I'm a leftie but why do I like McCain?

CtrlSource

toiletduck wrote: »

Now college is done I have time to start into his books

The Audacity of Hope is a very accessible read and i really enjoyed it. Must buy his first book Dreams from My Father soon and get stuck in

SharpshooterTom_79811

brianthebard wrote: »

we are starting to get a true sense of what mccain is about.his comments on last weeks supreme court ruling shows at heart how conservative he is and suggests he would hold nothing
back in 'the war on terror'. ie torture at gitmo,drawing out the wars even longer.Posted via Mobile Device

I'm not sure that's anything to do with McCain's actual policies or the fact that he's trying to sow up support from some of his own base. It's a shame because he's moderate at heart but some of the neo cons hate him.

Sand

I mean what is he for? Now college is done I have time to start into his books

The Audacity of Hope is a very accessible read and i really enjoyed it. Must buy his first book Dreams from My Father soon and get stuck in

FFS - My natural cynicism is triggering a urge to dry heave from the book titles alone.

Whats next to complete the trilogy? "We shall overcome!" or have I not referenced the message of hope/change/dreams enough?

Black Swan

SharpshooterTom wrote: »

I'm not sure that's anything to do with McCain's actual policies or the fact that he's trying to sow up support from some of his own base. It's a shame because he's moderate at heart but some of the neo cons hate him.

What McCain says publicly does not reflect his position? His platform? That he will talk a game with the right to draw their support, then do otherwise if elected? What happened to integrity?

I have to agree with brianthebard. The real McCain is revealing himself (The one without integrity).

We are hearing what the Republican spin marketers call the "New and Improved" McCain! The McCain Truck! It will "stay the course" (A Mel Gibson "Patriot" and Bush quote)! Drives through piles of collateral damage without a worry, onto the next oil field, be it in Iraq or (future) Iran.

Sand

Speaking of integrity, whilst denouncing McCain as Bush 2.0 it looks like Obama liked the look of a few of Bush's policies and stole them. Clearly, Obama is a bit of a closet Bush fan.

Or hes being managed by the democratic spin managers, the "New and improved" Obama, the Obama you can trust to fund the homegrown religious crazies whilst bombing the foreign ones. The one who will keep the oil flowing. Hes been caught before telling the unions hes against free trade, whilst his team are telling the Canadians and Mexicans that its just political talk and he wont rock the boat. Hes gone back on his pledge to abide by public spending limits if the Republican candidate did likewise. When that wasnt expedient it was booted to the kerb.

Hes a very smooth act, if he becomes president some people are going to be very dissapointed when they find the US has elected a politician and not a messiah.

Hell make a bad President from an Irish point of view, as whatever his real views his public ones are hostile to free trade and given Irelands almost total reliance on free trade as a tiny open economy any moves by the US to undermine free trade or limit FDI in Ireland will be bad news for us.

quidestveritas?

Sand wrote: »

Hes a very smooth act, if he becomes president some people are going to be very dissapointed when they find the US has elected a politician and not a messiah.

That is a good point - there is a wave of enthusiasm around the world because they seem to think he is being elected as some sort of world leader - he is running to be US President and will act in what he sees are the best interests of the USA, not the rest of the world. Having said that, I think his interpretation of what the USA's best interests are will be slightly more palatable to the rest of the world thatn the GOP. All the same, if he is elected, the initial world-wide enthusiasm is going to be in for a bit of a shock.

Sand wrote: »

Hell make a bad President from an Irish point of view, as whatever his real views his public ones are hostile to free trade and given Irelands almost total reliance on free trade as a tiny open economy any moves by the US to undermine free trade or limit FDI in Ireland will be bad news for us.

I don't think it makes a real iota of difference to Ireland in any real sense which of them is elected (other than to the proprietors of the Barack Obama Pub and Dancehall in Moneygall). He isn't going to be able to get out of Iraq anything as quickly as he would like or has promised and the money that has been poured down the drain is gone. Any savings from reduced defense spending is going to be more than eaten up by the coming recession.

It's a bit of a pity seeing Obama running to the centre so quickly on so many topics (gun control, death penalty, FISA) - I would like to see him elected as I feel the people around him will be more wholesome than McCain's would be, but the way he is manoeuvering at the moment reminds me of the way Gore got paralyzed by his advisers in 2000 and blew it!

Manic Moran

It's a bit of a pity seeing Obama running to the centre so quickly on so many topics (gun control, death penalty, FISA)

Depends on if he wants to get elected or not. The man has to appeal more to the centre, the middle 20% of the voting populace are the people who decide elections, not the 40% who are Democrats. You may like the idea of gun control, but the Flyover Democrats detest it.

Some city Democrats aren't so keen on it either.
http://www.philly.com/dailynews/opinion/20080702_Gun_ruling_shines_spotlight_on_real_problems.html

I'M A CARD-carrying Democrat. Moreover, as a former co-chairman of Philadelphia Against Drugs, Guns and Violence, I abhor guns and the carnage they create.

<snip>

I never felt so good about a decision rendered by the court's conservative majority. I never thought that I would agree with Associate Justices Scalia or Thomas. (I generally despise the two, on the basis of their legal renderings.)

<snip>

And this ruling will force liberals to focus on the real reasons for gun violence.

At some point, liberals and anti-gun folks will have to realize that it is failing families, schools and communities that lead to drug-related gun violence, not guns purchased by law-abiding citizens.

<snip>

So, why do we do them? We do them because it allows incompetent politicians to feel as though they're doing something. They want to be able to go back to their under-informed constituents and say, Hey! Look at me. I'm doing something about the 400 murders, on average, in Philadelphia yearly, or the five or six gunshot victims a day! When they really aren't.

You get the idea.

NTM

Pocono Joe

The tale of "Walking Eagle." Senator BARACK OBAMA was invited to address a major gathering of the American Indian Nation two weeks ago in upstate New York

HE spoke for almost an hour on HIS future plans for increasing every Native American's present standard of living, should HE one day become the President. HE referred to his career as a Senator, how he had signed 'YES' for every Indian issue that came to his desk for approval. Although the Senator was vague on the details of his plan, he seemed most enthusiastic about his future ideas for helping his 'red sisters and brothers'.

At the conclusion of his speech, the Tribes presented the Senator with a plaque inscribed with his new Indian name - Walking Eagle. The proud Senator then departed in his motorcade, waving to the crowds.

A news reporter later inquired to the group of chiefs of how they came to select the new name given to the Senator. They explained that Walking Eagle is the name given to a bird so full of crap it can no longer fly.

CtrlSource

LOL, i read that in good faith, right up to the punch line!

norbert64

McCain gets the New Yorker Cover treatment, courtesy of Vanity Fair Mag.
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2008/07/new-yorker-cover.html

mind you, was it just me that thought that was actually Hillary at first, lol. :P

eltentwelve

From here --- it looks like McCain actually has the bigger chance of winning, regardless of the attack ads.

banquo

Agreed. Obama has nowhere to go but down.

Also, it seems to me that McCain has changed the nature of this election from 'Me or Obama' to 'Are you for or against Obama?', which could play out very well for him as the razzamatazz around Obama wanes over time.

OK-Cancel-Apply

In a country with unbiased, unslanted media, John "Bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran"+"Maybe cigarettes will kill the Iranians"+"I hate the gooks" McCain would have been out of the race long ago - finished. And Barrack Obama "Hussein Muslim Osama - woops" would not have been demonised.

McCain has been exposed (on Youtube, using only clips of his talks) as being hopelessly contradictory and flip-floppy.

Lastly, a vote for McCain is definitely a vote for a never-ending war and a world in perpetual chaos.

Manic Moran

I've been seeing a hell of a lot of Obama on CNN, far less so of McCain.

NTM

Hobbes

eltentwelve wrote: »

From here --- it looks like McCain actually has the bigger chance of winning, regardless of the attack ads.

I've been seeing a hell of a lot of Obama on CNN, far less so of McCain.

Let me start by saying that McCain not being on TV is probably a good thing. I seriously don't know how he short of rigging or divine intervention could win the election. He can't seem to handle himself unless there is a teleprompter vs Obama who I have seen turn around hostile reporters. He is able to clearly articulate his policies, and point people to the history.

Everytime some smear campaign turns up he clearly points it out for what it is (even has a website with them), sidesteps and tells the truth that Americans are sick of tit-for-tat name calling crap and want someone who is going to take the job serious.

Even the "catch 22" type smear campaigns are back firing for McCain.

And he gets blamed by the Republican for being too presidential? o_O I mean wtf are you supposed to be voting into the Oval Office?

Hobbes

CtrlSource wrote: »

1) He's not W. That's a pretty important distinction there!
2) He's not a crony of W. Not a neocon.

Actually he supports Bushes actions. There are even videos of him going on record as such. His policies are on-par with what Bush currently has in place.

3) Has been a maverick in his own party. Will have to tone it down unfortunately, in order to appeal to as much of the GOP base as he can.

I think prior to running for election I would of agreed with you somewhat. However since then he has either shown his true colors or he is lying to get the position. Neither of which are good points to stand on being a president.

4) A genuinely likeable guy.

Again pre running for election.

But i've watched interviews the guy did over many years and he's seems to be a politician that cares.

Look at more recent ones.

5) He's a decorated veteran who was tortured and was a POW for 5 years. Talk about turning a minus into a plus!

This is not an attack against POWs, but being a POW doesn't mean you are qualified for being a president. However being tortured does means you should realise what it feels like and understand what you are doing to a human being. Not actually agree with it.

6) He's a moderate.

He is not even remotely moderate. He is anti-abortion, anti-gays, for torture and pro-war. Sure these are upstanding hard core conservative values. So it isn't an attack, but a statement of fact.

Then you have lovely comments like:
On Vietnam people (changed to captors after media reported it): "I hated the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live."

On his wife: "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you c**t."

8) Did i mention he's not Dubya?

Yes but if you read up on him a bit more it will be just another 4 years as if Bush never left.

Not to mention the serious amount of flipflopping. Collection of his speeches at various times where he contradicts himself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c&feature=related

Hobbes

|-*SxyDubGrrl93*-| wrote: »

you could cut military spending and give diplomacy a shot,

I think rather then cutting Military Spending it should be cut military incursions on foreign soil is liable to have a better effect.

What's your Plan B?

To quote two famous dead guys.
"Walk softly, but carry a big stick"
"You can get more of what you want with a kind word and a gun than you can with just a kind word"

To quote another two.
"Be the change that you want to see in the world"
"Give peace a chance"

Of course you can find a quote for anything. However if you go by history (even by Irish History) fighting terrorism/insurgents with a military force is like pissing in the wind.

CtrlSource

Hobbes wrote: »

Actually he supports Bushes actions. There are even videos of him going on record as such. His policies are on-par with what Bush currently has in place.



I think prior to running for election I would of agreed with you somewhat. However since then he has either shown his true colors or he is lying to get the position. Neither of which are good points to stand on being a president.



Again pre running for election.



Look at more recent ones.



This is not an attack against POWs, but being a POW doesn't mean you are qualified for being a president. However being tortured does means you should realise what it feels like and understand what you are doing to a human being. Not actually agree with it.



He is not even remotely moderate. He is anti-abortion, anti-gays, for torture and pro-war. Sure these are upstanding hard core conservative values. So it isn't an attack, but a statement of fact.

Then you have lovely comments like:
On Vietnam people (changed to captors after media reported it): "I hated the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live."

On his wife: "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you c**t."



Yes but if you read up on him a bit more it will be just another 4 years as if Bush never left.

Not to mention the serious amount of flipflopping. Collection of his speeches at various times where he contradicts himself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c&feature=related

So you'd vote for him then? :P hehe

Relax, i'm for the other guy! i was merely setting out my view that McCain is an otherwise likeable dude. Or used to be.

But you're spot on with many of your points.

Yes, he seems to be running a campaign that would bring into power an administration much like that of Dubya.

Yes, he's sounding more Conservative as the days pass, but this is because he's trying to shore up the shaky support from the Right in his own party. Underneath, i still think he's a moderate. i was disappointed to hear that he does not support calls for a repeal of the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy in the US Army though.

i'd never heard about the charge that he called his wife a c**t. That shocks me. i know he's got the reputation of having a bit of a temper, but that's very damaging. Haven't had time to research this more, so perhaps you could tell me, is this rumour around a long time or has it only been publicised recently?

brianthebard

I think you wish he was a moderate ctrlsource,but its not the case.The neo con base you refer to is not going to defect to the dems,they are the core voters the mccain has in the bag.Of course if you want to believe he is pandering to the neo cons,that makes him a spineless turncoat flipflopping old sh!t-so which version do you prefer?

CtrlSource

brianthebard wrote: »

I think you wish he was a moderate ctrlsource,but its not the case.The neo con base you refer to is not going to defect to the dems,they are the core voters the mccain has in the bag.Of course if you want to believe he is pandering to the neo cons,that makes him a spineless turncoat flipflopping old sh!t-so which version do you prefer?

But what about the Reagan Dems? He'd like them to file into his column and spouting some Conservative stuff won't harm him. He is pandernig also to the Neo-Cons. The worry is that they'll abstain in droves, because they don't like him.

Obama is guilty of politicking too, so i wouldn't be too concerned about McCain being a turncoat

Ruskie4Rent

Hobbes wrote: »

Yes but if you read up on him a bit more it will be just another 4 years as if Bush never left.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c&feature=related

I disagree.

One of the main criticisms of the Bush administration is their tendency to mislead the public so not to risk unpopularity. This won't be an issue under a McCain administration IMO.
Against an exciting candidate like Obama, McCain is having to run his campaign in a way that he wouldn't have been proud of a few years back.
He knows he doesn't have much time left, and is desperate to get elected so he could do some of the things he failed to do as senator.
I'm hoping that his intentions are to sit only one term and tackles agendas that he feels are important, but not popular with the base that he is pandering to ATM.
Despite his recent shift to the right, he might also be a less divisive president than bush and he has a very good bipartisan record, and thats exactly what is needed in american politics at the moment. Also, AFIK, he is in favour of election reform and is critical of the influence special interest groups have over Washington. A President that could tackle them can only be a good thing IMO.
My only concern is that he picks a VP candidate to appease the far right of the party and he croaks while in office.

I'd still prefer Obama, but i'm not expecting another Bush type presidency either way.

Sand

McCain cant assume the "****ing crazy" vote is in the bag. They dislike him intensely as hes not "on message" for them and they might simply not turn out to vote or become activists like they were for the Bush campaigns.

He is also way too honest and is actually a fairly poor politician in that he admits when he makes errors or is unsure. He even praises Obama, which is something you should never do. He is not helped in that to appease the ****ing crazies he is having to represent views he doesnt hold himself - views he often contradicts. If you want to win elections you dont ever actually get into a debate with someone - you simply put on a **** eating grin, and spew out whatever dogma your advisors have prepared for you based on the polls/research group findings.

As an example of a good politician, I dont believe Obama has ever specifically admitted to making a mistake [ Iraq policy is to be "refined", never corrected ], or admitted lack of knowledge on an issue - McCain has several times and gets stoned for it.

One scary thing for Obama - as much as the media is "on message" for him, as much as he can tour the world as a messianic figure, as much as his campaign is outclassing McCains, as much as he is a far better politician than McCain, as much as the US voters are looking for vague, undefined "change" his lead in polls is extremely tight or even non-existent amongst registered voters, some polls even have McCain leading amongst likely voters!!! Wheres the 10-15% point lead Obama should have for his coronation procession? I mean, McCain cant run a much worse campaign than this?

The debates dont offer a whole lot of hope either - Everyone knows Obama is going to thrash McCain in the debates. Its not even going to be a contest. McCain just simply needs to follow the Bush playbook and agree he doesnt have a chance, Obama is going to murder him. And then turn in just a barely competent/creditable performance - Obama loses by default in that scenario.

If he picks someone like Huckabee as his VP to get the "****ing crazies" on side then he can rest somewhat easier on that front and not have to try to appease them as much as he currently is having to do.

Pocono Joe

Hey Sand… One of your so-called ****ing crazies here. Below are some of the kooky trivial things we ***ing crazies worry about. "Change" is the only thing we will be left with in our bank accounts after Obama has his way. (And the media isn’t "on board" with his message… they are "in the tank"). So you can quote a ****ing crazy, and take it to the bank... McCain is a whole lot better than the Democrat standard bearer.

Obama's Health Care Plan Will Cost Up To $65 Billion A Year; Equal To $260 Billion Over Four Years.
Obama's Energy Plan Will Cost $150 Billion Over 10 Years, Equal To 15 Billion Annually And $60 Billion Over Four Years.
Obama's Tax Plan Will Cost Approximately $85 Billion A Year; Equal To $340 Billion Over Four Years.
Obama's Plan Would Raise Taxes On Capital Gains And Dividends, And On Carried Interest.
Obama's Economic Stimulus Package Will Cost $75 Billion,
Obama's Early Education And K-12 Package Will Cost $18 Billion A Year; Equal To $72 Billion Over Four Years.
Obama's National Service Plan Will Cost $3.5 Billion A Year; Equal To $14 Billion Over Four Years.
Obama Will Increase Our Foreign Assistance Funding By $25 Billion.
Obama Will Provide $2 Billion To Aid Iraqi Refugees.
Obama Will Provide $1.5 Billion To Help States Adopt Paid-Leave Systems.
Obama Will Provide $1 Billion Over 5 Years For Transitional Jobs and Career Pathway Programs, Equal To $200 Million A Year And $800Million Over Four Years.
Obama Will Provide $50 Million To Jump-Start The Creation Of An IAEA-Controlled Nuclear Fuel Bank.

Sand

"****ing crazies" is Colin Powells term for the kooks hes dealt with in the Republican Party - I believe he was referring more to the Christian fanatic wing that bases its Israeli policy on hoping to speed the coming of the apocalypse and the return of Jesus.

The sort of guys who as attorney - general cover up the statue of justice because they think its indecent, or as US military officers show up at revival/christian right groups claiming they have evidence of Satan himself appearing in the skies over Mogadishu back when the US was involved in a bit of a shoot out there [ a smudgy photo of a UAV or similar banking into a turn....]

Id honestly prefer to see McCain over Obama in the White House, because Obama is probably unique amongst presidential candidates in living memory for his hostility to free trade. Protectionism is bad, hence Obama is bad from my own limited list of priorities. I dont think McCain will be a champion of free trade, given US domestic political pressures but hes got to be better than Obama on that score.

As for your list - its a list of policies with costs attached. Whoever ends up in the White House, theyre going to spend the money on something. I assume you believe all the policies you listed are bad or incorrect policies?

I mean, whats wrong with

Obama Will Provide $2 Billion To Aid Iraqi Refugees.

What should that 2 billion be spent on? Bombing Iraqi refugees? For a relatively small amount of cash [ given what the Iraq war costs every day...] I think it does a good thing, helps boost US PR in Iraq and elsewhere and doesnt cost a hell of a lot to help stabilise that country and help achieve conditions necessary for withdrawal of troops.

Obama Will Increase Our Foreign Assistance Funding By $25 Billion.

Dont worry, most of it will be spent on weapons anyhow, assisting the US arms exporters in these troubled times.

Obama's Plan Would Raise Taxes On Capital Gains And Dividends, And On Carried Interest.

Are we talking a minor or major tax hike here? If the U.S. is having budget issues funding the Iraq war and Afghanistan and so on, then maybe the top 5% or whoever really benefits from low dividends taxes in any significant measure could suck it up and take one for the team? Its not like theyve got to go fight the war, just pay for it.

The only argument I could see against it is if someone could demonstrate that there would be a significantly reduced economic overall result [ people not investing in shares as dividends reduced, less capital, less jobs, less tax...] which is theoretically what youd expect but it depends where on the curve the current tax point is...too low to allow government to meet its obligations, too high to allow the market to generate wealth or just right?

In short, why are Obamas policies so terrible because they cost money? I see him investing in education, in health care, energy plans, economic stimulus and so on - these are all things that I imagine most Americans consider important and want investment in. Even if McCain gets into power hes going to have a Democratic congress and face the same sort of pressure groups and public opinion that wants "something to be done" about those issues.

Hobbes

CtrlSource wrote: »

Relax, i'm for the other guy! i was merely setting out my view that McCain is an otherwise likeable dude. Or used to be.

Yea, pre running for election I would of said that McCain would of been good for the image of the Republican party and getting them+country back on track. But he seems to have reversed his stance on a lot of stuff that set him apart from Bush.

One of the main criticisms of the Bush administration is their tendency to mislead the public so not to risk unpopularity. This won't be an issue under a McCain administration IMO.

Not sure how one could say that after watching those news clips of McCain, or even reading up on him.

He even praises Obama

BS. His praise is "I admire Obama campaign but ..... " which is very much similar to "I don't hate black people and I a lot of black friends but.....".

McCain is a whole lot better than the Democrat standard bearer.

You quote figures there. What is your point with those figures? Are you saying that the US shouldn't spend money? Or that he is spending too little? What are McCains figures on this?

Look you want to get a clear picture of the two, rather then cut and pasting from some blog go to the source.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/

Sand

BS. His praise is "I admire Obama campaign but ..... " which is very much similar to "I don't hate black people and I a lot of black friends but....."

Are you saying McCains a racist or that you dont believe he actually considers Obama to be at all impressive as candidate? That he is wrong or lying when he says ""Don't tell him I said this, but he is an impressive fellow in many ways. He has inspired a great many Americans, some of whom had wrongly believed that a political campaign could hold no purpose or meaning for them .... His success should make Americans, all Americans, proud. Of course, I would prefer his success not continue quite as long as he hopes."

You seem to be attempting to paint McCain as something hes not.

Hobbes

Sand wrote: »

Are you saying McCains a racist or that you dont believe he actually considers Obama to be at all impressive as candidate?

The latter. Of course the first comment you made is not related.

You seem to be attempting to paint McCain as something hes not.

I am not attempting at all. I am stating facts as they are presented. Thanks for pointing me to the one speech where he doesn't follow up with a "but...".

But lets talk about McCains praise for Obama. For example.

- McCain trying to link Obama to Hamas when in fact he is against them.

- McCains advert claiming that Obama blew off meeting wounded troops to go to the Gym, and a second advert which was to run condemning Obama for using the troops for political means if he did visit them (irony lost on McCain).

- Recent *superstar* links advert. When brought up on that by his supporters for running a negative campaign he sidestepped the question went into a speel of "I respect Obama but (unrelated tripe)".

- Making fun of a tip by Obama in response to a question someone asked "What I can I do personally to save energy" he suggested the right air in your tires. McCain makes up tire guages making fun of Obama when in fact experts questioned that 3% of gas is wasted in that way in the USA.

.. Look I have read both the issues of both the candidates and I am following the news of both.

Here is something I want Republican fans to do, I know it will be hard for you because it has been so long since someone has tried it.

But instead of trying to smear/attack Obama actually point out what is good about McCains policies.

Don't just quote numbers. For example Pocono Joes post has absolutely no context. I am guessing he was trying to point out that oooh loads of money being spent.

But if you compare that to the Iraq war where the US has dumped at least 500 billion into. I should stress that is a conservative estimate, if you were to believe a certain Nobel prize-winning economist back in 2006 then it is between 1-2 trillion.

So when you put it in that context the only thing wrong with those numbers is the amount is too low. But seeing as Obama wants out of Iraq and McCain doesn't who do you think has the money to spend more?

And as for the raising taxes I keep hearing about. Hate to break it to some people but the USA has been living on Credit since Bush got into power. The solution to that isn't to spend more money. It is to pay your bills. I mean this is economics 101. Tax rebates will do dick.

* Let me finish off by saying. Those that no me I don't post anything I can't back up. For common courtesy and I am sure Sand is an avid follower of McCain so would be aware of these so wouldn't need links. But if you need them just ask and I will dig it out for you.

Pocono Joe

I am not against everything on Obama’s list. Just the fact that there is no mention of checks in spending to pay for it. "Change" is all that will be left in our bank accounts if Obama has his way with a Democrat controlled congress behind him.

Cost of the Iraq war? Much of the regular costs have been shifted to "the war." Even if we brought the troops home, many of these costs associated with the military will still need to be paid. And what about the cost of our illegal aliens, which has seemingly dropped of the map in this election? It’s a matter that costs our country almost $350 billion dollars a year.

Raise taxes on capital gains and dividends will cost our country hundreds of billions in less investment, less business startup, higher unemployment, and even less taxes (as the rich will find ways to shelter income… just look up Bill and Hillary Clinton’s investments).

And I will also back up anything I post. Just ask and I provide links.

(And I detest double standards in these forums. But I will endeavor to learn the nuances of acceptable personal attacks.)

jank

natural cynicism

audacity of hope

LOL! Now that is Ironic!

Manic Moran

- Making fun of a tip by Obama in response to a question someone asked "What I can I do personally to save energy" he suggested the right air in your tires. McCain makes up tire guages making fun of Obama when in fact experts questioned that 3% of gas is wasted in that way in the USA.

Though the whole 'make sure your tyres are inflated' bit does have merit, I think that part of the problem is that vehicle fuel is not the sole destination of oil. Most is used, I believe, in the production of plastics and polyester.

So while, yes, the US will save a bit of gas by checking the tyres, it will not be of sufficient savings that one can simply choose to ignore the benefits of offshore drilling and call it quits, which appears to be the implication of Obama's statement if you read it in full.

Of note, I caught on the news this morning that the offshore drilling moratorium applies only to companies that are in the US. Foreign nations apparently can still do so. I need to look into that.

NTM