SuperJerk

It didn't take long for Obama to win over some key groups... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25096620/ And in other news... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25129598/ Oh, lord.

No, I checked first...we had some discussion of global warming during the gas price thread.

In their defense, they do fulfill an important role in our society. The 28% of the American people that approve of how Bush is doing his job have to get their information from somewhere.

I never understood this argument by McCain. Why is it "fine" that we find it necessary to have troops stationed in these(and a hell of a lot more) countries. I am not saying it isn't necessary for various reasons, but WHY is it a GOOD thing? Is it really "fine" that Americans are stationed in South Korea and Germany? Necessary, maybe, Fine...ummmm? We also left troops in Saudi Arabia after Desert Storm, and that turn out so well...oh, shit, nevermind.

This is one of the clearest choices in any election I've ever seen... http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...ents-draw-fire/ McCain's premise all along has been that the American people only want to leave Iraq because of the casualties. This doesn't jibe with the fact that most Americans think we should've never gone over there in the first place, and don't think our presence there is doing any good. If Americans actually beleived in the mission, the casualties wouldn't bother us as much because we'd feel the sacrifice was a necessary evil of doing the right thing. That's just not the case.

Here's a link to the report I referenced earlier... http://intelligence.senate.gov/080605/phase2a.pdf

So the oil companies could have avoided most of the taxes ANYWAY, and the republicans refuse to give any companies investing in alternative sources of fuel a tax break. And people wonder why things aren't being accomplished. It's almost as if our government has rigged the process and vowed to keep business as usual going. The AP wasn't so charitable about it...their article was titled Senate GOP blocks windfall taxes on Big Oil. While this wouldn't do anything to immediately bring down gas prices, it would allow the government to pick up extra revenue from oil company profits to pay for the government policies and services they've been benefiting from.

Why is that? Maybe because of McCain's record of voting with the Bush Administration 95% of the time in 2007? Maybe because of McCain's history of voting against the Katrina investigation, then lying about it? Maybe because of McCain's open endorsement of the overturning of Roe v. Wade? Maybe because of McCain's ridiculous economic proposals? Maybe because of McCain's continued support for the Iraq War? Maybe because of McCain's apparent complete misunderstanding of Iran's government? Just a few hypotheses I have on why someone would support John McCain.

So House Republican leaders are a credible source on what the Democrats have been doing for the last two years?

Wow.

Funny, I thing the price of a barrel of oil has doubled in the past two years..and the price of a gallon of gas has almost doubled as well. Good job Nancy! Keep up the good work! And was the plan actually enacted, or was it blocked by Seante Republicans and the Executive Branch? That's basically like someone saying they're mad they didn't save on gas after they bought a hybrid when they actually drove around everywhere in their old SUV instead.

So I guess you'd just prefer an across the board cap on emissions, right, instead of using market-based economics to give companies a profit motive to cap them? No, wait, you want no regulation at all, I bet! Like I said, whenever Republicans oppose something because it'd "help big corporations," I doubt the purity of their motives.

You got a point. That thread's a fucking never-ending supply of prime comedy.

I like Hubert Humphrey (because he was a civil rights pioneer, not because he stole the 1968 nomination and sucked as a presidential candidate), and I'll agree Franken doesn't measure up to him.

The carbon credits can be bought and sold on the market. Article Not only do the companies get to raise their rates to offset the cost of Cap and Trade, but they can also sell their credits at a profit as well. Of course, everyone in Washington is saying "we're gonna do this the right way, not like how Europe did it" but do you really believe that? Europe gave away most of the carbon credits to companies for free. The Energy companies were lobbying congress to give at least 50% away for free, with the others being auctioned off. Larger companies can probably buy more of those auctioned credits cheaply and then sell them to smaller companies who go over the carbon cap for a large profit. So...if they make money off of carbon trading, they'll raise prices? I'm don't follow that reasoning. Also, since when are Republicans worried corporate profits are too high? That's why this sounds like propaganda to me.

I'm not sure why you think energy companies stand to make money off of this bill. And bringing up an unfulfilled promise from 2006 is a red herring, though.

If you mean Bobby, we're gonna have some words. __________________________ This ad is awesomely dishonest... First of all, WTF is is "Street organizer"? He was a community organizer, but that was BEFORE he went to law school. And is a senior class lecturer anything like...I don't know, a LAW PROFESSOR? Second, is a part-time state senator anything like a part-time president? Do they really get to keep cutting Obama's time as a senator down to only one year, when it was 2 years after he became a senator he declared he was running, and it'll be four years by the time he takes office? He's gotten more than one law passed, and has introduced bills that were either blocked by senate Republican or vetoes by the president...its not like he was sitting around doing nothing. But, hey, it says right on his resume he "avoided" tough votes on abortion, guns, and crime...because its not like he's taken public positions on either issue, right? ____________________ "Hi, I'm John McCain. I hate war, but that won't stop me from starting them."

My response to that is the quote from Bobby Kennedy: "There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?” _____________ In other news... http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...cratic-primary/ Czech------>

So do you have a more pragmatic solution?

Where wrestling discussion used to happen. Where OAO happens. Where B.O. Hussein happens. (Or would that be the Pitt?)

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/05/pen...iref=newssearch

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/07/cli...nity/index.html The article goes on to talk about Clinton as a VP candidate. Given that Obama does have a political problem with older women, though I don't think it is as dire as the polling suggests, the obvious/easiest thing to do is appoint a qualified woman as his running mate. Unfortunately, the media...demonstrating is usual collective amnesia...has completely forgotten Hillary Clinton is not the only woman in America qualified to hold national office. And if McCain picks a female running mate, how much of Clinton's supporters will that attract? McCain has a huge advantage here because the Republican Convention is later than the Democrats'. He can wait and see what Obama does before counter-nominating accordingly.

Yet another round of finger pointing... http://www.kansascity.com/449/v-print/story/650665.html

I'm pretty optimistic about Obama's chances, as long as McCain's getting slammed for stuff like this... http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/ka..._kerfuffle.html ...and this... http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/beyond/2008/06...ng-records.html ...and the attacks will stick. On the one hand, you have stuff that I just cited, and the best counter-attack is that his former pastor hates America, he doesn't always wear a flag pin, and that his father might have once been a Muslim. It is kind of hard to take the never-ending repetition of "America-hating liberal" seriously when weighed against McCain's record as a senator and major proponent of the Iraq War (undermined once again by the new Senate Intelligence Committee report).