Opinion:

I'm glad women are starting to hold high positions not only in gov't,
but also in our political parties.

It has been a long road since the days of Margaret Chase Smith of
Maine.

Choosing a women to run as your party's candidate for the 2nd highest
office is great, but it does not include the privilege of hiding
behind her skirts to avoid facing the issues.

"LipStick on a pig", as a vicious personal attack issue? Give me a
break.

Let's hear about some issues.

McCain states, "Were going to shake things up in Washington".

Okay, it's his party he wants to shake up, go for it, but that is an
internal Republican party housekeeping problem, not a proposal to
solve anything.

Maybe he knows something the rest of us don't, but so far haven't
heard anything but the same old time political mumbo jumbo attack
politics.

As I listen, "Where's the beef?", comes to mind.

When do we get a proposal to solve some of our problems?

I'd like to see something about any of the following:

* What is his proposal to address health care problems?

* What is proposal to address global warming issues?

* What is proposal to address alternate energy policies?
(Drill baby drill doesn't count. That's about like saying make more
buggy whips to make the cars go faster)

* What is proposal to address veteran's issues or do we just forget
about them? We owe them big time.

* What is his proposal to address fiscal problems?

* What is proposal to restore our position of leadership on the world
stage?

The list goes on (Iraq, etc), but a proposal on any of the above would
be refreshing.

The silence on the critical issues facing us from McCain to date is
deafening.

Based on his lack of response to date, one can only assume a
continuation of the last 8 years.

What am I missing?

What haven't I heard?

Lew

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 06:20:32 +0000, Lew Hodgett wrote:

Opinion:

I'm glad women are starting to hold high positions not only in gov't,
but also in our political parties.

It has been a long road since the days of Margaret Chase Smith of Maine.

Choosing a women to run as your party's candidate for the 2nd highest
office is great, but it does not include the privilege of hiding behind
her skirts to avoid facing the issues.

"LipStick on a pig", as a vicious personal attack issue? Give me a
break.

Let's hear about some issues.

McCain states, "Were going to shake things up in Washington".

Okay, it's his party he wants to shake up, go for it, but that is an
internal Republican party housekeeping problem, not a proposal to solve
anything.

Maybe he knows something the rest of us don't, but so far haven't heard
anything but the same old time political mumbo jumbo attack politics.

As I listen, "Where's the beef?", comes to mind.

When do we get a proposal to solve some of our problems?

I'd like to see something about any of the following:

* What is his proposal to address health care problems?

* What is proposal to address global warming issues?

* What is proposal to address alternate energy policies? (Drill baby
drill doesn't count. That's about like saying make more buggy whips to
make the cars go faster)

* What is proposal to address veteran's issues or do we just forget
about them? We owe them big time.

* What is his proposal to address fiscal problems?

* What is proposal to restore our position of leadership on the world
stage?

The list goes on (Iraq, etc), but a proposal on any of the above would
be refreshing.

The silence on the critical issues facing us from McCain to date is
deafening.

Based on his lack of response to date, one can only assume a
continuation of the last 8 years.

What am I missing?

What haven't I heard?

Lew

I freely admit I could, and most probably am, wrong on this, but here is
My Opinion:

The people who read and participate in this NG, and other woodworking web
based forums, are literate (they can read and write, compose paragraphs,
etc.) can use technology like computers, and know how to think through a
sequence of steps in using tools (hand and power) to accomplish a goal.
In short, they have disciplined their minds to invest their time into
projects that are *delayed* gratification by the nature of taking more
than an hour to complete; and then delay it even longer when they start
the finishing process.

However, mews-readers on TV and Cable, on the other hand, don't want to
devote more than 15 seconds to economic theory. How can a person, any
person, explain economic theory on blue collar job expansions by private
enterprises in 15 seconds. Therefore, it comes down to what will fill
that 15 seconds TV has allocated to a discussion of political economics:
Spending money to fund Community Colleges across the country to expand
teaching small business start-up, or fill that time with "Lipstick?"

You will have to trust me on this, it is easier to explain (in 15 second
bites) lipstick quotes than it is to explain causes of 11 retail banking
failures in one or two regions and none in rest of country.

Example two: Am I the only person who thinks USA should outlaw the use of
Oil and diesel fuel from being used as fuel at large Electrical power
plants? And, should Taxpayers offer interest free loans to Utility plants
to convert from Oil power plants to Nat Gas? Am I the only person who
looks at electrical cars and asks "where and how is that electricity
being generated?" Is that electricity used by cars really all that
pollution free?

Again, I could be wrong here. It sometimes is not the politician's but
the News-readers time limit on a subject; they don't want the audience to
switch channels, do they?

Again, IMHO, and I may be wrong.

On Sep 11, 8:51*am, Phil Again wrote:
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 06:20:32 +0000, Lew Hodgett wrote:
Opinion:

I'm glad women are starting to hold high positions not only in gov't,
but also in our political parties.

It has been a long road since the days of Margaret Chase Smith of Maine..

Choosing a women to run as your party's candidate for the 2nd highest
office is great, but it does not include the privilege of hiding behind
her skirts to avoid facing the issues.

"LipStick on a pig", as a vicious personal attack issue? Give me a
break.

Let's hear about some issues.

McCain states, "Were going to shake things up in Washington".

Okay, it's his party he wants to shake up, go for it, but that is an
internal Republican party housekeeping problem, not a proposal to solve
anything.

Maybe he knows something the rest of us don't, but so far haven't heard
anything but the same old time political mumbo jumbo attack politics.

As I listen, "Where's the beef?", comes to mind.

When do we get a proposal to solve some of our problems?

I'd like to see something about any of the following:

* What is his proposal to address health care problems?

* What is proposal to address global warming issues?

* What is proposal to address alternate energy policies? (Drill baby
drill doesn't count. That's about like saying make more buggy whips to
make the cars go faster)

* What is proposal to address veteran's issues or do we just forget
about them? *We owe them big time.

* What is his proposal to address fiscal problems?

* What is proposal to restore our position of leadership on the world
stage?

The list goes on (Iraq, etc), but a proposal on any of the above would
be refreshing.

The silence on the critical issues facing us from McCain to date is
deafening.

Based on his lack of response to date, one can only assume a
continuation of the last 8 years.

What am I missing?

What haven't I heard?

Lew

I freely admit I could, and most probably am, wrong on this, but here is
My Opinion:

Example two: Am I the only person who thinks USA should outlaw the use of
Oil and diesel fuel from being used as fuel at large Electrical power
plants? And, should Taxpayers offer interest free loans to Utility plants
to convert from Oil power plants to Nat Gas? Am I the only person who
looks at electrical cars and asks "where and how is that electricity
being generated?" *Is that electricity used by cars really all that
pollution free?


The pure electric cars (i.e. plugin, not gas/electric hybrid) are
going to be better for the environment because while yes, the large
power generators at the power company do create pollution, they're
generally more regulated and much more efficient than either the gas/
electric hybrid or the gas only car, or pretty much any internal
combustion engine.

Think about it this way... you could run your house by firing up a 2kW
portable generator. But you know those things aren't as good as the
power company, because you don't run your house on those portable
generators unless you have to. They're prone to failure, are expensive
to operate (i.e. keeping fuel in them and repairing them when they
break), are inefficient, and are annoying to have on all the time.

So while an electric car is indeed causing pollution, it's going to be
overall less because of the economies of scale involved. For a small
generator to power the car, it might generate X tons of pollution,
whereas a power company to provide the same power, the pollution might
only be 50% of X, which is a better deal for everyone involved.

-Nathan

On Sep 11, 10:10*am, N Hurst wrote:
On Sep 11, 8:51*am, Phil Again wrote:





On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 06:20:32 +0000, Lew Hodgett wrote:
Opinion:

I'm glad women are starting to hold high positions not only in gov't,
but also in our political parties.

It has been a long road since the days of Margaret Chase Smith of Maine.

Choosing a women to run as your party's candidate for the 2nd highest
office is great, but it does not include the privilege of hiding behind
her skirts to avoid facing the issues.

"LipStick on a pig", as a vicious personal attack issue? Give me a
break.

Let's hear about some issues.

McCain states, "Were going to shake things up in Washington".

Okay, it's his party he wants to shake up, go for it, but that is an
internal Republican party housekeeping problem, not a proposal to solve
anything.

Maybe he knows something the rest of us don't, but so far haven't heard
anything but the same old time political mumbo jumbo attack politics.

As I listen, "Where's the beef?", comes to mind.

When do we get a proposal to solve some of our problems?

I'd like to see something about any of the following:

* What is his proposal to address health care problems?

* What is proposal to address global warming issues?

* What is proposal to address alternate energy policies? (Drill baby
drill doesn't count. That's about like saying make more buggy whips to
make the cars go faster)

* What is proposal to address veteran's issues or do we just forget
about them? *We owe them big time.

* What is his proposal to address fiscal problems?

* What is proposal to restore our position of leadership on the world
stage?

The list goes on (Iraq, etc), but a proposal on any of the above would
be refreshing.

The silence on the critical issues facing us from McCain to date is
deafening.

Based on his lack of response to date, one can only assume a
continuation of the last 8 years.

What am I missing?

What haven't I heard?

Lew

I freely admit I could, and most probably am, wrong on this, but here is
My Opinion:

Example two: Am I the only person who thinks USA should outlaw the use of
Oil and diesel fuel from being used as fuel at large Electrical power
plants? And, should Taxpayers offer interest free loans to Utility plants
to convert from Oil power plants to Nat Gas? Am I the only person who
looks at electrical cars and asks "where and how is that electricity
being generated?" *Is that electricity used by cars really all that
pollution free?

The pure electric cars (i.e. plugin, not gas/electric hybrid) are
going to be better for the environment because while yes, the large
power generators at the power company do create pollution, they're
generally more regulated and much more efficient than either the gas/
electric hybrid or the gas only car, or pretty much any internal
combustion engine.

Think about it this way... you could run your house by firing up a 2kW
portable generator. But you know those things aren't as good as the
power company, because you don't run your house on those portable
generators unless you have to. They're prone to failure, are expensive
to operate (i.e. keeping fuel in them and repairing them when they
break), are inefficient, and are annoying to have on all the time.

So while an electric car is indeed causing pollution, it's going to be
overall less because of the economies of scale involved. For a small
generator to power the car, it might generate X tons of pollution,
whereas a power company to provide the same power, the pollution might
only be 50% of X, which is a better deal for everyone involved.

-Nathan- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This seems to make sense and I'd guess that you are correct. But it's
one of those things that could be counterintuitive. I'd like to see
some data or at least a technical analysis. In that analysis, it would
be very interesting to know the NET effect in environmental impact. I
agree the the net is probably positive regarding electric cars, but I
have no idea whether it's a large or small improvement once you factor
in the "environmental cost" of generating the electricity.

Let's face it, popular culture is becoming very obsessed with being
"green" and the consumer industry has jumped on the bandwagon to milk
our sentiment for every possible $$. The upside is that it has raised
awareness. That's good, but it's not good if the economic load to "go
green" is MUCH larger than the REAL benefit to the environment. I'm
not saying that it's not worth it, I'm saying that I don't have enough
FACTUAL data to form a conclusion.

The bottom line is, these this are more complicated that they appear.

Certain factions seem to feel that no cost is too high. I would ask
them this: "Would you spend $1,000,000 to save an entire species of
animal? Most of us would answer "yes".

Okay then, what about one individual animal. Fewer would say "yes".

What about a tree, or a small plant. Is $1,000,000 worth it?

Food for thought...

Phil Again wrote:

Example two: Am I the only person who thinks USA should outlaw the use of
Oil and diesel fuel from being used as fuel at large Electrical power
plants? And, should Taxpayers offer interest free loans to Utility plants
to convert from Oil power plants to Nat Gas? Am I the only person who
looks at electrical cars and asks "where and how is that electricity
being generated?" Is that electricity used by cars really all that
pollution free?

Couple of comments. First, I think demand for natural gas is increasing
faster than demand for oil. It may be cheaper now (haven't checked
prices for equal BTUs lately) but that may change in the not-so-distant
future.

Second, all else being equal larger fuel-burning motors are more
efficient than smaller ones. Also, electric motors can be very
efficient. Thus, one really big motor at a power plant burning oil to
generate electricity to power electric cars could end up being more
efficient overall than a bunch of gas-powered cars.

Also, some baseload power plants run at basically full capacity
regardless of load. Because of this, a certain amount of baseload
generating capacity is "wasted" at night when power consumption drops.
This power could be used to charge electric vehicles with minimal effect
on overall demand.

Chris

On Sep 11, 11:23*am, Chris Friesen wrote:
Phil Again wrote:
Example two: Am I the only person who thinks USA should outlaw the use of
Oil and diesel fuel from being used as fuel at large Electrical power
plants? And, should Taxpayers offer interest free loans to Utility plants
to convert from Oil power plants to Nat Gas? Am I the only person who
looks at electrical cars and asks "where and how is that electricity
being generated?" *Is that electricity used by cars really all that
pollution free?

Couple of comments. *First, I think demand for natural gas is increasing
faster than demand for oil. *It may be cheaper now (haven't checked
prices for equal BTUs lately) but that may change in the not-so-distant
future.

Second, all else being equal larger fuel-burning motors are more
efficient than smaller ones. *Also, electric motors can be very
efficient. *Thus, one really big motor at a power plant burning oil to
generate electricity to power electric cars could end up being more
efficient overall than a bunch of gas-powered cars.

I think the big advantage of all electric cars, lies in the fact that
power generating stations are able to run on coal, reactors, wind and
hydro.
Those are all fuels which regular engines cannot use. The BTU's per
dollar from coal or nuclear sources are several magnitudes cheaper
than those fuels which we buy from foreign countries, then refine and
distribute through 'Big Oil'.

Those centralized power sources can be run relatively clean compared
to the alternatives. Nuclear is well proven source of electrical power
which can get us to be energy self sufficient.

But.... there is nothing for nothing. Capital investment in a nuke is
high, so is maintenance. The least of the problems lie in the area of
waste management. Throwing a bezillion tons of ash and oxides from
fossil fired stations into the atmosphere ain't no picnic either.

The biggest problem with nuclear power, is the ignorance of the
general public.

One good sized nuke, and a coast-to-coast electrified railroad system
will get a LOT of those stinking trucks off the roads, including their
rubber tires (Whic use a lot of carbon based products) and smelly
service stations G

Also, some baseload power plants run at basically full capacity
regardless of load. *Because of this, a certain amount of baseload
generating capacity is "wasted" at night when power consumption drops.
This power could be used to charge electric vehicles with minimal effect
on overall demand.

Base-load power plants, like all others, can only generate the energy
that is consumed at that exact moment in time. You cannot, therefore,
waste output. You can, however, waste some efficiencies by running a
500 MW generator at 50 MW. Which is why there are smaller, more
nimble, and always less efficient 'peaking' stations which can cycle
much quicker and can be taken off line, and restarted with greater
ease that the big fellas. Those are usually coal or oil fired. The
real big guys create problems to the rest of the network by their
requirement for spinning reserve. IOW, the rest of the system has to
be able to instantly replace the energy lost by the biggest single
generator in the system. If there is an 850 MW generator dumping power
into a 10000 MW network, you'd need ...say.. 10 stations running 85 MW
below capacity.

That, incidentally, wouldn't be a bad policy to implement on oil
tankers. Force them to always sail with an empty hold, so if another
hold is punctured, you immediately start pumping the oil from the
damaged one into the empty one. That way, another seagull can survive
so it can get swatted out of the sky by the blade of a windmill
generator.

WILL you look at the time.....

Robatoy wrote:

Base-load power plants, like all others, can only generate the energy
that is consumed at that exact moment in time. You cannot, therefore,
waste output. You can, however, waste some efficiencies by running a
500 MW generator at 50 MW.

Yep. I didn't say the power was wasted, just the generating capacity.
(And as you say, some inefficiency is introduced.)

Since the capacity exists already, a certain amount of additional
off-peak power usage could be accommodated without any need to increase
generating capacity.

Chris

On Sep 11, 12:58*pm, Chris Friesen wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
Base-load power plants, like all others, can only generate the energy
that is consumed at that exact moment in time. You cannot, therefore,
waste output. You can, however, waste some efficiencies by running a
500 MW generator at 50 MW.

Yep. *I didn't say the power was wasted, just the generating capacity.
(And as you say, some inefficiency is introduced.)

Since the capacity exists already, a certain amount of additional
off-peak power usage could be accommodated without any need to increase
generating capacity.

Load smoothing is always a good idea. A 500 MW generator idling a 200
MW while it waits for everybody to turn on their toasters in the
morning, could be sitting a 400 MW and then all the toasters would
come on needing that 300 MW that now no longer exists. The only way to
do that, would be to have the ability to start knocking off car
chargers (for instance), remotely, as the demand for toast increases.
In today's wired society, I can't see that being such a tall order.
Have the power company control when you can charge or not...OR.. make
people pay big for those KW/h during peak hours. (An option you can
sell G)

Second, all else being equal larger fuel-burning motors are more
efficient than smaller ones. Also, electric motors can be very
efficient. Thus, one really big motor at a power plant burning oil to
generate electricity to power electric cars could end up being more
efficient overall than a bunch of gas-powered cars.


Crossed wires here, I was addressing the steam turbine electrical
generation plants that use oil burners to create the steam.

Phil

On Sep 11, 8:51*am, Phil Again wrote:

You will have to trust me on this, it is easier to explain (in 15
second
bites) lipstick quotes than it is to explain causes of 11 retail
banking
failures in one or two regions and none in rest of country.
Example two: Am I the only person who thinks USA should outlaw the use
of
Oil and diesel fuel from being used as fuel at large Electrical power
plants? And, should Taxpayers offer interest free loans to Utility
plants
to convert from Oil power plants to Nat Gas? Am I the only person who
looks at electrical cars and asks "where and how is that electricity
being generated?" Is that electricity used by cars really all that
pollution free?

Even Palin can't explain the Fannie Mae deal in 15 seconds or two
days!

As to the electrical power plant thing, yes, but.

"BUT" we are not now using oil to generate electricity at more than a
handful of locations.

Nearly 80% of our transportation infrastructure, however, depends upon
oil.

We impose a tax ($0.50/gallon) on imported Ethanol. THis needs to be
eliminated.

We require an FM radio in all vehicles sold in the US, but do not
require they be "multi-fuel" capable (adds about $120 to the
production cost).

We lease oil reserves (on and off shore) without adding "explore it or
lose it" language to the leases.
(80% of the leases controled by Oil Corps sit idle as we
speak)

OPEC has a big say in US energy production.

They decide what they will produce and, thus, influence the
price per bbl at will.
They added two new producing nations to OPEC without
increasing output by a single barrel.
Thus, effectively reducing world supplies!

Republicans (including self-styled Mavericks) have regularly opposed
CAFE standards intended to reduce US demand

Our fleet used to include millions of propane-fueled vehicles - many
sit in junk-yards today. These could be converted to Picken's NG, no?
If we can build propane cars and trucks, we can build NG cars
and trucks
Every converted vehicle reduces US demand and puts pressure
on OPEC

Republicans (including self-styled Mavericks) have regularly opposed
significant incentives for personal Hybrid purchases
You might get $2,000.00 if you bought a Prius, but it would
cost you five grand more than a Hyundai
They supported a four-year recaprure on the purchase of a
Hummer for small business amounting to nearly forty-grand
worth of incentives to put those monsters in every real
estate office in the land.

Big Oil wants to lease the rest of the sites before drilling on what
they have under lease now. Why is that?
Control. If they can lease it all, they control all drilling
in the US and thus
they can have their own little OPEC.
There will be no competition possble - no maverick upstart
company could lease a site and start drilling
as there would be no more leases available.

In fairness, the Republicans are good businessmen - savvy folks who
know how to keep America's oil companies profitable.
Folks who know better than I how to keep them earning big bucks and
protect their future earnings. Folks who may have tunnel vision.
Folks who may not see the the health, safety and well-being of our
citizens as a higher value than protecting Capitalist perogatives.

They are working these schemes for our own good



..

On Sep 11, 8:51*am, Phil Again wrote:
...


Example two: Am I the only person who thinks USA should outlaw the use of
Oil and diesel fuel from being used as fuel at large Electrical power
plants?

Hopefully. Large Power Plants use fuel oil almost exclusively
to ignite their primary fuel, coal. Outlawing it would make it
harder to get the coal burners started, which would lead to
environmental problems (unburnt coal in the fly ash) without
substantial savings of petroleum.

Oil and natural gas combined only account for about 10% of
the electricity generated in the US. Most of that is at smaller
facilities.


And, should Taxpayers offer interest free loans to Utility plants
to convert from Oil power plants to Nat Gas? Am I the only person who
looks at electrical cars and asks "where and how is that electricity
being generated?"

It sometimes seems to me that you and I are the only
*two* people who ask that question.

*Is that electricity used by cars really all that
pollution free?

Generally speaking the economies of scale make
pollution abatement at a large centralized power plant
more effective overall than at hundreds of thousands
of small engines.

I think.

--

FF

In article 344df6a9-b7e6-448c-8275-cfec659f8d43
@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, says...
On Sep 11, 8:51*am, Phil Again wrote:
...


Example two: Am I the only person who thinks USA should outlaw the use of
Oil and diesel fuel from being used as fuel at large Electrical power
plants?

Hopefully. Large Power Plants use fuel oil almost exclusively
to ignite their primary fuel, coal. Outlawing it would make it
harder to get the coal burners started, which would lead to
environmental problems (unburnt coal in the fly ash) without
substantial savings of petroleum.

Oil and natural gas combined only account for about 10% of
the electricity generated in the US. Most of that is at smaller
facilities.

Mostly at "peaking" plants, AIUI. Small/cheap plants needed for
quick availability (on line in minutes) to offset peak loads. It
takes time to start a bioler or nuke.

And, should Taxpayers offer interest free loans to Utility plants
to convert from Oil power plants to Nat Gas? Am I the only person who
looks at electrical cars and asks "where and how is that electricity
being generated?"

It sometimes seems to me that you and I are the only
*two* people who ask that question.

What about; where are the batteries going to come from? Oil has a
pretty impressive energy content.

*Is that electricity used by cars really all that
pollution free?

Generally speaking the economies of scale make
pollution abatement at a large centralized power plant
more effective overall than at hundreds of thousands
of small engines.

I think.

Automobile engines are pretty clean, these days. If it's CO2 that
is the worry (stupid), nothing short of caves will help. Indeed,
that's the point of the eco-nazis.

--
Keith

On Sep 14, 12:42*pm, krw wrote:
In article 344df6a9-b7e6-448c-8275-cfec659f8d43
@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, says...



On Sep 11, 8:51*am, Phil Again wrote:
...

Example two: Am I the only person who thinks USA should outlaw the use of
Oil and diesel fuel from being used as fuel at large Electrical power
plants?

Hopefully. *Large Power Plants use fuel oil almost exclusively
*to ignite their primary fuel, coal. * Outlawing it would make it
harder to get the coal burners started, which would lead to
environmental problems (unburnt coal in the fly ash) without
substantial savings of petroleum.

Oil and natural gas combined only account for about 10% of
the electricity generated in the US. *Most of that is at smaller
facilities.

Sorry, that should have been 20%.


Mostly at "peaking" plants, AIUI. *Small/cheap plants needed for
quick availability (on line in minutes) to offset peak loads. *It
takes time to start a bioler or nuke.
..

Yes.

--

FF

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
news:QM2yk.1008$Wd.61@trnddc01...
Opinion:

I'm glad women are starting to hold high positions not only in gov't, but
also in our political parties.

It has been a long road since the days of Margaret Chase Smith of Maine.

Choosing a women to run as your party's candidate for the 2nd highest
office is great, but it does not include the privilege of hiding behind
her skirts to avoid facing the issues.

"LipStick on a pig", as a vicious personal attack issue? Give me a break.

Let's hear about some issues.

McCain states, "Were going to shake things up in Washington".

Okay, it's his party he wants to shake up, go for it, but that is an
internal Republican party housekeeping problem, not a proposal to solve
anything.

Maybe he knows something the rest of us don't, but so far haven't heard
anything but the same old time political mumbo jumbo attack politics.

As I listen, "Where's the beef?", comes to mind.

When do we get a proposal to solve some of our problems?

I'd like to see something about any of the following:

* What is his proposal to address health care problems?

* What is proposal to address global warming issues?

* What is proposal to address alternate energy policies?
(Drill baby drill doesn't count. That's about like saying make more buggy
whips to make the cars go faster)

* What is proposal to address veteran's issues or do we just forget about
them? We owe them big time.

* What is his proposal to address fiscal problems?

* What is proposal to restore our position of leadership on the world
stage?

The list goes on (Iraq, etc), but a proposal on any of the above would be
refreshing.

The silence on the critical issues facing us from McCain to date is
deafening.

Based on his lack of response to date, one can only assume a continuation
of the last 8 years.

What am I missing?

What haven't I heard?

Lew

I know you don't really want to know, or you would have looked already, but
you could read McCain's web site for answers to your questions. But I know
it's more fun to pretend that McCain has said nothing about the above.

todd

"todd" wrote:


I know you don't really want to know, or you would have looked
already, but you could read McCain's web site for answers to your
questions. But I know it's more fun to pretend that McCain has said
nothing about the above.

As a matter of fact, have looked at the McCain_Palin web.

As far as I can tell, it is the standard regurgitation the
Replublicans have been spewing the last 8 years that hasn't worked.

They need a serious update.

Lew

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
news:kLiyk.1054$Wd.222@trnddc01...

"todd" wrote:


I know you don't really want to know, or you would have looked already,
but you could read McCain's web site for answers to your questions. But
I know it's more fun to pretend that McCain has said nothing about the
above.

As a matter of fact, have looked at the McCain_Palin web.

As far as I can tell, it is the standard regurgitation the Replublicans
have been spewing the last 8 years that hasn't worked.

They need a serious update.

Lew

So which is it? Has McCain said nothing at all as you originally asserted
or has he said something, but you just don't agree with it? I know...it's
*sooo* hard keeping all of the liberal propaganda straight. Turn to page
184 of the playbook for your next response.

todd

"todd" wrote:

So which is it? Has McCain said nothing at all as you originally
asserted or has he said something, but you just don't agree with it?

So far all I see is a continuation of the last 8 years and think it is
pretty well documented how these ideas have worked.

It is stuff straight out of G Bush's mouth.

McCain indicates he wants to change things.

I'm all for that, I'm waiting for McCain to tell me how he is
different than Bush.

Lew

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...

"todd" wrote:

So which is it? Has McCain said nothing at all as you originally
asserted or has he said something, but you just don't agree with it?

So far all I see is a continuation of the last 8 years and think it is
pretty well documented how these ideas have worked.

It is stuff straight out of G Bush's mouth.

McCain indicates he wants to change things.

I'm all for that, I'm waiting for McCain to tell me how he is different
than Bush.

Lew
Somehow I doubt that.

As for wanting change, what makes you think change from W's policies would
be a good thing? You, me, and the sum of the posters in this group do NOT
have the whole story. We are bound by what is reported in the papers and as
such have no real idea on exactly why a specific plan of action was taken.
It's convienent for us to comment on how bad the war in Iraq is, or how
terrible a certain economic plan is - but when it comes down to it we have
nothing better to offer. All we can do is vote what sounds good to us,
which is why I'm voting for Barr this time. But I won't let my
dissapointment with the current administration lead me to insult the
President or disrespect a serving Senator (not that I'm implying you've
done those things either) because even at their worst I could never do
better. If I have in the past insulted them, it was at my most immodest of
times.

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"todd" wrote:

So which is it? Has McCain said nothing at all as you originally
asserted or has he said something, but you just don't agree with it?

So far all I see is a continuation of the last 8 years and think it is
pretty well documented how these ideas have worked.

It is stuff straight out of G Bush's mouth.

McCain indicates he wants to change things.

I'm all for that, I'm waiting for McCain to tell me how he is
different than Bush.

Lew



He won't wait 8 years to cross in Pakistan in pursuit of the bad guys.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Sep 11, 11:48*pm, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
"todd" wrote:
So which is it? *Has McCain said nothing at all as you originally
asserted or has he said something, but you just don't agree with it?

So far all I see is a continuation of the last 8 years and think it is
pretty well documented how these ideas have worked.

It is stuff straight out of G Bush's mouth.

McCain indicates he wants to change things.

I'm all for that, I'm waiting for McCain to tell me how he is
different than Bush.

Lew

He's 9% different. He is 91% the same. At least that's how he's voted
in the past 7-1/2 years.

Lew Hodgett wrote:
So far all I see is a continuation of the last 8 years and think it is
pretty well documented how these ideas have worked.

Which ideas are these? What exactly didn't work?

It is stuff straight out of G Bush's mouth.

McCain indicates he wants to change things.

I'm all for that, I'm waiting for McCain to tell me how he is
different than Bush.

Lew

Why? What makes you think McCain isn't his own man?......If any main stream
politician beats to his own drummer, surely McCain does. Rod

On Sep 11, 8:11*pm, "todd" wrote:

you could read McCain's web site for answers to your questions. *But
I know it's more fun to pretend that McCain has said nothing about the
above.


Yes, but, when he goes on National Television or at stump speeches he
and Palin do so well, they do not talk about these things in any
meaningful way.

They complain about "the Liberal Media" construing their words, but -
when they have the opportunity to speak directly to the people in a
live broadcast, they obfuscate like all hell and talk about scary
Muslims wanting to blow us up and how great our troops are doing in
the tough situation they put them in.

Yes, some can go to the web site and pour over self-serving statements
designed to give the appearance of change and effective planning for a
better future, But when we tune in to hear about it first hand, our
hear then respond to serious questioners, we get pablum.

On Sep 11, 8:11*pm, "todd" wrote:

...

I know you don't really want to know, or you would have looked already, but
you could read McCain's web site for answers to your questions. *But I know
it's more fun to pretend that McCain has said nothing about the above.


That was good opportunity to post a link to said site.

Ditto if you reply to this.

--

FF

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
...
On Sep 11, 8:11 pm, "todd" wrote:

...

I know you don't really want to know, or you would have looked already,
but
you could read McCain's web site for answers to your questions. But I
know
it's more fun to pretend that McCain has said nothing about the above.


That was good opportunity to post a link to said site.

Ditto if you reply to this.
FF

I'll give you a hint. The website has the name "johnmccain" in it. The
rest is left as a exercise for the reader.

todd

On Sep 11, 2:20*am, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:

...

"LipStick on a pig", as a vicious personal attack issue? Give me a
break.
...


No kidding. If actual people were the object of the pejorative,
then the pig is Bush and the pig with the lipstick is McCain.

Palin is no Cheney.

--

FF