Notices
Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Side-by-side comparison of the answers provided at Saddlebac

  1. #1 Side-by-side comparison of the answers provided at Saddlebac 
    Forum Freshman JEQuidam's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Dunwoody, Georgia
    Posts
    42
    Here is a side-by-side comparison of the answers provided by Senators Obama and McCain at Saddleback:

    http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages..._16AUG2008.htm


    It was supposed to be our House.
    Thirty-Thousand.org
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    McCain : black or white
    Obama: shades of gray

    The world is not black and white. We already have a president who thinks it is. We can’t afford another one.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    JEQ; Thanks for the review and hope its read by a few. As an old agnostic or non-believer, I have never denied the importance of faith to the American Society. The leader of any society, should reflect the society he/she leads. In this case, McCain, IMO most reflects that society....for other reasons..me.

    Bunbury; Normally I do not disagree with your views, but question how Mr. Obama
    and his understanding of political power around the world, can be addressed in a unenforcible diplomatic method. Bush has made substantial gains, as those powers are well aware, he speaks with the power of his office....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    It looks like Obama is trying to straddle every issue. I wouldn't use those answers to try to determine his actual opinion. Better to look at his voting record, etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Warren: What's the most significant position that you've held 10 years ago that you no longer hold today?

    I think the point I’m trying to make is that leaders are not stubborn; they do change their mind with additional information. So give me a good example of something that was ten years ago you said "that's the way I feel about it" and now, 10 years later, that's different. That's not flip flopping; it is just sometimes growing in wisdom.
    McCain: Offshore drilling. We've got to drill now and we've got to drill here and we've got to become independent of foreign oil. I know that there's some here in California that disagree ... with that position.
    Could I also mention very seriously about this issue, my friends, you know that this is a national security issue. We're sending $700 billions dollars a year to countries that don't like us very much, that some of that money is ending up in the hands of terrorists organizations. We cannot allow this greatest transfer of wealth in history and our national security to continue to be threatened.
    How does offshore drilling increase America's national security, please? Oil is sold in a global market and the United States buys oil from 70 different countries, and sells its own oil to dozens of countries as well. There can be no 'independent of foreign oil' in a global market!

    As far as the amount of money going to countries that don't like you very much, surely the recent reduction in average driving miles per american family has had a harder and much more immediate impact on that.

    Does McCain's argument really sell???
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    You are absolutely right:

    For the lower 48 [Outer Continental Shelf], annual crude oil production in 2030 is projected to be 7 percent higher—2.4 million barrels per day in the OCS access case compared with 2.2 million barrels per day in the reference case (Figure 20). Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.
    This assumes the offshore drilling ban is allowed to expire in 2012. If instead it was lifted tomorrow you could change the date from 2030 to 2026.

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html

    As McCain's hero Reagan once said: "Facts are stupid things".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    More to the point, would fewer dollars go to terrorists, per McCain's argument, if Americans added any amount of additional oil to the market, even if the US managed to double its output to make up 4% of global oil sources, even if that addition happened today, given that it is a globally traded commodity.

    Take for example:

    The U.S. consumes 25% of the world’s oil annually, but has only 2% of the world’s reserves. 62% of the world’s proven oil reserves are located in the Middle East. As a result, world oil production increasingly will be centered in that region.
    And:

    Because oil is a global commodity, freely traded, the price of oil is determined on the world market. It responds to the forces of supply and demand and to political events, no matter where they occur. Even if the U.S. shifted all of its oil imports to relatively safe sources, such as Canada and Mexico, it would not be protected from a price shock – whether caused by politics, war, or terrorism. The only way to reduce the risks associated with oil is to reduce the demand for it – in other words, to increase the efficiency of oil consumption and increase the use of alternative fuels.
    from http://www.energyfuturecoalition.org...t_security.htm

    No fewer dollars go to terrorists (!) if the US only buys from 'safe' sources (or increases production itself), the consumption (supply and demand, free trading of oil -> ultimately the source of oil) is the same. Also, any global commodity allows leverage of one country over another; oil is one example but there are many more. McCain's argument strikes me as blatant fearmongering and pandering. "Independent of foreign oil" is complete nonsense.

    A strategy to reduce ME leverage on the west, as it relates to oil, must shift energy production away from oil, to local sources (ie renewable such as solar, wind, and other) . There's no other way round it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    McCain paints a simple picture with simple answers for popular consumption. There are plenty of sources of responsible analysis such as the Department of Energy that I linked to, and the link in your post, but McCain hopes and trusts that the voters won’t dig beyond his untruthful TV commercials. For McCain it is business as usual – do whatever it takes to win and ignore, distort or lie about the real facts. Identical to the way the Iraq war was sold by the present administation. McCain is Bush all over again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    There you have it encapsulated, the McCain campaign for President, an irrational mélange of patriotic swagger and blindness to reality that is proving disturbingly successful with uninformed voters.
    I couldn't have said it better:

    The lesson McCain should have learned is that the world is a complex place, that today's enemies may be tomorrow's negotiating partners--as Obama has at times dared to suggest--and that the neoconservative idea of a Pax Americana is a dangerous fantasy. And a costly one at that, not only in lost lives and blowback from the regions we destabilize but also in the dollars that American taxpayers must waste.
    Voters - inform yourselves!

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4370387.shtml
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    McCain has the smarter energy policy. He is promoting all forms of energy, not just offshore drilling. He is a strong supporter of nuclear power. Meanwhile, Obama airs ads promoting unproven solar and wind power. He opposes nuclear, which is the only proven alternative for power generation that does not involve burning fossil fuel.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Wind power and solar are proven technologies. Vestas has built 35,500 wind towers and its investors seem to feel that's adequate proof of the technology. As for solar, well Excel Energy is building a concentrated solar plant in S. Colorado. They have enough confidence in the technology to close two coal plants in parallel with the construction.

    As for Obama opposing nuclear, that's a distortion. He has said we need to better address the storage and security issues before embarking on large scale construction of nuclear plants.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Wind power and solar are proven technologies. Vestas has built 35,500 wind towers and its investors seem to feel that's adequate proof of the technology. As for solar, well Excel Energy is building a concentrated solar plant in S. Colorado. They have enough confidence in the technology to close two coal plants in parallel with the construction.
    Do you have a link?

    As for Obama opposing nuclear, that's a distortion. He has said we need to better address the storage and security issues before embarking on large scale construction of nuclear plants.
    Here's Obama trying to straddle the issue. He'll make sure the storage issue doesn't get addressed, by opposing Yucca Mtn.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    http://features.csmonitor.com/enviro...s-in-colorado/

    Obama opposed Yucca Mountain when he was campaigning in Nevada. That is an unfortunate political act that does him no credit. He is, after all, a politician.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2008/08/21/utility-volunteers-to-close-two-coal-plants-in-colorado/
    All right, I see that they were complying with a mandate from the state to have 20% of their power from renewables and the utility also got federal tax rebates and were allowed to collect a fee from their customers.

    Chances are, you will see renewables grow some with mandates and subsidies like that. When they have to pay their own way, and when there arent enough base load plants, it's going to be a problem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    When they have to pay their own way
    You mean like coal, oil and gas pay their own way?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •