The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

How about this - we remove the terrorist/prisons from GITMO and move them to other prisons throughout the country. Then send all the crooked politicians, bankers, and people who are receiving bail-outs and turning around and taking holiday's with the money and going to spa's, and not using the bail outs on what they are for, etc. - send them to GITMO. - just a suggestion.

to finally not to worry about how she will put gas in her car and how she will pay her mortage. I highly doubt Peggy is looking for a free ride. She's looking for an answer.

Again, this is all left up to interpretation of how you feel about Peggy's comment. Typical pubs will bash Peggy because they think they'll have to pay Peggy's mortgage, which is wrong.

There are already programs in place, i.e., welfare, section 8 housing, etc. Why does the government helping those in need surprise everyone at this point? I'll tell you why because the republicans have managed to smear Obama's plan and that's all they've got. The same old plans of Bush is what they have; that's it. Oh, wait they Governor Palin; yeah she's intelligent enough to fix anything with her overspending and "fixing of the books."

I don't think the good 'ole USA needs more "fixed books" to suit the suits. I'm off my soapbox now I guess.

I can't believe how many people on here honestly believe that Barack Obama is going to just let people have free gas and free homes. That's absurd.

That doesn't grow the economy.

This is an excellent article. It includes pretty dramatic graphs that I wasn't able to copy and post, and I would urge anyone who is unbiased and is truly interested in giving the President-Elect a chance to succeed -- JUST A CHANCE -- click on the link and see for yourselves.

The research, carried out by eight leading newspapers including the Guardian, finds overwhelming support for the Democratic candidate. He would win by a landslide in every country surveyed, including Britain, where he is ahead of the Republican candidate John McCain by 64% to 15%.

Support for Obama is stronger than backing for John Kerry in 2004, when the Guardian participated in a similar polling exercise. Then, the Democrat was the preferred candidate of 50% of British people.

The poll, conducted by papers including France's Le Monde, Japan's Yomiuri Shimbun, Canada's LA Presse and Mexico's Reforma, also shows that opinion of America has dropped sharply since the start of the decade. In France 75% say their view of the US has got worse or much worse since President George Bush replaced Bill Clinton in 2001; in Canada 77%; in Switzerland 86% and in Japan 62%.

People everywhere have turned to Obama. He would win by a simple majority in six of the eight countries surveyed, including Canada, where he leads McCain by 70%-14%, and Japan, where the margin is 61%-13%.

French voters are even more hostile to the Republican candidate, who gets the backing of only 5%, against 68% who hope Obama will win.

In British results, from ICM/Guardian polling, 67% of voters say their opinion of the US is worse than it was before the Bush presidency began. Only 21% say it has improved.

But the special relationship endures. People in Britain are more likely than in any of the other seven countries surveyed to say relations are friendly: 49% think this is the case, against 18% who say relations are tense and 30% who say they are neutral.

Support for an Obama presidency is strong among all types of voters in Britain - 64% want him to win. He is most popular among more prosperous voters, where he has 71% backing, and least popular among people at the bottom of the socio-economic scale, 54% of whom want him to become president.

Elsewhere, only in Poland and Mexico, both emerging democracies, is there any hesitation about the prospect of an Obama victory. In Poland he leads by 43% to 26% and in Mexico by 46% to 13%.

Many people now fear rather than warm to America. In France 25% of voters say relations with the US are tense, against 38% who say they are friendly and 39% who think they are neutral. In Japan only 16% say friendship and 19% tension, with 62% neutral. In no country does a majority think relations should be described as friendly.

Even America's two neighbouring states are sceptical of US intentions. Only 23% of Mexicans describe relations as friendly and 28% say they are tense. In Canada, which has just re-elected a Conservative minority government, voters are strongly supportive of a Democratic presidency; 43% say relations with the US are friendly and 14% tense.

The survey also finds strong opposition to any attack on Iran and - in the six countries questioned on the issue - majority support for a rapid withdrawal of US forces from Iraq.

The possibility of military intervention in Iran is opposed by a majority everywhere except in Poland and Britain.

In Britain 47% say the next president should specifically rule out an attack, against 42% who say options should be left open.

Each newspaper involved in the survey used professional polling organisations, including ICM for the Guardian in Britain. Research was carried out this month, except in Poland, where polling took place in September.

Although the methodologies used differ - which may affect exact comparisons - the scale of Obama's lead everywhere outweighs any variation in results.
Research was carried out by: La Presse, Canada (1,500 telephone sample); the Guardian, UK (1,007 telephone, October 10-12 2008); Le Temps, Switzerland (600 telephone); Le Monde, France (1,000 face to face); Yomiuri Shimbun, Japan (3,000 face to face); Reforma, Mexico (850 telephone); Le Soir, Belgium (1,007 telephone); Gazeta Wyborcza, Poland, (1,000 telephone)

q� This article was amended on Tuesday October 21 2008. A graphic showing the results of a poll on how the US is viewed around the world reversed the findings for Belgium. We stated that 39% of Belgians polled said their opinion of the US had changed for the worse since the start of the Bush presidency, and 52% said it had changed for the better. Those figures should have been the other way round.

censorship is unconstitutional. That was his reason for not having restrictions on certain websites in libraries and schools. However, as a parent, I do not feel comfortable knowing that people can go to porn sites in libraries where my child might see this or at school where children might pull this stuff up. If people want to look at porn on the internet, they can feel free to buy their own computer and watch it from the privacy of their home, but not where children can see. Also, I do not see why it was important to Ogden to oppose a law stating porn distributors had to verify with documentation the age of their models. Doing away with this law would make child pornography easier to do. Having a law making them prove the models age, to me, is a responsible thing to do and also will prevent underage children being used in lewd sexual acts.

I just cannot support a man who would not allow restrictions for obscene sights in public libraries and schools and not see why it is important to have laws to verify that a person is of legal age to be involved in pornography.

Seriously, pornography is intended for the privacy of our homes with adults. Not in public places or involving children whether those children be watching or actually involved in the porn.

This is not a personal attack on Obama. I honestly wouldn't like anyone if they had these views on pornography. I personally feel that all appointees should be scrutinized whether it be dem or pub. I think if we hold them to higher standards than we have, maybe we will start getting some honest people in Washington.

"Pledged to vote for Woodrow Wilson and support the reorganization of the Democratic Party"

"Democrats in every county in Pennsylvania have been betrayed times without number and to-day trickery and deception walk hand in hand to again mislead them"

"Canidates have been found, who, for a price, are willing to represent the twin-machine traitors."

"Every alert, active Democrat will easily detect the tricksters, and on Saturday, April 13th, 1912, between the hours of 2 PM and 8 PM, will register his vote for the Purification of this Party."

Potentially Big News on Lieberman's Cap-and-Trade Proposal

Posted September 20, 2007 | 05:06 PM (EST)

Recently, one of the most irksome members of the Senate, Joe Lieberman (I-Clowntown) expressed openness to one of the boldest and most effective climate-change policies possible. Some background,

A cap-and-trade system begins by placing a cap on carbon emissions and distributing permits (permission to emit a certain amount of CO2) equal to the capped amount. The notion is that permits will be bought and sold, allowing market forces to determine where emission reductions can be made fastest and easiest. The question is how to distribute those initial permits.

When the EU carbon trading system was established, permits were given away based on emissions, meaning the biggest polluters got the most permits. The idea was that those polluters most needed the money because they had the biggest reductions to make, but in practice it was an enormous financial windfall for their shareholders and prompted very little action on their part to reduce emissions.

The alternative is to sell the permits at auction. This would, in effect, put the proceeds in government coffers rather than in the pockets of utility shareholders. The question then becomes: what should the gov't do with all that money (up to $50B a year)?

The Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade proposal, released early this year, was widely seen as the "moderate" bill that could get some support from Senate Republicans. One of the biggest criticisms it faced is that it would auction only 20% of the permits -- 80% would be given away to polluters.

But an intriguing item in Politico indicates that Lieberman may be open to changing that:

Lieberman, following a forum sponsored by the Progressive Policy Institute Wednesday, said such a change to his legislation was possible. "We've heard [calls for a 100 percent auction] from some stakeholders and heard that from some of our members. We're thinking about it. Warner and I haven't closed our minds to that. It's on the table," he said.

This could be huge news. The L-W proposal is viewed as the middle of the road. If it moves to 100% auctioned credits, that will effectively sanctify it as the new baseline. The policy and political implications are both huge.

McCain's Emission-Reduction Plan Receives Favorable Review

by: Frank Carlson

Posted August 11, 2008 | 11:43 AM (EST)

As U.S. Senators Barack Obama and John McCain begin their long descent into tit-for-tat rhetorical games, it's easy to forget key issues the two still broadly agree on: federally funded stem-cell research; nuclear nonproliferation; comprehensive immigration reform; faith-based social services; and global warming.

Obama and McCain agree that human-induced global warming exists and even on the system America should adopt to counteract it -- cap and trade, a plan that sets a limit (cap) on the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by manufacturers and power plants, for example, and then hands out credits that polluters can trade among themselves to pull themselves within the legal limits. Heavy emitters of greenhouse gases have to buy credits from low-level emitters. Cap-and-trade plans reward all sides for reducing emissions. Low-level emitters reduce in order to pile up additional credits to sell and high-level emitters reduce in order to spend less on credits.

Where Obama and McCain disagree on the plan concerns the role of the government, specifically how the government should allocate permits to companies. And unlike the current, silly spat over tire pressure gauges, this one matters.

Obama favors a full auction of the credits, which would act like a tax on companies, collecting a great deal of money right off the bat for the government to redistribute. This cash, he says, could go to alternative energy research and projects, then the credits would go to markets.

McCain says he would dole out permits in much the same way proposed by the Climate Security Act of 2007. That act failed in June to receive enough Senate support to even bring to a vote, but the basics are the same: Give the great majority of the permits away, and let the market set the price to support investment.

Here is where conventional political lines become blurred.

If you favor a more free market approach, McCain's plan may be for you because the government would collect far less money from businesses for redistribution. But if you're spooked by special interests, political favors for lobbyists and political corruption--as McCain says he is--then perhaps you side with Obama's strategy.

So what does Richard Sandor, architect of the wildly successful cap and trade system for reducing sulfur dioxide(SO2) and now CEO of the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), say?

He's for a partial auction of credits like the one McCain is backing.

"If you look at full auctioning of permits, what happens?" Sandor asked reporters during a recent interview at his office near the Board of Trade in downtown Chicago. "The day that they are auctioned, you have a net transfer of wealth from the private sector to the public sector at that moment. What, then, happens to climate change? Nothing has happened. You have just had a transfer of wealth.
Climate Exchange, the first voluntary but legally
binding market for trading emissions in North America.

It's better to let the private sector decide where the money should go, Sandor says, which is why he's against a carbon tax. And, he adds, there is precedent for believing so.

"The program that's worked is SO2," Sandor said. "Some amount of auctioning is, I think, OK. We will implement whatever the government does. We don't have an official opinion, but I'm guided by the SO2 program and how it accomplished its objectives so cheaply that that's the way to do it."

Sandor insisted the CCX is not a policy-making entity and that it will implement any system lawmakers put forth. Much like pilots, he said, the CCX will fly whichever planes the engineers--or rather, politicians--design.

"If you design it wrong," he said, "you may have to go 30 extra miles, you may have some accidents, or crashes, and we really speak to the efficacy of the design and leave public policy to the people who are policy makers in Washington. We're not advocates."

The CCX is currently North America's only voluntary but legally binding platform for trading carbon and other emissions. Even without a mandatory cap and trade system in the U.S., many companies have already begun to reduce their emissions in the hopes of improving their public image and perhaps reaping revenues through emissions reductions.

While Sandor explains why he's against Obama's plan for the full auction of credits, his greatest priority is getting mandatory cap and trade in place, whatever the framework. Undoubtedly, this would be a great boon to the CCX, and Sandor believes it is coming.

"Both candidates, McCain and Obama, have publicly embraced it," Sandor said. "I believe in their hearts that they're committed to reducing global warming and see it as a major threat. Is it inevitable? I think so. Could there be bumps? Yes."

Those bumps, worries Sandor, include a terrorist attack that could dislodge global warming from the political agenda in favor of dealing with more immediate problems.

"And that's the nightmare scenario that I worry about because it's easy to not worry about intergenerational problems when you have immediate security needs," he says. "And I'm not suggesting that they aren't more important. In fact, they are. But the thing that will slip will be the longer-based horizon, and I think that's a danger that we have."As U.S. Senators Barack Obama and John McCain begin their long descent into tit-for-tat rhetorical games, it's easy to forget key issues the two still broadly agree on: federally funded stem-cell rese...

Does anyone know exactly what planet Bush is from? He seems to be in his own little world. It's times like this you wonder exactly how did such an idiot ever get elected. LOL

going down, but I really want Bush and Cheney to be tried for war crimes. This is a dilemma for Obama - we have many, many issues to work on, but to allow the atrocities to go unpunished does not sit well with me. Let's have some trials, Mr. Holter.

He feels O's date for Gitmo closure is bad idea

David Roberts

Potentially Big News on Lieberman's Cap-and-Trade Proposal