-
Flashkit historian
McCain Moment... it's not that important
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSaH2uyWz_I
It's not that important (when troops come home)
Is this his bold economic plan?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=duDpY-S9bWY&feature=related
The one that prevents us from having us to ever send troops "again" into the middile east?
If the U.S. never take our troops out and colonizes Iraq nationalizing thier oil fields (genocide required) Then maybe in 100 years the U.S will operate on only oil produced in the U.S. and it's colonies.
That's what I'm reading from those statements.
-
Chaos
it worked for hitler... wait... yeah sorry world.
-
Juvenile Delinquent
Everyone with an ounce of common sense always knew that Iraq was about oil. Those people who were/are still in denial about it will eventually wake up to the facts.
Last edited by CVO Chris; 06-11-2008 at 02:00 PM.
-
Total Universe Mod
^ No. No they wont. You see, they are pussies.
-
Hood Rich
Originally Posted by Frets
If the U.S. never take our troops out and colonizes Iraq nationalizing thier oil fields (genocide required) Then maybe in 100 years the U.S will operate on only oil produced in the U.S. and it's colonies.
That's what I'm reading from those statements.
Can you explain the logic used to go from those statements to your "reading" of what they mean? Do you have any evidence that the US is moving to "nationalize" Iraq's oil fields or engage in genocide there?
McCain uses the same language as Democrats on this issue and you're finding some wierd way to say that it's wrong. Because it isn't consistent with Bush, who McCain has constantly been at odds with?
Oil is a factor in a lot of things. So is sand and water. Those who constantly simplify the conflict as being "about oil" will eventually (hopefully) develop more sophisticated understandings of the conflict.
"We don't estimate speeches." - CBO Director Doug Elmendorf
-
Didn't do it.
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
McCain uses the same language as Democrats on this issue and you're finding some wierd way to say that it's wrong. Because it isn't consistent with Bush, who McCain has constantly been at odds with?
*rubs eyes*
Wha...? Neither part of this makes sense: which issue have the Dems used similar language on, that when troops leave Iraq isn't important, or having an energy plan that doesn't need us to fight in the mid-East? And when, exactly, has McCain been at odds with Bush about either energy policy or the war?
Hush child. japangreg can do what he wants. - PAlexC
That was Zen - this is Tao.
-
Hood Rich
Sorry. I should have specified that I was referring to the second video. Not the date for when the troops leave.
Democrats have argued that the war was over oil and that a middle-east free energy plan is the solution. Are you saying that they haven't?
McCain has been critical of the way that Bush managed the war. Bush was for ANWR drilling. McCain against. McCain has also been at odds with Bush over how global warming should come into play with an energy plan.
I just don't know why Democrats would be critical of McCain having the same stance as they do. I just threw the "inconsistent with Bush" theory out there as a possibility.
"We don't estimate speeches." - CBO Director Doug Elmendorf
-
Senior Member
Originally Posted by jAQUAN
^ No. No they wont. You see, they are pussies.
... and sometimes, ****s **** p******, but ****s also **** ***holes.
Sorry, I just watched Team America again last week.
-
Flashkit historian
Okay FL
What is this grand plan?
How can U.S. troops stay in Iraq unharmed?
What is the economic plan from a man who has stated economics was not his strong point?
-
Hood Rich
My interperetation of what he has said is that he seeks an energy policy that would make us less dependent on middle east oil. But, at the same time, he believes that, since we are in Iraq, we should finish the job before we leave, particularly since things have improved so much there lately and progress is being made by the Iraqi government.
"We don't estimate speeches." - CBO Director Doug Elmendorf
-
Flashkit historian
By licking Hugo Chavez's boots or by invading Venezaula?
Maybe he has an advanced degree in electro engineering and has devised a method that transportation which is currently oil dependent can run on solar power.
-
supervillain
I thought we weren't that dependent on mideast oil anyway... most comes from Alberta Canada, no?
-
Flashkit historian
Canada is number 1 on the list.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/p...nt/import.html
The number 1 may not have the available supplies to feed all of our current import needs.
-
Hood Rich
By a good margin, the largest source of oil used in the US, by country, is from US oil companies.
Frets, McCain is for reducing dependence on foreign oil by implementing more nuclear power, increasing ethanol imports, raising gas mileage standards and promoting the production of PHEV's.
"We don't estimate speeches." - CBO Director Doug Elmendorf
-
pablo cruisin'
Actually, Frets...I think McCain's plan is similar to the coal liquefaction process, but instead of coal, he's going to use democrats.
"Why does it hurt when I pee?" -- F. Zappa |
-
Flashkit historian
-Nuclear facilities.
Great lets build easy targets for terrorists to attack.
Plane hits power plant big disaster. Plane hits nuclear power plant bigger disaster.
Not to mention that small problem the U.S. has with Radioactive waste.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste
-Ethanol
Big oil companies don't want to put ethanol in thier gas stations.
Number of gas stations currently selling ethanol nationwide 1,400
Total number of gas stations in the US is approximately 117,000
The U.S. has plenty of corn. Speculation is driving the cost of corn and corn based ethanol thru the roof not sales. Cars can't run on pure corn ethanol.
Just as they can't run on pure sugar cane. I've got a feeling at the end of the year commodity brokers will be looking for a big bail out.
-
supervillain
Ethanol doesn't like cold weather... that's why places like Brazil won't have a problem for quite a while.
Nuclear facilities, the water supply, and a whole slew of other things are "easy targets" for whomever. We're too busy trying to identify sleeper cells and stop people with business from coming in as opposed to strengthening up the framework that truly would make people safe.
Just now... and I've done work with the US Gov't... it feels like we're just making people feel safe. But with that said... I don't get this new tangent.
McCain said something about corn? Or is this a continuation/deflection from the coal liquefaction process? Just curious...
-
pablo cruisin'
Originally Posted by gerbick
Or is this a continuation/deflection from the coal liquefaction process? Just curious...
No, no...that's democrat liquefaction.
"Why does it hurt when I pee?" -- F. Zappa |
-
Didn't do it.
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
Democrats have argued that the war was over oil and that a middle-east free energy plan is the solution. Are you saying that they haven't?
Well, I can't remember any elected Democrat ever saying that expilictly (but I could be wrong), although I'm sure some comments could be interpreted much the same as McCain's has been. And I think an energy-policy free of mid-east dependancy has been pretty much the convential wisdom for about 30 years now, no? No one I've heard, left or right, is calling for more energy imports from the region.
McCain has been critical of the way that Bush managed the war. Bush was for ANWR drilling. McCain against. McCain has also been at odds with Bush over how global warming should come into play with an energy plan.
With the exception of ANWR, those are dubious claims of being "at odds with". There is no fiercer supporter of Bush's Iraq policy than McCain (except, maybe, Lieberman) - and someone who has a 100% pro-Bush position voting record this year can be said to be "consistantly" against him.
I just don't know why Democrats would be critical of McCain having the same stance as they do. I just threw the "inconsistent with Bush" theory out there as a possibility.
Funny, I don't see anyone being "critical" of McCain in this - more of a "ah-ha! he gets it!" than claims of a secret, right-wing conspiracy.
Hush child. japangreg can do what he wants. - PAlexC
That was Zen - this is Tao.
-
Hood Rich
Originally Posted by japangreg
Well, I can't remember any elected Democrat ever saying that expilictly (but I could be wrong), although I'm sure some comments could be interpreted much the same as McCain's has been. And I think an energy-policy free of mid-east dependancy has been pretty much the convential wisdom for about 30 years now, no? No one I've heard, left or right, is calling for more energy imports from the region.
* rubs eyes *
Is Obama not an elected Democrat?
I didn't say that the position was exclusive to Democrats. My point was that it was no different and Frets brought it up in a mocking fashion. I was asking why it should be mocked when McCain says it but hailed as gospel when Obama does.
Originally Posted by japangreg
With the exception of ANWR, those are dubious claims of being "at odds with". There is no fiercer supporter of Bush's Iraq policy than McCain (except, maybe, Lieberman) - and someone who has a 100% pro-Bush position voting record this year can be said to be "consistantly" against him.
What is dubious about those claims? They are facts.
McCain supported action in Iraq. But, he is not a fierce supporter of the entire policy there. He has raised objections regularly.
Do you think that McCain holds the widely known label of being a "maverick" as some kind of ironic joke?
Originally Posted by japangreg
Funny, I don't see anyone being "critical" of McCain in this - more of a "ah-ha! he gets it!" than claims of a secret, right-wing conspiracy.
Interesting.
If the U.S. never take our troops out and colonizes Iraq nationalizing thier oil fields (genocide required) Then maybe in 100 years the U.S will operate on only oil produced in the U.S. and it's colonies.
That's what I'm reading from those statements.
"We don't estimate speeches." - CBO Director Doug Elmendorf
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
Click Here to Expand Forum to Full Width
|