The choice in November is between old fossils and new energy. Do we really wish to propagate our dependence on MidEast oil by electing cartel dinosaurs who spend $200 billion of our money and thousands of our young people's lives in order to collect $20 billion for themselves? Is there any doubt at all that Bush invaded Iraq because Cheney had designs on Iraq's oilfields and Bush, himself, would get a piece of that pie? Does it infuriate you that 7 Marines were killed yesterday in defense of those oilfields while your neighbor can write off the cost of his gigantic Hummer? Do we really need to spoil every square inch of wilderness in this country to feed our appetites for gas-guzzling monstrosities when we could reap more benefits through conservation? Don't we want, or better yet, SHOULDN'T we want, a candidate who has made investment in alternate energies a central part of his campaign? We can't afford four more years of Bush. Bush has no incentive to wean us from what generates fortunes for himself and for his buddies. He profits handsomely as crude oil barrels become more and more expensive. Then we suffer, and Mid East conflict intensifies. Peak oil is fast approaching and there is no time to waste. We must elect a science president before it's too late.
Typical democrat. You are challenged and change the subject. This is an old argument that has been beaten to death already, before they ran you off from your old message board. You might score a few points with that argument in California or New York, but you won't get many around here. Try to come up with something a little better next time. What exactly is a science president, anyway. Since Kerry has a law degree, are you suggesting a write-in candidate?
and by "investing" you mean taking my money against my will. i dont want my money spent on alternate energies unless i do it. if i want the stupid hybrid car i will buy it. for now i like oil and would be happy to drive a huge SUV. (i actually have no use for a car and i ride the subway). if you want to cripple research on alternate energies, put the government behind it. only when alternate energy is profitable will it work, and that will only happen through private interests. when we do start using things like hydrogen whatever, or solar or anything besides oil, it will be because private companies have made it efficient and profitable, not because of the government. having the gov't throw money at it is a HUGE waste.
Rex, We do agree that we can do much better. The democrats IMHO picked the wrong man to run for office on their side. It must be mighty embarrassing if that is the best they can do for a candidate. When will Kerry stop talking about Vietnam and tell us what he will do in this country? When will he stop criticizing the presidents policies and tell us what he would do differently? When will he start talking about his 20 years in the Senate and his voting record versus 4 months of his life 35 years ago?
You know, every time I hear a liberal start screaming about how "Bush went to war for oil", I ask them the same question: If this war is really about oil, then why am I still paying $1.75/gallon at the pump? I generally get a lot more squawking and obfuscation...but never an answer.
Hey that may be a good idea for a thread. Wonder how vehicle driven would compare to political affiliations. Prolly doesn't.
I wonder if he would be offended if he knew my vehicle gets 13.5 mpg. (and yes, I get your Kerry stab )
Quite easy to sit there and use 7 Marines deaths as a punchline for a ****ing argument. Chicken **** if you ask me. You don't even have a clue what its like to lose people you were fighting with.
