McCain Vs. Obama.

[mur'phon]

Arc: How exactly is not talking going to do any good?

[Arcesious]

I'm just saying that I don't beleive anymore that Iran can be negotiated with without bribing them. They want to destroy Isreal. Iran, Isreal, and Palestine all need a peice of humble pie, and dose of chill pills.

[EnderWiggin]

No offshore drilling (It can't hurt the enviroment that badly, can it? We need a temporary fix in order to have the time to build up clean energy availability.)

 

Yes, in fact it can.

 

_EW_

[Rev7]

No offshore drilling (It can't hurt the enviroment that badly, can it? We need a temporary fix in order to have the time to build up clean energy availability.)

Link

[Litofsky]

Raising taxes on the rich will bring in more money. I don't care how much the rich people complain about their taxes- they've got way mroe money than the middle class. The trickle-down-theory does not work. We have oil available offshore. We can drill for it, but getting all of it can take many years. The cost of oil production depends on how deep the oil is, or how hard it is to refine it. Canada's oil sands have lots of oil, but it's pretty expensive overall to refine it and remove it from the sand. Also, the cost of oil depends on taxes, demand, supply, and costs of transportation of oil.

 

Oil! I would say be done with all of the oil, but that would bring humanity to its knees. We're a world dependent upon a resource that cannot, and will not last, and nothing is changing (at least, at a rate that matters). Oh, how I wish oil were a thing of the past... Alas, this is not the case. We need a leader that will change things, and I don't believe that is either Barack Obama or John McCain.

 

Nuclear power is extremely powerful and efficient, and lasts a long time. It does not harm the enviroment, because all 'radiation' and whatnot is well contained and can be safely disposed according to today's stanadards and levels of technology.

 

I support nuclear power as a temporary measure, to ease the transition from oil and fossil fuels to clean, renewable energy such as solar or hydroelectric power. If we still use it in fifty years-- fine. As long as fossil fuels and oil take a backseat to cleaner methods.

 

Hydroelectric power- I see potential in this system of energy due to all the water there is on this planet, but again, just like solar and wind, it isn't as productive as nuclear power.

The Itaipu Dam proves that hydroelectric power is useful. If I remember correctly, the USGS said that the Dam provided 25% of Brazil's power, and 75% of Paraguay's power. Of course, Wikipedia says 93% for Paraguay and 20% for Brazil (as of 2005). Either way, it's pretty impressive, if you ask me.

 

The American economy needs a boost in supply, and I think I see the perfect solution for awhile- Africa. However, China's already tapping into Africa's potential. In the end, I think it's all going to lead up to a huge economic competition between the US and China.

 

Would you mind explaining how Africa is going to solve the United States' economic problems? Do you mean to say that if we invest in Africa, it will pay off in the future?

 

My question- Who's the better of two evils? Or is there none? Because I can't decide. (Yeah, it's not a very solid rant, I admit, but I just wanted to throw my veiws out there, which I've found that they seem to be leveling off without a definite economic conclusion.)

 

I say that they are both pretty bad, but if I had to choose, I'd vote for Obama, mainly because he is trying things different from the past eight-year reign Presidency.

[Arcesious]

Alright, well I agree on you all about what you've said, thnaks for the corrections.

 

As for Africa, Africa has a lot of unused potential, AFAIK. There are many 'primitive' (IE, living in worse conditions than modern society, not that they themselves are primitive people) Africans, with great potential. Africa has huge resource potential. These huge areas of potential, off the top of my head, are Agriculture, meat, energy, and minerals. Africa has tons of room for more farmland, and farmland that could be used more efficiently.

 

The huge amount of Africans gives great potential for a productive, emerging industrial continent. Because Africa isn't yet being used to it's greatest potential, it could possibly be invested in and helped along in a way avoiding the primitive ways of fossil fuels and inefficient systems. It still has the potential to become a highly advanced, enviromentally friendly place that could provide stability to the economies of the world.

 

Yes, Africa does already have lots of inneficient industry already, but it still has lots of 'green' to spare; giving it a better chance of reaching the efficient, green potential America and others countries want.

 

I also see potential in the Sahara. Is it possible that the Sahara desert could become filled with life again, and turned into farmland?

 

As for meat, there's lots of animals. I bet Africa's animal population could be curtailed into a healthy and big meat industry.

 

However, africa has lots of disease, so it first needs modern healthcare made available to all Africans and used in it's food industry. All of these things are already being done and are int he process of being done, somewhat, but I beleive it could be done much more efficiently, with the right support.

 

Minerals- I wonder just how much mineral resources Africa has. Metals, valuable minerals and whatnot...

 

Energy- I see lots of potential for Africa in energy. Possibly Solar power in the Sahara?

 

Africa is already being massively tapped into for resources, but it's still got a lot to spare, which, if used wisely, could benefit the rest of the world.

[Litofsky]

As for Africa, Africa has a lot of unused potential, AFAIK. There are many 'primitive' (IE, living in worse conditions than modern society, not that they themselves are primitive people) Africans, with great potential. Africa has huge resource potential. These huge areas of potential, off the top of my head, are Agriculture, meat, energy, and minerals. Africa has tons of room for more farmland, and famrland that could be used more efficiently.

 

Indeed it does. However, in order to access these resources, we would need to invest a great deal, and, even then, we are in debt trillions of dollars (I believe that the National Deficit is around $9,500,000,000,000). First, we need to clear our debt, or at least invest in something that would clear our debt before we begin changing Africa.

 

Of course, investing in Africa might very well solve our economic problems. Ergo, investing in Africa would clear our debt, and increase the quality of living all around the world (mainly America and parts of Africa). Even then, it's going to be a long time before these results begin to show.

 

The huge amount of Africans gives great potential for a productive, emerging industrial continent. Because Africa isn't yet being used to it's greatest potential, it could possibly be invested in and helped along in a way avoiding the primitive ways of fossil fuels and inefficient systems. It still has the potential to become a highly advanced, enviromentally friendly place that could provide stability to the economies of the world.

 

I mean no disrespect, but you make it seem like Africa is a giant, docile play-toy. That is not true at in most places. After the Europeans left and established the modern borders, chaos ensued. It would be the equivalent of putting you and your worst enemy in a caged fight. It wasn't pretty (and it still isn't).

 

In order to tap these 'resources' of which you speak, Africa would need to be pacified. And, in order for that to happen, I see the Military involved. There might be a possible way to do what you describe, but we would have to find many, many countries willing to help the United States.

 

Yes, Africa does already have lots of inneficient industry already, but it still has lots of 'green' to spare; giving it a better chance of reaching the efficient, green potential America and others countries want.

 

Again, how is it possible to tap these resources without some kind of military-- or diplomatic-- intervention ?

 

I also see potential in the Sahara. Is it possible that the Sahara desert could become filled with life again, and turned into farmland?

 

I see a use for the desert as well-- a massive solar panel installation. Finally, the Sahara will have its uses!

 

Africa is already being massively tapped into for resources, but it's still got a lot to spare, which, if used wisely, could benefit the rest of the world.

 

Is China doing all of this "tapping?" If so, I'd think that the US would be eager to jump and stall our economic ally (and enemy).

[EnderWiggin]

I'm just saying that I don't beleive anymore that Iran can be negotiated with without bribing them. They want to destroy Isreal. Iran, Isreal, and Palestine all need a peice of humble pie, and dose of chill pills.

 

 

Ah. And ignoring them will help them chill.

 

_EW_

[El Sitherino]

I'm just saying that I don't beleive anymore that Iran can be negotiated with without bribing them. They want to destroy Isreal. Iran, Isreal, and Palestine all need a peice of humble pie, and dose of chill pills.

Talking can do that, I've talked myself out of worse situations.

[Totenkopf]

Such as? I've gotta think you mean your life was threatened, literally, by that kind of response.

[Achilles]

I promised myself that I wouldn't post in this thread but...

 

Okay, my points against Obama:

 

No Nuclear Power (Nuclear power isn't harmful to the enviroment, but, somehow, he thinks it is.)

Nuclear waste? It has to go somewhere.

 

Also, nuclear power is not a long-term solution to our problem. The fissile materials that are necessary are not renewable. In fact, if the world decided to make the switch to nuclear, we'd run out pretty fast. So do we really want to invest a lot of money in a non-renewable, non-clean source of power that no matter how "safe" it is has potentially catastrophic downsides if "an accident" does occur seem like a good idea to you? It doesn't to me.

 

Use of Biofuel (Biofuels require use of foods such as corn, which can drive up food prices. The problem is, I haven't heard of a very efficient way to mass produce it. What it sounds like from the debates we've had before is that the Ethanol biofuels level out in cost, and don't make much of difference in lowering costs. IMHO, biofuels do not benefit us in the longrun.)

Hehe, not to mention that currently it takes more energy to produce biofuels than the biofuels can produce themselves (i.e. we lose energy by producing biofuels). Maybe this will change at some point, specifically if we can produce a low-cost source of biofuels on land that would otherwise be un-farmable. I suspect that either a) Obama has a plan for this later scenario or b) this is an attempt to pander to the farm belt. Here's hoping for scenarion a.

 

 

No offshore drilling (It can't hurt the enviroment that badly, can it? We need a temporary fix in order to have the time to build up clean energy availability.)

Whether it's bad for the environment or not is irrelevant. It isn't a short-term fix. It isn't even really a long-term fix. And it's completely inconsistent with his larger position on U.S. energy. So to me it isn't a matter of "why isn't he supporting it" so much as it is a matter of "why on earth would he".

 

His plan to raise taxes on the rich and the corporations- it sounds like it will work, but this plan not only effects rich buisness owners, but also poor ones.

Okay. How?

 

I agree with him on most all of the other issues, but I'm not entirely sure about his foreign policies.

If you don't mind me asking, what do you agree with specifically?

 

Equal rights for all and whatnot is great, but it makes me question his plans for that, especially due to the wiretapping bill he voted for.

Yeah, I was unimpressed by that as well.

 

His whole plan is different than Bush's & Mccain's, but just because it's different doesn't mean that it will work.

This is absolutely true, but it isn't much of an argument against him either.

 

Now, about Mccain...

 

I don't agree with his plan to utilize fossil fuels on such a large scale. I do agree with his plan for use of nuclear power.

Okay.

 

His Energy plan isn't sound. It's too slow of a plan to implement. Same for Obama.

Hmmm...if this is true, then the two candidates would be a wash then.

 

John Mccain wants all kinds of tax cuts. That's a really stupid thing to do, when you plan to have a very expensive plan.

Technically, so does Obama. I think where those cuts come from, how they are accounted for, etc becomes the imporant point. Agreed?

 

Iraq- it's ruining our economy to keep fighting there. There are good reasons to stay in Iraq, but I think that it would be smarter to focus on homeland defense and security of our country specifically.

I would agree wholeheartedly with the latter part of this last sentence.

 

The US government needs lots of money to fulfill its promises. That means that it needs taxes. Tax cuts will make it harder to fund projects and programs it has.

Hmmm, need more taxes, but he's promise tax cuts. Something doesn't add up. Where will this money come from? (hint: option A is to finance more of our country to foreign powers or B cut spending on domestic programs).

 

The whole problem with Mccain is that his plans sound just like Bush's policies, which are not working. I do kind of like the overall idea of his economy plan, minus the fossil fuel overusage though.

McCain's problem is that he's all over the board on everything. If being "a flip-flopper" was a valid reason to keep John Kerry out of the White House, then it should be a valid reason to keep McSame out as well. I'm ashamed of the fact that he represents my state in the Senate

 

Raising taxes on the rich will bring in more money. I don't care how much the rich people complain about their taxes- they've got way mroe money than the middle class.

I usually find this sobering. Yes, you're reading that right: the top 5% of the U.S. population controls nearly 60% of the wealth (or the top 10% controls about 71%).

 

The trickle-down-theory does not work.

Please don't tell the Republicans. If we really wanted to be honest we'd call this the "trickle into rich peoples' investment portfolio" theory.

 

We have oil available offshore. We can drill for it, but getting all of it can take many years. The cost of oil production depends on how deep the oil is, or how hard it is to refine it. Canada's oil sands have lots of oil, but it's pretty expensive overall to refine it and remove it from the sand. Also, the cost of oil depends on taxes, demand, supply, and costs of transportation of oil.

I'll give you a lot of credit for being well informed, but I don't agree with where your thinking appears to be going. Oil is a fixed resource. The less of it there is, the more it costs. The more it costs the more profitable it becomes to produce. The answer is not finding more oil. The answer is finding another (clean and renewable) source of energy.

 

Homework: Ask yourself if oil companies making billions of dollars a year in profits have a vested interest in making sure that renewable energy solutions don't make it to market until they decide they should. Remember that there are still hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars in oil still available.

 

Nuclear power is extremely powerful and efficient, and lasts a long time. It does not harm the enviroment, because all 'radiation' and whatnot is well contained and can be safely disposed according to today's stanadards and levels of technology.

I repeat: not a long-term solution.

 

Creating oil, coal, and natural gas refineries, whether it be 'clean' or unclean, still hurts the enviroment, because refineries require clearing out all life in the entire area where the refinery is built. I guess it's the same way with nuclear power, but nuclear power plants take up much less space, and they are more energy-productive. Wind power is clean and non-harmful to the enviroment. Problem is, it doesn't make that much energy. Same with solar power. But solar power does have better potential as microwave power.

Hmmm...solar power was sufficient to power all life on earth up to the industrial revolution. There's something to think about.

 

Hydroelectric power- I see potential in this system of energy due to all the water there is on this planet, but again, just like solar and wind, it isn't as productive as nuclear power.

I hope I'm not an ass for pointing out that it's not all or nothing. We can invest in wind, solar, tidal power, geothermal, etc all at the same time. People can have solar panels and a windmill and so on on their property. It's not as though they have to pick one option and hope that it will someday be adequate to completely replace what they had.

 

The economies of all countries would work better if all of the middle class were equal and dominant. However, balancing the economy lowers competition, and competition is needs to keep big corporations bringing in money, so that they can get richer, and also pay their workers. The economy needs soem elements of instability in order to thrive and grow. Balancing everything would end up creating some sort of wierd capitalist-communist economy system.

I suspect that the economic factors are much more complicated than either you or I can hash out in an internet thread.

 

The American economy needs a boost in supply, and I think I see the perfect solution for awhile- Africa. However, China's already tapping into Africa's potential. In the end, I think it's all going to lead up to a huge economic competition between the US and China.

Hehe, not much competition there. If we remain the world's chief economic superpower into the next generation, it will be because China dropped the ball.

 

I'm open to refutation and critiquing/criticism of this... That's just my current opinion of all of this. And I bet I've missed a lot of issues. Neither candidate sounds better than the other to me.

The reality is that the candidates have to appear to have a position set out on a myriad of issues. The reality is that no plan survives first contact with the enemy (in this case, reality). So no matter who says what, at some point they are going to have to compromise. Something will have to get left by the way side. Some crisis will go bump in the term and distract them from their master scheme. So your best bet (imo) is to figure out who demonstrates better leadership. Which candidate is in a better position politically to be able to get things done, etc. Who is going to step into the White House owing favors and having others to whom he is answerable. Think about it and then make your decision based on that. Again, my 2 cents.

 

My question- Who's the better of two evils? Or is there none? Because I can't decide. (Yeah, it's not a very solid rant, I admit, but I just wanted to throw my veiws out there, which I've found that they seem to be leveling off without a definite economic conclusion.)

I'm betting on Obama. And for what it's worth, I don't consider him "an evil" (still lots of time until November though).

[El Sitherino]

Such as? I've gotta think you mean your life was threatened, literally, by that kind of response.

 

Yes, yes I have. If I can talk someone with a gun to my head out of shooting me despite my life obviously meaning nothing to them. Then our government (or any other) can speak with Iran and find a compromise. But no one wants a compromise, they want their way.

[Totenkopf]

I think your final statement is key. A compromise is only as good as the true intentions of either party. Just as a cease-fire is not an end to a war, a political compromise is no guaranty that either side will live up to it, just a high visibility distraction while either side goes about pursuing its original plans. The US and the western countries don't trust Iran to have a nuke capability and the Iranians want it to stave off the west and also to become a serious regional player. I'm not sure how much room for compromise there's going to be here, seeing as how both sides are working at cross-purposes.

 

On the personal front, I'm glad you were able to talk him out of it, but it's apples and oranges to the topic at hand.

[Arcesious]

Achillles: Your post made a lot of sense to me, so we're in agreement.

 

If you don't mind me asking, what do you agree with specifically?

 

Pretty much everything your average Athiest Liberal-Democrat would agree with... Obama's plan sounds pretty good, but I don't think he'll be able to accomplish everything he's saying he will. (Although, after reading your post, I have to agree with Obama's plans more than I used to.)

 

Yes, yes I have. If I can talk someone with a gun to my head out of shooting me despite my life obviously meaning nothing to them. Then our government (or any other) can speak with Iran and find a compromise. But no one wants a compromise, they want their way.

 

Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. The thing is, the United States and Isreal have guns pointed at Iran. Iran has guns to, but because we also have guns, the question is- who's more likely to fire? (Answer: The person with the more jumpy trigger finger) The United States likes to negotiate using subliminal threats. A bribe can work, or the person can take the bribe and then ask for more. But I agree that it's smart to try to negotiate anyways. The middle east just sounds too unstable for bribes to work.

[Achilles]

Obama's plan sounds pretty good, but I don't think he'll be able to accomplish everything he's saying he will.

Of course he won't. Neither will McCain or any of the candidates who will ever run for that office in the future. This isn't to say that he won't be able to accomplish any of it.

[El Sitherino]

I think your final statement is key. A compromise is only as good as the true intentions of either party. Just as a cease-fire is not an end to a war, a political compromise is no guaranty that either side will live up to it, just a high visibility distraction while either side goes about pursuing its original plans. The US and the western countries don't trust Iran to have a nuke capability and the Iranians want it to stave off the west and also to become a serious regional player. I'm not sure how much room for compromise there's going to be here, seeing as how both sides are working at cross-purposes.

 

On the personal front, I'm glad you were able to talk him out of it, but it's apples and oranges to the topic at hand.

 

Hardly, granted as it involves more than a few people it will take much longer than an hour, however discussion is always a viable option and should never be over looked simply because the other party doesn't wish to speak at this time.

 

Make them talk, continue to bring up discussion with them. There's no reason that we cannot solve our problems through communication without action.

[Totenkopf]

@Arc--

Originally Posted by El Sitherino

Yes, yes I have. If I can talk someone with a gun to my head out of shooting me despite my life obviously meaning nothing to them. Then our government (or any other) can speak with Iran and find a compromise. But no one wants a compromise, they want their way.

 

fixed.

 

Hardly, granted as it involves more than a few people it will take much longer than an hour, however discussion is always a viable option and should never be over looked simply because the other party doesn't wish to speak at this time.

 

Make them talk, continue to bring up discussion with them. There's no reason that we cannot solve our problems through communication without action.

 

Only works as long as both parties want to reach a peaceful end that doesn't give them what they say they wanted in the first place. Your last statement is more conjecture and hopeful than real.

[mimartin]

Only works as long as both parties want to reach a peaceful end that doesn't give them what they say they wanted in the first place. Your last statement is more conjecture and hopeful than real.

I disagree with the both parties have to want to reach a peaceful end for it to work. I believe both parties have to get something they want out of the agreement is the key to making any kind of agreement work. Iran will want to save face with the rest of the Muslim world, so I will say a peaceful solution will be difficult. However, a diplomatic solution would still be preferable to them than the alternative of the U.S. rebuilding their country after a destructive war. The real question is how far is the U.S. willing to bend in order to allow Iran to save face. Would it be easier to just use our usual gunboat diplomacy? Possibly unless you are one of the men or women called upon to sacrifice their lives and body parts to support our kill them all mentality. Saying something is impossible as an excuse for not trying is what has gotten the world and this country in the mess it is in today.

[Totenkopf]

I disagree with the both parties have to want to reach a peaceful end for it to work. I believe both parties have to get something they want out of the agreement is the key to making any kind of agreement work. Iran will want to save face with the rest of the Muslim world, so I will say a peaceful solution will be difficult. However, a diplomatic solution would still be preferable to them than the alternative of the U.S. rebuilding their country after a destructive war. The real question is how far is the U.S. willing to bend in order to allow Iran to save face. Would it be easier to just use our usual gunboat diplomacy? Possibly unless you are one of the men or women called upon to sacrifice their lives and body parts to support our kill them all mentality. Saying something is impossible as an excuse for not trying is what has gotten the world and this country in the mess it is in today.

 

As long as one side wants the conflict, diplomacy fails. The whole point of diplomacy is to get to the point where both sides believe they can live with the new situation better than one side or both getting its teeth kicked in (or worse). The type of "diplomatic" solution you refer to is not really diplomatic at all, just an ultimatum that postpones violent conflict. Chamberlain thought that diplomatic concessions were better than confronting a militarily weaker Germany. We all know what that got us. I guess your idea of a solution would be to widen the MAD doctrine to encompass these countries as well. Iran will get its nukes at the current rate of things (and Pakistan has them anyway).

[mimartin]

Really? According to history that isn’t always the case. Diplomacy has been used to avert wars in the past. Anyways without dialogue, how do you know that Iran wants war? Or are you saying that you know U.S. wants war, so diplomacy will fail because we want another fight? I know under Bush diplomacy will fail and I expect under McCain the same would be true. Under Obama, I don’t have a clue, but I do believe he will give diplomacy a shot before placing our armed services personal in harm’s way.

[Totenkopf]

As I never said which side was which (who wanted war and who peace), not sure what the point of your reply was there. I was talking generally in regard to the idea of both sides having to want a peaceful resolution (where they survive intact) for diplomacy to really work.

[mimartin]

As I never said which side was which (who wanted war and who peace), not sure what the point of your reply was there. [/Quote] Sorry, I misunderstood I thought you were impling that Iran wanted war. My mistake.

I was talking generally in regard to the idea of both sides having to want a peaceful resolution (where they survive intact) for diplomacy to really work.

And as I said I disagree, the stronger must want peace (or at least care about the deaths of its own troops), the weaker side must just want to survive.

[Arcesious]

fixed.

Oh... whoops. Sorry... I did it again...

[Totenkopf]

Sorry, I misunderstood I thought you were impling that Iran wanted war. My mistake.

And as I said I disagree, the stronger must want peace (or at least care about the deaths of its own troops), the weaker side must just want to survive.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

I was talking generally in regard to the idea of both sides having to want a peaceful resolution (where they survive intact) for diplomacy to really work.

 

Essentially what I said above. Afterall, short of complete annihilation, most enemies tend to survive their losses.

[mimartin]

Essentially what I said above. Afterall, short of complete annihilation, most enemies tend to survive their losses.

 

I still disagree; some of these leaders don't even care about their citizens or their country only their power matters. Setting down and showing them how peace is in their own self interest could do wonders. I wonder if Saddam would have been a little less defiant if he knew where he would end up. He may have even given up his imaginary WMD along with his unicorns and pink elephants.

 

While I see where you are coming from, I just don't belive we need to rule out diplomacy immediately and go straight to war. I believe we owe it to those serving our country to make war the last option not the first.