U.S. Presidential Election 2008

Hmm... Where do many of your goods come from? Surely not China!?

Please don't confuse the issue with facts

But, but, but Kyoto!!!

actually they quite explicitly did. I suggest you don't pontificate on Northern Ireland since you have repeatedly shown yourself to be woefully ignorant of any of the issues concerned. In any case I explicitly said the issues are different for the two if you look above and would hazard that I am probably better qualified than you to know why.

China are actually doing much more than the USA at present. They at least have now ratified Kyoto and are implementing measures to reduce the amount of CO2 being used. And as Australia is doing the same it would appear that the USA is now the only developed nation doing squat all.

if both of you had bothered to read the link you would see that "fact" which was misleadingly put out by McCain as a reason whxyy there was no need to act on CO2 emissions, was indeed bogus.

You are wronger than wrong. In 2007, China and the US had roughly the same CO2 emissions. China's CO2 emissions are increasing. The US's CO2 emissions are decreasing. How simple must I make it for you? If you believe that China will meet its post-2012 targets despite of all the evidence to the contrary then you are delusional.


Squat all? I put examples and evidence of actual reduction (rather than simply slowing the increase as many countries are trying, and failing, to do) right U.S. Presidential Vote 2008: Obama vs. McCain.

Maybe so, but the Europeans seem to dialog endlessly and then when they actually make a decision it is to late. Remember, even the best decision is rendered useless if not done in a timely manner.

Why hasn't the EU taken action in Darfur? Do they hope to solve it through dialog? Or are they waiting for the US to lead? Nothing is preventing the EU from taking the lead. But this would require "action" and then the ability to live with the consequences of that action.

Now we have the truth coming out

Only nations that ratify "Kyoto" can implement measures to reduce C02.

It's like he's going out of his way to prove your point.

???

You're no authority on NI yourself as has been shown here time and again.

Kyoto here or there, what should the US do to reduce it's CO² emissions?
Most obvious would be an increase in to cost of car and aeroplane fuel and put the money into rail transport.
But I gather that Main Street America is already up in arms at the cost of petrol.

@DW: I'm very reluctant to engage in Ami-bashing, but China has per capita CO2 emissions of about a quarter to a third of those of the US. China is in a completely different developmental stage. The US should not be waiting for China to reduce emissions--they shoud be doing something drastic about it themselves.

BTC, you are a prime example of people seeing what they want to see with Obama. First of all, perhaps you heard about Obama's flip-flop on Jerusalem this week? Once again, it shows just how difficult peacemaking is in the Middle East, meaning your expectations for him are too great, in large part because reasonable people are not in charge in places such as Iran and Syria. Nor, I might add, is Hamas reasonable or interested in peace, in spite of your folorn insistence to the contrary. The Israeli/Palestinian peace process is a much more complex matter than a US President imposing or urging a solution, something you apparently fail to realize. Nor can Israel be expected to make additional concessions necessary to make a deal when it's under attack. Then there is the intercine conflict amongst the Palestinians and the lack of a single negotiating front among the Palestinians with the standing to convince his people to agree to a deal that doesn't give them everything. And so on...

As for Bush, perhaps you should research his foreign policy plank in the 2000 campaign- it was less interventionist than Gore's! What you are referring to was a policy debate among a group of people which was out of power. Furthermore, the removal of Saddam Hussein as dictator of Iraq was a matter of bipartisan agreement and official policy in the US during the Clinton Administration.Thus we cannot say for sure what a President Obama would do, or know in advance all of the challenges he would face.

As for McCain, as I understand it he sees troop reductions in Iraq and a transition to a US presence there similar to that of the current US presence in Western Europe. Bear in mind that is a two-way street- if the Iraqis don't want a continued US presence, it won't happen. Obama's proposal for a US "strike force" in the region that could re-enter Iraq if necessary is actually the more unrealistic policy. My own view is not in accordance with either candidate's position, but I also understand that it's not so easy to pull all US troops quickly (what I would like to see) without negative side effects.


This is the one of the most comical things you have posted- perhaps you have heard of the panoply of EU subsidies and WTO cases involving the EU as a defendant? Obama gets lobbyist money indirectly, and I note with interest that you, as a former member of two unions in the UK, scrupulously avoided mentioning that Obama's protectionism goes hand in hand with his support from those beloved and saintly US unions! Think the unions would be of no import in this matter in an Obama Administration after sparing no effort to get him and other Democrats elected? Where do you think the US unions stand on subsidies that benefit unionized firms? They support them! The Democrats do get huge amounts of campaign contributions from business interests, and don't forget there is more to the US government than the occupant of the Oval Office.


Obama himself recognizes that direct meetings with anti-US dictators without preconditions is a mistake, or he would not have flip-flopped on it. Not sure why you willfully ignore that.

The US has had over the years repeated dialogue with the Syrians and Iranians (don't forget that the US has diplomatic relations with Syria). There have been numerous rounds of negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians. Every US administration is committed to promoting a durable peace between the Israelis and Palestinians.

I would say a meeting with a nut such as Ahmadinejad (a Holocaust denier who also calls the US satanic and for the end of the State of Israel) is definitely a bad idea, and for a number of reasons. Funny how that religious nut doesn't earn your scorn.

It's tough to have substantive discussions with dictators committed to the destruction of a sovereign nation, and who would, if possible, also dearly love to see the destruction of the US. What can you possibly give such people as part of negotiating with them that would make any sense to give?


I'm not intimately familiar with every detail of UN resolutions 1160, 1199, and 1203, which preceded the bombing of the Serbs that began on March 24, 1999, but I strongly doubt that they authorized any force being used against the Serbs. UN resolution 1239, passed on May 14, 1999 sure didn't authorize it.

HRC is about to give her exit speech...

There is quite a distance between ratification and implementation. Don't get me wrong, I am not denying man-made climate change, and clearly the energy lobby has been exerting pressure on the US government, but that is all part of the system. I have a vague memory about some German ex-Kanzler who got a cushy job with some Russian company after a massive pipeline deal, so let's not fall into the trap of white-washing EU politicians. Just because the Germans recycle their plastic bottles doesn't excuse them from the insane waste perpetuated by the bottled-water drinkers. The next time a German rants about US and Kyoto, ask him why he doesn't drink tap water.
The US does seem to have per-capita CO2 emissions that are roughly twice as much as Germany, but is probably due to differences in gasoline prices, which in the US are subsidized (does not include externalities, military spending being the big ticket item). That will not change overnight.

Or the Wirtschafts Minister who now sits on the board of a large energy company and does all he can to push SPD policy in the companies interests.

It's a diversionary myth pushed by conservatives that there isn't critic in Europe of European politicians and policies.

And that gives the Palestinians an incentive to make any concessions (as both sides must in order to achieve a durable peace) or even sign a deal? Meanwhile, the weapons would continue to flow to the Palestinians.


How about letting the Israelis and Palestinians decide where their interests and red lines lie and negotiate accordingly (after all they are best able to discern these)? The US negotiating any deal would leave it being assailed by the deal's opponents as imposed by outsiders rather than a true reflection of what the two sides want. If one or both sides don't want a deal or don't like the terms or conditions insisted upon by the other side, it won't happen no matter how proactive the US is.

It's also rather disgraceful to liken a sovereign state to a bunch of terrorists, especially given the presence of Hamas as the governing authority in Gaza. You also ignore that the Palestinians receive both aid from the West and others, and get their weapons supplied by countries such as Syria and Iran. But I suppose weapons being given to Hamas are OK, right, BTC?

I think it's time for you to see the Israeli/Palestinian peace process through different lenses than the Northern Ireland peace process.


Listened to the EU? Is European Unionism your religion? First of all, EU members such Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands, the UK, and Spain as well as 2004 entrants Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia supported the action in Iraq.

The US certainly isn't "leaping in with guns ablazin" in its role of supporting the Israeli/Palestinian peace process, so that remark is simply irrelevant. The fact that you think that the Soviets just gave up through dialogue is one of the most bizarre things I have ever heard, and that false thinking seems to lead you to believe that "dialogue" is some magic elixir. Sometimes it works, but it depends on the matter under discussion and the participants.

Afgahnistan is a lot more complex that simply throwing more money and resources at it.


MT, why you persist in calling the Cold War's Warsaw Pact Communist countries "capitalist" is beyond me. It is delusional.


This comment is more the expression of an anti-US attitude than of any discernible facts.

Last I looked, of the EU-15 only the UK (via deindustrialization) and Germany (due to the closure of the massively polluting East German heavy industries) have been able to meet the Kyoto requirements.

Bear in mind that 1990 was the benchmark date for Kyoto. In addition to the gift of having a peak emissions year as the benchmark since East German emissions are included in the 1990 figure, Germany's population is roughly the same as it was in 1990, whereas that of the US ia pproximately 22% higher.

Others have commented on US environmental efforts at the state level.


Not that I agree with your natterings here, but let's keep something in mind- it is the left in the US that is opposed to increased use of (clean) nuclear power.

BTW, rail transport of the sort we have here in Germany is not feasible in the US. Germany is smaller than the US state of Montana, is more densely populated, and US suburbs and exurbs were designed with car travel in mind. Even in the few cases there are suburban commuter trains, people still have to drive to and from the train station.


China can't bankrupt the US, and its FDI in the US is low. You are referring to Chinese holdings of US Treasurys, which if it dumped en masse, would cause it heavy losses on its foreign currency holdings, and an unwelcome rise in the yuan against the dollar. Of course, cheap US Treasurys would be snapped up by other buyers (e.g, Gulf Arabs and the Japanese and Taiwanese) especially when coupled with a fall in the dollar.

Post 1945 states in Eastern Europe may have been some socialist rhetoric, they may have some more socialised aspects to the society (kindergarten system, public housing etc). But they clearly had a ruling class and the working class were not in control of the means of productions, distribution and exchange.

There is a political theory that the result of the Russian Civil War of the 1920s, hunger and the physical destruction of the Russian working class meant that Lenin tried to use the party apparatus as a substitute for the class. That the absence of a strong working class led to the party / state beoming a bureaucratic monster that served its own interests. Hence state capitalism.

For some of the left (in its broadest sense) opposition to nuclear power is a bit of a fetish.
There needs to be an objective debate about energy.
But rather than arguing for more coal or more nuclear power stations, we need to find ways of getting our energy consumption DOWN.

America could lead the world on that, if it can stop its adiction to "cheap" oil.

We could discuss the development of US railway infrastructure on another thread as public transport is key to cutting oil consumption
The comparison needs to be continental Europe v continental US and an examination of major transport axes, nodes and destinations as well an open discussion of how we want things to operate as a society. eg: If you want a letter from New York to LA to be delivered next day, it has to fly. But why not accept it takes a few days and send it by train?

MT, I think you really need to better inform yourself about the US and the former Communist countries in Eastern Europe, among other things. Use my comments above as a starting point for your own research.

So there's my Ma sitting in the comfy chair, all silver-haired and harmless looking, crocheting and watching soccer while we're discussing Obama and Clinton. And she pops up and says, "He's got to put a white guy on his ticket to get elected. Then again, if he chooses Hilary it basically eliminates the chance that he will assassinated".

By the way, she really means that.

Another mind game: Obama does choose Clinton, he gets shot, Clinton follows him as President. She chooses Bill Clinton as Vice-President.
Then she dies in office, Bill is once again President.

The focus should be on the trend of C02 emissions, sure we can look at the current levels but they cannot be fixed overnight. One country's emissions are going down while the others are increasing.

Democratic Congressional Job Approval - Hits an all-time low of of 16-18%. That's even lower than Bush's approval rating! The Democrats SUCK! Harry "the Undertaker" Reid and Nancy "Kopftuch" Pelosi - What about all of your promises in 2006? Just more Bullshit.

Funny what not impeaching Bush and Cheney will do to your ratings.

Great comeback euro. Really good.

Hannity on the Obama-Khalidi connection

How about because of Congressional Democrats not actually getting anything important done? Amomg Americans, only the MoveOn types like yourself want to see such a spectacle. Just imagine how embarassing it would be for the Senate Democrats that voted to authorize force in 2002 to have to make an impeachment vote.

On what charges, BTW?

Obama's Accomplishments



"credible"???

Bill probably couldnt accept a VP bid, it hasnt been tested constitutionally but the 12th ammendment says ""no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." and the 22nd makes him not elegible for election. He himself has said its unconstitutional, and I cant imagine the supreme court would find otherwise.

It was fun while it lasted.

More great videos from Bob. Amazing stuff. Can you tell me who pays for advertising space on FOX these days? Blood and Honour? Watchmen on the Walls? League of the South?

Hannity is so low on the intellectual scale that even some slime molds could out-debate him.
anyway, Fox is the network for the groupies, they do not influence policy. Although they might have some influence around election time, they are preaching to the choir. Is there any issue behind Obama have a professional colleague who had an early career as a press spokesman for the PLO? I don't see this affecting the pro-Israel crowd, which in any case usually have university degrees and can think for themselves. Unfortunately there are some bubbas (e.g. BB) out there who need Fox news to read them the headlines, as they cannot afford buying a newspaper, and wouldn't be able to read it anyhow.

Hey Villager, is Fox really generally regarded (and not just by "left liberal) in the US as "preaching to the choir" as opposed to a credible news organsation?

@ Conq. When I need to expand my knowledge about the USA, I've 101 American friends and aquaintances I could turn to.
Your offer to use your posts as the basis for expanding my knowledge I must politely decline with thanks.

Every mainstream news source preaches to its "choir", Fox News isn't special in that regard.

Sure, but is it even regarded as a credible mainstream news organisation?
I think the common European view would be that it is not.

I highly recommend McCain work on his public speaking skills as he speaks horribly. You can't appear very presidential without formidable oration skills. I find that mousy monotone voice of McCain quite annoying.

I agree. And that speech he gave last Tuesday exemplifies it. I was just reading Frank Rich's latest op-ed in which he mentions McCain's Louisiana speech:


Those debates, should Barry accept the invitation, would be interesting to watch - only to see McSame make a fool of himself a number of times.

McCain Speech "...Was Awful!"

Sorry, my last video was from MSNBC...too bad you missed that. But FOX is still #1! Here's a look at the numbers.

O'Reilly's Ratings #1, Beats CNN MSNBC Combined (...Again)

How many journalism awards has Fox News Channel won compared to the other networks?

Who cares?

Can YOU name one of Obama's legislative accomplishments?



Well, can You?

Bush managed to get in and I'm not entirely sure if I would classify his abilities as an orator as 'formidable'

What are you saying - Unbiased journalism awards? Is there such a thing?

All journalism has a bias for sure. You can regognise a media organ as reputable even if you don't agree with its perspective.
But the perception of Fox is that iit doesn't reach that level.

Fox news is the only news network that has argued they have the legal right to lie.. That aught to say it all.

Can you name one issue on which McCain hasn't flip-flopped? Well can you?

Either you are a very ignorant &/or stupid man (because you clearly aren't earning over $2M/yr) or you're a piss-poor troll. These are the only options for anyone who would support Bush and now McCain.

The majority of Obama's legislation was in Illinois and if you think that a state legislation is kid's play in comparison to Congress you have no fucking clue about politics. In one of the more corrupt states, Obama managed -- despite opposition from Republicans and Democrats alike, to pass legislation requiring that interrogations and confessions be videotaped, even getting the cops (who were beating suspects during interrogations) to agree. The measure passed unanimously. He also passed Illinois' first earned-income tax credit to help the working poor and the first ethics and campaign finance law in 25 years. He also got unanimous consent for bipartisan law to put an end to DWB stops (Driving While Black) by requiring police to record the race of drivers they detained.

More than 16 months ago the president signed the Lugar (R-IN) - Obama Nonproliferation Act. There's the Kerry-Obama "HEART" Act providing tax relief to veterans which is waiting for a presidential signature. There's the "Coburn–Obama Transparency Act" which established USAspending.gov, a search engine run by the Office of Management and Budget. Then there was his work with Feingold (D-WI) to push the "Honest Leadership and Open Government Act" which was signed into law in 2007. In addition there was the work together with Hagel (R-NE) to require a comprehensive nuclear threat reduction plan as part of the omnibus appropriations bill. It, too, is law.

Unlike most shitbags in Congress since 1980, Obama has a strong record of bipartisanship work. He has focused on transparency and ethics, something the Congress has been lacking and which the White House and Republican Party have long since buried and spit on.

Meanwhile, McCain was part of the Keating Five, has been rebuked by the Senate Ethics Committee, and is now back in trouble as the Abramoff investigation/cover-up continues. He changes his positions faster than I change my socks.

There is no leading Republican I want running for the election more than McCain. My only fear is that he might not make it to the convention, whether it be due to physical or health problems, or that the media starts publicising even a small part of what will most assuredly be brought to light during the campaign fight, or any other reason.

Go away, troll.

woof.

Name one accomplishment by Obama


foow.

I just named six you illiterate twat.

woof.

Name an accomplishment by Obama, part II



foow.

Yeah, Iran. He never flip-flopped like NObama has.

Barack Obama Flip Flops On Iran



foow.