The Real McCain

[tpunx99GSX]

Ok you republicans that are supporting McCain cannot defend this video. But watch and try.
The Real McCain
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI
Part Duex
http://youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c&feature=related

Youtube owns mccain.

[Matt D.]

Obama is a straight shooter.

I'm writing in Ventura and Hulk Hogan.

[tpunx99GSX]

Originally Posted by Matt D.

Obama is a straight shooter.

I'm writing in Ventura and Hulk Hogan.

In america we have always chosen the lesser of two evils. And Obama is one million times better then McCain any day. Obamas views on Energy is a huge deal for me. While McCain falls very short wanting to build 20 new nuclear plants in the US and storing the waste in Mt Yucca.

[xveganxcowboyx]

I love the internet age. Everything is recorded, photographed and video taped. People don't pay much attention. but it's all there in the record if you actually want to dig it out. This is exactly the kind of thing we need to keep politicians from pandering to whatever group is in front of them at the time.

The sad thing is, I think McCain is probably a more honest politician than most of them and he's still a lying piece of shit.

Add 1 to the write in list.

[Matt D.]

Tom, check out this thread, you'll be in heaven: http://mnsportcompacts.net/forum/showthread.php?t=70747

Ventura/Hogan '08

[tpunx99GSX]

Originally Posted by Matt D.

Tom, check out this thread, you'll be in heaven: http://mnsportcompacts.net/forum/showthread.php?t=70747

Ventura/Hogan '08

OP got that from Moveon.org. If you look at the references they are all correct.

[Kracka]

Hey Tom, you don't vote.

[tpunx99GSX]

Originally Posted by Kracka

Hey Tom, you don't vote.

i will this year.
Yes there are more issues then gay marriage, Like i said before Energy, oil, war, etc. And all of the views McCain has are completly fucked.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPlaHQCKc34
vs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtYAPkOKEP4&feature=user
I choose Obama.

You can say what you want about candidates saying whatever it takes to win the election. But i would rather have the hope of Obama coming through with his promises then have McCain put this country through another 4 years of Hell and economic failure. He openly admits he doesnt know shit about economics, he wants to continue the war etc. Sure you may think hes telling the truth, but if thats what hes standing up for im DEFINATLY not voting for his ass.

[A//// Guy]

Every politician will say what the people want to hear with certain issues. Who cares what he thinks about gay marriage.... There are more important issues at hand.

Oh and on the war, everyone thought it would be an easy war. Id say the war is over, its the rebuilding part that is the headache.

[Matt D.]

Originally Posted by Kracka

Hey Tom, you don't vote.

Originally Posted by M/// Guy

Who cares what he thinks about gay marriage.... There are more important issues at hand.

Like man/boy love.

[tpunx99GSX]

Matt, Peter and Chris, im still waiting for you to tell all of us why you think McCain would be a better president? And im sure MNSportCompacts is waiting as well. You always have little comments on how we would be worse off with a democrat as president, but when it comes to hard facts, you havent posted anything that would make us think that you have any idea what you are talking about. (I really didnt mean for that to sound so mean, but please post facts)
So i leave the floor open to express your views and explain your stance on why John McCain would make a great president.

[Kracka]

We have discussed politics too many times on this board already. I have my views, you have yours

I'm not a huge fan of either of the main candidates, but I have too many concerns regarding Obama to consider voting for him. I personally feel there is too much drama surrounding him and he will be influenced by his pastor and wife far too much to become an effective leader.

If you base your opinions off of a few YouTube videos you are a fool. There are videos out there making every candidate look both great and also look awful. It is far too easy to take things out of context. I'd personally much rather hear about why someone will be a good president, not why the other one will be a poor one (I hate negative campaign ads).

[Matt D.]

I'm a middle of the road voter, getting me to vote one way or the other is like pulling teeth. I have never said McCain is better or Obama is better, but when clowns like you are doing nothing but finding dirt on McCain you do nothing to say why Obama is better, nor do you even try to find where Obama lacks to say, "Yeah, he's not perfect, but this is why he's better."

Remember that I wanted to vote for Ron Paul. Why? He's more moderate than both McCain and Obama.

[A//// Guy]

I agree with both the above posts. I cant stand when people, usually hard core democrats/liberals, sit and find dirt on the other candidate but dont say anything really swaying my view toward their candidate. Thats what bugs me. I have yet to see a post on a forum slamming obama, for some reason his supporters just like to point fingers at the other guy.

So far McCain has my attention, but really neither are that great.

[Halon]

I don't vote for a specific party, I vote for who I feel is the best candidate.
Right now I'm in the middle, maybe leaning a little towards McCain right now, but I have things I like about both of them I've always liked McCain ever since I lived in AZ. I like his overall view on everything for the most part. I also think Obama has a good head on his shoulders and I agree with many of the things he has to say. I think these are 2 pretty good candidates. Everyone will have flaws, there will always be something you won't agree with, there will be dirt on everyone. Like was mentioned earlier, I don't enjoy negative campaigning. There are times when it can be good to bring certain things up, like a face to face debate, but not constantly on commercial adds and what-not like is often done. I like it when they tell me why I should vote for them, not why I shouldn't vote for the other.

I am pro nuclear, so if anything, that argument would pull me more towards McCain.

[Matt D.]

Originally Posted by Halon

I am pro nuclear, so if anything, that argument would pull me more towards McCain.

I'm with you, even though your job involves nuclear power.

[Halon]

Pro job-security

[asshanson]

Yea if we had modern nuclear plants here you may be able to stay in the country more often too.

Go nuclear, great source of energy in my opinion.

[tpunx99GSX]

I am not a Pure Democrat. I have always believed that you should vote for the candidate that is best for the job. But when i look at McCain i see way too much bush in him to trust him. He has showed that he is not a great public speaker, and when a president cannot speak in publc he cannot communicate his decisions, and that scares me. His views on nuclear power really scare me as if they stored all of that nuclear waste in the yucca mountain and a terrorist were to target that, the whole US would be fucked. Nuclear power is very dirty and creates waste that can cause great harm to human beings. I watched two videos on Chernobyl and almost cried because i thought about what i would feel if it were my son that came out with deformaties, (see. Chernobyl 20 years ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUzu1eegKWM&feature=user
and Chernobyl 20 years later: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHh3QaWKbSg) With McCains views on Nuclear power its hitting a little close to home.
Now on Obama, The reasons i like him is that he has promised 15 billion over 10 years for research on alternate fuels. He will be imposing a tax on oil companies for each acre of land that they do not use for drilling for oil, they currently have over 15 million acres of land that is not being used, and those taxes will go to alternate fuel research.

I saw this ad with a picture of Obama and the leader of Iran with the question "Is it ok to meet with anti American foreign leaders?" At the bottom of this ad it said "paid for by John McCain".
In short the answer to this is Yes. But the ad is implying that the user/voter would push no. So what kind of message is McCain trying to send us. Instead of meeting with anti American leaders and try and deal with the problems they have with us we should just ignore them and send them a message with bombs falling from the sky?

[Matt D.]

Originally Posted by tpunx99GSX

His views on nuclear power really scare me as if they stored all of that nuclear waste in the yucca mountain and a terrorist were to target that, the whole US would be fucked. Nuclear power is very dirty and creates waste that can cause great harm to human beings. I watched two videos on Chernobyl and almost cried because i thought about what i would feel if it were my son that came out with deformaties, (see. Chernobyl 20 years ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUzu1eegKWM&feature=user
and Chernobyl 20 years later: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHh3QaWKbSg) With McCains views on Nuclear power its hitting a little close to home.

Do you know anything about nuclear power? It's time for some education. Chernobyl was a nuclear accident brought on by human negligence and error. It caused a steam explosion (what blew the reactor dome apart) and a complete meltdown of the reactor, the only one ever in the history of nuclear power. There has not been any other accident even remotely close to the severity of Chernobyl.

A mishandled reactor safety test led to an uncontrolled power excursion, causing a severe steam explosion, meltdown and release of radioactive material at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant located approximately 100 kilometers north-northwest of Kiev. Approximately fifty fatalities resulted from the accident and the immediate aftermath most of these being cleanup personnel. An additional nine fatal cases of thyroid cancer in children in the Chernobyl area have been attributed to the accident. The explosion and combustion of the graphite reactor core spread radioactive material over much of Europe. 100,000 people were evacuated from the areas immediately surrounding Chernobyl in addition to 300,000 from the areas of heavy fallout in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. An "Exclusion Zone" was created surrounding the site encompassing approximately 1,000 mi² (3,000 km²) and deemed off-limits for human habitation for an indefinite period. Several studies by governments, UN agencies and environmental groups have estimated the consequences and eventual number of casualties. Their findings are subject to controversy.

Three Mile Island is the worst accident to happen in the US, and in reality it is not bad.

Equipment failures and worker mistakes contributed to a loss of coolant and a partial core meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor. This is the worst commercial nuclear accident in the United States. While the reactor was extensively damaged on-site radiation exposure was under 100 millirems (less than annual exposure due to natural sources), with exposure of 1 millirem (10 µSv) to approximately 2 million people. There were no fatalities. Follow up radiological studies predict at most one long-term cancer fatality.

Do you really think a Cherobyl-like accident will happen in the US or anywhere ever again? That was over 20 years ago, and to think how much technology has advanced since then really should bring a piece of mind as to how much better and safer nuclear energy is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...lear_accidents

Now, about terrorists getting ahold of spent nuclear fuel. Two things they could do: Build a dirty bomb (a conventional bomb that spreads radioactive material when it detonates) or build a nuclear weapon (requires reprocessing spent fuel). A dirty bomb... Possible, yes, but doubtful. Given the safeguards put in place around the world on nuclear energy it is extremely unlikely that enough radioactive material will ever get in the wrong hands. Massive amounts of spent plutonium fuel would need to be reprocessed into a usable state for a nuclear weapon.

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

It is thought that during the 1960s the UK Ministry of Defence evaluated dirty bombs, deciding that a far better effect was achievable by simply using more high explosive in place of the radioactive material.

An interesting tidbit... In 2002, the United States Department of Energy took possession of 34 metric tons of excess weapons-grade plutonium stockpiles from the United States Department of Defense, and as of early 2003 was considering converting several nuclear power plants in the US from enriched uranium fuel to MOX fuel (mixed oxide, a mixture of radioactive materials) as a means of disposing of plutonium stocks. How that would be a bad way of reducing nuclear weapon proliferation is beyond me.

A good read about nuclear energy safety: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.html

So, Tom, is the sky falling?