StarGateWars Forums

Awesome! McCain picking a female VP is brilliant, strategically.
Especially mrs. Palin, she's 'specialised' in Energy and Natural Resources, key issue of these years and years to come.


Brilliant choice.

From what I heard, this is same as Bush's choice for vice presidence....politically talking.
I mean, someone being more radical than the president himself...nothing good to come, history shown it.


And indeed, she is for developping energies:

Palin has strongly promoted oil resource development in Alaska, including opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling

Yep natural reserves drilling, that's really a move for future!

Awwwwwww its her for sure? He announced it?

I thought it'd be Tim Pawlenty...

Drilling in a natural refuge...that's sooo much uncaring of environment!
We're talking about Alaska, one of last American states left almost untouched and preserved. Now, to change!
When bears will be eating dead-by-petroleum salmons...this is sooo quickly going to drop down!
Every place with exploitation on forests, it's a disaster (and afterall it's multinational firms doing it, so it's not like it's different, surely the same who would exploit it)...so dirty and polluted.

Member of NRA I also noticed...lol


For the future...someone who shot at mooses and who wants to drill in natural refuge.
lol!

Well done Matt for the sum up

Young candidate with experienced VP vs experienced candidate with unexperienced VP. Just take a look at both Obama and Palin's studies/work debuts for example...Obama wins with upper hand.

how DARE he not choose Romney. Energy is not our problem, money is. What an IDIOT.

APADAMEK! wrote:how DARE he not choose Romney. Energy is not our problem, money is. What an IDIOT.

As always, things are a lot more complicated than "energy is not our problem, money is"(1) or "zomg, drilling in alaska"(2), "zomg, she hunts"(3), "zomg.. she's inexperienced"(4)..


Since simple statements require simple answers, I will just list a few responses that can validly be given to those 4 points.

1. And what, aside from military expenditure, costs the US currently the most? Energy imports.
2. We're not talking *entire* ANWR, merely sector 1002. 1.5 million acres of a 19 million acre reserve. And of that sector, only 2000 acres will actually be developed in order to reach the oil. Scientific progress has come a long way since the early oil drilling operations which scarred the mainland.
3. There's such a thing as wildlife management. Since we killed off most of the bears, man needs to take the place as regulating factor, that is man should kill excessive population. In normal nature, when a population grows too big, hunters (like bears) come around and kill a lot of the population. If the hunters fail, diseases come to decrease the population. Since we are no longer operating under 'normal nature' parameters, us humans need to take the place of the natural hunters. And there's always the hunting ranches, breeding beasts to hunt them when they grow up. Better to have regulated, legal hunts than countless illegal operations.
4. So is Obama. What is the problem? She should have been a Senator first? Pfft.. at least she's a woman of the people, for the people. I dare say Governor is a much better job to have in preparation of the Presidential/Vice-Presidential position.


The floor is yours, Appy, Pops, Jack, Earendil, Empedocles..

Lois Lane wrote:As always, things are a lot more complicated than "energy is not our problem, money is"(1) or "zomg, drilling in alaska"(2), "zomg, she hunts"(3), "zomg.. she's inexperienced"(4)..


Since simple statements require simple answers, I will just list a few responses that can validly be given to those 4 points.

1. And what, aside from military expenditure, costs the US currently the most? Energy imports.
2. We're not talking *entire* ANWR, merely sector 1002. 1.5 million acres of a 19 million acre reserve. And of that sector, only 2000 acres will actually be developed in order to reach the oil. Scientific progress has come a long way since the early oil drilling operations which scarred the mainland.
3. There's such a thing as wildlife management. Since we killed off most of the bears, man needs to take the place as regulating factor, that is man should kill excessive population. In normal nature, when a population grows too big, hunters (like bears) come around and kill a lot of the population. If the hunters fail, diseases come to decrease the population. Since we are no longer operating under 'normal nature' parameters, us humans need to take the place of the natural hunters. And there's always the hunting ranches, breeding beasts to hunt them when they grow up. Better to have regulated, legal hunts than countless illegal operations.
4. So is Obama. What is the problem? She should have been a Senator first? Pfft.. at least she's a woman of the people, for the people. I dare say Governor is a much better job to have in preparation of the Presidential/Vice-Presidential position.


The floor is yours, Appy, Pops, Jack, Earendil, Empedocles..

1. The solution would be to develop alternative energies...like schwarzy plans to. NOT to look for petroleum in natural refuge! *sigh*
2. The problem is NOT always the size, it's the fact you start. When you start, it means it will expend...expend. It's well known thing. When they started somewhere in Amazonia too...and then it expended. Same can be said for Nigeria.
3. And slowly but surely they'll disappear for xyz reasons.
4. lmao...it still belongs better to Obama (underlined). Noone is more deserving that title than him, not even Billary..

Personally, I would have said Schwarzenegger was the most skilled to be the VP in republicans' side. His policy isn't bad at all regarding energies and all those things.

Lois Lane wrote:As always, things are a lot more complicated than "energy is not our problem, money is"(1) or "zomg, drilling in alaska"(2), "zomg, she hunts"(3), "zomg.. she's inexperienced"(4)..


Since simple statements require simple answers, I will just list a few responses that can validly be given to those 4 points.

1. And what, aside from military expenditure, costs the US currently the most? Energy imports.
2. We're not talking *entire* ANWR, merely sector 1002. 1.5 million acres of a 19 million acre reserve. And of that sector, only 2000 acres will actually be developed in order to reach the oil. Scientific progress has come a long way since the early oil drilling operations which scarred the mainland.
3. There's such a thing as wildlife management. Since we killed off most of the bears, man needs to take the place as regulating factor, that is man should kill excessive population. In normal nature, when a population grows too big, hunters (like bears) come around and kill a lot of the population. If the hunters fail, diseases come to decrease the population. Since we are no longer operating under 'normal nature' parameters, us humans need to take the place of the natural hunters. And there's always the hunting ranches, breeding beasts to hunt them when they grow up. Better to have regulated, legal hunts than countless illegal operations.
4. So is Obama. What is the problem? She should have been a Senator first? Pfft.. at least she's a woman of the people, for the people. I dare say Governor is a much better job to have in preparation of the Presidential/Vice-Presidential position.


The floor is yours, Appy, Pops, Jack, Earendil, Empedocles..

1: what costs the US so much? A failing economy and a weakening dollar? Romney would have been able to get the economy under control as president, as VP he would have been able to do some good in that regard.
2: The fact remains that it is a national wildlife reserve, to drill on it for what could possibly be a small trickle of oil is against the whole point of those reserves. They are meant to be natural habitats for animals no matter what, whether it has gold, gems, or Oil.

Jack wrote:P.S. if I win the presidency then I promise a naked, dancing Avril and Alizée.

wehhh... they're not brazilian... and i wanted to vote for ya... even made that bar...

Smart move, politically. She's already praised Hillary for cracking the glass ceiling. All the Hillarycrats will ditch Obama for her to see a woman in the White House anyway they can get.

As for energy, America needs to get over our nuclear paranoia and go nuclear. France already is mostly nuclear and has a recycling system for the waste, I've heard. I never thought I'd say this, but copying France's energy policy might not be a bad idea.

Oh, I agree with Appy. Romney would have been better for the economy. It's a shame so many people say "Omg, Mormon!" I wouldn't want him as President, but... our economy is in a slump.

I think the most interesting thing about the Palin pick is what it says about the thinking amongst senior figures in the Republican party and/or McCain campaign.

Whatever the merits or otherwise of Palin as a pick, the one thing I think everyone has to agree with is that it is a gamble. And, as a rule, politicians don't gamble unless they think they have to. Especially US Presidential nominees.

So I think that what the selection of Palin tells us is that senior Republicans don't share the confidence of some people, that Obama's lack of a sustained and crushing poll lead over the last few weeks is a harbinger of his inevitable defeat. I think it is solid proof that they are very worried.

Phoenix of Terra wrote:Smart move, politically. She's already praised Hillary for cracking the glass ceiling. All the Hillarycrats will ditch Obama for her to see a woman in the White House anyway they can get.

As for energy, America needs to get over our nuclear paranoia and go nuclear. France already is mostly nuclear and has a recycling system for the waste, I've heard. I never thought I'd say this, but copying France's energy policy might not be a bad idea.

Oh, I agree with Appy. Romney would have been better for the economy. It's a shame so many people say "Omg, Mormon!" I wouldn't want him as President, but... our economy is in a slump.

I confirm that France is world #1 country for density of nuclear complexes
And it's doing well so far. Despite anti nuclear people say.
China and Japan are buying from France in this category, not the opposite!

i think he pick her for a couple of reasons...most of them polictial

1) "the he's inexperienced" line had run it's course for McCain. It was clear that Obammy had over come that. What he need to counter was the Obammy Line "McCain, more of the same" by doing completely opposite what was expected, it become increasing difficult for that line of reasoning. By bringing in, by all standards "a american with an american story" and a concervitive, he kinda cuts Obammy off at the pass.

2) "bill Clinton and the soccer moms" Billy boy sweep his elections with this vote. Clearly McCain see this as a good place. Palin introduce her self as "just a hockey mom". Will she pull the liberal Hillery girls, some, but not many due to her stand on pro life, marriage and the family, and a host of other issue that that voting block cares deeply about. But will she bring the rank and file union wife, and any one who married knows, who runs the household.... with her husband being introduced "as life long union member" u can bet they will see her as "one of us who made it". In the end, what left of the working middle class will id with her far more than with any of the other three.

3) it america...who couldn't love a gal who bakes cookies and shots a gun ?

papa out

I'm also amused at how Obama has picked a VP who is essentially the democrat version of McCain. Whereas McCain himself has picked a VP his strategists hope will be 'young/fresh/sassy' etc.