[Thelomen Toblerone]

Bent;368775 said:

I get it. But you are okay with him wanting to "have talks" with know terrorists?

I hate to jump in here, but the actions of your country and a succession of presidents from both camps in dealing with the IRA, even to the extent of having them over for dinner, kind of renders this point completely void. For decaded the IRA blew the shit out of the UK, and you were more than happy to fund their activities and talk to them as friends. McGuinness and Adams are "known terrorists" and have been for ages.

On the issue, talking with terrorists seems to have worked in this case, as Northern Ireland is now more trouble free than it has been in ages. This was achieved by talking, compromising and dealing with terrorists. Dont knock all suggestions out of principle, sometimes it's better for a situation that you try or at least consider all avenues you believe could help a situation.

[HoosierDaddy]

Bent;368893 said:

I didn't say it was the NY times, I said it was PUBLISHED in the nY times.

1-3. Yes, I am a conservative, I believe in God, I don't think abortion is cool, and I don't think gays should be married, this however doesn't make me a republican.

Well you don't vote, so I can't ask you if you've ever voted for a Democrat. I'd imagine the percentage would be low.

Bent;368893 said:

Third(as you said) - Obama stated that he would be willing to negotiate with known terrorists, this isn't advocating world peace, this is saying, attack again without the thoughts of repercusion! If you are going to lead a nation you need to be able to make descisions that may cause people to die, in order to save innocent civilians. Obama's stance on this is backwards, allow a few innocents to die, to avoid war! I bet you still think we went to Iraq for oil too, huh? This is liberal thinking anyway, but talk to the soldiers who went over there and fought, they are nearly worshipped for taking out Saddam.

Okay. Stating that you would have conversations with "rogue" nations is not the same as negotiating with terrorists. The fact that you said that basically means it is useless commenting further.

If they are so busy worshipping soldiers, why are people still dying over there so regularly?

Bent;368893 said:

Forth [sic]- Obama's foreign policy experience is crap. While visiting Isreal, he told a large group of Isreali's that Isreal would remain undevided and Jeruselum would remain the capital of Isreal. After the palesinians on the outside started booing he retracted his statement as being"a poor choice of words." He was against a surge in Iraq, and give him credit, when asked by Katie Couric if knowing what he knows now(Since the surge worked) would he support the surge and he repeatedly said NO. He would have tried something else, even knowing that the surge would be successful, HE WOULD STILL NOT SUPPORT IT!

The verdict is still out on the Surge. Will it work long-term? How long would we need extensive American troop placement in Iraq for it to become stable on its own?

Bent;368893 said:

]Again, not the leadership qualities that I am looking for. And again McCain isn't much better, but at least he knows how to lead(he supported the surge, even though EVERYONE in the democratic party said it would fail.) McCain never faltered, he replied, if it fails we move on, until then I support the surge.

He knows how to lead? Examples, please. I commented on the Surge above.

You are entitled to your opinion Bent, despite how much I may disagree with it.

[Bent]

Let me be honest, the only .....ONLY reason I would vote for McCain(If I in fact voted) would be checks and balances. We have a democratic majority led Senate and House. Most agree that this won't change. IF we have a democrat as a president, any nd every bill that is proposed will pass. And I am done. I reinerate that no matter what happens, we are screwed, but I feel it important to share opinions, no matter how misguided they may seem.

[frookenhauer]

I hope the old guy does the decent thing and collapses 2 days before the election, gets replaced by a total jerk, just so Obamarama gets ushered in as the noo president.

The whole world: "Oba one Hussaini! You're our only hope!"

Mcain in breathing apparatus: "Now I am the master!"

Obama in jedi robes: "If you strike me down with your sleaze campaign, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."

[Bent]

HoosierDaddy;368896 said:

Well you don't vote, so I can't ask you if you've ever voted for a Democrat. I'd imagine the percentage would be low.



Okay. Stating that you would have conversations with "rogue" nations is not the same as negotiating with terrorists. The fact that you said that basically means it is useless commenting further.

If they are so busy worshipping soldiers, why are people still dying over there so regularly?



The verdict is still out on the Surge. Will it work long-term? How long would we need extensive American troop placement in Iraq for it to become stable on its own?



He knows how to lead? Examples, please. I commented on the Surge above.

You are entitled to your opinion Bent, despite how much I may disagree with it.

Beleive it or not, I would vote 100 percent for Democrats in the local elections, it is only the national election I would vote republican, primarily because local dems are still very conservative where I live, yet are better with local economics than republicans.

By why are they still dieing I assume you mean the soldiers and not the Iraqi citizens. 6 soldiers died last month (after the surge). Before this, Congress "tied the soldiers hands" and yes this came from an Iraq vet, they would go into an insurgents home, take all of his weapons and electronic devices and arrest the person. One of the soldiers may run over a goat on the way out and the military would have to pay for the goat, how much the goat would bring during the life of the goat, any offspring the goat might have, and the insurgent would walk out of jail with 1000 dollars. If an Iraqi pointed a gun at the soldier, they couldn't kill the man, nope they had to try and apprehend him, unless he fired a round first, then they could kill him.


After the Surge, and the susequent retreat of the insurgents, Iraq's government has stated that they want the Americans to withdraw completely. How is this a question. Also, if we say we will leave in 18 months like Barry wants, they will hide until we are gone and then resume attacks, but the good news is that the Iraqi police are better trained than they were a year ago.

The surge support is my example, even under direct attack by so many others he stuck to his guns, he didn't do what Barry did in Isreal and retract his statements.

I am entitled to my opinion and so are you, I don't hold it against you that you want Barry to be president, I just can't see how he is the best choice right now. Give him some experience and wisdom under his belt, but now, he seems as if he just wants to please everyone.

[Thelomen Toblerone]

What's the name of that President you guys had who refused to wear an overcoat during his swearing-in ceremony, caught pneumonia, and died a short while later?

McCan would probably do that, the old codger.

[Dolorous Menhir]

frookenhauer;368911 said:

Obama in jedi robes: "If you strike me down with your sleaze campaign, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."

Ha ha.

[HoosierDaddy]

Thelomen Toblerone;368916 said:

What's the name of that President you guys had who refused to wear an overcoat during his swearing-in ceremony, caught pneumonia, and died a short while later?

McCan would probably do that, the old codger.

McKinley I believe.

[Terez]

Bent;368914 said:

Beleive it or not, I would vote 100 percent for Democrats in the local elections

Dixiecrats!

[HoosierDaddy]

Terez;368956 said:

Dixiecrats!

With more conservative flavor! Your brain-cells can't repel propoganda of that magnitude!

[Optimus Prime]

Bent, a major issue for you in election decisions is GAY MARRIAGE!??!!?

*shakes head*

[Terez]

Optimus Prime;369648 said:

Bent, a major issue for you in election decisions is GAY MARRIAGE!??!!?

*shakes head*

You did see the stats I provided on MS's vote, didn't you? You can pretty much guarantee that all regular voters showed up for that one, since it was on the ballot with the presidential election. The amendment to ban gay marriage passed 86-14. Alabama isn't all that different from Mississippi...I'm too lazy to look to see if Alabama has passed something similar...and it's not enough for most people around here to have it banned in their own state. It has to be banned for the whole country before they'll be happy.

[Obdigore]

Terez;369669 said:

and it's not enough for most people around here to have it banned in their own state. It has to be banned for the whole country before they'll be happy.

And that is another problem with religion and the sense of entitlement in the US.

[Shinrei]

I was listening to Rachael Matteau's radio show last night (for non-USAsians shes a political science radio host on the democrat/progressive Air America radio network).

I really like her, because she digs up important news stories that don't make the mainstream press or end up on the back pages. She's whip smart, and shows up as a commentator on Keith Olberman's MSNBC show often.

But yesterday she brought up an Obama advertisement that she thought was "very good" and highlighted the difference between Obama and McCain. One of the things she emphasized was Obama wants to end tax breaks for oil companies because of their record profits.

This continues to make no sense to me. Politicians want to blame somebody for expensive gas hitting consumers, but I don't understand how ending tax breaks would help consumers one bit. If anything that would drive the price up further! What's also disengeneous on Matteau's part is bringing up the record profits without qualifying what that means. 71% of the profits gets reinvested into technology, exploration and improving existing oil fields. That involves peoples jobs and money changing hands (helping to keep the economy greased). It's not like 100% of the profit is going home in people's pockets, but you never hear anyone admit that on progressive radio.

[Obdigore]

It depends on where you are pulling the 'profits' from. Are the 'record profits' being seen after expenses are taken out, as you are implying they are not?

Do you have any source on your claim of 71% returned?

I would also like to know WHY the oil companies are getting tax breaks?

[Shinrei]

Well , I don't remember where I read that so I can't back it up. I read it about a month ago and didn't bookmark the article.

Here are some of the tax breaks being provided, according to an older Washington Post article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Apr18.html

For the oil and gas industry, the legislation allows some costs associated with exploration to be deducted over a shorter time period and provides tax benefits when oil and gas production is delayed and a lease is extended. It reduces the depreciation period for natural gas distribution and gathering lines as well as the depreciation period for electricity transmission and pollution-reducing facilities added to some coal-fired power plants.

The measure also includes some tax credits for solar energy equipment, fuel cells and energy efficiency improvements to existing homes.

[ch'arlz]

Shinrei no Shintai;369741 said:

What's also disengeneous on Matteau's part is bringing up the record profits without qualifying what that means. 71% of the profits gets reinvested into technology, exploration and improving existing oil fields. That involves peoples jobs and money changing hands (helping to keep the economy greased). It's not like 100% of the profit is going home in people's pockets, but you never hear anyone admit that on progressive radio.

"technology, exploration and improving existing oil fields" are items that are expensed before net profits. I admit I haven't paid a great deal of attention lately, but the Obama ads I've seen interrupting the nightly news have referenced taxing oil companies windfall profits, which presumably means profits they otherwise would not have made if oil hadn't doubled in price in the last year.

[HoosierDaddy]

I find it strange that conservatives, staunch capitalists that they are, can stomach the tax breaks that get in the hand of laissez faire economic policies. Now, I know the U.S. hasn't been a strictly laissez faire economy for over the past 100 years, but most in roads into that system were made to either right the system (monopoly busting) or during the Great Depression.

Anyone care to explain it?

I say the more you make the higher percentage you are taxed. But, that's the liberal in me coming out.

[Shinrei]

I'm not arguing for giving tax breaks to oil companies. I argue against using this as an appeal to the common consumer as some sort of cure for prices at the pump when it is obviously not. It's dishonest to make it sound like eliminating tax breaks will somehow help anyone out when they fill up their car.

Nor am I against all regulation.

And windfall profit taxes... I sort of think they are ridiculous. I made more money on my initial capital investment (percentage-wise) from my ebay business than the oil companies did. Should I pay windfall profit tax too?

[Shinrei]

Ok, to be fair and balanced, here's a conversation on Limbaugh's program yesterday that had me shaking my head.

Some guy called in and basically asked Rush why he feels we shouldn't work to increase our renewable energy sources in order to conserve oil for the things that wind/solar/etc power can't produce. The idea is, oil is a finite resource and the more we burn it for electricity etc. the less oil we'll have to use in the future when we still need to get airplanes in the air and power agriculture.

Rush basically called the guy an idiot, saying that the market has decided that renewables are not viable and that anyone who thinks we should replace this is "kidding themselves".

Well, maybe the market has decided that wind and solar etc. are more expensive, but in my opinion, the caller is right. Maybe we'll spend more money and have less return on investment, but 50 years from now when we still have oil to power the things that matter we'll be happy we switched as much of the grid as we could. I don't get why Limbaugh is so anti-foresight on this issue. This doesn't even have anything to do with global warming, but is simply for the conservation of a finite and very important resource!