Did you catch the joke? What's the difference between hockey moms and pit bulls? Lipstick.
Just the fact that she brags about being a hockey mom bothers me too.
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
I played hockey growing up, and my first job after college was at a hockey rink managing leagues, teaching, refereeing and coaching. In those four years, I met some great people in the hockey community during that time. But at least in my experience, the mothers who touted themselves as "hockey moms" were the most over-bearing, obnoxious and league politic playing parents that I've ever met.
Any of you who grew up playing sports or have kids playing sports, just think of the worst behaving parents around those teams.... that is the image I get when I hear someone calling themselves a "hockey mom"
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
I've never understood the Dems against drilling...we need a COMPREHENSIVE energy plan that includes the NOW, the short-term (drilling), and the long-term (energy independence through innovation).
Why, when all experts say that we will not see a change in gas prices for at least four years even if we started drilling tomorrow? You call it the long-term, energy independence through innovation, but it needs to be as short-term as possible.
However, I do agree with you; it demands a comprehensive approach and if a President enters the White House and feels it is absolutely necessary, then we should consider everything. Like relations with other countries, you can never take anything off the table.
The problem is I just don't believe McCain, Palin or the Republicans when they say they're going to strongly commit to long term energy independence. I'm concerned that they'll approach it the way the Bush administration did, when they give a million or two a year to research and development and basically wipe their hands clean of it. That's not going to do it this time, and McCain has given me nothing to believe he would do otherwise. He has consistently voted against giving any federal funding to alternative energy development. Didn't want to join Kyoto, opposed giving tax credits and breaks to those same companies fostering development, unlike Obama, who voted for those tax breaks in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
So, basically, my concerns with McCain's energy policy are what I assume many conservatives say about Obama; he talks a good talk, but I quite simply don't believe him, and I haven't seen anything in his history that should make me think otherwise.
no. raising these taxes is a brutally bad idea. this will hurt many people, including those trying to retire and middle america.
Capital Gains & Dividends Taxes
View Research Area »
McCain
Maintain the 15% rate on capital gains and dividends. (Source).
Obama
Raise capital gains and dividends rates to somewhere between 20% and 28%
I also dont think its fair to raise taxes for the most successful people either. they already pay the most in taxes. I dont believe in punishing someone for being successful.
I played hockey growing up, and my first job after college was at a hockey rink managing leagues, teaching, refereeing and coaching. In those four years, I met some great people in the hockey community during that time. But at least in my experience, the mothers who touted themselves as "hockey moms" were the most over-bearing, obnoxious and league politic playing parents that I've ever met.
Any of you who grew up playing sports or have kids playing sports, just think of the worst behaving parents around those teams.... that is the image I get when I hear someone calling themselves a "hockey mom"
ok fair enough. I admit, my experience with "hockey moms" is limited
no. raising these taxes is a brutally bad idea. this will hurt many people, including those trying to retire and middle america.
Capital Gains & Dividends Taxes
View Research Area »
McCain
Maintain the 15% rate on capital gains and dividends. (Source).
Obama
Raise capital gains and dividends rates to somewhere between 20% and 28%
I also dont think its fair to raise taxes for the most successful people either. they already pay the most in taxes. I dont believe in punishing someone for being successful.
so, I guess your ok with McCain allowing the ATM patch to fade away, which would equal a tax raise for most of middle America...and his plan to tax medical benefits...
And remember... It is sexist to ask questions of her. so shhhhh
No, it's just sexist to question the fact that she can be both a mother and a VP.
Go ahead with any other questions. Those are the ones I want to hear and it is important to ask.
... and the will to show I will always be better than before.
Why, when all experts say that we will not see a change in gas prices for at least four years even if we started drilling tomorrow? You call it the long-term, energy independence through innovation, but it needs to be as short-term as possible.
However, I do agree with you; it demands a comprehensive approach and if a President enters the White House and feels it is absolutely necessary, then we should consider everything. Like relations with other countries, you can never take anything off the table.
The problem is I just don't believe McCain, Palin or the Republicans when they say they're going to strongly commit to long term energy independence. I'm concerned that they'll approach it the way the Bush administration did, when they give a million or two a year to research and development and basically wipe their hands clean of it. That's not going to do it this time, and McCain has given me nothing to believe he would do otherwise. He has consistently voted against giving any federal funding to alternative energy development. Didn't want to join Kyoto, opposed giving tax credits and breaks to those same companies fostering development, unlike Obama, who voted for those tax breaks in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
So, basically, my concerns with McCain's energy policy are what I assume many conservatives say about Obama; he talks a good talk, but I quite simply don't believe him, and I haven't seen anything in his history that should make me think otherwise.
Fair enough...I question McCain on many issues...but I do think that while many attack her experience, I think Sarah Palin is certainly more than capable of understanding our energy issue in America and I believe someone like her actualyl has a workable solution.
Obama's energy plan is to set a vision for 10 years...no substance behind it. But a leader is suppose to set that vision, so I don't have a problem with it...but drilling in the meantime with give us some buffer in years 4-10.
so, I guess your ok with McCain allowing the ATM patch to fade away, which would equal a tax raise for most of middle America...and his plan to tax medical benefits...
I guess we all just pick and choose...
I have no problem with letting the ATM patch fade away. and his tax medical benefits is definitely not a good thing and fairly surprised he is doing it. but I didnt expect to like every single tax policy of a candidate either. I'm hoping he is asked about it during the debates.
Obama's energy plan is to set a vision for 10 years...no substance behind it. But a leader is suppose to set that vision, so I don't have a problem with it...but drilling in the meantime with give us some buffer in years 4-10.
See, this is exactly what we need. People need to be riled up about this; this needs to be the moon race of our generation. If you look at his policy positions closely, there's meat to the bones. Basically, he wants through policy establish a 'green-collar' jobs, which despite being a pithy term appeals to me very much. Imagine the construction of a new economy based around the production of energy independent technology, in the same way the moon race of the 60s upended and revitalized defense contractors, flight contractors, etc. And no matter how people try to tarnish Obama's record, he has a strong and consistent record of supporting energy independent policies and fostering growth in those fields.
McCain and Palin? Like I said, McCain has a horrendous record in regards to energy independence, and Palin is on record as saying she is not sure that global warming is man-made. That's not a smear, it's recorded. A President with a horrendous record in regards to energy independence and a Vice President who thinks the jury's still out regarding what global warming actually means cannot be in charge during one of the most turbulent periods in our fight for energy independence. I'd bet money that what will happen is they would open up offshore drilling and drilling in Alaska, get the gas flowing, put a few million a year into renewable independent energy sources and leave it at that, and let someone twenty years down the line deal with the consequences. Their records support my fear.
That's my stance; I'm not against drilling on its own terms, although I do despise the irreversible harm it does to our environment. It's that Republicans have given us no reason to believe that they wouldn't just stop there.
I stopped watching, listening, and paying any attention to the GOP whatsoever when I heard about a speech to ministry students at her former church that the United States sent troops to fight in the Iraq war on a "task that is from God."
"Our national leaders are sending them (soldiers) out on a task that is from God....That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."
No wonder the middle east thinks its the Crusades all over again....it is!
Relegion. Warped to stand for bad things man, bad things. The Jesus Christ I heard of and read about and went to Church and Sunday School for 14 years and missed the fourth quarter of hundreds of 4:00 football games for for would send not one person to war for anything ever.
Peace.
All that's sacred, comes from youth....dedications, naive and true.
I stopped watching, listening, and paying any attention to the GOP whatsoever when I heard about a speech to ministry students at her former church that the United States sent troops to fight in the Iraq war on a "task that is from God."
"Our national leaders are sending them (soldiers) out on a task that is from God....That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."
No wonder the middle east thinks its the Crusades all over again....it is!
Relegion. Warped to stand for bad things man, bad things. The Jesus Christ I heard of and read about and went to Church and Sunday School for 14 years and missed the fourth quarter of hundreds of 4:00 football games for for would send not one person to war for anything ever.
Peace.
Palin is a right wing nut job. People seem to forget that.
It's a town full of losers and I'm pulling out of here to win
See, this is exactly what we need. People need to be riled up about this; this needs to be the moon race of our generation. If you look at his policy positions closely, there's meat to the bones. Basically, he wants through policy establish a 'green-collar' jobs, which despite being a pithy term appeals to me very much. Imagine the construction of a new economy based around the production of energy independent technology, in the same way the moon race of the 60s upended and revitalized defense contractors, flight contractors, etc. And no matter how people try to tarnish Obama's record, he has a strong and consistent record of supporting energy independent policies and fostering growth in those fields.
McCain and Palin? Like I said, McCain has a horrendous record in regards to energy independence, and Palin is on record as saying she is not sure that global warming is man-made. That's not a smear, it's recorded. A President with a horrendous record in regards to energy independence and a Vice President who thinks the jury's still out regarding what global warming actually means cannot be in charge during one of the most turbulent periods in our fight for energy independence. I'd bet money that what will happen is they would open up offshore drilling and drilling in Alaska, get the gas flowing, put a few million a year into renewable independent energy sources and leave it at that, and let someone twenty years down the line deal with the consequences. Their records support my fear.
That's my stance; I'm not against drilling on its own terms, although I do despise the irreversible harm it does to our environment. It's that Republicans have given us no reason to believe that they wouldn't just stop there.
I agree with the "moon race" analogy, and that is why I'm ok with Obama's shoot for the moon energy policy...I just believe that drilling should be a part of the overall plan. I think that ignoring the 4-6 year solution just because it doesn't solve the entire problem is petty. I do wonder, since I don't believe Obama understands promoting innovation/job creation ( I htink his economic policy and tax policy shows he thinks opposite of me), will Obama be able to foster the proper environment in order to allow this innovastion to occur? I fear that the way Obama plans to do that is to make it necessary by doing nothing short-term (drilling). Allowing a worse situation to occur in order to foster innovation is a pretty crappy way about it. But then again, this is all speculative.
I'm not going to touch the "green collar" job thing.
As for Palin not being sure global warming in man-made...I think that just fine and dandy...who really knows anyhow...so long as it doesn't get in the way of trying to limit man-made pollution that MIGHT be a problem.
I agree with the "moon race" analogy, and that is why I'm ok with Obama's shoot for the moon energy policy...I just believe that drilling should be a part of the overall plan. I think that ignoring the 4-6 year solution just because it doesn't solve the entire problem is petty. I do wonder, since I don't believe Obama understands promoting innovation/job creation ( I htink his economic policy and tax policy shows he thinks opposite of me), will Obama be able to foster the proper environment in order to allow this innovastion to occur? I fear that the way Obama plans to do that is to make it necessary by doing nothing short-term (drilling). Allowing a worse situation to occur in order to foster innovation is a pretty crappy way about it. But then again, this is all speculative.
I'm not going to touch the "green collar" job thing.
As for Palin not being sure global warming in man-made...I think that just fine and dandy...who really knows anyhow...so long as it doesn't get in the way of trying to limit man-made pollution that MIGHT be a problem.
Actually Obama has opened himself up to the prospect of more drilling if the plan also provides more financing for renewables and research into new reusable energy sources. I posted an article about it maybe a month ago.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
horrendous? did you even watch her speech? she is an excellent speaker
yes, I watched.
she may seem like an excellent speaker to the people who blindly follow her ignorance and ridiculous lies, but to anyone with the IQ of a raisin, she's terrible.
she may seem like an excellent speaker to the people who blindly follow her ignorance and ridiculous lies, but to anyone with the IQ of a raisin, she's terrible.
of course, anyone who doesnt follow your line of thinking is an idiot. or to use your classic insult, pathetic.
so, I guess your ok with McCain allowing the ATM patch to fade away, which would equal a tax raise for most of middle America...and his plan to tax medical benefits...
I guess we all just pick and choose...
here is a good explanation of what we are talking about..
Today, if you buy a policy on your own, you don't get any tax break. If your employer subsidizes your premiums, that money is considered tax-free to you.
Under McCain's plan, that subsidy would become taxable income. But anyone who buys insurance would receive a refundable tax credit worth $2,500 per person ($5,000 per family). That's a dollar-for-dollar reduction of your tax bill, or, if you don't have a tax bill, a dollar-for-dollar increase in the amount of money Uncle Sam would send your way.
Certainly, the health care credit would provide a new tax break for anyone who buys insurance on their own. Whether the credit would be a boon for those who get insurance through their employer depends, among other things, on the cost of their plans, the amount their employer contributes and their income tax rate.
The Tax Policy Center, in a preliminary analysis of McCain's health plan, said the credits are larger than the current premiums for the most generous group health plans. So initially it may be a break for many. But over time, experts say, the value of that credit will go down since it's not likely to keep pace with the rising health care costs.
The Tax Policy Center, in a preliminary analysis of McCain's health plan, said the credits are larger than the current premiums for the most generous group health plans. So initially it may be a break for many. But over time, experts say, the value of that credit will go down since it's not likely to keep pace with the rising health care costs.
I stopped watching, listening, and paying any attention to the GOP whatsoever when I heard about a speech to ministry students at her former church that the United States sent troops to fight in the Iraq war on a "task that is from God."
"Our national leaders are sending them (soldiers) out on a task that is from God....That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."
No wonder the middle east thinks its the Crusades all over again....it is!
Relegion. Warped to stand for bad things man, bad things. The Jesus Christ I heard of and read about and went to Church and Sunday School for 14 years and missed the fourth quarter of hundreds of 4:00 football games for for would send not one person to war for anything ever.
Peace.
I think in the very back of the new American bible there's a paragraph on 9/11...it says it's ok to bomb the living hell out of countries if you need their oil...or if they disagree with you.
I think it was added to the constitution as well. Same publisher.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I agree with the "moon race" analogy, and that is why I'm ok with Obama's shoot for the moon energy policy...I just believe that drilling should be a part of the overall plan. I think that ignoring the 4-6 year solution just because it doesn't solve the entire problem is petty. I do wonder, since I don't believe Obama understands promoting innovation/job creation ( I htink his economic policy and tax policy shows he thinks opposite of me), will Obama be able to foster the proper environment in order to allow this innovastion to occur? I fear that the way Obama plans to do that is to make it necessary by doing nothing short-term (drilling). Allowing a worse situation to occur in order to foster innovation is a pretty crappy way about it. But then again, this is all speculative.
I'm not going to touch the "green collar" job thing.
As for Palin not being sure global warming in man-made...I think that just fine and dandy...who really knows anyhow...so long as it doesn't get in the way of trying to limit man-made pollution that MIGHT be a problem.
Well, Obama seems closer to Clinton's economic policies than Bush II. McCain seems closer to Dubya and Reagan. I'm just going by results; after eight years of Reagan, alot of America was in bad shape financially, and after Bush employed a similar economic strategy, we again find ourselves in dire economic straits. People can talk about Clinton "inheriting" a great economy all they want; all I know from experience and education is that twelve years of Reaganomics put the country in the shitter, and I'd rather make a course correction before we do the same thing all over again. I should also say, while on the moon race analogy, that such technological marvels that led Americans to first step onto the moon were fostered under two Democratic presidents, and six months of a Republican administration. FDR and the New Deal, Kennedy/Johnson and the Space Race...I'd say the Democrats have a relatively good record of making our country aspire to grand economic platforms without destroying. Do the Republicans have something similar they can point to?
There's really nothing more that I can say other than there's nothing that makes me believe that McCain or Palin would do anything about this. You think they're going to drive the American people to reach for long-term energy independence with the vigor the Obama campaign is? Do you think they'll care that much? Why would they; their record speaks to the fact that it is not the government's job to foster technological development and growth of independent energy sources, even though it is in the interest of our national security. Additionally, we can open up offshore drilling and Alaska all we want, but no expert believes that it will be the Midas touch that will produce enough oil for us to have an advantageous hand when dealing with potentially dangerous nations like Saudi Arabia. To not to be kissing the ass of these nations with the best trump card in the deck (our dependence on foreign oil), we need to be energy independent. I'm not opposed to drilling on general principle, but I'm opposed to it as our only source of energy independence. There's nothing in McCain's background that makes me think for a second he would take drastic measures to begin our hunt for energy independence in earnest, and we can't take another president who shuffles his feet on the issue for eight years. We need to start now.
I also don't see how you can say that Palin not believing global warming is manmade has no bearing on the issue at hand. If Palin disbelieves this theory she would be unwilling to ask the American people to sacrifice to save the environment, since it's got nothing to do with us. There's no rush to develop new energy independent sources, or find clean environmental sources, since it's got nothing to do with us. Not to mention her disbelieving that shows me that she is someone willing to ignore science. Shitty characteristic for a leader, in my opinion.
I've never understood the Dems against drilling...we need a COMPREHENSIVE energy plan that includes the NOW, the short-term (drilling), and the long-term (energy independence through innovation).
Drilling isn't short term. New drilling in ANWR and the eastern gulf regions according to an analysis by the Department of Energy says any production from those regions wouldn't hit the market until 2017 and not have any effect on crude prices until after 2030. Obama has called for limited new exploration coupled with expanding renewable resources and R&D. Obama is also in a better position to work with Canada and Norway in securing oil resources and territory in the Canadian Arctic.
I stopped watching, listening, and paying any attention to the GOP whatsoever when I heard about a speech to ministry students at her former church that the United States sent troops to fight in the Iraq war on a "task that is from God."
"Our national leaders are sending them (soldiers) out on a task that is from God....That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."
No wonder the middle east thinks its the Crusades all over again....it is!
Relegion. Warped to stand for bad things man, bad things. The Jesus Christ I heard of and read about and went to Church and Sunday School for 14 years and missed the fourth quarter of hundreds of 4:00 football games for for would send not one person to war for anything ever.
Peace.
would that mean 9/11 was not an act of al-quaeda but rather an act of god intended to take us to iraq?
would that mean 9/11 was not an act of al-quaeda but rather an act of god intended to take us to iraq?
Now you're getting it. It's all part of the master plan....god...god ...god...keep passing the collection plate forward.
Praise Jesus, Allah, hocus pocus...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Comments
That is the most messed up tax in existence. This is probably one of the main reasons why I will not vote for BHO.
Just the fact that she brags about being a hockey mom bothers me too.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
why?
Yes....why?
yeah, this kinda sucks...
I guess the rest of his plan was ok with you...?
Just a personal bias that I have...
I played hockey growing up, and my first job after college was at a hockey rink managing leagues, teaching, refereeing and coaching. In those four years, I met some great people in the hockey community during that time. But at least in my experience, the mothers who touted themselves as "hockey moms" were the most over-bearing, obnoxious and league politic playing parents that I've ever met.
Any of you who grew up playing sports or have kids playing sports, just think of the worst behaving parents around those teams.... that is the image I get when I hear someone calling themselves a "hockey mom"
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Why, when all experts say that we will not see a change in gas prices for at least four years even if we started drilling tomorrow? You call it the long-term, energy independence through innovation, but it needs to be as short-term as possible.
However, I do agree with you; it demands a comprehensive approach and if a President enters the White House and feels it is absolutely necessary, then we should consider everything. Like relations with other countries, you can never take anything off the table.
The problem is I just don't believe McCain, Palin or the Republicans when they say they're going to strongly commit to long term energy independence. I'm concerned that they'll approach it the way the Bush administration did, when they give a million or two a year to research and development and basically wipe their hands clean of it. That's not going to do it this time, and McCain has given me nothing to believe he would do otherwise. He has consistently voted against giving any federal funding to alternative energy development. Didn't want to join Kyoto, opposed giving tax credits and breaks to those same companies fostering development, unlike Obama, who voted for those tax breaks in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
So, basically, my concerns with McCain's energy policy are what I assume many conservatives say about Obama; he talks a good talk, but I quite simply don't believe him, and I haven't seen anything in his history that should make me think otherwise.
no. raising these taxes is a brutally bad idea. this will hurt many people, including those trying to retire and middle america.
Capital Gains & Dividends Taxes
View Research Area »
McCain
Maintain the 15% rate on capital gains and dividends. (Source).
Obama
Raise capital gains and dividends rates to somewhere between 20% and 28%
I also dont think its fair to raise taxes for the most successful people either. they already pay the most in taxes. I dont believe in punishing someone for being successful.
ok fair enough. I admit, my experience with "hockey moms" is limited
so, I guess your ok with McCain allowing the ATM patch to fade away, which would equal a tax raise for most of middle America...and his plan to tax medical benefits...
I guess we all just pick and choose...
No, it's just sexist to question the fact that she can be both a mother and a VP.
Go ahead with any other questions. Those are the ones I want to hear and it is important to ask.
Fair enough...I question McCain on many issues...but I do think that while many attack her experience, I think Sarah Palin is certainly more than capable of understanding our energy issue in America and I believe someone like her actualyl has a workable solution.
Obama's energy plan is to set a vision for 10 years...no substance behind it. But a leader is suppose to set that vision, so I don't have a problem with it...but drilling in the meantime with give us some buffer in years 4-10.
I have no problem with letting the ATM patch fade away. and his tax medical benefits is definitely not a good thing and fairly surprised he is doing it. but I didnt expect to like every single tax policy of a candidate either. I'm hoping he is asked about it during the debates.
See, this is exactly what we need. People need to be riled up about this; this needs to be the moon race of our generation. If you look at his policy positions closely, there's meat to the bones. Basically, he wants through policy establish a 'green-collar' jobs, which despite being a pithy term appeals to me very much. Imagine the construction of a new economy based around the production of energy independent technology, in the same way the moon race of the 60s upended and revitalized defense contractors, flight contractors, etc. And no matter how people try to tarnish Obama's record, he has a strong and consistent record of supporting energy independent policies and fostering growth in those fields.
McCain and Palin? Like I said, McCain has a horrendous record in regards to energy independence, and Palin is on record as saying she is not sure that global warming is man-made. That's not a smear, it's recorded. A President with a horrendous record in regards to energy independence and a Vice President who thinks the jury's still out regarding what global warming actually means cannot be in charge during one of the most turbulent periods in our fight for energy independence. I'd bet money that what will happen is they would open up offshore drilling and drilling in Alaska, get the gas flowing, put a few million a year into renewable independent energy sources and leave it at that, and let someone twenty years down the line deal with the consequences. Their records support my fear.
That's my stance; I'm not against drilling on its own terms, although I do despise the irreversible harm it does to our environment. It's that Republicans have given us no reason to believe that they wouldn't just stop there.
"Our national leaders are sending them (soldiers) out on a task that is from God....That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."
No wonder the middle east thinks its the Crusades all over again....it is!
Relegion. Warped to stand for bad things man, bad things. The Jesus Christ I heard of and read about and went to Church and Sunday School for 14 years and missed the fourth quarter of hundreds of 4:00 football games for for would send not one person to war for anything ever.
Peace.
Palin is a right wing nut job. People seem to forget that.
I'm kinda feeling that. Nader in '08? Not a lot of great options.
9/17/95-New Orleans,LA 8/14/00-New Orleans,LA 4/8/03-New Orleans,LA 4/13/03-Tampa,FL 10/8/04-Kissimmee,FL 8/5/07-Chicago,IL 6/16/08-Columbia,SC 6/23/09-(EV Solo)Atlanta,GA 5/1/10-New Orleans,LA 9/21/12-Pensacola,FL 11/1/13-New Orleans,LA 4/11/16-Tampa,FL 4/23/16-New Orleans,LA
I agree with the "moon race" analogy, and that is why I'm ok with Obama's shoot for the moon energy policy...I just believe that drilling should be a part of the overall plan. I think that ignoring the 4-6 year solution just because it doesn't solve the entire problem is petty. I do wonder, since I don't believe Obama understands promoting innovation/job creation ( I htink his economic policy and tax policy shows he thinks opposite of me), will Obama be able to foster the proper environment in order to allow this innovastion to occur? I fear that the way Obama plans to do that is to make it necessary by doing nothing short-term (drilling). Allowing a worse situation to occur in order to foster innovation is a pretty crappy way about it. But then again, this is all speculative.
I'm not going to touch the "green collar" job thing.
As for Palin not being sure global warming in man-made...I think that just fine and dandy...who really knows anyhow...so long as it doesn't get in the way of trying to limit man-made pollution that MIGHT be a problem.
Actually Obama has opened himself up to the prospect of more drilling if the plan also provides more financing for renewables and research into new reusable energy sources. I posted an article about it maybe a month ago.
I noticed no one even touched this question....
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
she may seem like an excellent speaker to the people who blindly follow her ignorance and ridiculous lies, but to anyone with the IQ of a raisin, she's terrible.
of course, anyone who doesnt follow your line of thinking is an idiot. or to use your classic insult, pathetic.
here is a good explanation of what we are talking about..
http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/04/news/economy/obama_claim_p1/index.htm?postversion=2008090409
Today, if you buy a policy on your own, you don't get any tax break. If your employer subsidizes your premiums, that money is considered tax-free to you.
Under McCain's plan, that subsidy would become taxable income. But anyone who buys insurance would receive a refundable tax credit worth $2,500 per person ($5,000 per family). That's a dollar-for-dollar reduction of your tax bill, or, if you don't have a tax bill, a dollar-for-dollar increase in the amount of money Uncle Sam would send your way.
Certainly, the health care credit would provide a new tax break for anyone who buys insurance on their own. Whether the credit would be a boon for those who get insurance through their employer depends, among other things, on the cost of their plans, the amount their employer contributes and their income tax rate.
The Tax Policy Center, in a preliminary analysis of McCain's health plan, said the credits are larger than the current premiums for the most generous group health plans. So initially it may be a break for many. But over time, experts say, the value of that credit will go down since it's not likely to keep pace with the rising health care costs.
The Tax Policy Center, in a preliminary analysis of McCain's health plan, said the credits are larger than the current premiums for the most generous group health plans. So initially it may be a break for many. But over time, experts say, the value of that credit will go down since it's not likely to keep pace with the rising health care costs.
I think in the very back of the new American bible there's a paragraph on 9/11...it says it's ok to bomb the living hell out of countries if you need their oil...or if they disagree with you.
I think it was added to the constitution as well. Same publisher.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Well, Obama seems closer to Clinton's economic policies than Bush II. McCain seems closer to Dubya and Reagan. I'm just going by results; after eight years of Reagan, alot of America was in bad shape financially, and after Bush employed a similar economic strategy, we again find ourselves in dire economic straits. People can talk about Clinton "inheriting" a great economy all they want; all I know from experience and education is that twelve years of Reaganomics put the country in the shitter, and I'd rather make a course correction before we do the same thing all over again. I should also say, while on the moon race analogy, that such technological marvels that led Americans to first step onto the moon were fostered under two Democratic presidents, and six months of a Republican administration. FDR and the New Deal, Kennedy/Johnson and the Space Race...I'd say the Democrats have a relatively good record of making our country aspire to grand economic platforms without destroying. Do the Republicans have something similar they can point to?
There's really nothing more that I can say other than there's nothing that makes me believe that McCain or Palin would do anything about this. You think they're going to drive the American people to reach for long-term energy independence with the vigor the Obama campaign is? Do you think they'll care that much? Why would they; their record speaks to the fact that it is not the government's job to foster technological development and growth of independent energy sources, even though it is in the interest of our national security. Additionally, we can open up offshore drilling and Alaska all we want, but no expert believes that it will be the Midas touch that will produce enough oil for us to have an advantageous hand when dealing with potentially dangerous nations like Saudi Arabia. To not to be kissing the ass of these nations with the best trump card in the deck (our dependence on foreign oil), we need to be energy independent. I'm not opposed to drilling on general principle, but I'm opposed to it as our only source of energy independence. There's nothing in McCain's background that makes me think for a second he would take drastic measures to begin our hunt for energy independence in earnest, and we can't take another president who shuffles his feet on the issue for eight years. We need to start now.
I also don't see how you can say that Palin not believing global warming is manmade has no bearing on the issue at hand. If Palin disbelieves this theory she would be unwilling to ask the American people to sacrifice to save the environment, since it's got nothing to do with us. There's no rush to develop new energy independent sources, or find clean environmental sources, since it's got nothing to do with us. Not to mention her disbelieving that shows me that she is someone willing to ignore science. Shitty characteristic for a leader, in my opinion.
Drilling isn't short term. New drilling in ANWR and the eastern gulf regions according to an analysis by the Department of Energy says any production from those regions wouldn't hit the market until 2017 and not have any effect on crude prices until after 2030. Obama has called for limited new exploration coupled with expanding renewable resources and R&D. Obama is also in a better position to work with Canada and Norway in securing oil resources and territory in the Canadian Arctic.
Sarah Palin Fact Check: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_fact_check
7/9/06 LA 1
7/10/06 LA 2
10/21/06 Bridge 1
would that mean 9/11 was not an act of al-quaeda but rather an act of god intended to take us to iraq?
Now you're getting it. It's all part of the master plan....god...god ...god...keep passing the collection plate forward.
Praise Jesus, Allah, hocus pocus...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Of course not.