AND THEN...

"McCain's facts are literally true, but his insinuation – that the visit was canceled because of the press ban or the desire for gym time – is false. In fact, Obama visited wounded troops earlier – without cameras or press – both in the U.S. and Iraq. And his gym workouts are a daily routine."

and? "McCain's facts are literally true"

Guess that means others are thinking what I'm thinking...


Lets see,

lets talk about distortions...

McCain wants our military in Iraq for 100 years

or he owns 8 kitchen tables blah blah blah...

It shows an utter lack of military knowledge on the part of the Democrats that they would equate a standing military presence in a country with war. If we follow their logic, we must still be at war in Japan and Germany and Korea. Heck, we must still be at war with the confederacy given all the standing armies in the South.

Edit

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

If we want to be fast and loose with the facts, I can do that. I could run the line that "This is McCain saying he wants to fight in Iraq for 100 years", but that's not what he said. I know what kind of military presence he was talking about, but it's unrealistic. We're not fighting the same war they are. We're fighting a war on terrorism, they are fighting the Crusades v.2.

The "how many properties" question that everyone is running with is a joke, but he didn't help himself by saying: "I think — I'll have my staff get to you," It's a loaded question but you have to know how to go with it. That's politics and he's nowhere near as good as most candidates are. Damage control is not McCain's strong suit.

Edit

Did you even read my post?

The president doesn't have as much power as we think he does it comes to raising taxes. If taxes need to be raised due to the economy, it'll happen REGARDLESS of who's in office.

Is Bubba smart?" "Nah....haze ignert.
He ain't thanked but a minnit 'n 'is laf.

Edit

I F*CKING love Durango,he always says what im to lazy or drunk to myself.What i would love to see is some of you uninformed dipshits debate with Durango on politics.

But she has "many gay friends and is very receptive to their pleas of discrimination."



You're right. There is also a real difference between cheating on your wife while she has terminal cancer with a young rich skank, right after she had gotten into a car accident, and having the ability to manage people and relationships with them. Obama might not have experience, but the defining trend in the last two terms of our current president is his inability to handle the American people. He's like a bad teacher who can't control their kids. Obama way more than compensates for that, which to me is more important than handling foreign affairs.

HAY, here's an idea: You don't need good foreign policy experience if you RETURN TO ISOLATIONISM, and focus on INTRAMURAL AFFAIRS, which Obama has proven by now that he's experienced at.

She's a pretty sweet VP choice, honestly. All the democratic/moderate women who wanted hillary are pissed at obama, and polls are still showing a lot of them don't want to vote for him.

McCain having a female VP might make them go a step further and vote for him.

Each candidate chose a VP to fill in the holes in their campaign. Obama chose an older white guy with more foreign policy experience, McCain chose a young woman who isn't associated with the "same old washington politics" everyone talks about. Whether or not VPs ever matter much in elections is still debatable, but they made pretty smart choices.

And Big Joe Biden is a senator from an equally small state.

Delaware. USA. Population, 2006 estimate. 853,476

Not a very strong argument...

Very pitiful counter-argument. Delaware is dick to ass going almost anywhere, although not as bad as some states, it is getting slightly over crowded. Why don't you see how many people per mile each state has? OR, lets just start building random bridges(http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm889.cfm I know that is an old as F*CK article, but that bridge has been argued over for quite a few years and has been appoved multiple times) that are almost useless in every state just like Alaska, since we have nothing else better to spend our money on.

The reason McCain picked a woman is so that he can show to America that he wants change as his running mate is a women and that he is still conservative as he is a Democrat. Another reason that he chose a woman is that Obama had the black, college, and female vote. So, McCain is trying to increase his votes by getting Hilary Clinton's feminists lesbos. It is essentially a good strategy

In the United States alone, more people play World of Warcraft at any given moment than the population of Alaska.

I wonder how Joe manages all those Deleware oil and natural gas resources? He must have to deal with big oil/energy issues all the time in Deleware, and Alaska is toe to toe with Russia (as opposed to the armpit of Jersey) and Sarah is commander and Chief of the national guard thier. Biden commands, well, nothing but attention. Alaska is almost as big as Mexico or greenland (an entire country to itself)

Population of Greenland: 56,344 (July 2007 est.) - World Factbook

http://sled.alaska.edu/akfaq/military.html

As for that bridge argument your attempting to make, you just stepped in shit... Might wanna go do some more reading on that and see what Sarah did.

http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelM ... 007/05/02/“the_senator_party_vs_the_governor_party

Let's discuss who has greater responsibilty and exec skills, Senators or Governors?

http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelM ... 007/05/02/“the_senator_party_vs_the_governor_party

In all of the elections of the last twenty-four years, among Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees the Republican Party put a consistently higher premium on administrative experience. Among the twelve GOP nominees for the two top offices in that period (since 1984), seven had previously served as governors or heads of federal cabinet-level departments; for the Democrats, the corresponding figure was three out of twelve (with nine candidates out of Congress).

These contrasting choices for ticket toppers reflect important contrasts in governing philosophy for the two big parties. Republicans prefer governors and cabinet members because they see the job of the President as primarily administrative: to respond to crisis, to tame (and, ideally, to cut back) the federal bureaucracy and, generally, to run the government efficiently enough that it doesn’t interfere unduly with the important business of family and commercial life. Because of the traditional Republican emphasis on efficient administration, it was only with distinct hints of incompetence in handling Hurricane Katrina and the Iraq war that some of the loyal GOP supporters of President Bush began to turn away from him.

Democrats, by contrast, view government as a powerful change agent, not a threat to privacy or prosperity. They prefer current and former legislators as their nominees because Congress remains branch of government that changes laws and thereby alters reality. The Democrats rally to Presidents and candidates who promise ambitious programs (“New Deal,” “New Frontier,” “Bridge to the 21st Century”) that use governmental initiatives to address problems, while GOP’ers long for a deft administrator who keeps the nation safe and secure while preventing the government from intruding too much in our lives.

Democrats also maintain a far more benign view of Washington, D.C. than do Republicans, so they more readily embrace politicians who have spent their whole political careers in the nation’s capital. The candidates on-stage for the recent Democratic debate in South Carolina represented a combined total of more than 150 years of Congressional experience.

Republicans, on the other hand, look askance at federal power and often turn to “outsiders” who honed their leadership skills in state capitals like Sacramento or Austin, and come to D.C. to “clean it up” rather than to launch new programs. Conservatives may view all government as a necessary evil, but tend to see state and local governments as more necessary and less evil than the federal bureaucracy. Many Republicans want to eliminate cabinet departments like the Department of Education not because they don’t support public education, but because they want it controlled and funded and operated at the local and state level.

In the upcoming election, the two parties will probably select nominees who re-enforce their respective identity as “The Senator Party” and “The Governor Party.” Democrats will almost certainly select a legislator to head the ticket (Clinton or Obama or Edwards) while Republicans will most likely turn to an administrator (Giuliani or Romney--- though McCain remains a possibility despite his exclusively Congressional background).

The people will ultimately make their choice based on the usual factors of personality and promises but they will also do some soul searching as to what they want from the next president. If they feel basically optimistic about their own lives and want a federal government that’s better run, but not fundamentally different or bigger, they will turn once more to the “Governor Party” – the Republicans. If, however, they’re convinced that they’re in personal peril, threatened by out-of-control economic and international forces that require aggressive governmental initiatives to counteract them, they will probably choose “The Senator Party.”

F*CKING Sarah Palin wants to drill in Natural Wildlife Refuges. That's one of the dumbest ideas I've ever F*CKING heard, considering that all it will do is solve one problem by creating troves of others. That's some real good critical thinking that she has there. At least Biden actually wants to promote better schooling and marriage rights for gays. Palin doesn't (or at least I haven't heard of her positions) say she gives a shit about any of that. Basically, if McCain had a vagina, she'd be Sarah Palin.

Palin negotiats for the nation's largest land and resource state, she has had executive, life and death experience and is in charge of and has deployed the Alaskan National Guard. OBAMA HAS NO EXPERIENCE COMPARED TO PALIN.

F*CK the carabou, let's drill the ice field and drill now...

http://www.livescience.com/environment/ ... lling.html

described advances that reduce oil drilling’s environmental footprint. For instance, oil companies are now able to drain several oil fields from one platform. And new horizontal drilling techniques allow more oil to be extracted from a single well.

Major infrastructure – such as roads, jet landing strips, repair shops, homes and industrial complexes – is, of course, still necessary and could disturb wildlife that is accustomed to pristine land, said Charles Clusen, director of National Parks and Alaska Projects for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Similar concerns about wildlife arose before construction of the Alaskan Pipeline, built in the 1970s.

"But there hasn't really been any effect on the wildlife; they congregate near the pipeline and it doesn't seem to bother them," said UT's Eric Potter.

Spills and transportation

"The public doesn’t have a clear idea of how much oil is moved every day," said Potter. "The amount spilled is miniscule, compared to the amount that is transported," he said.

The industry now has a great track record, said API’s Penniman. "Back in the 1880s, we would have had a pretty good chance of ruining the world," she said, but technology and safety regulations are now significantly improved.

Today, according to the Mineral Management Service, of the billions of oil transported in U.S. water, 0.001 percent is spilled. Far more oil seeps naturally into the sea, reports the National Research Council (NRC). According to the NRC's most recent analysis, almost half of oceanic oil worldwide arises from natural processes. Oil spills contribute about 12 percent.

and

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,49102,00.html

WASHINGTON — Opponents to drilling in Alaska's protected wildlife region may find troubling a U.S. Geological Survey report that says threats to wildlife from oil exploration could be reduced by close management and restrictions on oil producers.

The government scientists acknowledged that the threat to caribou, musk-oxen, polar bears, and migrating birds would be significant if care was not taken to protect the wildlife while drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife refuge. However, they say, research has indicated that "with mitigation the effect of human development ... could be minimal."

Have you seen how much space it actually takes to setup and drill for oil? It's tiny, compared to the vastness of the great outdoors.

As long as we dictate how many roads they're allowed to build and how many rigs per square mile, it's a zero impact project.

Once the drilling is done, those quiet, slow-pivoting pumps will lumber along and quietly feed us dinosaur nectar for years to come.

Personally, I am a huge fan of seeking alternative power sources. In fact, my wife and I are planning (within the next few year) to either buy a house with a solar system or add a solar power system to whatever house we own. For $17K-$20K we can get a solar system that can power the whole house. If hybrids ever become reasonably priced, I would certainly consider one.

HOWEVER,... we should not be forcing the American people to make these choices by leaving the current oil prices as-is. Just the talk of drilling for oil scares off some of the investors and lowers the price. Tell the oil companies to go wild and drill anywhere they want and we'll have $1.50/gallon gas again. It's basic supply and demand. We can blame the middle east, blame the big oil companies, or blame China. It doesn't matter. The fact remains that we are sitting on oil reserves right under our feet and we refuse to access it to make our lives easier.

Eventually, we'll have alternative energy sources, and China will be starving for gas. We'll end up drilling this oil and providing it to China to get them to forgive the massive debt we're getting right now and the environment will still be fucked and greenhouse gasses will still be emitted.

In another 4,000 years we will have raped all of the earth's natural resources and we will have spread like an out-of-control rash across this planet. Eventually, the environment will fight back against us and develop some way of eliminating the "threat" of mankind.