[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

. . . Example 1: "I want to raise capital gains taxes." When we are teetering on the edge of full-blown recession, doing this would push us into a depression! I cannot fathom the ignorance behind this statement . . . .

Actually, a raise in the capital gains tax would not significantly affect the vast majority of the consumer spending power in the US, which is what will help the economy. But, it is rhetoric because acoording to most, not that much tax rev. would be raised. Moreover, the R's borrowing to pay for a war we did not have to fight and a war the R's told us Iraqi oil would pay for, is the reason we are in this mess. Why should we trust them again?

The point to me is moot as I am for the Fair Tax.

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Example 2: "We cannot drill our way out of this." I guess the first thing Obama would repeal would be supply and demand, or do the last several thousand years of economic theory cease simply because Obama would be president? Since we'd be paying $20.00 per gallon if he is elected, so I guess maybe we should be developing cars that run on hope! He also states that drilling won't take effect on prices for five years, however R & D on other fuels have gone much faster? We've been developing alternatives for years with nearly no progress. Why doesn't the five year deadline apply to that?! This is SOOO shortsighted it is utterly unbelievable . . . .

Actually, we could drain all of the expected oil in Alaska and it would be like pissing on an inferno. There simply is a comparatively negligible amount of oil in terms of US comsumption, assuuming the extracted oil stays here and is not sold to a higher bidder ten or so years from now -- this is a huge assumption.

Estimates of oil reserves in ANWR --

In May of 2008 the Energy Information Administration (under the current Bush Admin. mind you) released the following report:

"The opening of the ANWR 1002 Area to oil and natural gas development is projected to increase domestic crude oil production starting in 2018. In the mean ANWR oil resource case, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR reaches 780,000 barrels per day in 2027 and then declines to 710,000 barrels per day in 2030. In the low and high ANWR oil resource cases, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR peaks in 2028 at 510,000 and 1.45 million barrels per day, respectively. Between 2018 and 2030, cumulative additional oil production is 2.6 billion barrels for the mean oil resource case, while the low and high resource cases project a cumulative additional oil production of 1.9 and 4.3 billion barrels, respectively."

This means that if drilling in the ANWR was to start in 2008 that the first barrel of oil would arrive in 2018 and that the oil arriving has a 50 percent chance of being 2.6 billion barrels. The United States currently uses 8 billion barrels per year.

The report also states:

"Additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR would be only a small portion of total world oil production, and would likely be offset in part by somewhat lower production outside the United States. The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case."

For the average case, drilling in ANWR would reduce crude oil by 75 cents, out of a current $130, in 2025. This amounts to about a 0.5% change. The total production from ANWAR would be, in 2024, approximately 1% of the United States needs.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicer...tureclicked=2&

But, I am all for it because I say the sooner we drain all the oil, the sooner we start being forced to develop things like wind and solar power - necessity is the mother of invention

As for developing alternatives -- I suggest the oil companies stifle any true research. I mean they have billions a year in rev. as incentive. I think it is interesting that there are countries that have no dependence on oil. Yet, the USA cannot seem to get there

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Example 3: "I work across the isle". He has NO record of doing so and is consistently the most liberal member of the senate on what little he has done. The only three guys who have actually worked across the isle to accomplish ANYTHING in the last 10 years are McCain, Kennedy and Lieberman. I don't buy it!

Well, on social issues, why work with the R's. They have tried to put gay people (and straight people for that matter) in jail for having unmarital sex and even married people in jail for things like sodomy (which includes fellatio ) -- see Bowers v. Hardwick (though the Georgia law upheld in Bowers forbade oral sex and anal sex whether engaged in by people of the same sex or different sexes, the actual arrest was for homosexual fellatio)

They want to put Christianity as the official religion of the US and the devil cares about the ungrateful non Christians who happen to live in Christian America. I will never understand why it is not enough to worship at the church of your choice. Why does the govt. have to sponsor your choice as if only the govt. can somehow validate your religion. I mean even Christ said give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's

They want to tax the middle and lower classes to the point of starvation, while the millionaire saves another $50,000 in tax. I get the govt. waste argument, but how is that fair or, for that matter, Christ like?

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Example 8: "The perpetrators of the 93 attack were brought to justice and incapacitated." REALLY??!!!?! Perhaps he missed the four other terror attacks by this same group on American targets since that one. This one is truly stunning~!

You are incorrect. The actual people who did it were caught and prosecuted. You are correct in that not al of Al Q (a relatively new organization then) were not put in jail. But, unless they had an active roll in the actual bombing, US law prohibits them from being guilty by association.

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Example 10: And in perhaps the most seriously troubling set of gaffes of them all, Obama told a Portland crowd over the weekend that Iran doesn’t “pose a serious threat to us”–cluelessly arguing that “tiny countries” with small defense budgets can’t do us harm– and then promptly flip-flopped the next day, claiming, “I’ve made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave.” Uhh Staggering stupidity!

You are incorrect again. You take his words out of context. He clearly was saying that Iran was a comparatively smaller threat than Russia in the 80's and Reagan talked to Russia and brought about peace, etc. Here is the speech http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew5qP2oPdtQ

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

. . . Do we really want health care by the people who brought us Iraq, Walter Reed, employment security, Social Security, our national debt, and the endless stream of governmental greatest hits?

Well, the R's are responsible for all of that. Remember, although the economy was in comparatively slight trouble when W took office, W's insane borrowing and spending erased the trillions in surplus and plunged us trillions in bebt. So, why should we vote them back in for eight more years of that? And, McCain is not that different than W on this point and he mostly supported W's insane borrow and spend, which is FAR worse than the illusory tax and spend the D's get accused of.

Seriously, I know Obama is no joy ride, but I suggest eight more years of R rule will ruin us more than we are ruined now -- and, all in the name of their fabrication of Jesus.