John McCain coming to Wilkes-Barre (Scranton, Economy: budget, vacation, income)

[Duderino]

Originally Posted by ScranBarre

Believe it or not even though the guy is a conservative on civil rights, and I'm an outspoken liberal college student, I'm still leaning towards voting for Sen. McCain, as are many of my relatives. I think Sen. Obama is more in touch with me on social issues, but I worry about his experience when it comes to national security. Granted most presidents themselves aren't the sole decision-makers; they often consult feverishly with well-educated and well-seasoned advisers before making major decisions, but I still worry that we know so little about Sen. Obama's stance on foreign policy, let alone who his Cabinet appointments might be.

I don't usually get involved in these heated NEPA political debates. However, I just felt the need to get more on this statement.

I'm not trying to pick on you, ScranBarre, because this appears to be a prevalent thought process in which Republicans are generally seen as "stronger" and "more experienced" on national security -- but as articulate as you are, I'd just like to find out your reasoning for why you'd choose McCain over Obama on this particular issue, as I don't understand the monopoly that McCain seems to have.

As I see it, in the post-9/11 world, Bush and Republicans in general drilled into us that we are now "safer" for having gone to Iraq, and terrorists are "on the run." McCain -- who is surely not a "maverick" when it comes to pre-emptive foreign policy practiced by Bush -- would most likely have followed the same mistaken path for "up to 100 years more." Granted, we got rid of a heinous dictator, but terrorists are hardly demoralized and now galvanized by our gunslinger foreign policy (they love the idea of being martyrs in a war with the West). As a result, we are now far less respected and arguably as vulnerable as ever to another terrorist attack.

Now, I'm not saying McCain will be exactly the same as Bush, but I think it's telling that he would "stay the course" by going after something that cannot be destroyed by a war, as the terrorist ideal remains in cells and training camps secretly around the globe. In contrast, Obama wants to build up diplomatic relations that have been strained and neglected by Bush in the Middle East region, and also combat terrorism at an ideological level by gaining a much broader coalition through respect -- not unilateralism.

I'm sure McCain's military experience plays a role in this notion, but as much as I respect his service, I don't think that necessarily would make him a better Commander-in-Chief (I'm a college student, but I don't necessarily think that would make me a great professor.) So, again, could you elaborate on your thoughts?

[W-B proud]

Hillary Clinton is from Scranton, like I'm from Wildwood, Nj. NOT!

[WasPA]

^^^ Its a very mobile nation. Nobody is from anywhere. Why bring this up anywaay? doesnt political commentary---- from worthy to crappola---belong in the appropriate thread?

ScranB:P As far as McCain goes, I'd be more concerned about his intentions/ agenda re: national security particularly since he's so tight with Joe Lieberman, who would seemingly expend every last farthing and every last military body to get his way in Israel......

[Chefkey]

Originally Posted by Duderino

I don't usually get involved in these heated NEPA political debates. However, I just felt the need to get more on this statement.

I'm not trying to pick on you, ScranBarre, because this appears to be a prevalent thought process in which Republicans are generally seen as "stronger" and "more experienced" on national security -- but as articulate as you are, I'd just like to find out your reasoning for why you'd choose McCain over Obama on this particular issue, as I don't understand the monopoly that McCain seems to have.

As I see it, in the post-9/11 world, Bush and Republicans in general drilled into us that we are now "safer" for having gone to Iraq, and terrorists are "on the run." McCain -- who is surely not a "maverick" when it comes to pre-emptive foreign policy practiced by Bush -- would most likely have followed the same mistaken path for "up to 100 years more." Granted, we got rid of a heinous dictator, but terrorists are hardly demoralized and now galvanized by our gunslinger foreign policy (they love the idea of being martyrs in a war with the West). As a result, we are now far less respected and arguably as vulnerable as ever to another terrorist attack.

Now, I'm not saying McCain will be exactly the same as Bush, but I think it's telling that he would "stay the course" by going after something that cannot be destroyed by a war, as the terrorist ideal remains in cells and training camps secretly around the globe. In contrast, Obama wants to build up diplomatic relations that have been strained and neglected by Bush in the Middle East region, and also combat terrorism at an ideological level by gaining a much broader coalition through respect -- not unilateralism.

I'm sure McCain's military experience plays a role in this notion, but as much as I respect his service, I don't think that necessarily would make him a better Commander-in-Chief (I'm a college student, but I don't necessarily think that would make me a great professor.) So, again, could you elaborate on your thoughts?

I agree completely. We need to combat terrorism by improving relations and encouraging participation. McCain will continue Gunboat Diplomacy which simply no longer works. This is not post Hitler 1950 where most countries could easily be bullied by us because we were way stronger. In the modern world, technology and just plain advancement of other countries has made it a far more dangerous world.

I would prefer Obama to choose Hillary as his VP which will ease worries about Obama.

[EnyaGirl]

Is anyone gonna go see John McCain when he comes to Wilkes-Barre in July? Does anyone even like John McCain?

Nah, I think I'm busy washing my hair that day.

[Chefkey]

Hey ScranBarre, Do you think he is going to address issues close to your heart? That man is from an era of intolerance and that stuff gets inbred into psyche.

[nkotb]

John McCain has my vote, I thought for a minute I liked Obama until Hillary started
showing her 'smirk' again. Now according to Hil and Bil --- Obama has all the experience, knowledge, etc. to be our president. A month ago he was a dope !!! WOW !!!

[skijmpr]

Originally Posted by ScranBarre

Sen. McCain's new commercial even touts that he "sounded the alarm on global warming" long before President Bush made it a priority. Now, what conservative Republican do you know that actually thinks global warming is real, let alone proposed to address it?

Then why is he pushing for offshore drilling so heavily? There have been enough spill catastrophes in this nation's history that I don't think we need to encourage another. Plus one could argue that offshore drilling is only a short-term fix at best. A real solution is to ween us off of oil dependence altogether. But for that to happen, change has to start at the top and trickle its way down throughout the population.

I wish the Republican Party would get back to the way it was when Teddy Roosevelt was in office...funny how in the history of the two parties we have today they essentially swapped roles about a hundred years ago.

[Chefkey]

On the topic of energy, he has proposed building 45 new nuclear plants. This is pure idiocy for the fact that we have no good plan on where to keep the waste. The Yucca Mountains project where they wanted to bury waste has all but been shut down and that would have only housed what we currently have. Plus in 1,000 years we will leave a legacy as they estimate that is when the waste will have to be removed and still be toxic.

We need to focus on renewable clean energy. The mountainsides surrounding us should be full of windmills and we should be looking at solar panels where possible. In the ocean we should be harnessing the force of the tide. This guy wants to keep drilling in unsafe areas and continue a legacy of nuclear waste for future generations.

[thecoalman]

Chefkey, renewable energy is the answer for the future but its not going to solve our problems today, 10 years from now or maybe even 20 years from. The technology is still too immature and is going to take decades to develop it and the infrastructure needed to support it.

As far as oil goes this problem is not going away for decades either. Consider this, suppose within 4 or 5 years they have a marketable "green" car on the market. You're still going to have 100's of millions of cars on the road, lower income people will not be able to afford a new clean energy car either. It's going to take 20 or 30 years before such technology fully saturates the market. In the meantime we still have people driving gasoline automobiles that require gasoline.

Gasoline for cars is only one small part of the market, you have the trucking industry, machinery and home heating also using oil. There is at this moment nothing green that is going to replace a tractor trailer.

In the case of Nuclear the waste is certainly an issue however its relatively small amount that can be contained in a small area. It's also my understanding that the bulk of the "waste" being stored at nuclear power plants is low level wastes such as garments worn by employees. The really nasty stuff makes up a small portion. As far as the Yucca Mountain site coincidentally it was just recently the DOE submitted there application to the NRC to begin the building of the waste dump:

ReviewJournal.com - News - Official confident Yucca plan to clear licensing challenges

McCains plan also includes using coal, coal is by far this nations largest source of energy. 25% of the worlds know reserves lie underneath the U.S. The estimated recoverable reserves can meet this nations power needs well into the next century. To not exploit that resource especially if it can be done in an environmentally friendly way would be quite frankly dumb.

We surely need to invest in clean energy for the future but in the meantime we need to solve out immediate problems. McCains energy plan calls for using reliable, proven energy sources while also advancing clean technology.

Obama's view that we can do this with renewable energy is a pipe dream, he's only trying to appeal to the environmentalist vote which got us in this predicament in the first place.