@okie,
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Better than every single person the Republican party put forward. He beat your best, and not by a little bit. So if you think he is incompetent, what does that say about your group of losers?
Cycloptichorn
It may mean that voters chose the wrong guy. Our guy was not the messiah, only a flawed politician, but he at least had some realistic goals. He would not have proposed the nonsensical spending, that even Obama says is unsustainable now, and we might have some realistic policies in regard to energy (get going on nuclear for example), and all the other issues.
Just because somebody gets elected means nothing about their competence. It means hype and hyperbole won over sanity.
Right, right. Yaknow, the word for your opinion is 'sour grapes.' In politics, if you can't get people to buy into your plans, even if they are good ones, you are a shitty politician. McCain is a shitty politician. He got elected using a bunch of money from his wife's family and has coasted ever since then on his military record as a POW. If his plans were so much better, and his judgment better, why couldn't he transmit that to the American populace?
As for your individual points,
McCain would not have let Wall street and the auto companies fail without bailing them out, and you're a damn fool if you really believe he would have.
Nuclear is a viable way to go, but even you understand that it would take 5-10 years to construct just a few nuke plants, let alone a lot of them. It isn't a silver bullet which will magically solve our problems.
Cycloptichorn