After having had a chance to read the text of Senator Obama's speech I have to say it's been awhile since I've seen a political candidate, just nominated for office, throw so many of his own under the bus in such quick succession.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080829/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_obama_text_1

"Now is the time to end this addiction, and to understand that drilling is a stopgap measure, not a long-term solution. Not even close.
As president, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power."

So much for the greens.


"I'll invest in early childhood education. I'll recruit an army of new teachers, and pay them higher salaries and give them more support. And in exchange, I'll ask for higher standards and more accountability."

So much for the NEA.

"Now is the time to finally keep the promise of affordable, accessible health care for every single American. If you have health care, my plan will lower your premiums. If you don't, you'll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves."

So much for your tax cut. Income taxes may get cut but he will have to have a new tax of some kind to pay for that.

"Now is the time to help families with paid sick days and better family leave,

So much for small business.


"We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country."

Conservative Christians need not bother to apply.

"The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals."

I don't know too many hunters that would use an AK-47 to go squirrel hunting to begin with and I thought our first black President took care of this? In any case gun rights foes, you might not like that.

And the biggest crunch under the bus of all?

I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in the hospital and to live lives free of discrimination.

Ouch, the gay community got run over and then he backed up over them!


The whole speech was full of hot air. The "I'll go over the budget line by line" theme? President Reagan said the same thing and got laughed off Capitol Hill. It certainly is easy to claim credit for suggesting time tables, and then not bother to mention that back when he first mentioned them it would have assured our defeat. Nope, more of the same. Nowhere does he say he is going to cut government spending, only increase it but who knows how much.

Finally, he starts the wrap up with:

"I know there are those who dismiss such beliefs as happy talk. They claim that our insistence on something larger, something firmer and more honest in our public life is just a Trojan horse for higher taxes and the abandonment of traditional values. And that's to be expected. Because if you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare the voters. If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from."

Well then I guess I am left wondering what explanation he has for saying at the beginning of his speech:

"It's not because John McCain doesn't care. It's because John McCain doesn't get it.

For over two decades, he's subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy --- give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society, but what it really means is, you're on your own. Out of work? Tough luck. No health care? The market will fix it. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, even if you don't have boots. You're on your own.

Well, it's time for them to own their failure. It's time for us to change America."

Nope, a donkey of a different color is all I saw tonight. Teeth are still bad and it pulls up lame when you try and attach a plow.

Quoting RJdxer (Thread starter): I don't know too many hunters that would use an AK-47 to go squirrel hunting to begin with and I thought our first black President took care of this?

Wow, you completely missed the point.

Lovely assessment there, RJ. Would expect nothing less of you.

Quoting RJdxer (Thread starter):

I guess you "heard" what you wanted to hear. My take on most everything he said is vastly different from yours. We're looking at it through different colored glasses I reckon.

Quoting RJdxer (Thread starter): If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from."

As soon as I heard him say this, I thought that this is the perfect line to use against him.

Limited experience = John McCain is George W. Bush. BOO!!!

I actually think he was very good at getting his points across, and at the same time tossing as little as possible under the bus. Quite good for a politician, if you ask me.

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 3): I guess you "heard" what you wanted to hear.

        

Quoting RJdxer (Thread starter): Nope, a donkey of a different color is all I saw tonight. Teeth are still bad and it pulls up lame when you try and attach a plow.

And what else did you expect RJ, honestly. Or, for that matter, do you expect any better from McCain? I'm sick tired of this bull election system of ours. For the third straight election that I can vote on I got two choices: bad or worse. If you think for a second that either candidate is really that much better (or worse) than the other one then you've been drinking someone's Kool Aid.

Both parties are filled with ego-centric, power hungry, hypocritical politicians who will say and do nearly everything they can in order to get elected. The White House is a temptation too big to keep anyone honest. I'm afraid that this is yet another election where I'll have to write in a candidate. Oh well, at least I'm clear with my conscience that I didn't compromise my values by accepting either of these mediocre choices.

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 6): For the third straight election that I can vote on I got two choices: bad or worse. If you think for a second that either candidate is really that much better (or worse) than the other one then you've been drinking someone's Kool Aid. Both parties are filled with ego-centric, power hungry, hypocritical politicians who will say and do nearly everything they can in order to get elected.

May I suggest that you check out the American Libertarian website and review my party's platform: www.lp.org   

Quoting RJdxer (Thread starter): "The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals." I don't know too many hunters that would use an AK-47 to go squirrel hunting to begin with and I thought our first black President took care of this? In any case gun rights foes, you might not like that.

The Dems will uphold the 2nd amendment, sure. What they will also do is just like Clinton: water it down and make it so meaningless that you may as well repeal it. The NRA has given both Obama and Biden an 'F' on a regular basis. Once they get their ad machine going, they can forget winning any southern states.

Quoting RJdxer (Thread starter): The whole speech was full of hot air. The "I'll go over the budget line by line" theme? President Reagan said the same thing and got laughed off Capitol Hill.

Oh, yeah...the good 'ol line item veto. Bush Sr. talked about it, as did Clinton I think. I haven't heard that joke in quite a while...Obama sure is scraping the barrel, isn't he?

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 6): For the third straight election that I can vote on I got two choices: bad or worse. If you think for a second that either candidate is really that much better (or worse) than the other one then you've been drinking someone's Kool Aid.

No kidding. Maybe Donald Duck will run again.

It's a political campaign. Your goal is to constantly throw your opponent under the bus so they feel the need to defend themselves instead of promoting. That's exactly what happened to John Kerry.

Quoting N174UA (Reply 8): Oh, yeah...the good 'ol line item veto.

Was never brought up. Obama never called for a line item veto - he said that he would go over the budget looking for places to cut unneeded programs and improve efficiency.

Quoting RJdxer (Thread starter): Nope, a donkey of a different color is all I saw tonight.

Saw, or read? I'd watch the speech before you make these sort of comments - you seem to be taking many of them out of context.

-Mir

Quoting ManuCH (Reply 5): I actually think he was very good at getting his points across, and at the same time tossing as little as possible under the bus. Quite good for a politician, if you ask me.

Honestly, I hate politics. I watch Bush give a speech, and I fall asleep. Tired of hearing the same old crap, and bs coming from his mouth. Cheney.... Where and what does he actually do? McCain, is just as boring and as far as I have seen, just a Bush replica.

I took the time to watch Obama and his speech. I actually felt refreshed, and had a new feel of hope for our country. Needless to say, I think the man is going to be our next president. We need a change, and he is the man for it. Again, I hate politics, but love what I heard coming from Obama. He really has something about him that just makes me feel comfortable.

I will take the time to try and stay awake during McCain's next speech, but honestly, I hate to suffer. I have never voted before, but I think now is the time. Crazy huh? 32 years old, and never voted. It took 32 years of my life to find one person that will actually get my vote! My god, I am a vote virgin! LOL! Yup, I registered to vote, and I am ready!

Quoting F9Animal (Reply 12): Crazy huh? 32 years old, and never voted. It took 32 years of my life to find one person that will actually get my vote!

Don't you mean 14 years? Because until you turned 18, you didn't have a vote to give.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 13): Don't you mean 14 years? Because until you turned 18, you didn't have a vote to give.

Oh yeah, you are right. LOL! I am tired, try to give a tired overworked, underpaid man a little break!!!      You know what scares me? I had to think for a minute about how old I am now.    That is a very bad sign of old age coming on....   

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 6): Or, for that matter, do you expect any better from McCain?

Nope, not at all. I've been clear for well over a year that there was not a single candidate running for the office this time round who even once considered downsizing the government and cutting back on discretionary as well as tackling entitlement spending.

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 6): For the third straight election that I can vote on I got two choices: bad or worse.

This will make number 5 out of 8 for me.

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 6): If you think for a second that either candidate is really that much better (or worse) than the other one then you've been drinking someone's Kool Aid.

See above.

Quoting Mir (Reply 10): Saw, or read? I'd watch the speech before you make these sort of comments - you seem to be taking many of them out of context.

Thanks to MSOBAMA I have had the chance to see the speech as performed by Senator Obama and I don't feel I have taken anything out of context. Feel free to point out where I have if you feel differently.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 11): Actually, that quote sounds much more favorable than what is currently allowed in most situations.

But it flies in the face of the demand by gays to be treated exactly the same as heterosexual couples when it comes to marriage and he certainly did not endorse that.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 11): Clean energy as opposed to a closed door meeting between the vice-president and the heads of oil companies. Yeah, that sounds horrid.

Name a devoted green that believes that there is any such thing as "clean" coal or "safe" nuclear power.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 11): Because No Child Left Behind has done so much to enhance eduacation.

The NEA is all for enhanced funding, and every bit as much against "higher standards" and especially against "more accountability". That has been their hallmark against no child left behind, that teachers couldn't just teach, but had to teach to a standard that was held accountable via tests.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 11): Not only that, but there will have to be a tax hike to pay back the loans from China and Saudi Arabia in order for Bush to fund his war. But never mind that...

As I've said before, take the deficit, subtract the cost of the war, and see how much is left. It is not the cost of the war that is going to bankrupt this nation, it is runaway entitlement spending. Also as I quoted in another thread, a famous quote could just about to be shown as truth before our very eyes.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship. -- Alexander Fraser Tyler, 18th century Scottish historian, The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 11): Again, not many opportunities for jobs or business in Neo-con America.

Anyone can start a business and be successful in this country if they find the right niche at the right time. Sean Combs, Kimora Lee Simmons, the Olsen twins, or even Larry Page or Sergey Brin come to mind on a national level and there are thousands of other examples across the country. Small businesses drive America. But I bet the small business man saw one glimmer of hope. His statement that:

"Now is the time to finally keep the promise of affordable, accessible health care for every single American. If you have health care, my plan will lower your premiums. If you don't, you'll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves."

What a fabulous incentive for business to drop their health care as a benefit for new workers! Why bother with that when the President says you'll get the same coverage as those high falutin politicians! Now how were we going to pay for that? That's right, corporate taxes. I bet you didn't know that United States corporations are some of the highest taxed corporations in the world. And he's going to pile on even more! Yet these same corporations won't pass on that cost, and won't consider moving their businesses offshore will they? I lived in Cleveland when Dennis Kucinich became Mayor, I see some of the same disaster about to happen on a national level.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 11): Really? Abstinance only ring a bell?

But try teaching that and see how fast the liberal left dismisses it in favor of any other type of birth control since abstinence depends on personal responsibility which the left abhors.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 11): Out of all the text I read that you quoted, his plan for America sounds much more focused on America and Americans than fear and terrorizing Americans into voting for him.

Which is of course why he started off his stump speech by firing away at the eeevil republicans. No mention of how President Bush extended offers to both Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid to meet and discuss how to pass legislation only to be called irrelevant among the nicer names. Nope, he started the terrorizing right off the bat by claiming the ridiculous as I quoted.

Quoting F9Animal (Reply 12): I have never voted before, but I think now is the time. Crazy huh? 32 years old, and never voted. It took 32 years of my life to find one person that will actually get my vote!

And I can't think of a better election in which to cast that vote. Better late than never.
 

Quoting RJdxer (Thread starter): I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in the hospital and to live lives free of discrimination. Ouch, the gay community got run over and then he backed up over them!

Thanks all the same for your concern, but I think i'll choose Obama over the Republican Party any day of the week.

Quoting Johnboy (Reply 16): Thanks all the same for your concern, but I think i'll choose Obama over the Republican Party any day of the week.

Feel free, I wouldn't have it any other way but if you were looking for a Presidential candidate that would back gay marriage, he not only drove over you, he backed up and spun the tires. Senator McCain won't offer you any better deal but at least he won't smile in your face while he sticks the knife in your back on this issue.

Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 1): Wow, you completely missed the point.

Yes, but Jpetek, it did give us a pen sketch of the view from Dystopia. We need wonder no more what it is like.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 11): Clean energy as opposed to a closed door meeting between the vice-president and the heads of oil companies. Yeah, that sounds horrid.

It's this kind of blind optimism that will sink the nation or result in Obama betraying his campaign promises. Many of BO's goals for energy are completely unrealistic. His goals are not backed-up with any substantive explanation as to how they will be reached, which most likely means massive government subsidies for anything "green" whether they are justified or not. The classic liberal folly of throwing money at a problem hoping that the laws of nature can be changed.

And what is the source of the continued liberal hatefest for oil companies? They play a vital role in supplying our economy with energy in an efficient and cost-effective manner and they pay billions of dollars in taxes for the profits they earn. Of course they should have a seat at the table when discussing energy policy, or would you prefer central government planners dictate to industry how they should operate? That worked wonders for the Soviet Union.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 20): Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 1): Wow, you completely missed the point. Yes, but Jpetek, it did give us a pen sketch of the view from Dystopia. We need wonder no more what it is like.

If either of you would care to debate his views and objectives as they pertain to gun control feel free. They have been clear since he was a State Legislator oh so long ago. He was an ardent supporter of the DC handgun ban that was recently over turned by the Supreme Court for one. It's not just AK-47's that he is after.

Funny, the bits I heard were about matters other than guns. I guess that comes of having untuned antennae.

No, I thought that the possibility of a real energy policy was a great deal more interesting. Only thing would be I am not sure what he thinks is happening to gas reserves at present. Then again it might be an oblique reference to the R/P ratio for gas of 10.9 at end 2007.

But I can see from recent history that getting "accessible health care for every single American" would be an unpopular move. And the costs of providing it are just beyond the resources of the US nation. Yep, I see it all. Life is a real bitch.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 25): Also, corporations find loop-holes so they don't have to pay taxes and/or so they get large tax breaks.

Are you seriously suggesting that oil companies do not pay taxes or their fair share of taxes? You're probably not aware that on average, the oil industry pays $4 in federal taxes for every $1 in profit. ExxonMobile alone pays more in taxes to various government agencies than the bottom 50% of income tax bracket pay combine.

Quoting F9Animal (Reply 12): took the time to watch Obama and his speech. I actually felt refreshed,

Most political speeches are intended to be a sort of refreshing mind douche anyway. I guess his worked.

Sen Obama has alot of hope , and hope to change . Frankly , the idea of His America does not exist . He said over and over , thats the America we used to have ... he is wrong. America is a experiment that has never been Utopian or perfect like he kept saying. We have always had bad guys , poor people , drug use and crime . We have always had disadvantaged and sick and uneducated . He makes it sound like we once were perfect and now he wants to restore us to that .... Its a pipe dream and fantasy. Sorry , but no matter what these people promise (GOP included) most of it has a fresh scent...but thats about it.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 15): Quoting Charles79 (Reply 6): For the third straight election that I can vote on I got two choices: bad or worse. This will make number 5 out of 8 for me.

Well, you certainly have more experience under your belt than I do RJ. I might follow the advise given above and simply write in a candidate of my choice.

To be honest, if I were to pick exclusively between the two choices right now I'd have to pick McCain. I'm a socialist, liberal minded individual, you would think that I would have been a shoe in to follow Obama The Great and his utopian views of change, but I just can't bring myself to vote for him. I really like this country and I'm afraid of what he might do to it.

Now, question for you RJ: is your view that McCain is more center or more right? I always saw him as more center before he started to try and appear more "conservative" to appeal to his party. But I still think of him as being one of the most liberal Republicans around. Is that an accurate statement?

Charles

Quoting Baroque (Reply 24): Funny, the bits I heard were about matters other than guns. I guess that comes of having untuned antennae.

As, to quote a phrase, 95% of my post dealt with, but evidently your antenna is so out of tune it can't pick up even the strongest signals.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 24): No, I thought that the possibility of a real energy policy was a great deal more interesting.

The big problem with his main statement in that regard is that he won't be in office in 10 years even if he wins election and re-election. Nor can he foresee what things will happen in 10 years. In 1998 we were being told, in error, that based on the economic data of that time we would have surpluses for 10 years. Of course no one foresaw a recession followed in quick succession by 9/11.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 25): Or, teaching abstinence ALONG with the correct use of condoms (which also takes personal responsibility).

But the point is that the far left will not let abstinence be taught since it smacks of religious overtones which they also abhor since it requires faith and dedication to something other than the government or something they can control.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 25): I didn't realize we gays were all asking for marriage.

Are you seriously going to suggest that lawsuit after lawsuit, thousands showing up to get marriage licenses, gays going out of the country to get married means that a significant portion of the gay community does not demand marriage on an equal plane with heterosexuals? If you wish to remain single so be it but you are a minority within a minority.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 25): I thought we were all wanting equal treatment.

Which the law already provides for.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 25): Yes, but how much do they get back in tax breaks (that the Republicans set up)?

Depends on the business but small businesses, the ones that pay the most in taxes, and yes they are, in many cases, corporations too.

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 28): Now, question for you RJ: is your view that McCain is more center or more right?

Depends on the issue but on the most important issue to me, getting the cost and size of government under control, he is way more to the center than I am.

I will say that even though I don't support him, from what little I have read of his VP, I think my vote for the first time will be for the party VP pick as an investment in the future.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 26): Are you seriously suggesting that oil companies do not pay taxes or their fair share of taxes? You're probably not aware that on average, the oil industry pays $4 in federal taxes for every $1 in profit. ExxonMobile alone pays more in taxes to various government agencies than the bottom 50% of income tax bracket pay combine.

They certainly do pay taxes, but you would need far more than they divulge in their reports to work out what rates they are paying. Remember the majors operate in many countries and I think you might find that various items end up in the single line "Taxes" that are more properly other types of charges in other countries - royalties, resource rent taxes - these are not income taxes. So just taking the overall revenue and distributing tax paid as a rate does not give anywhere near a correct answer.

As these days, XOM in Australia no longer files returns that are open to scrutiny, you cannot for example work out the RRT paid here. And for Indonesia, what do they do with the 85% of revenue that goes to the state under their PSCs - there is a fair chance it turns up as a tax when properly speaking it is not.

The difficulty of working out what they pay as a rate also makes it difficult to work out the effects of tax breaks. Interestingly, IF the US used tax imputation, income tax would have to be broken out so they could credit the amounts to their shareholders. There are all sorts of side benefits to this neat little financial structure. For once it is a win win for both private companies and the state, with shareholders sitting there bemused that they actually benefit as well. Extraordinary. And whose policy was that?

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 6): I'm sick tired of this bull election system of ours. For the third straight election that I can vote on I got two choices: bad or worse. If you think for a second that either candidate is really that much better (or worse) than the other one then you've been drinking someone's Kool Aid.

Amen!

Quoting StasisLAX (Reply 7): May I suggest that you check out the American Libertarian website and review my party's platform: www.lp.org

YEA!!!

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 11): I was able to write in Dennis Kusinich here in Oregon for the Primary instead of checking either Hillary or Barak.

The best thing I read about the DNC review was that Kucinich’s speech was like “a methed-up smurf” hopping around the way he was….LOL

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 11): Surely there is a line somewhere on your ballot to write-in a candidate.

NONE OF THE ABOVE.

Quoting RJdxer (Thread starter): Nope, a donkey of a different color is all I saw tonight.

Very insightful commentary RJ. That's impressive.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 15): Quoting Charles79 (Reply 6): Or, for that matter, do you expect any better from McCain? Nope, not at all.

So, one can assume you will be doing an analysis of Sen. McCain's speech next week? I mean, if you truly don't support Sen. McCain, you will be equally critical of him, correct? Hmmm, this will be interesting to see. I wonder if your GOP loyalty will remain strong.

Dave

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 28): So, one can assume you will be doing an analysis of Sen. McCain's speech next week?

Sure. I expect almost as many give aways since the electorate has come to expect them. But I'm willing to bet now that he won't be tossing people under the bus willy nilly as did Senator Obama last night. Perhaps that's why the press has been kind of mute on the speech all day.

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 28): I mean, if you truly don't support Sen. McCain, you will be equally critical of him, correct?

Will be? I already have been for a number of months. Lets get with the program Dave.

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 28): I wonder if your GOP loyalty will remain strong.

   You just don't get it do you. The GOP has very little to do with whom I choose whether it be a local, state, or national election.

Quoting N174UA (Reply 7): Oh, yeah...the good 'ol line item veto. Bush Sr. talked about it, as did Clinton I think. I haven't heard that joke in quite a while...Obama sure is scraping the barrel, isn't he?

If I remember correctly, President Bill Clinton, in his first 2 years when the Democrats controlled congress, passed legislation granting the President line item veto.

This was challenged and the Supreme Court ruled that it was in violation of the Constitution and to grant the presidet line item veto would require an amendment to the constitutional.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 14): Thanks to MSOBAMA I have had the chance to see the speech as performed by Senator Obama and I don't feel I have taken anything out of context. Feel free to point out where I have if you feel differently.

Sure:

Quoting RJdxer (Thread starter): So much for the greens.

I don't recall him ever taking a strictly green position on energy, nor would I want him to.

Quoting RJdxer (Thread starter): Conservative Christians need not bother to apply.

I'm not quite sure when conservative Christians were ever on the Obama bus in the first place, so I question what point you're trying to make.

Quoting RJdxer (Thread starter): Ouch, the gay community got run over and then he backed up over them!

Not at all. He was acknowledging that there are differences of opinion as to whether the term should be called marriage (which there are), but that most of the country can agree that gays should enjoy the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. He said nothing about his personal views on gay marriage.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 25): But the point is that the far left will not let abstinence be taught since it smacks of religious overtones which they also abhor since it requires faith and dedication to something other than the government or something they can control.

That's BS. The left has no problem with abstinence being taught, so long as it's not the only thing that's being taught. Abstinence doesn't have to be about religion, it can simply be about the biological fact that if you don't have sex, you can't get pregnant.

-Mir

Man, the testosterone being exuded here is simply impressive. RJdxer, you should have been at Beijing...

Quoting RJdxer (Thread starter): "Now is the time to finally keep the promise of affordable, accessible health care for every single American. If you have health care, my plan will lower your premiums. If you don't, you'll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves." So much for your tax cut. Income taxes may get cut but he will have to have a new tax of some kind to pay for that.

Yes,a consumption tax, that's what is needed. It's equitable and visible. And absolutely a cash cow, which is what the US needs - in addition to cuts in discretionary spending and some entitlement spending - to balance the books, lest a total financial meltdown occur, as opposed to what's happening now,

Quoting RJdxer (Thread starter): "The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals." I don't know too many hunters that would use an AK-47 to go squirrel hunting to begin with and I thought our first black President took care of this? In any case gun rights foes, you might not like that.

Quoting RJdxer (Thread starter): Nope, a donkey of a different color is all I saw tonight. Teeth are still bad and it pulls up lame when you try and attach a plow.

Is it all about colour, RJdxer ? [Note: the mod gods deleted this earlier. Said it "didn't add anything to the discussion". Although your tripe apparently does. That says a lot about the mods actually. I should be careful lest I be    ]

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 10): Quoting RJdxer (Thread starter): So much for the greens. Clean energy as opposed to a closed door meeting between the vice-president and the heads of oil companies. Yeah, that sounds horrid.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 14): Name a devoted green that believes that there is any such thing as "clean" coal or "safe" nuclear power.

Patrick Moore, former director of Greenpeace.
James Lovelock, former director of Friends of the Earth.
I could go on, but ...

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 14): But try teaching that and see how fast the liberal left dismisses it in favor of any other type of birth control since abstinence depends on personal responsibility which the left abhors.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 25): But the point is that the far left will not let abstinence be taught since it smacks of religious overtones which they also abhor since it requires faith and dedication to something other than the government or something they can control.

In America I would be called a lefty (although in Canada I'm a centrist) but I go to church occasionally. I see no linkage between one's social outlook and the presence/non-presence of religion in our lives. In fact one of my particular interests is religious history.

As for use of condoms and/or abstinence, they are issues that need to be discussed, both by parents with their children as well as by schools. However most parents are too embarrassed to really discuss sexuality with their own kids, that leaves it to the school system by default.

So your point, then, if you have one, is ... ?

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 28): Quoting RJdxer (Thread starter): Nope, a donkey of a different color is all I saw tonight. Very insightful commentary RJ. That's impressive.

   Thanks, DavestanKSAN. And my comment along those lines got deleted. Perhaps I'm flying the wrong flag on the board.

My memory of Denver is that there were very few buses, so if Obama managed to insert all these parties under buses, surely that shows considerable skill at something?

Not sure if this is what you were saying Dave, but it does rather begin to look as if the colour of the donkey is a major problem for at least one person on this thread.

Perhaps "How green is my valley" will be replaced with "How white is my elephant" when the other set of grand visions appear?

Quoting Baroque (Reply 33): Perhaps "How green is my valley" will be replaced with "How white is my elephant" when the other set of grand visions appear?

   White on, man! White on !

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 22): Are you seriously suggesting that oil companies do not pay taxes or their fair share of taxes? You're probably not aware that on average, the oil industry pays $4 in federal taxes for every $1 in profit. ExxonMobile alone pays more in taxes to various government agencies than the bottom 50% of income tax bracket pay combine.

Oil companies pay out a lot of money to individuals in the form of royalties - I guess that similar government payments could be considered taxes. It's the cost of raw materials and government gets their fair share.

Oil companies deal in very large dollar amounts and that is reflected in their profits. Back in the original "gas crisis" the oil companies were torn apart by newspapers (this was before the internet) but the newspapers failed to mention that the return on investment for oil companies was 7% while theirs was 11%.

But at that time oil companies were drilling a lot more in the US, risking money drilling that a lot of times ended in a dry well. During the RR years the oil companies took a huge hit, with hundred of thousands of jobs lost - basically a depression in the industry to fuel the rest of the economy.

So the oil companies have adjusted and more of their crude comes from overseas, not from risk taking in the US. For that, they don't need McCain's multi-billion dollar give away.

They also don't need their income tax cut to 25%. But they don't need to be called demons simply because they deal in very large numbers.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 23): America is a experiment that has never been Utopian or perfect like he kept saying. We have always had bad guys , poor people , drug use and crime . We have always had disadvantaged and sick and uneducated . He makes it sound like we once were perfect and now he wants to restore us to that .... Its a pipe dream and fantasy. Sorry , but no matter what these people promise (GOP included) most of it has a fresh scent...but thats about it.

No, he actually talked about the decline in earnings for the middle class, massive foreclosures while propping up the banks that made Lord only knows how many bad loans based on greed. etc.

We will always have the sick, but Obama will take better care of them - especially the children. My granddaughter is a good example of the difference between the parties. She has asthma and other respiratory conditions - including having the middle right lung lobe taken out. Insurance companies will not cover her at all, so it's out of pocket, government support, charity care or no care. My daughter worked in a hospital (with a Masters in Social Work) but had to take a lower paying job in order to get state paid medical care for intensive testing that would cost $50,000+. Of course the GOP can't deliver a better option as they are bought & paid for by the insurance companies. Bush vetoed a child care bill that would have resolved the problem. Don't tell me that there isn't a more intelligent approach than the greed based care coverage we now have.

There are many areas where a different approach can make an improvement for the lower and middle classes. It still won't be Utopia, but it will be an improvement for the majority of people,

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 25): In 1998 we were being told, in error, that based on the economic data of that time we would have surpluses for 10 years. Of course no one foresaw a recession followed in quick succession by 9/11.

If we had continued on the path set in the 90's we would have had a surplus. But we got Bush who came up with a tax cut - a little for the average person and a huge amount for the rich. Add the unnecessary war in Iraq that will end up costing $3 trillion when long term costs are included and you loose your surplus and build up a huge debt.

Quoting Jetstar (Reply 30): If I remember correctly, President Bill Clinton, in his first 2 years when the Democrats controlled congress, passed legislation granting the President line item veto.

The actual legislation only became effective at the start of the next presidential term as the GOP could not believe that Clinton would get a second term. Oooops.

Regardless of who wins this is going to be a battle that will rage for many years. The A -v- B battles on this forum is pale when compared to the battles that we'll be facing from this election,

There is no doubt that Obama 'tossed under the bus' some of the extreme liberals or those with liberal views on key subjects such as gay marriage, abortion and guns. The reality is that he did it to attract the majority of his own party and to attract many moderate independents so he has a better chance to win. In many other ways his is far closer to a majority of progressive, moderate and even many liberals than the Republicans. If he has to sacrifice a marginal number of voters in his own party, so be it. 'Liberals' will find Obama to be the far better and realistic choice in a candidate with a chance to win.

Quoting Mir (Reply 31): I don't feel I have taken anything out of context. Feel free to point out where I have if you feel differently. Sure: Quoting RJdxer (Thread starter): So much for the greens. I don't recall him ever taking a strictly green position on energy, nor would I want him to.

He doesn't have to be "strictly green" anymore than he has to be "strictly gay". But are the greens a part of the Democratic party or not. If you had to choose which party has more people that consider themselves "green" which party in which do you think they would find them? And yet he is going to ask for their support.

Quoting Mir (Reply 31): I'm not quite sure when conservative Christians were ever on the Obama bus in the first place,

Yet he is going to bring change and end divisiveness without somehow even acknowledging concerns from the other side. It goes to the first part of his speech which was all about how evil Republicans and especially George Bush are. He can't just run against John McCain, he has to run against someone who isn't even up for election.

Quoting Mir (Reply 31): He said nothing about his personal views on gay marriage.

He did not have to, they are already on the record and why stir up even more trouble. The fact is if the gay community is looking for a staunch supporter of the gay right to marriage, they need to look somewhere else. The scary part is that he would trample states rights in this matter if necessary.

http://a4.g.akamai.net/f/4/19675/0/n...7/anon.newmediamill/pdfs/obama.pdf

However, I do not support gay marriage. Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman. If I was President, however, I would oppose any effort to stifle a state's ability to decide this question on its own. Whether it was a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage or a bill like the Defense of Marriage Act, I would oppose such efforts. I think the President should do all he or she can to advance strong families. Whatever the make-up of the family, it is the President's role to provide policies and leadership that enable the family to thrive.
?

Quoting Mir (Reply 31): Abstinence doesn't have to be about religion,

Correct but the left continually paints it as so.

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 32): And absolutely a cash cow, which is what the US needs - in addition to cuts in discretionary spending and some entitlement spending - to balance the books, lest a total financial meltdown occur, as opposed to what's happening now,

I would agree completely that cuts are needed in both discretionary and entitlement spending. There is no tax that can provide the amount of money necessary to continue current and projected spending levels of entitlement spending alone. I would argue though that cuts should come before tax increases of any kind. Unfortunately neither candidate is going to do this. Nor is this Congress going to do that. If we raise taxes all they will do is spend all the monies generated, and then some.

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 32): Is it all about colour, RJdxer ?

I don't understand why it was delete myself. Be that as it may, is Senator Obama black or not (he calls himself black even though he has a white mother)? Is the symbol of the Democratic Party a donkey or not? Is the Presidential candidate the titular head of the Democratic party or not? But you, Dave, and Utopians everywhere can read whatever you want into that statement as it is your right to be wrong.

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 32): Said it "didn't add anything to the discussion". Although your tripe apparently does.

You are not a citizen of our country so I don't expect you to understand the first amendment but you comment puts you right up there with Blackbird although she had the decency to apologize.

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 32): Patrick Moore, former director of Greenpeace. James Lovelock, former director of Friends of the Earth. I could go on, but ...

Yes you could but you'll have to find someone else since Mr. Moore now spends at least part of his time blasting away at Greenpeace which would put his green status up for question. He is a conservationist to be sure, but my comment was:

Quoting RJdxer (Thread starter): and find ways to safely harness nuclear power." So much for the greens.

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 32): So your point, then, if you have one, is ... ?

Listed above several times.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 37): Yes you could but you'll have to find someone else since Mr. Moore now spends at least part of his time blasting away at Greenpeace which would put his green status up for question. He is a conservationist to be sure, but my comment was: Quoting RJdxer (Thread starter): and find ways to safely harness nuclear power." So much for the greens.

You could try looking here: http://www.greenspirit.com/index.cfm if that's not too much stress for the grey matter. Dr. Moore still qualifies as a tree hugger, but a more intelligent one in that he now understands that nuclear power is part of the solution.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 37): You are not a citizen of our country so I don't expect you to understand the first amendment but you comment puts you right up there with Blackbird although she had the decency to apologize.

I actually do, RJ. We are reminded of it every day by the barrage of American media outlets. Also the 2nd amendment, etc. Also from the large swatches of time I've spent in North Carolina.

As for apologies, well, Andrea is usually pretty gracious. I never advertised myself as such, and, further, don't think there is anything to apologise for.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 37): Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 32): So your point, then, if you have one, is ... ? Listed above several times.

Doesn't leap out at me, but maybe I'm suffering from radiation poisoning.

Well, got to go do some yard work despite all this fun...   

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 37): Correct but the left continually paints it as so.

Not quite. The left paints abstinence-only education as based on religion, which it is.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 37): He did not have to, they are already on the record and why stir up even more trouble.

If his views are already on the record, and he is consistent with them, then he's not suddenly throwing the gay community under the bus.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 37): The scary part is that he would trample states rights in this matter if necessary.

The quote you posted disagrees with that:

"If I was President, however, I would oppose any effort to stifle a state's ability to decide this question on its own."

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 37): He doesn't have to be "strictly green" anymore than he has to be "strictly gay". But are the greens a part of the Democratic party or not. If you had to choose which party has more people that consider themselves "green" which party in which do you think they would find them? And yet he is going to ask for their support.

By that standard John McCain has already thrown a large portion of his party under the bus because he's not conservative enough for them. You're not going to be able to cater completely to every group in your party.

-Mir

Quoting RJdxer (Thread starter): Tossing Them Under The Bus.

Quoting RJdxer (Thread starter): Ouch, the gay community got run over and then he backed up over them!

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 37): He did not have to, they are already on the record and why stir up even more trouble. The fact is if the gay community is looking for a staunch supporter of the gay right to marriage, they need to look somewhere else.

You really just find ways to refute your own arguments over and over again. If Obama wasn't on board with the gay marriage thing before, how can you suddenly label him as 'tossing them under the bus'. Your same old rhetoric and tactics are getting very tired.

I support gay marriage, but as long as the President doesn't have a big hard on for DOMA, I don't see them as having much control over the situation..

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 35): Oil companies pay out a lot of money to individuals in the form of royalties - I guess that similar government payments could be considered taxes. It's the cost of raw materials and government gets their fair share.

http://woodside.ice4.interactiveinve...2007/EN/body.aspx?z=3&p=9&v=1&uid=

Companies such as Woodside Petroleum (see link for 2007 annual rep) report Resource rent tax (increase of 44 million) separately from income tax (increase of 22 million) - p9. XOM do not.

Income tax is then listed at 574 million on page 82 and broken down into 6 subcategories. A 20 line reconciliation of tax with related items then follows through to p 83.

Petroleum res rent tax is listed on p 80 at 244 million.

They also provide an effective tax rate calculation 31% IIRC compared with 29% in the previous year - the file is painful to go through, so that is memory!!

It can be done. And over here it is done. In our system, the significance is that the 31% can be used for allocating out to shareholders as imputed tax paid, so that may be why it is stated separately.

Analysts need to work out the value of tax imputations that the company has built up. They add to the value of the company. So if company ABCD has accumulated tax paid of say 3 billion and has only used up 1.5 billion in imputation for dividends, the remaining 1.5 billion is worth that in a takeover situation to a company that either has tax liabilities, or a number of other more complex situations. Anyway, having paid your company tax (NOT royalties) is worth money to the shareholders in at least two major ways.

AFAIK, this is not so in the US.

Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 40): If Obama wasn't on board with the gay marriage thing before, how can you suddenly label him as 'tossing them under the bus'.

Which party do the majority of Gay Rights orginzations and most likely gay voters tend to gather too? Who is the titular head of Democratic Party. So who just tossed them under the bus despite asking for their support?

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 29): Sure.

I will be awaiting your thread then. To be honest, I'm not 100% confident it will come however.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 29): Will be? I already have been for a number of months. Lets get with the program Dave.

And how many threads have you started on Sen. McCain that are critical of him? Compared to those you started on Sen. Obama?

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 29): You just don't get it do you. The GOP has very little to do with whom I choose whether it be a local, state, or national election.

I'd be shocked to hear that you've ever voted for a Democrat to be honest. You have stated they are your political enemy so I'm not sure why you would vote for one. I'm just going by your posts in this forum, as I don't know you outside this context. I don't mean to paint you as one who votes straight party lines, but if the shoe fits, as they say. Apologies in advance if I'm mistaken.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 33): Not sure if this is what you were saying Dave, but it does rather begin to look as if the colour of the donkey is a major problem for at least one person on this thread.

As usual, you nail it on the head, B. I don't know why RJ brought it up in the first place honestly. I guess he was making the point that Sen. Obama is more of the same Democrat that he's used to seeing. But why he brought up the color of Sen. Obama's skin is pretty intriguing. There are a lot of paths one can take when a statement like RJ's is brought up.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 37): But you, Dave, and Utopians everywhere can read whatever you want into that statement as it is your right to be wrong.

So I'm a Utopian now? Okay. I'd be interested in how you logically leaped to that conclusion from myself and Connie's questioning of you mentioning Sen. Obama's race. But I'm used to being called names by you. It happens on every post. Very predictable. But it's all good.

Dave

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 43): So I'm a Utopian now? Okay. I'd be interested in how you logically leaped to that conclusion from myself and Connie's questioning of you mentioning Sen. Obama's race. But I'm used to being called names by you. It happens on every post. Very predictable. But it's all good.

From the crown prince of Dystopia, it is indeed a badge of honour. The OP certainly gave a quick summary of a suite of good things to believe in even if he was probably advocating the opposite. Some time, it would be really nice if we ever got to know the logic behind some of those positions. I would be particularly interested to know how a successful revision of the US "health system" (sorry has to go in quotation marks from here) would not have potential to benefit both the people of the US and business.

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 43): I will be awaiting your thread then

If they have the convention and he speaks. If he tosses out give aways that make no sense. If he tosses his conservative supporters under the bus as Senator Obama did.

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 43): And how many threads have you started on Sen. McCain that are critical of him? Compared to those you started on Sen. Obama?

Which candidate has totally dominated the news cycles for the past 6 months?

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 43): I'd be shocked to hear that you've ever voted for a Democrat to be honest.

I've voted for many democratic candidates at the local and state level. Unfortunately that is usually as far as they can get since if they want to make it to the national level they have satisfy the more liberal base in their party. When they do that they lose my support.

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 43): You have stated they are your political enemy so I'm not sure why you would vote for one.

Liberal democrats are my political enemies. Anyone who has ever met me at any of the A.net meets I have attended has never had me be anything but cordial to them no matter what their political beliefs.

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 43): Quoting RJdxer (Reply 37): But you, Dave, and Utopians everywhere

There is a reason the inventors of the language also invented punctuation marks, in this case the comma. Had I wished to include you in the Utopian crowd I would have written "You, Dave and the rest of the Utopian crowd", but if you somehow feel left out and wish to be included just say the word.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 44): potential to benefit both the people of the US and business.

A look at programs such as welfare up until the 1990's, medicare, medicaid, and SCHIP today just to name a few is all you need to see that when government gets involved it doesn't take long for costs to spiral up. I am not concerned with what Canada, the UK, or any other country with socialized medicine has done. In the United States, when you give the government control, all control over cost/spending is immediately lost.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 45): A look at programs such as welfare up until the 1990's, medicare, medicaid, and SCHIP today just to name a few is all you need to see that when government gets involved it doesn't take long for costs to spiral up. I am not concerned with what Canada, the UK, or any other country with socialized medicine has done. In the United States, when you give the government control, all control over cost/spending is immediately lost.

You're not concerned ? That, to me as a scientist, seems an awfully ignorant attitude.

Medicare, run by the government, is not necessarily a bad thing. We have many problems with it, no doubt. Due to the serious financial problem my country got itself into late-80s/early-90s, some very painful choices had to be made. One of them was bleeding Medicare. There were, and remain, long waiting lists for elective procedures. Fortunately the waiting times are going down. It was not always the case that the most effective treatment options were available. Again, that situation is getting better. The benefits of running surplus after surplus at the federal level.

A major issue in the single-payer system is cost control and auditing. Be in no doubt that here in Canada we are paying close attention to this. It would be no different in the US, and you already have effective cost tracking systems in place with the HMOs.

Ensuring that _all_ citizens have access to effective medical care requires a leap of faith. Only the government can underwrite this concept. The issue when someone is presented to Emergency is whether or not that person can recover and lead a productive life, not who pays. An HMO will decide if you live or die ? I think not. If the government is writing the cheque, so to speak, then all of us share the collective burden. [Note: I fell off a ladder last month, doing hedging. Able to walk to Emergency where they cleaned and stitched my leg, gave me a tetanus shot. Part of the deal.]

Unless and until Americans seriously contemplate a single-payer system, the situation will continue that 30M+ Americans, mostly hard-working, will have zero coverage. America will continue to score below Cuba for pre/post-natal care (the US has a higher post-birth mortality rate than Cuba, for example). Children will not get their innoculisations and boosters. Families will continue to struggle to balance food, energy, and health care.

Government is not necessarily an answer to all problems, there's no doubt about that. I've seen enough stupid decisions to fill a basket. But health care is where the government can, with a good overall plan that leaves room for local decision-making, can be a real asset to the citizenry and the nation.

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 46): Due to the serious financial problem my country got itself into late-80s/early-90s, some very painful choices had to be made.

They would look like paltry accounting deficiencies compared to what would happen here in the United States. A look at Social Security is all you need. A look at the major expenditures in our budget confirms it.

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 46): It would be no different in the US,

It is already different and a look at the rise in costs projected versus actual in Medicare and Medicaid is all that's needed to see that.

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 46): Unless and until Americans seriously contemplate a single-payer system, the situation will continue that 30M+ Americans, mostly hard-working, will have zero coverage

But somehow many of them are able to afford plasma TV's, nice cars, designer glasses and so on. The problem is not that they cannot afford health insurance, the problem is that they choose to spend their money on other things. If they are too poor to afford insurance the government safety net is there for them.

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 46): Children will not get their innoculisations and boosters.

Incorrect. All the States I have lived in while having school age children and that is 4 States, require certain inoculations and booster shots be performed and recorded before a child can enter or continue school. The county medical clinic provides these shots at little or no cost to all families regardless of income level. You just have to be prepared to fill out multiple forms and wait for several hours. I have no problem paying tax dollars for this since I consider it part of going to school and what I pay property tax for.

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 46): But health care is where the government can, with a good overall plan that leaves room for local decision-making

Unfortunately here in the United States, as we have seen, the federal government, once they get involved, feels compelled to muscle out the state and local authorities by inserting so many mandates and regulations that the local and state authorities are left to do nothing but shuffle paper. I have absolutely no confidence whatsoever that the federal government can manage, much less contain, the costs of a national health care program no matter which party is in the majority.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 47): But somehow many of them are able to afford plasma TV's, nice cars, designer glasses and so on. The problem is not that they cannot afford health insurance, the problem is that they choose to spend their money on other things. If they are too poor to afford insurance the government safety net is there for them.

What an ignorant, generalizing statement. Are there people out there without health insurance that put materialistic things before health insurance? Absolutely. Do all of those without health insurance? Absolutely not.

Quoting Bok269 (Reply 48): Quoting RJdxer (Reply 47): But somehow many of them are able to afford plasma TV's, nice cars, designer glasses and so on. The problem is not that they cannot afford health insurance, the problem is that they choose to spend their money on other things. If they are too poor to afford insurance the government safety net is there for them. What an ignorant, generalizing statement. Are there people out there without health insurance that put materialistic things before health insurance? Absolutely. Do all of those without health insurance? Absolutely not.

I doubt if any of those without health coverage have all of those luxuries. The trouble is that the cost of private health insurance seems these days to be more like a car a year than a TV!

The cost of health care are compounded especially in the US setting by its being linked to employment. And but back about 1985 (my memory is getting a bit dim these days and it varies from country to country) employment started to become much less permanent. Put the two together and if that is supposed to be a system, then it is one designed by the devil.

Utopia may never be realised, but why is it OK to aim to go to Mars, but not OK to shoot for attainable goals on earth?

Connies4 has provided the detailed answer and I am sure keys in better to the N American situation than I can do. But to think that government is per se different to large corporations suggests that you do not know very much about how either works or can work.

A local joke used to be that if you nationalized the local steelworks (about 4 million tpa of hot metal so not a trivial outfit) and did not tell anyone, nobody would ever have known the difference.

There are problems with all large organizations. Corporatised government management has the potential to be at least as efficient as any large private industry.

I don't recall ever getting contracts from government as loony as some of those from private industry.

(PS. I wonder if my hoping that the US might get itself a half decent health system is part of the hate America syndrome in that it is a cunning plot to bankrupt the place. Hang on, I cannot hope to do that, someone beat me to that target - damn and blast! Curses, foiled again, Bushed as you might say. The best (means worst) a health system could do would be to unbankrupt a whole mass of "legacy" industry.)