Get Ready For The MCCain Lies - There will be plenty.

[wvpeach]

MCCain like Bush and most Republicans it seems nowdays think the American people are stupid and will continue to believe their lies. I am hoping most are not that stupid.

For instance while the Democrats fight to try to close the Enron loophole that is causing wall street to be able to jack up the price of gas by a 3rd at the pump, the Republicans keep trotting out drilling off shore just like they do abortion, gays , gun control and boogey men in drug wars and terrorists.

The Repubs do this even though its fact that oil companies are only drilling on 59% of federal land they already have permission to drill on. Even though oil companies have capped wells waiting for the price to go higher . In the face of facts Republicans like MCCain and George Bush will continue to lie and think the American people will believe it. They didn't make up this play book neither did Rove. They got this lying play book from Hitler and his cronies. Who said its easy to get the people to go along with your plans , all you have to do is tell them somebody hates them and wants to destroy their way of life and they will fight your wars for those lies.

MCCain is at it , and will continue I imagine. He is pushing off shore drilling even though it won't do a thing in the near term to help our gas prices.

Get ready for a avalanche of lies from that man. ''

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/article633915.ece

Tying offshore drilling to price perks 'foolish'
By Rob Farley, Times Staff Writer
In print: Friday, June 20, 2008


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Story Tools
E-mail this story Contact the editor
Print this story Comment on this story
Social Bookmarking
Digg Facebook Stumbleupon
Reddit Del.icio.us Newsvine

ADVERTISEMENT Related Links
Where offshore drilling goes, beaches suffer
It's Your Times: I want the beaches the way they are
The loop current: what scientists say about the dangers of drilling in the Gulf of Mexico
Q&A: Gas prices
Crist's about-face on oil: VP-itis or vox populi?
Campaign 2008

When Sen. John McCain dropped his energy bombshell, calling for the federal government to lift restrictions on offshore drilling for oil, he began by noting the high price of gas these days.

"With gasoline running at more than four bucks a gallon, many do not have the luxury of waiting on the far-off plans of futurists and politicians," McCain said in a speech on Tuesday in the oil hub of Houston.

"As a matter of fairness to the American people, and a matter of duty for our government, we must deal with the here and now," McCain said, "and assure affordable fuel for America by increasing domestic production."

The political momentum for offshore drilling has always risen and fallen along with gas prices. But while strong arguments can be made in favor of offshore drilling, reducing the cost of gas "here and now" isn't one of them, according to oil experts and economists — many of whom support the plan.

For starters, the lead time for oil exploration takes years. Even if offshore drilling areas opened up tomorrow, experts say it would take at least 10 years to realize any significant production. And even then, they say, the U.S. contribution to the overall global oil market would not be enough to make a significant dent in the price of gas.

"Drilling offshore to lower oil prices is like walking an extra 20 feet per day to lose weight," said David Sandalow, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and author of Freedom From Oil. "It's just not going to make much difference."

It takes years to bring new oil wells online, said Mike Rodgers, a leading oil expert with PFC Energy in Washington. Companies need to drill exploratory wells, then discovery wells around the exploratory wells that show promise. Shipyards that build platforms, a two- to three-year endeavor, are already booked solid.

"It's foolish to sell it as a short-term solution to high gas prices," Rodgers said. "Opening offshore drilling would have no impact whatsoever on gas prices today."

That being said, Rodgers is a proponent of offshore drilling.

Most forecasters believe we are in for steeper price hikes as international demand grows, particularly in rapidly developing countries such as India and China. As demand rises, Rodgers said, it would be good for the United States to have more of its own supply.

If there is a larger domestic supply of oil in the future, he said, "you would hope" it might soften prices some.

But even long-term projections on the impact of offshore drilling don't promise much relief at the pump.

An analysis performed by the Energy Information Administration, an independent statistical and analytical agency within the U.S. Department of Energy, found in a report published in 2007 that opening up the outer continental shelf in the Pacific, Atlantic and eastern gulf regions would result in production no sooner than 2017 and would not have a significant effect on domestic crude oil production before 2030.

"Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant," the report concludes.

The Energy Information Administration also researched the impact of crude oil production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. To put it in scale, ANWR is believed to have a potential for 10.4-billion barrels of crude oil, a little more than half of the projected potential for the offshore areas McCain has proposed opening.

ANWR would add only 1 to 2 percent to the overall world oil supply, said Philip Budzig, who wrote the Energy Information Administration report. The report concluded drilling there would subtract anywhere from 41 cents to $1.44 per barrel of crude oil around 2025. That translates to a savings of just a couple of pennies per gallon at the pump. Again, in 2025.

Budzig noted that the report was prepared when oil was going for about $65 a barrel. It's now double that. So, in theory, savings might be double what he projected last year.

Economists agree

The case for offshore drilling becomes more compelling when you look long term, Budzig said. Increasing domestic oil production will lower the U.S. trade deficit, he said, putting less stress on the dollar. "It's sort of like investing in your kid's education," Budzig said.

Former Florida Sen. Bob Graham said he was horrified by McCain's plan.

"I doubt there's an economist alive that would make the case that there's a near- or longer-term relationship between the moratorium and the price of gasoline," Graham said.

Several economists who spoke to PolitiFact backed that up.

"Obviously, if you do offshore drilling now it's not going to give any short-term help on the supply of oil," said Paul A. Samuelson, a professor of economics at MIT and winner of the 1970 Nobel Prize in Economics. "That's far away."

"Getting oil from the tundra and arctic isn't going to solve the problem," Samuelson said, adding that the potential for environmental damage needs to be factored in as well.

Dr. A.F. Alhaji, associate professor of economics at Ohio Northern University and an international expert on oil markets, said he supports offshore drilling as a long-term way to lower dependence on foreign oil and thereby improve national security.

However, he said, "I have a problem linking the drilling to current gas prices for political reasons. The reality is there is no correlation between today's prices and what gasoline will be discovered in the outer shelf."

McCain made many arguments when making his case for lifting offshore drilling bans, including enhanced national security. But he left little doubt that the fundamental impetus was to provide some relief to the high prices Americans are paying for gas "here and now." And that argument holds little weight. We rule it False.



The statement

"We must … assure affordable fuel for America by increasing domestic production."

Sen. John McCain

The ruling

Coastal drilling now won't lower gas prices for at least 10 years, and then it won't be by much.


[Last modified: Jun 22, 2008 03:36 PM]

[issac the dragon]

The majority of people in this country agree with McCain. And while it won't help now, it would help in 10 years. Do you think there will be more gas in ten years? I don't have a problem with drilling off shore. Or taking the oil out of shale. Or nuclear power. Or wind or solar power. Or something that hasn't even been thought of yet. But we aren't going to have it in ten years if we don't start today.

[Wabash]

Newt ... right on, as usual. Question? Why isn't Newt running for President instead of McLame?

Click on:


http://youtube.com/watch?v=UOpcPfAarjY

[Wabash]

So wvp...are you telling us that the Clintons never lied? That Pelosi and Reid never lied? That Obie never lies and isn't lying now?

Come ON...GIVE US a BREAK!

When the American people are totally fed up with Liberal lameass drivel...WE will drill for oil and explore for more! We will do what Newt said....but as long as you Lefty Goofballs keep spouting bullshit, we will revert to a 3rd world country! That's what you commies want anyway!

[Trueblue]

Because people don't like Newt, Wabash.

As for the various quick fixes, I think the public is smart enough to know that there are none, including drilling close to our coastlines, etc. People are getting genuinely concerned about the environment.

[Wabash]

Because people don't like Newt, Wabash.

As for the various quick fixes, I think the public is smart enough to know that there are none, including drilling close to our coastlines, etc. People are getting genuinely concerned about the environment.

TB, people were concerned about the environment when I was in high school and college in the 60s! We had the goofball Sierra Club. At first I thought what a noble cause, then I realized that there was a very left leaning agenda. I was getting my first glimpse at Leftys in Action, LIA, and I didn't like it.
I got my first glimpse of the arrogant black reverse racism at the same time....didn't like that either! She gave me an F because I fell asleep while she played MLK tapes ad nauseum! If there was anyone I'd love to flush, it would have been her! But, I digress.

Newt is a very smart man and should be the President today! He is way better than Bush or obie or the clintons....and he is right as rain on what he says!

[Wabash]

TB, people were concerned about the environment when I was in high school and college in the 60s! We had the goofball Sierra Club. At first I thought what a noble cause, then I realized that there was a very left leaning agenda. I was getting my first glimpse at Leftys in Action, LIA, and I didn't like it.
I got my first glimpse of the arrogant black reverse racism at the same time....didn't like that either! She gave me an F because I fell asleep while she played MLK tapes ad nauseum! If there was anyone I'd love to flush, it would have been her! But, I digress.

Newt is a very smart man and should be the President today! He is way better than Bush or obie or the clintons....and he is right as rain on what he says!

I can't help you see logic and common sense TB, you will have to find it on your own, I can't do anymore with you!

[Saguaro]

Considering you probably voted for Bush, I have my doubts that you know about the right man for the job.

[Wabash]

Considering you probably voted for Bush, I have my doubts that you know about the right man for the job.

Considering the fact that you may have voted for Kerry or Algore, I could say the same about you!

[Saguaro]

Well Wabash,we will never know about what kind of Prez. Kerry or Gore would have been. We have proof how badly Bush has done.

[Wabash]

Well Wabash,we will never know about what kind of Prez. Kerry or Gore would have been. We have proof how badly Bush has done.

Well Bush's performance has certainly been lacking in some areas, but he's no where near as bad as Demos make him out to be...

[Trueblue]

Bush is a train wreck in every way.

As for the environment, most people grasp that the environment is where they live, and that there are no alternatives.

[Wabash]

Bush is a train wreck in every way.

As for the environment, most people grasp that the environment is where they live, and that there are no alternatives.

The Sky is Falling, the Sky is Falling!!! Here's TB now...:spazz:spazz:spazz:spazz:LL

[Saguaro]

The sky hasn't fallen but the economy sure has

[Trueblue]

Here's Wabash:

http://michaelcorey.ntirety.com/Portals/1101/images/ostrich-head.jpg

[AYFR]

The majority of people in this country agree with McCain. And while it won't help now, it would help in 10 years. Do you think there will be more gas in ten years? I don't have a problem with drilling off shore. Or taking the oil out of shale. Or nuclear power. Or wind or solar power. Or something that hasn't even been thought of yet. But we aren't going to have it in ten years if we don't start today.

Agreed

[quiet man]

no matter what we hope to have in a decade or two, we need to be making some decisions now and start the work soon, very soon.

[Trueblue]

no matter what we hope to have in a decade or two, we need to be making some decisions now and start the work soon, very soon.

Yes, we do.

[wvpeach]

I think all you gentlemen missed the entire point of the article.

The point is the Republicans are using this off shore drilling like they do their talking points about gays, gun control, abortions and everything else they know will whip their base up in a frothy frenzy. Drilling off shore is just a talking point.

One they are using as they try to stop people who are trying to close the enron loop hole. The senate keeps getting fillerbusted over the Enron loop hole. THe president has threatened to veto it if it hits his desk meaning that congress and the senate have to get enough votes to over ride his veto. Which they don't have yet.

We are talking about immediate relief from gas prices here people not ten years from now . Immediate. The only thing that can be done immediately is to take the estimated 30% wall street profits from speculators out of our gas prices. To do that we need to regulate gas speculation on wall street again. Morgan Stanley is now holding the largest gas reserve on paper in this country .................Not the oil companies. Letting a investment firm control gas prices to a large degree is just plain stupid, of course they will drive the cost up that is how they make their money. That has always been the stupidest thing about Republicans hollering deregulation. History proves when you deregulate greedy men take advantage of that fact and drive up the cost of basic goods for their own profits.


Drilling ,exploration all that is fine. The oil companies are only drilling on 59% of US leases they have now. There is excuse is even if they drilled more we couldn't refine it. But, what is needed now is immediate relief and closing the Enron loophole Bush is so fond of would bring us back to estimated $2.80 per gallon gas prices and economic stability. Instead of pointing out that Morgan Stanley is holding all those gas futures and predicting $200 a barrel oil by next spring, ( insider trading if I ever saw it) and helping to make sure wall street can't keep driving up the price of Gas , Republicans for the most part are fighting it like it is their money we want to take.

But I don't expect that to continue. Even Republicans who like to see wall street raking in profits hand over fist are returning home to their districts to find the economy is very bad shape and realizing soon they will not have a job if the Enron loophole isn't closed and something done to keep the economy rolling along. Soon lower tier Republicans will jump ship and sign on to keeping wall street out of gas prices. Regulation goes against that kool aid they normally drink. But at this point nobody can any longer deny that a little regulation is needed before they crash our economy off a cliff. Even party line Republicans will have to break ranks on the Enron loop hole.

[issac the dragon]

When that marvelous bill was passed, I think in '05, where were the Democrats? Why didn't they filibuster the provision of the bill that gave speculators immunity from doing this to us? Why didn't they stop the bill until it was removed? Why did most of them vote for the bill? The Republicans have proved that the Senate can be stopped any time someone wants. The Democrats are about the most useless excuse for a second party that it is possible to be.

The Democrats spent 6 years giving Bush every thing he asked for. Including Justice Roberts. They are every bit as much to blame for our current distress as the Republicans are.

[Trueblue]

Because the charge is always "obstruction". And people buy it.

[wvpeach]

The bill that gave us the Enron loophole was inserted in a farm bill By Sen Grassly( R ) in 2002 under a completely Republican controlled house and Senate. Gram helped to get this loop hole too thanks to his wife being a Enron big whig.

Here is a little history on how we got the Enron loop hole thanks to the Republicans .

http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/2008/051908Leopold.shtml


COMMENTARY:
McCain Defends 'Enron Loophole'
by Jason Leopold
May 19, 2008—Sen. John McCain says he opposes the $307 billion farm bill because it would dole out wasteful subsidies, but his chief economic adviser Phil Gramm also wants to stop its proposed regulation of energy futures trading, a market that was famously abused when Enron Corp. manipulated California’s electricity prices in 2001.

Clearing the way for that California price gouging, Gramm, as a powerful Texas senator in 2000, slipped an Enron-backed provision into the Commodities Futures Modernization Act that exempted from regulation energy trading on electronic platforms.

Then, over the next year, Enron – with Gramm’s wife Wendy serving on its board of directors – worked to create false electricity shortages in California, bilking consumers out of an estimated $40 billion.

Gramm left the Senate in 2002 but now has emerged as what Fortune magazine calls “McCain’s econ brain,” not only filling the Arizona senator’s acknowledged void on economic expertise (“I don’t know as much about the economy as I should”) but recognized as one of McCain’s closest friends in politics. The two men talk daily.

A McCain aide told me that the Arizona senator opposes the farm bill because it “rewards lobbyists” by granting rich farmers lucrative subsidies, although he would support “a reasonable level of assistance and risk management to farmers when they need America's help.”

But the aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, acknowledged that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee also opposes the farm bill because Gramm advised McCain that he should resist its regulatory language on the energy futures market.

Democrats have dubbed that gap in energy futures regulation the “Enron loophole,” but it played a part, too, in the more recent attempt by the Amaranth Advisers hedge fund to corner the national gas market by shifting trades to the unregulated “dark markets” of the Intercontinental Exchange.

The “Enron loophole” also has become part of the debate over the soaring price of oil. Last week, a study sponsored by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, concluded that speculative futures markets were partly to blame for the surge in oil prices that have pushed gas at the pump toward $4 a gallon.

At a May 15 news conference, Levin said the skyrocketing price of oil is “not the result of supply and demand. Speculators have taken over most of the futures market."

However, the 673-page farm bill, containing the regulatory provisions on electronic energy trading, still faces obstacles amid overall concerns about the bill’s largesse to farmers at a time of rising food prices.

President George W. Bush has vowed to veto the bill, although it cleared the House and Senate by margins wide enough for an override, assuming Republicans don’t rally behind Bush and McCain, their current and future standard bearers.

Gramm and Enron
The battle over the “Enron loophole” also could draw attention to McCain’s dependence on Gramm as his chief economic adviser and Gramm’s key role in passing legislation that let Enron trade commodities on electronic platforms without federal oversight.

In 2000, with the Republicans in charge of Congress and Gramm chairing the Senate Banking Committee, the exemption on electronic trading was approved without a Senate hearing.

Internal Enron documents, which were released in 2002, revealed that the Houston-based company helped write the legislation, which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in December 2000.

Freed from regulatory interference, Enron then used manipulative trading practices to game the California electricity market and drive up electricity prices across the state.

While California consumers were getting fleeced, the new Bush administration shielded Enron from early accusations of market manipulation. President Bush personally joined the fight against imposing caps on the soaring price of electricity, buying additional time for Enron although the company’s house of cards collapsed anyway in fall 2001. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Bush’s Enron Lies.”]

In 2006, the “Enron loophole” allowed Amaranth Advisers hedge fund to shift its trades from the regulated New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) to the unregulated Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) in Atlanta.

That let Amaranth corner the natural gas market, betting that futures prices would rise. The hedge fund lost about $6 billion and imploded as natural gas prices fell to a two-year low in September 2006.

Last July, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission charged that Amaranth manipulated prices paid in the physical natural gas markets. FERC has proposed $291 million in penalties and the forfeiture of “unjust profits.”

“Unregulated markets are known as ‘dark markets’ because there is very little oversight of the trades,” said Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Michigan, chairman of the subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, during a hearing on energy speculation last December.

By trading on the “dark” ICE market, traders can avoid the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s rules which are in place to prevent price distortions or supply squeezes.

Stupak said trading volumes on ICE “have skyrocketed in the past three years and are now as large or even larger in some months, than the volumes traded on the regulated futures market.”

The lack of oversight “makes it difficult for regulators to detect excessively large positions which could lead to price manipulation,” Stupak said.

Advising McCain
Gramm, who is now a vice chairman of financial services company UBS, began advising McCain in 2005 when the Arizona senator indicated he planned to run for President.

Since then, McCain has adopted much of Gramm’s anti-tax, anti-regulatory agenda. Most strikingly, McCain shifted to support Bush’s tax cuts, which McCain had voted against in 2001 and 2003. He now vows that, if elected President, he would make them permanent.

Yet Gramm’s influence over McCain’s economic agenda – and the checkered political-business history of Gramm and his wife Wendy – have largely escaped media scrutiny.

Gramm received more than $34,000 in campaign contributions from Enron and served as one of the company’s key legislative allies in Washington, including his help in 2000 removing federal oversight from energy trades on electronic platforms.

At the height of the Enron scandal in January 2002, Gramm’s press secretary Larry Neal told The New York Times that Gramm did not “recall a conversation” he apparently had with Enron’s chairman Ken Lay in 2000 to discuss that Enron legislative priority.

An internal Enron e-mail dated Aug. 10, 2000, under the subject “CFTC Reauthorization” – sent by Enron’s top lobbyist Richard Shapiro to Steve Kean, Enron’s executive vice president – said the company needed to get Lay on the phone with Gramm so the bill could be passed.

“The bill is not moving quickly in the Senate due to Senator Phil Gramm's desire to see significant changes made to the legislation (not directly related to our energy language),” Shapiro said.

“Last week at the [2000] Republican Convention, I asked the Senator about the bill and he said they were working on it, but much needs to be changed for his support. More telling perhaps, were Wendy Gramm's comments that she would rather the current bill die if a better bill can be passed next year.

“What this means is that we must, at the least, remove Senator Gramm's opposition to the bill to move the process and more importantly seek to gain his support of the legislation.”

Shapiro added: “However, with less than 20 or so legislative days left, we need Senator Gramm to engage.

“A call from Ken Lay in the next two weeks to Senator Gramm could be an impetus for Gramm to move his staff to resolve the differences. Gramm needs to fully understand how helpful the bill is to Enron.

“Let me know your thoughts on this approach. I am prepared to assist in coordinating the call and drafting the talking points for a Ken Lay/Sen. Gramm call.”

Several other internal Enron e-mails briefed company staffers on the status of Gramm’s position and Enron’s lobbying of the senator. Gramm finally removed a “hold” on the bill in December 2000, reintroduced the bill under a different number, and forced a vote on it without floor debate.

It was then attached to an appropriations bill that was signed by President Clinton on Dec. 21, 2000.

California Crisis
Less than a month later, California began to experience rolling blackouts due to artificial electricity shortages which, according to documents later released by federal energy regulators, were the result of manipulative trading practices employed by Enron.

The California crisis centered on Enron’s energy trades through a new platform called EnronOnline, which had been freed from regulatory oversight by the legislation pushed by Gramm.

In April 2002, Gramm blocked an amendment by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, that would have closed the loophole that Gramm had helped open.

Gramm’s wife, Wendy, also had played a role in the anti-regulatory policies that contributed to the Enron scandal.

On Jan. 14, 1993, in the final days of the first Bush administration, Wendy Gramm – as chairwoman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission – pushed through a key regulatory exemption removing energy derivatives contracts and interest-rate swaps from federal oversight.

That was a major financial boon to Enron, where Wendy Gramm landed five weeks later as a member of the board of directors. She also became a member of the audit committee that signed off on another one of Enron’s fraudulent schemes, partnerships that hid the company’s growing debt.

Even after Enron had collapsed in fall 2001, Sen. Gramm continued to resist congressional efforts at tightening up the rules.

In 2002, despite the accounting scandals at Enron, WorldCom and other major companies, Sen. Gramm objected to the Sarbanes-Oxley corporate reform bill designed to hold executives accountable for inaccuracies in financial reports.

Now, the Gramm family’s anti-regulatory agenda is returning via McCain’s presidential campaign.

As Fortune’s editor-at-large Shawn Tully wrote, “economic conservatives should take heart. McCain’s chief economic adviser – and perhaps his closest political friend – is the ultimate pure play in free market faith, former Texas Sen. Phil Gramm. ... Most of [McCain’s] current positions are vintage Gramm indeed.” [Fortune, Feb. 19. 2008]

The first test of McCain’s commitment to Gramm’s anti-regulatory purity may come in the looming battle over the “Enron loophole” that the farm bill seeks to close.



Hope that helps Issac. The truth is all that matters after all.

[wvpeach]

I agree Bill Clinton / George Bush they are cut from the same cloth and both were bad for America during their presidency.

But the truth does matter and there are a few good , honest, hard working Democrats in Washington. Too few is the problem. There are a few decent Republicans as well, way too few of those as well.

Truth and history does count. And the truth is under Bush's first 6 years as president the Republicans controlled everything. To the point of not even bothering to let the Democrats in on their secret meetings where they set policy.

So saying that the Dems just gave Bush anything he wanted is not true in the least. It is true to say the Republican controlled Senate and House under Bush just took what they wanted and passed laws without consulting anybody , now that is true.


When that marvelous bill was passed, I think in '05, where were the Democrats? Why didn't they filibuster the provision of the bill that gave speculators immunity from doing this to us? Why didn't they stop the bill until it was removed? Why did most of them vote for the bill? The Republicans have proved that the Senate can be stopped any time someone wants. The Democrats are about the most useless excuse for a second party that it is possible to be.

The Democrats spent 6 years giving Bush every thing he asked for. Including Justice Roberts. They are every bit as much to blame for our current distress as the Republicans are.

[issac the dragon]

My apologies. A senior moment, it doesn't seem that long ago. Possibly because we in the NW are still paying for it.

I do remember the Republican dirty tricks, the meeting called at 2AM with no notice, the refusal to inform the Democrats of what was in a bill, and only giving a copy of the bill to them when it was being voted on.

I also remember that the Democrats voted for most of the shit Bush wanted, and still are. Did they stand up in congress and fight against another rule to allow warrantless wiretapping? Even though there were 10's of thousands of Emails sent to them by their constituents and they were so proud of what they had just done that immediately following the vote, the two Democratic sponsors had their names removed as sponsors? I guess in the hope that they could hide their shame.

[wvpeach]

I agree Issac but its our fault . This two party system in the US has been obviously failing since I became a adult. Yet we put up with it and don't get out and vote in other parties .

[matrixx8]

MCCain is at it , and will continue I imagine. He is pushing off shore drilling even though it won't do a thing in the near term to help our gas prices.

Get ready for a avalanche of lies from that man. ''
Come on, Peach, show a little respect. I'm an Obama supporter but I certainly think McCain is man of integrity. Republicans should be pleased that they have a candidate who, if elected, would most probably not mislead the American people into another disastrous war.

The problem with McCain is not the man, but the man's ideas. He is living in the past. But he's still a nice guy.

Give him a break. He's the most liberal-thinking Republican since Lincoln!

[Wabash]

I haven't read any of the foregoing....I do know via the title of this thread that the real liars are the Obie camp...nothing further need be said!

[Yellowdogtexan]

I haven't read any of the foregoing....I do know via the title of this thread that the real liars are the Obie camp...nothing further need be said!Wabby does not want reality and the truth to enter his fantasy world. The real world is a nice place wabby. You should try visiting it.

[Wabash]

BTW....while McCain was serving his country during his 20s, ...Obie was sitting around smoking dope and trying to find himself during his 20s!

How about patriotism> what has Obie demonstrated as a patriot? He has belittled the military, gun owners, religious folks and capitalism. He has condemned what this country stands for! He has redefined it and it is whatever he believes it to be!

[Trueblue]

McCain was sowing his wild oats at that age, too. And Obama was working as a community organizer at a young age. As for the rest of your sentence: :bs

[matrixx8]

BTW....while McCain was serving his country during his 20s, ...Obie was sitting around smoking dope and trying to find himself during his 20s!

How about patriotism> what has Obie demonstrated as a patriot? He has belittled the military, gun owners, religious folks and capitalism. He has condemned what this country stands for! He has redefined it and it is whatever he believes it to be!
Wow! You must have an inside line that no one else knows about.

I will agree with you about McCain. As far as Obama and his "dope-smoking" youth, I wonder how you reached this conclusion. Would you compare him to George W. Bush and his struggle with alcohol?

How do you define patriotism? Does it mean "my country, right or wrong"? How has Obama "condemned the [USA] for what it stands? On what do you base this statement?

According to you, he has "belittled the military,gun owners, religious folks and Capitalism? Please provide some Obama quotes (and context) to back up these statements.

I could be wrong, Wabash, but it looks to me as though you are sucking opinions out of the air, without the slightest idea of what you are talking about.

Remember what Dirty Harry said: Opinions are like a**holes. Everybody's got one. :)