Official Political (Republican/Democrat) Debate Thread

[Sean O]

Also, why are you so against the US using oil? What is wrong with oil? I personally don't see anything wrong with it. What I do see wrong is that we're the only country in the world that is not agressively searching for new oil sources.

Where to begin?

1). Massive pollution.

2). Nonrenewable resource.

3). The US will never produce enough to remotely approach demand.

4). Spectacularly inefficient.

5). Requires a tremendous effort to ship and refine.

6). Forever privatized under insanely greedy corporations.

And, as long as we have oil to fall back on, we're never going to do what is required by finding a clean, renewable alternate source. If we still don't have a ready-made alternative to oil 8 years from now, we are totally boned.

Bringing this back to the presidential debate, McCain has $0 governmental dollars going to alternative fuels. The greatest crisis over the next 10 years, and McCain is putting no money into it. Do we really want to increase the private sector's stranglehold on energy, on the off chance they have a breakthrough?

[piratesmvp04]

Where to begin?

1). Massive pollution.

2). Nonrenewable resource.

3). The US will never produce enough to remotely approach demand.

4). Spectacularly inefficient.

5). Requires a tremendous effort to ship and refine.

6). Forever privatized under insanely greedy corporations.

And, as long as we have oil to fall back on, we're never going to do what is required by finding a clean, renewable alternate source. If we still don't have a ready-made alternative to oil 8 years from now, we are totally boned.

Bringing this back to the presidential debate, McCain has $0 governmental dollars going to alternative fuels. The greatest crisis over the next 10 years, and McCain is putting no money into it. Do we really want to increase the private sector's stranglehold on energy, on the off chance they have a breakthrough?

Those things you're talking about are quite opinionated reasons for why you don't like oil. In fact, your whole post is filled with opinion. First of all, your reasons are either liberal reasons or exaggerated reasons (like the one where oil is causing massive pollution. I thought that was only in LA?)

Also, you think McCain's energy policy is no good because he doesn't support government-funded or government-run research programs for alternative fuels. Well, McCain actually believes that the private sector should be responsible for this. That's why he's proposed a $300 million dollar prize for whoever can come up with a better car battery. You, however, think the government should fund a program. That's your opinion; I respect that. But I don't think you should go around telling people McCain has no plan for alternative energy.

Another thing. Even if we come up with alternative fuels like ethanol, batteries, etc., that still won't free us from using oil for electricity, planes, ships, and other things that require oil. Oil will still have to be used to some extent unless we can make good use of wind power, solar power, and nuclear power, the latter of which the Democrats oppose for some reason.

[Sean O]

Another thing. Even if we come up with alternative fuels like ethanol, batteries, etc., that still won't free us from using oil for electricity, planes, ships, and other things that require oil. Oil will still have to be used to some extent unless we can make good use of wind power, solar power, and nuclear power, the latter of which the Democrats oppose for some reason.

[piratesmvp04]

What's this supposed to mean?

[Sean O]

That's why some Democrats are a little leery about nuclear power. Even if the Russians intentionally did something stupid to cause Chernobyl, the fewer opportunities we have to blow a nuclear reactor up, the better.

[piratesmvp04]

That's why some Democrats are a little leery about nuclear power. Even if the Russians intentionally did something stupid to cause Chernobyl, the fewer opportunities we have to blow a nuclear reactor up, the better.

Well, that was back then. We're much more technologically advanced now, yet I can understand the risk. My stance on energy is the following:

We can never be 100% free from oil, but we can reduce our dependance on it enough to reduce the strain on the dropping supply. We can do this by making use of new alternative fuels. This can be done through the following steps:

1. Allow drilling in ANWR, Colorado, and offshore. This will reduce prices almost immediately (as speculators bid on future prices) and will also ensure a longterm reduction in prices which will serve as a stopgap while research is done for alternative fuels.

2. A government-subsidized (not government-run, privately run) research program to research the use of fuels in automobiles. This is the #1 energy priority.

3. Government funded project to eventually replace most oil or coal powered electricity (within the high wind zones as defined by T. Boone Pickens) with wind power by 2050.

4. Where does this extra spending money come from? By instituting the FairTax. We can reduce wasted tax dollars by simplifying our tax system with the FairTax which will eliminate corporate taxes, income taxes, etc. and make it much cheaper and efficient to collect taxes while remaining revenue neutral (w/23% FairTax) and progressive (FairTax prebate checks ensure that richer people pay more tax than poorer people).

Despite our fierce disagreements, SeanO, certainly we can find common ground on at least most of this proposal?

[Sean O]

1. Allow drilling in ANWR, Colorado, and offshore. This will reduce prices almost immediately (as speculators bid on future prices) and will also ensure a longterm reduction in prices which will serve as a stopgap while research is done for alternative fuels.

Why don't companies just drill in the thousands of other locations that don't destroy a wilderness reserve?

2. A government-subsidized (not government-run, privately run) research program to research the use of fuels in automobiles. This is the #1 energy priority.

And so we simply shift our dependence on energy from foreign powers that gouge us to domestic powers that gouge us? I don't see how this benefits us. I think it's insane that in one of the very, very few areas where semi-governmental and flat-out governmental groups are making money, our government doesn't seem interested. And, in turn, we get screwed by Exxon and co.

4. Where does this extra spending money come from? By instituting the FairTax. We can reduce wasted tax dollars by simplifying our tax system with the FairTax which will eliminate corporate taxes, income taxes, etc. and make it much cheaper and efficient to collect taxes while remaining revenue neutral (w/23% FairTax) and progressive (FairTax prebate checks ensure that richer people pay more tax than poorer people).

Eliminate taxes on corporations? Wow. That's a bloody nightmare. As it is corporations are allowed to do literally anything they want without actual reprisal, and now we can't even get any economic benefit from them?

I say, we tax corporations depending on the level with which they help the nation. When you outsource jobs, you get taxed more heavily. When you break the law, same thing. I also say we revoke the charter of corporations that repeatedly, knowingly break the law, and act against greater American interests. Halliburton, for one, should've had its charter revoked long, long ago.

From what I can see, and what Americans for Fair taxation even admit, everyone making between 15 and 200k a year will be paying anywhere from a little to a lot more per annum, while those making 200k or more will pay less. This doesn't include the nightmare insanity of a potential transition period. No Thanks.

[piratesmvp04]

Why don't companies just drill in the thousands of other locations that don't destroy a wilderness reserve?

I already told you that the land they own has very little oil, and the leases are set to expire within a few weeks. Why would they waste their money on that? It's not like every piece of land has loads of oil on it.

And so we simply shift our dependence on energy from foreign powers that gouge us to domestic powers that gouge us? I don't see how this benefits us. I think it's insane that in one of the very, very few areas where semi-governmental and flat-out governmental groups are making money, our government doesn't seem interested. And, in turn, we get screwed by Exxon and co.

What are you talking about? Who do you want to produce alternative fuels then? Somebody has to do it.

Eliminate taxes on corporations? Wow. That's a bloody nightmare. As it is corporations are allowed to do literally anything they want without actual reprisal, and now we can't even get any economic benefit from them?

I say, we tax corporations depending on the level with which they help the nation. When you outsource jobs, you get taxed more heavily. When you break the law, same thing. I also say we revoke the charter of corporations that repeatedly, knowingly break the law, and act against greater American interests. Halliburton, for one, should've had its charter revoked long, long ago.

From what I can see, and what Americans for Fair taxation even admit, everyone making between 15 and 200k a year will be paying anywhere from a little to a lot more per annum, while those making 200k or more will pay less. This doesn't include the nightmare insanity of a potential transition period. No Thanks.

Okay, now hold on a second. The reason why corporations are outsourcing jobs is because the taxes are cheaper in other countries than it is here. We have corporate taxes, production taxes, export taxes, and every other tax you can think of. Because of that, it's too expensive to produce here (and of course because the unions demand ultra-high wages). That's why you lower taxes and make it cheaper to produce here. Other countries around the world are using the FairTax system right now, and it's benefiting them. Because of their low taxes, they reap the benefit of American companies. A survey that was taken (sometime within the past few years, I don't have to exact date in front of me) of different American companies showed that they would move their jobs back to the US if the FairTax was implemented.

Here's what happens when corporations don't pay tax: The cost of producing items drops substantially, and the base price of items will be much lower. This tax will be made up with the FairTax (23%) and will ensure that the government gets the same amount of money. At the same time, we can eliminate the IRS (because they won't be needed anymore) and thus have smaller government and fewer salaries to pay. This money can be reallocated to energy research programs.

[JoeBlo]

<i>"The problem with HouseGate is that he doesn't even know how many houses his immediately family owns. He doesn't know how to use a computer, or send e-mail, he hasn't defined what he considers "middle class," etc. McCain is totally disconnected to both his constituents and the greater citizenry."</i>

His wife and kids read him his email because he can't use a keyboard and mouse because of his war wounds. Pretty sleazy of Obama on that one. ANd it's funny how Obama says he can't talk about issue because of pigs but he's the one who brought it up in the first place.

And why don't we know as much about Obama's ties with American terrorist Bill Ayers as we do about some statetrooper that tasered his step child?

Also where the Hell are Obama's columbia days and his senior essay?

Something stinks about it all. I don't want the out of touch liberal establishment re bubble people as Bernie Goldberg picking our next President. The problem with intellectuals is that ideology trumps reality.

40% of the 95% of Obama's tax break don't even pay taxes and Obama's tax hike won't cover all the spending he wants to do. Where do you think they're coming next?

And another thing is that when you raise taxes on the rich like that they just hide their money in the Caymans like Kennedy family does.

Nobama! When polls are all things to all people that should be a clue: DANGER WILL ROBINSON!

[JoeBlo]

Now when you think about when Bush stepped into office and all those Y2K jobs went away along with Y2K hype, stock market crash, enron and other wallstreet scandal, 9-11, two wars etc... it's amazing this economy didn't tank.

Heres some facts!

George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy was fine.

A little over one year ago:

1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;

2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;

3) the unemployment rate was 4.5%.

4) the DOW JONES hit a record high--14,000 +

5) American's were buying new cars, taking cruises, vacations overseas, living large!...

But American's wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress & yep--we got 'CHANGE' all right!.....

1) Consumer confidence has plummeted ;

2) Gasoline is now over $4 a gallon & climbing!;

3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);

4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS & prices still dropping;

5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.

6) as I write, THE DOW is probing another low~~11,300--$2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!

Change we can believe in!

[JoeBlo]

Revolution you can believe in

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips...elieve-in.thtml

Change you can believe in!

Nobama!

On top of Obama being a closet marxist you have some of his followers believing he is some kind of messiah and I'm supposed to be afraid of right wingers?

"I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the parties have differences. But if you want change, you want the Democratic Party. Barack Obama was a community organizer like Jesus, who our minister prayed about. Pontius Pilate was a governor. Thank you, Mr. Speaker." -- Rep. Steve Cohen of Tennessee (D)

"a leader that God has blessed us with at this time.†-Nancy Pelosi

Never again one party control in DC!

[JoeBlo]

Because of his ties with American terrosit Bill Ayers and his mentor Rev Wright Obama wouldn't qualify for an FBI or Secret Service job so why the heck should we trust him with National Security?

No way I believe he didn't know for 20 years that his mentor was an America hater.

[tywiggins]

Now when you think about when Bush stepped into office and all those Y2K jobs went away along with Y2K hype, stock market crash, enron and other wallstreet scandal, 9-11, two wars etc... it's amazing this economy didn't tank.

Heres some facts!

George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy was fine.

A little over one year ago:

1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;

2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;

3) the unemployment rate was 4.5%.

4) the DOW JONES hit a record high--14,000 +

5) American's were buying new cars, taking cruises, vacations overseas, living large!...

But American's wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress & yep--we got 'CHANGE' all right!.....

1) Consumer confidence has plummeted ;

2) Gasoline is now over $4 a gallon & climbing!;

3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);

4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS & prices still dropping;

5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.

6) as I write, THE DOW is probing another low~~11,300--$2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, Dowd & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!

Change we can believe in!

The economy was fine from 2001 to 2006?

1) A 2 1/2 year high means the consumer confidence was lower in the previous 30 months.

2) August 2006, gasoline cost about $3 per gallon. The price went down to $2.19 around election time, but was back up to $3 per gallon by May 2007.

3) Unemployment was over 6% for much of 2003.

4) On October 9, 2007, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at the record level of 14,164.53. The first time it closed over 14,000 was July 19, 2007. By the way, it's currently at approximately the same level it was in October 2006.

5) What did the Democrats do to cause the foreclosures?

[piratesmvp04]

The economy was fine from 2001 to 2006?

1) A 2 1/2 year high means the consumer confidence was lower in the previous 30 months.

2) August 2006, gasoline cost about $3 per gallon. The price went down to $2.19 around election time, but was back up to $3 per gallon by May 2007.

3) Unemployment was over 6% for much of 2003.

4) On October 9, 2007, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at the record level of 14,164.53. The first time it closed over 14,000 was July 19, 2007. By the way, it's currently at approximately the same level it was in October 2006.

5) What did the Democrats do to cause the foreclosures?

I don't criticize the Democrats for high gas prices or the economy. There's not much the government can do with that. What I do criticize is Nancy Pelosi for promising lower gas prices and then seeing them double during her term in office. When you come out and make big promises like lower gas prices, you better make sure you can really keep those promises. I think the American people are angry that Pelosi didn't keep her promises, and that's why Congress' approval rating is 9% (as of a July), which is the LOWEST congressional approval rating in history. Sure, I'm never going to blame Pelosi for allowing high gas prices (though I may blame her for doing nothing if she doesn't bring drilling to a House vote), but I will never forget the promise she made that was never fulfilled.

[Kayxero]

I still have not read any responses from republicans on how they think her interview went. I would like your point of view. Not to mention the insane amount of editing that went into it.

It seems like that got skipped over in the discussion, even though its like her first interview since being nominated.

So what is you guys take?

[Sean O]

Because of his ties with American terrosit Bill Ayers and his mentor Rev Wright Obama wouldn't qualify for an FBI or Secret Service job so why the heck should we trust him with National Security?

No way I believe he didn't know for 20 years that his mentor was an America hater.

First warning: edit your posts, don't post the same garbage 3 times in a row. Also, stop cutting and pasting from every other site on the web.

You are still allowed to have your own opinions, do your own legwork.

[piratesmvp04]

I actually didn't see it, unfortunately. But that old guy from Fox News Sunday who always sits on the left end of the table said that he thinks it was editted in a way that the ABC host didn't like. That's his opinion, though.

[piratesmvp04]

Okay, I know Kayxero already asked conservatives what they thought of Palin's interview, so I don't mean to change the subject here. But since this is big news regarding the report that Palin compiled list of books to be banned from the Wasilla library while she was mayor, I just want to post the report here and get a response. It's from Newsmax:

Palin’s ‘Banned Books’ List Is a Hoax

After reports surfaced that Sarah Palin had sought to ban books from her local library when she became mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, a list of the books she supposedly wanted to ban began appearing on a number of Web sites.

The list included such classics as “Huckleberry Finn,†“Silas Marner,†“To Kill a Mockingbird,†and Chaucer’s “Canterbury Tales.†It even found its way to a blog linked to the My.BarackObama Web site, where it was claimed that the list “comes from the records of the Wasilla library,†and was distributed via e-mail by a Palin foe.

The truth is, Palin never compiled that or any other list of books to be removed from the Wasilla library, various sources have reported.

In fact, several of the books on the list, including four “Harry Potter†books by J.K. Rowling, were not yet published when Palin took over as Wasilla’s mayor in 1996.

It turns out that the list is a reproduction of a generic list of “Books Banned at One Time or Another in the United States,†which has been on the Internet for years, according to conservative pundit Michelle Malkin.

The original source of the hoax is unclear. But the Anchorage Daily News in Alaska reported that when Palin first became mayor in 1996, she asked the city librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, what her response would be if Palin asked her to remove some books from the library’s collection. She did not mention any specific books. Emmons responded by saying she would resist all efforts to ban books.

Emmons subsequently received a letter from Palin informing her that she was going to be fired. The censorship issue was not mentioned as a reason for firing, according to the Daily News.

“The letter just said the new mayor felt Emmons didn’t fully support her and had to go,†the paper reported. “After a wave of public support for [Emmons], Palin relented and let Emmons keep her job.â€

[meteamo]

Did anyone watch the Independant Convention on CNN? Just wondering.

[Sean O]

Okay, I know Kayxero already asked conservatives what they thought of Palin's interview, so I don't mean to change the subject here. But since this is big news regarding the report that Palin compiled list of books to be banned from the Wasilla library while she was mayor, I just want to post the report here and get a response. It's from Newsmax:

Yup, apparently Palin only posed a hypothetical to the librarian on what she'd do if Palin requested a book to be removed.

Still has nothing to do with her shocking lack of experience and policy knowledge, or the other questionable decisions (rape kits, for one) she did make as mayor.

[piratesmvp04]

Yup, apparently Palin only posed a hypothetical to the librarian on what she'd do if Palin requested a book to be removed.

Still has nothing to do with her shocking lack of experience and policy knowledge, or the other questionable decisions (rape kits, for one) she did make as mayor.

Hey, at least she's not the #1 guy in this race. Obama is the more inexperienced one of the two Democrats, and he's #1.

[Sean O]

Hey, at least she's not the #1 guy in this race. Obama is the more inexperienced one of the two Democrats, and he's #1.

For all intents and purposes, since McCain will be lucky to survive his term, she is the one who's running. Second, Obama has run a whirlwind campaign that can survive everything but the most muchraking lies (as we're seeing). Third, Obama has policies, while Palin has nothing.

[piratesmvp04]

Whatever.

[Kayxero]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNPGnZurs1k

Now everyone can watch it who has not.

Palin and Gibson.

And this is the unedited transcript. After reading through it, it seems that they edited out some of her run around statements, as well as a few decent points.

But overall I did not like alot of the answers I heard from her in this interview.

http://www.brutallyhonest.org/brutally_hon...n-edited-g.html

[Padres67]

Things will change here in a week or so. Biden will step down with a promise of a cabinet position and Hillary is in. It is in the works. Why else would Bill and Bama have a secret meeting