idea, why not ask every citizen in their respective state to donate to the state "energy startup fund" so the people that push it can put their money where their mouth is. states, because states know how to do things so much better than federal for their own people. :Local control

Many states and localities are already doing that. There is a "green energy development" charge added to many utility customer's bills. Only problem is that it's NOT national so you have a patchwork of inefficient programs that don't achieve the benefits of economy of scale. There are some things, like education and healthcare, that are better handled on the local level. Things like energy, transportation, and defense are best handled on the national level.

[Drew Dowdell]

Oldsmoboi:

I do not wish to anger people or lose friends on here... and I know there's

a lot of "Bush is the devil" & "liberals for Obama" sentiment here, but let

me just say this:

Bush sucks, but most of my anger w/ him is his lack of respect for individual

rights, & stubbornness about Iraq...

Now let me tell you the four things I HATE about (most, or maybe , at least some) Liberals:

1. bleeding heart mentality, turning scum of society into victims

2. anyone with a conservative point of view is a redneck or bible thumper

3. why NOT negotiate with terrorists? war is not the answer!

4. you should be only allowed to own a firearm if you're a criminal and DO NOT register it.

1. I'm very much in favor of an increase in capital punishment especially in cases where DNA evidence removes any reasonable doubt. As an added bonus, I believe the executions should take place on Pay Per View. Capital punishment loses it's effectiveness as a deterrent if you only hear about it when the guy on the evening news reads it to you.

2. I don't believe that at all..... I just wish the redneck and bible thumpers didn't have so much control over the Republican party. I am a fiscally prudent, socially

liberaterian, and internationally isolationist. That's what the Republican party USED to stand for.

3. Not that I think Jimmy Carter was a great president, but he was right about at least one thing. We should have started switching away from oil as a transportation fuel source 35 years ago. Had we done that, we would have avoided both Iraq wars, we would have avoided war in Afghanistan, we would not be having a fuel crisis right now, and none of us would know who Osama Bin Laden is. Osama got pissed because he felt we disrespected Saudi Arabia while we where there in '92. In Iraq this time around we attacked a country that had nothing to do with 9-11. Talking with Iran is ALREADY producing results. We aren't getting along with Russia right now... what are we going to do... invade them too!?

4. I'm in favor of personal ownership of SOME firearms. I do not believe, however, that one needs to own assault rifles or fully automatic weapons. Handguns for self defense and guns for hunting are fine. If you're going to maintain that we should be able to keep weapons in case we need to overthrow our government, then we need to start building centrifuges in our basement for refining uranium.

[Oracle of Delphi]

Delaware has signed the Blue Water Wind Project. Delaware will now get 29% of it's energy from clean, renewable, stable-priced wind power. The Offshore Wind Park will be located in the Delaware Bay and the Atlantic coast. Delaware and New Jersey went to Denmark to see it in operation.

Delaware's General Assembly mandated this, if Delmarva Power had it's way, this would have never taken place.

Link: http://www.bluewaterwind.com/delaware.htm

Edited September 7, 2008 by Pontiac Custom-S

[Drew Dowdell]

and perhaps by your logic, "green" technologies, or others, wouldn't happen without gov't intervention/aid.

i can concede that there are times when gov't programs make sense... Manhattan project, Nasa, railroad,telegraph, to get off the ground... but by the same token, solar energy, space travel is nothing new, why do we need to "make it happen now", same with nuke power, fuel cells, wind. by now it's all proven technology, the private sector can easily do this if they are just allowed to do it, and shown the need is there.

Nukes suffer from NIMBY but they don't really need any federal funding. Wind and solar are still need some funding to help with efficiency <less so with wind, but still>.

[Drew Dowdell]

olds....

an idea came to me... obviously B.O. has pushed the inflate your tires thing...if he's so progressive, why not subsidize Goodyear's Tweel to get it in the market before 2010, like planned? push it forward by even 1/2 a year somehow. the only # i'm recalling is something like 20 million barrels wasted from underinflated tires /year....

sorry, it's Michelin and some estimates are around 100million lost from underinflation or HERE 3.3 million gallons / day, so that's alot more. if even 1/2 of that could be not lost that's alot.

so, would you be for this or not?

I'm not familiar with the technology. Let me look it up and get back to you.

I might be in favor of government support of the technology if the technology was made open for multiple companies to produce it..... but that just an off the cuff answer with no background research done.

[Camino LS6]

Now this thread is getting somewhere!

It is far better to be focusing on ideas leading to solutions than it is to thump on the candidates and re-hash the past.

oldsmoboi: I have to agree about the undue influence of the religious right over the Republican party - that trashes what could be a great thing. I do, however, disagree about state control of energy issues. I see it as 50 chances to get it right, though federal support will also be critical in getting things going.

[Drew Dowdell]

1979-LS&-powered-Corvette:

You make some excellent points.....

Speaking of the economy the dot-com & Y2K boom shielded and put off temporarily

the $hitstorm that was headed our way, predicted by Perot and other peope in the

know, and made much worse by Bush and Greenspan and Bernake.

Fixed, but mostly right.

[Drew Dowdell]

Now this thread is getting somewhere!

It is far better to be focusing on ideas leading to solutions than it is to thump on the candidates and re-hash the past.

oldsmoboi: I have to agree about the undue influence of the religious right over the Republican party - that trashes what could be a great thing. I do, however, disagree about state control of energy issues. I see it as 50 chances to get it right, though federal support will also be critical in getting things going.

I'm talking about federal funding not federal control. The Federal government should set aside funding for each state to develop green energy that is most appropriate for the particular region. Florida is bad for wind but great for solar. Illinois is bad for solar but great for wind.

[Camino LS6]

I'm talking about federal funding not federal control. The Federal government should set aside funding for each state to develop green energy that is most appropriate for the particular region. Florida is bad for wind but great for solar. Illinois is bad for solar but great for wind.

With that clarification, we agree.

Still, I am very pleased to see that the states are not waiting for the feds to get their act together and are moving forward now.

[trinacriabob]

You Obama lovers are like starry-eyed schoolgirls. Sad, really, if it weren't also hilarious. How long has he been in the Senate? Has it been 15 minutes yet?

Wow, reading this thread, I'm amazed I agree with you.

On the basis of "top of the ticket" candidates, I definitely was for McCain. I think Obama is viewed as a "savior" and some of the people buying into this are fairly intelligent and accomplished, which I think is frightening. The granolafied entrepreneurial telecommuting liberal in the West is the most likely to sport Obama stickers....it kind of goes together, like lesbians in Maine and fleece jackets. There is no "savior" in a presidential candidate...they all have dirt under the rug. Period.

OK, so they needed a woman to stabilize McCain's ticket and fetch the Hillary vote, if that was the intent. Couldn't they have found one that was 54 (instead of 44), with a law degree (only because it's typical), 10 years of significant political experience, and kids at least 10 years old? I'm sure they existed.

[Drew Dowdell]

Had he picked Christi Todd Whitmann, I might have been more divided about my vote. With Palin on the ticket, there's just no way.

[Oracle of Delphi]

Wow, reading this thread, I'm amazed I agree with you.

On the basis of "top of the ticket" candidates, I definitely was for McCain. I think Obama is viewed as a "savior" and some of the people buying into this are fairly intelligent and accomplished, which I think is frightening. The granolafied entrepreneurial telecommuting liberal in the West is the most likely to sport Obama stickers....it kind of goes together, like lesbians in Maine and fleece jackets. There is no "savior" in a presidential candidate...they all have dirt under the rug. Period.

OK, so they needed a woman to stabilize McCain's ticket and fetch the Hillary vote, if that was the intent. Couldn't they have found one that was 54 (instead of 44), with a law degree (only because it's typical), 10 years of significant political experience, and kids at least 10 years old? I'm sure they existed.

Take my hand Bob, and walk towards the Obama campaign with me, don't be frightened for der Börger is with you!

[Robert Hall]

The granolafied entrepreneurial telecommuting liberal in the West is the most likely to sport Obama stickers....

Hey, that's me, though I'm not granolafied!!

[Satty]

I could go for some granola.

[balthazar]

>>"OK, so they needed a woman to stabilize McCain's ticket and fetch the Hillary vote, if that was the intent. Couldn't they have found one that was 54 (instead of 44), with a law degree (only because it's typical), 10 years of significant political experience, and kids at least 10 years old? I'm sure they existed."<<

Now we're voting based on age & # of children? Does McCain's 4 trump BO's 2, or is it vice versa?

If Palin is too young to be VP at 44, what does that make BO being P @ barely 47 ??

While we're at it, couldn't we have found a guy who wasn't from a broken home and didn't do drugs in HS - I'm sure they're out there.

Can we get anymore superficial?

[trinacriabob]

Now we're voting based on age & # of children? Does McCain's 4 trump BO's 2, or is it vice versa? If Palin is too young to be VP at 44, what does that make BO being P @ barely 47 ??

While we're at it, couldn't we have found a guy who wasn't from a broken home and didn't do drugs in HS - I'm sure they're out there.

Can we get anymore superficial?

I think you missed the point. Clinton (who I couldn't stand...Slick Willie) was 46 when he took office -- he had a Yale law degree and was the governor of Arkansas for a decent period of time, not to mention initially practicing law and being a politician for a while. Kennedy was even younger at 42 but his career was also routed via law + politics.

Palin has a degree in communications from Univ. of Idaho, has been in a major office for 1 . 5 years, and has a kid LESS than a year old that needs a Mom. I'm not saying she's not a bright lady. She is. I am only saying that her experience lacks "critical mass." It's not about superficiality.

Edited September 7, 2008 by trinacriabob

[loki]

Many states and localities are already doing that. There is a "green energy development" charge added to many utility customer's bills. Only problem is that it's NOT national so you have a patchwork of inefficient programs that don't achieve the benefits of economy of scale. There are some things, like education and healthcare, that are better handled on the local level. Things like energy, transportation, and defense are best handled on the national level.

the best lower education places have to be private schools...

1. I'm very much in favor of an increase in capital punishment especially in cases where DNA evidence removes any reasonable doubt. As an added bonus, I believe the executions should take place on Pay Per View. Capital punishment loses it's effectiveness as a deterrent if you only hear about it when the guy on the evening news reads it to you.

2. I don't believe that at all..... I just wish the redneck and bible thumpers didn't have so much control over the Republican party. I am a fiscally prudent, socially

liberaterian, and internationally isolationist. That's what the Republican party USED to stand for.

3. Not that I think Jimmy Carter was a great president, but he was right about at least one thing. We should have started switching away from oil as a transportation fuel source 35 years ago. Had we done that, we would have avoided both Iraq wars, we would have avoided war in Afghanistan, we would not be having a fuel crisis right now, and none of us would know who Osama Bin Laden is. Osama got pissed because he felt we disrespected Saudi Arabia while we where there in '92. In Iraq this time around we attacked a country that had nothing to do with 9-11. Talking with Iran is ALREADY producing results. We aren't getting along with Russia right now... what are we going to do... invade them too!?

4. I'm in favor of personal ownership of SOME firearms. I do not believe, however, that one needs to own assault rifles or fully automatic weapons. Handguns for self defense and guns for hunting are fine. If you're going to maintain that we should be able to keep weapons in case we need to overthrow our government, then we need to start building centrifuges in our basement for refining uranium.

I hate to say it, but #1 is not economical and doesn't act as a deterrent, for any reason in a free society. under a despot it work much better because the felon and prolly the family is much more at risk of retribution.

#2, isolationist or non-interventionist? if we became an isolationist, say goodbye to new cell phones, tvs, and the like for quite a while. not that we couldn't do it, but competition is good right... and we wouldn't have enough people/talent at the moment to fulfill our current demand of "things". are you isolationist when it comes to immigration too?

#3 you can go back farther and look at Ford's ideas to use soybean oil... that wasn't federally subsidized, if it was you'd prolly be complaining about that because it's one company's I.P....?

osama..no, "S.A." is their holy land...and we have military there. it's not just how he felt, it's the religion. same could be said about the christians back during the crusades.

I'm talking about federal funding not federal control. The Federal government should set aside funding for each state to develop green energy that is most appropriate for the particular region. Florida is bad for wind but great for solar. Illinois is bad for solar but great for wind.

if it's nationally funded, how would the $ be split up /average capita, /person, state size,..? sounds like some states would get unfairly treated with any idea one came up with, ...because socialism is naturally unfair.

i'd rather pay x5 my state income tax for economical "green energy" than pay federal tax and know it's not coming back to my state.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

4. I'm in favor of personal ownership of SOME firearms. I do not believe, however, that one needs to own assault rifles or fully automatic weapons. Handguns for self defense and guns for hunting are fine. If you're going to maintain that we should be able to keep weapons in case we need to overthrow our government, then we need to start building centrifuges in our basement for refining uranium.

Please, define assault rifle. No wait i will define it for you.

An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle or carbine (not to be confused with a semi-automatic only replica) firing ammunition with muzzle energies intermediate between those typical of pistol and high-powered rifle ammunition.

Now uhm, a semi-automatic sporter AK-47 is not an assault rifle by definition. Not to mention the AK-47 isn't terribly accurate. it IS used for hunting (the round is powerful enough for some game like deer). An AR-15 rifle (looks like an M16 for you people who don't know what it is, except it only fires in semi-automatic) is only powerful enough for some smaller game or MAYBE a really good shot to the head of an animal. It is often used as a match quality rifle in shooting competitions.

Now why do both of these rifles need to be banned?

[loki]

Now why do both of these rifles need to be banned?

nice.

people with fear, and not knowledgeable enough about things like you just typed.

[Robert Hall]

Please, define assault rifle. No wait i will define it for you.

Now uhm, a semi-automatic sporter AK-47 is not an assault rifle by definition. Not to mention the AK-47 isn't terribly accurate. it IS used for hunting (the round is powerful enough for some game like deer). An AR-15 rifle (looks like an M16 for you people who don't know what it is, except it only fires in semi-automatic) is only powerful enough for some smaller game or MAYBE a really good shot to the head of an animal. It is often used as a match quality rifle in shooting competitions.

Now why do both of these rifles need to be banned?

There is no reason for civilians to have military weapons like that. Shotguns and regular rifles should be enough for the hunter types...

[ocnblu]

moltar, do you hunt? I don't, but I'm not going to dictate to those that do what kind of weapon to use.

[Robert Hall]

moltar, do you hunt? I don't, but I'm not going to dictate to those that do what kind of weapon to use.

I don't hunt, it's a disgusting hobby IMHO. The problem is, these same people that have assault rifles often go nuts and shoot up schools, shopping malls, offices, etc. It's best to keep military guns away from the masses.

The general public doesn't have access to RPGs, SAMs, SCUDs, etc either...

Edited September 7, 2008 by moltar