You can't? All you have to do is require that speculators put up more than the 5-10% that currently put up. Or, you could change back the law on buying oil futures. The Republicans, in 2001, made it possible for anyone -- not just those who actually intend to use the oil they buy -- to buy oil futures. Since then, the number of futures contracts has increased 12-fold. All those things you listed above didn't seem to be a problem before 2001.

Also, I resent the notion that I offered doubletalk or saber-rattling. I made a good case for Obama, not against McCain, with specifics, like you asked.

Well, there is a risk that voting for another Republican might put us on the same track we've been on for the last 8 years. It's a valid point, especially in light of a) how bad the last 8 years have been and b) how McCain flipped on most of the issues that distinguished him from the Republicans.

But there are a lot of reasons to vote for Obama. Name an issue, and I'll give you my case.

And, so far each candidate has made exactly one Presidential-level, potentially history-impacting decision - Picking a VP.

I have the sense that Obama picked, and got, exactly who he wanted for VP. It is widely believed (and I in fact do believe) that McCain wanted Lieberman, or failing him, then Tom Ridge, both long-time trusted, experienced friends. But, both are pro-choice, and the God Squad already has suspicions that McCain doesn't mean what he says about seeking to allow abortion to be outlawed and who he would appoint to the Supremes to accomplish that goal.

Palin is tailor-made for these American mullahs - She wants abortion to be 100% illegal, including pregnancies resulting from rape and/or incest. I feel abortion genuinely is a tough moral issue, both societally and individually, but legally condemning young teenage girls to carry pregnancies to term after they've been raped? That's the sort of thing that starts to seem ... well ... downright un-Christian.

But, I think Palin was nonetheless a gross strategic error - McCain should have gone with Lieberman. Choosing Lieberman, a (nominal? former?) Democrat, would have served him three distinct ways --

A - Made it easier to sell his 'maverick' song-and-dance and been viewed (or at least spinnable) as a real change, toward bipartisanship. I think Joe would also have drawn more of Hilary's PUMAs than Palin will.

B - Allowed him to maintain his strongest argument against Obama - "Inexperienced." Naming Palin just sucks all the juice right out of that one.

C - Allowed him to assert that he had picked as VP the single person he thought best able to lead the country if something happened to him, even though that person was not even a Republican! The fact that this would not be to the taste of the far right would, I think, itself have garnered him far, far more independent votes in the middle than it would have lost him on the right.

And, C will (or should) be a continuing problem for McCain, I think - He is gonna have a truly hard time claiming with a straight face that Palin is the best person he knows to serve as President of the USA - It's doubly tough, because it would actually be two lies - 1) That she'd be the best President he knows ... and 2) that he knows her!

One thing I probably would like about McCain as Prez - According to many reporters who have covered him over the years, he's perhaps the world's worst liar. He seems incapable of saying something important he doesn't mean, without giving it away somehow that he realizes and agrees that "Yes, everything I am currently saying is utter BS." It may also be this sort of thing that has made the anti-abortion folks nervous about him, even though he has roused all the right rabble.

But, I'd like him a lot better if he simply did and said whatever he thought best and damn the consequences - It seems more in character for him anyway than this current PanderFest, but he has toed the line "religiously" ever since getting burned in the 2000 SC primary, and after eight years I think we have to assume that this now is the "real McCain."

Regarding oil speculation, a couple of my friends who know a hell of a lot more about this stuff than I do had a simple solution: only keep the markets open one day a week. They said it worked well a few decades ago to quash speculators and decrease volatility.

Why the 'fair tax' (haha. love the nomenclature) won't work isn't some bit of Leftist fearmongering. These numbers get vetted every few years and the proposals always die because when the numbers get crunched it always comes out the same. The rich pay significantly less tax, and by and large everyone else pays more. Even the right admits that shfiting the tax burden to the poor is wrong. their proposals always allow some sort of exemptions for lower income. So that means that the rich get their tax cuts which means the middle class needs to pull up even more of the slack. Good luck winning elections with a 'lets raise taxes on the middle class!' platform.



You'll get no argument from me that there are many social programs that simply don't work, are fraught with corruption, etc. The solution in my mind isn't to slash spending across the board, it is to be surgical and remove the programs that don't work, and take some serious actions to get rid of the fraud in the programs that do work.

As for your speech about volunteering, spare me. Are we to assume that once the tax rates change these people that 'like their money' are suddenly going to become humanitarians? This is just talk and you know it. Why wait? Buy one less vinyl toy a month and you could do it right now. Me and a friend go every other week and buy about 40 loaves of bread (however much they've got on hand that day usually) from the bread outlet, cans of tuna, and beans and take them directly into the neighborhood near our office. These people have modest houses, they work, but their families need help. It is money well spent and though it's not that much, they are GRATEFUL.

get GW again, if we have the fair tax, consumer spending will drop and the poor can't eat blah blah. Can the left really see the future? Seems like just fear mongering to me.

Those who know history are doomed to repeat it.

[/quote]

'Why the 'fair tax' (haha. love the nomenclature) won't work isn't some bit of Leftist fearmongering. These numbers get vetted every few years and the proposals always die because when the numbers get crunched it always comes out the same. The rich pay significantly less tax, and by and large everyone else pays more. Even the right admits that shfiting the tax burden to the poor is wrong. their proposals always allow some sort of exemptions for lower income. So that means that the rich get their tax cuts which means the middle class needs to pull up even more of the slack. Good luck winning elections with a 'lets raise taxes on the middle class!' platform.





redhanded:

You are off on the fair tax. The fair tax means you get to keep more of your money and you get to spend it how you want to. Yes, we will still have taxes, but the 'fair tax' largely a non-necessity consumer tax. So if you want more 'stuff' it will cost you, about 23% more for your ipods, dvds etc. But you will have more money to do what you want with it, so spend wisely brave Paladin. Plain and simple; It will empower people to save who want to save, and those who want to spend, well spend.

I was being a bit of a smart ass on the volunteering; but when you begin to save money, you can do what you want with it. Consumer/spender empowerment indeed. But most would not give it away to local organization, they rather fund the government to 'help' those people in 'need'. For those who think we need to address whatever social ill or issue such as poverty, drug abuse, domestic violence, you would be able to have a local impact if you are really passionate about it with your own money, instead of the government doing it for you. Why should most of your money go to the bureaucracy. But in all honesty, very few would rise up to the local challenge and lend a helping hand, physically or financially.

It didn't click with me you were referring to the actual Fair Tax which I believe I read a book about not too long ago. I thought you were just talking in general terms about flat taxes.

I guess I just don't see the current system of progressive income tax as being a particularly pressing problem that needs to be fixed. Not to the extent that this proposal would require - a complete up-ending of the tax system and starting over from scratch, and not when there are so many other issues I consider far more urgent. I'm all for simplifying the tax code and closing loopholes but with all the tinkering already done to make this a more 'progressive' tax, the finished product will probably be so close to what we've already got that it probably won't make much of a difference. The government will simply be taking our money from our right pocket instead of our left.

My mind isn't closed, however. I'd like to see some real studies into this proposal. Something a bit more substantive than some rosy projections by a few economists which may or may not be entirely unbiased..

Resent away! You're free to feel however you'd like. You make an interesting point about oil speculation, but again, you can't regulate foreign commodities markets when the rest of the world is bidding for oil.

Don't forget that there's only one thing that voting Americans can't stand, and that's even the slightest whiff of an anti-American sentiment, especially in a candidate for the White House. Both Barack and Michelle have had anti-American undertones emanating from their speeches initially, especially during the primaries....and that's why they stuffed Michelle in the closet until the convention. Deny this, and you can't possibly expect me to take you seriously.

Again, not supporting McCain either, just not going to gloss over stuff like that.... I think Obama is a strong candidate, but not the slam dunk many think. I doubt that outside of Michelle's tightly worded speech last week, you will hear from her in a featured speaking event again until after election day.

some numbers i have heard today re: palin

when she won the mayoral election in wasilla, it was with about 900 votes

when she won the gubernatorial, it was with 17% of the vote

after she left as mayor, wasilla, alaska was left with about 20 million in long term debt spending on stuff such as
1 million for a park
15 million for a sports complex to be built on land that did not even belong to wasilla
5.5 million in bonds for road projects
city hall and office redecorated more than once



and while not a number, i read today on time.com about her threatening to fire a librarian in wasilla for not giving full support to palin's desire to ban certain books from the public libraries

Likely media bias aside, that's some crazy shit !

you hippy liberals just don't understand that everything you need to read is in the bible...

Truth or fiction (as it pertains to this instance), it is my opinion that anyone that supports censorship, particularly of reading materials, should not be elected to public office, particularly that of the highest degree.

Summary of Palin


ON FOREIGN POLICY
Palin Hasn’t Given The War In Iraq Much Thought
Palin Has Never Been To Iraq
In her only trip overseas, Palin visited Alaska National Guard troops stationed in Kuwait and Germany in July 2007
Palin Believes That The Iraq War Is A Task ‘From God.’
Palin Believes The Iraq War Was Fought Over Oil
Palin Didn’t Have A Passport Until 2007

ON EARMARKS
Palin Supported The Bridge To Nowhere

ON THE ENVIRONMENT
Palin Denies Man-made Global Warming
Challenging ‘Uncertain Climate Models,’ Palin Is Suing To Lift Protected Status For Polar Bears
Palin Established Illegal Fly-By Wolf Hunting Bounty7]

ON ENERGY
Palin Is A Top Arctic Wildlife Refuge Drilling Advocate
Palin Opposes Lieberman’s Bill To Prevent Arctic Refuge Drilling
Palin Dismisses Alternative Energy
Palin Believes It Is ‘God’s Will’ To Build A Natural Gas Pipeline

ON BIG OIL
Palin’s First Statewide Campaign Was Fueled By Veco

ON SCIENCE
Palin Supports Teaching Creationism In Public Schools

ON WOMEN’S RIGHTS
Palin Is A Member Of Anti-Abortion Group Feminists For Life
Palin Opposes Abortion Even In Cases Of Rape Or Incest.
Palin Slashed Funding To Help Teenage Mothers
Palin Supports Abstinence-Only Policies
Palin Supports Parental Consent Laws For Minors Seeking Abortions

ON ETHICS
Palin’s Lobbyist Had ‘Close Ties’ To Don Young, Ted Stevens
Palin’s Lobbyist Was Part Of ‘Team Abramoff.’
Palin Served As Director Of ‘Ted Stevens Excellence In Public Service’ 527
State Employee Charged Palin With Ethics Violation
Palin Forced Top Wasilla Employees To Resign As Loyalty Test
Palin Fired Police Chief For Not Fully Supporting Her
Palin Used Mayoral Office Resources For Campaigning

ON TROOPERGATE
Ousted Former State Official Accused Palin Of Pressuring Him To Fire Trooper
Palin’s Intial Denials Of Interference In Firing Were Proven False
Palin’s Lawyer In Investigation Is Also Her Personal Attorney
Palin Has Refused To Release E-mails, Citing ‘Executive Privilege.’

ON THE RADICAL RIGHT
Palin Cheered On the Alaskan Independence Party
Palin Welcomed The Hard-Right Candidacy Of Pat Buchanan
Palin Characterized Ron Paul As ‘Cool.’
Palin Believes The Founding Fathers Wrote The Pledge Of Allegiance. In 2006

ON CIVIL RIGHTS
Palin Supports Denying Benefits To Same-Sex Couples
Palin Opposed Expanding Hate Crime Laws

ON HEALTH CARE
Palin Advocated Consumer-Driven Health Care
Palin Introduced Health Care Transparency Act
Palin Did Not Take A Position On Expanding SCHIP Funding
Palin Signed Watered-Down SCHIP Bill
Palin Failed To Support A Bill To Cover All Alaskans

ON THE ECONOMY
Palin Left Wasilla $20 Million In Debt
Palin Instituted A Windfall Profits Tax On Oil Companies
Palin Supported Flat Tax Advocate

That's really a lot of BS. Sure, they've been pegged as "anti-American" by a lot of rightwingers and conspiracy theorist. But the notion that they had "anti-American undertones emanating from their speeches" is utter nonsense. I guess we can now both not take each other seriously.

What were these Anti-American comments? I'd love to see some quotes and citations.

Amen to that.

It's microscope stuff. Michelle Obama, in February, said something to the extent of "this is the first time I feel like an American."
Mitt Romney is supposed to bring it up.

The sad reality of politics is that I'd like to hear the positives of BOTH parties. But it's 80% negative and it's so easy to talk about the bad shit.

Ok, we agree to disagree. But Michelle is a hater, and that's why you won't see her speaking again until the election.

Don't tell me you're one of the nutty buddies out there that things things like 9/11 were staged by the Bush Administration.....ugh.

Both candidates are shite.

No, she's a strong black woman with an opinion. Apparently, some people don't like that.


I'm not even sure where you're coming from with such a comment.

Banning books is Anti-American!

I doubt Logang1 hates Michelle because she is a 'strong black woman with an opinion', lets not bring this out any closer to race baiting. When people type or say stuff like that a lot can be inferred and it won't get us any where.

Underbeit, there are a few good books about the 'fair tax' out there and if you are a fan of talk radio there is Neal Boortz, he has written two on the subject and its truly beyond a blue state/red state issue. It's not perfect but worth looking into.

"In general the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to the other." [Voltaire]

Play that race card baby!!!! Sorry, but she comes off as an elitist asshole.



I'm coming from Boston!



TOTALLY AGREE!

This is just too rich -

Here's Karl Rove recently, bloviating on the possibility that Obama might select Virginia Governor Kane as his VP - that it would mean Obama had "made an intensely political choice, not a governing choice," had ignored his "responsibilities as President," and that such a selection would reflect a candidate who had said "You know what, I'm not first and foremost concerned with 'Is this person capable of being the President of the United States ... .' "

Kane has been governor of Virginia (with 11X the population of AK) for three years (v. 19 months for Palin), and was lieutenant governor before that. But Rove saves his most gleeful jabs for Kane's apparently laughable service as mayor of Richmond, VA, "the 105th largest city in America" (and thus a city about forty fucking times as large as Wasilla, AK, plus about 40 times more like the rest of America!)


It's almost too perfect ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4qEynSx19E

Now, will McCain pull a Harriet Myers on us, and swap in Lieberman? It seems like an awful admission of defeat, but this choice is just blowing up in his face.

Rove= Evil

or Douche.

Take your pick.

The Lieberman defection was quite interesting though. You could see Joe Biden trying to "use the force" to choke him to death on Meet the Press, just after Russert passed away. We'll miss Russert the most during the upcoming debates. He was a fantastic moderator....RIP Tim.

Having watched Palin's RNC speech I find it utterly terrifying that this person could be within a heartbeat of the presidency. She makes Dan Quayle look like Socrates.

I find it fascinating that in every election, Republicans use the same strategy over and over - first, trump up fear of foreign military or economic threats. Then, accuse your opponent of wanting to raise taxes. Unbelievable that people can't see (or don't seem to care) that while Republican administrations lower some taxes, they turn around and borrow a tremendous amount of money to pay for new and existing programs, thereby endebting the USA to foreign countries, with close friend (and all around good guy) China right there at the top of the list.