Good News For Conservatives?, page 2

Pages: << 1 2 3 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times

reply posted on 17-7-2008 @ 01:04 AM by Quazga

To be honest, He needs to do something to increase his odds and gain support from the far right. I will be voting obama, but I think the only way to give obama a run for his money is for mccain to pick romney.

However, he still has to deal with the huckabee problem. All of my "politically religious" friends like huckabee and don't like romney. Although I guess they might rally for a romney.

reply posted on 17-7-2008 @ 01:59 AM by aravoth

reply to post by Sestias

Actually the Iraq war only accounts for 3.5 trillion of the 9 trillion public debt, which in reality, is more like 70 trillion, if you factor in medicare, social security and other social programs.

Not saying the Iraq war is right, in fact I vehemently disagree with it, but to say that it is the major cause of our problems just isn't true. In fact you could pull our troops out of every foreign country, and sell all of our military equipment, and you wouldn't even come close to paying that debt off.

70 trillion, more the the Global GDP. It wasn't Iraq that broke our backs, it was 60 years of absolutely retarded decisions.

reply posted on 17-7-2008 @ 08:03 AM by Hal9000

reply to post by vor78

I don't think we want Lieberman for president or VP and was a poor choice IMHO when Al Gore chose him to run with him. Lieberman is in the pocket of the Israeli Lobby AIPAC, the most powerful lobby in Washington. That is the kind of influence we need to break if we want our country back.

reply posted on 17-7-2008 @ 08:23 AM by nyk537

reply to post by Hal9000

Well that....and the last thing we need is someone who will pull McCain even further to the left than he already is.

That's why I like Romney. He would be the "conservative conscious" tugging at McCain, as opposed to that little devil on his shoulder encouraging him to "reach a little more."

reply posted on 17-7-2008 @ 08:59 AM by vor78

reply to post by Hal9000

Like I say, I don't think its going to happen, anyway. Myself, even though I like the guy, the only thing relevant about him is that he may sway a few moderates, but that's it. Politically, I think he's just about done. The Dems have more or less disowned him and his ideology doesn't cut it with most Republicans. McCain would be making a mistake to add him as a VP.

I think he's probably angling for a cabinet position if anything.

reply posted on 17-7-2008 @ 09:09 AM by Hal9000

reply to post by nyk537

I would highly recommend voting for Obama because I think the country has shifted too far to the right as far as foreign policy goes. I do not agree with everything that he stands for, and even share some conservative values, but the current administration mislead us into the war in Iraq and now the republican party will have to pay. The powers of the executive branch need to be readjusted so there is more accountability and McCain isn't going to do that. I think McCain is also too close to AIPAC, where Obama is not accepting money from lobbyists. That is what this country needs right now.

reply posted on 17-7-2008 @ 09:16 AM by Hal9000

reply to post by vor78

I wasn't suggesting that Lieberman was even being considered for VP, because he would upset even more republicans. I was just curious if anyone else had noticed that he seems to be making appearances with McCain for some reason. It's not important, but maybe interesting.

reply posted on 17-7-2008 @ 09:22 AM by jsobecky

The high oil costs may prove to be a boon for the Republicans. They need to pound the "drill now" mantra for the rest of the campaign, and point out the Dem's reluctance to do so. They need to point out the failed policies of the Dem's over the years as the reason for the current mess.

Then they need to pound Obama's flip-flops and foreign policy experience as what they are - dangerous. For example, creating strategy for Iraq before he has even visited it or spoken with Petraeus.

reply posted on 17-7-2008 @ 09:24 AM by nyk537

reply to post by Hal9000

We have noticed.

The reason is because McCain himself is a Liberal like Lieberman. Granted he is nowhere near as far left as Obama is (truly is), but he is still a Liberal parading around as a Republican. (He doesn't even pretend to be Conservative)

Also, there is no way I can vote for Obama. What he would do in terms of raising taxes, new spending, and socializing medicine would completely destroy this country as far as I'm concerned.

reply posted on 17-7-2008 @ 09:45 AM by jsobecky

reply to post by nyk537

Originally posted by nyk537

Also, there is no way I can vote for Obama. What he would do in terms of raising taxes, new spending, and socializing medicine would completely destroy this country as far as I'm concerned.

So true. His proposal for increased carbon taxes is just one example of how he would hurt all Americans.

reply posted on 17-7-2008 @ 09:48 AM by Hal9000

reply to post by jsobecky

The deficit is one of the causes of the devaluation of the dollar, which is one of causes of the high price of gas. Lifting the drilling ban will not help for years to come, and only allows oil barons to purchase leases that they will sit on, like they do with millions of acres in the gulf that have not been explored.

Originally posted by nyk537
Also, there is no way I can vote for Obama. What he would do in terms of raising taxes, new spending, and socializing medicine would completely destroy this country as far as I'm concerned.

I agree that raising taxes also concerns me, but I consider going to war and killing people a higher priority that should be avoided, especially when the taxes I pay as well as money we don't have goes toward paying for it.

reply posted on 17-7-2008 @ 09:56 AM by nyk537

Originally posted by Hal9000
Lifting the drilling ban will not help for years to come

Typical Liberal excuse. You know if we had listened when it was suggested we drill our own oil 10 years ago, we wouldn't be in this mess. So I'm assuming you think prices will just naturally go down then? Or that we won't need this extra oil in 5 years? 10 years? Not planning for the future is why were are hurting right now.

I agree that raising taxes also concerns me, but I consider going to war and killing people a higher priority that should be avoided, especially when the taxes I pay as well as money we don't have goes toward paying for it.

Perhaps you missed it, but Obama has changed his position yet again on pulling troops out and will now "take the advice of the generals."

I don't know how you can believe a word that comes out of his mouth.

reply posted on 17-7-2008 @ 10:04 AM by jsobecky

reply to post by Hal9000

Originally posted by Hal9000

The deficit is one of the causes of the devaluation of the dollar, which is one of causes of the high price of gas. Lifting the drilling ban will not help for years to come, and only allows oil barons to purchase leases that they will sit on, like they do with millions of acres in the gulf that have not been explored.

Had Clinton not vetoed any efforts to drill in the 90's, we would be reaping the benefits of that oil today.

And what do you think the cost of oil will be in 10 years, if we leave it's fate to the OPEC nations?

There is a reason oilcos are not drilling on current leases - no oil there.

Would you be satisfied if they exchanged those currently leased acres for ANWR and offshore acres? How's that for a compromise?

reply posted on 17-7-2008 @ 10:47 AM by Hal9000

I'm not going to argue about the drilling issue with either of you because all you can do is blame the liberals for everything. You can't argue with someone that is more interested in their party than their country.

Even if drilling was a short term answer, it isn't in the long term. America needs to also become more energy conscious, which is happening as we speak, and is helping to reduce demand and is why the price is dropping.

Anyhow, back to McCain's choice of VP...

reply posted on 17-7-2008 @ 10:58 AM by ZindoDoone

Title: How Oil Leases work...

1: You start the bidding process! ( 18,000 acres on one plot cost Getty oil 6.5 mil, this permit only allowed them to..... moveon to No. 2
2: The Company then files for a permit to locate a 'POSSIBLE' place to spud in!

3: You then must APPLY for a permit to setup your rig..usualy takes 3-5 years for the permit process in this instance.

4: The government usualy denies this permit the first time. Plus you must fight any and all lawsuits that might arise because you have 'PURCHASED' the permit.

5: you then appeal the denial. this takes another 2-5 years. You've nowspent almost 40 million dollars and you still don't have your rig set up or any real idea theres realy oil in your lease.

6: you then gain your permit to setup and spud in.

7: EUREKA...You've drilled for 12-18 days and gone down 30000 ft and actualy found either natural gas or oil. Drilling costs amount to 2.6 mil.
You all set to pump out what you have found.....guesswhat????? YOU NOW NED A PERMIT TO ACTUALY PUMP OUT WHAT YOU'VE PAYED TO DRILL FOR AND THE PERMIT PROCESS STARTS AGAIN.

8:You have to aply for this permit because you can't pump anything untill the Government ( EPA, DEP, Animal rights folks, Sierra Club and any other tree hugers now fight you for the permit) grants you the right and permit to pump it.

9: Government denies your permit to pump because they just feel like it. The pressure from the anti's and its election time.

10: Apeal time...2-5 years in apeal and another 20 mil in costs!!

11: Hallelujah, you now have your permits to pump your product!!!!!! You've spent 60 -70 mil. on the process and your market is being played with by the government. It costs 68.00 per barrel to get it to market. but actual cost is much more.

YOUR NOW IN THE OIL BUSINESS, YOUR A BASTION OF THE WORLD AND EVERYBODY HATES YOU!!!!

Zindo

reply posted on 17-7-2008 @ 11:22 AM by nyk537

Speaking of being back on the topic of McCain's VP...

It's too bad Fred Thompson didn't garner any more support than he did. God knows I'd much rather have him running (as President or VP), but Romney would do just fine IMO.

How is that for a Conservative DREAM TICKET ticket for 2012 though?

Romney/Thompson.

I get giddy thinking about it!

reply posted on 17-7-2008 @ 12:43 PM by jsobecky

reply to post by nyk537

Watch out! You might be coming down with a case of "Chris Matthew's Leg"!

reply posted on 17-7-2008 @ 02:27 PM by winged patriot

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by nyk537

Romney was very high on my list for President. He has business acumen, government service experience, and management experience. He is very intelligent and is a conservative.

The only negative is the reported lack of chemistry between Romney and McCain. But you don't have to love a person to work with him.

Romney ain't no conservative, first he ain't a Christian, Maybe the liberal terrorist lovers have confussed you. Romneys not a true conservative because he don't believe in the bible. Bush is a good christian and he thinks like a conservative so he is conservative. Romneys book was created by satin, he may think we need to kill all the terrorists but thats not enouf to make him conservative. Just like that liberal terrorist lover Obama he love terrorists, prays to alla and speaks in satins native tung. He's a real liberal. But I'll tell you Romney ain't no conservative!
Just like you defending isreal to, you ain't thinking like a conservative.
Fox did a peace on people like you, you maybe christian but you don't think conservative thought all the time.

reply posted on 17-7-2008 @ 02:40 PM by winged patriot

Originally posted by nyk537
Speaking of being back on the topic of McCain's VP...

It's too bad Fred Thompson didn't garner any more support than he did. God knows I'd much rather have him running (as President or VP), but Romney would do just fine IMO.

How is that for a Conservative DREAM TICKET ticket for 2012 though?

Romney/Thompson.

I get giddy thinking about it!

Romney