McCain backs away from the best statment his campaign has made yet

We may earn a small commission from affiliate links and paid advertisements. Terms

What's odd is that I've been finding all of these people to speak their mind, then backpedal. Whos fault is it ?

If Barack just came out and said he "will put whitey in a handbasket, allah be praised" and McCain said "We're going to war, with someone else or with each other, whatever" at least we...


Yeah, upon introspect, that was stupid. Keep lying guys, we don't wanna know what's on your mind.



Vote from the Rooftops, I always say.
 
"My taxes are too high!"

"My SUV costs too much to fill!"

"My McMansion is worth less than a food stamp!"

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! Yup. Whiners.
 
problem is if we elect Obama neither Taxes nor Fuel costs will get any better

McCain
Pro Off Coast Drilling
Pro Solar
Pro Wind
Pro Nuclear
Pro Ethanol

Obama
Pro Ethanol
Pro Solar
Pro Wind

Given the laws of supply and demand as they concern energy, which plan would you think generates more supply? Which plan would have a more negative effect on food prices?

Nuclear power=more American family wage jobs. It takes some of the burden off Ethanol which lowers food prices. Expanded drilling, for a period, will lower energy costs which will help stimulate the economy as we continue to develop solar and wind. It would be nice if we could make the change to solar/wind tomorrow, but be aren't there yet and we have to survive in the mean time.
 
Last edited:
problem is if we elect Obama neither Taxes nor Fuel costs will get any better

McCain
Pro Off Coast Drilling
Pro Solar
Pro Wind
Pro Nuclear
Pro Ethanol

Obama
Pro Ethanol

Given the laws of supply and demand as the concern energy, which plan would you think generates more supply?

I wouldn't call Mickey's stance "pro-nuclear" seeing that he put an offer on the table he KNOWS he cannot make happen (45 new reactors by 2030). That's just pandering and slinging bullshit.

PolitiFact | This 007 claim is out of ammo

There's the rest.
 
Obama want's to give us free health care at a cost 10 times greater then the War. What was that about promises you can't keep?

If McCain could get half that number of reactors we'd bennefit. The Trojan plant in Portland is shut down, if we wanted it could be back up in 5 years. The only reason it would take any longer is red tape
 
Obama want's to give us free health care at a cost 10 times greater then the War. What was that about promises you can't keep?

If McCain could get half that we'd bennefit

Was that a sidestep? Why change the subject?
 
same subject that you started by talking about promises, my point was it made him no worse then Obama ergo it's a poor argument for one over the other.

my base argument remains. We will generate more supply with McCain's Plan then Obama's will less impact to food costs. That's something the middle class needs.
 
same subject that you started by talking about promises, my point was it made him no worse then Obama ergo it's a poor argument for one over the other.

my base argument remains. We will generate more supply with McCain's Plan then Obama's will less impact to food costs. That's something the middle class needs.

I'm still trying to figure out how you came up with a thirty trillion dollar healthcare pricetag. Also, I'm wondering how Obama has been anti alternative energy... including our friend Nuclear.

Everything I have heard from the McCain side concerning energy have been pure pandering attempts... 45 nuke reactors, 300 million for a better battery, gas tax holiday. I don't want pander... I want answers, and most importantly I want reality. Mickey offers none.

Also, how does nuclear power ease the burden of ethanol?
 
Obama want's to give us free health care at a cost 10 times greater then the War. What was that about promises you can't keep?

If McCain could get half that number of reactors we'd bennefit. The Trojan plant in Portland is shut down, if we wanted it could be back up in 5 years. The only reason it would take any longer is red tape

Over 100 reactors produce 20% of our total energy currently. 45 reactors would up that by 8%. Eight percent in twelve years *IF* you could build them that fast. You might get two, perhaps even three reactors in that time, at which point our growth will have outstripped any new resources.

McCain tried to give us the easy answer. Fact: There's no easy answer.
 
I'm still trying to figure out how you came up with a thirty trillion dollar healthcare pricetag. Also, I'm wondering how Obama has been anti alternative energy... including our friend Nuclear.

Healthcare costs for 2007 in America were 2.3 TRILLION

NCHC | Facts About Healthcare - Health Insurance Costs

Iraq was 133 Billion Dollars in 07

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation: Total Iraq and Afghanistan Supplemental War Funding To Date

there is 1,000 Billion in 1 Trillion, even if by some form of magic government health care cost us fifty cents on the dollar compared to what we're paying now (not gonna happen) you're still looking at 8-10 times the cost

so far as Nuclear power goes

UPDATE 1-Obama criticizes McCain's nuclear power plan | Markets | US | Reuters

Obama opposes it because of waste, and sense it MUST go somewhere, nowhere will be good enough for him.
 

Does this "supplemental" funding include ALL costs, as the healthcare numbers do? Lost units, medical costs, rebuilding, etc. etc. so on and so forth. I think not. Just because we threw another 100 billion at it doesn't mean that's all it costs. C'mon now... tighten up.

there is 1,000 Billion in 1 Trillion, even if by some form of magic government health care cost us fifty cents on the dollar compared to what we're paying now (not gonna happen) you're still looking at 8-10 times the cost

So what exactly would the difference be between paying a tax in that amount versus paying an insurance firm and hospital? You're making it look like the money we pay now is just gonna POOF and go away. It would simply get moved elsewhere.

so far as Nuclear power goes

UPDATE 1-Obama criticizes McCain's nuclear power plan | Markets | US | Reuters

Obama opposes it because of waste, and sense it MUST go somewhere, nowhere will be good enough for him.

And I don't blame him. Where exactly will the waste go? Do we deep six it in the ocean with that pile of nuke waste, or is it Yucca mountain?

Ever thought what would happen should a *GASP* terrorist blow up one of these waste transport vehicles?

Wow, now how did I draw a red card from my blue deck?!
 
Does this "supplemental" funding include ALL costs, as the healthcare numbers do? Lost units, medical costs, rebuilding, etc. etc. so on and so forth. I think not. Just because we threw another 100 billion at it doesn't mean that's all it costs. C'mon now... tighten up.

So what exactly would the difference be between paying a tax in that amount versus paying an insurance firm and hospital? You're making it look like the money we pay now is just gonna POOF and go away. It would simply get moved elsewhere.

1. No it does not, but the total cost still wouldn't encompass anywhere near 2.3 Trillion, not even close

2. The difference is I make decent money, but I also eat right and take care of myself. I don't pay the average of $7,600/yr in health care because I handle my business. With universal healthcare my taxes go up, my bennefits don't. Other people aren't entitled to more of my money to enrich their life, because I WORKED FOR IT
 
And while we're talking about plans and wisdom

The McCain Backed surge (McCain was critical of the original plan from the get go) has worked. So much infact that the Senate just gave him a HUGE promotion

like all of central command

FOXNews.com - Senate Confirms Gen. Petraeus as New Central Command Chief, Gen. Odierno Promoted - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

they don't give failures that kinda promotion, allot of Dem's just gave it their seal of approval

From energy to healthcare to the war... are we gonna bounce more?
 
1. No it does not, but the total cost still wouldn't encompass anywhere near 2.3 Trillion, not even close

If it cost that much, we'd have all slayed this administration.

2. The difference is I make decent money, but I also eat right and take care of myself. I don't pay the average of $7,600/yr in health care because I handle my business. With universal healthcare my taxes go up, my bennefits don't. Other people aren't entitled to more of my money to enrich their life, because I WORKED FOR IT

So people aren't entitled to your money to enrich their life. Fair enough. Can I stop paying for things that enrich others' lives? Can I really make taxes a'la carte? Please?
 
If it cost that much, we'd have all slayed this administration.

So people aren't entitled to your money to enrich their life. Fair enough. Can I stop paying for things that enrich others' lives? Can I really make taxes a'la carte? Please?

1. So then you agree that I'm correct?

2. I'm assuming you're just being argumentative at this point since I'm by and large disarmed you. Let me throw this at you.

Most of us use roads, those roads need to be kept up. It would be unfair to tax everybody for the upkeep of roads because not everybody drives. So we tax fuel instead, the more you drive the road you where down the roads, and the more you pay in taxes for road upkeep. It's fair.

Government Healthcare, as it's purposed by democrats, is not fair. It taxes people based on income rather then use of the system. It's is an unbalanced way to tax & cover the need. What's worse, data shows that those with no money for health care consistently make poor dietary choices. I'm not talking about the person who can't afford groceries, I'm talking about the lower income people who still manage to hit up the super value meal on the way home, we all know them. Ever see an upper class person order 6 double cheese and a diet soda from the drive through in their Ferrari? No you do not.

In the coming years there will be an epidemic in health care costs. Heart Disease, Type 2 Diabetes, and aging baby boomers will swap the system and cost is expected to outpace growth in GNP for the next 20 years.

There will not be enough taxable income to cover this. It isn't a rosy picture to think of all these people without health care, but we cannot bankrupt our children trying to help all of them. Some have them have done it to themselves and some of them are just old. Just because there's a medical procedure out there doesn't mean it should be given away . Just like because they make Ferraris doesn't mean i should be handed one the next time my car breaks down. Life doesn't work that way and trying to force a Utopian. world built on the foundation of a real world is like trying to build a palace over a foundation of gravel.
 
One can't quote foxnews and have authority in an arguement.








Come on guys. This should be on CF and not HS. And furthermore the blindness and full pledged support for one facilitating group(reds and blues) isn't something I enjoy.
 
1. So then you agree that I'm correct?

About what, specifically? You've made a lot of inaccurate assumptions. Gotta be specific.

2. I'm assuming you're just being argumentative at this point since I'm by and large disarmed you. Let me throw this at you.

If by disarmed, you mean "jumping between issues till you find one you can stand on", then well you've done at least that much. Energy policy, healthcare, war, bounce... bounce... bounce.

COME ON WILL YA?

Most of us use roads, those roads need to be kept up. It would be unfair to tax everybody for the upkeep of roads because not everybody drives. So we tax fuel instead, the more you drive the road you where down the roads, and the more you pay in taxes for road upkeep. It's fair.

So I don't pay for road repairs any other way than by fuel taxes? None whatsoever? ^_^^_^^_^

Government Healthcare, as it's purposed by democrats, is not fair. It taxes people based on income rather then use of the system. It's is an unbalanced way to tax & cover the need. What's worse, data shows that those with no money for health care consistently make poor dietary choices. I'm not talking about the person who can't afford groceries, I'm talking about the lower income people who still manage to hit up the super value meal on the way home, we all know them. Ever see an upper class person order 6 double cheese and a diet soda from the drive through in their Ferrari? No you do not.

Can I stop paying education taxes because some schools teach religion instead of science? This is not fair. I'm taxed based on income here as well. People make poor educational choices (school boards make questionable decisions). Why am I to pay for this? Statistics show that people with no money make poor educational choices, too.

In the coming years there will be an epidemic in health care costs. Heart Disease, Type 2 Diabetes, and aging baby boomers will swap the system and cost is expected to outpace growth in GNP for the next 20 years.

Ah, speaking of the boomers... can I opt out of Social Security? I mean, it's probably not gonna be here when I am grey... can I stop enriching someone else's life?

There will not be enough taxable income to cover this. It isn't a rosy picture to think of all these people without health care, but we cannot bankrupt our children trying to help all of them. Some have them have done it to themselves and some of them are just old. Just because there's a medical procedure out there doesn't mean it should be given away . Just like because they make Ferraris doesn't mean i should be handed one the next time my car breaks down. Life doesn't work that way and trying to force a Utopian. world built on the foundation of a real world is like trying to build a palace over a foundation of gravel.

But we can bankrupt them on war?
 
Back
Top