The biggest reason not to vote for McCain: his name. I mean, look at it! Hello! Ever heard of Abel? And what else has Mc in the name? That's right, McDonalds! The corporation waging a secret war on America's health!

Be afraid. Be very, very afraid.

=oP

@Dumbducky: "The war isn't an economic policy" - I would say trying to funnel all the money into my friend's hands and fucking the rest of america would be an economic policy.

We hit the peak of our Oil a few years back, let me inform you of something called Hubbert's Peak: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory

Hubbert's Peak can be noticed in USA oil production; it is in an evidently and steady decline.

Drilling years ago wouldn't have done jack. Bush Sr. did one smart thing in office and that was to ban offshore drilling. Offshore drilling takes 10 years to set up a new well, and then the production it brings is only a minute drop in a giant bucket. Liberal economists know what the hell they are doing, we were generating a SURPLUS at the end of Clinton's term; it's a shame Gore got cheated, our national debt would be immensely small by now. Conservative economics DON'T work. Reagan racked up the national debt even further and set several new records, and both Bushes set even HIGHER new deficit records. Obama wants to create new jobs in alternative energy, which is the way of the future, whether you like it or not.

Sure Falkoner, side with McCain, and enjoy watching Gas prices spike and your home being foreclosed if he wins.

We did not hit our peak in oil, just because someone made a theory does not make it true. Not only should we get new oil wells, we should start going into other sources, instead of ethanol.. Shale, for instance would provide a great supply of oil, for quite cheap, but liberal environmentalists are protecting shale.

It is true... statistics can never be wrong.

No, we do not need any new oil providers, and opening new wells will take AT LEAST 10 years, and they won't bring in any more production relative to our current production/consumption.



Hubbert accurately predicted that the USA would hit its peak production when it did. And yes, just because something is a well tested and essentially proven theory means its wrong; let's just ignore the Big Bang, Continental Drift, Evolution, Gravity, and so much more if theories aren't true.

Pro-active solution: Reduce dependancy on oil.

McCain's solution: Spend ten years destroying wildlife habitats for five year's oil, tops.

What the fuck is wrong with America?

In my opinion, Americans are not that informed on the subject of oil drilling and alternative energy. The Republicans believe that drilling wildlife habitats will provide enough oil to help battle rising prices and recession. They aren't aware of the environmental implications or the incidental amount of oil it would bring into our production; they believe it is an alternative to becoming energy independent from other nations. But the added production would be drowned by the exponential consumption, and they don't realise this.

Maybe its the oil companies trying to stay in business, and they're paying people off.

Oil is the cheapest, most plentiful form of electricity currently available. There is no reason not to use it. It's running out, but we've still got over 50 years of oil left. Regardless, lets look at the other alternate sources.
Ethanol: Isn't much cheaper than gasoline, and has a lower energy content. That means you use more to get the same done. It's only "viable" because of the massive amounts of subsidies it receives. Actually releases more CO2 than oil when you start from the corn field to the refineries. Really, it's worse for the environment than oil.
Wind: Requires lots of space, not really environmentally friendly because they actually kill birds. Doesn't work without wind.
Solar: Not quite efficient enough yet, takes up lots of space, and doesn't work at night.
Hydrogen Fuel Cells: I can't think of any cons for it, but that might be because so little attention is given to it.

Even though I can't vote for the President (It's pretty idiotic that being an American Citizen doesn't grant you the right to vote, you'd also have to be a resident of one of the 50 states), I'd clearly vote for Obama if I could.

McCain is just a continuation of Bush's policies. It just won't work out. What we need is change, even if it sounds like a gamble, to get things back on track. I know the US can't be the superpower it was when the Soviet Union collapsed, now that China is a major power in producing goods, Japan is advancing as good as ever and Germany has stabilized after the reunification of GDR and FRG. There is much more competition and we cannot become what we once were as easy as we think. The first thing which we need to do is learn to manage our own money. Second is get as much as we can out of the petroleum industry while getting out of it's consumer ship as fast as possible. Demand for petroleum is dwindling and the US has some pretty big reserves that they haven't tapped yet, it's a boom to the economy that we could use before it becomes obsolete. The next, get the hell out of petrol usage and get into renewable energy like solar, wind, hydroelectric, nuclear. Don't get into Bio-Diesel, Hydrogen and "alternative-fuels", they cost more energy to produce than what they provide with. Finally, we have to get a big push to do something. A big goal towards something in which the nation can work towards as a whole. Much like FDR and JFK.

Obama looks like the candidate closest to this.

Replace everyone's roof with solar panels. Especially in places like Arizona and New Mexico. Done. Not working at night is handled by simply storing energy from the day.

As long as we have the sun, we have plenty of energy. When oil runs out, we will simply be motivated to innovate.

I'd pick none of the above.

Bob Barr '08.

You're an idiot. Seriously, stop talking. You just said a few posts before that you don't watch TV. Where do you manage to see these ads?
And to hope for somebody to be assassinated over something like that is shameful. I'm glad you won't plague us with your vote for like 5 more years.

You can show me statistics all you want, but it does not mean that it is due to us running out of oil, there are probably many factors involved, not just the amount of oil. The other theories are pretty well proven, this however, is not, and I also would call the Big Bang a theory.


Solar energy is crap right now, we end up spending more energy maintaining and creating solar panels than you actually get out of them, they break down, it's not like they're a never ending supply of energy, and it takes energy to make them in the first place.

Another thing that needs to be changed is our views on Nuclear Power Plants, if the US allowed Breeder reactors, energy would be much much cheaper. Obama is for change, but if it's not broken, don't fix it, the US is running just fine, and the only reason we are truly in debt is because of the war, which we should not pull out of, since doing so just wastes all we've accomplished, why stop now when we are only a few years away from finishing the work?

Because the money for such a thing just grows on trees.

lol wut? subprime mortgages?

Theories that happens to be facts, true, and very accurate. Thus also knowing the disadvantages we will get.

It IS broken according to the debt along with very accurate statistics that you call "theories". The point being of the Iraq war were the Weapons of Mass Destruction but with years of searching, no evidence has been found, ever. Both Iraq and the United States believes we shouldn't had attacked Iraq in the first place since all it ever did is making matters worse.

Ethanol: it releases more CO2 than oil when you burn it, but the thing is, the corn plants take in carbon dioxide to grow. Hence, the only CO2 being released into the atmosphere is CO2 that used to be in the atmosphere. Hence, it's essentially carbon neutral because the carbon is taken out of the atmosphere, then put back in. Ethanol-from-algae can currently produce 6000 gallons/acre per year, compared to sugarcane which produces 890. Hence, ethanol-from-algae would be an excellent solution. You could pump CO2 from factories directly into the farms to increase production.
Wind: Not environmentally unfriendly. Oil drilling destroys environments, wind kills some birds, and doesn't kill enough to affect the environment.
Solar: Excellent because it doesn't actually need much space when you decide to simply put it on the roofs of all homes and businesses.
Hydrogen: Hydrogen fuel is one of the greatest swindles I know. It requires electricity from other sources to produce hydrogen. Hence, you have to put it more energy to make hydrogen than you get out of the fuel. This ultimately decreases efficiency and does nothing to solve anything.

Wait, so you think hydrogen is a bad choice, but Solar is? I don't know what makes so many people think solar energy is the way to go, as solar panels often do not repay the energy they cost to make in the first place, they wear out or just break before then.