How McCain Could Win the White House

[amicus]

Wow! I can retire! You folks don't need the ole Ami any more!

You did forget a couple ingredients however...

Democrat primaries are attended by political activists of the far left fringes of the Party and do not necessarily reflect the premises of the larger democrat party.

Secondly, America will one day elect a woman or a black or both, when an unsullied candidate appears as an 'AMERICAN', and not an African American, with 92 percent of the black vote. This will require an educational and maturation process of the black voting population to where they make decisions on something other than race. And the female, will have an agenda larger than just feminist issues, which Hillary does not; and will at least give lip service to what it means to be an AMERICAN, sans race and gender.

back to my garden...

ami

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

AMICUS

Youre right, old man. Only blacks and women worry about race/sex issues and see themselves as a hyphenated subspecies of BOOBUS-AMERICANUS.

 

[SavannahMann]

There are things to consider about the Right too

First, I'm a Conservative on about ninety percent of the issues. Perhaps eighty five. Well, it's somewhere in there. Point is I'm a stone cold Conservative. I could care less about race, and I could care less about gender. I've donated to both Obama's campaign and Hillary's campaign. Not because I think the sun rises and sets with them, but because I detest McCain that much. I won't vote for, nor will I donate to, McCain under any circumstances. I'm not alone. There are probably a couple hundred thousand of us Conservatives who won't support McCain. We're the ones who keep voting for the Conservative regardless of party ticket. It's folks like me who helped the Democrats win the special in MS this week, the Democrat was more conservative than the Republican.

Before you ask, I'm a conservative because I believe in core conservative values, and principals. They work, every time they're tried. Lower taxes mean more freedom. Less government means more freedom. Freedom and Liberty, at the individual level, is our goal isn't it? I believe our social programs should exist, to a certain extent, as a safety net. I object to those nets being used as a hammock. I hate the Czarist Princes in Washington telling me we can't afford a tax cut, when they've not once asked me if I could afford a tax increase. If I can make due with less in my budget, so can you buddy.

The thing to watch is not how many Vets vote for McCain, or how many Blacks reject Hillary or whatever. It's how many on the right reject McCain, and there is a whole bunch of us. If anything, my estimate is low. Figure ten to fifteen percent of the people who voted for Bush in 04 won't support McCain. If you have to ask why, just ask St. John the McAmnesty, the McCampaign finance lie, the list goes on and on and on.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Wow! I can retire! You folks don't need the ole Ami any more!

You did forget a couple ingredients however...

Democrat primaries are attended by political activists of the far left fringes of the Party and do not necessarily reflect the premises of the larger democrat party.

Secondly, America will one day elect a woman or a black or both, when an unsullied candidate appears as an 'AMERICAN', and not an African American, with 92 percent of the black vote. This will require an educational and maturation process of the black voting population to where they make decisions on something other than race. And the female, will have an agenda larger than just feminist issues, which Hillary does not; and will at least give lip service to what it means to be an AMERICAN, sans race and gender.

back to my garden...

ami

I am somewhat inclined to agree with you, except I believe the caucuses are even more the province of political extremists on both ends of the spectrum, and mostly those who can take a whole day off work in order to attend.

I also am quite sure there will be a black president and a woman president, but I think this person or these persons will be VP first, and either succeed to the ofice when the president dies or be elected after he or she has termed out.

 

[rgraham666]

Eh, who are you kidding, friend?

You've made it clear throughout the years that you consider nobody except white males who share your political beliefs to the nanometer as American.

 

[SavannahMann]

Race and the run for the White House

In every election, we see race brought up some way. Be it Al Gore who brought us Willie Horton during the Democratic Primary, and it was promptly dumped on the Republicans, go figure. Or if it's some group which supposedly opposes all others from any other color.

First, I don't care what color you are, never have, never will. When I grew up, the only second class citizen was us kids, white, black, brown, and any other color. We had to sit at the kiddie table while the adults all sat together. They got the Dining room table, we got a ragged old card table. You get the point, it was separate, and unequal. LOL

Seriously for a moment. Can a minority succeed in our American society? The answer is a resounding YES. Herman Cain, Justice Thomas, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, and I could go on and on for hours. There are a great many more. As an aside, a dearly cherished family friend agreed to stand with me as a boy when I took the Catholic rite of Confirmation. As a pale faced boy with blond hair and blue eyes, you might be surprised to know that this friend was named Cortez, and was a second generation immigrant. Mr. Cortez remains one of the most honorable men I've ever had the pleasure to know, and I'm still in touch with him today.

The Sergeant who most shaped me in the Army was a half breed Cherokee, his description, not mine. I only saw him as supremely competent. The trick to race relations is three fold. First, education. There are minor genetic differences, but those differences don't prescribe education towards one group, as intimated by Obama's minister Reverend Wright. Secondly, conformity. We all have to conform to at least an appearance of a social norm. In other words, we dress and behave similarly, especially in a work environment. Finally, some acceptance. I may not be able to help notice that the individual in question is black. That's expected. However, that notice doesn't mean I'm a racist any more than a black man's notice that I'm so pale, I'm beyond white, I'm transparent.

Racism is judging someone based entirely upon their color, or prejudging them on their color. Sexism is seeing only the sex. Danica Patrick is one hell of a hottie. She's also a very skilled race car driver. She could whip my ass behind the wheel in a New York Second. I think she's going to be racing for a long time, she's got the skills, and she's got the look the sponsors love. Am I diminishing her by noticing she's a very attractive woman as well as a race car driver of some note? I don't think so, I think I'm seeing her as an accomplished woman, with talent, and physical attributes in the positive.

When we stop trying to find a reason to be offended, and start giving each other the benefit of the doubt, the sexes, and the races, will find the path a much smoother one. When we all decide that perhaps this one time, the person we're pissed at today, didn't mean it in a racist or sexist, or homophobic manner, we might just fine that the worlds a little better.

Now, since that's never going to happen, you can start the war back up.

 

[shereads]

I don't think it's any great mystery that a white man will win the White House.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I don't think it's any great mystery that a white man will win the White House.

Wouldn't have happened if Powell had run . . . Sigh

 

[DesertPirate]

Wouldn't have happened if Powell had run . . . Sigh

He's too smart to want the job and refuses to subject his family to the press
Another reason to admire him

 

[voluptuary_manque]

He's too smart to want the job and refuses to subject his family to the press
Another reason to admire him

One hundreeed pour cent correck! Alas, it seems that the people we need most refuse to fight for the job. And you know, who can blame them?

 

[DesertPirate]

One hundreeed pour cent correck! Alas, it seems that the people we need most refuse to fight for the job. And you know, who can blame them?

I never wonder about a Presidents sanity, he proved he had none when he ran for the job!

 

[Belegon]

"Force the industries to change?" Who do you think buys the oil to run their cars and heat their homes with? Who buys those cars?

Silly Roxy.

That is my entire point when I say "voting with our purchasing power".

I mean that if we as a nation were to be demanding a product that got 40 miles to the gallon instead of the H2, the manufacturers would create that product.

They are in the game to make money. When they lose money making a bigger Chevy Suburban, they will change.

The consumer does have the power, ultimately. Convincing them to use it en masse is more than slightly difficult though.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Silly Roxy.

That is my entire point when I say "voting with our purchasing power".

I mean that if we as a nation were to be demanding a product that got 40 miles to the gallon instead of the H2, the manufacturers would create that product.

They are in the game to make money. When they lose money making a bigger Chevy Suburban, they will change.

The consumer does have the power, ultimately. Convincing them to use it en masse is more than slightly difficult though.

They could make cars that would ger 100 mpg but nobody would buy them. They would have a top speed of about 25 mph and take five minutes to rerach that, and would be mabe of tinfoil. Mileage is important but there are other things that are more important, such as safety and reliability. Otherwise, we would all be riding bicycles.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Eh, who are you kidding, friend?

You've made it clear throughout the years that you consider nobody except white males who share your political beliefs to the nanometer as American.

I don't know if you are addressing me or Amicus, since your post follows mine. Personally, I have voted for men and women of all races, including Obama in the CA primary.

 

[Belegon]

They could make cars that would ger 100 mpg but nobody would buy them. They would have a top speed of about 25 mph and take five minutes to rerach that, and would be mabe of tinfoil. Mileage is important but there are other things that are more important, such as safety and reliability. Otherwise, we would all be riding bicycles.

There are balances in that equation and you know it.

I didn't advocate nor would I buy a vehicle that got 100 mph but didn't serve my needs.

But how much of a difference in consumption is there between 8 mpg and 40 mpg?

How about between 40 mpg and 100 mpg?

I wasn't a math major. But 8 is 20% of 40. 40 is 40% of 100.

There are now emerging vehicles that get 40+ mpg that will fulfill my needs. As soon as I can afford to buy one, I will.

Not all of the eye-opening losses posted by GM earlier this year were due to changing consumer demand. The sub-prime mortgage collapse and a declining market for large purchases in general played a dominating role.

But isn't it interesting that Toyota is passing them? Toyota, whose recent bi-polar strategy of increasing research (that's the Nascar side, folks) and focusing on increased efficiency seems to be effective?

Business chases the money. Always has. That is it's purpose.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
They could make cars that would ger 100 mpg but nobody would buy them. They would have a top speed of about 25 mph and take five minutes to rerach that, and would be mabe of tinfoil. Mileage is important but there are other things that are more important, such as safety and reliability. Otherwise, we would all be riding bicycles.

There are balances in that equation and you know it.

I didn't advocate nor would I buy a vehicle that got 100 mph but didn't serve my needs.

But how much of a difference in consumption is there between 8 mpg and 40 mpg?

How about between 40 mpg and 100 mpg?

I wasn't a math major. But 8 is 20% of 40. 40 is 40% of 100.

There are now emerging vehicles that get 40+ mpg that will fulfill my needs. As soon as I can afford to buy one, I will.

Not all of the eye-opening losses posted by GM earlier this year were due to changing consumer demand. The sub-prime mortgage collapse and a declining market for large purchases in general played a dominating role.

But isn't it interesting that Toyota is passing them? Toyota, whose recent bi-polar strategy of increasing research (that's the Nascar side, folks) and focusing on increased efficiency seems to be effective?

Business chases the money. Always has. That is it's purpose.

Oh, of course. I just want to point out how everybody complains about low mileage but they would complain even more if they had to drive the hypothetical vehicle I described.

 

[SavannahMann]

Global Warming, and why I'm not buying it.

First, I'm going to explain why I'm not buying the idea of Man Made Global Warming. Partly, it's the short term of our history. A thousand years ago, Greenland was green. There were a hell of a lot of trees and things, which meant it was much warmer than it was today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland

Now, some of the most revealing Dinosaur digs are in Montana. Montana is hardly the tropical world we're told the Dinosaurs would need to survive. Cold blooded animals and all that. Even if they were avian in nature, which is the one of the current ideas, they were warm blooded and could maintain body temperature. Then Montana is still a poor choice for many of the fossilized creatures we've found. Fish fossils have been found in deserts, and in areas which are well and truly away from water.

Our earth is in flux, it's always been in flux. A hundred years, two hundred years is nothing but a blink of an eye to a planet that has lived for three trillion years. In that time, mountains were thrust into the air, and eroded into dust. Volcano's the size of Yellowstone national park erupted, thrusting tens of thousands of times more green house gasses into the air in a day, than we could produce in thousand lifetimes.

I believe the universe was created by an intelligence, and I call that intelligence God. There is far too much absolute perfection to be a random accident, much less a series of a million random accidents. The million or so steps from getting from light sensitive cells to the current modern eye is way too many to be a series of random accidents, much less the few billion steps that were required to create a digestive tract.

Species dying out. There is an encyclopedia's worth of species that are extinct, before man existed. There is another encyclopedia's worth of things that are extinct since Man arrived on the planet a few short million years ago.

Man is an animal, a fairly intelligent, extremely deluded animal, but an animal. Take any thing in nature, and you find that each species tries to out produce all the others. A male lion won't be satisfied with one female, and one female won't be satisfied with one male. Every creature instinctively struggles for more. That is Nature's way. If we are to accept that Darwin is Nature's plan, then we must immediately stop modern medicine. Those who die, who are too weak to survive, are doing the species a favor, by moving on and allowing the stronger and the smarter to survive. Those who are genetically predisposed to be strong and intelligent. Instead, we decide that life matters, and we try to increase our species, and prolong our species, and we keep the weak, and stupid with us.

For example, smoking. Now, most people want to blame the evil tobacco companies for making a profit selling the product. I blame smokers, like myself, who smoke despite the plethora of evidence that clearly shows that there is no Vitamin C in tobacco.

In short, with Mars warming too, despite the clear absolute evidence that Halliburton and Exxon are not yet ready to drill for oil on Mars, I don't think Man is responsible. We don't even understand how things work yet, and we're now so self obsessed that we think we can predict the future? We haven't been right yet. Not one intervention or ban has been successful. DDT was banned, based on questionable science. The cost, something like fifty million people so far, and diseases which were nearly eradicated, back with a serious attitude. Malaria and Dengue fever were two diseases that were almost wiped out before we banned DDT. But hey, what's a million people a year dead to these diseases. http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm

Of course, when we learn the science says the opposite from what we thought it said, that DDT was bad for example, we immediately change our minds and approve of DDT again right? No. We don't do that at all. Instead we keep the ban on and teach that the political ideal is the correct one even if dis-proven by science.

Global Warming is this generations DDT, this generations Eugenics proposals, and we're making the same stupid mistake that the hundreds of generations before us made. We're ignoring the facts, and insisting that the truth of our caring be enough, and if you disagree, you're branded a heretic, a denier, or worse. It's not man made global warming that those of you who believe in it want to change, it's consumerism. You're upset because you think we're using too much, more than our fair share.

If you really cared about Global Warming, you'd be pushing for Nuclear Power out the wazoo. The current design in reactors, in wide use in the liberals beloved Europe, requires less than a third of the service, which means refueling, that our early designs did. Nuclear safety is also greatly improved. The Navy uses nuclear power, and has had no major incidents, and almost no minor ones. We had a close call with Three Mile Island, but there, it was operator error which made a design flaw so dangerous. The operator was trying to figure out how to get back on line, when his first thought should have been how do I slow this ride down?

The Navy's nuclear policy is excellent. We could easily design a civilian power program from their model. Yet we don't, because a movie told us that nuclear power equals death at any moment, and we let the fear mongering press scare us during three mile island. Note: I was a little boy living down wind from Three Mile Island at the time. It's also one of the few decisions of President Carter's that I approve of.

Solar, wave, currents, and fuzzy thoughts won't produce the electrical power our nation needs to continue to be anything like what we are. They just aren't up to the task, yet. Fusion has the best probability of taking over the load, but we have to be brave enough to face the future, and admit that we're not perfect. We as a species, can't do that.

 

[Belegon]

One, I disagree with you about Global Warming.
Two, I agree with you about nuclear power, despite my fear of the disposal problem.

 

[S-Des]

Seriously for a moment. Can a minority succeed in our American society? The answer is a resounding YES. Herman Cain, Justice Thomas, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, and I could go on and on for hours.

The problem is, the ones you are quoting (and I'd throw in Michael Steele, Larry Elder & Thomas Sowell) are viewed by many on the Left as ignorant or sell-outs. Rice in particular has had incredibly insulting racial epithets thrown at her by the party that claims the moral high ground (and Elder was called a "Happy Negro" by a college professor on CNN). It's not only a matter of race....for some people it has to be race combined with the "correct" politics.

You are echoing the complaints I hear about McCain all the time. It makes me pull my hair out because he's a good man who doesn't happen to fit your personal check list of issues (but he's a hell of a lot closer than Obama). However, people can vote for any reason they see fit, so I guess you have to do what you have to do. I will find it quite amusing if he manages to pull of the election victory despite the lack of support from the far Right. Much like with Joe Lieberman, it would free him up to govern how he saw fit with little allegiance to those who abandoned him.

 

[amicus]

SavannahMann
Experienced

~~~

A pleasure to read your most interesting post, welcome to the forum.

You make some interesting observations and not to be picayune, but as I recall and no, I did not search it, but the age of planet earth, Sol three, is about four and a half billion years, and that of the Universe about 15 billion, according to those who study such things, but then, what is a few trillion among friends anyway?

Man is animal of course, but rational animal, regardless of how one judges the amount of that rationality and how widespread it is or is not.

Social Darwinism, which you obliquely refer to, disregards that 'rational' portion of man and you overlook that beef and brawn do not always determine survival of the fittest among men.

Your supposition of a 'God' that created all, merely pushes the question to, 'then who created God...' which is a dead end and the safest and most logical solution is that either 'god' or the Universe always existed and has no beginning and no end, neither of which satisfies a curious mind.

We have had technology for a bare one hundred years, three generations, hardly a raindrop in a monsoon in terms of the age of earth.

You might consider the concept of the evolution of man beyond what is now, compared to the diversification of life and species on earth, to what man might become a hundred thousand years from now.

And, my nuclear engineer friend speaks of third generation nuclear generating plants that do not create waste and added that the 'water cooled' reactors are not necessary that better methods are available.

You are most correct about climate change, there is no evidence that it is anthropogenic at all, rather simply cyclical in nature and as you said, has been occurring forever, and is being used as a political blunt instrument by the anti industrial left.

I sense a mood of slight despair concerning the future of man, I would counsel otherwise; the progress of man, although fraught with ups and downs, trends generally upwards over the past five thousand years and I expect it to continue.

The intellectual accomplishments during and following the industrial revolution up until about world war one, suffered greatly as the doubting existentialists and nihilists lost faith in the efficacy of the mind of man and took on a hopeless demeanor which has infected two generations of post depression, post war mankind, it will soon fade.

Just wanted to welcome you to the conversation and cheer you up a bit...

regards...



Amicus...

 

[SavannahMann]

Amicus...

Thanks for the kind welcome. I've posted off and on for a year or so.

The one thing I've noticed in my study of history is the perpetual ability of man to become convinced of his own brilliance. We all knew the earth was flat. We all knew the earth was the center of the universe. We all knew that it was lack of desire on the patients part that caused infections and killed them. We all knew so many things, until someone said, "Hey wash your damn hands you fool before you work on that patient." We didn't know about Germs.

In the last hundred years, every effort we've made to save something, has resulted in utter failure. In 1905 we thought the Elk were endangered, and we started to kill off the predators to protect the elk around Yellowstone. OOOPPPSSS. Turns out the Elk weren't endangered, but were actually doing just fine, now without predators, all the populations of animals exploded. The Deer and the Moose were drivin out of the area because there wasnt' enough food. Still convinced of our own brilliance, we didn't change our plan, despite the now painfully obvious fact we were doing the wrong thing.

Result, Wolves and Mountain Lions are endangered. Elk run amok. Hundreds of plants that were unique to Yellowstone were eaten by the Elk as they overpopulated herds tried to survive the winters. Hundreds of unique plants are now extinct. This by the way, is a huge victory for man. We saved the Elk. We still do the same damn thing today. We find a Kangaroo rat, and put the area he's in as protected. No one is allowed to cut brush. If a fire doesn't wipe the rat out, then the area gets so choked with brush and weeds that the rat can't live, and has to leave the area to seek more accomidating stomping ground. Result, when the fire does come, it's so huge it can't be fought and millions of acres are lost. Victory for the enviornmentalists.

Yet every single answer follows the same play from the same playbook. I'm not depressed, I'm entertained, exasperated perhaps, but entertained. Gee, you know China alone is going to be putting out three times the green house gasses that were to be saved in Kyoto.

It doesn't matter, we have to act now to save the planet, we can't wait another day.

Heard that one before, with DDT. Heard it with Freon. Now a few thousand people can't afford the more expensive refrigerents and end up with food poisoning. No sweat. Freon used to be used in the foam on the Space Shuttles tank. It never broke up when they did. Now, it falls off faster than we can put it on. We're not changing our minds on Freon, so quit asking. Columbia was an accident that didn't need to happen, and the ban on Freon played a part in it.

 

[rgraham666]

I don't know if you are addressing me or Amicus, since your post follows mine. Personally, I have voted for men and women of all races, including Obama in the CA primary.

'Amicus' is friend in Latin.

 

[rgraham666]

Perfection, SavannahMan?

Would you perhaps then explain the panda's thumb as an example of perfection then?

Or perhaps monotremes?

Nature is a jury-rigger as the evolutionary history of horses shows. There is no perfection in nature.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Bit of a threadjack here:

Earlier in this thread I posted a lovely rant about the misguided public policies related to energy these days. (It was unfairly aimed a Belegon, who didn't deserve it. Lovely though it was as rants go. )

Now I have a related rant: Many people believe that "auto-makers wouldn't find it that great a hardship to increase fuel standards."

Let's unpeel that onion a bit.

50 MPG cars are possible, although most Americans don't like them at all. Lets imagine that was the average fleet mileage (it's a bit less than half that now) - would it matter that much?

Gas consumption in the US would drop, although probably not in half because more people will drive, and they'll drive a bit more. Meanwhile fuel consumption in India, China and elsewhere would continue to rise, netting out most or all of any gain.

Related to all this, oil won't "run out," but we will arrive at a point in the next 100 years where the stuff that's left is so costly to pump and process that it will make no sense to do so just to burn it - the age of petroleum energy will end. Mandating higher fleet mileage standards in the US will really mean very little in the big picture.

We are all writers and thinkers - so lets broaden our horizons on this. If mileage mandates are ultimately meaningless, what should we focus on? How about what comes next? It won't be horse-and-buggy, or bikes: The car-genie is out of the bottle, and people will always love the freedom, convenience and independence that only cars can give, though they may use them differently (long road-trips replaced by 'rail-ferries'?)

I have described in previous threads here a vision that I have read elsewhere of an all-electric economy with battery cars, with the energy coming from nukes and big geothermal generating plants. Over-the-road trucking would be mostly replaced by rail (which is extremely efficient). This is all neato-keano stuff because it is sustainable for tens of thousands of years.

~~~~~~~~

An aside: I like to imagineer in my head what a 100 mpg car 2+2 passenger car would be like (two adults, two scrunched kids): It would have a 150 cc motorcycle engine, wheels and tires not much more substantial than a mountain bike's, and an aerodynamic carbon fiber body. It would top-out at around 55 mph, with that little motor running flat out. The curb weight would be around 500-600 lbs.

This would not be a safe vehicle. It would be illegal as hell on that basis today, and could not coexist on interstates with big-rig trucks (they would blow it off the road).

 

[S-Des]

Now I have a related rant: Many people believe that "auto-makers wouldn't find it that great a hardship to increase fuel standards."

Let's unpeel that onion a bit.

50 MPG cars are possible, although most Americans don't like them at all. Lets imagine that was the average fleet mileage (it's a bit less than half that now) - would it matter that much?

It wouldn't matter, and lawsuits would skyrocket as injuries in auto accidents became more severe (because of having to accept lesser safety standards to acheive better mileage). I am all for better mileage (which is why I bought a Corolla that gets 35 - 40 mpg), but people have shown that they're perfectly willing to spend money on stupid shit, so to think they'll suddenly stop driving vehicles that get adequate mileage to save money is far fetched (at least for those people who don't drive long distances).

In a related rant....Today the Dems torpedoed another attempt to drill for oil shale in Colorado & Utah (the measure lost 14-15 on a party line vote). They won't even let it come out of committee for debate. I can't decide if they don't give a shit about the people getting squeezed, if they're really in bed with the oil companies (despite their proclamations of being the champion of the little guy), or if they're just doing it so they can keep blaming high gas prices on Bush (and we must never forget "the evil" oil companies ). Seriously, I don't care if the measure is investigated and decided against, but to not even let it come to the floor of Congress for a vote??? If the media wasn't so absolutely biased (because you know you won't be hearing about this on any major network except possibly on Fox, and it'll be buried in every newspaper), something like this in an election year would be suicide.