U.S. Presidential Election 2008

That sums it up perfectly.

Exellent stuff - I do believe she is in with a chance. Although her relative intelligence and articulate nature may be a hinderance in the Bible Beit.

At least she making positive steps to work out her Vice President

Paris Hilton for Commando-in-Chief!

Just how many veteos has Bush had overriden? I'm pretty sure it's only four. As for executive orders, they aren't always "used to bypass Congress".


Although it's obviously in their best interests to have a Democrat in the White House, Democrats have no "right" to this.

As for Paris Hilton's candidacy, who knows, she might not be any worse than the two clowns heading the major parties' tickets.

Never mind the Vice President, I wonder who the next Presidential Pets will be? The current incumbents are going to be a hard act to follow.

I'm for Tony, the teacup poodle.

Indeedy

And it takes the question of who has the best hair to new heights.

Here is the opinion of a noted economist on Barry O's rebate proposal:




Agreed.

I appreciate your answers eurovol. But wouldn't the oil companies just pass that tax to the consumer? It would become another cost of doing business.

windfall taxes do go some way to deter companies from making excessive profits though. I don't know about US oil companies but the huge oil ad gas price hikes have delivered huge profits for European oil and gas suppliers and all at the expense of consumers.

Tony? What happened to Tinkerbell the Chihuahua?

And for every one against, there is one for it. What Conky fails to show in that article is this:


Way to go there Conky. Nice how you skew the facts by presenting only half of the story.


No it really wouldn't. It could actually have the effect of motivating the big oil companies to increase profits by becoming more efficient and take advantage of other programs promoting cleaner and sustainable resources. If it didn't work, I don't think Reagan and the Republicans would have let it continue for the entire 8 years he was in office.

I'm sure they would both fit comfortably into a handbag.

I skewed no facts whatsoever, certainly not in quoting Feldstein, and certainly not in posting a link to the article from which you fished something out of context . In fact, you are the one who has skewed facts (see below) nor have you come anywhere close to "presenting more than half the story" on this issue. Obama supporters continue to show that they are delusional and/or dishonest.


Could? Your evidence for this? How are oil companies going to become "more efficient" by moving into areas in which they don't have expertise? And how, by reducing their after-tax profits from activities in which they are proven to be very efficient, will you make it easier for them "to take advantage of other programs promoting cleaner and more sustainable resources"? Take note, in the WSJ article I cite below, that GE is investing in alternate energy sources without Obama-style subsidies or Obama-style "windfall profits" taxes. Why? Because they see profit in that space.

I am all for increased use of cleaner sources of fuel, but let's not pretend that "windfall taxes" on oil companies that will decrease supply are the way to do this.


Talk about skewing facts. No US President can impose or repeal a tax, not even by Executive Order. This must be done by Congress, which was controlled by Democrats during Carter's presidency, and during the entire Reagain presidency, the Democrats controlled the House of Representatives, where all tax legislation originates.


I'd like to see you prove this claim that as many economists support the windfall profits tax as oppose it. Feel free to quote their reasoning as well.

Anyone have any idea how much people connected to the oil industry have donated to Obama? Maybe in his eyes they haven't donated enough... This proposed Obama policy is another example of the anti-business free lunch mentality that pervades some parts of the Democratic Party.

BTW, here is the Wiki link on the aformentioned previous "windfall profits tax":


Furthermore, eurovol, along with record profits, oil companies are paying record amounts of corporate taxes:

Let me correct something here. The following quote from a source lacking citation (yet posted anyhow by eurovol) states the following:


Yet eurovol falsely claims it came from the Feldstein article I posted, and he skewered me for not posting it, i.e., not making his argument for him! That's really pathetic.

What is the souce of that information, eurovol, and why did you suggest I should have posted it?

Furthermore, eurovol, perhaps you should ask yourself why oil companies spent money on share buybacks? They have a fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value, and if shareholder value is maximized by share buybacks rather than exploration, which is both risky and capital intensive, that's what they must do.

Vote For President Even furiners can vote here.

88% for Obama and 12% for McCain so far

(the UK scores are marginally better at 85% for Obama and 15% for McCain)

Poll is running 90% to BHO, but I did not see a vote count.

This may actually help McCain. USians often don't like to do what the world likes us to do...

BTW, did anyone see that the Communist Party of the USA has endorsed BHO? Is anyone surprised?

Also, BHO's muslim outreach advisor just resigned becauses of ties to various Islamic groups. Again, surprised?

With BHO's endorsement from Hamas, how could he lose?

Heh, exactly. Shows you how significant statistics are. This is what pisses me off when people tell you you can't have an opinion without backing it up with something. Who really checks the significance of the numbers?

I mean, I could say, "oh the world wants Obama. Look, 88% want him, or whatever". Does that back me up? Of course not.

Sorry, I don't have anything else to back this up with. i guess my words have absolutely no meaning now.

well it is 88% of over 24,000 so far which is more than most polling organisations would sample.

One might assume the distribution of opinion could be skewed though the statistics are close to polling that has been conducted scientificalkly in Europe already.

Those stats can in no way be considered meaningful in any way. If you want to make representative statistics, you have to consider demographics. That website is just a shot in the dark.

But that's a reason why I chuckle when I hear so many yanks say "I don't have to listen to that. where are your facts?" then use "statistics" to back themselves up.

On a board like this, I'm more interested in exchanging ideas and to get thought flowing, not this petty fact-finding from dubious sources that is all too prevalent by some on TT. If you have any common sense and a good amount of reasoning power, you shouldn't have to "back up" everything you say with basically someone else's claim to "truth".

I often want to give up on TT "debates" as they tend to turn nit-picky and petty and a contest to "win". I admit to getting wound up by it and not keeping my cool, but now, during a moment of clarity, there are a bunch of people on this board based on the way they post, simply need a good bitch-slap.

McCain:


That's why his tune changed as a presidential nominee, and his former career as a Lobbyist is now making Americans nervous. His health condition making the headlines gives proof to many that he may not be as fit as some want to assume.

Correction: Funny how the news can be intimidated to not release damaging information on him.

And as icing on the cake ... His Voting Record shows just how proud he is of all Americans.

AFAIK, McCain has never been a lobbyist, and the article to which you link mentions a campaign aide's former work as a lobbyist. Also, in the MSNBC article you claim shows "intimidation", there is none. Very misleading.

Also, you link to a leftist blog for commentary on McCain's voting record. Think they are going to compliment him about anything? NPR is also known for its liberal leanings, plus they conveniently forget the significant number differences McCain has had with Bush.

gatzke, I believe that Hamas yanked its endorsement of Obama when the candidate called for an undivided Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

BTW, opinions are one thing, statements of fact are another, and yes, if you make a statement of fact you should be able to back it up.

Note how the NY Times wasn't intimidated by McCain and released the information anyway.

People who still think the MSM is helping McCain and bashing Obama should read this article from Time:

Crushing on Obama

We all agree, both candidates are flip-flopping.

The sentence about being a lobbyist is confusing. "his" refers to McCain's campaign manager, not McCain.

I don't think you put the right link in for health condition, but yest, people have conditions. Should we hold it against BHO that he is too skinny? And he smokes?


They did release the story and most media thought it was an unsubstantiated hatchet job witout any proof. Do I need to link to those stories? Not even the conservatives, many people agreed.

I don't know enough about his voting record in detail, but I assume the titles of the bills are misleading or contained something reasonable objectionable.


Thanks, that was at the bottom of my link, I just missed it.

I should have said: BHO previously had support from Hamas.

Similar to how he until recently had a man with ties to islamo-facisist as an advisor.

Also similar to how he until recently was a member of a controversial church that preached hate, not unity and love.

AFAIK, the commies still support BHO. Better red than dead! Go pinkos!

don't over-egg it dear. The advisor served very briefly on the board of an investment fund that also had on its board a fundamentalist (NOT islamofascist) immam. It is notable that such a connection would probably not be grounds fopr resignation as a candidate's or indeed a government's advisor over here in Europe.

Just like I can't keep straight the different shades of liberalism in Europe, I get confused on Islamic fundamentalism vs. islamofacists.

Now tell me, which group wants to destroy the US and our allies?

Which one hates the Jews?

Which one oppresses women?

I will admit it was a weak connection. I agree with your point.

How long do you think a staffer would stay on a presidential campaign if it came out they were formerly in the KKK? Wait, we already have a sitting democratic senator that was a klansman.

PS, after discussions with German friends, I finally have a better idea of German politics. The liberals are conservative. Nearly everyone is a democrat. And they have greens and some commies. I must read more.

You're right, McCain's campaign manager is bad enough, but this is far worse.

You should consider health when electing a President, it's what I look for, but for someone else, it may not be as important. Obama's quit smoking, which is a great thing because he is still young enough to reverse any health damage to his body, the Attorney General of the US and the CDC have been telling Americans for years. I'm not sure, but I am certain there is no cure for skin cancer that I am aware of.

I find it strange that a news outlet will be hounded for running a so called 'unsubstantiated' article about McCain, yet McCain's Camp enjoys the freedom of running ads outright lying about Obama. Someone's ethics are off .. and it's not the paper.

I looked at McCain's voting record, and I am not impressed with his stands on issues that I care about. No need to assume, just read the record. Fyi, who cares what Hamas thinks, Corporate America has McCain tied around their little finger and that effects me and my payroll personally.

What the US really needs is a multi-party system. This would eliminate the one-way-or-the-other biases, it would reduce the insane battle for "the crown", and the country would probably move in a direction that is more related to the will of the people.

Every modern western democracy has multiple parties which to a certain extent, have to cooperate with one another to get something done. (Do I need to back this up or can this statement of fact be generally accepted to be true??)

If you look at many issues in the states, there exists quite polarised thinking about them, IMO. But there has to be, because you choose one or the other, and that's it.

Anyone ever thought about that? How would that happen? (This is now getting off topic, sorry)

Interesting English that...

Still, AFAIK there are different sorts of skin cancer, some will kill you in weeks, some you can have cut out and forget about them. And as for ethics in politics - there are none, it's just a good show so sit back and enjoy the ride.

Not at all ... try adding sarcasm into it

Funny, CNN says both camps hire former lobbyists and have taken lobbyist money here. CNN must be a tool of the far right?

It's a nice thing when politicians do the right thing. but unrealist to assume that you can run a heavy campaign on pennies.

We do have multiple parties, just the small ones don't get elected

Our two-party system does sort out people pretty well. Some people think the government should run everything, some like small government. Some think we should have a strong military, some don't. Some like lower taxes and personal responsibility, some like higher taxes and lots of social programs. Usually the left and right align pretty well.

I also like the way our system sorts out, it minimizes how much can get done. With coalition, some group can probably swing winning vote and end the stalemate. Small government = less action from the feds. "I am from the federal government and I am here to help you."

The Libertarians are interesting but they don't get any traction. Economic freedom of Dems and social freedom of Pubs. Small government in everything. Legalize drugs. No public schools. Pro abortion. Lower taxes.

We have commies, socialists, and greens but they really don't get much notice. Maybe in the People's Republic of Cambridge or Berkely?

You forgot to add, some like the person, and some don't, some vote for the Party, and some don't, some look at the bigger picture, and some don't, and some vote on peer pressure, and some don't.

The reasons for people voting are as varied as there are ethnicies, cultural differences, gender concerns, alternative lifestyles... und so weiter ...

So the reason why discussing politics and religion (among others) is not encouraged is that it can be innately sensitive and personal.

So, Kitty Kat, based on your post, wouldn't it make sense to have more options (parties to choose from)?

Ok, they exist, but without representative voting, they never get any power, in a "winner take all" voting system. So really, it is just 2 parties, pragmatically speaking.

Is it even possible to change that without "a revolution"? Am I wasting my breath or are americans actually interested in altering the structure of government?

Just curious, but how does that actually affect your payroll (and you)? Are you employed by Barack Obama's campaign?

BTW, eurovol, who got hired for that Obama campaign position you advertised some time back- the one that BadBob wanted to be considered for.

Given the fact that it's been pointed out numerous times that you either don't understand McCain's stands or misrepresent them, did you actually look at all of them? Is there anything about McCain that you like? Anything about Barack Obama that you dislike?

Seems Barry O can also be characterized as being around the little finger of Corporate America:


I seem to recall that Barry O, like some other legislators got a sweetheart mortgage loan. I'll see if I can find something on that. Interesting to note that the real estate industry is a top source of campaign funds- former Obama pal Rezko ("boneheaded decision" by Obama) was a real estate developer in Chicago.

As for McCain's health:

I think you're a tool of the far right.

Here's what that article said:


$6,000 couldn't buy a used ford escort.

@horseshoe: That's Nader's whole point.

Makes sense? Of course it does, but then the electorate cannot possibly represent all things to all people. So (at least right now) you choose who more closely identify with and make compromises on the rest. Is the American public ready for that? ... NO. But time and evolution of what constitutes American "ideals" may shift the tide.

KK was right, there are more reasons why people vote.

But when you look at issues, the two parties split pretty well. Most people on the left support the platform of the left and vice versa. There are some grayish areas.

I really don't know enough about how multi-party systems work to comment intelligently, but there really is nothing stopping it in the US. They could vote however they want (and dems/pubs break with party on occastion, see maverick). The independants do choose to caucus with a party for procedureal things.

The big thing holding them back is registration requirements IMHO. You need so many signatures or votes in the last election to get on the ballot. They also can't get in the debates usually. Chicken and egg problem.

Every so often a party gets on all the ballots, but they usually are one-issue parties that get absorbed into some other party.

Not that I think a multi-party system is a bad idea, but people in the US now think in terms of one way or another because our leaders and the press tell you that's what you have to do. Think Rush Limbaugh, "you're either with us or you're with the terrorists," etc. I'm sure there are left-leaning pundits who do the same thing, but they don't get as much airplay - name and shame if you can think of some.

Anyway, the message is, you're a totally unprincipled person if you flip-flop in your personal opinions, or fail to vote the straight-party ticket. This attitude also translates to our expectations of our elected officials.

Still, most people really aren't thoughtful enough to seek out alternative viewpoints or actually consider the information on offer. They get their news either not at all or via a narrow range of sources. I personally think that if your sources are FOX News on TV and Rush Limbaugh on the radio, not only are you not likely to get any other viewpoints than that of the right, but you are actively discouraged from seeking them out.

If the past 8 years has taught us anything, it should be that rigid thinking is a dangerous thing, but I'm not sure people are getting the message.

Cinzia, as some of our left-leaning Obama supporters show on this and other political threads, it's apparently not only Limbaugh listeners that aren't interested in varied opinions.

Conquistador .. we've been over this. And I understand your issues, but I will clearify for you.
No I am not working on any campaigns, do I perfer one candidate over the other, sure, but don't take my reference to payroll (fyi anyone would know I was talking about working a 9 to 5 job ... as I've made reference already to my career) and twist it, like you have a habit of doing with words.

McCain's record speaks for itself. He's had a long enough time in Congress to present how he had voted and he has shown in his campaign the kind of president he would be. You draw you're own conclusions and I will draw mine. As it pertains to Obama, is there something I dislike ... absolutely, I'm fustrated that he hasn't hit McCain back in adverts and I am worried that may cost him. There's too much info floating around about McCain's character, ethics, 'reforms' for the Obama camp to not have something to choose from.

Well, KK, when you draw the odd and unsubstantiated conclusion that McCain would want to "privatize" government payments to disabled Americans I have a hard time believing that you actually gave some thought to where McCain stands. Then there are the constant attacks by you on him for every reason imaginable, but only blind praise for Barry O.

I don't think Obama should follow your advice- he has enough surrogates and supporters to do his dirty work for him.

I don't remember reading in the TT TOS that I had to justify every nook and cranny decision I personally choose to make with Conquistador.
I do remember reading somewhere that perceptions and opinions are like noses .. everyone has one. (I parred down the statement to be G-Rated)
So who really cares what you think Conquistador.
Conversation continue...

Don't confuse interest in the many with disregard for the ONE.

By that logic, who should care what you think about John McCain? Yet you keep on posting about him.


Well, eurovol, that would be the one, not coincidentally, that debunks you and other Obamaites time and time again.

Anyhow, I have yet to see an Obama supporter on any political thread show any openness to any source or opinion which disagrees with Obama or the standard-issue liberal party line.

Logic, yes ...how about referring to the statement where I indicated ...

'Opinions are like..."

Just curious, but what caused you, KK, to develop the opinion that John McCain wanted to privatize disability government payments which cannot be privatized (because they come from general tax revenues)?

Yes. I have. But unfornatutely, this would likely result in the same sort of "Grand Coalition" tower of babel evident in our host country over the past few years. Many compromises later, nothing gets accomplished at all.

I'd almost rather have one party take "the crown" lock stock and barrel, and then in the next election have the other do the same. Wash, rinse and repeat.

"The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P. J. O'Rourke