So how is McCain's major platform stances different from President Bush?

Question

on Iraq?

the economy?

foreign policy?

energy?

education?

Answer 1

The premise of your question seems to be that being like President Bush is a bad thing.  You assume that because the media and the Dems have repeated that suggestion a lot, making it seem real.

It is a bit erroneous.  Bush has done a lot of great things that you just don't hear about or would not understand if you did.   This is common in our modern technical society since so few people have the chance to understand what is really going on, and much of it can not be commented on in public, just in the national security interest.

For example, what do you know about uranium isotope separation methods or technologies?  How would you know when it was the right time to intervene in Iraq to keep Saddam from continuing his nuclear weapons development program?  How would you go about it?  What would be your criteria for taking action?  

More to the point, many of us are now convinced that the fact we did not find nuclear weapons in Iraq means that we made a mistake going in there at all.  This is not true.  Saddam had pursued his nuclear weapons program for 3 decades and spent over $300,000,000 in the process.  He admitted before his execution that he would have continued seeking nuclear weapons capabilities whenever that might be possible.  He also was eager to help terrorists and routinely paid families of suicide bombers.  

NOT finding nukes there was the success.  FINDING them there would have been too late to keep him from having them, don't you think?  Just shows the power of the media as well as the ignorance of the average American, especially the Dems, poor souls.  Both McCain and Bush know this, and so do some of the Dems, but one does not talk details about nuclear weapons technologies, so it is easy to make the wrong people look bad.

If Saddam had gotten his nukes, Tel Aviv would be gone by now.  More relevant to your understanding might be that a nuke detonated in DC would likely kill 100,000 people outright, like in World War 2, and we would have to evacuate everything downwind for a couple hundred miles, like to Philadelphia or even New York.  Will Bush get credit for making sure that did not happen?  Not likely.  Will he seek credit for it?  Not likely.  So, again I say your premise is out of line even if very popular with most people.

I hate trying to answer questions where the questioner has already decided the answer or where only certain points of view will be viewed as worthy. Just like Obama, this question lacks substance and one might say the same about most of Obama's supporters.

The Democrats generally have less substance than the Republicans, and they are generally less educated and, thus, viewed as the party that is based on poverty and ignorance, self interest at the expense of others. They make pottery, not nuclear power plants. They complain about corporate America as being greedy but are not able to achieve nearly as much wealth. Being self indulgent, Democrats are less likely to even figure out why it is necessary to put their lives at risk to defend the country. They do not understand that discussions such as these statements are meant to be generic, so they argue specific exceptions, if any exist. As I said, the average Democrat is dumber than the average Republican, and they thus can not be very substantive or even logical. Thus, they have nothing useful to offer in terms of solutions. Obama is their leader because he is black and a good talker. That's it. Why fight it?

So many Americans are just dumb democrats that he might just get elected. Face it. We have more dumb people in this country all the time, looking for handouts from the rich, just like the overly romantic Robin Hood.

But guess what? Most universities are populated by dumb democratic professors. They are book smart and real world dumb, which is why they have a hard time making a living, even trying to teach young and pliable minds all their theoretical but useless thinking.

So, if McCain wins, it will be because he knows things like this country needs to get on the stick and catch up on building additional nuclear power plants so that we don't drop back to being a third world country as the Brits are gradually doing with all their welfare and free lunches for the dummies. Given that he knows such obvious things, he will win only if the voters in the majority are smart enough to detect such critical needs. Again, too many dummies in the ranks of the voters right now. Too many demo dummies in Congress, too, of course, starting with Pelosi.

How does it feel to be disparaged without evidence? Do you think you are wise enough for us to listen to your dumb attitude? You are too young and dumb to ask a real question based on a real quote from a real person with real substance and logic.

Where is the beef already?

OK. Enough hitting on all you real dummies. Gag.

http://technidigm.org

On-the-Level: Common Sense, Technically Speaking

(the antidote for Democrats and other generic dummies)

Answer 2

McCain will be WORSE than Bush.

Answer 3

In my opinion, there is little, if any difference.  McCain will only give us four more years of the same, if he lives that long.  McCain has flip-flopped on so many issues, it's difficult to actually know what his positions are.  

Answer 4

Who said anyone needed them to be different ?