The Case Against John McCain

teenyboone, As a minority myself, and having lived through discrimination during my youth and young adulthood, I'll speak out against racial bigots and discrimination against any group they have a mind to create.

It galls me to see the republicans always mention Clinton's sexual indisgression, but fail to point their finger at all those in their own party who are guilty of much worse sexual crimes. At least Clinton's was consensual by two adults.

When they use their pea brains to throw spit balls, all we have to do is throw it back to them with their own kind. Even then, I know it won't sink into their pea brains. They don't know what "fear" is.

One of the most appealing things about Edwards was always his marriage to Elizabeth. The news is a low, low blow to a great woman who has been an incredible support to him, a terrific advocate for health care and families, and a role model and inspiration for cancer survivors. She also has a fan base of her own more devoted than Hillary supporters at peak umbrage.

You have to wonder if there is a gene for philandering closely linked to the political ambition gene.

Although conservatives will make hay out of the scandal, Edwards doesn't come near to topping Newt Gingrich, who served his wife divorce papers in her hospital bed. Nor, for that matter, does McCain have the high ground after his treatment of his first wife, and his serial verbal abuse and sexist mockery of his current spouse.

http://www.progressive.org/mag/rc080808.html

teenyboone, As a minority myself, and having lived through discrimination during my youth and young adulthood, I'll speak out against racial bigots and discrimination against any group they have a mind to create.

It galls me to see the republicans always mention Clinton's sexual indisgression, but fail to point their finger at all those in their own party who are guilty of much worse sexual crimes. At least Clinton's was consensual by two adults.

Here's Johnny ......

klik

Most Americans don't understand the word "conservation" when it comes to fueling their cars. It's the cost that bothers most consumers; not the limited supply.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Most Americans don't understand the word "conservation" when it comes to fueling their cars. It's the cost that bothers most consumers; not the limited supply.

Well the cost is a valid concern to reasonable people. As for the limited supply bit, the limitations apply only to current cheap easily extracted supplies of high quality fuel. There are ample additional sources in the Arctic seas, the South Atlantic, and possibly off shore in the United States. In addition there are huge reserves of petroleum in other forms such as the tar sands of Alberta. They won't last forever, and increasing demand resulting from increased prosperity in Asia, has raised the price. However, in terms of the general interest of humanity this is a good thing, not a bad one.

There are other energy sources and technologies available. If we are wise enough to allow normal competition and innovation to have their effect we will be able to count on continuing ample sources of relatively cheap emnergy. If we are foolish enough to imagine our governments are capable of the creativity, adaptability, flexibility and attention to the wants and needs of the consumers all needed to do this job then we are in for trouble.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Most Americans don't understand the word "conservation" when it comes to fueling their cars. It's the cost that bothers most consumers; not the limited supply.

Well the cost is a valid concern to reasonable people. As for the limited supply bit, the limitations apply only to current cheap easily extracted supplies of high quality fuel. There are ample additional sources in the Arctic seas, the South Atlantic, and possibly off shore in the United States. In addition there are huge reserves of petroleum in other forms such as the tar sands of Alberta. They won't last forever, and increasing demand resulting from increased prosperity in Asia, has raised the price. However, in terms of the general interest of humanity this is a good thing, not a bad one.

There are other energy sources and technologies available. If we are wise enough to allow normal competition and innovation to have their effect we will be able to count on continuing ample sources of relatively cheap emnergy. If we are foolish enough to imagine our governments are capable of the creativity, adaptability, flexibility and attention to the wants and needs of the consumers all needed to do this job then we are in for trouble.

georgeob1 wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

Most Americans don't understand the word "conservation" when it comes to fueling their cars. It's the cost that bothers most consumers; not the limited supply.

Well the cost is a valid concern to reasonable people. As for the limited supply bit, the limitations apply only to current cheap easily extracted supplies of high quality fuel. There are ample additional sources in the Arctic seas, the South Atlantic, and possibly off shore in the United States. In addition there are huge reserves of petroleum in other forms such as the tar sands of Alberta. They won't last forever, and increasing demand resulting from increased prosperity in Asia, has raised the price. However, in terms of the general interest of humanity this is a good thing, not a bad one.

There are other energy sources and technologies available. If we are wise enough to allow normal competition and innovation to have their effect we will be able to count on continuing ample sources of relatively cheap emnergy. If we are foolish enough to imagine our governments are capable of the creativity, adaptability, flexibility and attention to the wants and needs of the consumers all needed to do this job then we are in for trouble.

This is a typical response from a rightist. Drill, drill, and drill! We have to get away from dissolving the earth's carbon deposits into the atmosphere. We should be slowing global warming, which probably cannot be stopped.