PDA

View Full Version : McCains Speech Last Night



Brett
09-05-2008, 06:16 AM
His speech was not bad, Not great, But we all were looking at Palins speech the night before. One thing I did really like about it was him facing the issue Paul seems to bring up everyday, about another 4 years of Bush policy. Well Paul, He came all out and basically said without saying Bush's policy sucks...lol, He said The country has gone down hill and the policy ion Washington has degraded and he plans on restoring the peoples trust in him, and in our government and bringing America back to what it once was.

Also he was very respectful of Obama which I thought was great

blackshine007
09-05-2008, 06:49 AM
I thought he was very subtle with his speech. I would definately agree there wasn't too many toes step on and he hit good points. When he was talking on stage, I didn't see him as a liberal nor did I see him as a conservative, but more of an independent. Between me and you, I think he was getting annoyed with the music, lol.

Kevykev
09-05-2008, 06:59 AM
His speech was not bad, Not great, But we all were looking at Palins speech the night before. .

Also he was very respectful of Obama which I thought was great

I think his speech was Okay, I think he reacted very well to the adversity in the crowd. Everything else was 'status quo' is the speech. "I'd rather lose and election that lose a war" - that's the Golden line I see, everyone of his colleagues has used it a bunch. :D

The democratic party has been the more respectful party this time around; i guess mainly because attacking the other party was not a main strategy for them. Mccain was respectful for like 6 seconds one time before delivering a blow then like 20seconds the next time (When talking about his supporters) LOL. -don't quote me on accuracy-

4dmin
09-05-2008, 07:48 AM
Actually I thought he had a very good speech. Republicans didn't like it very much as he went on about the past 8 years being a failure on both sides. Most like to paint a different picture like Bush has done so much; which is further from the truth. Message was good on how he would cross party lines. Overall I personally think the speech was up there with Obama's. Here are the issues though:

- 8 years of failed policy and he is asking for 4 more

- weak running mate as much as people try to say she is a great choice she is very inexperienced which is what he was going after obama for and her approval rating is very low... (i could go on but that's another discussion)

- Tax policy - grossly inaccurate; independent analyst have now said Obama's tax policy will save 95% of americans more money then Mccains tax policy. Republicans still are trying to make it sound as if democrats plan on taxing everyone.

- He talks about stirring up WaRshington(lol anyone else notice how he pronounces it?) but he himself has been part of the problem for years.

- His stance on the war and again we hear further talks of Iran/Russia... war is very opposed and isn't a good topic to run on. He has also mentioned something about saving 700 Billion $$$ yet this was totally unrelated to the war; funny how the numbers were so close. He also mentioned about doing things for a purpose what is the purpose of Iraq?

- Offshore drilling, again this isn't a solution to are problem. I posted up yesterday on how Big Oil has pushed out smaller refineries and lack of building refineries. We aren't dependent on foreign oil as we are te refineries here in the US.

- Lack of what he plans on putting into policy rather then trying to secure votes on promises... I know we all want to know we have a friend in the White House but it is kinda hard to hold him accountable if he will not talk details on the issues.

Overall I like his speech I thought it was good.

Total_Blender
09-05-2008, 07:49 AM
Its crazy that the background behind him is always either green or blue. I see a lot of people using this as a green screen challenge. :lmfao:

Brett
09-05-2008, 08:37 AM
- Offshore drilling, again this isn't a solution to are problem. I posted up yesterday on how Big Oil has pushed out smaller refineries and lack of building refineries. We aren't dependent on foreign oil as we are te refineries here in the US.



Overall I like his speech I thought it was good.

See, I do think Off Shore drilling is a very good idea, I know it wouldnt show us oil for years BUT it would get us away from prices affected by issues in other regions of the world and feed our need until other techologies are fully perfected.

But yeah, I did like how he basically agreed that the past 8 years was a step backward but he wanted to change that.

Vteckidd
09-05-2008, 08:52 AM
- 8 years of failed policy and he is asking for 4 more


You obviously missed the speech last night, he wants nothing to do with Bushs policy or the last 8 years.


- weak running mate as much as people try to say she is a great choice she is very inexperienced which is what he was going after obama for and her approval rating is very low... (i could go on but that's another discussion)
Who knew 86% was LOW

Her job approval rating is astoundingly high with an 86% overall approval rating and 63% strongly approving of her job performance. Independents approve by a margin of 86% - 10% and there is absolutely no gender gap. 97% of Republicans approve of the job she is doing as do 75% of Democrats. She receives high job approval ratings across all regions of Alaska.


- Tax policy - grossly inaccurate; independent analyst have now said Obama's tax policy will save 95% of americans more money then Mccains tax policy. Republicans still are trying to make it sound as if democrats plan on taxing everyone.

Ehh this is where Dems and Repubs differ, so no use in going into it. Dems want to help EVERYONE out and give everyone a handout, more like socialism, Repubs want to reward the people that spend and make them ost money aka BUSINESS people.

Pros and Cons to both, but the "independent studies" are largely bull**** FYI


- He talks about stirring up WaRshington(lol anyone else notice how he pronounces it?) but he himself has been part of the problem for years.


HOW? Cause hes for the war? Hes kinda been on both sides of the aisle, you all keep saying how he voted 90% of the time with Bush, but again if you would actually READ AND LOOK at what hes voting WITH BUSH on, you would laugh. But the Media doesnt tell you that i suppose.


- His stance on the war and again we hear further talks of Iran/Russia... war is very opposed and isn't a good topic to run on. He has also mentioned something about saving 700 Billion $$$ yet this was totally unrelated to the war; funny how the numbers were so close. He also mentioned about doing things for a purpose what is the purpose of Iraq?

As i said yesterday the purpose is to establish a deomcratic state in a hostile region. We did the same with Berlin at the end of WWII. The purpose was to show the region we wont take 9/11 sitting down. The purpose was to forge an ally and remove a dictator that had defied the UN for 12 years. ENough was ENough.

All you liberals can ***** about the 700Billion and how Iraq isnt doing anything, but thats because, like i said yesterday, YOU CANNOT MAKE THE DECISION IF IT HAS BEEN WORTH IT OR NOT UNTIL MUCH LATER THAN NOW.

If Iraq becomes a powerfull ally an rebuilds its country and starts selling us oil at a discount, guess what, that 700 Billion gets paid back in a matter of 5 years.

Yes War is hell, but come on hippe kids and tree huggers, war is necessary at times.

I keep hearing go back to afghanistan, well there is no enemy there. we destroyed the taliban with 2 air strikes, and rounded up most of the other terrorists . They had no army and they had no government.

Iraq had DEFIED the world for 12 years. They had gassed and murdered their people and done ethnic cleansing. They did have some form of WMDs at one time, pitty we never found them.

Coming fresh off a terrorist attack of unimaginable proportions, Bush sought to secure our nation and our future. The EASIEST target was Iraq.

The war is being WON, despite what the media says. It will be over soon, but you cant put a timeline on a war. Think if we put a date on WWII and just said, "hey we out this ***** on June 5th".

Freedom has no end date or timeline.

As far as Iran and Russia, Iran is building NUCLEAR WEAPONS or trying too. So if they CONTINUE TO DEFY the world, you think we should just let them have at it?

WHat happens when they get a bomb and use it on someone? Will be the one that then blames us for not doing anything like you are blaming Bush for 9/11.

Cant have your cake an eat it too.



- Offshore drilling, again this isn't a solution to are problem. I posted up yesterday on how Big Oil has pushed out smaller refineries and lack of building refineries. We aren't dependent on foreign oil as we are te refineries here in the US.

Drilling is not the only solution. But its one of them.

We need to Drill, conserve, wind, solar, geothermal, etc.


- Lack of what he plans on putting into policy rather then trying to secure votes on promises... I know we all want to know we have a friend in the White House but it is kinda hard to hold him accountable if he will not talk details on the issues.

Just like Obama i suppose, not alot of substance



Overall I like his speech I thought it was good.

I thought it was boring , and that he better hope Palin keeps the steam going

Total_Blender
09-05-2008, 09:07 AM
OPEC sets the price of oil. If Iraq goes all "Maverick" on OPEC and starts selling us oil at a discount, how do you think our OPEC oil buddies in Saudi Arabia will react? Did I mention that 19 of the 20 9/11 hijackers as well as Osama Bin Laden himself were from Saudi? How many 9/11 hijackers were from Iraq?

Vteckidd
09-05-2008, 09:15 AM
WOuldnt it be nice to say "**** YOU " to OPEC. If OPEC knew we had our own oil or could get it from somewhere else what do you think it would do to the price?

About where the hijackers were from, you missed my point, reread

Total_Blender
09-05-2008, 09:38 AM
But OPEC sets the price of the oil the WE are selling too. The oil that we are selling all over the world and not using ourselves.

Was that theme song by Billy Ray Cyrus? If the Mac campaign had a hairstyle I would say it'd be the Mullet. So a BRC song totally fits lol

4dmin
09-05-2008, 09:41 AM
You obviously missed the speech last night, he wants nothing to do with Bushs policy or the last 8 years. its hard to say he wants nothing to do w/ what he has voted on... you need to look into his voting record more before discussing. he and bush aren't the best of friends but they are both still republicans and their views are similar on many issues. Bush is failure and McCain needed to state that to save face for his party. Bush's approval rating is at an all time low.



Who knew 86% was LOW

Her job approval rating is astoundingly high with an 86% overall approval rating and 63% strongly approving of her job performance. Independents approve by a margin of 86% - 10% and there is absolutely no gender gap. 97% of Republicans approve of the job she is doing as do 75% of Democrats. She receives high job approval ratings across all regions of Alaska. approval rating where in Alaska b/c many polls show many people are unsure about her running our country



Ehh this is where Dems and Repubs differ, so no use in going into it. Dems want to help EVERYONE out and give everyone a handout, more like socialism, Repubs want to reward the people that spend and make them ost money aka BUSINESS people.

Pros and Cons to both, but the "independent studies" are largely bull**** FYI well independent studies are the only way for anyone to compare... you honestly don't expect the general public to compare 1:1



HOW? Cause hes for the war? Hes kinda been on both sides of the aisle, you all keep saying how he voted 90% of the time with Bush, but again if you would actually READ AND LOOK at what hes voting WITH BUSH on, you would laugh. But the Media doesnt tell you that i suppose. i think you forget i read through both of their voting records earlier in the week - i haven't seen anyone else post up any facts on either voting records. you are trying to make a statement that he isn't a part of washington; sh!t he didn't even know if he wanted to be a republican. sounds to me he can't make up his mind what his stance is. kinda reminds me of the rehtoric i heard about kerry being a flip flopper; alteast he stayed true to his party.




As i said yesterday the purpose is to establish a deomcratic state in a hostile region. We did the same with Berlin at the end of WWII. The purpose was to show the region we wont take 9/11 sitting down. The purpose was to forge an ally and remove a dictator that had defied the UN for 12 years. ENough was ENough.

All you liberals can ***** about the 700Billion and how Iraq isnt doing anything, but thats because, like i said yesterday, YOU CANNOT MAKE THE DECISION IF IT HAS BEEN WORTH IT OR NOT UNTIL MUCH LATER THAN NOW.

If Iraq becomes a powerfull ally an rebuilds its country and starts selling us oil at a discount, guess what, that 700 Billion gets paid back in a matter of 5 years.

Yes War is hell, but come on hippe kids and tree huggers, war is necessary at times.

I keep hearing go back to afghanistan, well there is no enemy there. we destroyed the taliban with 2 air strikes, and rounded up most of the other terrorists . They had no army and they had no government.

Iraq had DEFIED the world for 12 years. They had gassed and murdered their people and done ethnic cleansing. They did have some form of WMDs at one time, pitty we never found them.

Coming fresh off a terrorist attack of unimaginable proportions, Bush sought to secure our nation and our future. The EASIEST target was Iraq.

The war is being WON, despite what the media says. It will be over soon, but you cant put a timeline on a war. Think if we put a date on WWII and just said, "hey we out this ***** on June 5th".

Freedom has no end date or timeline.

As far as Iran and Russia, Iran is building NUCLEAR WEAPONS or trying too. So if they CONTINUE TO DEFY the world, you think we should just let them have at it?

WHat happens when they get a bomb and use it on someone? Will be the one that then blames us for not doing anything like you are blaming Bush for 9/11.

Cant have your cake an eat it too.first off your party lied to the american public about the war, then held it over democrats heads refusing to work w/ them on anything. bush and supporters again and again ask for more money w/o results on why we went to war to begin with. while we fall into economic downturn you hear Bush/supporters critizise democrats for opposing the war... you talk about oil and iraq giving us back money :lmfao:

right. 80+ billion surplus and they still have yet to live up to what standards we asked for. the answer republicans came up with was spend more money and send more troops. now they are trying to AGAIN trying to say VICTORY IS IN SIGHT. :rolleyes: Please.

Republicans need to be held accountable for their actions - McCain is trying to run on that platform yet he has voted for same things. Iraq invasion has done nothing but cost this country money. There have been no economic gains due to this except for privatised military and big oil friends of the white house. i like most americans don't feel any safer now then before 9/11.





Drilling is not the only solution. But its one of them.

We need to Drill, conserve, wind, solar, geothermal, etc.

Just like Obama i suppose, not alot of substance

I thought it was boring , and that he better hope Palin keeps the steam going

Again you need to read voting records I have already shown and stated where you and McCain are incorrect. Twisting voting records to suit your needs is what you are doing. Obama has supported new energy and has voted on it; what he has opposed is more drilling b/c it is not needed. Republicans refuse to tackle the issue of BIG OIL. Until action is taken against them drilling will have no effect and just make them richer. You need to check out their record gains since you think we are only making the middle east rich.

4dmin
09-05-2008, 09:46 AM
WOuldnt it be nice to say "**** YOU " to OPEC. If OPEC knew we had our own oil or could get it from somewhere else what do you think it would do to the price?

About where the hijackers were from, you missed my point, reread

you know the largest oil refineries are US/Brittish... you think they will walk away from OPEC :lmfao:

again problem isn't the oil there is more then enough - production is the issue. they are pushing out competition and not building refineries like they should.

BanginJimmy
09-05-2008, 11:17 AM
its hard to say he wants nothing to do w/ what he has voted on... you need to look into his voting record more before discussing. he and bush aren't the best of friends but they are both still republicans and their views are similar on many issues. Bush is failure and McCain needed to state that to save face for his party. Bush's approval rating is at an all time low.


This is absolutely pointless. There is no difference in this than stating Obama is a Democrat and votes along the same lines as Pelosi or Reid. No one in their right of mind would want to be associated with those Socialists. There are alot of Dems that are distancing themselves from those 2.

BanginJimmy
09-05-2008, 11:19 AM
OPEC sets the price of oil.


Actually you are wrong. OPEC only sets production quotas. This does have the single most significant effect on oil prices, but they dont set the price. The price is set on Wall St., on the commodities Market.

4dmin
09-05-2008, 11:21 AM
This is absolutely pointless. There is no difference in this than stating Obama is a Democrat and votes along the same lines as Pelosi or Reid. No one in their right of mind would want to be associated with those Socialists. There are alot of Dems that are distancing themselves from those 2.

did you listen to the speech last night? and there is quite a difference no one running for election would want to be associated w/ Bush due to failed policies and low approval ratings. You didn't hear Obama putting down the democrats like McCain was his own party. He almost sounded like he was running as independent.

BanginJimmy
09-05-2008, 11:35 AM
again problem isn't the oil there is more then enough - production is the issue. they are pushing out competition and not building refineries like they should.

I will need to find it, but there have been MANY attempts by refiners to build more refineries, but the tree huggers continually block them from getting the permits.


"Opponents of the plan vow to do anything possible to stop the plant from becoming reality. The “not in my back yard” crowd cites health issues from pollution and other troubles the refinery would bring to their neighborhoods.

While the zoning issue is a big step, the company now has to submit a series of applications to local, state and federal agencies before construction an begin.

Opponents say they have strategies that will slow or delay the permit processes."

http://gas2.org/2008/06/04/new-south-dakota-oil-refinery-one-step-closer-to-reality/


This is the response that all the oil companies are getting when they try to build a new refinery.

4dmin
09-05-2008, 11:41 AM
I will need to find it, but there have been MANY attempts by refiners to build more refineries, but the tree huggers continually block them from getting the permits.


"Opponents of the plan vow to do anything possible to stop the plant from becoming reality. The “not in my back yard” crowd cites health issues from pollution and other troubles the refinery would bring to their neighborhoods.

While the zoning issue is a big step, the company now has to submit a series of applications to local, state and federal agencies before construction an begin.

Opponents say they have strategies that will slow or delay the permit processes."

http://gas2.org/2008/06/04/new-south-dakota-oil-refinery-one-step-closer-to-reality/


This is the response that all the oil companies are getting when they try to build a new refinery.

i need to find the EPA info i posted up about how they was only 1 permit request in 15 years to build a refinery between 1975-2000 most companies only do upgrades. It is easy to say it is tree huggers when they aren't truly pushing to make new refineries.

BanginJimmy
09-05-2008, 11:43 AM
did you listen to the speech last night? and there is quite a difference no one running for election would want to be associated w/ Bush due to failed policies and low approval ratings. You didn't hear Obama putting down the democrats like McCain was his own party. He almost sounded like he was running as independent.


You toched on something I meant to and forgot when the phone rang. Neither canidate wants to be grouped in with either party. Both have failed miserably in their duties to the country. That is obvious by the extremely low approval numbers.

I will look for the poll again, but I was linked to one on another site that showed approval within their own parties and both Bush and congress were extremely low. I believe Bush was around 45% and Congress was around 40%.

I dont know how many seats are going to change party, but I do see alot of incumbants losing their seats come November.

Vteckidd
09-05-2008, 11:43 AM
so you don't like republicans and mccain is trying to prove he's not your reg bush cookie cutter politician and you don't like that. But if he was aligning himself with bush you wouldn't like that wither . What do you want?

BanginJimmy
09-05-2008, 11:45 AM
i need to find the EPA info i posted up about how they was only 1 permit request in 15 years to build a refinery between 1975-2000 most companies only do upgrades. It is easy to say it is tree huggers when they aren't truly pushing to make new refineries.


Those permit requests only goto the EPA after zoning and state permits are approved. I have no clue where to look for actual numbers of permits that never got past the zoning stage.

Brett
09-05-2008, 11:47 AM
But OPEC sets the price of the oil the WE are selling too. The oil that we are selling all over the world and not using ourselves.

Was that theme song by Billy Ray Cyrus? If the Mac campaign had a hairstyle I would say it'd be the Mullet. So a BRC song totally fits lol

Investors set the price of oil, OPEC has not been the ones driving prices up to $147 a barell, that was the market driving it up due to greedy ass investors looking for a quick $$

4dmin
09-05-2008, 12:02 PM
Those permit requests only goto the EPA after zoning and state permits are approved. I have no clue where to look for actual numbers of permits that never got past the zoning stage.

http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Interactives/Business/TransportationOil/Squeezing_each_barrel.gif

^ again even though production has been brought up using less refineries - many refineries have been bought out and closed down due to mergers and this is great slowed down production

i am not saying that environmental issues don't play a part but considering some of of the best land for oil refineries is coastal lines - property is very expensive and sought after. but these are not the only issues plaguing us on this problem. US Gov needs to step in and work sh!t out once and for all.

4dmin
09-05-2008, 12:06 PM
so you don't like republicans and mccain is trying to prove he's not your reg bush cookie cutter politician and you don't like that. But if he was aligning himself with bush you wouldn't like that wither . What do you want?

you are twisting my words - he has voted on the side of bush many times throughout the past 8 years but now it trying to make it seem like he isn't one of those republicans he spoke about that have failed the USA. it is typical political talk. if bushes acceptance was up then it would of been a quite different tone out of mccain. thats why i don't buy it. his record proves who he is.

Mike Lowrey
09-05-2008, 12:12 PM
http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Interactives/Business/TransportationOil/Squeezing_each_barrel.gif

^ again even though production has been brought up using less refineries - many refineries have been bought out and closed down due to mergers and this is great slowed down production

i am not saying that environmental issues don't play a part but considering some of of the best land for oil refineries is coastal lines - property is very expensive and sought after. but these are not the only issues plaguing us on this problem. US Gov needs to step in and work sh!t out once and for all.

This does not make sense. Accourding to the above graph, production is up from say 1990 and they are using say 75% of the refineries they were using in 1990. That said the pricing should be nowhere close to where we are. The oil companies are saving tons of money by using less refineries (less overhead, employees, etc) and they are producing the same general amount of oil. There are other factors at play. It is not the refineries, etc. See Brett's post a few up from this one.

Wallstreet. Looking for a fast buck, driving prices higher. Combine that with investment companies being reckless with our money.

Interesting read:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/28/news/economy/disaster_sloan.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008033113

4dmin
09-05-2008, 12:16 PM
This does not make sense. Accourding to the above graph, production is up from say 1990 and they are using say 75% of the refineries they were using in 1990. That said the pricing should be nowhere close to where we are. The oil companies are saving tons of money by using less refineries (less overhead, employees, etc) and they are producing the same general amount of oil. There are other factors at play. It is not the refineries, etc. See Brett's post a few up from this one.

Wallstreet. Looking for a fast buck, driving prices higher. Combine that with investment companies being reckless with our money.

Interesting read:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/28/news/economy/disaster_sloan.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008033113

i agree lots of factors... acquisitions/mergers is a big deal - it is in the billions yearly in the oil industry... you go out buy out your competition and shut them down. now you can monopolize and control the market better. simple economics. i read we didn't even start using our refineries to their capabilities till the mid 90's since then they have had to make significant upgrades while they are closing down refineries...

California closed down like 10 refineries some years ago which were making something like 20% of US oil ;)

alpine_aw11
09-05-2008, 12:20 PM
I definitely think he should've been harder on the past 8 years. Too subtle. The audience may not have liked it, but hell it's not like any of them would switch to Obama no matter how much he downed Bush. The speech was an overall success I think, made me like him a lot more personally. I think that speech is going to play a big part in whether or not he wins. The republican voters do need to take the hit and realize Bush's administration has been a failure, and I honestly do think McCain would make great improvements with his bi-partisan attitude. We'll see how it goes. That speech may have swayed me to vote for him instead of not voting at all.

Vteckidd
09-05-2008, 12:42 PM
Paul your not gonna hold this against me when you do my website are you?

BanginJimmy
09-05-2008, 12:44 PM
i read we didn't even start using our refineries to their capabilities till the mid 90's since then they have had to make significant upgrades while they are closing down refineries...

California closed down like 10 refineries some years ago which were making something like 20% of US oil ;)


All of the refineries that were **** down were older, had higher maintenence costs, and could not be upgraded to accept more modern technology. This is why were have been able to increase production while decreasing the number of refineries. At the same time, that comes at a cost. If a refinery goes down, we lose a significant portion of our refining capabilities. We ae also stretching the limits of what the refineries can refine. I belive we are at something like 99% of refining capability now, and oil usage is going to go up. We do have a small decrease in usage now, but as soon as people get used to the higher prices, usage will go back up.

4dmin
09-05-2008, 12:47 PM
Paul your not gonna hold this against me when you do my website are you?

ya my normal rate is 50$ an hour but for republican supporters its 100$ :lmfao:

BanginJimmy
09-05-2008, 01:11 PM
ya my normal rate is 50$ an hour but for republican supporters its 100$ :lmfao:


In that case I propose a 100% windfall tax on all profits.