FACTCHECK.ORG

Distorting Obama

McCain's new Web ad misrepresents some of the Democrat's positions on energy.

By Brooks Jackson | factcheck.org
Jun 26, 2008 | Updated: 11:49  a.m. ET Jun 26, 2008

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Micky Marsh @ 06/26/2008 3:08:57 PM

    A battery powered car for the future, for sure McCain wants to leave us stranded in the streets, he better include a charger in his package.

    • Posted By: bdhotwheel @ 06/26/2008 5:09:38 PM

      Pessemist, closed minded liberal thinking there.

      • Posted By: the-commish @ 07/04/2008 6:22:41 PM


        No, not a pessimist, just a realist.

        Electricity (generated mainly by fossil fuels) is on alternating current, which is far less effecient than direct current, but has one big advantage (it can be moved over long distances, where DC can not). See the rivalry between Thoams Alva edison (a proponent of DC) and George Westinghouse (a proponent of AC).

        It is a fact the batteries for vehicles will have to be recharged by electricity (again this electricity produced by fossil fuels). So any gains will be at least in part eaten up by the (AGAIN) dependence on fossil fuels.

        I don't know the McCain supporters can't (or most likley won't) understand this. It is not hypothesis..it is a FACT.

        Now hydrogen fuel cells.. that is a different story.

    • Posted By: j.n @ 06/26/2008 7:15:49 PM

      One thing that no politicians are mentioning is that battery powered automobiles have to be recharged with electricy that is produced with fuel or coal,we do not have that many nuke plants.

      When electricy is generated there is a loss in the transmission of it,there will be a loss when it is charging the battery,in other words we will not get as much energy out of the battery that we have put in it,it will take more fuel to charge the battery than it would have taken to power the automobile if we had put the fuel in the tank of the automobile,the only that will benefit from a battery automobile wii be the power company.

  • Posted By: martin_gray @ 06/26/2008 7:36:10 PM

    Will not vote, sorry about the mistake - I meant Senator Lieberman who is trying his very best to lure the USA into fighting another war for Israel. Don't you think they have been around long enough to stand on their own two feet instead of crying wolf and begging big Uncle Sam to come fight those bad Arabs and/or Persians for them?

    • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/26/2008 7:45:57 PM

      ISRAEL DON'T NEED OUR HELP WE JUST WANT TO STAY ON THIER GOOD SIDE THEY WILL DEFEAT ANY OF THOSE ARAB COUNTRIES THAT THREATEN THEM THEY JUST HOLD BACK TO TRY AND KEEP THE PEACE THERE FOR OUR SAKE THEY'VE BEEN FIGHTING THOSE ARAB'S FOR OVER 2000 YRS

      • Posted By: Carlmn @ 07/03/2008 1:04:51 PM

        The US should stop giving 10 million per day to Israel and see how they would fare? You should get your facts straight before you write.

      • Posted By: Nor-Cal for Obama @ 06/27/2008 12:25:55 PM

        Comments like this cement the fact you have no f'ing idea what you are talking about.

        For any major operation Israel has openly admitted they would need to US and NATO for intelligence.

        People like you form opinions based on swag information you scrounge up, people like you put together these falsified realities and come up with the most inept garbage. You simply have not done your homework,.

  • Posted By: h7373 @ 07/01/2008 1:27:03 PM

    FACT CHECK, WHAT ABOUT ALL THE FALSE STATEMENT MADE FROM THE OBAMA CAMP ABOUT SENATOR MCCAIN? WHERE IS THE UNBAIS REPORTING?

  • Posted By: GregAugustaGA @ 06/27/2008 4:06:49 PM

    Why aren't we getting a share of the Iraqi oil?

    • Posted By: Ezana @ 06/30/2008 7:10:38 PM

      oops wrong link. disregard the first of the two I just posted.

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6461581.stm

    • Posted By: Ezana @ 06/30/2008 7:06:04 PM

      We underestimated the security situation (hundreds of thousands of unemployed ex-saddam soldiers running the streets with guns and joining militias). We also underestimated how much damage we did to the infrastructure and hired incompetant companies to rebuild. This cut into Iraqi oil production bigtime.

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25447998
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWbItn8L828

      Also it was never guaranteed to us alone. It's sold on the world market. So even though it is making a few americans alot of money (Halliburton, Cheney etc.), it is causing alot more Americans to lose money at the pump.

    • Posted By: metzlerd @ 06/27/2008 4:33:50 PM

      We didn't want to admit that we invaded the country to plunder oil. So now we're in a bit of a hard spot.

    • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/27/2008 4:14:58 PM

      WE SHOULD !!!!

  • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/27/2008 3:53:38 PM

    TYLER - The price of oil swelled to another record high Monday morning - before dropping back. It almost hit $140 a barrel - but then fell 25 cents. It appears - a recent increase in oil output from Saudi Arabia -- is not driving down crude prices. Former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, who started a bipartisan group called "American Solutions for Winning the Future" held little back at the Texas Republican Convention. He wants to use American solutions to change to the U.S. energy policy.

    Simply put - he's fed up with Congress: "The problem is not big oil or the foreigners," said Speaker Gingrich. "The problem is not the Saudis. The problem is getting Congress to do it's job." And that job, he says, is to start using the energy we have. "Congress outlaws every conceivable energy source," said Speaker Gingrich. Gingrich is making his case for domestic drilling by launching a campaign with Actor Chuck Norris, with the slogan: "Drill here, Drill now, Pay less." The campaign is urging Congress to do something now to bring down gas prices. Speaker Gingrich also has thoughts on speculators. "It's people who are betting the U.S. is too dumb to produce (its own oil)."


    He sides with East Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert -- when it comes to speculators and drilling. "If you began selling off two million barrels a day...we can pump out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It would immediately bring down the price of oil." Speaker Gingrich proposes selling off half of the reserve - now. "Do it suddenly..without telling anybody in advance and punish every speculator."The very speculators, he says, that are betting against America."

    GO TO WWW.AMERICANSOLUTIONS.COM AND SIGN THE PETITION !!!

    • Posted By: metzlerd @ 06/27/2008 4:12:31 PM

      Gengrich can get mad all he wants. What's he going to do when those wells run dry? Drill more? Most of the oil is not here it's elsewhere.
      He's right congress shuts down all America's energy sources.
      Well Mr. Gengrich, those of us who have been working on the problems despite the lack of government help, wouldn't mind a significant investment in alternative energy RIGHT NOW.

      How about we just ask him what we'll do when the next set of wells run dry. Then instead we'll do that now. Then we'll be ahead of the game.

      • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/27/2008 4:17:46 PM

        SO YOUR SAYING YOUR SMARTER THAN NEWT ???

        • Posted By: metzlerd @ 06/28/2008 3:24:09 PM

          I'm saying his motivations are likely in the wrong place.
          He's wrong to think that allowing oil companies to drill for more oil in different places than they are now, will not change the price of gas any more than it has in the last 30 years.

          I don't know if the problem is intelligence, lack of knowlege, or the money the oil companies are paying him, so I won't make a judgement on how smart he is.
          http://www.netnewspublisher.com/pandering-to-big-oil-political-opinion/

          I'll just say that he never struck as one of the brightest minds, but his bigger issues are probably more to do with ethics than smarts.

          But I'll say this


    • Posted By: metzlerd @ 06/27/2008 4:24:11 PM

      I wondered who Louie Gohmert was.
      He is in the 1st Texas congressional district, and who does he represent?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Texas_oil_field
      http://thatsmycongress.com/index.php/2008/06/17/the-big-oil-civil-war-of-louie-gohmert/
      Apparently he works for the oil companies.
      Yeah right! Big oil is not the problem?.

  • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/27/2008 6:18:20 PM

    Obama all CHANGE all the time:

    CHANGE ... what you'll have left after I raise taxes.
    CHANGE ... your gas prices upwards, but gradually
    CHANGE ... my hat size because every day my head gets bigger
    CHANGE ... the national motto to: In Obama We Trust.
    CHANGE ... what I do to my story depending upon whom I'm talking to.
    CHANGE ... what I do every day to my foreign policy
    CHANGE ... what I do to my trade policy depending upon whom I'm talking to
    CHANGE ... your lifestyle because the rest of the world doesn't like you
    CHANGE ... my friends when they turn out NOT to be "The person I knew"
    CHANGE ... what my radical left-wing ideologue handlers have in store for you
    CHANGE ... what I do to facts to suit my needs.
    CHANGE ... my pastor's screed is OK, yours isn't
    CHANGE ... FISA line that we crossed but I have now moved back
    CHANGE ... from public to private campaign financing because I can raise more money
    CHANGE ... I'll debate John McCain anytime, anywhere; except when and where he asks me.
    CHANGE ... the words of others and claim they're mine, because words count.
    CHANGE ... the meaning of Bible verses to meet my own liberal world view
    CHANGE ... more of you into victims of something and build government programs to take care of you
    CHANGE ... you into a ward of the state so that I OWN you and your vote
    CHANGE ... your mind and believe in me for I am the Obamessiah come to save you
    CHANGE ... into giggling sycophants; liberal mainstream media do under the spell of the Obamessiah
    CHANGE ... the chant I use to control the weak-minded Obamanized masses
    CHANGE ... into an Obamatron; join the cult, repeat the chant: CHANGE, CHANGE, CHANGE ...
    CHANGE ... what I plan to do to America because it's the greatest country on the planet.
    CHANGE ... the national anthems of all the nations of the world to Kumbaya using my messianic foreign policy skills
    CHANGE ... into mumble-mouthed idiot when I don't have prepared speech to read.
    CHANGE ... historical facts to agree with my life story
    CHANGE ... I said the DC gun ban was constitutional, but now I agree with Supreme Court ruling it unconstituional.
    CHANGE ... what I said because my rhetoric was overheated and amplified
    CHANGE ... but not for us, not the left-wing liberal elite, CHANGE is for YOU.
    CHANGE ... anything and everything I've said or done in my life if it will help me win
    CHANGE ... the definition of change to: What I say, when I say it, to whom I say it.
    CHANGE ... I can CHANGE when it suits me
    CHANGE ... you can believe in for a day or two
    CHANGE ... you can't keep up with
    CHANGE ... your underwear because you'll defecate in your pants when you wake up to find out what the left-wing liberal ideologues have done after gaining complete control of government.

    CHANGE ... YOU better freaking BELIEVE IN because it will WORK YOU over.
    Obama: the AUDACITY to count on you and I being DOPEs

    • Posted By: metzlerd @ 06/28/2008 1:36:10 PM

      Republicans all FEAR all the time, or the Politics of FEAR:

      FEAR - that I may have to pay as much as everybody else, percentage wise, in taxes.
      FEAR - that gas prices will drop and our Exxon shares will lose value
      FEAR - that other people might be just as good as we are even if they seem different.
      FEAR - is what I put in my story no matter whom I'm talking to.
      FEAR - is my foreign policy.
      FEAR - free trade agreements that include fair trade protections.
      FEAR - drives me because I'm convinced the rest of the world is out to get me.
      FEAR - my friends when they turn out to have a conscience.
      FEAR - what I do to facts because I might see I was wrong or worse yet, somebody else might see I was wrong.
      FEAR - is my pastor's creed, And everyone else is just wrong.
      FEAR - even investigating FISA abuses or holding companies accountable, because they may find my party stomped on the Constitution.
      FEAR - financing that might hold people and candidates accountable for the accuracy of what they say.
      FEAR - any debate with Obama that isn't moderated by conservative hit squads, and especially if it follows any accepted debate format.
      FEAR - the words of others and distort them if they don't support my cause.
      FEAR - that I may have misinterpreted the Bible and that threatens my own preconceived view of the world.
      FEAR - any government programs.
      FEAR - Obama because he's building an army of people that will actually help him CHANGE things.
      FEAR - that the media may report the truth, so I just call them biased.
      FEAR - the chant I use to control the weak-minded Republican lackies
      FEAR - CHANGE, CHANGE, CHANGE!
      FEAR - America because it's the greatest country on the planet, and if it changes anything well I just don't know what that would do.
      FEAR - the nations of the world that we don't control because they are out to get me
      FEAR - turns me into a babling idiot whether I have prepared speech or not because I have no concept of modern day economics or the consequences of my actions.
      FEAR - that I don't even know what Obama said about gun control laws because I've distorted it so many different ways that I forgot, so I'll just call him a "flip-flopper" and call it good..
      FEAR - that my rhetoric was not exaggerated and distorted enough.
      FEAR - that people may find out the truth.
      FEAR - Obama, so I just distort half what he says, call him a "flip-flopper", and say, "We don't really know anything about him", so BE VERY AFRAID. .
      FEAR - of CHANGE, so present the same old policies, relabel them new, and hope that no one will notice.
      FEAR - you'll defecate in your pants when you wake up to find out what somebody else will have done after gaining complete control of government and actually solving some of the problems.

      McCain: the AUDACITY to take other people???s ideas belittle them, make fun of them, and so WE DON???T HAVE TO THINK!

  • Posted By: martin_gray @ 06/27/2008 6:56:24 PM

    Dude,

    Get a job or find a life. Enough of your rants. Now drink some warm milk, take your meds and go watch Fox for awhile.

    • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/27/2008 7:11:18 PM

      THIS IS MY JOB !! AND THE MEDS ARE SO GOOD HERE !!! BEER NO MILK......... DIDN'T YOU READ MY HISTORY 101 COMMENT ?? ITS DOWN THERE IF YOU CARE TO !

      • Posted By: metzlerd @ 06/28/2008 10:27:43 AM

        Also regarding the 101 comment, you're wrong. There are 2 kinds of people in the world, but they are:
        1) People who think there are only 2 kinds of people in the world (Themselves and everybody else)
        2) People who see the world as it really is with many different groups and many people belonging to many different groups that are constantly changing.

        Other than that you pretty much will not take the time to think things through, and constantly make these leap to judgements not based on reality, but on preserving your own world as you want to beleive it. Most of the worlds contributions have been made by people who think outside the box, and if living in modern times would have been called, "flaming liberals" or just "they" simply because people they offered CHANGE.

        However, you are right that many conservatives are the first type as you so plainly demonstrate. :-)

      • Posted By: metzlerd @ 06/28/2008 9:55:36 AM

        Your job!!! Right!
        Who would pay you to post distortions and lies?
        Who would tell you to sit there and watch for emails that say "Forward this to everybody you know", and then post them on the internet?
        What would be the point? In order for someone to PAY you to do that, there would need to be money in it for them.
        I wonder whether you even have a job.

  • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/27/2008 10:28:57 AM

    Obama all CHANGE all the time:

    CHANGE ... what you'll have left after I raise taxes.
    CHANGE ... your gas prices upwards, but gradually
    CHANGE ... my hat size because every day my head gets bigger
    CHANGE ... the national motto to: In Obama We Trust.
    CHANGE ... what I do to my story depending upon whom I'm talking to.
    CHANGE ... what I do every day to my foreign policy
    CHANGE ... what I do to my trade policy depending upon whom I'm talking to
    CHANGE ... your lifestyle because the rest of the world doesn't like you
    CHANGE ... my friends when they turn out NOT to be "The person I knew"
    CHANGE ... what my radical left-wing ideologue handlers have in store for you
    CHANGE ... what I do to facts to suit my needs.
    CHANGE ... my pastor's screed is OK, yours isn't
    CHANGE ... FISA line that we crossed but I have now moved back
    CHANGE ... from public to private campaign financing because I can raise more money
    CHANGE ... I'll debate John McCain anytime, anywhere; except when and where he asks me.
    CHANGE ... the words of others and claim they're mine, because words count.
    CHANGE ... the meaning of Bible verses to meet my own liberal world view
    CHANGE ... more of you into victims of something and build government programs to take care of you
    CHANGE ... you into a ward of the state so that I OWN you and your vote
    CHANGE ... your mind and believe in me for I am the Obamessiah come to save you
    CHANGE ... into giggling sycophants; liberal mainstream media do under the spell of the Obamessiah
    CHANGE ... the chant I use to control the weak-minded Obamanized masses
    CHANGE ... into an Obamatron; join the cult, repeat the chant: CHANGE, CHANGE, CHANGE ...
    CHANGE ... what I plan to do to America because it's the greatest country on the planet.
    CHANGE ... the national anthems of all the nations of the world to Kumbaya using my messianic foreign policy skills
    CHANGE ... into mumble-mouthed idiot when I don't have prepared speech to read.
    CHANGE ... historical facts to agree with my life story
    CHANGE ... I said the DC gun ban was constitutional, but now I agree with Supreme Court ruling it unconstituional.
    CHANGE ... what I said because my rhetoric was overheated and amplified
    CHANGE ... but not for us, not the left-wing liberal elite, CHANGE is for YOU.
    CHANGE ... anything and everything I've said or done in my life if it will help me win
    CHANGE ... the definition of change to: What I say, when I say it, to whom I say it.
    CHANGE ... I can CHANGE when it suits me
    CHANGE ... you can believe in for a day or two
    CHANGE ... you can't keep up with
    CHANGE ... your underwear because you'll defecate in your pants when you wake up to find out what the left-wing liberal ideologues have done after gaining complete control of government.

    CHANGE ... YOU better freaking BELIEVE IN because it will WORK YOU over.
    Obama: the AUDACITY to count on you and I being DOPEs

    • Posted By: dking312 @ 06/27/2008 1:09:01 PM

      You should take up a hobby before you compile anymore lists, like figuring out which John Mcccain you like better - Mccain 2000 or Mccain 2008, cause they disagree on EVERYTHING.

      Oh, and the good psych drilling and fake ass tax holidays.....
      Between Economists LAUGHING at such a stupid 18 cents idea, and Gov Schwarzenegger calling Mccain out on that bullspit drilling crap, Obama doesn't even have to reiterate.

      Look into that.

      • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/27/2008 2:46:17 PM

        HOPE YOU CAN AFFORD 10.00 FOR A GALLON OF GAS BECAUSE I CAN !!!!

        • Posted By: metzlerd @ 06/28/2008 9:50:03 AM

          I guess that explains your support for McCain

  • Posted By: waterman @ 06/27/2008 6:34:37 AM

    "Visionary Leader", ayo5558, are you on crack? Obama can't hold a position on anything without flip flopping. He has no understanding of the free market system or how to fix problems. His plans call for trillions of dollars in new taxes. You gonna pay for that? 15 to 30 years to get oil, get real. Just announcing we are going to drill will lower the price of oil and American ingenuity will get the oil to the market in a few years. With new technology we won't hurt your environment. Your precious Democrats are the reason we are in this mess to begin with. Clinton blocked drilling in Anwar. Congress blocks any progress to getting the oil. Yes, our economy runs on oil, like it or not. It is the real world, not Fantasy Land. By the way, the country isn't quite as broken as you would like to believe. We have been safe from terrorist attacks for seven years, had good economic growth, until recently. Our problems now are the result of a Democratically controlled congress with a 12% approval rating. By those standards, Bush is doing a pretty good job.

    • Posted By: metzlerd @ 06/27/2008 9:08:28 AM

      Obama holds plenty of positions without flip flopping. He hased changed his mind on some issues, but most of the "flip-flopping" can only be asserted by distorting his current or original view on the issue.

      He has a better understanding of the free market system than most as evidenced by his catch on the Gas Tax Holiday gimick which further indicates John McCain's, by his own admission, lack of understanding of the same.

      His plans DO NOT call for trillions of dollars in new taxes. You're either exagerating or clearly confused here. They do call for taxes, and they must in order to pay for fixing the problems that have built up over the years. ITS CALLED FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY!!!!!!!

      Somebody has to pay for it. We can't keep on borrowing ourselves into oblivion as the Republicans like to do.

      Just announcing we are going to drill will NOT lower the price of oil. American ingenuity could have had us OFF of oil if we had just started focussing on that back in the 70's and 80's. Drilling for more oil will not fix the problem. It avoids dealing with the problem.

      Republicans have had their head in the sand regarding energy problems for 30 years. You can't blame the Democrats.. There are not enough Democrats in congress to override the others and the President, and that is the problem. You can't spin your way out of the fact that laws won't get passed without a President's signature.

      You're right our economy runs on oii, and that's the reality. ITS ALSO THE PROBLEM AND HAS BEEN THE PROBLEM FOR THE LAST 30 YEARS!

      • Posted By: lvrplfc4l @ 06/27/2008 9:55:39 AM

        Ok,, we should of started 30 years ago that would have been 1978 with a Democrat dominated Congress and Jimmy Carter as President how can you say Democrats can't be blamed. This is the problem with politics right now, it's all the other sides fault for not fixing it. Sorry both parties have done nothing to resolve the energy problem we have faced from 1973 on and to say otherwise is disingenuous.

        • Posted By: Nor-Cal for Obama @ 06/27/2008 12:10:57 PM

          You Morons need history lessons. Carter had solar panels installed atop the white house in attempt to ally the nation with clean energy. The Regan administration and its ties to oil literally had them removed..

          Yes, this really happened.

          • Posted By: lvrplfc4l @ 06/27/2008 3:12:07 PM

            Great in the two years Jan 77 to Jan 79 of the 95th Congress all that the Carter administration could accomplish was to install solar panels on the White House, create a huge government bureaucracy responsible for energy policy and nuclear safety, and pass the National Energy Conservation Act. With a Filibuster proof Senate and a House advantage of 159 seats you think the Democrats would of accomplished something that might of developed new energy but $600 dollar tax breaks for installing solar panels and raising fuel efficiency by taxing car manufactures for selling gas guzzlers seems to all they could agree on. Don???t get me wrong I don???t think Republicans have done even that much but to sit here in 2008 and say that it???s all the fault of one or the other is stupid. Unless Americans make hard choices now on energy development, fuel efficiency, and the taxes to pay for these developments nothing will happen. Taxing windfall profits of oil companies and gas tax rebates are not going to due anything other then race down the same dead end we have been on.

            • Posted By: metzlerd @ 06/28/2008 9:21:18 AM

              Carter did alot more than that, but there's only so much you can do without the support of the people, and people were still arguing about whether there was even a problem. Our country became alot more efficient. It didn't address all the problems, but drilling for more oil has not done a thing.

              Republican energy and economic policy has been a huge problem. Ignoring that will not help things either. It isn't time to sit their and blame people, but it is time to recognize where the problems are, and that means looking back at where the obstacles have been. Why are we not using wind and solar to their full potential? Why do we not have electric cars out there? Why do we still not have hydrogen cars out there? Why have we not solved the nuclear waste problem?

              And by looking at where the problems are I don't mean associating symptoms with people in office. I mean looking at actual bills brought up in congress. Who stood in the way of them and why? In doing so, it is clear that oil companies have had too much influence in this stuff. It is also clear that Republicans in general seem to have been against alternative energy in the past. I don't know why. I suspect many of them represent big oil or possibly auto manufacturers, but it is clear that the policies they have been pushing have gotten in the way of a conversion away from gas/oil.

          • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/27/2008 2:53:39 PM

            HE ALSO HAD BILLY BEER ON TAP BUT THAT SUCKED TOO SO REGAN HAD BOTH OF THEM REMOVED AT THE TIME THE SOLAR PANELS DID NOT WORK WELL AND WERE CAUSING PROBLEMS WITH WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS WE DID NOT HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY BACK THEN BUT LOOK NOW THERE ARE SOME THERE FROM THE BUSH ADMID !! IN 2002 SO THERE'S A LIE FROM THE LEFT ALSO ECO PEOPLE WANTED TO INSTALL SOLAR LIGHTING FOR THE GARDENS AT THE WHITE HOUSE BUT CLINTON SAID NO !! BUT BUSH HAD THEM INSTALLED NOW THE WHITE HOUSE DON'T USE ANY ELECTRIC FOR LIGHTS HOT WATER OR SECURITY !!!

            • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/27/2008 2:55:36 PM

              TRY LOOKING STUFF UP YOU DUMB ASS LEFTIST LIBERAL LIAR !!! P.S. ITS CALLED GOOGLE !!!

        • Posted By: metzlerd @ 06/27/2008 3:03:26 PM

          You're right Carter didn't manage to solve all the energy problems in the 4 years he was President, but he tried to go in the right direction while Republicans complained about spending and raising taxes.
          Sorry, but you can't blame it on Carter either. He tried to push us in the right direction creating the Department of Energy and promoted energy conservation efforts. It wasn't enough, but it was a start.

          Republicans have stood in the way of new energy policy. It wasn't just them. Car and oil companies have all done their part, but you can't blame them for the lack of inaction by the government. Republicans though have clearly stood in the way, and their just drill for more oil solutions are part of the problem. As long as drill more continues to be the Republican solution, we can blame the Republicans, not for everything, but for their role.



    • Posted By: mmcgee @ 06/27/2008 9:02:44 AM

      Sorry to inform you of this but it is McCain who "flip-flops" on an almost daily basis. We aren't dealing with McCain 2000 we are dealing with an inconsistent Mcflipflop in 2008. Mcflipflop has proposed a dramatic increase in spending while cutting taxes to the rich further increasing the nations debt burden beyond it's current 9 trillion. You are going to eventually pay for that. As for 15-30 years to get oil from new drilling to the market, yes it is real. It takes years just to order and build the equipment, to find the oil. So yeah get real. 15-30 years, numbers from the current energy department btw.
      In your reference to claim we have been free from terrorist attacks for the last 7 years, you might want to take a look at history. If you don't count McVeigh then we where free from terrorist attacks for over 200 years prior. One event cannot be used to establish a chain. The attack occurred under the current presidents watch while he had full knowledge that an attack was being planned and underway.
      For the democratically controlled congress, you do realize that your statement is somewhat misleading. It is essentially a 50/50 split with an independent Leiberman giving them their supposed majority and he has been voting with republicans lately.
      Any democratic bill that gets pushed gets vetoed and voted down by republicans.

  • Posted By: martin_gray @ 06/27/2008 5:43:53 PM

    Metzlerd is quite accurate. If the oil well is drilled and operated within our boundaries, it never-the-less is the property of BP or Exxon or whomever. It does not flow directly to the refiners in the United States for our use but is sold on the world market for the highest price. Just because we punch more wells off the Texas coast doesn mean that most of that oil will not eventually be sold for use in China or India.

    No one seems to grasp the gifts that America has bestpwed pm big oil. We have given them ownership of our oil. They drill, pump and sell on the open market just as OPEC does. The oil doesn not flow directly back to American refineries..

  • Posted By: Tom E @ 06/27/2008 1:45:44 PM

    The only thing that is misleading and dishonest is Sen. Obama's claim that he supports nuclear energy. Obama is trying to have it both ways ??? voicing tepid support while placing so many preconditions so as to make the construction of new plants impractical. The reality is that Obama does not support construction of new nuclear power plants and Sen. McCain???s claim is exactly right.

    • Posted By: metzlerd @ 06/27/2008 2:31:06 PM

      Your claim is only accurate if Nuclear power plants can not be built so that they are clean and safe. Are you saying that McCain is willing to build plants that cause radiation exposure problems?

      You're statement is just flat wrong. Obama supports clean safe nuclear energy, but not the old style plants that cause safety concerns and radioactive material disposal problems.

      McCain is distorting Obama's position on that point.
      If McCain would qualify his statement and say that Obama does not support Nuclear reactors with safety problems and waste disposal problems, only then would he be accurate.
      This point has been explained repeatedly. If McCain continues to do it, then it isn't just a misrepresentation. It's a lie. Not that anybody else seems to care about that.

      • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/27/2008 3:32:09 PM

        WE WON'T BUILD OLD UNSAFE PLANTS WE WOULD BUILD NEW HIGH TECH PLANTS THAT ARE SAFE AND ALL OF THE NUCLEAR PLANTS IN THE U.S. HAVE ALREADY BEEN RETRO FITTED WITH THE NEW TECHNOLOGY SO THEY ARE VERY SAFE TO EVERYTHING THERE IS COMPUTER CONTROLED AND HAS 3 BACK UP SYSTEMS SO THAT THEY ARE FAIL SAFE AND WILL SHUT DOWN SAFELY IF EVEN THE SLIGHTEST OF RADIATION IS BEING DETECTED !!

        • Posted By: metzlerd @ 06/27/2008 5:32:14 PM

          You didn't address the radioactive waste disposal, but if those designs exist and can be shown to be safe, and you can address the waste disposal problem, then you're talking about the Nuclear reactors that Obama supports. His support is conditional on those two things.

          There are possibilities for the 3-4 tonnes of waste per reactor per year, that involve reprocessing through breeder reactors which can produce weapons grade plutonium and somehow must be kept from falling into the wrong hands. As it is current reactors produce significant amounts of waste per year that will remain dangerous for 100's or 1000's of years. This is the main problem.

          Mostly it's the lack of volunteers to house the waste until something can be done to make it safe.

  • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/27/2008 2:58:07 PM

    Nor-Cal for Obama @ 06/27/2008 12:10:57
    Comment: You Morons need history lessons. Carter had solar panels installed atop the white house in attempt to ally the nation with clean energy. The Regan administration and its ties to oil literally had them removed..

    Yes, this really happened.

    Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/27/2008 14:53:39
    Comment: HE ALSO HAD BILLY BEER ON TAP BUT THAT SUCKED TOO SO REGAN HAD BOTH OF THEM REMOVED AT THE TIME THE SOLAR PANELS DID NOT WORK WELL AND WERE CAUSING PROBLEMS WITH WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS WE DID NOT HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY BACK THEN BUT LOOK NOW THERE ARE SOME THERE FROM THE BUSH ADMID !! IN 2002 SO THERE'S A LIE FROM THE LEFT ALSO ECO PEOPLE WANTED TO INSTALL SOLAR LIGHTING FOR THE GARDENS AT THE WHITE HOUSE BUT CLINTON SAID NO !! BUT BUSH HAD THEM INSTALLED NOW THE WHITE HOUSE DON'T USE ANY ELECTRIC FOR LIGHTS HOT WATER OR SECURITY !!!

    Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/27/2008 14:55:36
    Comment: TRY LOOKING STUFF UP YOU DUMB ASS LEFTIST LIBERAL LIAR !!! P.S. ITS CALLED GOOGLE !!!

    • Posted By: metzlerd @ 06/27/2008 3:18:39 PM

      There was no lie from the left. Look it up! Reagan pulled them off. Don't be dumb.

      I'm sorry, but just putting solar panels up and calling it good in 2002 does not make for an energy policy.
      It also doesn't make up for starting the war with Iraq, or posing the drill for more oil energy policy.

      And you belittling people doesn't fix anything either. If you think so highly of Google, how about using it to fact check some of your posts before you put them up.

      • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/27/2008 3:27:54 PM

        I KNOW REGAN PULLED THEM OFF I SAID THAT ! IF WE DRILL OUR OWN OIL THAT WOULD MAKE US INDEPENDENT FROM MIDDLE EAST OIL IF WE START NOW AND USE THE PROFITS FOR WIND SOLAR AND NUCLEAR THEN WE WOULD BE OFF OIL IN 10-12 YRS AND BE GREEN FROM THEN ON BUT WAIT THE LIBERALS WON'T LET US SO WE HAVE TO PAY HIGH PRICES TILL THEN !!!

        • Posted By: metzlerd @ 06/27/2008 3:54:02 PM

          "I KNOW REGAN PULLED THEM OFF I SAID THAT !" - But you also called it a lie from the left.
          " IF WE DRILL OUR OWN OIL" - Then in about 10 years we would see that oil.
          Are you saying we would get protectionist against the Oil companies? Never heard that from a Republican before. Usually it's just the free market will take care of us as long as we place no restrictions (Laws) on companies thus freeing them to maximise profit.
          In that environment, the oil we drill will be obtained by private companies not the government. WE DON'T GET TO PUT ANYTHING TO ALTERNATIVE ENERGY WITHOUT PRYING IT OUT OF THE STUPID OIL COMPANY. Futhermore they sell to the highest bidder, and according to the traders that is China, so in 10 years we'll be exactly where we are now!.

          "Liberals" will let us go green, and we can do it alot quicker than we would if we wait 10 years for Exon to put oil wells on all of our wilderness areas and coastlines. It's expensive now only because the government, mainly the Republicans, has been unwilling to put any money into infrastructure for alternative energies.

          A massive investment of the kind that was made on the Iraq war would rid us of our dependence on oil period; not just foreign oil.

          • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/27/2008 4:04:36 PM

            THATS WHAT I'M SAYING TOO JUST A LITTLE DIFFERENT LOOK IF WE ARE ALLOWED TO DRILL OFF SHORE WHERE THERE IS OIL THEN WE COULD HAVE OIL FROM THERE IN LESS THAN A YEAR IF CONGRESS WOULD CUT THE RED TAPE THEN OIL MIGHT GO UP A LITTLE FOR SAY ABOUT TWO MONTHS BECAUSE BIG OIL WOULD TRY TO CORNER THE MARKET WELL ALL THE U.S. GOVERMENT WOULD HAVE TO DO IS OPEN UP THE STRATEGIC RESERVES AND BAM THE PRICE WOULD DROP AND WE WOULD START TO REAP THE BENIES OF BEING INDEPENDANT AND START USEING THE SURPLUS OF MONEY TO BUILD UP OUR ALT ENERGY PLAN !!

            • Posted By: metzlerd @ 06/27/2008 5:05:03 PM

              "LOOK IF WE ARE ALLOWED TO DRILL OFF SHORE WHERE THERE IS OIL THEN WE COULD HAVE OIL FROM THERE IN LESS THAN A YEAR" - No. Exon or Texaco or BP would have the oil. They would sell it to China or whoever pays top dollar.
              "ALL THE U.S. GOVERMENT WOULD HAVE TO DO IS OPEN UP THE STRATEGIC RESERVES AND BAM THE PRICE WOULD DROP" - We've tried it before and a price drop is not what we've seen, more like short term stabilization.
              "WE WOULD START TO REAP THE BENIES OF BEING INDEPENDANT "
              Benies of being independent? We'd still be dependent on oil. The world demand for oil is still increasing. We still have a relatively small amount of the oil compared to places like the middle east and asia. And the oil is still running out. There is no independence.
              "AND START USEING THE SURPLUS OF MONEY TO BUILD UP OUR ALT ENERGY PLAN !!" - at the end of this the only ones with money are Texaco, Exon, British Petroleum, and the other PRIVATE companies that pumped the oil. WE would not have a surplus. The multinational corporations would have a surplus, but they have that NOW.
              WE would have have just bought more oil/gas from them. Our alternative energy companies would still be there trying to sell stuff where there is no infrastructure to support a market because all our government did is say "Yes you may drill on our protected lands."

              What WE get out of that is a few more oil wells to look at..

    • Posted By: metzlerd @ 06/27/2008 3:21:23 PM

      Also your calling them the "Eco" people pretty much sums up your commitment to really fixing any of our energy problems.

  • Posted By: GregAugustaGA @ 06/27/2008 4:00:30 PM

    Brooks...You are obviously a Fineman protege. How dare McCain distort Obama's words, record, positions. He will tell us tomorrow what he thinks tomorrow. He will wake up, have a cup of coffee and a cigarette, and decide what the position du jour is for that given day. Then again, maybe after lunch his "people" will state (as the did on the DC gun case) that "maybe" that's not exactly his position. I guess it depends on which direction the wind is blowing. Out of Chicago for sure where he learned his "new kind of politics" skills.

    • Posted By: metzlerd @ 06/27/2008 4:31:21 PM

      You've got it just a little wrong. With a few exceptions Obama's positions are consistent.
      On Monday Republicans will distort his position one way.
      On Tuesday Republicans will distort his position a different way.
      On Wednesday Republicans will complain that he has switched from the one he had on Sunday, to the one they distorted on Monday, to the one they distorted on Tuesday, and finally back to the one he held all along.
      They'll then call him a flip-flopper and play FOX (Make it up as you go) News sound bytes that take statements out of context.

    • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/27/2008 4:16:45 PM

      AHHH FINALLY SOMEONE WHO SEES OBAMA AS HE IS !!!!! THOUGHT I WAS ALONE HERE ON THE LEFT WEB NEWS SITE !!!

  • Posted By: Dan Cohen @ 06/27/2008 3:24:41 PM

    Where have you Morons been for the last 7 and a half years?????? Corrupting leadership of the Democrats?!?!?!? Are you that much of a moron, or do you live under a rock??? Haven't you Morons seen what the wonderful leadership of Cheney and Bush or Bush and Cheney!!! Open your eyes, put on the news, ask your neighbor to read you the newspaper about the wonderful economy. Get on your bicycle with the training wheels and take a ride to the local gas station. If you don't know what that is, ask a friend who can explain where you can find one. Once you get there, ask the man or woman filling up the tank what they think of the price of gas. You do know what money is????? Wake up and smell the flowers and not the cow manure that you probably smell. Follow your lead???????? What lead???? Better yet, please crawl back under the rock you have been under for the last 7 plus years!!!!!!

    • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/27/2008 3:45:12 PM

      YOUR THE DAMN MORON THE ECONOMY HAS BEEN GREAT FOR 6 1/2 YEARS LOW UNEMPLOYMENT LOW TAXES BUT THEN THE DEMOCRAT CONGRESS GOT IN AND THINGS TURNED TO *** THEM TRYING TO BLOAT BILLS WITH PORK AND BUSH VETOED THEM AND NOTHING GOT THROUGH ! SO DON'T BLAME THE REPUBS FOR THE ECONOMY WE WILL TAKE CRAP ABOUT THE WAR BUT THE ECONOMY IS THE DEMS FAULT !!!

      • Posted By: troyola @ 06/27/2008 4:10:35 PM

        the war is what hurt the economy. how simple are you

      • Posted By: metzlerd @ 06/27/2008 4:03:10 PM

        The economy is a result of problems since 2000. That's when the real estate problems began.
        The economy is a result of energy problems that have been around since the 70's, and largely ignored since 1980.
        Even if you choose only to look at symptoms, as you seem to want to do, gas prices started jumping in 2002. There is not one thing that the Dem.s did to cause the problem.

        Perhaps if you'd like to look at the actual cause of the problems, you'll come back to reality. Can you explain the downfall of the economy? Can you site something that caused it. Just because Republican's lost control of congress in 2006 does not mean you can blame a thing on Dem.s

        You can't split the congress 50/50 put a Republican in as President, and then blame everything on the Dem.s. It just doesn't work that way.

  • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/27/2008 3:04:06 PM

    Americans can not and will not follow the corrupting leadership of the Democrat???s Pied Piper. We are now at war, and I am not only referring to the one that we are engaging around the world against foreign enemies, but the one that we must all wage today to protect our homeland from those who wish to harm it from within. This reality cannot be escaped by any of us, and we have a responsibility and duty to fight it until the end. Barack Obama can not win the Presidency of the United States, unless we wish our Nation harm. The line has been drawn in the sand, and we are definitely staring into the heart of darkness that the radical left wing of the Democratic Party has in store for all of those who do not conform. They have already proven that their main objective is to bring a new era of anti-White racism, institutionalized sexism, self inflicted ignorance, reality-show messianic pretensions, and utter submission to corporate interests. For these reasons, I will NOT allow these people to achieve victory, for in their success we will all find our doom, and I expect many of you to follow my lead.

    • Posted By: troyola @ 06/27/2008 3:14:40 PM

      you are really delusional. if you have something intellient to say then say it. your rants only make you look stupid and bring into question the credibility of the people who you support. the problems that now exist in our country was started before obama and will be here long after he is gone. the only way to fight is to educate ourselves. ignorance begets ignorance as you have shown.

  • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/27/2008 2:44:58 PM

    NEWS FLASH LARRY SINCLAIR AND BARACK OBAMA WILL WED IN CALIFORNIA HILLARY WILL WALK OBAMA DOWN THE ASLIE GUESS OBAMA REALLY LIKED THE HUMMER !!!

  • Posted By: Igiveup @ 06/27/2008 12:12:12 PM

    John Mexico McCain is not a natural born citizen!

    • Posted By: lvrplfc4l @ 06/27/2008 2:31:07 PM

      McCain was born at Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone. Children born to parents stationed overseas generally have to file some paperwork showing their parents are US citizens, most military hospitals today make it part of the check out procedure. As for McCain's birth Title 8, section 1403 of the United States Code grants citizenship to children born in the Canal Zone with one parent who is a US citizen. As the constitution does not define the term ???natural born citizen??? if confers on Congress the power to establish a uniform ???Rule of Naturalization???.

  • Posted By: ayoss58 @ 06/27/2008 5:16:42 AM

    Here you go again with that old, dried and worn-out arguments about "experience". Hillary tried and we know what good it did her!!!. Now is Mccain's turn and again the voters will see through and reject this "all-embracing myth" of McCain experience!!!.
    McCain's experience, how laughable.McCain couldn't differenciate between a sunni and a shia, his arch enemies more than four times and he had to be corrected by Senator Liberman, a democrat!!!. Then the question that begs to be posed is what does McCain really knows???. Nothing!!!.
    McCain was just a foot soldier not a general. Worst, he was the worst pilot ever sent for a mission he didn't complete.Such a soldier in Roman times will be shot not revered!!!.
    More to the point of experience, is the undeniable fact that Mccain is "untested" and "unprovened" as a chief executive nor has ever managed even a platoon, ever been a city mayor, a governor, a secretary of state or defense or a president!!!. Where on earth does he claim these executive experience???. Former European Supreme commander, general Clark said qoute, "Mccain is untested and unprovened" as a chief executive. as far as executive experience is concerned, McCain like Hillary like Obama has nothing to offer.They all offer legislative as opposed to executive experience. And we all know from bitter experience what "experience" means and worth. George Bush had all the executive experience as a governor and what did he do with that experience???. A broken economy, broken military, unending war, the largest deficits in American history, and a highly demoralised Nation!!!.
    Obama is not running on "experience" but "smart and sound judgement". And he has provened that in the democratic primary.Contrary to sclang claims, whom by the way is just an illiterate moron, Obama's legislative records ranging from nuclear non-proliferation, guns control, death penalty, pro-choice, immigration reform, veteran rights, energy independence, etc are qualitatively superior to that of Mccain.All independent experts aggree Obama is unique and exceptional and visionary leader!!!.
    Common give us a break. Democracy means the party that mess up is the party that get its butts kicked out of office. Who is Mccain and the republicans trying to fool???. Nobody but themselves!!!.
    All he really has to offer is legislative experience as a senator!!!. How many USA senators have become very successful and great presidents???. Lincoln and JFK.

    • Posted By: lvrplfc4l @ 06/27/2008 9:34:11 AM

      Ayoss58 you might want to try reading up on US Presidents, Lincoln was never a senator and as for successful Presidents that were senators how about Monroe, Jackson, Truman and Johnson. As for comparing McCain to a soldier in the Roman armies, please the sitting Consul commanded the Army under the Republic and you had who ever was elected commanding armies in the field. In the case of a Marius or Caesar it worked wonderfully but with a Caepio or Mallius a disaster. I believe McCain commanded a training squadron at Cecil Field, which would have given him some executive training

      • Posted By: Mimi13 @ 06/27/2008 1:11:44 PM

        I can't find anything in McCain's bio to indicate that he led a training squad. At Cecil, he was in training himself on A-4 Skyhawks. He spent most his time at Pennsacola partying with "Marie the Flame of Florida" an exotic dancer. His class rank was lowered (5th from the bottom) at Annapolis not only because of poor grades, but also because of bad conduct and poor leadership qualities. When he became an Naval aviator, he was so slipshod about training that he crashed two planes and got tangled up in power lines once. There is nothing in this man's background to indicate that he has the ability, the intelligence, the curiosity of mind, the intellectual perserverance to think through a problem to be the leader of the United States. His one heroic act -- refusing repatriation ahead of POWs who had been held longer by the Viet Cong -- is a great one and he deserves all the honor he received for personal valor. But -- he is NOT a leader. There is very little in his life that he achieved on his own. His Navy career was an outgrowth of the careers of his father and grandfather. His political career comes courtesy of the financial backing of his wife and father-in-law. As a legislator, he has essentially been a loner, which is a good thing in one way because he has had bi-partisan support on some bills. But it shows no ability to manage an organization.
        And given his age, and his obvious need to take weekend breaks (think of Reagan's naps), there is no way McCain is up to what is arguably the most stressful job in the world

    • Posted By: lvrplfc4l @ 06/27/2008 9:34:57 AM

      Ayoss58 you might want to try reading up on US Presidents, Lincoln was never a senator and as for successful Presidents that were senators how about Monroe, Jackson, Truman and Johnson. As for comparing McCain to a soldier in the Roman armies, please the sitting Consul commanded the Army under the Republic and you had who ever was elected commanding armies in the field. In the case of a Marius or Caesar it worked wonderfully but with a Caepio or Mallius a disaster. I believe McCain commanded a training squadron at Cecil Field, which would have given him some executive training

  • Posted By: mcg20 @ 06/26/2008 3:33:59 PM

    Since when does Newsweek comment on Ads. I don't remember Newsweeks doing a story of the misrepersentation of the ad with the woman saying that you can't have my son Alex. This is total BS at least be fair for God sake. Newsweek's bias is so far left that any rational person must begin to believe That the Obama people get editorial review....it is no wonder this rag is getting it's assed kicked in circulation by Time and US News and World Report

    • Posted By: Nor-Cal for Obama @ 06/27/2008 12:45:59 PM

      Obvisouly, you don't read much. This is an article link to factcheck.org a non bias source for verifying the TRUTH.

      Something you righties arnt much involved with.... Truth and logic.

    • Posted By: IDTT @ 06/26/2008 4:49:22 PM

      What was wrong with the Baby Alex ad?

      • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/26/2008 6:54:56 PM

        UMMM FOR ONE WHEN BABY ALEX IS OLD ENOUGH TO GO IN TO THE MILITARY McCAIN WOULD BE LONG SINCE DEAD AND THE MOTHER OF BABY ALEX IS TOO STUPID TO KNOW THAT THE MILITARY IS A VOLUNTEER ARMY SO IT WOULD BE UP TO ALEX NOT HIS MOTHER WHO IS A DUMBASS I CAN'T BELEIVE SHE EVEN GOT LAYED HAVE YOU SEEN HER YUCK !!!

        • Posted By: IDTT @ 06/26/2008 7:49:05 PM

          I know the late night comedians joke about McCain having been around for 100 yrs, but i don't think the point of the ad was he would still be around in 100 yrs, but the US would still be mired in Iraq if Sen McCain's comment about being there that long becomes reality. IMO the ad was not devised to make the viewer think too much beyond the sight of the little guy growing up to go fight as soon as he's old enough. Never mind its a volunteer military service and Alex doesn't have to join (unless Sen McCain's comment about the draft being necessary in the event of WWIII...but lets not go there!) the point of the ad was to tug on the heart strings and I think it did that. Sadly, politics these days can hinge on gimmiky crap like that. I'm sure Sen McCain will get his gimmick attack in that resonates too. Neither guy is really giving us anything different yet.

    • Posted By: j.n @ 06/26/2008 6:46:23 PM

      What was misrepresented by the lady saying that you cannot have my baby,when young people learn to stop letting old men send them of to kill other people that have done nothing to anyone,wars will stop.

    • Posted By: superbad1 @ 06/26/2008 6:13:02 PM

      There was nothing misleading about the ad your speaking of. McCain DID say we could be in Iraq for 100 years. What was in the ad you felt was misleading?

    • Posted By: tired of the BS @ 06/26/2008 3:50:46 PM

      mcg20: MSNBC is reporting on this Web because it is directly related to the candidates. Obama nor his campaign is responsible for the baby Alex commercial. You don't see FOX going after all of the commercials or Webs that distort what Obama represents...and to me FOX news is so right that it doesn't have a left, they basically report about any little thing they can to make Obama out to be what they want him to be...

  • Posted By: Newsweekbhg @ 06/26/2008 3:40:40 PM

    When will the old timers realize that these grand old statemets like **I wil give a $300M prize to blabla bla** does not work any more. I think McCains generation fell for that stuff; people today are more informed

    • Posted By: cowen123456 @ 06/26/2008 3:55:37 PM

      How much money have we pump into governement run research and development on new vaccines and drugs to cure illnesses? How many discoveries has been made thru government run research and development programs? ZERO! All new life saving drugs and vacines has been developed thru private development enterprises! Take your ignorant to an Obama rally where you can drink some more koolaid and leave the serious stuff to those of us who actually read once in a while!

      • Posted By: Nor-Cal for Obama @ 06/27/2008 12:45:01 PM

        Cowen your facts are totally broken, it's foolish to keep posting the same thing that was debunked inches above. LOL

      • Posted By: mtovvnsend@gmail.com @ 06/26/2008 4:32:45 PM

        Behind most every good private company was a good publicly/gov't funded scientist (who also went to school on Gov't money) that realized his drug/vaccine or whatever could make him money in the private sector. They each have their time and place for research. Oh, and prize monies don't work? Tell that to the guy working out of his basement to improve netflix's recommendation algorithim... or to Google who now sponsors multiple prizes. And if you still say it's not about money, what about the prestige of collecting the reward? or publicity to the problem in the first place which bring in all sorts of folks that just like a challenge?

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse