If only John McCain had won the GOP in 2000, the world would be a much better place.

[jAZ]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060122/ap_on_go_co/us_mccain_oil

McCain: U.S. Can't Be Held Hostage for Oil

WASHINGTON - A top Republican lawmaker said Sunday that America must explore alternate energy sources to avoid being held hostage by Iran or by "wackos" in Venezuela an apparent reference to Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's populist president.

Sen. John McCain, a potential presidential contender in 2008, said recent action by "Mr. Chavez" and by Iran's leaders make it clear that the United States will be vulnerable as long as it remains dependent on foreign energy.

"We've got to get quickly on a track to energy independence from foreign oil, and that means, among other things, going back to nuclear power," McCain said on Fox News Sunday.

"We better understand the vulnerabilities that our economy, and our very lives, have when we're dependent on Iranian mullahs and wackos in Venezuela," said McCain, who challenged President George W. Bush for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000.

Iran is OPEC's second-largest producer. Venezuela is the world's fifth-largest oil exporter, with the largest proven oil reserves outside of the Mideast.

Chavez, a frequent U.S. critic, accuses foreign oil companies of having looted Venezuela. He has promised that his socialist "revolution" is freeing the country from "imperialist" interests and restoring its sovereignty.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Mccain is a bloviating titty twister, but going nuclear rocks! Drilling in ANWR TOO!

 

[manu1959]

so if mccain had been elected:

9/11 would not have happend

dafur would not have happened

Nk would not have nukes

iran would be well iran

sadam would still be in charge

school children in russia would still be alive

tsunami's would not have happend

katrina and rita would have not happened

yes ..... one man changes everything

the title of this thread is so dumb it makes my head hurt

 

[jAZ]

so if mccain had been elected:

9/11 would not have happend

dafur would not have happened

Nk would not have nukes

iran would be well iran

sadam would still be in charge

school children in russia would still be alive

tsunami's would not have happend

katrina and rita would have not happened

yes ..... one man changes everything

the title of this thread is so dumb it makes my head hurt

What's the point of making up a bunch of things that I didn't say so that you can pretend to ridicule a post that I did make.

Just stick to what's in front of you. If you want to know more of my thoughts, ask. I'll tell you.

 

[manu1959]

What's the point of making up a bunch of things that I didn't say so that you can pretend to ridicule a post that I did make.

Just stick to what's in front of you. If you want to know more of my thoughts, ask. I'll tell you.

did i say you said those things? no

did i direct my post at you? no

am i not allowed to make observations or express my self unless you give me permission?

i have no interst in what your thoughts are but thank you for the offer to share.

 

[jAZ]

did i say you said those things? no

did i direct my post at you? no

am i not allowed to make observations or express my self unless you give me permission?

i have no interst in what your thoughts are but thank you for the offer to share.

Yes you did...

"the title of this thread is so dumb it makes my head hurt"

 

[manu1959]

Yes you did...

"the title of this thread is so dumb it makes my head hurt"

a moment ago you said i made things up and was not sticking to what was in front of me....are you now saying i didn't make things up and i was responding to what was in front of me...

is it beyond you .... that it is more than likely that all of the things i listed would have happened no matter who was president .... to imply in the title of your thread that electing mccain would change the world is naive ... his impact would minimal as the US is not driving world issues

 

[jAZ]

a moment ago you said i made things up and was not sticking to what was in front of me....are you now saying i didn't make things up and i was responding to what was in front of me...

is it beyond you .... that it is more than likely that all of the things i listed would have happened no matter who was president .... to imply in the title of your thread that electing mccain would change the world is naive ... his impact would minimal as the US is not driving world issues

Uh... both?

While I appreciate that you are now admitting that your comments were in fact directed at me (contrary to your prior attempts to suggest otherwise), and that's very big of you given that you've been cornered and it's too obvious to try denying any further, it doesn't let you off the hook.

You responded to my post with a list of things that you made up and rhetorically suggested that my comment was dumb because those things would still have happened (as if I assumed none of those things would not have happened under McCain).

You dishonestly and conveniently ignored a whole host of other things that might not be the case today, the primary of which is emphasized in this very article - that being a national focus on ditching oil in favor of alternative energy sources.

You chose to ignore the exceedingly obvious point of the comments and the thread in favor of a bunch of straw man arguments that were never made by me at any point. All with the hope of obfuscating and hijacking the discussion in a direction that would leave you a greater chance of scoring a few political points, and at the expense of an honest discussion of the issues.

 

[manu1959]

Uh... both?

While I appreciate that you are now admitting that your comments were in fact directed at me (contrary to your prior attempts to suggest otherwise), and that's very big of you given that you've been cornered and it's too obvious to try denying any further, it doesn't let you off the hook.

You responded to my post with a list of things that you made up and rhetorically suggested that my comment was dumb because those things would still have happened (as if I assumed none of those things would not have happened under McCain).

You dishonestly and conveniently ignored a whole host of other things that might not be the case today, the primary of which is emphasized in this very article - that being a national focus on ditching oil in favor of alternative energy sources.

You chose to ignore the exceedingly obvious point of the comments and the thread in favor of a bunch of straw man arguments that were never made by me at any point. All with the hope of obfuscating and hijacking the discussion in a direction that would leave you a greater chance of scoring a few political points, and at the expense of an honest discussion of the issues.

is this suposed to convince me to agree with you?

you post a thread title that implies mcain would alter the world....given your politics the implicating being for the better, do you honestly belive the world would be different? which factual events that have occured since 2000, that i listed, which you state are straw men, would not have occured if mccain had been elected?

the content of the article is about forigen oil dependance. tell me how would mccain have reduced US dependance on forieign oil?

i state my opinion on the luancy of your thread title.....and all you can do is provide sweeping dismissals ....

yes you have corned and exposed me....i am crushed....

 

[jAZ]

is this suposed to convince me to agree with you?

you post a thread title that implies mcain would alter the world....given your politics the implicating being for the better, do you honestly belive the world would be different? which factual events that have occured since 2000, that i listed, which you state are straw men, would not have occured if mccain had been elected?

the content of the article is about forigen oil dependance. tell me how would mccain have reduced US dependance on forieign oil?

i state my opinion on the luancy of your thread title.....and all you can do is provide sweeping dismissals ....

yes you have corned and exposed me....i am crushed....

Your failure is to assume that the only things that could possibly change the world were the things you listed.

As I've pointed out already, the thread starter is about alternative energy. Even though it's the subject of the thread and of McCain's comments, it somehow didn't make it onto your list though it was the only issue I explicitly raised.

 

[jAZ]

As for the question of what would alt-energy mean and what would I expect McCain do differently in 2001?

I imagine that given McCain's pragmatism and willingness to go against the partyline and lobbiest line, he would be a much stronger change agent for revolutionizing our energy technolgies.

The single greatest of Bush's many failures as President is that he failed to realize the opportunity that was presented to him on 9/11. He took the shortsighted view that toppling Saddam Hussein would be good for our country in very large part because it would lead to a domino effect in the ME freeing us up to more reliable access to ME oil. Sometimes this discussion is trivialized down to "war for oil", but I recogonize it's more complex than that.

However, this strategy still remains a dangerously shortsighted plan. And Bush's deep background in oil, and deep reaching influence he allows by other oil types prevents him from making the truely lasting choice to launch an International Apollo Project to abolish our nation's (and the world's) dependence on non-renewable, dirty energy sources.

It's the kind of project that could potenitally have been completed within a short time (5 years?) of leaving office in 2009 if Bush had been up to the task in 2001. He wasn't. McCain clearly would have been more up to the task.

That's but one change (the one raised in this thread) that could drastically change for the better the world as we know it today.

 

[William Joyce]

I fail to understand McCain worship. His proposal here is OK, but on the whole I don't think he's the sharpest knife in the drawer. The fact that so many liberals and journalists slobber over him is enough to make me suspicious.

 

[jAZ]

I fail to understand McCain worship. His proposal here is OK, but on the whole I don't think he's the sharpest knife in the drawer. The fact that so many liberals and journalists slobber over him is enough to make me suspicious.

McCain exposes how radically the heart of the Republican party has moved to the right. McCain is nearly identical in practice and princple to Barry Goldwater. In 1964, Goldwater was a radically conservative Republican. In 2006, McCain is a radically liberal Republican.

Oh how times have changed.

And you wonder why Republicans view the media as radiacally liberal. They view the conservative princliples of 1964 as radically liberal.

That's disturbing.

 

[William Joyce]

I'll hear more of the Goldwater/McCain comparison, but for now, I'm not seeing it.

As for the GOP moving "to the right," this could not be more wrong. The GOP --- and the right as a whole --- have moved solidly to the LEFT as time has gone on. Any Sam Francis reader could tell you this. On pretty much every major issue, and especially the important social ones, right-wingers have sought to appease the liberals in near-embarrassing ways.

In 1964, even Democrats would have opposed mass Third World immigration. Today, the right sings its praises, and America rots away while they fiddle.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

McCain exposes how radically the heart of the Republican party has moved to the right. McCain is nearly identical in practice and princple to Barry Goldwater. In 1964, Goldwater was a radically conservative Republican. In 2006, McCain is a radically liberal Republican.

Oh how times have changed.

And you wonder why Republicans view the media as radiacally liberal. They view the conservative princliples of 1964 as radically liberal.

That's disturbing.

McCain is a "Goldwater conservative"? Excuse me while I

Just because he replaced Goldwater's Senate seat does not mean he is a copy of Goldwater. Dream on. Reagan was more like Goldwater than McCain. McCain certainly does not resemble Reagan.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/1/24/92359.shtml
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17757

 

[jAZ]

I'll hear more of the Goldwater/McCain comparison, but for now, I'm not seeing it.

As for the GOP moving "to the right," this could not be more wrong. The GOP --- and the right as a whole --- have moved solidly to the LEFT as time has gone on. Any Sam Francis reader could tell you this. On pretty much every major issue, and especially the important social ones, right-wingers have sought to appease the liberals in near-embarrassing ways.

In 1964, even Democrats would have opposed mass Third World immigration. Today, the right sings its praises, and America rots away while they fiddle.

You seem to base you overall thesis on this lone example (though you might have other unstated examples).

But this one example you have advanced is inaccurately described as a liberal policy. It's a pro-free market, anti-labor union polic driven almost exclusively by those with strong ties to major business interests (clearly not liberals).

This is an area where I happen to disagree with the pro-labor liberal contingent of the DNC. This immigration is necessary to help in the long run. There is a population bubble about to burst and our levels of unemployment will crash to dangerously LOW levels.

And while I agree with Bush on this issue (one of the few things), this is by no means even remotely a liberal take on this issue. It's as anti-labor as you can possible get.

 

[jAZ]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/1/24/92359.shtml
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17757

Those are two of the worst examples of arugments that McCain isn't a conservative (or a Goldwater conservative) I've ever read.

The NewsMax one says two things:
* First, McCain/Feingold is an anti-individual (and pro-big gov't), when in reality the purpose is to empower individuals to have greater influence on the election process.
* Second, McCain whatever McCain's personal motivations might have been on this Vietnam Vet issue (I know nothing about it), clearly reducing the size of the Parks Service is not EXPANDING government. It's reducing it. The issue has nothing to do with conservatism at all.

The WorldNetDaily article says one thing:
* Reagan was elected by Christian Conservatives, McCain doesn't have their support. Well duh, that has nothing to do with Goldwater Conservativism. Goldwater wasn't a Religous Conservative. Religous Conservatives aren't typically upholding traditional conservative values. They adopt liberal policies that support thier cause, and adopt conservative ones that support thier cause. Religious Conservatives are all about state regulation as long as the regulation agrees with their beliefs. Hell, it doesn't even mention Goldwater. Shocking huh?

You'd think there are more substantial issues that define conservatism that he'd be violating other than Religous Conservatism (Not At ALL a Goldwater issue) and attempting to reduce the influence of corporate lobbying and returning influence back to the individual.

Like I said before, people's definition of what it means to be a "conservative" has changed radically. Liberals and the media have actually moved to the right by a TON. However, the Republican party has moved 2x the speed to the right. They are also (smartly) framing their move to the right as a move by everyone else to the left. That's got the media on their heels and it has the public blaming people like Hillary Clinton for being a radical liberal when she and her husband were 2 of the most conservative Dems ever to hold influence in the WH.

 

[jAZ]

I'd suggest people read up on Barry Goldwater.

There is a little revisionist history going around it seems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater

 

[manu1959]

Your failure is to assume that the only things that could possibly change the world were the things you listed.

As I've pointed out already, the thread starter is about alternative energy. Even though it's the subject of the thread and of McCain's comments, it somehow didn't make it onto your list though it was the only issue I explicitly raised.

your failure is comprehension...you said if mccain had been elected the world would be a different place....i presented several events that happened since 2000 that he being president would have not changed ..... thus the world would be as it is now with respect to those things ..... mccain would have never gotten any alternate energy bills thorough the legislature as president he can't even do it as one of the gang of twelve and he can write bills now as a president he can't ...

mccain = barry golwater......more like LBJ

 

[jAZ]

your failure is comprehension...you said if mccain had been elected the world would be a different place....i presented several events that happened since 2000 that he being president would have not changed ..... thus the world would be as it is now with respect to those things ..... mccain would have never gotten any alternate energy bills thorough the legislature as president he can't even do it as one of the gang of twelve and he can write bills now as a president he can't ...

mccain = barry golwater......more like LBJ

Looks like you are the one struggling with comprehension. You just described the same thing I did, and yet you felt compelled to pretend it means I misunderstand the situation.

The world can in fact be a different place even if all of those things are the same (not a given, but I'll assume true to simplify things for you).

Again, your failure is in thinking those things on your list are by themselves the only things that define how our world is today. They are not.

You then go on to finally address my point directly. I'll give you credit for that part though, it's a hollow effort. Kudos.